ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016
Benefits of mercury controls for the United States.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unit-level assessment of mitigation pathways for mercury emissions from the global coal power fleet.Nature communications · 2026Article
- In Silico ApoE Isoform Interactions with Methylmercury (MeHg) and In Vivo MeHg Intoxication Effects on Epididymal White Fat Tissue and Liver Function in Young ApoE Knockout Mice.Chemical research in toxicology · 2026Article
- Microbial potential to mitigate neurotoxic methylmercury accumulation in farmlands and rice.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Global seafood production practices and trade patterns contribute to disparities in exposure to methylmercury.Nature food · 2025Article
- Evaluation of comprehensive benefits and the degree of coupling coordination for soil health products: a case study in Weifang City, China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- China's municipal wastewater policies enhanced seafood safety and offset health risks from atmospheric mercury emissions in the past four decades.Nature food · 2025Article
- Mercury records from natural archives reveal ecosystem responses to changing atmospheric deposition.National science review · 2024Article
- Human activities shape important geographic differences in fish mercury concentration levels.Nature food · 2024Article
- Article
- Anthropogenic short-lived halogens increase human exposure to mercury contamination due to enhanced mercury oxidation over continents.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- International trade shapes global mercury-related health impacts.PNAS nexus · 2023Article
- Global health impact of atmospheric mercury emissions from artisanal and small-scale gold mining.iScience · 2022Article
- Source Apportionment of Speciated Mercury in Chinese Rice Grain Using a High-Resolution Model.ACS environmental Au · 2022Article
- Global health effects of future atmospheric mercury emissions.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Impact of emission reductions and meteorology changes on atmospheric mercury concentrations during the COVID-19 lockdown.The Science of the total environment · 2021Article
- A synthesis of patterns of environmental mercury inputs, exposure and effects in New York State.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Socio-economic analysis in REACH restriction dossiers for chemicals management: A critical review.Ambio · 2020Review
- Rice life cycle-based global mercury biotransport and human methylmercury exposure.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Trans-provincial health impacts of atmospheric mercury emissions in China.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Global and Local Impacts of Delayed Mercury Mitigation Efforts.Environmental science & technology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mercury pollution poses risks for both human and ecosystem health. As a consequence, controlling mercury pollution has become a policy goal on both global and national scales. We developed an assessment method linking global-scale atmospheric chemical transport modeling to regional-scale economic modeling to consistently evaluate the potential benefits to the United States of global (UN Minamata Convention on Mercury) and domestic [Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)] policies, framed as economic gains from avoiding mercury-related adverse health endpoints. This method attempts to trace the policies-to-impacts path while taking into account uncertainties and knowledge gaps with policy-appropriate bounding assumptions. We project that cumulative lifetime benefits from the Minamata Convention for individuals affected by 2050 are $339 billion (2005 USD), with a range from $1.4 billion to $575 billion in our sensitivity scenarios. Cumulative economy-wide benefits to the United States, realized by 2050, are $104 billion, with a range from $6 million to $171 billion. Projected Minamata benefits are more than twice those projected from the domestic policy. This relative benefit is robust to several uncertainties and variabilities, with the ratio of benefits (Minamata/MATS) ranging from ≈1.4 to 3. However, we find that for those consuming locally caught freshwater fish from the United States, rather than marine and estuarine fish from the global market, benefits are larger from US than global action, suggesting domestic policies are important for protecting these populations. Per megagram of prevented emissions, our domestic policy scenario results in US benefits about an order of magnitude higher than from our global scenario, further highlighting the importance of domestic action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.