United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-OTS 560/5^87-005
July 1987 -.
Toxic Substances
*
Household Solvent Products:
A National Usage Survey
Carburet
Cleaner
Paint
Remouer
Electronic
Equipment
Cleaner
Engine
Degreasei
Spot
Remover
Household
Lubricant
Spray
Shoe'
Polish
Typewriter
Correction
-------
FINAL REPORT
HOUSEHOLD SOLVENT PRODUCTS:
A NATIONAL USAGE SURVEY
Prepared by:
WESTAT, Inc.
1650 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
Under subcontract to:
Battelle Columbus Division
Washington Operations
2030 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Under EPA Contract No. 68-02-4243
For the:
Exposure Evaluation Division
Office of Toxic Substances
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
July, 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region V, Library ^
230 South Dearborn Street '
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ,, ,i«-.-:
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared under contract to an agency of the
United States Government. Neither the United States Government
nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their
employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes
any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use
or the results of such use of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents that
its use by such third party would not infringe on privately owned
rights.
Publication of the data in this document does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
AUTHORS AND RESEARCH TEAM
A variety of staff at Westat contributed to the research
design, analysis plan, data collection, data processing, and
analysis that made this report possible. Major contributors
include:
Westat Project Director:
Westat Corporate Officer:
Westat Project Statistician:
Other Research and Computer Staff:
Research Analysts and Assistants;
Telephone Research Support:
Data Preparation Management
and Assistance
Secretarial Support:
Donna Eisenhower
Stephen Dietz
Paul Flyer
John Rogers
Joan Bull
Garrett Moran
Janice Machado
Lisa Puhl
Debbie Bittner
Susan Englehart
Cathy Ann Grundmayer
Diane Sickles
Lisa Caldwalder
Caroline Carr
Sandy Gallagher
Nita Lemanski
Betty Ovington
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency Staff:
EPA's OTS Exposure Evaluation Division staff directed
all phases of this research effort. Principal EPA contributors
include:
Task Manager: Mary Frankenberry
Task Consultant: Patrick Kennedy
Project Officer: Cindy Stroup
Battelle Columbus Division
Battelle - Columbus Laboratories, as the prime
contractor, provided general contract support through:
Prime Contract Manager: Jean Chesson
Michael Samuhel
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF TABLES xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ivii
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
I. Background 1-1
II. Survey Methodology 1-4
III. Use of the Data 1-5
IV. Overview to the Report 1-6
2 DESCRIPTION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES 2-1
I. Questionnaire Validation 2-1
II. Sample Quality and Response Rate 2-2
III. Data Collection Methods 2-3
IV. Data Preparation and Processing 2-3
V. Conclusion and Summary 2-5
3 SAMPLING DESIGN AND SELECTION 3-1
I. Sampling Frame 3-1
II. Selection of the Sample 3-2
III. Sampling Error and Statistical Accuracy ... 3-2
IV. Variance Estimation 3-4
4 RESULTS: COMPARISONS AND ANALYSES ACROSS
PRODUCTS 4-1
I. Total Number of Products Used 4-1
A. Products "Ever Used" 4-1
B. Products Used Within the Last Twelve
Months 4-1
II. Rank-Orderings of Products by Question and
Selected Contributions to Total Exposure .. 4-1
III. Cross Use of Products 4-18
A. Users of Aerosol Spray Paint Who Use
Other Products 4-18
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
4 III. B. Users of Carburetor Cleaners Who Use
Other Products 4-18
IV. Specialty Group Users 4-22
A. Automotive Users 4-22
B. Paint Users 4-25
V. Gender and Age Differences in Product Use.. 4-27
A. Gender Differences 4-27
B. Age Differences 4-31
VI. Differences Between Mail and Telephone
Completed Questionnaires 4-40
I. Sources of Sampling and Nonsampling Error
in the Data
II. Descriptive Statistical Aspects and
Overview of the Data
Ill . Findings for Products
A. Spray Shoe Polish
B. Water Repellents/Protectors (for
Suede, Leather, and Cloth)
C. Spot Removers
D. Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or
Degreasers
E. Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
F. Typewriter Correction Fluid
G. Contact Cement, Super Glues and Spray
Adhesives
H. Adhesive Removers (General Purpose,
Tile, and Wallpaper)
I. Silicone Lubricants (Excluding
J. Other Lubricants (Excluding
Automotive)
K. Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for
TV, VCR, Razor, etc.)
L. Latex Paint
M. Oil Paint
N. Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes . . .
O. Paint Removers/Strippers
P. Paint Thinners
5-1
5-2
5-4
5-9
5-23
5-37
5-51
5-65
5-79
5-93
5-107
5-121
5-135
5-149
5-163
5-177
5-191
5-205
5-219
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
5 III. Q. Aerosol Spray Paint 5-233
R. Primers and Special Primers
(Excluding Automotive 5-247
S. Aerosol Rust Removers 5-261
T. Outdoor Water Repellents (for Wood or
Cement) 5-275
U. Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and
Artificial Snow 5-289
V. Engine Degreasers 5-303
W. Carburetor Cleaners 5-317
X. Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars 5-331
Y, Auto Spray Primers 5-345
Z. Spray Lubricant for Cars 5-359
AA. Transmission Cleaners 5-373
BB. Battery Terminal Protectors 5-387
CC. Brake Quieters/Cleaners 5-401
DD. Gasket Removers 5-415
EE. Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-429
FF. Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-443
IV. Findings for the Drycleaning Questions .... 5-457
A. Frequency of Commercial Drycleaning
Use 5-457
B. Frequency of Self-Service Drycleaning
Use 5-459
V. Respondent Characteristics of the Sample .. 5-463
A. Respondent Age 5-463
B. Respondent Gender 5-463
C. Number of Household Members 5-464
D. Number of Bedrooms in House 5-465
6 BRAND IMPUTATION MODELING 6-1
I. Statement of the Problem 6-1
A. Background 6-1
B. Assignment of Zeros 6-4
II. Brand Imputation Model and Procedures 6-5
A. The Model 6-5
B. Brand Imputation Procedures 6-7
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
6 III. Limitations of the Brand Imputation Model
and Procedures 6-8
A. Bias 6-8
B. Overstated Sample Size 6-11
C. Use or Publication of the Results 6-14
Appendices
A RESULTS OF VARIANCE ESTIMATION A-l
B TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT B-l
C ACTUAL MEAN VALUES OF COMPARISONS OF BRANDS BY
PRODUCT FOR THOSE WITH AND WITHOUT LABORATORY
DATA AND THOSE FOUND TO BE WITH AND WITHOUT
THE CHEMICAL C-l
D SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS FOR AEROSOL ONLY
PRODUCTS D-l
E RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECTING LIFETIME
FREQUENCY OF USE E-l
F PRODUCT BRAND STATISTICS F-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Chlorocarbon Household Survey Statistical
accuracy for selected products used in the last
12 months 3-3
4-1 Descriptive statistics for total number of
products ever used 4-2
4-2 Frequency distribution of total products "ever
used" 4-2
4-3 Percentile rankings for total number of
products ever used 4-3
4-4 Descriptive statistics for total number of
products used during last 12 months 4-3
4-5 Frequency distribution of total products used
during the last 12 months 4-4
4-6 Percentile rankings for total number of
products used during the last 12 months 4-4
4-7 Rank orderings of incidence of use (ever used)
for all products 4-6
4-8 Rank orderings of last time product was used
in months for all products 4-7
4-9 Rank orderings of number of uses of the product
within the last 12 months for all products 4-8
4-10 Rank orderings and average percent of exposure
for time spent using product for all products ... 4-10
4-11 Rank orderings and average percent of exposure
for time spent in the room after last use for
all products 4-11
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4-12 Rank orderings and average percent of exposure
for amount of product used in ounces per year
for all products 4-12
4-13 Rank orderings of those saying they kept a door
or window open to the outside for all products .. 4-14
4-14 Rank orderings of those saying they kept an
exhaust fan on during use for all products 4-15
4-15 Rank orderings of those saying they kept the
door to the room open during use 4-16
4-16 Rank orderings of those saying they read the
directions on the label for last use of
product 4-17
4-17 Percentage of "Ever Users" of Aerosol Spray
Paint who "Ever Used" other products 4-19
4-18 Percentage of users in the last twelve months of
Aerosol Spray Paint who also used other
products in the last twelve months 4-20
4-19 Percentage of "Ever Users" of Carburetor
Cleaners who "Ever Used" other products 4-21
4-20 Percentage of "Users in the Last Twelve Months"
of Carburetor Cleaners who also "Used Other
Products in the Last Twelve Months" 4-23
4-21 Statistics for usage variables for automotive
users (all ten automotive products are assessed
as a group) 4-24
4-22 Statistics for usage variables for paint users
(selected paint products taken as a group) 4-26
4-23 Gender Differences in Product Use by Product .... 4-28
4-24 Age Differences in Product Use by Product 4-32
5-0 Product Tables (listed as Table A-l - Table FF-19):
A. SPRAY SHOE POLISH
A-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spray Shoe Polish 5-11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
A-2 Last time Spray Shoe Polish was used in
months 5-12
A-3 Percentile rankings for Spray Shoe
Polish months since last use 5-12
A-4 Number of uses of Spray Shoe Polish
within the last 12 months 5-13
A-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Spray Shoe Polish within the last 12
months 5-13
A-6 Time spent using Spray Shoe Polish, last
time used 5-14
A-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Spray Shoe Polish the last time used 5-14
A-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Spray Shoe Polish 5-15
A-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Spray Shoe Polish 5-15
A-10 Percentile rankings for Spray Shoe Polish
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-16
A-ll Brands of Spray Shoe Polish used 5-17
A-12 Percent of respondents saying Spray Shoe
Polish is aerosol 5-17
A-13 Amount of Spray Shoe Polish used in
ounces 5-18
A-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Spray
Shoe Polish used in ounces 5-18
A-15 Location of last use of the product 5-19
A-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Spray Shoe Polish 5-20
Xlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
A-17 Ounces per use of Spray Shoe Polish 5-20
A-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Spray Shoe Polish 5-21
A-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Spray Shoe Polish 5-21
B. WATER REPELLENTS/PROTECTORS (FOR
SUEDE, LEATHER, AND CLOTH)
B-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Water Repellents 5-25
B-2 Last time Water Repellents was used in
months 5-25
B-3 Percentile rankings for Water Repellents
months since last use 5-26
B-4 Number of uses of Water Repellents within
the last 12 months 5-27
B-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Water Repellents within the last 12
months 5-27
B-6 Time spent using Water Repellents, last
time used 5-28
B-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Water Repellents the last time used 5-28
B-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Water Repellents 5-29
B-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Water Repellents 5-29
B-10 Percentile rankings for Water Repellents
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-30
B-ll Brands of Water Repellents used 5-31
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
B-12 Percent of respondents saying Water
Repellents is aerosol 5-31
B-13 Amount of Water Repellents used in
ounces 5-32
B-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Water
Repellents used in ounces 5-32
B-15 Location of last use of the product 5-33
B-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Water Repellents 5-34
B-17 Ounces per use of Water Repellents 5-34
B-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Water Repellents 5-35
B-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Water Repellents 5-35
C. SPOT REMOVERS
C-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spot Removers 5-39
C-2 Last time Spot Removers was used in
months 5-39
C-3 Percentile rankings for Spot Removers
months since last use 5-40
c-4 Number of uses of Spot Removers within
the last 12 months 5-41
C-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Spot Removers within the last 12 months... 5-41
C-6 Time spent using Spot Removers, last time
used 5-42
C-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Spot Removers the last time used 5-42
C-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Spot Removers 5-43
XV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
C-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Spot Removers 5-43
C-10 Percentile rankings for Spot Removers for
time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-44
C-X1 Brands of Spot Removers used 5-45
C-12 Percent of respondents saying Spot
Removers is aerosol 5-45
C-13 Amount of Spot Removers used in ounces ... 5-46
C-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Spot
Removers used in ounces 5-46
C-15 Location of last use of the product 5-47
C-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Spot Removers 5-48
C-17 Ounces per use of Spot Removers 5-48
C-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Spot Removers 5-49
C-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Spot Removers 5-49
D. SOLVENT-TYPE CLEANING FLUIDS OR
DE6REASERS
D-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-53
D-2 Last time Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
was used in months 5-53
D-3 Percentile rankings for Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluids months since last use . 5-54
D-4 Number of uses of Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids within the last 12 months 5-55
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
D-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids within the
last 12 months 5-55
D-6 Time spent using Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids, last time used 5-56
D-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids the last
time used 5-56
D-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-57
D-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-57
D-10 Percentile rankings for Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluids for time spent in the
room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room 5-58
D-ll Brands of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
used 5-59
D-12 Percent of respondents saying Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluids is aerosol 5-59
D-13 Amount of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
used in ounces 5-60
D-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Solvent-
type Cleaning Fluids used in ounces 5-60
D-15 Location of last use of the product 5-61
D-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-62
D-17 Ounces per use of Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids 5-62
D-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-63
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
D-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-63
E. WOOD FLOOR AND PANELING CLEANERS
E-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-67
E-2 Last time Wood Floor Panel Cleaners was
used in months 5-67
E-3 Percentile rankings for Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners months since last use 5-68
E-4 Number of uses of Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners within the last 12 months 5-69
E-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners within the last
12 months 5-69
E-6 Time spent using Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners, last time used 5-70
E-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners the last time
used 5-70
E-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-71
E-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-71
E-10 Percentile rankings for Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-72
E-ll Brands of Wood Floor Panel Cleaners used. 5-73
E-12 Percent of respondents saying Wood Floor
Panel Cleaners is aerosol 5-73
E-13 Amount of Wood Floor Panel Cleaners used
in ounces 5-74
XVill
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
E-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Wood
Floor Panel Cleaners used in ounces 5-74
E-15 Location of last use of the product 5-75
E-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-76
E-17 Ounces per use of Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners 5-76
E-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-77
E-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-77
P. TYPEWRITER CORRECTION FLUID
F-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-81
F-2 Last time Typewriter Correction Fluid was
used in months 5-81
F-3 Percentile rankings for Typewriter
Correction Fluid months since last
use 5-82
F-4 Number of uses of Typewriter Correction
Fluid within the last 12 months 5-83
F-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Typewriter Correction Fluid within the
last 12 months 5-83
F-6 Time spent using Typewriter Correction
Fluid, last time used 5-84
F-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Typewriter Correction Fluid the last time
used 5-84
F-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-85
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
F-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-85
F-10 Percentile rankings for Typewriter
Correction Fluid for time spent in the
room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room 5-86
F-ll Brands of Typewriter Correction Fluid
used 5-87
F-12 Percent of respondents saying Typewriter
Correction Fluid is aerosol 5-87
F-13 Amount of Typewriter Correction Fluid
used in ounces 5-88
F-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Typewriter Correction Fluid used in
ounces 5-88
F-15 Location of last use of the product 5-89
F-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-90
F-17 Ounces per use of Typewriter Correction
Fluid 5-90
F-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-91
F-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-91
6. CONTACT CEMENT, SUPER GLUES AND SPRAY
ADHESIVES
G-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-95
G-2 Last time Contact Cements, Super Glues,
and Spray Adhesives was used in months .. 5-95
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
1-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Silicone Lubricants 5-133
J. OTHER LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
J-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Other Lubricants 5-137
J-2 Last time Other Lubricants was used in
months 5-137
J-3 Percentile rankings for Other Lubricants
months since last use 5-138
J-4 Number of uses of Other Lubricants within
the last 12 months 5-139
J-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Other Lubricants within the last 12
months 5-139
J-6 Time spent using Other Lubricants, last
time used 5-140
J-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Other Lubricants the last time used 5-140
J-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Other Lubricants 5-141
J-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Other Lubricants 5-141
J-10 Percentile rankings for Other Lubricants
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-142
J-ll Brands of Other Lubricants used 5-143
J-12 Percent of respondents saying Other
Lubricants is aerosol 5-143
J-l3 Amount of Other Lubricants used in
ounces 5-144
xxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
J-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Other
Lubricants used in ounces 5-144
J-15 Location of last use of the product 5-145
J-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Other Lubricants 5-146
J-17 Ounces per use of Other Lubricants 5-146
J-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Other Lubricants 5-147
J-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Other Lubricants 5-147
K. .SPECIALIZED ELECTRONIC CLEANERS (FOR
TV, VCR, RAZOR, ETC.)
K-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-151
K-2 Last time Specialized Electronic Cleaners
was used in months 5-151
K-3 Percentile rankings for Specialized
Electronic Cleaners months since last
use 5-152
K-4 Number of uses of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners within the last 12 months 5-153
K-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners within
the last 12 months 5-153
K-6 Time spent using Specialized Electronic
Cleaners, last time used 5-154
K-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Specialized Electronic Cleaners the last
time used 5-154
K-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-155
xxvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
H-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Adhesive Removers 5-113
H-10 Percentile rankings for Adhesive Removers
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-114
H-ll Brands of Adhesive Removers used 5-115
H-12 Percent of respondents saying Adhesive
Removers is aerosol 5-115
H-13 Amount of Adhesive Removers used in
ounces 5-116
H-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Adhesive
Removers used in ounces 5-116
H-15 Location of last use of the product 5-117
H-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Adhesive Removers 5-117
H-17 Ounces per use of Adhesive Removers 5-118
H-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Adhesive Removers 5-118
H-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Adhesive Removers 5-119
I. SILICONE LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
1-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Silicone Lubricants 5-123
1-2 Last time Silicone Lubricants was used in
months 5-123
1-3 Percentile rankings for Silicone Lubricants
months since last use 5-124
xxi 11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
1-4 Number of uses of Silicone Lubricants
within the last 12 months 5-125
1-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Silicone Lubricants within the last 12
months 5-125
1-6 Time spent using Silicone Lubricants,
last time used 5-126
1-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Silicone Lubricants the last time used .. 5-126
1-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Silicone Lubricants 5-127
1-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Silicone Lubricants 5-127
1-10 Percentile rankings for Silicone Lubricants
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-128
1-11 Brands of Silicone Lubricants used 5-129
1-12 Percent of respondents saying Silicone
Lubricants is aerosol 5-129
1-13 Amount of Silicone Lubricants used in
ounces 5-130
1-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Silicone Lubricants used in ounces 5-130
1-15 Location of last use of the product 5-131
1-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Silicone Lubricants 5-132
1-17 Ounces per use of Silicone Lubricants ... 5-132
1-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Silicone Lubricants 5-133
xxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
G-3 Percentile rankings for Contact Cements,
Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
months since last use 5-96
G-4 Number of uses of Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives within the
last 12 months 5-97
G-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives within the last 12 months 5-97
G-6 Time spent using Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives, last time
used 5-98
G-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives the last time used 5-98
G-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-99
G-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-99
G-10 Percentile rankings for Contact Cements,
Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives for time
spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-100
G-ll Brands of Contact Cements, Super Glues,
and Spray Adhesives used 5-101
G-12 Percent of respondents saying Contact
Cements, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
is aerosol 5-101
G-13 Amount of Contact Cements, Super Glues,
and Spray Adhesives used in ounces 5-102
xx i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
G-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Contact
Cements, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
used in ounces 5-102
G-15 Location of last use of the product 5-103
G-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Contact Cements, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives 5-104
G-17 Ounces per use of Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives 5-104
G-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-105
G-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-105
H. ADHESIVE REMOVERS (GENERAL PURPOSE,
TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
H-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Adhesive Removers 5-109
H-2 Last time Adhesive Removers was used in
months 5-109
H-3 Percentile rankings for Adhesive
Removers months since last use 5-110
H-4 Number of uses of Adhesive Removers
within the last 12 months 5-111
H-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Adhesive Removers within the last 12
months 5-111
H-6 Time spent using Adhesive Removers, last
time used 5-112
H-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Adhesive Removers the last time used .... 5-112
H-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Adhesive Removers 5-113
xxii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
K-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-155
K-10 Percentile rankings for Specialized
Electronic Cleaners for time spent in the
room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room 5-156
K-ll Brands of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners used 5-157
K-12 Percent of respondents saying Specialized
Electronic Cleaners is aerosol 5-157
K-13 Amount of Specialized Electronic Cleaners
used in ounces 5-158
K-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners used in
ounces 5-158
K-15 Location of last use of the product 5-159
K-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Specialized Electronic Cleaners ... 5-160
K-17 Ounces per use of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners 5-160
K-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-161
K-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-161
L. LATEX PAINT
L-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Latex Paint 5-165
L-2 Last time Latex Paint was used in months. 5-165
L-3 Percentile rankings for Latex Paint
months since last use 5-166
xxv 11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
L-4 Number of uses of Latex Paint within the
last 12 months 5-167
L-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Latex Paint within the last 12 months ... 5-167
L-6 Time spent using Latex Paint, last time
used 5-168
L-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Latex Paint the last time used 5-168
L-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Latex Paint 5-169
L-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Latex Paint 5-169
L-10 Percentile rankings for Latex Paint for
time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-170
L-ll Brands of Latex Paint used 5-171
L-12 Percent of respondents saying Latex Paint
is aerosol 5-171
L-13 Amount of Latex Paint used in ounces .... 5-172
L-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Latex
Paint used in ounces 5-172
L-15 Location of last use of the product 5-173
L-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Latex Paint 5-174
L-17 Ounces per use of Latex Paint 5-174
L-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Latex Paint 5-175
L-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Latex Paint 5-175
XXVlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
M. OIL PAINT
M-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Oil Paint 5-179
M-2 Last time Oil Paint was used in months .. 5-179
M-3 Percentile rankings for Oil Paint
months since last use 5-180
M-4 Number of uses of Oil Paint within the
last 12 months 5-181
M-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Oil Paint within the last 12 months 5-181
M-6 Time spent using Oil Paint, last time
used 5-182
M-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Oil Paint the last time used 5-182
M-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Oil Paint 5-183
M-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Oil Paint 5-183
M-10 Percentile rankings for Oil Paint for
time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-184
M-ll Brands of Oil Paint used 5-185
M-12 Percent of respondents saying Oil Paint
is aerosol 5-185
M-13 Amount of Oil Paint used in ounces 5-186
M-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Oil
Paint used in ounces 5-186
M-15 Location of last use of the product 5-187
XXIX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
M-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Oil Paint 5-188
M-17 Ounces per use of Oil Paint 5-188
M-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Oil Paint 5-189
M-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Oil Paint 5-189
N. WOOD STAINS, VARNISHES AND FINISHES
N-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-193
N-2 Last time Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes was used in months 5-193
N-3 Percentile rankings for Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes months since
last use 5-194
N-4 Number of uses of Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes within the last 12 months .. 5-195
N-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
within the last 12 months 5-195
N-6 Time spent using Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes, last time used 5-196
N-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes the
last time used 5-196
N-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes ..... 5-197
N-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-197
XXX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
N-10 Percentile rankings for Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes for time spent in
the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room 5-198
N-ll Brands of Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes used 5-199
N-12 Percent of respondents saying Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes is aerosol 5-199
N-13 Amount of Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes used in ounces 5-200
N-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Wood
Stains, Varnishes and Finishes used in
ounces 5-200
N-15 Location of last use of the product 5-201
N-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-202
N-17 Ounces per use of Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes 5-202
N-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-203
N-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-203
O. PAINT REMOVERS/STRIPPERS
o-i Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-207
O-2 Last time Paint Removers/Strippers was
used in months 5-207
O-3 Percentile rankings for Paint Removers/
Strippers months since last use 5-208
O-4 Number of uses of Paint Removers/Strippers
within the last 12 months 5-209
xxxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
O-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Paint Removers/Strippers within the last
12 months 5-209
O-6 Time spent using Paint Removers/Strippers,
last time used 5-210
O-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Paint Removers/Strippers the last time
used 5-210
O-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-211
0-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-211
0-10 Percentile rankings for Paint Removers/
Strippers for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-212
0-11 Brands of Paint Removers/Strippers used.. 5-213
O-12 Percent of respondents saying Paint
Removers/Strippers is aerosol 5-213
0-13 Amount of Paint Removers/Strippers used
in ounces 5-214
O-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Paint
Removers/Strippers used in ounces 5-214
O-15 Location of last use of the product 5-215
O-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Paint Removers/Strippers 5-216
O-17 Ounces per use of Paint Removers/
Strippers 5-216
0-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-217
O-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-217
xxx 11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
P. PAINT THINKERS
P-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Paint Thinners 5-221
P-2 Last time Paint Thinners was used in
months 5-221
P-3 Percentile rankings for Paint Thinners
months since last use 5-222
P-4 Number of uses of Paint Thinners within
the last 12 months 5-223
P-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Paint Thinners within the last 12 months. 5-223
P-6 Time spent using Paint Thinners, last
time used 5-224
P-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Paint Thinners the last time used 5-224
P-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Paint Thinners 5-225
p-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Paint Thinners 5-225
P-10 Percentile rankings for Paint Thinners
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in the
room 5-226
P-ll Brands of Paint Thinners used 5-227
P-12 Percent of respondents saying Paint
Thinners is aerosol 5-227
P-13 Amount of Paint Thinners used in ounces.. 5-228
P-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Paint
Thinners used in ounces 5-228
P-15 Location of last use of the product 5-229
xxxi11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
P-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Paint Thinners 5-230
P-17 Ounces per use of Paint Thinners 5-230
P-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Paint Thinners 5-231
P-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Paint Thinners 5-231
Q. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT
Q-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-235
Q-2 Last time Aerosol Spray Paint was used
in months 5-235
Q-3 Percentile rankings for Aerosol Spray
Paint months since last use 5-236
Q-4 Number of uses of Aerosol Spray Paint
within the last 12 months 5-236
Q-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Aerosol Spray Paint within the last 12
months 5-237
Q-6 Time spent using Aerosol Spray Paint,
last time used 5-238
Q-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Aerosol Spray Paint the last time used .. 5-238
Q-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-239
Q-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who did
not spend any time in room but used
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-239
Q-10 Percentile rankings for Aerosol Spray
Paint for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-240
xxx iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Q-ll Brands of Aerosol Spray Paint used 5-241
Q-12 Percent of respondents saying Aerosol
Spray Paint is aerosol 5-241
Q-13 Amount of Aerosol Spray Paint used in
ounces 5-242
Q-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Aerosol
Spray Paint used in ounces 5-242
Q-15 Location of last use of the product 5-243
Q-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Aerosol Spray Paint 5-244
Q-17 Ounces per use of Aerosol Spray Paint ... 5-244
Q-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-245
Q-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-245
R. PRIMERS AND SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE
R-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Primers 5-249
R-2 Last time Primers was used in months .... 5-249
R-3 Percentile rankings for Primers
months since last use 5-250
R-4 Number of uses of Primers within the
last 12 months 5-251
R-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Primers within the last 12 months 5-251
R-6 Time spent using Primers, last time used. 5-252
R-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Primers the last time used 5-252
xxxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
R-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Primers 5-253
R-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Primers 5-253
R-10 Percentile rankings for Primers for time
spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room ... 5-254
R-ll Brands of Primers used 5-255
R-12 Percent of respondents saying Primers is
aerosol 5-255
R-13 Amount of Primers used in ounces 5-256
R-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Primers
used in ounces 5-256
R-15 Location of last use of the product 5-257
R-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Primers 5-257
R-17 Ounces per use of Primers 5-258
R-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Primers 5-259
R-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Primers 5-259
S. AEROSOL RUST REMOVERS
S-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Aerosol Rust Removers 5-263
S-2 Last time Aerosol Rust Removers was used
in months 5-263
S-3 Percentile rankings for Aerosol Rust
Removers months since last use 5-264
S-4 Number of uses of Aerosol Rust Removers
within the last 12 months 5-265
xxxv i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
S-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Aerosol Rust Removers within the last
12 months 5-265
S-6 Time spent using Aerosol Rust Removers,
last time used 5-266
S-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Aerosol Rust Removers the last time
used 5-266
S-8 Time spent in the room after last use
of Aerosol Rust Removers 5-267
S-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Aerosol Rust Removers 5-267
S-10 Percentile rankings for Aerosol Rust
Removers for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-268
S-ll Brands of Aerosol Rust Removers used ... 5-269
S-12 Percent of respondents saying Aerosol
Rust Removers is aerosol 5-269
S-13 Amount of Aerosol Rust Removers used
in ounces 5-270
S-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Aerosol Rust Removers used in ounces ... 5-270
S-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-271
S-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Aerosol Rust Removers 5-272
S-17 Ounces per use of Aerosol Rust Removers. 5-272
S-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use
of Aerosol Rust Removers 5-273
S-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Aerosol Rust Removers 5-273
XXXV11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
T. OUTDOOR WATER REPELLENTS (FOR WOOD OR
CEMENT)
T-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-277
T-2 Last time Outdoor Water Repellents was
used in months 5-277
T-3 Percentile rankings for Outdoor Water
Repellents months since last use .... 5-278
T-4 Number of uses of Outdoor Water Repellents
within the last 12 months 5-279
T-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Outdoor Water Repellents within the last
12 months 5-279
T-6 Time spent using Outdoor Water
Repellents, last time used 5-280
T-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Outdoor Water Repellents the last time
used 5-280
T-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-281
T-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Outdoor Water Repellents 5-281
T-10 Percentile rankings for Outdoor Water
Repellents for time spent in the room
after last use including only those who
spent time in the room 5-282
T-ll Brands of Outdoor Water Repellents used. 5-283
T-12 Percent of respondents saying Outdoor
Water Repellents is aerosol 5-283
T-13 Amount of Outdoor Water Repellents used
in ounces 5-284
xxxviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
T-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Outdoor
Water Repellents used in ounces 5-284
T-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-285
T-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-286
T-17 Ounces per use of Outdoor Water
Repellents 5-286
T-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-287
T-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-287
U. GLASS FROSTINGS, WINDOW TINTS, AND
ARTIFICIAL SNOW
U-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-291
U-2 Last time Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow was used in months.. 5-291
U-3 Percentile rankings for Glass Frosting,
Window Tint and Artificial Snow
months since last use 5-292
U-4 Number of uses of Glass Frosting, Window
Tint and Artificial Snow within the last
12 months 5-293
U-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow within the last 12 months 5-293
U-6 Time spent using Glass Frosting, Window
Tint and Artificial Snow, last time
used 5-294
U-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow the last time used 5-294
xxxix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
U-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-295
U-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-295
U-10 Percentile rankings for Glass Frosting,
Window Tint and Artificial Snow for time
spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-296
U-ll Brands of Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow used 5-297
U-12 Percent of respondents saying Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow is aerosol 5-297
U-13 Amount of Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow used in ounces 5-298
U-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow used in ounces 5-298
U-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-299
U-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-300
U-17 Ounces per use of Glass Frosting, Window
Tint and Artificial Snow 5-300
U-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-301
U-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-301
xl
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
V. ENGINE DEGREASERS
V-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Engine Degreasers 5-305
V-2 Last time Engine Degreasers was used in
months 5-305
V-3 Percentile rankings for Engine
Degreasers months since last use .... 5-306
V-4 Number of uses of Engine Degreasers
within the last 12 months 5-307
V-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Engine Degreasers within the last 12
months 5-307
V-6 Time spent using Engine Degreasers, last
time used 5-308
V-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Engine Degreasers the last time used ... 5-308
V-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Engine Degreasers 5-309
V-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Engine Degreasers 5-309
V-10 Percentile rankings for Engine Degreasers
for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time
in the room 5-310
V-ll Brands of Engine Degreasers used 5-311
V-12 Percent of respondents saying Engine
Degreasers is aerosol 5-311
V-13 Amount of Engine Degreasers used in
ounces 5-312
V-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Engine Degreasers used in ounces 5-312
xli
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
V-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-313
V-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Engine Degreasers 5-314
V-17 Ounces per use of Engine Degreasers .... 5-314
V-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Engine Degreasers 5-315
V-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Engine Degreasers 5-315
W. CARBURETOR CLEANERS
W-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Carburetor Cleaners 5-319
W-2 Last time Carburetor Cleaners was used
in months 5-319
W-3 Percentile rankings for Carburetor
Cleaners months since last use 5-320
W-4 Number of uses of Carburetor Cleaners
within the last 12 months 5-321
W-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Carburetor Cleaners within the last 12
months 5-321
W-6 Time spent using Carburetor Cleaners,
last time used 5-322
W-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Carburetor Cleaners the last time used . 5-322
W-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Carburetor Cleaners 5-323
W-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Carburetor Cleaners 5-323
xlii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
W-10 Percentile rankings for Carburetor
Cleaners for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-324
W-ll Brands of Carburetor Cleaners used 5-325
W-12 Percent of respondents saying Carburetor
Cleaners is aerosol 5-325
W-13 Amount of Carburetor Cleaners used in
ounces 5-326
W-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Carburetor Cleaners used in ounces 5-326
W-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-327
W-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Carburetor Cleaners 5-328
W-17 Ounces per use of Carburetor Cleaners .. 5-328
W-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use
of Carburetor Cleaners 5-329
W-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Carburetor Cleaners 5-329
X. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT FOR CARS
X-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Auto Spray Paint 5-333
X-2 Last time Auto Spray Paint was used in
months 5-333
X-3 Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Paint
months since last use 5-334
X-4 Number of uses of Auto Spray Paint within
the last 12 months 5-335
X-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Auto Spray Paint within the last 12
months 5-335
xliii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
X-6 Time spent using Auto Spray Paint, last
time used 5-336
X-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Auto Spray Paint the last time used .... 5-336
X-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Auto Spray Paint 5-337
X-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Auto Spray Paint 5-337
X-10 Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Paint
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-338
X-ll Brands of Auto Spray Paint used 5-339
X-12 Percent of respondents saying Auto Spray
Paint is aerosol 5-339
X-13 Amount of Auto Spray Paint used in
ounces 5-340
X-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Auto
Spray Paint used in ounces 5-340
X-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-341
X-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Auto Spray Paint 5-342
X-17 Ounces per use of Auto Spray Paint 5-342
X-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use
of Auto Spray Paint 5-343
X-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Auto Spray Paint 5-343
Y. AUTO SPRAY PRIMERS
Y-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Auto Spray Primers 5-347
xliv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Y-2 Last time Auto Spray Primers was used
in months 5-347
Y-3 Percentile rankings for Auto Sr^ay
Primers months since last use 5-348
Y-4 Number of uses of Auto Spray Primers
within the last 12 months 5-349
Y-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Auto Spray Primers within the last 12
months 5-349
Y-6 Time spent using Auto Spray Primers,
last time used 5-350
Y-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Auto Spray Primers the last time used .. 5-350
Y-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Auto Spray Primers 5-351
Y-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Auto Spray Primers 5-351
Y-10 Percentile rankings for Auto Spray
Primers for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-352
Y-ll Brands of Auto Spray Primers used 5-353
Y-12 Percent of respondents saying Auto Spray
Primers is aerosol 5-353
Y-13 Amount of Auto Spray Primers used in
ounces 5-354
Y-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Auto
Spray Primers used in ounces 5-354
Y-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-355
Y-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Auto Spray Primers 5-356
xlv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Y-17 Ounces per use of Auto Spray Primers ... 5-356
Y-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Auto Spray Primers 5-357
Y-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Auto Spray Primers 5-357
Z. SPRAY LUBRICANT FOR CARS
Z-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spray Lubricants 5-361
Z-2 Last time Spray Lubricants was used in
months 5-361
Z-3 Percentile rankings for Spray Lubricants
months since last use 5-362
Z-4 Number of uses of Spray Lubricants within
the last 12 months 5-363
Z-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Spray Lubricants within the last 12
months 5-363
Z-6 Time spent using Spray Lubricants, last
time used 5-364
Z-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Spray Lubricants the last time used .... 5-364
Z-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Spray Lubricants 5-365
Z-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Spray Lubricants 5-365
Z-10 Percentile rankings for Spray Lubricants
for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time
in the room 5-366
Z-ll Brands of Spray Lubricants used 5-367
xlvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Z-12 Percent of respondents saying Spray
Lubricants is aerosol 5-367
Z-13 Amount of Spray Lubricants used in
ounces 5-368
Z-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Spray
Lubricants used in ounces 5-368
Z-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-369
Z-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Spray Lubricants 5-370
Z-17 Ounces per use of Spray Lubricants 5-370
Z-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Spray Lubricants 5-371
Z-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Spray Lubricants 5-371
AA. TRANSMISSION CLEANERS
AA-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Transmission Cleaner 5-375
AA-2 Last time Transmission Cleaner was used
in months 5-375
AA-3 Percentile rankings for Transmission
Cleaner months since last use 5-376
AA-4 Number of uses of Transmission Cleaner
within the last 12 months 5-377
AA-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Transmission Cleaner within the last 12
months 5-377
AA-6 Time spent using Transmission Cleaner,
last time used 5-378
AA-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Transmission Cleaner the last time used. 5-378
AA-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Transmission Cleaner 5-379
xlvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
AA-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Transmission Cleaner 5-379
AA-10 Percentile rankings for Transmission
Cleaner for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-380
AA-11 Brands of Transmission Cleaner used 5-381
AA-12 Percent of respondents saying
Transmission Cleaner is aerosol 5-381
AA-13 Amount of Transmission Cleaner used in
ounces 5-382
AA-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Transmission Cleaner used in ounces 5-382
AA-15 Location of last use of the product 5-383
AA-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Transmission Cleaner 5-383
AA-17 Ounces per use of Transmission Cleaner .. 5-384
AA-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Transmission Cleaner 5-384
AA-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Transmission Cleaner 5-385
BB. BATTERY TERMINAL PROTECTORS
BB-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Battery Terminal Protector 5-389
BB-2 Last time Battery Terminal Protector was
used in months 5-389
BB-3 Percentile rankings for Battery Terminal
Protector months since last use 5-390
BB-4 Number of uses of Battery Terminal
Protector within the last 12 months 5-391
xlviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
BB-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Battery Terminal Protector within the
last 12 months 5-391
BB-6 Time spent using Battery Terminal
Protector, last time used 5-392
BB-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Battery Terminal Protector the last time
used 5-392
BB-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Battery Terminal Protector 5-393
BB-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Battery Terminal Protector 5-393
BB-10 Percentile rankings for Battery Terminal
Protector for time spent in the room
after last use including only those who
spent time in the room 5-394
BB-11 Brands of Battery Terminal Protector
used 5-395
BB-12 Percent of respondents saying Battery
Terminal Protector is aerosol 5-395
BB-13 Amount of Battery Terminal Protector used
in ounces 5-396
BB-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Battery
Terminal Protector used in ounces 5-396
BB-15 Location of last use of the product 5-397
BB-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Battery Terminal Protector 5-398
BB-17 Ounces per use of Battery Terminal
Protector 5-398
BB-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Battery Terminal Protector 5-399
xlix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
BB-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Battery Terminal Protector 5-399
CC. BRAKE QUIETERS/CLEANERS
CC-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-403
CC-2 Last time Brake Quieter/Cleaner was used
in months 5-403
CC-3 Percentile rankings for Brake Quieter/
Cleaner months since last use 5-404
CC-4 Number of uses of Brake Quieter/Cleaner
within the last 12 months 5-405
CC-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner within the last 12
months 5-405
CC-6 Time spent using Brake Quieter/Cleaner,
last time used 5-406
CC-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Brake Quieter/Cleaner the last time used. 5-406
CC-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-407
CC-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-407
CC-10 Percentile rankings for Brake Quieter/
Cleaner for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-408
CC-11 Brands of Brake Quieter/Cleaner used .... 5-409
CC-12 Percent of respondents saying Brake
Quieter/Cleaner is aerosol 5-409
CC-13 Amount of Brake Quieter/Cleaner used in
ounces 5-410
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
CC-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner used in ounces 5-410
CC-15 Location of last use of the product 5-411
CC-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-412
CC-17 Ounces per use of Brake Quieter/Cleaner.. 5-412
CC-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-413
CC-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-413
DD. GASKET REMOVERS
DD-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Gasket Removers 5-417
DD-2 Last time Gasket Removers was used in
months 5-417
DD-3 Percentile rankings for Gasket Removers
months since last use 5-418
DD-4 Number of uses of Gasket Removers within
the last 12 months 5-419
DD-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Gasket Removers within the last 12
months 5-419
DD-6 Time spent using Gasket Removers, last
time used 5-420
DD-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Gasket Removers the last time used 5-420
DD-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Gasket Removers 5-421
DD-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Gasket Removers 5-421
li
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
DD-10 Percentile rankings for Gasket Removers
for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time
in the room 5-422
DD-11 Brands of Gasket Removers used 5-423
DD-12 Percent of respondents saying Gasket
Removers is aerosol 5-423
DD-13 Amount of Gasket Removers used in ounces. 5-424
DD-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Gasket
Removers used in ounces 5-424
DD-15 Location of last use of the product 5-425
DD-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Gasket Removers 5-426
DD-17 Ounces per use of Gasket Removers 5-426
DD-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Gasket Removers 5-427
DD-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Gasket Removers 5-427
EE. TIRE/HUBCAP CLEANERS
EE-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-431
EE-2 Last time Tire/Hubcap Cleaners was used
in months 5-431
EE-3 Percentile rankings for Tire/Hubcap
Cleaners months since last use 5-432
EE-4 Number of uses of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
within the last 12 months 5-433
EE-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners within the last 12
months 5-433
EE-6 Time spent using Tire/Hubcap Cleaners,
last time used 5-434
lii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
EE-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners the last time used.. 5-434
EE-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-435
EE-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-435
EE-10 Percentile rankings for Tire/Hubcap
Cleaners for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-436
EE-11 Brands of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners used 5-437
EE-12 Percent of respondents saying Tire/Hubcap
Cleaners is aerosol 5-437
EE-13 Amount of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners used in
ounces 5-438
EE-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Tire/
Hubcap Cleaners used in ounces 5-438
EE-15 Location of last use of the product 5-439
EE-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-440
EE-17 Ounces per use of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners .. 5-440
EE-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-441
EE-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-441
FF. IGNITION AND WIRE DRYERS
FF-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-445
FF-2 Last time Ignition and Wire Dryers was
used in months 5-445
liii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
FF-3 Percentile rankings for Ignition and Wire
Dryers months since last use 5-446
FF-4 Number of uses of Ignition and Wire Dryers
within the last 12 months 5-447
FF-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Ignition and Wire Dryers within the last
12 months 5-447
FF-6 Time spent using Ignition and Wire Dryers,
last time used 5-448
FF-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Ignition and Wire Dryers the last time
used 5-448
FF-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-449
FF-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-449
FF-10 Percentile rankings for Ignition and Wire
Dryers for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-450
FF-ll Brands of Ignition and Wire Dryers used.. 5-451
FF-12 Percent of respondents saying Ignition
and Wire Dryers is aerosol 5-451
FF-13 Amount of Ignition and Wire Dryers used
in ounces 5-452
FF-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Ignition and Wire Dryers used in ounces.. 5-452
FF-15 Location of last use of the product 5-453
FF-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-453
liv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
FF-17 Ounces per use of Ignition and Wire
Dryers 5-454
FF-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-454
FF-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-455
5-1 Frequency of commercial drycleaning use - users
only for times per month 5-457
5-2 Percentile rankings for frequency of commercial
drycleaning use - users only for time per
month 5-457
5-3 Frequency of commercial drycleaning use - users
and nonusers for times per month 5-458
5-4 Percentile rankings for frequency of commercial
drycleaning use - users and nonusers for times
per month 5-458
5-5 Numbers using and not using self-service laundry
facilities with drycleaning machines 5-459
5-6 Number of times using self-service laundry
facilities with drycleaning machines 5-459
5-7 Percentile rankings for number of times using
self-service laundry facilities with drycleaning
machines 5-460
5-8 Number of times visitors to self-service laundry
facilities used drycleaning machines 5-461
5-9 Percentile rankings of number of times visitors
to self-service laundry facilities used
drycleaning machines 5-461
5-10 Minutes spent inside of laundry facility with
drycleaning machines 5-462
5-11 Percentile rankings of minutes spent inside
laundry facilities with drycleaning machines .... 5-462
5-12 Respondent age 5-463
Iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
5-13 Percentile rankings of respondent age 5-463
5-14 Gender of respondents 5-463
5-15 Number of household members 5-464
5-16 Percentile rankings for number of household
members 5-464
5-17 Number of bedrooms in the house 5-465
5-18 Percentile rankings of number of bedrooms 5-465
6-1 Listing of total number of users, and numbers
and percent of users with and without
laboratory data, by product category 6-2
6-2 Total and numbers and percents of users with
brands attributed zeros, by product category .... 6-6
6-3 Results of the tests of significance for
those using products with laboratory data
versus those using products without
laboratory data 6-9
6-4 Results of the tests of significance for those
using products with a chemical versus those
using products without a chemical 6-12
Ivi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 29, 1985, the National Toxicological Program1
reported positive results for a bioassay that indicated that
methylene chloride is an animal carcinogen. Subsequently, the
Environmental Protection Agency, under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act, made a preliminary determination to list methylene
chloride as a hazardous air pollutant and on May 14, 1985, under
Section 4(f) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, announced its
decision to initiate priority review for risks of human cancer
from exposure to methylene chloride.
There is potential for exposure to methylene chloride from
environmental sources, occupational activities and from use of
consumer products containing methylene chloride. The EPA found
that there was inadequate information on consumer exposure to
products containing methylene chloride. This report presents the
results of a nationwide study of consumer usage of products
thought to contain methylene chloride or five other chlorinated
solvents used in combination with or as substitutes for methylene
chloride.
The consumer is exposed to methylene chloride and its
substitutes in an array of household cleaning, painting,
lubricating and automotive products. The five other chlorinated
solvents included in this study are: trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, perchloroethylene and
1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane. Thirty such products and others
of general interest are included in this survey.
These products were found to contain these solvents in an
earlier EPA survey ("Household Solvent Products: A 'Shelf
Survey with Laboratory Analysis")3. Questions asked on usage
characteristics include how often the products were used; when
the product was last used; how much time was spent using the
product and in the room after the product was used; how much of
the product was used; and what protective measures were
^National Toxicology Program (NTP) . NTP Final Report, Technical
Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Methylene
Chloride (PCM) in F344-N Rates and B63F1 Mice. NTP-TR-306.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Publication 85-2562, USHHS,
Public Health Service, NIH, 1985.
2Federal Register, May 14, 1985 (50 FR 20126).
3EPA #560/5-87-006, July, 1987. Available through the Nation
Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia.
Ivii
-------
undertaken during use. This information is used to calculate the
exposure assessments.
The survey methodology had three parts. In Phase I - A
Sample Generation Phase, respondents were contacted using a
random digit dialing procedure and asked to participate and to
give their address. During Phase II - A Mailout with Product
Pictures, the questionnaire and product pictures were sent to
each respondent 18 years and older who agreed to participate in
Phase I. In Phase III - Telephone Followup to Nonrespondents,
respondents who did not return the mailed questionnaire within
four weeks were called and asked to complete the interview over
the telephone.
A complete summary of findings for each product follows this
narrative. Highlights of other findings for the 30 products
thought to contain these solvents include the following:
Respondents used an average of seven products in
their lifetime and an average of five products
during the last twelve months.
The highest incidence of products "ever used" was
for contact cements, superglues, and spray
adhesives (60.6%); wood stains, varnishes, and
finishes (42.9%); and spot removers (39.1%). The
lowest incidence was for brake quieters/cleaners
(2.6%); gasket removers (2.7%) and transmission
cleaners (2.1%).
The longest periods since last use (given in mean
values) were for spray shoe polish (42.1 months
ago); glass frostings, tints, and artificial snow
(34.2 months ago); and paint removers/strippers
(28.9 months ago). The shortest periods since
last use were for spray automotive lubricants (6.3
months ago) and contact cements, superglues, and
spray adhesives (5.2 months ago).
The highest mean number of times a product was
used during the last twelve months was for
typewriter correction fluid (40.0 times); solvent
cleaners (16.5); and spot removers (15.6). The
lowest incidence of recent use was for gasket
removers (2.5); transmission cleaners (2.3) and
outdoor water repellents (2.1).
The most time spent using products other than
latex and oil paint, which are not thought to
contain these particular solvents (given in mean
values), was for paint removers/strippers (125.6
Iviii
-------
7.
What size of (PRODUCT) did you
use the last time you uaed it?
How much of a can or how many
cans did you uae during the past
year' OUNCES PER YEAR
Size uaed ounces
(1/4, 1/2. 1. Z, etc.)
Amount or number of cans used in
year
mean 9.9 ounces
median 4.5 ounces
mean 11,4 ounces
median 6.0 ounces
mean 26.3 ounces
median 5.5 ounces
mean 58. 1 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean 28.4 ounces
median 14.0 ounces
mean 4.1 ounces
median .9 ounces
mean 7.5 ounces
median 1.0 ounces
man 34.5 ounces
median 10. 8 ounces
mean 12.5 ounces
median 4.5 ounces
mean 9.9 ounces
median 2.3 ounces
8.
Where did you use
(PRODUCT) the last
time you used it?
1 Basement
2 Living room
3 Other inside room
4 Garage
5 Outeide in open air
1 B 5.0%
2 LR 14. 9S
3 OR 61 . 3S
4 G 3.4%
5 Outs. 13. 4S
1 B 10.55
2 LR 13.5%
3 OR 44.75
4 G 9.05
5 Outs. 19.65
1 8 9.15
2 LR 19.55
3 OH 57.35
4 G 4.05
5 Outs. 5. 45
1 B 5.45
2 LR 2.65
3 OR 49. 1S
4 G 12.25
5 Outs. 28.05
1 B 3.15
2 LR 26.85
3 OR 49 . 35
4 G 0.6%
5 Outs. 1.25
1 B 2.15
2 LR 14.65
3 OR 79.85
4 G 0.65
5 Outs. 0.4%
1 8 5.65
2 LR 11.95
3 OR 61.1%
4 G 6.2%
5 Outs. 11.75
IB 4.8%
2 LR 5.4%
3 OR 75.4%
4 G 4.2%
5 Outs. 6.6%
IB 4.2%
2 LR 4.75
3 OR 28.25
4 G 14.0%
5 Outs. 37.55
1 B 7.55
2 LR 5.8%
3 OR 34.9%
4 G 13.55
5 Outs. 29.65
9.
When using (PRODUCT) the last time, did you ...
Have a win-
dow open to
the outside'
1 Yes
2 No
Ves. . 415
No . . 60S
Yes. . 405
No . . 605
Yes. . 455
No . . 565
Yes. . 575
No . . 435
Yes. . 595
No . . 415
Yes. . 265
No . . 745
Yes. . 415
No . . 595
Yes. . 675
No . . 335
Yes. . 525
No . . 485
Yea. . 435
No . . 575
Have an
exhauat
fan on'
1 Yes
2 No
Yes.. 11%
No... 895
Yes.. 85
No... 925
Yes.. 9.75
No.. 90.8%
Yes.. 155
No... 85%
Yes.. 115
No... 89%
Yes.. 85
No... 92%
Yes.. 85
No... 925
Yes.. 23%
No... 77%
Yes.. 8%
No... 92%
Yes . . 6%
No... 94%
Keep the
inside door
to the room
open7
1 Yes
2 No
Yes. . 765
No . . 24%
Yes. . 73S
No . . 275
Yes. . 80%
No . . 205
Yes. . 745
No . . 265
res. . 835
No . . 175
Yes. . 745
No . . 26%
Yes. . 755
No . . 255
Yea. . 795
No . . 215
Yes. . 71%
No . . 295
Yes. . 70S
No . . 305
Read the
directions
on the
label'
1 Yes
2 No
Yes. . 715
(to . . 295
Yes. . 835
No . . 17S
Yes. . 775
No . . 235
Yes. . 685
No . . 335
Yea. . 725
No . . 285
Yea. . 395
No . . 615
Yes. . 705
No . . 305
Ves. . 82%
No . . 185
Yes. . 61%
No . . 395
Yes. . 455
No . , 555
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the summary but it is reported in the text.
Ixiii
-------
PRODUCT
11. SPECIALIZED
ELECTRONIC
CLEANERS
era? TV, VCR,
RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
14. WOOD STAINS,
VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
15. I'AINT
REMOVERS/
STRIPPERS
16. PAINT
THINNERS
17. AEROSOL SPRAY
PAINT
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
18. PRIMERS AND
SPECIAL
PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
19. AEROSOL RUST
REMOVERS
20. OUTDOOR WATER
REPELLENTS
(FOR WOOD OR
CEMENT)
21. GLASS
FROSTINGS,
WINDOW TINTS,
AND ARTIFICIAL
SNOW
Have you ever used
(PRODUCT)" [IF NO, GO
TO NEXT PRODUCT.]
lea. ... 13S
No .... B7S
Yes. ... 55S
No .... 45*
Yes. ... 30S
No .... 70S
Yea. ... 43S
1*) .... 57S
Yes. ... 30%
No .... 70S
Yes. ... 36S
No .... 64%
Yes. ... 35S
No .... 655
Yea. ... 14%
No .... 86%
Yes. ... 8%
No .... 92%
Yes. ... 9%
No .... 91%
Yea. ... 10S
No .... 90S
When was the last time
you used (PRODUCT)'
mean 7.9 mo,
median 2.0 mo.
mean 16.7 mo.
median 8.0 mo.
mean 30.4 mo.
median 12.0 mo.
mean 23.2 mo.
median 9.0 mo.
mean 28.9 mo.
median 12.0 mo.
mean 21 .5 mo.
median 7.0 mo.
mean 17.2 mo.
median 6.0 mo.
mean 22.0 mo.
median 10.0 mo.
ne«n 15.1 mo.
median 5.0 mo.
mean 24.6 mo.
median 12.0 mo.
mean 34.2 mo.
median 8.0 mo.
3.
How many times did you
use (PRODUCT) in the
Isat 12 months'1
mean 13.4 times
median 3.0 times
mean 3.9 timea
median 2.0 times
mean 5.7 timea
median 1.0 times
mean 4.2 timea
median 2.0 timea
mean 3.7 timea
median 2.0 timea
mean 6.6 timea
median 2.0 times
mean 4.2 tinea
median 2.0 timea
mean 3.4 times
median 1.0 timea
mean 6.2 times
median 2.0 timea
mean 2.1 times
median 1.0 times
mean 2.8 times
median 1.0 times
4.
How much time did you
spend using (PRODUCT)
the last time you
used if
mean 9. 5 minutes
median 2.0 minutes
mean 295.1 minutes
median 180.0 minutes
mean 194.1 minutes
median 120.0 minutes
mean 117.2 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 125.6 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 39.4 minutes
median 10.0 minutes
mean 39.5 minutea
median 20.0 minutes
mean 91.3 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
mean 18.6 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 104.9 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 29.5 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
5.
How much time did you apen<
in the room immediately af
use the last time you used
(PRODUCT)?
mean 117.2 minutea
median 60.0 minutes
mean 91.4 minutea
median 5.0 minutes
mean 100.5 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
mean 93.4 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
mean 31.4 minutea
median 0.0 minutea
mean 32.9 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 12.7 minutea
median 0.0 minutea
mean 22.3 minutea
median 0.0 minutes
mean 15.1 minutea
median 0.0 minutes
mean 8.3 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 137.9 minutes
median 60.0 minutea
*The categories of:
- Several inside rooms
- Garage & outside, have been omitted from this list.
Ixiv
-------
minutes); adhesive removers (121 minutes) and wood
stains, varnishes, and finishes (117.2 minutes).
The least time was for typewriter correction fluid
(7.6 minutes); spray shoe polish (7.5 minutes);
and ignition/wire dryers (7.2 minutes).
The greatest amount used in units of ounces per
year per user other than for latex and oil paint,
which would otherwise be the highest (given in
mean values), was for outdoor water repellents
(148.7 ounces); auto spray primers (70.4 ounces);
and paint thinners (69.5 ounces). The least
amount used was for ignition/wire dryers (9.0
ounces); contact cement, super glues, spray
adhesives (7.5 ounces) and typewriter correction
fluid (4.1 ounces).
Most respondents had a window or door open to the
outside when using products for large jobs that
were done on the inside; most respondents did not
have an exhaust fan on when using these products;
most respondents kept the door to the room open
when using these products; and most people said
that they read the directions on the label.
In general, use of the products decreases with
increasing age. Gender differences in use of the
products are as might be expected with males using
lubricants, specialized electronic cleaners, and
automotive products more than females, and females
using spot removers, solvent type cleaning fluids,
wood and paneling cleaners, and typewriter
correction fluids more than males.
Finally, there were no significant differences in
the usage variables between questionnaires
completed by mail and those completed by telephone
interview.
While comparisons across products and general patterns by
age and sex can be made, the main purpose of the study is to
provide usage statistics for each product that can be used to
calculate exposure assessments of the U.S. population to
methylene chloride and its substitutes. These usage statistics
include the mean, median, and/or percentages for the following
variables:
frequency of use of the product;
duration of use;
lix
-------
brand names of product used;
amount of the product used;
location of use; and
degree of ventilation and other protective
measures undertaken when using the product.
All of the information presented in this report has been
forwarded to the Office of Toxic Substances, Exposure Assessment
Branch and incorporated into consumer exposure assessments for
these solvents. The exposure assessments themselves are reported
in the report entitled, Consumer Exposure Estimates for Solvents,
Draft Report, Versar, Inc., April 30, 1987.
A summary of the usage statistics by product is now
presented using the original questionnaire format.
lx
-------
CHLOROCARBON SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY OF SELECTED CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Ixi
-------
PRODUCT
EXAMPLE
SPRAY SHOE
POLISH
1. SPRAY SHOE
POLISH
2. WATER
REPELLENTS/
PROTECTORS (FOR
SUEDE, LEATHER,
AM) CLOTH)
3. SPOT REMOVERS
4. SOLVENT-TYPE
CLEANING
FLUIDS OR
DEGREASERS
5. WOO FLOOR
AND PANELING
CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER
CORRECTION
FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT,
SUPER GLUES
AND SPRAY
ADHESIVES
8. ADHESIVE
REMOVERS
(GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE,
AM) WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONS
LUBRICANTS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
10. OTHER
LUBRICANTS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
1.
Hf. ve you ever used
(PRODUCT)? [IF NO, GO
TO NEXT PRODUCT.]
1 Yes
2 No
Yea. ... 12%
No .... 88S
Yes. ... 365
No .... 64S
Yes. ... 39S
No .... 61 S
Yea. ... 28S
No .... 72S
Yes. ... 35S
No .... 65*
Yes. ... 26%
No .... 74$
Yes. ... 61S
No .... 39S
Yea. ... 6*
No .... 94*
Ye*. ... IBS
No .... 825
Yes. ... 35S
No .... 65%
2.
Nhen was the last time
you used (PRODUCT)?
days ago
norths aqo
years ago
mean 42.1 no.
median 12.5 no.
mean 20.5 on.
median 9.0 mo.
mean 14.7 mo.
median 3.0 mo.
mean 9.9 mo.
median 2.0 mo.
mean 12.6 mo.
median 3.0 mo.
mean 6.9 mo.
median .9 no.
mean 5.2 no.
median 1.0 mo.
mean 21.6 mo.
median 10.0 mo.
mean 6.5 no.
median 2.0 mo.
mean 5.0 mo.
median 1.0 mo.
3.
Ho" many times did you
use (PRODUCT) in the
laat 12 months?
Number of times used
past 12 months
mean 10.3 times
median 4.0 times
mean 3.5 times
median 2.0 times
mean 15.6 times
median 3.0 times
mean 16.5 times
median 4.0 times
mean 8.5 times
median 2.0 times
mean 40.0 times
median 12.0 times
mean 8.9 times
median 3.0 times
mean 4.2 times
median 1.0 times
mean 10.3 times
median 3.0 times
mean 10.6 times
median 4.0 times
4.
How much time t \d you
spend using (P, 10UCT)
the last time you
used if
Seconds
Minutes
Hours
mean 7.5 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 14.5 minutes
median 10.0 minutes
mean 10.7 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 29.5 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 74.0 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
mean 7.6 minutes
median 1.0 minutes
mean 15.6 minutes
median 4.3 minutes
mean 121.0 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 10.4 minutes
median 2.0 minutes
mean 8.1 minutes
median 2.0 minutes
5.
How much time did you spend
in the room immediately after
use the last time you used
(PRODUCT;?
Hours
Minutes
mean 31.5 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 3.8 minutes
median 3.0 minutes
mean 43.7 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 33.3 minutes
median 3.0 minutes
mean 96.7 minutea
median 30.0 minutes
mean 128.4 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 68.9 minutes
median 10.0 minutes
mean 119.3 minutes
median 60.0 minutea
mean 65.8 minutes
median 10.0 minutea
mean 84.1 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
The categories of:
- Several inside rooms
- Garage & outside, have been omitted Fran this list.
Ixii
-------
7.
t*i«t ant of (PRODUCT) did you
uae the last time you used it?
How much of e can or how many
cans did you use during the past
year? OUNCES PER YEAR
mean 9.5 ounces
median 2.0 ounces
mean 371.3 ounces
median 256.0 ounces
mean 168.9 ounces
median 64.0 ounces
mean 65.1 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean 63.7 ounces
median 32.0 ounces
mean 69.5 ounces
median 20.5 ounces
mean 30.7 ounces
median 13.0 ounces
mean 68.4 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean 18.2 ounces
median B.O ounces
mean 148.7 ounces
median 64.0 ounces
mean 13.8 ounces
median 12.0 oinces
* a.
where did you use
(PRODUCT) the last
time you used if
1 B 5.6*
2 LR 47.5*
3 OR 36. OS
4 G 3.9*
5 Outs. 3.351
1 B 2.8%
2 LR 9.9S
3 OR 47.6*
4 G 2.0%
5 Outs. 24.4*
1 B 5.9*
2 LR 5.9*
3 OR 35.4*
4 G 6.15*
5 Outs. 41.35*
1 B 12.1*
2 LR 7.85
3 OR 29. IS
4 G 13.9*
5 Outs. 31. B*
1 B 11. OS
2 LR 3.2*
3 OR 23.6*
4 G 18. 7S
5 Outs. 38. 5S
1 B 13.4*
2 LR 2.8*
3 OR 19.6*
4 G 19.4*
5 Outs. 39.9*
1 B 7.3S
2 LR 0. 8*
3 OR 9.2*
4 G 15.8*
5 Outs. 64.1*
1 B 4.2*
2 LR 1.8S
3 OR 19.6*
4 G 15.7*
5 Outs. 52.5*
IB 6.7*
2 LR 0.7*
3 OR 10.6*
4 G 21 . B*
5 Outs. 53.2*
1 B 1.7*
2 LR 2.1*
3 OR 2.5*
4 G 6.2%
5 Outs. 83.9*
1 8 1.1*
2 LR 58.2*
3 OR 13.5*
4 G 1.5*
5 Outs. 12.0*
When using
Hsve a win-
dow open to
the outside1'
Yes. . 33*
No . . 68*
Yes. . 76*
No . . 24*
Yes. . 70*
No . . 31*
Yes. . 64S
No . . 36*
Yes. . 71*
No . . 29*
Yes. . 67*
No . . 33*
Yes. . 63S
No . . 37*
Yes. . 78S
No . . 22*
Yes. . 61*
No . . 39*
Yes. . 73*
No . . 27*
Yes. . 24*
No . . 76*
9.
' PRODUCT 1 the last time, did vou . . .
Have an
exhaust
fan on?
Yes.. 6*
No... 94*
Yes.. 16*
No... 84%
Yes.. 16*
No... 84*
Yes.. 15*
No... 85*
Yes.. 16*
No... 84*
Yes.. 11*
No... 90*
Yes.. 10*
No... 90*
Yes.. 16*
No... 84*
Yes.. 13*
No... 87*
Yes.. 7*
No... 93*
Yes.. 11*
No... 89*
Keep the
inside door
to the room
open7
Yes. . 70%
No . . 30S
Yes. . 85*
No . . 15*
Yes. . 77*
No . . 23*
Yes. . 74*
No . . 26*
Yes. . 69*
No . . 31*
Yes. . 68*
No . . 32*
Yes. . 61*
No . . 39*
Yes. . 68*
No . . 32*
Yes. . 57*
No . . 43*
Yes. . 65*
No . . 35*
Yes. . 72%
No . . 28*
Read the
directions
on the
label?
Yes. . 74*
No . . 26*
Yes. . 64*
No . . 36*
Yes. . 69*
No . . 31*
Yes. . 77*
No . . 23*
Yes. . 80*
No . . 21*
Yes. . 59*
No . . 41*
Yes. . 73*
No . . 27*
Yes. . 74*
No . . 27*
Yes. . 68*
No . . 32*
Yes. . 81%
No . . 19*
Yes. . 71*
No . . 29*
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the summary but it is reported in the text.
Ixv
-------
PRODUCT
22. ENGINE
DEGREASERS
23. CARBURETOR
CLEANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAY
PAINT FOR
CARS
25. AUTO SPRAY
PRIMERS
26. SPRAY
LUBRICANTS
FOR CARS
27. TRANSMISSION
CLEANERS
28. BATTERY
TERMINAL
PROTECTORS
29. BRAKE
QUIETERS/
CLEANERS
30. GASKET
REMOVERS
31. TIRE/HUBCAP
CLEANERS
32. IGNITION AND
WIRE MYERS
1.
Have you ever used
(PRODUCT)? [IF NO, GO
TO NEXT PRODUCT.]
Yes. ... 17%
No .... 63%
Yes. ... 225
No .... 78%
Ye 12%
No .... 86%
Yes. ... 9%
No .... 91S
Ye 18%
No .... 82%
Ye 2%
No .... 98%
Yea. ... 7S
No .... 93%
Yes. ... 3%
No .... 97%
Yes. ... 3%
No .... 97%
Yes. ... 16%
No .... 84%
Ye 5%
No .... 95%
2.
Vtien was the last time
you used (PRODUCT)?
mean 16.5 mo.
median 6.0 mo.
mean 13.1 mo.
median 4.0 mo.
mean 20.8 mo.
median 8.0 mo.
mean 24. 1 mo,
median 11.0 mo.
mean 6.3 mo.
median 2.0 mo.
mean 16.7 mo .
median 7.0 mo.
mean 14.0 mo.
median 6.0 mo-
mean 13.3 mo.
median 6.0 mo.
mean 22.4 mo-
median 9.0 mo-
mean 7. 2 mo.
median 1.0 mo.
mean 22.8 no.
median 8.0 mo.
3.
How many times did you
use (PRODUCT) in the
Isst 12 months?
mean 4.2 times
median 2.0 times
mean 3.8 times
median 2.0 timea
mean 4.5 times
median 2.0 times
mean 6.4 times
median 2.0 times
mean 10.3 times
median 3.0 times
mean 2.3 timea
median 1.0 times
mean 3.9 timea
median 2.0 times
mean 3.0 timea
median 2.0 times
mean 2.5 times
median 1.0 times
mean 11.1 times
median 4.0 timea
mean 3.0 times
medisn 2.0 times
4.
How much time did you
spend uainq (PRODUCT)
the last time you
used it?
mean 29.8 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 13.6 minutes
median 7.0 minutes
mean 42.8 minutes
median 20.0 minutes
mean 51 .5 minutes
median 27.5 minutes
mean 9.9 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 27.9 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 9.6 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 23.4 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 23.6 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 22.6 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 7.2 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
5.
How much time did you spend
in the room immediately afte
use the last time you used
(PRODUCT)'
mean 4.5 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 7.5 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 10.7 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 11.4 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 4.5 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 6.2 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 3.2 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 10.3 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 27.6 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 1.5 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 6.4 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
Ixvi
-------
7.
What size of (PRODUCT) did you
use the last time you used if
How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past
year'' OUNCES PER YEAR
mean 46. 9 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean 22. 0 ounces
median 12.0 ounces
mean 44.9 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean 70.4 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean 18.6 ounces
median 6.0 ounces
mean 37.7 ounces
median 15.0 ounces
mean 16.4 ounces
median 4.0 ounces
mean 11.7 ounces
median 8.0 ounces
mean 13,3 ounces
median 7.8 ounces
mean 31 .6 oinces
median 12.0 ounces
mean 9.0 ounces
median 6.0 ounces
a.
where did you use
(PRODUCT) the last
time you used it?
18 0.2S
2 LR
3 OR 1.2%
4 G 7.85
5 Outs. 89. 4S
1 B 0%
2 LR OS
3 OR IS
4 G 11%
5 Outs. 88S
1 B 0.6%
2 LR
3 OR 1.1%
4 G 18. 7S
5 Outs. 77. 7S
18 0.8%
2 LR
3 OR 0.8%
4 G 20.7%
5 Outs. 75.8%
1 B 0.4%
2 LR
3 OR 1.2%
4 G 12.4%
5 Outs. 83.5%
1 B 0%
2 LR 0%
3 OR 1%
4 G 16%
5 Outs. 83%
1 B
2 LR
3 OR 1%
4 G 12%
5 Outs. 87%
1 B -
2 LR -
3 OR 2S
4 G IBS
5 Outs. 80S
1 8
2 LR
3 OR
4 G 39%
5 Outs. 61%
1 B -
2 LR 0.3%
3 OR 0.1S
4 G 3.9S
5 Outs. 94.9%
1 B
2 LR -
3 OR 1%
4 G 9X
5 Outs. 90%
9.
When using (PRODUCT) the last time, did you . . .
have a win-
dow open to
the outside?
NA
MA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
W
NA
NA
NA
Have an
exhaust
fan on?
IW
NA
NA
W
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Keep the
inside door
to the room
open'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Read the
directions
on the
label'
Yes. . 78%
No . . 22%
Yes. . 74S
No . . 26%
Yes. . 72S
So . . 28%
Yes. . 69%
No . . 31%
Yes. . 55%
No . . 45S
Yes. . 86%
No . . 14%
Yes. . 71%
Na . . 29%
Yes. . 72%
No . . 28%
Yes. . 74%
No . . 26%
Yes. . 67%
No . . 33%
Yes. . 71%
* . . 29%
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the summary but it is reported in the text.
Ixvii
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
I. BACKGROUND
On March 29, 1985, the National Toxicological Program
reported positive results for a bioassay that indicated that
methylene chloride is an animal carcinogen. Subsequently, the
Environmental Protection Agency, under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act, made a preliminary determination to list methylene
chloride as a hazardous air pollutant and on May 14, 1985, under
Section 4(f) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, announced its
decision to initiate priority review for risks of human cancer
from exposure to methylene chloride.
On October 17, 1985, in an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EPA announced its intention to conduct a regulatory
investigation of methylene chloride in consultation and
cooperation with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food
and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. An inter-agency methylene chloride workgroup,
chaired by the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, was
formed and charged with the responsibility of conducting the
regulatory investigation, which had the objective to determine
whether or not methylene chloride presents an unreasonable risk
to human health or the environment, and to determine if
regulatory controls are needed to eliminate or reduce exposure.
The investigation revealed that other chlorinated solvents
can be used in combination with or as substitutes for methylene
chloride and regulation of methylene chloride alone could lead to
its substitution by these other solvents. On December 11, 1985,
the inter-agency workgroup recommended broadening the regulatory
investigation to include six major chlorinated solvents:
methylene chloride, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, perchloroethylene and 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoro-
ethane. The solvents were selected for study on the basis of
their large production volumes, their interchangeability, and
their known and potential adverse health and environmental
effects.
There is potential for exposure to methylene chloride from
environmental sources, occupational activities and from use of
consumer products containing methylene chloride. The EPA found
that there was inadequate information on consumer exposure to
methylene chloride. The purpose of this study is to provide the
interagency workgroup with information that would assist them in
estimating the magnitude of exposure to methylene chloride in
consumer products. The study is a nationwide consumer survey to
1-1
-------
determine pertinent characteristics of consumer use of various
household cleaning, painting, and automotive products which are
thought to contain methylene chloride or one of its five chemical
substitutes.
The primary role of methylene chloride and its substitutes
is that of a solvent in most of these products. Methylene
chloride is effective in removing all types of surface finishes,
including synthetics and epoxies. Solvent cleaning, often
referred to as degreasing, involves removal of grease, wax and
other forms of dirt from a variety of materials including metal,
plastic, glass and fabric. In addition to methylene chloride's
excellent solvent properties, it is also nonflammable and has a
rapid evaporation rate. The five potential substitute chemicals
have similar physical chemical properties and may, therefore, be
used for similar purposes. In fact, for certain chemical uses
the chemical of choice is often determined by the going price at
the time.
The consumer is exposed to methylene chloride and its
substitutes in an array of household cleaning products, painting
and lubricating products, and automotive products. Thirty such
products are now included in this survey, and laboratory tests
have shown that methylene chloride or one of its substitute
chemicals is, in fact, present in these products. The 30
products plus two additional products included because of general
interest are as follows:
Product List
1. Spray Shoe Polish
2. Water Repellents/Protectors
3. Spot Removers
4. Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids and Degreasers
5. Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
6. Typewriter Correction Fluid
7. Adhesives (Glue)
8. Adhesive Removers
9. Silicone Lubricants
10. Other Lubricants
1-2
-------
11. Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for TVs, VCRs,
Records, Computers and Shavers)
12. Latex Paint
13. Oil Paint*
14. Wood Stains and Varnishes
15. Paint Removers/Strippers
16. Paint Thinners
17. Aerosol Spray Paint
18. Primers and Special Primers
19. Rust Removers
20. Outdoor Water Repellents (for wood or cement)
21. Glass Frostings
22. Engine Degreasers
23. Carburetor Cleaners
24. Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
25. Auto Spray Primers
26. Spray Lubricant for Cars
27. Transmission Cleaners
28. Battery Terminal Protectors
29. Brake Quieters/Cleaners
30. Gasket Removers
31. Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
32. Wire Dryers
Do not contain methylene chloride but are of interest to EPA for
other reasons.
1-3
-------
Latex and oil paint are not thought to contain methylene
chloride or its substitutes, but do contain other chemicals of
interest to EPA and, therefore, are included as an economy
measure since the design and sample size lend themselves to
surveying these paint users. Personal care products were beyond
the scope of this study and therefore were not included.
This household consumer survey was conducted in conjunction
with a shelf survey and laboratory tests to measure the presence
or absence of methylene chloride and its substitutes. The shelf
survey involved collecting over 1200 household cleaning and
polishing, painting and lubricating, and automotive products from
six cities nationwide. These items were then laboratory tested.
Laboratory tests on products collected from the first city
(Washington, D.C.) reduced the original product list from over 59
product types (suspected to contain the solvents) to the 30
product types listed above.
II. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The survey had a three-part methodology, namely: Part I - A
Sample Generation Phase; Part II - A Mailout with Product
Pictures; and Part III - Telephone Follow-up to Nonrespondents of
the Mail Survey. In Part I the sample was generated using a
random digit dialing procedure. Using this procedure, a random
selection of blocks of numbers (including unpublished numbers)
within a certain exchange were made available. The interviewer
in Phase I made a determination whether a working residential
number had been obtained and then introduced the study; sought
the respondent's participation; asked for the mailing address;
and asked for the names of all of the adults in the household 18
years of age and older.
In Part II a questionnaire and a color foldout of product
pictures was sent to each respondent separately. A pretest
finding indicated that each respondent should receive a package
separately from other respondents in the same household as a
measure to avoid one member filling out each questionnaire for
all respondents in the household. The pretest also indicated
that the product pictures effectively familiarized the
respondents with the products and aided them in answering the
questions. This finding was confirmed in the study, even if the
respondent completed the questionnaire over the telephone.
Part III involved telephone followup to those who did not
respond to the mailed questionnaire within a four-week period.
Telephone followup at the end of the four-week period was thought
to be more effective and efficient than doing a second mailing or
prompting calls especially since time was an important factor.
1-4
-------
The same questionnaire was administered by the interviewer and
the interview took, on the average, twenty to thirty minutes.
The mailed questionnaire with product pictures appeared to be a
positive influence on the response rate even when the
questionnaire was administered over the telephone.
III. USE OF THE DATA
Respondents were asked questions as to their usage of the
products. Information included the following:
Frequency of use of the product;
Duration of use;
Brand names of products used;
Amount of the products used;
Location of use; and
Degree of ventilation and other protective measures
undertaken when using the product.
This information was needed for the Environmental Protection
Agency to determine whether the magnitude of exposure to
methylene chloride and its substitutes in consumer products
presents an "unreasonable risk."
Each question in the questionnaire has utility to the risk
assessment for methylene chloride and its substitutes. The main
exposure variables for performing assessments are as follows:
For inhalation exposure of an individual reported as a
dose (that is, as a quantity absorbed into the body):
1. Frequency (events/year).
2. Years of exposure per lifetime.
3. Duration of exposure (hours/event).
4. Chemical concentration in room air.
5. Inhalation rate.
6. Fraction of inhaled chemical which is
absorbed.
1-5
-------
For dermal exposure (individual):
1. Frequency.
2. Years of exposure per lifetime.
3. Skin surface area covered by product.
4. Film thickness of layer of product on skin.
5. Density of product.
6. Weight fraction of chemical in product.
7. Dermal absorption rate.
Assumptions can be made with relative certainty based on
physical measurements for some variables. However, without this
survey the frequency and duration of use, ventilation safeguards,
and use of other protective measures would be left to guesswork.
IV. Overview to the Report
Section 1 has provided the background and description of the
study and a description of the study methodology. The remainder
of the report appears as follows:
Section 2 - Describes the quality assurance procedures
including questionnaire validation, the sample quality
and response rate, data collection methods, and data
preparation and processing.
Section 3 - Discusses the sample design and selection,
sampling error, and variance estimation procedures.
Section 4 - Presents findings for comparisons made
between products. It includes statistics for the total
number of products used, rank orderings of products
from highest to lowest values on key usage variables,
and information on automotive and paint product users,
each as a group.
Section 5 - Discusses aspects of the data such as
sources of sampling and nonsampling error in the
product data, and presents the detailed findings for
the usage questions on a product-by-product basis.
1-6
-------
Section 6 - Describes a shelf study and laboratory
testing done for products in conjunction with this
household survey. It also presents a brand imputation
model used to simulate laboratory data where a
respondent named a brand not previously laboratory
tested in the shelf survey.
A series of technical appendices include the following:
Appendix A - Results of the variance estimation
procedures;
Appendix B - Results of a calculation for total
minutes of use by product;
Appendix C - Actual mean values of comparisons of
brands by product for those with and without
laboratory data and those found to be with and
without the chemical;
Appendix D - Summary of the findings for aerosol
"only" products;
Appendix E - Recommendations for lifetime
frequency of use; and
Appendix F - Product Brand Statistics.
1-7
-------
Section 2
DESCRIPTION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
Systematic survey and quality assurance procedures were an
important part of all aspects of this study. Quality assurance
procedures related to questionnaire validation; sample quality
and response rates; data collection and the telephone center
procedures; data preparation and processing are discussed below.
I. QUESTIONNAIRE VALIDATION
This project involved the design of one questionnaire which
addressed consumer use of chemicals contained in an array of
products used around the home and in the automobile. Major
quality assurance procedures were undertaken to assure that valid
and reliable data were collected via the questionnaire format.
These procedures included: the collection of background
information relevant to questionnaire design; the formal
pretesting of the questionnaire; and reliability checks of the
information collected.
To assure valid results, relevant background information was
collected in advance. For example, available market data were
analyzed as to the incidence of use of these products by
consumers. Where market data were not available, such as for
aerosol spray paint and some other products, local store owners
were interviewed prior to the questionnaire preparation. Store
visits were made to become familiarized with the products in
question. Finally, indepth meetings with relevant agencies were
undertaken to assure the development of useful questions.
Once the questionnaire was drafted, formal pretests were
scheduled. The pretest involved mailing out the questionnaire
and doing telephone interviews with nonrespondents. Two
different formats were pretested, some with and some without
pictures of the products. The pretest revealed problems such as
questionnaire length; ability and difficulty comprehending the
two different formats; awkward wording of some questions; and the
respondent's tolerance for a certain repetition of questions.
A formal pretest of the questionnaire was an indispensable
means which led to a more meaningful development of the
questionnaire. It also shed light on measures that needed to be
considered in training the interviewers and, therefore, also
influenced the quality of the information collected. Results of
the pretest were used to choose the most effective format and to
revise the questionnaire.
2-1
-------
II. SAMPLE QUALITY AND RESPONSE RATE
Even though this study was a mailout survey with telephone
followup, the sample itself was generated by using a "random
digit dialing" procedure in which telephone numbers were selected
utilizing an unbiased, equal probability method known as the
"Waksberg Method."
The Waksberg sampling method provided relatively unbiased
results while being cost-effective by reducing the number of
unproductive calls. It takes advantage of the fact that a high
proportion of nonworking and commercial numbers occur in
consecutive sequences. The procedure essentially amounts to
first identifying a sample of blocks of numbers which contain
working residential telephone numbers and dialing random numbers
within those blocks. There are 46,000 blocks or clusters within
the United States. A random selection of 1093 clusters were
selected for this study.
Every effort was made to maximize the response rate. The
response rate for Phase I, the sample generation, was 80% and the
response rate for Phase III, the telephone followup, was 84%.
After taking into account the response rates for all phases,
including the mailed in questionnaires, the overall response rate
produced for the study was 73%. These response rates produced
4,920 completed questionnaires.
Other procedures assuring the quality of the sample and a
high response rate included:
Internal computer checks to determine and eliminate any
duplication of clusters randomly selected;
Monitoring of interviewers for the telephone initiation
and followup to assure that the number randomly
generated was the only one utilized;
Attractive questionnaire design and easy to follow
directions for the mailout, including a foldout of
pictures of the products;
A toll-free number that respondents could call to
verify the legitimacy of the survey;
Careful wording of the introduction making it as
interesting as possible and attention to questionnaire
wording and length;
Scan edits to verify that interviews were, in fact,
completed and ineligibles were, in fact, ineligible;
2-2
-------
Systematic callback procedures over an extended period
of time to maximize the chances of interviewing the
person at the number randomly generated; and
Converting those who initially decline through
systematic callback procedures.
III. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Quality control was assured during data collection by
substantial training of interviewers and receipt clerks, careful
supervision and monitoring of the interviewers during the
interviewing and the receipt clerks for the mail-ins, and careful
handling and storing of the questionnaires. All receipt clerks
on the questionnaire mail-in operation received training by the
project director. Systematic procedures were developed in
advance to carefully handle and store the questionnaires. All
interviewers used in the telephone followups received general
interviewing training and project specific training. The general
training includes the learning of voice and diction techniques,
active listening skills, how to establish rapport with the
respondent, how to probe for answers, how to handle refusals or
difficult clients, and how to edit the written work involved in
the questionnaire. Project specific training involved background
on the study and question-by-question specifications and
instructions. In both cases, interactive lectures, audiovisual
materials, and role plays were utilized.
All interviewers for this survey were assigned to a
Telephone Center Supervisor. The supervisor participated in the
training efforts and monitored the interviews once they began.
Monitoring took place in separate rooms from the interview
carrels. Interviewers were observed and heard on silent
listening devices. Most of the interviews during the first week
of the study were monitored. The supervisor identified problems
and took corrective actions, such as retraining and tutoring, to
assure consistent quality of the interviews.
Finally, all the questionnaires were securely stored. The
security facilities included a vault where completed
questionnaires and other materials will be kept at the close of
the study. A computerized mail receipt system was designed so
that every questionnaire received an interim and a final status.
IV. DATA PREPARATION AND PROCESSING
First, a visual edit of all questionnaire items (for
omissions, incomplete data entries and inconsistencies) was
2-3
-------
completed by the telephone interviewers; then by their
supervisor; and again by the coding supervisor. Any omissions or
errors were corrected prior to data entry. Each coder's initial
day's work was also 100 percent verified by the coding
supervisor. When an acceptable error level was attained,
verification was cut back and performed on at least 15 percent of
each coder's subsequent work.
Second, preceding and precolumning were used in the
questionnaire, as well as a coding manual to instruct coders as
to specifications and decision rules. The questionnaire format
and the manual addressed the following:
Question numbers and item descriptions for each codable
item;
Card and column locations of all codable items;
Codes for all possible responses, including codes for
no data responses such as "inapplicable";
Clear delineation of skip patterns in the form of
contingency boxes; and
Editing instructions in the form of editing check lists
and edit boxes. Editing check lists include
instructions for edits which require an overview of a
section of the questionnaire and edit boxes include
instructions for editing particular boxes.
A third quality control measure related particularly to
coding was the maintenance of a decision log to document two
kinds of decisions. The first is a decision documentation
related to inconsistencies or missing data in specific cases, and
these decisions were recorded throughout the coding process. The
second type of decision recording mechanism is that which
involved the broader issues of study methodology from instrument
design and sample selection to the form of the final data
analysis reports. As these decisions affect the nature of the
study, they were only made by the task leader.
After coding was completed, the coded forms were keyed and
the keyed material edited in preparation of a clean data base
necessary for data analysis. All data was 100 percent key
verified. This means that a person other than the original data
entry clerk re-keyed the data, and the two records were compared
and inconsistencies resolved.
2-4
-------
The following are examples of the types of other checks that
were performed on the data:
Range checks on fields where a limited range was known
to be possible, such as the number of children in the
household or the number of hours spent using a given
product;
A crosscheck of related fields, such as the number of
people using the product in the last 12 months who also
filled out questions 3 through 9;
Checks for illegal characters, such as letters in
numeric fields or special characters in alphabetic
fields; and
Validity checks on all codes such as the brand codes.
Wherever errors were detected, corrections were made or
records deleted by way of a file-updating program.
V. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
In summary, EPA is firmly committed to the principles and
procedures which facilitate quality assurance in its survey
procedures. Quality assurance procedures discussed in this
section are summarized on the next page.
2-5
-------
SUMMARY OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
Quality Control Area
Questionnaire Validation
Sample Quality
Data Collection
Procedures
Data Preparation and
Processing/Procedures
Methods to Be Used
Collection of relevant
background information
regarding use of the
relevant products
Formal pretesting by mail
and in the Telephone
Center
Respondent reliability
checks through re-
interviews
Random Digit Dialing as a
cost-effective and
efficient method for
generating the sample
Computer checks for
duplication of clusters
Systematic callbacks over
an extended period of
time
Receipt clerk training
Interviewer training
Interviewer supervision
Systematic handling and
storing of questionnaires
Visual edits of the
questionnaire
Preceding and
precolumning
Coding manual
Decision logs
100 percent of coding
verified by supervisor
during first day and
15 percent thereafter
100 percent of data keyed
are key verified by a
second data entry clerk
Machine edit of range and
logic checks, as well as
validity of codes and
skip patterns
2-6
-------
Section 3
SAMPLING DESIGN AND SELECTION
I. SAMPLING FRAME
Telephone surveys typically use telephone directories or
numbers generated from random digit dialing (ROD) as the sampling
frame. Telephone directories, however, have the disadvantage of
excluding households with unlisted numbers and households that
have recently moved. Moreover, most telephone companies are
unwilling to release a list of all residential telephone numbers
for sampling purposes since this may violate a commitment made to
customers with unlisted numbers. Current and comprehensive lists
of residential telephone numbers are generally not available for
sampling purposes.
Random digit dialing methods, on the other hand, do not have
these limitations. Although there are several methods of
implementing random digit dialing (ROD), this survey used a
procedure called the Waksberg Method. The Waksberg Method
provides an unbiased sample of households with telephones, with
most households having the same probability of selection.
Moreover, the method is relatively efficient since it requires
fewer telephone calls than the earlier procedures developed for
RDD.
A small percentage of households, 2 to 3 percent, have
multiple phone numbers. The vast majority of multiple phone
number households will have only two phone numbers. Rather than
introduce weights into the data set, the information collected on
the number of homes within a household was ignored. Because of
the very small number of households with multiple phones, the
potential for biasing the results in a meaningful way is remote.
This method of sample selection for telephone interviewing
via RDD, therefore, significantly reduced the cost of this
survey, as compared to dialing numbers completely at random. The
problem with dialing numbers completely at random is that most
numbers dialed turn out to be nonworking numbers. An additional
group represents business or other nonresidential units. Current
estimates are that about 80 percent of the potential numbers
within existing telephone exchanges are non-working and about 3
percent are businesses or institutions of some type. About 20
percent turn out to be residential.
Therefore, with numbers selected at random (within known
telephone exchanges), calls to about five separate numbers are
needed to produce a single residential unit. In many cases, the
telephone companies do not provide a message that the number
3-1
-------
dialed is not a working number; and additional checking is
necessary to distinguish between not-at-home and nonworking
numbers, adding further to the cost of producing completed
interviews.
The sampling method used in this study was designed to
reduce the number of nonproductive calls. It takes advantage of
the fact that a high proportion of nonworking and commercial
numbers occur in consecutive sequences. The procedure
essentially amounts to first identifying and selecting a sample
of blocks of numbers which contain working residential telephone
numbers and then dialing numbers at random within the blocks. If
the primary number in the block or cluster is residential the
cluster has a greater probability of producing other residential
numbers.
II. SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE
The sample was selected in two waves given a late decision
to increase the sample size. Wave 1 consisted of 600 clusters
with 500 of them with four households per cluster and 100 of them
with five households per cluster. Wave 2 consisted of 493
clusters with two households per cluster. The decision to take
four or five households per cluster in Wave 1 and the decision to
place a cluster in Wave 1 or 2 were decided at random; this means
that the unequal number of households per cluster would not have
disturbed the equal probability of selection for households.
Every adult member (18 years of age or older) within a
household was included in the survey. Five thousand six hundred
and seventy-five (5,675) respondents of 6,700 contacted agreed to
participate and therefore were sent a questionnaire. Four
thousand nine hundred and twenty (4,920) respondents either sent
the questionnaire in or completed the interview over the
telephone.
III. SAMPLING ERROR AND STATISTICAL ACCURACY
Like all survey data, the resulting statistical estimates
are subject to sampling error which is presented at the 95
percent confidence limit. The sampling error for four products
each with a different incidence of use is presented in Table 3-1.
This error is calculated by product because the analyses are done
by product. The confidence bounds or level of statistical
precision were deemed acceptable for the intended purposes. This
precision was in fact achieved.
3-2
-------
Table 3-1 has been prepared under the assumption of simple
random sampling. The sample design actually used was a two-stage
sample, with all adults over 18 years old in a selected household
interviewed. Because this sample is made up of clusters of
households in the same general vicinity, as well as multiple
members of the same household, variance estimates made using the
assumption of simple random sampling can either understate or
overstate (this is a rare occurrence) variance. Comparisons are
made in Appendix A which compare estimates of variance made under
the assumption of simple random sampling, with estimates which
take into account the complex sample design used. These
comparisons indicate that the effect of the complex sample design
was negligible. This being the case, estimates based upon simple
random sampling can be used for reference in the absence of
estimates of variance based upon the complex sample design.
Table 3-1: Chlorocarbon Household Survey
Sampling tolerance using a 95% level of confidence in
estimating a proportion
True Value of Proportion estimated
p = 0.01 p = 0.1 p = 0.3 p = 0.5
or or or or
0.99 0.9 0.7 0.5
Incidence of use of product:
Highest
(54%) 2680 respondents ±0.004 +0.012 +0.018 +0.019
Moderate
(22%) 1104 respondents +0.006 +0.018 +0.028 +0.030
Moderately rare
( 6%) 290 respondents +0.012 +0.035 +0.054 +0.059
Rarest
(1.4%) 69 respondents +0.024 +0.072 +0.110 ±0.120
3-3
-------
IV. VARIANCE ESTIMATION
This survey consists of a two-stage cluster sample in which
the first stage units consist of telephone clusters and the
second stage units consist of households. The selected
households are also made up of clusters of people, but no
subsampling is performed within the household. All persons in
the selected households over 18 years old are included in the
survey.
Ratio Estimation
The vast majority of estimates produced from this survey are
ratio estimates (i.e., both numerator and denominator are random
variables) of the form:
Total Use
Total Number of Users
This ratio was calculated separately for the 32 product types.
Because all respondents had approximately an equal probability of
selection the two waves of the survey were simply added together
to form the ratio:
Wave I Total Use + Wave 2 Total Use
Wave 1 Users + Wave 2 Users
If the numerator is represented by Y and the denominator by X
then the estimates are of the form:
Y
R =
Y
Variance of a Ratio
The variance of this ratio, VR, can be estimated by the
following:
[S2 + R2S2 - 2RS 1
X
where Sy2 is the estimated variance of Y, Sx2 is the estimated
variance of X and SYX is the estimated covariance of X and Y.
3-4
-------
Because of the independence of the two waves the variance of Y
can be estimated by:
222
S = S + S
Y Y, Y,
where Y^^ is the total for Wave 1 and Y, is the total for Wave 2 .
These totals are made up of the sums of n-^ and n2 clusters, which
have been selected with probability proportionate to size and
essentially with replacement. For this situation an estimate of
the variance of Y^, and similarly for Y2, is n^ times the sample
variance of the cluster totals, Y^ i=l,...n1:
S2 = n I(Y. - Y.)2/n -I
Y i ~ i
The same types of estimates were used to estimate Vy2 . To
estimate the covariance of Y and X, Syxf the estimates over the
two waves were summed (due to independence) :
SXY
The covariance terms were estimated for each wave by finding the
simple covariance between the cluster totals and the number of
users in the cluster. For wave 1 this yields the following:
XIY: i
Variance was estimated by product type for the following
ratio estimates: percent recent users, months since last use,
uses per year, minutes of use (last use) , ounces used per year,
and ounces per year/uses per year.
To investigate the effect of the sample design upon the
estimated variance the variances for many of the variables listed
above were calculated for nine product types as if the responses
were from a simple random sample, ie. , a standard statistical
package was used to estimate variance. The ratios of the
estimated standard error, using the previously described
procedure, to the standard error based upon simple random
sampling were formed. The maximum ratio found was 1.085 and the
minimum was .936, with the vast majority between .96 and 1.04.
This suggests that the clustering had a minimal impact on the
precision of the survey.
3-5
-------
Confidence Intervals
The estimated variance of the ratio mean discussed above was
used to construct an approximate 95% confidence interval. This
was done using the following formula:
R ± 1.96
These intervals can also be interpreted as giving the values of R
that would be accepted based upon the following test:
[R - R ]
< 1.96
It should be remembered that these intervals are based upon the
normal distribution. The right skewed nature of the variables
(primarily estimating amount used) will tend to make this
approximation questionable for ratios based upon 50 respondents
or fewer.
The actual results of the variance estimation for each
product and each variable are presented in Appendix A.
3-6
-------
Section 4
RESULTS:
COMPARISONS AND ANALYSES ACROSS PROHUCTS
I. TOTAL NUMBER OF PRODUCTS USED
A. Products "Ever Used"
Respondents have, on the average, used slightly fewer than
seven products in their lifetime, to date. As can be seen in
Table 4-1, the mean number of products "ever used" is 6.93 and
the median number is 6.0.
Table 4-2 presents the frequency distribution for the total
number of products ever used. Four and five products were the
number most often used by respondents. Seventy-eight percent of
the respondents used 10 or fewer products and less than 1 percent
used 22 or more products.
As can be seen in Table 4-3, five percent of the respondents
have never used any of the products. The percentiles increase
steadily to 32 products at the maximum percentile.
B. Products Used Within the Last Twelve Months
During the last 12 months, respondents on the average, used
almost five products. As can be seen in Table 4-4, the mean
number of products used during this period is 4.94 and the median
number is 4.00.
Table 4-5 presents the frequency distribution for the total
number of products of the 32 which were used during the last 12
months. Most people used three or four products during the
previous 12 months. Almost 90 percent used 10 or fewer products.
Fewer than 1 percent used 18 or more products during this period.
As Table 4-6 shows, ten percent of the respondents did not
use any of the products during the 12 months prior to the survey.
These percentiles also increase steadily with 18 products being
used at the 99th percentile and 32 being used at the maximum
percentile.
II. RANK-ORDERINGS OF PRODUCTS BY QUESTION AND SELECTED
CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOTAL EXPOSURE
For all key questions, tables are presented in which
variables are rank-ordered from the highest to the lowest value.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1: Descriptive statistics for total number of products
ever used (N=4920)
Mean
Median
Standard deviation
6.93
6.00
5.08
Table 4-2: Frequency distribution of total products "ever used"
Number of
products
used
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
32
Frequency
299
330
365
427
432
435
371
330
316
302
227
204
180
139
120
93
83
66
61
40
35
17
15
8
9
7
1
4
1
1
2
Percent
6.1
6.7
7.4
8.7
8.8
8.8
7.5
6.7
6.4
6.1
4.6
4.1
3.7
2.8
2.4
1.9
1.7
1.3
1.2
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cumulative
Frequency
299
629
994
1421
1853
2288
2659
2989
3305
3607
3834
4038
4218
4357
4477
4570
4653
4719
4780
4820
4855
4872
4887
4895
4904
4911
4912
4916
4917
4918
4920
Cumulative
Percent
6.1
12.8
20.2
28.9
37.7
46.5
54.0
60.8
67.2
73.3
77.9
82.1
85.7
88.6
91.0
92.9
94.6
95.9
97.2
98.0
98.7
99.0
99.3
99.5
99.7
99.8
99.8
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
4-2
-------
Table 4-3: Percentile rankings for total number of products ever
used (N=4920)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
0
0
0
1
3
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
6
10
14
17
21
32
Table 4-4: Descriptive statistics for total number of products
used during last 12 months
Mean 4.94
Median 4.00
Standard deviation 4.18
4-3
-------
Table 4-5:
Frequency distribution of total products used during
the last 12 months
Number of
products
used
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
Frequency
528
533
558
614
482
414
371
305
237
221
139
123
94
89
60
42
35
19
13
12
7
5
5
3
4
1
2
1
1
2
Percent
10.7
10.8
11.3
12.5
9.8
8.4
7.5
6.2
4.8
4.5
2.8
2.5
1.9
1.8
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cumulative
Frequency
525
1061
1619
2233
2715
3129
3500
3805
4042
4263
4402
4525
4619
4708
4768
4810
4845
4864
4877
4889
4896
4901
4906
4909
4913
4914
4916
4917
4918
4920
Cumulative
Percent
10.7
21.6
32.9
45.4
55.2
63.6
71.1
77.3
82.2
86.6
89.5
92.0
93.9
95.7
96.9
97.8
98.5
98.9
99.1
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
Table 4-6:
Percentile rankings for total number of products used
during the last 12 months
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
0
0
0
0
2
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
4
7
11
13
18
32
4-4
-------
This gives some indication of how to summarize the data for the
products relative to each other. Another column appears for
minutes of use, minutes in the room after use, and ounces used
per year. This column indicates the average percent of use due
to each product type. This is calculated by adding up the
minutes or ounces for all 32 products and then calculating the
percentage of the total for each product. This allows for
subtracting the percentage of minutes of use if it is eliminated
for one or more products.
Table 4-7 presents the rank orderings of products for the
variable "incidence of use". As can be seen, the highest
incidence of "ever used" products is for contact cements, super
glues, and spray adhesives, with 60.6 percent. This may be
partially because some respondents included the more common white
paste glues. The second two highest incidences of "ever used"
products are for latex paint, with 55.2 percent and wood stains,
varnishes, and finishes, with 42.9 percent.
The lowest incidence of "ever used" products is for
automotive products. Transmission cleaners are lowest with only
2.1 percent of respondents ever using them. The next two lowest
are gasket removers with 2.7 percent and brake guieters/cleaners
with 2.6 percent.
Table 4-8 presents the rank orderings of products for the
variable "last time the product was used, in months". Spray shoe
polish was last used, on the average, 42.1 months ago. This is
the longest period since last use and this may reflect the fact
that many manufacturers are discontinuing its production. The
glass frosting, tints, and artificial snow category is the next
longest period, last used 34.2 months ago. Oil paint is the
third longest period, last used 30.4 months ago.
The most recent last use falls to other lubricants
(nonautomotive) with 5.0 months, on the average, since last use;
contact cements, super glues, and spray adhesives with 5.2 months
since last use; and spray lubricants (automotive) with 6.3 months
since last use.
Table 4-9 presents the rank orderings for products for the
variable "number of uses of the product within the last 12
months". By far, the product most used within the last 12 months
is typewriter correction fluid with 40.0 uses. There is a drop
to the next two highest products, solvent cleaners with 16.5 uses
during the previous 12 months and spot removers with 15.6 uses.
The three products least used within the last 12 months are
outdoor water repellents with 2.1 mean uses, transmission
cleaners with 2.3 mean uses, and gasket removers with 2.5 mean
uses.
4-5
-------
Table 4-7:
Rank orderings of incidence of use (ever used) for
all products
Product
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray
adhesive
Latex paint
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Spot removers
Paint thinners
Water repellents
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive)
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Other lubricants (nonautomotive)
Paint removers/Strippers
Oil paint
Solvent cleaners
Typewriter correction fluids
Carburetor cleaners
Spray lubricants for cars
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Engine degreasers
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Primers (nonautomotive)
Specialized electronic cleaners
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Spray shoe polish
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow
Outdoor water repellent
Auto spray primers
Aerosol rust removers
Battery terminal protectors
Adhesive removers
Ignition/Wire dryers
Gasket removers
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Transmission cleaners
Ql
Yes %
60.6
55.2
42.9
39.1
35.7
35.8
35.4
34.9
34.3
30.5
29.9
28.1
25.9
21.9
17.9
17.7
17.2
15.9
13.9
13.1
12.1
11.7
10.3
9.2
8.7
8.2
6.7
5.7
4.8
2.7
2.6
2.1
Ql
Number of
Respondents
2982
2717
2113
1924
1756
1762
1743
1719
1695
1498
1471
1382
1276
1075
884
870
847
783
684
645
597
575
509
454
429
403
330
284
237
132
130
103
4-6
-------
Table 4-8: Rank orderings of last time product was used in
months for all products
Q2
Product Mean months
Spray shoe polish
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow
Oil paint
Paint removers/Strippers
Outdoor water repellents
Auto spray primers
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Ignition/Wire dryers
Gasket removers
Primers (nonautomotive)
Adhesive removers
Paint thinners
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Water repellents
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive)
Latex paint
Transmission cleaners
Engine degreasers
Aerosol rust removers
Spot removers
Battery terminal protectors
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Carburetor cleaners
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Solvent cleaners
Specialized electronic cleaners
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Typewriter correction fluid
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Spray lubricants for cars
Contact cement/Super glues/ Spray adhesives
Other lubricants (nonautomotive)
42.1
34.2
30.4
28.9
24.6
24.1
23.2
22.8
22.4
22.0
21.6
21.5
20.8
20.5
17.2
16.7
16.7
16.5
15.1
14.7
14.0
13.3
13.1
12.6
9.9
7.9
7.2
6.9
6.5
6.3
5.2
5.0
4-7
-------
Table 4-9: Rank orderings of number of uses of the product
within the last 12 months for all products
Product Q3
Mean uses
Typewriter correction fluid 40.0
Solvent cleaners 16.5
Spot removers 15.6
Specialized electronic cleaners 13.4
Tire/Hubcap cleaners 11.1
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 10.6
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 10.3
Spray lubricants for cars 10.3
Spray shoe polish 10.3
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 8.9
Wood/Floor/Panel cleaners 8.5
Paint thinners 6.8
Auto spray primers 6.4
Aerosol rust removers 6.2
Oil paint 5.7
Aerosol spray paint for cars 4 .5
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 4.2
Engine degreasers 4.2
Adhesive removers 4 . 2
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 4.2
Latex paint 3 . 9
Battery terminal protectors 3.9
Carburetor cleaners 3.8
Paint removers/Strippers 3.7
Water repellents 3.5
Primers (nonautomotive) 3.4
Brake guieters/Cleaners 3 . 0
Ignition/Wire dryers 3 . 0
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 2.8
Gasket removers 2 . 5
Transmission cleaners 2.3
Outdoor water repellents 2 .1
4-8
-------
Table 4-10 presents the rank orderings and the average
percent of use for all products for the variable "time spent
using the product". As might be expected, the most time was
spent using latex paint (295.1 mean minutes) and oil paint (194.1
mean minutes). However, latex and oil paint do not contain the
study solvents. Of the other products which are thought to
contain the solvents the three highest number of minutes are:
paint removers/strippers with 125.6 mean number of minutes;
adhesive removers with 121.0 mean number of minutes; and wood
stains, varnishes, and finishes with 117.2 mean number of
minutes.
The least amount of time using a product is for
ignition/wire dryers at 7.2 mean minutes, spray shoe polish at
7.5 mean minutes, and typewriter correction fluid at 7.6 mean
minutes.
Column 2 indicates the average percentage of use (as minutes
of use) due to each product type. Each amount shown is the
percentage of minutes of use which would be eliminated if the use
of any given product is eliminated.
Table 4-11 presents the rank orderings and the average
percent of use for all products for the variable "time spent in
the room after last use". The mean number of minutes spent in
the room after use of the product is greatest for the glass
frostings, tints, and artificial snow category, with 137.9 mean
minutes; next highest for typewriter correction fluid with 128.4
mean minutes; and third highest for adhesive removers with 119.3
mean minutes.
The automotive products have the lowest amount of time spent
in the room because most are used outside or briefly inside the
garage.
Column 2 indicates the average percent of use (as minutes in
the room after use) due to each product type. Each figure is the
percentage of minutes in the room after use which would be
eliminated if use of any given product is eliminated.
Table 4-12 presents the rank orderings and average percent
of use for all products for the variable "amount of product used
in ounces per year". As might be expected, products used for
large jobs have the most ounces used per year. Latex and oil
paint have the highest number of ounces used with 371.3 and 168.9
ounces, respectively. However, these two products do not contain
the solvents of interest. Of the products with brands thought to
contain chlorinated solvents, the top three number of ounces used
per year are: outdoor water repellents with 148.7 ounces;
4-9
-------
Table 4-10:
Rank orderings and average percent of time spent
using product for all products
Product
Latex paint
Oil paint
Paint removers/ strippers
Adhesive removers
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Outdoor water repellents
Primers (nonautomotive)
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Auto spray primers
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive)
Paint thinners
Engine degreasers
Solvent cleaners
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial
Snow
Transmission cleaners
Gasket removers
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Aerosol rust removers
Contact cement/ Super glues/
Spray adhesives
Water repellents
Carburetor cleaners
Spot removers
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Spray lubricants for cars
Battery terminal protectors
Specialized electronic cleaners
Other lubricants (nonautomotive)
Typewriter correction fluid
Spray shoe polish
Ignition/Wire dryers
Average percent
Q4 of use
Mean (as minutes
minutes of use)
using due to each
product product type
295.1
194.1
125.6
121.0
117.2
104.9
91.3
74.0
51.5
42.8
39.5
39.4
29.8
29.5
29.5
27.9
23.6
23.4
22.6
18.6
15.6
14.5
13.6
10.7
10.4
9.9
9.6
9.5
8.1
7.6
7.5
7.2
18.2%
11.9%
7.7
7.4
7.2
6.5
5.6
4.6
3.2
2.6
2.4
2.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
4-10
-------
Table 4-11:
Rank orderings and average percent of time spent
in the room after last use for all products
Product
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow
Typewriter correction fluids
Adhesive removers
Specialized electronic cleaners
Oil paint
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Latex paint
Contact cement/Super Glues/Spray
Adhesives
Other lubricants (nonautomotive)
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Spot removers
Water repellents
Solvent cleaners
Paint thinners
Spray shoe polish
Paint removers/Strippers
Gasket removers
Primers (nonautomotive)
Aerosol rust removers
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive)
Auto spray primers
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Outdoor water repellents
Carburetor cleaners
Ignition/Wire dryers
Transmission cleaners
Spray lubricants for cars
Engine degreasers
Battery terminal protectors
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Average percent
of use (as
Q5 minutes in the
mean room after use)
minutes due to each
in room product type
137.9
128.4
119.3
117.2
100.5
96.7
93.4
91.4
88.9
84.1
65.8
43.8
38.2
33.3
32.9
31.5
31.4
27.6
22.3
15.1
12.7
11.4
10.7
10.3
8.3
7.5
6.4
6.2
4.5
4.5
3.2
1.5
9.3%
8.6%
8.0%
7.9%
6.8%
6.5%
6.3%
6.1%
6.0%
5.7%
4.4%
2.9%
2.6%
2.2%
2.2%
2.1%
2.1%
1.9%
1.5%
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
4-11
-------
Table 4-12:
Rank orderings and average percent of use for amount
of product used in ounces per year for all products
Product
Latex paint
Oil paint
Outdoor water repellents
Auto spray primers
Paint thinners
Primers (nonautomotive)
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Paint removers/Strippers
Solvent cleaners
Engine degreasers
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Transmission cleaners
Adhesive removers
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive)
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Spot removers
Carburetor cleaners
Spray lubricants for cars
Aerosol rust removers
Battery terminal protectors
Glass f rostings/Tints/Artif icial snow
Gasket removers
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Water repellents
Spray shoe polish
Other lubricants (nonautomotive)
Specialized electronic cleaners
Ignition/Wire dryers
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray
adhesives
Typewriter correction fluid
Q7
Mean
ounces
per year
371.3
168.9
148.7
70.4
69.5
68.4
65.1
63.7
58.1
46.9
44.9
37.7
34.5
31.6
30.7
28.4
26.1
22.0
18.6
18.2
16.4
13.8
13.3
12.5
11.7
11.3
9.9
9.9
9.5
9.0
7.5
4.1
Average
percent
of use
(as ounces
per year)
due to each
product type
23.9%
10.9%
9.6%
4.5%
4.5%
4.4%
4.2%
4.1%
3.7%
3.0%
2.9%
2.4%
2.2%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
1.4%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
4-12
-------
automotive spray primers with 70.4 ounces; and paint thinners
with 69.5 ounces.
While typewriter correction fluid and contact cement, super
glues, and spray adhesives are frequently used, only relatively
small amounts were used, namely: 4.1 ounces per year for the
former and 7.5 for the latter.
Column 2 indicates the average percent of use (as ounces per
year) due to each product type. Ounces per year was a variable
derived from determining the size of can used and the amount or
number of cans used. Each number shows the percentage of ounces
per year which would be eliminated if the use of any given
product is eliminated.
Table 4-13 presents the rank orderings for all products for
the variable "whether or not a door or window was open to the
outside". The highest percentage of respondents kept a door or
window open when using nonautomotive primers (78%), latex paint
(76%), outdoor water repellents (73%), and paint removers/
strippers (71%). Most of the automotive products were used on
the outside so this guestion was irrelevant for these
respondents.
Table 4-14 presents the rank orderings for all products for
the variable "whether an exhaust fan was on during use". The
highest percentages of respondents having an exhaust fan on are
25 percent for spot removers and 23 percent for adhesive
removers. Four products with 16 percent of respondents having an
exhaust fan on are: primers (nonautomotive); oil paint; paint
removers/strippers; and latex paint. Most users of automotive
products used them outside and, again, this question does not
apply.
Table 4-15 presents the rank orderings for all products for
the variable "whether the inside door to the room was kept open."
For those respondents who used the product inside, the majority
left the door to the room open while using the product. The
highest percentages leaving the door open were for latex paint
(85%), wood/floor/paneling cleaners (83%), and spot removers
(80%). Once again, the majority of the automotive users used the
product outside and, therefore, this guestion does not apply.
Table 4-16 presents the rank orderings for all products for
the variable "whether directions on the label were read." The
least used product, transmission cleaners, had the highest
percentage (86%) of respondents who read the directions on the
label. The majority of the respondents for most products said
that they did read the directions on the label. Fewer than 50
percent read the directions on the label for only two products,
nonautomotive "other" lubricants and typewriter correction fluid.
4-13
-------
Table 4-13: Rank orderings of those saying they kept a door or
window open to the outside for all products
Q9a
Product Yes i
Primers (nonautomotive) 78
Latex paint 76
Outdoor water repellents 73
Paint removers/Strippers 71
Oil paint 70
Adhesive removers 67
Paint thinners 67
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 64
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 63
Aerosol rust removers 61
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners 59
Solvent cleaners 57
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 52
Spot removers 45
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 43
Spray shoe polish 41
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 41
Water repellents 40
Specialized electronic cleaners 32
Typewriter correction fluid 26
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 24
Transmission cleaners N/A
Battery terminal protectors N/A
Carburetor cleaners N/A
Brake quieters/Cleaners N/A
Auto spray primers N/A
Gasket removers N/A
Engine degreasers N/A
Spray lubricants for cars N/A
Aerosol spray paint for cars N/A
Tire/Hubcap cleaners N/A
Ignition/Wire dryers N/A
4-14
-------
Table 4-14: Rank orderings of those saying they kept an exhaust
fan on during use for all products
Q9b
Product Yes 3
Spot removers 25
Adhesive removers 23
Primers (nonautomotive) 16
Oil paint 16
Paint removers/Strippers 16
Latex paint 16
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 15
Solvent cleaners 15
Aerosol rust removers 13
Spray shoe polish 11
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 11
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners 11
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 10
Paint thinners 10
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 8
Typewriter correction fluid 8
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 8
Water repellents 8
Outdoor water repellents 7
Other lubricants (nonautoraotive) 6
Specialized electronic cleaners 6
Carburetor cleaners N/A
Battery terminal protectors N/A
Engine degreasers N/A
Brake quieters/Cleaners N/A
Auto spray primers N/A
Gasket removers N/A
Transmission cleaners N/A
Spray lubricants for cars N/A
Aerosol spray paint for cars N/A
Tire/Hubcap cleaners N/A
Ignition/Wire dryers N/A
4-15
-------
Table 4-15: Rank orderings of those saying they kept the door to
the room open during use
Q9c
Product Yes '
Latex paint 85
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners 83
Spot removers 80
Adhesive removers 79
Oil paint 77
Spray shoe polish 76
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 75
Typewriter correction fluid 74
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 74
Solvent cleaners 74
Water repellents 73
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 72
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 71
Specialized electronic cleaners 70
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 70
Paint removers/Strippers 69
Primers (nonautomotive) 68
Paint thinners 68
Outdoor water repellents 65
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 61
Aerosol rust removers 57
Transmission cleaners N/A
Battery terminal protectors N/A
Carburetor cleaners N/A
Brake quieters/Cleaners N/A
Auto spray primers N/A
Gasket removers N/A
Engine degreasers N/A
Spray lubricants for cars N/A
Aerosol spray paint for cars N/A
Tire/Hubcap cleaners N/A
Ignition/Wire dryers N/A
4-16
-------
Table 4-16: Rank orderings of those saying they read the
directions on the label for last use of product
Q9d
Product Yes <
Transmission cleaners 86
Water repellents 83
Adhesive removers 82
Outdoor water repellents 81
Paint removers/Strippers 80
Engine degreasers 78
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 77
Spot removers 77
Primers (nonautomotive) 74
Gasket removers 74
Specialized electronic cleaners 74
Carburetor cleaners 74
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 73
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners 72
Aerosol spray paint for cars 72
Brake quieters/Cleaners 72
Ignition/Wire dryers 71
Spray shoe polish 71
Battery terminal protectors 71
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 71
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 70
Oil paint 69
Auto spray primers 69
Solvent cleaners 68
Aerosol rust removers 68
Tire/Hubcap cleaners 67
Latex paint 64
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 61
Paint thinners 59
Spray lubricants for cars 55
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 45
Typewriter correction fluid 39
4-17
-------
III. CROSS USE OF PRODUCTS
A. Users of Aerosol Spray Paint Who Use Other Products
Table 4-17 presents the percentage of users who have "ever
used" aerosol spray paint who have also "ever used" the other 31
products. Of particular interest is whether a user of one paint
product also uses other paint products. As might be expected,
the percentage of users of aerosol spray paint who also used
other paint products is high. Almost 76 percent of aerosol spray
paint users have also used latex paint; 45.3 percent have also
used oil paint; 64.1 percent have also used wood stains,
varnishes, and finishes; 49.6 percent have also used paint
removers/strippers; and 54.9 percent have also used paint
thinners. Please also note that the percentage of users of
aerosol spray paint who use one of the other products may be low
because overall use of the product is low. This is true for many
automotive products.
Table 4-18 presents the percentage of aerosol spray paint
users who used it in the last 12 months who also used the other
31 products during the last 12 months. Once again, a fairly high
percentage of users of aerosol spray paint during the last 12
months also used other paint products during the last 12 months.
Almost 58 percent of aerosol spray paint "recent" users also used
latex paint; almost 28 percent also used oil paint; almost 45
percent also used wood stains, varnishes, or finishes; 29 percent
also used paint removers/strippers; and 39 percent also used
paint thinners.
B. Users of Carburetor Cleaners Who Use Other Products
Table 4-19 presents the percentage of users of carburetor
cleaners who have "ever" used it who also have used the other 31
products. Of particular interest is whether a user of one
automotive product also uses other automotive products. Fifty-
four percent of users of carburetor cleaners also use engine
degreasers; 34.4 percent also use aerosol spray paint for cars;
29.3 percent also use auto spray primers; 49.3 percent also use
spray lubricants for cars; 7.2 percent also use transmission
cleaners; 20.3 percent also use battery terminal protectors; 9.9
percent also use brake quieters/cleaners; 9.3 percent also use
gasket removers; 32.1 percent also use tire/hubcap cleaners; and
15.9 percent also use ignition and wire dryers. Again, please
note that the percentage of users of carburetor cleaners who use
one of the other automotive products may seem low because overall
4-18
-------
Table 4-17: Percentage of "Ever Users" of Aerosol Spray Paint
who "Ever Used" other products (N=1746 users)
Other Products Used Percentage "Ever Users"
Using
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Wood/Floor/Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants (nonauto)
Other Lubricants (nonauto)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint (nonauto)
Primers and Special Primers (nonauto)
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
Glass Frostings, Tints, and Artificial
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricants for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Removers
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
15.6%
47.6%
48.8%
38.8%
45.7%
36.4%
79.3%
96.8%
29.0%
52.3%
20.6%
75.6%
45.3%
64.1%
49.6%
54.9%
100.0%
27.4%
15.1%
15.8%
Snow 16.8%
26.2%
31.1%
19.2%
14.9%
28.3%
3.1%
10.5%
4.6%
4.7%
23.4%
8.8%
4-19
-------
Table 4-18: Percentage of Users in the Last Twelve Months of
Aerosol Spray Paint Who Also Used Other Products
"In the Last Twelve Months" (N=1190 recent users)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Other Products Used Percentage
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Wood/Floor/Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicons Lubricants (nonauto)
Other Lubricants (nonauto)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint (nonauto)
Primers and Special Primers (nonauto)
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
of "Recent Users"
Using
7.6%
30.5%
36.8%
35.4%
35.9%
32.1%
74.9%
6.7%
29.3%
50.9%
18.1%
57.9%
27.5%
44.5%
29.1%
39.2%
100.0%
21.5%
13.4%
11.0%
Glass Frostings, Tints, and Artificial Snow 9.7%
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricants for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Removers
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
21.5%
26.5%
14.1%
9.6%
26.0%
27.7%
8.7%
3.7%
3.4%
22.7%
6.1%
4-20
-------
Table 4-19: Percentage of "Ever Users" of Carburetor Cleaners
Who "Ever Used" Other Products (N=1078 users)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Other Products Used Percentage
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Wood/Floor/Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants (nonauto)
Other Lubricants (nonauto)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint (nonauto)
Primers and Special Primers (nonauto)
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
Glass Frostings, Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricants for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Removers
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
of "Ever Users"
Using
16.1%
44.8%
36.9%
43.0%
33.8%
26.5%
79.3%
9.2%
34.6%
55.4%
28.0%
72.4%
44.2%
59.5%
44.9%
56.1%
50.5%
24.0%
18.0%
16.8%
14.9%
54.3%
100.0%
34.4%
29.3%
49.3%
7.2%
20.3%
9.9%
9.3%
32.1%
15.9%
4-21
-------
use of the product is low. Actually, a sizable number of users
of carburetor cleaners use other automotive products.
Table 4-20 presents the percentage of users of carburetor
cleaners used within the last 12 months who also used the other
31 products during the last 12 months. Again, of particular
interest is the percentage of recent users of carburetor cleaners
who also used other automotive products. A relatively high
percentage of recent carburetor cleaner users also used other
automotive products, especially when the low usage of some of
these products is taken into account. Almost 47 percent of
carburetor cleaner users using it during the past 12 months also
used engine degreasers; 26.5 percent also used aerosol spray
paint for cars; 20.3 percent also used auto spray primers; 48.8
percent also used spray lubricants for cars; 6.5 percent also
used transmission cleaners, the least used product in the survey;
16.4 percent used battery terminal protectors; 9.2 percent also
used brake quieters/cleaners; 7.5 percent also used gasket
removers; 31.0 percent also used tire/hubcap cleaners; and 11.3
percent also used ignition and wire dryers.
IV. SPECIALTY GROUP USERS
A. Automotive Users
Table 4-21 presents the statistics for four major usage
variables for respondents using any one or more of the ten
automotive products. These respondents are assessed as a group.
The total minutes spent using these products (last use); the
total minutes spent in the room after use (last use); the ounces
used of products per year; and number of automotive products used
during the past 12 months by those who used at least one
automotive product are presented. The mean, median, standard
deviation, and percentile rankings are given for each usage
variable.
As can be seen in Table 4-21, the mean number of minutes
spent by respondents using any of the ten automotive products is
49.82 minutes; the mean number of minutes spent in the room after
use (in this case, probably a garage) is 14.04; and the mean
number of ounces of automotive products used per year is 69.22.
Of special interest, for those using an automotive product during
the last 12 months, the mean number of other automotive products
used during the same period is 2.31 products.
4-22
-------
Table 4-20:
Percentage of "Users in the Last Twelve Months" of
Carburetor Cleaners Who Also Used" Other Products
"In the Last Twelve Months" (N=812 recent users)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Other Products Used Percentage
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Wood/Floor/Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants (nonauto)
Other Lubricants (nonauto)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint (nonauto)
Primers and Special Primers (nonauto)
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
Glass Frostings, Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricants for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Removers
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
of "Recent Users"
Using
8.1%
30.3%
26.3%
40.4%
27.1%
24.0%
73.5%
6.1%
31.4%
53.9%
26.0%
52.1%
25.4%
38.8%
25.2%
39.8%
38.8%
15.9%
15.6%
10.6%
9.1%
46.9%
100.0%
26.5%
20.3%
48.8%
6.5%
16.4%
9.2%
7.5%
31.0%
11.3%
4-23
-------
Table 4-21: Statistics for usage variables for automotive users
(respondents using any one or more of the ten
automotive products are assessed as a group)
A. Total Minutes of Use, Last Use
N = 1777 Minimum .02
Mean = 49.82 1% .08
Median = 20.00 5% .75
Standard 10% 2.00
Deviation = 91.02 25% 6.00
B. Total Minutes in Room After Use, Last
(includes zeros for nonexposure) *
N = 1775 Minimum
Mean =14.04 1% 0.00
Median =0.00 5% 0.00
Standard 10% 0.00
Deviation = 97.54 25% 0.00
*most automotive use is outside
C. Ounces of Automotive Products Used Per
N = 1701 Minimum .12
Mean = 69.22 1% .52
Median =20.00 5% 1.56
Standard 10% 3.00
Deviation = 214.65 25% 8.00
D. Number of Automotive Products Used by
One Automotive Product*
N = 1794 Minimum 1.00
Mean =2.31 1% 1.00
Median =2.00 5% 1.00
Standard 10% 1.00
Deviation =1.66 25% 1.00
*used during the last twelve months
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
Use
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
Year
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
Those
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
57.16
122.20
197.80
405.89
1130.00
0.00
10.00
60.00
281.00
234.00
52.00
150.80
265.97
862.80
5628.00
Who Used at Least
3.00
5.00
6.00
8.00
11.00
4-24
-------
B. Paint Users
Table 4-22 presents the statistics for four major usage
variables for respondents using one or more of the four paint
products assessed as a group. The four paint products included
are wood stains, varnishes, and finishes; paint
removers/strippers; paint thinners; and nonautomotive aerosol
spray paint. Latex and oil paint are excluded from this
assessment because they are not thought to contain methylene
chloride or its substitutes.
As can be seen in Table 4-22, the mean number of minutes
spent using any or all of the four paint products is 154.75
minutes; the mean number of minutes spent in the room after use
is 60.71 minutes; and the mean number of ounces of these paint
products used per year is 112.08. Again of special interest, for
those using one of these paint products during the last 12
months, the mean number of other paint products used during the
same period is 1.99 products. Therefore, users of one of these
four paint products also use on the average another two of these
products, indicating paint products are used as a group.
4-25
-------
Table 4-22: Statistics for usage variables for Paint Users
(respondents using one or more of four paint
products)
A.
B.
C.
D.
Total Minutes of
N = 2353
Mean = 154.75
Median = 60.00
Standard
Deviation = 311.
Total Minutes in
(includes zeros
N = 2343
Mean = 60.71
Median = 1.00
Standard
Deviation = 193.
Ounces of Paint
N = 2310
Mean = 112.08
Median = 35.00
Standard
Deviation = 263.
Number of Paint
Use, Last Use
Minimum . 02
1% .25
5% 3.00
10% 5.37
80 25% 20.00
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
180.00
360.00
541.50
1440.00
7220.00
Room After Use, Last Use
for nonexposure)
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
85 25% 0.00
Products Used Per Year
Minimum .03
1% l.OO
5% 3.25
10% 6.50
02 25% 16.00
Products Used by Those
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
Who
30.00
150.00
314.00
813.60
4325.00
109.78
259.00
448.00
1020.48
5248.00
Used at Least
One Paint Product*
N = 2380
Mean =1.99
Median = 2.00
Standard
Deviation = 1.13
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
3.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
*used during the last twelve months
4-26
-------
V. GENDER AND AGE DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCT USE. BY PRODUCT
A. Gender Differences
Table 4-23 summarizes gender differences for three product
use variables, by product. The three variables are uses per year
(i.e., number of uses during the last 12 months), minutes spent
using the product during the last use, and ounces of the product
used per year. There is also a column indicating the percentages
of users who are male and female.
There are no significant differences at a "p-value" or "p"
(i.e., level of significance) equal to or less than .05 for any
of the three variables for the following products:
Spray shoe polish,
Adhesive removers,
Oil paint,
Paint thinners,
Primers and special primers,
Battery terminal protectors, and
Ignition and wire dryers.
Fifty-six percent of the users of water repellents are
female, and there is no significant difference for uses per year;
there is a significant difference at p = .010 for minutes of last
use, with males spending more time than females; and there is a
significant difference (p = .007) for ounces per year, again with
males using more than females. Sixty-eight percent of the users
of spot removers are female, and there is a significant
difference (p = .000) for uses per year with females using spot
removers more often; there is a significant difference (p = .051)
for minutes of use with males spending more time; and there is a
significant difference (p = .000) for ounces per year with
females using more of the product. Males spend more time using
spot removers, and females use more of the product.
Fifty-three percent of the users of solvent type cleaning
fluids are male, and there is a significant difference (p = .002)
for uses per year with females using more of the product.
Similarly, 70 percent of the users of wood floor and paneling
cleaners are female, and there is a significant difference (p =
.050) for uses per year with females using the product more
often. Sixty-two percent of the users of typewriter correction
fluid are female, and there is a significant difference (p =
.050) for uses per year with females using it more often than
males.
Fifty-one percent of the users of contact cement, super
glues and spray adhesives are female, and there is a significant
4-27
-------
Table 4-23: Gender differences in product use by product
KEY
Blank - Not Significant
M - Significant
Male Higher
F - Significant
Female Higher
(P-value for significant differences in product use
are in parentheses for the last three columns)
(The probability for significant differences is only
approximate for subgroups with less than 50
respondents)
PRODUCT
1. SPRAY SHOE POLISH
2. WATER REPELLENTS/PROTECTORS
(FOR SUEDE, LEATHER, AND CLOTH)
3. SPOT REMOVERS
4. SOLVENT-TYPE CLEANING FLUIDS
OR DEGREASERS
5. WOOD FLOOR AND PANELING CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER CORRECTION FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT, SUPER GLUES AND
SPRAY ADHESIVES
8. ADHESIVE REMOVERS (GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONE LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
10. OTHER LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
11. SPECIALIZED ELECTRONIC CLEANERS
FOR TV, VCR, RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
14. WOOD STAINS, VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
15. PAINT REMOVERS/STRIPPERS
%
MALE/FEMALE
47/53
(127)/(143)
44/56
(461)/(586)
32/68
(447)/(951)
53/47
(591)/(524)
30/70
(394)/(919)
38/62
(435)/(711)
49/51
(1322)/(1375)
53/47
(93)/(82)
70/30
(531)/(228)
61/39
(941)/(593)
69/31
(382)/(171)
51/49
(916)/(880)
57/43
(424)/(319)
51/49
(647)/(621)
52/48
(399)/(368)
USES
PER YEAR
F
(.000)
F
(.002)
F
(.050)
F
(.050)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.001)
MINUTES
LAST USE
M
(.010)
M
(.051)
F
(.015)
F
(.044)
OUNCES
PER YEAR
M
(.007)
F
(.000)
M
(.011)
M
( .000)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.018)
4-28
-------
Table 4-23 (Continued)
PRODUCT
16. PAINT THINNERS
17. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
18. PRIMERS AND SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE)
19. AEROSOL RUST REMOVERS
20. OUTDOOR WATER REPELLENTS (FOR
WOOD OR CEMENT)
21. GLASS FROSTINGS, WINDOW TINTS,
AND ARTIFICIAL SNOW
22. ENGINE DEGREASERS
23. CARBURETOR CLEANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT FOR CARS
25. AUTO SPRAY PRIMERS
26. SPRAY LUBRICANTS FOR CARS
27. TRANSMISSION CLEANERS
28. BATTERY TERMINAL PROTECTORS
29. BRAKE QUIETERS/CLEANERS
30. GASKET REMOVERS
31. TIRE/HUBCAP CLEANERS
32. IGNITION AND WIRE DRYERS
%
MALE/FEMALE
61/39
(671)/(433)
54/46
(642)/(547)
66/34
(268)/(138)
74/26
(217)/(76)
65/35
(161)/(86)
38/62
(107)/(175)
90/10
(529)/(59)
88/12
(714)/(97)
88/12
(326)/(44)
88/12
(23DA31)
85/15
(661)/(117)
69/31
(52)/(23)
88/12
(204)/(28)
94/6
(92)/(6)
89/11
(70)/(9)
64/36
(445)/(251)
84/16
(123)7(24)
USES
PER YEAR
M
(.002)
M
(.000)
M
(.035)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.019)
M
(.031)
M
(.017)
M
(.002)
MINUTES
LAST USE
M
(.003)
M
(.017)
OUNCES
PER YEAR
M
(.019)
M
(.004)
M
(.000)
M
(.001)
M
(.000)
M
(.007)
4-29
-------
difference (p = .011) for ounces per year with males using more
of the product. Seventy percent of the users of silicone
lubricants (excluding automotive) are male, and there is a
significant difference (p = .000) for uses per year with males
using it more often; and there is also a significant difference
(p = .000) for ounces per year with males using more of it.
Similarly, 61 percent of the users of other lubricants (excluding
automotive) are male, and there is a significant difference
(p = .000) for uses per year with males using it more often; and
there is a significant difference (p = .000) for ounces per year
with males using more of it.
Sixty-nine percent of the users of specialized electronic
cleaners are male, and there is a significant difference (p =
.001) for uses per year with males using them more often. Only a
slight majority (51%) of the users of latex paint are male, and
there is only a significant difference (p = .000) for ounces per
year with males using more of it. Fifty-one percent of the users
of wood stains, varnishes and finishes are male, and there is a
significant difference (p = .015) for minutes of last use with
females spending more time; and there is a significant difference
(p = .018) for ounces per year with males using more of the
product. Females spend more time using latex paint while males
use more of it, indicating that males are perhaps faster
painters.
Fifty-two percent of the users of paint removers/strippers
are male, and the only significant difference (p = .044) is for
minutes of last use with females spending more time using the
product. Fifty-four percent of the users of aerosol spray paint
(excluding automotive) are male, and there is a significant
difference (p = .002) for uses per year with males using the
product more often; and there is a significant difference (p =
.019) for ounces per year with males using more of the product.
Seventy-four percent of the users of aerosol rust removers are
male, and there is a significant difference (p = .000) for uses
per year with males using the product more often. Sixty-two
percent of the users of glass frostings, window tints and
artificial snow are female, and there is a significant difference
(p = .004) for ounces per year with males using more of it.
Ninety percent of the users of engine degreasers are male,
and there is a significant difference (p = .035) for uses per
year with males using it more often. Eighty-eight percent of the
users of carburetor cleaners are male, and there is a significant
difference for uses per year with males using it more often; and
there is also a significant difference for ounces per year with
males using more of it. Eighty-eight percent of the users of
aerosol spray paint for cars are male, and again there is a
significant difference (p = .000) for uses per year with males
4-30
-------
using it more often; and there is a significant difference for
ounces per year with males using more of it.
Eighty-five percent of the users of spray lubricants for
cars are male, and there are significant differences for all
three variables with males using the product more often, spending
more time using it, and using more of the product. Sixty-nine
percent of the users of transmission cleaners are male, and there
is a significant difference (p = .019) for uses per year with
males using it more often; and there is a significant difference
(p = .007) for ounces per year with males using more of it.
Ninety-four percent of the users of brake quieters/cleaners
are male, and there is a significant difference for uses per year
with males using it more often; and there is a significant
difference for minutes of last use with males spending more time
using it. Eighty-nine percent of the users of gasket removers
are male, and there is a significant difference (p = .017) for
uses per year with males using it more often. Finally, 64
percent of the users of tire/hubcap cleaners are male, and there
is a significant difference for uses per year with males using it
more often.
It should be noted that the probability of significant
differences is only approximate where a subgroup has fewer than
50. This is the case for female users of aerosol spray paint,
auto spray primers, transmission cleaners, battery terminal
protectors, brake quieters/cleaners, gasket removers, and
ignition and wire dryers.
In summary, there are gender differences for product usage
for a number of products. The most pronounced differences are
for lubricants and automotive products with males being higher
where there are significant differences.
B. Age Differences
Table 4-24 summarizes age differences for three product use
variables, by product. Additional, more detailed comments to
Table 4-24 are provided in the narrative description of each
product. The three variables are the same as those analyzed for
gender, namely: uses per year (i.e., number of uses during the
last 12 months), minutes spent using the product during the last
use, and ounces of the product used per year. There are five age
groups, namely: 18-30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 years, 51-60
years, and 61-96 years.
A few products had no significant differences for any of the
three product usage variables. These are: other lubricants
(excluding automotive); specialized electronic cleaners; wood
4-31
-------
Table 4-24:
KEY
Blank - Age Differences Not Significant
* - Significant Age Differences,
No Pattern Discernible
*Decreasing - Significant Age Differences,
Generally Decreasing Use With Age
JDecreasing - Significant Age Differences,
I Decreasing Use With Age
Age differences in product use
by product
(P-value for significant differences
in product use are in parentheses)
(The probability for significant differences
is only approximate for subgroups
with less than 50 respondents)
- ...
PRODUCT
1. SPRAY SHOE POLISH
2. WATER REPELLENTS/PROTECTORS
(FOR SUEDE, LEATHER, AND CLOTH)
3. SPOT REMOVERS
4. SOLVENT-TYPE CLEANING FLUIDS
OR DEGREASERS
5. WOOD FLOOR AND PANELING CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER CORRECTION FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT, SUPER GLUES AND
SPRAY ADHESIVES
8. ADHESIVE REMOVERS (GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONE LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
10. OTHER LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
11. SPECIALIZED ELECTRONIC CLEANERS
FOR TV, VCR, RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
14. WOOD STAINS, VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
15. PAINT REMOVERS/STRIPPERS
UbLb
PER YEAR
»
(.030)
Decreasing
(.039)
Decreasing
<(.001)
*
(.050)
(.037)
*
(.029)
MINUTES
LAST USE
*
(.020)
Decreasing
(.005)
Decreasing
(.023)
Decreasing
<(.Q01)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
(.005)
*
(.011)
Decreasing
(.010)
*
(0.40)
OUNCES
PER YEAR
Decreasing
(.041)
Decreasing
<(.000)
Decreasing
<(.001)
*
(.031)
Decreasing
(.035)
*Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
(.004)
4-32
-------
Table 4-24 (Continued)
PRODUCT
16. PAINT WINNERS
17. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
18. PRIMERS AND SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE)
19. AEROSOL RUST REMOVERS
20. OUTDOOR WATER REPELLENTS (FOR
WOOD OR CEMENT)
21. GLASS FROSTINGS, WINDOW TINTS,
AND ARTIFICIAL SNOW
22. ENGINE DEGREASERS
23. CARBURETOR CLEANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT FOR CARS
25. AUTO SPRAY PRIMERS
26. SPRAY LUBRICANTS FOR CARS
27. TRANSMISSION CLEANERS
28. BATTERY TERMINAL PROTECTORS
29, BRAKE QUIETERS/CLEANERS
30. GASKET REMOVERS
31. TIRE/HUBCAP CLEANERS
32. IGNITION AND WIRE DRYERS
USES
PER YEAR
*
(.029)
*Decreasing
<(.OQ1)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
(.003)
Decreasing
(.003)
MINUTES
LAST USE
#
(.038)
'Decreasing
(.032)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
(.004)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
<(.OQ1)
Decreasing
<(.021)
Decreasing
(.032)
Decreasing
<(.001)
OUNCES
PER YEAR
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
<(.OQ1)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
(.002)
Decreasing
<(.001)
M-
(.035)
»
(.014)
#
<(.001)
Decreasing
(.046)
4-33
-------
stains, varnishes and finishes; aerosol spray paint (excluding
automotive); aerosol rust removers; outdoor water repellents; and
ignition and wire dryers.
Detailed comments which elaborate the summary table follow
for each of the products.
Spray Shoe Polish The differences for uses per year by
age are not significant. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. Respondents
from 18 through 30 years used spray shoe polish for
more time than for those from 31 through 60 years.
There are significant differences in the ounces used
per year, by age. Although the mean ounces used per
year for the 51 through 60 year age group is greater
than for other age groups, the variance of the data in
this age group is greater also. As a result, the data
are consistent with the interpretation that the ounces
used per year decreases with increasing age.
Water Repellents/Protectors There are significant
differences in the number of uses per year by age. The
number of uses per year increases slightly from age
groups 18 through 30 to 41 through 50. The number of
uses per year decreases from age groups 41 through 50
and 61 through 96 years. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. Respondents up
to 40 years old used water repellents for more time on
their last use than respondents 41 or older. Minutes
of use decreased with increasing age. The differences
for ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Spot Removers There are significant differences for uses
per year by age. The uses per year decrease with age
with respondents in age group 18 through 30 using the
product more often than in age group 61 through 96.
There are significant differences for minutes of use by
age. The minutes of use decrease with increasing age.
There are very significant differences between ounces
used per year by age. The ounces used per year
decrease with increasing age.
Solvent Type Cleaning Fluids The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. There are very
significant differences for minutes of use by age.
Although the mean minutes per use for the 51 through 60
year age group is greater than for other age groups,
the variance of the data in this age group is greater
also. As a result, the data are consistent with the
interpretation that the minutes per use decrease with
4-34
-------
increasing age. The differences for ounces used per
year by age are not significant.
Wood Floor and Panel Cleaners There are very significant
differences for uses per year by age. Respondents in
age group 18 through 30 use wood floor and panel
cleaners more often than age groups 31 through 60 which
in turn use the product more often than respondents 61
through 96 years old. The differences for minutes of
use by age are not significant. There are very
significant differences for ounces used per year by
age. Respondents in age group 18 through 30 used more
wood floor and panel cleaner per year than age groups
31 through 60 which in turn use more product than
respondents 61 through 96 years old.
Typewriter Correction Fluid The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. There are very
significant differences for minutes of use by age. The
minutes per use decreases with increasing age. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
Contact Cement, Super Glues and Spray Adhesives The
difference for uses per year by age are not
significant. There are significant differences for
minutes of use by age. The minutes per use decreases
with increasing age. There are significant differences
for ounces used per year by age. Respondents in the
oldest age group (61 through 96 years) used less
contact cements and glues than younger respondents.
Adhesive Removers Due to the small number of respondents
in each age group, the statistical tests are only
approximate. There are significant differences in the
number of uses per year by age. The 41 through 50 age
group has the lowest number of uses per year while the
18 through 30 age group has the highest mean uses per
year. There are significant differences for minutes of
use by age. The minutes of use increase slightly from
age group 18 through 30 to age group 31 through 40.
The minutes of use decreases from age group 31 through
40 to age group 61 through 96. The differences for
ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Silicone Lubricants The differences for uses per year by
age are not significant. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. The minutes per
use decreases with increasing age. There are
significant differences for ounces used per year. The
ounces used per year decreases with increasing age.
4-35
-------
Other Lubricants The differences for uses per year by age
are not significant. The differences for minutes of
use by age are not significant. The differences for
ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Specialized Electronic Cleaners The differences for uses
per year by age are not significant. The differences
for minutes of use by age are not significant. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
Latex Paint There are significant differences in the
number of uses per year by age. The 51 through 60 age
group has the lowest number of uses per year while the
18 through 30 age group has the highest mean uses per
year. The differences for minutes of use by age are
not significant. There are very significant
differences for ounces used per year by age. The 41
through 50 age group uses the largest quantity of
product per year while the 61 through 96 age group uses
the least amount of product per year.
Oil Paint There are significant differences in the number
of uses per year by age. The 51 through 60 age group
has a lower number of uses per year than other age
groups. The differences for minutes of use by age are
not significant. The differences for ounces used per
year by age are not significant.
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Cleaners The differences for
uses per year by age are not significant. The
differences for minutes of use by age are not
significant. The differences for minutes of use by age
are not significant. The differences for ounces used
per year by age are not significant.
Paint Removers/Strippers The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. Respondents
ages 18 through 30 had the smallest minutes of use
while those in the 41 through 50 year age group had the
largest mean minutes of use. There are significant
differences for the ounces used per year by age. The
61 through 96 age group has the smallest quantity usage
of paint removers/strippers while the 41 through 50
year age group has the largest mean product usage.
Paint Thinners There are significant differences for uses
per year by age. The 51 through 60 year age group has
the smallest mean number of uses per year. The 18
4-36
-------
through 30 age group has the largest mean number of
uses per year. The differences for minutes of use by
age are not significant. The differences for ounces
used per year by age are not significant.
Aerosol Spray Paint The differences for uses per year by
age are not significant. The differences for minutes
of use by age are not significant. The differences for
ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Primers and Special Primers The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. Respondents
aged 41 through 50 have the smallest minutes of use
while those in the 51 through 60 age group had the
largest mean minutes of use. The differences for
ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Aerosol Rust Removers The differences for uses per year
by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
Outdoor Water Repellents The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
Glass Frostings. Window Tints, Artificial Snow Due to the
small number of respondents in each age group, the
statistical tests are only approximate. The
differences for uses per year by age are not
significant. There are significant differences for
minutes of use by age. The minutes per use decrease
with increasing age. The differences for ounces used
per year by age are not significant.
Engine Degreasers The differences for uses per year by
age are not significant. There are very significant
differences for minutes of use by age. The minutes per
use decreases with increasing age. There are very
significant differences for ounces used per year. The
ounces used per year decrease with increasing age.
Carburetor Cleaners There are very significant
differences for uses per year by age. Respondents in
age group 51 through 60 use the product less often than
in other age groups. The 18 through 30 age group has
the highest mean number of uses per year. There are
4-37
-------
significant differences for minutes of use by age. The
minutes of use decrease with increasing age. There are
very significant differences between ounces used per
year by age. The ounces used per year decrease with
increasing age.
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars Due to the small number of
respondents in each age group the statistical tests are
only approximate. There are very significant
differences for uses per year by age. The number of
uses per year decrease with increasing age. There are
very significant differences for minutes of use by age.
The minutes of use decrease with increasing age. There
are very significant differences between ounces used
per year by age. The ounces used per year decreases
with increasing age.
Auto Spray Primers Due to the small number of respondents
in each age group, the statistical tests are only
approximate. The differences for uses per year by age
are not significant. There are very significant
differences for minutes of use by age. The minutes of
use decrease with increasing age. There are
significant differences between ounces used per year by
age. In general, the ounces used per year decreases
with increasing age. Respondents from the 61 through
96 year age group use the smallest quantity of product
while those in the 18 through 30 age group use the most
product per year.
Spray Lubricants for Cars There are very significant
differences for uses per year by age. The number of
uses per year decrease with increasing age. There are
significant differences for minutes of use by age.
Respondents ages 61 through 96 have the smallest
minutes of use while those in the 41 through 50 age
group had the largest mean minutes of use. There are
very significant differences between ounces used per
year by age. The ounces used per year decreases with
increasing age.
Transmission Cleaners Due to the very small number of
respondents in each age group, the statistical tests
are at best approximate. The statistical tests
indicate that there are significant differences for
uses per year by age. Note that all five respondents
in the 51 through 60 age group reported one use per
year; thus there is no variability in this group. The
statistical test indicates that respondents ages 18
through 30 and 61 through 96 have mean responses
greater than 1, the mean for ages 51 through 60. There
4-38
-------
are significant differences for minutes of use by age.
In general, the minutes of use decrease with increasing
age. The differences for ounces used per year by age
are not significant.
Battery Terminal Protectors Due to the small number of
respondents in each age group, the statistical tests
are only approximate. The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. There are
significant differences for ounces used per year by
age. The 41 through 50 age group uses the smallest
quantity of product per year while the 31 through 40
age group has the largest mean ounces used per year.
Brake Quieters/Cleaners Due to the very small number of
respondents in each age group, the statistical tests
are at best approximate. The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. The
statistical tests indicate that there are significant
differences for ounces used per year by age. The 61
through 96 age group has the smallest mean ounces used
per year. The 51 through 60 age group has the largest
mean ounces used per year.
Gasket Removers Due to the very small number of
respondents in each age group, the statistical tests
are at best approximate. The differences for uses per
year by age group are not significant. There are very
significant differences for minutes of use by age. The
minutes of use decrease with increasing age. There are
very significant differences for ounces used per year
by age. The 51 through 60 age group has the smallest
mean ounces used per year. The 41 through 50 age group
has the largest mean ounces used per year.
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners There are significant differences
for uses per year by age. The number of uses per year
decrease with increasing age. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. There are
significant differences between ounces used per year by
age. The ounces used per year decrease with increasing
age.
Ignition and Wire Dryers The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
In summary, where there is a discernible pattern of usage by
age it is generally one of decreasing use with increasing age.
4-39
-------
VI. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAIL AND TELEPHONE COMPLETED
QUESTIONNAIRES
The differences between mail completed questionnaires and
telephone completed questionnaires for this study were analyzed
for the following variables:
Uses per year of the product;
Minutes of use for the last use of the product; and
Ounces of the product used per year.
Of the total of 4920 respondents with completed
questionnaires, 1628 were completed by mail, 3281 were completed
by telephone and the records for completion of 11 questionnaires
are unresolved due to differences between the data file and the
receipt control file. This analysis covers the 4909
questionnaires for which the method of completion is known at
this time.
The summary statistics provided for each completion method,
by product and question, are:
Number of responses analyzed;
Mean of the responses;
Standard error of the mean; and
A Chi-square statistic and associated probability for
testing for differences between the responses from the
two methods of completing the questionnaire.
For the data being analyzed, the statistical methods used
work well if there are many respondents in each group. The
standard error, chi-square and significance probability are only
approximate when some groups have few respondents (in this case,
say fewer than 40 respondents).
After reviewing the statistical results, there is no
statistical support for the hypothesis that the two groups, mail
and telephone, have different responses. Seven of the 96
statistical tests are significant at the 5 percent level. This
is close to the level of significance one would expect by chance.
Only one test was significant at the .1 percent level (minutes of
last use for Ignition and Wire Dryers). Since there was no
corresponding significant difference in the ounces used per year
for this product, this result may also be due to chance. The
distribution of the significance probabilities suggests that
there are no differences between the groups that cannot be easily
explained by chance.
4-40
-------
Section 5
RESULTS:
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINCS
Product-by-Product Analysis
I. SOURCES OF SAMPLING AND NONSAMPLING ERROR IN THE DATA
The data presented in this report are based on a sample
survey. As with all sample survey data, they are subject to both
sampling and nonsampling error. Sampling error is the difference
between what was obtained in the sample actually drawn and what
would have been obtained had a complete census of the frame been
conducted using the exact same methodology. The confidence
intervals and standard errors presented in this report measure
the sampling errors only.
Nonsampling errors are those errors which are attributable
to sources other than the statistical sampling procedures. There
are various potential sources of sampling errors in any survey
including this one. Although the impact of the errors on the
estimates is generally not quantifiable, it is important to
acknowledge these sources so that users of the data may be aware
of their possible effects. Potential sources of nonsampling
error include: nonresponse bias; misunderstood questions; and
self reporting bias. These sources of nonsampling error are
discussed below.
Of the original 6700 respondents contacted for the survey,
5675 agreed to participate and 4920 actually sent the
questionnaire in or completed the questionnaire as a followup
telephone interview. The nonresponse bias is the difference
between the data collected and that which would have been
collected if all respondents originally sampled had completed the
questionnaire. The nonresponse bias will be small if the
decisions to complete the questionnaire or not are unrelated to
the questionnaire responses, or equivalently if those who
answered the questionnaire are representative of those who did
not. Since the overall response rate was good (73%), the source
of nonresponse bias should be small. In addition, we have no
apparent reason to suspect that the two populations are
necessarily different. Not all of the 4920 respondents answered
all of the questions on the questionnaire. Some additional
nonresponse bias might have been introduced on individual
questions.
Another source of nonsampling error results if the
respondent misunderstands a question (e.g., responds with the
quantity of product used when last used rather than for the
entire last year, or reports use at work and home instead of just
home use). Followup phone calls to verify unusual data values or
5-1
-------
fill in missing data were made whenever an answer appeared to be
the result of any misunderstanding or skipped. In fact, this was
done in 80 percent of mailed questionnaires. For example, if the
person said that they used 600 ounces of typewriter correction
fluid in the past year, this would have been recalled to question
the obvious suspicion that they were including use at work rather
than restricting their answer to use in the home.
The data are user reported responses, not actual use
measurements. This distinction should be made when interpreting
the data, for example, user responses are subject to apparent
rounding. Responses to quantitative questions appear to be
rounded by the respondent to their closest convenient unit, i.e.,
responses are usually one week, two weeks, one month, two months,
three months, six months, one year, two years, etc. and not four
months and 11 days. Actual use would be expected to be spread
evenly over time. The effect of rounding is to reduce the
variance estimate. The unrounded data are not available for
comparison. The effect of the rounding is expected to be small.
In addition, user responses as opposed to use measurements
may reflect influences such as social desirability. For example,
respondents may have said they read and used the amount specified
on the label more than they actually did. Finally, because the
data are for the last use of the product, and not the typical (or
average) use, the mean of the derived variables may be biased on
the high side although the amount of bias is expected to be quite
small. Pretesting showed that people feel that they can more
accurately answer for the last use as opposed to generalizing
over several nonroutine uses of the product and for this reason,
the last use may be more accurate.
II. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ASPECTS AND OVERVIEW OF THE DATA
The subsections in Part III contain summaries of the data by
product. Each summary presents a basic description of the data
for each question. When reading the summary, please note that
the number of data values being summarized for each question will
differ because:
Not all questions were to be answered by all
respondents, e.g., respondents who had not used the
product in the last year were not to answer Questions 4
through 9.
The number of "Don't Know and "Not Ascertained"
responses may be different for each question.
Where respondent answers were inconsistent and the problem
could not be resolved by a followup telephone call, a decision
5-2
-------
was made for the purposes of the analysis. Some of the decision
rules to eliminate inconsistent responses were:
If the answer to Question 1 (Have you ever used the
product?) was "Don't Know" or "Not Ascertained" and any
Questions 4 through 9 were answered, the respondent was
assumed to be a recent user of the product.
The respondent was assumed to have used the product in
the last year if the stated number of uses in the last
year (Question 3) was greater than 0. The answers to
Questions 2 and 3 were sometimes inconsistent.
If the product was last used either outside or both
outside and in the garage, the answer to Question 5
(time spent in room after last use) was set to zero and
the answers to Questions 9 a, b, and c, if present,
were not used since they are not relevant for outside
use.
For the qualitative questions (e.g., Have you ever used the
product? or Where did you use the product the last time you used
it?) summary tables show the percent of the responses in each
category. For quantitative questions (Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, and
7) summary tables show the mean, median, standard deviation, and
selected percentiles of the distribution of the data. These
values are a close approximation to the standard deviation and
percentiles of the population; however, because the data are not
from a simple random sample a better estimate of the variance
(and standard deviation) is discussed under variance estimation
and these results are found in Appendix A.
The data for all the quantitative questions are positively
skewed, with many small values and a few large values. A
histogram of the data has a long tail on the high side of the
distribution. A histogram of the logarithm of the nonzero data
values is roughly bell shaped. The median of the data is the
value for which half of the observations are smaller and half are
larger. The median corresponds to the 50th percentile of the
distribution. Because the data are positively skewed, the mean
will be larger than the median. For the quantitative data in
this survey the mean roughly corresponds to the 75th percentile
of the distribution, i.e., roughly three-quarters of the data
values are smaller than the mean of the data.
The median is unaffected by the extreme observations in the
data, and thus provides a measure of location of the data which
is unaffected by the skewness. The mean and standard deviation
are sensitive to the extreme data values. Thus errors in extreme
data values will affect the mean and standard deviation more
readily.
5-3
-------
As mentioned previously, respondents rounded their responses
to the nearest convenient unit, i.e., 5, 10, 15 years rather than
five years and two months. The respondent rounding of the data
might have the following results on the reported statistics:
The effect on the mean will be small and will decrease
as the sample size increases.
Standard deviations and confidence intervals will tend
to be smaller than if the unrounded data had been
available.
The results of two derived variables (ounces used per year, and
ounces per use) are reported. Ounces used per year is a variable
derived from ascertaining the size of the can used in ounces
times the amount or number of cans used. Ounces per use is then
derived by dividing ounces used per year by Question 3, the
number of times the product was used during the last 12 months.
Assuming the data used to calculate these variables are unbiased:
The mean of the derived variables will tend to be
greater than the true mean of the derived variables.
The standard deviation will tend to be greater than the
true standard deviation.
The median will be close to the true median.
This discussion was intended to realistically present
various sources of nonsampling error that should be taken into
account when interpreting the data. These sources of error are
inherent in a survey of this type and efforts were made to
minimize their effects by wording questions in the most
understandable way possible and by putting them in the time
framework which best facilitated what was needed but also what
the respondent could reasonably answer. The best way to take
these sources of error into account when using the following
sample statistics for the products is to remember that these
statistics are only the best approximate measures of the
statistics for the population as a whole and, therefore, the data
should not be used as precise measures free of nonsampling error.
III. FINDINGS FOR PRODUCTS
The statistical findings for each of the 32 product types
surveyed follow. The presentation of the findings will follow a
question and answer format. There are nine major questions and
some derived variables for each product which will be presented.
The statistics to be presented will include the mean, median, and
5-4
-------
percentile rankings (100%, 95%, 90%, 50%, etc.) for each question
or derived variable.
The percentile rankings are presented for use in developing
profiles of heavy, moderate, and light users of the products.
All of the usage statistics will be used to calculate exposure
assessments to the chemicals in these products.
A few additional comments are necessary to clarify the
presentation of the findings for each product. For each product,
the findings for Question 1 and Question 2 address whether the
respondent has "ever" used the product and when the last use
occurred regardless of how long ago. Findings for Question 3
through Question 9 include only answers provided by respondents
who used the product during the last 12 months. These
respondents will be referred to as recent users. Furthermore,
the answers to the first three parts to Question 9 entitled
"protective measures" include only users who used the product on
the inside of the home or garage since these questions are only
relevant in that context. These respondents will be referred to
as recent inside users. Due to the wide range of responses two
decimal places are used for all data so that the precision of the
smaller values is not lost. Finally, if there are few responses
for a question, the extreme percentiles (e.g., 1% and 99%) cannot
be estimated from the data and are shown as "" in the tables.
5-5
-------
PRODUCT-BY-PRODUCT
ANAIYSIS
5-7
-------
SPRAY
SHOE
POLISH
5-9
-------
A. Product 1; Spray Shoe Polish
Ql: Have you ever used spray shoe polish?
Table A-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spray Shoe Polish
NumbersPercent
Yes 575 11.7
No 4342 88.3
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table A-l shows that 11.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used spray shoe polish. This is a relatively low
percentage when compared to this incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used spray shoe polish?
Table A-2: Last time Spray Shoe Polish was used in months
(N=574 users)
Mean # of months 42.10
Median # of months 12.50
Standard Deviation 61.60
As Table A-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of spray shoe polish is 42.10 months. This is the longest period
of time since last use for any of the thirty-two products. This
may reflect that spray shoe polish has been discontinued by many
manufacturers over the last few years. The median number of
months is 12.50.
5-11
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table A-3: Percentile rankings for Spray Shoe Polish
months since last use (N=574 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.10
10% 0.33
25% 2.00
Median 12.50
75% 60.00
90% 120.00
95% 180.00
99% 270.00
Maximum 360.00
Table A-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 5 years ago through 30 years ago and appears to
be subject to rounding which was discussed earlier under aspects
of the data (ie. 5, 10, 15 years rather than 5 years 3 months).
The data is still usable for indicating the approximate last use,
5-12
-------
Q3: How many times have you used spray shoe polish in the
last 12 months?
Table A-4: Number of uses of Spray Shoe Polish within the
last 12 months (N=266 recent users)
Mean # of uses 10.28
Median # of uses 4.00
Standard deviation 20.10
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months, was
10.28 and the median 4.0. Almost 49% of these users used the
spray shoe polish three times or less in the last twelve months
with 17.7% using it once; 19.5% using it twice; and 11.7% using
it three times.
Table A-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Spray
Shoe Polish within the last 12 months (N=266
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 4.00
75% 8.00
90% 24.30
95% 52.00
99% 111.26
Maximum 156.00
5-13
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using spray shoe polish the
last time you used it?
Table A-6: Time spent using the Spray Shoe Polish, last
time used (N=263 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 7.49
Median # of minutes 5.00
Standard deviation 9.60
The mean and median number of minutes for using spray shoe
polish are relatively low as would be expected for the time used
polishing shoes.
Table A-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Spray Shoe Polish last time used (N=263 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
0.25
0.50
2.00
5.00
10.00
18.00
30.00
60.00
60.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum percentile is
60 minutes. For higher percentiles, it may be that these
respondents are polishing more than one pair of shoes at one time
and, thus, spending more time.
5-14
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used spray shoe polish?
Table A-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Spray Shoe Polish (N=255 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 31.40
Median # minutes in room 5.00
Standard deviation 80.50
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 31.4 minutes as opposed to the median of five minutes.
Table A-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Spray Shoe Polish
(N=255 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 5.00
75% 20.00
90% 120.00
95% 120.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 720.00
Respondents at the 25th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using spray shoe polish. Respondents at
the higher percentile rankings spent from two to twelve hours.
5-15
-------
Table A-10: Percentile rankings for Spray Shoe Polish for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=189
who stayed in room)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
30.00
120.00
180.00
504.00
720.00
Table A-10 is similar to Table A-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-16
-------
Q6A: Which brand of spray shoe polish did you use the last
time you used it?
Table A-ll: Brand distribution for Spray Shoe Polish
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
83
40
10
67
70
270
30.7
14.8
3.7
24.8
26.0
100.0
Seventy-five percent (75.2%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of spray shoe polish
were used by 30.7%, 14.8% and 3.7% of the users, respectively.
All other brands have a relatively low number of users.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table A-12: Percent of respondents saying Spray Shoe Polish
is aerosol (N=265 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 97.7%
No, product is nonaerosol 2.3%
The product was spray shoe polish so all items should be
aerosol. Respondents said that the product was aerosol in 97.7%
of the cases. The 2.3% saying it was nonaerosol either forgot to
check the box indicating it was aerosol or perhaps used a spray
pump and thought this was to be included under spray shoe polish.
5-17
-------
Q7: What size of spray shoe polish did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table A-13: Amount of Spray Shoe Polish used in ounces
(N=247 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 9.90
Median ounces per year 4.50
Standard deviation 17.90
As might be expected, the mean ounces used per year for
spray shoe polish is one of lowest amounts compared to the amount
used of other products. Only the product categories of
typewriter correction fluid, other lubricants, specialized
electronic cleaners, and ignition and wire cleaners are as low.
Table A-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Spray Shoe
Polish used in ounces (N=247 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.04
0.20
0.63
1.00
2.00
4.50
10.00
24.00
36.00
99.36
180.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
A-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .04
and the maximum ounces per year at 180.0.
5-18
-------
Q8: Where did you use spray shoe polish the last time you
used it?
Table A-15: Location of last use of the product (N=261
recent users)
Basement 5.0%
Living room 14.9%
Other inside room 61.3%
Several inside rooms 0.9%
Garage 3.4%
Outside 13.4%
Garage & outside 1.1%
Total 100.0%
Most people (61.3%) used spray shoe polish in an "other
inside room" such as the bedroom or den. Almost equal numbers
used it in the living room (14.9%) and in the outside air
(13.4%). The remainder used it in the basement (5.0%); in the
garage (3.4%); in both the garage and the outside (1.1%); and in
several inside rooms (.9%).
5-19
-------
Table A-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Spray Shoe Polish
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 40.5% 59.5%
(N-222 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 10.7% 89.3%
(N=224 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 76.0% 24.0%
(N=225 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 71.4% 28.6%
(N=262 all recent users)
The majority of the spray shoe polish users did not have a
door or window open to the outside (59.5%); did not have an
exhaust fan on during use (89.3%); had the inside door to the
room opened (76.0%); and had read the directions on the label
(71.4%).
Table A-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3 (#
of times used in the last year).
Table A-17: Ounces per use of Spray Shoe Polish (N=246
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 2.39
Median # of ounces per use 1.00
Standard deviation 4.20
The mean ounces per use of spray shoe polish is 2.39, the
median is 1.0.
5-20
-------
Table A-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Spray
Shoe Polish (N=246 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.19
0.50
1.02
2.50
5.74
10.00
24.53
35.00
Table A-18 indicates that here is a large jump between the
95th percentile of 10.0 and the 99th percentile of 24.53 and the
100th percentile of 35.0.
Table A-19:
Respondent characteristics of Spray Shoe Polish
users
1. Respondent age
(N=269 recent users)
Mean
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=270 recent users) Female
3. Number of household
members Mean
(N=268 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=269 recent users)
= 44.40 years
47.0%
53.0%
= 3.10 members
= 2.90 bedrooms
Table A-19 presents the respondent characteristics of spray
shoe polish users. The mean age of these respondents is 44.40
years; 53% of the respondents are female and 47% are male; the
mean number of household members is 3.10; and the mean number of
bedrooms is 2.90. The statistics for the respondent
characteristics of spray shoe polish users is almost identical to
the characteristics of the total sample of respondents.
5-21
-------
WATER
REPELLENTS/
PROTECTORS
(FOR SUEDE, LEATHER,
AND CLOTH)
5-23
-------
B. Product 2; Water Repellents
Ql: Have you ever used water repellents?
Table B-l: Numbers and % of respondents every using Water
Repellents
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
1762
3155
4917*
35.8
64.2
100.0
* 3 cases where information was not ascertained.
Table B-l shows that 35.8% of the total respondents have
"ever" used water repellents. This is a moderately high number
when compared to the incidence of other products. It is
comparable to spot removers (39%) ; wood floor and paneling
cleaners (35%) ; other lubricants (35%) ; and aerosol spray paint
excluding automotive (35%).
Q2: When was the last time you used water repellents:
Table B-2: Last time a Water Repellent was used in months
(N=1757 users)
Mean # of months 20.50
Median # of months 9.00
Standard deviation 3.60
As Table B~2 shows, the mean number of months water
repellents were last used is 20.50 months. The median number of
months water repellents were last used is 9.0 months.
5-25
-------
The percentile rankings for this question will now be
presented.
Table B-3: Percentile rankings for Water Repellents-months
since last use (N=1757 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.07
5% 0.46
10% 1.00
25% 4.00
Median 9.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 84.00
99% 156.00
Maximum 240.00
The percentile rankings for months since last use of water
repellents range from a minimum of .03 to a maximum of 240.0.
The increase from one percentile to another is sizable and
steady.
5-26
-------
Q3: How many times have you used water repellents in the
last 12 months?
Table B-4: Number of uses of Water Repellents within the
last 12 Months (N=1042 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.50
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 11.70
The mean number of uses of water repellents were used within
the last 12 months is 3.50 and the median is 2.0. The majority
(81.3%) used it three times or less with 38.4% using it once;
29.8% using it twice; and 13.1% using it three times.
Table B-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Water
Repellents within the last 12 months (N=1042
recent users)
Uses
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
6.00
10.00
35.70
300.00
The percentile rankings for number of uses of water
repellents within the last 12 months ranges from a minimum of one
time to a maximum of 300.0 uses. There is a large jump from the
99th percentile of 35.70 to the maximum of 300.0. The maximum
percentile value suggests that this person used water repellent
almost daily.
5-27
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using water repellents the
last time you used it?
Table B-6: Time spent using Water Repellents last time
used (N=1035 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 14.46
Median # of minutes 10.00
Standard deviation 24.10
The mean number of minutes spent using water repellents is
14.46 and the median number of minutes is 10.0.
Table B-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using Water
Repellents last time used (N=1035 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.08
5% 0.50
10% 1.40
25% 3.00
Median 10.00
75% 15.00
90% 30.00
95% 60.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 480.00
The percentile rankings for minutes spent using the product
range from a minimum of .02 to a maximum of 480.0. These results
seem to be subject to respondent rounding.
5-28
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used water repellents?
Table B-8: Time spent in the room after use of Water
Repellents (N=1025 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
37.95
3.00
111.40
The time spent in the room after use includes those
respondents who said they did not spend any time in the room
after using water repellents. The mean number of minutes spent
in the room is 37.95 and the median number of minutes spent in
the room is 3.0.
Table B-9 shows that the 25th percentile and less had
respondents who did not spend any time in the room after use.
Table B-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use including those who did not spend any
time in room but used Water Repellents
(N=1025 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 3.00
75% 20.00
90% 120.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 1800.00
The range of percentile rankings depicted in Table B-9 goes
from a minimum of zero minutes to a maximum value suggests that
this user may be overestimating or using water repellents for
large jobs.
5-29
-------
Table B-10: Percentile rankings for Water Repellents for
time spent in the room after use including only
those who spent time in room (N=659 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
240.00
600.00
1800.00
Table B-10 presents the percentile rankings for the time
spent in the room after use for only those respondents who did
actually spend some time in the room (zeros are excluded). As
can be seen, the 10th percentile and less are values of one
minute and the remainder of the percentiles are higher in Table
B-10 than in Table B-9 as can be expected.
5-30
-------
Q6A: Which brand of water repellents did you use the last
time you used it?
Table B-ll: Brand Distribution for Water Repellents
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
330
25
18
382
296
1051
31.5
2.4
1.7
36.4
28.0
100.0
Almost sixty-four percent of the users of water repellents
in the last twelve months specified a brand. The most popular
brand was used by 31.5% of the respondents using the product.
The next two highest brands were used by 2.4% and 1.7% of users,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table B-12: Percent of respondents saying the Water
Repellent is aerosol (N=1039 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 72.1%
No, product is nonaerosol 27.9%
Seventy-two percent said the water repellent used was
aerosol.
5-31
-------
Q7: What size of water repellent did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a qan or how many cans did you use
during the past year.
These two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table B-13: Amount of Water Repellent used in ounces per
year (N=976 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per year 11.38
Median # of ounces per year 6.00
Standard deviation 22.00
The mean ounces of water repellent used per year is 11.38
and the median is 6.0.
Table B-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Water
Repellents used in ounces per year
(N=976 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.04
1% 0.47
5% 0.98
10% 1.43
25% 2.75
Median 6.00
75% 12.00
90% 24.00
95% 33.00
99% 121.84
Maximum 450.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
B-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .04
and the maximum ounces per year at 450.0.
5-32
-------
Q8: Where did you use a water repellent the last time you
use it?
Table B-15: Location of where Water Repellents used last
time (N=1034 recent users)
Basement 10.5%
Living room 13.5%
Other inside room 44.7%
Several inside rooms 1.5%
Garage 9.0%
Outside 19.6%
Garage & outside 1.2%
Most people used water repellents in an "other inside room"
such as a bedroom or den while 19.6% used it outside; 13.5% used
it in a living room; 10.5% used it in the basement; 9.0% used it
in a garage; 1.5% used it in several inside rooms; and 1.2% used
it both in the garage and outside. The relatively large number
who said they used it in the garage, outside, or both in the
garage and outside may suggest that some people mixed up the
water repellent for cloth with outdoor water repellents although
the latter is also asked in the questionnaire.
5-33
-------
Table B-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Water Repellents
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 39.8% 60.2%
(N=816 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 7.7% 92.3%
(N=822 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 72.8% 27.2%
(N=810 recent users)
4. Whether directions
on label was read 82.6% 17.4%
(N=1034 all recent user)
The majority of users in the last twelve months did not have
a door or window open to the outside (60.2%); did not have an
exhaust fan on during user (92.3%) kept the inside door to the
room opened (72.8%); and did say they read the directions on the
label (82.6%).
Table B-17 indicates that the mean ounces per use is 6.2
ounces and the median is 2.8 ounces.
Table B-17: Ounces per use of Water Repellents (N=974
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 6.23
Median # of ounces per use 2.80
Standard deviation 12.80
Table B-18 presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. The range is from a minimum of .01 to a maximum of 160
ounces.
5-34
-------
Table B-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Water
Repellents (N=974 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/use
0.01
0.10
0.38
0.63
1.33
2.75
6.56
13.00
18.00
61.00
160.00
Table B-19:
Respondent characteristics for users of Water
Repellents
Respondent age
(N=1046 recent users)
Respondent gender
(N=1047 recent users
Number of household
members
(N=1048 recent users)
Number of bedrooms
(N=1048 recent users)
Mean = 38.24 years
Male = 44.1%
Female = 55.9%%
Mean = 3.19
Mean = 3.00
Table B-19 presents the respondent characteristics of those
using water repellents in the last 12 months. The mean age of
these respondents is 38.24 years; slightly more (55.9%) are
female; the mean number of household members is 3.19; and the
mean number of bedrooms is 3.0. When these characteristics are
compared to those for the sample as a whole user of water
repellents are slightly younger (38.24 compared to 44.3); about
the same on the distribution of male and female; and about the
same on the mean number of household members and number of
bedrooms.
5-35
-------
SPOT
REMOVERS
5-37
-------
C. Product 3; Spot Removers
Ql: Have you ever used spot removers?
Table C-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spot Removers
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
1924
2993
4917*
Percent
39.1
60.9
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table C-l shows that 39.1% of the respondents have "ever"
used spot removers.
Q2: When was the last time you used spot removers?
Table C-2: Last time a Spot Remover was used in months
(N=1912 users)
Mean # of months 14.70
Median # of months 3.00
Standard Deviation 31.20
As Table C-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of spot removers is 14.70 months and the median is 3.0 months.
5-39
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table C-3: Percentile rankings for Spot Removers - -
months since last use (N=1912 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.46
3.00
12.00
36.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
Table C-3 shows that 25th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. Respondents at the 75th
percentile through the 10Oth percentile report that they "last
used" the product 1 year ago through 30 years ago. It appears
that their answers are subject to rounding which was discussed
earlier. The data are still usable for indicating the
approximate last use.
5-40
-------
Q3: How many times have you used spot removers in the last
12 months?
Table C-4: Number of uses of Spot Removers within the last
12 months (N=1390 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
15.59
3.00
43.34
The mean number of times spot removers were used in the last
twelve months is 15.59 and the median 3.0. Almost 51% of the
respondents used a spot remover three times or less with 21.2%
using it once; 18.7% using it twice; and 10.7% using it three
times.
Table C-5:
Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Spot Removers within the last 12 months
(N=1390 recent users)
Uses
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
10.00
40.00
52.00
300.00
365.00
The percentile rankings for the number of uses of spot
removers within the last 12 months range from a minimum of 1 time
to a maximum of 365 times.
5-41
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using spot removers the
last time you used it?
Table C-6: Time spent using a Spot Remover last time used
(N=1385 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 10.68
Median # of minutes 5.00
Standard deviation 22.36
The mean number of minutes using a spot remover the last
time it was used by the respondent is 10.68 minutes and the
median is 5.0 minutes.
Table C-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using a Spot
Remover the last time used (N=1385 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.25
2.00
5.00
10.00
30.00
30.00
120.00
360.00
The percentile rankings for the time spent using a spot
remover the last time used range from a minimum of .02 minutes to
a maximum of 360 minutes (6 hours). The higher values may
reflect respondents who reported using laundry presoaks as spot
removers such as Spray'n Wash when doing their laundry.
5-42
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used spot removers?
Table C-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Spot
Removers (N=1362 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
43.65
5.00
106.97
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last
using spot removers is 43.65 minutes and the median is 5.0.
Table C-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room but used Spot Removers
(N=1362 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 1.00
Median 5.00
75% 30.00
90% 120.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 1440.00
The percentiles in Table C-9 include users of spot removers
who spent no time in the room afterward. The respondents at the
tenth percentile and less did not spend any time in the room
after use. The range in the percentiles is from a minimum of
zero to a maximum of 1440 minutes (24 hours). The responses seem
to be subject to rounding, but can be used as approximate
indicators of time spent in the room afterwards.
5-43
-------
Table C-10: Percentile rankings for Spot Removers for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room
(N=1105 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
52.00
180.00
300.00
480.00
1440.00
The percentile rankings in Table C-10 for time spent in the
room afterwards includes only those respondents who used the
product and did say that they spent some time in the room. These
percentiles range from a minimum of one minute to a maximum of
1440 minutes (24 hours).
5-44
-------
Q6A: Which brand of spot removers did you use the last time
you used it?
Table C-ll: Brand distribution for Spot Removers
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
357
114
80
304
546
1401
Percent
25.5
8.1
5.7
21.7
39.0
100.0
The top three brands of spot removers were used by 25.5%,
8.1% and 5.7% of users, respectively. These three brands
together account for 39.3% of the use. One of the brands is a
laundry presoak, an example of a laundry presoak named by
respondents as spot removers.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table C-12: Percent of respondents saying Spot Remover
is aerosol (N=1388 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 43.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 56.1%
Almost 44.0% of the spot removers were aerosol.
5-45
-------
Q7: What size of spot remover did you use the last time you
used it? How much of a can or how many cans did you
use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table C-13: Amount of product used per year in ounces
(N=1281 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 26.32
Median ounces per year 5.50
Standard deviation 90.10
The mean number of ounces of spot removers used per year is
26.32 and the median is 5.5. Once again this large amount is
influenced by the respondents who listed laundry presoaks as spot
removers.
Table C-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Spot Removers
used per year in ounces (N=1281 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.01
1% 0.24
5% 0.60
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 5.50
75% 16.00
90% 48.00
95% 119.20
99% 384.00
Maximum 1600.00
The range in the percentile rankings is quite substantial
with a minimum of .01 ounces and a maximum of 1600.0 ounces used
per year.
5-46
-------
Q8: Where did you use spot removers the last time you used
it?
Table C-15: Location of last use of the product
(N=1381 recent users)
Basement 9.1%
Living room 19.5%
Other inside room 57.3%
Several inside rooms 3.6%
Garage 4.0%
Outside 5.4%
Garage & outside 1.2%
Total 100.0%
Most people (57.3%) used the spot remover in an "other
inside room" such as the bedroom or den. Of the remainder, 19.5-'
said they used it in the living room; 9.1% used it in the
basement; 5.4% used it outside; 4.0% used it in the garage; and
1.2% used it both in the garage and outside.
5-47
-------
Table C-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Spot Removers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the Outside 44.5% 55.5%
(N=1281 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan on
during use 9.2% 90.8%
(N=1289 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 80.2% 19.8%
(N=1277 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 77.1% 22.9%
(N=1376 all recent users)
The majority of the spot remover users (55.5%) did not have
a door or window open to the outside; 90.8% did not have an
exhaust fan on; 80.2% of indoor users kept the inside door to the
room opened; and the majority (77.1%) read the directions on the
label.
Table C-17 depicts a derived variable ounces per use.
Ounces per use is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used during the last twelve
months).
Table C-17: Ounces per use of Spot Remover (N=1275 recent
users)
Mean # of ounces per use 3.49
Median # of ounces per use 1.30
Standard deviation 10.18
The mean ounces per use is 3.49 and the median is 1.30.
Table C-18 describes the percentile rankings for this variable.
5-48
-------
Table C-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Spot
Remover (N=1275 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.03
0.17
0.25
0.52
1.33
3.00
7.50
11.13
41.92
128.00
Table C-19:
Respondent characteristics of Spot Remover
users
1. Respondent age
(N=1395 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=1398 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=1392 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=1397 recent users)
Mean = 43.02 years
Male = 32.0%
Female = 68.0%
Mean =3.10
Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
Table C-19 presents the respondent characteristics of users
of spot removers. The characteristics of the spot removers are
almost identical to that of the sample as a whole with the
exception of the sex of the user. Sixty-eight percent of the
users of spot removers were female compared to 53.0% who were
female in the sample as a whole.
5-49
-------
NT
EAN
UI
ECr
EASE
5-51
-------
D.
Product
Fluid
Cle
Solvent
reasers
Ql:
Have you ever used solvent-type cleaning fluids?
Table D-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
1382
3535
4917*
28.1
71.9
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
d
Tabl
solv
D-l
h
typ
c
d t
th
s that 28.1.
leaning fluid
idence for
f th
pondents h
th
This
prod
is
ct
bout
g
ever
whe
02:
When was the last time you used solvent-type cleaning
fluids?
Table D-2: Last time Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids were used
in months (N=1378 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
10.00
2.00
26.26
The mean number of months since last use of a solvent-type
cleaning fluid is 10.0 months. The median number of months is
2.0.
5-53
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table D-3: Percentile rankings for Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids months since last use (N=1378 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.03
10% 0.07
25% 0.23
Median 2.00
75% 7.00
90% 24.00
95% 48.00
99% 144.00
Maximum 300.00
Table D-3 shows that 25th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The range in percentile
rankings goes from a minimum of .03 months to a maximum of 300.
5-54
-------
Q3: How many times have you used solvent-type cleaning
fluids in the last 12 months?
Table D-4: Number of uses of a Solvent-type Cleaning Fluid
within the last 12 months (N=1104 recent users)
Mean # of uses 16.46
Median # of uses 4.00
Standard deviation 44.12
The mean number of uses of solvent-type cleaning fluids in
the last twelve months is 16.46. This is one of the highest mean
times used being second only to typewriter correction fluid which
is the highest. The median number of times used in the last 12
months is 4.0 times.
Table D-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids within the last
12 months (N-1104 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.0
1% 1.0
5% 1.0
10% 1.0
25% 2.0
Median 4.0
75% 12.0
90% 46.0
95% 52.0
99% 300.0
Maximum 365.0
Fifty percent of the users of solvent-type cleaning fluids
used it four times or less. Twenty percent used it once; 18.7%
used it twice; 9.3% used it 3 times; and 2.% used it four times
during the previous twelve months.
5-55
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using a solvent-type
cleaning fluid the last time you used it?
Table D-6: Time spent using the Solvent-type Cleaning Fluid
last time used (N=1093 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 29.48
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 97.49
The mean number of minutes using a solvent-type cleaning
fluid the last time used is 29.48 minutes and the median is 15.0
minutes. This is about an average amount of time when compared
to other products.
Table D-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluid last time used
(N-1093 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.03
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 5.00
Median 15.00
75% 30.00
90% 60.00
95% 120.00
99% 300.00
Maximum 1800.00
The percentile rankings for time spent using solvent-type
cleaning fluids the last time used ranges from a minimum of .02
minutes to a maximum of 1800 minutes (30 hours).
5-56
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used solvent-type cleaning
fluids?
Table D-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids (N-1084 recent
users)
Mean # minutes in room 33.29
Median # minutes in room 3.00
Standard deviation 90.39
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
of a solvent-type cleaning fluid is 33.29 minutes and the median
is 3.0 minutes.
Table D-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids (N=1084 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10
25
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
28.75
60.00
180.00
480.00
1440.00
Respondents at the 25th percentile and less did not spend
any time in the room after using solvent-type cleaning fluids.
75th to 100th percentile users ranged from 28.75 minutes spent in
the room to 1440 minutes (24 hours).
5-57
-------
Table D-10: Percentile rankings for Solvent-type cleaning
fluids for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time in the
room (N=649 recent users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 5.00
Median 15.00
75% 60.00
90% 150.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Max imum 1440.00
Table D-10 is similar to Table D-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after use, therefore, all
percentiles have values greater than zero.
-------
Q6A: Which brand of solvent-type cleaning fluid did you use
the last time you used it?
Table D-ll: Brand distribution for Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
91
87
57
412
470
1117
8.1
7.8
5.1
36.9
42.1
100.0
Sixty-three percent of the users of solvent-type cleaning
fluids specified a brand. The top three brands were used by
8.1%, 7.8% and 5.1% of the users, respectively. These top three
brands represent 21.0% of the use.
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table D-12: Percent of respondents saying the Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluid is aerosol (N-1096 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
25.6%
No, product is nonaerosol
74.4%
Almost twenty six percent of the solvent-type cleaning
fluids used were aerosol.
5-59
-------
Q7: What size of solvent-type cleaning fluids did you use
the last time you used it? How much of a can or how
many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table D-13: Amount of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids used
per year in ounces (N=1028 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 58.30
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 226.97
The mean number of ounces used of solvent-type cleaning
fluids is 58.30 and the median is 16.0.
Table D-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluids used in ounces (N-1028 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.04
0.50
2.00
3.00
6.50
16.00
32.00
96-00
192.00
845.00
5120.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
D-14 is quite substantial with a minimum of .04 ounces and a
maximum of 5120.0 ounces.
5-60
-------
Q8: Where did you use solvent-type cleaning fluids the last
time you used it?
Table D-15: Location of last use of the product (N=1095
recent users)
Basement
5.4%
Living room 2.6%
Other inside room 49.1%
Several inside rooms 1.5%
Garage
Outside
12.2%
28.0%
Garage & outside 1.2%
Total 100.0%
^^^^^r
Most respondents used the solvent-type cleaning fluid in an
other inside room such as the kitchen, bedroom, or den. Twenty-
eight percent used it outside; 12.2% used it in the garage; and
5.4% used it in the basement; 2.6% used it in a living room; and
1.2% used it both in the garage and outside.
5-61
-------
Table D-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 57.0% 43-0%
(N=772 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=772 recent inside users)
14.8% 85.2%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=767 recent inside users)
74.4% 25.6%
4. Whether directions
on label were read 67.5% 32.5%
(N=1087 all recent users)
The majority (57.0%) of users of solvent-type cleaning
fluids did have a door or window open to the outside when using
it; 85.2% did not have an exhaust fan on during use; 74.4% did
have the inside door to the room opened during use; and 67.5
said they did read the label before using the product.
Table D-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table D-17: Ounces per use of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Mean # of ounces per use 9.45
Median # of ounces per use 3.30
Standard deviation 33.19
The mean number of ounces per use is 9.45 and the median is
3.30. The mean ounces per use is about average when compared t
other products.
5-62
-------
Table D-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.05
0.28
0.56
1.33
3.25
8.00
16.00
32.00
80.42
640.00
The percentile rankings for ounces per use range from a
minimum of .01 to a maximum of 640.0 ounces.
Table D-19: Respondent characteristics of Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluid users
1. Respondent age
(N-1113 recent users)
Mean
41.50 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=:1115 recent users)
Male
Female
52.6
47.4%
3. Number of household
members
(N=1113 recent users)
Mean
3.20 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=1114 recent users)
Mean
3.00 bedrooms
Respondents using solvent-type cleaning fluids are slightly
younger than the sample as a whole. Respondent ages range from
18 years old to 86 years old. Slightly more males (52.6%) used
solvent-type cleaning fluids than the percentage of males in the
sample as a whole (47.0%). Other characteristics of these users
are identical to the respondent characteristics in the sample as
a whole.
5-63
-------
AN
ANE
EAN
5-65
-------
E. Product 5: Wood Floor Panel Cleaners
Ql: Have you ever used a wood floor panel cleaner?
Table E-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
1721 35.0
3196 65.0
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table E-l shows that 35.0% of the total respondents have
"ever" used a wood floor panel cleaner.
Q2: When was the last time you used a wood floor panel
cleaner?
Table E-2: Last time Wood Floor Panel Cleaner was
used in months (N=1715 users)
Mean # of months 12.60
Median # of months 3.00
Standard Deviation 26.50
Table E-2 shows that the mean number of months since the
last use of wood floor panel cleaners is 12.60 months and the
median is 3.0 months. There is a difference of approximately 9
months between the mean and median and this is because of a few
extreme responses to the question.
5-67
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table E-3: Percentile rankings for Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners months since last use (N=1715
users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.10
10% 0.20
25% 0.69
Median 3.00
75% 12.00
90% 36.00
95% 60.00
99% 144.00
Maximum 252.00
Table E-3 shows that 50% of the product users last used wood
floor panel cleaners 3 months ago or less. The minimum amount of
time since the last use of the product is 0.03 months and the
100th percentile is 252 months. The 75th percentile through the
100th percentile respondents reported last using the product 12
months ago through 252 months (21 years) ago. The data appear to
be subject to rounding which was discussed earlier under aspects
of the data. The data is still usable for indicating the
approximate last use.
5-68
-------
Q3: How many times have you used wood floor panel cleaners
in the last 12 months?
Table E-4: Number of uses of Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
within the last 12 months (N=1312 recent
users)
Mean # of uses 8.48
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 20.89
The average number of uses of the wood floor panel cleaner
in the last 12 months was 8.48 and the median 2.0. Of the 1312
users who answered this question, 29.1% used it once, 25.1% used
it twice and 8.5% used it three times in the last year. Table E
5 which follows presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents used the
product 56 times or less in the last year. At the 100th
percentile the times the product was used in the last year
increased sharply to 350 times.
Table E-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner within the last 12
months (N=1312 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1%
1.00
5% 1.00
10%
1.00
Median 2.00
75% 6.00
90% 24.00
95% 50.00
99% 56.00
Maximum 350.00
5-69
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using wood floor panel
leaner the last time you used it
Table E-6: Time spent using Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
last time used (N=1301 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 74.04
Median # of minutes 30.00
Standard deviation 128.43
The average time spent using the product is 74.04 minutes
and the median is 30 minutes. There is a difference of
approximately 44 minutes between the mean and median. Table E-7
which follows shows that the responses range from a minimum of
.02 minutes to a maximum of 45 hours. There is a sharp increase
in the amount of time spent using the product at the 100th
percentile which is 45 hours compared to the 99th percentile
which is just 8 hours. This is because of a few extreme
responses.
Table E-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner last time used
(N=1301 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 1.00
5% 5.00
10% 10.00
25% 20.00
Median 30.00
75% 90.00
90% 147.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 2700.00
5-70
-------
Q5:
How much time did you spend in the room
immediately after use the last time you used the
wood floor panel cleaner?
Table E-8
Time spent in the room after last use of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner (N=1269 recent
users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median
minutes in room
Standard deviation
96.75
30.00
192.88
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 96.75 minutes as opposed to the median of 30 minutes.
Table E-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use of Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners including those who did not spend
any time in room (N=1269 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
30.00
120.00
240.00
480.00
1062.00
1440.00
Fifty percent of the respondents spent 30 minutes or less in
the room after using the product. From the 75th percentile
through the 95th percentile the time spent in the room increased
from 2 hours to 8 hours. A few respondents spent a much greater
time in the room after using the product. Their responses are
reflected in the 99th percentile and 100th percentile where time
spent in the room is 1062 minutes (17.7 hours) and 1440 minutes
(2 4 hours) respectively.
5-71
-------
Table E-10: Percentile rankings for Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room (N=1071 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 3.00
25% 10.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 300.00
95% 480.00
99% 1440.00
Maximum 1440.00
Table E-10 is similar to Table E-9 except it includes only
users who did spend some time in the room after using the
product. Of the 1071 respondents who spent time in the room, 50%
spent 30 minutes or less in the room after using the product. As
seen in Table E-7, this is also the median time spent using the
product.
5-72
-------
Q6A: Which brand of wood floor panel cleaner did you
use the last time you used it?
Table E-ll: Brand distribution for Wood Floor Panel Cleaners
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
575 43.7
89 6.8
59 4.5
Don't knows and not ascertained 185 14.1
All other named brands
Total
407 30.9
1315 100.0
Eighty-six percent (85.9%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of wood floor panel
cleaners named were used by 43.7%, 6.8% and 4.5% of users,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table E-12: Percent of respondents saying the Wood
Floor Panel Cleaner used is in aerosol or
non-aerosol form (N=1306 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 48.9
No, product is nonaerosol 51.1
Forty-nine percent (48.9%) of the respondents said the brand
of wood floor panel cleaner that they used was in aerosol form.
Approximately the same number, 51.1%, said the brand they used
was in nonaerosol form.
5-73
-------
Q7: What size of wood floor panel cleaner did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or
how many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table E-13: Amount of Wood Floor Panel Cleaner used in
ounces (N=1229 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 28.41
Median ounces per year 14.00
Standard deviation 57.23
The mean amount of wood floor panel cleaner used per year is
28.41 ounces and the median is 14.0 ounces.
Table E-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Wood
Floor Panel Cleaners used in ounces per
year (N=1229 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.03
0.80
2.45
3.50
7.00
14.00
30.00
64.00
96.00
204.40
1144.00
The minimum amount of product used is 0.03 ounces and the
maximum 1144.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of the respondents
used 96.0 ounces or less in the last year. This amount increased
sharply at the 99th (204.4 ounces) and the 100th (1144.0 ounces)
percentile.
5-74
-------
Q8: Where did you use wood floor panel cleaner the
last time you used it?
Table E-15: Location of last use of the product
(N=1295 recent users)
Basement
3.1%
Living room 26.8%
Other inside room 49.3%
Several inside rooms 18.7%
Garage
Outside
0.6%
1.2%
Garage & outside 0.3
Total 100.0%
Most people (49.3%) used wood floor panel cleaners in an
"other inside room11 such as a bedroom, kitchen or den. The next
two locations used most often were "living room" by 26.8% of the
users and "several inside rooms" used by 18.7%. Only 1.2% of the
users used the product outside. Of the 32 products surveyed, the
only other product used less outside is typewriter correction
fluid which is used by only 0.5% of the users.
5-75
-------
Table E-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 58.9% 41.1%
(N=1269 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=1272 recent inside users)
11.3% 88.7
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=1268 recent inside users)
82.5% 17.5%
4. Whether directions
on label were read
(N-1294 recent users)
72.2% 27.8%
The majority of wood floor panel cleaner users (72.2%) had
d the directions on the label. Also, more than half the users
had a door or window open to the outside (58.9%) and an insid
door to the room open (82.5%).
An additional variable ounces used per use of the product
was created by dividing Question 7 by Question 3 and is presented
in Table E-17 which follows.
Table E-17: Ounces per use of Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
(N=1228 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 9.50
Median # of ounces per use 4.33
Standard deviation 18.62
The mean ounces used per use of wood floor panel cleaner is
9.50 ounces and the median is 4.33 ounces. Table E-18 which
follows presents the percentile rankings for this variable. Of
the 1228 respondents who answered this question, 95.0% used 32.0
ounces or less of the product per use. The 100th percentile is
256.0 ounces.
5-76
-------
Table E-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner (N=1228 recent
users)
Minimum
5
10%
25
Median
75
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
0.11
0.48
0.88
2.00
4.33
10.50
16.85
32.00
82.84
256.00
Table E-19: Respondent characteristics of Wood Floor
Panel Cleaner users
1. Respondent age Mean = 41.97 years
(N=1308 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 29.9
(N=1313 recent users) Female =70.1
s-
3. Number of household
members
(N=1311 recent users)
Mean = 3.09 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 2.97 bedrooms
(N=1312 recent users)
Table E-19 presents the respondent characteristics of wood
floor panel cleaner users. The average age of these respondents
is 41.97 years. There are a greater number of female respondents
(70.1%) compared to the number of male respondents (29.9%). The
respondent gender characteristics for this product differed from
the characteristics for the total sample of respondents which had
nearly an equal number of male (47.0%) and female (53.0%)
respondents. The other respondent characteristics are almost
identical to the characteristics for the total sample of
respondents.
5-77
-------
F.
Product
iter Correction Fluid
ewr
Ql:
Have you ever used typewriter correction fluid?
Table F-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Numbe
Percent
Yes
No
Total
1278
3639
4917*
26.0
74.0
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l^^^A^M'HM^^^H^^H^^^^^^'^^B^^^M^^H^H^^^^^B^fclA'^^^^^H^^^H^^^^^^H^I^H^H^VH^H^HH^^^^^^^^fll^
* 3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table F-l shows that
26^5
of the total respondents have
"ever" used typewriter correction fluid.
Q2:
When was the last time you used typewriter correction
fluid?
Table F-2: Last time Typewriter Correction Fluid was
used in months (N=1273 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
7.00
0.99
26.93
As Table F-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of typewriter correction fluid is 7.0 months. The median number
of months is 0.99 and this adjusts for any extreme values given
as answers to this question.
5-81
-------
The percentile rankings for this question will now be
presented.
Table F-3: Percentile rankings for Typewriter
Correction Fluid months since
last use (N=1273 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.03
10% 0.03
25% 0.10
Median 0.99
75% 3.00
90% 12.00
95% 24.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 480.00
Table F-3 shows that 25% of the users used the product less
than a month ago. The 90th percentile through the 100th
percentile have last used the product 12 months through 480
months ago. The data appear to be subject to rounding, discussed
earlier under aspects of the data. The data are useful in
indicating the approximate last use.
S-82
-------
Q3: How many times have you used typewriter correction
fluid in the last 12 months?
Table F-4: Number of uses of Typewriter Correction
Fluid in the last 12 months (N=1137 recent
users)
Mean # of uses 40.00
Median # of uses 12.00
Standard deviation 74.78
Users of the product used it on the average of 40.0 times in
the last 12 months. The median was 12.0 uses.
Table F-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Typewriter Correction Fluid within the
last 12 months (N-1137 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 4.00
Median 12.00
75% 40.00
90% 100.00
95% 200.00
99% 365.00
Maximum 520.00
5-83
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using typewriter correction
fluid the last time you used it?
Table F-6: Time spent using Typewriter Correction
Fluid last time used (N=1131 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 7.62
Median # of minutes 1.00
Standard deviation 29.66
The median is 1 minute. The mean of approximately 8 minutes
is higher and could be explained by the highly skewed
distribution.
Table F-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Typewriter Correction Fluid last time used
(N=1131 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.02
5% 0.03
10% 0.03
25% 0.17
Median 1.00
75% 2.00
90% 10.00
95% 32.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 480.00
Users at the 25th percentile and below used the product for
15 seconds or less. The 99th percentile on the other hand is 120
minutes and the 100th percentile is 480 minutes.
5-84
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used Typewriter Correction
Fluid?
Table F-8. Time spent in the room after last use of
Typewriter Correction Fluid (N=1114 recent
users)
Mean # of minutes 124.70
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 153.46
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 124.70 minutes and the median is 60 minutes. Here again th
difference could be explained on account of the skewed
distribution.
Table F-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use of Typewriter
Correction Fluid including those who did
not spend any time in the room (N=1114
recent users i
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
Q
1% 0.00
5% 1.00
10% 5.00
25% 30.00
Median 60.00
75% 180.00
90% 360.00
95% 480.00
99% 600.00
Maximum 1800.00
Above the 5th percentile all respondents spent time in the
room after using the product. Except for the 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile, all other respondents spent 3 hours
or less in the room.
5-85
-------
Table F-10. Percentile rankings for Typewriter
Correction Fluid for time spent in the
room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room (N=1082 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 3.00
10% 10.00
25% 30.00
Median 60.00
75% 180.00
90% 360.00
95% 480.00
99% 600.00
Maximum 1800.00
Table F-10 is similar to Table F-9 except it includes only
users who did stay in the room after use, therefore, all
percentiles have values greater than zero.
5-86
-------
Q6A: Which brand of typewriter correction fluid did
you use the last time you used it?
Table F-ll: Brand distribution for Typewriter Correction
Fluid
Brand category
Frequency Percent
477 41.6
374 32,6
29 2.5
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 185 16.1
All other named brands
Total
82 7.2
1147 100.0
Of those who used the product in the last 12 months, 962
respondents (83.9%) specified a brand. The two major brands were
used by 41.6% and 32.6% of the users, respectively. These two
together account for 74.2% of users of the named brands.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table F-12: Percent of respondents saying Typewriter
Correction Fluid is in aerosol or non-
aerosol form (N=1131 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 0.1%
No, product is nonaerosol 99.9%
Nearly a hundred percent of the respondents said the
typewriter correction fluid they used was in nonaerosol form
5-87
-------
Q7: What size of typewriter correction fluid did you use
the last time you used it? How much of a can or how
many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table F-13: Amount of Typewriter Correction Fluid used
in ounces (N=1037 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 4.14
Median ounces per year 0.94
Standard deviation 13.72
Of all the products surveyed, typewriter correction fluid
has the lowest mean and median for ounces per year used.
Table F-14: Percentile rankings for ounces per year
used of Typewriter Correction Fluid
(N=1037 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.01
1% 0.02
5% 0.06
10% 0.12
25% 0.30
Median 0.94
75% 2.40
90% 8.00
95% 18.00
99% 67.44
Maximum 181.80
The ounces used increased sharply at the 99th percentile
5-88
-------
Q8: Where did you use typewriter correction fluid the last
time you used it?
Table F-15: Location of last use of Typewriter
Correction Fluid (N=1130 recent users)
Basement 2.1%
Living room 14.6
Other inside room 79.8%
Several inside rooms 2.0
Garage 0.4^
Outside 0.4%
Garage & outside 0.5
Most respondents (79.8%) used the product in an "other
inside room". If the questionnaire instructions were
misunderstood this could be a room at their place of work. Only
0.4% of the respondents used the product outside.
5-89
-------
Table F-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside
(N=1113 recent users)
25.8% 74.2
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=1116 recent inside users
8.2% 91.8
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=1107 recent inside users
74% 26
O
o
4. Whether directions
on label were read
(N=1129 all recent users)
39.3% 60.7%
The majority of the respondents did not open a door or
window (74.2%), did not have an exhaust on (91.8%), had the
inside door to the room closed (74%) and had not read the label
(60.7%).
Table F-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
of times used in the last year).
Table F-17: Ounces per use of Typewriter Correction
Fluid (N-971 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 0.43
Median # of ounces per use 0.08
Standard deviation 2.28
The median ounces per use is 0.08 minutes. The mean is
higher on account of some extreme values.
5-90
-------
Table F-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Typewriter Correction Fluid (N=97l recent
U
Minimum
1%
5
10
25%
Median
75%
90
95
99
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.20
0.75
1.50
6.42
60.00
The ounces per use range from a minimum of 0.01 ounces to a
maximum of 60.0 ounces at the 100th percentile. Ninty-nine
percent of the respondents used 6.42 ounces or less of the
product per use. The amount increased sharply at the 100th
percentile to 60.0 ounces per use.
Table F-19: Respondent characteristics of Typewriter
Correction Fluid users
1.
Respondent age
(N=1145 recent users)
Mean
37.80 years
2.
Respondent gender
(N=1146 recent users)
Male
Female
38.1%
61.9
3.
Number of household
members
(N=1143 recent users)
Mean
3.14 members
4.
Number of bedrooms
(N=1142 recent users)
Mean
2.96 bedrooms
5-91
-------
The average age of the respondents is 37.80 years. The
majority of the respondents, 61.9% are female. Respondent
characteristics for typewriter correction fluid users differ from
the characteristics of the total sample of respondents in
respondent age and gender. The average age for the total sample
of respondents is 44.2 years and the percent of male and female
respondents is 47% and 53% respectively.
5-92
-------
NTACT CEMEN
SU
UES
AN
ESIVES
5-93
-------
G.
Product 7:
Contact Cements
Adhesives
Three types of adhesives thought to contain methylene
chloride or its substitutes are included here, and they are
contact cements, super glues, and spray adhesives.
Ql:
H
Y
ever
d
tact
t
s
r gl
or
dh
Table G-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Contact
Cements, Super Glues, or Spray Adhesives
Numb e r s
Percent
Yes
No
Total
2982
1935
4917*
60.6
39.4
100.0
m^^^^^^^^^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.__^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^u.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^^^^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ ^ ^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Tabl
G-l
d
show
tact
that 60.6%
t
s
h
th
highest incid
f the total
r glues, an
pondents h
d
pray
dh
f use
f a
f th
t
02:
When was the last time you used contact cements, super
glues, or spray adhesives?
Table G-2: Last time Contact Cements, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesives were used in months (N=2973 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
5.20
1.00
13.30
As
ts
month
use f
month
abl
sup
Thi
ny
G-2
i
h
th
mean
b
f
th
or
pray
dh
was last
ntact
d is 5.20
is almost the
f the thirty-t
hortest period of time since last
product
Th
d
b
f
is 1
5-95
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table G-3: Percentile rankings for Contact Cements, Super
Glues and Spray Adhesives months since last
use (N=2973 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.03
10% 0.10
25% 0.33
Median 1.00
75% 5.00
90% 12.00
95% 24.00
99% 60.00
Maximum 180.00
Table G-3 shows that 25th percentile users and below used
the product last less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 5 months ago through 180 months ago. The data
appear to be subject to rounding which was discussed earlier
under aspects of the data. The data is still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-96
-------
Q3: How many times have your used contact cements, super
glues, and spray adhesives within the last 12 months?
Table G-4: Number of uses of the Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives within the last 12
months (N=2681 recent users)
Mean # of uses 8.89
Median # of uses 3.00
Standard deviation 26.20
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months, was
8.89 and the median 3.0. Fifty-one percent of these users used
these adhesives three times or less in the last twelve months
with 19.1% using it once; 18.1% using it twice; and 14.3% using
it three times.
Table G-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Contact
Cements, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
within the last 12 months (N=2681 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 3.00
75% 6.00
90% 15.00
95% 28.00
99% 100.00
Maximum 500.00
The percentile rankings for the number of times used in the
last twelve months range from a minimum of one time to a maximum
of 500 times.
5-97
-------
Q4:
How much time did you spend using contact cements,
super glues, and spray adhesives the last time you used
it?
Table G-6: Time spent using Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives last time used
(N=2676 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
15.58
4.30
81.80
The mean number of minutes for using these adhesives is
15.58 and the median is 4.3.
Table G-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives last time used (N=2676 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.33
1.00
4.25
10.00
30.00
60.00
180.00
2880.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum percentile
2880 minutes (48 hours).
5-98
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used contact cements, super
glues, and spray adhesives?
Table G-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Contact
Cements, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
(N=2599 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 68.88
Median # minutes in room 10.00
Standard deviation 163.72
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
68.88 minutes as opposed to the median of ten minutes.
Table G-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Contact Cement, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives (N=2599 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
720.00
2100.00
Respondents at the 10th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using contact cement, super glues, or
spray adhesives.
5-99
-------
Table G-10: Percentile rankings for Contact Cement, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives for time spent in
the room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room (N=2013 recent users
who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 5.00
Median 20.00
75% 105.00
90% 240.00
95% 420.00
99% 840.00
Maximum 2100.00
Table G-10 is similar to Table G-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have non-zero values.
5-100
-------
Q6A: Which brand of contact cement, super glues, or spray
adhesive did you use the last time you used it?
Table G-ll: Brand distribution for Contact Cement, Super
Glues, or Spray Adhesive
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows & Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
491
454
305
398
1052
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-~
2700
18.2
16.8
11.3
14.7
39.0
100.0
Eighty-five percent (85.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of contact cement, super
glues, and spray adhesives were used by 18.2
the users, respectively.
^, 16.8
%
and 11.3
of
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table G-12: Percent of respondents saying Contact Cement,
Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives were aerosol
(N=2686 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
No, product is nonaerosol
2.9%
97.1%
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in only 2.9
of the cases. The product was nonaerosol in 97.1% of the cases
5-101
-------
07:
What size of contact cement, super glue, or spray
adhesive did you use the last time you used it? How
much of a can or how many cans did you use during the
past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table G-13: Amount of Contact Cement, Super Glue, or Spray
Adhesive used in ounces per year (N=2275 recent
users)
Mean ounces per year
Median ounces per year
Standard deviation
7.49
1.00
55.90
The mean ounces used per year is 7.49 and the median ounces
is 1.0. While this product is one of the ones used most often
the amount used is one of the smallest amounts.
Table G-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Contact
Cement, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
used in ounces per year (N=2275 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.35
1.00
3.00
8.00
20.00
128.00
1280.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
G-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .01
and the maximum ounces per year at 1280.0. There is quite a jump
between the 95th percentile and the 99th and 100th.
5-102
-------
Q8: Where did you use contact cement, super glue, and spray
adhesive the last time you used it?
Table G-15: Location of last use of the product
(N=2657 recent users)
Basement
5.6%
Living room 11.9%
Other inside room 61.1%
Several inside rooms 1.9%
Garage
Outside
6.2%
11.7%
Garage & outside 1.6%
Total 100.0%
^^^^^
Most people (61.1%) used contact cement, super glue, and
spray adhesives in an "other inside room" such as the kitchen,
bedroom, or den. Almost equal numbers used it in a living room
(11.9%) and in the outside air (11.7%). The remainder used it in
the basement (5.6%); in the garage (6.2%); in both the garage and
the outside (1.6%) and in several inside rooms (1.9%).
5-103
-------
Table G-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Contact Cement, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesives
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 41.0% 59.0
(N=2296 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=2304 recent inside users)
8.1% 91.9%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 75.1% 24.9
(N=2286 recent inside users)
\
4. Whether directions
on label were read 70.1% 29.9%
(N=2664 recent users)
The majority (59.0%) of the users did not have a door or
window open to the outside; did not have an exhaust fan on
(91.9%); did have the inside door to the room opened (75.1%); and
did read the directions on the label (70.1%) before using the
product.
Table G-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table G-17: Ounces per use of Contact Cement, Super Glue,
and Spray Adhesives (N=2230 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 2.98
Median # of ounces per use 0.25
Standard deviation 35.50
The mean number of ounces per use is 2.98 and the median
ounces per use is .25.
5-104
-------
Table G-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives (N=2230 recent users)
Minimum
i
d.
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.25
0.75
2.00
4.32
42.54
1280.00
The range of percentile rankings is from a minimum of .01 to
a maximum of 1280.0 ounces.
Table G-19: Respondent characteristics of Contact Cement
Super Glue, and Spray Adhesives users
1. Respondent age Mean = 41.10 years
(N=2692 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 49.2
(N=2697 recent users) Female =50.8
3. Number of household
members
(N=2690 recent users)
Mean = 3.20 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 2.90 bedrooms
(N=2693 recent users)
Table G-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
contact cement, super glue, and spray adhesive users. These
respondents were slightly younger than respondents as a whole
41.10 compared to 44.3 years of age; there were about the same
number of males 49.2% to 47.0%; the number of household members
was the same 3.20; and the number of bedrooms was the same 2.9
compared to mean age of these respondents is 44.4 years; 53.0% of
the respondents are female and 47.0% are male; the mean number of
household members is 3.10; and the mean number of bedrooms is
2.90.
5-105
-------
EM
EN
AN
W
A
5-107
-------
H. Product 8: Adhesive Removers
Ql: Have you ever used adhesive removers?
Table H-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Adhesive Removers
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
286 5.8
4630 94.2
Total 4916* 100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table H-l shows that only 5.8% of the respondents had "ever"
used adhesive removers. This is a relatively low percentage when
compared to this incidence for other products. Only four other
productstransmission cleaners, brake quieters/cleaners, gasket
removers, and ignition & wire dryers have incidences below 5.8
Q2: When was the last time you used adhesive removers?
Table H-2: Last time the Adhesive Remover was used in
months (N=283 users)
Mean # of months 21.70
Median # of months 10.00
Standard deviation 38.01
As Table H-2 shows, the mean number of months adhesive
removers were last used is 21.70 months. The median number of
months is 10.0.
5-109
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table H-3: Percentile rankings for Adhesive Removers
months since last use (N=283 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.11
10% 0.38
25% 2.00
Median 10.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 84.00
99% 240.00
Maximum 360.00
Table H-3 shows that users at the 10th percentile and below
used the product last less than a month ago. From the 75th
percentile through the 100th percentile respondents report that
they last used the product 24 months ago (2 years) through 360
months ago (30 years). The data appear to be subject to rounding
which was discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 2, 57
30 years rather than 2 years & 4 months). The data are usable
for indicating the approximate last use.
5-110
-------
Q3: How many times have you used adhesive removers in the
last 12 months?
Table H-4: Number of uses of Adhesive Removers within
the last 12 months (N=167 recent users)
Mean # of uses 4.22
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 12.30
In the last 12 months, the average number of times the
product was used was 4.22 and the median was 1 time. Of the 167
respondents who had used the product in the last twelve months,
53.3% used it once, 20.4% used it twice and 10.8% used it three
times. Table H-5 which follows shows the percentile rankings for
the variable. One finds that at the 99th percentile there is a
sharp increase in the number of times the product is used in the
last year.
Table H-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Adhesive Removers within the last 12 months
(N=167 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 3.00
90% 6.00
95% 16.80
99% 100.00
Maximum 100.00
5-111
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using the adhesive
remover the last time you used it?
Table H-6: Time spent using Adhesive Remover last
time used (N=168 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 121.20
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 171.63
When last used, the mean and median number of minutes spent
using adhesive removers are relatively high at 121.20 and 60
minutes respectively. Only three other products latex paints,
oil paints, and paint removers/strippers have higher average
times spent when the products were last used.
Table H-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Adhesive Remover last time used (N=168
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 1.45
10% 3.00
25% 15.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 246.00
95% 480.00
99% 960.00
Maximum 960.00
Twenty-five percent of the respondents spent 15 minutes or
less using the adhesive remover the last time they used it.
Fifty percent of the respondents spent one hour or less, the
maximum time spent using the product was 960 minutes (16 hours).
5-112
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room
immediately after use the last time you used
adhesive removers?
Table H-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Adhesive Removers (N=1C recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 94.12
Median # minutes in room 20.00
Standard deviation 157.69
The average time spent in the room after use is 94.12
minutes. The median is 20 minutes. The difference between th
mean and median can be explained by a few extreme responses t
the question.
Table H-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use of Adhesive Removers
including those who did not spend any time
in the room (N=166 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 1.75
Median 20.00
75% 120.00
90% 360.00
95% 480.00
99% 720.00
Maximum 720.00
Fifty percent of the respondents spent 20 minutes or less in
the room after use. The amount of time spent in the room
increases sharply at the 75th percentile where time spent is 120
minutes (2 hours) through the 100th percentile where time spent
in the room after use is 720 minutes (12 hours).
5-113
-------
Table H-10: Percentile rankings for Adhesive Removers
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in the
room (N=13l recent users who stayed in
room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.60
10% 4.00
25% 10.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 420.00
95% 504.00
99% 720.00
Maximum 720.00
Table H-10 is similar to Table H-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product.
The mean now changes to 119.3 minutes and the median is now 60
minutes. The difference between the mean and median has lessened
to 59.3 minutes from 74.12 minutes in Table H-8.
5-114
-------
Q6A: Which brand of adhesive remover did you use the last
time you used it?
Table H-ll: Brand distribution for Adhesive Removers
Brand category
Frequency Percent
11 6.3
8 4.6
5 2.9
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows or Not ascertained 106 60.6
All other named brands
Total
45 25.6
175 100.0
Thirty-nine percent (39.4%) of the users specified a brand
The top three brands named were used by 6.3%, 4.6% and 2.9%,
respectively of the users of the named brands.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table H-12: Percent of respondents saying the Adhesive
Remover used is in aerosol or non-aerosol
form (N=167 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 15.0%
No, product is nonaerosol 85.0%
Of the 167 recent users who answered this question, 85.0%
said the adhesive remover used was nonaerosol whereas 15.0% said
it was an aerosol.
5-115
-------
Q7: What size of adhesive remover did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table H-13: Amount of Adhesive Remover used in ounces
(N=155 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 34.46
Median ounces per year 10.88
Standard deviation 96.60
The average amount of adhesive remover used in the last year
was 34.46 ounces and the median 10.88 ounces.
Table H-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Adhesive
Remover used in ounces per year (N=155
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25
Ounces
0.25
0.29
1.22
2.80
6.00
Median 10.88
75% 32.00
90% 64.00
95% 138.70
99% 665.60
Maximum 1024.00
As shown in Table H-14 the responses for ounces used in the
last year is widely spread out and range from a minimum of 0.25
ounces to 1024.0 ounces at the 100th percentile. Ninety percent
of users used 64.0 ounces or less during the year. This amount
increased sharply at the 99th percentile to 665.60 ounces.
5-116
-------
Q8: Where did you use the adhesive remover the last
time you used it?
Table H-15: Location of last use of the product (N=167
recent users)
Basement
4.8
Q,
"O
Living room 5.4
Other inside room 75.4%
Several inside rooms 2.4%
Garage
Outside
4.2^
6.6%
Garage & outside 1.2
Total 100.0
Most of the users (75.4%) used the Adhesive Remover in an
"other inside room". It could be either a bedroom, kitchen or
den or some other room. A total of 6.6% used the product
outside. Only four other products Typewriter Correction Fluid,
Wood Floor and Panel Cleaners, Specialised Electronic Cleaners
and Spot Removers were used to a lesser degree outdoors.
Table H-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Adhesive Removers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 66.9% 33.1
(N=154 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=156 recent inside users)
o
23.1% 76.9
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 78.6% 21.4
(N=154 recent inside users)
\
4. Whether directions
on label were read 82.2% 17.8
(N=169 all recent users)
The majority of respondents (82.2%) had read the direction
on the label. This could account for 66.9% of the respondents
having a door or window open to the outside and 78.6% having an
inside door to the room open.
5-117
-------
An additional variable ounces used per use of the product
was created by dividing Question 7 by Question 3 and is presented
in Table H-17 which follows.
Table H-17: Ounces per use of Adhesive Removers (N=153
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use
Median
of ounces per use
Standard deviation
22.04
8.00
85.44
The mean ounces used up per use of adhesive remover is 22.04
ounces and the median is 8 ounces. Table H-18 which follows
presents the percentile rankings for this variable. The ounces
used per use range from a mimimum of .04 ounces to 1024 ounces at
the 100th percentile. Ninety-five percent of the respondents
used 64 ounces or less of the product for each use.
Table H-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Adhesive Remover (N=153 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.04
0.06
0.33
0.67
3.00
8.00
16.00
32.00
64.00
574.72
1024.00
5-118
-------
Table H-19: Respondent characteristics of Adhesive
Remover users
1. Respondent age
(N=174 recent users)
Mean
39.93 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=175 recent users)
Male
Female
52.6%
47.4%
3. Number of household
members
(N=175 recent users)
Mean
3.29 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=175 recent users)
Mean
3.07 bedrooms
bl
adhesiv
39.93 y
numb e r
e H-19 present
remover users.
th
Th
pondent characterist
Th
e mean ag
t seem to
b
f th
a m
pondent
f respondent
h sex answeri
pondent characterist
dh
30
th
diffe
quest
pproximately the same as th
remover users is
haracterist
th
is
in th
The
s
Pi
total
P
t
5-119
-------
CAN
AU
M
VE)
5-121
-------
I.
Product 9: Silicons Lubricants
Ql: Have you ever used silicone lubricants?
Table 1-1: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Silicone
Lubricants
Numb e r s
Percent
Yes
No
Total
870
4047
4917*
17.7
82.3
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table 1-1 shows that 17.7% of the total respondents have
ever" used silicone lubricants.
02:
When was the last time you used silicone lubricants?
Table 1-2: Last time Silicone Lubricant was used in months
(N=863 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard Deviation
6.50
2.00
15.43
On the average silicone lubricants were last used 6.50
months ago
This is a very short period of time compared to this
incidence for most of the other 32 products surveyed. The median
number of months is 2.0.
5-123
-------
Th
ercenti
since last use ar
bel
Table 1-3: Percentile rankings for Silicone Lubricants
months since last use (N=863 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.33
2.00
6.00
18.00
24.00
84.00
180.00
Table 1-3 shows that time since the product was last used
ranges from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 180.0
months. Twenty-five percent of the respondents last used the
product less than a month ago whereas 95% of the respondents used
the product 24.0 months or less ago. The months since last use
may be subject to rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the
data (i.e., 2, 7, 15 years rather than 7 years 3 months). The
data is usable for indicating the approximate last use.
5-124
-------
03: How many times have you used silicone lubricants in th
last 12 month
Table 1-4: Number of uses of Silicone Lubricant within the
last 12 months (N=750 recent users)
Mean # of uses 10.32
Median # of uses 3.00
Standard deviation 25.44
The mean number of uses of silicone lubricants in the last
year is 10.32 times and the median is 3.0 times. Of the 750
respondents who used the product in the last year, 21.1% used it
once, 18.3% used it twice and 11.6% used it three times. Table
1-5 which follows presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. The times the product was used ranges from 1 time to
300 times at the 100th percentile. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used the product 46.35 times or less in the last
year.
Table 1-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Silicone Lubricants within the last 12 months
(N=750 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1%
5%
1.00
1.00
10% 1.00
25%
2.00
Median 3.00
75% 10.00
90% 20.00
95% 46.35
99% 150.00
Maximum 300.00
5-125
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using the silicone
lubricant the last time you used it?
Table 1-6: Time spent using the Silicone Lubricant last
time used (N=747 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 10.42
Median # of minutes 2.00
Standard deviation 29.47
The mean and median number of minutes for using silicone
lubricants are 10.42 and 2.0 minutes respectively.
Table 1-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Silicone Lubricant last time used (N=747 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.03
5% 0.08
10% 0.17
25% 0.50
Median 2.00
75% 10.00
90% 20.00
95% 45.00
99% 180.00
Maximum 360.00
The time spent using silicone lubricants ranges from 0.02
minutes to 6 hours at the 100th percentile. Twenty-five percent
of the respondents used the product for less than a minute, 50%
used it for 2 minutes or less, and 95% used it for 45 minutes or
less.
5-126
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used silicone lubricants?
Table 1-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Silicone Lubricants (N=734 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 30.77
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 107.39
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
30.77 minutes. The median is 0 as at least 50% of the
respondents did not spend any time in the room after using the
silicone lubricant.
Table 1-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use of Silicone Lubricants including those
who did not spend any time in the room (N=734
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
480.00
1440.00
Respondents at the 75th percentile through the 100th
percentile did spend some time in the room after using the
product.
5-127
-------
Table 1-10: Percentile rankings for Silicone Lubricants for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=343
recent users who stayed in the room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 5.00
Median 10.00
75% 60.00
90% 216.00
95% 300.00
99% 787.00
Maximum 1440.00
Table 1-10 is similar to Table 1-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room. The mean time spent in
the room after use is 65.9 minutes and the median is 10. The
maximum time spent in the room after using the product is 24
hours.
5-128
-------
Q6A: Which brand of silicone lubricant did you use the last
time you used it?
Table I-ll: Brand distribution for Silicone Lubricant
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 243 31.9
203 26.7
36 4.7
35 7.2
All other named brands
Total
224 29.5
741 100.0
Sixty-eight percent (68.1%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of silicone lubricants
named were used by 26.7%, 4.7% and 7.2% of the respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table 1-12: Percent of respondents saying Silicone
-wwp- -
Lubricant is in aerosol or nonaerosol form
(N=751 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 79.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 20.1%
The majority of the respondents (79.9%) used a silicone
lubricant in aerosol form.
5-129
-------
Q7: What size of silicone lubricant did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table 1-13: Amount of Silicone Lubricants used in ounces
(N=687 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 12.50
Median ounces per year 4.50
Standard deviation 27.85
The average amount of silicone lubricants used per year is
12.50 ounces and the median is 4.50 ounces.
Table 1-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Silicone
Lubricants used in ounces per year (N=687
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.02
0.20
0.69
1.00
2.25
4.50
12.00
24.00
41.20
192.00
312.00
The minimum amount of product used is 0.02 ounces and the
maximum is 312.0 ounces. In the last year, 95% of the
respondents used 41.20 ounces or less of the product. The amount
used increased sharply at the 99th and 100th percentile to 192.0
and 312.0 ounces respectively.
5-130
-------
Q8: Where did you use silicons lubricants the last time you
used it?
Table 1-15: Location of last use of the product (N=742
recent users)
Basement
4.
Living room 4.7%
Other inside room 28.
Several inside rooms 3.3%
arage
Outside
14.0%
37.5%
Garage & outside 8.1%
Total 100.0%
The majority of the respondents (37.5%) used the product
outside. The room where the product is used most indoors is the
"other inside room" by 28.2% of the respondents. 14% of the
respondents used the product in the garage.
5-131
-------
Table 1-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Silicone Lubricants
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 52.0% 48.0%
(N=404 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=402 recent inside users)
8.2% 91.8
o
o
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 70.8% 29.2
(N=394 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 60.6% 39.4
(N=741 all recent users)
Sixty-one percent (60.6%) of the respondents had read the
label. Approximately half the number of respondents (52.0%) had
a door or window open to the outside. The majority of the
respondents had an exhaust fan off (91.8%) and an inside door t
the room open (70.8%).
Table 1-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table 1-17: Ounces per use of Silicone Lubricants (N-682
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 3.26
Median # of ounces per use 1.13
Standard deviation 8.23
The average amount of silicone lubricant used per use of th
product is 3.26 ounces and the median is 1.13 ounces. Table 1-18
which follows presents the percentile rankings for this variable.
The ounces used per use of the product range from a minimum of
0.01 ounces to a maximum of 90.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 11.21 ounces or less of the product per use.
5-132
-------
Table 1-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Silicone Lubricants (N=682 recent users)
Minimum
5%
10%
25
Median
75
90
95
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
O.C1
0.05
0.16
0.23
0.50
1.13
2.83
6.62
11.21
62.17
90.00
Table 1-19: Respondent characteristics of Silicone
Lubricant users
1. Respondent age
(N=756 recent users)
Mean
45.10 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=759 recent users)
Male
Female
69.7
30.3
s-
3. Number of household
members
(N=754 recent users)
Mean
3.01 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=758 recent users)
Mean
2.99 bedrooms
Table 1-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
silicone lubricant users. The mean age of these respondents is
45.10 years. The number of male respondents (69.7%) is more than
twice the number of female respondents (30.3%). The statistics
for the respondent characteristics of silicone lubricant users is
approximately the same as those for the total sample of
respondents with the exception of respondent gender where the
number of male and female respondents is approximately equal for
the total sample of respondents.
5-133
-------
AN
(E
AUT
M
VE)
5-135
-------
J.
Product 10: Other Lubricants
Ql: Have you ever used other lubricants?
Table J-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Other
Lubricants
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
1696
3221
4917*
34.5
65.5
100.0
_^,_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table J-l shows that 34.5% of the total respondents have
"ever" used other lubricants.
Q2:
When was the last time you used another lubricant?
Table J-2: Last time Other Lubricant was used in months
(N=1690 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
5.10
1.00
13.37
As Table J-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of other lubricants is 5*10 months. This is the shortest period
of time since last use for any of the 32 products surveyed. The
median number of months is 1 month.
5-137
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table J-3: Percentile rankings for Other Lubricants
months since last use (N=1690 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.33
1.00
5.00
12.00
24.00
60.00
240.00
Table J-3 shows that the time since last use of the product
ranges from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 240 months.
Twenty-five percent of the respondents used the product last less
than a month ago. Ninety-nine percent used it 60.0 months (5
years) or less ago
The time since last use increased sharply at
the 100th percentile to 240.0 months (20 years)
5-138
-------
Q3: How many times have you used other lubricants in the
last 12 months?
Table J-4: Number of uses of Other Lubricant within the
last 12 months (N=1531 recent users)
Mean # of uses 10.66
Median # of uses 4.00
Standard deviation 25.46
The mean number of uses of other lubricants in the last year
is 10.66 times. Of the 1531 respondents who used the product in
the last year, 16.3% used it once, 18% used it twice and 13.5
used it thrice. Table J-5 which follows presents the percentile
rankings for this variable. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used the product 50 times or less in the last year.
The maximum number of times the product is used is 420 times.
Table j-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Other
Lubricants within the last 12 months (N=1531
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 4.00
75% 10.00
90% 20.00
95% 50.00
99% 100.00
Maximum 420.00
5-139
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using other lubricants the
last time you used it?
Table J-6: Time spent using the Other Lubricants last time
used (N=1518 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 8.12
Median # of minutes 2.00
Standard deviation 32.20
The mean and median number of minutes for using other
lubricants are relatively low as compared to the time spent using
the other products surveyed.
Table J-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Other Lubricants last time used (N=1518 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum o. 02
1% 0.03
5% 0.05
10% 0.08
25% 0.50
Median 2.00
75% 5.00
90% 15.00
95% 30.00
99% 90.00
Maximum 900.00
The minimum time spent using other lubricants is 0.02
minutes and the maximum time spent is 15 hours. Twenty-five
percent of the respondents spent less than 1 minute using the
product and 95% of the respondents spent half an hour or less
using the product*
5-140
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used other lubricants?
Table J-8. Time spent in the room after last use of Other
Lubricants (N=1490 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 47.45
Median # minutes in room 2.00
Standard deviation 127.11
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 47.45 minutes and the median is 2 minutes. There is a big
difference between the mean and median because of the large
proportional of respondents who did not spray in the room after
the last use of other lubricants. Table J-9 which follows
presents the percentile rankings for this variable. It shows
that 25% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after using the product. Ninety-five percent of the respondents
spent 240.0 minutes (4 hours) or less in the room. The time
spent in the room after use increased sharply at the 100th
percentile to 1440.0 minutes (24 hours).
Table J-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in the room but used Other Lubricants
(N=1490 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
30.00
120.00
240.00
485.40
1440.00
5-141
-------
Table J-10: Percentile rankings for Other Lubricants for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=841
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 5.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 180.00
95% 360.00
99% 720.00
Maximum 1440.00
Table J-10 is similar to Table J-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room. The mean time spent in
the room has increased to 84.10 minutes compared to 47.45 minutes
in Table J-8 as respondents spending no time in room after use
have been excluded. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent
360 minutes (6 hours) or less in the room after using the
product.
5-142
-------
Q6A:
Which brand of other lubricants did you use the last
time you used it?
Table J-ll: Brand distribution for Other Lubricants
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
780
448
34
134
149
1545
50,5
29.0
2.2
8.7
9.6
100.0
The majority of respondents, 91.3%, specified a brand of
other lubricants that they used. The top three brands of other
lubricants named were used by 50.5%, 29.0% and 2.2% of the
respondents, respectively.
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table J-12: Percent of respondents saying Other Lubricants
are in aerosol or nonaerosol form (N-1524
recent users
Yes, product is aerosol
No, product is nonaerosol
32.5%
67.5%
Table J-12 shows that number of respondents using a non
aerosol form of other lubricant is about twice the number of
those using an aerosol form of the product.
5-143
-------
Q7: What size of other lubricants did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table J-13: Amount of Other Lubricants used in ounces
(N=1407 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 9.93
Median ounces per year 2.25
Standard deviation 44.18
The mean ounces used per year of other lubricants is 9.93
ounces. This is comparatively low compared to the ounces used
per year for most of the other products surveyed.
Table J-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Other
Lubricants used in ounces per year (N=1407
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.18
0.30
0.52
1.00
2.25
8.00
18.00
32.00
128.00
1280.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
J-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at
0.01 and the maximum ounces per year at 1280.0. Twenty-five
percent of the respondents used 1 ounce or less of the product
whereas 95.0% of the respondents used 32 ounces or less of the
product per year. The amount used increased sharply at the 100th
percentile to 1280.0 ounces.
5-144
-------
Q8: Where did you use other lubricants the last time you
used it?
Table J-15: Location of last use of the product used last
time (N=1514 recent users)
Basement
7.5%
Living room 5.9%
Other inside room 34.9
Several inside rooms 2.6%
Garage
Outside
13.5
29.6%
Garage & outside 6.0%
Total 100.0
As Table J-15 shows, most people (29.6%) used other
lubricants outside. Approximately the same number (34.9%) used
the product in an "other inside room". A total of 13.5% used the
product in the garage.
5-145
-------
Table J-16. Protective measures undertaken while using
Other Lubricants
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 42.6% 57.4
(N=968 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=969 recent inside users)
6.4% 93.6
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 70.0% 30.0
(N=959 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 45.0% 55.0
(N=1508 all recent users)
ess than half the number of respondents (45.0%) had read
the directions on the label. The majority of the users did not
have an exhaust fan on during use (93.6%) but had the inside do
to the room opened (70,0%). Only 42.6% of the respondents had a
door or window open to the outside.
Table J-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3 (#
of times used in the last year).
Table J-17: Ounces per use of Other Lubricants (N=1400
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 1.61
Median # of ounces per use 0.55
Standard deviation 6.38
The mean ounces per use of other lubricant is 1.61 which is
one of the lowest amounts used when compared to this incidence
for other products. Only the product typewriter correction fluid
had a lower amount used per use of the product (0.43 ounces).
Table J-18 which follows presents the percentile rankings for
ounces used per use. Ninety-five percent of the respondents used
5.0 ounces or less of the product per use. At the 100th
percentile the amount used per use increased sharply to 192.0
ounces.
5-146
-------
Table J-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Other
Lubricants (N=1400 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.55
1.33
3.00
5.00
17.98
192.00
Table J-19: Respondent characteristics of Other Lubricant
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 43.98 years
(N=1537 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 61.1%
(N=1542 recent users) Female = 38.9%
3. Number of household
members
(N=1534 recent users)
Mean =3.07 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 2.97 bedrooms
(N=1539 recent users)
Table J-19 presents the respondent characteristics of other
lubricant users. The mean age of these respondents is 43.98
years; the number of household members is 3.07 and the number of
bedrooms 2.97. A greater number of the respondents is male
(61.1%) compared to the number of female respondents (38.9%).
The statistics for the respondent characteristics of other
lubricant users is approximately the same as the characteristics
of the total sample of respondents with the exception of
respondent gender where in the case of the total sample of
respondents the percentage of male and female respondents is
47.0% and 53.0% respectively.
5-147
-------
ANE
VC
A
5-149
-------
K.
Product 11:
ecialized Electronic Cleaners
This product group consists of electronic cleaners for TV's
VCRs, cassette players, razors and other electronic equipment.
Ql:
Have you ever used specialized electronic cleaners?
Table K-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
645
4272
4917*
13.1
86.9
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ii^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table K-l shows that 13.1% of the total respondents have
"ever" used specialized electronic cleaners. This is a
relatively low incidence for a nonautomotive product.
Q2:
When was the last time you used specialized electronic
products?
Table K-2: Last time Specialized Electronic Cleaners were
used in months (N=642 users)
Mean # of months
Median
of months
Standard deviation
7.90
2.00
18.26
As Table K-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of specialized electronic cleaners is 7.90 months. This is a
fairly short period of time suggesting a relatively frequently
used product. The median number of months is 2.0.
5-151
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table K-3: Percentile rankings for Specialized Electronic
Cleaners months since last use (N=642 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.03
10% 0.10
25% 0.46
Median 2.00
75% 6.00
90% 24.00
95% 36.00
99% 96.00
Maximum 180.00
Table K-3 shows that 25th percentile users and below used
the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile through
the 100th percentile respondents report that they last used the
product 6 months ago through 180 months (15 years) ago. The data
appears to be subject to rounding which was discussed earlier
under aspects of the data (ie. 2, 3, 15 years rather than 2 years
3 months). The data are still usable for indicating the
approximate last use.
5-152
-------
03: How many times have you used specialized elect
leaners in the last 12 mont
Table K-4: Number of uses of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners within the last 12 months (N=550
recent users)
Mean # of uses 13.41
Median # of times 3.00
Standard deviation 38.16
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months, was
13.41 and the median 3.0. Fifty-four percent of these users used
the specialized electronic cleaners three times or less in the
last twelve months with 24.5% using it once; 20.4% using it
twice; and 9.3% using it three times.
Table K-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners within the last
12 months (N=550 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 3.00
75% 10.00
90% 24.00
95% 52.00
99% 224.50
Maximum 400.00
5-153
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using specialized
electronic cleaners the last time you used it?
Table K-6: Time spent using the Specialized Electronic
Cleaners last time used (N=543 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 9*47
Median # of minutes 2.00
Standard deviation 45.35
The mean and median number of minutes spent using
specialized electronic cleaners are relatively low as would be
expected for the time spent using this product.
Table K-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Specialized Electronic Cleaners last time used
(N=543 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.03
5% 0.08
10% 0.17
25% 0.50
Median 2.00
75% 5.00
90% 20.00
95% 30.00
99% 93.60
Maximum 900.00
The range in values for the percentile rankings is
substantial with a minimum of .02 and a maximum of 900 minutes
(15 hours).
5-154
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used specialized electronic
cleaners?
Table K-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (N=533 recent
users)
Mean # minutes in room 117.24
Median # minutes in room 60.00
Standard deviation 154.38
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 117.24 minutes as opposed to the median of sixty minutes. The
minutes spent in the room after last use is one of the highest of
all the products.
Table K-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Specialized Electronic
Cleaners (N=533 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
300.00
480.00
720.00
1440.00
Respondents at the 5th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using Specialized Electronic Cleaners.
Respondents at the higher percentile rankings spent between two
to twenty-four hours.
5-155
-------
Table K-10: Percentile rankings for Specialized Electronic
Cleaners for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time in the
room (N=484 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 2.00
10% 4.00
25% 20.00
Median 60.00
75% 180.00
90% 300.00
95% 480.00
99% 720.00
Maximum 1440.00
Table K-10 is similar to Table K-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have non-zero values.
5-156
-------
Q6A: Which brand of specialized electronic cleaners did you
use the last time you used it?
Table K-ll: Brand distribution for Specialized Electronic
Cleaners
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
67
22
13
251
200
553
12.1
4.0
2.4
45.4
36.1
100.0
About fifty-five percent (54.6%) of the users of the
product specified a brand. This is a relatively low percentage.
The top three brands of specialized electronic cleaners were used
by 12.1%, 4.0% and 2.4% of the users, respectively.
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table K-12: Percent of respondents saying Specialized
Electronic Cleaners are aerosol (N=541 recent
users)
Yes, product is aerosol
No, product is nonaerosol
34.0%
66.0
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in
34.0
of
the cases. Electronic cleaners come in many forms including
cassette tapes.
5-157
-------
Q7:
What size of specialized electronic cleaners did you
use the last time you used it? How much of a can or
how many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table K-13: Amount of Specialized Electronic Cleaners used
per year in ounces (N=456 recent users)
Mean ounces per year
Median ounces per year
Standard deviation
9.48
2.00
55.26
As might be expected, the mean ounces used per year for
specialized electronic cleaners is one of lowest amounts compared
to the amount used of other products. Only the categories of
typewriter correction fluid, adhesives, and ignition and wire
cleaners are as low.
Table K-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Specialized
Electronic Cleaners used in ounces per year
(N-456 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.05
0.13
0.25
0.52
2.00
6.00
12.65
24.00
109.84
1024.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
K-14 is quite substantial with minimum ounces per year at .01 and
the maximum ounces per year at 1024.0. There is quite a
difference between percentile points with the 95th percentile at
24.0 ounces per year and the 99th percentile at 109.84.
5-158
-------
Q8:
Where did you use specialized electronic cleaners the
last time you used them?
Table K-15: Location of last use of the product
(N=539 recent users)
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
Total
5. 6-s
47.5%
36.0%
0%
9%
2.
3.
3.3%
1.7%
100.0%
Most people (47.5%) used specialized electronic cleaners in
the living room and 36.0% used it in an "other inside room". Of
the remainder, 5.6% used it in the basement, 3.9% used it in the
garage, 3.3% used it in the outside air, and 1.7% used it both in
the garage and outside.
5-159
-------
Table K-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the Outside 32.5% 67.5%
(N=511 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=512 recent inside users)
6.4% 93.6%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 70.4% 29.6
(N=510 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 73.8% 26.2
(N=539 all recent users)
The majority of the specialized electronic cleaner users did
not have a door or window open to the outside (67.5%); did not
have an exhaust fan on during use (93.6%); had the inside door to
the room opened (70.4%); and had read the directions on the label
(73.8%).
Table K-17 covers derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table K-17: Ounces per use of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners (N=452 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 1.83
Median # of ounces per use .50
Standard deviation 5.31
The mean ounces per use is 1.83. The median ounces per use
is .50.
5-160
-------
Table K-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (N=452 recent
users)
Minimum
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.13
0.50
. 1.50
3.49
7.50
24.70
80.00
The percentile rankings for ounces per use range from a
minimum of .01 to a maximum of 80 ounces.
Table K-19: Respondent characteristics of Specialized
Electronic Cleaners users
1. Respondent age
(N=553 recent users)
Mean
37.70 years
2
Respondent gender
(N=553 recent users)
Male
Female
68.9
31.1
%
3. Number of household
members
(N=551 recent users)
Mean
3.00 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=552 recent users)
Mean
2.90 bedrooms
ble K-19 present
th
pecialized elect
1
pondent characterist
The mean age
users.
s of
f th
th
pondents is 37.70 y
9
f the respondents are
1
mean
b
f h
f bedrooms
haracterist
is 2.90.
Th
hold memb
e statist
is 3.00;
f
th
f
pecialized elect
d the _
pondent
an
b
1
users are
1
t
th
haracterist
except th
are a littl
d the product (68.9
1
g
(47.0%)
y
of the total s
r and a higher
pi
f
pondent
percenta
f
1
compared t
th
t
5-161
-------
5-163
-------
L. Product 12: Latex Paint
Latex paint is included as a paint product of interest;
however, it is not thought to contain methylene chloride or its
five substitute chemicals.
Ql: Have you ever used latex paint?
Table L-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Latex Paint
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
2717 55.2
2201 44.8
Total 4918* 100.0
*2 cases where information was not ascertained
Table L-l shows that 55.2% of the total respondents have
"ever" used latex paint. This incidence of use is second only to
contact cements and super glues.
Q2: When was the last time you used latex paint?
Table L-2: Last time Latex Paint was used in months
(N=2710 users)
Mean # of months 16.70
Median # of months 8.00
Standard deviation 28.20
As Table L-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of latex paint is 16.70 months. The median number of months is
8.0.
5-165
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table L-3: Percentile rankings for Latex Paintmonths
since last use (N=2710 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.13
10% 0.46
25% 2.00
Median 8.00
75% 24.00
90% 36.00
95% 60.00
99% 144.00
Maximum 300.00
Table L~3 shows that 10th percentile users and below used
the product last less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 24 months (2 years) ago through 300 months (25
years) ago.
5-166
-------
Q3:
How many times have you used latex paint in the last 12
months?
Table L-4: Number of uses of Latex Paint within the last 12
months (N=1794 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
3.93
2.00
20.81
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months was
3.93 and the median 2.0. Almost seventy-five percent (74.7%) of
these users used latex paint three times or less in the last
twelve months with 44.6% using it once; 20.1% using it twice; and
10.0% using it three times.
Table L-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Latex
Paint within the last 12 months (N=1794 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Uses
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
10.00
30.00
800.00
5-167
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using latex paint the last
time you used it?
Table L-6: Time spent using Latex Paint last time
used (N=1769 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 295.08
Median # of minutes 180.00
Standard deviation 476.11
The mean and median number of minutes for using latex paint
are the highest of all the products. This might be expected as
latex is usually used for large jobs such as painting a room.
Table L-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using Latex
Paint last time used (N=1769 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% i.oo
5% 22.50
10% 30.00
25% 90.00
Median 180.00
75% 360.00
90% 480.00
95% 810.00
99% 2880.00
Maximum 5760.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 5760
minutes (96 hours).
5-168
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used latex paint?
Table L-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Latex
Paint (N=1765 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 91.38
Median # minutes in room 5.00
Standard deviation 254.61
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 91.38 minutes as opposed to the median of five minutes.
Table L-9: Percentile Rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Latex Paint (N=1765
r
M i n imum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
60.00
240.00
480.00
1440.00
2880.00
Respondents at the 25th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using latex paint. Respondents at the
higher percentile rankings spent from 60 minutes (1 hour) to 2880
minutes (48 hours).
5-169
-------
Table L-10: Percentile rankings for Latex Paint for time
spent in the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=1005 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 2.60
25% 10.00
Median 30.00
75% 180.00
90% 480.00
95% 600.00
99% 1440.00
Maximum 2880.00
Table L-10 is similar to Table L-9 except it includes only
users who did, in fact, stay in the room. Therefore, all
percentiles have non-zero values.
5-170
-------
Q6A: Which brand of latex paint did you use the last time
you used it?
Table L-ll: Brand distribution for Latex Paint
Brand category
Frequency
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
369
168
124
385
755
1801
20.5
9.3
6.9
21.4
41.9
100.0
Seventy-eight percent (78.6%) of latex paint users specified
a brand. The top three brands were used by 20.5%, 9.3% and 6.9%
of the users, respectively.
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table L-12: Percent of respondents saying Latex Paint
is aerosol (N=1781 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
1.3%
No, product is nonaerosol
98.7%
Respondents said that the product was nonaerosol in 98.7% of
the cases.
5-171
-------
Q7: What size of latex paint did you use the last time you
used it? How much of a can or how many cans did you
use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table L-13: Amount of Latex Paint used per year in ounces
(N=1762 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 371.27
Median ounces per year 256.00
Standard deviation 543.86
As might be expected, the mean ounces per year for latex
paint is the highest amount compared to the amount used of other
products.
Table L-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Latex Paint
used in ounces per year (N=1762 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.03
4.00
12.92
32.00
64.00
256.00
384.00
857.60
1280.00
2560.00
6400.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
L-14 is substantial, with the minimum ounces per year at .03 and
the maximum at 6400.0.
5-172
-------
Q8: Where did you use latex paint the last time you used
it?
Table L-15: Location of last use of the product (N=1770
recent users)
Basement
o
Living room 9 . 9
Other inside room 47.6
Several inside rooms 11.6
Garage
Outside 24.4
Garage & outside 1.7
2.0^5
Total 100.0
Most people (47.6%) used latex paint in an "other inside
room" such as the bedroom or den. Of the remainder, 24.4% used
it outside; 11.6% used it in several inside rooms; 9.9% used it
in the living room; 2.8% used it in the basement; 2.0% used it in
the garage; and 1.7% used it both outside and in the garage.
5-173
-------
Table L-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Latex Paint
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 75.8% 24.2%
(N=1309 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=1303 recent inside users)
15.6% 84.4%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=1303 recent inside users)
84.7% 15.3
4. Whether directions
on label were read 64.2% 35.8%
(N=1766 all recent users)
The majority of latex paint users did have a door or window
open to the outside (75.8%); did not have an exhaust fan on
during use (84.4%); had the inside door to the room opened
(84.7%); and had read the directions on the label (64.2%).
Table L-17 is a derived variable, ounces per use, and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table L-17: Ounces per use of Latex Paint (N=1759 recent
users)
Mean # of ounces per use 193.00
Median # of ounces per use 128.00
Standard deviation 310.40
Table L-17 indicates that the mean ounces per use is 193.0
and the median is 128.0.
5-174
-------
Table L-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Latex Paint (N=1795 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
1.49
5.12
10.67
32.00
128.00
240.00
448.00
704.00
1561.60
3840.00
he range of the percentile rankings goes from a minimum of
2 ounces per use to a maximum of 3840.0
Table L-19: Respondent characteristics of Latex Paint
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 42.20 years
(N=1795 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 51.3%
(N=1796 recent users) Female = 48.7%
3. Number of household
members
(N=1792 recent users)
Mean = 3.20 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
(N=1796 recent users)
Table L-19 presents the respondent characteristics of latex
paint users. The mean age of these respondents is 42.20 years;
51.3% of the respondents are male; the mean number of household
members is 3.20; and the mean number of bedrooms is 3.00. The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of latex paint
users are almost identical to the characteristics of the total
sample of respondents.
5-175
-------
5-177
-------
M. Product 13: Oil Paint
Ql: Have you ever used oil paint?
Table M-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Oil
Paint
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
1471 29.9
3447 70.1
Total 4918* 100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*2 cases where information was not ascertained
Table M-l shows that 29.9% of the total respondents have
"ever" used oil paint.
Q2: When was the last time you used oil paint?
Table M~2: Last time Oil Paint was used in months (N=1465
users)
Mean # of months 30.40
Median # of months 12.00
Standard deviation 48.20
As Table M-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of oil paint is 30.40 months. This is the third longest period
of time since last use following only spray shoe polish and glass
frostings. The median number of months is 12.0.
5-179
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table M-3: Percentage rankings for Oil Paintmonths since
last use (N=1465 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.23
10% 0.69
25% 3.00
Median 12.00
75% 36.00
90% 72.00
95% 120.00
99% 240.00
Maximum 480.00
Table M-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below used
the product last less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 36 months (3 years) ago through 480 months (40
years) ago. The data appear to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e., 5, 10, 15
years rather than 5 years 3 months). The data is still usable
for indicating the approximate last use-
5-180
-------
Q3:
How many times have you used oil paint in the last 12
months?
Table M-4: Number of uses of Oil Paint within the last 12
months (N=735 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
5.66
1.00
23.10
The mean number of times using the product in the last
twelve months among users of the product in the last twelve
months, was 5.7 and the median 1.0. Eighty and five-tenths of
these users used the oil paint three times or less in the last
twelve months with 50.9% using it once; 20.7% using it twice; and
9.0
q.
using it three times.
Table M-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Oil
Paint within the last 12 months (N=735 recent
users)
Minimum
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Uses
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
12.00
139.20
300.00
5-181
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using oil paint the last
time you used it?
Table M-6: Time spent using Oil Paint last time used
(N=726 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 194.12
Median # of minutes 120.00
Standard deviation 345.68
The mean and median number of minutes for using oil paint
are the second highest only to latex paint.
Table M-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Oil Paint last time used (N=726 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.51
15.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
240.00
480.00
579.00
1702.80
5760.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 5760
minutes (96 hours).
5-182
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used oil paint?
Table M-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Oil
Paint (N=724 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 44.56
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 155.19
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 44.56 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes.
Table M-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Oil Paint (N=724
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 30.00
90% 120.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 2880.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using oil paint. Respondents at the
higher percentile rankings spent from thirty minutes to 2880
minutes (forty-eight hours).
5-183
-------
Table M-10: Percentage Rankings for Oil Paint for time
spent in the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=*321 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 2.00
10% 3.00
25% 10.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 300.00
95% 480.00
99% 860.40
Maximum 2880.00
Table M-10 is similar to Table M-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have non-zero values.
5-184
-------
Q6A: Which brand of oil paint did you use the last time you
used it?
Table M-ll: Brand distribution for Oil Paint
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
69 9.3
39 5.2
37 5.0
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 228 30.6
All other named brands
Total
371 49.9
744 100.0
Sixty-nine percent (69.4%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of oil paint were used
by 9.3%, 5.2% and 5.0% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table M-12: Percent of respondents saying Oil Paint is
aerosol (N=727 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 3 . 6
I
No, product is nonaerosol 96.4
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in only 3.6%
of the cases.
5-185
-------
Q7: What size of oil paint did you use the last time you
used it? How much of a can or how many cans did you
use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the
variable called ounces per year.
Table M-13: Amount of Oil Paint used in ounces (N=702
recent users)
Mean ounces per year 168.92
Median ounces per year 64.00
Standard deviation 367.82
As might be expected, the mean ounces used per year for oil
paint is one of highest amounts second only to latex paint.
Table M-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Oil paint
used in ounces per year (N-702 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.33
5% 4.00
10% 8.00
25% 25.20
Median 64.00
75% 148.48
90% 384.00
95% 640.00
99% 1532.16
Maximum 5120.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
M-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .02
and the maximum ounces per year at 5120.0.
5-186
-------
Q8: Where did you use oil paint the last time you used it?
Table M-15: Location of last use of the product (N=726
recent users
Basement 5.9%
Living Room 5.9%
Other inside room 35.4%
Several inside rooms 3.3%
Garage
Outside 41.35
Garage & outside 2.1%
6.15
Total
100.0%
Forty and three-tenths % used oil paint on the outside an
35.4% used it in an "other inside room". Six and one-tenth %
sed it in the arae; 5.9% used it in the basement and anothe
5.9% used it in the livin room 3.3% used it in several insid
rooms; and 2.1% used it in both the garage and outsi
5-187
-------
Table M-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Oil Paint
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 69.5% 30,5
(N=407 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan on
during use
(N=403 recent inside users)
16.4% 83.6
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=401 recent inside users)
76.8% 23.2
4. Whether directions
on label were read 68.6% 31.4
(N=716 all recent users)
o
The majority of the oil paint users did have a door or
window open to the outside (69.5%); did not have an exhaust fan
on during use (83.4%); had the inside door to the room opened
(76.8%); and had read the directions on the label (68.6%).
Table M-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table M-17: Ounces per use of Oil Paint (N=698 recent
users)
Mean # of ounces per use 107.69
Median # of ounces per use 32.00
Standard deviation 303.35
5-188
-------
Table M-18 indicates that the mean ounces per use is 107.69
and the median is 32.0.
Table M-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Oil
Paint (N=698 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.03
1.32
4.00
12.00
32.00
128.00
256.00
384.00
1281.28
5120.00
Table M-19: Respondent characteristics of Oil Paint users
1.
Respondent age
(N=741 recent users)
Mean
43.10 years
2.
Respondent gender
(N=743 recent users)
Male
Female
56.8
43.2
Sr
3.
Number of household
members
(N=739 recent users)
Mean
3.20 members
4.
Number of bedrooms
(N=742 recent users)
Mean
3.00 bedrooms
aint users
56.8
f th
tats
9 presen
he
res
resondent characteris
mea
dts are
f t
resonden
d the mea
mean
f be
ics of oil
3.10 years;
f houehl
s
t
ondent characteris
l aint user
are almost identical to
of resondents excet th
t
haracteis
f the total sam
are slihtly more mal
as ss
l ain
6.8%) compared
i
5-189
-------
w
VA
NIS
FIN
AINS
AN
5-191
-------
N. Product 14: Wood Stains^ Varnishes and Finishes
Ql: Have you ever used wood stains, varnishes or finishes?
Table N-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
2114 43
2803 57
Total 4917* 100
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^____-^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M^M^P|^^^^^l^rf^ta^M^^^^^^^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table N-l shows that 43% of the total respondents have
"ever" used wood stains, varnishes and finishes. This is a
relatively high percentage when compared to this incidence for
other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used wood stains, varnishes
or finishes?
Table N-2: Last time Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
were used in months (N=2103 users)
Mean # of months 23.20
Median # of months 9.00
Standard deviation 38.91
As Table N-2 shows, the mean number of months wood stains,
varnishes and finishes were last used is 23.20 months. The
median number of months is 9.0 and this adjusts for any extreme
values given as answers to this questions.
5-193
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table N-3: Percentile rankings for Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishesmonths since last use (N=2103
users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.16
10% 0.46
25% 2.00
Median 9.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 108.00
99% 180.00
Maximum 360.00
The number of months since the product was last used ranges
from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 360 months (30
years). Ninety-five percent of the respondents last used the
product 108 months (9 years) ago or less. From the 75th
percentile through the 100th percentile respondents report that
they last used the product 24 months ago (2 years) through 360
months (30 years) ago. The data appear to be subject to rounding
which was discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e., 5,
9, 30 years rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are usable
for indicating the approximate last use.
5-194
-------
Q3: How many times have you used wood stains, varnishes or
finishes in the last 12 months?
Table N-4: Number of uses of Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes within the last 12 months (N=1259
recent users)
Mean # of uses 4.21
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 12.19
The mean number of times the product was used in the last
twelve months is 4.21 uses and the median is 2.0 uses. Of the
1,259 respondents who used the product in the last year, 47.6
used it once, 18.3% twice and 9% used it three times. Table N-5
which follows shows the percentile rankings for this variable
which range from a minimum of 1 time to a maximum of 250 times.
Ninety-five percent of the respondents used the product 12 times
or less in the last year.
Table N-5: Percentile rankings of times used the Wood
Stains, Varnishes and Finishes within the last
12 months (N=1259 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 4.00
90% 7.00
95% 12.00
99% 50.80
Maximum 250.00
5-195
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using wood stains,
varnishes or finishes the last time you used it?
Table N-6: Time spent using the Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes last time used (N=1247 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 117.17
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 193.05
The mean and median number of minutes for using wood stains,
varnishes and finishes is 117.17 and 60 minutes respectively and
is relatively high when compared to the time spent using most of
the other 32 products surveyed.
Table N-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes last time
used (N=1247 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.74
5% 5.00
10% 10.00
25% 30.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 140.00
95% 360.00
99% 720.00
Maximum 280.00
Time spent using the product ranges from a minimum of 0.02
minutes to a maximum of 280 minutes (48 hours). Fifty percent of
the respondents used the product for one hour or less. Ninety-
nine percent of the respondents spent 720 minutes (12 hours) or
less using the product. Time spent increased sharply at the
100th percentile to 280 minutes (48 hours).
5-196
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used wood stains, varnish
or finishes?
Table N-8: Time spent in the room after use of Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes (N=1241 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 48.33
Median # minutes in room 1.00
Standard deviation 156.44
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
48.33 minutes and the median is 1.0 minute.
Table N-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use of Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
including those who did not spend any time in
the room (N=1241 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
30.00
120.00
240.00
694.80
2880.00
Respondents at the 25th percentile and below did not spend
any time in the room after using wood stains, varnishes or
finishes. The maximum time spent in the room after use of the
product is 2880 minutes (48 hours) which is the same as the
maximum time spent using the product as seen in Table N-7.
5-197
-------
Table N-10: Percentile rankings for Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes for time spent in the room after
use including only those who spent time in the
room (N=642 recent users staying in room)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Minutes
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
Median 30.00
75% 60.00
90% 240.00
95% 480.00
99% 1182.00
Maximum 2880.00
Table N-10 is similar to Table N-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after use of the product.
A total of 51.7% of the users who used the product in the last
year did stay in the room after using the product. The mean time
spent in the room after use is 93.40 minutes. This differs from
the mean of 48.33 in Table N-8 as respondents who did not spend
any time in the room after using the product have been excluded.
Fifty percent of the respondents spent 30.0 minutes or less in
the room after using the product.
5-198
-------
Q6A: Which brand of wood stain, varnish or finish did you
use the last time you used it?
Table N-ll: Brand distribution for Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes
Brand category
Frequency Percent
179 14.1
115 9.1
29 2.3
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 465 36.7
All other named brands
Total
480 37.8
1268 100.0
Sixty-three percent (63.3%) of the users who used the
product in the last year specified a brand. The top three brands
named were used by 14.1%, 9.1% and 2.3% of the respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table N-12: Percent of respondents saying the Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes are in aerosol or non-
aerosol form (N=1252 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 7.5%
No, product is nonaerosol 92.5%
The majority of the respondents (92.5%) used a wood stain,
varnish or finish which was in nonaerosol form.
5-199
-------
Q7: What size of wood stains, varnishes or finishes did you
use the last time you used it? How much of a can or
how many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table N-13: Amount of Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
used in ounces (N-1221 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 65.06
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 174.01
The mean ounces of the product used is 65.06 ounces and the
median is 16.0* There is a big difference between the two
statistics. This is because of a few extreme responses. The
median adjusts for these extreme responses.
Table N-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes used in ounces (N-1221
recent users)
Minimu
1%
5%
1
25%
Median
75
9
95
99%
aximum
Ounces
0.12
1.09
4.00
4.00
8.00
16.00
64.00
128.00
256.00
768.00
3840.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
N-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at
0.12 and the maximum ounces per year at 3,840.0. Ninety-five
percent of the respondents used 256.0 ounces or less of the
product during the year. This amount tripled at the 99th
percentile. The ounces used at the 100th percentile is five
times that at the 99th percentile and shows that a few of the
respondents used a very large amount of the product.
5-200
-------
Q8:
Where did you use wood stains, varnishes and finishes
the last time you used it?
Table N-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=1247 recent users)
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
12.1%
7.8%
29.1
3.2
13.9
31.8
2.1%
Total
100.0
The majority of the respondents, approximately 31.8%, used
the product outside. A total of 29.1% used the product in an
"other inside room", 13.9% used it in the garage, and 12.1% used
it in the basement.
5-201
-------
Table N-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
Yes No
I. Door or window
open to the outside 64.2% 35.8
(N=822 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=819 recent inside users)
14.8% 85.2%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 74.3% 25.7
(N=810 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 76.7% 23.3
(N=1238 all recent users)
I
The majority of the users of wood stains, varnishes or
finishes did read the directions on the label (76.7%). A total
of 64.2% did have a door or window open to the outside, 14.8% did
have an exhaust fan on during use and 74.3% had the inside door
to the room open.
Table N-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table N-17: Ounces per use of Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes (N=1217 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 33.72
Median # of ounces per use 12.00
Standard deviation 78.51
The mean ounces used per use of the product is 33.72 and the
median is 12.0. Table N-18 which follows shows the percentile
rankings for this variable and shows the ounces used per use
ranges from a minimum of 0.02 ounces to a maximum of 960.0
ounces. Ninety-five percent of the users used 128.0 ounces or
less of the product per use.
5-202
-------
Table N-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Wood
Stains, Varnishes and Finishes (N=1217 recent
users)
Minimum
I
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
0.16
1.00
2.00
4.00
12.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
384.00
960.00
Table N-19: Respondent characteristics of Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes users
1. Respondent age Mean = 41.14 years
(N=1267 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male =51.1
(N=1268 recent users) Female =48.9
3. Number of household
members
(N=1265 recent users)
Mean = 3.20 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 3.04 bedrooms
(N=1267 recent users)
Table N-19 presents the respondent characteristics of wood
stains, varnishes and finishes users. The mean age of these
respondents is 41.14 years. The number of male respondents
(51.1%) is approximately equal to the number of female
respondents (48.9%). The statistics for the respondent
characteristics of wood stains, varnishes and finishes users is
approximately the same as the characteristics of the total sample
of respondents.
5-203
-------
VE
S/
5-205
-------
o.
Product 15: Paint Removers
ers
Ql:
Have you ever used paint removers/strippers?
Table 0-1: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Paint Removers/Strippers
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
1498
3418
4916*
30.5
69.5
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table O-l shows that 30.5% of the total respondents have
"ever" used paint removers/strippers. This is a slightly higher
incidence than the average incidence for all products.
Q2:
When was the last time you used paint removers/
strippers?
Table 0-2: Last time Paint Removers/Strippers was used
in months (N=1493 users)
Mean # of months
Median
of months
Standard deviation
29.00
12.00
43.69
A
Tabl
0-2
/stripp
hows, the m
were last u
mb
d
f months paint
29.0 month
Th
th
fourth longest period of t
thirty-t
removi
of mon
product
Th
paint is
ths is 12.0.
t
gaged
y
since last use f
reflect that th
in frequently.
any
f th
h
tivity
edian
f
mb
5-207
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table 0-3: Percentile rankings for Paint
Removers/Strippersmonths since last use
(N=1493 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.23
10% 0.69
25% 4.00
Median 12.00
75% 36.00
90% 72.00
95% 120.00
99% 240.00
Maximum 420.00
Table O-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 36 months (3 years) ago through 420 months (35
years) ago and appears to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 5, 10, 15 years
rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-208
-------
Q3: How many times have you used paint removers/strippers
in the last 12 months?
Table 0-4: Number of uses of Paint Removers/Strippers
within the last 12 months (N=761 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.68
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 9.10
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months, was 3.68 and the median is 2.0 uses. Almost 77% of these
users used the paint removers/strippers three times or less in
the last twelve months with 49.3% using it once; 18.4% using it
twice; and 9.5% using it three times.
Table 0-5: Percentile rankings of times used Paint
Removers/Strippers within the last 12 months
(N=761 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 4.00
Median 2.00
75% 3.00
90
6.00
95% 11.80
99% 44.56
Maximum 100.00
5-209
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using paint
removers/strippers the last time you used it?
Table 0-6: Time spent using Paint Removers/Strippers
last time used (N=752 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 125.57
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 286.59
The mean and median number of minutes using for using paint
removers/strippers are relatively high as would be expected for
the time spent using a paint remover usually involves large jobs
Table 0-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Paint Removers/Strippers last time used (N=752
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.38
5% 5.00
10% 5.00
25% 20.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 240.00
95% 420.00
99% 1200.00
Maximum 4320.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 4320.0
minutes (72 hours).
5-210
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used removers/strippers?
Table 0-8: Time spent in the room after use of Paint
Removers/Strippers (N=748 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 31.38
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 103.07
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
31.38 minutes as opposed to the median of zero indicating that no
time was spent in the room after use.
Table 0-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use including those who did not spend any
time in room but used Paint Removers/Strippers
(N-748 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 20.00
90% 60.00
95% 180.00
99% 541.20
Maximum 1440.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using paint removers/strippers.
Respondents at the higher percentile rankings spent between 20
minutes to 1440 minutes (24 hours).
5-211
-------
Table 0-10: Percentile rankings for Paint
Removers/Strippers for time spent in the room
after use including only those who spent time
in the room (N=340 recent users staying in the
room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 3.10
25% 10.00
Median 30.00
75% 60.00
90% 180.00
95% 240.00
99% 826.20
Maximum 1440.00
Table 0-10 is similar to Table 0-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-212
-------
Q6A: Which brand of paint removers/strippers did you use the
last time you used it?
Table 0-11: Brand distribution for Paint Removers/Strippers
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
98
46
44
321
260
769
12.7
6.0
5.7
41.7
33.9
100.0
Fifty-eight percent (58.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of paint removers/
strippers were used by 12.7%, 6.0%, and 5.7% of the users,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table 0-12: Percent of respondents saying Paint Removers/
Strippers are aerosol (N=752 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
6.8-6
No, product is nonaerosol
93.2%
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in only 6.8%
of the cases.
5-213
-------
Q7: What size of paint removers/strippers did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table 0-13: Amount of Paint Removers/Strippers used per
year in ounces (N=737 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 63.73
Median ounces per year 32.00
Standard deviation 144.33
As might be expected, the mean ounces used per year for
paint removers/strippers is one of the highest amounts similar to
the other products.
Table 0-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Paint
Removers/Strippers used in ounces (N=737 recent
users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.64
1%
1.50
5% 4.00
10
O
O
8.00
25% 16.00
Median 32.00
75% 64.00
90% 128.00
95% 256.00
99% 512.00
Maximum 2560.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
0-14 is substantial with a minimum ounces per year at .64 and the
maximum ounces per year at 2560.0
5-214
-------
Q8: Where did you use paint removers/strippers the last
time you used them?
Table 0-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=754 recent users)
Basement
11.0%
Living room 3.2%
Other inside room 23.6%
Several inside rooms 1.6%
Garage
Outside
18.7%
38.5
Garage & outside 3.4
o
o
Total 100.0%
Most people (38.5%) used paint removers/strippers on the
outside and 23.6% used it in an "other inside room" such as the
bedroom or den. The remainder used it in the garage (18.7%); in
the basement (11.0%); in both the garage and outside (3.4%); in
the living room (3.2%); and in several inside rooms (1.6%).
5-215
-------
Table 0-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Paint Removers/Strippers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 70.7% 29.3%
(N=433 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=429 recent inside users)
15.6% 84.4%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 68.6% 31.4
(N=424 recent inside users)
%
4. Whether directions
on label were read 79.5% 20.5
(N=748 all recent users)
I
The majority of the users did have a door or window open to
the outside (70.7%); did not have an exhaust fan on during use
(84.4%); had the inside door to the room opened (68.6%); and had
read the directions on the label (79.5%). Paint remover/strippers
users have one of the highest percentages of respondents who kept
a door or window opened to the outside.
Table O-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table O-17: Ounces per use of Paint Removers/Strippers
(N=735 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 29.84
Median # of ounces per use 16.00
Standard deviation 50.28
The mean number of ounces used per use is 29.8 and the
median is 16.0.
5-216
-------
Table O-18 indicates that there is a substantial range from
a minimum of .23 to a maximum of 512.0 ounces per use.
Table O-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Paint Removers/Strippers (N=735 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.23
0.65
1.60
2.67
7.15
16.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
256.00
512.00
Table 0-19: Respondent characteristics of Paint
Removers/Strippers
1. Respondent age Mean = 40.20 years
(N=768 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 51.9%
(N=767 recent users) Female = 48.1
3. Number of household
members
(N=766 recent users)
Mean =3.10 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean =3.00 bedrooms
(N=768 recent users)
Table 0-19 presents the respondent characteristics of paint
emovers/strippers users. The mean age of these respondents is
0.20 years; 51.9% of the respondents are male; the mean number
f household members is 3.10; and the mean number of bedrooms is
.00. The statistics for the respondent characteristics of paint
emover/strippers users is almost identical to the
haracteristics of the total sample of respondents except the
population is slightly younger and slightly more users are mal
5-217
-------
IN
NNE
5-219
-------
P. Product 16: Paint Thinners
Ql: Have you ever used paint thinners?
Table P-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Paint Thinners
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
1755 35.7
3162 64.3
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table P-l shows that 35.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used paint thinners. This is a relatively high percentage
when compared to this incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used paint thinners?
Table P-2: Last time Paint Thinners were used in months
(N=1747 users)
Mean # of months 21.50
Median # of months 7.00
Standard deviation 38.89
As Table P-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of paint thinners is 21.50 months. The median number of months is
7.0.
5-221
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table P-3: Percentile rankings for Paint Thinnersmonths
since last use (N=1747 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.10
10% 0.23
25% 1.00
Median 7.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 96.00
99% 240.00
Maximum 360.00
Table P-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 24 months (2 years) ago through 360 months (30
years) ago. The data appear to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 5, 10, 15 years
rather than 5 years 3 months). The data is still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-222
-------
Q3: How many times have you used paint thinners in the last
12 months?
Table P-4: Number of uses of Paint Thinners within the last
12 months (N=1104 recent users)
Mean # of times 6.78
Median # of times 2.00
Standard deviation 22.10
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months was
6.8 and the median 2.0. Almost 68% of these users used the paint
thinners three times or less in the last twelve months with 37.4
using it once; 19.7% using it twice; and 10.7% using it three
times.
Table P-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Paint
Thinners within the last 12 months (N=1104
recent users)
Uses
Minimum .03
1%
5%
10%
03
10
23
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 4.00
90% 12.00
95% 23.00
99% 100.00
Maximum 352.00
5-223
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using paint thinners the
last time you used it?
Table P-6: Time spent using the Paint Thinners last time
used (N=1087 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 39.43
Median # of minutes 10.00
Standard deviation 114.85
The mean number of minutes is 39.43 and median number of
minutes for using paint thinners is 10.0.
Table P-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Paint Thinners last time used (N=1087 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.08
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 5.00
Median 10.00
75% 30.00
90% 60.00
95% 180.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 2400.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 2400
minutes (40 hours).
5-224
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used paint thinners?
Table P-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Paint
Thinners (N=1079 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 32.86
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 105.62
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 32.86 minutes as opposed to the median of zero where no time
was spent in the room after use.
Table P-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Paint Thinners (N=1079
recent users)
Minimum
i
-L
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.00
60.00
180.00
480.00
1440.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using paint thinners. Respondents at the
higher percentile rankings spent from 15 minutes to 1440 minutes
(24 hours).
5-225
-------
Table P-10:
^^^^
Percentile rankings for Paint Thinners for time
spent in the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=486 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
20.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
720.00
1440.00
percentiles have values.
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
ay in
e P'9 6XCept i
e room' therefore, all
only
5-226
-------
Q6A: Which brand of paint thinners did you use the last time
you used it?
Table P-ll: Brand distribution for Paint Thinners
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
70
36
22
646
339
1113
6.3
3.2
2.0
58.0
30.5
100.0
Forty-two percent (42.0%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of paint thinners were
used by 6.3%, 3.2% and 2.0% of the users, respectively.
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table P-12: Percent of respondents saying Paint Thinners
are aerosol (N-1090 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
2.5%
No, product is nonaerosol
97.5%
Essentially most paint thinners come in nonaerosol form.
97.
% were
nonaerosol.
5-227
-------
Q7: What size of paint thinner did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table P-13. Amount of Paint Thinner used per year in ounces
(N=1053 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 69.45
Median ounces per year 20.50
Standard deviation 190.55
Paint thinners are one of the highest ounces per year used
at 69.45. Only the categories of latex paint, oil paint, outdoor
water repellent, and auto primers are higher.
Table P-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Paint
Thinners used in ounces (N=1053 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.45
5% 3.10
10% 4.00
25% 8.00
Median 20.48
75% 64.00
90% 128.00
95% 256.00
99% 640.00
Maximum 3200.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
P-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .03
and the maximum ounces per year at 3200.0.
5-228
-------
Q8: Where did you use paint thinners the last time you used
them?
Table P-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=1087 recent users)
Basement
13.4%
Living room 2.8%
Other inside room 19.6%
Several inside rooms 1.7%
Garage
Outside
19.4%
39.9%
Garage & outside 3.1%
Total 100.0%
Most people (39.9%) used paint thinners outside; 19.6% used
q,
'o
it in another inside room; 19.4% used it in the garage; 13.4
used it in the basement; 3.1% used it in the garage and outside;
2.8% used it in the living room; and 1.7% used it in several
inside rooms.
5-229
-------
Table P-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Paint Thinners
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 67.3% 32.7%
(N=614 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=612 recent inside users)
10.5% 89.5%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=599 recent inside users)
67.8% 32.2%
4. Whether directions
on label were read 59.4% 40.6%
(N-1071 all recent users)
The majority of users of paint thinners did have a door or
window open to the outside (67.3%); did not have an exhaust fan
on during use (89*5%); had the inside door to the room opened
(67.8%); and had read the directions on the label (59.4%)
Table P-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table P-17: Ounces per use of Paint Thinners
(N=1050 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 23.67
Median # of ounces per use 9.40
Standard deviation 52.35
Table P-17 indicates that the mean ounces per use is 23.67
and the median is 9.40.
5-230
-------
Table P-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Paint Thinners (N=1050 recent users)
Minimum
i
X
5
10
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.03
0.10
0.66
1.33
4.00
9.37
21.33
64.00
96.00
223.36
1024.00
The percentiles range from a minimum of .03 ounces per use
to a maximum of 1024.0 ounces per use.
Table P-19: Respondent characteristics of Paint Thinner
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 42.50 years
(N=ll08 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male =61.3
recent users) Female =38.7
I
3. Number of household
members
(N=1106 recent users)
Mean = 3.10 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
(N=1109 recent users)
Table P-19 presents the respondent characteristics of paint
thinner users. The mean age of these respondents is 42.50 years;
61.3% of the respondents are male; the mean number of household
members is 3.10; and the mean number of bedrooms is 3.00. The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of paint thinner
users are almost identical to the characteristics of the total
sample of respondents except the respondents are slightly younger
and there are more male users 61.3% compared to 47.0% for the
sample as a whole.
5-231
-------
NT
5-233
-------
Q.
Product 17:
Aerosol
int
Ql: Have you ever used aerosol spray paint?
Table Q-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Aerosol
Spray Paint
Numb e r s
Percent
Yes
No
Total
1743
3174
4917*
35.4
64.6
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Tabl
Q-l
h
that 35.4% of the total respondents h
d
percentag
th
1 spray paint
Th
a
latively high
ly six products having a higher incid
Q2:
When was the last time you used aerosol spray paint?
Table Q-2: Last time Aerosol Spray Paint was used in
months (N=1737 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
17.20
6.00
31.10
As Table Q-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of aerosol spray paint is 17.20 months. This is about an average
period of time since last use for any of the thirty-two products.
The median number of months is 6.0.
5-235
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table Q-3: Percentile rankings for Aerosol Spray Paint
months since last use (N=1737 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
Months
0.03
0.03
.10
.23
1.00
6.00
18.00
48.00
72.00
99% 180,00
Maximum 240.00
Table Q-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 18 months ago through 240 months (20 years) ago.
This appears to be subject to rounding which was discussed
earlier under aspects of the data (i.e., 5, 10, 15 years rather
than 5 years 3 months). The data are still usable for indicating
the approximate last use.
Q3: How many times have you used aerosol spray paint in
the last 12 months?
Table Q-4: Number of uses of Aerosol Spray Paint within the
last 12 months (N=1178 recent users)
Mean # of times
Median # of times
Standard deviation
4.22
2.00
15,59
The mean number of times using the product in the last
twelve months among users of the product in the last twelve
months, was 4.22 and the median 2.0. A total of 74.6% of these
users used aerosol spray paint three times or less in the last
twelve months with 43.8% using it once; 20.5% using it twice; and
10.4% usincr it three times.
5-236
-------
Table Q-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Aerosol
Spray Paint within the last 12 months (N=1178
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Uses
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
6.10
12.00
31.05
365.00
5-237
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using aerosol spray paint
the last time you used it?
Table Q-6: Time spent using Aerosol Spray Paint last time
used
Mean # of minutes
Mean # of minutes
39.54
20.00
Standard deviation 87.79
The mean number of minutes for using aerosol spray paint is
39.54 minutes and the median is 20.0.
Table Q-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
aerosol spray paint last time used
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Minutes
.02
0.17
2.00
5.00
10.00
20.00
45.00
60.00
120.00
300.00
Maximum 1800.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum percentile is
1800.0 minutes (30 hours). Respondents appear to be giving the
total time the job took rather than the amount for the last
occasion.
5-238
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used aerosol spray paint?
Table Q-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Aerosol
Spray Paint (N=1158 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 12.70
Mean # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 62.80
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 12.70 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes.
Table Q-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Aerosol Spray Paint
(N=1158 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
30.00
60.00
260.50
1440.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using aerosol spray paint. Respondents at
the higher percentile rankings spent from 1 minute to 1440.0
minutes (24 hours).
5-239
-------
Table Q-10: Percentile rankings for aerosol spray paint for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=305
recent users who stayed in room afterwards)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Minutes
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
15.00
60.00
120.00
222.00
480.00
Maximum 1440.00
Table Q-10 is similar to Table Q-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-240
-------
Q6A: Which brand of aerosol spray paint did you use the last
time you used it?
Table Q-ll: Brand distribution for Aerosol Spray Paint
Brand category
Frequency Percent
269 22.6
152 12.8
37 .1
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 439 36.9
All other named brands
Total
293 27.6
1190 100.0
Sixty-three percent (63.1%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of aerosol spray paint
were used by 22.6%, 12.8% and 3.1% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table Q-12: Percent of respondents saying Aerosol Spray
Paint is aerosol (N=1164 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 99.2
No, product is nonaerosol 0.8
I
The product was aerosol spray paint so all items should be
aerosol. Respondents said that the product was aerosol in 99.2
of the cases. The 0.8% saying it was nonaerosol either forgot to
check the box indicating it was aerosol or perhaps used a spray
pump and thought this was to be included.
5-241
-------
Q7: What size of aerosol spray paint did you use the last
^H ^^H ^^^^^^^^^H
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
_*i j ji .. . « . _ J
did you use during the past y
The two questions above were used to derive the variabl
lied ounces per y
Table Q-13: Amount of Aerosol Spray Paint used in ounces
(N=1121 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 30.75
Median ounces per year 13.00
Standard deviation 52.84
The mean number of ounces user per year is 30.75 and th
dian is 13.0.
Table Q-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Aerosol Spray
Paint used in ounces (N=1121 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Ounces
0.02
0.75
2.01
3.25
7.00
13.00
32.00
65.00
104.00
240.00
Maximum 1053.00
he range between the minimum and maximum values in Tabl
Q-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .02
and the maximum ounces per year at 1053.0.
5-242
-------
Q8: Where did you use Aerosol Spray Paint the last time you
used it?
Table Q-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=1160 recent users)
Basement
7.3%
Living room 0.8%
Other inside room 9.2%
Several inside rooms 0.5%
Garage
Outside
15.8%
64.1%
Garage & Outside 2.3%
Total 100.0%
Most people (64.1%) used aerosol spray paint in the outsid
air. Of the remainder, 15.8% used it in the garage; 9.2% used it
in another inside room; 7.3% used it in the basement; 2.3% used
t both in the garage and in the outside; .8% used it in th
livina room; and 5% used it in several inside rooms.
5-243
-------
Table Q-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Aerosol Spray Paint
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 62.9% 37.1
(N=385 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=382 recent inside users)
9.9% 90.1%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=375 recent inside users)
61.1% 38.9%
4. Whether directions
on label were read 73.2% 26.8%
(N=1138 all recent users)
The majority of the aerosol spray paint users did have a
door or window open to the outside (62.9%); did not have an
exhaust fan on during use (90.1%); had the inside door to th
room opened (61.1%); and had read the directions on the label
3.2%)
Table Q-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table Q-17: Ounces per use of aerosol spray paint
(N=lll8 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 13.80
Median # of ounces per use 8.00
Standard deviation 24.40
Table Q-17 indicates a mean minutes per use of 13.80 and a
median of 8.0.
5-244
-------
Table Q-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Aerosol Spray Paint (N=1118 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.19
0.80
1.50
3.50
8.00
16.00
26.00
39.00
96.00
526.50
Table Q-19: Respondent characteristics of Aerosol Spray
Paint users
1. Respondent age Mean = 41.80 years
(N=1189 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male =54.2
(N=1189 recent users) Female =45.8
&
3. Number of household
members
(N=1178 recent users)
Mean =3.10 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
(N=1188 recent users)
Table Q-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
Aerosol Spray Paint users. The mean age of these respondents is
41.80 years; 54.2% of the respondents are male; the mean number
of household members is 3.10; and the mean number of bedrooms is
3.00. The statistics for the respondent characteristics of
aerosol spray paint users is almost identical to the
characteristics of the total sample of respondents. Slightly
more males use this product than are in the sample as a whole.
5-245
-------
M
AN
(EXC
AUT
M
ME
NG
VE)
5-247
-------
R.
Product 18: Primers and
ecial Primers
nonautomot ive)
Ql:
Have you ever used primers
Table R-l: Numbers and
Primers
of respondents ever using
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
684
4232
4916*
13.9
86.1
100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table R-l shows that 13.9% of the total respondents have
"ever" used primers. This is an average incidence when compared
to this incidence for other products.
Q2:
When was the last time you used primers?
Table R-2:
Last time Primers were used in months
(N=682 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
22.00
10.00
36.42
As Table R-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of primers is 22.0 months. The median number of months is 10.0.
5-249
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table R-3: Percentile rankings for Primersmonths since
last use (N=682 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.20
10% 0.46
25% 2.00
Median 10.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 84.00
99% 206.04
Maximum 360.00
Table R-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below since
last used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 24 months (2 years) ago through 360 months (30
years) ago. This appears to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 5, 10, 15 years
rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-250
-------
Q3: How many times have you used primers in the last 12
months?
Table R-4: Number of uses of Primers within the last 12
months (N=396 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.43
Median # of times 1.00
Standard deviation 8.76
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months, is
3.43 and the median 1.0. A total of 80.3% of these users used
primers three times or less in the last twelve months with 53.3
using it once; 18.9% using it twice; and 8.1% using it three
times.
Table R-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Primers
within the last 12 months (N=396 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 3.00
90% 6.00
95% 10.00
99% 50.06
Maximum 104.00
5-251
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using primers the last time
you used it?
Table R-6: Time spent using Primers the last time used
(N=381 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 91.29
Median # of minutes 30.00
Standard deviation 175.05
The mean and median number of minutes for using primers is
relatively high; only six products are higher.
Table R-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Primers last time used (N-381 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.05
1% 0.24
5% 3.00
10% 5.00
25% 15.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 240.00
95% 360.00
99% 981.60
Maximum 1920.00
The minimum percentile is .05 and the maximum is 1920.0
minutes (32 hours).
5-252
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used primers?
Table R-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Primers
(N=383 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 22.28
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 65.57
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 22.28 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minut
Table R-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Primers (N=383 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
60.00
120.00
319.20
720.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using primers. Respondents at the higher
percentile rankings spent from ten to twelve hours.
5-253
-------
Table R-10: Percentile rankings for Primers for time
spent in the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=129 recent
users who stayed in the room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.50
10% 5.00
25% 10.00
Median 30.00
75% 60.00
90% 180.00
95% 240.00
99% 648.00
Maximum 720.00
Table R-10 is similar to Table R-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-254
-------
Q6A: Which brand of primers did you use the last time you
used it?
Table R-ll
Brand distribution for Primers
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
64
28
19
156
139
406
15.8
6.9
4.7
38.4
34.2
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
100.0
Sixty-two percent (61.6%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of primers were used by
15.8%, 6.9% and 4.7% of the users, respectively.
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table R-12: Percent of respondents saying Primers are
aerosol (N=383 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
42.0
No, product is nonaerosol
51.2
g,
"o
The product was aerosol in 42.0% of the cases.
5-255
-------
Q7: What size of primers did you use the last time you used
it? How much of a can or how many cans did you use
during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table R-13: Amount of Primers used per year in ounces
(N=364 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 68.39
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 171.21
As might be expected, the mean ounces per year for primers
is one of the highest amounts compared to the amount used of
other products. Only five products have higher amounts.
Table R-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Primers used
in ounces (N=364 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.01
1% 0.09
5% 1.30
10% 3.23
25% 8.00
Median 16.00
75% 60.00
90% 128.00
95% 256.00
99% 867.75
Maximum 1920.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
R-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .01
and the maximum ounces per year at 1920.0. There is quite a
difference between percentile points with the 75th percentile at
60.0 ounces per year and the 100th percentile at 1920.0.
5-256
-------
Q8: Where did you use primers the last time you used them?
Table R-15: Location of last use of the product (N=383
recent users)
Basement
4.2%
Living room 1.8%
Other inside room 19.6
Several inside rooms 2.9%
Q,
'O
Garage
Outside
15.7%
52.5%
Garage & outside 3.4%
Total 100.0%
Most people (52.5%) used primers outside; 19.6% used it in
an other inside room; 15.7% used it in the garage; 4.2% used it
in the basement; 3.4% used it in both the garage and outside;
2.9% used it in several inside rooms; and 1.8% used it in the
living room.
5-257
-------
Table R-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Primers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 77.7% 22.3
(N=166 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=165 recent inside users)
16.4% 83.6%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=164 recent inside users)
67.7% 32.3
4. Whether directions
on label were read 73.5% 26.5%
(N=377 all recent users)
The majority of users of primers did have a door or window
open to the outside (77.7%); did not have an exhaust fan on
during use (83.6%); had the inside door to the room opened
(67.7%); and had read the directions on the label (73.5%).
Table R-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table R-17: Ounces per use of Primers (N=363 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 42.14
Median # of ounces per use 11.00
Standard deviation 110.47
5-258
-------
Table R-18 indicates that the minimum percentile is 0.1 and
the maximum is 1053.0.
Table R-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Primers (N=363 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.02
0.65
1.29
4.33
11.00
32.00
94.00
230.80
604.16
1053.00
Table R-19: Respondent characteristics of users of Primers
1. Respondent age Mean = 43.60 years
(N=405 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 65.8%
(N=406 recent users) Female = 34.2%
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.00 members
(N=405 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
(N=406 recent users)
Table R-19 presents the respondent characteristics of users
of primers. The mean age of these respondents is 43.60 years;
65.8% of the respondents are male; the mean number of household
members is 3.00; and the mean number of bedrooms is 3.00. The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of users of primers
are almost identical to the characteristics of the total sample
of respondents except more males use the product than are in the
sample at large.
5-259
-------
AE
EM
VE
5-261
-------
S. Product 19: Aerosol Rust Removers
Ql: Have you ever used an aerosol rust remover?
Table S-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Aerosol
Rust Removers
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
403 8.2
4514 91.8
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table S-l shows that only 8.2% of the total respondents h
"ever" used aerosol rust removers. This is a relatively low
percentage when compared to this incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used aerosol rust removers?
Table S-2: Last time Aerosol Rust Remover was used in
months (N=400 users)
Mean # of months 15.10
Median # of months 5.00
Standard deviation 30.79
As Table S-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
f aerosol rust remover is 15.10 months and the median is 5.0
months. The mean is approximately three times the size of th
median. This difference is on account of a few extreme respo
to this Question.
5-263
-------
Th
b
percentil
k
g
t
w
since last use are sh
Table S-3:
Percentile rankings for Aerosol Rust Removers
months since last use (N=400 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.16
1.00
5.00
12.00
36.00
60.00
180.00
240.00
Table S-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to
monhs (20 years)
a maximum of 240.0
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Twenty-five percent of the respondents used
the product one month or less ago and 95% of the
product last 60.0 months (4 years) or less ago
months reported may be subject to rounding discussed earlier
asPect? of the data (i.e. 3, 5, 15 years rather than 5
users used the
The number of
years 3 months).
approximate last use.
The data are usable for indicating the
^^^^^^H ^^H ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
5-264
-------
Q3: How many times have you used aerosol rust removers in
the last 12 months?
Table S-4: Number of uses of Aerosol Rust Remover within
the last 12 months (N=290 recent users)
Mean # of uses 6.17
Median # of times 2.00
Standard deviation 9.82
The mean number of uses aerosol rust removers were used in
the last 12 months is 6.17 times and the median is 2.0 times. Of
the 290 respondents to this question, 33.8% used it once, 17.6
used it twice and 11% used it three times in the last year. As
shown in Table S-5 which follows, 99% of the respondents used the
product 50.90 times or less in the last year. The maximum number
of times the product is used is 80.0.
Table S-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Aerosol
Rust Removers within the last 12 months (N=290
recent users
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 6.00
90% 15.00
95% 24.45
99% 50.90
Maximum 80.00
5-265
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using aerosol rust remover
the last time you used it?
Table S-6: Time spent using the Aerosol Rust Remover last
time used (N=282 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 18.57
Median # of minutes 5.00
Standard deviation 48.54
The mean and median number of minutes for using aerosol rust
removers are 18.57 and 5.0 minutes respectively.
Table S-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Aerosol Rust Remover last time used (N=282
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.05
5% 0.17
10% 0.25
25% 2.00
Median 5.00
75% 20.00
90% 60.00
95% 60.00
99% 130.20
Maximum 720.00
The time spent using the aerosol rust remover ranges from a
minimum of 0.02 minutes to 720 minutes (12 hours) at the 100th
percentile. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent one
hour or less using the product.
5-266
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used aerosol rust removers?
Table S-8: Time spent in the room after use of Aerosol Rust
Removers (N=282 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 15.06
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 47.58
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
15.06 minutes and the median is 0.0 minutes. The median is zero
as 50% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after using the product.
Table S-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use of Aerosol Rust Removers including
those who did not spend any time in the room
(N=282 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
60.00
60.00
190.20
600.00
Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent 1 hour or less
in the room after using aerosol rust removers. Time spent
increased sharply at the 100th percentile to 600 minutes (10
hours).
5-267
-------
Table S-10: Percentile rankings for Aerosol Rust Removers
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in the
room (N=282 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 5.00
Median 20.00
75% 60.00
90% 120.00
95% 174.00
99% 592.80
Maximum 600.00
Table S-10 is similar to Table S-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product.
The mean time spent in the room is 42 minutes. Fifty percent of
the respondents spent 20.0 minutes or less in the room. The
maximum time spent in the room after using the product is 10.0
hours.
5-268
-------
Q6A: Which brand of aerosol rust remover did you use the
last time you used it?
Table S-ll: Brand distribution for Aerosol Rust Remover
Brand category
Frequency Percent
103 34.9
41 13.9
24 8.1
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 84 28.5
All other named brands
Total
43 14.6
295 100.0
Seventy-two percent (71.5%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of aerosol rust remover
named were used by 34.9%, 13.9% and 8.1% of respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table S-12: Percent of respondents saying the Aerosol Rust
Remover used is in aerosol or nonaerosol
form (N=286 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 98.3%
No, product is nonaerosol 1.7%
Given the product is aerosol rust remover, one would expect
the respondents to say the product is in aerosol form and 98.3
of the respondents did say it was. Only 1.7% answered the
question specifying the product they used was in nonaerosol form
This is obviously respondent error in answering the question.
5-269
-------
Q7: What size of aerosol rust remover did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table S-13: Amount of Aerosol Rust Remover used in ounces
(N=266 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 18.21
Median ounces per year 8.00
Standard deviation 81.37
The mean ounces used per year for aerosol rust removers is
18.21 ounces and the median is 8.0 ounces.
Table S-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Aerosol Rust
Remover used in ounces (N=266 recent users)
Minimum
i 2-
.L'
5
10
5
edian
75
90
95
99
Maximum
Ounces
0.09
0.25
1.00
1.43
2.75
8.00
13.00
32.00
42.60
199.80
1280.00
The range between the minimum and maximum ounces used is
quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at 0.09 and
the maximum ounces per year at 1280.0. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 42.60 ounces or less per year. There is a
increase in ounces used at the 99th percentile (199.80 ounces)
and the 100th percentile (1280.0 ounces). This shows that a few
respondents used a much greater amount of the product.
5-270
-------
Q8:
Where did you use aerosol rust remover the last time
you used it?
Table S-15: Location of last use of the product (N=284
recent users
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
6.7%
0.7%
10.6%
1.4%
21.8%
53.2%
5.6%
Total
100.0%
Most of the respondents (53.2%) used the product outside.
A
total of 21.8% used it in the garage and
0.6
n an other inside
room.
5-271
-------
Table S-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Aerosol Rust Removers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 61.1% 38.9
(N=113 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=114 recent inside users)
13.2% 86.8
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 57.3% 42.7
(N=110 recent inside users)
I
4. Whether directions
on label were read 68.2% 31.8
(N-280 all recent users)
I
The majority of the aerosol rust remover users had read the
directions on the label (68.2%); had a door or window open to the
outside (61.1%); did not have an exhaust fan on during use
(86.8%) and had an inside door to the room open (57.3%).
Table S-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table S-17: Ounces per use of Aerosol Rust Remover
(N=265 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 9.24
Median # of ounces per use 2.17
Standard deviation 78.62
The mean ounces per use of the product is 9.24 and the
median is 2.17. Table S-18 which follows presents the percentile
rankings for this variable. Twenty-five percent of the
respondents use less than an ounce of the product per use whereas
99% of the respondents use 39.46 ounces or less per use. There
is a sharp increase at the 100th percentile to 1280.0 ounces per
use.
5-272
-------
Table S-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Aerosol Rust Removers (N=265 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90
95
99
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.03
0.07
0.24
0.45
0.92
2.17
5.50
12.00
14.70
39.46
1280.00
Table S-19: Respondent characteristics of Aerosol Rust
Removers users
1. Respondent age Mean = 46.07 years
(N=292 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male =74.1
(N=293 recent users) Female =25.9
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.03 members
(N=291 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean =2.92 bedrooms
(N=291 recent users)
Table S-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
aerosol rust removers. The mean age of these respondents is
46.07 years. The number of male respondents (74.1%) is nearly
three times the number of female respondents (25.9%). Except for
respondent gender, the other characteristics are similar to the
characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The total
sample has nearly an equal number of male and female respondents.
5-273
-------
ou
WA
W
CEMEN
5-275
-------
T.
Product 20:
Outdoor Water
Ql: Have you ever used an outdoor water repellent?
Table T-l: Numbers and % of respondents evar using
Outdoor Water Repellents
Numb e r s
Percent
Yes
No
Total
428
4489
4917*
8.7
91.3
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^^V^^^HV^^H^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table T-l shows that only 8.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used outdoor water repellents. This is a relatively low
percentage when compared to this incidence for other products.
02:
When was the last time you used outdoor water
repellents?
Table T-2: Last time Outdoor Water Repellent was used in
months (N=425 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
24.70
12.00
38.56
As Table T-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of outdoor water repellent is 24.70 months and the median is 12.0
months. The mean is approximately twice the size of the median.
This difference is on account of a few extreme responses to this
question.
5-277
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table T-3: Percentile rankings for Outdoor Water
Repellentsmonths since last use (N=425 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.23
10% 1.00
25% 4.00
Median 12.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 96.00
99% 224.40
Maximum 360.00
Table T-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 360
months (30 years). Ninety-five per cent of the users last used
the product 96.0 months (8 years) or less ago. The number of
months since last use increased sharply at the 99th percentile
(224.40 months). The number of months reported may be subject to
rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e 2 5
8 years rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are usable for'
indicating the approximate last use.
5-278
-------
Q3: How many times have you used outdoor water repellent
the last 12 month
Table T-4: Number of uses of Outdoor Water Repellent within
the last 12 months (N=241 recent users)
Mean # of uses 2.07
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 3.71
The mean number of times outdoor water repellents were used
in the last 12 months is 2.07 times and the median is 1.0 time.
Of the 32 products surveyed, this is the least number of times a
product has been used in the last year. Of the 241 responses to
this question, 60.2% used it once, 24.5% used it twice and 7.1
used it three times in the last year. As shown in Table T-5
which follows, 99% of the respondents used the product 12.0 times
or less in the last year. The maximum number of times the
product is used is 52.0.
Table T-5: Percentile rankings of times used Outdoor Water
Repellent within the last 12 months (N=241
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 2.00
90% 3.00
5.90
99% 12.00
Maximum 52.00
5-279
-------
04: How much time did you spend using outdoor wat
reellent the last time you used i
Table T-6: Time spent using the Outdoor Water Repellent
last time used (N=239 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 104.94
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 115.36
The mean and median number of minutes for using outdoor
water repellent are 104.94 and 60.0 minutes respectively.
Table T-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Outdoor Water Repellent last time used (N=239
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.05
5% 5.00
10% 15.00
25% 30.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 240.00
95% 300.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 960.00
The time spent using the outdoor water repellent ranges from
a minimum of 0.02 minutes to 960.0 minutes at the 100th
percentile. Fifty percent of the respondents used the product
for 60.0 minutes or less. At the 75th percentile through the
99th percentile, time spent is 120 minutes (2 hours) through 480
minutes (16 hours).
5-280
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used outdoor water
repellents?
Table T-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Outdoor
Water Repellents (N=241 recert users)
Mean # minutes in room 8.33
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 43.25
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 8.33 minutes and the median is 0.0 minutes. The median is
zero as 75% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after use of the product.
Table T-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Outdoor Water Repellents
including those who did not spend any time in
the room (N=241 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
58.50
309.60
420.00
Ninety percent of the respondents spent 5.0 minutes or less
in the room after using outdoor water repellents. Time spent
increased sharply at the 99th percentile to approximately 309
minutes (5 hours).
5-281
-------
Table T-10: Percentile rankings for Outdoor Water
Repellents for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent time
in the room (N=28 recent users who stayed in
room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1%
5% 1.45
10% 4.70
25% 10.00
Median 30.00
75% 60.00
90% 252.00
95% 393.00
99%
Maximum 420,00
Table T-10 is similar to Table T-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product
Of the 241 respondents who used the product in the last year only
28 did spend some time in the room after use. Since the number
spending time in the room is small it was not possible to
calculate the 1st and the 99th percentile which are therefore
left blank. The mean time now spent in the room is 71.70 minutes
and the median is 30.0. This differs considerably from the mean
and median in Table T-8 as respondents who did not spend any time
in the room have now been excluded.
5-282
-------
\
Q6A: Which brand of outdoor water repellent did you use the
last time you used it?
Table T-ll: Brand distribution for Outdoor Water Repellents
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 78 31.6
68 27.5
20 8.1
10 4.0
All other named brands
Total
71 28.8
247 100.0
Sixty-eight percent (68.4%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of outdoor water
repellent named were used by 27.5%, 8.1% and 4.0% of respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table T-12: Percent of respondents saying the Outdoor Water
Repellent used is in aerosol or nonaerosol
form (N=243 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 11.5%
No, product is nonaerosol 88.5%
The majority of respondents (88.5%) said the outdoor water
repellent they used was in nonaerosol form.
5-283
-------
Q7: What size of outdoor water repellent did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table T-13: Amount of Outdoor Water Repellent used in
ounces (N=234 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 148.71
Median ounces per year 64.00
Standard deviation 280.65
The mean ounces used per year for outdoor water repellents
is 148.71 ounces. Only two other products Latex Paint and Oil
Paint have more ounces used.
Table T-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Outdoor Water
Repellent used in ounces (N=234 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.37
3.63
8.00
16.00
64.00
128.00
448.00
640.00
979.20
3200.00
The range between the minimum and maximum ounces used is
quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at 0.01 and
the maximum ounces per year at 3200,0. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 640.0 ounces or less per year. The 99th
percentile is 979.20 ounces. This jumps to 3200.0 at the 100th
percentile.
5-284
-------
Q8: Where did you use outdoor water repellent the last
time you used it?
Table T-15: Location of last use of the product (N=242
recent users)
Basement 1.1%
Living room 2.1%
Other inside room 2.5%
Several inside rooms 0.8%
Garage
Outside
6.2%
83.9%
Garage & outside 2.8
Total 100.0%
As expected the majority of the respondents, approximately
83.9%, used the product outside. A total of 6.2% of the
respondents used the product in the garage. The remaining 7.1%
of the respondents used the product inside in a room other than
the garage.
5-285
-------
Table T-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Outdoor Water Repellents
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 72.7% 27.3%
(N=33 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=31 recent inside users)
6.5% 93.5
o
o
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=31 recent inside users)
64.5% 35.5
4. Whether directions
on label were read 81.1% 18.9%
(N=233 all recent users)
The majority of the outdoor water repellent users did have a
door or window open to the outside (72.7%); did not have an
exhaust fan on during use (93.5%); had the inside door to the
room opened (64.5%) and had read the directions on the label
(81.1%).
Table T-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table T-17: Ounces per use of Outdoor Water Repellent
(N=230 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 99.53
Median # of ounces per use 32.00
Standard deviation 158.70
The mean ounces per use of the product is 99.53 and the
median is 32.0. Table T-18 which follows presents the percentile
rankings for this variable. Twenty-five percent of the
respondents used 12.80 ounces or less. The ounces used range
from a minimum of 0.01 ounces to a maximum of 896.0 ounces at the
100th percentile. The 95th percentile is 512.0 ounces.
5-286
-------
Table T-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Outdoor Water Repellent (N=230 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.43
2.04
3.86
12.80
32.00
128.00
256.00
512.00
812.16
896.00
Table T-19: Respondent characteristics of Outdoor Water
Repellent users
1. Respondent age
(N-247 recent users)
Mean
43.89 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=247 recent users)
Male
Female
65.2%
34.8%
3. Number of household
members
(N=246 recent users)
Mean
3.13 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=247 recent users)
Mean
3.04 bedrooms
Table T-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
outdoor water repellents. The mean age of these respondents is
43.89 years
The number of male respondents (65.2%) is nearly
twice the number of female respondents (34.8%). Except for
respondent gender, the other characteristics are similar to the
characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The total
sample has nearly an equal number of male and female respondents
5-287
-------
ASS
w
AN
SN
W
5-289
-------
u.
Product 21: Glass Frostin
Window Tints and
Artificial Snow
Ql
Have you ever used glass frostings, window tints or
artificial snow?
Table U-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Glass
Frostings, Window Tints and Artificial Snow
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
511
4406
4917*
10.4
89.6
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table U-l shows that only 10.4% of the total respondents
have "ever" used glass frostings, window tints and artificial
snow.
Q2:
When was the last time you used a glass frosting,
window tint or artificial snow?
Table U-2: Last time Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow was used in months (N=506
users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
34.20
8.00
55.23
As Table U-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of the products is 34.20 months. Other than spray shoe polish
which was last used 42.10 months ago, this product has the
longest period of time since last use. The median number of
months is 8.0 and this adjusts for any extreme values given as
answers to this question.
5-291
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table U-3: Percentile rankings for Glass Frostings, Window
Tints and Artificial Snowmonths since last
use (N=506 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.07
5% 3.35
10% 5.00
25% 6.00
Median 8.00
75% 36.00
90% 108.00
95% 151.80
99% 240.00
Maximum 360.00
Table U-3 shows that the minimum time since last use is 0.03
months and the maximum is 360 months (30 years).
5-292
-------
Q3: How many times have you used glass frostings, window
tints or artificial snow in the last 12 months?
Table U-4: Number of uses of a Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow within the last 12 months
(N=279 recent users)
Mean # of uses 2.78
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 21.96
The mean number of times the product was used in the last
year is 2.78 times. Of the 279 respondents who used the product
in the last year, the majority (90%) used it once, 5.4% used it
twice and only 1.1% used it three times. Table U-5 which follows
presents the percentile rankings for this variable. Ninety-five
percent of the respondents used the product 2 times or less in
the last year. The number of times the product is used increased
sharply to 365.0 times at 100th percentile.
Table U-5: Percentile rankings of times used Glass
Frostings, Window Tints and Artificial Snow
within the last 12 months (N=279 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 1.00
90% 2.00
2.00
99% 27.20
Maximum 365.00
5-293
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using glass frosting,
window tint or artificial snow the last time you used
it?
Table U-6: Time spent using Glass Frostings, Window Tints
and Artificial Snow last time used (N=275 recent
users)
Mean # of minutes 29.45
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 48.16
The mean and median number of minutes for using the product
is 29.45 and 15.0 minutes respectively. The mean is
approximately twice the median. This difference is because of
some extreme responses to the question.
Table U-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial Snow last
time used (N=275 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.14
5% 2.00
10% 3.00
25% 5.00
Median 15.00
75% 30.00
90% 60.00
95% 96.00
99% 268.80
Maximum 360.00
The minimum time spent using glass frostings, window tints
and artificial snow is 0.03 minutes and the maximum time spent is
360 minutes (6 hours). Ninety percent of the respondents spent
one hour or less. Time spent increased substantially at the 99th
and 100th percentile to 268.8 minutes (4.48 hours) and 360.0
minutes (6.0 hours).
5-294
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used glass frostings,
window tints or artificial snow?
Table U-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Glass
Frostings, Window Tints and Artificial Snow
(N=269 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 137.87
Median # minutes in room 60.00
Standard deviation 243.21
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 137.87 minutes which is the longest period of time spent in
the room after use when compared to this incidence for any of the
other 32 products surveyed. The median is 60.0 minutes. There
is a big difference between the mean and median because of some
extreme responses. Table U-9 which follows presents the
percentile rankings for this variable. It shows that 10% of the
respondents did not spend any time in the room after using the
product. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent 8.0 hours
or less in the room. The time spent in the room after use
increased sharply at the 99th and 100th percentile to 1440
minutes (24.0 hours) and 1800 minutes (30.0 hours).
Table U-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use of Glass Frostings, Window Tints and
Artificial Snow including those who did not
spend any time in room (N=269 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
480.00
1440.00
1800.00
5-295
-------
Table U-10: Percentile rankings for Glass Frosting, Window
Tint and Artificial Snow for time spent in the
room after last use including only those who
spent time in the room (N=216 recent users who
stayed in room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 2.00
10% 5.00
25% 22.50
Median 90.00
75% 240.00
90% 480.00
95% 591.50
99% 1440.00
Maximum 1800.00
Table U-10 is similar to Table U-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room. A total of 80.3% of the
respondents who used the product in the last year, did spend some
time in the room after use. The mean time spent in the room has
increased to 171.70 minutes compared to 137.87 minutes in Table
U-8 as respondents spending no time in room after use have been
excluded. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent
approximately 10.0 hours or less in the room after using the
product. The maximum time spent in the room was 1800 minutes (30
hours).
5-296
-------
Q6A: Which brand of glass frosting, window tint or
artificial snow did you use the last time you used it?
Table U-ll: Brand distribution for Glass Frostings, Window
Tints and Artificial Snows
rand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 187 66.1
25 8.8
16 5.7
8 2.8
All other named brands
Total
47 16.6
283 100.0
Thirty-four percent (33.9%) of the respondents specified a
brand of glass frosting, window tint or artificial snow that th
had used. The top three brands named were used by 8.8%, 5.7% and
2.8% of the respondents, respectively
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table U-12: Percent of respondents saying Glass Frosting,
Window Tint and Artificial Snow is in aerosol
or nonaerosol form (N=276 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 90.2%
No, product is nonaerosol 9.8
Table U-12 shows that the majority of the respondents
(90.2%) used an aerosol form of the product.
5-297
-------
Q7: What size of glass fresting, window tint or artificial
snow did you use the last time you used it? How much
of a can or how many cans did you use during the past
year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table U-13: Amount of Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow used in ounces (N=259 recent
users)
Mean ounces per year 13.82
Median ounces per year 12.00
Standard deviation 14.91
The mean ounces used per year of glass frosting, window tint
and artificial snow is 13.82 ounces and the median is 12.0
ounces.
Table U-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial Snow used
in ounces (N=259 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
1.00
1.40
2.38
3.25
6.00
12.00
14.00
28.00
33.00
98.40
120.00
The ounces used per year range from a minimum of 1.0 ounce
to a maximum of 120.0 ounces at the 100th percentile. Twenty-
five percent of the respondents used 6.0 ounces or less of the
product whereas 95% of the respondents used 33.0 ounces or less
of the product per year.
5-298
-------
Q8: Where did you use glass frosting, window tint or
artificial snow the last time you used it?
Table U-15: Location of last use of the product (N=275
recent users)
Basement
1.0%
Living room 58.2%
Other inside room 13.5%
Several inside rooms 12.7%
Garage
Outside
1.5%
12.0%
Garage & outside 1.1%
Total 100.0%
As Table U-15 shows, most respondents (58.2%) used glass
frosting, window tint or artificial snow in the living room.
13.5% used the product in an "other inside room". Approximately
an equal number used the product in "several inside rooms"
(12.7%) and outside (12.0%).
5-299
-------
Table U-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow
Yes
No
1.
Door or window
open to the outside
(N=238 recent inside users)
24.4%
75.6
s-
2.
Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=238 recent inside users)
10.5%
89.5%
3.
Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=237 recent inside users)
71.7%
28.3%
4.
Whether directions
on label were read
(N=273 all recent users)
88871.1%
28.9%
Most of the respondents had read the directions on the label
(71.1%) and had an inside door to the room open (71.7%).
Only
24.4% had a door or window open to the outside and 10.5% had an
exhaust fan on during use of the product.
Table U-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question
(ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table U-17: Ounces per use of Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow
Mean # of ounces per use
Median # of ounces per use
Standard deviation
12.51
9.00
14.01
T
ounce
d
use of
a sow is 12.5
U-18
ol
d
use. Ninet-
d th e
the
ercent of t
s 90 ounces
ercenti
ounces or
f the roduct
ercentile are 86.9
2
onden
tint a
Table
ounce
se 2.
er use
ounces
9t
0t
ectivel
5-300
-------
Table U-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial Snow
(N=258 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.23
0.49
1.68
3.00
6.00
9.00
13.00
26.00
32.00
86.96
120.00
Table U-19 present
pondent characterist
frost
these
is
36
window
pondent
nd the
tint
is
umbe
the res
d artificial snow users.
Th
mean
f gl
ag
f
7
f bed
ars; th
mb
f household memb
4
pondents are female (62.4%
c
pared t
A great
the
n
responde
characterist
37.6
Th
f gl
statist
frosting
f
th
d
tint
umbe
pond
nd a
b
f
f th
1
* .£? * * T
snow users are approximately the same as th
haracterist
f
th
ag
th
total s
Pi
f respondents except in the cases
f
pondent
a
an
g
pondent gend
e is 44.30 y
F
a
th
th
total sam
percentag
l
f respondent
f mal
d femal
respondents is 47.0%
d 53.0% respectively
Table U-19: Respondent characteristics of Glass Frosting,
Window Tint and Artificial Snow users
1. Respondent age
(N=278 recent users)
Mean
37.87 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=282 recent users)
Male
Female
37.6%
62.4%
3. Number of household
members
(N=279 recent users)
Mean
3.36 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=282 recent users)
Mean
2.94 bedrooms
5-301
-------
IN
5-303
-------
V.
Product 22:
Enaj
reasers
Ql:
Have you ever used engine degreasers?
Table V-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Engine Degreasers
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
847
4069
4916*
17.2
82.8
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^imjim^^m-imijijm.^m.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m^^-i^m^^^m^.^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^^-ij^^imM^m- _ ^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-i_ -. . . . _ . _ - __^_^_- ^_^_ ^^^^^^^^^^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^
^r^^r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^f^^^fm^ffrr^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^f^^^^^^^^^^^^^^f^^^^^^^f^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table V-l shows that 17.2% of the total respondents have
ever" used engine degreasers.
Q2:
When was the last time you used engine degreasers?
Table V-2: Last time Engine Degreasers were used in months
(N=846 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
16.60
6.00
29.80
A
f eng
Tabl
V-2
h
deg
ws, the
is 16.60
mean
b
f months since last use
th
Th
is
bout an
period of time since last use
products. The median number
h
f
CO
th
pared to th
is 6.0.
th
9
5-305
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table V-3: Percentile rankings for Engine Degreasers
months since last use (N=846 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.16
10% 0.23
25% 1.00
Median 6.00
75% 18.00
90% 48.00
95% 72.00
99% 180.00
Maximum 240.00
Table V-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product eighteen months ago through 240 months (20
years) ago and appears to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 5, 10, 15 years
rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-306
-------
Q3: How many times have you used engine degreasers in the
last 12 months?
Table V-4: Number of uses of the Engine Degreasers within
the last 12 months (N=582 recent users)
Mean # of uses 4.18
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 13.72
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product, is 4.18 and the median 2.0. A
total of 75.1% of these users used engine degreasers three times
or less in the last twelve months with 40.5% using it once; 25.8
using it twice; and 8.8% using it three times.
Table V-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Engine
Degreasers within the last 12 months (N=582
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 3.25
90% 6.70
95% 12.00
99% 41.70
Maximum 300.00
5-307
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using engine degreasers the
last time you used it?
Table V-6: Time spent using Engine Degreasers the last time
used (N=578 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 29.29
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 48.14
The mean number of minutes for using engine degreasers is
29.29 and the median is 15.0.
Table V-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Engine Degreasers last time used (N=578 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.95
5% 2.00
10% 5.00
25% 10.00
Median 15.00
75% 30.00
90% 60.00
95% 120.00
99% 180.00
Maximum 900.00
The minimum percentile is .02 minutes and the maximum is 900
minutes (15 hours).
5-308
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used engine degreasers?
Table V-8: Time spent in the room after ase of Engine
Degreasers (N=577 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 4.52
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 24.39
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
4.52 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes. This is
one of the lowest times spent in the room of all the products and
probably reflects the large majority of users using the product
outside.
Table V-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use including those who did not spend any
time in room but used Engine Degreasers (N=577
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.50
120.00
360.00
Respondents at the 90th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using engine degreasers.
5-309
-------
Table V-10: Percentile rankings for Engine Degreasers for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room
(N=41 recent users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 2.00
1% 2.00
5% 5.00
10% 5.00
25% 12.50
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 120.00
95% 180.00
99%
Maximum 360.00
Table V-10 is similar to Table V-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-310
-------
Q6A: Which brand of engine degreasers did you use the last
time you used it?
Table V-ll: Brand distribution for Engine Degreasers
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 94 16.0
292 49.7
46 7.8
37 6.3
All other named brands
Total
119 20.2
588 100.0
Eighty-four percent (84.0%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of engine degreasers
were used by 49.7%, 7.8% and 6.3% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table V-12: Percent of respondents saying Engine Degreasers
are aerosol (N-577 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 78.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 21.1%
Almost seventy-nine percent of the respondents said the
engine degreaser was aerosol.
5-311
-------
Q7: What size of engine degreasers did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table V-13: Amount of Engine Degreasers used per year in
ounces (N=555 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 46.95
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 135.17
The mean ounces per year is 46.95 and the median is 16.0.
Table V-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Engine
Degreasers used in ounces (N=555 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.04
1%
5%
1.56
4.00
10% 6.00
25% 12.00
Median 16.00
75% 36.00
90% 80.00
95% 160.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 2560.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
V-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .04
and the maximum ounces per year at 2560.0. There is quite a
difference between percentile points with the 75th percentile at
36.0 ounces per year and the 100th percentile at 2560.0.
5-312
-------
Q8: Where did you use engine degreasers the last time you
used them?
Table V-15: Location of last use of the product (N=577
recent users)
Basement
0.2%
Living room 0.0%
Other inside room 1.2%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage
Outside
7.8%
89.4%
Garage & outside 1.4%
Total 100.0%
Most people (89.4%) used engine degreasers outside as might
be expected given the fact that they are working on their car.
Of the remainder, 7.8% used it in their garage; 1.4% used it in
both the garage and open air; 1.2% said that they used it in an
other inside room; and .2% said they used it in their basement.
5-313
-------
Table V-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Engine Degreasers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 80.0% 20.0%
(N=50 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=49 recent inside users)
12.2% 87.8%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=47 recent inside users)
63.8% 36.2%
4. Whether directions
on label were read 77.6% 22.4%
(N=563 all recent users)
The majority of users of engine degreasers did have a d
or window open to the outside (80.0%) especially since most
ked on the outside; did not have an exhaust fan on durina use
.8%); had the inside door to the room opened (63.8%); and had
d the directions on the label (77.6%).
Table V-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table V-17: Ounces per use of Engine Degreasers (N=554
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 18.72
Median # of ounces per use 11.60
Standard deviation 59.00
Table V-17 indicates that the mean is 18.72 and the median
is 11.60 ounces per use.
5-314
-------
Table V-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Engine Degreasers (N=554 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
0.24
1.78
2.91
6.00
11.60
16.00
32.00
48.00
128.00
1024.00
The range of percentile rankings goes from a minimum of .02
to a maximum of 1024.0 ounces per use.
Table V-19: Respondent characteristics of Engine Degreasers
users
1. Respondent age
(N=587 recent users)
Mean
38.70 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=588 recent users)
Male
Female
90.5%
9.5%
3. Number of household
members
(N=587 recent users)
Mean
3.20 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=587 recent users)
Mean
2.90 bedrooms
f en
ble V-19
ne derea
resondent characteris
mea
ars 90.5% of t
ondents ar
f t
house
2.90.
hol
T
t
a
embe
user
is 3.20;
eneral
pro
mle
th
mea
; t
numb
a hih
resp
mea
den
f users
is 38.7
d t
of bedro
percenta
users are slihtl
5-315
-------
CA
ANE
5-317
-------
W. Product 23: Carburetor Cleaner
Ql: Have you ever used carburetor cleaners?
Table W-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Carburetor Cleaners
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
1075 21.9
3842 78.1
4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table W-l shows that 21.9% of the total respondents have
"ever" used carburetor cleaners. This is an average incidence
when compared to the incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used carburetor cleaners?
Table W-2: Last time Carburetor Cleaners were used in
months (N=1071 users)
Mean # of months 13.00
Median # of months 4.00
Standard deviation 27.00
As Table W-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of carburetor cleaners is 13.0 months. The median number of
months is 4.0.
5-319
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table W-3: Percentile rankings for Carburetor Cleaners
months since last use (N=1071 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.10
10% 0.23
25% 1.00
Median 4.00
75% 12.00
90% 36.00
95% 60.00
99% 171.36
Maximum 240.00
Table W-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 1 year ago through 240 months (20 years) ago.
5-320
-------
Q3: How many times have you used carburetor cleaners in the
last 12 months?
Table W-4: Number of uses of Carburetor Cleaners within the
last 12 months (N=803 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.77
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 7.10
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months is 3.77 and the median 2.0. Seventy-six percent (76.1%)
of these users used carburetor cleaners three times or less in
the last twelve months with 36.0% using it once; 27,8% using it
twice; and 12.3% using it three times.
Table W-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses
of Carburetor Cleaners within the last 12 months
(N=803 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 3.00
9
6.00
95% 12.00
99% 47.28
Maximum 100.00
5-321
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using carburetor cleaners
the last time you used it?
Table W-6: Time spent using Carburetor Cleaners the last
time used (N=800 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 13.57
Median # of minutes 7.00
Standard deviation 23.00
The mean number of minutes for using carburetor cleaners is
13.57 and the median is 7.0.
Table W-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Carburetor Cleaners last time used (N=800 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.08
5% 0.33
10% 1.00
25% 3.00
Median 7.00
75% 15.00
90% 30.00
95% 45.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 300.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 300.0
t
5-322
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used carburetor cleaners?
Table W-8: Time spent in the room after use of Carburetor
Cleaners (N-798 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 7.51
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 68.50
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 7.51 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes. These
averages are influenced by the large number of users that used
the product outside and, therefore, did not spend any time in the
room.
Table W-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Carburetor Cleaners
(N=798 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
30.00
120.60
1800.00
Respondents at the 75th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using carburetor cleaners, again due to
the large number of users who used it outside.
5-323
-------
Table W-10:
Percentile rankings for Carburetor Cleaners for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=79
recent users who stayed in room afterwards)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
10.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
240.00
1800.00
Table W-10 is similar to Table w-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
^r ^^^r
5-324
-------
Q6A: Which brand of carburetor cleaners did you use the last
time you used it?
Table W-ll: Brand distribution for Carburetor Cleaners
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 225 27.7
158 19.5
151 18.6
64 7.9
All other named brands
Total
214 26.3
812 100.0
^Seventy-two percent (72.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of carburetor cleaners
were used by 19.5%, 18.6%, and 7.9% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table W-12: Percent of respondents saying Carburetor
Cleaners are aerosol (N=797 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 84.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 15.1%
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in 84.9% of
the cases.
5-325
-------
Q7: What size of carburetor cleaners did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table W-13: Amount of Carburetor Cleaners used per year in
ounces (N=769 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 22.00
Median ounces per year 12.00
Standard deviation 50.60
The mean ounces used per year for carburetor cleaners is
22.0 which is about average compared to the other products. The
median is 12.0.
Table W-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Carburetor
Cleaners used in ounces (N=769 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.10
1% 0.50
5% 1.50
10% 3.00
25% 5.22
Median 12.00
75% 16.00
90% 39.00
95% 75.00
99% 212.00
Maximum 672.00
The minimum ounces per year is 22.0 and maximum value is
672.0 ounces.
5-326
-------
Q8:
Where did you use carburetor cleaners the last time you
used them?
Table W-15:
Location of last use of the product (N=797
recent users)
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
0.1%
0.1%
1.0%
0.0%
10.3%
86.4%
2.0%
Total
100.0%
Most people (86.4%) used carburetor cleaners outside. Of the
remainder, 10.3% used it in their garage; 2.0% used it in both
the garage and outside; 1.0% used it in other inside
used it in the basement; and 0.1% used it in the living room.
rooms;
0.1*
5-327
-------
Table W-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Carburetor Cleaners
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 73.9% 26.1%
(N=88 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=87 recent inside users)
6.9% 93.1
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=84 recent inside users)
51.2% 48.8
4. Whether directions
on label were read 51.2% 48.8%
(N=780 all recent users)
The majority of users of carburetor cleaners did have a door
or window open to the outside (73.9%); did not have an exhaust
fan on during use (93.1%); had the inside door to the room opened
(51.2%); and had read the directions on the label (51.2%).
Table W-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table W-17: Ounces per use of Carburetor Cleaners (N=766
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 7.59
Median # of ounces per use 5.00
Standard deviation 9.40
Table W-17 indicates that the mean is 7.59 ounces per use
and the median is 5.0.
5-328
-------
Table W-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Carburetor Cleaners (N=766 recent users)
Minimum
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
99
Max
Ounces/Use
0.03
0.15
0.70
1.25
2.41
5.00
9.75
16.00
19.30
48.66
128.00
Table W-19: Respondent characteristics of Carburetor
Cleaner users
1. Respondent age Mean = 39.70 years
(N=811 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 87.5%
(N=811 recent users) Female =12.5
3. Number of household
members
(N=811 recent users)
Mean = 3.30 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 2.90 bedrooms
(N=810 recent users)
Table W-19 presents the respondent characteristics of users
of carburetor cleaners. The mean age of these respondents is
39.70 years; 87.5% of the respondents are male; the mean number
of household members is 3.30; and the mean number of bedrooms is
2.90. The users of carburetor cleaners are more often male and
slightly younger than the sample at large.
5-329
-------
A
CA
5-331
-------
X.
Product
Paint for Cars
Ql: Have you ever used an auto spray paint?
Table X-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Auto
Spray Paints
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
595
4321
4916*
12.1
87.9
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^((^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l^^^^^^^Hi^^^^^^^^^^^^HIMMH^H^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Ml^^^^^^^^^^^HIp
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table X-l shows that 12.1% of the total respondents have
"ever" used Auto Spray Paints.
Q2:
When was the last time you used Auto Spray Paints?
Table X-2: Last time Auto Spray Paint was used in months
(N=596 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
20.90
8.00
33.41
of a
The
diff
ques
As Table X-2 s
uto spray paint
mean is more th
hows, the mean
f m
ths since last use
on
20.90 mo
twice the
nt of a f
ths
size
d th
f th
d
d
8
h
th
t
t
h
d
djust
f
th
t
P
t
th
resp
5-333
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table X-3: Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Paints the
months ago last used (N=596 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.16
10% 0.23
25% 2.00
Median 8.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 96.00
99% 180.00
Maximum 240.00
Table X-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 240.0
months. Twenty-five percent of the respondents used the product
2 months or less ago and 95% of the users used the product last 8
years or less ago. The number of months reported may be subject
to rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 2,
8, 20 years rather than 8 years 3 months). The data is usable
for indicating the approximate last use.
5-334
-------
Q3: How many times have you used auto spray paints in the
last 12 months?
Table X-4: Number of uses of the Auto Spray Paint within
the last 12 months (N=367 recent users)
Mean # of uses 4.50
Median # of times 2.00
Standard deviation 9.71
The mean number of uses of Auto Spray Paints in the last 12
months is 4.50 times and the median is 2.0 times. Of the 367
respondents who used the product in the last year, 37.9% used it
once, 22.6% used it twice and 11.4% used it three times. As
shown in Table X-5 which follows, 95% of the respondents used the
product 15 times or less in the last year. The maximum number of
uses is 100.0.
Table X-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Auto
Spray Paints within the last 12 months (N=367
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 4.00
90% 10.00
95% 15.00
99% 60.00
Maximum 100.00
^^^^
5-335
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using Auto Spray Paint the
last time you used it?
Table X-6: Time spent using the Auto Spray Paint last time
used (N==362 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 42.77
Median # of minutes 20.00
Standard deviation 71.39
The mean and median number of minutes for using auto spray
paints are 42.77 and 20.0 minutes respectively.
Table X-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Auto Spray Paint last time used (N=362 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.19
5% 1.00
10% 3.00
25% 10.00
Median 20.00
75% 60.00
90% 120.00
95% 145.50
99% 360.00
Maximum 900.00
The time spent using the auto spray paint ranges from a
minimum of 0.03 minutes to 900.0 minutes (15 hours) at the 100th
percentile. Seventy-five percent of the respondents spent one
hour or less using the product. A few respondents spent a much
greater time using the product. This is reflected in the 99th
and 100th percentile which are 360 minutes (6 hours) and 900.0
(15 hours).
5-336
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used auto spray paints?
Table X-8: Time spent in the room after use of Auto Spray
Paints (N=364 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 10.71
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 45.53
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 10.71 minutes and the median is 0.0 minutes. The median is
zero as 75% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after using the product.
Table X-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Auto Spray Paints including
those who did not spend any time in the room
(N-364 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.50
60.00
282.00
480.00
Seventy-five percent of the respondents did not spend any
time in the room after using the product. This is because most
respondents used the product outside as it's a spray paint for
cars. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent 1 hour or
less in the room after using auto spray paints. Time spent
increased sharply at the 100th percentile to 480 minutes (8
hours).
5-337
-------
Table X-10: Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Paints for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=57
recent users who stayed in room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1%
5% 1.90
10% 4.60
25% 7.50
Median 35.00
75% 60.00
90% 192.00
95% 360.00
99%
Maximum 480.00
Table X-10 is similar to Table X-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product.
The mean time spent in the room is 68.40 minutes. Fifty percent
of the respondents spent 35.0 minutes or less in the room. The
maximum time spent in the room after using the product is 480
minutes (8 hours). Only 57 respondents stayed in the room after
using auto spray paints. Since this number is less than a 100,
the 1st and 99th percentiles have not been determined.
5-338
-------
Q6A: Which brand of auto spray paint did you use the last
time you used it?
Table X-ll: Brand distribution for Auto Spray Paints
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 168 45.2
34 9.1
33 8.9
12 3.2
All other named brands
Total
125 33.6
372 100.0
Fifty-five percent (54.8%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of auto spray paint
named were used by 9.1%, 8.9% and 3.2% of respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table X-12: Percent of respondents saying the Auto Spray
Paint used is in aerosol or nonaerosol form
(N=364 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 99.5%
No, product is nonaerosol 0.5%
Given the product is auto spray paint, one would expect the
respondents to say the product is in aerosol form and 99.5% of
the respondents did say it was. Only 0.5% answered the question
specifying the product they used was in nonaerosol form. This
could be attributed to respondent error in answering the
question.
5-339
-------
Q7: What size of auto spray paint did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table X-13: Amount of Auto Spray Paint used in ounces
(N-347 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 44.95
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 89.78
The mean ounces used per year for auto spray paints is 44.95
ounces and the median is 16.0 ounces. The mean is over two times
the size of the median showing that there are some extreme
responses to this question.
Table X-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Auto Spray
Paints used in ounces (N=347 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.04
0.14
1.50
3.00
6.12
16.00
48.00
100.80
156.00
557.76
900.00
The minimum amount of auto spray paint used is 0.04 ounces
and the maximum is 900.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used 156.0 ounces or less per year. There is an
increase in ounces used at the 99th (557.76 ounces) to the 100th
percentile (900.0 ounces).
5-340
-------
Q8: Where did you use auto spray paint the last time you
used it?
Table X-15: Location of last use of the product (N=363
recent users)
Basement
0.6%
Living Room 0.0%
Other inside room 1.1%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage
Outside
18.7%
77.7%
Garage & outside 1.9%
Total 100.0%
Most of the respondents 77.7% used the product outside. A
total of 18.7% used it in the garage. The remaining 1.7% used it
either in the basement or an other inside room.
5-341
-------
Table X-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Auto Spray Paints
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 70.4% 29.6
(N=71 recent inside users)
°&
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=71 recent inside users)
19.7% 80.3%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=68 recent inside users)
47.1% 52.9
4. Whether directions
on label were read 72.0% 28.0
(N=357 all recent users
o
o
The majority of the respondents had read the directions on
the label (72.0%); had a door or window open to the outside
(70.4%) and did not have an exhaust fan on (80.3%). A total of
47.1% had the inside door to the room open while using the
product.
Table X-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table X-17: Ounces per use of Auto Spray Paint (N=347
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 13.76
Median # of ounces per use 8.00
Standard deviation 19,31
The mean ounces per use of the product is 13.76 ounces and
the median is 8.0. Table X-18 which follows presents the
percentile rankings for this variable. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 48.0 ounces or less of the product per use.
There is a sharp increase at the 100th percentile to 192.0 ounces
per use.
5-342
-------
Table X-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Auto
Spray Paints (N=3347 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.04
0.08
0.77
1.50
3.90
8.00
16.00
32.00
48.00
103.23
192.00
Table X-19 presents the respondent characteristics of auto
spray paints. The mean age of these respondents is 39.48 years.
The majority of the respondents are male (88.4%) compared to the
female respondents (11.6%). Except for respondent age and
gender, the other characteristics are approximately similar to
the characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The
total sample has a respondent age of 44.30 years and nearly an
equal number of male and female respondents.
Table X-19: Respondent characteristics of Auto Spray Paint
users
1. Respondent age
(N=371 recent users)
Mean
39.48 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=370 recent users)
Male
Female
88.4%
11.6
3. Number of household
members
(N=371 recent users)
Mean
3.20 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=371 recent users)
Mean
3.00 bedrooms
5-343
-------
AU
A
5-345
-------
Y.
Product 25:
Auto
Primers
Ql: Have you ever used auto spray primers
Table Y-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Auto
Spray Primers
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
452
4465
4917*
9.2
90.8
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table Y-l shows that only 9.2% of the total respondents have
"ever11 used auto spray primers.
02:
When was the last time you used auto spray primers
Table Y-2: Last time Auto Spray Primer was used in months
(N=453 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
24.00
11.00
40.91
ago
On the average auto spray primers were last used 24.0 months
The median number of months is a little less than half the
mean at 11.0 months and adjusts for any extreme values given as
answers to this question.
5-347
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are sh
bel
Table Y-3: Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Primers
months since last use (N=453 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.16
10% 0.40
25% 3.00
Median 11.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 120.00
99% 185.52
Maximum 420.00
Table Y-3 shows that time since the product was last used
ranges from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 420 months
(35 years) at the 100th percentile. Twenty-five percent of the
respondents last used the product 3 months or less ago whereas
95% of the respondents last used the product 120 months (10
years) or less ago. The months since last use may be subject to
rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 2, 10,
35 years rather than 10 years 3 months). The data are usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-348
-------
Q3: How many times have you used auto spray primers in the
last 12 months?
Table Y-4: Number of uses of Auto Spray Primers within the
last 12 months (N=260 recent users)
Mean # of uses 6.42
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 33.89
The mean number of times auto spray primers were used in the
last year is 6.42 uses and the median is 2.0 uses. Of the 260
respondents who used the product in the last year, 44.6% used it
once, 21.9% used it twice and 8.5% used it three times. Table
Y-5 which follows presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. The times the product was used range from a minimum of
1 time to a maximum of 500.0 times. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used the product 15 times or less in the last year.
The times the product was used in the last year increased
substantially at the 99th and 100th percentile to 139.0 and 500.0
times respectively.
Table Y-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Auto
Spray Primers within the last 12 months (N=260
recent users)
Times
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 3.75
90% 10.00
95% 15.00
99% 139.00
Maximum 500.00
5-349
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using the auto spray primer
the last time you used it?
Table Y-6: Time spent using the Auto Spray Primer last
time used (N=258 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 51.45
Median # of minutes 27.50
Standard deviation 86.11
The mean and median number of minutes for using auto spray
primers are 51.45 and 27.50 minutes respectively.
Table Y-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Auto Spray Primer last time used (N=258 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.05
1% 0.22
5% 2.00
10% 5.00
25% 10.00
Median 27.50
75% 60.00
90% 120.00
95% 180.00
99% 529.20
Maximum 600.00
The time spent using auto spray primers ranges from 0.05
minutes to 10.0 hours at the 100th percentile. Twenty-five
percent of the respondents used the product for 10.0 minutes or
less; 50% used it for 27.50 minutes or less and 95% used it for 3
hours or less. A few respondents used the product for a much
longer period of time. This is reflected in the sharp increase
at the 99th percentile where the product is used for
approximately 9 hours and the 100th percentile where it is used
for 600 minutes (10 hours).
5-350
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used auto spray primers?
Table Y-8: Time spent in the room after use of Auto Spray
Primers (N=258 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 11.37
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 45.08
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 11.37 minutes. The median is 0,0 as 75% of the respondents
did not spend any time in the room after using the product.
Table Y-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Auto Spray Primers including
those who did not spend any time in the room
(N=258 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
77.25
360.00
360.00
Respondents at the 90th percentile through the 100th
percentile did spend some time in the room after using the
product. The maximum time spent in the room after using the
product is 360 minutes (6 hours).
5-351
-------
Table Y-10: Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Primers for
time spent in the room after use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=44 recent
users who stayed in the room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 1*00
1%
5% 1,00
10% 2.50
25% 5.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 120.00
95% 360.00
99%
Maximum 360.00
Table Y-10 is similar to Table Y-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room. For the 44 respondents
who stayed in the room after using the product, the mean time
spent in the room after use is 66.70 minutes and the median is
30.0 minutes. Time spent in the room after using the product
cannot be ascertained at the 1st and 99th percentile as the
number of respondents in the room is less than a 100.
5-352
-------
Q6A: Which brand of auto spray primer did you use the last
time you used it?
Table Y-ll: Brand distribution for Auto Spray Primers
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 111 42.0
29 ll.o
21 8.0
12 4.5
All other named brands
Total
91 34.5
264 100.0
Fifty-eight percent of the users of the product specified a
brand. The top three brands of auto spray primer named were used
by 11.0%, 8.0% and 4.5% of the respondents, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table Y-12: Percent of respondents saying Auto Spray Primer
is in aerosol or nonaerosol form (N=258 recent
users)
Yes, product is aerosol 98.8
No, product is nonaerosol 1.2%
The majority of the respondents (98.8%) said the product was
in aerosol form. Given the primer is in spray form none of the
respondents should have said the product is nonaerosol. The 1.2
in Table Y-12 can be attributed to respondent error.
5-353
-------
Q7: What size of auto spray primer did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table Y-13: Amount of Auto Spray Primer used in ounces
(N=247 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 70.37
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 274.56
The average amount of auto spray primer used per year is
70.37 ounces and the median is 16.0 ounces. There is a large
difference between the mean and median as a few respondents used
a much greater quantity of the product.
Table Y-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Auto Spray
Primers used in ounces (N=247 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.12
0.77
3.00
4.00
9.00
16.00
48.00
128.00
222.00
1167.36
3840.00
The minimum amount of product used is 0.12 ounces and the
maximum is 3840.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of the respondents
used 222.0 ounces or less of the product in the last year. The
amount used increased sharply at the 99th and 100th percentile to
1167.36 and 3840.0 ounces respectively showing a few respondents
used a much greater quantity of the product.
5-354
-------
Q8:
Where did you use auto spray primers the last time you
used it?
Table Y-15: Location of last use of the product (N-256
recent users)
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
Total
0.7%
0.8%
20.7%
75.8%
2.0%
100.0%
The majority of the respondents (75.8%) used the product
outside. A total of 20.7% of the respondents used the product in
the garage.
5-355
-------
Table Y-16: Protective measures undertaken while using Auto
Spray Primers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 71.4% 28.6
(N=56 recent inside users)
I
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=56 recent inside users)
30.4% 69.6
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 46.3% 53.7
(N=54 recent inside users)
I
4. Whether directions
on label were read 69.0% 31.0
(N=252 all recent users)
Sixty-nine percent of the respondents had read the label.
The majority of the respondents had a door or window open to th
outside (71.4%) and had an exhaust fan off (69.6%) while using
the product. A total of 46.3% had an inside door to the room
open.
Table Y-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table Y-17: Ounces per use of Auto Spray Primers
(N=247 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 20.54
Median # of ounces per use 12.00
Standard deviation 43.72
The average amount of auto spray primer used per use of the
product is 20.54 ounces and the median is 12.0 ounces. Table
Y-18 which follows presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. The ounces used per use of the product range from a
minimum of 0.04 ounces to a maximum of 512.0 ounces at the 100th
percentile. Ninety-five percent of the respondents used 64.0
ounces or less of the product per use.
5-356
-------
Table Y-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Auto
Spray Primers (N=247 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.04
0.28
1.50
2.00
4.02
12.00
18.00
38.72
64.00
241.92
512.00
Table Y-19 presents the respondent characteristics of auto
spray primer users. The mean age of these respondents is 37.76
years. The majority of the respondents are male (87.8%). The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of auto spra
primer users is approximately the same as those for the total
sample of respondents with the exception of respondent age and
gender. The average age for the total sample of respondents is
44.30 years and the number of male and female respondents is
47.0% and 53.0% respectively.
Table Y-19: Respondent characteristics of Auto Spray Primer
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 37.76 years
(N=263 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 87.8%
Female =12.2
(N=262 recent users)
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.45 members
(N=263 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
(N=263 recent users)
5-357
-------
CANT
5-359
-------
z.
Product
26:
Lubricants for Cars
Ql: Have you ever used spray lubricants?
Table z-1: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Spray
Lubricants
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
885
4032
4917*
18
82
100
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table Z-1 shows that 18% of the total respondents have
"ever" used spray lubricants.
Q2:
When was the last time you used spray lubricants?
Table Z-2: Last time Spray Lubricant was used in months
(N=880 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
6.30
2.00
17.31
As Table Z-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of spray lubricant is 6.30 months and the median is 2.0 months
The mean is approximately three times the size of the median.
This difference is the result of few extreme responses to this
question.
5-361
-------
below:
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
Table Z-3: Percentile rankings for Spray Lubricantsmonths
since last use (N=880 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.07
10% 0.13
25% 0.46
Median 2.00
75% 6.00
90% 12.00
95% 24.00
99% 60.00
Maximum 300.00
Table Z-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 300
months. Twenty-five percent of the respondents used the product
less than one month ago and 95% of the users used the product
last 24.0 months or less ago. The number of months reported may
be subject to rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the
data (i.e. 2, 5, 25 years rather than 5 years 3 months). The
data are usable for indicating the approximate last use.
5-362
-------
Q3: How many times have you used spray lubricants in the
last 12 months?
Table Z-4: Number of uses of Spray Lubricant within the
last 12 months (N=771 recent users)
Mean # of uses 10.31
Median # of uses 3.00
Standard deviation 30.71
The mean number of uses of spray lubricants that were used
in the last 12 months is 10.31 times and the median is 3.0 times
Of the 771 respondents who used the product in the last year,
18.4% used it once, 20.8% used it twice and 11.8% used it three
times. As shown in Table Z-5 which follows, 95% of the
respondents used the product 40 times or less in the last year.
The maximum number of times the product is used is 365.0.
Table Z-5: Percentile rankings of times used Spray
Lubricants within the last 12 months (N=771
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 3.00
75% 6.00
90% 20.00
95% 40.00
99% 105.60
Maximum 365.00
5-363
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using spray lubricants the
last time you used it?
Table Z-6: Time spent using the Spray Lubricant last time
used (N=762 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 9.90
Median # of miniates 5.00
Standard deviation 35.62
The mean and median number of minutes for using spray
lubricants are 9.90 and 5.0 minutes respectively.
Table Z-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Spray Lubricant last time used (N=762 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.03
5% 0.08
10% 0.17
25% 1.00
Median 5.00
75% 10.00
90% 15.00
95% 30.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 720.00
The time spent using the spray lubricant ranges from a
minimum of 0.02 minutes to 720 minutes (12 hours) at the 100th
percentile. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent a half
hour or less using the product. A few respondents spent a much
greater time using the product. This is reflected in the 99th
and 100th percentile which are 120 minutes (2 hours) and 720.0
minutes (12 hours).
5-364
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used spray lubricants?
Table Z-8: Time spent in the room after use of Spray
Lubricants (N=765 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 4.54
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 30.67
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 4.54 minutes and the median is 0.0 minutes. The median is
zero as 75% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after using the product.
Table Z-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Spray Lubricants including
those who did not spend any time in the room
(N=765 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 2.00
95% 15.00
99% 70.20
Maximum 420.00
Seventy-five percent of the respondents did not spend any
time in the room after using the product. This is because most
respondents used the product outside as it's a lubricant for
cars. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent 15.0 minutes
or less in the room after using spray lubricants. Time spent
increased at the 100th percentile to 420.0 minutes.
5-365
-------
Table Z-10: Percentile rankings for Spray Lubricants for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room
recent users who stayed in the room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1%
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 5.00
Median 10.00
75% 30.00
90% 60.00
95% 300.00
99%
Maximum 420.00
Table Z-10 is similar to Table Z-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product.
The mean time spent in the room is 41.40 minutes. Fifty percent
of the respondents spent 10.0 minutes or less in the room. The
maximum time spent in the room after using the product is 7.0
hours. Only 84 respondents stayed in the room after using spray
lubricants. Since this number is less than a 100, the 1st and
99th percentiles have not been determined.
5-366
-------
Q6A: Which brand of spray lubricant did you use the last
time you used it?
Table Z-ll: Brand distribution for Spray Lubricants
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
369 47.2
30 3.8
15 1.9
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 203 26.0
All other named brands
Total
164 21.1
781 100.0
Seventy-four percent (74%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of spray lubricant named
were used by 47.2%, 3.8% and 1.9% of respondents, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table Z-12: Percent of respondents saying the Spray
Lubricant used is in aerosol or nonaerosol
form (N=768 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 99.2%
No, product is nonaerosol 0.8%
Given the product is spray lubricant, one would expect the
respondents to say the product is in aerosol form and 99.2% of
the respondents did say it was. Only 0.8% answered the question
specifying the product they used was in nonaerosol form. This
could be attributed to respondent error in answering the
question.
5-367
-------
Q7: What size of spray lubricant did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table Z-13: Amount of Spray Lubricant used in ounces
(N=705 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 18.63
Median ounces per year 6.00
Standard deviation 54.74
The mean ounces used per year for spray lubricants is 18.63
ounces and the median is 6.0 ounces. The mean is over three
times the size of the median showing that there are some extreme
responses to this question.
Table Z-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Spray
Lubricant used in ounces (N=705 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0. 08
0.40
0.96
1.00
2.75
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median 6.00
75% 15.50
90% 36.00
95% 64.00
99% 240.00
Maximum 864. 00
The minimum amount of spray lubricant used is 0.08 ounces
and the maximum is 864.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used 64.0 ounces or less per year. There is then an
increase in ounces used at the 99th (240.0 ounces) and the 100th
percentile (864.0 ounces).
5-368
-------
Q8:
Where did you use spray lubricants the last time you
used it?
Table Z-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=765 recent users)
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
0.4%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
12.4%
83.5%
2.5%
Total
100.0%
Most of the respondents (83.5%) used the product outside.
total of 12.4% used it in the garage
A
The remaining 1.6% used it
either in the basement or other inside room.
5
69
-------
Table Z-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Spray Lubricants
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 66.3% 33.7%
(N=104 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=103 recent inside users)
6.8% 93.2
o
o
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=100 recent inside users)
53.0% 47.0
4. Whether directions
on label were read 55.1% 44.9
(N=752 all recent users)
o
o
A little more than half the respondents had read the
directions on the label (55.1%) and had an inside door to the
room open (53.0%). The majority of the respondents had an
exhaust fan off (93.2%). A total of 66.3% had a door or window
open to the outside.
Table Z-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table Z-17: Ounces per use of Spray Lubricants (N=704
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 3.39
Median # of ounces per use 1.58
Standard deviation 7.60
The mean ounces per use of the product is only 3.39 ounces
and the median is 1.58. Table Z-18 which follows presents the
percentile rankings for this variable. Twenty-five percent of
the respondents use less than an ounce of the product per use
whereas 95% of the respondents use 12.0 ounces or less per use.
There is a sharp increase at the 100th percentile to 128.0 ounces
per use.
5-370
-------
Table Z-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Spray
Lubricants (N=704 recent users)
Ounces/Use
Minimum 0.04
1% 0.08
5% 0.22
10% 0.33
25% 0.75
Median 1.58
75% 3.20
90% 8.00
95% 12.00
99% 27.43
Maximum 128.00
Table Z-19 presents the respondent characteristics of spra
lubricants. The mean age of these respondents is 40.26 years.
he majority of the respondents are male (85.2%) compared to t
female resondents 14.8%. Excet for resondent ender, the
other characterstcs are approxmately smlar to the
haracteristics for the total sample of respondents. The total
sample has nearly an equal number of male and female responden
Table Z-19: Respondent characteristics of Spray Lubricant
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 40.26 years
(N=779 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 85.2
(N=778 recent users) Female = 14.8
I
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.20 members
(N=778 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 2.94 bedrooms
(N=779 recent users)
5-371
-------
ANSMISS
EANE
5-373
-------
AA. Product 27: Transmission Cleaner
Ql: Have you ever used transmission cleaner?
Table AA-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Transmission Cleaner
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
107 2.1
4809 97.9
Total 4916* 100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table AA-1 shows that 2.1% of the total respondents have
"ever" used transmission cleaner. This is the lowest usage rate
of any product evaluated.
Q2: When was the last time you used transmission cleaner?
Table AA-2: Last time Transmission Cleaner was used in
months (N=103 users)
Mean # of months 16.70
Median # of months 7.00
Standard deviation 30.63
As Table AA-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of transmission cleaner is 16.70 months. Compared to other
products studied, this is a moderate amount of time since last
use.
5-375
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table AA-3: Percentile rankings for Transmission Cleaners
months since last use (N=103 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.23
10% 0.46
25% 1.00
Median 7.00
75% 24.00
90% 48.00
95% 60.00
99% 236.16
Maximum 240.00
Table AA-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the month preceding
their answering the question. The 75th percentile through the
100th percentile respondents report that they last used the
product between 24 months (2 years) and 240 months (20 years
ago) .
5-376
-------
Q3: How many times have you used transmission cleaner in
the last 12 months?
Table AA-4: Number of uses of Transmission Cleaner in the
last 12 months (N=69 recent users)
Mean # of uses 2.28
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 3.55
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of times it had been used was 2.28,
and the median number of uses was 1.0. Almost two-thirds of the
respondents who had used the product within the past 12 months,
63.8% to be exact, had only one occasion to make use of
transmission cleaner. It was used twice by 17.4%, and 3 times by
10.1% of this group of 75 recent users.
Table AA-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Transmission Cleaner within the last 12 months
(N=69 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
1.00
Median 1.00
75% 2.00
90% 3.00
95% 9.00
Maximum 26.00
5-377
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using transmission cleaner
the last time you used it?
Table AA-6: Time spent using the Transmission Cleaner last
time used (N=67 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 27.90
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 61.44
The mean number of minutes of use of transmission cleaner is
a little less than half an hour. The median is a quarter hour.
Table AA-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Transmission Cleaner last time used (N=67
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.17
1%
5% 0.35
10% 1.80
25% 5.00
Median 15.00
75% 30.00
90% 60.00
95% 60.00
99%
Maximum 450.00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to seven and one-half hours. Respondents spending one hour or
less using the product include more than 95% of those with recent
experience using transmission cleaner.
5-378
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used transmission cleaner?
Table AA-8: Time spent in the room after use of
Transmission Cleaner (N=69 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 5.29
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 29.50
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
just over 5.0 minutes. The median value of zero indicates that
at least half the respondents left the room immediately after
using the product.
Table AA-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use including those who did not spend any
time in room after use of Transmission Cleaner
(N=69 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
NA .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
22.50
240.00
More than 75% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while fully 95% stayed in the room
less than 23.0 minutes, and none stayed longer than 240.0 minutes
(4 hours).
5-379
-------
Table AA-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Transmission Cleaner,
including only those respondents who spent
time in the room (N=8 recent users who stayed
in the room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 5.00
1%
5%
10%
25% 6.25
Median 15.00
75% 41.25
90%
95%
99%
Maximum 240.00
Table AA-10 is similar to Table AA-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
5-380
-------
Q6A: Which brand of transmission cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table AA-11: Brand distribution for Transmission Cleaners
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
9 12.0
8 10.7
6 8.0
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 43 57.3
All other named brands
Total
9 12.0
75 100.0
A total of 42.7% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top three brands of Transmission Cleaner named were used by
12.0%, 10.7% and 8.0% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table AA-12: Percent of respondents saying Transmission
Cleaner is aerosol (N-69 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 21.7
No, product is nonaerosol 78.3
More than three-quarters of the transmission cleaner used by
respondents was in a form other than aerosol.
5-381
-------
Q7: What size of transmission cleaner did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table AA-13: Amount of Transmission Cleaner used in ounces
(N=64 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 35.71
Median ounces per year 15.00
Standard deviation 62.93
The mean number of ounces of transmission cleaner used per
year is moderate to high compared to the amounts used of other
products.
Table AA-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Transmission
Cleaner used in ounces (N=64 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
Ounces
2.00
10
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
3.75
4.00
8.00
15.00
32.00
77.00
140.00
360.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
AA-14 is substantial, with the minimum at only 2.0 ounces per
year and the maximum at 360.0 ounces per year. The seventy-fifth
percentile respondent used no more than about 32.0 ounces per
year.
5-382
-------
Q8: Where did you use transmission cleaner the last time
you used it?
Table AA-15: Location where the product was last used
(N=69 recent users)
Basement
0.0%
Living Room 0.0%
Other inside room 1.4%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage
Outside
14.5%
79.7%
Garage & outside 4.3%
Total 100.0%
Most people (79.7%) used transmission cleaner outside, with
the second most common usage location being the garage, and the
third being a combination of garage and outside. Rarely (1.4%)
was the product used in a room of the house other than the
garage.
5-383
-------
Table AA-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Transmission Cleaner
Yes No
(#'s) (#'s)
1. Door or Window
Open to the Outside 7 4
(N=ll recent inside users)
2. Exhaust Fan
on During Use
(N=ll recent inside users)
2 9
3. Whether Inside Door
to Room Was Open
(N=10 recent inside users)
6 4
4. Whether Directions
on Label Were Read 59 10
(N=69 all recent users)
For the three guestions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there were
only 10 or 11 respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but kept inside door(s)
closed and did not use an exhaust fan. More than 85.0% of the 69
respondents who answered the guestion regarding reading of the
product label claimed to have done so.
Table AA-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table AA-17: Ounces per use of Transmission Cleaner
(N=63 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 16.60
Median # of ounces per use 12.00
Standard deviation 18.83
Table AA-17 shows the mean value for ounces per use is a
relatively high number compared to those for some other products
encountered.
5-384
-------
Table AA-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Transmission Cleaner (N-63 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
Ounces/Use
2.00
25
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
3.15
4.00
6.00
12.00
18.00
32.00
55.20
128.00
Table AA-18 indicates that there is a jump between the 95th
percentile of 55.20 and the maximum value of 128.00, and more
than a four-fold increase between the median and the 95th
percentile, from 12.0 to 55.20.
Table AA-19: Respondent characteristics of Transmission
Cleaner users
1. Respondent Age Mean = 36.33 years
(N=75 recent users)
2. Respondent Gender Male = 69.3%
(N=75 recent users) Female = 30.7%
3. Number of Household
Members Mean =3.19 members
(N=75 recent users)
4. Number of Bedrooms Mean =2.63 bedrooms
(N=75 recent users)
Table AA-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
transmission cleaner users. The mean age of these respondents,
at 36.33, is about 8 years younger than the mean for the total
sample. These respondents are also predominantly male, while the
total sample is nearly evenly divided between men and womena
function most likely of the fact that this is an automotive
product. Household membership and number of bedrooms much more
nearly approximate the full sample figures.
5-385
-------
MINA
5-387
-------
BB.
Product 28: Battery Terminal Protector
Ql:
Have you ever used battery terminal protector?
Table BB-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Battery Terminal Protector
Numb e r s
Percent
Yes
No
Total
333
4584
4917*
6.7
93.3
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table BB-1 shows that 6.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used battery terminal protector. This is among the lowest
usage rates of any product evaluated.
Q2:
When was the last time you used battery terminal
protector?
Table BB-2: Last time Battery Terminal Protector was used
in months (N=327 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
14.00
6.00
25.03
As Table BB-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of a battery terminal protector is 14.0 months. Compared to
other products studied, this is a moderate amount of time since
last use.
5-389
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table BB-3: Percentile rankings for Battery Terminal
Protectormonths since last use (N=327 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.10
10% 0.43
25% 2.00
Median 6.00
75% 12.00
90% 36.00
95% 60.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 240.00
Table BB-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the 2.0 month period
preceding their answering the question. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product between 12 months (1 year) and 240.0 months (20
years) ago.
5-390
-------
Q3: How many times have you used battery terminal protector
in the last 12 months?
Table BB-4: Number of uses of Battery Terminal Protector
within the last 12 months (N-228 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.95
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 24.33
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of uses was nearly 4.0, and the median
number of uses was 2.0. Nearly half of the respondents who had
used the product within the past 12.0 months, 49.6% to be exact,
had only one occasion to make use of battery terminal protector.
It was used twice by 28.9%, and three times by 9.2% of this group
of 228 recent users.
Table BB-5: Percentile rankings of the number of uses of
Battery Terminal Protector within the last 12
months (N=228 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 2.00
90% 4.00
95% 6.55
99% 41.30
Maximum 365.00
5-391
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using battery terminal
protector the last time you used it?
Table BB-6: Time spent using the Battery Terminal Protector
last time used
Mean # of minutes 9.61
Median # of minutes 5
Standard deviation 18.15
Compared to other products, the mean number of minutes of
use of battery terminal protector is relatively low.
Table BB-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Battery Terminal Protector last time used
(N=226 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.04
5% 0.08
10% 0.23
25% 1.00
Median 5.00
75% 10,00
90% 20.00
95% 30.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 180.00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to three hours. Nearly 95% of respondents had spent less than
30.0 minutes using the product, while half had spent 5.0 minutes
or less.
5-392
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used battery terminal
protector?
Table BB-8: Time spent in the room after use of Battery
Terminal Protector (N=226 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 3.25
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 17.27
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is just over 3 minutes. The median value of zero indicates that
at least half the respondents left the room immediately after
using the product.
Table BB-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room after use of Battery
Terminal Protector (N=226 recent users)
Minimum
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.90
15.00
120.00
180.00
More than 75% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while fully 90% stayed in the room
less than 3 minutes.
5-393
-------
Table BB-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Battery Terminal Protector,
including only those who spent time in the
room (N=25 recent users who stayed in the
room afterwards
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.60
25% 5.00
Median 10.00
75% 30.00
90% 120,00
95% 162.00
Maximum 180.00
Table BB-10 is similar to Table BB-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
5-394
-------
Q6A: Which brand of battery terminal protector did you use
the last time you used it?
Table BB-11: Brand distribution for Battery Terminal
Protectors
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
15
10
9
145
53
232
6.5
4.3
3.9
62.5
22.8
100.0
A total of 37.5% of the users of the product specified a
brand. The top 3 brands of battery terminal protector named were
used by 6.5%,
4.3
and 3,9% of the respondents, respectively.
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table BB-12: Percent of respondents saying Battery Terminal
Protector is aerosol (N=226 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
58.4
No, product is nonaerosol
41.6%
Nearly three-fifths of the battery terminal protector used
by respondents was in aerosol form.
5-395
-------
Q7: What size of battery terminal protector did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table BB-13: Amount of Battery Terminal Protector used
in ounces (N=193 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 16.49
Median ounces per year 4,00
Standard deviation 87.84
As might be expected, the mean ounces of battery terminal
protector used per year is rather low compared to the amounts
used of other products. Most of the other products included were
used in larger quantities by those who used them than was battery
terminal protector.
Table BB-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Battery
Terminal protector used in ounces (N=193
recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.12
1% 0.13
5% 0.58
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 4.00
75% 8.00
90% 15.00
95% 24.60
99% 627.00
Maximum 1050.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
BB-14 is tremendous, with the minimum at .12 ounces per year and
the maximum at 1050.0 ounces per year. Nearly three quarters of
the respondents using the product used no more than about 8.0
ounces per year.
5-396
-------
Q8: Where did you use battery terminal protector the last
time you used it?
Table BB-15: Location of last use of the product (N=225
recent users)
Basement
0.0%
Living Room 0.0%
Other inside room 1.3%
Several inside rooms 0.0
Garage
Outside
11.6%
86.7%
Garage & outside 0.4
Total 100.0%
Most people (86.7%) used battery terminal protector outside,
with the second most common usage location being the garage.
Rarely (1.3%) was the product used in a room of the house other
than the garage.
5-397
-------
Table BB-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Battery Terminal Protector
Yes No
(#'s) (#'s)
1. Door or window
open to the outside 23 6
(N=29 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan on
during use
(N=29 recent inside users)
3 26
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 15 13
(N=28 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 157 63
(N=220 all recent users)
For the three questions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there were
only 28 or 29 respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but kept inside door(s)
closed and did not use an exhaust fan. More than 71.0% of the
220 respondents who answered the question regarding reading of
the product label claimed to have done so.
Table BB-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table BB-17: Ounces per use of Battery Terminal Protector
(N=193 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 8.07
Median # of ounces per use 2.72
Standard deviation 45.40
Table BB-18 shows that the mean ounces per use for battery
terminal protector is moderate compared to other products
included in the study.
5-398
-------
Table BB-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Battery Terminal Protector (N=193 recent
users)
Minimum
i
-L
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.06
0.08
0.31
0.60
1.08
2.72
5.00
8.60
13.25
223.96
600.00
Table BB-18 indicates that here is a huge jump between the
95th percentile of 13.25 and the maximum value of 600.00 with the
rate of increase being less dramatic until the 95th percentile.
Table BB-19: Respondent characteristics of Battery Terminal
Protector users
1. Respondent age Mean = 42.34 years
(N=220 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male =87.9
(N=232 recent users) Female =12.1
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.18 members
(N=230 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 2.92 bedrooms
(N=232 recent users)
Table BB-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
battery terminal protector users. The mean age of these
respondents, at just over 42, is about 2 years younger than the
mean for the total sample. These respondents are also nearly
exclusively male, while the total sample is nearly evenly divided
between men and womena function most likely due to the fact
that this is an automotive product. Household membership and
number of bedrooms much more nearly approximate the full sample
figures.
5-399
-------
EANE
5-401
-------
cc.
Product 29:
Brake
Cleaner
Ql:
Have you ever used the brake quieter/cleaner?
Table CO1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Brake Quieter/Cleaner
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
133
4784
4917*
2.6
97.4
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table CC-1 shows that 2.6% of the total respondents have
"ever" used brake quieter/cleaner. This is among the lowest
usage rates of any product evaluated.
02:
When was the last time you used brake quieter/cleaner?
Table CC-2: Last time Brake Quieter/Cleaner was used in
months (N=130 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
13.30
6.00
25.90
As Table CC-2 shows, the mean numb
f
ths since last
use of brake quieter/cl
prod
use.
t
tudied. th
a
s 13.
derat
month
mount
C
f t
pared t
th
since last
5-403
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table CC-3: Percentile rankings for Brake Quieter/Cleaner
months since last use (N=130 users)
Months
Minimum .03
1% 0.08
5% 0.33
10% 0.46
25% 1.00
Median 6.00
75% 12.00
90% 46.80
95% 53.40
99% 187.92
Maximum 240.00
Table CC-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the month preceding
their answering the question. The 75th percentile through the
100th percentile respondents report that they last used the
product between 12 months and 240 months (20 years) ago.
5-404
-------
Q3: How many times have you used brake quieter/cleaner in
the last 12 months?
Table CC-4: Number of uses of Brake Quieter/Cleaner within
the last 12 months (N=95 recent users)
Mean # of times 3.00
Median # of times 2.00
Standard deviation 6.06
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of times it had been used was 3.0 and
the median number of uses was 2.0. Nearly half of the
respondents who had used the product within the past 12 months,
49.5% to be exact, had only one occasion to make use of brake
quieter/cleaner. It was used twice by 29.5%, and 3 times by
6 3
Table CC-5: Percentile rankings of the number of uses of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner within the last 12 months
(N=95 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 2.00
90% 6.00
95% 10.40
Maximum 52.00
5-405
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using brake quieter/cleaner
the last time you used it?
Table CC-6: Time spent using the Brake Quieter/Cleaner last
time used (N=96 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 23.38
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 36.32
The mean number of minutes spent during last use of brake
quieter/cleaner is 23.38 and the median is 15.0.
Table CC-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Brake Quieter/Cleaner last time used (N=96
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.07
5% 0.50
10% 1.00
25% 5.00
median 15.00
75% 30.00
90% 49.50
95% 120.00
Maximum 240.00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to four hours. Nearly 95% of respondents had spent less than 120
minutes (2 hours) using the product, while half had spent 15.0
minutes or less.
5-406
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used brake quieter/cleaner?
Table CC-8: Time spent in the room after use of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner (N=96 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 10.27
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 30.02
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is just over 10 minutes. The median value of zero indicates that
at least half the respondents left the room immediately aft
using the product.
Table CC-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room after use of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner (N=96 recent users)
Minimum
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
120.00
120.00
More than 75% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while fully 90% stayed in the room
no more than 30.0 minutes. Only 5% of respondents stayed in the
room for 120.0 minutes (2 hours) following use of brake
quieter/cleaner, and none stayed longer.
5-^07
-------
Table CC-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Brake Quieter/Cleaner,
including only those who spent time in the
room (N=16 recent users who stayed in room
afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
5%
10% 7.30
25% 30.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 120.00
95%
Maximum 120.00
Table CC-10 is similar to Table CC-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
5-408
-------
Q6A: Which brand of brake quieter/cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table CC-11: Brand distribution for Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Brand category
Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained 41 41.8
11 11.2
8 8.2
6 6.1
All other named brands
Total
34. 32.7
98 100.0
A total of 58.2% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top 3 brands of brake quieter/cleaner named were used by 11.2%,
8.2% and 6.1% of users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table CC-12: Percent of respondents saying Brake
Quieter/Cleaner is aerosol (N=96 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 65.6
No, product is nonaerosol 35.4
I
Nearly two-thirds of the brake quieter/cleaner used by
respondents was in aerosol form.
5-409
-------
Q7: What size of brake quieter/cleaner did you use the last
^H ^^H ^H ^^^^^^^^^L
time you used it? How much of a can or h
did you use during the past y
y cans
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table CC-13: Amount of Brake Quieter/Cleaner used in ounces
(N=86 recent users)
ean ounces per year 11.72
Median ounces per year 8.00
Standard deviation 13.25
As might be expected, the mean ounces of brake
ter/cleaner used per year is rather low compared to th
amounts used of other products. Only a handful of the other
products included were used in smaller quantities by those wh
used them than was brake quieter/cleaner.
Table CC-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner used in ounces (N=86 recent
users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.50
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25
o.
3.02
Median 8.00
75«
14.25
90% 32.00
95% 38.60
Maximum 78.00
^^^r ^^^^^^
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
CC-14 is substantial, with the minimum at one-half ounce per y
d the maximum at 78.0 ounces per year. Nearly three quart
^H ^^H ^^^^^^H ^m ^^H ^^^^^^^^^1 ^^^H
of the respondents using the product used no more than 14.25
ounces per y
5-410
-------
Q8: Where did you use brake quieter/cleaner the last time
you used it?
Table CC-15: Location of last use of the product (N=96
recent users)
Basement
0.0%
Living Room 0.0%
Other inside room 2.1%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage
Outside
17.7%
77.1%
Garage & outside 3.1%
Total 100.0%
Most people (77.1%) used brake quieter/cleaner outside, with
the second most common usage location being the garage, and the
third being a combination of garage and outside. Rarely (2.1%)
was the product used in a room of the house other than the
garage.
5-411
-------
Table CC-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Brake Quieter/Cleaner
Yes No
(#'s) (#'s)
1. Door or window
open to the outside 14 5
(N=19 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=19 recent inside users)
3 16
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 13 6
(N=19 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 68 27
(N=95 all recent users)
For the three questions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there were
only nineteen respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but kept inside door(s)
closed and did not use an exhaust fan. More than 71.0% of the
ninety-five respondents who answered the question regarding
reading of the product label claimed to have done so.
Table CC-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table CC-17: Ounces per use of Brake Quieter/Cleaner
(N=85 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 6.26
Median # of ounces per use 4.00
Standard deviation 6.78
Table CC-17 shows that the mean and median values for ounces
per use are fairly close to each other, indicating a distribution
less skewed than some others encountered.
5-412
-------
Table CC-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner (N=85 recent users)
Minimum
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.32
0.58
1.00
2.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
40.00
Table CC-18 indicates that here is a large jump between the
95th percentile of 16.0 and the maximum value of 40.0 and a
doubling between the 75th and 95th percentiles, from 8.0 to 16.0
Table CO19: Respondent characteristics of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner users
1. Respondent age
(N=98 recent users)
Mean
34.75 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=98 recent users)
Male
Female
93.9
6.1
3. Number of household
members
(N=98 recent users)
Mean
3.25 members
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=98 recent users)
Mean
2.84 bedrooms
ble CC-19 present
th
pondent characterist
f brak
ter/cl
users.
h
mean
Imost 35, is more th
9 y
age
young
f th
r th
th
pondent
mean fo
t
th
total s
male, w
Pi
h
pondents are al
iy
lusively
hil
th
total sampl
is
iy
d women
tomotiv
ch more
a funct
t likely
t
th
Iy divided bet
e fact that th
prod
t
H
hold membership a
mb
f bed
n men
is an
ooms
Iy approximat
th
11 s
Pi
fig
5-413
-------
AS
EM
VE
5-415
-------
DD. Product 30; Gasket Remover
Ql: Have you ever used gasket remover?
Table DD-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Gasket remover
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
136 2.7
4780 97.3
Total 4916* 100.0
^ . _
^^ ^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^f^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^f^f^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^^^^^^f^f^f^f^^^^^^^^m
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table DD-1 shows that 2.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used gasket remover. This is among the lowest usage rates
of any product evaluated.
Q2: When was the last time you used gasket remover?
Table DD-2: Last time Gasket Remover was used in
months (N=132 users)
Mean # of months 22.40
Median # of months 9.00
Standard deviation 39.20
As Table DD-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of gasket remover is 22.40 months. Compared to other
products studied, this is a relatively long period of time since
last use.
5-417
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table DD-3: Percentile rankings for Gasket Removermonths
since last use (N=132 users)
Months
Minimum 0.07
1% 0.07
5% 0.23
10% 0.37
25% 2.00
Median 9.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 96.60
99% 240.00
Maximum 240.00
Table DD-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the two month period
preceding their answering the question. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product between 24.0 months (2 years) and 240.0 months
(20 years) ago.
5-418
-------
Q3: How many times have you used gasket remover in the last
12 months?
Table DD-4: Number of uses of Gasket Remover within the
last 12 months (N=74 recent users)
Mean # of uses 2.50
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 4.39
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of times it had been used was 2.50,
and the median number of uses was 1.0. Nearly two-thirds of the
respondents who had used the product within the past 12 months,
60.8% to be exact, had only one occasion to make use of gasket
remover. It was used 2 times by 20.3%, and 3 times by 5.4% of
this group of 79 recent users. This makes gasket remover among
the least frequently used products of all those studied.
Table DD-5: Percentile rankings of the number of uses of
Gasket Remover within the last 12 months (N=74
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1%
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 2.00
90% 5.00
95% 6.50
99%
Maximum 30.00
5-419
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using gasket remover the
last time you used it?
Table DD-6: Time spent using the Gasket Remover last
time used (N=72 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 23.57
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 27.18
Compared to other products, the mean and median number of
minutes of use of gasket remover are moderate.
Table DD-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Gasket Remover last time used (N=72 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.33
1%
5% 0.50
10% 2.00
25% 6.25
Median 15.00
75% 30.00
90% 60.00
95% 60.00
99%
Maximum 180.00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to three hours. At least 95% of respondents spent 60.0 (1 hour)
or less using the product, while half spent 15 minutes or less.
5-420
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used gasket remover?
Table DD-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Gasket
Remover (N=73 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 27.56
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 58.54
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is just under one-half hour. The median value of zero indicates
that at least half the respondents left the room immediately
after using the product.
Table DD-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room after use of Gasket
Remover (N=73 recent users)
Minimum
1 3-
-L"6
Minutes
0.00
5
10
25
Median
75
90
95%
99%
Maximum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.50
120.00
180.00
240.00
More than 50% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while 75% stayed in the room 12.50
minutes. Only about 10% of respondents stayed in the room for
120.0 minutes (two hours) or more following use of gasket
remover.
5-421
-------
Table DD-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Gasket Remover, including
only those respondents who spent time in the
room (N-24 recent users who stayed in the room
afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 2.00
1%
5% 2.75
10% 7.50
25% 11.25
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 210.00
95% 240.00
99%
Maximum 240.00
Table DD-10 is similar to Table DD-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
5-422
-------
Q6A: Which brand of gasket remover did you use the last time
you used it?
Table DD-11:
Brand distribution for Gasket Remover
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
18
6
4
37
14
79
22.8
7.6
5.1
46.8
17.7
100.0
total of 53.2% of the respondents specified a brand.
The
top 3 brands of gasket remover named were used by
2* 2* » O ^ -
7.6% and
5.1
of users, respectively.
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table DD-12: Percent of respondents saying Gasket Remover
is aerosol (N=73 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
49.3
No, product is nonaerosol
50.7
About one-half of the gasket remover used by respondents was
in aerosol form.
5-423
-------
Q7: What size of gasket remover did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table DD-13: Amount of Gasket Remover used per year in
ounces (N=66 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 13.25
Median ounces per year 7.75
Standard deviation 22.35
As might be expected, the mean ounces of gasket remover used
per year is rather low compared to the amounts used of other
products. Not very many of the other products included were used
in smaller quantities by those who used them than was gasket
remover.
Table DD-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Gasket
Remover used in ounces (N=66 recent users)
Minimum
i s-
-L'S
Ounces
0.50
5
0
25
Media
75%
90%
95%
99
Maximum
1.00
1.00
3.75
7.75
16.00
24.00
58.40
160.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
DD-14 is substantial, with the minimum at one-half ounce per year
and the maximum at 160.0 ounces per year. Nearly three quarters
of the respondents using the product used no more than about 16.0
ounces per year.
5-424
-------
Q8: Where did you use gasket remover the last time you used
it?
Table DD-15: Location of last use of the product (N=72
recent users)
Basement
0.0%
Living Room 0.0
Other inside room 0.0
Several inside rooms 0.0
I
I
I
Garage
Outside
37.5
59.7
Garage & outside 2.8
°6
Total 100.0%
Most people (59.7%) used gasket remover outside, with the
second most common usage location being the garage, and the third
being a combination of garage and outside. The product was never
used in a room of the house other than the garage.
5-425
-------
Table DD-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Gasket Remover
Yes No
(#'s) (#'s)
1. Door or window
open to the outside 21 6
(N=27 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=27 recent inside users)
2 25
3. Whether inside door
to room was open
(N=26 recent inside users
13 13
4, Whether directions
on label were read 54 19
(N=73 all recent users)
For the three questions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there wer
only 26 or 27 respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but did not use an
exhaust fan. Respondents were evenly divided as to whether they
kept inside door(s) open or closed. Nearly three-quarters of the
73 respondents who answered the question regarding reading of the
product label claimed to have done so*
Table DD-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table DD-17: Ounces per use of Gasket Remover
(N=66 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 7.09
Median # of ounces per use 4.00
Standard deviation 9.44
Table DD-17 shows that the mean and median values for ounces
per use are reasonably close to each other, indicating a
distribution less skewed than some others encountered.
5-426
-------
Table DD-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Gasket Remover (N=66 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.50
0.50
0.97
2.00
4.00
8.00
16.19
25.74
64.00
Table DD-18 indicates that there is a jump between the
median value of 4.0 and the maximum value of 64.0.
Table DD-19: Respondent characteristics of Gasket Remover
users
1. Respondent age
(N=79 recent users)
Mean
36.61 years
2. Respondent gender
(N=79 recent users)
Male
Female
88. 6-6
11.4
3. Number of household
members
(N=79 recent users)
Mean
3.33 members
4
Number of bedrooms
(N=79 recent users)
Mean
3.01 bedrooms
Table DD-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
gasket remover users. The mean age of these respondents, at less
than 37, is nearly 8 years younger than the mean for the total
sample. These respondents are also much more likely to be male,
while the total sample is nearly evenly divided between men and
womena function most likely due to the fact that this is an
automotive product. Household membership and number of bedrooms
much more nearly approximate the full sample figures.
5-427
-------
El
CA
EANE
5-429
-------
EE.
Product 31: Tire/Hub
Cleaners
Ql:
Have you ever used tire/hubcap cleaners?
Table EE-1: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
782
4135
4917*
15.9
84.1
100.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^V^P^^^^B^^^B^^^^^^^^^riM^HB'^^^^^^^^HP^P^^^i^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table EE-1 shows that 15.9% of the total respondents have
ever" used tire/hubcap cleaners.
02:
When was the last time you used tire/hubcap cleaners?
Table EE-2: Last time Tire/Hubcap Cleaner was used in
months (N=777 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
7.30
1.00
20.22
A
Table EE-2 shows, th
an
mb
f m
th
since last
use of tire/hubcap cl
th
Th
Th
qu
diff
mean is more th
nee is the resu
is 7.30 m
an seven t
It of a fe
th
d th
d
1
the
rem
size of the med
P
t
th
5-431
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table EE-3: Percentile rankings for Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
months since last use (N=777 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.07
10% 0.10
25% 0.23
Median 1.00
75% 6.00
90% 13.00
95% 36.00
99% 101.28
Maximum 240.00
Table EE-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 240.0
months. Twenty-five percent of the users last used the product
less than a month ago. The number of months reported may be
subject to rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the data
(i.e. 3, 20 years rather than 3 years 3 months). The data are
usable for indicating the approximate last use.
5-432
-------
Q3: How many times have you used tire/hubcap cleaners in
the last 12 months?
Table EE-4: Number of uses of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners within
the last 12 months (N=691 recent users)
Mean # of uses 11.18
Median # of uses 4.00
Standard deviation 18.67
The mean number of uses for tire/hubcap cleaners in the last
12 months is 11.18 uses and the median is 4 uses. Of the 691
respondents who answered this question, 18.7% used it once, 13.7
used it twice and 10% used it three times in the last year. As
shown in Table EE-5 which follows, 99% of the respondents used
the product 77 times or less in the last year. The maximum
number of times the product was used is 200.
Table EE-5: Percentile rankings of mumber of uses of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners within the last 12 months
(N=691 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10
25
o
1.00
2.00
Median 4.00
75% 12.00
90% 30.00
95% 50.00
99% 77.00
Maximum 200.00
5-433
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using tire/hubcap cleaner
the last time you used it?
Table EE-6: Time spent using Tire/Hubcap Cleaners last time
used (N=683 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 22.66
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 23.94
The mean and median number of minutes for using tire/hubcap
cleaners are 22.66 and 15.0 minutes respectively.
Table EE-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners last time used (N=683
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.08
1% 0.71
5% 3.00
10% 5.00
25% 10.00
Median 15.00
75% 30.00
90% 60.00
95% 60.00
99% 120.00
Max 240.00
The time spent using tire/hubcap cleaners ranges from a
minimum of 0.08 minutes to 240.0 minutes at the 100th percentile
Ninety-five percent of the respondents used the product for 1
hour or less.
5-434
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used tire/hubcap cleaners?
Table EE-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners (N=682 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 1.51
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 20.43
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
1.51 minutes. Of the 32 products surveyed, this is the smallest
period of time spent in the room after use of the product. The
median is zero as 95% of the respondents did not spend any time
in the room after use of tire/hubcap cleaners.
Table EE-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
including those who did not spend any time in
the room (N=682 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
480.00
Only respondents at the 99th and 100th percentile did spend
time in the room after using tire/hubcap cleaners.
5-435
-------
Table EE-10: Percentile rankings for Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
for time spent in the room after use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=14
recent users who stayed in the room
afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 2.00
1%
5%
10% 3.50
25% 8.75
Median 30.00
75% 75.00
90% 330.00
95%
99%
Maximum 480.00
Table EE-10 is similar to Table EE-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product
Only 14 users did spend some time in the room after use of the
product. Since the number spending time in the room is small it
was not possible to calculate the time spent at the 1st, 5th,
95th and 99th percentile. The mean time now spent in the room is
73.70 minutes and the median is 30.0. This differs considerably
from the mean and median in Table T-8 as respondents who did not
spend any time in the room have now been excluded.
5-436
-------
Q6A:
Which brand of tire/hubcap cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table EE-11: Brand distribution for Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Brand category
Frequency
Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
168
42
33
219
225
687
24.1
6.0
4.7
31.4
33.8
100.0
Sixty-nine percent (68.6%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of tire/hubcap cleaners
named were used by
respectively.
24.1,
6.0
I
and
4.7^
of respondents,
Q6B:
Was the product in aerosol form?
Table EE-12: Percent of respondents saying the Tire/Hubcap
Cleaner used is in aerosol or nonaerosol
form (N=685 recent users)
Yes. product is aerosol
29.50
2r
No, product is nonaerosol
70.50^5
The majority of respondents (70.5%) said the tire/hubcap
cleaner they used was in nonaerosol form.
5-437
-------
Q7: What size of tire/hubcap cleaner did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table EE-13: Amount of Tire/Hubcap Cleaner used in
ounces (N=637 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 31.58
Median ounces per year 12.00
Standard deviation 80.39
The mean ounces used per year for tire/hubcap cleaners is
31.58 ounces and the median is 12.0 ounces.
Table EE-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Tire/Hubcap
Cleaners used in ounces (N=637 recent uses)
Minimum
1 2-
J-*0
5
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.12
0.50
1.82
3.00
6.00
12.00
28.00
64.00
96.00
443.52
960.00
The minimum amount of tire/hubcap cleaners used is 0.12
ounces and the maximum is 960.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 96.0 ounces or less of the product.
5-438
-------
Q8: Where did you use tire/hubcap cleaner the last
time you used it?
Table EE-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=684 recent users)
Basement
0.0%
Living room 0.3%
Other inside room 0.1%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage
Outside
4.0%
94.9%
Garage & outside 0.7%
Total 100.0%
As expected the majority of the respondents (94.9%), used
the product outside. A total of 4% used the product in the
garage. The remaining .4% of the respondents used the product
inside in a room other than the garage.
5-439
-------
Table EE-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 56.0% 44.0%
(N=25 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use
(N=23 recent inside users)
4.3% 95.7%
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 45.8% 54.2
(N=24 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 67.1% 32.9%
(N=659 all recent users)
The majority of the users who used the product inside, had
read the directions on the label (67.1%). A little more than
half the respondents had a door or window open to the outside
(56%). Less than half the respondents had an inside door to the
room open (45.8%).
Table EE-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table EE-17: Ounces per use of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
(N=636 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 4.90
Median # of ounces per use 2.67
Standard deviation 11.72
The mean ounces per use of the product is 4.90 and the
median is 2.67. Table EE-18 which follows presents the
percentile rankings for this variable. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 16.0 ounces or less of the product per use.
The maximum ounces used per use is 256.0.
5-440
-------
Table EE-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners (N=636 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
0.07
0.30
0.53
1.23
2.67
6.00
10.55
16.00
32.00
256.00
Table EE-19: Respondent characteristics of Tire/Hubcap
Cleaner users
1. Respondent age Mean = 38.04 years
(N=696 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male =63.6
(N=696 recent users) Female = 36.4
I
3. Number of household
members
(N=696 recent users)
Mean =3.15 members
4. Number of bedrooms Mean =2.92 bedrooms
(N=696 recent users)
Table EE-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
tire/hubcap cleaners. The mean age of these respondents is 38.04
years. The number of male respondents (63.6%) is nearly twice
the number of female respondents (36.4%). Except for respondent
gender, the other characteristics are similar to the
characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The total
sample has nearly an equal number of male and female respondents.
5-441
-------
NI
AN
WI
YE
5-443
-------
FF.
Product
32:
er
Ql:
Have you ever used ignition wire dryer?
Table FF-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Ignition Wire Dryer
Numbers
Percent
Yes
No
Total
240
4677
4917*
4.8
95.2
100.0
- ^^ ^^^^^^^^ - ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ . ^^^^^^ ^^^-^^^-^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^_MJ^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^_ _^_ . ^^^^-^^^^ __1J_^^fc.^^^^^^^^_^^^_1J.^^^^^M^^^^^_^^^^^_m_^^,^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^_M__m_^^^^^^^^^^^^,^^_^^_^^>^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^_^^^^^M^^^^^_^^^^^_^^M_1__^^^^^^^^^^^^a^_^_1^_^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^__^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^_^^___^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^_ _^^ ^^^^^^^^_ ^_^_^^^|^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^_ _ ^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table FF-l shows that 4.8% of the total respondents have
"ever" used ignition wire dryer. This is among the lowest usage
rates of any product evaluated.
Q2:
When was the last time you used ignition wire dryer?
Table FF-2: Last time Ignition Wire Dryer was used in
months (N-234 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard Deviation
22.80
8.00
44.33
As Table FF-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of ignition wire dryer is 22.8.0 months. Compared to other
products studied, this is a rather long amount of time since last
use.
5-445
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table FF-3: Percentile rankings for Ignition and Wire
Dryer months since last use (N=234 users)
Months
Minimum 0.07
1% 0.07
5% 0.23
10% 0.69
25% 3.00
Median 8.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 96.00
99% 219.00
Maximum 480.00
Table FF-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the three month
period preceding their answering the question. The 75th
percentile through the 100th percentile respondents report that
they last used the product between 24.0 months (2 years) and
480.0 months (40 years) ago.
5-446
------- |