Saint Louis University School of Public Health, 3545 Lafayette, St. Louis, MO 63104, USA.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(8):524-33. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2012.695975.
Government guidelines have traditionally recommended the use of wet mopping, sponging, or vacuuming for removal of lead-contaminated dust from hard surfaces in homes. The emergence of new technologies, such as the electrostatic dry cloth and wet disposable clothes used on mopheads, for removal of dust provides an opportunity to evaluate their ability to remove lead compared with more established methods. The purpose of this study was to determine if relative differences exist between two new and two older methods for removal of lead-contaminated dust (LCD) from three wood surfaces that were characterized by different roughness or texture. Standard leaded dust, <75 μm, was deposited by gravity onto the wood specimens. Specimens were cleaned using an automated device. Electrostatic dry cloths (dry Swiffer), wet Swiffer cloths, paper shop towels with non-ionic detergent, and vacuuming were used for cleaning LCD from the specimens. Lead analysis was by anodic stripping voltammetry. After the cleaning study was conducted, a study of the coefficient of friction was performed for each wipe material. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate the surface and cleaning methods. There were significant interactions between cleaning method and surface types, p = 0.007. Cleaning method was found be a significant factor in removal of lead, p <0.001, indicating that effectiveness of each cleaning methods is different. However, cleaning was not affected by types of surfaces. The coefficient of friction, significantly different among the three wipes, is likely to influence the cleaning action. Cleaning method appears to be more important than texture in LCD removal from hard surfaces. There are some small but important factors in cleaning LCD from hard surfaces, including the limits of a Swiffer mop to conform to curved surfaces and the efficiency of the wetted shop towel and vacuuming for cleaning all surface textures. The mean percentage reduction in lead dust achieved by the traditional methods (vacuuming and wet wiping) was greater and more consistent compared to the new methods (electrostatic dry cloth and wet Swiffer mop). Vacuuming and wet wiping achieved lead reductions of 92% ± 4% and 91%, ± 4%, respectively, while the electrostatic dry cloth and wet Swiffer mops achieved lead reductions of only 89 ± 8% and 81 ± 17%, respectively.
政府指南传统上建议使用湿拖、海绵或吸尘的方法，从家庭中的硬表面去除含铅灰尘。新型技术的出现，如静电干布和湿的一次性衣服，用于去除拖把头上的灰尘，为评估它们与更成熟的方法相比去除铅的能力提供了机会。本研究的目的是确定两种新的和两种旧的方法是否存在差异，这些方法用于从三种不同粗糙度或纹理的木材表面去除含铅灰尘（LCD）。标准含铅灰尘，<75μm，通过重力沉积在木材标本上。使用自动化装置对标本进行清洁。静电干布（干式 Swiffer）、湿式 Swiffer 布、带有非离子洗涤剂的纸巾和吸尘都用于从标本上清除 LCD。使用阳极溶出伏安法进行铅分析。在清洁研究完成后，对每种擦拭材料的摩擦系数进行了研究。方差分析用于评估表面和清洁方法。清洁方法和表面类型之间存在显著的相互作用，p=0.007。发现清洁方法是去除铅的重要因素，p<0.001，这表明每种清洁方法的效果不同。然而，清洁不受表面类型的影响。摩擦系数在三种擦拭布之间有显著差异，这可能会影响清洁效果。清洁方法似乎比表面纹理更重要，是从硬表面去除 LCD 的关键因素。从硬表面去除 LCD 时，有一些小但很重要的因素，包括 Swiffer 拖把适应曲面的局限性，湿纸巾和吸尘清洁所有表面纹理的效率。传统方法（吸尘和湿擦拭）实现的铅尘减少率更高且更一致，与新方法（静电干布和湿 Swiffer 拖把）相比。传统方法（吸尘和湿擦拭）实现的铅减少率分别为 92%±4%和 91%±4%，而静电干布和湿 Swiffer 拖把仅实现了 89%±8%和 81%±17%的铅减少率。
