NIST offered a training tutorial regarding Alternative Thermometers and upcoming/current changes that ban the use of mercury products, http://www.nist.gov/pml/mercury_alternatives_training.cfm. The training was last year, but the web page has a list of FAQs that you might find valuable. The training documents can be found at this page, too. One particular page, http://www.nist.gov/pml/upload/Organic-ITS9-Poster.pdf, includes data on organic liquid-in-glass thermometers and the uncertainties found in measurements.
Dawn Cross of NIST was instrumental in developing techniques to prove the accuracy of mercury alternative thermometers and reducing the use of mercury thermometers at NIST. Her phone number is included as a contact in the web page. I think she would visit with you about data that NIST gathered in this effort. You can tell her that I gave you her name.
Boulder Safety, Health and Environment
National Institute of Standards and Technology
325 Broadway, MC 153.02
Boulder, CO 80305
I’m looking for comparison data / recommendations I might use to assuage academic researcher anxiety with respect to swapping their mercury thermometers for spirit thermometers.
Reluctance to give up Hg thermometers is often rationalized by claiming spirit thermometers aren’t as accurate or aren’t appropriate for as many applications as a mercury-filled thermometer.
I would appreciate suggestions on where I might find performance-based support for spirit-filled thermometers.
I have information regarding comparisons of potential exposure health risk, spill clean-up expense and environmental contamination.
Thanks for your help in finding performance-based support for using spirit filled thermometers rather than mercury filled thermometers,
Dan Blunk PhD, REA 831.459.3541
Environmental Programs Manager
Environmental Health & Safety Office
University of California Santa Cruz
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post