Abstract
Mercury is one of the most important metals to environmental researchers due to its toxicity. In recent years, many authors determined the concentration of mercury and its different forms in the environment, such as soil, water, atmosphere and biota, with various analytical techniques, such as atomic absorption spectrometry, spectrophotometry, voltammetry, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry, spectrofluorometry and chromatography. The objective of this paper is to summarize the recent understanding of the available techniques for the analysis and speciation of mercury in environmental and biological samples reported worldwide during 2010–2011. We tabulated all the analytical parameters of about 129 research papers published in reputable international journals during 2010–2011 about mercury determination and speciation studies.
Introduction
In our modern periodic table of elements, mercury, also known as quicksilver, is the only metal that exists in the liquid state under normal temperature and pressure conditions. Mercury is mostly obtained from its sulfide ore, i.e., cinnabar. It is used in thermometers, fluorescent lamps, some electrical switches and as electrodes. Mercury exists in three forms, i.e., elemental mercury and inorganic and organic forms. Elemental mercury is mostly used in thermometers and some electric switches. Inorganic mercury [Hg(II)] is more soluble in water and more reactive. Organic forms of mercury include compounds like methylmercury, dimethylmercury and phenylmercury. Among organic forms of mercury, methylmercury is the most commonly existing in the environment. The sources of mercury are classified into two types: natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources of mercury include volcanoes and forest fires. Regarding anthropogenic sources, incineration of municipal and medical wastes and emissions from coal-using power plants contribute a major role to high levels of mercury in the environment. The major sources of mercury in aquatic environments include atmospheric deposition, erosion, urban discharges, agricultural materials, mining and combustion and industrial discharges (Wang et al. 2004). Metallic and inorganic mercury compounds enter into the atmosphere from mining ore deposits, burning of coal and waste from the manufacturing plants. It can enter into the water or soil from natural deposits, disposal of wastes and volcanic activity. Microorganisms like bacteria can form methylmercury in water and soil. Mostly, the methylmercury builds up in the tissues of fish; larger and older fishes may have high levels of methylmercury (ATSDR 1999). Mercury emissions from various sources in the environment are converted into methylmercury, which are bioaccumulated in the food chain. The topmost predators in the food chain have higher concentrations of methylmercury than the animals in the lower part of the food chain.
There are several ways by which humans are exposed to mercury including eating fish with methylmercury and breathing mercury vapors in air from the burnings of mercury-containing fuels and incinerators. The most tragic incident in history regarding mercury poisoning was observed in 1956 at Minamata Bay in Japan. The disease, named Minamata disease, induced symptoms such as numbness in the hands and feet, damage to hearing and speech, and even leads to death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease). Because of the toxicity of mercury, European countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark banned its use in recent years [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)].
At the United Nations Organization meeting of world environmental ministers held in Kenya during February 2009, more than 140 countries worldwide agreed to reduce global mercury emissions by 2013 (http://www.mpe-magazine.com/legal-brief/global-mercury-treaty-gets-go-ahead). Production of switches and relays containing mercury was banned in China from the year 2010 (Cheng and Hu 2012). Many international agencies made standards for the presence of mercury in different sources to avoid its adverse effects on human health. The high toxicity of mercury attracted many researchers to investigate its concentration in various environmental matrices. Park et al. (2010) reported the determination of mercury and methylmercury in freshwater fish in South Korea. The determination of mercury in mushrooms was reported by Jarzynska and Falandysz (2011). The oral bioaccessibility and health risk of mercury and other metals in urban street dusts of Nanjing, a mega city in China, was investigated by Hu et al. (2011). Much importance was given in recent years to the determination and speciation of mercury by researchers worldwide. This compelled us to review the recent trends in mercury determination.
Speciation and determination studies of mercury based on various analytical methods
Several authors reviewed the reported concentration of mercury and/or methylmercury in various environmental matrices with different analytical techniques. They are discussed briefly here.
Leermakers et al. (2005) discussed the sample preparation methods of mercury. They also reviewed the speciation and detection of mercury in environmental samples by using various analytical techniques. Li et al. (2009) reviewed mercury pollution in Asian countries. They found that the most mercury pollution arose from chemical industries, mercury mining and gold mining in Asian countries. Sanchez-Rodas et al. (2010) reviewed the speciation studies of arsenic, selenium, antimony and mercury by using atomic fluorescence spectrometry (AFS). This review mainly focused on instrumental couplings of chromatographic and nonchromatographic separations with AFS detection. They concluded that the advantages of AFS over inductively coupled plasma (ICP) techniques are low acquisition and ease of operation. Dadfarnia and Shabani (2010) reviewed the developments in liquid-phase microextraction for determination of trace-level concentrations of metals including mercury. In this review, the authors described various microextraction techniques such as single-drop microextraction, hollow-fiber liquid-phase microextraction, dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and solidified floating organic drop microextraction for the determination of metals. Leopold et al. (2010) reviewed the determination and speciation of mercury, but it was limited only to natural waters including rivers, lakes, rain and groundwater. Pandey et al. (2011) reviewed measurement techniques for various forms of mercury (gaseous elemental mercury, reactive gaseous mercury and particle-bound mercury) in ambient air. Studies on speciation and analysis of mercury in environmental and biological samples by microwave-assisted extraction were reviewed by Reyes et al. (2011). This review predicts the drawbacks of microwave-assisted extraction for mercury such as inability of simultaneous extraction of multiple samples, losing of volatile organomercury compounds and the samples to be extracted at atmospheric pressure and at/or below the boiling point of the solvents used for extraction. A recent study in China (Cheng and Hu 2012) reviewed the presence of mercury in municipal solid waste (MSW). According to this study, mercury in MSW is not receiving the required attention in China. This study recommends that source reduction is the best option to regulate mercury pollution in the environment.
Among all the analytical instruments, a survey of the literature clearly reveals that the majority of the researchers preferred various spectroscopic methods such as atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS), inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES), inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), spectrophotometry and spectrofluorometry. Further, among all the spectroscopic methods, most researchers worldwide were commonly using the cold vapor-AAS (CV-AAS) and CV-AFS methods for mercury determination. A review (Clevenger et al. 1997) about trace determination of mercury in the 1990s also observed the same trend.
In the CV-AAS technique, first the samples were digested and oxidized to convert the different forms of mercury into their ions. These mercury ions were then reduced to the elemental state with 10% SnCl2·2H2O in 1 m HCl and aerated from a solution in a closed system. The mercury vapor passes through a cell in which the absorbance is measured to determine the concentration of mercury. In the CV-AFS technique, very low levels of mercury can be detected by applying accurate and proper sample collection. In this method, oxidation and reduction into elemental form in the sample container takes place, and then the sample is collected on a gold trap. Mercury vapors that are produced in the desorption process are passed through a cell in which absorbance is measured by a fluorescence detector (Microbac Laboratory Services 2011). The analytical parameters measured by researchers in the determination of mercury reported worldwide by using spectroscopic instruments are presented in Table 1.
Analytical parameters of reviewed research papers about the determination of mercury by spectrometric instruments.
| S. no. | Analyte | Analytical instrument used for the detection | Method | Limit of detection (LOD) | Linearity range | Analyzed samples | Interference study | Supporting media | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hg | Automated atmospheric elemental Hg analyzer | Dielectric barrier discharge atomic emission | 0.12 ng l-1 | Up to 6.6 ng l-1 | Atmosphere | – | Gold on tungsten coiled filament | Puanngam et al. 2010 |
| 2 | Hg vapor | AFS | In situ automatic measurements | – | – | Ambient air | – | – | Brown et al. 2010 |
| 3 | Total Hg | CV-AAS | Wet digestion | 0.52 ng g-1 | – | Fish tissue | – | – | Voegborlo and Adimado 2010 |
| 4 | Hg | CV-AAS | Acid digestion | – | – | Canned tuna fish | – | – | Rahimi et al. 2010 |
| 5 | Total Hg | AFS | Flow injection analysis | 0.2 pg of Hg | 0.08–100 ng l-1 | Sea and river waters | – | Nanostructured active gold | Zierhut et al. 2010 |
| 6 | Gaseous Hg | Automated Hg vapor analyzer | Adsorption on gold absorbents | 4 (total Hg), 0.2 (MeHg) ng g-1 | – | Atmosphere | – | – | Fu et al. 2010b |
| 7 | Hg(II) | – | Fluorescent detection | – | Up to 8 μm | Aqueous solutions | – | 6-Carboxyfluorescein | Zhang et al. 2010b |
| 8 | Total Hg | ET-AAS | Single drop microextraction | 10 ng l-1 | – | Sea water, fish tissue, hair and wine | – | Tetradecyl(trihexyl)phosphonium chloride | Martinis and Wuilloud 2010 |
| 9 | Total Hg | Direct Hg analyzer | Total digestion | – | – | Soil samples | – | – | Gil et al. 2010 |
| 10 | Hg | CV-AAS | Preconcentration | 3 ng l-1 | 10–250 ng l-1 | Water and wastewater samples | Cu(II), Pb(II), Fe(III), Ni(II), and Mn(II) do not interfere | Silver wool solid sorbent | Mousavi et al. 2010 |
| 11 | Hg | AFS | – | – | – | Bottled mineral water | – | – | Birke et al. 2010 |
| 12 | Hg | CV-AFS | CPE | 5 pg ml-1 | 0.05–5.0 pg ml-1 | Water samples | Cd(II), Pb(II), Ni(II), Mn(II), Co(II) do not interfere up to 500 ng ml-1 | Triton X-114 | Yuan et al. 2010 |
| 13 | Hg | GF AAS | Preconcentration | 0.08 μg l-1 | – | Gasoline diluted in ethanol | – | Gold column | Torres et al. 2010 |
| 14 | Hg(II) | CV-AFS | Electrochemical | 1.3 pg ml-1 | – | Human hair | No significant interference of ions as high as 0.2 μg ml-1 for Fe 3+, Mn2+ and Cu2+; 0.1 μg ml-1 for Co2+, Cr3+, Ni2+, Se+4, Pb2+ and 0.05 μg ml-1 for Mo6+, Sn4+, Cd2+ containing 2 ng ml-1 Hg2+ | Polyaniline modified graphite | Jiang et al. 2010 |
| 15 | Total Hg | CV-AAS | High-pressure oxygen microwave-assisted wet decomposition | 0.12 μg l-1 | 0–20 μg l-1 | Reference materials | Interference of unused H2O2 and HNO3 | – | Matusiewicz and Stanisz 2010 |
| 16 | Hg | AFS | Photochemical cold vapor generation | 0.08 ng ml-1 | 1 mg l-1 | White vinegar | Sugar interferes in the analysis of vinegar; because of this, they analyzed only white vinegar, which does not have sugar | – | Liu 2010a |
| 17 | Hg(II) | Mercury sensor | Adsorption | 0.64 μg ml-1 | 1–30.0 μg ml-1 | Industrial wastewater | 1000-fold excess of Fe2+, Fe3+, Ni2+, Cu2+, Zn2+, Cr3+ and 500-fold of As3+, Sb3+, Se4+ and Pb2+ had no interference in the analysis of 15.0 μg ml-1 of Hg2+ | Carbon nanotubes | Safavi et al. 2010 |
| 18 | Hg | ET-AAS | Solid sampling | 120 pg | – | Soil, sediments and plants | – | Electrodeposited Pd and Ir/Au | Cervenka et al. 2010 |
| 19 | Hg speciation | HPLC-CV-AFS | – | 0.05 (MeHg), 0.07 (Et Hg), 0.1 (Hg2+) μg l-1 | – | CRMa and biological samples | – | l-Cysteine | Wang et al. 2010c |
| 20 | Hg | ET-AAS | Microextraction | 70 ng l-1 | 0.2–3.0 μg l-1 | Bottled and tap waters | Calcium interfere exceeding 50 mg l-1 | – | Garcia et al. 2010 |
| 21 | Hg | AAS | – | 3 ng m-3 | – | Ambient air | – | KMnO4/H2SO4 | Pehnec et al. 2010 |
| 22 | Hg(II) | AFS | Cold vapor generation | 1.4 ng l-1 | – | Traditional Chinese medicines | Interference of Fe3+, Co2+, Ni2+, and Cu2+ (20 mg l-1) is avoided by using HCOOH. 0.5 mg l-1 Bi3+, Cd2+, Ge4+, Pb2+, Se4+, Sn2+, Zn2+ and As3+ had no significant influence on the measurement of 1 μg l-1 Hg2+ | Pt/Ti cathode | Zhang et al. 2010c |
| 23 | Hg | CV-AAS | – | 0.38 ng ml-1 | 2.5–25 ng ml-1 | Fish samples | – | Low-density polyethylene | Ramezani et al. 2010 |
| 24 | Inorganic Hg and total Hg | CV-AAS | – | 0.35 ng ml-1 (Hg2+), 0.54 ng ml-1 (MeHg) | 5–100 ng ml-1 (MeHg), 2–100 ng ml-1 (Hg2+) | CRM | – | NaBH4 | Zhu et al. 2010 |
| 25 | Total Hg, MeHg | CV-AFS | Gold amalgamation trapping | 0.02 ng l-1 (MeHg) | – | Sediments and biota samples | – | – | Williams et al. 2010 |
| 26 | Hg speciation | GC-AFS (MeHg), AAS (total Hg) | – | 1.5 ng g-1 (total Hg) | 5–40 ng l-1 | Human hair | – | – | Gao et al. 2010 |
| 27 | Hg speciation | AFS | Extraction | 1 (Hg2+), 40 (PhHg), 68 (MeHg), 99 (Me2Hg) ng l-1 | Up to 100 μg l-1 | Antarctic samples | Tolerance limit for Al3+, Zn2+, Cu2+, Fe3+ is 10 μg ml-1 and for Ca2+ is 2000 μg l-1 | SnCl2, UV radiation, K2S2O8, NaBH4 | Pacheco et al. 2010 |
| 28 | Hg(II) | – | Fluorescent intensity | 2.59×10-9m | 0.4–8×10-7m | Water samples | No effects found in the presence of 5.0×10-4m Zn2+, Mg2+, Mn2+; 1.0×10-4m, Ni2+, Co2+, Al3+ or Fe3+; and 2.0×10-5m, Ag+, Cu2+, Pb2+, or Cd2+; in the determination of 6.0×10-7m of Hg2+ | Silica nanoparticles | Liu et al. 2010 |
| 29 | Hg(II) | Confocal laser scanning microscopy | Fluorescence imaging | – | – | Arabidopsis thaliana (plant) | – | Rhodamine B thiolactone | Zhang et al. 2011b |
| 30 | Total Hg, MeHg | CV-AFS | Dual-stage gold amalgamation | 0.2 ng l-1 (Hg), 0.032 ng l-1 (MeHg) | – | Reservoir waters | – | – | Yao et al. 2011 |
| 31 | Gaseous Hg/speciation | Zeeman AAS | – | 2 ng m-3 | – | Atmosphere | – | – | Kocman et al. 2011 |
| 32 | Hg(II) | CV-AAS | Solid-phase extraction | 0.16 μg l-1 | Natural water and plant samples | 50 μg l-1 of Cu2+, Zn2+ or Cd2+ did not interfere with the determination of 2.0 μg l-1 of Hg2+ | Magnetic nanoparticles | Zhai et al. 2010 | |
| 33 | Hg(II) | ICP-AES | Solid-phase extraction | 0.10 ng ml-1 | – | Certified materials and water samples | 50 μg l-1 of Fe3+, Cr3+, Cd2+, Zn2+, Ni2+, Cu2+, Pb2+ and Mn2+ ions did not interfere, but 20 μg l-1 of Co2+ interfered in the determination of 1 μg l-1 of Hg2+ | 2-(2-Oxoethyl) hydrazine carbothioamide | Chai et al. 2010 |
| 34 | GEM | Zeeman AAS | Online (without preconcentration) | 0.3 ng m-3 | – | Atmosphere | – | – | Ci et al. 2011a |
| 35 | Hg(0) | CV-AAS | SPME | 90 pg ml-1 | Up to 80 ng ml-1 | Mussel tissue and lobster hepatopancreas | – | Pd-based substrates | Romero et al. 2011 |
| 36 | Hg speciation | AAS | Sequential extraction | 0.1 μg kg-1 for total Hgb | – | Soil samples | – | – | Coufalik et al. 2011 |
| 37 | Total Hg | CV-AAS | Cloud point extraction | 0.117 μg kg-1 | Up to 10 μg l-1 | Broiler chicken tissues | – | – | Shah et al. 2010 |
| 38 | Inorganic Hg | CV AFS | – | 0.27 ng l-1 | 0.05–5 μg l-1 | River water | Cu(II) severely interfered even at 20 mg l-1 | Phosphate-buffered solution | Zhang et al. 2011a |
| 39 | MeHg and total Hg | CV AFS | Two-stage gold amalgamation | 0.2 ng l-1 for total Hg | – | Reservoir water samples | – | – | Feng et al. 2011 |
| 40 | Hg speciation | CV AAS | Acid digestion | 0.01 ng l-1 | – | Sea water | – | – | Matsuyama et al. 2011 |
| 41 | Hg and MeHg | CV AAS | Digestion | 0.1 for total Hg, 0.2 ng g-1 for MeHg | – | Fish and human hair | – | – | Miklavcic et al. 2011 |
| 42 | Elemental Hg | EXAFS | Slow cooling/crystallization | – | – | Mine wastes | – | – | Jew et al. 2011 |
| 43 | Hg speciation | AFS | Online pre-concentration | 0.004 μg l-1 for Hg(II) | 0.02–8 μg l-1 | Water and CRMs | Interference of Cr(III) is eliminated with 0.1% (m/v) of EDTA as a masking agent | Diethyldithiocarbamate | Gao et al. 2011 |
| 44 | Hg(II), MeHg, EtHg | Multisyringe chromatography coupled with CV-AFS | Multi-isocratic elution | 0.11 Hg(II), 0.03 MeHg, 0.09 EtHg μg ml-1 | 2–16 Hg(II), 0.5–8 MeHg, 1–8 EtHg μg l-1 | Dogfish muscle, pediatric vaccines | – | RP C18 monolithic column | Guzman-Mar et al. 2011 |
| 45 | Hg(II) | Fiber-optic spectrometer | Optical fiber chemical sensing | 5.0×10-7m | 1.0×10-6–2.5×10-4m | River water samples | Selected heavy metals do not significantly interfere in 1:10 Hg:heavy metal | Tripodal chromoionophore-PVC film | Nuriman et al. 2011 |
| 46 | Hg total | FAAS | Acid digestion | – | – | Fish samples | – | – | Yamashita et al. 2011 |
| 47 | Hg(II) | Near-IR spectroscopy | Preconcentration | – | 4.228–50.38 mg l-1 | River waters | K+, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+ ions do not interfere | Thiol-functionalized Mg phyllosilicate clay | Li et al. 2011b |
| 48 | Hg speciation | CV AAS | Adsorption | 0.06 μg l-1 | – | Wastewater samples | 5 mg l-1 of Mn2+, Cr3+, Fe3+, Cu2+, Ni2+, Zn2+ and Pb2+ do not interfere | Lemna minor powder | Xing et al. 2011 |
| 49 | Organic Hg | BSA@R6G/MPA-Au NP sensor | Fluorescence sensor | 3.0 nm for total organic Hg, 20 nm for PhHg | 100 nm–2.5 μm | River, sea, tap waters and fish samples | Cd2+, Ag+, Pb2+, Pt2+, Hg2+ interference is avoided by using Te nanowires as masking agent | Gold nanoparticles | Chang et al. 2011 |
| 50 | Hg total | CV AAS | – | 0.005 μg g-1 | – | Mushrooms | – | – | Brzostowski et al. 2011 |
| 51 | Hg speciation | IC-CV AFS | Photo-induced chemical vapor generation | 0.1 (Hg) and 0.08 ng ml-1 (MeHg) | 5–500 ng ml-1 (Hg, MeHg) | CRM (dogfish muscle) | – | Cysteine | Liu 2010b |
| 52 | Total Hg | CV-AAS | Acid digestion | – | – | Fish muscles | – | – | Fatemeh et al. 2011 |
| 53 | Hg(II) | CV AAS | SPE | 1.06 ng l-1 | 0.02–1.90 μg l-1 | Mineral and sea water samples | 5 mg l-1 of Pb2+, Cu2+, Zn2+, Fe2+, Co2+, Ag+, Cd2+ do not interfere in the determination of 0.5 μg l-1 of Hg2+ | Octadecyl silica membrane disks modified by EPT | Rofouei et al. 2011 |
| 54 | GEM | ZAAS | – | 6.0 pg l-1 | – | Air-sea exchange in the Yellow Sea | – | – | Ci et al. 2011b |
| 55 | Hg(II) | Chemiluminescence | Biosensor | 3.0×10-10m | 1.0×10-6–1.0×10-9m | Tap waters | – | DNA labeled with ruthenium complex | Li 2011 |
| 56 | DGM, GEM | CV AFS | Gold amalgamation | 3.0 pg l-1 | – | Coastal sea water | – | Gold trap and carbon trap | Ci et al. 2011c |
| 57 | Hg(II) | Fluorescence | – | 10 nm | 25.0–500 nm | Soil and water samples | Li+, Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, Fe2+, Fe3+, Al3+, Cr3+, Co2+, Ni2+, Cu2+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Cd2+, Ag+, Au3+ do not interfere up to 265-fold to Hg2+ concentration | Polythymine/benzothiazoium-4-quinolinium dimer derivative | Lin et al. 2011 |
| 58 | Hg and MeHg | CV AFS | Gold amalgamation | 0.023 ng l-1 | – | Water, sediment, fish | – | – | Williams et al. 2011 |
| 59 | Hg | CCPM-AES | Cold vapor | 0.05 ng ml-1 or 0.08 μg g-1 | 0.2–25 ng ml-1 | Plastics, biodegradable materials | – | – | Frentiu et al. 2011 |
| 60 | Hg total | CV AAS and ICP-AES | – | – | – | Mushrooms | – | – | Jarzynska and Falandysz 2011 |
| 61 | Hg | Spectrophotometer | Adsorption | – | – | Water samples | – | Activated carbon | Silva et al. 2010 |
| 62 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Colorimetric determination | – | 0.39–8.89 μm | Water samples | Interference of Pb2+ eliminated with 2,6-pyridine dicarboxylic acid as masking agent | Gold nanoparticles | Wang et al. 2010a |
| 63 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Colorimetric sensing | – | 200–800 nm | Drinking and sea water | Selective for Hg2+ and Ag+ in the presence of Li+, Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, Ba2+, Cr3+, Mn2+, Fe2+, Fe3+, Co2+, Ni2+, Cu2+, Zn2+, Cd2+, Al3+, Pb2+ | Gold nanoparticles | Lin et al. 2010 |
| 64 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Formation of nanoparticles | 2 ppb | 10–1000 nm | Aqueous solutions | Ba2+, Mg2+, Cd2+, Co2+, Cu2+, Pb2+, Fe3+ and Al3+ ions do not interfere even 100-fold excess than Hg2+ | HAuCl4/NH2OH | Fan et al. 2010 |
| 65 | Hg(II) | Fluorescent probe | Chemosensor | – | 0–12 ppb | Aqueous solutions | – | Rhodamine-based sensor | Song et al. 2010 |
| 66 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Optical sensor | 2.0×10-10m | 9.0×10-10–2.5×10-7m | Water samples | Tolerance limit for Cu2+ is 10-, Cd2+ is 7-, Pb2+ is 26-, Ag+ is 3-, Zn2+ is 32-fold than Hg2+ | 1,3-Di(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate | Gholivand et al. 2010 |
| 67 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Complexation | 0.026 μg ml-1 | 0.2–2.0 μg ml-1 | Wastewater and fertilizer samples | Selective from the interference of Co2+, Ni2+, Cd2+, Au3+, up to 100-fold excess than Hg2+ | 6-Hydroxy-3-(2-oxoindolin-3-ylideneamino)-2-thioxo-2H-1,3-thiazin-4(3H)-one | Hamza et al. 2010 |
| 68 | Hg | Spectrophotometer | Microextraction | 0.2 μg l-1 | 2–50 μg l-1 | Spiked water samples | Mn2+, Zn2+, Fe2+, Pb2+, Cd2+, Co2+ did not interfere up to 200-fold excess than Hg2+ | – | Yang et al. 2010 |
| 69 | Hg | Spectrofluorometer | Fluorescent detection | 2.9×10-7m | 2.5–50 μm | Water samples | Simultaneous determination of Cu2+, Zn2+ and Hg2+ is proposed | (4-[(E)-2-(4′-methyl-2,2′-bipyrinin-4-l)vinyl]phenol) | Pinheiro et al. 2010 |
| 70 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Optical sensor | 1.11×10-9m | 1.52×10-9–1.70×10-2m | Cyanidic garbage and resinic black mud | Minor interference of Co2+ over 100-fold excess than Hg2+ | Indicator dye | Yari and Abdoli 2010 |
| 71 | Hg(II) | Synchronous fluorescence spectroscope | Fluorescence probe | 4.5×10-9m | 0.15×10-7–125×10-7m | Water samples | Cu2+ interferes even at 10-fold excess than Hg2+ | CdS nanoparticles | Liang et al. 2010 |
| 72 | Hg(II) | Spectrofluorometer | Fluorescence detection | 0.25 nm | 10–1500 nm | Aqueous solutions | Interference of heavy metals particularly Cu2+ eliminated with acetylacetonate as a masking agent | CdS nanoparticles | Chen et al. 2010b |
| 73 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Chelation/optical sensor | 1×10-6m | 1.0×10-2–1.0×10-5m | Amalgam alloy and spiked water samples | Co2+, Ba2+, Na+, Mg2+, Al3+, K+, Cu2+, Sr2+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Ag+, Cd2+, Mn2+, Ca2+, Fe3+, Cr3+, Ni2+ and Tl+ at concentrations up to 100 times of Hg2+ | 2-[(2-Sulfanylphenyl)ethanimidoyl] phenol on agarose membrane | Alizadeh et al. 2011a |
| 74 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Chelation | 0.0939 μg ml-1 | 0.814–8.1456 μg ml-1 | Spiked water samples | Tolerance limit for Pd2+ (0.13), Co2+ (0.51), Cu2+ (0.45) and Ni2+ (0.61 μg ml-1) at Hg2+ (4.1 μg ml-1) | Anthrone phenylhydrazone | Veeranna et al. 2011 |
| 75 | Hg(II) | Fluorophotometer | Optical sensor | 6.3×10-8m | 1.0×10-7–1.0×10-5m | Tap and lake water | No significant interference of Cr3+, Zn2+, Cd2+, Cu2+: 5.0×10-5m at Hg2+ (1.0×10-5m) | 1-Amino-8-napthol-3,6-disulfonic acid sodium | Sun et al. 2011 |
| 76 | Hg(II) | Fluorescence spectrometer/UV-visible spectrophotometer | Chemosensor | – | 0.5–10 μm | Aqueous solutions | Pb2+, Cd2+, Cr3+, Zn2+, Cu2+, Fe2+, Co3+, Ni2+ ions do not interfere | Rhodamine-derived Schiff base | Quang et al. 2011 |
| 77 | Hg(II) | Fluorescence spectrophotometer | Fluorescence probe | 1.55×10-9m | 2.0–14.0×10-9m | – | Quenching effect of Fe2+ is eliminated by using sodium citrate as a masking agent | Quantum dots | Li et al. 2011c |
| 78 | Hg(II) | Spectrophotometer | Derivative mode | – | 1.003–12.03 μg ml-1 | Synthetic alloys | Interference of Al3+ eliminated with thiourea as a masking agent. Other ions do not interfere significantly | Diacetyl monoxime isonicotinoyl hydrazone | Chandra Sekhar Reddy 2011 |
| 79 | Hg | Spectrophotometer | Extraction | – | 2.0–9.0 μg ml-1 | Ayurvedic medicine | – | Toluene-dithizone | Jain et al. 2011 |
| 80 | Hg(II) | Spectrofluorometer | Fluorescent probe | 4×10-9m | 4–600 nm | Urine samples | Cu2+ can interfere over 2 μm and Fe3+ interference eliminated by pretreatment with H2O2 | Terbium chelate | Tan et al. 2011 |
| 81 | Hg speciation | HPLC-ICP-MS | Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction | 1.3 (Hg2+), 7.2 (MeHg+), 5.4 ng l-1 (EtHg+) | 0.005–2 (Hg2+), 0.01–2 (MeHg, EtHg) ng ml-1 | Cosmetic liquid samples | Tolerance limit of Fe3+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Bi3+, Au3+, Ti2+ is 20 μg l-1 in 1.0 ng ml-1 of Hg species | APDC | Jia et al. 2011b |
| 82 | Hg speciation | HPLC-ICP-MS | Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction | 0.0076 (Hg2+), 0.0014 ng ml-1 (MeHg+) | 0.01–2.0 (MeHg), 0.005–2.0 (Hg2+) ng ml-1 | Sea water (reference material) | Tolerance limit of Fe3+, Zn2+, Ni2+, Co2+, Mn3+ is 50 ng ml-1 in 0.5 ng ml-1 of Hg species | Sodium diethyl dithiocarbamate | Jia et al. 2011a |
| 83 | Hg total | ICP-OES | Vapor generation | 0.090 μg l-1 | Up to 500 μg l-1 | Mineral and certified waters | Au3+ interferes at 10 mg l-1 (Hg concentration is 50 μg l-1) | – | Wu et al. 2011 |
| 84 | Hg speciation | LC-CV-ICPMS | Extraction | – | 5.0 μg l-1 (Hg, MeHg) | Mushrooms | – | – | Pilz et al. 2011 |
| 85 | Hg total | ICP-OES | Wet and microwave digestion | 0.03 mg l-1 | – | Mushroom samples | – | – | Kula et al. 2011 |
| 86 | MeHg(I) and Hg(II) | ICPMS | Extraction | – | 0–100 μg l-1 (MeHg, Hg) | Fish tissues and sediments | – | 5% 2-mercapto ethanol | Jagtap et al. 2011 |
| 87 | Total Hg | FI-ICP-MS | Extraction | – | – | Swordfish and zebra fish | – | 2-Mercaptoethanol | Lopez et al. 2010 |
| 88 | Hg | ICP-OES | Ultrasonic bath | – | – | Compact fluorescent lamp | – | – | Santos et al. 2010b |
| 89 | Hg | CV-ICP OES | Photochemical cold vapor generation | 0.3 μg l-1 | 0.5–10 μg l-1 | Thimerosal in humans and veterinarian vaccines | – | – | Santos et al. 2010a |
| 90 | Hg | CV-ICP MS | Microwave digestion | – | – | Coal samples | – | – | Antes et al. 2010 |
| 91 | Hg speciation | HPLC-ICPMS | Solid-phase extraction | 3 ng l-1 | – | Water samples | – | Dithizone | Yin et al. 2010 |
| 92 | Hg(II) | FI-ICP-OES | Extraction | 0.04 ng ml-1 | 0.2–100 ng ml-1 | Aqueous samples | 20-fold of Cu2+ and 5-fold of Ag+, Au3+, Pd2+ does not interfere | Sodium dodecyl sulfate | Faraji et al. 2010 |
| 93 | Hg | CV-ICP OES | Cloud point extraction | 2.2 ng g-1 | – | Honey | – | – | Depoi et al. 2010 |
| 94 | MeHg, inorganic Hg | LC-ICP MS | Extraction | 0.25 μg l-1 (inorganic Hg), 0.1 μg l-1 (MeHg) | 0–20 μg l-1 (all Hg species) | Blood samples | – | Mercaptoethanol, l-cysteine | Rodrigues et al. 2010 |
| 95 | Hg speciation | FI-Chemical vapor generation-ICPMS | Chemical vapor generation | 2.52 pg (inorg Hg), 3.24 pg (MeHg) | 0.1–10 ng ml-1 (all Hg species) | Water samples | Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe3+, Zn2+, Cu2+, Pb2+, Cr3+ do not interfere up to 1–200 μg ml-1 each (Hg species at 1 ng ml-1) | Polyaniline column | Krishna et al. 2010 |
| 96 | MeHg, EtHg | LC-ICP-MS | Solid-phase microextraction | 0.06 μg l-1 (MeHg, EtHg) | 1–50 μg l-1 (MeHg, EtHg) | Urine samples | – | – | Tsoi et al. 2010 |
| 97 | Hg | HPLC-ICP-MS | Simultaneous analysis of Hg, Se | 0.3–2.46 ng | Up to 180 μg l-1 | Human urine and serum | – | – | Moreno et al. 2010 |
| 98 | Hg total | ICP-MS | Microwave digestion | 0.010 mg kg-1 b | 0–20 μg l-1 | Foodstuffs | – | – | Millour et al. 2011 |
| 99 | Hg(II) | ICP-AES | Solid-phase extraction | 0.09 ng ml-1 | – | Balsam pear leaves, river water samples | 1000-fold of Co2+, Cr3+, Mn2+, 400-fold of Cd2+, Cu2+, Ni2+, Zn2+, Pb2+ caused little interference with the determination of Hg2+ (20 μg l-1) | 2,6-Pyridine dicarboxylic acid | Zhang et al. 2010a |
| 100 | Hg(II) | ICP-AES | Adsorption | 0.09 ng ml-1 | – | Water samples | 50 μg ml-1 of Ni2+, Cd2+, Zn2+, Mn2+, Co2+, Cu2+ and Fe3+ does not interfere in the determination of Hg2+ | 4-Amino antipyrine ontobentonite | Wang et al. 2011 |
| 101 | Hg speciation | LC-ICP-MS | Extraction | 0.25 (IHg), 0.20 (EtHg), 0.1 ng g-1 (MeHg) | – | Brazilian seafood samples | – | Mercaptoethanol | Batista et al. 2011 |
| 102 | Hg speciation | GC coupled with ICP-MS | Microwave-assisted sample preparation | – | – | Blood samples | – | Tetramethylammonium hydroxide | Rodrigues et al. 2011 |
aCRM, certified reference material.
bLimit of quantification.
SPE, solid-phase extraction; EPT, 1,3-bis(2-ethoxyphenyl)triazene; DGM, dissolved gaseous mercury; CCPM-AES, capacitively coupled plasma microtorch atomic emission spectrometry.
The electrochemical instruments used by the researchers for the determination of mercury in various samples were the anodic stripping voltammeter and potentiometer. The analytical parameters measured by the researchers in the determination of mercury by using electrochemical instruments are presented in Table 2 . On the basis of the literature survey, only approximately 5% of the research papers described the determination and speciation of mercury with the use of chromatographic instruments, such as gas chromatography (GC) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The analytical parameters measured by researchers in the determination of mercury reported worldwide by using chromatographic instruments are presented in Table 3.
Analytical parameters of reviewed research papers about the determination of mercury using potentiometry and voltammetry.
| S. no. | Analyte | Analytical instrument used for the detection | Method | Limit of detection (LOD) | Linearity range | Analyzed samples | Interference study | Supporting media | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hg and MeHg | Capillary electrophoresis | Complexation | 0.005±0.002 μg l-1 for Hg(II) and 0.4±0.05 μg l-1 for MeHg | 0.01–10.0 (Hg2+) and 0.5–50.0 (MeHg+) μg l-1 | Coal samples | – | Cysteine | Martin et al. 2010 |
| 2 | Inorganic Hg(II) | Anodic stripping voltammeter | Electrochemical | 56 ppb (2.1×10-7) | 1.0×10-8–1.0×10-5m | – | – | Poly(2,2′-dithiodianiline) | Somerset et al. 2010 |
| 3 | Hg(II) | Anodic stripping voltammeter | Electrochemical detection | 2.0×10-10m | 5.0×10-10–1.5×10-7m | Water samples | 1.0×10-5m of Fe3+, Mn2+, Co2+, Ni2+, Zn2+, Cr3+, Cd2+, Ti4+, Ag+, Pb2+, Al3+, Cu2+ does not interfere in determination of 5.0×10-8m of Hg2+, but Ag+ interferes in 2-fold excess than Hg2+ | p-tert-Butylthiacalix[4] arene | Wang et al. 2010b |
| 4 | Hg(II) | Cyclic voltammeter | Fabrication | 3 ppb | 10–1000 ppb | – | – | Au-Ag-Au electrode system | Chen et al. 2010a |
| 5 | Hg(II) | Stripping voltammeter | Electrochemical detection | 6 ppt | 0.1–60 ppb | River water | 20 ppb Fe3+, Co2+, Zn2+, Cd2+, Cu2+ does not interfere in the determination of 1 ppb of Hg2+ | Gold nanoparticles | Gong et al. 2010 |
| 6 | Hg(II) | Potentiometer | – | 2.5×10-9m (0.5 ppb) | 5.0×10-9–1.0×10-4m | Dental amalgam and water samples | 1.0×10-3m of Cd2+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Cu2+, Co2+, Mn2+, Ni2+ does not interfere in the determination of 1.0×10-9– 1.0×10-4m of Hg2+ | Carbon nanotubes and carbon paste electrode | Khani et al. 2010 |
| 7 | Hg(II) | Voltammeter | Electrochemical detection | 60 pm | 0.2–1 nm | Aqueous solutions | Up to 200-fold of Zn2+, Ni2+, Pb2+, Cd2+, Mn2+, Cu2+ does not interfere in the determination of Hg2+ | Polythymine oligonucleotide | Wu et al. 2010 |
| 8 | Hg(II) | Square wave stripping voltammeter | Electrochemical determination | 3 nm | 10–140 nm | Water samples | 100-fold Cd2+, Pb2+,50-fold Zn2+, 25-fold Cu2+, 10-fold Ag+, Fe2+, and Mn2+ caused within ±5% changes of voltammetric signal of 0.15 μm of Hg2+ | Chitosan-multiwalled carbon nanotubes | Deng et al. 2010 |
| 9 | Hg(II) | Square wave anodic voltammeter | Electrochemical determination | 0.08 μg l-1 | 2–16 μg l-1 | Tap water | 5 μg l-1 of Cu2+ and Pb2+ interfere in the determination of 0.5 μg l-1 of Hg2+ | Screen-printed electrodes | Mandil et al. 2010 |
| 10 | Hg(II) | Stripping Voltammeter | Electrochemical determination | 0.02 nm | 0.05–10 nm | Tap water samples | Ag+ shows little interference in 50-fold excess than Hg2+ | 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole | Fu et al. 2010a |
| 11 | Hg(II) | Potentiometer | Cation exchanger | 5×10-10 mol l-1 | 10-10–10-1m | Tap and wastewater | Cu2+, Zn2+, Ni2+, Sr2+, Mn2+ ions have low selectivity coefficients and do not interfere in the determination of Hg2+ | Polyaniline-zirconium titanium phosphate | Khan and Paquiza 2011 |
| 12 | Hg(II) | Differential pulse voltammeter | Electrochemical sensor | 5.2×10-10m | 2.5×10-9–5.0×10-7m | Tap, river and lake waters | Up to 100-fold of Cu2+ and Cd2+ does not interfere in the determination of Hg2+ | Ion-imprinted polymer | Alizadeh et al. 2011b |
| 13 | Hg(II) | Voltammetry | Electrochemical detection | 2.3×10-9m | 10 nm–20 μm | Tap and wastewater | No interference of Cd2+, Zn2+, Fe2+, Co2+, Mg2+ in 10-fold excess than Hg2+ | Carbon nanocomposite electrode | Safavi and Farjami 2011 |
| 14 | Hg(II) | Stripping voltammeter | Ion imprinting strategy | 0.1 nm | 1.0–160.0 nm | Aqueous samples | 50-fold of Pb2+, 100-fold of Cd2+, Zn2+, Cu2+ interferes very slightly | Poly(2-mercaptobenzothiazole) | Fu et al. 2011 |
| 15 | Hg(II) | Stripping voltammeter | Electrochemical detection | 3.8×10-5m | – | River water | – | SPCEs and CPEs | Somerset et al. 2011 |
| 16 | Hg(II) | Square wave anodic stripping voltammeter | Electrochemical sensor | 1.1 ng ml-1 | – | Ambient water samples | – | Screen-printed gold electrodes | Bernalte et al. 2011 |
| 17 | Hg(II) | Capillary electrophoresis | Liquid-liquid micro extraction | 0.62 μg l-1 | 1–1000 μg l-1 | Tap and sea waters | 2 mg l-1 of Pb2+, Fe3+, Mn2+, Zn2+, Co2+, Cd2+ and 1 mg l-1 of Cu2+ do not cause significant interference in Hg2+ recovery | 1-(2-Pyridylazo)-2-naphthol | Li et al. 2011a |
| 18 | Hg(II) | Linear anodic stripping voltammeter | Electrochemical detection | 2.4×10-9m | 6.7×10-9–8.3×10-8m | Natural and industrial wastewater samples | 100-fold excess of Fe3+, Cu2+, Zn2+, Mn2+, Pb2+, Ni2+ does not interfere in the determination of Hg2+ | Carbon nanotube paste electrode modified with cross-linked chitosan | Janegitz et al. 2011 |
| 19 | Hg, MeHg, PhHg | High-performance capillary electrophoresis with UV detector | Capillary microextraction coupled to capillary electrophoresis | 0.012 μg ml-1 (MeHg), 0.007 μg ml-1 (PhHg), 0.003 μg ml-1 (Hg2+) | 10–250 (Hg, MeHg), 10–200 (PhHg) ng ml-1 | Certified GBW 10029 fish sample | Fe(III), Mn(II), Al(III), Cu(II), and Zn(II) interfere | 3-Mercaptopropyl trimethoxysilane | Bai and Fan 2010 |
Analytical parameters of reviewed research papers about the determination of mercury by GC and HPLC.
| S. no. | Analyte | Analytical instrument used for the detection | Method | Limit of detection (LOD) | Linearity range | Analyzed samples | Interference study | Supporting media | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MeHg and total Hg | GC coupled with ICP-MS | Specific isotope dilution | 1.4 μg kg-1 for Hg and 1.2 μg kg-1 for MeHg# | – | Seafood samples | – | – | Clemens et al. 2011 |
| 2 | Hg(II) | GC-FID | Microextraction | 0.02 μg ml-1 | 0.05–5.0 μg ml-1 | Natural waters | Pb2+ shows recovery of only 77% at 100-fold excess than Hg2+ (1 μg ml-1). Cu2+, Cd2+, Zn2+, Ca2+, Ni2+, Mg2+ do not interfere at 100-fold excess than Hg2+ | Phenylboronic acid | Yazdi et al. 2010 |
| 3 | Hg, MeHg | GC-MS | Extraction | 0.1 ng g-1 (MeHg) | – | Freshwater fish and sediments | – | Dithizone | Park et al. 2010 |
| 4 | Inorganic Hg, MeHg | GC-MS | Isotope dilution analysis | 10 ng g-1 (inorganic Hg and MeHg) | – | CRMs | – | – | Castillo et al. 2010 |
| 5 | Hg(II) | HPLC-fluorescent detector | Fluorescence detection | 50–100 ppb | – | – | No interference of Pb2+, Cd2+, Cu2+, Mg2+, Ni2+, Mn2+, Co2+, Zn2+ ions in 1000:1 ratio to Hg2+ | Poly(aryleneethynylene) | Compagnone et al. 2010 |
| 6 | MeHg | GC-ECD | Extraction | 0.5 μg kg-1 | – | Marine and freshwater fish | – | Dithizone in toluene | Voegborlo et al. 2011 |
| 7 | Hg speciation | HPLC | Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction | 0.32 (Hg2+), 0.96 (MeHg+), 1.91 μg l-1 (PhHg+) | 3–100 (Hg2+), 5–100 (MeHg+), 8–100 μg l-1 (PhHg+) | Tap, river and lake waters | EDTA was used in the mobile phase to avoid the interferences of Cu2+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Cd2+, Al3+ ions | Dithizone | Gao and Ma 2011 |
The present study reveals that approximately 81% of research papers described the determination of mercury by spectroscopic instruments followed by electrochemical instruments (approximately 14%) and chromatographic instruments (only 5%).
Regarding the analysis of samples, most of the researchers determined the concentration of mercury in different water samples or aqueous solutions. The determination of mercury in various water contents is gaining more importance particularly in drinking water because it affects the human health directly. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) also reviewed and approved some methods for the determination of mercury in drinking water. These are methods 200.8, 245.1, 245.2 and 245.7. Among these methods, method 200.8 describes the determination of mercury in drinking water by using ICP-MS, which has a detection limit of 0.0002 mg l-1. Method 245.1 describes mercury determination in drinking water by using CV-AAS, and method 245.2 with automated CV technique (ACVT). Methods 245.1 and 245.2 have no method detection limits, but method 245.7 describes mercury determination by using CV-AFS, which has a very low method detection limit (0.0000018 mg l-1) among all the methods mentioned above (USEPA 2009).
In the determination of mercury, there are so many challenges to overcome. If solid samples are considered for mercury analysis, there is the problem of heterogenic distribution of mercury. The high volatile nature of mercury and its compounds causes the loss of some content during sampling. It is very important to minimize the contamination of mercury from other sources during sampling and from laboratory reagents (Crock 2005). The most challenging issue in the determination and speciation of mercury is choosing the analytical technique because of the need for a highly sensitive and selective technique due to the very low concentrations of mercury in samples. As a result, many researchers are still using CV-AAS and CV-AFS because of the low cost and high sensitivity of these methods (Jokai Szatura 2007). Researchers must be aware of the quality of the data produced in the determination of mercury. The quality of the data can be enhanced by analyzing the related standard reference materials (SRMs) containing mercury.
Accurate determination of mercury concentration in various samples in the environment depends on many factors such as avoiding contamination during sampling and in the laboratory during analysis, choosing a highly selective and sensitive analytical technique and using SRMs for accuracy of the data.
Conclusion
A few historical tragic incidents of mercury poisoning, like the Minamata tragedy, make the determination and speciation of mercury an important task to environmental researchers worldwide. This study clearly predicts the importance of the determination and speciation of mercury in various environmental and biological samples due to the toxic nature of mercury and its different forms. Most of the researchers are aware of mercury contamination in drinking water. Apart from the drinking water, mercury can also enter the food chain through fish. For this reason, many researchers are interested in the determination of mercury concentration in fishes. Some international agencies like the USEPA and the World Health Organization also established standards for the concentration of mercury in water and fishes. Based on the literature survey, very few researchers measured the concentration of mercury in ambient air. It is very important to measure the ambient concentration of mercury because coal burning in thermal power stations is one of the major sources of mercury in the environment. A large number of papers were published about the determination of mercury in recent years. Most of the researchers performed total mercury studies instead of speciation studies. However, it is very important to determine methylmercury levels due to its toxicity. Regarding the analytical methods, most of the researchers used CV-AAS and CV-AFS for mercury determination. The determination and speciation studies of mercury in various environmental samples worldwide give useful information about mercury concentration that is needed for the implementation of the regulatory policies to decrease the mercury content in the environment. Another important factor is source prediction; by knowing the sources of mercury in the environment, it is easy to regulate its concentration in the environment.
About the authors
Lakshmi Narayana Suvarapu is a research Professor of Environmental Engineering at Yeungnam University, South Korea. He received a BSc degree in Chemistry, Physics and Zoology from Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India, in 2000, an MSc degree in Inorganic Chemistry in 2002, and a PhD in Analytical Chemistry in 2009 from Sri Venkateswara University. He received a gold medal from the Governor of Andhra Pradesh state, India, for securing highest marks in his master course in Chemistry. After his PhD, he joined as a postdoctoral research associate in Environmental Engineering at Pusan National University, South Korea. Since 2011, he has worked as a research Professor at Yeungnam University. His research in this institute includes the monitoring of air pollutants such as, PAH, VOC and heavy metals in ambient air with various analytical techniques. He also teaches Master’s students in various environmental topics in the Environmental Engineering Department of Yeungnam University. He is a life member of Indian Society for Analytical Scientists, National Environmental Science Academy, India, and a member of the Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment.
Young Kyo Seo is a postdoctoral research associate in Environmental Engineering at Yeungnam University, South Korea. He received BE, ME, and PhD degrees in Environmental Engineering from Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea between 1997 and 2010. Since 2010, he has worked as a postdoctoral research associate at Yeungnam University. His research in this institute includes the monitoring of hazardous air pollutants such as PAH, VOC and heavy metals in ambient air with various analytical techniques. He is a life member of the Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment.
Sung Ok Baek is a senior Professor of Environmental Engineering at Yeungnam University, South Korea. He received BE and ME degrees in Environmental Engineering from Dong-A University, Pusan, South Korea between 1976 and 1982. He received MSc and PhD degrees from the Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London in 1985 and 1988, respectively. He is currently working as the President of the Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment. He is a member of the advisory committee and Committee for Environmental Dispute Control, Korea Ministry of Environment. He has also served as a Vice President of Yeungnam University for the research and funding affairs committee and as Director of the Central Instrumental Analysis Center and Director of the Environmental Institute, Yeungnam University. He visited Oak Ridge National Lab, USA, as a guest scientist, and the University of Tennessee, USA, as a visiting Professor. His area of research includes ambient and indoor air quality management, fate and behavior of atmospheric organic pollutants (VOC, PAH and ETS), development of sampling and analytical methods for VOC and PAHs, personal modeling of particulate pollutants in ambient air and statistical interpretation of environmental data.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Mercury, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service: Atlanta, GA, 1999.Search in Google Scholar
Alizadeh, K.; Parooi, R.; Hashemi, P.; Rezaei, B.; Ganjali, M. R. A new Schiff’s base ligand immobilized agarose membrane optical sensor for selective monitoring of mercury ion. J. Hazard. Mater.2011a,186, 1794–1800.Search in Google Scholar
Alizadeh, T.; Ganjali, M. R.; Zare, M. Application of an Hg2+ selective imprinted polymer as a new modifying agent for the preparation of a novel highly selective and sensitive electrochemical sensor for the determination of ultratrace mercury ions. Anal. Chim. Acta2011b,689, 52–59.10.1016/j.aca.2011.01.036Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Antes, F. G.; Duarte, F. A.; Mesko, M. F.; Nunes, M. A. G.; Pereira, V. A.; Muller, E. I.; Dressler, V. L.; Flores, E. M. M. Determination of toxic elements in coal by ICP-MS after digestion using microwave-induced combustion. Talanta2010,83, 364–369.Search in Google Scholar
Bai, X.; Fan, Z. 3-Mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane coated capillary micro-extraction coupled to capillary electrophoresis for the determination of methylmercury, phenylmercury and mercury in biological sample. Microchim. Acta2010,170, 107–112.10.1007/s00604-010-0393-2Search in Google Scholar
Batista, B. L.; Rodrigues, J. L.; De Souza, S. S.; Souza, V. C. O. Mercury speciation in seafood samples by LC-ICP-MS with a rapid ultrasound-assisted extraction procedure: application to the determination of mercury in Brazilian seafood samples. Food Chem.2011,126, 2000–2004.Search in Google Scholar
Bernalte, E.; Sanchez, C. M.; Gil, E. P. Determination of mercury in ambient water samples by anodic stripping voltammetry on screen-printed gold electrodes. Anal. Chim. Acta2011,689, 60–64.Search in Google Scholar
Birke, M.; Reimann, C.; Demetriades, A.; Rauch, U.; Lorenz, H.; Harazim, B.; Glatte, W. Determination of major and trace elements in European bottled mineral water – analytical methods. J. Geochem. Explor.2010,107, 217–226.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, A. S.; Brown, R. J. C.; Dexter, M. A.; Corns, W. T.; Stockwell, P. B. A novel automatic method for the measurement of mercury vapour in ambient air, and comparison of uncertainty with established semi-automatic and manual methods. Anal. Methods2010,2, 954–966.Search in Google Scholar
Brzostowski, A.; Jarzynska, G.; Kojta, A. K.; Wydmanska, D.; Falandysz, J. Variations in metal levels accumulated in poison pax (Paxillus involutus) mushroom collected at one site over four years. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Environ. Sci. Eng.2011,46, 581–588.Search in Google Scholar
Castillo, A.; Gonzalez, P. R.; Centineo, G.; Navarro, A. F. R.; Alonso, J. I. G. Multiple spiking species-specific isotope dilution analysis by molecular mass spectrometry: simultaneous determination of inorganic mercury and methylmercury in fish tissues. Anal. Chem.2010,82, 2773–2783.Search in Google Scholar
Cervenka, R.; Zelinkova, H.; Konecna, M.; Komarek, J. Electrochemical modification of a graphite platform for a sold sampling electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry of mercury. Anal. Sci.2010,26, 989–993.Search in Google Scholar
Chai, X.; Chang, X.; Hu, Z.; He, Q.; Tu, Z.; Li, Z. Solid phase extraction of trace Hg(II) on silica gel modified with 2)2-oxoethyl)hydrazine carbothioamide and determination by ICP-AES. Talanta2010,82, 1791–1796.Search in Google Scholar
Chandra Sekhar Reddy, G. Derivative spectrophotometric determination of mercury(II) using diacetylmonoxime isonicotinoylhydrazone (DMH). Int. J. Chem.2011,3, 227–232.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, H. Y.; Hsiung, T. M.; Huang, Y. F.; Huang, C. C. Using rhodamine 6G-modified gold nanoparticles to detect organic mercury species in highly saline solutions. Environ. Sci. Technol.2011,45, 1534–1539.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, C.; Zhang, J.; Du, Y.; Yang, X.; Wang, E. Microfabricated on-chip integrated Au-Ag-Au three-electrode system for in situ mercury ion determination. Analyst2010a,135, 1010–1014.10.1039/b924545fSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
Chen, H. Q.; Fu, J.; Wang, L.; Ling, B.; Qian, B. B.; Chen, J. G.; Zhou, C. L. Ultrasensitive mercury(II) ion detection by europium(III)-doped cadmium sulfide composite nanoparticles. Talanta2010b,83, 139–144.10.1016/j.talanta.2010.08.052Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Cheng, H.; Hu, Y. Mercury in municipal solid waste in China and its control: a review. Environ. Sci. Technol.2012,46, 593–605.Search in Google Scholar
Ci, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Niu, Z. Atmospheric gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) over a coastal/rural site downwind of East China: temporal variation and long-range transport. Atmos. Environ.2011a,45, 2480–2487.Search in Google Scholar
Ci, Z.; Zhang, X. S.; Wang, Z. W.; Niu, Z. C.; Diao, X. Y.; Wang, S. W. Distribution and air-sea exchange of mercury (Hg) in the Yellow Sea. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.2011b,11, 1511–1542.Search in Google Scholar
Ci, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z. Elemental mercury in coastal seawater of Yellow Sea, China: temporal variation and air-sea exchange. Atmos. Environ.2011c,45, 183–190.Search in Google Scholar
Clemens, S.; Monperrus, M.; Donard, O. F. X.; Amouroux, D.; Guerin, T. Mercury speciation analysis in seafood by species-specific isotope dilution: method validation and occurrence data. Anal. Bioanal. Chem.2011,401, 2699–2711.Search in Google Scholar
Clevenger, W. L.; Smith, B. W.; Winefordner, J. D. Trace determination of mercury: a review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem.1997,27, 1–26.Search in Google Scholar
Compagnone, D.; Ricci, A.; Carlo, M. D.; Chiarini, M.; Pepe, A.; Sterzo, C. L. New poly(arylene ethynylene)s as optical active platforms in biosensing. Selective fluorescent detection of Hg(II) obtained by the use of aminoacidic groups anchored on conjugated backbones. Microchim. Acta2010,170, 313–319.Search in Google Scholar
Coufalik, P.; Cervenka, R.; Komarek, J. Mercury speciation in soil in vicinity of coal beds using sequential extraction. Environ. Earth Sci.2011,62, 421–427.Search in Google Scholar
Crock, J. G. Determination of total mercury in biological and geological samples. A presentation for the 2004 Teledyne Leeman Labs “Seminar on Low-Level Mercury Data and Analyses”. U.S. Geological Survey, M.S. 964, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Open-file report 2005-1030, 2005.10.3133/ofr20051030Search in Google Scholar
Dadfarnia, S.; Shabani, A. M. H. Recent development in liquid phase microextraction for determination of trace level concentration of metals – a review. Anal. Chim. Acta2010,658, 107–119.10.1016/j.aca.2009.11.022Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Deng, W.; Tan, Y.; Li, Y.; Wen, Y.; Su, Z.; Huang, Z.; Huang, S.; Meng, Y.; Xie, Z.; Luo, Y.; Yao, S. Square wave voltammetric determination of Hg(II) using thiol functionalized chitosan-multiwalled carbon nanotubes nanocomposite film electrode. Microchim. Acta2010,169, 367–373.Search in Google Scholar
Depoi, F. D. S.; Bentlin, F. R. S.; Pozebon, D. Methodology for Hg determination in honey using cloud point extraction and cold vapour-inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry. Anal. Methods2010,2, 180–185.Search in Google Scholar
Fan, A.; Ling, Y.; Lau, C.; Lu, J. Direct colorimetric visualization of mercury (Hg2+) based on the formation of gold nanoparticles. Talanta2010,82, 687–692.Search in Google Scholar
Faraji, M.; Yamini, Y.; Rezaee, M. Extraction of trace amounts of mercury with sodium dodecyle sulphate-coated magnetite nanoparticles and its determination by flow injection inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry. Talanta2010,81, 831–836.Search in Google Scholar
Fatemeh, M.; Yadollah, N.; Ehsan, K.; Carlos, E. V. C. Determining mercury contamination in Indian spiny turbot, Psettodes erumei, from Jask port coastal waters, Iran. J. Persian Gulf2011,2, 43–48.Search in Google Scholar
Feng, X.; Bai, W.; Shang, L.; He, T.; Qiu, G.; Yan, H. Mercury speciation and distribution in Aha reservoir which was contaminated by coal mining activities in Guiyang, Guizhou, China. Appl. Geochem.2011,26, 213–221.Search in Google Scholar
Frentiu, T.; Mihaltan, A. I.; Ponta, M.; Darvasi, E.; Frentiu, M.; Cordos, E. Mercury determination in non- and biodegradable materials by cold vapor capacitively coupled plasma microtorch atomic emission spectrometry. J. Hazard. Mater.2011,193, 65–69.Search in Google Scholar
Fu, X. C.; Chen, X.; Guo, Z.; Kong, L. T.; Wang, J.; Liu, J. H.; Huang, X. J. Three-dimensional gold micro-/nanopore arrays containing 2-mercaptobenzothazole molecular adapters allow sensitive and selective stripping voltammetric determination of trace mercury(II). Electrochim. Acta2010a,56, 463–469.10.1016/j.electacta.2010.09.025Search in Google Scholar
Fu, X. W.; Feng, X.; Dong, Z. Q.; Yin, R. S.; Wang, J. X.; Yang, Z. R.; Zhang, H. Atmospheric gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) concentration and mercury depositions at a high-altitude mountain peak in south China. Atmos. Chem. Phys.2010b,10, 2425–2437.Search in Google Scholar
Fu, X. C.; Chen, X.; Guo, Z.; Xie, C. G.; Kong, L. T.; Liu, J. H.; Huang, X. J. Stripping voltammetric detection of mercury(II) based on a surface ion imprinting strategy in electropolymerized microporous poly(2-mercaptobenzothiazole) films modified glassy carbon electrode. Anal. Chim. Acta2011,685, 21–28.Search in Google Scholar
Gao, Z.; Ma, X. Speciation analysis of mercury in water samples using dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction combined with high performance liquid chromatography. Anal. Chim. Acta2011,702, 50–55.10.1016/j.aca.2011.06.019Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Gao, Y.; Galan, S. D.; Brauwere, A. D.; Baeyens, W.; Leermakers, M. Mercury speciation in hair by headspace injection-gas chromatography-atomic fluorescence spectrometry (methyl mercury) and combustion-atomic absorption spectrometry (total Hg). Talanta2010,82, 1919–1923.Search in Google Scholar
Gao, Y.; Yang, W.; Zheng, C.; Hou, X.; Wu, L. On-line preconcentration and in situ photo-chemical vapor generation in coiled reactor for speciation analysis of mercury and methylmercury by atomic fluorescence spectrometry. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2011,26, 126–132.Search in Google Scholar
Garcia, I. L.; Rivas, R. E.; Cordoba, M. H. Liquid-phase microextraction with solidification of the organic floating drop for the preconcentration and determination of mercury traces by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry. Anal. Bioanal. Chem.2010,396, 3097–3102.Search in Google Scholar
Gholivand, M. B.; Mohammadi, M.; Rofouei, M. K. Optical sensor based on 1,3-di(2-ethylhexyl) triazene for monitoring trance amounts of mercury(II) in water samples. Mater. Sci. Eng.2010,30, 847–852.Search in Google Scholar
Gil, C.; Miras, R.; Perez, L. R.; Boluda, R. Determination and assessment of mercury content in calcareous soils. Chemosphere2010,78, 409–415.Search in Google Scholar
Gong, J.; Zhou, T.; Song, D.; Zhang, L. Monodispersed Au nanoparticles decorated graphene as an enhanced sensing platform for ultrasensitive voltammetric detection of mercury(II). Sens. Actuators, B2010,150, 491–497.Search in Google Scholar
Guzman-Mar, J. L.; Reyes, L. H.; Serra, A. M.; Ramirez, A. H.; Cerda, V. Applicability of multisyringe chromatography coupled to cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry for mercury speciation analysis. Anal. Chim. Acta2011,708, 11–18.Search in Google Scholar
Hamza, A.; Bashammakh, A. S.; Al-Sibaai, A. A.; AL-Saidi, H. M.; El-Shahawi, M. S. Part 1. Spectrophotometric determination of trace mercury(II) in dental-unit wastewater and fertilizer samples using the novel reagent 6-hydroxy-3)-(2-oxoind olin- 3-ylideneamino)-2-thioxo-2H-1,3-thiazin-4(3H)-one and the dual-wavelength β-correction spectrophotometry. J. Hazard. Mater.2010,178, 287–292.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, J.; Wang, T.; Lian, H.; Ding, Z. Bioaccessibility and health risk of arsenic, mercury and other metals in urban street dusts from a mega-city, Nanjing, China. Environ. Pollut.2011,159, 1215–1221.Search in Google Scholar
Jagtap, R.; Krikowa, F.; Maher, W.; Foster, S.; Ellwood, M. Measurement of methyl mercury (I) and mercury (II) in fish tissues and sediments by HPLC-ICPMS and HPLC-HGAAS. Talanta2011, 85, 49–55.Search in Google Scholar
Jain, V. K.; Solanki, N. S.; Singhal, U. Spectrophotometric determination of mercury in different brands of Mahayogaraj gugglu. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. Clin. Res.2011,1, 14–18.Search in Google Scholar
Janegitz, B. C.; Filho, L. C. S. F.; Marcolino-Junior, L. H.; Souza, S. P. N.; Filho, E. R. P.; Filho, O. F. Development of a carbon nanotubes paste electrode modified with crosslinked chitosan for cadmium(II) and mercury(II) determination. J. Electroanal. Chem.2011,660, 209–216.Search in Google Scholar
Jarzynska, G.; Falandysz, J. The determination of mercury in mushrooms by CV-AAS and ICP-AES techniques. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Environ. Sci. Eng.2011,46, 569–573.Search in Google Scholar
Jew, A. D.; Kim, C. S.; Rytuba, J. J.; Gustin, M. S.; Brown Jr., G. E. New technique for quantification of elemental Hg in mine wastes and its implications for mercury evasion into the atmosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol.2011,45, 412–417.Search in Google Scholar
Jia, X.; Han, Y.; Liu, X.; Duan, T.; Chen, H. Speciation of mercury in water samples by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction combined with high performance liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Spectrochim. Acta, Part B2011a,66, 88–92.10.1016/j.sab.2010.12.003Search in Google Scholar
Jia, X.; Han, Y.; Wei, C.; Duan, T.; Chen, H. Speciation of mercury in liquid cosmetic samples by ionic liquid based dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction combined with high-performance liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2011b,26, 1380–1386.Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, X.; Gan, W.; Wan, L.; Zhang, H.; He, Y. Determination of mercury by electrochemical cold vapor generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry using polyaniline modified graphite electrode as cathode. Spectrochim. Acta, Part B2010,65, 171–175.Search in Google Scholar
Jokai Szatura, Z. Challenges in Mercury Speciation. PhD Thesis. Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Applied Chemistry, Budapest, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
Khan, A. A.; Paquiza, L. Analysis of mercury ions in effluents using potentiometric sensor based on nanocomposite cation exchanger polyaniline-zirconium titanium phosphate. Desalination2011,272, 278–285.Search in Google Scholar
Khani, H.; Fofouei, M. K.; Arab, P.; Gupta, V. K.; Vafaei, Z. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes-ionic liquid-carbon paste electrode as a super selectivity sensor: application to potentiometric monitoring of mercury ion(II). J. Hazard. Mater.2010,183, 402–409.Search in Google Scholar
Kocman, D.; Vreca, P.; Fajon, V.; Horvat, M. Atmospheric distribution and deposition of mercury in the Idrija Hg mine region, Slovenia. Environ. Res.2011,111, 1–9.Search in Google Scholar
Krishna, M. V. B.; Chandrasekaran, K.; Karunasagar, D. On-line speciation of inorganic and methyl mercury in waters and fish tissues using polyaniline micro-column and flow injection-chemical vapour generation-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (FI-CVG-ICPMS). Talanta2010,81, 462–472.Search in Google Scholar
Kula, I.; Solak, M. H.; Ugurlu, M.; Isiloglu, M.; Arslan, Y. Determination of mercury, cadmium, lead, zinc, selenium and iron by ICP-OES in mushroom samples from around thermal power plant in Mugla, Turkey. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.2011,87, 276–281.Search in Google Scholar
Leermakers, M.; Baeyens, W.; Quevauviller, P.; Horvat, M. Mercury in environmental samples: speciation, artifacts and validation. Trends Anal. Chem.2005,24, 383–393.Search in Google Scholar
Leopold, K.; Foulkes, M.; Worsfold, P. Methods for the determination and speciation of mercury in natural waters – a review. Anal. Chim. Acta2010,663, 127–138.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Y. Electrogenerated chemiluminescence detection of mercury(II) ions based on DNA probe labeled with ruthenium complex. Anal. Sci.2011,27, 193–196.Search in Google Scholar
Li, P.; Feng, X. B.; Qiu, G. L.; Shang, L. H.; Li, Z. G. Mercury pollution in Asia: a review of the contaminated sites. J. Hazard. Mater.2009,168, 591–601.Search in Google Scholar
Li, J.; Lu, W.; Ma, J.; Chen, L. Determination of mercury(II) in water samples using dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and back extraction along with capillary zone electrophoresis. Microchim. Acta2011a,175, 301–308.10.1007/s00604-011-0679-zSearch in Google Scholar
Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, W.; Shao, X. Simultaneous determination of mercury, lead and cadmium ions in water using near-infrared spectroscopy with preconcentration by thiol-functionalized magnesium phyllosilicate clay. Talanta2011b,84, 679–683.10.1016/j.talanta.2011.01.072Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Li, T.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, J.; Tang, D.; Guo, S.; Ding, X. Ultrasensitive detection of mercury (II) ion using CdTe quantum dots in sol-gel-derived silica spheres coated with calix[6]arene as fluorescent probes. Microchim. Acta2011c,175, 113–119.10.1007/s00604-011-0655-7Search in Google Scholar
Liang, A. N.; Wang, L.; Chen, H. Q.; Qian, B. B.; Ling, B.; Fu, J. Synchronous fluorescence determination of mercury ion with glutathione-capped CdS nanoparticles as a fluorescence probe. Talanta2010,81, 438–443.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, C. Y.; Yu, C. J.; Lin, Y. H.; Tseng, W. L. Colorimetric sensing of silver(I) and mercury(II) ions based on an assembly of Tween 20-stabilized gold nanoparticles. Anal. Chem.2010,82, 6830–6837.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, Y. W.; Liu, C. W.; Chang, H. T. Fluorescence detection of mercury(II) and lead(II) ions using aptamer/reporter conjugates. Talanta2011,84, 324–329.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Q. Direct determination of mercury in white vinegar by matrix assisted photochemical vapor generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry detection. Spectrochim. Acta, Part B2010a,65, 587–590.10.1016/j.sab.2010.06.004Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Q. Determination of mercury and methylmercury in seafood by ion chromatography using photo-induced chemical vapor generation atomic fluorescence spectrometric detection. Microchem. J.2010b,95, 255–258.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, H.; Yu, P.; He, C.; Qiu, B.; Chen, X.; Chen, G. Rhodamine-based ratiometric fluorescence sensing for the detection of mercury(II) in aqueous solution. Talanta2010,81, 433–437.Search in Google Scholar
Lopez, I.; Cuello, S.; Camara, C.; Madrid, Y. Approach for rapid extraction and speciation of mercury using a microtip ultrasonic probe followed by LC-ICP-MS. Talanta2010,82, 594–599.Search in Google Scholar
Mandil, A.; Idrissi, L.; Amine, A. Stripping voltammetric determination of mercury(II) and lead(II) using screen-printed electrodes modified with gold films, and metal ion preconcentration with thiol-modified magnetic particles. Microchim. Acta2010,170, 299–305.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, L. G.; Jongwana, L. T.; Crouch, A. M. Capillary electrophoretic separation and post-column electrochemical detection of mercury and methyl mercury and application to coal samples. Electrochim. Acta2010,55, 4303–4308.Search in Google Scholar
Martinis, E. M.; Wuilloud, R. G. Cold vapor ionic liquid-assisted headspace single-drop microextraction: a novel preconcentration technique for mercury species determination in complex matrix samples. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2010,25, 1432–1439.Search in Google Scholar
Matsuyama, A.; Eguchi, T.; Sonoda, I.; Tada, A.; Yano, S.; Tai, A.; Marumoto, K.; Tomiyasu, T.; Akagi, H. Mercury speciation in the water of Minamata Bay, Japan. Water, Air, Soil Pollut.2011,218, 399–412.10.1007/s11270-010-0654-zSearch in Google Scholar
Matusiewicz, H.; Stanisz, E. Evaluation of high pressure oxygen microwave-assisted wet decomposition for the determination of mercury by CVAAS utilizing UV-induced reduction. Microchem. J.2010,95, 268–273.Search in Google Scholar
Microbac Laboratory Services, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Mercury and methods for its analysis, 2011. Available at: http://www.microbac.com/uploads/Technical%20Articles/pdf/Mercury%20and%20Methods%20for%20Its%20Analysis.pdf. Accessed on 22 February, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Miklavcic, A.; Stibilj, V.; Heath, E.; Polak, T.; Tratnik, J. S.; Klavz, J.; Mazej, D.; Horvat, M. Mercury, selenium, PCBs and fatty acids in fresh and canned fish available on the Slovenian market. Food Chem.2011,124, 711–720.Search in Google Scholar
Millour, S.; Noel, L.; Kadar, A.; Chekri, R.; Vastel, C.; Guerin, T. Simultaneous analysis of 21 elements in foodstuffs by ICP-MS after closed-vessel microwave digestion: method validation. J. Food Compos. Anal.2011,24, 111–120.Search in Google Scholar
Moreno, F.; Barrera, T. G.; Ariza, J. L. G. Simultaneous analysis of mercury and selenium species including chiral forms of selenomethionine in human urine and serum by HPLC column-switching coupled to ICP-MS. Analyst2010,135, 2700–2705.Search in Google Scholar
Mousavi, H. Z.; Asghari, A.; Shirkhanloo, H. Determination of Hg in water and wastewater samples by CV-AAS following on-line preconcentration with silver trap. J. Anal. Chem.2010,65, 935–939.Search in Google Scholar
Nuriman, Kuswandi, B.; Verboom, W. Optical fiber chemical sensing of Hg(II) ions in aqueous samples using a microfluidic device containing a selective tripodal chromoionophore-PVC film. Sens. Actuators, B2011,157, 438–443.10.1016/j.snb.2011.04.084Search in Google Scholar
Pacheco, P. H.; Spisso, A.; Cerutti, S.; Smichowski, P.; Martinez, L. D. Non-chromatographic screening method for the determination of mercury species. Application to the monitoring of mercury levels in Antarctic samples. Talanta2010,82, 1505–1510.Search in Google Scholar
Pandey, S. K.; Kim, K. H.; Brown, R. J. C. Measurement techniques for mercury species in ambient air. Trends Anal. Chem.2011,30, 899–917.Search in Google Scholar
Park, J. S.; Lee, J. S.; Kim, G. B.; Cha, J. S.; Shin, S. K.; Kang, H. G.; Hong, E. J.; Chung, G. T.; Kim, Y. H. Mercury and methylmercury in freshwater fish and sediments in South Korea using newly adopted purge and trap GC-MS detection method. Water, Air, Soil Pollut.2010,207, 391–401.Search in Google Scholar
Pehnec, G.; Sisovic, A.; Vadjic, V.; Zuzul, S. Influence of waste dump remediation on the levels of mercury in the air. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.2010,84, 623–627.Search in Google Scholar
Pilz, C.; Antes, F. G.; Moreira, C. M.; Mello, P. A.; Durate, F. A.; Pozebon, D.; Flores, E. M. De M.; Dressler, V. L. Determination of Hg species in edible mushrooms using reversed phase-liquid chromatography-chemical vapor generation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Braz. J. Anal. Chem.2011,5, 228–233.Search in Google Scholar
Pinheiro, S. C. L.; Raimundo Jr., I. M.; Bondi, M. C. M.; Orellana, G. Simultaneous determination of copper, mercury and zinc in water with a tailored fluorescent bipyridine ligand entrapped in silica sol-gel. Anal. Bioanal. Chem.2010,398, 3127–3138.Search in Google Scholar
Puanngam, M.; Ohira, S. I.; Unob, F.; Wang, J. H.; Dasgupta, P. K. A cold plasma dielectric barrier discharge atomic emission detector for atmospheric mercury. Talanta2010,81, 1109–1115.Search in Google Scholar
Quang, D. T.; Wu, J. S.; Luyen, N. D.; Duong, T.; Dan, N. D.; Bao, N. C.; Quy, P. T. Rhodamine-derived Schiff base for the selective determination of mercuric ions in water media. Spectrochim. Acta, Part A2011,78, 753–756.Search in Google Scholar
Rahimi, E.; Hajisalehi, M.; Kazemeini, H. R.; Chakeri, A.; Khodabakhsh, A.; Derakhshesh, M.; Miradamadi, M.; Ebadi, A. G.; Rezvani, S. A.; Kashakahi, M. F. Analysis and determination of mercury, cadmium and lead in canned tuna fish marketed in Iran. Afr. J. Biotechnol.2010,9, 4938–4941.Search in Google Scholar
Ramezani, Z.; Behfar, A. A.; Jafari, S. Low density polyethylene window for the determination of mercury by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2010,25, 886–888.Search in Google Scholar
Reyes, L. H.; Mar, J. L. G.; Ramirez, A. H.; Hernandez, J. M. P.; Barbosa, J. M. A.; Kingston, H. M. S. Microwave assisted extraction for mercury speciation analysis. Microchim. Acta2011,172, 3–14.Search in Google Scholar
Rodrigues, J. L.; Souza, S. S. D.; Souza, V. C. D. O.; Barbosa, F. Jr. Methylmercury and inorganic mercury determination in blood by using liquid chromatography with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and a fast sample preparation procedure. Talanta2010,80, 1158–1163.Search in Google Scholar
Rodrigues, J. L.; Alvarez, C. R.; Farinas, N. R.; Nevado, J. J. B.; Barbosa, F. Jr.; Doimeadios, R. C. M. Mercury speciation in whole blood by gas chromatography coupled to ICP-MS with a fast microwave-assisted sample preparation procedure. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2011,26, 436–442.Search in Google Scholar
Rofouei, M. K.; Sabouri, A.; Ahmadalinezhad, A.; Ferdowsi, H. Solid phase extraction of ultra traces mercury(II) using octadecyl silica membrane disks modified by 1,3-bis(2-ethoxyphenyl)triazene (EPT) ligand and determination by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry. J. Hazard. Mater.2011,192, 1358–1363.Search in Google Scholar
Romero, V.; Mora, I. C.; Lavilla, I.; Bendicho, C. Cold vapor-solid phase microextraction using amalgamation in different Pd-based substrates combined with direct thermal desorption in a modified absorption cell for the determination of Hg by atomic absorption spectrometry. Spectrochim. Acta, Part B2011,66, 156–162.Search in Google Scholar
Safavi, A.; Farjami, E. Construction of a carbon nanocomposite electrode based on amino acids functionalized gold nanoparticles for trace electrochemical detection of mercury. Anal. Chim. Acta2011,688, 43–48.10.1016/j.aca.2010.12.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Safavi, A.; Maleki, N.; Doroodmand, M. M. Fabrication of a selective mercury sensor based on the adsorption of cold vapor of mercury on carbon nanotubes: determination of mercury in industrial wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater.2010,173, 622–629.Search in Google Scholar
Sanchez-Rodas, D.; Corns, W. T.; Chen, B.; Stockwell, P. B. Atomic fluorescence spectrometry: a suitable detection technique in speciation studies for arsenic, selenium, antimony and mercury. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2010,25, 933–946.Search in Google Scholar
Santos, E. J. D.; Herrmann, A. B.; Santos, A. B. D.; Baika, L. M.; Sato, C. S.; Tormen, L.; Sturgeon, R. E.; Curtius, A. J. Determination of thimerosal in human and veterinarian vaccines by photochemical vapor generation coupled to ICP OES. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2010a,25, 1627–1632.Search in Google Scholar
Santos, E. J. D.; Herrmann, A. B.; Viera, F.; Sato, C. S.; Correa, Q. B.; Maranhao, T. A.; Tormen, L.; Curtius, A. J. Determination of Hg and Pb in compact fluorescent lamp by slurry sampling inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry. Microchem. J.2010b,96, 27–31.Search in Google Scholar
Shah, A. Q.; Kazi, T. G.; Baig, J. A.; Afridi, H. I.; Kandhro, G. A.; Arain, M. B.; Kolachi, N. F.; Wadhwa, S. K. Total mercury determination in different tissues of broiler chicken by using cloud point extraction and cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry. Food Chem. Toxicol.2010,48, 65–69.Search in Google Scholar
Silva, H. S.; Ruiz, S. V.; Granados, D. L.; Santangelo, J. M. Adsorption of mercury(II) from liquid solutions using modified activated carbons. Mater. Res.2010,13, 129–134.Search in Google Scholar
Somerset, V.; Leaner, J.; Mason, R.; Iwuoha, E.; Morrin, A. Development and application of a poly (2,2′-dithiodianiline) (PDTDA)-coated screen-printed carbon electrode in inorganic mercury determination. Electrochim. Acta2010,55, 4240–4246.Search in Google Scholar
Somerset, V. S.; Hernandez, L. H.; Iwuoha, E. I. Stripping voltammetric measurement of trace metal ions using screen-printed carbon and modified carbon paste electrodes on river water from the Eerste-Kuils river system. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Environ. Sci. Eng.2011,46, 17–32.Search in Google Scholar
Song, C.; Zhang, X.; Jia, C.; Zhou, P.; Quan, X.; Duan, C. Highly sensitive and selective fluorescence sensor based on functional SBA-15 for detection of Hg2+ in aqueous media. Talanta2010,81, 643–649.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, Z.; Jin, L.; Zhang, S.; Shi, W.; Pu, M.; Wei, M.; Evans, D. G.; Duan, X. An optical sensor based on H-acid/layered double hydroxide composite film for the selective detection of mercury ion. Anal. Chim. Acta2011,702, 95–101.Search in Google Scholar
Tan, H.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y. Detection of mercury ions (Hg2+) in urine using a terbium chelate fluorescent probe. Sens. Actuators, B2011,156, 120–125.Search in Google Scholar
Torres, D. P.; Dittert, I. M.; Hohn, H.; Frescura, V. L. A.; Curtius, A. J. Determination of mercury in gasoline diluted in ethanol by GF AAS after cold vapor generation, preconcentration in gold column and trapping on graphite tube. Microchem. J.2010,96, 32–36.Search in Google Scholar
Tsoi, Y. K.; Tam, S.; Leung, K. S. Y. Rapid speciation of methylated and ethylated mercury in urine using headspace solid phase microextraction coupled to LC-ICP-MS. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2010,25, 1758–1762.Search in Google Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Analytical feasibility support document for the second six-year review of existing national primary drinking water regulations. EPA 815-B-09-003, 2009. Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater. Accessed on 27 February, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Veeranna, V.; Prasad, A. R. G.; Rao, V. S. A novel spectrophotometric method for the micro determination of mercury(II). An. Univ. Bucuresti2011,20, 57–64.Search in Google Scholar
Voegborlo, R. B.; Adimado, A. A. A simple classical wet digestion technique for the determination of total mercury in fish tissue by cold-vapour atomic absorption spectrometry in low technology environment. Food Chem.2010,123, 936–940.Search in Google Scholar
Voegborlo, R. B.; Matsuyama, A.; Adimado, A. A.; Akagi, H. Determination of methyl mercury in marine and freshwater fish in Ghana using a combined technique of dithizone extraction and gas-liquid chromatography with electron capture detection. Food Chem.2011,124, 1244–1248.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Q.; Kim, D.; Dionysiou, D. D.; Sorial, G. A.; Timberlake, D. Sources and remediation for mercury contamination in aquatic systems – a literature review. Environ. Pollut.2004,131, 323–336.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Y.; Yang, F.; Yang, X. Colorimetric biosensing of mercury(II) ion using unmodified gold nanoparticles probes and thrombin-binding aptamer. Biosens. Bioelectron.2010a,25, 1994–1998.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, F.; Wei, X.; Wang, C.; Zhang, S.; Ye, B. Langmuir-Blodgett film of p-tert-butylthiacalix[4]arene modified glassy carbon electrode as voltammetric sensor for the determination of Hg(II). Talanta2010b,80, 1198–1204.10.1016/j.talanta.2009.09.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Wang, Z. H.; Yin, Y. G.; He, B.; Shi, J. B.; Liu, J. F.; Jiang, G. B. l-Cysteine-induced degradation of organic mercury as a novel interface in the HPLC-CV-AFS hyphenated system for speciation of mercury. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2010c,25, 810–814.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Q.; Chang, X.; Li, D.; Hu, Z.; Li, R.; He, Q. Adsorption of chromium(III), mercury (II) and lead(II) ions onto 4-aminoantipyrine immobilized bentonite. J. Hazard. Mater.2011,186, 1076–1081.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, C. R.; Leaner, J. J.; Nel, J. M.; Somerset, V. S. Mercury concentrations in water resources potentially impacted by coal-fired power stations and artisanal gold mining in Mpumalanga, South Africa. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Environ. Sci. Eng.2010,45, 1363–1373.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, C. R.; Leaner, J. J.; Somerset, V. S.; Nel, J. M. Mercury concentrations at a historically mercury-contaminated site in KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.2011,18, 1079–1089.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, J.; Li, L.; Shen, B.; Cheng, G.; He, P.; Fang, Y. Polythymine oligonucleotide-modified gold electrode for voltammetric determination of mercury(II) in aqueous solution. Electroanalysis2010,22, 479–482.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, X.; Yang, W.; Liu, M.; Hou, X.; Zheng, C. Vapor generation in dielectric barrier discharge for sensitive detection of mercury by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2011,26, 1204–1209.Search in Google Scholar
Xing, L. S.; Ying, Z. F.; Yang, H.; Cong, N. J. Thorough removal of inorganic and organic mercury form aqueous solutions by adsorption on Lemna minor powder. J. Hazard. Mater.2011,186, 423–429.Search in Google Scholar
Yamashita, Y.; Amlund, H.; Suzuki, T.; Hara, T.; Hossain, M. A.; Yabu, T.; Touhata, K.; Yamashita, M. Selenoneine, total selenium, and total mercury content in the muscle of fishes. Fish. Sci.2011,77, 379–386.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, F.; Liu, R.; Tan, Z.; Wen, X.; Zheng, C.; Lv, Y. Sensitive determination of mercury by a miniaturized spectrophotometer after in situ single-drop microextraction. J. Hazard. Mater.2010,183, 549–553.Search in Google Scholar
Yao, H.; Feng, X.; Guo, Y.; Yan, H.; Fu, X.; Li, Z.; Meng, B. Mercury and methylmercury concentrations in two newly constructed reservoirs in the Wujiang River, Guizhou, China. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.2011,30, 530–537.Search in Google Scholar
Yari, A.; Abdoli, H. A. Sol-gel derived highly selective optical sensor for sensitive determination of the mercury(II) ion in solution. J. Hazard. Mater.2010,178, 713–717.Search in Google Scholar
Yazdi, A. S.; Banihashemi, S.; Eshaghi, Z. Determination of Hg(II) in natural waters by diphenylation by single-drop microextraction: GC. Chromatographia2010,71, 1049–1054.Search in Google Scholar
Yin, Y. G.; Chen, M.; Peng, J. F.; Liu, J. F.; Jiang, G. B. Dithizone-functionalized sold phase extraction-displacement elution-high performance liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry for mercury speciation in water samples. Talanta2010,81, 1788–1792.Search in Google Scholar
Yuan, C. G.; Lin, K.; Chang, A. Determination of trace mercury in environmental samples by cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry after cloud point extraction. Microchim. Acta2010,171, 313–319.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, L.; Chang, X.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, L.; Shi, J.; Gao, R. Selective solid phase extraction and preconcentration of mercury(II) from environmental and biological samples using nanometer silica functionalized by 2,6-pyridine dicarboxylic acid. Microchim. Acta2010a,168, 79–85.10.1007/s00604-009-0261-0Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, L.; Li, T.; Li, J.; Wang, E. Carbon nanotube-DNA hybrid fluorescent sensor for sensitive and selective detection of mercury(II) ion. Chem. Commun.2010b,46, 1476–1478.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, W. B.; Su, Z. F.; Chu, X. F.; Yang, X. A. Evaluation of a new electrolytic cold vapor generation system for mercury determination by AFS. Talanta2010c,80, 2106–2112.10.1016/j.talanta.2009.11.016Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Zhang, W. B.; Yang, X. A.; Ma, Y. Y.; Zhu, H. X.; Wang, S. B. Continuous flow electrolytic cold vapor generation atomic fluorescence spectrometric determination of Hg in water samples. Microchem. J.2011a,97, 201–206.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Y.; Shi, W.; Feng, D.; Ma, H.; Liang, Y.; Zuo, J. Application of rhodamine B thiolactone to fluorescence imaging of Hg2+ in Arabidopsis thaliana. Sens. Actuators, B2011b,153, 261–265.10.1016/j.snb.2010.10.008Search in Google Scholar
Zhai, Y.; Duan, S.; He, Q.; Yang, X.; Han, Q. Solid phase extraction and preconcentration of trace mercury(II) from aqueous solution using magnetic nanoparticles doped with 1,5-diphenyl carbazide. Microchim. Acta2010,169, 353–360.Search in Google Scholar
Zhu, Z.; Liu, Z.; Zheng, H.; Hu, S. Non-chromatographic determination of inorganic and total mercury by atomic absorption spectrometry based on a dielectric barrier discharge atomizer. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.2010,25, 697–703.Search in Google Scholar
Zierhut, A.; Leopold, K.; Harwardt, L.; Schuster, M. Analysis of total dissolved mercury in waters after on-line preconcentration on an active gold column. Talanta2010,81, 1529–1535.Search in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
