4.7 Review

Measurement techniques for mercury species in ambient air

Journal

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 899-917

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2011.01.017

Keywords

Airborne mercury; Analytical uncertainty; Detection; Sampling; Speciation; Gaseous elemental mercury; Organic mercury; Particle-bound mercury; Reactive gaseous mercury; Real-time monitoring

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) [2010-0007876]
  2. UK Government of Department of Business Innovation and Skills
  3. National Measurement System Chemical and Biological Metrology Programme
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0007876] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review critically evaluates the measurement methodologies most commonly employed for the analysis of the various forms of mercury (Hg) in air. Emphasis is given to the three most common forms of mercury in air [i.e. gaseous elemental mercury (GEM, Hg-0), reactive gaseous mercury (RGM), and particle-bound mercury (Hg-p)]. Moreover, we also briefly describe methods dealing with gas-phase analysis of organic mercury species (e.g., mostly methyl mercury), as they are also reported to be present in air on rare occasions. To begin with, we describe the approaches to sampling airborne mercury species and associated sample-treatment strategies. We evaluate both conventional and emerging alternative detection techniques for different mercury forms with respect to their applicability in airborne mercury analysis. We also discuss the artifacts and the biases associated with analysis of different mercury species. Finally, the review summarizes current methodological developments for the determination of mercury in air and highlights future prospects for improvements. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available