5181.0: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 2:30 PM

Abstract #8565

Comparison of lead dust reduction techniques on hard surfaces: The New Jersey Assessment of Cleaning Techniques Study (NJACT)

David Q. Rich, MPH1, George G. Rhoads, MD, MPH2, Lih-Ming Yiin, PhD2, Zhipeng Bai, PhD3, and Junfeng Zhang, PhD3. (1) Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Harvard University, 677 Huntington Avenue, Kresge, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02115, (617)783-1532, drich@hsph.harvard.edu, (2) Environmental Health Division, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, 170 Frelinghuysen Road, Room 234, Piscataway, NJ 08854, (3) Exposure Measurement and Assessment Division, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, 170 Frelinghuysen Road, Room 358, Piscataway, NJ 08854

Childhood exposure to lead has long been known to have adverse neurological effects on children. Great importance has been placed on efforts to reduce dust lead levels by cleaning since household dust was first identified as an important lead exposure route. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's(HUD) Guidelines for Lead Hazard Control call for the use of high efficiency particulate air filtered vacuums (HEPA) and tri-sodium phosphate (TSP) (or an equivalently performing detergent). Unfortunately, it is difficult for families most at risk to implement these guidelines because HEPA vacuums are relatively expensive and TSP is unfamiliar and is often not available in supermarkets. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare less expensive, more familiar methods with those of the HUD Guidelines. Homes of lead burdened children were randomized and cleaned according to one of three methods (1=TSP and HEPA vacuum; 2=TSP and non-HEPA vacuum; 3=Low-phosphate detergent and non-HEPA vacuum). Lead dust samples were taken on hard floors, windowsills, and window wells prior to and following cleaning. Preliminary results suggest that method 3 may be just as effective as method 1 in reducing lead levels from pre-to post-cleaning on window wells (p=0.4664) and hard floors (p=0.0708, in favor of simple method), but not on window sills (p<0.0001, in favor of HUD method). Final study results will include adjustments for any inter-group differences in pre-cleaning surface-specific lead loadings, and may differ from the preliminary results.

Learning Objectives: 1. We will present and compare the effectiveness of HEPA and a non-HEPA vacuum in reducing residential lead dust. 2. We will present and compare the effectiveness of TSP and a low-phosphate detergent in reducing residential lead dust. 3. We will compare and discuss the effectiveness of two less expensive cleaning methods and the HUD Guidelines method

Keywords: Lead, Interventions

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.

The 128th Annual Meeting of APHA