Byproduct of Nevada gold mining 

National Defense Stockpile

U.S. Department of Energy stockpile

Chloralkali plants using mercury in 2010

Major mercury reclamation and recycling 

facilities

EXPLANATION

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5137

Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material 

Substitution of Mercury in the United States
Cover: Map showing location of leading production sources and inventories of mercury in the United States in 2010.
Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, 

and Material Substitution of Mercury in 

the United States

By David R. Wilburn

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5137

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Wilburn, D.R., 2013, Changing patterns in the use, recycling, and material substitution of mercury in the 

United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5137, 32 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/

sir/2013/5137/.
iii

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge Cynthia Manson, principal, Industrial Economics, Inc., 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, for her insights and efforts to reconcile scarce data.
iv

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Historical Use, Production, and Legislation of Mercury .........................................................................2

Primary Production and Processes............................................................................................................5

Secondary Sources of Mercury..................................................................................................................7

Uses of Mercury.............................................................................................................................................8

Chloralkali Manufacturing.................................................................................................................13

Electrical and Electronic Instrumentation......................................................................................16

Switches, Relays, and Sensors ...............................................................................................16

Automobile Switches ................................................................................................................16

Batteries...............................................................................................................................................17

Lighting .................................................................................................................................................18

Instruments and Measuring Devices ..............................................................................................20

Measuring Devices....................................................................................................................20

Thermostats................................................................................................................................21

Dental Amalgam..................................................................................................................................22

Other Mercury-Containing Products...............................................................................................23

Effect of the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 on the U.S. Mercury Industry....................................24

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................26

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................27

Figures

1. Graph showing mercury production, consumption, stocks, and prices from 

1971 through 2010 in the United States .....................................................................................3

2. Graph showing mercury emissions and mercury recovered annually from Nevada 

gold mining operations from 2001 through 2011 ......................................................................6

3. Graph showing principal end uses of mercury in the United States for selected 

years since 1980............................................................................................................................9

4. Diagram showing the flow of mercury in the United States in 2000 and 2010 .................11

5. Chart showing the flow of mercury from the mercury-cell process used in the 

chloralkali manufacturing industry in the United States in 2008 ........................................14

6. Graph showing relationship between mercury exports from the United States and 

the number of mercury cells in operation in the United States from 1999 

through 2011 ................................................................................................................................15

7. Diagram showing material flow of mercury related to dental amalgam in 2009 .............23

8. Map showing location of leading production sources and inventories of mercury 

in the United States in 2010.......................................................................................................25
v

Tables

1. Federal legislation governing mercury in the United States.................................................4

2. Principal end uses of mercury and possible mercury-free substitutes ............................10

3. Principal destinations of mercury exported from the United States from 1999 

through 2011 ................................................................................................................................15

4. Mercury use in switches, relays, and sensors......................................................................16

5. Mercury use in automotive switches......................................................................................17

6. Mercury-containing lamps used in 2010.................................................................................19

Conversion Factors, Datum, and Abbreviations

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Mass

ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 28.35 gram (g) 

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.453592 kilogram (kg)

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 metric ton (t)

ton (short) per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 megagram per year (Mg/yr) 

ton (short) per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 metric ton per year (t/yr)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F–32)/1.8
vi

Abbreviations

ABS antilock brake

ALMR Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers

BAT best available technology

CFL compact fluorescent lamp

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

ECOS Environmental Council of States

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration

GSFL general service fluorescent lamp

HID high-intensity discharge

IMERC Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse

LCD liquid-crystal display

LED light-emitting diode

MCRBMA Mercury Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act

MEBA Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008

NDS National Defense Stockpile

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NEWMOA Northeast Waste Management Officials Association

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NVMSRP National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program

ppm parts per million

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

TRC Thermostat Recycling Corporation

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Abstract

Environmental concerns have led to numerous regulations that have dramatically decreased the reported production and use of mercury in the United States since the 1980s. 

Government legislation and subsequent industry actions have 

led to increased collection of mercury-containing materials 

and the recovery of mercury through recycling. Mercury emissions have been reduced and effective alternatives to mercury 

products have been developed for many applications. This 

study updates and quantifies the changes in demand, supply, 

use, and material flow for mercury in various sectors in the 

United States that have taken place since 1996.

Nearly all primary mercury produced in the United States 

is derived as a byproduct of processing of gold and silver ore 

in Nevada. Since 2001, annual production of mercury from 

gold and silver mining in Nevada has decreased by 22 percent 

overall because ore from greater depths containing low grade 

mercury is recovered, and mercury emissions from this source 

have decreased by 95 percent as a result of increased regulation and improved collection and suppression technology.

The distribution of consumption of mercury in the 

United States has changed as a result of regulation (elimination of large-scale mercury use in the paint and battery 

sectors), reduction by consumers (decommissioning of 

mercury-cell chloralkali manufacturing capacity), and technological advances (improvements in dental, lighting, and 

electrical and electronic sectors).

Mercury use in the chloralkali sector, the leading end-use 

sector in the United States in 1996, has declined by 98 percent 

from 136 metric tons (t) in 1996 to about 0.3 t in 2010 because 

of increased processing and recycling efficiencies and plant 

closures or conversion to other technologies. As plants were 

closed, mercury recovered from the infrastructure of decommissioned plants has been exported, making the United States 

a net exporter of mercury, even though no mercury has been 

produced as the primary product from mines in the United 

States since 1992.

In 1996, the three leading end-use sectors for mercury in 

the United States were chloralkali manufacturing (accounting for 38 percent of consumption), electrical and electronic 

instrumentation (13 percent of consumption), and instruments and measuring devices (11 percent of consumption). In 

2010, the three leading end-use sectors were dental amalgam 

(accounting for between 35 and 57 percent of consumption), 

electrical and electronic instrumentation (29 percent of consumption), and batteries (8 percent of consumption). Mercury 

use in lighting is increasing because incandescent lights are 

being phased out in favor of mercury-containing compact fluorescent bulbs, but the demand for mercury per unit produced 

is small.

Dental amalgam constituted the largest amount of 

mercury in use in the United States. One study reported 

about 290 t of mercury in dental amalgam was estimated to 

be contained in human mouths, an estimated 30 t of mercury 

amalgam was treated as waste, 28.5 t of mercury amalgam was 

released to the environment, 6 t of amalgam was recycled, and 

3.5 t was treated and stored in landfills in 2009.

Mercury contained in products recovered by State, 

municipal, or industry collection activities is recycled, but 

the estimated overall recycling rate is less than 10 percent. 

Increasingly, the U.S. mercury recycling industry has been 

processing a significant amount of mercury-containing material derived from foreign gold mining operations or decommissioned mercury-cell chloralkali plants.

Regulation of mercury export and storage is expected to 

result in surplus mercury inventories in the United States. The 

Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 limits elemental mercury 

exports for unregulated uses such as artisanal gold mining 

after January 1, 2013, and requires development of adequate 

long-term storage facilities in the United States for elemental 

mercury. During the past 4 years, producers and recyclers 

of elemental mercury have been exporting large quantities 

of mercury in anticipation of this regulation, but the U.S. 

inventory of mercury in 2010 was estimated to have exceeded 

7,000 t from Government stockpiles and industry stocks. Costs 

attributed to long-term storage may affect the competitiveness 

of mercury recycling.

Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material 

Substitution of Mercury in the United States

By David R. Wilburn
2 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Introduction

Mercury and its compounds have a long history of human 

use, dating back about 3,500 years in Egypt. Mercury is the 

only metal that is liquid at room temperature (20 degrees 

Celsius). It is a good electrical conductor, is highly resistant to 

corrosion, and has a high charge-density-to-weight ratio. The 

volatility of mercury at relatively low temperatures permits 

the metal to be readily separated from other materials through 

the application of heat and to be recovered with few impurities. Mercury has been used in a wide variety of applications, 

including batteries, catalysts, chloralkali production, dental 

amalgams, electrical switches and relays, electrochemistry, 

explosives, flow meters, fungicides, gold recovery, preservatives, reagents, thermometers, and thermostats (Sznopek and 

Goonan, 2000).

Although the high solubility of mercury in water as methylmercury and the ease of vaporization of methylmercury can 

be an advantage in some applications, these properties make 

mercury very mobile in the environment. Atmospheric releases 

of mercury vapor can be carried large distances and be 

deposited into lakes and streams. Under anaerobic conditions, 

mercury is converted into methylmercury, an organic form of 

mercury, which has been proven to be a neurotoxin that is easily bioaccumulated organisms (Griesbauer, 2007). Methylmercury can enter the food chain and accumulate in fish tissues at 

levels that can endanger animal and human populations further 

up the food chain.

Management and regulatory responses to environmental 

problems that are possibly related to mercury were initially 

constrained by a lack of reliable information on biological 

significance, chemical interaction with the environment, methods of transport, and manmade sources. Research advances 

since the 1980s have allowed scientists to assess the level of 

mercury in the environment; the data from these assessments 

have provided the baselines to develop regulatory actions 

and voluntary controls. Government legislation and industry 

actions have resulted in a reduction in the production and use 

of mercury since the late 1980s and an increase in the recovery 

of mercury through recycling. Research in recent years has 

led to improved mercury emissions collection technology and 

development of cost-effective alternatives to mercury-bearing 

products for many applications.

Materials flow studies provide insights into the factors 

that affect the flow of materials and quantify the amount of 

these materials from one form or location to another. Such 

studies provide background information for decisionmakers 

when balancing or weighing competing interests, managing resources, or formulating policy. A materials flow study 

of mercury in the United States was last published by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2000 and contained data 

as of 1996. A mercury recycling study was published by the 

USGS in 2005 using data as of 2000. This report, though not a 

global materials flow study or comprehensive recycling study, 

updates and quantifies the changes in use and flows of mercury 

that took place in the United States since 1996 in response to 

perceived health risks of mercury and consequent Government 

regulation. The report also identifies recurrent recycling activities and, where possible, quantifies the amount of mercury 

recycling that is taking place in the United States by end-use 

application. Factors influencing the magnitude of recycling 

also are discussed. The report identifies significant sources and 

stocks of mercury and discusses uses where significant substitution is taking place. The report evaluates industry use of 

mercury in light of existing and planned regulatory framework 

and assesses the possible effects of legislation on material use. 

The methodology used for this report is similar to that used in 

the Matos and Brooks (2005).

Because the report focuses on nonfuel mineral sources, 

it does not include mercury flows from coal-burning powerplants. Coal accounts for about half of the total U.S. manmade 

mercury emissions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2012e). About 75 metric tons (t) of mercury is burned in coal 

consumed at powerplants in the United States, and about 

25 t of mercury is captured through pollution control equipment (Bowen and Irwin, 2007). In November 2012, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed updated 

emission limits for new powerplants (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2012b).

Historical Use, Production, and 

Legislation of Mercury

Changes that have taken place in the primary and secondary (recycled) mercury industry in the United States reflect 

concern over the effects of mercury on the environment and 

human health and the resulting Federal and State regulatory 

actions implemented to reduce contamination of the environment from manmade mercury sources and to limit the use, 

export, and disposal of mercury. Figure 1 illustrates consumption, production, stocks, and prices of mercury in the United 

States from 1971 through 2010; significant Federal legislative and regulatory action from 1970 through 2011 is listed 

in table 1.

A number of States have implemented regulatory actions 

related to production, emissions, use, transport, and disposal 

of mercury. In the 1960s, strong demand for mercury in 

batteries, chloralkali manufacturing, and as a paint additive 

coupled with a relatively limited supply resulted in high mercury prices. However, after mercury was designated a toxic 

pollutant in 1971, regulations were promulgated to reduce 

mercury emissions and use. Demand for mercury subsequently 

decreased, resulting in a decrease in the price of mercury.

As shown in figure 1, the price of mercury in 1998 constant dollars generally decreased from 1971 through 2001 and 

increased from 2001 through 2010, although there was a large 

fluctuation in price from 1974 through 1980. The greatest 

increase in mercury price since 1971 took place from 2009 to 

2010. Impending mercury export bans in the European Union 

(2011) and the United States (2013) in combination with rising 
Historical Use, Production, and Legislation of Mercury 3

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

Production, stocks, and consumption, in metric tons

Price, in 1998 constant dollars per metric ton

Year

Consumption

Production, mine

Production, secondary

Stocks, government

Stocks, mine, consumer, and dealer

Price

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Mercury production, consumption, stocks, and prices from 1971 through 2010 in the United States. Secondary production 

includes byproduct production from gold, recycled material, and sales from Government stockpiles before 1994. Data are from U.S. 

Bureau of Mines (1973–96) and U.S. Geological Survey (1997–2011, 2012). Prices in constant 1998 dollars are from U.S. Geological 

Survey (2012).

gold and silver prices have affected the price of mercury. 

Mercury is used in small-scale artisanal gold mining in many 

parts of the world, and the rising price of gold has influenced 

the global demand for mercury (Brooks, 2012). Many artisanal 

gold deposits contain a significant amount of silver; the greater 

the amount of silver present in the deposit, the more mercury 

is required to recover the gold (Artisanal Gold Council, 2011). 

The price of mercury was also affected by diminishing supplies of mercury recycled from end-of-use mercury-containing 

products and limited availability of mercury from China and 

Kyrgyzstan (Brooks, 2012).

No mines have produced mercury as a principal product 

in the United States since the McDermitt Mine in northern 

Nevada closed in 1992 (Brooks, 2012). The largest production of byproduct mercury took place at several precious metal 

mines in Nevada in 2010, although mercury may be recovered 

in other areas such as base metal mines in Alaska (Red Dog 

Mine) and New York (Balmat district). Much of the base metal 

ore mined in Alaska is processed in Canada, and mercury 

production statistics are not available. In 2010, byproduct mercury production in the United States was estimated to be about 

92 t. Since the early 1970s, annual demand for mercury in the 

United States has declined from about 2,000 t (U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, 1973–96; U.S. Geological Survey, 1997–2011) to an 

estimated 70 t in 2010.

In spite of limited production of mercury, the United 

States has a substantial amount of elemental mercury in Government and industry stocks. The National Defense Stockpile 

(NDS) held an inventory of 4,436 t of mercury at several sites 

in the United States in 2012. Mercury sales from the NDS 

were suspended in 1994 in response to environmental concerns. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has stockpiled 

an additional 1,200 t of mercury in storage facilities in Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee (Virta, 2013). At yearend 2009, industry 
4 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Table 1. Federal legislation governing mercury in the United States.

Year Legislation

1970 The Clean Air Act authorized the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national standards for hazardous air pollutants.

1971 Mercury designated as a hazardous pollutant.

1972 The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act prohibited the use of many pesticides containing mercury.

1972 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorized the EPA to regulate mercury discharges into waterways.

1973 The Mercury was designated as a toxic pollutant. Standards were enacted for mercury ore-processing facilities and chloralkali 

plants.

1974 The Safe Drinking Water Act authorized the EPA to set standards for hazardous substances in drinking water.

1978 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act established regulations for the disposal of mercury-bearing waste.

1980 The Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act enacted Superfund to clean toxic waste sites.

1992 The EPA banned land disposal of high mercury content wastes generated from chloralkali plants.

1993 The EPA canceled registrations of the last two mercury-containing fungicides at the request of manufacturers.

1994 Congress suspended mercury sales from National Defense Stockpile until environmental issues resolved.

1996 The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act prohibited the sales of regulated batteries without recyclability or disposal labels and phased out most batteries containing intentionally added mercury.

2000 The EPA announced ban on discharges of various bioaccumulative chemicals, including mercury, in the Great Lakes Basin.

2002 The EPA set a limit of 2 parts per billion mercury in drinking water.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a limit of 1 part per million of methylmercury in seafood.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set a limit of 0.05 milligram per cubic meter of mercury in workplace 

air.

2002 The EPA banned the sale of mercury-containing thermometers.

2003 The Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act mandated reduced mercury emissions from all major sources, directed the EPA to 

issue revised standards, and set a timetable for the reduction of mercury emissions.

2007 The Energy Independence and Security Act included provisions phasing out incandescent light bulbs in favor of energy-efficient, 

compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), which contain mercury.

2008 The Mercury Export Ban Act prohibited the export of mercury after January 1, 2013, sale and transfer of elemental mercury, and 

addressed long term storage of elemental mercury.

2010 The EPA issued new rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act to be notified at least 90 days before the beginning of production of mercury-containing devices (such as flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers) that come into service after 

September 11, 2009.

 2010 The EPA published revised national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, from gold and silver production facilities. The standards reduce the maximum mercury emission level from 59 kilograms of mercury per 1 million metric 

tons of ore processed to 38 kilograms of mercury per 1 million metric tons of ore processed.

2011 The EPA finalized rules for performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage sludge incineration designed to reduce the 

amount of waste generated from dental offices.
Primary Production and Processes 5

stocks of mercury from consumers and dealers in the United 

States are reported to be 30 t, but these stocks exclude material 

included as process inventory, in structures, or as site waste of 

the chloralkali manufacturing industry (Brooks, 2011).

Consumption and emissions of mercury in the United 

States have decreased as a direct result of increasingly 

stringent regulations that have limited use of mercury. The 

amounts of mercury produced from gold mining and mercury 

that is recycled in the United States also has changed slightly 

since 1970. The most recent U.S. legislation on mercury is 

the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (MEBA), which prohibited Federal sales and the export of elemental mercury from 

the United States beginning on January 1, 2013. Increased 

amounts of surplus mercury were being exported in 2008 

and 2009 in anticipation of the mercury export ban. Supply 

or stocks of mercury in the United States that had not been 

exported before 2013 and are not designated for short-term use 

in the United States must be stored under stringent conditions 

outlined by the MEBA.

Primary Production and Processes

Mercury has not been produced as a principal mineral 

commodity in the United States since 1992, but it has been 

recovered as a byproduct from processing of gold- and silverore at several mines in Nevada. Unlike small artisanal mining operations in developing countries, mercury is not used 

to extract gold or silver at mines in Nevada. The presence of 

mercury in ores from these mines is a result of the coincidence 

of mercury in certain gold ores, which is released during processing. Retorts are used to recover elemental mercury from 

mercury-containing precipitates and from calomel collected 

from pollution control devices installed on roasters. A small 

amount of byproduct mercury is generated from the mining 

of copper, lead, silver, and zinc, although no data are available on the quantity of mercury produced from these sources. 

Mercury concentrations vary substantially from mine to mine, 

ranging from less than 0.1 gram per metric ton (g/t) of ore to 

about 8 g/t of ore, but the mercury content of most commercial ores is less than 1 g/t of ore (Miller, 2007). The USGS 

reported byproduct mercury production data from gold mining 

operations until 1992 when the McDermitt Mine closed and 

mercury production information was withheld to avoid disclosing proprietary data from the sole remaining producer. The 

average annual amount of byproduct mercury production from 

1990 to 1992 was 79 t (Matos and Brooks, 2005).

In 2000, the United States imported 103 t of elemental 

mercury, mainly from Australia and Germany (Matos and 

Brooks, 2005). In 2010, the United States imported 294 t of 

mercury, believed to have been derived primarily as a byproduct from precious metals mining operations in Chile and Peru 

(Brooks, 2011). It is likely that the 11 t of mercury that was 

imported in 2010 from Germany was in anticipation of a ban 

of exports of mercury from the European Union to be implemented in 2011.

A variety of methods are used to recover mercury from 

gold ore owing to variation in composition and concentration 

of gold found in the deposits. During pretreatment, roasting 

or autoclaving volatilize the mercury, making it available for 

capture by air pollution control devices (Miller, 2007). Roasting can recover about 95 percent of the mercury at a commercial grade of at least 99.9 percent purity (Nowak and Singer, 

1995). A roaster processing 2 million metric tons of ore with 

a mercury content of 2 g/t can yield 3.2 to 3.6 t of elemental 

mercury (Miller, 2007). If a cyanide leaching process is used, 

then gold and mercury cyanide complexes are retained on the 

activated carbon; mercury may be stripped from the carbon 

and recovered using electrowinning or the Merrill Crow 

process, but mercury recovery from carbon is difficult and 

expensive and not all the mercury is recoverable. Mercurybearing sludge from the electrolytic process and mercury-zinc 

precipitate from the Merrill Crow process is retorted both 

onsite and offsite to vaporize and remove the mercury from 

the gold and silver. Mercury vapor is condensed and the 

elemental mercury produced is then sold (van Zyl and Eurick, 

2000; Miller, 2007).

Common mercury pollution control systems include 

quenching of off-gasses by water spraying, particulate removal 

systems, sulfur dioxide scrubbers, and carbon adsorption. 

Calomel can be recovered from waste treatment of metal 

mining. The Boliden-Norzink process can be used to remove 

mercury from flue gases to make calomel (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2009).

Mercury in various forms is sold to U.S. recycling companies. Some gold processing operations process byproduct 

elemental mercury onsite and sell it through contracts to U.S. 

recycling companies, whereas others send calomel, mercurybearing sludge, mercury-zinc precipitates, and (or) mercury 

collected on pollution control devices to recyclers for further 

processing . Because these byproducts are not considered 

waste, companies are not required to report production data to 

the Toxics Release Inventory database (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2009, p. 19). Since 2006, however, the 

Nevada Mercury Control Program requires that companies 

that produce mercury compounds in Nevada must report 

annual mercury production and emission statistics to the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Data from 2006 

to 2010 were used in preparing figure 2.

Figure 2 shows an estimate of the amount of mercury 

recovered from gold mining in Nevada from 2001 through 

2011, based on the amount of ore processed annually at 

selected sites as reported by the company and historical 

mercury production figures from selected mines (Miller, 2007; 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2012). The estimates shown in figure 2 are in general agreement with other 

estimates of the amount of mercury produced from the region. 

Miller (2007) estimated Nevada byproduct mercury production in 2001 to be 97 t. Data reported by the Nevada Division 

of Environmental Protection include mercury contained in calomel, sludge, and recovered elemental mercury. The leading 

source of mercury from Nevada gold mines is the Goldstrike
6 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

EXPLANATION

Mercury recovered

Mercury emissions

Trend line

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Mercury recovered as a byproduct, in metric tons

Year

Mercury emissions, in metric tons

Figure 2. Mercury emissions and mercury recovered annually from Nevada gold mining operations from 2001 through 2011. The 

trend line shows an overall 22 percent decrease in mercury recovery from 2001 through 2011. The average annual amount of mercury 

recovered is estimated to be 96 metric tons. This average estimate is in general agreement with Miller (2007) and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2007) and was generated based on reported mine site production levels and historical mercury production 

statistics reported to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Mercury emission levels are reported by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (2012).

Mine owned by Barrick Gold Corporation. In 2010, about 

41 t of calomel and 13 t of elemental mercury were recovered 

from roasting and retorting operations at Goldstrike (Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection, 2012). Available data 

of reported production and historical mercury production at 

selected mine sites allow for the calculation of estimates of 

about 90 t of contained mercury recovered in 2001 and 92 t 

of elemental mercury and mercury contained in compounds 

recovered in 2010 by gold companies and mercury recycling 

companies in the United States. For 2001 through 2011, an 

average of 96 t of contained mercury was recovered annually 

from Nevada gold mining operations, but that amount varies depending on mercury content of the ore. Production has 

decreased an average of 22 percent annually since 2000.

In 2006, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection instituted the Nevada Mercury Control Program, which 

applies to all precious metal mining operations with thermal 

process units and requires the use of best available technology for maximum reduction in mercury emissions (Elges, 

2011). In 2010, the EPA published revised national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, 

from gold- and silver- production facilities. Mercury emission 

levels (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2012) 

suggest that the availability of improved collection and suppression technology, increasing regulation, and technological 

improvements made by the industry have led to the decrease 

in mercury emissions from Nevada mines of about 95 percent 

from 2001 to 2011 that is shown in figure 2 (Elges, 2011).

Historically, elemental byproduct mercury (grading 

99.9 percent pure) recovered from gold ore and calomel collected on pollution-control equipment used in Nevada gold 

mining has been sold or transferred to three mercury processing and recycling facilities in the United States—Bethlehem 

Apparatus Company, Inc., Hellertown, Pennsylvania; D.F. 

Goldsmith Chemical and Metal Corp. (subsidiary DFG Mercury Corp.), Evanston, Illinois; and WM Solutions, Union 

Grove, Wisconsin (Miller, 2007). The EPA monitors mercury 

emissions from each of these companies. These facilities also 

process or recycle mercury from other mercury-containing 

products and chemicals. For example, Bethlehem Apparatus 

uses equipment capable of recovering elemental mercury from 

calomel. Other leading U.S. recycling companies recover 

mercury from a variety of products include AERC Inc., 

Allentown, Pa.; Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc., 

Braintree, Massachusetts; and Veolia Environmental Services 

Inc., Lombard, Ill.
Secondary Sources of Mercury 7

Secondary Sources of Mercury

In the United States, less than 100 t of mercury was 

produced annually from 1996 through 2010 as a byproduct of 

gold and silver mining, primarily in Nevada (Nevada Division 

of Environmental Protection, 2012), so recycled mercury is the 

leading source of production of mercury in the United States. 

Recycled mercury is also recovered in the United States from 

mercury-containing products, such as batteries; compact 

and traditional fluorescent lamps; dental amalgam; electrical switches, relays, sensors; measuring instrumentation and 

thermostats; and medical devices. Although thermostats contain a switch, they have been classified with instruments and 

measuring devices to conform to the reporting format used by 

the USGS in the past. Mercury-containing scrap and industrial 

waste materials are imported into the United States through 

established contracts with U.S. recyclers for the recovery of 

elemental mercury.

The increase in mercury regulation has resulted in an 

overall reduction in the amount of mercury used in consumer 

products as well as an increase in mercury recycling, particularly in those jurisdictions where recycling of mercury 

in products is mandated. More than 60 companies recycle mercury-containing products in the United States (Association of 

Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 2012). These recycling companies and State and local government recycling collection 

agencies separate out mercury waste for further processing 

at the six leading mercury recycling companies in the United 

States. Mercury recycling information is limited because 

companies are not required to report recycling statistics, many 

mercury wastes are reported generically as hazardous wastes, 

and there is no data collection or reporting program at the 

national level. Recycling data may be available from summaries of periodic recovery programs, selected State or municipal 

statistical reports, and data provided by individual recyclers.

Part of the difficulty in reporting national mercury 

recycling statistics is a result of the different product mixes 

and processes used by the major mercury recycling companies to recover mercury metal. The capacity of each facility 

to reprocess or recover mercury is different from that of other 

facilities, and each operation varies with the type and form of 

mercury product that is received. Mercury recovery technology is often different for different mercury-bearing products, 

and each company uses a combination of proprietary methods 

to extract mercury from their product waste stream.

In the United States, treatment and disposal of many 

mercury-containing wastes are managed under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which requires that 

wastes or materials listed in the RCRA that fail the TCLP test 

be managed as hazardous waste. However, some wastes that 

contain mercury are not regulated as hazardous wastes under 

the RCRA (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005). 

Such materials include mine overburden and tailings, which 

can be landfilled; lamps and mercury-containing equipment, 

commonly treated as universal waste and managed separately 

before retort; and household waste, which can be landfilled or 

incinerated under the household exclusion to hazardous waste 

of the RCRA. Wastes can be exported to facilities outside the 

United States that meet standards equivalent to those in the 

RCRA (such as Canadian regulations allowing the stabilization and landfill of this material), and U.S. companies export 

mercury waste to Canada for treatment and disposal.

Thermal distillation and retort systems are most commonly used to recovery mercury, but separate retorts must 

be used for fluorescent lamps and other electrical or electronic devices and instrumentation. Depending on processing 

technology, mercury recovery rates can vary from 50 percent 

to more than 99.5 percent (Bethlehem Apparatus Company, 

Inc., 2012c). The amount of mercury metal that is treated, 

produced, landfilled, or sold to domestic or overseas markets 

by U.S. recyclers of mercury can vary from year to year owing 

to fluctuations in the price of mercury and changes in market 

demand. The global mercury recycling rate is estimated to be 

less than 10 percent (United Nations Environment Programme, 

2011), and the U.S. mercury recycling rate for sectors where 

product recycling is taking place is less than 25 percent, 

except for the chloralkali manufacturing and the gold mining 

sectors. The mercury recycling rate attributed to chloralkali 

manufacturing has been estimated to be 50 percent (Maxson, 

2006); the mercury recycling rate for the gold mining sector 

has not been reported.

In the past 4 to 5 years, the majority of mercury recycled 

by the major companies has been from imported mercurycontaining materials and mercury from closed chloralkali 

plants. Because a large part of the source of mercury for 

large recyclers is derived from short-term supply contracts 

(the amount of material sent to a recycling facility fluctuates 

greatly from year to year from hundreds of tons of material to 

nothing, static (single-year) data reporting can be misleading 

(Bruce Lawrence, present, Bethlehem Apparatus Company, 

Inc., written commun., September 20, 2012).

AERC Incorporated reprocesses 21 to 30 t of mercury 

annually (Carpenter and others, 2011). Bethlehem Apparatus 

processes more than 900 t of mercury waste annually (Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., 2012b). D.F. Goldsmith Chemical and Metal Corporation (DFG), which is not permitted 

to handle hazardous wastes, processes about 20 t of mercury 

annually from its distillation plant, but acts as a mercury broker by purchasing mercury from other recyclers for domestic 

or foreign resale. DFG also appears to be a buyer of mercury 

from closed chloralkali plants in the United States (Carpenter 

and others, 2011), but this could not be substantiated. WM 

Solutions Incorporated (formerly Mercury Waste Solutions) 

treats mercury waste containing an unknown mercury content 

from a variety of sources; the company processes more than 

1,633 t of waste annually (Carpenter and others, 2011).

Because the amount of mercury in products such as 

lamps is nominal, the large recyclers have lost some business 

to small recyclers that specialize in lamp recycling. Overall, 

the U.S. lamp recycling rate is about 24 percent. In 2012, 

about 600 million lamps were available for recycling (Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 2012).
8 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Available data suggest that the total amount of mercury 

recovered annually from recycled products in the United 

States is likely to range from 50 t to 265 t, depending on the 

level of supply of material from imports or closed chloralkali 

plants in a given year. Concorde reported that an estimated 

115 t of mercury was recovered from products in the United 

States in 2006; this estimate did not include material from 

the chloralkali or gold mining industries (Maxson, 2006). 

Increased demand for mercury from artisanal gold producers 

and increased recycling of dental amalgam, fluorescent lights 

and CFLs, and mercury-containing thermostats has led to 

increased recycling in the United States. The DOE provided 

an average annual estimate of about 62.5 t from mercury waste 

and recycling operations in the final environmental impact 

statement for long-term management and storage of elemental 

mercury (U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, p. 3). This amount 

is likely to decrease once the mercury export ban is implemented in 2018 because the ban will likely reduce mercury 

imports to a level sufficient to meet U.S. demand, reducing the 

amount that is recycled in the United States because processed 

mercury could not be re-exported under the MEBA.

Discarded mercury-containing products, such as automobile convenience switches, batteries, chemicals, dental amalgam, electrical and electronic instrumentation, instruments and 

measuring devices, lighting, and thermostats, are the primary 

sources of old mercury scrap. Some of these products are 

collected locally or regionally but few nationwide programs 

exist for collecting mercury products. Most collected mercurycontaining products are processed at a few major recycling 

companies. Bethlehem Apparatus, for example, processes 

more than 50 types of mercury-bearing chemicals, devices, 

and materials (Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., 2012a). 

WM Solutions (a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.) processes batteries, computer boards, lamps, medical devices, and 

waste soil and water from chloralkali manufacturing, dental 

facilities, and gold mining.

Uses of Mercury

In 1980, the three principal industrial uses of mercury

were batteries (1,000 t), chloralkali manufacturing (330 t), and 

paint (300 t) (Matos and Brooks, 2005). By 1990, primarily as 

the result of regulation and technological advances, mercury 

use in batteries had decreased to about 100 t and paint use 

was about 20 t; the primary use of mercury was in chloralkali 

manufacturing (250 t) and instruments and measuring devices 

(110 t). By 2000, mercury was used only in small, button-cell 

batteries; manufacturers of most fungicides and paint were no 

longer using mercury, and annual use in chloralkali manufacturing had decreased by 76 percent from 1980 to 80 t. In 

2001, mercury use in products (excluding chloralkali manufacturing) accounted for 245 t in wiring devices and switches 

(42 percent), instruments and measuring devices (28 percent), 

dental equipment and supplies (14 percent), and electrical 

lighting (9 percent), and other applications (7 percent) (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). Figure 3 illustrates 

the amount of mercury used in the principal end-use categories 

for selected years from 1980 through 2010.

Over time, the distribution of mercury use has changed 

significantly as Federal and State regulations have limited 

some uses (such as paint and batteries), consumers (such as 

chloralkali manufacturers) have voluntarily reduced their use 

of mercury, and new technology has increased mercury use 

in lamps used in lighting. In 2007, consumption of mercury 

in the United States was estimated to be 67 t, primarily in 

switches and relays (42 percent), dental amalgam (22 percent), 

and lighting (14 percent) (Wienert, 2009). In 2010, estimated 

mercury recovery was about 52 t from recycling of products in 

the United States. Principal sources of mercury from recycled 

products in the United States included dental amalgam (estimated in this report to account for 57 percent of U.S. recycled 

product supply) and switches and relays (29 percent). In 2010, 

the chloralkali industry in the United States consumed less 

than 1 t of mercury. Additional sources of mercury supply in 

the United States in 2010 included imported mercury (294 t), 

byproduct mercury from gold mining (92 t), and mercury contained in imported products and scrap (38 t). The mercury that 

was produced from these sources and was not required to meet 

demand for mercury in the United States was processed, then 

exported. Mercury imports and exports from 2008 through 

2010 were at a level higher than previous years in anticipation 

of the mercury export bans that were enacted in the European 

Union in 2011 and scheduled to be enacted in the in the United 

States in 2013.

Use of mercury in the chloralkali industry decreased as 

mercury-cell plants were closed or converted to nonmercury 

technologies. In 1996, there were 14 mercury-cell chloralkali 

plants in operation in the United States. By 2010, four plants 

were in operation, and by the end of 2012, only two plants 

were operating as mercury-cell chloralkali plants; one plant 

closed and one plant was converted to membrane technology, 

which does not use mercury. The passage of the MEBA in 

2008 accelerated plans for closures of mercury-producing or 

mercury-refining plants in anticipation of the ban on mercury 

exports. As mercury-cell plants are decommissioned, much of 

the mercury recovered from processing equipment, structures, 

and waste is exported because the large volume (typically 

more than 200 t) of mercury recovered from these facilities 

is greater than U.S. demand for mercury (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). As global regulations make it 

more difficult to import, sell, or dispose of mercury, industries 

using mercury must increasingly rely on recycled mercury for 

their needed supply or find acceptable substitutes for mercury 

for each end-use application (table 2). End-use markets are 

discussed individually in this report because of consumption, 

recyclability, and supply differences among the markets.

There are no Federal mandates for mercury recycling, 

except for large methylmercury batteries. Recycling mercury 

from other products varies from State to State depending on 

the extent to which the State promotes mercury recycling. 
Uses of Mercury 9

Some States have well developed mercury recycling programs 

and others have none. Thus, available mercury collection data 

vary by State and product. In 2001, the Interstate Mercury 

Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) was created 

to collect data on mercury reduction activities and programs 

offered by States. In 2007, the IMERC collected mercury 

recycling data from 15 member States. In 2011, six companies 

accounted for the majority of recycled mercury recovery in the 

United States. Mercury-containing automobile convenience 

switches, barometers, computers, dental amalgam, fluorescent 

lamps, medical devices, thermostats, and some mercury-containing toys were collected through State- and city-sponsored 

programs, industry-sponsored programs, or from individuals, 

sorted and processed by as many as 50 small companies, then 

shipped to the six large companies for retorting and reclamation of the mercury. Excess mercury processed and recovered 

by recyclers is sold on international markets (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009).

The largest nationwide recycling programs for which data 

are available are the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP), started in 2006 by the EPA to reduce 

mercury emissions when vehicles are scrapped and parts are 

reused or remanufactured, and the mercury-switch recycling 

program conducted by the Thermostat Recycling Corporation since 1997. Data collected by the NVMSRP are provided 

by vehicle manufacturers to End of Life Vehicle Solutions 

Corporation, an organization that maintains and promotes the 

environmental activities of the automotive industry. Available 

recycling data derived from these programs and other sources 

are reported in the following discussions.

Figure 4 summarizes the principal sources and distribution of the supply of primary and recycled mercury and quantifies the flow of mercury in the United States in 2000 and 2010. 

Much of the data in figure 4 is estimated, and the values and 

volumes of many categories of mercury-containing material 

described here and in the following discussions have changed 

significantly since 2000. It should be noted that data can 

change from year to year with variations in mercury collection 

activities, changes in the amount of mercury that is imported 

for processing, and closure of chloralkali plants, which can 

add to mercury supply and cause flow estimates to vary from 

average levels. Reliable annual data are difficult to obtain 

0 

20 

40 

60 

Domestic recycling for 

U.S. consumption 

Imported products for

U.S. consumption 

Mercury use, in metric tons

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 

Mercury use, in metric tons

Year

EXPLANATION

Chloralkali manufacturing

Chemicals and compounds

Batteries

Other applications

Paint 

Lighting

Instruments and measuring devices

Laboratory uses

Switches and relays

Dental amalgam 

Figure 3. Principal end uses of mercury in the United States for selected years since 1980. Data for 1980 through 1998 are from Matos 

and Brooks (2005), for 2001 through 2007 are from Wienert (2009), and estimates for 2010 were generated for this report.
10 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Table 2. Principal end uses of mercury and possible mercury-free substitutes.—Continued

[Data are from United Nations Environment Programme (2002, p. 141–144). BAT, best available technology; CFL, compact fluorescent light; LED, light 

emitting diode]

Product or application Alternatives Cost relative to mercury technology

Mercury cell process, used in chloralkali manufacturingBAT is mercury-free membrane technology. Nonasbestos diaphram technology also considered 

BAT

Overall alternative technology costs are similar 

to higher than mercury-cell costs, primarily because conversion costs are significant; 

however membrane process costs for waste 

disposal, electricity, and raw materials are 

lower than for the mercury cell process.

Dental amalgam Wide variety of potential alternative materials that 

include gold, silver, gallium, ceramic, porcelain, 

polymers, and composites are available, but not 

all are fully capable of substitution

Costs vary from less to more; some more easy 

to apply and others more difficult; none of 

the alternatives require specialized wastewater treatment required when using mercury 

amalgam.

Mercuric-oxide and mercury-zinc 

button cell batteries

Mercury-free zinc-air batteries and other alternatives containing less than 10 milligrams of 

mercury are available. Button cell batteries are 

still produced for selected applications

Battery cost can be higher, but collection and 

disposal of alternative battery types are not 

necessary, so these costs can be avoided.

Batteries of other types Standard and rechargeable mercury- and cadmiumfree batteries availableStandard mercury-free batteries cost about the 

same as those being replaced; purchase costs 

of cadmium-free rechargeable batteries are 

significantly higher, but costs become less 

expensive if battery is recharged more than 

10 to 15 times.

Medical thermometers Many alternatives, including single-use, electronic, 

and glass thermometers containing a galliumindium-tin alloy

When first initiated, digital thermometers were 

more expensive; the cost of gallium-indiumtin thermometers should approach the cost 

of mercury thermometers over time as more 

are produced.

Other thermometers Nonmedical thermometer alternatives to mercury 

include digital sensors (most common) or thermometers that use gas or other liquids; choice 

depends on the temperature range, application, 

and need for precision (for a small number of 

precision applications, mercury thermometers 

are still preferred)

Large variation in price; long life of an electronic thermometer may make cost competitive with mercury thermometer if price 

annualized.

Laboratory equipment Alternative technologies are available Costs are generally similar.

Pesticides Banned in many countries; principal alternatives 

include processes not requiring pesticides or 

easily degradible, narrow targeted substances 

with minimal environmental effect

It is likely that in most cases the costs are 

comparable, and environmental benefits are 

considerable; effectiveness of alternatives 

not documented.

Pressure measuring and 

control equipment

Alternatives include flexible membranes, piezoelectric crystals and other sensors, and fiberoptic 

pressure sensors; in U-tube meters, barometers, 

manometers, mercury can be replaced by 

another liquid or gas; for remote transmission 

of readings, a mercury transmitter containing up 

to 8 grams of mercury can be replaced with a 

potentiometer or a differential transformer that 

transmits an electronic signal (a diaphragm sensor is also commonly used)

Costs are generally similar.

Tilt-switch used in circuit control, 

thermostats, or communications

Manual, rolling ball, alternative fluid, microswitch Costs are generally similar.
Uses of Mercury 11

Table 2. Principal end uses of mercury and possible mercury-free substitutes.—Continued

[Data are from United Nations Environment Programme (2002, p. 141–144). BAT, best available technology; CFL, compact fluorescent light; LED, light 

emitting diode]

Product or application Alternatives Cost relative to mercury technology

Electronic switch used in circuit control, thermostats, 

or communications

Solid-state switch, optical switch Costs are generally similar.

Reed-switch Solid-state switch, electrical-optical switch, semiconductorCosts are generally similar.

Proximity sensor Inductive sensor, capacitive sensor, photoelectric 

sensor

Costs are generally similar.

Energy-efficient (CFL) lamps LED-based lamps Costs are higher than traditional lamps.

Artisanal gold extraction Possible alternatives include a nonmercury electrolytic process used in Brazil, but not widely 

accepted, or the Minataur process developed in 

South Africa

Costs are higher because only used on a 

small scale.

Imports

294 (103) Exports 

Byproduct of

gold mining

92 (120)e

Chloralkali

manufacturing

Processing and recycling 

517 (383)e Product fabrication

New scrap

generated

Old scrap

generated

72 (250)e

Old scrap 

supply

183 (250)

Domestic

reservoir

of mercury

in use,

net change

–133 (–140)e

Old scrap

unrecovered, lost,

or landfilled

92 (95)e

72e

111e 294

(103)

92

(120)e

517 (383)e

92

(95)e

72

(250)e

50 (110)e

111e

459 (182)e

6 (86)e

2

(5)e

52 (115)e

2

(5)e

50

(110)e

U.S. supply of primary and secondary mercury Distribution of U.S. supply of primary and secondary mercury 

Mercury in

imported

waste

and scrap

38e

38e

Industrial

waste

generated

111e

Old scrap

91 (155)e

New scrap

2 (5)e

Products to U.S. markets 

• Batteries

• Dental amalgam

• Instruments and 

measuring devices

• Lighting

• Thermostats

• Wiring devices and 

switches

• Other applications

Figure 4. The flow of mercury in the United States in 2000 and 2010. Quantities are in metric tons of contained mercury. Values in 

bold reflect quantities in 2010; values in parenthesis reflect quantities in 2000 as reported by Matos and Brooks (2005). Industrial waste 

derived from soils from chloralkali plants that have been closed, industrial process waste, and waste imported from Canada were not 

reported in 2000. Values exclude dissipative losses. e, estimated.
12 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

because the use of mercury has been in decline, mercury is a 

low-volume commodity, and tracking of mercury recycling 

and sales are not mandated.

Figure 4 shows data from Matos and Brooks (2005) and 

estimates generated for this report. Matos and Brooks (2005) 

reported data for 2000, and this report includes data for 2010; 

the two studies used similar methodologies. Figure 4 shows 

two added components (indicated by dashed lines) that were 

not reported separately by Matos and Brooks (2005). The 

amount of mercury contained in imported products and scrap 

was estimated to be 38 t, and the amount of mercury contained 

in industrial waste generated from gold mining and a mercurycell chloralkali plant that was decommissioned in 2009 was 

estimated to be 111 t.

Because the mercury recycling sector is undergoing 

considerable change, flows of mercury in the United States 

have changed considerably from year to year as the U.S. 

manufacturing industry adjusts to the export ban of mercury 

from the European Union enacted in 2011 and prepares for the 

export ban of mercury from the United States that is scheduled 

to take effect in 2013. It is likely that the data for 2010 may 

be considerably different from mercury flows in 2011 and 

2012 as mercury use in chloralkali manufacturing diminishes, 

material from mercury-cell plants is recovered and exported, 

and existing mercury stockpiles are depleted in anticipation 

of the U.S. mercury export ban. A summary of the details 

in figure 4 follows.

Elemental mercury import data (294 t) and export data 

(459 t) are published by Brooks (2011). Data do not include 

mercury contained in imported or exported products, but may 

include material imported for processing then exported for 

foreign consumption.

Mine byproduct mercury data (92 t) were estimated 

based on company-reported mine site gold production levels 

and historical mercury production statistics as reported by 

Miller (2007) and the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (2012). Data on the production of mercury as a 

byproduct from gold mining in the United States from 1988 

through 2004 and in 2006 were compiled and compared with 

gold production data for the same years. Byproduct mercury 

production data for 2005 and 2011 were estimated based on 

the observed relationships between gold and mercury production from producing mines in years where mercury production was reported. Estimates for 2006 through 2010 were 

developed based on company data reported to the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection. Data include mercury 

recovered from calomel (mercurous chloride, a mercurybearing byproduct (about 85 percent mercury) formed during 

gold processing that is captured by pollution-control devices 

at smelters and retorted offsite to recovery mercury). About 

517 t of mercury was recovered in 2010. Of the mercury 

processed in the United States, 57 percent was derived from 

imports, 25 percent came from old product scrap, 18 percent 

was recovered as a byproduct of gold mining, and less than 

0.4 percent came from new scrap.

In 2000, about 115 t of mercury was used in the fabrication of various products, primarily switches and thermostats. 

Honeywell International, Inc., the largest producer of mercurybased thermostats and switches in the United States, stopped 

producing mercury-based products in the United States in 

2006. In 2010, about 52 t of mercury was used in the fabrication of products. The 50 t shown as products to U.S. markets 

in the distribution section of figure 4 reflects the amount of 

mercury contained in products produced in the United States 

for domestic consumption or export. The estimated amount 

of mercury used in 2010 is lower than prior years because of 

the closure of mercury cells in the chloralkali manufacturing 

sector and declining use of mercury in other product sectors. 

Brooks (2011) reports mercury use to be “less than 100 t”.

In 2010, about 38 t of mercury contained in imported 

products and scrap was estimated to have been processed and 

recycled in the United States. No data are available on the 

amount of such material processed in 2000.

The reservoir of mercury in use in the United States 

includes mercury contained in fabricated materials such as 

automobile convenience switches, dental amalgam, fluorescent 

lamps, and thermostats produced in prior years and still in use. 

It also contains mercury produced from domestic recycling, 

recovered from process equipment from recently decommissioned chloralkali plants for domestic use or export, recovered 

from contaminated soils, equipment, or structures associated 

with decommissioned chloralkali plants or gold processing, or 

recovered by recycling of imported waste products. Consequently, the reservoir of mercury in use can vary significantly 

from year to year.

The old scrap supply (183 t) for 2010 includes 72 t 

of postconsumer scrap generated by recycling of mercurycontaining products in the mercury reservoir in the United 

States that were fabricated before or during the specified year. 

The old scrap supply also includes 111 t of mercury contained 

in industrial wastes from a chloralkali plant that closed in 

2009, residues from dental facilities and the gold industry, and 

imported waste from Canada, materials that were not reported 

separately in the 2005 study. Although data on mercury from 

industrial sources is limited, the quantity that becomes available in any given year can vary significantly from year to year.

Estimates of the amount of old scrap generated from 

discontinued or discarded products has decreased from about 

250 t in 2000 to about 72 t in 2010. Estimates of the amount of 

old scrap consumed (155 t in 2000 and 91 t in 2010) reflect the 

amount of mercury processed or recycled for export or reuse 

in the United States and derived from the recovery of industrial wastes and fabricated products.

Old scrap unrecovered, lost, or landfilled (95 t in 2000 

and 92 t in 2010) is an estimate of the amount of mercury in 

discarded products containing mercury that is stored, lost during processing or incineration, discarded in landfills, discarded 

at dental facilities, or portions of dental amalgam lost during cremation or burial. It does not include dissipative losses 

to the air or water. In chloralkali manufacturing, mercury is 
Uses of Mercury 13

purchased annually to replace mercury that is consumed during processing or lost to the environment. The Chlorine Institute reports that 6.5 t of replacement mercury was purchased 

in 2010 (Robyn Brooks, project engineer, The Chlorine Institute, Inc., written commun., August 8, 2012). Two mercurycell chloralkali plants closed or were converted to nonmercury 

uses in 2012, leaving only two remaining plants in operation 

in the United States; the amount of mercury purchased for 

use in the remaining two chloralkali plants will likely be less 

than 1 t annually until these plants are decommissioned. New 

scrap (5 t in 2000 and 2 t in 2010) represents the amount of 

new mercury recovered in the United States during the product 

fabrication process and returned for recycling or reuse.

In 2000, 115 t of mercury was estimated to have been 

used in the United States in product fabrication; the corresponding consumption in 2010 was estimated to be 52 t based 

on data compiled by the USGS and supported by unpublished 

industry estimates (Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem 

Apparatus Company, Inc., and Cynthia Manson, Industrial 

Economics, Inc., written commun., October 11, 2012). Specific amounts for each end use were not available. Estimates 

were derived from the total amount processed and recycled in 

the United States less the amount exported, used in the chloralkali industry, or placed in temporary storage for future use.

Chloralkali Manufacturing

The chloralkali industry was the leading consumer of

mercury in the United States from 1988 to 2002 (Matos and 

Brooks, 2005). Since 1995, the amount of new mercury used 

by the chloralkali manufacturing industry in the United States 

has steadily declined by 98 percent from 136 t in 1996 to 

an estimated 0.3 t in 2010 because of increased efficiencies 

and closures or conversions to nonmercury technologies at 

mercury-cell plants; the industry continues to recycle mercury 

from its mercury-cell chloralkali plants. In 2005, the U.S. 

chloralkali industry reportedly recovered about 50 percent 

of the mercury waste generated in processing through onsite 

recycling; the balance was retained in processing equipment 

and soils until such time as the plant is decommissioned and 

additional mercury can be recovered (Maxson, 2006, p. 14).

The chloralkali manufacturing process is an electrolytic 

process that involves passing an electric current through a 

brine that contains either sodium chloride or potassium chloride to yield chlorine gas, a caustic solution of sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, and hydrogen. Three types of 

electrolytic cells can host this reaction: the diaphragm cell, the 

membrane cell, and the mercury cell. Cells are differentiated 

in the way the chlorine is kept separate from the coproducts 

generated in the cathode. In the mercury cell, the mercury acts 

as a cathode and forms an amalgam with sodium that separates 

the sodium from the caustic and hydrogen production. Water is 

added to remove the sodium, and the majority of the mercurybearing sludge is recycled onsite and reused in the electrolyticcell process. Because mercury is recycled internally, this 

recycled mercury remains as part of the reservoir of mercury 

in use (fig. 4) and does not become available for part of the 

mercury flow as illustrated in figure 5 but becomes important when the plant is closed and the onsite mercury is sold. 

In 1992, the EPA banned disposal into the land of mercurybearing sludge generated from the electrolytic production of 

chlorine-caustic soda (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1993).

With the decline in the use of the mercury-cell, the 

diaphragm-cell, which involves an asbestos-based diaphragm 

(either asbestos or polymer-modified asbestos) that separates 

the cathodes from the anodes, has become the predominant 

chloralkali technology used in the United States. The membrane-cell technology is similar, but rather than using mercury 

or arsenic, it employs a plastic ion-exchange membrane to 

separate the anode and chlorine gas from the caustic product.

Increasing costs for energy associated with mercurycell technology and increasing regulation of mercury and 

the industries that use it have resulted in increased costs for 

processing and maintenance of mercury-cell chloralkali plants, 

reducing the competitiveness of this technology on a global 

scale. As a result, chloralkali manufacturers have closed or are 

considering closing the mercury-cell plants or are converting 

mercury-cell plants to technologies that are less energy-intensive and mercury-free. In 1996, 14 mercury-cell plants with 

762 cells were operating in the United States; by 2010, four 

plants with 244 cells were operating (The Chlorine Institute, 

Inc., 2009). Olin Corporation had two plants; the plant in 

Augusta, Georgia, closed in 2012, and the plant in Charleston, Tenn., was converted in 2012 to a membrane technology 

that does not require mercury (Olin Corporation, 2010). As of 

November 2012, the PPG Industries, Inc. 200-metric-ton-perday mercury-cell production unit in New Martinsville, West 

Virginia continued to operate, and the company had applied 

for a variance to keep the plant in operation at least until 

January 2014 (PPG Industries, Inc., 2012). The Ashta Chemical plant in Ashtabula, Ohio, was expected to close by 2018 

(Olin Corporation, 2010). In 2007, mercury-cell technology 

accounted for 10 percent of the total chloralkali capacity; in 

2011, it was reported to account for 3 percent of chloralkali 

capacity (de Guzman, 2011).

Improvements in technology have reduced the mercury requirement for chloralkali production. In 1996, about 

0.069 kilograms (kg) (0.153 pound) of mercury was required 

per metric ton of chlorine capacity; by 2008, only 0.005 kg 

(0.011 pound) of mercury was required per ton of capacity 

(The Chlorine Institute, Inc., 2009). Figure 5 shows estimates 

for the principal mercury flow steps as represented by the 

chloralkali manufacturing industry in 2008. The quantities of 

mercury flow in 2008 are significantly lower than corresponding estimates for 1996 (Sznopek and Goonan, 2000) because 

of plant closures and conversions and technological improvements driven by stringent regulatory limits on mercury emissions and disposal. In 1996, inventories in the chloralkali sector included 3,050 t of mercury, purchases were 136 t, and 27 t 

of mercury was landfilled or released into the environment. In 

2008, however, inventories in the chloralkali sector had been 
14 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

reduced to 1,389 t of mercury, onsite recycling of mercury had 

supplemented much of the purchased mercury, and 3 t of mercury was released into the environment (The Chlorine Institute, Inc., 2009). In 2010, the chloralkali sector in the United 

States purchased 6.5 t of mercury, used 0.3 t of mercury in 

chloralkali manufacturing, and released about 6 t of mercury 

to the environment (Robyn Brooks, project engineer, The 

Chlorine Institute, Inc., written commun., August 8, 2012).

From 1996 to 2010, six mercury-based chloralkali plants 

were closed, and four were converted (or scheduled to be 

converted) to membrane technology. Although many factors 

went into the decision whether to close or convert mercurycell plants, the membrane process, which requires neither 

mercury nor asbestos, was chosen for all plants that were 

converted. In 2010, the chloralkali industry consumed 365 t of 

asbestos, or 35 percent of U.S. asbestos consumption, in 2010 

(Virta, 2011).

A review of recent trends in the chloralkali industry 

can reveal how domestic and international regulation of the 

mercury industry can have unexpected global consequences. 

Increased regulation and voluntary plant closures have 

reduced mercury air and solid waste emissions from chloralkali manufacturing in the United States by about 85 percent 

from 2001 to 2008 (The Chlorine Institute, Inc., 2009); these 

changes to the structure of the industry have resulted in a 

signifi cant amount of mercury released for sale on the international market from decommissioned mercury plants and from 

mercury recovered from recycled products. Although precise 

data on international trade are diffi cult to acquire, the United 

States has become a net exporter of mercury even though 

there has been no mining of mercury in the country since 

1992. Regulations designed to reduce the amount of mercury 

available for global use can result in large, one-time releases 

of mercury into global markets with the recovery of mercury 

from decommissioned mercury-cell chloralkali plants. Implementation of the MEBA has accelerated this process.

Mercury (as elemental mercury and calomel) is recovered 

from stockpiles held by chloralkali manufacturers, electrolytic 

cells, and facility and soil decontamination efforts, but this 

material will no longer be available when all mercury-cell 

plants in the United States are decommissioned by 2018 and 

mercury contained in buildings and soils is recovered, sold, or 

stockpiled. A typical mercury cell contains an average of 4.7 t 

of process mercury (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2010, p. 3–9). Thus, decommissioning 166 cells from the 

two plants expected to close in 2012 could yield about 780 t 

Within-cell process

1,376e

Onsite storage

13 

Internal recycle

process 

Sector inventories

Purchases in 2008 — 1 

Unaccounted — 2 

Environmental releases — 3 

Offsite recycling — 1 

Treated and landfilled — 0 

Onsite recycling — 1,370e

Sector flows

1,376e

5 

 Figure 5. T he flow of mercury from the mercury-cell process used in the chloralkali manufacturing industry in the United States in 

2008. Data are derived from The Chlorine Institute, Inc. (2009) based on four plants in operation in 2008. Values are expressed in metric 

tons of mercury. e, estimated.
Uses of Mercury 15

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

900 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Number of mercury cells

Mercury exports, in metric tons

Year

Mercury cells in operation 

Mercury exports 

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Relationship between mercury exports from the United States and the number of mercury cells in operation in the United 

States from 1999 through 2011. Export data from 1999 to 2010 are from U.S. Geological Survey (1997–2011). Data on mercury cells are 

from The Chlorine Institute, Inc., (2009). Estimated data for 2011 are derived from industry data and Brooks (2012).

Table 3. Principal destinations of mercury exported from the 

United States from 1999 through 2011.

[Includes countries that received more than 50 metric tons (t) of mercury 

from the United States. NA, no countries received more than 50 t]

Year Principal destinations and quantity, in metric tons

1999 India, 85

2000 India, 65

2001 NA

2002 Netherlands, 73

2003 Netherlands, 57; Peru, 51

2004 Vietnam, 79; Mexico, 64; India, 63

2005 Netherlands, 156

2006 Netherlands, 118; India, 80; Vietnam, 74

2007 NA

2008 Netherlands, 535; Vietnam, 121

2009 Netherlands, 414; Peru, 110; Vietnam, 107

2010 Netherlands, 295

2011 Canada, 96

of mercury, not including onsite mercury stocks. The mercury content of contaminated buildings and soils could yield 

an additional 23 to 68 t of mercury per plant, depending on 

plant age, design, operating, maintenance, and waste disposal 

practices during the lifetime of the plant, and the amount of 

the mercury that could be recovered (Maxson, 2006). Mercury 

from closed plants is recycled by one of several large companies that recycle metals in the United States or is exported 

for recovery; data suggest that much of this mercury is sold 

through traders on the international market, and some of this 

mercury is ultimately purchased by numerous small-scale, 

unregulated artisanal gold mining operations in Africa, Asia, 

and Latin America. Stimulated by the increasing price of 

gold worldwide from 2005 to 2011, an increasing number of 

artisanal miners are producing gold using mercury, which is 

preferred by small miners rather than more complex processes 

than require materials such as cyanide. The production of gold 

using mercury is generally easier, faster, and cheaper and can 

produce a higher grade gold product than traditional panning 

methods (Lovitz, 2006).

Figure 6 compares exports of mercury from the United 

States from 1999 through 2011 with changes in mercury-cell 

chloralkali plant capacity, and table 3 lists the primary destinations of exports of mercury for years when large shipments 

of exported mercury took place relative to chloralkali plant 

closures. Large shipments to India, the Netherlands, Peru, 

and Vietnam seem to correlate with the closure of chloralkali plants in the preceding year. From 1999 through 2006, 

mercury was used for batteries, chlorine-caustic soda production, fungicides, lamps, and medical devices in India, and the 

country was one of the leading importers of mercury from 

the United States (Wankhade and Agarwal, 2003). Shipments to the Netherlands are also particularly notable; U.S. 

trade data show that, in total, 1,360 t of mercury was shipped 

to the Netherlands from 2006 through 2010, at a time when 

four chloralkali manufacturing plants were decommissioned. 

Shipments to the Netherlands accounted for 56 percent of total 

U.S. exports of elemental mercury in those 5 years. Simpson and Walsh (2012) suggest that much of this mercury is 

transported to warehouses of traders at the port of Rotterdam, 

and then is redistributed in smaller shipments to countries such 

as Colombia, where there is small-scale gold mining. India, 

Mexico, Peru, and Vietnam, countries that have also received 

large shipments of mercury from the United States, also have 

small-scale gold mining.
16 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Table 4. Mercury use in switches, relays, and sensors.

[Data are modified from Ashe and others (2012). NA, not applicable; >, more than]

Product Mercury content 

per unit, in grams Applications

Total mercury content, in metric 

tons

2001 2004 2007

Tilt switches 0.05–5 Appliances, level controls, security alarms, thermostats 6.3 3.2 0.8

Float switches 0.1–67 Pumps 5.8 6.3 4.7

Flame sensors >1 Stoves 2.3 1.1 0.9

Other switches >1 Automobile convenience switches, antilock braking systems 19.1 18.9 12.8

Relays 0.005 – >1 Circuit boards, telecommunication systems 20.9 17.2 8.7

Total NA 54.4 46.7 27.9

In an international effort to reduce mercury sales for 

such use, a ban on mercury exports from the European Union 

took effect in 2011, and the MEBA would prohibit the sale 

and transfer of mercury outside the United States after January 2013. The MEBA would also place limits on the amount 

of mercury that could be imported if recyclers cannot export 

surplus mercury. Because chloralkali manufacturing plants 

have large amounts of mercury onsite, they have been affected 

by this legislation. Chloralkali plants in the United States that 

have not closed or been converted to nonmercury technology 

by 2013 would be required to store mercury at a site approved 

by the EPA for long-term mercury storage. Under the MEBA, 

the U.S. Department of Energy is required to designate one 

or more facilities for long-term management and storage of 

elemental mercury located within the United States. See the 

Effect of the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 on the U.S. 

Mercury Industry section for a further discussion.

Electrical and Electronic Instrumentation

Electrical and electronic applications accounted for 

54 percent of the mercury used in the United States in 1980 

(Matos and Brooks, 2005). Mercury use has subsequently 

decreased as a result of regulation, voluntary reduction in use, 

and the development of cost-effective non-mercury-containing 

alternative products.

Switches, Relays, and Sensors

Mercury has been used in electrical relays, sensors, 

and switches found in a variety of industrial and consumer 

products. Mercury switches include float switches, actuated 

by rising or falling liquid levels; tilt switches, actuated by a 

change in the switch position; pressure switches, actuated by 

a change in pressure; and temperature switches and flame sensors, actuated by a change in temperature. Mercury switches 

have been used in such devices as air conditioning equipment, 

appliances, automobiles and recreation vehicles, leveling 

devices, and security systems. Relays are devices that open or 

close electrical contacts. Mercury-containing relays have been 

used in cooking equipment and telecommunications circuit 

boards (Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 

2008c, 2010d).

Some States and communities have placed restrictions on 

the sale and (or) distribution of mercury-containing switches 

and relays and have instituted reduction and collection 

programs for selected mercury-bearing products (Northeast 

Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2010d). In response 

to these product bans and phase-outs, many companies have 

ceased manufacturing mercury switches and relays or stopped

selling these devices in States that impose restrictions and 

in some cases curtailed sales nationwide. At least 11 States 

have ongoing collection programs for electrical or electronic 

products containing mercury; there are no ongoing nationwide 

collection programs for switches, except for switches used in 

vehicles as discussed in the Automobile Switches section.

Data collected by the IMERC for 2001, 2004, and 2007 

provide an indication of the amount and industry trends 

of mercury use in sensors, switches, and relays. Mercury 

content varies with switch type, but most switches use about 

1 gram (g) of mercury per switch. The data in table 4 show 

that the overall mercury content for switches, relays, and sensors decreased by 14 percent from 2001 to 2004 and a further 

40 percent from 2004 to 2007, primarily as a result of mercury 

reduction efforts by manufacturers and States.

Automobile Switches

Mercury switches in automobiles accounted for about 

50 percent of the mercury switches used in all applications 

in 2007. Mercury switches have been used in convenience 

lights and components of antilock brake systems (ABS) and 

ride control systems in many automobiles built from 1997 to 

2006. In 2000, U.S. automakers used an estimated 4 million mercury switches each containing about 1 g of mercury 

(Brooks and Matos, 2006). Beginning in 1996, manufacturers of vehicles made outside the United States began phasing 

out mercury switches in new vehicles, and mercury switches 

were eliminated from vehicles manufactured in the United 

States after 2003. Even as mercury use in switches has 
Uses of Mercury 17

Table 5. Mercury use in automotive switches.

[Data are from End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation (2012). 

NA, not available]

Year

Mercury in 

switches 

in use, in 

metric tons

Mercury in 

scrapped 

switches, in 

metric tons

Mercury in 

recovered 

switches, in 

metric tons

Mercury stockpiled, 

exported, or landfilled, in metric tons

1997 99 NA NA NA

1998 93 6 0 6

1999 87 6 0 6

2000 81 7 0 7

2001 74 7 0 7

2002 69 5 0 5

2003 63 5 0 5

2004 59 4 0 4

2005 54 4 0 4

2006 50 5 0.2 5

2007 45 5 0.7 4

2008 41 4 1 3

2009 38 4 0.9 3

2010 34 4 0.6 3

2011 31 3 0.7 3

decreased, new automotive applications of mercury, including 

high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps and cold-cathode 

fluorescent lamps used in backlit instrument panels, entertainment systems, and navigation systems, are being introduced 

in some vehicles. A typical dashboard light bulb contains 0 to 

5 milligrams (mg) of mercury; a tube-style bulb typically contains 5 to 10 mg, but may contain up to 100 mg of mercury. A 

convenience light switch and an ABS sensor contains about 

1 g of mercury (Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2008c). About 90 percent of the mercury in vehicles is 

contained in convenience lighting assemblies, and 9 percent is 

found in ABS switches or sensors (Corbett, 2005).

In 2006, the NVMSRP was initiated as a cooperative 

effort by automobile manufacturers, the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), environmental organizations, the EPA, 

steelmakers, and vehicle dismantlers and shredders. Working 

with existing State mercury switch reduction and recycling 

efforts, the program set a goal to recover 80 to 90 percent of 

available mercury switches in the United States. Table 5 lists 

the results as of 2011. Between 2007 and 2011, the program 

had achieved an average estimated recovery rate of 21 percent. 

In 2011, the estimate for the amount of mercury in automotive 

switches in use in the United States was 31 t. An additional 

2.7 t of mercury was contained in switches stockpiled or 

exported, and 0.7 t of mercury was recovered through recycling programs (End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation, 

2012). These estimates exclude mercury contained in vehicles 

or vehicle components exported out of the United States.

Batteries

The use of mercury in consumer batteries has decreased 

significantly in the United States since the 1980s when battery manufacturing in the United States constituted the single 

leading use of mercury—1,000 t annually. By 1993, many 

battery manufacturers had begun selling mercury-free alkaline 

batteries, and the annual use of mercury in batteries by U.S. 

manufacturers decreased to about 10 t. Mercuric oxide buttoncell batteries, containing 30 to 40 percent mercury by weight, 

were banned in the United States in 1996 under the Mercury 

Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act 

(MCRBMA). Mercuric oxide batteries larger than button-cell 

size are no longer available to the public but are still produced 

in limited quantities for military and medical applications 

where a stable current and longer service life is essential, as 

long as the manufacturer has established a procedure to collect, manage, and recycle end-of-life batteries. Button-cell batteries are still used in such applications as calculators, hearing 

aids, toys, and watches, but the MCRBMA limits the mercury 

content of button-cell batteries manufactured in the United 

States for these applications to 25 mg of mercury per button 

cell (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2002).

There are three different types of button-cell batteries that 

commonly contain mercury: alkaline manganese, silver-oxide, 

and zinc-air. Most alkaline manganese batteries are used in 

cameras, but they may be found in a variety of other devices. 

Silver-oxide button-cell batteries are used in calculators, 

cameras, games, medical devices, toys, and watches. Zinc-air 

button-cell batteries are used in hearing aids. In each of these 

types, a mercury coating is added to the cell to prevent the 

formation of hydrogen gas that can result in battery leakage 

and malfunction. Alkaline button-cell batteries produced in 

2002 were estimated to have an average mercury content of 

10.8 mg of mercury; silver-oxide button-cell batteries, 2.5 mg; 

and zinc-air button-cell batteries, 8.5 mg (Maine Department 

of Environmental Protection, 2005, p. 3). Since 2001, many 

States have enacted legislation restricting the sale of mercury 

button-cell batteries and (or) products that contain these batteries. U.S. battery manufacturers voluntarily committed to 

eliminate mercury in button-cell batteries by June 30, 2011, 

coinciding with the effective date of legislation in Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island that banned mercury-containing 

button-cell batteries in these States as of July 1, 2011 (Poon, 

2011). The ban was extended for another 6 months because the 

supply of mercury-free button-cell batteries was disrupted as 

a result of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, following 

the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami (Fashion Jewelry 

and Accessories Trade Association, The, 2012).

Data on mercury-added button-cell production and use 

in the United States are not readily available. Reports by 

the IMERC estimate that all mercury batteries sold in the 

United States for 2001, 2004, and 2007 contained about 2.5 t, 
18 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

2.2 t, and 1.9 t of mercury, respectively; these data generally 

reflect replacement batteries only and do not include batteries imported to the United States or batteries contained in 

imported products. (Northeast Waste Management Officials’ 

Association, 2010a). The decreasing trend shown by these 

data appears to fit the industry pledge to reduce mercury use 

in batteries by 2011. Data compiled by the IMERC show 

that mercury contained in products sold in the United States 

accounted for more than 0.9 t in 2001, 1.3 t in 2004, and 

0.9 t in 2007, but not all manufacturers of products containing mercury-added batteries disclosed their U.S. sales to the 

IMERC (James, 2009). Another estimate of the total mercury 

contained in button-cell batteries sold in the United States 

in 2007 suggested a range of 3.3 to 4.6 t of mercury (James, 

2009, p. 4).

Import and export data reported by the U.S. International 

Trade Commission suggest that the United States imported 

many more manganese dioxide, silver oxide, and zinc-air 

button-cell batteries that it exported. In 2010, manganese 

oxide batteries were imported to the United States primarily 

from China (60 percent), Indonesia (19 percent), and Germany 

(9 percent); silver oxide batteries were imported primarily from Japan (55 percent), Switzerland (26 percent), and 

Germany (14 percent); and zinc-air batteries were imported 

primarily from Germany (44 percent), the United Kingdom 

(29 percent), and China (12 percent) (U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 2012). These statistics likely include mercurycontaining and mercury-free batteries, and it is difficult to 

separate these two types, although a rough approximation can 

be made by assuming that 10 percent of the batteries from 

China are mercury-free (Zero Mercury Working Group, 2012) 

and 39 percent of the batteries from the European Union are 

mercury-free (Mudgal and others, 2012, p. 126). Batteries 

from Indonesia were assumed to be similar in distribution to 

batteries from the European Union, and batteries from Japan 

are totally mercury-free (United Nations Environment Programme, 2007). Based on these assumptions, the net imports 

of mercury-containing button-cell batteries of all types to the 

United States contained an estimated 7.6 t of mercury in 2010. 

This value does not include the amount of mercury included in 

batteries contained in imported products.

Recycling of mercuric oxide batteries in the United States 

in 2010 is believed to be limited to the recovery of mercury 

from the large batteries discarded by medical institutions 

and the military. Recycling of this material is required by the 

MCRBMA and is part of the material processed by the leading 

U.S. recyclers, such as Bethlehem Apparatus. Specific data on 

the amount of this material recycle are not reported.

There are no Federal restrictions on the disposal of 

button-cell batteries in the United States, nor are there 

State-sponsored programs to collect the batteries (Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection, 2005). Recycling 

of button-cell batteries is limited to local battery collection 

programs. A nationwide button-cell battery collection program 

has not been implemented because collection of button cells 

is not thought to be cost-effective, primarily because of the 

small amount of mercury in each button-cell battery and the 

need to keep button-cell batteries separate from other batteries 

being recycled because of potential mercury contamination. 

The estimated costs and potential safety hazards of collection, 

transportation, and recycling were found to outweigh the benefits gained by recycling (National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association, 2003). Silver-oxide button-cell batteries are often 

collected by jewelers and large retailers when they replace 

watch batteries and recycle them to recover the silver. In cases 

where mercury-containing button-cell batteries are recycled, 

they are collected and sent to the leading U.S. recycling companies for processing.

Lighting

Although mercury continues to be an essential component in the commercial and residential lighting industry, 

the contribution of mercury to lamps continues to decrease 

even as the energy efficiency of mercury-containing lamps 

increases. Because a small amount of mercury is contained in 

fluorescent lamps and high-intensity discharge lamps, concerns over possible mercury releases to the environment have 

led the industry to develop products using less mercury and 

government entities to implement stricter regulation related to 

mercury emissions, use, and disposal. The USGS conducted 

a study of mercury flow in the U.S. mercury-containing lamp 

sector as of 2001 (Goonan, 2006). Since that time, Federal 

and State regulations have become increasingly complex, new 

products have been introduced into the market, and a greater 

emphasis has been placed on improving mercury recycling 

rates and developing mercury-free alternatives. A review 

of mercury use and recycling activities as of 2010 follows. 

Annual mercury use in the U.S. lighting sector was estimated 

to be about 17 t (Gheysens, 2011), 70 percent greater than 

the 2007 value of about 10 t of mercury sold for lighting as 

reported by the IMERC (Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2008b; Wienert, 2009).

A typical fluorescent lamp is made up of a phosphorcoated glass tube with electrodes located at either end. When 

voltage is applied, the electrodes energize the mercury vapor 

and cause it to emit ultraviolet energy. A phosphor coating 

absorbs the ultraviolet energy, which causes the phosphor to 

fluoresce and emit visible light. Mercury-containing lamps 

require three to four times less energy and have a longer life 

than traditional incandescent bulbs (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2005).

Since 1990, legislation has been enacted and several 

regulations have been promulgated that indirectly affect 

mercury use in fluorescent lamps. The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1992 set energy conservation standards 

for certain classes of general service fluorescent lamps 

(GSFLs) and established provisions for periodic review of 

these standards. In 2008, the DOE completed the first review 

of the standards and determined that the standards needed to 

be updated; amended standards were published on July 14, 
Uses of Mercury 19

Table 6. Mercury-containing lamps used in 2010.

[CFL, compact fluorescent light; HID, high-intensity discharge; NA, not available]

Lamp type

Lighting service use sector

Commercial Industrial Outdoor Residential Total

Lamps, in 

million 

units

Mercury 

content, in 

metric tons

Lamps, in 

million 

units

Mercury 

content, in 

metric tons

Lamps, in 

million 

units

Mercury 

content, in 

metric tons

Lamps, in 

million 

units

Mercury 

content, in 

metric tons

Lamps, in 

million 

units

Mercury 

content, in 

metric tons

CFL 216 0.7 0.4 0.001 12 0.048 1,322 5.3 1,550 6

T5 fluorescent 108 0.25 9.2 0.021 NA NA 3.6 0.008 121 0.3

T8 fluorescent 996 4.5 83 0.4 NA NA 70 0.3 1,149 5.2

T12 fluorescent 538 5.4 36 0.4 NA NA 368 3.6 942 9.4

HID1 35 1.5 14 0.6 93 3.3 1.4 0.05 143 5.5

Miscellaneous 13 0.2 0.5 0.006 29 0.4 132 1.8 175 2.4

Total 1,906 12.6 143 1.4 134 3.7 1,897 11.1 4,080 28.8

1

Includes high-pressure sodium, low-pressure sodium, metal halide, and mercury vapor lamps. Adapted from U.S. Department of Energy (2012a).

2009 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009). Fluorescent lamps 

of a standard 4-foot length are generally classified based 

on their diameter expressed in eights of an inch, thus a T12 

lamp would have a diameter of 12/8 (1.5 inches) whereas 

a T8 lamp would have a diameter of 8/8 (1 inch) (Merritt, 

2012). Based on an analysis by the DOE, most T12 fluorescent lamps are considered too inefficient to meet the new 

standards and can no longer be manufactured after July 14, 

2012; fluorescent lamps not meeting the new standards must 

be replaced by that date. T12 lamps contain more mercury 

than the T5 and T8 lamps that are replacing them. The 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 included provisions for phasing out mercury-free incandescent light bulbs 

in favor of more energy-efficient compact fluorescent light 

(CFL) bulbs, which contain an average of 4 mg of mercury 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012f). Regulations 

promulgated since 1990 to increase the energy efficiency of 

commercial and residential lighting have contributed to an 

average reduction of mercury use in general service fluorescent lamps by 77 percent since 1985, but have increased 

mercury use in general service fluorescent lamps by 6 t 

through encouraging the use of mercury-bearing CFLs as a 

replacement for incandescent light bulbs.

Mercury content in GSFLs has decreased from an average of 48.2 mg of mercury in 1985 to as low as 3.5 mg of 

mercury for a standard T8 48-inch-long fluorescent lamp 

(Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2008c). 

Several U.S. manufacturers produce a low-mercury fluorescent 

lamp, containing 3.5 to 4 mg of mercury compared with 8 to 

14 mg of mercury contained in a standard (T12) fluorescent 

lamp (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012a).

Estimates of mercury use in the lighting sector for 2010 

are listed in table 6. The U.S. lighting industry had an inventory of 45.6 t of mercury in 2001 from 4.2 billion lamps that 

were in use (Goonan, 2006). In 2010, the estimated mercury 

inventory was 28.8 t from about 4 billion lamps in use, a 

37 percent decrease on mercury inventory from 2001. Various types of linear fluorescent lamps are reported separately 

to show that the highest proportion of the mercury in use is 

derived from the T12 lamps that are being phased out compared with the T8 and T5 lamps that are replacing them. 

Mercury use from the lighting sector will continue to decrease 

as fewer T12 lamps are produced. CFL lamps, which contain 

up to 4 mg of mercury, were developed as a replacement for 

incandescent lamps. The use of CFL lamps is expected to be of 

relatively short duration. Light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, 

which contain no mercury, are expected to eventually replace 

CFL lamps in many applications (Wilburn, 2012).

Total mercury emissions in the United States are 

expected to decrease partially owing to the amended lighting standards that took effect in 2012 (U.S. Department of 

Energy, 2012). The use of energy-efficient lighting reduces 

the amount of fuel used in powerplants, the primary source 

of airborne mercury emissions in the United States. Full 

implementation of energy-efficient lighting programs 

nationwide was estimated to result in a reduction of close 

to 10 t per year of mercury primarily owing to reduced 

coal-generated electricity (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2006, p. 45). Mercury emissions in 2001 were 

estimated to be about 2.9 t from the lamp sector (Goonan, 

2006). Based on a reduced inventory of mercury available 

from the lighting sector in 2010 and available recycling 

estimates, a rough estimate of the mercury emission level 

in 2010 would be about 2 t from lamp disposal, recycling, 

and transport operations, using the methodology developed 

by Goonan (2006). Much of the mercury that is released 

into the air occurs in the period after the lamp is broken, 

most often during transport to disposal or recycling facilities. The estimate may be overstated because it does not 

take into account the mercury control methods implemented 

since 2001 to reduce mercury emissions at incinerators, 

landfills, or recycling facilities.
20 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Most mercury-containing lamps fail to pass the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test mandated 

by the RCRA and thus must be treated as a hazardous waste. 

In 1999, the EPA enacted regulations that allow lamps to be 

regulated under the universal waste rule of modified hazardous waste regulations developed for other widely generated 

wastes such as batteries. Almost all States have adopted this 

EPA rule without amendment, and many have developed 

lamp handling guidelines and (or) recycling programs or 

procedures. In spite of these actions, nationwide data on 

recycling rates are not well known as most States do not 

require reporting by generators or recyclers for universal 

wastes. For 2003, a nationwide recycling rate estimate of 

23.3 percent for fluorescent lamps was reported (Association 

of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 2004). According to this 

estimate, the commercial recycling rate was 29 percent, and 

the residential recycling rate was 2 percent (Association of 

Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 2004). The low recycling 

rate can be attributed to the low value of recycled materials 

found in lamps, which reduces the economic incentive for 

lamp recycling, which is estimated to cost $0.50 to $2.00 per 

unit (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008), 

and the lack of coordinated collection programs. The growing market penetration of CFLs has led to a number of CFL 

collection programs, but recycling remains expensive relative 

to the price of the lamp. It is likely that government-mandated replacement of T12 lamps with more energy efficient 

T8 or T5 lamps at government facilities and large corporate 

replacement programs could result in a temporary increase in 

the recycling rate of fluorescent bulbs, but the overall effect 

of such activities is not reported.

There are no comprehensive data on the number of lamps 

that have been recycled. A number of States and municipalities have set up programs to recycle CFLs but few programs 

exist for recycling linear fluorescent tubes (Northeast Waste 

Management Officials’ Association, 2009). Some States and 

municipalities offer bulb recycling programs on a regular or 

occasional basis, and others mandate CFL lamp recycling. In 

many areas nationwide, CFL recycling programs are being 

offered by manufacturers, retailers, or utilities. Nationwide 

home improvement chain stores, for example, offer CFL recycling programs. Most of the material collected by these selective recycling programs is sent for processing to one of the six 

large recycling companies. Aggregated annual recycling data 

are not reported.

Replacement of T12 lamps by T8 lamps or substitution of 

incandescent bulbs by CFLs yields a small change in material 

requirements. Replacing 250 million incandescent bulbs with 

CFLs would require about 1 t of mercury. As LED technology 

displaces CFL technology in the lighting sector, less mercury 

would be required for the lighting sector. Production of large 

quantities of LEDs could potentially result in a more significant shift in the use of some metals or materials because LEDs 

require various metals such as arsenic, gallium, indium, and 

rare earth elements (Wilburn, 2012).

Instruments and Measuring Devices

Mercury has historically been used in a wide variety 

of instruments and measuring devices, which accounted for 

8 percent of the mercury used in the United States in 1980. 

Such devices have been used in industrial and medical sectors 

because of the responsiveness of mercury to pressure and 

temperature. Minnesota was the first State to enact legislation in 1994 prohibiting the disposal of thermostats and 

other mercury-containing devices until the mercury had been 

removed. One outcome of this legislation was that Honeywell 

International, Inc., the leading manufacturer of thermostats in 

the United States at the time, started a thermostat recycling 

program in Minnesota. Since 2001, 13 States have enacted 

legislation banning the sale and use of mercury-containing 

measuring devices and thermometers (Northeast Waste 

Management Officials’ Association, 2010c). In 2002, the EPA 

banned the sale of mercury-containing thermometers, and in 

2010, issued a new rule under the Toxic Substances Control 

Act requiring that the EPA be notified at least 90 days before 

the beginning of production of mercury-containing devices 

(such as flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers) 

that come into service after September 11, 2009.

Measuring Devices

Mercury has been used in devices that measure liquid 

or gas flow (flow meters or strain gages), humidity (hygrometers or psychrometers), pressure (barometers, manometers, 

or sphygmomanometers), specific gravity (hydrometers), and 

temperature (pyrometers or thermometers). In 1990, about 

110 t of mercury was used in the manufacture of such devices. 

In 1995, mercury content in such devices had decreased to 

43 t; by 2000, mercury use in these devices had decreased to 

30 t (Matos and Brooks, 2005). By 2001, environmental concerns related to mercury and Federal and State regulation had 

further reduced mercury use in these devices to 4.5 t (Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2010c). In 

2007, the latest date for which data are available, mercury use 

had decreased to about 1 t (Wienert, 2009). It is reasonable to 

assume that most of these devices are no longer manufactured 

or sold in the United States, except in cases where there is a 

specialty application and no suitable, cost-effective substitute 

for mercury is available.

Devices that are no longer sold in the United States are 

considered legacy products, which may still be used, resold as 

a used product, or stored before disposal occurs. As with other 

mercury-containing devices, recycling is done on a State-byState or local basis. Recycled material is most often collected 

and sent to one of the six major U.S. recyclers.

Mercury-free alternatives to many of these devices have 

become available. Depending on the device, these alternatives may include a device that uses a substitute liquid that 

has appropriate characteristics and is readily available (such 

as alcohol in a fever thermometer or manometer), an aneroid 
Uses of Mercury 21

(liquid-free) device, or a digital device that performs a similar 

function. Increasingly, digital devices are used in many 

applications. However, many of these digital devices require a 

battery, some of which contain mercury. A mercury-containing 

button-cell battery may be used, particularly if the device is 

produced in China and imported to the United States. If such 

a battery is used, then the end-of-life device must be treated 

under the EPA universal waste rules.

For selected applications, measuring devices used in 

laboratories use mercury-based instrumentation because 

accurate alternatives with the appropriate characteristics may 

not yet be available. Although a variety of analog and digital 

thermometers have become available for use, they may not 

meet the requirements of a laboratory device that requires very 

precise measurement. The National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) is participating in several efforts to identify alternative thermometers for a broad range of measurement applications and coordinate efforts to replace mercurycontaining laboratory devices (National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, 2012).

Thermostats

For many years, mercury has been used in thermostats, 

both as stand-alone units in businesses and residences and as 

a component in heating and cooling equipment. Thermostats 

have historically contained mercury switches to automatically 

maintain building temperatures at a set level by triggering furnace or air conditioner operation when the desired temperature 

is reached. Mercury content for a single mercury-switch thermostat can range from 2.7 to 10.8 g of mercury, with an average content of about 4 g of mercury (James, 2005). During the 

past 15 years, the annual demand for mercury in thermostat 

manufacturing in the United States has been reduced from 13 

to 18 t (15–20 tons) in 1995 to 0.9 t (less than 1 ton) in 2010 

(Mercury Policy Project, 2010). This reduction can be attributed to States regulating sales of new mercury thermostats and 

the subsequent cessation of mercury thermostat production by 

the top U.S. manufacturers. In 2005, about 83 percent of all 

thermostats contained mercury (New England Zero Mercury 

Campaign, 2005). Electromechanical and electronic thermostats have been developed to replace mercury-switch thermostats, although mercury-containing thermostats are still being 

manufactured in other countries. The composition of these 

devices varies depending on type; evaluation of material substitution for these devices is beyond the scope of this report.

Data collected by the IMERC for 2001, 2004, and 2007 

provide an indication of the amount of mercury used in this 

sector and the prevailing industry trend. In 2001, about 13.5 t 

of mercury was contained in thermostats sold in the United 

States. In 2004, about 13.1 t or mercury was contained in 

thermostats sold. Between 2001 and 2007, 17 States instituted 

restrictions on the sale of mercury-containing thermostats, and 

a number of companies have voluntarily phased out products 

using mercury-switch thermostats or switched to electromechanical or electronic thermostats that do not contain mercury.

The IMERC reported that 3.5 t of mercury was contained in 

thermostats sold in 2007, a decrease of 73 percent from the 

amount found in thermostats in 2004 (Wienert, 2009; Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2010e).

The Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) was 

established in 1997 by the three leading U.S. thermostat 

manufacturers to collect and recycle mercury-switch thermostats removed from service. In 2004, the EPA estimated that 

mercury thermostats found in homes and businesses contained 

a reservoir of about 200 t of mercury in thermostats (James, 

2005) and that about 2.5 million mercury-switch thermostats 

containing 9 to 14 t (10 to 15 tons ) are removed from service 

each year in the United States (Mercury Policy Project, 2010). 

At 4 g of mercury per thermostat, the amount of mercury that 

could potentially become available annually is 10 t.

A study conducted for the State of California estimated 

that 237,000 to 490,000 mercury-switch thermostats would 

be removed from service in 2010 in California based on 

the average maximum assumed thermostat age of 30 years 

(Thermostat Recycling Corporation, 2012b). Using population 

estimates for California and the Nation as a guide, the California estimates could be extrapolated to the United States as a 

whole, yielding an estimate of 2 to 4 million mercury-switch 

thermostats containing 8 to 16 t of mercury that potentially 

could have been removed from use since 2008. This estimate 

seems reasonable given that there has been no new production 

of mercury switches and many thermostats have since been 

replaced with nonmercury types.

The number of thermostats recycled by TRC is low 

when compared with estimates of the number of thermostats 

removed from service annually (Thermostat Recycling Corporation, 2012a). From 1999 through 2008, TRC recovered 

3.3 t of mercury. For that same period, an estimated 80 to 160 t 

of mercury was contained in thermostats that were removed 

from service. Thus, TRC has collected less than 5 percent of 

the thermostats that were removed from service during that 

decade (Mercury Policy Project, 2010). Recycling rates vary 

from State to State, ranging from 1.3 percent in New York 

to 12.7 percent in Maine. States without established procedures for thermostat recovery may not recycle any mercury 

thermostats, although TRC reportedly has collection sites in 

48 States. As of May 2012, TRC has recovered more than 

1.4 million thermostats containing 6 t (6.6 tons) of mercury 

since it began mercury recycling in 1999 (Thermostat Recycling Corporation, 2012a).

If the TRC data are accurate and account for all domestic 

recycling of thermostats, then there is a significant amount of 

mercury contained in thermostats in use and more in thermostats that have been stored or discarded. Assuming 8 to 16 t 

of mercury contained in thermostats is removed from service 

annually, and assuming a 5 percent recycling rate, then 7.6 

to 15 t of mercury may be stored or discarded each year. 

Although mercury contained in thermostats is less likely to be 

released to the air than mercury in fluorescent tubes, it may be 

released into the air or groundwater over time, thus making a 

significant contribution to U.S. mercury emissions.
22 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Dental Amalgam

Dental amalgam containing about 50 percent mercury 

has been used for more than 150 years in the United States for 

restoration of posterior teeth in children and adults. In 1980, 

80 percent of all restorations used amalgam. Historically, 

dentists mixed amalgam onsite, using bulk liquid mercury 

and metal powders; in 2011, most dentists purchased amalgam imported in predosed capsules with a mercury content 

varying from 100 to 1,000 mg (Northeast Waste Management 

Officials’ Association, 2010b). Dental amalgam is considered 

a medical device that is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA). In 2008, the FDA reviewed the best 

available evidence to determine whether the mercury vapor 

emitted by mercury amalgam fillings was a cause of concern. 

Based on the findings, the FDA issued a final regulation on 

dental amalgam in 2009 that classified dental amalgam as a 

class II or moderate risk to society, allowing the agency to 

apply controls on product labeling and disposal. This designation also applies to other alternative restorative materials, such 

as composites or gold (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 

2009, 2011).

Since 2003, 11 States have mandated requirements for 

best management practices for dental amalgam waste so that 

dental offices capture and recycle this waste. Requirements 

include installing amalgam separators, properly managing 

solid waste that contains amalgam, and recycling amalgam. In 

States where amalgam use is not regulated, use of amalgam 

separators and amalgam recycling rates are low. Use of these 

practices can eliminate 95 to 99 percent of dental mercury 

from entering municipal wastewater (Reindl, 2010).

Dental amalgam in teeth represents the leading source of 

mercury in use in the United States. There may be an inventory of up to 290 t of mercury residing in the teeth of U.S. residents (Concorde East/West Sprl, 2012). The number of new or 

replacement amalgam fillings in the United States appears to 

have been decreasing by 3.5 to 4 percent per year (Beazoglou 

and others, 2007). A single-surface amalgam filling requires 

about 400 mg of mercury; a filling with three or more surfaces 

can use about 800 mg of mercury (Concorde East/West Sprl, 

2012, p. 8). In terms of the amount of mercury used in dental 

amalgam, dental mercury use decreased on average by about 

2 percent annually from about 61 t in 1980 to about 30 t in 

2000 (Matos and Brooks, 2005). Data collected by the IMERC 

suggest that this trend continued from 2001 through 2007 

when the amount of mercury sold from five U.S. producers of dental amalgam decreased from about 28 t in 2001 to 

about 15 t of mercury in 2007 (Northeast Waste Management 

Officials’ Association, 2010b). Although the general trend of 

mercury use in dental applications is decreasing, the IMERC 

mercury-added products database for 2010 reports statistics 

for four companies that suggest that about 18 t of mercury 

was sold in the United States for dental applications in 2010 

(Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2012).

With increasing awareness of the potential health hazards 

associated with mercury, improvements in quality of substitute 

materials in some applications, and a decrease in the incidence 

of dental decay, use of dental amalgam is decreasing (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2012c). Mercury-free 

alternatives to dental amalgam include resin composites, resin 

and glass ionomers (a polymer containing an ion made of 

glass or resin and an organic acid), porcelain, or gold alloys. 

Although the cost of these alternative materials has decreased, 

the typical cost to the consumer selecting an alternative filling 

material is higher than the cost of using amalgam. A recent 

study suggests the basic cost for an amalgam filling is $144 

compared with $185 for a composite filling (Concorde East/

West Sprl, 2012, p. 2). These costs, however, do not include 

the costs associated with mercury collection, recycling, or 

mitigation of release of mercury emissions. In addition to 

cost, each type of restorative filling has certain advantages and 

disadvantages that must be evaluated by the consumer.

A study conducted by Concorde East/West Sprl (Concorde) suggests that he U.S. dental sector used about 30 t of 

mercury in 2009 (Concorde East/West Sprl, 2012, p. 21), a 

value considerably higher than that reported by the data collected by the IMERC. The NEWMOA recognizes that the data 

collected by the IMERC may underestimate the total amount 

of mercury sold in the United States because it does not 

include all sources of imported or exported material in its estimates (Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 

2010b). The actual amount of mercury contained in dental 

amalgam used in the United States in 2010 likely is between 

the estimate of 18 t by the IMERC and the estimate of 30 t 

by Concorde (Adam Wienert, IMERC coordinator, Northeast 

Waste Management Officials’ Association, oral commun., 

November 13, 2012). Assuming that domestic use in 2009 

was similar to that in 2010, the available data suggest that as 

much as 12 t of mercury amalgam may have been imported 

to the United States to supplement the decreasing amount 

sold by domestic manufacturers. Figure 7 shows the mercury 

flow pattern for the dental sector in 2009 as developed by 

Concorde East/West Sprl. Mercury emissions data shown in 

figure 7 were developed based on data reported by Cain and 

others (2007).

Sources of mercury found in a dental office include new 

mercury amalgam purchased in predosed capsules, mercury 

amalgam removed from existing fillings, and mercury amalgam stocks in the dental office carried over from previous 

years. An additional source of mercury is amalgam recovered 

from lost teeth or teeth removed from deceased persons prior 

to burial or cremation.

The amount of mercury releases from dental amalgam to 

air, soil, and water as well as the effects of such releases on 

the environment and human health are being investigated by 

Government agencies and industry nongovernmental organizations. Of the 30 t of new mercury in dental amalgam reported 

to have been purchased by U.S. dental clinics in 2009 (Concorde East/West Sprl, 2012), 33 percent was discarded because 

it was not used during the procedure or it was removed from 

the tooth during the fitting of the filling (fig. 7). This relatively 

high discard rate can be attributed to the increasing use of 
Uses of Mercury 23

New amalgam

30

Old fillings

U.S. inventory

present in

human mouths

290

Office

stock

U.S. inventory

of amalgam in

deceased

persons

Mercury at

cremation

Mercury at

burial

Lost or

removed teeth

Dental waste in

traps and filters

Dental waste in

separators

Mercury in office

atmosphere

To municipal solid waste 

To municipal wastewater 

To recycle 

To air 

To air To soil 

To soil To groundwater

30 

17 

3 

2.6 5.4 

2 0.6 

5 0.4 

6 

8 

6 

2 

Mercury emissions 

To air — 4 

To soil — 24 

To water — 0.5 

Hazardous waste 

Biomedical waste 3 

5 

To landfill 

To landfill 

Recycling — 6 

Sequestration — 3.5 

New

amalgam

10

Old

amalgam

20 8 

20 

3 

6 (new) 

14 (replacement) 

17 

To soil 

To water 

To recycle 

To sequestration 

To soil 

To sequestration 

To soil 

To sequestration 

Dental office system 

Figure 7. Material flow of mercury related to dental amalgam in 2009. Values are in metric tons. Adapted from Concorde East/West 

Sprl, (2012), except for emissions, which are from Cain and others (2007).

purchased, prepackaged amalgam ampoules; a filling may not 

require the amount of amalgam that is typically contained in 

the ampoule. Because 70 percent of all fillings are replacements of previous fillings, additional amalgam is lost by 

the removal of the old amalgam (Concorde East/West 

Sprl, 2012, p. 9).

Mercury waste related to amalgam is found in various 

forms. Wastewater containing mercury is collected in filters 

inserted in water lines, collected by amalgam separators, or 

sent directly to municipal facilities for further treatment. Solid 

biomedical waste or hazardous wastes generated by the office 

are collected and sent to hazardous waste landfills where the 

mercury is stored so that it is not emitted into the environment. 

Municipal waste facilities typically are able to remove about 

90 percent of the mercury amalgam from wastewater (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2012c). Based on available 

data, about 38 t of mercury was released into the environment, 

recycled, or stored annually (Cain and others, 2007). Mercury 

emissions generated in 2009 in the United States from the 

dental sector include 24 t of mercury emitted into the soil, 4 t 

emitted into the air, and 0.5 t entered into water systems. An 

additional 6 t of mercury was recycled, and 3.5 t was treated 

or stored in hazardous waste landfills.

An additional potential source of mercury contamination 

is dental amalgam found in the mouths of deceased persons. 

This source contributed to emissions of about 6 t of mercury 

to the soil and 2 t of mercury to the air in 2009 (Concorde 

East/West Sprl, 2012, p. 21). Mercury emissions from this 

source have been the subject of recent congressional hearings. Based on data from the Cremation Association of North 

America, the amount of mercury available from crematoria 

is expected to rise because of an increase in the number of 

cremations and an increase in the number of fillings per person 

cremated. One estimate suggests that mercury available from 

this source could increase from 3 t in 2009 to about 8 t in 2020 

(Reindl, 2010).

Some dental amalgam settles out as a component of sewage sludge accumulated at municipal wastewater treatment 

plants. The EPA finalized rules in February 2011 that would 

reduce air emissions for mercury and eight other air pollutants 

from publically owned incinerators that burn sewage sludge 

to limit the release of dental mercury into the environment 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). About 14 t of 

mercury generated at dental facilities was treated at municipal waste treatment facilities in 2009 (Concorde East/West 

Sprl, 2012).

Other Mercury-Containing Products

Mercury can be found in discarded electronic components, particularly computer batteries, backlit liquid-crystal 

display (LCD) screens, switches, and circuit boards. The 

amount of mercury in a computer may vary from 50 mg to 

45 g (New England Zero Mercury Campaign, 2002); new 
24 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

computers are likely to contain less mercury. More than half of 

these electronic components are exported to Asia for recycling (O’Connell, 2004). Because mercury is often included 

in the “other metals” category of material recovered from 

computers and electronics when reported, information on the 

amount of mercury recovered from computers and electronics in the United States may not be accurate (National Safety 

Council, 1999).

A small amount of mercury is used in a variety of chemical products, including acids, alkalis, bleach, buffers, cleaning 

products, coating materials, dyes, fixatives, laboratory chemicals, preservatives, reagents, and stains. The content of mercury from mercury compounds, preservatives, and reagents 

is typically as much as 250 parts per million (ppm; Northeast 

Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2008a).

About 0.9 t of mercury was sold in formulated compounds and products in 2001, 0.8 t in 2004, and 1.3 t in 2007 

(Wienert, 2009). As of 2008, four States had in place restrictions on the sale and (or) distribution of formulated mercuryadded products. A number of companies have begun phasing 

out the sale on some mercury-containing products. Use in this 

sector is expected to decrease as appropriate substitutes are 

developed. There is little likelihood of economic recovery of 

mercury from these sources because of the diffuse use and 

limited production numbers of mercury-containing formulated 

compounds and products.

Effect of the Mercury Export Ban Act of 

2008 on the U.S. Mercury Industry

Much of the mercury that is being exported from the 

United States comes from mercury that has been recovered 

from recycled products, recovered from closed chloralkali facilities, or as a byproduct of gold and silver mining. 

Imported material from any of these sources may also be recycled and re-exported. The MEBA prohibits the sale or transfer 

of elemental mercury by Federal agencies to other government 

agencies or private entities after October 14, 2008, and prohibits the export of mercury from the United States after January 

1, 2013. Mercury recovered through retorting must enter longterm storage as hazardous waste if it cannot be sold domestically. Mercury-containing products and waste and mercury 

compounds are not included under the ban and can continue to 

be manufactured and exported (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2012d).

Banning mercury exports is expected to result in surplus elemental mercury inventories and reduce the amount of 

mercury-containing material imported for recycling. The DOE 

is developing options for long-term storage of elemental mercury and estimated that a storage capacity of 10,000 t of mercury would be necessary to handle the U.S. mercury storage 

requirement (U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, p. 3). Because 

no storage facility had been constructed as of January 2013, 

the DOE has allowed facilities to register to store mercury on 

site. As of 2013, two facilities had applied for storage permits 

from the DOE (Cynthia Manson, Industrial Economics, Inc., 

oral commun., February 12, 2013).

The long-term storage program for mercury is likely to 

affect mercury recycling by consumers, nonprofit recycling 

organizations, local recycling facilities, and the six leading mercury reprocessing companies. Much of the mercury 

recovered from chloralkali plants that closed before 2013 was 

exported; mercury recovered from chloralkali plants after the 

effective date of the MEBA in 2013 will likely be nominal 

(Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., written commun., September 20, 2012). Potential 

sources of mercury that may require long-term storage include 

mercury stocks in the National Defense Stockpile and stocks 

held by the U.S. Department of Energy, mercury held by the 

two chloralkali plants closed in 2012, two remaining chloralkali plants in operation, mercury derived from gold mining 

in Nevada, and mercury held by reclamation and recycling 

facilities. Figure 8 summarizes the principal stockpiles of U.S. 

mercury as of 2010, along with estimates of the amount of 

mercury retained at each location.

Mercury users or recyclers no longer able to sell mercury 

on international commodity markets would likely lose revenue 

that would be gained by the sale of this mercury. In addition, 

they would be required to incur the costs for the storage of any 

mercury that could not be used domestically. Historically, the 

industry has not charged any fees for storing mercury from 

recycling consumer mercury products, but the DOE is required 

to assess fees for mercury storage. The MEBA may result in 

recyclers passing on the storage costs to customers in the form 

of increased charges for treating or reclaiming mercury, which 

may reduce the incentive for voluntary mercury recycling and 

therefore decrease the amount of recycling that takes place 

(Carpenter and others, 2011).

After the export ban takes effect, a possible alternative 

would be to export mercury byproducts and waste for conversion to elemental mercury outside the United States rather than 

continuing the current practice of retorting these materials in 

the United States and having to store the recovered mercury. 

Calomel recovered from the domestic gold industry and the 

chloralkali industry is the most likely material to be exported 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, p. 36). For 

example, Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc. is considering moving its calomel recovery plant to Mexico to recover 

elemental mercury from gold ores mined in the United States 

and Latin America (Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem 

Apparatus Company, Inc., written commun., September 20, 

2012). Global recovery from the gold and chloralkali industries would likely be restricted to a few processors because the 

technology for recovery is highly specialized.
Effect of the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 on the U.S. Mercury Industry 25

13 9

8

4

7

11

12

5

6

3

2

1

10

Sources of mercury

 1. Byproduct of gold mining in Nevada (83 t) 

Government Stockpiles

 2. National Defense Stockpile consolidated mercury storage 

site, Hawthorne, Nev., (4,436 t)

 3. U.S. Departent of Energy Y–12 national security complex, 

Oak Ridge, Tenn. (1,200 t)

Chloralkali plants

4. Ashta Chemical, Ashtabula, Ohio (more than 125 t)

 5. Olin Corporation, Charleston, Tenn. (more than 552 t; converted in 2012)

 6. Olin Corporation, August, Ga. (more than 313 t; closed in 2012)

 7. PPG Industries, New Martinsville, W. Va. (more than 281 t)

Reclamation and recycling facilities

8. AERC Inc, Allentown, Pa.

 9. Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., Bethlehem, Pa.

10. Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc., Braintree, Mass.

11. DFG Mercury Corporation, Evanston, Ill.

12. Mercury Waste Solutions, Union Grove, Wisc.

13. Onyx Environmental Services, Lombard, Ill.

Byproduct of Nevada gold mining 

National Defense Stockpile

U.S. Department of Energy stockpile

Chloralkali plants using mercury in 2010

Major mercury reclamation and recycling facilities

EXPLANATION

Figure 8. Location of leading production sources and inventories of mercury in the United States in 2010. Data represent production 

levels or inventory estimates reported (in metric tons (t)) and do not include mercury releases to air, land, or water. Data are from The 

Chlorine Institute, Inc. (2009), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010), Brooks (2011), and U.S. Department of Energy (2011).
26 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Summary and Conclusions

Consumption, production, and disposal of mercury in the

United States have decreased as a direct result of increasing, 

stringent regulations and technological advancements related 

to mercury use. More than 20 Federal laws, rules, and regulations affecting mercury use have been enacted since 1970. 

The distribution of mercury use has changed significantly 

through regulation (paint and batteries), voluntary reduction 

by consumers (chloralkali manufacturing), and technological advances (dental, lighting, switches and relays). As global 

concern and regulation make it more difficult to import, use, 

sell, or dispose of mercury, consuming industries must increasingly rely on recycled mercury for needed supply or find 

acceptable substitutes for mercury.

Primary mercury in the United States is derived as a 

byproduct of processing gold and silver ore in Nevada. Data 

suggest that the amount of mercury recovered from gold 

processing operations in the United States has decreased by 

about 22 percent overall from 2001 through 2011; the average amount of mercury recovered annually is estimated to be 

96 metric tons (t). In contrast, mercury emissions from the 

U.S. gold mining industry have decreased by 95 percent since 

2001 as a result of increased regulation and improved collection and suppression technology (Elges, 2011).

The amount of new mercury used by the chloralkali 

industry, traditionally one of the leading industries that use 

mercury in the United States, has decreased by 98 percent 

from 136 t in 1996 (Sznopek and Goonan, 2000) to less than 

3 t in 2010 because of increased processing and recycling 

efficiencies and plant closures or conversions; much of the 

mercury required for chloralkali production is derived from 

onsite recycling within the mercury-cell process. In 1996, 

14 mercury-cell chloralkali plants were in production; in 2013, 

one or two mercury-cell chloralkali plants are expected to be 

in operation. Mercury air and solid waste emissions from chloralkali manufacturing have been reduced by about 85 percent 

from 2001 to 2008, but as plants are closed, mercury recovered from processing infrastructure of closed plants has been 

exported, making the United States a net exporter of mercury, 

even though no mercury has been mined in the United States 

since 1992. The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (MEBA), 

prohibiting the sale, export, and transfer of elemental mercury 

in the United States after January 2013, is intended to limit 

mercury exports for unregulated uses such as artisanal gold 

mining in developing countries. Calomel produced from gold 

processing, often recovered by domestic mercury recyclers, 

may be exported for mercury recovery after the MEBA takes 

effect in 2013.

As the overall domestic use of mercury decreases and 

distribution in various products and devices has been reduced, 

the amount of mercury-containing old scrap generated from 

discontinued or discarded products has decreased from about 

250 t in 2000 to about 72 t in 2010. In 2010, more than 

half the old scrap supply was derived from industrial waste 

generated from the treatment of remediated soils from a closed 

chloralkali plant, imported material, and mercury-containing 

waste generated from dental facilities. Available information 

suggests that, even though a significant percentage of this 

material is consumed, exported, or recycled, about 42 percent 

or 92 t of mercury scrap or waste was unrecovered, lost, or 

landfilled in 2010.

Regulations promulgated since 1990 to increase the 

energy efficiency of commercial and residential lighting have 

contributed to an average reduction of mercury use in general 

service fluorescent lamps by 77 percent since 1985, but have 

increased mercury use in general service fluorescent lamps by 

6 t through encouraging the use of mercury-bearing compact 

fluorescent lights (CFLs) as a replacement for incandescent 

light bulbs. The growing market penetration of CFLs has 

increased the interest in recycling by the consumer, but recycling remains expensive relative to the price of the lamp. It 

is expected that light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which contain 

no mercury but are presently more expensive, will eventually 

replace CFLs in many applications.

The use of mercury in dental amalgam has been a source 

of growing concern and government investigation. Dental 

amalgam represents one of the leading uses of mercury in the 

United States at about 18 to 30 t annually and constitutes the 

largest amount of mercury in use in the United States. In 2009, 

an estimated 28.5 t of dental amalgam was released into the 

environment, 6 t was recycled, and 3.5 t was treated and stored 

in hazardous waste landfills (Cain and others, 2007; Concorde 

East/West Sprl, 2012). Principal sources of mercury-bearing 

dental waste include water sent to municipal waste treatment 

facilities, solid material collected in amalgam separators and 

recycled, and amalgam fillings contained in the bodies of 

deceased persons. Efforts are ongoing to research and promote 

the recovery of mercury from these sources.

Development of suitable alternatives for products and 

processes using mercury is ongoing. Mercury-free alternatives exist for most applications; costs are generally similar or 

higher than the mercury-containing product. In many cases, 

alternatives use less metal and more organic materials or electronics than their mercury-containing counterparts.

Much of the mercury contained in products that are 

recovered by municipal, State, or industry collection activities 

is recycled by one of six leading recycling companies that process this material and recycle the mercury for domestic use or 

export. Formal collection programs have been established to 

collect and recycle mercury from automotive switches, CFLs, 

dental amalgam, and thermostats. In spite of these programs, 

however, the overall recycling rate for mercury in products 

in the United States has remained low (at about 10 percent). 

Although reliable national statistics are not reported, the recycling rate for mercury worldwide is less than 10 percent. The 

DOE estimated that the average amount of mercury recovered 

annually from recycling operations in the United States at 

62.5 t. Increasingly the U.S. recycling industry has been processing a significant amount of mercury-containing material 

derived from foreign gold mining operations or mercury-cell 
References Cited 27

chloralkali plants that have been decommissioned. Since 

the European Union mercury export trade ban was enacted 

in 2011, some European companies have found it profitable 

to ship mercury-containing waste to the United States for 

elemental mercury recovery because they are unable to sell 

elemental mercury recovered within the European Union or on 

international markets.

Regulation of mercury export and storage is expected 

to result in surplus mercury inventories in the United States. 

Long-term storage of mercury from chloralkali plants, government stockpiles, and recycling industry stocks will be required 

after the MEBA goes into effect in 2013 unless mercurycontaining products such as calomel are exported for foreign 

processing to elemental mercury rather than processing it in 

the United States. Costs attributed to long-term storage may 

affect the competitiveness of the recycling industry if consumers are unwilling to pay for increased charges for mercury 

treatment or reclamation. This in turn may reduce the incentive for voluntary mercury recycling and therefore reduce the 

amount of recycling that takes place.

Most mercury regulations relate to elemental mercury. 

There is still a considerable amount of mercury in use in the 

United States that is in the form of such chemical compounds 

as calomel or wastes, which are not covered by the MEBA. 

Therefore, exports of these materials may continue after 2012. 

Elemental mercury may be converted to nonregulated forms 

for export if markets for this material can be found and the 

cost to do so is less than the cost to store surplus elemental 

mercury. For example, Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc. 

is considering moving its calomel recovery plant to Mexico to 

recover elemental mercury from gold ores mined in the United 

States and Latin America (Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., written commun., September 

20, 2012).

References Cited

Artisanal Gold Council, 2011, Silver causes huge increase 

in mercury use in artisanal gold mining: Artisanal Gold 

Council, March 29, accessed January 23, 2013, at http://

artisanalgold.blogspot.com/2011/03/silver-causes-hugeincrease-in-mercury.html.

Ashe, Mary, Chwastyk, Dan, de Monasterio, Caroline, Gupta, 

Mahima, and Pegors, Mika, 2012, 2010 U.S. lighting 

market characterization: U.S. Department of Energy, January, 87 p., accessed June 13, 2013, at http://apps1.eere.

energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-finaljan-2012.pdf.

Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 2004, 

National mercury-lamp recycling rate and availability of 

lamp recycling services in the U.S.: Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, accessed September 12, 2012, 

at http://www.lamprecycle.org/public/images/docs/ALMR_

capacity_statement.2004.%20pdf.pdf.

Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 2012, Lighting, mercury, and the environment: Association of Lighting 

and Mercury Recyclers, accessed September 12, 2012, at 

http://www.almr.org/mercury.html.

Beazoglou, Tryfon, Eklund, Stephen, Heffley, Dennis, Meiers, 

Jonathan, Brown, L.J., and Bailit, Howard, 2007, Economic 

impact of regulating the use of amalgam restorations: 

Public Health Reports, v. 122, no. 5, September-October, p. 

657–663, accessed August 27, 2012, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1936958/?tool=pubmed.

Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., 2012a, Materials processed: Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., accessed July 

24, 2012, at http://www.bethlehemapparatus.com/materialsprocessed.html.

Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., 2012b, Mercury recovery/recycling service: Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., 

accessed July 24, 2012, at http://www.bethlehemapparatus.

com/mercury-recycling.html.

Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., 2012c, Why recycle 

mercury?: Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., accessed 

July 24, 2012, at http://www.bethlehemapparatus.com/

why-recycle.html.

Bowen, B.H., and Irwin, M.W., 2007, Basic mercury data and 

coal fired power plants: Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research Basic Facts File #2, March, 21 p., accessed 

December 17, 2012, at http://www.purdue.edu/

discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/outreach/

Basics2-Mercury-Mar07.pdf.

Brooks, W.E., 2011, Mercury, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2010, v. I, 

p. 48.1–48.8, accessed September 12, 2012, at http://

minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/mercury/

myb1-2010-mercu.pdf.

Brooks, W.E., 2012, Mercury: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries 2012, p. 102–103, accessed 

September 20, 2012, at http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/

pubs/commodity/mercury/mcs-2012-mercu.pdf.

Brooks, W.E., and Matos, G.R., 2006, Mercury recycling in 

the United States in 2000, chap. U of Sibley, S.F., comp., 

Flow studies for recycling metal commodities in the United 

States (revised): U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1196–U, 

21 p., accessed July 9, 2013, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/

c1196u/Circ_1196_U.pdf.

Cain, Alexis, Disch, Sarah, Twaroski, Cliff, Reindl, John, 

and Case, C.R., 2007, Substance flow analysis of mercury 

intentionally used in products in the United States: Journal 

of Industrial Ecology, v. 11, no. 3, April 23, p. 61–75.
28 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Carpenter, Cliff, O’Conor, Letitia, Elmer, John, and DePinho, 

Darlene, 2011, Assessing the impacts of the Mercury Export 

Ban Act of 2008 on the U.S. mercury recycling industry, in

Annual Radioactive Waste Management Symposium, 37th, 

Phoenix, Arizona, February 27–March 3, 2011, presentation 11163: Tempe, Ariz., WM Symposia, 14 p., accessed 

July 8, 2013, at https://www.wmsym.org/archives/2011/

papers/11163.pdf.

Chlorine Institute, Inc., The, 2009, Chloralkali industry 

2008—Mercury use and emissions in the United States: 

Arlington, Va., The Chlorine Institute, Inc. Annual Report 

12, August, 11 p., accessed September 29, 2012, at http://

www.epa.gov/region5/mercury/pdfs/12thcl2report.pdf.

Concorde East/West Sprl, 2012, The real cost of dental mercury: Brussels, Belgium, Concorde East/West Sprl, March, 

59 p., accessed August 27, 2012, at http://mercurypolicy.

org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/real_cost_of_dental_

mercury_april_2012-final.pdf.

Corbett, Thomas, 2005, Recovering mercury switches from 

cars—Where are we today, where are we going: Great 

Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, 21 slides, 

accessed August 4, 2012, at http://www.glrppr.org/meetings/

newyork2005/presentations/8-25-1330-corbett.ppt.

de Guzman, Doris, 2011, Inorganics—Olin’s exit of mercury 

cell chlor-alkali is positive for industry: ICIS Chemical 

Business, January 3, accessed July 9, 2012, at http://www.

icis.com/Articles/2011/01/03/9426289/inorganics-olins-exitof-mercury-cell-chloralkali-is-positive-for.html.

Elges, Michael, 2011, The regulation and control of mercury 

emissions from Nevada mining operations: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, February, 18 p., accessed 

August 17, 2012, at http://www.awma-easternsierra.org/

images/Elges_Feb_16_2011.pdf.

End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation, 2012, Model 

for estimating population of mercury convenience light 

switches: End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation, 

accessed July 3, 2013, at http://elvsolutions.org/?page_

id=1298.

Fashion Jewelry and Accessories Trade Association, The, 

2012, Button cell battery legislation—Mercury free: The 

Fashion Jewelry and Accessories Trade Association, July 

11, accessed February 27, 2013, at http://www.fjata.org/

press/mercury-free-button-cell-battery-info/.

Gheysens, Rik, 2011, Mercury in fluorescent lighting: Ceolas.

Net, October 26, accessed September 6, 2012, at http://

ceolas.net/Docs/HB_MercuryInFluorescentLighting.pdf.

Goonan, T.G., 2006, Mercury flow through the mercurycontaining lamp sector of the economy of the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5264, 5 p., accessed September 12, 2012, at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5264/.

Griesbauer, Laura, 2007, Methylmercury contamination in fish 

and shellfish: CSA Illumina discovery guide, accessed September 12, 2012, at http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/

mercury/review.pdf.

James, John, 2005, Phasing out mercury switch thermostats, 

in Phasing out sales of & collecting mercury-added thermostats: Achieving mercury reductions in products and 

waste—Coordinating national and local government initiatives, May 23–25, 2005, Portland, Mass., session 2C presentation, accessed July 17, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/

prevention/mercury/conferences/reductions/toc.cfm.

James, John, 2009, Mercury-free button batteries—Their reliability and availability: Maine Department of Environmental Protection, January, 11 p., 3 appendixes, accessed July 

24, 2012, at http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.

php?id=365209&an=1.

Lovitz, S.B., 2006, Scales of responsible gold mining—Overcoming barriers to cleaner artisanal mining in southern 

Ecuador: University of Vermont Master’s thesis, accessed 

July 7, 2013, at http://www.uvm.edu/~shali/EcuadorGold.pdf.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 2005, Mercury use in button batteries—A report to the joint standing 

committee on natural resources, 122th Maine legislature: 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 186 p.

Matos, G.R., and Brooks, W.E., 2005, Mercury statistics, in

Kelly, T.D., and Matos, G.R., comps., Historical statistics 

for mineral and material commodities in the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140, accessed September 12, 2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/.

Maxson, Peter, 2006, Mercury flows and safe storage of 

surplus mercury: European Commission, August, 79 p., 

accessed September 12, 2012, at http://ec.europa.eu/

environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/hg_flows_safe_

storage.pdf.

Mercury Policy Project, 2010, Turning up the heat—Exposing 

the manufacturers’ lackluster mercury thermostat collection 

program: Mercury Policy Project, February, 11 p., accessed 

July 17, 2012, at http://mercurypolicy.org/wp-content/

uploads/2010/02/turning-up-the-heat-3.pdf.

Merritt, Cam, 2012, Difference between T8 and T12 lamps: 

Demand Media, Inc., accessed March 19, 2013, at http://

www.ehow.com/facts_6190508_difference-between-t8-t12-

lamps.html.

Miller, Glenn, 2007, Byproduct mercury production in modern 

precious metals mines in Nevada: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 16 p., accessed August 17, 2012, at 
References Cited 29

http://www.epa.gov/hg/stocks/Byproduct%20Mercury%20

Production%20in%20Modern%20Precious%20Metals%20

Mines%20in%20Nevada.pdf.

Mudgal, Shailendra, Van Long, Lise, Mitsios, Andreas, Pahal, 

Sandeep, De Toni, Arianna, and Hylander, Lars, 2012, 

Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from 

dental amalgam and batteries—Final report: European 

Commission, July 12, 245 p. (Also available at http://

ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Final_

report_11.07.12.pdf.)

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2002, Household batteries and the environment: National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association, June, 21 p., accessed July 30, 

2012, at http://www.nema.org/Policy/EnvironmentalStewardship/Documents/NEMABatteryBrochure2.pdf.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2003, Button cell battery collection—Why it does not make sense: 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, January, 

5 p., accessed July 30, 2012, at http://www.nema.org/Policy/

Environmental-Stewardship/Documents/

Buttoncellcollection.pdf.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2005, Fluorescent and other mercury-containing lamps and the environment—Mercury use, environmental benefits, disposal 

requirements: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, March, 14 p., accessed July 30, 2012, at http://www.

nema.org/Policy/Environmental-Stewardship/Lamps/

Documents/Lamp%20Brochure.pdf.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008, Recycling household CFLs: National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association, October, 7 p., accessed July 30, 2012, at http://

www.lamprecycle.org/public/images/docs/Recycling%20

Household%20CFLs.%2010%2008.pdf.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2012, Mercury thermometer alternatives: National Institute of Standards and Technology, accessed July 18, 2012, at http://

www.nist.gov/pml/mercury_alternatives.cfm.

National Safety Council, 1999, Electronic product recovery and recycling baseline report—Recycling of selected 

electronic products in the United States: Washington, D.C., 

National Safety Council, 47 p.

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2012, Nevada 

mercury control program (NMCP)—Annual emissions 

reporting: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 

accessed September 26, 2012, at http://ndep.nv.gov/bapc/

hg/aer.html.

New England Zero Mercury Campaign, 2002, Menacing mercury product pushers: New England Zero Mercury Campaign, January 30, 18 p., accessed July 24, 2012, at http://

mpp.cclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/

productpushersnationalreport.pdf.

New England Zero Mercury Campaign, 2005, Turning up the 

heat—Eliminating mercury thermostats from the marketplace: New England Zero Mercury Campaign, February, 

12 p., accessed July 24, 2012, at http://mpp.cclearn.org/

wp-content/uploads/2008/08/nezmcthermostatreportfeb

2005.pdf.

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2008a, 

Mercury use in formulated mercury-added products: Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association Interstate 

Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse fact sheet, 

October, accessed July 24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/

prevention/mercury/imerc/FactSheets/formprods.cfm.

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2008b, 

Mercury use in lighting: Northeast Waste Management 

Officials’ Association Interstate Mercury Education and 

Reduction Clearinghouse fact sheet, August, accessed July 

24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/

imerc/FactSheets/lighting.cfm.

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2008c, 

Trends in mercury use in products—Summary of the 

interstate mercury education and reduction clearinghouse 

(IMERC) mercury-added products database: Northeast 

Waste Management Officials’ Association, June, 28 p., 

accessed July 24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/

prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/mercuryinproducts.pdf.

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2009, 

Review of compact fluorescent lamp recycling initiatives 

in the U.S. and internationally: Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, July 23, 24 p., accessed July 

24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/

lamprecycle/CFLRecyclingReport.pdf. Northeast Waste 

Management Officials’ Association, 2010a, Mercury use in 

batteries: Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse fact sheet, January, accessed July 24, 2012, at http://

www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/FactSheets/

batteries.cfm.

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2010b, 

Mercury use in dental amalgam: Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association Interstate Mercury Education 

and Reduction Clearinghouse fact sheet, June, accessed July 

24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/

imerc/FactSheets/dental_amalgam.cfm.

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2010c, 

Mercury use in measuring devices: Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association Interstate Mercury Education 

and Reduction Clearinghouse fact sheet, January, accessed 

July 24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/

mercury/imerc/FactSheets/measuring_devices.cfm.
30 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2010d, 

Mercury use in switches and relays: Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association Interstate Mercury Education 

and Reduction Clearinghouse fact sheet, January, accessed 

July 24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/

mercury/imerc/FactSheets/switches.cfm.

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2010e, 

Mercury use in thermostats: Northeast Waste Management 

Officials’ Association Interstate Mercury Education and 

Reduction Clearinghouse fact sheet, January, accessed July 

24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/

imerc/FactSheets/thermostats.cfm.

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 2012, 

Interstate mercury education and reduction clearinghouse 

(IMERC) mercury-added products database: Northeast 

Waste Management Officials’ Association, accessed October 24, 2012, at https://imerc.newmoa.org/publicsearch/

NEWMOA_IMERC.aspx#/CustomizedSearch.

Nowak, Milton, and Singer, William, 1995, Mercury compounds, in Kirk, R.E., Othmer, D.F., Kroschwitz, J.I., and 

Howe-Grant, Mary, eds., Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of 

chemical technology (4th ed.): New York, John Wiley and 

Sons, v. 16, p. 229–243.

O’Connell, K.A., 2004, Putting the pedal to the metal: Waste 

Age, v. 35, no. 4, April, p. 79–85. (Also available at http://

waste360.com/televisions-monitors/putting-pedal-metal.)

Olin Corporation, 2010, Olin announces mercury cell transition plan and fourth quarter restructuring charges: Clayton, 

Mo., Olin Corporation press release, December 10, accessed 

August 7, 2012, at http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/

NewsPDF.asp?b=1548&ID=42374&m=rl.

Poon, Daniel, 2011, US states ban mercury in button cell batteries: HKTDC Research, accessed September 12, 2012, at 

http://product-industries-research.hktdc.com/business-news/

article/Electronics-Electricals/US-States-Ban-Mercury-inButton-Cell-Batteries/psls/en/1/1X000000/1X07KKJT.htm.

PPG Industries, Inc., 2012, 2011 annual report and form 10–K: 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, February 20, 

9 p. (Also available at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/

data/79879/000119312512064763/d260697d10k.htm.)

Reindl, John, 2010, Testimony to the U.S. House domestic 

policy subcommittee of the oversight committee of government operations and reform: Washington, D.C., Mercury 

Policy Project, accessed August 27, 2012, at http://

mercurypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/mpp_

testimony_domestic_policy_may_2010_final_version1.pdf.

Simpson, Cam, and Walsh, Heather, 2012, The slippery metal: 

Bloomberg Business Week, May 28–June 3, p. 62–68.

Sznopek, J.L., and Goonan, T.G., 2000, The materials flow 

of mercury in the economies of the United States and 

the world: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1197, 28 p., 

accessed September 12, 2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

circ/2000/c1197/.

Thermostat Recycling Corporation, 2012a, Just how many is 

1.4 million thermostats?: Thermostat Recycling Corporation, accessed July 16, 2012, at http://www.thermostatrecycle.org/news/13-just-how-many-is-1-4-millionthermostats.html.

Thermostat Recycling Corporation, 2012b, California DTSC 

thermostat collection report for calendar year 2011 activities: Thermostat Recycling Corporation, April 1, 86 p., 

accessed July 16, 2012, at http://www.thermostat-recycle.

org/files/media/20120618093320.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1973–1996, Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1971–1994, v. I, [variously paged]. (Also available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/

minerals/pubs/usbmmyb.html.)

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1993, Mercury in 1992: U.S. Bureau of 

Mines Mineral Industry Surveys, 11 p.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2009, Energy conservation program—Energy conservation standards and test procedures 

for general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent 

reflector lamps: Federal Register, v. 74, no. 133, July 14, 

p. 34080–34179, accessed May 20, 2013, at http://www.gpo.

gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-14/pdf/E9-15710.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, Long-term management and 

storage of elemental mercury—Final environmental impact 

statement: U.S. Department of Energy EIS–0423, January, 

2 volumes, accessed August 7, 2012, at http://

mercurystorageeis.com/library.htm#final.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2012, Impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on general service fluorescent 

lamps—Fact sheet: U.S. Department of Energy, 2012, 

accessed August 7, 2012, at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/general_

service_fluorescent_factsheet.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, EPA’s roadmap 

for mercury: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA–

HQ–OPPT–2005–0013, July, 85 p., accessed September 

26, 2012, at http://www.epa.gov/hg/pdfs/FINAL-MercuryRoadmap-6-29.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Background 

paper for stakeholder panel to address options for managing U.S. non-federal supplies of commodity-grade mercury: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 14, 20 p., 

accessed September 12, 2012, at http://www.epa.gov/hg/

stocks/backgroundpaper.pdf.
References Cited 31

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, Potential export 

of mercury compounds from the United States for conversion to elemental mercury: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency report to Congress, October 14, 106 p. (Also available at http://www.epa.gov/hg/pdfs/mercury-rpt-tocongress.pdf.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, Regulatory 

impact analysis—Proposed national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for mercury emissions 

from mercury cell chlor alkali plants: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, November, [variously paged], accessed 

September 12, 2012, at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/

regdata/RIAs/mercurycell.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, EPA’s final air 

toxics standards major and area source boilers and certain 

incinerators overview of rules and impacts: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet, 5 p., accessed June 

13, 2013 at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/docs/

overviewfsfinal.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012a, Frequent 

questions about regulations that affect the management and 

disposal of mercury-containing light bulbs (lamps): U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, accessed September 7, 

2012, at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/

universal/lamps/faqs.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b, Mercury: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, accessed December 17, 

2012, at http://www.epa.gov/hg/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012c, Mercury in 

dental amalgam: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

accessed September 7, 2012, at http://www.epa.gov/hg/

dentalamalgam.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012d, Questions and 

answers about the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, accessed September 6, 

2012, at http://www.epa.gov/hg/exportban-ques.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012e, What are the 

biggest sources of mercury air emissions in the U.S.?: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, accessed September 7, 

2012, at http://publicaccess.supportportal.com/ics/support/

kbanswer.asp?deptID=23012&task=

knowledge&questionID=21198.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012f, What are the 

connections between mercury and CFLs?: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed September 7, 2012, at 

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/what-are-connections-betweenmercury-and-cfls.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009, FDA issues final 

regulation of dental amalgam: U.S. Food and Drug Administration press announcement, July 28, accessed December 

3, 2012, at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/

Pressannouncements/ucm173992.htm.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2011, Dental devices—

Classification of dental amalgam, reclassification of dental 

mercury, designation of special controls for dental amalgam, mercury, and amalgam alloy: Federal Register, v. 74, 

no. 148, p. 38686–38714, accessed June 13, 2013, at https://

federalregister.gov/a/E9-18447.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997–2011, Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 1995–2010, 

v. I, [variously paged]. (Also available at http://minerals.

usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/myb/.)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, Mercury statistics, in Kelly, 

T.D., and Matos, G.R., comps., Historical statistics for 

mineral and material commodities in the United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Data Series 140, accessed November 5, 

2012, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ds140-

mercu.pdf.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005, EPA needs to 

clarify the types of mercury waste that can be treated and 

disposed of using the debris regulations: U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, 57 p., accessed February 6, 2013, at 

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-99.

U.S. International Trade Commission, 2012, International tariff and trade dataweb: U.S. International Trade Commission, 

accessed August 13, 2012, at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/.

United Nations Environment Programme, 2002, Global mercury assessment: United Nations Environment Programme, 

258 p., accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.unep.org/gc/

gc22/Document/UNEP-GC22-INF3.pdf.

United Nations Environment Programme, 2007, Japan’s current status of supply and demand of mercury, and activities 

implemented to reduce risks using the most advanced technologies: United Nations Environment Programme, 

17 p., accessed August 24, 2012, at http://www.chem.unep.

ch/mercury/Call_for_information/Japan-submission.pdf.

United Nations Environment Programme, 2011, Recycling 

rates of metals—A status report: United Nations Environment Programme, 57 p., accessed September 12, 2012, at 

http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/

Metals_Recycling_Rates_110412-1.pdf.

van Zyl, D.J.A., and Eurick, G.M., 2000, The management of 

mercury in the modern gold mining industry: University of 

Nevada, Reno, accessed October 21, 2012, at http://www.

mines.unr.edu/mlc/mercurygold.pdf.

Virta, R.L., 2011, Asbestos, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2010, v. I, p. 8.1–8.5, 

accessed September 12, 2012, at http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/

minerals/pubs/commodity/asbestos/myb1-2010-asbes.pdf.
32 Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States

Virta, R.L., 2013, Mercury: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral 

Commodity Summaries 2013, p. 102–103, accessed January 

30, 2013, at http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/

commodity/mercury/mcs-2013-mercu.pdf.

Wankhade, K.K., and Agarwal, Ravi, 2003,Usage and releases, 

chap. 1 of Mercury in India—Toxic pathways: New Delhi, 

India, Toxics Link, p. 13–35, accessed July 24, 2012, at 

http://www.toxicslink.org/docs/06035_publications-1-

33-2.pdf.

Wienert, Adam, 2009, Trends in mercury use in products: 

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, 

meeting presentation, Boston, Mass., November 17, 13 p., 

accessed August 24, 2012, at http://www.newmoa.org/

prevention/mercury/conferences/sciandpolicy/presentations/

Wienert_Session3B.pdf.

Wilburn, D.R., 2012, Byproduct metals and rare-earth elements used in the production of light-emitting diodes—

Overview of principal sources of supply and material 

requirements for selected markets: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5215, 15 p., accessed 

December 6, 2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5215/.

Zero Mercury Working Group, 2012, Phasing out mercury use 

in button cell batteries: Zero Mercury Working Group INC 

4 briefing paper series, 2 p., accessed September 12, 2012, 

at http://www.zeromercury.org/index.php?option=com_

phocadownload&view=file&id=164:zmwg-inc-4-briefingpaper-series-phasing-out-mercury-use-in-button-cellbatteries&Itemid=70.
Prepared by the Pembroke, Reston, and West Trenton Publishing 

Service Centers 

For more information concerning this report, contact: 

Director 

U.S. Geological Survey 

National Minerals Information Center 

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

nmicrecordsmgt@usgs.gov 

or visit our Web site at:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/
Wilburn—Changing Patterns in the Use, Recycling, and Material Substitution of Mercury in the United States—Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5137