ABSTRACT
Open dumping and burning of waste contaminated with mercury are known mercury emission sources in the environment, especially in developing countries. However, little data are available to understand the actual situation. The results of a survey—implemented by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan—were analysed to examine the effectiveness and challenges of the survey methodologies. Mercury levels in ambient air, solid waste, emission flux, leachate water and human hair at waste disposal facilities in Cameroon, Indonesia, Kenya, Myanmar and Nigeria were analysed.
Ambient mercury levels at waste disposal facilities, where spontaneous waste combustion was observed, fluctuated significantly, although the average with the continuous monitoring was below 50 ng m−3. The factors for these fluctuations might be waste conditions, wind directions, distance from the waste combustion point, and others. The level was well below the guideline value for the workplace environment of the World Health Organization. Thus, it is unlikely for the site workers to develop adverse health effects caused by inhaling the ambient air.
The proportion of mercury emitted from waste disposal facilities, the quotient of daily mercury emission from the surface and daily mercury input to the facility were calculated. The results are 0.075%–1.32%, which indicated that less percentage of mercury input was emitted to the atmosphere and that the remaining will be accumulated in the facilities.
The methylmercury levels in hair were mostly below 1 μg g−1, which is below the equivalent to tolerable intake both for adults (4.4 μg g−1) and pregnant women (2.2 μg g−1). Thus, it is of no special concern for onsite workers regarding dietary mercury intake. Total mercury levels for most samples were also sufficiently low, but a few samples showed elevated mercury. The elevated levels might have been caused due to the application of personal care products containing mercury or accidental contact with other products containing mercury.
The survey has provided some useful insights into the mercury situation in waste landfill facilities in developing countries. The enhancement of mercury levels when and where open burning of waste is occurring needs further evaluation.
INTRODUCTION
Mercury is a chemical element found widely in the environment. It is released in various environmental media in various forms and cycles globally. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2002) reported that the anthropogenic emission surpasses naturally-occurring mercury, which resulted in the increased atmospheric level and deposition; large amounts of mercury emitted into the atmosphere stays for a long time and disperses globally. However, people who engage in local activities are concerned about the exposure to high concentrations of mercury by inhalation. In the past decades, mercury usage in developed countries is decreasing, but the demand in developing countries is still high; thus, global efforts to reduce anthropogenic emission are essential.
In responding to the international call on mercury management, Minamata Convention on Mercury was adopted in 2013 and entered into force in 2017. The Convention aims to protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP1) of the Convention decided that information on mercury emissions from open burning of waste, particularly from developing countries, including emission factors and real measurement of emissions, to be compiled (UNEP, 2017).
Open dumping and burning of waste containing mercury-added products, such as fluorescent lamps or e-waste (electric and electronic appliances composed of parts using mercury), are known mercury-emission sources in the environment, especially in developing countries. AMAP/UNEP (2019) provided an example, where 15.6 of 25.1 tonnes of mercury present in various products were eventually dumped in unmanaged landfills in Mexico. However, little data are available, and unevenly distributed geographically, to understand the global situation.
De La Rosa et al. (2006) surveyed the total gaseous mercury concentration in ambient air at five municipal solid waste landfill facilities in Mexico City. The median values were between 1.97 and 44.13 ng m−3. They also monitored mercury in landfill gas (LFG) to obtain the quotient air/LFG values of closed landfill sites with final synthetic covers, which were below 0.2, while the values reached 1 for the site with occasional soil cover only.
Zhu et al. (2013) analysed ambient gaseous mercury concentration in a municipal solid waste landfill site in China using an automated mercury analyser (Tekran 2537B). The concentrations, ranging from 17.0 to 98.0 ng m−3 in the ambient air under normal conditions were elevated to 202.0–669.0 ng m−3 in the presence of waste combustion. They estimated that the spontaneous solid waste combustion amplified mercury emission by 8–40 times.
Several emission factors have been proposed in the past studies for estimating the mercury emission from various waste types with and without combustion. Hu et al. (2012) estimated mercury emissions from waste combustion in China. They used the mercury emission factors for municipal solid waste, rural household waste and agricultural waste for the period 2004 to 2010. The average emission factors for municipal solid waste (incineration), rural household waste (open burning) and agricultural waste were 0.203, 0.515 and 0.035 μg g−1, respectively.
Wiedinmyer et al. (2014) estimated the global mercury emission from open burning of domestic waste. They used the emission factor 0.21 μg g−1 from a previous study in China for calculating the mercury emission at the global level. Wang et al. (2017) estimated the mercury emission from open burning of municipal solid waste in China. They used the emission factor of 0.79 μg g−1 as the national average. Thao et al. (2021) developed an anthropogenic mercury emission inventory in Thailand. They obtained the mercury emission factors for open burning of agricultural residue as 5.56×10−3–7.94×10−3 μg g−1 for estimating the mercury emissions.
AMAP/UNEP (2019) contributed to the Global Mercury Assessment 2018 publication by estimating atmospheric emissions. Mercury brought to waste landfill sites will be distributed to several fates, and it assumed the proportion emitted to the atmosphere by 5% for managed landfills and 7%–23% for unmanaged landfills depending on the level of management.
The Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MOEJ) implemented a survey that aimed to collect mercury data in multiple media in municipal solid waste landfill sites to provide comprehensive information. The survey extended for two fiscal years, 2018 and 2019, to assess the situation of waste disposal facilities in five developing countries, i.e. Cameroon, Indonesia, Kenya, Myanmar and Nigeria (IDEA, 2019, 2020). The methodologies in the survey were employed in various geographic locations and will enable researchers and practitioners to understand the overall behaviour of mercury in the waste landfill facilities. This status report, therefore, analyses the MOEJ survey results mainly because of its significant data from African and Southeast Asian countries, and then examines the effectiveness and challenges of the survey methodologies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The survey was developed as a part of the technical assistance programme of MOEJ to strengthen the mercury management capacity for developing countries to implement the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Its programme included long-term background monitoring of hazardous metals, including mercury, cooperation and support for planning and monitoring for the Minamata Convention, and survey and capacity building on mercury monitoring and analysis in countries overseas.
The survey included ambient air monitoring, mercury emission monitoring due to waste burning, mercury monitoring in leachate and waste and hair mercury monitoring for site workers and neighbouring residents. The surveys were organised during the dry season to assess the impacts of open burning of waste. A team of Japanese experts visited the facilities to collect samples. This activity served as a demonstration to the local analytical institutions to see and practise mercury monitoring in multiple media.
In all five countries, solid waste was collected without proper separation of hazardous waste such as mercury. The waste disposal facilities were mostly open dumping, except for the facility in Indonesia, which was built as a sanitary landfill. Waste burning and spontaneous ignition were regularly observed at the facilities in Kenya and Nigeria. Waste pickers worked in the facility to collect recyclable materials, except the one in Cameroon where waste picking was administratively prohibited. The detailed information on the surveying facilities is described in Table 1.
Table 1 Detail of surveying facilities
| Country | Cameroon | Indonesia | Kenya | Myanmar | Nigeria |
|---|
| Name of facility | Nkol Foulou Waste Landfilling Facility | Bantar Gebang Waste Disposal Facility | Dandora Waste Disposal Facility | Htein Pin Waste Disposal Facility | Gosa Waste Management Facility |
| Location | Yaoundé | Special Capital Territory of Jakarta | Nairobi | Yangon | Abuja |
| Operation | Since 1998 | Since 1989 | Since 1980s | Since 2001 | 1982–92, since 2005 |
| Site area | 56 ha | 110.3 ha | Over 12.1 ha | 60.7 ha | 90.8 ha |
| Daily waste input | 1,000 t | 7,000 t | 2,000 t | 1,300 t | 900–1,000 t |
| Waste type | All types of general waste and recyclable waste | No segregation at collection; ~4% are hazardous waste | No waste segregation practiced | No waste segregation practiced | All types of municipal waste and industrial waste |
| Generated gas | Collection pipes and treatment facility | Collection pipes and burning plant | No facility. Open burning and spontaneous combustion at many locations. | No facility. Large-scale fire broke out in 2018. | No facility. Spontaneous combustion at many locations. |
| Leachate water | Treated by leachate pond | Treatment facility | No treatment facility | No treatment (unused suspension pond) | No treatment facility |
Note: 1 ha=10,000 m2, 1 t=1,000 kg
Unless otherwise described in the following part, collected samples were brought back to Japan to analyse the mercury concentration based on the mercury analysis manual (MOEJ, 2004) at the laboratory of the Institute of Environmental Ecology. Total mercury (all forms) for solid waste and most of the leachate water sample was analysed by thermal decomposition cold vapour atomic absorption spectrometry (CVAAS; MA-3000, Nippon Instruments). Some leachate water samples, which were relatively low concentrations of total mercury and had less amount of matrix interfering analysis (St. 1,2 and 3 of Myanmar), were concentrated by dithizone–toluene extraction and measured by reduction aeration CVAAS (HG-201, Sanso Seisakusho). Total mercury of human hair sample was analysed by acid digestion (nitric acid–perchloric and sulphuric acids) and reduction aeration CVAAS measurement (HG-201, Sanso Seisakusho). Atmospheric mercury collected by the gold amalgamation trap was analysed using CVAAS with thermal desorption option module (MA-3000 and RH-MA3, Nippon Instruments). Methylmercury was also analysed for hair samples by HCl leaching, toluene extraction GC-ECD (G2700, Yanaco) method.
AMBIENT AIR
The ambient mercury concentration was analysed at/around waste management facilities using a portable mercury analyser; 2–5 sampling points were set in each location (described in Table 2), and 30-min onsite samplings using the portable analyser (EMP Gold+, Nippon Instruments) were conducted at least twice per the sampling point.
Table 2 Sampling locations for ambient air, emission flux and solid waste monitoring
| Country | Ambient air and emission flux monitoring | Solid waste monitoring |
|---|
| Cameroon | St. 1: Current landfill zone | St. 1, St. 2: Locations at current landfill zone |
| Indonesia | St. 1: Immediately after waste landfill
St. 2: 5 years passed after waste landfill
St. 3: 10 years passed after waste landfill | Same as left |
| Kenya | St. 1, 2, 3: Waste was recently disposed of and combustion was occurring in the proximity | (Not conducted) |
| Myanmar | St. 1: Immediately after waste landfill
St. 2: 3–4 months passed after waste landfill
St. 3: 5 years passed after waste landfill | Same as left |
| Nigeria | St. 1: Within combustion site
St. 2: Proximity to a residential area
St. 3: Between combustion and non-combustion areas | St. 1, St. 2, St. 3: Locations in the burning area (current landfill zone) |
Additionally, ambient air sampling was conducted using the gold amalgam trap method, a Japanese standard method (MOEJ, 2011), with a 3–5-hour sampling time. Duplicate sampling was employed using two gold columns in one sampling activity. The results were compared with the available guideline values (WHO, 2000; Central Environment Council, 2003; IPCS, 2003). WHO (2000) assumes workplace exposure with 40 h-workweek conditions while IPCS (2003) sets the level for continuous (24/7) exposure. The Central Environmental Council recommends an ambient mercury level that guides risk reduction efforts by relevant stakeholders.
SOLID WASTE
Waste was collected from two to three locations where the waste type was representative of the facility. The collected waste samples, ~200–600 grams per location, were classified into six categories, namely 1. food waste, etc., 2. paper, 3. plastic, 4. cloth and textile, 5. plant, such as timber, etc. and 6. non-combustible, such as metal, glass and others, and weighed to estimate the composition of waste types. Specimens of each classification item were collected from waste samples and shredded and homogenised for mercury analysis. The mercury concentrations of the specimens in each classification were analysed separately and then the weighted averages of the results are calculated based on the respective composition of each sample. Finally, the weighted concentrations were added up to assume the total mercury concentration of the respective samples.
Collected waste samples from Kenya could not be imported to Japan as the local shipping company refused the transportation.
EMISSION FLUX
The total mercury emission from entire facilities was calculated from the surface emission monitoring data and the land surface area.
Mercury flux emitted from the surface of waste disposal sites at a unit area in unit time was analysed by a flux chamber method, which covered the soil (waste) surface with a plastic receptacle (18.4 cm in diameter, 266 cm2 of covering surface and 1,968 cm3 capacity, IDEA 2019, or 17.0 cm in diameter, 227 cm2 of covering surface and 1,815 cm3 capacity, IDEA 2020) and sucked inside air at a rate of 0.4 L min−1 to collect mercury emitted from the land surface to the mercury analyser (EMP Gold+, Nippon Instruments). The same volume of mercury-free air of the effluent of the mercury analyser was returned to the receptacle with its own remaining pressure so that no negative or positive pressure was induced in the flux chamber. This configuration was to ensure only mercury from the land surface flowed into the system. The mercury amount of 4–8 consecutive samplings with 30 min each were added up. Finally, mercury in the receptacle at the start of the sampling was subtracted.
The proportion of mercury emitted from waste disposal facilities was calculated as it provides a basis for estimating the mercury emission factor from the waste landfill site. The quotient of daily mercury emission from the surface and daily mercury input to the facility are calculated using the following formula:
|
(
g
)
Mercury emitted from waste disposal facility
=
(
c
)
Mercury emission from the entire facility
(
f
)
Daily mercury input with waste
=
(
a
)
Average mercury emission from soil surface×(
b
)
Site area
(
d
)
Daily waste input×(
e
)
Average mercury level in waste
|
Daily mercury emission from the entire facility was calculated as the product of the average mercury emission flux and total disposal site area of the facilities. Daily mercury input to the facility was calculated as the product of daily waste input and the average mercury level in waste was analysed in this survey.
LEACHATE WATER
As the leachate water treatment system is not always equipped at waste disposal facilities, water samples in and around the facilities were collected and total mercury concentrations were analysed, which were compared with Japan’s effluent and environmental standards (Inter-Ministerial Coordination Council on the Minamata Convention on Mercury, 2017). As the total water effluent volumes were unknown, mercury loading to the surrounding water body was not estimated.
HUMAN HAIR
A Sampling of human hair of the workers and residents neighbouring waste disposal sites was conducted in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) methodology (WHO, 2018).
A survey for human bio-samples must be permitted by a local ethical committee. The requests were submitted before the survey, which often took a long time. The administrative process for Cameroon, Indonesia and Kenya did not allow the survey team to conduct hair sampling during the survey missions.
Collected samples were brought back to Japan to analyse the mercury concentration. Total mercury (all forms) was analysed for all collected samples, and methylmercury was also analysed for hair samples to estimate the proportion of methylmercury in hairs. The results were compared with the available guideline values (JECFA, 2007).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
AMBIENT AIR
The locations of ambient air monitoring are described in Table 2, and the analytical results using the portable mercury analyser and gold amalgamation trap are presented in Figs. 1A and 1B, respectively. The results in Fig. 1A, which indicate the short-term values for 30 min each, are greatly fluctuating in a short time range. Especially, St. 3 in Kenya and St. 3 in Nigeria, where spontaneous waste combustion was observed, reached the level of ≥100 ng m−3 on a 30-min average. However, the results in Fig. 1B, which indicate the average values for the continuous monitoring in the 3–5-h range, were decreased below 50 ng m−3. This fluctuation might have been due to the waste conditions, wind directions, distance from the waste combustion point and other factors.
Mercury concentration levels where no landfill activity was practised, such as St. 3 in Indonesia, St. 3 in Myanmar and St. 2 in Nigeria, were low and stable within 4 ng m−3, which are the levels that are often observed in an urban environment (e.g. annual averages of ambient mercury level in Japan from 1998 to 2019 ranged between 1.8 and 3.2 ng m−3, MOEJ, 2021). It was indicated that the mercury levels at sites with active waste disposal operations were higher than at background sites due to the emission of mercury from incoming waste. The level significantly varied and sometimes exceeded Japan’s guideline values for ambient air (Central Environment Council, 2003). It was, however, still well below the guideline value of 1 μg m−3 for the workplace environment (WHO, 2000), and 200 ng m−3 for long-term tolerable inhalation exposure (IPCS, 2003).
The guideline value for ambient air for the workplace environment according to WHO is the level at which there could be the development of adverse health effects caused by the inhalation of mercury in the ambient air. As spontaneous waste combustion usually does not occur during the rainy season, the annual average mercury concentration may be even lower than the values obtained in this survey. Thus, it is unlikely for the site workers to develop adverse health effects caused by the inhalation of mercury in the ambient air. This assumption, however, does not rule out other health risks than mercury inhalation, e.g. particulate matter or other pollutants.
SOLID WASTE
The locations where representative waste samples were collected are described in Table 2 and the analytical results are presented in Fig. 2. The main composition of solid waste collected at the facilities in this survey was plastic products, with food residue, paper, plant (timber, etc.), to less extent. No mercury-added products, such as fluorescent lamps, mercury thermometers or batteries, were identified in the collected samples, but some level of mercury concentration was confirmed (up to 0.5 μg g−1) regardless of the waste composition.
This mercury level may not be classified as mercury waste, which will be defined by the Minamata Convention, but mercury exists widely in municipal solid waste where the origin of the mercury is unknown. It might have come from other waste mercury-added products that were broken, and released mercury as it is in the form of a fluid (liquid or vapour) at normal temperature.
No waste separation was practiced in the surveying countries, which resulted in a mixed collection, thereby causing breakages and spills of mercury from mercury-added products.
EMISSION FLUX
Mercury emission flux monitoring was conducted at the same sampling locations for ambient air monitoring at the surveying facilities (Table 2).
Average mercury flux is shown in column (a) of Table 3. The mercury emission rates varied significantly, although no waste mercury-added product was identified immediately beneath the flux chamber. It may have been caused by the waste content below the surface, but details are unknown.
Table 3 Estimation of mercury emission flux from surveying facilities
| Country | (a) Average mercury emission from the soil surface
(ng m−2 h−1) | (b) Site area
(10,000 m2) | (c) Mercury emission from the entire facility
(g d−1) | (d) Daily waste input
(1,000 kg d−1) | (e) Average mercury level in waste
(ng g−1) | (f) Daily mercury input with waste
(g d−1) | (g) Mercury emitted from waste disposal facility (%) |
|---|
| Cameroon | 100 | 56 | 1.34 | 1,000 | 102 | 102 | 1.32 |
| Indonesia | 56 | 110.3 | 1.48 | 7,000 | 280 | 1,960 | 0.075 |
| Kenya | 26.5 | 12.1 | 0.077 | 2,000 | NA | NA | NA |
| Myanmar | 60.9 | 60.7 | 0.89 | 1,300 | 212 | 275 | 0.32 |
| Nigeria | 73 | 90.8 | 1.59 | 1,000 | 208 | 208 | 0.76 |
Note: NA: Not available
The calculation results of the proportion of mercury emitted from waste disposal facilities are 0.075%–1.32%, which are shown in column (g) of Table 3. Note that this is just a preliminary estimate and the data used for the calculation contains a lot of uncertainty. Nevertheless, the result may be induced that less percentage of mercury input was emitted into the atmosphere and the remaining will be accumulated in the facilities. This result is ~10 times as low as the value used by AMAP/UNEP (2019) to estimate atmospheric emissions from solid waste landfills, which eventually contributed to the Global Mercury Assessment 2018 publication.
The mercury in waste would be in a less stable form, such as elemental mercury, which is different from the geological mercury deposit where mercury usually exists in sulphide form. Thus, it might be gradually emitted into the atmosphere or released into the water body after the closure of the facilities.
LEACHATE WATER
Water samples were collected from the locations described in Table 4. The mercury levels in leachate water from surveying facilities were between 2.2 and 460 ng L−1, which is below Japan’s effluent standard of 5,000 ng L−1 and environmental standard of 500 ng L−1. The total mercury release from the facilities could not be calculated as the total water effluents were unknown. However, as the mercury levels in leachate water were low in these facilities, the impacts of mercury on neighbouring water bodies are unlikely.
Table 4 Sampling locations and mercury concentrations of leachate water monitoring
| Country | Leachate water monitoring | Mercury
(ng L−1) |
|---|
| Cameroon (treated by leachate pond) | St. 1: Stagnant leachate water alongside the current landfill zone | 460 |
| St. 2: Effluent from current landfill zone to neighbouring river | 210 |
| St. 3: Water in stabilisation pond | <54 |
| Indonesia (with water treatment facility) | St. 1: Raw water tank | 510 |
| St. 2: Aeration tank | 280 |
| St. 3: Final storage tank | 220 |
| Kenya (no treatment facility) | St. 1: Roadside gutter near the entrance gate | 460 |
| St. 2: Roadside gutter in the middle of the facility | 140 |
| St. 3: Neighbouring river flowing along the facility | 130 |
| Myanmar (no treatment, unused suspension pond) | St. 1: Roadside gutter near the entrance gate | 2.2 |
| St. 2: Gutter along neighbouring river | 3.3 |
| St. 3: Gutter along neighbouring river | 6 |
| Nigeria (no leachate flow around current landfill zone) | St. 1: Stagnant water at past landfill zone | 65 |
| St. 2: Stagnant water at past landfill zone | 170 |
| St. 3: Permeated leachate from landfill was finally flowing out | <54 |
Note: <54 means a value below the detection limit.
Only two countries permitted samples to be obtained. The hair samples of workers in the facility, administrative and technical staff working at the facility and who participated in the survey were collected in Myanmar. In Nigeria, only the hair samples from workers in the facility were collected. The total mercury and methylmercury concentrations of the sampled hair were analysed, which is shown in Fig. 3.
There were different methylmercury levels observed between Myanmar and Nigeria, which would have come from the difference in their regular diet, but the methylmercury levels in hair were mostly below 1 μg g−1, which is below the equivalent of tolerable intake for adults (4.4 μg g−1) and for pregnant women (2.2 μg g−1) (JECFA, 2007). Kehrig et al. (1998) surveyed total mercury and methylmercury levels of hair in a fishing village in Brazil. The methylmercury level for the population who regularly consume fish was elevated (8.76±5.20 μg g−1), and ~95% of the mercury was methylmercury. The dietary habits in Myanmar and Nigeria seem to be less reliant on fish, as the methylmercury levels were sufficiently low. Thus, there was no special concern for onsite workers in terms of dietary mercury intake.
Total mercury levels for most samples were also sufficiently low, except for a few samples showing elevated mercury, particularly for one person in Myanmar and four in Nigeria, whose total mercury levels exceeded 2 μg g−1. Kehrig et al. (1997) collected human hair samples in various villages in Brazil, including fishing villages and gold mining areas. The result indicated that the percentage of methylmercury varied significantly and sometimes it was much lower (as low as 8.7%) than in the fishing village with no mining activities (Kehrig et al., 1998). A possible reason for this phenomenon could be the external contamination by exposing mercury vapour, which will raise a concern for the risk of high mercury inhalation. However, the ambient mercury concentration that is a concern in terms of the adverse health impact was not recorded in this survey. It might have been caused by the application of personal care products containing mercury to the hair or accidental contact with other mercury products at the workplace.
CHALLENGES AND DIFFICULTY
DATA UNCERTAINTY
The mercury concentrations of the waste and air were diverse even in similar types of waste conditions at the sampled locations. Due to the limited number of survey locations for emission and waste sampling, the calculated averages will not be representative of the facilities. Thus, the proportion of mercury emitted from the waste disposal facilities, as their quotient, includes significant uncertainty.
EMISSION MONITORING DUE TO WASTE BURNING
The flux chamber was used to analyse the mercury emissions from the waste surface, but this method cannot be applied to the locations where the waste is actually burning. As more mercury emission is assumed at the waste burning, some methodology should be in place to estimate the amount of mercury emitted from there. It is also difficult to estimate the burnt volume; thus, a methodology considering both accuracy and feasibility needs to be developed.
SITE SECURITY
Due to the specific nature of waste disposal sites, the long-term activity would be problematic in terms of security and safety of the surveyors and instruments; unless several measures are put in place (e.g. extended survey days, support of local staff, and security officers), it would not be feasible.
CONCLUSION
The survey has provided some useful insight into the mercury situation in typical waste landfill facilities in developing countries. Simultaneously, the fluctuation of mercury levels has made the interpretation of analysed data more difficult. It is especially the case when and where open burning of waste is occurring. The enhancement of mercury emission by such spontaneous and man-made combustion needs to be evaluated.
The status of mercury in waste landfill facilities is one of the data gaps for developing mercury emission inventory for developing countries. This survey realised that accumulating scientific data and assessing the situation of solid waste management in developing countries is still a challenging task. The improvement of survey methodology will be important for systematic data collection.
It is obvious that mercury is not a sole pollutant from waste landfill facilities. Multi-pollutant management strategy should be introduced for benefitting different aspects, e.g. particulate matter (PM2.5), unintentional persistent organic pollutants, black carbon, etc. Integrated solid waste management, including segregation of hazardous waste at the collection stage, will be needed to reduce mercury input to landfill facilities, particularly in developing countries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The original surveys were conducted by MOEJ in fiscal 2018 and 2019. MOEJ launched the ‘MOYAI initiative’ to support developing countries, and their international cooperation has been programmed as MINAS (MOYAI Initiative for Networking, Assessment and Strengthening), which initiated this survey and made it available. The authors acknowledge MOEJ to allow the use of this survey data for this report.
REFERENCES
- AMAP/UNEP, 2019. In: 3. Global emissions of mercury to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources, Technical Background Report for the Global Mercury Assessment 2018, pp. 3–1–252, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway/UN Environment Programme, Chemicals and Health Branch, Geneva.
- Central Environment Council, 2003. For future management of hazardous atmospheric pollutants, seventh recommendation. Ministry of the Environment, Japan. (in Japanese) https://www.env.go.jp/council/toshin/t07-h1503/t07-h1503.pdf (accessed 3 January 2022)
- De La Rosa, D.A., Velasco, A., Rosas, A., Volke-Sepúlveda, T., 2006. Total gaseous mercury and volatile organic compounds measurements at five municipal solid waste disposal sites surrounding the Mexico City Metropolitan Area. Atmos. Environ. 40(12), 2079–2088. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.11.055.
- Hu, D., Zhang, W., Chen, L., Chen, C., Ou, L., Tong, Y., Wei, W., Long, W., Wang, X., 2012. Mercury emissions from waste combustion in China from 2004 to 2010. Atmos. Environ. 62, 359–366. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.08.061.
- IDEA, 2019. Demonstration of mercury monitoring survey in developing countries, In: FY2018 Survey on Mercury Monitoring for the Minamata Convention and Monitoring Capacity Building and Support, pp. 133–165, Ministry of the Environment, Japan. (in Japanese)
- IDEA, 2020. Demonstration of mercury monitoring survey in developing countries, In: FY2019 Survey on Mercury Monitoring for the Minamata Convention and Monitoring Capacity Building and Support, pp. 189–213, Ministry of the Environment, Japan. (in Japanese)
- Inter-Ministerial Coordination Council on the Minamata Convention on Mercury, 2017. National implementation plan for preventing environmental pollution of mercury and mercury compounds, —To realize the mercury-minimum environment—. https://www.mercuryconvention.org/sites/default/files/documents/national_implementation_plan/Japan_NIP_EN.pdf (accessed 3 January 2022)
- IPCS, 2003. Elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds: human health aspects, Concise international chemical assessment document 50. https://inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad50.htm (accessed 3 January 2022)
- JECFA, 2007. Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants, sixty-seventh report of the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, 4.3 Methylmercury, WHO technical report series 940, 53–61. WHO Press, Geneva. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43592/WHO_TRS_940_eng.pdf (accessed 3 January 2022)
- Kehrig, H.A., Malm, O., Akagi, H., 1997. Methylmercury in hair samples from different riverine groups, Amazon, Brazil. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 97, 17–29. doi: 10.1007/BF02409641.
- Kehrig, H.A., Malm, O., Akagi, H., Guimarães, J.R.D., Torres, J.P.M., 1998. Methylmercury in fish and hair samples from the Balbina Reservoir, Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. 77(2), 84–90. doi: 10.1006/enrs.1998.3836.
- MOEJ, 2004. Mercury analysis manual, March 2004. Ministry of the Environment, Japan. http://nimd.env.go.jp/kenkyu/docs/march_mercury_analysis_manual(e).pdf (accessed 3 January 2022)
- MOEJ, 2011. Measurement method for mercury in the ambient air, In: Manual of measurement method of hazardous air pollutants, March 2011, Ministry of the Environment, Japan. https://owncloud.unog.ch/s/1H2PQkKBel8b9Zn?path=%2FExistingGuidance%2FJapan#pdfviewer (accessed 3 January 2022)
- MOEJ, 2021. Results of continual monitoring for hazardous atmospheric pollutants, FY2019, general environment, p.17, Ministry of the Environment, Japan. (in Japanese) http://www.env.go.jp/press/files/jp/115987.pdf (accessed 2 January 2022)
- Thao, P.T.B., Pimonsree, S., Suppoung, K., Bonnet, S., Junpen, A., Garivait, S., 2021. Development of an anthropogenic atmospheric mercury emissions inventory in Thailand in 2018. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 12(9), 101170. doi: 10.1016/j.apr.2021.101170.
- UNEP, 2002. Global Mercury Assessment, UNEP Chemicals, Geneva.
- UNEP, 2017. MC-1/14: Mercury emissions related to the open burning of waste. https://www.mercuryconvention.org/sites/default/files/documents/decision/UNEP-MC-COP1-Dec14-MercuryEmissionsBurningWaste.EN.pdf (accessed 24 October 2021)
- Wang, Y., Cheng, K., Wu, W., Tian, H., Yi, P., Zhi, G., Fan, J., Liu, S., 2017. Atmospheric emissions of typical toxic heavy metals from open burning of municipal solid waste in China. Atmos. Environ. 152, 6–15. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.12.017.
- WHO, 2000. Air quality guidelines for Europe, Second edition, 6.9 Mercury, pp. 157–161, WHO Regional Publication, Copenhagen.
- WHO, 2018. Assessment to prenatal exposure to mercury: standard operating procedures, Standard operating procedure for assessment of mercury in human scalp hair, pp. 33–70, WHO Regional Publication, Copenhagen.
- Wiedinmyer, C., Robert, J., Yokelson, R.J., Gullett, B.K., 2014. Global emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 9523–9530. doi: 10.1021/es502250z.
- Zhu, W., Sommar, J., Li, Z., Feng, X., Lin, C., Li, G., 2013. Highly elevated emission of mercury vapor due to the spontaneous combustion of refuse in a landfill. Atmos. Environ. 79, 540–545. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.07.016.
