Mercury Vapor Determination in Hospitals

Abstract

The measurements of metallic mercury vapor were carried out in seven local hospitals, where mercury-containing products are widely used, as well as in one residence to check effectiveness of decontamination after mercury spillage. Hopcalite as a solid sorbent was used in active and passive sampling methods, and mercury was analyzed by CV-AAS technique. Good agreement was found between results of mercury measurements using active samplers (pumped hopcalite adsorption tubes) and passive (diffusion) monitors applied in indoor atmosphere. The results indicated the presence of metallic mercury vaporization sources in the assessed hospital rooms but in the majority of cases mercury levels did not exceed 1 microg/m3 i.e. Polish permissible concentration for residence. However, in some of the hospital rooms, elevated concentrations of mercury vapor were found and airborne levels of up to 13.9 microg/m3 were recorded. Higher concentrations of mercury vapor were observed in autumn season when compared to summer.

Passive air sampling of gaseous elemental mercury: a critical review

“…3a; Skov et al, 2007). The wind speed effect on GEM uptake in this sampler is similar to what has been observed for the uptake of benzene also using a Radiello ® -based diffusive barrier (Pennequin-Cardinal et al, 2005;Plaisance et al, 2002). However, Skov et al (2007) did not test wind speeds between 0.002 and 2.75 m s −1 (region of greatest effect on SR), and adding a linear trend line improved the relationship from the power trend line that was originally fitted to the data (Fig.…”

“…Diffusive samplers assume the presence of a laminar layer of stagnant air surrounding the sorbent, with the rate-limiting step for analyte uptake in most samplers being diffusion through this layer (Shoeib and Harner, 2002). Wind has the effect of increasing SRs by decreasing the thickness of the stagnant air layer, essentially reducing the diffusive path length and in turn leading to increased and/or more variable SRs 2005; Plaisance et al, 2002;Zhang et al, 2012). Four studies exposed their samplers to controlled GEM concentration at different wind speeds, again with divergent results.…”

“…However, the active measurements were taken by pumping air across the same hopcalite sorbent used in the PAS and it was itself still being developed. Prokopowicz and Mniszek (2005) then tested the same passive and active sampling setups in seven hospitals and one residence across Poland that also had elevated GEM. Here, results were much closer, with the relative percent difference of passive measurements from active measurements being 16.2 ± 15.1 % (Prokopowicz and Mniszek, 2005).…”

“…Prokopowicz and Mniszek (2005) then tested the same passive and active sampling setups in seven hospitals and one residence across Poland that also had elevated GEM. Here, results were much closer, with the relative percent difference of passive measurements from active measurements being 16.2 ± 15.1 % (Prokopowicz and Mniszek, 2005). The higher limits of detection for the sampling method used meant the PAS could not be used for deployments at background concentrations of GEM.…”

Passive air sampling of gaseous elemental mercury: a critical review

“…Mercury has been regulated by national agencies, international agreements, and most recently on a global scale through the United Nations Environmental Programme Minamata Convention (Driscoll et al, 2013;Pandey et al, 2011;Renner, 1999;UNEP, 2013). Under the Minamata Convention Hg mining is to be phased out, air emissions are to be controlled, and artisanal/small-scale gold mining is to be regulated (UNEP, 2013).…”