Domestic accidental mercury vapor intoxication in families

Kasznia-Kocot, Joanna; Dąbkowska, Beata; Muszyńska-Graca, Maja; Brewczyński, Piotr Z.; Złotkowska, Renata

doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdm088

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, atmospheric mercury supposes two types of risks for human heath: (1) a direct one, related to the inhalation of gaseous mercury (at work/home), resulting in a diversity of effects on human physiology (Clarkson and Magos 2006;WHO 2000). For some examples, see: Al-Batanony et al (2013); Aymaz et al (2001); Bose-O'Reilly et al (2010a, b); Echeverria et al (1995); Gul Oz et al (2012); Kasznia-Kocot et al (2008); Saleem et al (2013); Smith et al (1970Smith et al ( , 2013; Yuen et al (2000); and (2) collateral risks, related to changes in mercury species, for example, gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) into reactive gaseous mercury (RGM), or RGM into methylmercury (increasing health risks; Lindqvist and Rodhe 1985;Holmes et al 2010;Lin and Pehkonen 1999;Bernhoft 2012;Chan and Egeland 2004;Grandjean et al 2010, among many others). This is the reason why international programs for atmospheric mercury monitoring have been promoted worldwide (Fu et al 2012;Pacyna et al 2010;Pirrone et al 2013;Selin et al 2007;Sprovieri et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A compilation of field surveys on gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) from contrasting environmental settings in Europe, South America, South Africa and China: separating fads from facts

Higueras

Oyarzún

Kotnik

et al. 2013

Environ Geochem Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mercury is transported globally in the atmosphere mostly in gaseous elemental form (GEM, [Formula: see text]), but still few worldwide studies taking into account different and contrasted environmental settings are available in a single publication. This work presents and discusses data from Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, China, Croatia, Finland, Italy, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Slovenia and Venezuela. We classified the information in four groups: (1) mining districts where this contaminant poses or has posed a risk for human populations and/or ecosystems; (2) cities, where the concentration of atmospheric mercury could be higher than normal due to the burning of fossil fuels and industrial activities; (3) areas with natural emissions from volcanoes; and (4) pristine areas where no anthropogenic influence was apparent. All the surveys were performed using portable LUMEX RA-915 series atomic absorption spectrometers. The results for cities fall within a low GEM concentration range that rarely exceeds 30 ng m(-3), that is, 6.6 times lower than the restrictive ATSDR threshold (200 ng m(-3)) for chronic exposure to this pollutant. We also observed this behavior in the former mercury mining districts, where few data were above 200 ng m(-3). We noted that high concentrations of GEM are localized phenomena that fade away in short distances. However, this does not imply that they do not pose a risk for those working in close proximity to the source. This is the case of the artisanal gold miners that heat the Au-Hg amalgam to vaporize mercury. In this respect, while GEM can be truly regarded as a hazard, because of possible physical-chemical transformations into other species, it is only under these localized conditions, implying exposure to high GEM concentrations, which it becomes a direct risk for humans.

show abstract