April 1999, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 106 – 112

Article

A field comparison of two methods for sampling lead in household dust DAVID Q. RICH1, LIH-MING YIIN1, GEORGE G. RHOADS1, DEBORAH H. GLUECK2, CLIFFORD WEISEL1 & PAUL J. LIOY1 1Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Jersey     2Department of Family Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey     Correspondence to: GEORGE G. RHOADS, MD , MPH, Director–Environmental Health Division, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, 681 Frelinghuysen Road, Room 234, Piscataway, NJ 08854. E-mail: rhoads@umdnj.edu

Keywords

clearance values;   dust;   HUD dust wipe;   lead;   LWW sampler;   sampling

Abstract

Comparability of dust lead measurements has been a difficult problem due to different sampling and analysis techniques. This paper compares two dust sampling techniques, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dust wipe method and the Lioy, Wainman, Weisel (LWW) sampler. The HUD method specifies using a moist towelette to pick up as much dust as possible in a specified area and estimates total lead loading. The LWW sampler collects the dust on preweighed wetted filter media, and provides greater standardization of the sampling path and pressure applied. LWW samples were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectronomy (no samples below minimum detection limit), while HUD samples were analyzed using flame atomic absorption (32% of samples below minimum detection limit). A bootstrapping technique was used in the analysis to contend with those HUD samples below the minimum detection limit. Mixed model equations were generated to predict HUD values from LWW results, and to examine the effects of sampling location, time, and method. The results indicate that the two samplers performed similarly under field conditions, although the LWW sampler produced consistently lower lead loading estimates. LWW values that predicted HUD lead clearance values of 100 µg/ft2 for floors and 500 µg/ft2 for window sills were 72 µg/ft2 and 275 µg/ft2, respectively. To examine internal reproducibility, duplicate samples were taken using both the HUD and LWW methods. Correlation results within paired samples indicated a statistically significantly higher (p<0.001) internal reproducibility for lead loading, for the LWW sampler (r=0.87), than for the HUD method (r=0.71). Some of the differences appeared to be related to the analytical methods.

Received 6 October 1997; Accepted 7 August 1998

^© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1997