Chandima Wekumbura, Ganga M Hettiarachchi, Christina Sobin
{"title":"估计家庭灰尘擦拭样品中生物可及性铅(BaPb)的比例:IVBA和PBET方法的比较。","authors":"Chandima Wekumbura, Ganga M Hettiarachchi, Christina Sobin","doi":"10.1080/10934529.2023.2178206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Established methods for using standardized dust wipes to collect and measure total lead in household dust are readily available but the use of dust wipes to measure bioaccessible lead (BaPb) is less clear. This study compared two in vitro methods for estimating the proportion of BaPb in dust collected into dust wipes including the US-EPA's <i>in-vitro</i> bioaccessible assay (IVBA) method at two pH (1.5 and 2.5) values; and the physiologically based extraction test (PBET 2.5 pH). Two types of simulated household dust samples (Pb-soil contaminated and Pb-paint contaminated) each with three Pb concentrations were created. Equal amounts of simulated dust were applied to a smooth surface and collected following the standard EPA dust wipe protocol and were analyzed for BaPb and total Pb (ASTM-E1644-17, ICP-OES). Estimated BaPb levels differed significantly by the method of extraction. Mean percent BaPb were IVBA pH 1.5, > 90% (Pb-paint) and 59-63% (Pb-soil); IVBA pH 2.5 78-86% (Pb-paint) and 45-50% (Pb-soil); PBET pH 2.5 56 to 61% (Pb-paint) and 41-50% Pb-soil). Particularly for lead-paint contaminated dust, PBET showed significantly greater discrimination as suggested by the broader range of BaPb values and closer approximation to total lead concentrations in simulated household dust samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating the proportion of bioaccessible lead (BaPb) in household dust wipe samples: a comparison of IVBA and PBET methods.\",\"authors\":\"Chandima Wekumbura, Ganga M Hettiarachchi, Christina Sobin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10934529.2023.2178206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Established methods for using standardized dust wipes to collect and measure total lead in household dust are readily available but the use of dust wipes to measure bioaccessible lead (BaPb) is less clear. This study compared two in vitro methods for estimating the proportion of BaPb in dust collected into dust wipes including the US-EPA's <i>in-vitro</i> bioaccessible assay (IVBA) method at two pH (1.5 and 2.5) values; and the physiologically based extraction test (PBET 2.5 pH). Two types of simulated household dust samples (Pb-soil contaminated and Pb-paint contaminated) each with three Pb concentrations were created. Equal amounts of simulated dust were applied to a smooth surface and collected following the standard EPA dust wipe protocol and were analyzed for BaPb and total Pb (ASTM-E1644-17, ICP-OES). Estimated BaPb levels differed significantly by the method of extraction. Mean percent BaPb were IVBA pH 1.5, > 90% (Pb-paint) and 59-63% (Pb-soil); IVBA pH 2.5 78-86% (Pb-paint) and 45-50% (Pb-soil); PBET pH 2.5 56 to 61% (Pb-paint) and 41-50% Pb-soil). Particularly for lead-paint contaminated dust, PBET showed significantly greater discrimination as suggested by the broader range of BaPb values and closer approximation to total lead concentrations in simulated household dust samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2023.2178206\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2023.2178206","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Estimating the proportion of bioaccessible lead (BaPb) in household dust wipe samples: a comparison of IVBA and PBET methods.
Established methods for using standardized dust wipes to collect and measure total lead in household dust are readily available but the use of dust wipes to measure bioaccessible lead (BaPb) is less clear. This study compared two in vitro methods for estimating the proportion of BaPb in dust collected into dust wipes including the US-EPA's in-vitro bioaccessible assay (IVBA) method at two pH (1.5 and 2.5) values; and the physiologically based extraction test (PBET 2.5 pH). Two types of simulated household dust samples (Pb-soil contaminated and Pb-paint contaminated) each with three Pb concentrations were created. Equal amounts of simulated dust were applied to a smooth surface and collected following the standard EPA dust wipe protocol and were analyzed for BaPb and total Pb (ASTM-E1644-17, ICP-OES). Estimated BaPb levels differed significantly by the method of extraction. Mean percent BaPb were IVBA pH 1.5, > 90% (Pb-paint) and 59-63% (Pb-soil); IVBA pH 2.5 78-86% (Pb-paint) and 45-50% (Pb-soil); PBET pH 2.5 56 to 61% (Pb-paint) and 41-50% Pb-soil). Particularly for lead-paint contaminated dust, PBET showed significantly greater discrimination as suggested by the broader range of BaPb values and closer approximation to total lead concentrations in simulated household dust samples.
期刊介绍:
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.