Laboratory Comparison of Vacuum, OSHA, and HUD Sampling Methods for Lead in Household Dust

Abstract

The goals of this project were to evaluate and compare the efficiency and reproducibility of three methods for sampling lead-containing dust in homes. Lead-containing dust was generated in a 1-m3 chamber and uniformly deposited onto surfaces typically found in the home (painted wood, unpainted wood, varnished wood, linoleum, and carpet). Trials with three levels of lead concentrations were performed for each surface. Replicate, side-by-side, surface samples were collected using the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) wipe method, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wipe method, and a vacuum-filter method. Samples were digested with nitric acid and analyzed using graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy per National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Method 7105. Recovery for the HUD method was consistently the highest on most surfaces (linoleum, 89.9 to 108.9%; painted wood, 71.2 to 153.7%; unpainted wood, 25.3 to 76.0%; varnished wood, 8.7 to 165.6%). On carpet the vacuum method had a significantly higher recovery (26.2 to 47.8%). For all sampling methods the percent recovery depended on type of surface and lead concentration. The reproducibility of percent recovery for the HUD (pooled coefficient of variation [CV] = 0.22) and OSHA (pooled CV = 0.27) methods was lower than that of the vacuum method (pooled CV = 0.46), though not statistically significant. Reproducibility for all methods did not vary significantly over surface type or lead concentration. Overall, the HUD method yielded the most accurate measurements, with recoveries closest to 100%. It was also more durable than the OSHA method, where Whatman filters were observed to tear.

Risk remaining from fine particle contaminants after vacuum cleaning of hard floor surfaces

“…Again, the loading reductions clearly demonstrate substantial removal of soil from the surface by vacuuming. Interestingly, Reynolds et al (1997) found that vacuum removal of dust from smooth surfaces is more efficient at higher dust levels. However, while the removal of Si remained high, less Pb was removed after repeated tracking and multiple cleanings than after a single episode.…”

“…At the start of the test, prior to any tracking, both right and left shoes of the tester were pressed (under the weight of the tester) into one tray of soil to acquire a coating of dry soil on the sole and heel of each shoe. While other methods of distributing particulate matter onto flooring surfaces have been developed (Reynolds et al 1997;Lewis et al 1999), this method of introducing soil onto a floor surface was chosen to more closely approximate actual footwear track-on conditions.…”

Skin and Surface Lead Contamination, Hygiene Programs, and Work Practices of Bridge Surface Preparation and Painting Contractors

“…This study, as others, reported a high degree of correlation between sample types and observed higher GM levels of lead obtained by wipe samples compared with vacuum samples. (30,31) Although no federal guidelines exist for evaluating lead on surfaces or skin in occupational environments, HUD/EPA recommend a clearance standard of 4.3 µg lead/100 cm 2 (40 µg/ft 2 ) in surface dust on floors. (27,28) OSHA suggests a level of 200 µg/ft 2 (based on an older HUD clearance level) in their directive CPL 2-2.58 issued in 1993 regarding inspection and citation guidelines for hygiene facilities and practices to evaluate wipe samples collected from change areas, storage facilities, and/or lunchrooms/eating areas.…”

Synergistic effects of iron deficiency and lead exposure on blood lead levels in children

“…House dust samples were collected from the floors, walls, and windowsills by the method described by Reynolds and co-workers. [15] Dust analysis was done on graphite furnace atomic absorption analyst 800 (Perkin Elmer, USA).…”