Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Contamination Control Engineering”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Establishing and Monitoring an Aseptic Workspace for Building the MOMA Mass Spectrometer

Mars Organic Molecule Analyzer (MOMA) is an instrument suite on the ESA ExoMars 2018 Rover, and the Mass Spectrometer (MOMA-MS) is being built at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). As MOMA-MS is a life-detection instrument and it thus falls in the most stringent category of Planetary Protection (PP) biological cleanliness requirements. Less than 0.03 sporem2 is allowed in the instrument sample path. In order to meet these PP requirements, MOMA-MS must be built and maintained in a low bioburden environment. The MOMA-MS project at GSFC maintains three cleanrooms with varying levels of bioburden control. The Aseptic Assembly Cleanroom has the highest level of control, applying three different bioburden reducing methods: 70 IPA, 7.5 Hydrogen Peroxide, and Ultra-Violet C light. The three methods are used in rotation and each kills microbes by a different mechanism, reducing the likelihood of microorganisms developing resistance to all three. The Integration and Mars Chamber Cleanrooms use less biocidal cleaning, with the option to deploy extra techniques as necessary. To support the monitoring of cleanrooms and verification that MOMA-MS hardware meets PP requirements, a new Planetary Protection lab was established that currently has the capabilities of standard growth assays for spore or vegetative bacteria, rapid bioburden analysis that detects Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), plus autoclave and DHMR verification. The cleanrooms are monitored both for vegetative microorganisms and by rapid ATP assay, and a clear difference in bioburden is observed between the aseptic the other cleanroom.

Contamination Control Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2016

Establishing and Monitoring an Aseptic Workspace for Building the MOMA Mass Spectrometer

Mars Organic Molecule Analyzer (MOMA) is an instrument suite on the European Space Agency (ESA) ExoMars 2020 Rover, and the Mass Spectrometer (MOMA-MS) is being built at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). MOMA-MS is a life-detection instrument and thus falls in the most stringent category of Planetary Protection (PP) biological cleanliness requirements. Less than 0.03 spore/m2 are allowed in the instrument sample path. In order to meet these PP requirements, MOMA-MS must be built and maintained in a low bioburden environment. The MOMA-MS project at GSFC maintains three clean rooms with varying levels of bioburden control. The Aseptic Assembly Clean room has the highest level of control, applying three different bioburden reducing methods: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA), 7.5% Hydrogen Peroxide, and Ultra-Violet C (UVC) light. The three methods are used in rotation and each kills microorganisms by a different mechanism, reducing the likelihood of microorganisms developing resistance to all three. The Integration and Mars Chamber Clean rooms use less biocidal cleaning, with the option to deploy extra techniques as necessary. To support the monitoring of clean rooms and verification that MOMA-MS hardware meets PP requirements, a new Planetary Protection lab was established that currently has the capabilities of standard growth assays for spore or vegetative bacteria, rapid bioburden analysis that detects Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), plus autoclave and Dry Heat microbial Reduction (DHMR) verification. The clean rooms are monitored for vegetative microorganisms and by rapid ATP assay, and a clear difference in bioburden is observed between the aseptic and other clean room.

Contamination Control Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2017

Thermal Vacuum Chamber Repressurization with Instrument Purging

At the end of James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) OTIS (Optical Telescope Element-OTE-Integrated Science Instrument Module-ISIM) cryogenic vacuum testing in NASA Johnson Space Centers (JSCs) thermal vacuum (TV) Chamber A, contamination control (CC) engineers are mooting the idea that chamber particulate material stirred up by the repressurization process may be kept from falling into the ISIM interior to some degree by activating instrument purge flows over some initial period before opening the chamber valves. This memo describes development of a series of models designed to describe this process. These are strung together in tandem to estimate overpressure evolution from which net outflow velocity behavior may be obtained. Creeping flow assumptions are then used to determine the maximum particle size that may be kept suspended above the ISIM aperture, keeping smaller particles from settling within the instrument module.

Repressurization↗
NASA NTRS1997

1997 Spacecraft Contamination and Coatings Workshop

This volume contains the presentation charts of talks given at the "1997 Spacecraft Contamination and Coatings Workshop," held July 9-10, 1997, in Annapolis, Maryland. The workshop was attended by representatives from NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Defense, industry, and universities concerned with the the spacecraft contamination engineering and thermal control coatings. The workshop provided a forum for exchanging new developments in spacecraft contamination and coatings.

Chen, Philip T.↗
DOE OSTI2017

RCT: Module 2.07, Respiratory Protection, Course 8773

Internal dosimetry controls require the use of engineering controls to prevent the internal deposition of radioactive and nonradiological contaminants. However, when engineering and administrative controls are not available or feasible, respiratory protection may be necessary. The radiation control technician (RCT) should know and apply the considerations used in determining the respiratory protection equipment that is most appropriate for the job. The inappropriate use of or the use of the wrong respiratory protection equipment may result in undesirable health effects. This course will prepare the student with the skills necessary for RCT qualification by passing quizzes, tests, and the RCT Comprehensive Phase 1, Unit 2 Examination (TEST 27566) and will provide in-the-field skills.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2023

RCT: Module 2.07 Respiratory Protection [Slides]

Internal dosimetry controls require the use of engineering controls to prevent the internal deposition of radioactive and non-radiological contaminants. However, when engineering and administrative controls are not available or feasible, respiratory protection may be necessary. The RCT should know and apply the considerations used in determining the respiratory protection equipment that is most appropriate for the job. The inappropriate use of or the use of the wrong respiratory protection equipment may result in undesirable health effects.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Engineering Controls for the Processing and Repackaging of Gloveboxes Contaminated with Plutonium - 19629

Gloveboxes used for processing plutonium (Pu)-238 at the US DOE Mound site in Miamisburg, Ohio, in support of the United States space mission were packaged in non-standard waste boxes and sent to the INL Site for temporary disposal. In addition to the gloveboxes, an assortment of smaller items, all with varying levels of Pu-238 contamination, were found in the non-standard waste boxes. The characteristics of Pu-238 make it especially difficult to contain and control contamination; alpha recoil phenomena and nanometer particle sizes lend to the contamination exhibiting near gas like characteristics. The Idaho Cleanup Project Core contractor, Fluor Idaho, LLC, engineered and deployed a waste processing containment with specialized ventilation and processes to characterize and disposition this waste. This paper summarizes the successes and lessons learned from processing Pu-238-contaminated waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS1992

A comparison of shuttle vernier engine plume contamination with CONTAM 3.4 code predictions

In 1985, using the CONTAM 3.2 code, it was predicted that the shuttle Primary Reaction Control System (PRCS) and Vernier Reaction Control System (VRCS) engines could be potential contamination sources to sensitive surfaces located within the shuttle payload bay. Spaceflight test data on these engines is quite limited. Shuttle mission STS-32, the Long Duration Exposure Facility retrieval mission, was instrumented with an experiment that provided the design engineer with evidence that contaminant species from the VRCS engines can enter the payload bay. More recently, the most recent version of the analysis code, CONTAM 3.4, has re-examined the contamination potential of these engines.

Maag, Carl R.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Preliminary evaluation of the contaminant induced environment for the space shuttle orbiter

A preliminary evaluation of the on-orbit induced environment from identified major sources of contamination for the STS shuttle orbiter is presented. A contamination computer mathematical model is discussed that was used to develop the description and predictions of the induced environment along with the extent and physical makeup of the molecular induced environment from these sources. The predicted induced molecular environment from each source is evaluated against current Space Shuttle Program on-orbit contamination control criteria. The flash evaporator vents and the VCS 25-lb thrust engines are shown to significantly exceed applicable contamination control criteria and were the subject of extensive evaluation. Preliminary conclusions concerning the contaminant potential of these sources along with recommendations for various measures of contamination control regarding the shuttle orbiter design and operational activities are made.

Bareiss, L. E.↗
DOE OSTI2012

The Walls Come Tumbling Down: Decontamination and Demolition of 29 Manhattan Project and Cold War-Era Buildings and Structures at Los Alamos National Laboratory-12301

When the nation's top scientists and military leaders converged on Los Alamos, New Mexico in the 1943, to work on the Manhattan Project, the facilities they used to conduct their top-secret work were quickly constructed and located in the middle of what eventually became the Los Alamos town site. After one of these early facilities caught on fire, it seemed wise to build labs and production facilities farther away from the homes of the town's residents. They chose to build facilities on what was then known as Delta Prime (DP) Mesa and called it Technical Area 21, or TA-21. With wartime urgency, a number of buildings were built at TA-21, some in as little as a few months. Before long, DP Mesa was populated with several nondescript metal and cinder-block buildings, including what became, immediately following the war, the world's first plutonium production facility. TA-21 also housed labs that used hazardous chemicals and analyzed americium, tritium and plutonium. TA-21 was a bustling center of research and production for the next several decades. Additional buildings were built there in the 1960's, but by the 1990's many of them had reached the end of their service lives. Labs and offices were moved to newer, more modern buildings. When Los Alamos National Laboratory received $212 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in July 2009 for environmental cleanup projects, about $73 million of the funds were earmarked to decontaminate and demolish 21 of the old buildings at TA-21. Although some D and D of TA-21 buildings was performed in the 1990's, many of the facilities at DP Site remained relatively untouched for nearly three decades following their final operational use. In 2006, there were over three dozen buildings or structures on the mesa to be removed so that soil cleanup could be completed (and the land made available for transfer and reuse). The total footprint of buildings across the mesa was approximately 18,580 m{sup 2} (200,000 ft{sup 2}). The initially approved baseline for the ARRA D and D Project was to remove 22 buildings and structures that included approximately 14,680 m{sup 2} (158,000 ft{sup 2}) of footprint. By employing efficiencies during subcontracting, demolition, and waste segregation, the savings allowed an additional 1,580 m{sup 2} (17,000 ft{sup 2}) of footprint to be removed using ARRA funds. Additionally, the lessons learned from this experience were used to apply NNSA funding to the removal of six additional non-contaminated buildings and structures. In the end, 29 buildings and structures, including stacks, cooling towers and tanks, were removed from the mesa. The entire DP East area was cleared of buildings and sub-grade structures and the soils cleaned to residential standards. The total footprint reduction at TA-21 as a result of this effort was in excess of 17,650 m{sup 2} (190,000 ft{sup 2}). The use of a Laboratory self-performance team to start demolition of non-contaminated structures resulted in steady work performance early in the project while subcontracts were being put in place to perform more complicated abatement and contaminated demolition activities. Most importantly, there were no serious worker injuries and the minor injuries recorded were those common to construction type activities. Extensive monitoring along the site boundary demonstrated that no hazardous chemicals or radioactive contamination were released and radiological dose to the public was negligible. The ARRA demolition activities were completed six months in advance of the deadline for employing ARRA funds. Additionally, over 17,585 m{sup 3} (23,000 yds{sup 3}) of building demolition debris was safely removed from DP Mesa. All of the major buildings have been removed, unencumbered access to the SWMUs that are required to be cleaned up by the Consent Order with the state of New Mexico, has been achieved, and a significant portion of the mesa has been prepared to support a process that will eventually transfer this land from federal government control for further use. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Investigation robot on cables - 15250

The Decontamination and Decommissioning (D and D) Operations take place in hostile environments to the human intervention. In this context, robotic systems are a solution to achieve these operations while minimizing human intervention. Among these operations, the monitoring of lengthwise plant has to be performed in places where the radioactive contaminations make hostile environments. These monitoring operations need to measure several physics parameters in several locations in a precise and safe manner. These repetitive tasks can be made by robots that are simple, small sized and easily adaptable. In this scope, a robotic system on cables has been designed to control and monitor the inside of lengthwise nuclear facilities. In lengthwise installations, the using of cables allows to increase the covered zone of the robots which is an essential quality in such places. Unlike cable-driven parallel robots used in workspaces of 2D or 3D controlled by redundant tensioning motors, the current robot moves in a 1D workspace. Thus a tractors cable controlled by one tensioning motor is used to drive the robot on carrier cables. In this paper, we will describe the first results of this work by bringing out the innovation of our system. Then, we will discuss the perspective to upgrade the actual system whose applications could be perfectly imagined outside the nuclear D and D industry. (authors)

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2005

Amateur Cleanrooms: Costs May Not Offset Benefits

Contamination and Coatings Branch During my career at NASA, I have encountered a variety of cleanroom systems. With many projects, cost pressures and lack of adequate facilities have forced the managers to resort to amateur cleanrooms to manufacture spacecraft and instruments. These rooms are usually spaces that have been used for other purposes that are converted to cleanroom, usually without the assistance of a contamination control specialist. Often, scientists and engineers are successful in converting an area for experimental use. However, when the area is used for production, countless difficulties are encountered. This paper will document some of the disasters that I have personally witnessed and offer some guidelines for contamination professionals to follow if you are called upon to assist in the development of new cleanrooms. Cleanroom come in all shapes and sizes from special purpose mini-environments (such as flow benches) to large, expansive production facilities. These areas may require a variety of unit operations to be carried out within a short range of each other. The design of the cleanroom should account for compatibilities of these operations to protect the product and personnel. The level of cleanliness has traditionally been associated with the method of ventilation. However, just because and =ea has HEPA filters and greater that 20 air changes per hour does not mean that it is a cleanroom. Airflow is extremely complex; the only way to properly design a cleanroom is through the use of a computer based model. In the aerospace industry, few engineered cleanrooms are modeled. Modeling has been perceived as expensive; however, modern programs and fast computers are changing perception. It is the lack of appreciation for how air flow and location within a cleanroom affects the product that causes most of the problems I have experienced. Currently, the rules defining the best air flow design practices are based on simplistic historical data that are often wrong. The performance of a cleanroom is defined by a set of complex interactions between the airflow, sources of contamination and heat, position of the air terminals and exhausts as well as the objects occupying the space in question. These subtleties are almost never appreciated in the setup of amateur cleanrooms (and sadly, in some engineered cleanroom as well). Experience with the room, measurement of air flows in the room, and black light inspections can be used to

Ramsey, W. Lawrence↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Comet Astrobiology Exploration Sample Return (CAESAR) Mission

The Comet Astrobiology Exploration Sample Return (CAESAR) mission will acquire and return to Earth for laboratory analysis a minimum of 80 grams of surface material from the nucleus of comet 67P/Chur-yumov-Gerasimenko (67P). CAESAR will characterize the surface region sampled, preserve the collected sample in a pristine state, and return evolved volatiles by capturing them in a separate gas reservoir. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center provides project management, systems engineering, safety and mission assurance, contamination control, mission operations, and many other important functions. Northrop Grumman Space Systems will build the spacecraft, based on Dawn mission heritage, which like CAESAR, uses solar electric propulsion. CAESAR was selected by for Phase A study in the New Frontiers 4 Competition and will be proposed to New Frontiers 5.Collection of a sample from the surface of comet 67P is facilitated by a set of cameras that together provide images to support sample site selection, perform optical navigation, and document the sample before, during, and after col-lection. The sample is collected at the end of an arm during a 5-second touch-and-go (TAG) maneuver with the Sample Acquisition System (SAS)designed by Honeybee Robotics for the surface properties of comet 67P observed by the Rosetta mission. After sample collection, and while the sample is still cold (< -80°C), the TAG Arm inserts the sample container into the Sample Containment System (SCS) mounted inside the Sample Return Capsule (SRC). The SCS is sealed, preventing the sample from escaping into space. The sample is slowly warmed inside the SCS to enable sublimation of volatiles, which are collected in the Gas Containment System (GCS), a passively cooled gas reservoir. Separating the volatiles from the solid sample protects the solid sample from alteration. Once all sublimated H2O is transferred to the GCS, the GCS is sealed to capture the volatile sit contains, and the SCS is vented to space to maintain the solid sample under vacuum. The SCS vent is closed before Earth entry to prevent atmospheric contamination. Detailed laboratory analyses of the sample from 67P will trace the history of volatile reservoirs, delineate the chemical pathways that led from simple interstellar species to complex molecules, constrain the evolution of the comet, and evaluate the role of comets in delivering water and prebiotic organics to the early Earth. CAESAR will achieve these goals by carrying out coordinated sample analyses that will link macroscopic properties of the comet with microscale mineralogy, chemistry, and isotopic studies of volatiles and solids. Most of the sample (≥75%) will be set aside for analyses by generations of scientists using continually advancing tools and methods, yielding an enduring scientific treasure that only sample return can provide. This presentation will review development conducted during NF4 Phase A and discuss the NF5 mission concept.

A G Hayes↗
NASA NTRS2017

Trace Contaminant Control During the International Space Station's On-Orbit Assembly and Outfitting

During the International Space Station’s (ISS’s) on-orbit assembly and outfitting, a series of engineering analyses was conducted to evaluate how effective the passive trace contaminant control (TCC) methods were relative to providing adequate operational margin for the active TCC equipment’s capabilities aboard the ISS. These analyses were based on habitable module and cargo vehicle offgassing test results. The offgassing test for the fully assembled module or cargo vehicle is an important preflight spacecraft evaluation method that has been used successfully during all crewed spacecraft programs to provide insight into how effectively the passive contamination control methods limit the equipment offgassing component of the overall trace contaminant generation load. The progression of TCC assessments beginning in 1998 with the ISS’s first habitable element launch and continuing through the final pressurized element’s arrival in 2010 are presented. Early cargo vehicle flight assessments between 2008 and 2011 are also presented as well as a discussion on predictive methods for assessing cargo via a purely analytical technique.

Contamination control↗
NASA NTRS2014

Development, Implementation, and Pilot Evaluation of a Model-Driven Envelope Protection System to Mitigate the Hazard of In-Flight Ice Contamination on a Twin-Engine Commuter Aircraft

Fatal loss-of-control accidents have been directly related to in-flight airframe icing. The prototype system presented in this report directly addresses the need for real-time onboard envelope protection in icing conditions. The combination of prior information and real-time aerodynamic parameter estimations are shown to provide sufficient information for determining safe limits of the flight envelope during inflight icing encounters. The Icing Contamination Envelope Protection (ICEPro) system was designed and implemented to identify degradations in airplane performance and flying qualities resulting from ice contamination and provide safe flight-envelope cues to the pilot. The utility of the ICEPro system for mitigating a potentially hazardous icing condition was evaluated by 29 pilots using the NASA Ice Contamination Effects Flight Training Device. Results showed that real time assessment cues were effective in reducing the number of potentially hazardous upset events and in lessening exposure to loss of control following an incipient upset condition. Pilot workload with the added ICEPro displays was not measurably affected, but pilot opinion surveys showed that real time cueing greatly improved their awareness of a hazardous aircraft state. The performance of ICEPro system was further evaluated by various levels of sensor noise and atmospheric turbulence.

simulation training↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Genesis Solar Wind – Capture, Return, Curate and Analyze: Looking Backward and Creating a Timeline

Introduction: In 1997 NASA’S Discovery Program selected the Genesis mission proposal to return solar wind samples to Earth for laboratory analyses. Principal Investigator Donald S. Burnett and the science team defined the purity of collector materials and ability to analyze solar wind composition to the precision required for planetary science. As a small mission, focused on a well-defined science goal, yet needing careful attention to engineering details, the communication among scientists and engineers, nurtured by Don Burnett, was exceptional. Genesis Mission and Curation Legacy: Genesis, as the first U. S. spacecraft to return astromaterial samples since Apollo, not only integrated the mission planning and flight teams, but also the science and sample curation teams during the mission development period. Since Genesis is a sample return mission, the Science Team was essential in certifying the collectors (sample containers for solar atoms). From inception, Genesis established mission funding for returned sample curation. JSC was lead in contamination control during mission preparation, including establishment of an ISO 4 cleanroom facility and use of ultrapure water (UPW) for cleaning flight hardware (and, as it turned out, for cleaning collectors after the mishap). Reliable, fast communication among scientists, engineers and curators at the hands-on level established deep respect among team members and efficient decision-making. JSC’s 50-years of astromaterial sample curation provided experienced sample processors onsite during recovery in Utah (a deep bench for emergency response). Post-recovery curation included iterative collaboration with science sample users to clean or verify cleanliness of samples. The science legacy from Genesis is addressed by Burnett and Jurewicz, this volume. In The Beginning: After Apollo sample return, Burnett and Marcia Neugebauer at JPL began discussing a solar wind sample return, with Neugebauer arguing that separate collection of solar wind regimes was essential science. By 1992 a solar wind sample return mission was presented at a workshop, and by 1994 a mission was proposed named Suess-Urey. The mission was re-proposed under a new name GENESIS and selected in 1997. Susan Niebur captured the Genesis mission history and stories, from high level management documents and from many interviews with participants [2]. Her account lets readers glimpse personality of participants in quotations from interviews. Need and Scope for Detailed Technical Timeline: A timeline constructed from lower level task documents has been initiated to document the resources and skills actually used, as well as task sequence or concurrency. Timelines for high level mission events are captured in two documents [1] [2] and for detailed re-entry events in [3]. A detailed technical timeline for Genesis mission and curation activities will provide data points for lower level tasks, such as ISO 4 curation facility construction time, preparation for nominal sample field recovery, mishap recovery, and UPW expansion. Changes in technology context 1990-2024: Semiconductor technologies were easily accessible in the U.S.A. (1990-1999), and the Genesis team used those resources for cleanroom design and UPW system expansion. Image documentation was changing from film to digital during cleanroom construction and payload cleaning (1997-2001). Engineering design was done using computer aided design proprietary software, making more difficult the archiving of payload configuration and materials. Email of documents, tracked delivery service and virtual meeting capability greatly improved communication efficiency. Information sources – Pre-launch mission preparation: Examples of mission science, engineering and contamination control are collector purity testing, payload design/fabrication and ISO 4 cleanroom construction. Information on timing of these activities comes from facility readiness reviews, management reviews, shipping documents, procurement documents, test reports, travel documents, laboratory logs, Quality Assurance documents, dates on images, participant notebooks and emails. Information sources – Sample return re-entry and field recovery activities: Information comes from event timelines produced by Mid-Air Recovery team, Lockheed team lead notes and from chase video, JPL Quality Assurance. Information also comes from images and logbooks from UTTR cleanroom operations and from curatorial documents. Information sources – Resulting science and sample cleaning processes: Agendas from the annual gatherings of the science team initially trace testing for collector purity/cleanliness, and after sample recovery, include collector cleaning and cleanliness assessment. Post-recovery documents include curatorial orders and procedures, sample allocation documents and LPSC abstracts. Timeline Objectives: A simple spreadsheet timeline with headers DATE, EVENT, PEOPLE, COMMENT, INFORMATION SOURCE has been initiated and currently has over 90 entries. While this is not definitive historical research, it is a quick look at the evolution of Genesis curation with pointers to documents or people with information. Engineers for future missions may find useful points of comparison for development of facilities. References:[1] Genesis Mission Reference Document, (2011) JPL D-62382.[2] Niebur S. M., edited by Brown D. W. (2023) NASA’s Discovery Program: The First 20 Years of Competitive Planetary Exploration, NASA-SP-2023-4238.[3] Genesis Mishap Investigation Board Report, Vol. 1 (July 2005).

solar wind↗
DOE OSTI2018

Improving human health outcomes with a low-cost intervention to reduce exposures from lead acid battery recycling: Dong Mai, Vietnam

Highlights: • A low-cost soil lead mitigation project in Vietnam is detailed and assessed. • The effort resulted in substantial declines in biological and environmental lead levels. • The approach could be replicated elsewhere to address a commonly occurring issue. This study details the first comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of a soil lead mitigation project in Dong Mai village, Vietnam. The village's population had been subject to severe lead poisoning for at least a decade as a result of informal Used Lead Acid Battery (ULAB) recycling. Between July 2013 to February 2015, Pure Earth and the Centre for Environment and Community Development (Hanoi, Vietnam) implemented a multi-faceted environmental and human health intervention. The intervention consisted of a series of institutional and low-cost engineering controls including the capping of lead contaminated surface soils, cleaning of home interiors, an education campaign and the construction of a work-clothes changing and bathing facility. The mitigation project resulted in substantial declines in human and environmental lead levels. Remediated home yard and garden areas decreased from an average surface soil concentration of 3940 mg/kg to <100 mg/kg. One year after the intervention, blood lead levels in children (<6 years old) were reduced by an average of 67%—from a median of 40.4 μg/dL to 13.3 μg/dL. The Dong Mai project resulted in significantly decreased environmental and biological lead levels demonstrating that low-cost, rapid and well-coordinated interventions could be readily applied elsewhere to significantly reduce preventable human health harm.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗