S-EPA
United States Atmospheric Research and Exposure Environmental Criteria Final Draft
Environmental Protection Assessment Laboratory and Assessment Office April 1993
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
Research and Development
Investigation of Test Kits
for Detection of Lead in
Paint, Soil and Dust
-------
INVESTIGATION OF TEST KITS
FOR DETECTION OF LEAD IN PAINT, DUST, AND SOIL
by
K. K. Luk, L. L. Hodson
J. A. O'Rourke, D. S. Smith and W. F. Gutknecht
Prepared for
S. S. Shapley
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U. S. Environmental Protection Agnecy
Washington, DC
EPA Project Officers
S. L. Harper and M. E. Beard
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4550
RTI Project No. 91U-4699-065
April 1993
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under EPA Contract 68-02-4550
to the Research Triangle Institute. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared under the direction of Mr. Michael E. Beard and Ms.
Sharon L. Harper, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
(AREAL), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Special acknowledgement is given to Mr. Darryl J. von Lehmden (formerly
AREAL/USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NC) and Ms. Sarah S. Shapley, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, for their careful review.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Lead test kits offer an alternative or complement to portable X-ray fluorescence
and atomic spectroscopic methods for detection of lead in paint, soil and dust. Several
potential advantages of test kits include being inexpensive, rapid, requiring minimal
technique and responding to(lowleyej^ of lead. In light of these potential advantages
and the growing need for performance of lead analysis, a study of commercial test kits
available as of fall 1990 was performed during 1991. The intent was to perform an initial
study of the general behavior and responsiveness of all kits to the same but a limited
number of test parameters and materials. No attempts were made to control specific
experimental parameters such as pH, ionic strength, or temperature (since these
parameters would not be controlled in the field), or to specifically identify or investigate
sources of unexpected results. The manufacturer's instructions provided with the test
kits were followed without modification for performance of these evaluations.
TEST KIT IDENTIFICATION
Through a search of the literature, trade journals and contact with experts, five
test kits were identified. These are:
» LeadCheck [original and new] (Hybrivet Systems)
« Verify LeadTest (Verify, Inc.)
» Frandon Lead Alert (Frandon Enterprises)
» Merck EM Quant [Methods A and B] (EM Science)
• The Lead Detective (Innovative Synthesis Corp.)
The first four kits utilize the reaction between lead ion and rhodizonate ion to form a
pink complex. The last utilizes the reaction between lead ion and sulfide ion to form
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
iii
-------
black lead sulfide.
TEST KIT INVESTIGATION
A relatively simple series of tests was performed to evaluate the following:
• response relative to test sample lead content
• potential metal interferences
• potential salt interferences
• response to laboratory-prepared and real-world paint, dust and soil
samples
• color stability
• ease/correctness of use by non-technical personnel
Levels of Response
The lowest levels of lead resulting in positive responses (lower levels of response)
were determined by testing each kit with 10 to 80 uL aliquots of lead solution placed on
microscope slides. The rhodizonate-based kits had lower levels of response ranging
from 0.2 to 1.0 ug Pb2+ whereas the sulfide-based kit had a lower level of response of
approximately 2 ug Pb2+. It was noted that the chemical form of the lead (i.e., Pb(NO3)
or PbCl2) may have some effect upon the response of the kits. The differences between
the amounts of lead yielding all negative responses and the amounts yielding all positive
responses were approximately 0.2 ug for the rhodizonate-based kits and about 0.5 ug for
the sulfide based kit.
Metal and Salt Interferences
Responses of the kits to a variety of metals and salts were tested for false positive
(color formation) results. Also, several of these species were combined in solution with
lead to test for false negative (color suppression) results. Ba2+ and Ni2+ gave false
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
iv
-------
positive results with the rhodizonate kits tested, whereas Nad, KNO^ NaNO3, KC2H3O2
and NaC2H3O2 all appeared to cause color suppression (gave false negative results) with
the rhodizonate kits tested.
The sulfide-based Lead Detective kit showed positive response to Ag+, Cd2+, Co2*,
Cu2+, Fe3+, Hg2*, Ni2+, and T12+, all of which are known to form insoluble sulfides.
Response to RTI-Prepared Paint Films and Dusts
A series of oil-based paint films spiked with white lead were tested. The
responses varied from kit to kit. For the four rhodizonate kits, values of 0.6 to 1.9
mg/cm2 resulted in all negative response, whereas values of 1.2 to 2.6 mg/cm2 resulted
in all positive responses. The sulfide-based kit yielded a positive responses with the
lowest level prepared (0.11 mg/cm)2.
Several synthetic dust samples were prepared by mixing lead nitrate, Arizona
road dust and cotton linters. The different brands of kits also varied in their response
to this material. The LeadCheck and Frandon Lead Alert kits went from all negative
responses at 200 ug/g to all positive responses at 500 ug/g with these samples; the
Verify LeadTest, Merck EM Quant and Lead Detective went from all negative responses
at 500 ug/g to all positive responses at 1000 ug/g. With these dust samples, it was
noted that the response of the sulfide-based Lead Detective kit (formation of dark lead
sulfide) was difficult to differentiate from the darkness of the sample itself.
Response to Real-World Dust, Soil, and Paint Samples
Real-world dust and soil samples from EMSL-EPA/Las Vegas were tested. Only
a limited number of samples was available over the range of 60 to 21,000 ug/g lead for
the dust and 330 to 15,000 ug/g lead for the soil. All four rhodizonate-based kits
showed all negative responses at 2,300 ug/g and all positive responses at 21,000 ug/g
with the dust samples. The sulfide-based Lead Detective yielded all positive response
with the dust sample having the lowest lead level, 60 ug/g.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
-------
The response to the soil samples was more variable. For the four rhodizonate
kits, the levels of lead yielding all negative responses varied from kit to kit and ranged
from 330 ug/g lead to 3,400 ug/g lead. For these same kits, levels yielding all positive
response varied from 1,000 to 6,400 ug/g lead. The Lead Detective yielded all negative
responses at 330 ug/g lead and all positive responses at 1,000 ug/g lead.
The kits yielded all positive responses to real-world paints that were in the range
of 1.8% to 5.5% lead.
Color Stability Tests
The rhodizonate-based kits were tested with respect to time stability of the color
developed. All kits showed no fading for at least 15 minutes after reaction with lead.
Non-Technical User Tests
Two non-technical staff members were provided with kits, written procedures and
RTI-prepared paint films and dusts for analysis. Each was instructed to perform
duplicate analyses. Considerable variability in results was observed even at the highest
concentration levels tested. Examples of problems noted by an experienced observer
included:
• not following instructions
• variation in firmness of rubbing paint samples
• selecting different sample sizes
• making different decisions about whether a color change actually occurred.
Relationships to Proposed Performance Targets
Performance targets have been proposed by the EPA for performance of test kits
for different media. These targets are as follows:
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
vi
-------
Paint 95% pos at 0.7 mg/cm2
(for abatement) 95% neg at 0.1 mg/cm2
Dust 95% pos at 450 ug/g
95% neg at 150 ug/g
Soil 95% pos at 450 ug/g
95% neg at 150 ug/g
In general, the rhodizonate-based kits did not respond at the positive
concentration targets for paints, dusts, and soils, although LeadCheck and Frandon Lead
Alert were very close for synthetic RTI dust.
The Lead Detective sulfide-based kit showed positive responses at the negative
response targets for paints and real-world dusts, but did not respond at the positive
response target concentrations for real-world soils and synthetic dusts.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
The results of this limited investigation support the following general conclusions:
(1) All kits tested generally respond to less than 1 ug of Pb2+ in solution.
(2) Positive interferences were not found for the rhodizonate kits for the
limited set of paint, dust, and soil samples used in this study. However,
barium may be a positive interferant in some paints.
(3) The dark colors of certain dusts masked observation of formation of lead
sulfide at low levels with the Lead Detective Kit. Positive responses with
the Lead Detective resulted from Ag+, Co2+, Cu2+, Fe2+, Fe3*, Hg2*, Ni2+, and
T12+. Many of these metals may be found in paints, dusts, and/or soils.
(4) The kits generally showed response only to high levels of lead with real-
world dusts and soils. They also showed variability in responses to dust
and soil having similar concentrations. It is probable that these limitations
reflect low and also sample-specific variability in lead extractability and/or
negative interference from other constituents in the sample matrix and/or
shifts in the pH, ionic strength, etc.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
VII
-------
(5) All kits showed adequate stability (>15 minutes) of the developed color.
(6) Tests with untrained, non-technical personnel showed significant variability
in usage, and consequently, in results.
(7) The measured response ranges (negative to positive) of the rhodizonate-
based kits are generally above the targets set by EPA for paint, soil and
dust. The sulfide-based kit yielded positive responses to "blank" paint and
therefore RTI response ranges were below the targets. For EPA dust, the
sulfide-based kit gave responses below the targets, but for RTI dust and
EPA soil responses were above the targets.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this evaluation of the test kits, several recommendations can be
made. The first is that the results of this evaluation should be made known to test kit
manufacturers so that they can use the data as the basis for improvements in the test kits
including (1) improving the instructions provided with the kits, (2) improving the lead
extractability of the kits, and (3) providing quality control check samples with each lead
kit. This recommendation will, in fact, be carried out through distribution of this report
after final approval.
It is anticipated that the lead extractability of the test kits designed for use by
consumers can never be quantitative (i.e., >90 percent) since the reagents used to
dissolve lead from old paint, dust and soil would be moderately acidic or caustic and
therefore unsafe for home use.
Therefore, a second recommendation is that quantitative extraction procedures be
developed for paint, soil and dust that could be used as part of quantitative kits
designed for professional testers. Measurement would not be confined to the
rhodizonate or sulfide colorimetric procedures, but could include field-portable
instrumental methods such as electrochemical methods.
If these recommendations are implemented, there should be two types of kits
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
viii
-------
available. The first type would be suitable for consumers to use in screening for the
presence of unacceptable levels of lead. The second would be a quantitative kit for
professionals to use to decide whether there is a need to abate or remove paint and/or
soil, and also to decide if the levels in house dust are sufficiently low after abatement
to allow reoccupancy (i.e., that the dwelling has met clearance requirements).
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS x
LIST OF TABLES xiii
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE TEST KITS 1-3
1.3 APPROACH TO TEST KIT EVALUATION 1-4
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 LOWER LEVEL OF RESPONSE 2-1
2.2.1 Experimental Procedure 2-1
2.2.2 Results and Discussion 2-3
2.3 METAL ION INTERFERENCE TESTS 2-6
2.3.1 Introduction 2-6
2.3.2 Experimental Procedure 2-6
2.3.3 Results and Discussion 2-6
2.4 SALT INTERFERENCE STUDIES 2-9
2.4.1 Introduction 2-9
2.4.2 Experimental Procedure 2-10
2.4.3 Results of Tests with NaCl and other Salts 2-10
2.5 RESPONSE OF LEAD TEST KITS WITH PAINTS, DUSTS, AND
SOILS OF KNOWN CONCENTRATION 2-12
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
2.5.1 Experimental Procedures for Standard Reference Materials . 2-13
2.5.2 Results of Tests with Standard Reference Materials 2-13
2.5.3 Experimental Procedure for Laboratory-Prepared Paint
Paint Films and Dusts 2-13
2.5.4 Results of Tests with Laboratory-Prepared Paint Films
and Dusts 2-13
2.6 RESPONSE OF LEAD TEST KITS WITH REAL-WORLD DUST, SOIL,
AND PAINT SAMPLES 2-19
2.6.1 Experimental Procedure 2-20
2.6.2 Results of Testing with Real-World Dust, Soil, and
Paint Samples 2-20
2.7 COLOR STABILITY TEST WITH DIFFERENT LEAD TEST KITS . . 2-22
2.7.1 Experimental Procedure 2-22
2.7.2 Results of Testing Rate of Color Formation and Stability . . . 2-22
2.8 USE OF LEAD TEST KITS BY NON-TECHNICAL PERSONNEL . . 2-26
2.8.1 Experimental Procedure 2-26
2.8.2 Results of Tests with Non-Technical Personnel 2-26
3 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 RESULTS OF LEAD TEST KIT EVALUATION 3-1
3.2.1 Lower Level of Response 3-1
3.2.2 Metal and Salt Interferences Tests 3-3
3.2.3 Response to NIST Standard Reference Materials 3-4
3.2.4 Response to Laboratory-Prepared Paint Films and Dusts .... 3-4
3.2.5 Response to Real-World Dust, Soil, and Paint Samples 3-6
3.2.6 Color Stability Tests 3-7
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.2.7 Non-Technical User Tests 3-8
3.2.8 Relationship To Proposed Performance Criteria 3-9
3.3 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 3-9
3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 3-14
4 REFERENCES 4-1
Appendix A: Test Kit Search Contact List A-l
Appendix B: Test Kit Procedures B-l
Appendix C: Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solutions
Prepared from Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2 C-l
Appendix D: Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solutions
Prepared from Pb(NO3)2/ PbCl2 and Pb(C2H3O2)2 D-l
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
xn
-------
List of Tables
1. Summary of Lead Test Kit Procedures 1-5
2. Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solutions Prepared from
Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2 2-3
3. Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solutions Prepared from
Pb(NO3)2/ PbCl2 and Pb(C2H3O2)2. Comparison of First and Second
Test Results 2-5
4. Response of Test Kits to Potentially Interfering Metals 2-7
5. Effects of Sodium Chloride on Response of Test Kits 2-11
6. Response of Test Kits to NIST SRMS 2-14
7. Response of Original LeadCheck, Frandon Lead Alert, Verify LeadTest
and Merck EM Quant Test Kits to Laboratory-Prepared Paint Films
and Dust 2-15
8. Response of New LeadCheck and Lead Detective Test Kits to Laboratory-
Prepared Paint Films and Dusts 2-17
9. Response of Test Kits to EMSL-EPA/LV Dust and Soil Samples 2-21
10. Response of Test Kits to Real-World Paint Samples 2-23
11. Color Stability Test Results 2-24
12. Results of Testing by Non-Technical Personnel 2-27
13. Comparison of Target Performance Criteria and Actual Performance ResultS-10
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
Xlll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The adverse health effects resulting from exposure of young children to
environmental lead have received increasing attention in recent years. Studies have
shown that chronic exposure, even to low levels of lead, can result in impairment of the
central nervous system, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders.1 Although young
children are at the greatest risk, adults may suffer harmful effects as well.2
In the United States, the major sources of exposure to lead in public and private
housing are thought to be paint, dust and soil.3 Food, water, and airborne lead are also
potential sources, but are considered to be minor avenues of exposure.4 Currently, lead-
based paint is receiving emphasis as a critical material of concern and a principal
medium for lead contamination and exposure. It is particularly significant when painted
walls, woodwork, and furniture are accessible to young children to touch and to chew.
Soil and dust are also significant routes of exposure.5 Soil, which is often contaminated
with lead from petroleum additives, industrial sources, or from the leaching of exterior
paint (near driplines), may be a source of exposure outside dwellings, or it may be
tracked into dwellings. Lead-contaminated dust in the dwelling will most likely be a
mixture of this tracked-in soil and typical house dust (fibers, hair) contaminated with
lead from deteriorating interior paint.6 Concentrations of lead in paint, dust, and soil
must be determined if a comprehensive approach to reducing the problem of lead
exposure from housing sources is to be developed.
Under Section 302 of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, as amended,
Public Housing Authorities (PHA's) are required, by 1994, to randomly inspect all their
housing projects for lead-based paint.7 The most common approach currently used to
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
1-1
-------
test for lead in housing is portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF). The method is relatively
inexpensive to perform (5-10 minutes of labor per test), easy to use, and gives results
rapidly. Depending on the type of XRF used, this method requires scraping only small
sections of paint to obtain a substrate or background value, or is totally non-destructive.
Inconclusive XRF measurements must be confirmed with field-collected samples back
in the laboratory, using a more accurate analytical method such a atomic absorption
spectrophotometry (AAS) or inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry (ICP).8
Though XRF is currently the most commonly used field method for determining the
levels of lead present in lead-based paint, the method has limitations. One of these is
that the substrate material (material under the paint) has significant effects on the overall
efficiency of production and measurement of the lead X-rays. Another limitation is that
the XRF measures in terms of area concentration, that is, mg Pb/cm2, whereas health
effects or risks are considered to be related to mass concentration, or ug/g.9
A possible alternative or complement to the XRF is a chemical test kit. A
chemical test kit brings some chemical reagent into contact with the sample matrix; the
reagent then reacts with the lead resulting in a visual change. Simple chemical tests
have long been used to indicate the presence of a particular chemical species. Fiegl
reports several methods for identifying the presence of lead.10 The two most common
commercial approaches taken by lead test kits involve either (1) reaction between
solubilized lead ion and rhodizonate ion to form a pink complex, or (2) reaction between
solubilized lead ion and sulfide to form black lead sulfide (PbS). General advantages
of lead test kits are as follows:
• Inexpensive ($0.50 - $2.00/test for materials [1993 costs]; 1 to 5
minutes/test for labor)
• Rapid
• Requires minimal operator technique
• Responds to ug levels of analyte
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
1-2
-------
• Generally selective for lead.
In light of these potential advantages and the growing need for performance of
lead analysis, a study of commercial test kits available as of fall 1990 was performed
during 1991. The intent was to perform an initial study of the general behavior and
responsiveness of all kits to the same but a limited number of test parameters and
materials. No attempts were made to specifically identify or investigate sources of
unexpected results. The manufacturer's instructions provided with the test kits were
followed without modification for performance of these evaluations.
1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE TEST KITS
The first part of the study involved an attempt to identify all commercially
available test kits for lead designed for the homeowner and/or professional tester. At
the start of this project, it was generally believed that five, six, or seven test kits were
available. However, no one individual contacted knew of all of these kits by name.
Steps to identify test kits included the following:
(1) A general literature search
(2) A search of catalogs of analytical instrument and analytical reagent
suppliers
(3) Contacting experts in the field identified through previous preparation of
the three documents, "Options for a Lead Analysis Laboratory
Accreditation Program,"11 Options for a Lead Test Kit Certification
Program,"12 and "Performance Criteria for Lead Test Kits and Other
Analytical Methods"13
(4) Contacting referrals from first level contacts.
A list of contacts and results of the search are presented in Appendix A. Most of the test
kits identified were designed, however, for testing for lead in water. Five test kits listed
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
1-3
-------
below were identified as suitable for solids such as ceramics, paint, dust and soil.
Brand of Kit
Intended User
LeadCheck (original - large swab;
new - marker pen type)
HybriVet Systems
P. O. Box 1210
Framington, MA 01701
Verify LeadTest
Verify, Inc.
1185 Chess Drive, Suite 202
Foster City, CA 94404
Frandon Lead Alert
Frandon Enterprises, Inc.
P. O. Box 300321
Seattle, WA 98103
Merck EM Quant
EM Science
Gibbstown, NJ 08027
The Lead Detective
Innovative Synthesis Corp.
45 Lexington St., Suite 2
Newton, MA 02165
Homeowner and professional
Homeowner
Homeowner
Professional
Homeowner and professional
The procedures and other literature provided with these kits are presented in Appendix
B. The principal elements of these kits and brief descriptions of their usage are
presented in Table 1.
1.3 APPROACH TO TEST KIT EVALUATION
As noted in Section 1.1, this was a preliminary, limited investigation of the
responsiveness of several commercially available test kits. The intent of this limited
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
1-4
-------
Table 1. Summary of Lead Test Kit Procedures
Test Kit
w/ Faint Films
w/' Soils/Dust (~iO mg)
w/ Aqueous Solr.'s
uL)
O
R
trt
O
o
I
Q
o
i
E
o
m
LeadCheck
Original
New
Cut or scrape through all layers paint.
Wet applicator with 2 drops Activator
Soln; rub test area 30 sec., check for
pink color.
Crush two vials inside swab; shake,
squeeze, rub paint chip for 30 sec.;
check for pink color on swab.
Soak 1 gm soil in 2 mL 4% acetic acid
for 30 min. Wet applicator with 2 drops
Activator Soln; rub soln (~50pL) for 30
sec; check for pink color.
Rub dust with dry swab. Crush vials
inside swab; shake, squeeze, rub tip on
plastic dish (weigh boat); check for pink
color on swab.
Wet applicator with 2 drops
Activator Soln; rub soln (~50uL)
for 30 sec; check for pink color.
Crush vials inside swab; shake,
squeeze, rub soln for 30 sec.; check
for pink color.
Verify LeadTest
Soak paint chip in 5 mL extract soln
for 24 hr. Dip LeadTest strip in,
remove, allow to dry; check for pink
color.
Soak soil in extract soln (enough to
cover surface) for 24 hr. Dip LeadTest
strip in, remove, allow to dry; check for
pink color on strip.
Dip LeadTest strip into soln.
Allow to dry and check for pink
color.
Frandon Lead Alert
Put 2 drops of Leaching Soln and 2
drops of Indicating Soln on swab.
Rub paint chip. Check for pink color.
Put dust on filter paper. Add 2 drops
Leaching Soln. Wait 10 min. Add 2
drops Indicating Soln. Check for pink
color.
Put 2 drops of Leaching Soln and 2
drops of Indicating Soln on swab.
Rub soln. Check for pink color.
Merck EM Quant
B
Put 2 drops of reagent on paint chip.
Wait 1 min. Press test strip on
surface. Wait 1 min. and check for
pink color.
Moisten test strip with 1 drop reagent.
Press to paint chip. Wait 2 min. and
check for pink color.
Put 2 drops reagent on dust. Wait 1
min. Press test strip into sample. Wait 1
min. and check for pink color.
Dip test strip into soln. Wait 1
min. and check for pink color.
Moisten test strip with 1 drop reagent.
Press into sample. Wait 2 min. and
check for pink color.
Dip test strip into soln. Wait 1
min. and check for pink color.
Lead Detective
Add 2 drops sodium sulfide to paint
chip. Wait 2 min. and check for dark
color development.
Add 2 drops sodium sulfide to dust.
Wait 2 min. and check for dark color
development.
Add 2 drops sodium sulfide to soln.
Wait 2 min. and check for dark
color development.
-------
study was to test the kits in a manner reflecting the ways they would be used in the
field by normal users. No attempts were made to control specific experimental
parameters such as pH, ionic strength, or temperature since these parameters would not
be controlled in the field. Variables that would affect the response of the test kit
applicators such as wetting or wicking capabilities, applicator volume and density, and
construction materials used, were not evaluated. Also, uniformity of response between
individual kits of a given brand was not tested.
The manufacturers' instructions were followed without modification, and no
attempts were made to specifically identify or investigate sources of unexpected results.
Tests were performed to measure the response to different levels of lead in standard
solutions, measure the response to potential interferences from a select group of metals
and salts, the stability of formed color, and responses to different types of laboratory-
prepared and real-world samples including paints, dusts, and soils. Standard lead
solutions were used to characterize the responsiveness of the kits because they allowed
simple variation in test sample lead content without the presence of potential
interferences.
A brief study of the literature accompanying the test kits revealed them to be
designed for qualitative or screening analyses only, except for the Merck EM Quant kit,
which provides numerical results when used for water samples. Because there were
qualitative tests and also, because only small numbers of tests (2 to 5) would be made
under any one set of conditions, it was decided that application of any extensive
statistical test design to this investigation would be unwarranted.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
1-6
-------
SECTION 2
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
As stated in Section 1.3, the intent of this limited study was to test the kits in a
manner reflecting their use in the field by homeowners and professional testers, with the
outcome being identification of both positive attributes and limitations of the kits.
Therefore, a relatively simple series of tests was performed to evaluate the following:
• response relative to test sample lead content
• potential metal interferences
• potential salt interferences
• response to laboratory-prepared and real-world paint, dust and soil
samples
• color stability
• ease/correctness of use by non-technical personnel.
2.2 LOWER LEVEL OF RESPONSE
2.2.1 Experimental Procedure
First to be determined was the range of test sample lead content over which the
test kit responses went from negative to positive. This experiment was intended to
result in estimates of the identification limits of the kits (i.e., lower level of positive
response). This procedure involved placing different volumes (10 to 80 uL) of standard
lead solutions of known concentration on glass microscope slides, and then testing for
the lead content of these droplets following the procedures provided with the kits (see
Appendix B). Solutions were used so as to test the kit responses to only Pb2* ion.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-1
-------
Questions of solubilization of Pb2"1" from the sample and interferences from other metals
were avoided in this evaluation step. The test kit applicators were found to be wetted,
though not saturated, with < 100 uL of solution. Therefore, it was assumed that the
response of the kits was principally a function of the total amount of lead in the droplets
and not the concentration, if the droplets were kept below 100 uL. Generally, each kit
was tested in triplicate with each level of lead.
Standard lead solutions of 10 ug/mL and 100 ug/mL were prepared from dilution
in deionized water of Fisher 1000 ug/mL atomic absorption standard that was prepared
from lead nitrate in 2% nitric acid. This material was chosen because it was a NIST-
traceable standard for lead. Test solutions were also prepared from solid PbCl2. No
effort was made to adjust pH or control ionic strength of either the nitrate or the
chloride solutions. The amounts of test kit leaching and indicator solutions used were
in accordance with the procedure provided with each individual kit.
The amounts of lead used for each level varied with the brand of the kit tested,
and the incremental changes in test sample lead content were of a magnitude such that
the transition from negative to positive response occurred over one to four increments.
Smaller increments would have yielded a more accurate characterization of the
transition, but use of smaller increments was not assumed to be necessary for this
preliminary investigation.
The Pb(NO3)2 samples were tested first. If the first lead level tested yielded all
negative responses, then levels were increased until two to three successively increasing
levels of lead showed all positive responses. On the other hand, if the first level tested
yielded all positive responses, then levels were decreased until two to three successively
decreasing levels showed all negative responses. Finally, if the first level tested yielded
a mixture of negative and positive responses, both lower and high levels were prepared
and tested. The PbCl2 levels tested matched the Pb(NO3)2 levels in terms of levels of
lead.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-2
-------
2.2.2 Results and Discussion
The results of the response tests with standard Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2 solutions are
presented in Appendix C and summarized in Table 2. The amounts of lead just yielding
a majority of positive responses were as follows:
Amount of Pb (ug) Just Yielding Majority
Kit of Positive Responses
Pb(NCX), PbCl,
Verify LeadTest 0.2 0.2
Frandon Lead Alert 0.6 0.2
Merck EM Quant 0.6 Not Tested
LeadCheck (new) 0.8 0.5
Lead Detective 2.0 1.0
The kits appeared to be more responsive to Pb2+ solutions prepared from PbCl2 than
those prepared from Pb(NO3)2/ especially the Frandon Lead Alert kit. Some difference
might be expected due to variation in the pH of the test solutions, though there was no
explanation for the large differences with the Frandon Lead Alert kit. Subsequently the
experiment was repeated with solutions of PbCNO^ PbCl2 and Pb(C2H3O2)2 using the
Frandon Lead Alert and Lead Detective kits. Results of this experiment are presented
in Appendix D. Table 3 compares these results with the first test results shown in Table
2. This time the response of the Frandon Lead Alert kit was very similar for Pb(NO3)2
and PbQ2, that is, all positive responses at 0.3 ug lead. One possible explanation is that
the Frandon test kit reagent (which has a stated shelf life of about 5 days) was several
days old when the first experiment was performed; the reagent used in the second
experiment was prepared just prior to its use. The range from all negative to all positive
responses was greater for the acetate than for the nitrate and chloride species for the
Frandon Lead Alert kit.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-3
-------
Table 2. Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solutions Prepared from Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2
Test Kit
Total Mg Pb(II)
.1
.2
3
A
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Pb(NO,)2
Frandon Lead Alert
LeadCheck (Original)
LeadCheck (New)
Verify LeadTest
Merck EM Quant (A)
Lead Detective
NJM.N
-
--
N.N.N
N
-
Frandon Lead Alert
LeadCheck (Original)
LeadCheck (New)
Verify LeadTest
Lead Detective
?,NJSf
--
-
?,N,N(P
-
N,N,N
-
--
N,P,P
--
~
N,N,N
--
--
PPP
--
--
N,N,N
-
N,N
P,P,P
N
N,N,N
NJ4,N
N
NJ4,N
PJ>,P
N
NJST.N
PJ'.NJP
--
--
~
P
~
P,P,P
-
--
--
P
~
P,P,P
--
P,P,N,P
--
--
-
--
~
--
--
P
~
-
P
P,P,N,P
~
~
P,N,N
~
P
Pf,P
—
-
PPf
--
P
PP
—
--
P,P,P
PbCl2
P.N.P
-
--
Pff
-
Pff
-
-
P?P
-
P,P,P
~
NJ>,N
Pff
NJSf
Pff
?
P.N.P.P
PPP
NJSf,N
PPP
-
-
P
-
PP,P
-
---
~
--
P^,P
--
P,P,P
~
-
~
~
~
~
~
~
P
PP
--
PfP
-
P
-
-
PPP
-
P
-
~
PJ»,P
—
P
~
—
~
PPP
-
P
-
—
P,P,P
v_/
8
D
to O
r
t-H
n
N = Negative
P = Positive
? = Equivocal
-------
Table 3. Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solutions Prepared from PbCNO^ PbCl2 and Pb(C2H3O2)2
Comparison of First and Second Test Results
Test Kit
Total Mg Pb(II)
.1
.2
3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PWOj,
Frandon Lead Alert*
Frandon Lead Alert**
Lead Detective*
Lead Detective**
N,N,N
N,N,N
~
-
N.N.N
N,N,P
-
-
N.N.N
Pff
--
~-
N,N,N
P,P,P
N,N,N
-
N,N,N
PJ>,P
NJ«I,N
~
P
-
-
-
P.P.P
--
~
-
PP,P
--
-
-
__
--
-
~
--
P.N.N
NFP
--
P.P.P
NJ>J>
__
-
PP,P
PJPJ>
__
--
P.P.P
Pf,P
PbCl2
Frandon Lead Alert*
Frandon Lead Alert**
Lead Detective*
Lead Detective**
Frandon Lead Alert**
Lead Detective**
?,N,N
N,N,N
—
~
N,N,N
~
PFP
N,N,N
—
-
N,N,N
~
PPP
Pff
—
-
NJ>,P
--
P.P.P
PP.N
NJJ,
~
NW
--
Pff
Pff
NJ4J^
-
Pb(
NJ>,P,
P
-
P,P,P
P.P.P
—
~
c&oj,
Pf,P
-
P.P.P
—
—
--
__
~
P,P,P
—
—
~
__
~
~
~
~
--
__
-
—
—
Pff
NJSf,P
__
NJ4.P
--
—
pp?
NJ>J>
._
NJ>J>
-
~
PPf
Pff
__
PPP
—
--
P,P,P
PJ>,P
__
Pff
I
a
o,
o
»
a
5
H
*First test results
**Second test results
-------
2.3 METAL ION INTERFERENCE TESTS
2.3.1 Introduction
Paints, soils and dusts may contain species other than lead that react with the
rhodizonate or sulfide to form a colored product and thus yield false positive results.
Species reported to react with rhodizonate include Ag+, Hg2*, Tl+, Pb2+, Cu2+, Cd2+, Zn2+,
Ba2+, and Sr2+; these reactions are reported to be pH dependent.14 Metal species expected
to react with sulfide include Ag+, Cu2+, Cd2+, Co2+, Bi2+, Fe2+, Fe^, Ni2+, Hg1+, Hg+2, Sn2+,
and Zn2+.15 The Frandon Lead Alert kit (one of the more sensitive rhodizonate kits) and
the sulfide-based Lead Detective kit were chosen as representative of the five kits and
were subsequently tested for color formation (false positives) with a large number of
metal species including these potentially interfering metals. Other kits were tested with
a limited number of metals. These tests were not designed to test for false negatives
(inhibition of color formation).
2.3.2 Experimental Procedure
Lead-free atomic absorption metal standards from Fisher, Spex, and Alfa were
used as sources of the metals for the interference tests, which were performed in
duplicate. The pH of most of these solutions was expected to be approximately 1; no
attempt was made to control the pH. The test solutions were pipetted in 100 uL aliquots
onto microscope slides for testing. The amount of potential interferant used (nominally
100 ug) does not necessarily reflect the amount to be found in real-world samples, but
does represent a 100 to 500 fold excess over the amount of lead yielding a positive
response and should represent a worst case scenario. The procedures provided with the
individual test kits as presented in Appendix B were followed.
2.3.3 Results and Discussion
The results of the metal interference tests are listed in Table 4. Barium gave a
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-6
-------
Table 4. Response of Test Kits to Potentially Interfering Metals
Metal
Ag (AgN03, DIW)
Al (2% HNO3)
As (AsO3, 2% HNO3)
B (Boric acid, DIW)
Ba (2% HNO3, pH=l)
Be (2% HNO3)
Ca (CaCO3/ dil HNO3/ pH=2)
Cd (Cd, 2% HNO3)
Co(CoNO3/ dil HNO3)
Cu (NCV, dil HNO3/ pH=2.5)
Cr(K2Cr2O7/ DIW)
Fe (NO/, 2% HNO3/ pH=l)
Ga (2% HNO3)
Hg (10% HNO3, pH=0.5)
In (2% HNO3)
K (KC1, DIW)
Mg (NO/, dil HNO3)
Mn (NO3-, DIW, pH=5.5)
Mo (Anhydride, Ag/Re, pH=l)
Metal
ug/mL
1,000
1,005
1,000
1,000
996
1,000
1,000
997
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1
Metal
V8
100
100
100
100
99
100
100
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Frandon
Lead
Alert
N
N
N
N
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
i
Lead-
Check
(original)
-
-
-
-
P
N
N
-
N
-
N
N
-
-
-
-
N
"
-
Verify
LeadTest
-
-
•
N
-
N
N
-
N
-
N
N
-
-
-
-
N
-
-
1
Lead
Detective
Dk. Br.
N
N
N
N
N
N
N-Yellow
P
Lt. Br.
N
P
N
N, P
N
N
N
N
N
Merck
EM
Quant (A)
-
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
a
R
a
NJ O
O
53
a
H
m
-------
Table 4. Response of Test Kits to Potentially Interfering Metals (continued)
Metal
Na (NaCl, DIW, pH=6.5)
Ni (DIW, pH=4.5)
Ni (DIW, pH=5.5)
Sb (SbCl3, dil HC1)
Se (SeO2, DIW)
Sc (2% HNO3)
Si (Na, DIW)
Sn, (C1-, dil HC1, pH=0.5)
Sr (NO3-, dil HNOj, pH=0.5)
Ti (Ti, dil HC1, pH=0.5)
Tl (NO3-, DIW)
U (UO2(NO3)2.6H2O. DIW)
V (V205, HC1)
W (2% KOH, pH=13)
Zn (ZnO, 5% HNO3, pH=0.5)
Zr (ZrOCl2, 2% HC1)
Metal
pg/mL
1,000
1,000
4,000
1,000
1,000
1,004
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
100
1,000
1,000
Metal
Pg
100
100
400
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
100
100
Frandon
Lead
Alert
N
N
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Lead-
Check
(original)
-
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
-
-
N
-
-
-
-
Verify
LeadTest
-
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
-
-
N
-
-
-
-
Lead
Detective
N
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Dk. Br.
N
N
-
N
-
Merck
EM
Quant (A)
-
-
-
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Legend:
—: Not performed
DIW: Dionized water
udil: Diluted
-------
positive response with the Frandon Lead Alert and original LeadCheck test kits. The
smallest amounts of barium, as determined in a separate experiment, that gave positive
responses were 1.0 ug, 18 ug and 0.8 ug for Frandon Lead Alert, original LeadCheck and
Verify LeadTest, respectively. Merck EM Quant did not respond to barium even at 100
ug. Another interference was nickel, which also gave positive results for both Frandon
Lead Alert and Verify LeadTest test kits at a level of 400 ug. However, the test results
were negative at the level of 100 ug nickel. These results do not fully agree with those
of Feigl and Suter who reported response of rhodizonate to additional metals.14
However, their test procedure involved mixing high levels of the metals (1%, 10,000
ug/mL) with 0.2% sodium rhodizonate. In addition to concentration differences, other
variables such as pH and ionic strength could account for the difference in results.
The Lead Detective test kit showed more positive responses to metal species than
the rhodizonate kits. Positive responses (i.e., black or brown precipitate) were obtained
with Ag+, Co2+, Cu2+, Fe3*, Hg2*, Ni2+, and Tl+ at the 100 ug level.
2.4 SALT INTERFERENCE STUDIES
2.4.1 Introduction
Salts are expected to be present in dusts and soils, and have the potential to cause
interferences through complexation and/or precipitation of the lead, or to change the pH
and/or ionic strength. In order to test this possibility, several experiments were
performed with NaCl, a likely component of dust and soil. First, different kits were
tested with solutions prepared from PbCl2. Next, high-level NaCl solutions were
prepared and the responses of the kits to this material tested. Finally, high-level NaCl
solutions spiked with known levels of Pb2+ were tested. Thus, both false negatives (no
color formation) as well as changes in response relative to Pb2+ were evaluated.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-9
-------
2.4.2 Experimental Procedure
A stock solution of 1000 ug Pb2+/mL was prepared from solid PbCl2. This stock
solution was then diluted with deionized water to prepare solutions of 10 and 100 ug
Pb2+/mL. High-level sodium chloride solutions (2,000 ug/mL Cl" and 20,000 ug/mL CD
were prepared by weighing out known amounts of NaCl and diluting to known volumes
with deionized water. The solution mixtures of sodium chloride and lead were prepared
by weighing out known amounts of NaCl, adding appropriate volumes of standard lead
solution, and then taking these mixtures to appropriate volumes. Small volumes of these
solutions were then tested with the different test kits.
2.4.3 Results of Tests with NaCl and other Salts
The results of tests with PbCl2 were shown earlier in Tables 2 and 3. Lower levels
of response were achieved with lead chloride than lead nitrate for all test kits except the
Merck EM Quant. The Merck EM Quant kit yielded a lower level of response to lead
nitrate solution than to lead chloride solution.
The results of the study with the NaCl-containing solutions are shown in Table
5. The NaCl (without Pb2+) at 160 ug Cl' and 1,600 ug Cl' yielded no responses with the
Frandon Lead Alert, Lead Detective, and Verify LeadTest kits. In the presence of 60 ug
of Cl" and 0.3 ug of Pb2+ in the form of nitrate, a positive response was seen with the
Frandon Lead Alert test kit; Verify LeadTest and Lead Detective showed no response to
any of the tested lead levels (0.8 to 1.0 ug Pb) although positive response had been seen
at 0.3 ug Pb for the Verify LeadTest (Section 2.2). All lead levels tested were below the
positive response level of the Lead Detective. No response was obtained with the
Frandon Lead Alert kit when 600 ug of Cl" and 0.3 ug of Pb2+ were present.
Other salts were also tested as possible interferences. These tests were performed
with a series of solutions prepared with different concentrations of NaNO3, KNO3,
NaC2H3O2, and KC2H3O2 mixed with 1 ug of Pb2*. These tests were performed in
duplicate using the LeadCheck test kit as the representative rhodizonate kit. The Na+
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-10
-------
Table 5. Effects of Sodium Chloride on Response of Test Kits
TEST SOLUTIONS
cr std* cr
pg/mL pg
10 20
20 40
30 60
40 80
50 100
60 120
70 140
80 160
100 200
10 200
20 400
30 600
40 800
50 1000
60 1200
70 1400
80 1600
200
Pb2+ std** Pb2+
pi ng
10 0.1
20 0.2
30 0.3
40 0.4
50 0.5
60 0.6
70 0.7
80 0.8
100 1.0
10 0.1
20 0.2
30 , 0.3
40 0.4
50 0.5
60 0.6
70 0.7
80 0.8
200 2.0
TEST KIT RESPONSES
Frandon Lead Alert
cr cr +
only Pb2+
N N
"N N
N P
N P
N P
N P
N P
N P
-
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
Verify LeadTest
cr cr +
only Pb2+
-
-
-
N
N
N N
N N
N N
N
-
-
-
N
N
N N
N N
N N
-
Lead Detective
cr cr +
only Pb2+
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
-
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
-
N) O
H
n
o
&
a
r1
I
*Cr from 2,000 pg Cl'/mL standard of NaCl for 20-160 pg cl; from 20,000 pg Cl'/mL standard of NaCl for 200-1600 pg CT
*Pb(H) from 10 pg Pb/mL standard of Pb(NO3)2
-------
(or K+) to Pb2+ ratios at which negative interferences occurred are as follows:
Salt (in terms of Na+ or K+)-to-Pb2+ Ratio
Compound Yielding Negative Interference
NaNO3 1000:1
KNO3 1300:1
NaC2H3O2 200:1
KC2H3O2 200:1
It appeared that, under these conditions, the sodium and potassium salts did interfere.
The acetates interfered with the response of the lead to a greater extent that the nitrates.
The reasons for this effect, which may include changes in pH and/or ionic strength or
effects on the performance of the test kit applicator, were not investigated in this effort.
The complexation of Pb2+ by acetate ion may also be a factor; the stability constants
provided by Ringbom are 1019 for Pb(C2H3O2)+ and 1033 for Pb(C2H3O2)2.16
2.5 RESPONSE OF LEAD TEST KITS WITH PAINTS, DUSTS, AND SOILS OF
KNOWN CONCENTRATION
The next step in the research was to test the kits' overall performance using the
same procedures that the typical user would follow to test paints, dusts and soils. The
evaluation of the kits' performance would, therefore, take into consideration all the
known and unknown variables, such as the leachability of the lead from solid medias,
the transport of the leached lead to the indicator, the chemistry of the color-forming
reagent (pH, ionic strength, complexation), the interferences, and the manufacturers'
instructions. This effort was performed in three stages. First, National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) were tested.
Next, laboratory-prepared paint films and dusts were tested. Finally, real-world paints,
dusts, and soils were tested (Section 2.6).
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-12
-------
2.5.1 Experimental Procedures for Standard Reference Materials
Three NIST SRMs were tested including SRM 2704 (Buffalo River sediment), SRM
1648 (urban particulate), and SRM 1579 (lead-in-paint) using the five kits. These SRM
materials are typically <50 um in particle size. Single aliquots of approximately 10 mg
each were tested according to the procedures presented in Appendix B.
2.5.2 Results of Tests with Standard Reference Materials
The results of the test (see Table 6) show only the sulfide kit (Lead Detective)
responding to the lowest level of lead (161 ug/g), but all kits responding to the highest
level (11.79%). This testing was limited by the number of appropriate SRMs available.
2.5.3 Experimental Procedure for Laboratory-Prepared Paint Films and Dusts
Paint film standards were prepared by spiking oil-based paint with known
amounts of white lead and casting the paint into films using a special casting device
developed by RTI. The films were allowed to dry and portions of the dried films were
analyzed using NIOSH Method 7082 (HNO3/H2O2 digestion; ICP measurement)17 to
determine actual lead concentrations. The synthetic dusts were prepared by thoroughly
mixing lead nitrate, Arizona road dust and cotton linters. These materials were also
subjected to analysis using NIOSH Method 7082. The paints and dusts were tested in
duplicate according to kit manufacturer's procedures, when provided. The paint films
tested averaged 1.1 cm2 in area. If a procedure was not provided (as in the case of Lead
Detective for dust), a small amount of sample (approximately 10 mg) was brought into
contact with the test solution or element.
2.5.4 Results of Tests with Laboratory-Prepared Paint Films and Dusts
The results of tests with the RTI paint films are presented in Tables 7 and 8. Here
the "ppm" values determined with the Merck EM Quant kit are also presented. As
noted, the level and subsequent order at which positive response was obtained was as
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-13
-------
Table 6. Response of Test Kits to NIST SRMS
Sample
SRMs
SRM 2704
SRM 1648
NBS 1579
Concentration
Pb, ug/g
/•
, . $ .
161
6,550
11.79%
Frandon
Lead Alert
^ ,
\ ''
N
P
P
New
LeadCheck
§ ' fe
N
P
P
Verify
LeadTest
t '
I :
?*...>. i..'.A
N
N
P
Merck EM Quant
A
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
P (500 ppm)
B
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
P (350 ppm)
Lead
Detective Kit
sV
P
P
P
SRM 2704 - NIST Buffalo River Sediment
SRM 1648 - National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Material; Urban Paniculate
SRM 1579 - NIST Lead in Paint
s
9
w
c
C
-------
Table 7. Response of Original LeadCheck, Frandon Lead Alert,
Verify LeadTest and Merck EM Ouant Test Kits to Laboratorv-Preuared
•* *•*• J M.
Paint Films and Dusts
Sample
Paint Film
40-1
38-A3
38-A4
38-A2
38-A2
38-A2
35-A3
35-A3
35-A5
35-A5
35-A5
49-B1
39-A1
39-A2
39-A2
39-A2
Nominal Cone.
Pb mg/cm2
f. "" -. ^°" ff •"•? J
H -.-.':.' 1 ' life
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
Original
LeadCheck
*•"> B '
i "-* s *'•< -•.' ^t '
-
N
N
-
-
-
N
N
-
-
-
-
-
N
N
-
Frandon
Lead Alert
%'"' ' K$
N
N
N
N
-
-
N
N
N
N
-
P
-
P
P
P
Verify
LeadTest
Merck
EM Quant
ifef^v i A \
.
N
N
N
-
-
-
N
N
N
-
P
P
P
P
-
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
—
—
—
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
—
P (lOppm)
P (lOppm)
P (lOppm)
B
N (Oppm)
—
—
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
—
—
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
—
P (lOppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
a
8
CJ1
g
H
H
m
-------
Table 7. Response of Original LeadCheck, Frandon Lead Alert,
Verify LeadTest and Merck EM Quant Test Kits to Laboratory-Prepared
Paint Films and Dusts (continued)
Sample
Paint Film
37B-3
37B-1
37B-1
37B-1
Dust
40-A
40-B
40-C
48-1
48-2
48-3
49-1
49-2
49-3
47-1
47-2
47-3
Nominal Cone.
Pb mg/cm2
*U'- ,
5 a •>
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Mg/g
200
200
200
500
500
500
1,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
Original
LeadCheck
-.•• \ "">
: f ^-t- -.
r 0 ' &
-
p
p
-
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
Frandon
Lead Alert
'- il"
-
P
P
P
A, jjjj^v \!Mt ^fjjkV* \s£
1 ^^Sl^x^Ksx^*^ ^
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Verify
LeadTest
. ) *
: % , tt
P
P
P
-
}j; j^gjkj
N
N
-
N
N
N
?
P
-
P
P
-
Merck
EM Quant
A
-
P (40ppm)
P (100 ppm)
P (200 ppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
P (40 ppm)
P (90 ppm)
P (40 ppm)
P (400 ppm)
P (400 ppm)
P (200 ppm)
B
-
N (Oppm)
P (10 ppm)
N (Oppm)
;
N (Oppm)
—
—
N (Oppm)
—
—
N (Oppm)
—
—
P (40 ppm)
—
—
N>
1
Q
H
tfl
§
q
H
tn
-------
Table 8. Response of New LeadCheck and Lead Detective Test Kits to
Laboratory-Prepared Paint Films and Dusts
Sample
Paint Film
40-1
38-A2
38-A2
38-A2
35-A3
35-A4
35-A5
35-A5
49-B1
39-A1
39-A2
39-A2
37-B3
37-B1
37-B1
Nominal Cone. Pb
mg/cm2
if I ftf 4 ' *Sil
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
New LeadCheck
^ ^ ^ ^
N
N
N
N
—
P
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
Lead Detective
:' '"f "£j ^ .^-...£-
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-------
Table 8. Response of New LeadCheck and Lead Detective Test Kits to
Laboratory-Prepared Paint Films and Dusts (continued)
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
1 Nominal Cone. Pb
mg/cm2
Paint Film
40-D
40-E
40-G
48-8
48-9
48-10
49-3
49-4
49-5
47-8
47-9
47-10
'" v; - ? /
200
200
200
500
500
500
1,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
New LeadCheck Lead Detective
f s !
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
—
—
—
.......v........ .. .. .. ...• ...v .... ._
7
?
?
7
7
?
P
P
P
P
P
P
K>
i—>
00
-------
follows:
Lead Detective (0.0 mg/cm2) <
Frandon Lead Alert (1.2 mg/cm2) = Verify LeadTest (1.2 mg/cm2) <
New LeadCheck (1.9 mg/cm2) = Merck EM Quant (A) (1.9 mg/cm2) <
Original LeadCheck (2.6 mg/cm2)
The Lead Detective yielded a positive response at all concentrations including the
"blank" film. Unfortunately, the number of test samples was limited and the response
range could not be tested in small increments.
The results of the evaluation with the RTI dusts are also presented in Tables 7 and
8. The most responsive kits were the Frandon Lead Alert and new LeadCheck kits,
which responded positively to 500 ug/g. The original LeadCheck, Verify LeadTest,
Merck EM Quant and Lead Detective did not respond at that level. The Lead Detective
gave a positive response with NIST SRM 2704 at 161 ug/g (Table 6) but gave negative
responses at 200 and 500 ug/g for the RTI laboratory-prepared dusts. The Lead
Detective may have actually had a positive response to these latter samples. However,
the dust samples became "muddy" when wetted with the reagent and it was not possible
to differentiate dark sample from any small amounts of dark lead sulfide that may have
formed.
2.6 RESPONSE OF LEAD TEST KITS WITH REAL-WORLD DUST, SOIL AND
PAINT SAMPLES
Following testing of laboratory-prepared samples, real-world samples were tested.
These real-world samples were tested in order to challenge the kits with samples having
physical and chemical characteristics that would be encountered in the field. Sources
of difficulty could include low efficiency of extraction of the lead from the sample
matrices, extraction of metals and/or salts that could affect pH, ionic strength and
cornplexation equilibria, and the presence of interferences. Since the number of SRMs
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-19
-------
and laboratory samples was limited, real-world samples offered an opportunity to test
additional levels of lead.
2.6.1 Experimental Procedure
Dust and soil samples from lead-in-paint contaminated areas were obtained from
EMSL-EPA/Las Vegas. These real-world samples were chosen because they had been
previously characterized by both laboratory X-ray fluorescence and atomic absorption
spectrophotometry by the EPA. The soil particles were 100 to 200 vim in diameter, while
the dust particles were 50 to 150 um in diameter. The average soil particles encountered
in the field would by considerably larger since only rough sieving (1 to 2 mm) is
normally done in the field to remove gross debris. Average dust particles collected on
wipes and air filters would also be greater than 150 um since these samples would
include insect debris, hair and other large particles. Coarse (>250 um) and fine (<250
um) real-world paint samples analyzed previously by NIOSH Method 7082 were also
used to test all except the Verify LeadTest kits. Soil, dust and paint sample aliquots of
approximately 10 mg were used. Single tests were performed with these samples.
2.6.2 Results of Testing with Real-World Dust Soil and Paint Samples
The results of the tests of dust and soil samples are presented in Table 9. The
new LeadCheck, Frandon Lead Alert, Verify LeadTest and Merck EM Quant kits all
showed negative response at 2,300 ug/g lead but positive response at 21,000 ug/g lead
in dust. It must be noted that no EMSL-EPA/LV dust samples were available in the
range between these two levels. The Lead Detective kit clearly gave a positive response
for all EPA dust samples.
Response to the soil samples was somewhat different. All kits including the Lead
Detective responded negatively to the 330 ug/g sample. As noted, the level and
subsequent order at which positive response was obtained was as follows:
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-20
-------
Table 9. Response of Test Kits to EMSL-EPA/LV Dust and Soil Samples
Sample
Dust
1
2
3
4
5
6
Soil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Concentration
Pb, ug/g
-x >'A --V*
60
290
300
1,500
2,300
21,000
^!yi>v^w£
<. f-r ^ •* "wS i ?"5 v * Kj"?^? 'S'jTJvk.
330
670
1,000
3,400
6,400
13,000
15,000
Frandon
Lead Alert
' .-• v, -
' •••.,'
0' / "•. '« <,'
•* ^ * *
N
N
N
N
N
P
'r*^!^!^^«^S^ i^^S S>^^S
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
New
LeadCheck
: '^-f "' X
: ^v;l'^ '- xJ'
N
N
N
N
N
P
S ™>i&ra fr??*^3^S *^Ss''s^^
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
Verify
LeadTest
1 ^U;" - 1
N
N
N
N
N
P
sj% $ ?2?8r*is5ws^^?^i&«
N
P
N
P
P
P
P
Merck ER
A
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
P (60ppm)
"^ sfa^fflKtsKjir SB-"- ^^^^
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
P (40ppm)
P (200 ppm)
P (200 ppm)
P (100 ppm)
/I Quant
B
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
N (Oppm)
P (20 ppm)
N (Oppm)
Lead
Detective
ss< -I' "•
i ' ^* ff'
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
-------
Lead Detective (670 ug/g) = Verify LeadTest (670 ug/g) <
New LeadCheck (3400 ug/g) = Merck EM Quant (A) (3400 ug/g) <
Frandon Lead Alert (6400 ug/g) < Merck EM Quant (B) (13,000 ug/g)
The Verify LeadTest showed positive response at 670 ug/g, but negative at 1,000 ug/g
and then positive again at 3,400 ug/g. The variability may reflect extractability or the
presence of interferences. The Merck EM Quant, Method A, was found to be more
responsive than Method B (See Appendix B).
The paint sample results are presented in Table 10. As noted, the Frandon Lead
Alert, LeadCheck, Merck EM Quant and Lead Detective all yielded positive responses
for the real-world paint samples with relatively high lead concentration.
2.7 COLOR STABILITY TEST WITH DIFFERENT LEAD TEST KITS
A concern with test kits is the rate of formation and stability of the color formed
as a result of a positive response. Slow formation or rapid fading of the color could lead
to a positive response being interpreted as a negative response. Tests of color formation
and stability were therefore performed.
2.7.1 Experimental Procedure
The test kits were exposed to standard Pb2+ solutions prepared from Pb(NO3)2
both at and also slightly above the lower level of response. The colors formed were then
observed over time. The tests were performed in duplicate.
2.7.2 Results of Testing Rate of Color Formation and Stability
The results of the tests are presented in Table 11. Color formation was essentially
instantaneous. The yellow (Y) observed with the rhodizonate kits (Frandon Lead Alert,
Verify LeadTest, Merck EM Quant, and LeadCheck) corresponded to unreacted
rhodizonate, while the pink (P) corresponded to the lead rhodizonate reaction product.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-22
-------
Table 10. Response of Test Kits to Real-World Paint Samples
O
N. O
Q
H
O
I
n
Concentration
Pb, ug/g
m
-------
Table 11. Color Stability Test Results
Volume
Cone.
Pb2%
ug/mL
Total
MS
Pb2*
Initial
Result
Result at
15 min.
Result at
30 min.
Result at
45 min.
Result at
60 min.
Result at
75 min.
Result at
120 min.
Result at
22 hrs.
Frandon Lead Alert
60 pL
70 pL
80 pL
10
10
10
0.60
0.70
8.0
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
PP
Y
P
P
P
P
PP
Y
P
P
P
P
-
-
-
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
LeadCheck (New)
80 pL
80 pL
100 pL
100 pL
80 pL
80 pL
10
10
10
10
100
100
0.80
0.80
1.0
1.0
8.0
8.0
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
Y
P
P
P
Verify LeadTest
20 pL
20 pL
30 pL
30 pL
80 pL
80 pL
10
10
10
10
100
100
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.30
8.0
8.0
P
P
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
Y
Y
P
Y
P
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
P
Merck EM Quant (A)
5.0 mL
5.0 mL
5.0 mL
5.0 mL
10
10
100
100
-
-
P
P
P
P
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
P
o
8
I
a
3
O
o
&
o
H
w
-------
Table 11. Color Stability Test Results (continued)
II
Volume
Cone.
Pb2%
ug/mL
Total
"2
Pb2*
Initial
Result
|
Result at
15 min.
II
II
Result at
45 min.
II II
Result at
60 min.
1
Result at
75 min.
1
Result at
120 min.
Result at
22 hrs.
Lead Detective
10 pL
10 pL
20 pL
20 pL
80 pL
80 pL
100
100
100
100
100
100
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
8.0
8.0
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
.
-
.
-
.
-
d
o
i
Q
H
m
O
ui
Legend:
Y - Yellow (negative response)
P - Pink (positive response)
PP - Pale Pink (positive response)
C - Cream (negative response)
B - Black (positive response)
^^^
O
I
-------
Pale pink (PP) was interpreted as a weak positive response. The cream (C) color of the
Merck EM Quant was interpreted as a negative response. Black (B) for the sulfide-based
Lead Detective corresponded to a positive response, that is, formation of lead sulfide.
Only the Verify LeadTest and Merck EM Quant (Method A) kits were observed
to fade in less than 30 minutes at low concentration. At the high side of the color
development range, all kits yielded color that was stable for at least 15 minutes.
2.8 USE OF LEAD TEST KITS BY NON-TECHNICAL PERSONNEL
The test kits were designed for use by non-technical personnel as well as technical
personnel as indicated in Section 1.2. It was observed during this research that new
users sometimes made errors with the kits. Any improper use of the kits could affect
the outcome of the tests. Therefore, ease and accuracy of use were tested by having two
non-technical personnel perform tests with the kits.
2.8.1 Experimental Procedure
Two non-technical personnel were given RTI-prepared paint film and dusts, test
kits, and instructions as provided by the kit manufacturers. Each person was asked to
analyze each sample in duplicate. Use of the kits by non-technical personnel was
observed by a trained, experienced chemist.
2.8.2 Results of Tests with Non-technical Personnel
The results of the tests are presented in Table 12. Variation in results with the
paint samples was noted with the new LeadCheck, Frandon Lead Alert, and Merck EM
Quant kits for the 0.6 and 1.9 mg/cm2 levels. Results for the Verify test kit cannot be
accurately compared because multiple runs for the paint were not performed by Tester
No. 2. There was only one difference for the Lead Detective and this was at the lowest
concentration of lead in paint.
Differences in results were obtained with the new LeadCheck and Frandon Lead
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-26
-------
Table 12. Results of Testing by Non-Technical Personnel
TESTER NUMBER 1
Sample
Paint Film
0.1
mg/cm2
0.6
mg/cm2
1.9
mg/cm2
Dust
200 ug/g
500 ug/g
2000 ug/g
New
Lead-
Check
•* $* *'•
. f *d-* •
' * i
N
N
P
N
N
P
y^ii
N
N
N
N
P
P
Frandon
Lead
Alert
*: , ' !
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
Verify
Lead-
Test
•, \
N
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
Merck
A
f \
f •
N
N
N
N
N
N
KB
N
N
N
N
P
P
B
1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
Lead
Detective
( ;, 5 ^
p
p
p
p
p
p
7
]
I
TESTER NUMBER 2
Sample
Paint Film
0.1
mg/cm2
0.6
mg/cm2
1.9
mg/cm2
Dust
200 ug/g
500 ug/g
2000 ug/g
New
Lead-
Check
i' * '•
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
N
N
P
N
P
Frandon
Lead
Alert
•*
N
N
N
P
P
P
iJsasJaSSjSasJgsssilaj
N
N
N
N
N
N
Verify
Lead-
Test
., "* f
N
-
P
i>»WMWM*M*M44KfiK;
N
N
P
P
P
Merck
A
'!-!?]
N
N
N
N
P
N
JH
^^m
N
N
N
N
P
P
B
-------
Alert kits with the dusts while the Verify LeadTest and Merck EM Quant kits yielded
consistent results. Neither person could determine whether the responses were negative
or positive with the Lead Detective when analyzing the dust samples.
The trained observer noted that a number of problems were encountered by the
testers. Included were the following:
• Instructions unclear about sample size to use
• Stirring extraction solution (Merck EM Quant, Methods A and B)
with reactive end of test strip, not "upper end" as called for in
instructions
• Failure to use indicator in Frandon Lead Alert kit
• Dust causes the indicator elements to get "muddy"
• Difficulty in breaking reagent tubes in new
LeadCheck
• Variation in firmness of rubbing
• Not following instructions: e.g., breaking reagent tube B before A
for LeadCheck kit; rubbing sample with indicating solution before
leaching solution for Frandon Lead Alert kit
• Variation in sample rubbing time
• Failure to use confirmation card supplied with LeadCheck.
It is apparent that instructions need to be more thorough, especially for items such
as sample "rubbing time" and size or area of sample tested. Instructions also need to be
clearer and easier to follow. Inclusion of a color chart to differentiate negative response
from positive response would also be very helpful.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
2-28
-------
SECTION 3
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Through a search of the literature and trade journals and through contact with
experts, five test kits were identified. These are:
• LeadCheck (Hybrivet Systems)
• Verify LeadTest (Verify, Inc.)
• Frandon Lead Alert (Frandon Enterprises)
• Merck EM Quant (EM Science)
• The Lead Detective (Innovative Synthesis Corp.).
A limited study of these five kits was performed to identify both positive
attributes and limitations of the devices. Tests performed included the following:
• response relative to test sample lead content
• potential metal interferences
• potential salt interferences
• response to laboratory-prepared and real-world paint, dust and soil
samples
• color stability
• ease/accuracy of use by non-technical personnel.
3.2 RESULTS OF LEAD TEST KIT EVALUATION
3.2.1 Lower Level of Response
First to be determined was the range of test sample lead content over which test
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-1
-------
kit responses went from negative to positive. This experiment was intended to result
in estimates of tlje identification limits (lower limits of response) of the kits.
Following instructions provided with the test kits, each brand of kit was tested
with solutions prepared with Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2 to determine ranges of response. The
test kits were reacted with 10 to 80 microliter quantities of lead solution from well below
the point of color development to well above the point of color development. The test
sample lead content ranges corresponding to all negative response to all positive
response are given in the following table:
Test Kit Response to Pb2+ in Solution
(All Neg - All Pos)
Pb(NCX), PbCl,
LeadCheck (orig. & new) 0.5 - 1.0 ug <0.4 - 0.8 ug
Verify LeadTest 0.1 - 0.3 ug <0.1 - 0.2 ug
Frandon Lead Alert 0.5 - 0.7 ug 0.1 - 0.3 ug
Merck EM Quant (A) 0.5 - 0.6 ug N.A.
Lead Detective Kit 0.5 - 2.0 ug 0.5 - 1.0 ug
Therefore, the kits, in order of lower level of response, are as follows:
Verify LeadTest (0.3 ug/g) <
Merck EM Quant (A) (0.6 ug/g) <
Lead Alert (0.7 ug/g) <
LeadCheck (1.0 ug/g) <
Lead Detective (2.0 ug/g)
The chemical form of the lead solution may have some effect on the
responsiveness of the kits. This effect may be due to a combination of competition for
complexation of Pb2+ by species other than rhodizonate ion and/or changes in pH or
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-2
-------
ionic strength. The range from all negative responses to all positive responses varies
from 0.1 ug (Merck EM Quant) to 0.5 ug (LeadCheck), which are rhodizonate kits. This
range for the Lead Detective kit varies from about 0.5 ug to about 2 ug.
3.2.2 Metal and Salt Interferences Tests
Paints, dusts and soils may contain metal species other than lead that react with
the rhodizonate ion or sulfide to form a colored product and thus yield false positive
results. On the other hand, other species in the samples may react with the lead, or
cause; shifts in pH or ionic strength, and therefore inhibit color formation yielding false
negative results.
Color-forming (positive) interferences due to metals were/investigated for the
Frandon Lead Alert kit using atomic absorption standard solutions. The Frandon Lead
Alert kit was used because it appeared to represent the Average jhodizonate-based kit.
The standard solutions were usually acidic (2% HNOa, dil. HC1) as is the kit reagent, and
thus the test conditions were assumed to be acidic. When nominally 100 ug (100 uL,
1,000' ppm) of potentially interfering metal ions were put in contact with the test element
(e.g., swab) of each kit, only'Ba2^ and Ni^lshowed a positive response. Feigl and Suter14
reported that Ag'^Hg2*, Tl'^b2*, Ci?*, Sn2+, Zn2+, Ba2+ and Sr2* all gave responses to
sodium rhodizonate in neutral and/or pH 2.8 solution. Their test procedure involved
mixing high levels of the metal (1%, 10,000 ppm) with 0.2% sodium rhodizonate, which
could account for the difference in results. They reported that the selectivity of sodium
rhodizonate favors Pb2+ over the majority of these metals and, in particular, that the
selectivity for lead over barium is 10,000 to 1. The sulfide-based Lead Detective kit
tested with these same samples showed Responses to Ag1+, Cd2+, Co2+, Cu2"1", Fe3*, Hg2*,
Ni2+, and Ti2+, all of which are known to form insoluble sulfides.
Both high levels (2,000:1, ClrPb2*) and moderate levels (200:1, Cl':Pb2+) of chloride
(as NaCl) were found to result in decreased response (negative interference) for the
Frandon Lead Alert, Verify LeadTest and Lead Detective kits. Other salts were tested
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-3
-------
as possible interferences. A series of solutions was prepared with different
concentrations of NaNO3/ KNO3/ Na(C2H3O2) and K(C2H3O20 mixed with 1 ug of Pb2+
and tested in duplicate using the LeadCheck test kit. The Na1+ (or Ku) to Pb2+ ratios at
which negative interferences occurred are as follows:
Compound Na1+(or K1+):Pb2* Ratio
NaNO3
KN03
Na(C2H302)
K(C2H302)
1,000:1
1,300:1
200:1
200:1
Thus it appears that the sodium and potassium salts interfere, though it is not clear if
the Na1+ and/or K1+ interfere. The effect of the salts may be a result of a change in ionic
strength. The acetate presents even a greater extent of interference, which may be due,
in part, to a pH effect or formation of a lead acetate complex.
3.2.3 Response to NIST Standard Reference Materials
The next step in the research was to test the kits' overall response using the same
procedures that the typical user would follow to test paints, dusts, and soils. First, NIST
SRMs were tested as these materials have been thoroughly characterized.
Three NIST SRMs were tested including SRM 2704 (Buffalo River sediment), SRM
1648 (urban particulate), and SRM 1579 (lead-in-paint) using the five kits. Single aliquots
of approximately 10 mg each were tested according to the procedures presented in
Appendix B. The results of the test show only the sulfide kit (Lead Detective) responding
to the lowest level of lead (161 ug/g), but all kits responding to the highest level
(11.79%). This testing was limited by the number of appropriate SRMs available.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-4
-------
3.2.4 Response to Laboratory-Prepared Paint Films and Dusts
Following tests with NIST SRMs, responses to laboratory-prepared paint films and
dusts to further challenge the test kits were measured.
A series of oil-based paint films spiked with white lead were prepared. Following
kit instructions, paint sections averaging 1.1. cm2 in area were tested. Concentration
ranges over which the color appeared (i.e., all negative to all positive) are given in the
following table:
Test Kit Response to Lead in Paint Films
(All
LeadCheck(original) i.y - /.e> mg/cm2
LeadCheck(new) 1.2-1.9 mg/cm2
Verify LeadTest 0.6 - 1.2 mg/cm2
Frandon Lead Alert 0.6 - 1.2 mg/cm2
Merck EM Quant (A) 1.2 - 1.9 mg/cm2
Lead Detective <0.11 mg/cm2 (i.e., transition occurs
below 0.11 mg/cm2)
A test dust was prepared from lead nitrate, Arizona road dust and cotton linters.
Following instructions provided with the kits, the following lead concentration response
ranges (all negative to all positive) were found:
Test Kit Response to Lead in Dust
(All Neg - All Pos)
LeadCheck(new) 200 - 500 ug/g
Verify LeadTest 500 -1,000 ug/g
Frandon Lead Alert 200 - 500 ug/g
Merck EM Quant (A) 500 -1,000 ug/g
Lead Detective 500 -1,000 ug/g
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-5
-------
No procedure was provided with the Lead Detective for dust and soil, and
therefore the test was performed by direct contact between the particles and the test
solution. The high level of response noted with the Lead Detective is thought to be a
result of being unable to see the small amount of dark lead sulfide formed in the
presence of the dark dust particles.
3.2.5 Response to Real-World Dust Soil, and Faint Samples
Finally, following tests with laboratory-prepared paint films and dusts, real-world
dust, soil, and paint samples were tested in order to challenge the kits with samples
having physical and chemical characteristics that would be encountered in the field.
Real-world dust and soil samples from EMSL-EPA/Las Vegas were tested
according to procedures provided. This involved 24 hours of extraction with the Verify
LeadTest kit and immediate or, at most, 5 minutes of reaction time with the other kits.
The dust sample concentrations which resulted in negative and positive responses are
given in the following table:
Test Kit Response to Lead in Dust
Negative Positive
LeadCheck(new) 2,300 pg/g 21,000 pg/g
Verify LeadTest 2,300 ug/g 21,000 ug/g
Frandon Lead Alert 2,300 ug/g 21,000 ug/g
Merck EM Quant 2,300 ug/g 21,000 pg/g
Lead Detective ,<60 ug/g >60 pg/g
For these dusts, the rhodizonate-based kits were negative for all samples below 2,300
pg/g and positive for the one sample above 20,000 pg/g. The Lead Detective kit
response was clearly positive at <100 pg/g lead with these dusts.
With the soil samples, response was more variable. The soil sample
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-6
-------
concentrations which resulted in negative and positive responses for the kits are given
in the following table:
Test Kit Response to Lead in Soil
Negative Positive
LeadCheck(new) 1,000 pg/g 3,400 pg/g
Verify LeadTest 330 pg/g 1,000 pg/g
Frandon Lead Alert 3,400 pg/g 6,400 pg/g
Merck EM Quant 1,000 pg/g 3,400 pg/g
Lead Detective 330 pg/g 1,000 pg/g
The kit procedures calling for direct contact between soil or dust and the test
element (LeadCheck, Frandon Lead Alert, Lead Detective) resulted in approximately 10
mg of sample being used. At 2,300 pg/g, this amounts to 23 pg/sample. With the test
kits sensitive to 0.5 - 1 pg in solution, this would indicate an apparent extraction
efficiency of between 5 and 10 percent (excluding effects of interferences, pH or other
parameters). A possible cause for the difference in extraction efficiency is differences in
the physical form of the matrix and/or in the chemical form of lead in the two sample
types. That is, the lead may be present as an oxide, sulfide, carbonate, etc. in these real-
world samples from EMSL-EPA/Las Vegas. Interferences may also have affected
responses.
3.2.6 Color Stability Tests
A concern with the test kits was the rate of formation and stability of the color
formed as a result of a positive response. Slow formation or rapid fading of the color
could lead to a positive response being interpreted as a negative response. In order to
test formation of the color and its stability, the rhodizonate-based kits were tested with
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-7
-------
respect to time stability of the color developed. When exposed to amounts of lead in
solution just above the detection limit, only the Verify LeadTest and EM Quant, Method
A kits showed fading of the color from pink to yellow within 30 minutes time. All kits
showed no fading for at least 15 minutes after reaction with lead.
3.2.7 Non-Technical User Tests
The test kits were designed for use by homeowners and/or professionals. Any
improper use of the kits could affect the outcome of the tests. Therefore ease and
accuracy of use were tested by having non-technical personnel use the kits while being
observed by an experienced chemist. Two non-technical staff members were provided
with kits, written procedures, and RTI-prepared paint films and dusts for analysis. Each
was instructed to perform duplicate analyses. Variability in results was observed even
at the highest concentration levels tested, as shown in the following:
Number of Negative and Positive Responses
Tester #1 Tester #2
Paints (1.6 mg/cm2) Neg Pos Neg Pos
LeadCheck(new) 11 20
Verify LeadTest 20 02
Frandon Lead Alert 02 01
Merck EM Quant 40 31
Lead Detective 02 02
Dust (500 ppm)
LeadCheck(new) 20 11
Verify LeadTest 02 20
Frandon Lead Alert 02 ? 1
Merck EM Quant 4.0 40
Lead Detective 20 ? ?
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-8
-------
Question marks indicate uncertain results. Example problems noted by an experienced
observer included the following:
• Not following instructions
• Confusion over reagent tubes
A and B in the LeadCheck kit
• Variation in firmness of rubbing paints
• Stirring with reaction zone of Merck
Em Quant test strips rather than "upper
end" as called for instructions.
3.2.8 Relationship To Proposed Performance Criteria
Target criteria have been developed by the EPA for performance of the test kits
for different media.13 The approach taken was to propose 95% negative response at
those; levels which correspond to minimal known health effects or do not require
regulatory action and 95% positive response at those levels which correspond to
suspected significant health effects or do require regulatory action. The target and actual
results are shown in Table 13, which shows that the measured ranges of response
(negative to positive) to paint were higher than proposed target levels for all the
rhodizonate-based kits. The opposite is true for the Lead Detective kit (sulfide based),
which had a response range (negative to positive) below target levels.
The response ranges achieved with the EPA dust and soil were all higher than the
targets for the four rhodizonate-based kits. However, the Lead Detective showed only
positive responses to the available EPA dust samples and thus had a response range
below that targeted. The opposite was true for the Lead Detective response to the EPA
soil samples; that is, the measured response range was above the target. Though
differences between proposed and achieved targets were found, it must be remembered
that this was a limited study, and the results presented here are based on very few
samples and should be considered indicative at best.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-9
-------
Table 13. Comparison of Target Performance Criteria and Actual Performance Results
Test Material
Paint (RTI)
Dust (RTI)
Dust (EPA)
Soil (EPA)
Target EPA Performance Critera
95% pos. at 0.7 mg/cm2
95% neg. at 0.1 mg/cm2
95% pos. at 450 pg/g
95% neg. at 150 pg/g
95% pos. at 450 pg/g
95% neg. at 150 pg/g
95% pos. at 450 pg/g
95% neg. at 150 pg/g
Actual Performance Results
LeadCheck (new)
All pos. at 1.9 mg/cm2
All neg. at 1.2 mg/cm2
All pos. at 500 pg/g
All neg. at 200 pg/g
Pos. at approx. 21,000 pg/g
Neg. at approx. 2,300 pg/g
Pos. at approx. 3,400 pg/g
Neg. at approx. 1,000 pg/g
Verify LeadTest
All pos. at 1.2 mg/cm2
All neg. at 0.6 mg/cm2
All pos. at 1,000 pg/g
All neg. at 500 pg/g
Pos. at approx. 21,000 pg/g
Neg. at approx. 2,300 pg/g
Pos. at approx. 1,000 pg/g
Neg. at approx. 330 pg/g
a
o
I
n
(-H
a
o
n
I
-------
Table 13. Comparison of Target Performance Criteria and Actual Performance Results (continued)
Actual Performance Results
Test Material
Target EPA Performance Critera
Frandon Lead Alert
Merck EM Quant
Paint (RTI)
95% pos. at 0.7 mg/cm2
95% neg. at 0.1 mg/cm2
All pos. at 1.2 mg/cm2
All neg. at 0.6 mg/cm2
All pos. at 1.9 mg/cm:
All neg. at 1.2 mg/cm
Dust (RTI)
95% pos. at 450 vig/g
95% neg. at 150 ug/g
95% pos. at 450 ug/g
95% neg. at 150 ug/g
All pos. at 500 ug/g
All neg. at 200 ug/g
All pos. at 1,000 ug/g
All neg. at 500 ug/g
Pos. at approx. 21,000 ug/g
Neg. at approx. 2,300 ug/g
Dust (EPA)
95% pos. at 450 ug/g
95% neg. at 150 ug/g
Pos. at approx. 6,400 ug/g
Neg. at approx. 3,400 ug/g
Pos. at approx. 21,000 ug/g
Neg. at approx. 2,300 ug/g
Soil (EPA)
Pos. at approx. 3,400 ug/g
Neg. at approx. 1,000 ug/g
-------
Table 13. Comparison of Target Performance Criteria and Actual Performance Results (continued)
| Actual Performance Results
Test Material
Paint (RTI)
Dust (RTI)
Dust (EPA)
Soil (EPA)
Target EPA Performance Criteria Lead Detective
95% pos. at 0.7 mg/cm2
95% neg. at 0.1 mg/cm2
95% pos. at 450 ug/g
95% neg. at 150 ug/g
95% pos. at 450 ug/g
95% neg. at 150 ug/g
95% pos. at 450 ug/g
95% neg. at 150 ug/g
All pos. at 0.6 mg/cm2
All neg. at 0.1 mg/cm2
All pos. at 1,000 ug/g
All neg. at 500 ug/g
Pos. at approx. >60 ug/g
No. neg. response w/ available samples
Pos. at approx. 1,000 ug/g
Neg. at approx. 330 ug/g
w
8
3 O
03
*-*
to
O
H
O
O
H
m
-------
3.3 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
The results of this limited investigation support the following general conclusions:
(1) The kits generally respond to less tharA ug of Pb2+Tn solutipS.
/
(2) Positive interferences were not found for the rhodizonate kits for the
limited set of paint, dust, and soil samples used in this study. However,
barium may be a positive interferant in some paints.
(3) The dark colors of certain dust samples masked observation of formation
of lead sulfide at low levels with the Lead Detective Kit. Positive
responses with the Lead Detective resulted from Ag+, Co2*, Cu2+, Fe2+, Fe3*,
Hg2*, Ni2+, and T12+. Many of these metals may be found in paints, dusts,
and/or soils.
(4) The kits generally showed response to only high levels of lead with real-
world dusts and soils. They also showed variability in responses to dust
and soil having similar concentrations. It is probable that these limitations
reflect low and also sample-specific variability in lead extractability and/or
negative interference from other constituents in the sample matrix and/or
shifts in the pH, ionic strength, etc.
(5) All kits showed adequate stability (>15 minutes) of the developed color.
(6) Tests with untrained, non-technical personnel showed significant variability
in usage, and consequently, in results.
(7) The measured response ranges (negative to positive) of the rhodizonate-
based kits are generally above the targets set by EPA for paint, soil and
dust. The sulfide-based kit yielded positive responses to "blank" paint and
therefore, for RTI paint, response ranges were below the targets. For EPA
dust, the sulfide-based kit gave responses below the targets, but for RTI
dust and EPA soil responses were above the targets.
Based on the results of this limited study, the rhodizonate kits may have adequate
sensitivity to measure available lead in solution to meet the EPA target criteria. That is,
the chemistry of the kits allows easy detection of lead at the lower levels of concern,
provided that the lead is available to react with the test kit reagent(s). Further testing
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-13
-------
is required to verify these results. The sulfide-based kit responds to levels below the
target level for most samples but appears to have uninterpretable responses with certain
dusts and soils because of their dark color. Besides this interference problem of sample
color, the primary limitation of all the kits when used with real-world samples is lack
of response with relatively high levels of lead. This lack of response may be a result of
low lead extraction or dissolution efficiency, though it may also be a result of pH or
ionic strength changes and/or interferences.
3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this evaluation of the test kits, several recommendations can be
made. The first is that the results of this evaluation be made known to test kit
manufacturers so that they can use the data as the basis for improvements including (1)
improving the instructions provided with the kits, (2) improving the lead extractability
of the kits, and (3) providing quality control check samples with each lead kit. This
recommendation will, in fact, be carried out through distribution of this report after the
final approval.
It is anticipated that the lead extractability of the test kits designed for use by
consumers can never be quantitative (i.e., >90 percent) since the reagents used to
dissolve lead from old paint, dust and soil would be moderately acidic or caustic and
therefore unsafe for home use.
Therefore, a second recommendation is that quantitative extraction procedures be
developed for paint, soil and dust that might be used as part of quantitative kits
designed for professional testers. Measurement would not be confined to the
rhodizonate or sulfide colorimetric procedures, but could include, field-portable1
instrumental methods such as electrochemical methods.
If these recommendations are carried out, it is anticipated that two types of kits
would be available. The first type would be suitable for consumers to use in screening
for the presence of unacceptable levels of lead. The second would be a quantitative kit
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-14
-------
for professionals that would be used to decide whether there is a need to abate or
remove paint and/or soil and also to decide if the levels in house dust are sufficiently
low after abatement to allow reoccupancy (that the dwelling has met clearance
requirements).
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
3-15
-------
SECTION 4
REFERENCES
1 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, The Nature and Extent
of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States: A Report to Congress,
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1988.
2 World Health Organization, Environmental Health Criteria, 2. Lead. Geneva, 1977.
3 Mushak, P., and Crocetti, A. F., "Determination of Numbers of Lead-Exposed
American Children as a Function of Lead Source," Environ. Res.. 50(2), 210-229,
1989.
4 Bander, L. K., Morgan, K. J., and Zabik, M. E., "Dietary Lead Intake of Pre-school
Children," Am. T. Public Health, 73: 789-794,1983.
5 Duggan, M. J., and Williams, S., "Lead-in-Dust in City Streets," The Science of the
Total Environment, 7, 91-97,1977.
6 Elwood, P. C, "The Sources of Lead in Blood: A Critical Review," The Science of
the Total Environment, 52,1-23,1986.
7 Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 4822 (d)(2)(A), 1971.
8 Lead-Based Paint: Interim Guidelines for Hazard Identification and Abatement
in Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
September 1990.
9 Boeckx, R. L., "Lead Poisoning in Children", Anal. Chem., 58(2), 274A-287A, 1986.
10 Feigl, F., and Anger, V., Spot Tests in Inorganic Analysis, Elsevier Publ. Co., NY,
pp. 282-287, 1972.
11 Estes, E. D., Williams, E. E., and Gutknecht, W. F., Options for a Lead Analysis
Laboratory Accreditation Program, EPA Contract 68-02-4550, January 1991.
12 Estes, E. D., Williams, E. E., and Gutknecht, W. F., Options for A Test Kit
Certification Program. EPA Contract 68-02-4550, February 1991.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
4-1
-------
References (continued)
13 Williams, E. E., Estes, E. D., and Gutknecht, W. Fv Analytical Performance Criteria
for LeadTest Kits and Other Analytical Methods. EPA Contract 68-02-4550,
February 1991.
14 Feigl, K, and Suter, H. A., "Analytical Use of Sodium Rhodizonate", Ind. and Eng.
Chem. 14(10), 840-842 (1942).
15 Latimer, W. M., and Hildebrand, J. H., Reference Book of Inorganic Chemistry.
3rd ed., McMillan Co., N.Y., 1964.
16 Ringbom, A., Complexation in Analytical Chemistry. Interscience Publishers, NY,
1963.
17 Binstock, D. A., Hardison, D. L., Grohse, P. M., and Gutknecht, W. F., "Standard
Operating Procedures for Lead in Paint by Hotplate- or Microwave-based Acid
Digestion and Atomic Absorption or Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission
Spectrometry," NTIS Publication No. PB 92-114172, EPA Contract No. 68-02-4550,
September, 1991.
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
4-2
-------
Appendix A: Test Kit Search Contact List
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
A-l
-------
Pb Test Kit Survey
Company/Organization | Availability of Pb Test Kits For:
Hybrivet Systems, Inc.
Frandon Enterprises, Inc.
Paul N. Gardner
(from Mary McKnight)
Verify
(from Mary McKnight)
BGI, Inc.
Analabs
Analytical Products, Inc.
Astro International Corp.
Baxter's Scientific Products
Division
R. P. Cargille Labs, Inc.
Chemetrics, Inc.
Delta Technical Products Co.
Dexsil Corp.
EM Science
ESA, Inc.
Fluke Chemical Corp.
Hach Co.
Koslow Scientific Co.
LaMotte Chemical Product
Co.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Ceramics, pottery, soil, dust, paint chip
and painted surfaces
All surfaces and particles for paint,
metal, dust, dirt, ceramic, household
plumbing, and soldered seams on food
cans
Paint Chip (West Germany)
Paint, pottery, toys, and soil (Distributed
by Copper Development)
Paints, metals, ceramics, dust, and soil
(Manufactured by HybriVet Systems,
Inc.; Different forms of packaging)
...
—
—
...
—
Water
—
—
Water
Blood, urine, and water
—
Water
—
Solder
-------
Pb Test Kit Survey (continued)
Company /Organization
Mine Safety Appliance Co.
Nalge Co.
Oncor, Inc.
Orbeco Analytical Systems,
Inc.
Polyscience Corp.
Sigma Chemical Co.
Spectrum Medical Industries
Spectrum Scientific
Sunshine Technology Corp.
Thomas Scientific
Transidyne General Corp.
United States Biochemical
Corp.
VWR Scientific
Cutting Ceramics
Carolina Pottery
Mangum Pottery
Tumbleweed Pottery
Bonne's Antiques, Inc.
Bostic & Wilson Antiques
Kaselaan and D'Angelo
Associates, Inc.
(Donald Abramowitz)
Civil Engineering Laboratory
(Charles Mathews)
Availability of Pb Test Kits For:
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
yes
—
—
.„
Water
_„
—
—
...
...
...
—
...
Water (Distributed for EM Science)
—
...
...
...
...
...
Laboratory-prepared sodium sulfide kit
Laboratory-prepared sodium sulfide kit
-------
Pb Test Kit Survey (continued)
Company/Organization
Availability of Pb Test Kits For:
Public Health Dept.,
Massachusetts
(Paul Hunter)
(Refer Frandon Kit)
National Institute of
Environmental Health
Sciences (Ralph Zumwalde)
(No response)
EPA, NC (Robert Elias)
(Unaware of additional kit)
EPA, Las Vegas
(Harold Vincent)
(Unaware of additional kit)
EPA, Region 1
(Thomas Spittler)
(Unaware of additional kit)
State of Maryland
(Merrill Brophy)
(Unaware of additional kit)
State of Maryland
(Pat McLaine)
Yes
Laboratory-prepared sodium sulfide kit
Georgia Tech
(David Jacobs)
(No response)
Midwest Psychiatric Institute
and Clinic, University of
Pittsburgh (Herbert
Needleman)
(No response)
Copper Development
(from James Keck)
Yes
Solder
Water Test
(from James Keck)
Yes
Water
Millette Vanderwood
Associated
No
(Not aware of test kit)
.U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commision, Health
Science Laboratory (Miau
Huang)
(Unaware of additional kit)
-------
Pb Test Kit Survey (continued)
Company/Organization
Innovative Synthesis
Corporation
(Carolyn J. Newton)
Service Paint
(Carolyn J. Newton)
HydroTalks
(Carolyn J. Newton)
Englehart Corp.
(Carolyn J. Newton)
Lead Based Paint Detection
(Carolyn J. Newton)
Midwest Research Institute,
Missouri
(Christopher Shumate)
Availability of Pb Test Kits For:
Yes
No
—
Yes
Yes
__-.
Paint chip, pottery, and household items
...
No longer in service
Solder
Water
(Unaware of additional kit)
-------
Appendix 6: Test Kit Procedures
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
B-l
-------
""FRANDON™ LEAD ALERT KIT
PatoU Pending
DETECTS LEAD
IN THE HOME ENVIRONMENT
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD
Filter paper, or a cotton-tipped applicator is moistened with
"Leaching Solution". The paper is then placed on a surface and
allowed to dry; or, the cotton tip is rubbed on the surface. An
"Indicating Solution" is then applied to the filter paper or to the
cotton-tipped applicator. The appearance of a rose to rose/red
stain indicates lead release. Results are interpreted as follows:
•POSITIVE RESULT* THE APPEARANCE OF A ROSE TO ROSE/RED
STAIN THAT IS SIMILAR IN COLOR TO THE
COVER OF THIS INSTRUCTION BOOKLET.
'NEGATIVE RESULT" THE APPEARANCE OF A YELLOW STAIN
THAT FADES AWAY IN A FEW SECONDS OR
AFTER A FEW MINUTES.
THIS KIT AIDS IN IDENTIFYING PAINT, CERAMICWARE
(DISHWARE, GLASSWARE, COOKWARE), ENAMELED
METAL POODWARE, SOLDER (SEAMS ON FOOD CANS
AND JOINTS ON COPPER WATER PIPES), AND OTHER
ITEMS AND MATERIALS THAT RELEASE EXCESSIVE
(POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS) AMOUNTS OF LEAD.
SENsrnvrrY OF TEST is DESCRIBED ON BACK COVER.*
-------
IMPORTANT NOTE!
BEFORE STARTING TO TEST, YOU MUST PREPARE ONE
BOTTLE OF "INDICATING SOLUTION" ACCORDING TO
THE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTENTS OF THE KIT
1. INDICATING TABLETS Dark brown-red tablets (color indicator)
in tapered plastic vial with flip top lid.
2. INDICATING SOLUTION Water/alcohol solution in bottles with red
caps. Note: One indicating tablet is
supplied for each bottle of solution.
3. LEACHING SOLUTION Tartrate buffer (leaching solution) in bottle
with white cap is ready for use.
4. TEST PAPERS Contained in protective plastic pouch.
5. ABRASIVE STRIPS Contained in protective plastic pouch.
6. COTTON APPLICATORS Contained in protective plastic pouch.
7. WHITE PLASTIC BOX Provides a clean white viewing surface.
CAUTION: READ AND UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE
INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS BOOKLET BEFORE TESTING!
KEEP ALL CONTENTS AWAY FROM CHILDREN! AVOID
CONTACTING EYES WITH SOLUTIONS! IF CONTACT
OCCURS, FLUSH EYES THOROUGHLY WITH WATER.
-------
PREPARATION OF "INDICATING SOLUTION"
One of the bottles of "Indicating Solution" must be prepared as follows prior
to testing: Remove red cap from one of the two plastic bottles labelled
"Indicating Solution". Carefully remove the dropper insert by rolling/twisting
it to the side. DO NOT SQUEEZE THE BOTTLE OR THE SOLUTION MAY
SPILL! Open the top of the tapered plastic vial and place onq of the dark
brown-red tablets into the water/alcohol solution. Then hold the bottle firmly
(without squeezing), and snap the dropper insert back into place. Replace the
red cap and shake the bottle vigorously for one minute. Allow the bottle to
stand for five minutes and then shake it again. The tablet will not be
completely dissolved and the solution will be dark yellow in color. Following
preparation, the "Indicating Solution" can be used for 3 to 5 days px until it no
longer gives a bright yellow stain when a drop is applied to white filter paper
followed by a drop of "Leaching Solution". The bottle should be shaken lightly
for a couple of seconds each time it is used for testing.
Do not prepare the second bottle of indicator solution! It should be prepared
after the first bottle of solution has been used or is no longer active. The
indicating tablets are light-sensitive. Therefore, keep the second tablet in the
tapered vial (with flip top dosed) and store in the dark until ready for use.
NOTE: IF THE DROPPER TIP OF THE "INDICATING SOLUTION"
BOTTLE BECOMES CLOGGED, REPLACE THE RED CAP. THEN
TAP THE BOTTOM OF THE BOTTLE ON A HARD SURFACE. THIS
WILL FREE THE DROPPER TIP OF ANY DEPOSITS.
FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS BOOKLET WHEN TESTING.
IF YOU GET A "POSITIVE RESULT"
A "positive result" is defined on the cover of this booklet. It is up to one's own
judgment if an item that shows a positive result for lead release may be used
safely. A rapid and deep color change to rose/red (a color similar to the cover
of this booklet) provides an alert that the surface being tested has released a
potentially hazardous amount of lead. For example, if the food contact surface
of a ceramic bowl or plate shows a strong positive, lead could migrate into food
that is prepared, served, or stored in the item. Paint that tests positive should
not be sanded or scraped. Lead poisoning could result from inhalation or
ingestion of the paint particles and the particles could be spread to other areas.
-------
TESTING PAINTED SURFACES & PARTICLES
TESTING TOP LAYERS OF PAINT
1. Place 2 drops of "Leaching Solution" on a cotton-tipped applicator and rub
the painted surface firmly with the moistened tip of the applicator for about
10 seconds using a back-and-forth motion.
2. Place 1 or 2 drops of "Indicating Solution" on the exact area of the cotton
tip that was nibbed on the surface. A rose to rose/red stain will appear on
the cotton tip if lead has been released. (When testing red-colored paint, a
red stain that appears before the "Indicating Solution" is placed on the
cotton tip may be caused by paint pigments rather than by lead release).
NOTE: Any type of commercially available cotton-tipped applicator may
be used. Sufficient "Leaching" and "Indicator" solutions are supplied with
each kit to conduct scores, or even hundreds of tests using this procedure.
TO TEST UNDERLYING LAYERS OF PAINT
1. Sand a small area (approximately 1 or 2 square centimeters) with an
abrasive strip to expose the underlying surface layer.
2. Test the exposed layer using a cotton-tipped applicator as explained in the
instructions above for testing top layers. Test every layer of paint for lead
release by exposing with an abrasive strip and repeating this procedure.
NOTE: Use a new abrasive strip for each test. If additional strips are
required cut the abrasive strips in half or use a similar type of commercially
available sandpaper.
TO TEST PARTICLES OF PAINT, METAL, DUST, ETC.
1. Put a very small amount of fine particles of the material to be tested (paint
chips, metal fragments, housedust, or dust from vacuum cleaner bag, etc.)
on a piece of filter paper that has been placed on a white viewing surface
such as the plastic box supplied with the kit. Apply 2 or 3 drops of
"Leaching Solution" to the particles and allow to dry for 5 to 10 minutes.
2. Add 2 drops of "Indicating Solution" to the particles. A rose to rose colored
stain will appear on the paper if lead has been released. (The particles may
absorb some of the "Leaching Solution" causing the test paper to dry out
completely. If this happens, the addition of 1 or 2 drops of "Leaching
Solution" may enhance the color reaction).
-------
TESTING CERAMIC & ENAMELED FOODWARE
1. Use the same quick and simple procedure described previously for "Testing
Top Layers of Paint" to test surfaces of glazed ceramic and enameled metal
foodware for lead release. Procedure 2, described below, may also be used.
2. The following procedure is used by U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) inspectors to screen ceramicware ("dishes") and • enameled metal
foodware for lead release. Prior to being deemed safe for food use, items
that test "positive" using this method must undergo further testing to
determine if lead release exceeds the current or proposed FDA guidelines.
(I) Place one "test paper" on a clean, dry, smooth, horizontal surface of the
item to be tested. Reposition the item as necessary to obtain an
accessible horizontal surface. If the item is patterned with painted
decorations or decals, a portion of the pattern is an ideal test spot.
(2) Apply 2 or 3 drops of "Leaching Solution" to different areas of the test
paper. The paper must be saturated, not just moist, but there should
be no excess solution present. The paper must be in complete contact
with the surface with no ridges or bubbles present. The moist paper
will be almost transparent and the pattern on the item will be visible.
(3) Allow the test paper to remain on the item until dry (normally 5 to 10
minutes). Then remove it from the item and place it on a clean white
surface for viewing. (Use the white plastic box supplied with this kit,
a white tissue paper, or a white paper towel for viewing purposes).
(4) Apply 2 or 3 drops of "Indicating Solution" to different areas of the test
paper. A rose to rose/red colored stain will appear on the test paper if
lead has been released. The pattern of the stain corresponds exactly to
the location on the surface that released lead. In many cases, the design
of the pattern (or decal) that released lead will be clearly visible on the
test paper.
NOTE: Based on latest lexicological findings about the danger of low
level exposures to lead, the FDA has proposed a 25 to 50-fold reduction
of allowable lead release from ceramic pitchers (excluding creamers).
The FDA is also .evaluating the need to decrease leachable lead from all
other categories of ceramicware.
-------
TESTING HOUSEHOLD PLUMBING
Locate an area where water pipes are exposed and determine if soldered joints
are present - these are the areas with silver-colored metallic surfaces. A
greenish-colored corrosion may also be evident. Test the pipes and/or the pipe
joints using the following procedure.
1. Sand the pipe and/or the soldered joint lightly with an abrasive strip to
remove corrosion and expose a portion of the bare metal surface.
2. Place 2 drops of "Leaching Solution" on a cotton-tipped applicator and
firmly rub the moistened part of the applicator tip on the sanded area
of the pipe and/or pipe joint for about 10 seconds.
3. Place 1 or 2 drops of "Indicating Solution" on the exact area of the
cotton tip that was rubbed on the pipe or joint. A rose or rose/red stain
will appear on the cotton tip if lead has been released.
NOTE: Use a new abrasive strip for each test. If additional testing is
required, cut the abrasive strips in half or use any similar type of
commercially available sandpaper and/or cotton-tipped applicator.
IF A "POSITIVE" RESULT IS NOTED
The widespread use of lead, in the form of leaded pipe and lead-containing
soldered joints in copper pipe, poses a serious health hazard. In some cases,
particularly in areas having corrosive water, significant lead contamination can
occur within a building's own water piping. Newer homes (homes less than 5-
years-old) tend to have more lead in the water if lead solder was used. (After
several years, deposits form on the inside of pipes and lead migration into the
water decreases). As a precaution, run the water for at least two minutes from
any tap that has not been used for an extended period (such as overnight). It
is advisable to have the water tested for lead content if lead water pipes or lead
solder connections exist in the home or building plumbing system. Local
authorities should know if leaded piping exists in the main water supply system.
-------
TESTING SOLDERED SEAMS ON FOOD CANS
Peel back the label on the can to expose the vertical side seam. (Some newer
cans may not have seams). The seam may appear as a clean black line which
indicates the it has been welded without lead. A soldered seam has a coating
of silver-colored metal about one-half inch in width. The metal may be either
shiny or dull. Test this type of seam for lead using the following procedure.
1. Place two drops of "Leaching Solution" on a cotton-tipped applicator
and firmly rub the applicator on the suspect seam for about 10 seconds.
2. Place 1 or 2 drops of "Indicating Solution" on the exact area of the
cotton tip that was rubbed on the suspect seam.. A color change to rose
or rose/red indicates lead release.
IF A "POSITIVE11 RESULT IS NOTED
If the outside of the seam tests "positive" for lead, carefully examine the inside
of the can. If the protective coating on the inside of the can is degraded, test
the inside seam for lead release using the method described above. Wash and
rinse the inside of the can, and dry it well with a paper towel before testing.
If the inside seam tests "positive", the contents are probably tainted with lead.
NOTE: It has been known for decades that lead migrates into food from lead-
soldered seams on metal food containers ("tin cans"). This method of sealing
cans is outdated. Although newer and safer methods for sealing food cans are
available today, about 4% of food cans produced in the United States and a
much higher percentage of imported cans are sealed with lead solder. The
combined total (domestic and imported) indicates that hundreds of millions of
lead soldered cans are placed on market shelves in the United States each year.
Untold billions more have been purchased by consumers over the years. Many
remain stored in kitchen cupboards for future use. The lead content in the
food in cans of this type is, at best, questionable and perhaps hazardous.
-------
GOAL OF THIS TEST KIT
To provide a quick and simple method to alert users to the
presence of teachable lead in a variety of materials.
•Sensitivity of test: The test methods described are designed to
detect leachable lead at or above the following levels. For paint
and paint residue La housedust - approximately 0.5% leachable
lead content. For ceramicware and enameled metal foodware -
approximately 0.25 mlcrograms of leachable lead per square
centimeter of surface area tested. In all cases, contact a
qualified laboratory for quantitative analyses of lead release;
for determination of non-leachable lead content of materials;
and, for confirmation of lead release from materials that may
exist at levels below the detection limits of this test kit.
Recommendations for the use of our products are based on tests
we believe to be reliable using the techniques and procedures
described hi this instruction manual. Manufacturer and seller
are not responsible for results where the product is used under
conditions beyond our control. Under no circumstances will
Frandon Enterprises, Inc. or any manufacturer or vendor of its
products be liable for consequential damages or damages to
anyone in excess of the purchase price of the products.
°Copyright 1990
FRANDON ENTERPRISES, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 300321
SEATTLE, WA 98103
110190
-------
LeadCheck 5
f
A REVOLUTIONARY NEW
TO DETECT LEAD
ON ANY SURFACE
Interior
and
exterior
painted
surfaces
Bed frames and
headboards
Ceramics,
homecrafted
and imported
Toys and
toy boxes
Furniture,
especially children* furniture
-------
Paint Millions of homes in the United States contain
surfaces contaminated with lead paint. Chips and
dust formed when surfaces are scrajx-d or sanded,
contain lead and may be inhaled or ingested. The
lead content of paint was high, and there can be
enough lead in one small chip to cause poisoning.
Toys manufactured in oilier countries and imported
into the United States have been found to contain
lead paint.
Solder Water contamination can come from lead leach-
ing out of the lead-containing solder which, until
recently, was used with copper plumbing.
Furniture and Antiques Lead-containing paints,
varnishes and lacquers used on old or antique fur-
niture arc sources of lead contamination.
Ceramics Lead glazed pottery, homemade pottery,
porcelain-glazed vessels, or pieces obtained from
I other countries, can release large amounts of lead
into food and drink, particularly if the glaze is
chipped, cracked or improperly applied. Since
glazes can deteriorate from repeated washing.
even pottery previously tested as safe can become
unsafe.
Dust and Soil Lead dust can cli ng to skin, hair, shoes,
clothing, and vehicles, and can be carried from
workplace to home in this manner. Particles of
airborne lead from automobile exhaust and indus-
trial sources deposit in soil and dust. Flaking lead
paint adds to this contamination. Even though
lead tends to stay in the top inch, soil can be con-
taminated to a much greater depth.
-------
Lead has no function in the body. It can have poisonous
effects on the liver, kidneys, nerves, bones, blood and brain
causing a variety of toxic reactions including permanent
learning disabilities and even retardation. Children are at
high risk because their normal activities introduce non-
food items into their bodies, and their developing brains are
most susceptible to lead's toxic properties. Since lead accu-
mulates in the body and is only slowly removed, repeated
exposures, even to small amounts over long periods of
time, may produce lead toxicity. Lead poisoning is not only
a problem for children: adults arc also susceptible to lead's
toxic effects.
HyfariVet Systems. Inc. PCX Box 1210 Framingham. MA 01701
PHONE NUMBER: 800-262-LEAD (800-262-5323)
LeadCheck Swabs CatNo.PB-002 PATENT PENDING
Kit Contents
LeadCheck Swabs pro-
vide a convenient meth-
od for the detection of
lead in paint, on wood
building surfaces, cer-
amics, solder and other
items. It is not intended
to replace an inspection
by a licensed inspector. It
is supplied as a kit which
includes ready-to-use
swabs, a swab-activat-
ing solution and lead
strips to confirm the test
performance. To test
a suspect surface fol-
low the steps in the
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE.
Each LtadChfil; Su-ubi kit contains:
LtaJCheck Su-uta
1 BonIc of Swat* Activator Solution
Lead Strips
I Instruction Sltcvl
Warranties
The LtodChtck Swobs kit is intended to be used
as a convenient way to dried and track lead
contaminated glared ceramics, pottery, dust.
paint chips, and paint on any surface such as
(tainted toy* (wood or metal) and furniture.
This lest is downed as a presumptive test fur
lead and should not be considered u.uantitative.
Under the conditions described in the instruc-
tions. LtodChtdc Swabs will detect dangerous
levels of lead. Use of (his test is not intended to
replace inspection by a licensed inspector. No
guarantees are intended or implied.
Liability
The manufacturer assumes no liability (or the
misuse of LeoJCheck Swab* or for the inter-
pretation ttf the results by the user. If lead con-
tamination is suspected based upon this lesi. a
professional testing laboratory or a deleading
company should be consulted.
-------
Ceramics • Toys • Solder
Glazed dinnerware
I Holding the swab by the plastic
rod with the absorbent tip pointing
down, wet the swab with at least 2
full dropper volumes of the Activator
Solution provided. (DO NOT dip the
swab into the Activator Solution!)
The swab must be thoroughly wet,
but not dripping.
2 Vigorously rub the tip of the
swab over the test area for 30 sec-
onds. Be sure to use the tip of the
swab and not the sides.
3 Observe the swab for a color
change. If the tip of the swab turns
pink or scarlet, lead is present. If a
color change does not occur,
immediately perform the confirm-
ation test.
Uad it present.
4 With ceramics be sure to rub the test swab vigorously
over all of the glazes which may come in contact with food.
5 After testing, wash pieces well with ordinary dish wash-
ing detergent.
*LeodCheck StvateTM may be used w detect lead in dust.
Suggested places and items to test are listed on the other side of this
instruction sheet.
-------
Painted Wood Surf aces
I Remove all dust* and dirt from the area to be tested.
2 With a clean knife, cut or scrape through all layers of
paint to expose approximately one quarter inch diameter
bare wood. Do not gouge the wood.
3 Perform steps 1 through 3 of the above instructions.
Confirmation Test
If the pink color does not develop on the LeodCheck Swab
within one minute, immediately confirm that the test was
performed properly. Place one of the Lead Strips provided on
a piece of plastic wrap and rub the same swab on the Lead
Strip. If the swab and/or the Lead Strip turn pink, the original
test was performed properly. The
absence of pink color on the swab
and Lead Strip indicates that the
test was not performed properly
and must be repeated with a fresh,
unused swab. Wrap the used
swabs and Lead Strips in plastic
Wrap tO dispose Of them. Original te«t performed properly.
Interpretation
I The appearance of any pink color on the swab indicates
the presence of dangerous levels of lead.
2 Once developed, a pink swab retains its color for at least
one day.
3 In the absence of lead, no pink color appears. The swab
may turn yellow.,This is a temporary color which fades
with time.
4 A lead-free test result on a house painted before 1978
should be confirmed by a Licensed Lead Paint Inspector.
-------
Precautions
1 Once a LeadCheck Swab has been moistened with the
solution provided the test must be performed within 5
minutes. Any swabs moistened with Activator Solution
and not used in a test must be discarded. Swabs will not
work if they are dried and reused.
2 Store unused LeadCheck Swabs in the container pro-
vided. Keep container tightly closed.
3 Keep the LeadCheck Swabs kit and all of its compo-
nent parts out of reach of children.
4 Keep loose paint chips out of reach of children.
5 Keep the bottle of Activator Solution tightly closed
when not in use.
O Avoid contact with skin; wash hands after use. Do not
touch absorbent tip of swab; handle only by plastic rod.
Helpful Hints
I Certain stains, lacquers, and varnishes may also con-
tain lead and should be tested.
2 When testing surfaces that are painted red, first check
for "bleeding" of the red paint onto the swabs by moisten-
ing household cotton or cotton tipped applicators with a
few drops of the Activator Solution provided. Rub the cot-
ton on the red surface. If color appears on the cotton, the
LeadCheck Swabs kit cannot be used. LeadCheck I (Cat.
No. PB-OOl) may be used to test for lead in paint.
3 To avoid contamination of the solution provided do not
allow the dropper to touch any surface being tested.
4 When testing painted surfaces, be sure to test areas
where all layers of paint are present. Lead may be present
in the first layer of paint, sandwiched between layers of
paint, or on the newly exposed wood surfaces.
5 If a surface becomes pink during the test, wash the area
with an all-purpose household cleaner and the color will
disappear. Baking soda or vinegar will lighten the color.
-------
lead
Chech
INSTRUCTIONS
SWABS
LEAD TEST KIT*
Instruction Manual Catalog NO. PB-002M
THE FACTS -
Lead Is a Health Hazard
Lead has no function in the body. It can have
poisonous effects on the liver, kidneys, nerves.
bones, blood and brain causing a variety of toxic
reactions including permanent learning disabilities
and even retardation. Children are at High risk
because their normal activities introduce non-food
items into their bodies, and their developing brains
are most susceptible to lead's toxic properties.
Lead accumulates in the body and is only slowly
removed. The New England Journal of Medicine
(January 11, 1990) reported that exposure to low
levels of lead over extended periods of time can
cause serious behavioral problems and learning
disabilities. Adults as well as children are sus-
ceptible to the toxic effects of lead.
Symptoms and Signs of lead toxicity are fatigue.
pallor, malaise, loss of appetite, irritability, sleep
disturbance, sudden behavioral change, and
developmental regression. More serious symp-
toms are clumsiness, muscular irregularities,
abdominal pain, persistent vomiting, constipation,
and changes in consciousness. Children who
display these symptoms need thorough medical
evaluation
CERAMICS, GLASSWARE, TOYS,
SOLDERED FOOD CANS
O SQUEEZE and CRUSH
Squeeze and crush first "A", then "B".
© SHAKE
With the cotton tip pointing down, shake
twice, and squeeze gently. When yellow
appears on the cotton tip. the swab is
ready to use.
© RUB
While squeezing gently, rub the cotton
tip on the test area for 30 seconds. With
ceramics, be sure to rub the test swab
vigorously over all of the glazes which
may come in contact with food. With
soldered food cans, rub the seam for
about ten seconds.
If the cotton tip turns PINK, lead is present. If the tip
does not turn pink, immediately rub the same swab
on an unused spot on the Test Confirmation Card.
If the swab and/or the spot on the Test
Confirmation Card then turn pink, the test was
performed properly. If the swab and/or the spot on
the Test Confirmation Card do not turn pink, repeat
the test with a new unused swab.
(See PRECAUTIONS. No. 3.)
PAINTED WOOD OR METAL SURFACES
• Remove all dust and din" from area to be tested.
• With a clean knife, cut or scrape through all
layers of paint to expose bare surface. Lead may
be present in the first layer of paint, sandwiched
between layers of paint, or on the newly exposed
wood or metal surface.
• Perform steps 1 thru 3 of the above instructions
-------
DESCRIPTION / CONTENTS
LeadCheck'" Swabs, an innovative and pro-
prietary test system*, use an acknowledged
method for lead detection. To test a surface follow
the steps in the INSTRUCTIONS. The package
contains LeadCheck"" Swabs, an instruction sheet
and a Test Confirmation Card that is impregnated
with a small quantity of lead.
Ceramics • Lead glazed pottery, homemade
pottery, glazed porcelain vessels, or ceramic
pieces (especially old or imported pieces), can
release large amounts of lead into food and drink,
particularly if the glaze is chipped, cracked or
improperly fired. Since glazes can deteriorate from
repeated washing, even pottery previously tested
as safe can become unsafe.
Solder (Water Pipes and Food Cans) - Water
contamination can come from lead leaching out of
lead solder which, until 1988, was used with
copper plumbing. Some food cans are still sealed
with lead-containing solder which may contaminate
the contents.
Dust and Soil - Lead dust can cling to skin,
hair, shoes, clothing, and vehicles, and can be
carried from the workplace to home in this manner.
Particles of airborne lead from automobile exhaust
and industrial sources deposit in soil and dust.
Flaking lead paint adds to this contamination. Lead
from contaminated soil is concentrated in the
leaves and roots of growing vegetables.
To obtain a procedure for detection of lead in dust
or soil using LeadCheck™ Swabs, call 1 -800-262-
LEAD.
CLEANING TEST SURFACES
If a surface becomes pink during the test, wash
the area with an all purpose household cleaner
and the color will disappear.
Paint - Millions of homes in the United States
contain surfaces contaminated with lead paint.
Remodeling or renovation projects often release
lead-containing paint chips and dust, especially
when old paint is scraped or sanded.
Lead poisoning can result from the inhalation or
ingestion of lead-containing particles. Older paints
may contain high levels of lead and there can be
enough lead in one small chip to cause poisoning.
Paints, varnishes and lacquers used on old or
antique furniture as well as on toys have been
found to contain lead.
Red Painted Surfaces • When testing
surfaces that are painted red, first check for
"bleeding" of the red paint onto the swabs by
moistening household cotton or cotton tipped
applicators with a tew drops of distilled white
vinegar. Rub the moistened cotton on the red
surface. If red appears on the cotton, the Lead-
Check'" Swabs cannot be used.
Stains, Lacquers and Varnishes -
Certain stains, lacquers, and varnishes may also
contain lead and should be tested. If the test is
negative for lead (swab does not turn pink) on a
house painted before 1978, and you are
concerned that lead is present, call a lead paint
inspector.
-------
INTERPRETATION
1. K the cotton tip turns pink, high levels of teach-
able lead are present.
2. In the absence of lead, the cotton tip does not
turn pink. Any yellow visible on the cotton tip is a
temporary color which fades quickly.
PRECAUTIONS
1. Once a LeadCheck™ Swab has been crushed,
use it immediately. Swabs are not reusable.
2. Keep all LeadCheck™ Swabs kit materials and
any lead-containing items out of the reach of
children.
3. If you wish to test the same item twice, WASH
the item thoroughly with any ordinary all-purpose
household cleaner before retesting.
4. If the test is positive, exercise precaution in
handling the material and consult with a lead paint
inspector or testing laboratory.
5. Do not touch the swab tip; wash hands after use.
6. LeadCheck1
lead in water.
' Swabs cannot be used to detect
7. LeadCheck™ Swabs will not detect lead directly
on plaster or gypsum surfaces or in plaster or
gypsum dust.
8. When testing soldered food cans, be sure to
rub only ten seconds or less. Longer rubbing
times cause the swab to turn purple which may
mask a positive test for lead.
INTENDED USE
LeadCheck™ Swabs provide a convenient method
for the detection of lead on painted wood or metal
surfaces, ceramics, decorated glassware, sold-
ered food cans and other items. The test can alert
the user to the presence of lead in paint so that
proper precautions can be taken while removing it.
This test is not intended to replace a professional
inspection by a lead paint inspector.
WARRANTIES
The LeadCheck™ Swabs are intended to be used as a
convenient way to detect leachable lead in glazed
ceramics, pottery, decorated glassware, Oust, soldered
tood cans, paint chips, and any painted surface. This test
is designed as a presumptive test for lead and should not
be considered quantitative. Under controlled laboratory
conditions. LeadCheck™ Swabs will reproducibly detect 2
micrograms ol lead. Under the conditions described in the
instructions. LeadCheck™ Swabs will detect high levels ot
leachable lead. Use of this test Is not Intended to re-
place a professional Inspection. No guarantees are
intended or implied.
LIABILITY
The manufacturer assumes no liability for the mis-use of
LeadCheck™ Swabs or for the interpretation of the results
by the user. If lead contamination is suspected based
upon {his test, consult a professional testing laboratory, a
deleading specialist or your local Department ol Public
Health.
HYBRIVET SYSTEMS INC.
P.O. BOX 1210
Framingham, MA 01701
1-800-262-LEAD
LeadCheck'" Swabs
• Patent Ponding
-------
A ChcmChcck Product from HybriVet Systems. Inc.
TM P.O. Box 1210
Framlngham, MA 01701
800-262-LEAD
LEAD IN SOIL PROTOCOL
To one gran of soil add 2 mi 1Hliters of 4* acetic add or
distilled white vinegar.
Mix and allow to settle for 30 minutes.
$
Remove 50 micro liters of the clarified extract and place 1n a
small white plastic container (weigh boat).
Activate the LeadCheck Swab according to the directions
provided. Be sure you see yellow at the tip of the swab.
Rub the LeadCheck Swab 1n the 50 mlcroHters of extract for
15 seconds.
If the tip of the swab turns pink, extract able lead 1s
present In the soil sample.
-------
tCADCNECK SWABS OUST PROTOCOL
PB-002M (MONOSWABS)
Leadcheck Swabs are designed to be used as a presumptive
test for lead. As such, they cannot be used to determine HOW
MUCH lead is present. The instructions listed below will
enable the user to determine if lead is present AT OR NEAR
the limits currently considered to be safe.
Preliminary Cleanupi
ff the rooms to be tested have recently had lead paint
removed it is recommended that the following cleanup
procedure be performed BEFORE using Leadcheck Swabs.
Thoroughly vacuum the area to be tested. If a
specially filtered (HEPA filtered) vacuum is not used
observe special precautions since very small
particles of lead dust can pass through standard
vacuum cleaner filters contaminating a larger area.
At a minimum wear protective breathing apparatus and
allow any dust to settle at least 24 hours before
proceeding to step 2.
2. Wash the floor THOROOTHLY one or more times with a
solution of Trisodium Phosphate.
Test Instructions:
1. Mark off a one square foot section of floor.
A B
2. Using a DRV swab rub the marked off section of floor
in the following pattern. A--> B--> C--> D--> A.
3. Now activate the swab by squeezing and crushing at
point A and point B. Shake. With the tip pointing
down, squeeze til) yellow is observed.
4. Develop the swab by rubbing the tip on a small
plastic dish or sheet of wax paper.
5. If pink appears on the tip of the swab high levels of
lead are present and the cleanup procedure must be
repeated.
-------
Lead Paint Detection Kit
Detects lead in paint dovn to
by approved state method
-------
Lead Paint Detection Kit
Innovative Synthesis Corporation
45 Lexington Street, Suite 2
Newton, MA 02165
(617)244-9078
® 1988
Not to be used in whole or in pan without permission.
Table of Contents
Lead In Your Home 1
Introduction 1
The History of Plumbism 2
Sources of Lead Exposure 4
Painted Surfaces 4
Lead In Food and Water 5
Lead In Soil 8
Airborne Sources 9
Other Sources 9
Lead Poisoning—
Causes and Symptoms 10
-------
Screening 10
Distribution of Lead
in the Body 10
Testing for Lead in Blood 11
Diagnostic Evaluation 12
Treatment 13
How To Test For Lead 14
Lead In Paint
Detection Instructions 14
Product Safety Information 14
Disposal Information 15
General Instructions 15
Lead Color Chart 17
Testing Paint Chips
and Surf aces 18
Other Considerations 19
Testing Various Areas
ofYourHome 21
What To Do If
Your Paint Tests Positive 22
Lead In Pottery
Instructions 23
Detecting Lead In Water 24
Home Lead Abatement 25
Lead andthe Law 27
Massachusetts Lead Law 27
Resource Materials
and References 29
Notes
-------
Lead In Your Home
INTRODUCTION
Lead is a heavy metal common to many minerals. It
comprises only a small fraction of the earth's crust. It
serves no dietary or biological function in humans and its
incorporation into our bodies represents toxic exposure.
Lead is a ubiquitous constituent in a variety of industrial
chemicals and materials. It serves as antiknock agents in
gasoline in the form of tetraethyllead, organolead primers
and brighteners in paints, solder, antifouling agents,
dyes and glazes in pottery, and a variety of other uses. In
some forms such as storage battery casings and radiation
shields it is not intrinsically dangerous except when
misused, by burning for example.
Lead is an industrial age poison. Bones of our
ancestors who died many centuries ago contain virtually
no lead. The bones of man living in Ethiopia 3,000 years
ago were nearly lead free, the bones of modern
Americans may contain one hundred to one thousand
times as much.
The recognition that lead is a prevalent and
preventable poison and the recognition of plumbism as a
disease has spurred our government to act to ban its use
in a variety of products. Contrary to popular opinion lead
in gasoline was not banned (a phased reduction still in
progress) to eliminate this hazard but to protect catalytic
converters and limit noxious air emission. A vehicle
meeting federal air standards does not require lead-free
gas. Lead in paint for home use was banned in 1978, but
depletion of paint stocks was allowed to continue into the
early 1980's. Lead in solder for home use was banned in
1986.
This kit and its accompanying manual gives you the
ability to test for lead in your home.What was once
predominantly a disease of the disadvantaged has today
with the advent of urban renewal become an egalitarian
disease. This test is adaptable for testing other sources of
heavy metals and details of procedures are given in the
instructions.
THE HISTORY OF PLUMBISM
The Greek physician Dioscorides noted the effects of
lead poisoning in patients that ingested lead or lived near
smelters. Dietary lead poisoning was common in ancient
-------
Rome from ceramic in earthenware, pottery and drinking
vessels such as lead wine goblets. Although the Romans
knew about lead poisoning from their mining operations,
they used lead in their aqueducts and piping. Dietary lead
is believed to have greatly afflicted the upper
class—imperial madness, infertility and high miscarriage
rates lead some historians to suggest it was one cause of
the fall of the Roman empire.
Benjamin Franklin in 1786 noted occupational lead
poisoning in a letter to a friend. The hot lead type used in
casting by his printing workers, lead to a central nervous
disorder then referred to as the "dangles" which caused
loss of feeling in the hands and feet. This condition
common in painters who work with lead paint is called
"painter's wrist" by doctors. Franklin remembered a trip
to a Paris hospital in 1767, that served victims of colic.
From the list of patients were tradesmen in lead:
plumbers, glassiers, and painters.
Lead was banned in the distilling industry by the
Massachusetts legislature in the late 18th century after
cases of poisoning from rum came to light Canning was
believed to play a role in the loss of some Arctic
expeditions in the 1800's. The British Franklin
expedition searching for the Northwest Passage in the
1840's were believed poisoned from solder used in the
tin cans that stored their food.
SOURCES OF LEAD EXPOSURE
Exposure to lead occurs from a variety of sources.
Airborne lead comes from sources such as car exhausts
and industry. Lead in water enters from the distribution
network—piping and solder. Non-food items such as
paint chips or dust, contaminated soil, weights, bullets,
ceramic glazes, some cosmetics, printing ink, and
specialty paints often contain lead. Some foreign made
toys and cookware not subject to US law have been
found to contain very high levels of lead in their paint.
The sections that follow consider the various sources of
lead in the home, how they may be monitored and
corrected.
Painted Surfaces
By law in the US since 1977 paint must not contain
more than 0.06% (600 ppm) lead. Stock of lead paint
continued to be used into the early 1980's. Lead paint
before that time contained as much as 50% lead, with
20% being common. The interiors of 27 million US
homes built prior to 1940 and 75% of units built between
1940 and 1960— about 22 million additional units are
thought to contain large amounts of lead paint. The
exclusion of lead in paint applies only to interior paint,
-------
and it is still common to find special purpose exterior,
marine, industrial and military paints with lead. Some of
this occasionally is used mistakenly in homes.
Pica or the act of eating non-food substances
(primarily by children under six) is a major pathway for
lead poisoning. It is important to realize that the act of
eating paint can involve minute amounts of paint—just a
speck—a chip 50 mg in size is enough on a daily basis,
over the course of several weeks to seriously poison a
child. This weighs the same as a drop of water. There is
enough lead contained in a paint chip the size of a
fingernail to cause permanent brain damage or death to a
child under six were it all metabolized by the body.
Fortunately only 5% of ingested lead is metabolized, the
remainder is expelled. Lead has a sweet taste, attracting
small children. A wet lollipop dropped on a dusty floor
or left on a window sill with chipping paint can absorb
the doses mentioned. Estimates of the contribution of
lead paint to childhood lead poisoning place it as the
major cause, with 50-75% being a common estimate.
Lead In Food and Water
In urban dwellings lead in water represents the
second major pathway for lead poisoning. By some
estimates ingestion of lead from water accounts for to
over 50% of exposure, but the EPA estimates that
perhaps 10-20% of the total lead exposure in small
children occurs this way.
Levels of lead in water are regulated by federal law
with 0.05 mg/L (about 50 parts in a billion) the current
federal standard. This is monitored at the utility, but
water flowing from your tap may have picked up
considerable lead burden. The EPA currently estimates
that 42 million U.S. residents drink water in excess of
the recommended levels. We offer a LEAD IN
WATER KIT, write or call for details.
Bad situations occur with acidic or soft water. Acidic
water can leach lead from pipe or solder and greatly
enhance the level of metallic contaminants. Old homes
with lead pipe have very high lead levels, any piping
dating from the 1930's or earlier should be suspect. New
homes with copper pipes and lead solder between 2-6
years old have shown the highest levels of lead due to
solder. Buildings less than 5 years old may have high
lead levels and should be tested. Lead in solder is the
major cause of lead in water. Lead solder was banned for
home use by the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act. It is
used for electronics and can mistakenly finds its way into
new construction. Over 5-6 years solder forms a mineral
surface coating that lowers the risk of lead being leached
into the water.
A common practice of grounding electrical lines to
-------
metallic water pipes increases corrosion in water
distribution systems. Electric current from ground wire
will accelerate corrosion of pipes. Do not remove these
wires yourself, obtain assistance from a qualified
electrician to install an new grounding system.
Lead can be removed from water using an
appropriate point of use device. Activated charcoal
devices are used, but do not work well and other
methods are superior. Consider water treatment systems
at point of entry to reduce the corrosiveness of your
water. Use cold water for drinking as hot water
dissolves more contaminants from piping. Run your tap
water for 2 minutes first thing in the morning to reduce
the lead level in water that stood in your pipes overnight.
Store some of this water for bottled use later on in the
day. This is especially true if using the water to make a
baby formula. Flushing works well for single homes but
may be ineffective for high rise apartment buildings with
large diameter pipes.
Lead enters food from airborne dust deposited during
farming or through contamination during canning (this is
not common in the US today). In gardens containing
high lead soil content (> 500 ppm) lead can be
incorporated into vegetables particularly leafy greens and
root crops such as spinach, leaf lettuce, herbs, beet
greens, and collards. To reduce lead in food grown in
contaminated soil plant mainly fruiting crop such as
tomatos, squash, peppers, cucumbers, peas, beans,
com, and sunflowers. Add lime to increase the pH of the
soil to as close to neutral as possible (6.5-7.0) as this
will tend to keep lead out of water entering plants. A
high organic content in the soil also lowers lead uptake in
plants. Discard outer leaves of vegetables and peel root
crops before eating. Wash produce with a 1% vinegar in
water (1-2 oz. per gallon of water) or with soapy water
to remove lead from dust contamination.
Lead In Soil
Lead in soil arises most often from airborne sources.
In rural areas a background level of 200 ppm lead is
found whereas in urban areas levels can exceed 3,000
ppm. Near smelters or some industrial areas levels as
high as 100,000 ppm have been found. An estimate is
that for each 100 ppm of lead in surface soil above 500
ppm an increase in childrens' whole blood level of 1 to 2
Hg/dL occurs. It is not a common form of exposure route
but can be found with some small children. When it
occurs it tends to be a seasonal event with summer and
outdoor activities exacerbating the problem. Flaking lead
paint around homes is usually the culprit. A $15 million
pilot program has been initiated in three cities by the EPA
using Superfund money to address this problem. Soil
can be test either through independent labs (costs are
-------
$25-40) or by government agencies. Only the top 1/2
inch should be sampled.
Airborne Sources
Inhalation of airborne lead generally in the form of
dust is a minor exposure risk in most cases. When
found, this form of lead poisoning occurs near a busy
street or a lead smelter.
Other Sources
Lead is sometimes found in ceramic glazes, pottery,
and paints on foreign made toys. Countries of origin
include Mexico and Italy. Be aware of antiques, painted
cribs, and antique pewter. The FDA began setting limits
for lead in pottery in 1969 after a California family was
severely lead poisoned by orange juice leaching lead
from a Mexican pitcher. Specific lead limits now apply to
all cooking utensils, and dinnerware. This kit contains a
method for finding lead and heavy metals in pottery.
LEAD POISONING—CAUSES AND
SYMPTOMS
Screening
Distribution of Lead In the Body
Lead ingested in any form circulates throughout the
body. It is found in hard tissue such as bone and bone
marrow, soft tissue such as the stomach and intestinal
tract, the central nervous system, and in bodily fluids
such as blood Complex relationships exist between the
lead levels found in these various areas and factors such
as nutrition, physical state of the patient (young or old,
male or female, healthy or ill for example), and the type
of lead ingested. The ability of each type of tissue to bind
and release lead differs dramatically, with some lead
being permanently absorbed in hard bone and some
rapidly metabolized in the gut. Blood the common
screening standard has a turnover rate on the order of
from one to three months depending on the condition of
the individual being tested. Some well studied medical
estimates are that lead distributes somewhat equally
throughout the tissues mentioned above. Diet plays an
important role in the ability of lead to poison children.
-------
Well balanced meals with adequate mineral calcium and
iron aid in the body's ability to excrete lead wastes.
Certain food groups such as fats are harmful.
Testing For Lead In Blood
A blood screening program has been found to be a
useful measure of an individual lead exposure. The
government recommends 25 ^ig/dL as the blood lead
level above which action should be taken. The level of
lead in blood is screened using the erythocyte
protoporphyrin level (EP), an enzyme in blood from the
hemoglobin group that does not contain iron. When EP
exists it is because of elevated lead levels (or iron
deficiency) and so is used as a preliminary indicator. An
EP level of 35 ^ig/dL, taken from blood by finger prick,
is considered poisoned. Follow-up is done by venous
puncture to directly establish blood levels. A safe level of
lead in blood has not been established. Testing is
recommended for young children 9 months to 3 years
old at least twice a year, and once a year for children
between the ages of 3 and 6 years old. Test preferably
between May and October when levels tend to be the
highest. Blood levels by law are taken from young
children (a primary risk group) to detect lead tpxicity.
Some states require a physician to report positive
findings for further action. Screening is initiated to
measure blood lead levels over time.
Diagnostic Evaluation
Lead is an insidious poison in that its effects are
broad and asymptomatic. Manifestations include fatigue,
pallor, malaise, loss of appetite, irritability, sleep
disturbance, sudden behavioral change, and disturbance
in growth patterns. More serious symptoms include
clumsiness, muscular irregularities, weakness,
abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, and changes of
consciousness, the symptoms are broad and non-specific
and often difficult to spot without a blood test. Lead has
broad effects and is a neurotoxin, it interferes with the
production of numerous enzymes in the body.
Learning disabilities induced by exposure to lead
occur in children. In a recent study of blood lead levels
versus learning abilities (see reference 18) in very young
children there was found to be a direct correlation
between blood lead levels at birth and learning ability
measured using a Mental Development Index (an IQ
scale). Most disturbingly it was found that there was a
significant loss of skills at blood lead levels below 25
|ig/dL which is the legal limit. There was nearly a 5 point
difference (100 point is the mean for the population)
between infants with levels at birth of <3 Hg/dL vs. >10
-------
L. This is a large difference. The study shows that
these intellectual losses are not possible to detect in
normal children because skills lost are among the most
complex and subtle.
Treatment
A child who tests positive for lead poisoning above
25 H-g/dL must undergo chelation injection therapy or
some other treatment to reduce their lead levels. This
involves injection of a compound (most commonly
Disodium Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetate, EDTA) to bind
and remove lead from the body. It is administered
venously and consists of a series of injections over time.
In some severe cases chelation therapy continues for
over a year. Lead in blood is fairly rapidly removed
(over weeks), whereas lead in bone marrow for example
takes months to flush out. Some level of lead in hard
bone will always remain. Lead is a cumulative poison,
chelation lowers lead levels but does not reverse the
effects of the disease. Some hard tissue such as bone
permanently incorporate lead
HOW TO TEST FOR LEAD
Lead In Paint Detection Instructions
The following is based on a well known literature
method. It is by law in most states, and by the federal
government one of the two ways that lead in paint may
be screened. It detects lead accurately down to 1%,
current law sets limits for lead in paint at between the 0.5
to 1% levels.
Product Safety Information
As supplied to you Sodium Sulfide is a
material of low toxicitv but should be kept out
of the reach of small children. Do not expose the
kit to extreme heat. In its solid form sodium sulfide is
flammable, if ignited it releases hydrogen sulfide gas. As
a dilute solution in water sodium sulfide is inflammable.
Do not place the solid or solution in contact with acid.
Gloves are supplied because sodium sulfide is a mild
skin irritant. Should you get some of the solution on
your skin it will not do you harm. The area should be
thoroughly rinsed with water. The sulfide smell may be
removed by cleaning with soap and water. If swallowed
-------
it will make you ill. If splashed in the eyes, thoroughly
rinse with water. Seek medical attention in either case.
LEAD SULFIDE IS A POISON
The lead sulfide you form from the paint test is
a poison. If YOU ingest lead sulfide call a
physician.
Disposal Information
Unused sodium sulfide solution may be disposed of
safely down a utility drain. Run cold water for about two
minutes to flush the system. The remainder of the
packaging may be disposed of in the trash. Of more
concern are the paint chips containing lead sulfide. Be
certain to dispose of any lead sulfide created by the test
safely in the trash—use the small labelled plastic bag
supplied as a container for disposal.
General Instructions
As supplied there are two 15 mL bottles, containing
Sodium Sulfide and water. Carefully add the water to
the sulfide to obtain a sodium sulfide solution of the right
concentration. It will take about 5 minutes with vigorous
shaking to dissolve the solid, longer if not shaken. Wait
until the solid has completely dissolved before use. Mark
down the date you prepared the solution, and an
expiration date 6 weeks in the future.
Lead is detected by applying a few drops of sodium
sulfide solution to the paint. The black color indicates
the formation of lead sulfide and is a positive test for the
presence of lead above 4%. Between 2-4% lead there
will be a color change from dark gray to black. Below
1% there may be a light gray color formed and this
should not be interpreted as an absolutely positive
reaction. Modern paint uses metals like titanium dioxide
that turn a gray color when reacted with sodium sulfide.
It may take a couple of minutes for the paint to
blacken. Check both surfaces of a chip. Cleave the chip
(use the straight edged razor blades supplied) to test paint
layers sandwiched in between. Use the plastic tweezers
as a convenience in handling your paint chips. Cut a
groove through a surface in a diagonal or V-shape.
Apply solution and check for color change. You may
want to use the magnifying glass supplied to examine
your work.
-------
Lead Color Chart
D.B 2.4 4 8 12 16 20
Color Changes in Paint of Established Lead Content
Be careful when applying sodium sulfide to the paint
chip or painted surface tested that you keep the dropper
tip clean. If you touch the dropper tip to a paint sample
containing lead you may contaminate the solution and
invalidate your future results.
DO NOT JUST TEST THE PATNT SURFACE
Lead layers may be in between non-lead paint.
Primer can contain lead while outer coats are lead free.
Do the test under good lighting. Dark paint can obscure
the black color. Buried lead layers are potentially just as
toxic as surface lead paint.
Testing Paint Chips and Surfaces
Test top and Side Viev
bottom surfaces Positive Center
Diagonal Cut in a Paint Surface
Positive Center Layer
Included at the bottom of the kit is a piece of leaded
paint to be used as a reference for the color change. This
will serve as a reference check that the test is working
properly.
Try to test paint in inconspicuous locations. This test
will discolor woodwork, so either use a paint chip or
work carefully. You can paint over any cut in the paint
after you wash the area with soap and water.
SODIUM SULFTDE HAS A LIMITED
LIFETIME
Keeping the bottle stoppered, out of the light and
refrigerated will extend its shelf life. This pertains to
-------
both the solution and solid form. Use the testing solution
at once if possible. If you run out of solution, or cannot
for some reason do the testing in the allotted time a
reorder card for additional material is supplied with the
kit.
Other Considerations
Lead was added to paint in the past in the form of
organic compounds to add brightening and luster to the
paint. Other heavy metals such as zinc, titanium, and
barium have been added but none of these reacts with the
sulfide to give a black precipitate. Other metals used such
as cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese,
magnesium, mercury, molybdenum, and nickel were
generally added to pigments in amounts under 1%. Black
sulfides are formed by iron, mercury, and molybdenum
but in the quantities they were used in the past they will
not test strongly positive.
Copper also forms a black sulfide, but it was used
only in paint that required strong ami-fouling capability,
such as that used in ocean going ships. If you test wood
that has been varnished, or treated with copper sulfate,
or where copper based stains are used you will get a
false positive reading.
In evaluating black or very dark gray paint it is
difficult to be certain it contains lead. Note that lead was
not commonly used in black paint because it was
primarily a whitening agent
All of these considerations aside, sodium
sulfide is an excellent test for lead in paint and
yields consistently accurate results.
-------
TESTING VARIOUS AREAS OF YOUR
HOME
Certain areas of your home have a higher priority for
testing than others. Any area with flaking or peeling
paint is of immediate concern no matter where it is. If
you have small children test vigorously areas within the
child's potential reach—3 to 4 feet high. Check exterior
surfaces including walls, doors, windows, porches,
guard rails, fences, bulkheads, cornerboards, and
baseboards, dripboards and skins. Also check auxiliary
structures if they exist, garages, sheds, fences, and
playground equipment. Intact paint on walls or ceilings
does not constitute an immediate hazard but should be
removed Test outside areas and a garage if you have one.
Be particularly observant of small areas, interior and
exterior sills on windows, mullions and sashes (the
cross pieces inside windows), door jambs, door planes
and casings, and built-in cabinets, cupboards, closets,
hutches, fireplaces, shelves and bookcases, and painted
furniture.
Do not use the sodium sulfide test solution with
painted metallic surfaces such as pipes or radiators, or
metallic wallcoverings as you will get a false positive
reading due to iron or copper in the metal. This kit is
designed to detect lead in paint covering wood,
wallboard, or plaster.
As you test it is a good idea to record your findings.
Make generalized maps and diagrams of rooms marked
with compass directions. Record each room and sample
each area of concern. If you do not know which
direction is which, record the location by using specific
objects—any specific comment that is meaningful to
you.
Any surface paint that tests positive can be assumed
to be positive everywhere. Don't assume a surface that
tests negative doesn't cover up another positive layer
somewhere else. Should you decide to do abatement or
remediation work your record will be prove quite useful.
If you have an inspector come for further testing you can
specify where you want testing done and save both time
and money.
What To Do If Your Paint Tests Positive
We recommend that before you undertake serious
renovation work to delead a house you do additional
testing. A device commonly used to detect lead is an X-
ray fluorescence analyzer. It is safe and specific to lead,
but requires a trained operator. It can only be used on flat
surfaces. Manufacturers include Texas Nuclear or
Princeton Gamma Tech. It costs several thousand
-------
and inspecting a single family home costs between $150-
250. A listing of inspectors may be obtained from one of
your state's environmental agencies.
Your state may also offer testing services, often for
free. BEWARE! In some states if lead is detected in
the paint and children under six are residents, the state
can force you to remove the lead paint from your entire
home. Some state law gives municipalities the right to
enter your home, monitor your family's health and
supervise the removal of lead under the threat of strong
civil penalties. Failure to comply could even result in
state custody of your children.
If you decide to delead your home, read carefully the
section in this manual on the nature and hazards of
deleading a home. Be informed. It is a hazardous and
costly job.
Lead In Pottery Instructions
Using our LEAD PAINT DETECTION KIT
you can test for lead or other heavy metals in pottery or
other household items. The directions are taken from an
FDA analytical procedure. Cover the surface to be tested
with distilled white vinegar (acetic acid—slightly greater
that 4%). Acetic acid will dissolve metals out of a glaze
or paint. Leave for 24 hours. Pour a portion into a white
bowl or cup, and add an equal amount of sodium sulfide
solution. A color change to black indicates the presence
of metal in the pottery glaze.
Detecting Lead In Water
Lead in water is detected most commonly by an
atomic absorption spectrometer. A sample of water is
ionized by a hot flame. Lead (and other elements) are
then detected to very minute levels by the wavelength
and intensity of light that each specifically emits. Our
LEAD IN WATER KIT measures two samples of
your drinking water. A first draw sample indicates the
quality of your home distribution system (pipes), and a
full flush sample indicates the quality of the system water
coming into your home from the outside.
-------
HOME LEAD ABATEMENT
Lead paint removal is serious business and should be
undertaken only by a professional contractor or by a well
informed home owner. If you contract out the work seek
professional references and if possible a guarantee.
Typically prices for deleading a single family home range
from $2,000 to $10,000 with $5,000 being an average
amount.
Lead paint removal entails most of the following
steps. 1. Removal of ajl lead paint from wood trim and
walls up to a minimum of four feet high. 2. Collecting
the debris, 3. Wash all surfaces with Phosphate
(trisodium phosphate or TSP—the more the better)
containing detergent twice followed by a water rinse.
Phosphate binds lead and creates an inactive form.
There is some controversy concerning the best
method for removing lead paint. Be especially wary of
methods such as sanding because they create vast
amounts of toxic dust greatly compounding the danger.
In general the methods that work the best are dry
scraping paint off (if necessary with a hot air blower) or
dipping woodwork such as doors in a vat of paint
remover. Sometimes the easiest and most cost effective
way is just to replace the woodwork or fixture. Another
effective method for remediating lead painted surfaces
that are difficult to remove is to cover them with a hard
surface such as fabric backed wallpaper or wallboard.
New methods continue to come to market and more
recently wet methods have been introduced. In a wet
removal scheme a solution is applied to the paint that
dries to a solid film. This film, polymeric in nature,
incorporates the lead paint and may be peeled off as
sheets.
Removal is tedious exacting work and you need to be
properly equipped for the job. Reference 11 is
recommended to you if you undertake this job. This
includes wearing respirator masks (not dust masks),
goggles and coveralls. Launder these separately. As you
work seal off the room until all lead dust is removed.
Exposed furniture should be covered with plastic, all
belongings bagged or moved, and cleaned after work.
The lead paint removed is a toxic material and by law
must be disposed of in a toxic waste dump when a large
quantity is removed. This is generally not necessary for a
single family home. Do not dispose of the material in
common trash. It is probably a good idea to evacuate the
house while it is being renovated and to have serial blood
tests done on those deemed at risk.
In the "Resources and References" section are a list
of publications that may be of use to you in this area.
Many are free for the asking from state agencies. New
-------
methods continue to be developed for lead paint removal
and careful evaluation is the key to success.
LEAD AND THE LAW
Test cases of severe and lethal lead poisoning have
recently come to trial naming lead paint manufacturers as
defendants in class action suits. Some have arisen out of
poisoning through lead removal efforts by contractors.
No precedence has been established making the lead
industry liable for damages.
In most states it is the responsibility of the owner of
property to remove lead from dwellings. Specific civil
penalties including fines and prison sentences can apply
to owners who knowingly allow children to inhabit such
houses. Each state has different laws, and concerned
citizens should contact their state agencies regarding.
Massachusetts Lead Laws
Massachusetts in 1971 passed the toughest state law
on lead paint (interior paint above 0.5% or >1.2 mg/cm^
is banned) to date. This law and a recent bill passed on
the last legislative session of 1987 create a standard that
will probably serve as a model for future state lead laws
around the US. The bill authorizes loans and a $1000 tax
credit for homeowners who delead their properties. It
targets hot spots or Emergency Lead Paint Areas
(ELPA's) and subjects them to systematic inspection and
deleading.
The law requires sellers and their agents to provide to
buyers material on: 1. The current lead paint law. 2. The
buyer's responsibility for deleading if occupied by a
child under six. 3. The availability of licensed inspectors
and deleaders. 4. The buyers right to inspect the home
within 10 days upon request—unless an inspection has
been scheduled in the previous 30 days. This inspection
upon transfer of property represents a departure from
past practices. State inspection only took place upon
report of a child being poisoned. Before a purchase and
sale agreement, the current law requires disclosure of
possible lead paint, or if deleading has occurred of a
letter of compliance. An owner not in compliance is
subject to damages and to a civil penalty of $1000.
Lenders and banks are not responsible unless they
foreclose on a property. Banks may reserve the right to
deny financing on a house known to contain lead paint
due to the reduction in appraised value anticipated. It is
anticipated that a certified lead free home will have an
enhanced value.
-------
RESOURCE MATERIALS AND REFERENCES
1. "Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children: A
Statement by the Centers for Disease Control", January
1985, Publication 99-2230, US Dept. of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for
Disease Control, Center for Environmental Health,
Chronic Diseases Division, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. A
comprehensive guide to lead poisoning, its causes,
symptoms, and cures.
2. "Lead Chemicals", Dorothy Greninger, International
Lead Zinc Research Organization, New York, N Y
1976.
3. "Lead in Man and the Environment", J. M. Ratcliffe,
Halsted Press, NY 1981.
4. "Lead in the Human Environment", National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1980. A
position statement on medical aspects of lead poisoning
5. "Lead Toxicity", edited by Radhey L. Singhai and J.
A. Thomas, Urban and Schwartzenberg, Baltimore,
1980. A medical study.
6. "Lead Toxicity:History and Environmental Impact",
edited by Richard Landsdown and William Yule, John
Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1986.A good general
introduction.
7. "Lead and Your Drinking Water", EPA, Office of
Water, April 1987, OPA-87-006. A free government
pamphlet available from the EPA or the US Government
Printing Office.
8. Chemical and Engineering News, December 21,
1987, p. 5. New EPA standard proposed 10 \ig/L
(current MCL is 50), in blood USA median lead level is
10-13 Hg/dL, this is above the levels recommended.
9. "Statement on Childhood Lead Poisoning",
Pediatrics, 79, 3, March 1987, page 457. American
Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental
Hazards and Committee on Accident and Poison
Prevention. Medical aspects of plumbism.
10. Lead in Pottery Kit, $ 24.95, Frandon Enterprises,
511 North 48th Street, Seattle, WA 98103.
11. "Deleader's Manual: A Handbook For Safe Lead
Paint Removal", Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Dept of Public Health, Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program, May, 1984. A free publication,
contact the organization cited in reference 12. An
-------
invaluable guide to lead paint removal. If you decide to
delead you should definitely obtain this guide.
12. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive
Office of Human Services, Department of Public Health,
Childhood Lead Prevention Program, 305 South Street,
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130. Telephone (800)532-9571, or
(617)424-5965. Information on state programs and
publications.
13. "Employee Guide to OSHA Standards for Lead",
reprinted by Lead Industries Association, Inc. and the
International Lead Zinc Research Organization, 292
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, April 30,
1981. Occupational standards and practices for the lead
industry, and lead removal industry.
14. "When Will We Stop Poisoning Our Children? Lead
Paint and the Law", by Renee Loth, The Boston Globe
Magazine Section, Boston MA, February 21,1988.
Cover story addresses lead paint poisoning, legal cases,
and the toxicology of lead as it relates specifically to
Massachusetts.
15. "Landmark Lead Paint Suits are Focusing on the
Manufacturers", Linda Gorman, Banker and Tradesman,
Warren Publishing, Boston, MA, December 2,1987,
page 1.
16. "Lead Paint Statute Has Sharper Teeth But Still
Lacks Funding", Victoria McNamara, Banker and
Tradesman, Warren Publishing, Boston, MA, February
3, 1988, page 1.
17. "Management of Childhood Lead Poisoning", Sergio
Piomelli, John Rosen, J. Julian Chisholm and John W.
Graef, Pediatrics, 105, 4, October, 1984, page 523.
Medical treatment of plumbism, chelation therapy and
diagnostic methods.
18. "Longitudinal Analyses of Prenatal and Postnatal
Lead Exposure and Early Cognitive Development",
David Bellinger, Alan Leviton, Christine Watemaux,
Herbert Needleman, and Michael Rabinowitz, The New
England Journal of Medicine, 316,17, April 23,1987,
page 1037. A study of plumbism versus learning
disabilities.
19. U/Mass (Suffolk County) Cooperative Extension,
150 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114, Telephone
(617)482-9258 and Massachusetts Cooperative
Extension, Suburban Experimental Station, Waltham,
MA 02254, Telephone (617)891-0650. Provides low
cost soil testing for residents.
20. "Heavy Metal on Tap", Michael Kanor, Sierra
n
-------
Magazine, November/December 1987, page 18. Lead in
drinking water issues explored,
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC, 20460, Telephone
(202)755-0707. US EPA Region 1, JFK Federal
Building, Boston, MA 02203. Telephone (617)565-
5715. An invaluable source of reference materials and
resource contacts. Look in your yellow pages for the
regional branch of the EPA nearest your home.
22. "Lead Astray: The Poisoning of America", by
Michael Weisskopf, Discover Magazine, December,
1987, page 68.
This kit is dedicated to Mike and Noreen
Francis and the Francis family who
inspired its creation.
-------
Merckoquant* 10077
Lead Test
Test strips and reagent for the detection and semiquan-
titative determination of lead ions
General
The Merckoquant* Lead test strip is suitable for the semiquantitative determina-
tion of lead ions in solutions and for the detection of metallic lead and lead com-
pounds on surfaces.
In spite of its toxicity (accumulation of lead in the body [saturnism] through in-
halation and absorption of lead vapours and dust) lead is used for many purposes
such as cable sheathing, radiation protection against X-ray and gamma radia-
tion, accumulators, manufacture of containers and tubes, in paints (red lead) as
well as in tetraethyllead (antiknock compound in petrol), because of its versatili-
ty and ease of processing (soft and malleable) as well as its resistance to corrosive
liquids.
The lead detectable in the environment (waters, soils, foods) mainly originates
from automotive exhaust gases from the combustion of leaded petrol. Lead and
lead oxide are formed which enter the atmosphere and can also be detected in the
exhaust pipe so that it can be ascertained whether a vehicle has been run on lead-
ed petrol or not.
Poisoning of a catalytic converter can also be detected. The catalytic converter
is rendered useless by malicious or accidental use of leaded petrol so that high
concentrations of NOX compounds enter the atmosphere with the exhaust
The Merckoquant8 Lead Test only detects ionic lead and not organic compounds
of lead such as tetraethyllead in petrol.
Method of determination
In acidic solution lead reacts with rodizonic acid to form a red coloured complex.
Directions for use
In aqueous solutions:
1. Rinse the measuring vessel with the solution to be tested and fill to the 5-ml
mark.
2. Add 2 drops of reagent (acetic acid) and mix carefully.
3. Dip the reaction zone of the test strip in the solution to be tested for 1 sec-
ond such that the reaction zone is properly wetted. Wipe the edge of the test
strip against the edge of the vessel to remove excess liquid.
4. Compare the reaction zone with the colour scale after 2 minutes.
Remarks
The pH of the solution to be tested should lie between 2 and 5. This is normally
achieved with the reagent. If the pH value is not obtained with the amount of
reagent given in the Directions for use (check with a pH indicator strip), strongly
acidic solutions must be buffered with 1 mol/1 sodium hydroxide solution and
alkaline solutions with 1 mol/1 nitric acid.
No further reagent is required and solutions which already lie within the correct
pH range do not require any reagent either.
-------
On surfaces:
A) 1. Drop 1—3 drops of reagent onto the surface to be tested.
2. Stir the reagent around several times with the upper end of the test strip
and leave to react for 1 minute.
3. Briefly gently press the reaction zone of the test strip onto the surface to
allow the solution to soak into the reaction zone.
4. After 1 minute, compare the reaction zone with the colour scale.
B) 1. Moisten the reaction zone of the test strip with 1 drop of reagent and im-
mediately gently press against the surface to be tested for 2 minutes.
2. Compare the reaction zone with the colour scale.
Evaluation: any red coloration indicates the presence of lead. If the reaction zone
is colorless to yellow, no lead is present.
If it is not possible to conduct a direct determination on a surface, for instance
if it is inaccessible as with an exhaust pipe which is turned down at an angle, a
sample from the surface to be tested must be transferred to the measuring vessel
to be able to conduct a determination.
1. Scrape a little of the exhaust residue into the measuring vessel using for in-
stance a screwdriver.
2. Add 5 drops of reagent, mix and leave to react for 1 minute.
3. Dip the reaction zone of the test strip into the solution to be tested for 1 second
such that the reaction zone is fully wetted. Wipe the edge of the test strip
against the edge of the vessel to remove excess liquid.
4. After 1 minute, compare the reaction zone with the colour scale.
Evaluation: Any red coloration indicates the presence of lead. If the reaction
zone is colorless to yellow, no lead is present.
For further information (e.g. on interference by anions and cations) please send
for our Merckoquant* Tests leaflet.
Storage
The package should be stored cool (5—20 °C) and dry. Immediately reclose the
tube after removing the necessary test strips and replace the screw cap on the
reagent bottle.
Safety precautions
Store test kits such that they cannot fall into the hands of children, instruct
young persons as to the safety precautions. Avoid contact with skin and eyes (the
reagent contains dilute acetic acid), also do not touch the reaction zone. After
completion of the determination, wash away the sample in a place where no con-
tact with food or eating utensils is possible. Thoroughly wash away with water
and immediately wash the hands.
Further rapid tests
Numerous colorimetric and titrimetric rapid tests as well as ion-specific Mercko-
quant* test strips are available for the determination of further ions and com-
pounds.
Our brochure "Rapid test kits for analyzing water, soil samples, solids,
foodstuffs" provides further information on the overall range.
E. Merck, Postfach 4119, D-6100 Darmstadt 1.
Tel. (061 51) 720, Telex 4 19328-0 em d
-------
Verify™
LeadTest""
Test Parameters
Test Type:
Applications:
Nominal Sensitivity:
Number of Tests:
Qualitative Reagent Test For Lead
Household Items; including paint, plumbing, dishes, toys,
ceramics, cookware. Not intended for the direct testing of
water.
5 parts per million.
Eight
Kit Contents:
6 LeadTest Strips
5 Testing Cups
Distilled White Vinegar
Complete Instructions
Water Test Order Form
NOTE: LeadTest is intended as a qualitative
test for lead in household materials other
than water. Tests for lead in water should be
performed by a certified testing laboratory.
Keep LeadTest Strips out of direct
sunlight. Store In a cool, dry place.
LeadTest is Easy to Use!
Dip LeadTest Strip Rub LeadTest Wait 5 minutes
into liquid sample Strip against metal
or sample
Lead shows up
red!
-------
Verify™
TM
LeadTest
Where to Check for
Lead in Your Home
Dishes & Ceramics
Imported ponery
Glazed ponery
Porcelain dishware
Stoneware
Decorative figurines
Painted Objects
Wall paint
Trim paint
Wooden toys
Metal Objects
Water pipes
Solder joints
Pewter plates and cups
Aerators in water faucets
Cooking utensils
Fishing weights and tackle
Toys
Soil
Yards adjacent to roadways
Playgrounds
Crawl spaces
Storage yards
©1989 Verify, Inc. All rights
reserved.
LeadTest™
Verify, Inc.
1185 Chess Drive, Suite 202
Foster City, California 94404
Verify™
TM
LeadTest
Why test for lead?
Microscopic particles of lead are a
hidden household threat to
children and adults alike! These
particles of lead are easily
swallowed, absorbed through the
skin, and inhaled. Lead is toxic to
humans, and even a trace of lead
can be hazardous to your health.
Lead poisoning can cause
learning disorders, brain damage,
anemia, high blood pressure,
kidney damage, miscarriage,
premature birth, and cancer.
The potential threat increases with
every exposure to lead. Why take
chances? Find the lead in your
home today!
o""49153"00001""7
-------
Handling LeadTest Strips
1. LeadTesl strips are made of an absorbent material which has
been impregnated with a testing agent. For best results, handle
LeadTest strips only by one end. as shown in Figure 1.
2. To test for lead, dip one end of a LeadTest strip into the test
solution, up to a depth of about "« inch. (See Figure 2.) DO NOT
IMMERSE THE ENTIRE STRIP IN THE TEST SOLUTION.
3. The test solution will be drawn up the LeadTesl strip by capillary
action. (This action is known as "wickmg ") Allow the test solution
to rise Vz to 3/4 of the way up the LeadTest strip (See Figure 3.)
The test strip may turn a shade of yellow This is a normal pan of
the testing process, and is not indicative of the presence of lead.
After dipping, place the wet test strip on a clean surface and allow
it to dry.
4. If lead is present in the material tested, the LeadTest strip will
appear pink or red in color after it has dried. You may need to look
carefully at the LeadTest strip to see the pink coloration. If a
marginal amount of lead is present, you may see only a few
specks of pink along the edges of the test strip, or at a point'/? to
3/« of the way up the test strip where the wicking action stopped.
(See Figure 4.)
The chemical testing agent of each LeadTest strip is expended
after one lest. Therefore. DO NOT RE-USE LEADTEST STRIPS.
-------
How to Test for Lead:
Dishes, Pottery, Ceramic Objects
Place the item to be tested on a flat surface. Pour one teaspoon ol distilled white
vinegar onto the item, and allow to stand for 24 hours (During this standing period.
any lead present will be released into the vinegar solution.) Holding a LeadTesl strip
between your thumb and forefinger, dip one end of the test strip into the vinegar
solution (as shown in Figure 2). Place the wet test strip on a clean surface, and allow
the strip to dry.
The LeadTesl strip will turn pink or red if lead is present in the sample being tested.
Painted Objects
Using a clean knife, scrape a few chips of paint into a testing cup. (Be sure to scrape
chips from all layers of paint, not just the surface layer.) Using a blunt plastic
instrument, such as a plastic spoon, break the paint chips into small pieces. Add one
teaspoon of distilled white vinegar to the chips in the testing cup. Allow the paint
chips to soak in the vinegar for 24 hours. Gently swirl the testing cup. Holding a
LeadTest strip between your thumb and forefinger, dip one end of the test strip into
the solution as shown in Figure 3. Place the wet test strip on a clean surface, and
allow the strip to dry.
The LeadTest strip will turn pink or red if lead is present in the paint sample being
tested.
Water Pipes, Solder, Metallic Objects
NOTE: To determine if lead is present in your household
plumbing system, perform the LeadTest on unplated pipes and
solder connections Unplated pipes are generally found in
concealed areas — in walls, in attic spaces, and in crawl spaces
beneath flooring. An unplated section of pipe may be readily
accessible in the area near your hot-water-healer.
Metal objects to be tested must be clean and free from oxidation
and corrosion. Using a sturdy knife or wire brush, scrape the
area to be tested to expose clean metal. (See Figure S.) Hold a
LeadTest strip between your thumb and forefinger, and dip one
end of the strip into distilled white vinegar. Allow the vinegar to
"wick" about V< of the way up the test strip. Place the wet
LeadTest strip against the clean metal. Gently rub the strip back
and forth across the metal several times. (See Figure 6.) Place
the wet test strip on a clean surface, and allow it to dry.
If the LeadTest strip appears pink or red in color when dry, it
indicates the presence of lead in the metal item tested.
Soil
Place approximately one level teaspoon of surface soil into a testing cup Add just
enough distilled white vinegar to cover the soil. Allow the soil sample to stand for 24
hours. During this standing period, any lead present in the soil will be released into
the vinegar solution. Gently swirl the testing cup to mix the solution. Holding a
LeadTest strip between your thumb and forefinger, dip one end of the test strip into
the vinegar solution (as shown in Figure 3). Be sure to allow the solution to "wick"
up the test strip. Place the wet test strip on a clean surface, and allow the strip to dry.
The LeadTest strip will turn pink or red if lead is present in the sample being tested
-------
What to Do if Lead is Present
Ingeslion ol lead into the body is the most prevalent danger from lead in the home.
Minute particles ol lead may be swallowed directly, or can be absorbed through the
skin when handling lead-containing objects.
Most likely, you will want to reduce the risk ol lead ingestion by disposing of
dishware, utensils, and children's playthings which contain lead. Contact absorption
can be minimized by keeping all decorative objects containing lead away from
children.
If your home is more than five years old. you may find lead paint on the walls and
woodwork. Even if you have recently repainted with lead-free latex paints, the lead in
the older coats can leach to the surface. To minimize your health risk, have the old
paint stripped by professionals trained in the removal ol hazardous materials. If you
must strip the paint yourself, evacuate other family members from the premises,
wear eye protection and a respirator while working, and discard work clothes after
completing the job.
If a test of your plumbing indicates the presence of lead in pipes or solder joints, you
may wish to have a laboratory analysis performed to determine if lead is present in
your tap water. Verify LeadTest Strips are not designed for this purpose. However,
you can order a laboratory water test kit directly from Verify Inc. An order card is
included in the LeadTest package.
You can minimize the risk of ingestion by allowing tap water to run for at least one
minute before filling pots or glasses. Also, since hot tap water typically contains
higher levels of lead than cold water, avoid using hot tap water for boiling vegetables
or other cooking purposes. Instead, use your stove to heat cold tap water to the
proper temperature for cooking You also may wish to consider purchasing distilled
water lor drinking and cooking purposes.
Lead which has accumulated in the top soil is difficult to remove. You can reduce
your health risks by avoiding contact with lead-containing soil. Your county's
agriculture or health departments may have specific recommendations for the
management of lead-containing soil.
Where to Check for Lead in Your Home
Dishes & Ceramics Metal Objects
Imported pottery Water pipes
Glazed pottery Solder joints
Porcelain dishware Pewter cups and dishes
Stoneware Aerators in water faucets
Decorative figurines Cooking utensils
Painted Objects !lishin9 wei9hts and lackle
Wall paint oys
Trim paint Soil
Wooden toys Yards adjacent to roadways
Playgrounds
Crawl spaces
Storage yards
- 1989 Verify. Inc. All rights reserved.
-------
Appendix C: Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2* Solutions
Prepared from Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
C-l
-------
Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solution
Prepared from Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2
Frandon "Lead Alert" Test Kit
Volume
10 pL
20 pL
30 pL
40 pL
50 pL
60 pL
70 pL
80 pL
Cone. Pb2+,
ug/mL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Total ug
Pb2+
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Result with Pb(NO3)2
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Pos, Pos, Neg, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Result with PbCl2
?, Neg, Neg
Pos, Neg, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
LeadCheck (Original) Test Kit
Volume
50 pL
10 pL
20 pL
30 pL
40 pL
Cone. Pb2+,
ug/mL
10
100
100
100
100
Total ug
Pb2+
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Result with Pb(NO3)2
Neg
Pos
Pos
Pos
Pos
Result with PbCI2
?
Pos
Pos
Pos
Pos
-------
Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solution
Prepared from Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2 (continued)
LeadCheck (New) Test Kit
Volume
40 pL
50 pL
80 pL
100 pL
10 pL
20 pL
30 pL
40 pL
Cone. Pb2+,
pg/mL
10
10
10
10
100
100
100
100
Total ug
Pb2+
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Result with Pb(NO3)2
Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Pos, Pos, Neg, Pos
Pos, Pos, Neg, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos
—
Result with PbCl2
Neg, Pos, Neg
Pos, Neg, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos
—
—
—
—
Verify LeadTest Test Kit
Volume
10 pL
20 pL
30 pL
40 pL
50 pL
60 pL
Cone. Pb2+,
ug/mL
10
10
10
10
10
10
Total ug
Pb2+
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Result with Pb(NO3)2
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
—
Result with PbCl2
?, Neg, Neg, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos
-------
Response of Lead Test Kits to Pb2+ Solution
Prepared from Pb(NO3)2 and PbCl2 (continued)
Merck EM Quant Test Kit (Method A)
Volume
10 pL
40 pL
SO pL
60 pL
70 pL
90 pL
Cone. Pb2+,
ug/mL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Total ug Pb2+
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
Result with Pb(NOj)2
Neg
Neg
Neg
Pos
Pos
Pos
Lead Detective Kit
Volume
40 pL
50 pL
10 pL
20 pL
30 pL
40 pL
Cone. Pb2+,
ug/mL
10
10
100
100
100
100
Total ug
Pb2+
0.4
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Result with Pb(NO3)2
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Pos, Neg, Neg
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Result with PbCl2
Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
-------
Appendix D: Response of Test Kits to Pb2* Solutions
Prepared from Pb(NO3)y PbClj, and
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR DUPLICATE
D-l
-------
Response of Test Kits to Pb2+ Solution
Prepared from PbdSTO^ PbClz, and Pb(C2H3O2)2
Frandon Lead Alert Kit
(Cone. Pb2%
fjg/mL
10 pL
20 pL
30 ML
40 pL
50 pL
60 pL
10
10
10
10
10
10
Total ug Pb2*
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Result with
Pb(N03)2
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
—
Result with
PbCl2
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Neg
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Result with
Pb(C2H302)2
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Neg, Neg
Neg, Pos, Pos
3(Neg), 2(Pos)
l(Neg), 3(Pos)
Pos, Pos, Pos
The Lead Detective Kit
[Cone. Pb2+,
fig/mL
10 uL
20 pL
30 pL
40 pL
100
100
100
100
Total pg Pb2+ Result with Result with
1 Pb(NO3)2 || PbCl2
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Neg, Neg, Pos
Neg, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Neg, Neg, Pos
Neg, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Result with
Pb(C2H302)2
Neg, Neg, Pos
Neg, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
Pos, Pos, Pos
------- |