United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Toxic Substances
Washington DC 20460
Toxic Substances
EPA-560/5-87-001
December, 1986
Pentachlorophenol in
Log Homes:
A Study of Environmental
and Clinical Aspects
-------
PENTACHLOROPHENOL IN LOG HOMES: A STUDY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLINICAL ASPECTS
By
John M. Hosenfeld
Leslie A. Moody
Marilyn J. Gabriel
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64110
and
Edward A. Emmett
Peter S. J. Lees
Robin M. Friesem
Joan L. Jefferys
Robin Fox
Rebecca Bascom
Diane Bennett
Center for Occupational and Environmental Health
3100 Wyman Park Drive
Baltimore, MD 21211
FINAL REPORT
EPA Prime Contract Nos. 68-02-3938 and 68-02-4252
MRI Project Nos. 8201-A(11) and 8801-A(02)
COEH Subcontract No. 117-7900-17 and 130-7900-9
December 11, 1986
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Field Studies Branch, TS-798
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Sandra Strassman-Sundy
Work Assignment Manager
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the
Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The use of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute Agency endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
This final report presents the results obtained on Midwest Research
Institute Project No. 8201-A, Work Assignment No. 11, "Development of Field
Survey and Analysis Stratagies" for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
Prime Contract No. 68-02-3938). This work was a joint venture between MRI
and the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH) of Johns
Hopkins University as a subcontractor. Under the direction of Mr. John M.
Hosenfeld, MRI was responsible for the overall task management, the environ-
mental sampling (assisted by Ms. Marilyn J. Gabriel), and laboratory analyses
of environmental and biological samples for pentachlorophenol (performed by
Ms. Leslie Moody).
COEH, under the direction of Dr. Edward A. Emmett, was responsible
for recruitment and project coordination (performed by Ms. Robin M. Friesem),
assistance in environmental sampling (Dr. Peter S.J. Lees and Mr. Patrick
Breysee), collection of biological samples and physical examinations
(Drs. Rebecca Bascom and Diane Bennett), statistical analysis of environmental
clinical, biochemical data (Ms. Joan L. Jefferys) and data interpretation in
conjunction with MRI. The clinical laboratory tests were performed by
Pathologists Service Professional Associates, Atlanta, GA, and Montefiore
Medical Center, Bronx, NY. This report was prepared by Mr. Hosenfeld, Ms.
Friesem, Dr. Lees, Ms. Jefferys, and Dr. Emmett.
The authors also wish to thank the EPA task manager, Sandra
Strassman-Sundy, for providing the appropriate guidance, background, and as-
sistance in shepherding this project to completion.
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Paul C. Constant
Program Manager
E. Going, Director
Chemical Sciences Department
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Summary 1
A. Background and Objectives 1
B. Scope 1
C. Data Collected 1
D. Major Findings 1
E. Conclusions 4
II. Introduction. . . 4
III. Conclusions 5
IV. Recommendations 7
V. Experimental Methods 7
A. Study Participants . 7
1. Identification 8
2. Recruitment . 8
3. Preliminary Contact Questionnaire 8
4. Informed Consent 9
5. Household Identification and Appointment
Schedule 9
6. Field Study Sequence 10
B. Rationale for Selection of Study Items 11
1. Environmental Measurements 11
2. Clinical Studies. . 12
3. Physical Examinations . 12
C. Questionnaires 13
1. Environmental Questionnaire .13
2. Medical Questionnaire 13
3. Questionnaire Pretesting 14
D. Sample Collection 14
1. Environmental Studies 14
2. Biological Studies 20
3. Medical Examination 21
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
VI. Sample Preservation and Shipment 21
A. Environmental 22
1. Air Samples 22
2. Wood Core Samples 22
3. Surface Wipe Samples 22
4. Water Samples 22
B. Biological 23
1. Blood 23
2. Urine 23
VII. Analytical Methods 24
A. Environmental Sample Analysis for PCP 24
1. Air 24
. 2. Water 24
3. Wood Core 25
4. Wipe Samples 25
B. Biological Specimen Analysis for PCP 25
1. Urine 25
2. Serum 26
C. Instrumental Analysis 26
1. Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection
(GC/ECD) 26
2. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). . 27
D. Clinical Specimen Analysis 27
1. Hematology and Biochemistry 27
2. Urinalysis ; 27
3. Urine Chemistry 28
VIII. Data Analysis Methods 28
A. Statistical Analysis of Environmental and Biochem-
ical Variables 29
B. Statistical Procedures for the Longitudinal Study. . 32
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
IX. Quality Assurance and Quality Control 33
A. Protocols 34
1. Environmental 34
2. Medical 34
3. PCP Analysis 34
4. Clinical Laboratory 34
B. QA/QC for Environmental Sampling and Analysis. ... 35
1. Environmental Field Samples 35
2. Chemical Analysis 36
C. QA/QC for Data Analysis 36
1. Coding and Data Entry 38
2. Validation 38
3. Storage 38
4. Transfer 38
5. Alteration 38
6. Analysis 39
X. Results and Discussion -39
A. Study Population 39
1. Result of Recruitment Effort 39
2. House Characteristics 40
3. Personal Characteristics of Study Participants. 43
B. PCP Concentrations in Homes 54
1. Air Sampling Results 54
2. Wood Core Sample Results 66
3. Surface Wipe Sampling Results 70
4. Drinking Water Sampling Results 78
5. Association of Demographic and Environmental
Variables with Wood Core Concentrations ... 78
C. Biological PCP Concentrations 82
1. Biological PCP Concentrations 82
2. Influence of Age on Biological PCP Concentra-
tions 96
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
D. Relationships Between Selected PCP Measurements. . . 99
1. Correlations Within Environmental Samples ... 99
2. Relationship Between House Treatment History
and Air PCP Concentrations After Adjustment
for Wood Core PCP Concentrations 99
3. Correlations of Serum and Urinary Free and
Total PCP Concentrations. 101
4. Relationships Between Environmental and
Biological PCP Concentrations 101
E. Relationship Between Serum and Urinary PCP Concen-
trations and Clinical Findings 101
1. Questionnaire Responses 101
2. Clinical Laboratory Evaluations 106
3. Physical Examination * . . 108
F. Comparison of Results for Participants in the 1980
and 1984 Studies 108
G. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Results. . . . 112
1. Method Optimization . . . • 112
2. Method Performance 112
3. QCC/QAM Report 116
XI. References 117
Appendix I - Preliminary Contact Questionnaire 119
Appendix II - Medical Informed Consent Form 124
Appendix III - Environmental Sampling Consent Form 128
Appendix IV - Physical Examination Form 130
Appendix V - Environmental Questionnaire 133
Appendix VI - Medical Questionnaire 158
Appendix VII - Plots of House Demographics and Wood Core PCP
Concentration 178
Appendix VIII - Pairwise Plots Between Environmental PCP Concentra-
tions 183
Appendix IX - PCP in Biological Samples 190
Appendix X - Plots of Age and Biologic PCP Concentration 193
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Air sampling apparatus 16
2 Location of study log homes sampled in Kentucky 41
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Method Variables Determination - PCP in Urine 37
2 Number of Houses in Each PCP Treatment Category 44
3 PCP Treatment by House Treatment Category from Occupant Re-
sponses to Environmental Questionnaire 45
4 Age of Home in Years by House Treatment Category 46
5 Length (in Years) of Occupant Residence by House Treatment
Category 47
6 . Number of Rooms in House by House Treatment Category 48
7 Floor Area of House (in Square Feet) by House Treatment Cate-
gory 49
8 Heating Sources of Houses by House Treatment Cagetory 50
9 Selected House Characteristics by House Treatment Category . . 51
10 Drinking Water Source by House Treatment Category 52
11 Demographic Characteristics of the Study Participants 53
12 Employment and Habits of Adult Participants 55
13 Past Medical History of Selected Illness Among Study Partici-
pants Determined from Medical Questionnaire Responses. ... 56
14 Prevalence of Selected Complaints Among Study Participants
Since Resident in Current Home 57
15 Distribution of Study Participants in Three Age Groups by
House Treatment Category 58
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number Page
16 Sex of Study Participants by House Treatment Category 59
17 Number of Hours Spent in Log Home by Participants During the
48-h Period Prior to Blood Sampling by House Treatment
Category 60
18 Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Hours Spent in the Log Home
During the 48-h Period Prior to Blood Sampling by House
Treatment Category 61
19 Number of Years of School Completed by Study Participants by
House Treatment Group 62
20 Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Years of School Completed
by House Treatment Category 63
21 Selected Characteristics of Study Participants by House Treat-
ment Category 64
22 Individual and mean PCP Air Concentrations (ng/L) Measured in
21 Log Homes Arranged by House Treatment' Category 65
23 Summary of PCP Concentrations (ng/L) in Air by House Treatment
Category 67
24 Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Concen-
trations of PCP (ng/L) in Air by House Treatment Category. . 68
25 Wood Core PCP Concentrations (ng/g) in Log Homes Arranged by
House Treatment Category 69
26 Wood PCP Concentrations (ng/g Wood) by House Treatment
Category 71
27 Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Concen-
trations of 'PCP in Wood (ng/g) by House Treatment Category . 72
28 PCP Surface Concentrations (ng/100 cm2) of Wipe Samples Taken
Adjacent to the Site of Wood Core Sampling ("Adjacent"
Samples) and Wipe Samples from Surfaces Contacted by Inhab-
tants of the House ("Exposure" Samples) 73
29 Summary of Surface PCP Concentrations (ng/100 cm2) Determined
from Wipe Samples of Surfaces "Adjacent" to Sites of Wood
Core Samples by House Treatment Category 74
VII 1
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number
30 Summary of Surface PCP Concentrations (in ng/100 cm2) Deter-
mined from Wipes of "Exposure" Surfaces by House
Treatment Category 75
31 Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Concen-
trations of PCP (ng/100 cm2) in "Adjacent" Surface Wipe
Samples by House Treatment Category . 76
32 Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Concen-
trations of PCP (ng/100 cm2) in "Exposure" Surface Wipe
Samples by House Treatment Category 77
33 Detection of PCP in Drinking Water by Drinking Water Source
for PCP-Treated Homes 79
34 Summary of Associations Between Selected House Features and
Wood PCP Concentrations Showing Pearson Correlation Coeffi-
cients (R) and Statistical Significance 80
35 Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Length
of Current Occupant Residency in Home (in Years) by House
Treatment Category 81
36 Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Age in
Home (in Years) by House Treatment Category 83
37 Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Number
Rooms in House by House Treatment Category 84
38 Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Floor
Area of House (sq ft) by House Treatment Category 85
39 Geometric Mean Wood Core PCP Concentrations (ng/g Wood) and
Statistical Significance of Differences Between the Means
for Selected House Characteristics 86
40 Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Statistical Significance
of the Association Between Wood Core PCP Concentrations and
Household Means for Selected Characteristics of Log Home
Residents (N=20) 87
41 Association of Household Distribution for Selected Demographic
Characteristics of Study Participants with Geometric Mean
Wood Core PCP Concentrations (ng/g) 88
42 Serum PCP Concentration (ng/mL) by House Treatment Category. . 89
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number
43 Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Serum PCP Concentrations
(ng/mL) Adjusted for House Age Group Distribution by House
Treatment Category 91
44 Total Urinary PCP Concentration (mg/g Creatinine) by House
Treatment Category 92
45 Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Total Urinary PCP Concen-
tration (mg/g Creatinine) Adjusted for House Age Group Dis-
tribution by House Treatment Category 93
46 Free Urinary PCP Concentration (mg/g Creatinine) by House
treatment Category 94
47 Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Free Urinary PCP Concentra-
tion (mg/g Creatinine) Adjusted for House Age Group Distri-
bution by House Treatment Category 95
48 Association of Age Groups with Biologic PCP Concentrations
Adjusted for Household 97
49 Association of Age Groups with Urinary PCP Concentrations
Adjusted for Serum PCP Concentrations and Household 98
50 Pearson and Spearman Correlation Coefficients (r) and Statis-
tical Significance (p) for Associations Between Various En-
vironmental Concentrations of PCP 100
51 Comparison of the Effects of Sealing and/or Neutralizing Logs
Treated with PCP on Resultant Air Concentrations of PCP
Using Analysis of Covariance 102
52 Partial Correlation Coefficients (r) and Statistical Signifi-
cance (p) for Associations Between Mean Serum and Urinary
PCP Concentrations for Household Adjusted for Age Group. . . 103
53 Partial Correlation Coefficients for Associations Between
Environmental and Mean Biologic PCP Concentrations for
House Adjusted for Age Group Distribution in House (N=19). . 104
54 Significance of Age Group Adjusted Associations Between Es-
timated Mean Log Serum PCP or Log Total Urinary PCP Concen-
trations and Certain Questionnaire Responses 105
-------
LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
Number
55 Partial Correlation Coefficients Between Mean Serum and Uri-
nary PCP Concentrations for Household and Mean Biochemical
Variables for Household Adjusted for Age Group Distribu-
tion in Household 107
56 Significance of Age Group Adjusted Association Between Es-
timated Mean Log Serum PCP or Log Total Urinary PCP Concen-
trations and Physical Examination Results for Households . 109
57 Summary of Repeated Measures Analysis for Serum and Urinary
PCP Concentrations and Serum Biochemistries 110
58 Analysis of Variance Table for Repeated Measures Analysis of
Log Serum PCP ng/mL Ill
59 Results Method Variables Determination 113
60 Urine Method Parameters 114
61 Urine Method Validation Results 115
XI
-------
I. SUMMARY
A. Background and Objectives
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Toxic Substances
conducted a survey of pentachlorophenol (PCP) treated log homes and their oc-
cupants at the request of the Kentucky Department for Health Services. This
study was conducted because of the possible exposure of log home residents to
PCP from the treated logs. The results of this study are presented in this
report.
The primary objectives of this study were (a) to determine the ex-
tent of environmental levels of PCP in log homes which had been treated with
PCP; (b) to determine the extent of biological exposure in log homes treated
with PCP; and (c) to examine the relationship between selected health vari-
ables and biological PCP concentrations. These health variables and biolog-
ical PCP concentrations were analyzed in a search for possible effects of
residues in a PCP treated log home.
B. Scope
The target population was the residents of log homes that had been
treated with PCP, located in the State of Kentucky and that had been sampled
in an earlier study conducted in 1980. -Twelve of these previous study homes
were included in the present study together with nine homes constructed from
logs not treated with PCP according to the manufacturer.
C. Data Collected
Environmental and medical data were collected. An environmental
evaluation of each of the 21 homes was conducted. The evaluation consisted
of house treatment questionnaire administered to the head of the household,
and collection of wood core, surface wipes (2), indoor air samples (3), and
water samples. All samples were examined for PCP concentration.
The medical evaluation consisted of a health history questionnaire;
a directed,, standardized physical examination with particular attention to
abnormalities of the skin and nervous system and the presence or absence of
lymphoadenopathy. Sample collection from the log home residents consisted of
blood drawing for serum PCP concentration, serum liver and renal function
tests, and tests for blood morphology and abnormalities, and a collection of
the first voided urine of the .day for tests for renal and adrenal dysfunction,
enzyme induction and urinary PCP--both free and conjugated. All of the bi-
ological samples were collected within 18 h of the environmental sampling in
each each study participant home.
D. Major Findings
Following are the major findings of this study.
-------
All houses examined in this study had some levels of PCP in the logs.
There were actually six treatment categories in which the 21 studied log homes
fell. The highest PCP levels were found in the manufacturer treated homes
(4); next in the manufacturer treated homes and subsequently sealed (4); next
in the manufacturer treated and subsequently sealed and neutralized (1); next
in the manufacturer treated homes and subsequently neutralized (3); next ex-
terior treatment only (4) and lowest PCP levels in never treated homes (4).
The "never treated" homes had some level of PCP due to the probable spraying
of the logs during storage to prevent fungal growth.
Environmental PCP contamination was detected in all the homes of
the study population. Environmental PCP concentrations spanned a wide range
and were up to several orders of magnitude greater in treated homes than in
untreated homes. PCP was detected in 62 of 63 air samples with a limit of
detection (LOD of 0.001 ng/L), in 21 of 21 composite wood core samples (LOD =
0.9 ng/g), in 21 of 21 composite wipe samples of log surfaces (LOD =0.3 ng/
100 cm2), and in 4 of 21 water samples (LOD =0.2 ng/L).
Significant differences (a = 0.05) were seen among the six house
treatment categories for air, wood core, and surface wipe PCP concentrations
with the lowest values in the never-treated category, next lowest in the ex-
ternal treatment category, and highest values in the various manufacturer
treated categories. PCP was found in the drinking water of four houses, all
of which had been treated and all of which used a cistern as the only source
of water.
Wood, air and surface-wipe concentrations of PCP were highly corre-
lated with each other. An analysis of the relationship between air and wood
core PCP concentrations in the treated and sealed and treated and neutralized
categories showed significantly lower air PCP concentrations relative to wood
concentrations in homes which had been treated and subsequently neutralized.
However, no significant effect was seen for homes which had been treated and
subsequently sealed.
Wood core PCP concentrations had a statistically significant (a =
0.05) positive correlation with the age of the home. Among the house treat-
ment categories the exterior treated and never-treated houses were newer
houses than those in the other treated categories. It was felt that these
associations reflected changes in building construction and PCP treatment
practices in newer homes.
The age, sex, and time spent at home in the 48-h period before
blood sampling of the participating individuals were found to be similarly
distributed among the homes in the different treatment categories.
Biological PCP contamination was also detected in all samples col-
lected from the study participants. PCP was detected in the sera (LOD = 0.25
ng/mL) and the urine (LOD = 0.08 ng/mL) of all 66 participants sampled. As
was the case with measures of environmental PCP contamination, biological PCP
concentrations spanned a wide range and were generally considerably higher in
occupants of treated homes than in occupants of untreated homes.
-------
The distribution of serum PCP, urinary free PCP and urinary total
PCP concentrations were significantly different among the house treatment
categories. Whereas the exterior treated and never-treated categories did
not differ significantly from each other, concentrations in the manufacturer
treated categories were mostly significantly higher. Serum PCP concentra-
tions did not differ significantly with subject age group but both free and
total urinary PCP concentrations were significantly different among the ex-
amined age groups (4 to 7, 8 to 12, and over 12 yr old) with the highest con-
centrations in the youngest age group and the lowest concentrations in the
over 12 age group.
Mean serum, free urinary and total urinary PCP concentrations for
households, adjusted for the age group distribution in the household, were
highly correlated with each other. The environmental PCP concentrations
(wood core, air, surface wipe) were highly correlated (a = < 0.03)with bio-
logical PCP concentrations (serum, free urinary and total urinary) for house-
holds adjusted for the age group distribution in the household.
The age group adjusted .association between estimated mean serum and
total urinary PCP concentrations and certain possible health effects of PCP
determined by responses to the medical questionnaire were examined. No sig-
nificant (a = 0.05) associations were seen between the PCP concentration and
the reported history of eczema, acne, tumor or lump removed, rash or derma-
titis in the past year, currently taking medication, fever at least once or
more than once within the last 6 mo, unexplained weight loss in the last 6
mo, irritation of eyes, tearing of eyes, or swelling of eyelids since occupy-
ing the present house.
The association between mean serum PCP and total urinary PCP con-
centrations for households and certain biochemical variables for the house-
hold, adjusted for age group distribution in the household, were explored.
No significant association was seen for liver function tests, a test of micro-
somal enzyme induction, and a renal function test. Statistically significant
(a = 0.05) negative associations were seen for serum total protein and serum
creatinine and both biologic PCP concentrations. The reason for these nega-
tive associations was unclear; several explanations are possible and they
probably do not reflect toxic effects.
The age group adjusted association between estimated mean serum and
urinary total PCP concentrations and the presence or absence of lymphadeno-
pathy or of abnormalities of skin or neurologic examination was studied.
There was no significant association with lymphadenopathy or neurologic ab-
normalities. There was a statistically significant (a = 0.05) positive asso-
ciation between the presence of skin abnormalities noted during the physical
examination and PCP concentrations. It could not be determined whether this
reflected more absorption of PCP through abnormal skin, effects of PCP on the
skin, or some other factor.
A comparison of results from the same log home residents who par-
ticipated in the 1980 and 1984 surveys was made to determine if there were
differences. The concentration of PCP in serum was significantly lower in
1984 than in 1980 but the urinary levels were the same for both studies. No
differences were seen for the clinical biochemistry tests performed in both
studies.
-------
E. Conclusions
Following are the major conclusions of the study.
1. PCP found in the indoor air of the log homes is a result of
treatment of the logs with PCP.
2. The environmental levels of PCP in the log home are related to
the type and degree of PCP treatment of the logs.
3. Cisterns in PCP treated log homes are a source of PCP to humans
if the water is used for drinking purposes.
4. A source of the PCP found in the study participants was the
PCP treated logs.
5. Children under age 12 living in PCP treated log homes excrete
PCP at the highest rate as compared to over 12 age group.
6. The presence of skin abnormalities may be indicative of PCP ex-
posure.
II. INTRODUCTION
PentacMorophenol (PCP) has been used as a fungicide to treat logs
used in the construction of log homes. Since people may spend an average of
10 to 20 h in their homes, the exposure to levels of PCP in treated logs may
pose a risk to their health. This exposure of log home residents to PCP has
become a matter of concern.
In 1980, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) investigated the possible health
effects of human exposure to pentachlorophenol (PCP)-treated wood used in
packing crates. In that study, a family living in a commercially manufac-
tured log home in Kentucky was found to have elevated serum and urine levels
of PCP as compared to control individuals (takings et al. 1980). A subsequent
study conducted by CDC and the Kentucky Department for Human Services included
retesting some members of the index family along with 29 volunteer residents
of other PCP-treated log homes, and 13 controls who did not inhabit PCP-treated
log homes. Selected clinical and biochemical measurements were performed.
Results demonstrated significant differences in serum and urinary PCP concen-
trations between residents of PCP-treated homes and controls. Inter-family
differences in residents of PCP-treated homes suggested that there was a
dose-response relationship between the amount of time spent in the home and
serum PCP concentrations and that children experienced the highest biological
PCP concentrations (CDC, 1981).
In the study reported here, an environmental and medical follow-up
of those persons previously identified as inhabiting PCP-treated homes in 1980
and living in Kentucky was conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Center
for Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH) and the Midwest Research
-------
Institute (MRI) for EPA in response to a request from the Kentucky Department
for Human Services. A comparison population of persons inhabiting log homes
which had not been constructed of PCP-treated logs was studied concurrently.
The control population was as similar as possible in demographic parameters
and geographic location to the group inhabiting PCP-treated log homes.
This study was undertaken for three reasons.
1. To determine the extent of environmental levels of PCP in log
homes which had been treated with PCP.
2. To determine the extent of biological exposure in log homes
treated with PCP.
3. To examine the relationship between selected health variables
and biological PCP concentrations.
The present study included, as far as possible, the blood sampling
and analysis procedures used in the 1980 study. In addition, several com-
ponents were added, particularly environmental measurements of PCP in log
homes and house treatment history. Also, medical questionnaires, additional
clinical biochemistries, and medical, examinations were added. Efforts were
made to duplicate methods of chemical analysis to ensure compatibility of re-
sults with existing data.
This report presents the conclusions of this study (Section III),
and recommendations (Section IV). The methods used in the study reported
here to identify, locate, and contact the study participants, the information
gathering process by means of questionnaires and the sample collection methods
are discussed in Section V. Sample preservation and shipment is discussed in
Section VI, while Section VII describes the PCP chemical analysis methods,
instrumentation, and the methods used for analysis of clinical specimens.
Data analysis mehtods are presented in Section VIII for environmental and
biochemical variables as well as the statistical procedures for the longitud-
inal study. Quality assurance and quality control matters are given in Sec-
tion IX. Section X presents the results and a discussion of the findings for
each of the above aspects of the study.
III. CONCLUSIONS
I. PCP in the indoor air of the log home is a result of treatment
of the logs with PCP. Wood, air and surface wipe PCP concentrations within a
log home were highly correlated with each other.
2. Environmental levels in log homes are related to the type and
degree of PCP treatment of the logs. A number of treatment variations were
identified in this study, including subsequent sealing and/or neutralization
after manufacturer treatment with PCP and external treatment of the home with
PCP by the home owner or builder. The treatment variations are reflected in
variations in environmental PCP concentrations (wood core, indoor air, surface
wipe samples) in the home and in biological PCP concentrations (serum, total
urinary PCP, free urinary PCP) in inhabitants of the home.
-------
3. Cisterns in PCP-treated log homes are a source of PCP to humans
if the water is used for drinking purposes. PCP was detected in the drinking
water of four homes, all of which had been treated with PCP and all of which
used a cistern rather than a well or city water as the water source. The
association of PCP in water and use of a cistern was statistically significant.
4. Chemical neutralization products reduce the level of PCP in the
indoor air. Significantly lower air PCP concentrations relative to wood core
PCP concentrations were seen in houses treated with PCP by the manufacturer
which had subsequently been neutralized, but not in those which had subse-
quently been sealed with varnish or polyurethane.
5. A source of PCP in the study participants was the PCP-treated
logs. Environmental PCP concentrations (wood core, air, surface wipe) were
highly correlated with biological PCP concentrations (serum, free urinary and
total urinary) for households, adjusted for age group distribution within the
household.
6. Blood or urine can be monitored to determine body burdens of
PCP. Mean serum, free urinary, and total urinary PCP concentrations for
households, adjusted for the age group distribution in the household, were
highly correlated with each other.
7. Children under age 12 living in PCP treated log homes excreted
PCP at the highest rate as compared to the over 12 age group. Free and total
urinary PCP concentrations were significantly different for the age groups 4
to 7, 8 to 12, and over 12 yr old when adjusted for household or for household
and serum PCP concentrations. The highest urinary PCP concentrations were
seen in the youngest age group and the lowest in the over 12 yr old age group.
The serum PCP concentration did not differ between the age groups when adjusted
for household.
8. Several biochemical tests, past illnesses or specific aspects
of physical examinations cannot be used as indicators of PCP exposure in low
level situations. These parameters include serum liver function tests, a test
of microsomal enzyme induction (ratio of urinary 6-beta-hydroxycortisol to
free cortisol), blood urea nitrogen, the incidence of past and present ill-
nesses, and the presence of lymphadenopathy or neurologic abnormalities on
physical examination.
9. The presence of skin abnormalities may be indicative of PCP ex-
posure. There was a statistically significant positive association between
the presence of skin abnormalities observed during physical examination in a
household and the estimated mean serum and total urinary PCP concentrations.
It was not clear whether this association might reflect increased absorption
of PCP through abnormal skin, an effect of PCP on the skin, or some other
factor.
-------
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. If residents of a PCP treated log home wish to reduce PCP expo-
sure they should consider chemical neutralization on unsealed logs. However,
the effectiveness of chemical neutralization on PCP levels in logs and on
indoor air should be performed to confirmed by pretreatment and posttreatment
studies.
2. Occupants of PCP treated log homes who obtain their water from
cisterns should have the PCP water concentrations measured to ensure that no
PCP is present.
3. In future studies involving household exposure to wood treat-
ment agents, personal exposure should be carefully established by personnel
monitoring, or environmental or biologic measurements. Statements by manu-
facturers and others about log treatment should not be relied upon to es-
tablish exposure categories.
4. Since biological PCP levels correlate with environmental levels,
and since all environmental sample types correlate, future studies should fo-
cus on the easiest samples to collect and test for the extent of PCP exposure.
Those samples are wood and urine.
5. The association of PCP concentration in serum and urine with
serum protein and serum creatinine needs to be explored further to develop a
better understanding of the meaning of this association so that the health
significance, if any, might be assessed.
V. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
The procedures are described in this section that were used to
identify candidate houses, recruit the occupants, and obtain preliminary in-
formation about the history of their log home. The rationale for collecting
environmental and biological samples is discussed along with the sample col-
lection procedures themselves.
A. Study Participants
The identification of study participants is based on the identifica-
tion of log homes that had been treated with PCP. Participants in the 1980
study were contacted, but additional recruitment was necessary for the unex-
posed, comparison households. This section describes those efforts as well
as setting up the visits to the selected households.
-------
1. Identification
There were 29 family members, representing 17 families, in the 1980
study living in PCP-treated homes in Kentucky. All were volunteers who had
responded to articles in newspapers, radio, and television who contacted their
State or county health departments, and were directed to CDC. EPA was pro-
vided with the names and addresses of these households by the Kentucky Depart-
ment for Human Services.
In order to obtain a comparison population living in log homes not
treated with PCP, contact was made with log home manufacturers and dealers.
The names and addresses of 28 owners of untreated log homes who'were within
100 miles of Louisville were obtained from log home builders who were listed
in a guide to the industry. Five of these homes were known to have been made
of logs treated with copper-8-quinolinolate and were no longer considered.
The remaining 23 households were selected for further contact and recruitment.
2. Recruitment
a. Exposed Households
To obtain permission from previous participants for release of
their medical records from CDC to the COEH and to identify their interest in
participating in further studies, EPA sent letters to the 17 households who
participated in the 1980 study, asking them to contact CDC and make their
records available.
Follow-up calls were made to all respondents explaining the
study plans. At the time of this follow-up telephone call, the Preliminary
Contact Questionnaire (Appendix I) was administered.
b. Comparison Households
To recruit the comparison population, EPA mailed letters re-
questing participation to the previously identified 23 households. The let-
ters were followed almost immediately by telephone calls. Thirteen households
agreed to participate and responded to the Preliminary Contact Questionnaire.
Nine of these households agreed to participate in the final study. Comparison
homes were intended to be untreated with any wood preservative. In addition,
age distribution similar to that of individuals in the exposed homes was sought.
3. Preliminary Contact Questionnaire
The Preliminary Contact Questionnaire was administered by telephone
to a head of each household. This questionnaire established the demographics
of the log home residents and the treatment status of the home as well as the
name and location of the manufacturer. The results of this questionnaire were
used to: (1) make the final selection of households to be included in the
study, (2) devise a preliminary sampling schedule, (3) determine the number
of participants, and (4) verify information gathered in subsequent question-
naires.
8
-------
4. Informed Consent
Participation was voluntary. At the time of initial contact, each
potential study participant was informed of the requirement to sign a consent
form. At each contact, potential participants were told their participation
was entirely voluntary, that they could ask questions or withdraw from the
study at any time, that all information obtained was to be kept confidential
and that findings would be summarized and presented in a statistical fashion
so that the findings on any individual could not be identified. Any person
desiring to participate was required to sign a Medical Informed Consent Form
included as Appendix II. Any head of household volunteering his/her home as
a site of environmental sample collection was required to sign an Environmen-
tal Sampling Consent Form, included as Appendix III.
In order to conduct the study, field personnel were arranged into
separate teams with major responsibilities for the environmental sampling and
the biological and medical studies, respectively.
A member of each environmental sampling team and each medical team
was responsible for ensuring that the appropriate consent forms were signed
before beginning work in each location. Before signing the consent form,
each potential study participant was briefed on the objectives of the project,
and exactly what would be required of them if they agreed to participate. A
copy of the consent form(s) was provided to each study participant. Minors
12 yr old and older were asked to sign a standard consent form with a parent
or guardian as co-signer. A parent or guardian was asked to sign a consent
form for participating minors between 2 and 11 yr old, being certain the
child understood what was about to occur. Minors less than 2 yr of age were
not included in the study.
5. Household Identification and Appointment Schedule
The locations of homes to be sampled were plotted on a Kentucky
state map to assist in determining the most efficient manner for the study to
proceed. The homes were more or less clustered in three locations: (1)
Northern Kentucky, around Florence; (2) around Danville, Kentucky, approxi-
mately 50 mi southwest of Lexington; and (3) around Louisville. Because of
this relative clustering, it was decided that teams could work from the same
geographic location with the environmental team setting up the sampling of a
house 24 h ahead of the medical team visit. Study bases were established in
the Florence, Danville and Louisville areas. This schedule determined that
the environmental team would relocate to the next area about 1 day ahead of
the medical teams.
The order in which areas were visited was related to location of
easily accessible airports and the availability of hotel space. Blocks of
days were determined for sampling each location on the basis of the number of
homes to be sampled in an area and the availability of the people residing in
them.
-------
At the time of administration of the Preliminary Contact Question-
naire, each family had been asked if they would be home or out of town for
the block of days when the environmental and medical teams would be closest
to their homes. An inquiry was made to discover what time of the day most of
the individuals in the household would be at home for the medical portion of
the study. It was also important to know when an adult would be available in
the morning so that a member of the environmental team could visit the home
to retrieve sampling equipment previously set up for overnight sampling.
Appointments for environmental or medical team visits to each home
were made 24 h to 4 days in advance and had to remain somewhat flexible be-
cause homes' with children tended to set family schedules around each child's
evening and weekend plans. Appointments were made by telephone and confirmed
24 h prior to the environmental team visit if made more than 2 days ahead.
Directions to the house were obtained at this time.
Medical and environmental collection activities were coordinated
through a sampling schedule prepared utilizing information gathered from the
Preliminary Contact Questionnaires. The final scheduling was largely a field
activity which provided the flexibility required to complete sampling in the
allotted time.
Medical evaluations were conducted in the home by COEH staff using
two medical teams, each having one physician and one trained interviewer. On
the average, each team visited one home per day, typically arriving in the
early evening.
6. Field Study Sequence
Most initial participant contacts occurred during the late after-
noon and early evening. Generally the environmental team first visited each
home in the late afternoon or early evening of the first day of sampling. At
this time, the Environmental Sampling Consent Form was signed, the Environ-
mental Questionnaire administered, air sampling apparatus set up and turned
on, and wood core, surface wipe and water samples collected. Instructions
and containers for urine collection were left with the residents for first
morning urine collection on the following day. Early the next morning on the
second day of sampling, the environmental team returned to turn off the air
sampling equipment and prepare the air samples for shipment. The medical
team arrived that same afternoon or early evening of the second day to com-
plete the Medical Informed Consent Form, administer the Medical Questionnaire,
draw blood and conduct the clinical examinations.
Where this sequence was not possible, the environmental team ar-
rived in the early morning to initiate sampling. The environmental team re-
turned to complete the sampling that same evening with the medical team; a
member of either team then returned the next day to pick up the urine samples.
The medical studies, including blood drawing, were conducted within
18 h of the completion of air sampling in the home of the participants.
10
-------
B. Rationale for Selection of Study Items
A critical component of the study was to select those media thought
to have the potential for PCP being present as well as describing parts of
the overall exposure picture. This section contains the rationale for selec-
tion of environmental and biological samples and physical examination items.
1. Environmental Measurements
a. Air PCP Concentrations
Air samples were collected in the home of every study partici-
pant to estimate the family member's PCP intake via the respiratory route.
These data were collected to be correlated with the participant's PCP blood
and urine data. Air sampling data were also collected to be correlated with
results of wood core sampling and information gathered on the Environmental
Questionnaire to determine predictors of air PCP concentrations in log homes.
In addition, since worst case exposures were being sought, the study sampling
was purposely targeted for the winter months when the house would be closed.
It was anticipated that this would provide the highest air PCP levels and
consequently the highest potential for exposure.
b. Wood PCP Concentrations
Wood core samples of logs on the interior of the home were
collected in each study home to confirm statements gathered on the Environ-
mental Questionnaire concerning the preservative treatment history of each
log home included in the study. The wood core provided an indicator of the
PCP contamination. The results of wood core sampling were also collected to
be used as a relative measure of potential dermal PCP exposure in each log
home; to be correlated with air sampling data, surface wipe sampling data,
and information gathered on the Environmental Questionnaire to determine pre-
dictors of air PCP concentrations in log homes; and to be correlated with the
participants' PCP residues in blood and urine.
c. Surface Wipe PCP Concentrations
Surface Wipe samples were collected from interior log surfaces
in every home in the study to estimate the potential for PCP dermal exposure
of log.home residents. Previous studies have noted that small children gen-
erally have higher biological concentrations of PCP than do adults living in
the same house. The relatively greater amount of contact with building sur-
faces by children (e.g., from playing on the floor) has been suggested as
one hypothesis for this difference. In addition, surface wipe sampling was
conducted to determine the correlation with wood core sampling data and with
air sampling data.
d. Drinking Water PCP Concentrations
A tap water sample was collected from each home to estimate
each participant family's PCP intake via the water used for drinking, bathing,
11
-------
and cooking. In the case of homes with on-site sources of water, the amount
of PCP in the water would be an indicator of the PCP which had leached from
the log home itself or other sources through the soil to the groundwater or
otherwise contaminated the drinking water source.
2. Clinical Studies
The following clinical laboratory tests were selected to assist in
determining the health status of the individuals participating in the study.
Tests were selected on the basis of clinical usefulness for the detection of
potential effects of PCP as well as their use in the 1980 study by CDC.
a. Laboratory Tests on Blood and/or Serum
Hemoglobin, hematocrit, total white blood cell count and
differential count (tests for blood morphology and abnor-
malities).
Serum lactic dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, gamma
glutamyl transpeptidase, glutamic oxaloacetic transferase,
glutamic pyruvic transaminase, total bilirubin, total pro-
tein, albumin (tests for liver function), blood urea nitro-
gen and creatinine (tests for renal function).
• Serum PCP level.
b. Laboratory Tests on Urine
Excessive exposure to PCP might cause sub-clinical changes in-
cluding microsomal enzyme induction. For this reason, a very sensitive mea-
sure of enzyme induction was selected: estimation of 6-beta-hydroxycortisol
and free urinary cortisol.
Urinalysis (tests for renal dysfunction)
6-Beta-hydroxycortisol and free urinary cortisol (tests
for adrenal dysfunction)
Creatinine (tests for renal dysfunction and used to normalize
urinary PCP concentrations).
• Urinary PCP-free and conjugated
The selected tests are in general use except for the 6-beta-
hydroxycortisol .
3. Physical Examinations
The physical evaluations consisted of standardized hepatic, neuro-
logic, and dermatologic examinations. This type of directed physical exam-
ination was selected on the basis of reported health effects of PCP. The
12
-------
Physical Examination Form is included as Appendix IV. Prior to the field
work, the examination techniques of both study physicians were reviewed and
standardized to ensure comparable data gathering techniques.
C. Questionnaires
In addition to the collection of physical evidence to describe the
exposure to PCP, questionnaires were used to obtain information about the log
home and medical aspects of its inhabitants.
1. Environmental Questionnaire
An Environmental Questionnaire was administered directly to both
heads of household simultaneously by a member of each environmental sampling
team. Response to this questionnaire by both adult heads of household was
encouraged, as pretesting had shown that relevant items are frequently over-
looked or forgotten by one person. A more complete and accurate environmental
history could thus be obtained through a discussion between the heads of
household. In the event of unresolvable disagreements between the respondents,
the answer of the male head of household was recorded.
The Environmental Questionnaire was designed to quantify factors
which were thought to possibly affect PCP concentrations in log homes or
which could-be used to help understand otherwise unexplained clinical find-
ings. Questions included in the Environmental Questionnaire focused on fea-
tures of the log home and occupant practices or habits which might affect
environmental measurements. In addition, the floorplan of each house was
sketched by the environmental team and sampling locations indicated on the
questionnaire form.
The Environmental Questionnaire is included as Appendix V.
2. Medical Questionnaire
The Medical Questionnaire was administered to each participant 16
yr and older by a trained interviewer. For participants under 16 yr of age a
parent or guardian completed the informed consent and responded to the ques-
tionnaire. Only certain questions, namely 1-5 and 14-30, were asked of the
children. Specific questions which concerned employment and alcohol and
cigarette consumption were only asked of those over 16 yr of age.
The Medical Questionnaire was administered by a trained interviewer
to obtain information on:
Possible confounding factors that might affect the results of
the laboratory investigations, including smoking and alcohol
habits, drug consumption, and personal history of relevant
diseases;
Other sources of exposure to PCP;
13
-------
• Approximate amounts of time spent in the home for the 48 h prior
to sampling;
• Selected symptoms potentially associated with exposures to PCP.
The Medical Questionnaire is included as Appendix VI.
3. Questionnaire Pretesting
The Environmental Questionnaire was pretested and revised on the
basis of responses obtained from three families in the Baltimore area who
reside in log homes. Pretesting was performed in the homes under circum-
stances similar to those anticipated in Kentucky. Some sections of the pro-
visional questionnaire had been used previously and required little or no
alteration. Other portions of the provisional questionnaire required more
alteration, i.e., especially the question concerning the amount of time each
individual had spent in the home during the previous 48 h.
Pretesting of the Medical Questionnaire was performed at the same
time as the Environmental Questionnaire. Again, administration was done under
circumstances similar to those expected in Kentucky. Similarly, appropriate
revisions in the questionnaire were made.
D. Sample Collection
The presence of PCP could be determined and quantitated by the col-
lection of environmental and biological samples as described in this section.
1. Environmental Studies
a. Air Sampling
A minimum of three air samples were collected from the home of
each study participant. Samples were typically collected in the kitchen,
living room, family room, and largest second floor room (usually the master
bedroom). If the house was all on one level, the third air sample was col-
lected in the room most remote from the other two samples.
The following areas were defined as rooms: kitchen, living
room, family room, dining room, bedroom, den, sewing room and library. Hall-
ways, closets, bathrooms and basements were not considered when counting
rooms. Once the rooms to be sampled were identified, the indoor air sampling
apparatus was placed, within practical limits, to collect a representative
sample. The sample cartridge was placed at a height of 1.0 m and in the
least conspicuous location possible in order to minimize disruption of normal
activity. Air was collected at a height of 1.0 m as this was presumed to be
an average.breathing zone height of home occupants during the evening (mostly
sitting) and the night (mostly reclining) when samples were collected. The
sampling apparatus was not located in a high activity area (doorway) or within
5 ft of a door or a window. Attention was also given to ensure that the sam-
pling apparatus did not create an unsafe condition (e.g., extension cord
across a doorway).
14
-------
The air sampling system consisted of:
XAD-2 resin cartridge and holder;
Critical flow orifice calibrated at 1 1pm;
• Vacuum pump with muffler;
Elapsed time meter.
The sampling apparatus was assembled in the manner shown in
Figure 1, the seals on the solid sorbent tube broken, and the pump turned on.
Air was sampled in this manner for a minimum of 8 h and a maximum of 15 h.
All sampling was initiated between 5 and 9 p.m. and terminated between 6 and
10 a.m. the next day. At the end of the sampling period the sorbent tube was
removed and capped, the elapsed time read and recorded, and the temperature
readings on the maximum and minimum thermometer recorded. The airflow rate
through the system was noted and recorded at the start of and prior to the
end of each sampling run; pre-calibrated rotameters were utilized for this
purpose.
The location of all air sampling devices was noted in the
bound field notebook and on the floor plan sketches at the end of the Environ-
mental Questionnaire.
At a minimum, the field notebook entry for each air sample in-
cluded:
• A label identical to the one attached to the solid sorbent
air sampling cartridge including:
- sample number
- date of collection
- time of collection
- signature of field operator
• Brief description of home;
Position of sampler in home;
Pump number;
Sample flow rate at start of sampling period;
Start time;
Stop time;
Sample flow rate at end of sampling period;
• Temperature range during sampling period (from recording
high-low temperature thermometer);
Comments.
15
-------
Glass Wool
Sampling Tube with
Supelpak 20-E Resin
Latex Tubing
26G x 1" Hypodermic Needle
&
Muffler
&-N
Leak Free Pump \
Elapsed Time Meter
Figure 1. Air sampling apparatus,
16
-------
b. Wood Core Sampling
Wood core samples were collected from logs facing the interior
of each log home as glass indicators of PCP contamination. Since the sampling
process often left a permanent mark on the logs sampled, sample sites were
selected that were not readily visible to occupants of the house. An effort
was made to have the head of the household accompany the environmental team
during wood core sampling to specifically approve each sample site; few study
participants expressed a desire for this precaution.
Wood core samples were taken from the interior surfaces of logs
which* had received a representative set of preservative treatments (if any),
retreatments (if any), and sealers (if any). Typical sample locations in-
cluded: inside of closets, behind kitchen cabinets, behind the refrigerator,
the bottom of low overhanging logs, tops of beams near the ceiling, and the
base log resting on the foundation if it was accessible from the basement.
The location of all wood core samples was noted in the bound
field notebook and on the floorplan sketches at the end of the Environmental
Questionnaire.
Wood core samples were usually removed from the logs using a
standard 10-mm cork borer. In several of the older homes, the wood was very
difficult to penetrate with a cork borer. In these cases, existing splinters
were collected from the surface of the logs. A total of 12 to 21 individual
cores were collected in each home and composited to form a single sample weigh-
ing approximately 1 g.• The number of samples collected in each home was de-
termined by the availability of suitable sites.
Actual sample collection required that the cork borer be firmly
forced into the log using a twisting motion. Sufficient pressure was applied
to force the cork borer the desired 2 mm to 3 mm into the wood. If the wood
core plug remained in the cork borer when it was removed from the log, a steel
rod was used to eject the sample into the sample collection bottle. If the
wood core plug remained attached to the log it was easily removed by tilting
the cork borer and prying the plug in the direction of the wood grain. Such
wood core plugs were placed in the sample collection bottle with a pair of
cleaned forceps.
Prior to the start of wood collection the cork borer and for-
ceps were rinsed with a 1:1 solution of methanol (pesticide grade):deionized
water and air dried. After a composited set of cores had been removed from a
log home the cork borer was rinsed with the methanol solution and wiped dry
using a clean piece of filter paper.
At a minimum the field notebook entry for each wood core sam-
ple included:
17
-------
• A label identical to the one attached to the wood core sam-
ple collection bottle including:
- sample number
- date of collection
- time of collection
- signature of field operator
Location of each individual wood core sample in home;
Comments.
c. Surface Wipe Samples
Two separate sets of surface wipe samples were collected in
every home included in this study. Each of the two sample sets was a com-
posited sample of individual surface wipe samples. One set of wipe samples,
designated "adjacent" samples, was collected in conjunction with the wood
core sampling in order to evaluate the relationship between these two mea-
sures of potential PCP dermal absorption. Each individual sample in this set
was collected from the log surface as close as possible to each individual
wood core sample: there was, therefore, a 1:1 correspondence in the.number
and location of individual surface wipe samples and wood core samples.
The second set of surface wipe samples, designated "exposure"
samples, was collected from surfaces which family members were most likely to-
contact in order to evaluate dermal exposure to PCP. Both log and non-log
surfaces were sampled. Approximately one-third of the individual samples in
this composited set were collected from floor and stair surfaces which may be
touched by children. The total number of wipes collected (12 to 21/sample)
reflects the field sampler's judgement on the number of surfaces that may be
potentially touched.
The location of all surface wipe samples was noted in the bound
field notebook and on the floor plan sketches at the end of the Environmental
Questionnaire.
Individual surface wipe samples were collected in a manner de-
signed to eliminate cross-contamination of sample sets. The member of the
environmental sampling team collecting the wipe samples was required to wear
disposable latex gloves to prevent contamination during wipe sample collection.
After selecting a sample location, a cardboard template was placed on the
surface to be sampled and an area 10 cm x 10 cm lightly outlined on the surface
with a soft pencil. A Whatman Smear Tab was then saturated with a 1:1 solution
of pesticide grade methanol and deionized water from a Teflon squeeze bottle
and the entire 100 cm2 area wiped once, using one face of the Smear Tab. The
methanol:water solution had previously been analyzed before sample collection
to ensure that it was PCP-free. To ensure that each section of the sampling
area was wiped only once, the surface was wiped in a standard pattern of pro-
gressively decreasing concentric squares until the entire sampling area had
been wiped.
18
-------
If the Smear Tab dried before the entire sampling area had been
wiped, it was resaturated with the methanol and water solution and the wipe
continued. Care was taken not to use a new Smear Tab and not to rewipe any
sections of the sampling area which had been previously wiped.
When an entire set of surface wipe samples from the home had
been collected, the gloves and template were disposed of. To avoid cross-
contamination, new gloves and a template were used for each sample collection
between homes.
At a minimum, the field notebook entry for each surface wipe
sample included:
• A label identical to the one attached to the surface wipe
sample collection bottle including:
- sample number
- date of collection
- time of collection
- signature of field operator
Location of each individual surface wipe sample (adjacent
and exposure) in home;
Comments
d. Drinking Water Samples
A drinking water sample was collected from the kitchen cold
water tap. Filters or traps used to clean the water, if present on the tap,
were not disturbed since the purpose of sample collection was to estimate the
PCP content of the water as consumed. Presence of filters or traps was noted
on the Environmental Questionnaire.
The kitchen cold water tap was turned to the full open posi-
tion. After the water has been allowed to run for 1 min, the sample was col-
lected in a chemically clean 1-L glass bottle. A unique coded identifying
label was then attached and the bottle placed in the cooler and protected from
direct light.
19
-------
In houses where there were filters or traps on some (but not
all) of the water taps, a sample was collected from both types of tap.
At a minimum the field notebook entry for each water sample
included:
• A label identical to the one attached to the water sample
collection bottle including:
- sample number
- date of collection
- time of collection
signature of field operator
Brief description of home;
Comments
2. Biological Studies
a. Blood Samples
Blood drawing was performed by a physician. Approximately 10
ml of blood were collected in a red top Vacutainer tube for PCP analysis, 10
mL in a silicon separator tube (SST) for biochemistry tests, and 5 ml in a
single lavender top evacuated tube (with EDTA preservative) for hematologic
tests. Most children had their blood drawn using a small bore needle on a
butterfly holder and a 30-cc syringe before being transferred to Vacutainer
tubes.
After drawing the blood specimen, a sample label bearing the
participant's identification number was affixed to the field notebook in the
same area as the entry for the specimen. Labels with the same numbers were
attached to each Vacutainer tube. A fifth label was affixed to the Medical
Questionnaire and a sixth to the Medical Informed Consent Form.
Blood collected in the red top Vacutainer tube was allowed to
clot and then spun to separate the serum. Serum was transferred with pre-
washed Pasteur pipettes to 15-mL prewashed vials and sealed with Teflon-lined
caps. The vial had a preprinted label attached containing the same sample
identification number and all other pertinent information as on the Vacutainer
These specimens were frozen on dry ice and sent to MRI for PCP analysis.
Blood in the SST was allowed to clot and was then spun to sepa-
rate the serum which was poured into transport vials supplied by the testing
laboratory, Pathlogists Service Professional Associates, Inc. (PSPA). A pre-
printed sample label bearing the same number as the SST was attached to the
transfer vial before the transfer was performed. Vials of serum were kept
cold on wet ice until courier pick-up.
20
-------
The EDTA-containing evacuated tube was gently inverted several
times immediately after collection to allow the anti-coagulant mixing. Gen-
tle agitation was continued for several minutes. This tube was stored intact
on wet ice until courier pick-up. Two blood smears for differential counts
were made immediately following completion of blood drawing. Slides were la-
beled with the participant's name and study number to be sent to PSPA. Speci-
mens were to be retrieved by the courier within 24 to 48 h following collec-
tion. The courier transported the specimens in containers with cool packs
(4°C). The specimens were then shipped by air, the same day picked up, to
the laboratory for analysis.
b. Urine Samples
Urine collection kits and written and verbal instructions were
delivered by the environmental sampling team for the urine specimen to be col-
lected on the following day. The environmental team also retrieved the urine
specimen jars when they returned to the home to pick up sampling equipment.
Participants were instructed to collect the first voided urine of the day in-
to prelabeled, chemically clean 250-mL clear, wide mouthed, glass bottles with
Teflon-lined tops. Urine was transferred, using an individual chemically
clean Pasteur pipette for each specimen, from the bottle to vials for storage
and shipment to the appropriate laboratory. Two 20-mL aliquots of urine were
transferred to chemically clean 30-mL vials with Teflon liners. These samples
were frozen on dry ice and returned to the environmental team for shipment to
MRI for PCP analysis. A third 20 mL of urine for urinalysis was transferred
to a screw-cap bottle. This bottle was stored on wet ice and retrieved by
the courier service with the blood specimens for PSPA. A fourth aliquot of
15 ml of urine was transferred to a polyethylene vial, which was immediately
frozen on dry ice and kept frozen for shipment to Montefiore Medical Center
following completion of field sampling. The aliquot was analyzed fo-r 6-p-hy-
droxycortisol, free cortisol, and creatinine.
3.. Medical Examination
A medical evaluation was performed on all study participants by one
of two trained occupational medicine physicians. Before the study the physi-
cians were trained to perform the planned physical evaluations in a standard
manner. The medical evaluation consisted of a brief medical history, general
physical examination, standardized neurologic, dermatologic examinations and
measurement of liver size at the midclavicular at quiet respiration. Special
attention was paid to the presence of chloracne, conjunctivitis, skin or sub-
cutaneous infections, and dermatitis.
VI. SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND SHIPMENT
Sample preservation was a requirement to ensure sample integrity
from the collection point, during shipment and up to analysis. This section
describes the procedures employed for the environmental and biological sam-
ples.
21
-------
A. Environmental
1. Air Samples
Immediately after the collection of each air sample, the solid
sorbent tube was removed from the collection system, sealed with Teflon tape,
capped, labeled, and placed in a 16 mm x 125 mm clear glass culture tube with
a Teflon-lined screw cap. The culture tube and sorbent tube were immediately
placed in a cooler containing dry ice and protected from direct light.
The samples were maintained at dry ice temperatures (-78°C) at all
times after collection until immediately prior to analysis. Air 'sample sorbent
tubes were air freighted to the MRI laboratories at the end of the field work.
2. Wood Core Samples
As each individual wood core plug was removed from a log it was im-
mediately placed in its respective chemically clean sample collection bottle,
i.e., labeled adjacent or exposure, using the method previously described.
All individual cores for each type of samples from a log home were composited
into respective single labeled 1-oz wide-mouth glass bottle with a Teflon®-
lined screw top. After a complete set of cores was collected the top was
sealed, a label tightly affixed, and then the sample bottle placed in a cooler
containing dry ice.
The sample remained chilled to dry ice temperatures at all times
after collection until immediately prior to analysis. Wood core samples were
held in this manner and air freighted to the MRI laboratories at the end of
the field sampling period.
3. Surface Wipe Samples
As each individual surface wipe sample was completed, it was imme-
diately placed in a sample collection bottle. Each set of wipe samples was
composited in a single chemically clean labeled 1-oz wide-mouth glass bottle
with a Teflon®-!ined screw top. After a complete set of wipe samples were
collected, the top was tightly closed, a label affixed, and the sample bottle
placed in a cooler containing dry ice.
The sample remained chilled to dry ice temperatures at all times
after collection until immediately prior to analysis. Surface wipe samples
held in this manner were air freighted to the MRI laboratories at the end of
the field sampling period.
4. Water Samples
Immediately after collection of the water sample was complete, it
was capped with a Teflon®-!ined screw cap, labeled, and placed in a cooler
containing wet ice.
22
-------
The sample remained chilled to wet ice temperatures at all times
after collection until immediately prior to analysis. Water samples were held
in this manner and air freighted to the MRI laboratories at the end of the
field sampling period.
B. Biological
1. Blood
Red top Vacutainer and silicon separator tubes (SST's) were spun
and transferred to transport glass vials within 2 h. Lavender Vacutainer
tubes were mixed thoroughly (not centrifuged). Blood specimens collected in
a home were transported on ice to the study team work base. Blood specimens
to be sent for PCP analysis were frozen on dry ice after transfer from red
top Vacutainer tubes until given to MRI personnel.
Serum separated into the PSPA-provided transport vials from the SST
was preserved on ice until pick-up by courier from PSPA within 24 to 48 h of
collection. All specimens on a single individual to be sent to PSPA were
packaged in a sealed plastic bag with the appropriate sample analysis requisi-
tion and kept on wet ice until transfer to the courier. Slides were carried
in a slide envelope also inside the individual participant's specimen bag.
The courier followed PSPA's standard transport procedure in shipping all
specimens to. the laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia.
2. Urine
Urine specimen jars were transported by the environmental team from
the home to the work base over wet ice. At the work base, specimens were trans-
ferred by the medical team into containers for analysis. In all cases, this
transfer was performed within 36 h of sample collection. Custody of the two
urine samples to be used for PCP determination was then transferred to the
environmental monitoring team from MRI. Specimens were kept on wet ice prior
to processing and then dry ice after an aliquot was prepared.
Each urine specimen to be sent to PSPA for urinalysis was stored in
the appropriate individual's specimen bag with the sample analysis requisition
and blood specimens. This bag was kept in a cooler on ice until transferred
to the PSPA courier. The courier followed PSPA's standard procedures for han-
dling and shipment of specimens.
The fourth aliquot of urine was transferred to a polyethylene vial
and was immediately frozen on dry ice and kept frozen for shipment to Montefiore
Medical Center following completion of field sampling. These specimens were
shipped by a rapid carrier (Federal Express Company) still frozen on dry ice.
Montefiore Medical Center was telephoned when the specimens were shipped to
alert the receiving area to expect the frozen specimens and to notify his
laboratory when they arrived.
If any urine remained in the sample collection container after the
aliquots were taken, it was frozen in that container and shipped to MRI for
archiving.
23
-------
VII. ANALYTICAL METHODS
The methods used to determine the presence of PCP in the samples
are described in this section. The procedure used for determining PCP in
urine and blood was adapted for use with air, water, wood, and wipe samples.
The clinical analysis tests are also described.
A. Environmental Sample Analysis for PCP
The analysis procedures used in the present study were designed to
duplicate the methods previously used by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
in a study of the same exposed log home residents. The analysis procedure for
PCP was an adaptation of the method by Needham et al. (1981).
1. Air
a. Score the XAD tube between the front and back and break.
b. Add the internal standard and reverse extract PCP from the
front half by attaching the tube to a champaigne column with a piece of Teflon
tubing and running 10 ml_ of methylene chloride through the tube.
c. Evaporate the methylene chloride and redissolve residue in
5 ml of hexane.
d. To the hexane add 100 uL of acetylating reagent (2 ml
acetic anhydride and 5 ml pyridine).
e. Incubate at 45°C for 15 min, then cool.
f. Wash 2 times (6 mL/2 mL) with pH 9.2 buffer (1.24 g boric
acid, 53.4 mL 0.2 M NaOH to 200 ml deionized H20).
g. Take hexane to dryness with N2.
h. Redissolve residue in 5 mL hexane.
i. Transfer to autosampler vials for analysis.
j. Inject 5 uL and compare to standard solution of PCP
acetate (Chau 1974).
2. Water
a. Transfer 100-mL sample of water to a separatory funnel and
adjust to pH 2 with cone. H2S04.
b. Add 5 g NaCl and 18.6 ng on internal standard.
c. Extract 2 times with 2 ml of methylene chloride.
24
-------
d. Drain the methylene chloride through a disposable pipet
filled with Na2S04.
e. Take the extract to dryness with a stream of N2.
f. Dissolve the residue in 5 ml of hexane.
g. Proceed as in step d in the air method.
3. Wood Core
a. Transfer 0.5 g of the wood core sample to a 20-mL culture
tube.
b. Add the 37.2 ng of the internal standard, and 10 ml of
hexane and rotate for 1 h.
c. Decant 5 ml_ of the hexane to another 10-mL culture tube.
d. Proceed as in step d in the air method.
4. Wipe Samples
a. Transfer the entire sample to a 20-mL culture tube and add
37.2 ng of the internal standard.
b. Extract wipe samples with 10 mL of hexane for 1 h.
c. Decant extract to a 20-mL culture tube.
d. Add another 10 mL of hexane and extract for another hour.
e. Combine extracts and concentrate to about 5 mL.
f. Proceed as in step d in the air method.
B. Biological Specimen Analysis for PCP
1. Urine
a. Unhydrolyzed
(1) Quantitatively pipette 2 mL of urine into a 10-mL
culture tube with Teflon-lined screw cap.
(2) Spike with 37.2 ng of internal standard (2,4,6-tri-
bromophenol) and rotate for 15 min.
(3) Add 150 uL of cone. H2S04 and 6 mL of hexane and
rotate for 1 h.
25
-------
(4) Centrifuge the sample to 2,000 rpm for 10 min to
break emulsion.
(5) Remove aqueous layer.
(6) Proceed as in step d in the air method.
b. Hydrolyzed
(1) Quantitatively pipette 2 ml of urine into a 10-mL
culture tube with a Teflon-lined screw cap.
(2) Spike with 37.2 ng of internal standard and rotate
for 15 min.
(3) Add 150 uL of cone. H2S04 and incubate at 100°C for
1 h.
(4) Allow to cool, add 6 ml of hexane and proceed as in
step d in the air method.
2. Serum
a. Quantitatively transfer 1 mL of serum into a 10-mL culture
tube with Teflon®-!ined screw cap.
b. Add 37.2 ng of internal standard and rotate for 15 min.
c. Add 1 ml of 2 M H2S04 and 6 ml of hexane and rotate for
1 h.
d. Centrifuge specimen to break emulsions.
e. Transfer the hexane layer to a clean 10-mL culture tube
and proceed as in the unhydrolyzed urine method [step d in the air method].
C. Instrumental Analysis
The level of PCP in the various extracts obtained above were deter-
mined by packed column gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/
ECD). A selected set of extracts with a positive ECD response for PCP were
submitted for gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric (GC/MS) confirmation.
1. Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD)
Instrument: Varian 3700
Column: 3% OV-101 on 20 M Ultrabond® packed in a 6 ft glass column,
2 mm ID
Injector Temperature: 200°C
Column Temperature: 170°C
Detector Temperature: 300°C
26
-------
Carrier Gas: Nitrogen
Flow Rate: 30 mL/min
Detector: Electron capture 63Ni
Injector: 5 uL with Varian autosampler
2. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)
Instrument: Finnigan MAT CH-4 magnetic sector mass spectrometer
with Varian 3700 gas chromatograph
Column: 3% OV-101 on 20 M Ultrabond® packed in a 6 ft glass column
Injector Temperature: 200°C
Column Temperature: 170°C
Carrier Gas: Helium
Flow Rate: 30 mL/min
Transfer Line and Jet Separator Temperature: 250°C
lonization Voltage: 70 ev
Ions Monitored:
PCP Acetate TBP Acetate
263.8467 329.7773
265.8467 331.7693
Injection Volume: 5 uL
D. Clinical Specimen Analysis
1. Hematology and Biochemistry
Using standard Sequential Multiple Analyzer Computer (SMAC) proce-
dures, PSPA performed the following tests on serum collected in silicon sepa-
rator tubes:
lactic dehydrogenase
• alkaline phosphatase
• gamma glutamyl transpeptidase
• glutamic oxalacetic transaminase
• glutamic pyruvic transaminase
total bilirubin
total protein
albumin
blood urea nitrogen
creatinine
The following tests were performed by PSPA on each specimen from
blood tubes containing EDTA, using a Coulter S Plus III counter and standard
procedures for this instrument: hemoglobin, hematocrit, total white blood
cell count, and automated differential blood cell count.
2. Urinalysis
a
Standard urinalysis was performed on urine samples by PSPA for
specific gravity, color/appearance, pH, protein, glucose, ketones, bilirubin,
blood, nitrite and urobilin, as well as microscopic analysis for white blood
cells, cells, bacteria and casts.
27
-------
3. Urine Chemistry
Urine specimens were sent to Montefiore Medical Center for the fol-
lowing tests: 6-p-hydroxycortisol, urinary free cortisol, and creatinine.
6-p-Hydroxycortisol was measured by direct radioimmunoassay in
0.01 mL without extraction (Voccia et al. 1979; Sanger 1983). Three internal
standards and a "pool" sample were used in each assay. Intra- and inter-assay
variations were checked using a constant urine pool. Any assay showing more
than ± 20% deviation from the pool mean was rejected and then reanalyzed.
Urinary free cortisol was measured by competitive protein binding
assay requiring about 1 mL of urine (Kream et al. 1978). Urine aliquots
(routinely 0.1 and 0.2 mL) were applied directly to Whatman 3 mm filter paper
strips in 10-mL disposable glass tubes. Free cortisol was extracted from the
strips with dichloromethane at room temperature. Extracts were decanted, the
solvent evaporated and the residue directly assayed for free cortisol utiliz-
ing diluted pooled human plasma as the source of cortisol binding globulin.
Free cortisol was measured using 1,2-3H cortisol as tracer ligand. 64,000
counts per unit of 3H cortisol (specific activity 50.7 curies/mmol) were
added to each 1 mL of assay incubation fluid. Recoveries of radioactive
cortisol added to urine averaged 94.5 ±1.2 (SD)%.
A blank of normal saline was carried through the assay as a quality
control check. Inter- and intra-assay variations were checked by a urinary
pool containing 3.8 ± 0.7 ug/100 mL. Two point determination (assayed were
duplicate pairs of 0.1 mL and 0.2 mL urine) was carried out. Differences of
more than 20% resulted in rejection. Ratios of the standard over blank were .
done on all assays of urinary free cortisol. Reproducibility was constantly
in excess of -95%.
Urinary creatinine was measured by the alkaline picric method
(Beckman 1982) and performed on a Beckman ASTRA-8 automated instrument.
VIII. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
The objectives of the study were to:
1. Determine the extent of environmental levels of PCP in log
homes which had been treated with PCP.
2. Determine the extent of biological exposure in log homes treated
with PCP.
3. Examine the relationship between selected health variables and
biological PCP concentrations.
a o
Objectives 1 and 2 were stated in advance and the sample collec-
tions were so directed. The statistical analysis on objective 1 focused on
those multivariate analysis of variance and covariance to test for differ-
ences by type of house treatment. The statistical analysis of objective 2
28
-------
focused on the null hypothesis that there is not a difference between biolog-
ical exposure and PCP log treatment with special analysis refinements by age
of occupant.
The health effects issue of objective 3 meant that a wide range of
health variables were examined to determine if any associations occur. Since
these possible interrelationships were not known prior to data analysis, the
scope of the analysis was exploratory in nature. Any effects/associations
found must be viewed with caution because of the multiplicity of comparisons
done. Any effects hypothesized must be submitted for futher verification.
The data analysis methods are divided into two sections. The first
explores the environmental and biochemical variables while the second section
focuses on the comparison of the present study results to those obtained in
the 1980 study.
A. Statistical Analysis of Environmental and Biochemical Variables
The PCP data may be divided into two types of variables: those
measured on the house, such as environmental PCP concentrations, and those
measured on the individual, such as serum or urine PCP concentrations. Mea-
surements on individuals in the same household will tend to be more similar
than measurements on individuals from different households. For this reason,
the household to which an individual belonged was taken into account. If it
was desirable to adjust for environmental PCP concentration (one aspect of
household), then the class variable household was included in the underlying
linear model. If adjusting for environmental exposure would have removed the"
association by over-adjusting, then mean household values were used in the
underlying model and each observation was weighted by the number of people in
the household (N = 21). For example, in examining the association between
serum PCP concentrations and a serum biochemical level, adjustment for house
would remove the effect of environmental exposure to PCP. Yet environmental
PCP is a major determinant of serum PCP (both are measures of exposure) and
removal of the effect of environmental exposure would remove almost all the
variability in serum PCP, potentially leading to a spuriously low correlation.
This weighting variable must be included since the error variances of the
household means are not all equal but are inversely proportional to the.number
of people in the household. Use of a weighting variable affects least squares
means variance estimates, partial correlation coefficients and tests of sig-
nificance; means and total degrees of freedom remain unchanged.
The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) computer package was used for
all analyses. The UNIVARIATE procedure was used to produce summary statistics
for continuous variables. The statistics generated include mean, standard
deviation, standard error, skewness, median, minimum, maximum, box plots and
normal probability plots. The procedure also included a test for normality;
for sample sizes of 50 or less the Shapiro-Wilk W statistic (Shapiro and Wilk
1965) was calculated, but for sample sizes greater than 50 the more common
Kolomogorov D statistic was used.
House demographic variables and environmental PCP concentration
data (average of three air samples, wood core, "adjacent" surface wipe and
29
-------
"exposure" surface wipe) were analyzed for all houses and by the following
seven house treatment categories: treated; treated and sealed; treated and
neutralized; treated and sealed and neutralized; external treatment only;
never treated; and treatment unknown. Discrete demographic variables were
cross-tabulated by house treatment category. Univariate statistics were pro-
duced for the continuous house demographic variables and the environmental
PCP concentrations for all houses. Univariate statistics were also generated
for the natural logarithm of the PCP concentrations. From the skewness, the
box plots, the normal plots, and the normality test statistics, the distribu-
tions of the transformed concentrations seemed to be better approximated by a
normal distribution than those of the untransformed data. The natural log
transformed data were used for all further analyses involving environmental
PCP concentrations.
Univariate statistics on continuous house demographic variables and
the transformed environmental PCP concentrations were also generated for each
house treatment category. For each variable, the General Linear Model (GLM)
procedure was used to perform a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by the
first six treatment categories followed by Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
differences among the categories (Duncan 1955). The house with unknown treat-
ment was not included in tests of significance because of difficulty in in-
terpreting results.
The association between house demographic variables and wood core
PCP concentration (as a measure of environmental PCP) was examined for all
houses and for only those houses treated in the same manner (i.e., not in-
cluding untreated or unknown treatment), to identify potentially confounding
house demographic variables. For discrete variables, mean wood core PCP con-
centrations for levels of the discrete variable were compared using a t-test
(T TEST procedure) or ANOVA (GLM procedure). For continuous variables, scat-
terplots (PLOT procedure) were generated (Appendix VII). The CORR procedure
was used to calculate Pearson correlation coefficients and the associated
p-values were calculated to determine the presence of an association.
Spearman coefficients and p-values, which do not require the assumption of
normality, were calculated to confirm the conclusions.
Pairwise associations among the four environmental PCP concentra-
tions were also addressed with scatterplots (Appendix VIII) and Pearson/
Spearman correlation coefficients and p-values.
Demographic variables on study individuals as well as biologic PCP
concentrations (hydrolyzed and unhydrolyzed urine concentrations per gram of
urine creatinine and serum concentrations) were analyzed for all individuals
and by house treatment category. Discrete demographic variables were cross-
tabulated. Univariate statistics were calculated for continuous demographic
variables, biologic PCP concentrations and the natural logarithm of the PCP
concentrations. Once again the distribution of the transformed concentra-
tions was better approximated by a normal distribution. All further analyses
involving biologic PCP concentrations used the transformed data. For each
continuous variable, univariate statistics were generated for each house
treatment category and differences among the six categories with known treat-
ment were tested for statistical significance using one-way ANOVA of the
household means weighted by the number of people in the household.
30
-------
The association between demographic variables on study individuals
and wood core PCP concentration was examined using the mean household values
weighted by the number of people in the household to identify potentially
confounding person demographic variables. For discrete variables, the GLM
procedure was used with dummy variables expressing the proportion of house-
hold members in each category to perform t-tests. Mean wood core PCP concen-
trations for each category were estimated using the ESTIMATE feature of the
GLM procedure. For continuous variables, weighted Pearson correlation coeffi-
cients were calculated using the CORR procedure.
Knowledge of human behavior and biology suggested that biologic PCP
concentrations might be different in the age groups 4-7, 8-12, and greater
than 12 yr for individuals exposed to the same environmental concentration of
PCP. The GLM procedure was used to generate and compare the least square
means for biologic PCP concentrations in these age groups adjusted for house-
hold (and consequently, environmental PCP exposure). Least square means for
urine PCP concentrations in these age groups adjusted for serum PCP concen-
trations were also generated using GLM. Differences in least square means
among the three age groups suggested that age groups should not be combined.
These three age groups were used in all further analyses involving an age
adjustment.
The association between the biologic PCP concentrations and the
various environmental PCP concentrations was explored using scatterplots,
Pearson/Spearman correlations and general linear models adjusting for age.
Plots of the residuals of the regression of biologic PCP concentrations on
air, wood core and "exposure" wipe PCP concentrations and age group by house
number suggest that the residuals do not represent random error; i.e., bio-
logic PCP concentrations are not all independent but tend to cluster within
household. The analyses performed did not take this clustering into account
due to constraints of time and available software.
The MANOVA feature of the GLM procedure was used with dummy vari-
ables expressing the proportion of household members in each of the three age
groups to calculate partial correlation coefficients and associated signifi-
cance levels among mean serum, free urinary PCP, and total urinary PCP con-
centrations for household (weighted by the number of people in the household)
adjusted for age group distribution in the household. Partial correlation
coefficients between mean biologic PCP concentrations for household and envi-
ronmental PCP concentrations were calculated in the same manner.
The GLM procedure and the age group dummy variables were used again
to perform an analysis of variance of mean biologic PCP concentration for
household (weighted by the number of people in the household) by the six known
house treatment categories adjusted for age group distribution in household.
An F-test for differences among the six treatment categories that was signifi-
cant at the 0.05 level was followed by pairwise t-tests at the 0.05 level.
This method is analogous to an analysis of covariance in the case of a con-
tinuous age variable.
31
-------
Univariate statistics were calculated for each biochemical or hema-
tological variable and for the natural logarithm of each variable. The trans-
formed variable was used in all further analyses if normality was improved.
Partial correlation coefficients between mean biochemical or hematological
variables for household and mean biologic PCP concentrations for household
were calculated in the same manner as partial correlation coefficients among
the mean biologic PCP concentrations for household. Correlations involving
serum or urine creatinine were adjusted for both the age group distribution
and the sex distribution in household.
All physical examination and health variables were expressed as
binary variables. The associations between these variables and biologic PCP
concentrations were examined using the same method used to explore the asso-
ciation between discrete demographic variables and wood core PCP concentra-
tion with the age group dummy variables included in the model to adjust for
age group distribution in household. Mean biologic PCP concentrations were
estimated for each category of the physical exam or health variable using the
ESTIMATE feature of the GLM procedure and the age distribution of all study
individuals.
B. Statistical Procedures for the Longitudinal Study
A number of log homes residents had been previously evaluated by
the Center for Disease Control in 1980. Accordingly, a comparative analysis
was made of PCP and serum biochemical values obtained in 1980 and 1984 on
these individuals. The 1980 and 1984 biologic data from the PCP study could
be described as coming from a two factor experiment (family and year) with
repeated measures on one factor (year). The actual observations within a
family can be represented as follows:
Year
Family Subject b_, b.
ai
xinl Xin2
where the symbol x... denotes a measurement on subject k in family i in year
j. 1kJ
The change in a biologic variable from year bx to year b2 may be
tested using a repeated measures analysis. The linear model upon which the
analysis is based may be written as:
Xikj = ^ + ai + *k(1) + PJ + aPij + P7tjk(i) + £ikj
32
-------
The symbol T^/--* indicates that the effect of subject k is nested
within family i. If tne family and subject effects are random and the year
effect is fixed, then for the case of p families each with n subjects, the
analysis of variance table is given by:
Source of variation
Between subjects
Family
J
Subjects within family
Within subjects
Year
Family x year
Subjects within family x year
Degrees
of freedom
np - 1
p - 1
r
Expected mean square
np
p(n - 1)
1
p - 1
p(n - 1)
cr + qcr + nqa
s M n ^ a
a + qa
£ 7t
npa
+ a
+ a
pTt
+ na
0) the ap-
To test the hypothesis that year has no effect (a2 =
propriate F ratio is given by:
Mean Square
F = Mean Square^. ]y
The repeated measures analysis was limited to subjects over 12 yr
of age in 1980 because of the small number of observations available on
children and the effects of age on biologic variables in this age group.
Variables which were tranformed using the natural logarithm transformation
for the analyses presented in the original PCP report were also transformed
for this analysis. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) procedure for gen-
eral linear models (GLM) was used to obtain the repated measures analysis of
variance table for each of the 11 biologic variables measured in 1980 and in
1984. The appropriate F ratios were calculated from the mean squares for year
and family x year.
IX. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
The quality assurance and quality control consisted of multiple
activities designed to assure the quality of the study. Protocols for both
field and laboratory work were developed. Quality control samples were pre-
pared in the field and laboratory. Method optimization experiments and method
validations were done. Confirmatory analysis was performed with gas chroma-
tography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Details of each of these QA/QC activities
are described below in greater detail.
33
-------
A. Protocols
1. Environmental
A manual was prepared for the sampling of PCP in the home environ-
ment. The manual served as a guide for the field sampling activities previ-
ously mentioned. It covered administration of questionnaires, scheduling of
visits to each home, all aspects of air, wood, wipe and water sampling, pro-
cessing of blood and urine samples, and the sample numbering system. The
manual was followed by each environmental team who together sampled the first
house. This common sampling of the first house was to ensure a standardized
and common approach by each of the two teams when they split up the sampling
assignments.
2. Medical
The administration of the Medical Questionnaire was included in the
environmental manual. The collection of blood samples and the standardized
physical examination procedures were performed by study physicians.
3. PCP Analysis
A Quality Assurance Program Plan was submitted to the EPA Work As-
signment Manager in accordance with the provisions of the contract with EPA.
The 11-point document concerned with the determination of PCP covered the
project description and organization, facilities and equipment, data genera-
tion and processing and assessment, corrective action, and documentation and
reporting. This document was submitted to the EPA prior to the start of PCP
analysis.
4. Clinical Laboratory
a. PSPA
Hematology, blood biochemistries and urinalyses were performed
by PSPA. This laboratory was accredited by the College of American Pathologists
(Registry No. 10-1047), National Centers for Disease Control (Registry No.
10-1016), Medicare (No. 11-8022) and Georgia Department of Public Health
(044-022). PSPA participates in two regional quality assurance programs, the
Quality Assurance survey and the Georgia State Proficiency Evaluation, and
two national programs, the College of American Pathologist Inter!aboratory
comparison program and the CDC Proficiency Testing Program.
b. Montefiore Hospital Laboratory
Montefiore performed analysis in urine specimens for 6-beta-
hydroxycortisol, free cortisol and creatinine. Inventory was checked prior
to shipment and an inventory list included. Specimens were transported on
dry ice from the field to Baltimore as air freight. Duplicates were sent for
12 percent of the specimens. All specimens were shipped from COEH on dry ice
via Federal Express.
34
-------
B. QA/QC for Environmental Sampling and Analysis
1. Environmental Field Samples
a. Air Samples
A blind field blank sorbent tube was prepared at the beginning
and end of sampling in each of the three sampling areas (i.e., a total of six
field blanks). The blanks were randomly numbered to preclude analytical bias.
A duplicate sample or field spike sample was collected from
approximately every fourth house sampled. The environmental sampling team
randomly selected whether a duplicate or field spike sample was to be col-
lected at a given house. Duplicate samples were collected in an identical
manner to the primary samples and were located as closely as possible to one
of the three primary samples. Which primary sample was duplicated was ran-
domly selected, the field spikes were prepared by a member of the MRI field
crew using a known concentration of PCP (11.8 ng/uL) which was added to the
specified sample to obtain a range from 350 to 600 ug/sample.
b. Wood Core Samples
Since the main purpose of these samples was to grossly verify
the presence of PCP in the log home and since it was nearly impossible to get
a sufficiently large sample for analytical purposes, a minimal number (one)
of field quality control checks were collected on wood core samples.
c. Surface Wipe Samples
A blind field blank composite surface wipe sample was prepared
and analyzed from every third house sampled. The blanks were randomly num-
bered to preclude analytical bias. The blanks were prepared by wetting the
smear tab filter paper with the methanol:water solution and placing it in the
composite sample until 15 tabs had been prepared.
A duplicate sample or field spike sample was collected and
analyzed from every third house sampled. Each environmental sampling team
randomly selected whether a duplicate or field spike sample would be col-
lected at a given house. Duplicate samples were collected in an identical
manner to the resident exposure set of samples (as opposed to the wood core
set of wipe samples) and were located as closely as possible to the primary
samples. The field spikes were prepared by a member of the MRI field crew
using a known concentration of PCP (11.8 ng/uL) which was added to the speci-
fied sample to obtain a range from 700 to 900 ug/sample.
d. Drinking Water Sample
A blind field blank water sample utilizing distilled water was
prepared for every third house sampled. The blanks were randomly numbered to
preclude analytical bias.
35
-------
A duplicate sample or field spike sample was collected and
analyzed from every third house sampled. Each environmental sampling team
randomly selected whether a duplicate or field spike sample would be col-
lected at a given house. Duplicate samples were collected in a manner iden-
tical to the primary samples. The field spikes were prepared by a member of
the MRI field crew using a known concentration of PCP (11.8 ng/uL) which was
added to the specified sample to obtain a range from 550 to 600 ug/sample.
2. Chemical Analysis
Since the method of Needham had not been used previously in the MRI
laboratory, a brief method evaluation study was conducted.
a. Method Variables Experiment
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of
each step in the Needham method. A partial factorial design experiment, as
described by Stowe and Mayer (1966), was used to determine the effect of each
variable. This approach is well-suited to efficiently screen for the impor-
tant variables or steps in a method. The experimental design for the urine
method is shown in Table 1. Nine different variables were designated for
testing along with two dummy variables. The dummy variable results are in-
cluded as a measure of the precision plus any error in measuring the responses.
A urine sample from one of the study participants was used for the experiment.
The sample was spiked with a surrogate standard, 2,4,6-tribromophenol (TBP),
at 93 ppb. No PCP was added since the sample should have endogenous PCP.
b. Quality Control Samples
Each sample analyzed had a surrogate standard added. This sur-
rogate, 2,4,6-tribromophenol, was used to monitor the extraction efficiency
and provide an estimate of analyte recovery.
During sample analysis, the samples were placed into batches
of 10-15 samples based on the sample matrix. With each batch analyzed, a
minimum of one laboratory duplicate sample and one blank were run.
C. QA/QC for Data Analysis
Data processing encompasses all manipulations of information col-
lected to change its form of expression, its location, its quantity or its
dimensionality. This includes coding, data entry, validation, storage,
transfer, alteration and analysis. The goal of quality assurance in data
processing is to prevent errors and loss of data. Quality control assures
that the information contained in the original data source is faithfully re-
produced.
The COEH project Quality Assurance Officer supervised the following
aspects of data processing and maintained a log of all changes to the data
base and the associated quality assurance procedures performed to certify ac-
curacy and completeness. Each data processing or quality assurance procedure
36
-------
Table 1. Method Variables Determination - PCP in Urine
oo
Method variable
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Amount of urine
Dummy
Mixing of sample plus
surrogates
Acidification with H2S04
(cone. )
Hexane extraction
Extraction
Dummy
Acetylating reagent
Reaction temperature
Reaction time
Low
2
-
15
120
4
1
-
100
45°
5
Level
(-)
mL
min
ML
mL
h
ML
C
min
s
High
4
-
60
500
10
2
-
500
60
15
( + )
mL
min
uL
mL
h
ML
°C
min
Run no. /random order
123456789 10 11 12
+ + - + + + --- +
+ - + + + --- + - +
- + + + --- + -+ +
+ + + --- + - + +
+ + --- + - + + - +
+ --- + - + + -+ +
---•+- + + - + + +
-- + - + + - + + +
- + - + + - + + + -
+ - + + - + + + --
K Buffer washes 6 mL/2 mL 10 mL/5 mL -
-------
was fully documented with step-by-step instructions and description of results.
The audit trail created makes it possible to recreate the working data files
from the raw data at any time during data processing.
1. Coding and Data Entry
Coding was done using the project coding manual, according to the
rules specified. If a decision was required on the part of the coder, the
decision was documented in the manual so that all coding was consistent. The
data were entered at a terminal and written onto disk storage space. All data
entry were visually verified against the code sheets after entry.
2. Validation
After entry all data were validated. The contents of each data
field were checked against the valid codes or by reviewing the mean, standard
deviation, and range for that field. In addition, frequency tables were gen-
erated for each field so that outlying values might be validated against the
original data source. The contents of related fields were checked for con-
sistency. Errors discovered during the validation process were corrected and
the changes ful-ly documented.
3. Storage
Data were computer stored so that the integrity and security of the
data base were maintained yet each data point might be uniquely identified
and retrieved. Each data file created was documented with a record layout,
variable labels and codes. The current working data file was stored on disk.
Every 2 wk during data processing, working files on disk were copied onto mag-
netic tape as a backup. In addition, the raw data file was archived on mag-
netic tape after validation. All data files, whether on disk or magnetic tape
were accessed by project personnel only.
4. Transfer
Data transfer among media was kept to a minimum to prevent errors.
Examples of transfer include moving information from paper forms to code
sheets, code sheets to disk, disk to magnetic tape and magnetic tape to disk.
After each data transfer, a card or record count was used to ascertain com-
pleteness of the transfer. Quality assurance procedures to ascertain ac-
curacy depended upon the nature of the transfer: transfers from paper forms
to code sheets were checked by the coder; transfers from code sheets to disk
were visually verified by the data clerk; disk to tape or tape to disk were
not verified for accuracy since the transfer was done by computer and the
overall error rate should therefore be negligible.
5. Alteration
Alteration refers to any procedure that changes the values for data
items, the number of data items (dimensionality) or the size of the data set
(number of records). In the case of data reduction, the resulting data set
38
-------
had fewer values, items or records. This resulted in a loss of information
and the original data can not be recovered from the new data set. After any
alteration, the Quality Assurance Officer checked the internal correctness of
the process as well as the appropriateness as reflected by the end uses of
the altered data.
6. Analysis
Data analyses involved comparison of a conceptual model with the
suitably altered database. It frequently included a computation of summary'
statistics, standard errors, confidence intervals, tests of hypotheses and
model validation (goodness of fit tests). Documentation included the particu-
lar software package and procedure used and the method for handling missing
values. The Quality Assurance Officer ensured that analyses were performed
using a standard package program and that the statistical procedures were ro-
bust to violations of the assumptions of the underlying model.
The SAS standard package of statistical programs that was used in
these computations is under continual review by the manufacturer for reli-
ability.
X. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The culmination of the sampling and analysis effort is presented in
this general section and the results described in greater detail in the fol-
lowing subsections. The study population is described in terms of recruit-
ment, characteristics of the study homes, and the participants themselves.
The PCP levels, statistical results and correlations are described for the
concentrations found in the homes as a result of sampling the air, the logs
themselves, log surfaces, and drinking water. The biological PCP levels and
correlations are described for the concentrations in serum and urine and the
effect of participant's age. Relationships were investigated between se-
lected PCP measurements such as environmental samples, log treatment history,
serum and urinary concentrations, and environmental and biological concen-
trations. The relationship between biological PCP levels and clinical find-
ings are explored against questionnaire responses, clinical laboratory re-
sults, and physical examination findings. The present study results were
compared against like sampling and analysis conducted in the 1980 study.
Finally, the results of the quality assurance activities are discussed.
A. Study Population
1. Result of Recruitment Effort
Letters were sent to the heads of the 17 households who partici-
pated in the 1980 CDC study. Of these households, 15 indicated a willingness
to participate in the current study. At this point, two households were lost
to further study. One household no longer occupied a log home and declined
to participate; and the other did not respond to the invitational letter and
was not listed in the current phone directory so that telephone contact could
39
-------
not be made. Of the 15 households which responded, two houses were outside
the geographical area to be studied and one family no longer occupied their
log home. The remaining 12 households were selected for study.
Each of these 12 houses underwent environmental sampling. However,
because the occupants of one home were absent during the period of sampling,
only 11 households were available for both the medical and environmental
studies.
The names and addresses of 23 owners of houses which had been con-
structed of logs which allegedly had not been treated with PCP or with copper-
8-quinolinolate were obtained from log home manufacturers and dealers. Thir-
teen households responded to invitational letters and/or telephone calls and
agreed to participate. Only nine of these households were able to participate
at the time of the final study. Of the four households which dropped out at
this point, one occupied the log home only on weekends. The other three
stated that they were too busy working on the house or accomplishing other
tasks to participate.
Based on occupant responses to the Preliminary Contact Questionnaire,
it was anticipated that 12 of the homes in the final study population had been
treated with PCP and that 9 homes had not been treated with PCP.
The houses were grouped for study logistical purposes into three
geographic regions (see Figure 2) in northern and central Kentucky: the
Florence area (1 treated and 5 untreated homes), the'Danville area (1 treated
and 3 untreated homes), and the Louisville area (10 treated and 1 untreated
homes).
Field studies were conducted in the 21 recruited homes during the
11 day period from February 15 to 25, 1984.
2. House Characteristics
It was originally anticipated that the houses would fall into two
groups according to PCP treatment: a group of 12 houses from the 1980 CDC
study which had been treated with PCP, and the 9 other houses, identified by
manufacturers and dealers and the Preliminary Contact Questionnaire as not
having been treated with PCP. In fact, analysis of the responses from the
environmental questionnaire and a review of the results of PCP concentrations
from the wood core samples revealed that all but four of the supposedly un-
treated homes had been treated with PCP in some manner. This necessitated a
change in the original study design.
Resident responses to the Environmental Questionnaire, however, in-
dicated that the houses could be classified into six treatment categories with
regard to PCP, including: those houses constructed of logs immersed in PCP;
those houses which had initially been treated by immersion in PCP but had been
subsequently treated with a sealant or a chemical neutralizer or both with a
view to reduce PCP exposure; those houses sprayed externally with PCP after
construction; and those houses which had never been treated. In one house
the occupant did not know the PCP treatment history.
40
-------
Cincinnati
• - Log Home Sampled
Finure 2. Location of study log homes sampled
in Kentucky.
41
-------
As a result,, the following house treatment categories were developed.
As will be seen later, the wood core PCP concentration data indicated that
this was a useful categorization.
Treated: Included all log homes which were reported to have been
treated by the manufacturer with a PCP-containing wood preservative in a man-
ner which immersed the entire log (either by dipping or pressure treating)
and had not subsequently been sealed or chemically neutralized. This process
resulted in both the interior and exterior surfaces of the house being PCP-
treated. There were four houses so treated in the study population.
Treated and Sealed: Included all log homes which were reported to
have been treated with a PCP-containing wood preservative in the manner de-
scribed in the "Treated" category (above) and in which the interior surfaces
of the house had been subsequently treated with some type of sealant. The
four houses included in this category had the majority of the interior log
surfaces treated with polyurethane (two houses) or varnish (two houses).
Treated and Neutralized: Included all log homes which were reported
to have been treated with a PCP-containing wood preservative in the manner
described in the "Treated" category (above) and in which the interior surfaces
of the house had been treated with a chemical agent designed to react with,
and thereby neutralize,' PCP in the wood. The three houses included in this
category had the majority of the interior log surfaces treated with Permatox-
Pentite®, manufactured and distributed by Chapman Chemical Corporation (Memphis,
Tennessee) for this express purpose. Although the specifics of the chemical
reaction are proprietary, the mode of action is described as chemical neutrali-
zation.
Treated and Sealed and Neutralized: Included all log homes which
were reported to have been treated with a PCP-containing wood preservative in
the manner described in the "Treated" category (above) and treated with a
sealant in the manner described in the "Treated and Sealed" category (above)
and treated with a neutralizer in the manner described in the "Treated and
Neutralized" category (above). One house received both treatments. Although
the order of treatment was not stated by the homeowner, it is presumed that
the logs were neutralized and then sealed.
Exterior Treatment: Included all log homes which were reported to
have been treated with a PCP-containing wood preservative by spray-application
of the preservative to the exterior surfaces of the house at the time of con-
struction. Interior surfaces of homes included in this category were reported
not to have been treated with a PCP-containing wood preservative. There were
four houses so treated in the study population.
Never Treated: Included all log homes which had been reported to
have never been treated on any surface with a PCP-containing wood preserva-
tive. There were four such houses in the study population.
Treatment Unknown: For one house the treatment history was unknown
by the original owner-occupant-builder. Analysis of the wood core samples
42
-------
collected from the house confirmed that the house had been treated with a PCP-
containing wood preservative, but the method of application was unknown and
it was not known whether it had been subsequently sealed and/or neutralized.
Environmental and questionnaire data from this house are included in descrip-
tive tables; however, this house is excluded from comparative analysis by
house treatment category.
Responses to the Environmental Questionnaire indicated that five
houses had been retreated in some manner since construction. All such houses
fell into the Treated, Treated and Sealed, or Treated and Neutralized cate-
gories. In every case, only very small areas in the house interior (usually
ends of beams or new cuts) had been treated. None of the exteriors of the
study homes had been retreated. For the purpose of this study, this retreat-
ment was not considered significant and, therefore, did not affect the cate-
gorization of houses.
The number of houses in each PCP treatment category is given in
Table 2. Table 3 indicates the PCP treatment by house category. As noted
above, a number of houses had been retreated with a PCP-containing preserva-
tive, but in all cases there was no more than one retreatment.
Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 show the age of houses, length of occupant
residence, number of rooms in houses and floor area of houses by house treat-
ment category. Note that several members of the study population were not
the original occupants of their homes.
Table 8 shows the heating sources of the houses by house treatment
category. Fourteen houses had central heating units, all of which used a
forced hot air distribution system. Eighteen houses used heating stoves.
Kerosene space heaters were used in four homes and electric space heaters in
nine homes. Coal or oil space heaters were not used in any home.
Table 9 shows other selected house characteristics by treatment cate-
gory. It is seen that all but one house had double glazed or storm windows
and used electric cooking. In most houses, non-PCP containing pesticides had
been used at least once to control insects. Most houses had ceiling fans.
Cathedral ceilings were found in eight houses. Only one house, which was in
the Treated and Neutralized group, had urea-formaldehyde foam insulation. In
one house a gas stove was used.
Table 10 shows the drinking water sources by house treatment category.
3. Personal Characteristics of Study Participants
A total of 72 individuals took part in the study, although there
were 80 inhabitants above the age of 4 that resided in the study houses. One
participant did not complete the study questionnaire but did provide some sam-
ples so that most data is reported for only 71 participants. The ages of par-
ticipants ranged from 4 to 66, with a mean age of 26.1 and a median age of
30. Demographic characteristics of the 71 participants are displayed in
Table 11. There was an even distribution of male and female participants.
There were 50 participants aged greater than 12, 11 aged from 8-12, and 10
aged from 4-7. All participants were white.
43
-------
Table 2. Number of Houses in Each PCP Treatment Category
Treatment category Identifying symbol Number of houses
Treated only
Treated & sealed
Treated & neutralized
Treated & sealed & neutralized
Exterior treatment only
Never treated
Treatment unknown
Total
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
4
4
3
1
4
4
1
21
Treatment category based on history of log treatment according to homeowner.
44
-------
Table 3. PCP Treatment by House Treatment Category from
Occupant Responses to Environmental Questionnaire
Treatment history
T
(N=4)
House treatment category
TS
(N=4)
TN
(N=3)
TSN
(N=l)
XT
(N=4)
NT
(N=4)
Treated by manufacturer
Treated at construction
Retreated after
construction
Interior sealed after
construction
Chemically neutralized
after construction
4
1
2
4
0
1
3
1
0
1
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
45
-------
Table 4. Age of Home in Years by House Treatment Category
Treatment category N
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
ALL
4
4
3
I
4
4
I
21
Mean
6.25
6.00
7.00
9.00
2.25
2.00
2.00
4.67
Standard deviation
0.96
2.94
1.00
c
-
1.89
2.00
-
2.87
Range
5 -
3 -
6 -
9 -
1 -
1 -
2 -
1 -
7
10
8
9
5
5
2
10
The age of the home was calculated from the questionnaire which asked only
for the year in which the house was constructed.
46
-------
Table 5. Length3 (in Years) of Occupant Residence
by House Treatment Category
Treatment category N
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
ALL
4
4
3 •
1
4
4
1
21
Mean
5.75
4.25
6.33
8.00
2.00
1.75
2.00
4.00
Standard deviation
1.26
0.96
1.15
-
1.41
1.50
-
2.32
Range
4 -
3 -
5 -
8 -
1 -
1 -
2 -
1 -
7
5
7
8
4
4
2
8
aAll study participants had lived in their home at least 1 yr, as rounded to
the nearest year.
47
-------
Table 6. Number of Rooms in House by House Treatment Category
Treatment category N
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
ALL
4
4
3
1
4
4
1
21
Mean
6.75
6.25
7.00
6.00
7.50
7.50
9.0
6.95
Standard deviation
1.26
0.96
1.00
-
1.29
1.73
-
1.20
Range
5 -
5 -
6 -
6 -
6 -
6 -
9 -
5 -
8
7
8
6
9
9
9
9
aHallways, bathrooms, basements and closets were not considered rooms. Base-
ments were usually uninhabited spaces and were remote from treated logs.
48
-------
Table 7. Floor Area3 of House (in Square Feet)
by House Treatment Category
Treatment category N
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
ALL
4
4
3
I
4
4
I
21
Mean Standard deviati
1,860
1,770
1,890
1,540
1,730
1,770
1,740
1,780
244
403
441
-
325
490
-
333
on Range
1,590 -
1,200 -
1,600 -
1,540 -
1,460 -
1,380 -
1,740 -
1,200 -
2,160
2,140
2,400
1,540
2,170
2,480
1,740
2,480
alncludes all living spaces except basement.
49
-------
Table 8. Heating Sources of Houses by House Treatment Category
House treatment category
House heating T
method (N=4)
Central heating uni
Natural gas
LPG
Electric
Wood
No central unit
other than solar
Forced hot air
heat
Heating stove
used
Fireplace(s) in
house
Kerosene space
heater used
Electric space
heaters used
t
0
I
1
0
2
2
4
3
1
3
•TS
(N=4)
1
0
2
0
1
3
3
3
1
1
TN
(N=3)
0
0
1
0
2
1
2
2
1
2
TSN
(N=l)
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
XT
(N=4)
0
0
3
0
1
3
4
3
0
1
NT
(N=4)
0
0
4
0
0
4
4
2
1
1
(N=i)
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
TOTAL
(N=21)
1
1
12
1
6
15
18
15
5
10
50
-------
Table 9. Selected House Characteristics by
House Treatment Category
House characteristic
Used wood preservative
other than PCP
Urea formaldehyde foam
insulation
Double glazed storm
wi ndows
Ceiling fan used
Cathedral ceiling
in home
Interior use of
pesticides
Exterior use of
pesticides
Cooking fuel
Electric
Gas
At least one current
T
(N=4)
3
0
4
3
1
4
4
3
1
4
TS
(N=4)
0
0
3
3
I
3
3
4
0
4
House
TN
(N=4)
1
1
3
1
1
2
3
3
0
I
treatment category
TSN
(N=4)
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
XT
(N=4)
1
0
4
4
3
3
2
4
0
2
NT
(N=4)
2
0
4
2
1
1
2
4
0
1
TU
(N=l)
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
TOTAL
(N=21)
7
1
20
15
9
14
16
20
1
12
smoker
51
-------
Table 10. Drinking Water Source by House Treatment Category
House treatment category
Water source
City
Own well
Cistern
T
(N=4)
0
4
0
TS
(N=4)
2
1
1
TN
(N=3)
1
0
2
TSN
(N=l)
1
0
0
XT
(N=4)
2
0
2
NT
(N=4)
2
0
2
TU
(N=l)
0
0
1
TOTAL
(N=21)
8
5
8
52
-------
Table 11. Demographic Characteristics of the
Study Participants
Number of
persons Percentage of
Characteristic (N=71) participants
Sex
Male 35 49
Females 36 51
Age distribution
4-7 yr 10 14
8-12 yr 11 16
Greater than 12 yr 50 70
Marital status
Married 37 • 52
Widowed 1 2
Never married 33 46
Level of education
No formal education 6 9
1st through 6th grade 15 21
7th grade through high school .25 35
At least 1 yr college without 13 18
graduating
College graduate 5 7
Additional education 7 10
53
-------
The employment status and habits of participants greater than 16 yr
of age are indicated in Table 12. Only individuals over 16 yr of age were
asked questions pertaining to cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and oc-
cupation. Ever smoked was defined to mean having smoked more than 20 packs
of cigarettes or 12 oz of tobacco in a lifetime. A current smoker was defined
as a regular smoker for up to 1 mo prior to questionnaire administration. A
current drinker was defined as someone who drank one glass of beer or wine or
1 oz of liquor or more in the last month.
The response to questions concerning past medical history for se-
lected diseases and for the occurrence of fever in the previous 6 mo among
all participants is indicated in Table 13. The frequency of complaints of
eye irritation, tearing, eyelid swelling and acne over the time the subject
had occupied the current house is indicated in Table 14.
The distribution of study participants in three age groups (4-7,
8-12, and older than 12) by house treatment category is given in Table 15.
There were no remarkable differences among the age distributions for the dif-
ferent house treatment categories. Between 60 and 80 percent of the individ-
uals in each house treatment group were older than 12. Table 16 displays the
sex of study participants by house treatment category. The distributions are
quite similar; no remarkable differences are seen in any group.
Table 17 shows the range, median, and standard error for the number
of hours in the 48-h period prior to blood sampling which study participants
had spent in the house, arranged by house treatment category. The 'mean number
of hours was quite high for each group, ranging between 28 and 37 h. Table 18
shows the results .of ANOVA for the time spent in the house as described in
Table 17. No significant differences were seen among the categories.
Table 19 presents the range, median, mean and standard error for
the number of school years completed by the participants by house treatment
group. Table 20 shows the results of ANOVA of the mean household years of
schooling completed, by house PCP treatment category. No differences were
seen among the treatment categories. Although this analysis may seem super-
fluous, as a quality control check of data, it proves that no extraneous or
artificially introduced interrelationships exist in the data.
Table 21 shows the distribution of selected characteristics of study
participant by house treatment category.
8. PCP Concentrations in Homes
1. Air Sampling Results
Three air samples were collected in every home in the study popula-
tion, together with appropriate quality control samples (i.e., blank, duplicate
or spike) in selected homes, according to the protocol previously described.
The results of analysis of these samples is presented in Table 22.
54
-------
Table 12. Employment and Habits of Adult Participants
Number of Number of Percentage
respondents positive of positive
Characteristic (N=44) responses responses
Cigarette smoking
Ever smoked 44 20 45
„ Current smoker . 44 14 32
Alcohol consumption
Currently drink 36 29 80
Average ^ 6 oz/wk 29 26 90
Average 7-40 oz/wk 29 2 7
Average > 40 oz/wk 29 1 3
Employment
Employment outside home currently 44 35 80
Ever employed working with wood 44 6 14
preservatives
Currently employed working with 44 4 9
wood preservatives
Ever employed working with -44 3 7
pesticides
Currently employed working 44 3 7
with pesticides
55
-------
Table 13. Past Medical History of Selected Illness Among Study Participants
Determined from Medical Questionnaire Responses
Number of
positive responses Percentage of
Disease (N=71) positive responses
Ever had:
Hepatitis 0 0
Cirrhosis 0 0
Jaundice 2 3
Cancer 2 3
Eczema 3 4
Acne 11 15
Psoriasis 2 3
Tumor or lump removed 9 13
Rash or dermatitis within the 28 39
last year
Fewer within previous 6 mo 29 41
56
-------
Table 14. Prevalence of Selected Complaints Among Study Participants
Since Resident in Current Home
Number of
positive responses Percentage of
Complaint (N=71) positive responses
Eye irritation 18 25
Tearing 10 14
Swelling of eyelids 8 11
Acne 10 14
57
-------
Table 15. Distribution of Study Participants in Three Age Groups
by House Treatment Category
House treatment category
T TS TN TSN XT NT TU TOTAL
Age range (N=15) (N=12) (N=12) (N=5) (N=12) (N=10) (N=5) (N=71)
4-7
8-12
Older than 12
Mean age
Range of ages
4
1
10
27.1
5-61
0
3
9
26.1
9-53
3
1
8
24.4
5-47
1
1
3
19.6
6-58
2
2
8
30.3
4-66
0
2
8
26.2
8-42
0
1
4
24.4
10-43
10
11
50
26.1
4-66
58
-------
Table 16. Sex of Study Participants by House Treatment Category
House treatment category
T TS TN TSN ST NT TU TOTAL
Sex (N=15) (N=12) (N=12) (N=5) (N=12) (N=10) (N=5) (N=71)
Male 8562752 35
Female 77 6 3 5 5 3 36
59
-------
Table 17. Number of Hours Spent in Log Home by Participants During
the 48-h Period Prior to Blood Sampling by House Treatment Category
Treatment category N
T 15
TS 12
TN 12
TSN 5
XT 12
NT 9
TU 5
ALL 70
Range
22.0 -
23.5 -
4.0 -
26.0 -
3.5 -
29.5 -
26.0 -
3.5 -
48.0
33.0
48.0
48.0
44.0
40.0
33.5
48.0
Mean Standard error
35.6
27.7
31.2
36.9
30.3
33.4
28.9
31.9
2.05
0.82
3.27
4.63
2.97
1.22
1.47
0.99
Median
39
27
29
32
30
32
30
31
60
-------
Table 18. Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Hours Spent
in the Log Home During the 48-h Period Prior.to
Blood Sampling by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT .
NT
Number of
houses
(N=18)
4
3
3
1
4
3
Least
squares
mean
35.6
27.7
31.2
36.9
30.3
33.4
Standard
error
1.98
2.21
2.21
3.42
2.21
2.55
Overall
P-value
0.440
Least squares mean weighted by number of people in
.household.
The house of unknown treatment category is excluded.
61
-------
Table 19. Number of Years of School Completed by Study Participants
by House Treatment Group
Treatment category N
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
ALL
15
12
12
5
12
10
5
71
Range
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
2.0 -
5.0 -
0 -
16.0
15.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
12.. 0
18.0
Mean
8.7
10.0
9.9
7.8
10.7
11.9
9.4
9.9
Standard
error
1.45
1.31
2.00
3.14
1.60
1.68
1.33
0.65
Median
12.0
12.0
12.5
8.8
12.5
13.0
8.5
12.0
62
-------
Table 20. Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Years of
School Completed3 by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
Number of
houses
4
3
3
1
4
3
Least
squares
mean
8.7
10.0
9.9
7.8
10.7
11.9
Standard
error
1.24
1.38
1.38
2.14
1.38
1.51
Overall
P-value
0.581
Least squares means weighted by number of people in
: household.
The house of unknown treatment category is excluded.
63
-------
Table 21. Selected Characteristics of Study Participants
by House Treatment Category
House treatment category
Variable
Marital status
Married
Widowed
Never married
Cigarette smoking
Ever smoked
Currently smoke
Alcohol consumption3
Ever drink
Currently drink
Employment
Outside home
Ever with wood
preservatives
Ever with pesticides
Hobby exposure to wood
preservatives or
pesticides
Pesticide use in home
Garden
Pesticide use in 1983
Pesticide use in 1982
T
(N=15)
8/15
-
7/15
7/9
6/7
8/9
6/8
6/9
1/9
1/9
5/15
2/15
9/15
8/9
7/9
TS
(N=12)
6/12
-
6/12 .
3/9
3/3
9/9
9/9
9/9 '
1/9
0/9
2/12
0/12
5/12
5/5
5/5
TN
(N=12)
6/12
-
6/12
3/7
1/3
5/7
4/5
5/7
1/7
0/7
7/12
1/12
7/12
6/7
6/7
TSN
(N=5)
2/5
-
3/5
1/2
0/1
1/2
0/1
1/2
0/2
0/2
1/5
0/5
0/5
-
XT
(N=12)
7/12
-
5/12
3/8
2/3
6/8
5/6
5/8
1/8
0/8
7/12
4/12
3/12
2/3
0/5
NT
(N=10)
6/10
1/10
3/10
3/7
1/3
6/7
5/6
7/7
2/7
1/7
3/10
0/10
4/10
b
4/4
TU
(N=5)
2/5
-
3/5
0/2
-
1/2
0/1
2/3
0/2
1/2
1/5
0/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
.Question only applicable to 44 participants greater than 16 yr of age.
4/4 Don't know.
Note: One of the 72 participants did not complete the study questionnaire.
64
-------
Table 22. Individual and Mean PCP Air Concentrations (ng/L)
Measured in 21 Log Homes Arranged by
House Treatment Category
House
Treated
T-l
T-2
T-3
T-4
Treated & sealed
TS-1
TS-2
TS-3
TS-4
Treated & neutralized
TN-1
TN-2
TN-3
Treated & sealed & neutralized
TSN-1
External treatment
XT-1
XT- 2
XT-3
XT-4
Never treated
NT-1
NT- 2
NT- 3
NT- 4
Treatment unknown
TU-1
Air
Sample 1
0.311
(0.383)3
0.138
0.743
(0.729)
0.887
0.663
0.098
0.216
0.904
0.062
0.085
0.048
0.137
0.127
(0.076)
0.038
(0.038)
0.110
0.169
0.008
(0.002)
0.012
(0.008)
0.016
0.006
0.017
PCP concentration (ng/L)
Sample 2
0.150
0.074
0.904
0.358
0.565
0.283
0.199
0.716
0.067
0.053
0.114
0.153
(0.255)
0.083
0.021
0.052
0.075
0.001
0.021
0.029
0.001
0.018
Sample 3
0.181
0.058
0.782
0.637
0.629
0.175
0.324
0.655
. 0.121
0.066
0.025
0.339
0.014
0.026
0.043
0.094
NDb
0.019
0.011
0.001
0.012
Mean
0.214
0.090
0.810
0.594
0.619
0.185
0.246
0.758
0.083
0.068
0.062
0.210
0.075
0.028
0.068
0.113
0.003
0.017
0.019
0.003
0.016
Duplicate side-by-side sample collection shown in parenthesis but not in-
, eluded in mean.
ND - Not detected at limit of detection for sample volume (0.001 ng/L).
65
-------
PCP was detected in 62 of the 63 samples collected. Detected con-
centrations ranged from 0.001 ng/L to 0.904 ng/L but were fairly consistent
within any given house, usually varying by no more than a factor of two. The
mean of the three air samples displayed in Table 22 was used in all subsequent
statistical analyses which included air concentrations of PCP.
The PCP residues in air are summarized by house treatment category
in Table 23. The concentrations were found to have a log-normal distribution;
medians and geometric means are, therefore, presented together with the 95%
confidence interval about the geometric means. This information was used to
construct Table 24 which shows the results of ANOVA. Since the ANOVA showed
that there were significant differences among treatment groups, Duncan's
Multiple Range Test was used to determine which groups differed at the 0.05
level. Duncan's Multiple Range Test tables order the treatment categories by
the magnitude of their geometric means being tested. As seen on the table,
air concentrations of PCP for Never Treated houses are significantly lower
than those for all treated houses. Among treated houses, the air concentra-
tions for Treated and Sealed houses are significantly higher than those for
houses that were Treated and Neutralized or had External Treatment. There-
fore, it is concluded that there are real and significant differences in the
air concentrations of PCP among several of the treatment categories.
2. Wood Core Sample Results
From 12 to 21 individual wood core samples were collected from the
interior surfaces of logs in every home and subsequently composited to a sin-
gle sample for each home according to the protocol previously described. As
previously mentioned, some samples consisted of wood cores and others of wood
splinters. However, it was not possible to determine the comparability of core
and splinter samples as (a) logs that permitted core sampling did not have
splinters and (b) logs that required spl.inter sampling could not be core sam-
pled. Furthermore, it is not very useful to compare measured splinter and
core concentrations within a treatment category as concentrations probably
vary widely even when measured by the same technique. In any case, the re-
sults of the analyses of these samples are presented as Table 25.
PCP was detected in the wood core samples from all 21 houses in the
study population. Detected concentrations ranged from 44 ng PCP/g wood to
438,500 ng PCP/g wood. The wood core PCP concentrations appeared to be dis-
tributed in a manner which corresponded with the different methods of PCP
treatment which had been used in the study houses as stated by the homeowner.
As a result, the six categories of house PCP treatment indicated earlier were
used in further analysis rather than the treated/not treated categorizations
which had been originally planned. The never treated homes had PCP concentra-
tions as a possible result of the logging industry spraying stockpiled logs
with PCP to prevent mold and mildew.
66
-------
Table 23. Summary of PCP Concentrations (ng/L) in Air
by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
N
4
4
3
1
4
4
1
Median
0.421
0.433
0.068
0.209
0.072
0.010
0.016
Range
0.090 -
0.185 -
0.062 -
0.209 -
0.028 -
0.003 -
0.016 -
0.810
0.758
0.083
0.209
0.113
0.019
0.016
Geometric
mean
0.314
0.383
0.071
0.209
0.064
0.007
0.016
95% Confidence
interval
0.116 - 0.850
0.195 - 0.751
0.060 - 0.084
-
0.036 - 0.112
0.003 - 0.030
-
ALL 21 0.083 0.003 - 0.810 0.080 0.040 - 0.162
67
-------
Table 24. Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
Concentrations of PCP (ng/L) in Air by
House Treatment Category
ANOVA Table
Source
Treatment
Error
DF
5
14
Sum of
squares
41,7
9.0
Mean
square
• 8.34
0.64
F P-value
12.99 0.0001
Corrected total
19
50.7
Duncan's Multiple Range Test
Duncan grouping
A
A B
A B
B
B
C
Geometric mean
0.383
0.314
0.210
0.071
0.064
0.007
N
4
4
1
3
4
4
Treatment category
TS
T
TSN
TN
XT
NT
The house of unknown treatment is excluded.
Geometric means with the same letter are not significantly different at
alpha = 0.05.
68
-------
Table 25. Wood Core PCP Concentrations (ng/g) in Log Homes
Arranged by House Treatment Category
House
Concentration (ng/g)c
Treated
T-l
T-2
T-3
T-4
Treated & sealed
TS-1
TS-2
TS-3
TS-4
Treated & neutralized
TN-1
TN-2
TN-3
Treated & sealed & neutralized
TSN-1
External treatment
XT-1
XT-2
XT-3
XT-4
Never treated
NT-1
NT-2
NT-3
NT-4
Treatment unknown
TU-1
16,500
8,000
438,500
141,000
340,000
132,000
101,000
247,500
113,000
8,000
45,000
101,500
14,000
33,400
6,000
8,600
44
56
1,600
164
28,000
Limit of detection =0.9 ng/g.
69
-------
Concentrations of PCP in wood are summarized by house treatment
category in Table 26. The concentrations were found to have a log-normal
distribution; medians and geometric means are, therefore, presented. The 95%
confidence interval about the geometric mean was also calculated and is pre-
sented in this table. This information was used to construct Table 27 which
shows the results of ANOVA. The ANOVA showed that there were significant dif-
ferences among the treatment groups. Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used
to determine which groups differed at the 0.05 level. As seen in the table,
the mean wood PCP concentration in the Never Treated category was statistically
significantly different from that of each of the treated categories. There
were no statistically significant differences between those categories which
had been treated with PCP. The number of houses in each treatment group was
small, however, and it is quite likely that given the same geometric means
from a larger study population, there may have been statistically significant
differences between the treatment groups.
3. Surface Wipe Sampling Results
Two composited sets of from 12 to 21 .individual surface wipe samples
were collected from the interior surfaces of logs in every home, together with
appropriate quality control duplicates in selected homes, according to the
previously described protocol. One of these sets, designated as "adjacent"
samples, was collected from logs immediately contiguous to wood core samples
for the purpose of determining how accurately a surface wipe sample reflected
the PCP concentration in the underlying wood. The second set, designated "ex-
posure" samples, was collected from surfaces throughout the house which were
thought to be frequently contacted by occupants of the home. This set was
collected in order to help estimate the potential dermal exposure to PCP.
The results of analysis of both sets of surface wipe samples are presented
in Table 28.
PCP was detected in all 21 of the "adjacent" wipe samples and in 20
of the 21 "exposure" wipe samples. Detected concentrations ranged from 7 ng/
100 cm2 to 2,294 ng/100 cm2 for the "adjacent" wipe samples and from 10 ng/
100 cm2 to 427 ng/100 cm2 for the "exposure" wipe samples. The composited
"adjacent" wipe samples usually showed greater PCP concentration than the
composited "exposure" wipe samples for a given house. This result is expected
as all "adjacent" wipe samples were taken from the source of PCP contamination
in the house (the logs), while the "exposure" wipe samples were taken from
frequently contacted surfaces which may or may not have been contaminated with
PCP.
The distribution of PCP surface wipe concentrations was found to be
log-normal. Tables 29 and 30 show the medians, geometric means and 95% confi-
dence levels about the geometric means for PCP surface concentrations deter-
mined for "adjacent" and "exposure" wipe samples by house treatment category.
This information was used to construct Tables 31 and 32, which show the re-
sults of Duncan Multiple Range Test analyses to determine whether there were
statistically significant differences between geometric mean surface wipe con-
centrations in the various house treatment categories. Table 31 shows that
for concentrations of PCP in "adjacent" wipe samples, Never Treated houses
statistically differed from Treated, Treated and Sealed, and Treated and Sealed
and Neutralized houses. In addition, houses which received External Treatment
differed only from Treated and Sealed houses. Table 32 shows that for concen-
trations of PCP in "exposure" wipe samples, only the highest (Treated) and
lowest (Never Treated) treatment categories were statistically different.
70
-------
Table 26. Wood PCP Concentration (ng/g Wood) by
House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
N
4
4
3
1
4
4
1
Median '
78,800
190,000
45,000
102,000
11,300
110
28,000
Range
8,000 -
101,000 -
8,000 -
102,000 -
6,000 -
44 -
28,000 -
438,000
340,000
113,000
102,000
33,400
1,600
28,000
Geometric
mean
53,600
183,000
34,400
102,000
12,500
159
28,000
95% Confidence
interval
8,650 - 330,000
106,000 - 316,000
7,510 - 157,000
-
6,040 - 25,900
32 - 496
-
ALL 21 28,000 44 - 438,000 15,900 5,020 - 50,200
71
-------
Table 27. Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
Concentrations of PCP in Wood (ng/g)
by House Treatment Category
ANOVA Table
Source
Treatment
Error
DF
5
14
Sum of
squares
119.9
24.6
Mean
square
23.98
1.76
F P-value
13.63 0.0001
Corrected total
19
144.5
Duncan's Multiple Range Test
Duncan grouping
A
A
A
A
A
B
Geometric mean
183,000
102,000
53,400
34,400
12,500
159
N
4
1
4
3
4
4
Treatment category
TS
TSN
T
TN
XT
NT
The house of unknown treatment is excluded.
Geometric means with the same letter are not significantly different at
alpha = 0.05.
72
-------
Table 28. PCP Surface Concentrations (ng/100 cm2) of Wipe Samples Taken
Adjacent to the Site of Wood Core Sampling ("Adjacent" Samples)
and Wipe Samples from Surfaces Contacted by Inhabitants
of the House ("Exposure" Samples)
House
Treated
T-l
T-2
T-3
T-4
Treated & sealed
TS-1
TS-2
TS-3
TS-4
Treated & neutralized
TN-1
TN-2
TN-3
Concentration
"Adjacent" samples
345
350
2,294
453
1,200
871
184
1,231
276
83
214
(nq/100 cm2)
"Exposure" samples
244
309
327
400
427
117
82
349
147
93
192
Treated & sealed & neutralized
TSN-1
227
172
External treatment
XT-1
XT- 2
XT- 3
XT-4
Never treated
NT-1
NT- 2
NT- 3
NT- 4
Treatment unknown
TU
82
112
115
198
30
7
108
56
•
48
55
12
59
233
40 a
NDa
63
48
10
ND - Not detected at the limit of detection (0.3 ng/100 cm2).
73
-------
Table 29. Summary of Surface PCP Concentrations (ng/100 cm2) Determined
from Wipe Samples of Surfaces "Adjacent" to Sites of
Wood Core Samples by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
N
4
4
3
1
4
4
1
Median
402
1040
214
227
113
43
48
Range
345 -
184 -
82.6 -
227 -
82.1 -
6.7 -
48 -
2290
1231
276
227
198
108
48
Geometric
mean
596
699
171
227
121
34.9
48
95% Confidence
interval
245 - 1450
289 - 1690
83.8 - 348
-
84.9 - 173
11.5 - 106
-
ALL 21 198 6.7 - 2290 187 106 - 333
74
-------
Table 30. Summary of Surface PCP Concentrations (in ng/100 cm2) Determined
from Wipes of "Exposure" Surfaces by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
N
4
4
3
1
4
4
1
Median
318.0
232.9
147.0
172.0
57.1
43.9
10.0
Range
244 -
81.5 -
92.9 -
172 -
12.3 -
ND -
1Q.O -
400
427
192
172
233
62.5
10.0
Geometric
mean
316
195
139
172
56.9
18.2
10.0
95% Confidence
interval
259 - 386
88.6 - 431
92.1 - 210
-
18.1 - 179
2.7 - 130
-
ALL 21 117 ND - 427 89.6 47.9 - 167
75
-------
Table 31. Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
Concentrations of PCP (ng/100 cm2) in "Adjacent" Surface Wipe
Samples by House Treatment Category
ANOVA Table
Source
Treatment
Error
DF
5
14
Sum of
squares
24.3
9.9
Mean
square
4.86
0.71
F P-value
6.85 0.002
Corrected total
19
34.2
Duncan's Multiple Range Test
Duncan grouping
A
A B
A B
ABC
B C
C
Geometric mean
699
596
228
171
121
34.9
N
4
4
1
3
4
4
Treatment category
TS
T
TSN
TN
XT
NT
The house of unknown treatment is excluded.
Geometric means with the same letter are not significantly different at
alpha = 0.05.
76
-------
Table 32. Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
Concentrations of PCP (ng/100 cm2) in "Exposure" Surface Wipe
Samples by House Treatment Category
ANOVA Table
Source
Treatment
Error
OF
5
14
Sum of
squares
20.1
18.1
Mean
square
4.02
1.29
F P-value
3.12 0.043
Corrected total
19
38.2
Duncan's Multiple Range Test
Duncan grouping
A
A B
A B
A B
A B
B
Geometric mean
316
195
172
138
56.9
18.2
N
4
4
1
3
4
4
Treatment category
T
TS
TSN
TN
XT
NT
The house of unknown treatment is excluded.
Geometric means with the same letter are not significantly different at
alpha = 0.05.
77
-------
4. Drinking Water Sampling Results
Based on the previously described protocol, a single sample of drink-
ing water was collected in every home in the study population, along with with
appropriate quality control duplicates in selected homes. PCP was detected
in only 4 of the 21 homes in the study population. The PCP residues detected
in these four homes ranged from 0.2 ng/L to 1.0 ng/L. In all other homes the
PCP concentration was below the analytical limit of detection, 0.2 ng/L.
Analysis of the presence of PCP in drinking water by house treatment
category showed that all four of the homes in which PCP was detected had been
treated. The distribution was across house treatment categories: one Treated
and Sealed and Neutralized (0.2 ng/L), one Exterior Treatment (0.3 ng/L), one
Treated and Sealed (1.0 ng/L), and one which was treated in an unknown manner
(0.6 ng/L). Table 33 shows the presence of PCP in drinking water samples
analyzed by water source. This table shows that in all cases, PCP contami-
nated drinking water came from a house that utilized a cistern as the source
of water. Statistical analysis (Fisher's Exact Test) of this distribution by
source of water showed this relationship between source of water and the pres-
ence of PCP contamination of that water to be significant (p = 0.002).
5. Association of Demographic and Environmental Variables With
Wood Core Concentrations
The association between measured PCP concentrations in the wood core
samples and demographic characteristics of the houses and the house inhabitants
was examined to identify factors which might influence or be used to predict
environmental PCP residue concentrations. The statistical association between
these variables and the wood core PCP concentration of the home was explored.
For continuous variables, the Pearson correlation coefficient and
p-value were calculated. The results of statistical analysis of the associa-
tion between selected house variables and wood core PCP concentrations are
presented as Table 34. As shown in this table, the length of current occu-
pant residence and the age of the home had a significant positive correlation
with the wood core PCP; the number of rooms in the house had a significant
negative correlation. The floor area of the house showed no significant asso-
ciation with wood core PCP. Among the house features studied, only age of
the home and length of residence in the home showed a significantly positive
correlation. These findings all appear to result from the higher PCP concen-
trations in older homes, which arises in part because of the past practice of
treating logs with PCP. The relationships between these "house variables"
and the various house treatment categories were explored further.
As shown in Table 35, ANOVA showed significant differences in the
length of current family residence in the home by house treatment category.
Application of Duncan's Multiple Range Test, seen in Table 35, shows the
distribution of significant differences among the groups.
78
-------
Table 33. Detection of PCP in Drinking Water by Drinking
Water Source
PCP detected in water3
Water source
Well or city
Cistern
Total
No
15
2
17
Yes
0
4
4
Total
15
6
21
Analytical limit of detection - 0.2 ng/L.
79
-------
Table 34. Summary of Associations Between Selected House Features
and Wood PCP Concentrations Showing Pearson Correlation
Coefficients (R) and Statistical Significance
Standard
House feature Mean deviation
Length of residence 4.00 2.32
(in years)
Age of home 4.67 2.87
(in years)
Number of rooms 6.95 1.20
in house
Floor area of house 1,783 333
(in sq ft)
Range R P-value
1-8 0.51 0.017a
1-10 0.54 0.012a
5-9 -0.50 0.020a
1200 - 2480 -0.09 0.687
aStatistically significant at p = 0.05.
Correlations Among Selected House Features Pearson Correlation
Coefficients (r) and Statistical Significance (p)
Length of Floor area
residence Age of home No. of rooms of home
Length of -- r = 0.930 . r = -0.322 r = 0.018
residence p = 0.0001 p = 0.155 p = 0.938
Age of home -- r = -0.381 r = -0.124
p = 0.088 p = 0.392
No. of rooms — r = 0.375
p = 0.094
Statistically significant at p = 0.01.
80
-------
Table 35. Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
Length of Current Occupant Residency in Hgme
(in Years) by House Treatment Category
ANOVA Table
Source
Treatment
Error
DF
5
14
Sum of
squares
80.9
22.9
Mean
square
16.18
1.64
F P-value
9.88 0.0003
Corrected total
19
103.8
Duncan's Multiple Range Test
Duncan grouping
A
A B
A B
B C
C
C
Mean
• 8.0
6.3
5.8
4.2
2.0
1.8
N
1
3
4
4
4
4
Treatment category
TSN
TN
T
TS
XT
NT
The house of unknown treatment is excluded.
Geometric means with the same letter are not significantly different at
alpha = 0.05.
81
-------
In Table 36, ANOVA showed significant differences in the age of
homes by house treatment category. The Exterior Treatment and Never Treated
categories, while not differing significantly from each other, were signifi-
cantly newer than houses in the other categories.
As seen in Tables 37 and 38, ANOVA showed no significant differences
among the treatment groups for the number of rooms in the house and the floor
surface area of the houses. It is believed that these differences reflect
changes in building styles and in PCP treatment practices in newer homes and
that these associations would not seriously confound any planned statistical
analysis.
For discrete and dichotomous variables, the significance of any asso-
ciation between house characteristics and wood core PCP concentration was eval-
uated by comparing the mean wood core PCP concentrations of houses by variable
response and using a t-test for statistical significance. The results are
shown on Table 39. None of the differences among the means for the tested
responses were statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
In order to determine whether any personal characteristics of in-
habitants might be correlated with wood PCP concentrations and might therefore
confound the analysis of health parameters, the Pearson correlation coeffi-
cients between the household means for selected personal characteristics of
the log home residents and wood core PCP concentrations were calculated. The
results are given in Table 40. It is seen that neither resident age, years
of school completed, nor time spent in the house in the previous 48 h were
significantly associated with wood core PCP concentrations.
The mean wood core PCP concentrations of the homes compared to study
participants by selected demographic characteristics are shown on Table 41.
For smoking habits, alcohol intake and employment characteristics, only the
responses of the 44 individuals over 16 yr of age are given. None of the
examined characteristics of study participants were significantly associated
with wood core PCP concentrations. It was concluded that the distribution of
these characteristics among the house treatment groups would not confound the
further analysis of the results.
C. Biological PCP Concentrations
1. Serum and Urine PCP Concentrations
The serum PCP residue for each individual is expressed in units of
ng PCP/mL serum. Two urine PCP concentrations were measured for each individ-
ual; the concentration of free PCP in urine and the total PCP concentration
after acid hydrolysis. Since after hydrolysis both free and conjugated urine
PCP are measured, it is considered a more reliable indicator of PCP total ex-
cretion. Results are shown in Appendix IX. Urinary PCP concentrations were
normalized for potential variations in urine concentration by expressing the
excretion in terms of mg PCP/g of creatinine excreted. The results of serum
and urine analysis for PCP residues are shown in Table 42.
82
-------
Table 36. Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
Age in Home (in Years) by House Treatment Category
ANOVA Table
Source
Treatment
Error
DF
5
14
Sum of
squares
103.7
53.5
Mean
square
20.74
3.82
F P-value
5.43 0.006
Corrected total
19
157.2
Duncan's Multiple Range Test
Duncan grouping
A
A
A
A
B
B
Mean
9.0
7.0
6.2
6.0
2.2
2.0
N
1
3
4
4
4
4
Treatment category
TSN
TN
T
TS
XT
NT
The house of unknown treatment is excluded.
Geometric means with the same letter are not significantly different at
alpha = 0.05.
83
-------
Table 37. Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
Number of Rooms in House by House Treatment Category
ANOVA Table
Source
Treatment
Error
Corrected total
DF
5
14
19
Sum of
squares
5.45
23.50
28.95
Mean
square
1.09
1.68
F P-value
0.65 0.667
aThe house of unknown treatment is excluded.
Note: None of the treatment means are significantly different at p = 0.05
using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (not shown).
84
-------
Table 38. Results of ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for
Floor Area of House (sq ft) by House Treatment Category
ANOVA Table
Source
Treatment
Error
Corrected total
DF
5
14
19
Sum of Mean
squares square F
129,053 25,811 0.17
2,090,042 149,289
2,219,095
P-value
0.968
The house of unknown treatment is excluded.
Note: None of the treatment means are significantly different at p = 0.05
using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (not shown).
85
-------
Table 39. -Geometric Mean Wood Core PCP Concentrations (ng/g Wood)
and Statistical Significance of Differences Between
the Means for Selected House Characteristics
House
characteristic Response
Use of other
preservatives
Smokers in home
Electric heat3
Heating stove
Ceiling fan
Fireplace
Kerosene space
heater
Electric space
heater
Interior pesti-
cide use
Exterior pesti-
cide use
Cathedral ceiling
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
N
7
14
12
9
12
3
18
3
15
6
15
6
5
16
10
11
14
7
16
5
9
12
Geometric
mean
6,760
24,300
31,600
6,330
7,470
42,400
13,500
42,400
15,800
16,100
21,600
7,390
11,700
17,500
18,800
9,240
41,500
2,300
26,900
2,930
14,000
17,500
95% Confidence
interval
684 -
6,640 -
8,660 -
870 -
1,210 -
4,890 -
3,680 -
4,890 -
4,510 -
1,030 -
6,640 -
421 -
1,210 -
4,435 -
5,820 -
1,770 -
17,390 -
184 -
8,880 -
135 -
2,870 -
3,240 -
66,800
89,200
116,000
46,096
46,000
368,000
49,400
368,000
55,400
251,000
70,000
130,000
113,000
68,862
143,000
48,000
98,800
29,500
81,700
63,400
67,800
94,500
P-value
0.316
0.182
0.394
0.509
0.991
0.424
0.779
0.347
0.071
0.109
0.854
Homes with central heat.
86
-------
Table 40. Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Statistical
Significance of the Association Between Wood Core PCP
Concentrations and Household Means for Selected
Characteristics of Log Home Residents (N=20)
Weighted
Participant Pearson correlation
characteristic coefficient P-value
Age
School years
-0.065
-0.418
0.786
0.067
completed
Time in house -0.205 0.386
in previous
48 h
a
The log home without the completed questionnaire was ex-
cluded.
87
-------
Table 41. Association of Household Distribution for Selected Demographic
Characteristics of Study Participants with Geometric Mean Wood Core
PCP Concentrations (ng/g)
Participant
variable
Sex
Ever married
Ever smoke
cigarettes
Currently smoke
cigarettes
Ever smoke a pipe
Ever drink alcohol
Currently drink
alcohol
Employed outside
home
Employed. part-time
or volunteer
Ever worked with
wood preservatives
Ever worked with
pesticides
Hobby exposure to
wood preservatives
or pesticides
Pesticide use in home
Garden as hobby
Garden pesticide
use in 1983
Garden pesticide
use in 1982
Response
Female
Male
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
36
35
33
38
24
20
30
14
35
9
8
36
15
29
9
35
32
12
37
6
41
3
44
26
63
7
37
33
40
26
41
29
Geometric.
estimated
mean
65,000
5,800
102,000
4,760
19,200
16,600
16,300
22,100
7,210
628,000
14,500
18,800-
17,600
18,200
19,700
17,600
18,100
17,800
23,400
2,480
24,900
206
23,600
13,600
18,000
34,300
17,900
20,800
16,500
50,200
20,900
16,000
Log wood PCP concentration
Estimated
mean
11. 082
8.665
11.529
8.468
9.863
9.718
9.700
10.004
8.883
13.351
9.585
9.810
9.773
9.810
9.888
9.774
9.801
9.788
10.062
7.817
10.124.
5.327
10.067
9.516
9.798
10.443
9.792
9.941
9.714
10.823
9.992
9.678
Standard
error
1.850
1.900
1.608
1.421
0.861
0.964
0.754
1.217
0.691
1.886
1.534
0.645
1.144
0.762
1.848
0.721
0.756
1.461
0.617
1.861
0.578
3.134
0.908
1.344
0.606
2.429
0.880
0.947
0.746
0.994
0.843
1.060
P-value
0.510
0.295
0.921
0.850
0.066
0.884
0.981
0.959
0.995
0.292
0.165
0.782
0.809
0.920
0.447
0.842
•The one participant not completing a questionnair is excluded.
Estimated from weighted least squares regression.
-------
Table 42. Serum PCP Concentration (ng/mL) by House Treatment Category'
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
N
13
12
11
5
12
8
4
Range
32.5 -
21.7 -
27.7 -
92.0 -
9.4 -
7.0 -
16.0 -
160
151
163
168
55.7
23.3
25.1
Median
106
111
65.5
108
23.0
11.6
.18.3
Geometric
mean
95.9
81.1
69.9
114
22.8
11.2
19.1
95% Confidence
interval
74.2 -
55.9 -
47.5 -
93.3 -
17.9 -
8.3 -
13.1 -
124
118
102
140
29.1
15.1
27.9
ALL
7.0 - 168
54.0
47.6
37.8 - 59.9
.Limit of detection = 0.25 ng/mL.
Serum PCP concentration is unknown for seven participants because the
specimen could not be collected.
89
-------
Prior to further analysis, the distribution of serum PCP, free and
total urinary PCP concentrations were examined. From skewness, box plots,
normal plots, and normality test statistics, the distribution of log trans-
formed serum and urinary PCP concentrations approximated a normal distribu-
tion than the untransformed data. Accordingly, median and geometric mean
concentrations are presented, and log transformed values were used for further
analysis.
The range, median, geometric means and 95% confidence intervals for
serum PCP concentrations by house treatment category are given in Table 42.
Table 43 shows the results of ANOVA of the mean serum PCP concentrations for
all members of each household adjusted for the house age group distribution
and weighted by the number of people in the household, by house treatment
category. The ANOVA shows that there were significant differences among the
groups. Pairwise comparisons of least squares means using the t-test at the
0.05 level indicated that the mean household serum PCP concentrations for the
Exterior Treatment and Never Treated house treatment categories, while not
differing significantly from each other, differed significantly from the means
of the other four treatment categories. The geometric least squares mean serum
PCP concentration in the Exterior Treatment category was almost twice as high
as that in the Never Treated category, and those of the other four categories
were from 4 to 7 times higher than the Never Treated category.
Table 44 provides summary statistics for total urinary PCP concen-
trations by house treatment category. Table 45 presents the results of ANOVA
of the mean total urinary PCP concentrations for all members of each house-
hold, adjusted for the house age group distribution and weighted by the number
of people in the household, by house treatment category. The ANOVA shows that
there were significant differences among the groups. Pairwise comparisons of
least squares means using the t-test at the 0.05 level indicated that the mean
values for the Treated and Treated, Sealed and Neutralized categories were
significantly higher than the mean for Exterior Treatment. The means for all
other categories but the Exterior Treatment category were significantly higher
than the mean for the Never Treated category. The geometric least squares
mean total urinary PCP concentrations in the Exterior Treatment category were
3 times as high as those in the Never Treated category. Those of the other
four categories were from 5 to 11 times higher than the Never Treated category.
Table 46 shows the summary statistics for free urinary PCP concen-
trations by house treatment category. For the population as a whole the median
and geometric mean concentrations of urinary free PCP were, respectively, 48%
and 43% lower than those found for urinary total PCP concentrations. Table
47 shows the results of ANOVA of the mean unhydrolyzed urine PCP concentrations
for all members of each household adjusted for the house age group distribution
and weighted by the number of people in the household by house treatment cate-
gory. The ANOVA shows that there are significant differences among the groups.
Pairwise comparisons of least squares means using the t-test at the 0.05 level
indicated that the mean household unhydrolyzed urine PCP concentrations for
the Treated category differed significantly from the Exterior Treatment cate-
gory, and the Treated, Treated and Sealed, and Treated and Neutralized differed
significantly from the Never Treated category. By analogy then, the Exterior
Treatment and the Never Treated categories are not different from one another.
90
-------
Table 43. Resuljs of ANOVA of Mean Household Serum PCP Concentrations
(ng/mL) Adjusted for House Age Group Distribution by
House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
No. of
houses
4
3
3
1
4
3
Geometric
least squares
mean
87.6
87.5
54.4
91.5
20.0
13.5
Log transformed data
Least squares
mean
4.472
4.472
3.996
4.516
2.994
2.605
Standard Overal 1
error P-value
0.243 0.0013
0.263
0.271
0.378
0.243
0.304
Means weighted by number of people in household.
Results of pairwise-comparisons of least squares means using 0.05
level t-test: T, TS, TN, TSN differ from XT, NT.
91
-------
Table 44. Total Urinary PCP Concentration (mg/g Creatinine)
by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
N
13
12
12
5
12
8
3
Range
0.012 -
0.006 -
0.008 -
0.028 -
0.005 -
0.000 -
0.006 -
0.179
0.139
0.082
0.134
0.039
0.013
0.010
Geometric
Median mean
0.036
0.028
0.026
0.056
0.015
0.004
0.006
0.044
0.030
0.026
0.060
0.009
0.004
0.007
95% Confidence
interval
0.026 -
0.017 -
0.018 -
0.035 -
0.007 -
0.003 -
0.004 -
0.074
0.052
0.038
0.100
0.013
0.006
0.012
ALL 65a 0.000 - 0.179 0.021 0.021 0.016 - 0.028
aTotal urinary PCP concentration corrected for creatinine is unkown
for seven participants because no specimen was recei-ved.
92
-------
Table 45. Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Total Urinary PCP
Concentration (mg/g Creatinine) Adjusted for House Age
Group Distribution by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
No. of
houses
4
3
3
1
4
3
Geometric
least squares
mean
0.0417
0.0317
0.0235
0.0494
0.0134
0.0044
Log transformed
data
Least squares Standard
mean error
-3.176
-3.451
-3.753
-3.008
-4.316
-5.428
0.313
0.336
0.329
0.493
0.332
0.403
Overall
P-value
0.0116
Means weighted by number of people in household.
Results of pairwise comparisons of least squares means using 0.05
level t-test: T, TSN differ from XT
T, TS, TN, TSN differ from NT
93
-------
Table 46. Free Urinary PCP Concentration (mg/g Creatinine)
by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
TU
ALL
N
13
12
12
5
12
8
3
65a
Range
0.007 -
0.003 -
0.006 -
0.011 -
0.003 -
0.002 -
0.001 -
0.001 -
0.120
0.052
0.101
0.028
0.027
0.006
0.007
0.120
Median
0.034
0.012
0.016
0.018
0.009
0.005
0.002
0.011
Geometric
mean
0.031
0.013
0.017
0.018
0.009
0.004
0.003
0.012
95% Confidence
interval
0.018 -
0.007 -
0.011 -
0.013 -
0.007 -
0.003 -
0.000 -
0.009 -
0.052
0.022
0.026
0.025
0.013
0.005
0.014
0.016
aFree urinary PCP concentration corrected for creatinine is unknown
for seven participants because no specimen was received.
94
-------
Table 47. Results of ANOVA of Mean Household Free Urinary PCP
Concentration (mg/g Creatinine) Adjusted for House Age
Group Distribution by House Treatment Category
Treatment
category
T
TS
TN
TSN
XT
NT
No. of
houses
4
3
3
1
4
3
Geometric
least squares
mean
0.0292
0.0135
0.0160
0.0160
0.0090
0.0041
Log transformed data
Least squares
mean
-3.534
-4.309
-4.138
-4.138
-4.714
-5.490
Standard
error
0.299
0.322
0.314
0.471
0.318
0.385
Overall
P-value
0.0454
Means weighted by number of people in household.
Results of pairwise comparisons of least squares means using 0.05
level t-test: T differs from XT
T, TS, TN differ from NT
95
-------
These data clearly indicate that blood and urine PCP concentrations
of residents in PCP-treated log homes were considerably higher than in resi-
dents of log houses not treated with PCP.
2. Influence of Age on Biological PCP Concentrations
In evaluating biological PCP concentrations it was considered that
age was likely to be an important covariable. This is due to both behavioral
and physiological differences between children and adults. Young children
tend to spend more time than many adults in the house and have play activities
which are likely to bring them into closer contact with potentially PCP con-
taminated surfaces such as floors. By the-teenage years, more adult patterns
of behavior in these respects are generally established. Physiologically there
are differences with age in the absorption, distribution and possibly metabolism
of xenobiotics like PCP. These differences include higher ventilation rates
in children relative to body mass, larger relative surface area available in
children for percutaneous absorption, higher metabolic rates in children, and
differences in the relative proportions of different tissues into which xeno-
biotics might be distributed. Once puberty is reached these relationships
tend to remain relatively stable throughout adult age.
The need to take the age of the individual into account in consider-
ing biological PCP concentration was also indicated by the results of the 1980
CDC/EPA study which found PCP concentrations in the urine of children to be
higher than those of adults.
In order to account for possible differences in age, study partici-
pants were considered in three age groups: 4 to 7, 8 to 12 and over 12 yr
old. As there were no individuals aged less than 4 or more than 65 yr, it
was not necessary to consider the very young or very old in our analyses.
Table 48 shows the association of age group with biologic PCP con-
centrations, adjusted for household. The serum PCP concentration was slightly
higher in the younger age group but the differences among the groups were not
statistically significant. Highly significant differences among the groups
were seen for urinary free and total PCP concentrations, with the highest
values in the 4 to 7 age group and the lowest in the over 12 age group, whose
mean values were less than half those of the youngest group. Plots of age
against serum and urinary PCP concentrations are shown in Appendix X.
Because the data suggested different relationships with regard to
age for serum and urinary PCP concentrations, the association of age group
with urinary free and total PCP concentration adjusted for both serum PCP con-
centration and household was examined. The results are shown in Table 49.
The differences between the urinary PCP concentrations are little changed and
remain highly statistically significant indicating apparent differences be-
tween the age groups in rates of PCP excretion relative to creatinine excre-
tion.
96
-------
Table 48. Association of Age Groups with Biologic PCP Concentrations
Adjusted for Household
Biological
PCP measure
Serum PCP
(ng/mL)
Urinary free
PCP (mg/g
creatinine)
Urinary total
PCP (mg/g
creatinine)
Number of
Age participants
group in age group
4-7
8-12
> 12
4-7
8-12
> 12
4-7
8-12
> 12
10
11
50
10
11
50
10
11
50
Geometric
least squares
means
51.5
38.0
41.1
0.027
0.019
0.010
0.036
0.029
0.017
Ratio of
means
1.00
0.74
0.80
1.00
0.70
0.37
1.00
0.81
0.47
Overall.
P-value
0.194
0.0001
0.004
.Compared with 4 to 7 yr old age group.
P-value associated with F-test for differences among age groups.
Results of pairwise comparison of age groups at the 0.05 level for
urinary free and urinary total PCP: Age group > 12 differs significantly
from age groups 4-7 and 8-12.
97
-------
Table 49. Association of Age Groups with Urinary PCP Concentrations
Adjusted for Serum PCP Concentrations and Household
Biological
PCP measure
Urinary free
PCP (mg/g
creatinine)
Urinary total
PCP (mg/g
creatinine)
Age
group
4-7
8-12
> 12
4-7
8-12
> 12
Number of
participants
in age group
10
11
50
10
11
50
Geometric
least squares
means
0.028
0.023
0.011
0.039
0.033
0.017
Ratio of Overall.
means P-value
1.00 0.0004
0.82
0.39
1.00 0.0031
0.85
0.44
.Compared with 4 to 7 yr old group.
P-value associated with F-test for differences among age groups.
Results of pairwise comparison of age groups at the 0.05 level for
urinary free and urinary total PCP concentrations: Age group > 12
differs significantly from age groups 4-7 and 8-12.
-------
D. Relationships Between Selected PCP Measurements
1. Correlations Within Environmental Samples
Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients between measured con-
centrations of PCP in air, wood cores, "adjacent" and "exposure" surface wipe
samples are presented in Table 50. All values were highly correlated and all
the correlations were statistically significant. PCP concentrations measured
in the air of the log homes were highly correlated with the PCP concentration
in the wood core samples. This suggests that PCP is continually vaporized
from the logs to the air. Air concentrations were measured under a narrow
range of temperatures and with closed windows defined by the study protocol
to assess sample comparability; under other conditions the association may
not be as strong.
PCP concentrations measured in "adjacent" wipe samples were also
found to be highly correlated with the wood core PCP concentration and the
air PCP concentration. These correlations are also presented in Table 50.
This presumably reflects that the wood surface is the interface (i.e., site
of vaporization) between the log and air.
PCP concentrations measured in "exposure" wipe samples were also
significantly correlated with concentrations of PCP measured in air and wood
samples, although the correlations were not as strong as in the case of the
"adjacent" wipe samples. This is not unexpected since the "exposure" wipe
samples reflect concentrations on various surfaces throughout the house rather
than just the interface between logs and air. "Exposure" wipe samples were
collected from both log and other surfaces thought to be frequently contacted
by inhabitants of the house. Many of these surfaces may not have been PCP-
treated, although they may have become PCP-contaminated through condensation.
Other surfaces such as around light switches, door jabs, and window frames
probably were touched and may have been treated with PCP. As a result, the
correlation between "exposure" wipe samples and other environmental measures
of exposure would be expected to be lower because of the sample being "diluted"
with possible non-PCP treated surfaces.
The relationship between the presence of PCP in drinking water and
the source of that water has already been discussed in Section X.B.4.
2. Relationship Between House Treatment History and Air PCP Con-
centrations After Adjustment for Wood Core PCP Concentrations
The effectiveness of the sealing and/or neutralizing PCP treated
logs in reducing air PCP concentrations was explored. In order to permit com-
parisons, air PCP concentrations measured in log homes from the four
manufacturer-treated categories (T, TS, TN, TSN) were adjusted to reflect
equivalent wood core PCP concentrations utilizing least squares means regres-
sions. Statistical analysis of the resulting adjusted air PCP concentrations
utilized the factorial structure of the treatment categories and was performed
using analysis of covariance to determine the effect of sealing, neutralization,
and possible interactions between them.
99
-------
Table 50. Pearson and Spearman Correlation Coefficients (r)
and Statistical Significance (p) for Associations Between
Various Environmental Concentrations of PCP
Pearson Correlations
Air PCP
concentration
Wood core PCP
concentration
"Adjacent"
surface PCP
concentration
"Exposure"
surface PCP
concentration
Air PCP
concentration
Wood core PCP
concentration
"Adjacent"
surface PCP
concentration
r = 0.855 r
p = 0.0001 p
r
P
= 0.828
= 0.0001
= 0.835
=0.0001
—
r
P
r
P
r
P
= 0.667
= 0.001
= 0.629
= 0.002
= 0.848
= 0.0001
All concentration data are log transformed.
Spearman Correlations
Air PCP
concentration
Wood core PCP
concentration
"Adjacent"
surface PCP
concentration
"Exposure"
surface PCP
concentration
Air PCP
concentration
Wood core PCP
concentration
"Adjacent"
surface PCP
concentration
r = 0.802 r
p = 0.0001 p
r
P
= 0.881
= 0.0001
= 0.820
= 0.0001
r =
P =
r =
P =
r =
P =
0.839
0.0001
0.670
0.0009
0.901
0.0001
All concentration data are log transformed.
100
-------
Analysis of the four treatment categories did not detect any sta-
tistical interaction (p = 0.174) between the treatments. Since the test for
interaction between sealing and neutralizing was not significant it was,
therefore, appropriate to examine the tests for the individual effect of seal-
ing or neutralization. The results of these analyses are presented in Table
51.
Table 51 demonstrates that, when air PCP concentrations were adjusted
to compensate for differences in wood core PCP concentrations, sealing of the
interior surface (with polyurethane or varnish) of the log homes included in
the study population did not significantly reduce the air PCP concentration.
Air concentrations were, in fact, slightly (although not statistically) ele-
vated. Air PCP residues in homes constructed of treated logs which had sub-
sequently been neutralized (with Permatox-Pentite) were found to be 44% of
the expected concentration had the logs not been neutralized. This difference
was statistically significant (p = 0.039).
3. Correlations of Serum and Urinary Free and Total PCP Concen-
trations
Partial correlation coefficients and associated significance levels
among mean serum, free urinary and total urinary PCP concentrations for house-
hold (weighted by the number of people in the household) adjusted for age group
distribution in the household are shown in Table 52. All three correlations
were strong and highly significant.
4. Relationships Between Environmental and Biological PCP Concen-
trations
Table 53 shows the partial correlation coefficients and associated
significance levels between various environmental PCP concentrations (wood
core, air, "exposure" surface wipes) and biological PCP concentrations (serum,
free urinary, and total urinary) for household (weighted by the number of
people in the household) and adjusted for age group distribution in the house-
hold. All studied correlations were strongly positive and statistically sig-
nificant.
E. Relationship Between Serum and Urinary PCP Concentrations and
Clinical Findings
1. Questionnaire Responses
The significance of the age group adjusted association between esti-
mated mean log serum PCP or log total urinary PCP concentrations and certain
questionnaire responses was examined using a two-tailed t-test. The associa-.
tion was computed using mean household values for serum and total urinary PCP
concentrations, and household distribution among categories for health re-
sponses and age groups, weighted by the number of people in the household.
The results are shown on Table 54. It is seen that there were no significant
differences for any of the health questions.
101
-------
Table 51. Comparison of the Effects of Sealing and/or Neutralizing Logs
Treated with PCP on Resultant Air Concentrations of PCP
Using Analysis of Covariance
Treatment
history
Not sealed
Sealed
Not neutralized
Neutralized
Adjusted3 geometric mean
PCP air concentration (ng/L)
0.173
0.218
0.308
0.136
Ratio
1.00 (reference)
1.13
1.00 (reference)
0.44
P-value
0.737
0.039b
.Adjusted for wood core PCP concentration.
Significant at p = 0.05.
102
-------
Table 52. Partial Correlation Coefficients (r) and Statistical
Significance (p) for Associations Between Mean Serum and
Urinary PCP Concentrations for Household3 Adjusted
for Age Group
Serum PCP Free urinary Total urinary
concentration PCP concentration PCP concentration
Serum PCP
concentration
Free urinary PCP
concentration
r = 0.811
p = 0.0001
—
r
P
r
P
= 0.893
= 0.0001
= 0.906
= 0.0001
Means weighted by number of people in household. All concentrations
are log transformed.
103
-------
Table 53. Partial Correlation Coefficients for Associations Between
Environmental and Mean Biologic PCP Concentrations for House
Adjusted for Age Group Distribution in House (N=19 )
Serum PCP Free urine PCP Total urine PCP
concentration concentration concentration
Wood PCP
concentration
Air PCP
concentration
PCP "Exposure"
surface wipes
concentration
r =
P =
r =
P =
r =
P =
0.764
0.0004
0.788
0.0002
0.677
0.0028
r =
P =
r =
P =
r =
P =
0.507
0.0377
0.772
0.0003
0.744
0.0006
r -
P =
r =
P =
r =
P =
0.716
0.0012
0.853
0.0001
0.643
0.0053
.All data are log transformed.
Means weighted by number of people in household.
Paired blood and urine specimens could not be obtained for individuals in
two houses.
104
-------
Table 54. Significance of Age Group Adjusted Associations Between Estimated
Mean Log Serum PCP or Log Total Urinary POP Concentrations and
Certain Questionnaire Responses
Log serum PCP (ng/mL)
concentration
Questionnaire
variable
Ever had eczema
Ever had acne
Acne since
resident in
present house
Rash or
dermatitis
in past year
Ever had a
tumor or lump
removed
Currently taking
medication
Fever at least
once within
last 6 mo
Fever more than
once in past
6 mo
Irritation of
eyes since
resident in
present house
Tearing of eyes
since resident
in present house
Swelling of
eyelids since
resident in
present house
Unexplained
weight loss of
greater than
5 Ib in last
6 mo
Response
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Estimated
mean
3.87
4.06
3.78
4.56
3.89
4.11
4.45
3.08
3.79
4.66
3.23
4.56
3.29
4.85
3.95
2.82
3.66
4.51
4.02
3.17
3.77
5.06
3.95
2.16
Standard
error
0.227
2.128
0.255
0.841
0.252
0.877
0.373
0.521
0.250
0.951
0.513
0.498
0.383
0.535
0.220
2.589
0.318
0.642
0.250
0.973
0.214
0.818
0.209
2.121
P-value
0.933
0.435
0.832
0.110
0.429
0.174
0.082
0.579
0.339
0.453
0.166
0.421
Log urine total PCP (mg/g
creatinine) concentration
Estimated
mean
-3.84
-4.30
-3.78
-4.15
-3.81
-4.08
-3.34
-4.73
-3.89
-3.48
-4.13
-3.57
-4.57
-2.65
-3.75
-5.03
-3.93
-3.56
-3.72
-4.82
-3.91
-3.36
-3.84
-3.87
Standard
error
0.240
2.126
0.285
0.922
0.254
0.960
0.371
0.591
0.276
1.230
0.501
0.477
0.418
0.605
0.225
2.564
0.321
0.748
0.247
1.086
0.244
0.857
0.227
4.301
P-value
0.839
0.734
0.802
0.130
0.771
0.536
0.062
0.637
0.697
0.371
0.573
0.994
Computed using mean household values for serum and total urinary PCP concentrations, and
household distribution among categories for health responses and age groups, weighted by
hthe number of people in the household.
Two-tailed t-test.
105
-------
2. Clinical Laboratory Evaluations
In spite of planning, transportation delays did occur where
more than 48 h elapsed between time of blood collection and laboratory pro-
cessing. The delay did not affect biochemistries or PCP analysis; however,
hematology specimens are sensitive to the time factor and results become un-
reliable after 48 h. No statistical analysis of hematology results was per-
formed for this reason.
The association between serum biochemical results and serum, or
total urinary PCP concentrations was evaluated. The association with total
urinary PCP was examined both with and without correction for the urinary ex- «
cretion of creatinine. Partial correlation coefficients were calculated be-
tween mean serum or mean total urinary PCP concentrations for households and
mean biochemical variables for the household (weighted by the number of people
in the household), adjusted for age group distribution in the household. The
results are shown on Table 55. Most values, including various serum liver
function tests (albumin, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, glutamic oxaloacetic
transferase, glutamic pyruvate transaminase, lactic dehydrogenase and gamma
glutamyl transpeptidase), a test of microsomal enzyme induction (ratio of
urinary 6-beta-hydroxycortisol to free cortisol), and a renal function test
(blood urea nitrogen) were not different among the groups.
There was a statistically significant negative association between
the serum total protein concentration and both the serum PCP and the urine
total PCP concentrations. The total serum protein concentrations measured a
large number of proteins and the data did not allow determination of what
fraction or fractions of proteins might be responsible for this association.
The reason, if any, for this apparent association remains obscure and needs
further exploration. Serum albumin, however, which constitutes the bulk of
serum protein, was not statistically significantly associated with serum PCP
or urinary PCP concentration.
There was a curious and not readily explained strong negative asso-
ciation between both the serum PCP and urinary PCP concentrations with the
serum creatinine concentration. Both associations were highly statistically
significant. The serum creatinine is an indicator, among other things, of
renal function. If PCP nephrotoxicity were occurring the creatinine level
would be expected to rise with increasing PCP concentrations, but the reverse
is the case here so that nephrotoxicity is not a tenable explanation. Because
creatinine adjustment of urine total PCP concentrations may have affected the
association between the urinary PCP concentration adjusted for creatinine and
the urine creatinine, the analysis was repeated using the total urinary PCP
concentrations unadjusted for urinary creatinine. These results are also dis-
played in Table 55. It is seen that the correlation coefficient between the
urinary PCP concentration and the serum creatinine is little changed and the
negative correlation remains highly significant. All associations between
PCP concentrations and serum creatinine were also adjusted for sex since this
might affect serum creatinine levels.
106
-------
Table 55. Partial Correlation Coefficients Between Mean Serum and Urinary PCP Concentrations
for Household and Mean Biochemical Variables for Household Adjusted
for Age Group Distribution in Household
Serum PCP
concentration (ng/L)
Biochemical
variable
Log serum protein
Serum albumin
Log serum total bilrubin
Log serum alkaline
Partial
correlation
coefficient
-0.484
-0. 164
-0. 265
-0. 150
P-value
0.049b
0.530
0.304
0.565
Total urinary
PCP concentration
(mg/g creatinine)
Partial
correlation
coefficient
-0.502
-0.265
-0.048
-0.147
P-value
0.040b
0.305
0.856
0.575
Total urinary PCP
concentration (ng/L)
Partial
correlation
coefficient P-value
-0.476
-0.277
-0.021
-0.161
0.046b
0.365
0.934
0.523
phosphatase
Log serum glutamic 0.414 0.099
oxaloacetic transferase
Log serum glutamic -0.300 0.241
pyruvate transaminase
Log serum lactic
dehydrogenase
Blood urea nitrogen
Serum creatininec
Serum gamma glutamyl
transpeptidase
Log ratio urinary 0.167 0.538
6-beta-hydroxycortisol
to free cortisol
Urinary creatinine0 -0.189 0.499
0.269 0.296
-0.139 0.594
-0.013
0.959
0.246 0.325
-0.184 0.466
0.193
•0.252
•0.636
•0:027
0.459
0.328
s
0.008°
0.919
0.250
-0.187
-0.548
-0.133
0.333
0.472
K
0.028°
0.611
0.261
-0.218
-0.702
-0.022
0.295
0.385
K
0.002
0.932
0.082
0.754
^Weighted by number of people in household.
"Statistically significant at p = 0.05.
Also adjusted for sex distribution in household.
107
-------
The production of creatinine and therefore its concentration in
serum, given normal urinary function, is a function of body muscle mass. It
is conceivable that the negative correlation between PCP concentrations and
serum creatinine reflects some alteration in distribution of PCP within the
tissues of exposed individuals, but this explanation remains conjectural.
3. Physical Examination
The significance of the age group adjusted association between esti-
mated mean log serum PCP or log total urinary PCP concentrations and abnormal-
ities in the physical examination (skin examination, lymphadenopathy, neuro-
logic examination) was examined using a two-tailed t-test. The association
was computed using mean household values for serum and urinary PCP concentra-
tions, and household distribution among categories for physical examination
responses and age groups, weighted by the number of people in the household.
The results are shown on Table 56.
No significant difference was seen for the neurologic examination
or for lymphadenopathy. However, both the estimated mean PCP serum and esti-
mated mean total urinary PCP concentration for those with abnormal skin exam-
inations were statistically significantly higher than for those with normal
skin examinations. It could not be determined whether there may have been
more absorption of PCP through the skin as a result of pre-existing skin ab-
normalities, whether the PCP might have caused skin abnormalities, or whether
there was some other factor accounting for both skin abnormalities and in-
creased biologic PCP concentrations.
F. Comparison of Results for Participants in the 1980 and 1984 Studies
It is possible to compare biochemical indicators of organ functions
between' 1980 and 1984 in those participants who were studied at both times.
Because of substantial variations in these indicators with age in children
and changes in age which occur over a 4-yr period such comparisons will only
be valid in adults. Further, the comparisons may be affected in undeterminable
ways by possible sample storage, processing differences and by interlaboratory
variations.
A summary of the results of the repeated measures analysis for the
serum and urinary unhydrolyzed PCP concentrations and the serum biochemistries
is given in Table 57. It is seen that the log serum PCP concentrations were
significantly higher in 1980 than 1984. However, no significant differences
were seen for the other values. An example analysis of variance result for
serum PCP is given in Table 58. The remaining individual urinary PCP and bio-
chemistry variables were studied in the same manner. Since the results were
not statistically significant, only summary data are provided in Table 57.
108
-------
Table 56. Significance of Age Group Adjusted Association Between Estimated
Mean Log Serum PCP or Log Total Urinary PCP Concentrations and
Physical Examination Results for Households
Physical
examination result
Serum PCP (ng/mL)
Estimated
mean
Standard
error
P-value
Total urine PCP
(mg/g creatim'ne)
Estimated
mean
Standard
error
P-value
Skin examination:
Abnormal 4.73
Normal 3.33
Lymphadenopathy:
Present 4.86
Absent 3.65
Neurologic examination:
Abnormal 4.45
Normal 3.88
0.386
0.315
0.601
0.257
0.036'
0.127
0.824 0.532
0.220
-2.73
•4.46
•3.19
•3.98
•3.33
•3.87
0.397
0.275
0.649
0.267
0.009'
0.330
0.846 0.568
0.235
Computed using mean household values for serum and urinary PCP concentrations, and
household distribution among categories for health responses and age groups,
.Weighted by the number of people in the household:
Two-tailed t-test.
cStatistically significant difference at p = 0.05.
109
-------
Table 57. Summary of Repeated Measures Analysis for Serum and
Urinary PCP Concentrations and Serum Biochemistries
Number of
Mean value
Variable replicates 1980
Log serum PCP ng/mL
Log unhydrolyzed urine
PCP ng/mL
BUN mg/dL
Serum creatinine mg/dL
Log SCOT mu/mL
Log LDH mu/mL
Log alkaline phosphatase mu/mL
Log SGPT mu/mL
Log total bilirubin mg/dL
Log total protein g/dL
Albumin g/dL
19
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
313.5
10.5
12.1
0.89
15.3
156.5
51.4
13.7
0.37
6.59
4.19
Repeated
measures
1984 analysis p- value
64.1
16.5
13.3
0.97
15.1
155.7
57.6
15.7
0.32
6.86
4.59
< 0.001
0.109
0.132
0.103
0.772
0.760
0.161
0.891
0.212
0.611
0.095
Geomtric means are given for log transformed variables.
110
-------
Table 58. Analysis of Variance Table for Repeated Measures
Analysis of Log Serum PCP ng/mL
Degrees of Sum of Mean
Source freedom squares square F P-value
Between subjects
Family 7 8.6437 1.2348
Subjects within family 11 2.1026 0.1911
Within subjects
Year 1 21.1540 21.1540 288.99 < 0.001
Family x year 7 0.5124 0.0732
Subjects within family 11 2.6904 0.2446
x year
Total 37
111
-------
The results of longitudinal analysis showed that the serum PCP con-
centrations are significantly lower by a factor of almost 5 in 1984 compared
with 1980. However, the urinary unhydrolyzed PCP concentrations are somewhat
higher in 1984, although the differences are not statistically significant.
A ready explanation for these differences is not apparent. Both the collec-
tion of specimens and the laboratory analysis were performed by different
groups in the two studies so that differences in sampling and analysis cannot
be excluded as responsible for the variations. It is also possible that sub-
stantial reduction in PCP exposure has occurred over the 4-yr interval but that
for some unaccountable reason, it is not reflected in the urinary unhydrolyzed
PCP concentrations. The results of serum biochemistries did not differ be-
tween the two years and the mean values obtained were quite similar on both
occasions.
G. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Results
1. Method Optimization
The results of the method variables experiment are shown in Table 59.
The major variables, as evidenced in the "effect" and "t variable columns,"
occur in the 2,4,6-tribromophenol (TBP) side of the results and specifically
with the sample size, amount of acid, and acetylating reaction time. The sig-
nificance of these three variables, as shown by the results of a t-test (spe-
cifically 80%, 70% and 70%, respectively), is minor. It is important to note
that the endogenous PCP variables are quite low. However, the results for
the dummy variables indicated that the precision of the method may be a problem.
A benefit from conducting this simple experiment is that several changes in
the original method could be made to improve the operating efficiency and in-
crease sample throughput without compromising the method. Table 60 compares
the conditions of the original versus updated method.
The most significant changes are the decrease in time for mixing
the urine after surrogate addition and the time for analyte extraction. A
combined total savings of almost 3 h was achieved. No changes were made in
the gas chromatographic conditions.
2. Method Performance
The performance of the updated method was determined by analyzing
spiked aliquots of the same urine sample used in the method variables. The
samples were prepared as follows:
Method blank (reagents only)
Urine spiked in triplicate at 0 ppb
Urine spiked in triplicate at 4.72 ppb
Urine spiked in triplicate at 23.6 ppb
Urine spiked in triplicate at 236 ppb
These samples were then analyzed according to the updated method for the ace-
tates of TBP and PCP. The results of the method validation are shown in Table
61. In general, the percent recoveries are acceptable for all three spike
levels. Hence, the method was accepted for use in the current study.
112
-------
Table 59. Results Method Variables Determination
Effect
Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
1)
Variable
Amount of sample
Dummy
Mixing time
Amount of H2S04
Solvent extraction
Extraction time
Dummy
Acetylating reagent
Reaction temperature
Reaction time
Amount of buffer
Eff t _ I R at
tTTect(variab1e) n
i_e\
Low (-)
2 mL
-
15 min
120 uL
4 ml
1 h
-
0.1 mL
45°C
5 min
6 mL/2 mL
(+) _ I R
fC 1
High (+)
4 mL
-
1 h
500 jjL
10 mL
2 h
-
0.5 mL
60°C
15 min
10 mL/5 mL
at (-)
n
TBPa
18.8
7.6
-7.8
-12.6
-6.9
3.9
12.5
4.9
-2.1
12.7
-6.8
PCPb
4.2
11.1
4.5
-3.9
-3.7
-1.1
7.0
-7.0
0.7
5.1
-5.6
t vai i c
TBP
1.82
-.76
-1.22
-0.66
0.37
0.48
-0.20
1.22
-0.66
iu \ e
PCP
.32
.34
-.30
-.28
-.08
-.53
.05
.38
-.43
•
2) Variance dummy effect = * (^effects)* = E(B)i_±.
E(G)'
3) Standard error (S.E.) effect = VVariable dummy effect
4) t
effect
variable
(variable)
S.E. effect
,2,4,6-Tribromophenol added as a surrogate.
Pentachlorophenol added as a standard.
113
-------
Table 60. Urine Method Parameters
Parameter
Amount of urine
Mixing time after addition of surrogate
Amount of cone. H2S04
Amount of hexane
Extraction time
Amount of acetylating reagent
Reaction time
Reaction temperature
Amount of buffer wash
Needham method
2 mL
2 h
120 ML
6 mL
2 h
100 pL
15 min
45°C
6 mL then 2 mL
Updated method
2 mL
15 min
150 ML
4 mL
1 h
100 ML
15 min
45°C
6 mL then 2
mL
114
-------
Table 61. Urine Method Validation Results
en
Spiking level
TBP
(ng/mL)
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6
PCP Sample
(ng/mL) I.D.
0 01
0 D2
0 B3
Average
4.72 LI
4.72 L2
4.72 L3
Average
23.6 Ml
23.6 M2
23.6 M3
Average
236 111
236 112
236 113
Average
Results
Tribromophenol
ng/mL %
19. 4a
19.3
18.8
13.7
14.3
13.7
16.1
16.0
15.8
% recovery
18.2
18.3
17.9
16.3
16.5
15.9
17.9
17.8
17.1
% recovery
17.0
17.0
16.8
19.7
19.4
19.6
17.9
17.9
17.9
% recovery
% recovery
rec ave
103
75
86
= 88
97
88
95
= 93
91
105
96
= 97
c
= "
- unhydrolyzed urine
Pentachlorophenol
Results - hydrolyzed urine
Sample
ng/mL average % recovery I.L).
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.4
2.3
4.0
3.9
4.9
-
-
IIB1
IIB2
IIB3
Tribromophenol
ng/mL % rec ave
17.7 98
18.3
18.5
19.3 105
19.8
19.5
19. 1 103
19.4
19.0
Pentachlogopheno 1
ng/mL average % recovery
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.3
5.2
5.9
6.0
5.8
i
:
Average % recovery = 102
10.9
10.8
8.6
6.7
7.1
6.9
7.6
7.6
7.4
Average
32.1
30.2
32.1
32.8
31.7
32.7
29.2
29.0
29.8
Average
297
295
295
244
243
237
258
257
258
Average
6.9
3.7
4.4
% recovery
28
29
26
% recovery
292
238
255
% recovery
147
79
92
= 106
119
123
110
= 117
124
101
'
108
= 111
IIL1
IIL2
HL3
Average
IIM1
HM2
IIM3
Average
Hill
11112
III 13
Average
19.7 106
19.8
16.9 91
16.5 88
16.3
% recovery = 95
17.7 97
17.8
16.1 86
16.2
17.3 94
17.7
% recovery = 92
c
% recovery = -
9.3
9.2
10.2
12.9
12.7
Average
34.5
34.2
32.3
31.5
31.7
32.4
Average
279
293
303
286
275
269
Average
4.1
5
7.6
X recovery
29
27
27
% recovery
281
290
267
% recovery
87
106
161
= 118
124
114
114
= 117
119
123
113
= 118
.Triplicate injections of the extract.
cAverage equals ng/mL PCP found minus the ng/mL PCP in the blank.
The analyte was not observed because of the dilution of the sample to obtain the PCP concentration within working range of the instrument.
TBP = 2,4,6-Tribrompphenol.
PCP = Pentachlorophenol.
-------
3. QCC/QAM Report
Performance Audit
Performance samples were prepared by the QCC from EPA standards
(derivatized to acetates by project staff) and analyzed by project staff.
The results are reported to three significant figures; accuracy ranged from
85.6% to 183% (for PCP) and 86% to 203% (for TBP).
Analyzed No.
PCP (ng/mL)
Known Found
Accuracy
TBP (ng/mL)
Known Found
Accuracy
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/09/84
05/09/84
05/09/84
07/10/84
07/10/84
07/10/84
07/10/84
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 .
7
10
12
14
11
13
6
16.5
11
23.6
23.6
18.7
9.35
11.1
8.88
8.88
5.1
23.6
9.35
8.88
5.11
11.1
8.88
11
15.9
9.68
24.4
25.4
19.5
8.02
9.54
8.1
7.75
4.92
30.7
8
8
4.4
18.1
9.1
20.1
97
88
103
108
104
85.8
85.9
91.2
87.3
96.5
130
85.6
90.1
86.1
163
102
183
10.2
6.8
14.6
14.6
11.6
5.78
10.9
8.72
8.72
5.01
14.6
5.78
8.72
5.01
10.9
8.72
6.8
13.3
7.66
20.5
21.4
16.3
6.16
10.2
8.32
7.82
4.31
28
6.4
8.4
4.5
15.8
10.2
13.8
130
113
140
147
141
107
93.6
95.4
89.7
86
192
111
96.3
89.8
145
117
203
Accuracy (%) = Measured Value - Background Value
^ Spike Equivalent Value
Systems Audit
Audits were conducted by the QCC and QAM; the results for fa-
cilities, staff credentials, documentation procedures, and internal quality
control are summarized below.
The GC Facility was inspected for general QA complicance on
03/13/84, 06/12/84, and 06/12/84. No major problems were detected; instru-
ment records were considered to be satisfactory.
116
-------
Project staff credentials were examined during 01/07/85; cre-
dentials were considered to be satisfactory.
Project records were examined on 01/07/85 for documentation
and the report was reviewed for data integrity on 02/25/85. The following
items were traceable: standards, reagents, samples, instrumental parameters,
and data calculations. Notebooks were reviewed and signed-off by the super-
visor. Documentation was considered to be satisfactory.
The internal QC program was audited; no major discrepancies
were noted. Table 61, Urine Method Validation Results, shows internal qual-
ity control results; accuracy as percent recovery ranged from 79% to 161% for
(POP) and 75% to 106% (for TBP).
XI. REFERENCES
Beckman ASTRA (Automated Stat/Routine Analyzer Systems) operating and service
instruction: creatinine chemistry module. Revised March 1982.
Chau ASY, Coburn J. 1974. Determination of pentachlorophenol in natural
waters and wastewater. Journal of the AOAC 57(2).
Chronic Diseases Division, Centers for Disease Control. 1981 (September).
Internal memo to Director of Centers for Disease Control. Pentachlorophenol
wood preservative exposure in residents of log homes. Louisville, Kentucky,
Public Health Service-CDC-Atlanta. EPI 80-60-2.
Duncan DB. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:1-42.
Kream J et al. 1978. A rapid competitive protein binding assay of urinary
cortisol. Clin Chem 24:994.
Lakings D et al. 1980. Determination of pentachlorophenol and hexachloro-
benzene residues. Final Report, EPA Contract 68-01-5915, Task 12.
Needham LL, Cline RE, Head SL, Liddle JA. 1981. Determining pentachlorophenol
in body fluids by gas chromatography after acetylation. J Anal Tox 5, Nov/Dec.
Saenger P. 1983. Measurement of 6-beta-hydroxycortisol excretion in random
urine samples as indicator of enzyme induction. Clin Pharmacol Ther 34:818-
822.
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (com-
plete samples). Biometrika 52:591-611.
Stowe RA, Mayer RP. 1966 (February). Efficient screening of process variables.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 58(2).
Voccia E et al. 1979. 6-Beta-hydroxycortisol excretion in hypercortisolemic
states. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 48:467-471.
Winer BJ. 1971. Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Comapny, pp. 518-539.
117
-------
POP Used as a Wood Preservative in Log Homes
PRELIMINARY CONTACT QUESTIONNAIRE
FACE SHEET
Interviewer Date_
Person Interviewed__
House Study#_
Street Address
Citv & ZIP
Mailing Address^
City & ZIP
Area Code & Telephone*
Occupants:
Names Study #
Attempted contacts: (date/time)
119
-------
5. In what year was your home built?
6. What year did you move in? _. .
10. When was the preservative applied? (year)
11. What chemical preservative was used? .
1. How many persons regularly reside in your log home?
2. How old and of what sex are each of them?
SEX AGE IN YEARS
a. (l)M (2)F __ _
b. (DM _ (2)F _ _
c. (DM _ (2)F _ _
d. (DM _ (2)F _ _
e. (DM (2)F .
f. (DM _ (2)F _ _ _
Ji
3. Do the residents of your home consider themselves to be
(Dwhite . (2)Black ._ (3)Hispanic . »
(4)other(specify) _____
4. Do you live in your log home all year? __
(l)YES _ (2) NO _ _ *
Jl
7. Who was the manufacturer and/or distributor of the pre- __ j_<_
cut logs used to build your home? . *
8. To your knowledge, have the logs in your home been ^ ^^
treated with a wood preservative or something to stop f*
the wood from darkening?
(DYES (2) NO (3)DK
IF NO SKIP TO #15
9. If yes, who did the treatment? (Dmanufacturer ______ __
(2)builder „___ (3)previous owner _ n.
(4)self or family member (5)DK _____
12. Has the home been retreated with wood preservative?
(l)YES (2) NO (3)DK */
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #15
13. If yes, when was the preservative applied? (year)
ft.
14. What chemical preservative was used? , ___
___»_____ ._. ...
120
-------
15. Has any part of your house ever been sealed with a
chemical sealer such as varnish, polyurethane, or any
other material? (DYES (2)NO (3)DK
16. What chemical sealer was used?
17. When was the chemical sealer applied? (year)a
18. Have you previously lived in a log home?
(DYES (2) NO (3)DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #23
19. If yes, where was this home located? ^
20. When did you live there? to L
TIT
••-••••••-•••. —
21. Was a chemical preservative used on the wood of that __
home? (DYES (2) NO (3)DK «*
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #23
22. What was the preservative used? . . .
23. During what hours of the day, Monday through Friday,
can the male or female head of household be contacted
at home? .
24. If no adults are at home during the day, is it possible
to contact one at work? Y N
IF YES, what is the telephone number there?
25. Do male or female head of household work nights,
evenings or weekends? Y N
IF YES, FIND OUT HOURS.
26. What time of day are most of the people in your family
at home? (Get specific hours.)
121
-------
27. What hours and days of the week does the male head of
household work outside the home?
28. What hours and days of the week does the female head of
household work outside the home?
29. Will you be home (vs. on a trip) between:
(if Louisville) February 14 and February 18? Y
(if Danville) February 19 and February 22? Y '
(if Cincinatti) February 23 and February 25? Y
IF NO, FIND OUT WHEN THEY WILL BE IN TOWN.
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
122
-------
APPENDIX II
MEDICAL INFORMED CONSENT FORM
123
-------
Evaluation of Clinical Field Methodologies
Study of Log Home Residents Exposed to Pentachlorophenol
The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
and
Midwest Research Institute
CONSENT FORM I
You have been asked to participate in a study of persons living in
log homes. Many log homes have wood preservatives applied to them, and
the purpose of this study is to find out more about if and how these wood
preservatives are released into the environment and if they find their
way into the body. Every effort will be made to keep confidential the
information collected for this study. Any information that could
identify you individually will not be revealed to anyone outside of the
Johns Hopkins personnel conducting this study.
Prior to the main part of the study the head of the household will be
asked to complete a preliminary contact questionnaire which will ask
about the home and its occupants.
You will then be asked to complete a questionnaire about yourself and
your health and work habits. Some of the questions about your medical
status may be of a sensitive nature, including whether you are currently
under treatment for any illness. You will be asked to collect a sample
of your first urine specimen of the morning into a container which we
will'provide. A physician will draw about 25 milliliters of blood from
your arm with a needle. This is about one fluid ounce. The risks of
this procedure are the discomfort of the needle prick and possible
bleeding from the needle prick site. If you have problems with bleeding
and bruising, you should not have blood taken. A limited physical
examination will be performed by a docfor, including an examination of
your skin and your blood pressure. This examination will be performed at
your home. The questionnaire and examination should take about 30
minutes to complete.
The head of the household will be asked further questions about the
home by an environmental hygienist. Several samples will be collected in
the home. These will be from 2 to 4 samples of air collected for eight
hours, a number of samples collected by wiping surfaces of the home, and
a drinking water sample. A number of small pieces of wood, less than
1/4" in diameter, will be taken from inconspicuous locations. The
hygienist will show you in advance the sites from which these samples
will be taken. No samples will be taken from parts of the house without
your permission.
Benefits to you of this study include free environmental, blood and
urine tests, and limited physical examination, which can be expensive if
performed elsewhere. If there are abnormalities detected in your tests,
we will inform you and discuss the resources available to you. Benefits
to society include improved knowledge of the effects of long term contact
with commonly used wood preservatives in homes.
Please indicate by your signature below that the research procedures
described to you have been explained to you and that any questions that
124
-------
you have asked have been answered to your satisfaction. You may ask now,
or in the future, any questions that you have about the study. You are
free to withdraw from the study at any time. If you do not join the
study or if you decide to withdraw from it at any time, confidentiality
of study records, reporting results from blood and urine tests, and the
availability of resources to you will not be jeopardized.
In the event that you believe participation in this research study
has led to injury, contact Edward A. Emmett, M.D. (principal
investigator) at 301-338-3501, or the Office of the Committee on Human
Volunteers of the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public
Health at 301-955-3795 to identify the resources which may be available
to you and to assist you in obtaining appropriate medical care. You
should understand that The Johns Hopkins University and the Federal
Government do not have any program to provide compensation for persons
who may experience injury while participating in research projects when
the injury is not due to the fault of the investigators.
Date
Signature of Participant
Signature of Witness
Signature of Investigator
You have my permission for my child , age
also to participate in the study as outlined above. The nature of the
study and requirements for participation as outlined above have been
explained to him/her.
Date
Signature of Participant
Signature of Witness
Signature of Investigator
125
-------
Evaluation of Clinical Field Methodologies
Study of Log Home Residents Exposed to Pentachlorophenol
Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
and
Midwest Research Institute
Authority to Give Medical Report
In addition to notifying me whether my tests are normal or need further
study, I agree to allow the Johns Hopkins Center for Occupational and
Environmental Health (COEH) to inform my personal physician of any significant
results of this study.
Yes, inform my personal physician.
NAME (of personal physician)
ADDRESS
City
SIGNATURE
No, do not inform my personal physician.
INFOMATION OBTAINED IN THIS STUDY WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.
126
-------
APPENDIX III
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING CONSENT FORM
127
-------
Evaluation of Clinical Field Methodologies
Study of Log Home Residents Exposed to Pentachlorophenol
The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
and
Midwest Research Institute
Attachment to Consent Form I for Head of Household
As the head of the household I understand that prior to the main part
of the study I will be asked to complete a preliminary contact
questionnaire asking about the home and its occupants which should take
less than ten minutes to complete.
I understand that at the time of the study I will be asked further
questions about my home by an environmental hygienist. These should take
less than twenty minutes to answer. Several samples will be collected in
my home. These will be from 2 to 4 samples of air collected for eight
hours, a number of samples collected by wiping surfaces of the home, and
a drinking water sample. A number of small pieces of wood, less than
1/4" in diameter, will be taken from inconspicuous locations. The
hygienist will show me in advance the sites from which these samples will
be taken. No samples will be taken from parts of the house without my
permission.
I understand that all other considerations of the study including the
voluntary nature and freedom to withdraw at any time apply to this part
of the study.
Date Signature of Participant
Signature of Witness Signature of Investigator
128
-------
APPENDIX IV
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION FORM
129
-------
CLINICAL FIELD METHODOLOGIES Examiner
Medical Exam Form Date
Nnme
MEDICAL HISTORY
Present illnesses:
Past major illnesses:
Hospitalizacions:
Operations:
Accidents:
Allergies (meds and others)
Family History:
130'
-------
CLINICAL FIELD METHODOLOGIES
Medical Exam Form
Examiner
Date
Name
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
Vital Signs: P
Skin: Facial Lesions
reg
BP R Weight
Number of Lesions '
1-5 5-10 10 Sites
Height
a. Comedones
b. Inflammatory Exam
c. Pustules
d. Cystic Acne
e. Small Clear Cysts
Lesions elsewhere:
Skin Exam: Normal Abnormal
If abnormal, state diagnoses:
HEENT:
Head:
Eyes: conjunctivitis:
refractive error:
pterygia:
cataract:
other:
Ears:
Nose: sinus tenderness
mucosa: nl red
Throat: nl red
Other:
Chest:
blue
exudate
Cor:
Abdomen:
Liver size
Nodes:
(cm, midclavicular line, quiet respiration)
Musculoskeletal:
131
-------
NAME
PHYSICIAN-EXAMINER
NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION
REFLEXES:
Knee
Ankle
Right
present absent
present absent
VIBRATION Thumb sec
(time in seconds for disappearance of sensation)
Big toe
PINPRICK (2-pt discrim:
fingertip)
*
TINEL's
Right: II
nun
sec
III V
mm mm
Right: normal abnormal
Rioht
MOTOR Abd poll brevis (median) normal
Adductors (ulnar) normal
Abductors (ulnar) normal
Dorsiflex foot
Plantarflex foot
normal
normal
abnormal
abnormal
abnormal
abnormal
abnormal
Left
present absent
present absent
sec
sec
Left: II III
mm Trim
normal abnormal
r..e ft
nonr.al abnormal
normal abno:Tr,al
normal abnormal
normal abnormal
normal abnormal
mm
COMMENTS:
Neurological Physical Exam: Normal
Abnormal
132
-------
CLINICAL FIELD METHODOLOGIES Examiner
Medical Exam Form Date
Name
MEDICAL SUMMARY
Diagnoses and Comments ICDA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ICDA Code
Plan:
-
Immediate letter to MD needed?
Yes
No
Local physician's NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
Request lab records sent to family
physic ian
133
1101A/0207A
2/84
-------
APPENDIX V
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
134
-------
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY WYMAN PARK HEALTH SYSTEM. INC.
.FWOcCXJRfflCNALANDQWRQN^
3100 Wyman Park Drive, Bldg. 6
Baltimore, Maryland 21211-2895
(301) 338-3501
PCP Used as a Wood Preservative in Log Homes
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
FACE SHEET
Revised 2/7/84
Interviewer
Person Interviewed
Date
Street Address
City & ZIP
Mailing Address_
City & ZIP
Occupants:
Names
House Study #
Study #
135
Card # J) 1.
House #
Occup #
s
TT
-------
My name is
in
I'm an industrial hygienist from
As you know, we will be collecting a number of
environmental samples in your home today (tomorrow) as a part of our study of
the health effects of PCP - pentachlorophenol - used as a wood preservative in
certain log homes. I would like to ask you several questions about the
history of your home which may help us to validate and interpret the results
of our environmental sampling. Ready?
1. How many years have you and your family lived in
this house?
2. Has anyone lived in this home prior to you and
your family?
(1) Yes _ (2) No _ (3) DK
3. What year was this house built?
4. Who was the manufacturer of the logs used to build
your house?
5. Where is the manufacturer located?
6. Who was the builder who assembled the pre-cut
logs used to build your house?
7. Where is the builder located?
136
Card # _0 2_
I
House #
1 9
-------
8. To the best of your knowledge, did the manufacturer
of the logs used in building this house treat them
with any type of wood preservative?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #12
9. What preservative was used?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
10. How was this preservative applied to the wood?
(1) pressure treated (2) dipped
(3) brush (4) roller (5) spray _
(6) other (7) DK
11. What parts of the house were treated with this
preservative?
(1) logs (2) beams (3) posts
(4) roof (5) floor (6) other
(7) DK
12. At the time of construction was a preservative
treatment applied to any part of this house?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #17
137
-------
13. What preservative was used?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
14. Who applied this preservative?
(1) builder ___ (2) previous owner
(3) self or family member (4) DK
15. How was this preservative applied to the wood?
(1) dipped (2) brush (3) roller __
(4) spray (5) other (6) DK __
16. What parts of the house were treated with this
preservative?
(1) interior walls (2) exterior walls
(3) interior roof ____ (4) exterior roof ____
(5) floor (6) beams (7) posts
(8) other (9) DK
17. Has the any part of the house been treated
with a preservative at any time after original
construction and since 1980?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #34
18. How many times has the house been retreated?
138
-------
Starting from the most recent treatment and working
backwards in time, please tell me the following
information about each treatment:
For the most recent retreatment:
19. What year was the house retreated? ________ 1 9
20. What preservative was used?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
21. Who applied this preservative?
(1) contractor (2) previous owner
(3) self or .family member (4) DK
22. How was this preservative applied to the wood?
(1) dipped (2) brush (3) roller _
(4) spray (5) other (6) DK _
23. What parts of the house were treated with this
preservative?
(1) interior walls (2) exterior walls
(3) interior roof (4) exterior roof
(5) floor (6) beams (7) other
(8) DK
+
IF ONLY TIME RETREATED SKIP TO #34
139
-------
For the retreatment immediately preceding the one we
just discussed:
24. What year was the house retreated? 1 9
25. What preservative was used?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
-^Percent PCP
26. Who applied this preservative?
(1) contractor _____ (2) previous owner _____
(3) self or family member _____ (4) DK __^
27. How was this preservative applied to the wood?
(1) dipped (2) brush (3) roller _
(4) spray (5) other (6) DK _
28. What parts of the house were treated with this
preservative?
(1) interior walls (2) exterior walls
(3) interior roof _____ (4) exterior roof
(5) floor (6) beams (7) other
(8) DK
54
IF NO PREVIOUS RETREATMENTS SKIP TO #34
For the retreatment immediately preceding the one we
just discussed:
HO
-------
29. What year was the house retreated?
30. What preservative was used?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
31. Who applied this preservative?
(l) contractor _____ (2) previous owner
(3) self or family member (4) DK
32. How was this preservative applied to the wood?
(1) dipped (2) brush (3) roller _
(4) spray (5) other (6) DK _
33. What parts of the house were treated with this
preservative?
(1) interior walls (2) exterior walls
(3) interior roof _____ (4) exterior roof
(5) floor (6) beams (7) other
(8) DK
34. Has any part of the interior of this house ever been
sealed with a sealer such as polyurethane, paint,
varnish or any other material?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #40
141
1 9
Card # __0 _3_
""V "~"~
House V
-------
35. What year was the house sealed?
1 9
36. What sealer was used?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
Type
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
37. Who applied this sealer?
(1) contractor (2) previous owner ____
(3) self or family member (4) DK
38. How was this sealer applied to the wood?
(1) dipped ___ (2) brush (-3) roller _
(4) spray (5) other (6) DK _
L
39. What parts of the house were treated with this
sealer?
(1) interior walls (2) exterior walls
(3) interior roof __ (4) exterior roof __
(5) floor (6) beams (7) other
(8) DK
40. Have there been any other uses of wood preservatives
such as for fence posts, decks, additions to the
house, etc. since the house was originally built?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #46
142
-------
41. What was treated with a preservative?
(1) deck (2) fence (3) other
42. What year was this done?
1 9
43. What preservative was used?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
•^Percent PCP
44. Who applied this preservative?
(1) manufacturer (2) contractor _____
(3) previous owner (4) self or family
member (5) DK
45. How was this preservative applied to the wood?
(1) dipped (2) brush (3) roller
(4) spray (5) other (6) DK
'46. Does this house have double glazed or storm windows?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #49
47. What type of windows are used?
(1) aluminum storm _ (2) wooden storm
(3) double glazed _ (4) other _
48. What year were these windows installed?
1 9
143
-------
That completes the questions about the house itself. Now I have several
other questions to ask you about personal living patterns and various features
of your home that may help us to explain unusual environmental or medical
findings, if there are any.
49. Do any of the residents of this home currently smoke
any tobacco products?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #54
50. How many persons smoke tobacco products?
51. How many total cigarettes are smoked per day in this
house? ____^__
52. How many total pipes are smoked per day in this
house? ^_^_____
53. How many total cigars are smoked per day in this
house? ____^__
•54. Does this house have a central heating unit other
than solar?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #58
55. What fuel is used in the central heating unit?
(1) natural gas (2) LPG (3) coal
(4) oil (5) wood (6) electric
(7) other (8) DK
<
144
-------
56. How is the heat transmitted to the individual rooms?
(1) hot water or steam radiators or baseboard _
(2) forced hot air (3) natural draft
(4) radiant (5) other (6) DK __
57. How many hours has it been since the central heating
unit was •ast used?
(1) 0-1 hour (2) 1-6 hours
(3) 6-12 hours (4) 12-24 hours
(5) 24+ hours
"58. Does this house have any stoves used only for heat?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #61
59. What fuels are used in these heating stoves?
(1) wood (2) coal (3) other
60. How many hours has it been since any heating stove
was last used?
(1) 0-1 hour (2) 1-6 hours
(3) 6-12 hours (4) 12-24 hours
(5) 24+ hours
•61. Does this house have a ceiling fan to circulate
the air in the house?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
62. Does this house have any fireplaces?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #66
145
-------
63. How many fireplaces are in this house?
64. What fuels are used in these fireplaces?
(1) wood (2) natural gas
(3) coal (4) DK
65. How many hours has it been since any fireplace was
last used?
(1) 0-1 hour (2) 1-6 hours
(3) 6-12 hours (4) 12-24 hours
(5) 24+ hours
•66. Do you ever use space heaters, including individually
controlled electric baseboard units, in this house?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #69
67. How many of each type space heater is used?
(1) natural gas
S4
(2) LPG
(3) coal
(4) oil __
(5) kerosene
(6) electric
(7) DK
68. How many hours has it been since any space heating
unit was last used?
(1) 0-1 hour 'm (2) 1-6 hours
(3) 6-12 hours (4) 12-24 hours
(5) 24+ hours
bt
146
-------
•69. Does this house have a stove/oven used only
for cooking?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #72
70. What fuel is used in this cooking stove/oven?
(1) electric (2) wood (3) LPG
(4) natural gas (5) microwave
(6) coal (7) other (8) DK
71. How many hours has it been since the cooking
oven/stove was last used?
(1) 0-1 hour (2) 1-6 hours
(3) 6-12 hours (4) 12-24 hours-
(5) 24+ hours
72. Does this house have a hot water heater?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #74
73. What fuel is used in this hot water heater?
(1) gas _ _ (.2) oil _ (3) LPG _ _
(4) electric (5) solar (6) DK
•74. What is the source of drinking water for this house?
(1) city water from any source _
(2) own well on property _____ (3) DK _
IF CITY WATER OR DK SKIP TO #80
75. What is the depth of your well?
feet
147
-------
76. How far is your well from your house?
feet
77. How far is your well from Che nearest garden from
which your family eats food?
_ feet
78. Is your well water treated through the use of a
conditioning system (such as a Culligan system)
which serves the entire house?
(1) Yes _. _ (2) No _ (3) DK _
79. Is your well water purified through the use of
traps or filters (such as a Waterpik system)
which are attached to individual faucets in the
house?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
80. Has urea formaldehyde foam insulation been used to
insulate any part of this house?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #83
81. What year was it installed?
82. What parts of the house are insulated with this
urea formaldehyde foam insulation?
(1) walls (2) floor (3) roof
(4) ceiling (5) other (6) DK
Card * __0
\
House #
1 9
148
-------
•83. In the past three years, have you used any
pesticides or insecticides inside this house?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #92
I have several questions about the three pesticides
most frequently used inside your home.
84. What pesticide/insecticide do you use most frequently
inside your home?
Name _^_____________________________________
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
•^•Percent PCP
85. Which of the following words best describes the
frequency of use of this pesticide/insecticide?
(1) daily _ (2) weekly _ (3) monthly _
(4) bi-monthly _ (5) quarterly _
(6) semi-annually _ (7) annually _
(8) DK
86. How long has it been since last used?
(1) 1 day _ (2) 1 week _ (3) 1 month
(4) 3 months _ (5) 6 months _
(6) 1 year _ (7) DK _
IF ONLY PESTICIDE/INSECTICIDE USED SKIP TO #92
149
-------
87. What pesticide/insecticide do you use second most
frequently inside your home?
Name ________________________________
Manufacturer _______________________________
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
88. Which of the following words best describes the
frequency of use of this pesticide/insecticide?
(1) daily _ (2) weekly _ (3) monthly _
(4) bi-monthly _ (5) quarterly _
(6) semi-annually _ (7) annually ____
(8) DK
85. How long has it been since last used?
(1) 1 day _ (2) 1 week _ (3) 1 month _
(4) 3 months ___ (5) 6 months _
(6) 1 year _ (7) DK _
IF NO OTHER PESTICIDE/INSECTICIDE USED SKIP TO #92
89. What pesticide/insecticide do you use third most
frequently inside your home?
Name _________________________________________
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
•^Percent PCP
150
-------
90. Which of the following words best describes the
frequency of use of this pesticide/insecticide?
(1) daily (2) weekly (3) monthly
(4) bi-monthly (5) quarterly
(6) semi-annually (7) annually
(8) DK
91. How long has it been since last used?
(1) 1 day (2) 1 week (3) 1 month
(4) 3 months (5) 6 months
(6) 1 year (7) DK
92. In the past three years, have you used any pesticides
or insecticides outside of this house, for instance
in a garden or on the lawn?
(1) Yes (2) No (3) DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #102
I have several questions to ask you about the three
pesticides most frequently used outside your home.
93. What pesticide/insecticide do you use most frequently
outside of your home?
Name _
Manufacturer ________________________ _
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
151
-------
94. Which of Che following words best describes the
frequency of use of this pesticide/insecticide?
(1) daily (2) weekly (3) monthly
(4) bi-monthly (5) quarterly
(6) semi-annually _____ (7) annually _____
(8) DK
95. How long has it been since last used?
(1) 1 day (2) 1 week (3) 1 month
(4) 3 months (5) 6 months
(6) 1 year (7) DK
IF ONLY PESTICIDE/INSECTICIDE
USED OUTSIDE HOME SKIP TO #102
96. What pesticide/insecticide do you use second most
frequently outside of your home?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
97. Which of the following words best describes the
frequency of use of this pesticide/insecticide?
(1) daily (2) weekly (3) monthly
(4) bi-monthly (5) quarterly
(6) semi-annually (7) annually _____
(8) DK
I
152
-------
98. How long has it been since last used?
(1) 1 day (2) .1 week (3) 1 month
(4) 3 months _____ (5) 6 months ____
(6) 1 year (7) DK
IF NO OTHER PESTICIDE/INSECTICIDE USED
OUTSIDE THE HOME SKIP TO #102
99. What pesticide/insecticide do you use third most
frequently outside of your home?
Name
Manufacturer
Address
QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEW BY
INSPECTING LABEL OR CONTACTING MANUFACTURER
Percent PCP
100. Which of the following words best describes the
frequency of use of this pesticide/insecticide?
(1) daily (2) weekly (3) monthly
(4) bi-monthly (5) quarterly
(6) semi-annually ____ (7) annually __^^
(8) DK
101. How long has it been since last used?
(1) 1 day (2) 1 week (3) 1 month
(4) 3 months (5) 6 months
(6) 1 year (7) DK
Thank you. That concludes the questionnaire. Now all I have to do is
(1) take a look at cans of preservative or sealer to find PCP content and
(2) sketch floorplans and sample locations.
STOP
153
-------
102. Provide Sketch of Floor Plan
FIRST (GROUND) FLOOR
Indicate North
Show dimensions, doors, windows, and treated/sealed areas.
Indicate additions to house since 1980.
Indicate sampling locations using following symbols:
A = air C - wood core S = surface wipe (exposure only) W = water
154
-------
103. Provide Sketch of Floor Plan
SECOND FLOOR
o
Indicate North
Show dimensions, doors, windows, and treated/sealed areas.
Indicate additions to house since 1980.
Indicate sampling locations using the following symbols:
A = air C = wood core S = surface wipe (exposure only) W = water
155
-------
104. Provide Sketch of Floor Plan
THIRD FLOOR
o
Indicate North
Show dimensions, doors, windows, and treated/sealed areas.
Indicate additions to house since 1980.
Indicate sampling locations using the following symbols:
A = air C = wood core S - surface wipe (exposure only) W = water
156
-------
APPENDIX VI
MEDICAL QUESTIONNAIRE
157
-------
PC? Used as a Wood Preservative in Log Homes
WOOD PRESERVATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE
FACE SHEET
Interviewer . Date
Person Interviewed
House Study # . Resident
Street Address .
City & ZIP .____———
Mailing Address,
City & ZIP
Area Code & Telephone
Note: Study participants 16 years of age and over will be
administered this questionnaire. For study participants
less than 16, a parent will be asked the following questions
about the child:
Demographic Information (questions: face sheet - 5)
Leisure Activity Information (questions: 14-21)
Health Information (questions: 22-30)
Coding instructions: Before coding mark individual number in the upper
right corner of each page of questionnaire.
158
-------
Card *
Individual #
1. Date of birch
M
2. Sex: (l)raale
(2) female
3. Marital status
(l)married — — ^
(3) separated <—- _
(5)never married,
2)widowed
(4)cohabitatint
4. Do you consider yourself: (l)white
(3)Asian (4)Hispanic .
(S)American Indian
(6)other (specify) __ . . _. .
(2) Black
5. What was the last year of school you completed?
(e.g. 12 years is completion of high school)
Participants 16 years or younger skip to
TOBACCO SMOKING INFORMATION (ATS-DLD-78-A)
6A. Have you ever smoked cigarettes?
(No means less than 20 packs of cigarettes or 12 oz.
of tobacco in a lifetime or less than 1 cigarette
per day for one year.) (1)YES__._ (2)NO
(8)Does not apply ^^
IF NO SKIP TO #7
159
-------
Individual
B. Do you now smoke cigarettes (as of one month ago)?
(A current smoker is a person who was a regular smoker
up to one month ago.) (l)YES _, (2)NO .
(8)Does not apply __.„
C. How old were you when you first started regular cigar-
ette smoking? Age in years . (8)Does not apply __
D. is asked only if respondent answered "no" to B.
D. If you have stopped smoking completely, how old were you
when you stopped? Age stopped <_gii><_ii_>>
(77)check if still smoking . . . . (88)Does not apply
E, How many cigarettes do you smoke per day now? , ___
14
cigarettes per day . . (88)Does not apply
F. On the average of the entire time you smoked, how many
^l _
cigarettes did you smoke per day?
cigarettes per day _ (88)Does not apply
G. Do or did you inhale the cigarette smoke? m^
(l)never smoked . (2)not at all .
(3)slightly m^mmmm (4)moderately (5)deeply ...
I. During all the time you have smoked cigarettes, would you say you
smoked filter tips: _^
(O)never ..._. (l)less than half the time **'
(2)about half the time ... _ .
(3)more than half the time a-—i_-ii
(4)always ,.._. (8) Does not apply
V
160~
-------
Individual
7A. Have you ever smoked a pipe regularly? (Yes means ^_
more than 12 oz. of tobacco in a lifetime.)
(l)YES (2)NO . (8) Does not apply
IF NO SKIP TO
Bl. How old were you when you started to smoke a pipe
»i
regularly? Age in years
(88)Does not apply .•
2. If you have stopped smoking a pipe completely, how
old were you when you stopped? Age stopped ^_^m^^
(77)check if still smoking a pipe
-------
Individual
-[ IF NO SKIP TO »F~[
Bl. How old were you when you started smoking cigars
regularly? Age in years
2. If you have stopped smoking cigars completely, how old
were you when you stopped? Age when stopped
(77)check if still smoking cigars . r - - .
(88)Does not apply _ .. _
C. On the average, over the entire time you smoked cigars,
how many cigars did you smoke per week?
cigars per week _ ._ .
(88)Does not apply
D. How many cigars are you smoking per week now? iuf_
. ft
cigars per week T ,_
(88)Not currently smoking cigars, does not apply
E. Do or did you inhale the cigar smoke? Ln-_
Dnever smoked _ . . (2)not at all
(3)slightly . . .. (4)moderately . (5)deeply ....
F. Have you ever chewed tobacco regularly? —^
(l)YES . (2)NO ...... (8) Does not apply —__ "*
G. Have you ever used snuff regularly? ^L
(l)YES (2)NO (8) Does not apply ^
H. Have you ever smoked nontobacco products regularly?
(l)YES . . (2)NO __ (8) Does not apply . *t
162
-------
Individual
PRINKING INFORMATION
9A. Have you ever drunk beer, wine, or liquor? (No means
less than one case of beer or six bottles of wine or
two bottles of liquor in a lifetime.)
(DYES _ (2)NO (8) Does not apply
IF NO SKIP TO #10
Bl. Do you now drink, even if occasionally? (No means j
less than one glass of beer or wine or less than one
ounce of liquor per month.) (l)YES mmf^^_
(2)NO (8)Does not apply
B2. How old were you when you started drinking?
Age in years ^^^^^ (88) Does not apply
B3. If you stopped drinking, how old were you when you
stopped? Age stopped
(77) check if still drinking _.
(88)Does not apply _ _
C. On the average over the entire time you have drunk
Co
alcoholic beverages, how many drinks did you have per
week?
1. glasses of beer (12 oz. per glass, can, or bottle)
2. glasses of wine (4 oz. per glass) mmmf
3. drinks (hard liquor, 1 oz. per drink)
(88) Does not apply
D. Did you ever drink more heavily than you do now?
(l)YES . (2)NO . (8)Does not apply
163
-------
Individual #
El. Did you have anything containing alcohol to drink in
the last 12 hours?
(l)YES . (2)NO __ (8)Does not apply . .
IF NO SKIP TO »1Q [
E2. If yes, what and how much?
a. glasses of beer
b. glasses of wine
c. drinks (oz. of liquor)
(00) if El. is answered "No"
(88) Does not apply
OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION
T 10A. Are you currently employed outside your home either
full-time, part-time or as a volunteer?
(DYES (2)NO
(3)check if housewife or has office in home as primary
place of business
IF NO SKIP TO »12|
B. If yes, where (name of company & address)?
C. When did you begin working at this position?
19
164
-------
Individual #
D. What is your job title?,
E. What do you do there?
F. What sort of materials do you come in contact with
there?
G. How are you in contact with them?
(O)does not apply or no contact _____
(l)skin . (2)air _____ (4)ingestion _____
(8)individual less than 16 years, or not employed outside
home, does not apply .
11A. Have you been employed in your present position less ^^
7'
than six months?
(DYES (2)NO (8)DOES NOT APPLY
IF NO SKIP TO #12
B. Where were you previously employed?
C. When did you begin working at this position?
19 [(8888) if 11A. answered "No"]
D. What was your job title?
165
-------
E. What did you do there?
F. What sort of materials did you come in contact with
there? . • •
G. How were you in contact with them? ^^
n.
(0) does not apply or no contact
(l)skin . . . . (2)air (4)ingestion __ . .
(S)individual 16 years or less or not employed outside
the home, does not apply
12A. In addition to this position, do you work part-time
or as a volunteer? (l)YES . .. (2)NO _^_
(8)Does not apply .
Card
j IF NO SKIP TO 9 13 (
Individual # immm
T
B. If YES, where (name of company, address)?
C. When did you begin working at this position?
. 19 [(8888)if 12A. answered "No"]
D. What is your job title?
166
-------
Individual
E. What do you do there? (general job activities)
F. What sort of materials do you come in contact with
there?
G. How are you in contact with them?
(O)does not apply or no contact . . ..
•(l)skin _. . . . (2)air . (4)ingestion mmmmmm
(8)individual less than 16 years, or not employed
outside home, does not apply
13. Have you ever been employed part-time, full-time or as
a volunteer in a position where you came in contact
with any of the following:
A. Wood preservatives? (l)YES (2)NO -_
(8)Does not apply
IF NO SKIP TO #13B
Al. When did you work in this position?
19 . to _ 19 ^
(8888)if 13A answered "No" '7
A2. How did you come in contact with the chemical? mm_
(O)does not apply or no contact
(l)skin (2)air ...... (4)ingestion .
(S)individual less than 16 years or not employed outside
home, does not apply ^^^^
167
-------
Individual #
J 13B. Pesticides? (DYES _ (2)NO
(8)Does not apply
IF NO SKIP TO #14
Bl. When did you work in this position?
TT
9---- to 19
""
(8888) if 13B answered "No
B2. How did you come in contact with the chemical?
(O)does not apply or no contact _____
(l)skin _____ (2)air ... _ (4)ingestion .
(S)individual less than 16 years, does not apply
LEISURE ACTIVITY INFORMATION
U/
14A. Do you have any hobbies which bring you in contact ^
with wood preservatives or pesticides?
(DYES (2)NO
-j IF NO SKIP TO »15
B. If yes, what are the hobbies?.
C. What are the wood preservatives or pesticides?
168
-------
Individual
T 15A. Have you sprayed or applied any pesticides or bug
killer (such as RAID) Co your horn
three weeks? (l)YES (2)NO,
killer (such as RAID) to your home within the past
-\ IF NO SKIP TO # 16
B. If yes, type of pesticide sprayed or applied?
16A. Do you garden? (l)YES . (2)NO . . . _
JV
-j IF NO SKIP TO #22
B. In 1983, did you use any pesticides in your garden?
(DYES (2)NO (9)DK
(8)Does not apply
C. In 1982, did you use any pesticides in your garden?
(l)YES (2)NO (9)DK
(8)Does not apply . . ,.
-I IF NO SKIP TO #22 I
IF YES FOR EITHER 1982 or 1983 ASK: j
17A,Which pesticide did you use most often?
second most often? third most often?
(Record in column A below)
FOR EACH PESTICIDE NAMED ASK:
B. How often during a single year do you apply this
pesticide? (Record in column B below)
C. When was the last time you used (name the pesticide)?
(Specify month and year, record in column C below)
169
-------
Individual
A. B. C.
name of pesticide $ applications last used
MOST OFTEN
2nd MOST
3rd MOST
ISA.In addition to the pesticides you just mentioned, have
you applied any others? (l)YES _____ (2)NO ...
(8)Does not apply .
IF NO SKIP TO #19 I
B. What were they? (Record in column B below.)
C. How often did you apply (name of pesticide)? (Record
in column C below.)
D. When was the last time you used (name of pesticide)?
(Specify month and year, record in column D below.)
B. C. D.
Name of Pesticide # of Applications Last Used
' 19A. Do you eat what you grow in your garden?
(DYES _____ (2)NO .. . (8)Does not apply
170
-------
Individual #
-} IF NO SKIP TO #20
B. What do you grow in your garden that you eat?. (Record
in column B below.)
•
C. How many (name) plants do you put in? (Record in
column C below.)
D. How often do you eat (name) from your garden? (Record
in column D below.)
E. How much (name) that you grow do you eat canned?
Number of pounds. (Record in column E below.)
B. C. D. E.
NAME # PLANTS QFTEN_EATEN CANNED
f 20. How far is the garden from the house? (distance in
yards) . _ _.
?
21. What is the primary source of water for your garden?
(l)well water —^^^ (2)public water supply „__..
(3)pond on property (4)rainfall . . . _
(5)other (specify) ... . . _ . . . _. . .
(8)does not apply
171
-------
Individual
HEALTH INFORMATION
22> Have you ever had or ever been diagnosed by a doctor as
having any of the following (place an x in appropriate column):
(l)YES (2)NO (9)DK
A. hepatitis -—
**
B. liver cirrhosis _.
«t
C. jaundice __
««
D. any liver disease
1H»
E. cancer _
17
F. eczema __
G. acne
T^
H. psoriasis .
»
I. tumor or lump removed . .,.
from your skin ' : •
23A. Are you currently taking any pills or medication? mtm
This includes vitamins, birth control pills, diet
pills, and aspirin. (l)YES (2)NO
-[ IF NO SKIP TO #24 |
B. If yes, what pills or medications are you taking?
(Record in column B below.)
C. How often do you take (name)? (Record in column C
below.)
D. When did you last take (name)? (Record in column D
below.)
172
-------
Individual #
B. C. D.
NAME OF PILL/MED HOW OFTEN LAST TAKEN
f 24A. Have you had any type of skin rash or dermatitis within
the last year?
(DYES (2)NO (9)DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #25
8. If yes, please describe the type, how long it lasted,
if you saw a doctor for it, what treatment did you
receive if any?
Cl. Have you had any other skin rash or dermatitis within
the last year?
(DYES (2)NO (9)DK
Enter "No" if 24A. is "No"
IF NO SKIP TO #25 |
173
-------
\f
Individual #
C2. If yes, please describe the type, how long it lasted,
etc., if different from previous incidence, i^^i^,,^.
25A. Have you had any type of fever within the last six
months? (l)YES (2)NO (9)DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO #26
B. If yes, please describe how long it lasted, if you saw
a doctor for it, if you had any treatment prescribed.
Cl. Have you had any other occurrence of fever in the
last six months? (l)YES (2)NO „_ (9)DK a
Enter "No" if 25A. is "No"
IF NO SKIP TO #26
C2. If yes, please describe how long it lasted, etc., if
different from above.
174
-------
Individual
26. Do you or did you ever have any of the following (place an x
in the appropriate column):
NOW BEFORE IN LIVING IN NEVER
(1) HOME(2) HOME (3) (4)
A. eye irrita-
tion j . . . . _1_
B. increased
tearing or
discharge . ^_
C. swelling of
eyelids
"ST
P.. acne . . j. j._ ,•
to
27A. In the past 6 months, have you experienced any sudden
unexplained loss of weight totally 5 pounds or more?
(DYES (2)NO . (9)DK __
B. If yes, have you been dieting to lose this weight?
(DYES ___ (2)NO .._. (8) Does not apply __ —„
ht
(9) DK .___
28. ADULT FEMALES ONLY;
A. How many pregnancies have you had? _
B. How many live births? ........ mjM
<*
C.I. Have you experienced any miscarriages or spon- ^
taneous abortions? (l)YES (2)NO _._.__ **
(8) Does not apply __._ (9) DK —____
IF YES,
2. How many? . —m
3. When did they occur?
19.
19.
All other individuals question does not apply; all blanks enter "81
175
-------
Individual #
29A. Do you have any health problems that these questions
have not covered? (l)YES (2)NO (9)DK
IF NO OR DK SKIP TO # 30
B. If yes, please tell me about it:.
30. To help give us an idea of how much time you spend in
your home we would like to complete a time line as a
record of your coming and going from the house.
Starting two days ago, were you at home, outdoors, or
at work and away from home? (A parent will answer for
each child under 16 years of age.)
Time: . ..•.. .• . _
I t
Add the number of hours spent in the house and enter to
nearest half-hour.
176
-------
APPENDIX VII
PLOTS OF HOUSE DEMOGRAPHICS AND
WOOD CORE PCP CONCENTRATION
177
-------
10
1
PLOTS OF HOUSE DEMOGRAPHIC VS. MOOD CORE PCP CONCENTRATION
PLOT Of AGEHOME*LWOOD1 LEGEND: A = t OBS. B = 2 OBS. ETC.
AA
A A
3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.4 9.0
LOG PCP NG/G WOOD SAMPLE 1
9.6
10.2
10.a
11.4
12.0
12.6
-------
PLOTS OF HOUSE DEMOGRAPHIC VS. WOOD CORE PCP CONCENTRATION
PLOT OF X3*LW0001 LEGEND: A = 1 OBS. B = 2 OBS. ETC.
AA
A A
A A
---»---- -r » » - -
7.6 8.A 9.0 9.6
LOG PCP NG/G WOOD SAMPLE 1
--*-
7.2
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.4
6.0
6.6
10.2
10.8
I I .4
12.0
I2.fi
-------
9 »
PLOTS OF HOUSE DEMOGRAPHIC VS. MOOD CORE PCP CONCENTRATION
PLOT OF XlS6*LW0001 LEGEND: A = I OBS. B =' 2 DBS. ETC.
00
O
u
M
e
e
ft
o
F
R
O
0 7
M
s
I
N
H
O
U
S
E
A A
AA
AA
3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.4 9.0
LOG PCP NG/G WOOD SAMPLE 1
9.6
10.2
10.8
11.4
12.0
12.6
-------
2b(JO
2500 »
I
2400 »
2300
s
Q 2100
u
A
R 2000
E
00
E
E
T ItauO
1
N I 700
O loUU
U
S
E 1500
1400
1300
1200
I 100
1000
PLOTS OF HOUSE DEMOGRAPHIC vs. WOOD CORE PCP CONCENTRATION
PLOT OF X1S7*LWOOOI LEGEND: A = 1 OBS, B = 2 OBS, ETC.
769
LOG PCP NG/G WOOD SAMPLE 1
10
1 1
12
-------
APPENDIX VIII
PAIRWISE PLOTS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL PCP CONCENTRATIONS
182
-------
I'AIKWl^t PI-O1 S Ol: A1H, WlHlll i ol >
1
1
1
- 2 . 0 '
1
1
- J . L> i
1
1
1
-3.0 »
1
- « !
I
1
4 . 1 1 • A A
1
1
1
- 4 . t> i
1
1
-b.O '
I
1
-b.b •
1 A
1 A
-6.G »
'J 4 5 b 7 U
A
A
A
9
A
A
• - - t -
1U
13
LUG PCP NG/G MOOD SAMPLt I
-------
00
M 6 . U
H HLO1S Of A1H. WUUU CUKt AND SURFACE Wil'k I'LH
PLOT OF IWlPtI«LAIH LCUtNU; A - I OUS. b = * UUS. HTC.
b .u •
7 .t
7.U
L fa. t> *
o I
H 0.0 •»
C I
P I
N t> . t *
a I
A A
.!> .*
C 4 . U i A
0 I
M I
t |
J . t> '
A A
- ti. U
•it .(J --t.il
A
- i • ..--..- i- ...... . _-- . , ....... _ .
•4.0 -J.5 -J.U -
LUb PLt' NU/L AVtHAUt UP 3 A1K S
-2 . 0
- I .S
-1.0 -0.5 0.0
-------
L
O
G
H
C
P
/
C
M
M
ex. J
en H
ii .b '
b.O
J.u
L HUMS Oh AIH, WlHUl LuHt: ANU blJKIAUL Wll't I'd'
Hl.ul OH I.WIIJt*»l.AlH 1-tGtND; A - I OBS. U - i.' Libb . tIC.
AA
t
x
P
ci
s
E
0
I . b
I .0
O.b
0 . 0 I
- - r - -
- II . U
' tl . 0
-4.6
A
-4.0 -3.5 J.O -2.5
LOU PCP NG/L AVtRAGE OP 3 AIR
-1.5
J .0
-0.5
0.0
-------
1-AlHWlJt HtIJtU Ol- A1K, WUlHJ I.OKL AND bUKI-ACL WII'L !•(.(•
PLOT OF LWlHt I MWOOlJl LELitMO; A - I OBS. U - J Db'j. tIC.
a. o
/ .u «
ti.U
N ti . b *
CD M
01 I 4.b
t 4.0 '
O I
H I
t j
3.S •
A
A
A A
J.O •
/ay
I.U(j HCH N(./l, WIIUU iAMPl.t I
10
11
13
-------
t CIOIS (Jt- AIH. WO(.)L) (JOKE AND SUf
-------
L
o i
ti A.tt »
/ J . t, >
C I
M |
i I
J. I) '
w |
g: !
E i! . ij *
t |
X I
P 2 . U <
o I
s I
E |
D It,'
I
I
1 . u <
U.t) »
I
HA IHWI it I'lGfb Ol- A IK, WOOD i:OI(t ANlJ SUKKACh Mll'l: I't.l'
PLOT Oh lWH-t2»l WIPfc I I. ElitMlJ: A - I UBS. fl = * Obi. tIC
I *
•j . 0 I A
H
C j AA
P 4.0 > A
I
N
A A
A
A
A A
A
LI . U » A
2.0 2.t, 3.U J.b 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.S li. U b.b 7.0 7.5 8.0
I Oli HUP NU/L'ML' WIPt COHE
-------
APPENDIX IX
PCP IN BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES
189
-------
PCP in Biological Samples
House
no.
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
Participant
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
Treatment
category
TN
NT
XT
TU
XT
XT
NT
T
NT
T
T
NT
TS
TS
TS
PCP serum Unhydrolyzed urine
(ng/mL) (mg/g creatinine)
113.6
102.2
125.5
151.0
-
-
12.6
-
26.8
20.7
15.7
13.9
-
17.8
14.9
32.0
20.7
68.5
17.8
16.4
9.0
9.0
107.1
118.5
113.6
125.8
128.4
20.9
17.7
32.1
41.7
-
-
115.1
114.3
12.8
9.0
11.2
7.5
63.5
22.1
131.1
37.0
70.0
25.5
113.8
126.8
0.007
0.008 '
0.040
0.019
0.001
0.002
0.007
0.004
0.008
0.008
0.000
0.001
-
0.009
-
0.001
0.008
0.024
0.005
-
-
-
0.016
0.022
0.009
0.033
0.085
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.009
0.008
-
0.008
0.090
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.001
-
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.007
0.007
Hydrolyzed urine
(mg/g creatinine)
0.021
0.027
0.038
0.023
0.004
0.006
0.011
0.030
0.016
0.014
0.004
0.004
-
0.013
-
0.002
0.036
0.037
0.007
-
-
-
0.008
0.033
0.021
0.028
0.246
0.004
0.001
0.009
0.016
0.013
-
0.008
0.094
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.004
-
0.011
0.007
0.004
0.009
0.014
0.021
0.014
190
-------
PCP in Biological Samples (concluded)
House
no.
Participant
Treatment
category
PCP serum
(ng/mL)
Unhydrolyzed urine
(mg/g creatinine)
Hydrolyzed urine
(mg/g creatinine)
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
TSN
TS
TN
TN
XT
125.4
151.2
110
140
113
115.5
120.9
133
130
130
115.0
118.5
119.7
130.5
33.0
40.2
67.4
30.7
41.0
46.1
72.1
23.5
29.0
23.4
31.1
0.003
0.011
0.004
0.013
0.014
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.006
0.049
0.088
0.009
0.016
0.011
0.002
0.003
0.013
0.008
0.002
0.001
0.012
0.011
0.005
0.010
0.066
0.038
0.047
0.079
0.017
0.023
0.062
0.079
0.079
0.035
0.097
0.144
0.003
0.018
0.014
0.005
0.016
0.021
0.014
0.012
0.015
0.011
0.007
0.010
Note: T = treated; TS = treated and sealed; TSN = treated, sealed, and neutralized;
TN = treated and neutralized; XT = exterior treated; NT = never treated; TU =
treatment unknown.
191
-------
APPENDIX X
PLOTS OF AGE AND BIOLOGIC PCP CONCENTRATION
192
-------
CO
5.1* A A
4.B
4.S
L 4.2
0
G
P 3.9
C
P
N 3.6
G
/
M
L 3.3
S
E
R 3.0
U
M
I 2.7
9
B
4
2.4
2. I
I .8
I .5 *
PLOTS OF BIOLOGIC PCP CONCENTRATION VS. AGE
PLOT OF LX333*AGE LEGEND: A = 1 OBS. B = 2 OBS. ETC.
BAA
AA
A A
A A
AA
A
A A
A A
0 4 a 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
AGE AS OF 03/01/84
NOTE:
7 OBS HAD MISSING VALUES
-------
l£>
-2.5 +
-3.0
L
O
G
P
C
P
M -3.5 *
G
C -4.0 *
« !
A
T
-4.5
U
N
H
V
D -5.0 +
R I
0 I
L |
1 I
Z -5.5 +
E
O
U
R -6.0 »
I I
N I
E
PLOTS OF BIOLOGIC PCP CONCENTRATION VS. AGE
PLOT OF LUNHVOHO»AGE LEGEND: A = I OBS. B = 2 OBS. ETC.
AA A
A A A
A A A
AA
AA
AA A A
A AA
A
A A
AA
-6.5 *
-7.0 »
-» «•-
0 4
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
AGE AS Of 03/01/84
B OBS MAO MISSING VALUES
-------
-2.0 »
L
O
G -2.5
P
C
P -3.0
M
G
/ -3.5 »
G
R -4.0 +
E
A
T
-4.5 »
H
V
O
R -5.0 »
0
L
I
Z -5.5 *
E
D
U -6.0 »
R
I
N
E -6.5 »
-7.0 *
-7.5
PLOTS OF BIOLOGIC PCP CONCENTRATION VS. AGE
PLOT OF LHVORO»AGE LEGEND: A = 1 OBS. B * 2 DBS. ETC.
A A A
A A
A A A A
A
A A
AA
A A
AA
A A
A
A A A
A A
AAA
12 16 20 24 2U 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
AGE AS OF 03/01/84
NOTE;
8 OBS MAO MISSING VALUES
-------
502T. -101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
l._REPORT NO.
EPA-560/5-87-001
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title md Subtitle
Pentachlorophenol in Log Homes: A Study of Environmental and Clinical
Aspects
5. Report Date
December 1936
Hosenfeid.' John M.;a Moody, Leslie A.;a Gabriel, Marilyn J.;a Emmett, Edward A.;b Lees, Peter
S. J.;b Friesem. Robin M.;b Jeffervs. Joan L.:b Fox. Robjnft Bascom. Rebecea:b Bennett..Diane?
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
a Midwest Research Institute, 425 Volker Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64110
^ Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, 3100 VVyman Park Dr.
Baltimore, MD 21211
10. Project/Tisk/Work Unit No.
Task 11
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(o EPA No. 68-02-3938
EPA No. 68-02-4252
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Exposure Evaluation Division, TS 798
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 2046Q
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
August 1983 - December 1986
14.
Final
15. Supplementary Notes
IS. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
A survey of pentachlorophenol (PCP) treated log homes was conducted to determine environmental
levels and the extent of biological exposure and to examine the relationships of biological PCP
concentratipns and selected health variables. A directed survey was conducted in 21 log hones
that were subsequently found to be in six treatment categories. The highest levels of PCP were
found in the category manufacturer treated homes; next highest in the manufacturer treated and
subsequently sealed homes; next in the manufacturer treated and subsequently sealed and neutralized
homes; next in the manufacturer treated and subsequently neutralized homes; next in exterior
treatment only; and lowest levels in "never treated" homes. Concentrations of PCP in air, wood
core, and surface-wipe samples were highly correlated with each other. PCP was detected in all
66 occupants sampled, and spanned a wide range, but levels were generally considerably higher in
occupants of treated homes than untreated homes. The biological levels of PCP concentrations
(serum, free, and total urinary) were highly correlated with the environmental PCP concentrations.
In general, no significant associations were seen between biological PCP concentrations and liver
function, microsomal enzyme induction, or renal function tests. Comparison of results from some
of the occupants who participated in this survey and the survey conducted in 1980 showed no
biochemical differences although serum PCP was lower in the present survey. Urinary PCP levels
were the same for both studies.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Pentachlorophenol, log homes air sampling, wood sampling, wipes, drinking water, blood, urine,
clinical biochemistry, hepatic examinations, neurologic examinations, dermatologic examinations,
questionnaires, indoor exposure, health effects.
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release unlimited
19. Security Class (This Report)
Unclassified
20. Security Class (This Page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
195
22. Price
(See ANSi-239.13)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
------- |