What Home Lead Test Kits Can Tell You and What They Can’t

CR tested 11 lead test kits we bought online: AAwipes, AssuTest, ATAKIT, D-Lead, Easy@Home, Lumetallix, Luxfer LeadCheck, NewPos, PRO-LAB, Safe Home, and Umlecoa. 

We chose these brands because they are widely available and have a wide range of price points. The Umlecoa test kit was the least expensive per test at $7 for 30 swabs, and D-Lead’s kit was the priciest per test at $70 for seven sample collection bottles. Many of these kits involve swabs that change color when exposed to lead. D-Lead’s kit involves placing a paint sample into a bottle, adding a liquid, and then observing whether the liquid changes color or not. One kit, the Lumetallix, uses a newer technology involving a spray bottle and a UV-light flashlight.

The Environmental Protection Agency recognizes just two of the kits we tested, D-Lead and Luxfer LeadCheck. It recognizes them for use on house paint by trained professionals, and not for use on consumer products. Both of these test kits are specific in the language on their packaging, advertising that the kits will detect lead paint on materials including drywall, plaster, wood, and metal. 

Most of the other kits make broader claims about their intended uses. Safe Home, for instance, tells customers it “tests most surfaces” including “paint, dust, soil, wood, toys, furniture, metal, plastic, and more.” AAWipes mentions pottery, bathtub glazes, plumbing, and other materials. Lumetallix says it can be used on ceramic, plastic, glass, metal, and more, and an online listing says the kit can accurately detect lead on "virtually any surface."

We put all 11 kits through a series of evaluations on a variety of materials, both in-house and then at an external, independent lab.

First, we tested the kits ourselves in two ways. We used the kits the way that the average consumer might, by testing the painted surface of a metal magnet toy. We knew that this particular toy, a painted magnet that was part of a science kit sold on Amazon, had a lead level of 45,000 parts per million (ppm) because we had detected lead inside with an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) gun—a tool that professional lead inspectors use. (The presence of lead in this toy was also confirmed by an external lab.) Then we used the test kits on a reference sample of metal that contained a lower level of lead, 1,400 ppm.

For the next part of our evaluation, we shipped all of the lead test kits to an external lab, which tested them all on reference samples of paint that had three different concentrations of lead: 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm, and 10,000 ppm. (For comparison, the EPA’s definition of leaded house paint for regulatory purposes is 5,000 ppm lead.)

The good news: Almost all of the test kits performed well at detecting very high levels of lead. The bad news: The results got a lot less reliable, and a little more confusing to read, as the levels of lead we were trying to detect got lower. 

When the lab used the kits to test for high lead levels of 10,000 ppm, and medium levels of 1,000 ppm, all but one of the tests indicated clearly in easy-to-read results that yes, lead was present. (The one test that failed to detect lead in either was D-Lead, one of the EPA-recognized test kits.) But when tested on a reference sample with a much lower lead level, just 100 ppm, almost all of the kits failed to detect the lead at all. 

In our in-house tests, almost all of the kits failed to detect lead in the magnet toy. Those that did detect it gave unclear results—for instance, turning very light tan instead of red.

Together, these results make it difficult for CR’s experts to recommend any brand for use on low levels of lead. The outcomes suggest that these home test kits would all do a good job at detecting lead in house paint (at about 5,000 ppm), but that they would not do quite as well at detecting lead down to the regulatory limit for toys, which is 90 ppm for lead in surface paint and coatings, or 100 ppm for total lead content.

When the CPSC evaluated home lead test kits back in 2007, over half of the kits failed its test. According to a press release at the time, the agency determined that “these kits may not be useful for detecting relatively low lead paint concentrations or for detecting lead in other materials, such as metal jewelry or vinyl products.” And based on the findings of its study, the CPSC concluded that “consumers should not use lead test kits to evaluate consumer products for potential lead hazards.”

Of course, 2007 was a long time ago, but when asked recently about the agency’s current assessment of the home lead test kits on offer today, a CPSC spokesperson said they have been continuing to monitor the marketplace, and their views remain unchanged.

“Consumers should exercise caution when using at-home test kits to check consumer products or household surfaces for possible lead exposure,” wrote Shira Rawlinson, director of communications for the CPSC. “These kits can sometimes produce inaccurate or inconclusive results, which may make it difficult to determine what steps to take next.” She added that the only surefire way to know whether something contains lead is to send it to a qualified lab.

Still, although the kits aren’t designed to be accurate at very low levels, they may be worth considering in certain scenarios where the risk may be high, says Neltner, of Unleaded Kids. 

"In the absence of having anything, we need something, and those kits are ways to catch really high levels, and that’s important," says Neltner. "What we need is a better tool that’s been rigorously evaluated."

CR’s safety advocates say that it’s important that the manufacturers of lead test kits marketed for home use make it very clear to the consumer what the kits can do and can’t do, and which tests are best suited to use on which types of materials. 

“People are drawn to these test kits because they’re quick, affordable, and easy to use, but they aren’t appropriate for all situations,” said Oriene Shin, manager of safety advocacy for Consumer Reports. “Some manufacturers may overpromise on what these kits can do. Companies should review their marketing claims, clearly communicate their kits’ limitations, and indicate when a professional assessment is needed. Without that clarity, consumers can be either unnecessarily alarmed or falsely reassured about real risks.”

CR reached out to the manufacturers of the 11 test kits to tell them what we found. 

In their responses, many of the manufacturers said that their kits are only meant to provide a quick, initial screening for the presence or absence of lead, and are not meant to replace a professional lab assessment. 

“As with any screening tool, results should be considered preliminary guidance, and professional testing may be advisable when there is concern about potential lead exposure,” wrote a PRO-LAB representative. 

The Safe Home package includes a secondary sample collection kit and instructions for sending them in to their lab, to supplement the home test, for an additional fee, Chris Myers, President and CEO at Environmental Laboratories, Inc., which makes the Safe Home kits, told us.

“DIY is a great, economical place to start,” Myers wrote. Still, he added, “nothing can take the place of testing at a certified laboratory.” 

Easy@Home, like others, added that their kits are meant to alert consumers to the presence of surface lead that would present an immediate exposure risk, and are not meant to quantify the total lead content. Easy@Home also noted that instructions for their kit suggest making a diagonal cut in the paint before testing. Our testers did not do that since the lead in our tests was on the surface, not under newer layers of paint as is often the case on a wall, for example.

AAWipes told us that they are now selling a newer version of their test kits than the one we tested, but the older version that we bought still appears to be available for purchase. 

NewPos said that their kits could detect lead down to levels as low as 20 ppm, and Safe Home said 5 ppm; however, all of these kits, like the others in our evaluation, failed to detect lead at 100 ppm in our tests. Lumetallix told us that its kit can detect 500 ppm in paint—which is still lower than the regulatory limit for lead house paint—so they were not surprised that a positive result did not show up in our 100 ppm test.

The two test kits in our analysis that are currently recognized by the EPA are Luxfer LeadCheck and D-Lead. LeadCheck is a swab that turns red in the presence of lead, while D-Lead uses a vial of liquid that is supposed to turn a color when a paint chip placed inside contains lead. The LeadCheck swabs, like most of the others in our evaluation, worked well at both 10,000 and 1,000 ppm but failed to detect the lower level of 100 ppm. The D-Lead test, however, failed to detect any lead at all.

Luxfer told CR that it adheres to EPA guidelines and maintains strict quality control processes in manufacturing and validation, but did not comment on our test results in time for publication. D-Lead sent us information related to a lab evaluation of their kits from 2010, showing that their kits had performed well at detecting lead at 5,000 ppm at that time. The company also tested their own kits from the same lots as the ones we purchased, and said that they got positive results in those tests as well. 

“We are currently reviewing the data and performing additional testing to determine why the Consumer Reports test results differ from both our internal tests and the independent testing that was performed,” wrote George Laidlaw, director of sales for ESCA Tech Inc., which manufactures D-Lead kits.

We also shared our results with the EPA and asked them why they had chosen LeadCheck and D-Lead out of the whole marketplace of lead test kits, and when the agency had last evaluated them for accuracy. An agency staffer told us that the EPA does not recognize them for consumer use; rather, it recognizes them for professional use, for the purpose of determining whether lead is present in paint in pre-1978 buildings. The press office also said that the kits were last tested between 2008 and 2010.

The makers of AssuTest, ATAKIT, and Umlecoa did not respond to CR’s requests for comment. The Umlecoa test that we bought and evaluated appears to be no longer widely available.

As for the fate of the toy science kit with the magnet that we found contains lead, it is no longer for sale on Amazon’s platform. When CR alerted Amazon to our findings about the toy, a representative told us that they had removed it from the platform while they investigated it. 

We also asked the CPSC to investigate the toy, and Rawlinson told CR that the agency is following up.

A law passed in 2008 called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act lowered the limits for lead allowed on accessible parts of toys and other children’s products, so these items manufactured after 2009 are much more likely to be safe. The law brought huge improvements to the toy industry and to the regulatory system after that time, says Tom Neltner of Unleaded Kids. That also means that vintage toys—items made before 2009—are going to be more suspect.

“Those treasured toys that you may have had as a kid, and you really want your kids to play with, those may have really high levels,” says Neltner. “So keep them treasured, but just don’t let your kids play with them.”

He says you should also avoid old cribs and other painted furniture, for the same reason. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, lead may also be present in antique items like dishware, painted tin panels, lead crystal pieces, ceramics, silverware, and jewelry.

Even with those regulations in place and a mostly safe toy market, there are occasional outliers, as evidenced by the CPSC’s recalls. For this testing project, CR bought 68 toys online that we thought might contain lead, and only found one, the painted metal magnet, that we could confirm had lead.

Toys made in the U.S., Canada, or the EU are less likely to contain lead than toys made in other places, according to the CDC. But since buying toys only made in the U.S., Canada, or the EU may not be practical or affordable, CR experts advise parents to shop for toys from brands they’ve heard of, and that are sold directly by trusted U.S. retailers.

It’s impossible to know just by looking at something whether it contains lead or not, but painted surfaces, ceramics, vintage toys, imported toys, and costume or toy jewelry are potential culprits. Home lead test kits like the ones we evaluated for this story will likely pick up very high levels of lead on an object’s surface, but not necessarily lower levels (and not lead that’s contained inside). So they should be considered an initial screening tool only.

Another thing to know about the limitations of lead test kits: They can only be used on the outer surface of an object, and not internal parts. When our testers were screening toys with an XRF gun for lead content, several toys showed up positive for lead in internal parts that were not immediately accessible. If those toys become broken or worn down over time, those lead-containing internal parts could become accessible to kids. That’s yet another reason to throw a toy away if it breaks: The inside parts may not be safe.

If something is particularly valuable and you want to know for sure whether it contains lead, you can send it to a certified lab: The EPA website has a list of labs here. As described above, some home lead test kits include collection containers and instructions to mail materials to certified labs. But if it isn’t worth the effort or expense, the safest and most practical thing may be to just keep the toy out of the hands of babies and young kids, or get it out of the house altogether.

It’s easy enough to throw away a suspiciously old or broken toy (as long as the kids aren’t looking). But what about lead paint in the home? 

According to the EPA, 87 percent of homes built before 1940 have some lead-based paint, and 24 percent of homes built between 1960 and 1978 do. If your house was built before 1978, the agency says, the safest thing to do is to assume that it contains lead paint, and call someone to help locate and mitigate it. 

For help finding a certified inspector or risk assessor, the EPA recommends calling the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).

Although the U.S. has made great strides in replacing lead water pipes, there is still more work to be done. And if you are one of the approximately 43 million Americans who get your drinking water from a private well, rather than from a municipal supply, then you are responsible for testing and maintaining its safety. 

If you are curious about lead levels in the drinking water in your home, don’t use any of the home lead test kits we looked at for this story; none of them are meant to be used on water or other liquids. Here’s CR’s guide to getting your drinking water tested, and if necessary, treated.