New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Charcoal Makes Toxic Mercury Less Likely to Enter the Food Web

Activated carbon traps pollution in place

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Good for more than barbecuing, charcoal may be the key to improving the health of mercury-laden soils and sediments. In the most polluted areas—Superfund sites and other contaminated hotspots—mercury cleanup has traditionally meant dredging, a disruptive and costly endeavor. But activated carbon, a granulated form of charcoal, can trap mercury in place, which may allow for cheaper, simpler remediation efforts.

“Instead of digging up contaminated sediments or soil, we hoped to add something to the sediments that will keep the mercury from getting into the food web,” says Cynthia Gilmour of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. In a recent study, she and her colleagues tested how well activated carbon locked up methylmercury, the form of mercury that tends to rise up the food chain and that can cause neurological problems, to prevent it from accumulating in living tissue.

Using sediments from four mercury hotspots, the scientists measured the amount of the toxic substance taken up by sediment-dwelling worms. Activated carbon reduced the bioaccumulation of methylmercury by 30 to 90 percent, the researchers reported last October in a study published online in Environmental Science & Technology.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The charcoal idea came from study co-author Upal Ghosh of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who had been using activated carbon as a remediation tool for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), another pollutant that lingers stubbornly in sediments and then climbs the food chain. Ghosh suggested trying the same approach to deal with methylmercury. “These two chemicals have probably the highest bioaccumulation rates that we know of,” Gilmour notes.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe