Skip to main content
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2003 Jul;111(9):1228–1234. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5861

A study of urban housing demolitions as sources of lead in ambient dust: demolition practices and exterior dust fall.

Mark R Farfel 1, Anna O Orlova 1, Peter S J Lees 1, Charles Rohde 1, Peter J Ashley 1, J Julian Chisolm Jr 1
PMCID: PMC1241579  PMID: 12842778

Abstract

Demolition of older housing for urban redevelopment purposes benefits communities by removing housing with lead paint and dust hazards and by creating spaces for lead paint-free housing and other community resources. This study was conducted to assess changes, if any, in ambient dust lead levels associated with demolition of blocks of older lead-containing row houses in Baltimore, Maryland (USA). In this article we present results based on dust-fall samples collected from fixed locations within 10 m of three demolition sites. In subsequent reports we will describe dust lead changes on streets, sidewalks, and residential floors within 100 m of the demolition sites. Geometric mean (GM) lead dust-fall rate increased by > 40-fold during demolition to 410 micro g Pb/m2/hr (2,700 micro g Pb/m2 per typical work day) and by > 6-fold during debris removal to 61 micro g Pb/m2/hr (440 micro g Pb/m2 per typical work day). Lead concentrations in dust fall also increased during demolition (GM, 2,600 mg/kg) and debris removal (GM, 1,500 mg/kg) compared with baseline (GM, 950 mg/kg). In the absence of dust-fall standards, the results were compared with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) dust-lead surface loading standard for interior residential floors (40 micro g/ft2, equivalent to 431 micro g/m2); daily lead dust fall during demolition exceeded the U.S. EPA floor standard by 6-fold on average and as much as 81-fold on an individual sample basis. Dust fall is of public health concern because it settles on surfaces and becomes a pathway of ambient lead exposure and a potential pathway of residential exposure via tracking and blowing of exterior dust. The findings highlight the need to minimize demolition lead deposition and to educate urban planners, contractors, health agencies, and the public about lead and other community concerns so that society can maximize the benefits of future demolition activities nationwide.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.4 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adgate J. L., Rhoads G. G., Lioy P. J. The use of isotope ratios to apportion sources of lead in Jersey City, NJ, house dust wipe samples. Sci Total Environ. 1998 Oct 8;221(2-3):171–180. doi: 10.1016/s0048-9697(98)00282-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Jacobs David E., Clickner Robert P., Zhou Joey Y., Viet Susan M., Marker David A., Rogers John W., Zeldin Darryl C., Broene Pamela, Friedman Warren. The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Oct;110(10):A599–A606. doi: 10.1289/ehp.021100599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Landrigan P. J., Baker E. L., Jr, Himmelstein J. S., Stein G. F., Weddig J. P., Straub W. E. Exposure to lead from the Mystic River Bridge: the dilemma of deleading. N Engl J Med. 1982 Mar 18;306(11):673–676. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198203183061112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES