A portable X-ray fluorescence instrument for analyzing dust wipe samples for lead: Evaluation with field samples

David A. Sterling; Roger D. Lewis; Douglas A. Luke; Brooke N. Shadel

doi:10.1006/enrs.2000.4058

A portable X-ray fluorescence instrument for analyzing dust wipe samples for lead: Evaluation with field samples

David A. Sterling, Roger D. Lewis, Douglas A. Luke, Brooke N. Shadel

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

29 Scopus citations

Abstract

Dust wipe samples collected in the field were tested by nondestructive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) followed by laboratory analysis with flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (FAAS). Data were analyzed for precision and accuracy of measurement. Replicate samples with the XRF show high precision with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.97 (P<0.0001) and an overall coefficient of variation of 11.6%. Paired comparison indicates no statistical difference (P = 0.272) between XRF and FAAS analysis. Paired samples are highly correlated with an R² ranging between 0.89 for samples that contain paint chips and 0.93 for samples that do not contain paint chips. The ICC for absolute agreement between XRF and laboratory results was 0.95 (P<0.0001). The relative error over the concentration range of 25 to 14,200 μg Pb is -12% (95% CI, -18 to -5). The XRF appears to be an excellent method for rapid on-site evaluation of dust wipes for clearance and risk assessment purposes, although there are indications of some confounding when paint chips are present. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	174-179
Number of pages	6
Journal	Environmental Research
Volume	83
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.2000.4058
State	Published - Jun 2000

Keywords

Field sampling and analysis
House dust
Laboratory analysis
Lead
Wipe sampling

Access to Document

10.1006/enrs.2000.4058

Cite this

@article{947622ff92c6459a87cbd2be168038da,

title = "A portable X-ray fluorescence instrument for analyzing dust wipe samples for lead: Evaluation with field samples",

abstract = "Dust wipe samples collected in the field were tested by nondestructive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) followed by laboratory analysis with flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (FAAS). Data were analyzed for precision and accuracy of measurement. Replicate samples with the XRF show high precision with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.97 (P<0.0001) and an overall coefficient of variation of 11.6%. Paired comparison indicates no statistical difference (P = 0.272) between XRF and FAAS analysis. Paired samples are highly correlated with an R2 ranging between 0.89 for samples that contain paint chips and 0.93 for samples that do not contain paint chips. The ICC for absolute agreement between XRF and laboratory results was 0.95 (P<0.0001). The relative error over the concentration range of 25 to 14,200 μg Pb is -12% (95% CI, -18 to -5). The XRF appears to be an excellent method for rapid on-site evaluation of dust wipes for clearance and risk assessment purposes, although there are indications of some confounding when paint chips are present. (C) 2000 Academic Press.",

keywords = "Field sampling and analysis, House dust, Laboratory analysis, Lead, Wipe sampling",

author = "Sterling, {David A.} and Lewis, {Roger D.} and Luke, {Douglas A.} and Shadel, {Brooke N.}",

note = "Funding Information: 1This work was supported in part by funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under a grant through the Missouri Department of Health and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Grant U67/CCU714517-02.",

year = "2000",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1006/enrs.2000.4058",

language = "English",

volume = "83",

pages = "174--179",

journal = "Environmental Research",

issn = "0013-9351",

publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A portable X-ray fluorescence instrument for analyzing dust wipe samples for lead

T2 - Evaluation with field samples

AU - Sterling, David A.

AU - Lewis, Roger D.

AU - Luke, Douglas A.

AU - Shadel, Brooke N.

N1 - Funding Information: 1This work was supported in part by funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under a grant through the Missouri Department of Health and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Grant U67/CCU714517-02.

PY - 2000/6

Y1 - 2000/6

N2 - Dust wipe samples collected in the field were tested by nondestructive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) followed by laboratory analysis with flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (FAAS). Data were analyzed for precision and accuracy of measurement. Replicate samples with the XRF show high precision with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.97 (P<0.0001) and an overall coefficient of variation of 11.6%. Paired comparison indicates no statistical difference (P = 0.272) between XRF and FAAS analysis. Paired samples are highly correlated with an R2 ranging between 0.89 for samples that contain paint chips and 0.93 for samples that do not contain paint chips. The ICC for absolute agreement between XRF and laboratory results was 0.95 (P<0.0001). The relative error over the concentration range of 25 to 14,200 μg Pb is -12% (95% CI, -18 to -5). The XRF appears to be an excellent method for rapid on-site evaluation of dust wipes for clearance and risk assessment purposes, although there are indications of some confounding when paint chips are present. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

AB - Dust wipe samples collected in the field were tested by nondestructive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) followed by laboratory analysis with flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (FAAS). Data were analyzed for precision and accuracy of measurement. Replicate samples with the XRF show high precision with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.97 (P<0.0001) and an overall coefficient of variation of 11.6%. Paired comparison indicates no statistical difference (P = 0.272) between XRF and FAAS analysis. Paired samples are highly correlated with an R2 ranging between 0.89 for samples that contain paint chips and 0.93 for samples that do not contain paint chips. The ICC for absolute agreement between XRF and laboratory results was 0.95 (P<0.0001). The relative error over the concentration range of 25 to 14,200 μg Pb is -12% (95% CI, -18 to -5). The XRF appears to be an excellent method for rapid on-site evaluation of dust wipes for clearance and risk assessment purposes, although there are indications of some confounding when paint chips are present. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

KW - Field sampling and analysis

KW - House dust

KW - Laboratory analysis

KW - Lead

KW - Wipe sampling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033921523&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1006/enrs.2000.4058

DO - 10.1006/enrs.2000.4058

M3 - Article

C2 - 10856190

AN - SCOPUS:0033921523

SN - 0013-9351

VL - 83

SP - 174

EP - 179

JO - Environmental Research

JF - Environmental Research

IS - 2

ER -

A portable X-ray fluorescence instrument for analyzing dust wipe samples for lead: Evaluation with field samples

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this