These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Laboratory and analytical method performance of lead measurements in paint chips, soils, and dusts.
    Author: Schlecht PC, Groff JH, Feng A, Song R.
    Journal: Am Ind Hyg Assoc J; 1996 Nov; 57(11):1035-43. PubMed ID: 8931311.
    Abstract:
    The National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) recognizes laboratories capable of analyzing lead in paints, soils, and dusts. NLLAP requires successful participation in the Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) program. For paint chip analyses, laboratory-to-laboratory variability is about 10% relative standard deviation (RSD) for lead levels near 0.5%, the HUD definition of lead-based paint. For soil analyses, RSDs are about 9 to 10% near relevant federal soil standards and 16% near the lowest state bare soil standard that currently exists. For dust wipe analyses, RSDs range from 10 to 16% for lead levels near relevant HUD standards. Of participating laboratories, 92 to 93% consistently meet ELPAT performance limits. A variety of analytical methods gives similar results. No conclusive significant differences were found among most frequently used hotplate and microwave sample preparation techniques. In addition, several participating laboratories have successfully used ultrasonic extraction methods, a method suitable for use at abatement sites. The three most frequently used instrumental techniques, flame atomic absorption (FAA), inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES), and graphite furnace atomic absorption show no statistically significant differences in ability to meet ELPAT performance limits. However, small statistically significant biases between these methods sometimes occur. The magnitude of biases is less than 5% of the corresponding laboratory mean near relevant federal standards except for lead levels near the lowest HUD lead wipe standard, where biases can be as high as 8%. Other instrumental methods that have been used successfully include ICP-mass spectroscopy, direct current plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, dithizone spectrophotometry, and anodic stripping voltametry.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]