A side-by-side comparison of sampling methods for settled, indoor allergens.

Exposure to indoor allergens is associated with asthma, but there is no standardized sampling method for measuring allergens. We compared the association of measured allergen exposure and serum-specific IgE levels and the precision of three sampling methods (Cyclone, Mighty Mite, and Readivac II) to identify a standardized sampling method for indoor allergens. A random sample of 72 children, 5 to 17 years old, with doctor-diagnosed asthma who lived in the same residence >or=2 years were enrolled. Composite, side by side floor samples were obtained with all three methods. Dust allergen concentrations and serum-specific IgE levels were measured for Der f I, Fel d I, and Bla g I. Mean allergen concentration did not differ significantly by sampling method. Cat allergen was significantly correlated with serum-specific IgE for Cyclone (P=0.003) and Mighty Mite (P=0.008), but only marginally for Readivac II (P=0.07). Dust mite allergen was significantly correlated with serum-specific IgE for Readivac II (P=0.02) and Cyclone (P=0.038), but not for Mighty Mite (P=0.12). Cockroach allergen was not correlated with serum-specific IgE for any sampling method. In multiple linear regression, cat allergen was associated with serum-specific IgE for Cyclone (P=0.007) and Mighty Mite (P=0.02), but not for Readivac II (P=0.06). In contrast, dust mite allergen was marginally associated with serum-specific IgE for Readivac II (P=0.07), but not for Mighty Mite (P=0.64) or Cyclone (P=0.27). The Cyclone and Mighty Mite were more precise than Readivac II for cat allergen, but there was no difference for dust mite allergen (P>0.05). No single method is superior for measurement of indoor allergens. In general, cat allergen collected with the Cyclone was a better predictor of serum-specific IgE levels to Fel d I, whereas dust mite allergen collected with the Readivac II was a better predictor of serum-specific IgE levels to Der f I.

Use of a field portable X-Ray fluorescence analyzer to determine the concentration of lead and other metals in soil samples.

Field portable methods are often needed in risk characterization, assessment and management to rapidly determine metal concentrations in environmental samples. Examples are for determining: "hot spots" of soil contamination, whether dust wipe lead levels meet housing occupancy standards, and worker respiratory protection levels. For over 30 years portable X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers have been available for the in situ, non-destructive, measurement of lead in paint. Recent advances made possible their use for analysis of airborne dust filter samples, soil, and dust wipes. Research at the University of Cincinnati with the NITON 700 Series XRF instrument (40 millicurie Cadmium 109 source, L X-Rays) demonstrated its proficiency on air sample filters (NIOSH Method No. 7702, "Lead by Field Portable XRF; limit of detection 6 microg per sample; working range 17-1,500 microg/m3 air). Research with lead dust wipe samples from housing has also shown promising results. This XRF instrument was used in 1997 in Poland on copper smelter area soil samples with the cooperation of the Wroclaw Medical Academy and the Foundation for the Children from the Copper Basin (Legnica). Geometric mean soil lead concentrations were 200 ppm with the portable XRF, 201 ppm with laboratory-based XRF (Kevex) and 190 ppm using atomic absorption (AA). Correlations of field portable XRF and AA results were excellent for samples sieved to less than 125 micrometers with R-squared values of 0.997, 0.957, and 0.976 for lead, copper and zinc respectively. Similarly, correlations were excellent for soil sieved to less than 250 micrometers, where R-squared values were 0. 924, 0.973, and 0.937 for lead, copper and zinc, respectively. The field portable XRF instrument appears to be useful for the determination of soil pollution by these metals in industrial regions.

Urinary arsenic excretion as a biomarker of arsenic exposure in children.

Urinary arsenic concentration has been used generally for the determination of exposure, but much concern has been raised over the most appropriate expression for urinary arsenic levels. In this study, we examined the influence of various adjustments of expressing urinary arsenic data. All children who were less than 72 mo of age and who were potty trained were invited to participate in the present study. Urine, soil, and dust samples were collected, and arsenic measurements were made. The geometric mean of speciated urinary arsenic among children who provided first-voided urine samples on 2 consecutive mornings was 8.6 microg/l (geometric standard deviation = 1.7, n = 289). Speciated urinary arsenic was related significantly to soil arsenic in bare areas (p < .0005). Use of a single urine sample versus the average of two first-voided urine samples collected on 2 consecutive mornings did not significantly alter the relationship between environmental arsenic and urinary arsenic levels. Furthermore, none of the adjustments to urinary concentration improved the strength of correlation between urinary arsenic and soil arsenic levels. Concentration adjustments may not be necessary for urinary arsenic levels obtained from young children who provide first-void samples in the morning.

Environmental arsenic exposure of children around a former copper smelter site.

Arsenic residues in the communities surrounding former smelters remain a public health concern, especially for infants and children. To evaluate environmental exposure among these children, a population-based cross-sectional study was conducted in the vicinity of a former copper smelter in Anaconda, Montana. A total of 414 children less than 72 months old were recruited. First morning voided urine samples and environmental samples were collected for arsenic measurements. The geometric mean of speciated urinary arsenic was 8.6 microg/liter (GSD = 1.7, N = 289). Average arsenic levels of different types of soil ranged from 121 to 236 microg/g and were significantly related to proximity and wind direction to the smelter site. The same significant relationship was observed for interior dust arsenic. Speciated urinary arsenic was found to be significantly related to soil arsenic in bare areas in residential yards (P < 0.0005). In general, elevated excretion of arsenic was demonstrable and warranted parents' attention to reduce exposure of their children to environmental arsenic.

The relationship between surface dust lead loadings on carpets and the blood lead of young children.

The final clean-up of residential lead abatement projects in federally-supported housing, as well as in other housing in a number of states, must meet surface dust lead clearance levels expressed as µg of lead per square foot. These clearance levels were established because hand-to-mouth ingestion of lead-contaminated dust is recognised as a major pathway through which many children are exposed. A dilemma exists because many floors in housing undergoing abatement are carpeted and the established clearance levels are generally not recommended for use on carpets. These clearance levels are also used as 'action levels' to determine whether exposure reduction activities are needed. The US Environmental Protection Agency is currently in the process of issuing standards for hazardous levels of lead in interior dust and bare soil under Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, 'The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992'. An effort to develop a potential surface dust lead clearance level for carpets was made using an existing vacuum dust collection method that has previously been shown to be a reliable indicator of childhood lead exposure. This method was designed for use on carpeted and non-carpeted surfaces. Using data from the Cincinnati Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration Project, the suggested floor-dust lead level where an estimated 95% of the population of children would be expected to have blood lead values below the national goal of 10 µg dL(-1), was more than an order of magnitude lower than the current floor-dust lead clearance level of 1080 µg m(-2) (100 µg ft(-2)). Further comparisons of blood lead and carpet lead levels in other parts of the country should be performed before a risk-based lead loading clearance level is established.

Clean-up of lead in household carpet and floor dust.

Methods to remove lead-containing dust were tested on carpets from homes of children with high blood lead and on new carpets artificially contaminated in the laboratory. The household carpets could not be cleaned effectively by repetitive vacuuming with HEPA-filtered cleaners. The lead concentration in the removed dust remained about the same from the initial cleaning (1 min/m2) to the final cleaning (total cleaning time of 10 min/m2). The lead loading on the surface of the carpets often increased during cleaning because vacuuming brought lead from deeper in the carpet to the surface. Over 95% of the total dust was removed from bare wooden floors by dry vacuuming (5 min/m2). For linoleum, more than 75% was removed by vacuuming for 5 min/m2. However, little was removed in vacuuming after the initial two minutes and about 20% was removed in a final wet-washing step. HEPA-vacuuming of the laboratory-contaminated carpets revealed that two of the commercially available vacuum cleaners tested were essentially equivalent and each removed significantly more dust than a third vacuum during a total cleaning time of 10 min/m2. Cleaning for 6 min/m2 was necessary to remove more than 70% of the embedded dust by the two more efficient vacuums. Cleaning efficiencies were about the same for short pile and sculptured carpets. It was concluded that it may be more practical to replace rather than clean carpets. HEPA-vacuum cleaning of carpets was shown to increase lead dust on the surface under some conditions.