B P Lanphear1, S Eberly, C R Howard. 1. Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati Ohio 45229-3039, USA. bruce.lanphear@chmcc.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Dust control is recommended to prevent children's exposure to residential lead hazards, but the long-term effect of dust control on children's exposure to environmental lead is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of dust control on children's exposure to lead, as measured by blood lead concentration at 48 months of age. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled trial. Setting. Rochester, New York. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 275 urban children were randomized at 6 months of age; 189 (69%) were available for the 48-month follow-up blood test. Intervention. Children and their families were randomly assigned to an intervention group that received cleaning equipment and up to 8 visits by a trained lead hazard control advisor or to a control group. The intervention was terminated when the children were 24 months of age. OUTCOME MEASURES: Geometric mean blood lead concentration and prevalence of elevated blood lead concentration (ie, >/=10 microg/dL, >/=15 microg/dL, and >/=20 microg/dL), by group assignment. RESULTS: For children with 48-month blood tests, baseline geometric mean blood lead concentrations were 2.8 microg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6, 3.0); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or lead exposure by group assignment. At 48 months of age, the geometric mean blood lead was 5.9 microg/dL (95% CI: 5.3, 6.7) for the intervention group and 6.1 microg/dL (95% CI: 5.5,6.9) for the control group. The percentage of children with a 48-month blood lead >/=10 microg/dL, >/=15 microg/dL, and >/=20 microg/dL was 19% versus 19%, 2% versus 9%, and 1% versus 2% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that dust control, as performed by families and in the absence of lead hazard controls to reduce ongoing contamination from lead-based paint, was not effective in preventing children's exposure to residential lead hazards.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dust control is recommended to prevent children's exposure to residential lead hazards, but the long-term effect of dust control on children's exposure to environmental lead is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of dust control on children's exposure to lead, as measured by blood lead concentration at 48 months of age. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled trial. Setting. Rochester, New York. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 275 urban children were randomized at 6 months of age; 189 (69%) were available for the 48-month follow-up blood test. Intervention. Children and their families were randomly assigned to an intervention group that received cleaning equipment and up to 8 visits by a trained lead hazard control advisor or to a control group. The intervention was terminated when the children were 24 months of age. OUTCOME MEASURES: Geometric mean blood lead concentration and prevalence of elevated blood lead concentration (ie, >/=10 microg/dL, >/=15 microg/dL, and >/=20 microg/dL), by group assignment. RESULTS: For children with 48-month blood tests, baseline geometric mean blood lead concentrations were 2.8 microg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6, 3.0); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or lead exposure by group assignment. At 48 months of age, the geometric mean blood lead was 5.9 microg/dL (95% CI: 5.3, 6.7) for the intervention group and 6.1 microg/dL (95% CI: 5.5,6.9) for the control group. The percentage of children with a 48-month blood lead >/=10 microg/dL, >/=15 microg/dL, and >/=20 microg/dL was 19% versus 19%, 2% versus 9%, and 1% versus 2% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that dust control, as performed by families and in the absence of lead hazard controls to reduce ongoing contamination from lead-based paint, was not effective in preventing children's exposure to residential lead hazards.
Authors: Carla Campbell; Mary Tran; Edward Gracely; Naomi Starkey; Hans Kersten; Peter Palermo; Nancy Rothman; Laura Line; Tine Hansen-Turton Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; Berlinda Yeoh; Ursula Griebler; Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Laura K Busert; Stefan K Lhachimi; Szimonetta Lohner; Gerald Gartlehner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-10-16
Authors: Carla Campbell; Edward Gracely; Mary Tran; Naomi Starkey; Hans Kersten; Peter Palermo; Nancy Rothman; Laura Line; Tine Hansen-Turton Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Janvier Gasana; WayWay M Hlaing; Kristy A Siegel; Armando Chamorro; Theophile Niyonsenga Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Brian L Gulson; Karen J Mizon; Jeff D Davis; Jacqueline M Palmer; Graham Vimpani Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Catherine M Jordan; Becky L Yust; Leslie L Robison; Peter Hannan; Amos S Deinard Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Erin N Haynes; Heidi J Kalkwarf; Richard Hornung; Richard Wenstrup; Kim Dietrich; Bruce P Lanphear Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; Verena Mayr; Andreea Iulia Dobrescu; Gernot Wagner; Andrea Chapman; Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Szimonetta Lohner; Stefan K Lhachimi; Laura K Busert; Gerald Gartlehner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-10-06