Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Using colorimetric wipes to characterize lead surface levels in lead-exposed construction workers’ homes and vehicles

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 36, pages 300–310 (2026)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Lead home investigations following the confirmation of a lead-poisoned child in the home require a lead-certified technician using an X-ray-fluorescence (XRF) portable analyzer, but XRFs are not always available. Colorimetric surface wipes that immediately change color on a gradient from yellow-to-red with lead could address this gap, but they have not been tested or utilized extensively in non-occupational settings.

Objective

To understand the usability of colorimetric wipes in lead home investigations with different potential sources of lead.

Methods

We collected 104 colorimetric wipes to assess lead levels on surfaces from nine homes and seven vehicles from lead-exposed construction workers living with children. Colorimetric wipe results (n = 81) were compared with inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy laboratory analysis.

Results

Lead was detected on 46(58%) of home surface wipes, with highest percentage of red wipes from surfaces in kitchen, followed by entrance, living room, bedroom, and laundry room samples. For vehicle surface wipes, 17 (71%) detected lead, with the highest percent of red wipes in the trunk, followed by back and front seat areas. Wipe color readings were significantly and positively correlated with laboratory analysis (Kendall’s τ = 0.42). At the 18 μg/sample threshold (i.e., level at which the wipe is expected to turn pink/red), the method showed high specificity (87%), moderate accuracy (78%), high negative predictive value (87%), and low false positive rate (13%). Of the wipes above 10 µg/sample public-health lead guideline, 80% changed color, suggesting high sensitivity.

Impact

  • The dissemination of colorimetric wipes for lead home investigations can reduce costs and improve the immediate screening of lead dust-contaminated surfaces in residential settings. Colorimetric wipes proved invaluable in identifying sources from lead take-home and lead-in-paint in the homes and vehicles of lead-exposed construction workers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Percentage of observed color readings of surface wipe samples for different areas in nine homes of construction workers in the Greater Boston area (2021–22).
Fig. 2: Percentage of observed color readings of surface wipe samples by different areas in seven vehicles of construction workers in the Greater Boston area (2021–22).
Fig. 3: Distribution of lead mass loading per area sampled (1 ft x 1 ft or 0.3 m × 0.3 m) comparing the different observed color responses on surface wipes against the manufacturer-reported level of 18 µg per sample, at which is likely to change color to red/pink, and the laboratory reporting limit of 1 µg per sample.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Surface sampling data are available upon request.

References

  1. Ruckart PZ, Jones RL, Courtney JG, LeBlanc TT, Jackson W, Karwowski MP, et al. Update of the blood lead reference value—United States, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1509–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2019). Toxicological profile for lead. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry.

  3. ATSDR (2025). Lead (Pb) Toxicity: What Are the US Standards for Lead Levels? ATSDR - Environmental Medicine & Environmental Health Education. Available from: https://archive.cdc.gov/www_atsdr_cdc_gov/csem/leadtoxicity/safety_standards.html. Date accessed: March 2025.

  4. Kaji M, Nishi Y. Lead and growth. Clin Pediatr Endocrinol. 2006;15:123–8. https://doi.org/10.1297/cpe.15.123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Abelsohn AR, Sanborn M. Lead and children: clinical management for family physicians. Can Fam Physician Med de Famille Canadien. 2010;56:531–5.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rauh VA, Margolis AE. Research Review: Environmental exposures, neurodevelopment, and child mental health—new paradigms for the study of brain and behavioral effects. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2016;57:775–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dórea JG. Environmental exposure to low-level lead (Pb) co-occurring with other neurotoxicants in early life and neurodevelopment of children. Environ Res. 2019;177:108641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108641.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heidari S, Mostafaei S, Razazian N, Rajati M, Saeedi A, Rajati F. Correlation between lead exposure and cognitive function in 12-year-old children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021;28:43064–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14712-w.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Braun JM, Hornung R, Chen A, Dietrich KN, Jacobs DE, Jones R, et al. Effect of residential lead-hazard interventions on childhood blood lead concentrations and neurobehavioral outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics. 2018;172:934–42. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2382.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ashley K, Brisson MJ, and White KT (2011a). Review of standards for surface and dermal sampling. J. ASTMInt. 8:9. Available at: https://www.astm.org/jai103678.html. Date accessed July 2025.

  11. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2025a). Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations, and Methods in Occupational Hygiene. By Broadwater K, Ashley K, Andrews R. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/pdf/NMAM_Chap_SG-508.pdf. Date accessed: Sept. 2025.

  12. Ashley K, Wise T, Esswein E. Evaluation of a handwipe disclosing method for lead. J ASTM Int. 2011b;8:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beaucham C, Ceballos D, King B. Lessons learned from surface wipe sampling for lead in three workplaces. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017;14:611–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2017.1309047.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. NIOSH (2025b). NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM®). 5th ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/. Date accessed: July 2025.

  15. NIOSH (2025c). NIOSH Method 9105 - LEAD in DUST WIPES 9105 by Chemical Spot Test (Colorimetric Screening Method). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/pdfs/9105.pdf. Date accessed: Sept 2025.

  16. SKC. (2025a). Full Disclosure Wipe Kit. Available at https://www.skcltd.com/products2/surface-skin-sampling/full-disclosure-kit.html. Date accessed: July 2025.

  17. Housing and Urban Development Agency (HUD). (2025a). Chapter 5: Risk Assessment and Reevaluation. Available at: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/ch05_12-13-12.pdf. Date accessed: July 2025.

  18. Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC) (2025). Lead Poisoning Prevention. Available at: https://www.boston.gov/government/cabinets/boston-public-health-commission/healthy-homes-and-environment/lead-poisoning-prevention. Date accessed: July 2025.

  19. HUD. (2012). Guidelines for evaluation and control of lead-based paint hazards in housing, 2nd ed. In: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. Available at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/lbp/hudguidelines. Date accessed: July 2025.

  20. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/lbph-40.pdf HUD. (2025b). Appendix 13.1: Wipe Sampling of Settled Dust for Lead Determination. Available at Date accessed: July 2025

  21. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2025a). Lead Dust Sampling Technician Field Guide. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ldstguide.pdf. Date accessed: July 2025.

  22. Ahmid K, Specht A, Morikawa L, Ceballos D, Wylie S. Lead and other toxic metals in plastic play foods: Results from testing citizen science, lead detection tools in childcare settings. J Environ Manag. 2022;321:115904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115904.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. McDonald LT; Rasmussen PE, Chénier M, and Levesque C (2010) “Wipe Sampling Methodologies to Assess Exposures to Lead and Cadmium in Urban Canadian Homes,” Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy: Vol. 15, Article 6.

  24. ASTM International (2025). ASTM E1792-20: Standard Specification for Wipe Sampling Materials for Lead in Surface Dust. Available at: https://www.astm.org/e1792-20.html. Date accessed July 2025.

  25. Piacitelli GM, Whelan EA, Sieber WK, Gerwel B. Elevated lead contamination in homes of construction workers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1997;58:447–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/15428119791012694.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Boraiko C, Wright EM, Ralston F. Lead contamination of paint remediation workers’ vehicles. J Environ Health. 2013;5:22–7.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Childhood lead poisoning associated with lead dust contamination of family vehicles and child safety seats-Maine, 2008. MMWR: Morbidity Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58:890–3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584585/ Available at Date accessed: July 2025.

    Google Scholar 

  28. EPA. (2007). Method 3051a. Microwave assisted acid digestion of sediments, sludges, soils, and oils. In SW-846. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/3051a.pdf. Date accessed: July 2025.

  29. EPA. (2014). Method 6010D. Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. In SW-846. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at https://www.epa.gov/esam/epa-method-6010d-sw-846-inductively-coupled-plasma-atomic-emission-spectrometry. Date accessed: July 2025.EPA

  30. EPA (2025b). Lead regulations. https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead-regulations. Date accessed: July 2025.

  31. EPA. (2054c) Lead Test Kits. https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead-test-kits. Date accessed: July 2025.

  32. EPA. (2025d). EPA strengthens standards to protect children from exposure to lead paint dust https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-strengthens-standards-protect-children-exposure-lead-paint-dust. Date accessed: July 2025.

  33. HUD. (2025c). Revised dust-lead action levels for risk assessment and clearance; clearance of porch floors. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231-0343. Date accessed July 2025.

  34. Kalweit A, Herrick RF, Flynn MA, Spengler JD, Berko JK, Levy JI, et al. Eliminating take-home exposures: recognizing the role of occupational health and safety in broader community health. Ann Work Exposures Health. 2020;64:236–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxaa006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. SKC. (2025b). This Safety Data Sheet is for the following products: Ghost Wipes Cat. Nos. 225-2414 and 225-2413. Available at https://skcinc.com/media/knowledge/sds/ghost-wipe-sds.pdf. Date accessed: July 2025.

  36. Savitz DA, Chen JH. Parental occupation and childhood cancer: review of epidemiologic studies. Environ Health Perspect. 1990;88:325–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. CDC. (2012). Take-Home Lead Exposure Among Children with Relatives Employed at a Battery Recycling Facility—Puerto Rico, 2011. MMWR. 61; 967-70. 64(27), 743–745. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6147a4.htm. Date accessed: Sept 2025.

  38. CDC (2015). Investigation of Childhood Lead Poisoning from Parental Take-Home Exposure from an Electronic Scrap Recycling Facility—Ohio, 2012. by Newman, N., Jones, C., Page, E., Ceballos, D., & Oza, A. Morbidity Mortality Wkly Rep. 6co4 (27), 743–745.

  39. NIOSH (2019). Evaluation of lead and copper exposure at an indoor shooting range. By Grant MP, Reynolds L, Methner MM. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2018-0124-3351. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2018-0124-3351.pdf. Date accessed: July 2025.

  40. Nunez CM, Klitzman S, Goodman A. Lead exposure among automobile radiator repair workers and their children in New York City. Am J Ind Med. 1993;23:763–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.4700230510.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rodrigues EG, Virji MA, McClean MD, Weinberg J, Woskie S, Pepper LD. Personal exposure, behavior, and work site conditions as determinants of blood lead among bridge painters. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010;7:80–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620903418316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Dolcourt JL, Hamrick HJ, O’Tuama LA, Wooten J, Barker EL Jr. Increased lead burden in children of battery workers: asymptomatic exposure resulting from contaminated work clothing. Pediatrics. 1978;62:563–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. CDC (2025). Blood Lead Surveillance. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/php/data/blood-lead-surveillance.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/blood-lead-reference-value.htm. Date accessed: Sept. 2025.

  44. Hauptman M, Niles JK, Gudin J, Kaufman HW. Individual- and community-level factors associated with detectable and elevated blood lead levels in US Children: results from a National Clinical Laboratory. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175:1252–60. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.3518.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the participating families in the study as well as the institutions that helped us recruit these participants, such as MassCOSH, the New England Region Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund of North America LiUNA TriFunds, and the Boston Medical Center Lead Clinic. Thanks to Professors Robert Herrick and John Spengler from Harvard Chan School of Public Health, Mr. Thomas Plant from the Boston Public Health Commission, and Dr. Marissa Hauptman from Boston Children’s Hospital for their technical guidance during the study. Thanks to Mr. Shane Whitacre for his assistance during the chemical analysis of the wipes. Lastly, thanks to the RECLEAN study team.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article: the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (MALTS0013-19). This work was also partially supported by discretionary funds from Boston University and the University of Washington and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), through Boston University Clinical & Translational Science Institute (1UL1TR001430), and the Boston University Institute for Health System Innovation and Policy. DMC was also partially funded by T42OH008433/OH/NIOSH CDC HHS. The contents of this manuscript are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HUD, CDC, or the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Diana M. Ceballos & Yuxin Wu

  2. Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Maria Bermudez, Jonathan I. Levy, M. Pilar Botana Martinez & Junenette L. Peters

  3. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Noah A. Buncher

  4. College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Nicholas T. Basta

Authors
  1. Diana M. Ceballos
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuxin Wu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Bermudez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonathan I. Levy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Noah A. Buncher
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicholas T. Basta
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Pilar Botana Martinez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Junenette L. Peters
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DMC: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, data collection, methodology, validation, data analysis, recruitment, and wrote the original draft. YW: Data entry, validation, data analysis, data visualization, and wrote part of the original draft. MB: Data entry and validation. JIL: Methodology and administrative support. NAB: Recruitment. NTB: Chemical analysis. MPBM: Data collection, methodology, and graphics. JLP: Methodology, supervision, and data analysis expertise. All authors significantly reviewed, edited, and contributed to the final draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana M. Ceballos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics

The Boston University Medical Campus Institutional Review Board approved the study protocols before implementation. All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment in the study. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ceballos, D.M., Wu, Y., Bermudez, M. et al. Using colorimetric wipes to characterize lead surface levels in lead-exposed construction workers’ homes and vehicles. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 36, 300–310 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-025-00818-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-025-00818-7

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links