Achieving dust lead clearance standards after lead hazard control projects: an evaluation of the HUD-recommended cleaning procedure and an abbreviated alternative

Partial dust removal in vehicles does not mitigate human exposure to organophosphate esters

Organophosphate esters (OPEs) have been detected within car interior dust, suggesting that the indoor microenvironment of vehicles may represent a potential route of human exposure to OPEs. We recently showed that people with longer commutes are exposed to higher concentrations of tris(1,3-dichloro-2-isopropyl)phosphate (TDCIPP) - a widely used OPE - and other studies have suggested that dust removal may lead to lower exposure to chemicals. Therefore, the overall objective of this study was to determine if a decrease in interior car dust results in mitigation of personal OPE exposure. Participants (N = 49) were asked to wear silicone wristbands, and a subset of them wiped interior parts at the front of their vehicles prior to one study week (N = 25) or both study weeks (N = 11). There were no significant differences in total OPE concentrations (77.79-13,660 ng/g) nor individual OPE concentrations (0.04-4852.81 ng/g) across the different wiping groups nor in relation to participant residence ZIP codes and AC/Heater usage. These findings suggest that higher exposure to TDCIPP for participants with longer commutes may be independent of dust located on interior parts at the front of the vehicle. Therefore, our study demonstrates that there is a need for research on the potential contribution of other sources of TDCIPP exposure within car interiors.

Reducing chemical exposures at home: opportunities for action

Indoor environments can influence human environmental chemical exposures and, ultimately, public health. Furniture, electronics, personal care and cleaning products, floor coverings and other consumer products contain chemicals that can end up in the indoor air and settled dust. Consumer product chemicals such as phthalates, phenols, flame retardants and per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances are widely detected in the US general population, including vulnerable populations, and are associated with adverse health effects such as reproductive and endocrine toxicity. We discuss the implications of our recent meta-analysis describing the patterns of chemical exposures and the ubiquity of multiple chemicals in indoor environments. To reduce the likelihood of exposures to these toxic chemicals, we then discuss approaches for exposure mitigation: targeting individual behaviour change, household maintenance and purchasing decisions, consumer advocacy and corporate responsibility in consumer markets, and regulatory action via state/federal policies. There is a need to further develop evidence-based strategies for chemical exposure reduction in each of these areas, given the multi-factorial nature of the problem. Further identifying those at greatest risk; understanding the individual, household and community factors that influence indoor chemical exposures; and developing options for mitigation may substantially improve individuals' exposures and health.

Exposure of U.S. children to residential dust lead, 1999-2004: I. Housing and demographic factors

BACKGROUND

Lead-contaminated house dust is a major source of lead exposure for children in the United States. In 1999-2004, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collected dust lead (PbD) loading samples from the homes of children 12-60 months of age.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we aimed to compare national PbD levels with existing health-based standards and to identify housing and demographic factors associated with floor and windowsill PbD.

METHODS

We used NHANES PbD data (n=2,065 from floors and n=1,618 from windowsills) and covariates to construct linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The population-weighted geometric mean floor and windowsill PbD were 0.5 microg/ft2 [geometric standard error (GSE)=1.0] and 7.6 microg/ft2 (GSE=1.0), respectively. Only 0.16% of the floors and 4.0% of the sills had PbD at or above current federal standards of 40 and 250 microg/ft2, respectively. Income, race/ethnicity, floor surface/condition, windowsill PbD, year of construction, recent renovation, smoking, and survey year were significant predictors of floor PbD [the proportion of variability in the dependent variable accounted for by the model (R2)=35%]. A similar set of predictors plus the presence of large areas of exterior deteriorated paint in pre-1950 homes and the presence of interior deteriorated paint explained 20% of the variability in sill PbD. A companion article [Dixon et al. Environ Health Perspect 117:468-474 (2009)] describes the relationship between children's blood lead and PbD.

CONCLUSION

Most houses with children have PbD levels that comply with federal standards but may put children at risk. Factors associated with PbD in our population-based models are primarily the same as factors identified in smaller at-risk cohorts. PbD on floors and windowsills should be kept as low as possible to protect children.

Evaluation of cleaning methods applied in home environments after renovation and remodeling activities

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.

Efficiency of final cleaning for lead-based paint abatement in indoor environments

The effectiveness of procedures used for the final indoor cleaning after active lead-based paint abatement were evaluated in a 830 ft3 test chamber. Dry and wet scraping and dry machine sanding were applied to wooden doors obtained from lead-hazard control sites. The airborne particle concentration and size distribution were monitored using a real-time particle size spectrometer. Particulates were also collected on filters and analyzed for total dust and lead. The resulting airborne lead mass was determined for each cleaning procedure, and the potential floor lead loading resulting from the dust settling was calculated. Wipe samples were collected to measure the actual floor lead loading. The effectiveness of final cleaning was evaluated first for dry abatement methods. Various cleaning work practices were tested by applying wet and dry debris sweeping as well as no sweeping in combinations with wet and dry removal of plastic sheeting. Considerable resuspension of leaded particles was detected during dry sweeping: the airborne lead mass increase ranged between 65 and 220 percent. However, this increase did not exceed 22 percent when wet sweeping was applied. Minimal or no resuspension was found when the plastic was folded with leaded debris inside (no sweeping was performed prior to the sheeting removal). During folding activity, the "clean" (uncovered) floor surface may be significantly contaminated with leaded dust from workers' shoes and cleaning tools. The first HEPA vacuuming resulted in a 15- to 20-fold decrease of the airborne lead mass; however, it was not sufficient to reduce the floor lead loading to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) clearance level of 40 microg/ft2, as determined by wipe sampling. Wet mopping following the first HEPA vacuuming was proven to be effective to reduce the lead loading significantly below 40 microg/ft2. The second HEPA vacuuming resulted in further reduction of the airborne lead mass concentration. The floor lead loading remained much lower than 40 microg/ft2. These results were confirmed in the tests when using wet scraping. Overall, the HUD-recommended cleaning protocol was found to be sufficient in reducing the floor lead loading below 40 microg/ft2. At the same time, several modifications are proposed in this study to further improve the cleaning effectiveness.