Friction and impact surfaces: are they lead-based paint hazards?

Professionals who identify residential lead-based paint hazards and develop lead hazard control plans are instructed to assess painted friction and impact surfaces in homes as potentially active sources of dust lead, a known exposure vector for young children. However, empirical tests of the importance of these surfaces had not been conducted. Using data collected as part of a 1998 three-community study of the Housing and Urban Development Lead Risk Assessment protocols, this article explores how much rubbing or binding on friction and impact surfaces on windows and doors influence dust lead levels on windowsills and floors, while taking into account paint condition on these surfaces and other sources of lead. The analyses included windowsill dust wipe samples from 611 rooms in 182 homes and 782 floor dust wipe samples collected in 209 rooms from 104 homes. The study found that when the paint on windows is intact but the window is rubbing or binding, the dust lead levels on the windowsills are significantly higher than on windows with intact paint without rubbing or binding, after controlling for other lead sources. Windowsill dust lead on a window with intact lead-based paint at 1 mg/cm(2) and no rubbing/binding would be 27% lower than on a window with nonintact paint, rubbing/binding surfaces, or both of these conditions. An independent effect of rubbing/binding of doors on floor dust lead loadings was not observed. These findings support federal regulations calling for lead risk assessors to check the friction/impact surfaces at windows when dust lead samples taken below them are elevated, but these analyses did not offer support for taking extra observations of friction/impact surfaces around doors.