Hydrological, Chemical and Biological Processes of Transformation and Transport of Contaminants in Aquatic

Environments (Proceedings of the Rostov-on-Don Symposium, May 1993). lAHSPubl. no. 219,1994.

293

Simulation of heavy metal effect on fresh-water

ecosystems in mesocosms and estimation of water body
self-purification properties

Yu. V. TEPLYAKOV & A. M. NEKANOROV

Hydrochemical Institute, 198 Stachki av., Rostov-on-Don, Russia 344104

Abstract Behaviour of copper, mercury and cadmium at various

concentrations and under different conditions were studied in
experimental ecosystems (mesocosms) with volumes between 4.5 to
13 m3. Kinetic coefficients of metal accumulation rate in bottom
sediments, higher water plants and molluscs, as well as self-purification
rates of water were calculated. It was shown that the presence of
different components of an aquatic ecosystem together with the
properties of the water are very important in model ecosystems used for
the assessment of self-purification capacity of various water bodies.

INTRODUCTION
Self-purification capacity is defined as a capacity of aquatic ecosystems to decrease
pollutant concentrations in water as a result of a combined effect of various factors.
Each water body has a specific limit of self-purification capacity which, if exceeded,
may lead to irreversible changes.
Until now, there was no common methodology to estimate self-purification
capacity of a water body. Through development of experimental conditions which
simulate a natural water body (beginning with simulation in a laboratory), results of
different investigations become more adequate. However, the investigations appear
more complicated, expensive, and time consuming. Self-purification rate coefficients
have been obtained from laboratory experiments for various organic substances (Zenin
et al., 1977; Kaplin, 1973). Field experiments with mesocosms are considered to be
the next step for estimation self-purification capacity (Zilov & Stom, 1990; Nikanorov
& Teplyakov, 1990). For applications of experimental results, the investigations may
be divided into laboratory studies (microcosms) and large enclosures or experimental
ponds. Numerous investigations have been conducted using model ecosystems to solve
environmental problems, primarily in toxicology. Each water body is unique in terms
of hydrodynamic and biochemical processes, depending on its type, physicogeographical conditions, etc. Different areas of the same water body may have
significant spatial inhomogeneity in both biotic and abiotic conditions.
As far as self-purification capacity is concerned, a water body may be considered
a system having a certain catalytic properties for chemically- and biologically-induced
reactions under significant inhomogeneity in physical processes. Since pollutants may
be both conservative and non-conservative, self-purification capacity of a water body
may be considered as a function of retaining capacity of different pollutants. A

294

Yu. V. Teplykov & A. M. Nikanorov

retaining capacity is defined by the amount of substance the system may transform or
remove from water per time unit.
Using mesocosms as a small part of the whole water body for an integrated and
realistic estimation of the self-purification capacity, it is necessary to consider the
effects of presence of various types of vegetation, bottom sediments, plankton types,
intensity of pollutant introduction, exposure times, and type of loadings on
transformation or decomposition rates of a pollutant.
To collect proper data and solve some methodological problems in modelling using
mesocosms, investigations have been carried out on various water bodies in the
Hydrochemical Institute, Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Selection of heavy metals (copper,
mercury, cadmium) used as pollutants in the investigation was based on the fact that
mechanisms of their removal from water medium are less complicated than those for
organic substances. Among conservative pollutants, metals are the most toxic and most
resistant to biological removal (Nikanorov & Zhulidov, 1991). Their toxicity to aquatic
ecosystems decreases in the following sequence: Hg > Cu > Pb > Cd > Cr > Zn
> Ni (Moore & Ramamurti, 1987).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Mesocosms of an unified design allowing isolation of ecosystems of various volumes
and conditions of a water body were used as a model. Cylindrical mesocosms of 2-3 m
diameter that cut a volume of water from the surface to the bottom have been used in
the experiments with a polyethylene film as the isolation material. The film was
secured to demountable stainless-steel mesocosm containers buried in the bottom
sediments.
Characteristics of the water bodies, mesocosm volumes, and experimental
conditions are given in Table 1. Generally, the load was applied in a classical
schedule: a single introduction of heavy metals at the beginning of the experiment (C0
is initial concentration of metal ions in water). In several experiments a constant load
schedule, i.e. daily introduction of heavy metals, was used (C is an increase of metal
concentration in water after mixing). Metal concentrations in water (expressed as total
concentrations determined by atomic-absorption spectrometry) were estimated in
filtered and nonfiltered water samples using 0.45 /xm membrane filter.
Integrated depth water samples were collected as well as water samples from
different areas within the mesocosms. A glass tube 1.6 m long, 6 cm diameter with
a valve at one end was used as a sampler. Bottom sediment cores were collected at
three mesocosm areas. The upper 2-cm sediment layer was subsampled from each
core, and the subsamples were mixed in a glass jar to obtain a composite sample.
Similar procedure was used for estimation of heavy metal concentrations in
macrophyte and mollusc samples.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Selected experiments were repeated to estimate their reproducibility. Figures 1 and 2
show results of experiments using copper and cadmium additions. The results of these
and earlier experiments with mesocosms suggested that the results were reproducible,

Heavy metals and fresh-water ecosystems

295

Table 1 Initial data for mesocosm experiments.

Water volume

Mesocosm
no.

Krivoye Lake,
in the River
Don flood
plain,
Sept-Oct 1990

4.0

-.

II

4.7

1.7

III

4.7

1.7

IV
V

4.7
12.7

1.7
1.8

4.7

1.7

Cu-single

II

4.7

1.7

III

4.7

1.7

IV

4.0

4.7

1.7

Cu-daily
C = 20
Hg-single
C0 = 8.3
Hg-single
Co = 8-0

4.0

1.4

II

4.0

1.4

III

3.0

IV

3.7

1.3

3.0

VI

4.0

1.4

Mertvy Doniets
River,
July-August
1991

Kirzhach River,
July-August
1991

(m3)

Installation
depth
(m)

Regime of addition Notes

introduction,
heavy metals in

Water body,
time of
experiment

Cu-single
C0 = 145
Cu-single
C0 = 140
Cu-daily
C = 29

No bottom
sediments

Control
mesocosm

Cu-single
C = 144

c = ioo
No bottom
sediments
Control
mesocosm

Cd-single
C = 50
Cu-single
C 0 = 48
Cd-single
C = 52
Cu-single
C0 = 154
Cu-single
C0 = 149

No bottom
sediments

No bottom
sediments
Control

provided that the quality of the water in the mesocosm is controlled and the biotic and
abiotic homogeneity maintained. The experiments were conducted simultaneously
(Fig. 1). The volume of the second mesocosm was 2.7 times greater than that of the
first (4.7 m3 and 12.7 m3 for the first and second mesocosm, respectively). The rate
of copper concentration decrease in the mesocosm water and increase in bottom
sediments were similar in repeated experiments (Table 2).
Dynamics of heavy metal concentration in model ecosystems and their
compartments were used to calculate the following kinetic characteristics: water
self-purification rate (K, day"1), heavy metal accumulation (fig g'1 day"1) in bottom
sediments, macrophytes and molluscs. The results are shown in Table 2. A first-order
reaction equation (Kaplin, 1973) was used in calculation of K:

K . hS

(1)

Yu. V. Teplyakov & A. M. Nikanorov

296

0)0

to
6c
VC

^
/>

2c

y
ts-

ZS-

So

Fig. 1 Dynamics of copper concentration in water (1, 2) and bottom sediments (3, 4).
Lake Krivoye: 1 and 3 mesocosm I; 2 and 4 mesocosm II (Table 1).
I copper concentration in water, /xg l"1;
II observation time, days;
III copper concentration in bottom sediments, mg kg"1 of dry weight.

So

Ho

3c

III

-~^^.
Z

Zo

^ * ~

^^r~~~~~^_

--*

ta
'X

Fig. 2 Dynamics of cadmium concentration in water (1, 3) and bottom sediments (2,
4).
Kirzhach River: 1 and 2 mesocosm I (Table 1); 3 and 4 mesocosm II. I
cadmium concentration in water, /xg l"1; II observation time, days; III cadmium
concentration in bottom sediments, mg kg"1 of dry weight.

where:
C0 is initial heavy metal concentration in water;
Ct is heavy metals concentration after time t.
Because of a low frequency in observations and lack of sampling at each location
within the mesocosms, heavy metal accumulation rates for bottom sediments,
molluscs, and higher aquatic plants were calculated as maximum based on initial and
maximum observed concentrations.
The presence of all components of an aquatic ecosystem in the model system is
one of the most important factors that determine significance of the results. The
mesocosms must contain all biotic and abiotic components, preferably in the same

Heavy metals and fresh-water ecosystems

297

Table 2 Kinetic parameters of heavy metals migration in mesocosms.

Water body

Mesocosm,
metal

Heavy metal
decrease
coefficient
in water K (day1)

Heavy metal accumulation rates:

Bottom
sediments

Macrophytes
(Ceratops.)

Molluscs
(V. depressa)

Krivoye
Lake

I,
II,
HI,

Cu
Cu
Cu

0.008
0.057
0.075

mesocosm without bottom sediments

2.07
3.85
2.45
3.9

Mertvy
Doniets
River

I,
II,
III,
IV,

Cu
Cu
Hg
Hg

0.11
0.13
0.15
0.04

0.58
3.3
0.33
1.25
0.05
0.02
mesocosm without bottom sediments

Kirzhach
River

I,
II,
III,
IV,
V,

Cd
Cd
Cd
Cu
Cu

0.08
0.09
0.01
0.11
0.12

0.29
0.31
mesocosm without bottom sediments
2.42
1.92

ratios as in the simulated natural water body. Figures 3 and 4 show experimental
results obtained in mesocosms with and without bottom sediments. The mesocosms
without the sediments were designed differently than those with the sediments having
a polyethylene film tied at the bottom to forma a sack opened upward to the water
surface, rather than attached to a steel base in the sediments.
In each experiment, the absence of bottom sediments and higher aquatic plants
caused a significant decrease in the self-purification rate of the water (Table 2). In
various experiments the value of K decreased from 3.7 to 9.7 times.
As can be seen from Table 2, the values of K differ in the experiments conducted
on various water bodies. A single introduction of copper, for example, produced
values of Pranging from 0.057-0.075 in Lake Krivoye, to 0.11-0.12 day"1 in Mertvy
Doniets and Kirzhach Rivers. The data are to be analysed considering biochemical
parameters which is beyond the scope of this report. The self-purification rate of the
water correlates with the biomass of sestone, higher aquatic plants, concentration of
dissolved organic matter, and bottom sediments composition. The greatest
self-purification rates were observed in the experiments with mercury (K =
0.15 day"1). However, in case of a single introduction of mercury at the beginning of
the experiment (C0 = 8.3 y.g T1), the main contributors to the process were suspended
matter (Nikanorov & Zhulidov, 1991) and dissolved organic matter (DOM). In
constant-loading experiments, .STmay have different values being lower when compared
to copper and cadmium. However, the above results are preliminary.
An impact of pollutant load type is an important, though poorly investigated, issue
in field experiments aimed to estimate the self-purification rate. The method of
pollutant introduction is often considered in terms of ecosystem functional stability
(resistant and flexible) (Odum, 1986). The majority of studies to assess
self-purification rates has been conducted in the laboratory, involving organic matter
and single introduction of pollutants at the beginning of the experiment. Equation (1)
is often used to calculate K, however sometimes the equation involves a reaction order
n which is not 1 (Topnikov & Vavilin, 1992).

298

Yu. V. Teplykov & A. M. Nikanorov

Fig. 3 Dynamics of copper concentration in mesocosms with (1) and without (2)
bottom sediments.
Lake Krivoye: September-October 1990: I copper concentration in water, fig I'1;
II observation time, days.

Fig. 4 Dynamics of cadmium concentration in mesocosms with (1) and without (2)
bottom sediments.
Kirzhach River: June-July 1990: I cadmium concentration in water, fig l"1; II
observation time, days.

Many authors (Kaplin, 1973; Topnikov & Vavilin, 1992) note that the K
coefficient is not constant and decreases with time. This is related to metal association
with DOM at the beginning of the process with subsequent metal accumulation in the
suspended matter. The experiments show the major difference in heavy metal
concentrations in filtered and non-filtered water samples on the first day of the
experiment were followed by decreases of the difference so that the curves almost
overlap. At the beginning, after heavy metal introduction, a portion of plankton dies
thus binding metal ions in complexes (Moore & Ramamurti, 1987) and promoting a
rapid heavy metal concentration decrease on the first day of the experiment.
Natural aquatic systems are often under different conditions exposed to a constant
load of different pollutants. This applies specially to conservative, poorly degradable
pollutants, eliminated from the aquatic phase mainly by adsorption on bottom

Heavy metals and fresh-water ecosystems

299

Fig. 5 Dynamics of cadmium concentration in mesocosms with initial (1) and daily
(2) load.
Usman River: October 1990: I - copper concentration in water, ng l"1; II
observation time, days.

sediments or accumulation by higher water plants and molluscs. Several additional

experiments with heavy metals have been conducted. Specific concentrations of heavy
metals have been introduced to the water with subsequent daily additions that increased
metal concentrations in the specific value Cn following mixing. Results of one such
experiment with copper (the Usman River, Voronezh Biospheric Preserve) are shown
in Fig. 5. Straight line 1 indicates hypothetical increase of metal concentration in water
in the absence of processes that introduce a decrease of the concentration. Following
a simple recalculations, equation (1) has been used to calculate K. Table 3 shows the
results of the calculation compared to those obtained by experiments using
single-addition of copper to the mesocosms. Each experimental series in constant-load
mesocosms demonstrates somewhat greater values of K. Distribution of heavy metals
in model ecosystems depends on the rate of metal binding with various ecosystem
components. This explains why K depends on comparative kinetics of metal
absorption. It may be noted that heavy metals accumulation rates in macrophytes and
molluscs are of the same order which suggests compatibility of data for accumulation
of the metals. The rates of copper accumulation in bottom sediments of the Lake
Table 3 Experimental results under various loading regimes.
Mesocosm
volume
(m3)

Loading type,
heavy metal
concentration

G*g I"1)

Water
self-purification
rate coefficient,
K (day1)

Mertvy Doniets River

4.7
4.7

Cu, C0 = 100
Cu, C = 20

0.11
0.13

Usman River

3.4
3.5

Cu, C0
Cu, C0

0.09
0.11

Water body

114
15

300

Yu. V. Teplyakov & A. M. Nikanorov

Krivoye and the Kirzhach River are similar, though lower than those in the Mertvy
Doniets River by one order of magnitude.
In planning experiments in mesocosms, one has to bear in mind that the model
ecosystem and selected experimental method depend on study objectives. For example,
in ecotoxicological investigations of hydrobiota response in natural habitat, the model
ecosystem requires less strict simulation of a complex natural system than in
prediction-type investigations of pollutant transformation and migration. This explains
why field investigations of the self-purification have their peculiarities and limitations
in application of obtained results. In the experiments with heavy metals in mesocosms,
several chemical and biological parameters representing ecosystem conditions have
been monitored. The analysis of structural parameters (phytoplankton, zooplankton,
and bacterioplankton species composition and biomass), functional characteristics
(phytoplankton production, biochemical oxygen demand BOD5) indicated that for
3-10 m3-large mesocosms, experiment duration of one to two months may be
considered satisfactory for non- and weakly-circulating water bodies. Mixing is the
main factor limiting the time of sufficient simulation of riverine systems. Mesocosms
demonstrate intensive form of lacustrine ecosystems. Therefore for mesocosms without
mixing, regardless of their volume, the recommended experimental period is from two
weeks to one month.
Sometimes, the experiments involve mesocosm designs aimed to estimate the
contribution of a specific component of studied ecosystem, such as the experiments
with mesocosms involving only a certain volume of water containing plankton (Burdin,
1973; Sanders, 1985). In another study, Kelly (1984) generalized bottom sediment
contribution using "benthic chambers" of various design and volume. To estimate
contribution of higher aquatic plant activities, one may use the mesocosms in a form
of enclosures placed along the shore line, as macrophytes occur mainly in the shallow
water near the shore.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions result from mesocosm experiments for estimating the
self-purification capacity of water bodies.
Rate coefficients for copper, mercury, and cadmium obtained in the experiments
are comparable to those of decomposition rate (concentration decrease in water) for
the intermediate group of organic substances (0.05 < K < 0.3; Zenin et al., 1977)
at the boundary with the biologically resistant substance group (K < 0.05). If the
model ecosystem contains a specific volume of natural water, the value of K decreases
4-10 times.
To evaluate the capacity of an aquatic ecosystem to neutralize pollutants,
particularly heavy metals, it is recommended to conduct mesocosm experiments in the
constant-loading mode, changing load levels in different mesocosms. Such
experimental method allows to estimate pollutant accumulation kinetics in ecosystem
components in more details and to reveal maximum accumulation values.
Since mesocosms represent approximated models of a water body, a few common
rules are to be considered in experimental design:
to obtain information comparable to natural aquatic ecosystems, the model
ecosystem needs to include all major components of the water body;

Heavy metals and fresh-water

ecosystems

301

since water body properties are not uniform, more precise results may be obtained
by conducting the experiment at different areas of investigated water body;
the experiments conducted during different seasons improve the validity of
obtained results;
to carry out simultaneous experiments when technical and economic capabilities
are not restricted to increase reliability of the results.

REFERENCES
Burdin, K. S. (1973) Development of standard laboratory and field ecosystem investigations to estimate the impact
of pollution on marine environments (in Russian). Chelovek i biosfera, Moscow 3, 66-74.
Kaplin, V. T. (1973) Organic matter transformation in natural waters (in Russian). Abstract of Thesis for the Doctor
of Sciences (Chemistry) Degree, Irkutsk.
Kelly, J. R. (1984) Microcosms for studies of sediment-water interactions. In: Ecotoxicological Testing for the
Marine Environment, vol. 2: Bredene, Belgium: State Univ. Ghent and Instr. Mar. Sci. 42, 77-85.
Moore, J. & Ramamurti, S. (1987) Heavy Metals in Natural Waters. Impact Control and Estimation (in Russian).
Mir, Moscow.
Nikanorov, A. M. & Teplyakov, Yu. V. (1990) Problems of pollutant transformation investigation by physical
modelling methods (in Russian). In: Metodologiya Ekologicheskogo Normirovaniya (Proc. All-Union
Conference, Kharkov, 16-20 April 1990), vol. 1, 46-47.
Nikanorov, A. M. & Zhulidov, A. V. (1991) Metal Biomonitoring in Fresh-water Ecosystems (in Russian).
Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad.
Odum, Yu. (1986) Ecology (in Russian), vol. 1. Mir, Moscow.
Sanders, F. (1985) Use of large enclosures for perturbation experiments in benthic ecosystems. Env. Monit. Assess.
5(6), 55-99.
Topnikov, V. E. & Vavilin, V. A. (1992) Comparative estimation of river self-purification models (in Russian).
Vodnye Resursy 1, 59-75.
Zenin, A. A., Sergeeva, O. V. & Zemchenko, G. N. (1977) Coefficients of pollutant transformation
(decomposition) in water (in Russian). Obzornaya Informatsiya VNIIGMI - MTSD 1, 43.
Zilov, E. A. & Stom, D. I. (1990) A model experiment in water toxicology (in Russian). Gidribiologicheskii
Zhurnal26(1), 67-69.