United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental ^
Monitoring and Quality Assurance
Washington DC 20460
Research and Development
EPA/600/S6-87/002 Sept. 1987
Project Summary
The Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology
(TEAM) Study
Lance A. Wallace
This report documents all aspects of
a study of personal exposures of 600
residents of seven U.S. cities to toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals in their air
and drinking water. In the four-volume
Final Report, Volume I is an overview
of the TEAM Study. Volume II deals
with the results from 1981 to 1983 in
New Jersey. North Carolina, and North
Dakota; and Volume III with the results
from 1984 in California. Volume IV is
a compilation of Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) developed for the
TEAM Study by the prime contractor-
Research Triangle Institute. These
SOPs may be applicable to similar
studies of human exposure to volatile
organic compounds.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Office of Acid Depo-
sition, Environmental Monitoring and
Quality Assurance. Washington, DC, to
announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in four
separate volumes of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
The TEAM Study was planned in 1979
and completed in 1985 (Table 1). The
goals of this study were: (1) to develop
methods to measure individual total
exposure and resulting body burden of
toxic and carcinogenic organic chemi-
cals; and (2) to apply these methods to
estimate the exposures and body
burdens of urban populations in several
U.S. cities. To achieve these goals, the
following approach was adopted:
1. A small personal sampler was
developed to measure personal
exposure to airborne toxic
chemicals;
2. A specially-designed spirometer
was developed to measure the
same chemicals in exhaled breath;
3. A survey design involving a three-
stage stratified probability selec-
tion approach was adopted to
insure inclusion of potentially
highly exposed groups.
A pilot study was conducted between
July and December 1980 to test 30
sampling and analytical protocols for four
groups of chemicals potentialy present
in air, water, food, house dust, blood,
breath, urine, and human hair.
The results of the pilot study (1,2)
indicated that the TEAM goals could be
met at present for only one group of
compounds: the volatile organics. Ade-
quate methods existed to determine their
concentrations in personal air, ambient
air, exhaled breath, and drinking water.
They were not present in food (with the
exception of chloroform in beverages), so
that food could safely be ignored.
The main TEAM Study measured the
personal exposures of 591 people to a
number of toxic or carcinogenic chem-
icals in air and drinking water (Table 2).
The subjects were selected to represent
a total population of 717,000 residents
of seven cities in New Jersey, North
Carolina, North Dakota, and California.
Each participant carried a personal air
sampler throughout a normal 24-hour
day, collecting a 12-hour daytime sample
and a 12-hour overnight sample. Iden-
tical samplers were set up near some
participants' homes to measure the
ambient air. Each participant also col-
-------
lected two drinking water samples. At the
end of the 24 hours, each participant
contributed a sample of exhaled breath.
All air, water, and breath samples were
analyzed for 20 target chemicals (26 in
California) (Table 3).
Quality of the Data
An extensive quality assurance (QA)
program was carried out. About 30% of
all samples were either blanks, spikes,
or duplicates. Analysis of each medium
(air, water, breath) was repeated for 10%
of samples in external QA laboratories
(NT Research Institute and the University
of Miami Medical School). Audits of all
laboratory activities were undertaken by
EPA's Environmental Monitoring Sys-
tems Laboratory at Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina (EMSL-RTP), and
spiked samples were supplied by EMSL-
RTP (air) and EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory m
Cincinnati (water). A separate QA report
was written by an independent labora-
tory (Northrop Corporation) concluding
that no significant analytical differences
could be found among the three air
monitoring laboratories (Research Trian-
gle Institute, NT Research Institute, and
EMSL-RTP).
Results
Phase II (New Jersey, North
Carolina, North Dakota)
In New Jersey, 11 of the 20 target
chemicals were found to be prevalent
(Table 4). In all cases, personal air values
exceeded outdoor air values, by ratios of
2-5 (Figures 1 and 2). Breath concentra-
tions also often exceeded outdoor air
values (Figure 3). The highest indoor air
concentrations exceeded the highest
outdoor air concentrations by factors of
10-20 (Figure 4).
These indoor-outdoor differences were
also observed in both repeat visits to New
Jersey and the visits to Greensboro,
North Carolina and Devils Lake, North
Dakota. In all visits, the only target
chemicals prevalent in drinking water
were chloroform, bromodichlorome-
thane, and dibromochloromethane
(Table 5).
Breath levels were significantly corre-
lated with previous daytime air expo-
sures for 10 of 11 prevalent chemicals
in the first New Jersey sampling trip (Fall
1981) (Table 6). The 11th chemical,
chloroform, showed a significant corre-
lation between breath and drinking water
concentrations.
Table 1. Summary of TEAM Studies
Name and Description of Study
Time of Study References
Fief. No.
1. Lamar University - UNO Study
March 1980:
June 1980
Wallace 1982a
Zweidinger. 1982
1
2
Eleven college students at Lamar Univ. and six at UNC-Chapel Hill were studied to field
test the personal air monitors, the spirometer for collecting breath samples, and the analytics
techniques for air, water, breath, blood, and urine. Large variations in exposure (2-3 order.
of magnitude) were noted, as was a correlation between breath values and air exposures fo
some chemicals.
2 TEAM Pilot Study—Phase I July-Dec. 1980 Pellizzari, 1980. 1982 3,4
Entz, 1982 5
Sparacino, 1982a,b 6,7
Wallace, 1982b.c; 8.9
1984a 10
Nine persons in the Bayonne-Elizabeth area of New Jersey and three persons in the Researct
Triangle Park area of North Carolina were visited three times for three days at a time betwee,
July and December 1980. Seven consecutive 8-hour air samples were collected on each visit
as were food, house dust, drinking water, blood, urine, hair, and breath samples. Twenty
eight sampling and analytical protocols were tested for use in determining personal exposure.
and body burdens for four groups of chemicals: volatile organics. metals, pesticides and PCBs
and polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs). It was concluded that only the volatile organics cou/t
successfully be included in a total exposure study. Problems with air and food sampling am
analysis protocols prevented inclusion of metals and pesticides.
3. TEAM Study—Phase II
Sept-Feb 1983 Pellizzari, 1981, 83 11,12
1984a.b 13,14
Hartwell, 1984 15
Wallace, 1984b, 1985a. 16,17
198Sb,c 18,19
Pellizzari, 1985a 24
350 persons in Bayonne and Elizabeth, New Jersey; 25 in Greensboro, North Carolina; an
25 in Devils Lake, North Dakota participated in this study which is described in Volume
of the full report and also in a number of journal articles
4. TEAM Study—Phase III
Feb.-June 1984
Pellizzari, 1985b,c
Wallace. 1985
25,26
23
200 persons in Los Angeles, Antioch, and Pittsburg, California participated in this study
which is described in Volume III of the full report.
5 TEA M Study—Indoor A ir
March 1982-
June 1985
Pellizzari. 1984
Wallace, 1984c
Sheldon, 1985a
22
20
27
Four commercial and public-access buildings were studied to test indoor air monitorin,
methods and to obtain an initial view of indoor air levels of volatile organics, mhalable particulates
pesticides, and metals. One new office building was visited when newly finished, one monti
later, and three months later to determine temporal variation of organics. Several organics
such as 1,1.1-trichloroethane, were greatly elevated on the first trip but declined sharply 01
succeeding trips. One (trichloroethylene) increased on the last two trips, indicating a possibli
contribution of consumer products to indoor air pollutants loadings. A chamber study of commoi
materials (paint, sheetrock, wallpaper, carpet, glue, cleansers, and insecticide) identified near/
all the target toxic chemicals in emissions from these materials
6. Special Study I—Dry Cleaners
Pellizzari, 1984
29
The TEAM methodology was tested on a group of potentially highly exposed persons, dr
cleaning workers, to determine relationships between air, blood and breath levels at work ant
at home. Eight workers in three dry cleaning shops (one using 1,1,1 -trichloroethane, the seconi
tetrachloroethylene, and the third a mixture of tetrachloroethylene and Stoddard solvent (,
hydrocarbon mixture)) were monitored using personal air monitors and fixed monitors indoor.
and out at home and at work. Levels of 20-25 mg/m3 tetrachloroethylene were observed ii
both air and breath A long biological half-life for tetrachloroethylene was indicated by thi
fact that weekend values did not decrease.
-------
Table 1. (continued)
Name and Description of Study
Time of Study References
Ref. No.
7. Special Study II—Swimming Pools
Unpublished
Because of suspicions that swimmers might be exposed to chloroform, the TEAM methods
were applied to eight life-guards at one indoor and two outdoor swimming pools. Air, water,
and breath samples were taken at the pools and at home. Data analysis has not yet been
made available.
8. Special Study III—Mother's Milk
Sheldon, 1985b
28
A study of nursing mothers was made to determine levels of volatile organics and pesticides/
PCBs in mother's milk and relationships between exposure in air and body burden in blood,
breath, and urine. Seventeen mothers were selected to represent an estimated population of
324 nursing mothers in Bayonne and Elizabeth, NJ as part of the TEAM Phase II Study. Many
volatile organics and pesticides/PCBs were identified in milk samples. Nursing mothers exhaled
relatively smaller amounts of volatile organics in breath, indicating a possible increased
bioconcentration in fat compared to nonnursing mothers.
9 Special Study IV— "Washout" Study
Gordon, 1985
21
To establish effective biological half-lives in blood and breath of the TEAM target volatiles
at normal environmental levels, four persons remained in a room-sized pure air chamber at
IIT Research Institute for 10 hours, allowing 18 breath samples to be collected. Half-lives of
a few hours (benzene) to 21 hours (tetrachlaoroethylenej were established.
Table 2. Sites Visited in the Main TEAM Study.
Site
Visit
Code
NJ1
NJ2
NJ3
NCC
ND
LAI
LA2
CC
Location
Bayonne & Elizabeth, NJ
Bayonne & Elizabeth, NJ
Bayonne & Elizabeth, NJ
Greensboro, NC
Devils Lake, ND
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles. CA
Antioch & Pittsburg, CA
(Contra Costa County)
No. of
Time of Visit Respondents
Sept.-Nov. 1981
July- Aug. 1982
Jan. -Feb. 1983
May 1982
Oct. 1982
Feb. 1984
May 1984
June 1984
355
157'
49"
24
24
117
52C
71
Population
Represented
128.000
109,000
94,000
131,000
7,000
360,000
333.000
91,000
Total
7 cities
591
717.000
"Subset of NJ1 respondents.
"Subset of NJ2 respondents.
cSubset of LA 1 respondents.
Sources of Exposure
All participants were asked if they had
been exposed to potential sources of
target chemicals on the day they were
monitored or within the previous week.
Sources included industrial plants, auto
exhaust, and paint. For 10 of the 12
sources, at least one (and as many as
six) of the 11 most prevalent chemicals
appeared at significantly higher levels in
the breath of persons exposed during the
day or week compared to those not
exposed to the source. In most cases.'the
chemicals that were elevated were those
expected to be associated with a given
source, such as tetrachloroethylene with
dry cleaners and benzene with service
stations or with auto exhaust.
A second series of questions con-
cerned direct exposure to chemical
groups or mixtures. These chemical
mixtures included solvents, pesticides,
and tobacco smoke. Again, certain
chemicals appeared at significantly
higher levels in the breath of exposed
persons compared to those not exposed.
Table 7 summarizes the chemicals with
signficantly elevated breath and personal
air concentrations in people exposed to
potential sources.
Relationship of Benzene and
Other Aromatics to Smoking
Benzene concentrations in air and
breath were significantly different for
smokers and non-smokers. Median
daytime air exposures in the fall of 1981
were 21 ug/m3 for smokers, and 12 /ug/
m3 for non-smokers. Breath medians
were 22 pg/m3 for smokers, 7.9 fjg/m3
for non-smokers.
Three other aromatics (p-xylene, ethyl-
benzene, and styrene) also showed
significantly elevated levels in the breath
of smokers compared to non-smokers
during all three seasons. (The fifth
aromatic, o-xylene, was elevated but
usually not significantly.) Two laboratory
studies have identified these five aro-
matic components in sidestream smoke
(3) and mainstream smoke (4).
Smokers generally had 2-4 times as
much benzene in their breath as non-
smokers. Also, benzene levels in the
homes containing smokers were 30-50%
higher than in non-smoking households.
Since about 60% of U.S. children live in
homes with smokers, it appears possible
that a large number of children have
increased exposure to benzene, a known
leukemogen, during their early years. A
recent study by Sandier (5) comparing
lifetime cancer mortality rates of persons
who were exposed or were not exposed
as children to parental smoking showed
significant increases in hematopoietic
(leukemia, lymphomas, etc.) mortality
rates in the exposed group. The odds ratio
increased from 1.7 with one parent
smoking to 4.6 wih both parents
smoking.
Phase HI (California)
On the February trip to Los Angeles,
mean overnight outdoor air concentra-
tions were greatly elevated by nighttime
inversions, and were usually similar to
mean personal exposures; however, on
the May trip to Los Angeles and the June
trip to Antioch-Pittsburg, the personal air
exposures again exceeded the outdoor
levels (Table 8).
Comparison of New Jersey and
California Results
Response Rates. Response rates
were similar (43-57%) in the New Jersey
and California locations (Table 9), and
probably represent the best (using these
procedures) that can be achieved in the
general population considering the heavy
burden of carrying monitoring instru-
ments 24 hours a day.
-------
Table 3. Target Compounds Selected for Monitoring in Environmental Media
Matrix: Personal and Fixed-Site Air
Chloroform
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
*r\-Decane
*Dodecane
*1,4-Dioxane
*1,1,1,2- Tetrachloroethane
*a-Pinene
Matrix: Drinking Water
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Dibromochloromethane
Chlorobenzene
Matrix: Breath
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroform
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
*t\-Decane
*Dodecane
*1,4-Dioxane
*1,1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane
Bromoform
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
o, m, p-Dichlorobenzenes
Ethylbenzene
o,m,p-Xy/enes
*Undecane
*n-0ctane
1,2-Dichloroethane
"1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Bromoform
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
o,m,p-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
o,m,p-Xylenes
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dibromoethane
*n- Octane
*Undecane
1,2-Dichloroethane
*1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
*a-Pinene
"California only.
Concentrations, For indoor air, ni
obvious differences between New Jerse'
and California appear. However, fo
outdoor air, the February overnigh
concentrations in Los Angeles stanc
out—six chemicals (benzene, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, p
xylene, o-xylene, and ethylbenzene
exceed the highest New Jersey values
by a factor of 2 or more, whether medians
or 90th percentile concentrations are
compared. In both California and New
Jersey maximum indoor concentrations
usually far exceeded maximum outdooi
concentrations measured at the same
homes (Table 10).
The observation in New Jersey ol
significant correlations between breath
and air concentrations of most of the
prevalent chemicals was repeated in the
California visits.
TEAM Study Publications
A number of EPA reports and journal
articles have been published on various
aspects of the TEAM Study. All of these
publications are listed in Table 11.
Summary and Conclusions
The major findings of the TEAM Study
may be summarized as follows:
1. Measurement of personal expo-
sures using the Tenax personal
monitors was shown to be a
feasible approach, accpetable to
essentially all subjects (ages 7
Table 4.
Estimates of Air and Breath Concentrations of 11 Prevalent Compounds for 130,000 Elizabeth-Bayonne Residents (Fall 1981);
11O.OOO Residents (Summer 1982); and 49.OOO Residents (Winter 1983)
Total (11 compounds)
Season I (Fall)
Season II (Summer)
Season III (Winter)
1,1 ,1 - Trichloroethane
m.p.-Dichlorobenzene
m,p-Xylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
QrXyJene
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Styrene
Carbon tetrachloride
Personal
Air
(N=340)
94'
45
52
45
28
19
16
13
8.0
8.9
9.3
Outdoor
Air
(86)
7.0'
1.7
11
6.0
9.1
4.0
4.0
2.2
1.4
0.9
1.1
Breath
(300)
15"
8.1
9.0
13
19
4.6
3.4
1.8
3.1
1.2
1.3
Personal
Air
(150)
67
50
37
11
NCC
9.2
12
6.3
4.3
2.1
1.0
Outdoor
Air
(60)
12
1.3
10
6.2
NC
3.2
3.6
7.8
13
0.7
1.0
Breath
(110)
15
6.3
10
10
NC
4.7
5.4
5.9
6.3
1.6
0.4
Personal
Air
(49)
45
71
36
28
NC
12
13
4.6
4.0
2.4
ND"
Outdoor
Air
(9)
1.7
1.2
9.4
4.2
NC
3.8
3.6
0.4
0.3
0.7
ND
Breath
(49)
4.0
6.2
4.7
11
NC
2.1
1.6
0.6
0.3
0.7
ND
338
48
80
200
59
66
216
25
31
*A verage of arithmetic means of day and night 12-hour samples (ug/m3).
''Arithmetic mean.
"Not calculated—high background contamination.
ANot detected in most samples.
-------
to 85), and capable of detecting
exposures to most of the target
compounds at normal environ-
mental concentrations.
2. Measurement of exhaled breath
proved to be a sensitive and non-
invasive way to determine body
burden.
3. Mean personal air exposures to
essentially every one of the 11
prevalent target chemicals were
greater than mean outdoor con-
centrations at 7 of 8 locations/
monitoring periods. (The one
exception was Los Angeles in
February, where strong overnight
inversions led to elevated outdoor
concentrations.) The upper 10%
of personal exposures always
exceeded the upper 10% of out-
door concentrations for all sites
and time periods.
4. A major reason for these higher
personal exposures appears to be
elevated indoor air levels at work
and at home.
5. The elevated indoor air levels
appear to be due to a variety of
sources, including consumer pro-
ducts, building materials, and
personal activities.
6. The breath levels correlated sig-
nificantly with personal air expo-
sures to nearly all chemicals but
did not correlate with outdoor air
levels. This is further corrobora-
tion of the relative importance of
indoor air compared with outdoor
air.
7. A number of specific sources of
exposure were identified
including:
a. Smoking (benzene, xylenes,
ethylbenzene, styrene in breath)
b. Passive smoking (same chemi-
cals in indoor air)
c. Visiting dry cleaners
(tetrachloroethylene in breath).
d. Visiting a service station (ben-
zene in breath)
e. Various occupations, including:
chemicals, plastics, wood pro-
Legend
• Personal
G2 Outdoor
Figure 1. Estimated geometric means of 11 toxic compounds in daytime (6.00 am to 6:00
pm) air samples for the target population (128,000) of Elizabeth and Bayonne,
New Jersey, between September and November 1981. Personal air estimates
based on 340 samples: outdoor air estimates based on 88 samples
Legend
H Personal
CZ3 Outdoor
Figure 2. Estimated geometric means of 11 toxic compounds in overnight (6:00 pm to 6'00
am) air samples for the target population (128.0001 of Elizabeth and Bayonne,
New Jersey, between September and November 1981 Personal air (i.e., indoor)
estimates based on 347 samples; outdoor air estimates based on 84 samples.
-------
2,000
/,000
100
I
10
Population Exceeding Concentration Shown
115,200 64.000 12.800 1.280
90% 50% 10% 1%
m,p-dichlorobenzene
Legend
t Personal Air
(N-344)
i Breath
(N-320)
i Outdoor Air
(N~86)
Night
Day
Breath
f Day
9 Night
2,000
7,000
;oo
10
Figure 3
10% 50% 90% 99%
12,800 64,000 115,200 127,000
Population Below Concentration Shown
m,p-D/ch/orobenzene: Estimated frequency distributions of personal air exposures,
outdoor air concentrations, and exhaled breath values lor the combined Elizabeth-
Bayonne. target population (128.000) All air values are 12-hour integrated
samples The breath value was taken following the daytime air sample (6:00 am
to 6 00 pm) All outdoor samples were taken in the vicinity of the participants'
homes
cessing, scientific laboratories,
garage or repair work, metal
work, printing, etc. (mostly aro-
matic chemicals in daytime
personal air)
8. Other sources were hypothes-
ized, including:
a. Hot showers (chloroform in
indoor air)
b. Room air fresheners or moth
crystals (p-dichlorobenzene in
indoor air)
9. In most cases, these sources far
outweighed the impact of tradi-
tional "major" point sources
(chemical plants, petroleum refin-
eries, petrochemical plants) and
area sources (dry cleaners and
service stations) on personal
exposure.
10. For all chemicals, except the
trihalomethanes, the air route
provided >99% of the exposure.
Water provided nearly all of the
exposure to the three brominated
trihalomethanes, and more thar
half of most personal exposures
to chloroform.
Recommendations
The major findings of this study is the
observation that personal exposures to
these toxic and carcinogenic chemicals
are nearly always greater—often much
greater—than outdoor concentrations.
We are led to the conclusion that indoor
air in the home and at work far outweighs
outdoor air as a route of exposure to
these chemicals.
Until now federal and state regulators
and directors of research have focused
most of their attention on sources
affecting outdoor concentrations. There-
fore, it is important to verify the findings
of the TEAM Study and, if true, incor-
porate them into future research and
regulatory strategies.
An appropriate next step would be tc
investigate the sources of these expo-
sures more systematically than was
possible in the TEAM Study. The relative
contribution of building materials, fur-
nishings, personal activities, and consu-
mer products to personal exposures
should be determined by intensive
studies in a number of homes, office
buildings, schools, and other structures
where people spend much of their time.
In particular, the following specific
recommendations are made:
1. Extend studies of human expo-
sure to other cities and rural
areas. The studies in Greensboro,
North Carolina and Devils Lake,
North Dakota were too small to
provide much stability to their
estimates of human exposure.
Thus, additional studies of
medium-sized cities and rural
areas are needed. Also, the larger
studies in Elizabeth, Bayonne, Los
Angeles, Antioch, and Pittsburg
all took place in areas of intensive
chemical manufacturing and pet-
roleum refining. Future studies
should include large cities with-
out such sources to determine the
applicability of TEAM findings to
the types of locations in which
most people in the U.S. live.
2. Follow up previous studies to
determine the reasons for ele-
vated exposures. By using the
persons (or homes) already mea-
-------
Ninety-Ninth Percentile Values
Figure 4.
Table 5.
Legend
ES N.J. Outdoor
•* N.J. Personal
Comparison of unweighted 99th percentile concentrations of 1 1 prevalent
chemicals in overnight outdoor air and overnight personal air in New Jersey (Fall
1981}.
Arithmetic Means and Maxima (fjg/L) of Organic Compounds in New Jersey
Drinking Water
Fall 1981
(1 28.000?
Chemical
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
1,1 ,1- Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachhroethylene
Toluene
Vinyl/dene chloride
Benzene
Mean
70
14
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
-
Max
170
23
8.4
5.3
4.2
3.3
2.7
2.4
-
Summer 1982
(109,000)*
Mean
61
14
2.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
-
0.1
0.7
Max
130
54
7.2
2.6
8.3
9.3
-
2.5
4.8
Winter 1983
(94.000)°
Mean
17
5.4
1.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
-
0.2
-
Max
33
16
3
1.6
3.4
5.0
-
0.9
-
*'b'cPopulation of Bayonne and Elizabeth to which estimates apply.
sured, high-exposure persons
(homes) that represent known
numbers of other persons
(homes) can be selected without
an expensive screening proqess.
3. Perform special studies to deter-
mine the strength of hypothesized
sources. These may include
experimental studies in occupied
houses or emission studies in
chambers.
4. Develop emission inventories of
major sources of indoor and
personal exposure. These should
emphasize consumer products,
building materials, and personal
activities such as smoking, filling
gas tanks, showering, visiting dry
cleaners, etc.
5. Develop models capable of com-
bining emissions from indoor
sources, personal activity patt-
erns, outdoor concentrations,
and air exchange rates to predict
exposures for large populations.
The second major finding has been the
great utility of breath sampling to esti-
mate levels in the body due to normal
daily exposure to toxic chemicals. Breath
sampling is non-invasive and is much
more sensitive and less costly and
difficult than blood sampling. In this
study, breath sampling alone was effec-
tive in distinguishing between popula-
tions exposed to specific sources and
those not so exposed. The technique
should be investigated for possible use
in the following situations:
6. Estimate dosages of persons
exposed to chemical spills or
releases.
7. Survey healthy persons to estab-
lish normal baselines and ranges
of biological variability.
8. Study diseased persons to estab-
lish possible early diagnostic
procedures.
9. Study acute health effects asso-
ciated with organic emissions
("sick building syndrome") to
determine the extent of the loss
of productivity of U.S. workers
due to degraded indoor air quality
in the workplace.
A third finding has been the demon-
stration of the utility of this personal
monitoring approach not only in estimat-
ing the exposure of entire urban area
populations, but also in gaining an
understanding of the sources of expo-
sure. The general methodology appears
applicable for determining exposures to
many other pollutants (e.g., pesticides
and metals) provided adequate sampling
and analysis protocols for individually-
cooked meals can be developed. With the
development of better instruments, it
should also be possible to carry out large-
scale studies of exposure to inhalable
particulates and NOa in the near future.
-------
Table 6. Spearman Correlations Between Breath Concentrations and Preceding Daytime
12-Hour Personal Exposures to Eleven Compounds in New Jersey, North Carolina,
and North Dakota
Chloroform
1,1,1- Jrichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Styrene
m,p-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m,p-Xylene
NJ1'
(N=330)
.07
.28"
.21*
.24"
.38"
.46"
.19"
.54"
.33"
.26"
.32"
NJ2*
(N=130)
-.11
.28"
i
-.01
.10
.23"
.20"
.38"
.22"
.22"
.27"
NJ3C
(N=47)
-.03
.32"
-
-
.35"
.37*
.19
.61"
.44"
.45*
.48*
ND"
(N=23)
-.01
.71"
-
-.23
.26
.53"
-
.63*
.12
.21
.19
NC*
(N=23)
.45"
-
.22
-.53*
.38
.58*
.32
.68"
-.01
.28
.08
"Fall 1981.
"Summer 1982.
'Winter 1983.
"Fall 1982.
'Spring 1982.
'Data uncertain based on quality assurance results.
"Significant at p < .05 level.
Control of Toxic Emissions
Reduction of exposure to the toxic
chemicals measured in the TEAM Study
may come about through two types of
action: individual and organizational.
Individual Actions. Several of the
sources identified in the TEAM Study
may be dealt with by simple means. For
example, unused paint cans, aerosol
sprays, cleansers, solvents, etc., may be
disposed of or stored in a detached
garage or tool shed. Charcoal filters
attached to the kitchen and bathroom
taps can remove chloroform and other
trihalomethanes from water supplies.
(However, some filters are relatively
ineffective; an EPA study and a Consu-
mers Report article have identified
effective and ineffective brands.) Disco-
nintuing use of room air fresheners or
switching to brands that do not contain
p-dichlorobenzene will reduce exposure
to that chemical. Discontinuing smoking,
smoking only outdoors or in well-
ventilated rooms, or installing air clean-
ers can reduce involuntary smoking by
children or spouses. Dry-cleaned clothes
could be aired out for a few hours on
a balcony or porch before hanging them
in a closet.
Organizational Actions. As in the case
of formaldehyde, manufacturers may
reduce toxic emissions from their pro-
ducts, either by modifying manufacturing
processes or substituting less toxic
chemicals. Voluntary building standards
may be adopted, limiting emissions for
building materials. Local, state, or federal
governments could adopt a variety of
legislative solutions, such as the various
laws restricting smoking in public
buildings.
Associations such as the Air Pollution
Control Association, the American Lung
Association, the Association for Stand-
ards and Testing of Materials, the
Consumer Federation of America, the
National Institute for Building Sciences,
the American Institute of Architects, and
others have in recent years recognized
the importance of indoor air pollution and
have programs designed to encourage
research, communicate research results,
establish standards, and/or develop
control techniques.
References
1. Pellizzari, E. D., Hartwell, T., Zelon,
H., Leininger, C., Erickson, M., and
Sparacino, C. (1982) Total Expo-
sure Assessment Methodology
(TEAM): Prepilot Study—Northern
New Jersey, Final Report, EPA
Contract 68-01-3849, Office of
Research and Development,
USEPA, Washington, DC.
2. Wallace, L, Pellizzari, E., Hartwell,
T., Rosenzweig, M., Erickson, M.,
Sparacino, C., and Zelon, H. (1984)
Personal exposure to volatile
organic compounds: direct mea-
surement in breath-zone air, drink-
ing water, food, and exhaled
breath. Env. Res. 35:293-319.
3. Jermini, C., Weber, A., and Grand-
jean, E. (1976) Quantitative deter-
mination of various gas-phase
components of the sidestream
smoke of cigarettes in room air (in
German), Int. Arch. Occup. Env.
Health, 36:169-181.
4. Higgins, C. et al. (1983) Applica-
tions of Tenax trapping to cigarette
smoking, J. Assoc. Official Analyt-
ical Chemists, 66:1074-1083.
5. Sandier, D. P., Everson, R. B.,
Wilcox, A. J., and Browder, J. P.
(1985) Cancer risk in adulthood
from early life exposure to parents'
smoking. Am. J. Public Health, May
1985.
-------
Table 7. Chemicals with Significantly (p < .05) Higher Concentrations in Air and Breath
of Persons Recently Exposed to Potential Sources Compared to Persons Not Exposed
to Any Source
Ratio of Mean Concentrations'
Exposed vs Unexposed
Groups
Potential Source
No. of Persons
Exposed
Breath
Air
Paint
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m,p-Xylene
28
2.3 (.0002)'
2.0 (.0000)
2.8 (.0004)
1.91.0004)
1.4(009)
1.7 (.002)
1.3 (.03)
2.7(.02)
1.8 (.0005)
2.1 /.0001)
2.5 (.0003)
2.5 (.0000)
Chemical Plant
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m,p-Xy/ene
21
1.9 (.02)
2.5 (.0008)
1.4 (.05)
1.9(004)
2.0 (.004)
1.8 (.0006)
2.3 (.0003)
1.9 (.0006)
Plastics Manufacturing
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m,p-Xylene
11
20 (.01)
2.8(003)
3.4 (.0006)
2.5 (.001)
2.6 (.02)
1 8(03)
2.3 (.02)
2.1 (.02)
Dry Cleaning
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
37
2.31.0000)
2 2 (.02)
2.2 (.003)
1 7 (.03)
Petroleum Plant
None
19
Service Station
Benzene
67
2.2 (.0000)
1.3 (.02)
Printing
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
1.8 (.02)
1.3(03)
1 6(03)
2.2(02)
Metal Working
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
17
1.4(01)
1.8 (.05)
1 8(05)
1 8 (.03)
3.7(.0000)
4.4 (.0000)
Science Laboratory
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
14
1.7(03)
1 4(05)
2.2 (.002)
2.7 (.001)
Furniture Refmishing
Ethy/benzene
o-Xylene
28(03)
2 5 (04)
2.2(02)
24(006)
Hospital
None
13
"Probability of no difference between exposed and unexposed groups—Wi/coxon Rank-Sum
Test
-------
Table 8. Estimates of Air and Breath Concentrations of Nineteen Prevalent Compounds for 360,000 Los Angeles Residents (February 1984),
330.000 Los Angeles Residents (May 1984), and 91, 000 Contra Costa Residents (June 1984)
LA 1 LA2 CC
1 ,1 , 1 -Tnchloroethane
m,p-Xylene
m,f)-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
o-Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
n- Octane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
a-Pinene
Styrene
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachlonde
1 . 2-Dichloroethane
p-Dioxane
o-Diochlorobenzene
Total (19 compounds)
Personal
Air
(N=110)
96°
28
18
18
16
13
11
78
5.8
5.8
5.2
2.5
4.1
3.6
1.9
1.0
0.5
0.5
04
240
Outdoor
Air
(24)
34*
24
2.2
16
10
n
9.7
0.8
3.9
3.0
2.2
0.7
0.8
3.8
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
120
Breath
1110)
39"
3.5
5.0
8.0
12
1.0
1.5
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.6
02
15
09
06
0.2
0.1
02
0.1
80
Personal
Air
(SO)
44
24
12
9.2
15
72
74
64
43
3.5
4.2
2.1
6.5
1.8
1.1
0.8
0.1
1.8
0.3
150
Outdoor
Air
(23)
5.9
9.4
0.8
3.6
2.0
2.7
3.0
0.1
0.7
07
1.0
0.7
0.5
—
0.3
07
006
0.2
0.1
33
Breath
(50)
23
2.8
2.9
8.8
9.1
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.4
1.7
—
0.8
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.04
56
Personal
Air
(67)
16
11
5.5
7.5
5.6
4.4
3.7
3.8
23
20
2.7
2.1
2.1
1.0
0.6
13
0 1
0.2
0.6
72
Outdoor
Air
110)
28
2.2
0.3
19
0.6
0.7
0.9
01
05
3.8
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.05
0.1
0.07
16
Breath
(67)
16"
2.5
3.7
7.0
S6b
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.6
1 3
1 2
04
13
O.7
04
0.2
0.04
0.2
0.08
62
''Average of arithmetic means of day and night 12-hour samples (ug/m3).
"One very high value removed.
Table 9. Comparison of New Jersey and California Response Rates
New Jersey California
Households screened
Eligible households
Screening completed
Completion rate
Eligible persons
Completed study
Completion rate
Overall Response Rate
Bayonne
2204
2063
1788
87%
281
154
55%
48%
Elizabeth
3374
3145
2638
84%
395
201
51%
43%
Los Angeles
1260
1219
1063
87%
190
117
62%
54%
Antioch/
Pittsburg
604
561
502
89%
121
71
59%
53%
10
-------
Table 10. Maximum Overnight Concentrations Indoors and Outdoors for Homes with Outdoor Monitors TEAM Study. 1981-84
New Jersey California
Los Angeles
Sept. -Nov. July-Aug Feb. Feb
1981 1982 1983 1984
(N=85) (N=71) (N=8) {N=25>
m,p-Dichlorobenzene
7,7,7- Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
m,p-Xylene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Styrene
Carbon tetrachloride
Octane
Decane
Undecane
Dodecane
a-Pinene
1 ,4-Dioxane
In
920
880
250
120
120
320
46
220
47
54
14
b
-
-
-
-
Out In Out In
13 1600 8 120
40 120 51 170
27 98 26 72
91 NC' NC NC
70 150 65 63
20 180 28 32
27 100 31 24
22 35 130 16
15 59 61 7
11 10 11 11
14 6 5 NC
-
-
-
-
-
-
Out In
5 210
10 200
5 94
NC 43
14 58
5 29
5 34
1 6
07 50
1 9
NC 3
38
11
77
70
44
4
Out
21
190
34
33
52
26
28
6
3
9
2
12
27
19
4
5
5
May
1984
-------
Table 11 TEAM Study Publications
1 Wallace, L A, Zweidinger, R, Erickson, M, Cooper, S., Whitaker, D., and Pellizzan, E. D. (1982), "Monitoring Individual Exposure:
Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in Breathing-Zone Air, Drinking Water, and Exhaled Breath." Environment International
8 269-282
2 Zweidinger, R , Erickson, M, Cooper, S, Whitaker, D., Pellizzan, E D., and Wallace, L. (1982), Direct Measurement of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Breathing Zone Air, Drinking Water, Breath, Blood, and Urine, USEPA, Washington, DC, NTIS No. PB 82-186 545.
3 Pellizzan, E D, Erickson, M D, Giguere, M T, Hartwell, T. D., Williams. S. R., Sparacino, C. M., Zelon, H., and Waddell, ft. D.
(1980), "Preliminary Study on Toxic Chemicals in Environmental and Human Samples' Work Plan, Vols. I and II, (Phase I), USEPA,
Washington, DC
4 Pellizzan, E. D , Hartwell, T. Zelon, H., Lemmger, C., Erickson, M., Cooper, S., Whitaker. D., and Wallace, L. (1982), "Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Prepilot Study—Northern New Jersey," USEPA, Washington, DC.
5 Entz, R, Thomas, K, and Diachenko, G. (1982), "Residues of Volatile Halocarbons in Food Using Headspace Gas Chromatography,"
J Agric Food Chem , 30 846-849
6 Sparacino, C., Leininger, C , Zelon, H., Hartwell, 7, Erickson, M., and Pellizzari, E. (1982), "Sampling and Analysis for the Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Prepilot Study," Research Triangle Park, USEPA, Washington, DC.
7 Sparacino, C , Pellizzari, E., and Erickson, M (1982). "Quality Assurance for the Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Prepilot
Study," USEPA, Washington. DC
8 Wallace. L. A (1982), "Measuring Direct Individual Exposure to Toxic Substance," Toxic Substances Journal, 4:174-183.
9 Wallace, L A (1982), "Direct Measurement of Individual Human Exposures and Body Burden: Research Needs," Journal Environmental
Science and Health, A17(4)531 -540.
10 Wallace. L A , Pellizzan, E., Hartwell. T, Rosenzweig, M., Erickson, M., Sparacino, C., and Zelon. H. (1984), "Personal Exposure to
Volatile Organic Compounds I. Direct Measurement in Breathing-Zone Air. Drinking Water, Food, and Exhaled Breath." Environmental
Research, 35 293-3)9.
11. Pellizzari, E D.. Erickson, M. D, Sparacino, C. M.. Hartwell, T. D., Zelon. H., Rosenzweig, M, and Leininger, C. (1981), "Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study: Phase II Work Plan," USEPA, Washington, DC.
12 Pellizzari, E D., Hartwell. T D., Leininger, C., Zelon, H., Williams, S., Breen, J., and Wallace, L (1983), "Human Exposure to Vapor-
Phase Ha/ogenated Hydrocarbons Fixed-Site vs. Personal Exposure," Proceedings: National Symposium on Recent Advances in Pollutant
Monitoring of Ambient Air and Stationary Sources," Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Research Triangle Park. NC, EPA/
600/9-83/007, pp. 264-288
13 Pellizzan, E, Sparacino, C, Sheldon, L., Leininger, C, Zelon, H., Hartwell, T., and Wallace, L. (1984), "Sampling and Analysis for
Volatile Organics in Indoor and Outdoor Air in New Jersey," in Indoor Air, V. 4, Chemical Characterization and Personal Exposure,
pp 221 -226, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm.
14 Pellizzan, E.. Hartwell, T, Sparacino, C, Sheldon, C., Whitmore, R. Leininger, C, and Zelon. H. (1984), "Total Exposure Assessment
Methodology (TEAM) Study," (First Season Northern New Jersey) Interim Report, Contract No. 68-02-3679, USEPA, Washington, DC.
15 Hartwell, T, Perntt. R, Zelon, H. Whitmore, R, Pellizzari, E, and Wallace, L (1984), "Comparison of Indoor and Outdoor Levels
for Air and Vo/atiles in New Jersey." in Indoor Air, V 4, Chemical Characterization and Personal Exposure, pp 81-86, Swedish Council
for Building Research, Stockholm
16 Wallace, L, Pellizzari, E, Hartwell, T, Zelon, H, Sparacino, C , and Whitmore, R (1984), "Analysis of Exhaled Breath of 355 Urban
Residents for Volatile Organic Compounds," in Indoor Air, V 4, Chemical Characterization and Personal Exposure, pp 15-20, Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm
17. Wallace, L , Pellizzari, E , Hartwell, T, Sparacino, C , Sheldon, L , andZelon, H (1985), "Personal Exposures, Indoor-Outdoor Relationships
and Breath Levels of Toxic Air Pollutants Measured for 355 Persons in New Jersey," Atmos Environ 19'1651 -1661
18 Wallace, L , Pellizzan, E, and Gordon, S (1985), "Organic Chemicals in Indoor Air- a Review of Human Exposure Studies and Indoor
Air Quality Studies," in Indoor Air and Human Health Proceedings of the Seventh ORNL Life Sciences Symposium, Knoxville, TN,
Oct 29-31, 1984 Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
12
-------
Table 11. (continued)
19. Wallace. L. Pellizzari, £., Hartwell, T., Zelon, H., Sparacino, C.. and Whitmore, R. (1985), "Concentrations of 20 Volatile Compounds
in the Air and Drinking y\/ater of 350 Residents of New Jersey Compared to Concentrations in Their Exhaled Breath," accepted by
J. Occ. Med.
20. Wallace, L, Bromberg. S., Pellizzari, E, Hartwell, T., Zelon, H., and Sheldon, L. (1984b), "Plan and Preliminary Results of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Indoor Air Monitoring Program," in Indoor Air, V. 1, Recent Advances in the Health Sciences and
Technology, pp. 173-178, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm.
21. Gordon, S. M., Wallace, L, Pellizzari, £., and O'Neill, H. J. (1985), "Breath Clean-Air Chamber to Determine Washout Times of Volatile
Organic Compounds at Normal Environmental Concentrations," presented at Workshop on Human Exposure: Monitoring and Modeling,
Harvard Univ.. September 30-October 3, 1985.
22. Pellizzari. £., Sheldon, L, Sparacino, C., Bursey, J., Wallace, L, and Bromberg. S. (1984b). "Volatile Organic Levels in Indoor Air,"
in Indoor Air, V. 4, Chemical Characterization and Personal Exposure, pp. 303-308. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm.
23. Wallace, L. (1986) An Overview of the Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study, Volume I, Final Report, EPA Contract
68-02-3679, USEPA. Washington, DC 20460.
24. Pellizzari. E. D., Perritt. K. Hartwell, T. D., Michael, L C.. Whitmore. R., Handy. R. W., Smith. D.. and Zelon, H. (1985), Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study: Elizabeth and Bayonne, New Jersey; Devils Lake, North Dakota; and Greensboro, North Carolina:
Volume II, Final Report, Contract No. 68-02-3679, USEPA. Washington. DC 20460.
25. Pellizzari, E. D., Perritt. K. Hartwell, T. D., Michael. L C., Whitmore, R., Handy, R. W., Smith, D., and Zelon, H. (1985b), Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study: Selected Communities in Northern and Southern California: Volume III, Final Report, Contract
No. 68-02-3679, USEPA, Washington, DC 20460.
26. Pellizzari, f. D., et at. (1985c). TEAM Study: Standard Operating Procedures: Volume IV, Final Report, Contract No. 68-02-3679, USEPA,
Washington, DC 20460.
27. Sheldon. L. S.. Handy, R. W. Hartwell, T. D., Whitmore, R. W.. Zelon, H. S., and Pellizzari, E. D. (1985a), Total Exposure Assessment
Methodology Special Study—Indoor Air, Final Report, Contract No. 68-02-3679, USEPA, Washington, DC 20460.
28. Sheldon, L S., Handy, R. W., Hartwell, T. D., Leininger, C., and Zelon, H. (1985b), Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM)
Study: Mothers' Milk, Final Report, Contract No. 68-02-3679, USEPA. Washington. DC 20460.
29. Pellizzari. £ D.. Sparacino, C. M.. Hartwell, T. D., Sheldon, L S., Whitmore, R., Leininger, C., and Zelon, H. (1984d) Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Special Study: Dry Cleaners, Final Report, Contract No. 68-02-3679, USEPA, Washington, DC 20460.
13
-------
E. D. Pellizzari, K. Perritt, T. D. Hartwell, L. C. Michael, C. M. Sparacino, L
S. She/don, R. Whit more. C. Leninger. H. Zelon, R. W. Handy, D. Smith,
N. P. Castillo, K. Thomas, J. Keever, P. A. Blau, K. A. Brady, R. L. Porch,
J. T. Bursey, and D. Whitaker are with Research Triangle Institute, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709; the EPA author Lance A. Wallace (also the EPA
Project Officer, see below) is with the Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental
Monitoring and Quality Assurance, Washington, DC 20460.
The complete report consists of four volumes, entitled "The Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study," (Set Order No. PB 88-100 052;
Cost: $151.00)
"Volume I. Summary and Analysis." (Order No. PB 88-100 060; Cost: $24.95)
"Volume II. Elizabeth and Bayonne, New Jersey, Devils Lake, North Dakota
and Greensboro, North Carolina," (Order No. PB 88-100 078; Cost: $60.95)
"Volume III. Selected Communities in Northern and Southern California,"
(Order No. PB 88-100 086; Cost: $42.95)
"Volume IV. Standard Operating Procedures Employed in Support of an
Exposure Assessment Study," (Order No. PB 88-100 094; Cost: $48.95)
The above reports will be available only from: (cost subject to change)
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental
Monitoring and Quality Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
14
-------
oo
«sl
i
N)
C
CO
2 asar
OO •<
»r*
a»wo
Ot»3D
M30
O
*•
O 3"
jr i
O
T)
O
oo
o
g 3
Mill
w.oS^-a-j-f
c5-«.5-2,.(»
• ; _o K.
------- |