Shah Manthan P, Shendell Derek G, Meng Qingyu, Ohman-Strickland Pamela, Halperin William
a Department of Environmental and Occupational Health , Rutgers School of Public Health , Piscataway , New Jersey.
b Department of Biostatistics , Rutgers School of Public Health , Piscataway , New Jersey.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2018 Jul;15(7):541-548. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2018.1468078.
The performances of a portable X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) lead paint analyzer (RMD LPA-1, Protec Instrument Corp., Waltham, MA) and a commercially available colorimetric lead test kit (First Alert Lead Test Kit, eAccess Solutions, Inc., Palatine, IL) were evaluated for use by local or state health departments as potential cost-effective rapid analysis or "spot test" field techniques for tentative identification of lead content in sindoor powders. For both field-sampling methods, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values varied widely for samples containing <300,000 µg/g lead. For samples containing ≥300,000 µg/g lead, the aforementioned metrics were 100% (however, the CIs had a wide range). In addition, both field sampling methods showed clear, consistent positive readings only for samples containing ≥300,000 µg/g lead. Even samples with lead content as high as 5,110 µg/g were not positively identified by either field analysis technique. The results of this study suggest the XRF analyzer and colorimetric lead test kit cannot be used as a rapid field test for sindoor by health department inspectors.
对一款便携式X射线荧光（XRF）铅漆分析仪（RMD LPA - 1，Protec Instrument Corp.，马萨诸塞州沃尔瑟姆）和一款市售比色法铅检测试剂盒（First Alert Lead Test Kit，eAccess Solutions，Inc.，伊利诺伊州帕拉蒂尼）的性能进行了评估，以供地方或州卫生部门用作潜在的具有成本效益的快速分析或“现场检测”现场技术，用于初步鉴定室内粉末中的铅含量。对于这两种现场采样方法，对于含铅量<300,000 μg/g的样品，灵敏度、特异性和预测值差异很大。对于含铅量≥300,000 μg/g的样品，上述指标为100%（然而，置信区间范围很宽）。此外，两种现场采样方法仅对含铅量≥300,000 μg/g的样品显示出清晰、一致的阳性读数。即使是铅含量高达5,110 μg/g的样品，两种现场分析技术也均未明确鉴定出来。本研究结果表明，XRF分析仪和比色法铅检测试剂盒不能被卫生部门检查员用作室内快速现场检测。
