When citing papers from this publication, the appropriate citation includes the paper

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:

Table 1 summarizes standardized procedures for surface and dermal sam-
and NIOSH methods (Table 1). Such techniques are presently planned for
TABLE 1—OSHA (12) and NIOSH (13) procedures for sample collection from surfaces in
promulgated, and they are summarized in Table 2. ASTM standards have been
TABLE 2—ASTM International standards for sample collection from surfaces in workplaces
and aerospace (Table 3) (30–33). While these are specialized uses, there may be
TABLE 3—ASTM International standard procedures for surface sampling in aerospace and
75% routinely attained (38,39). A minimum collection efﬁciency of 75 % has
terial spikes, and good dust collection efﬁciencies (80 % and greater) have
sis. Although recoveries were generally non-quantitative (<75 %), it was empha-
although successive wiping increases overall dust removal (to 90 %) from
(USACHPPM), to develop Technical Guide (TG) 312 (1). The TG is designed
values were selected to correlate with the mean adult body weight of 70 kg com-
TABLE 1—Summary of experimental data on actual hand area exposed (smooth surfaces).
Rodes et al., None Not reported 37.2 (mean, n¼4) 1 5.4 kg
12 repeated contacts to range between 40% and 54% after correcting for false
amount of particles, the maximum Fd is probably much less than 50% for cas-
arm is smooth, it was assumed that 100% of the forearm in contact with the sur-
TABLE 2—Summary of factors that affect FTss values.
TABLE 2—Continued
tic value of 6.3% was used to estimate the amount of contaminant transferred
TABLE 3—Comparison of TG 312 screening values to other published values.
screening levels (Table 3), the SWSLs do not appear to be overly conservative or
Table 3 provides a comparison of the SWSL values calculated using the TG
312 method compared to some published surface wipe criteria. The table helps
(1) USACHPPM, Technical Guide 312, Health Risk Assessment Methods and Screening
(9) USACHPPM, “Derivation of Wipe Surface Screening Levels for Environmental
Chemicals: Industrial Scenarios,” USACHPPM Project No. 39-EJ-1157-99: Interim
ticles that can easily be dislodged in large pieces (29, pp. 141–144). When drag
tape sampler (22). A range of artiﬁcial, reproducible, surface materials with rep-
Repair and Maintenance sampler had a total collection efﬁciency of 87% for tal-
cum dust, in the size range of 0.5–44 lm (47). This may be considered a starting
respirable range, similar to size-selective sampling in air sampling criteria (42,
Table 1 below lists papers that were found that met certain criteria as
accuracy and precision. A few national studies are presented in Table 1, which
TABLE 1—Studies that have fulﬁlled various criteria for allergen surface sampling.
Sercombe Electrostatic Surface 1.44 vs. Range lg=m Spearman rs Easy < $1.00
Sercombe Press-tape Surface 13.92 vs. Range lg=m2 Spearman rs Easy <$1.00
Farfel, M Plastic nozzle, Lead, 87% 0.5–44 lm, — Cyclone, >97% — — —
(47) steel cyclone surface talc, 89% housedust 5lm
(36) Handheld Allergen allergen was 27% HVS3, 21% dust and plastic
TABLE 1—Continued

Methods (brief)

Development of Two Sample Preparation Methods for Determination of Lead in
Composite Dust Wipe Samples
K. T. White, F. G. Dewalt, D. C. Cox, R. Schmehl, W. Friedman, and E. A. Pinzer … 85
D. C. Cox, F. G. Dewalt, K. T. White, R. Schmehl, W. Friedman, and E. A. Pinzer … … . 101
K. T. White, F. G. Dewalt, D. C. Cox, R. Schmehl, W. Friedman, and E. A. Pinzer … … . 118
Beryllium Measurement by Optical Fluorescence in Samples Contaminated
Based on Wipe Sampling and HPLC-MS/MS Analysis
• Samplers and sample collection media.
This section includes papers dealing with sampling, sample preparation,
samples. Three of the papers given in this topical area are published in this
This section includes papers addressing the evaluation of samples col-
ments in the United States. Methods for collection of asbestos samples, vac-
face and dermal samples (1,2). If sampling and analysis methods are not
narily associated with sample collection. Efforts to control measurement
standardized protocols for the collection of surface samples. International vol-
mal samples obtained from different investigators, locations, and times.
lished, which describes strategies for collecting surface samples for subsequent
documented before any samples are collected. Of signiﬁcant importance are the

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

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.

Commit	Date	Change	Description
b01ec52c	2026-08-04	major	2 sections added
d49e450f	2026-08-03	major	5 sections added; narrative text revised