Search

Elemental mercury has been imbued with magical properties for millennia, and various cultures use elemental mercury in a variety of superstitious and cultural practices, raising health concerns for users and residents in buildings where it is used. As a first step in assessing this phenomenon, we compared mercury vapor concentration in common areas of residential buildings versus outdoor air, in two New Jersey cities where mercury is available and is used in cultural practices. We measured mercury using a portable atomic absorption spectrometer capable of quantitative measurement from 2 ng/m3 mercury vapor. We evaluated the interior hallways in 34 multifamily buildings and the vestibule in an additional 33 buildings. Outdoor mercury vapor averaged 5 ng/m3; indoor mercury was significantly higher (mean 25 ng/m3; p<0.001); 21% of buildings had mean mercury vapor concentration in hallways that exceeded the 95th percentile of outdoor mercury vapor concentration (17 ng/m3), whereas 35% of buildings had a maximum mercury vapor concentration that exceeded the 95th percentile of outdoor mercury concentration. The highest indoor average mercury vapor concentration was 299 ng/m3, and the maximum point concentration was 2,022 ng/m3. In some instances, we were able to locate the source, but we could not specifically attribute the elevated levels of mercury vapor to cultural use or other specific mercury releases. However, these findings provide sufficient evidence of indoor mercury source(s) to warrant further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Exposure to elemental mercury (Hg0) in residential buildings can occur from accidental spills, broken objects (thermometers, fluorescent fixtures, thermostats), and deliberate introduction, one mode of which involves cultural practices by individuals who believe dispersal of mercury in a residence will bring luck, enhance health or ward off harm., Objectives: To determine whether mercury vapor levels in common areas of residential buildings is higher in a community where cultural uses are likely (study areas S1, S2) than in a reference community (C1) where cultural use is unlikely, and whether levels can serve as a signal of significant cultural mercury use., Methods: We monitored Hg0 vapor with a portable spectrophotometer in the three communities. We randomly selected sites in S1 and C1 community, and also include sites in S2 specified by local health officials who suspected cultural mercury use. We evaluated 122 multifamily buildings and 116 outdoor locations., Findings: We found >25 ng/m3 Hg0 in 14% of buildings in study areas compared to only one reference building. In the latter we identified an accidental mercury spill from a bottle that had been brought into the building. Both the mean and maximum indoor mercury vapor levels were greater in the study communities than in the reference community. In all communities, we observed mean indoor Hg0 vapor concentration greater than outdoors, although in two-thirds of buildings, indoor levels did not exceed the area-specific outdoor upper-limit concentration., Conclusion: After controlling for factors that might influence Hg0 vapor levels, the most plausible explanation for greater Hg0 levels in the study area is a relationship to cultural use of mercury. None of the measured levels exceeded the ATSDR minimum risk level for residences of 200 ng/m3 Hg0 although levels in living quarters might be greater than those in the common areas.

Indoor air quality has been increasingly recognized as a significant public health problem. Proximity to industrial or commercial sources contributes to contamination in homes. Air sampling was conducted at 12 residences in 8 buildings that housed dry cleaners and 6 residential control sites. The authors found that concentrations of tetrachloroethylene, a dry-cleaning solvent, were elevated significantly in residences located in buildings that also housed dry-cleaning establishments (mean = 2.0 mg/m3) relative to their concentrations in control residences (mean = < 0.07 mg/m3 [p < .001]). Tetrachloroethylene concentrations remained elevated when the cleaners were closed on weekends (p < .01). The authors verified that colorimetric detector tubes were a useful screening tool for residences. Also identified were factors that could affect tetrachloroethylene concentrations. The use of exhaust fans and the implementation of required inspection and maintenance requirements by dry cleaners were associated significantly with reduced tetrachloroethylene concentrations in residences (p < .01). In all cases, tetrachloroethylene concentrations exceeded "minimal risk levels" posited by the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry for chronic exposure to tetrachloroethylene. Residents who live in buildings that house dry cleaners may be exposed at concentrations that are of public health concern. Measures that might reduce this exposure were also identified.