Comparison of techniques to reduce residential lead dust on carpet and upholstery: The New Jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial

Lih Ming Yiin, George Rhoads, David Q. Rich, Junfeng Zhang, Zhipeng Bai, John L. Adgate, Peter J. Ashley, Paul J. Lioy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1233-1237
Number of pages5
JournalEnvironmental health perspectives
Volume110
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2002

Fingerprint

Vacuum
Dust
Air
Lead
Urban Renewal

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Cite this

Yiin, Lih Ming ; Rhoads, George ; Rich, David Q. ; Zhang, Junfeng ; Bai, Zhipeng ; Adgate, John L. ; Ashley, Peter J. ; Lioy, Paul J. / Comparison of techniques to reduce residential lead dust on carpet and upholstery : The New Jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial. In: Environmental health perspectives. 2002 ; Vol. 110, No. 12. pp. 1233-1237.
@article{65298998beaa4458942c933ab709632b,
title = "Comparison of techniques to reduce residential lead dust on carpet and upholstery: The New Jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial",
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.",
author = "Yiin, {Lih Ming} and George Rhoads and Rich, {David Q.} and Junfeng Zhang and Zhipeng Bai and Adgate, {John L.} and Ashley, {Peter J.} and Lioy, {Paul J.}",
year = "2002",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1289/ehp.021101233",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
pages = "1233--1237",
journal = "Environmental Health Perspectives",
issn = "0091-6765",
publisher = "Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services",
number = "12",

}

Comparison of techniques to reduce residential lead dust on carpet and upholstery : The New Jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial. / Yiin, Lih Ming; Rhoads, George; Rich, David Q.; Zhang, Junfeng; Bai, Zhipeng; Adgate, John L.; Ashley, Peter J.; Lioy, Paul J.

In: Environmental health perspectives, Vol. 110, No. 12, 01.12.2002, p. 1233-1237.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of techniques to reduce residential lead dust on carpet and upholstery

T2 - The New Jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial

AU - Yiin, Lih Ming

AU - Rhoads, George

AU - Rich, David Q.

AU - Zhang, Junfeng

AU - Bai, Zhipeng

AU - Adgate, John L.

AU - Ashley, Peter J.

AU - Lioy, Paul J.

PY - 2002/12/1

Y1 - 2002/12/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036917923&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036917923&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1289/ehp.021101233

DO - 10.1289/ehp.021101233

M3 - Article

C2 - 12460803

AN - SCOPUS:0036917923

VL - 110

SP - 1233

EP - 1237

JO - Environmental Health Perspectives

JF - Environmental Health Perspectives

SN - 0091-6765

IS - 12

ER -