Wipe Sampling Methodologies to Assess Exposures to Lead and Cadmium in Urban Canadian Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wipe sampling methods are widely used to quantify lead (Pb) loadings inside homes. In the present study we expand the wipe sampling method to investigate other elements in addition to Pb, namely cadmium (Cd) and the soil tracer yttrium (Y).\nFollowing the ASTM 1728 sampling protocol, 1372 wipe samples (including field blanks and duplicates) were collected from 222 homes using Ghost Wipesâ¢. All wipe samples were digested according to a modified version of the ASTM 1644 digestion protocol in which hydrofluoric acid was added to enhance extraction efficiency, and analyzed using ICP-MS. Recoveries assessed using NIST certified reference materials were 93±6% for Pb and 88±14% for Cd (n=66).\nResults indicated that 43% of Pb and 23% of Cd samples were below LOD (932 ng m-2 and 125 ng m-2 respectively). Threshold values of 125 µg m-2 for Pb and 4.4 µg m-2 for Cd, identified using Q-Q plots, were used to distinguish âelevatedâ loading values from "background" loading values. Indoor sources and tracked-in soil were identified as potential contributors to elevated loading values. Spearman ranking indicated strong spatial associations amongst the metals. The study shows that wipe sampling provides useful information on room-to-room variability of metals, shedding light on possible sources of metals in residential environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".