PEDIATRICS Vol. 52 No. 2 August 1973, pp. 304-305
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Piomelli, S.
Right arrow Articles by Guinee, V. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Piomelli, S.
Right arrow Articles by Guinee, V. F.

Letters to the Editor

Sergio Piomelli M.D.1, Bernard Davidow Ph.D.2, and Vincent F. Guinee M.D.3

1 Department of Pediatrics, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York 10016
2 The New York City Department of Health, Bureau of Laboratories, New York, New York 10016
3 The New York City Department of Health, Bureau of Lead Poisoning Control, New York, New York 10016

Drs. McLaren et al. and Dr. Metcalf suggest that a threshold value of 250µg/100 ml RBC may be too high for a positive FEP. A threshold of 100µg/100 ml RBC, however, seems to us far too low since in children 1 to 6 years with blood Pb le 20µg/100 ml the mean FEP level is higher (79 ± 26µg/100 ml RBC) than in adult males (47 ± 15µg/100 ml RBC). With a threshold of 160µg/100 ml RBC (= mean + 3 standard deviations), the FEP test identifies all samples with blood Pb ge 60µg/10O ml, 87% of those 50 to 59µg/100 ml, 72% of those 40 to 49µg/100 ml but also 14% of those le 39µg/100 ml.