Sterling D A, Roegner K C, Lewis R D, Luke D A, Wilder L C, Burchette S M
Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, 3663 Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri, 63108, USA.
Environ Res. 1999 Aug;81(2):130-41. doi: 10.1006/enrs.1999.3962.
Childhood exposure to lead has been demonstrated to result in health effects and lead-contaminated household dust is a primary exposure source. There is a need to establish reliable methods for sampling surfaces to determine levels of lead contamination. Three vacuums (HVS3, GS80, and MVM) and one wipe method were evaluated for the collection of household floor dust under field sampling conditions within a Superfund site and demographically similar control area. Side-by-side floor samples were taken from three locations within 41 randomly selected households between August and September 1995: a child's bedroom, primary play area, and primary entrance. Analysis was performed to assess the relative collection performance of each sampler, spatial distribution of lead within a household, and correlation of lead loading with observed blood lead level, and to determine if discrete or composites samples were more predictive of blood lead levels. Approximately 90% of the floor surfaces were carpeted. The rank order of sampling methods from greatest to lowest collection efficiency was HVS3 > GS80 > wipe > MVM. The HVS3 had the highest level of precision (CV=0.05), with the GS80 and wipe precisions 0.48 and 0.053, respectively. Lead loadings for samples collected in bedrooms and living areas and composite samples using the HVS3 and wipe methods were significantly correlated with blood lead levels. Correlations between blood lead levels and composite samples were stronger for the HVS3 (R(2)=0.33, P=0.003) and wipe (R(2)=0.25, P=0.002) methods than the respective discrete samples. Regression analysis indicated that a blood lead level of 10 microgram/dl corresponds to a carpet wipe sample geometric mean of 68 microgram/ft(2). For ongoing public health purposes, such as screening and clearance testing, use of the wipe sampling method is the most appropriate. This investigation supports findings by others that the present HUD risk levels for lead in floor wipe samples may not be adequate for reducing children's blood lead levels below 10 microgram/dl.
儿童时期接触铅已被证明会对健康产生影响，而受铅污染的家庭灰尘是主要的接触源。因此，需要建立可靠的表面采样方法来确定铅污染水平。在一个超级基金场地和人口统计学特征相似的对照区域内，对三种真空吸尘器（HVS3、GS80和MVM）和一种擦拭方法进行了评估，以收集家庭地面灰尘。1995年8月至9月期间，从41个随机选择的家庭中的三个位置并排采集地面样本：儿童卧室、主要游乐区和主要入口。进行分析以评估每个采样器的相对采集性能、家庭内铅的空间分布、铅负荷与观察到的血铅水平的相关性，并确定离散样本或复合样本是否更能预测血铅水平。大约90%的地面铺有地毯。采样方法从最高到最低的采集效率排序为：HVS3 > GS80 > 擦拭法 > MVM。HVS3的精度最高（CV = 0.05），GS80和擦拭法的精度分别为0.48和0.053。使用HVS3和擦拭法在卧室和起居区采集的样本以及复合样本的铅负荷与血铅水平显著相关。HVS3（R(2)=0.33，P = 0.003）和擦拭法（R(2)=0.25，P = 0.002）的复合样本与血铅水平之间的相关性比各自的离散样本更强。回归分析表明，血铅水平为10微克/分升对应于地毯擦拭样本几何平均值为68微克/平方英尺。对于正在进行的公共卫生目的，如筛查和清除测试，使用擦拭采样方法是最合适的。这项调查支持了其他人的研究结果，即目前住房和城市发展部（HUD）对地板擦拭样本中铅的风险水平可能不足以将儿童血铅水平降低到10微克/分升以下。
