OBJECTIVE: We measured lead and other heavy metals in dust during older housing demolition and effectiveness of dust suppression. METHODS: We used American Public Housing Association Method 502 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Methods SW3050B and SW6020 at 97 single-family housing demolition events with intermittent (or no) use of water to suppress dust at perimeter, non-perimeter, and locations without demolition, with nested mixed modeling and tobit modeling with left censoring. RESULTS: The geometric mean (GM) lead dust fall during demolition was 6.01 micrograms of lead per square foot per hour (μg Pb/ft(2)/hour). GM lead dust fall was 14.18 μg Pb/ft(2)/hour without dust suppression, but declined to 5.48 μg Pb/ft(2)/hour (p=0.057) when buildings and debris were wetted. Significant predictors included distance, wind direction, and main street location. At 400 feet, lead dust fall was not significantly different from background. GM lead concentration at demolition (2,406 parts per million [ppm]) was significantly greater than background (GM=579 ppm, p=0.05). Arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, and manganese demolition dust fall was significantly higher than background (p<0.001). Demolition of approximately 400 old housing units elsewhere with more dust suppression was only 0.25 μg Pb/ft(2)/hour. CONCLUSIONS: Lead dust suppression is feasible and important in single-family housing demolition where distances between houses are smaller and community exposures are higher. Neighbor notification should be expanded to at least 400 feet away from single-family housing demolition, not just adjacent properties. Further research is needed on effects of distance, potential water contamination, occupational exposures, and water application.
OBJECTIVE: We measured lead and other heavy metals in dust during older housing demolition and effectiveness of dust suppression. METHODS: We used American Public Housing Association Method 502 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Methods SW3050B and SW6020 at 97 single-family housing demolition events with intermittent (or no) use of water to suppress dust at perimeter, non-perimeter, and locations without demolition, with nested mixed modeling and tobit modeling with left censoring. RESULTS: The geometric mean (GM) lead dust fall during demolition was 6.01 micrograms of lead per square foot per hour (μg Pb/ft(2)/hour). GM lead dust fall was 14.18 μg Pb/ft(2)/hour without dust suppression, but declined to 5.48 μg Pb/ft(2)/hour (p=0.057) when buildings and debris were wetted. Significant predictors included distance, wind direction, and main street location. At 400 feet, lead dust fall was not significantly different from background. GM lead concentration at demolition (2,406 parts per million [ppm]) was significantly greater than background (GM=579 ppm, p=0.05). Arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, and manganese demolition dust fall was significantly higher than background (p<0.001). Demolition of approximately 400 old housing units elsewhere with more dust suppression was only 0.25 μg Pb/ft(2)/hour. CONCLUSIONS: Lead dust suppression is feasible and important in single-family housing demolition where distances between houses are smaller and community exposures are higher. Neighbor notification should be expanded to at least 400 feet away from single-family housing demolition, not just adjacent properties. Further research is needed on effects of distance, potential water contamination, occupational exposures, and water application.
Authors: Mark R Farfel; Anna O Orlova; Peter S J Lees; Charles Rohde; Peter J Ashley; J Julian Chisolm Journal: Environ Res Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Samuel Dorevitch; Hakan Demirtas; Victoria W Perksy; Serap Erdal; Lorraine Conroy; Todd Schoonover; Peter A Scheff Journal: J Air Waste Manag Assoc Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.235
Authors: Robert L Jones; David M Homa; Pamela A Meyer; Debra J Brody; Kathleen L Caldwell; James L Pirkle; Mary Jean Brown Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Mark R Farfel; Anna O Orlova; Peter S J Lees; Charles Rohde; Peter J Ashley; J Julian Chisolm Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: David E Jacobs; Robert P Clickner; Joey Y Zhou; Susan M Viet; David A Marker; John W Rogers; Darryl C Zeldin; Pamela Broene; Warren Friedman Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Ronnie Levin; Mary Jean Brown; Michael E Kashtock; David E Jacobs; Elizabeth A Whelan; Joanne Rodman; Michael R Schock; Alma Padilla; Thomas Sinks Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Ruth J Geller; Amelia K Wesselink; Kristen Upson; Birgit Claus Henn; Samantha Schildroth; Robert Wright; Chad M Coleman; Mary D Willis; Traci N Bethea; Paige L Williams; Quaker E Harmon; Donna D Baird; Ganesa Wegienka; Lauren A Wise Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 6.371
Authors: Vy Kim Nguyen; Adam Kahana; Julien Heidt; Katelyn Polemi; Jacob Kvasnicka; Olivier Jolliet; Justin A Colacino Journal: Environ Int Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Carla Bezold; Samantha J Bauer; Jessie P Buckley; Stuart Batterman; Haifa Haroon; Lauren Fink Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 3.390