Abstract

The traditional method of determining dust lead loading (mass per unit area) on surfaces is to send dust wipe samples to a laboratory for analysis, and typically it takes one or more days to obtain results. Field-portable techniques taking 10 to 15 min for dust wipe lead analysis have been developed but need to be further evaluated. Dust wipe samples (n = 878) collected from a nationally representative sample of child care centers were tested by means of x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis with two XRF analyzer instrument models and subsequently analyzed for lead using flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS). Samples were collected from floors and interior window sills and included blank and spiked quality control samples. Weighted linear regression was used to model the relationship between XRF and FAAS measurements. The correlations between FAAS and XRF measurements exceeded 0.80 (p < 0.0001). The highly significant statistical correlation suggests that the XRF method could be used to quantify dust lead loadings to determine compliance with dust lead hazard standards as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Small, but significant, differences in regression parameters were found between floor or sill and quality control sample types. The use of 95 % prediction intervals could allow for rapid screening of clearance samples in the field if method standards were developed. Additional work is needed in order for researchers to understand differences among XRF instruments and the conditions under which the use of XRF testing in the field could reduce the time or cost required in order to complete clearance testing.

References

1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
2008
, “
Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential Structures
,” 40 CFR Part 745, EPA, Washington, D.C., http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr745_main_02.tpl (Last accessed 2 Dec 2011).
2.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
2004
, “
The Lead Safe Housing Rule
,” 24 CFR Part 35, HUD, Washington, D.C., http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/enforcement/lshr.cfm (Last accessed 28 Nov 2010).
3.
Harper
,
M.
,
Hallmark
,
T. S.
, and
Bartolucci
,
A. A.
, “
A Comparison of Methods and Materials for the Analysis of Leaded Wipes
,”
J. Environ. Monitoring
, Vol.
4
(
6
),
2002
, pp.
1025
1030
. https://doi.org/10.1039/b208456m
4.
Kalnicky
,
D. J.
, and
Singhvi
,
R.
, “
Field Portable XRF Analysis of Environmental Samples
,”
J. Hazard. Mater.
, Vol.
83
(
1–2
),
2001
, pp.
93
122
. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00330-7
5.
Ashley
,
K.
,
Wise
,
T. J.
,
Mercado
,
W.
, and
Parry
,
D. B.
, “
Ultrasonic Extraction and Field-portable Anodic Stripping Voltammetric Measurement of Lead in Dust Wipe Samples
,”
J. Hazard. Mater.
, Vol.
83
(
1-2
),
2001
, pp.
41
50
. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00326-5
6.
Sterling
,
D. A.
,
Lewis
,
R. D.
,
Luke
,
D. A.
, and
Shadel
,
B. N.
, “
A Portable X-ray Fluorescence Instrument for Analyzing Dust Wipe Samples for Lead: Evaluation with Field Samples
,”
Environ. Res.
, Vol.
83
(
2
),
2000
, pp.
174
179
. https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.2000.4058
7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “
National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program, Laboratory Quality System Requirements (LQSR), Versions 3.0, 5 July 2007
,” EPA, Washington, D.C., http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/lqsrv3.pdf (Last accessed 17 Nov 2011).
8.
Niton
, “
Analyzing Thin Samples
,”
XL-309 & 700 Series User’s Guide Version 5.0
,.
Niton Corporation
,
Billerica, MA
,
1997
.
9.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
,
2002
, “
Environmental Technology Verification Report, Lead in Dust Wipe Measurement Technology, Niton, LLC XRF Fluorescence Spectrum Analyzer, XL-300 Series
,”
EPA, Office of Research and Development
,
Washington, D.C.
10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
,
2003
, “
Environmental Technology Verification Report, Lead in Dust Wipe Measurement Technology, Niton, LLC XRF Fluorescence Spectrum Analyzer, XLt700 Series
,”
EPA, Office of Research and Development
,
Washington, D.C.
11.
Roda
,
S.
, personal communication, University of Cincinnati Hematology and Environmental Laboratory, November
2010
.
12.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
,
2003
, “
First National Environmental Health Survey of Child Care Centers, Final Report, Results of Lead Hazards
,”
HUD, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control
,
Washington, D.C.
13.
ASTM Standard E1728–95
:
Practice for the Field Determination of Settled Dust Samples Using Wipe Sampling Methods for Lead Determination by Atomic Absorption Spectrometry Techniques
,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
, Vol.
04.11
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
1995
, pp.
1096
1099
.
14.
ASTM Standard E1792–96a
:
Standard Specification for Wipe Sampling Materials for Lead in Surface Dust
,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
, Vol.
04.11
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
1996
, pp.
1162
1164
.
15.
NIOSH Method 7082
,
1984
, “
Lead by Flame AAS
,”
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
, 3rd ed., Health and Human Services SN-917–011-00000–1,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
,
Cincinnati, OH
.
16.
SAS/STAT 9.22 User’s Guide
. (
2010
).
SAS Institute, Inc.
,
Cary, NC
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.