United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
OSWER 9285.4-08
EPA/540/-04/006
January 2005
Superfund
Ritualistic Use of Mercury
Simulation: A Preliminary Investigation of
Metallic Mercury Vapor
Fate and Transport in a Trailer
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Ritualistic Use of Mercury -
Simulation:
A Preliminary Investigation of Metallic
Mercury Vapor
Fate and Transport in a Trailer
-------
Ritualistic Use of Mercury- Simulation:
A Preliminary Investigation of Metallic Mercury Vapor
Fate and Transport in a Trailer
Prepared for:
Suzanne Wells, Director
Community Involvement and Outreach Center
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Prepared by:
Raj Singhvi
Environmental Response Team
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, NJ 08837
In conjunction with:
Yash Mehra, Jay Patel, Dennis Miller, and Dennis Kalnicky
Lockheed Martin/REAC
Edison, NJ 08837
January, 2005
-------
PROJECT TEAM:
USEPA/OSWER/OSRTI/ ERT, Edison, NJ
Raj Singhvi
Lockheed Martin / REAC, Edison, NJ
Dennis Kalnicky
Yash Mehra
Dennis Miller
Jay Patel
Amy Dubois
Charles Gasser
Donna Getty
Cindy Kleiman
Philip Solinski
Miguel Trespalacios
-------
Acknowledgements and Disclaimer
The authors wish to thank the reviewers listed below for their excellent comments and their input
during the preparation of this report. The analytical methods described here were developed to
meet USEPA/ERT/REAC field and laboratory requirements for monitoring indoor metallic
mercury vapor and may not be applicable to the activities of other organizations. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
The work was performed under contract with Lockheed Martin Inc. (Contract No. 68-C99-223).
Reviewers
Harry Allen, USEPA/ERT
Michael Aucott, NJDEP/DSRT
Charles M. Auer, USEPA/OPPT
Philip Campagna, USEPA/ERT
Nicolas Carballeira, M.D., MPH, Latin American Health Institute,
Tufts University School of Medicine
Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., John Jay College of CUNY
Christopher DeRosa, Ph.D., DHHS/ATSDR
Merv Fingas, Environmental Canada
Audrey Galizia, Dr.PH, USEPA/ORD
Michael Gochfeld, M.D., Ph.D., Rutgers University/Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences Institute
Zhishi Guo, USEPA/ORD
Deborah Killeen, Lockheed Martin/REAC
Karen Martin, USEPA/CIO
Arnold Wendroff, Ph.D., Mercury Poisoning Project
Andre P. Zownir, USEPA/ERT
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Acknowledgements and Disclaimer ii
List of Figures v
List of Tables ix
List of Photographs x
Acronyms and Abbreviations xi
Executive Summary 1
1.0 Introduction 3
2.0 Mercury Vapor Monitoring and Sample Analysis Methodology 4
2.1 Laboratory Analysis (Modified NIOSH Method 6009) 4
2.2 Real-Time Monitoring 5
3.0 Experimental Design 5
4.0 Detailed Experiment Descriptions and Results 7
4.1 Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiments #1 and #2 7
4.2 Broken Clinical Thermometer Simulation: Experiment #3 9
4.3 Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiments #4 and #5 9
4.4 Surface Area Regeneration Simulation: Experiment #6 11
4.5 Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Room: Experiment #7 11
4.6 Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8 12
4.7 Investigation to Determine Significant Difference between Lumex and NIOSH: 13
Experiments #9 and #10
5.0 Tracer Gas Studies and Ventilation Rate Measurements 15
6.0 Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 15
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
6.1 Model for Predicting Average Indoor Air Mercury Concentration 18
7.0 Summary of Results 20
8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 21
9.0 References 23
Figures 25
Tables 70
Photographs 76
Appendix A: Data Tables
Appendix B: Excel Spreadsheet for Predicting Average
Mercury Concentration as a Function of Hours of Exposure
IV
-------
FIGURES
Page No.
I. Schematic Diagram of the Trailer 25
1. Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment #1 26
NIOSH Results - 2.12 grams Hg
2. Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment #1 27
NIOSH & TRACKER Results - 4.72 grams Hg
3. Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment #1 28
NIOSH & TRACKER Results - 9.92 grams Hg
4. Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment #1 29
NIOSH & TRACKER Results - 15.02 grams Hg
5 Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment #2 30
NIOSH & TRACKER Results - 2.0 grams Hg
6. Broken Clinical Thermometer Simulation: Experiment #3 31
NIOSH & TRACKER Results - 0.7143 grams Hg
7. Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment #4 32
TRACKER Results - 2.4430 & 8.3911 grams Hg
8. Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment #5 33
TRACKER Results - 2.4381 grams Hg
9. Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment #5 34
TRACKER Results - 2.4353 grams Hg
10. Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment #5 35
TRACKER Results-8.3869 grams Hg
11. Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment #5 36
LUMEX, TRACKER, & NIOSH Results - 8.3809 grams Hg
12. Surface Area Regeneration Simulation: Experiment #6 37
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results - 0.9756 grams Hg
13. Surface Area Regeneration Simulation: Experiment #6 38
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results - 9.6319 grams Hg
14. Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Room: Experiment #7 39
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results - 0.9820 grams Hg
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Page No.
15. Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Room: Experiment #7 40
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results - 5.0508 grams Hg
16. Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Room: Experiment #7 41
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results - 10.3962 grams Hg
17. Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8 42
TRACKER Results - 7.0511 grams Hg
18. Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8 43
TRACKER Results - 7.0043 grams Hg
19. Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8 44
TRACKER & NIOSH Results - 7.0043 grams Hg
20. Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8 45
TRACKER Results - 6.9842 grams Hg
21. Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8 46
TRACKER & NIOSH Results - 6.9842 grams Hg
22. Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8 47
TRACKER & LUMEX Results-1.1058, 1.1446, 1.1256, & 1.0387 grams Hg
23. Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8 48
TRACKER & NIOSH Results - 1.1446 & 1.1256 grams Hg
24. Investigation to Determine the Significant Difference between Lumex and NIOSH: 49
Experiment 9
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results - 10.8634 grams Hg
25. Setup for Calibrating Real-Time Mercury Monitoring Instruments 50
26. Investigation to Determine the Significant Difference between Lumex and NIOSH: 51
Experiment 10
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results - 2.0 grams Hg
27. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 52
Concentration vs. Time Lumex Results - 08/05/2002
28. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 53
Concentration vs. Time Tracker Results - 08/07/2002
VI
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Page No.
29. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 54
Concentration vs. Time Lumex Results - 11/25/2002
30. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 55
Concentration vs. Time Lumex Results - 11/14/2002
31. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 56
Concentration vs. Time Lumex Results - 08/19/2002
32. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 57
Concentration vs. Time Lumex Results - 08/19/2002
33. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 58
Concentration vs. Time Tracker Results - 06/11/2002
34. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 59
Concentration vs. Time Tracker Results - 02/28/2002
35. Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 60
Tracker Results, 0-60 Hours - Shaken for First 16 Hours
36. Empirical Modeling for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 61
Tracker Results, 0-12 Hours - Shaken for First 16 Hours
37. Empirical Modeling for Indoor Air Mercury Emission 62
Tracker Results - Delayed Rate Decay
38. Two-hour Average Tracker Concentration 63
0-400 Hours
39. Two-hour Average Tracker Concentration 64
0-100 Hours
40. Mercury Emission Rate vs. Time, 0.5 cm Beads 65
41. Mercury Emission Rate vs. Time, Beads of Different Diameter 66
42. Correlation between Measured and Predicted Concentration 67
0.5 cm Bead-size Model
43. Correlation between Measured and Predicted Average Concentration 68
0.5 cm Bead-size Model
vn
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Page No.
44. Correlation between Measured and Predicted Minimum Concentration 69
0.5 cm Bead-size Model
Vlll
-------
TABLES
Page No.
1 Physical and Chemical Properties of Mercury 70
2 Summary of Experimental Design and Objectives 71
3 Non-linear Regression Analysis Results for Mercury 72
Concentration vs. Time Data
4 Mercury Emission Rate Data Based on Weight Loss 73
5 Mercury Emission Rate Data Based on Empirical Model 74
6 Final Mercury Prediction Model Data Entry 75
IX
-------
PHOTOGRAPHS
Page No.
1. Good luck necklace 76
2. Close-up of the mercury bead in necklace 77
3. Outside view of the trailer 78
4. Setup for air sampling with pumps and monitor 79
5. Mercury used in Experiment #1 80
6. Mercury being dropped on carpet 81
7. Mercury on carpet for Experiment #1 82
8. Broken clinical thermometer simulation 83
9. Effect of surface area simulation 84
10. Surface area regeneration simulation 85
11. Simulation of ritualistic mercury in a large room 86
12. Simulation of ritualistic mercury use in a large room 87
13. Simulation of ritualistic mercury use in a large room 88
14. Mercury vapor emission rate measurement 89
15. Calibration of real-time monitoring instruments 90
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ATSDR
avg
BM
Cd(t)
cfm
cm
C(t)
CVAA
D
e
E
ERT
Hg
ID
L/min
mg
mL
MRL
ng/m3
NIOSH
nm
OD
PTFE
Q
REAC
RfC
S
S'
^avg
SOP
t
U.S.
U.S. EPA
r\
|j,g/hr/cm
Hg/m3
UV
V
OF
#
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
average
box model
decay model concentration
cubic feet per minute
centimeter
concentration at time t
cold vapor atomic absorption
exponential decay factor
base of natural logarithm
final equilibrium concentration
Environmental Response Team
mercury
interior diameter
liter per minute
milligram
milliliter
minimal risk level
nanogram per cubic meter
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
nanometer
outer diameter
poly tetrafluoroethy 1 ene
air flow rate from room
Response, Engineering, and Analytical Contract
reference concentration
rate of evaporation
average emission rate
average evaporation rate
Standard Operating Procedure
time
United States
United States Environmental Protection Agency
microgram per hour per square centimeter
microgram per cubic meter
ultraviolet
room volume
degree Fahrenheit
number
Correlation coefficient
XI
-------
Executive Summary
This study was performed by the members of United States Environmental Protection
Agency's Environmental Response Team (USEPA/ERT) and the Response, Engineering, and
Analytical Contract (REAC) to follow up on the recommendations of the Task Force on
Ritualistic Uses of Mercury Report (USEPA, 2002). The objectives of this study were to
assess the fate and transport of mercury vapors associated with cultural uses of elemental
mercury, and evaluate real-time mercury vapor monitoring instruments results vs. modified
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 6009. Data collected
in this study were also used to develop models to predict indoor air concentrations and vapor
residence times.
Some members of Latin American and Caribbean communities in the United States use
metallic (elemental) mercury, called azogue or vi dajan, in religious rituals in the home to
ward off evil spirits and to bring good luck. Mercury is also used in folk remedies. These
cultural, medicinal, and religious practices may lead to acute or chronic exposure of residents
to mercury, a known toxin.
The ERT simulated the following scenarios where mercury might be spilled in a home:
$ Spilling or sprinkling of 2-15 grams of elemental mercury on a carpet in a small
room and a large room in a trailer;
$ Placement of different weights of mercury inside two candles to determine the relative
importance of weight vs. surface area on mercury vapor concentration;
$ Spillage of mercury from a broken thermometer on a carpet in a small room;
$ Shaking of mercury beads to simulate mercury disturbance by household activities
such as children playing.
Lumex RA915+ and Tracker 3000 portable mercury analyzers were used to measure real-time
indoor air mercury concentrations. Real-time monitoring results were compared with air sample
results obtained from modified NIOSH Method 6009. Two factory-calibrated Tracker mercury
analyzers were evaluated. The monitoring results for one of the analyzers were comparable to
modified NIOSH Method 6009 results, whereas the monitoring results for the other Tracker
mercury analyzer were slightly lower than the modified NIOSH Method 6009 concentrations.
The factory-calibrated Lumex mercury analyzers consistently provided lower mercury
concentrations than the modified NIOSH Method 6009 measurements. After the Lumex and
Tracker mercury analyzers were recalibrated in the laboratory using a mercury vapor standard,
real-time results were in good agreement with the modified NIOSH Method 6009 measurements.
The study found that intentional sprinkling of metallic mercury for ritual purposes or accidental
spillage of mercury may initially produce indoor air concentrations above the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) proposed residential occupancy level (the mercury
level considered safe and acceptable for occupancy of a structure after a mercury spill, provided
no visible metallic mercury is present and the mercury source has been removed) (ATSDR,
2001). In some cases, the initial mercury concentration in air exceeded the ATSDR-
-------
recommended indoor action level for isolation, a concentration at which measures should be
taken to prevent exposure to residents.
The indoor air mercury vapor concentration was dependent upon the total exposed surface area
of the mercury, the amount of mercury used, and the size of the room. The indoor air mercury
concentration decreased over time and in most cases, eventually fell below the ATSDR-proposed
residential occupancy level. Increases in indoor air mercury concentration were observed when
the elemental mercury source was physically disturbed or shaken, additional mercury was added,
physical activity occurred near the source, or when temperatures exceeded 90°F. Periodic
application of a small amount of mercury for a sustained period of time within the same
enclosure could lead to chronic mercury vapor exposure above the residential occupancy level.
The potential health risks of this practice were not explored in this study but warrant further
investigation.
A decay model was developed to empirically describe airborne mercury concentration as a
function of the evaporation of an elemental mercury source over time. Overall, the model is
adequate for describing elemental mercury emissions, provided all environmental factors are
stable (constant). The environmental factors include temperature, ambient pressure and
electrostatic effects. In addition, the elemental mercury source must be undisturbed. The
empirical model cannot predict the final equilibrium mercury concentration due to the lack of
data for elemental mercury oxidation as a function of time, temperature, etc. Emission rate
modeling indicates that after an increase to a maximum value, mercury vapor concentration
continuously decreases to a final level typically less than 5 percent of the maximum
concentration level after 50-60 hours, assuming stable, undisturbed elemental mercury
vaporization.
A second model was developed to provide an order of magnitude estimate of the average
mercury vapor concentration in indoor air based on average emission over various time intervals
(24-hour to 4-week periods). This approach is based on periodic activity in a room producing
additional mercury emissions and is adequate for predicting average mercury concentrations for
the small room. The model may not be appropriate for other situations where mercury beads are
disturbed on a regular basis, or are repeatedly applied.
-------
1.0 Introduction
This study was conducted in response to a request from USEPA Headquarters to provide
additional information on the fate and transport of mercury vapor to the Task Force on
Ritualistic Uses of Mercury (USEPA, 2002). The primary purpose of this study was to
determine the fate and transport of mercury under various experimental conditions designed
to simulate the ritual use of mercury at home. The specific objectives of the study were to
provide estimates of variables influencing the fate and transport behavior of mercury vapors
in residential settings, and to provide estimates of potential residential exposures to small
quantities of mercury from accidental or intentional spills (for example, thermometer
breakage and ritual use). In order to accomplish these objectives, a trailer simulating a home
environment was set up at the USEPA/ERT facility in Edison, New Jersey. Mercury vapor
measurements from real-time monitoring instruments were compared with the results of air
sample analyses using modified NIOSH Method 6009 (Singhvi et al., 1999). USEPA/ERT
and REAC personnel conducted this study from January 14, 2002 through March 27, 2003.
Mercury occurs naturally in the environment as mercuric sulfide (cinnabar). Cinnabar has
been refined for its mercury content since the 15th century. Elemental mercury is a silvery
white metal, liquid at room temperature, which easily breaks up into many small droplets and
evaporates to form toxic, colorless and odorless mercury vapor. The physical and chemical
properties of elemental mercury are presented in Table 1. (Note that the critical information
for determining vaporization and oxidation rates for liquid mercury is not available in the
literature.)
Elemental mercury was formerly used in Chinese folk medicines. It was also used as an
antiseptic (mercurochrome) to disinfect wounds and as a skin cream additive in the United
States. Some members of Latin American and Caribbean communities in the United States use
mercury (azogue or vi dajan) in religious rituals in the home, to ward off evil spirits and to bring
good luck (see Photographs 1 and 2). Also, South American and Asian populations still use
mercury in folk remedies for chronic stomach disorders.
Mercury spills are difficult to clean up. Routine household cleaning methods, such as sweeping
or vacuuming, may worsen the problem by breaking mercury into smaller beads and dispersing it
into larger areas. Tiny beads of mercury that settle into floor cracks may remain undetected,
requiring the use of sealants and/or removal of flooring material to prevent mercury vapor
release. Certain household surfaces, such as carpeting, cannot be effectively remediated and
must be removed. Thus, improperly cleaned accidental spills and the deliberate use of mercury
in cultural, medicinal, and religious practices may lead to acute or chronic mercury exposure of
residents, with possible detrimental health effects. Exposure to elemental mercury may occur
from breathing air contaminated with mercury vapor, and to a lesser extent, from skin absorption
when handling liquid mercury, or from consuming mercury-contaminated foods or liquids.
Exposure to sufficiently high levels of elemental mercury can cause permanent damage to the
brain and nervous system, kidneys and developing fetus. Mercury affects many different brain
functions and a variety of symptoms may occur. These include personality changes (irritability,
shyness, and nervousness), tremors, changes in vision or hearing, loss of sensation, and
difficulties with memory. Short-term exposure to high levels of mercury vapor in the air can
-------
damage the lungs, cause nausea, vomiting or diarrhea; produce increased blood pressure or heart
rate, and cause skin rashes or eye irritation.
The ATSDR has proposed a residential occupancy level of 1.0 microgram per cubic meter of
air (jig/m3) as the mercury level considered "safe and acceptable" for occupancy of any
structure after a spill, provided no visible metallic mercury is present (ATSDR, 2001).
ATSDR has also recommended an indoor air action level of 10 |ig/m3 at which measures
should be taken to isolate residents from potential mercury exposure; this concentration
approaches levels reported in the literature to cause subtle human health effects. Assuming
acute (short-term) exposure, this action level "allows for interventions before health effects
would be expected" (ATSDR, 2001). Both the ATSDR (2000) and the USEPA (2004) have
derived lower values that are estimates of the chronic (long-term) daily human exposure that
is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse, non-cancer health effects (ATSDR chronic
minimal risk level, or MRL, of 0.2 |ig/m3; USEPA reference concentration, or RfC, of 0.3
|ig/m3). The mercury concentrations measured in this study changed rapidly over time and
would not represent chronic exposure concentrations; therefore, the measured levels were
compared with the proposed residential occupancy level and/or action level.
2.0 Mercury Vapor Monitoring and Sample Analysis Methodology
Modified NIOSH Method 6009 and real-time monitoring instruments were employed to
measure the metallic mercury vapor concentration in the trailer. Real-time mercury vapor
measurements were logged to data files at regular intervals (typically 2-15 seconds). The
real-time mercury analysis results were then averaged over the appropriate period (typically 2,
4, or 8 hours) that coincided with the indoor air sample collection time. Initially, two
sampling locations (in the middle of the room and one close to the source) were selected at
2.5-3.0 feet above the floor to measure metallic mercury vapor concentrations using modified
NIOSH Method 6009. There were no significant differences between the mercury vapor
concentrations in air samples from both locations during the same monitoring period in the small
room. Therefore, it was decided to monitor mercury vapor concentrations in the middle of the
small room for all subsequent experiments. Likewise, the air samples from two locations in the
large room consistently had the same mercury concentrations; therefore, only one location was
subsequently used for mercury monitoring in the large room. The height of 2.5-3.0 feet was
considered an appropriate sampling height for residential exposure via inhalation. Other
experiments performed in a small room in the trailer with fans turned on/off showed no
significant difference in mercury vapor concentrations measured at sampling heights of 6 inches
vs.7 feet. This does not address the possibility of direct contact with mercury beads.
2.1 Laboratory Analysis (Modified NIOSH Method 6009)
Sampling and analysis for mercury in air were conducted using modified NIOSH Method
6009, as described in REAC Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) #1827, Analysis of
Mercury in Air with a Modified NIOSH Method 6009 (USEPA/ERT, 2001). The
sampling train consisted of a 200-milligram (mg) hopcalite sorbent tube connected to a
personal sampling pump (SKC). Sampling times and volumes are reported with the
mercury results. The sorbent material from the collection tube (typically 200 mg in a
-------
single section) is quantitatively transferred to a 100-milliliter (mL) volumetric flask.
The sample is digested with 2.5 mL of concentrated nitric acid followed by 2.5 mL of
concentrated hydrochloric acid. After digestion, the sample is diluted to volume with
deionized water and analyzed using cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA)
spectroscopy techniques. Mercury results are reported in //g/m3 based on the total
volume of the air sample. The modified NIOSH Method 6009 incorporates more
concentrated sample solutions than those of the standard method. This minimizes
dilution effects while providing lower detection limits to meet the demanding
measurement requirements associated with emergency response situations or mercury
cleanup actions. The method is simple, rapid, and relatively free of matrix interferences.
2.2 Real-Time Monitoring
Lumex RA915+: The Lumex (Ohio Lumex Co., Inc., 2000) is a portable atomic
absorption spectrometer designed to detect extremely low mercury vapor
concentrations and perform fast and simple analyses both at a fixed laboratory and in
the field. Two modes of operation are available for ambient air analysis: AON
STREAM® and AMONITORING®. During this study, the AMONITORING® mode was
used to collect all the data. All measurements were logged to data files using an
external computer. At a sample rate of 15-17 liters per minute (L/min), the Lumex can
detect mercury vapor in ambient air at concentrations as low as 2 nano gram per
cubic meter (ng/m3). The low mercury detection limit and high instrument sensitivity
are achieved through a combination of a 10-meter multi-path optical cell and Zeeman
atomic absorption spectrometry using high frequency modulation of polarized light.
The Lumex is factory calibrated (from 1000 to 40,000 ng/m3) and mercury vapor
results are reported in ng/m3.
Mercury Tracker 3000: The Tracker (Mercury Instruments Analytical Technologies
2000) is a portable instrument based on resonance absorption of mercury atoms at a
wavelength of 253.7 nanometers (nm). A membrane pump draws the mercury sample
through a one-micron polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filter, at a rate of approximately
1.2 L/min, into the optical cell of the instrument. Radiation from a mercury lamp
passes through the cell and is measured by a solid-state ultraviolet (UV) detector. The
attenuation of the UV light reaching the detector depends on the number of mercury
atoms in the optical cell. The internal computer performs the quantitative evaluation
of the mercury concentration in the sample in real time. The Tracker has built-in data
logger capabilities and the data were downloaded after collection using an external
computer. The Tracker is factory calibrated (from 60 to 300 //g/m3) and mercury
vapor concentration is reported in //g/m3.
3.0 Experimental Design
The mercury fate and transport study was conducted in a trailer (35' x 9' 4" x 8') divided into two
rooms, a small room measuring 12' x 9' 4" x 8' and a larger room measuring 23' x 9' 4" x 8'
(Figure I). The small room has three windows (each 45" x 27"), one light fixture equipped with
four 40-watt, 48 inches long tube light. The room was furnished with two sofas, an end table,
-------
lamp, coffee table, two fans, and drapes to simulate a small living room. Metallic mercury vapor
concentrations in air were measured using the modified NIOSH Method 6009 and real-time
monitoring instruments, as previously described. Temperature and humidity were monitored
with an Omegaette SE 310 data logger. A Gray Wolf sensing probe was also used as a backup to
record temperature and humidity. Air and wipe samples were taken in both trailer rooms before
the start of the experiments to ensure the absence of mercury vapor. Similar sampling was done
at the end of each experiment to verify that the trailer rooms were not contaminated with
mercury vapors before the next experiment was started.
Clayton Group Services (2004) measured trailer air movement via the release of smoke. Leak
testing was performed using sulfur hexafluoride tracer gas, and ventilation and air exchange rates
were measured using carbon dioxide.
Several experiments were conducted to obtain information about the effect of surface area,
regeneration of the mercury surface area, bead size mercury, number of mercury beads, residence
time and air movement on mercury vapor concentrations. Fans were used to increase air
movement; however, even with fans turned off, there was always air movement in the rooms due
to the use of the Lumex and Tracker instruments, which draw air at a combined rate of 16-18
L/min. An experiment was also performed to compare the results obtained from real-time
mercury vapor measuring instrumentation and modified NIOSH Method 6009. Although most
of the experiments were conducted in the small room of the trailer, additional work was
performed to evaluate mercury vapor concentrations in the larger room. Experiments were
performed to determine whether a model could be developed to estimate mercury vapor
concentration. A summary of the experimental design and aim of each experiment is provided in
Table 2. Photographs 3 through 15 show the experimental setting and procedures.
An important goal of the study was to simulate the use of mercury for ritual purposes. A team
member contacted a practitioner to determine how mercury is used in rituals in the home. Based
on the information received, Experiment #1 was designed to simulate the ritual uses of mercury
and determine the mercury vapor concentration in the small room representing one room in a
home. Experiment #2 measured the effect of air movement over mercury beads on resulting
mercury concentrations in air.
The third experiment measured mercury vapor concentrations after the breaking of a mercury-
containing thermometer. In the fourth experiment, two different weights of mercury were placed
in cavities with identical interior diameter with different depths in candles to assess whether the
resulting metallic mercury vapor concentration in the room would be more dependent upon the
weight of the mercury or upon bead surface area. The candle was not lit during this experiment,
as it would be during ritual use. In Experiment #5, two different sizes of mercury beads were
placed in a weighing dish and used to evaluate the emission of mercury vapor. During
Experiment #6, two different sizes of mercury beads were placed on a shaker in a plastic
weighing dish to evaluate the effect of regeneration of mercury bead surface area on
concentrations in air.
Experiment #7 was performed in the larger room by initially placing 1 gram of mercury in a
plastic container and incrementally adding 4 and 5 grams of mercury to obtain a total of 10.0
-------
grams of mercury on Day 21. This experiment was performed to simulate repeated ritual
applications of mercury using larger amounts (greater number of beads) in a larger room.
Experiment #8 was conducted to determine mercury vapor emission rates so that mercury
residence times could be calculated. Experiment #9 was performed to compare NIOSH Method
6009 measurements and real-time mercury vapor monitoring results. And finally, Experiment
#10 was performed to investigate the significant difference observed between Lumex real-time
monitoring results and NIOSH Method 6009 measurements, and determine potential solutions to
mitigate these discrepancies.
The detailed results of these experiments are discussed in Section 4, and graphically depicted in
Figures 1-26. Results are also presented in tabular form in Appendix A. For the sake of clarity,
the following sections present amounts of mercury rounded to hundredths of gram. Actual
amounts used are shown in the figures and data tables.
4.0 Detailed Experiment Descriptions and Results
4.1 Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiments #1 and #2
4.1.1 Experiment #1
Mercury (2.12 grams) was dropped from a height of 3.5 feet onto a piece of carpet placed
in a plastic tray in the small room. A cardboard box open at both ends was placed in the
tray to ensure that no mercury could splash out of the plastic tray. The original mercury
bead broke up into several smaller beads upon contact with the carpet. Air sampling
pumps were placed near the plastic tray and in the middle of the room next to the coffee
table. The concentration of mercury in the air samples was determined using modified
NIOSH Method 6009.
There were no significant differences between mercury concentrations in air samples
collected near the coffee table or near the tray. Mercury vapor concentrations
decreased during each day of the experiment, from 2.8 |ig/m3 (seven-hour air sample)
to 0.27 |ig/m3 (101-hour air sample) as shown in Figure 1. The mercury vapor
concentration measured in the large room during Experiment #1 was lower than that in
the small room as expected due to the greater distance from the mercury source and
the closed door between the small room and the large room. The experiment was
interrupted and the plastic tray was covered at the end of Day 5 due to departure of
staff for emergency response work. Ten days later the experiment was re-started. The
cover was removed and the plastic tray was gently shaken. The mercury vapor
concentration gradually decreased from 1.2 to 0.40 |ig/m3 over a 16-hour period.
Since the air samples collected from two separate locations in the small room and the
two locations in the large room consistently had similar mercury concentrations, it was
decided to collect only one air sample in each room.
To determine the effect of disturbance of the mercury beads, the plastic tray was gently
shaken. Each time, the mercury concentration initially increased and then quickly
-------
decreased, eventually falling below detection limits. Subsequent gentle shaking of the
tray caused the concentration of mercury vapor to increase from below detection limits
(<0.11) to 0.55 iag/m3 (seven-hour air sample); after additional shaking, the mercury
vapor concentration was 1.7 iag/m3 (seven-hour air sample).
An additional 2.6 grams (4.72 grams total) of mercury was dropped from a height of 3
feet onto the piece of carpet in the plastic tray. Fine beads of mercury were observed on
the carpet. Both the modified NIOSH method and the Mercury Tracker 3000 instrument
were used to measure airborne mercury vapors over a period of two days. The
concentration of mercury vapor in the small room was 5.5 iag/m3 after eight hours and
decreased to 1.4 iag/m3 at 26 hours (modified NIOSH method); the mercury vapor
concentration was 0.60 iag/m3 at 26 hours (real-time monitoring) in the large room of the
trailer. The decreasing trend of mercury concentration for the small room is shown in
Figure 2.
An additional 5.2 grams (9.92 grams total) of mercury were dropped from a height of 3
feet onto the piece of carpet in the plastic tray. With both fans turned off, real-time
monitoring results with the Tracker mercury analyzer showed an initial mercury
concentration of 38 iag/m3, greater than both the ATSDR-recommended action level and
residential occupancy level; it then continuously decreased to a concentration below the
residential occupancy level. Over a 138-hour time period it decreased to 0.69 iag/m3.
When both fans were turned on, the mercury concentration increased from 0.69 to 3.4
iag/m3 over a 20-hour period, presumably due to exposure of fresh mercury surface area
by air movement across the surface of the mercury beads. Figure 3 summarizes the
Tracker mercury monitoring data.
For the next series of tests, an additional 5.1 grams (15.02 grams total) of mercury were
dropped from a height of 3 feet onto the piece of carpet in the plastic tray. Initially, the
Tracker showed a sharp rise in mercury concentration to 139 iag/m3 at three hours (well
above both the ATSDR action level and residential occupancy level). Over a period of
46 hours, the mercury level decreased to 4.4 iag/m3, with both fans turned on. On Day 3,
the plastic tray was gently shaken and the fans were turned off. The mercury
concentration, measured using the Tracker mercury analyzer, initially increased to 14
iag/m3 and gradually decreased to 3.4 iag/m3 over the next 45 hours.
After 124 hours of monitoring, the fans were turned on and shaking of the tray was
discontinued. The mercury concentration initially increased from 4.6 iag/m3 to 9.2
iag/m3; during the subsequent 22-hour monitoring and sampling period, the mercury
concentration (Tracker measurements) rose to a maximum of 13.0 iag/m3 and decreased
to 7.3 iag/m3. During this time period, mercury vapor concentrations were also measured
using the NIOSH Method 6009 (Figure 4) and the Lumex portable mercury analyzer.
NIOSH results were slightly higher than the Tracker results. Lumex results were lower
than both the NIOSH and Tracker results.
-------
4.1.2 Experiment #2
Two grams of mercury were placed on a fresh piece of carpet in the plastic tray. The
fans were turned off. Temperature, relative humidity, and indoor air mercury
concentration were monitored over a 10-day time period. At the beginning of the
experiment, the mercury concentration was above the ASTDR residential occupancy
level, but dropped below this level within 44 hours. The concentration of mercury
gradually decreased during each monitoring period. A slight increase in mercury
concentration was observed when personnel entered the small room to remove data
loggers and restart the Tracker 3000 mercury analyzer to continue the experiment. The
rise in mercury concentration could be due to air movement in the room causing mercury
on the carpet to become airborne; movement of the mercury beads may also have
increased the mercury emission rate. After 156 hours, the mercury concentration
increased from 0.29 to 4.9 iag/m3 when the fan was turned on; the mercury concentration
quickly decreased to 0.26 |ig/m3 at 206 hours. The mercury vapor monitoring results are
depicted in Figure 5.
4.2 Broken Clinical Thermometer Simulation: Experiment #3
In Experiment #3, a clinical thermometer was broken and the mercury (0.71 gram) was
spread on a piece of carpet in the plastic tray. Mercury vapor concentration was
monitored over a five-day period using a Tracker mercury analyzer (Figure 6). Initially,
there was an increase in mercury concentration to a level (7.2 |ig/m3) seven times the
ATSDR residential occupancy level; the mercury level decreased to 0.17 |ig/m3 at 48
hours and then fluctuated between 0.07 and 0.32 |ig/m3 for the next 68 hours. On the
sixth day, the plastic tray was gently shaken and the connecting door to the large room
was left open. The mercury concentration increased from 0.17 to 0.72 |ig/m3 and then
gradually decreased to 0.08 |ig/m3.
An earlier study by Carpi and Chen (2001) suggested that residential mercury spills
continue to make significant contributions to indoor air mercury concentrations for
prolonged periods of time. However, the sampling design and methodology employed
by Carpi and Chen differed substantially from that used by the USEPA/ERT. While both
studies reach similar conclusions regarding the potential for ongoing exposure, these
methodological differences preclude direct comparisons of results.
4.3 Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiments #4 and #5
In Experiment #4, 2.44 grams of mercury were placed in a small cavity, prepared by
boring a 0.635 cm interior diameter and 0.794 cm outer diameter (OD) steel tube into a
commercially available candle (see Photograph 9). The candle was placed on a piece of
carpet in a plastic tray in the small room. Two fans were placed in the room, one on the
floor and the other on the couch. The sofa fan was operated in the revolving mode,
whereas the floor fan was stationary and blew directly over the mercury bead and candle.
The indoor air mercury concentration measured using the Tracker mercury analyzer
decreased over time from 1.7 |ig/m3 and remained at or below the ATSDR residential
-------
occupancy level of 1.0 |ig/m3 after eight hours. A light gray coating was observed on the
mercury surface. The coating may be due to the formation of mercuric oxide or
deposition of particulates on the surface of the mercury bead.
Next, 8.39 grams of mercury were placed in a small cavity, prepared by boring a 0.635
cm ID and 0.794 cm OD steel tube into a commercially available candle. The candle
cavity was designed to contain different amounts of mercury without changing the
exposed surface area. The measured indoor air mercury concentrations decreased with
time and were comparable to that for the first candle. The concentrations vs. time plots
were not significantly different for the two different masses of mercury with the same
exposed surface area. The results of this experiment are presented in Figure 7.
It should be noted that during the ritual use of mercury-containing candles in homes, the
candle is actually lit, which would be expected to increase mercury volatilization. This
experiment did not examine the effect of lighting the candle.
Additional experiments were performed to determine if there was a significant change in
mercury emission (concentration) using different amounts (with different surface areas)
of mercury placed in a 1-square inch plastic weighing boat. During the first part of
Experiment #5, 2.44 grams (1 cm diameter) of mercury were placed in the weighing
boat. The connecting door between rooms was kept closed and the fans were turned on.
The mercury vapor concentration in the small room decreased over time and generally
remained below the residential occupancy level. An increase in mercury vapor
concentration was observed when the indoor temperature in the non-airconditioned trailer
approached 100°F (Figure 8) during a period of high outdoor temperature.
For the second phase of Experiment #5, 2.44 grams of fresh mercury were placed in the
weighing boat; the fans were turned on and the connecting door between rooms was left
open to increase the volume of vapor dispersion. The mercury vapor concentrations were
lower over extended time periods as expected due to the larger size of the room. The
same general trend was observed; mercury vapor concentration continually decreased
with time except for an occasional increase possibly due to elevated room temperature
(Figure 9).
A larger amount of mercury (8.39 grams, 1.6 cm bead diameter) was placed in a 2-
square inch plastic weighing dish in the small room; the connecting door was closed and
the fans were turned off. Indoor air mercury concentrations were measured using the
Tracker instrument. Mercury vapor concentration decreased from 3.3 to 0.18 |ig/m3 over
a 48-hour time period. The fans were turned on and monitoring continued; the mercury
vapor concentration increased from 0.18 to 0.42 |ig/m3 and subsequently decreased to
0.12 |ig/m3 over a 42-hour time period (Figure 10).
In the last experiment of this series, 8.38 grams of mercury, bead diameter of 1.6 cm,
were placed in a 2-square inch plastic weighing dish on the carpet in the plastic tray.
The connecting door was closed and the fans were turned on. Mercury vapor
concentrations were monitored using the Tracker and Lumex mercury analyzers. Air
10
-------
samples were also collected and analyzed for mercury using modified NIOSH Method
6009. Using the Tracker instrument, the mercury vapor concentration decreased from
8.7 to 0.80 |ig/m3 over a 24-hour time period. Comparable mercury concentrations were
obtained for the Tracker and Lumex analyzers; however, both monitoring instruments
produced lower mercury concentrations than the NIOSH method (Figure 11). For
comparable amounts of mercury with the same bead diameter, the initial (first eight
hours) indoor air mercury levels were approximately two times greater with the fans
turned on than with the fans turned off.
4.4 Surface Area Regeneration Simulation: Experiment #6
For Experiment #6, 0.98 grams of mercury was initially placed in a 2-square inch plastic
weighing dish in a plastic tray in the small room; the fans were turned on and the
connecting door was closed. The plastic tray was placed on a mechanical shaker lined
with a small piece of carpet. The shaker was set to shake for just under 17 hours (999
minutes) at 100 cycles per minute. The plastic tray was secured to the shaker by duct
tape.
Mercury vapor concentrations were monitored using the Lumex and Tracker mercury
analyzers, and sampled and analyzed using the modified NIOSH method. The mercury
vapor concentration remained relatively constant at a concentration greater than the
residential occupancy level for a 16-hour time period while the shaker was on. When the
shaker was stopped, the mercury vapor concentration decreased as depicted in Figure 12.
Each time the shaker was restarted, the mercury vapor concentration increased. Lumex,
Tracker, and NIOSH mercury results are compared in Figure 12.
Next, 9.63 grams of mercury were placed in a 2-square inch plastic weighing dish in the
plastic tray in the small room; the fans were turned on and the connecting door was
closed. The plastic tray was placed on a mechanical shaker lined with a small piece of
carpet. The shaker was set to shake for just under 17 hours at 100 cycles per minute.
The plastic tray was secured to the shaker by duct tape. The mercury vapor
concentration decreased from 29 to 15 //g/m3 (Tracker results) over a 10-hour time period
(Figure 13). These concentrations exceed both the ATSDR-recommended residential
occupancy level and action level. After the shaker automatically turned off, the mercury
vapor concentration continuously decreased from 15 to 0.4 //g/m3 over a 50-hour time
period. The experiment continued with gentle shaking of the weighing dish. There was
an initial increase in mercury vapor concentration from 0.4 to 3.8 |ig/m3 followed by a
decrease to 0.18 |ig/m3 over the next 44 hours (Figure 13).
4.5 Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Room
In the first phase of Experiment #7, 0.98 grams of mercury was placed in a 1-square
inch plastic weighing boat on a piece of carpet in a plastic tray in the large room; the
door between the small room and the large room was closed. The two fans were
turned on, with one fan located about 4 feet from the plastic tray at a height of 4 feet,
11
-------
and the other fan 12 feet from the plastic tray. Neither fan blew air directly over the
top of the plastic tray.
Mercury concentrations were measured using both the Tracker and Lumex monitoring
instruments, and sampled and analyzed using the modified NIOSH Method 6009. The
mercury concentration in the initial air sample collected at eight hours was 1.4 |ig/m3.
The indoor air mercury concentration decreased to 0.04 |ig/m3 over a 257-hour time
period. Tracker and Lumex mercury monitoring results are compared with NIOSH
method measurements in Figure 14. Tracker #2, used in all previous experiments,
yielded results that were consistently 10-20 percent lower than mercury measurements
using the modified NIOSH method. Therefore, a second Tracker mercury analyzer
(Tracker #1) was used in this experiment to determine whether the two Tracker
instruments would provide consistent results, or whether Tracker #1 results would be
more comparable to the NIOSH measurements.
Four additional 1-gram mercury beads totaling 4.07 grams (for a total combined weight
of 5.0508 grams of mercury) were placed in individual plastic weighing boats on the
piece of carpet in the plastic tray. The mercury vapor concentration in the large room
(modified NIOSH Method 6009) initially increased to 5.9 |ig/m3 (six times the residential
occupancy level), and then gradually decreased to below the method detection limit
(0.034 |ig/m3) over a 327-hour time period. Measurements from Tracker #1, Tracker #2,
Lumex, and the NIOSH results are shown in Figure 15.
Finally, five additional 1-gram beads of mercury were placed in individual plastic
weighing boats in the manner described above; a total of 10.40 grams of metallic
mercury was used for this experiment. The indoor air mercury vapor concentration, as
per modified NIOSH Method 6009, initially increased to 4.1 |ig/m3 and then rapidly
decreased to 0.17 |ig/m3 over a 40-hour time period and continued to decrease to 0.05
|ig/m3 over an additional 201-hour time period (Figure 16).
4.6 Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment #8
In Experiment #8, seven individual 0.5 cm diameter mercury beads (with a total mass of
7.0511 grams) were placed in individual 1-square inch plastic weighing boats on a piece
of carpet in a plastic tray in the small trailer room. The door between the small room
and the large room was closed; the fans were turned on and the airflow of one of the
fans was directed at the plastic tray. Real-time monitoring was performed using a
Tracker mercury analyzer. The weights of the individual beads were measured at time
zero, at seven days (168 hrs) and at the end of 15 days (362 hrs). As seen in Figure
17, the indoor air mercury concentration peaked every 24 hours; mercury emission
increased with temperature, with the highest temperature occurring at midday.
Although this pattern continued throughout the experiment, the rate of mercury vapor
emission (and corresponding concentration) decreased on each successive day. The
initial indoor air mercury concentration was 12.8 |ig/m3 and gradually decreased to
0.31 |ig/m3 (362 hours).
12
-------
The above experiment was repeated with seven individual 0.5 cm (1 gram) beads
(total mercury weight was 7.00 grams) for four days; air samples were collected and
analyzed using modified NIOSH Method 6009 and monitored using the Tracker real-
time instrument. Tracker mercury monitoring results are presented in Figure 18.
NIOSH method mercury concentrations are compared with time-averaged Tracker
monitoring results in Figure 19. NIOSH results were consistently higher than those
obtained with the Tracker analyzer. Concentrations decreased from a maximum of 13
|ig/m3 (Tracker data), but remained above the residential occupancy level.
The experiment was repeated a third time with seven 1-gram mercury beads; air
samples were collected for modified NIOSH method analysis and real-time air
monitoring was performed for two days using a Tracker mercury analyzer. Tracker
mercury data are presented in Figure 20. Figure 21 compares time-averaged Tracker
monitoring results with NIOSH method measurements. NIOSH measurements again
exceeded Tracker measurements. Tracker data showed a maximum of 16 |ig/m3 four
hours after placement of the beads. After 46 hours, the concentration remained above the
residential occupancy level.
A single mercury bead weighing 1.11 grams was placed in a weighing dish under the
same conditions as described above. Indoor air mercury concentration was monitored
for two days using the Tracker #2 mercury analyzer. The single-bead emission
monitoring experiment was repeated using 1.14 and 1.13 grams of mercury. Finally,
indoor air mercury concentration was monitored using a Lumex mercury analyzer
using single bead (1.04 grams). Real-time monitoring data for the four 1-gram single
bead experiments are presented in Figure 22. The three sets of Tracker monitoring
results yielded similar mercury concentration profiles; the Lumex mercury monitoring
results were consistently lower than the Tracker results. Air samples were also
collected for modified NIOSH Method 6009 analysis. Figure 23 compares time-
averaged Tracker monitoring results with NIOSH method measurements. The single-
bead experiments revealed that initial air concentrations were lower than those seen
with the multiple-bead experiments; furthermore, concentrations fell to the residential
occupancy level or below. Thus, the number of beads appeared to influence the
resulting mercury vapor concentrations. Experiment #8 also provided information on
mercury emission rates that were useful in air modeling described in Section 5.
4.7 Investigation to Determine Significant Difference between Lumex and NIOSH:
Experiment #9 and #10
Comparison of real-time and modified NIOSH 6009 data from this study revealed that
Lumex real-time monitoring results were consistently lower than modified NIOSH 6009
results. A similar discrepancy between the Lumex and the NIOSH 6009 results has been
observed over the past three years at several mercury spill sites (Singhvi et al., 2003). In
the present study, several unsuccessful attempts were made by the Lumex technical staff
to resolve these differences by replacing the USEPA Lumex analyzers with different
Lumex instruments. The team decided to conduct an additional experiment before
13
-------
investing in a gaseous mercury standard to calibrate the real-time monitoring
instruments.
In Experiment #9, 10 individual 0.5-cm diameter mercury beads (with a total mass of
10.86 grams) were placed in individual 1-square inch plastic weighing boats on a piece
of carpet in a plastic tray in the small room. The door between the small room and the
large room was closed; the fans were turned on and the airflow of one of the fans was
directed at the plastic tray. Real-time monitoring was performed using two Tracker
mercury analyzers, Tracker #1 (Serial #0301/161), Tracker #2 (Serial #0301/168), and
a Lumex mercury analyzer (Serial #S/N 176); air samples were also collected and
analyzed using modified NIOSH Method 6009 procedures. After eight hours, the
mercury vapor concentration (NIOSH method) in the small room was 6.9 |ig/m3; the
mercury concentration continuously decreased to 0.40 |ig/m3 after 120 hours.
Tracker #2 mercury monitoring results were generally comparable to NIOSH
measurements; Lumex monitoring results were consistently lower than the NIOSH
measurements and the Tracker #2 monitoring results. Measurements provided by these
different methods, in order of decreasing mercury concentration, are as follows: NIOSH
measurements = Tracker #2 results > Tracker #1 results > Lumex results. Experiment #9
results are presented in Figure 24.
Statistical analysis of earlier data indicated a significant difference (approximately 50
percent) between modified NIOSH Method 6009 measurements and real-time Lumex
monitoring results. Experiment #10 was conducted to evaluate these differences. The
Lumex technical staff provided a leaner instrument (S/N 215) with modified software.
The results from this instrument continued to be 20 percent lower than the modified
NIOSH method despite the modified software. The two USEPA Lumex instruments
(S/N 176, and S/N 188) were updated with the new software provided by the Lumex
technical staff. A mercury vapor standard with a concentration of 5.0 //g/m3 was
obtained from Spectra Gases (Branchburg, New Jersey). A sample of the mercury vapor
standard was collected and analyzed using the modified NIOSH Method 6009 to
check/verify the standard concentration. The NIOSH results (5.05 and 4.97 //g/m3) for
the standard were in excellent agreement with the Spectra Gases specified concentration
of 5.0 |ig/m3. The mercury concentration of the gaseous standard was then measured
with both the Lumex and Tracker mercury analyzers using the setup shown in Figure 25.
Time-averaged readings were used to determine the percent recovery of the standard for
the individual real-time mercury analyzers. A correction factor, based on percent
recovery, was then used to calculate a new calibration factor for each analyzer. The new
calibration factor was entered into the analyzer memory to adjust real-time readings to
agree with the mercury standard concentration (5 //g/m3).
To evaluate the calibrated monitoring instruments, 2 grams of mercury were placed in the
1-square inch plastic weighing dish on a piece of carpet in the plastic tray in the small
room; the fans were turned on and the connecting door was closed. The airflow of one
fan was directed towards the plastic tray. Air samples were collected during this
experiment and were analyzed using modified NIOSH Method 6009. Real-time
14
-------
monitoring was performed using three different Lumex instruments and two different
Tracker instruments. The real-time monitoring data and NIOSH results were comparable
and are presented in Figure 26. Thus, the recalibrated real-time instrument results were
more consistent with those of modified NIOSH Method 6009.
5.0 Tracer Gas Studies and Ventilation Rate Measurements
Clayton Group Services (2004) performed air movement studies by releasing smoke into the
trailer. Very little air movement was observed. The smoke dispersed slowly in all directions
from the center of the room. Sulfur hexafluoride tracer gas was used to identify leaks from the
trailer to the outside. Air exchange rates and ventilation rates were determined by measuring
decay characteristics of carbon dioxide released into the space. The ventilation rate in the large
room was 17.49 cubic feet per minute (cfm) with an air exchange rate of 0.659 air exchanges per
hour, whereas the small room had a ventilation rate of 24.92 cfm with an air exchange rate of
1.67 air exchanges per hour. These results were used in the air modeling presented in Section
6. 1 . They reflect the conditions that existed at the time the measurements were made and, since
the trailer is not airtight, are likely to change depending on environmental conditions such as
wind speed and direction.
6.0 Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Several models were developed and evaluated to empirically describe indoor air mercury
vapor concentrations resulting from evaporation of an elemental mercury source. The initial
evaluation was based on a simple box model presented in Riley et al (2001), which provided
an order of magnitude estimate of potential mercury vapor exposure in a room resulting from
cultural and religious practices.
The box model has the form:
*^ (i)
where,
C(t) = concentration at time t C(t) = 0att=0
t = time (hours)
S = rate of evaporation (micro gram per hour)
Q = air flow rate from the room (cubic meters per hour)
V = room volume (cubic meters)
The box model predicts an exponential rise in mercury vapor concentration to a final
equilibrium concentration of S/Q. The rate of exponential increase is governed by the V/Q
time constant which is the number of hours per air exchange; Riley, et al. (2001) suggest a
typical value of two hours for V/Q. The authors acknowledge that their simple model only
provides an order of magnitude estimate of potential exposure because the fate and transport
15
-------
of mercury vapor inside a house is complex and case-specific, and requires data for a variety
of variables, including adsorption and desorption characteristics.
Examination of the voluminous data obtained using Lumex and Tracker real-time mercury
vapor analyzers indicates that the simple box model does not adequately predict final
equilibrium mercury concentrations. Typically, mercury concentration rises to a maximum in
the first few hours and then decreases (decays) with time until the final equilibrium
concentration is reached. The decay mechanism appears to be exponential in nature. Several
potential decay models were evaluated.
The decay model best suited for modeling mercury emission data was:
e~Dt* \\-
E
E
S/Qj S/Q
(2)
= c(0*
~Dt
\-e~Dt}*
E
~S/Q
where,
Cd(t)
C(t)
D
E
= decay model concentration
= box model concentration
= exponential decay factor
= final equilibrium concentration
This model provides a smooth transition to the final equilibrium concentration and predicts
concentrations that are always less than or equal to the conservative box model concentration
(upper limit). The decay component of the model is consistent with the observed mercury
emission (concentration) decrease with time, possibly due to oxidation of elemental mercury.
Figure 27 presents Lumex monitoring data for a 45-hour time period. The data were fit to
Equation 2 using the Sigma Stat (v2.03) statistical analysis software package to perform
weighted non-linear regression. The final equation, with an r2 = 0.998, is as follows:
-0.117(f + 0.345)
(l-e
- o.i i? (f +0.345) V 140
7121
The final equilibrium concentration predicted by this equation was 140 ng/m3 (0.14 //g/m3);
this value is reasonable based on the data in Figure 27. The t + 0.345 term (t + to) accounts
for time offset between time zero and the start of monitoring measurements.
Table 3 presents decay model (Equation 2) non-linear regression results for several sets of
mercury concentration vs. time data (r2 range = 0.910 to 0.998). Lumex and Tracker
monitoring data, box model results and decay model calculation results are presented in
Figures 27-34. The room volume was fixed at 25.37 m3 for all nonlinear regression analyses.
16
-------
The data in Table 3 show a wide range of air exchange rate (Q/V) values (0.099 to 1.54,
average = 0.68) for the mercury monitoring data sets evaluated. The data in Table 3 are
generally in agreement with the range of mean residential air exchanges per hour (0.53 to 1.1)
noted in a National Research Council report on the risk associated with radon in drinking
water (NRC, 1999), and with those (0.25-1.57) reported in a study of residential air exchange
rates in the United States (Murray et al., 1995). Fit values for the "E" term indicate that the
decay model final equilibrium concentration is generally 2-4 percent of the box model
equilibrium value. The fit parameters for the August 19, 2002 Lumex monitoring data set
(see Figures 31 and 32) may be unreliable because the time offset parameter reached the
defined upper limit (0.5 hours) within the first three iterations of the regression. The August
5, 2002 Lumex monitoring data (Figure 27) and August 7, 2002 Tracker monitoring data
(Figure 28) are from the same 45-hour time frame. Regression results for Q, D, and E terms
are in good agreement for the two monitoring data sets. There are a number of individual
Tracker or Lumex readings in Figures 27-34 that are lower than the adjacent readings on the
figures. These readings are normal and occur during automatic monitoring instrument zero
adjustments, and do not reflect actual measured concentrations.
Overall, this decay model (Equation 2) is adequate for describing elemental mercury
emissions provided all environmental factors are stable (constant). The factors include
temperature, ambient pressure, air exchange rate, and electrostatic effects. In addition, the
elemental mercury source must be undisturbed. It is highly unlikely that all these conditions
are met during ritualistic uses of mercury. This is evident from the observed "bumps" in the
mercury concentration vs. time data sets (Figures 27-34).
The empirical decay model cannot predict the final equilibrium concentration due to the lack
of data for elemental mercury oxidation as a function of time, temperature, etc. Mercury
monitoring results indicate that the final equilibrium concentration is typically less than 5
percent of the simple box model predicted concentration. The final concentration appears to
be reached after 50-60 hours of stable, undisturbed elemental mercury vaporization.
Figure 35 presents mercury concentration vs. time data when the mercury container was
shaken for the first 16 hours. The box model appears to accurately predict mercury
concentration for the first nine hours (Figure 36) before mercury emission rate decay begins.
Figure 37 shows the final model with a rate decay time offset of 9.04 hours. The final model,
with an r = 0.957, is:
C(t} = Box Model = BM
_(23^.(, + 0.137)"
= 7.322*
1-e
I 25.37
* (l -
= 7.322 * l - e -.* ' + . , ( Q Q4
17
-------
C(t) = BM*(e -Ko-i24.fr-9.o4i)) „ fl _ 00378^ + 00378^
{ I 7.322) 7.322 J
= BM*(e ~(ai24*(f~9-04l))*(l-0.005163)+ 0.005163J t> 9.04 hours
where, S/Q = S/23.49 = 7.322;
therefore, S = 172 ug/hour and
the final equilibrium concentration is 0.038 ug/m3.
6.1 Model for Predicting Average Indoor Air Mercury Concentration
Additional studies were carried out to develop a simple model to predict average
mercury vapor concentrations in indoor air based on average emission over various
time intervals.
Table 4 presents mercury emission rates based on weight loss from mercury beads of
different diameter. Figures 38 and 39 present Tracker mercury concentration (two-
hour average) vs. time data for nominal 0.5 cm beads. Figure 40 presents the non-
linear regression analysis for the nominal 0.5 cm bead average mercury emission rate
in micro gram per hour per square centimeter (ug/hr/cm2) vs. time data (22-864
hours). Figure 41 includes emission rate data for nominal 0.5 cm beads and other bead
sizes. Total bead surface areas were based on the effective bead diameter, which was
calculated assuming a spherical bead with weight equal to the starting weight divided
by the number of beads and density of 13.6 g/cm3. The beads tend to flatten and
spread out on the surface upon which they rest, therefore, the bead active emitting
surface area is less than 100 percent. The fraction of bead surface area available for
emission depends upon several factors including bead diameter, resting surface
roughness, and surface tension. The bead active surface area for emission was
assumed to be 50 percent for this study. The final model (Equation 3) can be used to
predict average emission rate, S', for 22-864 hours exposure time (r2 = 0.943).
S' = avgjUg/hr/cm2 =96.947 * (e -(°-0188**°»") + (-0.0000033 *hours}+ 0.0968) (3)
The nominal 0.5 cm data in the first two sections of Table 4 (first 11 data sets) were
used to determine model parameters in Equation 3; the data in the last set was not
included.
Table 5 lists emission rates and concentrations as calculated using Equation 3. The
average predictive error (average percent difference) for the nominal 0.5 cm bead
calibration data (Figure 40) was 13 percent (range 0.5-31 percent). The average
predictive error for all bead sizes (Figure 41) was 40 percent (range 0.5-349 percent).
The average evaporation rate, Savg, (ng/hr) is given by:
Savg = S' * (total emitting surface area]
= S' * (number of beads] * (bead emitting surface area] (4)
18
-------
The average concentration (jig/m3) between t = 0 and t = t2 based on the box model is
then:
Q
Q
—
v
Q
—
V
(5)
where, the air exchange rate, Q/V = 1.67, was based on measured values.
When the (Q/V)*t2 term is very large (>100), equation 5 can be simplified to:
O
(6)
Figure 42 shows model prediction vs. average and minimum values measured with the
Tracker analyzer. The slopes of these fits were used to calculate the predicted average
and minimum concentrations listed in Table 5. Figures 43 and 44 show measured vs.
final predicted values for average and minimum mercury concentration. The solid line
represents 1:1 correlation.
Table 6 presents the final model for emission from mercury beads (Equations 3-5).
Input variables to the model include room volume, weight of mercury spilled, average
mercury droplet size, air exchange rate (Q/V), and (optionally) number of hours for
calculation. The minimum number of hours is 24 because the rate vs. time fit (Figure
40) applies from 22 to 864 hours. The calculation predicts average concentrations
over 24-hour to four-week periods. This model works reasonably well for predicting
average mercury concentrations for the small room, as shown in Table 5. It is based
on measured weight loss vs. time data where there is periodic activity in the room
producing additional mercury emission (Figures 38 and 39). This model only provides
an order of magnitude estimate of potential exposure because the fate and transport of
mercury vapor inside a house is complex and case specific, and requires data for a
variety of variables including adsorption and desorption characteristics. The model
may not work for other situations where the mercury beads are disturbed on a regular
basis.
An Excel spreadsheet for predicting average indoor air mercury concentrations based
on Equations 3 through 5 is included on the CD accompanying this report. Appendix
B shows example printouts of data entry and tabulated results from this spreadsheet.
19
-------
7.0 Summary of Results
The scenarios studied were:
• Spilling or sprinkling of 2-15 grams of mercury to simulate ritual sprinkling of
mercury in a home;
• Placement of 2-8 grams of mercury in identical-sized cavities inside candles to
determine the relative importance of weight vs. surface area on mercury vapor
concentration;
• Spillage of mercury from a broken clinical thermometer;
• Shaking of mercury beads to simulate mercury disturbance by household activities,
such as children playing.
In all scenarios, the mercury concentration rapidly increased during the first few hours of
exposure and then generally decreased. In most experiments, the initial indoor air mercury
concentration exceeded the ATSDR-suggested residential occupancy level; in some cases, the
action level was also exceeded. However, the concentrations generally decreased to below the
residential occupancy level. Indoor mercury concentrations increased if there was air movement
over the mercury surface, if the active mercury surface was regenerated (by shaking), or if
additional mercury was applied. Slight increases in mercury concentration were also observed
when there was airflow movement in the room caused by human intervention, i.e., physical
entry into the room, and when the room temperature exceeded 90°F.
Mercury vapor concentration was proportional to the exposed surface area and the amount of
"spilled" elemental mercury, and inversely proportional to the size of the room. The indoor air
mercury vapor concentration appeared to be more dependent on the size of the surface area of
exposed mercury than the weight of the mercury. Similar indoor air mercury concentrations
were measured after either 2 or 8 grams of mercury were placed into the same internal
diameter cavity in candles, because the active surface area for evaporation (volatilization)
remained the same.
During these experiments, discoloration of the bead surfaces was observed over time. This
may reflect the formation of a non-volatile mercuric oxide layer and/or settling of particulates
on the surface, which would reduce the surface area for evaporation (emission) and thereby
lower the rate of mercury vaporization. That may explain the observed decrease of indoor air
mercury concentrations from initial maximum levels. In addition, the mercury vapor in the
enclosed room dissipated due to air movement and leakage from the room. When shaken, the
active surface area of mercury beads appeared to be replenished, with an observed increase in
mercury vapor concentration. Eventually, the refreshed surface also appeared to develop an
oxide layer and/or become coated with particles.
Lumex RA915+ and Tracker 3000 real-time mercury analyzer results were compared with air
sample results obtained from modified NIOSH Method 6009 analysis. Two factory-calibrated
Tracker mercury analyzers were evaluated. The monitoring results for Tracker #1 mercury
analyzer were slightly lower than modified NIOSH method concentrations, whereas the
monitoring results for the Tracker #2 mercury analyzer were comparable to modified NIOSH
20
-------
method measurements. The factory-calibrated Lumex mercury analyzers consistently yielded
lower mercury concentrations than modified NIOSH method measurements. After the Lumex
and Tracker instruments were recalibrated in the laboratory using a mercury vapor standard,
their results were more consistent with the modified NIOSH method measurements.
A model was developed to empirically describe indoor air mercury concentrations from
evaporation of an elemental mercury source over time. Overall, this model is adequate for
describing elemental mercury emissions provided all environmental factors are stable
(constant). The factors include temperature, ambient pressure, air exchange rate, and
electrostatic effects. In addition, the elemental mercury source must be undisturbed. The
empirical model cannot predict the final equilibrium mercury concentration due to the lack of
data for elemental mercury oxidation as a function of time, temperature, etc. Modeling results,
however, indicate that the final indoor air mercury concentration is typically less than 5 percent
of the box model maximum mercury concentration and, generally, the final concentration is
reached after 50-60 hours of stable, undisturbed elemental mercury vaporization. The model
adequately describes the decrease in mercury concentration with time observed for all
experiments in this study and indicates a much lower final mercury concentration than the simple
box model proposed by Riley et al. (2001).
A second model was developed to predict average mercury vapor concentration in indoor air
based on average emission over various time intervals (24-hour to 4-week periods). This model
is adequate for predicting average mercury concentrations for the small room. It is based on
measured mercury weight loss vs. time, given periodic activity in the room that produced
additional mercury emission. The model may not be appropriate for other situations where the
mercury beads are disturbed on a regular basis because it does not account for all factors that
may influence elemental mercury emission rates.
8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Mercury spills are difficult to clean up, and may be worsened by the use of ordinary
household cleaning methods, such as sweeping and vacuuming. The use of sealants and/or
removal of flooring material may be required to prevent the release of vapor from small,
undetected beads of mercury lodged in floor cracks. Certain household surfaces, such as
carpeting, cannot be effectively remediated and must be removed. This study shows that
intentional ritual sprinkling of metallic mercury or accidental spillage of mercury may
initially produce indoor air mercury concentrations above the ATSDR-suggested residential
occupancy level, and in some cases, above the action level. When the source is undisturbed,
the concentration decreases over time and generally falls below the residential occupancy
level. It is unlikely, however, that mercury would remain undisturbed in a residential setting.
Furthermore, periodic spillage or ritual application of a small amount of mercury for a
sustained period of time within the same enclosure may lead to chronic mercury vapor
exposure with possible detrimental health effects. This was not evaluated in the present
study.
The study found that indoor air mercury vapor concentration was dependent upon the total
exposed surface area of the mercury, the amount of mercury, and the size of the room.
21
-------
Increases in indoor air mercury concentration were observed when the elemental mercury
source was physically disturbed or shaken, mercury was reapplied, the room airflow was
changed, opening of a door, or physical activity near the source, or when temperatures
exceeded 90°F. The greatest increase in mercury vapor concentration was observed when the
mercury beads (source) were constantly disturbed; presumably, shaking/agitation produced
new active surface area for mercury vaporization.
The simple box model proposed by Riley et al. (2001) does not adequately describe the
mercury vapor concentration over time, as observed for different experimental conditions in
this study. A decay model was developed to empirically describe indoor air mercury
concentration as a function of evaporation of elemental mercury over time. Mercury emission
modeling indicates an initial maximum mercury vapor concentration, followed by a
continuous decrease to a final concentration that is typically less than 5 percent of the box
model-predicted maximum concentration; the final concentration is typically reached after 50-
60 hours of stable, undisturbed elemental mercury vaporization.
An order of magnitude estimate of the average mercury vapor concentration in indoor air may
be predicted based on average emission rates over various time intervals (24-hour to four-
week periods). This approach is based on periodic activity in the room leading to additional
mercury emission, and is adequate for predicting average mercury concentrations for the
small room. This model only provides an order of magnitude estimate of potential exposure
because the fate and transport of mercury vapor inside a house is complex and case specific
and requires data for a variety of variables including adsorption and desorption characteristics.
The model may not be appropriate for other situations where the mercury beads are disturbed
on a regular basis, or where mercury is repeatedly applied. The choice of model (the model
developed in this study vs. box model of Riley et al.) may greatly affect conclusions about
potential health risks from mercury exposures.
In conclusion, the real-time air monitoring and analysis of air samples collected during
simulated ritual uses of mercury indicate the potential for initial high exposures to mercury;
long-term exposures from undisturbed sources appear to be less significant and of unknown
health concern. The results of this study will be provided to the ATSDR for review and
comment.
Recommendations for future work are as follows:
• If possible, obtain permission to conduct mercury monitoring under conditions of actual
ritual mercury use in a home. Real-time air monitoring and air sample collection and
analysis should begin within two days of mercury use and continue for 120 days.
• Perform additional experiments using different mercury bead diameters, to further
evaluate the effect of surface area on vapor emission rates.
• Conduct a formal risk assessment to evaluate the risks to occupants under conditions of
ritual mercury use, with emphasis on repeated mercury applications and long-term
exposure.
22
-------
9.0 References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2000). Minimal Risk Levels
(MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. Available at www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html Accessed
December 12.
ATSDR (2001). Suggested Action Levels for Indoor Mercury Vapors in Homes or Businesses
with Indoor Gas Regulators. Attachment 2 to Illinois Department of Public Health, March 6,
2001 Health Consultation: Residential Mercury Spills from Gas Regulators in Illinois (a/k/a
NICOR), Mt. Prospect, Lake County, Illinois.
Available at www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/resmerc/nic_pl.html.
Carpi, A, and Y.F. Chen (2001). Gaseous Elemental Mercury as an Indoor Air Pollutant.
Environmental Science and Technology 35: 4170-4173.
Clayton Group Services (2004). Revised Report - Tracer Gas Studies - EPA Trailer.
Clayton Project No. 40-02304.00. February 19.
Mercury Instruments Analytical Technologies (2000). Mercury Tracker 3000 Operating
Manual. March.
Murray, D.M., and D.E. Burmaster (1955). Residential Air Exchange Rates in the United
States: Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distributions by Season and Climatic Region.
1995 Risk Analysis, 15: 459-465.
National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Risk Assessment of Exposure to Radon in
Drinking Water (1999). Risk Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water. Washington, D.C:
National Academy Press.
Ohio Lumex Co., Inc. (2000). Lumex Multifunctional Mercury Analyzer RA-915+ Operation
Manual.
Riley, D.M., C.A Newby, T.O. Leal-Almeraz, and V.M. Thomas (2001). Assessing
Elemental Mercury Vapor Exposure from Cultural and Religious Practices. Environmental
Health Perspectives 109: 779-784.
Singhvi, R., D. Kalnicky, J Patel, and Y. Mehra (2003). Comparison of Real-Time and
Laboratory Analysis of Mercury Vapor in Indoor Air: Statistical Analysis Results.
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical
Seminar, 1: 439-451 (June 10-12).
Singhvi, R., D.A. Johnson, J. Patel, and P. Solinski (1999). Analytical Method for Indoor Air
Monitoring for Metallic Mercury Vapors. Presented at the 8* International Conference on
Indoor Air Quality & Climate, Indoor Air 99, Edinburgh, Scotland.
23
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2004). Mercury, elemental (CASRN
7439-97-6). Integrated Risk Information System.
Available at www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0370.htm. Accessed February 4.
USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (2002). Task Force on Ritualistic Uses
of Mercury Report, OSWER 9285.4-07, EPA/540-R-01-005. December.
USEPA/Environmental Response Team Center (USEPA/ERT) (2001). Standard Operating
Procedure #1827, Analysis of Mercury in Air with a Modified NIOSH Method 6009, Rev. 3.0.
February 5.
24
-------
FIGURES
-------
I
Room Height 8*
Volume Room
A is 1,590 ft'
Volume Room
Bis 896ft1
Key:
Door
Window
Heater i
9*4"
B
2" 10"
Not lu Scale
Dimensions arc Feet & Inches
-------
Figure 1
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
NIOSH RESULTS*
90
2/5/2002
Tray shaken 2/6/2002
0.0
2.12 gHg
Jan 14toFeb6, 2002
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
HOURS
1 values below MDL assumed to be 1/2MDL
•CONCENTRATION —•—TEMPERATURE
26
-------
Figure 2
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
NIOSH & TRACKER Results
90
4.72 g Hg
Feb11 toFeb12, 2002
10
15
20
•TRACKER #2
25
HOURS
•NIOSH
30
35
40
45
60
50
•TEMPERATURE
27
-------
Figure 3
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
NIOSH & TRACKER Results
90
20
40
60
120
9.92 g Hg
Feb13toFeb19, 2002
80 100
HOURS
•TRACKER #2 —•— NIOSH -^-TEMPERATURE
140
160
60
180
28
-------
Figure 4
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
NIOSH & TRACKER Results
140
120
100
100
E
"01
g
LU
o
z
o
o
2/20/2002
Fan on
15.02g Hg
Feb 20 to Feb 28
fray shaken
Fan off
2/27/2002
Tray not shaken
Fan on
2/26/2002
Tray not shaken
Fan off
2/25/2002
Tray not shaken
Fan off
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
HOURS
—•—NIOSH -*-TRACKER#2 -
90 100 110
•TEMPERATURE
120
130
140
60
150
29
-------
Figure 5
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 2
NIOSH & TRACKER Results
90
O)
O
P
LU
O
O
2.0 gHg
March 27 to April 5, 2002
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
HOURS
-•—TRACKER #2 —••—NIOSH —•—TEMPERATURE
30
-------
Figure 6
Broken Clinical Thermometer Simulation: Experiment 3
NIOSH & TRACKER Results
0.7143 gHg
Mar. 23 to 28. 2002
4/28/2002
Door left open
20
40
60
120
80 100
HOURS
•TRACKER #2 -A-NIOSH -•— TEMPERATURE
140
160
LU
LU
Q.
^
111
60
180
31
-------
1.8
0.0
Figure 7
Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment 4
TRACKER Results
2.4430 gHg 8.3911 g Hg
April 5 to 11, 2002 April 30 to May 3, 2002
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-^-TRACKER #2, 2.4430 g Hg
-•-TEMPERATURE, 2.4430 g Hg
80 90
HOURS
60
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
—TRACKER #2, 8.3911 g Hg
-•—TEMPERATURE,8.3911 g Hg
32
-------
Figure 8
Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment 5
TRACKER Results
no
2.4381 g Hg
Apr^|2to 16,2002
Weighed and
restart
monitoring
Weighed and
restart
monitoring
20
40
60 80 100
HOURS
•TRACKER #2 —•— TEMPERATURE
120
140
60
33
-------
Figure 9
Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment 5
TRACKER Results
20
40
60
80
100
HOURS
•TRACKER #2 -•—TEMPERATURE
120
110
105
100
2.4353 g Hg
Apr. 18 to 23, 2002
Temperature data not available
LU
LU
Q.
^
111
65
60
34
-------
10
20
Figure 10
Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment 5
TRACKER Results
30
40
50
HOURS
60
70
8.3869 g Hg
May 3 to 7, 2002
80
90
100
95
60
100
-TRACKER #2 -^-TEMPERATURE
35
-------
Figure 11
Effect of Surface Area Simulation: Experiment 5
LUMEX, TRACKER, & NIOSH Results
100
8.3809 g Hg
May 7 to 8, 2002
10 15 20
HOURS
-TRACKER #2 —»-LUMEX#1 -B-NIOSH -A-TEMPERATURE
60
25
36
-------
Figure 12
Surface Area Regeneration Simulation: Experiment 6
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results
14
100
O
P
LU
O
z
O
O
Shaker on
5/08/2002 Shaker off
Shaker on
5/09/2002
0.9756 g Hg
May 8 to 11, 2002
10
20
30
•TRACKER #2
40 50 60
HOURS
-LUMEX #1 -A-NIOSH
70
80
90
90
80
o
UJ~
111
111
70
60
100
•TEMPERATURE
37
-------
Figure 13
Surface Area Regeneration Simulation: Experiment 6
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results
100
9.6319 g Hg
ay 17 to 23, 200
60
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
HOURS
-•-TRACKER #2 —•— LUMEX #1 -*-NIOSH —•—TEMPERATURE
38
-------
2.0
Figure 14
Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Home Room: Experiment 7
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results
0.9820g Hg
Nov14to25, 2002
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260
HOURS
-•-TRACKER #2 —•—LUMEX #2 -*-NIOSH -•—TRACKER #1 —•—TEMPERATURE
39
-------
Figure 15
Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Home Room: Experiment 7
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results
5.0508gHg
Nov 25 to Dec 5. 2002
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
0 20 40 60
60
•TRACKER #1
•TRACKER #2
LUMEX #2
•TEMPERATURE
40
-------
4.5
Figure 16
Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use of in a Large Home Room: Experiment 7
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results
10.3962 g Hg
Dec 5 to 16,2002
50
100
150
200
60
250
HOURS
•TRACKER #2 -•— LUMEX #2 -*-NIOSH —TRACKER #1
•TEMPERATURE
41
-------
Figure 17
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
TRACKER Results
7.0511 g Hg
June 10 to 25, 2002
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
HOURS
-•—TRACKER #2
42
-------
Figure 18
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
TRACKER Results
7.0043 g Hg
July 16 to 20, 2002
10
20
30
40
50
HOURS
•TRACKER #2
60
70
80
90
100
43
-------
Figure 19
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
TRACKER & NIOSH Results
7.0043 g Hg
July 16 to 20, 2002
10
20
30
40
50
HOURS
TRACKER #2 •
60
•NIOSH
70
80
90
100
44
-------
18
16
14
O
E 12
O)
3.
o 10
Figure 20
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
TRACKER Results
LU
O
8
6
6.9842 g Hg
JulySOtoAug 1, 2002
10
15
20
HOURS
•TRACKER #2
25
30
35
40
45
-------
Figure 21
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
TRACKER & NIOSH Results
6.9842 g Hg
July 30 to Aug 1, 2002
10
15
20
25
HOURS
TRACKER #2 •
30
•NIOSH
35
40
45
50
46
-------
Figure 22
Mercury Vapor Emission: Experiment 8
TRACKER & LUMEX Results
1.1058g Hg
Aug 5 to 7, 2002
1.1446gHg
Aug 12 to 14, 2002
1.1256g Hg
Aug 14 to 16,2002
g
£4
LU
O
z
O
O
10
15
20
30
35
1.0387gHg
Aug 19 to 20, 2002
40
45
25
HOURS
•TRACKER #2, Aug5 -"-TRACKER #2, Aug12 -^-TRACKER #2, Aug14 ——LUMEX#2, Aug19
50
47
-------
Figure 23
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
TRACKER & NIOSH Results
1.1446g Hg
Aug 12 to 14, 2002
1.1256g Hg
Aug 14 to 16, 2002
10
15
20
25
HOURS
30
35
40
45
50
•TRACKER #2, Aug12 -"-NIOSH Aug12 -^-TRACKER #2, Aug14 NIOSH Aug14
48
-------
O
P
LU
O
z
O
O
Figure 24
Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH: Experiment 9
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results
20
100
10.8634 g Hg
Dec 18 to 27, 2002
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
60
•TRACKER #2 -•— LUMEX #2 -A-NIOSH —TRACKER #1 -"-TEMPERATURE
49
-------
Figure 25
Setup for Calibrating Real Time Mercury Monitoring Instruments
Regulator
CGA-660
•Hg Standard
Gas Cylinder
50
-------
0.0
Figure 26
[Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH: Experiment
10
TRACKER, LUMEX & NIOSH Results
50 100 150 200 250 300
HOURS
350 400 450
500
100
60
550
•TRACKER #1 —TRACKER #2 NIOSH —LUMEX #3 —LUMEX #2 -•— LUMEX #4 —TEMPERATURE
51
-------
Figure 27
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Concentration vs. Time
Lumex Results - 08/05/2002
8000
7000
10
20
30
40
50
HOURS
• Lumex Results •
52
•Box Model ^~Decay Model
-------
Figure 28
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Concentration vs. Time
Tracker Results - 08/07/2002
o
HOURS
• Tracker Results
Model ^~Decay Model
53
-------
Figure 29
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Concentration vs. Time
Lumex Results -11/25/2002
6000
5000
c 4000
3000
2000
1000
m
O
O
10
20
30
40 50 60 70
HOURS
80
90
100
• Lumex Results
Model ^~Decay Model
54
-------
Figure 30
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Concentration vs. Time
Lumex Results -11/14/2002
g
HI
o
o
o
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
10
20
• Lumex Results
30
HOURS
40
50
60
Model ^~Decay Model
55
-------
8000
Figure 31
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Concentration vs. Time
Lumex Results - 08/19/2002
o
10
15
20
25
HOURS
• Lumex Results
Model ^~Decay Model
56
-------
Figure 32
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Concentration vs. Time
Lumex Results - 08/19/2002
4000
3000
c
O
2000
LU
O
z
O
O
1000
10 15
HOURS
20
25
• Lumex Results
Model ^~Decay Model
57
-------
Figure 33
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Concentration vs. Time
Tracker Results - 06/11/2002
10
15
20
25
HOURS
• Tracker Results ^~Box Model ^~Decay Model
58
-------
Figure 34
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Concentration vs. Time
Tracker Results - 02/28/2002
10 15
HOURS
20
25
• Tracker Results
Model ^~Decay Model
59
-------
Figure 35
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Tracker Results, 0 To 60 Hours - Shaken First 16 Hours
HOURS
• Tracker Results
•Box Model
60
-------
Figure 36
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Tracker Results, 0 To 10 Hours - Shaken First 16 Hours
6
HOURS
8
10
12
• Tracker Results
Model
61
-------
Figure 37
Empirical Model for Indoor Air Mercury Emission
Tracker Results - Delayed Rate Decay
HOURS
• Tracker Results
Model ^"Delayed Decay Model
62
-------
Figure 38
Two Hour Average Tracker Concentration
0 to 400 Hours
7-day (7 beads)
15-day (7 beads)
95-hour (7 beads)
46-hour (1 bead); Aug 5-8
48-hour (1 bead); Aug 12-14
48-hour (1 bead); Aug 14-16
22-hour (1 bead); Aug 19-20
21-hour (7 beads); Jul 30 - Aug 1
50
350
400
63
-------
Figure 39
Two Hour Average Tracker Concentration
0 to 100 Hours
„ -1C
3.
z 14
g 14
<
1- -JO
•z. i*
LU
O
R 10
£
LU
9 R
^
a:
i-
LU
O c
<
a:
LU
>
o
I
CNI 9
/ \
/ V
/ T
L
M \
u
1 \ 1
,M\
/ \\\
f TN
\
V
\
\
k V
^iSx
^
A
L Jr*^
M^*^^
^^
: \
L^^ \.
r^i^^"
^-H
^W
TTl
-*— 7-day (7 beads)
-•—15-day (7 beads)
-*— 95-hour (7 beads)
-•—46-hour (1 bead); Aug 5-{
3
—•— 48-hour (1 bead); Aug 12-1 4
—*— 48-hour (1 bead); Aug 14-16
22-hour (1 bead); Aug 19-20
--*— 21-hour (7 beads); Jul 30- Aug 01
V
^k~~»— •— -
fr*
^
~*^
^^
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
HOURS
64
-------
100
Figure 40
Mercury Emission Rate vs. Time
200
300
400
500
HOURS
600
700
800
900
1000
Data - 0.5 cm Bead ^—Model = 96.947*[exp(-0.0188*hours) + (-0.0000033*hours) + 0.0968]
65
-------
Figure 41
Mercury Emission Rate vs. Time
100
200
300
400 500
HOURS
600
700
800
900
Data - 0.5 cm Bead • Data - Other Beads
Results Based on 0.5 cm Beads
66
-------
Figure 42
Correlation Between Measured and Predicted Concentration
0.5 cm Bead Size Model
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (MODEL), |jg/m3
Measured Average Concentration
Measured Minimum Concentration
•Predicted Average Concentration = 2.28 * Model
Predicted Minimum Concentration = 0.71 * Model
67
-------
Figure 43
Correlation Between Measured and Predicted Average Concentration
0.5 cm Bead Size Model
3 4 5 6
PREDICTED AVERAGE CONCENTRATION, |jg/m
* Average Concentration ^^1:1 Correlation
10
68
-------
0.0
0.0
Figure 44
Correlation Between Measured and Predicted Minimum Concentration
0.5 cm Bead Size Model
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
PREDICTED MINIMUM CONCENTRATION, M9/m3
* Minimum Concentration ^^1:1 Correlation
69
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE I
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MERCURY
Name:
Synonyms:
CAS#:
Molecular Formula:
Molecular Weight:
Physical State:
Appearance:
Odor:
pH:
Vapor Pressure:
Vapor Density:
Evaporation Rate:
Viscosity:
Boiling Point:
Freezing/Melting Point:
Auto Ignition Temperature:
Flash Point:
NFPA Rating:
Explosion Limits, Lower:
Explosive Limits, Upper:
Solubility:
Specific Gravity/Density:
Decomposition Temperature:
Exposure Limits:
ACGIH:
NIOSH:
OSHA:
Chemical Stability:
Conditions to Avoid:
Hazardous Decomposition Products:
Hazardous Polymerization:
RTECS#:
LD50/LC50:
US DOT:
UN Number:
Incompatibilities with
Other Materials:
References
Mercury
Colloidal mercury; Hydrargyrum; Metallic mercury; Quick silver; Liquid silver
7439-97-6
Hg
200.59
Liquid
Silver
Odorless
Not available.
0.002 mm Hg @ 25°C
0.468
Not available.
15.5mPa.s@25°C
356.72°C
~38.87°C
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
(estimated) Health: 3; Flammability: 0; Reactivity: 0
Not available.
Not available.
Insoluble
13.59 (water=l)
Not available.
0.025 mg/m3 TLV-TWA
0.05 mg/m3 TWA
10 mg/m3 IDLH
0.1 mg/m3 PEL Ceiling
Stable under normal temperatures and pressures.
High temperatures, incompatible materials.
Mercury/mercury oxides.
Will not occur.
CAS# 7439-97-6: OV4550000
Not available.
Hazard Class: 8
UN2809
Metals, aluminum, ammonia, chlorates, copper, copper alloys, ethylene oxide, halogens, iron, nitrates, sulfur, sulfuric acid,
oxygen, acetylene, lithium, rubidium, sodium carbide, lead, nitromethane, peroxyformic acid, calcium, chlorine dioxide, metal oxides
azides, 3-bromopropyne, alkynes + silver perchlorate, methylsilane + oxygen, tetracarbonylnickel oxygen, boron diiodophosphide.
Simon, M., Jonk, P., Wuhl-Couturier, G., Daunderer, M., Mercury, mercury alloys and mercury compounds. In:
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (Elvers, B., Hawkins, S., Schulz, G., eds.) Weinheim (Germany: VCH Verlag (1990).
Grier, N., Mercury In: The Encyclopedia of Chemical Elements (Hempel, C. A., ed) New York: Reinhold, (1968).
70
-------
TABLE 2
Summary of Experimental Design and Objectives
Experiment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Design
o 2.1 g Hg dropped from 3-foot height onto carpet in plastic tray in small room, then
tray shaken. Samples initially taken at two locations per room, then decreased to
one location per room.
o Additional 5.2 g Hg dropped from 3-foot height, fans off, then on.
o Additional 5.1 g Hg dropped from 3-foot height, fans on. On Day 3, tray shaken,
fans turned off. After 124 hours, shaking stopped, fans on.
2 g Hg placed on carpet in tray, fans off, monitored over 10 days, fans then turned
on.
0.7 g Hg from broken thermometer placed on carpet in tray. Monitored over 5 days.
On Day 6, tray shaken. Fans on.
o 2.4 g Hg placed in cavity in an unlit candle, two fans on.
1b8.4 g Hg placed into same-sized cavity in an unlit candle. \
o 2.4 g Hg placed in weighing boat, door between rooms closed, fans on.
o 2.4 g Hg placed in weighing boat, connecting door open, fans on.
o 8.4 g Hg placed in weighing boat, connecting door closed, fans off.
o 8.4 g Hg placed in weighing boat, connecting door closed, fans on.
o 1 g Hg placed in weighing boat, connecting door closed, fans on, boat shaken for
17 hours. Then shaker stopped and restarted.
o Above repeated with 9.6 g Hg in weighing boat.
o 1 g Hg placed in weighing boat in large room, connecting door closed, fans on with
neither blowing over tray.
o 4 additional 1-g beads placed in individual weighing boats in large room.
o 5 additional 1-g beads placed in individual weighing boats in large room.
o Seven 0.5 cm Hg beads placed in individual weighing boats in small room,
connecting door closed, fans on. Hg weights measured at t=0, Day 7, 15, 22, 29
and Day 36.
o Above repeated with seven individual 0.5 cm (1 g) beads, for 4 days.
o Above repeated with seven 1-g beads, for 2 days.
o One 1.1 g bead placed in weighing dish, monitored for 2 days. Repeated with 1.5g
and 1.1 g beads.
Ten 0.5 cm Hg beads placed in individual weighing boats in small room, connecting
door closed, fans on. Air measurements with two Tracker analyzers, Lumex and
NIOSH over8 hours.
° A 5 mg/m3 gaseous Hg standard analyzed using Lumex equipped with modified
software, Tracker, and NIOSH.
o 2 g Hg placed in weighing dish in small room, connecting door closed, fans on,
monitoring with NIOSH, three Lumex analyzers and two Trackers.
Objective
Simulate effect of ritual sprinkling of Hg on concentrations in air in
residence.
Measure the effect of air movement over Hg beads on resulting Hg
concentrations in air.
Simulate effect of broken thermometer on Hg concentrations in air.
Determine relative importance of Hg weight vs. surface area on Hg
apor concentration in air.
Determine effect of different Hg weights and surface areas on
Hg emissions.
Determine impact of regeneration of fresh surface via disturbance
(shaking) on Hg vapor concentrations in air.
Determine Hg vapor concentration in an large room; simulate effect
of repeated Hg applications.
Measure vapor emission rates and vapor concentration.
Compare Hg air concentration results obtained from various
monitoring methods.
Investigate differences between Lumex and NIOSH results;
determine % recovery of standard, use to calibrate real-time
analyzers. Check the recalibrated real-time instruments against
NIOSH for accuracy.
71
-------
TABLE 3
Non-Linear Regression Analysis Results for Mercury Concentration vs. Time Data3
Data Set
Lumex
8/5/2002
Tracker
8/7/2002
Lumex
11/25/2002
Lumex
11/14/2002
Lumex
8/19/2002
Tracker
6/1 1/2002
Tracker
2/28/2002
Figure
27
28
29
30
31&32
33
34
r2
0.998
0.974
0.998
0.990
0.957
0.994
0.910
Rate of Evaporation, S
("g/hr)
132
206
209
57.6
87.2
829
127
Air Flow Rate from
Room, Q (m3/hr)
18.6
18.0
39.1
2.79
12.9
27.6
2.51
Air Exchange Rate,
Q/V (hr"1)
0.733
0.709
1.54
0.110
0.508
1.09
0.099
Time Offset,
to
0.345
0.032
0.100
0.000
0.500 c
0.047
0.440
Exponential Decay
Factor, D
0.117
0.106
0.167
0.432
0.131
0.314
0.116
Final Equilibrium
Concentration, E
(ug/m3)
0.140
0.200 b
0.125
0.059
0.160
1.15
2.21
Predicted Box Model
Concentration, S/Q (ug/m )
7.12
11.4
5.35
20.7
6.77
30.1
50.7
Lumex concentration unit, nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3); Tracker concentration unit, micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3).
Lumex results were converted to Tracker units.
r2 = Regression analysis coefficient of determination.
a Room volume fixed at 25.37 m3 for all regression fits.
b Final equilibrium concentration fixed at 0.200; calculated for all other data sets.
0 Constraint limit (0.5 hours) for time offset, t0; fit parameters may be unreliable.
72
-------
TABLE 4
Mercury Emission Rate Data Based on Weight Loss
Bead Parameters
Starting
Weight, g
7.051
7.051
7.051
7.051
7.051
7.0043
6.9842
1.1058
1.1446
1.1256
1 .0387
2.4381
2.4381
2.4353
2.4353
8.3869
9.6181
8.3809
10.000
Number of
Beads
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
Bead Diameter, cm
Nominal
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1.6
1.5
1.6
0.5
Effective*
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.520
0.519
0.538
0.544
0.541
0.526
0.700
0.700
0.699
0.699
1.056
1.106
1.056
0.520
Effective
Surface Area
(50%)
0.4263
0.4263
0.4263
0.4263
0.4263
0.4244
0.4236
0.4537
0.4642
0.4591
0.4352
0.7686
0.7686
0.7680
0.7680
1.7514
1.9188
1 .7505
0.4243
Number
Hours
864
696
528
360
168
95
46
46
48
48
22
52
144
96
126
94
48
24
217
Emission -Weight Loss
mg/bead
3.07
2.87
2.10
1.66
0.86
0.99
0.79
0.80
1.40
1.30
0.70
2.00
2.80
1.60
1.00
6.00
1.00
2.30
3.80
ug/hr
24.87
28.86
27.84
32.28
35.83
72.95
120.22
17.39
29.17
27.08
31.82
38.46
19.44
16.67
7.94
63.83
20.83
95.83
175.12
ug/hr/cm2
8.34
9.67
9.33
10.82
12.01
24.55
40.54
38.33
62.83
58.99
73.12
50.04
25.30
21.70
10.33
36.45
10.86
54.75
41.27
Mercury Vapor Concentration, ug/m3
Calculated with
Model
0.59
0.68
0.66
0.76
0.84
1.71
2.80
0.40
0.68
0.63
0.73
0.90
0.46
0.39
0.19
1.50
0.49
2.20
4.12
Measured
Max
NM
NM
NM
12.78
12.78
12.86
16.31
7.42
7.38
5.60
3.35
1.70
2.45
4.15
4.15
3.30
3.80
8.65
13.00
Min.
NM
NM
NM
0.21
0.37
1.39
2.40
0.16
0.40
1.23
0.74
0.66
0.66
0.22
0.14
0.12
0.18
0.80
0.44
Avg.
NM
NM
NM
1.77
2.16
3.91
7.50
2.24
1.98
1.84
1.87
0.88
1.16
1.19
0.97
0.62
0.86
3.07
2.19
Room Parameters:
Volume, V (m3): 25.37
Air Exchanges per Hour, (Q/V): 1.67
Air Flow Rate from the Room.Q (m3/hr): 42.4
* For a spherical bead:
BW= Bead Weight (g) = (Starting Weight)/(Number of Beads)
BV= Bead Volume (cm3) = (BW)/13.6 = (4 pi R3)/3, where, R = radius (cm) and pi = 3.14159
ED = Effective Diameter (cm) = 2R
(BW)/13.6 = (4 pi R3)/3, therefore, 0.01756 (BW) = R3
(Iog10 (0.01756 BW))/3 = Iog10 R, where, Iog10 = base 10 logarithm
Therefore, ED = 2R = 2 (10K|°91°<°°1™BW»'3l)
73
-------
TABLE 5
Mercury Emission Rate Data Based on Empirical Model
Bead Parameters
Starting Weight, g
7.051
7.051
7.051
7.051
7.051
7.0043
6.9842
1.1058
1.1446
1.1256
1 .0387
2.4381
2.4381
2.4353
2.4353
8.3869
9.6181
8.3809
10.000
Number of Beads
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
Effective Bead
Diameter, cm
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.520
0.519
0.538
0.544
0.541
0.526
0.700
0.700
0.699
0.699
1.056
1.106
1.056
0.520
Effective
Surface Area
(50%)
0.4263
0.4263
0.4263
0.4263
0.4263
0.4244
0.4236
0.4537
0.4642
0.4591
0.4351
0.7686
0.7686
0.7680
0.7680
1.7514
1.9188
1 .7505
0.4243
Number Hours
864
696
528
360
168
95
46
46
48
48
22
52
144
96
126
94
48
24
217
Model - Predicted Emission
ug/hr
27.18
27.34
27.52
28.00
40.14
76.08
148.86
22.77
22.60
22.35
31.98
35.23
12.15
19.43
14.14
45.39
93.43
124.50
46.48
ug/hr/cm2
9.11
9.16
9.22
9.38
13.45
25.61
50.20
50.20
48.69
48.69
73.49
45.84
15.81
25.30
18.42
25.91
48.69
71.12
10.96
Model
Concentration
ug/m3
0.64
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.94
1.78
3.47
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.73
0.82
0.29
0.46
0.33
1.06
2.18
2.86
1.09
Mercury Vapor Concentration, ug/m3
Measured
Max
NM
NM
NM
12.78
12.78
12.66
16.31
7.42
7.38
5.60
3.35
1.70
2.45
4.15
4.15
3.30
3.80
8.65
13
Min.
NM
NM
NM
0.21
0.37
1.39
2.40
0.16
0.40
1.23
0.74
0.66
0.66
0.22
0.14
0.12
0.18
0.80
0.44
Avg.
NM
NM
NM
1.77
2.16
3.91
7.50
2.24
1.98
1.84
1.87
0.88
1.16
1.19
0.97
0.62
0.86
3.07
2.19
Predicted
Avg. Meas.
1.46
1.46
1.48
1.50
2.14
4.05
7.90
1.21
1.21
1.18
1.66
1.87
0.66
1.05
0.75
2.41
4.96
6.51
2.48
Min. Meas.
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.47
0.67
1.27
2.48
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.52
0.58
0.21
0.33
0.24
0.76
1.56
2.04
0.78
Room Parameters:
Volume, V (m3): 25.37
Air Exchanges per Hour (Q/V): 1.67
Air Flow Rate from the Room.Q (m3/hr): 42.4
avg. MQ/hr/cm2 = 96.947 * (e<-°-°188" hours> + (-0.0000033 * hours)
avg. |jg/hr = (avg. |jg/hr/cm2) * (#beads) * (bead surface area)
S = avg. ug/hr
Model cone. = (S/Q) * (1-((1-e<<0/v)*h01
Pred avg. meas. cone = 2.28 * (Model Cone)
Pred min. meas. cone. = 0.71 * (Model Cone)
°)/((Q/V)*hours)))
74
-------
TABLE 6
Final Mercury Prediction Model Data Entry
Model Based on Bead Parameters
Volume of Room (m3)
Weight of Mercury (g)
Average Mercury Droplet Diameter (cm)
Number of Hours Exposure (24 to 860)
Air Exchange Rate (Q/V)
Q (V'air leakage) (m3/hr)
Total Volume (weight/density) (cm3)
Average Volume of Each Droplet (cm3)
Number of Droplets
Average Surface Area of Each Droplet (cm2)
Total Surface Area (cm2)
Surface Area Emitting (cm2)
Average So (pg/hr/cm2)
Average Rate of Mercury Evaporation, S (pg/hr)
C (pg/m3)
Entered
25.37
10
0.5
24
1.67
Calculated
42.37
0.7353
0.0654
11.24
0.7850
8.824
4.412
71.12
313.76
Predicted average concentration = (S/Q) * (1-((1-e-((Q/v)*h°urs))/((QA/)*hours)))
S = Rate of Hg evaporation (pg/hr) = So * area(cm )
So = rate of mercury volatilization per unit area of exposed Hg
Q=airflow rate from the room (m3/hr)
S/Q= equilibrium concentration
50 percent surface area emitting
7.2 = Predicted average concentration (pg/m3) for 24 hours
Model Prediction For Exposure Period
Exposure Period
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
5 days
6 days
7 days
14 days
21 days
28 days
Exposure Hours
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
336
504
672
Average Concentration, ug/m3
7.2
5.0
3.6
2.6
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
75
-------
PHOTOGRAPHS
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 1
GOOD LUCK NECKLACE
MERCURY
Brings I uck, U^
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 2
CLOSE UP OF THE MERCURY BEAD IN NECKLACE
77
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 3
OUTSIDE VIEW OF THE TRAILER
-------
PHOTGRAPH 4
SETUP FOR AIR SAMPLING WITH PUMPS AND MONITOR
79
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 5
MERCURY USED IN EXPERIMENT 1
2 i 2.
80
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 6
MERCURY BEING DROPPED ON CARPET
81
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 7
MERCURY ON CARPET FOR EXPERIMENT 1
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 8
BROKEN CLINICAL THERMOMETER SIMULATION
ii in \\ in
BABY
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 9
EFFECT OF SURFACE AREA SIMULATION
84
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 10
SURFACE AREA REGENERATION SIMULATION
-------
PHOTGRAPH11
SIMULATION OF RITUALISTIC MERCURY IN LARGE ROOM
-------
PHOTGRAPH12
SIMULATION OF RITUALISTIC MERCURY USE IN A LARGE ROOM
87
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 13
SIMULATION OF RITUALISTIC MERCURY USE IN A LARGE ROOM
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 14
MERCURY VAPOR EMISSION RATE MEASUREMENT
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 15
CALIBRATION OF REAL TIME MONITORING INSTRUMENTS
90
-------
APPENDIX A
Data Tables
Ritualistic Use of Mercury - Simulation:
A Preliminary Investigation of Metallic Mercury Vapor
Fate and Transport in a Trailer
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA TABLES
Page No.
Al Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1 A-l
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer
A2 Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 2 A-7
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer - Small Room
A3 Broken Thermometer Simulation : Experiment 3 A-9
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer - Small Room
A4 Effect of Surface Area Simulation : Experiment 4 A-10
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer - Small Room
A5 Effect of Surface Area Simulation : Experiment 5 A-12
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer - Small Room
A6 Surface Area Regeneration Simulation : Experiment 6 A-l 5
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer - Small Room
A7 Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Home Room: Experiment 7 A-l 7
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer - Large Room
A8 Mercury Vapor Emission Rate : Experiment 8 A-21
Mercury Emission Rate
A9 Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH : A-30
Experiment 9
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer - Small Room
Al 0 Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH A-32
Experiment 10
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer - Small Room
-------
TABLE A1
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer
DATE
1/14/2002
1/15/2002
1/16/2002
1/17/2002
1/18/2002
1/29/2002
1/30/2002
1/31/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
2.12 grams of mercury was dropped
from a height of 3 feet. The large
bead splintered into several smaller beads.
Covered the tray at the end of the day.
Cover of the plastic tray removed after
1 0 days. Tray was shaken.
Tray was gently shaken.
HOURS
7
11
0-12
30
34
23-35
55
59
63
48-60
80
84
88
73-85
101
94-101
103
105
107
109
111
113
115
117
119
101-119
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
142
124-142
TEMP. °F
79.6
79.0
75.9
75.0
81.2
78.7
78.0
80.2
80.7
78.7
78.1
79.7
79.0
75.5
86.0
82.0
79.4
79.8
80.1
80.1
79.7
80.0
80.3
80.2
80.1
%RH
20.1
19.9
24.7
28.5
19.9
19.3
19.1
20.0
21.6
21.2
20.4
21.6
25.1
35.4
34.5
36.0
29.6
28.4
28.8
29.2
29.3
29.3
29.3
29.3
29.1
CONCENTRATION, ug/m3
Center
of Table
2.8
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.83
0.46
0.30
0.70
0.41
0.29
0.27
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.71
0.51
0.45
0.37
0.40
0.57
0.54
0.37
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.32
<0.34
<0.34
NIOSH
Near
Hg Source
2.8
1.9
1.5
0.92
0.85
0.49
0.29
0.76
0.40
0.24
0.23
Large
Room
1.0
0.42
0.38 and 0.34
0.30 and 0.31
0.099 and <0.095
0.40
0.088
TRACKER #2
LUMEX#1
Center of Table
A-1
-------
TABLE A1
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer
DATE
2/4/2002
2/5/2002
2/6/2002
2/7/2002
2/8/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Tray was gently shaken.
Tray was gently shaken.
Tray was not shaken.
Tray was gently shaken
Real time monitoring comparison study.
Tray was shaken.
HOURS
144
146
148
150
152
154
156
158
160
142-160
168
170
172
174
176
178
180
182
184
166-184
188
191
194
197
200
203
206
185-206
7
7
0-7
4-7
TEMP. °F
65.0
79.0
80.6
80.5
78.8
111
78.1
77.0
78.2
78.5
81.2
81.5
79.8
78.9
78.4
78.8
78.3
80.1
80.2
84.5
84.4
%RH
18.0
19.2
17.5
17.4
17.4
17.3
16.8
16.4
16.2
16.1
18.2
18.0
18.4
18.5
18.5
18.4
18.7
22.5
22.5
21.2
21.3
CONCENTRATION, ug/m3
Center
of Table
0.70
0.70
0.40
<0.32
<0.32
<0.33
<0.32
<0.33
O.31
0.30
0.25
O.17
<0.17
O.16
<0.17
O.17
<0.17
O.17
O.11
O.11
O.12
O.11
O.11
O.11
O.11
0.55
0.55
1.7
1.4
NIOSH
Near
Hg Source
Large
Room
0.12
0.055
<0.021
0.27
TRACKER #2
LUMEX#1
Center of Table
0.61
0.62
0.83
0.69
A-2
-------
TABLE A1
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer
DATE
2/11/2001
2/12/02
2/13/2002
2/14/2002
2/15/2002
2/16/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Additional 2.6 grams of mercury was
dropped from a height of 3 ft. On contact with the
carpet the bead split into several smaller beads.
(Total 4.72 g of mercury)
Additional 5.2 grams of mercury was dropped
from a height of 3 feet. On contact with the carpet
the bead split into several smaller beads.
( Total 9.92 g of mercury)
HOURS
8
14
2-14
20
26
14-26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
7
13
19
3-15
23
27
15-27
32
36
40
44
48
53
57
61
65
69
59-71
73
75
TEMP. °F
82.4
77.3
111
78.0
80.5
80.8
81.6
80.7
79.7
79.2
78.4
79.6
79.6
82.4
79.4
78.8
80.0
83.4
78.5
77.5
76.9
76.9
80.3
79.8
81.9
78.8
78.3
78.5
80.4
79.1
%RH
20.4
17.3
15.5
15.1
16.2
17.3
17.5
17.9
18.0
17.9
17.7
17.6
17.6
15.4
14.2
13.1
12.7
12.9
15.3
15.0
16.0
17.0
17.3
21.0
18.8
19.2
21.4
21.4
17.6
17.0
CONCENTRATION, ug/m3
Center
of Table
5.5
2.4
1.5
1.4
42
27
9.5
7.0
7.3
5.7
4.5
4.1
3.3
3.0
NIOSH
Near
Hg Source
Large
Room
1.5
0.60
11
3.5
<0.046
TRACKER #2
Center of
5.3
2.3
1.3
1.4
4.2
3.9
3.2
2.6
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
38
16
7.8
5.9
6.4
8.3
5.5
4.2
3.5
3.4
4.7
3.8
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.7
3.5
LUMEX#1
Table
2.7
2.2
A-3
-------
TABLE A1
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer
DATE
2/17/2002
2/18/2002
2/19/2002
2/20/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Fans on.
Additional 5.1 grams of mercury were dropped.
Smaller beads were formed on contact with the car
Fans were left on.
( Total 1 5.02 g of mercury)
HOURS
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
107
111
115
119
123
127
131
135
138
149
151
153
155
157
159
161
163
165
167
169
3
11
2-10
14
18
22
10-22
TEMP. °F
82.1
79.1
78.3
78.4
80.7
87.1
81.7
80.2
79.0
78.1
80.0
88.7
81.7
NA
NA
NA
80.1
81.0
80.1
80.0
79.9
79.8
79.8
79.8
80.0
80.4
82.8
80.9
81.2
81.1
81.3
80.5
%RH
20.9
20.2
19.6
20.4
20.0
18.1
18.3
17.3
16.9
16.4
15.4
14.2
15.9
NA
NA
NA
16.8
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.7
18.1
18.6
19.1
19.7
20.7
21.0
24.7
26.2
30.3
30.4
29.9
CONCENTRATION, ug/m3
Center
of Table
131
7.8
30
26
17
NIOSH
Near
Hg Source
Large
Room
22
10
TRACKER #2
LUMEX#1
Center of Table
6.8
3.6
2.4
2.1
1.8
2.2
1.9
1.3
0.99
0.76
0.60
0.88
1.50
1.30
0.87
0.69
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.8
3.1
3.4
139
39
30
23
26
A-4
-------
TABLE A1
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer
DATE
2/21/2002
2/22/2002
2/25/2002
2/26/2002
2/26/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Fans were turned off. Tray was gently
shaken.
Fans were left off. Tray was not shaken.
Fans were left off. Tray was not shaken.
HOURS
26
30
34
38
42
46
52
57
58
52-60
62
66
70
60-72
77
80
83
73-85
86
89
92
95
85-97
102
105
108
100-112
111
114
117
120
123
112-124
TEMP. °F
81.1
80.8
78.8
79.7
78.6
78.2
97.5
75.7
76.9
86.0
79.9
91.7
91.9
89.4
88.5
75.7
92.8
91.9
89.5
89.0
88.2
86.9
86.6
87.5
%RH
30.3
21.0
20.0
20.4
19.3
18.6
13.9
36.8
37.8
37.3
37.0
32.1
31.2
35.3
37.0
18.4
21.0
21.1
22.4
22.6
20.1
19.0
19.0
19.8
CONCENTRATION, ug/m3
Center
of Table
15
7.1
3.6
4.7
2.7
7.0
5.4
3.9
3.1
3.0
2.5
2.8
8.4
11
8.6
7.4
5.9
4.2
3.5
NIOSH
Near
Hg Source
Large
Room
5.0
2.0
2.1
1.5
3.1
2.6
TRACKER #2
LUMEX#1
Center of Table
25
16
8.2
5.8
4.2
4.4
14
6.3
8.9
4.0
3.0
3.8
5.8
5.5
4.5
5.2
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.0
3.4
7.4
9.3
7.7
7.7
6.7
5.2
4.0
3.3
4.6
A-5
-------
TABLE A1
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 1
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer
DATE
2/27/2002
2/28/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Fans were turned on. Tray was not shaken.
HOURS
129
132
135
127-139
138
141
144
147
139-151
TEMP. °F
86.0
85.2
84.9
94.1
96.4
95.0
92.1
%RH
24.1
24.5
24.5
14.4
9.6
4.0
1.7
CONCENTRATION, ug/m3
Center
of Table
12
14
13
10
8.8
7.5
7.3
NIOSH
Near
Hg Source
Large
Room
4.4
3.4
TRACKER #2
Center of
9.2
13
11
10.2
9.4
7.9
6.7
6.1
7.3
LUMEX#1
Table
5.0
6.2
5.5
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX#1 Serial Number S/N 121
A-6
-------
TABLE A2
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 2
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
\-/r\ 1 t_
3/27/2002
3/28/2002
3/29/2002
3/30/2002
3/31/2002
4/1/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
t_ An t_ rxl IVI t_ IM 1 OWIMLJI 1 IWIMO
2.00 grams of Mercury was placed on a
carpet, inside a plastic tray. Fans off.
Restart monitoring on 2/29/02, 46 hours
Restart monitoring, on 03/31/02
Restart monitoring, 116 hrs
HOURS
n wu r\o
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
48-54
56
60
55-61
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
118-126
% RH
/o r\n
15.2
15.3
16.6
17.2
19.4
18.8
19.1
20.5
21.5
21.4
20.4
20.0
19.9
21.1
21.3
21.1
20.0
18.9
19.9
21.2
21.5
21.4
23.5
23.1
23.9
25.2
25.9
25.8
25.1
NR
NR
NR
TFMD Op
1 DIVI r . r
78.3
77.4
76.5
77.1
81.2
82.5
79.4
78.8
78.5
78.5
82.6
81.6
78.8
78.5
78.4
79.6
84.6
80.5
78.8
78.7
78.4
78.5
80.8
80.1
78.8
78.0
78.1
80.7
83.9
NR
NR
NR
CONCENTRATION, [iglm3
TRACKER #2
9.9
3.9
2.0
1.2
1.5
1.9
1.6
0.90
0.60
0.60
0.66
1.0
0.68
0.63
0.47
0.44
0.44
0.61
1.0
1.4
0.89
0.50
0.40
0.32
0.29
0.35
0.30
0.22
0.18
0.15
0.43
0.40
0.25
0.26
NIOSH
0.56
0.75
0.32, 0.32
LUMEX#1
A-7
-------
TABLE A2
Simulation of Ritualistic Uses of Mercury in a Home: Experiment 2
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
\-/r\ 1 t_
4/2/2002
4/3/2002
4/4/2002
4/5/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
t_ An t_ rxl IVI t_ IM 1 OWIMLJI 1 IWIMO
Fan turned on at 11.15 AM
Restart monitoring 162
HOURS
n wu r\o
128
132
136
140
144
148
152
156
160
164
168
172
176
180
184
188
192
196
200
204
206
% RH
/o r\n
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
28.4
24.5
21.9
20.8
21.9
21.5
19.5
17.8
16.9
16.6
17.4
TFIWID '"'F
1 DIVI r . r
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
80.4
79.9
79.9
80.3
80.9
81.1
80.6
80.2
79.4
81.2
80.8
CONCENTRATION, [iglm3
TRACKER #2
0.14
0.09
0.08
0.32
0.28
0.26
0.26
0.29
1.81
4.9
3.0
1.1
0.65
0.45
0.58
0.50
0.44
0.30
0.24
0.16
0.26
NIOSH
LUMEX#1
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX#1 Serial Number S/N 121
A-8
-------
TABLE A3
Broken Thermometer Simulation: Experiments
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
4/23/2002
4/25/2002
4/26/2002
4/28/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Mercury from a clinical thermometer
was dropped on a new mercury free carpet.
carpet. Connecting door was closed and
and fans were left on. Weight of mercury: 0.7143 grams.
Monitoring at 48 hours
Fans were left running. Monitoring started 66 hrs.
Fans were left on and connecting tray shaken
door was left open.
HOURS
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
52-60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
124
128
132
136
140
144
148
152
156
160
162
TEMP. °F
84.9
84.1
81.3
80.5
84.0
83.2
84.2
81.9
81.4
81.0
83.1
82.5
81.8
81.6
80.2
79.7
85.9
86.0
85.6
82.1
81.9
80.7
84.2
83.8
83.8
81.8
81.3
81.0
81.4
82.0
82.1
81.3
82.4
83.6
85.2
83.6
81.7
80.7
79.8
87.3
%RH
17.9
16.4
15.8
15..4
15.8
17.9
17.4
16.3
16.8
17.9
19.5
21.6
30.4
28.0
26.3
25.0
23.7
23.8
22.5
21.8
20.9
20.3
20.4
22.7
23.1
23.9
26.5
33.8
42.9
45.9
45.8
44.0
40.3
37.0
34.0
32.3
29.6
28.0
26.9
24.9
CONCENTRATION, ug/m3
TRACKER #2
7.2
3.6
1.1
0.45
0.33
0.34
0.30
0.28
0.18
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.21
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.23
0.25
0.32
0.22
0.14
0.09
0.13
0.07
0.15
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.17
0.42
0.58
0.72
0.69
0.60
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.27
0.21
0.08
NIOSH
0.23, 0.23
LUMEX #1
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX #1 Serial Number S/N 121
A-9
-------
TABLE A4
Effect of Surface Area Simulation : Experiment 4
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
4/5/2002
4/6/2002
4/7/2002
4/8/2002
4/9/2002
4/10/2002
4/11/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
2.4430 grams of mercury placed in a
cavity bored into a candle, 0.635 cm ID.
Fans on.
Final weight of mercury 2.4351 g
Loss of mercury 0.0079 g
Restart Monitoring after 24 hrs
Final weight of mercury 2.4327 g
Loss of mercury 0.0022 g
Restart Monitoring after 70 hrs
Monitoring started 120 hrs.
Final weight of mercury 2.4381 g
Loss of weight 0.0054 g
HOURS
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
74
76
80
84
88
92
94
98
102
106
110
114
118
122
126
130
124-130
134
138
142
146
150
154
158
162
TEMP. °F
82.3
82.2
79.3
78.3
78.2
84.2
84.4
82.5
80.5
79.0
78.5
83.1
83.2
81.7
79.8
79.6
80.0
82.8
83.4
83.4
82.0
82.1
81.9
83.8
84.9
84.8
83.6
83.0
83.4
83.6
86.1
84.2
84.3
82.1
81.6
83.2
84.3
82.3
80.8
80.7
80.2
81.1
%RH
16.7
16.5
16.4
16.3
16.2
16.2
16.1
15.6
14.5
13.6
13.4
14.0
14.9
14.8
15.7
16.7
18.0
20.0
22.0
22.1
22.9
23.6
26.0
27.3
29.9
30.6
35.0
36.4
37.0
31.3
26.4
27.5
24.6
23.5
22.8
21.7
24.5
24.5
24.3
24.2
25.2
25.7
CONCENTRATION, M9/m3
TRACKER #2
1.7
1.0
0.61
0.39
0.32
0.33
0.90
0.58
0.40
0.34
0.19
0.28
0.33
0.36
0.31
0.27
0.28
0.36
0.80
0.79
0.68
0.49
0.41
0.40
0.38
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.38
0.37
0.38
0.46
0.36
0.44
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.26
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.24
NIOSH
0.47; 0.46
LUMEX#1
A-10
-------
TABLE A4
Effect of Surface Area Simulation : Experiment 4
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
4/30/2002
4/31/2002
5/2/2002
5/3/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Mercury (8.391 1 grams) placed inn a
cavity, 0.635 cm ID, located on top of a commercial
candle. Fans were running and connecting door
was closed.
Monitoring continued
Final weight of mercury 8.3869 grams
Loss of weight 0.0042 g
HOURS
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
46
50
54
56
60
64
68
72
76
78
TEMP. °F
85.7
84.9
83.7
83.2
82.1
86.0
88.1
88.8
84.2
82.9
83.3
85.1
82.1
83.4
84.9
83.2
83.2
83.2
86.4
85.9
87.0
%RH
26.3
27.7
30.0
30.4
30.3
28.1
28.9
27.7
26.3
27.8
29.1
29.4
35.7
37.2
38.6
39.2
38.8
37.4
30.5
28.5
26.8
CONCENTRATION, M9/m3
TRACKER #2
0.96
0.52
0.34
0.22
0.18
0.17
0.25
0.28
0.36
0.16
0.13
0.01
0.34
0.16
0.19
0.24
0.28
0.29
0.15
0.23
0.09
NIOSH
LUMEX#1
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX#1 Serial Number S/N 121
A-11
-------
TABLE A5
Effect of Surface Area Simulation : Experiment 5
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
4/12/2003
4/14/2002
4/16/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
2.4381 gram mercury bead placed in
a 1 x 1 inch plastic weighing boat.
Fans were left on. Diameter of mercury
bead, 1 cm.
Final weight at end 2.4361
Loss in weight 0.0020
Same bead weighing 2.4361 g placed in
A 1 x 1 inch plastic weighing boat.
Fans were left on.
Restart Hg Monitoring after 102 hrs
HOURS
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
128
132
136
140
144
TEMP. °F
81.8
81.6
81.6
82.0
81.8
83.4
85.5
84.3
82.3
82.7
82.6
85.7
88.5
84.8
82.3
82.7
82.6
83.6
87.1
92.6
88.0
82.4
82.8
84.4
95.7
101.2
94.3
86.1
82.6
88.8
100.8
105.2
96.8
88.5
83.2
%RH
28.3
30.6
32.3
33.2
33.9
34.6
38.2
39.3
39.0
38.6
39.0
36.7
37.4
38.8
39.4
39.5
41.0
40.0
41.5
39.4
39.1
39.9
39.2
38.5
37.7
36.9
36.5
39.0
40.3
37.5
36.0
32.0
31.7
33.0
35.1
CONCENTRATION, \iglm3
TRACKER #2
1.7
1.0
0.69
0.72
0.86
0.85
1.0
0.98
0.78
0.72
0.75
0.66
0.74
1.3
1.3
0.98
0.96
0.96
0.98
1.2
1.4
0.99
0.78
0.69
1.1
2.2
2.3
1.6
1.0
0.7
1.4
2.4
2.5
1.7
1.2
0.73
NIOSH
LUMEX #1
A-12
-------
TABLE A5
Effect of Surface Area Simulation : Experiment 5
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
4/18/2002
4/20/2002
4/22/2003
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Fresh mercury (2.4353 grams) was
placed in a 1x1 inch plastic weighing
boat. Fans were left on and connecting
door left open. Bead was 1 cm in
diameter and had a shine.
Above experiment continued.
Final weight 2.4337gms
Experiment continued
Final weight 2.4343gms
HOURS
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
126
TEMP. °F
98.8
104.9
95.3
85.8
81.0
88.1
96.0
100.9
84.6
81.1
81.3
83.7
81.9
82.1
81.7
81.4
81.4
82.4
83.1
80.4
82.0
81.0
80.0
80.2
86.7
85.0
83.7
%RH
34.8
33.7
35.7
37.1
37.0
32.9
35.1
35.8
38.0
39.9
38.2
36.9
37.5
37.6
35.1
33.2
29.7
27.3
27.4
31.8
33.2
32.2
27.0
25.3
22.2
24.4
25.5
CONCENTRATION, \iglm3
TRACKER #2
3.0
4.1
3.4
2.5
1.6
1.0
1.2
1.9
1.8
1.2
0.88
0.79
0.75
0.70
0.59
0.49
0.34
0.26
0.31
0.35
0.29
0.27
0.22
0.22
0.62
0.51
0.54
0.32
0.25
0.14
0.23
0.30
NIOSH
LUMEX #1
A-13
-------
TABLE A5
Effect of Surface Area Simulation : Experiment 5
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
5/4/2002
5/5/2002
5/7/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Mercury (8.3869 grams) placed in a
2x2 inch plastic weighing dish.
Dish placed on carpet in tray.
Diameter of bead 1 .6 cm.
Fan was turned off.
Fan turned on. Monitoring continued.
Final weight 8.3809
Mercury (8.3809 grams) placed in a
2x2 inch plastic weighing dish.
Dish placed on carpet in tray.
Diameter of bead was 1.6 cm.
Fan was turned on.
Final weighing 8.3786
Loss in weight 0.0023
HOURS
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
94
4
8
4-8
12
8-12
16
12-16
20
24
TEMP. °F
86.0
83.0
81.2
81.2
90.2
86.5
83.7
82.2
82.4
82.8
87.3
88.4
82.8
83.7
83.0
90.3
91.8
88.1
82.2
83.1
83.1
90.1
93.6
94.3
88.4
81.9
81.3
89.6
90.5
%RH
23.8
22.8
22.6
22.6
22.5
24.7
24.0
23.9
23.9
24.8
25.3
25.6
28.1
28.1
28.7
28.6
29.9
28.4
29.0
28.8
30.9
30.6
33.6
34.3
35.8
38.5
38.5
32.6
32.2
CONCENTRATION, [iglm3
TRACKER #2
3.3
2.5
1.5
0.94
1.0
0.99
0.81
0.40
0.24
0.14
0.22
0.18
0.42
0.21
0.14
0.14
0.06
0.21
0.33
0.21
0.08
0.12
ND
0.12
8.7
4.7
4.8
2.6
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.73
0.80
NIOSH
8.2
3.5
2.5
LUMEX #1
7.8
4.4
4.1
2.2
2.1
1.5
1.4
0.88
0.79
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX #1 Serial Number S/N 121
ND = <0.10 ug/m3, Instrument Detection Level
A-14
-------
TABLE A6
Surface Area Regeneration Simulation: Experiment 6
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATF
LJr^ I L_
5/8/2002
5/9/2002
5/10/2002
5/11/2002
FXPFRIMFNT CONDITIONS
t/\n ^rxl IVI ^IM 1 WvxIMLJI 1 IvxIMO
0.9756 grams of mercury placed in a 2x2"
plastic weighing dish. Mercury bead
diameter, 0.5 cm. Dish placed on a
mechanical shaker, set to shake for 999
minutes at 100 cycles per minute.
Initial weight 0.9756 grams. Fans on.
Final weight 0.9730 g
Shaker off
Shaker on
Shaker off
Initial weight 0.9730 g
Final weight 0.9694 g
Shaker on
Initial weight 0.9694 g
Final weight 0.9568 g
HOURS
n \j\j r\o
4
8
12
16
20
4
8
12
16
20
24
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
50
TPIWID ^r
1 ElVlr. r
82.6
80.8
80.8
80.5
80.7
80.8
81.0
81.1
81.0
92.3
93.6
90.3
81.9
80.7
80.9
88.9
92.1
89.2
81.1
80.5
80.8
80.9
81.1
o/ pu
/o r\n
34.5
32.2
31.7
32.1
32.5
33.8
34.9
36.0
36.8
37.2
34.1
32.3
30.0
28.5
25.9
24.8
23.0
24.6
24.6
25.8
27.6
28.8
31.1
33.0
CONCENTRATION, M9/m3
TRACKER #2
2.6
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.3
2.8
3.3
3.6
3.8
3.4
2.2
5.7
7.2
6.4
4.4
2.9
0.79
0.62
0.64
0.52
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.18
NIOSH
6.6
6.1
5.6
6.2
6.5
6.4
11
8.4
13
LUMEX #1
2.1
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.1
2.5
3.0
3.2
3.5
3.2
2.3
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX #1 Serial Number S/N 121
A-15
-------
TABLE A6
Surface Area Regeneration Simulation: Experiment 6
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
5/17/2002
5/18/2002
5/20/2002
5/23/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
9.6319 grams of mercury placed in a 2x2"
plastic weighing dish. Mercury bead
diameter, 1 .5 cm. Dish placed on a
mechanical shaker, set to shake for 999
minutes at 100 cycles per minute.
Fans on.
Shaker turned off.
Initial weight 9. 631 9 g
Final weight 9. 61 96 g
Shaker turned off.
Initial weight 9. 61 96 g
Final weight 9.6181 g
Loss in weight 0.001 5 g
Mercury beads shaken, shaker turned off
Initial weight 9.6181 g
Final weight 9.6171 g
Loss in weight 0.001 Og
The mercury bead was shaken.
HOURS
4
6
8
4-8
10
12
8-12
14
16
12-16
18
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
66
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
TEMP °F
93.4
87.7
83.1
85.4
80.7
80.4
80.6
81.4
80.6
81.0
82.1
83.1
83.0
81.8
81.0
80.6
80.6
84.2
82.8
82.3
80.7
80.8
80.6
83.1
84.0
82.0
81.6
80.4
80.5
83.4
84.8
81.8
81.6
81.0
81.0
83.1
93.6
95.4
85.2
81.4
81.1
89.4
99.0
% RH
33.6
32.9
31.9
32.4
32.4
34.6
33.5
35.1
37.2
36.2
38.2
37.9
37.0
37.0
33.6
30.2
28.4
28.4
30.2
29.4
27.4
25.4
24.7
24.5
24.4
24.8
24.5
24.4
23.9
23.4
24.8
25.5
24.8
24.7
24.4
24.3
25.5
24.5
26.0
26.7
27.5
27.2
28.6
CONCENTRATION, \iglrr?
TRACKER #2
26
29
24
27
20
16
18
15
15
15
12
7.6
5.6
4.7
2.8
1.5
1.0
0.94
0.90
0.85
0.58
0.40
0.36
0.40
3.8
2.1
1.1
0.71
0.46
0.32
0.39
0.44
0.38
0.24
0.19
0.18
4.7
3.5
2.4
1.2
0.88
1.3
3.1
NIOSH
31
28
30
24
20
22
17
17
17
12
6.0
3.7
1.9
1.3
1.1
1.2
2.5
1.3
0.83
0.61
0.44
0.52
4.5
2.8
1.4
1.1
1.7
3.7
LUMEX #1
10
2.8
1.9
1.1
0.64
0.50
0.86
1.8
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX#1 Serial Number S/N 121
A-16
-------
TABLE A7
Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Home Room : Experiment 7
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Large Room
DATE
11/14/2002
11/15/2002
11/16/2002
11/17/2002
11/18/2002
11/19/2002
11/20/2002
11/21/2002
11/22/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
0.9820 gram mercury bead placed in
a 1 x 1 inch plastic weighing boat. Door closed.
Fans were left on. Diameter of mercury
bead, 0.5 cm. Exp started at 4.05 PM
(1605hrs)
End of Tracker
Download data and pick up samples
Pump #2 failed, stopped after 1 min.
Start again at 9.20 AM (0920 hrs)
End of Tracker
Download data and pick up samples
All pumps worked
Start again at 9.21 AM (0921 hrs)
HOURS
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
124
128
132
136
137
145
153
161
169
177
185
193
TEMP. °F
81.8
81.9
81.9
81.6
83.0
83.2
82.7
82.2
81.9
82.4
82.5
83.1
83.8
83.5
83.1
83.1
79.7
81.3
81.1
81.1
81.0
81.0
81.9
83.2
81.3
80.6
80.6
80.7
81.5
81.9
81.7
81.5
81.2
80.5
83.9
82.4
81.7
83.0
83.1
83.1
83.0
%RH
34.8
35.2
35.3
34.6
35.1
37.3
35.6
34.0
33.9
33.6
34.9
33.4
32.9
32.8
34.0
35.7
36.6
39.3
41.1
41.2
40.6
39.4
39.5
40.7
38.6
35.3
32.8
30.9
31.2
33.1
33.3
33.5
32.5
31.4
34.8
32.7
30.2
33.5
35.2
37.1
39.0
CONCENTRATION, M9/m3
Tracker # 1
1.7
1.0
0.31
0.13
0.22
0.39
0.28
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.13
0.15
0.13
0.17
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
Tracker # 2
1.9
1.2
0.38
0.18
0.30
0.52
0.40
0.20
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.05
0.12
0.17
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.21
0.28
0.22
0.24
0.17
0.09
*
0.12
0.11
0.05
0.12
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.15
NIOSH
1.4
0.29
0.16
**
0.17
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.13
Lumex # 2
1.4
0.78
0.26
0.14
0.23
0.36
0.23
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.16
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.034
0.037
0.045
0.055
0.07
A-17
-------
TABLE A7
Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Home Room : Experiment 7
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Large Room
DATE
11/23/2002
11/24/2002
11/25/2002
11/25/2002
11/26/2002
11/27/2002
11/28/2002
11/29/2002
11/30/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Download data and pick up samples
Start again at 0950 AM
Weight of mercury bead 0.981 4 g
Download data and pickup samples at 0940
Add 4.0 gram mercury (4 bead placed each 1 .0 g
in a 1 x 1 inch plastic weighing boat).
Fans on. Diameter of mercury
bead, 0.5 cm. Exp. started at 10:39 PM
Total wt Of mercury 5.0508 grams
0.9814, 1.0146,0.9028, 1.1252, 1.0268
Download data and pickup samples @ 0930.
Restarted new pumps and instruments @ 0955.
HOURS
201
209
209
217
225
233
241
249
257
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
101
105
109
113
117
121
TEMP. °F
82.1
82.3
82.4
81.1
80.9
83.1
81.5
81.5
83.1
82.4
82.4
81.7
80.9
81.5
83.3
82.1
81.2
81.3
80.5
81.2
82.2
81.9
81.2
80.4
79.1
79.2
81.3
80.6
80.4
80.3
79.6
79.1
81.4
80.5
80.8
80.6
81.0
81.3
%RH
38.7
35.8
24.5
22.4
21.5
23.5
22.1
20.8
25.0
26.0
24.8
23.4
22.1
21.0
21.8
21.0
20.1
20.8
21.6
21.9
23.0
22.3
20.4
20.2
19.8
19.6
20.7
20.5
19.3
18.2
17.7
17.7
24.6
24.9
25.1
25.6
25.8
26.0
CONCENTRATION, M9/m3
Tracker # 1
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
4.2
2.7
1.6
1.2
0.78
0.55
0.57
0.54
0.45
0.47
0.38
0.31
0.34
0.29
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.14
0.09
Tracker # 2
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.06
0.12
0.08
0.04
5.0
3.3
2.0
1.4
0.94
0.67
0.69
0.64
0.57
0.59
0.47
0.41
0.43
0.40
0.31
0.25
0.27
0.28
0.24
0.25
0.21
NIOSH
0.16
0.14
0.20
0.14
0.08
0.09
0.04
5.9
4.0
2.4
1.2
0.99
0.67
0.58
0.70
0.38
0.25
0.29
0.23
0.20
0.46
0.34
0.38
0.31
Lumex # 2
0.08
0.065
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.02
3.2
2.0
1.2
0.85
0.56
0.41
0.43
0.36
0.32
0.34
0.28
0.25
0.26
0.24
0.18
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.10
0.17
0.14
0.13
0.12
A-18
-------
TABLE A7
Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Home Room : Experiment 7
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Large Room
DATE
12/1/2002
12/2/2002
12/3/2002
12/4/2002
12/5/2002
12/5/2002
12/6/2002
12/7/2002
12/8/2002
12/9/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Download data and pickup samples @ 0930.
Restarted new pumps and instruments @ 1010.
Stopped @1012.
Download data and weight of mercury bead 1 ,2,
3,4,5 were 0.981 3, 1.0136,0.9022, 1.1242,
1 .0262
Add 5.0 gram mercury (5 bead placed each 1 .0
g in a 1 x 1 inch plastic weighing boat).
Fans were left on. Diameter of mercury
bead, 0.5 cm. Exp. started at 1 100.
Total wt. of mercury 10.3962 grams
Weight of mercury beads, 0.981 3, 1 .01 36, 0.9022,
1.1242, 1.0262, 1.0112,0.9856, 1.2421,
1.1419,0.9679
HOURS
125
129
133
137
141
145
149
153
157
161
165
169
173
177
181
185
189
193
201
209
307
315
323
331
8
16
24
32
40
48
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
TEMP. °F
81.7
81.6
80.5
81.3
81.1
81.4
82.3
81.5
80.4
79.8
80.6
80.2
80.6
81.0
80.5
80.7
80.2
75.6
80.3
77.0
73.4
79.9
80.3
79.9
77.4
79.4
79.7
80.8
79.1
75.8
80.5
80.9
80.7
79.2
79.8
81.4
80.8
80.7
80.1
%RH
26.6
27.3
21.4
25.8
24.4
23.0
22.7
21.9
20.5
19.8
19.7
20.3
20.7
20.8
21.1
21.1
19.9
18.7
18.6
17.5
17.7
18.7
18.6
19.4
22.5
22.0
22.2
23.0
22.5
21.2
21.9
21.5
21.4
21.5
21.5
23.7
24.4
23.8
22.1
CONCENTRATION, M9/m3
Tracker # 1
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
3.1
0.56
0.30
0.29
0.15
0.09
0.13
0.10
Tracker # 2
0.21
0.23
0.17
0.11
0.13
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.08
0.02
ND
0.03
0.06
3.70
0.67
0.41
0.38
0.23
0.18
0.19
0.19
NIOSH
0.23
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
<0.032
<0.031
<0.039
<0.036
<0.034
4.1
0.77
0.39
0.46
0.22
0.17
0.27
0.36
0.19
0.24
0.10
Lumex # 2
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
A-19
-------
TABLE A7
Simulation of Ritualistic Mercury Use in a Large Home Room : Experiment 7
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Large Room
DATE
12/10/2002
12/11/2002
12/12/2002
12/13/2002
12/14/2002
12/15/2002
12/16/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Downloaded data and changed pumps @1 100
Restated with new pumps @1 142.
One bead in dish shaken
Mercury weights 0.981 1,1. 01 34, 0.9018, 1.1236,
1.0259, 1.0114,0.9845, 1.2200, 1.1423,0.9671
HOURS
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
129
137
145
153
161
169
177
185
193
201
209
217
225
233
241
249
257
265
129
TEMP. °F
75.9
74.7
80.1
79.3
77.5
76.5
76.1
77.2
80.7
80.4
80.7
82.1
82.8
81.1
82.4
80.2
80.3
80.9
82.5
81.8
80.8
80.9
81.4
81.7
80.8
80.8
80.7
%RH
20.8
20.0
21.5
20.6
19.9
19.6
19.5
19.4
20.7
20.0
20.4
23.3
26.0
27.1
28.8
26.7
25.8
27.8
29.5
32.0
31.5
29.4
28.0
28.3
27.0
27.1
20.7
CONCENTRATION, M9/m3
Tracker # 1
0.18
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.18
Tracker # 2
0.24
0.11
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.24
NIOSH
0.07
0.06
<0.037
<0.034
0.31
0.13
0.08
0.08
0.09
<0.04
0.08
<0.032
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.3 f
Lumex # 2
0.16
0.69
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.16
TRACKER #1 Serial Number 0301/161
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX #2 Serial Number S/N 176
Instrument malfunction
** Pump did not activate
ND = <0.10 |jg/m3, Instrument Detection Level
f Pump near beads
A-20
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
6/10/2002
6/11/2002
6/12/2002
6/13/2002
6/14/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Seven mercury beads individually placed 1x1 in. plastic weighing dish.
Diameter of bead, 0.5 cm each. Total mercury weight 7.051 1 grams.
Weight of beads: 1 .0024, 1 .0666, 0.9256, 0.9068, 1 .0254, 1 .031 1 , 1 .0932
Monitored from Junel 0 to June 1 7. Fans on.
HOURS
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
TEMP. °F
89.5
92.3
94.9
95.2
90.7
85.6
81.0
77.5
74.8
72.8
74.1
80.9
90.4
96.9
101.5
102.2
98.8
94.3
90.2
86.9
84.3
82.1
82.8
91.1
97.1
100.6
100.5
93.3
90.1
87.4
84.5
79.9
76.1
73.3
72.1
72.8
75.6
78.6
80.1
78.0
75.3
73.0
71.3
70.1
69.2
68.2
67.7
67.4
%RH
42.4
43.6
42.9
42.0
42.6
43.3
44.0
45.3
46.7
48.0
47.6
45.4
45.8
46.4
45.5
44.7
45.0
46.7
48.4
49.1
49.3
49.8
49.0
43.3
45.7
45.3
46.1
53.2
55.8
57.4
58.0
57.8
57.0
56.7
56.1
55.3
54.1
52.9
52.6
53.7
54.6
55.4
56.1
56.8
57.8
59.2
60.4
61.4
CONCENTRATION, (jg/m°
TRACKER # 2
13
12
7.2
4.2
2.9
2.4
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.4
3.5
4.4
4.4
3.6
3.0
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.76
2.4
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.2
3.3
2.4
1.6
1.3
1.0
0.72
0.57
0.51
0.48
0.42
0.37
NIOSH
A-21
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
6/15/2002
6/16/2002
6/17/2002
6/17/2002
6/18/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Restart monitoring after7 days; 168 hours.
Total weight of mercury 7.0391 grams.
HOURS
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
142
144
146
148
150
152
154
156
158
160
162
164
166
168
172
174
176
178
180
182
184
186
188
190
192
194
TEMP. °F
67.4
69.2
72.1
72.8
72.3
70.9
69.6
68.4
67.2
66.2
67.3
72.4
78.1
84.3
88.1
88.3
85.2
81.5
78.0
75.3
72.7
70.3
73.3
84.9
88.9
91.9
92.9
91.5
87.3
82.2
78.0
74.7
71.6
69.2
73.1
87.7
%RH
68.9
66.0
64.7
65.2
65.4
65.7
65.8
66.1
66.1
65.5
64.6
59.7
60.7
60.3
57.5
56.1
55.9
56.3
56.3
55.7
55.9
56.5
54.1
47.7
48.9
49.2
47.6
46.8
46.7
47.2
47.4
48.3
48.9
49.5
47.2
39.0
CONCENTRATION, [iglm^
TRACKER # 2
1.4
1.1
0.90
0.82
0.87
0.93
0.99
0.98
0.92
0.80
0.80
0.80
2.4
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
3.0
4.0
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.4
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.93
0.75
1.1
10
11
8.5
6.4
4.6
3.2
2.2
1.7
1.4
1.0
0.77
1.0
NIOSH
A-22
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
6/19/2002
6/20/2002
6/21/2002
6/22/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
HOURS
196
198
200
202
204
206
208
210
212
214
216
218
220
222
224
226
228
230
232
234
236
238
240
242
244
246
248
250
252
254
256
258
260
262
264
266
268
270
272
274
276
278
280
282
284
286
288
290
TEMP. °F
88.5
92.7
95.4
94.3
89.3
83.5
78.9
75.5
73.2
71.9
73.0
84.6
83.2
86.3
88.5
90.7
87.3
82.7
78.6
75.3
72.7
70.7
73.6
86.2
87.9
90.8
92.7
92.0
88.3
83.8
79.5
76.1
73.4
71.5
74.7
86.3
90.2
94.4
96.7
97.7
93.4
88.2
83.5
80.0
77.3
75.1
75.8
87.0
%RH
44.4
44.2
43.0
42.4
42.9
46.3
48.1
49.3
50.2
51.8
51.9
44.6
51.3
51.1
50.2
48.5
49.3
50.5
51.2
52.0
52.8
53.4
51.5
45.5
47.8
47.0
45.5
45.1
46.0
46.7
48.3
49.7
50.7
51.4
49.6
44.3
46.9
46.9
45.1
43.1
43.4
44.1
45.0
45.9
46.8
47.9
47.5
42.2
CONCENTRATION, [iglm^
TRACKER # 2
1.6
2.1
2.5
2.4
1.8
1.5
1.1
0.89
0.78
0.72
0.65
0.65
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.2
0.88
0.73
0.66
0.54
0.77
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.78
0.63
0.59
0.57
0.39
0.52
0.85
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.94
0.70
0.58
0.53
0.43
0.28
NIOSH
A-23
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
6/23/2002
6/24/2002
6/25/2002
7/2/2002
7/9/2002
7/16/2002
7/16/2002
7/17/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
1 5 days; 362 hours.
Total weight of mercury 7.0347 grams
22 days (528 hours) Total weight of mercury 7.0296 grams
29 days (696 hours) Total weight of mercury 7.01 28 grams
36 days (864 hours) Total weight of mercury 7.01 03 grams
Seven mercury beads individually placed 1x1 in. plastic weighing dish.
Diameter of bead was 0.5 cm each. Total mercury weight 7.0043 grams.
Weight of beads: 0.9982, 1 .0637, 0.9235, 0.8965, 1 .0228, 1 .0238, 1 .0758
Fans on.
HOURS
292
294
296
298
300
302
304
306
308
310
312
314
316
318
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
356
358
360
362
528
696
864
2
4
6
8
10
12
4-12
14
16
TEMP. °F
92.3
97.4
100.7
101.2
97.5
92.6
88.1
84.3
80.9
78.1
78.5
87.5
93.7
98.8
101.9
101.4
97.6
93.4
89.8
86.6
83.9
82.0
84.0
95.3
99.2
103.2
103.6
102.8
99.3
95.3
92.2
89.5
87.3
85.5
86.2
89.3
98.3
101.1
103.7
100.8
96.2
91.7
87.7
84.0
%RH
44.5
44.9
43.9
42.7
42.8
43.4
44.3
44.5
44.5
45.4
45.4
41.6
43.7
43.7
42.8
42.9
43.7
44.2
44.9
46.3
47.2
48.0
46.4
41.8
44.4
44.3
44.2
44.0
44.5
45.1
46.3
47.4
47.6
48.3
48.4
47.2
35.8
34.7
32.5
32.7
32.8
33.1
33.4
33.9
CONCENTRATION, [iglm^
TRACKER # 2
0.30
0.75
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.97
0.82
0.65
0.53
0.39
0.25
0.28
0.67
0.92
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.92
0.80
0.69
0.64
0.45
0.21
0.53
0.85
0.98
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.66
0.47
0.31
NM
NM
NM
12
13
10
7.5
6.1
4.8
7.1
3.5
2.7
NIOSH
7.87
A-24
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
7/18/2002
7/18/2002
7/19/2002
7/20/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Total mercury weight 6.9974 grams
HOURS
18
20
12-20
22
24
26
28
20-28
30
32
34
36
28-36
38
40
42
44
36-44
46
48
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
55-63
65
67
69
71
63-71
73
75
77
79
71-79
81
83
85
87
79-87
89
91
93
95
87-85
TEMP. °F
80.8
79.2
84.2
95.3
99.2
103.9
107.9
107.3
104.0
100.7
97.5
94.6
92.0
89.8
92.4
101.0
105.8
106.2
105.8
104.0
100.5
96.8
93.7
91.2
88.9
87.4
89.9
95.6
100.4
100.7
98.0
95.5
89.4
85.8
83.2
81.2
81.2
79.7
78.7
82.4
%RH
34.7
36.1
35.5
32.5
34.8
34.8
34.4
35.1
35.7
36.4
37.6
38.4
39.2
40.1
38.7
34.1
37.0
37.0
36.6
36.6
37.1
38.0
39.6
40.5
41.9
42.7
41.5
40.7
40.8
41.9
43.4
46.8
59.9
64.7
67.2
69.0
69.0
70.3
71.1
68.2
CONCENTRATION, [iglm^
TRACKER # 2
2.0
1.6
2.5
1.6
2.0
3.5
4.8
3.0
5.7
6.4
6.3
5.4
6.0
4.3
3.6
3.1
2.6
3.4
2.5
3.0
2.6
3.9
4.1
4.0
3.3
2.6
2.1
4.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
2.8
1.6
2.3
2.8
2.6
2.0
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.4
2.6
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.3
3.8
NIOSH
2.71
3.76
8.81
3.91
4.95
2.6
2.58
3.21
4.17
A-25
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
7/30/2002
7/31/2002
8/1/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
End after 4days; 97 hours.
Seven mercury beads individually placed 1x1 in. plastic weighing dish.
Diameter of bead: 0.5 cm each. Total mercury weight 6.9842 grams.
Monitored from July 30 to August 5. Fans on.
Total mercury wt: 6.9787grams
HOURS
97
2
4
6
8
10
12
4-12
14
16
18
20
12-20
22
24
26
28
20-28
30
32
34
36
28-36
38
40
42
44
36-44
46
TEMP. °F
94.1
103.0
104.6
107.2
104.3
99.4
95.2
91.6
88.4
85.6
83.2
89.2
104.9
103.2
106.0
107.9
105.5
101.3
96.8
93.1
89.7
87.0
85.5
89.0
%RH
53.4
48.0
46.9
44.8
44.4
44.3
44.5
45.0
45.7
46.5
47.2
44.3
37.8
41.7
40.1
38.5
38.2
38.7
40.2
41.7
43.3
44.2
44.4
42.9
CONCENTRATION, (jg/m°
TRACKER # 2
4
13
16
15
11
8.3
6.2
9.9
4.7
3.7
3.0
2.4
3.4
2.1
3.0
3.8
4.5
3.4
5.1
5.1
4.5
3.5
4.5
2.6
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.7
NIOSH
15
4.8
5.1
6.9
3.1
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
NM: Not Measured
A-26
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
8/5/2002
8/6/2002
8/7/2002
8/12/2002
8/13/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
A mercury bead placed in a plastic weighing dish. Weight of
mercury bead 1.1058 grams and diameter of 0.5 cm.
Monitored from August 5 to August 8. Fans on.
46 hours emission - Mercury wt: 1 .1050 grams
A mercury bead placed in a plastic weighing dish. Weight of
mercury bead 1.1446 grams and diameter of 0.5 cm.
Monitored from August 1 2 to August 1 4.
HOURS
2
4
6
8
10
12
4-12
14
16
18
20
12-20
22
24
26
28
20-28
30
32
34
28-36
36
38
40
42
36-44
44
46
2
4
6
8
10
12
4-12
14
16
18
20
12-20
22
24
26
28
20-28
30
32
34
TEMP. °F
97.2
100.7
101.4
100.5
97.5
94.3
91.7
89.6
87.2
84.6
88.6
98.7
95.2
96.0
96.9
93.6
88.2
83.5
80.0
77.2
75.1
73.6
78.8
98.6
105.0
106.9
107.2
104.0
99.8
96.1
93.0
93.0
87.9
87.8
96.4
96.4
107.9
110.8
110.4
106.2
%RH
54.8
53.3
52.5
52.4
52.2
52.6
53.1
54.0
54.0
52.7
48.7
38.9
41.8
40.2
38.6
38.4
38.7
39.1
39.7
40.7
41.8
42.6
40.6
43.6
42.4
41.2
40.0
40.7
41.6
41.9
42.1
42.1
44.1
44.1
40.4
40.4
40.5
39.0
37.9
38.0
CONCENTRATION, [iglmZ
TRACKER # 2
4.7
7.4
6.7
5.5
4.4
3.5
5.1
2.8
2.5
2.1
1.8
2.3
0.95
0.74
0.90
1.1
0.91
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.68
0.51
0.43
0.50
0.36
0.16
5.7
7.4
5.3
4.1
3.1
2.5
3.7
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.2
1.9
NIOSH
6.0
2.7
1.4
1.1
0.45
4.7
2.0
2.9
A-27
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiment 8
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
8/14/2002
8/14/2002
8/15/2002
8/16/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
47 hours emission - Mercury wt: 1 .1432 grams
A mercury bead placed in a plastic weighing dish. Weight of
mercury bead 1.1256 grams and diameter of 0.5 cm.
Monitored from August 1 4 to August 1 6. Fans on.
48 hours emission - Mercury wt: 1 .1243 grams
HOURS
36
28-36
38
40
42
44
36-44
46
48
2
4
6
8
10
12
4-12
14
16
18
20
12-20
22
24
26
28
20-28
30
32
34
36
28-36
38
40
42
44
36-44
46
48
TEMP. °F
101.5
97.4
94.1
91.4
88.8
88.8
96.2
101.5
107.0
110.0
109.6
105.4
100.5
96.0
92.0
89.1
87.4
86.8
95.4
101.0
105.8
108.2
108.0
104.3
100.1
96.7
93.9
91.9
90.4
89.4
89.7
%RH
39.3
39.9
40.4
41.3
42.4
42.6
40.8
43.9
42.4
40.8
39.5
39.4
39.7
39.8
40.9
43.3
45.2
46.4
42.8
43.3
42.9
40.7
40.1
41.6
43.2
44.8
46.4
47.6
48.7
49.5
49.4
CONCENTRATION, [jg/rnS
TRACKER # 2
1.5
2.0
1.0
0.93
0.79
0.66
0.85
0.55
0.40
4.4
5.6
4.8
3.4
2.2
1.8
3.1
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
NIOSH
2.6
0.96
3.8
1.5
2.5
2.2
1.7
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
A-28
-------
TABLE A8
Mercury Vapor Emission Rate: Experiments
Mercury Emission Rate
DATE
8/19/2002
8/20/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
A mercury bead placed in a plastic weighing dish. Weight of
mercury bead 1 .0387 grams and diameter of 0.5 cm.
Monitored from August 19 to August 20. Fans on.
22 hours emission - Mercury wt. 1 .0380
HOURS
2
4
6
8
8-12
10
12
14
16
12-16
18
20
16-20
22
TEMP. °F
101.5
105.8
108.6
107.2
103.3
98.4
94.6
91.8
90.1
86.2
84.8
%RH
40.1
40.3
39.3
38.8
38.9
39.7
41.8
43.4
44.3
50.9
52.8
CONCENTRATION, M9'm3
LUMEX# 2
2.9
3.4
3.1
2.8
1.9
2.3
1.5
1.1
0.96
1.0
1.0
0.94
0.97
0.74
NIOSH
3.9
2.1
1.9
LUMEX #2 Serial Number S/N 176
A-29
-------
TABLE A9
Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH: Experiment 9
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
12/18/2002
12/19/2002
12/20/2002
12/21/2002
12/22/2002
12/23/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Place 10.0 gram mercury (10 beads placed each,
1.0 gm in a 1 x 1 inch plastic weighing boat).
Fans were left on. Diameter of mercury
bead, 5cm. Exp started at 0900.
Weight of mercury beads: 1.1161; 1.2460; 1.0356;
1.0741; 0.8714; 1.1427; 1.0197; 1.0704; 1.0849
1.2025
Total weight: 10.8634
Tracker reading near beads was 0.32 ug/m3
after 120 hours.
HOURS
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
TEMP. °F
81.0
88.2
86.9
87.1
87.1
87.9
87.8
88.2
88.5
88.1
88.5
88.8
89.4
90.3
88.7
87.7
87.9
87.7
89.0
88.1
88.0
87.7
87.6
87.5
88.8
89.7
88.3
88.4
87.8
88.0
%RH
19.1
18.3
17.9
17.6
17.5
18.2
20.1
21.6
22.3
23.6
25.1
27.9
32.0
32.4
28.9
25.7
23.9
23.2
22.9
22.1
22.6
21.9
21.5
21.2
21.4
22.5
22.9
23.2
21.8
20.6
CONCENTRATION, (JQ/m3
TRACKER #1
7.2
3.5
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.6
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.2
3.1
2.6
2.2
1.4
0.96
TRACKER # 2
8.4
4.1
1.9
1.4
1.2
1.4
2.0
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.6
3.7
3.1
2.6
1.7
1.2
NIOSH
6.9
2.0
1.6
2.8
3.3
3.9
**
1.8
1.6
1.2
**
0.50
0.49
0.64
0.40
LUMEX #2
5.5
2.6
1.1
0.78
0.72
0.81
*
A-30
-------
TABLE A9
Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH: Experiment 9
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
12/24/2002
12/25/2002
12/26/2002
12/27/2002
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Download data and weighed the beads.
Started at 10.24 AM.
1.1102; 1.2429; 1.0300; 1.0662; 0.8710;
1.1418; 1.0143; 1.0677; 1.0700; 1.2002
Total 10.8143
1.1129; 1.2446; 1.0304; 1.0728; 0.8709; 1.1411;
1.0180; 1.0697; 1.0836; 1.2000
Total=1 0.8440
HOURS
121
125
129
133
137
141
145
149
153
157
161
165
169
173
177
181
185
189
193
197
201
205
209
213
217
TEMP. °F
77.4
77.4
76.8
77.4
76.7
77.5
77.2
76.9
76.8
76.8
76.9
77.4
77.1
76.6
77.0
77.2
76.6
76.9
77.3
78.2
77.4
77.1
76.8
76.8
%RH
16.7
16.4
15.9
15.6
15.1
14.7
15.3
15.0
15.0
16.3
17.6
19.1
21.5
20.8
20.5
19.6
18.5
17.8
18.0
18.4
18.4
18.1
17.7
17.5
CONCENTRATION, (JQ/m3
TRACKER #1
10.3
4.6
2.5
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.89
0.71
0.82
0.75
TRACKER # 2
12.3
5.5
3.0
2.2
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.85
0.97
0.92
NIOSH
7.2 f
13.0
**
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.44
0.65
0.80
LUMEX #2
7.5
3.3
1.8
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.95
0.78
0.76
0.66
0.50
0.59
0.56
0.56
0.64
0.70
0.73
0.42
0.29
0.27
0.43
TRACKER #1 Serial Number 0301/161
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
LUMEX #2 Serial Number S/N 176
Instrument malfunction
Pump did not activate
f Pump near beads
ND = <0.10 ug/m , Instrument Detection Level
A-31
-------
TABLE A10
Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH: Experiment 10
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
3/2/2003
3/3/2003
3/4/2003
3/5/2003
3/6/2003
3/7/2003
3/8/2003
3/9/2003
3/10/2003
3/11/2003
3/12/2003
3/13/2003
3/14/2003
3/15/2003
3/16/2003
3/17/2003
3/17/2003
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Place 2.0 gram mercury as a bead on the carpet
Fans were left on. Started at 1135.
Start pumps at 1235.
Start pumps at 1607
Start pumps at 0930
HOURS
6
12
18
24
25
27
33
39
45
51
53
55
59
65
71
77
83
89
95
101
107
113
117
119
121
125
131
137
143
149
155
161
167
173
179
185
190
214
238
262
286
310
334
360
362
366
372
TEMP. °F
81.9
82.5
81.7
80.5
82.3
77.9
77.4
77.2
77.8
78.4
78.2
77.7
77.0
78.2
77.2
76.0
75.2
77.7
77.1
77.0
76.8
76.9
77.5
77.7
77.5
78.1
79.8
78.7
76.9
76.5
81.5
84.9
79.7
% RH
15.7
13.3
11.6
11.3
13.0
21.2
21.3
22.4
25.7
29.4
30.8
29.2
27.1
25.1
23.3
21.3
20.1
21.9
24.2
23.9
23.5
23.6
31.6
30.2
27.3
28.2
29.9
25.3
20.9
19.0
37.9
37.2
38.1
CONCENTRATION, [iglm6
TRACKER # 1
1.2
0.81
0.65
0.51
0.52
0.72
0.69
0.66
0.67
0.76
0.54
1.4
3.3
1.9
TRACKER #2
Data lost
Could not
locate
downloaded
file
1.3
1.4
1.7
3.4
4.4
3.2
1.9
1.2
0.89
0.70
0.51
1.2
3.4
1.9
NIOSH
1.6,1.7
0.77, 0.82
0.75, 0.74
1.0,1.0
1.6
1.9
3.8
4.7
3.4
2.1
1.4
1.0
0.76
0.58
0.92
0.72
0.56
0.54
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.82
0.60
4.0
2.1
LUMEX #2
1.4
1.3
1.5
3.0
3.9
2.8
1.7
Instrument
Failed
in the first
zeroing
period
1.3
3.1
1.6
LUMEX #3
3.40
1.3
0.64
0.59
0.84
LUMEX #4
A-32
-------
TABLE A10
Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH: Experiment 10
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
3/18/2003
3/19/2003
3/20/2003
3/21/2003
3/22/2003
3/23/2003
3/24/2003
3/25/2003
3/26/2003
3/27/2003
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
At 1 000 hrs the computer for Lumex showed
malfunction. Data not collected from 0437
o 1037.
Start pumps at 1530
Start monitoring
Start pumps at 1450.
Monitoring started at 0900.
HOURS
378
384
390
396
402
408
414
420
437
439
443
449
455
461
467
473
479
485
491
497
503
509
515
517
523
529
533
536
540
544
548
552
556
558
562
566
570
574
578
582
586
590
594
598
599
603
607
611
TEMP °F
78.2
78.1
80.3
77.9
77.9
78.1
78.3
78.0
78.0
78.3
78.0
78.0
79.6
78.7
78.5
79.5
86.9
80.9
77.9
78.2
83.6
79.4
78.3
77.8
78.9
82.6
77.8
78.3
78.1
80.1
79.3
85.2
85.6
80.3
77.7
77.8
77.6
84.6
86.8
78.8
77.8
77.6
77.7
82.2
84.6
78.9
% RH
37.0
36.2
36.5
33.4
31.4
28.7
27.2
25.3
30.8
31.5
37.0
40.6
43.1
48.4
46.1
42.7
42.4
37.9
34.4
32.0
32.8
32.4
30.9
30.2
30.4
31.0
31.6
29.8
28.9
31.5
30.1
31.6
32.2
31.7
30.4
29.5
30.6
32.6
33.4
34.1
33.5
32.1
31.1
32.2
32.5
31.5
CONCENTRATION, [iglm6
TRACKER # 1
1.2
0.89
0.74
0.54
0.38
0.32
0.28
0.21
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.6
2.5
2.4
2.1
1.8
2.1
1.6
0.83
1.1
0.73
0.58
0.51
0.68
0.70
0.72
0.67
0.38
0.36
0.35
0.25
0.54
0.50
0.42
0.31
0.69
0.92
0.82
TRACKER #2
1.1
0.90
0.77
0.55
0.40
0.33
0.29
0.22
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.6
2.5
2.4
2.1
1.8
2.2
1.6
0.80
1.2
0.74
0.62
0.56
0.66
0.76
0.70
0.71
0.42
0.42
0.33
0.30
0.58
0.52
0.44
0.36
0.67
0.94
0.81
NIOSH
1.4
0.96
0.87
0.61
0.45
0.37
0.32
0.24
1.3
1.7
2.8
1.9
2.4
0.86
0.47
0.59
0.40
0.37
0.32
0.43
0.60
0.35
LUMEX #2
1.0
*
0.70
0.51
0.37
0.30
0.26
0.21
LUMEX #3
LUMEX #4
*
*
*
*
2.9
2.7
2.3
2.0
2.5
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.60 **
1.1 ***
0.83
0.68
0.64
0.79
1.0
0.82
0.58
0.43
0.39
0.39
0.49
0.64
0.80
0.43
0.35
0.94
1.1
0.78
A-33
-------
TABLE A10
Investigation to Determine Significant Differences Between Lumex and NIOSH: Experiment 10
Mercury Vapor Monitoring in a Trailer: Small Room
DATE
3/28/2003
3/29/2003
3/30/2003
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
HOURS
615
619
623
627
631
635
639
643
647
651
655
659
TFMP °F
78.0
77.9
77.6
79.3
78.0
78.1
78.5
78.5
77.6
79.3
84.4
79.9
% RH
29.5
29.0
29.4
30.8
32.0
32.8
33.9
36.1
38.3
41.3
42.5
47.3
CONCENTRATION, vglm*
TRACKER # 1
0.51
0.48
0.37
0.46
0.39
0.34
0.30
0.36
0.39
0.39
0.28
0.54
TRACKER #2
0.53
0.49
0.46
0.48
0.43
0.33
0.32
0.37
0.44
0.41
0.37
0.58
NIOSH
LUMEX #2
LUMEX #3
LUMEX #4
0.56
0.54
0.52
Lumex #2 Serial Number SN176 (EPA unit)
New software was installed.
Calibration Factor: 843
Lumex # 3 Serial Number SN 215 (on loan from Lumex)
New software was installed.
Calibration Factor: 696
TRACKER #1 Serial Number 0301/161
Calibration Factor 1.40
TRACKER #2 Serial Number 0301/168
Calibration Factor 1.37
* Computer malfunction
shut off between 0437 to 1020
** Sampled between 0849-1449
— Sampled between 1710-1850
Lumex # 4 Serial Number SN 188 (EPA unit)
New software was installed.
Laboratory Calibration Factor: 938
A-34
-------
APPENDIX B
Excel Spreadsheet for Predicting Average Mercury Concentration
as a Function of Hours of Exposure
Ritualistic Use of Mercury - Simulation:
A Preliminary Investigation of Metallic Mercury Vapor
Fate and Transport in a Trailer
-------
Mercury Concentration Prediction Model:
User Entered Parameters
Room volume (cubic meters) 200
Weight of mercury spilled (grams) 10
Mercury average droplet diameter (centimeters) 0.5
Number of hours exposure (minimum 24; maximum 860) 860
Air exchange rate (# of room exchanges per hour) 1
Predicted Concentration (jjg/m3)
Predicted Average Concentration for 860 hours exposure 0.2
B-1
-------
PREDICTED AVERAGE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS:
24-HOUR TO 4-WEEK (28-DAY) PERIODS
Exposure Period
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
5 days
6 days
7 days
14 days
21 days
28 days
Exposure Hours
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
336
504
672
Model Prediction:
Average Concentration
for Exposure Period
ug/m3
1.5
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
User-entered parameters:
Room volume (cubic meters): 200
Weight of mercury (grams): 10
Mercury average droplet diameter (centimeters): 0.5
Air exchange rate (room exchanges per hour): 1
B-2
------- |