Substance flow analysis of mercury intentionally used in products in the United States

Journal of Industrial Ecology

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 61-75

  Cain, Alexis ^a   Disch, Sarah ^b   Twaroski, Cliff ^c   Reindl, John ^d   Case, C Randy ^e  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b Global Environmental Consulting and Engineering Firm   (United States)

^c BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY   (United States)

^d Dane County Department of Public Works Highway and Transportation ^*  (United States)

^e WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Dental amalgam; Heavy metals; Industrial ecology; Integrated product policy (IPP); Materials flow analysis (MFA); Toxic releases

Indexed keywords

BYPRODUCTS; ECOLOGY; INDUSTRIAL WASTES; MERCURY (METAL); PARTICULATE EMISSIONS; PUBLIC POLICY;

DENTAL AMALGAM; INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY; INTEGRATED PRODUCT POLICY (IPP); MATERIALS FLOW ANALYSIS (MFA); TOXIC RELEASES;

TOXIC MATERIALS;

HEAVY METAL; MERCURY (ELEMENT); TOXIC MATERIAL;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34548329259     PISSN: 10881980     EISSN: 15309290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jiec.2007.1214     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Andrews, C. A., B. A. Monson, and E. B. Swain. 2002. Modeling the fate of mercury in products. In Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association 95th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, paper #43209. Pittsburgh, PA: Air & Waste Management Association.
2. ALMR (Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers). 2004. National mercury-lamp recycling rate and availability of lamp recycling services in the U.S. Calistoga, CA: ALMR.
3. Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. 2000. Evaluation of domestic sources of mercury. Washington, DC: National Association of Clean Water Agencies.
4. Aucott, M., M. McLinden, and M. Winka. 2003. Release of mercury from broken fluorescent bulbs. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 53(2): 143-151.
5. Barr Engineering Company. 2001. Substance flow analysis of mercury in products. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minneapolis, MN: Barr Engineering Company.
6. Batdorf, J. A., D. A. Lamar, and W.J. Quapp. 2005. Demonstration of mercury capture efficiency during medical waste processing in a PEM. Paper presented at IT3 Conference, Galveston, TX, May 9-13, 2005.
7. Carpi, A. and S. E. Lindberg. 1997. The sunlight mediated emission of elemental mercury from soil amended with municipal sewage sludge. Environmental Science and Technology 31(7): 2085-2091.
8. Counter, S. A. and L. H. Buchanan. 2005. Mercury exposure in children: A review. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 206(1): 94.
9. Engstrom, D. R. and E. B. Swain. 1997. Recent declines in atmospheric mercury deposition in the upper midwest. Environmental Science and Technology 31(4): 960-967.
10. Kissell, M. 2005. Personal communication with M. Kissell, Environmental Engineer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,March 12, 2005.
11. Kleijn, R., S. Bringezu, M. Fischer-Kowalski, and V. Palm, eds. 1998. Proceedings of the ConAccount Workshop, Ecologizing societal metabolism: Designing scenarios for sustainable materials management. CML report 148. Leiden, the Netherlands: Centre of Environmental Science, University of Leiden.
12. Larry Walker Associates. 2002. Mercury source control and pollution prevention program evaluation, final report. Washington, DC: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.
13. Lindberg, S. E., D. Wallschlager, E. M. Prestbo, N. S. Bloom, J. Price, and D. Reinhart. 2001. Methylated mercury species in municipal waste landfill gas sampled in Florida, USA. Atmospheric Environment 35(23): 4011-4015.
14. NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association). 2000. Environmental impact analysis for spent mercury-containing lamps. Washington, DC: NEMA.
15. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, WorkingGroup on Environmental Information and Outlooks). 2000. Special session on material flow accounting. Paris: OECD.
16. Quicksilver Caucus. 2005. 2005 compendium of states' mercury activities.Washington, DC: Environmental Council of the States and National Wildlife Federation.
17. Rackley, K., A. Pope, D. Mobley, S. Durkee, and M. Engle. 2004. The US Mercury Emission Inventory for the Arctic Council Action Plan. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual Emission Inventory Conference. Clearwater, FL, June 8-10.
18. Riley, D. M., C. A. Newby, T. O. Leal-Almeraz, and V. M. Thomas. 2001. Assessing elemental mercury vapor exposure from cultural and religious practices. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(8): 779-784.
19. Sastry, R., J. Orlemann, and P. Koval. 2001. Mercury contamination from scrap metal processing facilities - A study by Ohio EPA. Columbus, OH: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
20. Seigneur, C., K. Vijayaraghavan, K. Lohman, P. Karamchandani, and C. Scott. 2004. Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology 38(2): 555-569.
21. Shannon, J. D. and E. C. Voldner. 1995. Modeling atmospheric concentrations of mercury and deposition to the Great Lakes. Atmospheric Environment 29(14): 1649-1661.
22. Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate. 1997. Mercury in products - A source of transboundary pollutant transport. Sundbyberg, Sweden: KEMI.
23. Sznopek, J. L. and T. G. Goonan. 1997. The materials flow of mercury in the economies of the United States and the world. Washington, DC: U.S.G.S., U.S. Department of the Interior.
24. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Mercury study report to Congress, Vol. VII. Characterization of human health and wildlife risks from mercury exposure in the United States. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC: USEPA.
25. USEPA. 1997b. Mercury study report to Congress, Vol. II. An inventory of anthropogenic mercury emissions in the United States. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC: USEPA.
26. USEPA. 1997c. Mercury study report to Congress, Vol III. Fate and transport ofmercury in the environment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC: USEPA.
27. USEPA. 1998. Federal plan requirements for large municipal waste combusters constructed on or before September 20, 1994. Federal Register 63: 63,191-63,209.
28. USEPA. 1999. Biosolids generation, use and disposal in theUnited States. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Government Printing Office.
29. USEPA. 2003. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal solid waste: 2001 facts and figures. Washington, DC: USEPA.
30. USEPA. 2006. An inventory of sources and environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds in the United States for the years 1987, 1995, and 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Assessment.
31. Vandeven, J. and S. L. McGinnis. 2005. An assessment of mercury in the form of amalgam in dental wastewater in the United States. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 164(1-4): 349-366.
32. WEF (Water Environment Federation). 1997. National outlook: State beneficial use of biosolids activities. Alexandria, VA: WEF.
33. Weiss, J. 2005. Approaches to reducing mercury in North America. Ecotoxicology 14(1-2): 15-17.