An investigation into porch dust lead levels.

Lead in porch dust can expose children through direct contact or track-in to the home, but has not been adequately evaluated. At homes undergoing lead hazard control in Rochester, NY, we sampled settled dust lead on exterior porch floors at baseline, immediately post-lead hazard control and one-year post-work (n=79 homes with complete data) via wipe sampling and collected housing, neighborhood and soil data. Baseline GM porch floor dust lead loading (PbPD) was 68 µg/ft(2), almost four times more than baseline GM interior floor dust lead (18 µg/ft(2)). Immediate post-work PbPD declined 55% after porch floor replacement and 53% after porch floor paint stabilization (p=0.009 and p=0.041, respectively). When no porch floor work was conducted but lead hazard control was conducted elsewhere, immediate post-work PbPD increased 97% (p=0.008). At one-year, GM PbPD continued to decline for porch replacement (77% below baseline) and paint stabilization (72% below baseline), but where no porch floor work was done, GM PbPD was not significantly different than baseline (p<0.001, p=0.028 and p=0.504, respectively). Modeling determined that porch floor replacement had significantly lower one-year PbPD than stabilization when baseline PbPD levels were higher than 148 µg/ft(2) (the 77th percentile) but not at lower levels. Treatment of porches with lead paint results in substantial declines in PbPD levels. It is of concern that PbPD levels increased significantly at immediate post-work when lead hazard control was not conducted on the porch but was conducted elsewhere. Standards for porch lead dust should be adopted to protect children from inadequate clean-up after lead hazard control.

Window replacement and residential lead paint hazard control 12 years later.

Window replacement is a key method of reducing childhood lead exposure, but the long-term effectiveness has not been previously evaluated. Windows have the highest levels of interior lead paint and dust compared to other building components. Our objective was to conduct a follow-up study of residential window replacement and lead hazard control 12 years after homes were enrolled in an evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Program, sampling settled lead dust in housing in four cities (n=189 homes). Previous work evaluated lead hazard controls up to 6 years after intervention using dust lead measurements and two years after intervention using both dust and blood lead data. But the earlier work could not examine the effect of window replacement over the longer time period examined here: 12 years. The individual homes were assigned to one of three categories, based on how many windows had been replaced: all replacement, some replacement, or non-replacement. Windows that were not replaced were repaired. We controlled for covariates such as site, housing condition, presence of lead paint, and season using longitudinal regression modeling. Adjusted floor and sill dust lead geometric mean dust lead loadings declined at least 85% from pre-intervention to 12 years after the intervention for homes with all replacement windows, some windows replaced and no windows replaced. Twelve years after intervention, homes with all replacement windows had 41% lower interior floor dust lead, compared to non-replacement homes (1.4 versus 2.4 µg/ft2, p<0.001), and window sill dust lead was 51% lower (25 versus 52 µg/ft2, p=0.006) while controlling for covariates. Homes with some windows replaced had interior floor and window sill dust lead loadings that were 28% (1.7 versus 2.4 µg/ft2, p=0.19) and 37% (33 versus 52 µg/ft2, p=0.07) lower, respectively, compared to non-replacement homes. The net economic benefit of window replacement compared to window repair (non-replacement) is $1700-$2000 per housing unit. Homes in which all windows were replaced had significantly lower lead dust. New windows are also likely to reduce energy use and improve home value. Lead-safe window replacement is an important element of lead hazard control, weatherization, renovation and housing investment strategies and should be implemented broadly to protect children.

Evaluation of fire-safety programs that use 10-year smoke alarms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began funding a Smoke Alarm Installation and Fire Safety Education (SAIFE) program in 1998. This program involves the installation of lithium-powered "10-year" smoke alarms in homes at high risk for fires and injuries. This study aimed to (1) determine among original SAIFE homes if the lithium-powered alarms were still present and functional 8-10 years after installation and (2) understand factors related to smoke alarm presence and functionality. Data on a total of 384 homes and 601 smoke alarms in five states were collected and analyzed. Only one-third of alarms were still functional; 37% of installed alarms were missing; and 30% of alarms were present, but not functioning. Alarms were less likely to be functioning if they were installed in the kitchen and if homes had a different resident at follow-up. Of the 351 alarms that were present and had a battery at the time of the evaluation, only 21% contained lithium-powered batteries. Of these, 78% were still functioning. Programs that install lithium-powered alarms should use units that have sealed-in batteries and "hush" buttons. Additionally, education should be given on smoke alarm maintenance that includes a message that batteries in these alarms should not be replaced. Lithium-powered smoke alarms should last up to 10 years if maintained properly.