A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Estimating the proportion of bioaccessible lead (BaPb) in household dust wipe samples: a comparison of IVBA and PBET methods
Established methods for using standardized dust wipes to collect and measure total lead in household dust are readily available but the use of dust wipes to measure bioaccessible lead (BaPb) is less clear. This study compared two in vitro methods for estimating the proportion of BaPb in dust collected into dust wipes including the US-EPA’s in-vitro bioaccessible assay (IVBA) method at two pH (1.5 and 2.5) values; and the physiologically based extraction test (PBET 2.5 pH). Two types of simulated household dust samples (Pb-soil contaminated and Pb-paint contaminated) each with three Pb concentrations were created. Equal amounts of simulated dust were applied to a smooth surface and collected following the standard EPA dust wipe protocol and were analyzed for BaPb and total Pb (ASTM-E1644-17, ICP-OES). Estimated BaPb levels differed significantly by the method of extraction. Mean percent BaPb were IVBA pH 1.5, > 90% (Pb-paint) and 59–63% (Pb-soil); IVBA pH 2.5 78–86% (Pb-paint) and 45–50% (Pb-soil); PBET pH 2.5 56 to 61% (Pb-paint) and 41–50% Pb-soil). Particularly for lead-paint contaminated dust, PBET showed significantly greater discrimination as suggested by the broader range of BaPb values and closer approximation to total lead concentrations in simulated household dust samples.
Estimating the proportion of bioaccessible lead (BaPb) in household dust wipe samples: a comparison of IVBA and PBET methods
Established methods for using standardized dust wipes to collect and measure total lead in household dust are readily available but the use of dust wipes to measure bioaccessible lead (BaPb) is less clear. This study compared two in vitro methods for estimating the proportion of BaPb in dust collected into dust wipes including the US-EPA’s in-vitro bioaccessible assay (IVBA) method at two pH (1.5 and 2.5) values; and the physiologically based extraction test (PBET 2.5 pH). Two types of simulated household dust samples (Pb-soil contaminated and Pb-paint contaminated) each with three Pb concentrations were created. Equal amounts of simulated dust were applied to a smooth surface and collected following the standard EPA dust wipe protocol and were analyzed for BaPb and total Pb (ASTM-E1644-17, ICP-OES). Estimated BaPb levels differed significantly by the method of extraction. Mean percent BaPb were IVBA pH 1.5, > 90% (Pb-paint) and 59–63% (Pb-soil); IVBA pH 2.5 78–86% (Pb-paint) and 45–50% (Pb-soil); PBET pH 2.5 56 to 61% (Pb-paint) and 41–50% Pb-soil). Particularly for lead-paint contaminated dust, PBET showed significantly greater discrimination as suggested by the broader range of BaPb values and closer approximation to total lead concentrations in simulated household dust samples.
Estimating the proportion of bioaccessible lead (BaPb) in household dust wipe samples: a comparison of IVBA and PBET methods
Wekumbura, Chandima (author) / Hettiarachchi, Ganga M. (author) / Sobin, Christina (author)
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A ; 58 ; 127-138
2023-01-28
12 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Bioaccessible lead , dust wipes , PBET , IVBA , paint dust , pH , soil dust
Bioaccessible and non-bioaccessible fractions of soil arsenic
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2013
Bioaccessible and non-bioaccessible fractions of soil arsenic
| Online Contents | 2013
What proportion of household dust is derived from outdoor soil?
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 1992
Lead loadings in household dust in Delhi, India
| Online Contents | 2009