The publication detail shows the title, authors (with indicators showing other profiled authors), information on the publishing organization, abstract and a link to the article in PubMed. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the publication. If any grants are referenced by the publication, they will be listed here as well.
Comparison of a wipe and a vacuum collection method for the determination of lead in residential dusts.
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.
Environmental research 1994;65(2):291-301.
Lead-containing house dust is an important source of childhood lead exposure. Standard methods for collection of settled dust for evaluation of lead content have not been established. Little is known about the relationships between the various wipe and vacuum-based methods employed in past studies, preventing meaningful comparisons of results. This study characterized the relationship between a frequently used wipe dust collection method and a vacuum-based in-line filter method used to collect dust in a national survey of lead in paint and dust in U.S. housing. The correlation coefficient was 0.82 for estimates of lead loadings (PbD, mg/m2) from 71 pairs of side-by-side wipe and vacuum dust samples collected from uncarpeted floors, window sills, and exterior window wells in six dwellings. Geometric mean (GM) wipe PbD estimates exceeded those for vacuum samples by a factor of 3.9 and 5.7 for floors and window sills, respectively, findings consistent with the multiple sources of sample loss associated with the vacuum sampler. For window wells, the GM vacuum PbD estimate exceeded the GM wipe PbD estimate by a factor of 3.4, possibly due to the use of an alternative vacuum nozzle. The resulting increase in the estimated prevalence of U.S. homes with elevated dust lead loadings had wipe-sampling instead of vacuum-sampling methods been used in the national survey is discussed.
This section shows information related to the publication - computed using the fingerprint of the publication - including related publications, related experts and related grants with fingerprints representing significant amounts of overlap between their fingerprint and this publication. The red dots indicate whether those experts or terms appear within the publication, thereby showing potential and actual connections.
Lisa Gallicchio; Mary Sexton; Michelle L WernerEnvironmental research 2002;89(1):50-7.
M R Farfel; A O Orlova; P S Lees; C Bowen; R Elias; P J Ashley; J J ChisolmEnvironmental science & technology 2001;35(10):2078-83.
M R Farfel; J J Chisolm; C A RohdeEnvironmental research 1994;66(2):217-21.
Appears in this Publication
Author of this Publication