The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dust: a metric for use in residential and building exposure assessment and source characterization.
Open accessAbstract
In this review, we examine house dust and residential soil and their use for identifying sources and the quantifying levels of toxicants for the estimation of exposure. We answer critical questions that focus on the selection of samples or sampling strategies for collection and discuss areas of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge. We discuss the evolution of dust sampling with a special emphasis on work conducted after the publication of the 1992 review by McArthur [Appl Occup Environ Hyg 7(9):599-606 (1992)]. The approaches to sampling dust examined include surface wipe sampling, vacuum sampling, and other sampling approaches, including attic sampling. The metrics of presentation of results for toxicants in dust surface loading (micrograms per square centimeter) or surface concentration (micrograms per gram) are discussed. We evaluate these metrics in terms of how the information can be used in source characterization and in exposure characterization. We discuss the types of companion information on source use and household or personal activity patterns required to assess the significance of the dust exposure. The status and needs for wipe samplers, surface samplers, and vacuum samplers are summarized with some discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of each type of sampler. We also discuss needs for research and development and the current status of standardization. Case studies are provided to illustrate the use of house dust and residential soil in source characterization, forensic analyses, or human exposure assessment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity
Buzea, C., Pacheco, I. I., & Robbie, K. (2007) · Biointerphases · doi:10.1116/1.2815690 · Cited by 3,789
SVOC partitioning between the gas phase and settled dust indoors
Weschler, C. J., & Nazaroff, W. W. (2010) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.06.029 · Cited by 371
Organic Contamination of Settled House Dust, A Review for Exposure Assessment Purposes
Mercier, F., Glorennec, P., Thomas, O., & Bot, B. L. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es200925h · Cited by 255
The National Children's Study: A 21-Year Prospective Study of 100 000 American Children
Landrigan, P. J., Trasande, L., Thorpe, L. E., Gwynn, C., Lioy, P. J., D'Alton, M. E., Lipkind, H. S., Swanson, J., Wadhwa, P. D., Clark, E. B., et al. (2006) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0360 · Cited by 170
Self-citationAssessment of indoor allergen exposure
Hamilton, R. G. (2005) · Current Allergy and Asthma Reports · doi:10.1007/s11882-005-0013-0 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Lioy, P. J., Freeman, N. C. G., & Millette, J. R.
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 969-983
- ISSN
- 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9924
- OpenAlex
- W2020506677
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dust: a metric for use in residential and building exposure assessment and source characterization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.02110969
- The paper
- Lioy, P. J., Freeman, N. C. G., & Millette, J. R. (2002). Dust: a metric for use in residential and building exposure assessment and source characterization. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110969
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.