Dixon Sherry, Wilson Jonathan, Kawecki Carol, Green Rodney, Phoenix Janet, Galke Warren, Clark Scott, Breysse Jill
National Center for Healthy Housing, Columbia, Maryland 21044, USA.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2008 Aug;5(8):530-9. doi: 10.1080/15459620802219799.
A methodology was developed to classify housing conditions and interior dust lead loadings, using them to predict the relative effectiveness of different lead-based paint hazard control interventions. A companion article in this issue describes how the methodology can be applied. Data from the National Evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Program, which covered more than 2800 homes in 11 U.S. states, were used. Half these homes (1417) met the study's inclusion criteria. Interior interventions ranged from professional cleaning with spot painting to lead abatement on windows, and enclosure, encapsulation, or removal of other leaded building components. Modeling was used to develop a visual Housing Assessment Tool (HAT), which was then used to predict relative intervention effectiveness for a range of intervention intensities and baseline floor and windowsill dust lead loadings in occupied dwellings. More than 117,000 potential HATs were considered. To be deemed successful, potential HATs were required to meet these criteria: (1) the effect of interior strategy had to differ for HAT ratings of good vs. poor building condition and/or baseline dust lead loadings; (2) the HAT rating had to be a predictor of one year post-intervention loadings; (3) interior intervention strategy had to be a predictor of one-year loadings; (4) higher baseline loadings could not be associated with lower one-year loadings; and (5) neither exterior work nor site/soil work could result in higher predicted one-year loadings for either HAT rating. Of the 1299 HATs that met these criteria, one was selected because it had the most significant differences between strategy intensities when floors and sills were considered together. For the selected HAT, site/soil work was a predictor of one-year loadings for floors (p = 0.009) but not for sills (p = 0.424). Hazard control work on the building exterior was a predictor of both sill and floor one-year loadings (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Regardless of the type of interior intervention strategy, interior work was a predictor of both floor and sill one-year loadings (each p < or = 0.001).
开发了一种方法来对住房条件和室内灰尘铅含量进行分类，并用它们来预测不同的基于铅的油漆危害控制干预措施的相对有效性。本期的一篇配套文章描述了该方法的应用方式。使用了来自美国住房和城市发展部铅危害控制拨款计划全国评估的数据，该计划涵盖了美国11个州的2800多所房屋。其中一半的房屋（1417所）符合该研究的纳入标准。室内干预措施包括从专业清洁并局部喷漆到窗户除铅，以及对其他含铅建筑部件进行封闭、封装或拆除。通过建模开发了一种可视化住房评估工具（HAT），然后用它来预测一系列干预强度以及居住房屋的基线地板和窗台灰尘铅含量情况下的相对干预效果。考虑了超过117,000种潜在的HAT。要被视为成功，潜在的HAT必须满足以下标准：（1）对于建筑状况良好与不佳以及/或基线灰尘铅含量的HAT评级，室内策略的效果必须有所不同；（2）HAT评级必须是干预后一年铅含量的预测指标；（3）室内干预策略必须是一年铅含量的预测指标；（4）较高的基线铅含量不能与较低的一年铅含量相关联；（5）无论是外部工作还是场地/土壤工作，对于任何一种HAT评级，都不能导致预测的一年铅含量更高。在符合这些标准的1299种HAT中，选择了一种，因为在将地板和窗台一起考虑时，其策略强度之间的差异最为显著。对于所选的HAT，场地/土壤工作是地板一年铅含量的预测指标（p = 0.009），但不是窗台一年铅含量的预测指标（p = 0.424）。建筑物外部的危害控制工作是窗台和地板一年铅含量的预测指标（分别为p = 0.004和p < 0.001）。无论室内干预策略的类型如何，室内工作都是地板和窗台一年铅含量的预测指标（每个p≤0.001）。
