Literature DB >> 10433844

Evaluation of four sampling methods for determining exposure of children to lead-contaminated household dust.

D A Sterling1, K C Roegner, R D Lewis, D A Luke, L C Wilder, S M Burchette.   

Abstract

Childhood exposure to lead has been demonstrated to result in health effects and lead-contaminated household dust is a primary exposure source. There is a need to establish reliable methods for sampling surfaces to determine levels of lead contamination. Three vacuums (HVS3, GS80, and MVM) and one wipe method were evaluated for the collection of household floor dust under field sampling conditions within a Superfund site and demographically similar control area. Side-by-side floor samples were taken from three locations within 41 randomly selected households between August and September 1995: a child's bedroom, primary play area, and primary entrance. Analysis was performed to assess the relative collection performance of each sampler, spatial distribution of lead within a household, and correlation of lead loading with observed blood lead level, and to determine if discrete or composites samples were more predictive of blood lead levels. Approximately 90% of the floor surfaces were carpeted. The rank order of sampling methods from greatest to lowest collection efficiency was HVS3 > GS80 > wipe > MVM. The HVS3 had the highest level of precision (CV=0.05), with the GS80 and wipe precisions 0.48 and 0.053, respectively. Lead loadings for samples collected in bedrooms and living areas and composite samples using the HVS3 and wipe methods were significantly correlated with blood lead levels. Correlations between blood lead levels and composite samples were stronger for the HVS3 (R(2)=0.33, P=0.003) and wipe (R(2)=0.25, P=0.002) methods than the respective discrete samples. Regression analysis indicated that a blood lead level of 10 microgram/dl corresponds to a carpet wipe sample geometric mean of 68 microgram/ft(2). For ongoing public health purposes, such as screening and clearance testing, use of the wipe sampling method is the most appropriate. This investigation supports findings by others that the present HUD risk levels for lead in floor wipe samples may not be adequate for reducing children's blood lead levels below 10 microgram/dl. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10433844     DOI: 10.1006/enrs.1999.3962

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Res        ISSN: 0013-9351            Impact factor:   6.498


  9 in total

1.  Exposure assessment of lead among Japanese children.

Authors:  Nyein Nyein Aung; Jun Yoshinaga; Jun-Ichi Takahashi
Journal:  Environ Health Prev Med       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.674

2.  Where's the dust? Characterizing locations of azinphos-methyl residues in house and vehicle dust among farmworkers with young children.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; William C Griffith; Eric M Vigoren; Elaine M Faustman; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  A County-Level Program for the Evaluation of the Potential for Take-Home Lead Exposures Among Children in Michigan.

Authors:  Anthony N Oliveri; Lindsey A Fagerstrom; Ling Wang; Kenneth D Rosenman
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Evaluating and regulating lead in synthetic turf.

Authors:  Gregory Van Ulirsch; Kevin Gleason; Shawn Gerstenberger; Daphne B Moffett; Glenn Pulliam; Tariq Ahmed; Jerald Fagliano
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  Comparison of techniques to reduce residential lead dust on carpet and upholstery: the new jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial.

Authors:  Lih-Ming Yiin; George G Rhoads; David Q Rich; Junfeng Zhang; Zhipeng Bai; John L Adgate; Peter J Ashley; Paul J Lioy
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  Evaluation of take-home organophosphorus pesticide exposure among agricultural workers and their children.

Authors:  Cynthia L Curl; Richard A Fenske; John C Kissel; Jeffry H Shirai; Thomas F Moate; William Griffith; Gloria Coronado; Beti Thompson
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Methods of exposure assessment: lead-contaminated dust in Philadelphia schools.

Authors:  C V Shorten; M K Hooven
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Lead, arsenic, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil and house dust in the communities surrounding the Sydney, Nova Scotia, tar ponds.

Authors:  Timothy W Lambert; Stephanie Lane
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Semivolatile organic compounds in homes: strategies for efficient and systematic exposure measurement based on empirical and theoretical factors.

Authors:  Robin E Dodson; David E Camann; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Julia G Brody; Ruthann A Rudel
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 9.028

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.