Interpretive Handbook
‹ Back to index | Back to list | More information
Test 60248:
Mercury, Random, Urine
Clinical Information
Discusses physiology, pathophysiology, and general clinical aspects, as they relate to a laboratory test
The correlation between the levels of excretion in the urine and the clinical symptoms is considered poor, but urinary mercury (Hg) is the most reliable way to assess exposure to inorganic mercury.
For additional information, see HG/8618 Mercury, Blood.
Useful For
Suggests clinical disorders or settings where the test may be helpful
Detecting mercury toxicity
Interpretation
Provides information to assist in interpretation of the test results
Daily urine excretion >50 mcg/day indicates significant exposure (per World Health Organization standard).
Cautions
Discusses conditions that may cause diagnostic confusion, including improper specimen collection and handling, inappropriate test selection, and interfering substances
To avoid contamination by dust, the specimen should be collected away from the site of suspected exposure.
High concentrations of gadolinium and iodine are known to interfere with most metals tests. If gadolinium- or iodine-containing contrast media has been administered, a specimen should not be collected for 96 hours.
Reference Values
Describes reference intervals and additional information for interpretation of test results. May include intervals based on age and sex when appropriate. Intervals are Mayo-derived, unless otherwise designated. If an interpretive report is provided, the reference value field will state this.
0-15 years: not established
> or =16 years: 0-9 mcg/L
Clinical References
Provides recommendations for further in-depth reading of a clinical nature
1. Lee R, Middelton D, Caldwell K, et Al: A Review of Events That Expose Children to Elemental Mercury in the United States. Environ Health Perspect 2009;117:871-878
2. Bjorkman L, Lundekvam BF, Laegreid T, et al: Mercury in human brain, blood, muscle and toenails in relation to exposure: an autopsy study. Environmental Health 2007;6:1186-1476


