Substitutes for Mercury

1. Thermometers
2. Blood pressure cuffs
3. Feeding tubes
4. Dilators and batteries
5. Dental amalgam
6. Fluorescent tubes
7. Used in laboratory chemicals like Zenkers solution and histological fixatives.

Substitutions for most uses of mercury in the health care industry are increasingly available. Many health care facilities are making great strides toward reducing both mercury use and release.

In the US, a landmark agreement was reached between the American Hospital Association and the US EPA on June 24, 1998 to develop a plan and strategy for the "virtual elimination" of mercury-containing waste from the hospital waste stream by 2005. Such agreements have taken place in many parts of the world in the last few years, eliminating the use of mercury thermometers.

There is also recognition in the healthcare profession that other mercury instrumentation is either being voluntarily phased out or eliminated through regulation. A number of medical associations have taken steps to encourage physicians and hospitals to reduce and eliminate the use of mercury-containing equipment.

Widespread use of mercury sphygmomanometers (blood pressure equipment containing 80 to 100g/unit), collectively make them one of the largest mercury reservoirs in the healthcare industry. By choosing a mercury-free alternative, healthcare institutions can make a tremendous impact in reducing the potential for mercury exposure to patients, staff and the environment.

Though many voluntary mercury replacement initiatives have a compelling occupational and environmental health rational, frequently the biggest motivator for a hospital mercury replacement program in developed countries is financial. Hazardous waste clean-up costs, reporting requirements for spills, closed patient rooms, and staff's training all are extremely expensive.

By using non-mercury alternatives these costs can be eliminated. For instance, at one Hartford hospital mercury spills-mostly from blood pressure equipment-cost the hospital over $60,000 in 1998. As a result, Hartford Connecticut Hospital decided to eliminate the use of mercury blood pressure equipment. In a second example, at Mayo Medical Center in Minnesota, between 1993 and 1995, 50 spills were documented related to leakage and spills from sphygmomanometers. Costs associated with these spills were estimated to be $26,000, not including time lost from temporary closure of clinical areas. In contrast, such mercury spills in developing countries are seldom reported and the spilled mercury was swept by the floor cleaners or left to the hospital staff to handle.