The use of composite dust wipe samples as a means of assessing lead exposure.

N J Friederich, K M Bauer, B D Schultz, T S Holderman
{"title":"The use of composite dust wipe samples as a means of assessing lead exposure.","authors":"N J Friederich,&nbsp;K M Bauer,&nbsp;B D Schultz,&nbsp;T S Holderman","doi":"10.1080/00028899908984449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated two methods for analyzing composite dust wipes for lead. The term composite means two or more wipes collected from common components in a dwelling that are combined in the field and analyzed as a single sample. Two methods--a modified Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 3050A and a Wisconsin Occupational Health Laboratory (WOHL) method--were selected based on their anticipated ability to handle the added mass of materials and dust expected in a composite. The study used off-the-shelf wipes to prepare single-, two-, and four-wipe samples. Wipes were spiked with a standard reference material at either a low dust loading level or a high level, and three laboratories analyzed the samples using both methods and both flame atomic absorption spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry techniques (ICP). Good agreement with known spiked levels was possible using either method; the modified EPA 3050A showed particular promise. When up to four wipes were combined, all three laboratories found that modified EPA Method 3050A resulted in recoveries between 89 and 101% of the known standard. Although it was possible to achieve good agreement with spiked levels using the WOHL method, some difficulties were encountered, particularly when followed by ICP analysis and when using four wipes. The increased time required to digest the multiwipe composites was not proportional to the number of wipes in a composite: the two- and four-wipe composites did not take two to four times as long as a single-wipe sample. Laboratory analysis of a four-wipe sample cost an average of 65% less than analysis of four single-wipe samples for each method.</p>","PeriodicalId":7930,"journal":{"name":"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal","volume":"60 3","pages":"326-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00028899908984449","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00028899908984449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study investigated two methods for analyzing composite dust wipes for lead. The term composite means two or more wipes collected from common components in a dwelling that are combined in the field and analyzed as a single sample. Two methods--a modified Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 3050A and a Wisconsin Occupational Health Laboratory (WOHL) method--were selected based on their anticipated ability to handle the added mass of materials and dust expected in a composite. The study used off-the-shelf wipes to prepare single-, two-, and four-wipe samples. Wipes were spiked with a standard reference material at either a low dust loading level or a high level, and three laboratories analyzed the samples using both methods and both flame atomic absorption spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry techniques (ICP). Good agreement with known spiked levels was possible using either method; the modified EPA 3050A showed particular promise. When up to four wipes were combined, all three laboratories found that modified EPA Method 3050A resulted in recoveries between 89 and 101% of the known standard. Although it was possible to achieve good agreement with spiked levels using the WOHL method, some difficulties were encountered, particularly when followed by ICP analysis and when using four wipes. The increased time required to digest the multiwipe composites was not proportional to the number of wipes in a composite: the two- and four-wipe composites did not take two to four times as long as a single-wipe sample. Laboratory analysis of a four-wipe sample cost an average of 65% less than analysis of four single-wipe samples for each method.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用复合尘擦样品作为评估铅暴露的一种手段。
本文研究了两种分析复合湿巾铅含量的方法。术语复合是指从住宅的共同组成部分收集的两个或多个湿巾,它们在现场组合并作为单个样本进行分析。两种方法——改进的环境保护局(EPA)方法3050A和威斯康辛州职业健康实验室(WOHL)方法——是根据它们处理复合材料中预期增加的材料质量和灰尘的预期能力来选择的。该研究使用现成的湿巾制备单次、两次和四次擦拭样品。在湿巾中加入标准参考物质,在低粉尘负荷水平或高粉尘负荷水平下,三个实验室使用两种方法以及火焰原子吸收光谱法和电感耦合等离子体原子发射光谱法(ICP)对样品进行分析。使用任何一种方法都可以与已知的峰值水平保持良好的一致性;改良后的EPA 3050A表现出了特别的前景。当多达四张湿巾组合使用时,三个实验室都发现改进的EPA方法3050A的回收率在已知标准的89到101%之间。虽然使用WOHL方法可以与加标水平取得良好的一致性,但遇到了一些困难,特别是在进行ICP分析和使用四张抹布时。消化多次擦拭复合材料所需的时间增加与复合材料中的擦拭次数不成比例:两次和四次擦拭复合材料所花费的时间并不是单次擦拭样品的两到四倍。对于每种方法,四次擦拭样本的实验室分析成本平均比四次擦拭样本的分析成本低65%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of leakage from a metal machining center using tracer gas methods: a case study. Assessment of magnetic field exposures for a mortality study at a uranium enrichment plant. An assessment of occupational noise exposures in four construction trades. Prediction of rectal temperature by the Questemp II personal heat strain monitor under low and moderate heat stress. The effects of keyswitch stiffness on typing force, finger electromyography, and subjective discomfort.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1