EPA/600/R-97/059
June 1997
Air Concentrations and Inhalation Exposure to Pesticides
in the Agricultural Health Pilot Study
John J. Streicher1
Atmospheric Modeling Division
National Exposure Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
!On Assignment from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
This paper has been reviewed in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's peer review and administrative review policies for approval for presentation and
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. The information in this document has been funded by the National
Institutes of Health and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subject to
review by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and
approved for publication.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The mission of the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) is to provide scientific
understanding, information and assessment tools that will quantify and reduce the uncertainty in
EPA's exposure and risk assessments for environmental stressors. These stressors include
chemicals, biologicals, radiation, and changes in climate, land use, and water use. The Laboratory's
primary function is to measure, characterize, and predict human and ecological exposure to
pollutants. Exposure assessments are integral elements in the risk assessment process used to
identify populations and ecological resources at risk. The EPA relies increasingly on the results of
quantitative risk assessments to support regulations, particularly of chemicals in the environment.
In addition, decisions on research priorities are influenced increasingly by comparative risk
assessment analysis. The utility of the risk-based approach, however, depends on accurate exposure
information. Thus, the mission of NERL is to enhance the Agency's capability for evaluating
exposure of both humans and ecosystems from a holistic perspective.
The National Exposure Research Laboratory focuses on four major research areas: predictive
exposure modeling, exposure assessment, monitoring methods, and environmental characterization.
Underlying the entire research and technical support program of the NERL is its continuing
development of state-of-the-art modeling, monitoring, and quality assurance methods to assure the
conduct of defensible exposure assessments with known certainty. The research program supports
its traditional clients Regional Offices, Regulatory Program Offices, ORD Offices, and Research
Committees and ORD's Core Research Program in the areas of health risk assessment, ecological
risk assessment, and risk reduction.
Gary J. Foley
Director
National Exposure Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
The incidence of several types of cancers is higher among farmers than in the general population -
this despite lower overall mortality. Occupational agents responsible for these excess cancers have
not been definitively identified. The Agricultural Health Study seeks to identify and quantify
pesticide exposures to farmers, indirect exposures to their families, and to assess health risks. A 6-
farm, exposure pilot study implemented a total exposure assessment methodology, i.e., multimedia
tansport and multi-pathway exposure. Sampling design included air inhalation, oral ingestion and
dermal absorption. This paper reports on the air transport and inhalation exposures monitored during
the exposure pilot study. Meteorological data were collected from an on-site three-meter tower
Outdoor air was sampled on the day of the pesticide application event, and indoor air samples were
collected on three consecutive days centered on the application day. Personal activity logs,
indicating time and location, were maintained by participants during the monitoring period Of 33
targeted pesticides, 7 were applied on at least one of the participant farms, 11 were detected in the
outdoor air near a farm residence, and 17 were detected in farm residence indoor air. Indoor
concentrations of applied pesticides were detected on 4 of the 6 farms, however there is limited and
conflicting evidence to support an exclusively outdoor air source of indoor concentrations of applied
pesticides. Indoor concentrations of non-applied pesticides were more the rule than the exception
On 5 of the 6 pilot-study farms, concentrations of non-applied pesticides were detected in the indoor
air sample on at least one day. As expected, the applicator's inhalation exposure to applied pesticides
is greater than that of any other family member on the day of application. For spouse and children
the indoor microenvironment contributed to inhalation exposure of pesticides to a far greater extent
than did the outdoor-on-farm microenvironment - even on the day of application.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword [[[ m
.................................... iv
vu
Abstract [[[
Acknowledgments [[[ .........
Introduction [[[ [[[ 1
Air and Inhalation Exposure Monitoring Procedures .................................................. 2
Sampling Strategy [[[ 2
Participating Farms [[[ 2
Meteorological Data ............................... . [[[ 3
Applicator Personal Air Sampling [[[ 3
Indoor and Outdoor Air Sampling [[[ 3
Results and Discussion [[[ . ................... ................................ 4
Definitions and Units [[[ 4
Applied Pesticides [[[ 4
The Role of Modeling [[[ ................. 4
Model Selection ........ [[[ 5
-------
Appendix A: AHS Target Pesticides 29
Appendix B: Applied Pesticides Z........ 31
Appendix C; Meteorology 33
Appendix D: Application Equipment 39
Appendix E: Application Parameters and Model Calculations , 41
Appendix F: Time Series of Indoor and Outdoor Concentrations 43
Appendix G: Indoor to Outdoor Concentrations Ratios 51
Appendix H: Applicator Respiratory Protection .' 53
Appendix I: HML/Application Exposure Relative to Total 55
Appendix!: Applicator Total Inhalation Dose 57
Appendix K: Applicator Personal Air Exposure and Dose 59
Appendix L: Family Exposure to Applied Pesticide on Application Day 63
Appendix M: Spouse and Child Exposure Relative To Applicator 70
Appendix N: Indoor Detection of Non-Applied Pesticides 72
Appendix O: Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses .'.' 74
Figures "" 84
Modeled Concentration: Iowa Farm #1: First Dicamba Application 85
Modeled Concentration: Iowa Farm #1: Second Dicamba Application 86
Modeled Concentration: Iowa Farm #3: Atrazine Application 87
Modeled Concentration: North Carolina Farm #1: First Alachlor Application 88
Modeled Concentration: North Carolina Farm #1: Second Alachlor Application 89
Keywords
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to recognize Steve Perry for his pontribution to the modeling effort
presented here. The innovative application of the AgDRIFT model to the problem of pesticide
dispersion from ground boom sprayers represents an important advance in agricultural engineering
and meteorology. The author also wishes to thank and acknowledge the useful discussions with
Sandy Bird, Andrew Bond, Fred Bouse, Skee Jones, Tracy Keigwin, Robert Lewis, David Mage,
Milt Teske, William Petersen, and Chon Shoaf.
The author acknowledges the AHS principal investigators Michael Alavanja (National
Cancer Institute), Dale Sandier (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), and Suzanne
McMaster (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
The author extends thanks to Nyla Logsden-Sackett (Study Coordinator of the Iowa Field
Station), Joy Pierce (Study-Coordinator of the North Carolina Field Station), the North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, the Iowa State University Extension Service, the Iowa Department
of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and the University of Iowa Center for Health Effects of
Environmental Contamination for their assistance in enrolling certified pesticide applicators into the
Agricultural Health Study.
This work was supported by contract numbers N01-CP-33047, N01-CP-33048 and
N01-CP-21095.
vn
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The incidence of several types of cancers is higher among farmers than in the general
population - this despite lower overall mortality. Occupational agents responsible for these excess
cancers have not been definitively identified (Baker and Wilkinson, 1990). Retrospective
assessments of exposure to any suspected toxin are inadequate in determining environmental cause
and health effect relationships. The Agricultural Health Study is the first prospective study to
evaluate the role of pesticides in cancer risks to farmers and their families (Alavanja et al., 1996;
Alavanjaetal., 1993).
The Agricultural Health Study is a collaborative effort of the National Cancer Institute, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The study seeks to identify and quantify pesticide exposures to farmers, and indirect exposures to
their families, and to assess long-term health risks.
The exposure assessment efforts included a pre-pilot phase (four farms; completed in 1992),
and a pilot phase (6 farms; monitoring completed in 1994). The objective of both the pre-pilot and
pilot phases was to test sampling protocols, develop analysis methods, and refine questionnaires.
Improved protocols, methods, and questionnaires will be incorporated in the full-scale study,
currently planned for 1998 (Camann et al., 1993; Giardino et al., 1993).
A total exposure assessment methodology was incorporated in the design of the study, i.e.,
multimedia transport and multi-pathway exposure (Wallace, 1987). Thirty-three pesticides were
targeted in the pilot studies. Sampling design included air inhalation, oral ingestion, and dermal
absorption. Media and cohort monitoring were chronologically centered around farm pesticide
application events. Baseline concentrations of pesticides were considered in sampling during a non-
application (i.e. control) season, vs. the application period (Kuchibhatla et al., 1994).
This paper reports on the air transport and inhalation exposures monitored during the second
phase pilot study. Applicator, spouse, and up to two children participated from four Iowa and two
North Carolina farms. The pesticide applicator was instrumented with a personal air sampler during
handling, mixing, and loading operations, as well as during application. Pesticide quantity was
recorded and chemical formulation was analyzed. Meteorological data were collected from an on-
site three-meter tower. An outdoor air sample was collected on the day of the pesticide application
event, and indoor air samples were collected on three consecutive days centered on the application
day. Baseline indoor concentrations of target pesticides were established with a non-application
season sample. Personal activity logs, indicating time and location, were maintained by participants
during the monitoring period.
-------
AIR AND INHALATION EXPOSURE MONITORING PROCEDURES
Sampling Strategy
The assessment of direct inhalation exposure of the applicator during application events
(handling, mixing, and loading (HML) operations; as well as actual pesticide application) required
concurrent sampling of the applicator's breathing zone, Assessment of indirect inhalation
exposures, as may be accrued by all family members from breathing indoor or outdoor air
contaminated with fugitive pesticides, required sampling of indoor and outdoor air, The pilot study
sampled indoor, outdoor, and applicator personal air, Indoor and outdoor samples were 24-hour
averages; applicator personal air samples were collected over the duration of the activity of interest *
either HML or application (Harding et al, 1993). Non-application season samples of indoor air were
collected to provide baseline levels of detected pesticides, AH samples were cpllected with a
polyurethane foam (PUF) and quartz pre-filter cartridge and analyzed for the presence of target
pesticides (Hsu et al., 1988; Geno et al,, 1993). A size^-selective impactor at the cartridge inlet
removed particles greater than 2,5 micrometers in diameter. Appreciable differences between open-
face and PM2.5 cartridges are expected only in the proximity of an atomizing source (Cainann et al.,
1994).
A five-day sampling strategy was chronologically centered on the day of a planned
application event, hereafter synonymous with "day 3". The first and fifth days were directed toward
setup and disassembly of monitoring equipment. During the second, or pre-application day, an
indoor air sample was collected. During the application day, indoor and outdoor air samples were
collected, as well as personal air samples from the applicator. During the fourth, or post-application
day, an indoor air sample was collected. Participants' activity logs recorded the time, location, and
activity of the applicator, spouse, and one or two children, during days 2, 3, and 4,
Participating Farms
Iowa and North Carolina were selected through a competitive procurement contract
(Alavanja et al., 1996; Alavanja et al., 1993). Both states have statewide population-based cancer
registries. Enrollment solicitation of participants for the full epidemiology study was facilitated
through contacts during state licensing of restricted-use pesticide applicators (Nelson et al., 1993).
(Full enrollment, circa 1997, is anticipated to include approximately 75,000 adults), All recruited
applicators used at least one of the 33 target pesticides on their farm (see Appendix A). From the
full study enrollment, four farms hi Iowa and two in North Carolina were recruited for participation
in the exposure assessment pilot study, The six pilot-study farms were monitored during a total of
seven application events (two separate application events were monitored on one of the Iowa farms).
-------
Meteorological Data
Transport of pesticide spray drift during application may correlate with outdoor air
concentrations sampled at the residence (Gilbert and Bell, 1988). A three-meter meteorological
monitoring tower was installed within 180 m of the farm residence at all six farms. Wind speed,
wind direction, temperature, and relative humidity, were automatically measured at 3 meters, with
10-minute averages of each variable being recorded. Meteorological data were collected during the
application day. The relative direction of, and distance to an application event with respect to the
farm residence was recorded as a schematic drawing.
Applicator Personal Air Sampling
A personal air sampler measured the applicator's exposure to pesticides by inhalation during
HML and application activities. A 3.8 L/min air sample was drawn through an inlet tubing
positioned within the applicator's breathing zone. (The inlet tubing of the sampling cartridge was
clipped to the collar area of the applicator's shirt, and positioned in front of the face. The outlet
tubing went to a pump clipped to the hip belt (Kuchibhatla et al., 1996a)). Onset and completion
times of HML or application activities were recorded for subsequent exposure and dose calculations,
as well as correlation with meteorological measurements.
Indoor and Outdoor Air Sampling
Indoor air samples were collected on days 2, 3, and 4, as well as a non-application season
sample. All indoor air samples were single-point, 24-hour average measurements. An outdoor air
sample was collected on the application day only. The outdoor air samples were at a fixed location
(near, and upwind of the house), and were 24-hour averages. Both indoor and outdoor samples were
collected using PUF and quartz pre-filter samplers. These measurements, in conjunction with
participant activity logs, provided data for indirect exposure assessment of all family members.
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Definitions and Units
Pesticide concentrations are reported in nanograms pollutant per cubic meter of air,
or [ng/m ]. Time is reported in hours, or [h]. The air pathway exposure, as used in this report, shall
be defined as the calculated product of an individual's time resident within a designated
microenvironment, with the concurrent pollutant concentration within that microenvironment.
Exposures are given throughout in units of hour nanograms per cubic meter, or h-ng/m3.
Exposure [ ] = Concentration [^-] x Time [h]
m3 m3
Exposure is to be distinguished from dose, which seeks to calculate inhaled mass as a product of
exposure, breathing rate, and deposition fraction. Breathing rate is usually measured in liters per
minute, or [L / min]. The deposition fraction (dimensionless) is assumed to be unity in this report.
Dose calculations are reported in nanograms, or ng.
Dose[ng] = Exposure[
m
x Breathing Rate [ ] x Deposition[-] x [0.06
min
m
mm.
L-h
Applied Pesticides
^ Appendix A lists the 33 AHS target pesticides. Of the 33 pesticides, 7 are herbicides, 21 are
insecticides, and 5 are fungicides. Appendix B lists the pesticides that were applied on the six study
farms. ^This list contains 7 of the target pesticides - 5 herbicides and 2 insecticides. Additionally,
a chemical variant of 2,4-D, namely 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester, and an insecticide synergist - piperonyl
butoxide, were applied.
The Role of Modeling
The contribution of modeling in this study was to estimate potential peak outdoor
concentrations under hypothetical near worst case conditions. A scenario consisting of a high
pesticide application rate on a field adjacent to, and directly upwind of, the farm residence represents
a reasonably worst case configuration. The specific equipment used, the prevailing meteorology,
-------
as well as the toxicity of the pesticide, contribute to an overall assessment. A model will serve to
provide estimates of emissions and spacial and temporal distributions of outdoor concentration for
hypothetical scenarios for which measurement and analysis are impractical or prohibitively
expensive. Model simulations, within their domain of validity, may provide cost-effective
alternatives to field measurements. Screening estimates of reasonably worst case scenarios, if found
to be well below threshold levels for health effects, may reduce the need for on-site measurements.
Reference concentrations for most pesticides, however, have not been established.
Model Selection
A physically-based modeling assessment of pesticide dispersion (spray drift, fugitive
emission, etc.) requires an understanding of the mechanisms of environmental release and transport,
and the engineering, physical, chemical, and meteorological laws that apply. Estimation of both
source function (time dependent emission characterization; physical properties of released pesticide
[i.e. gas, liquid, aerosol, or powder]) and dispersion parameters are required. The time dependent
release of pesticide into the air from a farm implement must be determined in order to estimate
subsequent spacial and temporal distribution of the pesticide. The physical state of the pesticide -
gaseous, powder, or liquid aerosol - influences removal process such as gravitational settling and
deposition. Hence physical properties such as particulate/aerosol size distribution must be estimated
(Lewis and Lee, 1976; Johnson, 1994). The kinds of pesticide application implements for which
pesticide release is well characterized is limited. Models do exist to estimate release and transport
of aerial boom sprayers. Modeling efforts in characterizing release and transport from ground-based
boom sprayers have been reported using generic computational fluid dynamics software (Reichard
et al., 1992). However, no self-contained, tailored model exists per se that models the unique
attributes of ground boom sprayers.
The AgDRIFT model (Teske, 1996; Teske et al., 1994) was initially developed to assess off-
target drift deposition rates of water-based aerial pesticide applications. It can also calculate plume
centerline concentrations needed in the assessment of inhalation exposure. The AgDRIFT model
provides the user with a hierarchy of modeling sophistication, from screening-level assessments to
comprehensive, state-of-the-science simulations. At the model's core is a Lagrangian treatment of
dispersion, tracking each nozzle stream of droplets through a flow field. AgDRIFT incorporates
source constructs such as nozzle type, flow rates, and drop size distribution. Environmental
variables having greatest impact on transport - wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity - are
incorporated in AgDRIFT's calculations. AgDRIFT was deemed suitable to simulate ground boom
sprayer drift, provided several extrinsic source parameters are appropriately assigned. Primarily,
boom traverse speed must be reduced to plausible tractor speeds. Normal aircraft-induced wake
effects (not present behind tractor booms) were eliminated by reducing the simulated aircraft mass
to essentially zero.
-------
Meteorology and Pesticide Transport
Meteorological measurements were taken at all application events except Iowa farm #2,
where technical difficulties were encountered. A meteorological instrumentation tower was set up
on the farms at locations deemed representative for the characterization of air transport of applied
pesticides from field to farm house. Ten minute averages of wind speed, wind direction,
temperature, and relative humidity were collected at a height of 3 meters above ground level.
Modeling of the dispersion of applied pesticides requires that basic meteorological variables be
measured during the application event. Short range transport, typically of the order of 100 meters
in the cases observed in this study, takes place in seconds to minutes. Appendix C reports
meteorological data (Kuchibhatla et al., 1996b) for Iowa farm #1, Iowa farm #3-first visit, and North
Carolina farm #1. In addition to the date, time, and meteorological data, Appendix C reports the
application activity in progress concurrent with the meteorological conditions. The application
activity is designated as either handling, mixing, loading ("HML" in Appendix C), or as applying
("app"). Since transport of applied pesticides to the farm house is of primary interest, the
approximate wind direction that would place the house downwind of the treated field is reported in
the column labeled "Target WD". The following column, labeled "Hit", indicates whether the
measured wind direction was within ± 45 ° of the target wind direction (yes "y" or no "n" ). The 24-
hour average concentrations (outdoor and indoor) are also reported on the top row.
Selection of Farms to be Modeled
The selection of application events suitable to a physically based model simulation was based
on both model capability and data limitations. The model initiative presented here is appropriate in
estimation of reasonable worst case conditions; it is not intended that modeled concentrations be
compared directly with ambient measurements. Each simulated case adheres to actual pesticide
amounts applied and rate of application. However, drop size distribution is treated conservatively
(i.e. to yield higher downwind concentrations), and meteorological conditions are a conservative
composite of measured variables (wind speed, relative humidity, temperature). Most significant in
interpretation of model results is that concentrations are calculated at plume centerline (i.e. assuming
wind direction is directly from application field to monitor). Furthermore, all calculations are 1-hour
averages, not 24-hour averages as were measured by the outdoor samplers. All application events
chosen for modeling were between 1 and 3 hours in duration, so a 1 hour averaging period is a better
indication of the peak concentration.
AgDRIFT simulates emission characteristics and dispersion of liquid pesticide from boom
sprayers. Application events suitable for modeling were required to have adequate data on pesticide
quantity and meteorology; and the application implement was limited to boom sprayers. As
Appendix D indicates, four of the seven monitored applications days used ground boom sprayers.
Three of these applications were suitable for modeling - Iowa farm #1, Iowa farm #3-first
application, and North Carolina farm #1. Iowa farm #2 had no meteorological data, and furthermore
the application event was approximately 5 km from the farm house and outdoor receptor. Iowa farm
-------
#3 during the second application visit used a hand sprayer - an uncharacterized source type. The
Iowa farm #4 application was a pesticide dusting of cows (no known source characterization), and
furthermore was performed inside of a milking parlor, hence not subject to ambient meteorological
dispersion. Finally, North Carolina farm # 2 used a hand cranked duster, a source type for which
emission characterization is not known.
Specification of Model Parameters and Results of Modeling
The application of the AgDRIFT model to ground boom spraying was accomplished by the
appropriate setting of various emission and dispersion variables. The objective of the modeling
exercise was to provide conservative assessments of downwind concentrations of applied pesticides
for an averaging time typical of application duration. The objective of a conservative (i.e. reasonable
worst case) estimate suggests the reporting of plume centerline concentrations. The actual
application rate (pounds active ingredient applied per acre and per unit time) was adhered to in the
calculations. The drop size distribution was a medium-to-coarse, consistent with a TX-6 nozzle type.
Nozzle direction was angled 45° between down and back-facing. The boom height was assumed
to be 127 cm (50 in) above the ground, and the crop height was assumed to be 15 cm (6 in). (The
choice of the TX-6 nozzle, nozzle angle, as well as the crop and boom height are reasonable worst
case insofar as contributing to maximum downwind concentrations.) The model assumes that swath
width is 12 m, and that application passes are transverse (at an angle of 90 degrees) to the wind
direction. The receptor location was modeled as directly downwind of the center of the application
field, corresponding to the average location of a plume centerline. Model simulations were
consistent with measured values of wind speed during actual application periods.
In all modeled cases, application events were at least one hour in duration. Model results are
reported as time-averaged concentrations during the application, as a function of downwind distance
at the field centerline (hence average plume centerline). These average concentrations during the
application may be interpreted as peak one-hour concentrations, at plume centerline, as a function
of downwind distance. In the interest of comparing measured outdoor 24-hour average
concentrations with a modeled reasonable worst case centerline estimate, the modeled estimates of
the steady-state concentration have been "averaged down" to 24-hours, by weighting non-application
periods with a zero concentration. This "24-hour" version of the model estimate must be interpreted
with caution. The frequent detection of non-applied pesticides in outdoor samples suggest that
background concentrations are often not zero (Jegier, 1969). Nevertheless, the conservative
assumptions built into the simulation conditions should provide a defensible 24-hour estimate of
reasonable worst case for comparison with measured values.
Appendix E reports applied pesticide quantitative details (Kuchibhatla et al., 1996a) for each
modeled application, including pesticide identification, amount of active ingredient, total volume
of liquid mixture applied, the concentration, acreage of application, application rate, duration of the
application, and distance to the receptor (i.e. farm house). Additionally, the model estimate of worst
case peak concentration at the receptor is reported, as is the "24-hour averaged" model calculation,
-------
and finally the measured 24-hour average concentration. Figures 1 through 5 illustrates modeled
peak one-hour concentration, at nominal adult breathing height (1.5 m), as a function of downwind
distance.
Iowa farm #1 was configured with a 55 acre application field approximately 100 m to the
southeast of the farm house (and outdoor monitor location). Two separate applications of dicamba
were monitored during the day. The first application consisted of 500 gallons liquid (2.25 gallons
Banvel), applied to 25 acres during approximately 2 hours 15 minutes. The second application
consisted of 500 gallons liquid (2.5 gallons Banvel), applied to 30 acres during approximately 1 hour
15 minutes. Winds out of the southeast (135 °) would favor transport of pesticide spray toward the
monitor. HML activities occurred to the northwest of the house; winds from the northwest (315°)
would favor transport of fugitive pesticide emission during HML activities. Iowa farm #1
experienced fleld-to-outdoor monitor wind directions during two (non-consecutive) 10 minute time
intervals during the first application activity (at 9:20 a.m. and at 11:10 a.m.). At no other time did
wind direction favor transport of pesticide (either application spray drift or HML fugitive emissions)
to the monitor location. The applied pesticide (dicamba) was not detected (i.e., below quantitation
limit) in the 24-hour outdoor sample. Model estimate of worst case peak concentrations (i.e. during
the application, assuming winds toward the monitor), as a function of downwind distance, are shown
graphically in figures 1 and 2 (first and second applications, respectively), and reported (see
Appendix E) for the 100 m receptor distance as 14400 ng/m3, and 12650 ng/m3, respectively. The
calculated 24-hour worst case concentration is reported as 2000 ng/m3.
Iowa farm #3 was configured with a 30 acre application field approximately 100 m to the
west of the farm house. Atrazine was applied as 100 Ibs. Extrazine in 600 gallons liquid. The
duration of the application was approximately 2 hours 15 minutes. Winds out of the west (270°)
would favor transport of pesticide spray toward the monitor. HML activities occurred to the north
northwest of the house; winds from the north northwest (330°) would favor transport of fugitive
pesticide emission during HML activities. Iowa farm #3 did not experience any field-to-monitor
wind during the application, nor was wind direction favorable for fugitive emission transport during
the HML activity. The applied pesticide (atrazine) was, nevertheless, detected in the 24-hour
outdoor sample (9.91 ng/m3). Model estimate of worst case peak concentrations, as a function of
downwind distance, are shown graphically in figure 3, and reported in Appendix E for the 100 m
distance as 28750 ng/m3. The calculated 24-hour worst case concentration is reported as 2700
ng/m3.
North Carolina farm #1 was configured with a 14 acre field approximately 300 m to the north
of the farmhouse. Two separate applications of alachlor were monitored during the day. The first
application consisted of 85 gallons liquid ( 2.5 gallons Bronco), applied to 5.6 acres during
approximately 1 hour 10 minutes. The second application consisted of 110 gallons liquid ( 5
gallons Bronco), applied to 8.3 acres during approximately 2 hours 55 minutes. Winds out of the
north (0°) would favor transport of pesticide spray toward the monitor. HML activities occurred to
the north of the house as well. (Records did not indicate a distinct separation of HML activity from
application activity). North Carolina farm #1 experienced 21 (not consecutive) 10-minute time
8
-------
intervals (210 minutes total) during the HML/application activities for which wind direction favored
field-to-monitor pesticide transport (see Appendix C). The applied pesticide (alachlor) was detected
in the 24-hour outdoor sample (265 ng/m3). Model estimate of worst case peak concentrations, as
a function of downwind distance, are shown graphically in figures 4 and 5 (first and second
applications, respectively), and reported in Appendix E for the 300 m receptor distance as 10900
ng/m3, and 11100 ng/m3, respectively. The calculated 24-hour worst case concentration is reported
as 1900 ng/m3.
Interpretation of outdoor monitor concentration must consider wind direction at the time of
application. A single point measurement is not representative of all directions. The outdoor monitor
at Iowa Farm #1 did not detect dicamba in the 24-hour sample; the model indicated that an average
concentration as high as 2000 ng/m3 could occur at that same distance, under worst case conditions
of spraying and meteorology. The outdoor monitor on Iowa Farm #3 (first application visit)
measured a 24-hour concentration of 9.91 ng/m3; the model indicated that an average concentration
as high as 2700 ng/m3 could occur at that same distance, under worst case conditions of spraying and
meteorology. The outdoor monitor on North Carolina farm #1 measured a 24-hour concentration
of 265 ng/m3; the model indicated that an average concentration as high as 1900 ng/m3 could occur
at that same distance, under worst case conditions of spraying and meteorology. In these three
examples, the measured concentration was, respectively, 0.0%, 0.4%, and 14% of the worst case
maximum.
To put these numbers in context, the modeled peak one-hour concentrations at receptor
distance, worst case assumptions of spraying and meteorology noted, greatly exceeded the
applicators' measured personal air concentration (discussed later). While an applicator's breathing
zone (i.e. personal air) during HML and application activity is probably consistently higher in
applied pesticide concentration, it may not always exceed concentrations obtained directly
downwind of an application.
Time Series of Indoor and Outdoor Pesticide Concentrations
Appendix F presents indoor and outdoor monitored concentrations of all detected pesticides,
by farm, for both control (non-application) season, and application period (Kuchibhatla et al.,
1996b). All reported air concentrations of pesticides are limited to the PM2.5 fraction. (Significant
differences between the PM2.s fraction and the total are to be expected only in the near vicinity of
an atomizing source.) The concentrations are presented in time series format. The indoor air of the
farm residence was sampled (24 hour averages) on days 2, 3, and 4 of the application period. The
control (non-application) season indoor air as well as the outdoor air (24 hour average) for day 3 are
reported as well in Appendix F. An asterisk (*) appended to a detected pesticide indicates that this
pesticide was applied; a dagger (t) appended to a detected pesticide indicates that this pesticide was
found as residue within the applied mixture. Threshold limit values, or TLV, are included for
reference where possible (Durham, 1976; Exposure Factors Handbook, 1989). Additionally,
Appendix G calculates indoor to outdoor ratios of detected pesticides. (The mean indoor
-------
concentration was used for this calculation when detection occurred on multiple days. The ratio was
not calculated if only day 2 or day 4 detected an indoor concentration, since the day 3 outdoor
concentration was not coincident.)
On Iowa farm #1, control season concentrations of chlorpyrifos, dichloran, heptachlor,
metolachlor, and trifluralin were detected hi indoor air samples. None were detected during the
three-day monitoring period of the application (May 17,18, and 19,1994). Dicamba was the only
applied pesticide on day 3 of the application period. While dicamba was not detected in the outdoor
sample, it was found in the indoor air on day 3 (2.27 ng/m3), following a non-detect on day 2, and
a subsequent non-detect on day 4.
On Iowa farm #2, control season concentrations of chlorpyrifos, metolachlor, and trifluralin
were detected in indoor air samples. No pre-application day (day 2) indoor air samples were taken
on Iowa farm #2. Day 3 and 4 monitoring (May 9, and 10,1994) followed the scheduled protocol
of measurements. Day 3 pesticide application involved the greatest number of pesticides observed
in this study. Applications of atrazine, 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester, dicamba, and metolachlor were
completed over the course of 10 hours. Indoor concentrations of all pesticides detected during
control season sampling were again found on application period day 3 and day 4. Chlorpyrifos and
trifluralin were detected at similar levels as in the control season (neither were applied), but
metolachlor, which was applied, was detected at substantially greater concentration on day 3 and day
4, compared with control season levels (71.9 and 63.0 vs. 15.6 ng/m3). Metolachlor was also
detected in the outdoor sample on day 3, but at substantially lower levels than the mean indoor
concentrations. (The ratio of mean indoor concentration of metolachlor to day 3 outdoor
concentration was approximately equal to 9; see Appendix G). Atrazine, 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester,
and dicamba, were all applied but none were detected in indoor air samples. Atrazine, alachlor, and
trifluralin were detected on the day 3 outdoor sample. Terbufos, which was not applied nor was it
found as residue in the applied mixture, was detected in the indoor air samples collected on day 3
and day 4 (52.0 and 49.4 ng/m3, respectively). Terbufos was not detected in the day 3 outdoor
sample, nor was it detected in the indoor air sample collected during the control season.
On Iowa farm #3, control season concentrations of alachlor, chlorpyrifos, metolachlor, and
propoxur were detected in indoor air samples. During the "first" visit/application period (May 13,
14, and 15,1994), atrazine was the only applied pesticide, although metolachlor was residual within
the mixture. Outdoor concentrations of atrazine and metolachlor were detected on the application
day, but only metolachlor was detected in the indoor air samples (on days 2, 3, and 4). (The ratio
of mean indoor concentration of metolachlor to day 3 outdoor concentration was approximately
equal to 0.16) Alachlor, chlorpyrifos, and propoxur, which were not applied but were detected
indoors during the control season, were again detected during the first application period. Alachlor
was detected at similar concentrations every day of the three-day monitoring period as during the
control season (6.13, 9.39,7.03, vs. 13.3 ng/m3). Alachlor was detected on day 3 in the outdoor air
sample as well (18.7 ng/m3). (The ratio of mean indoor concentration of alachlor to day 3 outdoor
concentration was approximately equal to 0.40). Chlorpyrifos was detected at similar
concentrations on day 3 as during the control season (0.950 vs. 1.03 ng/m3), and was detected in the
10
-------
day 3 outdoor sample (3.44 ng/m3). Chlorpyrifos was not detected indoors on days 2 or 4. Propoxur
was detected at greater concentrations every day of the monitoring period than was detected during
the control season (21.5, 27.4, and 19.8 vs. 14.6 ng/m3). The indoor air samples also detected
terbufos (25.0, 41.3, and 26.6 ng/m3), and very low levels of trifluralin (days 3 and 4). Neither
terbufos nor trifluralin were applied, nor were they found present hi the indoor air sample taken
during the control season. Trifluralin was detected in the outdoor sample taken on day 3, at
concentrations higher than were detected indoors.
During Iowa farm #3's "second" visit/application period (June 11,13, and 14, 1994), 2,4-D,
and 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester were applied, and alachlor was found to be residual within the mixture.
Outdoor concentrations of 2,4-D, and 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester were not detected on day 3, nor were
they ever detected in indoor air samples on days 2, 3, or 4, or during the control season sampling.
Alachlor was detected in the outdoor sample on day 3 (2.86 ng/m3), but was detected at higher
concentrations in indoor samples on days 2, 3, and 4 (3.67, 5.68, and 4.78 ng/m3, respectively). The
control season indoor sample contained the highest measured concentration (13.3 ng/m3). As was
the case during the first application period, propoxur was detected in the indoor samples every day
of the second monitoring period at levels higher than were detected during the control season (23.3,
33.4, and 36.2 ng/m3, vs. 14.6 ng/m3), but at concentrations similar to those found during the first
application period. Similarly, metolachlor was detected in the indoor samples every day of the
second application monitoring period, but again concentrations were lower than in the day 3 outdoor
sample. The indoor air samples taken during the second application period also detected terbufos -
at lower levels than were found during the first application period, and trifluralin - at similar (low)
levels as were found during the first application period. Neither terbufos nor trifluralin were applied,
nor were they found present in the indoor air sample taken during the control season. Trifluralin was
detected in the outdoor sample taken on day 3, at concentration higher than were detected indoors.
(Ratios of mean indoor concentration to day 3 outdoor concentration were computed for the
following pesticides: alachlor: 1.64; chlorpyrifos: 1.26; metolachlor: 0.58; propoxur: 34; and
trifluralin: 1.06). Chlorothalonil was detected every day on the second monitoring period (5.60,
11.0, and 9.47 ng/m3). Chlorothalonil was not applied, was not detected in the day 3 outdoor
sample, nor was it detected during the first application period or the control season. Atrazine, the
only applied pesticide during the first application period, was detected in the outdoor sample on day
3 of the second application period (6.17 ng/m3), and was detected indoors on day 4 only, at lower
concentrations (4.82 ng/m3) than the outdoor level.
On Iowa farm #4, control season concentrations of a-chlordane, y-chlordane, chlorpyrifos,
diazinon, fonofos, lindane, metolachlor, terbufos, and trifluralin were detected. Control season
concentration of lindane (111 ng/m3) is particularly noteworthy. The applied pesticides during the
application period were pyrethrins and piperonyl butoxide. Neither were detected in the 24-hour
outdoor sample on day 3, nor were indoor concentrations detected during any of the three-day
monitoring period (June 15,16, and 17). (Note: a deviation from the application/sampling protocol
occurred on Iowa farm #4 with applications (presumably pyrethrins and piperonyl butoxide) made
on days 2 and 4 (designed non-application days), in addition to day 3.) Of the pesticides detected
during the control season, a-chlordane, y-chlordane, lindane, and metolachlor, were detected each
11
-------
day of the three-day indoor monitoring - a-chlordane and y-chlordane were detected at similar (low)
concentrations as during the control season; lindane levels were somewhat reduced (71.0, 57.0, and
76.6 ng/m3, vs. 111. ng/m3 control season); metolachlor levels were substantially lower (2.80,2.68,
and 3.15 ng/m3, vs. 9.19 ng/m3). Chlorpyrifos, also detected during the control season, was detected
indoors on day 2 and day 4 only, at consistently low levels. Diazinon, fonofos, terbufos, and
trifluralin, detected in indoor air samples during the control season, were not found during any of
the three application period monitoring days. Atrazine and heptachlor, which were not detected
during the control season indoor air sampling, were detected on day 2 (heptachlor only), and day 3
(alrazine and heptachlor). The only pesticide to be detected in the day 3 outdoor air sample was
atrazine, but at lower concentrations than were detected in the indoor sample day 4 (1.94 ng/m3
outdoor day 3 vs. 21.0 ng/m3 indoor day 4).
North Carolina farm #1 was not sampled for a control season. Alachlor was the only applied
pesticide during the application period (monitored on June 21, 22, and 23, 1994); metolachlor was
found residual within the applied pesticide mixture. (Note: a deviation from the
application/sampling protocol occurred on North Carolina farm #1 with an application (presumably
alachlor) made on day 2 (a designed non-application day), in addition to day 3.) Outdoor
concentrations of alachlor were detected on the application day. The 24-hour outdoor concentration
of alachlor was 265 ng/m3. Outdoor concentrations of metolachlor (7.97 ng/m3), as well as non-
applied, non-residual, pesticides were detected (a-chlordane (6.99 ng/m3), y-chlordane(7.36 ng/m3),
Chlorpyrifos (3.09 ng/m3), and heptachlor (1.65 ng/m3)). Concentrations of alachlor were detected
in indoor samples on each monitoring day (27.9, 33.2, and 46.3 ng/m3, respectively). In fact, every
pesticide that was detected in the outdoor sample on North Carolina farm #1, was also detected
indoors on all three monitoring days. In the cases of alachlor, indoor concentrations were
substantially lower than outdoor concentrations. In the case of Chlorpyrifos and metolachlor, indoor
and outdoor concentrations were comparable. But a-chlordane, y-chlordane, and heptachlor were
found indoors at substantially higher concentrations than were found outdoors. In the case of a-
chlordane, mean indoor concentration over the three-day monitoring period was a factor of 21 times
greater than the day 3 outdoor sample. In the case of y-chlordane, the three-day mean indoor
concentration was a factor of 26 times greater than the day 3 outdoor sample. And in the case of
heptachlor, the three-day mean indoor concentration was a factor of 48 times greater than the day
3 outdoor sample. Two pesticides were detected in indoor samples that were not detected in the
outdoor sample - propoxur and trifluralin. Trifluralin was present a very low levels on day 2 only
(0.664 ng/m3), but propoxur was detected each of the three days, at persistently high levels (203,
245, and 239 ng/m3, respectively).
North Carolina farm #2 was not sampled for a control season. Carbaryl was the only applied
pesticide during the application period (monitored on July 27, 28, and 29, 1994). Outdoor
concentrations of carbaryl were detected on the application day. The 24-hour outdoor concentration
of carbaryl was 93 ng/m3. Outdoor concentrations of a-chlordane (1.53 ng/m3) and Y-chlordane
(1.75 ng/m ) were detected as well. Carbaryl was detected in the indoor air samples on each
monitoring day (279, 47.9, and 72.4 ng/m3, respectively). Indeed, as was the case with North
Carolina farm #1, every pesticide that was detected in the outdoor sample was also detected in the
12
-------
indoor sample on all three monitoring days. The three-day mean indoor concentration of carbaryl
was a factor of 1.4 times greater than the day 3 outdoor concentration. The three-day mean indoor
concentration of a-chlordane was a factor of 70 times greater than the day 3 outdoor concentration.
The three-day mean indoor concentration of y-chlordane was a factor of 84 times greater than the
day 3 outdoor concentration. Chlorpyrifos was detected at low levels in the indoor air on each
monitoring day (1.69, 1.46, and 3.07 ng/m3, respectively). Heptachlor was detected in the indoor
ah- on each monitoring day at higher levels (79.3,90.2, and 73.9 ng/m3, respectively). Terbufos was
detected in the indoor air on day 3 only (47.6 ng/m3).
Indoor concentrations of an applied or residual pesticide were higher on the application day
than conterminous days on Iowa farm #1 (dicamba), Iowa farm #2 (metolachlor), and Iowa farm #3
(alachlor; second application period). However, the cases observed in the pilot study do not strongly
support a conclusion that outdoor air (exclusively) is the source of indoor concentrations of
applied/residual pesticides. If stated as an hypothesis, " For applied/residual pesticides, the indoor
concentration on day 3 (application day) is not zero if and only if the outdoor concentration on day
3 is not zero", there are 7 cases for which this hypothesis may be tested. Of the 7, 4 support the
hypothesis (metolachlor on Iowa farm #2; metolachlor on Iowa farm #3/first application; alachlor
on Iowa farm #3/second application; carbaryl on North Carolina farm #2); and 3 refute the
hypothesis (dicamba on Iowa farm #1; atrazine on Iowa farm #2; atrazine on Iowa farm #3/first
application). Thus, there is limited and conflicting evidence to support an (exclusively) outdoor air
source of indoor concentrations of applied pesticides.
Activity Logs
The time, location, and activity of study participants were recorded by the participants during
days 2,3, and 4. These activity logs were reviewed with respect to participant location (and activity,
in the case of HML or application). To assess exposure to detected pesticides, participant location
was partitioned by characterized microenvironments (indoors; outdoors on farm; or performing
HML/application activity), and time-in-microenvironment was accumulated within 24-hour periods.
Activity logs were sufficiently detailed and complete to permit time accounting precision to whole
hours. While some participants recorded detail to within 5 minutes, a coarser time resolution was
the rule. Furthermore, occasional ambiguities in recorded time-activity precluded ascertaining
participant location to resolutions of less than one hour.
Exposure calculations reported in Appendices I, J, K, L, M and'O should be regarded as
"back of the envelope" estimates only. Limitations in such calculations arise from several
simplifying approximations and uncertainties in interpretation. Firstly, the indoor and ambient
(outdoor) concentrations reported are 24-hour averages obtained from single sampling locations.
This approximation is valid to the extent that respective microenvironment air is well mixed or that
sample locations were "representative" of the microenvironment.
Secondly, averaging periods for indoor air measurements were not identical with "midnight
13
-------
to midnight" activity logs of the participants. The partition of the participant activity day is based
on a midnight-to-midnight day. However, the indoor and outdoor air sample "day" did not begin
and end at midnight (precise changeover time was not recorded, but was typically early to mid
morning). While this does introduce some uncertainties when calculating exposures, the similarity
of participant activities between days (autocorrelation), especially with respect to the
microenvironment occupied (indoors, outdoors on farm, or performing HML/application) between
the hours of midnight and 8 a.m., is similar day-to-day .
Thirdly, the interpretation of activity logs with respect to identification of the (hourly)
location of individuals assigned each to one of four microenvironments: "indoors", "outdoors on
farm", "engaged in HML/Application activity", or "off the farm". The first three microenvironments
were sampled for at least a portion of the monitoring period. (The "off the farm" microenvironment,
effectively a placeholder to account for otherwise unassigned hours in the day, was not sampled and
did not accrue any pesticide exposure to participants.) The single point sampling of the indoor and
outdoor microenvironments necessitates the assumption (for purposes of exposure calculation) of
well-mixed pollutant concentration within that microenvironment. Consequently, "indoors" and
"outdoors" were designated intentionally as undifferentiated microenvironments, even when
participant activity logs permitted a finer resolution of location (e.g., within specific rooms).
With the above limitations noted, some general interpretive remarks may be stated. It is
generally true that the spouse spent more hours indoors during the 3-day monitoring period than
other participating members of the family (four of seven cases; a child's indoor time lead in the other
three). As such, the spouse's exposure to any pesticide via the inhalation pathway and from the
indoor microenvironment, usually exceeded that of other family members, and generally greatly
exceeded indoor inhalation exposure of the applicator (except in North Carolina #1, where spouse
and applicator were comparable). The ratio of spouse indoor inhalation exposure to applicator
indoor inhalation exposure ranged from a high of 3.09 (dicamba on Iowa #1) to a low of 0.97
(alachlor on NC #1). Children generally spent slightly less time indoors than the spouse, but again
substantially more than the applicator (except at Iowa #3-first application period, and North Carolina
#2).
Applicator's Personal Exposure and Inhalation Dose
Applicator exposures represented the preponderance of the applied pesticide inhalation
exposure of any family member on any AHS farm on the day of application. Applicators generally
used no respiratory protection during HML or application activity. Iowa farm #3 applicator used a
dust mask during HML activities; North Carolina farm #2 applicator used a dust mask during
application activity. No other respiratory protection was practiced (see Appendix H). Not
surprisingly, HML and application activities accounted for nearly all of the applicator's day 3
exposure to the applied pesticide.
All air measurements were limited to the PM2.5 fraction. Applicators may have been exposed
14
-------
to larger-sized aerosols during HML or application activity. Controlled wind tunnel experiments
with an atomizing source have estimated, under specific and limited conditions, that the PM2 5 cut
may represent only 50% of the total air concentration for volatile pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos,
lindane); 30% of the total for intermediate volatility pesticides (e.g. atrazine, a-chlordane, y-
chlordane); and only 10% of the total for low volatility pesticides (e.g. 2,4-D salt, dicamba,
pyrethrins). The conditions under which AHS HML/applied pesticides were vaporized cannot be
assumed to be similar to the near-worst case wind tunnel conditions, hence the aerosol size
distribution within the applicators breathing zone (and the temporal stability of that distribution)
cannot be estimated. All reported air concentrations are the PM2 5 fraction, and inhalation
exposure/dose calculations are exposures/doses to the PM2.5 fraction.
Appendix I presents applicator exposure from HML/application activity as a percentage of
day 3 total exposure. Applicator exposure during HML/application activities accounted for between
80 % (alachlor on North Carolina farm #1) and 100 % (dicamba and 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester on
Iowa farm #2) of applicator day 3 exposure to applied pesticides. A summary of applicators' day
3 HML/application - related dose is given in Appendix J. Most remarkable among these is the NC
#2 applicator's carbaryl inhalation dose -1,932,000 ng.
The exposures accrued by applicators during several of the monitored AHS applications may
be put in context by comparison with inhalation,exposures catalogued in the Pesticide Handlers
Exposure Database (PHED, 1995). PHED contains measured exposure data for workers involved
in the handling or application of pesticides in the field. Design and development of PHED was
undertaken with the assumption that "exposure to pesticide users is primarily a function of the
physical parameters of handling and application...rather than of the chemical properties of the active
ingredient". PHED is intended to allow prediction of pesticide exposures based on selection
(subsetting) of formulation type, HML procedures, application equipment, or other relevant exposure
parameters. PHED contains measured exposure data with associated exposure parameters for
approximately 800 records of applicator and activity.
Comparisons between inhalation dose retrieved from PHED with personal air concentrations
measured during applicator HML and application activities are provided with several cautions.
Firstly, the PHED air concentration data are total concentrations, without aerosol/particulate size
cutoff (Keigwin, 1996), whereas the AHS air concentrations are limited to the PM25 fraction.
Secondly, the personal air concentrations are multiplied by the activity time to obtain an exposure
estimate. The activity time is known with limited precision. Observed HML vs. application activity
within the AHS could not always be differentiated. (PHED distinguishes between HML and
application activities). Thirdly, a breathing rate must be applied to the exposure calculation to obtain
an inhaled dose. A rate of 25 liters per minute (light to moderate work) is applied in all
HML/application dose calculations in this report. (PHED defaults to 25 liters per minute breathing
rate in its inhalation dose calculations. No measurements of breathing rates of any applicators were
recorded in this pilot, therefore this rate was deemed acceptable for dose calculations derived from
applicator personal air exposures). Finally, retrieval of PHED data pertaining to HML activities
required specific information regarding the mechanics of the mixing, and the physical state of the
15
-------
constituents. The complete conditions of mixing during the HML activities were not recorded.
In obtaining valid comparisons with PHED, proper subsetting (data filtering subject to certain
selection criteria) must be chosen to limit cases to those comparable to the study conditions. Data
classification within PHED treats pesticide handling/mixing/loading separately from pesticide
application, consistent with AHS. In the subsetting appropriate for HML activities, PHED data
selection criteria included pesticide physical state (liquid or powder formulations), open pour
mixing, and data quality limited to the highest 2 of 5 PHED rating categories (Keigwin, 1996). In
the subsetting appropriate for application activities, PHED data selection criteria included mixture
physical state (liquid), ground boom sprayer, a tractor as the applicator transport vehicle, and data
quality limited to the highest 2 of 5 PHED rating categories. The Revelations database driver then
selects all appropriate cases. The distribution type is estimated (lognormal, normal, indeterminate),
and distribution statistics (geometric mean, mean, median, and number of observations) are
calculated. In the subsettings selected for HML activities with either liquid and powder
formulations, the distributions were unknown (i.e. did not fit a standard model), so the statistic
selected for each calculation of inhalation dose was the median. In the subsetting deemed
appropriate for liquid applications with ground boom sprayers, the distribution was lognormal, and
the statistic selected in calculation of inhalation dose was the geometric mean.
Appendix K. presents approximate inhalation dose comparisons for Iowa farms #1 and #3
(first application period), and North Carolina farm #1. Applicators used a single pesticide in each
of these cases, and each was applied with a ground boom sprayer. The Iowa farms recorded distinct
HML and application activities; North Carolina farm #1 HML and application could not be
differentiated. The calculated inhalation dose (based on personal air concentration measurement
(Kuchibhatla et al.} 1996b)) delivered to Iowa farm #1 applicator during HML activities was 66 ng
dicamba; and during application activities the received dose was 3690 ng dicamba. The combined
total HML/application calculated inhalation dose was 3756 ng dicamba. The data retrieved from
PHED, subject to the aforementioned selection criteria, reports median dose received during HML
activities, scaled to amount of pesticide used, is 41600 ng; geometric mean inhaled dose received
during application activities was retrieved from PHED as 3620 ng. The calculated dose for HML
activity was incomparably below PHED median reference (on the order of three orders of
magnitude). The calculated inhalation dose arising from application activity was, on the other hand,
very similar to geometric mean PHED reference level.
The calculated inhalation dose delivered to Iowa farm #3 applicator during HML activities
was 211 ng atrazine; and during application activities the received dose was 751 ng atrazine. The
combined total HML/application calculated inhalation dose was 962 ng atrazine. The data retrieved
from PHED reports median dose received during HML activities, scaled to the amount of pesticide
used, is 90400 ng; geometric mean inhaled dose received during application activities was retrieved
from PHED as 9046 ng. Comparisons indicate again that HML dose received was markedly below
the PHED median (by two orders of magnitude); application dose received was one tenth of PHED
geometric mean reference level.
16
-------
The HML and application of alachlor on North Carolina farm #1 could not be differentiated
into distinct HML and application. The combined HML/application was repeated a second time
during day 3, and personal air monitors as well as pesticide quantity were documented as separate
events. The calculated inhalation dose delivered to North Carolina farm #1 applicator during the first
of two combined HML/application activities was 1700 ng alachlor; and during the second combined
HML/application the received dose was 11900 ng alachlor. The combined total HML/application
calculated inhalation dose was 13600 ng alachlor. The data retrieved from PHED was limited to
application-related dose for both events (no HML records were retrieved). PHED reports a
geometric mean dose for application as 1900 ng (corresponding to the amount of pesticide used in
the first event); geometric mean inhaled dose corresponding to the second application was retrieved
from PHED as 3800 ng. The combined total application activity (not inclusive of HML activity)
yields a PHED reference inhalation dose of 5700 ng - less than the calculated 13600 ng alachlor
received.
In the three cases considered, PHED geometric mean doses associated with the application
event was a better indicator of the calculated inhalation dose derived from personal air concentration
measurements, than was the PHED median dose associated with HML events an indicator of
calculated HML dose received. In fact, the PHED application dose was a fair indicator of total
(HML plus application) calculated dose. PHED median HML doses were consistently orders of
magnitude greater than the observed dose.
Total Air Pathway Exposure on Application Day
Day 3 of the application period was the most intensively monitored. The applicator was
outfitted with a personal air monitor during HML and/or Application activities. Indoor and outdoor
samplers were set up to record a 24-hour average. The outdoor sampler was placed near the house,
upwind of the prevailing wind direction at the time of setup. Personal, indoor, and outdoor samplers
were quartz pre-filter, PUF cartridge 2.5 micron samplers. The personal monitor worn by the
applicator contained a personal respiratory air sampling pump. Significant differences between the
PM2 5 fraction and the total are to be expected only in the near vicinity of an atomizing source. All
calculated inhalation exposure calculations are based on the PM2 5 fraction.
It is of interest to calculate inhalation exposures of all family members on the application day
to assess relative exposure of applicator, spouse, and children. It is also instructive to partition the
exposures by microenvironment, to attribute a person's accrued application day exposure to a single
predominant microenvironmental exposure, or, as the case may be, to no particular
microenvironmental exposure. Appendix L presents application day air pathway exposures, by farm,
applied pesticide, family member, and by microenvironment. The data are presented to permit
attribution of a family member's exposure to each of the three designated microenvironments (i.e.
HML/application activities, outdoors on farm, and indoors). When personal air samples
distinguished multiple HML/application activities, separate exposures are calculated. The final
column in each table provides the sum of exposures accrued in all microenvironments on the
17
-------
application day, by family member and applied pesticide.
On Iowa farm #1, monitoring on the application day included two HML/application events.
Dicamba was the only applied pesticide for both events. The applicator was engaged in
HML/application activities for 3 hours with the first event, and for 2 hours during the second event.
The applicator's air exposures during these events were respectively, 442 h-ng/m3 and 2075 h-ng/m3.
The spouse and children were not involved in the HML/application activities. No outdoor exposures
were accrued by any family member as Dicamba was not detected in the 24-hour average outdoor
sample. Indoor concentrations of Dicamba were detected, and exposures are reported for each
family member. The day 3 total air exposure to dicamba is reported in the last column, as the sum
of personal air exposure (applicator only), outdoor air exposure, and indoor air exposure. The
applicator's total day 3 exposure to dicamba was 2528 h-ng/m3, of which nearly all (> 99%) was
accrued during HML/application activities. The total (day 3) air exposure of the applicator to the
applied pesticide dicamba exceeded other family members by nearly two orders of magnitude. The
spouse, child #1, and child #2 exposures to dicamba on the application day were, respectively, 34,
27, and 32 h-ng/m3.
The largest number of pesticides applied during an application day in this study was observed
on Iowa farm #2. Over the course of ten hours, in two HML/application events, the applicator
applied atrazine, metolachlor, 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester, and dicamba. The applicator was exposed
to all applied pesticides. Atrazine was detected in the 24-hour outdoor sample, but not in the indoor
sample. Metolachlor was detected in the outdoor sample, and at higher levels indoors. The
applications of 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester and dicamba did not result in detectable levels in either the
outdoor or indoor sample. The air exposures accumulated for the applicator, spouse, and child are
reported in Appendix L. The applicator's day 3 exposure to atrazine (9931 h-ng/m3) was three
orders of magnitude greater than the spouse or child. The applicator's total atrazine exposure on day
3 was almost entirely (>99%) accrued during HML/application activities. The applicator's total day
3 exposure to metolachlor (26924 h-ng/m3) exceeded that of the spouse or child by more than one
order of magnitude. The applicator's total metolachlor exposure on day 3 was predominantly
attributable to HML/application activities (97% vs. 3% combined outdoor and indoor exposure).
Exposures of 2,4-D butoxy ethyl ester and dicamba were limited to the applicator.
On Iowa farm #3, during the first of two application events, atrazine was the only pesticide
applied during a single HML/application event lasting for 4 hours. The applicator accrued virtually
all of his day 3 exposure to atrazine during the HML/application activity (640 h-ng/m3 personal air
exposure vs. 680 h-ng/m3, or 94 % of the day 3 total). Detectable levels of atrazine were found in
the 24-hour outdoor sample; atrazine was not detected in the indoor sample.
The second application period on Iowa farm #3 monitored the application of 2,4-D and 2,4-D
butoxy ethyl ester. Neither pesticide was detected in the applicator's personal air, 24-hour outdoor
air sample, nor day 3 indoor air sample.
On Iowa farm #4, a single 3 hour HML/application event was monitored. The applied
18
-------
pesticides were pyrethrin and piperonyl butoxide. Neither pesticide was detected in the applicator's
personal air, 24-hour outdoor air sample, nor day 3 indoor air.
On North Carolina farm #1, two applications of alachlor were monitored. The first
HML/application was 1 hour in duration, resulting in a personal air exposure to the applicator of
1130 h-ng/m3. The second HML/application event on day 3 was 3 hours in duration, resulting in
a personal air exposure to the applicator of 7920 h-ng/m3. Outdoor and indoor concentrations of
alachlor were detected in their respective 24-hour samples. The applicator's total air exposure (day
3) to alachlor was 11337, of which 80% was accrued in application activities. The spouse and child
accrued alachlor exposures of 697 and 2320 h-ng/m3, respectively.
On North Carolina farm #2, a single application event was monitored. Carbaryl was applied
in a 2-hour HML/application, resulting in a personal air exposure to the applicator of 1,288,000 h-
ng/m3. Detectable levels of carbaryl were measured inthe outdoor and indoor 24-hour samples. The
applicator's total air exposure (day 3) to carbaryl was 1,289,000 h-ng/m3, virtually all (>99%) of
which was accrued in application activities. The spouse, child #1, and child #2 accrued carbaryl
exposures of 955, 479, and 575 h-ng/m3, respectively.
Not .unexpectedly, the applicator received the preponderance of ah- pathway exposure during
day 3. Appendix M presents spouse and child day 3 total exposures to applied pesticides as a
percentage of the applicator's day 3 total exposure. Spouse and child relative air exposures to
applied pesticides ranged from 0% of the applicator's air exposure, to a high of 20% of the
applicator's air exposure (child exposure to alachlor on North Carolina farm #1).
Indoor Air Exposure and Inhalation Dose
The indoor microenvjronment is unique in its contribution to pesticide exposure of all study
participants via the air pathway. Time-activity logs indicated that all participating family members
at all farms spent an average in excess of 8 hours per day indoors, over the three-day period. In all
cases except Iowa Farm #4, concentrations of at least one pesticide being applied, or found as
residue within the application mixture, were measured indoors during the three-day monitoring
period. This is not to infer that the application event necessarily served as the source of the indoor
concentration. Indoor sources of a pesticide may be present as residue in dust or on surfaces
(NOPES, 1990; Lewis et al., 1994; Whitmore et al., 1994). Numerous examples of non-applied,
non-ambient (no detectable outdoor concentration), pesticides were found to be present in indoor
air samples. Indeed, indoor concentrations of non-applied pesticides were the rule more than the
exception. Historical use of such pesticides (Kuchibhatla et al., 1996b) may serve to provide
plausible explanation for a detected presence in indoor air - assuming an appropriate vapor pressure.
As Appendix N indicates, historical use of chlorpyrifos on Iowa farm #2; terbufos on Iowa farm #3
(first visit); atrazine, metolachlor, and terbufos on Iowa farm #3 (second visit); and atrazine on Iowa
farm #4 were indicated by applicator questionnaire. (Vapor pressures of the indoor-detected, non-
applied, historically used pesticides are as follows: atrazine: 0.039 mPa; chlorpyrifos: 2.7 mPa;
19
-------
metolachlor: 4.2 mPa; terbufos: 34.6 mPa; [Pesticide'Manual, 1994]). The absence of a confirmed
historical use should not be construed as "never" used.
Appendix O presents indoor air exposures and inhalation doses of all indoor detected
pesticides - regardless of their known origin on the farm, for all participants, by farm, pesticide, and
day. All calculated inhalation dose calculations are based on the PM2-5 fraction. The three-day
exposure sum, as well as a mean daily indoor inhalation dose, is also calculated in the final columns
of each table. For ease of reference, the 24-hour indoor concentration of each detected pesticide for
each day is reported in the same box with the pesticide name.
A resting breathing rate of 10 liters per minute [L/min] (Cotes et al., 1991; The Exposure
Factors Handbook, 1989; Nigg et al., 1990; ACGIH, 1991) is applied to all exposure sums in
calculating an inhalation dose. Daily inhalation rates vary by age, and by sex after age 10 (3.1 L/min
for infants less than a year old, to 11.8 L/min for 18 year old males). A daily inhalation rate of 10
L/min, applied to indoor air exposures, is a reasonable estimate for adults, but is high for children.
Since the ages of the 9 children in the AHS were not always recorded, it is not possible to apply a
more age-specific inhalation rate to the children's indoor inhalation dose calculation. (Children
participants in the AHS were known to range in age from at least 3 years to as old as 19 years.) The
uniform application of 10 L/min daily inhalation rate to all AHS cohorts during indoor activity is
seen as yielding appropriate estimates of indoor inhalation dose for adults, and conservative (i.e.
high) estimates for the children.
Iowa Farm #1 detected indoor ah- concentrations of dicamba on day 3. Dicamba was the only
applied pesticide on day 3 (2.27 ng/m3). Mean daily inhaled indoor air dose was calculated to be
on the order of nanograms for all family members.
Iowa Farm #2 measured indoor air concentrations of chlorpyrifos, metolachlor, terbufos, and
trifluralin - each on days 3 and 4 (no sample was collected on day 2). Of these, only metolachlor
was applied on day 3. Atrazine, 2,4-D BOEE, and dicamba were also applied, and 2,4-D was found
to be residual within the applied mixture. Calculated mean daily inhaled indoor air dose of
metolachlor and terbufos was on the order of hundreds of nanograms for all family members;
chlorpyrifos and trifluralin doses were on the order of tens of nanograms for all family members.'
Iowa Farm #3 during the first application event measured indoor air concentrations of
alachlor (days 25 3, and 4); chlorpyrifos (day 3); metolachlor (days 2, 3, and 4); propoxur (days 2,
3, and 4); terbufos (days 2, 3, and 4); and trifluralin (days 3 and 4). Atrazine was the only applied
pesticide during this (first) application period, but was never detected in indoor air samples.
Calculated mean daily inhaled indoor air dose of propoxur and terbufos were on the order of
hundreds of nanograms for all family members; alachlor and metolachlor doses were on the order
of tens of nanograms; and chlorpyrifos and trifluralin were in the single digit nanogram dose levels
for all family members.
Iowa Farm #3 during the second application event measured alachlor (day 2, 3, and 4),
20
-------
atrazine (day 4), y-chlordane (day 4), chlorothalonil (days 2, 3, and 4), chlorpyrifos (days 2, 3, and
4), metolachlor (days 2, 3, and 4), propoxur (days 2, 3, and 4), terbufos (days 2, 3, and 4), and
trifluralin (days 2, 3, and 4). Only 2,4-D and 2,4-D BOEE were applied (neither were detected),
while alachlor was residual in the applied mixture. Calculated mean daily inhaled indoor air doses
of propoxur were in the hundreds of nanograms for all family members; alachlor, atrazine,
chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, metolachlor, propoxur, terbufos, and trifluralin were on the order of tens
of nanograms; and y-chlordane was in single nanograms dose.
Iowa farm #4 measured indoor air concentrations of atrazine (day 4); a-chlordane (days 2,
3, and 4); y-chlordane (days 2, 3, and 4); chlorpyrifos (days 2 and 4); heptachlor (days 3 and 4);
lindane (days 2, 3, and 4); and metolachlor (days 2, 3, and 4). The applied pesticide was pyrethrin,
with piperonyl butoxide as a synergist (neither were detected in the indoor air). Calculated mean
daily inhaled indoor air doses of lindane were on the order of hundreds of nanograms for all family
members; atrazine, a- and y-chlordane, chlorpyrifos, heptachlor, and metolachlor were on the order
of tens of nanogram doses for all family members, with applicator dose being slightly less due to
relatively less time spent indoors (approximately 9 hours per day vs. approximately 20 hours per day
for spouse and children).
North Carolina farm #1 measured indoor air concentrations of alachlor (days 2, 3, and 4);
a-chlordane (days 2, 3, and 4); y-chlordane (days 2, 3, and 4); chlorpyrifos (days 2, 3, and 4);
heptachlor (days 2, 3, and 4); metolachlor (days 2, 3, and 4); propoxur (days 2, 3, and 4); and
trifluralin (day 2). Alachlor was the only applied pesticide, with metolachlor found to be residual
within the mixture. Calculated mean daily inhaled indoor air doses of a-chlordane, y-chlordane, and
propoxur were on the order of a microgram for all family members, comparable to typical applicator
inhalation doses during a pesticide application (excluding HML activities). Alachlor and heptachlor
mean daily inhaled air doses were on the order of hundreds of nanograms; chlorpyrifos and
metolachlor were on the order of tens of nanograms; and trifluralin doses were calculated to be on
the order of one nanogram, for all family members.
North Carolina farm #2 measured indoor air concentrations of carbaryl (days 2, 3, and 4); a-
chlordane (days 2, 3, and 4); y-chlordane (days 2, 3, and 4); chlorpyrifos (days 2, 3, and 4);
heptachlor (days 2, 3, and 4); and terbufos (day 2). Carbaryl was the only applied pesticide. The
spouse on North Carolina farm #2 spent substantially more time indoors than either child or the
applicator during the three-day monitoring period. This resulted in the spouse receiving a
significantly greater dose of all indoor detected pesticides than other family members (by
approximately a factor of 2). Calculated mean daily inhaled indoor air doses of carbaryl, a-
chlordane, and heptachlor were on the order of a microgram for the spouse, and on the order of
hundreds of nanograms for the applicator and children. Mean daily indoor inhalation doses of y-
chlordane were on the order of a microgram for spouse and child #2, and on the order of hundreds
of nanograms for the applicator and child #1. Terbufos doses were on the order of a hundred of
nanograms for all family members; chlorpyrifos mean daily indoor inhalation dose was on the order
of tens of nanograms for all family members.
21
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Of the 33 targeted pesticides, 7 were applied on at least one of the participant farms, 11 were
detected in the outdoor air near a farm residence, and 17 were detected in farm residence indoor air.
The pesticide applicator was usually exposed to the applied pesticide(s) during HML and
application activities. An exception was found on Iowa farm #4, where pyrethrins and piperonyl
butoxide were applied but their presence in personal air samples was not detected. Inhalation dose
during application was comparable with the PHED reference, however inhalation dose received
during HML was well below PHED reference. While the applicator's inhalation exposure to applied
pesticides occurs almost exclusively during HML/application activities (at least 80%), exposure to
non-applied (fugitive) pesticides does occur during time spent outdoors on the farm, and even more
so during time spent indoors.
Outdoor concentrations of pesticides applied using a ground boom sprayer were detected
(stationary point measurement) at significant concentrations (265 ng/m3 alachlor, 24-hour average,
on North Carolina farm #1) when wind direction favored such transport. The converse is not
supported, however, as outdoor concentrations of atrazine were detected on Iowa farm #3 even
though wind direction never favored source-to-receptor transport during HML or application
activities. Outdoor concentrations of non-applied pesticides were detected on 5 of the 6 farms. The
highest 24-hour outdoor concentration of any non-applied pesticide was 26.3 ng/m3 metolachlor on
Iowa farm #3 during the first application period, although metolachlor was found residual within the
applied pesticide mixture. The highest 24-hour outdoor concentration of any non-applied, non-
residual pesticide was 18.7 ng/m3 alachlor, also detected on Iowa farm #3 during the first application
period.
Indoor concentrations of applied pesticides were detected (stationary point measurement)
on 4 of the 6 farms, although one case (metolachlor on Iowa farm #2) confirmed detection during
the control season as well. Indoor concentrations of an applied or residual pesticide were higher on
the application day than conterminous days on Iowa farm #1 (dicamba), Iowa farm #2 (metolachlor),
and Iowa farm #3 (alachlor; second application period). However, the cases observed in the pilot
study do not strongly support a conclusion that outdoor air (exclusively) is the source of indoor
concentrations of applied/residual pesticides. Indoor concentrations of non-applied pesticides were
more the rule than the exception. On 5 of the 6 pilot study farms, concentrations of non-applied
pesticides were detected on at least one day. In most cases, applicator/spouse questionnaires relating
to historical use of such pesticides could not confirm usage.
The applicator's inhalation exposure to applied pesticides is greater than that of any other
family member on the day of application (calculated exposures indicated applicator inhalation
exposure to be at least a factor of 5 times greater). This elevated exposure is attributable to
HML/application activities. Non-applicator family members can be exposed indirectly to applied
(and non-applied) pesticides during time spent indoors or outdoors on the farm. For spouse and
children, the indoor microenvironment contributed to inhalation exposure of pesticides to a far
22
-------
greater extent than did the outdoor-on-farm microenvironment - even on the day of application. On
two of six farms, mean daily indoor inhalation dose for a spouse or child was calculated to be on the
order of micrograms - comparable to doses received by an applicator during an application (although
toxicological response and health risk cannot be presumed to be the same). This importance of the
indoor microenvironment to an individual's total inhalation exposure is attributable to several
factors. Firstly, the time spent indoors (over the course of 24 hours) exceeded time spent outdoors
on the farm. Secondly, pesticide concentrations were generally higher indoors than outdoors (of 20
comparisons that could be made, 14 pesticides had higher 24-hour indoor concentrations; only 6 had
higher 24-hour outdoor concentrations). Thirdly, the indoor microenvironment contained a greater
number of detected pesticides than outdoors (17 different pesticides were detected in indoor samples;
11 were detected in outdoor samples).
In conclusion, the inhalation pathway does contribute to the total pesticide exposure of
applicator and family. Pesticide handling, mixing, loading, and applying present occasion for acute
exposure to the applicator. Pesticide application events can substantially increase outdoor
concentrations directly downwind - to levels exceeding typical applicator personal air concentration
during handling, mixing, and loading. Elevated outdoor pesticide concentrations were not clearly
related to indoor concentrations on farms monitored in this study. Participant activity logs indicated
substantially more time was spent indoors at the farm residence than outdoors on the farm. Chronic
exposure to pesticides found in farm residence indoor air can be comparable, in cumulative inhaled
dose, to exposures accrued by applicators during pesticide applications.
23
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The sampling design and protocol for air measurements in the AHS pilot study is
fundamentally sound. Data completeness is sufficient to assess inhalation exposure of applicator and
family members on the application day. The focus on the HML and application activities as the
greatest opportunity for acute inhalation exposure for the applicator is substantiated. Personal air
sampling of the applicator during HML and application activities should continue. Applicator
personal air concentrations during HML activities were measured to be well below PHED reference
averages, and below the personal air samples taken during the application activity. Insofar as these
were not expected, future efforts to measure applicator personal air should undergo a procedural
quality control review.
The use of size-selective impactors at air sampling cartridge inlets should be reviewed.
Pesticide air samples measured in support of exposure assessments should capture the full size
distribution of aerosols/particulates that are inhalable.
The outdoor air sample on the application day provides some indication of the impact of
application activity on the ambient air near the farm house. This enables Comparisons between
indoor and outdoor air, and provides indication that the source of indoor concentrations Of pesticides
is not to be found exclusively, or even predominantly, in outdoor air. The potential impact of
application activity on downwind air concentrations is revealed only by model simulation. Fixed
location ambient air sampling would only by chance capture a worst Case condition of spraying and
meteorology. The potential for significant inhalation exposure to occur in the non-homogeneous,
non-isotropic outdoor air -e.g. a cohort located directly downwind of an application event - is
unknown. Sampling personal air of spouse and/or children during their outdoor activity on
application day would provide such data, but at a cost of increased participant burden.
Implementation of a spouse/child personal air sampling protocol during outdoor activity could better
utilize on-site meteorology data. In the absence of such a protocol, a nearby Weather station may
provide representative data to support a model screening assessment of downwind concentrations.
The indoor air samples on the pre-, post-, and application days provided the most useful data
in assessing spouse and child chronic inhalation exposure to pesticides. Collection of single-point,
24-hour integrated indoor air samples limits the choice of an indoor inhalation exposure assessment
model to one that assumes spatially uniform and constant intra-day pesticide concentrations.
Activity jog records indicate that the time spent indoors is not random within a 24-hour period,
thereby introducing potential bias in exposure calculations that make assumptions of temporal
uniformity. Nor is indoor habitation random with respect to location within the house, thereby
introducing potential bias in exposure calculations that assume spacial Uniformity. Improvement in
chronic indoor inhalation exposure assessment for all family members could be aided by
implementing a more frequent, shorter duration, sampling protocol - partitioning the day into two
or more sampling periods. Improvement in assessment could also be made by implementing multi-
point sampling - over-sampling more frequently used rooms. Sampling personal air of applicator,
spouse or children during their indoor activity Would provide the best assessment data, but again,
24
-------
at an increased burden to participants.
The collection of control season 24-hour integrated indoor air measurements should continue.
Exposure assessments derived from the three-day application period sampling must be confirmed
as representative by similar control season sampling to increase confidence that the exposure is
indeed "chronic".
25
-------
REFERENCES
Alavanja, M.C.R., A. Blair, et al., "Agricultural Health Study: A Prospective Study of Cancer and
Other Diseases Among Men and Women in Agriculture". Draft Protocol 4 Feb 1993, National
Cancer Institute, Washington, DC: US Environmental Protectional Agency, Washington DC, and
National Institude of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Alavanja, M.C.R., D.P. Sandier, et al., "The Agricultural Health Study"; Environmental Health
Perspectives. 104:362-369 (1996).
Baker, S.R, and C.R. Wilkinson, ed; The Effect of Pesticides on Human Health. Princeton
Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., 1990.
Camann, D.E., P.W. Geno, et al., "Measurements to Assess Exposure to the Farmer and Family to
Agricultural Pesticides"; Proceedings of the 1993 US EPA/A&WMA International Symposium on
Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants. Air & Waste Management Association
Pittsburgh, 1993.
Camann, D.E., HJ. Harding, et al., "Comparison of PM2 5 and Open-Face Inlets for Sampling
Aerosolized Pesticides on Filtered Polyurethane Foam"; Proceeding of the 1994 US EPA/A&WMA
International Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants. Air & Waste
Management Association, Pittsburgh, 1994.
Camann, D.E., A.E. Bond, et al., "Distributions of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures of the Farmer-
Applicator to Agricultural Pesticides"; Proceedings of the Society for Risk Analysis and
International Society of Exposure Analysis. New OrleansJ 1996.
Cotes, J.E., J.W. Reed, et al., "Breathing and Exercise Requirements of the Workplace", in Exercise.
Whipp and Wasserman (ed), 1991, Marcel Dekker, pp 495-548.
Durham, W.F., "Human Health Hazards of respiratory Exposure to Pesticides", in Air Pollution from
Pesticides and Agricultural Processes. R.E. Lee, (ed), CRC Press, 1976.
Exposure Factors Handbook (1989), Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Document No. EPA/600/8-89/043.
Geno, P.W., D.E. Camann, et al., "Analytical Methods for Assessing the Exposure of Farmers and
Their Families to Pesticides", in Proceedings of the 1993 U.S. EPA/A&WMA International
SvmPOSJum on Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutantsr Air & Waste Management
Association, Pittsburgh, 1993.
26
-------
Giardino, Nicholas J., David E. Camann, et al., "Estimates of Pesticide Exposure from the
Agricultural Health Study (AHS)", in Proceedings of the 1993 U.S. EPA/A&WMA International
Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants. Air & Waste Management
Association, Pittsburgh, 1993.
Gilbert, AJ, and GJ Bell, "Evaluation of the drift hazards arising from pesticide spray application";
Aspeccts of Applied Biology. 17, 1988.
/
Harding, H.J., P.M. Merritt, et al., "Sample Collection Methods to Assess Environmental Exposure
to Agricultural Pesticides," in Proceedings of the 1993 U.S. EPA/A&WMA International
Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants. Air & Waste Management
Association, Pittsburgh, 1993.
Hsu, J.P., H.G. Wheeler, Jr., et al., "Analytical Methods for Detection of Nonoccupational Exposure
to Pesticides", J. of Chromatographic Science. 26, 181 (1988).
Jegier, Z., "Pesticide Residues in the Atmosphere". Ann. N.Y. Acad Sci 160, 143 (1969).
Johnson, D.R, Drift from Applications with Ground Hydraulic Sprayers: Integration and Summary
of 1992 and 1993 Field Studies. Spray Drift Task Force Report, c/o McKenna & Cuneo,
Washington, D.C., 1994.
Keigwin, T., Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA; personal communication (1996).
Kuchibhatla, R., M. Nees, et al., "Quality Systems and Implementation Plan: Exposure assessment
Pilot Study, Agricultural Health Study", EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0106, ManTech Environmental
Technology, Inc. (1994).
Kuchibhatla, R., M. Nees, et al., "Agricultural Health Study: A Pilot Exposure Study; Volume I:
Interpretive Report", EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0106, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
(1996a).
Kuchibhatla, R., M. del Valle-Torres, et al., "Agricultural Health Study: A Pilot Exposure Study;
Volume II: Data Summary", EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0106, ManTech Environmental Technology,
Inc. (1996b).
Lewis R.G., R.E. Lee Jr., "Air Pollution from Pesticides: Sources, Occurrences and Dispersion", in
Lee, R.E. Jr., (ed), Air Pollution from Pesticides and Agricultural Processes. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, PP 5-55 (1976).
Lewis, R.G., R.C. Fortmann, and D.E. Camann, "Evaluation of Methods for Monitoring the Potential
Exposure of Small Children to Pesticides in the Residential Environment", Arch. Environ. Contam.
loxicol, 26, 37-46 (1994).
27
-------
Nelson, C.J., J.M. Clothier, et al., "NCI/EPA Agricultural Health Study (AHS): Development of the
Biomarker Questionnaire", in Proceedings of the 1993 U.S. EPA/A&WMA International
Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and Related Ait Pollutants. Air & Waste Management
Association, Pittsburgh, 1993.
Nigg, H.H., R.C. Beier, et aL, "Exposure to Pesticides", In: Baker and Wilkinson (ed), The Effect
oF Pesticides on Human Health: Advances in Modem Environmental Toxicology. Vol. XVIII,
Princeton Scientific, NY, pp 35-130 (1990).
Nonoccunational Pesticide Exposure Study fNOPESV U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Final Report. EPA/600/3-90/003, Jan 1990.
Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database. (PHED version 1.1), Versar Inc., Springfield VA; January
1995.
The PestlQide Manual, Tenth Edition, Clive Tomlin, ed. The British Crop Protection Council and
The Royal Society of Chemistry. 1994.
Reichard,DL, H.Zhu, et al., "Wind Tunnel Evaluation of a Computer Program to Model Spray
Drift"; Trans, of the ASAR Vol. 35(3): May-June 1992.
Teske, M.E, AeDRTFT User Manual. Version 6.0, C.D.I. Technical Note No. 94-14, Continuum
Dynamics, Inc. Princeton, NJ 08543,1996.
Teske, M.E., J.W. Barry and H.W. Thistle Jr. ,"Aerial Spray Drift Modeling", p 11-42, in
Environmental Modeling Volume II: Computer Methods and Software for Simulating
Environmental Pollution and its Adverse Effects. P.Zannetti (ed). Computational Mechanics
Publications, Southampton, England, 1994.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological E)
Indices, American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, 1991-1992.
posure
Wallace, L.A., The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAMI Studv: Summary and
Analysis; Volume I (EPA/600/6-87/002a). Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1987
Whitmore, R.W., F.W.Immerman, et al., "Non-Occupational Exposures to Pesticides for Residents
of Two U.S. Cities", Arch. Environ.Contam.Toxicol.. 26, 47-59 (1994),
28
-------
i !
APPENDIX A: AHS TARGET PESTICIDES
29
-------
AHS TARGET PESTICIDES
HERBICIDES
ALACHLOR
ATRAZINE
2,4-D
DACTHAL
DICAMBA
METOLACHLOR
TR1FLURALIN
INSECTICIDES
ALDICARB
ALDRIN
CARBARYL
CARBOFURAN
CHLORPYRIFOS
tt-CHLORDANE
Y-CHLORDANE
ODD
DDE
DDT
DIAZINON
DIELDRIN
FONOFOS
HEPTACHLOR
LINDANE
MALATHION
PERMETHRIN
PHORATE
PROPOXUR
PYRETHRINS
TERBUFOS
FUNGICIDES
CAPTANA,B
CHLOROTHALONIL A
DICLORAN
FOLPET A,B
METALAXYL
30
-------
APPENDIX B: APPLIED PESTICIDES
31
-------
APPLIED PESTICIDE LIST
FARM
1A1
IA2
IA3-First Visit
lA3-Sccond Visit
1A4
NCI
NC2
PESTICIDE
DICAMBA
ATRAZINE
DICAMBA
2,4-D BUTOXY ETHYL ESTER
METOLACHLOR
ATRAZINE
2,4-D
2,4-D BUTOXY ETHYL ESTER
PYRETHRIN
PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE
ALACHLOR
CARBARYL
CLASS
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide '
Herbicide
Insecticide
Insecticide Synergist
Herbicide ,
Insecticide
32
-------
APPENDIX C: METEOROLOGY
33
-------
IA1
Mo
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
S
5
i
!
i
t
Day-
lS
IS
IS
IS
IS
18
IS
IS
18
IS
18
18
IS
IS
18
18
IS
18
IS
18
IS
IS
IS
18
18
IS
18
IS
IS
18
IS
Time
-
850
900
910
920
930
940
950
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1630
1640
1650
1700
1710
1720
1730
1740
1750
1800
1810
1820
TempC
-
15.0
15.8
15.3
16.3
16.0
16.5
16.9
17.4
18.0
18.0
17.9
19.0
18.9
19.7
19.8
20.4
20.8
20.8
25.4
25.1
25.2
25.4
25.0
25.4
25.0
25.3
25.3
25.0
24.4
24.4
RH
-
28
27
26
25
25
25
25
24
21
25
22
21
20
21
17
17
14
15
13
12
13
15
13
15
14
15
17
15
15
16
WS
[m/s]
-
1.46
0.89
1.66
1.69
1.70
1.51
1.09
0.91
1.12
1.37
1.71
1.01
1.54
1.44
1.59
1.78
1.20
2.01
1.17
1.53
1.90
1.19
1.58
0.94
1.20
1.00
0.74
0.97
1.16
0.95
WD
-
69
29
98
100
64
355
36
61
64
28
74
52
83
334
105
254
80
36
109
24
36
70
65
226
81
13
17
39
88
14
Activity
-
hml
hml
hml
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
hml
hml
hml
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
Target-
WD
-
315
315
315
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
315
315
315
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
HIT
-
n
n
n
y
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
y
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Dicamba
Outdoors
24 Hour
Ave
[ng/m3]
nd
Dicamba
Indoors
24 Hour .
Ave
[ng/m3]
2.27
34
-------
Mo
5
5
5
Day
18
18
18
Time
1830
1840
1850
TempC
24.4
24.1
24.1
RH
16
15
18
WS
[m/s]
0.88
1.06
0.69
WD
354
86
58
Activity
app
app
app
Target-
WD
135
135
135
HIT
n
n
n
Dicamba
Outdoors
24 Hour
Ave
[ng / m3]
Dicamba
Indoors
24 Hour
Ave
[ng / ra3]
35
-------
IA3-First Application Period
Mo
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
s
S
5
Day
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Time
-
800
810
820
830
850
900
910
920
930
940
950
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1100
TempC
-
15.0
15.1
15.1
15.0
15.3
14.8
14.7
14.7
14.8
14.8
14.3
14.0
13.7
13.7
13.8
14.0
14.3
14.1
RH
-
60
61
61
61
62
70
70
68
68
68
76
81
86
86
85
86
85
86
WS
[m/s]
-
4.46
4.46
4.23
4.36
3.71
3.12
3.68
3.72
3.11
2.90
3.74
3.35
3.23
2.78
3.31
3.37
3.59
4.04
WD
-
141
152
143
144
142
165
152
170
154
162
167
157
172
170
148
172
159
125
Activity
-
hml
hml
hml
hml
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
app
Target-
WD
.
330
330
330
330
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
HIT
_
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Atrazine
Outdoors
24 Hour
Ave
[ng / m3]
9.91
Atrazine
Indoors
24 Hour
Ave
nd
36
-------
NCI
Mo
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
66
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Day
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22 .
Time
-
900
910
920
930
940
950
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
1300
1310
1320
1330
1340
1350
1400
1410
TerapC
-
26.0
26.6
27.0
27.3
28.2
28.1
28.4
28.6
28.8
29.1
29.0
29.5
29.0
29.6
30.0
30.5
30.6
30.0
30.8
30.6
30.3
30.5
31.0
31.3
31.3
31.4
31.4
31.5
30.8
31.0
31.8
RH
-
78
75
77
72
69
68
62
58
57
56
58
55
57
54
59
52
55
57
58
57
57
56
55
53
54
53
54
53
58
57
49
WS
[m/s]
-
1.97
1.87
1.69
2.14
1.50
2.07
2.30
2.38
2.57
2.17
2.46
2.57
2.80
2.17
2.36
1.58
1.43
1.77
1.87
2.55
2.66
1.97
1.74
1.78
2.11
1.53
1.92
1.83
2.45
2.10
2.00
WD
-
318
339
337
352
349
32
4
17
16
23
59
1
28
19
26
4
65
54
91
79
39
61
64
23
115
1
139
37
14
82
36
Activity
-
hml/app
hral/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
Target-
WD
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HIT
-
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
n
y
y
y
y
y
n
n
n
n
y
n
n
y
n
y
n
y
y
n
y
Alachlor
Outdoors
24 Hour
Ave
[ng / m3]
265
Alachlor
Indoors
24 Hour
Ave
[ng/m3]
33.2
37
-------
Mo
6
6
6
6
Day
22
22
22
22
Time
1420
1430
1440
1450
TcmpC
31.7
31.4
31.7
32.0
RH
50
53
45
44
WS
[m/s]
2.06
2.20
2.32
1.49
WD
76
107
75
169
Activity
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
hml/app
Target-
WD
0
0
0
0
HIT
n
n
n
n
Alachlor
Outdoors
24 Hour
Ave
[ng / m3]
Alachlor
Indoors
24 Hour
Ave
[ng / m3]
38
-------
APPENDIX D: APPLICATION EQUIPMENT
39
-------
APPLICATION EQUIPMENT
FARM
SPRAY IMPLEMENT
VEHICLE
IA1
Boom Ann
Open-Cab Tractor
IA2
Boom Arm
Closed-Cab Tractor
IA3-First Visit
Boom Arm
Closed-Cab Tractor
IA3-Sccond Visit
Hand Sprayer
Open-Cab Tractor and All-Terrain-Vehicle
IA4
Hand Sprayer
None
NCI
Boom Arm
Closed-Cab Tractor
NC2
Hand Duster
None
40
-------
APPENDIX E: APPLICATION PARAMETERS AND MODEL CALCULATIONS
41
-------
IA1
Ap
H
I
2
Chcm
dicamba
dicamba
Quantity
A.I.
2.2Sgal
2.5gal
Tot
Vo!
SOOgal
SOOgal
Liq
Cone
0.0045
0.005
Area
25 ac
30 ac
Rate
20
gal/ac
16.7
gal/ac
Duration
2hlSm
IhISm
Receptor
Dist
100m
100m
Model
Cone
Over
Duration
14400
hg/m3
12650
iig/m3
Model Cone
(worst case)
(24 hr ave)
u
2000
ng/m3
Meas
(24 hr)
nd
ng/m
IA3
Ap
H
1
Chcm
atrazine
Quantity
A.I.
100 Ibs
Tot
Vol
600gat
Liq
Cone
0.167
Ibs/gai
Area
30 ao
Rate
20
gal/ac
Duration
2hl5m.
Receptor
Dist
100m
Model
Cone
over
Duration
28750
ng/m3
Model Cone
(worst case)
(24 hr ave)
2700
ng/m3
Meas
(24 hr)
9.91
ng/m
NCI
H
I
2
Chcm
alachlor
alachlor
Quantity
A.I.
2.5gal
Sgal
Tot
Vol
85gal
llOgal
Liq
Cone
0.0294
0.0455
Area
5.6ac
8.3ac
Rate
15.2
gal/ac
13.2
gal/aC
Duration
IhlOm
2h55m
Receptor
Dist
300m
300m
Model
Cone
over
10900
ng/m3
11100
ng/m3
Model
Cone
(worst case)
1900
ng/m3
Meas
(24 hr)
265
ng/m
42
-------
APPENDIX F: TIME SERIES OF INDOOR AND OUTDOOR CONCENTRATIONS
43
-------
iAi"
ii
Pestiqide
pg/mY
jAtrazine'* '
II *
Jchlprpyrifos i
|2,4-p^
Dicamba*
L . .;
Sample
.Location '
Indoor -
Outdoor 5
Indoor
Contml I AppHcatioMiiRei-iod
:Seasftn 3
nd
inm
1,03
Outdoor | :nm
Indoor j
Outdoor j
ilndppr i
.Outdoor
iPicIprjin »j Ipdppr
Heptachlor
'
Outdoor
Moor j
Outdppr j
1 Metolachlor * I Indoor
I Trifluralin
Outdoor
Indoor
T ! .
;ad
3Day2
s(May£7?)
end
;ttm
;ad
nm
nd
Jm I .nm
;0d
wo
22.2 ;
nm i
1.27 :
am
jnd ,
nm
nd
nm ;
nd
nm
2-OQ | nd
I
nm
1,04
Outdoor | nm
nm
nd
nm
-
3fciy3
(Maya.;8;)
,nd
ad
=n.d
jad
md
nd ;
22.7
nd
nd I
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
,
3Daj4
<(May Mty
aid :
;nm t
;iid ;
nm >
nd !
mm 1
nd I
nd jj
nm
nd ||
nm 11
nd
nm
nd
nm II
nd = not detected
*First Appljcation, Applied pompound; 0.193 % Dicamba
*o A A ,- .ResidualcomPound:0-0()120%Atrazine,0.00118%MetoIochlor,0.000200%24-D
'Second Application, Applied compound: 0.245% Dicamba
Residual compound: 0.000177% Atrazine, 0.000413 % Metolachlor, 0.0000564 % 2,4 - D
44
-------
IA2
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
Alachlor
Atrazine *
Chlorpyrifos
2,4 - D *
2,4 - D boee *
Dicamba *
Dicloran
Heptachlor
Metolachlor *
Terbufos
Trifluralin
Sample
Location
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Control
Season
nd
nm
nd
nm
2.43
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
15.6
nm
nd
nm
6.80
nm
Application Period
Day 2
(May 8)
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
Day 3
(May 9)
nd
3.10
nd
2.16
2.38
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
71.9
7.66
52.0
nd
7.03
1.27
Day 4
(May 10)
nd
nm
nd
nm
2.89
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
63.0
nm
49.4
nm
5.60
nm
nm = not measured
nd = not detected
*First Application, Applied compounds: 0.115% Atrazine, 0.960% Metolachlor, 0.267% 2,4-D butoxyethyl ester
Residuals: 0.00204% 2,4-D, 0.00238% Dicamba
*Second Application, Applied compounds: 0.304% Atrazine, 1.61% Metolachlor, 0.241% Dicamba
Residuals: 0.00595% 2,4-D butoxyethyl ester, 0.000262% 2,4-D
45
-------
IA3-
First Visit
Pesticide
[ngfoi3]
Alachlor
Atrazlne *
Chlorpyrifos
Fonofos
Metolachlor *
Propoxur
Tcrbufos
Trifluralin
Sample
Location
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Control
Season
13.3
nm
nd
nm
1.03
nm
nd
nm
0.834
nm
14.6
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
Application Period
Day 2
(May 13)
6.13
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
5.13
nm
21.5
nm
25.0
nm
nd
nm
Day 3
(May 14)
9.39
18 J
nd
9.91
0.950
,3.44
nd
2.38
4.04
26.3
27.4
nd
41.3
nd
0.822
8.08
Day 4
(May 15)
7.03
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
3.22
nm
19.8
nm
26.6
nm
0.692
nm
nd » not detected
* Applied compound: 0.295% Atrazine
Residuals: 0.00553% Metolachlor
46
-------
IA3 - Second
Visit
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
Alachlor *
Atrazine
y-Chlordane
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos
2,4 - D *
2,4 - D boee *
Metolachlor
Propoxur
Terbufos
Trifluralin
Sample
Location
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Control
Season
13.3
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
1.03
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
0.834
nm
14.6
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
Application Period
Day 2
(Junll)
3.67
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
5.60
nm
0.827
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
2.01
nm
23.3
nm
11.8
nm
3.43
nm
Day 3
(Jun 13)
5.68
2.86
nd
6.17
nd
nd
11.0
nd
1.46
1.04
nd
nd
nd
nd
3.71
5.11
33.4
0.901
11.4
nd
1.27
2.05
Day 4
(Jun 14)
4.78
nm
4.82
nm
0.419
nm
9.47
nm
1.65
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
3.24
nm
36.2
nm
7.11
nm
1.83
nm
nm = not measured
nd = not detected
*First Application, Applied compound: 0.0328% 2,4 - D
Residual compound: 0.00403% 2,4 - D butoxyethyl ester, 0.00125 % Alachlor
*Second Application, Applied compound: 0.569% 2,4 - D butoxyethyl ester
Residual compound: 0.120 % 2,4 - D
47
-------
IA4
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
Atrazine
a-Chlordane
Y-Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Diazinon
Fonofos
Hcptachlor
Lindane
Metolachlor
Piperonyl
Pyrcthrins *
Tcrbufos
Trifluralin
Sample
Location
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Control
Season
nm
1.28
nm
1.70
nm
2.77
nm
7.30
nm
8.77
nm
nm
111
nm
9.19
nm
nm
nm
15.4
nm
0.934
nm
Application Period
Day 2
(Jun 15)
nd
nm
1.41
nm
1.83
nm
2.40
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
71.0
nm
2.80
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
Day 3
(Jun 16)
nd
1.94
1.11
nd
1.55
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.55
nd
57.0
nd
2.68
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Day 4
(Jun 17)
21.0
nm
1.48
nm
1.85
nm
2.66
nm
nd
rim
nd
nm
1.87
nm
76.6
nm
3.15
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nd » not detected
* Applied compounds: 0.116% Pyrethrins, 0.109% Piperonyl Butoxide
48
-------
NCI
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
Alachlor *
cc-Chlordane
y-Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Heptachlor
Metolachlor *
Propoxur
Trifluralin
Sample
Location
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Control
Season
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
Application Period
Day 2
(Jun 21)
27.9
nm
176
nm
231
nm
4.51
nm
89.9
nm
11.4
nm
203
nm
0.664
nm
Day 3
(Jun 22)
33.2
265
152
6.99
197
7.36
3.78
3.09
84.9
1.65
9.76
7.97
245
nd
nd
nd
Day 4
(Jun 23)
46.3
nm
113
nm
145
nm
3.26
nm
62.3
nm
9.64
nm
239
nm
nd
nm
nm = not measured
nd = not detected
*First Application, Applied compounds: 1.13% Alachlor
Residuals: 0.00704% Metolachlor
*Second Application, Applied compound: 0.298% Alachlor
Residuals: 0.000392% Metolachlor
49
-------
NC2
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
Carbaryl *
a-Chlordane
Y-Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Hcptachlor
Malathion
Tcrbufos
Sample
Location
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Control
Season
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
Application Period
Day 2
(Jul 27)
279
nm
121
nm
161
'nm
1.69
nm
79.3
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
Day3
(Jul 28)
47.9
93.0
97.0
1.53
133
1.75
1.46
nd
90.2
nd
nd
nd
47.6
nd
Day 4
(Jul 29)
72.4
nm
103
nm
145
nm
3.07
nm
73.9
nm
nd
nm
nd
nm
nm » not measured
nd = not detected
* Applied Compounds: 0.194% Carbaryl
Residuals: None
50
-------
APPENDIX G: INDOOR TO OUTDOOR CONCENTRATION RATIOS
51
-------
Ratio
Indoor/Outdoor
Pesticide
Alachlor
Carbaryl
a-Clilordane
Y-Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Heptachlor
Metolachlor
Propoxur
Trifluralin
Iowa #1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Farm
Iowa #2
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.8
-
5.0
Iowa #3
(First)
0.40
-
-
-
0.28
-
0.16
-
0.094
Iowa #3
(Second)
1.64
-
-
-
1.26
-
0.58
34.
1.06
Iowa #4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NC#1
0.14
-
21.0
26.0
1.25
48.
1.29
-
-
NC#2
-
1.43
70.
84.
-
-
-
-
-
52
-------
APPENDIX H: APPLICATOR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION
53
-------
APPLICATOR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION
FARM
IA1
IA2
lA3-First
IA3-Sccond
IA4
NCI
NC2
HML
None
None
Dust Mask
na
na
na
na
APPLICATION
None
None
None
None
None
None
54
-------
APPENDIX I: HML/APPLICATION EXPOSURE RELATIVE TO TOTAL
55
-------
Applicator's Day 3 HML/AppIication Air Exposure as a % of Day 3 Total Air Exposure
Applied
Pesticide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Carbaryl
Dicamba
2,4-D
2,4-D BOEE
Metolachlor
Piperonyl
Butoxide
Pyrethrin
Iowa #1
-
-
-
> 99 %
-
-
-
-
-
Iowa #2
-
> 99 %
-
100 %
-
100%
97%
-
-
Iowa #3
(First)
-
94%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Iowa #3
(Second)
-
-
-
-
nd
nd
-
-
-
Iowa #4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
nd
nd
NC#1
80%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NC#2
_
-
>99%
-
-
-
-
-
56
-------
APPENDIX J: APPLICATOR TOTAL INHALATION DOSE
57
-------
Applicator's Day 3 Total Received Initiation Dose of Applied Pesticides
Applied
Pesticide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Carbaryl
Dicamba
2,4-D
2,4-D
BOEE
Metolachlor
Piperonyl
Butoxide
Pyrethrin
Iowa #1
3760 ng
Iowa #2
14,900ng
462ng
660ng
39,200ng
Iowa #3
(First)
960 ng
Iowa #3
(Second)
Ong
Ong
Iowa#4
Ong
Ong
NC#1
13,600ng
NC#2
l,932,000ng
58
-------
APPENDIX K: APPLICATOR PERSONAL AIR EXPOSURE
AND INHALATION DOSE
59
-------
Iowa #1
Pesticide
Dicamba
(1st HMD
Dicamba
(IstAppl'n)
Dicamba
(2nd HML)
Dicamba
( 2nd Appl'n)
Applicator Inhalation Dose Derived
fro.m Personal Air Concentration and from PHED
Amount
I Ibs ]
19 ;
O 1
Zl
personal
AirConc
[ng/m3]
37,5 :
160
nm '
1030
Buration.of
Activity
[h]
0.5
2.5
0.5
2.0
Total HML Do$e
Total Application Dose
Calculated |
Dose
;[«g] ;
66
:600
;
3090
66
3690
:PHED;Dose
[ng]
1^9779
1719
21,861
1900
41600
3620
60
-------
Iowa #3
(First)
Pesticide
Atrazine
(IstHML)
Atrazine
(IstAppl'n)
Applicator Inhalation Dose Derived
from Personal Air Concentration and from PHED
Amount
[Ibs]
100
Personal
AirConc
[ng/m3]
210
215
Duration of
Activity
[h]
0.67
2.33
Calculated
Dose
Ing]
211
751
PHED Dose
[ng]
90400
9046
61
-------
North
Carolina #1
Pesticide
Alachlor
(1st
HML/AppFn )
Alachlor
(2nd
HML/Appl'n)
Applicator Inhalation Dose Derived
from Personal Air Concentration and from PHED
Amount
[Ibs]
21
42
Personal
AirConc
[ng/m3]
1130
2640
Duration of
Activity
[h]
1.0
3.0
Calculated
Dose
[ng]
1700
11900
PHED Dose
(Application
Only)
[ng]
1900
3800
62
-------
APPENDIX L: FAMILY TOTAL EXPOSURE TO APPLIED PESTICIDE ON
APPLICATION DAY
63
-------
Day3
DICAMBA
Applicator
Spouse
Child!
Child!
Time
HML/
Appll
[h]
3
0
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
442
-
-
-
time
HML/
Appl2
M
2
0
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
2075
-
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
[h]
4
8
3
7
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
nd
nd
nd
Time '
Indoors
(in house)
M
5
15
12
14
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
11
34
27
32
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
2528
34
27
32
64
-------
IA2 Day3
ATRAZINE
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Time
HML/
Appl 1
[h]
3
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
1245
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
[h]
7
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
8680
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
[h]
3
1
4
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
6.48
2.16
8.64
Time
Indoors
(in house)
[h]
11
13
19
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
9931
2.16
8.64
IA2 Day3
METOL-
ACHLOR
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Time
HMLV
Appl 1
M
3
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
3150
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
M
7
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
22960
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
[h]
3
1
4
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
23
8
31
Time
Indoors
(in house)
[h]
11
13
19
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
791
935
1366
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
26924
943
1397
IA2 Day3
2,4-D
BUTOXV-
ETHYL
ESTER
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Time
HML/
Appl 1
[h]
3
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
[h]
7
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
440
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
M
3
1 .
4
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
Time
Indoors
(in house)
[h]
11
13
19
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
440
0
0
IA2 Day3
DICAMBA
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Time
HML/
Appl 1
M
3
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-'
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
M
7
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
308
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
M
3
1
4
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
nd
nd
Time
Indoors
(in house)
W
11
13
19
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
308
0
0
65
-------
IA3-1 Day3
ATRAZINE
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Time
HML/
Appl t
DO
4
o
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
850
-
-
time
HML/
App!2
W
na
na
na
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
[h]
4
1
3
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
40
10
30
Time
Indoors
(in house)
M
16
23
7
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
nd
nd
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
890
10
30
IA3-2Day3
2,4-D
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Time
HML/
Appl 1
[h]
1
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nm
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
[h]
2
0
0
Persona!
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
[h]
5
1
3
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
nd
nd
Time
Indoors
(In house)
[h]
10
17
17
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
nd
nd
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
nd
nd
IA3-2 Day3
2,4-D
Btrroxv-
ETHVL
ESTER
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Time
HML/
Appll
[h]
1
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nm
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
M
2
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
M
5
1
3
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
nd
nd
Time
Indoors
(in house)
W
10
17
17
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-fi/mS]
nd
nd
nd
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
nd
nd
nd
66
-------
IA4 Day3
PYRETH-
RIN
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Time
HML/
Appl 1
PI]
3
0
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
0
-
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
W
na
na
na
na
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
W
13
3
6
9
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
0
0
0
0
Time
Indoors
(in house)
[h]
8
21
18
15
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
0
0
0
0
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
0
0
0
0
IA4 Day3
PIPER-
ONYL
BUTOXIDE
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Time
HML/
Appl 1
[h]
3
0
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
0
-
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
M
na
na
na
na
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
M
13
3
6
9
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
0
0
0
0
Time
Indoors
(in house)
M
8
21
18
15
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
0
0
0
0
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
0
0
0
0
67
-------
NCI Day3
ALACHLOR
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Time
HML/
Appll
M
1
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3J
1130
-
-
time
HML/
Appl2
M
3
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
7920
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
[h]
7
1
7
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/mS]
1855
265
1855
Time
Indoors
(in house)
M
13
13
14
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
432
432
465
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
11337
697
2320
68
-------
NC2 Day3
CARBARYL
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Child2
Time
HML/
Appl 1
M
2
0
0
0
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
1,288,000
-
-
-
time
HML/
Appl 2
[h]
na
na
na
na
Personal
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
-
-
-
-
Time
Outdoors
(on farm)
[h]
9
1
0
0
Outdoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
837
93.0
0
0
Time
Indoors
(in house)
[h]
13
18
10
12
Indoor
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
'622.7
862.2
479.
574.8
Total Air
Exposure
[ng-h/m3]
1,289,000
955.2
479.
574.8
69
-------
APPENDIX M: SPOUSE AND CHILD EXPOSURE RELATIVE TO APPLICATOR
70
-------
Total Air Exposure to Applied Pesticide on Day 3:
Ratio of Spouse and Children to Applicator
Pesticide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Carbaryl
Dicamba
2,4-D
BOEE
Metolachlor
Family
Member
Spouse
Child 1
Child 2
Spouse
Child 1
Child 2
Spouse
Child 1
Child 2
;
Spouse
Child 1
Child 2
Spouse
Child 1
Child 2
Spouse
Child 1
Child 2
Iowa #1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 %
1%
1 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
Iowa #2
-
-
-
<1%
<1%
na
-
-
-
0%
0%
na
0%
0%
na
4%
5%
na
Iowa #3
(First)
-
-
-
1%
3%
na
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Iowa #3
(Second)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. '
-
-
-
Iowa #4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NC#1
6%
20%
na
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NC#2
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1%
<1%
<1 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
na = not applicable
71
-------
APPENDIX N: INDOOR DETECTION OF NON-APPLIED PESTICIDES
72
-------
INDOOR DETECTION OF NON-APPLIED PESTICIDES
FARM
IA2
IA3-First Visit
IA3-Second Visit
IA4
NCI
NC2
PESTICIDE
CHLORPYRIFOS (10 May 1994)
TERBUFOS (10 May 1994)
TRJFLURALIN (10 May 1994)
ALACHLOR (15 May 1994)
GHLOPYRIFOS (14 May 1994)
PROPOXUR (15 May 1994)
TERBUFOS (15 May 1994)
TRIFLURALIN (15 May 1994)
ATRAZINE (14 Jim 1994)
Y-CHLORDANE (14 Jun 1994)
CHLOROTHALONIL (14 Jun 1994)
CHLORPYRIFOS (14 Jun 1994)
METOLACHLOR(14 Jun 1994)
PROPOXUR (14 Jun 1994)
TERBUFOS (14 Jun 1994)
TRIFLURALIN (14 Jun 1994)
ATRAZINE (17 Jun 1994)
a-CHLORDANE (17 Jun 1994)
Y-CHLORDANE (17 Jun 1994)
CHLORPYRIFOS (17 Jun 1994)
HEPTACHLOR (17 Jun 1994)
LINDANE(17Jun 1994)
METOLACHLOR (17 Jun 1994)
a-CHLORDANE (23 Jun 1994)
Y-CHLORDANE (23 Jun 1994)
CHLORPYRIFOS (23 Jun 1994)
HEPTACHLOR (23 Jun 1994)
PROPOXUR (23 Jun 1994)
TRIFLURALIN (21 Jun 1994)
a-CHLORDANE (29 Jul 1994)
Y-CHLORDANE (29 Jul 1994)
CHLORPYRIFOS (29 Jul 1994)'
HEPTACHLOR (29 Jul 1994)
TERBUFOS (28 Jul 1994)
HISTORICAL USE
05 MAY 1994
na
na
na
na
na
10 MAY 1994
na
14 MAY 1994
na
na
na
14 MAY 1994
na
10 MAY 1994
na
11 JUNE 1994
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
73
-------
APPENDIX O: INDOOR AIR EXPOSURES AND INHALATION DOSES
74
-------
IA1
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
* applied
f residual
Atrazine t
Day 2: nd
Day 3: nd
Day 4: nd
2,4 - D f
Day 2: nd
Day 3: nd
Day 4: nd
Dicamba *
Day 2: nd
Day 3: 2.27
Day 4: nd
Metolachlor f
Day 2: nd
Day 3: nd
Day 4: nd
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Day 2 (May 17)
Time
lh]
9
17
13
18
9
17
13
18
9
17
13
18
9
17
13
18
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Day 3 (May 18)
Time
[h]
5
15
12
14
5
15
12
14
5
15
12
14
5
15
12
14
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
34
27
32
-
-
-
-
Day 4 (May 19)
Time
[h]
13
19
12
22
13
19
12
22
13
19
12
22
13
19
12
22
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .
-
-
-
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
34
27
32
-
-
-
-
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
7
5
6
-
-
-
-
75
-------
IA2
Pesticide
|ng/m3l
* applied
t residual
Alra/Inc *
Day 2: nm
Day 3: nd
Day 4: nd
Chtorpyrifos
Day 2: nm
Day 3: 2 .38
Day 4: 2,89
2,4-Dt
Day 2: nm
Day 3: nd
Day 4: nd
2,4-D boce *
Day 2; nm
Day 3; nd
Day 4: nd
Dkamba*
Day 2; nm
Day 4:nd
Metolachlor *
Day 2: nm
Dflv 1" 71 9
Day 4: 63.0
Tufbufbs
Day 2: nm
nav 1* 52 (1
Day 4: 49.4
Trifluralln
Day 2: nm
n«v 3' 7 (H
Day 4: 5,60
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Day 2 (May 8)
Time
[h]
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Day 3 (May 9)
Time
[h]
11
13
19
11
13
19
11
13
19
11
13
19
11
13
19
11
13
19
11
13
19
11
13
19
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
-
-
-
26
31
45
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
791
935
1366
572
676
988
77
91
134
Day 4 (May 10)
Time
[h]
11
18
13
11
18
13
11
18
13
11
18
13
11
18
13
11
18
13
11
18
13
11
18
13
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
32
52
38
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
693
1134
819
543
889
642
62
101
73
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
58
83
83
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1484
2069
2185
1115
1565
1630
139
192
207
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
-
-
-
17
25
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
445
621
656
334
470
489
42
58
62
76
-------
IA3-
First
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
* applied
f residual
Alachlor
Day 2: 6.13
Day 3: 9.39
Day 4: 7.03
Atrazine *
Day 2: nd
Day 3: nd
Day 4: nd
Chlorpyrifos
Day 2: nd
Day 3: 0.950
Day 4: nd
Metolachlor t
Day 2: 5.13
Day 3: 4.04
Day 4: 3.22
Propoxur
Day 2: 21.5
Day 3: 27.4
Day 4: 19.8
Terbufos
Day 2: 25.0
Day 3: 41.3
Day 4: 26.6
Trifluralin
Day 2: nd
Day 3: 0.822
Day 4: 0.692
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Day 2 (May 13)
Time
[h]
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
15
5
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
61
92
31
-
-
-
-
-
51
77
26
215
322
108
250
375
125
-
-
-
Day 3 (May 14)
Time
[h]
16
23
7
16
23
7
16
23
7
16
23
7
16
23
7
16
23
7
16
23
7
Expos
[h-ng/m3)
150
216
66
-
-
-
15
22
7
65
93
28
438
630
192
661
950
289
13
19
6
Day 4 (May 15)
Time
[h]
16
17
17
16
17
17
16
17
17
16
17
17
16
17
17
16
17
17
16
17
17
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
112
120
120
-
-
-
-
-
-
52
55
55
317
337
337
426
452
452
11
12
12
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3] ,
323
428
217
-
-
-
15
22
7
168
225
109
970
1289
637
1337
1777
866
24
31
18
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
13
86
43
-
-
-
3
4
1
34
45
22
194
258
127
267
355
173
5
6
4
77
-------
IA3-
Sccond
Pesticide
lng/m3]
* Applied
+ residual
Aladilort
Day 2: 3.67
Day 3: 5.68
Day 4; 4.78
Alrwinc
Day 2: nd
Day3:nd
Day 4; 4.82
Y-Chlordanc
Day 2; nd
Day 3.* nd
Day 4: 0.419
Chloro-
thalonil
Day 2; 5.60
Day 3:11.0
Day 4: 9.47
Chlorpyrifos
Day 2:0.827
Day 3- 1.46
Day 4: 1.65
2.4 -D*
Day 2; nd
Day 3: nd
)ay 4; nd
2,4 - D boee *
>ay 2: nd
Day 3j nd
Day4;nd
Mctolachlor
Day 2; 2.01
Day 3: 3.71
Day 4r 3.24
Propoxur
Day 2: 233
Day 3; 33.4
Day 4; 36.2
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Ctiildl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Day 2 (Jim 11)
Time
[hi
17
16
16
17
16
16
17
16
16
17
16 .
16
17
16
16
17
16
16
17
16
16
17
16
16
17
16
16
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
62
59
59
-
-
-
-
-
-
95
90
90
14
13
13
-
-
-
-
-
-
34
32
32
396
373
373
Day 3 (Jun 13)
Time
[h]
10
17
17
10
17
17
10
17
17
10
17
17
10
17
17
10
17
17
10
17
17
10
17
17
10
17
17
Expos
[h-ng/m3!
57
97
97
-
-
-
-
-
-
110
187
187
15
25
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
37
63
63
334
568
568
Day 4 (Jun 14)
Time
[h]
11
14
12
11
14
12
11
14
12
11
14
12
11
14
12
11
14
12
11
14 '
12
11
14
12
11
14
12
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
53
67
57
53
67
58
4.6
5.9
5.0
104
133
114
18
23
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
36
45
39
398
507
434
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3]
172
223
213
53
67
58
4.6
5.9
5.0
309
410
391
47
61
58
-
-
-
-
-
-
107
140
134
1128
1448
1375
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
34
45
43
11
13
12
1
1
1
62
82
78
9
12
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
21
28
27
226
290
275
78
-------
IA3-
Second
(cont)
Pesticide
[ng/m ]
* applied
f residual
Terbufos
Day 2: 11.8
Day 3: 11.4
Day 4: 7.11
Trifluralin
Day 2: 3.43
Day 3: 1.27
Day 4: 1.83
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Day2(Junll)
Time
In]
17
16
16
17
16
16
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
201
189
189
58
55
55
Day3(Junl3) ,
Time
Ihl
10
17
17
10
17
17
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
114
194
194
13
22
22
Day 4 (Jim 14)
Time
[h]
11
14
12
11
14
12
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
78
100
85
20
26
22
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3]
393
483
468
91
103
99
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
79
97
94
18
21
20
79
-------
IA4
Pesticide
(ng/m3!
* applied
t residual
Air .wine
Day 2; nd
Day 3: nd
Day 4: 21.0
K-Chlordanc
Day 2; 1.41
Dty3;Ul
Day 4: 1.48
Y-Ctilordanc
Day 2; U3
Day 3; 1.55
Day 4: 1.85
Chlorpyrifos
Day 2: 2.40
Dty3:nd
Day 4: 2.66
Hcplaclilor
Day 2; nd
Dae V J 15
Day 4; 1.87
Jndanc
Day 2: 71.0
Day 3: 570
Day 4; 76.6
Mctolaehlor
Day2sZSO
Day 3; 2.68
Day 4; 3.15
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Child!
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Child]
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Day 2 (Jim 15)
Time
[h]
9
20
21
23
9
20
21
23
9
20
21
23
9
20
21
23
9
20
21
23
9
20
21
23
9
20
21
23
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
-
13
28
30
32
16
37
38
42
22
48
50
55
-
-
-
-
639
1420
1491
1633
25
56
59
64
Day3(Junl6)
Time
[h]
8
21
18
15
S
21
18
15
8
21
18
15
8
21
18
15
8
21
18
15
8
21
18
15
8
21
18
15
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
-
9
23
20
17
12
33
28
23
-
-
-
-
12
33
28
23
456
1197
1026
855
21
56
48
40
Day4(Junl7)
Time
[h]
9
18
20
20
9
18
20
20
9
18
20
20
9
18
20
20
9
18
20
20
9
18
20
20
9
18
20
20
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
189
378
420
420
13
27
30
30
17
33
37
37
24
48
53
53
17
34
37
37
689
1379
1532
1532
28
57
63
63
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3]
189
378
420
420
35
78
80
79
45
103
103
102
46
96
103
108
29
67
65
60
1784
3996
4049
4020
74
169
170
167
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
38
76
84
84
7
16
16
16
9
21
21
20
9
19
21
22
6
13
13
12
357
799
810
804
15
34
34
33
80
-------
IA4
(cont)
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
* applied
t residual
Piperonyl
Day 2: nd
Day3:nd
Day 4: nd
Pyrethrins *
Day 2: nd
Day 3: nd
Day 4: nd
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Child2
Day 2 (Jun 15)
Time
[h]
9
20
21
23
9
20
21
23
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Day 3 (Jun 16)
Time
[h]
8
21
18
15
8
21
18
15
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Day 4 (Jun 17)
Time
[h]
9
18
20
20
9
18
20
20
Expos
[h-ng/m]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
81
-------
NCI
Pesticide
Ing/m3|
* applied
t residual
Alachlor*
Day 2; 27.9
Day 3: 33.2
Day 4: 463
tt-Chlordanc
Day 2: 176
Day 3: 152
Day 4: 113
Y-Chlordane
Day 2: 231
Day 3: 197
Da>4;145
Chlorpyrifos
Day 2: 451
Day 3: 3.78
Day 4: 326
Hcptitchlor
Day 2: 89.9
Day 3; 84.9
Day 4; 623
Mctolachlort
Day 2; 11. 4
Day 3' 9 76
Day 4i 9.64
fropoxur
Day 2; 203
Day 3' 245
D«> 4: 239
Trifluralin
Day 2: 0.664
Day 3; nd
Day 4: nd
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Day2(Jun21)
Time
[h]
13
13
11
13
13
11
13
13
11
13
13
11
13
13
11
13
13
11
13
13
11
13
13
11
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
363
363
307
2288
2288
1936
3003
3003
2541
59
59
50
1169
1169
989
148
148
125
2639
2639
2233
9
9
7
Day 3 (Jun 22)
Time
[h]
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
14
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
432
432
465
1976
1976
2128
2561
2561
2758
49
49
53
1104
1104
1189
127
127
137
3185
3185
3430
-
-
-
Day 4 (Jun 23)
Time
[h]
13
12
16
13
12
16
13
12
16
13
12
16
13
12
16
13
12
16
13
12
16
13
12
16
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
602
556
741
1469
1356
1808
1885
1740
2320
42
39
52
810
748
997
125
116
154
3107
2868
3824
-
-
-
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3!
1397
1351
1513
5733
5620
5872
7449
7304
7619
150
147
155
3083
3021
3175
400
391
416
8931
8692
9487
9
9
7
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
279
270
303
1147
1124
1174
1490
1461
1524
30
29
31
617
604
635
80
78
83
1786
1738
1897
2
2
1
82
-------
NC2
Pesticide
[ng/m3]
* applied
f residual
Carbaryl *
Day 2: 279
Day 3: 47.9
Day 4: 72.4
a-Chlordane
Day 2: 121
Day 3: 97.0
Day 4: 103
Y-Chlordane
Day 2: 161
Day 3: 133
Day 4: 145
Chlorpyrifos
Day 2: 1.69
Day 3: 1.46
Day 4: 3.07
Heptachlor
Day 2: 79.3
Day 3: 90.2
Day 4: 73.9
Terbufos
Day 2: nd
Day 3: 47.6
Day 4: nd
Indoor Air Exposures and Inhalation Doses
Family
Member
Applicator
Spouse
Child 1
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Applicator
Spouse
Childl
Child2
Day 2 (Jul 27)
Time
[h]
11
24
7
11
11
24
7
11
11
24
7
11
11
24
7
11
11
24
7
11
11
24
7
11
Expos
[h-ng/m ]
3069
6696
1953
3069
1331
2904
847
1331
1771
3864
1127
1771
19
41
12
19
872
1903
555
872
-
-
-
-
Day 3 (Jul 28)
Time
[h]
13
18
10
12
13
18
10
12
13
18
10
12
13
18
10
12
13
18
10
12
13
18
10
12
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
623
862
479
575
1261
1746
970
1164
1729
2397
1330
1596
19
26
15
18
1173
1624
902
1082
619
857
476
571
Day 4 (Jul 29)
Time
[h]
9
20
11
17
9
20
11
17
9
20
11
17
9
20
11
17
9
20
11
17
9
20
11
17
Expos
[h-ng/m3]
652
1448
796
1231
927
2060
1133
1751
1305
2900
1595
2465
28
61
34
52
665
1478
813
1256
-
-
-
-
Expos
Sum
[h-ng/m3]
4344
9006
3228
4875
3519
6710
2950
4246
4805
9161
4052
5832
66
128
61
89
2710
5005
2270
3210
619
857
476
571
Mean
Dose
[ng/d]
869
1801
646
975
704
1342
590
849
961
1832
810
1166
13
26
12
18
542
1001
454
642
124
171
95
114
83
-------
FIGURES
84
-------
Iowa Farm 1 : First Application Event
Modeled Peak 1 Hour Concentration at 1 .5 m (5 Ft) Height
ro
£
CF>
C
c
o
o
C
o
O
1 m/s wind speed
Temperature 25.0 C
Relative Humidity 50 7.
50
1 00 1 50 200
Downwind Distance [ml
250
300
Figure 1
Modeled concentration profile for Iowa farm #1, first application event. Peak
1-hour concentration of dicamba at the 1.5 m height is plotted against
downwind distance. Dicamba application rate (per acre and per unit hour)
was simulated as actually recorded; other parameters of boom sprayer
emission, meteorology, and receptor location (i.e. centerline), were estimated
as reasonable worst case.
85
-------
Iowa Farm 1 ; Second Application Event
Modeled Peak 1 -Hour Concetration at 1.5 m (5 Ft) Height
c
.2
o
i.
c
o
c
o
o
23000
21000
19000
17000
15000
13000
1 1 000
9000
7000
5000
1 m/s wind speed
Temperature 25 C
Relative Humidity 50%
50 100 150 200
Downwind Distance [m
250
300
Figure 2
Modeled concentration profile for Iowa farm #1, second application event.
Peak 1-hour concentration of dicamba at the 1.5 m height is plotted against
downwind distance. Dicamba application rate (per acre and per unit hour)
was simulated as actually recorded; other parameters of boom sprayer
emission, meteorology, and receptor location (i.e. centerline), were estimated
as reasonable worst case.
86
-------
Iowa Farm 3
Modeled Peak 1 -Hour Concentration at 1.5 m (5 Ft) Height
50000 r
40000 -
en
c
.2 30000
"a
o
§ 20000 I-
10000
3 m/s wind speed
Temperature 25 C
Relative Humidity 50 7.
50 100 150 200
Downwind Distance [ml
250
300
Figure 3
Modeled concentration profile for Iowa farm #3, first application period.
Peak 1 -hour concentration of atrazine at the 1.5m height is plotted against
downwind distance. Atrazine application rate (per acre and per unit hour)
was simulated as actually recorded; other parameters of boom sprayer
emission, meteorology, and receptor location (i.e. centerline), were estimated
as reasonable worst case.
87
-------
North Caroliana Farm 1 : First Application Event
Modeled Peak 1 -Hour Concentration at 1 .5 m (5 Ft) Height
O>
c
o
c
to
o
c
o
o
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000 -
* 2.1 m/s wind speed
Temperature 27.9 C
Relative Humidity 66 %
50 100 1 50 200
Downwind Distance [ml
250
300
Figure 4
Modeled concentration profile for North Carolina farm #1, first application
event. Peak 1-hour concentration of alachlor at the 1.5m height is plotted
against downwind distance. Alachlor application rate (per acre and per unit
hour) was simulated as actually recorded; other parameters of boom sprayer
emission, meteorology, and receptor location (i.e. centerline), were estimated
as reasonable worst case.
-------
North Caroliana Farm 1 : Second Application Lvent
Modeled Peak 1 -Hour Concentration at 1 .5 m (.5 Ft) Height
CD
C
Modeled
70000
60000 -
50000 -
o 40000
"5
i_
S 30000
o
c
o
0 20000
10000 -
* 2.1 m/s wind speed
Temperature 30.8 C
Relative Humidity 54 7,
0 50 100 1 50 200
Downwind Distance [ml
250
300
Figure 5
Modeled concentration profile for North Carolina farm #1, second application
event. Peak 1-hour concentration of alachlor at the 1.5m height is plotted
against downwind distance. Alachlor application rate (per acre and per unit
hour) was simulated as actually recorded; other parameters of boom sprayer
emission, meteorology, and receptor location (i.e. centerline), were estimated
as reasonable worst case.
89
-------
KEYWORDS
Pesticide(s)
Inhalation Exposure
Exposure
Dose
Agriculture Health
Modeling
Indoor Air
90
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997 - 549-OOI/60MS
------- |