FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 323:1096-1101 October 18, 1990 Number 16 Next

	Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Many paint companies have used phenylmercuric acetate as a preservative to prolong the shelf life of interior latex paint. In August 1989, acrodynia, a form of mercury poisoning, occurred in a child exposed to paint fumes in a home recently painted with a brand containing 4.7 mmol of mercury per liter (at that time the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended limit was 1.5 mmol or less per liter). METHODS. To determine whether the recent use of that brand of paint containing phenylmercuric acetate was associated with elevated indoor-air and urinary mercury concentrations, we studied 74 "exposed" persons living in 19 homes recently painted with the brand and 28 "unexposed" persons living in 10 homes not recently painted with paint containing mercury. RESULTS. The paint samples from the homes of exposed persons contained a median of 3.8 mmol of mercury per liter, and air samples from the homes had a median mercury content of 10.0 nmol per cubic meter (range, less than 0.5 to 49.9). No mercury was detected in paint or air samples from the homes of unexposed persons. The median urinary mercury concentration was higher in the exposed persons (4.7 nmol of mercury per millimole of creatinine; range, 1.4 to 66.5) than in the unexposed persons (1.1 nmol per millimole; range, 0.02 to 3.9; P less than 0.001). Urinary mercury concentrations within the range that we found in exposed persons have been associated with symptomatic mercury poisoning. CONCLUSIONS. We found that potentially hazardous exposure to mercury had occurred among persons whose homes were painted with a brand of paint containing mercury at concentrations approximately 2 1/2 times the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended limit.

Source Information

Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30306.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Nuttall, K. L. (2004). Interpreting Mercury in Blood and Urine of Individual Patients. Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science 34: 235-250 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Moya, J., Bearer, C. F., Etzel, R. A. (2004). Children's Behavior and Physiology and How It Affects Exposure to Environmental Contaminants. Pediatrics 113: 996-1006 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Davidson, P. W., Myers, G. J., Weiss, B. (2004). Mercury Exposure and Child Development Outcomes. Pediatrics 113: 1023-1029 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Risher, J. F, Murray, H E., Prince, G. R (2002). Organic mercury compounds: human exposure and its relevance to public health. Toxicol Ind Health 18: 109-160 [Abstract]  
• Goldman, L. R., Shannon, M. W., the Committee on Environmental Health, (2001). Technical Report: Mercury in the Environment: Implications for Pediatricians. Pediatrics 108: 197-205 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Halsey, N. A. (1999). Limiting Infant Exposure to Thimerosal in Vaccines and Other Sources of Mercury. JAMA 282: 1763-1766 [Full Text]  
• Merritt, E. F. (1999). Human Health and the Environment: Are Physician Educators Lagging Behind?. JAMA 281: 1661-1661 [Full Text]  
• Kulig, K. (1998). A Tragic Reminder about Organic Mercury. NEJM 338: 1692-1694 [Full Text]  
• Jones, H. R. JR (1996). Topical Review: Childhood Guillain-Barre Syndrome: Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Therapy. J Child Neurol 11: 4-12 [Abstract]