2013 - University of Guyana

Transcription

An Environmental Assessment of
mercury released by small and medium
scale Gold Miners in Upper Mazaruni
(Imbaimadai& Ominike)
Final year Project Report 2012/2013
[Pick the date]
An Environmental Assessment of mercury released by small and medium scale
Gold Miners in Upper Mazaruni (Imbaimadai& Ominike)
2013
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF MERCURY RELEASED BY SMALL AND
MEDIUM SCALE MINERS IN UPPER MAZARUNI (IMBAIMADAI&OMINIKE)
___________________________________________________________________
A PROGRESS REPORT SUBMITTED BY: Delisa Henry
REG #: 11/0939/0953
DEPARTMENT: Department of Geological Engineering
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 15th October 2013
NAME OF EXTERNAL SUPERVISORS:
Mr. Wendell Allyne, Manager of Environmental Division of Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission
Mr. R. Vieira, Commissioner of Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
NAME OF INTERNAL SUPERVISOR: Mr. S. Lowe,
Head of Department
Department of Geological Engineering
University of Guyana
COURSE #: GEM4001
Page 1
2013
Contents
1.0 Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.0 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 10
5.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 11
6.0 Statement of Problem ............................................................................................................................ 12
7.0 Importance and expected benefits of the proposed study ..................................................................... 14
8.0 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 15
8.1 General Objective ............................................................................................................................. 15
8.2 Specific Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 15
9.0 Project Area: Location and access ........................................................................................................ 16
10.0 Literature Review................................................................................................................................ 18
10.1 Mercury and the mining Industry.................................................................................................... 18
10.2 Interaction of mercury in sediments................................................................................................ 20
10.3 Sampling of sediments to assess the level of mercury concentration ............................................. 21
10.4 Bioavailability of mercury in humans (hair) ................................................................................... 23
10.5 Levels of mercury in the environment ............................................................................................ 23
10.6 How mercury enters the food chain ................................................................................................ 24
10.7 Environmental and health effects of mercury ................................................................................. 25
10.8 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................... 27
10.9 Previous work ................................................................................................................................. 28
11.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 31
11.1 Field Work ...................................................................................................................................... 31
11.2 Lab Work ........................................................................................................................................ 34
12.0 Data Processing................................................................................................................................... 34
Page 2
2013
13.0 Results and Data Analyses .................................................................................................................. 35
13.1 Survey of Human Environment ...................................................................................................... 35
Sediment Samples Results and Analyses ................................................................................................ 54
13.2 Summary of Physical Environment .................................................................................................... 57
14.0 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 59
15.0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 63
16.0 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 64
17.0 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................ 65
18.0 Reference ............................................................................................................................................ 66
19.0 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendix A1 Location Map ................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A2 Map of Sample points....................................................................................................... 71
Appendix A3 Map of sample points showing hg results ........................................................................ 72
Appendix A4 Map showing tracks of mined out area and sample points ............................................... 73
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................. 74
Appendix B1: Hair sample being taken .................................................................................................. 74
Appendix B2: Sample being taken with Ponar dredge ........................................................................... 74
Appendix B3: Sample being placed into stainless steel bowl ................................................................. 75
Appendix B4: Samples being mixed in stainless steel bowl with stainless steel spoon ......................... 75
Appendix B5: Samples being placed into well labeled Ziploc bag ........................................................ 76
Appendix B6: Samples being placed on ice in cooler............................................................................. 76
Appendix B7: Water quality parameters being taken ............................................................................. 77
Appendix B8: Tailings pond sites ........................................................................................................... 79
Appendix B9: Photo showing Tracking of tailings pond ........................................................................ 81
Appendix B10: Persons being informed during interview about Public presentation ............................ 82
Appendix B11: Persons being interviewed and prep for hair sampling and venue of the public
presentation ............................................................................................................................................. 83
Appendix B 12: Some community members at the presentation ............................................................ 84
Page 3
2013
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................. 85
Appendix C1 ........................................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix C2 ........................................................................................................................................... 90
River Sediment Form .............................................................................................................................. 90
Appendix C3 ........................................................................................................................................... 91
Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................................... 100
Appendix D1 ......................................................................................................................................... 101
Summary of Questionnaires .................................................................................................................. 101
Appendix D2 ......................................................................................................................................... 102
Completed River sediment forms ......................................................................................................... 102
Appendix D3 ......................................................................................................................................... 103
Power point presentation used for Education and Awareness .............................................................. 103
Page 4
2013
Page 5
2013
1.0 Acknowledgement
I would like to firstly thank Jehovah for the strength he provided me, so as to complete this
project in a timely manner. I also extend my gratitude to family and friends for their patience and
support given during this research.
I would like to express thanks to the following individuals within Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission for their endorsement and support of this research project. Firstly Mr. Colin Ault,
Geologist, Mr. Randy Ault, Geologist, Ms. Shenele Agard, Environmental Officer, Mr. Serge
Nadeau, Senior Geologist, Mr. Javid Baksh, Geological Technician, and all other staff that
played a part of the project.
Special thanks are extended to Mr. Rickford Veira, Mr. Wendell Allyene and Mr. Jimmy Reece
for their technical support, patience and the information provided.
I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Sherwood Lowe, Head of the Geological
Engineering Department of the University of Guyana ,for his visionary mentorship and valuable
contributions towards the conceptualization, formulation and handling of this research project.
Page 6
2013
2.0 Abstract
This research project was designed to assess the level of mercury concentrations via sediment
and hair analysis in Imabaimadai and Ominike, Upper Mazaruni area, in order to determine
whether persons are at risk from high levels of mercury contamination. The research project was
conducted during the period July 31st- August 21st 2013.
The general objective of the research was to assess the level of mercury concentration via
sediment and hair analyses. The project was completed with three tasks: They are as follows:
Firstly, Residents and miners of these two areas were asked to be involved in a voluntary survey
in the form of an interview and collection of hair samples. A total of fifty (59) persons were
interviewed, and a total number of 51 hair samples were taken.
Secondly, a total number of fifty two (52) sediment samples (done in duplicates) were taken
along the Mazaruni River and it adjoining tributaries such as Parantang and Korwrieng. These
sample areas were determined based on the interviewee’s responses as it relates to the areas that
were frequently utilized by residents and miners for cooking, drinking and fishing purposes. A
total number of fourteen (14) sediment samples (done in duplicates) were also taken from seven
7 different tailings pond in a mined out area in order to determine its vulnerability to becoming a
mining hot spot. The area was then mapped using a GPS receiver in order to determine amount
of area that has been mined out. During the execution of this task, in-situ water quality
measurements were done such as turbidity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH. All sediment
samples were stored on ice immediately after collection.
Both hair and sediment sample duplicates were handed over to the Institute of Applied Science
and Technology for laboratory analyses.
Thirdly, the field work aspect of the research included an education and awareness campaign in
both communities. This was in the form one on one discussion when completing the interview
and addressing the public by utilizing a power point presentation to inform persons about the
adverse effects of Mercury on people and the environment. Residents and miners were allowed
to participate in discussion by voicing their concerns and opinions on the matter of using
mercury.
Page 7
2013
Results obtained showed that the average concentration of hg found in hair samples was lower
than the normal hair content which is 1-2ppm as stipulated by USEPA. However persons that
resided in the community for over 16 years, mercury content was higher than the new comers
who have only been the 1-5 years. The mean total hair Hg content of all participants was
0.010401357ug/g (standard deviation 0.086727273ug/L). None of the participant’s hair exceeded
the normal level of mercury which is 1-2ppm (1-2ug/g) as stipulated by USEPA. Out of the 51
hair samples that were tested, 37 of them had no mercury detected in them.
The riverbed sediment results also were very low in mercury concentration and were below the
ERL value (0.15ppm) which would not have adverse effect on the environment. Subsequently,
because of this no environmental and mining hotspots were found. Out of those only 19% of the
samples mercury was detected in as shown in figure 11 below. Average/mean values for these
samples were 0.002331ug/g. The research area is considered to be clean as it relates to mercury
contamination in both the physical and human environment.
Page 8
2013
3.0 List of Figures
Figure 1: showing increase in gold price over 5 years period.
7
Figure 2: showing a miner using mercury to amalgamate gold in the open atmosphere
13
Figure 3: showing a Ponar Grab
16
Figure 4: showing how mercury is released into the environment and it fates
18
in the food chain.
Figure 5: Number of respondents that mercury was detected in
43
Figure 6: Hair hg level by ethnicity
44
Figure 7: Communities where participants originate
44
Figure 8: Mercury (H)g levels by community
45
Figure 9: Difference of hair hg level according to duration of time in community
45
Figure 10: Influence of diet on mean hair hg level
46
Figure 11: Results that were detected
48
Figure 12: Hg in the project area river bed sediments and tailings
49
Figure 13: Residence time in Community
36
Figure 14: Knowledge of environmental and health effects of mercury
37
Figure 15: showing main occupation of respondents
39
Figure 16: Showing main source of drinking and cooking water
40
Figure 17: showing respondent’s main source of proteins
41
Figure 18: Showing river/tributaries where fish respondents used originated from
42
Page 9
2013
4.0 List of Tables
Table1: Personal Information on of Respondents.
25
Table2: Educational background
26
Table 3: Socio-Economic Information
26
Table 4: Water for drinking and cooking
27
Table 5: Sources of food
35
Table 6: Work exposure and mining practices demonstrated by respondents
37
Table 7: Attitude that may influence adoption of improved mining technologies
39
Table 8: Physical water qualities from where sediment samples were collected
41
Page 10
2013
5.0 Background
Over the years mining has become a way of life for many people in Guyana. Artisanal and smallscale gold mining (ASM) is an essential activity in many developing countries as it provides an
important source of income, particularly in rural regions where economic alternatives are
critically limited. Due to the surging gold prices over the years (refer to graph 1), there have been
increases in mining activities in Guyana. According to the Bureau of Statistics, these mining
activities are responsible for just nine percent of the country’s GDP and sixty percent of exports1.
In the year 2011 Guyana produced 363,0002 ounces of gold. According to the U.S. Geological
survey, this can be attributed “to consistently active mining by small and medium scale miners
that benefited from the continued increase in gold prices on the international market.”3
Figure 1: showing increase in gold price over 5 years period.4
1
Bureau of Statistics. A Government of Guyana Agency; Trade and prices department; Retrieved from
http://www.statisticsguyana.gov.gy/trade.html.Last updated 23/10/2012.accessed 3rd Jan 2013.
2
Ministry of natural Resources and the environment,Guyana Gold Board 30th Anniversary[1982-2012].Retrieved
from http://www.nre.gov.gy.html accessed 3rd Jan 2013
3
USGS 2010 Minerals yearbook. French Guiana, Guyana and Suriname[Advance release][pdf] retrieved from
http://www.minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pub/country/2010/myb3-2010-gf-gy-ns.pdf;accessedon 3rdJan 2013.
4
Blankchard-The Gold standard for the intelligent investor.retrieved from:
http://www.blanchardonline.com.accessed on 30th Jan 2013.
Page 11
Small and medium scale gold mining activities, accounts for ninety three (93%) 5
2013
of mining
activities in Guyana. These activities are located in rural areas which are in close proximity to
Amerindian communities and newly established mining communities. These communities are
located either downstream or upstream from these mining operations, hence these communities
are continually being impacted by mining activities. One of the impact of mining is the use of
mercury.ASM utilises mercury since it is an affordable way of recovering the gold.
They also practice rudimentary methods to extract and process the gold known as hydraulicking
whereby high pressurized water is used via hoses to break up and erode the soil. The resulting
material is called slurry. The slurry is channeled to sluice boxes using pumps. In the sluice box
gravity concentration takes place to separate the heavy minerals (gold etc.) from lighter minerals.
The concentrate is collected and mercury is then later added to the gold laden with silt to create
an amalgam which is then heated or burnt under uncontrolled conditions (without a retort) to
separate the golf from the mercury.
6.0 Statement of Problem
In the mining industry waste or tailings are discarded nearby mining operations in either a
constructed tailings pond or no pond at all. Hence since these operations are located near water
bodies, Veira (1998) pointed out that there is a great potential for contamination of water by
heavy metals and mercury.
If a retort is not used to trap mercury vapor, the mercury escapes into the environment. Once
mercury escapes into the environment it is transported through creeks/rivers and via the
atmosphere where it is deposited over land and water bodies. Persons handling the mercury and
living in close proximity of the uncontrolled gold recovery processes can come into direct
contact with the mercury. Direct contact of mercury includes inhalation of mercury vapor and
consumption of fishes from Hg contaminated water sites. As a result, of this can be detrimental
to humans.
5
Abrams,W.2010. The Guyana Mining industry Review 2010(Draft). GGMC.
Page 12
2013
Because of the toxic nature of mercury, the implications of it being transported and/or
accumulated in humans and the environment can have significant and adverse effects. In the
environment the impact is as a result of bio magnification and bioaccumulation of mercury in
organisms up and along the food chain. Humans, being at the top of the food chain suffer from
the accumulation of mercury in the food chain as a result of consuming food from mercury
contaminated sites. Over time, the health effect of this action results in the nervous system being
attacked. The effects are manifestation of memory loss, tremors, distorted vision, personality
change and birth defects such as insufficient brain development in babies when pregnant women
are exposed to mercury within the environment.
Page 13
2013
7.0 Importance and expected benefits of the proposed study
In Guyana, where the mining industry is dominated by small and medium scale miners that
utilizes rudimentary methods to obtain gold from the amalgam, it is of utmost important that an
environmental assessment be carried out to estimate the impact mining has on nearby
communities. An environmental assessment would determine if the environment and persons
residing within the environment are affected by the release of mercury into the environment. In
addition an assessment of this nature can help predict adverse effects and determine if mitigation
actions are needed depending on results obtain after the research has been carried out.6
There are countless benefits of the execution of a project of such nature for Imbaimadai and
Ominike (Upper Mazaruni).
1. Firstly, the levels of mercury contamination and toxicity in the sediments will be
established and characterized as it relates to ERL (Effect Range Limit) and ERM (Effect
Range Medium). In addition to the aforementioned, mining and environmental hot spots
would be determined.
2. Secondly, this project will pave the way for similar mercury test to be conducted in other
communities that are affected by mining.
3. Thirdly, the project will also help the residents, via a public power point presentation
with in the community which would include discussions among community members and
researcher, to be more aware of their surroundings and what effects the misuse of
mercury can have on them. As a result they would be better able to put corrective
measures in place when handling mercury.
6
Veiga, M;Baker, R. 2004. Global Mercury Project. Protocols for environmental and health assessment of mercury
realeased by artisanal and small-scale gold miners;UNIDO
Page 14
2013
8.0 Objectives
The General objective and specific objectives which were met for the completion of this project
are stated below:
8.1 General Objective
“To assess the level of mercury concentrations via sediment and hair analysis in Upper Mazaruni
River(Imbaimadai & Ominke) , in order to determine whether persons are at risk from mercury
contamination.”
8.2 Specific Objectives
1.
To
establish
the
level
of
concentration
of
mercury
in
Upper
Mazaruni
(Imabaimadai&Ominke), via hair of humans and river sediments from water sources that are
frequently used by residents.
2. To sensitize persons of the implications of the improper use of mercury, mercury-free methods
and also how to minimize their exposure to mercury.
3. To establish a baseline data in Upper Mazaruni (Imbaimadai&Ominike), that can be used in
monitoring and compliance activity and planning and mitigation measures.
Page 15
2013
9.0 Project Area: Location and access
The project was divided into two sections which are the field work and the lab work. The field
work for this project as carried out on an Amerindian reservation called Ominikee with a
population of approximately 100 people and a mining community name Imbaimadai (See map
below) with a population of over 200 persons. The two communities are located in close
proximity to each other. There are two main accesses to the Upper Mazaruni Region, Imbaimadai
Landing (located at right bank of Mazaruni River) and by the Kamarang landing (located at the
confluence of the Kamarang and Mazaruni River). These two landings can be accessed from
Georgetown by aircraft from the Ogle International Airport. Imbamadai is located 145.5 miles
from Georgetown at a bearing of 241.This project area was chosen based on mining activities in
the area and practices associated with it.
Page 16
2013
Page 17
2013
10.0 Literature Review
10.1 Mercury and the mining Industry
Mercury is a naturally occurring element (Hg on the periodic table) that is found in air, water and
soil.7
Mercury exists in four forms. They are Metal mercury, Methyl mercury, Inorganic
mercury and Phenyl mercury. In the mining industry, metal mercury is used in the gold recovery
process to amalgamate the gold. Viera et al. (2005) found that mercury is used by gold miners in
Guyana by three general modes. The mercury is placed on the floor or riffles of the sluice box to
contact the bulk ore, the mercury is spread on bulk ore on the ground prior to running through
the sluice box, and mercury is used to amalgamate the gravity concentrate from the sluice box.
As a result of these methods employed by gold miners the mercury is released into the
environment.
According to Alpers et al (2000), amalgamation was also used by persons in California in the
1800’s.Typically; 1.6kg of Hg/m3 was added to the riffles of the sluice boxes to amalgamate the
entire placer ore. About 10 to 30% of this Hg was lost. It has been estimated that in California
alone, 1,400 to 3,700 tonnes to Hg were lost to the environment. Hunerlach et al (1999) found
that elevated Hg concentration have been detected in the sediments of historic mines as well as in
fish tissues. In the amalgamation process the mercury and the gold are placed together and mixed
in the battle then placed into a piece of cloth in order to squeeze the excess mercury out. This
action results in mercury getting into the environment (soils and water bodies)8. After this
process the amalgam is placed into a container to burn out the rest of the mercury. The mercury
becomes volatile and exits into the environment (atmosphere). This process accounts for aerial
deposition.
7
USEPA. Mercury: Basic information. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htm. Last updated on o
Tuesday, February 07,2012;accessed on 3rd Jan 2013
8
Hunerlach, M. P; Rytuba, J. J; Alpers, C. N. 1999. Mercury contamination from hydraulic placer gold mining in the
Dutch Flat mining district, California. US Geology, toll server water-resources investigation report 99-4018B, p.
179-189.
Page 18
2013
Figure2: showing a miner using mercury to amalgamate gold in the open atmosphere9
In many countries Veiga et al. (2004) established that a common practice is to release mercury
contaminated tailings directly into rivers. In a few places where hydraulic monitors are used,
miners spread large amounts of Hg on the ground with the belief that the “quicksilver” will
“magically” move on the dirt to collect all available gold1. Amalgamation actually occurs later,
when the riffled sluices retain Hg droplets and gold specks are pumped with the ore giving the
impression that gold is amalgamated on the ground. When this crude method is applied, losses
can be higher than 3 parts of Hg to 1 part of gold produced, and the opportunity to recover Hg is
remote1.
When gravity concentrates are amalgamated, Veiga (1997) found that the mineral portion is
separated from the amalgam by panning in water boxes, in pools excavated in the ground or at
creek margins. The heavy, mineral-rich amalgamation tailings frequently contain 200 to 500 ppm
of residual mercury. These create hotspots when dumped into adjacent water bodies (Veiga
1997). In dredging operations in the Madeira River, Amazon region, Brazil, amalgamation of
concentrates is done on board a boat using a blender. After amalgamation, tailings are dumped
into the rivers, forming a large number of hotspots (Pfeiffer et al 1998).
9
Stabroek news;Retrieved from: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2008/business/11/07/in-the-wake-of-eu-unitedstates-bans%e2%80%a6/ accessed on 12/14/2012
Page 19
2013
As Hg in gold mining activities is released into the environment through amalgamation tailings
and by amalgam burning, Veiga(2004) predicted two different behaviors, They are the formation
of hotspots is typical with low dispersion with amalgamation tailings and the relatively low
mobility of metallic Hg in natural watercourses creates points with high Hg concentrations.
When Hg is emitted to the atmosphere, a large portion is precipitated nearby the source but a part
is also dispersed.
10.2 Interaction of mercury in sediments
Sediments can play a very important role in determining average heavy metal concentration.
Veiga et al (2004) found that the use of sediments can help in identifying mining and
environmental hotspots and also help in predicting and obtaining evidence concerning the
transportation of Hg associated with fine particles to other areas.
Methylation is a product of complex processes that move and transform mercury. Atmospheric
deposition contains the three principal forms of mercury, although inorganic divalent mercury
(HgII) is the dominant form. Once in surface water, mercury enters a complex cycle in which
one form can be converted to another. Mercury attached to particles can settle onto the sediments
where it can diffuse into the water column, be re-suspended, be buried by other sediments, or be
methylated. Methylmercury can enter the food chain, or it can be released back to the
atmosphere by volatilization.
Not all sites with high Hg concentrations may be equally vulnerable to formation of MeHg via
natural processes, but these sites are of high risk. Some soils and sediments have higher
methylation potential than others. This depends on a large number of factors such as type of
organic matter, type of bacteria, pH, dissolved oxygen, presence of sulfate, etc1.
USEPA (1997) research has shown that elevated water temperatures, low pH, anaerobic
conditions, and higher dissolved organic carbon concentrations increase rates of methylation of
mercury. The concentration of dissolved oxygen content (DOC) and pH have a strong effect on
the ultimate fate of mercury in an ecosystem. Studies have shown that for the same species of
fish taken from the same region, increasing the acidity of the water (decreasing pH) and/or the
DOC content generally results in higher mercury levels in fish, an indicator of greater net
Page 20
2013
methylation. Higher acidity and DOC levels enhance the mobility of mercury in the
environment, thus making it more likely to enter the food chain.
According to USGS (2000), mercury and methyl mercury exposure to sunlight (specifically
ultra-violet light) has an overall detoxifying effect. Sunlight can break down methyl mercury to
Hg (II) (Mercuric Oxide) or Hg (0), which can leave the aquatic environment and reenter the
atmosphere as a gas.
Permissible limits for water: A pH range of 6.0 to 9.0 appears to provide protection for the life
of fresh water fish and bottom dwelling invertebrates (USEPA).
Water temperature regulates the metabolism of the aquatic ecosystem. High water temperature
stress aquatic ecosystem by reducing the ability of water to hold essential dissolved gases like
oxygen often summer head can cause fish kills in water bodies because high temperature reduce
available oxygen in the water.
Dissolved oxygen analysis measures the amount of gaseous oxygen (O2) dissolved in an aqueous
solution. Oxygen gets into water by diffusion from the surrounding air, by aeration (rapid
movement) and as a waste product of photosynthesis. Environmental impact of total dissolved
solids gas concentration in water should not exceed 110% (above 13-14 mg/l). Concentration
above this level can be harmful to aquatic life. Fish in waters containing excessive dissolved
gases may suffer from “gas bubble disease”; however, this is a very rare occurrence. The bubbles
or emboli block the flow of blood through blood vessels causing death. External bubbles
emphysema can also occur and be seen on fins, on skin and on other tissue. Aquatic invertebrate
are also affected by “gas bubble disease,” but at levels higher than those lethal to fish. Adequate
dissolved oxygen is necessary for good water quality
10.3 Sampling of sediments to assess the level of mercury concentration
In order to know if mercury contamination is associated with man’s intervention, it is essential to
do local background reference level to form a basis of referencing contaminated areas. This can
be done by choosing an area that is upwind or upstream away from Hg contaminated areas that
consist of similar geological characteristics of the contaminated area then carry out the mercury
Page 21
2013
test thus comparing and evaluating results to see if there is a difference in levels of mercury
measured(Veiga et al.2004).
When sampling sediments, samples can be screened in the field to remove debris or coarse
materials or it can also be screened in the laboratory. In British Columbia, Canada, regulatory
authorities (BCWLAP, 2001) have advised that all sediment and soil should be sieved (-2mm)
before metals analysis. Japanese protocols suggest wet screening in the field using a 2 mm
sieve10 .
In both uncontaminated and contaminated areas information such as the geological
characteristics (mineralogical components), grain size distribution(below 2mm), sampling
preparation, drying procedure and methods, packing and preservation methods and quality
control method should be used.
Stream sediments should be collected using a standard grab sampler, such as a petite or standard
Ponar grab or a similar device for stream environments; and an Ekman or Ponar grab, or similar
device for lake environments. A sediment-coring device can also be used to collect superficial
(upper 10 cm) sediment samples. When sampling within a stream environment, anchor the boat
to ensure that the sampling device is hauled up and down perpendicular to the bottom. One or
two reconnaissance samples should be acquired before actual sample collection to determine
ease of sampling, likelihood of collecting sediment, sediment grain size and composition and to
assess grab penetration (Veiga et al, 2004). If conditions for sampling are not adequate, an
alternate sediment sampling location should be sought.
10
Japan Public Health Association. 2001. Preventative measures against environmental mercury pollution and its
health effects. Japan ministry of the environment. P.112.
Page 22
2013
Figure 3: showing a Ponar Grab11
Veiga et al (2004) established sample collection procedure for sediments from water bodies and
also for sediments from mine sites, in order to determine if an area is a mining hot spot. These
procedures can be seen in the Methodology#3.
10.4 Bioavailability of mercury in humans (hair)
Hair is a useful indicator when monitoring mercury bioaccumulation and exposure. When hair
grows, methyl mercury is excreted from it. Humans are exposed to mercury via consumption of
foods containing mercury and from the inhalation of mercury vapor. Lebel et al (1998) sampled
hair stands close to the scalp taken from the occipital portion of the head to be stored in plastic
bags with root ends stapled. Drasch et al (2001) also collected hair from the back part of the head
but sampled strand by strand (from 150 to 250 mg). Afterwards the strands were bound together
using cotton string (NOT adhesive tape) and stored at room temperature in paper envelopes. The
normal mercury concentration in human hair is considered to be 1ppm, while a concentration of
up to 6.4 ppm is considered to be safe. A concentration of 14 ppm is the minimum known
adverse effect limit (Mangal, 1999).
10.5 Levels of mercury in the environment
Lacerda et al (1990) found Hg concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 1.2 ppm in bottom sediments
of non-impacted Amazonian rivers for size fractions <0.063 mm. Greater values are related to
11
Sediment sampling in spund; retrieved from: http://farmersdaughterct.com/2009/07/02/sediment-sampling-inthe-sound/ accessed on: 12/14/2012
Page 23
2013
higher organic content of the sediment, whereas intermediate numbers were observed for
sediments rich in hydrous ferric oxides.
Preliminary screening levels for mercury contamination in sediment have been suggested by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Although they do not represent
sediment quality standards, these guidelines suggest that background levels of total mercury in
sediment are 4 to 51 ppb (dry weight), the Threshold Effects Level is 174 ppb (dry weight), the
Probable Effects Level is 486 ppb (dry weight), and the Upper Effects Threshold is 560 ppb (dry
weight)12 .
Long, et al. (1995) approach is used to characterize mercury contamination in sediments. These
researchers reviewed field and laboratory studies and identified nine metals that were observed
to have ecological or biological effects on organisms. Mercury is amongst those metals. Metal
concentrations below the ERL value are not expected to elicit adverse effects, while levels above
the ERM value are likely to be very toxic. This method of characterizing sediment toxicity has
been criticized because it does not evaluate the interaction of multiple chemicals (complex
mixtures) nor does it account for the possible mitigating effects of organic components in
sediments that may bind the metals and render them harmless. Nevertheless, the method provides
a uniform perspective for evaluating contaminant levels within and among estuaries. The ERL
for mercury is 0.15µg/g and ERM is 0.71µg/g all of which is equivalent to ppm.13
10.6 How mercury enters the food chain
The exact mechanisms by which mercury enters the food chain remain largely unknown and may
vary among ecosystems. Certain bacteria play an important early role. Bacteria that process
sulfate (SO4) in the environment take up mercury in its inorganic form and convert it to
methylmercury through metabolic processes. The conversion of inorganic mercury to
methylmercury is important because its toxicity is greater and because organisms require
considerably longer time to eliminate methylmercury. These methylmercury-containing bacteria
may be consumed by the next higher level in the food chain, or the bacteria may excrete the
12
MacFarlene, Bill. 2004. Mercury contamination in water and sediment in Resurrection creek, Alaska. Final report.
Long,E. R; McDonald, D. D; Smith, S. L and Calden, F. D. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within
ranges of chemical concentrations in Maine and estuarine sediment.
13
Page 24
2013
methylmercury to the water where it can quickly adsorb to plankton, which are also consumed by
the next level in the food chain. Because animals accumulate methylmercury faster than they
eliminate it, animals consume higher concentrations of mercury at each successive level of the
food chain. Small environmental concentrations of methy-lmercury can thus readily accumulate
to potentially harmful concentrations in fish, fish-eating wildlife and people. Even at very low
atmospheric deposition rates in locations remote from point sources, mercury bio magnification
can result in toxic effects in consumers at the top of these aquatic food chains.14
Figure 4: showing how mercury is released into the environment and ends up into the food
chain15
10.7 Environmental and health effects of mercury
In the environment, the effects of mercury ranges from the ability for it to bio accumulate and
bio magnify in food chains. Methyl mercury tends to bind covalently with fish tissues because of
the presence of protein sulfhydryl groups. The mercury is excreted very slowly from fishes as a
result the higher the trophic level the higher the mercury in each successive level. Since humans
14
USGS. 2000. Mercury in the environment factsheet 146-00. Retrieved from
http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/index.html. Last updated 02/19/2009 @ 06:51;accessed 3rd Jan
2013.
15
retrieved from: http://www.facome.uqam.ca/CDE20992-91E3-4B0C-8CDBF03B444CAA10/FinalDownload/DownloadId472B732391E5C1F91F6992131A3F1742/CDE20992-91E3-4B0C-8CDBF03B444CAA10/pdf/veiga_02.pdf# accessed on 12/14/2012.
Page 25
2013
are at the top level of the aquatic food web they would feed on the smaller predators. This action
would result in them consuming mercury and bioaccumulation would occur over time. Humans’
hair is a useful indicator of the bioavailability of mercury in their bodies which stems from the
consumption of fishes and the inhalation of mercury vapor.
Veiga(2004) established that humans living in close proximity to mining sites are expose via two
pathways which are occupational Hg vapor exposure from amalgam burning or gold melting and
through methyl mercury consumption from fishes.
A primary pathway for mercury exposure to persons who handle mercury and who lives in close
proximity to such operations is through inhalation of the Hg vapor(Veiga 2004).Persons in close
proximity who are mostly residents may be exposed through their dietary sources. USEPA
(1997) has established that ingesting 1.1µg methyl mercury/kg body weight/day over a long
period of time can cause adverse effects in humans.
The toxic effects of mercury depend on its chemical form and the route of exposure. Symptoms
of mercury exposure develop at different levels of mercury contamination. Global healing center
(1998- 2013) described the symptoms of four different levels of exposure to mercury:
1. Acute (low levels) exposure to mercury vapor could cause pulmonary and nervous system
problems. High levels of mercury exposure could cause the onset of symptoms such as fever,
diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, chest pain, cough, dyspnea and a distinct metallic taste in the mouth,
which could all progress to pulmonary edema and interstitial pneumonitis. Young children are
more prone to developing pulmonary mercury toxicity.
2. Chronic levels are caused by repeated exposure to mercury. This can affect the spinal cord,
brain, kidney and eyes. Chronic exposure to low levels of mercury causes harmful effects to the
central nervous systems. Symptoms of chronic mercury poisoning may vary, but could include
mood changes, discoloration of the eye's cornea or lens, vision problems, insomnia, irritability,
loss of appetite, tremors, headache, psychological changes, short-term memory loss and kidney
disease.
Page 26
2013
3. Extreme exposure is caused by extremely high levels of mercury vapor in the air. This can
poison a person very quickly. Symptoms begin with chest pain, upset stomach, cough and
trouble breathing. Chemical pneumonia can then develop, which can result in death.
4. Direct contact - Direct contact with the skin and eyes could cause irritation. Swallowing
mercury vapors or compounds could cause vomiting, nausea and diarrhea.
Children and unborn fetuses are most likely to be at risk to mercury poisoning because the health
effects are on neurological development. Unborn fetuses get mercury poisoning via the mom
even when she consumes low levels of methylmercury in dietary sources. This can adversely
affect the brain and nervous system. As result the impacts are on the memory, attention, language
and other skills have been found in children exposed to moderate levels in the womb. According
to the USEPA the reference dose (RfD) required to protect brain development in young children
is 0.1µg/kg body wt. /day.
10.8 Instrumentation
Since atoms for most AA elements cannot exist in the free, ground state at room temperature,
heat must be applied to the sample to break the bonds combining atoms into molecules. The only
notable exception to this is mercury. Free mercury atoms can exist at room temperature and,
therefore, mercury can be measured by atomic absorption without a heated sample cell. The
atomic absorption spectrometer was used for this project and the method used was the Cold
vapor Atomic absorption method.
In the cold vapor mercury technique, mercury is chemically reduced to the free atomic state by
reacting the sample with a strong reducing agent like stannous chloride or sodium borohydride in
a closed reaction system. The volatile free mercury is then driven from the reaction flask by
bubbling air or argon through the solution. Mercury atoms are carried in the gas stream through
tubing connected to an absorption cell, which is placed in the light path of the AA spectrometer.
Sometimes the cell is heated slightly to avoid water condensation but otherwise the cell is
completely unheated.
As the mercury atoms pass into the sampling cell, measured absorbance rises indicating the
increasing concentration of mercury atoms in the light path. Some systems allow the mercury
Page 27
2013
vapor to pass from the absorption tube to waste, in which case the absorbance peaks and then
falls as the mercury is depleted. The highest absorbance observed during the measurement will
be taken as the analytical signal. In other systems, the mercury vapor is rerouted back through
the solution and the sample cell in a closed loop. The absorbance will rise until an equilibrium
concentration of mercury is attained in the system. The absorbance will then level off, and the
equilibrium absorbance is used for quantitation.
The entire cold vapor mercury process can be automated using flow injection techniques.
Samples can be analyzed in duplicate at the rate of about one (1) sample per minute with no
operator intervention. Detection limits are comparable to those obtained using manual batch
processes. The use of flow injection systems also minimizes the quantity of reagents required for
the determinations, further reducing analysis costs.
The sensitivity of the cold vapor technique is far greater than can be achieved by conventional
flame AA. This improved sensitivity is achieved, first of all, through a 100% sampling
efficiency. All of the mercury in the sample solution placed in the reaction flask is chemically
atomized and transported to the sample cell for measurement.
The sensitivity can be further increased by using very large sample volumes. Since all of the
mercury contained in the sample is released for measurement, increasing the sample volume
means that more mercury atoms are available to be transported to the sample cell and measured.
The detection limit for mercury by this cold vapor technique is approximately 0.02 µg/L.
Although flow injection techniques use much smaller sample sizes. They provide similar
performance capabilities, as the entire mercury signal generated is condensed into a much
smaller time period relative to manual batch-type procedures.
10.9 Previous work
Extensive work have been done in Guyana on the assessment of mercury in mining and nonmining communities, hence results obtained has shown a strong relationship between mining
activities and mercury in the environment. Several previous studies have utilized soil, sediment,
wildlife and people (hair, breath, urine, blood) as a means of collecting data on the occurrence of
mercury and have found that gold processing activities are a major source of contamination in
Page 28
2013
the environment and that humans are receptors of methyl mercury contamination from the
environment. Some of the researches are mentioned as follows.
Livan(2001) tested and compared mercury concentrations in mining and pristine areas utilizing
water, sediments soil fish and human hair as a medium. She documented that mercury
concentrations were higher in mining areas when compared to pristine areas. In the study, peaked
average concentrations of mercury in unfiltered water samples parallel high ambient turbidity
values. Mercury levels measured in mud fractions from all land soils were not different near
mining camps than in pristine areas. Mud samples contained levels of mercury equally
significant whether they came from mining or pristine areas. Methyl mercury measured in fish
resulted in higher levels in mining areas in pristine areas and that, for all categories of fishes.
Only carnivorous fish in mining areas showed levels higher than 0.5 µg Me-Hg/g fish flesh as
the maximum level recommended by the WHO. Residents of mining communities had normal
mean hair Hg levels while inhabitants of pristine and non-mining settlements had uniformly
elevated hair Hg content, with the Hg of the latter being significantly higher than residents of
pristine communities. Samples were shipped to Flett Research Inc. in Manitoba Canada whereby
they did T-Hg analysis based on SnCl2 reduction method, gold amalgam trapping with
flouresence detection. Me-Hg analysis employed an ethylating step followed by purge and
trap/GC separation and florescence detection.
Lambert et al(2001) carried out a survey. They sought out to do Mercury in fish tissues from the
Mazaruni, Kurupung and Potaro Rivers in Guyana. They measured the presence and level of
mercury in fish tissues available for human consumption. Herbivores, omnivores and carnivores
fish were targeted to quantify the accumulation of mercury in the food chain. They analyzed for
total mercury and methyl mercury in different parts of the fish. Results showed that the level of
mercury measured in most carnivorous fishes exceeded the concentrations (0.5µg/g)
recommended by WHO (World Health Organization) also that mercury bioaccumulation in the
trophic levels is estimated to be 3 to 4 times.
The Ministry of Health, GENCAP et. al(2001) did a survey to measure the “ Mean Mercury
Levels in residents of mining and pristine communities of Guyana. They wanted to determine the
impact of mining on the health of residents of mining communities. They use the human hair to
Page 29
2013
determine the mercury content of residents. The communities that the survey was carried out in
were Gunns Strip,Paruima, Tumatumari, Mahdia, Eyelash, Kurupung, Isseneru, and Micobie.
Results obtain showed that Amerindians had a higher mean hair mercury content and persons
with a high dietary intake of fish. They also did a follow up survey in the same areas listed above
to determine the “Risk factors elevated mean mercury levels in residents of mining and pristine
communities in Guyana” using hair and a questionnaire interview. A study was carried out by
GFEC (2000) whereby they did fish and sediment samples along with samples of the hair of
residents, and a social survey to identify sources and assess the levels of mercury contamination
in the Mazaruni Basin in Guyana, in order to recommend mitigation measures. These findings
were that there is a much more significant concentration of mercury in residents of Isseneru,
which is more dominated by gold mining activity than when compared to Kurupung.
Page 30
2013
11.0 Methodology
Activities of this research were divided into two components, Part 1- Field Work (sample and
data collection), and Part 2- Sample Preparation and Analysis.
Specific bjectives 1 & 3
11.1 Field Work
Methodology 1 & 2
Using the questionnaire (see appendix C3) and hair sampling

Two (2) areas were targeted, Ominike (Amerindian reservation) and Imbaimadai landing.

Persons were approached, explained to the purpose of the survey and asked to volunteer
in an interview and hair sampling.

After answering the questions, hair samples were taken from interviewee

Samples bags were labeled according to the ID number on the questionnaire.

Using gloves and scissors, samples of about 50 strands of hair were taken from the
optical region of the head (See appendix B1).

The Female’s hair were tied with a cotton string and placed into a Ziploc bag while the
male’s hair was placed in the bags as it is.

Persons were then invited to attend a public presentation which was held on the 16 th
August 2013 at 5pm, venue being Baige shop on Imbaimadi landing. The theme
“Mercury the environment and you!!” was explained to interviewees; hence they were
encouraged to come out listen and voice their questions, opinions and concerns.
Page 31
2013
Methodology 3
River and tailings sediment sampling
River

An area located about 3km upwind of same geological characteristics; where there were
no mining activities was used to collect sediment samples in order to establish
background levels of mercury.

Rivers, creeks or streams were chosen to take samples based on respondents answer to
questions
23, 28 and 29, 29(a) and sites where the researcher observe that the
amalgamation tailings were or have been discharged. The procedure used for collecting
both soil and sediment samples was used according to the procedure outlined in the”
Protocols for Environmental and Health Assessment of Mercury released by Artisanal
and small scale miners.”(see appendix C1)

Tributaries of the Mazaruni river were sampled downstream and middle way of stream,
while the Mazaruni river was sampled between each tributary (See appendix A2).
Samples were also taken next to area where the researchers observe mining activities.

Composite Samples of one area were taken with a Ponar dredge while the water depth
was determined simultaneously. (see appendix B2)

Samples were placed in a stainless steel bowl and mixed with a stainless steel spoon for
uniformity and consistency.(See appendix B3,B4)

Samples were described visually, split into two in order to increase the significance of the
results of the research and placed into well labeled ziploc bags.(refer to appendix B5)

They were then placed in a cooler with ice.(refer to appendix B6)

GPS points were taken along with physio- chemical parameters such as, turbidity,
Dissolved Oxygen Content, pH and temperature.(refer to appendix B7)

All information was recorded on the river sediment form provided in Appendix C2, D2.

Samples were transported to Georgetown in a freezer with ice, in order to maintain the
recommended temperature (below 4 degree Celsius).
Page 32
2013
Tailings

A mined out area was selected based on the history of mining in the area. Information
was gathered by questioning nearby dredge operations owners.

Specific site where miners did amalgamation was chosen to be sample point. These sites
were tailings pond and one excavated pool.(see appendix B8)

Composite samples were taken from the pond and placed in a stainless steel bowl and
mixed with a stainless steel spoon for uniformity and consistency.

Samples were described visually, split into two in order to increase the significance of the
results of the research and placed into well labeled Ziploc bags.

They were then placed in a cooler with ice.

GPS points were taken along with physio- chemical parameters such as, turbidity,
Dissolved Oxygen Content, pH and temperature.

The entire area was then mapped with the GPS by walking around the ponds and tracking
the mined out area.(see appendix A4,B9)

Samples were transported to Georgetown in a freezer with ice, in order to maintain the
recommended temperature (below 4 degree Celsius).
Specific objective 2
Education and Awareness Campaign
Methodology 4

Persons who took part in the survey were informed of the Public presentation, what it
entails and the date (16th August 2013) and venue it would be kept.(Refer to appendix
B10)

Activities started off at 5pm at Baige shop on Imbaimadai landing. Hair sampling and
interviews were done to allow more persons to come for the presentation.(See appendix
B11,B12)

Actual presentation commenced at 5:45pm. Theme of presentation was, “Mercury, the
environment and you.”(See appendix D3) Presentation included a video showing the
Minamata Crisis in Japan.
Page 33
2013

Presentation ended off with questions and answers segment.

Results were collected from IAST and sent to Imbaimadai Mines office to be posted for
viewing.
11.2 Lab Work

Fifty (50) hair samples and fifty (33) of the duplicate samples of the river sediments and
tailings were transported to the IAST (Institute of Applied Science and Technology) lab
for mercury concentration analysis by utilizing the Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy(See Appendix C4 or SOP)
12.0 Data Processing
The data for this project was processed mainly in Microsoft Excel and word (refer to table 8 and
appendix D1), where all field data were entered and arranged in the necessary tables needed.
Microsoft Excel was also used to do certain statistical analysis needed as well as sorting the data
and producing the graphs such as pie, bar etc. The coordinates from the Garmin GPS were
entered into Excel and plotted in MapInfo 10.5, the GIS software.
Page 34
2013
13.0 Results and Data Analyses
13.1 Survey of Human Environment
Questionnaire Results and Analyses
During the period July 31st to Aug 21st 2013, 59 persons were interviewed from a mining
community name Imbaimadai and Ominike which is an Amerindian reservation.
40% of persons interviewed were Africans, and 35% were Amerindians. This is probably due to
the fact that during this survey most Amerindians who lived in Ominike were out of the area to a
football tournament.
The populations in these two areas are predominantly male between the ages 18 and 60.On an
average 45% of persons in these areas are residing in the area over 16years .On the other hand
45% of the remaining population are probably there because of mining activities and for
business. In Ominike approximately 80% of the population lived in the village for over 16years,
it can be assumed that Ominike has a very stable population where by persons live and work in
the area to provide for their basic needs. On the other hand, Imbaimadai had only 33% living in
the community for over 16 years however, it was noted that most of the population resided in the
community for only 1-5years. This is probably due to the fact that most persons are miners hence
it is known that miners move from one place to the other and search of better working grounds
when the current one is not profitable. As it relates to the health of persons, it is noted that for
most of respondents suffered from malaria in the last two (2) years. Table 1 below summarizes
personal information on respondents.
Table1: Personal Information on of Respondents
Variable
Categories
Number
%
Sex
Male
38
64
Female
21
36
Amerindian
20
35
African
23
40
Indian
2
3
Race
Page 35
Mixed
13
22
Guyanese
59
100
Major sickness in last No
25
32
2 years
28
36
Nationality
Malaria
Acute
Respiratory 4
2013
5
Illness
Residence
time
Village/Community
Abdominal Pain
15
20
Other
5
7
in 1-5years
26
45
6-10years
4
7
11-15years
2
3
Over 16years
26
45
Number of years in Community
Residence time in Community
over 16 years
11-15years
6-10years
Series1
1-5years
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Number of persons
n=58
Figure 13: Residence time in Community
Of the respondents, 37% had only primary education, while 63% had a secondary education or
higher. As it relates to respondents knowledge as to what is mercury, 88% of persons were
familiar with this metallic substance. Along with their knowledge of what is mercury most of the
respondents were aware of the environmental and health impacts the misuse of mercury could
Page 36
2013
have on the environment and on the human body. Table 2 below summarizes information on the
educational background of respondents.
Table2: Educational background
Variable
Categories
Number
%
Education
Primary
21
37
Secondary
31
54
Tertiary
5
9
52
88
7
12
36
61
23
39
Knowledge
of Yes
mercury
no
Knowledge
of Yes
environmental
health
effects
and no
of
mercury
Knowledge of Environmental and
Health effects of mercury
n=59
39%
yes
61%
no
Figure 14: Knowledge of environmental and health effects of mercury
Respondents of this survey were primarily miners (57%), although some families especially the
Amerindian families were involved in other activities such as farming and fishing. Because of
Page 37
2013
the diverse occupation of the respondents, 30% had an average income of 100,000-200,000.It is
noted that the head in most cases is responsible for managing the income along with expenditure.
Table 3 below gives a summary of the Socio- Economic Status/Information of persons residing
in these areas.
Table 3: Socio-Economic Information
Variable
Categories
Number
%
Occupation
Farming
5
7
Forestry
1
2
Mining
39
57
Fishing
2
3
Shop Owner
7
10
Gold Smelter
4
6
Other
10
15
1000-10,000
2
5
10,000-50,000
9
24
50,000-100,000
11
30
100,000-200,000
11
30
Over 200,000
4
11
Head
31
77
Spouse of the head
7
17
Son/Daughter of head
1
3
Other
1
3
31
77
Spouse of the head
7
17
Son/Daughter of head
1
3
Other
1
3
Average Income
Manager of Income
Manager
Expenditure
of Head
Page 38
2013
Occupation of respondents
n=68
Gold Smelter
6%
Farming
7%
Forestry
2%
Other
15%
Shop Owner
10%
Mining
57%
Fishing
3%
Figure 15: showing main occupation of respondents
In all two of the communities it can be noted that the weather pattern influences a household
choice of the main source of drinking and cooking water. According to responses more than half
(55%) of the residents rely on both rain and river water for drinking and cooking purposes when
compared to using rain water only. This is the case because many residents turn to the river as an
alternative source of water when the dry season comes.
Main water source
n=91
Piped water outside
Well/borehole
River/Stream/dam
Rainwater from tank/jar
Other
1% 0%
0%
45%
54%
Figure 16: Showing main source of drinking and cooking water
Page 39
2013
During this season, Ominke (23%) and Paratang (23%) are the rivers that respondents frequently
turn to for drinking water. It is good to know that most of the respondents are conscious about
their health and have opted to treat their water prior to use. Table 4 below provides information
on the respondents’ sources of water for drinking and cooking
Table 4: Water for drinking and cooking
Variable
Categories
Number
%
Main water Source
Piped water outside
0
0
Well/Borehole
0
0
River/Stream/Dam
41
45
from 49
54
Rainwater
tank/jar
1
1
Place of water Source Paratang
12
23
frequently utilize by Mazaruni
8
16
respondents
Korwrieng
8
16
Simbi
11
22
Ominike
12
23
Yes
36
62
no
22
38
Satisfaction of water Yes
52
88
quality
7
12
Other
Water Treatment
no
Page 40
2013
Water source frequently utilized by
respondents
Series1
Ominike
12
Simbi
11
Korwrieng
8
Mazaruni
8
Paratang
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure 16: showing water source that is frequently utilized by residents
46% of respondent’s main source of protein is chicken. On the other hand only 41 % preferred
choice is fish.
Main source of protein
Series1
30
20
27
10
24
6
0
Chicken
Beef
2
Fish
Other
Figure 17: showing respondent’s main source of proteins
Page 41
2013
According to 45% of respondents, the fishes used by them generally come from an area of
unknown origin. These respondents usually purchase the fishes from the shops in the area.33%of
the respondents indicated that they obtain their fishes from areas impacted by mining. For
persons who consume fishes from areas distant from mining and from areas impacted by mining
it was noted that most (9%) of the persons consume the fish species patwa. These persons were
able to name the place where the catch the fish from. Most of the respondents indicated that they
utilize the Mazaruni River for fishing.
Name of river/tributaries where fish originates
from
simbi
mazaruni
paratang
korwrieng
kunubaru
kambaru
abau
ominike
22%
dakrai
11%
27%
9%
9%
9%
4%
4%
5%
Figure 18: Showing river/tributaries where fishes respondents used originated from
Table 5 shows the summary of information on the sources of food for respondents. 61% of all
respondents said that someone in the household is involved in some kind of mining activity.
Table 5: Sources of Food
Variable
Major
Categories
source
protein
Origin of fish
Number
%
of Chicken
27
46
Beef
6
10
Fish
24
41
Other
2
3
Don’t
know 20
45
Page 42
2013
origin(buy in market)
Areas
distant
from 10
22
by 15
33
Cassie
18
29
Patwa
19
31
Yarrow
15
25
Huri
2
3
Selebe
4
7
Logo logo
2
3
Hassa
1
2
Name of River where Simbi
5
11
fish originate
Mazaruni
12
27
Paratang
2
5
Korwrieng
2
4
Dakrai
4
9
Kunuwabaru
2
4
Kambaru
4
9
Abau
4
9
Ominike
10
22
member Yes
23
61
mining no
11
39
mining
Areas
impacted
mining
Fish species
Family
engaged
in
activities
Thirty seven percent (37%) of all respondents have been involved in mining 1-5 years of their
lives. Only a few persons that were interview have been mining for 25 over years. The 37% can
be attributed to the fact that over the past 5-10 years there have been a steady increase of gold
price as such there was an influx of coast landers into the mining district. 86% of respondents
indicated that since they have been involved in mining they have been in direct contact with
Page 43
2013
mercury. One of the ways a person can get into direct contact with mercury is through burning
amalgam in open pans or melting the gold in inadequate fume hoods. 71% of all respondents
indicated to this way of getting into contact with mercury. Because of the fact that majority of
persons burn mercury in open atmosphere, it is not surprising that 80% of all respondents have
never used a retort .It is noted that when persons finish burning off the mercury in this region,
67% of the respondents would store their clothes at home. This may be so because in
Imbaimadai and Ominike persons live not too far from their work grounds. Usually persons
would come out to the landing where they reside/live after work.
The usual way in which respondents store their mercury is in a container, underwater with cover,
17% and the other 16% use other methods of storing. This mercury is usually stored at
individual’s workplace (camp), 44% store at home and other places.
Majority of respondents have been working or handling mercury 1-10 yrs. In order to
amalgamate the gold 41% which is the majority use the mercury to amalgamate gravity
concentrate from sluice the sluice box.42% of respondents extract the gold collected from the
sluice box in water boxes, and 37% use excavated ground/pits. Only 19% of persons use creek
margins to batel down their sluice box concentrate. When the gold is already extracted, most of
the respondents (38) indicated that they discard of the heavy mineral rich amalgamation tailings
on land. Table 6: provides a summary of Work Exposure and mining practices demonstrated by
respondents.
Table 6: Work exposure and Mining practices demonstrated by respondents
Variable
Categories
Number
%
# of years mining
1-5yrs
18
37
6-10yrs
12
25
11-15yrs
4
8
15-20yrs
6
12
20-25yrs
3
6
25yrs & over
6
12
42
86
Working
in
direct Yes
Page 44
contact with mercury
7
14
34
71
14
29
Storage of clothing Home
36
67
after burning mercury. Camp/workplace
3
5
Yard
15
28
Yes
10
20
No
39
80
Working
amalgams
No
burning Yes
in
atmosphere
inadequate
open No
or
2013
in
fume
hoods.
Use of retort
Storage of mercury in In a container without 3
container
7
cover
In a container with 8
17
cover
In
a
underwater
container, 4
9
without
cover
In
a
container, 31
67
underwater with cover
Where store mercury.
Home
23
42
Work place
31
56
Shop
0
0
Other
1
2
# of years working 1-10yrs
23
60
with mercury
5
13
10-15yrs
Page 45
How
extract
15-20yrs
5
13
20-30yrs
4
11
30 yrs & over
1
3
gold Battle
at
creek 12
19
excavated 24
37
2013
obtained from sluice margins
box
Batel
in
ground
How
Battle in water boxes
27
42
other
1
2
on 7
9
persons Mercury placed
amalgamate the Gold
floor
or
riffles
of
sluice box
Mercury is spread on 25
32
bulk ore on ground
Mercury is used to 32
amalgamate
gravity
concentrate
from
41
sluice box
Other
14
18
Discarding of heavy Leave as is
8
17
mineral
8
17
River
10
21
Land
18
38
reuse
3
7
rich Pit
amalgamation tailings
Improved mining technologies have long been studied in Guyana in order to determine better
recovery. Mr. Adrian David in 2012 assessed the recovery of using of cyanide on tailings of
gravity processed material. A. David (2012) found that recovery of using cyanidation was 86%
while sluice box was only 6.3%.However, although these techniques seems effective in gold
recovery, 47% of all respondents are very skeptical to use these new technologies, especially use
Page 46
2013
of cyanide. On the other hand, a large amount of the survey respondents have indicated their
willingness to learn this technology.61% of them have specified that a demonstration is the form
of training that they will need in order to learn about these improved technologies. When asked
about the difficulties they think they might encounter during the changeover to mercury free
techniques, 35% of respondents said that they were not sure what they would encounter. Table 7
below summarizes respondent’s attitude that may influence their adoption to improved mining
technologies.
Table 7: Attitude that may influence adoption of improved mining technologies
Variable
Categories
Number
%
23
47
Don’t know
21
43
Very Good
5
10
Willingness to learn Yes
44
88
improved
No
4
8
technologies
Uncertain
2
4
16
31
32
61
0
0
4
8
Difficulties one might Not sure
35
74
encounter
3
6
5
11
4
9
Opinion on improved Not good
mining technologies
Form
of
needed
training Short Course
to
improved
learn Demonstration
mining Tour
technologies
change
mercury
Other
during Learning computer
over
to Adoption
free Finance
techniques
Page 47
2013
Hair Sample Results and Analyses
Page 48
2013
A total of 51 hair samples were donated by persons in Ominike and Imbaimadai. The mean total
hair Hg content of all participants was 0.010401357ug/g (standard deviation 0.086727273ug/L).
None of the participant’s hair exceeded the normal level of mercury which is 1-2ppm (1-2ug/g)
as stipulated by USEPA. Out of the 51 hair samples that were tested, 37 of them had no mercury
detected in them (see results above). Of the 14 samples that were detected, most of them were
males (refer to fig 5 below).
Amount of respondents that mercury
was detected in
Number of persons
n=14
10
5
0
female
male
sex
Figure 5: showing amount of respondents that mercury was detected in
Although mercury was detected more in the males than the females, the females had a higher
mean mercury concentration in their hair. (Refer to fig 5a)
Page 49
2013
Mean hair Hg concentration in males
VS. females
females=32 males=19
Mean Hg(ug/g)
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
Series1
female
male
0.0177
0.0063
Sex
Fig 5a: showing mean hair Hg content in males vs. females
Although Hg levels were well below normal for the samples in which mercury was detected, it is
noted that Africans participants had higher mean hair Hg content than the rest of the participants.
Surprisingly the Amerindians had the lowest of mean hair Hg content. (See figure 6 below).
Hair Hg level by etnicity
afri=4 mixed=4, amer=6
Mean hair Hg
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Mean hair Hg
Afri
0.009886
Am
0.005193
Mx
0.007214
Figure 6
Page 50
2013
Hg(ug/g) content in hair
Mercury content in hair VS. age range
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
Series1
0
20
40
60
80
Age range
Figure 6A
In fig 6A it can be seen that a small trend does exist whereby as age increses mercury content
increases. Mercury contentment was mostly higher in persons between the age 40 to 60 while
mercury content was significantly lowere in persons in age rage 0 to 20.
Of the samples that mercury was detected in, most of the respondents were from Imbaimadai. In
addition, Imbaimadai had a more higher mean hair Hg level than Ominike(See fig 7&8 below).
Communities where participants
originate n=51
Imbaimadai
Ominike
43%
57%
Page 51
2013
Figure 7
Hg levels by community
ominike=6, imbaimadai=8
mean hair Hg
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Mean Hair Hg
Imbaimadai
Ominike
0.015678
0.003366
Figure 8
Each person had 50 had approximately 50 hair strands taken from them. Mean hair Hg level
varied by duration of time in the community. It is noted that the longer the residents stayed in the
community (over16 years), the higher would be the Hg content than new comers (1-5years). (See
figure 9 below)
Hg(ug/50 strands) content
Mercury in hair strand VS. time at
location
~20yrs=25,~15=2,~10=3,~5=21
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
Mercury
0.01
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time at Location(yrs)
Figure 9
Page 52
2013
Interestingly, in Figure 10 below it can be seen that residents or participants that mercury was
detected, main source of protein was chicken.
Influence of diet on mean hair Hg
level
Mean hair hg
chic=24, fish=21,other=6
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Series1
chicken
fish
other
0.012705
0.010386
0.008645
Figure 10
Page 53
2013
Sediment Samples Results and Analyses
Page 54
2013
A total of 32 sediment sample results were obtained from IAST. Out of those only 19% of the
samples mercury was detected in as shown in figure 11 below. Average values for these samples
were 0.002331ug/g.
Results that were detected
samples detected
samples not detected
19%
81%
Figure 11
Figure 12 shows mercury concentrations for the project area/environment that sediment samples
were collected from. From this figure it can be seen that Hg is more abundant in
KAM/SED/001(KAMBARU) when compared to the other sample sites. Visual observation
suggests that this sample was composed of mainly sand and clays and free of organic matter.
Page 55
2013
Hg(ug/g)
Hg in the Project Area riverbed
sediments and tailings pond
0.004
0.0035
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
PT2/TAI
/001
KW/SE
D/002
KUN/SE OMI/SE
D/001
D/001
KAM/S PT2/TAI MAZ/SE
ED/001
/002
D/6
Series1 0.002039 0.003305 0.0023 0.002869 0.003391 0.000508 0.001903
Figure 12
From figure 12 it can be seen that mercury was found in the creeks that are frequently utilized
by residents, whether it be for drinking or fishing purposes. These creeks are
KW/SED/002(Korwrieng),
Omi/sed/001(Ominike),
Kambaru(kam/sed/001),
Maz/sed/6(mazaruni).
For the mined out area out of seven tailings pond, only two (2) mercury was detected in.They
were PT2/TAI/001 AND PT2/TAI/002. This may due to fact that composite samples mostly
were collected from the rims of pond since it was not possible to get to the center of the ponds.
Page 56
2013
13.2 Summary of Physical Environment
Water Quality Test
Table 8: Physical water qualities from where sediment samples were collected
Sample Location/ID
Turbidity(NTU)
Temperature(o C)
pH
DOC(mg/L)
MAZ/SED/10
17.7
23.4
4.74
8.02
MAZ/SED/9
15.3
23.8
4.85
7.87
MAZ/SED/8
18.5
23.5
4.75
8.18
MAZ/SED/7
17.6
23.5
4.79
8.23
MAZ/SED/6
24.6
23.4
4.98
8.23
MAZ/SED/5
25.5
23.3
4.95
8.37
MAZ/SED/4
19.4
23.5
5.13
8.19
MAZ/SED/3
19.6
23.3
4.89
8.23
MAZ/SED/2
10.9
23.4
4.86
8.24
MAZ/SED/1
12.2
23.6
5.02
8.12
KW/SED/001-DOWNSTREAM
35.1
22.6
4.89
8.27
KW/SED/002-UPSTREAM
14.8
22.3
4.71
8.48
DAK/SED/001- DOWNSTREAM
2.31
23.2
5.19
4.84
PT/SED/001
3.14
23.2
6.04
8.63
ABA/SED/001-DOWNSTREAM
2.79
23.4
4.85
7.55
ABA/SED/002-UPSTREAM
2.79
23.4
4.85
7.55
SIM/SED/001-DOWNSTREAM
3.39
24.6
4.40
8.03
SIM/SED/002-UPSTREAM
1.08
23.3
4.40
7.70
KAM/SED/001-DOWNSTREAM
3.00
23.3
7.27
6.72
KAM/SED/002-UPSTREAM
3.48
23.3
7.20
6.92
OMI/SED/001-DOWNSTREAM
1.79
24.0
4.76
6.64
OMI/SED/002-UPSTREAM
1.52
24.1
4.76
6.84
KUN/SED/001-DOWNSTREAM
14.7
23.3
6.58
7.77
PT2/TAI/000
23.7
23.5
5.87
6.76
Page 57
2013
PT2/TAI/001
44.1
23.4
4.33
6.34
PT2/TAI/002
60.5
23.5
5.52
7.12
PT2/TAI/003
4.27
24.5
5.59
7.38
PT2/TAI/004
19.8
29.5
5.87
6.36
PT2/TAI/005
23.1
32.2
6.23
7.29
PT2/TAI/006
16.8
30.9
6.44
7.09
IMB/TAI/001
15.5
30.3
6.94
6.33
IMB/TAI/002
15.7
30.4
6.54
6.44
The table above summarizes water quality in the areas where the sediment samples were taken. It
is noted that there is a significant variation of water quality found in PT2/TAI/001 and
PT2/TAI/002 where turbidity values were higher when compared to the other values in table 8.
These two points that were sampled were tailings pond, hence the reason for such high values
may be because of the clays that were present in the pond. Turbidity results for KW/SED/001DOWSTREAM varied significantly from results that were collected upstream (KW/SED/002)
because of mining activities. On the other hand, turbidity results for the creeks that were sampled
both upstream and downstream remained constant. All other parameters are constant throughout.
Page 58
2013
14.0 Discussion
Objective 1: To establish the level of concentration of mercury in Upper Mazaruni
(Imabaimadai&Ominke), via hair of humans and river sediments from water sources that
are frequently used by residents.
According to Mangal (1999), the normal mercury concentration in hair is considered to be 1ppm
(ug/g). Based on this guideline, residents of both communities had both normal mean hair levels
and are not at risk to mercury poisoning. However, Imbaimadai concentration of mercury was
higher than Ominke( see figure 8). Such low concentration of mercury level present, can only
suggest that the persons although mining is their main occupation, has been very health
conscious and used rudimentary ways to protect themselves from being harmed by mercury.
Higher levels in long term (refer to figure 9) residents (over 16 years) in comparison to recent
migrants may probably be because of their long exposure in mining or them being affected by
mining in the area.
This project area is largely inhabited by coast landers and much of the food that they consume
comes from Georgetown. This could be one of the reasons why participants in this area main
source of protein are chicken and not fish. Persons hardly depend on indigenous products and
fish from the area. Fish eaten mostly comes from Georgetown since this area is known for not
much fishing activities.
It has been observed in the physical environment, the sediment samples contained low levels of
mercury, placing results well in its normal range (see figure 14). According to Long, et al. (1995)
approach to characterize mercury contamination in sediments, metal concentrations below the
ERL value are not expected to elicit adverse effects, while levels above the ERM value are likely
to be very toxic. The ERL for mercury is 0.15µg/g and ERM is 0.71µg/g all of which is
equivalent to ppm. It is noted that all sample results were below the ERL value which would not
have adverse effect on the environment. Subsequently, as a result of this no environmental and
mining hotspots were detected. The chosen project area can be considered clean and not at risk to
any environmental harm from mercury.
According USEPA (1997) research has shown that elevated water temperatures, low pH,
anaerobic conditions, and higher dissolved oxygen content concentrations increase rates of
Page 59
2013
methylation of mercury. The concentration of dissolved oxygen content (DOC) and pH have a
strong effect on the ultimate fate of mercury in an ecosystem. Studies have shown that for the
same species of fish taken from the same region, increasing the acidity of the water (decreasing
pH) and/or the DOC content generally results in higher mercury levels in fish, an indicator of
greater net methylation. Higher acidity and DOC levels enhance the mobility of mercury in the
environment, thus making it more likely to enter the food chain. Considering the water quality
(see table 8), most of the results were generally constant. Mercury concentration was well within
its limit. Because of this, mobility of mercury in the environment is very slow and would less
likely enter the food chain. Since the mobility is slow, this would give the mercury exposure to
sunlight and according to USGS (2000), cause the mercury to be broken down to Hg
(11)(mercuric oxide) which can leave the aquatic environment and re-enter the atmosphere as a
gas.
Objective 2: To sensitize persons of the implications of the improper use of mercury,
mercury-free methods and also how to minimize their exposure to mercury.
Person were sensitize via one on one discussion and via a public presentation in Imbaimadai
community. Approximately 30 persons were in attendance. There was hair sampling and
interviewing before the presentation commenced.(see appendix B 11) The theme of the
presentation was “Mercury, the Environment and you!!”(See appendix D3) During the
presentation a case study of Minamata Bay was shown in video form to inform persons of the
effects mercury would have on their health. (See appendix B10, B12) The presentation showed
persons how they can continue to protect themselves from mercury exposure. During the
presentation persons were asked to discuss the ways in which they would handle mercury and
amalgamate the gold. The opportunity was used to pinpoint to the audience what was the wrong
practice and how they could correct it. The presentation ended off with discussion amongst the
researcher and audience in a question and answer segment.
Page 60
2013
Objective 3: To establish a baseline data in Upper Mazaruni (Imbaimadai&Ominike), that
can be used in monitoring and compliance activity and planning and mitigation measures.
This research indicated that Ominike has a very stable population. Most of the persons resided in
the area for over 16 years. However, Imbaimadai is not so stable since most of the population
resided in the community for only 1-5years. This may be due to the fact that miners move from
one place to another in search of economically viable working ground.
Considering the educational background of both communities, it is noted that most of the
respondents are very much literate and have a working knowledge of mercury and the effects it
can have on the environment and on a person health.
Respondents were primarily miners, although some families especially the Amerindian families
were involve in farming and fishing. These communities rely on creeks and the river for water
for domestic purposes. The weather pattern of this area would influence which type of water they
would consume. During the dry season persons rely mostly on Ominike creek and Paratang
creek mostly for water. But surprisingly most respondents opted to treat the water before use.
The research area chosen was mostly inhabited by persons of African decent and persons of
mixed races when compared to Amerindians, as such much of the foods sold and eaten in this
area were shuttled in from Georgetown via air with Trans Guyana Airways and Air Services
airways. Because of the imported food, many persons main source of protein was chicken. From
the information gathered about the community, persons in this area indicated that there isn’t
much fishing since there are not much fish present in the area. Hence whenever they do decide to
fish most of the time they would have to add poison to the water in order to allow the fishes to
die and float to the top of the water. Most of these fishes come from the Mazaruni River.
Most persons interviewed have been involved in mining hence they have been in contact with
mercury. According to Veiga (2004), Hg in gold mining is released by the burning of amalgam
in open atmosphere. Most of the respondents indicated that this is the way they get into contact
with the mercury. It is not surprising, since this is the practice; most respondents have never used
a retort nor have a retort in their possession. Since the back dam is close to the
landing/Imbaimadai where people reside, it is no surprise that most persons usually store their
Page 61
2013
clothes that they would have burn mercury in, at home. Most of the persons surveyed stored
mercury at their workplace in a container under water with cover. This shows that persons were
cognizant about the harm mercury could have on their health.
Viera et al. (2005) found that mercury is used by gold miners in Guyana by three general modes.
The mercury is placed on the floor or riffles of the sluice box to contact the bulk ore, the mercury
is spread on bulk ore on the ground prior to running through the sluice box, and mercury is used
to amalgamate the gravity concentrate from the sluice box. As a result of these methods
employed by gold miners the mercury is released into the environment. It is common practice by
majority of respondents to amalgamate the gold by using the mercury to amalgamate the gravity
concentrate from the sluice box.
Improved mining technologies have long been studied in Guyana in order to determine better
recovery. Mr. Adrian David in 2012 assessed the recovery of using of cyanide on tailings of
gravity processed material. A. David (2012) found that recovery of using cyanidation was 86%
while sluice box was only 6.3%.However, although these technologies seems very effective in
gold recovery majority of persons was very skeptical in using these such technologies. On the
other hand, there was willingness to learn these technologies in the form of a demonstration.
Page 62
2013
15.0 Conclusion
This study is one of many research projects that has taken place in Guyana. However it is the
first time that it is being completed in this particular area.
This study was effective given the method of data collection and method of analyzing samples in
the Laboratory. All objectives were met. The researcher was able:
1.
To establish the level of concentration of mercury in Upper Mazaruni (Imabaimadai&
Ominke), via hair of humans and river sediments from water sources that are frequently
used by residents.
2.
To sensitize persons of the implications of the improper use of mercury, mercury-free
methods and also how to minimize their exposure to mercury.
3.
To establish a baseline data in Upper Mazaruni (Imbaimadai&Ominike), that can be
used in monitoring and compliance activity and planning and mitigation measures.
For the human environment, the findings have showed that there is a very low level of
concentration of mercury in the residents of Imbaimadai and Ominike. All of the results obtained
from the hair analyses were within the normal mean hair level which is 1-2ppm hence; this has
proven/suggested that residents are not at risk from high levels of mercury contamination
Since this is an area where miners come and go when in search of economical viable work
ground,it is a possibility that the mercury tested on participants could have been ingested from
other sources out of this project area. In addition this area is known for importing food from
Georgetown, fish wasn’t the main diet or main source of protein, hence the main source of
protein (chicken) seem to have no influence on the mercury content in individuals since it was
low.
Residents however are exposed to mercury, since this area is associated with mining activities.
However, results have shown from the human environment that persons in this area are not at
risk to mercury poisoning.
Considering the physical environment, the mercury level obtained from the sediments was well
below the ERL value; hence this has proven that the environment and persons living in the
environment is not at risk to mercury contamination. These sediments that were taken (excluding
Page 63
2013
tailings sediments) were taken from water bodies that were frequently used by persons of the
area for domestic purposes. In the mining industry in Guyana, tailings material is usually
released into creeks and rivers. This material follow a downstream path and when it reaches less
turbulent water it will settle out on river beds. Upper Mazaruni is a very turbulent area which
composes of a lot of rapids, hence there aren’t much mining operations along the river. This is a
possibility why mercury results are very low.
16.0 Limitations

Although this project has proposed to use more than one instrument to analyses results,
results were only obtained from one instrument. (AAS). This was so because the Lumex
had to be transported overseas to be calibrated hence it did not return in time to do
analyses on the duplicate samples.

The XRF was chosen since duplicates had to be tested. Samples went through grain size
analyses to test mercury on fines, but results came back way off when compare to results
obtained from IAST. Therefore using the XRF as a tool in geochemical analyses is not
recommended. XRF gives indication of an element present but do not give correct
readings of the amount of that element present.
Page 64
2013
17.0 Recommendation
I would therefore propose that more data be collected to cover a wider cross section of people
and draw conclusions regarding the level of mercury in the environment. This can be done by
using a different medium if not the same to test for mercury concentration in individuals. As it
relates to analyses of the samples collected, two different methods should be used to compare
results, preferably the Lumex and Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometer.
For the physical environment, a wider cross section of sediment sampling should be done of the
rivers and creeks (mostly downstream), hence correlation and evaluation should be done with
results and mining operations nearby.
Page 65
2013
18.0 Reference

Alpers, C. N; Hunerlach, M. P. 2000. Mercury contamination from historic gold mining
in California. USGS FS 062-00, p. 6.

British Colombia Water Land and Air Protection (BC WLAP). 2001. Strong acid
leachable metals (SALM) in soil version 1.0, British Colombia ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks. CSR-Analytical Method 8.

Bureau of Statistics.A Government of Guyana Agency.Trade and Prices Department.
Retrieved from http://www.statisticsguyana.gov.gy/trade.html.Last updated
23/10/2012.accessed3rd Jan 2013

Drasch, G.; Boese-O’Reilly, S.; Beinhoff, C.; Roider, G.; Maydl, S., 2001. The Mt.
Diwata Study on the Philippines1999 – Assessing Mercury Intoxication of the Population
by Small-scale Gold Mining. The Science of the Total Environment, v.267, p.151-168.

GFECP (2001). Identification of the sources and Assessment of the levels of mercury
contamination in the Mazaruni Basn Guyana, in order to recommend mitigation
measures.Researchers and policy makers from across Guyana.
CIDA,GENCAPD,GFECP,IAST.

GGMC, June 2001. Orientation Survey Potaro River, February 2001: An aquatic study.
In proceedings Gold Mining in the Guiana Shield:Impacts, Pollution Abatement and
Control. A regional Caucus of Practitoners, Researchers and Policy Makers from across
the Guianas. Georgetown, IAST, GGMC, WWF.

Global Healing Center. Natural Health and Organic Living: Effects of Mercury Exposure.
Retrieved from http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/heavy-metals/mercury-exposure
Date retrieved:22-01-2013.

Hunerlach, M. P; Rytuba, J. J; Alpers, C. N. 1999. Mercury contamination from
hydraulic placer gold mining in the Dutch Flat mining district, California. US Geology,
toll server water-resources investigation report 99-4018B, p. 179-189.

Japan Public Health Association. 2001. Preventative measures against environmental
mercury pollution and its health effects. Japan ministry of the environment. P.112.
Page 66

2013
Lacerda, L. D; Depaula, F. C. F; Oralle, A. R. C; Pfeiffer, W. C; Malm, O. 1990. Trace
metals in fluvial sediments of the Madeira river watershed, Amazon, Brazil. The science
of the total environment, v. 97/98, p.525-530.

Long,E. R; McDonald, D. D; Smith, S. L and Calden, F. D. 1995. Incidence of adverse
biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in Maine and estuarine
sediment.

Lebel, J.; Mergler, D.; Branches, F.; Lucotte, M.; Amorim, M.; Larribe, F.; Dolbec, J.,
1998. Neurotoxic Effects of Low-Level Methylmercury Contamination in the Amazonian
Basin. Environmental Research, v.79, n.1, p.20-32.

MacFarlene, Bill. 2004. Mercury contamination in water and sediment in Resurrection
creek, Alaska. Final report.

Mercury in the interior around mining and non-mining communities in Guyana. Guyana
Environmental Capacity Development Project (GENCPAD). 2007

Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment. Guyana Gold Board 30th
Anniversary-1982-2012. Retrived from http://www.nre.gov.gy/html;accessed 3rd Jan
2013.

Pfeiffer, W. C; Lacerda, L. D. 1998. Mercury input into Amazon region, Brazil. ENV
TECHN. Laffers, v.9, p.325-330.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Summary review of health effects
associated with mercuric chloride. Office of Health & Environment assessment,
Washington, D. C. EPA/600/R-92

6
USEPA. Mercury: Basic information. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htm.
Last updated on Tuesday, February 07, 2012. Accessed 3rd Jan 2013

USEPA. 1997. Mercury study report to congress, 8 volumes, EPA-452/R-97-003.
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercury.html.Accessed 3rd Jan 2013.

USGS. 2000. Mercury in the environment factsheet 146-00. Retrieved from
http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/index.html. Last updated 02/19/2009 @
06:51; accessed 3rd Jan 2013

USGS 2010 Mineral Yearbook. French Guiana, Guyana and Suriname[Advance
released][pdf] retrieved from
Page 67
2013
http://www.minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pub/country/2010/myb3-2010-gf-gyns.pdf.accessed 3rd Jan 2013.

Veiga, Marcello; Baker, Randy. 2004. Global Mercury Project. protocols for
environmental and health assessment of mercury released by artisanal and small-scale
gold miners, p.1-66 UNIDO.

Veiga, M. M; Beirhoff, C. 1997. UNECA Center. A way to reduce mercury emissions
from artisanal gold mining and provide badly needed training. UNEP (United Nations
Environment Programme). Industry and Environment, v. 20. P 49-51.

Viera, Rickford; Hays, Phillip. Mercury Contamination: A legacy to handicap a
generation. WWF Guianas.

Viera, R: Fontaine, M. 2005. Mercury-free gold mining technologies: Possibilities for
adoption in the Guianas. WWF Guiana regional program office technical paper, series #1.

Viera R. Some major issues in small scale mining sector in Guyana, GGMC Library
report, 1998.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1991a. Environmental Health Criteria-118.
Inorganic mercury. Geneva, p. 168.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2003. Elemental mercury and inorganic mercury
compounds:Human Health IPCS-IN CHEM. Concido international chemical assessment
document 50.

Abrams, W. 2010. GGMC. The Guyana Mining Industry Review 2010(Draft).

S. A. Mangal, Promoting Safe Use of Mercury: the Occupational Risk, Social Impact and
Environmental Effects of Mercury Use in the Gold Industry in Guyana. Masters Thesis,
Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1999.
Page 68
2013
19.0 Appendix
Appendix A
Page 69
2013
Appendix A1 Location Map
Page 70
2013
Appendix A2 Map of Sample points
Page 71
2013
Appendix A3 Map of sample points showing hg results
Page 72
2013
Appendix A4 Map showing tracks of mined out area and sample points
Page 73
2013
Appendix B
Appendix B1: Hair sample being taken
Appendix B2: Sample being taken with Ponar dredge
Page 74
2013
Appendix B3: Sample being placed into stainless steel bowl
Appendix B4: Samples being mixed in stainless steel bowl with stainless steel spoon
Page 75
2013
Appendix B5: Samples being placed into well labeled Ziploc bag
Appendix B6: Samples being placed on ice in cooler
Page 76
2013
Appendix B7: Water quality parameters being taken
Photos showing Turbidity test being done
Page 77
2013
Photos showing DOC,Temperature TEST being done
Page 78
2013
Appendix B8: Tailings pond sites
Pt2/TAI/000
PT2/TAI/001
Page 79
PT2/TAI/002
PT2/TAI/004
2013
PT2/TAI/003
PT2/TAI/005
Page 80
2013
PT2/TAI/006
Appendix B9: Photo showing Tracking of tailings pond
Page 81
2013
Appendix B10: Persons being informed during interview about Public presentation
Page 82
2013
Appendix B11: Persons being interviewed and prep for hair sampling and venue of
the public presentation
Page 83
2013
Appendix B 12: Some community members at the presentation
Page 84
2013
Appendix C
Page 85
2013
Appendix C1
Sample collection procedure for sediment from water bodies and sediment
from tailings in order to determine hotspots.
(Protocols for Environmental and Health Assessment of mercury released by
artisanal and small-scale gold miners)

Determine water depth.

Slowly lower the grab to the bottom (by hand or by winch) at speeds not exceeding 0.3
m/s so that a bow wave is not formed in front of the grab to minimize disturbance of fine
surface sediment.

Raise the grab to the surface and examine the sediment for acceptability criteria. Only
those grab samples that meet the following criteria should retained for analysis: do not
contain large foreign objects (e.g. roots, branches, rocks); have adequate penetration
depth (i.e. >10 cm); are not overfilled (sediment surface not touching the topof sampler);
do not leak (overlying water is present and there are no visible leaks); and are
undisturbed (sediment surface is relatively flat). Grabs that do not satisfy these conditions
should be retained and discarded once sampling at the station has been completed.

Remove overlying water from acceptable grabs by decanting or siphoning gently.

Describe and record sediment characteristics including: color, odor, grain size and the
presence of other materials (e.g. organic debris, hydrocarbons, vegetation, biota).

Remove the upper 4 – 5 cm of sediment from the surface of acceptable grab samples with
a pre-cleaned stainless steel spoon and place in a stainless steel bowl.

Repeat the above process from at least three separate areas within each station so that a
minimum of three grab samples are collected and placed in the same bowl to form a
composite sample.
Page 86

2013
Using the spoons, mix the sediment composite sample until it has uniform color and
consistency.

Composite samples must be wet-screened in the field or the laboratory; first to –2mm (to
remove debris), then to –80 mesh (0.177 mm) or –100 mesh (150 mesh) or –200 mesh
(0.074 mm). The choice of the screen opening must be based on the existing field
facilities, but the 200 mesh screen is preferred. The same procedure should be used for
samples collected in contaminated sites. Finer fractions are more homogenous and richer
in Hg than the –2 mm fraction.

Analyses must only be performed on screened samples (“fines”), but some –2mm and +
80 or 100 or 200 mesh samples must be analyzed to compare with the samples from
contaminated sites.

Use the pre-cleaned stainless steel utensil to completely fill (i.e. no head space) 250 mL
glass or PVC sample jars. Seal jars immediately and place in a cooler with ice or ice
packs if available. Keep jars as cool as possible while in the field, during storage and
during transport to the laboratory. Polyethylene bags should be used only for dry
samples.

Label the jar and lid with indelible ink with a unique sample locator number. Record in a
field notebook and on chain-of-custody (COC) forms.

At the end of the day, crosscheck COC forms with labeled jars.

Measure physico-chemical parameters in the field as practical, such as sediment (soil) Eh,
pH and conductivity (μS/cm). Composite samples can be split for analysis of mercury,
grain size and total organic carbon and other parameters that can provide information
about the potential of a mining hotspot to become an environmental hotspot.
Sample collection procedure for determining mining hotspots
1
utilizing tailings from
mining sites.

ASK FIRST: Find out about the history of Hg use in the mining region; ask former
miners or residents, when the mine is not active.

Look for specific sites where miners do or have done amalgamation.

Look for the sites where the amalgamation tailings were or have been discharged.
Page 87

2013
Screen the samples through a 2 mm screen to remove coarse debris and pebbles. Do not
use copper screens.

TRY TO SEE Hg DROPLETS: To delineate the hotspots, use a panning process or any
other gravity concentration process to find quickly the areas with high metallic Hg
content (visible droplets).

IF YOU DO NOT SEE, ANALYZE: If Hg is not visible or the panning method is not
efficient, collect some samples and use a semi-quantitative analytical method for the –2
mm fraction.

Take some composite sediment samples to the lab to check the semi-quantitative
analytical method used in the field; composites of 3 to 5 scoops taken from neighbor sites
(within 10-30 m² depending on the size of the area being investigated) can be mixed,
homogenized and split to obtain an aliquot of a specific site.

VERIFY THAT Hg IS ASSOCIATED WITH FINES: Composite samples of the –2mm
fractions must be wetscreened in the field or lab to –80 mesh (0.177 mm) or –100 mesh
(0.15 mm) or –200 mesh (0.74mm). The choice of the screen opening must be based on
the existing field facilities, but the 200 mesh screen is preferred. The same screening
procedure should be used to determine background levels. Do not use copper screens.
Finer fractions are more homogeneous.

Dry the fine (screened) fraction preferentially at ambient temperature using a tent. If this
is not possible, dry samples at temperatures not exceeding 60 °C.

The weight of the coarse fractions –2mm +80 (or 100 or 200) mesh and fine fractions
must be registered.

Occasionally, analyze Hg in the coarse fractions to obtain Hg distribution (in %), i.e. %
of Hg in fines and % in coarse fractions.

OPTIONAL: In the lab, analysis of total Hg in finer grain size fractions (e.g. 0.002 mm)
can provide valuable information on the possibility of Hg being dispersed with fine
particles.

PRESERVATION: Pack the samples in glass or plastic jars or in double plastic bags and
keep them stored in a cooler (NO ICE must be added). If a fridge is available, the
samples can be kept inside until the time of transportation.
Page 88

2013
WHEN COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM HOTSPOTS: Measure physico-chemical
parameters such as sediment (or soil) Eh, pH, conductivity (μS/cm) and collect samples
for analysis of Total Organic Carbon and other parameters that can provide information
about the potential of a mining hotspot to become an environmental hotspot.
Page 89
2013
Appendix C2
River Sediment Form
Page 90
2013
Appendix C3
Questionnaire
Page 91
2013
Questionnaire
Introduction
My name is Delisa Henry and I’m a final year student at the University of Guyana who is
pursuing a Degree in Geo- Environmental Engineering.
Your assistance is requested to help me conduct a survey to assess the level of mercury
concentration on residents and miners in the Upper Mazaruniarea. This will involve a
village/household level survey to gather baseline data to determine the extent to which the
residents are exposed and if the levels are such that it can pose risks to person living in the
area.
It should be noted that all answers provided would be treated with strict confidentiality.
Results obtained would be shared with the persons taking part in this survey and this report
would be made available to the GGMC library for the interested public.
The interview should take about ten minutes. Are you available to a few questions at this
time?
Page 92
2013
Questionnaire ID No………………………………….
Household ID No……………………………………...
Village Name……………………………………………
District Name……………………………………………
Date of Survey…………………………………………
Name of Principal Surveyor………………………
PERSONAL INFORMATION
1. How many members are in this household?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Male……
Female……..
3. Age…….
4. Number of Years living in this village? How would you describe yourself? Resident…../
Inhabitant…………..
1-5……..
6-10…….. 11-15…….. Over 16yrs………
5. Citizenship……………………………………
6. Ethnic Group…………………………………..
7. Major Sickness in the last 2 years?
 No………
 Malaria………
 Acute Respiratory Illness……….
 Abdominal pain………….
 Other……….
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
8. Can you read and write?
Yes…….
No…….
9. Have you ever attended school?
Page 93
2013
Never………
At School……….
Left School……..
10. What is your highest level of education completed?
………………………………………………………………………………….
11. Do you know what mercury is?
 Yes……..
 No……..
14. If yes, are you aware of the environmental and health impacts, the misuse of mercury could have
on your body?


Yes……..
No………
SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION
17. What was your main occupation during the last 12 months?
Farming….
Forestry………
Gold Smelter……….
Mining……..
Fishing…….. Shop Owner………..
Other……..
18. What is the approximate average income of your household?





1000 – 10,000……..
10,000 – 50,000……….
50,000 – 100,000……..
100,000 – 200,000…….
Over 200,000………
19.Who in your household manages the income?




Head………
Spouse of the head……….
Son/ Daughter of head……..
Other…….
Page 94
2013
20. Who in your family manages expenditure?




Head……
Spouse of the head……..
Son/ Daughter of head……..
Other……..
WATER FOR DRINKING AND COOKING
21. What is the household main source of water for drinking and cooking?





Piped water outside
Well/ borehole
River/ stream/ dam
Rainwater from tank/jar
Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
22. Distance from house to the main source of water for drinking and cooking?...........................m
23. Name the place where you obtain you drinking water from?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
24. Is the drinking water treated before use?


Yes
No
If so, how?



Boiled…
Filtered
Other (specify)………………………………………………….
25. Are you satisfy with the quality of water that you are drinking?


Yes
No
SOURCES OF FOOD
Page 95
2013
26. For each of the following food groups identify:
(1)The number of meals over the past 7 days when this food group was eaten;
(2)The source of food.
Food Group
No. Times
Red meat
Chicken/Duck
Eggs
Vegetables
Fruits
Rice
Fish
Other
Aquatic food
Other
Sources(tick appropriate boxes)
---Market
----Family Livestock
---Market
---Market
---Market
----Garden
---Market
----Garden
----Market ----Paddy Field
----Market ----Fish Pond
----Market ----Fish Pond
----Forest
----Forest
----Forest
----Forest
----Forest
----Forest
----River
----River
---Market
----Forest
27. How frequently do you consume fish?




Never
At least once a month
At least once a week
At least once a day
28. Do you know where the fish come from?



Don’t know the origin(buy in the market)
From areas distant from mining
From areas impacted by mining
29. Name the fishes and corresponding species you consume?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 96
2013
29. Can you name the river/creek where you catch fish you have consumed?


No
Yes---------------------------------
30. Has this river (or water body) dark water?



Don’t know the origin of the fish(buy in the market
Yes, mild
Yes, very dark
31. Has anyone in your family (or you) been engaged in mining activities?( Either currently or previously)


Yes……… who?…………
No……. who?...........
If yes please continue to the next heading of the questionnaire. If no, thank you for your cooperation
in making this interview a success.
WORK EXPOSURE
32. How many years have you been mining?
1-5……….
6-10…….
11-15……… 15-20……….
20 -25…….. 25 & over………
33. Have you ever worked as a miner with direct contact with mercury?


Yes………
No………
34. Have you ever worked burning amalgam in open pans or melting gold in adequate fume hoods?


Yes……..
No……….
35. Where do you store clothing after burning mercury?



Home…..
In the yard………
Store room……..
Page 97
2013
36. Have you ever used a retort?


Yes………… which type?...............................
No
37. How do you store mercury?




In a container without cover………
In a container with cover………..
In a container, underwater without cover…………
In a container, underwater with cover……………
38. Where do you store mercury?




At home……..
At work place……
Shop…….
Other………
39. For how many years have you been working with mercury?






1- 10 yrs…….
10- 15 yrs………
15- 20yrs……….
20- 30 yrs……..
30 yrs & over……..
Not applicable( have not been working with mercury
40. How do you extract the gold collected from the sluice box?




At creek margins………
In excavated ground………..
In water boxes…………….
Other……………
41. How do you amalgamate the gold?
-----Mercury placed on floor or riffles of sluice box
-----Mercury is spread on bulk ore on the ground
-----Mercury is used to amalgamate gravity concentrate from sluice box
-----Other
Page 98
2013
42. How do you discard the heavy mineral rich amalgamation tailings?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attitude that may influence adoption of improved mining technologies
(Read a short description of the improved mining technologies, explain if necessary)
43. What do you think about improved mining and processing technologies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------44. Would you be willing to learn this technology?



Yes……..
No……
Uncertain……..
45. What form of training do you think you will need in order to learn it?




Short course……
Demonstration……..
Tour……….
Other…………..
46. What difficulties might you encounter during the change over?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 99
2013
Appendix D
Page 100
2013
Appendix D1
Summary of Questionnaires
Page 101
2013
Appendix D2
Completed River sediment forms
Page 102
2013
Appendix D3
Power point presentation used for
Education and Awareness
Page 103

2013 - University of Guyana

Transcription

Similar documents

Silencer and Non-silencer Raincaps

Mercury Sport Jet sellsheet ()

vocabulary from Olympians

energenius - Runestone Electric Association

Mercury History

mercuryracing.com - The International V8Bikers Forum

The planets Mercury and Venus It is difficult to find an example of a

automotive crate engines

Fact Sheet: Illegal Gold Mining in Madre de Dios, Peru

Malakoff Diggins/Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment