Immediate screening of lead exposure in the

Overview

This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.

Key numbers

The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:

• of −13% with respect to the WDXRF. Once this bias is allowed for, 95% of all PXRF results lie within
• −28% and +38% of the WDXRF results. Neither instrument accounts for potential dust accumulation
• the OEL. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) publi- under the widest range of workplace conditions.(18,19) It
• al.(10) reported wall losses of up to 30% for air samples
• out any non-uniformity, and to a lesser extent, to limit lection efficiency of at least 75% is required when wiping
• (half a typical 8-hr work shift). The LOD and LOQ values
• Table 1) prepared by condensation of vaporised metal
• materials and anonymised as sites 1–6 (see Table 2). ber of results below LOD and reduces the overall cost
• able, desktops, worktops, tabletops, chair seats, and floors lead dust are digested in nitric acid at 95°C for 1 hr fol-
• filters is analyzed and 15% when the outer region is anal-
• WDXRF by only 15% and are statistically indistinguish-
• 42 individual filters examined ranged from 1–161 μg. ters increases, the scatter on the data decreases. For lead
• Only one filter was loaded with less than the PXRF LOQ loadings below the PXRF LOQ (i.e., below 1.4 μg, solid
• measured in the central region of the filters compared to ative offset. The 95% confidence interval of the regression
• the WDXRF by about 26% when the central region of the Figure 4 presents the difference between observations
• the systematic bias is allowed for, the 95% limits of agree-
• linear scale. In most cases (i.e., 95% of cases), the WDXRF
• The data points are scattered around 0.135, the mean the IOM samplers. An alternative method to account for
• the outer region of the filters are on average 13% less than inhalation exposure to lead dust. Unfortunately, wiping
• and analysed, once collapsed flat, by XRF. included within the 95% confidence interval of the regres-
• critical threshold value of 45 µm, were also excluded. This presents the mean PXRF to wipe results ratio as a con-
• threshold value is somewhat arbitrary but was evaluated tinuous line at 0.007 with the 95% limits of agreement rep-
• paired data collected. The remaining 40 paired wipes and transformed on a linear scale, the mean value for the ratio
• The removable lead residues, as estimated by wipe wipe sampling is close to 1 (i.e., 1.01) and 95% of all paired
• about 13%. However, after bias correction and using the entirely by HSE.
• Bland and Altman(27) method, we demonstrated that 95%
• +38% of the results obtained using the laboratory-based Disclaimer
• portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer for environmental (21) Chavalitnitikul, C., and L. Levin: A laboratory evalu-

Methods (brief)

• First, lead in dust and fumes, collected by Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) inhalable samplers methodology
• the filters are rotated manually by quarter turns. Multiple PXRF readings are collected from the central
• on the walls of the IOM sampler. Therefore, methods based on their use can only be considered semi-
• dust collected using closed-faced 37 mm filter cassette. It
• mented in the UK via the Control of Lead At Work In the UK, the IOM sampler has been preferred to the
• sampling and gravimetric analysis of aerosols. It presents mm filter collected using the closed-faced cassette will
• examples of personal samplers for inhalable dust. The differ from that of an IOM sampler. In IOM samplers,
• The filters are first treated with acids to digest the lead amount of lead dust collected on 25-mm filters mounted
• particles present, and lead in solution is typically ana- in IOM samplers is proposed. The PXRF instrument
• spectroscopy (ICP-AES).(15) Alternatively, rapid elemen- beam and a fixed sampling stage and thus is unable to
• tal analysis can be undertaken nondestructively using X- sample the entirety of the 19-mm diameter active area
• Dust collected on a membrane filter is likely to ful- loading. These results were then compared with results
• fill the requirements of a thin film sample, the ideal previously recorded using a laboratory-based Philips PW
• the inhalable samplers commonly used such as the Insti- ability to rotate the filters under this beam.
• tute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) sampler(17) that
• al.(10) reported wall losses of up to 30% for air samples
• collected at lead-based metal manufacturing and recy- One approach to evaluate the risk from lead inges-
• The quantification of lead dust sampled on membrane were sampled and the wipes later analysed by ICP-AES.

Implications

This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.

Wiki pages this source may touch

• Fish — marine, predatory (tuna, swordfish, shark, king mackerel)
• Fish — marine, non-predatory (sardines, anchovies, salmon, cod)
• Baby Wipes
• Lead
• Aluminum

Verification notes

• Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing wiki/sources/ pages before creation.
• Full-PDF read: pdftotext -layout was run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written.
• Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
• Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
• HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.

Update history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.