Search

Disseminating public health recommendations to community members is an important step in protecting the public's health. We describe a community-academic partnership comprising health-based organizations, community groups, academia, and government organizations. This partnership undertook an iterative process to develop an outreach plan, educational materials, and activities to bring lead-poisoning prevention recommendations from a health impact assessment of a roadway demolition/construction project to the residents of an affected neighborhood in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 2012. Community partners played a key role in developing outreach and prevention activities. As a result of this project, activities among members of the partnership continue.

The objectives of this study are to demonstrate for the first time the use of a field portable X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer (XRF) in a multi-media environmental survey and to use the survey results to determine if residual lead from a once-active secondary lead smelter in Cairo, Egypt, still posed a health risk to the residents when comparing results with US EPA standards. Results were analyzed to determine if relationships among the variables indicated that there were residual impacts of the former smelter. Samples collected inside and near a total of 194 dwellings were analyzed. The mean floor dust lead loading was 7.48 μg lead/ft(2). Almost 10% of the dwellings had at least one floor dust wipe sample that exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) interior settled dust lead level of 40 μg lead/ft(2). The median paint lead level was 0.04 mg lead/cm(2). 17% of the dwellings had at least one interior paint sample that exceeded the USEPA standard of 1.0 mg lead/cm(2). Mean soil lead concentration in the study area was 458 ppm and 91 ppm outside the study area. Four of nine composite soil samples exceeded the US EPA limit for bare soil in play areas. Lead concentrations in samples collected in locations outside the study area did not exceed the limit. The highest concentration was in the plot closest to the smelter and may represent residual impact from the former smelter. Statistically significant relationships were not detected between interior floor dust lead loading and either interior paint lead loading or exterior dust lead concentration. Thus, no significant exposure from the former smelter was indicated by these analyses. This may have resulted from the time elapsed since the closing of the smelter and/or the relatively low paint lead levels. Further study is needed in other areas of Egypt near former and active lead smelters. Elevated levels of mercury and arsenic detected in soil samples do not appear to be related to the smelter but warrant further study.

Paints with high lead concentrations (ppm) continue to be sold around the world in many developing countries and those with economies in transition representing a major preventable environmental health hazard that is being increased as the economies expand and paint consumption is increasing. Prior lead paint testing had been performed in Brazil and India and these countries were selected to examine the impact of a new regulatory limit in Brazil and the impact of efforts of non-governmental organizations and others to stop the use of lead compounds in manufacturing paints. Armenia and Kazakhstan, in Central Asia, were selected because no information on lead concentration in those regions was available, no regulatory activities were evident and non-governmental organizations in the IPEN network were available to participate. Another objective of this research was to evaluate the lead loading (µg/cm(2)) limit determined by X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) for areas on toys that are too small to obtain a sample of sufficient size for laboratory analysis. The lead concentrations in more than three-fourths of the paints from Armenia and Kazakhstan exceeded 90 ppm, the limit in the United States, and 600 ppm, the limit in Brazil. The percentages were about one-half as high in Brazil and India. The average concentration in paints purchased in Armenia, 25,000 ppm, is among the highest that has been previously reported, that in Kazakhstan, 15,700 ppm, and India, 16,600, about median. The average concentration in Brazil, 5600 ppm, is among the lowest observed. Paints in Brazil that contained an average of 36,000 ppm before the regulatory limit became effective were below detection (< 9 ppm) in samples collected in the current study. The lack of any apparent public monitoring of paint lead content as part of regulatory enforcement makes it difficult to determine whether the regulation was a major factor contributing to the decline in lead use in these paints. Using data from the current study and those available from other studies 24 of 28 paints from major brands in India decreased from high concentrations to 90 ppm or lower. Since lead concentrations in golden yellow paints from these brands were found to decrease to ≤ 90 ppm, it is possible that all 28 of these paints now contain ≤ 90 ppm since yellow paints usually have the highest lead concentrations. Other brands in Brazil and India that have been analyzed only one time had lead concentrations up to 59,000 ppm and 134,000 ppm, respectively. Less than one-third of the paints had notations on their labels with information about lead content and these were sometimes inaccurate. The label from one brand indicating "no added lead" contained paint with 134,000 ppm lead, the highest found in this study. Three percent (3 of 98) of the paints with surface lead loading that did not exceed 2 µg/cm(2), the limit established by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act for small areas on toys, contained greater than 90 ppm lead and thus were false negatives. Of the new paint samples that contained ≤ 600 ppm, 88% contained ≤ 90 ppm. Of the samples that contained ≤ 90 ppm, 97% contained ≤ 45 ppm and 92% contained ≤ 15 ppm. Based on these data it appears to be technically feasible to manufacture paints containing ≤ 90 ppm and in many cases to produce paints that have lead concentrations that do not exceed 15 ppm., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Evaluation of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program studied the effectiveness of the housing intervention performed in reducing the blood lead of children at four post-intervention times (6-months, 1-year, 2-years, and 3-years). A repeat measures analysis showed that blood lead levels declined up to three-years post-intervention. The results at each successive collection time were significantly lower than at the previous post-intervention time except for the difference between the levels at two and three years. At two-years post-intervention, geometric mean blood lead levels were approximately 37% lower than at pre-intervention. Children with pre-intervention blood lead levels as low as 10 μg/dL experienced substantial declines in blood lead levels. Previous studies have found substantial improvements only if a child's pre-intervention blood lead level was above 20 μg/dL. Individual interior lead hazard control treatments as grouped by Interior Strategy were not a significant predictor of post-intervention blood lead levels. However, children living in dwellings where exterior lead hazard control interventions were done had lower blood lead levels at one-year post-intervention than those living in dwellings without the exterior interventions (all other factors being equal), but those differences were only significant when the mean exterior paint lead loading at pre-intervention was about the 90th percentile (7.0mg/cm(2)). This observation suggests that exterior lead hazard control can be an important component of a lead hazard control plan. Children who were six to eleven months of age at pre-intervention had a significant increase in blood lead at one-year post-intervention, probably due to other exposures., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A 7-year follow-up was conducted to determine factors associated with the longevity of interim soil lead hazard control measures that had been applied to housing in the Cleveland OH area. The approach involved (1) visual determination of the treatment integrity, (2) collection of information regarding 14 factors that may contribute to longevity of treatment integrity and (3) collection of one composite soil sample from treated areas with visual failure at each house and another composite sample from areas without visual failure. For the 200 houses studied, an average of 4 different soil areas were treated. For 96% of these areas, the treatments used were: (1) re-seeding, (2) mulch/wood chips and (3) gravel. Of a total of 191,034 ft(2) of treated soil areas observed, less than one-third, i.e. 59,900 ft(2) (31.3%) exhibited visual failure at the time of follow-up. Hazard control method and the presence/absence of shade were the only factors found to significantly affect visual failure rates. Of the three most commonly used control measures, the lowest visual failure rate was for re-seeding, 29.1% after a mean of 7.3 years; for non-shaded areas, which had been re-seeded, the failure rate was 22.2% compared to 35.7% for shaded areas. At 116 of the 193 houses (60%) that had both visually failed and visually non-failed treated soil areas, the geometric mean soil lead concentration was higher in the failed areas (p=0.003). The actual difference was only 13% with most levels equal to or exceeding 400 ppm. However, when compared to the US EPA limit for bare soil in other residential areas (1200 ppm) the percent equal to or exceeding the limit was much higher in the visually failed areas, 33.1%, than in areas where such failure was not observed, 22.0%., (2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2006 a report on the analysis for lead in 80 new residential paints from four countries in Asia revealed high levels in three of the countries (China, India and Malaysia) and low levels in a fourth country (Singapore) where a lead in paint regulation was enforced. The authors warned of the possible export of lead-painted consumer products to the United States and other countries and the dangers the lead paint represented to children in the countries where it was available for purchase. The need for a worldwide ban on the use of lead in paints was emphasized to prevent an increase in exposure and disease from this very preventable environmental source. Since the earlier paper almost 300 additional new paint samples have been collected from the four initial countries plus 8 additional countries, three from Asia, three from Africa and two from South America. During the intervening time period two million toys and other items imported into the United States were recalled because the lead content exceeded the United States standard. High lead paints were detected in all 12 countries. The average lead concentration by country ranged from 6988 (Singapore) to 31,960ppm (Ecuador). One multinational company sold high lead paint in one country through January 2007 but sold low lead paint later in 2007 indicating that a major change to cease adding lead to their paints had occurred. However, the finding that almost one-third of the samples would meet the new United States standard for new paint of 90ppm, suggests that the technology is already available in at least 11 of the 12 countries to produce low lead enamel paints for domestic use. The need remains urgent to establish effective worldwide controls to prevent the needless poisoning of millions of children from this preventable exposure.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) undertook an evaluation of its Lead Hazard Control Grant Program between 1994 and 1999. The Evaluation is the largest study ever done on the effectiveness of lead hazard controls implemented in residential dwellings. The Evaluation had several major objectives: determining the effectiveness of various lead hazard controls in reducing residential dust lead levels and children's blood lead levels, establishing the costs of doing lead hazard control work and factors that influence those costs, determining the rate of clearance testing failures and their causes, and identifying possible negative effects of lead hazard control work on children's blood lead levels. This paper reports the overall research design and data collection methods of the Evaluation. The large number of dwelling units enrolled in the Evaluation was possible only by the innovative partnership among HUD, the Evaluators, and the grantees. HUD and the Evaluators relied on the grantees for essentially all of the data collection. The 14 participating HUD Lead Hazard Control Grantees were responsible for implementing the lead hazard control programs in their communities and collecting the study data. This paper describes the methods for recruiting and enrolling dwellings and families, collecting environmental and housing data, interviewing participating families, and collecting data on lead hazard control work performed and its costs. The paper also describes the basic quality control and quality assurance procedures used. The principal outcome measures were lead in dust collected using wipes from floors, window sills, and window troughs and lead in blood collected from children who were 6 years old or younger at enrollment. Data collection was conducted before intervention, immediately postintervention, and 6 and 12 months postintervention. For a subset of dwellings undergoing an extended follow-up data were also collected at 24 and 36 months postintervention. This paper provides the context for subsequent reports that will describe such findings as the influence of lead hazard control work on serial dust lead levels, the influence of lead hazard control work on serial blood lead levels in children, the nature and costs of the lead hazard control work done at the dwellings, and the experience of the grantees in meeting clearance testing requirements.

At the conclusion of most lead hazard control interventions in federally assisted housing built before 1978, a certified clearance examiner must verify that the lead hazard control work was completed as specified and that the area is safe for residents, a process referred to as clearance. This study explores the experience of 14 grantees participating in the Evaluation of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program in passing clearance. The study also considers how preintervention lead levels (interior dust and paint), building condition/characteristics, and the scope of work influenced initial clearance dust lead loadings and clearance rates. At the initial clearance inspection, 80% of the 2682 dwellings achieved grantee-specific clearance standards on windowsills, window troughs (500 microg/ft2 and 800 microg/ft2, respectively), and floors (80, 100, or 200 microg/ft2 depending on state/local regulations at the dates of clearance in the mid-1990s), with individual grantee success rates ranging from 63 to 100%. Dwellings that failed initial clearance required an average of 1.13 retests to clear. The high level of success at clearance demonstrates that following methods for work site containment, lead hazard control, and cleaning similar to those recommended in the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint in Housing is effective. The most common lead hazard control intervention was window abatement accompanied by the repair or abatement of all other deteriorated lead-based paint (56% of dwellings). An additional 5% of dwellings were fully abated, 29% had lower intensity interventions. Interventions including window replacement are recommended to reduce dust lead loading on windowsills and troughs at clearance, but lower level interventions such as full paint stabilization are just as good at reducing floor dust lead loadings. Whatever lead hazard control activities are selected, the condition of the surfaces of interest should be in good condition at clearance.

To aid in understanding the contribution of exterior dust/soil lead to postintervention interior dust lead, a subset of housing from the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program Evaluation was selected for study. Housing from 12 state and local governments was included. Exterior entry and street dust samples were obtained by a vacuum method, and soil samples were building perimeter core composites. Interior dust wipe lead data (microg/ft(2)) and paint lead data (mg/cm(2)) were also available for each of the dwelling units and included in the modeling. Results from 541 dwelling units revealed a wide range of exterior dust and soil lead levels, within and between grantees. Minimum and maximum geometric mean lead levels, by grantee, were 126 and 14400 microg/ft(2) for exterior entry dust; 325 and 4610 microg/ft(2) for street dust; and, for soil concentration, 383 and 2640 ppm. Geometric mean exterior entry dust lead concentration (1641 ppm) was almost four times as high as street dust lead concentration (431 ppm), suggesting that lead dust near housing was often a source of street dust lead. Geometric mean exterior entry dust lead loading was more than four times as high as window trough dust lead loading and more than an order of magnitude higher than interior entry dust lead loading. Statistical modeling revealed pathways from exterior entry dust lead loading to loadings on interior entryway floors, other interior floors, and windowsills. Paint lead was found to influence exterior entry dust lead. Results of this study show that housing where soil lead hazard control activities had been performed had lower postintervention exterior entry, interior entry floor, windowsills, and other floor dust loading levels. Soil was not present for almost half the buildings. Statistical analysis revealed that exterior strategy influenced soil lead concentration, and soil lead concentration influenced street dust lead loading. This study represents one of the few where an impact of soil treatments on dust lead levels within the housing has been documented and may represent the first where an impact on exterior entry dust lead has been found. The inclusion of measures to mitigate the role of exterior sources in lead hazard control programs needs consideration.

Data from an evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Program were used to evaluate the prevalence and location of teeth marks on painted surfaces in residential housing. The results of these analyses will be useful in the development of more effective pediatric lead poisoning prevention programs. These programs have historically placed considerable emphasis on surfaces accessible to children for mouthing activities. This study analyzes the largest set of data ever assembled on the prevalence of teeth marks in housing. Data from 308,851 observations in 3,454 housing units were analyzed to determine the prevalence of teeth mark observations per surface, dwelling unit, and building component, and by housing age, inspector, and grantee. An average of 4.0 teeth marks per 10,000 surfaces with paint-lead greater than or equal to 1.0 mg/cm2 were observed. For surfaces with less than 1.0 mg/cm2 lead the rate was 1.5 teeth marks/10,000 surfaces. The number of teeth marks per 10,000 surfaces increased with age of housing for surfaces with 1.0 mg/cm2 or higher lead but not for surfaces with less than 1.0 mg/cm2 lead. Teeth mark observation rates were 36 times higher for windowsills than for other components and ranged up to 11 per 10,000 surfaces and 9 dwellings per 100 dwelling units for 2 grantees with the highest rates. Blood lead levels in children exhibiting moderate to high mouthing behavior were higher than in children without such behavior, especially in housing where teeth marks were observed. Special priority should be given to windowsills when making decisions on lead hazard control for "accessible," "chewable," or "mouthable" surfaces.

Quantifying airborne lead on lead abatement work sites is critical in assessing worker lead exposures. Airborne lead levels depend on both the concentration of aerosolized particles and the percent lead in those particles. The lead level on the painted surface being abated may affect the percent lead in aerosolized particles. Experiments were performed in the University of Cincinnati Environmental Test Chamber (volume approximately 24.3 m3) using wood doors painted with lead-based paint. Three methods were used for paint removal: dry scraping, wet scraping, and dry machine sanding. Particles aerosolized during lead abatement activities were collected on filters using the Button Personal Inhalable Aerosol Samplers (SKC Inc., Eighty Four, PA) mounted in the workers' breathing zone. The filters were subsequently analyzed for percent lead in the particles. A portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) instrument (NITON-700, NITON Inc., Bedford, MA) was used to measure surface lead levels of the doors. The accuracy of the XRF instrument was verified by testing standard reference materials prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and by Princeton Gamma Tech Inc. It was also verified by relating XRF results from painted door surfaces to laboratory lead analysis data obtained from paint chip samples taken from the same painted surfaces (r2 = 0.81, p < 0.001). A highly significant relationship (r2 = 0.83, p < 0.001) was found between the XRF readings and the percent lead in the particles aerosolized during dry scraping. No significant relationship was found for wet scraping (r2 = 0.09, p = 0.56) or dry machine sanding (r2 = 0.002, p = 0.92). The relationship between surface lead levels and percent lead in particles was found to be dependent on the paint removal method. This variation was attributed to the difference in water absorption property of the paint layers and the different particle aerosolization mechanisms inherent in each paint removal method.

The effectiveness of procedures used for the final indoor cleaning after active lead-based paint abatement were evaluated in a 830 ft3 test chamber. Dry and wet scraping and dry machine sanding were applied to wooden doors obtained from lead-hazard control sites. The airborne particle concentration and size distribution were monitored using a real-time particle size spectrometer. Particulates were also collected on filters and analyzed for total dust and lead. The resulting airborne lead mass was determined for each cleaning procedure, and the potential floor lead loading resulting from the dust settling was calculated. Wipe samples were collected to measure the actual floor lead loading. The effectiveness of final cleaning was evaluated first for dry abatement methods. Various cleaning work practices were tested by applying wet and dry debris sweeping as well as no sweeping in combinations with wet and dry removal of plastic sheeting. Considerable resuspension of leaded particles was detected during dry sweeping: the airborne lead mass increase ranged between 65 and 220 percent. However, this increase did not exceed 22 percent when wet sweeping was applied. Minimal or no resuspension was found when the plastic was folded with leaded debris inside (no sweeping was performed prior to the sheeting removal). During folding activity, the "clean" (uncovered) floor surface may be significantly contaminated with leaded dust from workers' shoes and cleaning tools. The first HEPA vacuuming resulted in a 15- to 20-fold decrease of the airborne lead mass; however, it was not sufficient to reduce the floor lead loading to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) clearance level of 40 microg/ft2, as determined by wipe sampling. Wet mopping following the first HEPA vacuuming was proven to be effective to reduce the lead loading significantly below 40 microg/ft2. The second HEPA vacuuming resulted in further reduction of the airborne lead mass concentration. The floor lead loading remained much lower than 40 microg/ft2. These results were confirmed in the tests when using wet scraping. Overall, the HUD-recommended cleaning protocol was found to be sufficient in reducing the floor lead loading below 40 microg/ft2. At the same time, several modifications are proposed in this study to further improve the cleaning effectiveness.

Exposure to indoor allergens is associated with asthma, but there is no standardized sampling method for measuring allergens. We compared the association of measured allergen exposure and serum-specific IgE levels and the precision of three sampling methods (Cyclone, Mighty Mite, and Readivac II) to identify a standardized sampling method for indoor allergens. A random sample of 72 children, 5 to 17 years old, with doctor-diagnosed asthma who lived in the same residence >or=2 years were enrolled. Composite, side by side floor samples were obtained with all three methods. Dust allergen concentrations and serum-specific IgE levels were measured for Der f I, Fel d I, and Bla g I. Mean allergen concentration did not differ significantly by sampling method. Cat allergen was significantly correlated with serum-specific IgE for Cyclone (P=0.003) and Mighty Mite (P=0.008), but only marginally for Readivac II (P=0.07). Dust mite allergen was significantly correlated with serum-specific IgE for Readivac II (P=0.02) and Cyclone (P=0.038), but not for Mighty Mite (P=0.12). Cockroach allergen was not correlated with serum-specific IgE for any sampling method. In multiple linear regression, cat allergen was associated with serum-specific IgE for Cyclone (P=0.007) and Mighty Mite (P=0.02), but not for Readivac II (P=0.06). In contrast, dust mite allergen was marginally associated with serum-specific IgE for Readivac II (P=0.07), but not for Mighty Mite (P=0.64) or Cyclone (P=0.27). The Cyclone and Mighty Mite were more precise than Readivac II for cat allergen, but there was no difference for dust mite allergen (P>0.05). No single method is superior for measurement of indoor allergens. In general, cat allergen collected with the Cyclone was a better predictor of serum-specific IgE levels to Fel d I, whereas dust mite allergen collected with the Readivac II was a better predictor of serum-specific IgE levels to Der f I., (Copyright 2001 Academic Press.)

Field portable methods are often needed in risk characterization, assessment and management to rapidly determine metal concentrations in environmental samples. Examples are for determining: "hot spots" of soil contamination, whether dust wipe lead levels meet housing occupancy standards, and worker respiratory protection levels. For over 30 years portable X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers have been available for the in situ, non-destructive, measurement of lead in paint. Recent advances made possible their use for analysis of airborne dust filter samples, soil, and dust wipes. Research at the University of Cincinnati with the NITON 700 Series XRF instrument (40 millicurie Cadmium 109 source, L X-Rays) demonstrated its proficiency on air sample filters (NIOSH Method No. 7702, "Lead by Field Portable XRF; limit of detection 6 microg per sample; working range 17-1,500 microg/m3 air). Research with lead dust wipe samples from housing has also shown promising results. This XRF instrument was used in 1997 in Poland on copper smelter area soil samples with the cooperation of the Wroclaw Medical Academy and the Foundation for the Children from the Copper Basin (Legnica). Geometric mean soil lead concentrations were 200 ppm with the portable XRF, 201 ppm with laboratory-based XRF (Kevex) and 190 ppm using atomic absorption (AA). Correlations of field portable XRF and AA results were excellent for samples sieved to less than 125 micrometers with R-squared values of 0.997, 0.957, and 0.976 for lead, copper and zinc respectively. Similarly, correlations were excellent for soil sieved to less than 250 micrometers, where R-squared values were 0. 924, 0.973, and 0.937 for lead, copper and zinc, respectively. The field portable XRF instrument appears to be useful for the determination of soil pollution by these metals in industrial regions.

Urinary arsenic concentration has been used generally for the determination of exposure, but much concern has been raised over the most appropriate expression for urinary arsenic levels. In this study, we examined the influence of various adjustments of expressing urinary arsenic data. All children who were less than 72 mo of age and who were potty trained were invited to participate in the present study. Urine, soil, and dust samples were collected, and arsenic measurements were made. The geometric mean of speciated urinary arsenic among children who provided first-voided urine samples on 2 consecutive mornings was 8.6 microg/l (geometric standard deviation = 1.7, n = 289). Speciated urinary arsenic was related significantly to soil arsenic in bare areas (p < .0005). Use of a single urine sample versus the average of two first-voided urine samples collected on 2 consecutive mornings did not significantly alter the relationship between environmental arsenic and urinary arsenic levels. Furthermore, none of the adjustments to urinary concentration improved the strength of correlation between urinary arsenic and soil arsenic levels. Concentration adjustments may not be necessary for urinary arsenic levels obtained from young children who provide first-void samples in the morning.

Arsenic residues in the communities surrounding former smelters remain a public health concern, especially for infants and children. To evaluate environmental exposure among these children, a population-based cross-sectional study was conducted in the vicinity of a former copper smelter in Anaconda, Montana. A total of 414 children less than 72 months old were recruited. First morning voided urine samples and environmental samples were collected for arsenic measurements. The geometric mean of speciated urinary arsenic was 8.6 microg/liter (GSD = 1.7, N = 289). Average arsenic levels of different types of soil ranged from 121 to 236 microg/g and were significantly related to proximity and wind direction to the smelter site. The same significant relationship was observed for interior dust arsenic. Speciated urinary arsenic was found to be significantly related to soil arsenic in bare areas in residential yards (P < 0.0005). In general, elevated excretion of arsenic was demonstrable and warranted parents' attention to reduce exposure of their children to environmental arsenic.

The final clean-up of residential lead abatement projects in federally-supported housing, as well as in other housing in a number of states, must meet surface dust lead clearance levels expressed as μg of lead per square foot. These clearance levels were established because hand-to-mouth ingestion of lead-contaminated dust is recognised as a major pathway through which many children are exposed. A dilemma exists because many floors in housing undergoing abatement are carpeted and the established clearance levels are generally not recommended for use on carpets. These clearance levels are also used as 'action levels' to determine whether exposure reduction activities are needed. The US Environmental Protection Agency is currently in the process of issuing standards for hazardous levels of lead in interior dust and bare soil under Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, 'The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992'. An effort to develop a potential surface dust lead clearance level for carpets was made using an existing vacuum dust collection method that has previously been shown to be a reliable indicator of childhood lead exposure. This method was designed for use on carpeted and non-carpeted surfaces. Using data from the Cincinnati Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration Project, the suggested floor-dust lead level where an estimated 95% of the population of children would be expected to have blood lead values below the national goal of 10 μg dL(-1), was more than an order of magnitude lower than the current floor-dust lead clearance level of 1080 μg m(-2) (100 μg ft(-2)). Further comparisons of blood lead and carpet lead levels in other parts of the country should be performed before a risk-based lead loading clearance level is established.

Methods to remove lead-containing dust were tested on carpets from homes of children with high blood lead and on new carpets artificially contaminated in the laboratory. The household carpets could not be cleaned effectively by repetitive vacuuming with HEPA-filtered cleaners. The lead concentration in the removed dust remained about the same from the initial cleaning (1 min/m2) to the final cleaning (total cleaning time of 10 min/m2). The lead loading on the surface of the carpets often increased during cleaning because vacuuming brought lead from deeper in the carpet to the surface. Over 95% of the total dust was removed from bare wooden floors by dry vacuuming (5 min/m2). For linoleum, more than 75% was removed by vacuuming for 5 min/m2. However, little was removed in vacuuming after the initial two minutes and about 20% was removed in a final wet-washing step. HEPA-vacuuming of the laboratory-contaminated carpets revealed that two of the commercially available vacuum cleaners tested were essentially equivalent and each removed significantly more dust than a third vacuum during a total cleaning time of 10 min/m2. Cleaning for 6 min/m2 was necessary to remove more than 70% of the embedded dust by the two more efficient vacuums. Cleaning efficiencies were about the same for short pile and sculptured carpets. It was concluded that it may be more practical to replace rather than clean carpets. HEPA-vacuum cleaning of carpets was shown to increase lead dust on the surface under some conditions.