Household vacuum cleaners vs. the high-volume surface sampler for collection of carpet dust samples

[Guest guest]

Household vacuum cleaners vs. the high-volume surface sampler for collection of

carpet dust samples in epidemiologic studies of children

Joanne S Colt , B Gunier , Metayer , Marcia G Nishioka , M

Bell , Peggy Reynolds , A Buffler and H Ward

Environmental Health 2008, 7:6doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-6

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/6/abstract

Published: 21 February 2008

Abstract (provisional)

Background

Levels of pesticides and other compounds in carpet dust can be useful indicators

of exposure in epidemiologic studies, particularly for young children who are in

frequent contact with carpets. The high-volume surface sampler (HVS3) is often

used to collect dust samples in the room in which the child had spent the most

time. This method can be expensive and cumbersome, and it has been suggested

that an easier method would be to remove dust that had already been collected

with the household vacuum cleaner. However, the household vacuum integrates

exposures over multiple rooms, some of which are not relevant to the child's

exposure, and differences in vacuuming equipment and practices could affect the

chemical concentration data. Here, we compare levels of pesticides and other

compounds in dust from household vacuums to that collected using the HVS3.

Methods

Both methods were used in 45 homes in California. HVS3 samples were collected in

one room, while the household vacuum had typically been used throughout the

home. The samples were analyzed for 64 organic compounds, including pesticides,

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), using

GC/MS in multiple ion monitoring mode; and for nine metals using conventional

microwave-assisted acid digestion combined with ICP/MS.

Results

The methods agreed in detecting the presence of the compounds 77% to 100% of the

time (median 95%). For compounds with less than 100% agreement, neither method

was consistently more sensitive than the other. Median concentrations were

similar for most analytes, and Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.60 or

higher except for allethrin (0.15) and malathion (0.24), which were detected

infrequently, and benzo(k)fluoranthene (0.55), benzo(a)pyrene (0.55), PCB 105

(0.54), PCB 118 (0.54), and PCB 138 (0.58). Assuming that the HVS3 method is the

" gold standard, " the extent to which the household vacuum cleaner method yields

relative risk estimates closer to unity by increasing random measurement error

varies by compound and depends on the method used to calculate relative risk.

Conclusions

The household vacuum cleaner method appears to be a reasonable alternative to

the HVS3 for detecting, ranking, and quantifying the concentrations of

pesticides and other compounds in carpet dust.

_________________________________________________________________