Urban Lead Exposures of Children in Cincinnati, Ohio

Clark, Scott; Bornschein, Robert L.; Succop, Paul; Roda, Sandy; Peace, Belinda E.

doi:10.1080/09542299.1991.11083167

Cited by 75 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…EPA 1990). A large body of evidence shows that a common source of lead exposure for children today is lead-based paint hazards in older housing and the contaminated dust and soil it generates (Bornschein et al 1987;Clark et al 1991;Jacobs 1995;Lanphear et al 1995Lanphear et al , 1998Lanphear and Roghmann 1997;McElvaine et al 1992;Rabinowitz et al 1985;Shannon and Graef 1992), although other sources can be significant. Poisoning from lead-based paint has affected millions of children since this problem was first recognized more than 100 years ago (Gibson 1904;Turner 1897).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing.

Jacobs

Clickner

Zhou

et al. 2002

Environ Health Perspect

355

266

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we estimated the number of housing units in the United States with lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. We included measurements of lead in intact and deteriorated paint, interior dust, and bare soil. A nationally representative, random sample of 831 housing units was evaluated in a survey between 1998 and 2000; the units and their occupants did not differ significantly from nationwide characteristics. Results indicate that 38 million housing units had lead-based paint, down from the 1990 estimate of 64 million. Twenty-four million had significant lead-based paint hazards. Of those with hazards, 1.2 million units housed low-income families (< 30,000 US dollars/year) with children under 6 years of age. Although 17% of government-supported, low-income housing had hazards, 35% of all low-income housing had hazards. For households with incomes greater than or equal to 30,000 US dollars/year, 19% had hazards. Fourteen percent of all houses had significantly deteriorated lead-based paint, and 16% and 7%, respectively, had dust lead and soil lead levels above current standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The prevalence of lead-based paint and hazards increases with age of housing, but most painted surfaces, even in older housing, do not have lead-based paint. Between 2% and 25% of painted building components were coated with lead-based paint. Housing in the Northeast and Midwest had about twice the prevalence of hazards compared with housing in the South and West. The greatest risk occurs in older units with lead-based paint hazards that either will be or are currently occupied by families with children under 6 years of age and are low-income and/or are undergoing renovation or maintenance that disturbs lead-based paint. This study also confirms projections made in 2000 by the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children of the number of houses with lead-based paint hazards. Public- and private-sector resources should be directed to units posing the greatest risk if future lead poisoning is to be prevented.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing.

Jacobs

Clickner

Zhou

et al. 2002

Environ Health Perspect

355

266

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study was one of three prospective studies conducted in Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Boston, USA to determine whether abatement of lead in soil could reduce blood lead in children. In Baltimore and Cincinnati, the removal of soil contaminated with lead had no impact on children's blood lead levels (Clark et al, 1988;Farrell et al, 1998). Similarly, Langlois et al (1996) did not observe an effect of soil replacement on blood leads of children less than 6 years of age.…”

Section: Soil In Residential Areasmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Blood lead levels of individual children varied widely and were not correlated to soil lead levels. Based on over 10, 000 environmental lead measurements in paint, soil, and dust from houses in Cincinnati, Clark et al (1991) concluded that for 18 months old children house dust was a predictive exposure pathway. A noticeable increase in blood lead levels was observed in children in housing units with paint lead levels above 6 mg lead cm -2 , particularly housing in poor repair.…”

Section: Soil In Residential Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of lead in soil to children’s lead burden, an update

Kimbrough

Krouskas²

2012

Chemical Speciation & Bioavailability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blood lead levels in children in the USA have dropped dramatically since lead in food, air and drinking water was reduced. In inner cities and older residential areas, increased lead exposure may still be a problem because of dilapidated housing with high lead paint levels. In these areas, at mining sites and around smelters lead levels in soil may be very high. A review of many studies indicates that lead in soil or mine tailings does not make a meaningful contribution to lead absorption by children. The contribution of lead in soil to overall exposure, if any, lies within the variation of the analytical method for blood lead measurements. The results of exposure studies in the pediatric population reviewed in this article do not support exposure predictions for children under 6 years of age based on the US EPA Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model (using default parameters or using results obtained with in vitro digestion models). They also do not support predictions based on the percent of solubility of lead in soil (accessibility studies).

show abstract

“…During the 20th century, the two main sources of childhood lead exposure were leaded gasoline emissions and lead paint (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1988; Clark et al 1991;Jacobs 1995). Lead poisoning can be caused by inhalation of lead in the air, ingestion of lead paint chips, and occasionally other sources, but the main exposure pathway today is from leadcontaminated dust that settles on horizontal surfaces such as floors and window sills and is then ingested via normal hand-to-mouth contact in children (Bornschein et al 1987;Duggan and Inskip 1985;Lanphear et al 1995).…”

Section: The Risk To Children From Exposure To Leadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Windows of opportunity: Lead poisoning prevention, housing affordability, and energy conservation

Nevin

Jacobs

2006

Housing Policy Debate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used housing demolition and window replacement rates to forecast prevalence trends for childhood lead poisoning and lead paint hazards from 1990 to 2010 for the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. The mid-point of that forecast has now been validated by national blood lead data and the 1998-2000 National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing.The validation of the task force model and new analysis of these survey data indicate that window replacement explains a large part of the substantial reduction in lead poisoning that occurred from 1990 to 2000. A public-private effort to increase window replacement rates could help eliminate childhood lead poisoning by 2010. This effort would also improve home energy efficiency and affordability, in addition to reducing air pollution from power plants, and a broader initiative could reduce other housing-related health risks as well.

show abstract

Urban Lead Exposures of Children in Cincinnati, Ohio

Cited by 75 publications

References 3 publications

The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing.

The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing.

Contribution of lead in soil to children’s lead burden, an update

Windows of opportunity: Lead poisoning prevention, housing affordability, and energy conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About