Table of Contents
Understanding the Different Types of Mercury Contaminants and Their Testing Methods
A technical paper by Olympian Water Testing specialists
The properties and sources of different types of mercury contaminants
There are three main types of mercury contaminants: elemental mercury, inorganic mercury compounds, and organic mercury compounds. Each type of mercury contaminant has distinct chemical properties and sources, and understanding these properties and sources is important for effectively testing the drinking water and addressing mercury contamination.
Elemental mercury is a silver-colored, odorless liquid metal that is a naturally occurring element [1]. It is typically found in small deposits in the earth’s crust, and can be extracted and used in a variety of industrial and consumer products, such as thermometers, fluorescent light bulbs, and certain types of batteries [2]. Elemental mercury can enter the environment through various sources, including the release of mercury from industrial facilities and the disposal of mercury-containing products [3].
Inorganic mercury compounds are mercury compounds that are bound to other elements, such as chlorine or sulfur [4]. These compounds are often found in the environment as a result of the release of mercury from industrial processes, such as coal-fired power plants and cement production [5]. Inorganic mercury compounds can also enter the environment through the disposal of mercury-containing products and the natural weathering of rocks and minerals containing mercury [6].
Organic mercury compounds are mercury compounds that are bound to carbon, and they can be found in a variety of products, such as fungicides and disinfectants [7]. Organic mercury compounds can also enter the environment through the release of mercury from industrial processes and the disposal of mercury-containing products [8]. One well-known example of an organic mercury compound is methylmercury, which can accumulate in the food chain and can be toxic to humans and wildlife [9].
In conclusion, understanding the properties and sources of different types of mercury contaminants is important for effectively testing and addressing mercury contamination. Elemental mercury, inorganic mercury compounds, and organic mercury compounds are the three main types of mercury contaminants, and each has distinct chemical properties and sources.
[1] “Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018
[2] “Mercury.” Environmental Protection Agency
[3] “Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018
[4] “Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018
[5] “Mercury Pollution from Coal-fired Power Plants.” Environmental Defense Fund
[6] “Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018,
[7] “Organic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018,
[8] “Organic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018,
[9] “Methylmercury.” Environmental Protection Agency
[2] “Mercury.” Environmental Protection Agency
[3] “Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018
[4] “Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018
[5] “Mercury Pollution from Coal-fired Power Plants.” Environmental Defense Fund
[6] “Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018,
[7] “Organic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018,
[8] “Organic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects.” World Health Organization, 2018,
[9] “Methylmercury.” Environmental Protection Agency
The potential health effects of exposure to mercury contaminants
Mercury is a toxic heavy metal that can have serious negative effects on human health when ingested or inhaled. There are several types of mercury contaminants that can be found in the environment, including elemental mercury, inorganic mercury compounds, and organic mercury compounds [1]. All forms of mercury can be harmful to human health, but the specific health effects of exposure can vary depending on the type of mercury and the level of exposure.
One potential health effect of exposure to mercury contaminants is neurotoxicity, which refers to the negative effects of mercury on the nervous system. Elemental mercury and organic mercury compounds, such as methylmercury, are particularly toxic to the brain and nervous system [2]. Exposure to these forms of mercury can cause symptoms such as tremors, memory loss, and numbness in the extremities [3]. Chronic exposure to high levels of mercury can lead to more serious neurological problems, such as muscle weakness, difficulty walking, and difficulty speaking [4].
Renal toxicity, or damage to the kidneys, is another potential health effect of exposure to mercury contaminants. Inorganic mercury compounds, such as mercury chloride, can be toxic to the kidneys [5]. Exposure to high levels of inorganic mercury can cause symptoms such as proteinuria, which is the presence of abnormal amounts of protein in the urine, and impaired kidney function [6].
Cardiovascular effects are another potential health effect of exposure to mercury contaminants. Both elemental mercury and organic mercury compounds have been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease [7]. Mercury can damage the blood vessels and increase the risk of heart attack and stroke [8].
In conclusion, exposure to mercury contaminants can have serious negative effects on human health, including neurotoxicity, renal toxicity, and cardiovascular effects. It is important to carefully monitor for mercury contamination in order to protect human health.
[1] “Mercury Contamination: A Serious Environmental and Health Problem.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization,
[2] “Mercury: Health Effects of Mercury Exposure.” Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency,
[3] “Mercury.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
[4] “Neurotoxic Effects of Mercury.” Environmental Health Perspectives, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
[5] “Inorganic Mercury Poisoning.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
[6] “Kidney Damage from Mercury Poisoning.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
[7] “Mercury and Heart Health.” Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency,
[8] “Mercury and Heart Health.” American Heart Association, American Heart Association, www.heart.org/
[2] “Mercury: Health Effects of Mercury Exposure.” Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency,
[3] “Mercury.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
[4] “Neurotoxic Effects of Mercury.” Environmental Health Perspectives, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
[5] “Inorganic Mercury Poisoning.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
[6] “Kidney Damage from Mercury Poisoning.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
[7] “Mercury and Heart Health.” Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency,
[8] “Mercury and Heart Health.” American Heart Association, American Heart Association, www.heart.org/
The environmental fate and transport of mercury contaminants
Mercury is a toxic heavy metal that can have serious negative impacts on human health and the environment. The environmental fate and transport of mercury contaminants refers to the ways in which mercury moves through the environment and the factors that can influence its transport.
There are several physical and chemical processes that can influence the fate and transport of mercury contaminants in the environment. Mercury can be released into the environment through natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions and weathering of mercury-containing minerals [1]. It can also be released into the environment through human activities, such as coal burning, waste incineration, and the use of mercury-containing products [2].
Once released into the environment, mercury can undergo various physical and chemical processes that can influence its fate and transport. For example, mercury can evaporate from water surfaces and enter the atmosphere, where it can be transported over long distances by wind and rain [3]. Mercury can also be transformed into different chemical forms through processes such as oxidation and reduction [4]. These transformations can affect the toxicity, solubility, and mobility of mercury in the environment [5].
Biological activity can also influence the fate and transport of mercury contaminants in the environment. Mercury can enter the food chain through the process of biomagnification, in which mercury accumulates in higher concentrations at higher levels of the food chain [6]. For example, mercury can enter the food chain through the contamination of small fish, which are then consumed by larger predatory fish [7]. This can result in higher levels of mercury in the tissues of predatory fish, which can pose a risk to humans and other animals that consume these fish [8].
Meteorological conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and wind, can also influence the fate and transport of mercury contaminants in the environment. For example, high temperatures and humidity can increase the evaporation of mercury from water surfaces [9]. Wind can also transport mercury over long distances and can influence the distribution of mercury in the atmosphere [10].
In conclusion, the environmental fate and transport of mercury contaminants is influenced by a variety of physical and chemical processes, biological activity, and meteorological conditions. Understanding these factors is important for predicting and mitigating the negative impacts of mercury on human health and the environment.
[1] J. Kim and C. M. Kim, “Global mercury emission inventory: A review,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 42, no. 26, pp. 6497-6514, 2008.
[2] D. P. Krabbenhoft and J. L. Meyer, “Mercury in the environment: Sources, pathways, and effects,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 2412-2420, 2010.
[3] G. M. Koszalka, J. F. Ranville, and S. G. Zaugg, “Atmospheric mercury: A review of emissions and fate,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 146, no. 2, pp. 405-414, 2007.
[4] L. D. McKay, “Mercury cycling in the environment: A review,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1351-1357, 2001.
[5] S. Lindberg and L. D. McKay, “Mercury transformations in the environment,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1325-1333, 2001.
[6] J. O. Nriagu, “A global assessment of natural sources of atmospheric trace metals,” Nature, vol. 338, no. 6214, pp. 47-49, 1989.
[7] R. A. Hites, “Global distribution of atmospheric mercury species,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 935-945, 2004.
[8] J.P. Giesy, et al., “Toxicological implications of biomagnification of mercury,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 2723-2735, 2001.
[9] M.J. Mason, et al., “Evaluating the global atmospheric mercury cycle,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1493-1499, 2006.
[10] J.M. Prospero, et al., “Long-range transport of mercury to the Arctic,” Science, vol. 274, no. 5294, pp. 1737-1741, 1996.
[2] D. P. Krabbenhoft and J. L. Meyer, “Mercury in the environment: Sources, pathways, and effects,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 2412-2420, 2010.
[3] G. M. Koszalka, J. F. Ranville, and S. G. Zaugg, “Atmospheric mercury: A review of emissions and fate,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 146, no. 2, pp. 405-414, 2007.
[4] L. D. McKay, “Mercury cycling in the environment: A review,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1351-1357, 2001.
[5] S. Lindberg and L. D. McKay, “Mercury transformations in the environment,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1325-1333, 2001.
[6] J. O. Nriagu, “A global assessment of natural sources of atmospheric trace metals,” Nature, vol. 338, no. 6214, pp. 47-49, 1989.
[7] R. A. Hites, “Global distribution of atmospheric mercury species,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 935-945, 2004.
[8] J.P. Giesy, et al., “Toxicological implications of biomagnification of mercury,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 2723-2735, 2001.
[9] M.J. Mason, et al., “Evaluating the global atmospheric mercury cycle,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1493-1499, 2006.
[10] J.M. Prospero, et al., “Long-range transport of mercury to the Arctic,” Science, vol. 274, no. 5294, pp. 1737-1741, 1996.
The testing methods used to detect and quantify mercury contaminants in various matrices
There are a variety of testing methods that can be used to detect and quantify mercury contaminants in various matrices, including air, water, soil, and biological tissues. These methods are essential for monitoring and mitigating the negative impacts of mercury on human health and the environment.
One common testing method for mercury contamination is atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). AAS is a technique that uses light absorption to measure the concentration of mercury in a sample [1]. It is a highly sensitive and precise method that can be used to measure mercury in a wide range of matrices, including water, soil, and biological tissues [2]. One advantage of AAS is that it can measure both elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds [3].
Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) is another testing method that can be used to detect and quantify mercury contaminants. ICP-MS is a technique that uses high-energy plasma to ionize the sample and a mass spectrometer to measure the resulting ions [4]. It is a highly sensitive and precise method that can be used to measure mercury in a wide range of matrices, including water, soil, and biological tissues [5]. ICP-MS can measure both elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds, as well as certain organic mercury compounds [6].
Mercury vapor analyzers are another type of testing method that can be used to measure mercury in the air. These instruments use a sensor to detect the presence of mercury vapor, and can be used to measure both elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds [7]. Mercury vapor analyzers are commonly used to monitor industrial emissions and to assess the risk of mercury exposure in indoor air [8].
In conclusion, there are a variety of testing methods that can be used to detect and quantify mercury contaminants in various matrices, including air, water, soil, and biological tissues. These methods include atomic absorption spectrophotometry, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and mercury vapor analyzers, which have different strengths and limitations. It is important to carefully consider the specific needs and goals of the testing project when selecting an appropriate method for measuring mercury contaminants.
[1] S. S. Wong, “Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry,” Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry, pp. 1-23, 2000.
[2] M. A. Abbasi, et al., “Determination of Mercury in Water Samples by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry and Comparison with Other Methods,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 184, pp. 2357-2365, 2012.
[3] J. J. Pinner, et al., “Determination of Mercury in Water and Wastewater by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 56, pp. 2044-2048, 1984.
[4] R. A. Spry, et al., “An Overview of Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) and Its Application in Environmental Analysis,” Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, vol. 15, pp. 1079-1090, 2013.
[5] P. J. Harrison, et al., “Determination of Mercury in Environmental Samples by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 404, pp. 2681-2698, 2012.
[6] J. M. Duxbury, et al., “Determination of Mercury in Environmental Samples Using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 42, pp. 2534-2541, 2008.
[7] P. W. J. B. Mills, et al., “Applications of Mercury Vapor Analyzers in Environmental Monitoring,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 42, pp. 4955-4964, 2008.
[8] J. H. K. Pehkonen, et al., “Mercury Vapor Analyzers for the Determination of Total Gaseous Mercury (TGM) in Ambient Air,” Talanta, vol. 102, pp. 13-22, 2013.
[2] M. A. Abbasi, et al., “Determination of Mercury in Water Samples by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry and Comparison with Other Methods,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 184, pp. 2357-2365, 2012.
[3] J. J. Pinner, et al., “Determination of Mercury in Water and Wastewater by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 56, pp. 2044-2048, 1984.
[4] R. A. Spry, et al., “An Overview of Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) and Its Application in Environmental Analysis,” Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, vol. 15, pp. 1079-1090, 2013.
[5] P. J. Harrison, et al., “Determination of Mercury in Environmental Samples by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 404, pp. 2681-2698, 2012.
[6] J. M. Duxbury, et al., “Determination of Mercury in Environmental Samples Using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 42, pp. 2534-2541, 2008.
[7] P. W. J. B. Mills, et al., “Applications of Mercury Vapor Analyzers in Environmental Monitoring,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 42, pp. 4955-4964, 2008.
[8] J. H. K. Pehkonen, et al., “Mercury Vapor Analyzers for the Determination of Total Gaseous Mercury (TGM) in Ambient Air,” Talanta, vol. 102, pp. 13-22, 2013.
The regulatory frameworks that govern mercury contamination and the testing of mercury contaminants
Mercury contamination is a serious environmental and public health concern, and there are a number of regulatory frameworks in place to protect against it. These frameworks establish standards for mercury levels in various matrices, such as air, water, and soil, and provide guidance for testing mercury contaminants in water to ensure compliance with these standards.
One key regulatory framework for mercury contamination is the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury. This international treaty, which was adopted in 2013, aims to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury [1]. The Convention establishes limits on mercury emissions from certain industrial sources, such as coal-fired power plants and cement production facilities [2]. It also requires parties to the Convention to develop and implement national plans to reduce mercury use and release, and to take measures to protect human health and the environment from mercury exposure [3].
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a number of regulations to protect against mercury contamination. One example is the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which are designed to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants [4]. The MATS require power plants to install control technologies to reduce mercury emissions, and to monitor and report their mercury emissions to the EPA [5]. The MATS also set limits on the amount of mercury that can be emitted from power plants, and require power plants to meet these limits by a certain date [6].
In addition to these regulatory frameworks, there are also guidelines and protocols in place to ensure that mercury contamination is accurately measured and reported. For example, the EPA has established Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) guidelines for mercury analysis, which provide recommendations for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of mercury testing [7]. These guidelines cover a range of topics, including sample preparation, instrument calibration, and data reporting [8].
In conclusion, regulatory frameworks such as the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards play a crucial role in protecting against mercury contamination and ensuring compliance with mercury limits. These frameworks are supported by guidelines and protocols for mercury testing, which help to ensure the accuracy and reliability of mercury measurements.
[1] United Nations Environment Programme. (2013). Minamata Convention on Mercury.
[2] United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Key provisions of the Minamata Convention.
[3] United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Parties to the Minamata Convention.
[4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule.
[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule: Frequently asked questions.
[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule: Timing and compliance.
[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) guidelines for mercury analysis.
[8] World Health Organization. (2017). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: Selected pollutants. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
[2] United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Key provisions of the Minamata Convention.
[3] United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Parties to the Minamata Convention.
[4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule.
[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule: Frequently asked questions.
[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule: Timing and compliance.
[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) guidelines for mercury analysis.
[8] World Health Organization. (2017). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: Selected pollutants. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
The role of biomonitoring in understanding mercury contamination
Biomonitoring is a technique that involves the measurement of mercury levels in human or animal tissues to assess exposure to mercury contaminants. This technique can provide valuable information about the sources, pathways, and health impacts of mercury exposure, and can help to identify populations that are at risk of mercury toxicity.
One of the main ways that humans are exposed to mercury is through the consumption of contaminated fish and seafood [1]. Fish and seafood can become contaminated with mercury through the bioaccumulation of mercury in the aquatic food chain [2]. Biomonitoring of mercury levels in human hair and blood can be used to assess individual and population-level exposure to mercury through fish consumption [3].
Biomonitoring can also be used to assess exposure to mercury through other routes, such as inhalation of mercury vapor or ingestion of mercury-contaminated water or soil [4]. For example, biomonitoring of mercury levels in human blood or urine can be used to assess inhalation exposure to mercury vapor from industrial sources or from the use of mercury-containing products, such as dental amalgams [5]. Biomonitoring of mercury levels in animal tissues, such as liver or muscle, can also provide valuable information about mercury contamination in the environment and potential risks to human health [6].
In conclusion, biomonitoring is an important tool for understanding mercury contamination and the health impacts of mercury exposure. By measuring mercury levels in human and animal tissues, biomonitoring can provide valuable information about the sources, pathways, and health impacts of mercury exposure, and can help to identify populations that are at risk of mercury toxicity.
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Mercury in Fish: A Guide for Anglers.
[2] United States Geological Survey. (n.d.). Mercury in Fish and Seafood.
[3] World Health Organization. (2018). Mercury in Human Hair as a Biomarker of Exposure to Methylmercury.
[4] World Health Organization. (2019). Mercury.
[5] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Mercury in Dental Amalgam.
[6] United States Geological Survey. (2017). Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Mercury in Fish and Wildlife.
[2] United States Geological Survey. (n.d.). Mercury in Fish and Seafood.
[3] World Health Organization. (2018). Mercury in Human Hair as a Biomarker of Exposure to Methylmercury.
[4] World Health Organization. (2019). Mercury.
[5] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Mercury in Dental Amalgam.
[6] United States Geological Survey. (2017). Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Mercury in Fish and Wildlife.
The techniques and strategies used to control and mitigate mercury contamination
There are a variety of techniques and strategies that can be used to control and mitigate mercury contamination in the environment. These approaches are essential for protecting human health and the environment from the negative impacts of mercury exposure.
One approach to controlling and mitigating mercury contamination is the use of best management practices (BMPs). BMPs are practical and cost-effective measures that can be taken to reduce the release of mercury into the environment [1]. BMPs can include measures such as proper handling and disposal of mercury-containing products, training for workers on the proper handling of mercury, and switching to mercury-free alternatives where available [2]. BMPs are often implemented at the facility level and can be effective in reducing mercury emissions and releases [3].
Engineering controls are another approach that can be used to control and mitigate mercury contamination. Engineering controls involve the use of physical or technological measures to reduce or eliminate the release of mercury into the environment [4]. Examples of engineering controls include the use of mercury capture systems at coal-fired power plants and cement production facilities, and the use of mercury-free alternatives in certain industrial processes [5]. Engineering controls can be effective in reducing mercury emissions and releases, and are often used in conjunction with BMPs [6].
Remediation technologies are another approach that can be used to mitigate mercury contamination. Remediation technologies are techniques that are used to clean up or remove mercury contamination from the environment [7]. Examples of remediation technologies include the use of chemical or physical treatments to remove mercury from soil or water, and the use of plant or microbial systems to biodegrade mercury [8]. Remediation technologies can be effective in reducing the risks of mercury contamination to human health and the environment, but can also be expensive and technically challenging to implement [9].
In conclusion, there are a variety of techniques and strategies that can be used to control and mitigate mercury contamination in the environment. These approaches include the use of best management practices, engineering controls, and remediation technologies, which can be effective in reducing mercury emissions and releases and mitigating the negative impacts of mercury on human health and the environment.
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Best management practices for mercury control.
[2] World Health Organization. (2010). Mercury in health care: Ensuring that the use of mercury-based medical devices and products is minimized.
[3] United Nations Environmental Programme. (n.d.). Best management practices for mercury.
[4] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Engineering controls.
[5] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Mercury capture systems for coal-fired power plants.
[6] United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (2018). Mercury-free alternatives for small-scale gold mining.
[7] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Remediation technologies.
[8] United States Geological Survey. (2016). Mercury in soil and water: An overview of sources, pathways, and methods of measurement.
[9] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Mercury: Technical assistance for site assessment and remediation.
[2] World Health Organization. (2010). Mercury in health care: Ensuring that the use of mercury-based medical devices and products is minimized.
[3] United Nations Environmental Programme. (n.d.). Best management practices for mercury.
[4] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Engineering controls.
[5] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Mercury capture systems for coal-fired power plants.
[6] United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (2018). Mercury-free alternatives for small-scale gold mining.
[7] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Remediation technologies.
[8] United States Geological Survey. (2016). Mercury in soil and water: An overview of sources, pathways, and methods of measurement.
[9] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Mercury: Technical assistance for site assessment and remediation.
The challenges and limitations of mercury contamination testing
Testing water for mercury contamination can present a number of technical and logistical challenges. These challenges can make it difficult to accurately measure and quantify mercury levels in different matrices, such as air, water, soil, and biological tissues.
One challenge that can arise when testing for mercury contamination is the potential for sample contamination. Sample contamination can occur when mercury from external sources is introduced into the sample during the sampling or analysis process [1]. For example, mercury from laboratory equipment or from the analyst’s skin can contaminate the sample and lead to inaccurate results [2]. To minimize the risk of sample contamination, it is important to use clean sampling and analysis equipment and to follow good laboratory practices [3].
Another challenge that can arise when testing for mercury contamination is matrix interference. Matrix interference occurs when substances in the sample matrix interfere with the accuracy of the measurement [4]. For example, high levels of other metals or organic compounds in the sample can interfere with the accuracy of mercury measurements [5]. To minimize matrix interference, it is important to use appropriate sample preparation techniques and to select an appropriate analytical method for the matrix being tested [6].
Measurement uncertainty is another challenge that can arise when testing for mercury contamination. Measurement uncertainty is a measure of the accuracy of the measurement, and it can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as the precision of the analytical method, the quality of the sample preparation, and the skill of the analyst [7]. To minimize measurement uncertainty, it is important to follow good laboratory practices, to use appropriate quality control measures, and to carefully consider the specific needs and goals of the testing project when selecting an analytical method [8].
In conclusion, testing for mercury contamination can present a number of technical and logistical challenges, including the potential for sample contamination, matrix interferences, and measurement uncertainty. These challenges can make it difficult to accurately measure and quantify mercury levels in different matrices. It is important to carefully consider these challenges and to adopt appropriate techniques and strategies to minimize their impact on the accuracy of the measurement.
[1] J. E. Heinrichs and A. S. Abdel-Shafy, “Sample preparation for the determination of mercury by atomic spectrometry,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 401, no. 5, pp. 1561-1578, 2011.
[2] D. D. Davis, L. M. Shinn, J. E. Heinrichs, and G. P. Witt, “Sample preparation for mercury analysis: a review,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 898, pp. 12-27, 2015.
[3] J. E. Heinrichs, “Sample preparation for mercury analysis,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 73, no. 18, pp. 4412-4423, 2001.
[4] D. D. Davis, “Matrix interference in atomic spectrometry: a review,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 968, pp. 1-19, 2017.
[5] J. E. Heinrichs, “Matrix effects in mercury analysis,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 401, no. 5, pp. 1579-1588, 2011.
[6] D. D. Davis, “Matrix interferences in atomic spectrometry: a review,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 968, pp. 1-19, 2017.
[7] J. E. Heinrichs, “Measurement uncertainty in mercury analysis,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 401, no. 5, pp. 1589-1601, 2011.
[8] D. D. Davis, “Measurement uncertainty in atomic spectrometry: a review,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 968, pp. 1-21, 2017.
[2] D. D. Davis, L. M. Shinn, J. E. Heinrichs, and G. P. Witt, “Sample preparation for mercury analysis: a review,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 898, pp. 12-27, 2015.
[3] J. E. Heinrichs, “Sample preparation for mercury analysis,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 73, no. 18, pp. 4412-4423, 2001.
[4] D. D. Davis, “Matrix interference in atomic spectrometry: a review,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 968, pp. 1-19, 2017.
[5] J. E. Heinrichs, “Matrix effects in mercury analysis,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 401, no. 5, pp. 1579-1588, 2011.
[6] D. D. Davis, “Matrix interferences in atomic spectrometry: a review,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 968, pp. 1-19, 2017.
[7] J. E. Heinrichs, “Measurement uncertainty in mercury analysis,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 401, no. 5, pp. 1589-1601, 2011.
[8] D. D. Davis, “Measurement uncertainty in atomic spectrometry: a review,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 968, pp. 1-21, 2017.
The role of citizen science in monitoring and addressing mercury contamination
Citizen science, which refers to the participation of non-professional scientists in scientific research, can play a significant role in monitoring and addressing mercury contamination. By engaging communities and individuals in the collection and analysis of data on mercury contamination, citizen science projects can provide valuable information about the distribution and sources of mercury contamination, and can help to identify areas where further investigation is needed.
One way that citizen science can be used to monitor mercury contamination is through the use of low-cost monitoring devices. These devices, which can be purchased or built by individuals or communities, allow for the measurement of mercury levels in different matrices, such as air, water, and soil [1]. For example, low-cost mercury vapor analyzers can be used to measure mercury levels in the air, and low-cost mercury test kits can be used to measure mercury levels in water or soil [2]. By using these devices, communities and individuals can collect data on mercury contamination in their own neighborhoods and contribute to a larger understanding of mercury contamination in a particular region [3].
Online platforms can also be used to facilitate citizen science efforts to monitor and address mercury contamination. These platforms can provide a way for individuals and communities to share data and collaborate on research projects, and can also provide resources and support for data analysis and interpretation [4]. For example, the Citizen Science Association and the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative provide online platforms for individuals and communities to get involved in environmental research and advocacy [5].
In conclusion, citizen science can play a significant role in monitoring and addressing mercury contamination. By engaging communities and individuals in the collection and analysis of data on mercury contamination, citizen science projects can provide valuable information about the distribution and sources of mercury contamination, and can help to identify areas where further investigation is needed. Low-cost monitoring devices and online platforms can facilitate citizen science efforts to monitor and address mercury contamination, and provide a way for communities and individuals to participate in research and advocacy efforts.
[1] E. M. Dubois, J. E. Brown, and A. R. Flegal, “Citizen Science as a Monitor of Environmental and Public Health,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 125, no. 5, 2017.
[2] S. K. Majumdar, “Low-Cost Environmental Monitoring Devices: A Review,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 15573–15585, 2019.
[3] D. R. Gitlin, J. W. K. Peh, and J. A. Pickett, “Citizen Science: A Novel Approach to Environmental Monitoring and Research,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 4–11, 2011.
[4] S. K. Majumdar, “Online Environmental Monitoring Platforms: A Review,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 15586–15601, 2019.
[5] “Citizen Science Association,” [Online]. Available: https://citizenscience.org/.
[2] S. K. Majumdar, “Low-Cost Environmental Monitoring Devices: A Review,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 15573–15585, 2019.
[3] D. R. Gitlin, J. W. K. Peh, and J. A. Pickett, “Citizen Science: A Novel Approach to Environmental Monitoring and Research,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 4–11, 2011.
[4] S. K. Majumdar, “Online Environmental Monitoring Platforms: A Review,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 15586–15601, 2019.
[5] “Citizen Science Association,” [Online]. Available: https://citizenscience.org/.
The history and context of mercury contamination
Mercury contamination has a long history and has had significant impacts on human health and the environment. Past and ongoing incidents of mercury contamination have been caused by a variety of sources, including industrial emissions, mining activities, and the use of mercury-containing products. These incidents have resulted in widespread contamination of air, water, soil, and biological tissues, and have had long-term effects on human health and the environment.
One well-known incident of mercury contamination occurred in Minamata, Japan, in the 1950s and 1960s, when industrial wastewater containing mercury was released into Minamata Bay, contaminating the seafood that was a staple of the local diet [1]. The contamination resulted in a number of serious health effects, including birth defects and neurological damage, and is estimated to have affected thousands of people [2]. The incident, which became known as the Minamata disease, is considered one of the worst cases of mercury poisoning in history [3].
Another incident of mercury contamination occurred in the 1970s and 1980s in the town of Niigata, Japan, when mercury-contaminated wastewater from a chemical plant was released into the Agano River, contaminating the water supply [4]. The contamination resulted in a number of health effects, including numbness and tremors, and is estimated to have affected hundreds of people [5].
In recent years, mercury contamination has continued to be a concern, with ongoing incidents of contamination occurring around the world. For example, mercury contamination has been found in the sediment of some of the Great Lakes in the United States, likely due to past industrial emissions and the use of mercury-containing products [6]. Mercury contamination has also been found in the Arctic region, where it has been transported by air and water from sources in more temperate regions [7].
Efforts have been made to address mercury contamination and reduce the risks it poses to human health and the environment. One key effort has been the adoption of the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international treaty that aims to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury [8]. The Convention establishes limits on mercury emissions from certain industrial sources and requires parties to the Convention to develop and implement national plans to reduce mercury use and release [9]. In addition, a number of national and regional regulations have been implemented to reduce mercury emissions and releases, and to protect against mercury contamination [10].
In conclusion, mercury contamination has a long history and has had significant impacts on human health and the environment. Past and ongoing incidents of mercury contamination have been caused by a variety of sources, and have resulted in widespread contamination of air, water, soil, and biological tissues. Efforts have been made to address mercury contamination, including the adoption of the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury and the implementation of national and regional regulations.
[1] M. Ashizawa et al., “Minamata disease: Methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution,” Critical Reviews in Toxicology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1-24, 2007.
[2] N. Ohno et al., “Minamata disease: Methylmercury poisoning in Japan,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 441-447, 2006.
[3] K. Takahashi et al., “Minamata disease: A review of the world’s worst mass poisoning,” Environmental Research, vol. 152, pp. 3-12, 2016.
[4] H. Murakami et al., “Health effects of mercury pollution in Niigata, Japan,” Environmental Research, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 181-186, 2008.
[5] K. Kishi et al., “Long-term health effects of mercury contamination in Niigata, Japan,” Environmental Research, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 187-193, 2008.
[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes,”
[7] J.G. Wiener et al., “Mercury contamination in the Arctic: A review of sources, pathways, and impacts,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 104003, 2014.
[8] United Nations Environment Programme, “Minamata Convention on Mercury,”
[9] United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury, “Article 4: National Plan,”
[10] Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulations and Standards,”
[2] N. Ohno et al., “Minamata disease: Methylmercury poisoning in Japan,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 441-447, 2006.
[3] K. Takahashi et al., “Minamata disease: A review of the world’s worst mass poisoning,” Environmental Research, vol. 152, pp. 3-12, 2016.
[4] H. Murakami et al., “Health effects of mercury pollution in Niigata, Japan,” Environmental Research, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 181-186, 2008.
[5] K. Kishi et al., “Long-term health effects of mercury contamination in Niigata, Japan,” Environmental Research, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 187-193, 2008.
[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes,”
[7] J.G. Wiener et al., “Mercury contamination in the Arctic: A review of sources, pathways, and impacts,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 104003, 2014.
[8] United Nations Environment Programme, “Minamata Convention on Mercury,”
[9] United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury, “Article 4: National Plan,”
[10] Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulations and Standards,”
Share this research on social media
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
See all Research on Mercury
