首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparison of home lead dust reduction techniques on hard surfaces: the New Jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial.
【2h】

Comparison of home lead dust reduction techniques on hard surfaces: the New Jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial.

机译:硬表面上家用铅粉尘减少技术的比较:新泽西州清洁技术试验评估。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

High efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA) vacuums, which collect particles > 0.3 micro m, and trisodium phosphate (TSP), a detergent claimed to selectively remove lead, have been included in the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing without systematic validation of their effectiveness. At the time the study was initiated, both HEPA vacuums and TSP were relatively expensive, they were not readily found in urban retail centers, and there were environmental concerns about the use and disposal of high-phosphate detergents. A randomized, controlled trial was conducted in urban high-risk homes in northern New Jersey to determine whether a more readily available and less expensive low-phosphate, non-TSP detergent and non-HEPA vacuum could perform as well as TSP and a HEPA vacuum in a cleaning protocol. Homes were randomized to one of three cleaning methods: TSP/HEPA vacuum, TSP/non-HEPA vacuum, or non-TSP/non-HEPA vacuum. Change in log-transformed lead loading was used in mixed models to compare the efficacy of the three cleaning techniques separately for uncarpeted floors, window sills, and window troughs. After we adjusted for baseline lead loading, the non-HEPA vacuum produced larger reductions on hard floors [19%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3-38%], but the HEPA vacuum produced larger reductions on window sills (22%; 95% CI, 11-32%) and larger reductions on window troughs (16%; 95% CI, -4 to 33%). The non-TSP produced larger reductions on window troughs (21%; 95% CI, -2 to 50%), but TSP produced larger reductions on hard floors (5%; 95% CI, -12 to 19%) and window sills (8%; 95% CI, -5 to 20%). TSP/HEPA produced larger reductions on window sills (28%; 95% CI, 18-37%) and larger reductions on window troughs (2%; 95% CI, -24 to 23%), whereas the non-TSP/non-HEPA method produced larger reductions on hard floors (13%; 95% CI, -5 to 34%). Because neither vacuum nor detergent produced consistent results across surface types, the use of low-phosphate detergents and non-HEPA vacuums in a temporary control measure is supported.
机译:HUD《评估和控制含铅涂料危害的指南》中已包括高效微粒空气过滤器(HEPA)真空吸尘器,可收集大于0.3微米的颗粒;磷酸三钠(TSP)是一种声称能选择性去除铅的洗涤剂。在住房方面没有系统地验证其有效性。在研究开始之时,HEPA吸尘器和TSP都比较昂贵,在城市零售中心并不容易找到它们,并且对高磷酸盐清洁剂的使用和处置存在环境问题。在新泽西州北部的城市高风险家庭中进行了一项随机对照试验,以确定是否更容易获得且价格更低廉的低磷酸盐,非TSP洗涤剂和非HEPA真空吸尘器是否能像TSP和HEPA真空吸尘器一样运行在清洁协议中。将房屋随机分为以下三种清洁方法之一:TSP / HEPA真空,TSP /非HEPA真空或非TSP /非HEPA真空。在混合模型中使用对数转换的铅负载的变化来比较三种清洁技术分别对无地毯地板,窗台和窗槽的功效。在调整了基准铅负载量之后,非HEPA真空在硬质地板上产生了较大的降低[19%; 95%置信区间(CI),为3-38%],但HEPA真空在窗台上产生了更大的降低(22%; 95%CI,11-32%),并且在窗槽上产生了更大的降低(16%; 95%CI) ,-4至33%)。非TSP的窗槽减少量较大(21%; CI的95%,-2至50%),而TSP的硬地板的窗槽减少量较大(5%; CI的95%,-12至19%)和窗台(8%; 95%CI,-5至20%)。 TSP / HEPA的窗台减少量更大(28%; 95%CI,18-37%),窗槽的减少量更大(2%; 95%CI,-24至23%),而非TSP / non -HEPA方法可在硬质地板上产生更大的减少量(13%; 95%CI,-5至34%)。由于真空和清洁剂都无法在所有表面类型上产生一致的结果,因此支持在临时控制措施中使用低磷酸盐清洁剂和非HEPA真空。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号