Removal of lead contaminated dusts from hard surfaces

Do new wipe materials outperform traditional lead dust cleaning methods?

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.

Monitoring and reducing exposure of infants to pollutants in house dust

The health risks to babies from pollutants in house dust may be 100 times greater than for adults. The young ingest more dust and are up to ten times more vulnerable to such exposures. House dust is the main exposure source for infants to allergens, lead, and PBDEs, as well as a major source of exposure to pesticides, PAHs, Gram-negative bacteria, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, phthalates, phenols, and other EDCs, mutagens, and carcinogens. Median or upper percentile concentrations in house dust of lead and several pesticides and PAHs may exceed health-based standards in North America. Early contact with pollutants among the very young is associated with higher rates of chronic illness such as asthma, loss of intelligence, ADHD, and cancer in children and adults. The potential of infants, who live in areas with soil contaminated by automotive and industrial emissions, can be given more protection by improved home cleaning and hand washing. Babies who live in houses built before 1978 have a prospective need for protection against lead exposures; homes built before 1940 have even higher lead exposure risks. The concentration of pollutants in house dust may be 2-32 times higher than that found in the soil near a house. Reducing infant exposures, at this critical time in their development, may reduce lifetime health costs, improve early learning, and increase adult productivity. Some interventions show a very rapid payback. Two large studies provide evidence that home visits to reduce the exposure of children with poorly controlled asthma triggers may return more than 100% on investment in 1 yr in reduced health costs. The tools provided to families during home visits, designed to reduce dust exposures, included vacuum cleaners with dirt finders and HEPA filtration, allergy control bedding covers, high-quality door mats, and HEPA air filters. Infants receive their highest exposure to pollutants in dust at home, where they spend the most time, and where the family has the most mitigation control. Normal vacuum cleaning allows deep dust to build up in carpets where it can be brought to the surface and become airborne as a result of activity on the carpet. Vacuums with dirt finders allow families to use the three-spot test to monitor deep dust, which can reinforce good cleaning habits. Motivated families that receive home visits from trained outreach workers can monitor and reduce dust exposures by 90% or more in 1 wk. The cost of such visits is low considering the reduction of risks achieved. Improved home cleaning is one of the first results observed among families who receive home visits from MHEs and CHWs. We believe that proven intervention methods can reduce the exposure of infants to pollutants in house dust, while recognizing that much remains to be learned about improving the effectiveness of such methods.