© 2026 Nanjing Finechem Holdings Co., Ltd,
All Right Reserved
Back in the early days of analytical chemistry, chasing down lead levels in everything from drinking water to soil samples meant laboring through laborious gravimetric methods and hoping for the best. Sensitivity was never the strong suit of those old techniques, and repeatability could tilt on a dime. It wasn’t until the 1960s, with the advance of Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, that laboratories truly found a reliable partner in tracking trace metals. Chemists quickly saw the value in carefully prepared and certified standards. The birth of lead standard solutions revolutionized calibration, made possible by companies who committed to precise, homogenized solutions. Today’s lead standards have gone through decades of refinement—from questionable hand-prepared bottles to traceability under ISO 17034 and ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation. Regulators and industry didn’t rally around one solution overnight. Scarcity of certified reference materials proved to be a major barrier long after analytical instruments arrived. Today, any serious testing laboratory would scoff at the idea of running AAS without a bottle of NIST-traceable lead standard on the shelf—the standards have grown as indispensable as the instruments themselves.
Lead standard solutions for AAS give laboratories a fixed, trusted baseline to compare lead levels in environmental, food, or industrial samples. The typical product comes as a clear, colorless liquid prepared by dissolving a high-purity lead salt, like lead nitrate or lead acetate, in nitric acid to guard against precipitation. Each lot carries a certified lead concentration—often 1000 mg/L—determined by rigorous gravimetric or titrimetric analysis, and confirmed through inter-laboratory studies. Bottles typically feature tamper-evident seals, batch numbers, and expiry dates. Trusted suppliers show clear traceability to international standards like NIST or BAM. Some suppliers offer custom concentrations down to single-digit ppb, supporting advanced research or compliance needs.
A typical lead standard for AAS appears as a slightly viscous, transparent solution. It’s acidic due to added nitric acid, which suppresses hydrolysis and cloudiness. Density hovers near that of water, with a faint yellow tinge if concentrations reach the upper limit. Solubility is never a concern: these solutions mix seamlessly with water or dilute acids. Chemically, the stability of dissolved lead is highly dependent on the acidity. Dilute solutions held at pH above 2 risk slow precipitation, frustrating both analysts and QA managers. Over time, the heavy, toxic nature of lead demands stringent storage: glass or polyethylene bottles, away from heat and direct sunlight. Anyone storing standards long-term knows refrigeration helps, though it’s not strictly essential if the acid strength is right and caps stay tight.
Every bottle of lead standard wears its credentials up front. Labels show lead concentration, purity of the source compound, matrix composition (usually nitric acid content), and uncertainty—all vital for analysts logging every move. Concentrations most often range from 10 mg/L up to 1000 mg/L, with calibration sets commonly spanning 0.5–5 mg/L for drinking water compliance labs. Labels always include manufacturer details, batch or lot numbers, date of manufacture, expiry date, and any special handling instructions. If it’s a certified reference material, the documentation includes a certificate of analysis, which spells out traceability, measurement methodology, and statistical treatment of uncertainty. Think of these details as the chain of custody for your calibration—they account for every last microgram of lead.
Making a reliable lead standard isn’t a quick job. Reagents start with ultra-pure lead nitrate or acetate—think 99.99% purity or higher, often traceable back to NIST SRMs themselves. Chemists weigh the salt on microbalances, dissolve it in freshly distilled, double-deionized water, and introduce a calibrated dose of nitric acid. This ensures complete dissolution and acidic storage conditions. Mixing happens in Teflon or glass containers, avoiding any vessel that could shed contaminants or leach ions. Large batches see multiple sub-sampling steps with cross-checks by independent analysts. Everything passes through 0.22-micron filters to trap particulates, then gets bottled. Quality assurance steps check the actual concentration gravimetrically and by independent AAS runs. Integrity takes priority, so only careful, thorough methodology earns a certification.
Lead standards in nitric acid are stable, but as soon as someone dilutes them or shifts the acid concentration, subtle reactions threaten their integrity. Adding lead to less-acidic water can cause hydrolysis, yielding insoluble Pb(OH)2 or PbCO3, ruining calibration. Analysts prepping multi-element mixes swap nitric acid for perchloric or hydrochloric acid—sometimes lead pairs poorly with other metals depending on acid strength or anion type. Original standards based on lead acetate fell out of favor due to the volatility of acetic acid and its affinity for organics. Modern chemistry won out with nitric acid’s unmatched ability to preserve both lead(II) and solution clarity. Any modification calls for careful stoichiometry and re-certification, so seasoned labs rarely take risks with homemade modifications. To change a lead standard’s matrix or concentration, buyers trust their suppliers, not a pipette and a backroom cache of acids.
No one in a professional lab calls these solutions anything but “lead standard solution” or “lead reference solution” for AAS. Some catalogues list them as “Pb Standard Solution,” “Trace Lead Standard,” or “Lead, ICP Standard” when tailored for plasma emission spectrometry. Bench scientists might shorthand to “Pb std,” but the full label—complete with concentration and matrix—is a must for regulatory audits. For broader trace chemical analysis, you’ll see “Certified Lead Reference Material,” but it all points to the same core product: a carefully made, certified solution with clearly assigned concentration and matrix.
Handling lead solutions demands respect. Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and even dilute standards pose risks over time via dermal exposure or inhalation if not managed carefully. Safety Data Sheets make it clear: use gloves, avoid inhaling vapors, and never pipette by mouth. Storage guidelines call for tightly sealed original bottles in acid-resistant secondary containment. Spills don’t just need a paper towel—labs use powdered absorbents, followed by hazardous waste procedures dictated by local, state, and national rules. Disposal routines must meet hazardous waste criteria; in my own lab, each drop goes into a labeled bottle for collection by a licensed firm. Regular training helps keep accidents rare, and routine swab tests remind everyone how easily lead finds a way onto hands, doorknobs, and work journals. Ventilation matters, especially during standard preparation and serial dilution work. These aren’t theoretical risks—one slip leaves a mark on everyone’s safety record.
Lead standard solutions anchor calibration in environmental monitoring labs, drinking water assessment, industrial hygiene, and food safety. Municipal facilities regularly test water using AAS to guarantee compliance with lead action limits—just 15 micrograms per liter sets off remediation processes. Occupational health relies on these standards to check air and surface lead in battery plants and smelters. Soil science depends on reliable lead calibration to guide site remediation plans for contaminated land. Food safety teams reach for these bottles before analyzing imported canned goods or baby foods for banned lead solder residues. Even blood-lead testing indirectly traces back to the reliability of these standards through QC in clinical chemistry labs. Consistent calibration remains the backbone for any action plan, reportable result, or risk assessment leading to public health interventions.
R&D teams use lead standard solutions to validate new instruments, refine detection limits, and cross-compare emerging techniques like high-resolution ICP-MS or laser ablation. Instrument makers work closely with standards manufacturers to co-develop new formulations or matrices that cut down on analysis interferences. Academic researchers, particularly in toxicology or materials science, use these standards to benchmark cleanup efficiency for novel remediation polymers or track nano-scale partitioning in biological tissues. One area with fast-paced change involves microfluidic devices that promise in-field lead analysis; calibration is only as good as the standard in those tiny pipette tips. Efforts never stop to drive down uncertainty, squeeze out matrix effects, and raise traceability an order of magnitude closer to theoretical minimums. Experts know every change in methodology ripples back to the core foundation: the reliability built on that bottle of standard solution.
Lead’s toxic effects warrant decades of dedicated research. Lead standards make controlled lab studies possible, allowing toxicologists to trace clear dose-response curves in cell cultures, aquatic organisms, and animal models. What researchers have seen is chilling: lead impairs brain development, disrupts enzyme systems, and lingers in bones for years, releasing back into the bloodstream long after exposure stops. Chronic low-level effects still spark debate: some work points to cardiovascular risk and developmental delays even at blood lead levels well below old “safe” benchmarks. Calibration accuracy, possible only with rigorous standards, helps researchers tighten those risk assessments, informing public health policy and exposure guidelines. Ongoing work now zeroes in on nano-sized lead particles and how their toxicity plays out compared to bulk forms. Reliable standards bridge the gap between hypothesis and data, opening ground for evidence-based regulation.
Future development in lead standard solutions tracks rising expectations for precision, lower detection limits, and faster workflows. New instrument platforms promise sub-ppb detection in complex food and biological matrices, and those advances demand standards with even lower uncertainty and expanded traceability. Industries want matrix-matched lead standards—spiked into sea water, high-fat foods, or simulated digests—for more realistic calibration. Digital tools could soon offer blockchain-verified traceability on each batch produced, minimizing risk of documentation fraud or mislabeling. Increased public awareness and shrinking regulatory action levels keep pressure on both suppliers and end users to update practices and scrutinize every assumption about sample preparation and calibration. There’s also growing momentum toward single-use micro standards and pre-loaded calibration kits for field deployable instrumentation, further tightening control and trimming user error. In my experience, customers value innovative, transparent standards suppliers that back their products with robust quality data and strong technical support—those are the companies leading the push to a safer, cleaner world.
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) isn’t the kind of thing most folks chat about at dinner, but in a lab, it’s a lifeline for anyone testing heavy metals like lead. Years ago, I watched an old-timer chemist prepping standards for AAS. He was careful, borderline obsessed, about the numbers. It didn’t take long for me to understand why: getting that concentration right makes or breaks the whole measurement.
The concentration of the Lead Standard solution for AAS almost always sits at 1000 mg/L (which is the same as 1,000 ppm of lead). This isn’t a random number pulled out of thin air. People working in analytical labs have agreed on this benchmark because it keeps things consistent and traceable across the world. If you grab a bottle of certified lead standard from any decent manufacturer, nine times out of ten, it’s going to match this level.
Having that 1000 mg/L value makes serial dilutions a breeze. Want to get to 10 mg/L or 1 mg/L for your calibration curve? It’s just a matter of pipetting, and you cut down on math errors. For example, when I had to teach a younger analyst how to prep working standards, we’d start from that stock and work down, double-checking calculations at every step. This habit can save days down the line if you find a weird result and need to retrace your steps.
Using a standard that’s too concentrated, say 10,000 mg/L, can wreck your glassware and eats up the margin for error during dilution. On the flip side, if it’s too weak, you’ll go through bottles every other week and risk skewing results from contamination or concentration errors. The 1000 mg/L point ends up being that sweet spot for most labs.
Real people in real places rely on those results. Lead isn’t something to gamble with. It lands in water, soil, food, and it sticks around. City drinking water supplies, soil near playgrounds, or batches of imported spices—these get flagged for lead problems in contamination stories all over the world. Labs reporting numbers that don’t check out create real fuzziness for regulators, doctors, and anyone living near an industrial site.
I’ve seen labs get into trouble with homemade standards or old stock solutions. If the supplier skips certification or quality checks, you’re gambling with accuracy. Labs that build their own standard solutions need lab-grade lead compounds, pure water, and careful weighing. Mistakes don’t always show up with a big red flag—and if nobody spots a slip, dozens of reports end up off the mark.
Many places have upped the routine: they buy National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable solutions, log every batch that gets used, and run quality control checks before every round of testing. Testing blank solutions and running mid-range controls catch most errors before they slide into reports.
Keeping lead out of the environment doesn’t start with big government programs or headline-grabbing lawsuits. It starts with a small bottle of 1000 mg/L lead standard locked away in a storage fridge and the care somebody brings every time they draw a few drops for a calibration. Accuracy, traceability, diligence—these are old-fashioned values, and the details really do matter.
Working with atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) in the lab brings accuracy to trace metal analysis. The Lead Standard Solution underpins trustworthy measurements. It’s easy to overlook storage, but all the handling care in sample prep gets lost if the stock standard goes bad. Traceability, trust in your results, and safety hang in the balance.
Pipetting standards feels routine once you’ve been at the bench a while. It’s easy to forget that these bottles of lead solution pack a double punch: chemical stability and heavy metal toxicity. The Centers for Disease Control and OSHA highlight that repeated low-level exposure can affect brain function, especially for children and pregnant women, but it also piles up in anyone’s bones and tissues.
If the bottle sits unprotected or unlabeled, someone can get hurt. The label’s not just about compliance; it’s a daily safety check for you and everyone in your workplace. I once saw a shared fridge full of unmarked vials. It looked clean, but nobody could say what the clear liquids were. That’s just an accident waiting for a date.
Lead standards for AAS often come as 1000 mg/L solutions in trace-metal grade nitric acid, stored in rigid, leak-proof bottles, usually made of plastic to avoid contamination. The acid keeps lead ions stable and prevents precipitate from forming. Acidic conditions stop glassware from “leaching” trace metals back into the stock, which can mess up your reading down to the parts-per-billion. Glass can “eat” trace lead over months, so polyethylene or even Teflon bottles see widespread use in trace element labs. Stick with certified containers if you want to defend your results during an audit.
Light and temperature mess with some standards, especially when organics or photoreactive metals are involved. Lead is a bit more robust in strong acid, but long-term sunlight exposure still causes gradual decomposition and possible bottle breakdown. Find a dark cabinet or drawer if a proper acid/corrosive storage locker isn’t available. Not every lab has budget for ventilated chemical cabinets, but no lead solution belongs next to lunch bags or soda cans. That’s basic lab stewardship. I’ve seen lead standards tucked in between sandwich fixings at a former job—nobody felt safe eating after that.
Every bottle must show concentration, date received, expiry, and initials for traceability. Repeated use wears down the writing, so extra tape and bold markers stay handy in my lab. Also, commercial solutions list the lot number—if a recall happens, you’ll want to check inventory within seconds, not hours. Never trust a standard that’s become cloudy or crusted; it means the chemistry’s shifted and results will shift with it.
Regular review of safe storage rules with everyone who works in the lab helps prevent mistakes. At my place, new staff shadow senior analysts for a week, learning proper transfer methods, labeling, and why each acid bottle sits where it does. Spills or contamination near the balances spark an immediate clean-up drill. Certified, lockable storage for lead and other high-toxicity standards stays firmly separated from general work areas. Even if a national regulation doesn’t spell out lead solution storage, best practice guides from trusted bodies like NIOSH and the ACS give the details worth following. Good habits pay off every time someone opens that storage cabinet without worry.
Anyone who’s ever poured sour milk into coffee understands shelf life isn’t a suggestion. Whether it’s pantry staples, medicine, or even that face cream buried in the drawer, time chips away at freshness and quality. Forgetting this doesn’t just mean waste. Using a product past its true shelf life can lead to bigger consequences. Cereal might lose crunch or taste stale after its date, but medicine past its expiration can be far less predictable—sometimes less effective, sometimes risky.
Products break down. Even simple foods change—oils go rancid, vitamins fade. Canned soup looks safe, but the acids inside work away at metal lids over the years. Through personal experience working in retail, restocking shelves on early shifts, I learned why companies stress "best by" and "use by" dates: flavor, texture, and safety all depend on how long something sits. The date a manufacturer prints isn’t just picking numbers from the air. It usually follows lab testing, stability studies, and strict guidelines. For pharmaceuticals, this gets regulated. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces that medication used after expiration could fail to work or even harm the person.
I saw what expired food could do, both on the sales floor and at home. Old bread may only taste a bit off, but an expired can, especially if dented or showing bulges, ends up on the recall list fast. For something like sunscreen, using last year’s leftover bottle seems harmless, yet a breakdown in its ingredients means my skin burns faster than expected. Even over-the-counter painkillers that sat in a humid bathroom lose punch, sometimes changing chemically. Studies from the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences confirm some medicines break down into harmful byproducts past their labeled dates.
More people now turn to online shopping for napkins and aspirin, but not everyone checks dates when the box arrives. Companies need to commit to clear labeling—big print, easy-to-find locations, specifics on storage temperature. Households would do well sorting through cupboards and tossing hidden items that have sat too long. Retailers hold responsibility, too. Walking through grocery aisles, I’ve watched workers scanning for outdated goods, taking them off the shelves. This isn't just about protecting the bottom line; it keeps shoppers safe.
Talk of rethinking how we define shelf life pops up as technology advances. Blockchain startups offer tracing tools from production to sale. Smart labels can now change color when a product’s gone bad, not just past the calendar date. Even so, the best solution is often the simplest: check the date, check the condition, store things in the right place, and buy only what gets used in a reasonable time. Food banks and pantries have tightened screening after seeing recalls linked to expired goods. Every step counts, from the factory down to the kitchen drawer.
Shelf life isn’t just for manufacturers and regulators to worry about. It’s a reminder for everyone to respect time as part of what keeps households safe and healthy. Every extra minute a product sticks around increases the risk that someone, somewhere, finds out what expired really means.
Using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) to analyze lead content isn’t just a lab routine. Accuracy connects directly to health, environmental safety, and even international trade. A bottle labeled “lead standard” may look the same in labs across the globe, but the stamp of traceability is what separates trustworthy data from guesswork.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the heavyweight in the traceability game, and for good reason. NIST, grounded in decades of experience, doesn’t just keep reference materials; it crafts them with documented accuracy and publishes every critical number. This approach pulls responsibility away from manufacturer claims and centers it on public, verifiable facts.
Other authorities exist. European labs often source reference materials from institutions such as LGC in the UK or BAM in Germany. These agencies operate under similar philosophies, following tough accreditation requirements like ISO 17034. International buyers, regulators, or research partners don’t accept vague origins—traceable standards carry the credibility needed in serious work.
Running AAS doesn’t start with picking any standard off the shelf. Most high-integrity labs check for certificates showing not just “purity” but declared traceability. Certificates often include a chain, mapping the solution straight back to a batch verified by NIST or an equivalent national lab. This paper trail is more than busywork. Years ago, working in a clinical chemistry setting, every bottle entering the lab was checked by both QA staff and the scientist using it. Any missing certificate or claim to a “secondary standard” without proof of origin was a red flag.
The real importance hits when regulators step in. If a data set from a blood-lead survey or environmental assessment cannot point to a certified, NIST-traceable standard, entire batches of results stand at risk. Data produced under those circumstances have been questioned, sometimes leading to costly retesting or wasted effort.
NIST doesn’t supply every calibration solution in every concentration. Reputable chemical suppliers use concentrated stock solutions certified for traceability, then carefully prepare and document diluted versions. Key players like High-Purity Standards, SPEX CertiPrep, and Inorganic Ventures issue certificates referencing the original NIST material, keeping an eye on expiration dates and shipping conditions.
Trying to cut corners with uncertified standards is tempting, especially for budget-strapped labs. The risk shows up during audits or in the face of unexpected measurement discrepancies. Eventually, the price of convenience gets paid in doubt—sometimes ruining work, hurting reputations, or even causing lasting health effects.
Choosing traceable lead standards isn’t an extra step—it’s a core responsibility. Before opening a bottle, scientists and lab managers should check the full certificate, confirm traceability to NIST or a similar national authority, and keep that paperwork organized for years. Re-training staff about the reason behind these requirements pays off by avoiding mistakes that haunt long after the day’s analysis. Purchasing agents and lab directors should only approve suppliers who can clearly prove certification and supply current documentation on demand.
Real confidence in data doesn’t happen by accident. Building reliable results in the lab starts with small choices, including the honesty of a standard’s chain of custody. Choosing the right materials from trusted sources, tracking paperwork, and refusing shortcuts turns every routine analysis into defensible science, not only for today, but for everyone counting on these answers tomorrow.
I’ve seen plenty of laboratory protocols get glossed over on busy days. Folks might think working with lead standards for atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) isn’t much different from measuring sugar for a recipe. That’s a risky attitude. Lead is a heavy metal with a bad reputation in toxicology—and deservedly so. Even the vapors or microscopic dust from solutions of lead can cause health problems over time, especially if you’re exposed often.
Lab coats, safety goggles, and disposable gloves form the basic armor for anyone working with lead solutions. Good gloves, like nitrile, help prevent accidental skin contact. Some people don’t realize that lead salts can cling to lab surfaces or your hands, traveling with you long after you leave the lab. I’ve seen lead contamination show up in places people never expected, only because someone got lazy washing up after an experiment.
It’s also common sense to keep food and drinks out of the area. I still remember a colleague who brought a coffee mug into the lab during her sample prep. That kind of habit can ruin not just your health but also put others at risk. Lead exposure sneaks up through hand-to-mouth contact more easily than many expect.
Good ventilation beats fancy equipment when you’re working with lead. Fume hoods pull harmful vapors away from your face, trapping them before they spread. I always choose a designated hood for handling standards instead of working at my bench. Never trust that the low concentrations found in standards are harmless—lead toxicity builds up over time and it doesn’t take much.
If a spill happens, drop everything and clean it right. Specialized absorbent pads or even a lead spill kit can help mop up before the contamination spreads. Don’t toss lead solutions down the drain—regulations can be strict because water supplies can’t filter out heavy metals easily. Storing waste in properly labeled, leak-proof containers means nobody gets surprised down the line during disposal.
Clear labeling stops mix-ups. More than once, poor labels led someone to think they were handling a harmless control when it was actually a toxic standard. Labels should list the concentration, hazard, and preparation date—details that help prevent accidental exposure long after the original handler has forgotten the batch.
Long-term, repeated exposure poses the real threat. Lead accumulates in bones and organs, lurking quietly until it causes neurological damage or kidney problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is no safe blood lead level. Even low exposures can hurt, and lab workers aren’t immune to these effects just because they know the science.
Real lab safety means more than following rules on a poster. It’s about habits—washing hands after work, logging out chemicals, double-checking waste bottles, and talking with colleagues if something seems off. In my experience, teams that take small steps seriously run into fewer problems.
Further training goes a long way, especially for new lab members. Refresher courses on lead hazards and emergency protocols keep everyone sharp. Remember, it only takes one shortcut to put everyone at risk. Solid habits, a tidy work area, and a willingness to correct unsafe behaviors make a safer, healthier lab for everyone.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Lead(II) nitrate |
| Other names |
Lead Atomic Absorption Standard Lead AAS Standard Solution Lead Standard Solution for AAS Pb Standard for AAS |
| Pronunciation | /liːd ˈstændərd fɔːr eɪ.eɪˈɛs/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 34607-14-4 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3536682 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:27889 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1203792 |
| ChemSpider | 22714 |
| DrugBank | DB01548 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 0286c1a8-fb37-429c-859c-e5a826d6826c |
| EC Number | 1.19763 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gm186 |
| KEGG | C13621 |
| MeSH | Dental Alloy"[MeSH] |
| PubChem CID | 5631 |
| RTECS number | WA4900000 |
| UNII | Q817K2F6D7 |
| UN number | UN3316 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | CompTox Dashboard (EPA) of product 'Lead Standard for AAS' is "DT8292871". |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | Pb |
| Molar mass | 331.21 g/mol |
| Appearance | Clear, colorless liquid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.17 g/cm3 at 20 °C |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | -1.463 |
| Vapor pressure | <0.1 hPa at 20 °C |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | 'χ = −22.9 × 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol' |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.333 |
| Dipole moment | 0 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 105.5 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Toxic if swallowed. Suspected of causing cancer. Causes damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08, GHS09 |
| Pictograms | GHS06, GHS08 |
| Signal word | Danger |
| Hazard statements | H302 + H332: Harmful if swallowed or if inhaled. H350: May cause cancer. H360Df: May damage the unborn child. Suspected of damaging fertility. H373: May cause damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure. |
| Precautionary statements | P260, P264, P271, P273, P280, P302+P352, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P312, P321, P330, P362+P364, P405, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-0-0-POIS |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 Oral Rat: 5050 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): Oral (rat): 65 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | WL3670 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 0.05 mg/m3 |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.05-1.0 mg/L |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | 100 mg/m3 |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Lead(II) nitrate Lead(II) carbonate Lead(II) acetate Lead(II) chloride |
