INTRODUCTIONMercury is an important safety issue in theenvironmental, medical, and social aspects. In fact,mercury-related issues are one of the most urgentcontemporary challenges. Mercury (Hg) and mercurycontainingcompounds are toxic substances that posedanger to all living organisms. According to preliminaryestimates, about 4700 tons of mercury is dischargedworldwide every year [1–3]. Mercury-related waterpollution is especially dangerous, since water-solubletoxic methylmercury [CH3Hg] accumulates in the fish asa result of activity of sediment microorganisms.Mercury affects land and water plants, animals,fungi, and microorganisms, which constantly interactwith each other in food chains, symbiosis, and etc. [4].Many studies recognize the essential role of terrestrialplants in the biogeochemical cycle of mercury [5–7].For instance, Leonard et al. tested five plant speciesfor absorption, distribution, and subsequent releaseof mercury into the atmosphere, namely Lepidiumlatifolium L., Artemisia douglasiana Bessin Hook,Caulanthus sp. Watson, Fragaria vesca L., andEucalyptus globulus Labill [8]. The research featuredvarious ecological and physiological profiles of plantsin a mercury-contaminated area. In the arid ecosystem,mercury emissions proved dominant in the mercurycycle, while plants functioned as channels for theinterphase transfer of mercury from the geosphere to theatmosphere.Asati et al. also examined the effect of heavy metals,including mercury, on plants and their metabolic activityin areas with high anthropogenic pressure [9]. Heavymetals appeared to have a severe toxic effect on plants,animals, and other local living organisms. JameerAhammad et al. claimed that even low concentrationsof mercury has a negative effect on plants, e.g. stuntedgrowth and many other adverse consequences [10].Copyright © 2021, Prosekov et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix,transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2E-ISSN 2310-9599ISSN 2308-4057325Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334High levels of mercury in soil demonstrated variousadverse effects on plant growth and metabolism, e.g.poor photosynthesis, transpiration, water absorption,chlorophyll synthesis, and high lipid peroxidation[11–15].In plants, a high content of mercury affects mostenzymes. Zhou et al. studied the global database forabout 35 000 measurements of mercury [16]. Theyexamined the distribution and absorption of mercuryin deciduous and coniferous ecosystems. The scientistsbelieve that an effective monitoring of the impactof vegetation on the global mercury cycle requires abetter parameterization of models and more consistentobservational data, while recording the exchange ofmercury in the entire ecosystem is especially important.Obrist et al. investigated the role of sedimentation inthe global cycle of mercury [17, 18]. The precipitation ofmercury compounds occurs all year round. However, itis much higher in summer because the metal is absorbedby vegetation. Absorption of gaseous mercury by thetundra increases its concentration in the soil. Theauthors predict an increase in the impact of mercuryon various ecosystems and human life, which requiresfurther multifaceted research.Ranieri et al. discovered that phytoextraction isan effective and affordable technological solutionfor the removal of metals, including mercury, fromcontaminated soil and water [19]. Jiskra et al. confirmedthe severe effect of mercury isotopes on mercuryabsorption by vegetation [20]. Greger et al. studiedsix plant species that translocate and release mercuryinto the air [21]. They used a transpiration chamberto monitor the absorption of mercury by the roots,its further distribution over the shoots, and the finalrelease through the shoots. The research featured gardenpeas, spring wheat, sugar beets, oilseed rape, whiteclover, and willow. All the plants were able to absorbsignificant amounts of mercury from its nutrient solution(200 μg/L). However, the translocation to the shoots wasrather low (0.17–2.5%).Juillerat et al. examined soil and ground litter in 15locations covered by northern deciduous trees or mixeddeciduous and coniferous forests [22]. Their researchobjective was to determine how mercury contentdepended on the tree species, forest type, and soilprofile. Twelve tree species from two sites demonstratedsignificant differences. The research proved that thepeculiarities of a particular territory are important formercury studies. The differences in the mercury poolsfrom ground litter correlated with the differences incarbon pools.These global issues are relevant for Russia and theKemerovo Region. Komov et al. studied the contentof mercury in soil, water sediments, and animals onthe banks of the Rybinsk Reservoir [23]. The recordedmercury concentrations varied by more than twoorders of magnitude. As for aquatic invertebrates,the concentration of metal appeared to be high inheterotopic species: larvae and adult insects had 0.85 mgof mercury per 1 kg of dry weight. However, homotopicspecies had a lower concentration of mercury, e.g. formollusks, it was 0.11 mg per 1 kg of wet weight. As forpredatory arachnids, aquatic and semi-aquatic speciesproved to have higher concentrations of mercury: forhydrocarina, it was ≤ 0.68, and for raft spiders, it was≤ 0.33 mg per 1 kg of dry weight. On the contrary,spiders that lived far from water sources revealed muchlower concentrations of mercury: crab spiders ≤ 0.07 mgper 1 kg of dry weight. Creatures that feed on vegetationor phytophagous animals also demonstrated lowermercury concentrations.Gremyachikh et al. studied the content of mercuryin the muscle tissue of river perch fished in differentareas of the Rybinsk Reservoir in 1997–2012 andregistered an increase in mercury concentration in recentdecades [24].Gorbunov et al. assessed the increase in mercury inthe tissues of fish caught in the Volga [25]. They focusedon how the accumulation of mercury in the muscletissues of perch, bream, and pike depended on the massof fish. The research registered a directly proportionaldependence for perch (correlation coefficient r = 0.881,p = 0.018) and an inversely proportional relationshipfor pike (r = –0.653, p = 0.029). For bream, no suchdependence was revealed.Komov et al. studied the content of mercury in fivespecies of amphibians and seven species of leeches [26].The average values for amphibians were 0.007–0.101, forleeches – 0.014–0.065 mg per 1 kg of wet weight. Theconcentration of mercury depended on the taxonomy,habitat, and tissue type. The experiment establishedsome consequences of the alimentary mercury intakeon several biological parameters, i.e. metamorphosisrate of toad larvae, behavior pattern of tadpoles of frogsand leeches, etc. The results delivered new data on themechanisms of migration and distribution of mercurycompounds in aquatic, near-water, and terrestrialecosystems.Golovanov et al. studied in vivo the effect ofaccumulated mercury on the maltase and amylolyticactivity of glycosidases in tadpoles of the common toad(Bufobufo L.) [27]. The research revealed changes inthe activity of glycosidases depending on the level ofaccumulated mercury and the timing. The activity ofthe glycosidases decreased, whereas the sensitivity ofstarch-hydrolyzing enzymes to heavy metal ions (Cu,Zn, Cd, and Pb) increased.The physicochemical properties of mercuryallow it to circulate, accumulate, and redistribute inenvironment, depending on the particular conditions ofaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Most of the mercuryis dispersed and creates a natural global geochemicalbackground, superimposed on man-induced mercurypollution, thus forming areas of antropogenic pollution.Until recently, the accumulation of mercury byhydrobionts attracted most scientific attention becauseaquatic environment is optimal for the formation of326Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334the most toxic organomercury compounds. Methylatedmercury compounds accumulate in living organismsmore intensively than inorganic ones and are slowly toexcrete. As a result, the transport of mercury along thefood chain is faster than in cases of direct absorption ofthe metal from the environment.The content of mercury in living organisms increasesat the tops of food webs and reaches maximal values inpredatory fish, fish-eating birds, and mammals.Terrestrial ecosystems attract less attention regardingthe issues of mercury accumulation and distribution.More research is needed to establish the accumulationpatterns of mercury compounds by living organismsin terrestrial ecosystems. The best way to establishthe patterns is to determine the level of mercuryaccumulation in organisms of different trophic groups.The present research objective was to study themercury accumulation and its effect on variouscomponents of terrestrial ecosystems near theBeloosipovo mercury deposit (Kemerovo region,Russia).STUDY OBJECTS AND METHODSThe research featured such components of theterrestrial ecosystem as soil, herbaceous plants,herpetobiont insects, and small mammals harvested inthe vicinity of the Beloosipovo mercury deposit in theKemerovo region, Russia (55.196730 N, 86.970065 E).The sampling involved standard methods. Regardlessof the wind pattern, all samples were taken at fourcardinal points (Fig. 1) at three radii:1) 0.5 km from pollution source;2) 1.5 km from the pollution source;3) 3 km from the pollution source.The sampling points:Point 0 (Сontrol) – N 55°10.920ꞌ, E 087º00.959ꞌPoint North 1 (N1) – N 55°11.180ꞌ, E 087°00.980ꞌPoint North 2 (N2) – N 55°11.798ꞌ, E 087°00.954ꞌPoint North 3 (N3) – N 55°12.561ꞌ, E 087°01.244ꞌPoint South 1 (S1) – N 55°10.654ꞌ, E 087°00.958ꞌPoint South 2 (S2) – N 55°10.189ꞌ, E 087°01.146ꞌPoint South 3 (S3) – N 55°09.654ꞌ, E 087°01.123ꞌPoint West 1 (W1) – N 55°10.915ꞌ, E 087°00.605ꞌPoint West 2 (W2) – N 55°10.918ꞌ, E 086°59.920ꞌPoint West 3 (W3) – N 55°10.940ꞌ, E 086°58.496ꞌPoint East 1 (E1) – N 55°10.866ꞌ, E 087°01.333ꞌPoint East 2 (E2) – N 55°10.939ꞌ, E 087°02.427ꞌPoint East 3 (E3) – N 55°10.876ꞌ, E 087°03.705ꞌThe territory of the Beloosipovo mine wasconsidered as the main source of pollution and markedas Point 0 (C).The control sampling was carried out at N 55°13.291ꞌ,E 086°35.294ꞌ. It was located more than 30 km awayfrom the Beloosipovo mercury deposit, which means ithad no effect whatsoever on the background indicators.The soil sampling followed State Standards R 56157-2014 and State Standards 17.4.3.01-2017 using theFigure 1 Sampling points and boundaries of mercury zones of the Beloosipovo depositLegend:0.72– sampling points;0.72– adit entrance;0.72– border of the Beloosipovo mercury deposit;0.72– border of the Pezass-Beloosipovo mercury ore-bearing zone.327Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334envelope method at a depth of 0–20 cm and 30–60 cm.The total sampling weight was ≥ 2 kg. The soil sampleswere put in separate plastic containers and labeled.The eight herb samples were taken in the same areasas the soil samples. The combined sample wet weightwas ≥ 2 kg (natural moisture). The plants were removedtogether with the rhizomes, which were thoroughlycleared of soil. The samples were placed in plastic bagsand labeled.Invertebrates are the main link by which mercuryfrom the environment enters the organisms ofvertebrates. Herpetobiont insects inhabit the soil surfaceand are widespread in terrestrial ecosystems. They playan important role in food and soil chains.The main group of herpetobiontic insects wasrepresented by four families of Coleoptera (ColeopteraL.): dung beetles (Geotrupidae L.), lamellar beetles(Scarabaeidae L.), ground beetles (Carabidae L.), andistafilinids (Staphylinidae L.)The herpetobiont insects were caught using Barber’straps. At one point, 50 traps with a volume of 0.3 l weredug in one line at a distance of 1 m from each other.The traps contained 5% acetic acid solution. The insectscollected at each point were packed into containers,labeled, and stored in an automobile refrigerator at –4°C.The small mammals were represented byinsectivores (Eulipotyphla L.) and rodents (Rodentia L.).They were caught using crushers. At each point,50 crushers were installed at a distance of 1 m fromeach other. The captured animals were placed in plasticcontainers, labeled, and stored in a car refrigerator.The species composition of the mammals:Byinsectivores (Eulipotyphla)Shrews (Soricidae L.):– Common shrew (Sorex araneus L.);– Even-toothed shrew (Sorex isodon L.);– Pygmy shrew (Sorex minutus L.);– Masked shrew (Sorex caecutiens L.);– Water shrew (Neomys fodiens L.).Rodents (Rodentia)Hamsters (Cricetidae L.):– Red-backed vole (Clethrionomys rutilus L);– Grey-sided vole (Clethrionomys rufocanus L.);– Bank vole (Clethrionomys glariolus L.);– Root vole (Microtu oeconomus L.);– Common field vole (Microtus agrestis L.).Mice (Muridae L.):– Field mouse (Apodemus agrarius L.);– Jerboa mouse (Dipodidae L.);– Birch mouse (Sicista betulina L.).The sampling of water in the Belaya Osipova riverwas carried out 0.5–1 km above the mouth (Fig. 2)in five replicates in 2018–2021. The samples werepoured into two-liter vessels and were delivered to thelaboratory within no more than 18 h from the moment ofwater intake.The concentration of mercury in soil, plants,herpetobiont insects, and small mammals was carriedout in an accredited laboratory of the KemerovoState University (Russia). The tests followed FederalEnvironmental standard PNDF 16.1:2:2.2.80-2013(М 03-09-2013) “Quantitative chemical analysis ofsoils. Methods for measuring the mass fraction of totalmercury in samples of soils and grounds, includinggreenhouses, clays, and bottom sediments, by the atomicabsorption method using a mercury analyzer RA-915M.”The samples were prepared using wet mineralizationand concentrated nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, andhydrogen peroxide. The samples were dried to obtainbiosubstrates in an EKPS-10 electric chamber furnaceat 520°C. The obtained white ash was used to determinethe content of mercury.The method for measuring the mass fractionof total mercury involved thermal decompositionaccompanied by the atomization of mercury. After that,the atomic mercury was transferred to the analyticalcell of the analyzer by air flow. The atomic absorptionFigure 2 Concentration of mercury in the soil (horizon – 0–20 cm) in the area of the Beloosipovo mercury deposit321E1230.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.83 2 1 S 1 2 30.1180.3380.450.2490.0730.132 0.1310.051 0.048 0.0550.440.720.2520.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.83 2 1 0.2490.0730.91.00.960.07328Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334of mercury was measured at a resonant wavelength of253.7 nm. The mass fraction of mercury in the samplewas automatically determined by the peak area value(analytical signal). The process was based on the presetcalibration characteristic using the software for theanalyzer (RAPID software). The calibration was carriedout using standard samples of a solution of mercury ions.It involved a calibration sample that contained mercuryadsorbed on activated carbon.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONAccording to the e-catalog of geological documentsfrom the Russian Federal Geological Fund, the mercurydeposit of 124 tons is located in the river basin of theBelaya Osipova. The ore-bearing mineral is cinnabar(HgS). Mineralization is extremely uneven, and areasof high concentration are replaced by barren ones. Thedeposit has a hydrothermal low-temperature origin andis confined to the zone of deep and echelon faults. Thestudy area has manifestations and mineralization points,as well as placer and geochemical aureoles of mercury.The deposit was developed in 1969–1975. A smallplant extracted mercury from ore by evaporation. Noexact information on the volume of mined mercury isavailable; according to unofficial data, it mined onlyseveral tens of tons.The area under study is covered by black forests ofSiberian fir (Abies sibirica Ledeb.), Aspen (Populustremula L.), birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh., Betulapendula Roth), and tall grasses, which can reach threemeters in height.The lush undergrowth is represented by suchshrubs as goat willow (Salix caprea L.), cranberry bush(Viburnum opulus L.), pea shrub (Caragana arborescensLam.), Siberian mountain ash (Sorbus sibirica Hedl.),and bird cherry (Padus avium Mill.). Some areas havescarce undergrowth.The most typical herbaceous plant species aremelancholy thistle (Cirsium heterophyllum (L.) Hill.),millet grass (Milium effusum L.), dissected hogweed(Heracleum dissectum Ledeb.), wild chervil (Anthriscussylvestris (L.) L.), Siberian cacalia (Crepis sibirica L.),northern wolfsbane (Aconitum septentrionale Koelle),black meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria (L.) Maxim.),Siberian globeflower (Trollius asiaticus L.), giant fescue(Festuca gigantea (L.) Vill.), etc.The area has a big population of large ferns, whichoften dominate the herbaceous cover: adderspit(Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn.), male shield fern(Dryopteris filix-mas (L.) Schott), female fern (Athyriumfilix femina (L.) Roth), and ostrich fern (Matteucciastruthiopteris (L.) Tod.).Nemoral tertiary relics are represented by alfredia(Alfredia cernua (L.) Cass.), giant fescue (F. gigantea(L.) Vill.), whitespot betony (Stachys sylvatica L.), maleshield fern (D. filix-mas (L.) Schott), sweet woodruff(Galium odoratum (L.) Scop.), and slender false brome(Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.) Beauv.).The area is dominated by forest phytocenoses,mostly tall-grass forests with a forest stand of birches,aspens, and firs (2Os3B5P): drooping birch (B. pendulaRoth.), Siberian fir (A. sibirica Ledeb.), aspen (Populustremula L.), and Siberian spruce (Picea obovataLedeb.). Siberian fir and silver birch have a good seedreproduction; as a result, the forest canopy is rich in firundergrowth, while the open areas demonstrate a thickpopulation of young birches. The average diameter of thebirch is ≤ 40 cm, the average height is 25 m. The averagediameter of the fir is ≤ 30–40 cm, the height is 28–30 m.The average diameter of the aspen is 40–50 cm, theheight is about 30 m, and the crown density can reach0.7–0.8.The composition of the forest stand differs in theratio of fir, aspen, and birch: birch-fir-aspen, fir-aspen,or aspen-fir with a few birches, while some areas areentirely fir or birch forests. Some areas have a richundergrowth: goat willow (S. caprea L.), cranberrybush (V. opulus L.), pea shrub (C. arborescens Lam.),red raspberry (Rubusidaeus L.), Siberian mountain ash(S. sibirica Hedl.), downy currant (Ribes spicatumRobson.), black currant (Ribes nigrum L.), and birdcherry (Padusavium Mill.).In the open and birch-dominated areas, raspberriesgrow in lush thickets. Some forest parts have a steeplyslopingterrain with areas of higher moisture, wherewillow thickets proliferate. Willow patches and firoraspen-predominated areas also host vines, usuallyrepresented by wild hop (Humulus lupulus L.).The grass stand is represented by tall grasses.The projective cover is over 85%. The maximalheight of the grass standcan reach 3.5 m in cases ofalfredia or hogweed, while the average height is 1.5 m.The list of tall grasses includes: melancholy thistle(C. heterophyllum (L.) Hill.), millet grass (M. effusumL.), northern wolfsbane (A. septentrionale Koelle),dissected hogweed (H. dissectum Ledeb.), meadow rue(Thalictrum minus L.), golden thoroughwax (Bupleurumaureum Fisch. ex Hoffm.), great nettle (Urtica dioica L.)wild chervil (A. sylvestris (L.) Hoffm.), meadowsweet(F. ulmaria (L.) Maxim.), cacalia (Cacalia hastata L.),and Siberian hawk’s beard (C. sibirica L.). In someplaces, especially those dominated by fir trees, thethickets are formed almost entirely by nettle, infested bydodder (Cuscuta sp.).Other perennial herbs also play a significantrole in the composition of the phytocenosis: alfredia(A. cernua (L.) Cass.), four-leaved Paris herb (Parisquadrifolia L.), wood geranium (Geranium sylvaticum L.),Dahurian chickweed (Cerastium davuricum Fisch. exSpreng.), Bunge chickweed (Stellaria bungeana Fenzl.),wood sorrel (Oxalisa cetosella L.), Siberian globeflower(T. asiaticus L.), wild leek (Allium microdictyon Prokh.),lungwort (Pulmonaria mollis Wulf. ex Hornem), spurge(Euphorbia pillosa L.), touch-me-not (Impatiens nolitangereL.), Urals peony (Paeonia anomala L.), northernbedstraw (Galium boreale L.), sedge (Carex macrouraMeins.), Greek-valerian polemonium (Polemonium329Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334caeruleum L.), violet (Violauni flora L.), whitespotbetony (S. sylvatica L .), a nd s nakeflower ( Lamiumalbum L.).Ferns make up part of some grass stand areas:female fern (Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth), adderspit(P. aquilinum (L.) Kuhn.), ostrich fern (Matteucciastruthiopteris (L.) Tod.), and male shield fern (D. filixmas(L.) Schott). Adderspit and ostrich grow in thickets.The herbaceous layer also includes species from thespring synusia, which have completed their growingseason (Corydalis, Anemone s. L., etc.), includingSiberian trout lily (Erythronium sibiricum (Fisch. etC. A. Mey) Kryl.). This flower is endemic to the Altai-Sayan ecoregion and is protected by the federal andregional law.Herb-dominated patches appear in some openspaces, depending on the moisture and some otherfactors. They form tall-grass-grassland patches, grassmeadows, and motley grass-grasses associations.The tall-grass-grassland meadows consist of thesame species as the herb layer in the forest: melancholythistle (C. heterophyllum (L.) Hill.), northern wolfsbane(A. septentrionale Koelle), dissected hogweed (H. dissectumLedeb.), meadow rue (T. minus L.), goldenthoroughwax (Bupleurum aureum Fisch. hastata L.),wild chervil (C. sibirica L.), wild leek (A. microdictyonProkh.), soft lungwort (P. mollis Wulf. ex Hornem),spurge (E. pillosa L.), etc.The grass meadows and motley grass-grassesassociations develop on sunlit and warm areas, e.g.forest edges. Some species grow both in the forestand in the open, e.g. meadow rue (T. minus L.), goldenthoroughwax (B. aureum Fisch. ex Hoffm.), wild chervil(Anthris cussylvestris (L.) Hoffm.), meadowsweet(F. ulmaria (L.) Maxim.), cock’s-foot (Dactylisglomerata L.), bluegrass (Poa sp.), timothy grass(Phleum pratense L.), common tansy (Tanacetumvulgare L.), lousewort (Pedicularis incarnata L.),bladder campion (Oberna behen (L.) Ikonn.), etc. Morehumid areas are home to other kinds of bluegrass(Poa remota Forsell.), water forget-me-not (Myosotispalustris (L.), white hellebore (Veratrum lobelianumBernh.), Siberian globeflower (T. asiaticus L.), buttercup(Ranunculus sp.), marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza sp.),wood bulrush (Scirpus sylvaticus L.), clump speedwell(Veronica longifolia L.), groundsel (Senecio sp.), etc.Many meadows are gradually overgrowing withwillow and birch. Willow thickets predominate in thefloodplain of the river and represented by goat willow(S. caprea L.), woollytwig willow (Salix dasycladosWimm.), basket willow (Salixvim inalis L.), almondleavedwillow (Salix triandra L.), etc. The list of herbsthat proliferate in the willow patches includes fireweed(Chamerion angustifolium (L.) Holub), wood horsetail(Equisetumsyl viaticum L.), common loosestrife (Lysimachiavulgaris L.), sedge (Carex sp.), etc.In addition to willow thickets, floodplain meadowsare also widespread along the river banks, where graingrass prevails, e.g. smallweed (Calamagrostis sp.),cock’s-foot, timothy grass, etc. The floodplain areas alsoinclude white hellebore (V. lobelianum Bernh.), sorrel(Rumex sp.), marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza sp.), wood reed(S. sylvaticus L.), clump speedwell (V. longifolia L.),ragged robin (Coccyganthe flos-cuculi (L.), dissectedhogweed (H. dissectum Ledeb.), marsh cress(Rorippapalustris (L.) Bess.), lousewort (Scrophulariasp.), scouring horsetail (Equisetum hiemale L.), sedge(Carex sp.), common loosestrife (L. achiavulgaris L.)angelica (Archangelica decurrens Ledeb.), and coltsfoot(Tussilago farfara L.). Angelica grows in lush thickets.Birch and bird cherry also grow on the floodplainmeadows.In shallow water, there are thickets of butterbur(Petasites radiatus (J.F. Gmel.) J. Toman) and rushflower (Butomusum bellatus L.).Figure 3 Concentration of mercury in the soil (horizon – 0–20 cm) in the area of the Beloosipovo mercury deposit321E12330.051 0.048 0.0550.252321E1230.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.83 2 1 S 1 2 30.1180.3380.450.2490.0730.132 0.1310.051 0.048 0.0550.440.720.2520.060.070.064330Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334Figure 4 Concentration of mercury in soil (horizon – 30–60 cm) in the area of the Beloosipovo depositFigure 5 Concentration of mercury in plants in the area of the Beloosipovo depositFigure 6 Concentration of mercury in herpetobiont insects in the area of the Beloosipovo deposit321E12330.051 0.048 0.0550.252321E1230.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.83 2 1 S 1 2 30.1180.3380.450.2490.0730.132 0.1310.051 0.048 0.0550.440.720.252321E12330.0410.3170.2410.319321E1230.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.073 2 1 S 1 2 30.00530.00530.00540.0061 0.0058 0.0060.00520.00590.0058 0.00550.00780.0640.0052321E0.00.13 2 1 S 1 2 30.00.13 2 1 321E1230.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.03 2 1 S 1 2 30.098 0.0770.2910.0890.058 0.0700.50.0410.3170.2410.00920.960.3190.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.073 2 1 0.00530.0061 0.0058 321E1230.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.073 2 1 S 1 2 30.00730.00880.00560.0059 0.00750.00520.00620.0080.0055 0.00740.00710.0630.00650.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.103 2 1 S 0.0055 0.0058 0.0064 0.0070.060.05600.00070.00070.0008331Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334Figure 7 Concentration of mercury in rodents in the area of the Beloosipovo depositTherefore, the study area boasts a significantbiological diversity. In addition, it is home to a speciesprotected at the federal and regional levels, namelySiberian trout lily (E. sibiricum (Fisch. Et C. A. Mey)Kryl.) and several nemoral tertiary relics, such asalfredia (A. cernua (L.) Cass.), giant fescue (F. gigantea(L.) Vill.), whitespot betony (S. sylvatica L.), male shieldfern (D. filix-mas (L.) Schott), and slender false brome(B. sylvaticum (Huds.) Beauv.). No invasive species wereregistered.Fig. 3–8 demonstrate the mercury concentrationin soil, plants, insects, and small mammals near theBeloosipovo mercury deposit and in the control zone.The highest concentration of mercury was observed atpoint North 2 (N 2), which was located at 1.5 km northof the deposit: in soil – 0.72 mg/kg and 0.96 mg/kg,in plants – 0.064 mg/kg, in insects – 0.063 mg/kg,in rodents – 0.091 mg/kg, and in insectivores –0.056 mg/kg.According to regulatory documents, the maximalpermissible concentration of mercury in soil is 2.1 mg/kg. As the maximal value in the soil samples was 0.96mg/kg, it means that no dangerous concentrationof mercury was detected. However, the e-catalogof geological documents specifies the averageconcentration of mercury in the soils of the KemerovoRegion at the level 0.16–0.22 mg/kg [28]. Thus,the concentrations of mercury in the soil near theBeloosipovo mercury deposit proved to be by 3–4 timeshigher than the average values, despite the fact that themine was closed more than 40 years ago.The high concentration of mercury in the samplestaken the north was presumably related to the terrainpeculiarities: the altitude decreases from north to south,321E1232 30.00560.0080.0055 0.00740.0630.0065321E1230.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.103 2 1 S 1 2 30.00530.0055 0.00530.0058 0.0064 0.0070.0057 0.00560.0056 0.00590.02200.09100.0063321E1232 30.0080.00620.0070 0.00580.05600.00540.00070.000560.000680.000610.000740.00000.00010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.0008dec 2018 may 2019 july 2019 oct 2020 jen 2021Test result (mass fraction), mg/lFigure 8 Concentration of mercury in insectivores in the area of the Beloosipovo deposit321E1230.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.073 2 1 S 1 2 30.00730.00880.00560.0059 0.00750.00520.00620.0080.0055 0.00740.00710.0630.00650.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.103 2 1 S 0.0055 0.0058 0.0064 0.007321E1230.000.010.020.030.040.050.063 2 1 S 1 2 30.00570.00850.0080.0090 0.0081 0.00920.0060.00620.0070 0.00580.01700.05600.00540.00070.000560.00000.00010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.0008dec 2018 may 2019 Test result (mass fraction), mg/l332Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334dropping from 407 to 214 m. Points North 2 (N 2) andNorth 3 (N3) were located directly in the deposit zone,while point North 1 (N 1) was on the borderline.As for the control point, the concentration ofmercury in all components of the ecosystem was muchlower than in the area under analysis: in soil and smallmammals, it was lower by 1–3 orders of magnitude; inplants and herpetobiontic insects – by 2–4 times.While the soil samples demonstrated a permissibleconcentration of mercury, the samples from the BelayaOsipova river exceeded the permissible value (Fig. 9).The maximal permissible concentration of mercury forwater bodies is 0.0005 mg/L. In the Belaya Osipova(2018–2021), the concentration exceeded the permissiblevalue by 5–20% and reached 0.00056–0.00074 mg/L.The high content of mercury in the Belaya Osipovamay be associated with the Beloosipovo mercurydeposit: mercury compounds might be washed out bygroundwater and surface spring floods. Further studiesrequire additional tests of the water biocenosis, whichwill be one of the tasks of subsequent research.The concentration of heavy metals is believed toincrease up the food chains. To test this presumption,we compared the concentration of mercury in the foodchains at points North 2 (N 2) and North 3 (N3) withthe highest mercury concentration in the soil. However,it was the soil samples that demonstrated the highestconcentration of mercury, and further up the foodchains its concentration dropped by one or two orders ofmagnitude, depending on the collection point (Fig. 10).The greatest drop was observed at North 2, where theconcentration of mercury in the soil was the highest:from 0.72 to 0.022 mg/kg in the soil – plants – micechain and from 0.72 to 0.017 mg/kg in the soil – plants –insects – shrews chain.CONCLUSIONThe mercury concentration in the soil near theBeloosipovo mercury deposit did not exceed themaximal permissible concentrations. The maximalmercury concentration in the soil was 0.96 mg/kgwhile the permissible value is 2.1 mg/kg. In the controlzone, the research registered a decrease in the mercuryconcentration by 1–3 orders of magnitude for individualcomponents of the terrestrial ecosystem, namely soiland small mammals. However, the water samples fromthe Belaya Osipova exceeded the maximal permissibleFigure 9 Concentration of mercury in the Belaya Osipova riverFigure 10 Changes in the concentration of mercury along the food chains2 33 2 1 S 1 2 3321E1232 30.00850.0080.00620.0070 0.00580.05600.00540.00070.000560.000680.000610.000740.00000.00010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.0008dec 2018 may 2019 july 2019 oct 2020 jen 2021Test result (mass fraction), mg/l0.00.20.40.60.8North 2North 30.720.2520.0640.022 0.00520.0063Mercury concentration, mg/kgSoil Plants Mice0.00.20.40.60.8North 20.720.064 0.2520.00520.0630.00650.0170.0054Mercury concentration, mg/kgSoil PlantsNorth 3Insects Shrews0.00.20.40.60.8North 2North 30.720.2520.0640.022 0.00520.0063Mercury concentration, mg/kgSoil Plants Mice0.00.20.40.60.8North 20.720.064 0.2520.00520.0630.00650.0170.0054Mercury concentration, mg/kgSoil PlantsNorth 3Insects Shrews333Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334concentration by 5–20% in 2018–2021, which meansthat mercury compounds may go with groundwater andsurface spring floods.The detected mercury concentrations proved toproduce no negative effect on the ecosystem, whichwas confirmed by the rich biological diversity. Thearea is home to the critically endangered species ofSiberian trout lily (Erythronium sibiricum (Fisch. etC.A. Mey) Kryl.) and several nemoral tertiary relics,such as alfredia (Alfredia cernua (L.) Cass.), giant fescue(Festuca gigantea ( L.) Vill.), w hitespot b etony (Stachyssylvatica L.), male shield fern (Dryopteris filix-mas (L.)Schott), and slender false brome (Brachypodiumsylvaticum (Huds.) Beauv.). The research revealed noinvasive species.The mercury content decreased up the food chains,which means that the Beloosipovo mercury deposit hasno negative impact on the local ecosystems.The present article is the first part of a series ofrelated publications. Further publications will featurethe impact of technogenic centers on the local ecosystemand its individual representatives.CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe authors declare no conflict of interests regardingthe publication of this article.