The 130th Annual Meeting of APHA |
Helen Binns, MD, MPH1, Nicholas Peneff, DrPH, CIH2, Kimberly A. Gray, PhD3, Joyce Fernandes, MFA4, and Mary E. Finster3. (1) Children's Memorial Hospital, 2300 Children's Plaza, Box 208, Chicago, IL 60614, 773-880-4281, hbinns@northwestern.edu, (2) Public Health & Safety, Inc., 112 Lawn Place, Rockford, IL 61103, (3) Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-3109, (4) architreasures, 2850 N. Pulaski Road, 2nd Fl., Chicago, IL 60641
Objective: To examine effectiveness of lower cost methods of reducing the potential for exposure to lead-contaminated soil in urban residential yards.
Method: Properties were randomized to 2 intervention arms and usual care (UC). 37 intervention properties and 20 UC properties completed baseline and 1-year follow-up sampling. Sampling assessed soil lead, entryway dust, lead track-in on doormats, and entryway lead paint. Inspectors determined density of covering for all potentially exposed soil areas ("1"=<10% covered through "6"=>=90% covered). Interventions were focused on enhancing density of coverings and were provided by a community group. Intervention arms differed in application of raised garden beds (RB, noRB).
Results: At baseline, properties were similar on all measures. Yard-wide soil lead average fell significantly at intervention properties compared to UC (median drop RB 409 ppm; noRB 332 ppm; UC 39 ppm; p=0.02). Density of coverings increased significantly more at intervention properties (median rise RB 0.92; noRB 0.91; UC -0.87; p=0.0012). Reductions in dust and track-in soil lead measures did not differ between groups.
Conclusions: Landscaping techniques represent a new method of reducing soil lead exposure and need further examination of longevity.
Learning Objectives:
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.