| Comparison of Techniques to Reduce Residential Lead Dust on Carpet and Upholstery: The New Jersey Assessment of Cleaning Techniques Trial Lih-Ming Yiin,1 George G. Rhoads,1 David Q. Rich,1,2 Junfeng Zhang,1 Zhipeng Bai,1,3 John L. Adgate,4 Peter J. Ashley,5 and Paul J. Lioy1 1Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, and Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA; 2Environmental Epidemiology Program, Departments of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; 3College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin, China; 4Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; 5Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, USA Abstract
High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered vacuum cleaners are recommended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for cleaning lead-contaminated house dust. We performed a randomized field study to determine whether a conventional (non-HEPA) vacuum cleaner could achieve cleaning results comparable with those of a HEPA vacuum cleaner. We compared the lead loading reductions of these two vacuum cleaners in a total of 127 New Jersey homes of lead-exposed children. We used wet towelettes and a vacuum sampler to collect lead dust from carpets and upholstery before and after vacuum cleaning. The vacuum sampling data showed that the HEPA and non-HEPA vacuum cleaners resulted in 54.7% (p = 0.006) and 36.4% (p = 0.020) reductions in lead loading, respectively, when used on soiled carpets, although the overall difference in lead loading reduction between the two vacuum cleaners was not statistically significant (p = 0.293) . The wipe sampling data did not show any significant lead loading reduction for either of the vacuum cleaners, suggesting that both vacuum cleaners fail to clean the surfaces of carpet effectively, considering that wipe sampling media simulate surface contact. On upholstery, the wipe sampling data showed a significant reduction in lead loading for the non-HEPA vacuum cleaner (22.2%, p = 0.047) . Even with the significant reduction, the postcleaning lead loadings on upholstery were similar to those on carpets. The similar lead loading results for carpets and upholstery indicate that soiled upholstery may be as important a source of childhood lead exposure as carpets. Key words: carpet, cleaning, HEPA, HUD, lead, upholstery, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, vacuum. Environ Health Perspect 110:1233-1237 (2002) . [Online 17 October 2002] http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p1233-1237yiin/abstract.html Address correspondence to L-M Yiin, 170 Frelinghuysen Road, EOHSI 234, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA. Telephone: (732) 445-6942. Fax: (732) 445-0784. E-mail: lih-ming.yiin@umdnj.edu This work was supported by HUD Grant NJLHR 0023-97 and by Center Grant ES05022 from the National Institutes of Health. Views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agencies with which the authors are associated. Received 5 April 2002 ; accepted 24 May 2002.
The full version of this article is available for free in HTML or PDF formats. |
