Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Lethal dose of mercuric nitrate

Lethal dose of mercuric nitrate

chemist1243 - 11-10-2020 at 14:22

This is 1.5g of mercuric nitrate next to a U.S penny, enough to kill the average person. Keep in mind, quantities of .5g have been known to kill, and even lower quantities can cause irreversible damage to the nervous system.

The sample I have is slightly impure, which is why it has that yellow color, but none the less - very deadly.

5EEC3395-BD36-4EB0-BFA1-46037F219DFE.jpeg - 1.2MB

B(a)P - 11-10-2020 at 14:37

I think it is a lot less than that, especially under inhalation or dermal contact exposure routes.
Where did you get that value from?

Fyndium - 11-10-2020 at 15:04

The actual amount to kill is hard to estimate, since long gone are the times of Dr. Mengele and Unit 731 which would allow a precise titration of LD50 on humans. Perhaps North Korea could help with this.

Rest the dark humor.

Powders do seem to be quite fluffy, but it seems that the pile in the pic would equal to more than 1500mg. I just handled fine PbO and it occupied about 300mL at max total volume, if not even less because the container was much larger than the contents of it. On the other hand, the nitrate group increases the molecular size of the mercury, so it could result in a bit larger amount hence.

But getting that amount in your body really needs that a larger amount of solution splashes onto you, resulting in transdermal exposure, or then accidentally consuming it in powder or in a solution form. Even breathing in a gram of powder would need quite a thick cloud of powder, or then occupying a space for a long time.

I'm not that scared of immediate toxicity of stuff, but what scares the shite out of me is the half-life of many heavy metals. Their residual time in the body can be up to a decade or longer, so once you get it in, there's no getting it out. There are little drugs that can help you once it's in and the best chelate complexes can only do limited benefit. I always take extra steps when handling those, and if I'm not exactly concentrated or sure, I will double check and for example I always use pans below flasks and beakers in case it breaks for mechanic or thermal stress. I use a lot of ziploc bags to seal or even double seal containers and contaminated trash.

What I wonder is, how rare are poisonings in amateur context of handling chemicals? I would suppose that at least the cookery type chemists are in danger of getting exposed to really nasty stuff because they can be more interested of the result than the reaction itself. I've seen some reckless handling of hazardous material in hobby motivated amateurs, using dirty and messy workspaces, open vessels and limited PPE.

teodor - 12-10-2020 at 05:29

Quote: Originally posted by Fyndium

What I wonder is, how rare are poisonings in amateur context of handling chemicals?

My general rule is to make as many errors as possible with "light" chemicals before touching any "heavy" ones. Getting experience with vapours of different kinds, dust, spillages etc is necessary thing and could not be avoided if you do chemistry seriously. But, if you don't feel how to treat Hg yet (let say have no idea how to process its spillage) don't touch it. Your lab and working procedures should be ready and well-tested. It is much more dangerous than Pb or Cd.

[Edited on 12-10-2020 by teodor]

I've made some illustration of what I mean. Yesterday, after 2 years of practical amateur chemistry and the first time in my life I had a situation when a test tube sneaked out from stand into a water bath and was broken. Now I changed the way I work with tubes - I started to use a protective wire holder.
So, I am happy that I got this experience with FeCl3/Fe(NO3)3, not with Hg(NO3)2.

(I can mention also adding glass balls into boiling solution of K2Cr2O7 and spending several hours washing everything in 3m radius more than a year ago. And of course I red "don't do that" but didn't pay any attention until I did it first time).

[Edited on 12-10-2020 by teodor]

[Edited on 12-10-2020 by teodor]

woelen - 12-10-2020 at 09:44

If you have KMnO4, then first do several experiments with that and check your workbench and tools after those experiments. You will be amazed to see how many little purple specks you have after your experiments with KMnO4. You can easily detect them by wiping your workbench and tools with a small damp paper tissue.

With KMnO4 this is not a real problem, but with Hg(NO3)2 or HgCl2 it really is!

The nice thing of KMnO4 is that it has a very strong color and that it is only somewhat toxic. So, it is a great chemical to test your capability of working cleanly without introducing serious health risks.

Fyndium - 12-10-2020 at 13:05

I always run pilots with very small quantities and with toxics I carefully plan ahead every step, and think if something could go wrong and how to handle things. Even intentionally running nontoxic stuff to the limit in a controlled manner will help to test equipment and reaction limits like runaways. Spillage? Use a basin underneath vessels for leaks. I did his as a routine for lead salts.

Taking shortcuts has usually led to trouble.

I also have experience on adding activated carbon as boiling chips into acetone solution. Short version: even single grain will make it foam over even when its not boiling.

MidLifeChemist - 13-10-2020 at 06:53

Quote: Originally posted by teodor

That's exactly my philosophy. I'm doing experiments now with the "safer" chemicals, and once I feel like I've learned some lessons and made some mistakes. But I have no plans for things like Hg+2, Cd, Tl, or larger quantities of H2S for now.

MidLifeChemist - 13-10-2020 at 06:56

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

If you have KMnO4, then first do several experiments with that and check your workbench and tools after those experiments. You will be amazed to see how many little purple specks you have after your experiments with KMnO4. You can easily detect them by wiping your workbench and tools with a small damp paper tissue.

Funny, I had that exact experience recently. I received some KMnO4 from a pottery place in a bag, and I had to transfer it into an HDPE bottle with a funnel. I worked outside on a patio table, and I thought I did it carefully, but when I went to wipe the table off with a damp paper towel I had so many little purple specks.

teodor - 13-10-2020 at 07:22

Quote: Originally posted by MidLifeChemist

I received some KMnO4 from a pottery place in a bag, and I had to transfer it into an HDPE bottle with a funnel. I worked outside on a patio table, and I thought I did it carefully, but when I went to wipe the table off with a damp paper towel I had so many little purple specks.

Our first enemy in that is electrostatic force. I feel I need more electrostatic-free instruments but actually have no idea do they ever exist.

chemist1243 - 13-10-2020 at 09:21

I agree, I was just going to say something about toxic metal build up lol. It messes with my head thinking that every spec of Mercury that passes through my skin, every particle that i breath in, no matter how small, is part of me for essentially half of my life. I hear stories of people who used to work with mercury compounds for their job, and it bites them in the ass years later with neurological disorders among other painful disabling ailments.

chemist1243 - 13-10-2020 at 11:39

Quote: Originally posted by B(a)P

I think it is a lot less than that, especially under inhalation or dermal contact exposure routes.
Where did you get that value from?

https://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/substance?substanceId=364&i...

You are correct, typically the lethal dose of a mercury is 1g for less for the chloride salt.

HgCl2 mass = 35
Hg(NO3)2 = 325
Hg mass = 201
Cl mass = 35
NO3 = 62
35*2 = 70g of Cl2 per mol of HgCl2

(201/236) * 100 = 85%(by weight) mercury content in any pure sample of HgCl2

NO3 mass = 62g

62*2 = 124g of NO3 per mol of Hg(NO3)2
(201g of Hg per mol)/(325g of Hg(NO3)2 per mol) * 100 = 61% mercury in any sample of Hg(NO3)2

85%/61% = 1.39% more mercury in any given sample of HgCl2.

Factoring in how impure my Hg(NO3)2 is, I’d say 1.5g is a pretty good estimate.

Of course this all assumes that the mercury content of a mercury compound correlates to its toxicity, which probably isn’t true, but I’m an idealist and I would rather believe that 1.5 is an okay estimate unless someone is willing to pull up LD50 records for mercury salts(if you are, please do, i am very curious!)

zed - 17-10-2020 at 08:23

Stuff gets around. With the most careful handling it can be minimized. But, few are capable of the most careful handling.

Seems to me we used to do a Chloride determination experiment utilizing a Silver Nitrate solution. And, in those days, most folks did not wear gloves in the general chemistry laboratories.

For a week or so, anyone who used our school labs, developed "black spots" on their fingers or palms.

The errant Silver Nitrate is invisible until it contacts skin. Once it has touched skin, it reacts with it, create a kind of photo-emulsion within the skin itself. This photo-sensitive skin then develops like a photo. Turning an intense blackish color...

The horrific thing is not the discoloration from the Silver Nitrate, though it does piss you off. The disturbing thing is, thinking about all of the poisonous materials you may have been exposed to, that left no tell-tale stains.

We were telling a tale around here, a few years back. About how one of the world's foremost chemists, died after an unrealized exposure to Dimethyl Mercury.

Yes, this appears to be the story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn

[Edited on 17-10-2020 by zed]

[Edited on 17-10-2020 by zed]

Fyndium - 17-10-2020 at 08:43

I would hesitate to work with mercury at my home lab. Every single step should be accredited to prevent any form of contamination down the road. One does not simply flush mercury waste reactants down the drain.

Dimethylmercury? I would not touch that. Period. I wonder what has been the largest amount this stuff has ever synthesized batch-wise, and for what purpose? Like "oh yeah, back in the 70's we made this by the kilo for the industry.."

zed - 17-10-2020 at 09:12

Terrible stuff, still showing up in the U.S. food chain, due to gold mining activities of 100 to 150 years ago.

Lots of contaminated silt down in our river bottoms. The quandary is, to dredge it up, and pump it out to the deep ocean floor, or to leave it well enough alone where it is.

There is no good answer. Dredging would be very expensive, and might worsten the immediate problem, by abruptly releasing huge amounts of toxic crud into our rivers and coastal waters.

Gotta admit, some of my progenitors might have influanced the Mercury problem. Miners during the California Gold Rush. The sediments in the San Francisco Bay, The American and Sacramento Rivers, and their tributaries, are not wholesome.

https://abc7news.com/archive/6973770/

Now, is Mercury a problem all over the world, or is this largely an American problem? How about you guys down under? Is it OK to eat lots of the local fish?

In both the Portland, Oregon Area... And, in the San Francisco Bay Area... We are cautioned about eating too much fish.

[Edited on 17-10-2020 by zed]

[Edited on 17-10-2020 by zed]

Fyndium - 17-10-2020 at 09:34

The consensus is to leave the sediments undisturbed. Hence there is dredging bans in very many areas where it is not absolutely necessary. Seagoing vessels tend to agitate the sediments anyways, so the stuff is not such an issue in trafficked routes. My local river was a major industrial route ages ago and they consider it's bottom one of the most polluted soils ever, and the whole river is under ban for any alterations for the sediments, including it's basin area. I actually heard of an initiative to actually extract material from the bottom because there was so much of it that it could have been an economical venture.

Similar of an issue with lead, mercury, asbestos, etc in buildings. They leach to ambient air, causing exposure. Unless necessary to renovate or demolish, they just seal them up with paint/latex/concrete/etc and mark them in the structural details as a caution for future. My local school had probably all of those found in its structures, and they just re-coated the whole thing and shut up.

Even nuclear waste is sealed up with concrete.

[Edited on 17-10-2020 by Fyndium]

chemist1243 - 17-10-2020 at 14:59

I would say china is probably the biggest mercury polluter. China usually is the largest producer of any given product, including 87% of the worlds total mercury supply. You simply cannot produce that much mercury without getting a portion of it into the environment. China also produces the most fish, so if you wanna blame someone for mercury levels in fish, I’d say throw China under the bus.

However, Mercury is everywhere. It would be impossible to blame one single country or place for most of the mercury pollution. We all are guilty.

Our hats used to be made using mercury, we release mercury into the air when we burn coal, the gold some of us wear carry’s its guilt, too. Mercury doesnt just go away because we stopped using it to make hats or because we develop a new
mercury-free way to make something. It sticks around and looms, no matter who we blame. We are humans, we cannot help but ruin all that we touch.

Like others have pointed out, all we can do just try to use as little mercury as possible and not go to places where others have foolishly left it.

Dont hesitate to add more mercury related discussion to this thread, I love talking about mercury. I think we can all agree that mercury is probably one of the most unique elements on the periodic table. Cheers! (:

Fyndium - 18-10-2020 at 00:40

Who absolute madman figured out to use mercury nitrate for fur treatment? That is like, eh, using plutonium to keep your boots warm at winter.

Lion850 - 18-10-2020 at 00:59

Mercurochrome is probably my favourite disinfectant for cuts and rashes or blisters; excellent to prevent infection. Red liquid. It not available in all countries anymore but is still sold in Australia. According to Wikipedia the formula is C20H8Br2HgNa2O6.

zed - 18-10-2020 at 02:17

Oh, I have some ointment containing a little Phenylmercuric something or other. I used a tiny amount about twenty years ago.

Mostly I use Iodine when I need a local antiseptic. It's tried and true. And, in recent times it has become more available. It was really hard to come by 10 or 15 years ago. There was a listing problem.

Anyway, many of us are a little deficient in Iodine. A little exposure isn't harmful.

None-of-us suffer from a Mercury deficiency.

Fyndium - 23-3-2021 at 10:15

I came up with this text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning#Sources

Quote:

Mercury occurs as salts such as mercuric chloride (HgCl2) and mercurous chloride (Hg2Cl2), the latter also known as calomel. Because they are more soluble in water, mercuric salts are usually more acutely toxic than mercurous salts. Their higher solubility lets them be more readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. Mercury salts affect primarily the gastrointestinal tract and the kidneys, and can cause severe kidney damage; however, as they cannot cross the blood–brain barrier easily, these salts inflict little neurological damage without continuous or heavy exposure.

So it states that accidental, single exposure to small amounts of water soluble mercury salts would not have extreme long term effects, if the toxicity does not exceed acute amounts. Is it true that non-organomercury compounds do not affect neurological system in similar manner?

I'm not trying to downplay the danger, but just discussing and getting a context.

I read some posts just in case this hadn't been discussed. I haven't ever even bought any mercury compounds to my lab since I don't own any, but I made a full wipeout to my lab two weeks ago: I just scrubbed every single surface with cleaning agents and wiped them dry. Apart from making my lab shining clean - just they way I prefer it - it's good to decontaminate it for everything that has settled and accumulated to surfaces over the years. I'm still gonna paint some walls as I get some other renovations done, and that will finish the job, as it's more easy to just cover all the non-loose dirt with new paint than try to clean it.

B(a)P - 23-3-2021 at 13:50

Quote: Originally posted by Fyndium

Is it true that non-organomercury compounds do not affect neurological system in similar manner?

No, erethism mercurialis (Mad Hatter disease) was originally identified as being caused by exposure to mercury nitrate used in the hat making industry.
The offspring of female rats exposed to inorganic mercury have been shown to have significant developmental impairment. Developmental impairment in the offspring was observed at much lower concentrations than those causing kidney and liver damage. Neurological damage has been shown at similar concentrations (in animals including primates) to those causing liver and kidney damage.
I have said it on the forum a number of times, if like me you are interested in toxicological data (for me it is part of my work), the CDCs ATSDR has a huge repository of toxicological profiles for a wide range of chemicals. The mercury profile is a particularly good read because of the wealth of data available on mercury and its compounds.
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxProfiles/ToxProfiles.aspx?id=115&tid=24

Fyndium - 24-3-2021 at 02:00

I have no idea what they used mercury nitrate for in hat felting? Can someone explain, because this has bothered me for long? It sounds absolutely absurd that someone would actually roll hats in mercury for any reason. Anyway, I must note that if someone spends 8 to 16 hours a day in front of possibly boiling hot pot of mercury nitrate, the exposure will certainly be more than handling mercury in chemistry with proper care. Actually, I would have guessed that sitting in front of a kettle with boiling mercury nitrate for 15 minutes could kill one.

But thanks for the link. I like to explore all the hazardous details of substances especially if I ever intend to handle them. Every single labeled chemical has the general warnings that say it will kill instantly if misused, like sodium carbonate, that has been classified as extremely hazardous substance by some US schools, so they give little to no info of their actual properties. And according to some, like EU, everything has carcinogenic properties, and if not, it just hasn't been discovered yet.

Metacelsus - 24-3-2021 at 02:42

I believe it was used as a preservative for the fur.

B(a)P - 24-3-2021 at 03:05

Correct it helps with felting of the fur. It makes the fur more likely to form knots and bind, presumably because it starts to break it down in some way. I would like to understand the chemistry of the process, but have never stubbled upon it.
Apologies Fyndium, I am not saying you will get neurological damage by experimenting with inorganic mercury in the home lab, only that neurological damage occurs when exposed to equal or lesser concentrations then those that cause other impacts such as liver/kidney damage. I am certainly not saying that exposure to equivalent volumes of inorganic and organic mercury is the same, that is absolutely not the case. A drop of mercury nitrate on the skin is cause for concern, but if quickly washed off is unlikely to cause lasting health issues. A drop of methyl mercury on the skin is certain death.

Fyndium - 24-3-2021 at 03:20

No arguing here, just discussing. If exposing bare skin to mercury, something has already gone wrong.

I'd say that organic mercury compounds can not be safely handled in amateur context in any way. Or, hypothetically, but one should have serious containment and decontamination systems, which does not count that well anymore with the word amateur.

I would be very vary with any form of mercury anyway, as powder form will pulverize easily, and metal form will form microscopic droplets. Any experiments with it should have full focus and very small amounts whatsoever. Many have had so messy worktables they would possibly forget in which beaker the mercury was, along all the other dirty ones. The concept of handling toxic stuff in non-ground glass equipment bothers me anyway.

I read that they used mercury just for that purpose you said.

B(a)P - 24-3-2021 at 03:32

I have worked with inorganic mercury both in the occupational and home chemistry environment. I have worked with organic mercury but only at ppm concentrations, I have never worked with pure organic mercury compounds, it would be interesting, but extremely costly to have the appropriate controls in place. It is highly unlikely I will ever have the opportunity as the application of organic mercury compounds are extremely specialised.

Fyndium - 25-3-2021 at 12:58

I would love to see a bottle of dimethylmercury only because of it's renowned toxicity and how abstract and at the same time boring that one-liter bottle would look like. I still wonder how it was handled in wherever it was produced and used for any reason whatsoever? It probably needs similar containment than nuclear material handling facilities, with remote handling.

Xanax - 16-5-2021 at 12:23

Once I experimented with HgCl2 (I was only 14 years old then), heated it up in a test tube, and it all sublimated and I got all the gas in my face! Maybe it partly caused some of my psychiatric problems I'm suffering from, today? I know I got a lot of lead in me too, from lead-compunds and lead from batteries.

[Edited on 2021-5-16 by Xanax]

Fantasma4500 - 26-6-2021 at 04:17

i would never handle mercury salts. having been poisoned with nickel (oxalate, quite insoluble) by just carefully evaporating down a solution of it during an attempted chromium/nickel/iron seperation of stainless steel, just stirring the pot of nickel-iron-chrome oxalate every now and then got me a 2 day nickel poisoning, very annoying tremors
and ive been exposed to plenty nickel through metal work, never had any kind of effect like this before, and this was just from the fumes of the water solution of the rather insoluble nickel oxalate
i dont consider it brave to handle mercury salts, i consider it stupid. its nightmarishly toxic. knowing that even solid water, ice will sublimate over time would explain you that even a stillstanding solution of mercury salts, or any kind of tending mercury salts will expose you to some amount of mercury, i will advice to supplement with selenium if you ever dare to handle mercury.

Fyndium - 1-7-2021 at 11:39

Evaporating anything will cause the stuff to aerosolize and you effectively poison yourself. When I concentrated some metal salts, I did that in distillation apparatus or outdoors in such way that I could operate the heater from over 5m away, upwind, and I held my breath when I went closer to observe the contents.

I don't consider inorganic mercury too toxic when proper precautions are taken. Biggest risk is likely when handling larger amounts and have reaction vessel tip over or crack, and even then the major suffer will be contamination of your workspace, unless properly contained.

theAngryLittleBunny - 12-9-2021 at 09:21

What makes me so uncomfortable with heavy metal salts like these of mercury is that any exposure harms you. Sure, with around 300 to 500mg of inorganic mercury being around the lethal dose it's really not potent, but just getting 30mg of it in your body already chronically damages you.

I'm not scared of potent compounds, I've handled pure benzodiazepine powders with an active dose in the 200ug range, I would even be even okay with handling fentanyl (never have though lol), no problem, because as long as I don't get exposed to too much of it at once I'm fine, but it's not like that with heavy metals.

[Edited on 12-9-2021 by theAngryLittleBunny]

Tsjerk - 12-9-2021 at 11:57

Quote: Originally posted by theAngryLittleBunny

What makes me so uncomfortable with heavy metal salts like these of mercury is that any exposure harms you. Sure, with around 300 to 500mg of inorganic mercury being around the lethal dose it's really not potent, but just getting 30mg of it in your body already chronically damages you.

I'm not scared of potent compounds, I've handled pure benzodiazepine powders with an active dose in the 200ug range, I would even be even okay with handling fentanyl (never have though lol), no problem, because as long as I don't get exposed to too much of it at once I'm fine, but it's not like that with heavy metals.

[Edited on 12-9-2021 by theAngryLittleBunny]

This sounds very strange to me, how can any exposure harm? There are amounts that don't harm at all, and they are definitely above the amount of a fentanyl exposure that would.

I think what you are referring to is the cumulative nature of these heavy metals, maybe a milligram won't hurt, but a milligram every year would hurt. Whereas a sublethal dose of a benzo every now then will never amount to a dose that would be lethal.

woelen - 12-9-2021 at 23:30

It's indeed the cumulative effect of mercury, which is scary. Mercuriy(II) has a body half life of well over 10 years. So, a dose of 10 mg taken now means that after 10 years you at least have 5 mg of that left in your body. If you get 10 mg once a year, then after 10 years you will have somewhere between 70 and 80 mg in your body.

Compare this to the half life of cyanide. This is lethal in 250 mg doses. But the body half life of cyanide is expressed in hours, so after a day, most of the cyanide has been metabolized into something else and after a few days, no detectable levels are present anymore. So, if you get sublethal doses, then after a few days, when you again get a sublethal dose, the body again can withstand the full dose.

j_sum1 - 13-9-2021 at 02:45

Thanks for the reminder, woelen. I had temporarily forgotten about bioaccumulation.
Which speaks to the folly of considering just one parameter when considering safety matters.

Oxy - 13-9-2021 at 12:08

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

Compare this to the half life of cyanide. This is lethal in 250 mg doses. But the body half life of cyanide is expressed in hours, so after a day, most of the cyanide has been metabolized into something else and after a few days, no detectable levels are present anymore. So, if you get sublethal doses, then after a few days, when you again get a sublethal dose, the body again can withstand the full dose.

I agree with elimination half-life.
But it may be not so easy to withstand the same dose few days later. If the amount was not lethal and didn't kill that doesn't mean it was harmless. The damage made by hypoxia might be severe (but just no lethal), another one "full dose" might be too much

S.C. Wack - 13-9-2021 at 16:06

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat

i would never handle mercury salts. having been poisoned with nickel (oxalate, quite insoluble) by just carefully evaporating down a solution of it

Quote: Originally posted by Fyndium

Evaporating anything will cause the stuff to aerosolize

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

Mercuriy(II) has a body half life of well over 10 years.

These are dubious statements for which I doubt any experimental proof can be shown (no surprise that they're in a mercury thread). Boiling can produce aerosols, sure, OK...even dissolving NaOH in water famously produces fumes by an unclear mechanism (steam from not-boiling, dissolved NaOH solutions is totally non-irritating)...but I'd like to see some sort of evidence for such claims. Certainly references can be found for human and animal excretion of inorganic, organic, and elemental mercury, but do any show a half-life of more than 90 days? Dental amalgam hysteria would be even more profound if it could be proven that the miniscule amounts released were accumulated.

B(a)P - 14-9-2021 at 03:44

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

It's indeed the cumulative effect of mercury, which is scary. Mercuriy(II) has a body half life of well over 10 years. So, a dose of 10 mg taken now means that after 10 years you at least have 5 mg of that left in your body. If you get 10 mg once a year, then after 10 years you will have somewhere between 70 and 80 mg in your body.

Compare this to the half life of cyanide. This is lethal in 250 mg doses. But the body half life of cyanide is expressed in hours, so after a day, most of the cyanide has been metabolized into something else and after a few days, no detectable levels are present anymore. So, if you get sublethal doses, then after a few days, when you again get a sublethal dose, the body again can withstand the full dose.

I think the half life for inorganic mercury is much less than you state, more like months than years.
"Biomonitoring Summary | CDC" https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/Mercury_BiomonitoringSumma...
"Evaluation of mercury exposure level, clinical diagnosis and treatment for mercury intoxication" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4724159/#:~:text=The%20mercury%20absorbed%20in%20the,(2%E2%80%9310%20%25).

woelen - 14-9-2021 at 05:34

Quote:

[...]But it may be not so easy to withstand the same dose few days later. If the amount was not lethal and didn't kill that doesn't mean it was harmless. The damage made by hypoxia might be severe (but just no lethal), another one "full dose" might be too much

Fair point. As long as there still is no full recovery, then the body may still be weak. But once you have fully recovered, the same dose can be handled again.

Quote:

I think the half life for inorganic mercury is much less than you state, more like months than years.

I even read numbers of 27 years or so, especially once the mercury made it into brain tissue. For me, these numbers are quite scary, and for this reason I prefer working with cyanides or azides (a few mg of exposure of these hardly does any harm) and if in another experiment, let's say a year later I again get a similar exposure, then there is no issue. So, infrequent experimenting with cyanide or azide introduces risks, which can be assessed independently, regardless of history. Infrequent experimenting with mercury leads to increased risk, each time you do a new experiment, even if the experiments are one year apart in time.

Texium - 14-9-2021 at 06:07

woelen, with all due respect, your claims are completely outlandish and directly contradict the source that B(a)P posted. Please provide a source if you are going to stand by this claim of a decades long half life.

Fyndium - 14-9-2021 at 14:11

I have read both of those statements. In various sources, it is stated that inorganic mercury will have half-lifes in like 30-60 days or so, meanwhile some sources state that mercury has a half-life of decades, basically what you ingest, you will carry to your grave, either prematurely or not. Personally, I err on the safe side with any heavy metals or stuff that has a bioaccumulation potential of such degree.

About fentanyl, the first mistake you do with it will be your last mistake. It's not just carfentanil, but the ordinary one that will knock you out standing. Your only solace is it will be quite painless an comfortable to you. That's why I would not dare to handle it, unless I have full body PPE with P3 face mask respirator, and in any event at least one person accompanying with multiple doses of narcan, because once you realize you got exposed and OD'd, it is highly unlikely you will be able to self-administer before you lose your consciousness. Many other substances, even having a very low OD threshold, will not act as a contact anesthetic(it doesn't actually poison you transdermally not easily at all unless handling raw material with moist hands, but any amount of dust will make you breath it in, and that's it) but give you time to administer antidote or call for help. Also, I would not touch it with a ten feet pole outside any institution because it carries the most severe penalties that are ridiculously hefty in where I live.

woelen - 15-9-2021 at 00:49

Quote: Originally posted by Texium

woelen, with all due respect, your claims are completely outlandish and directly contradict the source that B(a)P posted. Please provide a source if you are going to stand by this claim of a decades long half life.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
The statement is in the section on prognosis.

It mentions a half life of inorganic mercury in brain tissue of 27.4 years. My number of 27 years does not come from this though, I once read a similar thing in another online article. I'll try to find that as well. Source number [56] is the origin of this info.

In other human tissue the half-life is lower, but I have seen values of around 10 years, which also is quite scary to me.

For this reason I never did experiments with stuff like mercury fulminate. It is interesting stuff and although I am no real energetic materials person, experimenting with such things on 100's of mg scale can be quite entertaining, but if I read a thread like this (http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=24028 ), then I really feel horrified. People discuss risks (violent reaction, fire, explosion), even toxicity of the NO2 and other gaseous products, but no one mentions the risk of exposure to Hg! If I would have such a reaction inside, with a big brown plume of NO2 escaping from the beaker, I would be shit scared, not because of the NO2, but because of the mercury salts, which are taken with it as fine droplets. I simply leave the room and after an hour all NO2 is gone, but what with the mercury? All tiny droplets have evaporated to dryness and little particles of dust have settled on the floor, on the furniture, etc. Every day I get into that room I may get exposed to a few micrograms of mercury, which I will carry with me for at least years to come and maybe decades to come.

I do not even want to think of actually doing small explosions with the mercury fulminate . . .

[Edited on 15-9-21 by woelen]

Texium - 15-9-2021 at 06:52

Alright, I see. That is very scary. However, it is still misleading in the context that was presented with it earlier in the thread. Mercury that is able to reach your brain tissue may effectively be with you for life, but it’s important to acknowledge that most mercury (especially inorganic mercury) does not actually reach the brain. So your math here:

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

is rather misleading, given that most of that mercury will be excreted within weeks, based on all the data that has been shared.

[Edited on 9-15-2021 by Texium]

woelen - 15-9-2021 at 07:07

I agree with you. Not all mercury you get in your body will make it into the brain tissue. Part of it will be excreted.
So, things are less scary than I stated, but still quite scary. Which part does make it into brain tissue?

andy1988 - 15-9-2021 at 09:31

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

Which part does make it into brain tissue?

Mercury pharmacokinetics is a search phrase I'd use, I don't know of any better terms to use to find papers to evaluate. I'm not really interested in mercury.

I guess an interesting tangent would be gadolinium, used in chelated forms as a contrast agent in MRIs.

I'm sure you may have heard of Chuck Norris and seen jokes/memes regarding his character in films. No one is immortal! Says he retired from acting in order to care for his sick wife [1][2]. Later all parties withdrew from the suit paying their own legal fees. Personally I'd reason that putting the burden of proof on non-specialist consumers ("market evaluation") rather than paying researchers for decades to figure things out is foolish, other arguments too. Edit: PBS article on the U.S. FDA increasingly approving drugs without conclusive proof they work.

From my understanding more chemically stable chelated forms are available now which are claimed to have 100% excretion, other articles detail this.

[Edited on 15-9-2021 by andy1988]

unionised - 15-9-2021 at 12:00

A lot of work has been done on the toxico-kinetics of mercury (with and without organo bits).
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/vo...

Fir what it's worth, chronic cyanide poisoning is also a problem, but the mechanism is different.

The body "detoxifies" cyanide by conversion to thiocyanate.
But that's toxic to the thyroid as it gets "mistaken" for iodide.

[Edited on 15-9-21 by unionised]

S.C. Wack - 15-9-2021 at 15:11

Organic and elemental (lung-absorbed) Hg would be much more likely to cross the blood brain barrier. Even so, radiotracing has shown that it goes away.

BTW wannabe poisoners, mercuric salts are said to taste bad, and are more likely to be found out than other poisons.

[Edited on 15-9-2021 by S.C. Wack]

B(a)P - 16-9-2021 at 04:17

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

I agree with you. Not all mercury you get in your body will make it into the brain tissue. Part of it will be excreted.
So, things are less scary than I stated, but still quite scary. Which part does make it into brain tissue?

Thanks for sharing your references Woelen. I find this particularly interesting because the assessment of risk to the human or ecological receptor from environmental contaminants is a big part of what I do for a job. The models used (in Australia) to assess the risk to human health assume excretion half lives of months not years for mercury. My area of expertise in regard to mercury relates more to fate and transport in the environment, so I can't comment on the uptake by humans. Interesting fact though after the earlier comment on dental amalgam, the average quantity of interested seafood drives the background mercury intake loads to the average human body, far exceeding that of amalgam.

yobbo II - 18-9-2021 at 03:57

You can get an idea of mercury vapour rising from metal from this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpZF88fqrl8

Yob

macckone - 24-9-2021 at 08:20

I did some research on mercury a while back, literature not chemical.
For most people there is a chronic exposure level that can be excreted.
So the half-life isn't as relevant as one might imagine.
There is a maximum that can be excreted and in the brain it gets sequestered in a relatively non-toxic form.
So even though the brain half-life is long, that is because the mercury is sequestered.
The primary problem is that both accurate and chronic exposure can damage brain cells which do not rapidly regenerate.

for chronic exposure from fish (methyl mercury) the formula is 0.1ug/kg/day.
But the maximum on kg is about 75kg (regardless of how much you weight).
other forms of mercury are much less dangerous and you can find information on bioavailability.

So an upper limit for an adult is 7.5 ug/day for chronic exposure.
One time acute is going to be less than 1mg of methyl mercury.
The vapor concentration is 2mg/m3 for methyl mercury idhl.
for other mercury compounds it is going to be more.

https://www.epa.gov/fish-tech/epa-fda-fish-advice-technical-...

teodor - 25-9-2021 at 01:42

But now I see why "I'll eat my hat" was a very serious argument.

I doubt I can write something useful for experienced chemists, but for people who are starting chemistry trying different inorganic reactions, I suggest doing experiments with nitrobenzene before any experiments with mercury.
Nitrobenzene is also a nice compound and could be used for many interesting things but also a very toxic one with the same possible routes of poisoning as for mercury salts - breath, skin, penetrating through gloves (it easily dissolves nitrile). Also sometimes people say it has a cumulative effect and can do irreversible damage.
The only difference is that you always know when you got some dose (most likely you will have a headache the same day) and you can always detect even a tiny amount by smell, so you will know when something around you is contaminated. But it is very educational because it is enough a small not visible droplet to land on your skin (like when you wash your glassware) to get some kind of poisoning symptoms.

Crazy_Chemist - 26-3-2022 at 21:45

I think my most lethal chemical is HgCl2, I read recently about o mortality at 1 mg/kg (oral, rat). Mayby my (metallic) thallium is as poisonous at that to. And the sodium azide is pretty toxic too. Thay all all marked vid H300 (Letal when swallowing).

ManyInterests - 12-4-2022 at 22:16

I ordered some mercury switches so I can try to make some mercury fulminate. Mercury will probably be the single most toxic material I will be working with, and I won't be working with any large quantities at a time. Like no more than 0.5 grams of mercury at a time. I will only crack open the switches outdoors and I will keep a fan running near it to blow any fumes away. Same thing when turning the stuff into fulminate since that process also reacts violently and creates lots of nitrogen oxide. I had some bad issues with nitrogen dioxide (and I will using an air purifier mask. It isn't a gas mask, but it is better than nothing. I can direct it also to draw air from a different place than the extraction/reaction).

B(a)P - 13-4-2022 at 02:33

What do you mean by air purifying mask vs gas mask? What is your setup that allows you to draw air from some distance away from your reaction. Mercury on its own poses limited risk. The reaction products from the production of mercury fulminate is a different story as I am sure you are aware. Do report back with how you go.

ManyInterests - 13-4-2022 at 06:13

Quote: Originally posted by B(a)P

What do you mean by air purifying mask vs gas mask? What is your setup that allows you to draw air from some distance away from your reaction. Mercury on its own poses limited risk. The reaction products from the production of mercury fulminate is a different story as I am sure you are aware. Do report back with how you go.

I got one of these:

https://www.amazon.ca/Rechargeable-Electrical-Purifying-Resp...

The reason why I didn't buy a gas mask is most of them aren't rated for inorganic gasses like nitrogen dioxide, and amazon was also asking for professional credentials for their purchase.

What this allows is for air to be pumped in from elsewhere. The tubes aren't very long, but I can order extra tubes to make them longer, allowing me to draw clean air from farther away. The mask is not airtight though.

It's good to not that elemental mercury isn't super dangerous, but given the bad experiences I had in the past with some stuff, I will still take extra precautions.

I will definitely report on my mercury fulminate synthesis. I want to make the fulminate because I want to make my own gun primer mixtures.

just a small idea

Sulaiman - 13-4-2022 at 08:18

I have about a kilo of Hg for my diy barometer/manometer that I store in a thick glass jar, which is surrounded by wadding in a plastic tub in a tin can,
for small (<=1ml) experimental quantities
(eg from an accidentally broken thermometer)
I store Hg in disposable polyethylene pipettes which are easily heat sealed, and very durable.
I do very little Hg chemistry, partly due to the immediate toxicity risk,
but mostly due to waste handling problems.

B(a)P - 13-4-2022 at 13:31

Quote: Originally posted by ManyInterests

Sorry to provide this after you have already made your purchase, but do not rely too heavily on that. It is good that it has positive pressure but the mask material is not impervious to gases and as you say it will not provide a proper seal. In Australia we can purchase a proper air purifying respirator (APR) at the hardware shop, but no doubt you have explored that avenue where you are from. Ideally you would be looking for something like this if your budget allows.
Full face
Or this if you are on a tighter budget.
Half face

Both of these APR types, if made by a reputable supplier are suitable for the gases you mentioned, provided you purchase the correct cartridge/s. Full face is better because you get a better seal and your eyes and face are protected against splashes.

An ABEK cartridge will do you for most things in the home lab, including nitrogen dioxide, there are plenty of guides for this online that will tell you specifically what each cartridge type provides protection for.