Testing different methods of estimating edaphic inputs in moss biomonitoring.

Although soil is known to contribute to the concentrations of elements in moss, protocols for atmospheric biomonitoring with terrestrial moss do not include recommendations on how to address this factor. As a result, researchers indiscriminately use a wide range of detection/correction methods without considering whether the results are equivalent. In this study, three of these methods were compared: i) use of the enrichment factor (EF) index; ii) calculation of the ratios of different elements in soil and moss, and subtraction of the contribution of soil concentrations from the raw concentrations of elements in mosses (SCS); and iii) positive matrix factorization (PMF), a receptor modelling method for source apportioning based on multivariate analysis techniques. The aim of the comparison was to determine whether the methods produce equivalent results and, if not, which method is the most appropriate for use in moss biomonitoring surveys. The data used corresponded to 146 samples of Pseudoscleropodium purum collected from a regular sampling grid of 15 × 15 km in Galicia (NW Spain). Comparison of the methods revealed that, although they yield relatively similar results, the corresponding interpretations are not equivalent and none of the methods provides a reliable estimate of the soil contribution to the concentrations of elements in moss samples. Independently of the technique applied, use of Ti as a reference element is not recommended, because, at least in this study, it was present at unusually high levels in moss. Given the absence of a reliable correction method and the fact that most elements are present in fairly high amounts in the soil, we recommend using atmospheric biomonitoring with moss only for Cu, Zn and Cd, i.e. for those elements in moss for which the soil contributes very low amounts and corrections are not therefore necessary.