the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 13 Jan 2023
Technical note: An Assessment of HgII to Preserve Carbonate System Parameters in Organic-Rich Estuarine Waters
Abstract. This work assesses the effectiveness of sample preservation techniques for measurements of pHT (total scale), total dissolved inorganic carbon (DICT), and total alkalinity (AT) in organic-rich estuarine waters. Using HgCl2-treated and untreated water samples, measurements of these carbonate system parameters were examined over a period of three months. Over this duration, continued respiration of dissolved organic matter (DOM) in untreated samples created large discrepancies in DICT concentrations, while DICT was effectively constant in treated samples. Changes in AT were observed for both treated and untreated samples, with treated samples showing the greatest variation. In response to changing AT / DICT ratios, pHT changes were observed in both treated and untreated samples but were relatively small in treated samples. Improved accuracy of results in organic-rich estuarine waters that reflect the in situ carbonate system characteristics of the samples at the time of collection can be achieved when samples obtained for DICT and AT analysis are collected and stored separately. Accurate analyses of DICT can be obtained by filtration and preservation with HgCl2. Accuracy of AT analyses can be improved by filtration and storage in polypropylene bottles at 4 °C without adding HgCl2. Quality of pHT measurements can be improved by prompt analysis in the field and, if this cannot be accomplished, then samples can be preserved with HgCl2 and measured in the laboratory within one week.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1493', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2023
1. Line 33-38 Why 3 months experiment? Mos et al., 2021 also did research/observation over six months. I am just wondering, if it is possible, do you also thinking of extend the study up to six months?
2. Line 70 how do you define the ratio of HgCl2 of 6.5%? The ratio of HgCl2 in treated water samples matters the samples storage and impact CO2sys.m parameters? (Normally we preserve water samples for trace metal analysis, e.g. mercury analysis, to add 0.5% of HCl. Perhaps this ratio could be adjusted little lower?)
3. Line 102-103 ideally, it would be better to run three treated samples and three untreated samples to get the average values.
4. Line 141-143 instrument use for Nutrient analyses?
5. Figure 3 and Figure 4 I am not sure if tidal situation may also impact AT and pH difference between the HgCl2-treated and untreated samples at the beginning of the measurement period? The first wtaer sampling may be impacted more by river source, and the 2nd sampling may be impacted more by ocean water?
6. Line 207 Table1. The measured inorganic nutrients sampled from each Niskin bottle at the time of sample collection (Mean ± STD)
7. Line 281-282 In the Figure 4, pH values of HgCl2-treated samples seems not showing much difference between the first week and the 3months even with variation during the 3 month. I think acceptable quality measurements of pHT can be preserved with HgCl2 and measured in the laboratory up to 3 months?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
RC1: Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2023
“1. Line 33-38 Why 3 months experiment? Mos et al., 2021 also did research/observation over six months. I am just wondering, if it is possible, do you also thinking of extend the study up to six months?”
Mos et al., 2021 performed their experiments over a segmented period of 0, 1 and 6 months, while our study performed continuous analyses on a daily (initial week) and weekly time scale over a period of 3 months after sample collection. The experimental duration was constrained by the water budget provided by two 30-L Niskin bottles and the desired resolution of results in that timeframe. Typically, when sampling for carbonate system parameters in estuarine conditions, we try to analyze water samples within the first two weeks and do not wait longer than 3 months.
“2. Line 70 how do you define the ratio of HgCl2 of 6.5%? The ratio of HgCl2 in treated water samples matters the samples storage and impact CO2sys.m parameters? (Normally we preserve water samples for trace metal analysis, e.g. mercury analysis, to add 0.5% of HCl. Perhaps this ratio could be adjusted little lower?)”
The ratio of 6.5% HgCl2 was determined by a certified stock solution of Mercuric Chloride saturated solution made by Lab Chem. Cat #: LC166201 Lot #: G102-16. The solution was 6.5% mercuric chloride (CA 7487-94-7) and 93.5% water (CAS 7732-18-5). Based on our findings and the findings of Mos et al., 2021, where water samples of different water types were treated with different ratios of HgII and analyzed over different time periods, adjusting the ratio of HgCl2 added to water samples of certain water types would still be problematic as it would be dependent on the samples’ fraction of organic alkalinity within the DOM concentration, ionic strength, and potentially other unknown factors.
“3. Line 102-103 ideally, it would be better to run three treated samples and three untreated samples to get the average values.”
Analyses from three bottles of each sample type would be more statistically significant. This was not performed primarily due to the overall water budget and the experimental design. We are highly confident in the reported level of error. During each day’s laboratory analyses, certified reference material (CRM) was analyzed before and after sample bottle analyses to calculate accuracy and precision. Low sample volume requirements for CT analyses allowed duplicate CT sample analysis to be performed as an additional instrument performance check to ensure that differences were within precision standards based on CRM replicates. This strengthened our confidence in the results and allowed us to report standard deviations of the average of duplicate samples obtained from each sample bottle. Next, since the experiment allowed analysis of identical water samples for the two sample types collected at the same time over elapsed time, we can be confident in the resulting best fit linear trend, slope, and significance tests of the CT and AT results.
“4. Line 141-143 instrument use for Nutrient analyses?”
The instrument used was a Seal Analytical Autoanalyzer 3.
“5. Figure 3 and Figure 4 I am not sure if tidal situation may also impact AT and pH difference between the HgCl2-treated and untreated samples at the beginning of the measurement period? The first wtaer sampling may be impacted more by river source, and the 2nd sampling may be impacted more by ocean water?”
Although this location is indeed tidally affected, the two water sample types were collected in adjacent 30 L Niskin bottles within 5 minutes of one another whereby the first Niskin was closed at 12:45 EST on 1/26/2021. At that time, 1.03 miles upstream, a USGS monitored stream gauge station (ID 023060013) displayed a gage height of 0.67’ above sea level on the incoming tide of a mixed semi diurnal tidal cycle. The flow direction did not change until 15:00 EST that day, which marked the beginning of that days next outgoing tide. At the time of collection, the existence of two small natural springs within the park, both upstream and downstream of the study site, was not known. This groundwater input likely influenced the carbonate system parameter results and nutrient results observed between the two Niskin bottles at the time of collection.
“6. Line 207 Table1. The measured inorganic nutrients sampled from each Niskin bottle at the time of sample collection (Mean ± STD)”
Thank you, this will be added to the table caption.
“7. Line 281-282 In the Figure 4, pH values of HgCl2-treated samples seems not showing much difference between the first week and the 3months even with variation during the 3 month. I think acceptable quality measurements of pHT can be preserved with HgCl2 and measured in the laboratory up to 3 months?”
We agree that there is little difference between initial laboratory pHT measurements and those made at 91 days after collection, but considering the variability observed within that 91 day time frame compared to that seen in the first week, in future work we would be confident in pHT results obtained within 1 week.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1493', Lauren Barrett, 07 Feb 2023
Sorry if this is a double-post, I just don't see my comment from before so I think I accidentally timed out! Hi! Really interesting paper and an important topic to consider. I have a few questions / comments. Line 102: "samples were analyzed in the order they were initially collected." It is my understanding that gas-sensitive samples are always taken from the Niskin first to avoid the effects of increased headspace. Do you think choice this may have affected your time-series analysis? Line 105: You say sample water was "poured" from the original container into the UV/Vis cuvette. Can you be more specific about this? Pouring would create turbulence and possibly affect CO2. It seems this was taken into consideration in the way DIC was sampled. Line 211: You say that the decrease of TA over time in the treated samples is due to complexation of organic bases with Hg(II). Do you have any DOM data to corroborate this hypothesis? Figure 5: If you believe your treated DIC and pH and your untreated TA samples are the most accurate, can you explain the closer agreement between treated TA and TA calculated from treated DIC and pH? It seems that agreement stays relatively robust for up to ~60 days. If there is a significant contribution of organic bases to measured alkalinity, I would expect the measured TA to be higher than calculated TA, but this is not the case for either the treated or untreated samples. Line 243: Without DOM / organic alkalinity data, is there a reason you assume Figure 3 indicates that there is substantial organic alkalinity and thus the algorithms used to produce Figure 5 are inaccurate, instead of vice versa? In other words, could it not be that there isn't a lot of organic alkalinity (as indicated by Figure 5) and the differences in Figure 3 are attributed to something else? Thank you!!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
CC1: Lauren Barrett, 07 Feb 2023
“Sorry if this is a double-post, I just don't see my comment from before so I think I accidentally timed out! Hi! Really interesting paper and an important topic to consider. I have a few questions / comments. Line 102: "samples were analyzed in the order they were initially collected." It is my understanding that gas-sensitive samples are always taken from the Niskin first to avoid the effects of increased headspace. Do you think choice this may have affected your time-series analysis?”
We agree that parameters sensitive to gas exchange (pHT and CT) should be sampled first to avoid the influence of gas exchange, which is why field pHT water samples and sample bottles were sampled immediately after opening each Niskin for collections. All water samples were collected from each Niskin within a period of 45 minutes. If gas exchange did appreciably influence the water samples, we would have seen the effects of gas exchange in HgCl2-treated CT samples collected over the 45 minute collection period. Figure 2 shows that treated CT samples were essentially invariant for the duration of the experiment (3,095.5 ± 3.2 µmol kg-1).
“Line 105: You say sample water was "poured" from the original container into the UV/Vis cuvette. Can you be more specific about this? Pouring would create turbulence and possibly affect CO2. It seems this was taken into consideration in the way DIC was sampled.”
When filling the 10 cm cylindrical optical glass pH cell with sample water, the sample bottle neck was first wiped clean with a Kim Wipe and the pH cell was rinsed three times with a small amount of sample water. After rinsing, the sample was poured into the pH cell and allowed to overflow while carefully observing for any visibly trapped air bubbles. Once complete the cell was immediately capped without air bubbles and placed in a thermal housing for temperature equilibration prior to analyses. Importantly, duplicate pH analyses were performed on CT and AT reference material prior to sample analysis to establish an average daily precision of ± 0.012. The resulting average sample precision of our pHT data was ± 0.015. While this level of precision is somewhat worse than what can be spectrophotometrically achieved in the open ocean (± 0.001), given the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of estuarine/riverine waters it should be satisfactory.
“Line 211: You say that the decrease of TA over time in the treated samples is due to complexation of organic bases with Hg(II). Do you have any DOM data to corroborate this hypothesis?”
We do not have DOM data to corroborate this, although the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission performs monthly water quality assessments 0.75 miles upstream (Station 270) and 0.82 miles downstream (Station 1510) of the study site that include total organic carbon (mg/L) measurements (sum of the particulate and dissolved organic carbon). These measurements did not take place during the time of this study, presumably due to COVID-19 restrictions, however monthly records beginning 9/2018 to 1/2023 at these two sites show organics were present at both stations in notable concentrations: a range of 45.9 mg/L with an average of 12.7 ± 7.4 (n=76). Additionally, the sampling location has well known and consistent DOM sources upstream - terrestrial inputs from the Green Swamp, a region of 560,000 acres that drain to create the headwaters of four major rivers including the Hillsborough River, and groundwater input from numerous springs of varying magnitude.
“Figure 5: If you believe your treated DIC and pH and your untreated TA samples are the most accurate, can you explain the closer agreement between treated TA and TA calculated from treated DIC and pH? It seems that agreement stays relatively robust for up to ~60 days. If there is a significant contribution of organic bases to measured alkalinity, I would expect the measured TA to be higher than calculated TA, but this is not the case for either the treated or untreated samples.”
The reason for the relatively good agreement between measured HgCl2-treated AT and AT calculated from HgCl2-treated CT and pHT is mainly due to covariance of HgCl2-treated pH measurements and HgCl2-treated AT over time. HgCl2-treated CT measurements were essentially invariant throughout the experiment while, in contrast, HgCl2-treated AT decreased throughout the experimental time period (likely due to the complexation of DOM by HgII). This complexation process released H+ ions causing pHT to decrease through time. As stated in the manuscript, the observation that calculated AT is greater than measured AT for both HgII-treated and untreated samples is inconsistent with the fact that CO2sys.m calculations do not account for organic alkalinity contributions. This observation, that measured AT is not larger than calculated AT, points to potential problems with CO2-system dissociation constants at low salinities. In contrast to the abundance of CO2 system dissociation constants at salinity ≥ 20, only one set of dissociation constants has been thoroughly parameterized for calculations made at salinities that are well below 20.
“Line 243: Without DOM / organic alkalinity data, is there a reason you assume Figure 3 indicates that there is substantial organic alkalinity and thus the algorithms used to produce Figure 5 are inaccurate, instead of vice versa? In other words, could it not be that there isn't a lot of organic alkalinity (as indicated by Figure 5) and the differences in Figure 3 are attributed to something else? Thank you!!”
This was initially considered yet ruled out as we have good reason to believe that DOM was present at substantial concentrations in the water samples, even without direct measurements. During sample collection, the sample collection locale had well known DOM sources upstream via terrestrial input from the Green Swamp, groundwater input from a large magnitude spring, and several small magnitude springs immediately upstream and downstream of the sample site within Lowry Park. Importantly, filtered water samples exhibited a brownish yellow color. Additionally, as noted in our manuscript, strong affinity between organic ligands, such as are found in the DOM of natural waters, and HgII are well documented. Finally, our observation of AT decreases in organic-rich HgCl2-treated samples is in accord with Mos et al., 2021 results and interpretation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1493', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Feb 2023
The manuscript describes a technical approach with the aim of preservation of estuarine/marine water samples for analysis of the carbonate system species. The authors used HgCl2 as a preserving agent and then perform chemical analysis of ainly pH, A and DIC over 3 months.
The use of HgCl2 is not new and has been using several times in the past with the aim of DOC analysis, however the approach of this technical note nis somehow interesting.
I’ve some concerns that I should need clarification.
- The authors should clear point the novelty of this work compared, for instance with the Mos paper.
- What was the amount of HgCl2 added?
- The authors are assuming that DIC changes are a consequence of DOC/DOM mineralization, which makes sense. However, there is no clear assumption that there is not evidence that there is no CO2 dissolution. Probably the work had this issue in consideration but a clear sentence on this issue should be had to the manuscript. Also, and still considering this problem, this work with benefit a lot from determinations of DOC in the analyzed samples.
- pH is measured using a spectroscopic technique instead of a normal high-resolution ISE. Is there any specific requirements for using this method? More details about calibration should be provided.
- In figure 3, there is a clear tendence of At decrease in HgCl2 tretaed samples. For untreated, the authors assume that the AVG At is constant. For the last ones it does not look that way. It seems that until day 49 the AT levels are constant but after a decrease is clear observed. Probably the use of a statistic test would clarify this doubt.
- It is well known that Hg(II) easily complex with DOM. It is difficult to know how much Hg (II) is complexed (stochiometric all Hg can be complexed because concentration of DOM is higher thar Hg2+) and, consequently we will not know the DOM available for mineralization. Again, DOC measurements would benefit this work.
In summary, this technical note needs this clarification before being considered for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
RC2: Anonymous Referee #2 11 Feb 2023
“The manuscript describes a technical approach with the aim of preservation of estuarine/marine water samples for analysis of the carbonate system species. The authors used HgCl2 as a preserving agent and then perform chemical analysis of ainly pH, A and DIC over 3 months.
The use of HgCl2 is not new and has been using several times in the past with the aim of DOC analysis, however the approach of this technical note nis somehow interesting.
I’ve some concerns that I should need clarification.”
“1. The authors should clear point the novelty of this work compared, for instance with the Mos paper.”
Using state-of-the-art spectrophotometric techniques (pHT and AT) over a highly-resolved 3 month timescale, our work compares carbonate system parameters (pHT, AT and CT) measured in low salinity estuarine water with and without additions of HgCl2. Mos et al., 2021 analyzed two of the three parameters where pH was measured using NIST scale (potentiometric) and AT was measured using Gran potentiometric titrations on three occasions (at 0,1 and 6 months). Our observations of CT constancy in HgCl2-treated samples along with declining AT in HgCl2-treated samples provides a substantially insightful view of CO2 sample preservation processes.
This information will be added to the revised manuscript.
“2. What was the amount of HgCl2 added?”
For HgCl2-treated samples, 100 microliters of 6.5% HgCl2 was added to 300 mL sample bottles. This information will be added to the revised manuscript.
“3. The authors are assuming that DIC changes are a consequence of DOC/DOM mineralization, which makes sense. However, there is no clear assumption that there is not evidence that there is no CO2 dissolution. Probably the work had this issue in consideration but a clear sentence on this issue should be had to the manuscript. Also, and still considering this problem, this work with benefit a lot from determinations of DOC in the analyzed samples.”
Two outcomes lead us to believe that CO2 dissolution was inconsequential in this work. Of the measured parameters sensitive to CO2 dissolution that were unaffected by respiration of organic matter and complexation by HgII, HgCl2-treated CT measurements results remained essentially invariant (3,095.5 ± 3.2 µmol kg-1) (Samples were analyzed in the order in which they were filled). A statement will be added to the manuscript addressing this point. Though this manuscript lacks determination of DOM concentrations, its presence was undeniable given the environmental setting, upstream and downstream measurements of TOC made by the EPCHC (See CC1), and carbonate system results for untreated samples that exhibited changes due to respiration of organic matter that are consistent with those of the Redfield equation.
Although direct DOM measurements would somewhat alleviate uncertainties surrounding the significance of interactions between organics and HgII, future observations of AT in organic-rich systems will be best served with the inclusion of titrimetically-derived organic acid/base concentrations and pK values.
“4. pH is measured using a spectroscopic technique instead of a normal high-resolution ISE. Is there any specific requirements for using this method? More details about calibration should be provided.”
Spectrophotometric pHT measurements have been directly compared to potentiometric methods by repeated analyses at low ionic strengths and are shown to be more accurate (French et al., 2002). Spectrophotometric pHT is also used to calibrate pH electrodes, including ISFETs, in seawater (Easley and Byrne, 2012) and estuarine waters (Martell-Bonet and Byrne, 2020). Spectrophotometric pH indicators are molecularly calibrated using calibration buffers and eliminate bias caused by variations in the liquid junction potentials of potentiometric pH systems. This information will be added to the revised manuscript.
“5. In figure 3, there is a clear tendence of At decrease in HgCl2 treated samples. For untreated, the authors assume that the AVG At is constant. For the last ones it does not look that way. It seems that until day 49 the AT levels are constant but after a decrease is clear observed. Probably the use of a statistic test would clarify this doubt.”
Line 168 – 169 states the significance test results of regression at 95% confidence level of p < 0.01 to statistically show that the AT of untreated samples was constant. Also, the results show that the AT for untreated samples is constant for a sufficiently long time period that untreated samples can be returned to the lab for analysis. AT analysis of untreated samples in a suitably short time frame is clearly preferable to AT analysis of HgCl2-treated samples.
“6. It is well known that Hg(II) easily complex with DOM. It is difficult to know how much Hg (II) is complexed (stochiometric all Hg can be complexed because concentration of DOM is higher thar Hg2+) and, consequently we will not know the DOM available for mineralization. Again, DOC measurements would benefit this work.”
We agree that we do not know the extent of complexation by HgII. However this work shows for the first time, at high resolution, that HgII addition, which is the standard method of sample preservation for carbonate system water samples, rapidly affects the pH and AT of estuarine water samples after collection. Also, this work suggests that organic alkalinity titrations (i.e., the fraction of DOM that actively exchanges hydrogen ions) performed after removal of all inorganic carbon, in conjunction with AT measurements, is likely preferable to measurements of DOM in conjunction with AT. Text will be added to the manuscript to highlight these conclusions and should benefit future work in this realm.
“In summary, this technical note needs this clarification before being considered for publication.”
New text and clarifications will be added to the manuscript to address the reviewers’ comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-AC3
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1493', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2023
1. Line 33-38 Why 3 months experiment? Mos et al., 2021 also did research/observation over six months. I am just wondering, if it is possible, do you also thinking of extend the study up to six months?
2. Line 70 how do you define the ratio of HgCl2 of 6.5%? The ratio of HgCl2 in treated water samples matters the samples storage and impact CO2sys.m parameters? (Normally we preserve water samples for trace metal analysis, e.g. mercury analysis, to add 0.5% of HCl. Perhaps this ratio could be adjusted little lower?)
3. Line 102-103 ideally, it would be better to run three treated samples and three untreated samples to get the average values.
4. Line 141-143 instrument use for Nutrient analyses?
5. Figure 3 and Figure 4 I am not sure if tidal situation may also impact AT and pH difference between the HgCl2-treated and untreated samples at the beginning of the measurement period? The first wtaer sampling may be impacted more by river source, and the 2nd sampling may be impacted more by ocean water?
6. Line 207 Table1. The measured inorganic nutrients sampled from each Niskin bottle at the time of sample collection (Mean ± STD)
7. Line 281-282 In the Figure 4, pH values of HgCl2-treated samples seems not showing much difference between the first week and the 3months even with variation during the 3 month. I think acceptable quality measurements of pHT can be preserved with HgCl2 and measured in the laboratory up to 3 months?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
RC1: Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2023
“1. Line 33-38 Why 3 months experiment? Mos et al., 2021 also did research/observation over six months. I am just wondering, if it is possible, do you also thinking of extend the study up to six months?”
Mos et al., 2021 performed their experiments over a segmented period of 0, 1 and 6 months, while our study performed continuous analyses on a daily (initial week) and weekly time scale over a period of 3 months after sample collection. The experimental duration was constrained by the water budget provided by two 30-L Niskin bottles and the desired resolution of results in that timeframe. Typically, when sampling for carbonate system parameters in estuarine conditions, we try to analyze water samples within the first two weeks and do not wait longer than 3 months.
“2. Line 70 how do you define the ratio of HgCl2 of 6.5%? The ratio of HgCl2 in treated water samples matters the samples storage and impact CO2sys.m parameters? (Normally we preserve water samples for trace metal analysis, e.g. mercury analysis, to add 0.5% of HCl. Perhaps this ratio could be adjusted little lower?)”
The ratio of 6.5% HgCl2 was determined by a certified stock solution of Mercuric Chloride saturated solution made by Lab Chem. Cat #: LC166201 Lot #: G102-16. The solution was 6.5% mercuric chloride (CA 7487-94-7) and 93.5% water (CAS 7732-18-5). Based on our findings and the findings of Mos et al., 2021, where water samples of different water types were treated with different ratios of HgII and analyzed over different time periods, adjusting the ratio of HgCl2 added to water samples of certain water types would still be problematic as it would be dependent on the samples’ fraction of organic alkalinity within the DOM concentration, ionic strength, and potentially other unknown factors.
“3. Line 102-103 ideally, it would be better to run three treated samples and three untreated samples to get the average values.”
Analyses from three bottles of each sample type would be more statistically significant. This was not performed primarily due to the overall water budget and the experimental design. We are highly confident in the reported level of error. During each day’s laboratory analyses, certified reference material (CRM) was analyzed before and after sample bottle analyses to calculate accuracy and precision. Low sample volume requirements for CT analyses allowed duplicate CT sample analysis to be performed as an additional instrument performance check to ensure that differences were within precision standards based on CRM replicates. This strengthened our confidence in the results and allowed us to report standard deviations of the average of duplicate samples obtained from each sample bottle. Next, since the experiment allowed analysis of identical water samples for the two sample types collected at the same time over elapsed time, we can be confident in the resulting best fit linear trend, slope, and significance tests of the CT and AT results.
“4. Line 141-143 instrument use for Nutrient analyses?”
The instrument used was a Seal Analytical Autoanalyzer 3.
“5. Figure 3 and Figure 4 I am not sure if tidal situation may also impact AT and pH difference between the HgCl2-treated and untreated samples at the beginning of the measurement period? The first wtaer sampling may be impacted more by river source, and the 2nd sampling may be impacted more by ocean water?”
Although this location is indeed tidally affected, the two water sample types were collected in adjacent 30 L Niskin bottles within 5 minutes of one another whereby the first Niskin was closed at 12:45 EST on 1/26/2021. At that time, 1.03 miles upstream, a USGS monitored stream gauge station (ID 023060013) displayed a gage height of 0.67’ above sea level on the incoming tide of a mixed semi diurnal tidal cycle. The flow direction did not change until 15:00 EST that day, which marked the beginning of that days next outgoing tide. At the time of collection, the existence of two small natural springs within the park, both upstream and downstream of the study site, was not known. This groundwater input likely influenced the carbonate system parameter results and nutrient results observed between the two Niskin bottles at the time of collection.
“6. Line 207 Table1. The measured inorganic nutrients sampled from each Niskin bottle at the time of sample collection (Mean ± STD)”
Thank you, this will be added to the table caption.
“7. Line 281-282 In the Figure 4, pH values of HgCl2-treated samples seems not showing much difference between the first week and the 3months even with variation during the 3 month. I think acceptable quality measurements of pHT can be preserved with HgCl2 and measured in the laboratory up to 3 months?”
We agree that there is little difference between initial laboratory pHT measurements and those made at 91 days after collection, but considering the variability observed within that 91 day time frame compared to that seen in the first week, in future work we would be confident in pHT results obtained within 1 week.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1493', Lauren Barrett, 07 Feb 2023
Sorry if this is a double-post, I just don't see my comment from before so I think I accidentally timed out! Hi! Really interesting paper and an important topic to consider. I have a few questions / comments. Line 102: "samples were analyzed in the order they were initially collected." It is my understanding that gas-sensitive samples are always taken from the Niskin first to avoid the effects of increased headspace. Do you think choice this may have affected your time-series analysis? Line 105: You say sample water was "poured" from the original container into the UV/Vis cuvette. Can you be more specific about this? Pouring would create turbulence and possibly affect CO2. It seems this was taken into consideration in the way DIC was sampled. Line 211: You say that the decrease of TA over time in the treated samples is due to complexation of organic bases with Hg(II). Do you have any DOM data to corroborate this hypothesis? Figure 5: If you believe your treated DIC and pH and your untreated TA samples are the most accurate, can you explain the closer agreement between treated TA and TA calculated from treated DIC and pH? It seems that agreement stays relatively robust for up to ~60 days. If there is a significant contribution of organic bases to measured alkalinity, I would expect the measured TA to be higher than calculated TA, but this is not the case for either the treated or untreated samples. Line 243: Without DOM / organic alkalinity data, is there a reason you assume Figure 3 indicates that there is substantial organic alkalinity and thus the algorithms used to produce Figure 5 are inaccurate, instead of vice versa? In other words, could it not be that there isn't a lot of organic alkalinity (as indicated by Figure 5) and the differences in Figure 3 are attributed to something else? Thank you!!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
CC1: Lauren Barrett, 07 Feb 2023
“Sorry if this is a double-post, I just don't see my comment from before so I think I accidentally timed out! Hi! Really interesting paper and an important topic to consider. I have a few questions / comments. Line 102: "samples were analyzed in the order they were initially collected." It is my understanding that gas-sensitive samples are always taken from the Niskin first to avoid the effects of increased headspace. Do you think choice this may have affected your time-series analysis?”
We agree that parameters sensitive to gas exchange (pHT and CT) should be sampled first to avoid the influence of gas exchange, which is why field pHT water samples and sample bottles were sampled immediately after opening each Niskin for collections. All water samples were collected from each Niskin within a period of 45 minutes. If gas exchange did appreciably influence the water samples, we would have seen the effects of gas exchange in HgCl2-treated CT samples collected over the 45 minute collection period. Figure 2 shows that treated CT samples were essentially invariant for the duration of the experiment (3,095.5 ± 3.2 µmol kg-1).
“Line 105: You say sample water was "poured" from the original container into the UV/Vis cuvette. Can you be more specific about this? Pouring would create turbulence and possibly affect CO2. It seems this was taken into consideration in the way DIC was sampled.”
When filling the 10 cm cylindrical optical glass pH cell with sample water, the sample bottle neck was first wiped clean with a Kim Wipe and the pH cell was rinsed three times with a small amount of sample water. After rinsing, the sample was poured into the pH cell and allowed to overflow while carefully observing for any visibly trapped air bubbles. Once complete the cell was immediately capped without air bubbles and placed in a thermal housing for temperature equilibration prior to analyses. Importantly, duplicate pH analyses were performed on CT and AT reference material prior to sample analysis to establish an average daily precision of ± 0.012. The resulting average sample precision of our pHT data was ± 0.015. While this level of precision is somewhat worse than what can be spectrophotometrically achieved in the open ocean (± 0.001), given the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of estuarine/riverine waters it should be satisfactory.
“Line 211: You say that the decrease of TA over time in the treated samples is due to complexation of organic bases with Hg(II). Do you have any DOM data to corroborate this hypothesis?”
We do not have DOM data to corroborate this, although the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission performs monthly water quality assessments 0.75 miles upstream (Station 270) and 0.82 miles downstream (Station 1510) of the study site that include total organic carbon (mg/L) measurements (sum of the particulate and dissolved organic carbon). These measurements did not take place during the time of this study, presumably due to COVID-19 restrictions, however monthly records beginning 9/2018 to 1/2023 at these two sites show organics were present at both stations in notable concentrations: a range of 45.9 mg/L with an average of 12.7 ± 7.4 (n=76). Additionally, the sampling location has well known and consistent DOM sources upstream - terrestrial inputs from the Green Swamp, a region of 560,000 acres that drain to create the headwaters of four major rivers including the Hillsborough River, and groundwater input from numerous springs of varying magnitude.
“Figure 5: If you believe your treated DIC and pH and your untreated TA samples are the most accurate, can you explain the closer agreement between treated TA and TA calculated from treated DIC and pH? It seems that agreement stays relatively robust for up to ~60 days. If there is a significant contribution of organic bases to measured alkalinity, I would expect the measured TA to be higher than calculated TA, but this is not the case for either the treated or untreated samples.”
The reason for the relatively good agreement between measured HgCl2-treated AT and AT calculated from HgCl2-treated CT and pHT is mainly due to covariance of HgCl2-treated pH measurements and HgCl2-treated AT over time. HgCl2-treated CT measurements were essentially invariant throughout the experiment while, in contrast, HgCl2-treated AT decreased throughout the experimental time period (likely due to the complexation of DOM by HgII). This complexation process released H+ ions causing pHT to decrease through time. As stated in the manuscript, the observation that calculated AT is greater than measured AT for both HgII-treated and untreated samples is inconsistent with the fact that CO2sys.m calculations do not account for organic alkalinity contributions. This observation, that measured AT is not larger than calculated AT, points to potential problems with CO2-system dissociation constants at low salinities. In contrast to the abundance of CO2 system dissociation constants at salinity ≥ 20, only one set of dissociation constants has been thoroughly parameterized for calculations made at salinities that are well below 20.
“Line 243: Without DOM / organic alkalinity data, is there a reason you assume Figure 3 indicates that there is substantial organic alkalinity and thus the algorithms used to produce Figure 5 are inaccurate, instead of vice versa? In other words, could it not be that there isn't a lot of organic alkalinity (as indicated by Figure 5) and the differences in Figure 3 are attributed to something else? Thank you!!”
This was initially considered yet ruled out as we have good reason to believe that DOM was present at substantial concentrations in the water samples, even without direct measurements. During sample collection, the sample collection locale had well known DOM sources upstream via terrestrial input from the Green Swamp, groundwater input from a large magnitude spring, and several small magnitude springs immediately upstream and downstream of the sample site within Lowry Park. Importantly, filtered water samples exhibited a brownish yellow color. Additionally, as noted in our manuscript, strong affinity between organic ligands, such as are found in the DOM of natural waters, and HgII are well documented. Finally, our observation of AT decreases in organic-rich HgCl2-treated samples is in accord with Mos et al., 2021 results and interpretation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1493', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Feb 2023
The manuscript describes a technical approach with the aim of preservation of estuarine/marine water samples for analysis of the carbonate system species. The authors used HgCl2 as a preserving agent and then perform chemical analysis of ainly pH, A and DIC over 3 months.
The use of HgCl2 is not new and has been using several times in the past with the aim of DOC analysis, however the approach of this technical note nis somehow interesting.
I’ve some concerns that I should need clarification.
- The authors should clear point the novelty of this work compared, for instance with the Mos paper.
- What was the amount of HgCl2 added?
- The authors are assuming that DIC changes are a consequence of DOC/DOM mineralization, which makes sense. However, there is no clear assumption that there is not evidence that there is no CO2 dissolution. Probably the work had this issue in consideration but a clear sentence on this issue should be had to the manuscript. Also, and still considering this problem, this work with benefit a lot from determinations of DOC in the analyzed samples.
- pH is measured using a spectroscopic technique instead of a normal high-resolution ISE. Is there any specific requirements for using this method? More details about calibration should be provided.
- In figure 3, there is a clear tendence of At decrease in HgCl2 tretaed samples. For untreated, the authors assume that the AVG At is constant. For the last ones it does not look that way. It seems that until day 49 the AT levels are constant but after a decrease is clear observed. Probably the use of a statistic test would clarify this doubt.
- It is well known that Hg(II) easily complex with DOM. It is difficult to know how much Hg (II) is complexed (stochiometric all Hg can be complexed because concentration of DOM is higher thar Hg2+) and, consequently we will not know the DOM available for mineralization. Again, DOC measurements would benefit this work.
In summary, this technical note needs this clarification before being considered for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Christopher Moore, 16 Mar 2023
RC2: Anonymous Referee #2 11 Feb 2023
“The manuscript describes a technical approach with the aim of preservation of estuarine/marine water samples for analysis of the carbonate system species. The authors used HgCl2 as a preserving agent and then perform chemical analysis of ainly pH, A and DIC over 3 months.
The use of HgCl2 is not new and has been using several times in the past with the aim of DOC analysis, however the approach of this technical note nis somehow interesting.
I’ve some concerns that I should need clarification.”
“1. The authors should clear point the novelty of this work compared, for instance with the Mos paper.”
Using state-of-the-art spectrophotometric techniques (pHT and AT) over a highly-resolved 3 month timescale, our work compares carbonate system parameters (pHT, AT and CT) measured in low salinity estuarine water with and without additions of HgCl2. Mos et al., 2021 analyzed two of the three parameters where pH was measured using NIST scale (potentiometric) and AT was measured using Gran potentiometric titrations on three occasions (at 0,1 and 6 months). Our observations of CT constancy in HgCl2-treated samples along with declining AT in HgCl2-treated samples provides a substantially insightful view of CO2 sample preservation processes.
This information will be added to the revised manuscript.
“2. What was the amount of HgCl2 added?”
For HgCl2-treated samples, 100 microliters of 6.5% HgCl2 was added to 300 mL sample bottles. This information will be added to the revised manuscript.
“3. The authors are assuming that DIC changes are a consequence of DOC/DOM mineralization, which makes sense. However, there is no clear assumption that there is not evidence that there is no CO2 dissolution. Probably the work had this issue in consideration but a clear sentence on this issue should be had to the manuscript. Also, and still considering this problem, this work with benefit a lot from determinations of DOC in the analyzed samples.”
Two outcomes lead us to believe that CO2 dissolution was inconsequential in this work. Of the measured parameters sensitive to CO2 dissolution that were unaffected by respiration of organic matter and complexation by HgII, HgCl2-treated CT measurements results remained essentially invariant (3,095.5 ± 3.2 µmol kg-1) (Samples were analyzed in the order in which they were filled). A statement will be added to the manuscript addressing this point. Though this manuscript lacks determination of DOM concentrations, its presence was undeniable given the environmental setting, upstream and downstream measurements of TOC made by the EPCHC (See CC1), and carbonate system results for untreated samples that exhibited changes due to respiration of organic matter that are consistent with those of the Redfield equation.
Although direct DOM measurements would somewhat alleviate uncertainties surrounding the significance of interactions between organics and HgII, future observations of AT in organic-rich systems will be best served with the inclusion of titrimetically-derived organic acid/base concentrations and pK values.
“4. pH is measured using a spectroscopic technique instead of a normal high-resolution ISE. Is there any specific requirements for using this method? More details about calibration should be provided.”
Spectrophotometric pHT measurements have been directly compared to potentiometric methods by repeated analyses at low ionic strengths and are shown to be more accurate (French et al., 2002). Spectrophotometric pHT is also used to calibrate pH electrodes, including ISFETs, in seawater (Easley and Byrne, 2012) and estuarine waters (Martell-Bonet and Byrne, 2020). Spectrophotometric pH indicators are molecularly calibrated using calibration buffers and eliminate bias caused by variations in the liquid junction potentials of potentiometric pH systems. This information will be added to the revised manuscript.
“5. In figure 3, there is a clear tendence of At decrease in HgCl2 treated samples. For untreated, the authors assume that the AVG At is constant. For the last ones it does not look that way. It seems that until day 49 the AT levels are constant but after a decrease is clear observed. Probably the use of a statistic test would clarify this doubt.”
Line 168 – 169 states the significance test results of regression at 95% confidence level of p < 0.01 to statistically show that the AT of untreated samples was constant. Also, the results show that the AT for untreated samples is constant for a sufficiently long time period that untreated samples can be returned to the lab for analysis. AT analysis of untreated samples in a suitably short time frame is clearly preferable to AT analysis of HgCl2-treated samples.
“6. It is well known that Hg(II) easily complex with DOM. It is difficult to know how much Hg (II) is complexed (stochiometric all Hg can be complexed because concentration of DOM is higher thar Hg2+) and, consequently we will not know the DOM available for mineralization. Again, DOC measurements would benefit this work.”
We agree that we do not know the extent of complexation by HgII. However this work shows for the first time, at high resolution, that HgII addition, which is the standard method of sample preservation for carbonate system water samples, rapidly affects the pH and AT of estuarine water samples after collection. Also, this work suggests that organic alkalinity titrations (i.e., the fraction of DOM that actively exchanges hydrogen ions) performed after removal of all inorganic carbon, in conjunction with AT measurements, is likely preferable to measurements of DOM in conjunction with AT. Text will be added to the manuscript to highlight these conclusions and should benefit future work in this realm.
“In summary, this technical note needs this clarification before being considered for publication.”
New text and clarifications will be added to the manuscript to address the reviewers’ comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1493-AC3
Data sets
CO2 system measurements in Hillsborough River Moore, C. S., Byrne, R. H., and Yates, K. K. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9J9IYFD
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 456 | 186 | 41 | 683 | 24 | 27 |
- HTML: 456
- PDF: 186
- XML: 41
- Total: 683
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Robert H. Byrne
Kimberly K. Yates
- Preprint
(938 KB) - Metadata XML