Database of biokinetic parameters predicting Hg and MeHg bioaccumulation in fish and aquatic invertebrates

To investigate patterns of Hg accumulation across aquatic species, model parameter values were collected from the literature for three main parameters: uptake rate (ku), assimilation efficiency (AE), and efflux or elimination rate (ke). We created a database to summarize these parameter values for fish and aquatic invertebrates and looked for patterns across biotic (species, trophic level, phylogenetic association) and abiotic (salinity, temperature) variables that may explain the variability across these parameter values. By comparing parameter estimates to each other, comparisons of Hg and MeHg biokinetics can be compared across species, taxa, empirical setups, time scales, and environments.We conducted two reviews of the peer-reviewed literature pertaining to biokinetic parameters for mercury bioaccumulation. We started the first review in May 2020 and focused on fish (‘fish library’), while the second review was initiated in June 2021 and focused on invertebrates (‘aquatic invertebrate library’). We searched two online databases (Web of Science and Google Scholar) for the keywords “fish” (or “invertebrate”, respectively), “mercury”, “bioaccumulation”, “assimilation efficiency”, and “kinetics”.  We downloaded and read articles matching the search criteria and identified additional literature by carefully reviewing the articles and reference list of each article. Multiple researchers contributed to the compilation of literature, and we checked every database entry on two separate occasions to ensure consistency and accuracy. We included the following biokinetic parameters in the database: 1) uptake rate, ku (L g-1 d-1), 2) assimilation efficiency AE, (%), and 3) efflux rate ke (d-1). If these parameters were reported in different units, we expended all efforts to convert them using information in the article. If unit conversion was not possible, we did not include the parameter value in the database. We report all values on a wet weight basis because the majority of papers reported parameter values in terms of wet weight. For the few reporting values in dry weight, we converted either using data provided in the article or using supplemental studies found in the literature that define relationships between wet and dry weights of the focal organism. For fish, we identified parameter values as either measured in the filet (muscle only) or whole-body, while all invertebrate values were measured whole-body. The database contains 176 parameter values for aquatic invertebrates and 518 parameter values for fish from 84 publications; these values span 37 different species of bony fish and 34 different species of aquatic invertebrates. Please see our publication for more details and results of analysis of this database.