Astm stp 1533 2011

-RXUQDORI$670,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDORI$670,QWHUQDWLRQDO 6HOHFWHG7HFKQLFDO3DSHUV 6HOHFWHG7HFKQLFDO3DSHUV 673 673 Surface Surface and and Dermal Dermal Sampling Sampling JAI JAIGuest GuestEditors: Editors: Michael MichaelBrisson Brisson Kevin KevinAshley Ashley Journal of ASTM International Selected Technical Papers STP1533 Surface and Dermal Sampling JAI Guest Editors: Michael Brisson Kevin Ashley ASTM International 100 Barr Harbor Drive PO Box C700 West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 Printed in the U.S.A ASTM Stock #: STP1533 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN: 978-0-8031-7519-8 Copyright © 2011 ASTM INTERNATIONAL, West Conshohocken, PA All rights reserved This material may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other distribution and storage media, without the written consent of the publisher Journal of ASTM International (JAI) Scope The JAI is a multi-disciplinary forum to serve the international scientific and engineering community through the timely publication of the results of original research and critical review articles in the physical and life sciences and engineering technologies These peer-reviewed papers cover diverse topics relevant to the science and research that establish the foundation for standards development within ASTM International Photocopy Rights Authorization to photocopy items for internal, personal, or educational classroom use, or the internal, personal, or educational classroom use of specific clients, is granted by ASTM International provided that the appropriate fee is paid to ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, Tel: 610-832-9634; online: http://www.astm.org/copyright The Society is not responsible, as a body, for the statements and opinions expressed in this publication ASTM International does not endorse any products represented in this publication Peer Review Policy Each paper published in this volume was evaluated by two peer reviewers and at least one editor The authors addressed all of the reviewers’ comments to the satisfaction of both the technical editor(s) and the ASTM International Committee on Publications The quality of the papers in this publication reflects not only the obvious efforts of the authors and the technical editor(s), but also the work of the peer reviewers In keeping with long-standing publication practices, ASTM International maintains the anonymity of the peer reviewers The ASTM International Committee on Publications acknowledges with appreciation their dedication and contribution of time and effort on behalf of ASTM International Citation of Papers When citing papers from this publication, the appropriate citation includes the paper authors, “paper title”, J ASTM Intl., volume and number, Paper doi, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Paper, year listed in the footnote of the paper A citation is provided as a footnote on page one of each paper Printed in Baltimore, MD November, 2011 Foreword THIS COMPILATION OF THE JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL (JAI), STP1533, on Surface and Dermal Sampling contains only the papers published in JAI that were presented at a symposium in San Antonio, TX, on 14-15 October 2010 and sponsored by ASTM Committee D22 on Air Quality and subcommittee D22.04 on Workplace Air Quality The Symposium Chairs and JAI Guest Editors are Michael Brisson, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC, Aiken, SC and Kevin Ashley, Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Cincinnati, OH Contents Overview Acknowledgments vii x Standardization Issues Review of Standards for Surface and Dermal Sampling K Ashley, M J Brisson, and K T White Derivation of Health-Based Screening Levels for Evaluating Indoor Surface Contamination G Murnyak and H.-Y Chang 17 Indoor Allergen Surface Sampling Methods and Standards: A Review of the Theory R D Lewis and D Chen 34 Dermal Evaluation of a Handwipe Disclosing Method for Lead K Ashley, T J Wise, and E J Esswein 57 Handwipe Method for Removing Lead from Skin E J Esswein, M F Boeniger, and K Ashley 67 Lead Development of Two Sample Preparation Methods for Determination of Lead in Composite Dust Wipe Samples K T White, F G Dewalt, D C Cox, R Schmehl, W Friedman, and E A Pinzer 85 Improving the Confidence Level in Lead Clearance Examination Results through Modifications to Dust Sampling Protocols D C Cox, F G Dewalt, K T White, R Schmehl, W Friedman, and E A Pinzer 101 Pilot Evaluation for Lead-Based Paint Proficiency Testing of Field-Portable XRF Instruments K T White, F G Dewalt, D C Cox, R Schmehl, W Friedman, and E A Pinzer 118 Beryllium Measurement by Optical Fluorescence in Samples Contaminated by Strongly Fluorescent Impurities A Agrawal, L Adams, A Agrawal, J P Cronin, J C Lopez Tonazzi, and B Duran 127 Beryllium Measurement in Commercially Available Wet Wipes L D Youmans-McDonald, M J Brisson, M Bernard, A Agrawal, J P Cronin, and L Adams 141 The Feasibility of Studying the Health Implications of Surface Beryllium Contamination: A Review of Eight Industries M McCawley 151 Beryllium Asbestos Evaluation of Asbestos in Dust on Surfaces by Microvacuum and Wipe Sampling J R Kominsky and J R Millette 165 Use of the ASTM Inter-Laboratory Studies (ILS) Program in Developing Precision Data for ASTM D5755 – Asbestos in Dust by Microvacuum Sampling J R Millette 177 Pharmaceuticals Developing Acceptable Surface Limits for Occupational Exposure to Pharmaceutical Substances T A Kimmel, R G Sussman, R H Ku, and A W Ader 187 Development of a Method for Screening Spill and Leakage of Antibiotics on Surfaces Based on Wipe Sampling and HPLC-MS/MS Analysis O Nygren and R Lindahl 195 Screening of Spill and Leakage of Antibiotics in Hospital Wards O Nygren and R Lindahl 209 General Topics Application of ASTM Standard Practice D6602 in the Investigation of Outdoor Environmental Surface Particulate Including Darkening Agents J R Millette, H L Rook, and S Compton 249 Surface Characterization of Replicate Wood Surfaces for Cleaning Studies R D Lewis, J Kennedy, M Andruskiewicz, C A Brown, and S Condoor 270 Assessment of Bacterial Contamination and Remediation Efficacy After Flooding Using Fluorometric Detection M Reeslev, J C Nielsen, and L Rogers 290 Use of Direct Reading Surface Sampling Methods for Site Characterization and Remediation of Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties J E Snawder, C A F Striley, E J Esswein, J Hessel, D L Sammons, S A Robertson, B C Johnson, B A MacKenzie, J P Smith, and C V Walker 297 Author Index Subject Index 313 315 Overview This compilation represents the work of numerous authors at the ASTM International Symposium on Surface and Dermal Sampling, October 14-15, San Antonio, Texas, USA This two-day symposium was sponsored by ASTM International Committee D22 on Air Quality and its Subcommittee D22.04 on Workplace Air Quality The symposium was organized in cooperation with the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the Beryllium Health and Safety Committee (BHSC), the U.S Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), L’Institut de recherché Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Over thirty papers were presented at the symposium, and the papers that were submitted and accepted for publication appear in this volume The role of surface and dermal sampling to assess contamination levels, or to detect harmful agents, is growing However, standard techniques for sampling of surfaces, including skin, are relatively few, and their development is hampered by limited data The lack of harmonization in these techniques creates difficulties in comparing data from different studies Agreement is needed on protocols for surface and dermal sampling and, to improve data defensibility, methods for sampling of surfaces, including skin, are in need of standardization The symposium explored recent work that could aid in beginning the standards development process, and addressed challenges that need to be overcome for further standards development The symposium solicited presentations on the following topics (and related issues): • Surface and dermal sampling protocols • Samplers and sample collection media • Target analytes — chemical, biological and radiation hazards, and dermal sensitizers • Application of surface and dermal monitoring techniques to real-world problems • Safety, health and risk assessment • Quality assurance and method performance • Policy issues relating to surface and dermal monitoring The targeted audience included a wide range of technical professionals such as industrial hygienists, chemists, biologists, health physicists, safety engineers, epidemiologists, medical personnel, and others having interest in surface or dermal sampling issues, or both vii The papers contained in this publication represent the commitment of ASTM International Committee D22 to providing timely and comprehensive information on advances in monitoring of toxic substances, exposure assessment, and standards development Sections of the two-day symposium focused on the following themes: Standardization Issues; Dermal; Lead; Beryllium; Asbestos; Pharmaceuticals; and General topics Papers discussing sampling techniques, analytical measurement technologies, reference materials, standardization, occupational hygiene, decontamination methods, and quality assurance can be found in this compilation Standardization Issues This section includes papers which summarize the currently available consensus standards for surface and dermal sampling and the need for additional standards, particularly in the area of dermal sampling It also includes papers describing research activities intended to support standards development Three of the papers that were given dealing with these issues are published in this section Dermal This section includes papers dealing with aspects of addressing contaminants on skin, including sampling, removal, and adherence of contaminated materials to the skin Two of the papers given in this topical area, both related to lead contamination, are published in this section Lead This section includes papers dealing with sampling, sample preparation, analytical proficiency testing, and lead dust loadings on surfaces other than skin Three of the papers that were given dealing with these issues are published in this section Beryllium This section includes papers dealing with beryllium surface contamination in various industries and measurement of beryllium on surface wipe samples Three of the papers given in this topical area are published in this section Asbestos This section includes papers addressing the evaluation of samples collected from surfaces contaminated with asbestos Two of the papers that were given dealing with these issues are published in this section Pharmaceuticals This section includes papers dealing with occupational exposure to pharmaceutical substances, as well as spills and leakage of antibiotics on surfaces Three of the papers given in this topical area are published in this section viii General Topics This section includes papers addressing general topics such as investigations of outdoor environmental surface particulate; microbiological contamination on surfaces; assessments of properties contaminated with methamphetamine; and use of health-based screening levels to evaluate contamination on indoor surfaces Four of the presented papers are published in this section We hope that readers of this publication will find it to be an informative and useful reference on surface and dermal sampling issues Michael J Brisson Savannah River Nuclear Solutions Aiken, SC, USA Kevin Ashley CDC/NIOSH Cincinnati, OH, USA Symposium Co-Chairs and Editors ix SNAWDER ET AL., doi:10.1520/JAI103481 305 there had not been a formal validation of the method to determine test accuracy and detection limits on surfaces Blue color formed by the reaction of Simon’s reagent with methamphetamine was found to be linear from to 500 lg The intensity of color was directly proportional to the concentration of methamphetamine present Intensity of color is directly related to the purity of methamphetamine from different sources (Fig 1) Based on tests with multiple users and various concentrations of methamphetamine, the colorimetric wipe method limit of identification (LOI) was determined to be 17.3 2.2 lg/100 cm2 for 95% of users when methamphetamine was present ỵ /-25% stated cut-off (Fig 2) Immunochemical Detection of Methamphetamine-Laboratory Validation The immunochemical sampling and detection methods were found to be accurate and sensitive when used by volunteers with limited training (Tables 1–2) Diagnostic sensitivity was 92% when methamphetamine is present ỵ /25% stated cut-off [(259/259  21)  100] Diagnostic specificity was found to be 100% [(18/0  18)  100] Method accuracy was greater than 95% to identify presence/absence of methamphetamine FIG 2—Estimation of the colorimetric methamphetamine surface sampling method Method sensitivity was calculated by plotting test results from three volunteers as a four parameter logistic curve [y ẳ y0 ỵ (a/(1 ỵ ((x/xo)^b)))] Method limit of identification (LOI) was determined to be 17.362.2 lg/100 cm2 for 95% of users when methamphetamine present ỵ /-25% stated cut-off 306 JAI  STP 1533 ON SURFACE AND DERMAL SAMPLING (460/480 correct) Method sensitivity was greater than 95% when methamphetamine was present ỵ /25% of the stated cut-off ROC curve analysis found the methods to be very accurate (Fig 3) Accuracy is measured by calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUC) The LFIA 50, 100, and 500 were all found to have AUCs greater than 0.98 An AUC of represents an ideal test; values near 0.5 represent an indiscriminant test Comparison of LFIA Surface Detection Method to NMAM 9111, LC-MS With Isotopic Dilution In laboratory tests LFIA surface sampling methods were found to have equivalent or greater sensitivity to detect methamphetamine on spiked ceramic tiles compared to NMAM 9111 (Table 3) TABLE 1—Determination of the method accuracy of LFIA surface wipe methods for methamphetamine: Method accuracy tests were conducted with 10 untrained volunteers (3 trials=concentration) For the LFIA tests, volunteers performed wipe tests on spiked tiles with either cotton swabs (LFIA 50),  cotton wipes (LFIA 100) or  cotton wipes (LFIA 500) as described in the text (n ¼ 540 tests) LFIA 50 [1 ml, 50 ng cutoff (C.O.)] Test # Methamphetamine ng=100 cm2 % C.O Positives( %) Negatives (%) 50 50 50 40 60 CO CO CO 80 120 90 90 100 90 100 100 10 10 10 % C.O Positives( %) Negatives (%) CO CO CO 80 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 % C.O Positives( %) Negatives (%) CO CO CO 80 120 100 100 100 90 100 100 0 10 10 LFIA 100 [2 ml, 100 ng cutoff (C.O.)] Test # Methamphetamine ng=100 cm2 100 100 100 80 120 LFIA 500 [10 ml, 500 ng cutoff (C.O.)] Test # Methamphetamine ng=100 cm2 500 500 500 400 600 SNAWDER ET AL., doi:10.1520/JAI103481 307 TABLE 2—Determination of the method sensitivity of LFIA surface wipe methods for methamphetamine: Method sensitivity tests were conducted with 10 untrained volunteers (3 trials=concentration) For the LFIA tests, volunteers performed wipe tests on spiked tiles with either cotton swabs (LFIA 50),  cotton wipes (LFIA 100) or  cotton wipes (LFIA 500) as described in the text (n ¼ 540 tests) LFIA 50 [1 ml, 50 ng cutoff (C.O.)] Methamphetamine ng=100 cm2 25 38 50 63 75 % C.O Positives (%) Negatives (%) Equivocal (%) 50 25 C.O ỵ 25 þ 50 60 80 100 100 100 100 40 20 0 0 0 0 Positives( %) Negatives (%) Equivocal (%) 90 90 100 100 100 100 10 10 0 0 0 0 Positives( %) Negatives (%) Equivocal (%) 90 90 100 100 100 100 10 10 0 0 0 0 LFIA 100 [2 ml, 100 ng cutoff (C.O.)] Methamphetamine % C.O ng=100 cm2 50 75 100 125 150 50 25 C.O ỵ 25 ỵ 50 LFIA 500 [10 ml, 500 ng cutoff (C.O.)] Methamphetamine ng=100 cm2 % C.O 250 380 500 630 750 50 25 C.O ỵ 25 þ 50 Process-Based Assessment of Decontamination of a Former Methamphetamine Laboratory in a Hotel Room Methamphetamine surface contamination was confirmed by the colorimetric method, LFIA (50 and 500 ng/100 cm2) methods and LC/MS (NMAM 9111) during the initial visit A map of the room indicating locations and levels of contamination was prepared but, not provided to the contractor hired by hotel management to clean the room Recommendations were made as to what materials needed to be discarded (carpet, lamp shades, room air conditioner filters, 308 JAI  STP 1533 ON SURFACE AND DERMAL SAMPLING FIG 3—ROC curves based on LFIA surface wipe tests Sensitivity, or the true-positive fraction, was plotted on the Y axis The false-positive fraction (or 1- specificity) was plotted on the X axis Accuracy was measured by calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUC) An area of represents an ideal test; values near 0.5 represent an indiscriminant test A ¼ 50 ng LFIA, B ¼ 100 ng LFIA and C ¼ 500 ng LFIA SNAWDER ET AL., doi:10.1520/JAI103481 309 TABLE 3—Comparison of LFIA (50, 100, and 500) surface detection method to Draft Method 9111, LC–MS with Isotopic Dilution Methamphetamine LFIA 50 Draft 9111 38 ng=100 cm2 50 ng=100 cm2 63 ng=100 cm2 Methamphetamine Negative (9=9) Positive 9=9 Positive 9=9 Positive 9=9 LFIA 100 ND Below reporting limit (