DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition

Surface Sampling Guidance, 

Considerations, and Methods in 

Occupational Hygiene

by Kendra Broadwater MPH, CIH, CSP, NIOSH; Kevin Ashley, PhD, NIOSH (ret.); and Ronnee Andrews 

PhD, NIOSH

1 Introduction SG-2

2 Rationale for surface sampling SG-2

3 Collection methods SG-6

4 Sampling strategies SG-18

5 Criteria for surface contamination SG-23

6 Consensus standards and other resources for published surface sampling methods SG-24

7 Bulk sample collection SG-29

8 Summary SG-29

9 References SG-30
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-2 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

1 Introduction 

Work surfaces can become contaminated with chemical, biological, or radiological agents in 

different circumstances: during typical and emergency work activities, after accidental or 

intentional agent release and dispersal, or during naturally occurring processes. Skin (dermal) 

contact with contaminated surfaces has been recognized as an occupational exposure route 

resulting in dermal absorption and/or accidental ingestion [Boeniger 2003; Cherrie et al. 2006; EPA 

1995b, 2008; Ness 1994]. Surfaces can be sampled to assess these exposures or the potential for 

them. In fact, surface sampling followed with analysis is now widely used to evaluate contamination 

levels in workplaces [ASTM 2011b]. The data collected from surface and dermal sampling can be 

used when designing and evaluating mitigation and prevention strategies and can complement 

workplace air monitoring and other types of exposure assessments. 

Analytes of interest can often be sampled and analyzed using more than one method [Ashley et al. 

2011; Lichtenwalner 1992; McArthur 1992; Ness 1994]. Consistency in sampling and analyzing 

surface agents in occupational settings can be achieved by standardizing methods. Standardization

allows for reliable and high-quality comparisons of analytical results from samples collected across

different investigators, locations or surfaces, times, and sampling methods. Because sample

collection is usually responsible for the greatest measurement uncertainty in sampling and analysis,

developing and using standardized sampling methods should be a priority. Some standardized

methods for surface sampling have already been developed, validated, and published. However, for 

substances that do not have such methods, careful planning, consideration, and documentation of

the sampling strategies and methods used is necessary for high data quality and reliability.

This chapter provides information that will (1) aid in the selection of collection methods (e.g., 

surface sampling medium, wetting agent, and sampling technique), sample locations, and number

of samples; and (2) describe available resources for these decisions (e.g., standardized methods,

consensus standards, and regulations and their accompanying guidance). 

While we focus on surface and dermal sample collection and analyses here, other evaluation

techniques, such as using direct reading instruments (e.g., X-ray fluorescence, chemical spot tests), 

also apply.

2 Rationale for surface sampling

Surface sampling data can provide important information about surface contamination, or lack

thereof, in workplaces. Understanding and defining the purpose for collecting surface samples
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-3 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

before making a decision to take the samples or creating a sampling strategy are critical. The 

purposes and objectives for the surface sampling dictate several aspects of the sampling plan, such 

as the collection method, location, sample number, and analytical method. Primary objectives 

should include that the surface sampling data collected be defensible and meet the preestablished 

goals. 

The sampling strategy, which includes number, location, and method, will define how the data can 

be used. Therefore, these should be decided and thoroughly documented before sampling begins. 

Make sure the sample collection and analysis methods will meet the data quality objectives and 

performance requirements for the selected goals. Other concerns are the potential location and 

temporal variability in surface contamination. The change in contamination levels over time, or 

temporal variability, is related (1) to when and how the contaminating process happens and (2) to 

exposure controls such as containment or cleaning. These impact whether the collected samples 

accurately represent the contamination and partially dictate where samples should be taken (e.g.,

select locations likely to be highly contaminated). Collecting enough samples and using sampling 

areas of adequate size are required for defensible and useful data that meet the sampling strategy 

objectives. 

Some purposes for surface sampling in occupational settings are outlined in ASTM D7659-21 

Standard Guide for Strategies for Surface Sampling of Metals and Metalloids for Worker Protection

and summarized here [2021b]: 

• Hazard identification – To identify and quantify analyte(s) of interest in the workplace. This

information is used to evaluate risk, to develop and recommend worker protection

requirements, and to assess the probability of adverse health effects.

• Source and exposure pathway identification – To determine the process or origin that

contribute to the presence of the analyte(s) of interest, the fraction of emission coming from

each source, and how workers may be exposed during these processes. Exposure pathway

identification may also look at if contaminants migrate into workers’ vehicles or homes

[NIOSH 1995].

• Exposure assessment – To measure or evaluate potential exposure when a health hazard is

known or suspected to be present. Assessment may be conducted for similar exposure groups

(workers in the same location or in the same role with similar exposure potential). Select,

whenever possible, instrumentation and methods that offer the lowest available analytical

reporting limits for the analyte that is undergoing assessment. The reporting limit should be

below any regulatory limit for a particular agent or level that can lead to adverse health

outcomes, if that level is known.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-4 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

• Site characterization – To find the surface contamination levels within a facility at an initial

or baseline point, during or after process or engineering controls operations, or as part of

facility decommissioning.

• Selection of exposure controls – To determine which exposure controls (engineering,

administrative, personal protective equipment) should be used and how efficient collection or

capture control devices need to be to reduce or eliminate deposition or to remove material

that has already been deposited.

• Evaluation of controls, including housekeeping – To measure the efficiency of exposure

controls, amount of the analyte(s) of interest passing or escaping from an exposure control,

and to help identify the reason (e.g., poor design, leaks, wear, damage, inadequate

maintenance, overloading, or accidents). Surface sampling before and after housekeeping or

decontamination can be used evaluate the cleaning methods or materials.

• Compliance with regulations and standards – To satisfy regulatory or legal requirements and

determine if exposures and/or contaminant surface concentrations in the workplace are

below regulatory or guidance limits.

• Education and training – To educate workers and managers in the importance of the

hierarchy of controls, which includes elimination and substitution, engineering controls, and

administrative (e.g., training, policy and procedures, housekeeping, and good work practices)

controls and personal protective equipment.

• Complaint or concern investigation – To look into concerns of workers, management,

regulatory agencies, or other interested parties.

Results from surface sampling and analysis should not be used to the exclusion of other information 

concerning potential chemical, radiological, and biological hazards; rather, surface sampling data 

should be used to augment data from other sources of contamination or exposure. For instance, 

additional sources of exposure information may include occupational air sampling, bioassay and 

biomonitoring results, clinical observations, quality and process control data, records of facility 

operations, visual inspections, and material balance studies. Different types of samples can be paired 

together to increase sampling strategy efficiency. For example, direct reading qualitative and semiquantitative colorimetric methods using wipes, or swabs and a reagent such as those for lead (Pb)

(NIOSH 9105) and hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] (NIOSH 9101) can be used alone. However, they 

can also be used for on-site screening, to discern where surface samples for subsequent quantitative 

analysis should be collected. Direct reading screening methods exist for methamphetamine and 

fentanyl on surfaces and can be carried out using colorimetry and/or immunochemical assay 

techniques [Angelini et al. 2019; Snawder et al. 2011]. These techniques (Table 1) can be used to 

complement surface wipe measurement methods for methamphetamines. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-5 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Consider these technical factors and variables when sampling a surface for any contaminant

[adapted from Connor et al. 2016]: 

Location and sample surface(s) considerations:

• Design and layout of area to be sampled

• Locations that are to be sampled relative to process and work

• Nature of surface to be sampled (e.g., surface texture, loading, shape)

• Surface size(s) and area(s) to sample

• Chemicals in use at site(s) that could be present

• Loading/contamination level: trace, highly contaminated, variability across surface, etc.

Sampling process considerations:

• Type and material of sampler to be used

• Validated sampling and analytical methods used

• Recovery efficiency from surface with given sampling method (typically unknown, unless

trials are conducted or efficiencies have been published)

• Wetting agent to maximize recovery efficiency

• Exposure controls for investigators conducting sampling

Analytical considerations:

• Number of samples to be taken

• Presence and identification of possible interferences

• Chemistry (e.g., polarity, pH) of extraction solvent

• Dynamic range of analytical method: accuracy at low, medium, and high levels of analyte

• Extraction efficiency from surface sampling media

• Compatibility of extraction solution with analytical reagents

• Properties of the analytes

• Stability of analyte in extraction solvent/sampling medium or media

• Limits of detection and quantitation for analyte

One should also consider the history of the surface being sampled, for instance, the time and 

duration of its last use, any contaminating process, and the time and method of its last cleaning. The 

analyte’s possible origins should also be considered and documented beforehand. This information 

can be used to determine the timing and technique for sampling the surface, relative to any 

contaminating processes and housekeeping activities. It can be helpful to understand this history

during data interpretation. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-6 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Table 1. NIOSH methods for sample collection from surfaces in workplaces and related 

environments* 

Method No. Sampling 

Media/Substrate

Target Analyte(s) Comments 

NIOSH 9100 Wetted wipe Pb Harmonized with ASTM E1728; subsequent 

analysis by atomic spectrometry or 

electroanalysis

NIOSH 9101 Settled dust sample Cr(VI) Qualitative colorimetric screening method 

using diphenylcarbazide

NIOSH 9102 Wetted wipe Elements Harmonized with ASTM D6966; subsequent 

analysis by atomic spectrometry

NIOSH 9105 Wetted wipe Pb Qualitative colorimetric screening method 

using rhodizonate

NIOSH 9106 Solvent-wetted wipe Methamphetamine 

and related drugs and 

compounds

Harmonized with ASTM D6661; liquidliquid extraction sample preparation 

followed by gas chromatography-mass 

spectrometric analysis

NIOSH 9109 Solvent-wetted wipe Methamphetamine 

and related drugs and 

compounds

Harmonized with ASTM D6661; solid-phase 

extraction sample preparation followed by 

gas chromatography-mass spectrometric 

analysis

NIOSH 9110 Wetted wipe Be Harmonized with ASTM D7202; subsequent 

analysis by molecular fluorescence

NIOSH 9111 Solvent-wetted wipe Methamphetamine Harmonized with ASTM D6661; desorption 

using sulfuric acid followed by liquid 

chromatography-mass spectrometric 

analysis

*Methods available at www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam. Pb = lead; Be = beryllium; Cr(VI) = hexavalent chromium

3 Collection methods 

Sample collection methods include the sample medium and technique appropriate for use based on 

the physical nature of surface to be sampled. The following materials, qualities, or conditions are 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-7 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

examples of what to consider to better understand representative surfaces, contamination types and 

amount, and sample media that are of interest for surface (including dermal) sampling [Ashley et al. 

2011]: 

• Physical nature of surfaces

o Hard or soft

o Smooth or rough

o Porous or nonporous

o Fragile or durable substrates

• Cleanliness of surfaces

o Oily or coated surfaces

o Grossly contaminated surfaces

• Skin (exposed and/or protected)

• Clothing and personal protective equipment

• Bulk materials, for example, soils, deposited dusts, spilled materials

Available sample media can be made from a variety of materials (e.g., polyvinyl alcohol, quartz 

fiber, mixed cellulose ester, polycarbonate membrane, cellulose sponge, continuous filament cloth, 

macrofoam sponge, polyurethane foam) and come in several formats, such as dry or wetted wipes, 

swabs, and filters. When vacuum sampling, a container or a filter is needed. Sampling can also be 

done using rinses, typically for dermal sampling, or adhesive tapes. Collecting multiple analytes can

require distinct media or sample preparation for each analyte or class of analyte and, thus, need 

multiple, nonoverlapping surface samples. 

a. Collection efficiency

Understanding measurement accuracy, variability, and sample collection efficiency is

fundamental when collecting surface samples. Collection efficiency is the amount of analyte

collected and measured from a surface material divided by the total amount deposited on the

area sampled. It is reported as a percentage, so the result is multiplied by 100. Together,

sample medium, wetting agent, and collection technique will affect collection efficiency and

the analytical/quantitative results. Collection efficiency can also be affected by the degree to

which a contaminant is physically or chemically bound to the surface being sampled.

Collection efficiency differs from sampler extraction efficiency. Sampler extraction efficiency

is the fraction of total analyte recovered from the sampling media and measured during

analysis. It is determined using analyte deposited directly on the sampling media. Collection

efficiency can be characterized through experiments prior to sampling. When available,

characterization can be found through literature reviews about the target analyte, sampling
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-8 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

surface characteristics (e.g., porosity, material) and sampling data, and sampling method. 

OSHA describes one method of characterizing collection efficiency that entails sampling a 

smooth and nonporous surface deposited with a known amount of analyte [OSHA 2000]. 

OSHA suggests that a collection efficiency of below 50% for a method on an ideal surface 

would be insufficient and an alternative wetting agent or sampling medium should then be 

evaluated [OSHA 2000]. ASTM established a minimum of 75% collection efficiency for wipe 

sampling materials for Pb and beryllium (Be) in surface dust [ASTM 2020, 2021c]. 

The collection efficiency for a specific collection method can be impacted by surface 

conditions as well as the manner the contaminant deposited on the surface (e.g., settling, 

impaction, static forces). Ideally, sampling collection efficiencies should be characterized using 

the same physical form as the material present on workplace surfaces. For example, when 

conducting collection efficiency experiments, analytes of interest may need to be deposited on 

a surface in a manner similar to workplace conditions rather than using a liquid spike of the

analyte. Collection efficiencies are included in some published surface sampling methods or in 

research cited in the method [ASTM 2017a,b, 2018a,b, 2020, 2021c; Dufay and Archuleta 

2006; EPA 1995b; ISO 2011; Millson et al. 1994; NIOSH 2003, 2011a,b; Roberts et al. 1991; 

Wheeler and Stancliffe 1998]. The collection efficiency depends on several factors, such as the

collection method, surface type, and surface condition (e.g., cleanliness, temperatures, skin). 

Collection efficiencies from surfaces for the agent and sampling method should be evaluated 

and documented, along with results, absent previously reported research or methods for the 

employed collection method (sampling media, wetting agent, sampling technique) and surface 

type. 

Sequential or serial sampling—taking and analyzing multiple samples of a templated area or 

hands—can be an option to increase collection from a surface, particularly if the amount of 

contaminant (or debris) on the surface is high. However, limited research evaluating or 

characterizing serial sampling is available. Some work has evaluated recovery from dermal 

surfaces using multiple wipes [Beaucham et al. 2019; Boeniger 2006]. Thus far, this practice 

has not been included in many standard and reference surface sampling methods, while others

(e.g., NIOSH 9106, NIOSH 9212, ASTM D6661-17) allow its use with appropriate 

documentation and/or for specific purposes, such as estimating residual contamination at 

regular sampling [ASTM 2017b; NIOSH 2011a]. 

b. Sampling with wet or dry media

Wetting sampling media often improves collection efficiency and should be considered and

evaluated for appropriateness [Ashley et al. 2009]. Wipes can be wetted with a variety of
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-9 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

liquids (e.g., deionized/distilled water, ascorbic acid, phosphate buffers, alcohols, or organic 

solvents). Sampling methods for elements (metals and metalloids) normally entail the use of 

wipes wetted with water, whereas surface wipe sampling for methamphetamine and related 

compounds uses wipes dosed with solvents such as methanol or isopropanol (2-propanol). 

While wetting agents may be chosen to increase the absorptive capacity of the media for a 

particular media relative to dry media, their desorptive properties (i.e., the ability to remove 

the agent from the media for analysis) vary [Venables and Schmuttenmaer 2000]. Review

available literature and method documentation before selecting sampling media and deciding 

whether it will be used wet or dry, and with which wetting agent. 

A hierarchy of sample collection methods is generally referred to when choosing surface 

sampling media for metals [ASTM 2021b]. First, consider wetted wipe sampling, particularly 

if collecting material from smooth, hard, nonporous, and nonelectrified substrates. As an 

example, wipe sampling has been shown to be an effective means for assessing aerosol 

deposition in occupational settings [Nygren 2006]. Sometimes wetted wipe sampling may not 

be desirable, and dry sample collection techniques are required. For example, when surface 

materials or components must be protected against potential damage from the wetting agents

or when the wetting agents may cause the contaminant to migrate into a porous or complex

surfaces (e.g., wood, concrete, carpet). In these situations, less aggressive methods (such as 

nondrying or noncorrosive) or methods more compatible with the substrate being sampled 

are sometimes called for. These can include mild vacuuming, tape lifting, rinsing methods, or 

the use of dry swabs. For example, museum artifacts preserved using mercury or arsenic 

should be sampled with methods that preserve the surface’s integrity [Makos 2001; Sirois 

2001]. 

When sampling surfaces quantitatively as a surrogate for possible exposure, the sample

collection method should not degrade the sample surface in a way that contributes to an 

inaccurate overestimation of analyte available on the surface. For samples that undergo 

microscopy, dry collection methods such as tape lifting would often be appropriate. Select 

dermal surface sampling methods (i.e., medium, wetting agent, and technique) that minimize

irritation, damage, and other health effects and prevent the contaminant or wetting agent

from migrating across the dermal barrier [ASTM 2011b; ISO 2011; Ness 1994]. For example, 

to sample polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on skin, one might use corn or sunflower 

oil rather than hexane [Fent et al. 2014; Fent et al. 2017; OSHA 2000; Väänänen et al. 2005]. 

Collection efficiencies using wetted wipes for collecting lead oxide dust from smooth, hard 

surfaces, have been evaluated and exceed 75% [Chavalitnitikul and Levin 1984; EPA 1995b]. 

In related work, a comparison of wet vs. dry sampling was performed on hard, smooth 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-10 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

surfaces spiked with Be [Dufay and Archuleta 2006]. They found that wetted wipe sampling 

usually results in a much higher collection efficiency (64%–106%) than does sample collection 

using dry wipes (14%–43%). In earlier studies, a comparison of wipe sampling methods for Be 

was carried out wherein dry, water-wetted, and alcohol-based wipe methods were evaluated 

for how effective each was in removing beryllium-containing dust from painted surfaces [Kerr 

2004]. The study found alcohol to be most effective for removing Be dust from oily surfaces, 

while dry wipes were least effective for this purpose. These studies have served to provide 

necessary data in support of standardized wipe sampling protocols for metals (e.g., ASTM 

D6966). 

Wetted wipes have been studied for assessing antibiotics and antineoplastic drugs surface 

contamination. Using cellulosic wipes wetted with ethanol, recoveries of various antibiotic 

substances from different surface materials were analyzed with high-performance liquid 

chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) [Nygren and Lindahl 2011]. Sampling 

recoveries from smooth surfaces were determined acceptable (i.e., quantitative or semiquantitative) for several antibiotics, but the high reactivity of certain agents led to low or 

erratic recoveries for some substances.

Surface sampling studies of pesticide residues showed wetted wipes offered the highest 

recovery efficiencies. A comparison study between solvent-moistened wipes and a press 

sampler found solvent-wetted wipe sampling from hard surfaces removed 84%–97% of all 

pesticides while a press sampler recovered only 17%–55% [Bernard et al. 2008]. A press 

sampler consists of a handle, sampling block, and cassette assembly that uses springs to press a 

sampling material, cotton or polyurethane in this study, against the surface being sampled. 

Studies of wipe materials and wetting agents for collecting pesticide residues from hard 

surfaces have shown that isopropanol-wetted cellulosic wipes yielded acceptable recoveries for 

a variety of pesticides and their residues, as well as related organic compounds [Cettier et al. 

2015; Deziel et al. 2011]. In other work, wipe materials and solvents were evaluated for surface 

sampling of chemical warfare agents and for wipe recoveries from representative surfaces 

[Willison 2012, 2015]. These wipe sampling protocols are harmonized with a relevant 

voluntary consensus standard for sampling nonvolatile organic compounds, ASTM D6661 

(Table 2).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-11 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Table 2. Selected ASTM standards for sample collection from surfaces in workplaces and related 

environments*

ASTM Standard 

Designation

Sampling 

Media/Device 

Target Substrate(s) 

Sampled

Comments 

ASTM D5438 Modified upright 

vacuum cleaner 

Floors Applicable to sampling from carpets; 

multiple analytes

ASTM D5755 Micro-vacuum sampler General surfaces Applicable to collection of asbestos fibers

ASTM D6333 Polyurethane foam roller Floors Applicable to collection of pesticide 

residues

ASTM D6480 Low-fiber/continuous 

filament wipe

Smooth surfaces Applicable to collection of asbestos fibers

ASTM D6602 Cotton balls, wipes or 

tape lift

General surfaces Applicable to sampling of soot, carbon 

black, biofilms, etc.

ASTM D6661 Solvent-wetted wipe Smooth surfaces Applicable to sampling of non-volatile 

organic compounds

ASTM D6966 Wetted wipe Smooth surfaces Various wetting agents can be used; 

applicable to metals and metalloids

ASTM D7144 Sampling cassette with 

collection nozzle

Rough, porous, uneven 

surfaces; fragile surfaces 

“Micro-vacuum” dust sampling for 

metals and metalloids; potentially 

applicable to other agents

ASTM D7296 Dry wipe Fragile surfaces Applicable to Be—special cases; 

potentially extendable to other analytes

ASTM D7707 Be wipe specification Smooth surfaces Applicable to Be sampling; potential 

applicability to other elements; 

regulatory applications

ASTM D7789 Swab sampler (sterile) General surfaces Applicable to sampling of fungi

ASTM D7910 Adhesive tape General surfaces Applicable to sampling of fungi

ASTM E1216 Adhesive tape Smooth surfaces Applicable to multiple analytes; poor 

collection efficiency for ultrafine 

particles; might damage fragile substrates 

ASTM E1728 Wetted wipe Smooth surfaces Applicable to Pb sampling; regulatory 

applications

ASTM E1792 Pb wipe specification Smooth surfaces Applicable to Pb sampling; potential 

applicability to other elements; 

regulatory applications

ASTM E2458 Swab sampler General surfaces Applicable to suspected biological agents 

in powders

*Standards available at www.astm.org. Pb = lead; Be = beryllium

c. Vacuum sampling

Consider vacuum sampling when the surface cannot be wiped, when surface wipe methods are

not expected to have acceptable collection efficiencies, or when the analyte or the physical
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-12 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

form is best collected via vacuum. Vacuum sampling is generally preferred for soft or rough, 

porous surfaces and has been done for a variety of agents, including bacterial spores. Vacuumbased sampling methods have been evaluated for their ability to recover Bacillus spores from 

surfaces [Calfee et al. 2013; Calfee et al. 2019]. Relative and absolute recoveries of a Bacillus

anthracis surrogate for four commonly used vacuum sampling devices from three 

representative surface types (carpet, concrete, and upholstery) were measured after dosing the 

surfaces with aerosolized spores. Generally, higher relative recoveries were obtained by using a 

micro-vacuum sampling filtration method, which is harmonized with a consensus standard 

technique (ASTM D7144; Table 2). These and similar data can be used to support the 

validation of standardized vacuum sampling techniques [Creek et al. 2006] for microbiological 

samples. 

The ASTM International high-volume vacuum collection method for worn carpeted surfaces 

(ASTM D5438; Table 2) has been evaluated using reference material. Dust collection 

efficiencies of about 80% and greater were reported for various types of carpets, and recoveries 

were higher from new carpets [Svendsen et al. 2006]. Previous investigations of vacuum 

collection systems reported low collection efficiencies of dust on carpets (<75%) and effective 

collection (>75%) on smooth, hard surfaces [EPA 1995b]. A study evaluated a low-air volume 

“micro-vacuum” collection method developed by ASTM International (ASTM D7144; Table 

2) [Ashley et al. 2007]. Here, collection efficiencies from a variety of representative substrates

were reported based on gravimetric analysis. Although recoveries were generally lower

(<75%), researchers emphasized that standardizing the micro-vacuum sampling technique

should ensure data comparison through harmonization of the sampling device and collection

procedure. However, losses were reported because significant amounts of material were

captured within the collection nozzles of the micro-vacuum samplers. Improving the design of

vacuum samplers, where the collection inlet is incorporated into the body of the samplers,

may improve collection efficiencies in the future [Creek et al. 2006]. While removing the

material from within the collection nozzles may be possible, in practice this is difficult to

achieve.

In air sampling, researchers have identified material losses to the sampling cassette’s walls. 

Guidance has been developed to recover those losses, such as using conductive cassettes, 

improving the cassette design, using cassette inserts, or wiping or washing the inside of the 

cassette [ASTM 2021a; NIOSH 2016a]. Similar corrective measures can be considered to 

minimize cassette and collection nozzle losses during vacuum surface sampling. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-13 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

d. Dermal sampling

Dermal sampling, including removal and interception techniques, can be one component of a

dermal exposure assessment [Boeniger et al. 2015; Semple and Cherrie 2003]. Hundreds of

chemicals have been identified to have risks for significant dermal exposures (i.e., transdermal

absorption, systemic toxicity, or allergic sensitization). However, the importance of dermal

exposures has been often overlooked or underestimated relative to inhalational exposures

largely because of the lack of dermal exposure criteria [ACGIH 2021; NIOSH 2010]. An

extensive bibliography on occupational dermal health effects has been compiled [NIOSH

2009]. This document serves as a general resource for information on occupational dermal

exposures and health effects.

Numerous studies have proposed what to consider for occupational dermal exposure

assessments [Fenske 1993; Frasch et al. 2014; Schneider et al. 1999]. In view of this, the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published a standard technical report

(ISO/RD 14294:2011) outlining criteria for the assessment of occupational dermal exposure

[ISO 2011]. This international standard complements the dermal sampling methods listed in

Table 3. In general, there are four main objectives for assessing dermal exposure [Fenske

1993]:

1. Research on the adverse health effects of chemical exposures to include (a)

conducting epidemiological investigations and risk assessments, (b) studying possible

associations between skin exposure and adverse health effects, (c) developing

exposure-response relationships for risk assessment, and (d) estimating disease

burden due to skin exposures.

2. Evaluation of exposure processes and pathways to assist in developing, implementing,

and evaluating exposure control measures or interventions.

3. Compliance, compensation claims, forensics, or litigation (if applicable).

4. Education and training, including intervention protocols that might include the use

of screening techniques to aid in workers’ understanding of their (and, potentially,

their household members’) exposure pathways.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-14 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Table 3. Standardized guidance and procedures for sample collection from dermal surfaces

Method(s) Sampling 

Media/Procedure

Target Analyte(s) Comments 

ASTM D7822 Wetted wipe Elements on delineated 

area of skin

Subsequent analysis by 

atomic spectrometry or 

equivalent technique(s)

ISO/TR 14294 Wipes, patch samples, 

dermal rinses, gloves, 

clothing, etc.

Multiple analytes on 

dermal or interception 

surfaces

Guidance on sampling 

strategies and specific 

dermal exposure 

assessment protocols

NIOSH* 3600, 3601, 

9200, 9201, 9202, 9205

Patch samples, hand 

rinses

Multiple analytes on 

dermal surfaces

Applicable to pesticides, 

metalworking fluids, etc.; 

may apply to other agents

NIOSH* 9100, 9102, 9110 Wetted wipe Elements on delineated 

area of skin

Harmonized with ASTM 

D7822; subsequent 

quantitative analysis

NIOSH* 9101, 9105 Wipe: nonwetted 

(Cr(VI)); prewetted (Pb)

Cr(VI) or Pb on dermal 

surfaces

Qualitative colorimetric 

screening techniques

OSHA (various) [OSHA 

2003b]

Patch samples, hand 

rinses

Multiple analytes on 

dermal surfaces

Various sampling and 

analytical protocols; also 

clothing, gloves, etc.

*NIOSH methods available at www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam. Pb = lead; Cr(VI)= hexavalent chromium

Conceptual models of dermal exposure have been outlined based on the body of relevant 

scientific literature [Boeniger et al. 2015; Fenske 1993]. Specific models include 

RISKOFDERM, DeRmal Exposure Assessment Methodology, the American Industrial 

Hygiene Association (AIHA) conceptual model for dermal exposure assessment, and the 

ECETOC Targeted Risk Assessment model [Boeniger et al. 2015; ECETOC 2004, 2009, 2010; 

van Wendel de Joode et al. 2005]. Other exposure models, such as the EPA ChemSTEER and 

Consumer Exposure Models, have dermal components [EPA 2013, 2019]. The models can 

form the bases for choosing measurement methods for assessing dermal exposures and 

pathways. Dermal exposure assessment is often carried out through direct sampling from skin 

via wipe sampling, tape stripping, rinsing techniques, or direct reading (in situ) measurement 

methods [Frasch et al. 2014; Schneider et al. 1999]. Indirect dermal exposure assessment 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-15 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

methods include interception methods such as patch sampling and sampling of clothing or 

gloves [Fenske 1993; Frasch et al. 2014; ISO 2011; Schneider et al. 1999]. 

Characterizing dermal exposure via sampling, particularly of volatile compounds, can entail 

skin tape sampling and interception sampling. Skin taping removes a thin layer of skin cells 

for subsequent analysis. Interception sampling techniques include the application of sorptive 

samplers on the skin or clothing that are worn during work and then removed for analysis 

[OSHA 2014]. Volatile and semivolatile compounds may not completely remain on the skin to 

be sampled using removal sampling techniques, leading to an underestimate of exposure if the 

volatile fraction is not accounted for. Residence time on the skin can impact collection 

efficiency [ASTM 2019]. Conversely, sampling methods or media that capture volatile 

fractions that never made contact with the skin can lead to overestimation of exposure. 

Many of the considerations for carrying out dermal sampling mirror those outlined earlier for 

collecting nondermal surface samples. When planning hand or skin wipe sampling, consider 

the source of the analyte. For agents found both inside and outside the occupational 

environment, such as flame retardants, preshift hand washing can reduce the risk of 

attributing non-occupational contamination to the workplace, and preshift dermal sampling 

can reveal the amount of contamination present before the participant enters the workplace. 

Standardized methods that pertain to dermal sample collection and analysis are summarized 

in Table 3. Applications to the sampling and analysis of metals and organics are exemplified in 

a number of these protocols. Techniques for dermal wipe sampling for subsequent elemental 

analysis are published in ASTM D7822 [ASTM 2019]. Dermal sampling protocol using patch 

samples or rinses has been described briefly in several OSHA and NIOSH methods (Table 3). 

Many dermal sampling techniques need to be further standardized, particularly for organic 

analytes (such as pharmaceuticals) and reactive species (such as isocyanates) [ASTM 2011b]. 

NIOSH researchers studied the effectiveness of dermal wipe sampling for Pb using different 

wipe sample media [Boeniger 2006]. More than half of the leaded dust (≈60%) was recovered 

after collecting a sample with one wipe; successive wiping increased lead dust removal (≈90%) 

from hands. In related research, effective decontamination of Pb on workers’ hands using a 

specially formulated handwipe was shown to perform better than ordinary soap and 

commercial skin cleansers [Esswein et al. 2011; NIOSH 1996]. Such techniques can also be 

useful to decontaminate Pb and other metals in workplace environments. To date, apart from 

exceptions shown in Table 3, dermal sampling procedures have not been well standardized. 

This has led to difficulties in evaluating and comparing data from a variety of different studies

[Brouwer et al. 2000; ISO 2011]. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-16 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Data collected by dermal sample techniques are often confounded by multiple factors. These 

can include the reactivity of the agent(s) of concern, the ability of the analyte to pass through 

the skin, the variability of contaminant levels between different areas of the body, and 

variances in skin surfaces [Fenske 1993; Schneider et al. 1999]. Nevertheless, dermal sampling 

methods for chemicals (e.g., pesticides, metalworking fluids) and biological agents (e.g., 

bacteria, viruses) should be harmonized to the extent possible. This task remains an important 

area for further research and development. 

Under Section 4 of the Toxic Substances and Control Act of 2016 (TSCA), the EPA can 

require chemical manufacturers and importers to develop and submit information on existing 

chemicals for subsequent risk evaluation. Test orders can require dermal wipe sampling to 

complement other exposure and skin permeation testing, but do not proscribe the sampling 

method [EPA 2021a]. 

e. Sampling area and technique

Sampling techniques are often standardized by the sample area, sampling pattern, and the

number of passes across a fixed sample area. Normally, the minimum area for sample

collection is 100 square centimeters (cm2

), which is about 16 square inches (in2). This is

typically delineated using templates of standard sample areas (i.e., 100 cm2

, 4 in2, 1 ft2). Using a

template and a specified sample area are particularly important to compare samples or to

follow regulatory or consensus limits, such as Be, Pb, and polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs)[10 CFR § 850, 1999; 40 CFR § 761, 1978].

To prevent cross contamination between samples, use a new, disposable template for each

sample. Although it is not best practice, reusable templates may be used and cleaned between

samples, unless disallowed by the published method being followed. To the same end, gloves

should be worn and changed between samples, particularly when the sampling media is

handled during sampling [OSHA 2000]. For samples where a handle is attached to the media

(e.g., swab sample) and where the tip is broken into a sample container for storage before

analysis, gloves aren’t essential to prevent cross-contamination. Most NIOSH surface

sampling methods are harmonized with related ASTM standards (Table 2).

Methods may call for the surface area to be sampled/wiped in a “Z or S” pattern in two or

three complete passes with the media being folded between passes to prevent analyte loss back

to the surface and to use the entire medium collection surface. Swab techniques might call for

turning the swab during sampling. The passes on a surface within a template are typically in

different directions (i.e., one sampling pass being perpendicular to the subsequent pass). For
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-17 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

example, NIOSH sampling methods for Bacillus anthracis spores from smooth, nonporous 

surfaces instruct the sample collector to take multiple passes and use the full surface area of 

the sample media [NIOSH 2012]. NIOSH developed two methods: one using a cellulose 

sponge and a 100 in2 template, the other using a macrofoam swab and a 4 in2 template. Both 

techniques use a buffer that inactivates halogen disinfectants and quaternary ammonium 

compounds and require a specific sampling pattern. Each was meant for a particular type of 

surface, distinct from each other. NIOSH researchers created videos to demonstrate and train 

sampling staff [NIOSH 2015]. 

f. Other sampling considerations

Details should be decided upon during the planning process. For example, sample storage and

transportation needs should be accounted for. Samples may have to be refrigerated to

maintain analyte stability while awaiting analysis. Any possible analytical interferences present

at the site should be reported to the analytical laboratory. Samples for a reactive or unstable

compound may need to be treated with a stabilizing or derivatizing agent immediately after

sampling [OSHA 2000]. Some sampling materials, like the wetting agent or analyte, may have

shipping label and safety regulatory requirements.

Additionally, a job hazard analysis should be done for the sampling process to determine

which exposure controls are needed during surface sample collection. For example, sample

collectors should use gloves to prevent skin absorption of hexane-wetted gauze during surface

wipe sampling for PCBs. The sample collector’s exposures should be characterized and not

exceed occupational exposure limits or safety limits (e.g., recommended exposure limits

[RELs], permissible exposure limits [PELs], threshold limit values [TLVs®

], concentrations

immediately dangerous to life or health [IDLH]). Such exposures could be related to the

operations in the workplace undergoing assessment or to sampling (e.g., volatile solvent

wetting agents). Sample collectors should be trained on the selected sampling technique and

exposure controls that should be used to protect the sample collector. Generally, at minimum,

gloves should be worn during the entire sample collection process to prevent both exposure to

possibly hazardous agents and external contamination of the sample or surface being sampled.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-18 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

4 Sampling strategies

a. Number and statistical considerations in selecting a

sampling approach

Developing a sampling strategy requires careful selection of sampling location and number to

meet sampling goals. Two primary sampling strategy categories when it comes to sample

location and number are judgement sampling and random sampling. Traditionally, selection

of sample locations and numbers has relied on targeted judgement. In targeted judgement

sampling (also called professional judgement, best engineering judgement, or targeted

sampling), information about the process and history of the workplace is used to choose

sample locations. Typically, work surfaces employees have contact with and that are

determined to most likely be contaminated or to have the highest contamination are selected

for sampling. Targeted judgement sampling commonly includes surfaces that may pose the

greatest risk of exposure for workers. These surfaces can be used for initial site

characterization to identify the extent of contamination and locations for cleaning and resampling. However, because the selected surfaces are not random, the results of this type of

sampling are intrinsically biased. Therefore, statistical conclusions cannot be made as to how

much amount analyte is on unsampled surfaces. Targeted judgement sampling is useful in

emergent situations and for screening ahead of random sampling. Additionally, the success of

this strategy to identify contaminated areas relies on the accuracy of the judgments being

made about the contaminating process. The accuracy of professional judgement to identify

areas of high surface contamination has not been systematically assessed in peer-reviewed

literature, but professional judgement of air sampling concentrations has been shown to

improve with experience, education, and trainings [Logan et al. 2011].

The number of samples collected should be determined by the purpose of the sampling, need

and ability to collect representative samples, and statistical considerations. If it is determined

that as a single sample is unlikely to be representative of the range of surface contamination

levels, taking multiple samples on a single surfaces may need to be investigated. Surface

sampling is limited to the amount of surface area available, potentially constraining the

number of surface samples that can be taken. The precision of surface contamination

estimates increases with the number of samples collected. The accuracy of the sampling may

or may not increase with the number of samples collected. Some published consensus

methods state that sample numbers should be sufficient to perform desired statistical

comparisons [ASTM 2018c, 2021b].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-19 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

When planning, it is essential to consider how certain measurements would impact how the 

results are used. For example, values for censored data (results below a specified reporting 

limit) need to be agreed upon before sampling and may increase the number of samples 

needed to perform statistical comparisons. Be regulations call for sufficient sampling to meet a 

minimum confidence level [DOE 1999]. For some surfaces, the surface area will dictate the 

number of samples that can be collected. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

has developed a software tool, Visual Sample Plan (https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/visualsample-plan), that can assist in decisions about the number of samples needed to meet given 

sampling objectives. 

1.) Statistical sampling approaches

In cases where statistical confidence is needed as to the cleanliness or contamination of

both sampled and unsampled surfaces in a building or workplace, random sampling 

strategies can provide information to make statistics-based statements about 

contamination or cleanliness. Random sampling is also called probabilistic sampling.

Purely random sampling strategies may be very costly and time-intensive to fully 

characterize surface contamination and to meet precision objectives without the benefit 

of targeted or professional judgement. 

Hybrid approaches combining random sampling and targeted judgement strategies [EPA 

2021c, d; Sego et al. 2007; Seiler et al. 1987] can increase efficiency by using professional 

judgement in the design and reducing sampling cost and time. Targeted judgement and 

random techniques can be performed in sequence to increase efficiency. Hybrid 

approaches include stratified random sampling and some ranked set sampling [EPA 

2021c]. The EPA outlines goals, sampling scenarios, and associated appropriate 

environmental sampling strategies that can be applied to surface sampling [EPA 2021c]: 

• Judgmental sampling: where sample locations are selected using professional

judgement and prior information and fewer samples are taken relative to random or

hybrid techniques.

• Simple random sampling: sampling locations are selected randomly (via random

number generator or equivalent).

• Stratified random sampling: location and/or process information is used to create

groups that are independently and randomly sampled.

• Systematic and grid sampling: an initial sampling point is selected randomly and

then subsequent sampling locations are chosen using a fixed pattern (e.g., temporal,

distance, geometric pattern).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-20 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

• Ranked set sampling: screening sampling is conducted on a random sample,

locations and grouped according to relative contamination, and then subsequent

samples are taken from those groups.

• Adaptive cluster sampling: random sampling is followed by adjacent sampling near

the original sample if the results are of interest, such as above a laboratory reporting

limit or predetermined threshold.

2.) Selecting sampling locations

Before developing a sampling strategy, information about the sampling site and processes 

must be gathered. The following should be considered and documented within any type 

of sampling strategy, and can be used to select sampling locations when using hybrid or 

targeted judgement approaches: 

• Location of the worker

• Potential sources and routes of exposure

• Workplace processes and any controls releasing or removing the contaminant

• Physical state of the agent (e.g., particulate)

• Mechanisms of transport (e.g., natural or mechanical ventilation, liquid transport)

and deposition (sedimentation or diffusion)

• Housekeeping methods and frequency

• Cleaning and contamination history (e.g., when was the surface last cleaned)

• Possible interferences

• Need for comparisons within and/or between work locations

• Regulatory requirements

When designing hybrid and targeted judgement sampling plans, the surface cleaning and 

contamination history should be documented in any type of sampling strategy and 

considered when choosing sampling locations. Engineering and administrative controls 

(such as local exhaust ventilation and housekeeping procedures) should be documented 

along with process activities that can result in contamination. This information should be 

identified beforehand and thoroughly noted during sampling to best interpret sampling 

results. Gather information about cleaning practices in the areas being sampled, for 

example, cleaning method, materials used, date last cleaned, cleaning frequency, and if 

attempts to determine cleaning efficacy have been made. For instance, if certain surfaces 

are identified as surrogates for air deposition or material migration, the time elapsed 

since the sampled surfaces were last cleaned should recorded to be able to make 

comparisons across locations. Further, researchers should understand where, when, and 

how often the contaminating processes occur relative to the surface sampled. Lastly, 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-21 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

document the extent of contact between workers and the surface being sampled either 

quantitatively (e.g., measures or estimated surface area of skin exposed, number, 

frequency, or duration of contact) or qualitatively (e.g., noting presence or absence of 

contact). These data or information could be used in risk assessment and to identify 

exposure controls or interventions, but that is beyond the scope of this chapter. This 

auxiliary information can be used as justification for surface selection during targeted 

judgement or hybrid sampling. 

When assessing the efficacy of housekeeping and controls used to contain contamination 

to specific workspaces (e.g., not moving tools outside of a contaminated zone or placing 

showers and locker rooms to separate clean and contaminated areas), samples may need 

to be taken from locations that are occupied by workers but removed from the process 

generating the agent being sampled. Examples include breakrooms, bathrooms, office or 

nonindustrial spaces, locker rooms, or work vehicles. 

b. Case study: Sampling for Bacillus anthracis

A hybrid approach would be appropriate when sampling for Bacillus anthracis spores after a

suspected release or contamination event. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) led

a multi-agency project to evaluate anthrax sampling procedures in a post-release

environment. The GAO called upon agencies to develop statistical surface sampling strategies

for Bacillus anthracis to increase confidence in negative results. Respondents to this request

published proposed sampling strategies for sampling and clearance of suspected contaminated

areas [GAO 2005; Piepel et al. 2013; Sego et al. 2007]. Response to a release event may require

two phases of surface sampling. The first phase is site characterization to determine if and

where surfaces are contaminated. The second phase is verification that decontamination was

effective to a nondetect or acceptable level [Sego et al. 2007]. Alternatively, targeted judgement

sampling can be used in parallel with random sampling to reduce the number of random

samples needed to achieve confidence that an area or room is uncontaminated [Sego et al.

2007].

c. Sampling strategies for regulatory compliance

Some regulations dictate when and where sampling must be conducted. For example, states

and local authorities have surface limits for methamphetamine in remediated sites that were

previously clandestine methamphetamine production sites [EPA 2021e], and postremediation sampling is required. As more states adopt fentanyl laboratory remediation

requirements, fentanyl and fentanyl-analogue wet sampling methods are being developed with

the intent of optimizing collection efficiency and lowering limits of quantitation [Ciesielski et
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-22 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

al. 2021]. In contrast, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations 

for Pb and Be on workplace surfaces are not explicit and instruct employers to maintain 

workplace surfaces “as free as practicable” of the contaminant; they do not dictate a particular 

sampling strategy nor specific limits that must be met [OSHA 2020]. However, a 1993 

Compliance Directive recommends the use of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) acceptable decontamination level for Pb on floors in evaluating 

changing area, storage facilities, lunchrooms, and eating areas—indicating that those locations 

should be sampled for comparison to that limit [OSHA 1993, 2003a]. 

d. Composite sampling

Composite sampling is where individual samples are collected and then combined and

analyzed together. Generally, this technique is used to reduce the number of analyses required,

thereby reducing analytical costs while maintaining a representative number of samples. The

decision to use composite sampling is based first on whether the resulting data will fit the

sampling strategy goals. Composite sampling should not be used when the results for

individual sampling locations are necessary, as that information is lost during composite

analysis. All samples included in the composite should be from the same surface or type of

surface being evaluated. Sample compositing is most often done in the workplace when the

analyte is expected to be low. Compositing can increase the likelihood that a laboratory

detection or reporting limit is reached or establish that surfaces are not contaminated if

composited sample results remain below the reporting limit or below selected criteria for

action.

If it is decided that composite sampling can be used to meet the sampling strategy goals, then

these choices should be determined: analysis method, sample media, and criteria for

comparison and re-sampling. Samples that make up a composite sample should be taken with

the same media and technique and in the same sampling area [HUD 2012; NIOSH 2011a].

Applying limits or criteria designed for discrete samples (noncomposited) is not typically

appropriate for composite samples. Conditions for surface resampling should be decided on

before carrying out composite sampling. In the United States, the residential Pb clearance

regulatory requirements explicitly allow for the compositing of up to four wipe samples, if

they were all taken of the same component, as long as the samples are tested by a laboratory

recognized by the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program [ASTM 2011a; HUD

2012]. Composite sampling can be used for post-clean-up of methamphetamine sampling,

particularly when contamination is expected to be uniform [EPA 2021e].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-23 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

The limit of detection for composite samples may be higher than that for discrete samples 

because of the increased volume of desorption liquid required for a large sampling media 

material [NIOSH 2011b]. NIOSH recommends that the composite results be reported over the 

total sample area, rather than averaged to the area of a single sample [NIOSH 2011c]. If the 

sampling goals require information about the average contamination, then an average 

contamination over a single sample area is useful [EPA 1995a]. However, if the goal is to 

compare results to criteria meant for a single sample, calculating the maximum possible

amount of contaminant on a single sample would be more appropriate for comparison. If that 

maximum possible amount of contaminant exceeds an action level or limit, then resampling 

of those areas or similar areas is necessary because composited surface samples cannot be 

analyzed separately after they have been combined. Additional samples would need to be 

taken to elucidate the variation in surface contamination. Therefore, the plan should account 

for whether a surface has sufficient area to be resampled and how that would be done, 

depending on composite sample results. 

Compositing wipe samples can lead to analytical difficulties [NIOSH 2003]. For example, 

compositing samples may lead to increased background signal or analytical noise, ending with 

increased total dissolved solid concentrations that may require dilution for analysis, 

depending on the analysis technique and/or instrument configuration. When considering 

composite sampling, verify that the analytical laboratory has the capacity to analyze composite 

samples, and if so, that it can be done with the necessary sensitivity to meet the sample 

strategy objectives [EPA 2018]. 

5 Criteria for surface contamination 

In the United States, national regulatory surface contamination levels have been established for Pb, 

Be, and PCBs [DOE 1999; EPA 2021b; 10 CFR § 850, 1999; 40 CFR § 745.227, 2000; 40 CFR § 761, 

1978]. To comply with residential EPA Pb contamination regulations, clearance surface samples

must be collected using documented methodologies that incorporate adequate quality control 

procedures and are reviewed by a certified inspector or risk assessor [40 CFR § 745.227] [OSHA 

2020, 2003a]. Very low Be surface regulatory levels for housekeeping and decontamination have 

been established to reduce the risk of Be sensitization through contact with the skin [Rondeau 

2009]. Not all regulations for Pb and Be surface levels are explicit. For example, OSHA requires 

work surfaces to be “as free as practicable” from Pb and Be [OSHA 2020]. Specific criteria have not 

been established by OSHA for these contaminants, but some interpretation guidance has been 

provided [OSHA 2003a]. The regulations establishing Be surface contamination limits do not 

provide for a required standard sample collection method, leaving the sampling methodology up to 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-24 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

individual sites, although the analysis must be conducted by a laboratory accredited by AIHA or 

equivalent. DOE has provided an implementation guidance to professionals on exposure sampling, 

including surface sampling [DOE 2010]. 

Few consensus surface limits have been established for occupational exposures. Starting in 2019, the 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®

) began publishing surface 

limit threshold limit values (TLV®-SL) for some chemicals. These limits are intended to supplement 

their published airborne limits, particularly for agents with known skin absorption and sensitization 

capacities [ACGIH 2021]. These limits are expressed as a mass per 100 cm2 and may correspond 

with the dose permitted by the 8-hour time-weighted average TLV® unless data are available about 

effects related to dermal exposure alone. As of 2021, ACGIH® had established TLV®

-SLs for two 

chemicals, o-phthalaldehyde and methyltetrahydrophthalic anhydride [ACGIH 2021]. 

Worker exposure to pharmaceutical substances through contact with the skin is a hazard being 

addressed, in part, by the development of guidelines for acceptable surface limits (ASLs) for such 

compounds [Kimmel et al. 2011]. Beyond the factors considered for sampling and analysis, some 

essential criteria to account for in establishing ASLs include skin penetration or dermal uptake, 

concentration of active pharmaceutical ingredient(s), mechanisms of toxicity and identified health 

outcomes, duration and frequency of contact, and individual susceptibility. In efforts to prevent 

dermal exposures, related “guidance values” for surface monitoring of antineoplastic drugs have 

been proposed for selected chemotherapy agents [Kiffmeyer et al. 2013; Schierl et al. 2009]. 

If limits are established for a given analyte, the sensitivity of the method should be able to 

quantitatively detect the analyte of interest well below the limit. This normally requires that the 

method detection limit (MDL) be at most one tenth of the limit. To reiterate, it is essential that the 

sampling and analytical method be considered when establishing limit values for chemical and 

biological agents on surfaces.

6 Consensus standards and other resources for 

published surface sampling methods

When identifying methods to meet sampling goals, using standardized protocols can enable data 

comparisons; foster consistency, defensibility, and reproducibility; and help maintain expected data 

quality. ASTM International have published consensus standards for surface sampling, including 

the Standard Guide for Strategies for Surface Sampling of Metals and Metalloids for Worker 

Protection (ASTM D7659) [ASTM 2021b]. Many of the considerations outlined in this standard are 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-25 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

applicable to other potentially hazardous agents besides metals, such as organics, radioactive 

materials, and biological agents.

U.S. government agencies are directed by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) to contribute to the development of voluntary consensus standards. They are further

instructed to include these standards in regulatory requirements in lieu of developing unique 

government regulations where practicable and consistent with applicable laws [OMB 2016]. Many 

published occupational exposure assessment consensus standards, and those under development, 

are based initially on existing government agency methods, guides, and procedures. Ultimately, it is 

intended that the use of consensus standards will enhance data comparability for surface or dermal 

samples obtained from different investigators, for various substances, from a variety of locations, 

surfaces, etc. 

Various ASTM standards that apply to surface sampling in occupational settings and related locales 

have been published and are summarized in Table 2. ASTM standards describing wetted wipe 

sample collection for metals and metalloids have been published (ASTM D6966, ASTM E1728). 

Using ASTM wipe sampling methods, when carried out with wetted wipes meeting performance 

specifications (e.g., ASTM E1792 or ASTM D7707), have been shown to provide collection 

efficiencies of >75% for target metallic analytes (i.e., Pb and Be) [Dufay and Archuleta 2006; EPA 

1995b]. ASTM has implemented a surface tape stripping method (ASTM E1216) that applies to 

multiple analytes and published a surface tape stripping method for sampling fungal spores (ASTM 

D7910). 

When the sampling surface is rough or porous, and wet wipe sampling or tape stripping is deemed 

impractical, vacuum collection methods (e.g., ASTM D5438, ASTM D5755, and ASTM D7144) are 

used in lieu of wiping or stripping techniques [Creek et al. 2006]. In rare cases where the surface to 

be sampled is energized, fragile, or reactive, and if Be is the only analyte of interest, dry-wipe 

sampling (ASTM D7296) is an option for sample collection. In addition, ASTM has published

procedures for the following: surface sampling of asbestos by vacuum sampling (ASTM D5755) or 

wiping (ASTM D6840), wipe sampling of organic compounds (ASTM D6661), swab collecting of 

fungi (ASTM D7789) and other biological agents (ASTM E2458), and collecting pesticide residues 

from floors (ASTM D6333) (Table 2). Consider the limitations in the published standards when 

developing a sampling plan. For example, ASTM 6661-17, a standard practice for collecting organic 

compounds from surfaces using wipe sampling, is not intended to be used to collect dust samples 

nor to conduct sampling to estimate human exposure to contaminated surfaces [ASTM 2017b]. 

Consensus surface sampling methods for Pb, Be, and asbestos were developed, largely in response to 

regulations in the United States [Ashley et al. 1996; Ashley et al. 2009; Kominsky and Millette 2011]. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-26 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Besides the ASTM standard surface sampling guide for metals (ASTM D7659) already mentioned, 

ASTM also developed an analogous standard sampling guide for asbestos (ASTM D7390) [ASTM 

2018c]. An ASTM standard having several different surface sampling and analytical applications 

describes various sample collection methods, such as tape stripping, wipes, cotton balls, for biofilms, 

carbon black, soot, etc. (ASTM D6602). This standard has been used in outdoor urban applications 

[Millette et al. 2011]. 

Other ASTM standards relating to surface sampling and assessing surface contamination have been 

developed to address applications in clean rooms and aerospace (Table 4). While these voluntary 

consensus standard protocols are targeted for specialized uses, there may be situations where the 

standards could be applied to assessing contamination in occupational, indoor, and other 

environments.

Table 4. ASTM International standard procedures for surface sampling in aerospace and clean room 

applications* 

ASTM Standard 

Designation

Sampling 

Media/Device 

Target Substrate(s) 

Sampled

Comments 

ASTM F303 Rinse method Aerospace components Collection of particulate 

matter for assessment of 

cleanliness

ASTM F51 Particle sizing instrument Clean room garments Evaluation of 

contamination from 

fibers and particles

ASTM E2088 “Witness” test surface Clean room surfaces Measurement of particle 

deposition

ASTM F24 Optical particle counter Electronic components Assessment of surface 

contamination

*Standards are available at www.astm.org.

a. Radioisotopes

ISO has made available a three-part international standard, ISO 7503, that addresses the

measurement of surface contamination by radioactive materials [ISO 2016]. These three

standards entail the measurement of radioisotopes on surfaces of equipment and in facilities,

but they do not apply to the evaluation of radioactive contamination on skin or clothing.

Methods for direct and indirect measurement of radionuclides collected from surfaces are
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-27 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

described in these ISO standards. Part 1 of ISO 7503 describes general principles relating to 

the assessment of surface radioactive contamination by direct and indirect measurements. 

Part 2 of the standard addresses wipe testing measurement protocols, and Part 3 covers the 

calibration aspects of instruments used for the evaluation of radioactive surface 

contaminations. 

b. Healthcare settings

Wipe sampling and analysis has been used effectively for surface monitoring of antineoplastic

drugs and related drug residues in healthcare settings [Connor et al. 2016; Nygren 2006;

Nygren and Lindahl 2011]. Guidance values for wipe sampling have been proposed for

chemotherapy drugs such as cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil, based on extensive data from surface

monitoring in pharmacies [Schierl et al. 2009]. Recommendations on surface “threshold

guidance values” for antineoplastic drugs and related compounds can help pharmacists (and

others potentially exposed workers) assess controls (e.g., safe material handling,

cleaning/decontamination efficacy) and maintain contaminant-free work environments.

Research shows that implementing safety measures and monitoring work practices reduced

contamination by antineoplastic drugs in healthcare settings, as determined through surface

sampling [Kopp et al. 2013]. Field screening methods for on-site, near real-time monitoring of

several antineoplastic drugs in surface samples have been developed and undergone some

validation [Smith et al. 2016]. For exposure prevention efforts, these screening techniques can

be used in complementary fashion with definitive fixed-site laboratory methods using mass

spectrometric analysis [Pretty et al. 2012].

c. Reference and standard surface sampling and

analytical methods

Table 1 lists existing NIOSH surface sampling and analytical methods, which NIOSH

continues to review and update in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM).

NMAM 5th edition (www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam) should be consulted for the most up-to-date

information on NIOSH methods [NIOSH 2022]. Another useful source with several surface

sampling methods for industrial hygiene applications is the OSHA analytical methods manual

[OSHA 2003b], which offers surface sample collection protocols for inorganic and organic

analytes. OSHA has also released evaluation guidelines for surface sampling and analytical

methods [OSHA 2000]. These guidelines are complementary to guidance and

recommendations offered by other sources, such as NIOSH, ASTM, AIHA, ACGIH, ISO, and

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), among others.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-28 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

BNL has disseminated guidance on surface sampling based on NIOSH 9100 and related 

standardized methods [BNL 2017]. The various sampling media, wetting agents, and 

templates, depending on the analyte(s) of interest and surface area to be sampled, are 

summarized below: 

Sampling media 

• Gauze, cotton (5 or 10 cm dia.)

• Filter paper, ashless (4–10 cm dia.)

• Premoistened wipe, e.g., cellulosic, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)

• Filter, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or quartz fiber (for Cr(VI) sampling)

Solvents 

• Distilled water

• Alcohol: 2-propanol, ethanol, methanol

• n-Hexane

Templates 

• 10 × 10 cm or 30 × 30 cm square

• 11.3 cm diameter circle (for 100 cm2 area)

Required and recommended criteria for surface sampling for metals are summarized in BNL 

guidance [BNL 2017]. Elemental sampling normally entails the use of a wipe of a material that 

is appropriate for the agent, wetted with deionized water and a minimum sample collection 

area of 100 cm2

. These protocols for metals are harmonized with the standardized elemental 

sampling methods that are summarized in Table 2. An exception is when sampling Cr(VI), 

which is carried out in accordance with OSHA method W4001 [OSHA 2001]. This procedure 

uses dry, inert filters for surface sampling to prevent reduction of Cr(VI) by wetting agents 

during or after sample collection. The filters are placed into a basic carbonate buffer 

immediately after sampling to stabilize Cr(VI) in the collected sample. Recommendations for 

surface sampling of PAHs entail the use of an organic solvent as a wetting agent, in 

accordance with ASTM D6661 (Table 2). 

The DOE established an action level for Be, and the EPA established an action level for Pb, 

both of which are regulatory, and thus have associated sampling methods or sampling 

guidance [DOE 1999; EPA 2021b]. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-29 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

7 Bulk sample collection

While methods for obtaining bulk samples (e.g., settled, rafter, or floor dusts) are beyond the scope 

of this chapter, we briefly mention them here as these techniques often complement surface and/or 

dermal sampling and may provide insights about particulates and aerosols that may have been 

airborne at one time. EPA provides information on bulk sampling methods for soils, solid waste, 

field equipment, etc. and published a comprehensive document covering issues including the 

following [EPA 2002]: 

• Sampling strategies and design

• Sampling techniques, media, and equipment

• Standardized sampling procedures developed through voluntary consensus (notably

ASTM International standards)

• Data quality considerations pertaining to sample collection, sample handling, and

transport

Relevant ASTM standards on collecting bulk samples are in a compendium publication on 

environmental sampling [ASTM 2014]. Additional research is needed on situations when it is more 

appropriate to use bulk sampling in lieu of surface sampling. For occupational environments, 

performance data and guidelines on bulk sampling are rather limited.

8 Summary

Surface sampling considerations include first developing a sampling rationale and goals, and then 

constructing a strategy that supports the sampling objectives. Choosing appropriate sample 

collection media and using techniques that are validated and applicable to surface and dermal 

sampling in occupational settings are also critical sampling plan components. While this chapter 

highlights available standardized surface sample collection methods, it is not meant to be an 

exhaustive review; rather, it presents guidance and examples of pertinent research and related

recommendations and standards. The NTTAA directs government agencies to contribute to the 

development of consensus standards and to utilize them when available and relevant [OMB 2016]. 

Methods for surface sampling from smooth, hard surfaces are now reasonably well-documented 

and standardized for several analytes, as evidenced by the availability of relevant international 

voluntary consensus standards for various contaminants. Additionally, vacuum sampling methods 

for collecting dust from rough, porous (and other) surfaces have also been standardized in the form 

of ASTM procedures (ASTM D5438, D5755, D7144). 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-30 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Dermal sampling methods for chemical and biological agents require additional harmonization and 

evaluation despite some newer protocols and guidance documents. These final summary 

recommendations should be underscored. The following essential to consider for surface sampling 

and analysis before collecting samples: 

• Existence and accessibility of sensitive and specific analytical methods for the analytes of

interest, including accredited laboratory analytical capability and availability

• Existing validated sampling methods or research that document reliability or

representativeness to measure: stability, reactivity, toxicity, volatility, etc.

• Characteristics of the surface(s) to be sampled: smooth or rough, hard vs. porous, inert or

reactive, dermal, orientation and location

• Availability of sampling media: uncontaminated background, analyte and sampling

recovery, chemical compatibility, ruggedness/durability

• Wetting agent or extraction solution: aqueous—neutral/acid/basic; organics—low/high

polarity; recovery from extractant

• Loading/contamination level: trace; highly contaminated; variability across surface, etc.

• Dynamic range of analytical method: accuracy at low, medium, and high levels of analyte.

• Considerations for storage and transportation of samples (e.g., storage stability,

temperature considerations, shipping regulations)

• Exposure controls (e.g., training, personal protective equipment) required for sample

collection

Disclaimer 

Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 

addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the 

sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for 

the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the 

publication date.

9 References

Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program. 10 CFR § 850 (1999). 

Work practice standards for conducting lead-based paint activities: target housing and childoccupied facilities. 40 CFR § 745.227 (2000). 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-31 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use 

prohibitions. 40 CFR § 761 (1978).

ACGIH [2021]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the threshold limit values for 

chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

Angelini DJ, Biggs TD, Maughan MN, Feasel MG, Sisco E, Sekowski JW [2019]. Evaluation of a 

lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of the synthetic opioid fentanyl. Forensic Sci Int 300:75–

81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.04.019. 

Ashley K, Applegate GT, Wise TJ, Fernback JE, Goldcamp MJ [2007]. Evaluation of a standardized 

micro-vacuum sampling method for collection of surface dust. J Occup Environ Hyg 4(3):215–223, 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620601177461. 

Ashley K, Braybrooke G, Jahn SD, Brisson MJ, White KT [2009]. Analytical performance criteria. 

Standardized surface dust sampling methods for metals, with emphasis on beryllium. J Occup 

Environ Hyg 6(12):D97–D100, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620903022597. 

Ashley K, Brisson M, White K [2011]. Review of standards for surface and dermal sampling. J ASTM 

Int 8(6):1–9, http://doi.org/10.1520/JAI103678.

Ashley K, Schlecht PC, Song R, Feng A, Dewalt G, McKnight ME [1996]. ASTM sampling methods 

and analytical validation for lead in paint, dust, soil, and air. In: Sampling environmental media, STP 

1282. Morgan JH, ed. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. 

ASTM [2011a]. Development of two sample preparation methods for determination of lead in 

composite dust wipe samples. J ASTM Int 8(3):103466, http://doi.org/10.1520/JAI103466. 

ASTM [2011b]. ASTM STP 1533 Surface and dermal sampling. Ashley K, ed. American Society for 

Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 

https://doi.org/10.1520/STP1533-EB. 

ASTM [2014]. ASTM Standards related to environmental sampling. 5th ed. American Society for 

Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

ASTM [2017a]. D5438-17 Standard practice for collection of floor dust for chemical analysis. 

American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 

https://doi.org/10.1520/D5438-17. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-32 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

ASTM [2018a]. D6966-18 Standard practice for collection of settled dust samples using wipe 

sampling methods for subsequent determination of metals. American Society for Testing and 

Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, https://www.astm.org/D6966-18. 

ASTM [2018b]. D7296-18 Standard practice for collection of settled dust samples using dry wipe 

sampling methods for subsequent determination of beryllium and compounds. American Society 

for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, https://www.astm.org/

D7296-18. 

ASTM [2018c]. D7390-18e1 Standard guide for evaluating asbestos in dust on surfaces by

comparison between two environments. American Society for Testing and Materials. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, https://www.astm.org/D7390-18E01. 

ASTM [2019]. D7822-18 Standard practice for dermal wipe sampling for the subsequent 

determination of metals and metalloids. American Society for Testing and Materials. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, https://www.astm.org/D7822-18. 

ASTM [2020]. E1792-20 Standard specification for wipe sampling materials for lead in surface dust. 

American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International,

https://www.astm.org/e1792-20.html. 

ASTM [2021a]. ASTM D8358-21 Standard guide for assessment and inclusion of wall deposits in the

analysis of single-stage samplers for airborne particulate matter. American Society for Testing and 

Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, https://www.astm.org/D8358-21.html. 

ASTM [2021b]. D7659-21 Standard guide for strategies for surface sampling of metals and 

metalloids for worker protection. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, 

PA: ASTM International, https://doi.org/10.1520/D7659-21. 

ASTM [2021c]. D7707-21 Standard specification for wipe sampling materials for beryllium in 

surface dust. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International, https://doi.org/10.1520/D7707-21. 

Beaucham CC, Ceballos D, Mueller C, Page E, La Guardia MJ [2019]. Field evaluation of sequential 

hand wipes for flame retardant exposure in an electronics recycling facility. Chemosphere 219:472–

481, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.027. 

ASTM [2017b]. D6661-17 Standard practice for field collection of organic compounds from surfaces

using wipe sampling. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International, https://www.astm.org/d666-17 . .
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-33 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Bernard CE, Berry MR, Wymer LJ, Melnyk LJ [2008]. Sampling household surfaces for pesticide 

residues: comparison between a press sampler and solvent-moistened wipes. Sci Total Environ 

389(2):514–521, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.08.044. 

BNL [2017]. Surface wipe sampling procedure (IH75190). Upton, NY: Brookhaven National 

Laboratory, https://www.bnl.gov/esh/shsd/sop/pdf/ih_sops/ih75190.pdf. 

Boeniger M [2006]. A comparison of surface wipe media for sampling lead on hands. J Occup 

Environ Hyg 3(8):428–434, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620600802754. 

Boeniger M, Sahmel J, Walton J, Roy R [2015]. Dermal exposure monitoring and estimation of 

dermal exposures. Appendix II. In: A strategy for assessing and managing occupational exposures. 

Jahn SD, Bullock WH, Ignacio JS, eds. Falls Church, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.

Boeniger MF [2003]. The significance of skin exposure. Ann Occup Hyg 47(8):591–593, 

https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meg095. 

Brouwer DH, Boeniger MF, van Hemmen J [2000]. Hand wash and manual skin wipes. Ann Occup 

Hyg 44(7):501–510, https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/44.7.501. 

Calfee M, Shah S, Lee S, Mickelsen R, Cruz F, Karim K, Ackelsberg J, Gemelli M, Hofacre K [2019]. 

Evaluation of analytical methods for the detection of Bacillus anthracis spores: compatibility with 

real-world samples collected from outdoor and subway surfaces. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-19/083, 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHSRC&dirEntryId=346146&fed_org_i

d=1253. 

Calfee MW, Rose LJ, Morse S, Mattorano D, Clayton M, Touati A, Griffin-Gatchalian N, Slone C, 

McSweeney N [2013]. Comparative evaluation of vacuum-based surface sampling methods for 

collection of Bacillus spores. J Microbiol Methods 95(3):389–396, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2013.10.015. 

Cettier J, Bayle ML, Béranger R, Billoir E, Nuckols JR, Combourieu B, Fervers B [2015]. Efficiency of 

wipe sampling on hard surfaces for pesticides and PCB residues in dust. Sci Total Environ 505:11–21, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.086. 

Chavalitnitikul C, Levin L [1984]. A laboratory evaluation of wipe testing based on lead oxide surface 

contamination. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 45(5):311–317, https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668491399848. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-34 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Cherrie JW, Semple S, Christopher Y, Saleem A, Hughson GW, Philips A [2006]. How important is 

inadvertent ingestion of hazardous substances at work? Ann Occup Hyg 50(7):693–704, 

https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mel035. 

Ciesielski AL, Wagner JR, Alexander-Scott M, Snawder J [2021]. An optimized method for sample 

collection, extraction, and analysis of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs from a non-porous surface. 

Talanta 228:122210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2021.122210. 

Connor TH, Zock MD, Snow AH [2016]. Surface wipe sampling for antineoplastic (chemotherapy) 

and other hazardous drug residue in healthcare settings: methodology and recommendations. J 

Occup Environ Hyg 13(9):658–667, https://doi.org/10.1080%2F15459624.2016.1165912. 

Creek KL, Whitney G, Ashley K [2006]. Vacuum sampling techniques for industrial hygienists, with 

emphasis on beryllium dust sampling. J Environ Monit 8(6):612–618, 

https://doi.org/10.1039/b601572g. 

DOE [1999]. Chronic beryllium disease prevention program, Washington DC: Department of 

Energy, https://www.energy.gov/ehss/chronic-beryllium-disease-prevention-program-10-cfr-850. 

DOE [2010]. 10 CFR Part 850 Implementation guide for use with chronic beryllium disease 

prevention program. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, 

https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0440.1-EGuide-7a. 

Deziel NC, Viet SM, Rogers JW, Camann DE, Marker DA, Heikkinen MSA, Yau AY, Stout DM II, 

Dellarco M [2011]. Comparison of wipe materials and wetting agents for pesticide residue collection 

from hard surfaces. Sci Total Environ 409(20):4442–4448, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.002. 

Dufay SK, Archuleta M [2006]. Comparison of collection efficiencies of sampling methods for 

removable beryllium surface contamination. J Environ Monit 8(6):630–633, 

https://doi.org/10.1039/b601526n. 

ECETOC [2004]. Targeted risk assessment. Technical Report No. 93. Brussels, Belgium: European 

Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, https://www.ecetoc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/10/ECETOC-TR-093.pdf. 

ECETOC [2009]. TR 107 Addendum to ECETOC Targeted Risk Assessment Technical Report No. 

93. Brussels, Belgium, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, TR 107 -

Addendum to ECETOC Targeted Risk Assessment Technical Report No. 93 - ECETOC.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-35 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

ECETOC [2010]. Targeted risk assessment (TRA) tool. Brussels, Belgium: European Centre for 

Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, https://www.ecetoc.org/tools/tra-main/. 

EPA [1995a]. EPA observational economy series, Vol. 1. Composite sampling. Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-

03/documents/comp-samp.pdf. 

EPA [1995b]. Sampling house dust for lead basic concepts and literature review. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/lead/sampling-house-dust-lead-basicconcepts-and-literature-review-final-report-epa-747-r-95-007. 

EPA [2002]. RCRA waste sampling draft technical guidance: planning, implementation and 

assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/rwsdtg_0.pdf. 

EPA [2008]. Guidance for the sampling and analysis of lead in indoor residental dust for use in the 

Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, https://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/174572.pdf. 

EPA [2013]. ChemSTEER user guide: chemical screening tool for exposures and environmental 

releases. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/tscascreening-tools/chemsteer-chemical-screening-tool-exposures-and-environmental-releases. 

EPA [2018]. Answers to frequent questions about EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting 

(RRP) Rule (March 22, 2018, revised March 21, 2022). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/lead/answers-frequent-questions-about-epas-leadrenovation-repair-and-painting-rrp-rule. 

EPA [2019]. Consumer Exposure Model (CEM) Version 2.1 user’s guide. Prepared for the EPA

Office Of Pollution Prevention and Toxics by ICF under EPA Contract # EP-W-12-010. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screeningtools/consumer-exposure-model-cem-version-21-users-guide. 

EPA [2021a]. Assessing and managing chemicals under TSCA Section 4 test orders. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managingchemicals-under-tsca/list-chemicals-subject-section-4-test-orders. 

EPA [2021b]. Review of dust-lead post abatement clearance levels, final rule. March 8. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQOPPT-2020-0063-0382. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-36 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

EPA [2021c]. Selecting a sampling design. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

https://www.epa.gov/quality/selecting-sampling-design. 

EPA [2021d]. Using professional judgment to develop a sampling design. Washington DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/quality/using-professional-judgmentdevelop-sampling-design. 

EPA [2021e]. Voluntary guidelines for methamphetamine and fentanyl laboratory cleanup. 

Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-540-B-21-002, 

https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/voluntary-guidelines-methamphetamine-and-fentanyllaboratory-cleanup-document. 

Esswein E, Boeniger M, Ashley K [2011]. Handwipe method for removing lead from skin. J ASTM 

Int 8(5):1–10, https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI103527. 

Fenske RA [1993]. Dermal exposure assessment techniques. Ann Occup Hyg 37(6):687–706, 

https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/37.6.687. 

Fent KW, Alexander B, Roberts J, Robertson S, Toennis C, Sammons D, Bertke S, Kerber S, Smith D, 

Horn G [2017]. Contamination of firefighter personal protective equipment and skin and the 

effectiveness of decontamination procedures. J Occup Enviro Hyg 14(10):801–814, 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2017.1334904. 

Fent KW, Eisenberg J, Snawder J, Sammons D, Pleil JD, Stiegel MA, Mueller C, Horn GP, Dalton J 

[2014]. Systemic exposure to PAHS and benzene in firefighters suppressing controlled structure 

fires. Ann Occup Hyg 58(7):830–845, https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fannhyg%2Fmeu036. 

Frasch HF, Dotson GS, Bunge AL, Chen C-P, Cherrie JW, Kasting GB, Kissel JC, Sahmel J, Semple S, 

Wilkinson S [2014]. Analysis of finite dose dermal absorption data: implications for dermal exposure 

assessment. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 24(1):65–73, https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2013.23. 

GAO [2005]. Anthrax detection: agencies need to validate sampling activities in order to increase 

confidence in negative results. Washington DC: United States Government Accountability Office, 

Report No. GAO-05-251. 

HUD [2012]. Guidelines for the evaluation and control of lead-based paint hazards in housing, 2nd 

ed. Washington, DC: Department of Housing and Urban Development, LBPH-02.PDF (hud.gov). 

ISO [2011]. ISO/TR 14294 Workplace atmospheres—measurement of dermal exposure—principles 

and methods. Technical report. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for 

Standardization, https://www.iso.org/standard/54575.html. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-37 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

ISO [2016]. ISO 7503 Measurement of radioactivity—measurement and evaluation of surface 

contamination, Parts 1–3. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 

Kerr K [2004]. Sampling for beryllium surface contamination using wet, dry and alcohol wipe 

sampling. Thesis. Warrensburg, MO: Central Missouri State University, 

https://doi.org/10.2172/837587. 

Kiffmeyer TK, Tuerk J, Hahn M, Stuetzer H, Hadtstein C, Heinemann A, Eickmann U [2013]. 

Application and assessment of a regular environmental monitoring of the antineoplastic drug 

contamination level in pharmacies—the MEWIP project. Ann Occup Hyg 57(4):444–455, 

https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mes081. 

Kimmel TA, Sussman R, Ku R, Ader A [2011]. Developing acceptable surface limits for occupational 

exposure to pharmaceutical substances. J ASTM Int 8(8):1–6, https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI103480. 

Kominsky J, Millette J [2011]. Evaluation of asbestos in dust on surfaces by micro-vacuum and wipe 

sampling. J ASTM Int 8(5):1–8, https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI103477. 

Kopp B, Schierl R, Nowak D [2013]. Evaluation of working practices and surface contamination with 

antineoplastic drugs in outpatient oncology health care settings. Int Arch Occup Environ Health

86(1):47–55, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-012-0742-z. 

Lichtenwalner CP [1992]. Evaluation of wipe sampling procedures and elemental surface 

contamination. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 53(10):657–659, https://doi.org/10.1080/15298669291360300. 

Logan PW, Ramachandran G, Mulhausen JR, Banerjee S, Hewett P [2011]. Desktop study of 

occupational exposure judgments: do education and experience influence accuracy? J Occup Enviro 

Hyg 8(12):746–758, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.628607. 

Makos K [2001]. Hazard identification and exposure assessment related to handling and use of 

contaminated collection materials and sacred objects. Collection Forum 17(1–2):90–112. 

McArthur B [1992]. Dermal measurement and wipe sampling methods: a review. Appl Occup 

Environ Hyg 7(9):599–606, https://doi.org/10.1080/1047322X.1992.10388051. 

Millette J, Rook H, Compton S [2011]. Application of ASTM standard practice D6602 in the 

investigation of outdoor environmental surface particulate including darkening agents surface and 

dermal sampling, West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. 

Millson M, Eller PM, Ashley K [1994]. Evaluation of wipe sampling materials for lead in surface dust. 

Am Ind Hyg Ass J 55(4):339–342, https://doi.org/10.1080/15428119491018989. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-38 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Ness S [1994]. Surface and dermal monitoring for toxic substances. New York: John Wiley & Son. 

NIOSH [1995]. Report to congress on workers’ home contamination study conducted under the 

Workers’ Family Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 671a). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS Publication No. (NIOSH) 95-123, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/6334. 

NIOSH [1996]. Standard industries. By Esswein EJ, Boeniger MF, Hall RM, Mead K. 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 (HETA) 94-

0268-2618, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/1994-0268-2618.pdf. 

NIOSH [2003]. Lead in surface wipe samples: Method 9100. In: NIOSH manual of analytical 

methods. 4th ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-154. 

NIOSH [2011a]. Methamphetamine and illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by liquidliquid extraction: Method 9106. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Ashley K, 

O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2014-

151/pdfs/methods/9106.pdf. 

NIOSH [2011b]. Methamphetamine and illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by solid 

phase extraction: Method 9109. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Ashley K, 

O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2014-

151/pdfs/methods/9109.pdf.

NIOSH [2011c]. Methamphetamine on wipes by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry: Method 

9111. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Ashley K, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2014-151/pdfs/methods/9111.pdf. 

NIOSH [2012]. Emergency response resources: surface sampling procedures for Bacillus anthracis

spores from smooth, non-porous surfaces. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-39 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emres/surface-sampling-bacillus-anthracis.html. 

NIOSH [2015]. Anthrax surface sampling: how to sample with macrofoam swab on nonporous 

surfaces. Video. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/anthrax/training.html. 

NIOSH [2016]. Factors affecting aerosol sampling. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. 

Ashley K, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2014-

151/pdfs/chapters/chapter-ae.pdf. 

NIOSH [2022]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Andrews R, O’Connor PF, eds. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 

2014-151, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam. 

Nygren O [2006]. Wipe sampling as a tool for monitoring aerosol deposition in workplaces. J 

Environ Monit 8(1):49–52, https://doi.org/10.1039/b511509b. 

Nygren O, Lindahl R [2011]. Development of a method for screening spill and leakage of antibiotics 

on surfaces based on wipe sampling and HPLC-MS/MS analysis surface. J ASTM Int 8(6):1–20, 

https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI103544. 

OMB [2016]. OMB Circular No. A-119: federal participation in the development and use of 

voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment activities, final revision. Washington, DC: 

The White House, Office of Management and Budget, 

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_01-22-2016.pdf. 

OSHA [1993]. OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.58. Lead exposure in construction. Interim final rule. 29 

CFR 1926.62: Inspection and compliance procedures, 29 CFR 1926.62, Lead Exposure In 

Construction; Interim Final Rule--Inspection and Compliance Procedures (osha.gov). 

OSHA [2000]. Evaluation guidelines for surface sampling methods, OSHA Salt Lake Technical 

Center. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/methods/surfacesampling.pdf. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-40 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

OSHA [2001]. Method W4001 Hexavalent chromium (surface sampling method). OSHA Salt Lake 

Technical Center. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/methods/t-w4001-fv-02-0104-m.pdf. 

OSHA [2003a]. Clarification of "as free as practicable" and lead contamination under 29 CFR 

1926.62. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, Clarification of "as free as practicable" and lead contamination under 29 CFR 

1926.62 (osha.gov). 

OSHA [2003b]. Sampling and analytical methods manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 

https://www.osha.gov/chemicaldata/sampling-analytical-methods. 

OSHA [2014]. Surface contaminants, skin exposure, biological monitoring and other analyses. In: 

OSHA Technical Manual (OTM), Section II: Chapter 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-2-healthhazards/chapter-2. 

OSHA [2020]. 1910 Subpart Z Toxic and hazardous substances. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, https://www.osha.gov/lawsregs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910SubpartZ. 

Piepel GF, Matzke BD, Sego LH, Amidan BG [2013]. Calculating confidence, uncertainty, and

numbers of samples when using statistical sampling approaches to characterize and clear 

contaminated areas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory Richland, Report No. PNNL-22395, 

https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-22395.pdf. 

Pretty JR, Connor TH, Spasojevic I, Kurtz KS, McLaurin JL, B'Hymer C, Debord DG [2012]. 

Sampling and mass spectrometric analytical methods for five antineoplastic drugs in the healthcare 

environment. J Oncol Pharm Pract 18(1):23–36, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1078155210389215. 

Roberts JW, Budd WT, Ruby MG, Bond AE, Lewis RG, Wiener RW, Camann DE [1991]. 

Development and field testing of a high volume sampler for pesticides and toxics in dust. J Expo 

Anal Environ Epidemiol 1(2):143–155. 

Rondeau GL [2009]. Surface sampling: successful surface samping for Beryllium. In: Beryllium: 

environmental analysis and monitoring. Brisson MJ, Ekechukwu A, eds. Cambridge, UK: Royal 

Society of Chemistry.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-41 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

Schierl R, Böhlandt A, Nowak D [2009]. Guidance values for surface monitoring of antineoplastic 

drugs in German pharmacies. Ann Occup Hyg 53(7):703–711, 

https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mep050. 

Schneider T, Vermeulen R, Brouwer DH, Cherrie JW, Kromhout H, Fogh CL [1999]. Conceptual 

model for assessment of dermal exposure. Occup Environ Med 56(11):765–773, 

https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.56.11.765. 

Sego LH, Bennett J, Anderson KK, Gillen M, Matzke B, Wilson J, Sieber K, Pulsipher B, Shulman S 

[2007]. An environmental sampling model for combining judgmental and randomly placed samples. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland,

Report No. PNNL 16636, 

https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-16636.pdf. 

Seiler FA, Davis HT, Kominsky JR, Ronan RJ, Kowka CD [1987]. Use of risk assessment methods in 

the certification of decontaminated buildings. Risk Anal 7(4):487–495, 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00485.x. 

Semple S, Cherrie JW [2003]. Dermal exposure assessment. In: Exposure assessment in occupational 

and environmental epidemiology. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, ed. Oxford Scholarship Online, 

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528616.001.0001. 

Sirois PJ [2001]. The analysis of museum objects for the presence of arsenic and mercury: nondestructive analysis and sample analysis. Collection Forum 16(1–2):65–75.

Smith JP, Sammons DL, Robertson SA, Pretty JR, DeBord DG, Connor TH, Snawder JE [2016]. 

Detection and measurement of surface contamination by multiple antineoplastic drugs using 

multiplex bead assay. J Oncol Pharm Pract 22(1):60–67, https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155214554407. 

Snawder J, Striley C, Esswein E, Hessel J, Sammons D, Robertson S, Johnson B, Mackenzie B, Smith 

J, Walker C [2011]. Use of direct reading surface sampling methods for site characterization and 

remediation of methamphetamine contaminated properties. J ASTM Int 8(6):1–11, 

https://www.astm.org/jai103481.html. 

Svendsen E, Thorne P, O'Shaughnessy P, Zimmerman D, Reynolds S [2006]. House dust collection 

efficiency of the high volume small surface sampler on worn carpets. J Occup Enviro Hyg 3(6):334–

341, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620600700651. 

Väänänen V, Hämeilä M, Kalliokoski P, Nykyri E, Heikkilä P [2005]. Dermal exposure to polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons among road pavers. Ann Occup Hyg 49(2):167–178, 

https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meh094. 
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods  5th Edition  Chapter SG August 2022 Page SG-42 of SG-42

Surface Sampling Guidance, Considerations,and Methods in Occupational Hygiene

van Wendel de Joode B, Vermeulen R, van Hemmen JJ, Fransman W, Kromhout H [2005]. Accuracy 

of a semiquantitative method for dermal exposure assessment (DREAM). Occup Environ Med

62(9):623–632, https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2004.018564. 

Venables DS, Schmuttenmaer CA [2000]. Spectroscopy and dynamics of mixtures of water with 

acetone, acetonitrile, and methanol. J Chem Phys 113(24):11222–11236, 

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1328072. 

Wheeler JP, Stancliffe JD [1998]. Comparison of methods for monitoring solid particulate surface 

contamination in the workplace. Ann Occup Hyg 42(7):477–488. 

Willison SA [2012]. Wipe selection for the analysis of surface materials containing chemical warfare 

agent nitrogen mustard degradation products by ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography–tandem 

mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1270:72–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2012.11.013. 

Willison SA [2015]. Investigation of the persistence of nerve agent degradation analytes on surfaces 

through wipe sampling and detection with ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography-tandem 

mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 87(2):1034–1041, https://doi.org/10.1021/ac503777z.