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 ------- |