A side-by-side comparison of dust collection methods for sampling lead- contaminated house dust

Bruce P. Lanphear, Mary Emond, David E. Jacobs, Michael Weitzman, Martin Tanner, Nancy L. Winter, Benjamin Yakir, Shirley Eberly

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    The Environmental Protection Agency is required to set a standard for lead-contaminated house dust, but whether dust lead loading (·g/ft2) or concentration (·g/g) is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels, which dust collection method should be used, and which surfaces should be sampled are unknown. Using a random sample of sequential births, we enrolled 205 urban children, 12 to 30 months of age, who had lived in the same house since at least 6 months of age. Samples of dust were obtained from predetermined surfaces in each child’s residence using a wipe method and two vacuum methods, the Baltimore repair and maintenance method (BRM) and the dust vacuum method (DVM). Other potential sources of environmental exposure also were analyzed for lead, including soil, water, and paint. In general, dust lead loading is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels than is dust lead concentration. Dust lead loading as measured with the BRM sampler explained more of the variation in children’s blood lead levels than did wipe loading and DVM loading (13.7, 10.1, and 5.9%, respectively, adjusted for other significant predictors). The partial correlation between BRM lead loading and children’s blood lead was significantly different than that for DVM lead loading, but it was not significantly different than that for wipe lead loading. Of the four surfaces measured, noncarpeted floors and interior window sills or wells were significantly associated with children’s blood lead levels in multiple regression models. These data indicate that dust lead loading is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels than is dust lead concentration and that, to determine if a housing unit is safe for children, noncarpeted floors and interior window sills or window wells should be measured using either the BRM or wipe sampling method.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)114-123
    Number of pages10
    JournalEnvironmental Research
    Volume68
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 1995

    Fingerprint

    Dust
    Sampling
    dust
    sampling
    repair and maintenance
    Baltimore
    Blood
    Vacuum
    Repair
    blood
    Maintenance
    sill
    Lead
    method
    comparison
    well
    United States Environmental Protection Agency
    Paint
    Environmental Exposure
    Environmental Protection Agency

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Biochemistry
    • Environmental Science(all)

    Cite this

    Lanphear, B. P., Emond, M., Jacobs, D. E., Weitzman, M., Tanner, M., Winter, N. L., ... Eberly, S. (1995). A side-by-side comparison of dust collection methods for sampling lead- contaminated house dust. Environmental Research, 68(2), 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1995.1015

    A side-by-side comparison of dust collection methods for sampling lead- contaminated house dust. / Lanphear, Bruce P.; Emond, Mary; Jacobs, David E.; Weitzman, Michael; Tanner, Martin; Winter, Nancy L.; Yakir, Benjamin; Eberly, Shirley.

    In: Environmental Research, Vol. 68, No. 2, 01.01.1995, p. 114-123.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Lanphear, BP, Emond, M, Jacobs, DE, Weitzman, M, Tanner, M, Winter, NL, Yakir, B & Eberly, S 1995, 'A side-by-side comparison of dust collection methods for sampling lead- contaminated house dust', Environmental Research, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1995.1015
    Lanphear, Bruce P. ; Emond, Mary ; Jacobs, David E. ; Weitzman, Michael ; Tanner, Martin ; Winter, Nancy L. ; Yakir, Benjamin ; Eberly, Shirley. / A side-by-side comparison of dust collection methods for sampling lead- contaminated house dust. In: Environmental Research. 1995 ; Vol. 68, No. 2. pp. 114-123.
    @article{efe2db5b280648818528ce0dc9b226a7,
    title = "A side-by-side comparison of dust collection methods for sampling lead- contaminated house dust",
    abstract = "The Environmental Protection Agency is required to set a standard for lead-contaminated house dust, but whether dust lead loading (·g/ft2) or concentration (·g/g) is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels, which dust collection method should be used, and which surfaces should be sampled are unknown. Using a random sample of sequential births, we enrolled 205 urban children, 12 to 30 months of age, who had lived in the same house since at least 6 months of age. Samples of dust were obtained from predetermined surfaces in each child’s residence using a wipe method and two vacuum methods, the Baltimore repair and maintenance method (BRM) and the dust vacuum method (DVM). Other potential sources of environmental exposure also were analyzed for lead, including soil, water, and paint. In general, dust lead loading is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels than is dust lead concentration. Dust lead loading as measured with the BRM sampler explained more of the variation in children’s blood lead levels than did wipe loading and DVM loading (13.7, 10.1, and 5.9{\%}, respectively, adjusted for other significant predictors). The partial correlation between BRM lead loading and children’s blood lead was significantly different than that for DVM lead loading, but it was not significantly different than that for wipe lead loading. Of the four surfaces measured, noncarpeted floors and interior window sills or wells were significantly associated with children’s blood lead levels in multiple regression models. These data indicate that dust lead loading is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels than is dust lead concentration and that, to determine if a housing unit is safe for children, noncarpeted floors and interior window sills or window wells should be measured using either the BRM or wipe sampling method.",
    author = "Lanphear, {Bruce P.} and Mary Emond and Jacobs, {David E.} and Michael Weitzman and Martin Tanner and Winter, {Nancy L.} and Benjamin Yakir and Shirley Eberly",
    year = "1995",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1006/enrs.1995.1015",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "68",
    pages = "114--123",
    journal = "Environmental Research",
    issn = "0013-9351",
    publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - A side-by-side comparison of dust collection methods for sampling lead- contaminated house dust

    AU - Lanphear, Bruce P.

    AU - Emond, Mary

    AU - Jacobs, David E.

    AU - Weitzman, Michael

    AU - Tanner, Martin

    AU - Winter, Nancy L.

    AU - Yakir, Benjamin

    AU - Eberly, Shirley

    PY - 1995/1/1

    Y1 - 1995/1/1

    N2 - The Environmental Protection Agency is required to set a standard for lead-contaminated house dust, but whether dust lead loading (·g/ft2) or concentration (·g/g) is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels, which dust collection method should be used, and which surfaces should be sampled are unknown. Using a random sample of sequential births, we enrolled 205 urban children, 12 to 30 months of age, who had lived in the same house since at least 6 months of age. Samples of dust were obtained from predetermined surfaces in each child’s residence using a wipe method and two vacuum methods, the Baltimore repair and maintenance method (BRM) and the dust vacuum method (DVM). Other potential sources of environmental exposure also were analyzed for lead, including soil, water, and paint. In general, dust lead loading is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels than is dust lead concentration. Dust lead loading as measured with the BRM sampler explained more of the variation in children’s blood lead levels than did wipe loading and DVM loading (13.7, 10.1, and 5.9%, respectively, adjusted for other significant predictors). The partial correlation between BRM lead loading and children’s blood lead was significantly different than that for DVM lead loading, but it was not significantly different than that for wipe lead loading. Of the four surfaces measured, noncarpeted floors and interior window sills or wells were significantly associated with children’s blood lead levels in multiple regression models. These data indicate that dust lead loading is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels than is dust lead concentration and that, to determine if a housing unit is safe for children, noncarpeted floors and interior window sills or window wells should be measured using either the BRM or wipe sampling method.

    AB - The Environmental Protection Agency is required to set a standard for lead-contaminated house dust, but whether dust lead loading (·g/ft2) or concentration (·g/g) is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels, which dust collection method should be used, and which surfaces should be sampled are unknown. Using a random sample of sequential births, we enrolled 205 urban children, 12 to 30 months of age, who had lived in the same house since at least 6 months of age. Samples of dust were obtained from predetermined surfaces in each child’s residence using a wipe method and two vacuum methods, the Baltimore repair and maintenance method (BRM) and the dust vacuum method (DVM). Other potential sources of environmental exposure also were analyzed for lead, including soil, water, and paint. In general, dust lead loading is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels than is dust lead concentration. Dust lead loading as measured with the BRM sampler explained more of the variation in children’s blood lead levels than did wipe loading and DVM loading (13.7, 10.1, and 5.9%, respectively, adjusted for other significant predictors). The partial correlation between BRM lead loading and children’s blood lead was significantly different than that for DVM lead loading, but it was not significantly different than that for wipe lead loading. Of the four surfaces measured, noncarpeted floors and interior window sills or wells were significantly associated with children’s blood lead levels in multiple regression models. These data indicate that dust lead loading is more predictive of children’s blood lead levels than is dust lead concentration and that, to determine if a housing unit is safe for children, noncarpeted floors and interior window sills or window wells should be measured using either the BRM or wipe sampling method.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029018616&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029018616&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1006/enrs.1995.1015

    DO - 10.1006/enrs.1995.1015

    M3 - Article

    VL - 68

    SP - 114

    EP - 123

    JO - Environmental Research

    JF - Environmental Research

    SN - 0013-9351

    IS - 2

    ER -