Methylmercury in the United States: Assessing the Threat of Not Regulating Mercury Emissions
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Science
Volume 1, Issue 1, November 2016, Pages: 7-12
Received: Oct. 23, 2016; Accepted: Nov. 10, 2016; Published: Dec. 8, 2016
Views 2507      Downloads 74
Author
Michael M. Persun, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Mercury pollution has recently become a significant topic of conversation within the United States following the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). MATS sought to regulate the pollution released from oil and coal-fired power plants, the top producers of mercury air pollution in the United States. Successful implementation of MATS would have effectively reduced the volume of elemental mercury released into the atmosphere, thereby, reducing the American populous’ exposure to the element’s more toxic form, methylmercury. This review assesses the current status of mercury emissions and the resulting exposure of the public to both elemental and methylmercury within the United States.
Keywords
Methylmercury, Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants, Pollution, Air Pollution, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
To cite this article
Michael M. Persun, Methylmercury in the United States: Assessing the Threat of Not Regulating Mercury Emissions, International Journal of Energy and Environmental Science. Vol. 1, No. 1, 2016, pp. 7-12. doi: 10.11648/j.ijees.20160101.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Sunderland, E. M, Driscoll, C. T., Hammit, J. K., Grandjean, P., Evans J. S., Blum, J. D., Chen, C. Y, Evers, D. C., Jaffe, D. A., Mason, R. P. Goho, S., & Jacobs, W. (2016). Benefits of regulating hazardous air pollutants from coal and oil- fired utilities in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 2117-2120.
[2]
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury and air toxics standards: Regulatory actions. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from https://www3.epa.gov/mats/actions.html
[3]
Ye, B., Kim, B., Jeon, M., Kim, S., Kim, H., Jang, T., Chae, H., Choi, W., Ha, M. & Hong, Y. (2016). Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28(5).
[4]
Grandjean, P.; Satoh, H.; Murata, K.; Eto, K. (2010). Adverse effects of methylmercury: Environmental health research implications. Environ. Health Perspect. 118 (8), 1137−1145.
[5]
Yorifuji, T.; Tsuda, T.; Inoue, S.; Takao, S.; Harada, M. (2011). Long-term exposure to methylmercury and psychiatric symptoms in residents of Minamata, Japan. Environ. Int. 37 (5), 907−913.
[6]
Driscoll, C. T., Mason, R. P., Chan, H. M., Jacob, D. J., & Pirrone, N. (2013). Mercury as a global pollutant: Sources, pathways, and effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 4967-4983.
[7]
United Nations Environmental Programme. (2013). Global mercury assessment 2013: Sources, emissions, releases and environmental transport. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from, http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/GlobalMercuryAssessment2013.pdf
[8]
Ward, D. M., Nislow, K. H., & Folt, C. L. (2010). Bioaccumulation syndrome: identifying factors that make some stream food webs prone to elevated mercury bioaccumulation. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1195, 62-83.
[9]
Wang, X.; Bao, Z.; Lin, C.; Yuan, W.; Feng, X. (2016). Assessment of Global Mercury Deposition through Litterfall. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 8548-8557.
[10]
Holmes, C. D., Jacob, D. J., & Yang, X. (2006). Global lifetime of elemental mercury against oxidation by atomic bromine in the free troposphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33.
[11]
Goodsite, M. E., Plane, J. M. C., & Skov H. (2004). A theoretical study of the oxidation of Hg0 to HgBr2. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(6), 1772-1776.
[12]
Holmes, C. D.; Jacob, D. J.; Corbitt, E. S.; Mao, J.; Yang, X.; Talbot, R.; Slemr, F. (2010). Global atmospheric model for mercury including oxidation by bromine atoms. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10 (24), 12037−12057.
[13]
Slemr, F.; Brunke, E.-G.; Ebinghaus, R.; Kuss, J. (2011). Worldwide trend of atmospheric mercury since 1995. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 4779−4787.
[14]
Hedgecock, I. M.; Pirrone, N. (2001). Mercury and photochemistry in the marine boundary layer-modelling studies suggest the in situ production of reactive gas phase mercury. Atmos. Environ. 35 (17), 3055−3062.
[15]
Dibble, T. S.; Zelie, M. J.; Mao, H. (2012). Thermodynamics of reactions of ClHg and BrHg radicals with atmospherically abundant free radicals. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 12, 10271−10279.
[16]
Pirrone, N.; Cinnirella, S.; Feng, X.; Finkelman, R. B.; Friedli, H. R.; Leaner, J.; Mason, R.; Mukherjee, A. B.; Stracher, G. B.; Streets, D. G.; Telmer, K. (2010). Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10 (13), 5951−5964.
[17]
Schroeder, W. H.; Munthe, J. Atmospheric mercury – An overview. (1998). Atmos. Environ. 32, 809−822.
[18]
Gilmour, C. C.; Henry, E. A.; Mitchell, R. (1992). Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26, 2281−2287.
[19]
Branfireun, B. A.; Bishop, K.; Roulet, N. T.; Granberg, G.; Nilsson, M. (2001). Mercury cycling in boreal ecosystems: The long-term effect of acid rain constituents on peatland pore water methylmercury concentrations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 (7), 1227−1230.
[20]
Lambertsson, L.; Nilsson M. (2006). Organic Material: The primary control on mercury methylation and ambient methyl mercury concentrations in estuarine sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1822-1829.
[21]
Rozanski, S. L.; Castejon, J. M. P.; Fernandez, G. G. (2016). Bioavailability and mobility of mercury in selected soil profiles. Environ. Earth Sci. 75: 1065.
[22]
Aiken, G. R.; Gilmour, C. C.; Krabbenhoft, D. P.; Orem, W. (2011). Dissolved organic matter in the Florida Everglades: Implications for ecosystem restoration. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (S1), 217−248.
[23]
Ward, D. M., K. H. Nislow, C. Y. Chen & C. L. Folt. (2010). Rapid, efficient growth reduces mercury concentrations in stream-dwelling Atlantic salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 139, 1–10.
[24]
Trudel, M. & J. B. Rasmussen. 2006. Bioenergetics and mercury dynamics in fish: a modelling perspective. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63: 1890–1902.
[25]
Mergler, D., Anderson, H. A., Laurie, H. M. C., Mahaffey, K. R., Murray, M., Sakamoto, M., & Stern, A. H. (2007). Methylmerury exposure and health effects in humans: A worldwide concern. AMBIO, 36(1), 3-11.
[26]
Giang, A. & Selin, N. E. (2016). Benefits of mercury controls for the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (2), 286-291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1514395113.
[27]
United Nations Environmental Programme. (2013) Minamata Convention on mercury: Text and annexes. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from, http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Portals/11/documents/Booklets/Minamata%20Convention%20on%20Mercury_booklet_English.pdf.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186