Comparison of Indoor Mercury Vapor in Common Areas of Residential Buildings with Outdoor Levels in a Community Where Mercury Is Used for Cultural Purposes

Abstract

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.

Mercury vapor in residential building common areas in communities where mercury is used for cultural purposes versus a reference community

“…Based on our prior investigation and the documented availability of Hg 0 for cultural purposes, we selected two contiguous municipalities in northern New Jersey as our study community (S1) (Garetano et al, 2006;Riley et al, 2001;Stern et al, 2003). During the course of our research, local public health officials in Rockland County, New York, approximately 32 km north of S1, requested our assistance in monitoring Hg 0 vapor in selected buildings.…”

“…Based on our prior investigation, we determined this building configuration typically contained accessible common areas that adjoin entrances to residential units (Garetano et al, 2006). 672 buildings met these criteria in S1 while 49 met the criteria in C1.…”

“…We evaluated 62 buildings in S1 and 39 buildings in C1. The buildings in S1 did not duplicate those assessed in our earlier investigation (Garetano et al, 2006). In the secondary study community (S2), we evaluated a targeted non-random sample of 21 buildings identified by public health officials.…”

“…Direct measurement of Hg 0 vapor with this instrument is accurate compared with sampling and analysis by laboratory methods and the instrument is suitable for characterizing ambient Hg 0 vapor levels in real time with a detection level of 2 ng/m 3 (Baker et al, 2005;Garetano et al, 2006;Singhvi et al, 2005). This instrument, the size of a large briefcase, is readily portable, and provides real-time readings, allowing many samples to be obtained in a short period of time.…”

“…EPA, 2002). We previously measured Hg 0 vapor levels in the common areas of residential buildings in a community where cultural mercury use exists and found indoor concentrations significantly greater than outdoors (Garetano et al, 2006). In an attempt to determine whether mercury vapor in common areas of residential buildings can serve as a signal of significant cultural use in addition to spillage from other sources, we have revisited the community previously studied, conducted additional sampling and compared our findings with a reference community.…”