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

-------