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

C2 - 7601072

AN - SCOPUS:0029018616

VL - 68

SP - 114

EP - 123

JO - Environmental Research

JF - Environmental Research

SN - 0013-9351

IS - 2

ER -