Talk:Mercury (element)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mercury (element) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Mercury (element) is part of the Group 12 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 8, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
July 28, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
May 28, 2012 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Density of Mercury[edit]

If you could please include the density of mercury in kg/m^3. It would be much appreciated. It's 13594 kg/m^3. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mharuza (talkcontribs) 16:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The infobox already gives it in g·cm−3, and I don't think it's that hard to convert (it's just a decimal point shift, after all) that we ought to give it kg·m−3 as well. Double sharp (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request, 29 November 2013[edit]

In fourth line of Physical properties section, please correct 'electronic configuration' to 'electron configuration' (i.e. configuration of electrons) - the use of the adjective 'electronic' here is a hypercorrection, and is simply poor grammar masquerading as good, we need the two nouns juxtaposed. Thanks! Connymenzel (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi guys,

I believe it is of essence that something about the pressure unit mmHg and its similarities is talked about in here. or at least linked to, for reference.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015[edit]

Please add an external link

Airyn (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Orduin Discuss 00:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wording improvement[edit]

I believe this sentence is malformed:

"Another mercury compound, merbromin (Mercurochrome), is a topical antiseptic used for minor cuts and scrapes is still in use in some countries."

It either needs punctuation or text changed to make it structurally sound. Something like:

"Another mercury compound, merbromin (Mercurochrome), a topical antiseptic used for minor cuts and scrapes, is still in use in some countries."


"Another mercury compound, merbromin (Mercurochrome), is a topical antiseptic used for minor cuts and scrapes (that|and) is still in use in some countries." (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC) absmiths

Vsmith, Stone, and I all conspired to fix it. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Releases in the environment[edit]

the following statement is not supported by the reference to which are liked. if any thing the reference "Pacyna E G; Pacyna J M; Steenhuisen F; Wilson S (2006). "Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000". Atmos Environ 40 (22): 4048." clearly statements the Opposite "The largest emissions of Hg to the global atmosphere occur from combustion of fossil fuels" and last i looked volcanoes don't burn fossil fuels per say.

"Natural sources, such as volcanoes, are responsible for approximately half of atmospheric mercury emissions".

please write


Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorsierra (talkcontribs) 14:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mercury (element). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


The usage and primary topic of "Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request, 1st of May 2016, Idrija (now Slovenia)[edit]

At the end od History chapter, as three main historic mercury mines are mentioned, the Idrija one is equipped with brackets (now Slovenia). I think the word "now" should be omitted, as Slovenia is a normal and permanent country, as Spain and Italy are. The Italian mine was not in Italy, say e.g. in mediaeval period, formally speaking, but in another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Toxicity of Mercury[edit]

This article is rubbish. I challenge the writers who claim elemental mercury's "high toxicity" to support this. In the referenced Wiki article, Mercury poisoning, it is stated that the toxic effect of elemental (metallic) mercury is due to droplets of metal blocking the circulatory system (after being INJECTED!). Give me a break! Apparently the authors have zero understanding of the difference between Hg°, Hg(+1) and Hg(+2), and need to be kept away from keyboards and sharp instruments. I don't question the well established SLIGHT toxicity of mercury vapor inhalation (both chronic and acute) but I DO question the concentrations at which these effects have been demonstrated. Everything, including water, is toxic at a sufficiently high enough dose. I also question the claim that mercury is adsorbed through the skin in sufficient quantities to cause toxicity (at least, for those not swimming in it on a daily basis). My contention is that mercury (metallic or elemental) is only SLIGHTLY toxic, and while I agree that it should only be used with proper protective equipment and with adequate ventilation, it is no different (in this respect) from most metals - their vapors shouldn't be inhaled, and contact with them should be limited. This article FAILS to point out that bacteria (including some in the human gut) can transform the metal to methy and ethyl mercury, which ARE highly toxic. The metal was used for decades as a weight when pumping people's stomachs, and those reservoirs occasionally broke leading to NO toxic effects for the patient. For ingested mercury to be toxic, I expect exposure would have to exist for very long time periods. I await authoritative references... (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Magnetic Susceptibility (one kind favor)[edit]

I published the magnetic susceptibility of the inorganic mercury compounds and I need someone with a newer CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. To go back and check them. Especially the halides and Hg2(OH)2. recently the structures of certain compounds have been modified. What we once called HgI is now Hg2I2. Even though both compounds are the same their molar masses have been altered with the correction, changing their magnetic susceptibility per mole. The 90th edition has a magnetic susceptibility page that should be recent enough to account for these changes. Please mention me if or post on my talk page if you can correct these for me. I'm going to go back and delete them if no one can change them. TerpeneOtto (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)