An investigation into porch dust lead levels
Jonathan Wilson
a,
, Sherry L. Dixon
, David E. Jacobs
, Judith Akoto
,Katrina S. Korfmacher
, Jill Breysse
a
National Center for Healthy Housing, 10320 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 500, Columbia, MD 21044, USA
b
University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box EHSC, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 August 2014Received in revised form16 November 2014Accepted 25 November 2014
Keywords:
LeadHouse dustPorchInterventionExposure
a b s t r a c t
Lead in porch dust can expose children through direct contact or track-in to the home, but has not beenadequately evaluated. At homes undergoing lead hazard control in Rochester, NY, we sampled settleddust lead on exterior porch
oors at baseline, immediately post-lead hazard control and one-year post-work (
n
¼
79 homes with complete data) viawipe sampling and collected housing, neighborhood and soildata. Baseline GM porch
oor dust lead loading (PbPD) was 68
m
g/ft
2
, almost four times more thanbaseline GM interior
oor dust lead (18
m
g/ft
2
). Immediate post-work PbPD declined 55% after porch
oorreplacement and 53% after porch
oor paint stabilization (
p
¼
0.009 and
p
¼
0.041, respectively). When noporch
oor workwas conducted but lead hazard control was conducted elsewhere, immediate post-workPbPD increased 97% (
p
¼
0.008). At one-year, GM PbPD continued to decline for porch replacement (77%below baseline) and paint stabilization (72% below baseline), but where no porch
oor work was done,GM PbPD was not signi
cantly different than baseline (
p
o
0.001,
p
¼
0.028 and
p
¼
0.504, respectively).Modeling determined that porch
oor replacement had signi
cantly lower one-year PbPD than stabili-zation when baseline PbPD levels were higher than 148
m
g/ft
2
(the 77th percentile) but not at lowerlevels. Treatment of porches with lead paint results in substantial declines in PbPD levels. It is of concernthat PbPD levels increased signi
cantly at immediate post-work when lead hazard control was notconducted on the porch but was conducted elsewhere. Standards for porch lead dust should be adoptedto protect children from inadequate clean-up after lead hazard control.
&
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Children who live in homes with elevated levels of dust leadare at risk of exposure to lead, a neurotoxin that can result insigni
cant cognitive impacts and other adverse health effects(Lidsky 2003; Lanphear et al., 2005). Lead in settled housedust has
been well documented as a pathway of lead into the bodies of young children (Bornschein et al., 1985; Lanphear and Roghmann
1997; Lanphear et al., 1998; Dixon et al., 2009). In 2001, USEPA
established health-based standards for interior dust lead levels toprotect children (US EPA, 2001). Previous studies have docu-mented that exterior dust lead can enter homes through track-inand blow-in, contributing to the levels on interior
oors andwindow surfaces (Adgate et al., 1998; Clark et al., 2004; Dixon
et al., 2007). Additionally, children who play on porches may be atrisk from direct exposure to porch dust lead. However, standardsfor exterior lead dust on porches or other exterior surfaces havenot been developed.The Evaluation of the HUD Lead Control Grant Program foundthat dwellings without exterior treatments had interior dust leadlevels that were 33% higher than dwellings where exteriors weretreated (Dixon et al., 2005). For a dwelling that is part of theFederally-assisted housing program and which has a porch, theexterior of the building could be treated to be in full compliancewith all surfaces made lead-safe, but currently there is no way toadequately determine the degree of risk associated with porch
oor dust lead loadings. The 1995 HUD Guidelines recommendedthat buildings undergoing exterior hazard control have an exteriorclearance (post-clean up) dust wipe collected
“
on a horizontalsurface in part of the outdoor living area (e.g., a porch
oor orentryway)
”
m
g/ft
2
. In subsequent rulemaking, neither HUD norEPA has required clearance wipe sampling on exterior surfaces,except for window troughs. However, window troughs cannotContents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres
Environmental Research
&
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Abbreviations:
m
g/ft
2
, micrograms of lead dust per square foot of surface area;mg/cm
2
, milligrams of lead paint per square centimeter of surface area; GM,Geometric mean; HUD, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; PbPD,Porch
oor dust lead loading (
m
g/ft
2
)
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses:
jwilson@nchh.org (J. Wilson), sdixon@nchh.org (S.L. Dixon),
djacobs@nchh.org (D.E. Jacobs), judipris@gmail.com (J. Akoto),
Katrina_Korfmacher@URMC.Rochester.edu (K.S. Korfmacher), jbreysse@nchh.org (J. Breysse).Environmental Research 137 (2015) 129
serve as a surrogate for porch
oors and their potential to be asource of tracked-in dust. In its decision not to establish an ex-terior dust lead standard, EPA stated that
“
With respect to dust onexternal surfaces, EPA is concerned that the extent of the datalinking it to health effects beyond the sources already identi
ed islimited.
”
ll this gap in understanding andto help inform decision-making about the signi
cance of an ap-propriate response to porch dust lead. A porch dust lead guidancelevel could be avaluable measure of the adequacy of clean-up afterexterior lead hazard control work. It would also serve as a usefulmarker of exterior risk, particularly for children who spend timeplaying on porches. Finally, it could prevent exterior hazards fromincreasing interior hazards through tracked-in dust lead.Several previous studies collected dust lead samples fromporches, but the analysis of these data have been very limited. The1994 Rochester Lead-In-Dust Study collected 125 exterior porchwipe samples, along with blood lead levels of a child residing ineach of those homes (Lanphear, 1995). Based on that study data,we found that blood lead was signi
cantly correlated with porchmid-point
oor loading (Spearman's
r
¼
0.29 with
p
¼
0.001). Otherstudies have also collected dust lead samples from porches (e.g.,the Sixth Year Analysis of the Evaluation (Wilson et al., 2006)), butthe protocols for these studies frequently have allowed for sam-pling of other surfaces as a general exterior sample, includingsteps, sidewalks, and patios. In 2002
–
03, the Milwaukee HealthDepartment collected porch dust lead samples from dwellingsenrolled in HUD
’
s Milwaukee Ordinance Study. The study foundthat in this set of homes, dust lead levels immediately outside of the entry of a home are
on average
more than 2.5 times the interior
oor dust lead standard and at one location, the level was over 150times the interior standard (National Center for Healthy Housing,2004).Rochester was selected for this study because it has a housingstock with many exterior unenclosed porches and has a well-documented history of lead hazards and lead-poisoned children. Ina 2012
–
2013 Monroe County Health Department pilot program,98% of 51 single family structures in Rochester cited for lead ha-zards had lead paint hazards on the porches (Monroe CountyDepartment of Public Health, 2013). The researchers partneredwith the City of Rochester Lead Hazard Control Program to ex-amine exterior porch dust lead levels at homes receiving interiorand in many cases, exterior treatment. This allowed the study todocument baseline (pre-work) porch dust lead levels and the ef-fect of interior and exterior interventions on those porch dust leadlevels. The relationship between porch
oor dust lead loading(
m
g/ft
2
) (PbPD) and interior
oor and window sill dust lead levelsare also examined.
2. Methods
We enrolled 102 dwellings with unenclosed painted porches
4
20 square feet that were scheduled to have lead hazards ad-dressed by the City of Rochester's HUD-funded Lead Hazard Con-trol grant program. The porch did not have to serve as the primaryentry to the residence. A convenience sample of 32 respondentsreported that 69% of residents used the porch entrance daily andanother 22% used it at least weekly. Only 9% used the porch en-trance rarely or never.Certi
ed lead risk assessors collected data on visual conditionof paint, dust and soil lead levels using EPA protocols (24 CFR Part745), condition and cleanliness of the porch, the type and condi-tion of
oor surfaces, the weather conditions, soil coverage, andpresence of other lead point sources in the neighborhood duringthe three phases of the study (before intervention, immediatelyafter work was completed, and again one year post-work). Thelocal lead hazard control program determined if porches should betreated or not. Out of the enrolled homes, 92 underwent leadhazard control. The risk assessors sampled porch dust within onemonth of being noti
ed that the lead hazard control program hadassessed and cleared the work. Some pot-work assessments weremissed because of inclement weather or communication errors(Table 1). Porch dust samples were available from all three phasesat 79 dwellings.Dust wipe samples were collected from three locations on eachporch
oor: next to the front entry (entry sample); next to the stepor stairs leading to the porch (step sample); and next to a railingaway from the entry (railing sample) using the standard HUDmethod (Fig. 1
–
Xs) (HUD, 1995). Dust samples were analyzed forlead using ASTM Method 1644-04 and ASTM Method E1613 orInductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry. Test-ing laboratories participated in EPA
’
s National Lead LaboratoryAccreditation program. Baseline dust wipe samples were alsocollected by city funded contractors from window sills and non-entryway
oors from inside the structure as part of a risk assess-ment conducted according to the
HUD Guidelines for the Evaluationand Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing
2.1. Longitudinal PbPD
At 13 of the treated study dwellings selected by convenience,lead dust loading was measured during an additional16 points intime starting after completion of work and continuing for one yearafter treatment to assess dust lead loading levels over time. Thestudy collected dust lead on settling plates twice a month for the
Table 1
Number of dwellings with PbPD results by
oor treatment.Floor treatment Number of dwellings with PbPD samples available byphaseBaseline Baseline andone-yearBaseline andclearanceBaseline, clear-ance and one-yearDropped beforetreatment10 0 0 0Replace/remove 54 50 49 45Paint stabilization 8 8 7 7None 30 30 27 27All 102 88 83 79
Fig. 1.
Typical exterior porch in Rochester, New York (X
¼
dust wipe sampling lo-cations; square
¼
location of dust collection plate).
J. Wilson et al. / Environmental Research 137 (2015) 129
–
135
130
rst six months after work and once a month for the next sixmonths. Sampling visits were missed if the porch was coveredwith ice or snow. The settling plates were glass plates measuringone square foot resting in a cage to protect them from being dis-turbed. The cage was positioned on the porch next to the buildingbut away from the entrance to reduce the effect of weather andfoot traf
–
square). The wipe sampling process was de-signed to completely clean the dust off the setting plate at eachvisit. The dust lead loading on the settling plates were divided bythe number of weeks between samples to develop a standardmeasure of plate deposition rate (
m
g/ft
2
/wk). At each collectionperiod, a second dust lead wipe sample was collected from theporch
oor between the entry and step sampling locations.
2.2. Statistical methods
Paired
t
-test on log-transformed dust lead loadings were usedto test for a signi
cant change in 3-location GM dust lead loadingsfrom baseline to immediate post-work and one-year. The 3-loca-tion average is the average of the entry, railing and entry PbPDloadings for a speci
c property and time. Separate repeatedmeasures models were created to predict log-transformed base-line, immediate post-work and one-year PbPD. Models were re-peated measures because they included all three locations (entry,steps, and railing) sampled. All models included characteristics of the dust wiped site, season, baseline soil lead and soil cover, as-sessor rating of basic general upkeep and cleanliness of porch,exterior building conditions, baseline PbPD, baseline paint leadloading and paint conditions, and relevant interactions betweenthese variables. Log-transformed baseline PbPD from the corre-sponding location was included as a potential predictor of im-mediate post-work and one-year PbPD.For the analysis of the effects of porch treatments on PbPD, weinvestigated whether to characterize treatments by what wasdone to the porch as a whole or to the porch
oor. When bothvariables were included in models, treatments to the porch
oor
remained signi
cant. Therefore, porch
oor treatment (remove/replace, paint stabilization, or none) was included as a predictor of immediate post-work and one-year after work dust lead loading.A stepwise elimination procedure was employed to create themodels. A generalized logistic mixed model was used to testwhether the odds that PbPD was at least 40
m
g/ft
2
differed by lo-cation, phase, treatment and all two-way and three-way interac-tions. For the longitudinal analysis, repeated measures mixedmodels were used to determine if settling plate deposition rates orPbPD differed across the one-year period while controlling forrepeated measurements at each property.
3. Results
3.1. Baseline(pre-work)
The baseline geometric mean (GM) porch and interior
oordust lead loadings were 68
m
g/ft
2
and 18
m
g/ft
2
cantly correlated withinterior
oor and window sill dust lead loading (Spearman's
r
¼
0.25 with
p
¼
0.070 for
oors and
r
¼
0.27 with
p
¼
0.047 forsills).All 102 porches were tested for lead-based paint (
Z
1 mg/cm
2
)at baseline; 92% tested positive. The GM porch paint lead loadingon the tested components was 1.1 mg/cm
2
(95% CI (0.88 mg/cm
2
,1.41 mg/cm
2
oors, columns, ceilings and railings. Eighty-two percent of porch
oors were painted (35% positive), while 77percent of columns were painted (77% positive). Areas sampled onporch
oors were most commonly painted (58%) or unpaintedwood (20%), with 15% carpeted and 6% having another surfacetype. Most of the surfaces were in fair condition (76%).Eighty-two (82%) percent of the buildings had bare or partiallybare soil next to the foundation. Seven percent of buildings hadsoil which was not bare and 9% had no soil. At the other 2% of buildings, the soil condition was not reported. Risk assessors col-lected soil near the building's foundation at 52% of the buildingsand the GM soil lead level was 1,004
m
g/g. Forty-nine percent of the properties exceeded the EPA standard for bare, non-play areasoil of 1,200
m
ed
ve factors that had signi
oor paint lead, and non-
oor paintcondition. Porch dust lead loadings near railings were 71% higherthan entry samples and 74% higher than step samples (both
p
o
0.001). There was no signi
cant difference between entry andstep samples (
p
¼
0.835). Railing samples were 91% higher thanentry samples when the porch column paint tested positive forlead, while railing samples were 16% higher than entry sampleswhen the test of the column was negative. The condition of thewiped surface had a signi
cant effect on the porch dust leadloadings (
p
o
0.001). Comparing wiped surface condition by cate-gory (good vs. fair; fair vs. poor), the dust lead loading increased58% by each decline in condition. When samples were collectedfrom porch carpets, the loadings were lower than on painted andunpainted surfaces when wet or dry (all four
p
o
0.01). Paintedsurfaces had higher dust lead loadings than unpainted wood whenwet (
p
o
0.001). Wet surfaces had lower dust lead loadings thandry surfaces on unpainted wood (
p
o
0.006), but wet surfaces didnot affect dust lead levels on other surface types.The porch paint lead levels and conditions also affected PbPD atbaseline. Controlling for whether the wiped surface was painted ornot, the dust levels were signi
cantly related to the porch
oorpaint lead (
p
o
0.001). PbPD was 275% higher when the
oor paintwas 4 mg/cm
2
(75th percentile) than when the
oor paint was0.1 mg/cm
2
(25th percentile). The risk assessors rated the paintedsurfaces on the porch as intact, fair or poor. In this model wherewiped surface condition was signi
cant, the
oor paint conditionwas not a signi
cant factor. However, the condition of non-
oorporch paint was signi
cantly related to PbPD.Other factors that were non-signi
cant in predicting PbPD atbaseline included soil lead concentration and soil cover, generalcondition of exterior building components (i.e., measure of building upkeep), assessor rating of the cleanliness of the porch,and the season when sampled.
Table 2
Unadjusted baseline PbPD by surface type and sample location.Dataset Surface type Geometric mean dust loading (
m
g/ft
2
) (95% CI)by sample locationEntry Steps RailingAll units(
n
¼
102)Painted 74(48,113) 79(55,115) 117(81,171)Unpaintedwood45(22,91) 30(15,60) 82(32,205)Carpet 15(10,23) 19(9,45) 18(10,32)Other 30(13,69) 22(14,34) 55(27,109)All 47(35,63) 47(35,64) 86(63,118)Units in theone-yeardataset(
n
¼
79)Painted 61(37,99) 68(44,106) 106(70,162)Unpaintedwood52(22,121) 32(13,78) 92(29,291)Carpet 17(11,26) 21(9,51) 18(10,35)Other 39(32,46) 23(14,38) 80(45,141)All 43(31,60) 43(30,60) 85(59,122)
J. Wilson et al. / Environmental Research 137 (2015) 129
–
135
131
Reward Your Curiosity
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
