-------
              AIR POLLUTION ASPECTS

                        OF

            MERCURY AND ITS COMPOUNDS
                 Prepared for the
   National Air Pollution Control Administration
Consumer Protection & Environmental Health Services
   Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
            (Contract No. PH-22-68-25)
         Compiled by Quade R. Stahl, Ph.D,
               Litton Systems, Inc.
          Environmental Systems Division
                7300 Pearl Street
             Bethesda, Maryland 20014

                   September 1969

-------
                          FOREWORD


       As the concern for air quality grows, so does the con-

cern over the less ubiquitous but potentially harmful contami-

nants that are in our atmosphere.  Thirty such pollutants have

been identified, and available information has been summarized

in a series of reports describing their sources, distribution,

effects, and control technology for their abatement.

       A total of 27 reports have been prepared covering the

30 pollutants.  These reports were developed under contract

for the National Air Pollution Control Administration  (NAPCA) by

Litton Systems, Inc.  The complete listing is as follows:


    Aeroallergens (pollens)       Ethylene
    Aldehydes (includes acrolein  Hydrochloric Acid
      and formaldehyde)           Hydrogen Sulfide
    Ammonia                       Iron and Its Compounds
    Arsenic and Its Compounds     Manganese and Its Compounds
    Asbestos                      Mercury and Its Compounds
    Barium and. Its Compounds      Nickel and Its Compounds
    Beryllium and Its Compounds   Odorous Compounds
    Biological Aerosols           Organic Carcinogens
      (microorganisms)            Pesticides
    Boron and Its Compounds       Phosphorus and Its Compounds
    Cadmium and Its Compounds     Radioactive Substances
    Chlorine Gas                  Selenium and Its Compounds
    Chromium and Its Compounds    Vanadium and Its Compounds
      (includes chromic acid)     Zinc and Its Compounds


       These reports represent current state-of-the-art

literature reviews supplemented by discussions with selected

knowledgeable individuals both within and outside the Federal

Government.  They do not however presume to be a synthesis of

available information but rather a summary without an attempt

to interpret or reconcile conflicting data.  The reports are

-------
necessarily limited in their discussion of health effects for

some pollutants to descriptions of occupational health expo-

sures and animal laboratory studies since only a few epidemio-

logic studies were available.

       Initially these reports were generally intended as

internal documents within NAPCA to provide a basis for sound

decision-making on program guidance for future research

activities and to allow ranking of future activities relating

to the development of criteria and control technology docu-

ments.  However, it is apparent that these reports may also

be of significant value to many others in air pollution control,

such as State or local air pollution control officials, as a

library of information on which to base informed decisions on

pollutants to be controlled in their geographic areas.  Addi-

tionally, these reports may stimulate scientific investigators

to pursue research in needed areas.  They also provide for the

interested citizen readily available information about a given

pollutant.  Therefore, they are being given wide distribution

with the assumption that they will be used with full knowledge

of their value and limitations.

       This series of reports was compiled and prepared by the

Litton personnel listed below:

       Ralph J. Sullivan
       Quade R. Stahl, Ph.D.
       Norman L. Durocher
       Yanis C. Athanassiadis
       Sydney Miner
       Harold Finkelstein, Ph.D.
       Douglas A. Olsen, Ph0D.
       James L. Haynes

-------
       The NAPCA project officer for the contract was Ronald C.




Campbell, assisted by Dr. Emanuel Landau and Gerald Chapman.




       Appreciation is expressed to the many individuals both




outside and within NAPCA who provided information and reviewed




draft copies of these reports.  Appreciation is also expressed




to the NAPCA Office of Technical Information and Publications




for their support in providing a significant portion of the




technical literature.

-------
                             ABSTRACT



          Elemental mercury and most of its derivatives are proto-



plasmic poisons which can be lethal to man, animals,  and plants.



Russian experiments with animals indicate continuous  exposure to



mercury vapor above 0.3 1-ig/m3 of air may present a health hazard.



Some organic mercury compounds, particularly the alkyl derivatives,



are much more toxic than elemental mercury or the inorganic com-



pounds.  Recent air measurements of particulates in New York in-



dicate that the mercury concentration of indoor samples is as



high as 40 l-ig/m3 , or several times higher than that found safe



in animal experiments using mercury vapor.  The mild  symptoms of



mercury intoxication are psychopathological in nature and  thus



can present serious problems in diagnosing the cause.  Animals



and plants appear to have a lower threshold to the toxicity of



mercury vapors and compounds than humans.



          The mining and refining of mercury and the  use of mer-



cury in industrial and scientific laboratory applications appear



to be significant sources of air pollution.  Very little data are



available on concentrations of mercury in the atmosphere.



          Methods for the control of mercury air pollution are



available but may not be adequately employed.  No information has



been found on the economic costs of mercury air pollution or the



costs of its abatement.  Several methods are known for the determin-



ation of measurement of mercury in the atmosphere.

-------
                         CONTENTS


FOREWORD

ABSTRACT

1.  INTRODUCTION	0  ...<».•    1

2.  EFFECTS	„	    4

    2.1  Effects  on Humans	    4
         2.1.1  Absorption, Distribution  and
                  Excretion   	
         2.1.2  Inhibition of Enzymes   	    7
         2.1.3  Toxicity	    8
                2.1.3.1  Mercury and the  Inorganic
                           Compounds 	    9
                         2.1.3.1.1  Acute Toxicity  ...    9
                         2.1.3.1.2  Chronic Toxicity  .  .   10
                2.1.3.2  Organic Mercury  Compounds  ...   12
                         2.1.302.1  Alky! Mercury
                                      Compounds   ....   12
                         2.1.3.2.2  Other Organic
                                      Mercury Compounds.   13
    202  Effects  on Animals	<,   14
         2.2.1  Commercial and Domestic Animals   ....   14
         2.2.2  Experimental Animals	°  .  „   15
    2.3  Effects  on Plants	19
    2.4  Effects  on Materials	=,  .  .  .  o  .  .   23
    2.5  Environmental Air Standards 	   24
         2.5.1  Mercury and Its Inorganic Compounds   .  .   24
         2.5.2  Mercury Organic Compounds   	   25

3.  SOURCES

    3.1  Natural  Occurrence   	   28
    3.2  Production Sources   	   28
    3.3  Product  Sources	32
    304  Environmental Air Concentrations   	   39

4.  ABATEMENT	„  .   42

5.  ECONOMICS	45

6.  METHODS OF  ANALYSIS	46

7.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	51

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

-------
                       LIST OF FIGURES


1.  U.S. Consumption and Production of Mercury,  1935-66 .   29

2.  Mercury Consumption by Uses,  1947-66  	   34

3.  Saturation Concentration of Mercury in Air Versus
    Temperature	38

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES


 1.  Summary of Mercury Toxicity Data Via  Inhalation  ...   75

 2.  Properties and Uses of Mercury	76

 3.  Saturation Concentration of Mercury in Air  at Various
     Temperatures  	   77

 4.  Mercury Consumed in the U.S. by Uses,  1947-1966  ...   78

 5.  Properties and Uses of Some Mercury Compounds ....   80

 6.  U.S.A. Production of Mercury by States (1936-56)   .  .   86

 7.  Major Mercury Mines in 1963 and Their  Locations  ...   87

 8.  List of Major Mercury-Producing Mines  in 1966 ....   88

 9.  Directory of Selected Producers, Consumers,  and
     Dealers of Mercury	89

10.  List of Some Companies Producing Mercury Chemicals
     (1968)	92

11.  Mercury-Containing Pesticides 	   93

-------
1.  INTRODUCTION




         Elemental mercury (Hg), although it is a metal, is




unique in that it is a liquid at normal temperatures.  This




property plus its high specific gravity and electrical conduc-




tivity has brought about its widespread use in industry and




various types of laboratory equipment and instruments.  When




mercury is spilled or splashed, either in transference or by




breakage of an apparatus, the mercury tends to separate into




very tiny droplets that become entrapped in small cracks and




crevices, rugs, etc.  Moreover,- even when an attempt is made to




pick up the spilled mercury, some mercury still remains.  This




exposed mercury, because of its high vapor pressure at room




temperature, constantly emits vapors into the environmental air.




In addition, any source which heats mercury (or mercury com-




pounds)—such as mining and refining operations, mercury-arc




rectifiers, mercury precision casting, etc.,—presents potential




air pollutant hazards if not carefully controlled..  Therefore,




mercury vapor is always present in the atmosphere.




         In ad.dition to mercury vapor, mercury compound.s may




also result in air pollution.  These compounds normally exist




in the ambient air as aerosols.  For the purposes of this report,




the compounds will be d.ivided. into two main categories:  inorganic




mercury compound.s and. organic mercury compound.s.  The inorganic

-------
compounds include the ionically bonded tnercurous and mercuric




salts, such as mercurous chloride and mercuric chloride.  The




organic compounds include those compounds in which mercury is




covalently bonded to a carbon atom, as in the case of dimethyl




mercury and phenylmercuric acetate.




       The major sources of pollution by mercury compounds are




the industrial manufacturers and users of these compounds.




Agricultural use of organic mercury compounds as pesticides




may also be a source of air pollution.  However, there has been




a general decrease in the use of mercury-containing pesticides




in the past years (see Section 3.3).  The fact that presently




no mercury residue is allowed in foodstuffs in the United




States should cause this declining trend to continue.  A list




of pesticide formulations containing mercury is given in Table




11 in the Appendix.   Further information on mercury pesticides




can be found in the review by Smart 1°^ an(3 references therein.




       Elemental mercury and most compounds of mercury are




protoplasmic poisons and therefore may be lethal to all forms




of living matter.  In general, the organic mercury compounds




are more toxic than mercury vapor or the inorganic compounds.




Even small amounts of mercury vapor or many mercury compounds




can produce mercury intoxication when inhaled by man.  Acute




mercury poisoning, which can be fatal or cause permanent

-------
damage to the nervous system, has resulted from inhalation of




from 1,200 to 8,500 |_ig/m3 of mercury- -*--^9  The more common




chronic poisoning  (mercurialism) which also affects the ner-




vous system is an  insidious form in which the patient may




exhibit no well-defined  symptoms for months or sometimes years




after exposure.  The symptoms usually associated with mercuri-




alism are erethism (exaggerated emotional response), gingivitis,




and muscular tremors.  A person suffering from a mild case of




mercury poisoning  is usually unaware of the cause of the ill-




ness because the symptoms are psychopathological in nature.




Likewise, these ambiguous symptoms may result in an incorrect




diagnosis by a physician.  In addition, animals and plants




also exhibit a low tolerance to mercury and its compounds.

-------
2.   EFFECTS



2.1  Effects on Humans



         It has been well documented that inhalation of air



contaminated, with mercury vapor or certain mercury compounds



may result in intoxication or poisoning by the absorption of



toxic amounts of mercury via the respiratory tract.  Neal



et_ al^.   '     demonstrated a correlation between the mercury



concentration in the atmosphere and the prevalence of chronic



mercurialism.



         Furthermore, inhaling mercury vapors or mercury com-



pound.s may be more detrimental to the body than the other means



of entry such as ingestion.  For example, there are d.ata which



suggest that absorption via the respiratory tract leads to a



higher rate of accumulation of mercury in the brain than via the



other routes of absorption.  '  '    Once mercury passes the



blood-brain barrier, it becomes more strongly bound in the brain


                                    60 144
than in any other organ of the body-



2.1.1  Absorption, Distribution and. Excretion



         Several studies have been conducted, to determine the



extent to which mercury vapor is absorbed from the human respira-



tory tract.  Gerstner   found, that inhalation of air containing



from 10 to 100 |J.g/m3 of mercury vapor resulted in absorption of



34 to 77 percent of the mercury.  However, Gothlin   found almost

-------
complete absorption when the concentration  of  mercury vapor was




less than 250 ng/m3 , and Shepherd  et  aj...     found  no d.etectable




exhaled mercury vapor with a concentration  of  60 |~ig/m3  and  about




10 Hg/m3 of exhaled, mercury vapor  with  an initial  concentration




of 200,000 !~ig/m3 .  Kud.sk98 found, that 67 to 88 percent of the
mercury vapor was absorbed  in  the  range of 50 to 350




The latter concluded, that when the physiological d.ead. space is




considered., then for the range of  concentrations studied there




is also complete absorption of mercury  vapor from the alveoli



                                        99
of the lungs in normal  ind.ivid.uals.  He   also noted that inges-




tion of ethyl alcohol had. an inhibitory influence on the absorp-




tion of mercury vapor by inhalation.



                 34
         Browning   reported, that  organic  mercury compounds are




absorbed, .to a lesser extent than the inorganic compounds when




ingested..  Upon passing through the alveolar and. capillary walls,




elemental mercury and. mercurous compound.s  appear to be readily




oxidized to mercuric salts. '      The  mercuric salts form solu-




ble compound.s with blood, tissue,  fluid.s,  and proteins.




Another conjunctive route for  metallic  mercury was suggested, by



       64
Hughes.    The solubility of elemental  mercury in lipids allows




rapid, d.iffusion through the lipid.-containing cell membranes (the




alveolar walls) followed, by transport by the blood lipid.s to




sensitive tissues, such as  the brain.   The metallic mercury is

-------
then oxidized to the mercuric  ion, which then  reacts  with the
thiol groups of the proteins.   In contrast,  some of the organic-
bound mercury compounds  are not readily converted to  inorganic
mercurial compound.s by the blood, but by the kidneys  and liver
        fil 64. fi R 1 9 R
instead.  '  '  '     Furthermore, some organic  mercury compounds
are retained, in the blood, for  longer period.s,  penetrate blood-
cell barriers more easily, and. become more  firmly bound, to tis-
sues than the inorganic  mercury compound.s.  b'->a'-l-"-:>   When
ingested., mercury  compound.s, whether organic or  inorganic,  become
widely distributed, in all tissues. '   '   '    '     The highest
accumulation occurs normally in the  kidneys, with the next high-
est in the liver;  these  compounds also  accumulate in  the brain,
spleen, and. alimentary tract.   The organic  compounds  appear to
concentrate to a greater extent in the  brain and liver than the
inorganic compounds, however.
         Inhaled, mercury vapor and. mercury  compound.s  are normally
excreted, as inorganic mercury  in the urine  and  feces,  with lesser
amounts excreted in the  bile,  sweat, saliva, and. milk. '34'157
                                                                49
Mercury can also be transferred, to a fetus  through the placenta
                                             127
and to the newborn through the mother's milk.      For example,
                 39
Butt and. Simons en   reported, that in a  7-week-old, infant who died.
with moist gangrene of the extremities,  mercury  was  found in the
kidneys and liver.  The  infant's only known contact with mercury

-------
                                                             7
was through the mother, who was exposed to mercury vapors during


                        TOO
pregnancy.  Smith et a.l_. °° recently reported a  strong correla-



tion between mercury vapor exposure levels  (time-weighted) and



the mercury content of the blood and urine of workers in chlo-



rine plants.



       Although mercury is excreted from the body as mentioned



above, sometimes excretion continues for several months after



exposure to mercury.^3,1^1,159  ^he rate of excretion depends



on individual differences, type and duration of  exposure, and



the mercury derivative.  In general, the excretion rate de-



creases logarithmically with time after exposure has ceased.



2.1.2  Inhibition of Enzymes



       The ultimate effect of mercury and related compounds is



the inhibition of enzyme action.    It is not clearly understood



which enzymes are inhibited, and to what degree, in the produc-



tion of mercury intoxication symptoms.  Nonetheless, it is known



that both inorganic and organic mercury compounds exhibit affinity



for thiol or mercaptan groups (SH groups) in enzymes, and to a



lesser degree the organic ligands of enzyme systems, such as



amino, carboxyl, and hydroxyl substituents. 0/44  passow et al.-



also found that mercury ions can react with phosphoryl groups in



cell membranes.  There is some evidence that mercury ions can



inhibit certain enzyme systems in vitro, including phenolsul-



fate conjugation, citrulline, phosphorolysis, oxidative

-------
                                                            8
mitochondria! phosphorylation, serins biosynthesis, and cyto-




chrome C oxidase.  '      At low concentrations in the system,




the mercury ions become bound primarily to the mercaptan groups,




while at higher concentrations other types of substituents be-


              27
come involved.




2.1.3  Toxicity




         The major factors that determine the effect of mercury




poisoning on humans are (1) amount and rate of absorption,




(2) physicochemical properties of the compounds inhaled, and




(3) individual susceptibility.  '    The first factor is illus-




trated by the fact that although acute poisoning produces pri-




marily nephrogastrointestinal effects, with more severe exposures,




pulmonary changes predominate.  On the other hand,  chronic poi-




soning is usually indicated by neurological effects.  Several




authors have noted a wide range of individual susceptibility.




Although these differences are not fully understood, they have




been explained in part by the varying capacity of an organ for



                              2 112 179
binding and. releasing mercury. '    '      Variations in the toxi-




city of mercury compounds are indicated by their diverse uses,




ranging from diuretics and antiseptics to highly toxic fungicides




and herbicides.




         Inhalation of mercury vapor or mercury-containing sub-




stances can lead to insidious chronic poisoning and even an acute

-------
form of poisoning.  Acute poisoning is not as prevalent as the




chronic type but can arise from exposure to high concentrations




(usually from environments where mercury is near to or in con-




tact with a heated surface), or from exposure to the more toxic




compounds/ particularly the alkyl-mercury derivatives.  In some




cases, the patient suffering from chronic poisoning exhibits no




well-defined symptoms until years after exposure.  The toxicity




of elementary mercury and its compounds has been reviewed by




Battigelli,  '   Brown and Kulkarni,  and Stokinger;    also a



                                                    142
review by an international committee is forthcoming.     A sum-




mary of the symptoms of acute and chronic mercury poisoning by




means of inhalation is given in Table 1 in the Appendix.




2.1.3.1  Mercury and the Inorganic Compounds




2.1.3.1.1  Acute Toxicity




         In some instances, inhalation of mercury in concentra-




tions of 1,200 to 8,500 |-ig/m3 results in acute intoxication,




affecting primarily the digestive system and. kidneys.  Acute in-




toxication is characterized by a metallic taste, nausea, abdomi-



                                                                  159
nal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, and. sometimes albuminuria.




After a few d.ays, the salivary glands swell, stomatitis and gin-




givitis d.evelop, and. a dark line of mercuric sulfide forms on the




inflamed gums.  Furthermore, teeth may loosen and ulcers may ap-


                                                  g

pear on the lips and cheeks.  Axelsson and Friberg  cite as

-------
                                                          10
symptoms gastroenteritis, anuria  (with uremia), stomatitis, and




ulcerohemorrhagic colitis.  Severe exposure to mercury vapor pro-




duces tightness and pain in the chest, difficulty in breathing,


             28
and coughing.    Severe cases of  acute poisoning are character-




ized in later stages by hemolysis, sleeplessness, headache,



facial tics, digital tremors, delirium and hallucinations.



Death as a result of extreme exhaustion frequently occurs with




poisoning of this d.egree of severity.  In mild.er cases of acute



mercury poisoning, some patients  recover within 10 to 14 d.ays,




but others may d.evelop the chronic symptoms, such as muscular




tremors or erethism.



2.1.3.1.2  Chronic Toxicity




         The symptoms observed, in poisoning by mercury vapor and



inorganic mercury compound.s are the same.  However, the inorganic




compound.s, which normally occur in air as aerosols, should, be




less toxic than mercury vapor because of their differences in up-


                    142
take and. deposition.



         Chronic poisoning is more common than the acute form and



primarily affects the nervous system.  The usual symptoms of




chronic poisoning are erethism, gingivitis, and muscular tremors.   '



Any of these symptoms may be present without the others and. in




varying degrees, thus frequently  complicating the diagnosis.




Moreover, the mildest symptoms are psychopathological in nature

-------
                                                          11
and. may be exhibited by persons who have had no known exposure




to mercury.  Thus, as a result of exposure to mercury, a person




may develop nervous anxiety, insomnia, or loss of appetite, yet




his case may never be diagnosed as mercurialism.




         Erethism is characterized by exhibition of undue em-




barrassment, timidity, depression, discouragement, irritability,




resentfulness, or excitability.11'53'131'159  Other aspects are




loss of the abilities to concentrate and remember, fear, and. in-




decision.  Thus, erethism consists of exaggerated emotional re-




sponses in general.  Tremors are the most frequently reported




physical symptom.  They can vary from a slight movement of the




hands, eyelid.s, or tongue  to a disabling, intense trembling




which affects the whole body- 1'15   Early stages consist of




tremors of the lips and tongue, followed by the fingers and. hand.




Ataxia follows, first expressed, as stammering (d.ysarthria) and




difficulty in swallowing (dysphagia), and. later as increasing




coordination in_arms and. legs.  Severe cases may intensify to en-




tirely uncoordinated, movements, impaired, hearing, and. inability




to communicate by writing or speaking.




         Gingivitis leading to recession of gums and. loss of




teeth has been questioned, as a reliable indicator of mercuri-




alism.    Nonetheless, gingivitis, which results from poor oral




hygiene, is probably aggravated by mercury exposure.

-------
                                                            12
         Other symptoms noted,  include  such  neurological d.istur-




 bances as paresthesia, impairment of  taste or  smell,  neuralgia,




and. d.ermographism.     Stomatitis—sometimes severe—and exces-




sive salivation are also common.  Chronic nasal catarrh and.




epistaxis, as well as  renal disease  and  ocular  lesions, are of-




ten found..




2.1.3.2  Organic Mercury Compound.s




         The organic mercury compounds cover a  wide range in




toxicity, but may generally be d.ivid.ed. into two categories on




the basis of toxicity:   (1) the  alkyl  mercury compound.s, which




are stable compound.s and appear  to act on the nervous system;




and. (2) the other organic mercury compound.s,  which are less sta-




ble, d.egrading to inorganic mercury, and. are similar in toxicity




to inorganic mercuric  salts.




2.1.3.2.1  Alky! Mercury Compound.s




         The symptoms  of acute and chronic  poisoning for the




alky! organomercury compound.s  are similar.      Furthermore, the




symptoms, even in acute poisoning, may not  be noticeable until




weeks or months after  exposure.




         Poisoning d.ue to alkyl  mercury  compound.s  is indicated




by some major neurological symptoms  and.  lead.s to permanent dam-




age or d.eath.     Cases of severe exposure  have prod.uced. perman-




ent impairment of the  nervous  system,  such  as gross ataxia,

-------
                                                           13
aphasia, sensory loss in the limbs, impaired vision and hearing,



                                                       11 flfi 8Q
personality changes, and loss of intellectual capacity. x'00'°




In severe cases the symptoms are irreversible.  In an example



                  88
related by Hunter,   a 16-year-old boy exposed to methyl mercury




compounds for only a few months who had sustained severe damage




to his nervous system  was still unable to work after 20 years




because of persistent ataxia, tremors, and inability to recognize




objects by touch.




         Inhalation of alkyl mercury derivatives can produce sen-




sations of dryness and irritation in the nasopharynx and mouth




and even lead to blistering.     In general, alkyl mercury cotn-




pound.s affect predominantly the motor and sensory nerves, while




the inorganics are more likely to prod.uce symptoms of excessive



                                     33
salivation, stomatitis, and erethism.




         Cases of mental retardation with convulsive cerebral




palsy have been reported in infants born to mothers who




were exposed, to large amounts of methyl mercury during preg-




nancy-57'117




2.1.3.2.2  Other Organic Mercury Compounds




         Organic mercury compounds other than the dialkyl deriva-




tives are in general rapidly converted in the body to inorganic




mercury compounds.1'"  Thus, these organic compounds show toxi-




cities and. symptoms similar to those of the inorganic mercury

-------
                                                           14
compounds (see section 2.1.3.1)-  Information on the toxicity of




these compounds is very limited.




         Methoxyethyl mercury, a fungicide, has been reported to




cause symptoms associated with inorganic mercury compounds,  in-




cluding loss of appetite and weight, diarrhea, and fatigue.142




         Goldwater ,et_ a.1.. ^ reported evidence of kidney damage




from heavy exposure to phenylmercuric acetate; however/ the  dam-




age may have been related to a simultaneous acid burn of the skin.




         No conclusive evidence of toxic effects in humans from




long-term exposure to phenyl mercury salts has been reported.




Massman reported on 26 human subjects with up to 6 years' exposure




to phenylmercuric pyrocatechin (240 to 3,200 |J.g/m3 ) with no  clini-




cal evidence of injury.  Goldwater £t_ al_. '4,103 studied more than




100 workers exposed to phenyl mercury compounds in the air (usu-




ally with some inorganic salts also present).  Thirty-five of the




workers had been exposed, to mercury concentrations up to 5,100




iag/m3 , with the air concentrations generally exceeding 290 fig/m3 .




No cases of poisoning were record,ed. in either study.




2 .2  Effects on Animals




2.2.1  Commercial and Domestic A/iimals




         No qualitative or quantitative data were  found con-




cerning mercury poisoning for animals exposed to typical environ-




mental conditions.  Farm animals have been poisoned, as a result

-------
                                                           15
of eating plants treated with mercury-containing pesticides.




An incident of mercury poisoning in cattle stabled overnight with




a horse that had been treated with a mercury skin ointment was


                        QO
also described.  Heimann0-6 reported on an incident described by



                     R4.
Henderson and. Haggard0^ in which symptoms of mercury poisoning




developed in cows and other domestic animals after a fire in a




nearby mercury mine.




2.2.2  Experimental Animals




         Papers describing the toxic effects of mercury and its




compounds on animals are too numerous to be reviewed in detail in




this report.  However, important papers relating to inhalation of




mercury-containing substances and air pollution will be summar-




ized.  More detailed, summaries can be found in the reviews of




Battigelli,10'11 Brown and Kulkarni,   and Stokinger,    and in




the references mentioned, therein.




         Kurnosov    conducted, experiments in which white rats




were continuously exposed, to a low concentration of mercury vapor




for 9.5 months.  Rats that inhaled the vapor in the concentration




ranges of 20 to 30, 8 to 10, and. 2 to 5 |-ig/m3 of air showed an




accumulation of mercury in the kidneys, liver, and to a lesser




extent in the brain and. heart.  They also exhibited pathomor-




phological changes and. disturbances of the functional activity




of the higher nerve centers.  The degree of neurological and

-------
                                                           16
pathomorphological changes appeared  to be  proportional  to  the




mercury concentration.  The author also cited  reports which




showed that inhalation of 100 to  7,000 |ag/m3 of mercury resulted




in the death of laboratory animals.




         Ashe .et. Jil..^ studied, the responses of animals  exposed




to mercury vapor at concentration levels of from  100 to 6,000




M,g/m3 for as long as 83 weeks.  In rabbits exposed,  to mercury




vapors at 6,000 ng/m3 for 6 weeks there was severe  d.amage  to  the




kidneys, heart, lungs, and. brain.  In d.ogs  he found  no damage  af-




ter 83 weeks of exposure to a mercury vapor concentration  of  100




l-ig/m3 .  At a concentration of approximately 860 |jg/m3 ,  signifi-




cant d.amage to the brain and. kidneys was noted after 6  weeks,




although the damage disappeared when the animal was no  longer




exposed..  The authors pointed, out that the animals  have a  greater




susceptibility to renal tissue d.amage by mercury  vapors than  do




humans, and that this type of data cannot  therefore be  applied




quantitatively to man.




         These authors also d.etermined. the U/A ratio  (amount  of




mercury in urine to amount being  inhaled)  at 100  |_Lg/m3  of  mer-




cury vapor.  After several weeks, a  steady-state  ratio  of  0.14




for rabbits and 0.4 for dogs was  attained.  In contrast,  in hu-




mans exposed to the same concentration of  combined  mercury vapor




and dusts for months to years, the U/A ratio was  7. Some  factors

-------
                                                           17
responsible for the higher U/A ratio  in humans than  in  animals




may be a higher rate of pulmonary deposition, absorption,  or




urinary excretion of mercury.  The U/A ratio decreases  as  the




concentration of mercury increases for both humans and  animals,




although the decrease is greater for  humans.




         Frazer _et_ _al_. ° found that dogs  exposed to  mercury va-




por of 3,000 l-ig/m3 of air or less for 40  days showed no signs




of intoxication.  However, an increase to 3,000 to 6,000 t-ig/m3




for the same length of time produced  effects on the  central ner-




vous system and digestive tract.  In  addition, death resulted




after eight days at 6,000 to 20,000 |-ig/m3  or a few hours at




20,000 |ag/m3 .




         Gage^4 has shown that rats inhaling 100 |~ig/m3  of  mer-




cury vapor for short periods had a rapid  turnover of mercury in




all tissues except the brain, and that the mercury was  elimina-




ted within one week after the exposure was discontinued..   How-




ever, after prolonged, exposure the mercury was converted, by the




kidneys to a derivative which was excreted, very slowly-




         Several authors have stud.ied. the effects of inorganic



and. organic derivatives on animals .18-20,60-62,138,167   These




studies are based, mainly on injection of  the compound, rather than




inhalation.  Clarkson et al.   and Berlin1^ consider that  the




mode of administration is irrelevant, since they believe that

-------
                                                           18
mercury entering the body by inhalation does  not behave differ-




ently from mercury compound.s injected,  into the  system.   In gen-




eral, their results suggest that mercury, in  animals  as in humans,




is wid.ely distributed in the body but  mainly  concentrated  in the




kidneys and liver and to a lesser extent  in the brain,  and that




the organic mercury compounds are more toxic  to animals than in-




organic mercury by a factor of  5 to  20.   Moreover,  the  organic




mercurials—especially the alky! derivatives—appear  to concen-




trate more rapid.ly in the brain tissues and. are also  more  tightly




bound to most tissues.




         Bellies _e_t a.l_.   exposed pigeons to  an average mercury




vapor concentration of 80 M-g/m3 for  6  hours a d.ay  for 20 weeks




and found no behavioral, histological, or gross signs of mercuri-




alism.  However, Armstrong et. ail_.-> found  notable changes in the




behavior of pigeons after 14 weeks at  17,000  M-g/m3 .




         It was noted, in the previous  section that humans  absorb




nearly all of the mercury vapor inhaled, in the  concentration




range of 50 to 350 |ag/m3 .  However,  in dogs exposed to  concentra-




tions of from 3,000 to 26,000 [ag/m3 , the  amount of inhaled, mer-




cury absorbed, varied, from 21 to 23 percent.   Gage-* also found.




that rats absorbed only about 50 percent  of the mercury vapor




when exposed, to 1,000 ^g/m3 .  It is  not known whether this is




due to the difference in the absorption ability of human and

-------
                                                           19
animal lungs, the higher concentration of mercury vapor, or other




factors.




         In summary, it appears that animals exhibit toxicity




symptoms similar to man but are more susceptible to lower concen-




trations of mercury.




2.3  Effects on Plants




         Evidence has been published that clearly demonstrates




the phytotoxicity of vapor from metallic mercury and. its com-




pounds in a certain variety of roses and other species of plants.




Although injury to plants has been noticed only when the plants




are located, in a confined, atmosphere containing a source of mer-




cury, examples are given where the mercury content of the air




was less than 10 (Jg/m3 and yet severe damage to roses resulted..




Various species and. varieties of plants d.iffer widely in their




susceptibility to mercury poisoning.  The extent of damage to a




particular species of plant d.epend.s mainly on factors which "in-




fluence the vaporization of mercury, such as source of mercury,




temperature, air-flow rate, and. initial concentration.  It is




generally believed, that the phytotoxicity of mercury compounds




is primarily d.ue to the mercury vapors arising from thermal de-




composition or catalytic red.uction of the compound to metallic




vapor.^  Lesions caused, by both organic and inorganic mercury




compounds are indistinguishable from those caused by metallic




mercury.

-------
                                                            20
         The damage to certain species of roses from mercury




poisoning consists of brown or black discoloration of the  leaves,




petals, peduncles, and corollas of the young buds.  Further expo-




sure results in stronger discoloration, followed by abscission of




the leaves and the young bud.s.  Injured plants may recover from




the mercury poisoning if removed from the contaminating source.




Slightly injured, plants prod.uce normal shoots from various parts




of the plant in one to two months.  However, badly injured roses




may not initiate normal growth or flowering for several months,




and then only from the lower part of the plant.




         Another important aspect of mercury poisoning in plants




is their tend.ency to accumulate large amounts of mercury in




leaves and various other parts.  One experiment is reported in




which approximately 4,000 ppm of mercury was found, in tobacco




leaves after the soil was moistened, with a 1 percent solution of




mercuric chlorid.e for one week.  Even though the leaves contained




a high concentration of mercury, the tobacco plant itself  exhib-




ited only slight damage.




         Only a few papers exist which d.escribe the effect of




mercury on plants.  Some early experiments with mercury are re-




ported, by Boussingault,2^'   in which mint, petunias, peach twigs,




and bean plants were exposed, to metallic mercury vapors.  These




plants developed, dark spots and. blackening of the leaves and stems,

-------
                                                            21
with eventual collapse and premature falling of the leaves.




During 90-hour experiments, it was noticed that damage increased




with the duration of the mercury exposure.




         Interest in the phytotoxicity of mercury was stimulated




again in 1933 when some Briarcliff roses were accidentally in-




jured, in a commercial greenhouse:  the mature roses had faded,




while the petals on the buds of the younger plants had turned




brown.  Other species of roses in the same greenhouse did not




exhibit any sign of damage.  Zimmerman and Crocker-'-"-'- experi-




mentally verified the fact that the injury to the roses resulted




from an application of mercuric chloride for earthworm control.




Further investigation suggested that in the presence of Tank-




age—a fertilizer having a high organic matter content—mercuric




chloride had a much greater effect than the mercury compound a-




lone.  Ratsek    found in similar experiments with both mercury




and mercuric chloride that the leaves of the roses accumulate




mercury.  He also found that the amount recovered in the leaves




was dependent upon the surface area exposed to mercury.




         Zimmerman and. Crocker182 further studied the effect of




Tankage fertilizer on the apparent increase in phytotoxicity of




mercuric chlorid.e.  The results of these experiments showed that




the injury to roses from mercuric chloride was caused by the me-




tallic mercury vapor produced from the decomposition of the

-------
                                                            22
mercuric chloride, which was found to be catalyzed in the pre-




sence of organic matter (such as that used in Tankage).  These




investigators then conducted additional experiments with mercury




using other species of plants.  Some of the plants which they




found particularly susceptible were the broad bean, butterfly




weed, oxalis, and sunflower, as well as nine varieties of roses.




Some plants relatively resistant to the vapor were aloe, croton,




English ivy, oak, and pachysandra.  Peach, privet, tomato, gera-




nium, and Boston fern exhibited intermediate susceptibility.




         Zimmerman and Crocker  ^ analyzed the leaves of differ-




ent species after about one week's exposure to mercuric chloride.




Some of the results were Briarcliff rose 317, Coolidge rose 808,




and Turkish tobacco 2,405 to 3,747 ppm of mercury  (by dry weight).




It is interesting that the Briarcliff is more susceptible to dam-




age by mercury than the Coolid.ge rose, and both are more suscepti-




ble than the tobacco, which showed only slight d.amage.




         Recent reports ind.icate that certain plants are injured.




when exposed, to mercury fumes resulting from decomposition of




paints containing mercuric fungicid.es.  Butterfield4  reported




two cases of mercury poisoning in Better Times roses caused, by




emanations from a fungicid.e paint on the walls of the greenhouse.




A greenhouse freshly painted, with the same fungicid.e paint showed.




only a slight reading on a mercury vapor d.etector  (about 10 |-ig/m3 )

-------
                                                            23
after 24 hours.  After 20 days in this greenhouse, however,




Peter's Briarcliff roses exhibited minor lesions, and after an




additional week of exposure severe injury was apparent.




         Diamond, and Stod.d.ard.^3 reported a similar case of dam-




age to roses arising from the use of mercury fungicide paint in-




side a greenhouse.  The paint contained, about 0.08 percent mer-




cury by weight in the form of the fungicid.e di-(phenylmercuric)




dodecenyl succinate  (DPMDS).  Analysis of the air surrounding




the injured, roses showed no detectable mercury vapors  (the lower




limit of the detector was 10 |~ig/m3 ).  However, analysis of the




roses showed, that the petals contained 1.3 ppm of mercury  (fresh




weight) and the leaves 3.3 ppm.  Roses not exposed, to mercury




contained 0.2 ppm of mercury in the petals and 0.07 in the




leaves.  When tested, the fungicide DPMDS slowly decomposed, at




room temperature, releasing mercury vapor into the atmosphere.




         Hitchcock and. Zimmerman"^ have reviewed in detail the




reports of mercury poisoning of plants up to 1957.  Thomas16




also has reviewed, air pollutants (including mercury) which are




harmful to plants.




2.4  Effects on Materials




         No information on d.amage to materials by mercury was




found.  However, it may be possible that even at low concentra-




tions, mercury will slowly collect on certain metallic surfaces

-------
                                                            24
and penetrate the material by  amalgamation.   If the concentration




of mercury becomes too high, the  strength of the material may be




weakened.




2.5  Environmental Air Standards




2.5.1  Mercury and Its Inorganic  Compound.s




         The American Conference  of  Governmental Industrial




Hygienists165 has ad.opted. the  threshold  limit value (TLV) of 100




iag/m3 for mercury vapor  and.  inorganic  compounds of mercury for




an 8-hour work day.  The TLV^ is based  on studies of human ex-




posure in the felt hat ind.ustry by Neal  et aJ^.129 and. on unpub-




lished, results by Fahy5^ in  the electronics  and lamp industries.




However, there are several examples  which suggest that this level




should be changed.  Gold.water  et  a.l_.73 cited the studies of Smith




_e_t _§_!. ,155'156 Bidstrup,22 and Neal  et al..    on the exposure of




workers to a concentration of  less than  100  |-ig/m3 of mercury va-




por and. inorganic compounds  which resulted, in mercury poisoning




in 5 to 12 percent of those  exposed.  However, a study by Klein-




field, et^ a_l_.95 on workers exposed, to inorganic mercury compound.s




in the range of 80 to 400 |ag/m3 (an  average  exposure of approxi-




mately 200 i-ig/m3 ) for more than two  years found that these work-




ers exhibited no evidence of mercury intoxication.




         Stokinger1^9 in a review on mercury feels that with the




current TLV, a relatively small margin of safety for mercury vapor

-------
                                                             25
exists, although with the mercury  inorganic  salts there  is  a
greater safety factor.  Several authors have  shown concern  that
this TLV may be too high, especially in the case of mercury va-
por.  The ACGIH Threshold Limit Values Committee is considering
lowering the TLV for  "inorganic" mercury to  50 ng/m3 air, on the
                                                       AQ
basis of unpublished studies by the chlorine  industry.    In 1968
an International Symposium recommended 8-hour Maximum  Allowable
Concentrations (MAC) of 50 f-ig/m3 for mercury  vapor and 100  |J.g/m3
for the inorganic salts.
       No studies have been found  that suggest or set  a  24-hour
exposure limit for mercury in the  United States.  However,  in
                              AQ
a discussion with B. F. Craft, ° Dr. H. E. Stokinger suggested
that a 24-hour limit for mercury be no higher than 10  p.g/m
(based on a limit of 50 |J.g/m3 for  8 hours).
       In 1963, a maximum allowable concentration of metallic
mercury of 0.3 ng/m3 of environmental air for a 24-hour  expo-
sure was established in Russia (the U.S.S.R.'s maximum occupa-
tional 8-hour exposure limit to inorganic mercury is 10  M.g/m3 ).
This Russian 24-hour limit was based on animal experiments .-1-43
Long-term experiments with rats at a level of 2 to 5 (ag/m3  of
mercury vapor in air affected the  functional  activity  of higher
nervous centers,  caused mercury deposition in the brain  and
other organs, and produced pathomorphological changes.100

-------
                                                            26
2.5.2  Mercury Organic Compounds




       Because of the higher toxicity of many of the organic-




bound mercury compounds, the ACGIH165 has  established  a TLV  for




organic mercury of 10 [J.g/m3 for an  8-hour  exposure, a  factor of




10 less than that for inorganic mercury.   This TLV  is  based




mainly on the studies of Ahlmark,   Lundgren and Swensson,1




Trakhtenberg,166 and Dinman et_ etl.54  The  former two studies1'109




are occupational studies in which alkyl mercury compounds were




being used.  The data provided in these two studies do not in-




clude the atmospheric concentrations of the mercury compounds




nor the methods of analysis.  Ahlmark1 concluded that  the limit




should be 10 |J.g/m3 .  On the basis of the finding that  mice died




upon being exposed for 3 to 5 hours at 10,000 to 30,000 Mg/m3




of organic mercury (ethyl mercuric  phosphate and chloride) in




air, Trakhtenberg,166 in 1951, concluded that humans could not




tolerate exposures of 0.01 [ag/m3 on a continuing basis.  In  the




more recent study by Dinman et aJ^., ^4 in 1958, 20 workers were




exposed to organic mercury (ethyl mercuric phosphate and chloride




adsorbed on inert clay and solvent  solutions of ethyl  or phenyl




mercuric acetate) in the range of 10 to 100 |J.g/m3 for  almost 6




years, yet did not show any symptoms suggestive of  mercury in-




toxication.  In fact, several other studies strongly suggest




that some organic mercurials,  especially the aryl-mercury salts,

-------
                                                           27
are no more toxic than the inorganic mercury salts.66/103,113,162




This has led several authors to question the TLV of 10 |ag/m3 for




all organic mercury compounds.'3,103,175




       In Russia, an 8-hour MAC of 5 ng/m3 was established for




alkyl mercury compounds  (methyl and ethyl mercury chlorides).




An International Symposium recommended 100 k^g/m3 as the 8-hour




MAC for phenyl and methoxyethyl mercury salts.




       Therefore, if a 24-hour maximum exposure limit is to be




established for organic  mercury compounds, it may be necessary




to establish different tolerance levels for particular types of




organic mercury compounds, such as alkyl and aryl compounds.

-------
                                                            28
3.  SOURCES




3.1  Natural Occurrence




         Mercury is neither abundantly nor widely distributed




in the earth's crust.122'12^  The percentage of mercury in ig-




neous rocks is approximately 10~7.  Although less abundant than




platinum, uranium, silver, cesium, and other common metals, mer-




cury exists in highly concentrated ores and thus is readily at-




tainable.  Most mercury d.eposits are found near the surface of




the earth, and in the United. States are confined, mainly to the




West Coast in a belt of late tertiary orogeny and volcanism.




         There are only a few ores of mercury, and. only one ore




of economic importance—cinnabar, or mercuric sulfide  (see Sec-




tion 3.2).  Elemental mercury occurs in small quantities, mixed




with its ores.




3.2  Production Sources




         The production of mercury in the United. States has not




kept pace with the consumption since 1918, except for  the years




1931, and 1940 through 1942.  The total production has fluctu-




ated since 1935  (see Figure  3).   In 1950, the domestic production




was the lowest ever recorded, supplying only 9 percent of the




national requirements.   In succeeding years, prod.uction gradually




increased—reaching a maximum of  83 percent of the consumption—




before again declining.  Approximately  5.5 million pounds of

-------
                                                                      29
FLASKS (000)




  80
  70
  60
  50
  40
  30
  20
  10
                                                             CONSUMPTION
PRODUCTION
    1935       1940      1945      1950        1955       1960      1965
                                  FIGURE 1




        U.S.  Consumption and Production of  Mercury,  1935-66126

-------
                                                           30
mercury were consumed in the United States  in  1966.126   Of this




amount, about 1.67 million pounds or  30.6 percent  were  prod.uced




by domestic mines.  California  (with  73.1 percent) and  Nevada




(with 15.2 percent) are the principal mercury-prod.ucing states,




with lesser quantities prod.uced.  in Alaska,  Arizona,  Arkansas,




Idaho, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and.  Washington.   (See  Table 6  in




Appendix for United States production of mercury by  states




since 1936.)  In 1963, eight mines furnished  97 percent of the




domestic primary production.   (See Table 7  in  Append.ix  for the




list of these mines and their location.)  The  number of producing




mines has increased, from 48 in 1963 to  130  in  1966,  while  149




mines produced mercury in 1965.126  Table 8 in the Appendix lists




the mines with a production of 100 flasks or more  in 1966.   Forty




other mines-'--''-' supplied the remainder.




         The principal ore mined  for  mercury  is cinnabar (red




mercuric sulfide, alpha-HgS), which is  mined by both underground




and surface or open-pit mining.   Several studies have been con-




ducted, to d.etermine the concentration and. hazard, of atmospheric




mercury in mines all over the world.4'50'87'104'172'174 Al-




though no data are given on the  amount  of mercury  emitted  into




the surrounding atmosphere, these studies showed, that the  working




environment contained, dangerous  amounts of  mercury (as  high as




about 5,000 |-ig/m3 ) in the form of vapor and  aerosols, as well as

-------
                                                           31
in mine dusts.  A number of the miners studied exhibited signs




of mercury intoxication especially before proper methods of con-




trol were used.




         Ore refining, which is usually done near the mine site,




is another source of atmospheric mercury contamination, as well




as an industrial hazard.  The ore is heated in retorts or fur-




naces in the presence of oxygen or lime to liberate mercury as




a vapor, which is collected in condensers. ^   These gases are




then passed through washers and into the open air through a
stack.  According to Schuette146 as cited by Stokinger,    stack




losses should not exceed 2 or 3 percent, although very much




higher losses have occurred.  A stack loss of only 3 percent




would mean that over 50,000 pounds of mercury were emitted into




the atmosphere in the United States in 1966 from smelting alone.




         Mercury can also be found in small amounts in associa-




ted sulfides of other metals, although it may not be economical-




ly feasible to recover the mercury.  Hence, in refining the ore




to recover other metals, the mercury vapor produced in the pro-




cess may escape into the atmosphere.  In special cases, signifi-




cant amounts of mercury have been recovered as a by-product of




zinc, copper, and gold production.




         Due to the large demand and. low cost of production rates,




the production of secondary mercury has been high.  Sources of




secondary mercury are reclaimed dental amalgams, oxide and

-------
                                                            32
acetate sludges, battery scrap, and dismantled mercury boilers.


About 23 percent of the mercury consumed in 1966 was secondary


mercury.  In 1964 and 1965 secondary mercury was very high


(about 30 and 63 percent respectively of the total mercury pro-


duction) as a result of the release of  surplus mercury by the


Atomic Energy Commission.


3 . 3  Product Sources



         In 1963, a total of about 300  companies used the virgin


mercury supplied by the mines; 96 percent of this virgin mercury


was consumed by 80 companies located in the Eastern States. ^


A list of the large producers, consumers, and dealers in mer-


cury is given in Table 9 in the Appendix.  About 400 companies


throughout the United States consumed approximately 20 percent


of the redistilled mercury in 1963.     Consumption appears to


be generally increasing and is expected to maintain this trend


for the next 5 years or more.     Table 10 in the Appendix lists


some of the companies producing mercury compounds.


         The two major uses of the mercury consumed in the


United States in 1966 were in electrical apparatus and electro-


lytic preparation of chlorine and caustic soda, corresponding

                                                                  1 O C^.
to about 19 to 16 percent of the total consumption, respectively.


Other uses include paints (11 percent), industrial and control


instruments (6 percent), Pharmaceuticals (5 percent), agriculture

-------
                                                          33
(3 percent), and catalysts (3 percent).  The data for, the uses




for the past 20 years are given in Table 4 in the Appendix.




The trend for consumption by uses can be seen in Figure 2.  The




use of mercury in agriculture and for industrial and. control




instruments has declined.  However, there is a strong increase




in the use of mercury for the electrolytic preparation of chlo-




rine and caustic soda that is further reflected in "other uses,"




which includes mercury used for installation of new chlorine




and caustic soda plants.  Mercury is also increasingly used in




electrical apparatus, paints, and laboratory products.




         Mercury's high specific gravity, electrical cond.uc-




tivity, and boiling temperature, plus the fact that it is a




liquid at normal temperatures, make it suitable for application




in mercury-arc lamps, neon and fluorescent lamps, mercury boilers,




electrodes in electrolysis, arc rectifiers, batteries, switches,




thermometers, barometers, manometers, hydrometers, pyrometers,




and related equipment.10'107'121'1^0  A relatively new applica-




tion is in amalgam metallurgy and. precision casting,    such as




jewelry and molding processes.46'93  (See Table 2 in the Appen-




dix for a summary of the properties and uses of mercury.)




         The chemical properties of mercury compounds give rise




to such applications as catalysts in preparing organic compounds,




fungicides, spermicidal jellies, herbicides, insecticides,

-------
                                                                                        34
FLASKS (000)
  70
   60 _
   50 _
   40 _
   30 _
   20-
    10-
                                             Other Uses
                                                            Electrical Apparatuses
                                                             Redistillation

                                                             Electrolytic Preparation Of
                                                             Chlorine and Caustic Soda
                                                              Paints
                                              Laboratories

                                              Industrial and Control
                                              Instruments

                                              Pharmaceuticals

                                              Agriculture
                                                              Dental Preparations


                                                              Catalysts

                                                              Amalgamation
                                           —I	1	
                                            1957 61     1961  66
	1	
 1947 - 51
1952-56
                                          FIGURE  2

                        Mercury  Consumption by Uses,  1947-66

-------
                                                            35
explosives, antiseptics and disinfectants, pigments, preserva-




tives, embalming preparations, antibiotics, diuretics, fire-




works, and. many other uses.  Some of the more common compounds




and. their uses, along with their physical properties and toxi-




city, are listed, in Table 5 in the Appendix.




         Only one example of community-wid.e mercury poisoning


                           QO
has been reported.  Heimann0'' mentioned the incident described.



                        84
by Henderson and Haggard   following a fire in a mercury mine




in Idrija, Austria  (now in Yugoslavia).  The community of 900




inhabitants developed, the muscular tremors  symptomatic of mer-




cury poisoning; moreover, cows and. other domestic animals also




exhibited, the symptoms of intoxication.




         Numerous examples in the literature d.escribe the haz-




ards of merc.ury poisoning resulting from industrial exposure.




These hazards are present in a variety of industries, including




the manufacture of felt hats (rare),1  technical instruments, 34'54




chlorine and. caustic soda,   '    carbon for electrical motors, 5




fluorescent lamps,   '    neon signs,   mercury compound.s,




jewelry,46'93 tungsten rods,161 textiles,96 pesticides,86'88'109




and dry batteries.176  They also exist in seed-treating,  5 re-


                             o o                   fi Q
pair of electrical apparatus, ^ mercury catalysis,   and occur




in rectifier shops    and breweries.3^  Broadhurst3^ anca Bid-




strup^1 have summarized some of the cases of industrial mercury




poisoning.

-------
                                                            36
         Mercury poisoning is also a problem for the general




public.  It has been demonstrated that a mercury hazard  exists




in scientific laboratories,    schools,12'72'101'168 hospitals,177




medical laboratories,131 and dental offices.94'153  Organic mer-




cury compounds used, in house paints yield detectable concentra-




tions of mercury (over 100 p.g/m3 for short periods of time).




However, Goldberg and Shapero   and Jacobs et_ al..   concluded




from their studies that these paints do not constitute a direct




hazard to the painters or occupants of the room which was painted.




         Other than mercury-containing paints, the only  other com-




mon household, source of poisoning appears to be the breakage of




thermometers and. possible d.amage to mercury-filled, switches, nei-




ther of which apparently constitute a known hazard..  There are,




however, several exceptional examples of mercury poisoning in




the home.  Burke and Quagliana37 reported, mercury poisoning re-




sulting from an attempt to recover mercury from hearing-aid mer-




cury batteries.  Mathes et .al_.116 cited an example where a




homemade mercury paint was used, on a gas heater.  The heater




was turned, on before the paint was completely d.ry, resulting in




the deaths from mercury vapor inhalation of three childxen




sleeping in an adjacent room.  Bucher36 mentions an incident in




which a bottle of mercury was spilled, and although it was




"cleaned up" left enough remaining mercury to be harmful.

-------
                                                          37
         Mercury vapors are probably the major source of envi-




ronmental pollution.  The hazard from mercury vapor occurs




chiefly from spillage in and around the areas where it is used. .^9



 •    9 "•?
Biram^J points out that it is impossible to clear mercury away




completely once it has been spilled or splashed.  When this hap-




pens, the mercury tends to break up into exceedingly small drop-




lets which can become entrapped in cracks and crevices; the amount




of vapor produced is thus increased because of the greatly in-




creased surface area of the mercury.




         The rate of vaporization for mercury increases very




rapidly with increase in temperature.  Figure 3 shows that the




atmospheric concentration will approximately double for every




10°C increase.  It should be noted that at room temperature (20




to 24°C or 68.0 to 75.2°F) the saturation concentration of mer-




cury in air (see Table 3 in the Append.ix) is 130 to 180 times




greater than the accepted. Threshold. Limit Value for 8-hour ex-




posure.  Hence, it is conceivable that mercury vapor in the




environmental air could, reach a concentration that would, be




harmful to the surrounding population and. even fatal.




         Giese68 found, that at 25°C a stream of air flowing at




a rate of one liter per minute over a 10 cm2 area of mercury be-




comes about 15 percent saturated, (i.e., contains about 3,000




ug/m3 of mercury), which is well above the human toxicity level.

-------
                                                                      38
   (000)
110   -
100
 90   -
                          68.0     75.2    82.4
46.4     53.6     60.8
104.0     111.2
                                   FIGURE 3




     Saturation Concentration of Mercury in  Air Versus Temperature

-------
                                                           39
The amount of mercury  (approximately 10 g) in 10 thermometers




used in the home could easily produce a 10 cm2 area if the mer-




cury from each thermometer formed about 10 or more droplets or




globules of mercury-  More cases of mercury poisoning probably




would occur were it not for the fact (in part) that in still




air the heavy vapors (approximately eight to nine times more




heavy than air) tend to collect near the surface of the mercury




and thus tend to prevent rapid evaporation.  Dirt, grease, and.




other impurities also collect on the surface of the drops, re-




tarding the normal rate of evaporation.




         Several foreign countries have problems with mercury




pollution today, especially Japan and Sweden.  In Japan, large




amounts of organic mercury fungicides are being used in the pre-




vention of "rice blast disease."  A high concentration of mer-




cury in the air has resulted, and an even higher one in food and




water.  Air measurements have shown that the concentration of




mercury is as high as 10,000 |ag/m3 in some areas.^3  jn Sweden,^




the mercury comes from such industrial sources as pulp and pa-




per and chloralkali plants.




3.4  Environmental Air Concentrations




         Only one paper giving data on the concentration of mer-




cury in the air has been found.  Cholak   reported the mercury




content of suspended particulate matter for two cities:

-------
                                                            40
                                      Concentration in ug/ma_

                                      Average         Range


Cincinnati (1946-1951)                  0.10         0.03-0.21


Charleston (1950-1951)                  0.17


       These data pose this important question:  how hazardous


is the mercury contained in particulates?  The question is yet


to be answered-  All studies found concerning the inhalation of


either mercury vapor or its compounds deal with the pure sub-


stance and not mercury-containing particulates.  Furthermore,


not only do the data represent an inadequate sampling of the


United States, they also fail to give the current concentrations


or illustrate trends for the future.


       Dr. L. J. Goldwater   in 1968 kindly provided the fol-


lowing unpublished data on some recent  surveys of mercury con-


centration :


                               Concentration of Mercury (
Palo Alto, Calif.  (Hg vapor)              0.001 -  0.01


New York, N.Y.  (Hg in particulates)       Outdoor:   1-14
                                          Indoor:    1-41 [ ,"•' >  - .^
                                                        ^.

       The New York data are from 25 to  30  samples  taken about


1960 over a three month period in the Queens section of New


York City, primarily from the residential district, although


some of the indoor samples were taken in  business offices  and


the laboratories and offices of Columbia  University.  As far

-------
                                                            41
as could be determined, there were no unusual sources of mer-




cury near the sampling areas.'''-'-  The Palo Alto data are from




representative samples collected over several years.

-------
                                                           42
4.  ABATEMENT




         Industries using mercury and. mercury-related compounds




have developed control methods as a result of two principal fac-




tors:  the high toxicity of most mercury sources and the high




cost of mercury.  Industries that use mercury are divided into




two main categories:  those that use mercury at ambient tempera-




tures and those that use mercury at elevated temperatures.  For




the former, control methods consist largely of protection of the




employees by maintaining proper ventilation in work areas,




cleaning up spilled mercury, and using non-porous material for




floors, working surfaces, and protective clothing.    Low con-




centrations of mercury vapor are directly vented to the open




atmosphere with no attempt to trap the mercury vapors.




         When mercury is used at elevated temperatures in such




uses or processes as metallurgy of mercury and other metals (via




amalgamation with mercury), mercury boilers, and mercury-arc




rectifiers, better control of the effluent mercury vapors is




necessary.  In general practice, vapors are condensed by means




of cold-water-jacketed condensers.70  In one instance, impreg-




nated charcoal was used to remove mercury from the hydrogen gas




stream originating from mercury cells used in the production of




hydrogen.10^  More effective removal can be accomplished by use




of water scrubbers in the final section of the condensers and by

-------
                                                            43
subsequent use of a pyrolusite adsorber.137




         Spilled mercury presents another possible pollutant




problem.  This problem occurs not only in industry, but also in




schools and hospitals, laboratories, and. even homes (from the




breakage of thermometers, etc.).  The ambient atmosphere as well




as the working environment are continually being contaminated.




by these sources.  Because of lack of knowled.ge or lack of con-




cern about the toxicity of mercury, the mercury is often not re-




moved, effectively, if at all.  Several removal methods are




available, ranging from sweeping with special vacuum cleaners




to chemical treatment of the mercury.  Sweeping can effectively




remove large droplets but is not ad.equate for removing mercury



                                                                i ft n
trapped in small crevices of the walls and floors.  yavorovskayaxo




developed, a method, which although more effective, can only be




used on surfaces covered, with thermostable materials.  The ap-




paratus consists of an electric heating chamber (which heats the




surface to be cleaned.), a blower, and. a collector-filter con-




taining iod.id.e-activated. charcoal.  Heating the surface to be




cleaned to about 200°C vaporizes the mercury, which is then car-




ried by the air stream into the collection filters.




         In chemical removal methods, a substance is applied




which will react readily with mercury at ambient temperatures




to form a nearly nonvolatile mercury compound, which can then

-------
                                                            44
be swept up.  The substances generally used are inorganic poly-




sulfides1^/176 or powdered sulfur. 5  A study conducted by Cop-




plestone and McArthur^S On various such substances and mixtures




noted that two of the most effective treatment mixtures were




(1) sulfur, calcium oxide and water, or (2) commercial aerosol




hair spray.




         Thus, effective methods have been developed to control




mercury vapors, although they are not always applied because of




ignorance or lack of concern about the toxicity of mercury.




         Other mercury compounds which may cause air pollution




are those used in pesticid.es, especially those used to spray




crops or weed.s.  No particular methods of control are used, other




than those for the normal control of pesticides.

-------
                                                           45
5.   ECONOMICS




         No information has been found on the economic costs of




mercury vapor or mercury compound air pollution or on the costs




of its abatement.




         Data on the production and consumption of mercury and




its compounds are presented in Section 3.

-------
                                                           46
6.  METHODS OF ANALYSIS


         Various methods have been developed to measure mercury


vapor and mercury particles in the atmosphere.  Portable con-


tinuous monitoring detectors for mercury vapor are available


from several companies (Beckman Instruments, Inc.; General Elec-


tric Co.; Sunshine Scientific Instruments, Inc.; etc.).  These


detectors are based on the principle that ultraviolet light at


2537 A is strongly absorbed by mercury vapor-160'178  Thus, any

                                             o
other vapor which also absorbs light at 2537 A or affects the


accuracy of the measurement of the light intensity (such as fogs,


dust, and smoke) can cause interference and produce unreliable


results.  Many compounds d.o absorb light in this range (ozone,


carbon dioxid.e, and. aromatic hydrocarbons, for example).  Since


their sensitivity is much less, however, a high concentration


is necessary to interfere with mercury vapor detection (generally


a concentration about 100 to 100,000 times greater than that of


mercury).  The lower sensitivity of these instruments is in the


range of 5 to 10 |-ig/m3 with about 2 percent full-scale accuracy-


         Battery-operated vapor detectors have been described by


McMurry and Red.mond1^0 and also by Jacobs and Jacobs.91  Use of


these detectors at concentrations of mercury above 1,000 |ag/m3


of air requires recalibration.  An apparatus was designed by


Nelson jst .al..    to facilitate the calibration of these detectors.

-------
                                                           47
Systems have also been developed for use when other vapors which


               o
absorb at 2537 A are present in concentrations high enough to



cause serious interference.  A specific system for mercury was



reported recently by Hawkes and Williston,81 and also by James



and Webb.92  Their approaches are basically similar:  the air



sample is split into two portions and each air stream is passed



through identical absorption cells.  One of the cells is pre-



ceded by a material which removes the mercury vapor from the



air stream, and. the difference in absorption values between the



two cells is a measure of the mercury vapor.



         Barringer^ developed a method to measure mercury vapor



in free-stand.ing air which is based on absorption of light at



2537 A.  By taking advantage of the pressure-broadening of the



mercury emission lines, the interference due to other compounds



is minimized..



         Techniques have been developed which can detect lower



concentrations of mercury vapor than those mentioned although



they do not continuously monitor.  The basic approach is to



collect the vapor on absorbing materials such as gold.,    silver,


                                           ft o
or paper impregnated with potassium iodide, J and then release it



into an ultraviolet detector system.  A portable instrument is



being developed—using the initial absorption of mercury on gold—



which will be able to detect mercury vapor in the picogram range



(10~12g) in the atmosphere.71

-------
                                                            48
         Mercury vapor can be detected by using indicator papers




(such as copper iodide paper,51 selenium sulfide paper,13'132 or




selenium paper158), gold chloride on silica gel,78 or commercially




available gas-detecting tubes.102  All of these methods are quick




and simple but not very sensitive (they can generally detect about




500 to 1,000 |ag/m3 of mercury with approximately ±5% accuracy).




They could be useful for detecting vapor leaks, however.




         Recently a radiochemical method was developed for the




detection of mercury vapor.  This method is based on isotope ex-




change that takes place when the vapors are passed through a




solution of 203Hg-mercuric acetate.110




         Several methods are available for the determination of




mercury in biological materials, such as photometric,171 neutron




activation,133 spectrographic'*7 and chemical   techniques.




         Numerous chemical methods have been described for the




determination of mercury vapor, mercury in dust, and both or-




ganic and inorganic mercury compounds.  The chemical procedures




consist of collecting the mercury-containing material in im-




pingers containing water,38'111 alcohol,38'111 potassium perman-




ganate-sulfuric acid, 97' 108» 1J-4,141 potassium permanganate-nitric




acid,^ or iodine-potassium iodide solution.111  Trapping is pos-



                                                      148
sible with iodide-activated charcoal and mineral wool.

-------
                                                            49
         The final determination is usually made colorimetrically




with dithizone,38'141 di-beta-naphthyl-thiocarbazone,108 or




Reyneke salt.   The final determination can also be done by means




of electrolysis38 or the use of selenium sulfide paper.148  If




100 liters of air are passed through the collection media, the




limit of detection is about 1 to 10 [Jg/m3 of mercury, with ±5%




accuracy.  The final mercury determination is usually d.one in a




laboratory.  Kud.sk, ' however, has developed an on-site method




of determination with a sensitivity of about 1 |ag of mercury.




By careful control of the acidity of the solutions, interference




from other metals is greatly minimized and causes no problems in




most cases.  However, problems do arise with certain organo-




mercury compounds, especially the dialkyl derivatives .1(^6,139




Linch et.al..1^ found that a collection medium of iodine mono-




chloride in acid gave excellent recovery of dimethyl and diethyl




mercury.  Quino13^ found, isopropyl alcohol to be an effective




med.ium for collection of dibutyl mercury.  The latter has also




developed a simple, rapid method, for the determination of dialkyl




mercury compound.s (by reaction with bromine followed by reaction




with ditolyl mercury and. dithizone) that can be used in the field.




with a sensitivity of about 500 |ag/m3 of mercury—or if determined




in the laboratory, about 2 to 12 (ag of the mercury compound.

-------
                                                           50
         Hamilton and Ruthven^ reported a technique which pro-




vides a continuous monitoring of combined mercury vapor and




organo-mercury compounds.  The technique consists of pyrolyzing




the compounds to free mercury vapor,  which is then detected by




a spectrophotometer.   By determining the mercury vapor content




of the air, the amount of organic mercury can then be found by




difference.

-------
                                                            51
7.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS




         The toxicity of mercury and most of its compounds has




been well established.  These protoplasmic poisons can be lethal




to man, animals, and plants.  The high vapor pressure of mercury




(resulting in mercury concentrations of 13,000 and 18,000 |ag/m3




at ambient temperatures),  and the large quantities used by in-




dustries and laboratories result in continual contamination of




the environmental air by its vapor.




         Mercury poisoning has occurred in most major industries




which use mercury, sometimes affecting all the employees; many




fatalities have been reported as a result of mercury inhalation.




Russian animal experiments have shown that the conditioned re-




flex is affected, when animals are exposed to mercury vapors in




the range of 0.2 to 5 |~ig/m3 for only 9.5 months.  Cattle have




been poisoned when stabled overnight with a horse that had re-




ceived a mercury ointment application.  Plants have been damaged




when kept in a greenhouse that was painted with a paint con-




taining mercury fungicide.




         Inhalation of only small amounts of mercury or its de-




rivatives can result in insidious chronic poisoning, which is




manifested by erethism (exaggerated emotional response), muscu-




lar tremors, and gingivitis.  Mild symptoms are psychopathologi-




cal in nature (such as irritability, depression, etc.) and thus

-------
                                                           52
 may never be diagnosed as resulting from mercury intoxication.




         The major sources of mercury in the atmosphere are




mining and refining processes, electrical manufacturing, chlorine




and caustic soda processing plants, and scientific laboratories.




Many other minor sources are known.  However, little is known




about the concentration levels in the ambient air.  Some air




quality measurements in Cincinnati and Charleston before 1952




have found that particulates contained mercury equivalent to




about 0.1 to 0.2 |ag/m3 .  However, some recent unpublished data




from New York reported particulates collected indoors containing




mercury concentrations as high as 40 |ag/m3 .




         Method.s have been developed, for the control of air pol-




lution by mercury; however it is doubtful that these measures




are implemented throughout the wide and diverse potential sources




of emission that exist.




         Several good analytical methods for determining atmos-




pheric concentrations of mercury are available that provide con-




tinuous records and. adequate sensitivity.  No information has




been found on the economic costs of mercury air pollution or on




the costs of its abatement.




         Based on the material presented, in this report, further




studies are suggested in the following areas:

-------
                                                           53
         (1) Determination of the concentration of mercury in




the environmental air, particularly in highly populated areas.




         (2) Determination of the long-time exposure effects on




man, animals, and plants of mercury vapor, its organic and in-




organic compounds, and especially particulates containing mer-




cury.




         (3) Evaluation of the contribution to mercury pollution




by mines, refineries, and. industrial sources, particularly those




in which mercury is heated.




         (4) Evaluation of the possible health hazards in schools,




hospitals, dental offices, and. laboratories caused by mercury pol-




lution.




         (5) Investigation of the possible synergistic effects of




mercury with other pollutants, especially with other thiol poisons-




lead, cadmium, and arsenic, for example.




         (6) Investigation of the possible catalytic effect of




mercury substances on other materials found in the atmosphere.

-------
                                                            54
 REFERENCES

 1.   Ahlmark,  A., Poisoning by Methyl Mercury Compounds, Brit.
     J.  Ind. Med. 5;117 (1948).

                                                        903
 2.   Aika,  J.  K., and R. H. Fitz, The Distribution of Hg
     Labeled Mercaptomerin in Human Tissues, J. Clin. Invest.
     35_:775 (1956).

 3.   Air and Water News 2(26) (1968).

 4.   Al'terman, N. A., and S. F. Sorokina, Disease Incidence
     in Underground Workers in Mercury Mines, Gigiena i Sanit.
     31;7 (1966).

 5.   Armstrong, R., et al., Behavioral Changes in the Pigeon
     Following Inhalation of Mercury Vapor, Am. Ind. Hyg.
     Assoc. J. 24  (1963).

 6.   Aruin, A. S., Determination of Mercury in Atmospheric Air,
     U.S.S.R.  Literature on Air Pollution and Related Diseases
     3.:18 (1960).

 7-   Ashe,  W., et al.. Behaviour of Mercury in Animal Organisms
     Following Inhalation, A.M.A. Arch. Ind. Hvq. 7:19 (1953).

 8.   Axelsson, B., and L. Friberg, On the Tolerable Limits of
     Mercury in the Atmosphere and Biological Milieus,
     Occupational Health Rev. 15;2 (1963).

 9.   Barringer, A. R., Interference-free Spectrometer for High
     Sensitivity Mercury Analyses of Soils, Rocks and Air,
     Trans. Inst. Mining Met. 75;B120 (1967).

10.   Battigelli, M. C., Mercury Toxicity from Industrial
     Exposure, A Critical Review of the Literature - Part I,
     J.  Occupational Med. 2.:337 (1960).

11.   Battigelli, M. C., Mercury Toxicity from Industrial
     Exposure - Part II, J. Occupational Med. 2.:394 (1960).

12.   Beauchamp, I. L., and B. D. Tebbers, Mercury Vapour
     Hazards in University Laboratories, Am. Ind. Hvq. Assoc.
     Quart. 12.:171 (1951).

13.   Beckmann, A. Q., J. D. McCullough, and R. A. Crane,
     Anal.  Chem. 20 (1927).

-------
                                                            55
14.  Bellies, R. P., et al.. Behavioral Effects in Pigeons  3
     Exposed to Mercury Vapor at a Concentration of 0.1 mg/m ,
     Am. Ind. Hyq. Assoc. J. .2JL:482 (1967).

15.  Benning, D., Outbreak of Mercury Poisoning in Ohio,
     Ind. Med. Surg. 27 (1958).

16.  Berlin, M., On Estimating Threshold Limits of Mercury in
     Biological Material, Acta Med. Scand. Suppl. 396 (1963).

17.  Berlin, M., and L. G. Johansson, Mercury in Mouse Brain
     After Inhalation of Mercury Vapour and After Intravenous
     Injection of Mercury Salt, Nature 204;4953 (1964).

18.  Berlin, M., and S. Ullberg, Accumulation and Retention of
     Mercury in the Mouse. I. An Autoradiographic Study After
     A Single Intravenous Injection of Mercuric Chloride,
     Arch. Environ. Health 6;589 (1963).

19.  Berlin, M., and S. Ullberg, An Autoradiographic Comparison
     of Methylmercuric Dicyandiamide with Inorganic Mercury,
     Arch. Environ. Health 6;610 (1963).

20.  Berlin, M., and S. Ullberg, An Autoradiographic Comparison
     of Phenylmercurie Acetate with Inorganic Mercury,
     Arch. Environ. Health 6:602 (1963).

21.  Bidstrup, L. P., Toxicitv of Mercury and Its Compounds,
     (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1964).

22.  Bidstrup, L. P., et al., Chronic Mercury Poisoning in
     Men Repairing Direct-Current Meters, Lancet 2:856  (1951).

23.  Biram, J. G. S., Some Aspects of Handling Mercury,
     Vacuum 5:77 (1957).

24.  Blood, D. C., and J. A. Henderson, Veterinary Medicine,
     2nd ed.  (Bailliere: Tindall & Cox, 1963).

25.  Boussingault, J. B. J.  D., Sur 1'action deletere que la
     vapeur emanant du mercure exerce sur les plantes
     (Premiere partie), Compt. Rend. 64.:924  (1867).

26.  Boussingault, J. B. J.  D., Sur 1'action deletere que la
     vapeur emanant du mercure exerce sur les plantes
     (Deuxieme partie), Compt. Rend. 6_4:983  (1867).

27.  Boyer, P. D., H. Lardy, and K. Myrback, The Enzymes
     (New York: Academic Press, 1959).

-------
                                                           56
28.  Breena, J. C., Acute Mercury Vapor Poisoning, Radiology
     21:354 (1959).

29.  Brewer, L. W., (Ed.), Industrial Hygiene Handbook
     (Albuquerque, N. Mex.: Sandia Lab., Industrial Hygiene
     Division, 1965).

30.  Brigatti, II contenuto in mercurio degli organi di
     soggetti senza e con precedente assorbimento mercurials,
     Med. Lavoro 40:233 (1949).

31.  Brigatti, L., Distribuzione del mercurio negli organi di
     conigli intossicati in modo sub acuto con vapori di
     mercurio, Med. Lavoro 40:240 (1949).

32.  Broadhurst, V. A., More Mercury Poisoning Cases, Lab.
     Pract. (London) 8.(1):759  (1965).

33.  Brown, J. R., and M. V. Kulkarni, A Review of the Toxicity
     and Metabolism of Mercury and Its Compounds, Med. Serv.
     J. Can. .23_(5):786 (1967).

34.  Browning, Toxicity of Industrial Metals (London:
     Butterworths, 1961).

35.  Bruusgaard, A., Mercury Hazards in Brewery Fermentation
     Workers, Arch. Hig. Rada. 9.: 287 (1958).

36.  Bucher, W. H., Two Unusual Cases of Mercury Poisoning,
     National Clearing House Poison Control Centers (1963).

37.  Burke, W. J., and J. M. Quagliana, Acute Inhalation
     Mercury Intoxication, J. Occupational Med. 5_:157 (1963).

38.  Burke, W. J., S. Moskowitz, and B. H. Dolin, Estimation
     of Mercury in Air, Ind. Air Analysis, 3M(8H2-85):22
     (1948).

39.  Butt, E. M., and D. G. Simonsen, Mercury and Lead Storage
     in Human Tissues: With Special Reference to Thrombocytopenic
     Purpura, Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 20_:116 (1950).

40.  Butterfield, N. W., Roses Effected by Mercury Compounds in
     Greenhouse Paint, Florists Exchange Hort. Trade World
     123.(18):14 (1954).

41.  Cholak, J., The Nature of Atmospheric Pollution in a
     Number of Industrial Communities, Proc. Natl. Air
     Pollution Syrnp., 2nd, Pasadena, Calif. (1952).

-------
                                                            57
42.  Cholak, J., and D. N. Hubbard, Microdetermination of
     Mercury in Biological Materials, Ind. Eng. Chem.
     (Anal. Ed.) 113 (1946).

43.  Clarkson, T. W., J. Gatzy, and C. Dalton, Studies on the
     Equilibration of Mercury Vapour in Blood, Univ. Rochester
     AEP Report No. 582 (1961).

44.  Cooke, E. S., and C. Parisutti, The Action of Phenylmercuric
     Nitrate, J. Biol. Chem. 167;827 (1947).

45.  Copplestone, J. F., and D. A. McArthur, Vaporization of
     Mercury Spillage, Arch. Environ. Health 13;675  (1966).

46.  Copplestone, J. F., and D. A. McArthur, An Inorganic
     Mercury Hazard in the Manufacture of Artificial Jewellery,
     Brit. J. Ind. Med. 24.(1):77  (1967).

47.  Cortivo, D., et al., Mercury Levels in Normal Human
     Tissue: I. Spectrographic Determination of Mercury in
     Tissue, J. Forensic Sci. 9_:501 (1964).

48.  Craft, B. F=, National Center for Urban and Industrial
     Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, personal communication relating
     to a discussion with Dr. H. E. Stokinger, Chairman of the
     ACGIH Committee on TLV.

49.  Cushny, A. R., Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 13th ed.
     (Philadelphia: Lea, p.141, 1947).

50.  Davenport, S., and D. H. Harrington, Mercury Poisoning as
     a Mining Hazard, Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7180
     (1941).

51.  Demidov, A. V., and L. A. Mokhov, Rapid Methods for the
     Determination of Harmful Gases and Vapors in the Air,
     Translated by B. S. Levine, U.S.S.R. Literature on Air
     Pollution and Related Occupational Diseases 10;114 (1962).

52.  Dickson, D. B., and O. Paganini, Health Hazards in the
     Manufacture of Neon Signs, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. Quart.
     JJ2.:25  (1951).

53.  Dimond, A. E., and E. M. Stoddard, Toxicity of Greenhouse
     Roses from Paints Containing Mercury Fungicides,
     Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. New Haven Bull. 595;19 (1955).

54.  Dinman, B. D., et al.. Organic Mercury Environmental
     Exposure, Excretion, and Prevention of Intoxication in Its
     Manufacture, A.M.A. Arch. Environ. Health 18;248 (1958).

-------
                                                            58
55.  Documentation of Threshold Limit Values, American
     Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists,
     Committee on Threshold Limit Values, Cincinnati, Ohio  (1962)

56.  Duffield, D. P., The Mercury Hazard in Industry and  Its
     Control, Chem. Ind. No. 7; 197  (1968).

57.  Englesson, J., and A. B. Herner, Alkyl Mercury Poisoning,
     Acta Paediat. 4j^:289 (1952).

58.  Frazer, A. M., K. L. Melville, and R. L. Stehle, Mercury-
     Laden Air: The Toxic Concentration, The Proportion Absorbed
     and the Urinary Excretion, J.  Ind. Hv<^. J.6.:77 (1934).

59.  Frear, D. E. H., (Ed.), Pesticide Index. 3rd ed. (State
     College, Pa. : College Science  Publishers, 1965).

60.  Friberg, L., Studies on the Accumulation, Metabolism, and
     Excretion of Inorganic Mercury (Hg203) After Prolonged
     Subcutaneous Administration to Rats, Acta Pharmacol.
     Toxicol. 12.:411 (1956).

61.  Friberg, L., Studies on the Metabolism of Mercuric Chloride
     and Methyl Mercury Dicyandiamide.  Experiments in Rats
     Given Subcutaneous Injections  with Radioactive Mercury
     (Hg203), Arch. Ind. Health 20;42 (1959).

62.  Friberg, L., E. Odeblad, and S. Forssman, Distribution of
     Two Mercuric Compounds After Single Subcutaneous
     Injection, Arch. Ind. Health 20:432 (1959).

63.  Fujimara, Y., Studies on Toxicity of Mercury, Japan. J.
     Hvg. 18_:10 (1964) .

64.  Gage, J. C., The Distribution  and Excretion of Inhaled
     Mercury Vapour, Brit. J. Ind.  Med. 18_:287 (1961).

65.  Gage, J. C., Distribution and  Excretion of Methyl and
     Phenyl Mercury Salts, Brit. J. Ind. Med. _2-L.:197 (1964).

66.  Gage, J. C., and W. Swan, Toxicity of Alkyl and Aryl
     Mercury Salts, Biochem. Pharmacol. 8_:77 (1961).

67.  Gerstner, F., Die quantitative Bestimmung kleiner Quecksil-
     bermengen und ihre Anwendung auf verschiedene Probleme,
     Diss d. Technischen Hochshule  "Fredericiana" zu Karlsruhe
     in Baden (1931).

68.  Giese, A. C., Mercury Poisoning, Science 91;476 (1940).

-------
                                                            59
69.  Gofman, M. A., Sanitization of Working Conditions in
     Chemical and Pharmaceutical Plants Which Use Mercury as
     a Catalyzer, Giaiena i Sanit. .2JL(12):73  (1963).

70.  Goldberg, A. A., and M. Shapero, Toxicological Hazards of
     Mercurial Paints, J. Pharm. Pharmacol. ,9:469  (1957).

71.  Goldwater, Dr. L. J., Chapel Hill, N. C.,personal
     communication  (Oct. 1968).

72.  Goldwater, L. J., M. Kleinfield, and A. R. Berger, Mercury
     Exposure in a University Laboratory, Arch. Ind. Health
     ±3_:245 (1956).

73.  Goldwater, L. J., and A. C. Ladd, Absorption and Excretion
     of Mercury in Man. IV. Tolerance to Mercury, Arch. Environ.
     Health 7;560  (1963).

74.  Goldwater, L. J., A. C. Ladd, and M. B. Jacobs, Absorption
     and Excretion of Mercury in Man. VII. Significance of
     Mercury in Blood. Arch. Environ. Health 9:735  (1964).

75.  Goldwater, L. J., et al., Case Report: Acute Exposure to
     Phenylmercuric Acetate, J. Occupational Med. 6_:227 (1964).

76.  Goodman, C., Mercury Poisoning: Review of Present
     Knowledge, Rev.  Sci. Instr. 9_ (1938).

77.  Gothlin, G. F., Kvicksilfverhaltig luft och fall af
     Kronisk kvicksilfverforgiftning vid en medicinsk laroanstalt,
     Hvgienisk Tidsskrift 138 (1909).

78.  Grosskopf, K., J. Ind. Hyg. Toxicol. 2°_:2lA (1938).

79.  Hamilton, G. A., and A. D. Ruthven, An Apparatus for the
     Detection and Estimation of Organo-Mercury Dusts and
     Vapours in the Atmosphere, Lab. Pract. (London) 3.5(9);995
     (1966).

80.  Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 38th ed. (Cleveland,
     Ohio: Chemical Rubber Publishing Co., 1956).

81.  Hawkes, H. E., and S. H. Williston, Mercury Vapor as a
     Guide to Lead-Zinc Deposits, Min. Congr. J. 413:30 (1962).

82.  Heimann, H., Status of Air Pollution Health Research,
     1966, Arch. Environ. Health 14(3);488 (1967).

83.  Hemeon, W. C. L., and G. F. Haines, Jr., Automatic
     Sampling and Determination of Micro-quantities of Mercury
     Vapor, Am. Hyg. Assoc. J. 22.:15  (1961).

-------
                                                            60
84.  Henderson, Y., and H. W. Haggard, Noxious Gases, 2nd ed.,
     (New York: Reinhold, 1943).

85.  Hitchcock, A. E., and P. W. Zimmerman, Toxic Effects of
     Vapors of Mercury and of Compounds of Mercury on Plants,
     Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 65_:474 (1957).

86.  Hook, O., K. D. Lundgren, and A. Swensson, On Alkyl
     Mercury Poisoning, Acta Med. Scand. 140:131  (1954).

87.  Hribernik, I., Observations on Occupational Mercury
     Poisoning in the Mines of Idrija (1946-1950), Arch. Hyg.
     Rad. l.:291 (1950).

88.  Hunter, D., Mercury in Diseases of Occupations  (Boston:
     Little, Brown, 1955).

89.  Hunter, D., R. R. Bomford, and D. S. Russell, Poisoning
     by Methyl Mercury Compounds, Quart. J. Med. 9_:193 (1940).

90.  Jacobs, M. B., and L. J. Goldwater, Absorption  and
     Excretion of Mercury in Man, Arch. Environ. Health 11;582
     (1965).

91.  Jacobs, M. B., and R. Jacobs, Photometric Determination of
     Mercury Vapor in Air of Mines and Plants, Am. Ind. Hyg.
     Assoc. J. 26_(3):261 (1965).

92.  James, C. H., and J. S. Webb, Sensitive Mercury Vapor
     Meter for Use in Geochemical Prospecting, Trans. Inst. Met.
     21:633 (1964).

93.  Jones, A. T., and E. O. Longley, Mercury Exposure in a
     Jewelry Molding Process, Arch. Environ. Health  1J3 ;769
     (1966).

94.  Joselow, M. M., et al.. Absorption and Excretion of
     Mercury in Man. XV. Occupational Exposure Among Dentists,
     Arch. Environ. Health 17:39 (1968).

95.  Kleinfeld, M., et al.. Fingernail Cystine Content in
     Chronic Mercury Exposure, Arch. Environ. Health 3_:676
     (1961).

96.  Korshun, M. N., Prevention of Air Pollution with Mercury
     Inside Industrial Premises of Synthetic Fiber Combines,
     Giaiena Truda i Prof. Zabolevaniva (Moscow) 10(11) ;18
     (1966).

-------
                                                             61
 97.  Kudsk, F. N., Chemical Determination of Mercury in Air
      (An Improved Dithizone Method for Determination of
      Mercury and Mercury Compounds), Scand. J. Clin. Lab.
      Invest. 16:1 (1964).

 98.  Kudsk, F. N., Absorption of Mercury Vapour from the
      Respiratory Tract in Man, Acta Pharmacol. Toxicol.
      (Copenhagen) 23.:250 (1965).

 99.  Kudsk, F. N., The Influence of Ethyl Alcohol on the
      Absorption of Mercury Vapour from the Lungs in Man,
      Acta Pharmacol. Toxicol. (Copenhagen) 2JJ.: 263 (1965).

100.  Kurnosov, V. M., Supplemental Data on the Accumulation and
      Distribution of Mercury in the Organism of Experimental
      Animals, Translated by B. S. Levine, U.S.S.R. Literature
      on Air Pollution and Related Occupational Diseases 9_:47
      (1962).

101.  Kushakovskii, L. N., and R. I. Teplitskaya, Pollution of
      High School Physics Departments with Metallic Mercury,
      Giqiena i Sanit. 20^(3) :76 (1963).

102.  Kusnetz, H. L., B. E. Saltzman, and M. E. Lanier,
      Calibration and Evaluation of Gas Detecting Tubes, Am.
      Ind. Hva. Assoc. J. 2l_(5) :361 (1960).

103.  Ladd, A. C., et al.. Absorption and Excretion of Mercury
      in Man. V. Toxicity of Phenylmercurials, Arch. Environ.
      Health 2(1):43  (1964).

104.  Ladd, A. C., et al.. Absorption and Excretion of Mercury
      in Miners, J. Occupational Med. 9.O):127 (1966).

105.  Lee, D., Removal of Reactive Light Gases with Impregnated
      Activated Charcoal, Preprint. Presented at the Fourth
      Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibit, American Association
      for Contamination Control,  Miami Beach, Fla. (May 1965).

106.  Linch, A. L., R. F. Stalzer, and D. T. Lefferts, Methyl
      and Ethyl Mercury Compounds - Recovery from Air and
      Analysis, Am. Ind. Hvg. Assoc. J. 29(1);79 (1968).

107.  Lob, M., Chronic Mercury Poisoning in the Manufacture of
      Fluorescent Tubes, Arch. Maladies Prof. (Paris) 26(6):289
      (1965).

108.  Lugg, G. A., and A. S. Wright, The Determination of Toxic
      Gases and Vapours in Air, Commonwealth of Australia,
      Circular 14. 2nd ed. (1955).

-------
                                                             62
109.  Lundgren, K. D., and A. Swensson, Occupational Poisoning
      by Alkyl Mercury Compounds, J. Ind. Hyg. 31.: 190  (1949).

110.  Magos, L., Radiochemical Determination of Metallic
      Mercury Vapour in Air, Brit. J. Ind. Med. (London) 23;230
      (1966).

111.  Manual of Analytical Methods - Recommended for Sampling
      and Analysis of Atmospheric Contaminants, American
      Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists  (1957).

112.  Martin, H. F., and N. H. Reid, Hypoproteinemia as
      Protection in Mercury Chloride Poisoning, Proc. Soc. Exp.
      Biol. Med. 78_:863 (1951).

113.  Massmann, W., Beobachtugen beim Umgang mit Phenylqueck-
      silberbrenzkatechin, Zentr. Arbeitsmed.  7_:9 (1957).

114.  Massmann, W., and D. Sprecher, Die Toxikologische Analyse
      des Quecksilvers, Arch. Toxikol. 16  (1957).

115.  Mastromatteo, E., Recent Occupational Health Experience in
      Ontario, J. Occupational Med.  (Ottawa) 7_:(10):502 (1965).

116.  Mathes, F. T., et al.. Acute Poisoning Associated with
      Inhalation of Mercury-Vapor:  Report of  4 Cases,
      Pediatrics 22:675 (1958).

117.  Matsumoto, H. G., Koya, and T. Takeuchi,Fetal Minamata
      Disease.  A Neuropathological Study of Two Cases of
      Intrauterine Intoxication by a Methyl Mercury Compound.
      J. Neuropathol. Exptl. Neurol. 24_:563  (1965).

118.  Maximum Permissible  Concentration of Harmful Substances
      in Atmospheric Air of Populated Places,  Hyg. Sanitation,
      29:5  (1964).

119.  McGill, C. M., et al., Mercury Exposure  in a Chlorine
      Plant, J. Occupational Med. 6_:335 (1964).

120.  McMurry, C. S., and  J. W. Redmond, Portable Mercury Vapor
      Detector, U.S. At. Energy Comm. Rept. Y-1188 (1958).

121.  The Merck Index. 8th ed. (Rahway, N.J. :  Merck,  1968).

122.  Mercury. Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 15, p.271  (1961).

123.  Mercury, Kirk-othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
      vol.  13  (New York: Interscience, p.  218, 1962).

-------
                                                             63
124.  Mercury Potential of the United States, Bureau of Mines
      Information Circular 8252, U.S. Government Printing
      Office, Washington, B.C.  (1965).

125.  Miller, V. L., et al.. Absorption, Distribution and
      Excretion of Ethyl Mercuric Chloride, J. Toxicol. Appl.
      Pharmacol. 3_:459 (1961).

126.  Minerals Yearbook, vols,  I-II, Bureau of Mines, U.S.
      Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C.  (1948-1966).

127.  Neal, P. A., Mercury Poisoning from Public Health
      Viewpoint, Am. J. Public Health 28;907  (1938).

128.  Neal, P. A., et al.. A Study of Chronic Mercurialism in
      the Hatters' Pur-Cutting  Industry, U.S. Public Health
      Serv. Public Health Bulletin No.  234 (1937).

129.  Neal, P- A., et al., Mercurialism and  Its Control in the
      Felt Hat  Industry, U.S. Public Health  Serv. Public Health
      Bulletin No. 263 (1941).

130.  Nelson, G. O., W. Van Sandt, and  P. E. Barry, A Dynamic
      Method for Mercury Vapor  Betector Calibration, Am. Ind.
      Hvq. Assoc. J. 26;388 (1965).

131.  Noe, F. R., Mercury as a  Potential Hazard in Medical
      Laboratories,  New  Eng. J. Med. 261;1002  (1959).

132.  Nordlander, B. W., Selenium Sulphide - A New Detector for
      Mercury Vapor, Ind. Enq.  Chem. 19 (1927).

133.  Ohta, Y., Activation Analysis Applied  to Toxicology;
      Measurement of the Concentration  of Mercury in Hair by
      Neutron Activation Analysis, Japan. J. Ind. Health
      (Tokyo) 8.(5);12  (1966).

134.  Oikawa, F., A  Study on Occupational Mercury Poisoning,
      J. Sci. Labor  (Tokyo) 3U./.133  (1955).

135.  Passow, H., A. Rothstein, and T.  W. Clarkson, The General
      Pharmacology of the Heavy Metals, Pharmacol. Rev. 13;185
      (1961).

136.  Pennington, J. W., Mercury, A Materials Survey, Bureau of
      Mines  Information  Circular 7941,  U.S.  Government Printing
      Office, Washington, B.C.  (1959).

137.  Petrova,  N. I., and Zh. I. Pokrovenko, Methods of Reducing
      Air  Pollution  Bue  to Waste Products from Nikitovka Mercury
      Works, Hvq. Sanitation 30(1):74  (1965).

-------
                                                             64
138.  Prickett, C. S., E. P. Laug, and F. M. Kunze, Distribution
      of Mercury in Rats Following Oral and Intravenous
      Administration of Mercury Acetate and Phenylmercuric
      Acetate, Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. 21:585 (1950).

139.  Quino, E. A., Determination of Dibutyl Mercury Vapors in
      Air, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 23(3);23 (1962).

140.  Ratsek, J. C., Injury to Roses from Mercuric Chloride
      Used in Soil for Pests, Florists Rev. J72.:ll  (1933).

141.  Razumov, V. A., and T. K. Aidarov, Indirect  Spectrophoto-
      metric Determination of Mercury Vapor Concentrations in
      the Air of Work Premises, Hyg. Sanitation 30(7);81  (1967).

142.  Recommendations on Maximum Allowable Concentrations of
      Mercury and Its Compounds: Report of an International
      Committee, Prepared from a Symposium at the  Institute of
      Hygiene, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden,
      Nov. 4-7, 1968. (To be published.)

143.  Rjazanov, V. A., Criteria and Methods for Establishing
      Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Air Pollution,
      Bull. World Health Organ. 3_2.:389  (1965).

144.  Rothstein, A., and A. D. Hayes, The Metabolism of Mercury
      in the Rat Studied by Isotope Techniques, J. Pharmacol.
      Exptl. TheraP. 130:166  (1960).

145.  Routledge, R., Modifications to Plant and Building  in
      Solving a Mercury Hazard, Ann. Occupational  Hyg.  (London)
      JJ(1):109 (1965).

146.  Schuette, C. N., State of Oregon Bull. No. 4 (1938).

147.  Seibert, M. A., C. W. Kreke, and E. S. Cooke, The
      Mechanism of Action of Organic Mercury Compounds on
      Cytochrome Oxidase, Science 112:649 (1950).

148.  Sergeant, G. A., B. E. Dixon, and R. G. Lidzey, The
      Determination of Mercury in Air, Analyst 82  (1957).

149.  Shakhbazyan, G.  K. , and I. M. Trakhtenberg, Hygienic
      Standards and Safety Criteria for Environmental Factors
      in Industry, Hvg. Sanitation 30:328 (1965).

150.  Shelton, J. E., "Mercury," in Mineral Facts  and Problems,
      Bureau of Mines Bulletin 630, U.S. Government Printing
      Office, Washington, D.C.  (1965).

151.  Shepherd, M., et al.. Hazard of Mercury Vapor in  Scientific
      laboratories, J. Res. Natl. Bur. Std. 26  (1941).

-------
                                                             65
152.  Shoib, M. O., L. J. Goldwater.- and M. Bass, A Study of
      Mercury Exposure, Am. Ind. Hva. Assoc. Quart. 10.: 29 (1949).

153.  Slatov, Mercury Poisoning Among the Staff of Dental
      Clinics, Gigiena i Sanit. 31_:135  (1966).

154.  Smith, A. R. , Acute Mercurialism  Resulting from
      Distillation of Mercury in Thermometer Shop, N.Y. State
      Dept. Labor Monthly Rev. .26_:51 (1947).

155.  Smith, A. R. , and S. Moskowitz, Urinary Excretion of
      Mercury, N.Y. State Dept. Labor Monthly Rev. 21:45 (1948).

156.  Smith, A. R. , et al.. Mercury Exposure in the Fur Felt
      Hat Industry, N.Y. State Dept. Labor Monthly Rev. 28.: 17
      (1949) .

157.  Sollman, T., Manual of Pharmacology  (London: Saunders,
      1957).

158.  Stitt, F., and Y. Tomimatsu, Sensitized Paper for
      Estimation of Mercury Vapor.- Anal. Chem. J23_(8) :1098 (1951).
                        "           237 "
159.  Stokinger, H. E.,  Mercury, Hg    ,  in Industrial Hygiene and
      Toxicology,  vol. II, 2nd ed., F.  A. Patty, Ed. (New York:
      Interscience, p. 1090, 1963).

160.  Suchtelen, H., N. Warmoltz, and G. L. Wiggerinck, A Method
      for Determining the Mercury Content of Air, Philips Tech.
      Rev. 11:91  (1949); A.M. A. Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occupational Med.
      3TT32~Tl951).

161.  Suzuki, T.,  Inorganic Mercury Poisoning in a Tungsten Rod
      Manufacturing Factory, Japan. J.  Ind. Health  (Tokyo)
           l5  (1959).
162.  Swensson, A., Investigations on the Toxicity of  Some
      Organic Mercury Compounds Which are Used as Seed
      Disinfectants, Acta Med. Scand. 143:365  (1952).

163.  Swensson, A., K. D. Lundgren, and 0. Lindstrom,  Distribu-
      tion and Excretion of Mercury Compounds After  Single
      Injection, Arch. Ind. Health 20:432  (1959).

164.  Thomas, M. D. , Air Pollution, World Health Organ.,
      Monograph Ser. _46_:233  (1961).

165.  Threshold Limit Values for  1967, Adopted at the  29th
      Annual Meeting of the American Conference of Governmental
      Industrial Hygienists, Chicago, 111.  (May 1-2, 1967).

-------
                                                             66
166.   Trakhtenberg, I. M., Toxicity of Vapours of Organic
      Compounds of Mercury (Ethylmercuric Phosphate and Chloride)
      in Acute and Chronic Poisoning, Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occupational
      Med. 3.:421 (1951).

167.   Trakhtenberg, I. M., The Toxicity of Vapors of Organic
      Mercury Compounds  (Ethyl-Mercuric Phosphate and
      Ethylmercuric Chloride) in Acute and Chronic Intoxication.
      (Experimental Data), U.S.S.R. Literature on Air Pollution
      and Related Occupational Diseases, 3_:205  (1960).

168.   Trakhtenberg, I. M., and K. I. Luchina, Mercury Danger and
      Its Prevention in  Secondary Schools, Hyg. Sanitation
      12(12):411 (1965).

169.   Trog, D. J-, Measurement of Atmospheric Pollution by
      Ultraviolet Photometry, Anal. Chem. 27_:1217 (1955).

170.   Turrian, H., E. Grandjean, and V. Turrian,
      Industriehygienische und medizinische Untersuchungen in
      Quecksilberbetrieben, Schweiz. Med. Wochschr. 86;1091
      (1956).

171.   Ulfvarson, U., Determination of Mercury in Small Quantities
      in Biologic Material by a Modified Photometric-Mercury
      Vapor Procedure, Acta Chem. Scand. 21.(3): 641 (1967).

172.   Valic, F., and M.  B. Jacobs, Assessment of Mercury Air
      Concentrations in  a Work Environment, Am. Ind. Hyq.
      Assoc. J. 26(3):266  (1965) .

173.   Vaughn, W. W., and J. H. McCarthy, Jr., An Instrumental
      Technique for the  Determination of Submicrogram
      Concentrations of  Mercury in Soils, Rocks and Gas,
      U.S. Geol. Surv. Profess. Papers 501-D, D123-7 (1964).

174.   Vouk, V. B., M. Fugas, and Z. Topolnik, Environmental
      Conditions in the  Mercury Mines of Idrija, Brit. J. Ind.
      Med. 7_:168 (1950) .

175.   Whitehead, K. P., Organic Mercury Compounds, Ann. Occupa-
      tional Hyg.  (London) 8/1):85  (1965).

176.   Williams, H. L., et al., Mercury Exposure in Dry Battery
      Manufacture, J. Ind. Hva. Toxicol. 29_:30Q (1947).

177.   Williams, H. L., et al., A Survey of Mercury Vapor
      Hazards in Hospitals, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 29;186
      (1968).

-------
                                                             67
178.   Woodson, T. T., A New Mercury Vapor Detector, Rav. Sci.
      Instr. 12:303  (1939).

179.   Yagi, K.,  and H. L. White, Comparison of Ammonium Sulfate
      Fractionation of Proteins and of Protein-Bound Mercury in
      Kidney Soluble Fraction of Chow-Fed and Sucrose-Fed Rats,
      Am. J, Physio1. 194:547 (1958).

180.   Yavorovskaya, S. F., Thermal Demercurization of Working
      Premises,  Hvg. Sanitation 3J3( 1): 201 (1965).

181.   Zimmerman, P. W.,  and W. Crocker, The Injurious Effect of
      Mercury Vapor from Bichloride of Mercury in Soils of
      Rosehouses, Boyce Thompson Inst. Profess. Papers 1(23) ;222
      (1933).

182.   Zimmerman, P- W.,  and W. Crocker, Plant Injury Caused by
      Vapors of Mercury and Compounds of Mercury, Contrib.
      Boyce Thompson Inst. 6_:167 (1934).

183.   Smith, R. G. , e_t aj^. , A Study of the Effects of Exposure
      to Mercury in the Manufacture of Chlorine.  Presented at
      the Annual Meeting of the American Industrial Hygiene
      Association, Denver, Colo. (May 15, 1969).

184.   Smart, N. A., Use and Residues of Mercury Compounds in
      Agriculture, Resi_due Reviews 23:1 (1968).

185.   Frears, D. E. H., Pesticide Handbook, 18th ed.  (State Col-
      lege, Pa.:   Entomological Society of America, College
      Science Publishers,  1966).

-------
                                                            68
OTHER REFERENCES

Abernethy, R. P., and F. H. Gibson, Rare  Elements  in Coal,
Bureau of Mines, Information  Circular  8163,  U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington,  D.C.  (1963).

Adamson, D. L., J. D. Stephens,  and W. M.  Tuddenham,  Applica-
tion of Mineralogical Principles and Infrared  Spectra in  De-
velopment of Spectrographic Techniques, Anal.  Chem.  39(1);574
(1956).

Al'terman, N. A., and S. F. Sorokina,  Disease  Incidence in
Underground Workers  in Mercury Mines,  Hvg.  Sanitation 31(5-7):
37 (1965).

Ausperger, S., and I. Murati, Determination of Mercury in the
Atmosphere, Anal. Chetn. 26.(3):543  (1945).

Barringer, A. R., Development Toward the Remote Sensing of
Vapours as an Air-Borne and Space  Exploration  Tool,  Proc. Symp.
Remote Sensing Environ., 3rd, Ann  Arbor, Mich., 1964,  pp. 279-
92 (Feb. 1965).

Browett, E. V-, Analytical Methods, Ann. Occupational Hyg.
(London) 8.(1):21 (1965).

Brushkin, Z. Z., Experimental Study of Working Conditions and.
Atmospheric Air Pollution with Ethylmercuric Chlorid.e During
Treatment of General Grains in the Omsk Oblast, Gigiena Truda
i Prof. Zobolevaniya 2(5);20  (1958); Translated by B.  S.  Levine,
U.S.5.R. Literature on Air Pollution and Related. Occupational
Diseases 7:264 (1962)-

Christie, A. A., A. J. Dunsd.on,  and. B. S.  Marshal, Field.  Method.s
for Determining Certain Organomercurial Vapours in Air, Analyst
92.U092) :185 (1967).

Church, F. W. (Referee), Determination of  Mercury  in Air,
American Conference of Governmental Ind.ustrial Hygienists Recom-
mended. Method., Manual of Analytical Methods Recommend.ed for
Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheric Components (1958).

Clarkson, T., Toxicological Aspects of Mercury, Ann.  Occupational
Hyg.  (London) 8.(1):73 (1965).

-------
                                                            69
Dubois, L., and J. L. Monktnan,  "The Analysis  of Airborne Pollu-
tants," in Pollution and. Our  Environment;  Conference Background
Papers, vol. 3, Paper D25-3  (Montreal:  Canadian Council  of Re-
source Ministers, pp. 1-20,  1967).

Elkins, H. B., Excretory and  Biologic Threshold Limits,  Am.  Ind..
Hyg. Assoc. J. 2jB{4):305 (1967).

Fairhall, L. T., Inorganic Industrial Hazards,  Phvsiol.  Rev.
25.(1):182 (1945).

Gerth, G., Dust Technique, Text  in  German.  VDI  (Ver.  Deut.  Inqr.)
Z.  (Dusseldorf) 108(15);691  (1966).

Goldwater, L. J., M. B. Jacobs,  and  A.  C.  Ladd,  Absorption and
Excretion of Mercury in Man.  I.  Relationship  of Mercury  in Blood
and Urine, Arch. Environ. Health 5(6);537  (1962).

Goldwater, L. J., and. M. M. Joselow, Absorption and  Excretion  of
Mercury in Man. XIII. Effects of Mercury  Exposure  on Urinary
Excretion of Coproporphyrin and  Delta-aminolevulinic Acid,
Arch. Environ. Health 15:327  (1967).

Hill, W. H., Application of  Electrochromatography  to Analytical
Problems in Industrial Hygiene and  Air  Pollution (Progress
Report) Pittsburgh Univ., Pa. Dept.  of  Occupational  Health. NIH
Research Grant No. RG-4924(C1) Report No.  3  (March 10, 1958).

Ishiti, T., Studies on Mercury Poisoning.  I.,Detoxication  by
Lipoic Acid (Thioctic Acid.) II.  Antidotal  Effect of  Lipoic  Acid
Against Experimental Mercury  Poisoning  in  Rats  and. Mice, Japan.
J.  Ind. Health (Tokyo) l.(7-7):756 (1959).

Jacobs, M. B., A. C. Ladd., and. L. J. Goldwater,  Absorption  and
Excretion of Mercury in Man.  III. Blood. Mercury in Relation to
Duration of Exposure, Arch.  Environ. Health 6(5);634 (1963).

Jacobs, M. B., A. C. Ladd., and L. J. Gold/water,  Absorption and
Excretion of Mercury in Man.  VI.  Significance of Mercury in
Urine, Arch. Environ. Health  9:454  (1964).

Joselow, M. M., L. J. Goldwater,  and S. B. Weinberg,  Absorption
and Excretion of Mercury in Man.  XI. Mercury  Content of  "Normal"
Human Tissues, Arch. Environ. Health 15;64 (1967).

Kazantzis, G., Chronic Mercury Poisoning  - Clinical  Aspects,  Ann.
Occupational Hyg. (London) S^Dtes  (1965).

-------
                                                            70
Keenan, R. G., Chemical Aspects of  Environmental Health,
Occupational Health Rev. L8(l):3  (1966).

Khrustaleva, V. A., and N. G. Shalya, Mercury Pollution of
Industrial Premises in Work  Involving Mercuric  Chloride,
Gigiena i Sanit. .9:22 (1950).

Khukrin, E. V-, Modern Approach to  Air Dustiness in Workshops,
Gigiena i Sanit. .24_(7):60  (1959); Translated by B. S. Levine,
U.S.S.R. Literature on Air Pollution and Related Occupational
Diseases 7:301 (1962).

Kiryakov, K., Changes in the Cerebral Bioelectrical Activity in
Workers from the Effect of Mercury, Gigiena Trud.a i Prof.
Zabolevaniya 4;60  (1963).

Kosmid.er, S., and  Z. Dabrowski, Catalase Activity of the Red,
Blood Cells, Brain and Liver in Experimental Poisoning with
Metallic Mercury,  Arch. Immun. Therapiae Experimentalis (Warsaw)
14(1):74 (1966).

Kosmider, S., D. Habczynska, and.  C. Wazna-Bogunska, Morphologic
Lesions in the Kidneys in  Experimental Poisoning with Sublimate
and Mercury Vapor, Patol. Polska  (Warsaw) 1.8(1 ):33 (1967).

Kosmider, S., S. Zajaczkowski, and  E. Rogowska, Activity of
Serum Cholinesterase in Experimental Poisoning  with Metallic
Mercury, Polish Med. J. (Warsaw)  5.(5):1044 (1966).

Krupitskaya, I. D., and. I. L. Pisarevskii, An Incidence of
Mercury Vapor Contamination  of Residential Blocks, Hyg. Sanita-
tion 30(1);81 (1965).

Ladd, A. C. , L. J. Goldwater, and M. B. Jacobs, Absorption and.
Excretion of Mercury in Man. II.  Urinary Mercury in Relation to
Duration of Exposure, Arch.  Environ. Health 6:480 (1963).

Lin, C., On the Behavior of  Mercury in the Blood, Japan. J.
Ind. Health (Tokyo) 3.(4):249 (1961).

Lund.gren, L., A. Swensson, and. U. Ulfvarson, Studies in Humans
on the Distribution of Mercury in the Blood, and. the Excretion
of Urine after Exposure to Different Mercury Compounds, Scand,.
J. Clin. Lab. Invest. (Copenhagen)  2J3(2):164 (1967).

-------
                                                            71
Matsak, V. G-, Vapor Tension and Vaporization of Substances in
Moving Air, Translated by B. S. Levine, U.S.S.R. Literature on
Air Pollution and Related Occupational Diseases 7;1  (1962).

Mercury and Its Inorganic Compounds, Am. Ind. Hycr. Assoc. J.
(May-June, 1966).

Methods for Detection of Toxic Substances in Air - Booklet 13
Mercury and Compounds of Mercury, Great Britain Ministry of
Labor and Nat. Service  (1957).

Middleton, J. T., and A. 0. Paulus, The Identification and Dis-
tribution of Air Pollutants Through Plant Response, A.M.A. Arch.
Ind. Health 14(6);526 (1956).

Molokhia, M. M., and H. Smith, Trace Elements in the Lung, Arch.
Environ. Health 15(16);745  (1967).

Molyneux, M. K. B., Observations on the Excretion Rate and Con-
centration of Mercury in Urine, Ann. Occupational Hyq. (London)
2:95 (1962).

Ohashi, A., Studies on Mercury Poisoning (Hg. Series No. 5).
Detoxicating Effects of Kithiol Agent, Especially of Thioctic
Acid, Japan. J. Ind. Health (Tokyo) 2.(10):20  (1960).

Parameshvara, V., Mercury Poisoning and Its Treatment with N-
Acetyl-D-Penicillamine, Brit. J. Ind.. Med.  (London) 24(1) :73
(1967).

Pavlova, N. S., N. Y. Petrova, A. S. Vaknitskii, A. Koval'chuk,
and A. I. Postnyi, Investigation on the Content of Mercury Vapors
in the Air of Iron Mines When Mercury Fulminate Tetryl Detonators
are Used, Hvg. Sanitation 29(5);122 (1964).

Polezhaev, N. G., Micromethods for Determination of Injurious
Substances in the Open Air, Novosti Med. 26_:84  (1952).

Recommendations for Allowable Concentration  (1966), Clean Air
(Tokyo) 4.(4) :62  (1966).

A Roomful of Mercury, Lancet  (London) .1(7428):84  (1966).

-------
                                                            72
Ryazanov, V. A.,  "New Data on Limits  of Allowable Atmospheric
Air Pollutants,"  in Limits of Allowable Concentrations  of
Atmospheric Pollutants.  Book 6. Translated by  B. S.  Levine,
U.S.S.R. Literature on Air Pollution  and.  Related Occupational
Diseases 9;1 (1962).

Seidman, G., Effects of  Air Pollution on  Plants, African Violet
Magazine (March 1965).

Shimizu, Y., Studies on  Mercury Poisoning (Hg  Series No. 3)-
Part 1. Influences of Mercury on  the  Distribution and Excretion
of Thioctic Acid  (Lipoic Acid.) Labelled with S-35, Japan.  J.
Ind. Health (Tokyo) 2_(3):29  (1960).

Shimizu, Y. , Studies on  Mercury Poisoning (Hg  Series No. 4).
Part 2. Effect of Thioctic Acid. (Lipoic Acid.)  on Urinary
Mercury Excretion in Man, Japan.  J. Ind..  Health  (Tokyo) 2_( 3) :
35  (1960).

Sokolovskiy, V. V., Concerning the Hemolytic Action  of  Thiol
Poisons, Tsitolgiva (Cytology) 4_:460  (1962).

Southworth, B. C., J. H. Hodecker, and K. D. Fleischer, Deter-
mination of Mercury in Organic Compound.s, Anal. Chem. 30(6) ;1152
(1958).

Suzuki, T., The Significance of Mercury Concentration in the
Urine, Japan. J.  Ind. Health 1(5);61  (1959).

Thomas, M. D., Gas Damage to Plants,  Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol.
2.:293  (1951).

Tipton, I. H., and. J. J. Shafer,  Statistical Analysis of Lung
Trace  Element Levels, Arch. Environ.  Health 8;58 (1964).

Truhaut, R., Tolerable Limits for Toxic Materials In Industry.
Divergences and Points of Agreement at the International Level,
Text in French. Arch. Maladies Prof.  Med. Travail Securite  Sociale
(Paris) 26.(1-2):41 (1965).

Tsuchiya, K., Coproporphyrins in  Lead. and. Mercury Workers,
Ind. Health 2.( 3-4) :162-171.

Wahlberg, J. E.,  Percutaneous Toxicity of Metal Compounds,
Arch.  Environ. Health 11 (August  1965).

-------
                                                           73
Zimmerman, P. W.,  Chemicals Involved in Air Pollutions and Their
Effects Upon Vegetation, New Jersey State Dept. of Health, Proc.
Governor's Conf. and Exhibit on Atmosphere Pollution, Trenton,
N.J., pp. 23-31 (1952).

-------
                                  74
APPENDIX

-------
APPENDIX
                                           TABLE 1

                     SUMMARY OF MERCURY TOXICITY DATA VIA INHALATION"
       159
SYMPTOMS AND EFFECTS
                                                                         COMMENTS
                                       ACUTE POISONING

Metallic taste, nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting,
diarrhea, headache, and sometimes albuminuria; after
a  few days the salivary glands swell, stomatitis
and gingivitis develop, teeth may loosen, and ulcers
may form on lips and cheeks.  In addition, organic
mercury derivatives irritate mucous membranes, pro-
ducing sensation of dryness and irritation in the
nasopharynx and. mouth.  Very high exposures result
in tightness and pain  in the chest, difficulty in
breathing, and coughing.  Later stages characterized
by hemolysis, sleeplessness, headache, facial tics,
tremor of the digits,  deliriousness, and hallucina-
tions

                                      CHRONIC POISONING

Psychic and emotional  disturbances  (irritable,
irascible especially when criticized, unable to
concentrate, fearful,  indecisive, or depressed).
Headache, fatigue, weakness, loss of memory, and
either drowsiness  or insomnia.  Tremors affecting
hand, head, lips,  tongue,or jaw; writing affected.
Other neurological disturbances include paresthesia,
affections of taste or smell, neuralgia, and dermo-
graphism.  Renal disease.  Chronic  nasal catarrh and
epistaxis.  Salivation, gingivitis, and digestive
disturbances. Ocular lesions, amblyopia, and narrowing
of vision, the latter  particularly  from organic
compounds
Relatively infrequent; in milder
cases recovery occurs in 10-14
days, although chronic poisoning
symptoms may ensue, accompanied
by muscular tremors and psychic
disturbances.  In severe poison-
ing the physical defects and
mental deterioration may continue.
Death is frequent in very severe
cases as a result of extreme
exhaustion.  1,200 to 8,500 ng
Hg/m^ of air have resulted in
acute poisoning
May appear after a few weeks of
exposure, or delayed much longer.
Organic mercury symptoms are con-
fined more specifically to the
nervous system.  Slow recovery on
removal from exposure.  Organic
mercury compounds mainly affect
the motor and. sensory nerves;
symptoms of salivation, stomati-
tis, and erethism are more
pronounced in exposure to the
inorganics

-------
                                                           76
APPENDIX

                         TABLE  2

                                            172
             PROPERTIES  AND USES OF MERCURY
Atomic Symbol;  Hg

Molecular Weight;   200.59

Isotopes;  202  (29.6%),  200  (2003%),  199  (17.0%),  201  (13.2%),
198  (10.1%), 204  (6.7%), 196  (0.15%).

Physical Properties;   Silver  white  liquid at  normal  ambient
temperatures; high  density  (13.5939 at  20 C);  high  surface
tension  (480.3  dyn/cm);  slightly  volatile at  ordinary  tempera-
ture  (see Table 3 and  Figure  2);  heat of  fusion  2.82 cal/g;
heat  of vaporization 65  cal/g;  solidifies at  -39°C to  a  tin-
white, ductile, malleable mass; boiling point 356.9°0

Toxicitv, Human;  Readily absorbed  via  respiratory tract (ele-
mental mercury  vapor,  mercury compound  dusts),  intact  skin,
and  gastrointestinal tract,  although occasional  incidental
swallowing of metallic mercury is without harm.  Spilled and
heated elemental mercury is  particularly  hazardous.  Acute:
soluble salts have  violent corrosive effects  on  skin and
mucous membranes; severe nausea,  vomiting,  abdominal pain,
bloody diarrhea; kidney  damage; death usually within 10  days.
Chronic:  inflammation of mouth and gums; excessive  salivation,
loosening of teeth; kidney damage;  muscle tremors, jerky gait,
spasms of extremities; personality  changes, depression,  irri-
tability, nervousness.   Phenyl and  alkyl  mercurials  can  cause
skin  burns and  be absorbed by the skin.   Burning sensation is
delayed several hours  and thus gives no warning.   Alkyls have
affinity for brain  tissue and may cause permanent  damage„
Phenyls are no  more toxic than inorganic  mercury.

Uses: In barometers,  thermometers, hydrometers, pyrometers;
in mercury-arc  lamps producing ultraviolet rays; in  switches,
fluorescent lamps;  in  mercury boilers;  in manufacture  of all
mercury salts,  mirrors;  as catalyst in  oxidation of  organic
compounds; for  extracting gold and  silver from ores, for
making amalgams, electric rectifiers, mercury fulminate; also
in dentistry; in determining  nitrogen by  Kjeldahl  method, for
Millon's reagent; as cathode  in electrolysis, and  many other
uses., Also in  Pharmaceuticals, agricultural  chemicals,  anti-
fouling paints.

-------
                                                              77
APPENDIX
                             TABLE  3

SATURATION CONCENTRATION OF MERCURY IN AIR AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES*

                                                 Mercury
          Temperature                         Concentration
           °C    °F	Pressure (nun)	    (|ag/m3)
-28
-10
0
4
8
10
12
16
20
24
28
30
32
36
40
44
48
50
70
100
200
300
400
-18.4
14.0
32.0
39.2
46.4
50.0
53.6
60.8
68.0
75.2
82.4
86.0
89.6
96.8
104.0
111.2
118.4
122.0
158.0
212.0
372.0
572.0
752.0
.0000063
.0000606
.000185
.000276
.000406
.000490
.000588
.000846
.001201
.001691
.002359
.002777
.003261
.004471
.006079
.008200
.01098
.01267
.04825
.2729
17.287
246.80
1,574.1
80
740
2,180
3,210
4,650 .
5,880
6,640
9,430
13,200
18,300
25,200
29,500
34,400
46,600
62,600
83,300
110,000
126,000
453,000
2,360,000
118,000,000
1,390,000,000
7,530,000,000
    The saturation concentration of mercury in air given in the
table was calculated from the mercury vapor pressure data.  Two
assumptions were necessary to make the calculation:  (1) that
the atmospheric pressure is equal to 760 mm, and (2) that mercury
vapor behaves as an ideal gas or that it obeys the ideal gas
equation:

          PV = nRT
     where P = pressure
           V = volume
           n = moles of mercury vapor
           T = temperature
           R = gas constant = 0.06236  (mm)  (m3)
                                       (°K) (mole).

The concentration of mercury can be calculated by:

             S= (moles Hg in air) (mol wt Kg) (106)
                    volume or air in m->

          = "Hq X 200.6 X 1Q6  =  PHq X 200.6 X 1Q6
                    V                     RT

          = PHq X 3.216 X 109
             T

          p
    where  Hg is vapor pressure of mercury in mm and T is in
°K or 273+°C.

-------
APPENDIX
                                             TABLE 4


                    MERCURY CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES BY USES, 1947-1966
                                              a
                                       (Flasks  in thousands)
                                              126
Uses
Agriculture (includes
fungicides and
bactericides )
Ama 1 gama t i on
Catalysts
Dental preparations
Electrical apparatuses
Electrolytic preparation
of chlorine and
caustic soda
General laboratory use ,
commercial
General laboratory use ,
government
General laboratory use,
total
Industrial and control
instruments
Paint, antifouling
Paint, mildew-proofing
Paper and pulp
manufacture
Pharmaceuticals
Fulminate for munitions
and blasting caps
Redistilled
Other
1947
5.


0.
5.
0.
6.
0.


b

b

0.

5.

0.



3.
0.

4.
1.
6


1
1
8
8
7






3

4

8



1
5

7
8.
1948
7.1


0.1
3.3
1.0
6.5
0.8


b

b

0.4

5.7

1.0



3.4
0.4

6.5
10.2
1949
4.7


0.2
2.5
1.0
7.3
0.8


b

b

0.3

5.0

1.7



3.4
0.2

6.6
6.2
1950
4.5


0.2
2.7
1.5
12.1
1.3


b

b

0.7

5.4

3.1



6.0
0.3

7.6
3.9
1951
7.7


0.2
2.6
0.8
10.3
1.5


b

b

0.5

6.2

2.5



2.8
0.5

8.8
12.5
1952
5.9


0.2
1.1
1.3
8.0
2.5


b

b

0.6

6.4

1.2



1.4
0.3

7.6
6.4
1953
6.9


0.2
0.8
1.1
9.6
2.4


b

b

1.2

5.6

0.7



1.9
0.0

7.8
14.1
1954
7.7


0.2
0.6
1.4
10.8
2.1


b

b

1.1

5.2

0.5
b
c

1.8
0.1

9.3
1.9
1955
7.4


0.2
0.7
1.2
9.3
3.1


b

b

1.1

5.6

0.7
b
c

1.6
0.1

9.6
16.7
1956
9.9


0.2
0.9
1.3
9.8
3.4


b

b

1.0

6.1

0.5
b
c

1.6


9.5
10.0
Total
35.6   46.3   39.9   49.2   56.9   42.6   52.3
42.8   57.2   54.1


       (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                                        TABLE 4 (Continued)

                   MERCURY CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES BY USES, 1947-1966
                                       (Flasks  in thousands)
126
Uses
Agriculture (includes
fungicides and
bacter icides )
Amalgamation
Catalysts
Dental preparations
Electrical apparatuses
Electrolytic preparation
of chlorine and
caustic soda
General laboratory use,
commercial
General laboratory use,
government
General laboratory use,
total
Industrial and control
instruments
Paint, antifouling
Paint, mildew-proofing
Paper and pulp
manufacture
Pharmaceuticals
Fulminate for munitions
and blasting caps
Redistilled
Other
Total
1957
6.3


0.2
0.9
1.4
9.2
4.0


b

b

0.9

6.0

0.6
b

c
1.8


9.7
11.0
52.9
1958
6.3


0.3
0.8
1.7
9.3
4.6


b

b

1.0

6.1

0.8
b

c
1.4


9.5
11.0
52.6
1959
3.


0.
1.
1.
8.
5.


b

b

1.

6.

1.
2.

4.
1.


9.
7.
54.
2


3
0
8
9
8






1

2

0
5

4
7


3
7_
9
1960
3.0


0.3
1.0
1.8
9.3
6.2


b

b

103

6.5

1.4
2.9

3.5
1.7


9.7
207
51.2
1961
10.1


0.3
0.7
1.1
10.3
6.0


1.2



1.2

5.6

3.1
b


2.5


9.0
6.0
55.8
1962
4.3


0.3
0.9
2.0
11.6
7.3


1.8



1.8

5.2

0.1
4.6

2.6
2.4


9.0
12o4
65.3
1963
2.5


0.3
0.6
2.4
11.1
8.0


1.2

3.8

5.1

4.9

0.3
6.4

2.8
4.1


9.2
20.3
78.0
1964
3.1


0.7
0.7
2.6
10.7
9.6


1.5

17.0

18.5

5.0

0.6
4.9

2.2
5.1


1104
7.7
82.6
1965
3.1


0.5
0.9
1.6
13.9
8.8


1.1



1,1

4.6

0.3
7.5

0.6
3.3


12.0
15.4
73.6
1966
2.4


0.5
1.9
1.4
13.6
11.5


1.6



1.6

4.3

0.1
7.8

0.6
3.7


7.0
15.6
72.0
     al Flask = 76 Ibo
     •'-'Data not available.
     clncluded with acrriculture.

-------
APPENDIX
                   TABLE 5.  PROPERTIES AND USES OF SOME MERCURY COMPOUNDS
                                                                           Q(~)
                                                                           0^'
Compound
Mol. Wt.
% Wt. Hq
  mp°C
  bp°C
   Toxicity
                                                                                 Uses
Ammoniated .mercuric
  chloride
 (mercuric ammonium
1  chloride)
HgNH  Cl
 252.09

  79.58
Infusible
See mercury
                                                                     As topical anti-infectiva
Mercuric bromide
HgBr0
 360.44

  55.66
   237
See mercury
                                                                     As laboratory reagent
Mercuric chloride
 (Corrosive
  sublimate)
HgCi
 271.52

  73.88
   282

   (3)
LD   for rats,
orally 37 mg/kg
                                                                     For preserving wood, embalming,
                                                                     disinfecting, etching metals,
                                                                     tanning leather, as ink for
                                                                     mercurography, in treating
                                                                     seed potatoes, as topical
                                                                     antiseptic
Mercuric cyanide
Hg(CN)
 252.65

  79.40
Decomposes
Violent poison
                                                                     As topical antiseptic,
                                                                     antisyphilitic
Mercuric fluoride

   2
                          238.61

                           84.07
               645

              (650)
               See mercury and
               fluorine
                   In fluorination of organic
                   compounds
Mercuric fulminate
Hg(NCO)
 284.65
Explosive
                   In detonators
Mercuric  iodide
HgI0
 454.45

 (44.14)
    259

   (350)
See mercury
                                                                     As Nessler's Reagent, topical
                                                                     antiseptic, local counter-
                                                                     irritant and vesicant for
                                                                     horses
                                                                                          (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                   TABLE 5.  PROPERTIES AND USES OF SOME MERCURY COMPOUNDS
Compound
Mol. Wt.
% Wt. Hg
  mp°C
  bp°C
                                                     Toxicity
            Uses
Mercuric nitrate
Hg(NO  )  'H.,0
     J  2   z
 342.64
    70
                                                  Sae mercury
In manufacture of felt,
mercury fulminate, destruction
of phylloxera
Mercuric oxide
   (red)
HgO
 216.61

  92.61
Decomposes
at 500
                                                  See mercury
As topical antiseptic, paints
for ships' bottoms; for
diluting pigments; in batteries;
as reagent in quality
determinations
Mercuric sulfate
HgS04
 296.68

 (67.62)
Decomposes
                                                                     As electrolyte for primary
                                                                     batteries, in metallurgy of
                                                                     gold and silver
Mercuric sulfide
   (cinnabar)
HgS
 232.68
Sublimes at
583.5
                                                  See mercury
As pigment for horn, rubber,
plastics, sealing wax, colored
papers, linen marking
Mercuric  thiocyanate
Hg(SCN)
       2
 316.79

  63.33%
Decomposes
                                                  See mercury
In fireworks; as intensifier
in photography
Mercurous chloride
 472.09

  84.98%
Sublimes at
400-500
                                                  Low mammalian
                                                  toxicity; 210
                                                  mg/kg  (in rats)
                                                  caused mercurial
                                                  symptoms
For dark-green Bengal lights,
calomel paper, when mixed with
gold in painting on porcelain,
calomel electrodes, as
fungicide, in agriculture to
control root maggots.  Med.
use:  as  cathartic, diuretic,
antiseptic
Mercurous sulfate
  i SO
  2  4
                          497.29

                          80.68%
           Decomposes
                                  In making electric batteries
                                                                                          (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                    TABLE  5.   PROPERTIES  AND USES  OF  SOME  MERCURY COMPOUNDS80'121
Compound
Mol. Wt.
% Wt. Ha
bp C
Toxicity
                                                                                Uses
 Die thy 1 mercury
                         258.73
               159
                                As fungicide, herbicide
 Dimethyl mercury
                         230.68
               (95)
                                As fungicide, herbicide
 Ethyl mercuric
  chloride
                         265.13

                          75.66%
               192
             Highly toxic;
             see mercury
                As fungicide for treating seeds
Mercuric acetate
                         318.70

                          62.95
            Decomposes
             See mercury
                In mercuration of organic
                compounds, absorption of
                ethylene
Mercuric benzoate
                         460.85

                          43.53
                                              In treatment of syphilis and
                                              gonorrhea
Mercuric lactate
(CH CHOHCOO) Hg
   •J         £
                                                  Acute oral LD
                                                  for rats
                                                  200 mgAg

                                              As fungicide
Mercuric oleate
                         763.53

                          26.29
                                              As topical parasiticide
Mercuric sodium
p-phenosulf onate
                         590.92

                          33.95
                           See mercury
                                As germicide in soaps and
                                lotions (1:100), local
                                antiseptic
                                                                                                       00
                                                                                                       to
                                                                                           (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                    TABLE 5.   PROPERTIES AND USES OF SOME MERCURY COMPOUNDS80'121
Compound
Me r cur in
Ci4H25HgN05
Mercurophen
C6H4Hg NNa04
Mercurous acetate
Hg2(CH3coo)2
Methyl mercuric
chloride
CH HgCl
Methyl mercuric
propionate
CH3Hg02CC2H5
Methyl mercuric
dicyaniamide
CH3HgC2H3N4
Methyl mercuric
nitrile
CH HgCN
Mol. Wt.
% Wt. Hq
487.97
41.11%
377.70
53.11%
519.31
77.26%
251.10



mp C
bp°C



170
Volatile at
100

156-157
95
Toxicity

See mercury



High mammalian
toxicity
(internal and on
skin contact)
High mammalian
toxicity;
vesicant
Uses
As diuret j c
Med. and vet. use: As local
antiseptic, surgical
instrument disinfectant
Med. use: formerly in
syphilis treatment
As fungicide
As fungicide, antibiotic; in
seed treatment
As fungicide, in seed treatment
As fungicide, in seed treatment
                                                                                              (continued)   oo
                                                                                                            u>

-------
APPENDIX
                    TABLE  5.   PROPERTIES  AND USES  OF SOME MERCURY COMPOUNDS80'121
 Compound
Mol. Wt.
% Wt. Hq
  mp°C
  bp C
                                                     Toxicity
           Uses
Methyl mercuric
  pentachlorophenate
CH HgOC Cl
  3    65
                                         192
                           Acute oral LD
                           for rats
                           56 mg/kg
                                                                50
                                  As fungicide, in seed
                                  treatment
Methyl mercuric
  quinolinolate
                                     133-137
                           Acute oral LD
                           for rats
                           72 mgAg
                                                                 50
                                  As fungicide, in seed
                                  treatment
 Phenylmercuric
   acetate
  336.75

   59.57%
    149
                                                  High mammalian
                                                  toxicity; oral
                                                  LD_  for rats

                                                  40
As herbicide, fungicide
 Phenylmercuric
    benzoate
               95-99
               High mammalian
               toxicity
                                                                     As fungicide
 Phenylmercuric
   chloride
 C H HgCl
  65
  313.18

   64.06%
250-252
                                                  See mercury;
                                                  high mammalian
                                                  toxicity
As antiseptic, fungicide.
Med. use:  as external local
antiseptic
 Phenylmercur ic
   hydroxide
 C H HgOH
  6 5
            Decomposes
            at 200
               High mammalian
               toxicity
                                                                     As fungicide
 Phenylmercuric
   nitrate, basic
 C6H5HgOH•C6H5HgN03
  634.45
   63.24%
Decomposes
at 187-190
                                                  See mercury;
                                                  subcutaneous I»E>
                                                  for rats 63 rng/j,™
As fungicide
                                                                                oo
                                                                                           (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                     TABLE 5.  PROPERTIES AND USES OF SOME MERCURY COMPOUNDS80'121
  Compound
Mol. Wt.
% Wt. Hg.
  mp C
  bp°C
   Toxicity
           Uses
  Phenylmercuric
    salicylate
            - C6H4OH
           155-161
               High mammalian
               toxicity
                   As fungicide
  Phenylmer curie
    borate
 338.56

  59.25%
112-113
See mercury;
Much less toxic
than most
mercurial
compounds
As local external antiseptic
                                                                                                         CD

-------
                                                             86
APPENDIX
                            TABLE  6
  U.S.A. PRODUCTION OF MERCURY BY STATES  (1936-1956)
                   Flasks  (1 Flask =  76 Ib)
                                                     124,126
Year
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
1950
1949
1948
1947
1946
1945
1944
1943
1942
1941
1940
1939
1938
1937
1936
Alaska
*
*
303
400
3,719
3,743
4,459
3,743
3,380
5,461
3,280
(1,000)
1,046
40
28


100
100
127
699
*
*
786
*
*
162




Calif.
16,070
13,404
10,291
13,592
15,951
18,688
18,764
17,100
22,365
16,511
9,017
9,875
11,262
9,290
7,241
4,282
3,850
4,493
11,188
17,165
17,782
21,199
28,052
33,812
29,906
25,714
18,629
11,127
12,277
9,743
8,693
Idaho
1,134
1,119
83
*
*
*
*
*
it
2,260
3,394
1,107
609
*
887
357


543
886
868
62
*
4,261
*
*
*
*



Nevada
3,355
3,333
3,262
4,944
6,573
7,486
7,821
7,156
7,336
6,313
5,859
5,750
4,974
3,254
3,523
1,400
680
4,170
1,206
3,881
4,567
4,338
2,460
4,577
5,201
4,238
5,924
828
336
198
211
Oregon
700
1,364
126
*
*
*
513
1,224
2,276
3,993
1,893
1,056
489
648
868
1,177
5
1,167
1,351
1,185
1,326
2,500
3,159
4,651
6,935
9,032
9,043
4,592
4,610
4,264
4,126
All
Other
749
362
77
181
34
1,745
1,666
2,033
2,710
87
734
167
163
1,105

77




106
2,664
4,017
3,842
8,804
5,937
4,019
2,086
768
2,303
3,539
U.S.A.
22,008
19,582
14,142
19,117
26,277
31,662
33,223
31,256
38,067
34,625
24,177
18,955
18,543
14,337
12,547
7,293
4,535
9,930
14,388
23,244
25,348
30,763
37,688
51,929
50,846
44,921
37,777
18,633
17,991
16,508
16,569
     *Included in All  Other.

-------
                                                         87

APPENDIX


                       TABLE 7

    MAJOR MERCURY MINES* IN 1963 AND THEIR LOCATIONS150



Mine	County	State 	

Red Devil            Aniak District      Alaska
National             Maricopa            Arizona
New Idria            San Benito          California
Buena Vista          San Luis Obispo     California
New Almad.en          Santa Clara         California
Culver-Baer          Sonoma              California
Cordero              Humboldt            Nevada
lone                 Nye                 Nevada


   *These eight mines accounted for 97% of the domestic
primary production in 1963.

-------
                                                             88
APPENDIX
                            TABLE 8

        LIST OF MAJOR MERCURY-PRODUCING MINES IN 1966126
             Mines Producing More Than 1,000 Flasks*

        Mine                      County
Cordero
Little King
New Idria
Buena Vista
Mt. Jackson
Idaho-Almaden
Humboldt
Kings
San Benito
San Luis Obispo
Sonoma
Washington
   State

Nevada
California
California
California
California
Idaho
               Mines Producing 500 to 1.000 Flasks

        Mines                     County
Gibraltar  (Sunbird)
New Almaden
Socrates
Black Butte
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Sonoma
Lane
   State

California
California
California
Oregon
                Mines Producing 100 to 500 Flasks
        Mine
B & B
Brinkerhoff (Loretta)
Kitten Springs
Mt. Diablo
Tehachapi (Walabu)
Knoxville
North Star
Guadalupe
Altoona
White Mountain
Big Sam
Pine Mountain
Fresno
Bretz
    County

Esmeralda
Pershing
Pershing
Contra Costa
Kern
Napa
San Benito
Santa Clara
Trinity
Aniak
Maricopa
Maricopa
Presidio
Malheur
   State

Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
California
California
California
California
California
California
Alaska
Arizona
Arizona
Texas
Oregon
     *Flask = 76 Ib.

-------
                                                             89

 APPENDIX



                            TABLE 9

               DIRECTORY OF SELECTED PRODUCERS,
              CONSUMERS,  AND DEALERS OF MERCURY136


                         LARGE PRODUCERS

Alaska:
     Decoursey Mountain Mining Co., P.O. Box 442, Anchorage.
California:
     Harold Biaggini, Atascadero.
     COG Minerals Corp., Denver Club B, Denver, Colo.
     New Idria Mining & Chemical Co., P.O. Box 87, Idria.
     Sonoma Quicksilver Mines, Inc., Guerneville.
Idaho :
     Holly Minerals Corp.,  340 Third St., N.W., Albuquerque, N. Mex.
     Rare Metals Corp. of America, 10th Floor, First Security
          Bldg., Salt Lake  City, Utah.
Nevada:
     Cordero Mining Co., 131 University Ave., Palo Alto, Calif.
Oregon:
     Arentz-Comstock Mining Venture, 870 First Security Bldg.,
          Salt Lake City, Utah.
     Bonanza Oil & Mine Corp., Sutherlin.


                        LARGE CONSUMERS

The Adams & Westlake Co., Elkhart,  Ind.
Allied Chemical Corp., National Aniline Div., 40 Rector St., New
     York, N.Y.
Allied Chemical Corp., Solvay Process Div., P.O. Box 271, Syracuse,
     N.Y.
American Cyanamid Co., 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y.
American Meter Co., Erie, Pa.
American Meter Co., 1300 Industrial Blvd., Dallas, Tex.
B I F Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 1342, Providence, R.I.
Bailey Meter Co., 1052 Ivanhoe Road, Cleveland, Ohio.
J.T. Baker Chemical Co., Phillipsburg, N.J.
F.W. Berk & Co., Inc., Park Place  East, Wood Ridge, N.J.
Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, Tenn.
Carbide & Carbon Chemicals  Co., A  Div. of Union Carbide & Carbon
     Co., 300 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y.
Carbide & Carbon Chemicals  Co., A  Div. of Union Carbide & Carbon
     Co., Niagara Falls, N.Y.
L.D. Caulk Co., Milford, Del.
Cooper-Hewitt Electric Co., 410 8th St., Hoboken, N.J.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 1007 Market St., Wilmington, Del,
Eastern Smelting & Refining Co., 107-109 W. Brookline St., Boston,
     Mass.
Thomas A. Edison, Inc., Primary Battery Div., Bloomfield, N.J.
Foxboro Co., Foxboro, Mass.
General Aniline & Film Corp., Dyestuff & Chem. Div., P.O. Box 12,
     T.i nflon  NT .T
                                                      (continued)

-------
APPENDIX                                                    9°

                      TABLE 9  (Continued)

                DIRECTORY OF SELECTED PRODUCERS,
              CONSUMERS,  AND DEALERS OF MERCURY136
                        LARQE CONSUMERS

General Color Co., Inc., 24 Avenue B, Newark, N.J.
General Electric Co., Purchasing Dept., 1 River Rd.,  Schenectady,
      N.Y.
Gulf Oil Corp., Gulf Bldg., Pittsburgh, Pa.
Homestake Mining Co., Lead, S. Dak.
Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Jersey City, N.J.
Mathieson Chemical Corp., Mathieson Bldg., Baltimore, Md.
The Mercoid Corp., 200 Wagaraw Rd., Hawthorne, N.J.
Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., Micro Switch Div., Freeport, 111.
Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., Brown Instruments Div., Pur-
      chasing Dept., 4331 Wayne Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.
Monsanto Chemical Co., 918 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C.
Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 1000 Widener Bldg., Philadelphia, Pa.
Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 80 Park Place, Newark, N.J.
Quicksilver Products, Inc., 407 Sansome St., San Francisco, Calif.
Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 910 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, 111.
Taylor Instrument Companies, P.O. Box 110,, Rochester, N.Y.
Westinghouse Electric Corp., 306 4th Ave., Pittsburgh, Pa.
Wyandotte Chemical Corp., Wyandotte, Mich.


                         LARGE  DEALERS

Associated Metals & Minerals Corp., 75 West St., New York, N.Y.
Ayrton Metal & Ore Corp., 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y.
Bache & Co., 36 Wall St., New York, N.Y.
Barada & Page, Inc., Guinotte Ave. & Michigan Ave., Kansas City, Mo.
Earth Metals Co., Inc., 99-129 Chapel  St., Newark, N.J.
F.W. Berk & Co., Inc., Park Place  East, Wood Ridge, N.J.
Braun Corp., 1363 S. Bonnie Beach  Place, Los Angeles, Calif.
Chemical Mfg. Co., Inc., of Calif., 714 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles,
      Calif.
Derby & Company, Inc., 10 Cedar St., New York, N.Y.
Stanley Doggett, Inc., 99 Hudson St., New York, N.Y.
Fleischman Burd & Co., 22 W. 48th  St., New York, N.Y.
Geotrade Industrial Corp., 141 E.  44th St., New York, N.Y.
Goldsmith Bros., Smelting & Refining Co., 1300 W. 59th St., Chicago,
      111.
Gordon I. Gould & Co., 58 Sutter St.,  San Francisco, Calif.
W.R. Grace & Co., P.O. Box 286, Church St. Annex, New York, N.Y.
Haesler Metal & Ore Corp., 11 W. 42d St., New York, N.Y.
Chas. P. Hull Co., Inc., 50 Church St., New York, N.Y.
Interchange Commercial Corp., 46 W. 55th  St., New York, N.Y.
International Bartering Co., 52 Broadway, New York, N.Y.
International Minerals & Metals Corp., 11 Broadway, New York, N.Y.
International Selling Corp., 122 E. 42d St., New York, N.Y.
L.H. Keller Co., 50 E. 42d St., New York, N.Y.
Leghorn Trading Co., Inc., 141 E.  44th St., New York, N.Y.
Lentex Metal & Chemical Co., 500 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y.

                                                      (continued)

-------
                                                             91
APPENDIX
                      TABLE 9 (Continued)

                DIRECTORY OF SELECTED PRODUCERS,
               CONSUMERS,  AND DEALERS OF MERCURY
.136
                          LARGE DEALERS

Fred H. Lenway & Co., Inc. 112 Market St., San Francisco, Calif.
Mefford Chemical Co., Sub. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 5353 Jillson
     St., Los Angeles, Calif.
Mercantile Metal & Ore Corp., 595 Madison Ave. New York, N.Y.
Mercer Chemical Corp., 11 Mercer St., New York, N.Y.
Merchants Chemical Co., Inc., 60 E. 42d St., New York, N.Y.
Metal Traders, Inc., 26 Broadway, New York, N.Y.
Metallurg, Inc., 99 Park Ave. New York, N.Y.
Metalsalts Corp., 200 Wagaraw Rd., Hawthorne, N.J.
Pacific Vegetable Oil Co., 62 Townsend St., San Francisco, Calif.
Philipp Bros., Inc., 70 Pine St., New York, N.Y.
C. L. Pratt, Jr., 10210 Second Blvd., Detroit, Mich.
Quicksilver Products, Inc., 407 Sansome St.,  San Francisco, Calif,
Frank Samuel & Co., 2200 Lincoln-Liberty Bldg., Philadelphia, Pa.
The  Schmitz-Schoenewaldt-Turner Co., 20 Vesey St., New York, N.Y.
Seaforth Mineral & Ore Co., 3537 Lee Rd., Cleveland, Ohio
William M. Stieh & Co., Inc., 721 River Rd., Teaneck, N.J.
Swiss Bank Corp., N.Y. Agency, 15 Nassau St., New York, N.Y.

-------
                                                           92
    APPENDIX

                          TABLE 10

LIST OF SOME COMPANIES PRODUCING MERCURY CHEMICALS (1968)
    Allied Chemical Corp.
       Industrial Chemicals Div-

    J. T. Baker Chemical Co.

    City Chemical Corp.

    W. A. Cleary Corp.

    Kewanee Oil Co.
       Harshaw Chemical Co. Div.

    H. Kohnstamm and Co., Inc.
       General Color Co. Div-

    Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
       Industrial Chemical Div.

    Merck & Co., Inc.
       Metalsalts

    Precision Chemical Corp.

    R.S.A. Corp.

    Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
       Nuodex Div.

    Troy Chemical Corp.

    Velsicol Chemical Corp.
Marcus Hook, Pa.

Phillipsburg, N.J.

Jersey City, N.J.

New Brunswick, N.J.


Cleveland, Ohio


Newark, N.J.


Jersey City, N.J.


Hawthorne, N.J.

Richmond, Calif.

Ardsley, N.Y.


Elizabeth, N.J.

Newark, N.J.

Wood Ridge, N.J.

-------
APPENDIX
                                       TABLE 11
                           MERCURY-CONTAINING PESTICIDES
                                                        185
Product
             Compound
    Producer
Acme Panogen
Ad vacide PMA
Advacide PMO
Advacide 60
Agrosol
Agrox C

Agrox
Calo-clor

Calo-gran

Calocure
Calogreen
Centerchem

Ceresan L
 Ceresan M

 Ceresan M-DB

 "Ceresan" Red
 Chipcote 25
Methyl mercury dicyandiamide
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric oleate
Phenylmercuric oleate
Methyl mercury dicyandiamide
Ethyl mercury chloride and phenyl-
  mercuric acetate
Phenyl mercury urea
Mercuric chloride, mercurous chlo-
  ride
Mercuric chloride, mercurous chlo-
  ride
Mercury
Mercurous chloride
Mercuric chloride

Methyl mercuric acetate
Methyl mercury 2,3-dihydroxy propyl-
  mercaptide
Ethylmercuric p-toluene sulfon-
  anilide
Ethylmercuric p-toluene sulfon-
  anilide
Ethylmercuric chloride
Methyl mercury nitrile
Acme
Advance Division
Advance Division
Advance Division
Chipman
Chipman

Chipman
Mallinckrodt

Mallinckrodt

Mallinckrodt
Mallinckrodt
Center Chemical,
  Incorporated
Du Pont
Du Pont

Du Pont

Du Pont
Chipman
                                                                               (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                                 TABLE 11  (Continued)

                            MERCURY-CONTAINING PESTICIDES
Product
             Compound
    Producer
Chipcote 75
Coromerc C
Coromerc Liquid
Doggett Fison Dap Cal

Doggett Fison Dap Cal
Doggett Fison Turf Tox MC

Emrni
E-Z Flo Puratized

Fung Chex

Gallotox
Gallotox 51
Green Cross  Erad
Green Cross  Liquid  Merlane
Green Cross  Liquid  San
Green Cross  Merlane Dust
Green Cross  San Dust
Methyl mercury nitrile
Phenyl mercury
Phenyl mercury
Mercuric chloride, mercurous chlo-
  ride
Phenylmercuric acetate
Mercuric chloride, mercurous chlo-
  ride
N-Ethylmercuri-1,2,3,6,-tetrahydro-
  3,6-endo-methanol-3,4,5-677 Hexa-
  chlorphthalimid e
Phenylmercuric monoethanolammonium
  1actate
Murcuric chloride, mercurous chlo-
  ride
Phenylmercuric acetate
Volatile mercury compounds
Phenylmercuric acetate
Methyl mercury-8-hydroxyquinolinate
Methylmercuric acetate
Methyl mercury 2,3-dihydroxy propyl-
  mercaptide
Methyl mercury pentachlorophenolate
Methyl mercury pentachlorophenolate
Chipman
Davison
Davison
Doggett Fiser

Doggett Fiser
Doggett Fiser

Velsicol
E.
;. Flo
Wood Ridge

Guard
Guard
Green Cross
Green Cross
Green Cross
Green Cross
Green Cross
                                                                                ' continued )

-------
APPENDIX
                                  TABLE 11 (Continued)
                            MERCURY-CONTAINING PESTICIDES
Product
             Compound
    Produc er
GSCI

GSCI

Kroma-Clor
Liquiphene Apple Scab
  Fungicide
Liquiphene Turf Fungicide
Mema
Metnmi
Merbam

Mercuram

Mergamma
Mergamma C

Mergamma Liquid
Mersolite 88
Mersolite 88 W
Mersolite 810
Mersolite 830
Mercurous chloride

Mercuric chloride

Mercury dimethyl dithiocarbamate
Phenylmercuric acetate

Phenylmercuric acetate
Methoxyethyl mercury acetate
N-methylmercuri-1,2,3,6-tetrahydro
  3,6-endomethano-3,4,5,6,7,7-
  hexachlorophthalimide
Phenylmercuric dimethyldithiocar-
  bamate
Phenylmercuric dimethyld ithiocar-
  bamate
Phenyl mercury urea
Ethylmercuric chloride and phenyl-
  mercuric acetate
Methyl mercury dicyandiamide
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Gallard-
  Schlesinger
Gallard-
  Schlesinger
Mallinckrodt
Vine land

Vineland
Chipman
Velsicol
Chipman

Vineland

Chipman
Chipman

Chipman
Wood Ridge
Wood Ridge
Wood Ridge
Wood Ridge
                                                                                (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                                 TABLE 11  (Continued)

                            MERCURY-CONTAINING PESTICIDES
Product
             Compound
    Producer
Metasol 10
Metasol Bi-Cal

Metasol EMCL
Metasol MMH Concentrate
Metasol MMH Dual purpose
Metasol MMH Liquid-dual
  purpose
Metasol MMH Liquid  seed
  treatment
Metasol MMH mercury drill
  box formulation
Metasol MMH powder
Metasol MMH regular
Metasol Thiram Mercury

Miller  (Puratized)  Apple
  Spray
Millers Puraspra

Morsodren
N5 DS

New York Science Supply
Phenylmercuric acetate
Mercuric chloride, mercurous chlo-
  ride
Ethylmercuric chloride
Methyl mercury-8-hydroxy quinolinate
Methyl mercury-8-hydroxy quinolinate
Methyl mercury-8-hydroxy quinolinate

Methyl mercury-8-hydroxy quinolinate

Methyl mercury-8-hydroxy quinolinate

Methyl mercury-8-hydroxy quinolinate
Methyl mercury-8-hydroxy quinolinate
Mercuric chloride and mercurous chlo-
  ride
Phenylmercuri monoethanolammonium
  ac et at e-
Phenylmercuric triethanolammonium
  lactate
Methylmercury dicyandiamide
Phenylmercuric triethanolammonium
  lactate
Mercuric chloride
Metal Salts
Metal Salts

Metal Salts
Metal Salts
Metal Salts
Metal Salts

Metal Salts

Metal Salts

Metal Salts
Metal Salts
Metal Salts

Miller Chemical &
  Fertilizer
Miller Products

Morton
Guard

New York Science
  Supply
                                                                               (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                                  TABLE 11  (Continued)
                            MERCURY-CONTAINING PESTICIDES
Product
             Compound
    Producer
Niagara Puratized agri-
  cultural spray
Nuodex PMA-18
Nuodex PMO-10
Ortho-LM Apple  Spray
Ortho-LM Seed Protectant
Panogen 15
Panogen 42
Panterra
Parson's Ready  Mix  seed
  treatment
Parson's Slurry Concentrate
Pearson's Merc-O-Dust
Phelam

Phenmad
Phenyl mercury  fungicide
PM 2,4-D
PM ACETATE
PMAS
PMB
Proturf fertilizer  and
  fungicide
Proturf fungicide
Phenylmercuric triethanolammonium
  lactate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric oleate
Methylmercury-8-hydroxyquinolinate
Methylmercury-8-hydroxyquinolinate
Methylmercury dicyandiamide
Methylmercury dicyandiamide
Methylmercury dicyandiamide
Chloromethoxypropyl mercuric acetate

Chloromethoxypropyl mercuric acetate
Mercurypentanedion
Phenylmercuric dimethyldithiocar-
  bamate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric borate
Phenylmercuric acetate

Phenylmercuric acetate
Niagara

Nuod ex
Nuodex
Chevron
Chevron
Morton
Morton
Morton
Parsons

Parsons
Pearsons
Wood Ridge

Mallinokrodt
Agway
Cleary
Guard
Cleary
Guard
Scott

Scott
                                                                               (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                                  TABLE 11  (Continued)
                            MERCURY-CONTAINING PESTICIDES
Product
             Compound
    Producer
Purasan  PMA
Puraseed
Puratized Apple Spray

Puratol
Puraturf No.  10

Puraturf 10

Quicksan
Quicksan 20
Quicksan C20
Quicksan CMA
Real-Kill Moth Proofer

Satnin  Corp.
Samin  Corp. Mercuric Chlo-
   ride
Samin  Corp. Mercury Oxide
Scutl
Semesan  Bel
Semesan  Seed  Disinfectant
Semesan  Turf  Fungicide
Setrete
Phenylmercuric acetate
Mercury compound
Phenylmercuric monoethanol
Ammonium acetate
Phenyl mercury
Phenylmercuric acetate

Phenylmercuric monoethanolammonium
  lactate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Chloromethoxypropylmercurie acetate
Chloromethoxypropylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric lactate

Ethylmercuric chloride
Mercuric chloride

Mercuric oxide
Phenylmercuric acetate
Hydroxymercurichlorophenol
Hydroxymercurichlorophenol
Hydroxymercurichlorophenol
Phenylmercuric ammonium acetate
Guard
Guard
Metasol Canada,
  Limited
Guard
Metasol Canada,
  Limited
Guard

Stecker
Stecker
Stecker
Stecker
Cook Chemical
  Company
Samin Corporation
Samin Corporation

Samin Corporation
Scott
Du Pont
Du Pont
Du Pont
Cleary
                                                                                              VD
                                                                                              03
                                                (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                                  TABLE 11 (Continued)
                             MERCURY-CONTAINING PESTICIDES
Product
             Compound
    Producer
 Setrete-Fortifled

 Setrete  Mist

 Shepard  Chemical  EMA
 Shepard  Chemical  EMC
 Shepard  Chemical  BMP
 Stauffer Mer-CAD
 Stauffer Mer-Sol  7
 Stauffer Mer-Sol  48

 Stauffer Mer-Sol  51

 Tersan OM
 Troysan CMP Acetate
 Troysan PMA
 Troysan PMB
 Troysan PMO
 Ultraclor
 Wood  Ridge Calomel
 Wood  Ridge Corrosive
   Sublimate
 Wood  Ridge Mixture 21
Ethylmercuric acetate and phenyl-
  mercuric acetate
Ethylmercuric acetate and phenyl-
  mercuric acetate
Ethylmercuric acetate
Ethylmercuric chloride
Ethylmercuric phosphate
Phenylmercuric formamide
Phenylmercuric ammonium acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate and ethyl-
  mercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate and ethyl-
  mercuric acetate
Hydroxymercurichlorophenol
Chloromethoxypropylmercurie acetate
Phenylmercuric acetate
Phenylmercuric borate
Phenylmercuric oleate
Mercuric dimethyldithiocarbamate
Mercurous chloride
Mercuric chloride

Mercuric chloride and mercurous chlo-
  ride
Cleary

Cleary

Shepard
Shepard
Shepard
Stauffer
Stauffer
Stauffer

Stauffer

Du Pont
Troy
Troy
Troy
Troy
Mallinckrodt
Wood Ridge
Wood Ridge

Wood Ridge

-------