SUMMARY REPORT
OF THE U.S. EPA COLLOQUIUM ON
SOIL/DUST INGESTION RATES AND MOUTHING BEHAVIOR
FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS
EPA Contract Number EP-C-04-027
Work Assignment Number 1-06
Prepared for
Jacqueline Moya
Work Assignment Manager
National Center for Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Prepared by
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
September 14,2005
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 0 BACKGROUND ... . . - 1
1 1 Purpose .. .... 1
1 2 Expert Panel and Observers . .... 1
2 0 INTRODUCTIONS AND BACKGROUND PRESENTATIONS . . . 3
2.1 Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose . . .. 3
2.2 Background on Existing Research and Modeling Techniques for
Estimating Soil/Dust Ingestion . ... ... 3
2 3 Regional Perspectives Issues with Present Data ... . 3
2 4 Perspectives on Exposure Assessment Soil Ingestion and Pica .... 4
2 5 Characterizing Indoor/Outdoor Activity Patterns of Young Children .. .5
2 6 Soil Ingestion in Children and Adults in the Same Family 5
30 BREAKOUT GROUPS ... 5
3 1 Microactivity Group Charge Questions and Summary Report . . ... 6
3 2 Trace Element Methodology Group Charge Questions and Summary Report 9
40 CONCLUDING PRESENTATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. .. 15
41 Use of Existing Soil/Dust Ingestion Data and Methods . . .15
42 Research Needs - 15
APPENDIX A COLLOQUIUM PRESENTATIONS
APPENDIX B COLLOQUIUM AGENDA
APPENDIX C PARTICIPANTS LIST AND CONTACT INFORMATION
TABLES
Table 1 Composition of Expert Panel . ... .2
Table 2 Colloquium Observers ... . .2
Table 3 Microactivity Data Breakout Group Participants .... . . . . 6
Table 4 Trace Element Methodology Breakout Group Participants ... . .. . 10
-------
1.0 BACKGROUND
The EPA/NCEA Exposure Factors Handbook provides a summary of the available statistical data on
various factors used in assessing human exposure. The target audience for this Handbook is exposure
assessors who need to obtain data on standard factors to calculate human exposure to toxic chemicals
These factors include drinking water consumption, soil ingestion, inhalation rates, dermal factors
including skin area and soil adherence factors, consumption of fruits and vegetables, fish, meats, dairy
products, homegrown foods, breast milk intake, human activity factors, consumer product use, and
residential characteristics Recommended values are given for the general population and also for various
segments of the population that may have characteristics different from the general population Soil
ingestion is one of the areas where data are limited Several studies have been conducted to estimate
ingestion of soil by both children and adults. The Exposure Factors Handbook summarizes soil ingestion
studies conducted up to 1997, but several new papers have been published since then, causing the need
for a forum to discuss these recent findings
1.1 Purpose
On May 24-25, 2005, the "U.S EPA Colloquium on Soil/Dust Ingestion Rates and Mouthing Behavior
for Children and Adults" (Colloquium) was held at the Holiday Inn National Airport in Crystal City,
Virginia The purpose of the Colloquium was to convene an expert panel to assess the state of knowledge
on soil/dust ingestion research for children and adults Because mouthing behavior is closely related to
children's soil and dust ingestion, mouthing behavior research also was included as a major topic The
Colloquium was organized by Battelle with support from Home Engineering Services The Colloquium
was designed to assist EPA in answenng the following questions
1. What is the state of knowledge on soil/dust ingestion and mouthing behavior?
2 Where should the state of knowledge be in order for EPA to make better decisions for the protection
of children and adults from these pathways?
3 How can EPA and the scientific community advance the science (i.e, what research is needed)*7
This summary report captures the major content of the presentations, breakout groups, and
discussions/recommendations that occurred at the Colloquium Presentation slides, organized
sequentially by the order of presentation, the Colloquium agenda, and contact information of all the
participants are included in this report as Appendices A, B, and C, respectively This summary report was
prepared by Battelle under contract with EPA and reviewed by the expert panel and EPA before it was
finalized
1.2 Expert Panel and Observers
The Colloquium was attended by an expert panel (see Table 1) consisting often non-EPA and nine EPA
experts with broad expenence and demonstrated expertise in the scientific areas related to soil/dust
ingestion research and mouthing behavior. The non-EPA experts were selected through a review of
relevant scientific literature, and represented a balance of academia, consulting, industry, state
governments, and environmental organizations Contact information for all the Colloquium participants,
including the expert panel, is provided in Appendix C
-------
Table 1. Composition of Expert Panel
Non-EPA Expert Panel Members
Alan Stem, Dr P H, Division of Science, Research, and Technology, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Bryce Landenberger, Ph D. The Dow Chemical Company
David Jones, Florida Department of Health
Edward Stanek III, Ph D . University of Massachusetts
John Kissel, Ph D . University of Washington
Marcia Nishioka, Battelle
Natalie Freeman, Ph D, Environmental Health College of Public Health and Health
Professions, University of Flonda
Pamela Bndgen, Ph D , MBA. Environment International
Ramon Barnes, Ph D . University of Massachusetts
Timothy Buckley, Ph D . Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Haluk Ozkaynak. Ph D, NERL
EPA Expert Panel Members
Jacqueline Moya, NCEA
Jeff Evans, Office of Pesticide Programs
John Schaum. ORD. NCEA
Marc Stifelman, Region X
Manan Olsen. Region II
Michael Dellarco, Ph D , NCEA
Michael Firestone, Office of Children's Health Protection
Paul White, NCEA
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
NERL = National Exposure Research Laboratory
While the Colloquium was not open to the public, several EPA employees with related research interests
were invited to attend as observers, as was one special international guest of the EPA, Dr Yasunobu
Aoki of the Japan National Institute for Environmental Studies Research Center for
Environmental Risk In all, 26 EPA observers (listed in Table 2) attended the Colloquium
Table 2. Colloquium Observers
EPA Colloquium Observers*
Amina Wilkins
Becky Cuthbertson
Charles Smith III
Dana Vogel
Dave Crawford
David Hrdy
Dems Borum
David Bussard
Gary Bangs
Jace Cuje
Jayne Michaud
Jeffrey Seller
Laurie Schuda
Lynn Delpire
Marlene Berg
Mary Ballew
Matt Lloyd
Matthew Crowley
Michael Broder, Ph D
Michele Burgess, Ph D
Shanna Recore
Steve Nako
Taha Milano
Ted Simon, Ph D
Thea Johnson
Wade Bntton
ZacharyPekar.PhD
*Refer to Appendix C for the Office or Region affiliations of EPA Observers
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTIONS AND BACKGROUND PRESENTATIONS
The Colloquium began on May 24th with an introduction, presentation of background material on
existing and new research, and perspectives from various EPA Regions
2.1 Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose
Mr David Bussard, Director of NCEA-Washington, welcomed meeting participants. Mr Bussard
discussed NCEA's focus of providing tools for risk assessors Mr. Bussard also reviewed the purposes of
the Colloquium, namely to assess the current state of knowledge, provide information or data that are
lacking, and identify actions to be taken to fill the data/information gaps Mr Bussard noted that the
expert panel members had expertise ranging from human exposure researchers to those on the front lines
of Superfund cleanups
Ms Jacqueline Moya, EPA NCEA, welcomed and thanked the participants and provided further
explanation of the Colloquium's focus as described in Section 1 1 of this report. Ms Moya noted that the
Colloquium was not expected to result in recommendations for a specific value or distribution of soil
ingestion, but to evaluate what direction the science needs to take in order to further the work occurring in
this area
2.2 Background on Existing Research and Modeling Techniques for Estimating Soil/Dust
Ingestion
Dr Haluk Ozkaynak, EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), presented "Background on
existing research and modeling techniques for estimating soil/dust ingestion rates " The methods
highlighted were tracer element mass-balance studies (cited as the most common) and microactivity-
based physical modeling studies Typical examples of each type of study were provided, along with a list
of the method limitations for each study type.
For tracer studies, Dr Ozkaynak discussed age-dependent distributions and uncertainty for soil/dust
ingestion For microactivity-based physical modeling studies, Dr Ozkaynak discussed the time-use data
involved, provided examples of macro- and microactivities, and highlighted the use of EPA's
Consolidated Human Activity Database (CHAD, www.epa.gov/chadnetl). Dr Ozkaynak also described
EPA/ORD/National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose
Simulation (SHEDS) model. This probabilistic model predicts the range and distribution of aggregate
personal exposures and doses within a population as well as the uncertainty in the model estimates Dr.
Ozkaynak provided summary statistic results for soil and dust ingestion rate simulations Questions for
Dr Ozkaynak focused on how the model treats short-term and long-term exposure, single events such as
dropped food items, and transfer to hands for dust versus soil
2.3 Regional Perspectives: Issues with Present Data
Ms Manan Olsen, EPA Region II, and Mr Marc Stifelman, EPA Region X, presented "Regional
perspectives: issues with present data " Ms Olsen covered the definition of Reasonable Maximum
Exposure (RME), pathways of exposure, conceptual site models, receptors of concern, sources of
exposure data, and research needs The research needs highlighted by Ms. Olsen were (1) data on
additional activity patterns; (2) geographically specific activity patterns, (3) age-specific activity data, i.e ,
for adolescents, and (4) concentration versus loading data for surface residues and dust
Mr Stifelman covered risk assessment applications, uncertainties and data needs, and the use of lead (Pb)
as a tracer to illustrate direct soil and indirect dust exposure pathways Mr Stifelman described two non-
residential scenanos that present challenges for risk assessment- (1) tribal subsistence, due to additional
soil pathways, and (2) recreational exposure, with high soil and/or sediment contact rates and intermittent
3
-------
exposures A model of the assumptions made for direct and indirect exposure pathways at one specific
site (Bunker Hill, Idaho) in terms of exposure to soil and dust was presented, along with challenges in
assessing both exposure from sediments and exposure in a variety of climates and settings
An extended period of questions and answers followed their presentations
In response to a question on examples of tribal activities that potentially increase exposure,
Mr Stifelman noted that the Iroquois process reeds with their mouths for traditional basket
making Also, a tnbe in Connecticut wraps their fish in mud for cooking
Mr. Bussard asked whether the public focused on the RME for individuals at Superfund public
meetings The presenters responded that there is a great deal of variation in types of public input
at such meetings, some ask for summary statistics of risk, while others express general concern
and ask about being seen by a doctor.
Panel member Dr. Timothy Buckley asked whether the EPA Regional Offices had plans to use
the SHEDS model. The presenters responded that the Regional Offices are directed by Superfimd
guidance and headquarters initiatives, and therefore likely will wait for direction to use SHEDS
from these sources Another panel member noted that while SHEDS is a good tool, it cannot be
used without the input of quality data gathered during human exposure projects with sound
experimental designs.
Panel member Dr Alan Stern noted that staff working on site remediation need reasonable
default values that they can apply initially across the board Discussion followed on misuse of
soil mgestion data, e g , an exposure rate for one hour cannot be extrapolated accurately to a daily
exposure rate
A panel member asked about contaminant distribution, and the presenters replied that they do not
make assumptions, but they gather empirical evidence to define contaminant distribution
2.4 Perspectives on Exposure Assessment Soil Ingestion and Pica
Dr Ed Stanek, Biostatistics and Epidemiology Program, Department of Public Health, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, presented "Perspectives on Exposure Assessment Soil Ingestion and Pica."
Dr Stanek covered routes of exposure (inhalation, ingestion [food, water], dermal absorption, and non-
food ingestion), potential dose, and definition of exposure He presented equations for exposure and daily
ingestion, and noted that more focus needs to be placed on which term(s) one is trying to predict. Dr
Stanek noted that we want soil ingestion studies to directly measure exposure, and that much has been
learned from past studies He then presented the results of an example soil tracer methodology validation
that assessed the recovery of vanous soil tracers by dosing adults with various amounts of soil He
discussed "noise" in the mass balance and noted that aluminum (Al) works as a tracer at higher levels of
ingestion Dr. Stanek also presented results using silica (Si) and other elements as tracers, and compared
these with the Al results Finally, Dr Stanek highlighted the following challenges (1) generalizing to
whole populations from relatively small studies of individuals at discrete times (days) with no measure of
intra-subject variability, and (2) separating the overall uncertainty into components of systematic bias,
measurement error, and methodological bias.
During the question and answer penod, one panel member suggested that if low recoveries were assumed
and mathematical factors were applied to correct for these recoveries, the overall exposure results would
be altered significantly. Other panel members discussed whether or not transit time is as important as the
recovery of the tracer One panel member noted that a recovery factor could be applied for an experiment
of a given duration A panel member also suggested standardizing the diet of subjects because diet affects
-------
absorption Another panel member noted the difficulty of performing duplicate diet studies because of
the difficulty in getting people to collect true duplicate samples
2.5 Characterizing Indoor/Outdoor Activity Patterns of Young Children
Dr Natalie Freeman, University of Florida, presented "Characterizing Indoor/Outdoor Activity Patterns
of Young Children " Dr Freeman noted that transcribed videotaped observations have been used to
quantify children's microactivities, and that microactivities typically are reported as hourly rates
independent of where the child spends time She noted that the best way to present, analyze, or make the
best use of this nch source of data is not known She presented data from the Rio Bravo Healthy Child
Project, a longitudinal pesticide exposure study conducted over a two-year period with from 52 to 60
children Dr Freeman also stated that some children have much higher mouthing activity than others
(data are not normally distributed). Also, the "high-end" mouthers are often the same both indoors and
outdoors, and there is more inter-subject variability when children are outdoors. Dr. Freeman also posed
questions such as (1) What are the important age or temporal groupings for looking at behavioral data9
(2) Are temporally adjusted variables (frequency/hr, percent time) what we should be looking at' (3)
After how many contacts will a child's hand reach its limit for surface loading' (4) How should rare
events be treated' and (5) What measures are best for characterizing exposure as opposed to describing
the child' In response to the presentation, one panel member asked about cultural versus universal
practices Dr Freeman responded that many of the observed behaviors are universal although cultural
and regional differences do exist
2.6 Soil Ingestion in Children and Adults in the Same Family
Ms Moya presented a summary of a recently completed study titled "Soil Ingestion in Children and
Adults in the Same Family", which had been conducted by Scott Davis et al at the Fred Hutchmson
Cancer Research Center (Seattle, WA) as part of a cooperative agreement with EPA. Ms Moya covered
background information, data collection, methods, and results The study involved volunteers from a
previous study and applied the trace element methodology to evaluate soil mgestion over a penod of 14
days The study involved collection and analysis of food, fecal, urine, and soil samples Ms. Moya
highlighted some of the results of the study including child and adult mean soil ingestion rates, the
fraction of parents who had occupational soil exposure, and the fraction of parents who did housework,
carpentry, or remodeling Results specifically related to the tracer methodology data also were
summarized by Ms Moya The correlation of the tracers Al, Si, and titanium (Ti) to samples of surface
soil from a soil core were evaluated. Finally, the association of vanous activities such as eating unwashed
foods, nail biting, hand washing, dirt eating, thumb sucking, furniture licking, and carrying around a
blanket or a toy were evaluated with respect to the level of soil ingestion. Hand washing before meals
was associated with higher soil ingestion rates. The explanation for this is that the hands were visually
dirty before eating, therefore needing washing. The soil ingestion would have occurred before the hand
washing Also, children who were observed by their parents eating dirt had higher soil ingestion rates
3.0 BREAKOUT GROUPS
The afternoon of the first day consisted of two breakout groups each led by an expert panelist from EPA.
The breakout groups were instructed to respond to a specific set of charge questions, two of which were
the same for both groups One group focused on the pros and cons of microactivity data, and the other
group focused on the pros and cons of trace element methodologies Experts were preliminarily assigned
to a breakout group based on their expertise, but were invited to switch to the other breakout group if
desired During the second morning of the Colloquium (May 25th), the breakout group leaders presented
a summary of each group's discussions. The information that follows reflects both notes taken during the
breakout groups and the summaries presented on the second day A copy of the presentation slides for the
Microactivity Data Breakout Group Summary is included in Appendix A of this report There were no
summary slides for the Trace Element Breakout Group
5
-------
3.1 Microactivity Group Charge Questions and Summary Report
The microactivity breakout group was led Dr Haluk Ozkaynak and consisted of 12 people as listed in
Table 3 Note that not all of the observers participated in die breakout sessions
Table 3. Microactivity Data Breakout Group Participants
Nofl-EPA
Bryce Landenberger, Ph.D
David Jones
Marcia Nishioka
Natalie Freeman, Ph D
Pamela Bndgen, Ph D , MBA
Yasunobu Aoki, Ph D
EPA
Dave Crawford
Haluk Ozkaynak, Ph D *
Jeff Evans
John Schaum
Mary Ballew
Michael Dellarco, Ph D
* Group Leader
The microactivity group addressed each of the charge questions The following provides the charge
questions and summarizes the discussion and/or recommendations in response to each question
1. The EPA has recommended a set of age groups to be used when assessing children exposures.
Are the raw data from the mouthing behavior studies available to EPA? Can the raw data
from all the available mouthing behavior studies be combined in order to conduct analyses for
the various age groups?
The group noted that raw data from various mouthing behavior studies currently are possessed by
different pnncipal investigators, including some in other fields such as developmental psychology The
group suggested that new funding and opportunities to collaborate will facilitate data access and pooling
of current data Dr Freeman stated that the amount of data needed currently is not available, and that
other factors such as autism need to be considered to explain extremely high mouthing activity rates
Several group members agreed that more data are needed, particularly for the age groups of under one
year and 6-21 years One member noted that the National Children's Study (a joint study of the U S
Department of Health and Human Services and EPA, http //nationalchildrensstudy gov) has an
observational component and would be an ideal data source, especially for data on the first two years of
life
Another member stated that the real question is on the true variability of the data, including rare events,
and posed the question "Who are we trying to protect?" This member also suggested that the nature of
toxicity of the chemical needs to be considered. The questions to be answered are (1) Do we have
enough data to look at all age groups? and (2) Do we know how many children we need to study to
understand the true range*7
Specifically with regard to the age groups recommended by EPA, the following input was provided,
primarily by Dr Freeman
Very few videography records are available for children less than one year old. Data for 0-3
months may be available, but likely is in the developmental psychology field There also are
some data for 6-12 months, although this is for less than 20 individuals There also are some
parent observation studies (e.g., a study done in the Netherlands)
The most data are available for ages 1 -6 years
Data for ages 6-21 years are truly missing During this penod, children are in school and likely
have very different behaviors than when they were younger and at home
6
-------
Dr Freeman noted that studies can be combined, but consideration needs to be given to locations,
methodologies, etc Dr Freeman stated that it is a matter of funding and getting the various principal
investigators to work together and there also can be permission issues. Panelists noted that there are
advantages and disadvantages of pooling data, but at least it provides the opportunity to see differences
among data sets
2. Is the ratio of ingested outdoor soil to ingested indoor dust an important consideration for
exposure and risk assessments? Can this fraction be determined with existing information? Is
it possible to differentiate particle size distributions for the exterior soil from those for indoor
dust that adheres to hands?
The group noted that the ratio of ingested outdoor soil to ingested indoor dust is usually important, but
understanding factors influencing exposure and risk also are important The factors to consider include
different types of exposures and chemical pollutants indoors and outdoors, along with track-in,
resuspension, and fate and transport issues.
One member noted that the ratio of ingested outdoor soil to ingested indoor dust is not a single ratio, and
emphasized that it is important to separately estimate each quantity Another member indicated a lack of
interior dust data broken down by seasonality. Mr David Jones (Florida Department of Health) noted
that being able to cite credible evidence that a certain family or community is at risk will elicit higher
response rates in terms of mitigating exposure.
Dr Ozkaynak noted that the primary advantage of videography is that it allows the researcher to discern
the most critical factors, which then helps risk managers to most effectively target cleanup. Dr Freeman
noted that such analysis requires frequent sample collection from children's hands. Ms Marcia Nishioka,
Battelle, added that for a past pesticide study, the results showed that the hands were completely loaded
with dust particles by the seventh contact with surfaces, and that touching clean surfaces did not result in
loss of residues from hands.
In terms of differentiating particle size distributions for the exterior soil from those for indoor dust that
adheres to hands, the group noted that both house dust and soil can be affected by temperature and
humidity (and soil can be wet). Another member noted that there is a strong need for study of transfer
efficiency for different paniculate materials and hand conditions Dr Freeman stated that as studies are
repeated, the answer keeps getting smaller in terms of particles that adhere to hands The group noted that
indoor tracer and dust particles that are less than 100 microns are more critical to adherence to hand
Mr Jones emphasized the importance of gathering exposure data that are relevant for risk assessment.
Mr Jones noted that 6-month-old children do not tend to dig one foot down into the soil, therefore, data
for this soil depth are not appropriate for nsk assessment for a 6-month-old child. Another member
highlighted the importance of a project manager consulting with a risk assessor before collecting data.
3. How can the relationship between residential indoor surface dust loading (mass per unit area)
and total dust ingested best be assessed? How significant is this relationship?
Microenvironmental models like SHEDS are based on the hypothesis mat indoor surface dust loading and
total dust ingested are strongly correlated, although this needs to be tested by control studies and bio-
monitonng studies The relationship between residential indoor surface dust loading and total dust
ingested can be assessed through physical microenvironmental modeling and by testing whether total dust
ingested is a function of indoor surface dust loading. In order to isolate indoor surface dust in a tracer and
bio-monitoring experiment, the substance used needs to be one that is present inside the home but not
outside the home or in food One member suggested using perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS)/
-------
perfluorooctanyl acid (PFOA), although another member noted that these chemicals may get into food
from Teflon pan coatings
Dr Pamela Bndgen, Environment International, noted that it is more important for a Superfund cleanup
to achieve protective levels than to determine the breakdown of total exposure by exposure route She
added that the environmental community already knows to instruct people to clean their houses well,
wash their vegetables before consumption, etc
4. How can the accuracy, reliability, integrity, and precision of the available mouthing behavior
studies be assessed?
The group noted that there have been studies looking at the "technician effect" (i.e , do two reviewers get
the same results?). There is fairly good accuracy and precision in the transcription The group noted the
need to collect and analyze videography data consistently, but also identified some disadvantages of
standardizing protocols at a preliminary stage The major disadvantage cited is that standardizing
protocols can eliminate some of the creativity in methods that is required to understand what works well
and what does not work well Dr. Freeman commented that videotape transcription protocols already are
rather standardized, as it is a fairly small community of researchers conducting such studies She noted
that pen and pencil methods of transcription are yielding similar results to software transcription, and that
much care has been taken to have duplicate transcnpters to check consistency Dr Freeman also stated
that collecting data consistently does not at all guarantee that the "right" data are being collected Dr
Freeman noted that transcription methods need improvement.
The group also identified the need to evaluate reliability of videography data against other data sources
such as hand skin wipe data Dr Freeman noted that it is typical to do no more than three hand wipes
during an observational period, as too much hand wiping may interfere with a child's typical behavior
5. What are the appropriate ways of interpreting the existing mouthing behavior studies data?
What is the best we can do with the data we presently have? How can we characterize and
present the inter- and intra-individual variability and uncertainty associated with these data?
The group agreed that the full interpretation and best use of mouthing behavior studies data still need to
be explored There are very few longitudinal data available for children, and these data need to be
analyzed to ascertain inter- and intra-child variability and uncertainty One example that presents
challenges in interpretation is when a child is moving between indoor and outdoor locations. Other
questions to be answered are (1) Do active children tend to be dirtier1? (2) Do frequent mouthers also
have high dust loading on their fingers7
The group noted that mouthing behavior data are very useful for exposure models, and that there is a need
to correlate frequency of contact with direct hand loading measurements
The group suggested pooled data analysis for inter-individual variability determination One member
noted that most studies are done only on one occasion per child, and mat some studies (e.g, an Arizona
study) attempted multiple days, but were not able to complete the study and generate defensible results
The group agreed that there are very few data available to examine day-to-day variation, noting that a
Dutch study with infants is perhaps the only one
6. A list of activity pattern-related research needs has been developed as a result of the
Micro/Macro Workshop that was held in RTF in May 2001. Do these recommended projects
adequately address the current activity-pattern research needs in the area of soil ingestion? If
not, what research is missing and how should these studies be prioritized?
-------
The group acknowledged the importance of the RTF workshop recommendations and highlighted the
importance of prioritizing the research needs in terms of importance to exposure One member stated that
some of these research needs already are being addressed by current studies Another member noted that
topics that are known to be less important for exposure, such as seasonality, should be excluded from a
research list (though some members disputed this point). Members also suggested additional topics for
which information is lacking:
Transfer efficiency (especially on quick and repeated touches, and over a variety of surface types)
Relationship between transfer efficiency and surface loading
Information on variation of dust levels in a room (typically only 4 dust samples are taken per room)
Soil and dust composition (including consideration of whether it absorbs into organic materials such
as components of curtains, upholstery, household appliances, etc.)
Better techniques to collect data on indirect contamination of foods
Direct ingestion by tribal members from beaches and wind storms
7. What next steps arc necessary to improve or fill data gaps in this area? List all the key
mouthing behavior studies that should be included in an update to the Exposure Factors
Handbook and Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook.
The group recommend including information on exposure factors for models such as SHEDS in the new
Exposure Factors Handbook. The group highlighted the need to obtain, analyze, and include results from
available microactivity studies (data collected by K Reed, K Black, J. Leckie, N. Freeman, M K.
O'Rourke, B Eskanazi, and other children's centers). Several members stated that other data sources
should be explored (e g , Farm Family Exposure data or National Park Service data) Ms. Nishioka
suggested that studies should be included on the role of psycho-social factors on activity behaviors, such
as one journal article included in the pre-meeting materials describing how mouthing activity is related to
a child's stimulation level Group leader Dr. Ozkaynak requested that group members make
recommendations to him on the most important studies to include in the Exposures Factor Handbook.
Ms Mary Ballew, EPA Region I, suggested that the Exposure Factors Handbook should include an
overview of the micro-exposure process to explain how the various components fit together
8. What arc the best methodologies for collecting microactivity data? Can standard protocols for
the collection of microactivity data be developed?
In addition to videography, the group suggested radiofrequency chips and global positioning system
monitoring, although it is unclear whether these methods will enhance existing methods Improving
technology can improve data collection, such as the use of digital video recorders that provide better
resolution for closer focus on the details of individual contact events. Refer to the response to Charge
Question #4 on standardizing protocols
9. What technologies (e.g., fluorescent markers and others) are available to evaluate the results
from videography or other techniques used to collect hand-to-object/surface, object-to-mouth,
and hand-to-mouth contact data?
The group suggested bio-monitoring, hand wipes, and fluorescent markers as technologies mat can be
used to evaluate the results from videography or other techniques
3.2 Trace Element Methodology Group Charge Questions and Summary Report
The trace element methodology group was led Mr Paul White, EPA NCEA, and consisted of 11 people
as listed in Table 4 The tracer methodology group began with an extended period of general discussion
and then proceeded methodically through several of the charge questions, although not every charge
-------
question was addressed individually The following section provides the charge questions and
summarizes the discussion and/or recommendations in response to each question (An attempt was made
to group information from the initial general discussion under the appropriate charge question below )
Table 4. Trace Element Methodology Breakout Group Participants
Non-EPA
Ramon Barnes, PhD
Edward Stanek III, Ph D
Timothy Buckley, PhD
Alan Stern, Dr P H
John Kissel, Ph D
EPA
Jacqueline Moya
Marc Stifelman
Manan Olsen
Michael Firestone
Paul White*
Ted Simon, Ph D
* Group Leader
1. The EPA has recommended a set of age groups to be used when assessing children exposures.
Are the raw data from the soil ingestion studies available to EPA? Can the raw data from all
the available soil ingestion studies be combined in order to conduct analyses for the various age
groups?
The group agreed that because the sample sizes are so small (with the largest being about 100
participants) it is difficult to obtain information specific to subsets of age groups To the extent that
studies have been published on age variability, this does not seem to be a significant factor in exposure
This could be an area for collaboration with microenvironment modelers because even if there is
uncertainty about absolute intake of soil, modeling provides information on variability by age group
Dr. Edward Stanek, University of Massachusetts, noted that age information likely will come from the
microactivity approach. Mr White suggested that perhaps microactivity results can be used to prorate
soil ingestion rates Dr. Ted Simon, EPA Region IV, noted that there is as much uncertainty with the
microactivity hand loading data as there is with tracer methodology data Some members of the group
requested that the data collected by the University of Massachusetts be made available to other qualified
investigators so that there is less uncertainty about the reproducibility of the data evaluation
2. Is the ratio of ingested outdoor soil to ingested indoor dust an important consideration for
exposure and risk assessments? Can this fraction be determined with existing information? Is
it possible to differentiate particle size distributions for the exterior soil from those for indoor
dust that adheres to hands?
Group members stated that it is primarily dust (residues that have settled on surfaces) that we are dealing
with when incidental ingestion is concerned Incidental ingestion of both indoor and outdoor dust occurs
passively through surface to hand to mouth transfer when performing everyday activities However,
outdoor soil is more likely to be ingested during deliberate intake of soil dug up from the ground outdoors
during playtime (children). Sometimes, for an assessment, one needs to know how much outdoor and
indoor soil was ingested There is a potential to tease out this information, but it is a complex area
Dr Stanek noted that outdoor concentrations of tracers can differ from indoor concentrations of tracers,
and that using multiple elements provides multiple ratios/fingerprints that can be evaluated Dr Alan
Stem, New Jersey DEP, stated that house dust varies considerably depending on where it resides, and that
transport effects need to be considered hi addition, Ms Moya noted that in the Davis study, results from
surface and core soil, as well as house dust, were all fairly similar
3. How can the relationship between residential indoor surface dust loading (mass per unit area)
and total dust ingested best be assessed? How significant is this relationship?
10
-------
Dr Stem stated that a New Jersey trace element study done with Chromium (Cr) suggests that surface
dust loading is not a significant factor associated with total dust ingested Furthermore, the study
suggests that exposure to Cr was more closely related to levels of Cr in die urine One member suggested
that this does not sound consistent with other studies. Mr. White noted that concentration may be a better
indicator of long-term conditions He noted that a house can undergo a thorough cleaning which will
impact the loadings significantly for a period of time. Presumably, the concentration would not change
much over time because the sources of dust likely are the same; therefore, concentration might be a
slightly better indicator On die other hand, dust loading represents the current potential for contact with
dust, and therefore, it is a valuable indicator of immediate risk of exposure
4. How can the accuracy, reliability, integrity, and precision of the available soil ingestion studies
be assessed?
The group generally agreed that trace element studies have the virtue of being observational studies mat
try to measure specific quantities of interest and use a methodology based on sound mass balance
principles However, there are many complications and complexities that prevent the data from being
straightforward and easy to interpret
Ms Moya expressed concern that from the 1990 Calabrese study until now the soil ingestion results are
continually dropping She posed the question "What is die best tracer'?"
Dr Simon noted that while tracer studies are very appealing conceptually, there seems to be a big
question of what actually is being measured Dr. Simon pointed to inconsistencies that could be due to
biological, physical, or chemical issues, and highlighted the importance of better understanding the
inconsistencies Dr Stanek noted that soil is not that inconsistent from one area to die next, and is not
likely the source of inconsistency Dr Stem noted that die statistical techniques necessary to draw
significant conclusions from die tracer methodology data are complex and difficult to interpret The
necessity for such complexity raises questions about die robustness of die data Members noted issues
dial may cause inconsistencies such as a "false" duplicate diet, inter-and intra-individual variability in
transit time, missed samples, absorbance, bioavailabihty, etc. One member emphasized that in his
opinion, tracer studies cannot be made more robust, and that we have gotten as much out of diese studies
as we can.
One member noted that the food/soil ratio is important, and that some tracers have been eliminated
because of the large food/soil ratio Another member stated that one should be able to use a multi-variant
(or multiple-tracer) analysis in cases where there are factors that impact the concentrations of tracers For
example, children handling photographs could pick up trace levels of elements that would bias the
exposure measurement Microactivity data can help with evaluation of die tracer data Members also
suggested die possibility of using gold deliberately added to die soil as a tracer
One member stated diat transit time needs to be put into context, and that markers need to be used to mark
the beginning and end of studies Another member noted that bioavailabihty of die different kinds of Al
or Si varies considerably
Mr Marc Stifelman, EPA Region X, endorsed die idea of using controlled soil He stated that Pb should
be considered from an isotopical standpoint, and that if transit time is important, dien spiking a controlled
diet seems like a reasonable approach
Ms Manan Olsen, EPA Region II, noted that there needs to be more interaction between tracer element
and microactivity fields of study for common benefit.
11
-------
Dr Ramon Barnes, University of Massachusetts, stated that group study design would be beneficial He
cited the need for improved analytical methodologies and sampling methodologies (soil, dust, aerosols,
etc ). He stated that pilot studies are needed to establish reliability of the technology and that more adult
data are needed.
Dr Buckley stated that the representativeness of the data is a big question, and there is large variability in
the data. He noted that it is a good estimate over a period of days, but the uncertainty is large He
emphasized the importance of understanding how factors such as age, socioeconomic issues, and race
impact soil mgestion rates
Dr. Stern noted that studies of the half-life of chemicals in the body can be confounded because the
chemical is being retained in the intestinal mucousa rather than actually being absorbed in the body. Dr
Simon stated that absorption or sequestering in the body and storage in the intestine could contribute to
underestimates of soil ingestion rates Dr Stern noted that food tracers are less likely to be sequestered
(as they are more soluble), which will result in an undercounting of soil
5. What are the appropriate ways of interpreting the existing mass balance soil intake data?
What is the best we can do with the data we presently have? How can we characterize and
present the inter- and intra-individual variability and uncertainty associated with these data?
The group noted that the available data are useful for risk assessment. Mr White summarized that the
current focus of tracers is on Al and Si Tracer element analysis using Ti yields some exceptionally high
values that are difficult to understand Also, while rare earth elements are appealing conceptually, they
have been shown to have issues with detection and very high noise (i e., high values that are not easily
attributed to a particular source) Further attention should be given to Pb as a tracer because food levels
are low, but environmental levels are high
Mr. White summarized that the results should be interpreted as study period averages rather than daily
results because of uncertainty He noted that a mean would be an appropriate estimate across subjects, in
which case the outliers would cancel each other out Usually, soil mgestion estimates are applied across a
long penod of time, therefore, an estimate of the population mean may be better than any individual
measurement. Concern was expressed by the group about not being able to evaluate the data with the
same level of detail if averages were used.
Dr Stanek stated that he is in the process of combining Davis, Stanek, and Binder data for a meta-
analysis of the data in order to address the issue of age He also noted that he has some expenence with
some of the other tracers such as barium and manganese, although each tracer presents its own issues
Ms. Moya noted that ideally we would like to have a distribution of soil ingestion rates because of die use
of probabilistic models Mr. Stifelman suggested that perhaps the microactivity approach could help with
the uncertainties for the tracer methodologies Dr Barnes suggested that China would be a good place to
do a rare earth metals tracer study because of their high levels in soil and low levels in food
6. What next steps are necessary to improve or fill data gaps in this area? List all the key soil
ingestion studies that should be included in an update to the Exposure Factors Handbook and
Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook.
The group concluded tiiat there were three important next steps necessary to improve or fill data gaps in
this area First, since the Exposure Factors Handbook relies in part on the studies conducted by the
University of Massachusetts, it would be preferable if the University of Massachusetts would make the
raw data, used in several journal articles published over die past several years, available to EPA and other
interested parties so that a more extensive peer review of those data can take place. Some questioned
(non-specifically) the University of Massachusetts analysis procedures Opening this data set up for a
12
-------
thorough peer review would allow others to think critically about the results of these studies as well as
consider alternative data analysis techniques
Second, it would be valuable to conduct one study, including both microactivity and tracer components,
using the same subjects over the same penod of time The group considered the fact that there may be
some practical limitations about such a study, such as whether or not it would be reasonable to watch
enough videotape to accurately evaluate a tracer study that would have to be done over a penod of at least
one week Some of those logistical problems would have to be overcome, but a study like this seems like
the next step to overcome some of the questions that remain about tracer and microactivity
methodologies Such a study should be planned in a group, such as the one gathered for this Colloquium,
and the data should be publicly available so that a thorough peer review can be conducted
Lastly, there is a need to define the most important endpoints required by people who use these exposure
numbers, such as Superfund risk assessors For example, is the most important data from high exposure
children or an average across all children'' Also, what is meant by the 95th percentile of exposed
children'' Does it refer to the distribution of all children, including those with pica, or does it refer only to
the distribution of the non-pica children7 Currently, those terms are not well defined, making it difficult
for researchers in the field to supply the data needed by the risk assessors
7. What are the best methodologies for collecting soil tracer element data for estimating soil and
dust ingestion? Can standard protocols for the collection of tracer element data for this
purpose be developed?
Several group members discussed the value and utility of screening methodologies to identify the high
end of the distribution Because the methodologies in use are so burdensome to the subject and
expensive, the sample sizes are small and there are issues of representativeness Perhaps screening
diapers for high levels of Al and Si could be used to identify the high end of the distribution Also, a few
strategic questions could be asked of parents to flag particularly vulnerable children One member noted
that parent questionnaires have been tried and the results did not seem to be particularly accurate, so new
methodologies would need to be tried (e g., asking parents about a child's environment) One member
noted that the regulatory position on pica has been ambiguous, in that pica is not directly addressed, but
assumed to be covered with the high end of the distribution It is not clear whether pica means regularly
eating gram quantities of dirt by a small group of children, or every child occasionally eating large
amounts of dirt, or some combination Therefore, screening also would have to be combined with some
sort of timescale measurement Several members noted that it may be feasible to conduct trace element
and microactivity studies jointly, to maximize the efficiency of recruiting and experimental plan
development.
Dr Stern noted that regulatory agencies are interested in the upper percentile, and that central tendency
estimates are needed to calculate upper percentiles Also, data that evaluated mtra-subject variability
would be helpful in evaluating the reliability of the tracer methodology For example, sampling the same
children at various times would provide an indication of whether or not the method was repeatable
Currently, most of the data are focused on inter-subject data, usually because of the number of study
participants
8. What technologies are available to evaluate the soil and dust ingestion estimates derived from
tracer element mass balance studies?
The group discussed barium and manganese as possible tracers Consensus was that they would not be
useful for soil, but may be useful for food, because of the large amounts in food Lanthanum,
neodymium, and cerium were discussed, but their use as possible tracers was largely dismissed due to the
fact that small amounts of contamination confound the data very easily Considering soil particle size
also was discussed as the concentrations of some tracers are dependent on particle size
13
-------
One group member suggested that because of China's high rare earth metal levels in soil (and surprisingly
low levels in food), it may be a good place to do a study using those elements as tracers
It also was suggested that soil could be seeded with an "ideal" tracer such as gold and studies could be
performed using only that particular soil However, it seems that seeding soil and still creating a
somewhat realistic exposure environment may be difficult to accomplish
4.0 CONCLUDING PRESENTATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Following the breakout group summary reports, as reflected above, there were two brief presentations and
a general discussion on recommendations for future research
4.1 Use of Existing Soil/Dust Ingcstion Data and Methods
Mr John Schaum, EPA NCEA, presented "Use of Existing Soil/Dust Ingestion Data and Methods "
He posed the discussion questions (1) How should existing data be used' (2) How can existing
methodologies complement/validate each other? Mr. Schaum presented information on a validation
exercise based on the methodology in World Trade Center Indoor Environment Assessment Selecting
Contaminants of Potential Concern and Setting Health-Based Benchmarks This was prepared by
Contaminants of Potential Concern Committee of the World Trade Center Indoor Air Task Force Group
in May 2003 Mr Schaum presented results of the ingested load versus surface loading and mouthing
frequency
Dr Ozkaynak noted that the SHEDS model has been compared to tracer study results, although this
cannot truly be called a validation because we are unsure which, if any, numbers are correct The SHEDS
model and tracer study results are comparable in terms of general magnitude
4.2 Research Needs
Dr Michael Dellarco, EPA NCEA, presented "Research Needs" which was followed by a general group
discussion on research needs. Dr. Dellarco noted that the challenge is how to accomplish everything that
needs to be done He highlighted two relevant requirements- (1) from OMB, research work has to have
an impact and discernible benefit, and (2) from the mission of NCEA and EPA as a whole, our role is the
improvement of nsk assessment methodology
For microactivity methods, he noted that the models need more data (input for model parameters and
distributions for models) and that model validation is needed to gauge performance For observations,
improved activity pattern instruments are needed, and consideration needs to be given on how to
categonze certain behaviors, the number of contacts leading to saturation, and food handling For
exposure estimates from observations, behavior is well characterized, but the relationship to exposure
estimates is not clear Also, there is a need to investigate whether study results can be broadly
generalized, including transfer efficiency estimates.
For the trace element methodology, additional studies are warranted, along with a focus on the study
protocol Issues to be addressed include adequacy of collection duration post exposure, correlation of
dietary input with fecal output, influence of dietary factors such as pH on retention, and reliability of
duplicate diet procedures
Dr. Dellarco's recommendations were to make existing data available for additional analysis to critique
and publish protocols (including methodology limitations and additional recommended investigations),
and as funds are available, to conduct more field studies
14
-------
Following the presentation, Ms Moya opened the floor to discussion on ideas or thoughts on priorities.
One panel member noted that, in the short-term, a joint microactivity and tracer study should be a very
high priority, although this should not be considered a model validation, but rather the addition of good
data to the field of soil ingestion research
Mr Jones suggested a possible study for identifying high pica or high hand-to-mouth activity children
The study could be accomplished by collaborating with ongoing lead poisoning prevention programs and
screening children with elevated blood lead levels as candidates for a videography study on hand-to-
mouth activity. The videography study of these children would not inhibit their lead case management
but rather would enhance it by possibly helping to identifying the behaviors that are contributing to their
lead poisoning
Dr Simon stated that the most promising tracers are the ones that occur in the lowest quantities in food
Therefore, studies on duplicate food samples and absorption issues are not as important because they will
not make as big an impact for high-end soil ingesters.
Mr Stifelman noted that the University of Massachusetts is conducting a meta-analysis of existing soil
tracer studies, and it would be best if this could be done m a transparent way to make the best use of
available data This also may help build the case for collecting new tracer data
Dr. Stern noted that we do not have a good handle on the biological processes involved (e g, transit time
from food to fecal/unne samples, absorption of tracers), and that this should be addressed before we
proceed to more tracer studies
Drs Ozkaynak and Stanek suggested that the first step should be taking stock of what we have and
conducting a summary /pooled analysis of that in a transparent fashion Another member noted the
importance of making data available so that other people have opportunities to raise different kinds of
explanations
Ms Olsen suggested thatNIEHS, NTP, and CDC also are interested in different aspects of this, and there
is potential for collaboration We need to understand where they are or if they are doing studies that may
provide helpful information
One panel member noted that, given the interest in characterizing elevated exposures, we should examine
existing data to see if we can characterize where we might find these children, then try to collect
additional information on those children Another member suggested that we define characteristics of
pica behavior and screen a large number of children for possible pica and try to determine the proportion
of the population that exhibits pica
Dr. Landenberger suggested that more children over a broader geographic area could be done by working
with county health departments This could be a relatively inexpensive way of studying this behavior in
various parts of the United States
Another panel member stated that a longer-term priority is to focus on extrapolating short-term estimates
to seasonal or annual estimates
For identification of highly exposed populations, Dr. Simon suggested that a starting place may be
communities such as the one in Ft Valley, Georgia, where soil is ingested intentionally for minerals
Also, Dr Bndgen noted that tribal children educated in the traditional lifestyle will have much higher
exposure to outdoor soil Dr Simon also noted that he had reviewed environmental justice grants in
Region IV, and that this could be another source of potential highly exposed subjects Also, the
15
-------
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) may be a good
source of subjects
Dr. Freeman suggested that many autistic children are receiving methyl- B12 injections from their
physicians to make them sleep better, and this could be increasing mouthing behavior in this population
There is some unsubstantiated evidence of this phenomenon in an ongoing study in New Jersey
One panel member asked for input on the likely enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm for future funding of
soil ingestion work Another panel member noted that the Superfund system is not set up for decision
makers to see the value of studies because they are pressured to get the Record-of-Decision done quickly.
It would be good if part of the budget at Superfund sites could fund these studies Another panel member
suggested getting on the schedule at the National Association of Regional Project Managers because they
may want to know more about soil ingestion
Dr. Kissel stated that the Superfund basic research program at NIEHS is more focused on environmental
disease and that the program has expressed disinterest in soil ingestion studies The member suggested
that EPA should contact NIEHS about this problem An EPA liaison to NIEHS noted that the NIEHS
Superfund basic research program meets with EPA to discuss research priorities, and acknowledged the
need to better educate principal investigators on research needs It was noted that risk assessment is not
an academic science in that data are usually lacking. Study proposals have been unfairly/mistakenly
rejected in the academic community for a lack of information, even though a lack of information best
recreates real-world conditions.
The Colloquium concluded with Ms Moya thanking the participants for their attendance and active
participation
16
-------
APPENDIX A
COLLOQUIUM PRESENTATIONS
-------
APPENDIX B
COLLOQUIUM AGENDA
-------
APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANTS LIST AND CONTACT INFORMATION
-------
Name
Aoki.
Yasunobu,
PhD
Ballew, Mary
Bangs, Gary,
MPH, CIH,
CAPT, USPHS
Barnes,
Ramon, Ph D
Berg, Mariene
Borum, Denis
Bndgen,
Pamela, Ph D ,
MBA
Bntton, Wade,
MPH
Broder,
Michael. Ph D
Buckley,
Timothy, Ph D ,
CIH
Organisation
Japan National Institute for
Environmental Studies Research,
Center for Environmental Risk
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
U S Environmental Protection Agency
ORD/NCEA
University of Massachusetts
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Superfund Remediaton
Technology and Innovation/OSWER
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
Environment International
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Health Effects Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
U S Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health
Addre$$
16-20nogawa, Tsukuba
Ibaraki 305-8506
Japan
1 Congress Street
Suite 100
Boston, MA 021 14
Mail Code 8601D
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
University Research Institute for Analytcal
Chemistry
85 N Whitney Street
Amherst, MA 01002-1869
Mail Code 5204G
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 4304T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D C 20460
5505 34th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Mail Code 7509C
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 8601D
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health
615 N Wolfe Street
Baltimore, MD 21205
PtonsfFAX
81-29-850-2942
81-29-850-2920
(617)918-1277
(617)918-1291
(202)564-6667
(413)256-8942
(413)256-3746
(703)603-8701
(703)603-9104
(202)566-1090
(202)566-1139
(206)525-3362
(206)525-0869
(703)308-0139
(703)308-0131
(202)564-3393
(202)565-0090
(410)614-5750
(410)955-9334
Email
ballew mary@epa gov
Bangs Gary@epamail epa gov
barnes@chemistry umass edu
berg marlene@epa gov
borum denis@epa gov
PI bndgen@eiltd net
bntton wade@epa gov
Broder Michael@epamail epa gov
tbuckley@jhsph edu
-------
Name
Burgess,
Michele, Ph D
Bussard, David
Crawford, Dave
Crowley,
Matthew
Cuje, Jace
Cuthbertson,
Becky
Dellarco,
Michael, Ph D
Delpire, Lynn
Evans, Jeff
Firestone,
Michael
Organization
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency
Response
U S Environmental Protection Agency
NCEA
U S Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OSRTI
U S Environmental Protection Agency
U S Environmental Protection Agency
ORD/OSP
U S Environmental Protection Agency
U S Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Economics, Exposure and
Technology Division Exposure
Assessment Branch
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Children's Health Protection
Address
Mail Code 51 03T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D C 20460
Mail Code 8623D
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 5204G
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 7509C
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 8104R
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 5307W
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 8623N
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 7509C
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washmqton. DC 20460
Mail Code 1107 A
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone/FAX
(202)566-1911
(202)566-1933
(202)564-3247
(703)603-8891
(703)603-9104
(703)305-7606
(703)605-1289
(202)564-1795
(202)565-2911
(703)308-8447
(703)308-0509
(202)564-3239
(202)564-8531
(202)564-8671
(703)305-7606
(202)564-2199
Email
burgess michelefijepa qov
Bussard david@epa qov
Crawford Dave@epa gov
crowley matthew@epa gov
cuje jace@epa gov
cuthbertson becky@epa gov
dellarco mike@epa gov
delpire lynn@epa gov
งvansjeff|ฎeฃa.jgy.
firestone michael@epa qov
-------
Name
Freeman,
Natalie, Ph D ,
MPH
Hrdy, David
James, Ryan,
PhD1
Johnson, Thea
Jones, David
Kissel, John,
Ph D , PE
Landenberger,
Bryce, Ph D
Lloyd, Matt
Merkel,
Helene1
Michaud,
Jayne, MPH
Milano, Talia
Organization
Environmental Health
College of Public Health and Health
Professions
U S Environmental Protection Agency
RRB4/HED/OPP/OPPTS
Battelle
U S Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OSW/EMRAD
Honda Department of Health
University of Washington
The Dow Chemical Company
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Health Effects Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
Home Engineering Services
U S Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OSRTI
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Address
Center for Environmental and Human
Toxicology
Department of Physiological Sciences College
of Veterinary Medicine
Building 471 Mowry Road
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Mail Code 7509C
Office 81 6A Crystal Mall #2
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washinaton. DC 20460
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Ariel Rios Building (5307W)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
2216 Brentfield Road West
Jacksonville, FL 32225
University of Washington
Dept ofEnv &0ccup Health Sci
Box 354695
Seattle, WA 98195
1803 Building, Dow Chemical
Midland, Ml, 48674
Mail Code 7509C
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
2014 Tollgate Road, Suite 206
Bel Air, MD 21015
Mail Code 5204G
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 7510C
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone/FAX
(352)392-4700
x5545
(352)392-4707
(703)305-6990
(703)605-1289
(614)424-7954
(614)458-7954
(703)308-0050
(703)308-0509
H (904)928-0155
C (904) 237-6488
(206)543-5111
(206)543-8123
(989)636-9005
(989)638-2425
(703)308-0130
(410)515-5802
(410)515-3806
(703)603-8847
(703)603-9104
(703)308-0080
(703)308-6467
Email
FreemanNOmail vetmed fl edu
Hrdy David@epamail epa gov
JamesR@battelle orq
lohnson ihea@epa.ggv
David_Jones@doh state fl us
jkissel@u Washington edu
blandenberger@dow com
Lloyd Matthew@epamail epa gov
hmerkel@home com
michaudjayne@epa gov
milano taha@epa gov
-------
Name
Moya,
Jacqueline
Nako, Steve
Nguyen, Diane1
Nishioka,
Marcia
Olsen, Manan
Ozkaynak,
Haluk
Pekar.
Zachary, Ph D
Peyton,
Amanda1
Recore,
Shanna
Schaum, John
Schuda, Laurie
Simon, Ted,
Ph D , DABT
Smith III,
Charles
Organization
U S Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Home Engineering Services
Battelle Memorial Institute
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Natonal Exposure Research
Laboratory
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Human Health Risk Assessment and
Economic Benefits Analysis
Office of Air and Radiation
Home Engmeenng Services
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pestcide Programs
Health Effects Division
U S Environmental Protection Agency
ORD
Natonal Center for Environmental
Assessment
U S Environmental Protection Agency
ORD/NCEA
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Health Effects Division
Address
Mail Code 8623D
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 7509C
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
2014 Tollgate Road, Suite 206
Bel Air. MD 21015
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
Mail Code E205-01
1 09 TW Alexander Drive
Research Tnangle Park, NC 27711
Mail Code C539-01
1 09 TW Alexander Drive
Research Tnangle Park, NC 27711
3130 Fairview Park Dnve, Suite 400
Falls Church, VA 22042
1821 South Bell Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Mail Code 8623N
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D C 20460
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
1801 S BellSt
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone/FAX
(202)564-3245
(202)565-0079
(703)308-8092
(703)305-0871
(410)515-5802
(410)515-3806
(614)4244964
(614)424-3638
(212)637-4313
(919)541-5172
(919)541-3704
(919)541-0327
(703)641-1100
(703)641-0440
(703)308-9399
(703)308-0008
(202)564-3237
(202)564-2018
(202)564-3206
(202)564-2018
(404)562-8642
(404)562-8566
(703)305-0291
(703)308-0008
Email
moyajacquehne@epa gov
Nako Steve@epamail epa gov
nishiomg@battelleorg
olsen manan@epa gov
ozkaynak haluk@epa gov
pekar zachary@epa gov
apeyton@home com
recore shanna@epa gov
schaum john@epa gov
schuda laune@epa gov
simon ted@epa gov
Smith Charles@epamail epa gov
-------
Name
Seller, Jeffrey
Stanek III,
Edward, Ph D
Stem, Alan,
DrPH.DABT
Stifelman, Marc
Vogel, Dana
White, Paul
Wilkms, Amma
Zell, Erica1
Organization
U S Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
University of Massachusetts
Division of Science, Research, and
Technology
New Jersey Dept Environmental
Protection
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
U S Environmental Protection Agency
U S Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
U S Environmental Protection Agency
ORD
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
Battelle
Address
Mail Code 8601D
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Department of Public Health, UMASS
Arnold House 401
715 N Pleasant Street
Amherst, MA 01002
NJDEP-P0409
401 E State St
Trenton, NJ 08525
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 981 01
Mail Code 7509C
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 8623D
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 8623N
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D C 20460
2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone/FAX
(202)564-3219
(413)545-3812
(413)545-1645
(609)633-2374
(609)777-2852
(206)553-6979
(703)305-0874
(703)305-7775
(202)564-3289
(202)564-3256
(202)564-2018
(703)236-1420
(703)527-5640
Email
seller jeff@epamail epa gov
stanek@schoolph umass edu
alan stem@dep state nj us
stifelman marc@epa gov
Vogel Dana@epamail epa gov
white paul@epa gov
wilkms amma@epa gov
zelle@battelle org
1 Staff of conference coordinating organizations
------- |