ECOLOGICAL ROLES OF MERCURY ACCUMULATION IN MANGROVE FORESTS OF SEKOTONG, WEST NUSA TENGGARA, INDONESIA

ARTICLE HIGLIGHTS
- Examines mercury accumulation in leaves and roots of nine mangrove species near gold mines
- Shows mangroves can stabilize, extract, and accumulate mercury
- Evaluates translocation, bioaccumulation, and phytoremediation potential
- Identifies mangroves as indicators of mercury contamination
- Supports selecting suitable mangrove species for reforestation of contaminated coasts

ABSTRACT
This study aims to determine the ability to analyze the accumulation of mercury heavy metals in mangrove organs (leaves and roots) and sediments in potentially polluted areas of the coastal mangrove ecosystem of Sekotong, West Lombok Regency, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. This research was conducted on mangrove ecosystems adjacent to conventional gold processing areas. Mercury content analysis was carried out on nine types of mangroves found (Avicennia marina, Bruguiera cylindrica, Clerodendrom inerme, Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora stylosa, Scyphiphora hydrophyllaceae, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, and Lumnitzera racemosa) including leaves, mangrove roots and sediments found under the stands of each type. Sample testing using the AAS (Atomic Absorbtion Spectrophotometer) method. The results showed that the content of mercury heavy metals in the lower substrate of each type of mangrove showed an average of 0.30±0.122 ppm, which was on average lower than the average accumulation of mercury in leaves (0.48±0.716 ppm) and roots (0.33±0.204 ppm). Further analysis showed that four mangroves had the ability to phytostabilize against mercury heavy metals with an average value of TSFs of more than one (Bruguiera gymnorrihza, Clerodendrom inerma, Lumnitzera racemosa, Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea), and five others as phytoextractors (Avicennia marina, Bruguiera cylindrica, Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora apiculata, and Rhizophora stylosa) with the value of TSFs>1. The interval of leaf BAFs was between 0.02-15.73 with an average of 2.65±4.961 leaf BAFs and root BAFs between 0.04-4.33 with an average of 1.45±1.280 while the FTD value of Sekotong mangrove leaves at the interval (-0.48)-8.12 with an average of 1.10±2.275 and the root FTD at the interval (-5.55)-3.87 with an average of -0.10±2.449. Root FTD values showing a negative mean value (-0.10±2.449) indicate that the distribution of mercury tends to be higher in the upper part of the plant (leaves).

INTRODUCTION

Heavy metal pollution is a significant global challenge due to its adverse effects on organisms and ecosystems (Briffa et al., 2020); (Heavy metal contamination in the aquatic ecosystem: Toxicity and its remediation using eco-friendly approaches, 2023); (Piwowarska et al., 2024). Anthropogenic activities such as mining, metal smelting, industrial processes (e.g., coal, oil, chemical, fertilizer, and pesticide industries), and port operations, are major sources of heavy metals in coastal environments (Shah, 2021); (Zhang et al., 2022); (Daripa et al., 2023).

Illegal gold mining that does not comply with environmentally sound principles poses serious risks to human health and causes environmental pollution (Essah, 2022);(Achina-Obeng & Aram, 2022);(Meutia et al., 2023);(Haroon & Hayyat, 2025). In Indonesia, one such activity occurs in Sekotong, West Lombok Regency, West Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia, where illegal mining and conventional gold processing are widespread. During gold ore separation, local mining communities continue to use mercury as the primary agent in conventional processing methods (Wongsasuluk et al., 2021);(Donkor et al., 2024).

Evidence on mercury contamination is further supported by (Ahyadi et al., 2022), who reported 721 gold mining sites and 2,645 processing units, with estimated mercury and cyanide usage of 1,001.6 kg/month and 2,368.8 kg/month, respectively. Numerous studies have demonstrated the capacity of mangroves to accumulate mercury (Hg). (Ismail et al., 2020) and (Kahula et al., 2024) reported significant mercury uptake in the roots and leaves of Rhizophora mucronata, whereas (MohF & RTA, 2021) detected mercury accumulation in mangrove roots and the gastropod Telescopium telescopium in North Halmahera. Similar findings were also reported by (Ichwani et al., 2025) in Semarang and (Setiawan, 2013) in South Sulawesi, indicating widespread heavy metal bioconcentration in mangrove ecosystems across Indonesian coastal regions. This situation is particularly concerning because mercury is often regarded as a common material and its waste is frequently discharged into coastal areas and marine environments (Githiria & Onifade, 2020); (Diarra & Prasad, 2021); (Engaging one health in heavy metal pollution in some selected Nigerian Niger Delta Cities. A systematic review of pervasiveness, 2024).

Coastal and marine environments are highly vulnerable to pollution because contaminants disperse more rapidly in aquatic systems than in terrestrial systems (Bashir et al., 2020);(Kye et al., 2023). This risk is amplified when mercury accumulates in marine organisms, including fish (Yang et al., 2021), molluscs (Pan & Han, 2023), shellfish (Lee et al., 2022);(Lee et al., 2022), crabs (Saadati et al., 2020). Conventional gold mining and processing activities in the Sekotong area, West Lombok Regency, Indonesia further degrade environmental quality because processing waste is directly discharged into surrounding areas adjacent to coastal and marine ecosystems. These waters are also critical to the livelihood of local fishing communities.

This situation is compounded by the limited availability of recent studies adressing mercury accumulation in biota from Sekotong, West Lombok, particularly in areas close to conventional gold-processing waste disposal site. Specifically, information on mercury accumulation among different mangrove species remains scarce.

Mangrove species have great adaptability in coastal areas. As an aquatic plant, mangroves are often referred to as aquatic bioindicators because of their ability to accumulate pollutants, including heavy metals, in polluted aquatic environments (Interactions of soil metals with glomalin-related soil protein as soil pollution bioindicators in mangrove wetland ecosystems, 2020);(Aljahdali & Alhassan, 2020);(Rajaram et al., 2020); (Chowdhury et al., 2021); (Martínez-Colón et al., 2021); (Heavy metal accumulation and phytoremediation potentiality of some selected mangrove species from the World’s largest mangrove forest, 2022);(Huang et al., 2024). Mangrove species can accumulate mercury and store them in mangrove organs and sediments through processes such as rhizodegradation (Hao et al., 2012);(Phytoextraction as a tool for green chemistry, 2014);(Maylani et al., 2020);(Nedjimi, 2021), phytostabilization (Luthansa et al., 2021); (Uddin & Huang, 2023);(Chakraborty, 2024), and phytoextraction (Phytoextraction potential of Rhizophora apiculata: A case study in Matang mangrove forest reserve, 2020);(Depth-related dynamics of physicochemical characteristics and heavy metal accumulation in mangrove sediment and plant: Acanthus ilicifolius as a potential phytoextractor, 2021);(Wu et al., 2022).

Several research on conventional gold-processing in Sekotong still focused on the topic of blue carbon mangrove ecosystems (Candri et al., 2020), spatial analysis of mangrove ecosystems (Sukuryadi et al., 2025), and mangrove ecotourism (Hadiprayitno et al., 2023). On the other hand, topic on mercury accumulation in mangrove vegetation in coastal areas is limited.

Each mangrove species has different abilities in accumulating mercury, therefore, it is very important to assess the ability of each mangrove species that grows adjacent to gold-processing areas. Information generated from such assessment may be used to develop recommendations for future mangrove restoration that have ecological advantagese (Wang et al., 2021);(Zhou et al., 2021); (Mahdavian, 2023). This study aimed at assessing mercury accumulation in the organs (leaves and roots) and sediments of several mangrove species located in potentially polluted areas in Sekotong, West Lombok Regency, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Time and Location

Geographically, the Sekotong mangrove ecosystem is located in West Lombok Regency, West Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia Figure. 1. The research was carried out in May – July 2025 in an area of ± 36 ha mangrove ecosystem located in the Central Sekotong ecotourism area, namely the Tanjung Batu and Bagek Kembar mangrove ecosystems, adjacent to conventional gold ore mining and processing.

Figure 1.Study location in mangroves ecosystem in Sekotong, West Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia

Study Design

This study used a global positioning system (GPS), pH meter, hand refractometer, analytical balance, oven, sample bottles, digital thermometer, and spectrophotometer (Perkin Elmer Spectrophotometer). The materials used inclused mangrove leaves, mangrove roots, water, substrate, HClO4, and HNO3. The research began with the identification of mangrove species using mangrove identification guide by (Noor et al., 2006), followed by measurement s of physicochemical water parameters, including water temperature, substrate temperature, substrate pH, water salinity, and water pH. Environmental parameter measurements were conducted repeatedly over a three-month period (May – July 2025).

Leaf, root, and substrate samples were collected using a purposive random sampling method. Leaf and root samples were obtained from trees with stem diameters of 5 – 30 cm or stem circumferences of 15 – 95 cm. Sampling was conducted three times for nine mangrove species at different locations and tree stands within the study area. Repeated sampling of each organ and species was performed to improve data robustness and minimize analytical bias. Substrate samples were collected at the base of the same trees from which leaf and root samples were obtained.

Mercury concentrations in leaf, root, and substrate samples were determined using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Laboratory analyses were conducted at the Agricultural Instrument Standardization Agency, which complies with SNI ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and is accredited by the National Accreditation Committee (certificate number LP-394-IDN) for chemical analysis of soil and plant tissues.

Sample Extraction and Mercury Analysis

Approximately 2.5 g of plant samples (leaves and roots) and mangrove soil with particles sizes < 0.5 mm were weighed and placed into digestion tubes. Each sample was treated with 5 mL of concentrated HNO3 and allowed to stand for 24 hours. The samples were then heated at 100 oC for 1 hour 30 minutes, cooled and supplemented with an additional 5 mL of HNO3 and 1 mL of HClO4. The mixture was heated to 130 °C for 1 hour, followed by heating at 150 °C for 2 hours and 30 minutes until yellow fumes disappeared; heating time was extended if yellow fumes persisted. Afterwards, the temperature was increased from 113 °C to 170 °C for 1 hour, followed by another temperature increase to 200 °C for 1hour until white fume appeared. The extraction process was considered complete when a white residue formed or approximately 1 mL of clear solution remained.

After cooling, the extract was diluted with deionized water to a final volume of 25 mL, shaken thoroughly until homogeneous, and allowed to stand overnight (Petunjuk Teknis: Analisis Kimia Tanah, 2009); (Horwitz, 2010); (Lisle et al., 1991); (Agriculture, 2004). Clear extracts were analyzed for mercury using atomic absorption spectrophotomery equipped with a vapor generation system at a wavelength of 253.7 nm using a mercury standard series for calibration. The carrier gas, SnCl2 rexative, diluted H2SO4 solution, and standards or samples were introduced into the generator through separate inlet lines. Mercury concentrations in the extracts were calculated using the atomic absorption spectrophotometric method according to the following formula:

Hg heavy = ppb curve x mL extract metal content 1,000/mL x 1,000 g/sample (ppm) x fp x fk(ppm)

= ppb curve x 25 mL/1,000 x 1,000/2.5 g/sample x fp xfk = ppb curve x 10 x fp x fk

where:

ppb = The sample rate derived from the regression curve represents the connection between the standard

series rate and its value after subtracting the blank readings.

1,000 = Conversion faktor to ppm (mg/kg)

fp = Dilution factor.

fk = Water content coreection factor (100/100-% moisture contect))

Data Analysis

Further calculations were performed using data from laboratory analysis on each leaf, root and substrate sample to determine Translocation Factor (TSF), Biological Accumamulation Factor (BAF) and Phytoremediation (FTD) values, as indicators to evaluate the capacity of each mangrove species to remediate heavy metals in Sekotong Tengah(Mellem et al., 2012);(Supriyantini et al., 2017); (Rachmawati et al., 2018); (Manikasari & Mahayani, 2019), using the following formulas:

(a) Translocation factors (TSF)

TSF = Mercury heavy metal in leaves / Mercury heavy metal in root (1)

Category:

TSF value < 1: phytostabilization

TFS value > 1: phytoextraction

(b) Bioaccumulation Factors (BAF)

Leaf BAF = Hg heavy metal in leaves / Hg heavy metal in substrates (2)

Root BAF = Hg heavy metal in root / Hg heavy metal in substrates (3)

Category:

BAF > 1 : Accumulator BAF = 1 : Indicator BAF < 1 : Excluded

(c) Phytoremediation (FTD)

Leaf FTD = BAF of leaf - TSF

Root FTD = BAF of root - TSF

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Species of Mangroves

Mangrove species diversity show an important ecological role in maintaining the balance of coastal ecosystems. Based on the identification results, nine mangrove species were observed consisting of seven genera from six families. The Rhizophoraceae family is the most dominant with three genera and five species, namely Bruguiera ppb curve = The sample rate derived from the regression curve represents the connection between the standard series rate and its value after subtracting the blank readings. cylindrica, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mucronata, and Rhizophora stylosaTable 1. Species of the genus Rhizophora are known to have a strong root support system which function is to resist abrasion and maintain the stability of 1,000 = Conversion factor to ppm (mg/kg) fp = Dilution factor fk = Water content correction factor (100/(100 – % moisture content))

the coastline (Cahyaningsih et al., 2022);(Usman et al., 2022). Avicennia marina of the Acanthaceae family has a special adaptation in the form of pneumatophores, which facilitates gas exchange on anaerobic substrates (Hao et al., 2021). Other species such as Lumnitzera racemosa and Clerodendrum inert also shows adaptive role in high salinity conditions (Physiological measurements and transcriptome survey reveal how semi-mangrove Clerodendrum inerme tolerates saline adversity, 2022).

Table 1.Mangrove species observed in Sekotong mangrove ecosystems

No	Family	Genus	Species
1.	Acantaceae	Avicennia	Avicennia marina
2.	Rhizophoraceae	Bruggeria	Bruguiera cylindrica Bruguiera gymnorrhiza
3.	Lamiaceae	Cleroderma	Clerodendrma inerma
4.	Cambreta	Lumnitzera	Lumnitzera racemosa
5.	Rhizophoraceae	Rhizophora	Rhizophora apiculata Rhizophora mucronata Rhizophora stylosa
6.	Rubiaceae	Scyphiphora	Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea

The diversity of mangrove species in Sekotong mangrove ecosystem is lower compared to other polluted areas. For example, the Pattani Bay mangrove ecosystem of Thailand hosts 18 species (Kaewtubtim, 2016) and the Lembar Bay ecosystem contains 10 species, despite being affected by basin activities (Rahman et al., 2025). Other regions show similarly low diversity, such as the mangrove ecosystem in the Coral Triangle Ecoregion, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia has seven species (Analuddin et al., 2017), the Segara Anakan Cilacap, Indonesia has five species (Hilmi et al., 2023), Sitio Oyon and Sitio Asinan in Masinloc, Zambales, Philippines have three species (Paz-Alberto et al., 2014), and the north coast of Puerto Rico also have three species (Maldonado-Román et al., 2012).

Analysis of Physicochemical Parameters

Environmental parameters in the Sekotong Tengah mangrove ecosystem show considerable variations in physicochemical conditions across sampling points. Water temperature ranged from 31.70 °C to 33.50 °C, with an average of 32.69 ± 0.79 °C, remaining within the tolerance range for mangrove organisms. Salinity was relatively stable (31.00 - 31.50 ppt; 31.25 ± 0.29 ppt), reflecting an estuarine environment that supports typical tropical mangrove species. Water pH was alkaline (8.04 - 8.56), while soil pH was more acidic (5.75 - 6.70), a common feature of mangrove substrates resulting from organic matter accumulation and decomposition. Dissolved oxygen (DO) fluctuated widely (4.81 - 8.90 ppm; 6.87 ± 2.30 ppm), reflecting variations in photosynthetic activity and organic matter degradation. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) also varied (3.32 - 8.87 ppm), indicating differences in microbial activity and organic matter load among sites.

The physicochemical conditions of the Sekotong mangrove waters are suitable for mangrove growth and development, according to Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 22 year 2021 on the Implementation of Environmental Protection and Management with National Water Quality Standard Specifications. Previous studies reported that water physicochemistry can influence mangrove physiology, affecting nutrient absorption and limiting the uptake of heavy metals accumulated in the substrate and water column (Tang et al., 2010); (Kumar et al., 2015); (Liu et al., 2016).

Table 2.Environmental parameters observed in Central Sekotong mangrove ecosystems

No.	Parameters Unit	Unit	Sampling point				Average ± standard deviation	Quality standards*
			1	2	3	4
1	Water temperature	°C	33.10	33.50	32.45	31.70	32.69 ± 0.79	28.00 – 31.00 °C
2	Salinity	ppt	31.00	31.00	31.50	31.50	31.25 ± 0.29	Max: 34 ppt
3	Water pH	-	8.13	8.56	8.11	8.04	8.21 ± 0.24	7.00 – 8.50
4	Soil pH	-	5.75	6.35	6.70	6.40	6.30 ± 0.40	7.00 – 8.50
5	DO	ppm	4.93	4.81	8.82	8.90	6.87 ± 2.30	> 5.00 mg/L
6	BOD	ppm	3.32	3.32	8.87	8.62	6.03 ± 3.13	Max: 20 mg/L

Hg Heavy Metal Content in Mangrove Sediments, Roots, and Leaves

Mercury (Hg) concentrations in the leaves of nine mangrove species varied significantly, ranging from 0.01 to 2.36 ppm, with an average of 0.48 ± 0.716 ppm Table 3. The highest concentration was observed in Bruguiera cylindrica leaves (2.36 ppm), while the lowest was recorded in Bruguiera gymnorrhiza leaves (0.01 ppm), both species belonging to the Rhizophoraceae family. This wide range suggests generally low leaf absorption efficiency for mercury. Other species, such as Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea (0.38 ppm), Avicennia marina (0.37 ppm), and Clerodendrum inerme (0.36 ppm) exhibited mercury levels above 0.35 ppm, indicating relatively efficient metal translocation from roots to leaves. In contrast, Rhizophora mucronata (0.23 ppm), Rhizophora stylosa (0.21 ppm), and Lumnitzera racemosa (0.08 ppm) showed lower leaf accumulation, suggesting preferential retention of mercury in the roots.

Table 3.Mercury accumulation in leaves, roots, and substrates of nine mangrove species

No.	Mangrove species	Mercury consentration(ppm)		Mercury concentration in substrates (ppm)	SNI 7387:2009	Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 22 year 2021
		Leaf	Roots
1	Avicennia marina	0.37	0.36	0.16	0.50	0.01
2	Bruguiera cylindrica	2.36	0.31	0.15
3	Bruguiera gymnorrhiza	0.01	0.02	0.46
4	Clerodendrma inerma	0.36	0.78	0.18
5	Lumnitzera racemosa	0.08	0.35	0.43
6	Rhizophora apiculata	0.35	0.32	0.43
7	Rhizophora mucronata	0.23	0.22	0.28
8	Rhizophora stylosa	0.21	0.21	0.25
9	Scyphiphora	0.38	0.39	0.33
	Average	0.48	0.33	0.30
	Standard deviations	0.716	0.204	0.122

Mercury accumulation in the roots of nine mangrove species ranged from 0.02 to 0.78 ppm, with an average of 0.33 ± 0.204 ppm. The highest concentration was observed in Clerodendrom inerma (0.78 ppm) and lowest in Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (0.02 ppm). In five species (Avicennia marina, Bruguiera cylindrica, Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mucronata, and Rhizophora stylosa), root mercury concentrations were lower than those in the leaves, whereas in four species (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Clerodendrom inerma, Lumnitzera racemosa, and Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea), root accumulation exceeded leaf levels. Higher mercury accumulation in roots indicates the capacity of mangroves to adsorb and retain metals in the root zone, functioning as phytostabilizing agents. Species of the Rhizophoraceae family generally showed lower root accumulation (< 0.35 ppm), suggesting efficient translocation of mercury to aerial tissues. These data provide an important basis for selecting mangrove species for root-based phytoremediation strategies.

Mercury concentrations in the substrate beneath each mangrove stand averaged 0.30 ± 0.122 ppm, lower than the average concentrations in leaves (0.48 ± 0.716 ppm) and roots (0.33 ± 0.204 ppm). However, certain species exhibited higher substrate accumulation than in plant tissues. For example, Avicennia marina (0.16 ppm), Bruguiera cylindrica (0.15 ppm), Clerodendrom inerma (0.18 ppm), and Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea (0.33 ppm) accumulated less mercury in substrate than in plant tissues, whereas Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (0.46 ppm), Lumnitzera racemosa (0.43 ppm), Rhizophora apiculata (0.43 ppm), Rhizophora mucronata (0.28 ppm), and Rhizophora stylosa (0.25 ppm) showed higher substrate accumulation. Variations in substrate mercury concentrations are influenced by particle size and deposition mechanisms (Brady et al., 2014);(Rezania et al., 2016);(Baran et al., 2019);(Harmesa et al., 2020), consistent with previous studies in Lembar Bay, West Lombok, where substrate lead concentrations exceeded leaf and root levels (Rahman et al., 2025).

Seveeral species exceeded the SNI 7387:2009 threshold for mercury contamination in plant tissues; Bruguiera cylindrica leaves (2.36 ppm) and Clerodendrom inerma roots (0.78 ppm), whereas no substrate samples exceeded 0.50 ppm. Compared with the Decree of the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia No. 51 year 2004 on the Quality of Marine Tourism Health, mercury concentrations in both plant tissues and substrates indicate a polluted condition (> 0.001 ppm).

Translocation factor (TSF) values for mercury in the nine mangrove species ranged from 0.23 to 7.61, with an average of 1.55 ± 2.296. The highest TSF was observed in Bruguiera cylindrica (7.61) and the lowest in Lumnitzera racemosa (0.23), reflecting interspecific differences in metal transport from roots to aerial tisues (Analuddin et al. 2017; Arumugam et al. 2018). Four species (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Clerodendrom inerma, Lumnitzera racemosa, Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea) had TSF values < 1, functioning primarily as phytostabilazers, while five species (Avicennia marina, Bruguiera cylindrica, Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora apiculata, and Rhizophora stylosa) exhibited TSF > 1, indicating phytoextraction capacity Table 4.

Table 4.Translocation factor, Bioaccumulation factor, and phytoremediation of nine mangrove species observed in this study

No.	Mangrove species	TSF	Leaves BAF	Roots BAF	Leaves FTD	Roots FTD
1	A. marina	1.03	2.31	2.25	1.28	1,22
2	B. cylindrica	7.61	15.73	2.07	8.12	-5,55
3	B. gymnorrhiza	0.50	0.02	0.04	-0.48	-0,46
4	C. inerma	0.46	2.00	4.33	1.54	3,87
5	L. racemosa	0.23	0.19	0.81	-0.04	0,59
6	R. apiculata	1.09	0.81	0.74	-0.28	-0,35
7	R. mucronata	1.05	0.82	0.79	-0.22	-0,26
8	R. stylosa	1.00	0.84	0.84	-0.16	-0,16
9	S. hydrophyllacea	0.97	1.15	1.18	0.18	0,21
	Average	1.55	2.65	1.45	1.10	-0.10
	Standard Deviation	2.296	4.961	1.280	2.725	2.449

Phytostablization in roots is mediated by binding of metal ions through root mucilage or cell walls, followed by chelation with phytochelatins or metallothioneins and storage in vacuoles (Abreu & Magalhães, 2009);(Shackira & Puthur, 2019); (Phytoextraction as a tool for green chemistry, 2014); (Nedjimi, 2021). This is supported by higher average mercury concentrations in roots (0.39 ± 0.311 ppm) compared with leaves (0.21 ± 0.190 ppm) in the four phytostabilizing species.

The Rhizophoraceae family, including Bruguiera cylindrica, Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora apiculata, and Rhizophora stylosa, and the Acanthaceae family (Avicennia marina) exhibited ecological capabilities as phytoextractors (TSF > 1), supported by higher mercury accumulation in leaves than in roots. Similarly, Rahman et al. (2025) reported that R. stylosa in Lembar Bay, West Lombok, functions as phytoextractor, with leaf lead concentrations (4,230 ppm) exceeding root concentrations (2,843 ppm; TSF= 1.488). Other studies also indicate that Rhizophoraceae species predominantly function in phytoextraction (Majid et al. 2014; (Takarina & Pin, 2017); (Baharvand et al., 2021); (Mentari et al., 2022).

Bioaccumulation factors (BAF) indicate the capacity of mangroves to absorb and accumulate heavy metals from the environment into plant tissues (Dajam et al., 2024). In this study, leaf BAF values ranged from 0.02 to 15.73, with an average of 2.65 ± 4.961, while root BAF values ranged from 0.04 to 4.33, with an average of 1.45 ± 1.280. Leaf BAF values were generally higher than root BAF values, indicating preferential translocation of mercury to aboveground tissues. This pattern aligns with observed mercury accumulation in leaves of Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Clerodendrom inerma, Lumnitzera racemosa, Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea and Avicennia marina, whereas the other five species showed higher root BAF values. Bruguiera cylindrica exhibited the highest leaf BAF (15.73), indicating strong accumulation in aerial tissues, whereas Bruguiera gymnorrhiza showed very low BAF values (< 0.05) in both tissues, reflecting minimal mercury accumulation.

Four mangrove species (Avicennia marina, Bruguiera cylindrica, Clerodendrom inerma, and Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea) had BAF value > 1 in both leaves and roots, indicating their role as accumulator plants. Accumulators transfer metals from roots to leaves and store them in aboveground tissues (Baker & Walker, 1990);(Tam et al., 1998);(Analuddin et al., 2017). Physiologically, metal ions are absorbed through roots, transported via xylem, chelated by phytochelatins or metallothioneins, and sequestered in vacuoles of stems or leaves (Cobbett & Goldsbrough, 2002);(Nair, 2022);(Sharma et al., 2023).

Meanwhile, five mangrove species (Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora stylosa, Rhizophora apiculata, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Lumnitzera racemosa) had BAF values < 1 in both organs, functioning as excluders. Excluder plants limit metal accumulation in aboveground biomass, concentrating metals primarily in (Phytoextraction as a tool for green chemistry, 2014); (Santana et al., 2018). This may also reflect mercury distribution in the substrate, as root uptake and translocation occur through xylem-mediated transport (Ariesabeth, 2005); (Hao et al., 2012).

The Factor of Translocation and Distribution (FTD) reflects the efficiency of heavy metal distribution between roots and leaves. FTD values in leaves ranged from -0.48 to 8.12 (mean 1.10 ± 2.275), while root FTD values ranged from -5.55 to 3.87 (mean -0.10 ± 2.449). Negative mean FTD in roots suggests preferential accumulation in leaves. For example, Bruguiera cylindrica exhibited the highest leaf FTD value (8.12), consistent with high BAF and TSF values. In contrast, Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora stylosa, Rhizophora apiculata, and Bruguiera gymnorrhiza showed negative FTD values in both organs, indicating low accumulation in aboveground tissues and a stronger phytoextraction function.

CONCLUSION

Mangrove diversity in the study area comprised nine mangrove species, including: Avicennia marina, Bruguiera cylindrica, Clerodendrom inerme, Rhizophor apiculata, Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophor stylosa, Scyphiphora hydrophyllaceae, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, and Lumnitzera racemosa. The physicochemical conditions of the Sekotong mangrove ecosystem were suitable for mangrove growth and development, based on the Decree of the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia No. 51 year 2004 concerning Quality Standards for the Health Quality of Marine Biota. Mercury concentrations were generally higher in leaves than in roots and substrates, indicating active metal translocation in several species. Four species function primarily as phytostabilizers, with translocation factor (TSF) values < 1 (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Clerodendrom inerma, Lumnitzera racemosa, and Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea), while five other species act as phytoextractors (TSF>1)(Avicennia marina, Bruguiera cylindrica, Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora apiculata, and Rhizophora stylosa). Leaf bioaccumulation factors exceeded root values, indicating preferential mercury allocation to aboveground tissues. Accumulator (BAF>1) was observed in Avicennia marina, Bruguiera cylindrica, Clerodendrom inerma, and Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea, while the remaining five mangrove species acted as excluders (Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora stylosa, Rhizophora apiculata, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, and Lumnitzera racemosa). Negative mean root FTD values further suggest dominant mercury distribution to leaves. These findings highlight species-specific phytoremediation strategies and support the use of mangroves for mercury management in contaminated coastal ecoystems.

References

1. Abreu M.M., Magalhães M.C.F..In: Aachen L., Eichmann P.. Soil Remediation. Nova Science Publisher: Nova Science Publisher; 2009:297-344.
2. Achina-Obeng R., Aram S.A.. Informal artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) in Ghana: Assessing environmental impacts, reasons for engagement, and mitigation strategies. Resour Policy. 2022; 78(102907)DOI
3. Ahyadi H., Suripto S., Jupri A., Rohyani I.S.. Impact evaluation of the use of mercury (Hg) and cyanide (Cn) in gold processing activities on Lombok Island based on knowledge and experience of gold miners and processers on Lombok Island. Jurnal Biologi Tropis. 2022; 22(3):1060-1068. DOI
4. Aljahdali M.O., Alhassan A.B.. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metal contamination in mangrove habitats, using biochemical markers and pollution indices: A case study of Avicennia marina L. in the Rabigh Lagoon, Red Sea. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2020; 27(4):1174-1184. DOI
5. Analuddin K., Sharma S., Jamili Septiana, A Sahidin, I Rianse, U Nadaoka, K.. Heavy metal bioaccumulation in mangrove ecosystem at the coral triangle ecoregion, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017; 125(1–2):472-480. DOI
6. Ariesabeth J.E.. Mercury absorption in mangrove village, Subregency Ratatotok, South Minahasa Regency, North Sulawesi Province. 2005.
7. Arumugam G., Rajendran R., Ganesan A., Sethu R.. Bioaccumulation and translocation of heavy metals in mangrove rhizosphere sediments to tissues of Avicenia marina – A field study from tropical mangrove forest. Environ Nanotechnol Mon Manage. 2018; 10:272-279. DOI
8. Baharvand A.B., Sadr M.K., Lorestani B., Cheraghi M., Ardakani S.S.. Environ Water Eng. 2021. DOI
9. Baker A.J.M., Walker P.L..In: Shaw A.J.. Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants Evolutionary Aspects. CRC Press: CRC Press; 1990:155-77. Publisher Full Text
10. Baran A., Mierzwa-Hersztek M., Gondek K., Tarnawski M., Szara M., Gorczyca O., Koniarz T.. The influence of the quantity and quality of sediment organic matter on the potential mobility and toxicity of trace elements in bottom sediment. Environ Geochem Health. 2019; 41(6):2893-2910. DOI
11. Bashir I., Lone F.A., Bhat R.A., Mir S.A., Dar Z.A., Dar S.A..In: Hakeem K.R., Bhat R.A., Qadri H.. Bioremediation and Biotechnology: Sustainable Approaches to Pollution Degradation. Springer International Publishing: Springer International Publishing; 2020:1-26. DOI
12. Brady J.P., Ayoko G.A., Martens W.N., Goonetilleke A.. Enrichment, distribution and sources of heavy metals in the sediments of Deception Bay, Queensland, Australia. Mar Pollut Bull. 2014; 81(1):248-55. DOI
13. Briffa J., Sinagra E., Blundell R.. Heavy metal pollution in the environment and their toxicological effects on humans. Heliyon. 2020; 6(9)DOI
14. Cahyaningsih A.P., Deanova A.K., Pristiawati C.M., Ulumuddin Y.I., Kusumaningrum L., Setyawan A.D.. Review: Causes and impacts of anthropogenic activities on mangrove deforestation and degradation in Indonesia. Int J Bonorowo Wetlands. 2022; 12(1)DOI
15. Candri D.A., Athifah Farista, B Virgota, A Rohyani, IS Ahyadi, H.. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 550(1):012013. 2020. DOI
16. Chakraborty D..In: Singh N.K., Afzal S., Aftab T.. Phytoremediation and Biofortification: Strategies for Sustainable Environmental and Health Management. Apple Academic Press: Apple Academic Press; 2024:131-146.
17. Chowdhury A., Naz A., Maiti S.K.. Bioaccumulation of potentially toxic elements in three mangrove species and human health risk due to their ethnobotanical uses. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021; 28:33042-33059. DOI
18. Cobbett C., Goldsbrough P.. Phytochelatins and metallothioneins: Roles in heavy metal detoxification and homeostasis. Ann Rev Plant Biol. 2002; 53:159-182. DOI
19. Dajam A.S., Keshta A.E., Bindajam A.A., Eid E.M.. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in mangrove (Avicennia marina): Predictive uptake modeling and phytoremediation potential. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2024; 24(3):6085-6098. DOI
20. Daripa A., Malav L.C., Yadav D.K., Chattaraj S..In: Shukla S.K., Kumar S., Madhav S., Mishra P.K.. Metals in Water. Chapter 7. Elsevier: Elsevier; 2023:111-127. DOI
21. Diarra I., Prasad S.. The current state of heavy metal pollution in Pacific Island Countries: A review. Appl Spectros Rev. 2021; 56(1):27-51. DOI
22. Donkor A.K., Ghoveisi H., Bonzongo J.-C.J.. Use of metallic mercury in artisanal gold mining by amalgamation: A review of temporal and spatial trends and environmental pollution. Minerals. 2024; 14(6)DOI
23. Essah M.. Gold mining in Ghana and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Exploring community perspectives on social and environmental injustices. Sustain Dev. 2022; 30(1):127-138. DOI
24. Petunjuk Teknis: Analisis Kimia Tanah, Tanaman, Air, dan Pupuk. 2009. Publisher Full Text
25. Githiria J.M., Onifade M.. The impact of mining on sustainable practices and the traditional culture of developing countries. J Environ Stud Sci. 2020; 10(4):394-410. DOI
26. Hadiprayitno G., Suana I.W., Syazali M., Japa L., Santoso D., Suyantri E.. Public perceptions of ecotourism in Bagek Kembar Mangrove Essential Ecosystem Area, Sekotong, West Lombok. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA. 2023; 9(9):7553-7562. DOI
27. Hao H.Z., Zhong R.G., Xiao R., Liu C.W., Zhong X.B.. The effect of transpiration for heavy metal uptake of hyperaccumulators. AMM. 2012; 181(901–904):104028178-181901.
28. Hao S., Su W., Li Q.Q.. Adaptive roots of mangrove Avicennia marina: Structure and gene expressions analyses of pneumatophores. Sci Total Environ. 2021; 757(143994)DOI
29. Harmesa H., Lestari L., Budiyanto F.. Distribusi Logam Berat Dalam Air Laut Dan Sedimen Di Perairan Cimanuk, Jawa Barat, Indonesia [Heavy metal distribution in seawater and sediment in Cimanuk Waters, West Java. OLDI (Oseanologi dan Limnologi di Indonesia. 2020; 5(1):19-32. DOI
30. Haroon M., Hayyat M.. Assessing the dual impact of gold mining on local communities: Socio-economic benefits and environmental challenges. Resour Policy. 2025; 103(105559)DOI
31. Hilmi E., Junaidi T., Mahdiana A., Dewi R.. The ecological risk assessment of mercury contamination in a mangrove ecosystem of the Segara Anakan Cilacap, Indonesia. Baghdad Sci J. 2023; 20(4)DOI
32. Horwitz W.. AOAC International: Gaithersburg (US; 2010.
33. Heavy metal accumulation and phytoremediation potentiality of some selected mangrove species from the World’s largest mangrove forest. Biology. 2022; 11(8)DOI
34. Huang J.-W., Sun Y.-Y., Li Q.-S., Zhou H.-Z., Li Y.-H., Fan X.-X., Wang J.-F.. Increased risk of heavy metal accumulation in mangrove seedlings in coastal wetland environments due to microplastic inflow. Environ Pollut. 2024; 349(123927)DOI
35. Phytoextraction as a tool for green chemistry. Green Process Synth. 2014; 3(1)DOI
36. Ichwani H.C., Haeruddin H., Prakoso K.. Analisis biokonsentrasi logam berat merkuri (Hg) dan tembaga (Cu) pada mangrove di Muara Sungai Tapak, Kelurahan Tugurejo Semarang [Bioconcentration analysis of mercury and lead in mangrove ecosystem in Sungai Tapak Estuarine, Tugurejo Subdistrict, Semarang. Jurnal Pasir Laut. 2025; 9(2):73-80. DOI
37. Ismail I., Mangesa R., Irsan I.. Bioakumulasi logam berat merkuri (Hg) pada mangrove jenis Rhizophora mucronata Di Teluk Kayeli Kabupaten Buru [Mercury accumulation in Rhizophora mucronata in Kayeli Bay, Buru Regency. BS. 2020; 9(2)DOI
38. MohF Jafar, RTA Pertiwi. Mercury content on mangrove roots and Telescopium telescopium in Kao Bay, North Halmahera. J Molusk Indones. 2021; 5(2):73-88. DOI
39. Kaewtubtim P.. Heavy metal phytoremediation potential of plant species in a mangrove ecosystem in Pattani Bay, Thailand. Appl Ecol Env Res. 2016; 14(1):367-382. DOI
40. Kahula A.O., Khoirussalma N., Nussy J.B., Mariwy A.. Bioakumulasi logam berat merkuri (hg) pada tumbuhan mangrove (Rhizophora mucronata) di area tambang Cinnabar Desa Luhu Kabupaten Seram bagian barat [Mercury accumulation in Rhizophora mucronata in mining area of Cinnabar, Luhu Village, west Seram Regency. Sci Map J. 2024; 6(1):10305986127-37.
41. Phytoextraction potential of Rhizophora apiculata: A case study in Matang mangrove forest reserve, Malaysia. Trop Conserv Sci. 2020; 13(1940082920947344)DOI
42. Kumar V., Sinha A.K., Rodrigues P.P., Mubiana V.K., Blust R., Boeck G.. Linking environmental heavy metal concentrations and salinity gradients with metal accumulation and their effects: A case study in 3 mussel species of Vitória estuary and Espírito Santo bay, Southeast Brazil. Sci Total Environ. 2015; 523:1-15. DOI
43. Kye H., Kim J., Ju S., Lee J., Lim C., Yoon Y.. Microplastics in water systems: A review of their impacts on the environment and their potential hazards. Heliyon. 2023; 9(3)DOI
44. Lee K.J., Kang E.H., Yoon M., Jo M.R., Yu H.S., Son K.T.. Concentration of heavy metals in shellfishes and health risk assessment from Korean coastal areas. Fish Aquat Sci. 2022; 25(12):626-636. DOI
45. Front Plant Sci 13. 2022. DOI
46. Lisle L., Gaudron J., Lefroy R.. University of New: England; 1991.
47. Liu R., Men C., Liu Y., Yu W., Xu F., Shen Z.. Spatial distribution and pollution evaluation of heavy metals in Yangtze estuary sediment. Mar Poll Bull. 2016; 110(1):564-571. DOI
48. Luthansa U.M., Titah H.S., Pratikno H.. The ability of mangrove plant on lead phytoremediation at Wonorejo Estuary, Surabaya, Indonesia. J Ecol Eng. 2021; 22(6):253-268. DOI
49. Mahdavian K.. Evaluating the ability of mangrove plants in the Asalouyeh Region for heavy metals removal. Russ J Plant Physiol. 2023; 70(5)DOI
50. Majid S.N., Khwakaram A.I., Rasul G.A.M., Ahmed Z.H.. Bioaccumulation, enrichment and translocation factors of some heavy metals in Typha angustifolia and Phragmites australis species growing along Qalyasan Stream in Sulaimani City /IKR. JZS-A. 2014; 16(4):93-109. DOI
51. Maldonado-Román M., Jiménez-Collazo J., Malavé-Llamas K., Musa-Wasil C., J.. Mangroves and their response to a heavy metal polluted wetland in the north coast of Puerto Rico. JTLS. 2012; 6(3):210-218. DOI
52. Manikasari G.P., Mahayani N.P.D.. Peran hutan mangrove sebagai biofilter dalam pengendalian polutan Pb dan Cu di hutan mangrove Sungai Donan, Cilacap, Jawa Tengah [Roles of mangrove forest as biofilter in controlling Pb and Cu pollutant in mangrove forest of Donan River, Cilacap, Central Java. JNTT. 2019; 2(2)DOI
53. Martínez-Colón M., Alegría H., Huber A., Kubra-Gul H., Kurt-Karakus P.. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of potential toxic elements (PTEs): An Avicennia germinans–Uca rapax trophic transfer story from Jobos Bay, Puerto Rico. Ecol Indic. 2021; 121(107038)DOI
54. Maylani E.D., Yuniati R., Wardhana W.. to transpire water. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 902(1):012070. 2020. DOI
55. Mellem J., Baijnath H., Odhav B.. Bioaccumulation of Cr. African J Agric Res. 2012; 7:591-596. DOI
56. Mentari R.J., Soenardjo N., Yulianto B.. Potensi Fitoremediasi Mangrove Rhizophora mucronata Terhadap Logam Berat Tembaga di Kawasan Mangrove Park, Pekalongan [Phytoremediation potential of Rhizophora mucronata toward Cu in mangrove park of Pekalongan. J Mar Res. 2022; 11(2):183-188. DOI
57. Meutia A.A., Bachriadi D., Gafur N.A.. Environment degradation, health threats, and legality at the artisanal small-scale gold mining sites in Indonesia. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2023; 20(18)DOI
58. Nair A.. Phytoremediation and metal accumulation mechanisms. J Ind Environ Chem. 2022; 6(2)
59. Nedjimi B.. Phytoremediation: A sustainable environmental technology for heavy metals decontamination. SN Appl Sci. 2021; 3(3)DOI
60. Noor Y.R., Khazali M., Suryadiputra I.N.N.. Bogor (ID): Directorate General of Forest Management and Natura Conservation, Wetlands International, Indonesia Programme. 2006.
61. Engaging one health in heavy metal pollution in some selected Nigerian Niger Delta Cities. A systematic review of pervasiveness, bioaccumulation and subduing environmental health challenges. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2024; 202(4):1356-1389. DOI
62. Pan X.-D., Han J.-L.. Heavy metals accumulation in bivalve mollusks collected from coastal areas of southeast China. Mar Pollut Bull. 2023; 189(114808)DOI
63. Paz-Alberto A.M., Celestino A.B., Sigua G.C.. Phytoremediation of Pb in the sediment of a mangrove ecosystem. J Soils Sediments. 2014; 14(1):251-258. DOI
64. Piwowarska D., Kiedrzyńska E., Jaszczyszyn K.. A global perspective on the nature and fate of heavy metals polluting water ecosystems, and their impact and remediation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2024; 54(19):1436-1458. DOI
65. Rachmawati R., Yona D., Kasitowati R.D.. Potensi mangrove Avicennia alba sebagai agen fitoremediasi timbal (Pb) dan tembaga (Cu) di Perairan Wonorejo, Surabaya [Potential of Avicennia alba as phytoremediation agent for Pb and Cu in Wonorejo Waters, Surabaya. Depik. 2018; 7(3):227-236. DOI
66. Rahman F.A., Ihsan M.S., Agustini D., Jayanti E.T.. Phytoremediation of lead heavy metals in the mangrove ecosystem of the Lembar Harbor Area, West Lombok Regency, Indonesia. Makara J Sci. 2025; 29(2)DOI
67. Depth-related dynamics of physicochemical characteristics and heavy metal accumulation in mangrove sediment and plant: Acanthus ilicifolius as a potential phytoextractor. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021; 173(113160)DOI
68. Rajaram R., Ganeshkumar A., Muralisankar T., Sivaperumal P.. Bioaccumulation of metals in mangroves and salt marshes collected from Tuticorin coast of Gulf of Mannar marine biosphere reserve, Southeastern India. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020; 160(111599)DOI
69. Rezania S., Taib S.M., Md Din M.F., Dahalan F.A., Kamyab H.. Comprehensive review on phytotechnology: Heavy metals removal by diverse aquatic plants species from wastewater. J Hazard Mater. 2016; 318:587-599. DOI
70. Saadati M., Soleimani M., Sadeghsaba M., Hemami M.R.. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals (Hg, Cd and Ni) by sentinel crab (Macrophthalmus depressus) from sediments of Mousa Bay, Persian Gulf. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2020; 191(109986)DOI
71. Santana I.K.Y.T., Julyantoro P.G.S., Wijayanti N.P.P.. Akumulasi Logam Berat Seng (Zn) pada Akar dan Daun Lamun Enhalus acoroides di Perairan Pantai Sanur, Bali [Zinc accumulation in roots and leaves of Enhalus acoroides in Sanur coastal waters, Bali. CTAS. 2018; 1(1)DOI
72. Setiawan H.. Akumulasi dan distribusi logam berat pada vegetasi mangrove di pesisir Sulawesi Selatan [Accumulation and distributoin of heavy metal in mangrove vegetation in South Sulawesi coastal area. Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan. 2013; 7(1):12-24. DOI
73. Shackira A.M., Puthur J.T..In: Srivastava S., Srivastava A.K., Suprasanna P.. Plant-Metal Interactions. Springer International Publishing: Springer International Publishing; 2019:263-282. DOI
74. Shah S.B.. Shah SB (Author), Heavy Metals in Scleractinian Corals. Springer International Publishing: Springer International Publishing; 2021:1-26. DOI
75. Sharma J.K., Kumar N., Singh N.P., Santal A.R.. Front Plant Sci 14. 2023. DOI
76. Heavy metal contamination in the aquatic ecosystem: Toxicity and its remediation using eco-friendly approaches. Toxics. 2023; 11(2)DOI
77. Sukuryadi Johari H.I., Ibrahim Adiansyah J.S., Nurhayati. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1441(1):012002. 2025. DOI
78. Supriyantini E., Nuraini R.A.T., Dewi C.P.. Daya Serap mangrove Rhizophora sp. terhadap logam berat timbal (Pb) Di Perairan Mangrove Park, Pekalongan [Uptake capacity of Rhizophora sp. for lead (Pb) in the mangrove park waters. Pekalongan]. J Kel Trop. 2017; 20(1)DOI
79. Takarina N.D., Pin T.G.. Bioconcentration factor (BCF) and translocation factor (TF) of heavy metals in mangrove trees of Blanakan Fish Farm. Makara J Sci. 2017; 21(2):77-81. DOI
80. Tam N.F.Y., Wong Y.S., Lan C.Y., Wang L.N.. Litter production and decomposition in a subtropical mangrove swamp receiving wastewater. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 1998; 226(1)
81. Tang A., Liu R., Ling M., Xu L., Wang J.. Distribution characteristics and controlling factors of soluble heavy metals in the Yellow River Estuary and Adjacent Sea. Procedia Environ Sci. 2010; 2:1193-1198. DOI
82. Uddin M.M., Huang L.. Influence of mangrove forestation on heavy metals accumulation and speciation in sediments and phytoremediation capacity of mangrove species of an artificial managed coastal Lagoon at Xiamen in China. Chem Ecol. 2023; 39(1):1-23. DOI
83. Agriculture U.S.D.A.] United States Department. Soil survey laboratory methods manual. Soil survey investigations report. 2004; 42
84. Usman A.H.A., Hartoyo A.P.P., Kusmana C.. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1109(1):012093. 2022. DOI
85. Wang J., Wang P., Zhao Z., Huo Y.. Uptake and concentration of heavy metals in dominant mangrove species from Hainan Island, South China. Environ Geochem Health. 2021; 43(4):1703-1714. DOI
86. Interactions of soil metals with glomalin-related soil protein as soil pollution bioindicators in mangrove wetland ecosystems. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 709(136051)DOI
87. Wongsasuluk P., Tun A.Z., Chotpantarat S., Siriwong W.. Related health risk assessment of exposure to arsenic and some heavy metals in gold mines in Banmauk Township, Myanmar. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1)DOI
88. Wu G., Mei K., He C., Wang S., Jiang L.. Phytoextraction and antioxidant defense of mangrove seedling (Kandelia obovata) to inorganic arsenate exposure. Water. 2022; 14(4)DOI
89. Yang T.-T., Liu Y., Tan S., Wang W.-X., Wang X.. The role of intestinal microbiota of the marine fish (Acanthopagrus latus) in mercury biotransformation. Environ Pollut. 2021; 277(116768)DOI
90. Zhang M., Sun X., Hu Y., Chen G., Xu J.. The influence of anthropogenic activities on heavy metal pollution of estuary sediment from the coastal East China Sea in the past nearly 50 years. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022; 181(113872)DOI
91. Zhou Y.-Y., Wang Y.-S., Inyang A.I.. Ecophysiological differences between five mangrove seedlings under heavy metal stress. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021; 172(112900)DOI