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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)174-179
Number of pages6
JournalEnvironmental Research
Volume83
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2000

Fingerprint

Dust
X-ray fluorescence
Fluorescence
X-Rays
Paint
dust
X rays
Atomic Spectrophotometry
Spectrophotometry
spectrophotometry
X ray laboratories
Matched-Pair Analysis
Risk assessment
risk assessment
Lead
evaluation
paint
laboratory
analysis

Keywords

  • Field sampling and analysis
  • House dust
  • Laboratory analysis
  • Lead
  • Wipe sampling

Cite this

Sterling, David ; Lewis, Roger D. ; Luke, Douglas A. ; Shadel, Brooke N. / A portable X-ray fluorescence instrument for analyzing dust wipe samples for lead : Evaluation with field samples. In: Environmental Research. 2000 ; Vol. 83, No. 2. pp. 174-179.
@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 = "David Sterling and Lewis, {Roger D.} and Luke, {Douglas A.} and Shadel, {Brooke N.}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
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",

}

A portable X-ray fluorescence instrument for analyzing dust wipe samples for lead : Evaluation with field samples. / Sterling, David; Lewis, Roger D.; Luke, Douglas A.; Shadel, Brooke N.

In: Environmental Research, Vol. 83, No. 2, 01.01.2000, p. 174-179.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

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

T2 - Evaluation with field samples

AU - Sterling, David

AU - Lewis, Roger D.

AU - Luke, Douglas A.

AU - Shadel, Brooke N.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

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

VL - 83

SP - 174

EP - 179

JO - Environmental Research

JF - Environmental Research

SN - 0013-9351

IS - 2

ER -