Yiin Lih-Ming, Lu Shou-En, Sannoh Sulaiman, Lim Benjamin S, Rhoads George G
School of Public Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.
Environ Res. 2004 Oct;96(2):156-62. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2004.01.007.
We conducted a cleaning trial in 40 northern New Jersey homes where home renovation and remodeling (R&R) activities were undertaken. Two cleaning protocols were used in the study: a specific method recommended by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in the 1995 "Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing," using a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)-filtered vacuum cleaner and a tri-sodium phosphate solution (TSP); and an alternative method using a household vacuum cleaner and a household detergent. Eligible homes were built before the 1970s with potential lead-based paint and had recent R&R activities without thorough cleaning. The two cleaning protocols were randomly assigned to the participants' homes and followed the HUD-recommended three-step procedure: vacuuming, wet washing, and repeat vacuuming. Wipe sampling was conducted on floor surfaces or windowsills before and after cleaning to evaluate the efficacy. All floor and windowsill data indicated that both methods (TSP/HEPA and non-TSP/non-HEPA) were effective in reducing lead loading on the surfaces (P < 0.001). When cleaning was applied to surfaces with initial lead loading above the clearance standards, the reductions were even greater, above 95% for either cleaning method. The mixed-effect model analysis showed no significant difference between the two methods. Baseline lead loading was found to be associated with lead loading reduction significantly on floors (P < 0.001) and marginally on windowsills (P = 0.077). Such relations were different between the two cleaning methods significantly on floors (P < 0.001) and marginally on windowsills (P = 0.066), with the TSP/HEPA method being favored for higher baseline levels and the non-TSP/non-HEPA method for lower baseline levels. For the 10 homes with lead abatement, almost all post-cleaning lead loadings were below the standards using either cleaning method. Based on our results, we recommend that contractors or homeowners can use a household vacuum cleaner and a household detergent to clean lead-contaminated environments after R&R activities when HUD-recommended equipment is not available.
我们在新泽西州北部40户进行过房屋翻新和改造（R&R）活动的家庭中开展了一项清洁试验。该研究采用了两种清洁方案：一种是美国住房和城市发展部（HUD）在1995年《住房中铅基油漆危害评估与控制指南》中推荐的特定方法，使用高效空气过滤器（HEPA）过滤的真空吸尘器和磷酸三钠溶液（TSP）；另一种是使用家用真空吸尘器和家用洗涤剂的替代方法。符合条件的房屋建于20世纪70年代之前，有潜在的铅基油漆，并且近期进行过R&R活动但未进行彻底清洁。这两种清洁方案被随机分配到参与者的家中，并遵循HUD推荐的三步程序：吸尘、湿洗和重复吸尘。在清洁前后对地板表面或窗台进行擦拭采样，以评估清洁效果。所有地板和窗台数据表明，两种方法（TSP/HEPA和非TSP/非HEPA）都能有效降低表面的铅负荷（P < 0.001）。当对初始铅负荷高于清除标准的表面进行清洁时，两种清洁方法的铅负荷降低幅度更大，均超过95%。混合效应模型分析表明，两种方法之间没有显著差异。发现基线铅负荷与地板上铅负荷的降低显著相关（P < 0.001），与窗台上铅负荷的降低略有相关（P = 0.077）。两种清洁方法之间的这种关系在地板上有显著差异（P < 0.001），在窗台上略有差异（P = 0.066），TSP/HEPA方法更适合基线水平较高的情况，而非TSP/非HEPA方法更适合基线水平较低的情况。对于10户进行了铅减排的家庭，使用任何一种清洁方法，几乎所有清洁后的铅负荷都低于标准。根据我们的结果，我们建议当没有HUD推荐的设备时，承包商或房主在R&R活动后可以使用家用真空吸尘器和家用洗涤剂来清洁铅污染的环境。
