the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Consolidated Database of Mercury Observations for Permafrost Regions
Abstract. Permafrost soils are one of the largest terrestrial pools of mercury (Hg) in the world, storing an estimated 500–1500 Gg of Hg in the top three meters of soil. Ongoing climate-driven thaw threatens to release this legacy Hg into the environment. Efforts to quantify and model this pool have been hindered by a lack of harmonized, spatially resolved observations. To address this, we compiled a database of 117,802 Hg observations collected between 1988 and 2022 from 59 studies across Arctic, sub-Arctic, and alpine permafrost regions of the Northern Hemisphere, including North America, northern Europe, Eurasian and the Tibetan Plateau. The database includes Hg concentration measurements in solid materials—such as soil, leaves, roots, wood, and litter—as well as in water samples from soil porewater, lakes, and rivers across the northern hemisphere permafrost domain. The database enables cross-site synthesis, model calibration and evaluation, and environmental assessments by standardizing and harmonizing data from diverse sources. Data harmonization steps included unit conversion, categorization of observations by type, and quality control measures to ensure consistency across studies. Analytical uncertainty was preserved where reported in source studies, and qualitative uncertainty indicators and flags were applied where uncertainty information was incomplete or heterogeneous. Mercury concentrations vary widely across observations, with lake sediment showing the highest median values (70 ng g⁻¹, IQR: 45–116), followed by soil (50 ng g⁻¹, IQR: 32–90), and vegetation (15 ng g⁻¹, IQR: 9–33). Water observations had a median of 2 ng L⁻¹ (IQR: 2–6). Statistically significant differences in Hg concentrations among observation types were observed at both global and regional scales, consistently following the pattern: lake sediment > soil > vegetation. These patterns, along with spatial and observation-type biases, highlight the need for improved coverage in underrepresented regions such as Eurasia. The database is freely accessible through Zenodo under the concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18300989 (all versions), to support ongoing research and model development in Arctic and sub-Arctic Hg cycle studies.
- Preprint
(968 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 May 2026)
- AC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-640', Christine Olson, 05 Mar 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-640', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2026
reply
Comments to manuscript “essd-2025-640”
Overall, I find this manuscript to be a well-executed and highly valuable contribution to the field of permafrost mercury research. The authors have compiled an impressive database of 117,802 Hg observations from 59 studies spanning four decades, covering soil, sediment, vegetation, and water across the entire northern permafrost domain. The harmonization and quality control steps-including unit conversion, categorical classification, and the introduction of qualitative uncertainty flags-are thoughtful and largely appropriate, given the heterogeneity of the source data. The observed concentration patterns (lake sediment > soil > vegetation) are clearly presented and statistically robust at both global and regional scales. The database is freely accessible via a persistent DOI, which will greatly facilitate model calibration, cross-site synthesis, and environmental assessments. Despite a few areas for improvement (e.g., clarifying the water Hg fraction, addressing spatial biases), the overall quality and transparency of the data product are excellent. This paper represents a significant step forward in consolidating permafrost Hg observations and will undoubtedly become a foundational resource for the Arctic and alpine Hg cycling community. I therefore recommend publication after major revisions.
Below is a consolidated set of peer review comments for this ESSD manuscript. These comments range from brief clarifications to more detailed methodological and transparency requests. The authors should address them in a revised manuscript to strengthen the database’s reproducibility, usability, and scientific impact.
Major concerns:
- The abstract uses both terms of “harmonization vs. standardization”. Please clarify exactly which variables were unit-converted, which were re-calculated (e.g., dry-weight normalization), and whether any raw data underwent transformations beyond unit conversion (e.g., log transformation, outlier capping). A short table in the methods would help clarification.
- “Qualitative uncertainty indicators and flags” are mentioned but not defined. How were heterogeneous uncertainty reports from different studies aggregated? Please provide concrete examples of flags and their interpretation for users.
- The database covers North America, northern Europe, Eurasia, and the Tibetan Plateau, yet the abstract later calls Eurasia “underrepresented”, which indicates that spatial representativeness may be contradictory. Please clarify the following concerns: is all of Eurasia underrepresented, or only specific parts (e.g., Siberia vs. European Russia)? Quantify the sample imbalance (e.g., number of observations per 10⁶ km² by region).
- Observations span 1988-2022, but the abstract does not state whether repeat sampling at the same sites exists. If not, state this limitation explicitly. If yes, describe how users can identify time-series data (e.g., site ID flags). This is critical for studying accelerating thaw impacts, otherwise the temporal trends may not be addressable as currently structured.
- To my best knowledge, “vegetation” includes leaves, roots, wood, and litter. Litter is partially decomposed and may behave more like soil. Justify this grouping or preferably split litter into a separate observation type. At minimum, provide a breakdown of Hg concentrations by subcategory in the supplementary material of this manuscript.
- The abstract reports water Hg in ng L⁻¹ but does not state whether this is total Hg, methylmercury, dissolved, or unfiltered. These fractions have vastly different environmental interpretations. Please specify water Hg fraction clearly, and if multiple fractions exist, document how they were harmonized (or why they were pooled).
- Lines 230 and 242. The finding “lake sediment > soil > vegetation” is reported at global and regional scales. However, sample sizes are highly unbalanced (lake sediment dominates >90% of records according to one comment). Please re‑analyze using weighted statistics or randomly subsampled balanced datasets, or explicitly caution that regional patterns may reflect sampling bias rather than true environmental gradients.
- Line 124. Hg analysis techniques (CVAFS, CVAAS, ICP‑MS, etc.) differ in detection limits and accuracy. Was method type used as a quality control flag or harmonization step? If not, recommend adding a categorical variable “method category” to the database to allow users to filter by analytical rigor.
- Lines 124, 230, 255, and 368. I would like to see that data provenance and source transparency can be more sufficiently detailed in the manuscript. For example, how duplicate records across sources were identified and removed? How to ensure data exclusion criteria and reasons for exclusion? Reliability for breakdown of data origin: peer-reviewed papers, open repositories, unpublished contributions?
- One comment notes that lake sediment comprises most of records (e.g., Table 1 and Figure 4). The authors should clarify the intended uses of this database: is it suitable for soil‑focused Hg modeling? For water‑vegetation interactions? A clear “limitations” subsection is therefore recommended, including guidance on which research questions the database should not be used for.
- Line 458, If possible, please provide a table summarizing, for each observation type, the percentage of records with: precise coordinates, sampling date, analytical uncertainty, soil horizon (if applicable), organic carbon content, and laboratory information. This allows users to filter data appropriately.
- The Zenodo DOI is provided in the manuscript. I would like to suggest outlining a formal versioning policy and long‑term stewardship plan, and describe how the community can contribute new data in the future.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-640-RC1
Data sets
PermHg C. Olson et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18300989
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 294 | 106 | 22 | 422 | 23 | 32 |
- HTML: 294
- PDF: 106
- XML: 22
- Total: 422
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The complete coauthor list will be as follows in the final publication:
Christine L. Olson1, Kevin Schaefer1, Alyssa Azaroff2, Hélène Angot3, Sasiri Bandara4, Thomas A. Douglas5, Bo Elberling6, Maria Florencia Fahnestock7, Xinbin Feng8, Charlotte Haugk2, Gustaf Hugelius2, Erfan Jahangir3, Sofi Jonsson2, Shichang Kang9, 10, Adam Kirkwood11, Jennifer Korosi12, Igor Lehnherr13, Artem Lim14, Rinat Manasypov14, Dmitriy Moskovchenko15, Mina Nasr16, Daniel Obrist18, David Olefeldt17, Connor Olson1,19, Oleg Pokrovsky20, Laura Sereni3, Sarah Shakil21, M. Isabel Smith22, Jens Søndergaard23, Jeroen Sonke20, Kasia Staniszewska4, Jens Strauss24, Kyra St. Pierre25, Lauren Thompson17, Andrey Yurtaev14, Yanxu Zhang26, and Scott Zolkos27
1 University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
2 Stockholm University, Sweden
3 Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, France
4 University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
5 U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Fort Wainwright, USA
6 University of Copenhagen, Denmark
7 University of New Hampshire, USA
8 Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
9 Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences
10 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
11 Carleton University, Canada
12 York University, Canada
13 Department of Geography, Geomatics and Environment, University of Toronto Mississauga, Canada
14 Tomsk State University, Russia
15 Tyumen Scientific Centre SB RAS, Russia
16 Environment and Protected Areas, Government of Alberta, Canada
17 University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources, USA
18 Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
19 Harvard University, USA
20 Géosciences Environnement Toulouse, CNRS/IRD/Université de Toulouse, 31400 France
21 Department of Ecology and Genetics; Limnology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
22 University of Southern California, USA
23 Aarhus University, Denmark
24 Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Germany
25 University of Ottawa, Canada
26 Tulane University, USA
27 Woodwell Climate Research Center, USA