-------
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
------- |