Field evaluation and comparison of five methods of sampling lead dust on carpets

被引:4
|
作者
Bai, ZP
Yiin, LM [1 ]
Rich, DQ
Adgate, JL
Ashley, PJ
Lioy, PJ
Rhoads, GG
Zhang, JF
机构
[1] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch, Environm & Occupat Hlth Sci Inst, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA
[2] Rutgers State Univ, Piscataway, NJ USA
[3] Nankai Univ, Coll Environm Sci & Engn, Tianjin 300071, Peoples R China
[4] Harvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Environm Epidemiol Program, Dept Epidemiol, Boston, MA USA
[5] Harvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Environm Epidemiol Program, Dept Environm Hlth, Boston, MA USA
[6] Univ Minnesota, Sch Publ Hlth, Div Environm & Occupat Med, Minneapolis, MN USA
[7] US Dept Housing & Urban Dev, Off Healthy Homes & Lead Hazard Control, Washington, DC USA
来源
AIHA JOURNAL | 2003年 / 64卷 / 04期
关键词
carpet; lead dust; sampling method; vacuum; wipe;
D O I
10.1080/15428110308984850
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Five methods of sampling lead-contaminated dust on carpets were evaluated and compared in 33 New Jersey homes of children with elevated blood lead levels. The five sampling methods were (1) wipe, (2) adhesive label, (3) C18 sheet, (4) vacuum, and (5) hand rinse. Samples were collected side by side on the same carpets within the homes. Among the five methods the wipe and vacuum methods showed high percentages of detectable samples, good reproducibility, and significant correlations with other methods. C18 sheets and adhesive labels collected the least quantity of lead dust, with high percentages of undetectable samples. Because of the limited ability of sampling lead on carpets and the relatively high cost for laboratory analysis, C18 sheets or adhesive labels are not considered feasible sampling techniques. The hand rinse method also was not feasible for carpet sampling, because it was difficult to conduct in the field and laboratory, and it was subject to inconsistency and cross contamination. Wipes, which collected lead dust from carpet surfaces, were believed to be the most appropriate method for measuring lead from carpets accessible to children. However, because of the low pickup from carpets, wipes may not be an appropriate measuring tool to assess the levels of total lead contamination in carpets. The authors recommend using surface wipe sampling to measure accessible lead from carpets for exposure assessment, and vacuum sampling to obtain the information on total lead accumulation.
引用
收藏
页码:528 / 532
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] PENETRATION MEASUREMENTS OF DUST MASKS - COMPARISON OF 2 EVALUATION METHODS
    CARTON, B
    VILLA, M
    STAUB REINHALTUNG DER LUFT, 1984, 44 (04): : 196 - 198
  • [32] Comparison of Five Packet-Sampling-Based Methods for Detecting Elephant Flows
    Sun, Yujie
    Liu, Weijiang
    Liu, Zhaobin
    Liu, Chao
    2016 IEEE TRUSTCOM/BIGDATASE/ISPA, 2016, : 2018 - 2023
  • [33] COMPARISON OF COTTON DUST SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
    BETHEA, RM
    MOREY, PR
    AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1976, 37 (11): : 647 - 654
  • [34] COMPARISON OF 3 DUST SAMPLING INSTRUMENTS
    FRIEDRICHS, KH
    GROVER, YP
    STAUB REINHALTUNG DER LUFT, 1977, 37 (09): : 338 - 341
  • [35] Four methods of sampling for dust mite allergen: differences in 'dust'
    Tovey, ER
    Mitakakis, TZ
    Sercombe, JK
    Vanlaar, CH
    Marks, GB
    ALLERGY, 2003, 58 (08) : 790 - 794
  • [36] A FIELD-EVALUATION OF AIR SAMPLING METHODS FOR TNT AND RDX
    BISHOP, RW
    KENNEDY, JL
    PODOLAK, GE
    RYEA, JL
    AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1988, 49 (12): : 635 - 638
  • [37] A COMPARISON OF SAMPLING METHODS
    Brown, Geo H.
    JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 1947, 11 (04) : 331 - 337
  • [38] A side-by-side comparison of three allergen sampling methods in settled house dust
    Sandel, Megan
    Murphy, Johnna S.
    Dixon, Sherry L.
    Adgate, John L.
    Chew, Ginger L.
    Dorevitch, Samuel
    Jacobs, David E.
    JOURNAL OF EXPOSURE SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (06) : 650 - 656
  • [39] A side-by-side comparison of three allergen sampling methods in settled house dust
    Megan Sandel
    Johnna S Murphy
    Sherry L Dixon
    John L Adgate
    Ginger L Chew
    Samuel Dorevitch
    David E Jacobs
    Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 2014, 24 : 650 - 656
  • [40] Comparison and evaluation of five methods of estimation of the Johnson system parameters
    Zhou, BL
    McTague, JP
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH-REVUE CANADIENNE DE RECHERCHE FORESTIERE, 1996, 26 (06): : 928 - 935