U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
| About the Handbook |
Roadmap | Table of Contents | Preface | Foreword | Contributors
Conduct a Word Search
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Variability and
Uncertainty
Chapter 3 Drinking Water
Intake
Chapter 4 Soil Ingestion
and Pica
Chapter 5 Inhalation
Route
Chapter 6 Dermal Route
Chapter 7 Body Weight
Studies
Chapter 8 Lifetime
Chapter 9 Intake of Fruits
and Vegetables
Chapter 10 Intake of Fish
and Shellfish
Chapter 11 Intake of
Meat and Dairy Products
Chapter 12 Intake of
Grain Products
Chapter 13 Intake Rates
for Various Home
Produced Food Items
Chapter 14 Breast Milk
Intake
Chapter 15 Activity
Factors
Chapter 16 Consumer
Products
Chapter 17 Residential
Building Characteristics
Glossary
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE
1.2. INTENDED AUDIENCE
1.3. BACKGROUND
1.3.1. Selection of Studies for the Handbook
1.3.2. Using the Handbook in an Exposure Assessment
1.3.3. Approach Used to Develop Recommendations for Exposure Factors
1.3.4. Characterizing Variability
1.4. GENERAL EQUATION FOR CALCULATING DOSE
1.5. RESEARCH NEEDS
1.6. ORGANIZATION
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1
APPENDIX 1A
Table 1-1. Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values
Table 1-2. Summary of Exposure Factor Recommendations and Confidence Ratings
Table 1-3. Characterization of Variability in Exposure Factors
Table 1A-1. Procedures for Modifying IRIS Risk Values for Non-standard Populations
Figure 1-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Oral Route
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
2. VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY
2.1. VARIABILITY VERSUS UNCERTAINTY
2.2. TYPES OF VARIABILITY
2.3. CONFRONTING VARIABILITY
2.4. CONCERN ABOUT UNCERTAINTY
2.5. TYPES OF UNCERTAINTY AND REDUCING UNCERTAINTY
2.6. ANALYZING VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY
2.7. PRESENTING RESULTS OF VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
Table 2-1. Four Strategies for Confronting Variability
Table 2-2. Three Types of Uncertainty and Associated Sources and Examples
Table 2-3. Approaches to Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
3. DRINKING WATER INTAKE
3.1. BACKGROUND
3.2. KEY GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES ON DRINKING WATER INTAKE
3.3. RELEVANT GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES ON DRINKING WATER
INTAKE
3.4. PREGNANT AND LACTATING WOMEN
3.5. HIGH ACTIVITY LEVELS/HOT CLIMATES
3.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
Table 3-1. Daily Total Tapwater Intake Distribution for Canadians, by Age Group
(approx. 0.20 L increments, both sexes, combined seasons)
Table 3-2. Average Daily Tapwater Intake of Canadians (expressed as milliliters per
kilogram body weight)
Table 3-3. Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians, by Age and Season
(L/day)
Table 3-4. Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians as a Function of Level of
Physical Activity at Work and in Spare Time (16 years and older, combined
seasons, L/day)
Table 3-5. Average Daily Tapwater Intake by Canadians, Apportioned Among Various
Beverages (both sexes, by age, combined seasons, L/day)
Table 3-6. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/day) for Both Sexes Combined
Table 3-7. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/kg-day) for Both Sexes Combined
Table 3-8. Summary of Tapwater Intake by Age
Table 3-9. Total Tapwater Intake (as percent of total water intake) by Broad Age
Category
Table 3-10. General Dietary Sources of Tapwater for Both Sexes
Table 3-11. Summary Statistics for Best-Fit Lognormal Distributions for Water Intake
Rates
Table 3-12. Estimated Quantiles and Means for Total Tapwater Intake Rates (mL/day)
Table 3-13. Assumed Tapwater Content of Beverages
Table 3-14. Intake of Total Liquid, Total Tapwater, and Various Beverages (L/day)
Table 3-15. Summary of Total Liquid and Total Tapwater Intake for Males and Females
(L/day)
Table 3-16. Measured Fluid Intakes (mL/day)
Table 3-17. Intake Rates of Total Fluids and Total Tapwater by Age Group
Table 3-18. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Beverages and Tapwater by
Age
Table 3-19. Average Total Tapwater Intake Rate by Sex, Age, and Geographic Area
Table 3-20. Frequency Distribution of Total Tapwater Intake Rates
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
Table 3-21. Mean Per Capita Drinking Water Intake Based on USDA, CSFII Data From
1989-91 (ml/day)
Table 3-22. Number of Respondents that Consumed Tapwater at a Specified Daily
Frequency
Table 3-23. Number of Respondents that Consumed Juice Reconstituted with Tapwater
at a Specified Daily Frequency
Table 3-24. Total Fluid Intake of Women 15-49 Years Old
Table 3-25. Total Tapwater Intake of Women 15-49 Years Old
Table 3-26. Total Fluid (ml/Day) Derived from Various Dietary Sources by Women Aged
15-49 Years
Table 3-27. Water Intake at Various Activity Levels (L/hr)
Table 3-28. Planning Factors for Individual Tapwater Consumption
Table 3-29. Drinking Water Intake Surveys
Table 3-30. Summary of Recommended Drinking Water Intake Rates
Table 3-31. Total Tapwater Consumption Rates From Key Studies
Table 3-32. Daily Tapwater Intake Rates From Relevant Studies
Table 3-33. Key Study Tapwater Intake Rates for Children
Table 3-34. Summary of Intake Rates for Children in Relevant Studies
Table 3-35. Confidence in Tapwater Intake Recommendations
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
4. SOIL INGESTION AND PICA
4.1 BACKGROUND
4.2. KEY STUDIES ON SOIL INTAKE AMONG CHILDREN
4.3. RELEVANT STUDIES ON SOIL INTAKE AMONG CHILDREN
4.4. SOIL INTAKE AMONG ADULTS
4.5. PREVALENCE OF PICA
4.6. DELIBERATE SOIL INGESTION AMONG CHILDREN
4.7. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
Table 4-1. Estimated Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium
Concentrations
Table 4-2. Calculated Soil Ingestion by Nursery School Children
Table 4-3. Calculated Soil Ingestion by Hospitalized, Bedridden Children
Table 4-4. Mean and Standard Deviation Percentage Recovery of Eight Tracer
Elements
Table 4-5. Soil and Dust Ingestion Estimates for Children Aged 1-4 Years
Table 4-6. Average Daily Soil Ingestion Values Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and
Titanium as Tracer Elements
Table 4-7. Geometric Mean (GM) and Standard Deviation (GSD) LTM Values for
Children at Daycare Centers and Campgrounds
Table 4-8. Estimated Geometric Mean LTM Values of Children Attending Daycare
Centers According to Age, Weather Category, and Sampling Period
Table 4-9. Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates Per Child for
64 Children (mg/day)
Table 4-10. Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Data
for 64 Subjects Projected Over 365 Days
Table 4-11. Estimates of Soil Ingestion for Children
Table 4-12. Estimated Soil Ingestion Rate Summary Statistics and Parameters for
Distributions Using Binder et al. (1986) Data with Actual Fecal Weights
Table 4-13. Tukey's Multiple Comparison of Mean Log Tracer Recovery in Adults
Ingesting Known Quantities of Soil
Table 4-14. Positive/Negative Error (bias) in Soil Ingestion Estimates in the Calabrese
et al. (1989) Mass-balance Study: Effect on Mean Soil Ingestion Estimate
(mg/day)
Table 4-15. Soil Ingestion Rates for Assessment Purposes
Table 4-16. Estimates of Soil Ingestion for Adults
Table 4-17. Adult Daily Soil Ingestion by Week and Tracer Element After Subtracting
Food and Capsule Ingestion, Based on Median Amherst Soil
Concentrations: Means and Medians Over Subjects (mg)
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
Table 4-18. Daily Soil Ingestion Estimation in a Soil-Pica Child by Tracer and by Week
(mg/day)
Table 4-19. Ratios of Soil, Dust, and Residual Fecal Samples in the Pica Child
Table 4-20. Soil Intake Studies
Table 4-21. Confidence in Soil Intake Recommendation
Table 4-22. Summary of Estimates of Soil Ingestion By Children
Table 4-23. Summary of Recommended Values for Soil Ingestion
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
5. INHALATION ROUTE
5.1. EXPOSURE EQUATION FOR INHALATION
5.2. INHALATION RATE
5.2.1. Background
5.2.2. Key Inhalation Rate Studies
5.2.3. Relevant Inhalation Rate Studies
5.2.4. Recommendations
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5
APPENDIX 5A
Table 5-1.
Table 5-2.
Table 5-3.
Table 5-4.
Table 5-5.
Table 5-6.
Table 5-7.
Table 5-8.
Table 5-9.
Table 5-10.
Table 5-11.
Table 5-12.
Table 5-13.
Table 5-14.
Table 5-15.
Table 5-16.
Table 5-17.
Calibration and Field Protocols for Self-Monitoring of Activities Grouped by
Subject Panels
Subject Panel Inhalation Rates by Mean VR, Upper Percentiles, and
Self-Estimated Breathing Rates
Distribution of Predicted IR by Location and Activity Levels for Elementary
and High School Students
Average Hours Spent Per Day in a Given Location and Activity Level for
Elementary (EL) and High School (HS) Students
Distribution Patterns of Daily Inhalation Rates for Elementary (EL) and High
School (HS) Students Grouped by Activity Level
Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hr) by Age Group and Activity
Levels for Laboratory Protocols
Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hr) by Age Group and Activity
Levels in Field Protocols
Distributions of Individual and Group Inhalation/Ventilation Rate for Outdoor
Workers
Individual Mean Inhalation Rate (m3/hr) by Self-Estimated Breathing Rate or
Job Activity Category for Outdoor Workers
Comparisons of Estimated Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) with Average
Food-Energy Intakes for Individuals Sampled in the 1977-78 NFCS
Daily Inhalation Rates Calculated from Food-Energy Intakes
Daily Inhalation Rates Obtained from the Ratios of Total Energy Expenditure
to Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR)
Daily Inhalation Rates Based on Time-Activity Survey
Inhalation Rates for Short-Term Exposures
Daily Inhalation Rates Estimated From Daily Activities
Summary of Human Inhalation Rates for Men, Women, and Children by
Activity Level (m3/hour)
Activity Pattern Data Aggregated for Three Microenvironments by Activity
Level for all Age Groups
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
Table 5-18. Summary of Daily Inhalation Rates Grouped by Age and Activity Level
Table 5-19. Distribution Pattern of Predicted VR and EVR (equivalent ventilation rate)
for 20 Outdoor Workers
Table 5-20. Distribution Pattern of Inhalation Rate by Location and Activity Type for
20 Outdoor Workers
Table 5-21. Actual Inhalation Rates Measured at Four Ventilation Levels
Table 5-22. Confidence in Inhalation Rate Recommendations
Table 5-23. Summary of Recommended Values for Inhalation
Table 5-24. Summary of Inhalation Rate Studies
Table 5-25. Summary of Adult Inhalation Rates for Short-Term Exposure Studies
Table 5-26. Summary of Children's (18 years old or less) Inhalation Rates for
Long-Term Exposure Studies
Table 5-27. Summary of Children's Inhalation Rates for Short-Term Exposure Studies
Table 5A-1. Mean Minute Ventilation (VE, L/min) by Group and Activity for Laboratory
Protocols
Table 5A-2. Mean Minute Ventilation (VE, L/min) by Group and Activity for Field
Protocols
Table 5A-3. Characteristics of Individual Subjects: Anthropometric Data, Job
Categories, Calibration Results
Table 5A-4. Statistics of the Age/Gender Cohorts Used to Develop Regression
Equations for Predicting Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR)
Table 5A-5. Selected Ventilation Values During Different Activity Levels Obtained
FromVarious Literature Sources
Table 5A-6. Estimated Minute Ventilation Associated with Activity Level for Average
Male Adult
Table 5A-7. Minute Ventilation Ranges by Age, Sex, and Activity Level
Figure 5-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Respiratory Route
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
6. DERMAL ROUTE
6.1. EQUATION FOR DERMAL DOSE
6.2. SURFACE AREA
6.2.1. Background
6.2.2. Measurement Techniques
6.2.3. Key Body Surface Area Studies
6.2.4. Relevant Surface Area Studies
6.2.5. Application of Body Surface Area Data
6.3. SOIL ADHERENCE TO SKIN
6.3.1. Background
6.3.2. Key Soil Adherence to Skin Studies
6.3.3. Relevant Soil Adherence to Skin Studies
6.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.4.1. Body Surface Area
6.4.2. Soil Adherence to Skin
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
APPENDIX 6A
Table 6-1.
Table 6-2.
Table 6-3.
Table 6-4.
Table 6-5.
Table 6-6.
Table 6-7.
Table 6-8.
Table 6-9.
Table 6-10.
Table 6-11.
Table 6-12.
Table 6-13.
Table 6-14.
Table 6-15.
Table 6-16.
Table 6-17.
Table 6-18.
Table 6-A1.
Table 6-A2.
Summary of Equation Parameters for Calculating Adult Body Surface Area
Surface Area of Adult Males in Square Meters
Surface Area of Adult Females in Square Meters
Surface Area of Body Part for Adults (m2)
Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Part for Adults
Total Body Surface Area of Male Children in Square Meters
Total Body Surface Area of Female Children in Square Meters
Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Body Part for Children
Descriptive Statistics for Surface Area/BodyWeight (SA/WB) Ratios (m2/kg)
Statistical Results for Total Body Surface Area Distributions (m2)
Summary of Field Studies
Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of Soil Adherence by
Activity and Body Region
Summary of Surface Area Studies
Summary of Recommended Values for Skin Surface Area
Confidence in Body Surface Area Measurement Recommendations
Recommendations for Adult Body Surface Area
Summary of Soil Adherence Studies
Confidence in Soil Adherence to Skin Recommendations
Estimated Parameter Values for Different Age Intervals
Summary of Surface Area Parameter Values for the DuBois and DuBois
Model
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
Figure 6-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Dermal Route
Figure 6-2. SA/BW Distributions for Infants, Adults, and All Ages Combined
Figure 6-3. Surface Area Frequency Distribution: Men and Women
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 7 - Body Weight Studies
1. BODY WEIGHT STUDIES
7.1. KEY BODY WEIGHT STUDY
7.2. RELEVANT BODY WEIGHT STUDIES
7.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7
Table 7-1. Smoothed Percentiles of Weight (in kg) by Sex and Age: Statistics from
NCHS and Data from Fels Research Institute, Birth to 36 Months
Table 7-2. Body Weights of Adults (kilograms)
Table 7-3. Body Weights of Children (kilograms)
Table 7-4. Weight in Kilograms for Males 18-74 Years of Age-Number Examined,
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Race and Age:
United States, 1976-1980
Table 7-5. Weight in Kilograms for Females 18-74 Years of Age-Number Examined,
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Race and Age:
United States, 1976-1980
Table 7-6. Weight in Kilograms for Males 6 Months-19 Years of Age-Number
Examined, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Sex and
Age: United States, 1976-1980
Table 7-7. Weight in Kilograms for Females 6 Months-19 Years of Age-Number
Examined, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Sex and
Age: United States, 1976-1980
Table 7-8. Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses Female's Body Weights
6 Months to 20 Years of Age
Table 7-9. Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses Male's Body Weights 6
Months to 20 Years of Age
Table 7-10. Summary of Body Weight Studies
Table 7-11. Summary of Recommended Values for Body Weight
Table 7-12. Confidence in Body Weight Recommendations
Figure 7-1. Weight by Age Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth-36 Months
Figure 7-2. Weight by Age Percentiles for Girls Aged Birth-36 Months
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 199 7
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 8 - Lifetime
8. LIFETIME
8.1. KEY STUDY ON LIFETIME
8.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8
Table 8-1. Expectation of Life at Birth, 1970 to 1993, and Projections, 1995 to 2010
Table 8-2. Expectation of Life by Race, Sex, and Age: 1992
Table 8-3. Confidence in Lifetime Expectancy Recommendations
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
9. INTAKE OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
9.1. BACKGROUND
9.2. INTAKE STUDIES
9.2.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Nationwide Food Consumption Survey
and Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
9.2.2. Key Fruits and Vegetables Intake Study Based on the USDA CSFII
9.2.3. Relevant Fruits and Vegetables Intake Studies
9.2.4. Relevant Fruits and Vegetables Serving Size Study Based on the
USDANFCS
9.2.5. Conversion Between As Consumed and Dry Weight Intake Rates
9.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9
APPENDIX 9A
APPENDIX 9B
Table 9-1. Sub-category Codes and Definitions Used in the CSFII 1989-91 Analysis
Table 9-2. Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations for 1989-91 CSFII Data
Used in Analysis of Food Intake
Table 9-3. Per Capita Intake of Total Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 9-4. Per Capita Intake of Total Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as
consumed)
Table 9-6. Per Capita Intake of USDA Categories of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day
as consumed)
Table 9-7. Per Capita Intake of Exposed Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 9-8. Per Capita Intake of Protected Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 9-9. Per Capita Intake of Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 9-10. Per Capita Intake of Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 9-11. Per Capita Intake of Root Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 9-12. Mean Daily Intake of Fruits and Vegetables Per Individual in a Day for USDA
1977-78, 87-88, 89-91, 94, and 95 Surveys
Table 9-13. Mean Per Capita Intake Rates (as consumed) for Fruits and Vegetables
Based on All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Table 9-14. Mean Total Fruit Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1977-
1978)
Table 9-15. Mean Total Fruit Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex an Age (1987-1988)
Table 9-16. Mean Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age
(1977-1978)
Table 9-17. Mean Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age
(1987-1988)
Table 9-18. Mean Total Fruit Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1994 and
1995)
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 199 7
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-19. Mean Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1994
and 1995)
Table 9-20. Mean Per Capita Intake of Fats and Oils (g/day as consumed) in a Day by
Sex and Age (1994 and 1995)
Table 9-21. Mean and Standard Error for the Per Capita Daily Intake of Food Class and
Subclass by Region (g/day as consumed)
Table 9-22. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Food Subclasses Per Capita
by Age (g/day as consumed)
Table 9-23. Consumption of Foods (g dry weight/day) for Different Age Groups and
Estimated Lifetime Average Daily Food Intakes for a US Citizen (averaged
across sex) Calculated from the FDA Diet Data
Table 9-24. Mean Daily Intake of Foods (grams) Based on the Nutrition Canada Dietary
Survey
Table 9-25. Per Capita Consumption of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in 1991
Table 9-26. Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating
Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Three
Days
Table 9-27. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Fruits and Vegetables Expressed as
Percentages of Edible Portions
Table 9-28. Summary of Fruit and Vegetable Intake Studies
Table 9-29. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of Fruits and
Vegetables
Table 9-30. Confidence in Fruit and Vegetable Intake Recommendations
Table 9A-1. Fraction of Grain and Meat Mixture Intake Represented by Various Food
Items/Groups
Table 9 B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII
Data
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
10. INTAKE OF FISH AND SHELLFISH
10.1. BACKGROUND
10.2. KEY GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES
10.3. RELEVANT GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES
10.4. KEY RECREATIONAL (MARINE FISH STUDIES)
10.5. RELEVANT RECREATIONAL MARINE STUDIES
10.6. KEY FRESHWATER RECREATIONAL STUDIES
10.7. RELEVANT FRESHWATER RECREATIONAL STUDIES
10.8. NATIVE AMERICAN FRESHWATER STUDIES
10.9. OTHER FACTORS
10.10. RECOMMENDATIONS
10.10.1. Recommendations - General Population
10.10.2. Recommendations - Recreational Marine Anglers
10.10.3. Recommendations - Recreational Freshwater Anglers
10.10.4. Recommendations - Native American Subsistence Populations
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10
APPENDIX 10A
APPENDIX 10B
APPENDIX 10C
Table 10-1. Total Fish Consumption by Demographic Variables
Table 10-2. Mean and 95th Percentile of Fish Consumption (g/day) by Sex and Age
Table 10-3. Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Females by Age
Table 10-4. Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Males by Age
Table 10-5. Mean Total Fish Consumption by Species
Table 10-6. Best Fits of Lognormal Distributions Using the NonLinear Optimization
(NLO) Method
Table 10-7. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for
the U.S. Population (Uncooked Fish Weight)
Table 10-8. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) by
Habitat for Consumers Only (Uncooked Fish Weight)
Table 10-9. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (mg/kg-day) by Habitat and Fish Type
for U.S. Population (Uncooked Fish Weight)
Table 10-10. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) by
Habitat for Consumers Only (Uncooked Fish Weight)
Table 10-11. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for
the U.S. Population (Cooked Fish Weight - As Consumed))
Table 10-12. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat for Consumers Only
(Cooked Fish Weight - As Consumed))
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-13. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Freshwater and
Estuarine)
Table 10-14. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Marine)
Table 10-15. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (All Fish)
Table 10-16. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (grams/day) for
the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
Table 10-17. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Freshwater and
Estuarine)
Table 10-18. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Marine)
Table 10-19. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (All Fish)
Table 10-20. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
Table 10-21. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Freshwater and
Estuarine)
Table 10-22. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Marine)
Table 10-23. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (All Fish)
Table 10-24. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
Table 10-25. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Freshwater and
Estuarine)
Table 10-26. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Marine)
Table 10-27. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (All Fish)
Table 10-28. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
Table 10-29. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Freshwater
and Estuarine)
Table 10-30. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Marine)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-31. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (All Fish)
Table 10-32. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Weight
Table 10-33. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
Table 10-34. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Marine)
Table 10-35. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (All Fish)
Table 10-36. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Weight
Table 10-37. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Freshwater
and Estuarine)
Table 10-38. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Marine)
Table 10-39. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (All Fish)
Table 10-40. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Weight
Table 10-41. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Freshwater
and Estuarine)
Table 10-42. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Marine)
Table 10-43. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (All Fish)
Table 10-44. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) for
Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Weight
Table 10-45. Distribution of Quantity of Fish Consumed (in grams) Per Eating Occasion,
by Age and Sex
Table 10-46. Mean Fish Intake in a Day, by Sex and Age
Table 10-47. Percent of Respondents That Responded Yes, No, or Don't Know to Eating
Seafood in 1 Month (including shellfish, eels, or squid)
Table 10-48. Number of Respondents Reporting Consumption of a Specified Number of
Servings of Seafood in 1 Month
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-49. Number of Respondents Reporting Monthly Consumption of Seafood That
Was Purchased or Caught by Someone They Knew
Table 10-50. Estimated Number of Participants in Marine Recreational Fishing by State
and Subregion
Table 10-51. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and B1) by Marine
Recreational Fishermen, by Wave and Subregion
Table 10-52. Average Daily Intake (g/day) of Marine Finfish, by Region and Coastal
Status
Table 10-53. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and B1) by Marine
Recreational Fishermen by Species Group and Subregion, Atlantic and Gulf
Table 10-54. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and B1) by Marine
Recreational Fishermen by Species Group and Subregion, Pacific
Table 10-55. Median Intake Rates Based on Demographic Data of Sport Fishermen and
Their Family/Living Group
Table 10-56. Cumulative Distribution of Total Fish/Shellfish Consumption by Surveyed
Sport Fishermen in the Metropolitan Los Angeles Area
Table 10-57. Catch Information for Primary Fish Species Kept by Sport Fishermen
(n=1059)
Table 10-58. Percent of Fishing Frequency During the Summer and Fall Seasons in
Commencement Bay, Washington
Table 10-59. Selected Percentile Consumption Estimates (g/day) for the Survey and Total
Angler Populations Based on the Reanalysis of the Puffer et al. (1981) and
Pierce etal. (1981) Data
Table 10-60. Means and Standard Deviations of Selected Characteristics by
Subpopulation Groups in Everglades, Florida
Table 10-61. Mean Fish Intake Among Individuals Who Eat Fish and Reside in
Households With Recreational Fish Consumption
Table 10-62. Comparison of Seven-Day Recall and Estimated Seasonal Frequency for
Fish Consumption
Table 10-63. Distribution of Usual Fish Intake Among Survey Main Respondents Who
Fished and Consumed Recreationally Caught Fish
Table 10-64. Estimates of Fish Intake Rates of Licensed Sport Anglers in Maine During
the 1989-1990 Ice Fishing or 1990 Open-Water Seasons
Table 10-65. Analysis of Fish Consumption by Ethnic Groups for "All Waters" (g/day)
Table 10-66. Total Consumption of Freshwater Fish Caught by All Survey Respondents
During the 1990 Season
Table 10-67. Mean Sport-Fish Consumption by Demographic Variables, Michigan Sport
Anglers Fish Consumption Study, 1991-1992
Table 10-68. Distribution of Fish Intake Rates (from all sources and from sport-caught
sources) For 1992 Lake Ontario Anglers
Table 10-69. Mean Annual Fish Consumption (g/day) for Lake Ontario Anglers, 1992, by
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-70. Percentile and Mean Intake Rates for Wisconsin Sport Anglers
Table 10-71. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents
Table 10-72. Number of Grams Per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult Respondents
(Consumers and Non-consumers Combined) - Throughout the Year
Table 10-73. Fish Intake Throughout the Year by Sex, Age, and Location by All Adult
Respondents
Table 10-74. Children's Fish Consumption Rates - Throughout Year
Table 10-75. Sociodemographic Factors and Recent Fish Consumption
Table 10-76. Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period for All
Respondents
Table 10-77. Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period for
All Respondents and Consumers Only
Table 10-78. Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period and
Selected Characteristics for All Respondents (Mohawk, N=97; Control,
N=154)
Table 10-79. Percentage of Individuals Using Various Cooking Methods at Specified
Frequencies
Table 10-80. Percent Moisture and Fat Content for Selected Species
Table 10-81. Recommendations - General Population
Table 10-82. Recommendations - General Population - Fish Serving Size
Table 10-83. Recommendations - Recreational Marine Anglers
Table 10-84. Recommendations - Freshwater Anglers
Table 10-85. Recommendations - Native American Subsistence Populations
Table 10-86. Summary of Fish Intake Studies
Table 10-87. Confidence in Fish Intake Recommendations for General Population
Table 10-88. Confidence in Fish Intake Recommendations for Recreational Marine
Anglers
Table 10-89. Confidence in Recommendations for Fish Consumption - Recreational
Freshwater
Table 10-90. Confidence in Recommendations for Native American Subsistence Fish
Consumption
Table 10B-1. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by
Residence Size
Table 10B-2. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Age
Table 10B-3. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by
Ethnicity
Table 10B-4. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by
Education
Table 10B-5. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Income
Table 10B-6. Percent of Fish Meals Where Fat was Trimmed or Skin was Removed, by
Demographic Variables
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10B-7.
Table 10B-8.
Table 10C-1.
Method of Cooking of Most Common Species Kept by Sportfishermen
Adult Consumption of Fish Parts
Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption U.S. Population -
Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat - As Consumed Fish
Table 10C-2. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption U.S. Population -
Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Table 10C-3. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption As Consumed
Fish - Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat - U.S. Population
Table 10C-4. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption Uncooked Fish -
Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat - U.S. Population
Figure 10-1. Seasonal Fish Consumption: Wisconsin Chippewa, 1990
Figure 10-2. Peak Fish Consumption: Wisconsin Chippewa, 1990
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 199 7
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
11. INTAKE OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS
11.1. INTAKE STUDIES
11.1.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey and Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
11.1.2. Key Meat and Dairy Products Intake Study Based on the CSFII
11.1.3. Relevant Meat and Dairy Products Intake Studies
11.2. FAT CONTENT OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS
11.3. CONVERSION BETWEEN AS CONSUMED AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE
RATES
11.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11
APPENDIX 11A
Table 11-1. Per Capita Intake of Total Meats (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 11-2. Per Capita Intake of Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 11 -3. Per Capita Intake of Beef (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 11 -4. Per Capita Intake of Pork (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 11-5. Per Capita Intake of Poultry (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 11-6. Per Capita Intake of Game (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 11-7. Per Capita Intake of Eggs (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 11-8. Main Daily Intake of Meat and Dairy Products Per Individual in a Day for
USDA 1977-78, 87-88, 89-91, 94, and 95 Surveys
Table 11-9. Mean Per Capita Intake Rates for Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Products (g/kg-
day as consumed) Based on All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Table 11-10. Mean Meat Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as
consumed) for 1977-1978
Table 11-11. Mean Meat Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as
consumed) for 1987-1988
Table 11-12. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day
as consumed) for 1977-1978
Table 11-13. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day
as consumed) for 1987-1988
Table 11-14. Mean Meat Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as
consumed) for 1994 and 1995
Table 11-15. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day
as consumed) for 1994 and 1995
Table 11-16. Mean and Standard Error for the Dietary Intake of Food Sub Classes Per
Capita by Age (g/day as consumed)
Table 11-17. Mean and Standard Error for the Per Capita Daily Intake of Food Class and
Sub Class by Region (g/day as consumed)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
Table 11-18. Consumption of Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Products for Different Age Groups
(averaged across sex), and Estimated Lifetime Average Intakes for 70 Kg
Adult Citizens Calculated from the FDA Diet Data
Table 11-19. Per Capita Consumption of Meat and Poultry in 1991
Table 11-20. Per Capita Consumption of Dairy Products in 1991
Table 11-21. Adult Mean Daily Intake (as consumed) of Meat and Poultry Grouped by
Region and Gender
Table 11 -22. Amount (as consumed) of Meat Consumed by Adults Grouped by Frequency
of Eatings
Table 11-23. Quantity (as consumed) of Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Products Consumed Per
Eating Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in
Three Days
Table 11-24. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of
Edible Portions) of Selected Meat and Dairy Products
Table 11-25. Fat Content of Meat Products
Table 11-26. Fat Intake, Contribution of Various Food Groups to Fat Intake, and
Percentage of the Population in Various Meat Eater Groups of the U.S.
Population
Table 11-27. Mean Total Daily Dietary Fat Intake (g/day) Grouped by Age and Gender
Table 11-28. Percentage Mean Moisture Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100
Grams of Edible Portions)
Table 11-29. Summary of Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Intake Studies
Table 11-30. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of Meat and Dairy
Products and Serving Size
Table 11-31. Confidence in Meats and Dairy Products Intake Recommendations
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
12. INTAKE OF GRAIN PRODUCTS
12.1. INTAKE STUDIES
12.1.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey and Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
12.1.2. Key Grain Products Intake Studies Based on the CSFII
12.1.3. Relevant Grain Products Intake Studies
12.1.4. Key Grain Products Serving Size Study Based on the USDA
NFCS
12.2. CONVERSION BETWEEN AS CONSUMED AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE
RATES
12.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12
APPENDIX 12A
Table 12-1. Per Capita Intake of Total Grains Including Mixtures (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-2. Per Capita Intake of Breads (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-3. Per Capita Intake of Sweets (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-4. Per Capita Intake of Snacks Containing Grain (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-5. Per Capita Intake of Breakfast Foods (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-6. Per Capita Intake of Pasta (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-7. Per Capita Intake of Cooked Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-8. Per Capita Intake of Rice (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-9. Per Capita Intake of Ready-to-Eat Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-10. Per Capita Intake of Baby Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
Table 12-11. Mean Daily Intakes of Grains Per Individual in a Day for USDA 1977-78, 87-
88, 89-91, 94, and 95 Surveys
Table 12-12. Mean Per Capita Intake Rates for Grains Based on All
Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Table 12-13. Mean Grain Intake Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as
consumed) for 1977-1978
Table 12-14. Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as
consumed) for 1987-1988
Table 12-15. Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as
consumed) for 1994 and 1995
Table 12-16. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Per Capita Intake of Grains, by Age
(g/day as consumed)
Table 12-17. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Grains, by Region (g/day as
consumed)
Table 12-18. Consumption of Grains (g dry weight/day) for Different Age Groups and
Estimated Lifetime Average Daily Food Intakes for a U.S. Citizen (averaged
across sex) Calculated from the FDA Diet Data
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-19. Per Capita Consumption of Flour and Cereal Products in 1991
Table 12-20. Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion
and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Three Days
Table 12-21. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Grains Expressed as Percentages of
Edible Portions
Table 12-22. Summary of Grain Intake Studies
Table 12-23. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-24. Confidence in Grain Products Intake Recommendation
Table 12A-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in the Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA
CSFII Grains Data
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
13. INTAKE RATES FOR VARIOUS HOME PRODUCED FOOD ITEMS
13.1. BACKGROUND
13.2. METHODS
13.3. RESULTS
13.4. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
13.5. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 13
APPENDIX 13A
Table 13-1. 1986 Vegetable Gardening by Demographic Factors
Table 13-2. Percentage of Gardening Households Growing Different Vegetables in 1986
Table 13-3. Sub-category Codes and Definitions
Table 13-4. Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations (Individuals) for NFCS
Data Used in Analysis of Food Intake
Table 13-5. Percent Weight Losses from Preparation of Various Meats
Table 13-6. Percent Weight Losses from Preparation of Various Fruits
Table 13-7. Percent Weight Losses from Preparation of Various Vegetables
Table 13-8. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Combined
Table 13-9. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Table 13-10. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Table 13-11. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - South
Table 13-12. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - West
Table 13-13. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Combined
Table 13-14. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Table 13-15. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Table 13-16. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - South
Table 13-17. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - West
Table 13-18. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Combined
Table 13-19. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Table 13-20. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Table 13-21. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - South
Table 13-22. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - West
Table 13-23. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Combined
Table 13-24. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Table 13-25. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Table 13-26. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - South
Table 13-27. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - West
Table 13-28. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
Table 13-29. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Table 13-30. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Table 13-31. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - South
Table 13-32. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - West
Table 13-33. Seasonally Adjusted Consumer Only Homegrown Intake (g/kg-day)
Table 13-34. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Apples (g/kg-day)
Table 13-35. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Asparagus (g/kg-day)
Table 13-36. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Beef (g/kg-day)
Table 13-37. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Beets (g/kg-day)
Table 13-38. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Broccoli (g/kg-day)
Table 13-39. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cabbage (g/kg-day)
Table 13-40. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Carrots (g/kg-day)
Table 13-41. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Corn (g/kg-day)
Table 13-42. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cucumbers (g/kg-day)
Table 13-43. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Eggs (g/kg-day)
Table 13-44. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Game (g/kg-day)
Table 13-45. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Lettuce (g/kg-day)
Table 13-46. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Lima Beans (g/kg-day)
Table 13-47. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Okra (g/kg-day)
Table 13-48. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Onions (g/kg-day)
Table 13-49. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Berries (g/kg-day)
Table 13-50. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peaches (g/kg-day)
Table 13-51. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pears (g/kg-day)
Table 13-52. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peas (g/kg-day)
Table 13-53. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peppers (g/kg-day)
Table 13-54. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Pork (g/kg-day)
Table 13-55. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Poultry (g/kg-day)
Table 13-56. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pumpkins (g/kg-day)
Table 13-57. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Snap Beans (g/kg-day)
Table 13-58. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Strawberries (g/kg-day)
Table 13-59. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Tomatoes (g/kg-day)
Table 13-60. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown White Potatoes (g/kg-day)
Table 13-61. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Fruit (g/kg-day)
Table 13-62. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Fruits (g/kg-day)
Table 13-63. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Table 13-64. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Table 13-65. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Root Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Table 13-66. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Dark Green Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Table 13-67. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Deep Yellow Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Table 13-68. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Table 13-69. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Citrus (g/kg-day)
Table 13-70. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Fruit (g/kg-day)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
Table 13-71. Fraction of Food Intake that is Home Produced
Table 13-72. Confidence in Homegrown Food Consumption Recommendations
Table 13A-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA MFCS
Data
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
14. BREAST MILK INTAKE
14.1. BACKGROUND
14.2. KEY STUDIES ON BREAST MILK INTAKE
14.3. RELEVANT STUDIES ON BREAST MILK INTAKE
14.4. KEY STUDIES ON LIPID CONTENT AND FAT INTAKE FROM BREAST
MILK
14.5. OTHER FACTORS
14.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 14
Table 14-1. Daily Intakes of Breast Milk
Table 14-2. Breast Milk Intake for Infants Aged 1 to 6 Months
Table 14-3. Breast Milk Intake Among Exclusively Breast-fed Infants During the First 4
Months of Life
Table 14-4. Breast Milk Intake During a 24-Hour Period
Table 14-5. Breast Milk Intake Estimated by the DARLING Study
Table 14-6. Milk Intake for Bottle- and Breast-fed Infants by Age Group
Table 14-7. Milk Intake for Boys and Girls
Table 14-8. Intake of Breast Milk and Formula
Table 14-9. Lipid Content of Human Milk and Estimated Lipid Intake Among Exclusively
Breast-fed Infants
Table 14-10. Predicted Lipid Intakes for Breast-fed Infants Under 12 Months of Age
Table 14-11. Number of Meals Per Day
Table 14-12. Percentage of Mothers Breast-feeding Newborn Infants in the Hospital and
Infants at 5 or 6 Months of Age in the United States in 1989, by Ethnic
Background and Selected Demographic Variables
Table 14-13. Breast Milk Intake Studies
Table 14-14. Confidence in Breast Milk Intake Recommendations
Table 14-15. Breast Milk Intake Rates Derived From Key Studies
Table 14-16. Summary of Recommended Breast Milk and Lipid Intake Rates
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 199 7
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
15. ACTIVITY FACTORS
15.1. ACTIVITY PATTERNS
15.1.1. Key Activity Pattern Studies
15.1.2. Relevant Activity Pattern Studies
15.2. OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY
15.2.1. Background
15.2.2. Key Occupational Mobility Studies
15.3. POPULATION MOBILITY
15.3.1. Background
15.3.2. Key Population Mobility Studies
15.3.3. Relevant Population Mobility Studies
15.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
15.4.1. Recommendations for Activity Patterns
15.4.2. Recommendations: Occupational Mobility
15.4.3. Recommendations: Population Mobility
15.4.4. Summary of Recommended Activity Factors
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 15
APPENDIX 15A
APPENDIX 15B
Table 15-1. Time Use Table Locator Guide
Table 15-2. Mean Time Spent (minutes) Performing Major Activities Grouped by Age,
Sex and Type of Day
Table 15-3. Mean Time Spent (minutes) in Major Activities Grouped by Type of Day for
Five Different Age Groups
Table 15-4. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Average Shower Duration for 2,550
Households
Table 15-5. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped
by Total Sample and Gender for the GARB and National Studies (age 18-64
years)
Table 15-6. Total Mean Time Spent at Three Major Locations Grouped by Total Sample
and Gender for the GARB and National Study (ages 18-64 years)
Table 15-7. Mean Time Spent at Three Locations for both GARB and National Studies
(ages 12 years and older)
Table 15-8. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments Grouped by
Total Population and Gender (12 years and over) in the National and GARB
Data
Table 15-9. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Type of
Day for the California and National Surveys (sample population ages 12
years and older)
Table 15-10. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age
Groups for the National and California Surveys
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-11. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories
for All Respondents
Table 15-12. Mean Time Children Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Age
and Gender
Table 15-13. Mean Time Children Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by
Seasons and Regions
Table 15-14. Mean Time Children Spent in Six Major Location Categories for All
Respondents (minutes/day)
Table 15-15. Mean Time Children Spent in Six Location Categories Grouped by Age and
Gender
Table 15-16. Mean Time Children Spent in Six Location Categories Grouped by Season
and Region
Table 15-17. Mean Time Children Spent in Proximity to Three Potential Exposures
Grouped by All Respondents, Age, and Gender
Table 15-18. Range of Recommended Defaults for Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 15-19. Number of Times Taking a Shower at Specified Daily Frequencies by the
Number of Respondents
Table 15-20. Times (minutes) Spent Taking Showers by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-21. Number of Minutes Spent Taking a Shower (minutes/shower)
Table 15-22. Time (minutes) Spent in the Shower Room Immediately After Showering by
the Number of Respondents
Table 15-23. Number of Minutes Spent in the Shower Room Immediately After Showering
(minutes/shower)
Table 15-24. Number of Baths Given or Taken in One Day by Number of Respondents
Table 15-25. Total Time Spent Taking or Giving a Bath by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-26. Number of Minutes Spent Giving and Taking the Bath(s) (minutes/bath)
Table 15-27. Time Spent in the Bathroom Immediately After the Bath(s) by the Number
of Respondents
Table 15-28. Number of Minutes Spent in the Bathroom Immediately After the Bath(s)
(minutes/bath)
Table 15-29. Total Time Spent Altogether in the Shower or Bathtub by the Number of
Respondents
Table 15-30. Total Number of Minutes Spent Altogether in the Shower or Bathtub
(minutes/bath)
Table 15-31. Time Spent in the Bathroom Immediately Following a Shower or Bath by the
Number of Respondents
Table 15-32. Number of Minutes Spent in the Bathroom Immediately Following a Shower
or Bath (minutes/bath)
Table 15-33. Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily
Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-34. Number of Minutes Spent (at home) Working or Being Near Food While
Fried, Grilled, or Barbequed (minutes/day)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-35. Number of Minutes Spent (at home) Working or Being Near Open Flames
Including Barbeque Flames (minutes/day)
Table 15-36. Number of Minutes Spent Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air
(minutes/day)
Table 15-37. Range of the Number of Times an Automobile or Motor Vehicle was Started
in a Garage or Carport at Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of
Respondents
Table 15-38. Range of the Number of Times Motor Vehicle Was Started with Garage Door
Closed at Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-39. Number of Minutes Spent at a Gas Station or Auto Repair Shop
(minutes/day)
Table 15-40. Number of Minutes Spent at Home While the Windows Were Left Open
(minutes/day)
Table 15-41. Number of Minutes the Outside Door Was Left Open While at Home
(minutes/day)
Table 15-42. Number of Times an Outside Door Was Opened in the Home at Specified
Daily Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-43. Number of Minutes Spent Running, Walking, or Standing Alongside a Road
with Heavy Traffic (minutes/day)
Table 15-44. Number of Minutes Spent in a Car, Van, Truck, or Bus in Heavy Traffic
(minutes/day)
Table 15-45. Number of Minutes Spent in a Parking Garage or Indoor Parking Lot
(minutes/day)
Table 15-46. Number of Minutes Spent Walking Outside to a Car in the Driveway or
Outside Parking Areas (minutes/day)
Table 15-47. Number of Minutes Spent Running or Walking Outside Other Than to the
Car (minutes/day)
Table 15-48. Number of Hours Spent Working for Pay (hours/week)
Table 15-49. Number of Hours Spent Working for Pay Between 6PM and 6AM
(hours/week)
Table 15-50. Number of Hours Worked in a Week That Was Outdoors (hours/week)
Table 15-51. Number of Times Floors Were Swept or Vacuumed at Specified Frequencies
by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-52. Number of Days Since the Floor Area in the Home Was Swept or Vacuumed
by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-53. Number of Loads of Laundry Washed in a Washing Machine at Home by the
Number of Respondents
Table 15-54. Number of Times Using a Dishwasher at Specified Frequencies by the
Number of Respondents
Table 15-55. Number of Times Washing Dishes by Hand at Specified Frequencies by the
Number of Respondents
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-56. Number of Times for Washing Clothes in a Washing Machine at Specified
Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-57. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Sand or Gravel in a Day by the Number
of Respondents
Table 15-58. Number of Minutes Spent Playing in Sand or Gravel (minutes/day)
Table 15-59. Number of Minutes Spent Playing in Outdoors on Sand, Gravel, Dirt, or
Grass When Fill Dirt Was Present by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-60. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Sand, Gravel, Dirt, or Grass When Fill
Dirt Was Present (minutes/day)
Table 15-61. Range of the Time Spent Working in a Garden or Other Circumstances in a
Month by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-62. Number of Hours Spent Working with Soil in a Garden or Other
Circumstances Working (hours/month)
Table 15-63. Range of Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Grass in a Day by the
Number of Respondents
Table 15-64. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Grass (minutes/day)
Table 15-65. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the
Number of Respondents
Table 15-66. Range of the Average Amount of Time Actually Spent in the Water by
Swimmers by the Number of Respondents
Table 15-67. Number of Minutes Spent Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming
Pool (minutes/month)
Table 15-68. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Working in a
Main Job
Table 15-69. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Food
Preparation
Table 15-70. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Food Cleanup
Table 15-71. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Cleaning House
Table 15-72. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Outdoor
Cleaning
Table 15-73. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Clothes Care
Table 15-74. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Car
Repair/Maintenance
Table 15-75. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Other Repairs
Table 15-76. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Plant Care
Table 15-77. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Animal Care
Table 15-78. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Other
Household Work
Table 15-79. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Indoor Playing
Table 15-80. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Outdoor
Playing
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-81. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent for Car Repair
Services
Table 15-82. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Washing, etc.
Table 15-83. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent
Sleeping/Napping
Table 15-84. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Attending Full
Time School
Table 15-85. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Active Sports
Table 15-86. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Outdoor
Recreation
Table 15-87. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Exercise
Table 15-88. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Food
Preparation
Table 15-89. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Doing
Dishes/Laundry
Table 15-90. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Housekeeping
Table 15-91. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Bathing
Table 15-92. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in
Yardwork/Maintenance
Table 15-93. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in
Sports/Exercise
Table 15-94. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Eating or Drinking
Table 15-95. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at an
Auto Repair Shop/Gas Station
Table 15-96. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at a
Gym/Health Club
Table 15-97. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at the
Laundromat
Table 15-98. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at Work
(non-specific)
Table 15-99. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at the
Dry Cleaners
Table 15-100. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at a
Bar/Nightclub/Bowling Alley
Table 15-101. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at a
Restaurant
Table 15-102. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at
School
Table 15-103. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at a
Plant/Factory/Warehouse
Table 15-104. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors on
a Sidewalk, Street, or in the Neighborhood
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-105. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors in a
Parking Lot
Table 15-106. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a
Service Station or Gas Station
Table 15-107. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a
Construction Site
Table 15-108. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors on
School Grounds/Playground
Table 15-109. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a
Park/Golf Course
Table 15-110. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a
Pool/River/Lake
Table 15-111. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a
Restaurant/Picnic
Table 15-112. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a
Farm
Table 15-113. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the
Kitchen
Table 15-114. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in the
Bathroom
Table 15-115. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the
Bedroom
Table 15-116. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the
Garage
Table 15-117. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in the
Basement
Table 15-118. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the
Utility Room or Laundry Room
Table 15-119. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the
Outdoor Pool or Spa
Table 15-120. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the
Yard or Other Areas Outside the House
Table 15-121. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in a
Car
Table 15-122. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in a
Truck (Pick-up/Van)
Table 15-123. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
a Motorcycle, Moped, or Scooter
Table 15-124. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in
Other Trucks
Table 15-125. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
a Bus
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-126. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Walking
Table 15-127. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
a Bicycle/Skateboard/ Rollerskate
Table 15-128. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Waiting on a
Bus, Train etc., Stop
Table 15-129. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
a Train/Subway/Rapid Transit
Table 15-130. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
an Airplane
Table 15-131. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors in a
Residence (all rooms)
Table 15-132. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors
(outside the residence)
Table 15-133. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling
Inside a Vehicle
Table 15-134. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors Near
a Vehicle
Table 15-135. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors
Other Than Near a Residence or Vehicle Such as Parks, Golf Courses, or
Farms
Table 15-136. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in an Office or
Factory
Table 15-137. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Malls,
Grocery Stores, or Other Stores
Table 15-138. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Schools,
Churches, Hospitals, and Public Buildings
Table 15-139. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in
Bars/Nightclubs, Bowling Alleys, and Restaurants
Table 15-140. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Other
Outdoors Such as Auto Repair Shops, Laundromats, Gyms, and at Work
(non-specific)
Table 15-141. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent with Smokers
Present
Table 15-142. Range of Time (minutes) Spent Smoking Based on the Number of
Respondents
Table 15-143. Number of Minutes Spent Smoking (minutes/day)
Table 15-144. Range of Time Spent Smoking Cigars or Pipe Tobacco by the Number of
Respondents
Table 15-145. Number of Minutes Spent Smoking Cigars or Pipe Tobacco (minutes/day)
Table 15-146. Range of Numbers of Cigarettes Smoked Based on the Number of
Respondents
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-147.
Table 15-148.
Table 15-149.
Table 15-150.
Table 15-151.
Table 15-152.
Table 15-153.
Table 15-154.
Table 15-155.
Table 15-156.
Table 15-157.
Table 15-158.
Table 15-159.
Table 15-160.
Table 15-161.
Table 15-162.
Table 15-163.
Table 15-164.
Table 15-165.
Table 15-166.
Table 15-167.
Table 15-168.
Table 15-169.
Table 15-170.
Table 15-171.
Table 15-172.
Range of Numbers of Cigarettes Smoked by Other People Based on
Number of Respondents
Range of Numbers of Cigarettes Smoked While at Home Based on the
Number of Respondents
Differences in Time Use (hours/week) Grouped by Sex, Employment
Status, and Marital Status for the Surveys Conducted in 1965 and 1975
Time Use (hours/week) Differences by Age for the Surveys Conducted in
1965 and 1975
Time Use (hours/week) Differences by Education for the Surveys
Conducted in 1965 and 1975
Time Use (hours/week) Differences by Race for the Surveys Conducted in
1965 and 1975
Mean Time Spent (hours/week) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped
by Regions
Total Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories
Grouped by Type of Day
Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories During
Four Waves of Interviews
Mean Time Spent (hours/week) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped
by Gender
Percent Responses of Children's "Play" (activities) Locations in Maryvale,
Arizona
Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals by Age and Sex
Occupational Tenure for Employed Individuals Grouped by Sex and Race
Occupational Tenure for Employed Individuals Grouped by Sex and
Employment Status
Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals Grouped by Major
Occupational Groups and Age
Voluntary Occupational Mobility Rates for Workers Age 16 Years and
Older
Values and Their Standard Errors for Average Total Residence Time, T,
for Each Group in Survey
Total Residence Time, t (years), Corresponding to Selected Values of R(t)
by Housing Category
Residence Time of Owner/Renter Occupied Units
Percent of Householders Living in Houses for Specified Ranges of Time
Descriptive Statistics for Residential Occupancy Period
Descriptive Statistics for Both Genders by Current Age
Summary of Residence Time of Recent Home Buyers (1993)
Tenure in Previous Home (Percentage Distribution)
Number of Miles Moved (Percentage Distribution)
Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 199 7
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-173. Confidence in Occupational Mobility Recommendations
Table 15-174. Recommendations for Population Mobility
Table 15-175. Confidence in Population Mobility Recommendations
Table 15-176. Summary of Recommended Values for Activity Factors
Table 15A-1.
Table 15A-2.
Table 15A-3.
Table 15A-4.
Table 15A-5.
Table 15A-6.
Table 15A-7.
Table 15B-1.
Table 15B-2.
Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries
Differences in Average Time Spent in Different Activities Between
California and National Studies (minutes per day for age 18-64 years)
Time Spent in Various Microenvironments
Major Time Use Activity Categories
Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) for 87 Activities Grouped by Day of the
Week
Weighted Mean Hours Per Week by Gender: 87 Activities and 10
Subtotals
Ranking of Occupations by Median Years of Occupational Tenure
Annual Geographical Mobility Rates, by Type of Movement for Selected 1-
Year Periods: 1960-1992 (numbers in thousands)
Mobility of the Resident Population by State: 1980
Figure 15-1. Distribution of Individuals Moving by Type of Move: 1991 -92
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 199 7
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
16. CONSUMER PRODUCTS
16.1. BACKGROUND
16.2. KEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDIES
16.3. RELEVANT CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDY
16.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 16
APPENDIX 16A
Table 16-1. Consumer Products Found in the Typical U.S. Household
Table 16-2. Frequency of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Table 16-3. Exposure Time of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Table 16-4. Amount of Products Used for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Table 16-5. Time Exposed After Duration of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-
only)
Table 16-6. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Adhesive Removers
Table 16-7. Adhesive Remover Usage by Gender
Table 16-8. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Spray Paint
Table 16-9. Spray Paint Usage by Gender
Table 16-10. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Paint Removers/Strippers
Table 16-11. Paint Stripper Usage by Gender
Table 16-12. Total Exposure Time of Performing Task and Product Type Used by Task for
Household Cleaning Products
Table 16-13. Percentile Rankings for Total Exposure Time in Performing Household Tasks
Table 16-14. Mean Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Performing Household Tasks
Table 16-15. Mean and Percentile Rankings for Exposure Time Per Event of Performing
Household Tasks
Table 16-16. Total Exposure Time for Ten Product Groups Most Frequently Used for
Household Cleaning
Table 16-17. Total Exposure Time of Painting Activity of Interior Painters (hours)
Table 16-18. Exposure Time of Interior Painting Activity/Occasion (hours) and Frequency
of Occasions Spent Painting Per Year
Table 16-19. Amount of Paint Used by Interior Painters
Table 16-20. Number of Respondents Using Cologne, Perfume, Aftershave or Other
Fragrances at Specified Daily Frequencies
Table 16-21. Number of Respondents Using Any Aerosol Spray Product for Personal Care
Item Such as Deodorant or Hair Spray at Specified Daily Frequencies
Table 16-22. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Being Near Freshly
Applied Paints (minutes/day)
Table 16-23. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Household
Cleaning Agents Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
Table 16-24. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities (at home or elsewhere) Working with
or Near Floorwax, Furniture Wax or Shoe Polish (minutes/day)
Table 16-25. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Being Near Glue
Table 16-26. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Solvents, Fumes
or Strong Smelling Chemicals (minutes/day)
Table 16-27. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Stain or Spot
Removers (minutes/day)
Table 16-28. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Gasoline or
Diesel-powered Equipment, Besides Automobiles (minutes/day)
Table 16-29. Number of Minutes Spent Using Any Microwave Oven (minutes/day)
Table 16-30. Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home
Table 16-31. Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by the
Professional at Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at
Specified Frequencies
Table 16-32. Number of Respondents Reporting Pesticides Applied by the Consumer at
Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified
Frequencies
Table 16-33. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Pesticides,
Including Bug Sprays or Bug Strips (minutes/day)
Table 16-34. Amount and Frequency of Use of Various Cosmetic and Baby Products
Table 16-35. Summary of Consumer Products Use Studies
Table 16A-1. Volumes Included in 1992 Simmons Study
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
17. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
17.1. INTRODUCTION
17.2. BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
17.2.1. Key Volumes of Residence Studies
17.2.2. Volumes and Surface Areas of Rooms
17.2.3. Mechanical System Configurations
17.2.4. Type of Foundation
17.3. TRANSPORT RATES
17.3.1. Background
17.3.2. Air Exchange Rates
17.3.3. Infiltration Models
17.3.4. Deposition and Filtration
17.3.5. Interzonal Airflows
17.3.6. Water Uses
17.3.7. House Dust and Soil
17.4. SOURCES
17.4.1. Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants
17.4.2. Source Descriptions for Waterborne Contaminants
17.4.3. Soil and House Dust Sources
17.5. ADVANCED CONCEPTS
17.5.1. Uniform Mixing Assumption
17.5.2. Reversible Sinks
17.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 17
Table 17-1. Summary of Residential Volume Distributions
Table 17-2. Average Estimated Volumes of U.S. Residences, by Housing Type and
Ownership
Table 17-3. Residential Volumes in Relation to Household Size and Year of Construction
Table 17-4. Dimensional Quantities for Residential Rooms
Table 17-5. Examples of Products and Materials Associated with Floor and Wall
Surfaces in Residences
Table 17-6. Percent of Residences with Basement, by Census Region and EPA Region
Table 17-7. Percent of Residences with Certain Foundation Types by Census Region
Table 17-8. States Associated with EPA Regions and Census Regions
Table 17-9. Summary of Major Projects Providing Air Exchange Measurements in the
PFT Database
Table 17-10. Summary Statistics for Air Exchange Rates (air changes per hour-ACH), by
Region
Table 17-11. Distributions of Residential Air Exchange Rates by Climate Region and
Season
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
Table 17-12. Deposition Rates for Indoor Particles
Table 17-13. Particle Deposition During Normal Activities
Table 17-14. In-house Water Use Rates (gcd), by Study and Type of Use
Table 17-15. Summary of Selected HUD and Power Authority Water Use Studies
Table 17-16. Showering and Bathing Water Use Characteristics
Table 17-17. Showering Characteristics for Various Types of Shower Heads
Table 17-18. Toilet Water Use Characteristics
Table 17-19. Toilet Frequency Use Characteristics
Table 17-20. Dishwasher Frequency Use Characteristics
Table 17-21. Dishwasher Water Use Characteristics
Table 17-22. Clothes Washer Frequency Use Characteristics
Table 17-23. Clothes Washer Water Use Characteristics
Table 17-24. Range of Water Uses for Clothes Washers
Table 17-25. Total Dust Loading for Carpeted Areas
Table 17-26. Particle Deposition and Resuspension During Normal Activities
Table 17-27. Dust Mass Loading After One Week Without Vacuum Cleaning
Table 17-28. Simplified Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants
Table 17-29. Volume of Residence Surveys
Table 17-30. Air Exchange Rates Surveys
Table 17-31. Recommendations - Residential Parameters
Table 17-32. Confidence in House Volume Recommendations
Table 17-33. Confidence in Air Exchange Rate Recommendations
Figure 17-1. Elements of Residential Exposure
Figure 17-2. Cumulative Frequency Distributions for Residential Volumes from the PFT
Data Base and the U.S. DOE's RECs
Figure 17-3. Configuration for Residential Forced-air Systems
Figure 17-4. Idealized Patterns of Particle Deposition Indoors
Figure 17-5. Air Flows for Multiple-zone Systems
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
About the Handbook
The National Center for Environmental Assessment has prepared this handbook to address
factors commonly used in exposure assessments. This handbook was first published in 1989
in response to requests from many EPA Program and Regional offices for additional guidance
on how to select values for exposure assessments.
This document provides a summary of the available data on consumption of drinking water;
consumption of fruits, vegetables, beef, dairy products, and fish; soil ingestion; inhalation rates;
skin surface area; soil adherence; lifetime; activity patterns; body weight; consumer product use;
and the reference residence.
The handbook is equipped with a number of tools meant to help the user navigate through the
Exposure Factors Handbook. The following is a description of these tools.
Some of the links that appear throughout the document will transport the user to another
portion of the handbook. An indication that the user has encountered a hypertext link is that the
hand in the Adobe Acrobat Reader will change to a hand with a pointing finger or an arrow.
Arrow buttons at the top of the screen are part of the Adobe Acrobat Reader program and will
allow the user to move through files which have been opened. These arrows include:
This button will move the user to the first page of a file.
This button will move the user to the previous page.
This button will move the user to the next page.
This button will move the user to the last page of a file.
This button will move the user to the last view displayed on the computer monitor.
This button will magnify the view on the screen. Push the button, move the mouse to
the portion of the screen the user wants magnified, and click the left mouse button.
The user will need to use the last view button (the double arrow pointing to the left above) to
maneuver from the tables to the text of the Exposure Factors Handbook. A more convenient
way of maneuvering between the tables and text is being explored.
At the left of each page in the Exposure Factors Handbook, the user will find a Bookmarks Panel
containing bookmarks to jump to any other chapter, table, appendix, or figure in the handbook.
-------
EFH
PREFACE
The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) of EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) has prepared this handbook to address factors
commonly used in exposure assessments. This handbook was first published in 1989 in
response to requests from many EPA Program and Regional offices for additional
guidance on how to select values for exposure factors.
Several events sparked the efforts to revise the Exposure Factors Handbook. First,
since its publication in 1989, new data have become available. Second, the Risk
Assessment Council issued a memorandum titled, "Guidance on Risk Characterization for
Risk Managers and Risk Assessors," dated February 26, 1992, which emphasized the use
of multiple descriptors of risk (i.e., measures of central tendency such as average or mean,
or high end), and characterization of individual risk, population risk, important
subpopulations. A new document was issued titled "Guidance for Risk Characterization,"
dated February 1995. This document is an update of the guidance issued with the 1992
policy. Third, EPA published the revised Guidelines for Exposure Assessment in 1992.
As part of the efforts to revise the handbook, the EPA Risk Assessment Forum
sponsored a two-day peer involvement workshop which was conducted during the summer
of 1993. The workshop was attended by 57 scientists from academia, consulting firms,
private industry, the States, and other Federal agencies. The purpose of the workshop
was to identify new data sources, to discuss adequacy of the data and the feasibility of
developing statistical distributions and to establish priorities.
As a result of the peer involvement workshop, three new chapters were added to
the handbook. These chapters are: Consumer Product Use, Residential Building
Characteristics, and Intake of Grains. This document also provides a summary of the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
EFH
available data on consumption of drinking water; consumption of fruits, vegetables, beef,
dairy products, grain products, and fish; breast milk intake; soil ingestion; inhalation rates;
skin surface area; soil adherence; lifetime; activity patterns; and body weight.
A new draft handbook that incorporated comments from the 1993 workshop was
published for peer review in June 1995. A peer review workshop was held in July 1995
to discuss comments on the draft handbook. A new draft of the handbook that addressed
comments from the 1995 peer review workshop was submitted to the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) for review in August 1996. An SAB workshop meeting was held December
19-20, 1996, to discuss the comments of the SAB reviewers. Comments from the SAB
review have been incorporated into the current handbook.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
EFH
FOREWORD
The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) of EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) has five main functions: (1) providing risk assessment
research, methods, and guidelines; (2) performing health and ecological assessments;
(3) developing, maintaining, and transferring risk assessment information and training;
(4) helping ORD set research priorities; and (5) developing and maintaining resource
support systems for NCEA. The activities under each of these functions are supported by
and respond to the needs of the various program offices. In relation to the first function,
NCEA sponsors projects aimed at developing or refining techniques used in exposure
assessments.
This handbook was first published in 1989 to provide statistical data on the various
factors used in assessing exposure. This revised version of the handbook provides the
up-to-date data on these exposure factors. The recommended values are based solely
on our interpretations of the available data. In many situations different values may be
appropriate to use in consideration of policy, precedent or other factors.
Michael A. Callahan
Director
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Washington Office
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
EFH
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS
The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and
Development was responsible for the preparation of this handbook. The original document
was prepared by Versar Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-02-4254, Work Assignment No.
189. John Schaum, of NCEA-Washington Office, served as the EPA Work Assignment
Manager, providing overall direction and coordination of the production effort as well as
technical assistance and guidance. Revisions, updates, and additional preparation were
provided by Versar Inc. under Contract Numbers 68-DO-0101, 68-D3-0013, and
68-D5-0051. Russell Kinerson and Greg Kew have served as EPA Work Assignment
Managers during previous efforts of the update process. Jackie Moya served as Work
Assignment Manager for the current updated version, providing overall direction, technical
assistance, and serving as contributing author.
AUTHORS
Patricia Wood
Linda Phillips
Aderonke Adenuga
Mike Koontz
Harry Rector
Charles Wilkes
Maggie Wilson
DESKTOP PUBLISHING
Susan Perry
WORD PROCESSING
Valerie Schwartz
GRAPHICS
Kathy Bowles
Jennifer Baker
CD-ROM PRODUCTION
Charles Peck
Exposure Assessment Division
Versar Inc.
Springfield, VA
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
EFH
CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS
The following EPA individuals have reviewed and/or have been contributing
authors of this document.
Michael Dellarco
Robert McGaughy
Amy Mills
Jacqueline Moya
Susan Perlin
Paul Pinsky
John Schaum
Paul White
Amina Wilkins
Chieh Wu
The following individuals were Science Advisory Board Reviewers:
Members
Dr. Joan Daisey
Lawrence Berkley Laboratory
Berkley, California
Dr. Paul Bailey
Mobil Business Resources
Corporation
Paulsboro, New Jersey
Dr. Robert Hazen
State of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and
Energy
Trenton, New Jersey
Dr. Timothy Larson
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
Dr. Kai-Shen Liu
California Department of Health
Services
Berkeley, California
Dr. Paul Lioy
Environmental Occupational Health
Sciences Institute
Piscataway, New Jersey
Dr. Maria Morandi
University of Texas School of Public
Health
Houston, Texas
Dr. Jonathan M. Samet
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland
Mr. Ron White
American Lung Association
Washington, D.C.
Dr. Lauren Zeise
California Environmental Protection
Agency
Berkeley, California
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
EFH
Federal Experts
Dr. Richard Ellis
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Alanna J. Moshfegh
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
An earlier draft of this document was peer reviewed by a panel of experts at a peer-review
workshop held in 1995. Members of the Peer Review Panel were as follows:
Edward Avol
Department of Preventive Medicine
School of Medicine
University of Southern California
James Axley
School of Architecture
Yale University
David Burmaster
Alceon Corporation
Steven Colome
Integrated Environmental Services
Michael DiNovi
Chemistry Review Branch
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
Dennis Druck
Environmental Scientist
Center of Health Promotion &
Preventive Medicine
U.S. Army
J. Mark Fly
Department of Forestry, Wildlife, &
Fisheries
University of Tennessee
Larry Gephart
Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Patricia Guenther
Beltsville Human Nutrition
Research Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
P.J. (Bert) Hakkinen
Paper Product Development &
Paper
Technology Divisions
The Proctor & Gamble Company
Mary Hama
Beltsville Human Nutrition
Research Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Dennis Jones
Agency for Toxic Substances &
Disease Registry
John Kissel
Department of Environmental
Health
School of Public Health &
Community Medicine
Neil Klepeis
Information Systems & Services,
Inc.
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
EFH
Andrew Persily
National Institute of Standards &
Technologies
Barbara Petersen
Technical Assessment Systems,
Inc.
Thomas Phillips
Research Division
California Air Resources Board
Paul Price
ChemRisk
John Risher
Division of Toxicology
The Agency for Toxic Substances &
Disease Registry
John Robinson
University of Maryland
Peter Robinson
The Proctor & Gamble Company
P. Barry Ryan
Department of Environmental &
Occupational Health
Rollins School of Public Health
Emory University
Val Schaeffer
U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission
Brad Shurdut
DowElanco
John Talbott
U.S. Department of Energy
Frances Vecchio
Beltsville Human Nutrition
Research Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
EFH
The following individuals within EPA have reviewed an earlier draft of this document
and provided valuable comments:
OFFICE
REVIEWERS/CONTRIBUTORS
Office of Research and Development
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response
Office of Pollution, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Maurice Berry
Jerry Blancato
Elizabeth Bryan
Curtis Dary
Stan Durkee
Manuel Gomez
Wayne Marchant
Sue Perlin
James Quanckenboss
Glen Rice
Lance Wallace
Jim Konz
Pat Kennedy
Cathy Fehrenbacker
Office of Water
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
EPA Regions
Denis Borum
Helen Jacobs
Warren Peters
Steve Ehlers - Reg. VI
Maria Martinez - Reg. VI
Mike Morton - Reg. VI
Jeffrey Yurk - Reg. VI
Youngmoo Kim - Reg. VI
In addition, the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) of the Office of
Research and Development of EPA made an important contribution to this handbook by
conducting additional analyses of the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)
data. EPA input to the NHAPS data analysis came from Karen A. Hammerstrom and
Jacqueline Moyafrom NCEA-Washington Office; William C. Nelson from NERL-RTP, and
Stephen C. Hern, Joseph V. Behar (retired), and William H. Englemann from NERL-Las
Vegas.
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
EFH
The EPA Office of Water made an important contribution by conducting an analysis of
the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individual (CSFII) data. They provided
fish intake rates for the general population. The analysis was conducted under the
direction of Helen Jacobs from the Office of Water.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Exposure Factors Handbook is to: (1) summarize data on human
behaviors and characteristics which affect exposure to environmental contaminants, and
(2) recommend values to use for these factors. These recommendations are not legally
binding on any EPA program and should be interpreted as suggestions which program
offices or individual exposure assessors can consider and modify as needed. Most of
these factors are best quantified on a site or situation-specific basis. The handbook has
strived to include full discussions of the issues which assessors should consider in
deciding how to use these data and recommendations. The handbook is intended to serve
as a support document to EPA's Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
The Guidelines were developed to promote consistency among the various exposure
assessment activities that are carried out by the various EPA program offices. This
handbook assists in this goal by providing a consistent set of exposure factors to calculate
dose.
Purpose
•[Summarize data on human behaviors and characteristics affecting exposure
•[Recommend exposure factor values
1.2. INTENDED AUDIENCE
The Exposure Factors Handbook is addressed to exposure assessors inside the
Agency as well as outside, who need to obtain data on standard factors needed to
calculate human exposure to toxic chemicals.
1.3. BACKGROUND
This handbook is the update of an earlier version prepared in 1989. Revisions have
been made in the following areas:
• addition of drinking water rates for children;
• changes in soil ingestion rates for children;
• addition of soil ingestion rates for adults;
• addition of tapwater consumption for adults and children;
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
• addition of mean daily intake of food class and subclass by region, age and per
capita rates;
• addition of mean moisture content of selected fruits, vegetables, grains, fish,
meat, and dairy products;
• addition of food intake by class in dry weight per kg of body weight per day;
• update of homegrown food intake;
• expansion of data in the dermal chapter;
• update of fish intake data;
• expansion of data for time spent at residence;
• update of body weight data;
• addition of body weight data for infants;
• update of population mobility data;
• addition of new data for average time spent in different locations and various
m icroenviron-ments;
• addition of data for occupational mobility;
• addition of breast milk ingestion;
• addition of consumer product use; and
• addition of reference residence factors.
Variation Among Studies
This handbook is a compilation of available data from a variety of different sources.
With very few exceptions, the data presented are the analyses of the individual study
authors. Since the studies included in this handbook varied in terms of their objectives,
design, scope, presentation of results, etc., the level of detail, statistics, and terminology
may vary from study to study and from factor to factor. For example, some authors used
geometric means to present their results, while others used arithmetic means or
distributions. Authors have sometimes used different terms to describe the same racial
populations. Within the constraint of presenting the original material as accurately as
possible, EPA has made an effort to present discussions and results in a consistent
manner. Further, the strengths and limitations of each study are discussed to provide the
reader with a better understanding of the uncertainties associated with the values derived
from the study.
1.3.1. Selection of Studies for the Handbook
Information in this handbook has been summarized from studies documented in the
scientific literature and other available sources. Studies were chosen that were seen as
useful and appropriate for estimating exposure factors. The handbook contains
summaries of selected studies published through August 30, 1997.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
General Considerations
Many scientific studies were reviewed for possible inclusion in this handbook.
Studies were selected based on the following considerations:
• Level of peer review: Studies were selected predominantly from the peer-
reviewed literature and final government reports. Internal or interim reports were
therefore avoided.
• Accessibility: Studies were preferred that the user could access in their entirety
if needed.
• Reproducibility: Studies were sought that contained sufficient information so that
methods could be reproduced, or at least so the details of the author's work could
be accessed and evaluated.
• Focus on exposure factor of interest: Studies were chosen that directly
addressed the exposure factor of interest, or addressed related factors that have
significance for the factor under consideration. As an example of the latter case,
a selected study contained useful ancillary information concerning fat content in
fish, although it did not directly address fish consumption.
• Data pertinent to the U.S.: Studies were selected that addressed the U.S.
population. Data from populations outside the U.S. were sometimes included if
behavioral patterns and other characteristics of exposure were similar.
• Primary data: Studies were deemed preferable if based on primary data, but
studies based on secondary sources were also included where they offered an
original analysis. For example, the handbook cites studies of food consumption
based on original data collected by the USDA National Food Consumption
Survey.
• Current information: Studies were chosen only if they were sufficiently recent to
represent current exposure conditions. This is an important consideration for
those factors that change with time.
• Adequacy of data collection period: Because most users of the handbook are
primarily addressing chronic exposures, studies were sought that utilized the most
appropriate techniques for collecting data to characterize long-term behavior.
• Validity of approach: Studies utilizing experimental procedures or approaches
that more likely or closely capture the desired measurement were selected. In
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
general, direct exposure data collection techniques, such as direct observation,
personal monitoring devices, or other known methods were preferred where
available. If studies utilizing direct measurement were not available, studies were
selected that rely on validated indirect measurement methods such as surrogate
measures (such as heart rate for inhalation rate), and use of questionnaires. If
questionnaires or surveys were used, proper design and procedures include an
adequate sample size for the population under consideration, a response rate
large enough to avoid biases, and avoidance of bias in the design of the
instrument and interpretation of the results.
• Representativeness of the population: Studies seeking to characterize the
national population, a particular region, or sub-population were selected, if
appropriately representative of that population. In cases where data were limited,
studies with limitations in this area were included and limitations were noted in the
handbook.
• Variability in the population: Studies were sought that characterized any
variability within populations.
• Minimal (or defined) bias in study design: Studies were sought that were designed
with minimal bias, or at least if biases were suspected to be present, the direction
of the bias (i.e., an over or under estimate of the parameter) was either stated or
apparent from the study design.
• Minimal (or defined) uncertainty in the data: Studies were sought with minimal
uncertainty in the data, which was judged by evaluating all the considerations
listed above. At least, studies were preferred that identified uncertainties, such
as those due to inherent variability in environmental and exposure-related
parameters or possible measurement error. Studies that documented Quality
Assurance/Quality Control measures were preferable.
Key versus relevant studies
Certain studies described in this handbook are designated as "key," that is, the most
useful for deriving exposure factors. The recommended values for most exposure factors
are based on the results of the key studies. Other studies are designated "relevant,"
meaning applicable or pertinent, but not necessarily the most important. This distinction
was made on the strength of the attributes listed in the "General Considerations." For
example, in Chapter 14 of Volume III, one set of studies is deemed to best address the
attributes listed and is designated as "key." Other applicable studies, including foreign
data, believed to have value to handbook users, but having fewer attributes, are
designated "relevant."
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Key vs. Relevant Studies
•CKey studies used to derive recommendations
•[Relevant studies included to provide additional perspective
1.3.2. Using the Handbook in an Exposure Assessment
Some of the steps for performing an exposure assessment are (1) determining the
pathways of exposure, (2) identifying the environmental media which transports the
contaminant, (3) determining the contaminant concentration, (4) determining the exposure
time, frequency, and duration, and (5) identifying the exposed population. Many of the
issues related to characterizing exposure from selected exposure pathways have been
addressed in a number of existing EPA guidance documents. These include, but are not
limited to the following:
• Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA 1992a);
• Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (U.S. EPA 1992b);
• Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to
Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA, 1990);
• Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (U.S. EPA, 1989);
• Estimating Exposures to Dioxin-Like Compounds (U.S. EPA, 1994);
• Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual (U.S. EPA, 1988a);
• Selection Criteria for Mathematical Models Used in Exposure Assessments (U.S.
EPA1988b);
• Selection Criteria for Mathematical Models Used in Exposure Assessments (U.S.
EPA 1987);
• Standard Scenarios for Estimating Exposure to Chemical Substances During Use
of Consumer Products (U.S. EPA 1986a);
• Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivisions K and U (U.S. EPA, 1984, 1986b);
and
• Methods for Assessing Exposure to Chemical Substances, Volumes 1-13 (U.S.
EPA, 1983-1989).
These documents may serve as valuable information resources to assist in the
assessment of exposure. The reader is encouraged to refer to them for more detailed
discussion.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
In addition to the references listed above, this handbook discusses the
recommendations provided by the American Industrial Health Council (AIHC) - Exposure
Factors Sourcebook (May 1994) for some of the major exposure factors. The AIHC
Sourcebook summarizes and evaluates statistical data for various exposure factors used
in risk assessments. Probability distributions for specific exposure factors were derived
from the available scientific literature using @Risk simulation software. Each factor is
described by a specific term, such as lognormal, normal, cumulative type, or triangular.
Other distributions included Weibull, beta logistic, and gamma. Unlike this handbook,
however, the Sourcebook does not provide a description and evaluation of every study
available on each exposure factor.
Most of the data presented in this handbook are derived from studies that targeted
(1) the general population (e.g., USDA food consumptin surveys); and (2) a sample
population from a specific area or group (e.g., Calabrese's et al. (1989) soil ingestion study
using children from the Amherst, Massachusetts, area). Due to unique activity patterns,
preferences, practices and biological differences, various segments of the population may
experience exposures that are different from those of the general population, which, in
many cases, may be greater. It is necessary for risk or exposure assessors characterizing
a diverse population, to identify and enumerate certain groups within the general
population who are at risk for greater contaminant exposures or exhibit a heightened
sensitivity to particular chemicals. For further guidance on addressing susceptible
populations, it is recommended to consult the EPA, National Center for Environmental
Assessment document Socio-demographic Data Used for Identifying Potentially Highly
Exposed Subpopulations (to be released as a final document in the Fall of 1997).
Most users of the handbook will be preparing estimates of exposure which are to be
combined with dose-response factors to estimate risk. Some of the exposure factors (e.g.,
life time, body weight) presented in this document are also used in generating dose-
response relationships. In order to develop risk estimates properly, assessors must use
dose-response relationships in a manner consistent with exposure conditions. Although,
it is beyond the scope of this document to explain in detail how assessors should address
this issue, a discussion (see Appendix A of this chapter) has been included which
describes how dose-response factors can be modified to be consistent with the exposure
factors for a population of interest. This should serve as a guide for when this issue is a
concern.
1.3.3. Approach Used to Develop Recommendations for Exposure Factors
As discussed above, EPA first reviewed all literature pertaining to a factor and
determined relevant and key studies. The key studies were used to derive
recommendations for the values of each factor. The recommended values were derived
solely from EPA's interpretation of the available data. Different values may be appropriate
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
for the user to select in consideration of policy, precedent, strategy, or other factors such
as site-specific information. EPA's procedure for developing recommendations was as
follows:
Recommendations and Confidence Ratings
•[Recommendations based on data from single or multiple key studies
•[Variability and limitation of the data evaluated
•[Recommendations rated as low, medium, and high confidence
1. Key studies were evaluated in terms of both quality and relevance to specific popula-
tions (general U. S. population, age groups, gender, etc.). The criteria for assessing
the quality of studies is described in Section 1.3.1.
2. If only one study was classified as key for a particular factor, the mean value from that
study was selected as the recommended central value for that population. If there were
multiple key studies, all with reasonably equal quality, relevance, and study design
information were available, a weighted mean (if appropriate, considering sample size
and other statistical factors) of the studies were chosen as the recommended mean
value. If the key studies were judged to be unequal in quality, relevance, or study
design, the range of means were presented and the user of this handbook must
employ judgment in selecting the most appropriate value for the population of interest.
In cases where the national population was of interest, the mid-point of the range was
usually judged to be the most appropriate value.
3. The variability of the factor across the population was discussed. If adequate data
were available, the variability was described as either a series of percentiles or a
distribution.
4. Limitations of the data were discussed in terms of data limitations, the range of
circumstances over which the estimates were (or were not) applicable, possible biases
in the values themselves, a statement about parameter uncertainties (measurement
error, sampling error) and model or scenario uncertainties if models or scenarios have
been used in the derivation of the recommended value.
5. Finally, EPA assigned a confidence rating of low, medium or high to each
recommended value. This rating is not intended to represent an uncertainty analysis,
rather it represents EPA's judgment on the quality of the underlying data used to derive
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
the recommendation. This judgment was made using the guidelines shown in Table
1-1. Table 1-1 is an adaptation of the General Considerations discussed earlier in
Section 1.3.1. Clearly this is a continuum from low to high and judgment was used to
determine these ratings. Recommendations given in this handbook are accompanied
by a discussion of the rationale for their rating.
Table 1-2 summarizes EPA's recommendations and confidence ratings for the various
exposure factors.
It is important to note that the study elements listed in Table 1-1 do not have the
same weight when arriving at the overall confidence rating for the various exposure
factors. The relative weight of each of these elements depend on the exposure factor of
interest. Also, the relative weights given to the elements for the various factors were
subjective and based on the professional judgement of the authors of this handbook. In
general, most studies would rank high with regard to "level of peer review," "accessibility,"
"focus on the factor of interest," and "data pertinent to the U.S." These elements are
important for the study to be included in this handbook. However, a high score of these
elements does not necessarily translate into a high overall score. Other elements in Table
1-1 were also examined to determine the overall score. For example, the adequacy of
data collection period may be more important when determining usual intake of foods in
a population. On the other hand, it is not as important for factors where long-term
variability may be small such as tapwater intake. In the case of tapwater intake, the
currency of the data was a critical element in determining the final rating. In addition,
some exposure factors are more easily measured than others. For example, soil ingestion
by children is estimated by measuring, in the feces, the levels of certain elements found
in soil. Body weight, however, can be measured directly and it is, therefore, a more
reliable measurement. This is reflected in the confidence rating given to both of these
factors. In general, the better the methodology used to measure the exposure factor, the
higher the confidence in the value.
1.3.4. Characterizing Variability
This document attempts to characterize variability of each of the factors. Variability
is characterized in one or more of three ways: (1) as tables with various percentiles or
ranges of values; (2) as analytical distributions with specified parameters; and/or (3) as a
qualitative discussion. Analyses to fit standard or parametric distributions (e.g., normal,
lognormal) to the exposure data have not been performed by the authors of this handbook,
but have been reproduced in this document wherever they were found in the literature.
Recommendations on the use of these distributions are made where appropriate based
on the adequacy of the supporting data. The list of exposure factors and the way that
variability has been characterized (i.e., average, upper percentiles, multiple percentiles,
fitted distribution) are presented in Table 1-3. The term upper percentile is used
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
throughout this handbook and it is intended to represent values in the upper tail (i.e.,
between 90th and 99.9th percentile) of the distribution of values for a particular exposure
factor.
An attempt was made to present percentile values in the recommendations that are
consistent with the exposure estimators defined in the Exposure Guidelines (i.e., mean,
50th, 90th, 95th, 98th, and 99.9th percentile). This was not, however, always possible
because either the data available were limited for some factors, or the authors of the study
did not provide such information. It is important to note, however, that these percentiles
were discussed in the Exposure Guidelines within the context of risk descriptors and not
individual exopusure factors. For example, the Guidelines stated that the assessor may
derive a high-end estimate of exposure by using maximum or near maximum values for
one or more sensitive exposure factors, leaving others at their mean value.
The use of Monte Carlo or other probabilistic analysis require a selection of
distributions or histograms for the input parameters. Although this handbook is not
intended to provide a complete guidance on the use of Monte Carlo and other probabilistic
analyses, the following should be considered when using such techniques:
• The exposure assessor should only consider using probabilistic analysis when
there are credible distribution data (or ranges) for the factor under consideration.
Even if these distributions are known, it may not be necessary to apply this
technique. For example, if only average exposure values are needed, these can
often be computed accurately by using average values for each of the input
parameters. Probabilistic analysis is also not necessary when conducting
assessments for screening purposes, i.e., to determine if unimportant pathways
can be eliminated. In this case, bounding estimates can be calculated using
maximum or near maximum values for each of the input parameters.
• It is important to note that the selection of distributions can be highly site specific
and will always involve some degree of judgment. Distributions derived from
national data may not represent local conditions. To the extent possible, an
assessor should use distributions or frequency histograms derived from local
surveys to assess risks locally. When distributional data are drawn from national
or other surrogate population, it is important that the assessor address the extent
to which local conditions may differ from the surrogate data.
In addition to a qualitative statement of uncertainty, the representativeness
assumption should be appropriately addressed as part of a sensitivity analysis.
• Distribution functions to be used in Monte Carlo analysis may be derived by fitting
an appropriate function to empirical data. In doing this, it should be recognized
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
that in the lower and upper tails of the distribution the data are scarce, so that
several functions, with radically different shapes in the extreme tails, may be
consistent with the data. To avoid introducing errors into the analysis by the
arbitrary choice of an inappropriate function, several techniques can be used.
One way is to avoid the problem by using the empirical data itself rather than an
analytic function. Another is to do separate analyses with several functions which
have adequate fit but form upper and lower bounds to the empirical data. A third
way is to use truncated analytical distributions. Judgment must be used in
choosing the appropriate goodness of fit test. Information on the theoretical basis
for fitting distributions can be found in a standard statistics text such as Statistical
Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Gilbert, R.O., 1987, Van
Nostrand Reinhold; off-the-shelf computer software such as Best-Fit by Palisade
Corporation can be used to statistically determine the distributions that fit the
data.
• If only a range of values is known for an exposure factor, the assessor has
several options.
- keep that variable constant at its central value;
- assume several values within the range of values for the exposure factor;
- calculate a point estimate(s) instead of using probabilistic analysis; and
- assume a distribution (The rationale for the selection of a distribution should be
discussed at length.) There are, however, cases where assuming a distribution
is not recommended. These include:
- data are missing or very limited for a key parameter - examples include: soil
ingestion by adults;
- data were collected over a short time period and may not represent long term
trends (the respondent usual behavior) - examples include: food consumption
surveys; activity pattern data;
- data are not representative of the population of interest because sample size
was small or the population studied was selected from a local area and was
therefore not representative of the area of interest - examples include: soil
ingestion by children; and
- ranges for a key variable are uncertain due to experimental error or other
limitations in the study design or methodology - examples include: soil
ingestion by children.
1.4. GENERAL EQUATION FOR CALCULATING DOSE
The definition of exposure as used in the Exposure Guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1992a) is
"condition of a chemical contacting the outer boundary of a human." This means contact
with the visible exterior of a person such as the skin, and openings such as the mouth,
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
nostrils, and lesions. The process of a chemical entering the body can be described in two
steps: contact (exposure), followed by entry (crossing the boundary). The magnitude of
exposure (dose) is the amount of agent available at human exchange boundaries (skin,
lungs, gut) where absorption takes place during some specified time. An example of
exposure and dose for the oral route as presented in the the EPA Exposure Guidelines is
shown in Figure 1-1. Starting with a general integral equation for exposure (U.S. EPA
1992a), several dose equations can be derived depending upon boundary assumptions.
One of the more useful of these derived equations is the Average Daily Dose (ADD). The
ADD, which is used for many noncancer effects, averages exposures or doses over the
period of time over which exposure occurred. The ADD can be calculated by averaging
the potential dose (Dpot) over body weight and an averaging time.
ADD , Total Potential Dose
pot Body Weight x Averaging Time (Eqn' 1"11
For cancer effects, where the biological response is usually described in terms of
lifetime probabilities, even though exposure does not occur over the entire lifetime, doses
are often presented as lifetime average daily doses (LADDs). The LADD takes the form
of the Equation 1-1 with lifetime replacing averaging time. The LADD is a very common
term used in carcinogen risk assessment where linear non-threshold models are
employed.
The total exposure can be expressed as follows:
Total Potential Dose ' C x IR x ED (Eqn. 1-2)
Where:
C = Contaminant Concentration
IR = Intake Rate
ED = Exposure Duration
Contaminant concentration is the concentration of the contaminant in the medium (air,
food, soil, etc.) contacting the body and has units of mass/volume or mass/mass.
The intake rate refers to the rates of inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact
depending on the route of exposure. For ingestion, the intake rate is simply the amount
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
of food containing the contaminant of interest that an individual ingests during some
specific time period (units of mass/time). Much of this handbook is devoted to rates of
ingestion for some broad classes of food. For inhalation, the intake rate is the rate at
which contaminated air is inhaled. Factors that affect dermal exposure are the amount of
material that comes into contact with the skin, and the rate at which the contaminant is
absorbed.
The exposure duration is the length of time that contaminant contact lasts. The time
a person lives in an area, frequency of bathing, time spent indoors versus outdoors, etc.
all affect the exposure duration. The Activity Factors Chapter (Volume III, Chapter 15)
gives some examples of population behavior patterns, which may be useful for estimating
exposure durations to be used in the exposure calculations.
When the above parameter values remain constant over time, they are substituted
directly into the exposure equation. When they change with time, a summation approach
is needed to calculate exposure. In either case, the exposure duration is the length of time
exposure occurs at the concentration and intake rate specified by the other parameters in
the equation.
Dose can be expressed as a total amount (with units of mass, e.g., mg) or as a dose
rate in terms of mass/time (e.g., mg/day), or as a rate normalized to body mass (e.g., with
units of mg of chemical per kg of body weight per day (mg/kg-day)). The LADD is usually
expressed in terms of mg/kg-day or other mass/mass-time units.
In most cases (inhalation and ingestion exposure) the dose-response parameters for
carcinogen risks have been adjusted for the difference in absorption across body barriers
between humans and the experimental animals used to derive such parameters.
Therefore, the exposure assessment in these cases is based on the potential dose with
no explicit correction for the fraction absorbed. However, the exposure assessor needs
to make such an adjustment when calculating dermal exposure and in other specific cases
when current information indicates that the human absorption factor used in the derivation
of the dose-response factor is inappropriate.
The lifetime value used in the LADD version of Equation 1-1 is the period of time over
which the dose is averaged. For carcinogens, the derivation of the dose-response
parameters usually assumes no explicit number of years as the duration of a lifetime, and
the nominal value of 75 years is considered a reasonable approximation. For exposure
estimates to be used for assessments other than carcinogenic risk, various averaging
periods have been used. For acute exposures, the administered doses are usually
averaged over a day or a single event. For nonchronic noncancer effects, the time period
used is the actual period of exposure. The objective in selecting the exposure averaging
time is to express the exposure in a way which can be combined with the dose-response
relationship to calculate risk.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
The body weight to be used in the exposure Equation 1-1 depends on the units of the
exposure data presented in this handbook. For food ingestion, the body weights of the
surveyed populations were known in the USDA surveys and they were explicitly factored
into the food intake data in order to calculate the intake as grams per day per kilogram
body weight. In this case, the body weight has already been included in the "intake rate"
term in Equation 1-2 and the exposure assessor does not need to explicitly include body
weight.
The units of intake in this handbook for the ingestion of fish, breast milk, and the
inhalation of air are not normalized to body weight. In this case, the exposure assessor
needs to use (in Equation 1-1) the average weight of the exposed population during the
time when the exposure actually occurs. If the exposure occurs continuously throughout
an individual's life or only during the adult ages, using an adult weight of 71.8 kg should
provide sufficient accuracy. If the body weight of the individuals in the population whose
risk is being evaluated is non-standard in some way, such as for children or for first-
generation immigrants who may be smaller than the national population, and if reasonable
values are not available in the literature, then a model of intake as a function of body
weight must be used. One such model is discussed in Appendix 1A of this chapter. Some
of the parameters (primarily concentrations) used in estimating exposure are exclusively
site specific, and therefore default recommendations could not be used.
The food ingestion rate values provided in this handbook are generally expressed as
"as consumed" since this is the fashion in which data are reported by survey respondents.
This is of importance because concentration data to be used in the dose equation are
generally measured in uncooked food samples. In most situations, the only practical
choice is to use the "as consumed" ingestion rate and the uncooked concentration.
However, it should be recognized that cooking generally results in some reductions in
weight (e.g., loss of moisture), and that if the mass of the contaminant in the food remains
constant, then the concentration of the contaminant in the cooked food item will increase.
Therefore, if the "as consumed" ingestion rate and the uncooked concentration are used
in the dose equation, dose may be underestimated. On the other hand, cooking may
cause a reduction in mass of contaminant and other ingredients such that the overall
concentration of contaminant does not change significantly. In this case, combining
cooked ingestion rates and uncooked concentration will provide an appropriate estimate
of dose. Ideally, food concentration data should be adjusted to account for changes after
cooking, then the "as consumed" intake rates are appropriate. In the absence of data, it
is reasonable to assume that no change in contaminant concentration occurs after
cooking. Except for general population fish consumption and home produced foods,
uncooked intake rate data were not available for presention in this handbook. Data on the
general population fish consumption have been presented in this handbook (Section 10.2)
in both "as consumed" and uncooked basis. It is important for the assessor to be aware
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
of these issues and choose intake rate data that best matches the concentration data that
is being used.
The link between the intake rate value and the exposure duration value is a common
source of confusion in defining exposure scenarios. It is important to define the duration
estimate so that it is consistent with the intake rate:
• The intake rate can be based on an individual event, such as 129 g of fish eaten
per meal (U.S. EPA, 1996). The duration should be based on the number of
events or, in this case, meals.
• The intake rate also can be based on a long-term average, such as 10 g/day. In
this case the duration should be based on the total time interval over which the
exposure occurs.
The objective is to define the terms so that when multiplied, they give the appropriate
estimate of mass of contaminant contacted. This can be accomplished by basing the
intake rate on either a long-term average (chronic exposure) or an event (acute exposure)
basis, as long as the duration value is selected appropriately. Consider the case in which
a person eats a 129-g fish meal approximately five times per month (long-term average is
21.5 g/day) for 30 years; or 21.5 g/day of fish every day for 30 years.
(129 g/meal)(5 meals/mo)(mo/30 d)(365 d/yr)(30 yrs) = 235,425 g
(21.5 g/day)(365 d/yr)(30 yrs) = 235,425 g
Thus, a frequency of either 60 meals/year or a duration of 365 days/year could be used
as long as it is matched with the appropriate intake rate.
1.5. RESEARCH NEEDS
In an earlier draft of this handbook, reviewers were asked to identify factors or areas
where further research is needed. The following list is a compilation of areas for future
research identified by the peer reviewers and authors of this document:
• The data and information available with respect to occupational exposures are
quite limited. Efforts need to be directed to identify data or references on
occupational exposure.
• Further research is necessary to refine estimates of fish consumption, particularly
by subpopulations of subsistence fishermen.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Chapter 1 - Introduction
• Research is needed to better estimate soil intake rates, particularly how to
extrapolate short-term data to chronic exposures. Data on soil intake rates by
adults are very limited. Research in this area is also recommended. Research
is also needed to refine methods to calculate soil intake rate (i.e., inconsistencies
among tracers and input/output misalignment errors indicate a fundamental
problem with the methods). Research is also needed to obtain more data to
better estimate soil adherence.
• In cases where several studies of equal quality and data collection procedures
are available for an exposure factor, procedures need to be developed to combine
the data in order to create a single distribution of likely values for that factor.
• Reviewers recommended that the handbook be made available in CD ROM and
that the data presented be made available in a format that will allow the users to
conduct their own analysis. The intent is to provide a comprehensive factors tool
with interactive menu to guide users to areas of interest, word searching features,
and data base files.
• Reviewers recommended that EPA derive distribution functions using the
empirical data for the various exposure factors to be used in Monte Carlo or other
probabilistic analysis.
• Research is needed to derive a methodology to extrapolate from short-term data
to long-term or chronic exposures.
• Reviewers recommended that the consumer products chapter be expanded to
include more products. A comprehensive literature search needs to be conducted
to investigate other sources of data.
• Breastmilk intake.
• More recent data on tapwater intake.
• SAB recommended analysis of 1994 and 1995 CSFII data.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 1 - Introduction
EFH
1.6. ORGANIZATION
The handbook is organized into three volumes as follows:
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Volume II - Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Provides the overall introduction to the
handbook.
Presents an analysis of uncertainty and
discusses methods that can be used to evaluate
and present the uncertainty associated with
exposure scenario estimates.
Provides factors for estimating human exposure
through ingestion of water.
Provides factors for estimating exposure through
ingestion of soil.
Provides factors for estimating exposure as a
result of inhalation of vapors and particulates.
Presents factors for estimating dermal exposure
to environmental contaminants that come in
contact with the skin.
Provides data on body weight.
Provides data on life expectancy.
Provides factors for estimating exposure through
ingestion of fruits and vegetables.
Provides factors for estimating exposure through
ingestion offish.
Provides factors for estimating exposure through
ingestion of meats and dairy products.
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
EFH
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Presents data for estimating exposure through
ingestion of grain products.
Presents factors for estimating exposure through
ingestion of home produced food.
Presents data for estimating exposure through
ingestion of breast milk.
Presents data on activity factors (activity
patterns, population mobility, and occupational
mobility).
Presents data on consumer product use.
Presents factors used in estimating residential
exposures.
Figure 1-2 provides a roadmap to assist users of this handbook in locating
recommended values and confidence ratings for the various exposure factors presented
in these chapters. A glossary is provided at the end of Volume III.
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 199 7
-------
Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Appendix 1A
APPENDIX 1A
RISK CALCULATIONS USING EXPOSURE FACTORS HANDBOOK DATA
AND DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FROM THE
INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM (IRIS)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Appendix 1A
APPENDIX 1A
RISK CALCULATIONS USING EXPOSURE FACTORS HANDBOOK
DATA AND DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FROM IRIS
1. INTRODUCTION
When calculating risk estimates for a specific population, whether the entire national
population or some sub-population, the exposure information (either from this handbook
or from other data) must be combined with dose-response information. The latter typically
comes from the IRIS data base, which summarizes toxicity data for each agent separately.
Care must be taken that the assumptions about population parameters in the dose-
response analysis are consistent with the population parameters used in the exposure
analysis. This Appendix discusses procedures for insuring this consistency.
In the IRIS derivation of threshold based dose-response relationships (U.S. EPA,
1996), such as the RfD and the RfCs based on adverse systemic effects, there has
generally been no explicit use of human exposure factors. In these cases the numerical
value of the RfD and RfC comes directly from animal dosing experiments (and occasionally
from human studies) and from the application of uncertainty factors to reflect issues such
as the duration of the experiment, the fact that animals are being used to represent
humans and the quality of the study. However in developing cancer dose-response (D-R)
assessments, a standard exposure scenario is assumed in calculating the slope factor
(i.e., human cancer risk per unit dose) on the basis of either animal bioassay data or
human data. This standard scenario has traditionally been assumed to be typical of the
U.S. population: 1) body weight = 70 kg; 2) air intake rate = 20 m3/day; 3) drinking water
intake = 2 liters/day; 4) lifetime = 70 years. In RfC derivations for cases involving an
adverse effect on the respiratory tract, the air intake rate of 20 m3/day is assumed. The
use of these specific values has depended on whether the slope factor was derived from
animal or human epidemiologic data:
• Animal Data: For dose-resopnse (D-R) studies based on animal data, scale
animal doses to human equivalent doses using a human body weight assumption
of 70 kg. No explicit lifetime adjustment is necessary because the assumption is
made that events occurring in the lifetime animal bioassay will occur with equal
probability in a human lifetime, whatever that might happen to be.
• Human Data - In the analysis of human studies (either occupational or general
population), the Agency has usually made no explicit assumption of body weight
or human lifetime. For both of these parameters there is an implicit assumption
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Appendix 1A
that the population usually of interest has the same descriptive parameters as the
population analyzed by the Agency. In the rare situation where this assumption
is known to be wrong, the Agency has made appropriate corrections so that the
dose-response parameters represent the national average population.
When the population of interest is different than the national average (standard)
population, the dose-response parameter needs to be adjusted. In addition, when the
population of interest is different than the population from which the exposure factors in
this handbook were derived, the exposure factor needs to be adjusted. Two generic
examples of situations where these adjustments are needed are as follows:
A) Detailed study of recent data, such as are presented in this handbook, show that
EPAs standard assumptions (i.e., 70 kg body weight, 20 m3/day air inhaled, and 2 L/day
water intake) are inaccurate for the national population and may be inappropriate for sub-
populations under consideration. The handbook addresses most of these situations by
providing gender- and age-specific values and by normalizing the intake values to body
weight when the data are available, but it may not have covered all possible situations.
An example of a sub-population with a different mean body weight would be females, with
an average body weight of 60 kg or children with a body weight dependent on age.
Another example of a non-standard sub-population would be a sedentary hospital
population with lower than 20 m3/day air intake rates.
B) The population variability of these parameters is of interest and it is desired to
estimate percentile limits of the population variation. Although the detailed methods for
estimating percentile limits of exposure and risk in a population are beyond the scope of
this document, one would treat the body weight and the intake rates discussed in Sections
2 to 4 of this appendix as distributions, rather than constants.
2. CORRECTIONS FOR DOSE-RESPONSE PARAMETERS
The correction factors for the dose-response values tabulated in the IRIS data base
for carcinogens are summarized in Table 1A-1. Use of these correction parameters is
necessary to avoid introducing errors into the risk analysis. The second column of Table
1A-1 shows the dependencies that have been assumed in the typical situation where the
human dose-response factors have been derived from the administered dose in animal
studies. This table is applicable in most cases that will be encountered, but it is not
applicable when: a) the effective dose has been derived with a pharmacokinetic model and
b) the dose-response data has been derived from human data. In the former case, the
subpopulation parameters need to be incorporated into the model. In the latter case, the
correction factor for the dose-response parameter must be evaluated on a case-by case
basis by examining the specific data and assumptions in the derivation of the parameter.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Appendix 1A
As one example of the use of Table 1A-1, the recommended value for the average
consumption of tapwater for adults in the U. S. population derived in this document
(Chapter 3), is 1.4 liters per day. The drinking water unit risk for dichlorvos, as given in
the IRIS information data base is 8.3 x 10"6 per ug/l, and was calculated from the slope
factor assuming the standard intake, lws, of 2 liters per day. For the United States
population drinking 1.4 liters of tap water per day the corrected drinking water unit risk
should be 8.3x 10"6x (1.4/2) = 5.8x 10"6 per//g/l. The risk to the average individual is
then estimated by multiplying this by the average concentration in units of//g/l.
Another example is when the risk for women drinking water contaminated with
dichlorvos is to be estimated. If the women have an average body weight of 60 kg, the
correction factor for the drinking water unit risk is (disregarding the correction discussed
in the above paragraph), from Table 1 A-1, is (70/60)2'3 =1.11. Here the ratio of 70 to 60
is raised to the power of 2/3. The corrected water unit risk for dichlorvos is 8.3 x 10"6 x
1.11 = 9.2 x 10"6 per //g/l. As before, the risk to the average individual is estimated by
multiplying this by the water concentration.
When human data are used to derive the risk measure, there is a large variation in
the different data sets encountered in IRIS, so no generalizations can be made about
global corrections. However, the typical default exposure values used for the air intake
of an air pollutant over an occupational lifetime are: air intake is 10 m3/day for an 8-hour
shift, 240 days per year with 40 years on the job. If there is continuous exposure to an
ambient air pollutant, the lifetime dose is usually calculated assuming a 70-year lifetime.
3. CORRECTIONS FOR INTAKE DATA
When the body weight, Wp, of the population of interest differs from the body weight,
WE, of the population from which the exposure values in this handbook were derived, the
following model furnishes a reasonable basis for estimating the intake of food and air (and
probably water also) in the population of interest. Such a model is needed in the absence
of data on the dependency of intake on body size. This occurs for inhalation data, where
the intake data are not normalized to body weight, whereas the model is not needed for
food and tap water intakes if they are given in units of intake per kg body weight.
The model is based on the dependency of metabolic oxygen consumption on body
size. Oxygen consumption is directly related to food (calorie) consumption and air intake
and indirectly to water intake. For mammals of a wide range of species sizes (Prosser and
Brown, 1961), and also for individuals of various sizes within a species, the oxygen
consumption and calorie (food) intake varies as the body weight raised to a power between
0.65 and 0.75. A value of 0.667 = 2/3 has been used in EPA as the default value for
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
._. _^ __..—- Volume I - General Factors
EFH
Appendix 1A
adjusting cross-species intakes, and the same factor has been used for intra-species
intake adjustments.
[NOTE: Following discussions by an interagency task force (Federal Register, 1992),
the agreement was that a more accurate and defensible default value would be to choose
the power to 3/4 rather than 2/3. A recent article (West et al., 1997) has provided a
theoretical basis for the 3/4 power scaling. This will be the standard value to be used in
future assessments, and all equations in this Appendix will be modified in future risk
assessments. However, because risk assessors now use the current IRIS information,
this discussion is presented with the previous default assumption of 2/3].
With this model, the relation between the daily air intake in the population of interest,
IAP = (m3/day)p, and the intake in the population described in this handbook, IAE = (m3/day)E
is:
IAP = IAE x (WP/WE)2/3.
4. CALCULATION OF RISKS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS
The risk is calculated by multiplying the IRIS air unit risk, corrected as described in
Table 1A-1, by the air concentration. But since the correction factor involves the intake
in the population of interest (IAP), that quantity must be included in the equation, as follows:
(Risk)p= (air unit risk)p x (air concentration)
= (air unit risk)5 x (IAP/20) x (70/WP)2/3 x (air concentration)
= (air unit risk)5 x [(IAE x (Wp/WE)2/3/20)] x (70/WP)2/3 x (air concentration)
= (air unit risk)5 x (IAE/20) x (70/WE)2/3 x (air concentration)
In this equation the air unit risk from the IRIS data base (air unit risk)5, the air intake
data in the handbook for the populations where it is available (IAE) and the body weight of
that population (WE) are included along with the standard IRIS values of the air intake (20
m3/day) and body weight (70 kg).
For food ingestion and tap water intake, if body weight-normalized intake values from
this handbook are used, the intake data do not have to be corrected as in Section 3 above.
In these cases, corrections to the dose-response parameters in Table 1 A-1 are sufficient.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors -_-^ _-
EFH
Appendix 1A
5. REFERENCES
Federal Register. (1992) Cross-species scaling factor for carcinogen risk assessments
based on equivalence of (mg/kg-day)3/4. Draft report. Federal Register, 57(109):
24152-24173, June 5, 1992.
Prosser, C.L.; Brown, F.A. (1961) Comparative Animal physiology, 2nd edition. WB
Saunders Co. p. 161.
U.S. EPA. (1996) Background Documentation. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). Online. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Background Documentation available from: Risk Information Hotline, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. Cincinnati,
OH 45268. (513)569-7254
West, G.B.; Brown, J.H.; Enquist, B.J. (1997) A general model of the origin of allometric
scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122-126.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
2. VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY
The chapters that follow will discuss exposure factors and algorithms for estimating
exposure. Exposure factor values can be used to obtain a range of exposure estimates
such as average, high-end and bounding estimates. It is instructive here to return to the
general equation for potential Average Daily Dose (ADDpot) that was introduced in the
opening chapter of this handbook:
ADD , Contaminant Concentration x Intake Rate x Exposure Duration
pot Body Weight x Averaging Time
With the exception of the contaminant concentration, all parameters in the above
equation are considered exposure factors and, thus, are treated in fair detail in other
chapters of this handbook. Each of the exposure factors involves humans, either in terms
of their characteristics (e.g., body weight) or behaviors (e.g., amount of time spent in a
specific location, which affects exposure duration). While the topics of variability and
uncertainty apply equally to contaminant concentrations and the rest of the exposure
factors in equation 2-1, the focus of this chapter is on variability and uncertainty as they
relate to exposure factors. Consequently, examples provided in this chapter relate
primarily to exposure factors, although contaminant concentrations may be used when they
better illustrate the point under discussion.
This chapter also is intended to acquaint the exposure assessor with some of the
fundamental concepts and precepts related to variability and uncertainty, together with
methods and considerations for evaluating and presenting the uncertainty associated with
exposure estimates. Subsequent sections in this chapter are devoted to the following
topics:
• Distinction between variability and
uncertainty;
• Types of variability;
•D Methods of confronting variability;
• Types of uncertainty and reducing uncertainty;
• Analysis of variability and uncertainty; and
• Presenting results of variability/uncertainty analysis.
Fairly extensive treatises on the topic of uncertainty have been provided, for example,
by Morgan and Henrion (1990), the National Research Council (NRC, 1994) and, to a
lesser extent, the U.S. EPA (1992; 1995). The topic commonly has been treated as it
relates to the overall process of conducting risk assessments; because exposure
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
assessment is a component of risk-assessment process, the general concepts apply
equally to the exposure-assessment component.
2.1. VARIABILITY VERSUS UNCERTAINTY
While some authors have treated variability as a specific type or component of
uncertainty, the U.S. EPA (1995) has advised the risk assessor (and, by analogy, the
exposure assessor) to distinguish between variability and uncertainty. Uncertainty
represents a lack of knowledge about factors affecting exposure or risk, whereas variability
arises from true heterogeneity across people, places or time. In other words, uncertainty
can lead to inaccurate or biased estimates, whereas variability can affect the precision of
the estimates and the degree to which they can be generalized. Most of the data
presented in this handbook concerns variability.
Variability and uncertainty can complement or confound one another. An instructive
analogy has been drawn by the National Research Council (NRC, 1994: Chapter 10),
based on the objective of estimating the distance between the earth and the moon. Prior
to fairly recent technology developments, it was difficult to make accurate measurements
of this distance, resulting in measurement uncertainty. Because the moon's orbit is
elliptical, the distance is a variable quantity. If only a few measurements were to be taken
without knowledge of the elliptical pattern, then either of the following incorrect conclusions
might be reached:
• That the measurements were faulty, thereby ascribing to uncertainty what was
actually caused by variability; or
• That the moon's orbit was random, thereby not allowing uncertainty to shed light
on seemingly unexplainable differences that are in fact variable and predictable.
A more fundamental error in the above situation would be to incorrectly estimate the
true distance, by assuming that a few observations were sufficient. This latter pitfall -
treating a highly variable quantity as if it were invariant or only uncertain - is probably the
most relevant to the exposure or risk assessor.
Now consider a situation that relates to exposure, such as estimating the average
daily dose by one exposure route - ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Suppose
that it is possible to measure an individual's daily water consumption (and concentration
of the contaminant) exactly, thereby eliminating uncertainty in the measured daily dose.
The daily dose still has an inherent day-to-day variability, however, due to changes in the
individual's daily water intake or the contaminant concentration in water.
It is impractical to measure the individual's dose every day. For this reason, the
exposure assessor may estimate the average daily dose (ADD) based on a finite number
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
of measurements, in an attempt to "average out" the day-to-day variability. The individual
has a true (but unknown) ADD, which has now been estimated based on a sample of
measurements. Because the individual's true average is unknown, it is uncertain how
close the estimate is to the true value. Thus, the variability across daily doses has been
translated into uncertainty in the ADD. Although the individual's true ADD has no
variability, the estimate of the ADD has some uncertainty.
The above discussion pertains to the ADD for one person. Now consider a
distribution of ADDs across individuals in a defined population (e.g., the general U.S.
population). In this case, variability refers to the range and distribution of ADDs across
individuals in the population. By comparison, uncertainty refers to the exposure assessor's
state of knowledge about that distribution, or about parameters describing the distribution
(e.g., mean, standard deviation, general shape, various percentiles).
As noted by the National Research Council (NRC, 1994), the realms of variability and
uncertainty have fundamentally different ramifications for science and judgment. For
example, uncertainty may force decision-makers to judge how probable it is that exposures
have been overestimated or underestimated for every member of the exposed population,
whereas variability forces them to cope with the certainty that different individuals are
subject to exposures both above and below any of the exposure levels chosen as a
reference point.
2.2. TYPES OF VARIABILITY
Variability in exposure is related to an individual's location, activity, and behavior or
preferences at a particular point in time, as well as pollutant emission rates and
physical/chemical processes that affect concentrations in various media (e.g., air, soil,
food and water). The variations in pollutant-specific emissions or processes, and in
individual locations, activities or behaviors, are not necessarily independent of one
another. For example, both personal activities and pollutant concentrations at a specific
location might vary in response to weather conditions, or between weekdays and
weekends.
At a more fundamental level, three types of variability can be distinguished:
• Variability across locations (Spatial Variability);
• Variability over time (Temporal Variability); and
• Variability among individuals (Inter-individual Variability).
Spatial variability can occur both at regional (macroscale) and local (microscale)
levels. For example, fish intake rates can vary depending on the region of the country.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Higher consumption may occur among populations located near large bodies of water
such as the Great Lakes or coastal areas. As another example, outdoor pollutant levels
can be affected at the regional level by industrial activities and at the local level by
activities of individuals. In general, higher exposures tend to be associated with closer
proximity to the pollutant source, whether it be an industrial plant or related to a personal
activity such as showering or gardening. In the context of exposure to airborne pollutants,
the concept of a "microenvironment" has been introduced (Duan, 1982) to denote a
specific locality (e.g., a residential lot or a room in a specific building) where the airborne
concentration can be treated as homogeneous (i.e., invariant) at a particular point in time.
Temporal variability refers to variations over time, whether long- or short-term.
Seasonal fluctuations in weather, pesticide applications, use of woodburning appliances
and fraction of time spent outdoors are examples of longer-term variability. Examples of
shorter-term variability are differences in industrial or personal activities on weekdays
versus weekends or at different times of the day.
Inter-individual variability can be either of two types: (1) human characteristics
such as age or body weight, and (2) human behaviors such as location and activity
patterns. Each of these variabilities, in turn, may be related to several underlying
phenomena that vary. For example, the natural variability in human weight is due to a
combination of genetic, nutritional, and other lifestyle or environmental factors. Variability
arising from independent factors that combine multiplicatively generally will lead to an
approximately lognormal distribution across the population, or across spatial/temporal
dimensions.
2.3 . CONFRONTING VARIABILITY
According to the National Research Council (NRC 1994), variability can be
confronted in four basic ways (Table 2-1) when dealing with science-policy questions
surrounding issues such as exposure or risk assessment. The first is to ignore the
variability and hope for the best. This strategy tends to work best when the variability is
relatively small. For example, the assumption that all adults weigh 70 kg is likely to be
correct within ±25% for most adults.
The second strategy involves disaggregating the variability in some explicit way,
in order to better understand it or reduce it. Mathematical models are appropriate in some
cases, as in fitting a sine wave to the annual outdoor concentration cycle for a particular
pollutant and location. In other cases, particularly those involving human characteristics
or behaviors, it is easier to disaggregate the data by considering all the relevant subgroups
or subpopulations. For example, distributions of body weight could be developed
separately for adults, adolescents and children, and even for males and females within
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
each of these subgroups. Temporal and spatial analogies for this concept involve
measurements on appropriate time scales and choosing appropriate subregions or
microenvironments.
The third strategy is to use the average value of a quantity that varies. Although this
strategy might appear as tantamount to ignoring variability, it needs to be based on a
decision that the average value can be estimated reliably in light of the variability (e.g.,
when the variability is known to be relatively small, as in the case of adult body weight).
The fourth strategy involves using the maximum or minimum value for an exposure
factor. In this case, the variability is characterized by the range between the extreme
values and a measure of central tendency. This is perhaps the most common method of
dealing with variability in exposure or risk assessment - to focus on one time period (e.g.,
the period of peak exposure), one spatial region (e.g., in close proximity to the pollutant
source of concern), or one subpopulation (e.g., exercising asthmatics). As noted by the
U.S. EPA (1992), when an exposure assessor develops estimates of high-end individual
exposure and dose, care must be taken not to set all factors to values that maximize
exposure or dose - such an approach will almost always lead to an overestimate.
2.4. CONCERN ABOUT UNCERTAINTY
Why should the exposure assessor be concerned with uncertainty? As noted by the
U.S. EPA (1992), exposure assessment can involve a broad array of information sources
and analysis techniques. Even in situations where actual exposure-related measurements
exist, assumptions or inferences will still be required because data are not likely to be
available for all aspects of the exposure assessment. Moreover, the data that are
available may be of questionable or unknown quality. Thus, exposure assessors have a
responsibility to present not just numbers, but also a clear and explicit explanation of the
implications and limitations of their analyses.
Morgan and Henrion (1990) provide an argument by analogy. When scientists report
quantities that they have measured, they are expected to routinely report an estimate of
the probable error associated with such measurements. Because uncertainties inherent
in policy analysis (of which exposure assessment is a part) tend to be even greater than
those in the natural sciences, exposure assessors also should be expected to report or
comment on the uncertainties associated with their estimates.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Additional reasons for addressing uncertainty in exposure or risk assessments (U.S.
EPA, 1992, Morgan and Henrion, 1990) include the following:
• Uncertain information from different sources of different quality often must be
combined for the assessment;
• Decisions need to be made about whether or how to expend resources to acquire
additional information,;
• Biases may result in so-called "best estimates" that in actuality are not very
accurate; and
• Important factors and potential sources of disagreement in a problem can be
identified.
Addressing uncertainty will increase the likelihood that results of an assessment or
analysis will be used in an appropriate manner. Problems rarely are solved to everyone's
satisfaction, and decisions rarely are reached on the basis of a single piece of evidence.
Results of prior analyses can shed light on current assessments, particularly if they are
couched in the context of prevailing uncertainty at the time of analysis. Exposure
assessment tends to be an iterative process, beginning with a screening-level assessment
that may identify the need for more in-depth assessment. One of the primary goals of the
more detailed assessment is to reduce uncertainty in estimated exposures. This objective
can be achieved more efficiently if guided by presentation and discussion of factors
thought to be primarily responsible for uncertainty in prior estimates.
2.5. TYPES OF UNCERTAINTY AND REDUCING UNCERTAINTY
The problem of uncertainty in exposure or risk assessment is relatively large, and can
quickly become too complex for facile treatment unless it is divided into smaller and more
manageable topics. One method of division (Bogen, 1990) involves classifying sources
of uncertainty according to the step in the risk assessment process (hazard identification,
dose-response assessment, exposure assessment or risk characterization) at which they
can occur. A more abstract and generalized approach preferred by some scientists is to
partition all uncertainties among the three categories of bias, randomness and true
variability. These ideas are discussed later in some examples.
The U.S. EPA (1992) has classified uncertainty in exposure assessment into three
broad categories:
1. Uncertainty regarding missing or incomplete information needed to fully define
exposure and dose (Scenario Uncertainty).
2. Uncertainty regarding some parameter (Parameter Uncertainty).
3. Uncertainty regarding gaps in scientific theory required to make predictions on the
basis of causal inferences (Model Uncertainty).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Identification of the sources of uncertainty in an exposure assessment is the first step in
determining how to reduce that uncertainty. The types of uncertainty listed above can be
further defined by examining their principal causes. Sources and examples for each type
of uncertainty are summarized in Table 2-2.
Because uncertainty in exposure assessments is fundamentally tied to a lack of
knowledge concerning important exposure factors, strategies for reducing uncertainty
necessarily involve reduction or elimination of knowledge gaps. Example strategies to
reduce uncertainty include (1) collection of new data using a larger sample size, an
unbiased sample design, a more direct measurement method or a more appropriate target
population, and (2) use of more sophisticated modeling and analysis tools.
2.6. ANALYZING VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY
Exposure assessments often are developed in a phased approach. The initial phase
usually screens out the exposure scenarios or pathways that are not expected to pose
much risk, to eliminate them from more detailed, resource-intensive review. Screening-
level assessments typically examine exposures that would fall on or beyond the high end
of the expected exposure distribution. Because screening-level analyses usually are
included in the final exposure assessment, the final document may contain scenarios that
differ quite markedly in sophistication, data quality, and amenability to quantitative
expressions of variability or uncertainty.
According to the U.S. EPA (1992), uncertainty characterization and uncertainty
assessment are two ways of describing uncertainty at different degrees of sophistication.
Uncertainty characterization usually involves a qualitative discussion of the thought
processes used to select or reject specific data, estimates, scenarios, etc. Uncertainty
assessment is a more quantitative process that may range from simpler measures (e.g.,
ranges) and simpler analytical techniques (e.g., sensitivity analysis) to more complex
measures and techniques. Its goal is to provide decision makers with information
concerning the quality of an assessment, including the potential variability in the estimated
exposures, major data gaps, and the effect that these data gaps have on the exposure
estimates developed.
A distinction between variability and uncertainty was made in Section 2.1. Although
the quantitative process mentioned above applies more directly to variability and the
qualitative approach more so to uncertainty, there is some degree of overlap. In general,
either method provides the assessor or decision-maker with insights to better evaluate the
assessment in the context of available data and assumptions. The following paragraphs
describe some of the more common procedures for analyzing variability and uncertainty
in exposure assessments. Principles that pertain to presenting the results of
variability/uncertainty analysis are discussed in the next section.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Several approaches can be used to characterize uncertainty in parameter values.
When uncertainty is high, the assessor may use order-of-magnitude bounding estimates
of parameter ranges (e.g., from 0.1 to 10 liters for daily water intake). Another method
describes the range for each parameter including the lower and upper bounds as well as
a "best estimate" (e.g., 1.4 liters per day) determined by available data or professional
judgement.
When sensitivity analysis indicates that a parameter profoundly influences exposure
estimates, the assessor should develop a probabilistic description of its range. If there are
enough data to support their use, standard statistical methods are preferred. If the data
are inadequate, expert judgment can be used to generate a subjective probabilistic
representation. Such judgments should be developed in a consistent, well-documented
manner. Morgan and Henrion (1990) and Rish (1988) describe techniques to solicit expert
judgment.
Most approaches to quantitative analysis examine how variability and uncertainty in
values of specific parameters translate into the overall uncertainty of the assessment.
Details may be found in reviews such as Cox and Baybutt (1981), Whitmore (1985), Inman
and Helton (1988), Seller (1987), and Rish and Marnicio (1988). These approaches can
generally be described (in order of increasing complexity and data needs) as: (1)
sensitivity analysis; (2) analytical uncertainty propagation; (3) probabilistic uncertainty
analysis; or (4) classical statistical methods (U.S. EPA 1992). The four approaches are
summarized in Table 2-3.
2.7. PRESENTING RESULTS OF VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
Comprehensive qualitative analysis and rigorous quantitative analysis are of little
value for use in the decision-making process, if their results are not clearly presented. In
this chapter, variability (the receipt of different levels of exposure by different individuals)
has been distinguished from uncertainty (the lack of knowledge about the correct value for
a specific exposure measure or estimate). Most of the data that are presented in this
handbook deal with variability directly, through inclusion of statistics that pertain to the
distributions for various exposure factors.
Not all approaches historically used to construct measures or estimates of exposure
have attempted to distinguish between variability and uncertainty. The assessor is
advised to use a variety of exposure descriptors, and where possible, the full population
distribution, when presenting the results. This information will provide risk managers with
a better understanding of how exposures are distributed over the population and how
variability in population activities influences this distribution.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Although incomplete analysis is essentially unquantifiable as a source of uncertainty,
it should not be ignored. At a minimum, the assessor should describe the rationale for
excluding particular exposure scenarios; characterize the uncertainty in these decisions
as high, medium, or low; and state whether they were based on data, analogy, or
professional judgment. Where uncertainty is high, a sensitivity analysis can be used to
credible upper limits on exposure by way of a series of "what if" questions.
Although assessors have always used descriptors to communicate the kind of
scenario being addressed, the 1992 Exposure Guidelines establish clear quantitative
definitions for these risk descriptors. These definitions were established to ensure that
consistent terminology is used throughout the Agency. The risk descriptors defined in the
Guidelines include descriptors of individual risk and population risk. Individual risk
descriptors are intended to address questions dealing with risks borne by individuals
within a population, including not only measures of central tendency (e.g., average or
median), but also those risks at the high end of the distribution. Population risk descriptors
refer to an assessment of the extent of harm to the population being addressed. It can be
either an estimate of the number of cases of a particular effect that might occur in a
population (or population segment), or a description of what fraction of the population
receives exposures, doses, or risks greater than a specified value. The data presented
in the Exposure Factors Handbook is one of the tools available to exposure assessors to
construct the various risk descriptors.
However, it is not sufficient to merely present the results using different exposure
descriptors. Risk managers should also be presented with an analysis of the uncertainties
surrounding these descriptors. Uncertainty may be presented using simple or very
sophisticated techniques, depending on the requirements of the assessment and the
amount of data available. It is beyond the scope of this handbook to discuss the
mechanics of uncertainty analysis in detail. At a minimum, the assessor should address
uncertainty qualitatively by answering questions such as:
• What is the basis or rationale for selecting these assumptions/parameters, such
as data, modeling, scientific judgment, Agency policy, "what if" considerations,
etc.?
• What is the range or variability of the key parameters? How were the parameter
values selected for use in the assessment? Were average, median, or upper-
percentile values chosen? If other choices had been made, how would the results
have differed?
• What is the assessor's confidence (including qualitative confidence aspects) in
the key parameters and the overall assessment? What are the quality and the
extent of the data base(s) supporting the selection of the chosen values?
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Any exposure estimate developed by an assessor will have associated assumptions
about the setting, chemical, population characteristics, and how contact with the chemical
occurs through various exposure routes and pathways. The exposure assessor will need
to examine many sources of information that bear either directly or indirectly on these
components of the exposure assessment. In addition, the assessor will be required to
make many decisions regarding the use of existing information in constructing scenarios
and setting up the exposure equations. In presenting the scenario results, the assessor
should strive for a balanced and impartial treatment of the evidence bearing on the
conclusions with the key assumptions highlighted. For these key assumptions, one should
cite data sources and explain any adjustments of the data.
The exposure assessor also should qualitatively describe the rationale for selection
of any conceptual or mathematical models that may have been used. This discussion
should address their verification and validation status, how well they represent the
situation being assessed (e.g., average versus high-end estimates), and any plausible
alternatives in terms of their acceptance by the scientific community.
Table 2-2 summarizes the three types of uncertainty, associated sources, and
examples. Table 2-3 summarizes four approaches to analyze uncertainty quantitatively.
These are described further in the 1992 Exposure Guidelines.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
3. DRINKING WATER INTAKE
3.1. BACKGROUND
Drinking water is a potential source of human exposure to toxic substances.
Contamination of drinking water may occur by, for example, percolation of toxics through
the soil to ground water that is used as a source of drinking water; runoff or discharge to
surface water that is used as a source of drinking water; intentional or unintentional
addition of substances to treat water (e.g., chlorination); and leaching of materials from
plumbing systems (e.g., lead). Estimating the magnitude of the potential dose of toxics
from drinking water requires information on the quantity of water consumed. The purpose
of this section is to describe key published studies that provide information on drinking
water consumption (Section 3.2) and to provide recommendations of consumption rate
values that should be used in exposure assessments (Section 3.6).
Currently, the U.S. EPA uses the quantity of 2 L per day for adults and 1 L per day
for infants (individuals of 10 kg body mass or less) as default drinking water intake rates
(U.S. EPA, 1980; 1991). These rates include drinking water consumed in the form of
juices and other beverages containing tapwater (e.g., coffee). The National Academy of
Sciences (NAS, 1977) estimated that daily consumption of water may vary with levels of
physical activity and fluctuations in temperature and humidity. It is reasonable to assume
that some individuals in physically-demanding occupations or living in warmer regions may
have high levels of water intake.
Numerous studies cited in this chapter have generated data on drinking water intake
rates. In general, these sources support EPA's use of 2 L/day for adults and 1 L/day for
children as upper-percentile tapwater intake rates. Many of the studies have reported fluid
intake rates for both total fluids and tapwater. Total fluid intake is defined as consumption
of all types of fluids including tapwater, milk, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, and water
intrinsic to purchased foods. Total tapwater is defined as water consumed directly from
the tap as a beverage or used in the preparation of foods and beverages (i.e., coffee, tea,
frozen juices, soups, etc.). Data for both consumption categories are presented in the
sections that follow. However, for the purposes of exposure assessments involving
source-specific contaminated drinking water, intake rates based on total tapwater are
more representative of source-specific tapwater intake. Given the assumption that
purchased foods and beverages are widely distributed and less likely to contain source-
specific water, the use of total fluid intake rates may overestimate the potential exposure
to toxic substances present only in local water supplies; therefore tapwater intake, rather
than total fluid intake, is emphasized in this section.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
All studies on drinking water intake that are currently available are based on short-
term survey data. Although short-term data may be suitable for obtaining mean intake
values that are representative of both short- and long-term consumption patterns, upper-
percentile values may be different for short-term and long-term data because more
variability generally occurs in short-term surveys. It should also be noted that most
drinking water surveys currently available are based on recall. This may be a source of
uncertainty in the estimated intake rates because of the subjective nature of this type of
survey technique.
The distribution of water intakes is usually, but not always, lognormal. Instead of
presenting only the lognormal parameters, the actual percentile distributions are presented
in this handbook, usually with a comment on whether or not it is lognormal. To facilitate
comparisons between studies, the mean and the 90th percentiles are given for all studies
where the distribution data are available. With these two parameters, along with
information about which distribution is being followed, one can calculate, using standard
formulas, the geometric mean and geometric standard deviation and hence any desired
percentile of the distribution. Before doing such a calculation one must be sure that one
of these distributions adequately fits the data.
The available studies on drinking water consumption are summarized in the following
sections. They have been classified as either key studies or relevant studies based on the
applicability of their survey designs to exposure assessment of the entire United States
population. Recommended intake rates are based on the results of key studies, but
relevant studies are also presented to provide the reader with added perspective on the
current state-of-knowledge pertaining to drinking water intake.
3.2. KEY GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES ON DRINKING WATER INTAKE
Canada Department of Health and Welfare (1981) - Tapwater Consumption in
Canada - In a study conducted by the Canadian Department of Health and Welfare, 970
individuals from 295 households were surveyed to determine the per capita total tapwater
intake rates for various age/sex groups during winter and summer seasons (Canadian
Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1981). Intake rate was also evaluated as a
function of physical activity. The population that was surveyed matched the Canadian 1976
census with respect to the proportion in different age, regional, community size and
dwelling type groups. Participants monitored water intake for a 2-day period (1 weekday,
and 1 weekend day) in both late summer of 1977 and winter of 1978. All 970 individuals
participated in both the summer and winter surveys. The amount of tapwater consumed
was estimated based on the respondents' identification of the type and size of beverage
container used, compared to standard sized vessels. The survey questionnaires included
a pictorial guide to help participants in classifying the sizes of the vessels. For example,
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
a small glass of water was assumed to be equivalent to 4.0 ounces of water, and a large
glass was assumed to contain 9.0 ounces of water. The study also accounted for water
derived from ice cubes and popsicles, and water in soups, infant formula, and juices. The
survey did not attempt to differentiate between tapwater consumed at home and tapwater
consumed away from home. The survey also did not attempt to estimate intake rates for
fluids other than tapwater. Consequently, no intake rates for total fluids were reported.
Daily consumption distribution patterns for various age groups are presented in Table
3-1. For adults (over 18 years of age) only, the average total tapwater intake rate was
1.38 L/day, and the 90th percentile rate was 2.41 L/day as determined by graphical
interpolation. These data follow a lognormal distribution. The intake data for males,
females, and both sexes combined as a function of age and expressed in the units of
milliliters (grams) per kilogram body weight are presented in Table 3-2. The tapwater
survey did not include body weights of the participants, but the body weight information
was taken from a Canadian health survey dated 1981; it averaged 65.1 kg for males and
55.6 kg for females. Intake rates for specific age groups and seasons are presented in
Table 3-3. The average daily total tapwater intake rates for all ages and seasons
combined was 1.34 L/day, and the 90th percentile rate was 2.36 L/day. The summer
intake rates are nearly the same as the winter intake rates. The authors speculate that the
reason for the small seasonal variation here is that in Canada, even in the summer, the
ambient temperature seldom exceeded 20 degrees C and marked increase in water
consumption with high activity levels has been observed in other studies only when the
ambient temperature has been higher than 20 degrees. Average daily total tapwater
intake rates as a function of the level of physical activity, as estimated subjectively, are
presented in Table 3-4. The amounts of tapwater consumed that are derived from various
foods and beverages are presented in Table 3-5. Note that the consumption of direct
"raw" tapwater is almost constant across all age groups from school-age children through
the oldest ages. The increase in total tapwater consumption beyond school age is due to
coffee and tea consumption.
Data concerning the source of tapwater (municipal, well, or lake) was presented in
one table of the study. This categorization is not appropriate for making conclusions about
consumption of ground versus surface water.
This survey may be more representative of total tapwater consumption than some
other less comprehensive surveys because it included data for some tapwater-containing
items not covered by other studies (i.e., ice cubes, popsicles, and infant formula). One
potential source of error in the study is that estimated intake rates were based on
identification of standard vessel sizes; the accuracy of this type of survey data is not
known. The cooler climate of Canada may have reduced the importance of large tapwater
intakes resulting from high activity levels, therefore making the study less applicable to the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
United States. The authors were not able to explain the surprisingly large variations
between regional tapwater intakes; the largest regional difference was between Ontario
(1.18 liters/day) and Quebec (1.55 liters/day).
Ershow and Cantor (1989) - Total Water and Tapwater Intake in the United States:
Population-Based Estimates of Quantities and Sources - Ershow and Cantor (1989)
estimated water intake rates based on data collected by the USDA 1977-1978 Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey (MFCS). Daily intake rates for tapwater and total water were
calculated for various age groups for males, females, and both sexes combined. Tapwater
was defined as "all water from the household tap consumed directly as a beverage or used
to prepare foods and beverages." Total water was defined as tapwater plus "water intrinsic
to foods and beverages" (i.e., water contained in purchased food and beverages). The
authors showed that the age, sex, and racial distribution of the surveyed population closely
matched the estimated 1977 U. S. population.
Daily total tapwater intake rates, expressed as ml (grams) per day by age group are
presented in Table 3-6. These data follow a lognormal distribution. The same data,
expressed as ml (grams) per kg body weight per day are presented in Table 3-7. A
summary of these tables, showing the mean, the 10th and 90th percentile intakes,
expressed as both ml/day and mL/kg-day as a function of age, is presented in Table 3-8.
This shows that the mean and 90th percentile intake rates for adults (ages 20 to 65+) are
approximately 1,410 ml/day and 2,280 ml/day and for all ages the mean and 90th
percentile intake rates are 1,190 ml/day and 2,090 ml/day. Note that older adults have
greater intakes than do adults between age 20 and 65, an observation bearing on the
interpretation of the Cantor, et al. (1987) study which surveyed a population that was older
than the national average (see Section 3.3).
Ershow and Cantor (1989) also measured total water intake for the same age groups
and concluded that it averaged 2,070 ml/day for all groups combined and that tapwater
intake (1,190 ml/day) is 55 percent of the total water intake. (The detailed intake data for
various age groups are presented in Table 3-9). Ershow and Cantor (1989) also
concluded that, for all age groups combined, the proportion of tapwater consumed as
drinking water, foods, and beverages is 54 percent, 10 percent and 36 percent,
respectively. (The detailed data on proportion of tapwater consumed for various age
groups are presented in Table 3-10). Ershow and Cantor (1989) also observed that males
of all age groups had higher total water and tapwater consumption rates than females; the
variation of each from the combined-sexes mean was about 8 percent.
Ershow and Cantor (1989) also presented data on total water intake and tapwater
intake for children of various ages. They found, for infants and children between the ages
of 6 months and 15 years, that the total water intake per unit body weight increased
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
smoothly and sharply from 30 mL/kg-day above age 15 years to 190 mL/kg-day for ages
less than 6 months. This probably represents metabolic requirements for water as a
dietary constituent. However, they found that the intake of tapwater alone went up only
slightly with decreasing age (from 20 to 45 mL/kg-day as age decreases from 11 years to
less than 6 months). Ershow and Cantor (1989) attributed this small effect of age on
tapwater intake to the large number of alternative water sources (besides tapwater) used
for the younger age groups.
With respect to region of the country, the northeast states had slightly lower average
tapwater intake (1,200 ml/day) than the three other regions (which were approximately
equal at 1,400 ml/day).
This survey has an adequately large size (26,446 individuals) and it is a
representative sample of the United States population with respect to age distribution, sex,
racial composition, and residential location. It is therefore suitable as a description of
national tapwater consumption. The chief limitation of the study is that the data were
collected in 1978 and do not reflect the expected increase in the consumption of soft drinks
and bottled water or changes in the diet within the last two decades. Since the data were
collected for only a three-day period, the extrapolation to chronic intake is uncertain.
Roseberry and Burmaster (1992) - Log normal Distributions for Water Intake -
Roseberry and Burmaster (1992) fit lognormal distributions to the water intake data
reported by Ershow and Cantor (1989) and estimated population-wide distributions for total
fluid and total tapwater intake based on proportions of the population in each age group.
Their publication shows the data and the fitted log-normal distributions graphically. The
mean was estimated as the zero intercept, and the standard deviation was estimated as
the slope of the best fit line for the natural logarithm of the intake rates plotted against their
corresponding z-scores (Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992). Least squares techniques were
used to estimate the best fit straight lines for the transformed data. Summary statistics for
the best-fit lognormal distribution are presented in Table 3-11. In this table, the simulated
balanced population represents an adjustment to account for the different age distribution
of the United States population in 1988 from the age distribution in 1978 when Ershow and
Cantor (1989) collected their data. Table 3-12 summarizes the quantiles and means of
tapwater intake as estimated from the best-fit distributions. The mean total tapwater intake
rates for the two adult populations (age 20 to 65 years, and 65+ years) were estimated to
be1.27and1.34L/day.
These intake rates were based on the data originally presented by Ershow and
Cantor (1989). Consequently, the same advantages and disadvantages associated with
the Ershow and Cantor (1989) study apply to this data set.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
3.3. RELEVANT GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES ON DRINKING WATER INTAKE
National Academy of Sciences (1977) - Drinking Water and Health - MAS (1977)
calculated the average per capita water (liquid) consumption per day to be 1.63 L. This
figure was based on a survey of the following literature sources: Evans (1941); Bourne
and Kidder(1953); Walker etal. (1957); Wolf (1958); Guyton (1968); McNall and Schlegel
(1968); Randall (1973); MAS (1974); and Pike and Brown (1975). Although the calculated
average intake rate was 1.63 L per day, MAS (1977) adopted a larger rate (2 L per day)
to represent the intake of the majority of water consumers. This value is relatively
consistent with the total tapwater intakes rate estimated from the key studies presented
previously. However, the use of the term "liquid" was not clearly defined in this study, and
it is not known whether the populations surveyed are representative of the adult U.S.
population. Consequently, the results of this study are of limited use in recommending
total tapwater intake rates and this study is not considered a key study.
Hopkins and Ellis (1980) - Drinking Water Consumption in Great Britain - A study
conducted in Great Britain over a 6-week period during September and October 1978,
estimated the drinking water consumption rates of 3,564 individuals from 1,320 households
in England, Scotland, and Wales (Hopkins and Ellis, 1980). The participants were
selected randomly and were asked to complete a questionnaire and a diary indicating the
type and quantity of beverages consumed over a 1-week period. Total liquid intake
included total tapwater taken at home and away from home; purchased alcoholic
beverages; and non-tapwater-based drinks. Total tapwater included water content of tea,
coffee, and other hot water drinks; homemade alcoholic beverages; and tapwater
consumed directly as a beverage. The assumed tapwater contents for these beverages
are presented in Table 3-13. Based on responses from 3,564 participants, the mean
intake rates and frequency distribution data for various beverage categories were
estimated by Hopkins and Ellis (1980). These data are listed in Table 3-14. The mean
per capita total liquid intake rate for all individuals surveyed was 1.59 L/day, and the mean
per capita total tapwater intake rate was 0.95 L/day, with a 90th percentile value of about
1.3 L/day (which is the value of the percentile for the home tapwater alone in Table 3-14).
Liquid intake rates were also estimated for males and females in various age groups.
Table 3-15 summarizes the total liquid and total tapwater intake rates for 1,758 males and
1,800 females grouped into six age categories (Hopkins and Ellis, 1980). The mean and
90th percentile total tapwater intake values for adults over age 18 years are, respectively,
1.07 L/day and 1.87 L/day, as determined by pooling data for males and females for the
three adult age ranges in Table 3-15. This calculation assumes, as does Table 3-14 and
3-15, that the underlying distribution is normal and not lognormal.
The advantage of using these data is that the responses were not generated on a
recall basis, but by recording daily intake in diaries. The latter approach may result in
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
more accurate responses being generated. Also, the use of total liquid and total tapwater
was well defined in this study. However, the relatively short-term nature of the survey
make extrapolation to long-term consumption patterns difficult. Also, these data were
based on the population of Great Britain and not the United States. Drinking patterns may
differ among these populations as a result of varying weather conditions and socio-
economic factors. For these reasons this study is not considered a key study in this
document.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (1981) - Report to the
Task Group on Reference Man - Data on fluid intake levels have also been summarized
by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in the Report of the
Task Group on Reference Man (ICRP, 1981). These intake levels for adults and children
are summarized in Table 3-16. The amount of drinking water (tapwater and water-based
drinks) consumed by adults ranged from about 0.37 L/day to about 2.18 L/day under
"normal" conditions. The levels for children ranged from 0.54 to 0.79 L/day. Because the
populations, survey design, and intake categories are not clearly defined, this study has
limited usefulness in developing recommended intake rates for use in exposure
assessment. It is reported here as a relevant study because the findings, although poorly
defined, are consistent with the results of other studies.
G////es and Paulin (1983) - Variability of Mineral Intakes from Drinking Water- Gillies
and Paulin (1983) conducted a study to evaluate variability of mineral intake from drinking
water. A study population of 109 adults (75 females; 34 males) ranging in age from 16 to
80 years (mean age = 44 years) in New Zealand was asked to collect duplicate samples
of water consumed directly from the tap or used in beverage preparation during a 24-hour
period. Participants were asked to collect the samples on a day when all of the water
consumed would be from their own home. Individuals were selected based on their
willingness to participate and their ability to comprehend the collection procedures. The
mean total tapwater intake rate for this population was 1.25 (±0.39) L/day, and the 90th
percentile rate was 1.90 L/day. The median total tapwater intake rate (1.26 L/day) was
very similar to the mean intake rate (Gillies and Paulin, 1983). The reported range was
0.26 to 2.80 L/day.
The advantage of these data are that they were generated using duplicate sampling
techniques. Because this approach is more objective than recall methods, it may result
in more accurate response. However, these data are based on a short-term survey that
may not be representative of long-term behavior, the population surveyed is small and the
procedures for selecting the survey population were not designed to be representative of
the New Zealand population, and the results may not be applicable to the United States.
For these reasons the study is not regarded as a key study in this document.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
Pennington (1983) - Revision of the Total Diet Study Food List and Diets - Based on
data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Total Diet Study, Pennington
(1983) reported average intake rates for various foods and beverages for five age groups
of the population. The Total Diet Study is conducted annually to monitor the nutrient and
contaminant content of the U.S. food supply and to evaluate trends in consumption.
Representative diets were developed based on 24-hour recall and 2-day diary data from
the 1977-1978 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey (MFCS) and 24-hour recall data from the Second National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES II). The number of participants in NFCS and NHANES II
was approximately 30,000 and 20,000, respectively. The diets were developed to
"approximate 90 percent or more of the weight of the foods usually consumed"
(Pennington, 1983). The source of water (bottled water as distinguished from tapwater)
was not stated in the Pennington study. For the purposes of this report, the consumption
rates for the food categories defined by Pennington (1983) were used to calculate total
fluid and total water intake rates for five age groups. Total water includes water, tea,
coffee, soft drinks, and soups and frozen juices that are reconstituted with water.
Reconstituted soups were assumed to be composed of 50 percent water, and juices were
assumed to contain 75 percent water. Total fluids include total water in addition to milk,
ready-to-use infant formula, milk-based soups, carbonated soft drinks, alcoholic
beverages, and canned fruit juices. These intake rates are presented in Table 3-17.
Based on the average intake rates for total water for the two adult age groups, 1.04 and
1.26 L/day, the average adult intake rate is about 1.15 L/day. These rates should be more
representative of the amount of source-specific water consumed than are total fluid intake
rates. Because this study was designed to measure food intake, and it used both USDA
1978 data and NHANES II data, there was not necessarily a systematic attempt to define
tapwater intake per se, as distinguished from bottled water. For this reason, it is not
considered a key tapwater study in this document.
U.S. EPA (1984) - An Estimation of the Daily Average Food Intake by Age and Sex
for Use in Assessing the Radionuclide Intake of the General Population - Using data
collected by USDA in the 1977-78 NFCS, U.S. EPA (1984) determined daily food and
beverage intake levels by age to be used in assessing radionuclide intake through food
consumption. Tapwater, water-based drinks, and soups were identified subcategories of
the total beverage category. Daily intake rates for tapwater, water-based drinks, soup, and
total beverage are presented in Table 3-18. As seen in Table 3-18, mean tapwater intake
for different adult age groups (age 20 years and older) ranged from 0.62 to 0.76 L/day,
water-based drinks intake ranged from 0.34 to 0.69 L/day, soup intake ranged from 0.03
to 0.06 L/day, and mean total beverage intake levels ranged from 1.48 to 1.73 L/day. Total
tapwater intake rates were estimated by combining the average daily intakes of tapwater,
water-based drinks, and soups for each age group. For adults (ages 20 years and older),
mean total tapwater intake rates range from 1.04 to 1.47 L/day, and for children (ages <1
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
to 19 years), mean intake rates range from 0.19 to 0.90 L/day. These intake rates do not
include reconstituted infant formula. The total tapwater intake rates, derived by combining
data on tapwater, water-based drinks, and soup should be more representative of source-
specific drinking water intake than the total beverage intake rates reported in this study.
These intake rates are based on the same USDA MFCS data used in Ershow and Cantor
(1989). Therefore, the data limitations discussed previously also apply to this study.
Cantor et a/. (1987) - Bladder Cancer, Drinknig Water Source, and Tapwater
Consumption - The National Cancer Institute (NCI), in a population-based, case control
study investigating the possible relationship between bladder cancer and drinking water,
interviewed approximately 8,000 adult white individuals, 21 to 84 years of age (2,805
cases and 5,258 controls) in their homes, using a standardized questionnaire (Cantor et
al., 1987). The cases and controls resided in one of five metropolitan areas (Atlanta,
Detroit, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Seattle) and five States (Connecticut, Iowa, New
Jersey, New Mexico, and Utah). The individuals interviewed were asked to recall the level
of intake of tapwater and other beverages in a typical week during the winter prior to the
interview. Total beverage intake was divided into the following two components:
1) beverages derived from tapwater; and 2) beverages from other sources. Tapwater used
in cooking foods and in ice cubes was apparently not considered. Participants also
supplied information on the primary source of the water consumed (i.e., private well,
community supply, bottled water, etc.). The control population was randomly selected from
the general population and frequency matched to the bladder cancer case population in
terms of age, sex, and geographic location of residence. The case population consisted
of Whites only, had no people under the age of 21 years and 57 percent were over the age
of 65 years. The fluid intake rates for the bladder cancer cases were not used because
their participation in the study was based on selection factors that could bias the intake
estimates for the general population. Based on responses from 5,258 White controls
(3,892 males; 1,366 females), average tapwater intake rates for a "typical" week were
compiled by sex, age group, and geographic region. These rates are listed in Table 3-19.
The average total fluid intake rate was 2.01 L/day for men of which 70 percent (1.4 L/day)
was derived from tapwater, and 1.72 L/day for women of which 79 percent (1.35 L/day)
was derived from tapwater. Frequency distribution data for the 5,081 controls, for which
the authors had information on both tapwater consumption and cigarette smoking habits,
are presented in Table 3-20. These data follow a lognormal distribution having an average
value of 1.30 L/day and an upper 90th percentile value of approximately 2.40 L/day.
These values were determined by graphically interpolating the data of Table 3-20 after
plotting it on log probability graph paper. These values represent the usual level of intake
for this population of adults in the winter.
A limitation associated with this data set is that the population surveyed was older
than the general population and consisted exclusively of Whites. Also, the intake data are
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
based on recall of behavior from the winter previous to the interview. Extrapolation to
other seasons and intake durations is difficult.
The authors presented data on person-years of residence with various types of water
supply sources (municipal versus private, chlorinated versus nonchlorinated, and surface
versus well water). Unfortunately, these data can not be used to draw conclusions about
the National average apportionment of surface versus groundwater since a large fraction
(24 percent) of municipal water intake in this survey could not be specifically attributed to
either ground or surface water.
AIHC (1994) - Exposure Factors Handbook - The Exposure Factors Sourcebook
(AIHC, 1994) presented drinking water intake rate recommendations for adults. Although
AIHC (1994) provided little information on the studies used to derive mean and upper
percentile recom-mendations, the references indicate that several of the studies used were
the same as ones categorized as relevant studies in this handbook. The mean adult
drinking water recommendations in AIHC (1994) and this handbook are in agreement.
However, the upper percentile value recommended by AIHC (1994) (2.0 L/day) is slightly
lower than that recommended by this handbook (2.4 L/day). Based on data provided by
Ershow and Cantor (1989), 2.0 L/day corresponds to only approximately the 84th
percentile of the drinking water intake rate distribution. Thus, a slightly higher value is
appropriate for representing the upper percentile (i.e., 90 to 95th percentile) of the
distribution. AIHC (1994) also presents simulated distributions of drinking water intake
based on Roseberry and Burmaster (1992). These distributions are also described in
detail in Section 3.2 of this handbook. AIHC (1994) has been classified as a relevant
rather than a key study because it is not the primary source for the data used to make
recommendations for this document.
USDA (1995) - Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 Day,
1989-91. - USDA (1995) collected data on the quantity of "plain drinking water" and
various other beverages consumed by individuals in 1 day during 1989 through 1991. The
data were collected as part of USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII). The data used to estimate mean per capita intake rates combined one-day
dietary recall data from 3 survey years: 1989, 1990, and 1991 during which 15,128
individuals supplied one-day intake data. Individuals from all income levels in the 48
conterminous states and Washington D.C. were included in the sample. A complex three-
stage sampling design was employed and the overall response rate for the study was 58
percent. To minimize the biasing effects of the low response rate and adjust for the
seasonality, a series of weighting factors was incorporated into the data analysis. The
intake rates based on this study are presented in Table 3-21. Table 3-21 includes data
for: a) "plain drinking water", which might be assumed to mean tapwater directly
consumed rather than bottled water; b) coffee and tea, which might be assumed to be
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
constituted from tapwater; and 3) fruit drinks and ades, which might be assumed to be
reconstituted from tapwater rather than canned products; and 4) the total of the three
sources. With these assumptions, the mean per capita total intake of water is estimated
to be 1,416 ml/day for adult males (i.e., 20 years of age and older), 1,288 ml/day for adult
females (i.e., 20 years of age and older) and 1,150 ml/day for all ages and both sexes
combined. Although these assumptions appear reasonable, a close reading of the
definitions used by USDA (1995) reveals that the word "tapwater" does not occur, and this
uncertainty prevents the use of this study as a key study of tapwater intake.
The advantages of using these data are that; 1) the survey had a large sample size;
2) the authors attempted to represent the general United States population by
oversampling low-income groups and by weighting the data to compensate for low
response rates; and 3) it reflects more recent intake data than the key studies. The
disadvantages are that: 1) the response rate was low; 2) the word "tapwater" was not
defined and the assumptions that must be used in order to compare the data with the
other tapwater studies might not be valid; 3) the data collection period reflects only a one-
day intake period, and may not reflect long-term drinking water intake patterns; and 4) data
on the percentiles of the distribution of intakes were not given.
Tsang and Klepeis (1996) - National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) - The
U.S. EPA collected information on the number of glasses of drinking water and juice
reconstituted with tapwater consumed by the general population as part of the National
Human Activity Pattern Survey (Tsang and Klepeis, 1996). NHAPS was conducted
between October 1992 and September 1994. Over 9,000 individuals in the 48 contiguous
United States provided data on the duration and frequency of selected activities and the
time spent in selected microenvironments via 24-hour diaries. Over 4,000 NHAPS
respondents also provided information of the number of 8-ounce glasses of water and the
number of 8-ounce glasses of juice reconstituted with water than they drank during the 24-
hour survey period (Tables 3-22 and 3-23). The median number of glasses of tapwater
consumed was 1-2 and the median number of glasses of juice with tapwater consumed
was 1-2.
For both individuals who drank tapwater and individuals who drank juices reconstituted
with tapwater, the number of glasses ranged from 1 to 20. The highest percentage of the
population (37.1 percent) who drank tapwater consumed 3-5 glasses and the highest
percentage of the population (51.5 percent) who consumed juice reconstituted with
tapwater drank 1-2 glasses. Based on the assumption that each glass contained 8 ounces
of water (226.4 ml), the total volume of tapwater and juice with tapwater consumed would
range from 0.23 L/day (1 glass) to 4.5 L/day (20 glasses) for respondents who drank
tapwater. Using the same assumption, the volume of tapwater consumed for the
population who consumed 3-5 glasses would be 0.68 L/day to 1.13 L/day and the volume
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
of juice with tapwater consumed for the population who consumed 1-2 glasses would be
0.23 L/day to 0.46 L/day. Assuming that the average individual consumes 3-5 glasses of
tapwater plus 1-2 glasses of juice with tapwater, the range of total tapwater intake for this
individual would range from 0.9 L/day to 1.64 L/day. These values are consistent with the
average intake rates observed in other studies.
The advantages of NHAPS is that the data were collected for a large number of
individuals and that the data are representative of the U.S. population. However,
evaluation of drinking water intake rates was not the primary purpose of the study and the
data do not reflect the total volume of tapwater consumed. However, using the
assumptions described above, the estimated drinking water intake rates from this study
are within the same ranges observed for other drinking water studies.
3.4. PREGNANT AND LACTATING WOMEN
Ershow et al. (1991) - Intake of Tapwater and Total Water by Pregnant and Lactating
Women - Ershow et al. (1991) used data from the 1977-78 USDA MFCS to estimate total
fluid and total tapwater intake among pregnant and lactating women (ages 15-49 years).
Data for 188 pregnant women, 77 lactating women, and 6,201 non-pregnant, non-lactating
control women were evaluated. The participants were interviewed based on 24 hour
recall, and then asked to record a food diary for the next 2 days. "Tapwater" included
tapwater consumed directly as a beverage and tapwater used to prepare food and
tapwater-based beverages. "Total water" was defined as all water from tapwater and non-
tapwater sources, including water contained in food. Estimated total fluid and total
tapwater intake rates for the three groups are presented in Tables 3-24 and 3-25,
respectively. Lactating women had the highest mean total fluid intake rate (2.24 L/day)
compared with both pregnant women (2.08 L/day) and control women (1.94 L/day).
Lactating women also had a higher mean total tapwater intake rate (1.31 L/day) than
pregnant women (1.19 L/day) and control women (1.16 L/day). The tapwater distributions
are neither normal nor lognormal, but lactating women had a higher mean tapwater intake
than controls and pregnant women. Ershow et al. (1991) also reported that rural women
(n=1,885) consumed more total water (1.99 L/day) and tapwater (1.24 L/day) than
urban/suburban women (n=4,581, 1.93 and 1.13 L/day, respectively). Total water and
tapwater intake rates were lowest in the northeastern region of the United States (1.82 and
1.03 L/day) and highest in the western region of the United States (2.06 L/day and 1.21
L/day). Mean intake per unit body weight was highest among lactating women for both
total fluid and total tapwater intake. Total tapwater intake accounted for over 50 percent
of mean total fluid in all three groups of women (Table 3-25). Drinking water accounted
for the largest single proportion of the total fluid intake for control (30 percent), pregnant
(34 percent), and lactating women (30 percent) (Table 3-26). All other beverages
combined accounted for approximately 46 percent, 43 percent, and 45 percent of the total
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
water intake for control, pregnant, and lactating women, respectively. Food accounted for
the remaining portion of total water intake.
The same advantages and limitations associated with the Ershow and Cantor (1989)
data also apply to these data sets (Section 3.2). A further advantage of this study is that
it provides information on estimates of total waterand tapwater intake rates for pregnant
and lactating women. This topic has rarely been addressed in the literature.
3.5. HIGH ACTIVITY LEVELS/HOT CLIMATES
McNall and Schlegel (1968) - Practical Thermal Environmental Limits for Young
Adult Males Working in Hot, Humid Environments - McNall and Schlegel (1968) conducted
a study that evaluated the physiological tolerance of adult males working under varying
degrees of physical activity. Subjects were required to pedal pedal-driven propeller fans
for 8-hour work cycles under varying environmental conditions. The activity pattern for
each individual was: cycled at 15 minute pedalling and 15 miute rest for each 8-hour
period. Two groups of eight subjects each were used. Work rates were divided into three
categories as follows: high activity level [0.15 horsepower (hp) per person], medium
activity level (0.1 hp per person), and low activity level (0.05 hp per person). Evidence of
physical stress (i.e., increased body temperature, blood pressure, etc.) was recorded, and
individuals were eliminated from further testing if certain stress criteria were met. The
amount of water consumed by the test subjects during the work cycles was also recorded.
Water was provided to the individuals on request. The water intake rates obtained at the
three different activity levels and the various environmental temperatures are presented
in Table 3-27. The data presented are for test subjects with continuous data only (i.e.,
those test subjects who were not eliminated at any stage of the study as a result of stress
conditions). Water intake was the highest at all activity levels when environmental
temperatures were increased. The highest intake rate was observed at the low activity
level at 100°F (0.65 L/hour) however, there were no data for higher activity levels at
100°F. It should be noted that this study estimated intake on an hourly basis during
various levels of physical activity. These hourly intake rates cannot be converted to daily
intake rates by multiplying by 24 hours/day because they are only representative of intake
during the specified activity levels and the intake rates for the rest of the day are not
known. Therefore, comparison of intake rate values from this study cannot be made with
values from the previously described studies on drinking water intake.
United States Army (1983) - Water Consumption Planning Factors Study - The U.S.
Army has developed water consumption planning factors to enable them to transport an
adequate amount of water to soldiers in the field under various conditions (U.S. Army,
1983). Both climate and activity levels were used to determine the appropriate water
consumption needs. Consumption factors have been established for the following uses:
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
1) drinking, 2) heat treatment, 3) personal hygiene, 4) centralized hygiene, 5) food
preparation, 6) laundry, 7) medical treatment, 8) vehicle and aircraft maintenance,
9) graves registration, and 10) construction. Only personal drinking water consumption
factors are described here.
Drinking water consumption planning factors are based on the estimated amount of
water needed to replace fluids lost by urination, perspiration, and respiration. It assumes
that water lost to urinary output averages one quart/day (0.9 L/day) and perspiration losses
range from almost nothing in a controlled environment to 1.5 quarts/day (1.4 L/day) in a
very hot climate where individuals are performing strenuous work. Water losses to
respiration are typically very low except in extreme cold where water losses can range from
1 to 3 quarts/day (0.9 to 2.8 L/day). This occurs when the humidity of inhaled air is near
zero, but expired air is 98 percent saturated at body temperature (U.S. Army, 1983).
Drinking water is defined by the U.S. Army (1983) as "all fluids consumed by individuals
to satisfy body needs for internal water." This includes soups, hot and cold drinks, and
tapwater. Planning factors have been established for hot, temperate, and cold climates
based on the following mixture of activities among the work force: 15 percent of the force
performing light work, 65 percent of the force performing medium work, and 20 percent of
the force performing heavy work. Hot climates are defined as tropical and arid areas
where the temperature is greater than 80°F. Temperate climates are defined as areas
where the mean daily temperature ranges from 32°F to 80°F. Cold regions are areas
where the mean daily temperature is less than 32°F. Drinking water consumption factors
for these three climates are presented in Table 3-28. These factors are based on research
on individuals and small unit training exercises. The estimates are assumed to be
conservative because they are rounded up to account for the subjective nature of the
activity mix and minor water losses that are not considered (U.S. Army, 1983). The
advantage of using these data is that they provide a conservative estimate of drinking
water intake among individuals performing at various levels of physical activity in hot,
temperate, and cold climates. However, the planning factors described here are based on
assumptions about water loss from urination, perspiration, and respiration, and are not
based on survey data or actual measurements.
3.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The key studies described in this section were used in selecting recommended
drinking water (tapwater) consumption rates for adults and children. The studies on other
subpopulations were not classified as key versus relevant. Although different survey
designs and populations were utilized by key and relevant studies described in this report,
the mean and upper-percentile estimates reported in these studies are reasonably similar.
The general design of both key and relevant studies and their limitations are summarized
in Table 3-29. It should be noted that studies that surveyed large representative samples
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
of the population provide more reliable estimates of intake rates for the general population.
Most of the surveys described here are based on short-term recall which may be biased
toward excess intake rates. However, Cantor et al. (1987) noted that retrospective dietary
assessments generally produce moderate correlations with "reference data from the past."
A summary of the recommended values for drinking water intake rates is presented in
Table 3-30.
Adults - The total tapwater consumption rates for adults (older than 18 or 20 years)
that have been reported in the key surveys can be summarized in Table 3-31. For
comparison, values for daily tapwater intake for the relevant studies are shown in Table
3-32.
Note that both Ershow and Cantor (1989) and Pennington (1983) found that adults
above 60 years of age had larger intakes than younger adults. This is difficult to reconcile
with the Cantor et al. (1987) study because the latter, older population had a smaller
average intake. Because of these results, combined with the fact that the Cantor et al.
(1987) study was not intended to be representative of the U. S. population, it is not
included here in the determination of the recommended value. The USDA (1995) data are
not included because tapwater was not defined in the survey and because the response
rate was low, although the results (showing lower intakes than the studies based on older
data) may be accurately reflecting an expected lower use of tapwater (compared to 1978)
because of increasing use of bottled water and soft drinks in recent years.
A value of 1.41 L/day, which is the population-weighted mean of the two national
studies (Ershow and Cantor, 1989 and Canadian Ministry of Health and Welfare, 1981)
is the recommended average tapwater intake rate.
The average of the 90th percentile values from the same two studies (2.35 L/day) is
recommended as the appropriate upper limit. (The commonly-used 2.0 L/day intake rate
corresponds to the 84th percentile of the intake rate distribution among the adults in the
Ershow and Cantor (1989) study). In keeping with the desire to incorporate body weight
into exposure assessments without introducing extraneous errors, the values from the
Ershow and Cantor (1989) study (Tables 3-7 and 3-8) expressed as mL/kg-day are
recommended in preference to the liters/day units. For adults, the mean and 90th
percentile values are 21 mL/kg-day and 34.2 mL/kg/day, respectively.
In the absence of actual data on chronic intake, the values in the previous paragraph
are recommended as chronic values, although the chronic 90th upper percentile may very
well be larger than 2.35 L/day. If a mathematical description of the intake distribution is
needed, the parameters of lognormal fit to the Ershow and Cantor (1989) data (Tables
3-11 and 3-12) generated by Roseberry and Burmaster (1992) may be used. The
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
simulated balanced population distribution of intakes generated by Roseberry and
Burmaster is not recommended for use in the post-1997 time frame, since it corrects the
1978 data only for the differences in the age structure of the U. S. population between
1978 and 1988. These recommended values are different than the 2 liters/day
commonly assumed in EPA risk assessments. Assessors are encouraged to use values
which most accurately reflect the exposed population. When using values other than 2
liters/day, however, the assessors should consider if the dose estimate will be used to
estimate risk by combining with a dose-response relationship which was derived assuming
a tap water intake of 2 liters/day. If such an inconsistency exists, the assessor should
adjust the dose-response relationship as described in Appendix 1 of Chapter 1. IRIS does
not use a tap water intake assumption in the derivation of RfCs and RfDs, but does make
the 2 liter/day assumption in the derivation of cancer slope factors and unit risks.
Children - The tapwater intake rates for children reported in the key studies are
summarized in Table 3-33. The intake rates, as expressed as liters per day, generally
increase with age, and the data are consistent across ages for the two key studies except
for the Canadian Ministry of Health and Welfare (1981) data for ages 6 to 17 years; it is
recommended that any of the liters/day values that match the age range of interest except
the Canada data for ages 6 to 17 years be used. The mL/kg-day intake values show a
consistent downward trend with increasing ages; using the Ershow and Cantor (1989) data
in preference to the Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare (1981) data is
recommended where the age ranges overlap.
The intakes for children as reported in the relevant studies are shown in Table 3-34.
Disregarding the Roseberry and Burmaster study, which is a recalculation of the
Ershow and Cantor (1989) study, the non-key studies generally have lower mean intake
values than the Ershow and Cantor (1899) study. The reason is not known, but the results
are not persuasive enough to discount the recommendations based on the latter study.
Intake rates for specific percentiles of the distribution may be selected using the lognormal
distribution data generated by Roseberry and Burmaster (1992) (Tables 3-11 and 3-12).
Pregnant and Lactating Women -The data on tapwater intakes for control, pregnant,
and lactating women are presented in Table 3-25. The recommended intake values are
presented in Table 3-30.
High Activity/Hot Climates - Data on intake rates for individuals performing strenuous
activities under various environmental conditions are limited. None of these is classed as
a key study because the populations in these studies are not representative of the general
U.S. population. However, the data presented by McNall and Schlegel (1968) and U.S.
Army (1983) provide bounding intake values for these individuals. According to McNall
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 3 - Drinking Water Intake
and Schlegel (1968), hourly intake can range from 0.21 to 0.65 L/hour depending on the
temperature and activity level. Intake among physically active individuals can range from
6 L/day in temperate climates to 11 L/day in hot climates (U.S. Army, 1983).
A characterization of the overall confidence in the accuracy and appropriateness of
the recommendations for drinking water is presented in Table 3-35. Although the study
of Ershow and Cantor (1989) is of high quality and consistent with the other surveys, the
low currency of the information (1978 data collection), in the presence of anecdotal
information (not presented here) that the consumption of bottled water and beverages has
increased since 1980 was the main reason for lowering the confidence score of the overall
recommendations from high to medium.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
4. SOIL INGESTION AND PICA
4.1. BACKGROUND
The ingestion of soil is a potential source of human exposure to toxicants. The
potential for exposure to contaminants via this source is greater for children because they
are more likely to ingest more soil than adults as a result of behavioral patterns present
during childhood. Inadvertent soil ingestion among children may occur through the
mouthing of objects or hands. Mouthing behavior is considered to be a normal phase of
childhood development. Adults may also ingest soil or dust particles that adhere to food,
cigarettes, or their hands. Deliberate soil ingestion is defined as pica and is considered
to be relatively uncommon. Because normal, inadvertent soil ingestion is more prevalent
and data for individuals with pica behavior are limited, this section focuses primarily on
normal soil ingestion that occurs as a result of mouthing or unintentional hand-to-mouth
activity.
Several studies have been conducted to estimate the amount of soil ingested by
children. Most of the early studies attempted to estimate the amount of soil ingested by
measuring the amount of dirt present on children's hands and making generalizations
based on behavior. More recently, soil intake studies have been conducted using a
methodology that measures trace elements in feces and soil that are believed to be poorly
absorbed in the gut. These measurements are used to estimate the amount of soil
ingested over a specified time period. The available studies on soil intake are summarized
in the following sections. Studies on soil intake among children have been classified as
either key studies or relevant studies based on their applicability to exposure assessment
needs. Recommended intake rates are based on the results of key studies, but relevant
studies are also presented to provide the reader with added perspective on the current
state-of-knowledge pertaining to soil intake. Information on soil ingestion among adults
is presented based on available data from a limited number of studies. This is an area
where more data and more research are needed. Relevant information on the prevalence
of pica and intake among individuals exhibiting pica behavior is also presented.
4.2. KEY STUDIES ON SOIL INTAKE AMONG CHILDREN
Binder et a/. (1986) - Estimating Soil Ingestion: Use of Tracer Elements in Estimating
the Amount of Soil Ingested by Young Children - Binder et al. (1986) studied the ingestion
of soil among children 1 to 3 years of age who wore diapers using a tracer technique
modified from a method previously used to measure soil ingestion among grazing animals.
The children were studied during the summer of 1984 as part of a larger study of residents
living near a lead smelter in East Helena, Montana. Soiled diapers were collected over
a 3-day period from 65 children (42 males and 23 females), and composited samples of
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
soil were obtained from the children's yards. Both excreta and soil samples were analyzed
for aluminum, silicon, and titanium. These elements were found in soil, but were thought
to be poorly absorbed in the gut and to have been present in the diet only in limited
quantities. This made them useful tracers for estimating soil intake. Excreta
measurements were obtained for 59 of the children. Soil ingestion by each child was
estimated based on each of the three tracer elements using a standard assumed fecal dry
weight of 15 g/day, and the following equation:
(Eqn.4-1)
where:
I, e = estimated soil ingestion for child i based on element e (g/day);
f, e = concentration of element e in fecal sample of child i (mg/g);
F| = fecal dry weight (g/day); and
S, e = concentration of element e in child i's yard soil (mg/g).
The analysis conducted by Binder et al. (1986) assumed that: (1) the tracer elements
were neither lost nor introduced during sample processing; (2) the soil ingested by children
originates primarily from their own yards; and (3) that absorption of the tracer elements by
children occurred in only small amounts. The study did not distinguish between ingestion
of soil and housedust nor did it account for the presence of the tracer elements in ingested
foods or medicines.
The arithmetic mean quantity of soil ingested by the children in the Binder et al.
(1986) study was estimated to be 181 mg/day (range 25 to 1,324) based on the aluminum
tracer; 184 mg/day (range 31 to 799) based on the silicon tracer; and 1,834 mg/day (range
4 to 17,076) based on the titanium tracer (Table 4-1). The overall mean soil ingestion
estimate based on the minimum of the three individual tracer estimates for each child was
108 mg/day (range 4 to 708). The 95th percentile values for aluminum, silicon, and
titanium were 584 mg/day, 578 mg/day, and 9,590 mg/day, respectively. The 95th
percentile value based on the minimum of the three individual tracer estimates for each
child was 386 mg/day.
The authors were not able to explain the difference between the results for titanium
and for the other two elements, but speculated that unrecognized sources of titanium in
the diet or in the laboratory processing of stool samples may have accounted for the
increased levels. The frequency distribution graph of soil ingestion estimates based on
titanium shows that a group of 21 children had particularly high titanium values (i.e.,
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
>1,000 mg/day). The remainder of the children showed titanium ingestion estimates at
lower levels, with a distribution more comparable to that of the other elements.
The advantages of this study are that a relatively large number of children were
studied and tracer elements were used to estimate soil ingestion. However, the children
studied may not be representative of the U.S. population and the study did not account for
tracers ingested via foods or medicines. Also, the use of an assumed fecal weight instead
of actual fecal weights may have biased the results of this study. Finally, because of the
short-term nature of the survey, soil intake estimates may not be entirely representative
of long-term behavior, especially at the upper-end of the distribution of intake.
Clausing et al. (1987) - A Method for Estimating Soil Ingestion by Children - Clausing
et al. (1987) conducted a soil ingestion study with Dutch children using a tracer element
methodology similar to that of Binder etal. (1986). Aluminum, titanium, and acid-insoluble
residue (AIR) contents were determined for fecal samples from children, aged 2 to 4 years,
attending a nursery school, and for samples of playground dirt at that school. Twenty-
seven daily fecal samples were obtained over a 5-day period for the 18 children examined.
Using the average soil concentrations present at the school, and assuming a standard
fecal dry weight of 10 g/day, Clausing et al. (1987) estimated soil ingestion for each tracer.
Clausing et al. (1987) also collected eight daily fecal samples from six hospitalized,
bedridden children. These children served as a control group, representing children who
had very limited access to soil.
The average quantity of soil ingested by the school children in this study was as
follows: 230 mg/day (range 23 to 979 mg/day) for aluminum; 129 mg/day (range 48 to 362
mg/day) for AIR; and 1,430 mg/day (range 64 to 11,620 mg/day) for titanium (Table 4-2).
As in the Binder et al. (1986) study, a fraction of the children (6/19) showed titanium values
well above 1,000 mg/day, with most of the remaining children showing substantially lower
values. Based on the Limiting Tracer Method (LTM), mean soil intake was estimated to
be 105 mg/day with a population standard deviation of 67 mg/day (range 23 to 362
mg/day). Use of the LTM assumed that "the maximum amount of soil ingested
corresponded with the lowest estimate from the three tracers" (Clausing et al., 1987).
Geometric mean soil intake was estimated to be 90 mg/day. This assumes that the
maximum amount of soil ingested cannot be higher than the lowest estimate for the
individual tracers.
Mean soil intake for the hospitalized children was estimated to be 56 mg/day based
on aluminum (Table 4-3). For titanium, three of the children had estimates well in excess
of 1,000 mg/day, with the remaining three children in the range of 28 to 58 mg/day. Using
the LTM method, the mean soil ingestion rate was estimated to be 49 mg/day with a
population standard deviation of 22 mg/day (range 26 to 84 mg/day). The geometric mean
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
soil intake rate was 45 mg/day. The data on hospitalized children suggest a major nonsoil
source of titanium for some children, and may suggest a background nonsoil source of
aluminum. However, conditions specific to hospitalization (e.g., medications) were not
considered. AIR measurements were not reported for the hospitalized children. Assuming
that the tracer-based soil ingestion rates observed in hospitalized children actually
represent background tracer intake from dietary and other nonsoil sources, mean soil
ingestion by nursery school children was estimated to be 56 mg/day, based on the LTM
(i.e., 105 mg/day for nursery school children minus 49 mg/day for hospitalized children)
(Clausing et al. 1987).
The advantages of this study are that Clausing et al. (1987) evaluated soil ingestion
among two populations of children that had differences in access to soil, and corrected soil
intake rates based on background estimates derived from the hospitalized group.
However, a smaller number of children were used in this study than in the Binder et al.
(1986) study and these children may not be representative of the U.S. population. Tracer
elements in foods or medicines were not evaluated. Also, intake rates derived from this
study may not be representative of soil intake over the long-term because of the short-term
nature of the study. In addition, one of the factors that could affect soil intake rates is
hygiene (e.g., hand washing frequency). Hygienic practices can vary across countries and
cultures and may be more stringently emphasized in a more structured environment such
as child care centers in The Netherlands and other European countries than in child care
centers in the United States.
Calabrese et al. (1989) - How Much Soil do Young Children Ingest: An Epidemiologic
Study - Calabrese et al. (1989) studied soil ingestion among children using the basic tracer
design developed by Binder et al. (1986). However, in contrast to the Binder et al. (1986)
study, eight tracer elements (i.e., aluminum, barium, manganese, silicon, titanium,
vanadium, yttrium, and zirconium) were analyzed instead of only three (i.e., aluminum,
silicon, and titanium). A total of 64 children between the ages of 1 and 4 years old were
included in the study. These children were all selected from the greater Amherst,
Massachusetts area and were predominantly from two-parent households where the
parents were highly educated. The Calabrese et al. (1989) study was conducted over
eight days during a two week period and included the use of a mass-balance methodology
in which duplicate samples of food, medicines, vitamins, and others were collected and
analyzed on a daily basis, in addition to soil and dust samples collected from the child's
home and play area. Fecal and urine samples were also collected and analyzed for tracer
elements. Toothpaste, low in tracer content, was provided to all participants.
In order to validate the mass-balance methodology used to estimate soil ingestion
rates among children and to determine which tracer elements provided the most reliable
data on soil ingestion, known amounts of soil (i.e., 300 mg over three days and 1,500 mg
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
over three days) containing eight tracers were administered to six adult volunteers (i.e.,
three males and three females). Soil samples and feces samples from these adults and
duplicate food samples were analyzed for tracer elements to calculate recovery rates of
tracer elements in soil. Based on the adult validation study, Calabrese et al. (1989)
confirmed that the tracer methodology could adequately detect tracer elements in feces
at levels expected to correspond with soil intake rates in children. Calabrese et al. (1989)
also found that aluminum, silicon, and yttrium were the most reliable of the eight tracer
elements analyzed. The standard deviation of recovery of these three tracers was the
lowest and the percentage of recovery was closest to 100 percent (Calabrese, et al.,
1989). The recovery of these three tracers ranged from 120 to 153 percent when 300 mg
of soil had been ingested over a three-day period and from 88 to 94 percent when 1,500
mg soil had been ingested over a three-day period (Table 4-4).
Using the three most reliable tracer elements, the mean soil intake rate for children,
adjusted to account for the amount of tracer found in food and medicines, was estimated
to be 153 mg/day based on aluminum, 154 mg/day based on silicon, and 85 mg/day based
on yttrium (Table 4-5). Median intake rates were somewhat lower (29 mg/day for
aluminum, 40 mg/day for silicon, and 9 mg/day for yttrium). Upper-percentile (i.e., 95th)
values were 223 mg/day for aluminum, 276 mg/day for silicon, and 106 mg/day for yttrium.
Similar results were observed when soil and dust ingestion was combined (Table 4-5).
Intake of soil and dust was estimated using a weighted average of tracer concentration in
dust composite samples and in soil composite samples based on the timechildren spent
at home and away from home, and indoors and outdoors. Calabrese et al. (1989)
suggested that the use of titanium as a tracer in earlier studies that lacked food ingestion
data may have significantly overestimated soil intake because of the high levels of titanium
in food. Using the median values of aluminum and silicon, Calabrese et al. (1989)
estimated the quantity of soil ingested daily to be 29 mg/day and 40 mg/day, respectively.
It should be noted that soil ingestion for one child in the study ranged from approximately
10 to 14 grams/day during the second week of observation. Average soil ingestion for this
child was 5 to 7 mg/day, based on the entire study period.
The advantages of this study are that intake rates were corrected for tracer
concentrations in foods and medicines and that the methodology was validated using
adults. Also, intake was observed over a longer time period in this study than in earlier
studies and the number of tracers used was larger than for other studies. A relatively large
population was studied, but they may not be entirely representative of the U.S. population
because they were selected from a single location.
Daw's et al. (1990) - Quantitative Estimates of Soil Ingestion in Normal Children
Between the ages of 2 and 7 years: Population-Based Estimates Using Aluminum, Silicon,
and Titanium as Soil Tracer Elements - Davis et al. (1990) also used a mass-
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
balance/tracer technique to estimate soil ingestion among children. In this study, 104
children between the ages of 2 and 7 years were randomly selected from a three-city area
in southeastern Washington State. The study was conducted over a seven day period,
primarily during the summer. Daily soil ingestion was evaluated by collecting and
analyzing soil and house dust samples, feces, urine, and duplicate food samples for
aluminum, silicon, and titanium. In addition, information on dietary habits and
demographics was collected in an attempt to identify behavioral and demographic
characteristics that influence soil intake rates among children. The amount of soil ingested
on a daily basis was estimated using the following equation:
(DWf % DWp ) x (E, % 2EU ) & (DWfd x Efd )
E
csoil
where:
S, e = soil ingested for child i based on tracer e (g);
DWf = feces dry weight (g);
DWp = feces dry weight on toilet paper (g);
Ef = tracer amount in feces (ug/g);
Eu = tracer amount in urine (ug/g);
DWfd = food dry weight (g);
Efd = tracer amount in food (ug/g); and
EsoN = tracer concentration in soil (ug/g).
The soil intake rates were corrected by adding the amount of tracer in vitamins and
medications to the amount of tracer in food, and adjusting the food quantities, feces dry
weights, and tracer concentrations in urine to account for missing samples.
Soil ingestion rates were highly variable, especially those based on titanium. Mean
daily soil ingestion estimates were 38.9 mg/day for aluminum, 82.4 mg/day for silicon and
245.5 mg/day for titanium (Table 4-6). Median values were 25 mg/day for aluminum, 59
mg/day for silicon, and 81 mg/day for titanium. Davis et al. (1990) also evaluated the
extent to which differences in tracer concentrations in house dust and yard soil impacted
estimated soil ingestion rates. The value used in the denominator of the mass balance
equation was recalculated to represent a weighted average of the tracer concentration in
yard soil and house dust based on the proportion of time the child spent indoors and
outdoors. The adjusted mean soil/dust intake rates were 64.5 mg/day for aluminum, 160.0
mg/day for silicon, and 268.4 mg/day for titanium. Adjusted median soil/dust intake rates
were: 51.8 mg/day for aluminum, 112.4 mg/day for silicon, and 116.6 mg/day for titanium.
Davis et al. (1990) also observed that the following demographic characteristics were
associated with high soil intake rates: male sex, non-white racial group, low income,
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
operator/laborer as the principal occupation of the parent, and city of residence. However,
none of these factors were predictive of soil intake rates when tested using multiple linear
regression.
The advantages of the Davis et al. (1990) study are that soil intake rates were
corrected based on the tracer content of foods and medicines and that a relatively large
number of children were sampled. Also, demographic and behavioral information was
collected for the survey group. However, although a relatively large sample population
was surveyed, these children were all from a single area of the U.S. and may not be
representative of the U.S. population as a whole. The study was conducted over a one-
week period during the summer and may not be representative of long-term (i.e., annual)
patterns of intake.
Van Wijnen et al. (1990) - Estimated Soil Ingestion by Children - In a study by Van
Wijnen et al. (1990), soil ingestion among Dutch children ranging in age from 1 to 5 years
was evaluated using a tracer element methodology similar to that used by Clausing et al.
(1987). Van Wijnen et al. (1990) measured three tracers (i.e., titanium, aluminum, and
AIR) in soil and feces and estimated soil ingestion based on the LTM. An average daily
feces weight of 15 g dry weight was assumed. A total of 292 children attending daycare
centers were sampled during the first of two sampling periods and 187 children were
sampled in the second sampling period; 162 of these children were sampled during both
periods (i.e., at the beginning and near the end of the summer of 1986). A total of 78
children were sampled at campgrounds, and 15 hospitalized children were sampled. The
mean values for these groups were: 162 mg/day for children in daycare centers, 213
mg/day for campers and 93 mg/day for hospitalized children. Van Wijnen et al. (1990)
also reported geometric mean LTM values because soil intake rates were found to be
skewed and the log transformed data were approximately normally distributed. Geometric
mean LTM values were estimated to be 111 mg/day for children in daycare centers, 174
mg/day for children vacationing at campgrounds (Table 4-7) and 74 mg/day for
hospitalized children (70-120 mg/day based on the 95 percent confidence limits of the
mean). AIR was the limiting tracer in about 80 percent of the samples. Among children
attending daycare centers, soil intake was also found to be higher when the weather was
good (i.e., <2 days/week precipitation) than when the weather was bad (i.e., >4 days/week
precipitation (Table 4-8). Van Wijnen et al. (1990) suggest that the mean LTM value for
hospitalized infants represents background intake of tracers and should be used to correct
the soil intake rates based on LTM values for other sampling groups. Using mean values,
corrected soil intake rates were 69 mg/day (162 mg/day minus 93 mg/day) for daycare
children and 120 mg/day (213 mg/day minus 93 mg/day) for campers. Corrected
geometric mean soil intake was estimated to range from 0 to 90 mg/day with a 90th
percentile value of 190 mg/day for the various age categories within the daycare group and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
30 to 200 mg/day with a 90th percentile value of 300 mg/day for the various age categories
within the camping group.
The advantage of this study is that soil intake was estimated for three different
populations of children; one expected to have high intake, one expected to have "typical"
intake, and one expected to have low or background-level intake. Van Wijnen et al. (1990)
used the background tracer measurements to correct soil intake rates for the other two
populations. Tracer concentrations in food and medicine were not evaluated. Also, the
population of children studied was relatively large, but may not be representative of the
U.S. population. This study was conducted over a relatively short time period. Thus,
estimated intake rates may not reflect long-term patterns, especially at the high-end of the
distribution. Another limitation of this study is that values were not reported element-by-
element which would be the preferred way of reporting. In addition, one of the factors that
could affect soil intake rates is hygiene (e.g., hand washing frequency). Hygienic practices
can vary across countries and cultures and may be more stringently emphasized in a more
structured environment such as child care centers in The Netherlands and other European
countries than in child care centers in the United States.
Stanek and Calabrese (1995a) - Daily Estimates of Soil Ingestion in Children - Stanek
and Calabrese (1995a) presented a methodology which links the physical passage of food
and fecal samples to construct daily soil ingestion estimates from daily food and fecal
trace-element concentrations. Soil ingestion data for children obtained from the Amherst
study (Calabrese et al., 1989) were reanalyzed by Stanek and Calabrese (1995a). In the
Amherst study, soil ingestion measurements were made over a period of 2 weeks for a
non-random sample of sixty-four children (ages of 1-4 years old) living adjacent to an
academic area in western Massachusetts. During each week, duplicate food samples
were collected for 3 consecutive days and fecal samples were collected for 4 consecutive
days for each subject. The total amount of each of eight trace elements present in the
food and fecal samples were measured. The eight trace elements are aluminum, barium,
manganese, silicon, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and zirconium. The authors expressed
the amount of trace element in food input or fecal output as a "soil equivalent," which was
defined as the amount of the element in average daily food intake (or average daily fecal
output) divided by the concentration of the element in soil. A lag period of 28 hours
between food intake and fecal output was assumed for all respondents. Day 1 for the
food sample corresponded to the 24 hour period from midnight on Sunday to midnight on
Monday of a study week; day 1 of the fecal sample corresponded to the 24 hour period
from noon on Monday to noon on Tuesday (Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a). Based on
these definitions, the food soil equivalent was subtracted from the fecal soil equivalent to
obtain an estimate of soil ingestion for a trace element. A daily "overall" ingestion estimate
was constructed for each child as the median of trace element values remaining after
tracers falling outside of a defined range around the overall median were excluded.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
Additionally, estimates of the distribution of soil ingestion projected over a period of 365
days were derived by fitting log-normal distributions to the "overall" daily soil ingestion
estimates.
Table 4-9 presents the estimates of mean daily soil ingestion intake per child
(mg/day) for the 64 study participants. (The authors also presented estimates of the
median values of daily intake for each child. For most risk assessment purposes the child
mean values, which are proportional to the cumulative soil intake by the child, are needed
instead of the median values.) The approach adopted in this paper led to changes in
ingestion estimates from those presented in Calabrese et al. (1989). Specifically, among
elements that may be more useful for estimation of ingestion, the mean estimates
decreased for Al (153 mg/d to 122 mg/d) and Si ( 154 mg/d to 139 mg/d), but increased
forTi (218 mg/d to 271 mg/d) and Y (85 mg/d to 165 mg/d). The "overall" mean estimate
from this reanalysis was 179 mg/d. Table 4-9 presents the empirical distribution of the the
"overall" mean daily soil ingestion estimates for the 8-day study period (not based on
lognormal modeling). The estimated intake based on the "overall" estimates is 45 mg/day
or less for 50 percent of the children and 208 mg/day or less for 95 percent of the children.
The upper percentile values for most of the individual trace elements are somewhat
higher. Next, estimates of the respondents soil intake averaged over a period of 365 days
were presented based upon the lognormal models fit to the daily ingestion estimates
(Table 4-10). The estimated median value of the 64 respondents' daily soil ingestion
averaged over a year is 75 mg/day, while the 95th percentile is 1,751 mg/day.
A strength of this study is that it attempts to make full use of the collected data
through estimation of daily ingestion rates for children. The data are then screened to
remove less consistent tracer estimates and the remaining values are aggregated.
Individual daily estimates of ingestion will be subject to larger errors than are weekly
average values, particularly since the assumption of a constant lag time between food
intake and fecal output may be not be correct for many subject days. The aggregation
approach used to arrive at the "overall" ingestion estimates rests on the assumption that
the mean ingestion estimates across acceptable tracers provides the most reliable
ingestion estimates. The validity of this assumption depends on the particular set of
tracers used in the study, and is not fully assessed.
In developing the 365 day soil ingestion estimates, data that were obtained over a
short period of time (as is the case with all available soil ingestion studies) were
extrapolated over a year. The 2-week study period may not reflect variability in tracer
element ingestion over a year. While Stanek and Calabrese (1995a) attempt to address
this through lognormal modeling of the long term intake, new uncertainties are introduced
through the parametric modeling of the limited subject day data. Also, the sample
population size of the original study was small and site limited, and, therefore, is not
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
representative of the U.S. population. Study mean estimates of soil ingestion, such as the
study mean estimates presented in Table 4-9, are substantially more reliable than any
available distributional estimates.
Stanek and Calabrese (1995b) - Soil Ingestion Estimates for Use in Site Evaluations
Based on the Best Tracer Method - Stanek and Calabrese (1995b) recalculated ingestion
rates that were estimated in three previous mass-balance studies (Calabrese et al., 1989
and Davis etal., 1990 for children's soil ingestion, and Calabrese etal., 1990 for adult soil
ingestion) using the Best Tracer Method (BTM). This method allows for the selection of
the most recoverable tracer for a particular subject or group of subjects. The selection
process involves ordering trace elements for each subject based on food/soil (F/S) ratios.
These ratios are estimated by dividing the total amount of the tracer in food by the tracer
concentration in soil. The F/S ratio is small when the tracer concentration in food is almost
zero when compared to the tracer concentration in soil. A small F/S ratio is desirable
because it lessens the impact of transit time error (the error that occurs when fecal output
does not reflect food ingestion, due to fluctuation in gastrointestinal transit time) in the soil
ingestion calculation. Because the recoverability of tracers can vary within any group of
individuals, the BTM uses a ranking scheme of F/S ratios to determine the best tracers for
use in the ingestion rate calculation. To reduce biases that may occur as a result of
sources of fecal tracers other than food or soil, the median of soil ingestion estimates
based on the four lowest F/S ratios was used to represent soil ingestion among individuals.
For adults, Stanek and Calabrese (1995b) used data for 8 tracers from the Calabrese
et al. (1990) study to estimate soil ingestion by the BTM. The lowest F/S ratios were Zr
and Al and the element with the highest F/S ratio was Mn. For soil ingestion estimates
based on the median of the lowest four F/S ratios, the tracers contributing most often to
the soil ingestion estimates were Al, Si, Ti, Y, V, and Zr. Using the median of the soil
ingestion rates based on the best four tracer elements, the average adult soil ingestion
rate was estimated to be 64 mg/day with a median of 87 mg/day. The 90th percentile soil
ingestion estimate was 142 mg/day. These estimates are based on 18 subject weeks for
the six adult volunteers described in Calabrese et al. (1990).
For children, Stanek and Calabrese (1995b) used data on 8 tracers from Calabrese
et al., 1989 and data on 3 tracers from Davis et al. (1990) to estimate soil ingestion rates.
The median of the soil ingestion estimates from the lowest four F/S ratios from the
Calabrese et al. (1989) study most often included Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr. Based on the
median of soil ingestion estimates from the best four tracers, the mean soil ingestion rate
was 132 mg/day and the median was 33 mg/day. The 95th percentile value was 154
mg/day. These estimates are based on data for 128 subject weeks for the 64 children in
the Calabrese et al. (1989) study. For the 101 children in the Davis et al. (1990) study, the
mean soil ingestion rate was 69 mg/day and the median soil ingestion rate was 44 mg/day.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
The 95th percentile estimate was 246 mg/day. These data are based on the three tracers
(i.e., Al, Si, and Ti) from the Davis et al. (1990) study. When the Calabrese et al. (1989)
and Davis et al. (1990) studies were combined, soil ingestion was estimated to be 113
mg/day (mean); 37 mg/day (median); and 217 mg/day (95th percentile), using the BTM.
This study provides a reevaluation of previous studies. Its advantages are that it
combines data from 2 studies for children, one from California and one from
Massachusetts, which increases the number of observations. It also corrects for biases
associated with the differences in tracer metabolism. The limitations associated with the
data used in this study are the same as the limitations described in the summaries of the
Calabrese et al. (1989), Davis et al. (1990) and Calabrese et al. (1990) studies.
4.3. RELEVANT STUDIES ON SOIL INTAKE AMONG CHILDREN
Lepow et al. (1975) - Investigations Into Sources of Lead in the Environment of Urban
Children - Lepow et al. (1975) used data from a previous study (Lepow et al., 1974) to
estimate daily soil ingestion rates of children. Lepow et al. (1974) estimated ingestion of
airborne lead fallout among urban children by: (1) analyzing surface dirt and dust samples
from locations where children played; (2) measuring hand dirt by applying preweighed
adhesive labels to the hands and weighing the amount of dirt that was removed; and (3)
observing "mouthing" behavior over 3 to 6 hours of normal play. Twenty-two children from
an urban area of Connecticut were included in the study. Lepow et al. (1975) used data
from the 1974 study and found that the mean weight of soil/dust on the hands was 11 mg.
Assuming that a child would put fingers or other "dirty" objects into his mouth about 10
times a day ingesting 11 mg of dirt each time, Lepow et al. (1975) estimated that the daily
soil ingestion rate would be about 100 mg/day. According to Lepow et al. (1975), the
amount of hand dirt measured with this technique is probably an underestimate because
dirt trapped in skin folds and creases was probably not removed by the adhesive label.
Consequently, mean soil ingestion rates may be somewhat higher than the values
estimated in this study.
Day et al. (1975) - Lead in Urban Street Dust - Day et al. (1975) evaluated the
contribution of incidental ingestion of lead-contaminated street dust and soil to children's
total daily intake of lead by measuring the amount of lead in street dust and soil and
estimating the amount of dirt ingested by children. The amount of soil that might be
ingested was estimated by measuring the amount of dirt that was transferred to a "sticky
sweet" during 30 minutes of play and assuming that a child might eat from 2 to 20 such
sweets per day. Based on "a small number of direct measurements," Day et al. (1975)
found that 5 to 50 mg of dirt from a child's hands may be transferred to a "sticky sweet"
during 30 minutes of "normal playground activity. Assuming that all of the dirt is ingested
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
with the 2 to 20 "sticky sweets," Day et al. (1975) estimated that intake of soil among
children could range from 10 to 1000 mg/day.
Duggan and Williams (1977) - Lead in Dust in City Streets - Duggan and Williams
(1977) assessed the risks associated with lead in street dust by analyzing street dust from
areas in and around London for lead, and estimating the amount of hand dirt that a child
might ingest. Duggan and Williams (1977) estimated the amount of dust that would be
retained on the forefinger and thumb by removing a small amount of dust from a weighed
amount, rubbing the forefinger and thumb together, and reweighing to determine the
amount retained on the finger and thumb. The results of "a number of tests with several
different people" indicated that the mean amount of dust retained on the finger and thumb
was approximately 4 mg with a range of 2 to 7 mg (Duggan and Williams, 1977).
Assuming that a child would suck his/her finger or thumb 10 times a day and that all of the
dirt is removed each time and replaced with new dirt prior to subsequent mouthing
behavior, Duggan and Wlliams (1977) estimated that 20 mg of dust would be ingested per
day.
Hawley et al. (1985) - Assessment of Health Risk from Exposure to Contaminated Soil
- Using existing literature, Hawley (1985) developed scenarios for estimating exposure of
young children, older children, and adults to contaminated soil. Annual soil ingestion rates
were estimated based on assumed intake rates of soil and housedust for indoor and
outdoor activities and assumptions about the duration and frequency of the activities.
These soil ingestion rates were based on the assumption that the contaminated area is in
a region having a winter season. Housedust was assumed to be comprised of 80 percent
soil.
Outdoor exposure to contaminated soil among young children (i.e., 2.5 years old) was
assumed to occur 5 days per week during only 6 months of the year (i.e., mid-April through
mid-October). Children were assumed to ingest 250 mg soil/day while playing outdoors
based on data presented in Lepow et al. (1974; 1975) and Roels et al. (1980). Indoor
exposures among this population were based on the assumption that young children ingest
100 mg of housedust per day while spending all of their time indoors during the winter
months, and 50 mg of housedust per day during the warmer months when only a portion
of their time is spent indoors. Based on these assumptions, Hawley (1985) estimated that
the annual average soil intake rate for young children is 150 mg/day (Table 4-11). Older
children (i.e., 6 year olds) were assumed to ingest 50 mg of soil per day from an area
equal to the area of the fingers on one hand while playing outdoors. This assumption was
based on data from Lepow et al. (1975). Outdoor activities were assumed to occur each
day over 5 months of the year (i.e., during May through October). These children were also
assumed to ingest 3 mg/day of housedust from the indoor surfaces of the hands during
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
indoor activities occurring over the entire year. Using these data, Hawley (1985) estimated
the annual average soil intake rate for older children to be 23.4 mg/day (Table 4-11).
Thompson and Burmaster (1991) - Parametric Distributions for Soil Ingestion by
Children - Thompson and Burmaster (1991) developed parameterized distributions of soil
ingestion rates for children based on a reanalysis of the data collected by Binder et al.
(1986). In the original Binder et al. (1986) study, an assumed fecal weight of 15 g/day was
used. Thompson and Burmaster reestimated the soil ingestion rates from the Binder et al.
(1986) study using the actual stool weights of the study participants instead of the
assumed stool weights. Because the actual stool weights averaged only 7.5 g/day, the soil
ingestion estimates presented by Thompson and Burmaster (1991) are approximately one-
half of those reported by Binder et al. (1986). Table 4-12 presents the distribution of
estimated soil ingestion rates calculated by Thompson and Burmaster (1991) based on the
three tracers elements (i.e., aluminum, silicon, and titanium), and on the arithmetic average
of soil ingestion based on aluminum and silicon. The mean soil intake rates were 97
mg/day for aluminum, 85 mg/day for silicon, and 1,004 mg/day for titanium. The 90th
percentile estimates were 197 mg/day for aluminum, 166 mg/day for silicon, and 2,105
mg/day for titanium. Based on the arithmetic average of aluminum and silicon for each
child, mean soil intake was estimated to be 91 mg/day and 90th percentile intake was
estimated to be 143 mg/day.
Thompson and Burmaster (1991) tested the hypothesis that soil ingestion rates based
on the adjusted Binder et al. (1986) data for aluminum, silicon and the average of these
two tracers were lognormally distributed. The distribution of soil intake based on titanium
was not tested for lognormality because titanium may be present in food in high
concentrations and the Binder et al. (1986) study did not correct for food sources of
titanium (Thompson and Burmaster, 1991). Although visual inspection of the distributions
for aluminum, silicon, and the average of these tracers all indicated that they may be
lognormally distributed, statistical tests indicated that only silicon and the average of the
silicon and aluminum tracers were lognormally distributed. Soil intake rates based on
aluminum were not lognormally distributed. Table 4-12 also presents the lognormal
distribution parameters and underlying normal distribution parameters (i.e., the natural
logarithms of the data) for aluminum, silicon, and the average of these two tracers.
According to the authors, "the parameters estimated from the underlying normal
distribution are much more reliable and robust" (Thompson and Burmaster, 1991).
The advantages of this study are that it provides percentile data and defines the
shape of soil intake distributions. However, the number of data points used to fit the
distribution was limited. In addition, the study did not generate "new" data. Instead, it
provided a reanalysis of previously-reported data using actual fecal weights. No
corrections were made for tracer intake from food or medicine and the results may not be
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
representative of long-term intake rates because the data were derived from a short-term
study.
Sedman and Mahmood (1994) - Soil Ingestion by Children and Adults Reconsidered
Using the Results of Recent Tracer Studies - Sedman and Mahmood (1994) used the
results of two recent children's (Calabrese et al. 1989; Davis et al. 1990) tracer studies to
determine estimates of average daily soil ingestion in young children and for over a
lifetime. In the two studies, the intake and excretion of a variety of tracers were monitored,
and concentrations of tracers in soil adjacent to the children's dwellings were determined
(Sedman and Mahmood, 1994). From a mass balance approach, estimates of soil
ingestion in these children were determined by dividing the excess tracer intake (i.e.,
quantity of tracer recovered in the feces in excess of the measured intake) by the average
concentration of tracer in soil samples from each child's dwelling. Sedman and Mahmood
(1994) adjusted the mean estimates of soil ingestion in children for each tracer (Y) from
both studies to reflect that of a 2-year old child using the following equation:
Y. • xe(*o.H2(yo (Eqn.4-3)
where:
Y, = adjusted mean soil ingestion (mg/day)
x = a constant
yr = average age (2 years)
In addition to the study in young children, a study (Calabrese et al., 1989) in adults was
conducted to evaluate the tracer methodology. In the adult studies, percent recoveries of
tracers were determined in six adults who ingested known quantities of tracers in 1.5 or
0.3 grams of soil. The distribution of tracer recoveries from adults was evaluated using
data analysis techniques involving visualization and exploratory data analysis (Sedman
and Mahmood, 1994). From the results obtained in these studies, the distribution of tracer
recoveries from adults were determined. In addition, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
Tukey's multiple comparison methodologies were employed to identify differences in the
recoveries of the various tracers (Sedman and Mahmood, 1994).
From the adult studies, the ANOVA of the natural logarithm of the recoveries of
tracers from 0.3 or 1.5 g of ingested soil showed a significant difference (<* =0.05) among
the estimates of recovery of the tracers regardless of whether the recoveries were
combined or analyzed separately (Sedman and Mahmood, 1994). Sedman and Mahmood
(1994) also reported that barium, manganese, and zirconium yielded significantly different
estimates of soil ingestion than the other tracers (aluminum, silicon, yttrium, titanium, and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
vanadium). Table 4-13 presents the Tukey's multiple comparison of mean log tracer
recovery in adults ingesting known quantities of soil.
The average ages of children in the two recent studies were 2.4 years in Calabrese,
et al. (1989) and 4.7 years in Davis et al. (1990). The mean of the adjusted levels of soil
ingestion for a two year old child was 220 mg/kg for the Calabrese et al. (1989) study and
170 mg/kg for the Davis et al. (1990) study (Sedman and Mahmood, 1994). From the
adjusted soil ingestion estimates, based on a normal distribution of means, the mean
estimate for a 2-year old child was 195 mg/day and the overall mean of soil ingestion and
the standard error of the mean was 53 mg/day (Sedman and Mahmood, 1994). Based on
uncertainties associated with the method employed, Sedman and Mahmood (1994)
recommended a conservative estimate of soil ingestion in young children of 250 mg/day.
Based on the 250 mg/day ingestion rate in a 2-year old child, an average daily soil
ingestion over a lifetime was estimated to be 70 mg/day. The lifetime estimates were
derived using the equation presented above that describes changes in soil ingestion with
age (Sedman and Mahmood, 1994).
AIHC Exposure Factors Sourcebook (1994) - The Exposure Factors Sourcebook
(AIHC, 1994) uses data from the Calabrese et al. (1990) study to derive soil ingestion rates
using zirconium as the tracer. More recent papers indicate that zirconium is not a good
tracer. Therefore, the values recommended in the AIHC Sourcebook are not appropriate.
Furthermore, because individuals were only studied for a short period of time, deriving a
distribution of usual intake is not possible and is inappropriate.
Calabrese and Stanek (1995) - Resolving Intertracer Inconsistencies in Soil Ingestion
Estimation - Calabrese and Stanek (1995) explored sources and magnitude of positive and
negative errors in soil ingestion estimates for children on a subject-week and trace element
basis. Calabrese and Stanek (1995) identified possible sources of positive errors to be
the following:
• Ingestion of high levels of tracers before the study starts and low ingestion
during study period may result in over estimation of soil ingestion; and
• Ingestion of element tracers from a non-food or non-soil source during the
study period.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
Possible sources of negative bias identified by Calabrese and Stanek (1995) are the
following:
• Ingestion of tracers in food, but the tracers are not captured in the fecal
sample either due to slow lag time or not having a fecal sample available on
the final study day; and
• Sample measurement errors which result in diminished detection of fecal
tracers, but not in soil tracer levels.
The authors developed an approach which attempted to reduce the magnitude of error in
the individual trace element ingestion estimates. Results from a previous study conducted
by Calabrese et al. (1989) were used to quantify these errors based on the following
criteria: (1) a lag period of 28 hours was assumed for the passage of tracers ingested in
food to the feces (this value was applied to all subject-day estimates); (2) daily soil
ingestion rate was estimated for each tracer for each 24-hr day a fecal sample was
obtained; (3) the median tracer-based soil ingestion rate for each subject-day was
determined. Also, upper and lower bound estimates were determined based on criteria
formed using an assumption of the magnitude of the relative standard deviation (RSD)
presented in another study conducted by Stanek and Calabrese (1995a). Daily soil
ingestion rates for tracers that fell beyond the upper and lower ranges were excluded from
subsequent calculations, and the median soil ingestion rates of the remaining tracer
elements were considered the best estimate for that particular day. The magnitude of
positive or negative error for a specific tracer per day was derived by determining the
difference between the value for the tracer and the median value; (4) negative errors due
to missing fecal samples at the end of the study period were also determined (Calabrese
and Stanek, 1995).
Table 4-14 presents the estimated magnitude of positive and negative error for six
tracer elements in the children's study (i.e., conducted by Calabrese et al., 1989). The
original mean soil ingestion rates ranged from a low of 21 mg/day based on zirconium to
a high of 459 mg/day based on titanium (Table 4-14). The adjusted mean soil ingestion
rate after correcting for negative and positive errors ranged from 97 mg/day based on
yttrium to 208 mg/day based on titanium (Table 4-14). Calabrese and Stanek (1995)
concluded that correcting for errors at the individual level for each tracer element provides
more reliable estimates of soil ingestion.
This report is valuable in providing additional understanding of the nature of potential
errors in trace element specific estimates of soil ingestion. However, the operational
definition used for estimating the error in a trace element estimate was the observed
difference of that tracer from a median tracer value. Specific identification of sources of
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
error, or direct evidence that individual tracers were indeed in error was not developed.
Corrections to individual tracer means were then made according to how different values
for that tracer were from the median values. This approach is based on the hypothesis
that the median tracer value is the most accurate estimate of soil ingestion, and the validity
of this assumption depends on the specific set of tracers used in the study and need not
be correct. The approach used for the estimation of daily tracer intake is the same as in
Stanek and Calabrese (1995a), and some limitations of that approach are mentioned in
the review of that study.
Sheppard (1995) - Parameter Values to Model the Soil Ingestion Pathway - Sheppard
(1995) summarized the available literature on soil ingestion to estimate the amount of soil
ingestion in humans for the purposes of risk assessment. Sheppard (1995) categorized
the available soil ingestion studies into two general approaches: (1) those that measured
the soil intake rate with the use of tracers in the soil, and (2) those that estimated soil
ingestion based on activity (e.g., hand-to-mouth) and exposure duration. Sheppard (1995)
provided estimates of soil intake based on previously published tracer studies. The data
from these studies were assumed to be lognormally distributed due to the broad range, the
concept that soil ingestion is never zero, and the possibility of very high values. In order
to account for skewness in the data, geometric means rather than arithmetic means, were
calculated by age, excluding pica and geophagy values. The geometric mean for soil
ingestion rate for children under six was estimated to be 100 mg/day. For children over
six and adults, the geometric mean intake rate was estimated to be 20 mg/day. Sheppard
(1995) also provided soil ingestion estimates for indoor and outdoor activities based on
data from Hawley (1985) and assumptions regarding duration of exposure (Table 4-15).
Sheppard's (1995) estimates, based on activity and exposure duration, are quite
similar to the mean values from intake rate estimates described in previous sections. The
advantages of this study are that the model can be used to calculate the ingestion rate
from non-food sources with variability in exposure ingestion rates and exposure durations.
The limitation of this study is that it does not introduce new data; previous data are re-
evaluated. In addition, because the model is based on previous data, the same
advantages and limitations of those studies apply.
4.4. SOIL INTAKE AMONG ADULTS
Hawley 1985 - Assessment of Health Risk from Exposure to Contaminated Soil -
Information on soil ingestion among adults is very limited. Hawley (1985) estimated soil
ingestion among adults based on assumptions regarding activity patterns and
corresponding ingestion amounts. Hawley (1985) assumed that adults ingest outdoor soil
at a rate of 480 mg/day while engaged in yardwork or other physical activity. These
outdoor exposures were assumed to occur 2 days/week during 5 months of the year (i.e.,
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
May through October). The ingestion estimate was based on the assumption that a 50
//m/thick layer of soil is ingested from the inside surfaces of the thumb and fingers of one
hand. Ingestion of indoor housedust was assumed to occur from typical living space
activities such as eating and smoking, and work in attics or other uncleaned areas of the
house. Hawley (1985) assumed that adults ingest an average of 0.56 mg housedust/day
during typical living space activities and 110 mg housedust/day while working in attics.
Attic work was assumed to occur 12 days/year. Hawley (1985) also assumed that soil
comprises 80 percent of household dust. Based on these assumptions about soil intake
and the frequency of indoor and outdoor activities, Hawley (1985) estimated the annual
average soil intake rate for adults to be 60.5 mg/day (Table 4-16).
The soil intake value estimated by Hawley (1985) is consistent with adult soil intake
rates suggested by other researchers. Calabrese et al. (1987) suggested that soil intake
among adults ranges from 1 to 100 mg/day. According to Calabrese et al. (1987), these
values "are conjectural and based on fractional estimates" of earlier Center for Disease
Control (CDC) estimates. In an evaluation of the scientific literature concerning soil
ingestion rates for children and adults (Krablin, 1989), Arco Coal Company suggested that
10 mg/day may be an appropriate value for adult soil ingestion. This value is based on
"extrapolation from urine arsenic epidemiological studies and information on mouthing
behavior and time activity patterns" (Krablin, 1989).
Calabrese et al. (1990) - Preliminary Adult Soil Ingestion Estimates: Results of a Pilot
Study- Calabrese et al. (1990) studied six adults to evaluate the extent to which they ingest
soil. This adult study was originally part of the children soil ingestion study conducted by
Calabrese and was used to validate part of the analytical methodology used in the children
study. The participants were six healthy adults, three males and three females, 25-41
years old. Each volunteer ingested one empty gelatin capsule at breakfast and one at
dinner Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday during the first week of the study. During the
second week, they ingested 50 mg of sterilized soil within a gelatin capsule at breakfast
and at dinner (a total of 100 mg of sterilized soil per day) for 3 days. For the third week,
the participants ingested 250 mg of sterilized soil in a gelatin capsule at breakfast and at
dinner (a total of 500 mg of soil per day) during the three days. Duplicate meal samples
(food and beverage) were collected from the six adults. The sample included all foods
ingested from breakfast Monday, through the evening meal Wednesday during each of the
3 weeks. In addition, all medications and vitamins ingested by the adults were collected.
Total excretory output were collected from Monday noon through Friday midnight over 3
consecutive weeks. Table 4-17 provides the mean and median values of soil ingestion for
each element by week. Data obtained from the first week, when empty gelatin capsules
were ingested, may be used to derive an estimate of soil intake by adults. The mean
intake rates for the eight tracers are: Al, 110 mg; Ba, -232 mg; Mn, 330 mg; Si, 30 mg; Ti,
71 mg; V, 1,288 mg; Y, 63 mg; and Zr, 134 mg.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
The advantage of this study is that it provides quantitative estimates of soil ingestion
for adults. The study also corrected for tracer concentrations in foods and medicines.
However, a limitation of this study is that a limited number of subjects were studied. In
addition, the subjects were only studied for one week before soil capsules were ingested.
4.5. PREVALENCE OF PICA
The scientific literature define pica as "the repeated eating of non-nutritive
substances" (Feldman, 1986). For the purposes of this handbook, pica is defined as an
deliberately high soil ingestion rate. Numerous articles have been published that report
on the incidence of pica among various populations. However, most of these papers
describe pica for substances other than soil including sand, clay, paint, plaster, hair, string,
cloth, glass, matches, paper, feces, and various other items. These papers indicate that
the pica occurs in approximately half of all children between the ages of 1 and 3 years
(Sayetta, 1986). The incidence of deliberate ingestion behavior in children has been
shown to differ for different subpopulations. The incidence rate appears to be higher for
black children than for white children. Approximately 30 percent of black children aged 1
to 6 years are reported to have deliberate ingestion behavior, compared with 10 to 18
percent of white children in the same age group (Danford, 1982). There does not appear
to be any sex differences in the incidence rates for males or females (Kaplan and Sadock,
1985). Lourie et al. (1963) states that the incidence of pica is higher among children in
lower socioeconomic groups (i.e., 50 to 60 percent) than in higher income families (i.e.,
about 30 percent). Deliberate soil ingestion behavior appears to be more common in rural
areas (Vermeer and Frate, 1979). A higher rate of pica has also been reported for
pregnant women and individuals with poor nutritional status (Danford, 1982). In general,
deliberate ingestion behavior is more frequent and more severe in mentally retarded
children than in children in the general population (Behrman and Vaughan 1983, Danford
1982, Forfar and Arneil 1984, Illingworth 1983, Sayetta 1986).
It should be noted that the pica statistics cited above apply to the incidence of general
pica and not soil pica. Information on the incidence of soil pica is limited, but it appears
that soil pica is less common. A study by Vermeer and Frate (1979) showed that the
incidence of geophagia (i.e., earth-eating) was about 16 percent among children from a
rural black community in Mississippi. However, geophagia was described as a cultural
practice among the community surveyed and may not be representative of the general
population. Average daily consumption of soil was estimated to be 50 g/day. Bruhn and
Pangborn (1971) reported the incidence of pica for "dirt" to be 19 percent in children, 14
percent in pregnant women, and 3 percent in nonpregnant women. However, "dirt" was
not clearly defined. The Bruhn and Pangborn (1971) study was conducted among 91 non-
black, low income families of migrant agricultural workers in California. Based on the data
from the five key tracer studies (Binder et al., 1986; Clausing et al., 1987; Van Wijnen et
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
al., 1990; Davis et al., 1990; and Calabrese et al., 1989) only one child out of the more
than 600 children involved in all of these studies ingested an amount of soil significantly
greater than the range for other children. Although these studies did not include data for
all populations and were representative of short-term ingestions only, it can be assumed
that the incidence rate of deliberate soil ingestion behavior in the general population is
low. However, it is incumbent upon the user to use the appropriate value for their specific
study population.
4.6. DELIBERATE SOIL INGESTION AMONG CHILDREN
Information on the amount of soil ingested by children with abnormal soil ingestion
behavior is limited. However, some evidence suggests that a rate on the order of 10 g/day
may not be unreasonable.
Calabrese et al. (1991) - Evidence of Soil Pica Behavior and Quantification of Soil
Ingestion - Calabrese et al. (1991) estimated that upper range soil ingestion values may
range from approximately 5-7 grams/day. This estimate was based on observations of one
pica child among the 64 children who participated in the study. In the study, a 3.5-year old
female exhibited extremely high soil ingestion behavior during one of the two weeks of
observation. Intake ranged from 74 mg/day to 2.2 g/day during the first week of
observation and 10.1 to 13.6 g/day during the second week of observation (Table 4-18).
These results are based on mass-balance analyses for seven (i.e., aluminum, barium,
manganese, silicon, titanium, vanadium, and yttrium) of the eight tracer elements used.
Intake rates based on zirconium was significantly lower but Calabrese et al. (1991)
indicated that this may have "resulted from a limitation in the analytical protocol."
Calabrese and Stanek (1992) - Distinguishing Outdoor Soil Ingestion from Indoor Dust
Ingestion in a Soil Pica Child - Calabrese and Stanek (1992) quantitatively distinguished
the amount of outdoor soil ingestion from indoor dust ingestion in a soil pica child. This
study was based on a previous mass-balance study (conducted in 1991) in which a 3-1/2
year old child ingested 10-13 grams of soil per day over the second week of a 2-week soil
ingestion study. Also, the previous study utilized a soil tracer methodology with eight
different tracers (Al, Ba, Mn, Si, Ti, V, Y, Zr). The reader is referred to Calabrese et al.
(1989) for a detailed description and results of the soil ingestion study. Calabrese and
Stanek (1992) distinguished indoor dust from outdoor soil in ingested soil based on a
methodology which compared differential element ratios.
Table 4-19 presents tracer ratios of soil, dust, and residual fecal samples in the soil
pica child. Calabrese and Stanek (1992) reported that there was a maximum total of 28
pairs of tracer ratios based on eight tracers. However, only 19 pairs of tracer ratios were
available for quantitative evaluation as shown in Table 4-19. Of these 19 pairs, 9 fecal
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
tracer ratios fell within the boundaries for soil and dust (Table 4-19). For these 9 tracer
soils, an interpolation was performed to estimate the relative contribution of soil and dust
to the residual fecal tracer ratio. The other 10 fecal tracer ratios that fell outside the soil
and dust boundaries were concluded to be 100 percent of the fecal tracer ratios from soil
origin (Calabrese and Stanek, 1992). Also, the 9 residual fecal samples within the
boundaries revealed that a high percentage (71-99 percent) of the residual fecal tracers
were estimated to be of soil origin. Therefore, Calabrese and Stanek (1992) concluded
that the predominant proportion of the fecal tracers was from outdoor soil and not from
indoor dust origin.
In conducting a risk assessment for TCDD, U.S. EPA (1984) used 5 g/day to
represent the soil intake rate for pica children. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
also investigated the potential for exposure to TCDD through the soil ingestion route. CDC
used a value of 10 g/day to represent the amount of soil that a child with deliberate soil
ingestion behavior might ingest (Kimbrough et al., 1984). These values are consistent with
those observed by Calabrese et al. (1991).
4.7. RECOMMENDATIONS
The key studies described in this section were used to recommend values for soil
intake among children. The key and relevant studies used different survey designs and
study populations. These studies are summarized in Table 4-20. For example, some of
the studies considered food and nonfood sources of trace elements, while others did not.
In other studies, soil ingestion estimates were adjusted to account for the contribution of
house dust to this estimate. Despite these differences, the mean and upper-percentile
estimates reported for these studies are relatively consistent. The confidence rating for
soil intake recommendations is presented in Table 4-21.
It is important, however, to understand the various uncertainties associated with these
values. First, individuals were not studied for sufficient periods of time to get a good
estimate of the usual intake. Therefore, the values presented in this section may not be
representative of long term exposures. Second, the experimental error in measuring soil
ingestion values for individual children is also a source of uncertainty. For example,
incomplete sample collection of both input (i.e., food and nonfood sources) and output
(i.e., urine and feces) is a limitation for some of the studies conducted. In addition, an
individual's soil ingestion value may be artificially high or low depending on the extent to
which a mismatch between input and output occurs due to individual variation in the
gastrointestinal transit time. Third, the degree to which the tracer elements used in these
studies are absorbed in the human body is uncertain. Accuracy of the soil ingestion
estimates depends on how good this assumption is. Fourth, there is uncertainty with
regard to the homogeneity of soil samples and the accuracy of parent's knowledge about
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
their child's playing areas. Fifth, all the soil ingestion studies presented in this section with
the exception of Calabrese et al. (1989) were conducted during the summer when soil
contact is more likely.
Although the recommendations presented below are derived from studies which were
mostly conducted in the summer, exposure during the winter months when the ground is
frozen or snow covered should not be considered as zero. Exposure during these months,
although lower than in the summer months, would not be zero because some portion of the
house dust comes from outdoor soil.
So/7 Ingestion Among Children - Estimates of the amount of soil ingested by children
are summarized in Table 4-22. The mean values ranged from 39 mg/day to 271 mg/day
with an average of 146 mg/day for soil ingestion and 191 mg/day for soil and dust
ingestion. Results obtained using titanium as a tracer in the Binder et al. (1986) and
Clausing et al. (1987) studies were not considered in the derivation of this
recommendation because these studies did not take into consideration other sources of
the element in the diet which for titanium seems to be significant. Therefore, these values
may overestimate the soil intake. One can note that this group of mean values is
consistent with the 200 mg/day value that EPA programs have used as a conservative
mean estimate. Taking into consideration that the highest values were seen with titanium,
which may exhibit greater variability than the other tracers, and the fact that the Calabrese
et al. (1989) study included a pica child, 100 mg/day is the best estimate of the mean for
children under 6 years of age. However, since the children were studied for short periods
of time and the prevalence of pica behavior is not known, excluding the pica child from the
calculations may underestimate soil intake rates. It is plausible that many children may
exhibit some pica behavior if studied for longer periods of time. Over the period of study,
upper percentile values ranged from 106 mg/day to 1,432 mg/day with an average of 383
mg/day for soil ingestion and 587 mg/day for soil and dust ingestion. Rounding to one
significant figure, the recommended upper percentile soil ingestion rate for children is 400
mg/day. However, since the period of study was short, these values are not estimates of
usual intake. The recommended values for soil ingestion among children and adults are
summarized in Table 4-23.
Data on soil ingestion rates for children who deliberately ingest soil are also limited.
An ingestion rate of 10 g/day is a reasonable value for use in acute exposure
assessments, based on the available information. It should be noted, however, that this
value is based on only one pica child observed in the Calabrese et al. (1989) study.
So/7 Ingestion Among Adults - Only three studies have attempted to estimate adult soil
ingestion. Hawley (1985) suggested a value of 480 mg/day for adults engaged in outdoor
activities and a range of 0.56 to 110 mg/day of house dust during indoor activities. These
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 4 - Soil Ingestion and Pica
estimates were derived from assumptions about soil/dust levels on hands and mouthing
behavior; no supporting measurements were made. Making further assumptions about
frequencies of indoor and outdoor activities, Hawley (1985) derived an annual average of
60.5 mg/day. Given the lack of supporting measurements, these estimates must be
considered conjectural. Krablin (1989) used arsenic levels in urine (n=26) combined with
information on mouthing behavior and activity patterns to suggest an estimate for adult soil
ingestion of 10 mg/day. The study protocols are not well described and has not been
formally published. Finally, Calabrese et al. (1990) conducted a tracer study on 6 adults
and found a range of 30 to 100 mg/day. This study is probably the most reliable of the
three, but still has two significant uncertainties: (1) representativeness of the general
population is unknown due to the small study size (n=6); and (2) representativeness of
long-term behavior is unknown since the study was conducted over only 2 weeks. In the
past, many EPA risk assessments have assumed an adult soil ingestion rate of 50 mg/day
for industrial settings and 100 mg/day for residential and agricultural scenarios. These
values are within the range of estimates from the studies discussed above. Thus, 50
mg/day still represents a reasonable central estimate of adult soil ingestion and is the
recommended value in this handbook. This recommendation is clearly highly uncertain;
however, and as indicated in Table 4-21, is given a low confidence rating. Considering
the uncertainties in the central estimate, a recommendation for an upper percentile value
would be inappropriate. Table 4-23 summarizes soil ingestion recommendations for
adults.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
5. INHALATION ROUTE
This chapter presents data and recommendations for inhalation rates that can be
used to assess exposure to contaminants in air. The studies discussed in this chapter
have been classified as key or relevant. Key studies are used as the basis for deriving
recommendations and the relevant studies are included to provide additional background
and perspective. The recommended inhalation rates are summarized in Section 5.2.4 and
cover adults, children, and outdoor workers/athletes.
Inclusion of this chapter in the Exposure Factors Handbook does not imply that
assessors will always need to select and use inhalation rates when evaluating exposure
to air contaminants. In fact, it is unnecessary to calculate inhaled dose when using dose-
response factors from Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA, 1994). This
is due to the fact that IRIS methodology accounts for inhalation rates in the development
of "dose-response" relationships. When using IRIS for inhalation risk assessments, "dose-
response" relationships require only an average air concentration to evaluate health
concerns:
• For non-carcinogens, IRIS uses Reference Concentrations (RfC) which are
expressed in concentration units. Hazard is evaluated by comparing the inspired
air concentration to the RfC.
• For carcinogens, IRIS uses unit risk values which are expressed in inverse
concentration units. Risk is evaluated by multiplying the unit risk by the inspired
air concentration.
Detailed descriptions of the IRIS methodology for derivation of inhalation reference
concentrations can be found in two methods manuals produced by the Agency (U.S. EPA,
1992; 1994).
IRIS employs a default inhalation rate of 20 m3/day. This is greater than the
recommendated value in this chapter. When using IRIS, adjustments of dose-response
relationships using inhalation rates other than the default, 20 m3/day, are not currently
recommended. There are instances where the inhalation rate data presented in this
chapter may be used for estimating average daily dose. For example, the inhalation
average daily dose is often estimated in cases where a compative pathway analysis is
desired or to determine a total dose by adding across pathways in cases where RfCs and
unit risk factors are not available.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
5.1. EXPOSURE EQUATION FOR INHALATION
For those cases where the average daily dose (ADD) needs to be estimated, the
general equation is:
ADD = [[CxlRxED]/[BWxAT]] (Eqn. 5-1)
where:
ADD = average daily dose (mg/kg-day);
C = contaminant concentration in inhaled air (ug/m3);
IR = inhalation rate (nf/day);
ED = exposure duration (days);
BW = body weight (kg); and
AT = averaging time (days), for non-carcinogenic effects AT = ED, for carcinogenic or chronic effects
AT = 70 years or 25,550 days (lifetime).
The average daily dose is the dose rate averaged over a pathway-specific period of
exposure expressed as a daily dose on a per-unit-body-weight basis. The ADD is used
for exposure to chemicals with non-carcinogenic non-chronic effects. For compounds with
carcinogenic or chronic effects, the lifetime average daily dose (LADD) is used. The LADD
is the dose rate averaged over a lifetime. The contaminant concentration refers to the
concentration of the contaminant in inhaled air. Exposure duration refers to the total time
an individual is exposed to an air pollutant.
5.2. INHALATION RATE
5.2.1. Background
The Agency defines exposure as the chemical concentration at the boundary of the
body (U.S. EPA, 1992). In the case of inhalation, the situation is complicated by the fact
that oxygen exchange with carbon dioxide takes place in the distal portion of the lung. The
anatomy and physiology of the respiratory system diminishes the pollutant concentration
in inspired air (potential dose) such that the amount of a pollutant that actually enters the
body through the lung (internal dose) is less than that measured at the boundary of the
body (Figure 5-1). When constructing risk assessments that concern the inhalation route
of exposure, one must be aware if any adjustments have been employed in the estimation
of the pollutant concentration to account for this reduction in potential dose.
The respiratory system is comprised of three regions: nasopharyngeal,
tracheobronchial, and pulmonary. The nasopharyngeal region extends from the nose to
the larynx. The tracheobronchial region forms the conducting airways between
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
nasopharynx and alveoli where gas exchange occurs. It consists of the trachea, bronchi,
and bronchioles. The pulmonary regions consists of the acinus which is the site where gas
exchange occurs; it is comprised of respiratory bronchioles, alveolar ducts and sacs, and
alveoli. A detailed discussion of pulmonary anatomy and physiology can be found in:
Benjamin (1988) and U.S. EPA (1989 and 1994) .
Each region in the respiratory system can be involved with removing pollutants from
inspired air. The nasopharyngeal region filters out large inhaled particles, moderates the
temperature, and increases the humidity of the air. The surface of the tracheobronchial
region is covered with ciliated mucous secreting cells which forms a mucociliary escalator
that moves particles from deep regions of the lung to the oral cavity where they may be
swallowed and then excreted. The branching pattern and physical dimensions of the these
airways determine the pattern of deposition of airborne particles and absorption of gases
by the respiratory tract. They decrease in diameter as they divide into a bifurcated
branching network dilutes gases by axial diffusion of gases along the streamline of airways
and radial diffusion of gases due to an increase in cross sectional area of the lungs. The
velocity of the airstream in this decreasing branching network creates a turbulent force
such that airborne particles can be deposited along the walls of these airways by
impaction, interception, sedimentation, or diffusion depending on their size. The
pulmonary region contains macrophages which engulf particles and pathogens that enter
this portion of the lung.
Notwithstanding these removal mechanisms, both gaseous and particulate pollutants
can deposit in various regions of the lung. Both the physiology of the lung and the
chemistry of the pollutant influences where the pollutant tends to deposit.
Gaseous pollutants are evenly dispersed in the air stream. They come into contact
with a large portion of the lung. Generally, their solubility and reactivity determines where
they deposit in the lung. Water soluble and chemically reactive gases tend to deposit in
the upper respiratory tract. Lipid soluble or non-reactive gases usually are not removed
in the upper airways and tend to deposit in the distal portions of the lung. Gases can be
absorbed into the blood stream or react with lung tissue. Gases can be removed from the
lung by reaction with tissues or by expiration. The amount of gas retained in the lung or
other parts of the body is mainly due to their solubility in blood.
Chemically, particles are quite heterogenous. They range from aqueous soluble
particles to solid insoluble particles. Their size, chemical composition, and the physical
forces of breathing dictate where they tend to deposit in the lung. Large particles, those
with a diameter of greater than 0.5 micrometers (um), not filtered out in the nasopharynx,
tend to deposit in the upper respiratory tract at airway branching points due to impaction.
The momentum of these particles in the air stream is such that they tend to collide with the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
airway wall at branching points in the tracheobronchial region of the lung. Those particles
not removed from the airstream by impaction will likely be deposited in small bronchi and
bronchioles by sedimentation, a process where by particles settle out of the airstream due
to the decrease in airstream velocity and the gravitational force on the particles. Small
particles, less than 0.2 urn, acquire a random motion due to bombardment by air
molecules. This movement can cause particles to be deposited on the wall of an air way
throughout the lungs.
A special case exists for fibers. Fibers can deposit along the wall of an airway by a
process known as interception. This occurs when a fiber makes contact with an airway
wall. The likelihood of interception increases as airway diminish in diameter. Fiber shape
influences deposition too. Long, thin, straight fibers tend to deposit in the deep region of
the lung compared to thick or curved fibers.
The health risk associated with human exposure to airborne toxics is a function of
concentration of air pollutants, chemical species, duration of exposure, and inhalation rate.
The dose delivered to target organs (including the lungs), the biologically effective dose,
is dependent on the potentail dose, the applied dose and the internal dose (Figure 5-1) A
detailed discussion of this concept can be found in Guidelines for Exposure Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 1992).
The estimation of applied dose for a given air pollutant is dependent on inhalation
rate, commonly described as ventilation rate (VR) or breathing rate. VR is usually
measured as minute volume, the volume in liters of air exhaled per minute(VE). VE is the
product of the number of respiratory cycles in a minute and the volume of air respired
during each respiratory cycle, the tidal volume( VT).
When interested in calculating internal dose, assessors must consider the alveolar
ventilation rate. This is the amount of air available for exchange with alveoli per unit time.
It is equivalent to the tidal volume( VT) minus the anatomic dead space of the lungs (the
space containing air that does not come into contact with the alveoli). Alveolar ventilation
is approximately 70 percent of total ventilation; tidal volume is approximately 500 milliliters
(ml) and the amount of anatomic dead space in the lungs is approximately 150 ml,
approximately 30% of the amount of air inhaled (Menzel and Amdur, 1986).
Breathing rates are affected by numerous individual characteristics, including age,
gender, weight, health status, and levels of activity (running, walking, jogging, etc.). VRs
are either measured directly using a spirometer and a collection system or indirectly from
heart rate (HR) measurements. In many of the studies described in the following sections,
HR measurements are usually correlated with VR in simple and multiple regression
analysis.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
The available studies on inhalation rates are summarized in the following sections.
Inhalation rates are reported for adults and children (including infants) performing various
activities and outdoor workers/ athletes. The activity levels have been categorized as
resting, sedentary, light, moderate, and heavy. In most studies, the sample population
kept diaries to record their physical activities, locations, and breathing rates. Ventilation
rates were either measured, self-estimated or predicted from equations derived using VR-
HR calibration relationships.
5.2.2. Key Inhalation Rate Studies
Linn et al. (1992) - Documentation of Activity Patterns in "High-Risk" Groups Exposed
to Ozone in the Los Angeles Area - Linn et al. (1992) conducted a study that estimated
the inhalation rates for "high-risk" subpopulation groups exposed to ozone (03) in their
daily activities in the Los Angeles area. The population surveyed consisted of seven
subject panels: Panel 1: 20 healthy outdoor workers (15 males, 5 females, ages 19-50
years); Panel 2: 17 healthy elementary school students (5 males, 12 females, ages 10-12
years); Panel 3: 19 healthy high school students (7 males, 12 females, ages 13-17 years);
Panel 4: 49 asthmatic adults (clinically mild, moderate, and severe, 15 males, 34 females,
ages 18-50 years); Panel 5: 24 asthmatic adults from 2 neighborhoods of contrasting 03
air quality (10 males, 14 females, ages 19-46 years); Panel 6: 13 young asthmatics (7
males, 6 females, ages 11-16 years); Panel 7: construction workers (7 males, ages 26-34
years).
Initially, a calibration test was conducted, followed by a training session. Finally, a
field study was conducted which involved subjects' collecting their own heart rate and diary
data. During the calibration tests, VR and HR were measured simultaneously at each
exercise level. From the calibration data an equation was developed using linear
regression analysis to predict VR from measured HR (Linn et al., 1992).
In the field study, each subject (except construction workers) recorded in diaries:
their daily activities, change in locations (indoors, outdoors, or in a vehicle), self-estimated
breathing rates during each activity/location, and time spent at each activity/location.
Healthy subjects recorded their HR once every 60 seconds, Asthmatic subjects recorded
their diary information once every hour using a Heart Watch. Construction workers
dictated their diary information to a technician accompanying them on the job. Subjective
breathing rates were defined as slow (walking at their normal pace); medium (faster than
normal walking); and fast (running or similarly strenuous exercise). Table 5-1 presents the
calibration and field protocols for self-monitoring of activities for each subject panel.
Table 5-2 presents the mean VR, the 99th percentile VR, and the mean VR at each
subjective activity level (slow, medium, fast). The mean VR and 99th percentile VR were
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
derived from all HR recordings (that appeared to be valid) without considering the diary
data. Each of the three activity levels was determined from both the concurrent diary data
and HR recordings by direct calculation or regression (Linn et al., 1992). The mean VR
for healthy adults was 0.78 m3/hr while the mean VR for asthmatic adults was 1.02 m3/hr
(Table 5-2). The preliminary data for construction workers indicated that during a 10-hr
work shift, their mean VR (1.50 m3/hr) exceeded the VRs of all other subject panels (Table
5-2). Linn et al. (1992) reported that the diary data showed that most individuals except
construction workers spent most of their time (in a typical day) indoors at slow activity
level. During slow activity, asthmatic subjects had higher VRs than healthy subjects,
except construction workers (Table 5-2). Also, Linn et al. (1992) reported that in every
panel, the predicted VR correlated significantly with the subjective estimates of activity
levels.
A limitation of this study is that calibration data may overestimate the predictive power
of HR during actual field monitoring. The wide variety of exercises in everyday activities
may result in greater variation of the VR-HR relationship than calibrated. Another
limitation of this study is the small sample size of each subpopulation surveyed. An
advantage of this study is that diary data can provide rough estimates of ventilation
patterns which are useful in exposure assessments. Another advantage is that inhalation
rates were presented for various subpopulations (i.e., healthy outdoor adult workers,
healthy children, asthmatics, and construction workers).
Spier et al. (1992) - Activity Patterns in Elementary and High School Students
Exposed To Oxidant Pollution - Spier et al. (1992) investigated activity patterns of 17
elementary school students (10-12 years old) and 19 high school students (13-17 years
old) in suburban Los Angeles from late September to October (oxidant pollution season).
Calibration tests were conducted in supervised outdoor exercise sessions. The exercise
sessions consisted of 5 minutes for each: rest, slow walking, jogging, and fast walking. HR
and VR were measured during the last 2 minutes of each exercise. Individual VR and HR
relationships for each individual were determined by fitting a regression line to HR values
and log VR values. Each subject recorded their daily activities, change in location, and
breathing rates in diaries for 3 consecutive days. Self-estimated breathing rates were
recorded as slow (slow walking), medium (walking faster than normal), and fast (running).
HR was recorded during the 3 days once per minute by wearing a Heart Watch. VR
values for each self-estimated breathing rate and activity type were estimated from the HR
recordings by employing the VR and HR equation obtained from the calibration tests.
The data presented in Table 5-3 represent HR distribution patterns and
corresponding predicted VR for each age group during hours spent awake. At the same
self-reported activity levels for both age groups, inhalation rates were higher for outdoor
activities than for indoor activities. The total hours spent indoors by high school students
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
(21.2 hours) were higher than for elementary school students (19.6 hours). The converse
was true for outdoor activities; 2.7 hours for high school students, and 4.4 hours for
elementary school students (Table 5-4). Based on the data presented in Tables 5-3
and 5-4, the average activity-specific inhalation rates for elementary (10-12 years) and
high school (13-17 years) students were calculated in Table 5-5. For elementary school
students, the average daily inhalation rates (based on indoor and outdoor locations) are
15.8 m3/day for light activities, 4.62 m ^day for moderate activities, and 0.98 m /day for
heavy activities. For high school students the daily inhalation rates for light, moderate,
and heavy activities are estimated to be 16.4 m3/day, 3.1 m3/day, and 0.54 m3/day,
respectively (Table 5-5).
A limitation of this study is the small sample size. The results may not be
representative of all children in these age groups. Another limitation is that the accuracy
of the self-estimated breathing rates reported by younger age groups is uncertain. This
may affect the validity of the data set generated. An advantage of this study is that
inhalation rates were determined for children and adolescents. These data are useful in
estimating exposure for the younger population.
Adams (1993) - Measurement of Breathing Rate and Volume in Routinely Performed
Daily Activities - Adams (1993) conducted research to accomplish two main objectives: (1)
identification of mean and ranges of inhalation rates for various age/gender cohorts and
specific activities; and (2) derivation of simple linear and multiple regression equations
used to predict inhalation rates through other measured variables: heart rate (HR),
breathing frequency (fB), and oxygen consumption (V )02 A total of 160 subjects
participated in the primary study. There were four age dependent groups: (1) children 6
to 12.9 years old, (2) adolescents between 13 and 18.9 years old, (3) adults between 19
and 59.9 years old, and (4) seniors >60 years old (Adams, 1993). An additional 40
children from 6 to 12 years old and 12 young children from 3 to 5 years old were identified
as subjects for pilot testing purposes in this age group (Adams, 1993).
Resting protocols conducted in the laboratory for all age groups consisted of three
phases (25 minutes each) of lying, sitting, and standing. They were categorized as resting
and sedentary activities. Two active protocols, moderate (walking) and heavy (jogging/
running) phases, were performed on a treadmill over a progressive continuum of
intensities made up of 6 minute intervals, at 3 speeds, ranging from slow to moderately
fast. All protocols involved measuring VR, HR, fB (breathing frequency), and V02 (oxygen
consumption). Measurements were taken in the last 5 minutes of each phase of the
resting protocol, and the last 3 minutes of the 6 minute intervals at each speed designated
in the active protocols.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
In the field, all children completed spontaneous play protocols, while the older
adolescent population (16-18 years) completed car driving and riding, car maintenance
(males), and housework (females) protocols. All adult females (19-60 years) and most of
the senior (60-77 years) females completed housework, yardwork, and car driving and
riding protocols. Adult and senior males completed car driving and riding, yardwork, and
mowing protocols. HR, VR, and fB were measured during each protocol. Most protocols
were conducted for 30 minutes. All the active field protocols were conducted twice.
During all activities in either the laboratory or field protocols, IR for the children's
group revealed no significant gender differences, but those for the adult groups
demonstrated gender differences. Therefore, IR data presented in Appendix Tables 5A-1
and 5A-2 were categorized as young children, children (no gender),and for adult female,
and adult male by activity levels (resting, sedentary, light, moderate, and heavy). These
categorized data from the Appendix tables are summarized as IR in m3/hr in Tables 5-6
and 5-7. The laboratory protocols are shown in Table 5-6. Table 5-7 presents the mean
inhalation rates by group and activity levels (light, sedentary, and moderate) in field
protocols. A comparison of the data shown in Tables 5-6 and 5-7 suggest that during light
and sedentary activities in laboratory and field protocols, similar inhalation rates were
obtained for adult females and adult males. Accurate predictions of IR across all
population groups and activity types were obtained by including body surface area (BSA),
HR, and fB in multiple regression analysis (Adams, 1993). Adams (1993) calculated BSA
from measured height and weight using the equation:
BSA = Height'0725' x Weight'0425' x 71.84. (Eqn. 5-2)
A limitation associated with this study is that the population does not represent the
general U.S. population. Also, the classification of activity types (i.e., laboratory and field
protocols) into activity levels may bias the inhalation rates obtained for various age/gender
cohorts. The estimated rates were based on short-term data and may not reflect long-term
patterns. An advantage of this study is that it provides inhalation data for all age groups.
Linn etal. (1993) - Activity patterns in Ozone Exposed Construction Workers - Linn
et al. (1993) estimated the inhalation rates of 19 construction workers who perform heavy
outdoor labor before and during a typical work shift. The workers (laborers, iron workers,
and carpenters) were employed at a site on a hospital campus in suburban Los Angeles.
The construction site included a new hospital building and a separate medical office
complex. The study was conducted between mid-July and early November, 1991. During
this period, ozone (03) levels were typically high. Initially, each subject was calibrated with
a 25-minute exercise test that included slow walking, fast walking, jogging, lifting, and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
carrying. All calibration tests were conducted in the mornings. VR and HR were measured
simultaneously during the test. The data were analyzed using least squares regression
to derive an equation for predicting VR at a given HR. Following the calibration tests, each
subject recorded the type of activities to be performed during their work shift (i.e.,
sitting/standing, walking, lifting/carrying, and "working at trade" - defined as tasks specific
to the individual's job classification). Location, and self-estimated breathing rates ("slow"
similar to slow walking, "medium" similar to fast walking, and "fast" similar to running) were
also recorded in the diary. During work, an investigator recorded the diary information
dictated by the subjects. HR was recorded minute by minute for each subject before work
and during the entire work shift. Thus, VR ranges for each breathing rate and activity
category were estimated from the HR recordings by employing the relationship between
VR and HR obtained from the calibration tests.
A total of 182 hours of HR recordings were obtained during the survey from the 19
volunteers; 144 hours reflected actual working time according to the diary records. The
lowest actual working hours recorded was 6.6 hours and the highest recorded for a
complete work shift was 11.6 hours (Linn etal., 1993). Summary statistics for predicted
VR distributions for all subjects, and for job or site defined subgroups are presented in
Table 5-8. The data reflect all recordings before and during work, and at break times. For
all subjects, the mean IR was 1.68 m3/hr with a standard deviation of ±0.72 (Table 5-8).
Also, for most subjects, the 1st and 99th percentiles of HR were outside of the calibration
range (calibration ranges are presented in Appendix Table 5A-3). Therefore,
corresponding IR percentiles were extrapolated using the calibration data (Linn et al.,
1993).
The data presented in Table 5-9 represent distribution patterns of IR for each subject,
total subjects, and job or site defined subgroups by self-estimated breathing rates (slow,
medium, fast) or by type of job activity. All data include working and non-working hours.
The mean inhalation rates for most individuals showed statistically significant increases
with higher self-estimated breathing rates or with increasingly strenuous job activity (Linn
et al., 1993). Inhalation rates were higher in hospital site workers when compared with
office site workers (Table 5-9). In spite of their higher predicted VR workers at the hospital
site reported a higher percentage of slow breathing time (31 percent) than workers at the
office site (20 percent), and a lower percentage of fast breathing time, 3 percent and 5
percent, respectively (Linn et al., 1993). Therefore, individuals whose work was objectively
heavier than average (from VR predictions) tended to describe their work as lighter than
average (Linn et al., 1993). Linn et al. (1993) also concluded that during an 03 pollution
episode, construction workers should experience similar microenvironmental 03 exposure
concentrations as other healthy outdoor workers, but with approximately twice as high a
VR. Therefore, the inhaled dose of 03 should be almost two times higher for typical heavy-
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
construction workers than for typical healthy adults performing less strenuous outdoor
jobs.
A limitation associated with this study is the small sample size. Another limitation of
this study is that calibration data were not obtained at extreme conditions. Therefore, it
was necessary to predict IR values that were outside the calibration range. This may
introduce an unknown amount of uncertainty to the data set. Subjective self-estimated
breathing rates may be another source of uncertainty in the inhalation rates estimated. An
advantage is that this study provides empirical data useful in exposure assessments for
a subpopulation thought to be the most highly exposed common occupational group
(outdoor workers).
Layton (1993) - Metabolically Consistent Breathing Rates for Use in Dose
Assessments - Layton (1993) presented a new method for estimating metabolically
consistent inhalation rates for use in quantitative dose assessments of airborne
radionuclides. Generally, the approach for estimating the breathing rate for a specified
time frame was to calculate a time-weighted-average of ventilation rates associated with
physical activities of varying durations (Layton, 1993). However, in this study, breathing
rates were calculated based on oxygen consumption associated with energy expenditures
for short (hours) and long (weeks and months) periods of time, using the following general
equation to calculate energy-dependent inhalation rates:
VE = ExHxVQ (Eqn. 5-3)
where:
VE = ventilation rate (L/min or m3/hr);
E = energy expenditure rate; [kilojoules/minute (KJ/min) or megajoules/hour (MJ/hr)];
H = volume of oxygen [at standard temperature and pressure, dry air (STPD) consumed in the
production of 1 kilojoule (KJ) of energy expended (L/KJ or m3/MJ)]; and
VQ = ventilatory equivalent (ratio of minute volume (L/min) to oxygen uptake (L/min)) unitless.
Three alternative approaches were used to estimate daily chronic (long term)
inhalation rates for different age/gender cohorts of the U.S. population using this
methodology.
First Approach
Inhalation rates were estimated by multiplying average daily food energy intakes for
different age/gender cohorts, volume of oxygen (H), and ventilatory equivalent (VQ), as
shown in the equation above. The average food energy intake data (Table 5-10) are
based on approximately 30,000 individuals and were obtained from the USDA 1977-78
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (USDA-NFCS). The food energy intakes were
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
adjusted upwards by a constant factor of 1.2 for all individuals 9 years and older (Layton,
1993). This factor compensated for a consistent bias in USDA-NFCS attributed to under
reporting of the foods consumed or the methods used to ascertain dietary intakes. Layton
(1993) used a weighted average oxygen uptake of 0.05 L 02/KJ which was determined
from data reported in the 1977-78 USDA-NFCS and the second National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II). The survey sample for NHANES II was
approximately 20,000 participants. The ventilatory equivalent (VQ) of 27 used was
calculated as the geometric mean of VQ data that were obtained from several studies by
Layton (1993).
The inhalation rate estimation techniques are shown in footnote (a) of Table 5-11.
Table 5-11 presents the daily inhalation rate for each age/gender cohort. The highest
daily inhalation rates were reported for children between the ages of 6-8 years (10 m3/day),
for males between 15-18 years (17 m3/day), and females between 9-11 years (13 m3/day).
Estimated average lifetime inhalation rates for males and females are 14 m3/day and 10
m3/day, respectively (Table 5-11). Inhalation rates were also calculated for active and
inactive periods for the various age/gender cohorts.
The inhalation rate for inactive periods was estimated by multiplying the basal
metabolic rate (BMR) times the oxygen uptake (H) times the VQ. BMR was defined as
"the minimum amount of energy required to support basic cellular respiration while at rest
and not actively digesting food"(Layton, 1993). The inhalation rate for active periods was
calculated by multiplying the inactive inhalation rate by the ratio of the rate of energy
expenditure during active hours to the estimated BMR. This ratio is presented as F in
Table 5-11. These data for active and inactive inhalation rates are also presented in Table
5-11. For children, inactive and active inhalation rates ranged between 2.35 and 5.95
m3/day and 6.35 to 13.09 m3/day, respectively. For adult males (19-64 years old), the
average inactive and active inhalation rates were approximately 10 and 19 m3/day,
respectively. Also, the average inactive and active inhalation rates for adult females (19-
64 years old) were approximately 8 and 12 m3/day, respectively.
Second Approach
Inhalation rates were calculated by multiplying the BMR of the population cohorts
times A (ratio of total daily energy expenditure to daily BMR) times H times VQ. The BMR
data obtained from literature were statistically analyzed and regression equations were
developed to predict BMR from body weights of various age/gender cohorts (Layton,
1993). The statistical data used to develop the regression equations are presented in
Appendix Table 5A-4. The data obtained from the second approach are presented in
Table 5-12. Inhalation rates for children (6 months -10 years) ranged from 7.3-9.3 m3/day
for male and 5.6 to 8.6 m3/day for female children and (10-18 years) was 15 m3/day for
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
males and 12 m3/day for females. Adult females (18 years and older) ranged from 9.9-11
m3/day and adult males (18 years and older) ranged from 13-17 m3/day. These rates are
similar to the daily inhalation rates obtained using the first approach. Also, the inactive
inhalation rates obtained from the first approach are lower than the inhalation rates
obtained using the second approach. This may be attributed to the BMR multiplier
employed in the equation of the second approach to calculate inhalation rates.
Third Approach
Inhalation rates were calculated by multiplying estimated energy expenditures
associated with different levels of physical activity engaged in over the course of an
average day by VQ and H for each age/gender cohort. The energy expenditure associated
with each level of activity was estimated by multiplying BMRs of each activity level by the
metabolic equivalent (MET) and by the time spent per day performing each activity for
each age/gender population. The time-activity data used in this approach were obtained
from a survey conducted by Sallis et al. (1985) (Layton, 1993). In that survey, the
physical-activity categories and associated MET values used were sleep, MET=1; light-
activity, MET=1.5; moderate activity, MET=4; hard activity, MET=6; and very hard activity,
MET=10. The physical activities were based on recall by the test subject (Layton, 1993).
The survey sample was 2,126 individuals (1,120 women and 1,006 men) ages 20-74 years
that were randomly selected from four communities in California. The BMRs were
estimated using the metabolic equations presented in Appendix Table 5A-4. The body
weights were obtained from a study conducted by Najjar and Rowland (1987) which
randomly sampled individuals from the U.S. population (Layton, 1993). Table 5-13
presents the inhalation rates (VE) in m3/day and m3/hr for adult males and females aged
20-74 years at five physical activity levels. The total daily inhalation rates ranged from 13-
17 m3/day for adult males and 11-15 m3/day for adult females.
The rates for adult females were higher when compared with the other two
approaches. Layton (1993) reported that the estimated inhalation rates obtained from the
third approach were particularly sensitive to the MET value that represented the energy
expenditures for light activities. Layton (1993) stated further that in the original time-
activity survey (i.e., conducted by Sallis et al., 1985), time spent performing light activities
was not presented. Therefore, the time spent at light activities was estimated by
subtracting the total time spent at sleep, moderate, heavy, and very heavy activities from
24 hours (Layton, 1993). The range of inhalation rates for adult females were 9.6 to 11
m3/day, 9.9 to 11 m3/day, and 11 to 15 m3/day, for the first, second, and third approach,
respectively. The inhalation rates for adult males ranged from 13 to 16 m3/day for the first
approach, and 13 to 17 m3/day for the second and third approaches.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
Inhalation rates were also obtained for short-term exposures for various age/gender
cohorts and five energy-expenditure categories (rest, sedentary, light, moderate, and
heavy). BMRs were multiplied by the product of MET, H, and VQ. The data obtained for
short term exposures are presented in Table 5-14.
The major strengths of the Layton (1993) study are that it obtains similar results using
three different approaches to estimate inhalation rates in different age groups and that the
populations are large, consisting of men, women, and children. Explanations for
differences in results due to metabolic measurements, reported diet, or activity patterns
are supported by observations reported by other investigators in other studies. Major
limitations of this study are that activity pattern levels estimated in this study are somewhat
subjective, the explanation that activity pattern differences is responsible for the lower level
obtained with the metabolic approach (25 percent) compared to the activity pattern
approach is not well supported by the data, and different populations were used in each
approach which may introduce error.
5.2.3. Relevant Inhalation Rate Studies
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (1981) - Report of the
Task Group on Reference Man - The International Commission of Radiological Protection
(ICRP) estimated daily inhalation rates for reference adult males, adult females, children
(10 years old), infant (1 year old), and newborn babies by using a time-activity-ventilation
approach. This approach for estimating inhalation rate over a specified period of time was
based on calculating a time weighted average of inhalation rates associated with physical
activities of varying durations. ICRP (1981) compiled reference values (Appendix Table
5A-5) of minute volume/inhalation rates from various literature sources. ICRP (1981)
assumed that the daily activities of a reference man and woman, and child (10 yrs)
consisted of 8 hours of rest and 16 hours of light activities. It was also assumed that 16
hours were divided evenly between occupational and nonoccupational activities. It was
assumed that a day consisted of 14 hours resting and 10 hours light activity for an infant
(1 yr). A newborn's daily activities consisted of 23 hours resting and 1 hour light activity.
Table 5-15 presents the daily inhalation rates obtained for all ages/genders. The
estimated inhalation rates were 22.8 m3/day for adult males, 21.1 m3/day for adult females,
14.8 m3/day for children (age 10 years), 3.76 m3/day for infants (age 1 year), and 0.78
m3/day for newborns.
A limitation associated with this study is that the validity and accuracy of the
inhalation rates data used in the compilation were not specified. This may introduce some
degree of uncertainty in the results obtained. Also, the approach used involved assuming
hours spent by various age/gender cohorts in specific activities. These assumptions may
over/under-estimate the inhalation rates obtained.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
U.S. EPA (1985) - Development of Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard
Factors Used in Exposure Assessments - Due to a paucity of information in the literature
regarding equations used to develop statistical distributions of minute
ventilation/ventilation rate at all activity levels for male and female children and adults, the
U.S. EPA (1985) compiled measured values of minute ventilation for various age/gender
cohorts from early studies. In more recent investigations, minute ventilations have been
measured more as background information than as research objective itself and the
available studies have been for specific subpopulations such as obese, asthmatics, or
marathon runners. The data compiled by the U.S. EPA (1985) for each age/gender
cohorts were obtained at various activity levels. These levels were categorized as light,
moderate, or heavy according to the criteria developed by the EPA Office of Environmental
Criteria and Assessment for the Ozone Criteria Document. These criteria were developed
for a reference male adult with a body weight of 70 kg (U.S. EPA, 1985). The minute
ventilation rates for adult males based on these activity level categories are detailed in
Appendix Table 5A-6.
Table 5-16 presents a summary of inhalation rates by age, gender, and activity level
(detailed data are presented in Appendix Table 5A-7). A description of activities included
in each activity level is also presented in Table 5-16. Table 5-16 indicates that at rest, the
average adult inhalation rate is 0.5 m3/hr. The mean inhalation rate for children at rest,
ages 6 and 10 years, is 0.4 m3/hr. Table 5-17 presents activity pattern data aggregated
for three microenvironments by activity level for all age groups. The total average hours
spent indoors was 20.4, outdoors was 1.77, and in transportation vehicle was 1.77. Based
on the data presented in Tables 5-16 and 5-17, a daily inhalation rate was calculated for
adults and children by using a time-activity-ventilation approach. These data are
presented in Table 5-18. The calculated average daily inhalation rate is 16 m3/day for
adults. The average daily inhalation rate for children (6 and 10 yrs) is 18.9 m3/day ([16.74
+ 21.02]/2).
A limitation associated with this study is that many of the values used in the data
compilation were from early studies. The accuracy and/or validity of the values used and
data collection method were not presented in U.S. EPA (1985). This introduces
uncertainty in the results obtained. An advantage of this study is that the data are actual
measurement data for a large number of subjects and the data are presented for both
adults and children.
Shamoo et al. (1990) - Improved Quantitation of Air Pollution Dose Rates by
Improved Estimation of Ventilation Rate- Shamoo et al. (1990) conducted this study to
develop and validate new methods to accurately estimate ventilation rates for typical
individuals during their normal activities. Two practical approaches were tested for
estimating ventilation rates indirectly: (1) volunteers were trained to estimate their own VR
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
at various controlled levels of exercise; and (2) individual VR and HR relationships were
determined in another set of volunteers during supervised exercise sessions (Shamoo et
al., 1990). In the first approach, the training session involved 9 volunteers (3 females and
6 males) from 21 to 37 years old. Initially the subjects were trained on a treadmill with
regularly increasing speeds. VR measurements were recorded during the last minute of
the 3-minute interval at each speed. VR was reported to the subjects as low (1.4 m3/hr),
medium (1.5-2.3 m3/hr), heavy (2.4-3.8 m3/hr), and very heavy (3.8 m3/hr or higher)
(Shamoo etal., 1990).
Following the initial test, treadmill training sessions were conducted on a different day
in which 7 different speeds were presented, each for 3 minutes in arbitrary order. VR was
measured and the subjects were given feedback with the four ventilation ranges provided
previously. After resting, a treadmill testing session was conducted in which seven speeds
were presented in different arbitrary order from the training session. VR was measured
and each subject estimated their own ventilation level at each speed. The correct level
was then revealed to each subject after his/her own estimate. Subsequently, two 3-hour
outdoor supervised exercise sessions were conducted in the summer on two consecutive
days. Each hour consisted of 15 minutes each of rest, slow walking, jogging, and fast
walking. The subjects' ventilation level and VR were recorded; however, no feedback was
given to the subjects. Electrocardiograms were recorded via direct connection or telemetry
and HR was measured concurrently with ventilation measurement for all treadmill
sessions.
The second approach consisted of two protocol phases (indoor/outdoor exercise
sessions and field testing). Twenty outdoor adult workers between 19-50 years old were
recruited. Indoor and outdoor supervised exercises similar to the protocols in the first
approach were conducted; however, there were no feedbacks. Also, in this approach,
electrocardiograms were recorded and HR was measured concurrently with VR. During
the field testing phase, subjects were trained to record their activities during three different
24-hour periods during one week. These periods included their most active working and
non-working days. HR was measured quasi-continuously during the 24-hour periods that
activities were recorded. The subjects recorded in a diary all changes in physical activity,
location, and exercise levels during waking hours. Self-estimated activities in supervised
exercises and field studies were categorized as slow (resting, slow walking or equivalent),
medium (fast walking or equivalent), and fast (jogging or equivalent).
Inhalation rates were not presented in this study. In the first approach, about 68
percent of all self-estimates were correct for the 9 subjects sampled (Shamoo et al., 1990).
Inaccurate self-estimates occurred in the younger male population who were highly
physically fit and were competitive aerobic trainers. This subset of sample population
tended to underestimate their own physical activity levels at higher VR ranges. Shamoo
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
et al. (1990) attributed this to a "macho effect." In the second approach, a regression
analysis was conducted that related the logarithm of VR to HR. The logarithm of VR
correlated better with HR than VR itself (Shamoo et al., 1990).
A limitation associated with this study is that the population sampled is not
representative of the general U.S. population. Also, ventilation rates were not presented.
Training individuals to estimate their VR may contribute to uncertainty in the results
because the estimates are subjective. Another limitation is that calibration data were not
obtained at extreme conditions; therefore, the VR/HR relationship obtained may be biased.
An additional limitation is that training subjects may be too labor-intensive for widespread
use in exposure assessment studies. An advantage of this study is that HR recordings are
useful in predicting ventilation rates which in turn are useful in estimating exposure.
Shamoo et al. (1991) - Activity Patterns in a Panel of Outdoor Workers Exposed to
Oxidant Pollution - Shamoo et al. (1991) investigated summer activity patterns in 20 adult
volunteers with potentially high exposure to ambient oxidant pollution. The selected
volunteer subjects were 15 men and 5 women ages 19-50 years from the Los Angeles
area. All volunteers worked outdoors at least 10 hours per week. The experimental
approach involved two stages: (1) indirect objective estimation of VR from HR
measurements; and (2) self estimation of inhalation/ventilation rates recorded by subjects
in diaries during their normal activities.
The approach consisted of calibrating the relationship between VR and HR for each
test subject in controlled exercise; monitoring by subjects of their own normal activities with
diaries and electronic HR recorders; and then relating VR with the activities described in
the diaries (Shamoo et al., 1991). Calibration tests were conducted for indoor and outdoor
supervised exercises to determine individual relationships between VR and HR. Indoors,
each subject was tested on a treadmill at rest and at increasing speeds. HR and VR were
measured at the third minute at each 3-minute interval speed. In addition, subjects were
tested while walking a 90-meter course in a corridor at 3 self-selected speeds (normal,
slower than normal, and faster than normal) for 3 minutes.
Two outdoor testing sessions (one hour each) were conducted for each subject, 7
days apart. Subjects exercised on a 260-meter asphalt course. A session involved 15
minutes each of rest, slow walking, jogging, and fast walking during the first hour. The
sequence was also repeated during the second hour. HR and VR measurements were
recorded starting at the 8th minute of each 15-minute segment. Following the calibration
tests, a field study was conducted in which subject's self-monitored their activities by filling
out activity diary booklets, self-estimated their breathing rates, and their HR. Breathing
rates were defined as sleep, slow (slow or normal walking); medium (fast walking); and fast
(running) (Shamoo et al., 1991). Changes in location, activity, or breathing rates during
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
three 24-hr periods within a week were recorded. These periods included their most active
working and non-working days. Each subject wore Heart Watches which recorded their
HR once per minute during the field study. Ventilation rates were estimated for the
following categories: sleep, slow, medium, and fast.
Calibration data were fit to the equation log (VR) = intercept + (slope x HR), each
individual's intercept and slope were determined separately to provide a specific equation
that predicts each subject's VR from measured HR (Shamoo et al., 1991). The average
measured VRs were 0.48, 0.9, 1.68, and 4.02 m3/hr for rest, slow walking or normal
walking, fast walking and jogging, respectively (Shamoo et al., 1991). Collectively, the
diary recordings showed that sleep occupied about 33 percent of the subject's time; slow
activity 59 percent; medium activity 7 percent; and fast activity 1 percent. The diary data
covered an average of 69 hours per subject (Shamoo et al., 1991). Table 5-19 presents
the distribution pattern of predicted ventilation rates and equivalent ventilation rates (EVR)
obtained at the four activity levels. EVR was defined as the VR per square meter of body
surface area, and also as a percentage of the subjects average VR over the entire field
monitoring period (Shamoo et al., 1991). The overall mean predicted VR was 0.42 m3/hr
for sleep; 0.71 m3/hr for slow activity; 0.84 m3/hr for medium activity; and 2.63 m3/hr for fast
activity.
The mean predicted VR and standard deviation, and the percentage of time spent in
each combination of VR, activity type (essential and non-essential), and location (indoor
and outdoor) are presented in Table 5-20. Essential activities include income-related work,
household chores, child care, study and other school activities, personal care and
destination-oriented travel. Non-essential activities include sports and active leisure,
passive leisure, some travel, and social or civic activities (Shamoo et al., 1991). Table 5-
20 shows that inhalation rates were higher outdoors than indoors at slow, medium, and
fast activity levels. Also, inhalation rates were higher for outdoor non-essential activities
than for indoor non-essential activity levels at slow, medium, and fast self-reported
breathing rates (Table 5-20).
An advantage of this study is that subjective activity diary data can provide exposure
modelers with useful rough estimates of VR for groups of generally healthy people. A
limitation of this study is that the results obtained show high within-person and between-
person variability in VR at each diary-recorded level, indicating that VR estimates from
diary reports could potentially be substantially misleading in individual cases. Another
limitation of this study is that elevated HR data of slow activity at the second hour of the
exercise session reflect persistent effects of exercise and/or heat stress. Therefore,
predictions of VR from the VR/HR relationship may be biased.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
Shamoo et al. (1992) - Effectiveness of Training Subjects to Estimate Their Level of
Ventilation - Shamoo et al. (1992) conducted a study where nine non-sedentary subjects
in good health were trained on a treadmill to estimate their own ventilation rates at four
activity levels: low, medium, heavy, and very heavy. The purpose of the study was to train
the subjects self-estimation of ventilation in the field and assess the effectiveness of the
training (Shamoo et al., 1992). The subjects included 3 females and 6 males between 21
to 37 years of age. The tests were conducted in four stages. First, an initial treadmill
pretest was conducted indoors at various speeds until the four ventilation levels were
experienced by each subject; VR was measured and feedback was given to the subjects.
Second, two treadmill training sessions which involved seven 3-minute segments of
varying speeds based on initial tests were conducted; VR was measured and feedback
was given to the subjects. Another similar session was conducted; however, the subjects
estimated their own ventilation level during the last 20 seconds of each segment and VR
was measured during the last minute of each segment. Immediate feedback was given to
the subject's estimate; and the third and fourth stages involved 2 outdoor sessions of 3
hours each. Each hour comprised 15 minutes each of rest, slow walking, jogging, and fast
walking. The subjects estimated their own ventilation level at the middle of each segment.
The subject's estimate was verified by a respirometer which measured VR in the middle
of each 15-minute activity. No feedback was given to the subject. The overall percent
correct score obtained for all ventilation levels was 68 percent (Shamoo et al., 1992).
Therefore, Shamoo et al. (1992) concluded that this training protocol was effective in
training subjects to correctly estimate their minute ventilation levels.
For this handbook, inhalation rates were analyzed from the raw data provided by
Shamoo et al. (1992). Table 5-21 presents the mean inhalation rates obtained from this
analysis at four ventilation levels in two microenvironments (i.e., indoors and outdoors) for
all subjects. The mean inhalation rates for all subjects were 0.93, 1.92, 3.01, 4.80 m3/hr
for low, medium, heavy, and very heavy activities, respectively.
The population sample size used in this study was small and was not selected to
represent the general U.S. population. The training approach employed may not be cost
effective because it was labor intensive; therefore, this approach may not be viable in field
studies especially for field studies within large sample sizes.
AIHC (1994) - The Exposure Factors Sourcebook - AIHC (1994) recommends an
average adult inhalation rate of 18 m3/day and presents values for children of various
ages. These recommendations were derived from data presented in U.S. EPA (1989).
The newer study by Layton (1993) was not considered. In addition, the Sourcebook
presents probability distributions derived by Brorby and Finley (1993). For each
distribution, the @Risk formula is provided for direct use in the @Risk simulation software
(Palisade, 1992). The organization of this document makes it very convenient to use in
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
support of Monte Carlo analysis. The reviews of the supporting studies are very brief with
little analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. The Sourcebook has been classified as
a relevant rather than key study because it is not the primary source for the data used to
make recommendations in this document. The Sourcebook is very similar to this document
in the sense that it summarizes exposure factor data and recommends values. As such,
it is clearly relevant as an alternative information source on inhalation rates as well as
other exposure factors.
5.2.4. Recommendations
In the Ozone Criteria Document prepared by the U.S. EPA Office of Environmental
Criteria and Assessment, the EPA identified the collapsed range of activities and its
corresponding VR as follows: light exercise (VE < 23 L/min or 1.4 m3/hr); moderate/
medium exercise (VE= 24-43 L/min or 1.4-2.6 m3/hr); heavy exercise (VE= 43-63 L/min or
2.6-3.8 m3/hr); and very heavy exercise (VE> 64 L/min or 3.8 m3/hr), (Adams, 1993).
Recent peer reviewed scientific papers and an EPA report comprise the studies that
were evaluated in this Chapter. These studies were conducted in the United States among
both men and women of different age groups. All are widely available. The confidence
ratings in the inhalation rate recommendations are shown in Table 5-22.
Each study focused on ventilation rates and factors that may affect them. Studies
were conducted among randomly selected volunteers. Efforts were made to include men,
women, different age groups, and different kinds of activities. Measurement methods are
indirect, but reproducible. Methods are well described (except for questionnaires) and
experimental error is well documented. There is general agreement with these estimates
among researchers.
The recommended inhalation rates for adults, children, and outdoor workers/athletes
are based on the key studies described in this chapter (Table 5-23). Different survey
designs and populations were utilized in the studies described in this Chapter. A summary
of these designs, data generated, and their limitations/advantages are presented in Table
5-24. Excluding the study by Layton (1993), the population surveyed in all of the key
studies described in this report were limited to the Los Angeles area. This regional
population may not represent the general U.S. population and may result in biases.
However, based on other aspects of the study design, these studies were selected as the
basis for recommended inhalation rates.
The selection of inhalation rates to be used for exposure assessments depends on
the age of the exposed population and the specific activity levels of this population during
various exposure scenarios. The recommended values for adults, children (including
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
infants), and outdoor workers/athletes for use in various exposure scenarios are discussed
below. These rates were calculated by averaging the inhalation rates for each activity
level from the various key studies (see Table 5-25).
Adults (19-65+ yrs) - Adults in this recommendation include young to middle age
adults (19-64 yrs), and older adults (65+ yrs). The daily average inhalation rates for long
term exposure for adults are: 11.3 m3/day for women and 15.2 m3/day for men. These
values are averages of the inhalation rates provided for males and females in each of the
three approaches of Layton (1993) (Tables 5-11 through 5-14). An upper percentile is not
recommended. Additional research and analysis of activity pattern data and dietary data
in the future is necessary to attempt to calculate upper percentiles.
The recommended value for the general population average inhalation rate, 11.3
m3/day for women and 15.2 m3/day for men, is different than the 20 m /day which has
commonly been assumed in past EPA risk assessments.
In addition, recommendations are presented for various ages and special populations
(athletes, outdoor workers) which also differ from 20 m3/day. Assessors are encouraged
to use values which most accurately reflect the exposed population.
For exposure scenarios where the distribution of activity patterns is known, the
following results, calculated from the studies referenced are shown in Table 5-25. Based
on these key studies, the following recommendations are made: for short term exposures
in which distribution of activity patterns are specified, the recommended average rates are
0.4 3/hr during rest; 0.5 m3/hr for sedentary activities; 1.0 m ?hr for light activities; 1.6
m3/hr for moderate activities; and 3.2 m3/hr for heavy activities.
Children (18 yrs old or less including infants) - For the purpose of this
recommendation, children are defined as males and females between the ages of 1-18
years old, while infants are individuals less than 1 year old. The inhalation rates for
children are presented below according to different exposure scenarios. The daily
inhalation rates for long-term dose assessments, are based on the first approach of Layton
(1993) (Table 5-11) and are summarized in Table 5-26.
Based on the key study results (i.e., Layton, 1993), the recommended daily inhalation
rate for infants (children less than 1 yr), during long-term dose assessments is 4.5 m3/day.
For children 1-2 years old, 3-5 years old, and 6-8 years old, the recommended daily
inhalation rates are 6.8 m3/day, 8.3 m3/day, and 10 m3/day, respectively. Recommended
values for children aged 9-11 years are 14 m3/day for males and 13 m3/day for females.
For children aged 12-14 years and 15-18 years, the recommended values are shown in
Table 5-23.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 5 - Inhalation
For short-term exposures for children aged 18 years and under, in which activity
patterns are known, the data are summarized in Table 5-27. For short term exposures, the
recommended average hourly inhalation rates are based on these key studies. They are
averaged over each activity held as follows: 0.3 m3/hr during rest; 0.4 m3/hr for sedentary
activities; 1.0 m3/hr for light activities; 1.2 m3/hr for moderate activities; and 1.9 m3/hr for
heavy activities. The recommended short-term exposure data also include infants (less
than 1 yr). These values represent averages of the activity level data from key studies
(Table 5-27).
Outdoor Worker - Inhalation rate data for outdoor workers/athlete are limited.
However, based on the key studies (Linn et al., 1992 and 1993), the recommended
average hourly inhalation rate for outdoor workers is 1.3 m3/hr and the upper-percentile
rate is 3.3 m3/hr (see Tables 5-5 and 5-8). This is calculated as the weighted mean of the
99th percentile values reported for the individuals on Panels 1 and 7 in Tables 5-5 and the
19 subjects in Table 5-8. The recommended average inhalation rates for outdoor workers
based on the activity levels categorized as slow (light activities), medium (moderate
activities), and fast (heavy activities) are 1.1 m3/hr, 1.5 m3/hr, and 2.5 m3/hr, respectively.
These values are based on the data from Linn et al. (1992 and 1993) and are the weighted
mean of the values for the individuals on Panels 1 and 7 in Table 5-5 and the 19 outdoor
workers in Table 5-9. Inhalation rates may be higher among outdoor workers/athletes
because levels of activity outdoors may be higher. Therefore, this subpopulation group
may be more susceptible to air pollutants and are considered a "high-risk" subgroup
(Shamooetal., 1991; Linn etal., 1992).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
6. DERMAL ROUTE
Dermal exposure can occur during a variety of activities in different environmental
media and microenvironments (U.S. EPA, 1992). These include:
• Water (e.g., bathing, washing, swimming);
• Soil (e.g., outdoor recreation, gardening, construction);
• Sediment (e.g., wading, fishing);
• Liquids (e.g., use of commercial products);
• Vapors/fumes (e.g., use of commercial products); and
• Indoors (e.g., carpets, floors, countertops).
The major factors that must be considered when estimating dermal exposure are: the
chemical concentration in contact with the skin, the potential dose, the extent of skin
surface area exposed, the duration of exposure, the absorption of the chemical through
the skin, the internal dose, and the amount of chemical that can be delivered to a target
organ (i.e., biologically effective dose) (see Figure 6-1). A detailed discussion of these
factors can be found in Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
This chapter focuses on measurements of body surface areas and various factors
needed to estimate dermal exposure to chemicals in water and soil. Information
concerning dermal exposure to pollutants in indoor environments is limited. Useful
information concerning estimates of body surface area can be found in "Development of
Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments"
(U.S. EPA, 1985). "Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (U.S. EPA,
1992b), provides detailed information concerning dermal exposure using a stepwise guide
in the exposure assessment process.
The available studies have been classified as either key or relevant based on their
applicability to exposure assessment needs and are summarized in this chapter.
Recommended values are based on the results of the key studies. Relevant studies are
presented to provide an added perspective on the state-of-knowledge pertaining to dermal
exposure factors. All tables and figures presenting data from these studies are shown at
the end of this chapter.
6.1. EQUATION FOR DERMAL DOSE
The average daily dose (ADD) is the dose rate averaged over a pathway-specific
period of exposure expressed as a daily dose on a per-unit-body-weight basis. The ADD
is used for exposure to chemicals with non-carcinogenic non-chronic effects. For
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
compounds with carcinogenic or chronic effects, the lifetime average daily dose (LADD)
is used. The LADD is the dose rate averaged over a lifetime.
For dermal contact with chemicals in soil or water, dermally absorbed average daily
dose can be estimated by (U.S. EPA, 1992b):
DApvpnt x EV x ED x EF x SA
BWXAT
where:
ADD = average daily dose (mg/kg-day);
DAevent = absorbed dose per event (mg/cm2-event);
EV = event frequency (events/day);
ED = exposure duration (years);
EF = exposure frequency (days/year);
SA = skin surface area available for contact (cm2);
BW = body weight (kg); and
AT = averaging time (days) for noncarcinogenic effects, AT = ED and for carcinogenic effects, AT = 70 years or 25,550 days.
This method is to be used to calculate the absorbed dose of a chemical. Total body
surface area (SA) is assumed to be exposed for a period of time (ED).
For dermal contact with water, the DAevent is estimated with consideration for the
permeability coefficient from water, the chemical concentration in water, and the event
duration. The approach to estimate DAevent is different for inorganic and organic
compounds. The nonsteady-state approach to estimate the dermally absorbed dose from
water is recommended as the preferred approach for organics which exhibit octanol-water
partitioning (U.S. EPA, 1992b). First, this approach more accurately reflects normal
human exposure conditions since the short contact times associated with bathing and
swimming generally mean that steady state will not occur. Second, the approach accounts
for uptake that can occur after the actual exposure event due to absorption of residual
chemical trapped in skin tissue. Use of the nonsteady-state model for organics has
implications for selecting permeability coefficient (Kp) values (U.S. EPA, 1992b). It is
recommended that the traditional steady-state approach be applied to inorganics (U.S.
EPA, 1992b). Detailed information concerning how to estimate absorbed dose per event
(DAevent) and Kp values can be found in Section 5.3.1 of "Dermal Exposure Assessment:
Principles and Applications" (U.S. EPA, 1992b).
For dermal contact with contaminated soil, estimation of the DAevent is different from
the estimation for dermal contact with chemicals in water. It is based on the concentration
of the chemical in soil, the adherence factor of soil to skin, and the absorption fraction.
Information for DAevent estimation from soil contact can be found in U.S. EPA (1992b),
Section 6.4.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
The apparent simplicity of the absorption fraction (percent absorbed) makes this
approach appealing. However, it is not practical to apply it to water contact scenarios,
such as swimming, because of the difficulty in estimating the total material contacted (U.S.
EPA, 1992b). It is assumed that there is essentially an infinite amount of material
available, and that the chemical will be replaced continuously, thereby increasing the
amount of material (containing the chemical) available by some large unknown amount.
Therefore, the permeability coefficient-based approach is recommended over the
absorption fraction approach for determining the dermally absorbed dose of chemicals in
aqueous media.
Before the absorption fraction approach can be used in soil contact scenarios, the
contaminant concentration in soil must be established. Not all of the chemical in a layer
of dirt applied to skin may be bioavailable, nor is it assumed to be an internal dose.
Because of the lack of Kp data for compounds bound to soil, and reduced uncertainty in
defining an applied dose, the absorption fraction-based approach is suggested for
determining the internal dose of chemicals in soil. More detailed explanation of the
equations, assumptions, and approaches can be found in "Dermal Exposure Assessment:
Principles and Applications" (U.S. EPA. 1992b).
6.2. SURFACE AREA
6.2.1. Background
The total surface area of skin exposed to a contaminant must be determined using
measurement or estimation techniques before conducting a dermal exposure assessment.
Depending on the exposure scenario, estimation of the surface area for the total body or
a specific body part can be used to calculate the contact rate for the pollutant. This
section presents estimates for total body surface area and for body parts and presents
information on the application of body surface area data.
6.2.2. Measurement Techniques
Coating, triangulation, and surface integration are direct measurement techniques
that have been used to measure total body surface area and the surface area of specific
body parts. Consideration has been given for differences due to age, gender, and race.
The results of the various techniques have been summarized in "Development of Statistical
Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments" (U.S. EPA,
1985). The coating method consists of coating either the whole body or specific body
regions with a substance of known or measured area. Triangulation consists of marking
the area of the body into geometric figures, then calculating the figure areas from their
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
linear dimensions. Surface integration is performed by using a planimeter and adding the
areas.
The triangulation measurement technique developed by Boyd (1935) has been found
to be highly reliable. It estimates the surface area of the body using geometric
approximations that assume parts of the body resemble geometric solids (Boyd, 1935).
More recently, Popendorf and Leffingwell (1976), and Haycock et al. (1978) have
developed similar geometric methods that assume body parts correspond to geometric
solids, such as the sphere and cylinder. A linear method proposed by DuBois and DuBois
(1916) is based on the principle that the surface areas of the parts of the body are
proportional, rather than equal to the surface area of the solids they resemble.
In addition to direct measurement techniques, several formulae have been proposed
to estimate body surface area from measurements of other major body dimensions (i.e.,
height and weight) (U.S. EPA, 1985). Generally, the formulae are based on the principles
that body density and shape are roughly the same and that the relationship of surface area
to any dimension may be represented by the curve of central tendency of their plotted
values or by the algebraic expression for the curve. A discussion and comparison of
formulae to determine total body surface area are presented in Appendix 6A.
6.2.3. Key Body Surface Area Studies
U.S. EPA (1985) - Development of Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard
Factors Used in Exposure Assessments - U.S. EPA (1985) analyzed the direct surface
area measurement data of Gehan and George (1970) using the Statistical Processing
System (SPS) software package of Buhyoff et al. (1982). Gehan and George (1970)
selected 401 measurements made by Boyd (1935) that were complete for surface area,
height, weight, and age for their analysis. Boyd (1935) had reported surface area
estimates for 1,114 individuals using coating, triangulation, or surface integration methods
(U.S. EPA, 1985).
U.S. EPA (1985) used SPS to generate equations to calculate surface area as a
function of height and weight. These equations were then used to calculate body surface
area distributions of the U.S. population using the height and weight data obtained from
the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) II and the computer
program QNTLS of Rochon and Kalsbeek (1983).
The equation proposed by Gehan and George (1970) was determined by U.S. EPA
(1985) to be the best choice for estimating total body surface area. However, the paper
by Gehan and George (1970) gave insufficient information to estimate the standard error
about the regression. Therefore, U.S. EPA (1985) used the 401 direct measurements of
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
children and adults and reanalyzed the data using the formula of Dubois and Dubois
(1916) and SPS to obtain the standard error (U.S. EPA, 1985).
Regression equations were developed for specific body parts using the Dubois and
Dubois (1916) formula and using the surface area of various body parts provided by Boyd
(1935) and Van Graan (1969) in conjunction with SPS. Regression equations for adults
were developed for the head, trunk (including the neck), upper extremities (arms and
hands, upper arms, and forearms) and lower extremities (legs and feet, thighs, and lower
legs) (U.S. EPA, 1985). Table 6-1 presents a summary of the equation parameters
developed by U.S. EPA (1985) for calculating surface area of adult body parts. Equations
to estimate the body part surface area of children were not developed because of
insufficient data.
Percentile estimates of total surface area and surface area of body parts developed
by U.S. EPA (1985) using the regression equations and NHANES II height and weight data
are presented in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 for adult males and adult females, respectively. The
calculated mean surface areas of body parts for men and women are presented in Table 6-
4. The standard deviation, the minimum value, and the maximum value for each body part
are included. The median total body surface area for men and women and the
corresponding standard errors about the regressions are also given. It has been assumed
that errors associated with height and weight are negligible (U.S. EPA, 1985). The data
in Table 6-5 present the percentage of total body surface by body part for men and
women.
Percentile estimates for total surface area of male and female children presented in
Tables 6-6 and 6-7 were calculated using the total surface area regression equation,
NHANES II height and weight data, and using QNTLS. Estimates are not included for
children younger than 2 years old because NHANES height data are not available for this
age group. For children, the error associated with height and weight cannot be assumed
to be zero because of their relatively small sizes. Therefore, the standard errors of the
percentile estimates cannot be estimated, since it cannot be assumed that the errors
associated with the exogenous variables (height and weight) are independent of that
associated with the model; there are insufficient data to determine the relationship
between these errors.
Measurements of the surface area of children's body parts are summarized as a
percentage of total surface area in Table 6-8. Because of the small sample size, the data
cannot be assumed to represent the average percentage of surface area by body part for
all children. Note that the percent of total body surface area contributed by the head
decreases from childhood to adult, while the percent contributed by the leg increases.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
Phillips et al. (1993) - Distributions of Total Skin Surface Area to Body Weight Ratios -
Phillips et al. (1993) observed a strong correlation (0.986) between body surface area and
body weight and studied the effect of using these factors as independent variables in the
LADD equation. Phillips et al. (1993) concluded that, because of the correlation between
these two variables, the use of body surface area to body weight (SA/BW) ratios in human
exposure assessments is more appropriate than treating these factors as independent
variables. Direct measurement (coating, triangulation, and surface integration) data from
the scientific literature were used to calculate body surface area to body weight (SA/BW)
ratios for three age groups (infants aged 0 to 2 years, children aged 2.1 to 17.9 years, and
adults 18 years and older). These ratios were calculated by dividing body surface areas
by corresponding body weights for the 401 individuals analyzed by Gehan and George
(1970) and summarized by U.S. EPA (1985). Distributions of SA/BW ratios were
developed and summary statistics were calculated for each of the three age groups and
the combined data set. Summary statistics for these populations are presented in Table
6-9. The shapes of these SA/BW distributions were determined using D'Agostino's test.
The results indicate that the SA/BW ratios for infants are lognormally distributed and the
SA/BW ratios for adults and all ages combined are normally distributed (Figure 6-2).
SA/BW ratios for children were neither normally nor lognormally distributed. According to
Phillips et al. (1993), SA/BW ratios should be used to calculate LADDs by replacing the
body surface area factor in the numerator of the LADD equation with the SA/BW ratio and
eliminating the body weight factor in the denominator of the LADD equation.
The effect of gender and age on SA/BW distribution was also analyzed by classifying
the 401 observations by gender and age. Statistical analyses indicated no significant
differences between SA/BW ratios for males and females. SA/BW ratios were found to
decrease with increasing age.
6.2.4. Relevant Surface Area Studies
Murray and Burmaster (1992) - Estimated Distributions for Total Body Surface Area
of Men and Women in the United States - In this study, distributions of total body surface
area for men and women ages 18 to 74 years were estimated using Monte Carlo
simulations based on height and weight distribution data. Four different formulae for
estimating body surface area as a function of height and weight were employed: Dubois
and Dubois (1916); Boyd (1935); U.S. EPA (1985); and Costeff (1966). The formulae of
Dubois and Dubois (1916); Boyd (1935); and U.S. EPA (1985) are based on height and
weight. They are discussed in Appendix 6A. The formula developed by Costeff (1966) is
based on 220 observations that estimate body surface area based on weight only.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
This formula is:
SA= 4W+7/W+90 (Eqn. 6-2)
where:
SA = Surface Area (m2); and
W = Weight (kg).
Formulae were compared and the effect of the correlation between height and weight on
the body surface area distribution was analyzed.
Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to estimate body surface area distributions.
They were based on the bivariate distributions estimated by Brainard and Burmaster
(1992) for height and natural logarithm of weight and the formulae described above. A
total of 5,000 random samples each for men and women were selected from the two
correlated bivariate distributions. Body surface area calculations were made for each
sample, and for each formula, resulting in body surface area distributions. Murray and
Burmaster (1992), found that the body surface area frequency distributions were similar
for the four models (Table 6-10). Using the U.S. EPA (1985) formula, the median surface
area values were calculated to be 1.96 m2 for men and 1.69 m2 for women. The median
value for women is identical to that generated by U.S. EPA (1985) but differs for men by
approximately 1 percent. Body surface area was found to have lognormal distributions for
both men and women (Figure 6-3). It was also found that assuming correlation between
height and weight influences the final distribution by less than 1 percent.
AIHC (1994) - Exposure Factors Sourcebook - The Exposure Factors Sourcebook
(AIHC, 1994) provides similar body surface area data as presented here. Consistent with
this document, average and percentile values are presented on the basis of age and
gender. In addition, the Sourcebook presents point estimates of exposed skin surface
areas for various scenarios on the basis of several published studies. Finally, the
Sourcebook presents probability distributions based on U.S. EPA (1989) and as derived
by Thompson and Burmaster (1991); Versar (1991); and Brorby and Finley (1993). For
each distribution, the @Risk formula is provided for direct use in the @Risk simulation
software (Palisade, 1992). The organization of this document, makes it very convenient
to use in support of Monte Carlo analysis. The reviews of the supporting studies are very
brief with little analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. The Sourcebook has been
classified as a relevant rather than key study because it is not the primary source for the
data used to make recommendations in this document. The Sourcebook is very similar to
this document in the sense that it summarizes exposure factor data and recommends
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
values. As such, it is clearly relevant as an alternative information source on body surface
area as well as other exposure factors.
6.2.5. Application of Body Surface Area Data
In many settings, it is likely that only certain parts of the body are exposed. All body
parts that come in contact with a chemical must be considered to estimate the total surface
area of the body exposed. The data in Table 6-4 may be used to estimate the total surface
area of the particular body part(s). For example, to assess exposure to a chemical in a
cleaning product for which only the hands are exposed, surface area values for hands from
Table 6-4 can be used. For exposure to both hands and arms, mean surface areas for
these parts from Table 6-4 may be summed to estimate the total surface area exposed.
The mean surface area of these body parts for men and women is as follows:
Surface Area (m2)
Men Women
Arms (includes upper arms and forearms) 0.228 0.210
Hands 0.084 0.075
Total area 0.312 0.285
Therefore, the total body part surface area that may be in contact with the chemical in the
cleaning product in this example is 0.312 m2 for men and 0.285 m2 for women.
A common assumption is that clothing prevents dermal contact and subsequent
absorption of contaminants. This assumption may be false in cases where the chemical
may be able to penetrate clothing, such as in a fine dust or liquid suspension. Studies
using personal patch monitors placed beneath clothing of pesticide workers exposed to
fine mists and vapors show that a significant proportion of dermal exposure may occur at
anatomical sites covered by clothing (U.S. EPA, 1992b). In addition, it has been
demonstrated that a "pumping" effect can occur which causes material to move under
loose clothing (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that hands
cannot be considered to be protected from exposure even if waterproof gloves are worn
(U.S. EPA, 1992b). This may be due to contamination to the interior surface of the gloves
when donning or removing them during work activities (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Depending on
the task, pesticide workers have been shown to experience 12 percent to 43 percent of
their total exposure through their hands, approximately 20 percent to 23 percent through
their heads and necks, and 36 percent to 64 percent through their torsos and arms,
despite the use of protective gloves and clothing (U.S. EPA, 1992b).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
For swimming and bathing scenarios, past exposure assessments have assumed that
75 percent to 100 percent of the skin surface is exposed (U.S. EPA, 1992b). As shown in
Table 6-4, total adult body surface areas can vary from about 17,000 cm2 to 23,000 cm2.
The mean is reported as approximately 20,000 cm2.
For default purposes, adult body surface areas of 20,000 cm2 (central estimate) to
23,000 cm2 (upper percentile) are recommended in U.S. EPA (1992b). Tables 6-2 and 6-3
can also be used when the default values are not preferred. Central and upper-percentile
values for children should be derived from Table 6-6 or 6-7.
Unlike exposure to liquids, clothing may or may not be effective in limiting the extent
of exposure to soil. The 1989 Exposure Factors Handbook presented two adult clothing
scenarios for outdoor activities (U.S. EPA, 1989):
Central tendency mid range: Individual wears long sleeve shirt, pants, and shoes.
The exposed skin surface is limited to the head and hands (2,000 cm2).
Upper percentile: Individual wears a short sleeve shirt, shorts, and shoes. The
exposed skin surface is limited to the head, hands, forearms, and lower legs (5,300
cm2).
The clothing scenarios presented above, suggest that roughly 10 percent to 25 percent
of the skin area may be exposed to soil. Since some studies have suggested that
exposure can occur under clothing, the upper end of this range was selected in Dermal
Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (U.S. EPA, 1992b) for deriving
defaults. Thus, taking 25 percent of the total body surface area results in defaults for
adults of 5,000 cm2 to 5,800 cm2. These values were obtained from the body surface
areas in Table 6-2 after rounding to 20,000 cm2 and 23,000 cm2, respectively. The range
of defaults for children can be derived by multiplying the 50th and 95th percentiles by 0.25
for the ages of interest.
When addressing soil contact exposures, assessors may want to refine estimates of
surface area exposed on the basis of seasonal conditions. For example, in moderate
climates, it may be reasonable to assume that 5 percent of the skin is exposed during the
winter, 10 percent during the spring and fall, and 25 percent during the summer.
The previous discussion, has presented information about the area of skin exposed
to soil. These estimates of exposed skin area should be useful to assessors using the
traditional approach of multiplying the soil adherence factor by exposed skin area to
estimate the total amount of soil on skin. The next section presents soil adherence data
specific to activity and body part and is designed to be combined with the total surface
area of that body part. No reduction of body part area is made for clothing coverage using
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
this approach. Thus, assessors who adopt this approach, should not use the defaults
presented above for soil exposed skin area. Rather, they should use Table 6-4 to obtain
total surface areas of specific body parts. See detailed discussion below.
6.3. SOIL ADHERENCE TO SKIN
6.3.1. Background
Soil adherence to the surface of the skin is a required parameter to calculate dermal
dose when the exposure scenario involves dermal contact with a chemical in soil. A
number of studies have attempted to determine the magnitude of dermal soil adherence.
These studies are described in detail in U.S. EPA (1992b). This section summarizes
recent studies that estimate soil adherence to skin for use as exposure factors.
6.3.2. Key Soil Adherence to Skin Studies
Kissel et al. (1996a) - Factors Affecting Soil Adherence to Skin in Hand-Press Trials:
Investigation of Soil Contact and Skin Coverage - Kissel et al. (1996a) conducted soil
adherence experiments using five soil types (descriptor) obtained locally in the Seattle,
Washington, area: sand (211), loamy sand (CP), loamy sand (85), sandy loam (228), and
silt loam (72). All soils were analyzed by hydrometer (settling velocity) to determine
composition. Clay contents ranged from 0.5 to 7.0 percent. Organic carbon content,
determined by combustion, ranged from 0.7 to 4.6 percent. Soils were dry sieved to
obtain particle size ranges of <150, 150-250, and >250 //m. For each soil type, the amount
of soil adhering to an adult female hand, using both sieved and unsieved soils, was
determined by measuring the difference in soil sample weight before and after the hand
was pressed into a pan containing the test soil. Loadings were estimated by dividing the
recovered soil mass by total hand area, although loading occurred primarily on only one
side of the hand. Results showed that generally, soil adherence to hands could be directly
correlated with moisture content, inversely correlated with particle size, and independent
of clay content or organic carbon content.
Kissel et al. (1996b) - Field Measurement of Dermal Soil Loading Attributable to
Various Activities: Implications for Exposure Assessment - Further experiments were
conducted by Kissel et al. (1996b) to estimate soil adherence associated with various
indoor and outdoor activities: greenhouse gardening, tae kwon do karate, soccer, rugby,
reed gathering, irrigation installation, truck farming, and playing in mud. A summary of
field studies by activity, gender, age, field conditions, and clothing worn is presented in
Table 6-11. Subjects' body surfaces (forearms, hands, lower legs in all cases, faces,
and/or feet; pairs in some cases) were washed before and after monitored activities.
Paired samples were pooled into single ones. Mass recovered was converted to loading
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
using allometric models of surface area. These data are presented in Table 6-12. Results
presented are based on direct measurement of soil loading on the surfaces of skin before
and after occupational and recreational activities that may be expected to have soil contact
(Kissel etal., 1996b).
6.3.3. Relevant Soil Adherence to Skin Studies
Lepow et al. (1975) - Investigations into Sources of Lead in the Environment of Urban
Children - This study was conducted to identify the behavioral and environmental factors
contributing to elevated lead levels in ten preschool children. The study was performed
over 6 to 25 months. Samples of dirt from the hands of subjects were collected during the
course of play around the areas where they lived. Preweighed self-adhesive labels were
used to sample a standard area on the palm of the hands of 16 male and female children.
The labels were pressed on a single area, often pressed several times, to obtain an
adequate sample. In the laboratory, labels were equilibrated in a desiccant cabinet for 24
hours (comparable to the preweighed desiccation), then the total weight was recorded. The
mean weight of dirt from the 22 hand sample labels was 11 mg. This corresponds to 0.51
mg/cm2. Lepow et al. (1975) reported that this amount (11 mg) represented only a small
fraction (percent not specified) of the total amount of surface dirt present on the hands,
because much of the dirt may be trapped in skin folds and creases or there may be a
patchy distribution of dirt on hands.
Roels et al. (1980) - Exposure to Lead by the Oral and the Pulmonary Routes of
Children Living in the Vicinity of a Primary Lead Smelter - Roels et al. (1980) examined
blood lead levels among 661 children, 9 to 14 years old, who lived in the vicinity of a large
lead smelter in Brussels, Belgium. During five different study periods, lead levels were
assessed by rinsing the childrens' hands in 500 ml dilute nitric acid. The amount of lead
on the hands was divided by the concentration of lead in soil to estimate the amount of soil
adhering to the hands. The mean soil amount adhering to the hands was 0.159 grams.
Que Hee et al. (1985) - Evolution of Efficient Methods to Sample Lead Sources, Such
as House Dust and Hand Dust, in the Homes of Children - Que Hee et al. (1985) used soil
having particle sizes ranging from < 44 to 833 urn diameters, fractionated into six size
ranges, to estimate the amount that adhered to the palm of the hand that are assumed to
be approximately 160 cm2 (test subject with an average total body surface area of 16,000
cm2 and a total hand surface area of 400 cm2). The amount of soil that adhered to skin
was determined by applying approximately 5 g of soil for each size fraction, removing
excess soil by shaking the hands, and then measuring the difference in weight before and
after application. Several assumptions were made to apply these results to other soil
types and exposure scenarios: (a) the soil is composed of particles of the indicated
diameters; (b) all soil types and particle sizes adhere to the skin to the degree observed
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
in this study; and an equivalent weight of particles of any diameter adhere to the same
surface area of skin. On average, 31.2 mg of soil adhered to the palm of the hand.
Driver et al. (1989) - Soil Adherence to Human Skin - Driver et al. (1989) conducted
soil adherence experiments using various soil types collected from sites in Virginia. A total
of five soil types were collected: Hyde, Chapanoke, Panorama, Jackland, and Montalto.
Both top soils and subsoils were collected for each soil type. The soils were also
characterized by cation exchange capacity, organic content, clay mineralogy, and particle
size distribution. The soils were dry sieved to obtain particle sizes of <250 urn and
<^50 urn. For each soil type, the amount of soil adhering to adult male hands, using both
sieved and unsieved soils, was determined gravimetrically (i.e., measuring the difference
in soil sample weight before and after soil application to the hands).
An attempt was made to measure only the minimal or "monolayer" of soil adhering to
the hands. This was done by mixing a pre-weighed amount of soil over the entire surface
area of the hands for a period of approximately 30 seconds, followed by removal of excess
soil by gently rubbing the hands together after contact with the soil. Excess soil that was
removed from the hands was collected, weighed, and compared to the original soil sample
weight. The authors measured average adherence of 1.40 mg/cm2 for particle sizes less
than 150 urn, 0.95 mg/cm2 for particle sizes less than 250 urn, and 0.58 mg/cm2 for
unsieved soils. Analysis of variance statistics showed that the most important factor
affecting adherence variability was particle size (p < 0.001). The next most important
factor is soil type and subtype (p < 0.001). The interaction of soil type and particle size
was also significant, but at a lower significance level (p < 0.01).
Driver et al. (1989) found statistically significant increases in soil adherence with
decreasing particle size; whereas, Que Hee et al. (1985) found relatively small changes
with changes in particle size. The amount of soil adherence found by Driver et al. (1989)
was greater than that reported by Que Hee et al. (1985).
Sedman (1989) - The Development of Applied Action Levels for Soil Contact: A
Scenario for the Exposure of Humans to Soil in a Residential Setting - Sedman (1989)
used the estimate from Roels et al. (1980), 0.159 g, and the average surface area of the
hand of an 11 year old, 307 cm2 to estimate the amount of soil adhering per unit area of
skin to be 0.9 mg/cm2. This assumed that approximately 60 percent (185 cm2) of the lead
on the hands was recovered by the method employed by Roels et al. (1980).
Sedman (1989) used estimates from Lepow et al. (1975), Roels et al. (1980), and
Que Hee et al. (1985) to develop a maximum soil load that could occur on the skin. A
rounded arithmetic mean of 0.5 mg/cm2 was calculated from these three studies.
According to Sedman (1989), this was near the maximum load of soil that could occur on
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
the skin but it is unlikely that most skin surfaces would be covered with this amount of soil
(Sedman, 1989).
Yang etal. (1989) - In vitro and In vivo Percutaneous Absorption of Benzo[a]pyrene
from Petroleum Crude - Fortified Soil in the Rat - Yang et al. (1989) evaluated the
percutaneous absorption of benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) in petroleum crude oil sorbed on soil
using a modified in vitro technique. This method was used in preliminary experiments to
determine the minimum amount of soil adhering to the skin of rats. Based on these results,
percutaneous absorption experiments with the crude-sorbed soil were conducted with soil
particles of <150 //m only. This particle size was intended to represent the composition
of the soil adhering to the skin surface. Approximately 9 mg/cm2 of soil was found to be
the minimum amount required for a "monolayer" coverage of the skin surface in both in
vitro and in vivo experiments. This value is larger than reports for human skin in the
studies of Kissel et al., 1996a,b; Lepow et al., 1975; Roels et al., 1980; and Que Hee et
al., 1985. Differences between the rat and human soil adhesion findings may be the result
of differences in rat and human skin texture, the types of soils used, soil moisture content
or possibly the methods of measuring soil adhesion (Yang et al., 1989).
6.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.4.1. Body Surface Area
Body surface area estimates are based on direct measurements. Re-analysis of data
collected by Boyd (1935) by several investigators (Gehan and George, 1970; U.S. EPA,
1985; Murray and Burmaster, 1992; Phillips et al., 1993) constitutes much of this literature.
Methods are highly reproducible and the results are widely accepted. The
representativeness of these data to the general population is somewhat limited since
variability due to race or gender have not been systematically addressed.
Individual body surface area studies are summarized in Table 6-13 and the
recommendations for body surface area are summarized in Table 6-14. Table 6-15
presents the confidence ratings for various aspects of the recommendations for body
surface area. The U.S. EPA (1985) study is based on generally accepted measurements
that enjoy widespread usage, summarizes and compares previous reports in the literature,
provides statistical distributions for adults, and provides data for total body surface area
and body parts by gender for adults and children. However, the results are based on 401
selected measurements from the original 1,114 made by Boyd (1935). More than half of
the measurements are from children. Therefore, these estimates may be subject to
selection bias and may not be representative of the general population nor specific ethnic
groups. Phillips et al. (1993) analyses are based on direct measurement data that provide
distributions of body surface area to calculate LADD. The results are consistent with
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
previous efforts to estimate body surface area. Analyses are based on 401 measurements
selected from the original 1,114 measurements made by Boyd (1935) and data were not
analyzed for specific body parts. The study by Murray and Burmaster (1992) provides
frequency distributions for body surface area for men and women and produces results
that are similar to those obtained by the U.S. EPA (1985), but do not provide data for body
parts nor can results be applied to children.
For most dermal exposure scenarios concerning adults, it is recommended that the
body surface areas presented in Table 6-4 be used after determining which body parts will
be exposed. Table 6-4 was selected because these data are straightforward
determinations for most scenarios. However, for others, additional considerations may
need to be addressed. For example, (1) the type of clothing worn could have a significant
effect on the surface area exposed, and (2) climatic conditions will also affect the type of
clothing worn and, thus, the skin surface area exposed.
Frequency, event, and exposure duration for water activities and soil contact are
presented in Activity Patterns, Volume III, Chapter 15 of this report. For each parameter,
recommended values were derived for average and upper percentile values. Each of
these considerations are also discussed in more detail in U.S. EPA (1992b). Data in
Tables 6-2 and 6-3 can be used when surface area distributions are preferred. A range
of recommended values for estimates of the skin surface area of children may be taken
from Tables 6-6 and 6-7 using the 50th and 95th percentile values for age(s) of concern.
The recommended 50th and 95th percentile values for adult skin surface area provided
in U.S. EPA (1992b) are presented in Table 6-16.
6.4.2. Soil Adherence to Skin
Table 6-17 summarizes the relevant and key studies addressing soil adherence to
skin. Both Lepow et al. (1975) and Roels et al. (1980) monitored typical exposures in
children. They attempted to estimate typical exposure by recovery of accumulated soil
from hands at specific time intervals. The efficiency of their sample collection methods is
not known and may be subject to error. Only children were studied which may limit
generalizing these results to adults. Later studies (Que Hee et al., 1985 and Driver et al.,
1989) attempted to characterize both soil properties and sample collection efficiency to
estimate adherence of soil to skin. However, the experimental conditions used to expose
skin to soil may not reflect typical dermal exposure situations. This provides useful
information about the influence of soil characteristics on skin adherence, but the intimate
contact of skin with soil required under the controlled experimental conditions in the
studies by Driver et al. (1989) and Que Hee et al. (1985) may have exaggerated the
amount of adherence over what typically occurs.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
More recently, Kissel et al. (1996a; 1996b) have related dermal adherence to soil
characteristics and to specific activities. In all cases, experimental design and
measurement methods are straightforward and reproducible, but application of results is
limited. Both controlled experiments and field studies are based on a limited number of
measurements. Specific situations have been selected to assess soil adherence to skin.
Consequently, variation due to individuals, protective clothing, temporal, or seasonal
factors remain to be studied in more detail. Therefore, caution is required in interpretation
and application of these results for exposure assessments.
These studies are based on limited data, but suggest:
• Soil properties influence adherence. Adherence increases with moisture content,
decreases with particle size, but is relatively unaffected by clay or organic carbon
content.
• Adherence levels vary considerably across different parts of the body. The highest
levels were found on common contact points such as hands, knees, and elbows; the
least was detected on the face.
• Adherence levels vary with activity. In general, the highest levels of soil adherence
were seen in outdoor workers such as farmers and irrigation system installers,
followed by outdoor recreation, and gardening activities. Very high adherence
levels were seen in individuals contacting wet soils such as might occur during
wading or other shore area recreational activities.
In consideration, of these general observations and the recent data from Kissel et al.
(1996a, 1996b), changes are needed from past EPA recommendations which used one
adherence value to represent all soils, body parts, and activities. One approach would be
to select the activity from Table 6-11 which best represents the exposure scenario of
concern and use the corresponding adherence value from Table 6-12. Although this
approach represents an improvement, it still has shortcomings. For example, it is difficult
to decide which activity in Table 6-12 is most representative of a typical residential setting
involving a variety of activities. It may be useful to combine these activities into general
classes of low, moderate, and high contact. In the future, it may be possible to combine
activity-specific soil adherence estimates with survey-specific soil adherence estimates
with survey-derived data on activity frequency and duration to develop overall average soil
contact rates. EPA is sponsoring research to develop such an approach. As this
information becomes availble, updated recommendations will be issued.
Table 6-12 provides the best estimates available on activity-specific adherence
values, but are based on limited data. Therefore, they have a high degree of uncertainty
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 6 - Dermal
such that considerable judgment must be used when selecting them for an assessment.
The confidence ratings for various aspects of this recommendation are summarized in
Table 6-18. Insufficient data are available to develop a distribution or a probability
function for soil loadings.
Past EPA guidance has recommended assuming that soil exposure occurs primarily
to exposed body surfaces and used typical clothing scenarios to derive estimates of
exposed skin area. The approach recommended above for estimating soil adherence
addresses this issue in a different manner. This change was motivated by two
developments. First, increased acceptance that soil and dust particles can get under
clothing and be deposited on skin. Second, recent studies of soil adherence have
measured soil on entire body parts (whether or not they were covered by clothing) and
averaged the amount of soil adhering to skin over the area of entire body part. The soil
adherence levels resulting from these new studies must be combined with the surface area
of the entire body part (not merely unclothed surface area) to estimate the amount of
contaminant on skin. An important caveat, however, is that this approach assumes that
clothing in the exposure scenario of interest matches the clothing in the studies used to
derive these adherence levels such that the same degree of protection provided by
clothing can be assumed in both cases. If clothing differs significantly between the studies
reported here and the exposure scenarios under investigation, considerable judgment is
needed to adjust either the adherence level or surface area assumption.
The dermal adherence value represents the amount of soil on the skin at the time of
measurement. Assuming that the amount measured on the skin represents its
accumulation between washings and that people wash at least once per day, these
adherence values can be interpreted as daily contact rates (U.S. EPA, 1992b). However,
this is not recommended because the residence time of soils on skin has not been studied.
Instead, it is recommended that these adherence values be interpreted on an event basis
(U.S. EPA, 1992b).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Appendix 6A
APPENDIX 6A
FORMULAE FOR TOTAL BODY SURFACE AREA
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Appendix 6A
APPENDIX 6A
FORMULAE FOR TOTAL BODY SURFACE AREA
Most formulae for estimating surface area (SA), relate height to weight to surface
area. The following formula was proposed by Gehan and George (1970):
SA=KW2/3 (Eqn. 6A-1)
where:
SA = surface area in square meters;
W = weight in kg; and
K = constant.
While the above equation has been criticized because human bodies have
different specific gravities and because the surface area per unit volume differs for
individuals with different body builds, it gives a reasonably good estimate of surface
area.
A formula published in 1916 that still finds wide acceptance and use is that of
DuBois and DuBois. Their model can be written:
SA ' a0 H 31 W "2 (Eqn. 6A-2)
where:
SA = surface area in square meters;
H = height in centimeters; and
W = weight in kg.
The values of a0 (0.007182), a., (0.725), and a2 (0.425) were estimated from a
sample of only nine individuals for whom surface area was directly measured. Boyd
(1935) stated that the Dubois formula was considered a reasonably adequate
substitute for measuring surface area. Nomograms for determining surface area from
height and mass presented in Volume I of the Geigy Scientific Tables (1981) are based
on the DuBois and DuBois formula. In addition, a computerized literature search
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Appendix 6A
conducted for this report identified several articles written in the last 10 years in which
the DuBois and DuBois formula was used to estimate body surface area.
Boyd (1935) developed new constants for the DuBois and DuBois model based
on 231 direct measurements of body surface area found in the literature. These data
were limited to measurements of surface area by coating methods (122 cases), surface
integration (93 cases), and triangulation (16 cases). The subjects were Caucasians of
normal body build for whom data on weight, height, and age (except for exact age of
adults) were complete. Resulting values for the constants in the DuBois and DuBois
model were a0 = 0.01787, a., = 0.500, and a2 = 0.4838. Boyd also developed a formula
based exclusively on weight, which was inferior to the DuBois and DuBois formula
based on height and weight.
Gehan and George (1970) proposed another set of constants for the DuBois and
DuBois model. The constants were based on a total of 401 direct measurements of
surface area, height, and weight of all postnatal subjects listed in Boyd (1935). The
methods used to measure these subjects were coating (163 cases), surface integration
(222 cases), and triangulation (16 cases).
Gehan and George (1970) used a least-squares method to identify the values of
the constants. The values of the constants chosen are those that minimize the sum of
the squared percentage errors of the predicted values of surface area. This approach
was used because the importance of an error of 0.1 square meter depends on the
surface area of the individual. Gehan and George (1970) used the 401 observations
summarized in Boyd (1935) in the least-squares method. The following estimates of
the constants were obtained: a0 = 0.02350, a., = 0.42246, and a2 = 0.51456. Hence,
their equation for predicting surface area (SA) is:
SA = 0.02350 H0-42246 W051456 (Eqn. 6A-3)
or in logarithmic form:
In SA= -3.75080 + 0.42246 In H + 0.51456 In W (Eqn. 6A-4)
where:
SA = surface area in square meters;
H = height in centimeters; and
W = weight in kg.
This prediction explains more than 99 percent of the variations in surface area
among the 401 individuals measured (Gehan and George, 1970).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Appendix 6A
The equation proposed by Gehan and George (1970) was determined by the
U.S. EPA (1985) as the best choice for estimating total body surface area. However,
the paper by Gehan and George gave insufficient information to estimate the standard
error about the regression. Therefore, the 401 direct measurements of children and
adults (i.e., Boyd, 1935) were reanalyzed in U.S. EPA (1985) using the formula of
Dubois and Dubois (1916) and the Statistical Processing System (SPS) software
package to obtain the standard error.
The Dubois and Dubois (1916) formula uses weight and height as independent
variables to predict total body surface area (SA), and can be written as:
= a0 Hia1 Wia2 e, (Eqn. 6A-5)
or in logarithmic form:
In (SA)j = In a0 + a. In H| + a2 In Vy + In et (Eqn. 6A-6)
where:
Sai = surface area of the i-th individual (m2);
Hi = height of the i-th individual (cm);
Wi = weight of the i-th individual (kg);
a0, a1; and a2 = parameters to be estimated; and
e, = a random error term with mean zero and constant variance.
Using the least squares procedure for the 401 observations, the following
parameter estimates and their standard errors were obtained:
a0 = -3.73(0.18), a, = 0.417 (0.054), a2 = 0.517 (0.022)
The model is then:
SA = 0.0239 H0-417 W0517 (Eqn. 6A-7)
or in logarithmic form:
In SA = -3.73 + 0.41 7 In H + 0.51 7 In W (Eqn. 6A-8)
with a standard error about the regression of 0.00374. This model explains more than
99 percent of the total variation in surface area among the observations, and is
identical to two significant figures with the model developed by Gehan and George
(1970).
Exposure Factors Handbook _ August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Appendix 6A
When natural logarithms of the measured surface areas are plotted against
natural logarithms of the surface predicted by the equation, the observed surface areas
are symmetrically distributed around a line of perfect fit, with only a few large
percentage deviations. Only five subjects differed from the measured value by 25
percent or more. Because each of the five subjects weighed less than 13 pounds, the
amount of difference was small. Eighteen estimates differed from measurements by 15
to 24 percent. Of these, 12 weighed less than 15 pounds each, 1 was overweight (5
feet 7 inches, 172 pounds), 1 was very thin (4 feet 11 inches, 78 pounds), and 4 were
of average build. Since the same observer measured surface area for these 4 subjects,
the possibility of some bias in measured values cannot be discounted (Gehan and
George 1970).
Gehan and George (1970) also considered separate constants for different age
groups: less than 5 years old, 5 years old to less than 20 years old, and greater than
20 years old. The different values for the constants are presented below:
Table 6A-1. Estimated Parameter Values for Different Age Intervals
Age Number a0 a.,
group of persons
All ages
<5 years old
> 5 - <20 years old
> 20 years oldl
401
229
42
30
0.02350
0.02667
0.03050
0.01545
0.42246
0.38217
0.35129
0.54468
a2
0.51456
0.53937
0.54375
0.46336
The surface areas estimated using the parameter values for all ages were
compared to surface areas estimated by the values for each age group for subjects at
the 3rd, 50th, and 97th percentiles of weight and height. Nearly all differences in
surface area estimates were less than 0.01 square meter, and the largest difference
was 0.03 m2 for an 18-year-old at the 97th percentile. The authors concluded that
there is no advantage in using separate values of a0, a1; and a2 by age interval.
Haycock et al. (1978) without knowledge of the work by Gehan and George
(1970), developed values for the parameters a0, a1; and a2 for the DuBois and DuBois
model. Their interest in making the DuBois and DuBois model more accurate resulted
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Appendix 6A
from their work in pediatrics and the fact that DuBois and DuBois (1916) included only
one child in their study group, a severely undernourished girl who weighed only 13.8
pounds at age 21 months. Haycock et al. (1978) used their own geometric method for
estimating surface area from 34 body measurements for 81 subjects. Their study
included newborn infants (10 cases), infants (12 cases), children (40 cases), and adult
members of the medical and secretarial staffs of 2 hospitals (19 cases). The subjects
all had grossly normal body structure, but the sample included subjects of widely
varying physique ranging from thin to obese. Black, Hispanic, and white children were
included in their sample. The values of the model parameters were solved for the
relationship between surface area and height and weight by multiple regression
analysis. The least squares best fit for this equation yielded the following values for the
three coefficients: a0 = 0.024265, a., = 0.3964, and a2 = 0.5378. The result was the
following equation for estimating surface area:
SA = 0.024265 H03964 W05378 (Eqn. 6A-9)
expressed logarithmically as:
In SA = In 0.024265 + 0.3964 In H + 0.5378 In W (Eqn. 6A-10)
The coefficients for this equation agree remarkably with those obtained by
Gehan and George (1970) for 401 measurements.
George et al. (1979) agree that a model more complex than the model of DuBois
and DuBois for estimating surface area is unnecessary. Based on samples of direct
measurements by Boyd (1935) and Gehan and George (1970), and samples of
geometric estimates by Haycock et al. (1978), these authors have obtained parameters
for the DuBois and DuBois model that are different than those originally postulated in
1916. The DuBois and DuBois model can be written logarithmically as:
In SA = In a0 + a.. In H + a2 In W (Eqn. 6A-11)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Appendix 6A
The values for a0, a1; and a2 obtained by the various authors discussed in this
section are presented to follow:
Table 6A-2. Summary of Surface Area Parameter Values for the DuBois and DuBois
Model
Author Number a0 a.,
(year) of persons
DuBois and DuBois (1916)
Boyd(1935)
Gehan and George (1970)
Haycock et al. (1978)
9
231
401
81
0.007184
0.01787
0.02350
0.024265
0.725
0.500
0.42246
0.3964
a2
0.425
0.4838
0.51456
0.5378
The agreement between the model parameters estimated by Gehan and George
(1970) and Haycock et al. (1978) is remarkable in view of the fact that Haycock et al.
(1978) were unaware of the previous work. Haycock et al. (1978) used an entirely
different set of subjects, and used geometric estimates of surface area rather than
direct measurements. It has been determined that the Gehan and George model is the
formula of choice for estimating total surface area of the body since it is based on the
largest number of direct measurements.
Nomograms
Sendroy and Cecchini (1954) proposed a graphical method whereby surface
area could be read from a diagram relating height and weight to surface area.
However, they do not give an explicit model for calculating surface area. The graph
was developed empirically based on 252 cases, 127 of which were from the 401 direct
measurements reported by Boyd (1935). In the other 125 cases the surface area was
estimated using the linear method of DuBois and DuBois (1916). Because the Sendroy
and Cecchini method is graphical, it is inherently less precise and less accurate than
the formulae of other authors discussed above.
Exposure Factors Handbook
August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 7 - Body Weight Studies
7. BODY WEIGHT STUDIES
There are several physiological factors needed to calculate potential exposures.
These include skin surface area (see Volume I, Section 6), inhalation rate (see Volume I,
Section 5) life expectancy (see Volume I, Section 8), and body weight. The average daily
dose is typically normalized to the average body weight of the exposed population. If
exposure occurs only during childhood years, the average child body weight during the
exposure period should be used to estimate risk (U.S. EPA, 1989). Conversely, if adult
exposures are being evaluated, an adult body weight value should be used.
The purpose of this section is to describe published studies on body weight for the
general U.S. population. The studies have been classified as either key or relevant
studies, based on the criteria described in Volume I, Section 1.3.1. Recommended values
are based on the results of key studies, but relevant studies are also presented to provide
the reader with added perspective on the current state of knowledge pertaining to body
weight.
7.1. KEY BODY WEIGHT STUDY
Ha mi II et al. (1979) - Physical Growth: National Center for Health Statistics
Percentiles - A National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Task Force that included
academic investigators and representatives from CDC Nutrition Surveillance Program
selected, collated, integrated, and defined appropriate data sets to generate growth curves
for the age interval: birth to 36 months developed (Hamill et al., 1979). The percentile
curves were for assessing the physical growth of children in the U.S. They are based on
accurate measurements made on large nationally representative samples of children
(Hamill et al., 1979). Smoothed percentile curves were derived for body weight by age
(Hamill et al., 1979). Curves were developed for boys and for girls. The data used to
construct the curves were provided by the Pels Research Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio.
These data were from an ongoing longitudinal study where anthromopetric data from direct
measurements are collected regularly from participants (~1,000) in various areas of the
U.S. The NCHS used advanced statistical and computer technology to generate the
growth curves. Table 7-1 presents the percentiles of weight by sex and age. Figures 7-1
and 7-2 present weight by age percentiles for boys and for girls aged birth to 36 months,
respectively. Limitations of this study are that mean body weight values were not reported
and the data are more than 15 years old. However, this study does provide body weight
data for infants less than 6 months old.
NCHS (1987) - Anthropometric Reference Data and Prevalence of Overweight, United
States, 1976-80 - Statistics on anthropometric measurements, including body weight, for
the U.S. population were collected by NCHS through the second National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II). NHANES II was conducted on a nationwide
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 7 - Body Weight Studies
probability sample of approximately 28,000 persons, aged 6 months to 74 years, from the
civilian, non-institutionalized population of the United States. Of the 28,000 persons,
20,322 were interviewed and examined, resulting in a response rate of 73.1 percent. The
survey began in February 1976 and was completed in February 1980. The sample was
selected so that certain subgroups thought to be at high risk of malnutrition (persons with
low incomes, preschool children, and the elderly) were oversampled. The estimates were
weighted to reflect national population estimates. The weighting was accomplished by
inflating examination results for each subject by the reciprocal of selection probabilities
adjusted to account for those who were not examined, and post stratifying by race, age,
andsex(NCHS, 1987).
The NHANES II collected standard body measurements of sample subjects, including
height and weight, that were made at various times of the day and in different seasons of
the year. This technique was used because one's weight may vary between winter and
summer and may fluctuate with recency of food and water intake and other daily activities
(NCHS, 1987). Mean body weights of adults, by age, and their standard deviations are
presented in Table 7-2 for men, women, and both sexes combined. Mean body weights
and standard deviations for children, ages 6 months to 19 years, are presented in Table
7-3 for boys, girls, and boys and girls combined. Percentile distributions of the body
weights of adults by age and race for males are presented in Table 7-4, and for females
in Table 7-5. Data for children by age are presented in Table 7-6 for males, and for
females in Table 7-7.
Results shown in Tables 7-4 and 7-5 indicate that the mean weight for adult males
is 78.1 kg and for adult females, 65.4 kg. It also shows that the mean weight for White
males (78.5 kg) is greater than for Black males (77.9 kg). Additionally, mean weights are
greater for Black females (71.2 kg) than for White females (64.8 kg). From Table 7-3, the
mean body weights for girls and boys are approximately the same from ages 6 months to
14 years. Starting at years 15-19, the difference in mean body weight ranges from 6 to 11
kg.
7.2. RELEVANT BODY WEIGHT STUDIES
Brainard and Burmaster (1992) - Bivariate Distributions for Height and Weight of Men
and Women in the United States - Brainard and Burmaster (1992) examined data on the
height and weight of adults published by the U.S. Public Health Service and fit bivariate
distributions to the tabulated values for men and women, separately.
Height and weight of 5,916 men and 6,588 women in the age range of 18 to 74 years
were taken from the NHANES II study and statistically adjusted to represent the U.S.
population aged 18 to 74 years with regard to age structure, sex, and race. Estimation
techniques were used to fit normal distributions to the cumulative marginal data and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 7 - Body Weight Studies
goodness-of-fit tests were used to test the hypothesis that height and lognormal weight
follow a normal distribution for each sex. It was found that the marginal distributions of
height and lognormal weight for both men and women are Gaussian (normal) in form. This
conclusion was reached by visual observation and the high R2 values for best-fit lines
obtained using linear regression. The R2 values for men's height and lognormal weight are
reported to be 0.999. The R2 values for women's height and lognormal weight are 0.999
and 0.985, respectively.
Brainard and Burmaster (1992) fit bivariate distributions to estimated numbers of men
and women aged 18 to 74 years in cells representing 1 inch height intervals and 10 pound
weight intervals. Adjusted height and lognormal weight data for men were fit to a single
bivariate normal distribution with an estimated mean height of 1.75 meters (69.2 inches)
and an estimated mean weight of 78.6 kg (173.2 pounds). For women, height and
lognormal weight data were fit to a pair of superimposed bivariate normal distributions
(Brainard and Burmaster, 1992). The average height and weight for women were
estimated from the combined bivariate analyses. Mean height for women was estimated
to be 1.62 meters (63.8 inches) and mean weight was estimated to be 65.8 kg (145.0
pounds). For women, a calculation using a single bivarite normal distribution gave poor
results (Brainard and Burmaster, 1992). According to Brainard and Burmaster, the
distributions are suitable for use in Monte Carlo simulation.
Burmaster et al. (1994) (Submitted 2/19/94 to Risk Analysis for Publication) -
Lognormal Distributions of Body Weight as a Function of Age for Female and Male
Children in the United States - Burmaster et al. (1994), performed data analysis to fit
normal and lognormal distributions to the body weights of female and male children at age
6 months to 20 years (Burmaster et al., 1994).
Data used in this analysis were from the second survey of the National Center for
Health Statistics, NHANES II, which included responses from 4,079 females and 4,379
males 6 months to 20 years of age in the U.S. (Burmaster et al., 1994). The NHANES II
data had been statistically adjusted for non-response and probability of selection, and
stratified by age, sex, and race to reflect the entire U.S. population prior to reporting
(Burmaster et al., 1994). Burmaster et al. (1994) conducted exploratory and quantitative
data analyses, and fit normal and lognormal distributions to percentiles of body weight for
children. Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) were plotted for female and male body
weights on both linear and logarithmic scales.
Two models were used to assess the probability density functions (PDFs) of
children's body weight. Linear and quadratic regression lines were fitted to the data. A
number of goodness-of-fit measures were conducted on data generated by the two
models. Burmaster et al. (1994) found that lognormal distributions give strong fits to the
body weights of children, ages 6 months to 20 years. Statistics for the lognormal
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 7 - Body Weight Studies
probability plots are presented in Tables 7-8 and 7-9. These data can be used for further
analyses of body weight distribution (i.e., application of Monte Carlo analysis).
AIHC - Exposure Factors Sourcebook - The Exposure Factors Sourcebook (AIHC,
1994) provides similar body weight data as presented here. Consistent with this
document, an average adult body weight of 72 kg is recommended on the basis of the
NHANES II data (NCHS, 1987). These data are also used to derive probability
distributions for adults and children. In addition, the Sourcebook presents probability
distributions derived by Brainard and Burmaster (1992), Versar (1991) and Brorby and
Finley (1993). For each distribution, the @Risk formula is provided for direct use in the
@Risk simulation software (Palisade, 1992). The organization of this document, makes
it very convenient to use in support of Monte Carlo analysis. The reviews of the supporting
studies are very brief with little analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. The
Sourcebook has been classified as a relevant rather than key study because it is not the
primary source for the data used to make recommendations in this document. The
Sourcebook is very similar to this document in the sense that it summarizes exposure
factor data and recommends values. As such, it is clearly relevant as an alternative
information source on body weights as well as other exposure factors.
7.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
The key studies described in this section was used in selecting recommended values
for body weight. The general description of both the key and relevant studies are
summarized in Table 7-10. The recommendations for body weight are summarized in
Table 7-11. Table 7-12 presents the confidence ratings for body weight recommendations.
The mean body weight for all adults (male and female, all age groups) combined is 71.8
kg as shown in Table 7-2. The mean values for each age group in Table 7-2 were derived
by adding the body weights for men and women and dividing by 2. If age and sex
distribution of the exposed population is known, the mean body weight values in Table 7-2
can be used. If percentile data are needed or if race is a factor, Tables 7-4 and 7-5 can be
used to select the appropriate data for percentiles or mean values.
For infants (birth to 6 months), appropriate values for body weight may be selected
from Table 7-1. These data (percentile only) are presented for male and female infants.
For children, appropriate mean values for weights may be selected from Table 7-3. If
percentile values are needed, these data are presented in Table 7-6 for male children and
in Table 7-7 for female children.
Body weight is a function of age, gender, and race and populations of many geographic
regions may vary from the general population across geographic regions. Therefore, the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 7 - Body Weight Studies
user should make appropriate adjustments when applying the percentiles to other
geographic regions.
The mean recommended value for adults (71.8 kg) is different than the 70 kg commonly
assumed in EPA risk assessments. Assessors are encouraged to use values which most
accurately reflect the exposed population. When using values other than 70 kg, however,
the assessors should consider if the dose estimate will be used to estimate risk by
combining with a dose-response relationship which was derived assuming a body weight
of 70 kg. If such an inconsistency exists, the assessor should adjust the dose-response
relationship as described in the appendix to Chapter 1. The Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) does not use a 70 kg body weight assumption in the derivation of RfCs and
RfDs, but does make this assumption in the derivation of cancer slope factors and unit
risks.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 8 - Lifetime
8. LIFETIME
The length of an individual's life is an important factor to consider when evaluating
cancer risk because the dose estimate is averaged over an individual's lifetime. Since the
averaging time is found in the denominator of the dose equation, a shorter lifetime would
result in a higher potential risk estimate, and conversely, a longer life expectancy would
produce a lower potential risk estimate.
8.1. KEY STUDY ON LIFETIME
Statistical data on life expectancy are published annually by the U.S. Department of
Commerce in the publication: "Statistical Abstract of the United States." The latest year
for which statistics are available is 1993. Available data on life expectancies for various
subpopulations born in the years 1970 to 1993 are presented in Table 8-1. Data for 1993
show that the life expectancy for an average person born in the United States in 1993 is
75.5 years (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995). The table shows that the overall life
expectancy has averaged approximately 75 years since 1982. The average life
expectancy for males in 1993 was 72.1 years, and 78.9 years for females. The data
consistently show an approximate 7 years difference in life expectancy for males and
females from 1970 to present. Table 8-1 also indicates that life expectancy for white males
(73.0 years) is consistently longer than for Black males (64.7 years). Additionally, it
indicates that life expectancy for White females (79.5 years) is longer than for Black
females (73.7), a difference of almost 6 years. Table 8-2 presents data for expectation of
life for persons who were at a specific age in year 1990. These data are available by age,
gender, and race and may be useful for deriving exposure estimates based on the age of
a specific subpopulation. The data show that expectation of life is longer for females and
for Whites.
8.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Current data suggest that 75 years would be an appropriate value to reflect the
average life expectancy of the general population and is the recommended value. If
gender is a factor considered in the assessment, note that the average life expectancy
value for females is higher than for males. It is recommended that the assessor use the
appropriate value of 72.1 years for males or 78.9 years for females. If race is a
consideration in assessing exposure for male individuals, note that the life expectancy is
about 8 years longer for Whites than for Blacks. It is recommended that the assessor use
the values of 73 years and 64.7 years for White males and Black males, respectively.
Table 8-3 presents the confidence rating for life expectancy recommendations.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume I - General Factors
Chapter 8 - Lifetime
This recommended value is different than the 70 years commonly assumed for the
general population in EPA risk assessments. Assessors are encouraged to use values
which most accurately reflect the exposed population. When using values other than 70
years, however, the assessors should consider if the dose estimate will be used to
estimate risk by combining with a dose-response relationship which was derived assuming
a lifetime of 70 years. If such an inconsistency exists, the assessor should adjust the
dose-response relationship by multiplying by (lifetime/70). The Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) does not use a 70 year lifetime assumption in the derivation of RfCs and
RfDs, but does make this assumption in the derivation of some cancer slope factors or unit
risks.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
9. INTAKE OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
9.1. BACKGROUND
Ingestion of contaminated fruits and vegetables is a potential pathway of human
exposure to toxic chemicals. Fruits and vegetables may become contaminated with toxic
chemicals by several different pathways. Ambient pollutants from the air may be deposited
on or absorbed by the plants, or dissolved in rainfall or irrigation waters that contact the
plants. Pollutants may also be absorbed through plant roots from contaminated soil and
ground water. The addition of pesticides, soil additives, and fertilizers may also result in
food contamination.
The primary source of information on consumption rates of fruits and vegetables
among the United States population is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) and the USDA Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). Data from the NFCS have been used in various studies to
generate consumer-only and per capita intake rates for both individual fruits and
vegetables and total fruits and total vegetables. CSFII data from the 1989-1991 survey
have been analyzed by EPA to generate per capita intake rates for various food items and
food groups.
Consumer-only intake is defined as the quantity of fruits and vegetables consumed
by individuals who ate these food items during the survey period. Per capita intake rates
are generated by averaging consumer-only intakes over the entire population of users and
non-users. In general, per capita intake rates are appropriate for use in exposure
assessment for which average dose estimates for the general population are of interest
because they represent both individuals who ate the foods during the survey period and
individuals who may eat the food items at some time, but did not consume them during the
survey period. Total fruit intake refers to the sum of all fruits consumed in a day including
canned, dried, frozen, and fresh fruits. Likewise, total vegetable intake refers to the sum
of all vegetables consumed in a day including canned, dried, frozen, and fresh vegetables.
For the purposes of this handbook, the distinctions between fruits and vegetables are
those commonly used, not the botanical definitions. For example, in this report, tomatoes
are considered vegetables, although technically they are fruits.
Intake rates may be presented on either an as consumed or dry weight basis. As
consumed intake rates (g/day) are based on the weight of the food in the form that it is
consumed. In contrast, dry weight intake rates are based on the weight of the food
consumed after the moisture content has been removed. In calculating exposures based
on ingestion, the unit of weight used to measure intake should be consistent with those
used in measuring the contaminant concentration in the produce. Intake data from the
individual component of the NFCS and CSFII are based on "as eaten" (i.e., cooked or
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
prepared) forms of the food items/groups. Thus, corrections to account for changes in
portion sizes from cooking losses are not required.
Estimating source-specific exposures to toxic chemicals in fruits and vegetables may
also require information on the amount of fruits and vegetables that are exposed to or
protected from contamination as a result of cultivation practices or the physical nature of
the food product itself (i.e., those having protective coverings that are removed before
eating would be considered protected), or the amount grown beneath the soil (i.e., most
root crops such as potatoes). The percentages of foods grown above and below ground
will be useful when the concentrations of contaminants in foods are estimated from
concentrations in soil, water, and air. For example, vegetables grown below ground may
be more likely to be contaminated by soil pollutants, but leafy above ground vegetables
may be more likely to be contaminated by deposition of air pollutants on plant surfaces.
The purpose of this section is to provide: (1) intake data for individual fruits and
vegetables, and total fruits and total vegetables; (2) guidance for converting between as
consumed and dry weight intake rates; and (3) intake data for exposed and protected fruits
and vegetables and those grown below ground. Recommendations are based on average
and upper-percentile intake among the general population of the U.S. Available data have
been classified as being either a key or a relevant study based on the considerations
discussed in Volume I, Section 1.3.1 of the Introduction. Recommendations are based on
data from the CSFII 1989-1991 survey, which was considered the only key intake study
for fruits and vegetables. Other relevant studies are also presented to provide the reader
with added perspective on this topic. It should be noted that many of the relevant studies
are based on data from USDA's MFCS and CSFII. The USDA MFCS and CSFII are
described below.
9.2. INTAKE STUDIES
9.2.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Nationwide Food Consumption Survey
and Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
USDA conducts the MFCS approximately every 10 years. The three most recent
NFCSs were conducted in 1965-66, 1977-78, and 1987-88. The purpose of these surveys
was to "analyze the food consumption behavior and dietary status of Americans"
(USDA, 1992a). The survey uses a statistical sampling technique designed to ensure that
all seasons, geographic regions of the U.S., and demographic and socioeconomic groups
are represented. There are two components of the MFCS. The household component
collects information on the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of households,
and the types, value, and sources of foods consumed over a 7-day period. The individual
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
component collects information on food intakes of individuals within each household over
a 3-day period (USDA, 1992b).
The same basic survey design was used for the three most recent NFCSs, but the
sample sizes and statistical classifications used were somewhat different (USDA, 1992a).
In 1965-66, 10,000 households were surveyed (USDA, 1972). The sample size increased
to 15,000 households (over 36,000 individuals) in 1977-78, but decreased to 4,500
households in 1987-88 because of budgetary constraints and a low response rate (37
percent). Data from the 1977-78 MFCS are presented in this handbook because the data
have been published by USDA in various publications and reanalyzed by various EPA
offices according to the food items/groups commonly used to assess exposure. Published
1-day data from the 1987-88 MFCS data are also presented.
USDA also conducts the Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals. The
purpose of the survey is to "assess food consumption behavior and nutritional content of
diets for policy implications relating to food production and marketing, food safety, food
assistance, and nutrition education" (USDA, 1995). An EPA analysis of the 1989-91 CSFII
data set is presented in this handbook. During 1989 through 1991, over 15,000 individuals
participated in the CSFII (USDA, 1995). Using a stratified sampling technique, individuals
of all ages living in selected households in the 48 conterminous states and Washington,
D.C. were surveyed. Individuals provided 3 consecutive days of data, including a personal
interview on the first day followed by 2-day dietary records. The 3-day response rate for
the 1989-91 CSFII was approximately 45 percent. Published 1-day data from the 1994
and 1995 CSFII are also presented. The 1994 and 1995 CSFII included data for 2 non-
consecutive survey days (although 2 days of data have been collected, only data for the
first survey day have been analyzed and published by USDA). Over 5,500 individuals
participated in these surveys (USDA, 1996a; 1996b).
Individual average daily intake rates calculated from MFCS and CSFII data are based
on averages of reported individual intakes over one day or three consecutive days. Such
short term data are suitable for estimating mean average daily intake rates representative
of both short-term and long-term consumption. However, the distribution of average daily
intake rates generated using short term data (e.g., 3 day) do not necessarily reflect the
long-term distribution of average daily intake rates. The distributions generated from short
term and long term data will differ to the extent that each individual's intake varies from day
to day; the distributions will be similar to the extent that individuals' intakes are constant
from day to day.
Day to day variation in intake among individuals will be great for food item/groups that
are highly seasonal and for items/groups that are eaten year around but that are not
typically eaten every day. For these foods, the intake distribution generated from short
term data will not be a good reflection of the long term distribution. On the other hand, for
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
broad categories of foods (e.g., vegetables) which are eaten on a daily basis throughout
the year with minimal seasonality, the short term distribution may be a reasonable
approximation of the true long term distribution, although it will show somewhat more
variability. In this and the following section, distributions are shown only for the following
broad categories of foods: fruits, vegetables, meats and dairy. Because of the increased
variability of the short-term distribution, the short-term upper percentiles shown here will
overestimate somewhat the corresponding percentiles of the long-term distribution.
9.2.2. Key Fruits and Vegetables Intake Study Based on the USDA CSFII
U.S. EPA Analysis of USDA 1989-91 CSFII Data - EPA analyzed three years of data
from USDA's CSFII to generate distributions of intake rates for various fruit and vegetable
items/groups. Data from the 1989, 1990, and 1991 CFSII were combined into a single
data set to increase the number of observations available for analysis. Approximately
15,000 individuals provided intake data over the three survey years. The fruit and
vegetable items/groups selected for this analysis included total fruits and total vegetables;
individual fruits such as: apples, peaches, pears, strawberries, and other berries; individual
vegetables such as: asparagus, beets, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, corn, cucumbers,
lettuce, lima beans, okra, onions, peas, peppers, pumpkin, snap beans, tomatoes, and
white potatoes; fruits and vegetables categorized as exposed, protected and roots; and
various USDA categories (i.e., citrus and other fruits, and dark green, deep yellow, and
other vegetables). These fruit and vegetable categories were selected to be consistent
with those evaluated in the homegrown food analysis presented in Chapter 13. Intake
rates of total vegetables, tomatoes, and white potatoes were adjusted to account for the
amount of these food items eaten as meat and grain mixtures as described in Appendix
9A. Food items/groups were identified in the CSFII data base according to USDA-defined
food codes. Appendix 9B presents the codes used to determine the various food groups.
Intake rates for these food items/groups represent intake of all forms of the product (i.e.,
home produced and commercially produced).
Individual identifiers in the database were used throughout the analysis to categorize
populations according to demographics. These identifiers included identification number,
region, urbanization, age, sex, race, body weight, weighting factor, season, and number
of days that data were reported. Distributions of intake were determined for individuals
who provided data for all three days of the survey. Individuals who did not provide
information on body weight, or for which identifying information was unavailable, were
excluded from the analysis. Three-day average intake rates were calculated for all
individuals in the database for each of the food items/groups. These average daily intake
rates were divided by each individual's reported body weight to generate intake rates in
units of g/kg-day. The data were also weighted according to the three-day weights
provided in the 1991 CSFII. USDA sample weights are calculated to account for inherent
biases in the sample selection process, and to adjust the sample population to reflect the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
national population. Summary statistics for individual intake rates were generated on a
per capita basis. That is, both users and non-users of the food item were included in the
analysis. Mean consumer only intake rates may be calculated by dividing the mean per
capita intake rate by the percent of the population consuming the food item of interest.
Summary statistics included are: number of weighted and unweighted observations,
percentage of the population using the food item/group being analyzed, mean intake rate,
standard error, and percentiles of the intake rate distribution (i.e., 0, 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75,
90, 95, 99, and 100th percentile). Data were provided for the total population using the
food item being evaluated and for several demographic groups including: various age
groups (i.e., <1, 1-2, 3-5, 6-11, 12-19, 20-39, 40-69, and 70+years); regions (i.e., Midwest,
Northeast, South, and West); urbanizations (i.e., Central City, Nonmetropolitan, and
Suburban; seasons (i.e., winter, spring, summer, and fall); and races (i.e., White, Black,
Asian, Native American, and other). Table 9-1 provides the codes, definitions, and a
description of the data in these categories. The total numbers of individuals in the data
set, by demographic group are presented in Table 9-2. The food analysis was
accomplished using the SAS statistical programming system (SAS, 1990).
The results of this analysis are presented in Tables 9-3 and 9-4 for total fruits and
total vegetables, Table 9-5 for individual fruits and vegetables, and Table 9-6 for the
various USDA categories. The data for exposed/protected and root food items are
presented in Tables 9-7 through 9-11. These tables are presented at the end of this
Chapter. The results are presented in units of g/kg-day. Thus, use of these data in
calculating potential dose does not require the body weight factor to be included in the
denominator of the average daily dose (ADD) equation. It should be noted that converting
these intake rates into units of g/day by multiplying by a single average body weight is
inappropriate, because individual intake rates were indexed to the reported body weights
of the survey respondents. However, if there is a need to compare the intake data
presented here to intake data in units of g/day, a body weight less than 70 kg (i.e.,
approximately 60 kg; calculated based on the number of respondents in each age category
and the average body weights for these age groups, as presented in Chapter 7 of Volume
I) should be used because the total survey population included children as well as adults.
The advantages of using the 1989-91 CSFII data set are that the data are expected
to be generally representative of the U.S. population and that it includes data on a wide
variety of food types. However, it should be noted that the survey covers only the 48
coterminous U.S. States; Hawaii, Alaska, and U.S. Territories are not included. The data
set was the most recent of a series of publicly available USDA data sets (i.e., NFCS 1977-
78; NFCS 1987-88; CSFII 1989-91) at the time that EPA conducted the analysis for this
handbook, and should reflect recent eating patterns in the United States. The data set
includes three years of intake data combined. However, the 1989-91 CSFII data are
based on a three day survey period. Short-term dietary data may not accurately reflect
long-term eating patterns. This is particularly true for the tails (extremes) of the distribution
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
of food intake. In addition, the adjustment for including mixtures adds uncertainty to the
intake rate distributions. The calculation for including mixtures assumes that intake of any
mixture includes all of the foods identified in Appendix Table 9A-1 in the proportions
specified in that table. This may under- or over-estimate intake of certain foods among
some individuals.
The data presented in this handbook for the USDA 1989-91 CSFII is not the most up-
to-date information on food intake. USDA has recently made available the data from its
1994 and 1995 CSFII. Over 5,500 people nationwide participated in both of these surveys,
providing recalled food intake information for 2 separate days. Although the 2-day data
analysis has not been conducted, USDA published the results for the respondents' intakes
on the first day surveyed (USDA, 1996a; 1996b). USDA 1996 survey data will be made
available later in 1997. As soon as 1996 data are available, EPA will take steps to get the
3-year data (1994, 1995, and 1996) analyzed and the food ingestion factors updated.
Meanwhile, Table 9-12 presents a comparison of the mean daily intakes per individual in
a day for fruits and vegetables from the USDA survey data from years 1977-78, 19887-88,
1989-91, 1994, and 1995. This table shows that food consumption patterns have changed
for fruits when comparing 1977 and 1995 data. Consumption of fruits increased by 72
percent, but vegetable intake remained relatively constant, when comparing data from
1977 and 1995. However, only an 11 percent increase was observed when comparing fruit
intake values from 1989-91 with the most recent data from 1994 and 1995. This indicates
that the 1989-91 CSFII data are probably adequate for assessing ingestion exposure for
current populations.
9.2.3. Relevant Fruits and Vegetables Intake Studies
The U.S. EPA's Dietary Risk Evaluation System (ORES) - USEPA, Office of Pesticide
Programs - The U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) uses the Dietary Risk
Evaluation System (formerly the Tolerance Assessment System) to assess the dietary risk
of pesticide use as part of the pesticide registration process. OPP sets tolerances for
specific pesticides on raw agricultural commodities based on estimates of dietary risk.
These estimates are calculated using pesticide residue data for the food item of concern
and relevant consumption data. Intake rates are based primarily on the USDA 1977-78
MFCS although intake rates for some food items are based on estimations from production
volumes or other data (i.e., some items were assigned an arbitrary value of 0.000001 g/kg-
day) (Kariya, 1992). OPP has calculated per capita intake rates of individual fruits and
vegetables for 22 subgroups (age, regional, and seasonal) of the population by
determining the composition of MFCS food items and disaggregating complex food dishes
into their component raw agricultural commodities (RACs) (White et al., 1983).
The ORES per capita, as consumed intake rates for all age/sex/demographic groups
combined are presented in Table 9-13. These data are based on both consumers and non
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
consumers of these food items. Data for specific subgroups of the population are not
presented here, but are available through OPP via direct request. The data in Table 9-13
may be useful for estimating the risks of exposure associated with the consumption of
individual fruits and vegetables. It should be noted that these data are indexed to the
reported body weights of the survey respondents and are expressed in units of grams of
food consumed per kg bodyweight per day. Consequently, use of these data in calculating
potential dose does not require the body weight factor in the denominator of the ADD
equation. It should also be noted that conversion of these intake rates into units of g/day
by multiplying by a single average body weight is not appropriate because the ORES data
base did not rely on a single body weight for all individuals. Instead, ORES used the body
weights reported by each individual surveyed to estimate consumption in units of g/kg-day.
The advantages of using these data are that complex food dishes have been
disaggregated to provide intake rates for a very large number of fruits and vegetables.
These data are also based on the individual body weights of the respondents. Therefore,
the use of these data in calculating exposure to toxic chemicals may provide more
representative estimates of potential dose per unit body weight. However, because the
data are based on MFCS short-term dietary recall the same limitations discussed
previously for other MFCS data sets also apply here. In addition, consumption patterns
may have changed since the data were collected in 1977-78. OPP is in the process of
translating consumption information from the USDA CSFII 1989-91 survey to be used in
ORES.
Food and Nutrient Intakes of Individuals in One Day in the U.S., USDA (1980, 1992b,
1996a, 1996b) - USDA calculated mean intake rates for total fruits and total vegetables
using MFCS data from 1977-78 and 1987-88 (USDA, 1980; USDA, 1992b) and CSFII data
from 1994 and 1995 (USDA, 1996a; 1996b). The mean per capita total intake rates are
presented in Tables 9-14 and 9-15 for fruits and Tables 9-16 and 9-17 for vegetables.
These values are based on intake data for one day from the 1977-78 and 1987-88 USDA
NFCSs, respectively. Data from both surveys are presented here to demonstrate that
although the 1987-88 survey had fewer respondents, the mean per capita intake rates for
all individuals are in good agreement with the earlier survey. Also, slightly different age
classifications were used in the two surveys providing a wider range of age categories
from which exposure assessors may select appropriate intake rates. Tables 9-18 and 9-19
present similar data from the 1994 and 1995 CSFII. The age groups used in this data set
are the same as those used in the 1987-88 MFCS. Tables 9-14 through 9-19 include both
per capita intake rates and intake rates for consumers-only for various ages of individuals.
Intake rates for consumers-only were calculated by dividing the per capita consumption
rate by the fraction of the population using vegetables or fruits in a day. The average per
capita vegetable intake rate is 201 g/day based on the 1977-78 data (USDA, 1980), 182
g/day based on the 1987-88 data (USDA, 1992b), 186 g/day based on the 1994 data, and
188 g/day based on the 1995 data. For fruits the average per capita intake rate is 142
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
g/day based on the two most recent USDA NFCSs (USDA, 1980; USDA, 1992b), and 171
g/day and 173 g/day based on the 1994 and 1995 CSFII, respectively (USDA, 1996a,
1996b). One-day per capita intake data for fats or oils from the 1994 and 1995 CSFII
surveys are presented in Table 9-20. This total fats and oils food category includes table
and cooking fats, vegetable oils, salad dressings, nondairy cream substitutes, and sauces
such as tartar sauce that are mainly fat or oil (USDA, 1996a). It does not include oils or
fats that were ingredients in food mixtures.
The advantages of using these data are that they provide intake estimates for all
fruits, all vegetables, or all fats combined. Again, these estimates are based on one-day
dietary data which may not reflect usual consumption patterns.
U.S. EPA - Office of Radiation Programs - The U.S. EPA Office of Radiation Programs
(ORP) has also used the USDA 1977-78 MFCS to estimate daily food intake (U.S. EPA,
1984a; 1984b). ORP uses food consumption data to assess human intake of
radionuclides in foods. The 1977-78 MFCS data have been reorganized by ORP, and
food items have been classified according to the characteristics of radionuclide transport.
Data for selected agricultural products are presented in Table 9-21 and Table 9-22. These
data represent per capita, as consumed intake rates for total, leafy, exposed, and
protected produce. Exposed produce refers to products (e.g., apples, pears, berries, etc.)
that can intercept atmospherically deposited materials. The term protected refers to
products (e.g., citrus fruit, carrots, corn, etc.) that are protected from deposition from the
atmosphere. Although the fruit and vegetable classifications used in the study are
somewhat limited in number, they provide alternative food categories that may be useful
to exposure assessors. Because this study was based on the USDA MFCS, the limitations
discussed previously regarding short-term dietary recall data also apply to the intake rates
reported here. Also, consumption patterns may have changed since the data were
collected in 1977-78.
U.S. EPA - Office of Science and Technology - The U.S. EPA Office of Science and
Technology (OST) within the Office of Water (formerly the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards) used data from the FDA revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists and Diets
(Pennington, 1983) to calculate food intake rates (U.S. EPA, 1989). OST uses these
consumption data in its risk assessment model for land application of municipal sludge.
The FDA data used are based on the combined results of the USDA 1977-78, MFCS and
the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II), 1976-80
(U.S. EPA, 1989). Because food items are listed as prepared complex foods in the FDA
Total Diet Study, each item was broken down into its component parts so that the amount
of raw commodities consumed could be determined. Table 9-23 presents intake rates of
various fruit and vegetable categories for various age groups and estimated lifetime
ingestion rates that have been derived by U.S. EPA. Note that these are per capita intake
rates tabulated as grams dry weight/day. Therefore, these rates differ from those in the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
previous tables because U.S. EPA (1984a, 1984b) report intake rates on an as consumed
basis.
The EPA-OST analysis provides intake rates for additional food categories and
estimates of lifetime average daily intake on a per capita basis. In contrast to the other
analyses of USDA MFCS data, this study reports the data in terms of dry weight intake
rates. Thus, conversion is not required when contaminants are to be estimated on a dry
weight basis. These data, however, may not reflect current consumption patterns because
they are based on data from 1977-78.
Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare Nutrition Canada Survey - The
Nutrition Canada Survey was conducted between 1970 and 1972 to "(a) examine the mean
consumption of selected food groups and their contribution to nutrient intakes of
Canadians, (b) examine patterns of food consumption and nutrient intake at various times
of the day, and provide information on the changes in eating habits during pregnancy."
(Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare, n.d.). The method used for
collecting dietary intake data was 24-hour recall. The recall method relied on interview
techniques in which the interviewee was asked to recall all foods and beverages
consumed during the day preceding the interview. Intake rates were reported for various
age/sex groups of the population and for pregnant women (Table 9-24). The report does
not specify whether the values represent per capita or consumer-only intake rates.
However, they appear to be consistent with the as consumed intake rates for consumers-
only reported by USDA (1980, 1992b). It should be noted that these data are also based
on short-term dietary recall and are based on the Canadian population.
USDA (1993) - Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-92 - The USDA's
Economic Research Service (ERS) calculates the amount of food available for human
consumption in the United States on an annual basis (USDA, 1993). Supply and utilization
balance sheets are generated, based on the flow of food items from production to end
uses for the years 1970 to 1992. Total available supply is estimated as the sum of
production and imports (USDA, 1993). The availability of food for human use commonly
termed as "food disappearance" is determined by subtracting exported foods from the total
available supply (USDA, 1993). USDA (1993) calculates the per capita food consumption
by dividing the total food disappearance by the total U.S. population. USDA (1993)
estimated per capita consumption data for various fruit and vegetable products from 1970-
1992 (1992 data are published). In this section, the 1991 values, which are the most
recent published final data, are presented. Retail weight per capita data are presented in
Table 9-25. These data have been derived from the annual per capita values in units of
pounds per year, presented by USDA (1993), by converting to units of g/day.
One of the limitations of this study is that disappearance data do not account for
losses from the food supply from waste or spoilage. As a result, intake rates based on
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
these data may overestimate daily consumption because they are based on the total
quantity of marketable commodity utilized. Thus, these data represent bounding estimates
of intake rates only. It should also be noted that per capita estimates based on food
disappearance are not a direct measure of actual consumption or quantity ingested,
instead the data are used as indicators of changes in usage over time (USDA, 1993). An
advantage of this study is that it provides per capita consumption rates for fruits and
vegetables that are representative of long-term intake because disappearance data are
generated annually.
AIHC, 1994 - Exposure Factors Sourcebook - The AIHC Sourcebook (AIHC, 1994)
uses the data presented in the 1989 version of the Exposure Factors Handbook which
reported data from the USDA 1977-78 MFCS. Distributions are provided in the @Risk
format and the @Risk formula is also provided. In this handbook, new analyses of more
recent data from the USDA 1989-91 CSFII are presented. Numbers, however, cannot be
directly compared with previous values since the results from the new analysis are
presented on a body weight basis.
The Sourcebook was classified as a relevant study because it was not the primary
source for the data to make recommendations in this document. However, it can be used
as an alternative source of information.
The advantage of using the CSFII and USDA MFCS data sets are that they are the
largest publicly available data source on food intake patterns in the United States. Data
are available for a wide variety of fruit and vegetable products and are intended to be
representative of the U.S. population.
9.2.4. Relevant Fruits and Vegetables Serving Size Study Based on the USDA
MFCS
Pao et al. (1982) - Foods Commonly Eaten by Individuals - Using data gathered in
the 1977-78 USDA MFCS, Pao et al. (1982) calculated distributions for the quantities of
individual fruit and vegetables consumed per eating occasion by members of the U.S.
population (i.e., serving sizes), over a 3-day period. The data were collected during MFCS
home interviews of 37,874 respondents, who were asked to recall food intake for the day
preceding the interview, and record food intake the day of the interview and the day after
the interview.
Serving size data are presented on an as consumed (g/day) basis. The data
presented in Table 9-26 are for all ages of the population, combined. If age-specific intake
data are needed, refer to Pao et al. (1982). Although serving size data only are presented
in this handbook, percentiles for the average quantities of individual fruits and vegetables
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
consumed by members of the U.S. population who had consumed these fruits and
vegetables over a 3-day period can be found in Pao et al. (1982).
The advantages of using these data are that they were derived from the USDA MFCS
and are representative of the U.S. population. This data set provides serving size
distributions for a number of commonly eaten fruits and vegetables, but the list of foods
is limited and does not account for fruits and vegetables included in complex food dishes.
Also, these data represent the quantity of fruits and vegetables consumed per eating
occasion. Although these estimates are based on USDA MFCS 1977-78 data, serving
size data have been collected but not published for the more recent USDA surveys. These
estimates may be useful for assessing acute exposures to contaminants in specific foods,
or other assessments where the amount consumed per eating occasion is necessary.
However, it should be noted that serving sizes may have changed since the data were
collected in 1977-78.
9.2.5. Conversion Between As Consumed and Dry Weight Intake Rates
As noted previously, intake rates may be reported in terms of units as consumed or
units of dry weight. It is essential that exposure assessors be aware of this difference so
that they may ensure consistency between the units used for intake rates and those used
for concentration data (i.e., if the unit of food consumption is grams dry weight/day, then
the unit for the amount of pollutant in the food should be grams dry weight).
If necessary, as consumed intake rates may be converted to dry weight intake rates
using the moisture content percentages presented in Table 9-27 and the following
equation:
IRdw=IRac*[(100-W)/100] (Eqn.9-1)
"Dry weight" intake rates may be converted to "as consumed" rates by using:
IRac = IRdw/[(100-W)/100] (Eqn.9-2)
where:
IRdw = dry weight intake rate;
IRar, = as consumed intake rate; and
dU '
W = percent water content.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
9.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1989-91 CSFII data described in this section were used in selecting
recommended fruit and vegetable intake rates for the general population and various
subgroups of the United States population. The general design of both key and relevant
studies are summarized in Table 9-28. Table 9-29 presents a summary of the
recommended values for fruit and vegetable intake and Table 9-30 presents the
confidence ratings for the fruit and vegetable intake recommendations. Based on the
CSFI11989-91, the recommended per capita fruit intake rate for the general population is
3.4 g/kg-day and the recommended per capita vegetable intake rate for the general
population is 4.3 g/kg-day. Per capita intake rates for specific food items, on a g/kg-day
basis, may be obtained from Table 9-5. Percentiles of the per capita intake rate
distribution in the general population for total fruits and total vegetables are presented in
Tables 9-3 and 9-4. From these tables, the 95th percentile intake rates for fruits and
vegetables are 12 g/kg-day and 10 g/kg-day, respectively. It is important to note that the
distributions presented in Tables 9-3 through 9-4 are based on data collected over a 3-day
period and may not necessarily reflect the long-term distribution of average daily intake
rates. However, for these broad categories of food (i.e., total fruits and total vegetables),
because they are eaten on a daily basis throughout the year with minimal seasonality, the
short term distribution may be a reasonable approximation of the long-term distribution,
although it will display somewhat increased variability. This implies that the upper
percentiles shown here will tend to overestimate the corresponding percentiles of the true
long-term distribution. Intake rates for the home-produced form of these fruit and
vegetable products are presented in Volume II, Chapter 13. It should be noted that
because these recommendations are based on 1989-91 CSFII data, they may not reflect
the most recent changes that may have occurred in consumption patterns. However, as
indicated in Table 9-12, intake has remained fairly constant between 1989-91 and 1995.
Thus, the 1989-91 CSFII data are believed to be appropriate for assessing ingestion
exposure for current populations.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Appendix 9A
APPENDIX 9A
CALCULATIONS USED IN THE 1989-91 CSFII ANALYSIS TO CORRECT FOR
MIXTURES
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Appendix 9A
APPENDIX 9A
Calculations Used in the 1989-91 CSFII Analysis to Correct for Mixtures
Distributions of intake for various food groups were generated for the food/items
groups using the USDA 1989-91 CSFII data set as described in Sections 9.2.2. and 11.1.2.
However, several of the food categories used did not include meats, dairy products, and
vegetables that were eaten as mixtures with other foods. Thus, adjusted intake rates were
calculated for food items that were identified by USDA (1995) as comprising a significant
portion of grain and meat mixtures. To account for the amount of these foods consumed
as mixtures, the mean fractions of total meat or grain mixtures represented by these food
items were calculated (Table 9A-1) using Appendix C of USDA (1995). Mean values for
all individuals were used to calculate these fractions. These fractions were multiplied by
each individual's intake rate for total meat mixtures or grain mixtures to calculate the
amount of the individual's food mixture intake that can be categorized into one of the
selected food groups. These amounts were then added to the total intakes rates for
meats, grains, total vegetables, tomatoes, and white potatoes to calculate an individual's
total intake of these food groups, as shown in the example for meats below.
IR ,. ,. t ' (IR .t ( Fr „ ) % (IR t ., ( Fr t. ,) % (IR ,)
meat&iaajustea v gr mixtures v meatlgr' v mf mixtures v meatlmv v meat'
where:
'^meat-adjusted = adjusted individual intake rate for total meat;
= individual intake rate for grain mixtures;
= individual intake rate for meat mixtures;
IRmeat = individual intake rate for meats;
Frmeat/gr = fraction of grain mixture that is meat; and
Frmeat/mt = fraction of meat mixture that is meat.
Population distributions for mixture-adjusted intakes were based on adjusted intake rates
for the population of interest.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
10. INTAKE OF FISH AND SHELLFISH
10.1. BACKGROUND
Contaminated finfish and shellfish are potential sources of human exposure to toxic
chemicals. Pollutants are carried in the surface waters, but also may be stored and
accumulated in the sediments as a result of complex physical and chemical processes.
Consequently, finfish and shellfish are exposed to these pollutants and may become
sources of contaminated food.
Accurately estimating exposure to a toxic chemical among a population that
consumes fish from a polluted water body requires an estimation of intake rates of the
caught fish by both fishermen and their families. Commercially caught fish are marketed
widely, making the prediction of an individual's consumption from a particular commercial
source difficult. Since the catch of recreational and subsistence fishermen is not "diluted"
in this way, these individuals and their families represent the population that is most
vulnerable to exposure by intake of contaminated fish from a specific location.
This section focuses on intake rates of fish. Note that in this section the term fish
refers to both finfish and shellfish. The following subsections address intake rates for the
general population, and recreational and subsistence fishermen. Data are presented for
intake rates for both marine and freshwater fish, when available. The available studies
have been classified as either key or relevant based on the guidelines given in Volume I,
Section 1.3. Recommended intake rates are based on the results of key studies, but other
relevant studies are also presented to provide the reader with added perspective on the
current state-of-knowledge pertaining to fish intake.
Survey data on fish consumption have been collected using a number of different
approaches which need to be considered in interpreting the survey results. Generally,
surveys are either "creel" studies in which fishermen are interviewed while fishing, or
broader population surveys using either mailed questionnaires or phone interviews. Both
types of data can be useful for exposure assessment purposes, but somewhat different
applications and interpretations are needed. In fact, results from creel studies have often
been misinterpreted, due to inadequate knowledge of survey principles. Below, some basic
facts about survey design are presented, followed by an analysis of the differences
between creel and population based studies.
The typical survey seeks to draw inferences about a larger population from a smaller
sample of that population. This larger population, from which the survey sample is to be
taken and to which the results of the survey are to be generalized, is denoted the target
population of the survey. In order to generalize from the sample to the target population,
the probability of being sampled must be known for each member of the target population.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
This probability is reflected in weights assigned to each survey respondent, with weights
being inversely proportional to sampling probability. When all members of the target
population have the same probability of being sampled, all weights can be set to one and
essentially ignored.
In a mail or phone study of licensed anglers, the target population is generally all
licensed anglers in a particular area, and in the studies presented, the sampling probability
is essentially equal for all target population members. In a creel study, the target
population is anyone who fishes at the locations being studied; generally, in a creel study,
the probability of being sampled is not the same for all members of the target population.
For instance, if the survey is conducted for one day at a site, then it will include all persons
who fish there daily but only about 1/7 of the people who fish there weekly, 1/30th of the
people who fish there monthly, etc. In this example, the probability of being sampled (or
inverse weight) is seen to be proportional to the frequency of fishing. However, if the
survey involves interviewers revisiting the same site on multiple days, and persons are
only interviewed once for the survey, then the probability of being in the survey is not
proportional to frequency; in fact, it increases less than proportionally with frequency. At
the extreme of surveying the same site every day over the survey period with no re-
interviewing, all members of the target population would have the same probability of being
sampled regardless of fishing frequency, implying that the survey weights should all equal
one.
On the other hand, if the survey protocol calls for individuals to be interviewed each
time an interviewer encounters them (i.e., without regard to whether they were previously
interviewed), then the inverse weights will again be proportional to fishing frequency, no
matter how many times interviewers revisit the same site. Note that when individuals can
be interviewed multiple times, the results of each interview are included as separate
records in the data base and the survey weights should be inversely proportional to the
expected number of times that an individual's interviews are included in the data base.
In the published analyses of most creel studies, there is no mention of sampling
weights; by default all weights are set to 1, implying equal probability of sampling.
However, since the sampling probabilities in a creel study, even with repeated interviewing
at a site, are highly dependent on fishing frequency, the fish intake distributions reported
for these surveys are not reflective of the corresponding target populations. Instead, those
individuals with high fishing frequencies are given too big a weight and the distribution is
skewed to the right, i.e., it overestimates the target population distribution.
Price et al. (1994) explained this problem and set out to rectify it by adding weights
to creel survey data; he used data from two creel studies (Puffer et al., 1981 and Pierce
et al., 1981) as examples. Price et al. (1994) used inverse fishing frequency as survey
weights and produced revised estimates of median and 95th percentile intake for the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
above two studies. These revised estimates were dramatically lower than the original
estimates. The approach of Price et al. (1994) is discussed in more detail in Section 10.5
where the Puffer et al. (1981) and Pierce et al. (1981) studies are summarized.
When the correct weights are applied to survey data, the resulting percentiles reflect,
on average, the distribution in the target population; thus, for example, an estimated 90
percent of the target population will have intake levels below the 90th percentile of the
survey fish intake distribution. There is another way, however, of characterizing
distributions in addition to the standard percentile approach; this approach is reflected in
statements of the form "50 percent of the income is received by, for example, the top 10
percent of the population, which consists of individuals making more than $100,000", for
example. Note that the 50th percentile (median) of the income distribution is well below
$100,000. Here the $100,000 level can be thought of as, not the 50th percentile of the
population income distribution, but as the 50th percentile of the "resource utilization
distribution" (see Appendix 10A for technical discussion of this distribution). Other
percentiles of the resource utilization distribution have similar interpreta-tions; e.g., the
90th percentile of the resource utilization distribution (for income) would be that level of
income such that 90 percent of total income is received by individuals with incomes below
this level and 10 percent by individuals with income above this level. This alternative
approach to characterizing distributions is of particular interest when a relatively small
fraction of individuals consumes a relatively large fraction of a resource, which is the case
with regards to recreational fish consumption. In the studies of recreational anglers, this
alternative approach, based on resource utilization, will be presented, where possible, in
addition to the primary approach of presenting the standard percentiles of the fish intake
distribution.
It has been determined that the resource utilization approach to characterizing
distributions has relevance to the interpretation of creel survey data. As mentioned above,
most published analyses of creel surveys do not employ weights reflective of sampling
probability, but instead give each respondent equal weight. For mathematical reasons that
are explained in Appendix 10A, when creel analyses are performed in this (equal
weighting) manner, the calculated percentiles of the fish intake distribution do not reflect
the percentiles of the target population fish intake distribution but instead reflect
(approximately) the percentiles of the "resource utilization distribution". Thus, one would
not expect 50 percent of the target population to be consuming above the median intake
level as reported from such a creel survey, but instead would expect that 50 percent of the
total recreational fish consumption would be individuals consuming above this level. As
with the example above, and in accordance with the statement above that creel surveys
analyzed in this manner overestimate intake distributions, the actual median level of intake
in the target population will be less (probably considerably so) than this level and,
accordingly, (considerably) less than 50 percent of the target population will be consuming
at or above this level. These considerations are discussed when the results of individual
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
creel surveys are presented in later sections and should be kept in mind whenever
estimates based on creel survey data are utilized.
The U.S. EPA has prepared a review of and an evaluation of five different survey
methods used for obtaining fish consumption data. They are:
• Recall-Telephone Survey;
• Recall-Mail Survey;
• Recall-Personal Interview;
• Diary; and
• Creel Census.
The reader is referred to U.S. EPA 1992-Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish for
more detail on these survey methods and their advantages and limitations.
10.2. KEY GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES
Tuna Research Institute Survey - The Tuna Research Institute (TRI) funded a study
offish consumption which was performed by the National Purchase Diary (NPD) during the
period of September, 1973 to August, 1974. The data tapes from this survey were obtained
by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which later, along with the FDA, USDA
and TRI, conducted an intensive effort to identify and correct errors in the data base.
Javitz (1980) summarized the TRI survey methodology and used the corrected tape to
generate fish intake distributions for various sub-populations.
The TRI survey sample included 6,980 families who were currently participating in
a syndicated national purchase diary panel, 2,400 additional families where the head of
household was female and under 35 years old; and 210 additional black families (Javitz,
1980). Of the 9,590 families in the total sample, 7,662 families (25,162 individuals)
completed the questionnaire, a response rate of 80 percent. The survey was weighted to
represent the U.S. population based on a number of census-defined controls (i.e., census
region, household size, income, presence of children, race and age). The calculations of
means, percentiles, etc. were performed on a weighted basis with each person contributing
in proportion to his/her assigned survey weight.
The survey population was divided into 12 different sample segments and, for each
of the 12 survey months, data were collected from a different segment. Each survey
household was given a diary in which they recorded, over a one month period, the date
of any fish meals consumed and the following accompanying information: the species of
fish consumed, whether the fish was commercially or recreationally caught, the way the
fish was packaged (canned, frozen fresh, dried, smoked), the amount offish prepared and
consumed, and the number of servings consumed by household members and guests.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Both meals eaten at home and away from home were recorded. The amount of fish
prepared was determined as follows (Javitz, 1980): "For fresh fish, the weight was
recorded in ounces and may have included the weight of the head and tail. For frozen fish,
the weight was recorded in packaged ounces, and it was noted whether the fish was
breaded or combined with other ingredients (e.g., TV dinners). For canned fish, the weight
was recorded in packaged ounces and it was noted whether the fish was canned in water,
oil, or with other ingredients (e.g., soups)".
Javitz (1980) reported that the corrected survey tapes contained data on 24,652
individuals who consumed fish in the survey month and that tabulations performed by NPD
indicated that these fish consumers represented 94 percent of the U.S. population. For
this population of "fish consumers", Javitz (1980) calculated means and percentiles of fish
consumption by demographic variables (age, sex, race, census region and community
type) and overall (Tables 10-1 through 10-4). The overall mean fish intake rate among fish
consumers was calculated at 14.3 g/day and the 95th percentile at 41.7 g/day.
As seen in Table 10-1, the mean and 95th percentile offish consumption were higher
for Asian-Americans as compared to the other racial groups. Other differences in intake
rates are those between gender and age groups. While males (15.6 g/d) eat slightly more
fish than females (13.2 g/d), and adults eat more fish than children, the corresponding
differences in body weight would probably compensate for the different intake rates in
exposure calculations (Javitz, 1980). There appeared to be no large differences in
regional intake rates, although higher rates are shown in the New England and Middle
Atlantic census regions.
The mean and 95th percentile intake rates by age-gender groups are presented in
Table 10-2. Tables 10-3 and 10-4 present the distribution of fish consumption for females
and males, respectively, by age; these tables give the percentages of females/males in a
given age bracket with intake rates within various ranges. Table 10-5 presents mean total
fish consumption by fish species.
The TRI survey data were also utilized by Rupp et al. (1980) to generate fish intake
distributions for three age groups (<11, 12-18, and 19+ years) within each of the 9 census
regions and for the entire United States. Separate distributions were derived for
freshwater finfish, saltwater finfish and shellfish; thus, a total of 90 (3*3*10) different
distributions were derived, each corresponding to intake of a specific category of fish for
a given age group within a given region. The analysis of Rupp et al. (1980) included only
those respondents with known age. This amounted to 23,213 respondents.
Ruffle et al. (1994) used the percentiles data of Rupp et al. (1980) to estimate the
best fitting lognormal parameters for each distribution. Three methods (non-linear
optimization, first probability plot and second probability plot) were used to estimate
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
optimal parameters. Ruffle et al. (1994) determined that, of the three methods, the non-
linear optimization method (NLO) generally gave the best results. For some of the
distributions fitted by the NLO method, however, it was determined that the lognormal
model did not adequately fit the empirical fish intake distribution. Ruffle et al. (1994) used
a criterion of minimum sum of squares (min SS) less than 30 to identify which distributions
provided adequate fits. Of the 90 distributions studied, 77 were seen to have min SS < 30;
for these, Ruffle et al. (1994) concluded that the NLO modeled lognormal distributions are
"well suited for risk assessment". Of the remaining 13 distributions, 12 had min SS > 30;
for these Ruffle et al. (1994) concluded that modeled lognormal distributions "may also be
appropriate for use when exercised with due care and with sensitivity analyses". One
distribution, that of freshwater finfish intake for children < 11 years of age in New England,
could not be modeled due to the absence of any reported consumption.
Table 10-6 presents the optimal lognormal parameters, the mean (//), standard
deviation (s), and min SS, for all 89 modeled distributions. These parameters can be used
to determine percentiles of the corresponding distribution of average daily fish
consumption rates through the relation DFC(p)=exp[//+ z(p)s] where DFC(p) is the pth
percentile of the distribution of average daily fish consumption rates and z(p) is the z-score
associated with the pth percentile (e.g., z(50)=0 ). The mean average daily fish
consumption rate is given by exp[// + 0.5s2].
The analyses of Javitz (1980) and Ruffle et al. (1994) were based on consumers only,
who are estimated to represent 94.0 percent of the U.S. population. U.S. EPA estimated
the mean intake in the general population by multiplying the fraction consuming, 0.94, by
the mean among consumers reported by Javitz (1980) of 14.3 g/day; the resulting
estimate is 13.4 g/day. The 95th percentile estimate of Javitz (1980) of 41.7 g/day among
consumers would be essentially unchanged when applied to the general population; 41.7
g/day would represent the 95.3 percentile (i.e., 100*[0.95*0.94+0.06]) among the general
population.
Advantages of the TRI data survey are that it was a large, nationally representative
survey with a high response rate (80 percent) and was conducted over an entire year. In
addition, consumption was recorded in a daily diary over a one month period; this format
should be more reliable than one based on one-month recall. The upper percentiles
presented are derived from one month of data, and are likely to overestimate the
corresponding upper percentiles of the long-term (i.e., one year or more) average daily fish
intake distribution. Similarly, the standard deviation of the fitted lognormal distribution
probably overestimates the standard deviation of the long-term distribution. However, the
period of this survey (one month) is considerably longer than those of many other
consumption studies, including the USDA National Food Consumption Surveys, which
report consumption over a 3 day to one week period.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Another obvious limitation of this data base is that it is now over twenty years out of
date. Ruffle et al. (1994) considered this shortcoming and suggested that one may wish
to shift the distribution upward to account for the recent increase in fish consumption.
Adding ln(1+x/100) to the log mean // will shift the distribution upward by x percent (e.g.,
adding 0.22 = ln(1.25) increases the distribution by 25 percent). Although the TRI survey
distinguished between recreationally and commercially caught fish, Javitz (1980), Rupp
et al. (1980), and Ruffle et al. (1994) (which was based on Rupp et al., 1980) did not
present analyses by this variable.
U.S. EPA (1996a) - Daily Average Per Capita Fish Consumption Estimates Based on
the Combined USDA 1989, 1990, and 1991 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII) — The USDA conducts the CSFII on an ongoing basis. U.S. EPA used
the 1989, 1990, and 1991 CSFII data to generate fish intake estimates. Participants in the
CSFII provided 3 consecutive days of dietary data. For the first day's data, participants
supplied dietary recall information to an in-home interviewer. Second and third day dietary
intakes were recorded by participants. Data collection for the CSFII started in April of the
given year and was completed in March of the following year.
The CSFII contains 469 fish-related food codes; survey respondents reported
consumption across 284 of these codes. Respondents estimated the weight of each food
that they consumed. The fish component (by weight) of these foods was calculated using
data from the recipe file for release 7 of the USDA's Nutrient Data Base for Individual Food
Intake Surveys. The amount offish consumed by each individual was then calculated by
summing, over all fish containing foods, the product of the weight of food consumed and
the fish component (i.e., the percentage fish by weight) of the food.
The recipe file also contains cooking loss factors associated with each food. These
were utilized to convert, for each fish containing food, the as-eaten fish weight consumed
into an uncooked equivalent weight of fish. Analyses of fish intake were performed on
both an as-eaten and uncooked basis.
Each (fish-related) food code was assigned by EPA a habitat type of either
freshwater/estuarine or marine. Food codes were also designated as finfish or shellfish.
Average daily individual consumption (g/day) for a given fish type-by-habitat category
(e.g., marine finfish) was calculated by summing the amount of fish consumed by the
individual across the three reporting days for all fish-related food codes in the given fish-
by-habitat category and then dividing by 3. Individual consumption per day consuming
fish (g/day) was calculated similarly except that total fish consumption was divided by the
specific number of survey days the individual reported consuming fish; this was calculated
for fish consumers only (i.e., those consuming fish on at least one of the three survey
days). The reported body-weight of the individual was used to convert consumption in
g/day to consumption in g/kg-day.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
There were a total of 11,912 respondents in the combined data set who had three-day
dietary intake data. Survey weights were assigned to this data set to make it
representative of the U.S. population with respect to various demographic characteristics
related to food intake.
U.S. EPA (1996a) reported means, medians, upper percentiles, and 90-percent
interval estimates for the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles. The 90-percent interval
estimates are nonparametric estimates from bootstrap techniques. The bootstrap
estimates result from the percentile method which estimates the lower and upper bounds
for the interval estimate by the 100a percentile and 100 (1-a) percentile estimates from
the non-parametric distribution of the given point estimate (U.S. EPA, 1996a).
Analyses offish intake were performed on an as-eaten as well as on an uncooked
equivalent basis and on a g/day and g/kg-day basis. Table 10-7 gives the mean and
various percentiles of the distribution of per-capita fish intake rates (g/day) based on
uncooked equivalent weight by habitat and fish type, for the general population. The mean
per capita intake rate of finfish and shellfish from all habitats was 20.1 g/day. Per-capita
consumption estimates by species are shown in Appendix 10C. Table 10-8 displays the
mean and various percentiles of the distribution of total fish intake per day consuming fish,
by habitat for consumers only. Also displayed is the percentage of the population
consuming fish of the specified habitat during the three day survey period. Tables 10-9
and 10-10 present similar results as above but on a mg/kg-day basis; Tables 10-11 and
10-12 present results in the same format for fish intake (g/day) on an as-eaten (cooked)
basis.
Tables 10-13 through 10-44 present data for daily average per capita fish
consumption by age and gender. These data are presented by selected age grouping (4
and under, 15-44, 45 and older, all ages) and gender. Tables 10-13 through 10-20
present fish intake data (g/day and mg/kg-day) on an as consumed basis for the general
population and Tables 10-21 through 10-28 for consumers only. Tables 10-29 through 10-
44 provide intake data (g/day and mg/kg-day) on an uncooked equivalent basis for the
same population groups described above.
The advantages of this study are its large size, its relative currency and its
representativeness. In addition, through use of the USDA recipe files, the analysis
identified all fish-related food codes and estimated the percent fish content of each of
these codes. By contrast, some analyses of the USDA National Food Consumption
Surveys (NFCSs) which reported per capita fish intake rates ( e.g., Pao et al., 1982;
USDA, 1992a), excluded certain fish containing foods (e.g., fish mixtures, frozen plate
meals) in their calculations.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Results from the 1977-1978 NFCS survey (Pao et al., 1982) showed that only a small
percentage of consumers ate fish on more than one occasion per day. This implies that
the distribution presented for fish intake per day consuming fish can be used as a
surrogate for the distribution offish intake per (fish) eating occasion (Table 10-8).
Also, it should be noted that the 1989-91 CSFII data are not the most recent intake
survey data. USDA has recently made available data from its 1994 and 1995 CSFII. Over
5,500 people nationwide participated in both of these surveys, providing recalled food
intake information for two separate days. Although the 2-day data analysis has not been
conducted, USDA published results for the respondents' intakes on the first day surveyed
(USDA, 1996a; USDA, 1996b). USDA 1996 survey data will be made available later in
1997. As soon as 1996 data are available, EPA will take steps to get the 3-year data
(1994, 1995, 1996) analyzed and the food ingestion factors updated. Meanwhile,
comparisons between the mean daily fish intake per individual in a day from the USDA
survey data from years 1977-78, 1987-88, 1989-91, 1994, and 1995 indicate that fish
intake has been relatively constant over time. The 1-day fish intake rates were 11 g/day,
11 g/day, 13 g/day, 9 g/day, and 11 g/day for survey years 1977-78, 1987-88, 1989-91,
1994, and 1995, respectively. This indicates that the 1989-91 CSFII data presented in this
handbook are probably adequate for assessing fish ingestion exposure for current
populations.
10.3. RELEVANT GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES
Pao et al. (1982) - Foods Commonly Eaten by Individuals: Amount Per Day and Per
Eating Occasion - The USDA 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) was
described in Chapter 9. The survey consisted of a household and individual component.
For the individual component, all members of surveyed households were asked to provide
3 consecutive days of dietary data. For the first day's data, participants supplied dietary
recall information to an in-home interviewer. Second and third day dietary intakes were
recorded by participants. A total of 15,000 households were included in the 1977-78
NFCS and about 38,000 individuals completed the 3-day diet records. Fish intake was
estimated based on consumption of fish products identified in the NFCS data base
according to NFCS-defined food codes. These products included fresh, breaded, floured,
canned, raw and dried fish, but not fish mixtures or frozen plate meals.
Pao et al. (1982) used the 1977-78 NFCS to examine the quantity offish consumed
per eating occasion. For each individual consuming fish in the 3 day survey period, the
quantity offish consumed per eating occasion was derived by dividing the total reported
fish intake over the 3 day period by the number of occasions the individual reported eating
fish. The distributions, by age and sex, for the quantity of fish consumed per eating
occasion are displayed in Table 10-45 (Pao et al., 1982). For the general population, the
average quantity offish consumed per fish meal was 117 g, with a 95th percentile of 284
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
g. Males in the age groups 19-34, 35-64 and 65-74 years had the highest average and
95th percentile quantities among the age-sex groups presented.
Pao et al. (1982) also used the data from this survey set to calculate per capita fish
intake rates. However, because these data are now almost 20 years out of date, this
analysis is not considered key with respect to assessing per capita intake (the average
quantity offish consumed per fish meal should be less subject to change over time than
is per capita intake). In addition, fish mixtures and frozen plate meals were not included
in the calculation of fish intake. The per capita fish intake rate reported by Pao et al.
(1982) was 11.8 g/day. The 1977-1978 MFCS was a large and well designed survey and
the data are representative of the U.S. population.
USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88 - The USDA 1987-88
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (MFCS) was described in Chapter 9. Briefly, the
survey consisted of a household and individual component. The household component
asked about household food consumption over the past one week period. For the
individual component, each member of a surveyed household was interviewed (in person)
and asked to recall all foods eaten the previous day; the information from this interview
made up the "one day data" for the survey. In addition, members were instructed to fill out
a detailed dietary record for the day of the interview and the following day. The data for
this entire 3-day period made up the "3-day diet records". A statistical sampling design
was used to ensure that all seasons, geographic regions of the U.S., demographic, and
socioeconomic groups were represented. Sampling weights were used to match the
population distribution of 13 demographic characteristics related to food intake (USDA,
1992a).
Total fish intake was estimated based on consumption offish products identified in
the MFCS data base according to NFCS-defined food codes. These products included
fresh, breaded, floured, canned, raw and dried fish, but not fish mixtures or frozen plate
meals.
A total of 4,500 households participated in the 1987-88 survey; the household
response rate was 38 percent. One day data were obtained for 10,172 (81 percent) of the
12,522 individuals in participating households; 8,468 (68 percent) individuals completed
3-day diet records.
USDA (1992b) used the one day data to derive per capita fish intake rate and intake
rates for consumers of total fish. These rates, calculated by sex and age group, are
shown in Table 10-46. Intake rates for consumers-only were calculated by dividing the per
capita intake rates by the fractions of the population consuming fish in one day.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
The 1987-1988 MFCS was also utilized to estimate consumption of home produced
fish (as well as home produced fruits, vegetables, meats and dairy products) in the general
U.S. population. The methodology for estimating home-produced intake rates was rather
complex and involved combining the household and individual components of the MFCS;
the methodology, as well as the estimated intake rates, are described in detail in Chapter
12. However, since much of the rest of this chapter is concerned with estimating
consumption of recreationally caught, i.e., home produced fish, the methods and results
of Chapter 12, as they pertain to fish consumption, are summarized briefly here.
A total of 2.1 percent of the survey population reported home produced fish
consumption during the survey week. Among consumers, the mean intake rate was 2.07
g/kg-day and the 95th percentile was 7.83 g/kg-day; the per-capita intake rate was 0.04
g/kg-day. Note that intake rates for home-produced foods were indexed to the weight of
the survey respondent and reported in g/kg-day.
It is possible to compare the estimates of home-produced fish consumption derived
in this analyses with estimates derived from studies of recreational anglers (described in
Sections 10.4-10.8); however, the intake rates must be put into a similar context. The
home-produced intake rates described refer to average daily intake rates among
individuals consuming home-produced fish in a week; results from recreational angler
studies, however, usually report average daily rates for those eating home-produced fish
(or for those who recreationally fish) at least some time during the year. Since many of
these latter individuals eat home-produced fish at a frequency of less than once per week,
the average daily intake in this group would be expected to be less than that reported.
The MFCS household component contains the question "Does anyone in your
household fish?". For the population answering yes to this question (21 percent of
households), the MFCS data show that 9 percent consumed home-produced fish in the
week of the survey; the mean intake rate for these consumers from fishing households
was 2.2 g/kg-day. (Note that 91 percent of individuals reporting home grown fish
consumption for the week of the survey indicated that a household member fishes; the
overall mean intake rate among home-produced fish consumers, regardless of fishing
status, was the above reported 2.07 g/kg-day). The per capita intake rate among those
living in a fishing household is then calculated as 0.2 g/kg-day (2.2 * 0.09). Using the
estimated average weight of survey participants of 59 kg, this translates into 11.8 g/day.
Among members of fishing households, home-produced fish consumption accounted for
32.5 percent of total fish consumption.
As discussed in Chapter 12 of this volume, intake rates for home-produced foods,
including fish, are based on the results of the household survey, and as such, reflect the
weight offish taken into the household. In most of the recreational fish surveys discussed
later in this section, the weight of the fish catch (which generally corresponds to the weight
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
taken into the household) is multiplied by an edible fraction to convert to an uncooked
equivalent of the amount consumed. This fraction may be species specific, but some
studies used an average value; these average values ranged from 0.3 to 0.5. Using a
factor of 0.5 would convert the above 11.8 g/day rate to 5.9 g/day. This estimate, 5.9
g/day, of the per-capita fish intake rate among members of fishing households is within the
range of the per-capita intake rates among recreational anglers addressed in sections to
follow.
An advantage of analyses based on the 1987-1988 USDA MFCS is that the data set
is a large, geographically and seasonally balanced survey of a representative sample of
the U.S. population. The survey response rate, however, was low and an expert panel
concluded that it was not possible to establish the presence or absence of non-response
bias (USDA, 1992b). Limitations of the home-produced analysis are given in Chapter 12
of this volume.
Tsang and Klepeis (1996) - National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) - The
U.S. EPA collected information for the general population on the duration and frequency
of time spent in selected activities and time spent in selected microenvironments via
24-hour diaries. Over 9,000 individuals from 48 contiguous states participated in NHAPS.
Approximately 4,700 participants also provided information on seafood consumption. The
survey was conducted between October 1992 and September 1994. Data were collected
on the (1) number of people that ate seafood in the last month, (2) the number of servings
of seafood consumed, and (3) whether the seafood consumed was caught or purchased
(Tsang and Klepeis, 1996). The participant responses were weighted according to
selected demographics such as age, gender, and race to ensure that results were
representative of the U.S. population. Of those 4,700 respondents, 2,980 (59.6 percent)
ate seafood (including shellfish, eels, or squid) in the last month (Table 10-47). The
number of servings per month were categorized in ranges of 1 -2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-19, and 20+
servings per month (Table 10-48). The highest percentage (35 percent) of respondent
population had an intake of 3-5 servings per month. Most (92 percent) of the respondents
purchased the seafood they ate (Table 10-49).
Intake data were not provided in the survey. However, intake offish can be estimated
using the information on the number of servings offish eaten from this study and serving
size data from other studies. The recommended mean value in this handbook for fish
serving size is 129 g/serving (Table 10-82). Using this mean value for serving size and
assuming that the average individual eats 3-5 servings per month, the amount of seafood
eaten per month would range from 387 to 645 grams/month or 12.9 to 21.5 g/day for the
highest percentage of the population. These values are within the range of mean intake
values for total fish (20.1 g/day) calculated in the U.S. EPA analysis of the USDA CSFII
data. It should be noted that an all inclusive description for seafood was not presented in
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Tsang and Klepeis (1996). It is not known if processed or canned seafood and seafood
mixtures are included in the seafood category.
The advantages of NHAPS is that the data were collected for a large number of
individuals and are representative of the U.S. general population. However, evaluation
of seafood intake was not the primary purpose of the study and the data do not reflect the
actual amount of seafood that was eaten. However, using the assumption described
above, the estimated seafood intake from this study are comparable to those observed in
the EPACSFII analysis.
10.4. KEY RECREATIONAL (MARINE FISH STUDIES)
National Marine Fisheries Service (1986a, b, c; 1993) - The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) conducts systematic surveys, on a continuing basis, of marine
recreational fishing. These surveys are designed to estimate the size of the recreational
marine finfish catch by location, species and fishing mode. In addition, the surveys provide
estimates for the total number of participants in marine recreational finfishing and the total
number of fishing trips. The surveys are not designed to estimate individual consumption
offish from marine recreational sources, primarily because they do not attempt to estimate
the number of individuals consuming the recreational catch. Intake rates for marine
recreational anglers can be estimated, however, by employing assumptions derived from
other data sources about the number of consumers.
The NMFS surveys involve two components, telephone surveys and direct
interviewing of fishermen in the field. The telephone survey randomly samples residents
of coastal regions, defined generally as counties within 25 miles of the nearest seacoast,
and inquires about participation in marine recreational fishing in the resident's home state
in the past year, and more specifically, in the past two months. This component of the
survey is used to estimate, for each coastal state, the total number of coastal region
residents who participate in marine recreational fishing (for finfish) within the state, as well
as the total number of (within state) fishing trips these residents take. To estimate the total
number of participants and fishing trips in the state, by coastal residents and others, a
ratio approach, based on the field interview data, was used. Thus, if the field survey data
found that there was a 4:1 ratio of fishing trips taken by coastal residents as compared to
trips taken by non-coastal and out of state residents, then an additional 25 percent would
be added to the number of trips taken by coastal residents to generate an estimate of the
total number of within state trips.
The field intercept survey is essentially a creel type survey. The survey utilizes a
national site register which details marine fishing locations in each state. Sites for field
interviews are chosen in proportion to fishing frequency at the site. Anglers fishing on
shore, private boat, and charter/party boat modes who had completed their fishing were
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
interviewed. The field survey included questions about frequency of fishing, area of
fishing, age, and place of residence. The fish catch was classified by the interviewer as
either type A, type B1 or type B2 catch. The type A catch denoted fish that were taken
whole from the fishing site and were available for inspection. The type B1 and B2 catch
were not available for inspection; the former consisted of fish used as bait, filleted, or
discarded dead while the latter was fish released alive. The type A catch was identified by
species and weighed, with the weight reflecting total fish weight, including inedible parts.
The type B1 catch was not weighed, but weights were estimated using the average weight
derived from the type A catch for the given species, state, fishing mode and season of the
year. For both the A and B1 catch, the intended disposition of the catch (e.g., plan to eat,
plan to throw away, etc.) was ascertained.
EPA obtained the raw data tapes from NMFS in order to generate intake distributions
and other specialized analyses. Fish intake distributions were generated using the field
survey tapes. Weights proportional to the inverse of the angler's reported fishing
frequency were employed to correct for the unequal probabilities of sampling; this was the
same approach used by NMFS in deriving their estimates. Note that in the field survey,
anglers were interviewed regardless of past interviewing experience; thus, the use of
inverse fishing frequency as weights was justified (see Section 10.1).
For each angler interviewed in the field survey, the yearly amount of fish caught that
was intended to be eaten by the angler and his/her family or friends was estimated by EPA
as follows:
Y = [(wt of A catch) * IA + (wt of B1 catch) * IB] * [Fishing frequency] (Eqn. 10-1)
where IA (IB) are indicator variables equal to 1 if the type A (B1) catch was intended to be
eaten and equal to 0 otherwise. To convert Y to a daily fish intake rate by the angler, it was
necessary to convert amount of fish caught to edible amount of fish, divide by the number
of intended consumers, and convert from yearly to daily rate. Although theoretically
possible, EPA chose not to use species specific edible fractions to convert overall weight
to edible fish weight since edible fraction estimates were not readily available for many
marine species. Instead, an average value of 0.5 was employed. For the number of
intended consumers, EPA used an average value of 2.5 which was an average derived
from the results of several studies of recreational fish consumption (Chemrisk, 1991; Puffer
et al., 1981; West et al., 1989). Thus, the average daily intake rate (ADI) for each angler
was calculated as
ADI = Y * (0.5)/[2.5 * 365] (Eqn. 10-2)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Note that ADI will be 0 for those anglers who either did not intend to eat their catch or who
did not catch any fish. The distribution of ADI among anglers was calculated by region and
coastal status (i.e., coastal versus non-coastal counties). A mean ADI for the overall
population of a given area was calculated as follows: first the estimated number of anglers
in the area was multiplied by the average number of intended fish consumers (2.5) to get
a total number of recreational marine finfish consumers. This number was then multiplied
by the mean ADI among anglers to get the total recreational marine finfish consumption
in the area. Finally, the mean ADI in the population was calculated by dividing total fish
consumption by the total population in the area.
The results presented below are based on the results of the 1993 survey. Samples
sizes were 200,000 for the telephone survey and 120,000 for the field surveys. All coastal
states in the continental U.S. were included in the survey except Texas and Washington.
Table 10-50 presents the estimated number of coastal, non-coastal, and out-of-state
fishing participants by state and region of fishing. Florida had the greatest number of both
Atlantic and Gulf participants. The total number of coastal residents who participated in
marine finishing in their home state was 8 million; an additional 750,000 non-coastal
residents participated in marine finfishing in their home state.
Table 10-51 presents the estimated total weight of the A and B1 catch by region and
time of year. For each region, the greatest catches were during the six-month period from
May through October. This period accounted for about 90 percent of the North and
Mid-Atlantic catch, about 80 percent of the Northern California and Oregon catch, about
70 percent of the Southern Atlantic and Southern California catch and 62 percent of the
Gulf catch. Note that in the North and Mid-Atlantic regions, field surveys were not done
in January and February due to very low fishing activity. For all regions, over half the
catch occurred within 3 miles of the shore or in inland waterways.
Table 10-52 presents the mean and 95th percentile of average daily intake of
recreationally caught marine finfish among anglers by region. The mean ADI among all
anglers was 5.6, 7.2, and 2.0 g/day for the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific regions, respectively.
Also given is the per-capita ADI in the overall population (anglers and non-anglers) of the
region and in the overall coastal population of the region. Table 10-53 gives the
distribution of the catch by species for the Atlantic and Gulf regions and Table 10-54 for
Pacific regions.
The NMFS surveys provide a large, up-to-date, and geographically representative
sample of marine angler activity in the U.S. The major limitation of this data base in terms
of estimating fish intake is the lack of information regarding the intended number of
consumers of each angler's catch. In this analysis, it was assumed that every angler's
catch was consumed by the same number (2.5) of people; this number was derived from
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
averaging the results of other studies. This assumption introduces a relatively low level
of uncertainty in the estimated mean intake rates among anglers, but a somewhat higher
level of uncertainty in the estimated intake distributions. It should be noted that under the
above assumption, the distributions shown here pertain not only to the population of
anglers, but also to the entire population of recreational fish consumers, which is 2.5 times
the number of anglers. If the number of consumers was changed, to, for instance, 2.0,
then the distribution would be increased by a factor of 1.25 (2.5/2.0), but the estimated
population of recreational fish consumers to which the distribution would apply would
decrease by a factor of 0.8 (2.0/2.5). Note that the mean intake rate of marine finfish in
the overall population is independent of the assumption of number of intended fish
consumers.
Another uncertainty involves the use of 0.5 as an (average) edible fraction. This
figure is somewhat conservative (i.e., the true average edible fraction is probably lower);
thus, the intake rates calculated here may be biased upward somewhat.
It should be noted again that the recreational fish intake distributions given refer only
to marine finfish. In addition, the intake rates calculated are based only on the catch of
anglers in their home state. Marine fishing performed out-of-state would not be included
in these distributions. Therefore, these distributions give an estimate of consumption of
locally caught fish.
10.5. RELEVANT RECREATIONAL MARINE STUDIES
Puffer et a/. (1981) - Intake Rates of Potentially Hazardous Marine Fish Caught in the
Metropolitan Los Angeles Area - Puffer et al. (1981) conducted a creel survey with sport
fishermen in the Los Angeles area in 1980. The survey was conducted at 12 sites in the
harbor and coastal areas to evaluate intake rates of potentially hazardous marine fish and
shellfish by local, non-professional fishermen. It was conducted for the full 1980 calendar
year, although inclement weather in January, February, and March limited the interview
days. Each site was surveyed an average of three times per month, on different days, and
at a different time of the day. The survey questionnaire was designed to collect
information on demographic characteristics, fishing patterns, species, number of fish
caught, and fish consumption patterns. Scales were used to obtain fish weights.
Interviews were conducted only with anglers who had caught fish, and the anglers were
interviewed only once during the entire survey period.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Puffer et al. (1981) estimated daily consumption rates (grams/day) for each angler
using the following equation:
(KxNxWxF)/[Ex365] (Eqn. 10-3)
where:
K = edible fraction of fish (0.25 to 0.5 depending on species);
N = number of fish in catch;
W = average weight of (grams) fish in catch;
F = frequency of fishing/year; and
E = number of fish eaters in family/living group.
No explicit survey weights were used in analyzing this survey; thus, each respondent's
data was given equal weight.
A total of 1,059 anglers were interviewed for the survey. The ethnic and age
distribution of respondents is shown in Table 10-55; 88 percent of respondents were male.
The median intake rate was higher for Oriental/Samoan anglers (median 70.6 g/day) than
for other ethnic groups and higher for those ages over 65 years (median 113.0 g/day) than
for other age groups. Puffer et al. (1981) found similar median intake rates for seasons;
36.3 g/day for November through March and 37.7 g/day for April through October. Puffer
et al. (1981) also evaluated fish preparation methods; these data are presented in
Appendix 10B. The cumulative distribution of recreational fish (finfish and shellfish)
consumption by survey respondents is presented in Table 10-56; this distribution was
calculated only for those fishermen who indicated they eat the fish they catch. The median
fish consumption rate was 37 g/day and the 90th percentile rate was 225 g/day (Puffer et
al., 1981). A description of catch patterns for primary fish species kept is presented in
Table 10-57.
As mentioned in the Background to this Chapter, intake distributions derived from
analyses of creel surveys which did not employ weights reflective of sampling probabilities
will overestimate the target population intake distribution and will, in fact, be more
reflective of the "resource utilization distribution". Therefore, the reported median level
of 37.3 g/day does not reflect the fact that 50 percent of the target population has intake
above this level; instead 50 percent of recreational fish consumption is by individuals
consuming at or above 37.3 g/day. In order to generate an intake distribution reflective
of that in the target population, weights inversely proportional to sampling probability need
to be employed. Price et al. (1994) made this attempt with the Puffer et al. (1981) survey
data, using inverse fishing frequencies as the sampling weights. Price et al. (1994) was
unable to get the raw data for this survey, but using frequency tables and the average level
of fish consumption per fishing trip provided in Puffer et al. (1981), generated an
approximate revised intake distribution. This distribution was dramatically lower than that
obtained by Puffer et al. (1981); the median was estimated at 2.9 g/day (compared with
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
37.3 from Puffer et al., 1981) and the 90th percentile at 35 g/day (compared to 225 g/day
from Puffer etal., 1981).
There are several limitations to the interpretation of the percentiles presented by both
Puffer et al. (1981) and Price et al. (1994). As described in Appendix 10A, the
interpretation of percentiles reported from creel surveys in terms of percentiles of the
"resource utilization distribution" is approximate and depends on several assumptions.
One of these assumptions is that sampling probability is proportional to inverse fishing
frequency. In this survey, where interviewers revisited sites numerous times and anglers
were not interviewed more than once, this assumption is not valid, though it is likely that
the sampling probability is still highly dependant on fishing frequency so that the
assumption does hold in an approximate sense. The validity of this assumption also
impacts the interpretation of percentiles reported by Price et al. (1994) since inverse
frequency was used as sampling weights. It is likely that the value (2.9 g/day) of Price et
al. (1994) underestimates somewhat the median intake in the target population, but is
much closer to the actual value than the Puffer etal. (1981) estimate of 37.3 g/day. Similar
statements would apply about the 90th percentile. Similarly, the 37.3 g/day median value,
if interpreted as the 50th percentile of the "resource utilization distribution", is also
somewhat of an underestimate.
It should be noted again that the fish intake distribution generated by Puffer et al.
(1981) (and by Price et al., 1994) was based only on fishermen who caught fish and ate
the fish they caught. If all anglers were included, intake estimates would be somewhat
lower. In contrast, the survey assumed that the number of fish caught at the time of the
interview was all that would be caught that day. If it were possible to interview fishermen
at the conclusion of their fishing day, intake estimates could be potentially higher. An
additional factor potentially affecting intake rates is that fishing quarantines were imposed
in early spring due to heavy sewage overflow (Puffer et al., 1981).
Pierce et al. (1981) - Commencement Bay Seafood Consumption Study - Pierce et
al. (1981) performed a local creel survey to examine seafood consumption patterns and
demographics of sport fishermen in Commencement Bay, Washington. The objectives of
this survey included determining (1) seafood consumption habits and demographics of
non-commercial anglers catching seafood; (2) the extent to which resident fish were used
as food; and (3) the method of preparation of the fish to be consumed. Salmon were
excluded from the survey since it was believed that they had little potential for
contamination. The first half of this survey was conducted from early July to mid-
September, 1980 and the second half from mid-September through most of November.
During the summer months, interviewers visited each of 4 sub-areas of Commencement
Bay on five mornings and five evenings; in the fall the areas were sampled 4 complete
survey days. Interviews were conducted only with persons who had caught fish. The
anglers were interviewed only once during the survey period. Data were recorded for
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
species, wet weight, size of the living group (family, place of residence, fishing frequency,
planned uses of the fish, age, sex, and race (Pierce et al., 1981). The analysis of Pierce
et al. (1981) did not employ explicit sampling weights (i.e., all weights were set to 1).
There were 304 interviews in the summer and 204 in the fall. About 60 percent of
anglers were white, 20 percent black, 19 percent Oriental and the rest Hispanic or Native
American. Table 10-58 gives the distribution of fishing frequency calculated by Pierce et
al. (1981); for both the summer and fall, more than half of the fishermen caught and
consumed fish weekly. The dominant (by weight) species caught were Pacific Hake and
Walleye Pollock. Pierce et al. (1981) did not present a distribution of fish intake or a mean
fish intake rate.
The U.S. EPA (1989a) used the Pierce et al. (1981) fishing frequency distribution and
an estimate of the average amount of fish consumed per angling trip to create an
approximate intake distribution for the Pierce et al. (1981) survey. The estimate of the
amount offish consumed per angling trip (380 g/person-trip) was based on data on mean
fish catch weight and mean number of consumers reported in Pierce et. al. (1981) and on
an edible fraction of 0.5. U.S. EPA (1989a) reported a median intake rate of 23 g/day.
Price et al. (1994) obtained the raw data from this survey and performed a re-analysis
using sampling weights proportional to inverse fishing frequency. The rationale for these
weights is explained in Section 10.1 and in the discussion above of the Puffer et al. (1981)
study. In the re-analysis, Price et al. (1994) found a median intake rate of 1.0 g/day and
a 90th percentile rate of 13 g/day. The distribution of fishing frequency generated by
Price et al. (1994) is shown in Table 10-59. Note that when equal weights were used,
Price et al. (1994) found a median rate of 19 g/day, which was close to the approximate
U.S. EPA (1989a) value reported above of 23 g/day.
The same limitations apply to interpreting the results presented here to those
presented above in the discussion of Puffer et al. (1981). The median intake rate found
by Price et al. (1994) (using inverse frequency weights) is more reflective of median intake
in the target population than is the value of 19 g/day (or 23 g/day); the latter value reflects
more the 50th percentile of the resource utilization distribution, (i.e., that anglers with
intakes above 19 g/day consume 50 percent of the recreational fish catch). Similarly, the
fishing frequency distribution generated by Price et al. (1994) is more reflective of the
fishing frequency distribution in the target population than is the distribution presented in
Pierce et al. (1981). Note the target population is those anglers who fished at
Commencement Bay during the time period of the survey.
As with the Puffer et al. (1981) data, these values (1.0 g/day and 19 g/day) are both
probably underestimates since the sampling probabilities are less than proportional to
fishing frequency; thus, the true target population median is probably somewhat above 1.0
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
g/day and the true 50th percentile of the resource utilization distribution is probably
somewhat higher than 19 g/day. The data from this survey provide an indication of
consumption patterns for the time period around 1980 in the Commencement Bay area.
However, the data may not reflect current consumption patterns because fishing advisories
were instituted due to local contamination.
U.S. DHHS (1995) - Health Study to Assess the Human Health Effects of Mercury
Exposure to Fish Consumed from the Everglades - A health study was conducted in two
phases in the Everglades, Florida for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(U.S. DHHS, 1995). The objectives of the first phase were to: (a) describe the human
populations at risk for mercury exposure through their consumption of fish and other
contaminated animals from the Everglades and (b) evaluate the extent of mercury
exposure in those persons consuming contaminated food and their compliance with the
voluntary health advisory. The second phase of the study involved neurologic testing of
all study participants who had total mercury levels in hair greater than 7.5 //g/g. Study
participants were identified by using special targeted screenings, mailings to residents,
postings and multi-media advertisements of the study throughout the Everglades region,
and direct discussions with people fishing along the canals and waterways in the
contaminated areas. The contaminated areas were identified by the interviewers and long-
term Everglade residents. Of a total of 1,794 individuals sampled, 405 individuals were
eligible to participate in the study because they had consumed fish or wildlife from the
Everglades at least once per month in the last 3 months of the study period. The majority
of the eligible participants (> 93 percent) were either subsistence fishermen, Everglade
residents, or both. Of the total eligible participants, 55 individuals refused to participate
in the survey. Useable data were obtained from 330 respondents ranging in age from 10-
81 years of age (mean age 39 years ± 18.8) (U.S. DHHS, 1995). Respondents were
administered a three page questionnaire from which demographic information, fishing and
eating habits, and other variables were obtained (U.S. DHHS, 1995).
Table 10-60 shows the ranges, means, and standard deviations of selected
characteristics by subgroups of the survey population. Sixty-two percent of the
respondents were male with a slight preponderance of black individuals (43 percent white,
46 percent black non-Hispanic, and 11 percent Hispanic) (Table 10-60). Most of the
respondents reported earning an annual income of $15,000 or less per family before taxes
(U.S. DHHS, 1995). The mean number of years fished along the canals by the
respondents was 15.8 years with a standard deviation of 15.8. The mean number of times
per week fish consumers reported eating fish over the last 6 months and last month of the
survey period was 1.8 and 1.5 per week with a standard deviation of 2.5 and 1.4,
respectively (Table 10-60). Table 10-60 also indicates that 71 percent of the respondents
reported knowing about the mercury health advisories. Of those who were aware, 26
percent reported that they had lowered their consumption of fish caught in the Everglades
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
while the rest (74 percent) reported no change in consumption patterns (U.S. DHHS,
1995).
A limitation of this study is that fish intake rates (g/day) were not reported. Another
limitation is that the survey was site limited, and, therefore, not representative of the U.S.
population. An advantage of this study is that it is one of the few studies targeting
subsistence fishermen.
10.6. KEY FRESHWATER RECREATIONAL STUDIES
West et a/. (1989) - Michigan Sport Anglers Fish Consumption Survey, 1989 -
surveyed a stratified random sample of Michigan residents with fishing licences. The
sample was divided into 18 cohorts, with one cohort receiving a mail questionnaire each
week between January and May 1989. The survey included both a short term recall
component recording respondents' fish intake over a seven day period and a usual
frequency component. For the short-term component, respondents were asked to identify
all household members and list all fish meals consumed by each household member
during the past seven days. The source of the fish for each meal was requested (self-
caught, gift, market, or restaurant). Respondents were asked to categorize serving size
by comparison with pictures of 8 oz. fish portions; serving sizes could be designated as
either "about the same size", "less", or "more" than the 8 oz. picture. Data on fish
species, locations of self-caught fish and methods of preparation and cooking were also
obtained.
The usual frequency component of the survey asked about the frequency of fish
meals during each of the four seasons and requested respondents to give the overall
percentage of household fish meals that come from recreational sources. A sample of
2,600 individuals were selected from state records to receive survey questionnaires. A
total of 2,334 survey questionnaires were deliverable and 1,104 were completed and
returned, giving a response rate of 47.3 percent among individuals receiving
questionnaires.
In the analysis of the survey data by West et. al. (1989), the authors did not attempt
to generate the distribution of recreationally caught fish intake in the survey population.
EPA obtained the raw data of this survey for the purpose of generating fish intake
distributions and other specialized analyses.
As described elsewhere in this handbook, percentiles of the distribution of average
daily intake reflective of long-term consumption patterns can not in general be estimated
using short-term (e.g., one week) data. Such data can be used to estimate mean average
daily intake rates (reflective of short or long term consumption); in addition, short term
data can serve to validate estimates of usual intake based on longer recall.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
EPA first analyzed the short term data with the intent of estimating mean fish intake
rates. In order to compare these results with those based on usual intake, only
respondents with information on both short term and usual intake were included in this
analysis. For the analysis of the short term data, EPA modified the serving size weights
used by West et al. (1989), which were 5, 8 and 10 oz., respectively, for portions that were
less, about the same, and more than the 8 oz. picture. EPA examined the percentiles of
the distribution offish meal sizes reported in Pao et al. (1982) derived from the 1977-1978
USDA National Food Consumption Survey and observed that a lognormal distribution
provided a good visual fit to the percentile data. Using this lognormal distribution, the
mean values for serving sizes greater than 8 oz. and for serving sizes at least 10 percent
greater than 8 oz. were determined. In both cases a serving size of 12 oz. was consistent
with the Pao et al. (1982) distribution. The weights used in the EPA analysis then were
5, 8, and 12 oz. for fish meals described as less, about the same, and more than the 8 oz.
picture, respectively. It should be noted that the mean serving size from Pao et al. (1982)
was about 5 oz., well below the value of 8 oz. most commonly reported by respondents in
the West et al. (1989) survey.
Table 10-61 displays the mean number of total and recreational fish meals for each
household member based on the seven day recall data. Also shown are mean fish intake
rates derived by applying the weights described above to each fish meal. Intake was
calculated on both a grams/day and grams/kg body weight/day basis. This analysis was
restricted to individuals who eat fish and who reside in households reporting some
recreational fish consumption during the previous year. About 75 percent of survey
respondents (i.e., licensed anglers) and about 84 percent of respondents who fished in the
prior year reported some household recreational fish consumption.
The EPA analysis next attempted to use the short term data to validate the usual
intake data. West et al. (1989) asked the main respondent in each household to provide
estimates of their usual frequency of fishing and eating fish, by season, during the
previous year. The survey provides a series of frequency categories for each season and
the respondent was asked to check the appropriate range. The ranges used for all
questions were: almost daily, 2-4 times a week, once a week, 2-3 times a month, once a
month, less often, none, and don't know. For quantitative analysis of the data it is
necessary to convert this categorical information into numerical frequency values. As
some of the ranges are relatively broad, the choice of conversion values can have some
effect on intake estimates. In order to obtain optimal values, the usual fish eating
frequency reported by respondents for the season during which the questionnaire was
completed was compared to the number of fish meals reportedly consumed by
respondents over the seven day short-term recall period. The results of these
comparisons are displayed in Table 10-62; it shows that, on average, there is general
agreement between estimates made using one year recall and estimates based on seven
day recall. The average number of meals (1.96/week) was at the bottom of the range for
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
the most frequent consumption group with data (2-4 meals/week). In contrast, for the lower
usual frequency categories, the average number of meals was at the top, or exceeded the
top of category range. This suggests some tendency for relatively infrequent fish eaters
to underestimate their usual frequency of fish consumption. The last column of the table
shows the estimated fish eating frequency per week that was selected for use in making
quantitative estimates of usual fish intake. These values were guided by the values in the
second column, except that frequency values that were inconsistent with the ranges
provided to respondents in the survey were avoided.
Using the four seasonal fish eating frequencies provided by respondents and the
above conversions for reported intake frequency, EPA estimated the average number of
fish meals per week for each respondent. This estimate, as well as the analysis above,
pertain to the total number of fish meals eaten (in Michigan) regardless of the source of
the fish. Respondents were not asked to provide a seasonal breakdown for eating
frequency of recreationally caught fish; rather, they provided an overall estimate for the
past year of the percent of fish they ate that was obtained from different sources. EPA
estimated the annual frequency of recreationally caught fish meals by multiplying the
estimated total number offish meals by the reported percent offish meals obtained from
recreational sources; recreational sources were defined as either self caught or a gift from
family or friends.
The usual intake component of the survey did not include questions about the usual
portion size for fish meals. In order to estimate usual fish intake, a portion size of 8 oz.
was applied (the majority of respondents reported this meal size in the 7 day recall data).
Individual body weight data were used to estimate intake on a g/kg-day basis. The fish
intake distribution estimated by EPA is displayed in Table 10-63.
The distribution shown in Table 10-63 is based on respondents who consumed
recreational caught fish. As mentioned above, these represent 75 percent of all
respondents and 84 percent of respondents who reported having fished in the prior year.
Among this latter population, the mean recreational fish intake rate is 14.4*0.84=12.1
g/day; the value of 38.7 g/day (95th percentile among consumers) corresponds to the
95.8th percentile of the fish intake distribution in this (fishing) population.
The advantages of this data set and analysis are that the survey was relatively large
and contained both short-term and usual intake data. The presence of short term data
allowed validation of the usual intake data which was based on long term recall; thus,
some of the problems associated with surveys relying on long term recall are mitigated
here.
The response rate of this survey, 47 percent, was relatively low. In addition, the
usual fish intake distribution generated here employed a constant fish meal size, 8 oz..
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Although use of this value as an average meal size was validated by the short-term recall
results, the use of a constant meal size, even if correct on average, may seriously reduce
the variation in the estimated fish intake distribution.
This study was conducted in the winter and spring months of 1988. This period does
not include the summer months when peak fishing activity can be anticipated, leading to
the possibility that intake results based on the 7 day recall data may understate
individuals' usual (annual average) fish consumption. A second survey by West et al.
(1993) gathered diary data on fish intake for respondents spaced over a full year.
However, this later survey did not include questions about usual fish intake and has not
been reanalyzed here. The mean recreational fish intake rates derived from the short term
and usual components were quite similar, however, 14.0 versus 14.4 g/day.
Chemrisk (1992) - Consumption of Freshwater Fish by Maine Anglers - Chemrisk
conducted a study to characterize the rates of freshwater fish consumption among Maine
residents (Chemrisk, 1992; Ebert et al., 1993). Since the only dietary source of local
freshwater fish is recreational fish, the anglers in Maine were chosen as the survey
population. The survey was designed to gather information on the consumption of fish
caught by anglers from flowing (rivers and streams) and standing (lakes and ponds) water
bodies. Respondents were asked to recall the frequency of fishing trips during the 1989-
1990 ice-fishing season and the 1990 open water season, the number of fish species
caught during both seasons, and estimate the number of fish consumed from 15 fish
species. The respondents were also asked to describe the number, species, and average
length of each sport-caught fish consumed that had been gifts from other members of their
households or other household. The weight of fish consumed by anglers was calculated
by first multiplying the estimated weight of the fish by the edible fraction, and then dividing
this product by the number of intended consumers. Species specific regression equations
were utilized to estimate weight from the reported fish length. The edible fractions used
were 0.4 for salmon, 0.78 for Atlantic smelt, and 0.3 for all other species (Ebert et al.,
1993).
A total of 2,500 prospective survey participants were randomly selected from a list of
anglers licensed in Maine. The surveys were mailed in during October, 1990. Since this
was before the end of the open fishing season, respondents were also asked to predict
how many more open water fishing trips they would undertake in 1990.
Chemrisk (1992) and Ebert et al. (1993) calculated distributions of freshwater fish
intake for two populations, "all anglers" and "consuming anglers". All anglers were
defined as licensed anglers who fished during either the 1989-1990 ice-fishing season or
the 1990 open-water season (consumers and non-consumers) and licensed anglers who
did not fish but consumed freshwater fish caught in Maine during these seasons.
"Consuming anglers" were defined as those anglers who consumed freshwater fish
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
obtained from Maine sources during the 1989-1990 ice fishing or 1990 open water fishing
season. In addition, the distribution of fish intake from rivers and streams was also
calculated for two populations, those fishing on rivers and streams ("river anglers") and
those consuming fish from rivers and streams ("consuming river anglers").
A total of 1,612 surveys were returned, giving a response rate of 64 percent; 1,369
(85 percent) of the 1,612 respondents were included in the "all angler" population and
1,053 (65 percent) were included in the "consuming angler" population. Freshwater fish
intake distributions for these populations are presented in Table 10-64. The mean and
95th percentile was 5.0 g/day and 21.0 g/day, respectively, for" all anglers," and 6.4 g/day
and 26.0 g/day, respectively, for "consuming anglers." Table 10-64 also presents intake
distributions for fish caught from rivers and streams. Among "river anglers" the mean and
95th percentiles were 1.9 g/day and 6.2 g/day, respectively, while among "consuming river
anglers" the mean was 3.7 g/day and the 95th percentile was 12.0 g/day. Table 10-65
presents fish intake distributions by ethnic group for consuming anglers. The highest
mean intake rates reported are for Native Americans (10 g/day) and French Canadians
(7.4 g/day). Because there was a low number of respondents for Hispanics, Asian/Pacific
Islanders, and African Americans, intake rates within these subgroups were not calculated
(Chemrisk, 1992).
The consumption, by species, of freshwater fish caught is presented in Table 10-66.
The largest specie consumption was salmon from ice fishing (~292,000 grams); white
perch (380,000 grams) for lakes and ponds; and Brooktrout (420,000 grams) for rivers and
streams (Chemrisk, 1991).
EPA obtained the raw data tapes from the marine anglers survey and performed
some specialized analyses. One analysis involved examining the percentiles of the
"resource utilization distribution" (this distribution was defined in Section 10.1). The 50th,
or more generally the pth percentile of the resource utilization distribution, is defined as
the consumption level such that p percent of the resource is consumed by individuals with
consumptions below this level and 100-p percent by individuals with consumptions above
this level. EPA found that 90 percent of recreational fish consumption was by individuals
with intake rates above 3.1 g/day and 50 percent was by individuals with intakes above 20
g/day. Those above 3.1 g/day make up about 30 percent of the "all angler" population and
those above 20 g/day make up about 5 percent of this population; thus, the top 5 percent
of the angler population consumed 50 percent of the recreational fish catch.
EPA also performed an analysis of fish consumption among anglers and their
families. This analysis was possible because the survey included questions on the
number, sex, and age of each individual in the household and whether the individual
consumed recreationally caught fish. The total population of licensed anglers in this
survey and their household members was 4,872; the average household size for the 1,612
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
anglers in the survey was thus 3.0 persons. Fifty-six percent of the population was male
and 30 percent was 18 or under.
A total of 55 percent of this population was reported to consume freshwater
recreationally caught fish in the year of the survey. The sex and ethnic distribution of the
consumers was similar to that of the overall population. The distribution of fish intake
among the overall household population, or among consumers in the household, can be
calculated under the assumption that recreationally caught fish was shared equally among
all members of the household reporting consumption of such fish (note this assumption
was used above to calculate intake rates for anglers). With this assumption, the mean
intake rate among consumers was 5.9 g/day with a median of 1.8 g/day and a 95th
percentile of 23.1 g/day; for the overall population the mean was 3.2 g/day and the 95th
percentile was 14.1 g/day.
The results of this survey can be put into the context of the overall Maine population.
The 1,612 anglers surveyed represent about 0.7 percent of the estimated 225,000 licensed
anglers in Maine. It is reasonable to assume that licensed anglers and their families will
have the highest exposure to recreationally caught freshwater fish. Thus, to estimate the
number of persons in Maine with recreationally caught freshwater fish intake above, for
instance, 6.5 g/day (the 80th percentile among household consumers in this survey), one
can assume that virtually all persons came from the population of licensed anglers and
their families. The number of persons above 6.5 g/day in the household survey population
is calculated by taking 20 percent (i.e., 100 percent - 80 percent) of the consuming
population in the survey; this number then is 0.2*(0.55*4872)=536. Dividing this number
by the sampling fraction of 0.007 (0.7 percent) gives about 77,000 persons above 6.5
g/day of recreational freshwater fish consumption statewide. The 1990 census showed the
population of Maine to be 1.2 million people; thus the 77,000 persons above 6.5 g/day
represent about 6 percent of the state's population.
Chemrisk (1992) reported that the fish consumption estimates obtained from the
survey were conservative because of assumptions made in the analysis. The assumptions
included: a 40 percent estimate as the edible portion of landlocked and Atlantic salmon;
inclusion of the intended number of future fishing trips and an assumption that the average
success and consumption rates for the individual angler during the trips already taken
would continue through future trips. The data collected for this study were based on recall
and self-reporting which may have resulted in a biased estimate. The social desirability
of the sport and frequency of fishing are also bias contributing factors; successful anglers
are among the highest consumers of freshwater fish (Chemrisk, 1992). Over reporting
appears to be correlated with skill level and the importance of the activity to the individual;
it is likely that the higher consumption rates may be substantially overstated (Chemrisk,
1992). Additionally, fish advisories are in place in these areas and may affect the rate of
fish consumption among anglers. The survey results showed that in 1990, 23 percent of
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
all anglers consumed no freshwater fish, and 55 percent of the river anglers ate no
freshwater fish. An advantage of this study is that it presents area-specific consumption
patterns and the sample size is rather large.
West et al. (1993) - Michigan Sport Anglers Fish Consumption Study, 1991-1992 -
This survey, financed by the Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund, was a follow-up to the
earlier 1989 Michigan survey described previously. The major purpose of 1991-1992
survey was to provide short-term recall data of recreational fish consumption over a full
year period; the 1989 survey, in contrast, was conducted over only a half year period
(Westetal., 1993).
This survey was similar in design to the 1989 Michigan survey. A sample of 7,000
persons with Michigan fishing licenses was drawn and surveys were mailed in 2-week
cohorts over the period January, 1991 to January, 1992. Respondents were asked to
report detailed fish consumption patterns during the preceding seven days, as well as
demographic information; they were also asked if they currently eat fish. Enclosed with
the survey were pictures of about a half pound of fish. Respondents were asked to
indicate whether reported consumption at each meal was more, less or about the same as
the picture. Based on responses to this question, respondents were assumed to have
consumed 10, 5 or 8 ounces offish, respectively.
A total of 2,681 surveys were returned. West et al. (1993) calculated a response rate
for the survey of 46.8 percent; this was derived by removing from the sample those
respondents who could not be located or who did not reside in Michigan for at least six
months.
Of these 2,681 respondents, 2,475 (93 percent) reported that they currently eat fish;
all subsequent analyses were restricted to the current fish eaters. The mean fish
consumption rates were found to be 16.7 g/day for sport fish and 26.5 g/day for total fish
(West et al., 1993). Table 10-67 shows mean sport-fish consumption rates by
demographic categories. Rates were higher among minorities, people with low income,
and people residing in smaller communities. Consumption rates in g/day were also higher
in males than in females; however, this difference would likely disappear if rates were
computed on a g/kg-day basis.
West et al. (1993) estimated the 80th percentile of the survey fish consumption
distribution. More extensive percentile calculations were performed by U.S. EPA (1995)
using the raw data from the West et al. (1993) survey and calculated 50th, 90th, and 95th
percentiles. However, since this survey only measured fish consumption over a short (one
week) interval, the resulting distribution will not be indicative of the long-term fish
consumption distribution and the upper percentiles reported from the EPA analysis will
likely considerably overestimate the corresponding long term percentiles. The overall 95th
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
percentile calculated by U.S. EPA (1995) was 77.9; this is about double the 95th percentile
estimated using year long consumption data from the 1989 Michigan survey.
The limitations of this survey are the relatively low response rate and the fact that
only three categories were used to assign fish portion size. The main study strengths were
its relatively large size and its reliance on short-term recall.
Connelly et al. (1996) - Sportfish Consumption Patterns of Lake Ontario Anglers and
the Relationship to Health Advisories, 1992 - The objectives of this study were to provide
accurate estimates offish consumption (overall and sport caught) among Lake Ontario
anglers and to evaluate the effect of Lake Ontario health advisory recommendations
(Connelly et al., 1996). To target Lake Ontario anglers, a sample of 2,500 names was
randomly drawn from 1990-1991 New York fishing license records for licenses purchased
in six counties bordering Lake Ontario. Participation in the study was solicited by mail with
potential participants encouraged to enroll in the study even if they fished infrequently or
consumed little or no sport caught fish. The survey design involved three survey
techniques including a mail questionnaire asking for 12 month recall of 1991 fishing trips
and fish consumption, self-recording information in a diary for 1992 fishing trips and fish
consumption, periodic telephone interviews to gather information recorded in the diary and
a final telephone interview to determine awareness of health advisories (Connelly et al.,
1996).
Participants were instructed to record in the diary the species offish eaten, meal size,
method by which fish was acquired (sport-caught or other), fish preparation and cooking
techniques used and the number of household members eating the meal. Fish meals were
defined as finfish only. Meal size was estimated by participants by comparing their meal
size to pictures of 8 oz. fish steaks and fillets on dinner plates. An 8 oz. size was assumed
unless participants noted their meal size was smaller than 8 oz., in which case a 4 oz. size
was assumed, or they noted it was larger than 8 oz., in which case a 12 oz. size was
assumed. Participants were also asked to record information on fishing trips to Lake
Ontario and species and length of any fish caught.
From the initial sample of 2,500 license buyers, 1,993 (80 percent) were reachable
by phone or mail and 1,410 of these were eligible for the study, in that they intended to fish
Lake Ontario in 1992. A total of 1,202 of these 1,410, or 85 percent, agreed to participate
in the study. Of the 1,202 participants, 853 either returned the diary or provided diary
information by telephone. Due to changes in health advisories for Lake Ontario which
resulted in less Lake Ontario fishing in 1992, only 43 percent, or 366 of these 853 persons
indicated that they fished Lake Ontario during 1992. The study analyses summarized
below concerning fish consumption and Lake Ontario fishing participation are based on
these 366 persons.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Anglers who fished Lake Ontario reported an average of 30.3 (S.E. = 2.3) fish meals
per person from all sources in 1992; of these meals 28 percent were sport caught
(Connelly et al., 1996). Less than 1 percent ate no fish for the year and 16 percent ate no
sport caught fish. The mean fish intake rate from all sources was 17.9 g/day and from sport
caught sources was 4.9 g/day. Table 10-68 gives the distribution of fish intake rates from
all sources and from sport caught fish. The median rates were 14.1 g/day for all sources
and 2.2 g/day for sport caught; the 95th percentiles were 42.3 g/day and 17.9 g/day for all
sources and sport caught, respectively. As seen in Table 10-69, statistically significant
differences in intake rates were seen across age and residence groups, with residents
of large cities and younger people having lower intake rates on average.
The main advantage of this study is the diary format. This format provides more
accurate information on fishing participation and fish consumption, than studies based on
1 year recall (Ebert et al., 1993). However, a considerable portion of diary respondents
participated in the study for only a portion of the year and some errors may have been
generated in extrapolating these respondents' results to the entire year (Connelly et al.,
1996). In addition, the response rate for this study was relatively low, 853 of 1,410 eligible
respondents, or 60 percent, which may have engendered some non-response bias.
The presence of health advisories should be taken into account when evaluating the
intake rates observed in this study. Nearly all respondents (>95 percent) were aware of
the Lake Ontario health advisory. This advisory counseled to eat none of 9 fish species
from Lake Ontario and to eat no more than one meal per month of another 4 species. In
addition, New York State issues a general advisory to eat no more than 52 sport caught
fish meals per year. Among participants who fished Lake Ontario in 1992, 32 percent said
they would eat more fish if health advisories did not exist. A significant fraction of
respondents did not totally adhere to the fish advisory; however, 36 percent of
respondents, and 72 percent of respondents reporting Lake Ontario fish consumption, ate
at least one species of fish over the advisory limit. Interestingly, 90 percent of those
violating the advisory reported that they believed they were eating within advisory limits.
10.7. RELEVANT FRESHWATER RECREATIONAL STUDIES
Fiore et al. (1989) - Sport Fish Consumption and Body Burden Levels of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons: A Study of Wisconsin Anglers. This survey, reported by Fiore et al. (1989),
was conducted to assess sociodemographic factors and sport fishing habits of anglers, to
evaluate anglers' comprehension of and compliance with the Wisconsin Fish Consumption
Advisory, to measure body burden levels of PCBs and DDE through analysis of blood
serum samples and to examine the relationship between body burden levels and
consumption of sport-caught fish. The survey targeted all Wisconsin residents who had
purchased fishing or sporting licenses in 1984 in any of 10 pre-selected study counties.
These counties were chosen in part based on their proximity to water bodies identified in
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Wisconsin fish advisories. A total of 1,600 anglers were sent survey questionnaires during
the summer of 1985.
The survey questionnaire included questions about fishing history, locations fished,
species targeted, kilograms caught for consumption, overall fish consumption (including
commercially caught) and knowledge offish advisories. The recall period was one year.
A total of 801 surveys were returned (50 percent response rate). Of these, 601 (75
percent) were from males and 200 from females; the mean age was 37 years. Fiore et al.
(1989) reported that the mean number offish meals for 1984 for all respondents was 18
for sport-caught meals and 24 for non-sport caught meals. Fiore et al. (1989) assumed
that each fish meal consisted of 8 ounces (227 grams) of fish to generate means and
percentiles offish intake. The reported per-capita intake rate of sport-caught fish was 11.2
g/day; among consumers, who comprised 91 percent of all respondents, the mean sport-
caught fish intake rate was 12.3 g/day and the 95th percentile was 37.3 g/day. The mean
daily fish intake from all sources (both sport caught and commercial) was 26.1 g/day with
a 95th percentile of 63.4 g/day. The 95th percentile of 37.3 g/day of sport caught fish
represents 60 fish meals per year; 63.4 g/day (the 95th percentile of total fish intake)
represents 102 fish meals per year.
Fiore et al. (1989) assumed a (constant) meal size of 8 ounces (227 grams) offish
which may over-estimate average meal size. Pao et al. (1982), using data from the 1977-
78 USDA MFCS, reported an average fish meal size of slightly less than 150 grams for
adult males. EPA obtained the raw data from this study and calculated the distribution of
the number of sport-caught fish meals and the distribution offish intake rates (using 150
grams/meal); these distributions are presented in Table 10-70. With this average meal
size, the per-capita estimate is 7.4 g/day.
This study is limited in its ability to accurately estimate intake rates because of the
absence of data on weight of fish consumed. Another limitation of this study is that the
results are based on one year recall, which may tend to over-estimate the number of
fishing trips (Ebert et al.,1993). In addition, the response rate was rather low (50 percent).
Connelly et al. (1992) - Effects of Health Advisory and Advisory Changes on Fishing
Habits and Fish Consumption in New York Sport Fisheries - Connelly et al. (1992)
conducted a study to assess the awareness and knowledge of New York anglers about
fishing advisories and contaminants found in fish and their fishing and fish consuming
behaviors. The survey sample consisted of 2,000 anglers with New York State fishing
licenses for the year beginning October 1, 1990 through September 30, 1991. A
questionnaire was mailed to the survey sample in January, 1992. The questionnaire was
designed to measure catch and consumption offish, as well as methods of fish preparation
and knowledge of and attitudes towards health advisories (Connelly et al., 1992). The
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
survey adjusted response rate was 52.8 percent (1,030 questionnaires were completed
and 51 were not deliverable).
The average and median number of fishing days per year were 27 and 15 days
respectively (Connelly et al. 1992). The mean number of sport-caught fish meals was 11.
About 25 percent of anglers reported that they did not consume sport-caught fish.
Connelly et al. (1992) found that 80 percent of anglers statewide did not eat listed
species or ate them within advisory limits and followed the 1 sport-caught fish meal per
week recommended maximum. The other 20 percent of anglers exceeded the advisory
recommendations in some way; 15 percent ate listed species above the limit and 5 percent
ate more than one sport caught meal per week.
Connelly et al. (1992) found that respondents eating more than one sport-caught
meal per week were just as likely as those eating less than one meal per week to know the
recommended level of sport-caught fish consumption, although less than 1/3 in each group
knew the level. An estimated 85 percent of anglers were aware of the health advisory.
Over 50 percent of respondents said that they made changes in their fishing or fish
consumption behaviors in response to health advisories.
The advisory included a section on methods that can be used to reduce contaminant
exposure. Respondents were asked what methods they used for fish cleaning and
cooking. Summary results on preparation and cooking methods are presented in Section
10.9 and in Appendix 10B.
A limitation of this study with respect to estimating fish intake rates is that only the
number of sport-caught meals was ascertained, not the weight of fish consumed. The fish
meal data can be converted to an intake rate (g/day) by assuming a value for a fish meal
such as that from Pao et al. (1982) (about 150 grams as the average amount of fish
consumed per eating occasion for adult males - males comprised 88 percent of
respondents in the current study). Using 150 grams/meal the mean intake rate among the
angler population would be 4.5 g/day; note that about 25 percent of this population
reported no sport-caught fish consumption.
The major focus of this study was not on consumption, per se, but on the knowledge
of and impact of fish health advisories; Connelly et al. (1992) provides important
information on these issues.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (1993) - Hudson River Angler Survey - Hudson
River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (1993) conducted a survey of adherence to fish consumption
health advisories among Hudson River anglers. All fishing has been banned on the upper
Hudson River where high levels of PCB contamination are well documented; while
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
voluntary recreational fish consumption advisories have been issued for areas south of the
Troy Dam (Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., 1993).
The survey consisted of direct interviews with 336 shore-based anglers between the
months of June and November 1991, and April and July 1992. Socio-demographic
characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 10-71. The survey sites were
selected based on observations of use by anglers, and legal accessibility. The selected
sites included upper, mid-, and lower Hudson River sites located in both rural and urban
settings. The interviews were conducted on weekends and weekdays during morning,
midday, and evening periods. The anglers were asked specific questions concerning:
fishing and fish consumption habits; perceptions of presence of contaminants in fish;
perceptions of risks associated with consumption of recreationally caught fish; and
awareness of, attitude toward, and response to fish consumption advisories or fishing
bans.
Approximately 92 percent of the survey respondents were male. The following
statistics were provided by Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (1993). The most
common reason given for fishing was for recreation or enjoyment. Over 58 percent of
those surveyed indicated that they eat their catch. Of those anglers who eat their catch,
48 percent reported being aware of advisories. Approximately 24 percent of those who
said they currently do not eat their catch, have done so in the past. Anglers were more
likely to eat their catch from the lower Hudson areas where health advisories, rather than
fishing bans, have been issued. Approximately 94 percent of Hispanic Americans were
likely to eat their catch, while 77 percent of African Americans and 47 percent of
Caucasian Americans intended to eat their catch. Of those who eat their catch, 87 percent
were likely to share their meal with others (including women of childbearing age, and
children under the age of fifteen).
For subsistence anglers, more low-income than upper income anglers eat their catch
(Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., 1993). Approximately 10 percent of the
respondents stated that food was their primary reason for fishing; this group is more likely
to be in the lowest per capita income group (Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., 1993).
The average frequency of fish consumption reported was just under one (0.9) meal
over the previous week, and three meals over the previous month. Approximately 35
percent of all anglers who eat their catch exceeded the amounts recommended by the New
York State health advisories. Less than half (48 percent) of all the anglers interviewed
were aware of the State health advisories or fishing bans. Only 42 percent of those
anglers aware of the advisories have changed their fishing habits as a result.
The advantages of this study include: in-person interviews with 95 percent of all
anglers approached; field-tested questions designed to minimize interviewer bias; and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
candid responses concerning consumption of fish from contaminated waters. The
limitations of this study are that specific intake amounts are not indicated, and that only
shore-based anglers were interviewed.
10.8. NATIVE AMERICAN FRESHWATER STUDIES
Wolfe and Walker (1987) - Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity,
Geography, and Development Impacts - Wolfe and Walker (1987) analyzed a dataset from
98 communities for harvests of fish, land mammals, marine mammals, and other wild
resources. The analysis was performed to evaluate the distribution and productivity of
subsistence harvests in Alaska during the 1980s. Harvest levels were used as a measure
of productivity. Wolfe and Walker (1987) defined harvest to represent a single year's
production from a complete seasonal round. The harvest levels were derived primarily
from a compilation of data from subsistence studies conducted between 1980 to 1985 by
various researchers in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.
Of the 98 communities studied, four were large urban population centers and 94 were
small communities. The harvests for these latter 94 communities were documented
through detailed retrospective interviews with harvesters from a sample of households
(Wolfe and Walker, 1987). Harvesters were asked to estimate the quantities of a
particular species that were harvested and used by members of that household during the
previous 12-month period. Wolfe and Walker (1987) converted harvests to a common unit
for comparison, pounds dressed weight per capita per year, by multiplying the harvests of
households within each community by standard factors converting total pounds to dressed
weight, summing across households, and then dividing by the total number of household
members in the household sample. Dressed weight varied by species and community but
in general was 70 to 75 percent of total fish weight; dressed weight for fish represents that
portion brought into the kitchen for use (Wolfe and Walker, 1987).
Harvests for the four urban populations were developed from a statewide data set
gathered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Game and Sports Fish.
Urban sport fish harvest estimates were derived from a survey that was mailed to a
randomly selected statewide sample of anglers (Wolfe and Walker, 1987). Sport fish
harvests were disaggregated by urban residency and the dataset was analyzed by
converting the harvests into pounds and dividing by the 1983 urban population.
For the overall analysis, each of the 98 communities was treated as a single unit of
analysis and the entire group of communities was assumed to be a sample of all
communities in Alaska (Wolfe and Walker, 1987). Each community was given equal
weight, regardless of population size. Annual per capita harvests were calculated for
each community. For the four urban centers, fish harvests ranged from 5 to 21 pounds
per capita per year (6.2 g/day to 26.2 g/day).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
The range for the 94 small communities was 25 to 1,239 pounds per capita per year
(31 g/day to 1,541 g/day). For these 94 communities, the median per capita fish harvest
was 130 pounds per year (162 g/day). In most (68 percent) of the 98 communities
analyzed, resource harvests for fish were greater than the harvests of the other wildlife
categories (land mammal, marine mammal, and other) combined.
The communities in this study were not made up entirely of Alaska Natives. For
roughly half the communities, Alaska Natives comprised 80 percent or more of the
population, but for about 40 percent of the communities they comprised less than 50
percent of the population. Wolfe and Walker (1987) performed a regression analysis which
showed that the per capita harvest of a community tended to increase as a function of the
percentage of Alaska Natives in the community. Although this analysis was done for total
harvest (i.e., fish, land mammal, marine mammal and others) the same result should hold
for fish harvest since fish harvest is highly correlated with total harvest.
A limitation of this report is that it presents (per-capita) harvest rates as opposed to
individual intake rates. Wolfe and Walker (1987) compared the per capita harvest rates
reported to the results for the household component of the 1977-1978 USDA National
Food Consumption Survey (NFCS). The NFCS showed that about 222 pounds of meat,
fish, and poultry were purchased and brought into the household kitchen for each person
each year in the western region of the United States. This contrasts with a median total
resource harvest of 260 Ibs/yr in the 94 communities studied. This comparison, and the
fact that Wolfe and Walker (1987) state that "harvests represent that portion brought into
the kitchen for use," suggest that the same factors used to convert household consumption
rates in the NFCS to individual intake rates can be used to convert per capita harvest rates
to individual intake rates. In Section 10.3, a factor of 0.5 was used to convert fish
consumption from household to individual intake rates. Applying this factor, the median
per capita individual fish intake in the 94 communities would be 81 g/day and the range
15.5 to 770 g/day.
A limitation of this study is that the data were based on 1-year recall from a mailed
survey. An advantage of the study is that it is one of the few studies that present fish
harvest patterns for subsistence populations.
AIHC (1994) - Exposure Factors Sourcebook - The Exposure Factors Sourcebook
(AIHC, 1994) provides data for non-marine fish intake consistent with this document.
However, the total fish intake rate recommended in AIHC (1994) is approximately 40
percent lower than that in this document. The fish intake rates presented in this handbook
are based on more recent data from USDA CSFII (1989-1991). AIHC (1994) presents
probability distributions in grams fish per kilogram of body weight for fish consumption
based on data from U.S. EPA Guidance Manual, Assessing Human Health Risks from
Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish (U.S. EPA, 1989b). The @Risk formula is
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
provided for direct use in the @Risk simulation software. The @Risk formula was
provided for the distributions that were provided for the ingestion of freshwater finfish,
saltwaterfinfish, and fish (unspecified) in the U.S. general population, children ages 1 to
6 years, and males ages 13 years and above. Distributions were also provided for
saltwater finfish ingestion in the general population and for females and for males 13 years
of age and older. Distributions for shellfish ingestion were provided for the general
population, children ages 1 to 6 years, and for males and females 13 years of age and
above. Additionally, distributions for "unspecified" fish ingestion were presented for the
above mentioned populations.
The Sourcebook has been classified as a relevant rather than key study because it
was not the primary source for the data used to make recommendations in this document.
The Sourcebook is very similar to this document in the sense that it summarizes exposure
factor data and recommends values. Therefore, it can be used as an alternative
information source on fish intake.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) (1994) -A Fish Consumption
Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia
River Basin - CRITFC (1994) conducted a fish consumption survey among four Columbia
River Basin Indian tribes during the fall and winter of 1991-1992. The target population
included all adult tribal members who lived on or near the Yakama, Warm Springs,
Umatilla or Nez Perce reservations. The survey was based on a stratified random
sampling design where respondents were selected from patient registration files at the
Indian Health Service. Interviews were performed in person at a central location on the
member's reservation.
Information requested included annual and seasonal numbers offish meals, average
serving size per fish meal, species and part(s) of fish consumed, preparation methods,
changes in patterns of consumption over the last 20 years and during ceremonies and
festivals, breast feeding practices and 24 hour dietary recall (CRITFC, 1994). Foam
sponge food models approximating four, eight, and twelve ounce fish fillets were provided
to help respondents estimate average fish meal size. Fish intake rates were calculated
by multiplying the annual frequency of fish meals by the average serving size per fish
meal.
The study was designed to give essentially equal sample sizes for each tribe.
However, since the population sizes of the tribes were highly unequal, it was necessary
to weight the data (in proportion to tribal population size) in order that the survey results
represent the overall population of the four tribes. Such weights were applied to the
analysis of adults; however, because the sample size for children was considered small,
only an unweighted analysis was performed for this population (CRITFC, 1994).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
The survey respondents consisted of 513 tribal members, 18 years old and above.
Of these, 58 percent were female and 59 percent were under 40 years old. In addition,
information for 204 children 5 years old and less was provided by the participating adult
respondent. The overall response rate was 69 percent.
The results of the survey showed that adults consumed an average of 1.71 fish
meals/week and had an average intake of 58.7 grams/day (CRITFC, 1994). Table 10-72
shows the adult fish intake distribution; the median was between 29 and 32 g/day and the
95th percentile about 170 g/day. A small percentage (7 percent) of respondents indicated
that they were not fish consumers. Table 10-73 shows that mean intake was slightly
higher in males than females (63 g/d versus 56 g/d) and was higher in the over 60 years
age group (74.4 g/d) than in the 18-39 years (57.6 g/d) or 40-59 years (55.8 g/d) age
groups. Intake also tended to be higher among those living on the reservation. The mean
intake for nursing mothers, 59.1 g/d, was similar to the overall mean intake.
A total of 49 percent of respondents reported that they caught fish from the Columbia
River basin and its tributaries for personal use or for tribal ceremonies and distributions
to other tribe members and 88 percent reported that they obtained fish from either self-
harvesting, family or friends, at tribal ceremonies or from tribal distributions. Of all fish
consumed, 41 percent came from self or family harvesting, 11 percent from the harvest of
friends, 35 percent from tribal ceremonies or distribution, 9 percent from stores and 4
percent from other sources (CRITFC, 1994).
The analysis of seasonal intake showed that May and June tended to be high
consumption months and December and January low consumption months. The mean
adult intake rate for May and June was 108 g/d while the mean intake rate for December
and January was 30.7 g/d. Salmon was the species eaten by the highest number of
respondents (92 percent) followed by trout (70 percent), lamprey (54 percent), and smelt
(52 percent). Table 10-74 gives the fish intake distribution for children under 5 years of
age. The mean intake rate was 19.6 g/d and the 95th percentile was approximately 70 g/d.
The authors noted that some non-response bias may have occurred in the survey
since respondents were more likely to live near the reservation and were more likely to be
female than non-respondents. In addition, they hypothesized that non fish consumers may
have been more likely to be non-respondents than fish consumers since non consumers
may have thought their contribution to the survey would be meaningless; if such were the
case, this study would overestimate the mean intake rate. It was also noted that the timing
of the survey, which was conducted during low fish consumption months, may have led to
underestimation of actual fish consumption; the authors conjectured that an individual may
report higher annual consumption if interviewed during a relatively high consumption
month and lower annual consumption if interviewed during a relatively low consumption
month. Finally, with respect to children's intake, it was observed that some of the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
respondents provided the same information for their children as for themselves, thereby
the reliability of some of these data is questioned.
Although the authors have noted these limitations, this study does present information
on fish consumption patterns and habits for a Native American subpopulation. It should
be noted that the number of surveys that address subsistence subpopulations is very
limited.
Peterson et al. (1994) - Fish Consumption Patterns and Blood Mercury Levels in
Wisconsin Chippewa Indians - Peterson et al. (1994) investigated the extent of exposure
of methylmercury to Chippewa Indians living on a Northern Wisconsin reservation who
consume fish caught in northern Wisconsin lakes. The lakes in northern Wisconsin are
known to be contaminated with mercury and the Chippewa have a reputation for high fish
consumption (Peterson et al., 1994). The Chippewa Indians fish by the traditional method
of spearfishing. Spearfishing (for walleye) occurs for about two weeks each spring after
the ice breaks, and although only a small number of tribal members participate in it, the
spearfishing harvest is distributed widely within the tribe by an informal distribution network
of family and friends and through traditional tribal feasts (Peterson et al., 1994).
Potential survey participants, 465 adults, 18 years of age and older, were randomly
selected from the tribal registries (Peterson et al., 1994). Participants were asked to
complete a questionnaire describing their routine fish consumption and, more extensively,
their fish consumption during the two previous months. They were also asked to give a
blood sample that would be tested for mercury content. The survey was carried out in May
1990. A follow-up survey was conducted for a random sample of 75 non-respondents (80
percent were reachable), and their demographic and fish consumption patterns were
obtained. Peterson et al. (1994) reported that the non-respondents' socioeconomic and
fish consumption were similar to the respondents.
A total of 175 of the original random sample (38 percent) participated in the study.
In addition, 152 nonrandomly selected participants were surveyed and included in the data
analysis; these participants were reported by Peterson et al. (1994) to have fish
consumption rates similar to those of the randomly selected participants. Results from the
survey showed that fish consumption varied seasonally, with 50 percent of the
respondents reporting April and May (spearfishing season) as the highest fish
consumption months (Peterson et al., 1994). Table 10-75 shows the number of fish meals
consumed per week during the last 2 months (recent consumption) before the survey was
conducted and during the respondents' peak consumption months grouped by gender,
age, education, and employment level. During peak consumption months, males
consumed more fish (1.9 meals per week) than females (1.5 meals per week), respondents
under 35 years of age consumed more fish (1.8 meals per week) than respondents 35
years of age and over (1.6 meals per week), and the unemployed consumed more fish (1.9
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
meals per week) than the employed (1.6 meals per week). During the highest fish
consumption season (April and May), 50 percent of respondents reported eating one or
less fish meals per week and only 2 percent reported daily fish consumption (Figures 10-
1 and 10-2). A total of 72 percent of respondents reported Walleye consumption in the
previous two months. Peterson et al. (1994) also reported that the mean number offish
meals usually consumed per week by the respondents was 1.2.
The mean fish consumption rate reported (1.2 fish meals per week, or 62.4 meals per
year) in this survey was compared with the rate reported in a previous survey of Wisconsin
anglers (Fiore et al., 1989) of 42 fish meals per year. These results indicate that the
Chippewa Indians do not consume much more fish than the general Wisconsin angler
population (Peterson et al., 1994). The differences in the two values may be attributed
to differences in study methodology (Peterson et al., 1994). Note that this number (1.2 fish
meals per week) includes fish from all sources. Peterson et al. (1994) noted that
subsistence fishing, defined as fishing as a major food source, appears rare among the
Chippewa. Using the recommended rate in this handbook of 129 g/meal as the average
weight offish consumed per fish meal in the general population, the rate reported here of
1.2 fish meals per week translates into a mean fish intake rate of 22 g/day in this
population.
Fitzgerald et al. (1995) - Fish PCB Concentrations and Consumption Patterns Among
Mohawk Women at Akwesasne - Akwesasne is a native American community of ten
thousand plus persons located along the St. Lawrence River (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). The
local food chain has been contaminated with PCBs and some species have levels that
exceed the U.S. FDA tolerance limits for human consumption (Fitzgerald et al., 1995).
Fitzgerald et al. (1995) conducted a recall study from 1986 to 1992 to determine the fish
consumption patterns among nursing Mohawk women residing near three industrial sites.
The study sample consisted of 97 Mohawk women and 154 nursing Caucasian controls.
The Mohawk mothers were significantly younger (mean age 24.9) than the controls (mean
age 26.4) and had significantly more years of education (mean 13.1 for Mohawks versus
12.4 for controls). A total of 97 out of 119 Mohawk nursing women responded, a response
rate of 78 percent; 154 out of 287 control nursing Caucasian women responded, a
response rate of 54 percent.
Potential participants were identified prior to, or shortly after, delivery. The interviews
were conducted at home within one month postpartum and were structured to collect
information for sociodemographics, vital statistics, use of medications, occupational and
residential histories, behavioral patterns (cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption),
drinking water source, diet, and fish preparation methods (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). The
dietary data collected were based on recall for food intake during the index pregnancy, the
year before the pregnancy, and more than one year before the pregnancy.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
The dietary assessment involved the report by each participant on the consumption
of various foods with emphasis on local species offish and game (Fitzgerald et al., 1995).
This method combined food frequency and dietary histories to estimate usual intake. Food
frequency was evaluated with a checklist of foods for indicating the amount of consumption
of a participant per week, month or year. Information gathered for the dietary history
included duration of consumption, changes in the diet, and food preparation method.
Table 10-76 presents the number of local fish meals per year for both the Mohawk
and control participants. The highest percentage of participants reported consuming
between 1 and 9 local fish meals per year. Table 10-76 indicates that Mohawk
respondents consumed statistically significantly more local fish than did control
respondents during the two time periods prior to pregnancy; for the time period during
pregnancy there was no significant difference in fish consumption between the two groups.
Table 10-77 presents the mean number of local fish meals consumed per year by time
period for all respondents and for those ever consuming (consumers only). A total of 82
(85 percent) Mohawk mothers and 72 (47 percent) control mothers reported ever
consuming local fish. The mean number of local fish meals consumed per year by
Mohawk respondents declined over time, from 23.4 (over one year before pregnancy) to
9.2 (less than one year before pregnancy) to 3.9 (during pregnancy); a similar decline was
seen among consuming Mohawks only. There was also a decreasing trend over time in
consumption among controls, though it was much less pronounced.
Table 10-78 presents the mean number of fish meals consumed per year for all
participants by time period and selected characteristics (age, education, cigarette smoking,
and alcohol consumption). Pairwise contrasts indicated that control participants over 34
years of age had the highest fish consumption of local fish meals (22.1) (Table 10-78).
However, neither the overall nor pairwise differences by age among the Mohawk women
over 34 years old were statistically significant, and may be due to the small sample size
(N=6) (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). The most common fish consumed by Mohawk mothers was
yellow perch; for controls the most common fish consumed was trout.
An advantage of this study is that it presents data for fish consumption patterns for
Native Americans as compared to a demographically similar group of Caucasians.
Although the data are based on nursing mothers as participants, the study also captures
consumption patterns prior to pregnancy (up to 1 year before and more than 1 year
before). Fitzgerald et al. (1995) noted that dietary recall for a period more than one year
before pregnancy may be inaccurate, but these data were the best available measure of
the more distant past. They also noted that the observed decrease in fish consumption
among Mohawks from the period one year before pregnancy to the period of pregnancy
is due to a secular trend of declining fish consumption over time in Mohawks. This
decrease, which was more pronounced than that seen in controls, may be due to health
advisories promulgated by tribal, as well as state, officials. The authors note that this
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
decreasing secular trend in Mohawks is consistent with a survey from 1979-1980 that
found an overall mean of 40 fish meals per year among male and female Mohawk adults.
The data are presented as number offish meals per year; the authors did not assign
an average weight to fish meals. If assessors wanted to estimate the weight of fish
consumed, some average value of weight per fish meal would have to be assumed. Pao
et al. (1982) reported 104 grams as the average weight of fish consumed per eating
occasion for females 19-34 years old.
10.9. OTHER FACTORS
Other factors to consider when using the available survey data include location,
climate, season, and ethnicity of the angler or consumer population, as well as the parts
offish consumed and the methods of preparation. Some contaminants (for example, some
dioxin compounds) have the affinity to accumulate more in certain tissues, such as the
fatty tissue, as well as in certain internal organs. The effects of cooking methods for
various food products on the levels of dioxin-like compounds have been addressed by
evaluating a number of studies in U.S. EPA (1996b). These studies showed various
results for contamination losses based on the methodology of the study and the method
of food preparation. The reader is referred to U.S. EPA (1996b) for a detailed review of
these studies. In addition, some studies suggest that there is a significant decrease of
contaminants in cooked fish when compared with raw fish (San Diego County, 1990).
Several studies cited in this section have addressed fish preparation methods and parts
of fish consumed. Table 10-79 provides summary results from these studies on fish
preparation methods; further details on preparation methods, as well as results from some
studies on parts offish consumed, are presented in Appendix 10B.
The moisture content (percent) and total fat content (percent) measured and/or
calculated in various fish forms (i.e., raw, cooked, smoked, etc.) for selected fish species
are presented in Table 10-80, based on data from USDA (1979-1984). The total percent
fat content is based on the sum of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fat.
The moisture content is based on the percent of water present.
In some cases, the residue levels of contaminants in fish are reported as the
concentration of contaminant per gram of fat. These contaminants are lipophilic
compounds. When using residue levels, the assessor should ensure consistency in the
exposure assessment calculations by using consumption rates that are based on the
amount of fat consumed for the fish species of interest. Alternately, residue levels for the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
"as consumed" portions offish may be estimated by multiplying the levels based on fat by
the fraction of fat (Table 10-80) per product as follows:
residue level/g product = [ residue level] ( g&fat }
( g&fat / ( g&product/
The resulting residue levels may then be used in conjunction with "as consumed"
consumption rates.
Additionally, intake rates may be reported in terms of units as consumed or units of
dry weight. It is essential that exposure assessors be aware of this difference so that they
may ensure consistency between the units used for intake rates and those used for
concentration data (i.e., if the unit of food consumption is grams dry weight/day, then the
unit for the amount of pollutant in the food should be grams dry weight). If necessary, as
consumed intake rates may be converted to dry weight intake rates using the moisture
content percentages offish presented in Table 10-80 and the following equation:
IRdw = IRac*[(100-W)/100] (Eqn. 10-5)
"Dry weight" intake rates may be converted to "as consumed" rates by using:
IRac = IRdw/[(100-W)/100] (Eqn. 10-6)
where:
IRdw = dry weight intake rate;
IRac = as consumed intake rate; and
W = percent water content.
10.10. RECOMMENDATIONS
Fish consumption rates are recommended based on the survey results presented in
the key studies described in the preceding sections. Considerable variation exists in the
mean and upper percentile fish consumption rates obtained from these studies. This can
be attributed largely to the characteristics of the survey population (i.e., general
population, recreational anglers) and the type of water body (i.e., marine, estuarine,
freshwater), but other factors such as study design, method of data collection and
geographic location also play a role. Based on these study variations, recommendations
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
for consumption rates were classified into the following categories:
• General Population;
• Recreational Marine Anglers;
• Recreational Freshwater Anglers; and
• Native American Subsistence Fishing Populations
The recommendations for each of these categories were rated according to the level
of confidence the Agency has in the recommended values. These ratings were derived
according to the principles outlined in Volume I, Section 1.3; the ratings and a summary
of the rationale behind them are presented in tables which follow the discussion of each
category.
For exposure assessment purposes, the selection of the appropriate category (or
categories) from above will depend on the exposure scenario being evaluated. Assessors
should use the recommended values (or range of values) unless specific studies are felt
to be particularly relevant to their needs, in which case results from a specific study or
studies may be used. This is particularly true for the last two categories where no
nationwide key studies exist. Even where national data exist, it may be advantageous to
use regional estimates if the assessment targets a particular region. In addition, seasonal,
age, and gender variations should be considered when appropriate.
It should be noted that the recommended rates are based on mean (or median)
values which represent a typical intake or central tendency for the population studied, and
on upper estimates (i.e., 90th-99th percentiles) which represent the high-end fish
consumption of the population studied. For the recreational angler populations, the
recommended means and percentiles are based on all persons engaged in recreational
fishing, not just those consuming recreationally caught fish.
10.10.1. Recommendations - General Population
The key study for estimating mean fish intake (reflective of both short-term and long-
term consumption) is U.S. EPA (1996a) analysis of USDA CSFII 1989-1991. The
recommended values for mean intake by habitat and fish type are shown in Table 10-81.
For all fish (finfish and shellfish), the recommended values are 6.0 g/day for
freshwater/ estuarine fish, 14.1 g/day for marine fish, and 20.1 g/day for all fish. Note that
these values are reported as uncooked fish weight. This is important because the
concentration of the contaminants in fish are generally measured in the uncooked
samples. Assuming that cooking results in some reductions in weight (e.g., loss of
moisture), and the mass of the contaminant in the fish tissue remains constant, then the
contaminant concentration in the cooked fish tissue will increase. Although actual
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
consumption may be overestimated when intake is expressed in an uncooked basis, the
net effect on the dose may be canceled out since the actual concentration may be
underestimated when it is based on the uncooked sample. On the other hand, if the "as
consumed" intake rate and the uncooked concentration are used in the dose equation,
dose may be underestimated since the concentration in the cooked fish is likely to be
higher, if the mass of the contaminant remains constant after cooking. Therefore, it is
more conservative and appropriate to use uncooked fish intake rates. If concentration
data can be adjusted to account for changes after cooking, then the "as consumed" intake
rates are appropriate. For example, concentration may be expressed on a dry weight
basis and, if data are available, loss of contaminant mass after cooking may be accounted
for in the concentration. However, data on the effects of cooking in contaminant
concentrations are limited and assessors generally make the conservative assumption that
cooking has no effect on the contaminant mass. Both "as consumed" and uncooked fish
intake values have been presented in this handbook so that the assessor can choose the
intake data that best matches the concentration data that is being used.
CSFII data were based on a short-term survey and could not be used to estimate the
distribution over the long term of the average daily fish intake. The long-term average
daily fish intake distribution can be estimated using the TRI study which provided dietary
data for a one month period. However, because the data from the TRI study are now over
20 years old, the value presented in Table 10-81 (56 g/day) has been adjusted by upward
25 percent based on Ruffle et al. (1994) to reflect the increase in fish consumption since
the TRI survey was conducted. In addition to the arguments provided by Ruffle et al.
(1994) for adjusting the data upward, recent data from CSFII 1989-91 indicate an increase
of fish intake of 33 percent when compared to USDA MFCS data from 1977-78. Therefore,
the adjustment recommended by Ruffle et al. (1994) of 25 percent seems appropriate.
Then, as suggested by Ruffle et al. (1994) the distributions generated from TRI should be
shifted upward by 25 percent to estimate the current fish intake distribution. Thus, the
recommended percentiles of long-term average daily fish intake are those of Javitz (1980)
adjusted 25 percent upward (see Tables 10-3, 10-4). Alternatively, the log-normal
distribution of Ruffle et al. (1994) (Table 10-6) may be used to approximate the long term
fish intake distribution; adjusting the log mean // by adding log(1.5)= 0.4, will shift the
distribution upward by 25 percent.
It is important to note that a limitation with these data is that the total amount of fish
reported by respondents included fish from all sources (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned,
domestic, international origin). Neither the TRI nor the CSFII surveys identified the source
of the fish consumed. This type of information may be relevant for some assessments.
It should be noted that because these recommendations are based on 1989-91 CSFII data,
they may not reflect the most recent changes that may have occurred in consumption
patterns. However, as indicated in Section 10.2, the 1989-91 CSFII data are believed to
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
be appropriate for assessing ingestion exposure for current populations because the rate
offish ingestion did not change dramatically between 1977-78 and 1995.
The distribution of serving sizes may be useful for acute exposure assessments. The
recommended values are 129 grams for mean serving size and 326 grams for the 95th
percentile serving size based on the CSFII analyses (Table 10-82).
10.10.2. Recommendations - Recreational Marine Anglers
The recommended values presented in Table 10-83 are based on the surveys of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, 1993). The intake values are based on finfish
consumption only.
10.10.3. Recommendations - Recreational Freshwater Anglers
The data presented in Table 10-84 are based on mailed questionnaire surveys (Ebert
etal., 1993 and West etal., 1989; 1993) and a diary study (Connelly et al., 1992; 1996).
The mean intakes ranged from 5-17 g/day. The recommended mean and 95th percentile
values for recreational freshwater anglers are 8 g/day and 25 g/day, respectively; these
were derived by averaging the values from the three populations surveyed in the key
studies. Since the two West et al. surveys studied the same population, the average of
the means from the two studies was used to represent the mean for this population. The
estimate from the West et al. (1989) survey was used to represent the 95th percentile for
this population since the long term consumption percentiles could not be estimated from
the West et al. (1993) study.
10.10.4. Recommendations - Native American Subsistence Populations
Fish consumption data for Native American subsistence populations are very limited.
The CRITFC (1994) study gives a per-capita fish intake rate of 59 g/day and a 95th
percentile of 170 g/day. The report by Wolfe and Walker (1987) presents harvest rates
for 94 small communities engaged in subsistence harvests of natural resources. A factor
of 0.5 was employed to convert the per-capita harvest rates presented in Wolfe and
Walker (1987) to per capita individual consumption rates; this is the same factor used to
convert from per capita household consumption rates to per capita individual consumption
rates in the analysis of homegrown fish consumption from the 1987-1988 NFCS. Based
on this factor, the median per-capita harvest in the 94 communities of 162 g/day (and the
range of 31-1,540 g/day) is converted to the median per capita intake rate of 81 g/day
(range 16-770 g/day) shown in Table 10-85. The recommended value for mean intake is
70 g/day and the recommended 95th percentile is 170 g/day.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
It should be emphasized that the above recommendations refer only to Native
American subsistence fishing populations, not the Native American general population.
Several studies show that intake rates of recreationally caught fish among Native
Americans with state fishing licenses (West et al., 1989; Ebert et al., 1993) are somewhat
higher (50-100 percent) than intake rates among other anglers, but far lower than the rates
shown above for Native American subsistence populations.
In addition, the studies of Peterson et al. (1994) and Fiore et al. (1989) show that
total fish intake among a Native American population on a reservation (Chippewa in
Wisconsin) is roughly comparable (50 percent higher) to total fish intake among licensed
anglers in the same state. Also, the study of Fitzgerald et al. (1995) showed that pregnant
women on a reservation (Mohawk in New York) have sport-caught fish intake rates
comparable to those of a local white control population.
The survey designs, data generated, and limitations/advantages of the studies
described in this report are summarized and presented in Table 10-86. The confidence
in recommendations is presented in Table 10-87. The confidence rating for recreational
marine anglers is presented in Table 10-88. Confidence in fish intake recommendations
for recreational freshwater fish consumption is presented in Table 10-89. The confidence
in intake recommendations for Native American subsistence populations is presented in
Table 10-90.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Appendix 10A
APPENDIX 10A
RESOURCE UTILIZATION DISTRIBUTION
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Appendix 10A
Appendix 10A. Resource Utilization Distribution
The percentiles of the resource utilization distribution of Y are to be distinguished
from the percentiles of the (standard) distribution of Y. The latter percentiles show
what percentage of individuals in the population are consuming below a given level.
Thus, the 50th percentile of the distribution of Y is that level such that 50 percent of
individuals consume below it; on the other hand, the 50th percentile of the resource
utilization distribution is that level such that 50 percent of the overall consumption in
the population is done by individuals consuming below it.
The percentiles of the resource utilization distribution of Y will always be greater
than or equal to the corresponding percentiles of the (standard) distribution of Y, and,
in the case of recreational fish consumption, usually considerably exceed the standard
percentiles.
To generate the resource utilization distribution, one simply weights each
observation in the data set by the Y level for that observation and performs a standard
percentile analysis of weighted data. If the data already have weights, then one
multiplies the original weights by the Y level for that observation, and then performs the
percentile analysis.
Under certain assumptions, the resource utilization percentiles offish consumption
may be related (approximately) to the (standard) percentiles offish consumption
derived from the analysis of creel studies. In this instance, it is assumed that the creel
survey data analysis did not employ sampling weights (i.e., weights were implicitly set
to one); this is the case for many of the published analyses of creel survey data. In
creel studies the fish consumption rate for the ith individual is usually derived by
multiplying the amount of fish consumption per fishing trip (say C,) by the frequency of
fishing (say f,). If it is assumed that the probability of sampling of an angler is
proportional to fishing frequency, then sampling weights of inverse fishing frequency (1/
f,) should be employed in the analysis of the survey data. Above it was stated that for
data that are already weighted the resource utilization distribution is generated by
multiplying the original weights by the individual's fish consumption level to create new
weights. Thus, to generate the resource utilization distribution from the data with
weights of (1/ f,), one multiplies (1/ f,) by the fish consumption level of f, C, to get new
weights of C,.
Now if C, (amount of consumption per fishing trip) is constant over the population,
then these new weights are constant and can be taken to be one. But weights of one
is what (it is assumed) were used in the original creel survey data analysis. Hence, the
resource utilization distribution is exactly the same as the original (standard)
distribution derived from the creel survey using constant weights.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Appendix 10A
The accuracy of this approximation of the resource utilization distribution offish by
the (standard) distribution offish consumption derived from an unweighted analysis of
creel survey data depends then on two factors, how approximately constant the C, 's
are in the population and how approximately proportional the relationship between
sampling probability and fishing frequency is. Sampling probability will be roughly
proportional to frequency if repeated sampling at the same site is limited or if re-
interviewing is performed independent of past interviewing status.
Note: For any quantity Y that is consumed by individuals in a population, the
percentiles of the "resource utilization distribution" of Y can be formally defined
as follows: Yp (R) is the pth percentile of the resource utilization distribution if p
percent of the overall consumption of Y in the population is done by individuals
with consumption below Yp(R) and 100-p percent is done by individuals with
consumption above Yp(R).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
11. INTAKE OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS
Consumption of meat, poultry, and dairy products is a potential pathway of exposure
to toxic chemicals. These food sources can become contaminated if animals are exposed
to contaminated media (i.e., soil, water, or feed crops).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Nationwide Food Consumption Survey
(NFCS) and Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) are the primary
sources of information on intake rates of meat and dairy products in the United States.
Data from the NFCS have been used in various studies to generate consumer-only and
per capita intake rates for both individual meat and dairy products and total meat and dairy
products. CSFI11989-91 survey data have been analyzed by EPA to generate per capita
intake rates for various food items and food groups. As described in Volume II, Chapter
9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables, consumer-only intake is defined as the quantity of
meat and dairy products consumed by individuals who ate these food items during the
survey period. Per capita intake rates are generated by averaging consumer-only intakes
over the entire population of users and non-users. In general, per capita intake rates are
appropriate for use in exposure assessments for which average dose estimates for the
general population are of interest because they represent both individuals who ate the
foods during the survey period and individuals who may eat the food items at some time,
but did not consume them during the survey period.
Intake rates may be presented on either an as consumed or dry weight basis. As
consumed intake rates (g/day) are based on the weight of the food in the form that it is
consumed. In contrast, dry weight intake rates are based on the weight of the food
consumed after the moisture content has been removed. In calculating exposures based
on ingestion, the unit of weight used to measure intake should be consistent with those
used in measuring the contaminant concentration in the produce. Fat content data are
also presented for various meat and dairy products. These data are needed for converting
between residue levels on a whole-weight or as consumed basis and lipid basis. Intake
data from the individual component of the NFCS and CSFII are based on "as eaten" (i.e.,
cooked or prepared) forms of the food items/groups. Thus, corrections to account for
changes in portion sizes from cooking losses are not required.
The purpose of this section is to provide: (1) intake data for individual meat and dairy
products, total meat, and total dairy; (2) guidance for converting between as consumed
and dry weight intake rates; and (3) data on the fat content in meat and dairy products.
Recommendations are based on average and upper-percentile intake among the general
population of the U.S. Available data have been classified as being either a key or a
relevant study based on the considerations discussed in Volume I, Section 1.3.1 of the
Introduction. Recommendations are based on data from the 1989-91 CSFII survey, which
was considered the only key intake study for meats and dairy products. Other relevant
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
studies are also presented to provide the reader with added perspective on this topic. It
should be noted that most of the studies presented in this section are based on data from
USDA's MFCS and CSFII. The USDA MFCS and CSFII are described below.
11.1. INTAKE STUDIES
11.1.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Nationwide Food Consumption Survey and
Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
The MFCS and CSFII are the basis of much of the data on meat and dairy intake
presented in this section. Data from the 1977-78 MFCS are presented because the data
have been published by USDA in various reports and reanalyzed by various EPA offices
according to the food items/groups commonly used to assess exposure. Published one-
day data from the 1987-88 MFCS and 1994 and 1995 CSFII are also presented. Recently,
EPA conducted an analysis of USDA's 1989-91 CSFII. These data were the most recent
food survey data that were available to the public at the time that EPA analyzed the data
for this Handbook. The results of EPA's analyses are presented here. Detailed
descriptions of the MFCS and CSFII data are presented in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake
of Fruits and Vegetables.
Individual average daily intake rates calculated from MFCS and CSFII data are based
on averages of reported individual intakes over one day or three consecutive days. Such
short term data are suitable for estimating average daily intake rates representative of both
short-term and long-term consumption. However, the distribution of average daily intake
rates generated using short term data (e.g., 3 day) do not necessarily reflect the long-term
distribution of average daily intake rates. The distributions generated from short term and
long term data will differ to the extent that each individual's intake varies from day to day;
the distributions will be similar to the extent that individuals' intakes are constant from day
to day.
Day-to-day variation in intake among individuals will be great for food item/groups
that are highly seasonal and for items/groups that are eaten year around but that are not
typically eaten every day. For these foods, the intake distribution generated from short
term data will not be a good reflection of the long term distribution. On the other hand, for
broad categories of foods (e.g., total meats) which are eaten on a daily basis throughout
the year with minimal seasonality, the short term distribution may be a reasonable
approximation of the true long term distribution, although it will show somewhat more
variability. In this and the following section then, distributions are shown only for the
following broad categories of foods: total meats and total dairy products. Because of the
increased variability of the short-term distribution, the short-term upper percentiles shown
will overestimate somewhat the corresponding percentiles of the long-term distribution.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
11.1.2. Key Meat and Dairy Products Intake Study Based on the CSFII
U.S. EPA Analysis of 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data - EPA conducted an analysis of
USDA's 1989-91 CSFII data set. The general methodology used in analyzing the data is
presented in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables of this Handbook.
Intake rates were generated for the following meat and dairy products: total meats, total
dairy, beef, pork, poultry, game, and eggs. Appendix 9B presents the food categories and
codes used in generating intake rates for these food groups. These data have been
corrected to account for mixtures as described in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits
and Vegetables and Appendix 9A. However, it should be noted that although total meats
account for items such as luncheon meats, sausages, and organ meats, these items are
not included in the individual meat groups (i.e., beef, poultry, etc.). Per capita intake rates
for total meat and total dairy are presented in Tables 11-1 and 11-2 at the end of this
Chapter. Tables 11-3 to 11-7 present per capita intake data for individual meats and eggs.
The results are presented in units of g/kg-day. Thus, use of these data in calculating
potential dose does not require the body weight factor to be included in the denominator
of the average daily dose (ADD) equation. It should be noted that converting these intake
rates into units of g/day by multiplying by a single average body weight is inappropriate,
because individual intake rates were indexed to the reported body weights of the survey
respondents. However, if there is a need to compare the intake data presented here to
intake data in units of g/day, a body weight less than 70 kg (i.e., approximately 60 kg;
calculated based on the number of respondents in each age category and the average
body weights for these age groups, as presented in Volume I, Chapter 7, Body Weight)
should be used because the total survey population included children as well as adults.
The advantages of using the 1989-91 CSFII data set are that the data are expected
to be representative of the U.S. population and that it includes data on a wide variety of
food types. The data set was the most recent of a series of publicly available USDA data
sets (i.e., MFCS 1977-78; MFCS 1987-88; CSFII 1989-91) at the time the analysis was
conducted for this Handbook, and should reflect recent eating patterns in the United
States. The data set includes three years of intake data combined. However, the 1989-91
CSFII data are based on a three day survey period. Short-term dietary data may not
accurately reflect long-term eating patterns. This is particularly true for the tails of the
distribution of food intake. In addition, the adjustment for including mixtures adds
uncertainty to the intake rate distributions. The calculation for including mixtures assumes
that intake of any mixture includes all of the foods identified and the proportions specified
in Appendix Table 9A-1. This assumption yields valid estimates of per capita
consumption, but results in overestimates of the proportion of the population consuming
individual meats; thus, the quantities reported in Tables 11-3 to 11-7 should be interpreted
as upper bounds on the proportion consuming beef, pork, poultry, game, and eggs.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
The data presented in this handbook for the USDA 1989-91 CSFII is not the most up-
to-date information on food intake. USDA has recently made available the data from its
1994 and 1995 CSFII. Over 5,500 people nationwide participated in both of these
surveys, providing recalled food intake information for 2 separate days. Although the two-
day data analysis has not been conducted, USDA published the results for the
respondents' intakes on the first day surveyed (USDA, 1996a,b). USDA 1996 survey data
will be made available later in 1997. As soon as 1996 data are available, EPA will take
steps to get the 3-year data (1994, 1995, and 1996) analyzed and the food ingestion
factors updated. Meanwhile, Table 11-8 presents a comparison of the mean daily intakes
per individual in a day for the major meat and dairy groups from USDA survey data from
years 1977-78, 1987-88, 1989-91, 1994, and 1995. This table shows that food
consumption patterns have changed for beef and meat mixtures when comparing 1977 and
1995 data. In particular, consumption of beef decreased by 50 percent when comparing
data from 1977 and 1995, while consumption of meat mixtures increased by 44 percent.
However, consumption of the food items presented in Table 11-8 has remained fairly
constant when comparing values from 1989-91 with the most recent data from 1994 and
1995. Meat mixtures show the largest change with an increase of 16 percent from 1989
to 1995. This indicates that the 1989-91 CSFII data are probably adequate for assessing
ingestion exposure for current populations; however, these data should be used with
caution.
It is interesting to note that there was not much variation in beef and poultry
consumption from 1989-91 to 1995. This seems to contradict the other USDA reports that
show that in recent years the U.S. population has been substituting beef for other sources
of protein such as poultry and fish. One of those reports is the report titled Meat and
Poultry Inspection; 1994 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress
(USDA, 1994). This USDA report shows a 39% increase in the number of poultry
inspected at federally inspected plants in 1994 compared to 1984. In contrast, the
number of meat animals inspected at federally inspected plants increased only by 2% from
1984 to 1994. This trend in food consumption patterns was also reported in the USDA
report titled Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-92 (USDA, 1993). This
report shows that in 1992, consumption among Americans averaged 18 pounds less red
meat, 26 pounds more poultry, and 3 pounds more fish and shellfish than in 1970. This
apparent contradiction may be explained by assuming that most of the increase in poultry
consumption has occured in the meat mixtures and grain mixtures categories. There has
been a considerable shift from consuming individual food items to food in mixtures (such
as pizza, tacos, burritos, frozen entrees, and salads from grocery stores). This may explain
why, in Table 11-8, domestic consumption has remained fairly constant in the past few
years.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
11.1.3. Relevant Meat and Dairy Products Intake Studies
The U.S. EPA's Dietary Risk Evaluation System (ORES) - U.S. EPA, Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) - EPA OPP's ORES contains per capita intake rate data for
various items of meat, poultry, and dairy products for 22 subgroups (age, regional, and
seasonal) of the population. As described in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and
Vegetables, intake data in ORES were generated by determining the composition of
1977/78 MFCS food items and disaggregating complex food dishes into their component
raw agricultural commodities (RACs) (White et al., 1983). The ORES per capita, as
consumed intake rates for all age/sex/demographic groups combined are presented in
Table 11-9. These data are based on both consumers and non-consumers of these food
items. Data for specific subgroups of the population are not presented in this section, but
are available through OPP via direct request. The data in Table 11-9 may be useful for
estimating the risks of exposure associated with the consumption of the various meat,
poultry, and dairy products presented. It should be noted that these data are indexed to
the reported body weights of the survey respondents and are expressed in units of grams
of food consumed per kg body weight per day. Consequently, use of these data in
calculating potential dose does not require the body weight factor in the denominator of
the average daily dose (ADD) equation. It should also be noted that conversion of these
intake rates into units of g/day by multiplying by a single average body weight is not
appropriate because the ORES data base did not rely on a single body weight for all
individuals. Instead, ORES used the body weights reported by each individual surveyed
to estimate consumption in units of g/kg-day.
The advantages of using these data are that complex food dishes have been
disaggregated to provide intake rates for a variety of meat, poultry, and dairy products.
These data are also based on the individual body weights of the respondents. Therefore,
the use of these data in calculating exposure to toxic chemicals may provide more
representative estimates of potential dose per unit body weight. However, because the
data are based on MFCS short-term dietary recall, the same limitations discussed
previously for other MFCS data sets also apply here. In addition, consumption patterns
may have changed since the data were collected in 1977-78. OPP is in the process of
translating consumption information from the USDA CSFII 1989-91 survey to be used in
ORES.
Food and Nutrient Intakes of Individuals in One Day in the U.S., USDA (1980, 1992,
1996a, 1996b) -USDA calculated mean per capita intake rates for meat and dairy products
using MFCS data from 1977-78 and 1987-88 (USDA, 1980; 1992) and CSFII data from
1994 and 1995 (USDA, 1996a; 1996b). The mean per capita intake rates for meat and
dairy products are presented in Tables 11-10 and 11-11 for meats and Tables 11-12 and
11-13 for dairy based on intake data for one day from the 1977-78 and 1987-88 USDA
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
NFCSs. Tables 11-14 and 11-15 present similar data from the 1994 and 1995 CSFIIfor
meats and dairy products, respectively.
The advantages of using these data are that they provide mean intake estimates for
all meat, poultry, and dairy products. The consumption estimates are based on short-term
(i.e., 1-day) dietary data which may not reflect long-term consumption.
U.S. EPA - Office of Radiation Programs - The U.S. EPA Office of Radiation Programs
(ORP) has also used the USDA 1977-78 MFCS to estimate daily food intake. ORP uses
food consumption data to assess human intake of radionuclides in foods (U.S. EPA,
1984a; 1984b). The 1977-78 MFCS data have been reorganized by ORP, and food items
have been classified according to the characteristics of radionuclide transport. The mean
per capita dietary intake of food sub classes (milk, other dairy products, eggs, beef, pork,
poultry, and other meat) grouped by age for the U.S. population is presented in Table 11-
16. The mean daily intake rates of meat, poultry, and dairy products for the U.S.
population grouped by regions are presented in Table 11-17. Because this study was
based on the USDA MFCS, the limitations and advantages associated with the USDA
MFCS data also apply to these data. Also, consumption patterns may have changed since
the data were collected in 1977-78.
U.S. EPA - Office of Science and Technology - The U.S. EPA Office of Science and
Technology (OST) within the Office of Water (formerly the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards) used data from the FDA revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists and Diets
(Pennington, 1983) to calculate food intake rates. OST uses these consumption data in
its risk assessment model for land application of municipal sludge. The FDA data used
are based on the combined results of the USDA 1977-78 MFCS and the second National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II), 1976-80 (U.S. EPA, 1989).
Because food items are listed as prepared complex foods in the FDA Total Diet Study,
each item was broken down into its component parts so that the amount of raw
commodities consumed could be determined. Table 11-18 presents intake rates for meat,
poultry, and dairy products for various age groups. Estimated lifetime ingestion rates
derived by U.S. EPA (1989) are also presented in Table 11-18. Note that these are per
capita intake rates tabulated as grams dry weight/day. Therefore, these rates differ from
those in the previous tables because Pao et al. (1982) and U.S. EPA (1984a, 1984b)
report intake rates on an as consumed basis.
The EPA-OST analysis provides intake rates for additional food categories and
estimates of lifetime average daily intake on a per capita basis. In contrast to the other
analyses of USDA NFCS data, this study reports the data in terms of dry weight intake
rates. Thus, conversion is not required when contaminants are provided on a dry weight
basis. These data, however, may not reflect current consumption patterns because they
are based on 1977-78 data.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
USDA (1993) - Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-92 -The USDA's
Economic Research Service (ERS) calculates the amount of food available for human
consumption in the United States annually. Supply and utilization balance sheets are
generated. These are based on the flow of food items from production to end uses. Total
available supply is estimated as the sum of production (i.e., some products are measured
at the farm level or during processing), starting inventories, and imports (USDA, 1993).
The availability of food for human use commonly termed as "food disappearance" is
determined by subtracting exported foods, products used in industries, farm inputs (seed
and feed) and end-of-the year inventories from the total available supply (USDA, 1993).
USDA (1993) calculates the per capita food consumption by dividing the total food
disappearance by the total U.S. population.
USDA (1993) estimated per capita consumption data for meat, poultry, and dairy
products from 1970-1992 (1992 data are preliminary). In this section, the 1991 values,
which are the most recent final data, are presented. The meat consumption data were
reported as carcass weight, retail weight equivalent, and boneless weight equivalent. The
poultry consumption data were reported as ready-to-cook (RTC) weight, retail weight, and
boneless weight (USDA, 1993). USDA (1993) defined beef carcass weight as the chilled
hanging carcass, which includes the kidney and attached internal fat (kidney, pelvic, and
heart fat), excludes the skin, head, feet, and unattached internal organs. The pork carcass
weight includes the skin and feet, but excludes the kidney and attached internal fat. Retail
weight equivalents assume all food was sold through retail foodstores; therefore,
conversion factors (Table 11-19) were used to correct carcass or RTC to retail weight to
account for trimming, shrinkage, or loss of meat and chicken at these retail outlets (USDA,
1993). Boneless equivalent values for meat (pork, veal, beef) and poultry excludes all
bones, but includes separable fat sold on retail cuts of red meat. Pet food was considered
as an apparent source of food disappearance for poultry in boneless weight estimates,
while pet food was excluded for beef, veal, and pork (USDA, 1993). Table 11-19 presents
per capita consumption in 1991 for red meat (carcass weight, retail equivalent, and
boneless trimmed equivalent) and poultry (RTC, retail equivalent for chicken only, and
boneless trimmed equivalent). Per capita consumption estimates based on boneless
weights appear to be the most appropriate data for use in exposure assessments, because
boneless meats are more representative of what people would actually consume. Table
11-20 presents per capita consumption in 1991 for dairy products including eggs, milk,
cheese, cream, and sour cream.
One of the limitations of this study is that disappearance data do not account for
losses from the food supply from waste, spoilage, or foods fed to pets. Thus, intake rates
based on these data will overestimate daily consumption because they are based on the
total quantity of marketable commodity utilized. Therefore, these data may be useful for
estimating bounding exposure estimates. It should also be noted that per capita estimates
based on food disappearance are not a direct measure of actual consumption or quantity
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
ingested, instead the data are used as indicators of changes in usage over time (USDA,
1993). An advantage of this study is that it provides per capita consumption rates for
meat, poultry, and dairy products which are representative of long-term intake because
disappearance data are generated annually. Daily per capita intake rates are generated
by dividing annual consumption by 365 days/year.
National Live Stock and Meat Board (1993) - Eating in America Today: A Dietary
Pattern and Intake Report - The National Live Stock and Meat Board (NLMB) (1993)
assessed the nutritional value of the current American diet based on two factors: (1) the
composition of the foods consumed, and (2) the amount of food consumed. Data used in
this study were provided by MRCA Information Services, Inc. through MRCA's Nutritional
Marketing Information Division. The survey conducted by MRCA consisted of a 2,000
household panels of over 4,700 individuals. The survey sample was selected to be
representative of the U.S. population. Information obtained from the survey by MRCA's
Menu Census included food and beverage consumption over a period of 14 consecutive
days. The head of the household recorded daily food and beverage consumption in-home
and away-from-home in diaries for each household member. The survey period was from
July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991. This ensured that all days carried equal weights and
provided a seasonally balanced data set. In addition, nutrient intake data calculated by
the MRCA's Nutrient Intake Database (NID) (based on the 1987-88 USDA Food Intake
Study) and information on food attitudes were also collected. It should be noted, however,
that the 14 daily diaries provided only the incidence of eating each food product by an
individual, but not the quantity eaten by each person. The for each individual
was estimated by multiplying the eating frequency of a particular food item by the average
amount eaten per eating occasion. The data on the average amount eaten per eating
occasion were obtained from the USDA NFCS survey.
Table 11-21 presents the adult daily mean intake of meat and poultry grouped by
region and gender. The adult population was defined as consumers ages 19 and above
(NLMB, 1993). Beef consumption was high in all regions compared to other meats and
poultry (Table 11-21). The average daily consumption of meat in the U.S. was 114.2 g/day
which included beef (57 percent), veal (0.5 percent), lamb (0.5 percent), game/variety
meats (8 percent), processed meats (18 percent), and pork (16 percent) (NLMB, 1993).
Table 11-22 shows the amount of meat consumed by the adult population grouped as non-
meat eaters (1 percent), light meat eaters (30 percent), medium meat eaters (33 percent),
and heavy meat eaters (36 percent).
The advantage of this study is that the survey period is longer (i.e., 14 days) than any
other food consumption survey. The survey is also based on a nationally representative
sample. The survey also accounts for foods eaten as mixtures. However, only mean
values are provided. Therefore, distribution of long-term consumption patterns cannot be
derived. In addition, the survey collects data on incidence of eating each food item and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
not actual consumption rates. This may introduce some bias in the results. The direction
of this bias is unknown.
AIHC (1994) - Exposure Factors Sourcebook - The AIHC Sourcebook (AIHC, 1994)
uses the data presented in the 1989 version of the Exposure Factors Handbook which
reported data from the USDA 1977-78 MFCS. In this Handbook, new analyses of more
recent data from the USDA 1989-91 CSFII are presented. Numbers, however, cannot be
directly compared with previous values since the results from the new analysis are
presented on a body weight basis. The Sourcebook was selected as a relevant study
because it was not the primary source for the data used to make recommendations in this
document. However, it is an alternative information source.
Pao et al. (1982) - Foods Commonly Eaten by Individuals - Using data gathered in
the 1977-78 USDA MFCS, Pao et al. (1982) calculated percentiles for the quantities of
meat, poultry, and dairy products consumed per eating occasion by members of the U.S.
population. The data were collected during MFCS home interviews of 37,874 respondents,
who were asked to recall food intake for the day preceding the interview, and record food
intake the day of the interview and the day after the interview. Quantities consumed per
eating occasion, are presented in Table 11-23.
The advantages of using these data are that they were derived from the USDA MFCS
and are representative of the U.S. population. This data set provides distributions of
serving sizes for a number of commonly eaten meat, poultry, and dairy products, but the
list of foods is limited and does not account for meat, poultry, and dairy products included
in complex food dishes. Also, these data are based on short-term dietary recall and may
not accurately reflect long-term consumption patterns. Although these data are based on
the 1977-78 MFCS, serving size data have been collected but not published for the more
recent USDA surveys.
11.2. FAT CONTENT OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS
In some cases, the residue levels of contaminants in meat and dairy products are
reported as the concentration of contaminant per gram of fat. This may be particularly true
for lipophilic compounds. When using these residue levels, the assessor should ensure
consistency in the exposure assessment calculations by using consumption rates that are
based on the amount of fat consumed for the meat or dairy product of interest. Alternately,
residue levels for the "as consumed" portions of these products may be estimated by
multiplying the levels based on fat by the fraction of fat per product as follows:
residue level , residue level g&fat
g&product g&fatg&product (Eqn. 11-1)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
The resulting residue levels may then be used in conjunction with "as consumed"
consumption rates. The percentages of lipid fat in meat and dairy products have been
reported in various publications. USDA's Agricultural Handbook Number 8 (USDA, 1979-
1984) provides composition data for agricultural products. It includes a listing of the total
saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats for various meat and dairy items.
Table 11-24 presents the total fat content for selected meat and dairy products taken from
Handbook Number 8. The total percent fat content is based on the sum of saturated,
monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats.
The National Livestock and Meat Board (NLMB) (1993) used data from Agricultural
Handbook Number 8 and consumption data to estimate the fat contribution to the U.S. diet.
Total fat content in grams, based on a 3-ounce (85.05 g) cooked serving size, was
reported for several categories (retail composites) of meats. These data are presented in
Table 11-25 along with the corresponding percent fat content values for each product.
NLMB (1993) also reported that 0.17 grams of fat are consumed per gram of meat (i.e.,
beef, pork, lamb, veal, game, processed meats, and variety meats) (17 percent) and 0.08
grams of fat are consumed per gram of poultry (8 percent).
The average total fat content of the U.S. diet was reported to be 68.3 g/day. The
meat group (meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, and nuts) was reported to contribute the
most to the average total fat in the diet (41 percent) (NLMB, 1993). Meats (i.e., beef, pork,
lamb, veal, game, processed meats, and variety meats) reportedly contribute less than 30
percent to the total fat of the average U.S. diet. The milk group contributes approximately
12 percent to the average total fat in the U.S. diet (NLMB, 1993). Fat intake rates and the
contributions of the major food groups to fat intake for heavy, medium, and light meat
eaters, and non meat eaters are presented in Table 11-26 (NLMB, 1993). NLMB (1993)
also reported the average meat fat intake to be 19.4 g/day, with beef contributing about
50 percent of the fat to the diet from all meats. Processed meats contributed 31 percent;
pork contributed 14 percent; game and variety meats contributed 4 percent; and lamb and
veal contributed 1 percent to the average meat fat intake.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) (1994) used data from NHANES III to calculate
daily total food energy intake (TFEI), total dietary fat intake, and saturated fat intake for
the U.S. population during 1988 to 1991. The sample population comprised 20,277
individuals ages 2 months and above, of which 14,001 respondents (73 percent response
rate) provided dietary information based on a 24-hour recall. TFEI was defined as "all
nutrients (i.e., protein, fat, carbohydrate, and alcohol) derived from consumption of foods
and beverages (excluding plain drinking water) measured in kilocalories (kcal)." Total
dietary fat intake was defined as "all fat (i.e., saturated and unsaturated) derived from
consumption of foods and beverages measured in grams."
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
CDC (1994) estimated and provided data on the mean daily TFEI and the mean
percentages of TFEI from total dietary fat grouped by age and gender. The overall mean
daily TFEI was 2,095 kcal for the total population and 34 percent (or 82 g) of their TFEI
was from total dietary fat (CDC, 1994). Based on this information, the mean daily fat
intake was calculated for the various age groups and genders (see Appendix 11A for
detailed calculation). Table 11-27 presents the grams of fat per day obtained from the
daily consumption of foods and beverages grouped by age and gender for the U.S.
population, based on this calculation.
11.3. CONVERSION BETWEEN AS CONSUMED AND DRY WEIGHT
INTAKE RATES
As noted previously, intake rates may be reported in terms of units as consumed or
units of dry weight. It is essential that exposure assessors be aware of this difference so
that they may ensure consistency between the units used for intake rates and those used
for concentration data (i.e., if the unit of food consumption is grams dry weight/day, then
the unit for the amount of pollutant in the food should be grams dry weight). If necessary,
as consumed intake rates may be converted to dry weight intake rates using the moisture
content percentages of meat, poultry and dairy products presented in Table 11 -28 and the
following equation:
IRdw=IRac*[(100-W)/100] (Eqn. 11-2)
"Dry weight" intake rates may be converted to "as consumed" rates by using:
IRac = IRdw/[(100-W)/100] (Eqn. 11-3)
where:
IRdw = dry weight intake rate;
IRac = as consumed intake rate; and
W = percent water content.
11.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1989-91 CSFII data described in this section were used in selecting
recommended meat, poultry, and dairy product intake rates for the general population and
various subgroups of the United States population. The general design of both key and
relevant studies are summarized in Table 11-29. The recommended values for intake of
meat and dairy products are summarized in Table 11-30 and the confidence ratings for the
recommended values for meat and dairy intake rates are presented in Table 11-31. Per
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 11 - Intake of Meat and Dairy Products
capita intake rates for specific meat items, on a g/kg-day basis, may be obtained from
Tables 11 -3 to 11 -7. Percentiles of the intake rate distribution in the general population
for total meat and total dairy are presented in Tables 11-1 and 11-2. From these tables,
the mean and 95th percentile intake rates for meats are 2.1 g/kg-day and 5.1 g/kg-day,
respectively. The mean and 95th percentile intake rates for dairy products are 8.0 g/kg-
day and 29.7 g/kg-day. It is important to note that the data presented in Tables 11-1
through 11-7 are based on data collected over a 3-day period and may not necessarily
reflect the long-term distribution of average daily intake rates. However, for these broad
categories of food (i.e., total meats and total dairy products), because they may be eaten
on a daily basis throughout the year with minimal seasonality, the short-term distribution
may be a reasonable approximation of the long-term distribution, although it will display
somewhat increased variability. This implies that the upper percentiles shown here will
tend to overestimate the corresponding percentiles of the true long-term distribution.
Intake rates for the homeproduced form of these food items/groups are presented in
Volume II, Chapter 13. It should be noted that because these recommendations are based
on 1989-91 CSFII data, they may not reflect recent the most changes in consumption
patterns. However, as indicated in Table 11-8, intake has remained fairly constant
between 1989-91 and 1995. Thus, the 1989-91 CSFII data are believed to be appropriate
for assessing ingestion exposure for current populations.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Appendix 11A
APPENDIX 11A
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF MEAN DAILY FAT INTAKE BASED ON CDC (1994)
DATA
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Appendix 11A
Sample Calculation of Mean Daily Fat Intake Based on CDC (1994) Data
CDC (1994) provided data on the mean daily total food energy intake (TFEI) and the
mean percentages of TFEI from total dietary fat grouped by age and gender. The overall
mean daily TFEI was 2,095 kcal for the total population and 34 percent (or 82 g) of their
TFEI was from total dietary fat (CDC, 1994). Based on this information, the amount of fat
per kcal was calculated as shown in the following example.
0.34 x 2,095 x X - ' 82
day day day
,DX ' 0.12
kcal
where 0.34 is the fraction of fat intake, 2,095 is the total food intake, and X is the
conversion factor from kcal/day to g-fat/day.
Using the conversion factor shown above (i.e., 0.12 g-fat/kcal) and the information
on the mean daily TFEI and percentage of TFEI for the various age/gender groups, the
daily fat intake was calculated for these groups. An example of obtaining the grams of fat
from the daily TFEI (1 ,591 kcal/day) for children ages 3-5 and their percent TFEI from total
dietary fat (33 percent) is as follows:
1591 x 0.33 x 0.12 ' 63
day kcal day
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
12. INTAKE OF GRAIN PRODUCTS
Consumption of grain products is a potential pathway of exposure to toxic chemicals.
These food sources can become contaminated by absorption or deposition of ambient air
pollutants onto the plants, contact with chemicals dissolved in rainfall or irrigation waters,
or absorption of chemicals through plant roots from soil and ground water. The addition
of pesticides, soil additives, and fertilizers may also result in contamination of grain
products.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Nationwide Food Consumption Survey
(NFCS) and Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) are the primary
sources of information on intake rates of grain products in the United States. Data from
the NFCS have been used in various studies to generate consumer-only and per capita
intake rates for both individual grain products and total grains. CSFII 1989-91 survey data
have been analyzed by EPA to generate per capita intake rates for various food items and
food groups. As described in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables,
consumer-only intake is defined as the quantity of grain products consumed by individuals
who ate these food items during the survey period. Per capita intake rates are generated
by averaging consumer-only intakes over the entire population of users and non-users.
In general, per capita intake rates are appropriate for use in exposure assessments for
which average dose estimates for the general population are of interest because they
represent both individuals who ate the foods during the survey period and individuals who
may eat the food items at some time, but did not consume them during the survey period.
This Chapter provides intake data for individual grain products and total grains.
Recommendations are based on average and upper-percentile intake among the general
population of the U.S. Available data have been classified as being either a key or a
relevant study based on the considerations discussed in Volume I, Section 1.3.1 of the
Introduction. Recommendations are based on data from the 1989-91 CSFII survey, which
was considered the only key intake study for grain products. Other relevant studies are
also presented to provide the reader with added perspective on this topic. It should be
noted that most of the key and relevant studies presented in this Chapter are based on
data from USDA's NFCS and CSFII. The USDA NFCS and CSFII are described below.
12.1. INTAKE STUDIES
12.1.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey and Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
The NFCS and CSFII are the basis of much of the data on grain intake presented in
this section. Data from the 1977-78 NFCS are presented because the data have been
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
published by USDA in various reports and reanalyzed by various EPA offices according
to the food items/groups commonly used to assess exposure. Published one-day data
from the 1987-88 MFCS and 1994 and 1994 CSFII are also presented. Recently, EPA
conducted an analysis of USDA's 1989-91 CSFII. These data were the most recent food
survey data available to the public at the time that EPA analyzed the data for this
Handbook. The results of EPA's analyses are presented here. Detailed descriptions of
the MFCS and CSFII data are presented in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and
Vegetables.
Individual average daily intake rates calculated from MFCS and CSFII data are based
on averages of reported individual intakes over one day or three consecutive days. Such
short term data are suitable for estimating average daily intake rates representative of both
short-term and long-term consumption. However, the distribution of average daily intake
rates generated using short term data (e.g., 3-day) do not necessarily reflect the long-term
distribution of average daily intake rates. The distributions generated from short term and
long term data will differ to the extent that each individual's intake varies from day to day;
the distributions will be similar to the extent that individuals' intakes are constant from day
to day.
Day-to-day variation in intake among individuals will be great for food item/groups that
are highly seasonal and for items/groups that are eaten year around, but that are not
typically eaten every day. For these foods, the intake distribution generated from short
term data will not be a good reflection of the long term distribution. On the other hand, for
broad categories of foods (e.g., total grains) which are eaten on a daily basis throughout
the year with minimal seasonality, the short term distribution may be a reasonable
approximation of the true long term distribution, although it will show somewhat more
variability. In this Chapter, distributions are shown for the various grain categories.
Because of the increased variability of the short-term distribution, the short-term upper
percentiles shown will overestimate somewhat the corresponding percentiles of the long-
term distribution.
12.1.2. Key Grain Products Intake Studies Based on the CSFII
U.S. EPA Analysis of 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data - EPA conducted an analysis of
USDA's 1989-91 CSFII data set. The general methodology used in analyzing the data is
presented in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables of this Handbook.
Intake rates were generated for the following grain products: total grains, breads, sweets,
snacks, breakfast foods, pasta, cooked cereals, rice, ready-to-eat cereals, and baby
cereals. Appendix 12A provides the food codes and descriptions used in this grain
analysis. The data for total grains have been corrected to account for mixtures as
described in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables and Appendix 9A using
an assumed grain content of 31 percent for grain mixtures and 13 percent for meat
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
mixtures. Per capita intake rates for total grains are presented in Tables 12-1. Table 12-2
through 12-10 present per capita intake data for individual grain products. The results are
presented in units of g/kg-day. Thus, use of these data in calculating potential dose does
not require the body weight factor to be included in the denominator of the average daily
dose (ADD) equation. It should be noted that converting these intake rates into units of
g/day by multiplying by a single average body weight is inappropriate, because individual
intake rates were indexed to the reported body weights of the survey respondents.
However, if there is a need to compare the intake data presented here to intake data in
units of g/day, a body weight less than 70 kg (i.e., approximately 60 kg; calculated based
on the number of respondents in each age category and the average body weights for
these age groups, as presented in Volume I, Chapter 7) should be used because the total
survey population included children as well as adults.
The advantages of using the 1989-91 CSFII data set are that the data are expected
to be representative of the U.S. population and that it includes data on a wide variety of
food types. The data set was the most recent of a series of publicly available USDA data
sets (i.e., MFCS 1977-78; MFCS 1987-88; CSFII 1989-91) at the time the analysis was
conducted for this Handbook, and should reflect recent eating patterns in the United
States. The data set includes three years of intake data combined. However, the 1989-91
CSFII data are based on a three day survey period. Short-term dietary data may not
accurately reflect long-term eating patterns. This is particularly true for the tails of the
distribution of food intake. In addition, the adjustment for including mixtures adds
uncertainty to the intake rate distributions. The calculation for including mixtures assumes
that intake of any mixture includes grains in the proportions specified in Appendix
Table 9A-1. This assumption yields valid estimates of per capita consumption, but results
in overestimates of the proportion of the population consuming total grains; thus, the
quantities reported in Table 12-1 should be interpreted as upper bounds on the proportion
of the population consuming grain products.
The data presented in this handbook for the USDA 1989-91 CSFII is not the most up-
to-date information on food intake. USDA has recently made available the data from its
1994 and 1995 CSFII. Over 5,500 people nationwide participated in both of these surveys
providing recalled food intake informatin for 2 separate days. Although the 2-day data
analysis has not been conducted, USDA published the results for the respondents' intakes
on the first day surveyed (USDA, 1996a; 1996b). USDA 1996 survey data will be made
available later in 1997. As soon as 1996 data are available, EPA will take steps to get the
3-year data (1994, 1995, and 1996) analyzed and the food ingestion factors updated.
Meanwhile, Table 12-11 presents a comparison of the mean daily intakes per individual
in a day for grains from the USDA survey data from years 1977-78, 1987-88, 1989-91,
1994, and 1995. This table shows that food consumption patterns have changed for grains
and grain mixtures when comparing 1977 and 1995 data. When comparing data from
1977 and 1995, consumption of grains mixtures and grain increased by 106 percent and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
41 percent, respectively. However, consumption of grains has remained fairly constant
when comparing values from 1989-91 with the most recent data from 1994 and 1995.
Grain mixtures and grains increase 20 percent and 11 percent, respectively from 1989 to
1995. The 1989-91 CSFII data are probably adequate for assessing ingestion exposure
for current populations, but these data should be used with caution.
12.1.3. Relevant Grain Products Intake Studies
The U.S. EPA's Dietary Risk Evaluation System (ORES) - USEPA, Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) - EPA OPP's ORES contains per capita intake rate data for various grain
products for 22 subgroups (age, regional, and seasonal) of the population. As described
in Volume II, Chapter 9 - Intake of Fruits and Vegetables, intake data in ORES were
generated by determining the composition of 1977/78 MFCS food items and
disaggregating complex food dishes into their component raw agricultural commodities
(RACs) (White et al., 1983). The ORES per capita, as consumed intake rates for all
age/sex/demographic groups combined are presented in Table 12-12. These data are
based on both consumers and non-consumers of these food items. Data for specific
subgroups of the population are not presented in this section, but are available through
OPP via direct request. The data in Table 12-12 may be useful for estimating the risks of
exposure associated with the consumption of the various grain products presented. It
should be noted that these data are indexed to the reported body weights of the survey
respondents and are expressed in units of grams of food consumed per kg body weight
per day. Consequently, use of these data in calculating potential dose does not require
the body weight factor in the denominator of the average daily dose (ADD) equation. It
should also be noted that conversion of these intake rates into units of g/day by multiplying
by a single average body weight is not appropriate because the ORES data base did not
rely on a single body weight for all individuals. Instead, ORES used the body weights
reported by each individual surveyed to estimate consumption in units of g/kg-day.
The advantages of using these data are that complex food dishes have been
disaggregated to provide intake rates for a variety of grains. These data are also based
on the individual body weights of the respondents. Therefore, the use of these data in
calculating exposure to toxic chemicals may provide more representative estimates of
potential dose per unit body weight. However, because the data are based on MFCS
short-term dietary recall, the same limitations discussed previously for other MFCS data
sets also apply here. In addition, consumption patterns may have changed since the data
were collected in 1977-78. OPP is in the process of translating consumption information
from the USDA CSFII 1989-91 survey to be used in ORES.
Food and Nutrient Intakes of Individuals in One Day in the U.S., USDA (1980, 1992;
1996a; 1996b) -USDA calculated mean per capita intake rates for total and individual grain
products using MFCS data from 1977-78 and 1987-88 (USDA 1980; 1992) and CSFII data
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
from 1994 and 1995 (USDA, 1996a; 1996b). The mean per capita intake rates for grain
products are presented in Tables 12-13 and 12-14 for the two MFCS survey years,
respectively. Table 12-15 presents similar data from the 1994 and 1995 CSFII for grain
products.
The advantages of using these data are that they provide mean intake estimates for
various grain products. The consumption estimates are based on short-term (i.e., 1-day)
dietary data which may not reflect long-term consumption.
U.S. EPA - Office of Radiation Programs - The U.S. EPA Office of Radiation Programs
(ORP) has also used the USDA 1977-78 MFCS to estimate daily food intake. ORP uses
food consumption data to assess human intake of radionuclides in foods (U.S. EPA,
1984a; 1984b). The 1977-78 MFCS data have been reorganized by ORP, and food items
have been classified according to the characteristics of radionuclide transport. The mean
dietary per capita intake of grain products, grouped by age, for the U.S. population are
presented in Table 12-16. The mean daily intake rates of grain products for the U.S.
population grouped by regions are presented in Table 12-17. Because this study was
based on the USDA MFCS, the limitations and advantages associated with the USDA-
NFCS data also apply to this data set. Also, consumption patterns may have changed
since the data were collected in 1977-78.
U.S. EPA - Office of Science and Technology - The U.S. EPA Office of Science and
Technology (OST) within the Office of Water (formerly the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards) used data from the FDA revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists and Diets
(Pennington, 1983) to calculate food intake rates. OST uses these consumption data in
its risk assessment model for land application of municipal sludge. The FDA data used
are based on the combined results of the USDA 1977-78 MFCS and the second National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II), 1976-80 (U.S. EPA, 1989).
Because food items are listed as prepared complex foods in the FDA Total Diet Study,
each item was broken down into its component parts so that the amount of raw
commodities consumed could be determined. Table 12-18 presents intake rates for grain
products for various age groups. Estimated lifetime ingestion rates derived by U.S. EPA
(1989) are also presented in Table 12-18. Note that these are per capita intake rates
tabulated as grams dry weight/day. Therefore, these rates differ from those in the previous
tables because USDA (1980; 1992) and U.S. EPA (1984a, 1984b) report intake rates on
an as consumed basis.
The EPA-OST analysis provides intake rates for additional food categories and
estimates of lifetime average daily intake on a per capita basis. In contrast to the other
analyses of USDA NFCS data, this study reports the data in terms of dry weight intake
rates. Thus, conversion is not required when contaminants are provided on a dry weight
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
basis. These data, however, may not reflect current consumption patterns because they
are based on 1977-78 data.
USDA (1993)-Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-92 - The USDA's
Economic Research Service (ERS) calculates the amount of food available for human
consumption in the United States annually. Supply and utilization balance sheets are
generated. These are based on the flow of food items from production to end uses. Total
available supply is estimated as the sum of production (i.e., some products are measured
at the farm level or during processing), starting inventories, and imports (USDA, 1993).
The availability of food for human use commonly termed as "food disappearance" is
determined by subtracting exported foods, products used in industries, farm inputs (seed
and feed) and end-of-the year inventories from the total available supply (USDA, 1993).
USDA (1993) calculates the per capita food consumption by dividing the total food
disappearance by the total U.S. population.
USDA (1993) estimated per capita consumption data for grain products from 1970-
1992 (1992 data are preliminary). In this section, the 1991 values, which are the most
recent final data, are presented. Table 12-19 presents per capita consumption in 1991 for
grains.
One of the limitations of this study is that disappearance data do not account for
losses from the food supply from waste, spoilage, or foods fed to pets. Thus, intake rates
based on these data may overestimate daily consumption because they are based on the
total quantity of marketable commodity utilized. Therefore, these data may be useful for
estimating bounding exposure estimates. It should also be noted that per capita estimates
based on food disappearance are not a direct measure of actual consumption or quantity
ingested, instead the data are used as indicators of changes in usage over time (USDA,
1993). An advantage of this study is that it provides per capita consumption rates for
grains which are representative of long-term intake because disappearance data are
generated annually. Daily per capita intake rates are generated by dividing annual
consumption by 365 days/year.
12.1.4. Key Grain Products Serving Size Study Based on the USDA
MFCS
Pao et al. (1982) - Foods Commonly Eaten by Individuals - Using data gathered in
the 1977-78 USDA MFCS, Pao et al. (1982) calculated percentiles for the quantities of
grain products consumed per eating occasion by members of the U.S. population. The
data were collected during MFCS home interviews of 37,874 respondents, who were asked
to recall food intake for the day preceding the interview, and record food intake the day of
the interview and the day after the interview. Quantities consumed per eating occasion,
are presented in Table 12-20.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
The advantages of using these data are that they were derived from the USDA MFCS
and are representative of the U.S. population. This data set provides distributions of
serving sizes for a number of commonly eaten grain products, but the list of foods is limited
and does not account for grain products included in complex food dishes. Also, these data
are based on short-term dietary recall and may not accurately reflect long-term
consumption patterns. Although these data are based on the 1977-78 MFCS, serving size
data have been collected, but not published, for the more recent USDA surveys.
12.2. CONVERSION BETWEEN AS CONSUMED AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES
As noted previously, intake rates may be reported in terms of units as consumed or
units of dry weight. It is essential that exposure assessors be aware of this difference so
that they may ensure consistency between the units used for intake rates and those used
for concentration data (i.e., if the unit of food consumption is grams dry weight/day, then
the unit for the amount of pollutant in the food should be grams dry weight). If necessary,
as consumed intake rates may be converted to dry weight intake rates using the moisture
content percentages of grain products presented in Table 12-21 and the following
equation:
* t(100-W)/100] (Eqn. 12-1)
"Dry weight" intake rates may be converted to "as consumed" rates by using:
IRac = IRdw/[(100-W)/100] (Eqn. 12-2)
where:
IRdw = dry weight intake rate;
IRac = as consumed intake rate; and
W = percent water content.
12.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1989-91 CSFII data described in this section were used in selecting
recommended grain, product intake rates for the general population and various
subgroups of the United States population. The general design of both key and relevant
studies are summarized in Table 12-22 The recommended values for intake of grain
products are summarized in Table 12-23 and the confidence ratings for the recommended
values for grain intake rates are presented in Table 12-24. Per capita intake rates for
specific grain items, on a g/kg-day basis, may be obtained from Tables 12-2 through 12-
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
10. Percentiles of the intake rate distribution in the general population for total grains, are
presented in Table 12-1. From these tables, the mean and 95th percentile intake rates for
grains are 4.1 g/kg-day and 10.8 g/kg-day, respectively. It is important to note that the
data presented in Tables 12-1 through 12-10 are based on data collected over a 3-day
period and may not necessarily reflect the long-term distribution of average daily intake
rates. However, for the broad categories of foods (i.e., total grains, breads), because they
may be eaten on a daily basis throughout the year with minimal seasonality, the short-term
distribution may be a reasonable approximation of the long-term distribution, although it
will display somewhat increased variability. This implies that the upper percentiles shown
will tend to overestimate the corresponding percentiles of the true long-term distribution.
It should be noted that because these recommendations are based on 1989-91 CSFII data,
they may not reflect the most recent changes in consumption patterns. However, as
indicated in Table 12-11, intake has remained fairly constant between 1989-19 and 1995.
Thus, the 1989-91 CSFII data are believed to be appropriate for assessing ingestion
exposure for current populations.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
13. INTAKE RATES FOR VARIOUS HOME PRODUCED FOOD ITEMS
13.1. BACKGROUND
Ingestion of contaminated foods is a potential pathway of exposure to toxic chemicals.
Consumers of home produced food products may be of particular concern because
exposure resulting from local site contamination may be higher for this subpopulation.
According to a survey by the National Gardening Association (1987), a total of 34 million
(or 38 percent) U.S. households participated in vegetable gardening in 1986. Table 13-1
contains demographic data on vegetable gardening in 1986 by region/section, community
size, and household size.
Table 13-2 contains information on the types of vegetables grown by home gardeners
in 1986. Tomatoes, peppers, onions, cucumbers, lettuce, beans, carrots, and corn are
among the vegetables grown by the largest percentage of gardeners. Home produced
foods can become contaminated in a variety of ways. Ambient pollutants in the air may
be deposited on plants, adsorbed onto or absorbed by the plants, or dissolved in rainfall
or irrigation waters that contact the plants. Pollutants may also be adsorbed onto plants
roots from contaminated soil and water. Finally, the addition of pesticides, soil additives,
and fertilizers to crops or gardens may result in contamination of food products. Meat and
dairy products can become contaminated if animals consume contaminated soil, water, or
feed crops. Intake rates for home produced food products are needed to assess exposure
to local contaminants present in homegrown or home caught foods. Recently, EPA
analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey (NFCS) to generate distributions of intake rates for home produced
foods. The methods used and the results of these analyses are presented below.
13.2. METHODS
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) data were used to generate intake
rates for home produced foods. USDA conducts the NFCS every 10 years to analyze the
food consumption behavior and dietary status of Americans (USDA, 1992). The most
recent NFCS was conducted in 1987-88. The survey used a statistical sampling technique
designed to ensure that all seasons, geographic regions of the 48 conterminous states in
the U.S., and socioeconomic and demographic groups were represented (USDA, 1994).
There were two components of the NFCS. The household component collected
information over a seven-day period on the socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics of households, and the types, amount, value, and sources of foods
consumed by the household (USDA, 1994). The individual intake component collected
information on food intakes of individuals within each household over a three-day period
(USDA, 1993). The sample size for the 1987-88 survey was approximately 4,300
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
households (over 10,000 individuals). This is a decrease over the previous survey
conducted in 1977-78 which sampled approximately 15,000 households (over 36,000
individuals) (USDA, 1994). The sample size was lower in the 1987-88 survey as a result
of budgetary constraints and low response rate (i.e., 38 percent for the household survey
and 31 percent for the individual survey) (USDA, 1993). However, MFCS data from 1987-
88 were used to generate homegrown intake rates because they were the most recent data
available and were believed to be more reflective of current eating patterns among the
U.S. population.
The USDA data were adjusted by applying the sample weights calculated by USDA
to the data set prior to analysis. The USDA sample weights were designed to "adjust for
survey non-response and other vagaries of the sample selection process" (USDA, 1987-
88). Also, the USDA weights are calculated "so that the weighted sample total equals the
known population total, in thousands, for several characteristics thought to be correlated
with eating behavior" (USDA, 1987-88).
For the purposes of this study, home produced foods were defined as homegrown
fruits and vegetables, meat and dairy products derived from consumer-raised livestock or
game meat, and home caught fish. The food items/groups selected for analysis included
major food groups (i.e., total fruits, total vegetables, total meats, total dairy, total fish and
shellfish), individual food items for which >30 households reported eating the home
produced form of the item, fruits and vegetables categorized as exposed, protected, and
roots, and various USDA fruit and vegetable subcategories (i.e., dark green vegetables,
citrus fruits, etc.). Food items/groups were identified in the MFCS data base according to
NFCS-defined food codes. Appendix 13A presents the codes used to determine the
various food groups.
Although the individual intake component of the MFCS gives the best measure of the
amount of each food item eaten by each individual in the household, it could not be used
directly to measure consumption of home produced food because the individual
component does not identify the source of the food item (i.e., as home produced or not).
Therefore, an analytical method which incorporated data from both the household and
individual survey components was developed to estimate individual home produced food
intake. The USDA household data were used to determine (1) the amount of each home
produced food item used during a week by household members and (2) the number of
meals eaten in the household by each household member during a week. Note that the
household survey reports the total amount of each food item used in the household
(whether by guests or household members); the amount used by household members was
derived by multiplying the total amount used in the household by the proportion of all
meals served in the household (during the survey week) that were consumed by household
members.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
The individual survey data were used to generate average sex- and age-specific
serving sizes for each food item. The age categories used in the analysis were as follows:
1 to 2 years; 3 to 5 years; 6 to 11 years; 12 to 19 years; 20 to 39 years; 40 to 69 years; and
over 70 years (intake rates were not calculated for children under 1; the rationale for this
is discussed below). These serving sizes were used during subsequent analyses to
generate homegrown food intake rates for individual household members. Assuming that
the proportion of the household quantity of each homegrown food item/group was a
function of the number of meals and the mean sex- and age-specific serving size for each
family member, individual intakes of home produced food were calculated for all members
of the survey population using SAS programming in which the following general equation
was used:
w
(Eqn. 13-1)
where:
Wj = Homegrown amount of food item/group attributed to member i during the week (g/week);
Wf = Total quantity of homegrown food item/group used by the family members (g/week);
mj = Number of meals of household food consumed by member i during the week (meals/week); and
q, = Serving size for an individual within the age and sex category of the member (g/meal).
Daily intake of a homegrown food item/group was determined by dividing the weekly value
(w,) by seven. Intake rates were indexed to the self-reported body weight of the survey
respondent and reported in units of g/kg-day. Intake rates were not calculated for children
under one year of age because their diet differs markedly from that of other household
members, and thus the assumption that all household members share all foods would be
invalid for this age group. In Section 13.5, a method for estimating per-capita homegrown
intake in this age group is suggested.
For the major food groups (fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, and fish) and individual
foods consumed by at least 30 households, distributions of home produced intake among
consumers were generated for the entire data set and according to the following
subcategories: age groups, urbanization categories, seasons, racial classifications,
regions, and responses to the questionnaire.
Consumers were defined as members of survey households who reported
consumption of the food item/group of interest during the one week survey period. In
addition, for the major food groups, distributions were generated for each region by
season, urbanization, and responses to the questionnaire. Table 13-3 presents the codes,
definitions, and a description of the data included in each of the subcategories. Intake
rates were not calculated for food items/groups for which less than 30 households reported
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
home produced usage because the number of observations may be inadequate for
generating distributions that would be representative of that segment of consumers. Fruits
and vegetables were also classified as exposed, protected, or roots, as shown in Appendix
13A of this document. Exposed foods are those that are grown above ground and are
likely to be contaminated by pollutants deposited on surfaces that are eaten. Protected
products are those that have outer protective coatings that are typically removed before
consumption. Distributions of intake were tabulated for these food classes for the same
subcategories listed above. Distributions were also tabulated for the following USDA food
classifications: dark green vegetables, deep yellow vegetables, other vegetables, citrus
fruits, and other fruits. Finally, the percentages of total intake of the food items/groups
consumed within survey households that can be attributed to home production were
tabulated. The percentage of intake that was homegrown was calculated as the ratio of
total intake of the homegrown food item/group by the survey population to the total intake
of all forms of the food by the survey population.
As disccussed in Section 13.3, percentiles of average daily intake derived from short
time intervals (e.g., 7 days) will not, in general, be reflective of long term patterns. This
is especially true regarding consumption of many homegrown products (e.g., fruits,
vegetables), where there is often a strong seasonal component associated with their use.
To try to derive, for the major food categories, the long term distribution of average daily
intake rates from the short-term data available here, an approach was developed which
attempted to account for seasonal variability in consumption. This approach used regional
"seasonally adjusted distributions" to approximate regional long term distributions and then
combined these regional adjusted distributions (in proportion to the weights for each
region) to obtain a U.S. adjusted distribution which approximated the U.S. long term
distribution.
The percentiles of the seasonally adjusted distribution for a given region were
generated by averaging the corresponding percentiles of each of the four seasonal
distributions of the region. More formally, the seasonally adjusted distribution for each
region is such that its inverse cumulative distribution function is the average of the inverse
cumulative distribution functions of each of the seasonal distributions of that region. The
use of regional seasonally adjusted distributions to approximate regional long term
distributions is based on the assumption that each individual consumes at the same
regional percentile levels for each season and consumes at a constant weekly rate
throughout a given season. Thus, for instance, if the 60th percentile weekly intake level
in the South is 14.0 g in the summer and 7.0 g in each of the three other seasons, then an
individual in the South with an average weekly intake of 14.0 g over the summer would be
assumed to have an intake of 14.0 g for each week of the summer and an intake of 7.0 g
for each week of the other seasons.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
Note that the seasonally adjusted distributions derived above were generated using
the overall distributions, i.e., both consumers and non-consumers. However, since all the
other distributions presented in this section are based on consumers only, the percentiles
for the adjusted distributions have been revised to reflect the percentiles among
consumers only. Given the above assumption about how each individual consumes, the
percentage consuming for the seasonally adjusted distributions give an estimate of the
percentage of the population consuming the specified food category at any time during the
year.
The intake data presented here for consumers of home produced foods and the total
number of individuals surveyed may be used to calculate the mean and the percentiles of
the distribution of home produced food consumption in the overall population (consumers
and non-consumers) as follows:
Assuming that IRp is the homegrown intake rate of food item/group at the pth percentile
and Nc is the weighted number of individuals consuming the homegrown food item, and NT
is the weighted total number of individuals surveyed, then NT - Nc is the weighted number
of individuals who reported zero consumption of the food item. In addition, there are
(p/100 x Nc) individuals below the pth percentile. Therefore, the percentile that
corresponds to a particular intake rate (IRp) for the overall distribution of homegrown food
consumption (including consumers and nonconsumers) can be obtained by:
-!—xNc % (NT & A/c,
pth , 1QQ 1100 cj (Eqn. 13-2)
roverall ' uu x 7J
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
For example, the percentile of the overall population that is equivalent to the 50th
percentile consumer only intake rate for homegrown fruits would be calculated as follows:
From Table 13-8, the 50th percentile homegrown fruit intake rate (IR50) is 1.07 g/kg-day. The weighted number of
individuals consuming fruits (Nc) is 14,744,000. From Table 13-4, the weighted total number of individuals surveyed
(NT) is 188,019,000. The number of individuals consuming fruits below the 50th percentile is:
p/100xNc = (0.5) x (14,744,000)
= 7,372,000
The number of individuals that did not consume fruit during the survey period is:
NT-NC =188,019,000-14,744,000
= 173,275,000
The total number of individuals with homegrown intake rates at or below 1.07 g/kg-day is
(p/100 x Nc) + (NT - Nc) = 7,372,000 + 173,275,000
= 180,647,000
The percentile of the overall population that is represented by this intake rate is:
th ' 100 x (180,647,000 / 188,109,000)
Poverell
Therefore, an intake rate of 1.07 g/kg-day of homegrown fruit corresponds to the 96th percentile of the overall
population.
Following the same procedure described above, 5.97 g/kg-day, which is the 90th
percentile of the consumers only population, corresponds to the 99th percentile of the
overall population. Likewise, 0.063 g/kg-day, which is the 1st percentile of the consumers
only population, corresponds to the 92nd percentile of the overall population. Note that
the consumers only distribution corresponds to the tail of the distribution for the overall
population. Consumption rates below the 92nd percentile are very close to zero. The
mean intake rate for the overall population can be calculated by multiplying the mean
intake rate among consumers by the proportion of individuals consuming the homegrown
food item, NC/NT.
Table 13-4 displays the weighted numbers NT, as well as the unweighted total survey
sample sizes, for each subcategory and overall. It should be noted that the total
unweighted number of observations in Table 13-4 (9,852) is somewhat lower than the
number of observations reported by USDA because this study only used observations for
family members for which age and body weight were specified.
As mentioned above, the intake rates derived in this section are based on the amount
of household food consumption. As measured by the MFCS, the amount of food
"consumed" by the household is a measure of consumption in an economic sense, i.e.,
a measure of the weight of food brought into the household that has been consumed (used
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
up) in some manner. In addition to food being consumed by persons, food may be used
up by spoiling, by being discarded (e.g., inedible parts), through cooking processes, etc.
USDA estimated preparation losses for various foods (USDA, 1975). For meats, a
net cooking loss, which includes dripping and volatile losses, and a net post cooking loss,
which involves losses from cutting, bones, excess fat, scraps and juices, were derived for
a variety of cuts and cooking methods. For each meat type (e.g., beef) EPA has averaged
these losses across all cuts and cooking methods to obtain a mean net cooking loss and
a mean net post cooking loss; these are displayed in Table 13-5. For individual fruits and
vegetables, USDA (1975) also gave cooking and post-cooking losses. These data are
presented in Tables 13-6 and 13-7.
The following formulas can be used to convert the intake rates tabulated here to rates
reflecting actual consumption:
IA=|X(1 - L,)x(1 - L2) (Eqn. 13-3)
IA'IX(1&LP) (Eqn. 13-4)
where IA is the adjusted intake rate, I is the tabulated intake rate, !_., is the cooking loss, L2
is the post-cooking loss and LP is the paring or preparation loss. For fruits, corrections
based on postcooking losses only apply to fruits that are eaten in cooked forms. For raw
forms of the fruits, paring or preparation loss data should be used to correct for losses from
removal of skin, peel, core, caps, pits, stems, and defects, or draining of liquids from
canned or frozen forms. To obtain preparation losses for food categories, the preparation
losses of the individual foods making up the category can be averaged.
In calculating ingestion exposure, assessors should use consistent forms in combining
intake rates with contaminant concentrations. This issue has been previously discussed
in the other food Chapters.
13.3. RESULTS
The intake rate distributions (among consumers) for total home produced fruits,
vegetables, meats, fish and dairy products are shown, respectively, in Tables 13-8 through
13-32 (displayed at the end of Chapter 13). Also shown in these tables is the proportion
of respondents consuming the item during the (one-week) survey period. Homegrown
vegetables were the most commonly consumed of the major food groups (18.3%), followed
by fruit (7.8%), meat (4.9%), fish (2.1%), and dairy products (0.7%). The intake rates for
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
the major food groups vary according to region, age, urbanization code, race, and
response to survey questions. In general, intake rates of home produced foods are higher
among populations in non-metropolitan and suburban areas and lowest in central city
areas. Results of the regional analyses indicate that intake of homegrown fruits,
vegetables, meat and dairy products is generally highest for individuals in the Midwest and
South and lowest for those in the Northeast. Intake rates of home caught fish were
generally highest among consumers in the South. Homegrown intake was generally higher
among individuals who indicated that they operate a farm, grow their own vegetables, raise
animals, and catch their own fish. The results of the seasonal analyses for all regions
combined indicated that, in general, homegrown fruits and vegetables were eaten at a
higher rate in summer, and home caught fish was consumed at a higher rate in spring;
however, seasonal intake varied based on individual regions. Seasonally adjusted intake
rate distributions for the major food groups are presented in Table 13-33.
Tables 13-34 through 13-60 present distributions of intake for individual home
produced food items for households that reported consuming the homegrown form of the
food during the survey period. Intake rate distributions among consumers for homegrown
foods categorized as exposed fruits and vegetables, protected fruits and vegetables, and
root vegetables are presented in Tables 13-61 through 13-65; the intake distributions for
various USDA classifications (e.g., dark green vegetables) are presented in Tables 13-66
through 13-70. The results are presented in units of g/kg-day. Table 13-71 presents the
fraction of household intake attributed to home produced forms of the food items/groups
evaluated. Thus, use of these data in calculating potential dose does not require the body
weight factor to be included in the denominator of the average daily dose (ADD) equation.
It should be noted that converting these intake rates into units of g/day by multiplying by
a single average body weight is inappropriate, because individual intake rates were
indexed to the reported body weights of the survey respondents. However, if there is a
need to compare the total intake data presented here to other intake data in units of g/day,
a body weight less than 70 kg (i.e., approximately 60 kg; calculated based on the number
of respondents in each age category and the average body weights for these age groups,
as presented in Volume I, Chapter 7) should be used because the total survey population
included children as well as adults.
13.4. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
The USDA NFCS data set is the largest publicly available source of information on
food consumption habits in the United States. The advantages of using this data set are
that it is expected to be representative of the U.S. population and that it provides
information on a wide variety of food groups. However, the data collected by the USDA
NFCS are based on short-term dietary recall and the intake distributions generated from
them may not accurately reflect long-term intake patterns, particularly with respect to the
tails (extremes) of the distributions. Also, the two survey components (i.e., household and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
individual) do not define food items/groups in a consistent manner; as a result, some errors
may be introduced into these analyses because the two survey components are linked.
The results presented here may also be biased by assumptions that are inherent in the
analytical method utilized. The analytical method may not capture all high-end consumers
within households because average serving sizes are used in calculating the proportion
of homegrown food consumed by each household member. Thus, for instance, in a two-
person household where one member had high intake and one had low intake, the method
used here would assume that both members had an equal and moderate level of intake.
In addition, the analyses assume that all family members consume a portion of the home
produced food used within the household. However, not all family members may consume
each home produced food item and serving sizes allocated here may not be entirely
representative of the portion of household foods consumed by each family member. As
was mentioned in Section 13.2, no analyses were performed for the under 1 year age
group due to the above concerns. Below, in Section 13.5, a recommended approach for
dealing with this age group is presented.
The preparation loss factors discussed in Section 13.2 are intended to convert intake
rates based on "household consumption" to rates reflective of what individuals actually
consume. However, these factors do not include losses to spoilage, feeding to pets, food
thrown away, etc.
It should also be noted that because this analysis is based on the 1987-88 MFCS, it
may not reflect recent changes in food consumption patterns. The low response rate
associated with the 1987-88 MFCS also contributes to the uncertainty of the homegrown
intake rates generated using these data.
13.5. RECOMMENDATIONS
The distribution data presented in this study may be used to assess exposure to
contaminants in foods grown, raised, or caught at a specific site. Table 13-72 presents the
confidence ratings for homegrown food intake. The recommended values for mean intake
rates among consumers for the various home produced foods can be taken from the tables
presented here; these can be converted to per capita rates by multiplying by the fraction
consuming. The data presented here for consumers of home produced foods represent
average daily intake rates of food items/groups over the seven-day survey period and do
not account for variations in eating habits during the rest of the year; thus the percentiles
presented here (except the seasonally adjusted) are only valid when considering
exposures over time periods of about one week. Similarly, the figures for percentage
consuming are also only valid over a one week time period. Since the tabulated
percentiles reflect the distribution among consumers only, Eqn. 13-2 must be used to
convert the percentiles shown here to ones valid for the general population.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 13 - Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items
In contrast, the seasonally adjusted percentiles are designed to give percentiles of
the long term distribution of average daily intake and the percentage consuming shown
with this distribution is designed to estimate the percent of the population consuming at
any time during a year. However, because the assumptions mentioned in Section 13.2 can
not be verified to hold, these upper percentiles must be assigned a low confidence rating.
Eqn. 13-2 may also be used with this distribution to convert percentiles among consumers
to percentiles for the general population.
For all the rates tabulated here, preparation loss factors should be applied, where
appropriate. The form of the food used to estimate intake should be consistent with the
form used to measure contaminant concentration.
As described above, the tables do not display rates for children under 1 year of age.
For this age group, it is recommended that per-capita homegrown consumption rates be
estimated using the following approach. First, for each specific home produced food of
interest, the ratio of per capita intake for children under 1 year compared to that of children
1 to 2 years is calculated using the USDA CSFII 1989-1991 results displayed in Volume
II, Chapters 9 and 11. Note these results are based on individual food intakes; however,
they consider all sources of food, not just home produced. Second, the per-capita intake
rate in the 1 to 2 year age group of the home produced food of interest is calculated as
described above by multiplying the fraction consuming by the mean intake rate among
consumers (both these numbers are displayed in the tables). Finally, the per capita
homegrown intake rate in children under 1 year of the food of interest is estimated by
multiplying the homegrown per-capita intake rate in the 1 to 2 year age group by the above
ratio of intakes in the under 1 year age group as compared to the 1 to 2 year age group.
The AIHC Sourcebook (AIHC, 1994) used data presented in the 1989 version of the
Exposure Factors Handbook which reported data from the USDA 1977-78 MFCS. In this
Handbook, new analyses of more recent data from USDA were conducted. Numbers,
however, cannot be directly compared with previous values since the results from the new
analyses are presented on a body weight basis.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
14. BREAST MILK INTAKE
14.1. BACKGROUND
Breast milk is a potential source of exposure to toxic substances for nursing infants.
Lipid soluble chemical compounds accumulate in body fat and may be transferred to
breast-fed infants in the lipid portion of breast milk. Because nursing infants obtain most
(if not all) of their dietary intake from breast milk, they are especially vulnerable to
exposures to these compounds. Estimating the magnitude of the potential dose to infants
from breast milk requires information on the quantity of breast milk consumed per day and
the duration (months) over which breast-feeding occurs. Information on the fat content of
breast milk is also needed for estimating dose from breast milk residue concentrations that
have been indexed to lipid content.
Several studies have generated data on breast milk intake. Typically, breast milk
intake has been measured over a 24-hour period by weighing the infant before and after
each feeding without changing its clothing (test weighing). The sum of the difference
between the measured weights over the 24-hour period is assumed to be equivalent to the
amount of breast milk consumed daily. Intakes measured using this procedure are often
corrected for evaporative water losses (insensible water losses) between infant weighings
(MAS, 1991). Neville et al. (1988) evaluated the validity of the test weight approach among
bottle-fed infants by comparing the weights of milk taken from bottles with the differences
between the infants' weights before and after feeding. When test weight data were
corrected for insensible water loss, they were not significantly different from bottle weights.
Conversions between weight and volume of breast milk consumed are made using the
density of human milk (approximately 1.03 g/mL) (NAS, 1991). Recently, techniques for
measuring breast milk intake using stable isotopes have been developed. However, few
data based on this new technique have been published (NAS, 1991).
Studies among nursing mothers in industrialized countries have shown that intakes
among infants average approximately 750 to 800 g/day (728 to 777 ml/day) during the first
4 to 5 months of life with a range of 450 to 1,200 g/day (437 to 1,165 ml/day) (NAS, 1991).
Similar intakes have also been reported for developing countries (NAS, 1991). Infant birth
weight and nursing frequency have been shown to influence the rate of intake (NAS,
1991). Infants who are larger at birth and/or nurse more frequently have been shown to
have higher intake rates. Also, breast milk production among nursing mothers has been
reported to be somewhat higher than the amount actually consumed by the infant (NAS,
1991).
The available studies on breast milk intake are summarized in the following sections.
Studies on breast milk intake rates have been classified as either key studies or relevant
studies based on the criteria described in the Introduction (Volume I, Section 1.3.1).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
Recommended intake rates are based on the results of key studies, but relevant studies
are also presented to provide the reader with added perspective on the current state of
knowledge pertaining to breast milk intake.
Relevant data on lipid content and fat intake, breast-feeding duration and frequency,
and the estimated percentage of the U.S. population that breast-feeds are also presented.
14.2. KEY STUDIES ON BREAST MILK INTAKE
Pao et al. (1980) - Milk Intakes and Feeding Patterns of Breast-fed Infants - Pao et
al. (1980) conducted a study of 22 healthy breast-fed infants to estimate breast milk intake
rates. Infants were categorized as completely breast-fed or partially breast-fed. Breast
feeding mothers were recruited through LaLeche League groups. Except for one black
infant, all other infants were from white middle-class families in southwestern Ohio. The
goal of the study was to enroll infants as close to one month of age as possible and to
obtain records near one, three, six, and nine months of age (Pao et al., 1980). However,
not all mother/infant pairs participated at each time interval. Data were collected for these
22 infants using the test weighing method. Records were collected for three consecutive
24-hour periods at each test interval. The weight of breast milk was converted to volume
by assuming a density of 1.03 g/mL. Daily intake rates were calculated for each infant
based on the mean of the three 24-hour periods. Mean daily breast milk intake rates for
the infants surveyed at each time interval are presented in Table 14-1. For completely
breast-fed infants, the mean intake rates were 600 mL/day at 1 month of age and 833
mL/day at 3 months of age. Partially breast-fed infants had mean intake rates of 485
mL/day, 467 mL/day, 395 mL/day, and 554 mL/day at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months of age,
respectively. Pao et al. (1980) also noted that intake rates for boys in both groups were
slightly higher than for girls.
The advantage of this study is that data for both exclusively and partially breast-fed
infants were collected for multiple time periods. Also, data for individual infants were
collected over 3 consecutive days which would account for some individual variability.
However, the number of infants in the study was relatively small and may not be entirely
representative of the U.S. population, based on race and socioeconomic status, which may
introduce some bias in the results. In addition, this study did not account for insensible
water loss which may underestimate the amount of breast milk ingested.
Dewey and Lonnerdal (1983) - Milk and Nutrient Intakes of Breast-fed Infants from
1 to 6 Months - Dewey and Lonnerdal (1983) monitored the dietary intake of 20 breast-fed
infants between the ages of 1 and 6 months. Most of the infants in the study were
exclusively breast-fed (five were given some formula, and several were given small
amounts of solid foods after 3 months of age). According to Dewey and Lonnerdal (1983),
the mothers were all well educated and recruited through Lamaze childbirth classes in the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
Davis area of California. Breast milk intake volume was estimated based on two 24-hour
test weighings per month. Breast milk intake rates for the various age groups are
presented in Table 14-2. Breast milk intake averaged 673, 782, and 896 ml/day at 1, 3,
and 6 months of age, respectively.
The advantage of this study is that it evaluated breast-fed infants for a period of 6
months based on two 24-hour observations per infant per month. Corrections for
insensible water loss apparently were not made. Also, the number of infants in the study
was relatively small and may not be representative of U.S. population, based on race and
socioeconomic status.
Butte et al. (1984) - Human Milk Intake and Growth in Exclusively Breast-fed Infants -
Breast milk intake was studied in exclusively breast-fed infants during the first 4 months
of life (Butte et al., 1984). Breastfeeding mothers were recruited through the Baylor Milk
Bank Program in Texas. Forty-five mother/infant pairs participated in the study. However,
data for some time periods (i.e., 1, 2, 3, or 4 months) were missing for some mothers as
a result of illness or other factors. The mothers were from the middle- to
upper-socioeconomic stratum and had a mean age of 28.0 ± 3.1 years. A total of 41
mothers were white, 2 were Hispanic, 1 was Asian, and 1 was West Indian. Infant growth
progressed satisfactorily over the course of the study. The amount of milk ingested over
a 24-hour period was determined using the test weighing procedure. Test weighing
occurred over a 24-hour period for most participants, but intake among several infants was
studied over longer periods (48 to 96 hours) to assess individual variation in intake. The
study did not indicate whether the data were corrected for insensible water loss. Mean
breast milk intake ranged from 723 g/day (702 ml/day) at 3 months to 751 g/day (729
ml/day) at 1 month, with an overall mean of 733 g/day (712 ml/day) for the entire study
period (Table 14-3). Intakes were also calculated on the basis of body weight
(Table 14-3). Based on the results of test weighings conducted over 48 to 96 hours, the
mean variation in individual daily intake was estimated to be 7.9±3.6 percent.
The advantage of this study is that data for a larger number of exclusively breast-fed
infants were collected than were collected by Pao et al. (1980). However, data were
collected over a shorter time period (i.e., 4 months compared to 6 months) and day-to-day
variability was not characterized for all infants. In addition, the population studied may not
be representative of the U.S. population based on race and socioeconomic status.
Neville et al. (1988) - Studies on Human Lactation - Neville et al. (1988) studied
breast milk intake among 13 infants during the first year of life. The mothers were all
multiparous, nonsmoking, Caucasian women of middle- to upper-socioeconomic status
living in Denver, Colorado (Neville et al., 1988). All women in the study practiced
exclusive breast-feeding for at least 5 months. Solid foods were introduced at mean age
of 7 months. Daily milk intake was estimated by the test weighing method with corrections
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
for insensible weight loss. Data were collected daily from birth to 14 days, weekly from
weeks 3 through 8, and monthly until the study period ended at 1 year after inception. The
estimated breast milk intakes for this study are listed in Table 14-4. Mean breast milk
intakes were 770 g/day (748 ml/day), 734 g/day (713 ml/day), 766 g/day (744 ml/day),
and 403 g/day (391 ml/day) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of age, respectively.
In comparison to the previously described studies, Neville et al. (1988) collected data
on numerous days over a relatively long time period (12 months) and they were corrected
for insensible weight loss. However, the intake rates presented in Table 14-4 are
estimated based on intake during only a 24-hour period. Consequently, these intake rates
are based on short-term data that do not account for day-to-day variability among
individual infants. Also, a smaller number of subjects was included than in the previous
studies, and the population studied may not be representative of the U.S. population,
based on race and socioeconomic status.
Dewey et al. (1991 a; 1991b) - The DARLING Study - The Davis Area Research on
Lactation, Infant Nutrition and Growth (DARLING) study was conducted in 1986 to
evaluate growth patterns, nutrient intake, morbidity, and activity levels in infants who were
breast-fed for at least the first 12 months of life (Dewey et al., 1991 a; 1991b). Seventy-
three infants aged 3 months were included in the study. The number of infants included
in the study at subsequent time intervals was somewhat lower as a result of attrition. All
infants in the study were healthy and of normal gestational age and weight at birth, and did
not consume solid foods until after the first 4 months of age. The mothers were highly
educated and of "relatively high socioeconomic status" from the Davis area of California
(Dewey et al., 1991 a; 1991b). Breast milk intake was estimated by weighing the infants
before and after each feeding and correcting for insensible water loss. Test weighings
were conducted over a 4-day period every 3 months. The results of the study indicate that
breast milk intake declines over the first 12 months of life. Mean breast milk intake was
estimated to be 812 g/day (788 mL/day) at 3 months and 448 g/day (435 mL/day) at 12
months (Table 14-5). Based on the estimated intakes at 3 months of age, variability
between individuals (coefficient of variation (CV) = 16.3 percent) was higher than
individual day-to-day variability (CV = 5.4 percent) for the infants in the study (Dewey et
al., 1991a).
The advantages of this study are that data were collected over a relatively long-time
(4 days) period at each test interval which would account for some day-to-day infant
variability, and corrections for insensible water loss were made. However, the population
studied may not be representative of the U.S. population, based on race and
socioeconomic status.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
14.3. RELEVANT STUDIES ON BREAST MILK INTAKE
Hofvanderet al. (1982) - The Amount of Milk Consumed by 1- to 3-Month Old Breast-
orBottle-Fed Infants - Hofvander et al. (1982) compared milk intake among breast-fed and
bottle-fed infants at ages 1, 2, and 3 months of age. Intake of breast milk and breast milk
substitutes was tabulated for 25 Swedish infants in each age group. Daily intake among
breast-fed infants was estimated using the test weighing method. Test weighings were
conducted over a 24-hour time period at each time interval. Daily milk intake among
bottle-fed infants was estimated by measuring the volumetric differences in milk contained
in bottles at the beginning and end of all feeding sessions in a 24-hour period. The mean
intake rates for bottle-fed infants were slightly higher than for breast-fed infants for all age
groups (Table 14-6). Also, boys consumed breast milk or breast milk substitutes at a
slightly higher rate than girls (Table 14-7). Breast milk intake was estimated to be 656
g/day (637 ml/day) at 1 month and 776 g/day (753 ml/day) at 3 months.
This study was conducted among a small number of Swedish infants, but the results
are similar to those summarized previously for U.S. studies. Insensible water losses were
apparently not considered in this study, and only short-term data were collected.
Kohleret al. (1984) - Food Intake and Growth of Infants Between Six and Twenty-six
Weeks of Age on Breast Milk, Cows Milk, Formula, and Soy Formula - Kohler et al. (1984)
evaluated breast milk and formula intake among normal infants between the ages of 6 and
26 weeks. The study included 25 fully breast-fed and 34 formula-fed infants from
suburban communities in Sweden. Intake among breast-fed infants was estimated using
the test weighing method over a 48-hour test period. Intake among formula-fed infants
was estimated by feeding infants from bottles with known volumes of formula and recording
the amount consumed over a 48-hour period. Table 14-8 presents the mean breast milk
and formula intake rates for the infants studied. Data were collected for both cow's milk-
based formula and soy-based formula. The results indicated that the daily intake for
bottle-fed infants was greater than for breast-fed infants.
The advantages of this study are that it compares breast milk intake to formula intake
and that test weightings were conducted over 2 consecutive days to account for variability
in individual intake. Although the population studied was not representative of the U.S.
population, similar intake rates were observed in the studies that were previously
summarized.
Axelsson et al. (1987) - Protein and Energy Intake During Weaning - Axelsson et al.
(1987) measured food consumption and energy intake in 30 healthy Swedish infants
between the ages of 4 and 6 months. Both formula-fed and breast-fed infants were
studied. All infants were fed supplemental foods (i.e., pureed fruits and vegetables after
4 months, and pureed meats and fish after 5 months). Milk intake among breast-fed
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
infants was estimated by weighing the infants before and after each feeding over a 2-day
period at each sampling interval. Breast milk intake averaged 765 ml/day at 4.5 months
of age, and 715 ml/day at 5.5 months of age.
This study is based on short-term data, a small number of infants, and may not be
representative of the U.S. population. However, the intake rates estimated by this study
are similar to those generated by the U.S. studies that were summarized previously.
14.4. KEY STUDIES ON LIPID CONTENT AND FAT INTAKE FROM BREAST
MILK
Human milk contains over 200 constituents including lipids, various proteins,
carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and trace elements as well as enzymes and hormones
(MAS, 1991). The lipid content of breast milk varies according to the length of time that
an infant nurses. Lipid content increases from the beginning to the end of a single nursing
session (MAS, 1991). The lipid portion accounts for approximately 4 percent of human
breast milk (39 ± 4.0 g/L) (MAS, 1991). This value is supported by various studies that
evaluated lipid content from human breast milk. Several studies also estimated the
quantity of lipid consumed by breast-feeding infants. These values are appropriate for
performing exposure assessments for nursing infants when the contaminant(s) have
residue concentrations that are indexed to the fat portion of human breast milk.
Butte et al. (1984) - Human Milk Intake and Growth in Exclusively Breast-fed Infants -
Butte et al., (1984) analyzed the lipid content of breast milk samples taken from women
who participated in a study of breast milk intake among exclusively breast-fed infants. The
study was conducted with over 40 women during a 4-month period. The mean lipid
content of breast milk at various infants' ages is presented in Table 14-9. The overall lipid
content for the 4-month study period was 34.3 ± 6.9 mg/g (3.4 percent). Butte et al. (1984)
also calculated lipid intakes from 24-hour breast milk intakes and the lipid content of the
human milk samples. Lipid intake was estimated to range from 23.6 g/day (3.8 g/kg-day)
to 28.0 g/day (5.9 g/kg-day).
The number of women included in this study was small, and these women were
selected primarily from middle- to upper-socioeconomic classes. Thus, data on breast milk
lipid content from this study may not be entirely representative of breast milk lipid content
among the U.S. population. Also, these estimates are based on short-term data and day-
to-day variability was not characterized.
Maxwell and Burmaster (1993) - A Simulation Model to Estimate a Distribution of Lipid
Intake from Breast Milk Intake During the First Year of Life -Maxwell and Burmaster (1993)
used a hypothetical population of 5,000 infants between birth and 1 year of age to simulate
a distribution of daily lipid intake from breast milk. The hypothetical population
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
represented both bottle-fed and breast-fed infants aged 1 to 365 days. A distribution of
daily lipid intake was developed based on data in Dewey et al. (1991b) on breast milk
intake for infants at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and breast milk lipid content, and survey data
in Ryan et al. (1991) on the percentage of breast-fed infants under the age of 12 months
(i.e., approximately 22 percent). A model was used to simulate intake among 1,113 of the
5,000 infants that were expected to be breast-fed. The results of the model indicated that
lipid intake among nursing infants under 12 months of age can be characterized by a
normal distribution with a mean of 26.8 g/day and a standard deviation of 7.4 g/day (Table
14-10). The model assumes that nursing infants are completely breast-fed and does not
account for infants who are breast-fed longer than 1 year. Based on data collected by
Dewey et al. (1991b), Maxwell and Burmaster (1993) estimated the lipid content of breast
milk to be 36.7 g/L at 3 months (35.6 mg/g or 3.6%) and 40.2 g/L (39.0 mg/g or 3.9%) at
12 months.
The advantage of this study is that it provides a "snapshot" of daily lipid intake from
breast milk for breast-fed infants. These results are, however, based on a simulation
model and there are uncertainties associated with the assumptions made. The estimated
mean lipid intake rate represents the average daily intake for nursing infants under 12
months of age. These data are useful for performing exposure assessments when the age
of the infant cannot be specified (i.e., 3 months or 6 months). Also, because intake rates
are indexed to the lipid portion of the breast milk, they may be used in conjunction with
residue concentrations indexed to fat content.
14.5. OTHER FACTORS
Other factors associated with breast milk intake include: the frequency of
breast-feeding sessions per day, the duration of breast-feeding per event, the duration of
breast-feeding during childhood, and the magnitude and nature of the population that
breast-feeds.
Frequency and Duration of Feeding - Hofvander et al. (1982) reported on the frequency
of feeding among 25 bottle-fed and 25 breast-fed infants at ages 1, 2, and 3 months. The
mean number of meals for these age groups was approximately 5 meals/day (Table 14-
11). Neville et al. (1988) reported slightly higher mean feeding frequencies. The mean
number of meals per day for exclusively breast-fed infants was 7.3 at ages 2 to 5 months
and 8.2 at ages 2 weeks to 1 month. Neville et al. (1988) reported that, for infants between
the ages of 1 week and 5 months, the average duration of a breast feeding session is 16-
18 minutes.
Population of Nursing Infants and Duration of Breast-Feeding During Infancy -
According to NAS (1991), the percentage of breast-feeding women has changed
dramatically over the years. Between 1936 and 1940, approximately 77 percent of infants
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
were breast fed, but the incidence of breast-feeding fell to approximately 22 percent in
1972. The duration of breast-feeding also dropped from about 4 months in the early 1930s
to 2 months in the late 1950s. After 1972, the incidence of breast-feeding began to rise
again, reaching its peak at approximately 61 percent in 1982. The duration of
breast-feeding also increased between 1972 and 1982. Approximately 10 percent of the
mothers who initiated breast-feeding continued for at least 3 months in 1972; however, in
1984, 37 percent continued breast-feeding beyond 3 months. In 1989, breast-feeding was
initiated among 52.2 percent of newborn infants, and 40 percent continued for 3 months
or longer (MAS, 1991). Based on the data for 1989, only about 20 percent of infants were
still breast fed by age 5 to 6 months (MAS, 1991). Data on the actual length of time that
infants continue to breast-feed beyond 5 or 6 months are limited (MAS, 1991). However,
Maxwell and Burmaster (1993) estimated that approximately 22 percent of infants under
1 year of age are breast-fed. This estimate is based on a reanalysis of survey data in
Ryan et al. (1991) collected by Ross Laboratories (Maxwell and Burmaster, 1993). Studies
have also indicated that breast-feeding practices may differ among ethnic and
socioeconomic groups and among regions of the United States. The percentages of
mothers who breast feed, based on ethnic background and demographic variables, are
presented in Table 14-12 (MAS, 1991).
Intake Rates Based on Nutritional Status - Information on differences in the quality and
quantity of breast milk consumed based on ethnic or socioeconomic characteristics of the
population is limited. Lonnerdal et al. (1976) studied breast milk volume and composition
(nitrogen, lactose, proteins) among underprivileged and privileged Ethiopian mothers. No
significant differences were observed between the data for these two groups; and similar
data for well-nourished Swedish mothers were observed. Lonnerdal et al. (1976) stated
that these results indicate that breast milk quality and quantity are not affected by maternal
malnutrition. However, Brown et al. (1986a; 1986b) noted that the lactational capacity and
energy concentration of marginally-nourished women in Bangladesh were "modestly less
than in better nourished mothers." Breast milk intake rates for infants of marginally-
nourished women in this study were 690±122 g/day at 3 months, 722±105 g/day at 6
months, and 719±119 g/day at 9 months of age (Brown etal., 1986a). Brown etal. (1986a)
observed that breast milk from women with larger measurements of arm circumference and
triceps skinfold thickness had higher concentrations of fat and energy than mothers with
less body fat. Positive correlations between maternal weight and milk fat concentrations
were also observed. These results suggest that milk composition may be affected by
maternal nutritional status.
14.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The key studies described in this section were used in selecting recommended values
for breast milk intake, fat content and fat intake, and other related factors. Although
different survey designs, testing periods, and populations were utilized by the key and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume II - Food Ingestion Factors
Chapter 14 - Breast Milk Intake
relevant studies to estimate intake, the mean and standard deviation estimates reported
in these studies are relatively consistent. There are, however, limitations with the data.
Data are not available for infants under 1 month of age. This subpopulation may be of
particular concern since a larger number of newborns are totally breast fed. In addition,
with the exception of Butte (1984), data were not presented on a body weight basis. This
is particularly important since intake rates may be higher on a body weight basis for
younger infants. Also, the data used to derive the recommendations are over 10 years old
and the sample size of the studies was small. Other subpopulations of concern such as
mothers highly committed to breast feeding, sometimes for periods longer than 1 year, may
not be captured by the studies presented in this chapter. Further research is needed to
identify these subgroups and to get better estimates of breast milk intake rates. The
general designs of both key and relevant studies and their limitations are summarized in
Table 14-13. Table 14-14 presents the confidence rating for breast milk intake
recommendations.
Breast Milk Intake - The breast milk intake rates for nursing infants that have been
reported in the key studies described in this section are summarized in Table 14-15.
Based on the combined results of these studies, 742 ml/day is recommended to represent
an average breast milk intake rate, and 1,033 ml/day represents an upper-percentile
intake rate (based on the middle range of the mean plus 2 standard deviations) for infants
between the ages of 1 and 6 months of age. The average value is the mean of the
average intakes at 1, 3, and 6 months from the key studies listed in Table 14-15. It is
consistent with the average intake rate of 718 to 777 ml/day estimated by MAS (1991) for
infants during the first 4 to 5 months of life. Intake among older infants is somewhat lower,
averaging 413 ml/day for 12-month olds (Neville et al. 1988; Dewey et al. 1991 a; 1991b).
When a time weighted average is calculated for the 12-month period, average breast milk
intake is approximately 688 ml/day, and upper-percentile intake is approximately 980
ml/day. Table 14-16 summarizes these recommended intake rates.
Lipid Content and LJpid Intake - Recommended lipid intake rates are based on data from
Butte et al. (1984) and Maxwell and Burmaster (1993). Butte et al. (1984) estimated that
average lipid intake ranges from 23.6 ± 7.2 g/day (22.9 ± 7.0 ml/day) to 28.0 ± 8.5 g/day
(27.2 ± 8.3 ml/day) between 1 and 4 months of age. These intake rates are consistent
with those observed by Burmaster and Maxwell (1993) for infants under 1 year of age
[(26.8 ± 7.4 g/day (26.0 ± 7.2 ml/day)]. Therefore, the recommended breast milk lipid
intake rate for infants under 1 year of age is 26.0 ml/day and the upper-percentile value
is 40.4 ml/day (based on the mean plus 2 standard deviations). The recommended value
for breast milk fat content is 4.0 percent based on data from MAS (1991), Butte et al.
(1984), and Maxwell and Burmaster (1993).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
15. ACTIVITY FACTORS
In calculating exposure, a person's average daily dose is determined from a
combination of variables including the pollutant concentration, exposure duration, and
frequency of exposure (Sexton and Ryan, 1987). These variables can be dependent on
human activity patterns and time spent at each activity and/or location. A person's total
exposure can be predicted using indirect approaches such as computerized mathematical
models. This indirect approach of predicting exposure also requires activity patterns (time
use) data. Thus, individual or group activities are important determinants of potential
exposure because toxic chemicals introduced into the environment may not cause harm
to an individual until an activity is performed subjecting the individual to contact with those
contaminants. An individual's choice on how to spend time will vary according to their
occupation, hobbies, culture, location, gender, age, and personal preferences.
Educational level attained and socioeconomic status also influence chosen activities and
their duration.
The purpose of this section is to describe published time use studies that provide
information on activities in which various individuals engage, length of time spent
performing various activities, locations in which individuals spend time and length of time
spent by individuals within those various microenvironments. According to Robinson and
Thomas (1991), microenvironments refer to a combination of activities and locations that
yield potential exposures. Information on time spent in specific occupations and residing
in specific areas also is included in this section.
This section summarizes data on how much time individuals spend doing various
activities and in various microenvironments. These data cover a wide scope of activities
and populations. The following table (Table 15-1) should be used as a guide to locating
the information relevant to activities and microenvironments of concern. Assessors can
consider using these data to develop exposure duration estimates for specific exposure
scenarios. Available studies are grouped as key or relevant studies. The classifications
of these studies are based on the applicability of their data to exposure assessments. All
tables that provide data from these studies are presented at the back of this chapter.
15.1. ACTIVITY PATTERNS
The purpose of this section is to describe published time use studies that provide
information on time-activity patterns of the national population and various sub-populations
in the U.S. The studies involve survey designs where time diaries were used to collect
information on the time spent at various activities and locations for children, adolescents,
and adults, and to collect certain demographic and socioeconomic data. Available studies
on time-activity data are summarized in the following sections. It should be noted that
other site-limited studies, based on small sample sites, are available, but are not
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
presented in this section. The studies presented in this section are ones believed to be
the most appropriate for the purpose of the handbook. Activity pattern studies are
presented in Sections 15.1.1 and 15.1.2.
15.1.1. Key Activity Pattern Studies
Timmeret al. (1985) - How Children Use Time - Timmer et al. (1985) conducted a
study using the data obtained on children's time use from a 1981-1982 Panel study. This
study was a follow-up of households from a previous survey conducted in 1975-76. The
922 respondents in the 1981-82 study were those who had completed at least three out
of four waves of interview in the 1975 -1976 survey. Timmer et al. (1985) conducted the
survey during February through December 1981, and households were contacted four
times during a 3 month interval of the survey period. The first contact was a personal
interview, followed by subsequent telephone interviews for most of the respondents.
However, families with children were contacted personally and questionnaires were
administered to a maximum of three children per household.
The children surveyed were between the ages of 3 and 17 years and were
interviewed twice. The questionnaires administered to children had two components: a
time diary and a standardized interview. The time diary involved children reporting their
activities beginning at 12.00 a.m. the previous night; the duration and location of each
activity; the presence of another individual; and whether they were performing other
activities at the same time. The standardized interview administered to the children was
to gather information about their psychological, intellectual (using reading comprehension
tests), and emotional well-being; their hopes and goals; their family environment; and their
attitudes and beliefs.
For preschool children, parents provided information about the child's previous day's
activities. Children in first through third grades completed the time diary with their parents
assistance and, in addition, completed reading tests. Children in fourth grade and above
provided their own diary information and participated in the interview. Parents were asked
to assess their children's socioemotional and intellectual development. A survey form was
sent to a teacher of each school-age child to evaluate each child's socioemotional and
intellectual development. The activity descriptor codes used in this study were developed
by Juster et al. (1983). The activity codes and descriptors used for the adult time diaries
in both surveys are presented in Appendix Table 15A-1.
The mean time spent performing major activities on weekdays and weekends by age
and sex, and type of day is presented in Table 15-2. On weekdays, children spend about
40 percent of their time sleeping, 20 percent in school, and 10 percent eating, washing,
dressing, and performing other personal activities (Timmer et al., 1985). The data in
Table 15-2 indicates that girls spend more time than boys performing household work and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
personal care activities, and less time playing sports. Also, children spend most of their
free time watching television. Table 15-3 presents the mean time children spend during
weekdays and weekends performing major activities by five different age groups. Also, the
significant effects of each variable (i.e., age, sex) are shown in Table 15-3. Older children
spend more time performing household and market work, studying and watching television,
and less time eating, sleeping, and playing. Timmer et al. (1985) estimated that on the
average, boys spend 19.4 hours a week watching television and girls spend 17.8 hours
per week performing the same activity.
A limitation associated with this study is that the data do not provide overall annual
estimates of children's time use since the data were collected only during the time of the
year when children attend school and not during school vacation. Another limitation is that
a distribution pattern of children's time use was not provided. In addition, the survey was
conducted in 1981 so there is a potential that activity patterns in children may have
changed significantly from that period to the present. Therefore, application of these data
for current exposure situations may bias exposure assessments results. An advantage of
this survey is that diary recordings of activity patterns were kept and the data obtained
were not based completely on recall. Another advantage is that because parents assisted
younger children with keeping their diaries and with interviews, any bias that may have
been created by having younger children record their data should have been minimized.
James and Knuiman (1987) - An Application ofBayes Methodology to the Analysis
of Diary Records from a Water Use Study - In 1987, James and Knuiman provided a
distribution of the amount of time (1-20 minutes) spent showering by individuals in
households located in Australia. The distribution presented in the study of James and
Knuiman was based on diary records of 2,500 households. James and Knuiman (1987)
reported that 50 additional households provided data for shower durations exceeding 20
minutes, but were excluded from their analysis because specific values over 20 minutes
were not reported. Using the data of James and Knuiman, a cumulative frequency
distribution was derived for the handbook, based on the 2,550 households and is
presented in Table 15-3. Based on the results in Table 15-3, approximate showering times
are 7 minutes for the median value, 13 minutes for the 90th percentile, 16 minutes for the
95th percentile, and >20 minutes for the 99th percentile. The mean shower length is
approximately 8 minutes using the shower durations of 1 to 20 minutes.
A mean value could not be calculated using the data for the 50 households that
reported showering time >20 minutes. However, if a 30 minute showering time was
assumed for the >20 minutes duration, the mean value would be 8.5 minutes as compared
to a mean of 8 minutes if these households are excluded. Therefore, including the 50
additional households would give a similar mean and the results at the upper end of the
distribution would not be affected.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
A limitation of the study is that the data are from households in Australia and may not
be representative of U.S. households. An advantage is that it presents cumulative
distribution data.
Robinson and Thomas (1991) - Time Spent in Activities, Locations, and
Microenvironments: A California-National Comparison - Robinson and Thomas (1991)
reviewed and compared data from the 1987-88 California Air Resources Board (GARB)
time activity study and from a similar 1985 national study, American's Use of Time. Data
from the national study were recorded similarly to the GARB code categories, in order to
make data comparisons (Robinson and Thomas, 1991).
The GARB study involved residents who lived in the state of California. One adult 18
years or older was randomly sampled in each household and was asked to complete a
diary with entries for the previous day's activities and the location of each activity. Time
use patterns for other individuals 12 years and older in the households contacted were
also included in the diaries. Telephone interviews based on the random-digit-dialing
(ROD) procedure were conducted for approximately 1,762 respondents in the GARB
survey. These interviews were distributed across all days of the week and across different
months of the year (between October 1987-August 1988).
In the 1985 National study, single day diaries were collected from over 5,000
respondents across the U.S., 12 years of age and older. The study was conducted during
January through December 1985. Three modes of time diary collection were employed
for this survey: mailback, telephone interview, and personal interview. Data obtained from
the personal interviews were not used in this study (Robinson and Thomas, 1991). The
sample population for the mail-back and telephone interview was selected based on a
ROD method. The ROD was designed to represent all telephone households in the
contiguous United States (Robinson and Thomas, 1991). In addition to estimates of time
spent at various activities and locations, the survey design provided information on the
employment status, age, education, race, and gender for each member of the respondent's
household. The mail-back procedure was based on a "tomorrow" approach, and the
telephone interview was based on recall. In the "tomorrow" approach, respondents know,
and agree ahead of time, that they will be keeping a diary (Robinson and Thomas, 1991).
Data comparisons by Robinson and Thomas (1991) were based on 10 major activity
categories (100 sub-category codes) and 3 major locations (44 sub-location codes)
employed in both the GARB and the 1985 national study. In order to make data
comparisons, Robinson and Thomas (1991) excluded responses from individuals of ages
65 years and older and 18 years or younger in both surveys. In addition, only mail-back
responses were analyzed for the 1985 national study. The data were then weighted to
project both the California and national population in terms of days of the week, region,
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
numbers of respondents per household, and 3 monthly seasons of the year (Robinson and
Thomas, 1991).
Table 15-5 shows the mean time spent in the 10 major activities by gender and for
all respondents between the ages of 18-64 years (time use data for the individual activities
are presented in Appendix Table 15A-2). In both studies respondents spent most of their
time (642 mins/day) on personal needs and care (i.e., sleep). Californians spent more time
on paid work, education and training, obtaining goods and services, and communication,
and less time on household work, child care, organizational activities, entertainment/social
activities, and recreation than the national population. The male and female population
closely followed the same trends as the general population. Table 15-6 shows the mean
time spent at 3 major locations for the GARB and national study grouped by total sample
and gender, ages 18-64 years (time use data for the 44 detailed microenvironments are
presented in Appendix Table 15A-3). Respondents spent most of their time at home, 892
minutes/day for the GARB and 954 minutes/day for the national study. Californians spent
more of their time away from home and traveling compared to the national population.
In addition, Robinson and Thomas (1991) defined a set of 16 microenvironments
based on the activity and location codes employed in both studies. The analysis included
data for adolescents (12-17 years) and adults (65 years and older) in both the GARB study
and the mail-back portion of the 1985 national study (Robinson and Thomas, 1991). The
mean duration of time spent in locations for total sample population, 12 years and older,
across three types of locations is presented in Table 15-7 for both studies. Respondents
spent most of their time indoors, 1255 and 1279 minutes/day for the GARB and national
study, respectively.
Table 15-8 presents the mean duration of time and standard mean error for the 16
microenvironments grouped by total sample population and gender. Also included is the
mean time spent for respondents ("Doers") who reported participating in each activity.
Table 15-8 shows that in both studies men spend more time in work locations,
automobiles and other vehicles, autoplaces (garages), and physical outdoor activities,
outdoor sites. In contrast, women spend more time cooking, engaging in other kitchen
activities, performing other chores, and shopping. The same trends also occur on a per
participant basis.
Table 15-9 shows the mean time spent in various microenvironments grouped by type
of the day (weekday or weekend) in both studies. Generally, respondents spent most of
their time during the weekends in restaurants/bars (GARB study), motor vehicles, outdoor
activities, social-cultural settings, leisure/communication activities, and sleeping.
Microenvironmental differences by age are presented in Table 15-10. Respondents in the
age groups 18-24 years and 25-44 years spent most of their time in restaurants/bars and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
traveling. The oldest age group, 65 years and older, spent most of their time in the kitchen
(cooking and other kitchen related activities) and in communication activities.
Limitations associated with the Robinson and Thomas (1991) study are that the
GARB survey was based on recall and the survey was performed in California only.
Therefore, if applied to other populations, the data set may be biased. Another limitation
is that time distribution patterns (statistical analysis) were not provided for both studies.
Also, the data are based on short term studies. An advantage of this study is that the
1985 national study represents the general U.S. population. Also, the 1985 national study
provides time estimates by activities, locations, and microenvironments grouped by age,
gender, and type of day. Another advantage is that the data were compared and that,
overall, both data sets showed similar patterns of activity (Robinson and Thomas, 1991).
Wiley et al. (1991) - Study of Children's Activity Patterns - The California children's
activity pattern survey design provided time estimates of children (under 12 years old) in
various activities and locations (microenvironments) on a typical day (Wiley et al., 1991).
The sample population, which consisted of 1,200 respondents (including children under
12 years of age and adult informants residing in the child's household), was selected using
Waksberg ROD methods from English-speaking households. One child was selected from
each household. If the selected child was 8 years old or less, the adult in the same
household who spent the most time with the child responded. However, if the selected
child was between 9 and 11 years old, that child responded. The population was also
stratified to provide representative estimates for major regions of the state. The survey
questionnaire included a time diary which provided information on the children's activity
and location patterns based on a 24-hour recall period. In addition, the survey
questionnaire included questions about potential exposure to sources of indoor air
pollution (i.e., presence of smokers) on the diary day and the socio-demographic
characteristics (i.e., age, gender, marital status of adult) of children and adult respondents.
The questionnaires and the time diaries were administered via a computer-assisted
telephone interviewing (CATI) technology (Wiley et al., 1991). The telephone interviews
were conducted during April 1989 to February 1990 over four seasons: Spring (April-June
1989), Summer (July-September 1989), Fall (October-December 1989), and Winter
(January-February 1990).
The data obtained from the survey interviews resulted in ten major activity categories,
113 detailed activity codes, 6 major categories of locations, and 63 detailed location
codes. The average time respondents spent during the 10 activity categories for all
children are presented in Table 15-11. Also included in this table are the detailed activity,
including its code, with the highest mean duration of time; the percentage of respondents
who reported participating in any activity (percent doing); and the mean, median, and
maximum time duration for "doers." The dominant activity category, personal care (night
sleep being the highest contributor), had the highest time expenditure of 794 mins/day
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
(13.2 hours/day). All respondents reported sleeping at night, resulting in a mean daily time
per participant of 794 mins/day spent sleeping. The activity category "don't know" had a
duration of about 2 m ins/day and only 4 percent of the respondents reported missing
activity time.
Table 15-12 presents the mean time spent in the 10 activity categories by age and
gender. Differences in activity patterns for boys and girls tended to be small. Table 15-13
presents the mean time spent in the 10 activity categories grouped by seasons and
California regions. There were seasonal differences for 5 activity categories: personal
care, educational activities, social/entertainment, recreation, and communication/ passive
leisure. Time expenditure differences in various regions of the State were minimal for
childcare, work-related activities, shopping, personal care, education, social life, and
recreation.
Table 15-14 presents the distribution of time across six location categories. The
participation rates (percent) of respondents, the mean, median, and maximum time for
"doers." The detailed location with the highest average time expenditure are also shown.
The largest amount of time spent was at home (1,078 minutes/day); 99 percent of
respondents spent time at home (1,086 minutes/ participant/day). Tables 15-15 and 15-16
show the average time spent in the six locations grouped by age and gender, and season
and region, respectively. There are age differences in time expenditure in educational
settings for boys and girls (Table 15-15). There are no differences in time expenditure at
the six locations by regions, and time spent in school decreased in the summer months
compared to other seasons (Table 15-16). Table 15-17 shows the average potential
exposure time children spent in proximity to tobacco smoke, gasoline fumes, and gas oven
fumes grouped by age and gender. The sampled children spent more time closer to
tobacco smoke (77 mins/day) than gasoline fumes (2 mins/day) and gas oven fumes (11
m ins/day).
A limitation of this study is that the sampling population was restricted to only English-
speaking households; therefore, the data obtained does not represent the diverse
population group present in California. Another limitation is that time use values obtained
from this survey were based on short-term recall (24-hr) data; therefore, the data set
obtained may be biased. Other limitations are: the survey was conducted in California
and is not representative of the national population, and the significance of the observed
differences in the data obtained (i.e., gender, age, seasons, and regions) were not tested
statistically. An advantage of this study is that time expenditure in various activities and
locations were presented for children grouped by age, gender, and seasons. Also,
potential exposures of respondents to pollutants were explored in the survey. Another
advantage is the use of the CATI program in obtaining time diaries, which allows automatic
coding of activities and locations onto a computer tape, and allows activities forgotten by
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
respondents to be inserted into its appropriate position during interviewing (Wiley et al.,
1991).
U.S. EPA (1992) - Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications - U.S.
EPA (1992) addressed the variables of exposure time, frequency, and duration needed to
calculate dermal exposure as related to activity. The reader is referred to the document
for a detailed discussion of these variables in relation to soil and water related activities.
The suggested values that can be used for dermal exposure are presented in Table 15-18.
Limitations of this study are that the values are based on small data sets and a limited
number of studies. An advantage is that it presents default values for frequency and
duration for use in exposure assessments when specific data are not available.
Tsang and Klepeis (1996) - National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) - The
National Human Activity Pattern Survey was conducted by the U.S. EPA (Tsang and
Klepeis, 1996). It is the largest and most current human activity pattern survey available
(Tsang and Klepeis, 1996). Data for 9,386 respondents in the 48 contiguous United States
were collected via minute-by-minute 24-hour diaries between October 1992 and
September 1994. Detailed data were collected for a maximum of 82 different possible
locations, and a maximum of 91 different activities. Participants were selected using a
Random Digit Dial (ROD) method and Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI).
The response rate was 63 percent, overall. If the chosen respondent was a child too
young to interview, an adult in the household gave a proxy interview. Each participant was
asked to recount their entire daily routine from midnight to midnight immediately previous
to the day that they were interviewed. The survey collected information on duration and
frequency of selected activities and of the time spent in selected microenvironments. In
addition, demographic information was collected for each respondent to allow for statistical
summaries to be generated according to specific subgroups of the U.S. population (i.e.,
by gender, age, race, employment status, census region, season, etc.). The participants'
responses were weighted according to geographic, socioeconomic, time/season, and other
demographic factors to ensure that results were representative of the U.S. population. The
weighted sample matches the 1990 U.S. census population for each gender, age group,
census region, and the day-of-week and seasonal responses are equally distributed.
Saturdays and Sundays were over sampled to ensure an adequate weekend sample.
The data presented are a compilation of 24-hour diary locations, activities, and follow-
up exposure questions based on exposure-related events (personal, exposure, household
characteristics, medical background) (Tsang and Klepeis, 1996). Data presented are
reported in the form of means, percentages of time spent, and percentages of respondent
occurrences. The diary data are useful for obtaining national representative distributions
of time spent in a large variety of activities and locations in a single day (Tsang and
Klepeis, 1996). According to Tsang and Klepeis (1996), the 24-hour diaries in the NHAPS
are useful in probabilistic modeling (Monte-Carlo) that provides frequency distributions of
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
exposure. Overall survey results indicate that for time spent in microenvironments, the
largest overall percentage of time was spent in residential-indoors (67 percent), followed
by time spent outdoors (8 percent), and then time spent in vehicles (5 percent) (Tsang and
Klepeis, 1996). Tables 15-19 through 15-146 provide data from the NHAPS study.
NHAPS data on the time spent in selected activities are presented in Tables 15-19 through
15-92. NHAPS data on the time spent in selected microenvironments are presented in
Tables 15-93 to 15-139 and of these tables, Tables 15-66 through 15-139 present 24-hour
cumulative statistics (mean, minimum, maximuim, and percentiles) data for time spent in
various activities and in various microenvironments.
• Tables 15-19 through 15-32 provide information on the frequency and duration
of taking baths, frequency of taking showers, and on the amount of time spent in
the shower or bathroom after completion of the activity.
• Table 15-33 provides the frequency for washing the hands in a day.
• Tables 15-34 through 15-36 present information on time spent by persons working
with or being near foods while being grilled or barbecued; working with or near
open flames; and working or being near excessive dust in the air.
• Tables 15-37 through 15-39 provide data for the number of times a vehicle was
started in a garage or carport and if started with the door closed; and for time
spent at a gas station or repair shop.
• Tables 15-40 through 15-42 present information on the number of times windows
and doors were opened and the number of minutes they were left open at home
while the respondent was at home.
• Tables 15-43 through 15-47 provide data for time spent in heavy traffic either
running, walking, standing, or in a vehicle; and for time spent in indoor and
outdoor parking lots and garages.
• Tables 15-48 through 15-50 present information for time spent working for pay;
working at different times of day; and for the amount of that time was spent
working outdoors.
• Tables 15-51 through 15-56 provide information for number of times of performing
household tasks in a day such as vacuuming, and washing dishes and clothes in
a residence.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
•D Tables 15-57 through 15-64 present data for number of times per day and the
duration for playing in sand, gravel, and dirt; and for working in circumstances
where one comes in contact with soil such as in a garden.
•D Tables 15-65 through 15-67 provide information on the frequency of swimming in
a fresh water swimming pool and the amount of time spent swimming during a 1 -
month period.
• Tables 15-68 through 15-87 present statistics for time spent in various major
categories. They are as follows: Paid Work (main job); Household Work (food
preparation and cleanup, cleaning house, clothes care); Child Care (indoor and
outdoor playing); Obtaining Goods and Services (car repair); Personal Needs and
Care (sleeping/napping); Free Time and Education (school); and Recreation
(active sports, exercise, outdoor recreation).
• Tables 15-88 through 15-94 provide statistics for time spent in various activities
that are the results of regrouping/combining activities described in Tables 15-68
through 15-87. Because the occurrences in some major categories were too
small to conduct analyses, these categories were regrouped into broader
categories so that new categories could be developed with a larger number of
occurrences (Tsang and Klepeis, 1996). This regrouping was performed to create
a better data set for estimating exposure activities from the available data (Tsang
and Klepeis, 1996).
• Tables 15-95 through 15-103 provide cumulative statistics for time spent in
various indoor microenvironments such as repair shops/gas stations; bar/ night
club/bowling alley; and at school.
• Tables 15-104 through 15-112 present statistical data for time spent in various
outdoor locations. These tables include data for locations such as
schoolgrounds/ playground; parking lots; construction sites; parks and golf
courses; and farms.
• Tables 15-113 through 15-120 present statistics for time spent in various
locations in the home. Data are presented for the number of minutes spent in the
kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, garage, basement, utility room or laundry room; in
the outdoor pool or spa; and in the yard or other areas outside the house.
• Tables 15-121 through 15-130 provide data on time spent traveling and for
traveling in various types of vehicles; and for time spent walking.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
•D Tables 15-131 through 15-140 provide statistics for total time spent indoors at
home (categories regrouped/combined based on various data described in Tables
15-95 through 15-130), including all rooms; outdoors at home; traveling inside a
vehicle; outdoors near a vehicle; outdoors other than near a residence; in an
office or factory; in malls and other stores; in various public buildings; in bars,
restaurants, etc.; and outdoor locations such as auto repair shops and
laundromats.
• Table 15-141 provides the number of minutes spent in an activity or
microenvironment where a smoker was present.
• Tables 15-142 and 15-143 present data for time spent smoking in a day.
• Tables 15-144 through 15-148 provide information for time spent smoking
selected tobacco products such as cigars, cigarettes, and pipe tobacco.
Advantages of the NHAPS dataset are that it is representative of the U.S. population
and it has been adjusted to be balanced geographically, seasonally, and for day/time.
Also, it is representative of all ages, gender, and is race specific. A disadvantage of the
study is that means cannot be calculated for time spent over 60, 120, and 181 minutes in
selected activities. Therefore, actual time spent at the high end of the distribution for these
activities cannot be captured.
15.1.2. Relevant Activity Pattern Studies
Robinson - Changes in Americans' Use of Time: 1965-1975 (1977) - Robinson
(1977) compared time use data obtained from two national surveys that were conducted
in 1965-1966 and in 1975. Each survey used the time-diary method to collect data. The
1965-66 survey excluded people in the following categories: (a) Non-Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (non-SMSA) (designation of Census Bureau areas having no
city with more than 50,000 population); (b) households where no adult members were in
the labor force for at least 10 hours per week; (c) age 65 and over; and (d) farm-related
occupations (Robinson, 1977). The 1,244 respondents in the 1965-66 study included
either employed men and women or housewives (Robinson, 1977). The survey was
conducted between November-December 1965 and March-April 1966. Respondents
recorded their daily activities in time diaries by using the "tomorrow" approach. In this
approach, diaries were kept on the day following the interviewer's initial contact. The
interviewer then made a second call to the respondent to determine if the information in
diaries were correct and to obtain additional data. Only one person per household was
interviewed. The survey was designed to obtain information on time spent with family
members, time spent at various locations during activities, and performing primary and
secondary activities.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
A similar study was conducted in 1975 from October through December. Unlike the
1965-1966 survey, the 1975 survey included rural areas, farmers, the unemployed,
students, and retirees. Time diary data were collected using the "yesterday" approach.
In this approach, interviewers made only one contact with respondents (greater than 1500)
and the diaries were filled out based on a 24-hour recall (Robinson, 1977). Time diary
data were also collected from the respondents' spouses.
In both surveys, the various activities were coded into 96 categories, and then were
combined into five major categories. Free-time activities were grouped into 5 sub-
categories (Appendix Table 15A-2). In order to compare data obtained from both surveys,
Robinson (1977) excluded the same population groups in the 1975 survey that were
excluded in the 1965-66 survey (i.e., farmers, rural residents).
Results obtained from the surveys were presented by gender, age, marital and
employment status, race, and education. Robinson (1977) reported the data collected in
hours/week; however, the method for converting daily activities to hours/week were not
presented. Table 15-149 shows the differences in time use by gender, employment, and
marital status for five major activity categories and five subcategories for 1965 and 1975.
Time spent on work related activities (i.e., work for pay and family care) was lower in 1975
than in 1965 for employed men and women. Table 15-149 also shows that there was an
overall increase in free time activities for all the six groups. The difference in time use in
1965 and 1975 are presented by age, education, and race in Tables 15-150, 15-151, and
15-152, respectively. These tables include data for students and certain employed
respondents that were excluded in Table 15-148 (Robinson, 1977). In 1975, the eldest
group (ages 56-65 years) showed a decline in paid work, and an increase in family care,
personal care and sleep (Table 15-150). Education level comparisons across the ten-year
interval indicated that the less educated had a decrease in paid work and an increase in
sleep and personal care; the most educated had an increase in work time and a decrease
in other leisure (Table 15-151). For racial comparisons, Blacks spent less time at paid
work than Whites across the ten-year interval (Table 15-152). Table 15-152 also shows
that Blacks spent more time than Whites at free time activities in 1975.
A limitation of the study survey design is that time use data were gathered as social
indicators. Therefore, the activity categories presented may not be relevant in exposure
assessments. Another limitation is that statistical analysis of the data set was not
provided. Additional limitations are that the time use data are old and the data may not
reflect recent changes in time use. The 1965 and 1975 data sets excluded certain
population groups and, therefore, may not be entirely representative of the U.S.
population. Another limitation is that these are short-term studies and may not necessarily
represent long-term activity patterns. An advantage of this study is that time use data were
presented by age, gender, race, education level, and employment and marital status.
Another advantage is that earlier investigations on the study method (24-hr recall)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
employed in the 1965 study revealed no systematic biases in reported activities (Robinson,
1977). Robinson (1977) also noted that the time-diary method provides a "zero-sum"
measure (i.e., since there are only 24 daily hours or 168 weekly hours, if time on one
activity increases then time on another activity must decrease).
Juster et al. (1983) - 1975-1981 Time Use Longitudinal Panel Study - The Time
Allocation longitudinal study of the U.S. population began as part of a multinational project
with the first survey conducted in 1965-66. A second national time use survey was
conducted in 1975-1976 and another in 1981 (Juster et al. 1983). Juster et al. (1983)
provided study descriptions of the second and third surveys. The surveys included a
probability sample of the adult population (18 years and older) and children between the
ages of 3 and 17 years in the United States. In both surveys, time use was measured from
24-hour recall diaries administered to respondents and their spouses. The 1975-1976
survey involved four waves of interview: wave 1, October-November 1975; wave 2,
February 1976; wave 3, May-June 1976; wave 4, September 1976. The first wave was a
personal interview and the other three waves were telephone interviews. The 1975-1976
survey sample consisted of 2,300 individuals, and of that sample, 1,519 respondents.
Four recall diaries (one from each wave of interviews) were obtained from 947
respondents, with data on time use measures for two weekdays, one Saturday and one
Sunday. The survey was designed to gather information for: employment status; earnings
and other income; "consumption benefits for activities of respondents and their spouses;"
health, friendships and associations of the respondents; stock technology available to the
household, house repair, and maintenance activities of the family; division of labor in
household work and related attitudes; physical characteristics of the respondents housing
structure, net worth and housing values; job characteristics; and characteristics of mass
media usage on a typical day (Juster et al., 1983).
The 1981 survey was a follow-up of respondents and spouses who had completed
at least three waves of interview in the 1975-1976 survey. For the 1981 survey, 920
individuals were eligible. The survey design was similar to the 1975-1976 survey, however
in this survey, the adult population was 25 years and older and consisted of 620
respondents. Four waves of interviews were conducted between February - March 1981
(wave 1), May - June 1981 (wave 2), September 1981 (wave 3), and November -
December (wave 4). The 1981 survey included the respondents' children between the
ages of 3 and 17 years. The survey design for children provided information on time use
measures from two time diary reports: one school day and one non-school day. In
addition, information for academic achievement measures, school and family life
measures, and ratings from the children's teachers were gathered during the survey.
Juster et al. (1983) did not report the time use data obtained for the 1975-1976
survey or the 1981 survey. These data are stored in four tape files and can be obtained
from the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) in Michigan.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
The response rate for the first wave of interview (1975-76 survey) based on the original
sample population was 66 percent, and response rates for the subsequent waves ranged
from 42 percent (wave 4) to 50 percent (wave 2). In the 1981 survey, the response rate
based on eligible respondents was 67 percent for the first interview, and ranged from 54
percent (wave 4) to 60 percent (wave 2) in the subsequent interviews (Juster et al., 1983).
The 1975-1976 survey included 87 activities. In the 1981 survey, these 87 activities were
broken down into smaller components, resulting in 223 activities (Juster et al., 1983). The
activity codes and descriptors used for the adult time diaries in both surveys are presented
in Appendix Table 15A-1.
A limitation of this study is that the surveys were not designed for exposure
assessment purposes. Therefore, the time use data set may be biased. Another limitation
is that time use data collected were based on a 24-hour diary recall. This may somewhat
bias the data set obtained from this survey. An advantage associated with this survey is
that it provides a database of information on various human activities. This information
can be used to assess various exposure pathways and scenarios associated with these
activities. Also, some of the data from these surveys were used in the studies conducted
by Timmer et al. (1985) and Hill (1985). In addition, the activity descriptor codes
developed in these studies were used by Timmer et al (1985), Hill (1985), and Robinson
and Thomas (1991). These studies are presented in Sections 15.1.1 and 15.1.2. Another
advantage of this survey is that the data are based on a national survey and conducted
over a one year period, resulting in a seasonally balanced survey and one representative
of the U.S. population.
Hill (1985) - Patterns of Time Use - Hill (1985) investigated the total amount of time
American adults spend in one year performing various activities and the variation in time
use across three different dimensions: demographic characteristics, geographical location,
and seasonal characteristics. In this study, time estimates were based on data collected
from time diaries in four waves (1 per season) of a survey conducted in the fall of 1975
through the fall of 1976 for the 1975-1976 Time Allocation Study. The sampling periods
included two weekdays, one Saturday and one Sunday. The 1975-1976 Time Allocation
Study provided information on the amount of time spent performing primary activities. The
information gathered were responses to the survey question "What were you doing?" The
survey also provided information on secondary activities (i.e., respondents performing
more than one activity at the same time). Hill (1985) analyzed time estimates for 10 broad
categories of activities based on data collected from 87 activities. These estimates
included seasonal variation in time use patterns and comparisons of time use patterns for
different days of the week. The 10 major categories and ranges of activity codes are listed
in Appendix Table 15A-4. Hill (1985) collected data on time use for the major activity
patterns in four different age groups (18-24, 25-44, 45-64, and 65 years and older).
However, the time use data were summarized in graphs rather than in tables.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Analysis of the 1975-76 survey data revealed very small regional differences in time
use among the broad activity patterns (Hill, 1985). The weighted mean hours per week
spent performing the 10 major activity categories presented by region are shown in
Table 15-153. In all regions, adults spent more time on personal care (included night
sleep). Adults in the North Central region of the country spent more time on market work
activities than adults in other regions of the country. Adults in the South spent more time
on leisure activities (passive and active combined) than adults elsewhere (Table 15-153).
Table 15-154 presents the time spent per day, by the day of the week for the 10 major
activity categories. Time spent on the 87 activities (components of the 10 major
categories) are presented in Appendix Table 15A-5. Adult time use was dominated in
descending order by personal care (including sleep), market work, passive leisure, and
house work. Collectively, these activities represent about 80 percent of available time
(Hill, 1985).
According to Hill (1985), sleep was the single most dominant activity averaging about
56.3 hours per week. Television watching (passive leisure) averaged about 21.8 hours
per week, and housework activities averaged about 14.7 hours per week. Weekdays were
predominantly market-work oriented. Weekends (Saturday and Sunday) were
predominantly devoted to household tasks ("sleeping in," socializing, and active leisure)
(Hill, 1985). Table 15-155 presents the mean time spent performing these 10 groups of
activities during each wave of interview (fall, winter, spring, and summer). Adjustments
were made to the data to assure equal distributions of weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays
(Hill, 1985). The data indicates that the time periods adults spent performing market work,
child care, shopping, organizational activities, and active leisure were fairly constant
throughout the year (Hill, 1985). The mean hours spent per week in performing the 10
major activity patterns are presented by gender in Table 15-156 (time use patterns for all
87 activities are presented in Appendix Table 15A-6). Table 15-156 indicates that time
use patterns determined by data collected for the mid-1970's survey show gender
differences. Men spent more time on activities related to labor market work and education,
and women spent more time on household work activities.
A limitation associated with this study is that the time data were obtained from an old
survey conducted in the mid-1970s. Because of fairly rapid changes in American society,
applying these data to current exposure assessments may result in some biases. Another
limitation is that time use data were not presented for children. An advantage of this study
is that time diaries were kept and data were not based on recall. The former approach
may result in a more accurate data set. Another advantage of this study is that the survey
is seasonally balanced since it was conducted throughout the year and the data are from
a large survey sample.
Sell (1989) - The Use of Children's Activity Patterns in the Development of a Strategy
for Soil Sampling in West Central Phoenix - In a report prepared for the Arizona
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Department of Environmental Quality, Sell (1989) investigated the activity patterns of
preschool and school age children in the west central portion of Phoenix known as
Maryvale. The survey was conducted in two parts: (1) most of the school age children
were interviewed personally from May through June, 1989 in three schools; and (2) survey
questionnaires were mailed to parents of preschool children.
In the first survey, 15 percent of the total school population (2,008) was sampled with
111 children in grades K-6 participating (response rate of 37 percent). The surveyed
population was 53.2 percent male and 46.8 percent female. Of this population, 41 percent
were Hispanics, 49.5 percent Anglos, 7.2 percent Blacks, and 1.7 percent Asians. The
children interviewed were between the ages of 5 and 13 years. Within each school, the
children in grades K-6 were stratified into two groups, primary (grades K-3) and
intermediate (grades 4-6), and children were selected randomly from each group. Children
in grades K-2 were either interviewed in school or at home in the presence of a parent or
an adult care-provider. In the course of the interview, children were asked to identify
locations of activity areas, social areas (i.e., places they went with friends), favorite areas,
and locations efforts or clubhouses. Aerial photographs were used to mark these areas.
The second survey involved only preschool children. Parents completed
questionnaires which provided information on the amount of time their children spent
outdoors, outdoor play locations, favorite places, digging areas, use of park or
playgrounds, and swimming or wading locations. This survey was conducted between
June-July 1989. One thousand (1,000) parents were sampled, but only 211
questionnaires were usable out of 886 questionnaires received resulting in a response rate
for the preschool's survey of about 24 percent. The sample population consisted of
children 1 month and up to preschool age. Of this population, 53 percent were Anglos, 18
percent Hispanics, 2 percent Blacks, and 3 percent Asians.
The survey design considered the kinds of activities children engaged in, but not the
amount of time children spent in each activity. Therefore, Sell (1989) presented the data
obtained from the survey in terms of percent of respondents who engaged in specific
activities or locations. A summary of percent responses of the preschool and school-age
children's activities at various locations in the Maryvale study areas are presented in
Table 15-157. Also included in this table is a ranking of children's play locations based
on other existing research works. Based on the survey data, Sell (1989) reported that the
median time preschool children spent outdoors on weekdays was 1-2 hours, and on
weekends the median time spent outdoors was 2-5 hours. Most of these children played
outside in their own yards, and some played in other people's yards or parks and
playgrounds (Sell, 1989).
Limitations associated with this study are that the survey design did not report the
time spent in various activities or locations and the response rates obtained from the
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
surveys were low and, therefore, may result in biased data. In addition, because the
survey was conducted in Arizona, the surveyed population does not represent the
children's population on a national basis. Advantages of this study are that it provides
data on various activities children engage in and locations of these activities, and provides
for time spent outdoors. This information is useful in determining exposure pathways to
toxic pollutants for children.
Tarshis (1981) - The Average American Book - Tarshis (1981) compiled a book
addressing the habits, tastes, lifestyles, and attitudes of the American people in which he
reported data on time spent in personal grooming. The data presented are gathered from
small surveys, the Newspaper Advertising Bureau, and magazines. Tarshis reported
frequency and percentage data by gender and age for grooming activities such as
showering and bathing as follows:
• 90 percent take some sort of a bath in an average 24-hour period;
• 5 percent average more than 1 shower or bath a day;
• 75 percent of men shower, 25 percent take baths;
• 50 percent of women take showers, 50 percent take baths;
• 65 percent of teenage girls 16-19 shower daily;
• 55 percent of teenage girls take at least one bath a week;
• 50 percent of women use an additive in their bath every time they bathe;
• People are more likely to shower than bathe if they are young and have higher
income; and
• Showering is more popular than bathing in large cities.
Limitations of this study are that the data are compiled from other sources, and that
the data are old; it is possible that these data may not reflect the current trends of the
general population. An advantage of the study is that it presents frequency data that are
useful in exposure assessment, especially concerning volatilization of chemicals from
water.
AIHC (1994) - Exposure Factors Sourcebook - The activity factors data presented in
the Sourcebook are similar to that in this handbook. The AIHC Sourcebook uses tenure
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1987), while this handbook uses more recent
data (Carey, 1988) and provides general and specific recommendations for various age
groups. Distributions were derived using data presented in U.S. EPA (1989) version of this
handbook, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1987), and various other references.
Distribution data and/or recommendations are presented for time in one residence,
residential occupancy, time spent indoors/outdoors, hours at home/away from home for
adults and children, hours at work for adults, working tenure, and shower duration. For
each distribution, the @Risk formula is provided for direct use in the @Risk software
(Palisade, 1992). The Sourcebook has been classified as a relevant rather than a key
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
study because it is not the primary source for the data used to make recommendations.
It is a relevant source of alterative information.
15.2. OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY
15.2.1. Background
The amount of time spent in different types of occupations may affect the duration
and/or magnitude of exposures to contaminants specific to those occupations. For
example, an individual who spends an entire lifetime as a farmer may experience a longer
duration of exposure to certain contaminants, especially pesticides, than individuals who
have indoor occupations. Also, individual exposures to specific chemicals in the work
place may be significantly reduced when individuals change jobs. Work place exposures
among women may be of shorter duration than among men because women's careers may
be interrupted by home and family responsibilities. The key studies presented in the
following section provide occupational tenure for workers grouped by age, race, gender,
and employment status.
15.2.2. Key Occupational Mobility Studies
Carey (1988) - Occupational Tenure in 1987: Many Workers Have Remained in Their
Fields - Carey (1988) presented median occupational and employer tenure for different
age groups, gender, earnings, ethnicity, and educational attainment. Occupational tenure
was defined as "the cumulative number of years a person worked in his or her current
occupation, regardless of number of employers, interruptions in employment, or time spent
in other occupations" (Carey, 1988). The information presented was obtained from
supplemental data to the January 1987 Current Population Study, a U.S. Bureau of the
Census publication. Carey (1988) did not present information on the survey design.
The median occupational tenure by age and gender, ethnicity, and employment status
are presented in Tables 15-158, 15-159, and 15-160, respectively. The median
occupational tenure of the working population (109.1 million people) 16 years of age and
older in January of 1987, was 6.6 years (Table 15-158). Table 15-158 also shows that
median occupational tenure increased from 1.9 years for workers 16-24 years old to 21.9
years for workers 70 years and older. The median occupational tenure for men 16 years
and older was higher (7.9 years) than for women of the same age group (5.4 years). Table
15-159 indicates that whites had longer occupational tenure (6.7 years) than blacks (5.8
years), and Hispanics (4.5 years). Full-time workers had more occupational tenure than
part-time workers 7.2 years and 3.1 years, respectively (Table 15-160).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-161 presents the median occupational tenure among major occupational
groups. The median tenure ranged from 4.1 years for service workers to 10.4 years for
people employed in farming, forestry, and fishing. In addition, median occupational tenure
among detailed occupations ranged from 24.8 years for barbers to 1.5 years for food
counter and fountain workers (Appendix Table 15A-7).
The strength of an individual's attachment to a specific occupation has been
attributed to the individual's investment in education (Carey, 1988). Carey (1988) reported
the median occupational tenure for the surveyed working population by age and
educational level. Workers with 5 or more years of college had the highest median
occupational tenure of 10.1 years. Workers that were 65 years and older with 5 or more
years of college had the highest occupational tenure level of 33.8 years. The median
occupational tenure was 10.6 years for self-employed workers and 6.2 years for wage and
salary workers (Carey, 1988).
A limitation associated with this study is that the survey design employed in the data
collection was not presented. Therefore, the validity and accuracy of the data set cannot
be determined. Another limitation is that only median values were reported in the study.
An advantage of this study is that occupational tenure (years spent in a specific
occupation) was obtained for various age groups by gender, ethnicity, employment status,
and educational level. Another advantage of this study is that the data were based on a
survey population which appears to represent the general U.S. population.
Carey (1990) - Occupational Tenure, Employer Tenure, and Occupational Mobility -
Carey (1990) conducted another study that was similar in scope to the study of Carey
(1988). The January 1987 Current Population Study (CPS) was used. This study provided
data on occupational mobility and employer tenure in addition to occupational tenure.
Occupational tenure was defined in Carey (1988) as the "the cumulative number of years
a person worked in his or her current occupation, regardless of number of employees,
interruptions in employment, or time spent in other locations." Employer tenure was
defined as "the length of time a worker has been with the same employer," while
occupational mobility was defined as "the number of workers who change from one
occupation to another" (Carey, 1990). Occupational mobility was measured by asking
individuals who were employed in both January 1986 and January 1987 if they were doing
the same kind of work in each of these months (Carey, 1990). Carey (1990) further
analyzed the occupational mobility data and obtained information on entry and exit rates
for occupations. These rates were defined as "the percentage of persons employed in an
occupation who had voluntarily entered it from another occupation" and an exit rate was
defined as "the percentage of persons employed in an occupation who had voluntarily left
for a new occupation" (Carey, 1990).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Table 15-162 shows the voluntary occupational mobility rates in January 1987 for
workers 16 years and older. For all workers, the overall voluntary occupational mobility
rate was 5.3 percent. These data also show that younger workers left occupations at a
higher rate than older workers. Carey (1990) reported that 10 million of the 100.1 million
individuals employed in January 1986 and in January 1987 had changed occupations
during that period, resulting in an overall mobility rate of 9.9 percent. Executive,
administrative, and managerial occupations had the highest entry rate of 5.3 percent,
followed by administrative support (including clerical) at 4.9 percent. Sales had the
highest exit rate of 5.3 percent and service had the second highest exit rate of 4.8 percent
(Carey, 1990). In January 1987, the median employer tenure for all workers was 4.2
years. The median employee tenure was 12.4 years for those workers that were 65 years
of age and older (Carey, 1990).
Because the study was conducted by Carey (1990) in a manner similar to that of the
previous study (Carey, 1988), the same advantages and disadvantages associated with
Carey (1988) also apply to this data set.
15.3. POPULATION MOBILITY
15.3.1. Background
An assessment of population mobility can assist in determining the length of time a
household is exposed in a particular location. For example, the duration of exposure to
site-specific contamination, such as a polluted stream from which a family fishes or
contaminated soil on which children play or vegetables are grown, will be directly related
to the period of time residents live near the contaminated site.
Information regarding population mobility is compiled and published by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census (BOC). Banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, real
estate and housing associations use residence history information. However, usually this
information is confidential. Information compiled by the BOC provides information about
population mobility; however, it is difficult to determine the average residence time of a
homeowner or apartment dweller from this information. Census data provide
representations of a cross-section of the population at specific points in time, but the
surveys are not designed to follow individual families through time. The most current BOC
information about annual geographical mobility and mobility by State is summarized in
Appendix 15B. Figure 15-1 graphically displays the distribution of movers by type of move
(BOC, 1993a).
Available information was provided by the Oxford Development Corporation, the
National Association of Realtors (NAR), and the BOC. According to Oxford Development
Corporation, a property management firm, the typical residence time for an apartment
dweller for their corporation has been estimated to range from 18 to 30 months (S.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Cameron Hendricks, Sales Department, Oxford Development Corporation, Gaithersburg,
MD, personal communication with P. Wood (Versar) August 10, 1992).
15.3.2. Key Population Mobility Studies
Israeli and Nelson (1992) - Distribution and Expected Time of Residence for U.S.
Households - In risk assessments, the average current residence time (time since moving
into current residence) has often been used as a substitute for the average total residence
time (time between moving into and out of a residence) (Israeli and Nelson, 1992). Israeli
and Nelson (1992) have estimated distributions of expected time of residence for U.S.
households. Distributions and averages for both current and total residence times were
calculated for several housing categories using the 1985 and 1987 BOC housing survey
data. The total residence time distribution was estimated from current residence time data
by modeling the moving process (Israeli and Nelson, 1992). Israeli and Nelson (1992)
estimated the average total residence time for a household to be approximately 4.6 years
or 1/6 of the expected life span (see Table 15-163). The maximal total residence time that
a given fraction of households will live in the same residence is presented in Table 15-164.
For example, only 5 percent of the individuals in the "All Households" category will live in
the same residence for 23 years and 95 percent will move in less than 23 years.
The authors note that the data presented are for the expected time a household will
stay in the same residence. The data do not predict the expected residence time for each
member of the household, which is generally expected to be smaller (Israeli and
Nelson, 1992). These values are more realistic estimates for the individual total residence
time, than the average time a household has been living at its current residence. The
expected total residence time for a household is consistently less than the average current
residence time. This is the result of greater weighting of short residence time when
calculating the average total residence time than when calculating the average current
residence time (Israeli and Nelson, 1992). When averaging total residence over a time
interval, frequent movers may appear several times, but when averaging current residence
times, each household appears only once (Israeli and Nelson, 1992). According to Israeli
and Nelson (1992), the residence time distribution developed by the model is skewed and
the median values are considerably less than the means (T), which are less than the
average current residence times.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993b) - American Housing Survey for the United States
in 1991 - This survey is a national sample of 55,000 interviews in which collected data
were presented owners, renters, Black householders, and Hispanic householders. The
data reflect the number of years a unit has been occupied and represent all occupied
housing units that the residents' rented or owned at the time of the survey.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
The results of the survey pertaining to residence time of owner/renter occupied units
in the U.S. are presented in Table 15-165. Using the data in Table 15-165, the
percentages of householders living in houses for specified time ranges were determined
and are presented in Table 15-166. Based on the BOC data in Table 15-165, the 50th
percentile and the 90th percentile values were calculated for the number of years lived in
the householder's current house. These values were calculated by apportioning the total
sample size (93,147 households) to the indicated percentile associated with the applicable
range of years lived in the current home. Assuming an even distribution within the
appropriate range, the 50th and 90th percentile values for years living in current home
were determined to be 9.1 and 32.7 years, respectively. These were then rounded to 9
and 33 years. Based on the above data, the range of 9 to 33 years is assumed to best
represent a central tendency estimate of length of residence and upper percentile estimate
of residence time, respectively.
A limitation associated with the above analysis is the assumption that there is an even
distribution within the different ranges. As a result, the 50th and 90th percentile values
may be biased.
Johnson and Cape/ (1992) - A Monte Carlo Approach to Simulating Residential
Occupancy Periods and It's Application to the General U.S. Population - Johnson and
Capel developed a methodology to estimate the distribution of the residential occupancy
period (ROP) in the national population. ROP denotes the time (years) between a person
moving into a residence and the time the person moves out or dies. The methodology
used a Monte Carlo approach to simulate a distribution of ROP for 500,000 persons using
data on population, mobility, and mortality.
The methodology consisted of six steps. The first step defined the population of
interest and categorized them by location, gender, age, sex, and race. Next the
demographic groups were selected and the fraction of the specified population that fell into
each group was developed using U.S. BOC data. A mobility table was developed based
on census data, which provided the probability that a person with specified demographics
did not move during the previous year. The fifth step used data on vital statistics published
by the National Center for Health Statistics and developed a mortality table which provided
the probability that individuals with specific demographic characteristics would die during
the upcoming year. As a final step, a computer based algorithm was used to apply a
Monte Carlo approach to a series of persons selected at random from the population being
analyzed.
Table 15-167 presents the results for residential occupancy periods for the total
population, by gender. The estimated mean ROP for the total population was 11.7 years.
The distribution was skewed (Johnson and Capel, 1992): the 25th, 50th, and 75th
percentiles were 4, 9, and 16 years, respectively. The 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
were 26, 33, and 47 years, respectively. The mean ROP was 11.1 years for males and
12.3 years for females, and the median value was 8 years for males and 9 years for
females.
Descriptive statistics for subgroups defined by current ages were also calculated.
These data, presented by gender, are shown in Table 15-168. The mean ROP increases
from age 3 to age 12 and there is a noticeable decrease at age 24. However, there is a
steady increase from age 24 through age 81.
There are a few biases within this methodology that have been noted by the authors.
The probability of not moving is estimated as a function only of gender and age. The
Monte Carlo process assumes that this probability is independent of (1) the calendar year
to which it is applied, and (2) the past history of the person being simulated. These
assumptions, according to Johnson and Capel (1992), are not entirely correct. They
believe that extreme values are a function of sample size and will, for the most part,
increase as the number of simulated persons increases.
15.3.3. Relevant Population Mobility Studies
National Association of Realtors (NAR) (1993) The Home Buying and Selling Process
- The NAR survey was conducted by mailing a questionnaire to 15,000 home buyers
throughout the U.S. who purchased homes during the second half of 1993. The survey
was conducted in December 1993 and 1,763 usable responses were received, equaling
a response rate of 12 percent (NAR, 1993). Of the respondents, forty-one percent were
first time buyers. Home buyer names and addresses were obtained from Dataman
Information Services (DIS). DIS compiles information on residential real estate
transactions from more than 600 counties throughout the United States using courthouse
deed records. Most of the 250 Metropolitan Statistical Areas are also covered in the DIS
data compilation.
The home buyers were questioned on the length of time they owned their previous
home. Typical homebuyer (41%) was found to have lived in their previous home between
4 and 7 years (Table 15-169). The survey results indicate that the average tenure of home
buyers is 7.1 years based on an overall residence history of the respondents (NAR, 1993).
In addition, the median length of residence in respondents' previous homes was found to
be 6 years (see Table 15-170).
The distances the respondents moved to their new homes were typically short
distances. Data presented in Table 15-171 indicate that the mean distances range from
230 miles for new home buyers and repeat buyers to 8 years for first time buyers and
existing home buyers. Seventeen (17) percent of respondents purchased homes over 100
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
miles from their previous homes and 49 percent purchased homes less than 10 miles
away.
Lehman (1994) - Homeowners Relocating at Faster Pace - Lehman (1994) presents
data gathered by the Chicago Title and Trust Family Insurers. The data indicate that, in
1993, average U.S. homeowners moved every 12 years. In 1992, homeowners moved
every 13.4 years and in 1991, every 14.3 years. Data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census
indicate that 7 percent of the owner population moved in 1991. Based on this information,
Lehman has concluded that it would take 12 years for 100 percent of owners to move.
According to Lehman, Bill Harriett of the U.S. Bureau of the Census has been said that 14
years is a closer estimate for the time required for 100 percent of home owners to move.
An advantage of this study is that it provides percentile data for the residential occupancy
period.
15.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Assessors are commonly interested in a number of specific types of time use data
including time/frequencies for bathing, showering, gardening, residence time, indoor
versus outdoor time, swimming, occupational tenure, and population mobility.
Recommendations for each of these are discussed below. The confidence
recommendations for activity patterns is presented in Table 15-172.
15.4.1. Recommendations for Activity Patterns
Following are recommendations for selected activities known to increase an
individual's exposure to certain chemicals. These activities are time spent indoors versus
outdoors and gardening, bathing and showering, swimming, residential time spent indoors
and outdoors, and traveling inside a vehicle.
Time Spent Indoors Versus Outdoors and Gardening - Assessors often require
knowledge of time individuals spend indoors versus outdoors. Ideally, this issue would
be addressed on a site-specific basis since the times are likely to vary considerably
depending on the climate, residential setting (i.e., rural versus urban), personal traits (i.e.,
age, health) and personal habits. The following general recommendation is offered in the
absence of site-specific information. The key study by Robinson and Thomas (1991)
compares the time use values derived in the GARB and National Studies; data are
presented only for persons 12 years and older. The time use values did not differ
significantly between the two studies and were averaged to provide the following
recommended values. These values are applicable to individuals 12 years and older.
Approximately 21 hrs/day are spent indoors; 1.5 hrs/day are spent outdoors, and 1.5
hrs/day are spent in a vehicle.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
Activities can vary significantly with differences in age. Special attention should be
given to the activities of populations under the age of 12 years. Timmer et al. (1985)
presented data on time spent in various activities for boys and girls ages 3-11 years. The
study focused on activities performed indoors such as household work, personal care,
eating, sleeping, school, studying, attending church, watching television, and engaging in
household conversations. The average times spent in each indoor activity (and half the
times spent in each activity which could have occurred indoors or outdoors) were summed.
This procedure resulted in the following recommendations:
• Indoor activities accounted for about 78 percent of the total time in weekdays and
70 percent total time in weekend days. The corresponding times spent indoors are
19 hrs/day for weekdays and 17 hrs/day on weekends.
• Outdoor activities accounted for about 22 percent of children's time during
weekdays and 30 percent during the weekend. The corresponding times spent
outdoors are 5 hrs/day for weekdays and 7 hrs/day on weekends.
Assessors evaluating soil exposures are commonly interested in data on gardening
times and frequencies. No data specific to time spent gardening could be found; thus, no
firm recommendation could be made. However, three sets of data were found which
indirectly relate to this issue which the assessor can consider in deriving time estimates
for gardening:
• Robinson and Thomas (1991) estimated the time spent in "other outdoor activities"
(Table 15-8) as 1 hr/day. These data apply to populations 12 years and older.
• Hill (1985) estimated that time spent in "house work and/or yard work" (Table 15-
153) as 2 hr/day. These data apply to adult populations.
•DTsang and Klepeis (1996) estimated that time spent in the garden or other
circumstances working with soil for persons 18-64 years old (Table 15-62) for the
90th, 95th, and 99th percentile at 16, 40, and 200 hours/month, respectively.
U.S. EPA's Dermal Exposure Assessment Document (1992) recommends, on the
basis of judgement, an event frequency for the adult gardener, working outside: 1 to 2
events/week during warmer months or about 40 events/year. An upper percentile value
of 40 hours/month is recommended based on Tsang and Klepeis (1996).
Baths and Showers - In the NHAPS study, 649 (~7 percent) of the total participants
indicated either taking or giving at least one bath in a day. Those 649 respondents were
subsequently asked the number of times they took or gave a bath in one day. The
majority, 459 of 649 respondents, recorded taking or giving one bath in a day. These
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
results are presented in Table 15-24. The recommended bathing duration is 20 minutes.
This is a 50th percentile value based on the NHAPS distribution shown on Table 15-26;
the reported 90th percentile value is 45 minutes.
The recommended shower frequency of one shower per day is based on the NHAPS
data summarized in Table 15-19. This table showed that 3,594 of the 9,386 total
participants indicated taking at least one shower the previous day. When asked the
number of actual showers taken the previous day, the reported results ranged from one
to ten showers; a majority (76 percent), of those 3,549 respondents, reported taking one
shower the previous day. The NHAPS data shown on Table 15-19, Table 15-24, and
Table 15-26 provide information grouped according to gender, age, race, employment,
education, day of the week, seasonal conditions, and health conditions such as asthma,
angina, and bronchitis/emphysema.
Recommendations for showering duration are based on the key study conducted by
Tsang and Klepeis (1996). A recommended value for average showering time is 10
minutes (Table 15-20) based on professional judgement. This approximates the average
showering value (8 minutes) of James and Knuiman (1987) (Table 15-18). The
recommended 50th percentile value is 15 minutes, and the 95th percentile value is 35
minutes (Table 15-21). Although these values are slightly higher than those of James and
Knuiman (1987), they are believed to be more representative of U.S. households.
Swimming - Data for swimming frequency is taken from the NHAPS Study (Tsang
and Klepeis, 1996). Of 9,386 participants, 653 (about 7 percent), answered yes to the
question "in the past month, did you swim in a freshwater pool?". The results to this
question are summarized in Table 15-65. The recorded number of times respondents
swam in the past month ranged from 1 to 60 with the greatest number of respondents, 147
(23 percent), reporting they swam one time per month. Thus, the recommended swimming
frequency is one event/ month for the general population. The recommended swimming
duration, 60 minutes per swimming event, is based on the NHAPS distribution shown on
Table 15-67. Sixty minutes is based on the 50th percentile value; the 90th percentile value
is 180 minutes per swimming event (based on one event/month); and the 99th percentile
value is 181 minutes. This value (181) indicates that more than 180 minutes were spent.
In addition, users can obtain frequency and duration data grouped according to
gender, age, race, employment, education, day of the week, and season. Frequency and
duration data is also available in Table 15-65 and Table 15-67, for swimmer respondents
reporting health conditions such as asthma, angina, and bronchitis/ emphysema.
Residential Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors - The recommendations for time
spent indoors at one's residence is 16.4 hours/day. This is based on the NHAPS data
summarized in Table 15-131 which records the 50th percentile value of 985.0 minutes per
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
day (16.4 hours/day); and a 90th percentile value of 1,395 minutes per day (23.3
hours/day).
The recommended value for time spent outdoors at one's residence is 2 hours per
day based on Table 15-102 (generated by the NHAPS data). Values of 105 minutes per
day for the 50th percentile and 362 minutes per day for the 90th percentile are shown in
Table 15-102.
Traveling Inside a Vehicle - The recommendation for time spent in a vehicle is 1
hour and 20 minutes per day. This recommendation is based on two studies and (1)
Robinson and Thomas (1991) and (2) The NHAPS data. The Robinson and Thomas study
evaluated two independent studies, the GARB and the National Study. They respectively
reported mean durations for time spent in a vehicle as 98 and 87 minutes per day which
averages to 92 minutes per day or about 1.5 hours per day. The NHAPS data, as
summarized on Table 15-133, provide a 50th percentile value of 70 minutes per day (or
1 hour and 10 minutes) and a 90th percentile value of 190 minutes per day. Thus, the
averaged value from these two studies is about 1 hour and 20 minutes. NHAPS data is
grouped according to gender, race, age, employment status, census region, day of the
week, season, and health condition of respondents.
15.4.2. Recommendations: Occupational Mobility
The median occupational tenure of the working population (109.1 million people)
ages 16 years of age and older in January 1987 was 6.6 years (Carey, 1988). Since the
occupational tenure varies significantly according to age it is recommended to use the age
dependent values presented in Carey's 1988 study (Table 15-158). When age cannot be
determined, it is recommended to use the median tenure value of 6.6 years for working
men and women 16 years and older. For persons 70 years and older, a tenure value of
21.9 years is recommended for a working lifetime. A value of 30.5 years and 18.8 years
is recommended for men and women, respectively. Part-time employment, race and the
position held are important to consider in determining occupational tenure. The ratings
indicating confidence in the occupational mobility recommendations are presented in Table
15-173. It should be noted that the recommended values are not for use in evaluating job
tenure. These data can be used for determining time spent in an occupation and not for
time spent at a specific job site.
15.4.3. Recommendations: Population Mobility
There are three key studies from which the population mobility recommendations
were derived: Israeli and Nelson (1992), U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993) - and Johnson
and Capel (1992). Each study used a unique approach to estimate the length of time a
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 15 - Activity Factors
person resides in a household. The respective approaches were to (1) average current
and total residence time; (2) model current residence time; and (3) determine the
residential occupancy period. A summary of the approaches used and values
recommended by each of these studies is presented in Table 15-174.
The three studies provide residence time estimates that are very similar to the 9 year
(50th percentile) and 30 year (95th percentile). Tables 15-163 and 15-164 show residence
times for different types of residences and are recommended where assessors are
interested in specific types of residences. The ratings indicating confidence in the
population mobility recommendations is presented in Table 15-175.
15.4.4. Summary of Recommended Activity Factors
Table 15-176 includes a summation of the recommended activity pattern factors
presented in this section and the studies which provided data on the specific activities.
The type of activities include indoor activities, outdoor activities, time inside a vehicle,
taking a bath or shower, swimming, working at a specific occupation, and residing in a
particular location.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
16. CONSUMER PRODUCTS
16.1. BACKGROUND
Consumer products may contain toxic or potentially toxic chemical constituents to
which humans may be exposed as a result of their use. For example, methylene chloride
and other solvents and carriers are common in consumer products and may have human
health concerns. Potential pathways of exposure to consumer products or chemicals
released from consumer products during use occur via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
contact. Exposure assessments that address consumer products involve characterization
of these potential exposure pathways and calculating exposure or dose (based on
exposure pathway) of chemical substances released during use of consumer products.
In order to estimate specific-pathway exposure for consumer products or their components,
the following information is needed: amount of product used; concentration of product in
each type of activity; percent weight of chemical present in product; duration and
frequency of use or activity; and for dermal exposure, the amount of solution on skin after
exposure (Hakkinen etal., 1991; U.S. EPA, 1987).
This chapter presents information on the amount of product used, frequency of use,
and duration of use for various consumer products typically found in consumer
households. All tables that present information for these consumer products are located
at the end of this chapter. U.S. EPA (1987) has complied a comprehensive list of consumer
products found in typical American households. This list of consumer products is
presented in Table 16-1. It should be noted that this chapter does not provide an
exhaustive treatment of all consumer products, but rather provides some background and
data that can be utilized in an exposure assessment. Also, the data presented may not
capture information needed to assess the highly exposed population (e.g., consumers who
use commercial/ industrial strength products at home). The studies presented in the
following sections represent readily available surveys for which data were collected on the
frequency and duration of use and amount of use of cleaning products, painting products,
household solvent products, cosmetic and other personal care products, household
equipment, pesticides, and tobacco. The studies have been classified as either key or
relevant based on their applicability to exposure assessment needs.
The reader is also referred to a document developed by the U.S. EPA, Office of Toxic
Substances: Standard Scenarios for Estimating Exposure to Chemical Substances During
Use of Consumer Products - Volumes I and II (U.S. EPA, 1986). This document presents
data and supporting information required to assess consumer exposure to constituents in
household cleaners and components of adhesives. Information presented includes a
description of standard scenarios selected to represent upper bound exposures for each
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
product. Values are also presented for parameters that are needed to estimate exposure
for defined exposure routes and pathways assumed for each scenario.
An additional reference is the Simmons Market Research Bureau (SMRB), "Simmons
Study of Media and Markets." This document provides an example of marketing data that
are available that may be useful in assessing exposure to selected products. The reports
are published annually. Data are collected on the buying habits of the U.S. populations
over the past 12 months. This information is collected for over 1,000 consumer products.
Data are presented on frequency of use, total number of buyers in each use category, and
selected demographics. The consumer product data are presented according to the
"buyer" and not necessarily according to the "user" (actively exposed person). It may be
necessary to adjust the data to reflect potential uses in a household. The reports are
available for purchase from the Simmons Market Research Bureau, (212) 916-8970.
Appendix Table 16A-1 presents a list of product categories in SMRB for which information
is available.
16.2. KEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDIES
Westat (1987a) - Household Solvent Products: A National Usage Survey - Westat
(1987a) conducted a nationwide survey to determine consumer exposure to common
household products believed to contain methylene chloride or its substitutes
(trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, perchloroethylene, and
1,1,1,2,2,2- trichlorotrifluoroethane). The survey methodology was comprised of three
phases. In the first phase, the sample population was generated by using a random digit
dialing (ROD) procedure. Using this procedure, telephone numbers of households were
randomly selected by utilizing an unbiased, equal probability of selection method, known
as the "Waksberg Method" (Westat, 1987a). After the respondents in the selected
households (18 years and older) agreed to participate in the survey, the second phase was
initiated. It involved a mailout of questionnaires and product pictures to each respondent.
In the third phase, a telephone follow-up call was made to those respondents who did not
respond to the mailed questionnaire within a 4-week period. The same questionnaire was
administered over the telephone to participants who did not respond to the mailed
questionnaire. Of the 6,700 individuals contacted for the survey, 4,920 individuals either
responded to the mailed questionnaire or to a telephone interview (a response rate of 73
percent). Survey questions included how often the products were used in the last 12
months; when they were last used; how much time was spent using a product (per
occasion or year), and the time the respondent remained in the room after use; how much
of a product was used per occasion or year; and what protective measures were used
(Westat, 1987a).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
Thirty-two categories of common household products were included in the survey and
are presented in Table 16-2. Tables 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, and 16-5 provide means, medians,
and percentile rankings for the following variables: frequency of use, exposure time,
amount of use, and time exposed after use.
An advantage of this study is that the random digit dialing procedure (Waksberg
Method) used in identifying participants for this survey enabled a diverse selection of a
representative, unbiased, sample of the U.S. population (Westat 1987a). Also, empirical
data generated from this study will provide more accurate calculations of human exposure
to consumer household products than estimates previously used. However, a limitation
associated with this study is that the data generated were based on recall behavior.
Another limitation is that extrapolation of these data to long-term use patterns may be
difficult.
Abt (1992) - Methylene Chloride Consumer Use Study Survey Findings - As part of
a plan to assess the effectiveness of labeling of consumer products containing methylene
chloride, Abt conducted a telephone survey of nearly five thousand households (Abt,
1992). The survey was conducted in April and May of 1991. Three classes of products
were of concern: paint strippers, non-automotive spray paint, and adhesive removers.
The survey paralleled a 1986 consumer use survey sponsored jointly by Abt and the U.S.
EPA. Results of the survey were the following (Abt, 1992):
• Compared to the 1986 findings, a significantly smaller proportion of current survey
respondents used a paint stripper, spray paint, or adhesive remover.
• The proportion of the population who used the three products recently (within the
past year) decreased substantially.
• Those who used the products reported a significantly longer time since their last
use.
• For all three products, the reported amount used per year was significantly higher
in the current survey.
The survey was conducted to estimate the percent of the U.S. adult population using
paint remover, adhesive remover, and non-automotive spray paint. In addition, an
estimate of the population using these products containing methylene chloride was
determined. A survey question-naire was developed to collect product usage data and
demographic data. The survey sample was generated using a ROD technique.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
A total of 4,997 product screener interviews were conducted for the product interview
sections; the number of respondents were: 381 for paint strippers, 58 for adhesive
removers, and 791 for non-automotive spray paint. Survey responses were weighted to
allow estimation at the level of the total U.S. population (Abt, 1992). A follow-up mail
survey was also conducted using a short questionnaire. Respondents who had used the
product in the past year or had purchased the product in the past 2 years and still had the
container were asked to respond to the questionnaire (Abt, 1992). Of the mail
questionnaires (527) sent out, 259 were returned. The questionnaire responses included
67 on paint strippers, 6 on adhesive removers, and 186 on non-automotive spray paint.
Results of the survey are presented in Tables 16-6 through 16-11 (N's are unweighted).
Data are presented for recent users. Recent users were defined as persons who have
used the product within the last year of the survey or who have purchased the product in
the past 2 years.
An advantage of this survey is that the survey population was large and the survey
responses were weighted to represent the U.S. population. In addition, the survey was
designed to collect data for frequency of product use and amount of product used by
gender. A limitation of the survey is that the data were generated based on recall
behavior. Extrapolation of these data to accurately reflect long-term use patterns may be
difficult.
Westat (1987b) - National Usage Survey of Household Cleaning Products - Westat
(1987b) collected usage data from a nationwide survey to assess the magnitude of
exposure of consumers to various products used when performing certain household
cleaning tasks. The survey was conducted between the middle of November, 1985 to the
middle of January, 1986. Telephone interviews were conducted with 193 households.
According to Westat (1987b), the resulting response rate for this survey was 78 percent.
The Waksberg method discussed previously in the Westat (1987a) study was also used
in randomly selecting telephone numbers employed in the Westat (1987b) survey. The
survey was designed to obtain information on cleaning activities performed in the interior
of the home during the previous year. The person who did the majority of the cleaning in
the kitchen and bathroom areas of each household was interviewed. Of those
respondents, the primary cleaner was female in 160 households (83 percent) and male in
30 households (16 percent); the sex of the respondents in three remaining households was
not ascertained (Westat, 1987b). Data obtained from the survey included the frequency
of performing 14 different cleaning tasks; the amount of time (duration) spent at each task;
the cleaning product most frequently used; the type of product (liquid, powder, aerosol or
spray pump) used; and the protective measures taken during cleaning such as wearing
rubber gloves or having a window open or an exhaust fan on (Westat, 1987b).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
The survey data are presented in Tables 16-12 through 16-16. Table 16-12 presents
the mean and median total exposure time of use for each cleaning task and the product
type preferred for each task. The percentile rankings for the total time exposed to the
products used for 14 cleaning tasks are presented in Table 16-13. The mean and
percentile rankings of the frequency in performing each task are presented in Table 16-14.
Table 16-15 shows the mean and percentile rankings for exposure time per event of
performing household tasks. The mean and percentile rankings for total number of hours
spent per year using the top 10 product groups are presented in Table 16-16.
Westat (1987b) randomly selected a subset of 30 respondents from the original
survey and reinterviewed them during the first two weeks of March, 1986 as a reliability
check on the recall data obtained from the original phone survey. Frequency and duration
data for 3 of the original 14 cleaning tasks were obtained from the reinterviews. In a
second effort to validate the phone survey, 50 respondents of the original phone survey
participated in a four-week diary study (between February and March, 1986) of 8 of the 14
cleaning tasks originally studied. The diary approach assessed the validity of using a one-
time telephone survey to determine usual cleaning behavior (Westat, 1987b). The data
(i.e., frequency and duration) obtained from the reinterviews and the diary approach were
lower than the data from the original telephone survey. The data from the reinterviews and
the diary approach were more consistent with each other. Westat (1987b) attributed the
significant differences in the data obtained from these surveys to seasonal changes rather
than methodological problems.
A limitation of this survey is evident from the reliability and validity check of the data
conducted by Westat (1987b). The data obtained from the telephone survey may reflect
heavier seasonal cleaning because the survey was conducted during the holidays
(November through January). Therefore, usage data obtained in this study may be biased
and may represent upper bound estimates. Another limitation of this study is the small
size of the sample population. An advantage of this survey is that the ROD procedure
(Waksberg Method) used provides unbiased results of sample selection and reduces the
number of unproductive calls. Another advantage of this study is that it provides empirical
data on frequency and duration of consumer use, thereby eliminating best judgment or
guesswork.
Westat (1987c) - National Household Survey of Interior Painters - Westat (1987c)
conducted a study between November, 1985 and January, 1986 to obtain usage
information to estimate the magnitude of exposure of consumers to different types of
painting and painting related products used while painting the interior of the home. Seven-
hundred and seventy-seven households were sampled to determine whether any
household member had painted the interior of the home during the last 12 months prior to
the survey date. Of the sampled households, 208 households (27 percent) had a
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
household member who had painted during the last 12 months. Based on the households
with primary painters, the response rate was 90 percent (Westat, 1987c). The person in
each household who did most of the interior painting during the last 12 months was
interviewed over the telephone. The ROD procedure (Waksberg Method) previously
described in Westat (1987a) was used to generate sample blocks of telephone numbers
in this survey. Questions were asked on frequency and time spent for interior painting
activities; the amount of paint used; and protective measures used (i.e., wearing gloves,
hats, and masks or keeping a window open) (Westat, 1987c). Fifty-three percent of the
primary painters in the households interviewed were male, 46 percent were female, and
the sex of the remaining 1 percent was not ascertained. Three types of painting products
were used in this study; latex paint, oil-based paint, and wood stains and varnishes. Of
the respondents, 94.7 percent used latex paint, 16.8 percent used oil-based paint, and
20.2 percent used wood stains and varnishes.
Data generated from this survey are summarized in Tables 16-17, 16-18, and 16-19.
Table 16-17 presents the mean, standard duration, and percentile rankings for the total
exposure time for painting activity by paint type. Table 16-18 presents the mean and
standard exposure time for the painting activity per occasion for each paint type. A
"painting occasion" is defined as a time period from start to cleanup (Westat 1987c).
Table 16-18 also presents the frequency and percentile rankings of painting occasions per
year. Table 16-19 presents the total amount of paint used by interior painters.
In addition, 30 respondents from the original survey were reinterviewed in April 1986,
as a reliability check on the recall data obtained from the original painting survey. There
were no significant differences between the data obtained from the reinterviews and the
original painting survey (Westat, 1987c).
An advantage of this survey, based on the reliability check conducted by Westat
(1987c), is the stability in the painting data obtained. Another advantage of this survey is
that the response rate was high (90 percent), therefore, minimizing non-response bias.
Also, the Waksberg Method employed provides an unbiased equal probability method of
ROD. A limitation of the survey is the data are based on 12-month recall and may not
accurately reflect long-term use patterns.
Tsang and Klepeis (1996) - National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) - The
U.S. EPA collected information for the general population on the duration and frequency
of selected activities and the time spent in selected microenvironments via 24-hour diaries.
Over 9000 individuals from 48 contiguous states participated in NHAPS. The survey was
conducted between October 1992 and September 1994. Individuals were interviewed to
categorize their 24-hour routines (diaries) and/or answer follow-up exposure questions that
were related to exposure events. Data were collected based on selected socioeconomic
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
(gender, age, race, education, etc.) and geographic (census region, state, etc.) factors and
time/season (day of week, month) (Tsang and Klepeis, 1996).
Data were collected for a maximum of 82 possible microenvironments and 91 different
activities (Tsang and Klepeis, 1996). Respondents were also asked exposure-related
follow up questions, mostly on air and water exposure pathways, on specific pollutant
sources (paint, glue, etc.), or prolonged background activities (tobacco smoke, gas
heaters, etc.) (Tsang and Klepeis, 1996).
As part of the survey, data were also collected on duration and frequency of use of
selected consumer products. These data are presented in Tables 16-20 through 16-34.
Distribution data are presented for selected percentiles (where possible). Other data are
presented in ranges of time spent in an activity (e.g., working with or near a product being
used) or ranges for the number of times an activity involving a consumer product was
performed. Tables 16-20 through 16-34 provide duration and/or frequency data for the
following categories: selected cosmetics and personal care items; household cleaners and
other household products; household equipment; pesticides; and tobacco products.
The advantages of NHAPS is that the data were collected for a large number of
individuals and are representative of the U.S. general population. In addition, frequency
distributions of time spent and frequency of occurrence data for activities and locations are
provided, when possible. Also, data on 9,386 different respondents are grouped by
various socioeconomic, geographic, time/seasonal factors. A disadvantage of NHAPS is
that means cannot be calculated for consumers who spent more than 60 or 120 minutes
(depending on the activity) in an activity using a consumer product. Therefore, a good
estimate of the high consumer activities cannot be captured.
16.3. RELEVANT CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDY
CTFA (1983) - Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, Inc. - Summary of
Results of Surveys of the Amount and Frequency of Use of Cosmetic Products by Women
The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association Inc. (CTFA, 1983), a major
manufacturer and a market research bureau, conducted surveys to obtain information on
frequency of use of various cosmetic products. Three surveys were conducted to collect
data on the frequency of use of various cosmetic products and selected baby products.
In the first of these three surveys CTFA (1983) conducted a one-week prospective survey
of 47 female employees and relatives of employees between the ages of 13 and 61 years.
In the second survey, a cosmetic manufacturer conducted a retrospective survey of 1,129
of its customers. The third survey was conducted by a market research bureau which
sampled 19,035 female consumers nationwide over a 9-1/2 month period. Of the 19,035
females interviewed, responses from only 9,684 females were tabulated (CTFA, 1983).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
The third survey was designed to reflect the sociodemographic (i.e., age, income, etc)
characteristics of the entire U.S. population. The respondents in all three surveys were
asked to record the number of times they used the various products in a given time period,
i.e., a week, a day, a month, or a year (CTFA, 1983).
To obtain the average frequency of use for each cosmetic product, responses were
averaged for each product in each survey. Thus, the averages were calculated by adding
the reported number of uses per given time period for each product, dividing by the total
number of respondents in the survey, and then dividing again by the number of days in the
given time period (CTFA, 1983). The average frequency of use of cosmetic products was
determined for both "users" and "non-users." The frequency of use of baby products was
determined among "users" only. The upper 90th percentile frequency of use values were
determined by eliminating the top ten percent most extreme frequencies of use. Therefore,
the highest remaining frequency of use was recorded as the upper 90th percentile value
(CTFA, 1983). Table 16-34 presents the amount of product used per application (grams)
and the average and 90th percentile frequency of use per day for baby products and
various cosmetic products for all the surveys.
An advantage of the frequency data obtained from the third survey (market research
bureau) is that the sample population was more likely to be representative of the U.S.
population. Another advantage of the third dataset is that the survey was conducted over
a longer period of time when compared with the other two frequency datasets. Also, the
study provided empirical data which will be useful in generating more accurate estimates
of consumer exposure to cosmetic products. In contrast to the large market research
bureau survey, the CTFA employee survey is very small and both that survey and the
cosmetic company survey are likely to be biased toward high end users. Therefore, data
from these two surveys should be used with caution.
16.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the large range and variation among consumer products and their exposure
pathways, it is not feasible to specify recommended exposure values as has been done
in other chapters of this handbook. The user is referred to the contents and references
in the chapter to derive appropriate exposure factors. Table 16-35 summarizes the key
and relevant studies in this chapter. In order to estimate consumer exposure to household
products, several types of information are needed for the exposure equation. The
information needed includes frequency and duration of use, amount of product used,
percent weight of the chemical of concern found in the product, and for dermal exposure,
the amount of the solution on the skin after exposure. The studies of Westat (1987a, b,
and c), (Abt, 1992), and Tsang and Klepeis (1996) provide information on amount,
duration, and frequency of use of household products. The frequency and duration of use
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 16 - Consumer Products
and amount of product used for some household and other consumer products can be
obtained from Tables 16-2 through 16-34. Exposure to chemicals present in common
household products can be estimated by utilizing data presented in these tables and the
appropriate exposure equation. It should be noted that if these data are used to model
indoor air concentrations, the values for time of use, time exposed after use, and frequency
in the indoor air, should be the same values used in the dose equation for frequency and
contact time for a given individual.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
17. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
17.1. INTRODUCTION
Unlike previous chapters in this handbook which focus on human behavior or
characteristics that affect exposure, this chapter focuses on residence characteristics.
Assessment of exposure in residential settings requires information on the availability of
the chemical(s) of concern at the point of exposure, characteristics of the structure and
microenvironment that affect exposure, and human presence within the residence. The
purpose of this chapter is to provide data that are available on residence characteristics
that affect exposure in an indoor environment. Source-receptor relationships in residential
exposure scenarios can be complex due to interactions among sources, and
transport/transformation processes that result from chemical-specific and building-specific
factors. Figure 17-1 illustrates the complex factors that must be considered when
conducting exposure assessments in a residential setting. In addition to sources within
the building, chemicals of concern may enter the indoor environment from outdoor air, soil,
gas, water supply, tracked-in soil, and industrial work clothes worn by the residents.
Indoor concentrations are affected by loss mechanisms, also illustrated in Figure 17-1,
involving chemical reactions, deposition to and re-emission from surfaces, and transport
out of the building. Particle-bound chemicals can enter indoor air through resuspension.
Indoor air concentrations of gas-phase organic chemicals are affected by the presence of
reversible sinks formed by a wide range of indoor materials. In addition, the activity of
human receptors greatly affects their exposure as they move from room to room, entering
and leaving the exposure scene.
Inhalation exposure assessments in residential and other indoor settings are modeled
by considering the building as an assemblage of one or more well-mixed zones. A zone
is defined as one room, a group of interconnected rooms, or an entire building. This
macroscopic level, well-mixed perspective forms the basis for interpretation of
measurement data as well as simulation of hypothetical scenarios. Exposure assessment
models on a macroscopic level incorporate important physical factors and processes.
These well-mixed, macroscopic models have been used to perform indoor air quality
simulations (Axley, 1989), as well as indoor air exposure assessments (McKone, 1989;
Ryan, 1991). Nazzaroff and Cass (1986) and Wilkes et al. (1992) have used code-
intensive computer programs featuring finite difference or finite element numerical
techniques to model mass balance. A simplified approach using desk top spreadsheet
programs has been used by Jennings et al. (1985).
In order to model mass balance of indoor contaminants, the indoor air volume is
represented as a network of interconnected zones. Because conditions in a given zone
are determined by interactions with other connecting zones, the multizone model is stated
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
as a system of simultaneous equations. The mathematical framework for modeling indoor
air has been reviewed by Sinden (1978) and Sandberg (1984).
Indoor air quality models typically are not software products that can be purchased
as "off-the-shelf items. Most existing software models are research tools that have been
developed for specific purposes and are being continuously refined by researchers.
Leading examples of indoor air models implemented as software products are as follows:
• CONTAM - developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) with support from U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
(Axley, 1988; Grot, 1991; Walton, 1993);
• EXPOSURE - developed at the Indoor Air Branch of U.S. EPA Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory (EPA/AEERL) (Sparks, 1988, 1991);
• MCCEM - the Multi-Chamber Consumer Exposure Model developed for U.S
EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (EPA/OPPT) (GEOMET, 1989;
Koontz and Nagda, 1991); and
• THERdbASE - the Total Human Exposure Relational Data Base and Advanced
Simulation Environment software developed by researchers at the Harry Reid
Center for Environmental Studies at University Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
(Pandian etal., 1993).
Section 17.2 of this chapter summarizes existing data on building characteristics
(volumes, surface areas, mechanical systems, and types of foundations). Section 17.3
summarizes transport phenomena that affect chemical transport (airflow, chemical-specific
deposition and filtration, and effects of water supply and soil tracking). Section 17.4
provides information on various types of indoor sources associated with airborne
exposure, waterborne sources, and soil/house dust sources. Section 17.5 summarizes
advanced concepts.
17.2. BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
17.2.1. Key Volumes of Residence Studies
Versar (1990) - Database on Perfluorocarbon Tracer (PFT) Ventilation Measurements
-A database of time-averaged air exchange and interzonal airflow measurements in more
than 4,000 residences has been compiled by Versar (1990) to allow researchers to access
these data (see Section 17.3.2). These data were collected between 1982 and 1987. The
residences that appear in this database are not a random sample of U.S. homes; however,
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
they do represent a compilation of homes visited in about 100 different field studies, some
of which involved random sampling. In each study, the house volumes were directly
measured or estimated. The collective homes visited in these field projects are not
geographically balanced; a large fraction of these homes are located in southern
California. Statistical weighting techniques were applied in developing estimates of
nationwide distributions (see Section 17.3.2) to compensate for the geographic imbalance.
U.S. DOE (1995) - Housing Characteristics 1993, Residential Energy Consumption
Survey (RECS) - Measurement surveys have not been conducted to directly characterize
the range and distribution of volumes for a random sample of U.S. residences. Related
data, however, are regularly collected through the U.S. DOE's RECS (U.S. DOE, 1995).
In addition to collecting information on energy use, this triennial survey collects data on
housing characteristics including direct measurements of total and heated floor space for
buildings visited by survey specialists. For the most recent survey (1993), a multistage
probability sample of over 7,000 residences was surveyed, representing 96 million
residences nationwide. The survey response rate was 81.2 percent. Volumes were
estimated from the RECS measurements by multiplying the heated floor space area by an
assumed ceiling height of 8 feet, recognizing that this assumed height may not apply
universally to all homes.
Results for residential volume distributions from the RECS (Thompson, 1995) are
presented in Table 17-1. Estimated parameters of residential volume distributions (in
cubic meters) from the PFT database (Versar, 1990) are also summarized in Table 17-1,
for comparison to the RECS data. The arithmetic means from the two sources are
identical (369 cubic meters). The medians (50th percentiles) are very similar: 310 cubic
meters for the RECS data, and 321 cubic meters for the PFT database. Cumulative
frequency distributions from the two sources (Figure 17-2) also are quite similar, especially
between the 50th and 75th percentiles.
The RECS also provides relationships between average residential floor areas and
factors such as housing type, ownership, household size and structure age. The
predominant housing type-single-family detached homes-also has the largest average
volume (Table 17-2). Multifamily units and mobile homes have volumes averaging about
half that of single-family detached homes, with single-family attached homes about halfway
between these extremes. Within each category of housing type, owner-occupied
residences average about 50 percent greater volume than rental units. The relationship
of residential volume to household size (Table 17-3) is of particular interest for purposes
of exposure assessment. For example, one-person households would not include
children, and the data in the table indicate that multi-person households occupy
residences averaging about 50 percent greater volume than residences occupied by one-
person households.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
Data on year of construction indicate a slight decrease in residential volumes
between 1950 and 1984, followed by an increasing trend over the next decade. A ceiling
height of 8 feet was assumed in estimating the average volumes, whereas there may have
been some time-related trends in ceiling height.
Murray (1996) - Analysis of RECS and PFT Databases. Using a database from the
1993 RECS and an assumed ceiling height of 8 feet, Murray (1996) estimated a mean
residential volume of 382 m3 using RECS estimates of heated floor space. This estimate
is slightly different from the mean of 369 m3 given in Table 17-1. Murray's (1996)
sensitivity analysis indicated that when a fixed ceiling height of 8 feet was replaced with
a randomly varying height with a mean of 8 feet, there was little effect on the standard
deviation of the estimated distribution. From a separate analysis of the PFT database,
based on 1,751 individual household measure-ments, Murray (1996) estimated an average
volume of 369 m3, the same as previously given in Table 17-1. In performing this analysis,
the author carefully reviewed the PFT database in an effort to use each residence only
once, for those residences thought to have multiple PFT measurements.
17.2.2. Volumes and Surface Areas of Rooms
Room Volumes - Volumes of individual rooms are dependent on the building size and
configuration, but summary data are not readily available. The exposure assessor is
advised to define specific rooms, or assemblies of rooms, that best fit the scenario of
interest. Most models for predicting indoor-air concentrations specify airflows in cubic
meters per hour and, correspondingly, express volumes in cubic meters. A measurement
in cubic feet can be converted to cubic meters by multiplying the value in cubic feet by
0.0283 m3/ft3. For example, a bedroom that is 9 feet wide by 12 feet long by 8 feet high
has a volume of 864 cubic feet or 24.5 cubic meters. Similarly, a living room with
dimensions of 12 feet wide by 20 feet long by 8 feet high has a volume of 1920 cubic feet
or 54.3 cubic meters, and a bathroom with dimensions of 5 feet by 12 feet by 8 feet has
a volume of 480 cubic feet or 13.6 cubic meters.
Murray (1996) analyzed the distribution of selected residential zones (i.e., a series
of connected rooms) using the PFT database. The author analyzed the "kitchen zone" and
the "bedroom zone" for houses in the Los Angeles area that were labeled in this manner
by field researchers, and "basement," "first floor," and "second floor" zones for houses
outside of Los Angeles for which the researchers labeled individual floors as zones. The
kitchen zone contained the kitchen in addition to any of the following associated spaces:
utility room, dining room, living room and family room. The bedroom zone contained all
the bedrooms plus any bathrooms and hallways associated with the bedrooms. The
following summary statistics (mean ± standard deviation) were reported by Murray (1996)
for the volumes of the zones described above: 199 ± 115 m3 for the kitchen zone, 128 ±
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
67 m3 for the bedroom zone, 205 ± 64 m3 for the basement, 233 ± 72 m3 for the first floor,
and 233 ±111 m3 for the second floor.
Surface Areas - The surface areas of floors are commonly considered in relation to
the room or house volume, and their relative loadings are expressed as a surface area-to-
volume, or loading ratio. Table 17-4 provides the basis for calculating loading ratios for
typical-sized rooms. Constant features in the examples are: a room width of 12 feet and
a ceiling height of 8 feet (typical for residential buildings), or a ceiling height 12 feet
(typical for commercial buildings). The loading ratios for the 8-foot ceiling height range
from 0.98 m2nr3 to 2.18 m2nr3 for wall area and from 0.36 m2nr3 to 0.44 m2rrr3 for floor area.
In comparison, ASTM Standard E 1333 (ASTM, 1990), for large-chamber testing of
formaldehyde levels from wood products, specifies the following loading ratios: (1) 0.95
m2m"3 for testing plywood (assumes plywood or paneling on all four walls of a typical size
room); and (2) 0.43 m2m"3 for testing particleboard (assumes that particleboard decking or
underlayment would be used as a substrate for the entire floor of a structure).
Products and Materials - Table 17-5 presents examples of assumed amounts of
selected products and materials used in constructing or finishing residential surfaces
(Tucker, 1991). Products used for floor surfaces include adhesive, varnish and wood
stain; and materials used for walls include paneling, painted gypsum board, and wallpaper.
Particleboard and chipboard are commonly used for interior furnishings such as shelves
or cabinets, but could also be used for decking or underlayment. It should be noted that
numbers presented in Table 17-5 for surface area are based on typical values for
residences, and they are presented as examples. In contrast to the concept of loading
ratios presented above (as a surface area), the numbers in Table 17-5 also are not scaled
to any particular residential volume. In some cases, it may be preferable for the exposure
assessor to use professional judgment in combination with the loading ratios given above.
For example, if the exposure scenario involves residential carpeting, either as an indoor
source or as an indoor sink, then the ASTM loading ratio of 0.43 m2m"3 for floor materials
could be multiplied by an assumed residential volume and assumed fractional coverage
of carpeting to derive an estimate of the surface area. More specifically, a residence with
a volume of 300 m3, a loading ratio of 0.43 m2m"3 and coverage of 80% would have 103 m2
of carpeting. The estimates discussed here relate to macroscopic surfaces; the true
surface area for carpeting, for example, would be considerably larger because of the
nature of its fibrous material.
Furnishings - Information on the relative abundance of specific types of indoor
furnishings, such as draperies or upholstered furniture, was not readily available. The
exposure assessor is advised to rely on common sense and professional judgment. For
example, the number of beds in a residence is usually related to household size, and
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
information has been provided (Table 17-3) on average house volume in relation to
household size.
17.2.3. Mechanical System Configurations
Mechanical systems for air movement in residences can affect the migration and
mixing of pollutants released indoors and the rate of pollutant removal. Three types of
mechanical systems are: (1) systems associated with heating and air conditioning (MAC);
(2) systems whose primary function is providing localized exhaust; and (3) systems
intended to increase the overall air exchange rate of the residence.
Portable space heaters intended to serve a single room, or a series of adjacent
rooms, may or may not be equipped with blowers that promote air movement and mixing.
Without a blower, these heaters still have the ability to induce mixing through convective
heat transfer. If the heater is a source of combustion pollutants, as with unvented gas or
kerosene space heaters, then the combination of convective heat transfer and thermal
buoyancy of combustion products will result in fairly rapid dispersal of such pollutants.
The pollutants will disperse throughout the floor where the heater is located and to floors
above the heater, but will not disperse to floors below.
Central forced-air MAC systems are common in many residences. Such systems,
through a network of supply/return ducts and registers, can achieve fairly complete mixing
within 20 to 30 minutes (Koontz et al., 1988). The air handler for such systems is
commonly equipped with a filter (see Figure 17-3) that can remove particle-phase
contaminants. Further removal of particles, via deposition on various room surfaces (see
Section 17.3.2), is accomplished through increased air movement when the air handler is
operating.
Figure 17-3 also distinguishes forced-air MAC systems by the return layout in relation
to supply registers. The return layout shown in the upper portion of the figure is the type
most commonly found in residential settings. On any floor of the residence, it is typical to
find one or more supply registers to individual rooms, with one or two centralized return
registers. With this layout, supply/return imbalances can often occur in individual rooms,
particularly if the interior doors to rooms are closed. In comparison, the supply/return
layout shown in the lower portion of the figure by design tends to achieve a balance in
individual rooms or zones. Airflow imbalances can also be caused by inadvertent duct
leakage to unconditioned spaces such as attics, basements, and crawl spaces. Such
imbalances usually depressurize the house, thereby increasing the likelihood of
contaminant entry via soil-gas transport or through spillage of combustion products from
vented fossil-fuel appliances such as fireplaces and gas/oil furnaces.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
Mechanical devices such as kitchen fans, bathroom fans, and clothes dryers are
intended primarily to provide localized removal of unwanted heat, moisture, or odors.
Operation of these devices tends to increase the air exchange rate between the indoors
and outdoors. Because local exhaust devices are designed to be near certain indoor
sources, their effective removal rate for locally generated pollutants is greater than would
be expected from the dilution effect of increased air exchange. Operation of these devices
also tends to depressurize the house, because replacement air usually is not provided to
balance the exhausted air.
An alternative approach to pollutant removal is one which relies on an increase in air
exchange to dilute pollutants generated indoors. This approach can be accomplished
using heat recovery ventilators (HRVs) or energy recovery ventilators (ERVs). Both types
of ventilators are designed to provide balanced supply and exhaust airflows and are
intended to recover most of the energy that normally is lost when additional outdoor air is
introduced. Although ventilators can provide for more rapid dilution of internally generated
pollutants, they also increase the rate at which outdoor pollutants are brought into the
house. A distinguishing feature of the two types is that ERVs provide for recovery of latent
heat (moisture) in addition to sensible heat. Moreover, ERVs typically recover latent heat
using a moisture-transfer device such as a desiccant wheel. It has been observed in some
studies that the transfer of moisture between outbound and inbound air streams can result
in some re-entrainment of indoor pollutants that otherwise would have been exhausted
from the house (Andersson et al., 1993). Inadvertent air communication between the
supply and exhaust air streams can have a similar effect.
Studies quantifying the effect of mechanical devices on air exchange using tracer-gas
measurements are uncommon and typically provide only anecdotal data. The common
approach is for the expected increment in the air exchange rate to be estimated from the
rated airflow capacity of the device(s). For example, if a device with a rated capacity of
100 cubic feet per minute (cfm), or 170 cubic meters per hour, is operated continuously in
a house with a volume of 400 cubic meters, then the expected increment in the air
exchange rate of the house would be 170 m3h"1 /400 m3, or approximately 0.4 air changes
per hour.
17.2.4. Type of Foundation
The type of foundation of a residence is of interest in residential exposure
assessment. It provides some indication of the number of stories and house configuration,
and provides an indication of the relative potential for soil-gas transport. For example,
such transport can occur readily in homes with enclosed crawl spaces. Homes with
basements provide some resistance, but still have numerous pathways for soil-gas entry.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
By comparison, homes with crawl spaces open to the outside have significant opportunities
for dilution of soil gases prior to transport into the house.
Lucas et al. (1992) - National Residential Radon Survey - The National Resdental
Radon Survey, sponsored by the U.S. EPA, was conducted by Lucas et al. (1992) in about
5,700 households nationwide. In addition to radon measurements, information on a
number of housing characteristics was collected, including whether each house had a
basement. The estimated percentage (45.2 percent) of homes in the U.S. having
basements (Table 17-6) from this survey is the same as found by the REGS (Table 17-7).
The National Residential Radon Survey provides data for more refined geographical
areas, with a breakdown by the 10 EPA Regions. The New England region (i.e., EPA
Region 1), which includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont, had the highest prevalence of basements (93 percent). The lowest
prevalence (4 percent) was for the South Central region (i.e., EPA Region 6), which
includes Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Table 17-8 presents
the States associated with each Census Region and EPA Region.
U.S. DOE (1995) - Housing Characteristics 1993 - Residential Energy Consumption
Survey (RECS) - The most recent REGS (described in Section 17.2.1) was administered
in 1993 to over 7,000 households (U.S. DOE, 1995). The type of information requested
by the survey questionnaire included the type of foundation for the residence (i.e.,
basement, enclosed crawl space, crawl space open to outside or concrete slab). This
information was not obtained for multifamily structures with five or more dwelling units or
for mobile homes. Table 17-7 presents estimates from the survey of the percentage of
residences with each foundation type, by census region, and for the entire U.S. The
percentages can add to more than 100 percent because some residences have more than
one type of foundation; for example, most split-level structures have a partial basement
combined with some crawlspace that typically is enclosed.
The data in Table 17-7 indicate that close to half (45 percent) of residences
nationwide have a basement, and that fewer than 10 percent have a crawl space that is
open to outside. It also shows that a large fraction of homes have concrete slabs (31
percent). There are also variations by census region. For example, nearly 80 percent of
the residences in the Northeast and Midwest regions have basements. In the South and
West regions, the predominant foundation types are concrete slabs and enclosed crawl
spaces. Table 17-8 illustrates the four Census Regions.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
17.3. TRANSPORT RATES
17.3.1. Background
Major air transport pathways for airborne substances in residences include the
following:
• Air exchange - Air leakage through windows, doorways, intakes and exhausts,
and "adventitious openings" (i.e., cracks and seams) that combine to form the
leakage configuration of the building envelope plus natural and mechanical
ventilation;
• Interzonal airflows - Transport through doorways, ductwork, and service
chaseways that interconnect rooms or zones within a building; and
• Local circulation - Convective and advective air circulation and mixing within a
room or within a zone.
The distribution of airflows across the building envelope that contribute to air
exchange and the interzonal airflows along interior flowpaths is determined by the interior
pressure distribution. The forces causing the airflows are temperature differences, the
actions of wind, and mechanical ventilation systems. Basic concepts have been reviewed
by ASHRAE (1993). Indoor-outdoor and room-to-room temperature differences create
density differences that help determine basic patterns of air motion. During the heating
season, warmer indoor air tends to rise to exit the building at upper levels by stack action.
Exiting air is replaced at lower levels by an influx of colder outdoor air. During the cooling
season, this pattern is reversed: stack forces during the cooling season are generally not
as strong as in the heating season because the indoor-outdoor temperature differences
are not pronounced.
In examining a data base of air leakage measurements, Sherman and Dickerhoff
(1996) observed that houses built prior to 1980 showed a clear increase in leakage with
increasing age and were leakier, on average, than newer houses. They further observed
that the post-1980 houses did not show any trend in leakiness with age.
The position of the neutral pressure level (i.e., the point where indoor-outdoor
pressures are equal) depends on the leakage configuration of the building envelope. The
stack effect arising from indoor-outdoor temperature differences is also influenced by the
partitioning of the building interior. When there is free communication between floors or
stories, the building behaves as a single volume affected by a generally rising current
during the heating season and a generally falling current during the cooling season. When
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
vertical communication is restricted, each level essentially becomes an independent zone.
As the wind flows past a building, regions of positive and negative pressure (relative to
indoors) are created within the building; positive pressures induce an influx of air, whereas
negative pressures induce an outflow. Wind effects and stack effects combine to
determine a net inflow or outflow.
The final element of indoor transport involves the actions of mechanical ventilation
systems that circulate indoor air through the use of fans. Mechanical ventilation systems
may be connected to heating/cooling systems that, depending on the type of building,
recirculate thermally treated indoor air or a mixture of fresh air and recirculated air.
Mechanical systems also may be solely dedicated to exhausting air from a designated
area, as with some kitchen range hoods and bath exhausts, or to recirculating air in
designated areas as with a room fan. Local air circulation also is influenced by the
movement of people and the operation of local heat sources.
17.3.2. Air Exchange Rates
Air exchange is the balanced flow into and out of a building, and is composed of three
processes: (1) infiltration - air leakage through random cracks, interstices, and other
unintentional openings in the building envelope; (2) natural ventilation - airflows through
open windows, doors, and other designed openings in the building envelope; and (3)
forced or mechanical ventilation - controlled air movement driven by fans. For nearly all
indoor exposure scenarios, air exchange is treated as the principal means of diluting
indoor concentrations. The air exchange rate is generally expressed in terms of air
changes per hour (ACH, with units of h"1), the ratio of the airflow (m3 h"1) to the volume
(m3).
No measurement surveys have been conducted to directly evaluate the range and
distribution of residential air exchange rates. Although a significant number of air
exchange measurements have been carried out over the years, there has been a diversity
of protocols and study objectives. Since the early 1980s, however, an inexpensive
perfluorocarbon tracer (PFT) technique has been used to measure time-averaged air
exchange and interzonal airflows in thousands of occupied residences using essentially
similar protocols (Dietz et al., 1986). The PFT technique utilizes miniature permeation
tubes as tracer emitters and passive samplers to collect the tracers. The passive samplers
are returned to the laboratory for analysis by gas chromatography. These measurement
results have been compiled to allow various researchers to access the data (Versar,
1990).
Nazaroffet al. (1988) - Prior to the Koontz and Rector (1995) study, Nazaroff et al.
(1988) aggregated the data from two studies conducted earlier using tracer-gas decay.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
At the time these studies were conducted, they were the largest U.S. studies to include air
exchange measurements. The first (Grot and Clark, 1981) was conducted in 255 dwellings
occupied by low-income families in 14 different cities. The geometric mean ± standard
deviation for the air exchange measurements in these homes, with a median house age
of 45 years, was 0.90 ± 2.13 ACH. The second study (Grimsrud et al., 1983) involved 312
newer residences, with a median age of less than 10 years. Based on measurements
taken during the heating season, the geometric mean ± standard deviation for these
homes was 0.53 ± 1.71 ACH. Based on an aggregation of the two distributions with
proportional weighting by the respective number of houses studied, Nazaroff et al. (1988)
developed an overall distribution with a geometric mean of 0.68 ACH and a geometric
standard deviation of 2.01.
Versar (1990) - Database of PFT Ventilation Measurements - The residences
included in the PFT database do not constitute a random sample across the United States.
They represent a compilation of homes visited in the course of about 100 separate field-
research projects by various organizations, some of which involved random sampling and
some of which involved judgmental or fortuitous sampling. The larger projects in the PFT
database are summarized in Table 17-9, in terms of the number of measurements
(samples), states where, and months when, samples were taken, and summary statistics
for their respective distributions of measured air exchange rates. For selected projects
(LBL, RTI, SOCAL), multiple measurements were taken for the same house, usually during
different seasons. A large majority of the measurements are from the SOCAL project that
was conducted in Southern California. The means of the respective studies generally
range from 0.2 to 1.0 ACH, with the exception of two California projects-RTI2 and
SOCAL2. Both projects involved measurements in Southern California during a time of
year (July) when windows would likely be opened by many occupants.
Koontz and Rector (1995) - Estimation of Distributions for Residential Air Exchange
Rates - In analyzing the composite data from various projects (2,971 measurements),
Koontz and Rector (1995) assigned weights to the results from each state to compensate
for the geographic imbalance in locations where PFT measurements were taken. The
results were weighted in such a way that the resultant number of cases would represent
each state in proportion to its share of occupied housing units, as determined from the
1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing.
Summary statistics from the Koontz and Rector (1995) analysis are shown in Table
17-10, for the country as a whole and by census regions. Based on the statistics for all
regions combined, the authors suggested that a 10th percentile value of 0.18 ACH would
be appropriate as a conservative estimator for air exchange in residential settings, and that
the 50th percentile value of 0.45 ACH would be appropriate as a typical air exchange rate.
In applying conservative or typical values of air exchange rates, it is important to realize
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
the limitations of the underlying data base. Although the estimates are based on
thousands of measurements, the residences represented in the database are not a random
sample of the United States housing stock. The sample population is not balanced in
terms of geography or time of year. Statistical techniques were applied to compensate for
some of these imbalances. In addition, PFT measurements of air exchange rates assume
uniform mixing of the tracer within the building. This is not always so easily achieved.
Furthermore, the degree of mixing can vary from day to day and house to house because
of the nature of the factors controlling mixing (e.g., convective air monitoring driven by
weather, and type and operation of the heating system). The relative placement of the
PFT source and the sampler can also cause variability and uncertainty. It should be noted
that sampling is typically done in a single location in a house which may not represent the
average from that house. In addition, very high and very low values of air exchange rates
based on PFT measurements have greater uncertainties than those in the middle of the
distribution. Despite such limitations, the estimates in Table 17-10 are believed to
represent the best available information on the distribution of air exchange rates across
United States residences throughout the year.
Murray and Burmaster (1995) - Residential Air Exchange Rates in the United States:
Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distributions by Season and Climatic Region - Murray
and Burmaster (1995) analyzed the PFT database using 2,844 measurements (essentially
the same cases as analyzed by Koontz and Rector (1995), but without the compensating
weights). These authors summarized distributions for subsets of the data defined by
climate region and season. The coldest region was defined as having 7,000 or more
heating degree days, the colder region as 5,500-6,999 degree days, the warmer region as
2,500-5,499 degree days, and the warmest region as fewer than 2,500 degree days. The
months of December, January and February were defined as winter, March, April and May
were defined as spring, and so on. The results of Murray and Burmaster (1995) are
summarized in Table 17-11. Neglecting the summer results in the colder regions which
have only a few observations, the results indicate that the highest air exchange rates occur
in the warmest climate region during the summer. As noted earlier (Section 17.3.2), many
of the measurements in the warmer climate region were from field studies conducted in
Southern California during a time of year (July) when windows would tend to be open in
that area. Data for this region in particular should be used with caution since other areas
within this region tend to have very hot summers and residences use air conditioners,
resulting in lower air exchange rates. The lowest rates generally occur in the colder
regions during the fall (Table 17-11).
17.3.3. Infiltration Models
A variety of mathematical models exist for prediction of air infiltration rates in
individual buildings. A number of these models have been reviewed, for example, by
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
Liddament and Allen (1983), and by Persily and Linteris (1984). Basic principles are
concisely summarized in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (ASHRAE, 1993).
These models have a similar theoretical basis; all address indoor-outdoor pressure
differences that are maintained by the actions of wind and stack (temperature difference)
effects. The models generally incorporate a network of airflows where nodes representing
regions of different pressure are interconnected by leakage paths. Individual models differ
in details such as the number of nodes they can treat or the specifics of leakage paths
(e.g., individual components such as cracks around doors or windows versus a
combination of components such as an entire section of a building). Such models are not
easily applied by exposure assessors, however, because the required inputs (e.g., inferred
leakage areas, crack lengths) for the model are not easy to gather.
Another approach for estimating air infiltration rates is developing empirical models.
Such models generally rely on collection of infiltration measurements in a specific building
under a variety of weather conditions. The relationship between the infiltration rate and
weather conditions can then be estimated through regression analysis, and is usually
stated in the following form:
A ' a%b IT, &T0|% cU" (Eqn. 17-1)
where:
A = air infiltration rate (h"1)
T, = indoor temperature (°C)
T0 = outdoor temperature (°C)
U = windspeed (ms"1)
n is an exponent with a value typically between 1 and 2
a, b and c are parameters to be estimated
Relatively good predictive accuracy usually can be obtained for individual buildings
through this approach. However, exposure assessors often do not have the information
resources required to develop parameter estimates for making such predictions.
A reasonable compromise between the theoretical and empirical approaches has
been developed in the model specified by Dietz et al. (1986). The model, drawn from
correlation analysis of environmental measurements and air infiltration data, is formulated
as follows:
A ' I fl flflfiAT 0/n ®'®^ U151 I'Fnn
I c ;
where:
A = average air changes per hour or infiltration rate, h
L = generalized house leakiness factor (1 < L< 5)
C = terrain sheltering factor (1 < C < 10)
AT = indoor-outdoor temperature difference (C°)
U = windspeed (ms"1)
17-2)
1
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
The value of L is greater as house leakiness increases and the value of C is greater
as terrain sheltering (reflects shielding of nearby wind barrier) increases. Although the
above model has not been extensively validated, it has intuitive appeal and it is possible
for the user to develop reasonable estimates for L and C with limited guidance. Historical
data from various U.S. airports are available for estimation of the temperature and
windspeed parameters. As an example application, consider a house that has central
values of 3 and 5 for L and C, respectively. Under conditions where the indoor
temperature is 20 °C (68 °F), the outdoor temperature is 0 °C (32 ° F) and the windspeed
is 5 ms"1, the predicted infiltration rate for that house would be 3 (0.006 x 20 + 0.03/5 x
51.5), or 0.56 air changes per hour. This prediction applies under the condition that
exterior doors and windows are closed, and does not include the contributions, if any, from
mechanical systems (see Section 17.2.3). Occupant behavior, such as opening windows,
can, of course, overwhelm the idealized effects of temperature and wind speed.
17.3.4. Deposition and Filtration
Deposition refers to the removal of airborne substances to available surfaces that
occurs as a result of gravitational settling and diffusion, as well as electrophoresis and
thermophoresis. Filtration is driven by similar processes, but is confined to material
through which air passes. Filtration is usually a matter of design, whereas deposition is
a matter of fact.
17.3.4.1. Deposition
The deposition of particulate matter and reactive gas-phase pollutants to indoor
surfaces is often stated in terms of a characteristic deposition velocity (m h"1) allied to the
surface-to-volume ratio (m2 m"3) of the building or room interior, forming a first order loss
rate (h"1) similar to that of air exchange. Theoretical considerations specific to indoor
environments have been summarized in comprehensive reviews by Nazaroff and Cass
(1989) and Nazaroff et al. (1993).
For airborne particles, deposition rates depend on aerosol properties (size, shape,
density) as well as room factors (thermal gradients, turbulence, surface geometry). The
motions of larger particles are dominated by gravitational settling; the motions of smaller
particles are subject to convection and diffusion. Consequently, larger particles tend to
accumulate more rapidly on floors and up-facing surfaces while smaller particles may
accumulate on surfaces facing in any direction. Figure 17-4 illustrates the general trend
for particle deposition across the size range of general concern for inhalation exposure
(<10 //m). The current thought is that theoretical calculations of deposition rates are likely
to provide unsatisfactory results due to knowledge gaps relating to near-surface air
motions and other sources of inhomogeneity (Nazaroff et al., 1993).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
Wallace (1996) - Indoor Particles: A Review - In a major review of indoor particles,
Wallace (1996) cited overall particle deposition rates for respirable (PM25), inhalable
(PM10), and coarse (difference between PM10 and PM25) size fractions determined from
EPA's PTEAM study. These values, listed in Table 17-12, were derived from
measurements conducted in nearly 200 residences.
Thatcher and Layton (1995) - Deposition, Resuspension, and Penetration of Particles
Within a Residence - Thatcher and Layton (1995) evaluated removal rates for indoor
particles in four size ranges (1-5, 5-10, 10-25, and >25 //m) in a study of one house
occupied by a family of four. These values are listed in Table 17-13. In a subsequent
evaluation of data collected in 100 Dutch residences, Layton and Thatcher (1995)
estimated settling velocities of 2.7 m h"1 for lead-bearing particles captured in total
suspended particulate matter (TSP) samples.
17.3.4.2. Filtration
A variety of air cleaning techniques have been applied to residential settings. Basic
principles related to residential-scale air cleaning technologies have been summarized in
conjunction with reporting early test results (Offerman et al., 1984). General engineering
principles are summarized in ASHRAE (1988). In addition to fibrous filters integrated into
central heating and air conditioning systems, extended surface filters and High Efficiency
Particle Arrest (HEPA) filters as well as electrostatic systems are available to increase
removal efficiency. Free-standing air cleaners (portable and/or console) are also being
used. Product-by-product test results reported by Hanley et al. (1994); Shaughnessy et al.
(1994); and Offerman et al. (1984) exhibit considerable variability across systems, ranging
from ineffectual (< 1% efficiency) to nearly complete removal.
17.3.5. Interzonal Airflows
Residential structures consist of a number of rooms that may be connected
horizontally, vertically, or both horizontally and vertically. Before considering residential
structures as a detailed network of rooms, it is convenient to divide them into one or more
zones. At a minimum, each floor is typically defined as a separate zone. For indoor air
exposure assessments, further divisions are sometimes made within a floor, depending on
(1) locations of specific contaminant sources and (2) the presumed degree of air
communication among areas with and without sources.
Defining the airflow balance for a multiple-zone exposure scenario rapidly increases
the information requirements as rooms or zones are added. As shown in Figure 17-5, a
single-zone system (considering the entire building as a single well-mixed volume)
requires only two airflows to define air exchange. Further, because air exchange is
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
balanced flow (air does not "pile up" in the building, nor is a vacuum formed), only one
number (the air exchange rate) is needed. With two zones, six airflows are needed to
accommodate interzonal airflows plus air exchange; with three zones, twelve airflows are
required. In some cases, the complexity can be reduced using judicious (if not convenient)
assumptions. Interzonal airflows connecting nonadjacent rooms can be set to zero, for
example, if flow pathways do not exist. Symmetry also can be applied to the system by
assuming that each flow pair is balanced.
17.3.6. Water Uses
Among indoor water uses, showering, bathing and handwashing of dishes or clothes
provide the primary opportunities for dermal exposure. Virtually all indoor water uses will
result in some volatilization of chemicals, leading to inhalation exposure.
The exposure potential for a given situation will depend on the source of water, the
types and extents of water uses, and the extent of volatilization of specific chemicals.
According to the results of the 1987 Annual Housing Survey (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1992), 84.7 percent of all U.S. housing units receive water from a public system or private
company (as opposed to a well). Across the four major regions defined by the U.S.
Census Bureau (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West), the percentage varies from 82.5
in the Midwest region to 93.2 in the West region (the Northeast and South regions both are
very close to the national percentage).
The primary types of water use indoors can be classified as showering/bathing, toilet
use, clothes washing, dishwashing, and faucet use (e.g., for drinking, cooking, general
cleaning, or washing hands). Substantial information on water use has been collected in
California households by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD,
1991) and by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD, 1992). An earlier study by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (U.S. DHUD, 1984) monitored
water use in 200 households over a 20-month period. The household selection process
for this study was not random; it involved volunteers from water companies and
engineering organizations, most of which were located in large metropolitan areas.
Nazaroff et al. (1988) also assembled the results of several smaller surveys, typically
involving between 5 and 50 households each.
A common feature of the various studies cited above is that the results were all
reported in gallons per capita per day (gcd), or in units that could be easily converted to
gcd. Most studies also provided estimates by type of use-shower/bath, toilet, laundry,
dishwashing, and other (e.g., faucets). A summary of the various study results is provided
in Table 17-14. There is generally about a threefold variation across studies for total in-
house water use as well as each type of use. Central values for total use, were obtained
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
by taking the mean and median across the studies for each type of water use and then
summing these means/medians across uses. These central values are shown at the
bottom of the table. The means and medians were summed across types of uses to obtain
the mean for all uses combined because only a subset of the studies reported values for
other uses.
The following sections provide a summary of the water use characteristics for the
primary types of water uses indoors. To the extent found in the literature, each water use
is described in terms of the frequency of use; flowrate during the use; quantity of water
used during each occurrence of the water use; and quantity used by an average person.
Table 17-15 summarizes the studies of U.S. DHUD and the Power Authorities by locations
and number of households.
Caution should be exercised when using the data collected in these studies and
shown here. The participants in these studies are not a representative sample of the
general population. The participants consisted of volunteers, mostly from large
metropolitan areas.
Showering and Bathing Water Use Characteristics - The HUD study (U.S. DHUD,
1984) monitored 162 households for shower duration. The individuals were also
subdivided by people who only shower or only bath. The results are given in Table 17-16.
The flowrates of various types of shower heads were also evaluated in the study
(Table 17-17).
Toilet Water Use Characteristics - The HUD study (U.S. DHUD, 1984) reported water
volume per flush for various types of toilets and monitored 162 households for shower
duration. The results of this study are shown in Table 17-18. Since the HUD study was
conducted prior to 1984, the newer (post 1984) conserving toilets that are designed to use
approximately 1.6 gallons per flush were not tested.
The frequency of use for toilets in households was examined in several studies (U.S.
DHUD, 1984; Ligman, et al., 1974; Siegrist, 1976). The observed mean frequencies in
these studies are given in Table 17-19. Tables 17-20 through 17-24 present indoor water
use frequencies for dishwashers and clothes washers.
17.3.7. House Dust and Soil
House dust is a complex mixture of biologically-derived material (animal dander,
fungal spores, etc.), particulate matter deposited from the indoor aerosol, and soil particles
brought in by foot traffic. House dust may contain VOCs (see, for example, Wolkoff and
Wilkins, 1994; Hirvonen et al., 1995), pesticides from imported soil particles as well as
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
from direct applications indoors (see, for example, Roberts et al., 1991), and trace metals
derived from outdoor sources (see, for example, Layton and Thatcher, 1995). The indoor
abundance of house dust depends on the interplay of deposition from the airborne state,
resuspension due to various activities, direct accumulation, and infiltration.
In the absence of indoor sources, indoor concentrations of particulate matter are
significantly lower than outdoor levels. For some time, this observation supported the idea
that a significant fraction of the outdoor aerosol is filtered out by the building envelope.
More recent data, however, have shown that deposition (incompletely addressed in earlier
studies) accounts for the indoor-outdoor contrast, and outdoor particles smaller than 10
Aim aerodynamic diameter penetrate the building envelope as completely as nonreactive
gases (Wallace, 1996).
Roberts etal. (1991) - Development and Field Testing of a High Volume Sam pier for
Pesticides and Toxics in Dust - Dust loadings, reported by Roberts et al. (1991) were also
measured in conjunction with the Non-Occupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES).
In this study house dust was sampled from a representative grid using a specially
constructed high-volume surface sampler (HVS2). The surface sampler collection
efficiency was verified in conformance with ASTM F608 (ASTM, 1989). The data
summarized in Table 17-25 were collected from carpeted areas in volunteer households
in Florida encountered during the course of NOPES. Seven of the nine sites were single-
family detached homes, and two were mobile homes. The authors noted that the two
houses exhibiting the highest dust loadings were only those homes where a vacuum
cleaner was not used for housekeeping.
Thatcher and Layton (1995) - Deposition, Resuspension and Penetration of Particles
Within a Residence - Relatively few studies have been conducted at the level of detail
needed to clarify the dynamics of indoor aerosols. One intensive study of a California
residence (Thatcher and Layton, 1995), however, provides instructive results. Using a
model-based analysis for data collected under controlled circumstances, the investigators
verified penetration of the outdoor aerosol and estimated rates for particle deposition and
resuspension (Table 17-26). The investigators stressed that normal household activities
are a significant source of airborne particles larger than 5 //m. During the study, they
observed that just walking into and out of a room could momentarily double the
concentration. The airborne abundance of submicrometer particles, on the other hand, was
unaffected by either cleaning or walking.
Mass loading of floor surfaces (Table 17-27) was measured in the study of Thatcher
and Layton (1995) by thoroughly cleaning the house and sampling accumulated dust, after
one week of normal habitation. Methodology, validated under ASTM F608 (ASTM, 1989),
showed fine dust recovery efficiencies of 50 percent with new carpet and 72 percent for
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
linoleum. Tracked areas showed consistently higher accumulations than untracked areas,
confirming the importance of tracked-in material. Differences between tracked areas
upstairs and downstairs show that tracked-in material is not readily transported upstairs.
The consistency of untracked carpeted areas throughout the house, suggests that, in the
absence of tracking, particle transport processes are similar on both floors.
17.4. SOURCES
Product- and chemical-specific mechanisms for indoor sources can be described
using simple emission factors to represent instantaneous releases, as well as constant
releases over defined time periods; more complex formulations may be required for time-
varying sources. Guidance documents for characterizing indoor sources within the context
of the exposure assessment process are limited (see, for example, Jennings et al., 1987;
Wolkoff, 1995). Fairly extensive guidance exists in the technical literature, however,
provided that the exposure assessor has the means to define (or estimate) key
mechanisms and chemical-specific parameters. Basic concepts are summarized below
for the broad source categories that relate to airborne contaminants, waterborne
contaminants, and for soil/house dust indoor sources.
17.4.1. Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants
Table 17-28 summarizes simplified indoor source descriptions for airborne chemicals
for direct discharge sources (e.g., combustion, pressurized propellant products), as well
as emanation sources (e.g., evaporation from "wet" films, diffusion from porous media),
and transport-related sources (e.g., infiltration of outdoor air contaminants, soil gas entry).
Direct-discharge sources can be approximated using simple formulas that relate
pollutant mass released to characteristic process rates. Combustion sources, for example,
may be stated in terms of an emission factor, fuel content (or heating value), and fuel
consumption (or carrier delivery) rate. Emission factors for combustion products of general
concern (e.g., CO, NOX) have been measured for a number of combustion appliances
using room-sized chambers (see, for example, Relwani et al., 1986). Other direct-
discharge sources would include volatiles released from water use and from pressurized
consumer products. Resuspension of house dust (see Section 17.3.7) would take on a
similar form by combining an activity-specific rate constant with an applicable dust mass.
Diffusion-limited sources (e.g., carpet backing, furniture, flooring, dried paint)
represent probably the greatest challenge in source characterization for indoor air quality.
Vapor-phase organics dominate this group, offering great complexity because (1) there is
a fairly long list of chemicals that could be of concern, (2) ubiquitous consumer products,
building materials, coatings, and furnishings contain varying amounts of different
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
chemicals, (3) source dynamics may include nonlinear mechanisms, and (4) for many of
the chemicals, emitting as well as non-emitting materials evident in realistic settings may
promote reversible and irreversible sink effects. Very detailed descriptions for diffusion-
limited sources can be constructed to link specific properties of the chemical, the source
material, and the receiving environment to calculate expected behavior (see, for example,
Schwope et al., 1992; Cussler, 1984). Validation to actual circumstances, however, suffers
practical shortfalls because many parameters simply cannot be measured directly.
The exponential formulation listed in Table 17-28 was derived based on a series of
papers generated during the development of chamber testing methodology by EPA (Dunn,
1987; Dunn and Tichenor, 1988; Dunn and Chen, 1993). This framework represents an
empirical alternative that works best when the results of chamber tests are available.
Estimates for the initial emission rate (E0) and decay factor (ks) can be developed for
hypothetical sources from information on pollutant mass available for release (M) and
supporting assumptions.
Assuming that a critical time period (tc) coincides with reduction of the emission rate
to a critical level (Ec) or with the release of a critical fraction of the total mass (Mc), the
decay factor can be estimated by solving either of these relationships:
(Eq, 17.3)
The critical time period can be derived from product-specific considerations (e.g.,
equating drying time for a paint to 90 percent emissions reduction). Given such an
estimate for ks, the initial emission rate can be estimated by integrating the emission
formula to infinite time under the assumption that all chemical mass is released:
VI1 Ene&kstdt'-^
m ° ks
0 s
(Eqn. 17-4)
The basis for the exponential source algorithm has also been extended to the
description of more complex diffusion-limited sources. With these sources, diffusive or
evaporative transport at the interface may be much more rapid than diffusive transport from
within the source material, so that the abundance at the source/air interface becomes
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
depleted, limiting the transfer rate to the air. Such effects can prevail with skin formation
in "wet" sources like stains and paints (see, for example, Chang and Guo, 1992). Similar
emission profiles have been observed with the emanation of formaldehyde from
particleboard with "rapid" decline as formaldehyde evaporates from surface sites of the
particleboard over the first few weeks. It is then followed by a much slower decline over
ensuing years as formaldehyde diffuses from within the matrix to reach the surface (see,
for example, Zinn et al., 1990).
Transport-based sources bring contaminated air from other areas into the airspace
of concern. Examples include infiltration of outdoor contaminants, and soil gas entry. Soil
gas entry is a particularly complex phenomenon, and is frequently treated as a separate
modeling issue (Little et al., 1992; Sextro, 1994). Room-to-room migration of indoor
contaminants would also fall under this category, but this concept is best considered using
the multiple-zone model.
17.4.2. Source Descriptions for Waterborne Contaminants
Residential water supplies may convey chemicals to which occupants can be exposed
through ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation. These chemicals may appear in the form
of contaminants (e.g., trichloroethylene) as well as naturally-occurring byproducts of water
system history (e.g., chloroform, radon). Among indoor water uses, showering, bathing and
handwashing of dishes or clothes provide the primary opportunities for dermal exposure.
The escape of volatile chemicals to the gas phase associates water use with inhalation
exposure. The exposure potential for a given situation will depend on the source of water,
the types and extents of water uses, and the extent of volatilization of specific chemicals.
Primary types of residential water use (summarized in Section 17.3) include
showering/bathing, toilet use, clothes washing, dishwashing, and faucet use (e.g., for
drinking, cooking, general cleaning, or washing hands).
Upper-bounding estimates of chemical release rates from water use can be
formulated as simple emission factors by combining the concentration in the feed water
(g m"3) with the flow rate for the water use (m3 h"1), and assuming that the chemical
escapes to the gas phase. For some chemicals, however, not all of the chemical escapes
in realistic situations due to diffusion-limited transport and solubility factors. For inhalation
exposure estimates, this may not pose a problem because the bounding estimate would
overestimate emissions by no more than approximately a factor of two. For multiple
exposure pathways, the chemical mass remaining in the water may be of importance.
Refined estimates of volatile emissions are usually considered under two-resistance theory
to accommodate mass transport aspects of the water-air system (see, for example, Little,
1992; Andelman, 1990; McKone, 1987).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
Release rates are formulated as:
S ' K F,
m' W
Co a
,., &
H
where:
S = chemical release rate (g h"1)
Km = dimensionless mass-transfer coefficient
Fw = water flow rate (m3 h"1)
Cw = concentration in feed water (g m"3)
Ca = concentration in air (g m"3)
H = dimensionless Henry's Law constant
(Eqn. 17-5)
Because the emission rate is dependent on the air concentration, recursive
techniques are required. The mass transfer coefficient is a function of water use
characteristics (e.g., water droplet size spectrum, fall distance, water film) and chemical
properties (diffusion in gas and liquid phases). Estimates of practical value are based on
empirical tests to incorporate system characteristics into a single parameter (see, for
example, Giardino et al., 1990). Once characteristics of one chemical-water use system
are known (reference chemical, subscript r), the mass transfer coefficient for another
chemical (index chemical, subscript i) delivered by the same system can be estimated
using formulations identified in the review by Little (1992):
I^V2
^TO
where:
DL =
DG =
KL =
KG =
H =
,1,1 &lKr]2
KLr KGr H( DGJ
liquid diffusivity (m2 s"1)
gas diffusivity (m2 s"1)
3f DLiV/2
TO
(Eqn. 17-6)
liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient
gas-phase mass transfer
coefficient
dimensionless Henry's Law constant
17.4.3. Soil and House Dust Sources
The rate process descriptions compiled for soil and house dust in Section 17.3
provide inputs for estimating indoor emission rates (Sd, g h"1) in terms of dust mass loading
(Md, g m"2) combined with resuspension rates (Rd, h"1) and floor area (Af, m2):
Md Rd A, (Eqn. 17-7)
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
Because house dust is a complex mixture, transfer of particle-bound constituents to
the gas phase may be of concern for some exposure assessments. For emission
estimates, one would then need to consider particle mass residing in each reservoir (dust
deposit, airborne).
17.5. ADVANCED CONCEPTS
17.5.1. Uniform Mixing Assumption
Many exposure measurements are predicated on the assumption of uniform mixing
within a room or zone of a house. Mage and Ott (1994) offers an extensive review of the
history of use and misuse of the concept. Experimental work by Baughman et al. (1994)
and Drescher et al. (1995) indicates that, for an instantaneous release from a point source
in a room, fairly complete mixing is achieved within 10 minutes when convective flow is
induced by solar radiation. However, up to 100 minutes may be required for complete
mixing under quiescent (nearly isothermal) conditions. While these experiments were
conducted at extremely low air exchange rates (< 0.1 ACH), based on the results, attention
is focused on mixing within a room.
The situation changes if a human invokes a point source for a longer period and
remains in the immediate vicinity of that source. Personal exposure in the near vicinity of
a source can be much higher than the well-mixed assumption would suggest. A series of
experiments conducted by GEOMET (1989) for the U.S. EPA involved controlled point-
source releases of carbon monoxide tracer (CO), each for 30 minutes. "Breathing-zone"
measurements located within 0.4 m of the release point were ten times higher than for
other locations in the room during early stages of mixing and transport.
Similar investigations conducted by Furtaw et al. (1995) involved a series of
experiments in a controlled-environment room-sized chamber. Furtaw et al. (1995) studied
spatial concentration gradients around a continuous point source simulated by sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) tracer with a human moving about the room. Average breathing-zone
concentrations when the subject was near the source exceeded those several meters away
by a factor that varied inversely with the ventilation intensity in the room. At typical room
ventilation rates, the ratio of source-proximate to slightly-removed concentration was on
the order of 2:1.
17.5.2. Reversible Sinks
For some chemicals, the actions of reversible sinks are of concern. For an initially
"clean" condition in the sink material, sorption effects can greatly deplete indoor
concentrations. However, once enough of the chemical has been adsorbed, the diffusion
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
gradient will reverse, allowing the chemical to escape. For persistent indoor sources, such
effects can serve to reduce indoor levels initially but once the system equilibrates, the net
effect on the average concentration of the reversible sink is negligible. Over suitably short
time frames, this can also affect integrated exposure. For indoor sources whose emission
profile declines with time (or ends abruptly), reversible sinks can serve to extend the
emissions period as the chemical desorbs long after direct emissions are finished.
Reversible sink effects have been observed for a number of chemicals in the presence of
carpeting, wall coverings, and other materials commonly found in residential environments.
Interactive sinks (and models of the processes) are of a special importance; while
sink effects can greatly reduce indoor air concentrations, re-emission at lower rates over
longer time periods could greatly extend the exposure period of concern. For completely
reversible sinks, the extended time could bring the cumulative exposure to levels
approaching the sink-free case. Recent publications (Axley et al., 1993; Tichenor et al.,
1991) show that first principles provide useful guidance in postulating models and setting
assumptions for reversible/irreversible sink models. Sorption/desorption can be described
in terms of Langmuir (monolayer) as well as Brunauer-Emmet-Teller (BET, multilayer)
adsorption.
17.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 17-29 presents a summary of volume of residence surveys and Table 17-30
presents a summary of air exchange rates surveys. Table 17-31 presents the
recommended values. Tables 17-32 and 17-33 provide the confidence in
recommendations for house volume and air exchange rates, respectively. Key studies or
analyses described in this chapter were used in selecting recommended values for
residential volume. The air exchange rate data presented in the studies are extremely
limited. Therefore, studies have not been classified as key or relevant studies. However,
recommendations have been provided for air exchange rates and the confidence
recommendation has been assigned a "low" overall rating. Therefore, these values should
be used with caution. Both central and conservative values are provided. These two
parameters - volume and air exchange rate - can be used by exposure assessors in
modeling indoor-air concentrations as one of the inputs to exposure estimation. Other
inputs to the modeling effort include rates of indoor pollutant generation and losses to
(and, in some cases, re-emissions from) indoor sinks. Other things being equal (i.e.,
holding constant the pollutant generation rate and effect of indoor sinks), lower values for
either the indoor volume or the air exchange rate will result in higher indoor-air
concentrations. Thus, values near the lower end of the distribution (e.g., 10th percentile)
for either parameter are appropriate in developing conservative estimates of exposure.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
For the volume of a residence, both key studies (U.S. DOE (1995) and Versar (1990)
PFT database) have the same mean value - 369 m3 (see Table 17-1). This mean value
is recommended as a central estimate residential volume. Intuitively, the 10th percentile
of the distribution from either study - 147 m3 for REGS survey or 167 m3 for the PFT
database - is too conservative a value, as both these values are lower than the mean
volume for multifamily dwelling units (see Table 17-2). Instead, the 25th percentile - 209
m3 for REGS survey or 225 m3 for PFT database, averaging 217 m3 across the two key
studies - is recommended (Table 17-1).
For the residential air exchange rate, the median value of 0.45 air changes per hour
(ACH) from the PFT database (see Table 17-9) is recommended as a typical value (Koontz
and Rector, 1995). This median value is very close to the geometric mean of the
measurements in the PFT database analyzed by Koontz and Rector (1995). The
arithmetic mean is not preferred because it is influenced fairly heavily by extreme values
at the upper tail of the distribution. For a conservative value, the 10th percentile for the
PFT database - 0.18 ACH - is recommended (Table 17-10).
There are some uncertainties in, or limitations on, the distribution for volumes and air
exchange rates that are presented in this chapter. For example, the REGS used to infer
volume distributions used a nationwide probability sample, but measured floor area rather
than total volume. By comparison, field studies contributing to the PFT data base
measured house volumes directly, but the aggregate sampling frame for these studies is
not statistically representative of the national housing stock.
Although the PFT methodology is relatively simple to implement, it is subject to errors
and uncertainties. The general performance of the sampling and analytical aspects of the
system are quite good. That is, laboratory analysis will measure the correct time-weighted-
average tracer concentration to within a few percent (Dietz et al., 1986). Nonetheless,
significant errors can arise when conditions in the measurement scene greatly deviate from
idealizations calling for constant, well-mixed conditions. Principal concerns focus on the
effects of naturally varying air exchange and the effects of temperature in the permeation
source.
Sherman (1989) carried out an error analysis of the PFT methodology using
mathematical models combined with typical weather data to calculate how an ideal
sampling system would perform in a time-varying environment. He found that for simple
single-story (ranch) and two-story plus basement (colonial) layouts, seasonal
measurements would underpredict seasonal average air exchange by 20 to 30 percent.
Underprediction can occur because the PFT methodology is measuring the effective
ventilation (the product of ventilation efficiency and air exchange), and the temporal
efficiency will generally be less than unity over averaging periods of this length. Sherman
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Volume III - Activity Factors
Chapter 17 - Residential Building Characteristics
(1989) also noted, however, that while the bias could have an impact on determining air
exchange (absent knowledge of ventilation efficiency) for calculating energy loads, the
effective air exchange term is directly relevant to determining average indoor
concentrations resulting from constant sources.
Leaderer et al. (1985) conducted a series of experiments in a room-sized-
environmental chamber to evaluate the practical impacts of varying air exchange and the
temperature response of the permeation sources. The negative bias anticipated in the
measured (effective) versus actual air exchange as conditions varied diurnally between
0.4 and 1.5. ACH was evident but minor (3 to 6 percent), most likely due to the mechanical
mixing in the chamber and the relatively short integration time (72 h). Similarly, cycling
temperature diurnally over an 8°C range (holding air exchange steady at 0.6 ACH) would
cause concentrations changes of about 20 percent as emissions fluctuated. The
investigators found, however, that using a time-weighted average temperature to define
the emission rate reduced the temperature bias to essentially zero.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Table 1-1. Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values
CONSIDERATIONS
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection period
Validity of approach
Study sizes
HIGH CONFIDENCE
The studies received high level of peer
review (e.g., they appear in peer review
journals).
The studies are widely available to the
public.
The results can be reproduced or
methodology can be followed and
evaluated.
The studies focused on the exposure factor
of interest.
The studies focused on the U.S.
population.
The studies analyzed primary data.
The data were published after 1 990.
The study design captures the
measurement of interest (e.g., usual
consumption patterns of a population).
The studies used the best methodology
available to capture the measurement of
interest.
The sample size is greater than 100 samples.
LOW CONFIDENCE
The studies received limited peer review.
The studies are difficult to obtain (e.g., draft
reports, unpublished data).
The results cannot be reproduced, the
methodology is hard to follow, and the
author(s) cannot be located.
The purpose of the studies was to
characterize a related factor.
The studies focused on populations outside
the U.S.
The studies are based on secondary
sources.
The data were published before 1 980.
The study design does not very accurately
capture the measurement of interest.
There are serious limitations with the
approach used.
The sample size is less than 20 samples.
The sample size depends on how the target population is defined. As the size of a sample
relative to the total size of the target population increases, estimates are made with greater
statistical assurance that the sample results reflect actual characteristics of the target
population.
Representativeness of the population
Variability in the population
Lack of bias in study design
(a high rating is desirable)
Response rates
In-person interviews
Telephone interviews
Mail surveys
Measurement error
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between researchers
The study population is the same as
population of interest.
The studies characterized variability in the
population studied.
Potential bias in the studies are stated or
can be determined from the study design.
The response rate is greater than 80
percent.
The response rate is greater than 80
percent.
The respnose rate is greater than 70
percent.
The study design minimizes measurement
errors.
The number of studies is greater than 3.
The results of studies from different
researchers are in agreement.
The study population is very different from
the population of interest."
The characterization of variability is limited.
The study design introduces biases in the
results.
The response rate is less than 40 percent.
The response rate is less than 40 percent.
The response rate is less than 40 percent.
Uncertainties with the data exist due to
measurement error.
The number of studies is 1 .
The results of studies from different
researchers are in disagreement.
a Differences include age, sex, race, income, or other demographic parameters.
-------
Table 1-2. Summary of Exposure Factor Recommendations and Confidence Ratings
EXPOSURE FACTOR
RECOMMENDATION
CONFIDENCE RATING
Drinking water intake rate
Total fruit intake rate
Total vegetable intake rate
Total meat intake rate
Total dairy intake rate
Grain intake
Breast milk intake rate
Fish intake rate
21 ml/kg-day/1.4 L/day (average)
34 ml/kg-day/2.3 L/day (90th percentile)
Percentiles and distribution also included
Means and percentiles also included for pregnant
and lactating women
3.4 g/kg-day ( per capita average)
12.4 g/kg-day (per capita 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
Means presented for individual fruits
4.3 g/kg-day ( per capita average)
10 g/kg-day (per capita 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
Means presented for individual vegetables
2.1 g/kg-day ( per capita average)
5.1 g/kg-day (per capita 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
Percentiles also presented for individual meats
8.0 g/kg-day (per capita average)
29.7 g/kg-day (per capita 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
Means presented for individual dairy products
4.1 g/kg-day (per capita average)
10.8 g/kg-day (per capita 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
742 ml/day (average)
1,033 ml/day (upper percentile)
General Population
20.1 g/day (total fish) average
14.1 g/day (marine) average
6.0 g/day (freshwater/estuarine)average
53 g/day (total fish) 95th percentile long-term
Percentiles also included
Serving size
129 g (average)
326 g (95th percentile)
Recreational marine anglers
2 - 7 g/day (finfish only)
Recreational freshwater
8 g/day (average)
25 g/day (95th percentile)
Native American Subsistence Population
70 g/day (average)
170 g/dav (95th percentile)
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
High
Low in long-term upper percentiles
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
-------
Table 1-2. Summary of Exposure Factor Recommendations and Confidence Ratings (continued)
EXPOSURE FACTOR
RECOMMENDATION
CONFIDENCE RATING
Home produced food intake
Inhalation rate
Surface area
Soil adherence
Soil ingestion rate
Life expectancy
Body weight for adults
Body weights for children
Body weights for infants (birth to 6
months')
Total Fruits
2.7 g/kg-day (consumer only average)
11.1 g/kg-day (consumer only 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
Total vegetables
2.1 g/kg-day (consumer only average)
7.5 g/kg-day (consumer only 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
Total meats
2.2 g/kg-day (consumer only average)
6.8 g/kg-day (consumer only 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
Total dairy products
14 g/kg-day (consumer only average)
44 g/kg-day (consumer only 95th percentile)
Percentiles also included
Children (<1 year)
4.5 m3/day (average)
Children (1-12 years)
8.7 m3/day (average)
Adult Females
11.3 m3/day (average)
Adult Males
15.2 m3/day (average)
Water contact (bathing and swimminal
Use total body surface area for children in Tables 6-6
through 6-8; for adults use Tables 6-2 through 6-4
(percentiles are included)
Soil contact (outdoor activities')
Use whole body part area based on Table 6-6 through
6-8 for children and 6-2 through 6-4 for adults
(percentiles are included)
Use values presented in Table 6-16 depending on
activity and body part
(central estimates only)
Children
100 mg/day (average)
400 mg/day (upper percentile)
Adults
50 mg/day (average)
Pica child
10 g/day
75 years
71.8 kg
Percentiles also presented in tables 7-4 and 7-5
Use values presented in Tables 7-6 and 7-7 (mean
and percentiles)
Use values presented in Table 7-1 (percentiles)
Medium (for means and short-
term distributions)
Low (for long-term distributions)
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
-------
Table 1-2. Summary
EXPOSURE FACTOR
Showering/Bathing
Swimming
Time indoors
Time outdoors
Time spent inside vehicle
Occupational tenure
Population mobility
Residence volume
Residential air exchange
of Exposure Factor Recommendations and Confidence
RECOMMENDATION
Showering time
1 0 min/day (average)
35 min/day (95th percentile)
(percentiles are also included)
Bathing time
20 min/event (median)
45 min/event (90th percentile)
Bathing/showering frequency
1 shower event/day
Frequency
1 event/month
Duration
60 min/event (median)
1 80 min/event (90th percentile)
Children (ages 3-11)
1 9 hr/day (weekdays)
1 7 hr/day (weekends)
Adults (ages 12 and older)
21 hr/day
Residential
1 6.4 hrs/day
Children (ages 3-11)
5 hr/day (weekdays)
7 hr/day (weekends)
Adults
1 .5 hr/day
Residential
2 hrs/day
Adults
1 hr 20 min/day
6.6 years (1 6 years old and older)
9 years (average)
30 years (95th percentile)
369 m3 (average)
21 7 m3 (conservative)
0.45 (median)
0.18 (conservative)
Ratings (continued)
CONFIDENCE RATING
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
-------
Table
Exposure Factors
Drinking water intake rate
Total fruits and total vegetables intake
rate
Individual fruits and individual vegetables
intake rate
Total meats and dairy products intake
rate
Individual meats and dairy products
intake rate
Grains intake
Breast milk intake rate
Fish intake rate for general population,
recreational marine, recreational
freshwater, and native american
Serving size for fish
Homeproduced food intake rates
Soil intake rate
Inhalation rate
Surface area
Soil adherence
Life expectancy
Body weight
Time indoors
Time outdoors
Showering time
Occupational tenure
Population mobility
Residence volume
Residential air exchange
1 -3. Characterization of Variability in Exposure Factors
Average
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Upper percentile
T
T
Qualitative discussion for
long-term
T
Qualitative discussion for
long-term
T
T
T
T
T
Qualitative discussion for
long-term
T
T
T
T
T
Multiple Percentiles Fitted Distributions
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
-------
Table 1A-1. Procedures for Modifying IRIS Risk Values for Non-standard Populations3
IRIS Risk Measure
[Units]
Slope Factor
[per mg/(kg/day)]
Water Unit Risk
[per ug/l]
IRIS Risk Measure is Proportional Correction Factor (CF) for modifying
to:b IRIS Risk Measures:0
(Ws)1/3 = (70)1/3
IWS/[(W3)2'3] = 2/[(70)2/3]
(Wp/70)1/3
(lwp)/2 x [70/(WP)]2/3
Air Unit Risk:
A. Particles or aerosols
[per ug/m3], air concentration by
weight
Air Unit Risk:
B. Gases
[per parts per million], air
concentration by volume,
(//[(W3)2'3] = 20/[(70)2
No explicit proportionality to body
weight or air intake is assumed.
(IAP)/20 x [70/(WP)]2
1.0
ppm by volume is assumed to be
the effective dose in both animals
and humans.
W = Body weight (kg)
lw = Drinking water intake (liters per day)
IA = Air intake (cubic meters per day)
Ws, lws>, IAS denote standard parameters assumed by IRIS
Modified risk measure = (CF) x IRIS value
Wp, lwp, IAP denote non-standard parameters of the actual population
-------
Biologically
Effective
Dose
Exposure
Chemical
Mouth
Effect
G.I. Tract
Intake Uptake
Figure 1-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Oral Route
Source: U.S. EPA, 1992a
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE ROUTE
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
Grain Intake
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE ROUTE
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Adults
Children
Pregnant Women
High Activity
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
3.6/3-35
Ingestion ^~i
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
.Grain Intake
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE ROUTE
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion ^~i
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
Grain Intake
Various Demographic Groups — Age,
Region, Season, Urbanization, Race
9.3/9-30
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Ingestion %!~
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate —
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
.Grain Intake
Various Demographic Groups — Age,
Region, Season, Urbanization, Race
11
11.4/11-31
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
Grain Intake
Various Demographic Groups — Age,
Region, Season, Urbanization, Race
13
13.5/13-72
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE ROUTE
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Nursing Infants
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
14
14.6/14-14
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
Grain Intake
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Ingestion
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
Grain Intake
General Population
Freshwater Recreational
Marine Recreational
Subsistence
10
10
10
10
10.10.1/10-87
10.10.3/10-89
10.10.2/10-88
10.10.4/10-90
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE ROUTE
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
Grain Intake
Typical Children
Adults
Pica Children
Various Demographic Groups — Age,
Region, Season, Urbanization, Race
4.7/4-21
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Drinking Water
Intake Rate
Fruit and Vegetable Intake Rate
Meat and Dairy Intake Rate
Homegrown Foods
Breast milk Intake Rate
Fish and Shellfish Intake Rate
Soil Intake Rate
Grain Intake
Typical Children
Adults
Pica Children
Various Demographic Groups — Age,
Region, Season, Urbanization, Race
12
12.3/12-24
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Inhalation Rate
Adults
Children
High Activity
5.2.4/5-23
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE ROUTE
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS/
RATINGS TABLE PAGE NOS.
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
— Skin Surface Area
— Soil Adherence -
Adults
•Children
General Populationn
6.
6.
6-8/6-25
6-8/6-27
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
Body Weight
Lifetime
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
Body Weight
Lifetime
. Adults
Children
7
7.3/7-12
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
Body Weight
Lifetime —=
Adults
Children
8
8.2/8-3
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE ROUTE
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
Activity Patterns
— Occupational Mobility
Adults
Children
Adults
Population Mobility
Adults
— Children
15
15
15
15.4.1/15-172
15.4.2/15-173
15.4.3/15-175
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
Frequency of Use-
Amount Used
Adults
Adults
16
16.4
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
-------
Figure 1-2. Road Map to Exposure Factor Recommendations
EXPOSURE ROUTE
EXPOSURE FACTOR
POPULATION
VOLUME
CHAPTER
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION / RATINGS TABLE
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
(All Routes)
Human Characteristics
(All Routes)
Activity Factors
(All Routes)
Consumer Product Use
(All Routes)
Residential
Building Characteristics
Water Use ~———
Air Exchange Rates —
House Volumes —
Building Characteristics
;^^=» General Population
17
17.6/17-32, 17-33
-------
Strategy
Ignore variability
Disaggregate the
variability
Use the average
value
Use a maximum or
minimum value
Table 2-1 . Four Strategies
Example
Assume that all adults
weigh 70 kg
Develop distributions of
body weight for
age/gender groups
Use average body weight
for adults
Use a lower-end value
from the weight distribution
for Confronting Variability
Comment
Works best when variability is small
Variability will be smaller in each group
Can the average be estimated reliably given what
is known about the variability?
Conservative approach - can lead to
unrealistically high exposure estimate if taken
all factors
for
-------
Table 2-2. Three Types of Uncertainty and Associated Sources and Examples
Type of Uncertainty
Scenario Uncertainty
Parameter Uncertainty
Model Uncertainty
Sources
Descriptive errors
Aggregation errors
Judgment errors
Incomplete analysis
Measurement errors
Sampling errors
Variability
Surrogate data
Relationship errors
Modeling errors
Examples
Incorrect or insufficient information
Spatial or temporal approximations
Selection of an incorrect model
Overlooking an important pathway
Imprecise or biased measurements
Small or unrepresentative samples
In time, space or activities
Structurally-related chemicals
Incorrect inference on the basis for correlations
Excluding relevant variables
-------
Table 2-3. Approaches to Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty
Approach
Description
Example
Sensitivity Analysis
Analytical Uncertainty Propagation
Probabilistic Uncertainty Analysis
Classical Statistical Methods
Changing one input variable at a time while
leaving others constant, to examine effect on
output
Examining how uncertainty in individual
parameters affects the overall uncertainty of
the exposure assessment
Varying each of the input variables over
various values of their respective probability
distributions
Estimating the population exposure
distribution directly, based on measured
values from a representative sample
Fix each input at lower (then upper) bound
while holding others at nominal values (e.g.,
medians)
Analytically or numerically obtain a partial
derivative of the exposure equation with
respect to each input parameter
Assign probability density function to each
parameter; randomly sample values from
each distribution and insert them in the
exposure equation (Monte Carlo)
Compute confidence interval estimates for
various percentiles of the exposure
distribution
-------
Table 3-1. Daily Total Tapwater Intake Distribution for Canadians, by Age Group
(approx. 0.20 L increments, both sexes, combined seasons)
Age Group (years')
Amount Consumed
L/day
0.00 - 0.21
0.22 - 0.43
0.44 - 0.65
0.66 - 0.86
0.87 - 1 .07
1 .08 - 1 .29
1 .30 - 1 .50
1.51 -1.71
1 .72 - 1 .93
1.94-2.14
2.15-2.36
2.37 - 2.57
2.58 - 2.79
2.80 - 3.00
3.01 -3.21
3.22 - 3.43
3.44 - 3.64
3.65 - 3.86
>3.86
TOTAL
a
%
11.1
17.3
24.8
9.9
11.1
11.1
4.9
6.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
a Includes tapwater and foods and
Source: Canadian
5 and under
Number
9
14
20
8
9
9
4
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81
beverages derived from tapwater.
6-17
%
2.8
10.0
13.2
13.6
14.4
14.8
9.6
6.8
2.4
1.2
4.0
0.4
2.4
2.4
0.4
-
-
-
1.6
100.0
Number
7
25
33
34
36
37
24
17
6
3
10
1
6
6
1
0
0
0
4
250
%
0.5
1.9
5.9
8.5
13.1
14.8
15.3
12.1
6.9
5.6
3.4
3.1
2.7
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.8
-
2.0
100.0
1 8 and over
Number
3
12
38
54
84
94
98
77
44
36
22
20
17
9
7
6
5
0
13
639
Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1 981 .
-------
Table 3-2. Average Daily Tapwater Intake of Canadians
(expressed as milliliters per kilogram body weight)
Age Group (years)
<3
3-5
6-17
18-34
35-54
55+
Total Population
Source: Canadian Ministry
1981.
Average Daily Intake (ml/kg)
Females Males Both Sexes
53 35 45
49 48 48
24 27 26
23 19 21
25 19 22
24 21 22
24 21 22
of National Health and Welfare,
-------
Table 3-3. Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians, by Age and Season (L/day)a
Age (years)
<3
Average
Summer 0.57
Winter 0.66
Summer/Winter 0.61
90th Percentile
Summer/Winter 1.50
3-5 6-17
0.86 1.14
0.88 1.13
0.87 1.14
1.50 2.21
18-34
1.33
1.42
1.38
2.57
35-54
1.52
1.59
1.55
2.57
<55
1.53
1.62
1.57
2.29
All Ages
1.31
1.37
1.34
2.36
a Includes tapwater and foods and beverages derived from tapwater.
Source: Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1 981 .
-------
Table 3-4. Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians as a Function of
Level of Physical Activity at Work and in Spare Time
(16 years and older, combined seasons, L/day)
Work Spare Time
Activity Consumption1" Number of Respondents Consumption1" Number of Respondents
Level' L/day L/day
Extremely Active 1.72 99 1.57 52
Very Active 1.47 244 1.51 151
Somewhat Active 1.47 217 1.44 302
Not Very Active 1.27 67 1.52 131
Not At All Active 1.30 16 1.35 26
Did Not State 1.30 .45 1.31 26
TOTAL 688 688
a The levels of physical activity listed here were not defined any further by the survey report, and categorization of activity level by
survey participants is assumed to be subjective.
b Includes tapwater and foods and beverages derived from tapwater.
Source: Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1981.
-------
Table 3-5. Average Daily Tapwater Intake by Canadians, Apportioned Among Various Beverages
(both sexes, by age, combined seasons, L/day)a
Age Group (years')
Total Number in Group 34
Water
Ice/Mix
Tea
Coffee
"Other Type of Drink"
Reconstituted Milk
Soup
Homemade Beer/Wine
Homemade Popsicles
Baby Formula, etc.
TOTAL
Under 3
47
0.14
0.01
*
0.01
0.21
0.10
0.04
*
0.01
0.09
0.61
a Includes tapwater and foods and beverages derived
Less than 0.01 L/day
Source: Canadian Ministry of National
3-5
250
0.31
0.01
0.01
*
0.34
0.08
0.08
*
0.03
*
0.86
from tapwater.
6-17
232
0.42
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.34
0.12
0.07
0.02
0.03
*
1.14
18-34
254
0.39
0.04
0.21
0.37
0.20
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.01
*
1.38
35-54
153
0.38
0.03
0.31
0.50
0.14
0.04
0.08
0.07
*
*
1.55
55 and Over
0.38
0.02
0.42
0.42
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.03
*
*
1.57
Health and Welfare, 1981.
-------
Table 3-6. Total Tapwater Intake (ml/day) for Both Sexes Combined3
Number of
Age (years) Observations
<0.5 182
0.5 - 0.9 221
1-3 1498
4-6 1702
7-10 2405
11-14 2803
15-19 2998
20-44 7171
45 - 64 4560
65-74 1663
75+ 878
Infants (ages <1) 403
Children (ages 1 -1 0) 5605
Teens (ages 11 -19) 5801
Adults (ages 20-64) 11731
Adults (ages 65+) 2541
All 26081
Mean
272
328
646
742
787
925
999
1255
1546
1500
1381
302
736
965
1366
1459
1193
SD
247
265
390
406
417
521
593
709
723
660
600
258
410
562
728
643
702
S.E. of
Mean
18
18
10
10
9
10
11
8
11
16
20
13
5
7
7
13
4
Percentile Distribution
1
*
*
33
68
68
76
55
105
335
301
279
0
56
67
148
299
80
a Total tapwater is defined as "all water from the household tap consumed directly as a
* Value not reported due to insufficient number of observations.
Source: Ershow and Cantor, 1989.
5
0
0
169
204
241
244
239
337
591
611
568
0
192
240
416
598
286
10
0
0
240
303
318
360
348
483
745
766
728
0
286
353
559
751
423
beverage or used to
25
80
117
374
459
484
561
587
766
1057
1044
961
113
442
574
870
1019
690
50
240
268
567
660
731
838
897
1144
1439
1394
1302
240
665
867
1252
1367
1081
prepare foods and
75
332
480
820
972
1016
1196
1294
1610
1898
1873
1706
424
960
1246
1737
1806
1561
90
640
688
1162
1302
1338
1621
1763
2121
2451
2333
2170
649
1294
1701
2268
2287
2092
95 99
800
764
1419 1899
1520 1932
1556 1998
1924 2503
2134 2871
2559 3634
2870 3994
2693 3479
2476 3087
775 1102
1516 1954
2026 2748
2707 3780
2636 3338
2477 3415
beverages."
-------
Table 3-7. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/kg-day) for Both Sexes Combined3
Number of
Observations
Age (years) ^ctua'
Count
<0.5 182
0.5 - 0.9 221
1-3 1498
4-6 1702
7-10 2405
11-14 2803
15-19 2998
20-44 7171
45 - 64 4560
65-74 1663
75+ 878
Infants (ages <1) 403
Children (ages 1-10) 5605
Teens (ages 11-19) 5801
Adults (ages 20-64) 11731
Adults (ages 65+) 2541
All 26081
Weighted Megn SD
Count
201.2
243.2
1687.7
1923.9
2742.4
3146.9
3677.9
13444.5
8300.4
2740.2
1401.8
444.3
6354.1
6824.9
21744.9
4142.0
39510.2
52.4 53.2
36.2 29.2
46.8 28.1
37.9 21.8
26.9 15.3
20.2 11.6
16.4 9.6
18.6 10.7
22.0 10.8
21.9 9.9
21.6 9.5
43.5 42.5
35.5 22.9
18.2 10.8
19.9 10.8
21.8 9.8
22.6 15.4
S.E. of
Mean
3.9
2.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
2.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
a Total tapwater is defined as "all water from the household tap consumed
* Value not reported due to insufficient number of observations.
Source: Ershow and Cantor,
1989.
1
*
*
2.7
3.4
2.2
1.5
1.0
1.6
4.4
4.6
3.8
0.0
2.7
1.2
2.2
4.5
1.7
directly as a
5 10
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
11.8 17.8
10.3 14.9
7.4 10.3
4.9 7.5
3.9 5.7
4.9 7.1
8.0 10.3
8.7 10.9
8.8 10.7
0.0 0.0
8.3 12.5
4.3 6.5
5.9 8.0
8.7 10.9
5.8 8.2
25
14.8
15.3
27.2
21.9
16.0
11.9
9.6
11.2
14.7
15.1
15.0
15.3
19.6
10.6
12.4
15.0
13.0
50
37.8
32.2
41.4
33.3
24.0
18.1
14.8
16.8
20.2
20.2
20.5
35.3
30.5
16.3
18.2
20.3
19.4
75
66.1
48.1
60.4
48.7
35.5
26.2
21.5
23.7
27.2
27.2
27.1
54.7
46.0
23.6
25.3
27.1
28.0
90
128.3
69.4
82.1
69.3
47.3
35.7
29.0
32.2
35.5
35.2
33.9
101.8
64.4
32.3
33.7
34.7
39.8
95
155.6
102.9
101.6
81.1
55.2
41.9
35.0
38.4
42.1
40.6
38.6
126.5
79.4
38.9
40.0
40.0
50.0
99
*
*
140.6
103.4
70.5
55.0
46.3
53.4
57.8
51.6
47.2
220.5
113.9
52.6
54.8
51.3
79.8
beverage or used to prepare foods and beverages."
-------
Age Group
Infants (<1 year)
Children (1-10 years)
Teens (11-19 years)
Adults (20 -64 years)
Adults (65+ years)
All ages
Source: Ershow and
Mean
302
736
965
1,366
1,459
1,193
Cantor (1989)
Table 3-8. Summary of Tapwater Intake
Intake (ml/day)
10th-90th Percentiles
0-649
286-1 ,294
353-1 ,701
559-2,268
751-2,287
423-2,092
by Age
Mean
43.5
35.5
18.2
19.9
21.8
22.6
Intake (mL/kg-day)
10th-90th Percentiles
0-100
12.5-64.4
6.5 - 32.3
8.0 - 33.7
10.9-34.7
8.2 - 39.8
-------
Table 3-9. Total Tapwater Intake (as percent of total water intake) by Broad Age Categorya'b
Age (years) Mean
1 O
<1 26 0 0
1-10 45 6 19
11-19 47 6 18
20-64 59 12 27
65+ 65 25 41
Percentile Distribution
10 25 50 75 90
0 12 22
24 34 45
24 35 47
35 49 61
47 58 67
37 55
57 67
59 69
72 79
74 81
95
62
72
74
83
84
99
82
81
83
90
90
a Does not include pregnant women, lactating women, or breast-fed children.
b Total tapwater is defined as "all water from the household tap consumed directly as a beverage or used to prepare foods and
beverages."
0 = Less than 0.5 percent.
Source: Ershowand Cantor, 1989.
-------
Table 3-1 0. General Dietary Sources of Tapwater for Both Sexesa'b
% of Tapwater
Age
(years) Source
Mean
<1 Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
1-10 Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
11-19 Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
20-64 Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
65+ Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
All Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
a Does not include pregnant women,
11
69
20
100
15
65
20
100
13
65
22
100
8
47
45
100
8
50
42
100
10
54
36
100
Standard
Deviation
24
37
33
16
25
21
15
25
23
10
26
26
9
23
23
13
27
27
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
25
0
39
0
5
52
0
3
52
0
2
29
25
2
36
27
2
36
14
50
0
87
0
10
70
15
8
70
16
5
48
44
5
52
40
6
56
34
75
10
100
22
19
84
32
17
85
34
11
67
63
11
66
57
13
75
55
95
70
100
100
44
96
63
38
98
68
25
91
91
23
87
85
31
95
87
99
100
100
100
100
100
93
100
100
96
49
100
100
38
99
100
64
100
100
lactating women, or breast-fed children.
b Individual values may not add to totals due to
c Food category includes soups.
0 = Less than 0.5 percent.
Source: Ershowand Cantor, 1989.
rounding.
-------
Table 3-11. Summary Statistics for Best-Fit Lognormal Distributions for Water Intake Rates3
In Total Fluid
Group Intake Rate
(age in years) ,wD oD R2
0 < age <1
1 < age <11
1 1 < age <20
20 < age <65
65 < age
All ages
Simulated balanced population
6.979
7.182
7.490
7.563
7.583
7.487
7.492
0.291
0.340
0.347
0.400
0.360
0.405
0.407
0.996
0.953
0.966
0.977
0.988
0.984
1.000
Group
(age in years)
In Total Tapwater
Intake
oD
0 < age <1 5.587
1 < age<11 6.429
11 < age<20 6.667
20 < age <65 7.023
65 < age 7.088
All ages 6.870
Simulated balanced population 6.864
0.615
0.498
0.535
0.489
0.476
0.530
0.575
0.970
0.984
0.986
0.956
0.978
0.978
0.995
a These values (ml/day) were used in the following equations to estimate the quantiles and averages for
total tapwater intake shown in Tables 3-12.
97.5 percentile intake rate = exp [w + (1.96 a)]
75 percentile intake rate = exp [a + (0.6745 a)]
50 percentile intake rate = exp [u]
25 percentile intake rate = exp [a - (0.6745 a)]
2.5 percentile intake rate = exp [w - (1.96 a)]
Mean intake rate - exp [a + 0.5 a2)]
Source: Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992.
-------
Table 3-12. Estimated Quantiles and Means for Total Tapwater Intake Rates (mL/day)a
Age Group
(years)
0
-------
Table 3-13. Assumed Tapwater Content of Beverages
Beverage %
Tapwater
Cold Water 100
Home-made Beer/Cider/Lager 100
Home-made Wine 100
Other Hot Water Drinks 100
Ground/Instant Coffee:3
Black 100
White 80
Half Milk 50
All Milk 0
Tea 80
Hot Milk 0
Cocoa/Other Hot Milk Drinks 0
Water-based Fruit Drink 75
Fizzy Drinks 0
Fruit Juice 1b 0
Fruit Juice 2b 75
Milk 0
Mineral Water0 0
Bought cider/beer/lager 0
Bought Wine 0
a Black - coffee with all water, milk not added; White - coffee with 80%
water, 20% milk;
Half Milk - coffee with 50% water, 50% milk; All Milk - coffee with all
milk, water not added;
b Fruit juice: individuals were asked in the questionnaire if they
consumed ready-made fruit juice (type 1 above), or the variety that is
diluted (type 2);
c Information on volume of mineral water consumed was obtained only
as "number of bottles per week." A bottle was estimated at 500 ml,
and the volume was split so that 2/7 was assumed to be consumed on
weekends, and 5/7 during the week.
Source: Hopkins and Ellis, 1980.
-------
Beverage
Total Liquid
Total Liquid Home
Total Liquid Away
Total Tapwater
Total Tapwater Home
Total Tapwater Away
Tea
Coffee
Other Hot Water
Drinks
Cold Water
Fruit Drinks
Non Tapwater
Home-brew
Bought Alcoholic
Beverages
Mean
Intake
1.589
1.104
0.484
0.955
0.754
0.201
0.584
0.190
0.011
0.103
0.057
0.427
0.010
0.206
Table 3-1 4
Approx. Std.
Error of Mean
0.0203
0.0143
0.0152
0.0129
0.0116
0.0056
0.0122
0.0059
0.0015
0.0049
0.0027
0.0058
0.0017
0.0123
Intake of Total Liquid, Total Tapwater, and Various Beverages (L/day)
All Individuals
Approx. 95%
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
1 .547-1 .629
1.075-1.133
0.454-0.514
0.929-0.981
0.731-0.777
0.190-0.212
0.560-0.608
0.178-0.202
0.008-0.014
0.093-0.113
0.052-0.062
0.415-0.439
0.007-0.013
0.181-0.231
10 and 90
Percentiles
0.77-2.57
0.49-1 .79
0.00-1.15
0.39-1 .57
0.26-1.31
0.00-0.49
0.01-1.19
0.00-0.56
0.00-0.00
0.00-0.31
0.00-0.19
0.20-0.70
0.00-0.00
0.00-0.68
1 and 99
Percentiles
0.34-4.50
0.23-3.10
0.00-2.89
0.10-2.60
0.02-2.30
0.00-0.96
0.00-2.03
0.00-1 .27
0.00-0.25
0.00-0.85
0.00-0.49
0.06-1 .27
0.00-0.20
0.00-2.33
Consumers Only"
Percentage of
Total Number
of Individuals
100.0
100.0
89.9
99.8
99.4
79.6
90.9
63.0
9.2
51.0
46.2
99.8
7.0
43.5
Mean
Intake
1.589
1.104
0.539
0.958
0.759
0.253
0.643
0.302
0.120
0.203
0.123
0.428
0.138
0.474
Approx.
Std. Error
of Mean
0.0203
0.0143
0.0163
0.0129
0.0116
0.0063
0.0125
0.0105
0.0133
0.0083
0.0049
0.0058
0.0209
0.0250
Approx. 95%
Confidence
Interval for Mean
1 .547-1 .629
1.075-1.133
0.506-0.572
0.932-0.984
0.736-0.782
0.240-0.266
0.618-0.668
0.281-0.323
0.093-0.147
0.186-0.220
0.113-0.133
0.416-0.440
0.096-0.180
0.424-0.524
a Consumers only is defined as only those individuals who reported consuming the beverage during the survey period.
Source: Hopkin and Ellis, 1980.
-------
Table 3-15. Summary of Total Liquid and Total Tapwater Intake for Males and Females (L/day)
Beverage
Total Liquid
Intake
Total
Tapwater
Intake
Source:
Age
Group
(years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-30
31-54
55+
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-30
31-54
55+
Hopkin and Ellis
Number
Male
88
249
180
333
512
396
88
249
180
333
512
396
1980.
Female
75
201
169
350
551
454
75
201
169
350
551
454
Mean Intake
Male
0.853
0.986
1.401
2.184
2.112
1.830
0.477
0.550
0.805
1.006
1.201
1.133
Female
0.888
0.902
1.198
1.547
1.601
1.482
0.464
0.533
0.725
0.991
1.091
1.027
Approx. Std. Error of
Mean
Male
0.0557
0.0296
0.0619
0.0691
0.0526
0.0498
0.0403
0.0223
0.0372
0.0363
0.0309
0.0347
Female
0.0660
0.0306
0.0429
0.0392
0.0215
0.0356
0.0453
0.0239
0.0328
0.0304
0.0240
0.0273
Approx 95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Male
0.742-0.964
0.917-1.045
1 .277-1 .525
2.046-2.322
2.007-2.217
1 .730-1 .930
0.396-0.558
0.505-0.595
0.731-0.8790
0.933-1 .079
1.139-1.263
1 .064-1 .202
Female
0.756-1 .020
0.841-0.963
1.112-1.284
1 .469-1 .625
1 .558-1 .694
1.411-1.553
0.373-0.555
0.485-0.581
0.659-0.791
0.930-1 .052
1.043-1.139
0.972-1 .082
10 and 90 Percentiles
Male
0.38-1.51
0.54-1 .48
0.75-2.27
1.12-3.49
1.15-3.27
1 .03-2.77
0.17-0.85
0.22-0.90
0.29-1 .35
0.45-1 .62
0.64-1 .88
0.62-1 .72
Female
0.39-1 .48
0.51-1.39
0.65-1 .74
0.93-2.30
0.95-2.36
0.84-2.17
0.15-0.89
0.22-0.93
0.31-1.16
0.50-1 .55
0.62-1 .68
0.54-1 .57
-------
Table 3-16. Measured Fluid Intakes (ml/day)
Subject
Adults ("normal" conditions)11
Adults (high environmental
temperature to 32°C)
Adults (moderately active)
Children (5-1 4 yr)
Total Fluids Milk
1000-2400 120-450
2840-3410
3256 ±
SD = 900
3700
1000-1200 330-500
1310-1670 540-650
Water-Based
Tapwater Drinks"
45-730 320-1450
ca. 200 ca. 380
540-790
a Includes tea, coffee, soft drinks, beer, cider, wine, etc.
b "Normal" conditions refer to typical environmental temperature and activity levels.
Source: ICRP, 1981.
-------
Table 3-17. Intake Rates of Total Fluids and Total Tapwater by Age Group
Average Daily Consumption Rate (L/day)
Age Group Total Fluids3
6-11 months 0.80
2 years 0.99
14-1 6 years 1.47
25-30 years 1 .76
60-65 years 1 .63
Total Tapwater"
0.20
0.50
0.72
1.04
1.26
a Includes milk, "ready-to-use" formula, milk-based soup, carbonated soda, alcoholic
beverages, canned juices, water, coffee, tea, reconstituted juices, and reconstituted soups.
Does not include reconstituted infant formula.
b Includes water, coffee, tea, reconstituted juices, and reconstituted soups.
Source: Derived from Pennington, 1983.
-------
Table 3-1 8.
Age (years)
All ages
Under 1
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 to 14
15to19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 59
60 and over
Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Beverages and Tapwater by Age
Tapwater Intake
(ml)
662.5 ± 9.9
170.7 ±64.5
434.6 ± 31 .4
521 .0 ± 26.4
620.2 ± 24.7
664.7 ± 26.0
656.4 ± 33.9
61 9.8 ±34.6
636.5 ± 27.2
735.3 ±21.1
762.5 ± 23.7
Water-Based Drinks Soups Total Beverage Intake1"
(mL)a (ml) (ml)
457.1 ± 6.7
8.3 ± 43.7
97.9 ±21 .5
116.5±18.0
140.0± 16.9
201 .5 ±17.7
343.1 ± 23.1
441 .6 ± 23.6
601 .0± 18.6
686.5 ±14.4
561.1 ± 16.2
45.9 ± 1 .2
10.1 ±7.9
43.8 ± 3.9
36.6 ± 3.2
35.4 ±3.0
34.8 ± 3.2
38.9 ± 4.2
41 .3 ±4.2
40.6 ± 3.3
51 .6 ±2.6
59.4 ±2.9
1 434.0 ± 13.7
307.0 ± 89.2
743.0 ± 43.5
861 .0 ± 36.5
1025.0 ±34.2
1241.0 ±35.9
1484.0 ±46.9
1531.0 ±48.0
1642.0 ±37.7
1732.0 ±29.3
1547.0 ±32.8
a Includes water-based drinks such as coffee, etc. Reconstituted infant formula does not appear to be included in this group.
b Includes tapwater and water-based drinks such as coffee, tea, soups, and other drinks such as soft drinks, fruitades, and
alcoholic drinks.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1984.
-------
Table 3-1 9.
Group/Subgroup
Total group
Sex
Males
Females
Age, years
21-44
45-64
65-84
Geographic area
Atlanta
Connecticut
Detroit
Iowa
New Jersey
New Mexico
New Orleans
San Francisco
Seattle
Utah
a Standard deviations not
Average Total Tapwater Intake Rate by Sex
Age, and Geographic Area
Number of
Respondents
5,258
3,892
1,366
291
1,991
2,976
207
844
429
743
1,542
165
112
621
316
279
reported in Cantor et al. (1987).
b Total tapwater defined as all water and beverages derived
Source: Cantor et al., 1987
Average Total
Tapwater lntake,a'b
L/day
1.39
1.40
1.35
1.30
1.48
1.33
1.39
1.37
1.33
1.61
1.27
1.49
1.61
1.36
1.44
1.35
from tapwater.
-------
Table 3-20. Frequency Distribution of Total
Tapwater Intake Rates3
Consumption
Rate (L/day)
< 0.80
0.81-1.12
1.13-1.44
1.45-1.95
>1.96
Cumulative Frequency"
Frequency13 (%) (%)
20.6
21.3
20.5
19.5
18.1
a Represents consumption of tapwater and beverages
tapwater in a "typical" winter week.
b Extracted from Table 3 in Cantor et al. (1 987).
Source: Cantor, etal., 1987
20.6
41.9
62.4
81.9
100.0
derived from
-------
Table 3-21
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1-2
3-5
5 & Under
Males:
6-11
12-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 and over
20 and over
Females:
6-11
12-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 and over
20 and over
All individuals
Mean Per Capita Drinking
Plain Drinking
Water
194
333
409
359
537
725
842
793
745
755
946
824
747
809
476
604
739
732
781
819
829
772
856
774
711
Water Intake Based on USDA, CSFII Data From 1989-91
Coffee
0
<0.5
2
1
2
12
168
407
534
551
506
430
326
408
1
21
154
317
412
438
429
324
275
327
260
a Includes regular and low calorie fruit drinks, punches, and ades,
Tea
<0.5
9
26
17
44
95
136
136
149
168
115
115
165
139
40
87
120
136
174
137
124
161
149
141
114
including those made
Fruit Drinks
and Ades"
17
85
100
86
114
104
101
50
53
51
34
45
57
60
86
87
61
59
36
37
36
34
28
46
65
(ml/day)
Total
211.5
427.5
537
463
697
936
1,247
1,386
1,481
1,525
1,601
1,414
1,295
1,416
603
799
1,074
1,244
1,403
1,431
1,418
1,291
1,308
1,288
1,150
from powdered mix and frozen concentrate.
Excludes fruit juices and carbonated drinks.
Source: USDA, 1995.
-------
Table 3-22. Number of Respondents that
Population Group
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full-time
Part-time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
NOTE: "•" = Missing Data
"DK" = Don't know
N = sample size
Total N
4,663
2,163
2,498
2
263
348
326
2,972
670
3,774
463
77
96
193
60
4,244
347
26
46
2,017
379
1,309
32
399
1,253
895
650
445
1,048
1,036
1,601
978
3,156
1,507
1,264
1,181
1,275
943
4,287
341
35
4,500
125
38
4,424
203
36
Consumed Tapwater at a
Specified Daily Frequency
Number of Glasses in a Day
None
1,334
604
728
2
114
90
86
908
117
1,048
147
25
36
63
15
1,202
116
5
11
637
90
313
6
89
364
258
195
127
351
243
450
290
864
470
398
337
352
247
1,232
96
6
1,308
18
8
1,280
48
6
1-2
1,225
582
643
•
96
127
109
751
127
1,024
113
18
18
42
10
1,134
80
6
5
525
94
275
4
95
315
197
157
109
262
285
437
241
840
385
321
282
323
299
1,137
83
5
1,195
25
5
1,161
55
9
3-5
1,253
569
684
•
40
86
88
769
243
1,026
129
23
22
40
13
1,162
73
7
11
497
120
413
11
118
330
275
181
113
266
308
408
271
862
391
336
339
344
234
1,155
91
7
1,206
40
7
1,189
58
6
6-9
500
216
284
•
7
15
22
334
112
416
38
6
6
28
6
451
41
4
4
218
50
188
1
51
132
118
82
62
95
127
165
113
334
166
128
127
155
90
459
40
1
470
27
3
474
24
2
10-19
151
87
64
•
1
7
7
115
20
123
9
1
7
10
1
129
18
3
1
72
13
49
2
14
52
31
19
16
32
26
62
31
96
55
45
33
41
32
134
16
1
143
6
2
142
9
.
20+
31
25
6
•
0
2
.
26
2
25
1
.
2
2
1
26
4
•
1
18
7
3
1
2
13
5
4
3
7
9
11
4
27
4
5
10
9
7
29
1
1
29
1
1
29
1
1
DK
138
65
73
•
5
20
11
54
42
92
21
4
5
7
9
116
13
1
8
40
5
54
4
28
37
9
6
12
28
33
57
20
106
32
26
40
40
32
115
13
10
123
6
9
124
5
9
Refused = respondent refused to answer
Source: Tsang and Kleipeis,
1996
-------
Table 3-23. Number of Respondents that Consumed Juice Reconstituted with Tapwater at a Specified Daily Frequency
Population Group
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full-time
Part-time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
NOTE: "•" = Missing Data
"DK" = Don't know
N = sample size
Total N
4,663
2,163
2,498
2
263
348
326
2,972
670
3,774
463
77
96
193
60
4,244
347
26
46
2,017
379
1,309
32
399
1,253
895
650
445
1,048
1,036
1,601
978
3,156
1,507
1,264
1,181
1,275
943
4,287
341
35
4,500
125
38
4,424
203
36
Refused = Respondent refused to
Source: Tsang and Klepeis,
1996
Number of Glasses in a Day
None
1,877
897
980
•
126
123
112
1,277
206
1,479
200
33
46
95
24
1,681
165
11
20
871
156
479
15
146
520
367
274
182
440
396
593
448
1,261
616
529
473
490
385
1,734
130
13
1,834
31
12
1,782
84
11
answer
1-2
1,418
590
826
2
71
140
118
817
252
1,168
142
27
19
51
11
1,318
87
6
7
559
102
426
4
131
355
253
201
130
297
337
516
268
969
449
382
382
389
265
1,313
102
3
1,362
53
3
1,361
53
4
3-5
933
451
482
•
48
58
63
614
133
774
83
15
24
30
7
863
61
5
4
412
88
265
4
82
254
192
125
92
220
200
332
181
616
307
245
215
263
210
853
74
6
900
25
8
882
44
7
6-9
241
124
117
•
11
12
18
155
43
216
15
1
2
5
2
226
14
.
1
103
19
75
2
25
68
47
31
26
51
63
84
43
162
79
66
54
68
53
216
25
•
231
7
3
230
10
1
10-19
73
35
38
•
4
2
7
46
12
57
9
•
1
5
1
64
7
1
1
32
7
20
1
7
21
18
7
5
13
17
26
17
51
22
23
19
18
13
69
3
1
67
5
1
65
6
2
20+
21
17
4
•
1
1
1
16
2
16
1
•
3
1
.
17
4
.
•
9
2
7
•
2
7
5
1
3
4
4
10
3
11
10
4
8
6
3
20
1
•
20
1
•
21
•
•
DK
66
33
33
•
2
11
4
30
14
44
7
0
1
5
9
49
7
3
7
20
5
21
3
4
17
11
5
4
15
14
28
9
46
20
10
17
28
11
55
5
6
59
1
6
57
3
6
-------
Table 3-24. Total Fluid Intake of Women 15-49 Years Old
Reproductive
Status"
ml/day
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
mL/kg/dav
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
Mean
1940
2076
2242
32.3
32.1
37.0
Standard
Deviation 5
686
743
658
12.3
11.8
11.6
a Number of observations: nonpregnant,
Source: Ershowet al., 1991.
995
1085
1185
15.8
16.4
19.6
10
1172
1236
1434
18.5
17.8
21.8
nonlactating controls (n =
Percentile Distribution
25 50 75
1467
1553
1833
23.8
17.8
21.8
6,201); pregnant
1835
1928
2164
30.5
30.5
35.1
(n = 188);
2305
2444
2658
38.7
40.4
45.0
lactating (n
90
2831
3028
3169
48.4
48.9
53.7
= 77).
95
3186
3475
3353
55.4
53.5
59.2
-------
Table 3-25. Total Tapwater Intake
of Women 15-49 Years Old
Percentile Distribution
Reproductive
Status3
ml/day
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
Fra ction of dailv fluid
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
Mean
1157
1189
1310
19.1
18.3
21.4
Standard
Deviation
635
699
591
10.8
10.4
9.8
5
310
274
430
5.2
4.9
7.4
10
453
419
612
7.5
5.9
9.8
25
709
713
855
11.7
10.7
14.8
50
1065
1063
1330
17.3
16.4
20.5
75
1503
1501
1693
24.4
23.8
26.8
90
1983
2191
1945
33.1
34.5
35.1
95
2310
2424
2191
39.1
39.6
37.4
intake that is taowater (%1
57.2
54.1
57.0
18.0
18.2
15.8
24.6 32.2
21.2 27.9
27.4 38.0
a Number of observations: nonpregnant, nonlactating
Source: Ershow et al., 1991 .
controls (n =
45.9
42.9
49.5
59.0
54.8
58.1
6,201); pregnant (n = 188);
70.7
67.6
65.9
lactating
79.0
76.6
76.4
(n = 77).
83.2
83.2
80.5
-------
Table 3-26. Total Fluid (mL/Day) Derived from Various Dietary Sources by Women Aged 15-49 Years8
Control Women
Pregnant Women
Percentile
Meanb
Sources 50
Drinking Water 583 480
Milk and Milk Drinks 162 107
Other Dairy Products 23 8
Meats, Poultry, Fish, Eggs 126 114
Legumes, Nuts, and Seeds 13 0
Grains and Grain Products 90 65
Citrus and Noncitrus Fruit Juices 57 0
Fruits, Potatoes, Vegetables, Tomatoes 198 171
Fats, Oils, Dressings, Sugars, Sweets 9 3
Tea 148 0
Coffee and Coffee Substitutes 291 159
Carbonated Soft Drinks0 174 110
Noncarbonated Soft Drinks0 38 0
Beer 17 0
Wine Spirits, Liqueurs, Mixed Drinks 10 0
All Sources 1940 NA
" Number of observations: nonpregnant, nonlactating controls (n = 6,201)
0 Individual means may not add to all-sources total due to rounding.
0 Includes regular, low-calorie, and noncalorie soft drinks.
Lactating Women
Percentile
Mean0
95
1440
523
93
263
77
257
234
459
41
630
1045
590
222
110
66
695
308
24
121
18
98
69
212
9
132
197
130
48
7
5
NA 2076
pregnant (n
= 188);
50
95
640 1760
273
9
104
0
69
0
185
3
0
0
73
0
0
0
NA
lactating (n
749
93
252
88
246
280
486
40
617
955
464
257
0
25
NA
= 77).
Mean0
677
306
36
133
15
119
64
245
10
253
205
117
38
17
6
2242
Percentile
50
560
285
27
117
0
82
0
197
6
77
80
57
0
0
0
NA
95
1600
820
113
256
72
387
219
582
50
848
955
440
222
147
59
NA
NA: Not appropriate to sum the columns for the 50th and 95th percentiles of intake.
Source: Ershowet al., 1991.
-------
Table 3-27. Water Intake at Various Activity Levels (L/hr)a
Room
Temperature11 (°F)
Activity Level
100
High (0.1 She/many5
No.d Intake
Medium (0.10 hp/manf
No. Intake
Low (0.05 hp/manf
Intake
No.
15
0.653
(0.75)
95
18
0.540
(0.31)
12
0.345
(0.59)
0.50
(0.31)
90
0.286
(0.26)
0.385
(0.26)
16
0.23
(0.20)
85
0.218
(0.36)
16
0.213
(0.20)
80
16
0.222
(0.14)
a Data expressed as mean intake with standard deviation in parentheses.
b Humidity = 80 percent; air velocity = 60 ft/min.
c The symbol "hp" refers to horsepower.
d Number of subjects with continuous data.
Source: McNall and Schlegel, 1968.
-------
Table 3-28. Planning Factors for Individual Tapwater Consumption
Environmental Condition Recommended Planning Factor (gal/day)a Recommended Planning Factor (L/day)a'b
Hot 3.0° 11.4
Temperate 1.5d 5.7
Cold 2.0° 7.6
a Based on a mix of activities among the work force as follows: 15% light work; 65% medium work; 20% heavy work. These factors
apply to the conventional battlefield where no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are used.
b Converted from gal/day to L/day.
c This assumes 1 quart/12-hour rest period/man for perspiration losses and 1 quart/day/man for urination plus 6 quarts/12-hours light
work/man, 9 quarts/12-hours moderate work/man, and 12 quarts/12-hours heavy work/man.
d This assumes 1 quart/12-hour rest period/man for perspiration losses and 1 quart/day/man for urination plus 1 quart/12-hours light
work/man, 3 quarts/12-hours moderate work/man, and 6 quarts/12-hours heavy work/man.
8 This assumes 1 quart/12-hour rest period/man for perspiration losses, 1 quart/day/man for urination, and 2 quarts/day/man for
respiration losses plus 1 quart/12-hours light work/man, 3 quarts/12-hours moderate work/man, and 6 quarts/6-hours heavy
work/man.
Source: U.S. Army, 1983.
-------
Table 3-29. Drinking Water Intake Surveys
Study
KEY
Canadian Ministry of
National Health and
Welfare, 1981
Ershow and Cantor,
1989
Rosenberry and
Burmaster, 1992
RELEVANT
Cantor etal., 1987
Gillies and Paulin,
1983
Hopkin and Ellis,
1980
ICRP, 1981
NAS, 1977
Number of Individuals
970
Based on data from
NFCS; approximately
30,000 individuals
Based on data from
Ershow and Cantor,
1989
5,258
109
3,564
Based on data from
several sources
Calculated average
based on several
sources
Type of Water
Consumed
Total tapwater
consumption
Total tapwater; total
fluid consumption
Total tapwater; total
fluid consumption
Total tapwater; total
fluid consumption
Total tapwater
consumption
Total tapwater, total
liquid consumption
Water and water-based
drinks; milk; total fluids
Average per capita
"liquid" consumption
Time Period/ Survey
Type
Weekday and weekend
day in both summer and
winter; estimation based
on sizes and types of
containers used
3-day recall, diaries
3-day recall, diaries
1 week/usual intake in
winter based on recall
24 hours; duplicate water
samples collected
1 week period, diaries
NAa
NAa
Population Surveyed
All ages; Canada
All ages; large sample
representative of U.S.
population
All ages; large sample
representative of US
population
Adults only; weighted
toward older adults; U.S.
population
Adults only; New Zealand
All ages; Great Britain
NAa
NAa
Comments
Seasonal data; includes many tapwater-
containing items not commonly surveyed;
possible bias because identification of
vessel size used as survey techniques;
short-term study
Short-term recall data; seasonally
balanced data
Short-term recall data; seasonally
balanced; suitable for Monte Carlo
simulations
Based on recall of behavior from previous
winter; short-term data; population not
representative of general U.S. population
Based on short-term data
Short-term diary data
Survey design and intake categories not
clearly defined
Total tapwater not reported; population and
survey design not reported
-------
Table 3-29. Drinking Water Intake Surveys (continued)
Number of Individuals
Study
Pennington, 1983 Based on MFCS and
NHANES II; approximately
30,000 and 20,000
participants, respectively
USDA, 1 995 Based on 89-91 CSF1 1 ;
approximately 15,000
individuals
U.S. EPA, 1984 Based on MFCS;
approximately 30,000
individuals
U.S. EPA, 1995 Over 4,000 participants of
NHAPS
McNall and Based on 2 groups of 8
Schlegel, 1968 subjects each
U.S. Army, 1983 NA
Type of Water Consumed Time Period/ Survey
Type
Total tapwater; total fluid NFCS:24-hour recall
consumption on 2-day dairy;
NHANES ll:24-hour
recall
Plain drinking water, 1 -day recall
coffee, tea, fruit drinks
and ades
Tapwater; water based 3-day recall, diaries
foods and beverages;
soups; beverage
consumption
Number of glasses of 24-hour diaries
drinking water and juice
with tapwater
Tapwater 8-hour work cycle
All fluids consumed to NA
satisfy body needs for
internal water; includes
soups, hot and cold
drinks and tapwater
Population Surveyed
NFCS:1 month to 97 years;
NHANES ll:6 months to 74
years; representative
samples of U.S. population
All ages, large sample
representative of U.S.
population
All ages; large sample
representative of U.S.
population
All ages, large
representative sample of
U.S. population
Males between 1 7-25 years
of age; small sample; high
activity levels/hot climates
High activity levels/hot
climates
Comments
Based on short-term recall data
Short-term recall data; seasonally
adjusted
Short-term recall data; seasonally
balanced
Does not provide data on the volume
of tapwater consumed
Based on short-term data
Study designed to provide water
consumption planning factors for
various activities and field conditions;
based on estimated amount of water
required to account for losses from
urination, perspiration, and respiration
a Not applicable.
-------
Table 3-30.
Summary of Recommended Drinking Water Intake Rates
Percentiles
Age Group/
Population
<1 year"
<3 years0
3-5 years0
1 -1 0 years"
11-19 years"
Adults"
Pregnant Women'01
Lactating Women-01
Adults in High
Activity/Hot Climate
Conditions8
Active Adults'
a Source: Ershow anc
Mean
0.30 L/day
44 mL/kg-day
0.61 L/day
0.87 L/day
0.74 L/day
35 mL/kg-day
0.97 L/day
18 mL/kg-day
1 .4 L/day
21 mL/kg-day
1 .2 L/day
18.3 mL/kg-day
1 .3 L/day
21 .4 mL/kg-day
0.21 to 0.65 L/hour
6 L/day (temperate
Cantor, 1989
50th
0.24 L/day
35 mL/kg-day
-
-
0.66 L/day
31 mL/kg-day
0.87 L/day
16 mL/kg-day
1 .3 L/day
19 mL/kg-day
1.1 L/day
16 mL/kg-day
1 .3 L/day
21 mL/kg-day
90th
0.65 L/day
102 mL/kg-day
1 .5 L/day
1 .5 L/day
1 .3 L/day
64 mL/kg-day
1 .7 L/day
32 mL/kg-day
2.3 L/day
34 mL/kg-day
2.2 L/day
35 mL/kg-day
1 .9 L/day
35 mL/kg-day
95th
0.76 L/day
127 mL/kg-day
-
-
1 .5 L/day
79.4 mL/kg-
day
2.0 L/day
40 mL/kg-day
2.4 L/day
40 mL/kg-day
2.2 L/day
37 mL/kg-day
Multiple
Tables 3-6,
3-7, and 3-
8
Table3-3
Table3-3
Tables 3-6,
3-7, and 3-
8
Tables 3-6,
3-7, and 3-
8
Tables 3-6,
3-7, and 3-
Q
O
Table 3-25
Table 3-25
Fitted
Distributions
Table 3-1 1b
Table 3-1 1b
Table 3-1 1b
Table 3-1 1b
depending on ambient temperature and activity level; see Table 3-27.
climate) to 1 1 L/day (hot climate); see Table 3-28.
b Source: Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992
c Source: Canadian Ministry of Health and Welfare, 1981
d Ershow etal. (1991)
e Source: McNall and
f Source: U.S. Armv.
presented data for pregnant women, lactating women, and control women.
Schlegal, 1968
1983
-------
Table 3-31. Total Tapwater Consumption Rates From Key Studies
90th
Mean (L/day) Percentile Number in Reference
(I/day) Survey
1.38 2.41 639 Canadian Ministry of Health
and Welfare, 1981
1.41 2.28 11,731 Ershow and Cantor, 1989
-------
Table
Mean (L/day)
1.30a
1 .63 (calculated)
1.25
1 .04 (25 to 30 yrs)
1 .26 (60 to 65 yrs)
1 .04-1 .47 (ages 20+)
1 .37 (20 to 64 yrs)
1 .46 (65+ yrs)
1.15
1.07
a Age of the Cantor et
3-32. Daily Tapwater Intake Rates From Relevant Studies
90th Percentile
2.40
-
1.90
-
-
-
2.27
2.29
—
1.87
al. (1987) population was higher
Reference
Cantor etal., 1987
MAS, 1977
Gillies and Paulin, 1983
Pennington, 1983
Pennington, 1983
U.S. EPA, 1984
Ershow and Cantor, 1989
Ershow and Cantor, 1989
USDA, 1995
Hopkins and Ellis, 1980
than the U.S. average.
-------
Age
(years)
<1
<3
3-5
1-10
6-17
11-19
Mean
(L/day)
0.30
0.61
0.87
0.74
1.14
0.97
Table 3-33. Key Study
90th Percentile
(L/day)
0.65
1.50
1.50
1.29
2.21
1.70
Tapwater Intake Rates for Children
Reference
Ershow and Cantor, 1989
Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare,
Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare,
Ershow and Cantor, 1989
Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare,
Ershow and Cantor, 1989
1981
1981
1981
-------
Table 3-34. Summary
of Intake Rates for
Children in Relevant Studies
Age
6-1 1 months
<1 yr
<1 yr
2yrs
1 -4 yrs
5-9 yrs
1-10 yrs
10-1 4 yrs
14-1 6 yrs
15-1 9 yrs
11-1 9 yrs
Mean
(L/day)
0.20
0.19
0.32
0.50
0.58
0.67
0.70
0.80
0.72
0.90
0.91
Reference
Pennington, 1983
U.S. EPA, 1984
Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992
Pennington, 1983
U.S. EPA, 1984
U.S. EPA, 1984
Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992
U.S. EPA, 1984
Pennington, 1983
U.S. EPA, 1984
Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992
-------
Table 3-35. Confidence in Tapwater Intake Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of
variability
Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
The study of Ershow and Cantor (1989) had a thorough expert
panel review. Review procedures were not reported in the
Canadian study; it was a government report. Other reports
presented are published in scientific journals.
The two monographs are available from the sponsoring
agencies; the others are library-accessible.
Methods are well-described.
The studies are directly relevant to tapwater.
See "representativeness" below.
The two monographs used recent primary data (less than one
week) on recall of intake.
Data were all collected in the 1978 era. Tapwater use may
have changed since that time period.
These are one- to three-day intake data. However, long term
variability may be small. Their use as a chronic intake
measure can be assumed.
The approach was competently executed.
This study was the largest monograph that had data for 11,000
individuals.
The Ershow and Cantor (1989) and Canadian surveys were
validated as demographically representative.
The full distributions were given in the main studies.
Bias was not apparent.
No physical measurements were taken. The method relied on
recent recall of standardized volumes of drinking water
containers, and was not validated.
There were two key studies for the adult and child
recommendations. There were six other studies for adults,
one study for pregnant and lactating women, and two studies
for high activity/hot climates.
This agreement was good.
The data are excellent, but are not current.
High
High
High
High
NA
High
Low
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High for adult and
children.
Low for the other
recommended
subpopulation values.
High
Medium
-------
Table 4-1 . Estimated Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium Concentrations
Estimation
Method
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
Minimum
Source: Binder et a
Mean
(mg/day)
181
184
1,834
108
., 1986.
Median
(mg/day)
121
136
618
88
Standard
Deviation
(mg/day)
203
175
3,091
121
Range
(mg/day)
25-1 ,324
31-799
4-17,076
4-708
95th Percentile
(mg/day)
584
5,78
9,590
386
Geometric
Mean
(mg/day)
128
130
401
65
-------
Child
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Arithmetic Mean
Source: Adaoted
Sample
Number
L3
L14
L25
L5
L13
L27
L2
L17
L4
L11
L8
L21
L12
L16
L18
L22
L1
L6
L7
L9
L10
L15
L19
L20
L23
L24
L26
Table 4-2. Calculated Soil
Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from Ti
(ma/davl
103
154
130
131
184
142
124
670
246
2,990
293
313
1,110
176
1 1 ,620
1 1 ,320
3,060
624
600
133
354
2,400
124
269
1,130
64
184
1,431
Ingestion by Nursery School
Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from Al
(ma/davl
300
211
23
_
103
81
42
566
62
65
-
-
693
-
_
77
82
979
200
-
195
-
71
212
51
566
56
232
Children
Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from AIR
(ma/davl
107
172
-
71
82
84
84
174
145
139
108
152
362
145
120
-
96
111
124
95
106
48
93
274
84
-
-
129
Limiting Tracer
(ma/davl
103
154
23
71
82
81
42
174
62
65
108
152
362
145
120
77
82
111
124
95
106
48
71
212
51
64
56
105
from Clausina et al. 1987.
-------
Table 4-3. Calculated Soil Ingestion by Hospitalized, Bedridden Children
Child
1
2
3
4
5
6
Arithmetic Mean
Source: Adapted from
Sample
G5
G6
G1
G2
G8
G3
G4
G7
Clausina et al. 1987.
Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from Ti
(ma/davl
3,290
4,790
28
6,570
2,480
28
1,100
58
2,293
Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from Al
(ma/davl
57
71
26
94
57
77
30
38
56
Limiting Tracer
(ma/davl
57
71
26
84
57
28
30
38
49
-------
Table 4-4.
Tracer Element
Al
Ba
Mn
Si
Ti
V
Y
Zr
Mean and Standard Deviation Percentage Recovery
300 mg Soil
Mean
152.8
2304.3
1177.2
139.3
251.5
345.0
120.5
80.6
Ingested
SD
107.5
4533.0
1341.0
149.6
316.0
247.0
42.4
43.7
of Eight Tracer Elements
1500
Mean
93.5
149.8
248.3
91.8
286.3
147.6
87.5
54.6
mg Soil Ingested
SD
15.5
69.5
183.6
16.6
380.0
66.8
12.6
33.4
Source: Adapted from Calabrese et al., 1989.
-------
Table 4-5. Soil and Dust Ingestion
Tracer Element
Aluminum
soil
dust
soil/dust combined
Silicon
soil
dust
soil/dust combined
Yttrium
soil
dust
soil/dust combined
Titanium
soil
dust
soil/dust combined
Estimates for Children Aged 1 -4 Years
Intake (mg/day)a
N
64
64
64
64
64
64
62
64
62
64
64
64
Mean
153
317
154
154
964
483
85
62
65
218
163
170
Median
29
31
30
40
49
49
9
15
11
55
28
30
SD
852
1,272
629
693
6,848
3,105
890
687
717
1,150
659
691
95th
Percentile
223
506
478
276
692
653
106
169
159
1,432
1,266
1.059
Maximum
6,837
8,462
4,929
5,549
54,870
24,900
6,736
5,096
5,269
6,707
3,354
3.597
a Corrected for Tracer Concentrations in Foods
Source: Adaoted from Calabrese et al.
1989.
-------
Table 4-6. Average Daily Soil Ingestion Values Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium as Tracer Elements3
Element Mean
(mg/d)
Aluminum 38.9
Silicon 82.4
Titanium 245.5
Minimum 38.9
Maximum 245.5
Standard Error of the
Median Mean
(mg/d) (mg/d)
25.3
59.4
81.3
25.3
81.3
14.4
12.2
119.7
12.2
119.7
Range
(mg/d)b
279.0 to 904.5
-404.0 to 534.6
-5,820.8to6,182.2
-5,820.8
6,182.2
a Excludes three children who did not provide any samples (N=1 01 ).
b Negative values occurred as a result of correction for nonsoil sources of the tracer elements.
Source: Adapted from Davis et al., 1990.
-------
Table 4-7. Geometric Mean (GM) and Standard Deviation (GSD) LTM
for Children at Daycare Centers and Campgrounds
Day care Centers
Age (yrs)
<1
1-<2
2-<3
3-4
4-<5
All girls
All boys
Total
Sex
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
n GM LTM
(mg/day)
3
1
20
17
34
17
26
29
1
4
86
72
162"
81
75
124
114
118
96
111
110
180
99
117
104
111
GSD LTM
(mg/day)
1.09
1.87
1.47
1.74
1.53
1.57
1.32
1.62
1.70
1.46
1.60
n
;
3
5
4
8
6
8
19
18
36
42
78b
Values
Campgrounds
GM LTM
(mg/day)
;
207
312
367
232
164
148
164
136
179
169
174
GSD LTM
(mg/day)
;
1.99
2.58
2.44
2.15
1.27
1.42
1.48
1.30
1.67
1.79
1.73
a Age and/or sex not registered for eight children.
b Age not registered for seven children.
Source: Adapted from Van Wijnen et al., 1990.
-------
Table 4-8. Estimated Geometric Mean LTM Values of Children Attending Daycare
According to Age, Weather Category, and Sampling Period
Weather Category
Bad
(>4 days/week precipitation)
Reasonable
(2-3 days/week precipitation)
Good
(<2 days/week precipitation)
Age (years)
<1
1-<2
2-<3
4-<5
<1
1-<2
2-<3
3-<4
4-<5
<1
1-<2
2-<3
3-<4
4-<5
n
3
18
33
5
4
42
65
67
10
First Sampling Period
Estimated Geometric Mean
LTM Value
(ma/davl
94
103
109
124
102
229
166
138
132
Centers
Second Sampling Period
n
3
33
48
6
1
10
13
19
1
Estimated Geometric Mean
LTM Value
(ma/davl
67
80
91
109
61
96
99
94
61
Source: Van Wiinen et al.. 1990.
-------
Table 4-9. Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates Per Child for 64 Children3 (mg/day)
Type of Estimate Overall A1 Ba Mn Si Ti V Y Zr
Number of Samples (64) (64) (33) (19) (63) (56) (52) (61) (62)
Mean
25th Percentile
50th Percentile
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
Maximum
179
10
45
88
186
208
7,703
122
10
19
73
131
254
4,692
655
28
65
260
470
518
17,991
1,053
35
121
319
478
17,374
17,374
139
5
32
94
206
224
4,975
271
8
31
93
154
279
12,055
112
8
47
177
340
398
845
165
0
15
47
105
144
8,976
23
0
15
41
87
117
208
a For each child, estimates of soil ingestion were formed on days 4-8 and the mean of these estimates was then evaluated for each
child. The values in the column "overall" correspond to percentiles of the distribution of these means over the 64 children. When
specific trace elements were not excluded via the relative standard deviation criteria, estimates of soil ingestion based on the specific
trace element were formed for 108 days for each subject. The mean soil ingestion estimate was again evaluated. The distribution of
these means for specific trace elements is shown.
Source: Stanekand Calabrese, 1995a.
-------
Table 4-10. Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily
Data for 64 Subjects Projected Over 365
Range
50th Percentile (median)
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
Soil Ingestion Based on
Days3
1 - 2,268 mg/db
75 mg/d
1,190mg/d
1 ,751 ma/d
a Based on fitting a log-normal distribution to model daily soil
ingestion values.
b Subject with pica excluded.
Source: Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a.
-------
Scenarios
Youna Child (2.5 Years Old)
Outdoor Activities (Summer)
Indoor Activities (Summer)
Indoor Activities (Winter
TOTAL SOIL INTAKE
Older Child (6 Years Old)
Outdoor Activities (Summer)
Indoor Activities (Year-Round)
TOTAL SOIL INTAKE
Table 4-1 1 .
Media
Soil
Dust
Dust
Soil
Dust
Estimates of Soil Ingestion for Children
Exposure
(mg/day)
250
50
100
50
3
Days/Year
Activity
130
182
182
152
365
Fraction Soil
Content
1
0.8
0.8
1
0.8
Annual Average
Soil Intake
(mg/day)
90
20
JQ
150
21
2A
23.4
Source: Hawley, 1 985.
-------
Table 4-1 2
Trace Element Basis
Mean
Min
10th
20th
30th
40th
Med
60th
70th
80th
90th
Max
Estimated Soil Ingestion
Using Binder et al.
A1
97
11
21
33
39
43
45
55
73
104
197
1,201
Rate Summary Statistics and Parameters for Distributions
(1986) Data with Actual Fecal Weights
Soil Intake (mg/day)
Si
85
10
19
23
36
52
60
65
79
106
166
642
Ti
1,004
1
3
22
47
172
293
475
724
1,071
2,105
14,061
MEAN3
91
13
22
34
43
49
59
69
92
100
143
921
Lognormal Distribution Parameters
Median
Standard Deviation
Arithmetic Mean
45
169
97
60
95
85
__
—
-
59
126
91
Underlying Normal Distribution Parameters
Mean
Standard Deviation
a MEAN = arithmetic average
4.06
0.88
4.07
0.85
__
—
4.13
0.80
of soil ingestion based on aluminum and silicon.
Source: Thompson and Burmaster, 1991 .
-------
Table 4-13. Tukey's Multiple Comparison of Mean Log Tracer Recovery in Adults Ingesting Known Quantities of Soil
Tracer Reported Mean Age Adjusted Mean
(nig/day) (nig/day)
Calabrese et al., 1989 Study
Aluminum 153 160
Silicon 154 161
Titanium 218 228
Vanadium 459 480
Yttrium 85 89
Davis et al., 1990 Study
Aluminum 39 53
Silicon 81 111
Titanium 246 333
a Age adjusted mean estimates of soil ingestion in young children. Mean estimates of soil ingestion for each tracer in each
study were adjusted using the following equation:
Y = x e("0112*yr), where Y = adjusted mean soil ingestion (mg/day), x = a constant, and yr = age in years.
Source: Sedman and Mahmood, 1994.
-------
Table 4-14. Positive/Negative Error (bias) in Soil Ingestion Estimates in the Calabrese et al. (1989) Mass-balance Study:
Effect on Mean Soil Ingestion Estimate (mg/day)a
Negative Error
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zirconium
Lack of Fecal
Sample on Final
Study Day
14
15
82
66
8
6
Other
Causes"
11
6
187
55
26
91
Total Negative
Error
25
21
269
121
34
97
Total Positive
Error
43
41
282
432
22
5
Net Error
+18
+20
+13
+311
-12
-92
Original
Mean
153
154
218
459
85
21
Adjusted
Mean
136
133
208
148
97
113
a How to read table: for example, aluminum as a soil tracer displayed both negative and positive error. The cumulative total negative
error is estimated to bias the mean estimate by 25 mg/day downward. However, aluminum has positive error biasing the original
mean upward by 43 mg/day. The net bias in the original mean was 18 mg/day positive bias. Thus, the original 156 mg/day mean
for aluminum should be corrected downward to 136 mg/day.
b Values indicate impact on mean of 128-subject-weeks in milligrams of soil ingested per day.
Source: Calabrese and Stanek. 1995.
-------
Table 4-15. Soil Ingestion Rates for Assessment Purposes
Receptor Age
Pica Child
2.5 yrs
6yrs
Adult
Setting
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Gardening
Indoor
Soil Load on
Hands
(mg/cm2)
—
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.04
1.0
0.04
a Hawley (1 985) assumed the child spent all the time at home,
Source: Sheppard, 1995
Soil Exposure
Ingestion Rate
(mg/hr)
1,000
20
3
10
0.15
20
0.03
Suggested
Exposure
Durations
(hr/yr)
200
1,000
Remaining3
700
5,000
300
5,000
Average Daily Soil
Ingestion
(mg/day)
500
50
60
20
2
20
0.4
so that the indoor time was 8,760 hours/year minus the outdoor time.
-------
Scenarios
Adult
Work in attic (year-round)
Living Space (year-round)
Outdoor Work (summer)
TOTAL SOIL INTAKE
Table 4-1 6. Estimates of Soil
Exposure
Media (mg/day)
Dust 110
Dust 0.56
Soil 480
Ingestion for Adults
Days/Year
Activity
12
365
43
Fraction Soil
Content
0.8
0.8
1
Annual Average Soil
Intake
(mg/day)
3
0.5
§z
60.5
Source: Hawley, 1985.
-------
Table 4-1 7. Adult Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates by Week and Tracer Element After Subtracting Food and
Based on Median Amherst Soil
Week
Means
1
2
3
Medians
1
2
3
a Data were converted to
Al
110
98
28
60
85
66
milligrams
Ba
-232
12,265
201
-71
597
386
Capsule Ingestion,
Concentrations: Means and Medians Over Subjects (mg)
Mn
330
1,306
790
388
1,368
831
b Negative values occur because of correction for food and capsule
Source: Calabrese et al..
1990
Si
30
14
-23
31
15
-27
ingestion.
Ti
71
25
896
102
112
156
V
1,288
43
532
1,192
150
047
Y
63
21
67
44
35
60
Zr
134
58
-74
124
65
-144
-------
Table 4-1 8. Daily Soi
Ingestion Estimation in a
Soil-Pica Child
by Tracer and by Week (mg/day)
Tracer
Al
Ba
Mn
Si
Ti
V
Y
Zr
Source: Calabrese et
Weekl
Week 2
Estimated Soil Estimated Soil
Inqestion
74
458
2,221
142
1,543
1,269
147
86
al.. 1991
Inqestion
13,600
12,088
12,341
10,955
11,870
10,071
13,325
2,695
-------
Table 4-1 9. Ratios of Soil, Dust, and Residual Fecal Samples in the Soil Pica Child
Tracer Ratio Pairs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Mn/Ti
Ba/Ti
Si/Ti
V/Ti
Ai/Ti
Y/Ti
Mn/Y
Ba/Y
Si/Y
V/Y
AI/Y
Mn/AI
Ba/AI
Si/AI
V/AI
Si/V
Mn/Si
Ba/Si
Mn/Ba
Source: Calabrese and
Soil
208.368
187.448
148.117
14.603
18.410
8.577
24.293
21 .854
17.268
1.702
2.146
11.318
10.182
8.045
0.793
10.143
1.407
1.266
1.112
Stanek, 1992.
Fecal
215.241
206.191
136.662
10.261
21 .087
9.621
22.373
21 .432
14.205
1.067
2.192
10.207
9.778
6.481
0.487
13.318
1.575
1.509
1.044
Estimated % of Residual Fecal Tracers of
Dust Soil Origin as Predicted by Specific Tracer
260.126
115.837
7.490
17.887
13.326
5.669
45.882
20.432
1.321
3.155
2.351
19.520
8.692
0.562
1.342
0.419
34.732
15.466
2.246
Ratios
87
100
92
100
100
100
100
71
81
100
88
100
73
81
100
100
99
83
100
-------
Table 4-20. Soil Intake Studies
Study
Study Tvoe
Number of
Observations
Age
Population Studied
Comments
CHILDREN KEY STUDIES:
Binder etal., 1986
Calabrese et al., 1989
Clausing etal., 1987
Davis etal., 1990
Stanek and Calabrese,
1995a
Stanek and Calabrese,
1995b
Van Wi'jnen et al., 1990
Tracer study using aluminum, silicon,
and titanium
Tracer - mass balance study using
aluminum, barium, manganese, silicon,
titanium, vanadium, ytrium, and
zirconium
Tracer study using aluminum, acid
insoluble residue, and titanium
Tracer - mass balance study using
aluminum silicon and titanium
Adjusted soil intake estimates
Recalculated intake rates based on three
previous mass-balance studies using the
Best Tracer Method
Tracer study using aluminum, acid
insoluble residue, and titanium
59 children
1 -3 years
CHILDREN RELEVANT STUDIES:
AIHC, 1994
Calabrese and Stanek,
1995
Reanalysis of data from Calabrese et al.,
1990
Evaluated errors in soil ingestion
estimates
64 Children 1-4 years
18 nursery school 2-4 years
children; 6
hospitalized
children
104 children 2-7 years
64 children
164 children
6 adults
292 daycare
children; 78
campers; 15
hospitalized
children
6 adults
64 children
1 -4 years
1-7 years
25-41 years
1 -5 years
21-41 years
1 -4 years
Children living near lead
smelter in Montana
Children from greater
Amherst area of
Massachusetts; highly-
educated parents
Dutch children
Children from 3-city area
in Washington State
Same children as in
Calabrese et al., 1989
Children from three
mass-balance studies
Dutch children
Health adults
Study population of
Calabrese et al.. 1989
Did not account for tracer in food
and medicine; used assumed fecal
weight of 15 g/day; short-term study
conducted over 3 days
Corrected for tracer in food and
medicine; study conducted over
two-week period; used adults to
validate methods; one pica child in
study group.
Did not account for tracer in food
and medicines; used tracer-based
intake rates for hospitalized
children as background values;
short-term study conducted over 5
days
Corrected for tracer in food and
medicine; short-term study
conducted over seven-day period;
collected information on
demographic characteristics
affecting soil intake.
Based on data from Calabrese et
al., 1989
Based on studies of Calabrese et
al., 1989; Davis et al., 1990; and
Calabrese et al., 1990.
Did not account for tracer in food
and medicines; used tracer-based
intake for hospitalized children as
background values; evaluated
population (campers) with greater
access to soil; evaluated
differences in soil intake due to
weather conditions.
Used data from Calabrese et al.
(1990) study to derive soil ingestion
rates using zirconium as a tracer;
recent studies indicate that
zirconium is not a good tracer
Based on Calabrese et al., 1989
data.
-------
Table 4-20. Soil Intake Studies (continued)
Studv
Studv Tvoe
Number of
Observations
Aae
Population Studied
Comments
CHILDREN RELEVANT STUDIES (continued):
Dayetal., 1977
Duggan and Williams, 1977
Hawley, 1985
Lepowetal., 1974; 1975
Sedman and Mahmood, 1994
Sheppard, 1995
Thompson and Burmaster,
1991
ADULT SOIL INTAKE STUDIES:
Hawley, 1985
Calabrese et al., 1990
PICA STUDIES:
Calabrese et al., 1991
Calabrese and Stanek, 1992
Measured dirt on sticky sweets
and assumed number of sweets
eaten per day
Measured soil on fingers and
observed mouthing behavior
Assumed soil intake rates based
on nature and duration of activities
Measured soil on hands and
observed mouthing behavior
Adjusted data from earlier tracer-
mass balance studies to generate
mean soil intake rates for a 2-year
old child
Provides estimates based on the
current literature on soil ingestion
from tracer methods and
recommends values for use in
assessments
Re-evaluation of Binder et al.,
1986 data
Assumed soil intake rates based
on nature and duration of activities
Measured excretory output after
ingestion of capsules with
sterilized soil
Tracer - mass balance
Reanalysis of data from Calabrese
etal., 1991
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
22 children
64 children from
Calabrese et al.,
1989 study and 104
children from Davis et
al., 1990 study
Not specified
59 children
Not specified
6 adults
1 pica child
1 pica child
Not specified
Not specified
Young children,
older children,
adults
2-6 years
Adjusted to 2-
yearold child
1 year-adults
(age not
specified)
1 -3 years
Young children,
older children,
adults
21-41 years
3.5 years
3.5 years
Not specified
Areas around London
Not specified
Urban children from
Connecticut
Same children as in
Calabrese et al., 1989
and Davis etal., 1990
study
Various
Children living near
lead smelter in
Montana
Not specified
Healthy adult
volunteers
1 pica child from
greater Amherst area
of Massachusetts
1 pica child from
greater Amherst area
of Massachusetts
Based on observations and crude
measurements.
Based on observations and crude
measurements.
No data on soil intake collected;
estimates based on assumptions
regarding data from previous
studies.
Based on observations over 3-6
hours of play and crude
measurement techniques.
Based on data from Calabrese et al.,
1989 and Davis et al., 1990.
Presents mean estimates for
children and adults; provides
ingestion estimates for indoor and
outdoor activities based on Hawley,
1985.
Re-calculated soil intake rates from
Binder et al., 1986 data using actual
fecal weights instead of assumed
weights.
No data on soil intake collected;
estimates based on assumptions
regarding data from previous
studies.
Data used to validate the analytical
methodology used in the children's
study (Calabrese, 1989).
Child was observed as part of the
Calabrese et al., 1989 study.
Distinguished between outdoor soil
ingestion and indoor dust ingestion
in a soil oica child.
-------
Table 4-21. Confidence in Soil Intake Recommendation
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
•D Level of peer review
•D Accessibility
•D Reproducibility
•D Focus on factor of interest
•D Data pertinent to U.S.
•D Primary data
•D Currency
•D Adequacy of data collection
period
•D Validity of approach
•D Study size
•D Representativeness of the
population
•D Characterization of variability
•D Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
•D Measurement error
Other Elements
•D Number of studies
•D Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
All key studies are from peer review literature.
Papers are widely available from peer review journals.
Methodology used was presented, but results are difficult to
reproduce.
The focus of the studies was on estimating soil intake rate by
children; studies did not focus on intake rate by adults.
Two of the key studies focused on Dutch children; other
studies used children from specific areas of the U.S.
All the studies were based on primary data.
Studies were conducted after 1980.
Children were not studied long enough to fully characterize day
to day variability.
The basic approach is the only practical way to study soil
intake, but refinements are needed in tracer selection and
matching input with outputs. The more recent studies
corrected the data for sources of the tracers in food. There
are, however, some concerns about absorption of the tracers
into the body and lag time between input and output.
The sample sizes used in the key studies were adequate for
children. However, only few adults have been studied.
The study population may not be representative of the U.S. in
terms of race, socio-economics, and geographical location;
Studies focused on specific areas; two of the studies used
Dutch children.
Day-to-day variability was not very well characterized.
The selection of the population studied may introduce some
bias in the results (i.e., children near a smelter site, volunteers
in nursery school, Dutch children).
Errors may result due to problems with absorption of the
tracers in the body and mismatching inputs and outputs.
There are 7 key studies.
Despite the variability, there is general agreement among
researchers on central estimates of daily intake for children.
Studies were well designed; results were fairly consistent;
sample size was adequate for children and very small for
adults; accuracy of methodology is uncertain; variability cannot
be characterized due to limitations in data collection period.
Insufficient data to recommend upper percentile estimates for
both children and adults.
High
High
Medium
High (for children)
Low (for adults)
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium (for children)
Low (for adults)
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium (for children
- long-term central
estimate)
Low (for adults)
Low (for upper
percentilel
-------
Table 4-22. Summary of Estimates of Soil Ingestion by Children
Mean (ma/day)
Al Si AIR" Ti Y
181 184
230 129
39 82 245.5
64.5b 160b 268.4b
153 154 218 85
154b 483b 170b 65b
122 139 - 271 165
133°
69-1 20d
Average = 1 46 mg/day soil
1 91 mg/day soil and dust
combined
a AIR = Acid Insoluble Residue
b Soil and dust combined
BTM
d LTM: corrected value
Uooer Percentile (ma/davl
Al Si Ti Y
584 578
223 276 1,432 106
478b 653b 1,059b 159b
254 224 279 144
217°
383 mg/day soil
587 mg/day soil and dust
combined
References
Binder etal. 1986
Clausing etal. 1987
Davis etal. 1990
Calabrese et al. 1989
Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a
Stanekand Calabrese, 1995b
Van Wi'jnen et al. 1990
-------
Table 4-23. Summary of Recommended Values for Soil Ingestion
Population Mean Upper Percentile
Children 100mg/daya 400 mg/day
Adults 50 mg/day
Pica child 10 a/day —
200 mg/day may be used as a conservative estimate of the mean (see text).
Study period was short; therefore, these values are not estimates of usual intake.
To be used in acute exposure assessments. Based on only one pica child (Calabrese et al., 1989).
-------
Table 5-1 . Calibration
Panel
Panel 1 - Healthy Outdoor Workers -
15 female, 5 male, age 19-50
Panel 2 - Healthy Elementary School
Students - 5 male, 12 female, age
10-12
Panel 3 - Healthy High School
Students - 7 male, 12 female, age
13-17
Panel 4 - Adult Asthmatics, clinically
mild, moderate, and severe - 15
male, 34 female, age 18-50
Panel 5 - Adult Asthmatics from 2
neighborhoods of contrasting O3 air
quality - 1 0 male, 1 4 female, age 1 9-
46
Panel 6 - Young Asthmatics - 7 male,
6 female, age 11-16
Panel 7 - Construction Workers - 7
male, age 26-34
and Field Protocols for Self-Monitoring of Activities Grouped by Subject Panels
Calibration Protocol
Laboratory treadmill exercise tests, indoor
hallway walking tests at different self-
chosen speeds, 2 outdoor tests consisted
of 1 -hour cycles each of rest, walking, and
jogging.
Outdoor exercises each consisted of 20
minute rest, slow walking, jogging and fast
walking
Outdoor exercises each consisted of 20
minute rest, slow walking, jogging and fast
walking
Treadmill and hallway exercise tests
Treadmill and hallway exercise tests
Laboratory exercise tests on bicycles and
treadmills
Performed similar exercises as Panel 2
and 3, and also performed job-related tests
includina liftina and carrvina a 9-ka pipe.
Field Protocol
3 days in 1 typical summer week (included
most active workday and most active day off);
HR recordings and activity diary during
waking hours.
Saturday, Sunday and Monday (school day) in
early autumn; HR recordings and activity diary
during waking hours and during sleep.
Same as Panel 2, however, no HR recordings
during sleep for most subjects.
1 typical summer week, 1 typical winter week;
hourly activity /health diary during waking
hours; lung function tests 3 times daily; HR
recordings during waking hours on at least 3
days (including most active work day and day
off).
Similar to Panel 4, personal NO2 and acid
exposure monitoring included. (Panels 4 and
5 were studied in different years, and had 1 0
subjects in common).
Similar to Panel 4, summer monitoring for 2
successive weeks, including 2 controlled
exposure studies with few or no observable
respiratory effects.
HR recordings and diary information during 1
typical summer work day.
Source: Linnetal., 1992
-------
Table 5-2. Subject Panel
Inhalation Rates by Mean VR,
Upper Percentiles,
and Self-Estimated Breathing Rates
Inhalation Rates (m
Panel
Healthy
1 - Adults
2 - Elementary School Students
3 - High School Students
7 - Construction Workers0
Asthmatics
4 - Adults
5 - Adults"
6 - Elementary and High School
Students
Na Mean VR
(m3/hrt
20 0.78
17 0.90
19 0.84
7 1.50
49 1 .02
24 1 .20
13 1.20
99th Percentile
VR
2.46
1.98
2.22
4.26
1.92
2.40
2.40
3/hr)
Mean VR at Activity Levels
(m3/hrtb
Slow
0.72
0.84
0.78
1.26
1.02
1.20
1.20
Medium0
1.02
0.96
1.14
1.50
1.68
2.04
1.20
Fast0
3.06
1.14
1.62
1.68
2.46
4.02
1.50
a Number of individuals in each survey panel.
b Some subjects did not report medium and/or fast activity. Group means were calculated from individual means (i.e., give equal
weight to each individual who recorded any time at the indicated activity level).
c Construction workers recorded only on 1 day, mostly during work, while others recorded on > 1 work or school day and > 1 day
off.
d Excluding subjects also in Panel 4.
Source: Linnet al.. 1992.
-------
Table 5-3. Distribution of Predicted IR by Location and Activity Levels for Elementary and High School Students
Inhalation Rates (m3/hr)
Age
(yrs) Student Location
10-12 ELC Indoors
(nd=17)
Outdoors
13-17 HSC Indoors
(nd=19)
Outdoors
%
Activity Level
slow
medium
fast
slow
medium
fast
slow
medium
fast
slow
medium
fast
Recorded
Time"
49.6
23.6
2.4
8.9
11.2
4.3
70.7
10.9
1.4
8.2
7.4
1.4
Mean ± SD
0.84 ± 0.36
0.96 ± 0.42
1 .02 ± 0.60
0.96 ± 0.54
1 .08 ± 0.48
1.1 4 ±0.60
0.78 ± 0.36
0.96 ± 0.42
1 .26 ± 0.66
0.96 ± 0.48
1 .26 ± 0.78
1 .44 ± 1 .08
Percentile Rankings1"
1st 50th 99.9th
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.36
0.24
0.48
0.30
0.42
0.54
0.42
0.48
0.48
0.78
0.84
0.84
0.78
0.96
0.96
0.72
0.84
1.08
0.90
1.08
1.02
a Recorded time averaged about 23 hr per elementary school student and 33 hr. per high school student, over 72-hr.
b Geometric means closely approximated 50th percentiles; geometric standard deviations were 1 .2-1 .3 for HR, 1 .5-1
c EL = elementary school student; HS = high school student.
d N = number of students that participated in survey.
8 Highest single value.
Source: Soieretal.. 1992.
2.34
2.58
3.42
4.32
3.36
3.60
3.24
4.02
6.84°
5.28
5.70
5.94
periods.
8 for VR.
-------
Table 5-4. Average Hours Spent Per Day in a Given Location and Activity Level for Elementary
Student
(ELa. nc=17: HSb. Nc=19) Location
EL Indoor
EL Outdoor
HS Indoor
HS Outdoor
Slow
16.3
2.2
19.5
1.2
Activity Level
Medium
2.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
(EL) and High
Fast
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
School (HS) Students
Total Time Spent
(hrs/dav)
19.6
4.4
21.2
2.7
a Elementary school (EL) students were between 1 0-1 2 years old.
b High school (HS) students were between 1 3-1 7 years old.
c N corresponds to number of school students.
Source: Spier etal., 1992.
-------
Table 5-5. Distribution Patterns of Daily Inhalation Rates for Elementary (EL) and High School (HS) Students Grouped by Activity
Level
Age
Students (yrs) Location
EL(nc=17) 10-12 Indoor
HS
EL Outdoor
(n=19) 13-17 Indoor
HS Outdoor
Activity type"
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavv
Mean IRb
(m3/day)
1st
13.7 2.93
2.8 0.70
0.4 0.096
2.1 0.79
1.84 0.41
0.57 0.24
15.2 5.85
1.4 0.63
0.25 0.11
1.15 0.50
1 .64 0.62
0.29 0.096
Percentile Rankings
50th 99.9th
12.71
2.44
0.34
1.72
1.63
0.48
14.04
1.26
0.22
1.08
1.40
0.20
38.14
7.48
1.37
9.50
5.71
1.80
63.18
6.03
1.37
6.34
7.41
1.19
a For this report, activity type presented in Table 5-2 was redefined as light activity for slow, moderate activity for medium, and
heavy activity for fast.
b Daily inhalation rate was calculated by multiplying the hours spent at each activity level (Table 5-4) by the corresponding
inhalation rate (Table 5-3).
c Number of elementary (EL) and high school students (HS).
Source: Adaoted from Soier et al.. 1992 (Generated usina data from Tables 5-3 and 5-41.
-------
Table 5-6. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hr) by Age Group and Activity Levels for Laboratory Protocols
Age Group
Resting3
Sedentary
Light0
Moderate0
Heavy6
Young Children'
Children11
Adult Females'
Adult Malesk
0.37
0.45
0.43
0.54
0.40
0.47
0.48
0.60
0.65
0.95
1.33
1.45
DNP9
1.74
2.76
1.93
DNP
2.23
2.961
3.63
a Resting defined as lying (see Appendix Table 5A-1 for original data).
b Sedentary defined as sitting and standing (see Appendix Table 5A-1 for original data).
c Light defined as walking at speed level 1.5 - 3.0 mph (see Appendix Table 5A-1 for original data).
d Moderate defined as fast walking (3.3 - 4.0 mph) and slow running (3.5 - 4.0 mph) (see Appendix Table 5A-1 for original data).
e Heavy defined as fast running (4.5 - 6.0 mph) (see Appendix Table 5A-1 for original data).
f Young children (both genders) 3 - 5.9 yrs old.
9 DNP. Group did not perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean comparisons. All young children did not run.
h Children (both genders) 6-12.9 yrs old.
' Adult females defined as adolescent, young to middle aged, and older adult females.
' Older adults not included in mean value since they did not perform running protocols at particular speeds.
k Adult males defined as adolescent, young to middle aged, and older adult males.
Source: Adapted from Adams, 1993.
-------
Table 5-7. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hr) by Age Group and
Activity Levels in Field Protocols
Age Group Light3 Sedentary Moderate
Young Childrend
Children'
Adult Females9
Adult Males1
DNPe
DNP
1.10h
1.40
DNP
DNP
0.51
0.62
0.68
1.07
DNP
1.78j
a Light activity was defined as car maintenance (males), housework (females),
and yard work (females) (see Appendix Table 5A-2 for original data).
b Sedentary activity was defined as car driving and riding (both genders) (see
Appendix Table 5A-2 for original data).
c Moderate activity was defined as mowing (males); wood working (males);
yard work (males); and play (children) (see Appendix Table 5A-2 for original
data).
d Young children (both genders) = 3-5.9 yrs old.
e DNP. Group did not perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate
mean comparisons.
f Children (both genders) = 6-12.9 yrs old.
9 Adult females defined as adolescent, young to middle aged, and older adult
females.
h Older adults not included in mean value since they did not perform this
activity.
' Adult males defined as adolescent, young to middle aged, and older adult
males.
1 Adolescents not included in mean value since they did not perform this
activity.
Source: Adams, 1993.
-------
Table 5-8. Distributions of Individual and Group Inhalation/Ventilation Rate for Outdoor Workers
Ventilation
Rate (VR) (m3/hr)
Percentile
Population Group and Subgroup"
All Subjects (nb = 19)
Job
GCW7Laborers (n=5)
Iron Workers (n=3)
Carpenters (n=11)
Site
Medical Office Site (n=7)
Hospital Site (n=1 2)
Mean ± SD
1 .68 ± 0.72
1 .44 ± 0.66
1 .62 ± 0.66
1 .86 ± 0.78
1 .38 ± 0.66
1 .86 ± 0.78
1
0.66
0.48
0.60
0.78
0.60
0.72
50
1.62
1.32
1.56
1.74
1.20
1.80
99
3.90
3.66
3.24
4.14
3.72
3.96
a Each group or subgroup mean was calculated from individual means, not from pooled data.
b n = number of individuals performing specific jobs or number of individuals at survey sites.
c GCW - general construction worker.
Source: Linn etal., 1993.
-------
Table 5-9. Individual Mean Inhalation Rate (m3/hr) by Self-Estimated Breathing Rate or Job Activity Category for Outdoor Workers
Self-Estimated Job Activity Category (m3/hr)
Breathing Rate (m3/hr)
Population Group and Subgroup Slow Med Fast Sit/Std Walk
All Subjects (n=1 9) 1.44 1.86 2.04 1.56 1.80
Job
GCW/Laborers (n=5) 1.20 1.56 1.68 1.26 1.44
Iron Workers (n=3) 1.38 1.86 2.10 1.62 1.74
Carpenters (n=11) 1.62 2.04 2.28 1.62 1.92
Site
Office Site (n=7) 1.14 1.44 1.62 1.14 1.38
Hospital Site (n=1 2) 1.62 2.16 2.40 1.80 2.04
Carry Trade"
2.10 1.92
1 .74 1 .56
1 .98 1 .92
2.28 2.04
1 .68 1 .44
2.34 2.16
a GCW - general construction worker
b Trade - "Working at Trade" (i.e., tasks specific to the individual's job classification)
Source: Linn et al., 1993
-------
Table 5-10. Comparisons of Estimated Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) with Average Food-Energy Intakes for
Individuals Sampled in the 1977-78 MFCS
Cohort/Age Body Weight
(years)
Children
Under 1
1 to 2
3 to 5
6 to 8
Mates
9 to 11
12 to 14
15to18
19 to 22
23 to 34
35 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 74
75 +
Females
9 to 11
12 to 14
15to18
19 to 22
23 to 34
35 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 74
75 +
BMRa
kg MJ d"1b
7.6
13
18
26
36
50
66
74
79
82
80
76
71
36
49
56
59
62
66
67
66
62
a Calculated from the appropriate age anc
b MJ d"1 - mega joules/day
c kcal d"1 - kilo calories/day
Source: Layton, 1993.
1.74
3.08
3.69
4.41
5.42
6.45
7.64
7.56
7.87
7.59
7.49
6.18
5.94
4.91
5.64
6.03
5.69
5.88
5.78
5.82
5.26
5.11
gender-based
kcal d"1c
416
734
881
1053
1293
1540
1823
1804
1879
1811
1788
1476
1417
1173
1347
1440
1359
1403
1380
1388
1256
1220
BMR equations given
Energy Intake
MJd"1
3.32
5.07
6.14
7.43
8.55
9.54
10.8
10.0
10.1
9.51
9.04
8.02
7.82
7.75
7.72
7.32
6.71
6.72
6.34
6.40
5.99
5.94
in Appendix Table
(EFD)
kcal d"1
793
1209
1466
1774
2040
2276
2568
2395
2418
2270
2158
1913
1866
1849
1842
1748
1601
1603
1514
1528
1430
1417
5A-4.
Ratio
EFD/BMR
1.90
1.65
1.66
1.68
1.58
1.48
1.41
1.33
1.29
1.25
1.21
1.30
1.32
1.58
1.37
1.21
1.18
1.14
1.10
1.10
1.14
1.16
-------
Table 5-11. Daily Inhalation Rates Calculated from Food-Energy Intakes
Daily Inhalation
Rate3
Sleep
MET" Value
Inhalation Rates
Inactive0 Active0
Cohort/Age A/ears')
Ff
Children
1 -2
3-5
6-8
Males
9-11
12- 14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51 -64
65-74
75+
Lifetime average g
Females
3
3
4
4
11
16
14
10
1
4.5
6.8
8.3
10
14
15
17
16
16
15
15
13
13
14
11
11
10
10
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.6
2.7
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.35
4.16
4.98
5.95
7.32
8.71
10.31
10.21
10.62
10.25
10.11
8.34
8.02
6.35
9.15
10.96
13.09
18.3
19.16
21.65
19.4
19.12
18.45
17.19
15.01
15.24
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51 -64
65-74
75+
Lifetime averaae g
3
3
4
4
11
16
14
10
1
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
9.7
9.6
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
6.63
7.61
8.14
7.68
7.94
7.80
7.86
7.10
6.90
16.58
15.20
13.84
12.29
12.7
11.7
11.8
10.65
11.04
Daily inhalation rate was calculated by multiplying the EFD values (see Table 5-10) by H x VQ x (m31,000 L1) for subjects under 9 years of
age and by 1.2 x H x VQ x (m31,000 L1) (for subjects 9 years of age and older (see text for explanation).
Where:
EFD = Food energy intake (Kcal/day) or (MJ/day)
H = Oxygen uptake = 0.05 LO2/KJ or 0.21 LO2/Kcal
VQ = Ventilation equivalent = 27 = geometric mean of VQs (unitless)
MET = Metabolic equivalent
Inhalation rate for inactive periods was calculated as BMR x H x VQ x (d 1,440 min"1) and for active periods by multiplying inactive inhalation
rate by F (See footnote f); BMR values are from Table 5-10.
Where:
BMR = Basal metabolic rate (MJ/day) or (kg/hr)
L is the number of years for each age cohort.
For individuals 9 years of age and older, A was calculated by multiplying the ratio for EFD/BMR (unitless) (Table 5-10) by the factor 1.2 (see
text for explanation).
F = (24A- S)/(24 - S) (unitless), ratio of the rate of energy expenditure during active hours to the estimated BMR (unitless)
Where:
S = Number of hours spent sleeping each day (hrs)
Lifetime average was calculated by multiplying individual inhalation rate by corresponding L values summing the products across cohorts and
dividing the result by 75, the total of the cohort age spans.
Source: Lavton. 1993.
-------
Table 5-12. Daily Inhalation Rates Obtained from the Ratios
of Total Energy Expenditure to Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR)
Gender/Age
(yrs)
Body Weight"
(kg)
BMRb
(MJ/day)
VQ
Ac
H
(m302/MJ)
Inhalation Rate, VE
(m3/day)d
Male
0.5-<3 14 3.4 27 1.6 0.05 7.3
3-<10 23 4.3 27 1.6 0.05 9.3
10-<18 53 6.7 27 1.7 0.05 15
18-<30 76 7.7 27 1.59 0.05 17
30-<60 80 7.5 27 1.59 0.05 16
60+ 75 6.1 27 1.59 0.05 13
Female
0.5 - <3
3-<10
10-<18
18-<30
30 - <60
60+
11
23
50
62
68
67
2.6
4.0
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.3
27
27
27
27
27
27
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.38
1.38
1.38
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
5.6
8.6
12
11
11
9.9
* Body weight was based on the average weights for age/gender cohorts in the U.S. population.
b The BMRs (basal metabolic rate) are calculated using the respective body weights and BMR equations (see Appendix Table 5A-4).
c The values of the BMR multiplier (EFD/BMR) for those 18 years and older were derived from the Basiotis et al. (1989) study: Male
= 1.59, Female = 1.38. For males and females under 10 years old, the mean BMR multiplier used was 1.6. For males and females
aged 10 to < 18 years, the mean values for A given in Table 5-11 for 12-14 years and 15-18 years, age brackets for males and
females were used: male = 1.7 and female = 1.5.
d Inhalation rate = BMR x A x H x VQ; VQ = ventilation equivalent and H = oxygen uptake.
Source: Layton, 1993.
-------
Table 5-13. Daily Inhalation Rates Based on Time-Activity Survey
Age (yrs)
and Activity MET
20-34
Sleep 1
Light 1 .5
Moderate 4
Hard 6
Very Hard 10
Totals
35-49
Sleep 1
Light 1 .5
Moderate 4
Hard 6
Very Hard 10
Totals
50-64
Sleep 1
Light 1 .5
Moderate 4
Hard 6
Very Hard 10
Totals
65-74
Sleep 1
Light 1 .5
Moderate 4
Hard 6
Very Hard 10
Totals
Males
Body
^W (*) "Wf (MJTday) (rrSay) (rX)
76 320 7.2 2.3 3.1 0.4
76 320 14.5 7.0 9.4 0.7
76 320 1.2 1.5 2.1 1.7
76 320 0.64 1.2 1.7 2.6
76 320 0.23 0.74 1.0 4.3
24 17 17
81 314 7.1 2.2 3.0 0.4
81 314 14.6 6.9 9.3 0.6
81 314 1.4 1.8 2.4 1.7
81 314 0.59 1.1 1.5 2.5
81 314 0.29 0.91 1.2 4.2
24 13 17
80 312 7.3 2.3 3.1 0.4
80 312 14.9 7.0 9.4 0.6
80 312 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.7
80 312 0.50 0.94 1.3 2.5
80 312 0.14 0.44 0.6 4.2
24 12 16
75 256 7.3 1.9 2.5 0.3
75 256 14.9 5.7 7.7 0.5
75 256 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.4
75 256 0.5 0.8 1.0 2.1
75 256 0.14 0.36 0.48 3.5
24 9.8 13
Body
Weight BMRb
a (KJ/hr)
(kg)
62 283
62 283
62 283
62 283
62 283
67 242
67 242
67 242
67 242
67 242
68 244
68 244
68 244
68 244
68 244
67 221
67 221
67 221
67 221
67 221
Females
Duration0
(hr/day)
7.2
14.5
1.2
0.64
0.23
24
7.1
14.6
1.4
0.59
0.29
24
7.3
14.9
1.1
0.5
0.14
24
7.3
14.9
1.1
0.5
0.14
24
Ed
(MJ/day)
2.0
6.2
1.4
1.1
0.65
11
1.7
5.3
1.4
0.9
0.70
9.9
1.8
5.4
1.1
0.7
0.34
9.4
1.6
4.9
1.0
0.7
0.31
8.5
VEe VEf
(m3/day) (m3/hr)
2.8
8.3
1.8
1.5
0.88
15
2.3
7.2
1.8
1.2
0.95
13
2.4
7.4
1.4
1.0
0.46
13
2.2
6.7
1.3
0.9
0.42
11
a Body weights were obtained from Najjar and Rowland (1 987)
b The basal metabolic rates (BMRs) for the age/gender cohorts were calculated using the respective body weights and the BMR equations (Appendix Table
c Duration of activities were obtained from Salliset al. (1985)
d Energy expenditure rate (E) was calculated by multiplying BMR (KJ/hr) x (MJ/1 000 KJ) x duration (hr/day) x MET
e VE (inhalation rate) was calculated by multiplying E (MJ/day) by H(0.05 m3 oxygen/MJ) by VQ (27)
f VE (m3/hr) was calculated by multiplying BMR (KJ/hr) x (MJ/1 000 KJ) x MET x H (0.05 m3 oxygen/MJ) x VQ (27)
Source: Layton, 1993.
0.4
0.6
1.5
2.3
3.8
0.3
0.5
1.3
2.0
3.2
0.3
0.5
1.3
2.0
3.3
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.8
3.0
5A-4)
-------
Table 5-14. Inhalation Rates for Short-Term Exposures
Rest Sedentary
Gender/Age (yrs)
Male
0.5 - <3
3-<10
10-<18
18-<30
30 - <60
60+
Female
0.5 - <3
3-<10
10-<18
18-<30
30 - <60
60+
Weight
(kg)a
14
23
53
76
80
75
11
23
50
62
68
67
BMRb
(MJ/day)
3.40
4.30
6.70
7.70
7.50
6.10
2.60
4.00
5.70
5.90
5.80
5.30
1
0.19
0.24
0.38
0.43
0.42
0.34
0.14
0.23
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.30
a Body weights were based on average weights for age/gender cohorts of the U.S
1.2
0.23
0.29
0.45
0.52
0.50
0.41
0.17
0.27
0.38
0.40
0.39
0.36
Activity Type
Light Moderate Heavy
MET (BMR Multiplier)
2°
Inhalation Rate fmVhrl''9
0.38
0.49
0.78
0.84
0.84
0.66
0.29
0.45
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.59
4d
0.78
0.96
1.50
1.74
1.68
1.38
0.60
0.90
1.26
1.32
1.32
1.20
10e
1.92
2.40
3.78
4.32
4.20
3.42
1.44
2.28
3.18
3.30
3.24
3.00
population
b The BMRs for the age/gender cohorts were calculated using the respective body weights and the BMR equations (Appendix Table 5A-4).
0 Range of 1.5-2.5.
d Range of 3 - 5.
e Range of >5 - 20.
f The inhalation rate was calculated by multiplying BMR (MJ/day)
9 Original data were presented
Source: Lavton. 1993.
in L/min.
x H (0.05 L/KJ) x MET x VQ (27) x (d/1 ,440 min)
Conversion to m3/hr was obtained as follows:
60
min „ m3 „ L
hr lOOOL min
-------
Table 5-15. Daily Inhalation Rates Estimated From Daily Activities3
Inhalation Rate (IR)
Subject Resting Light Activity Daily Inhalation
M
(m3/day)
(m3/hr) (m3/hr) Rate (DIR)b
Adult Man
Adult Woman
Child(IOyrs)
Infant (1 yr)
Newborn
0.45
0.36
0.29
0.09
0.03
1.2
1.14
0.78
0.25
0.09
22.8
21.1
14.8
3.76
0.78
a Assumptions made were based on 8 hours resting and 16 hours light
activity for adults and children (10 yrs); 14 hours resting and 10 hours light
activity for infants (1 yr); 23 hours resting and 1 hour light activity for
newborns.
1 K
DIR ' — j IR^
IR, = Corresponding inhalation rate at ith activity
t, = Hours spent during the ith activity
k = Number of activity periods
T = Total time of the exposure period (i.e., a day)
Source: ICRP, 1981
-------
Table 5-16. Summary of Human Inhalation Rates for Men, Women, and Children by Activity Level (mVhour)"
Resting" n Lightd n Moderate8 n Heavy'
Adult male
Adult female
Average adult8
Child, age 6 years
Child, age 10 years
454
595
8
10
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
102
786
16
40
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
102
106
4
29
2.5
1.6
2.1
2.0
3.2
267
211
5
43
4.8
2.9
3.9
2.3
3.9
" Values of inhalation rates for males, females, and children (male and female) presented in this table represent the mean of values reported for
each activity level in 1985. (See Appendix Table 5A-7 for a detailed listing of the data from U.S. EPA, 1985.)
b n = number of observations at each activity level.
8 Includes watching television, reading, and sleeping.
d Includes most domestic work, attending to personal needs and care, hobbies, and conducting minor indoor repairs and home improvements.
8 Includes heavy indoor cleanup, performance of major indoor repairs and alterations, and climbing stairs.
' Includes vigorous physical exercise and climbing stairs carrying a load.
s Derived by taking the mean of the adult male and adult female values for each activity level.
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA, 1985.
-------
Table 5-17. Activity Pattern Data Aggregated for Three Microenvironments by
Activity Level for all Age Groups
Microenvironment
Indoors
Outdoors
In Transportation Vehicle
Source: Adapted from U.S.
Average Hours Per Day in Each
Activity Level Microenvironment at Each Activity
Level
Resting
Light
Moderate
Heavy
TOTAL
Resting
Light
Moderate
Heavy
TOTAL
Resting
Light
Moderate
Heavy
TOTAL
EPA, 1985.
9.82
9.82
0.71
0.098
20.4
0.505
0.505
0.65
0.12
1.77
0.86
0.86
0.05
0.0012
1.77
-------
Table 5-18. Summary of Daily Inhalation Rates Grouped by
Age and Activity level
Daily Inhalation Rate (m3/day)a Total Daily IRb
SubjectResting Light Moderate Heavy
Adult Male 7.83 8.95 3.53 1.05 21.4
Adult Female 3.35 5.59 2.26 0.64 11.8
Adult Average0 5.60 6.71 2.96 0.85 16
Child 4.47 8.95 2.82 0.50 16.74
(age 6)
Child 4.47 11.19 4.51 0.85 21.02
(age 10)
a Daily inhalation rate was calculated using the following equation:
1 K
IR • 1 ^ |RA
IRj = inhalation rate at ith activity (Table 5-18)
tj = hours spent per day during ith activity (Table 5-19)
k = number of activity periods
T = total time of the exposure period (e.g., a day)
b Total daily inhalation rate was calculated by summing the specific activity (resting,
light, moderate, heavy) daily inhalation rate.
Source: Generated using the data from U.S. EPA (1985) as shown in Tables 5-16
and 5-17.
-------
Table 5-1 9. Distribution Pattern of Predicted VR and EVR (equivalent ventilation rate) for 20 Outdoor Workers
VR(m
Self-Reported Arithmetic
Activity Level Nc Mean ± SD
Sleep
Slow
Medium
Fast
18,597 0.42 ±
41 ,745 0.71 ±
3,898 0.84 ±
572 2.63 ±
0.16
0.4
0.47
2.16
3/hr)a
Geometric
Mean ± SD
0.39 ±
0.65 ±
0.76 ±
1.87±
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.14
EVRb (m3/hr/m2 body surface)
Arithmetic Geometric
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
0.23 ±
0.38 ±
0.48 ±
1.42±
0.08
0.20
0.24
1.20
0.22 ±
0.35 ±
0.44 ±
1.00±
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.14
Percentile Rankings, VR
Sleep
Slow
Medium
Fast
Sleep
Slow
Medium
Fast
1
0.18
0.30
0.36
0.42
1
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.24
5
0.18
0.36
0.42
0.54
5
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.30
10
0.24
0.36
0.48
0.60
10
0.12
0.24
0.30
0.36
50
0.36
0.66
0.72
1.74
Percentile
50
0.24
0.36
0.42
0.90
90
0.66
1.08
1.32
5.70
Rankings, EVR
90
0.36
0.54
0.72
3.24
95
0.72
1.32
1.68
6.84
95
0.36
0.66
0.90
3.72
a Data presented by Shamoo et al. (1991) in liters/minute were converted to m3/hr.
b EVR = VR per square meter of body surface area.
c Number of minutes with valid appearing heart rate records and corresponding daily records of breathing
Source: Shamoo et al.. 1 991
99
0.90
1.98
2.64
9.18
99
0.48
1.08
1.38
4.86
rate.
99.9
1.20
4.38
3.84
10.26
99.9
0.60
2.40
2.28
5.52
-------
Table 5-20. Distribution Pattern of Inhalation Rate by Location and Activity Type for 20 Outdoor Workers
Self-reported Inhalation rate (m3/hr)b
Location Activity Type3 Activity Level % of Time ± SD % of Avg.c
Indoor Essential Sleep 28.7 0.42 ±0.12 69 ±15
Slow 29.5 0.72 ±0.36 106 ±43
Medium 2.4 0.72 ± 0.30 129 ±38
Fast 000
Indoor Non-essential Slow 20.4 0.66 ± 0.36 98 ± 36
Medium 0.9 0.78 ± 0.30 120 ±50
Fast 0.2 1.86 ±0.96 278 ±124
Outdoor Essential Slow 11.3 0.78 ± 0.36 117 ±42
Medium 1.8 0.84 ±0.54 130 ±56
Fast 000
Outdoor
Non-essential
Slow
Medium
Fast
3.2
0.8
0.7
0.90 ± 0.66
1 .26 ± 0.60
2.82 ± 2.28
136 ±90
213 ±91
362 ± 275
a Essential activities include income-related, work, household chores, child care, study and other school activities, personal care,
and destination-oriented travel; Non-essential activities include sports and active leisure, passive leisure, some travel, and social or
civic activities.
b Data presented by Shamoo et al. (1991) in liters/mintue were converted to m3/hr.
c Statistic was calculated by converting each VR for a given subject to a percentage of her/his overall average.
Source: Adapted from Shamoo et al.. (19911.
-------
Table 5-21. Actual Inhalation Rates Measured at
Four Ventilation Levels
Mean Inhalation Rate3 (m3/hr)a
Subject Location Very
_ Low Medium Heavy _ Heavy
All subjects Indoor 1.23 1.83 3.13 4.13
(Treadmill
post)
Outdoor 0.88 1.96 2.93 4.90
_ Total _ 0.93 1.92 3.01 _ 4.80
a Original data were presented in L/min. Conversion to m3/hr was obtained as
follows:
™
hr 1000L min
Source: Adapted from Shamoo et al., 1992
-------
Table 5-22. Confidence in Inhalation Rate Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
•0 Peer Review
•D Accessibility
•D Reproducibility
•D Focus on factor of interest
•D Data pertinent to U.S.
•D Primary data
•D Currency
•D Adequacy of data collection period
•D Validity of approach
•D Representativeness of the population
•D Characterization of variability
•D Lack of bias in study design
•D Measurement error
Other Elements
•D Number of studies
•D Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Studies are from peer reviewed journal articles and an EPA peer High
reviewed report.
Studies in journals have wide circulation. High
EPA reports are available from the National Technical Information
Service.
Information on questionnaires and interviews were not provided. Medium
Studies focused on ventilation rates and factors influencing them. High
Studies conducted in the U.S. High
Both data collection and re-analysis of existing data occurred. Medium
Recent studies were evaluated. High
Effort was made to collect data over time. High
Measurements were made by indirect methods. Medium
An effort has been made to consider age and gender, but not Medium
systematically.
An effort has been made to address age and gender, but not High
systematically.
Subjects were selected randomly from volunteers and measured in the High
same way.
Measurement error is well documented by statistics, but procedures Medium
measure factor indirectly.
Five key studies and six relevant studies were evaluated.
There is general agreement among researchers using different High
experimental methods.
Several studies exist that attempt (9 estimate inhalation rates High
according to age, gender and activity.
-------
Table 5-23. Summary of Recommended Values for Inhalation
Population
Lona-term Exposures
Infants
<1 year
Children
1-2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
9-1 1 years
males
females
12-1 4 years
males
females
1 5-1 8 years
males
females
Adults(19-65+yrs)
females
males
Short-term Exposures
Adults
Rest
Sedentary Activities
Light Activities
Moderate Activities
Heavy Activities
Children
Rest
Sedentary Activities
Light Activities
Moderate Activities
Heavy Activities
Outdoor Workers
Hourly Average
Slow Activities
Moderate Activities
Heavy Activities
Note: See Tables 5-25. 5-26. and
Mean Upper Percentile
4.5 m3/day
6.8 m3/day
8.3 m3/day
1 0 m3/day
1 4 m3/day
1 3 m3/day
1 5 m3/day
1 2 m3/day
1 7 m3/day
1 2 m3/day
11.3 m3/day
15.2m3/day
0.4 m3/hr
0.5 m3/hr
1.0 m3/hr
1.6 m3/hr
3.2 m3/hr
0.3 m3/hr
0.4 m3/hr
1 .0 m3/hr
1 .2 m3/hr
1 .9 m3/hr
1 .3 m3/hr 3.3 m3/hr
1.1 m3/hr
1 .5 m3/hr
2.5 m3/hr
5-27 for reference studies.
-------
Table 5-24. Summary of Inhalation Rate Studies
Studv
KEY INHALATION
Adams, 1993
Layton, 1993
Linnetal., 1992
Linnetal., 1993
Spier etal., 1992
Pooulation Surveyed
RATE STUDIES:
n=160, ages 6-77; n = 40, ages 3-12.
MFCS survey: n«30,000; NHANES survey:
n«20,000
Time Activity survey: n~2,126
Panel 1-20 healthy outdoor workers, ages
19-50; Panel 2-17 healthy elementary
school students, ages 10-12; Panel 3 - 19
healthy high school students, ages 13-17;
Panel 4-49 adult asthmatics, ages 18-50;
Panel 5-24 adult asthmatics, ages 19-46;
Panel 6-13 young asthmatics, ages 11-
16; Panel 7-7 construction workers, ages
26-34.
n=19 construction workers.
n=36 students, ages 10-17.
Survey Time Period
Three 25 min phases of resting
protocol in the lab 6 mins of active
protocols in the lab. 30 min
phases of field protocols repeated
once.
Late spring and early autumn. 3
diary days. Construction workers'
diary day.
(Mid-July-early November, 1991)
Diary recordings before work,
during work and break times
(Late September - October)
Involved 3 consecutive days of
diary recording
Data Generated
Mean values of IR for adult
males and females and children
by their activity levels.
Daily IRs; IRs at 5 activity levels;
and IR for short-term exposures
at 5 activity levels.
Mean and upper estimates of IR;
Mean IR at 3 activity levels.
Distribution patterns of hourly IR
by activity level.
Distribution patterns of hourly IR
by activity levels and location
Limitations/Advantaaes
HR correlated poorly with IR.
Reported food biases in the dietary
surveys employed; time activity
survey was based on recall.
Small sample size; Calibration data
not obtained overfull HR range;
activities based on short-term diary
data.
Small sample population size;
breathing rates subjective in nature;
activities based on short-term diary
data.
Activities based on short-term diary
data; self-estimated breathing rate
by younger population was biased;
small sample population size.
RELEVANT INHALATION RATE STUDIES:
ICRP, 1974
Shamoo et al.,
1990
Shamoo et al.,
1991
Shamoo et al.,
1992
U.S. EPA, 1985
Based on data from other references
n=9 volunteer workers ages 21-37, n=20
outdoor workers, 19-50 years old.
n=20 outdoor workers, ages 19-50
n=9 non-sedentary subjects, ages 21-37.
Based on data from several literature
sources
"
Involved 3-min indoor session/two
3-hr outdoor session at 4 activity
levels
Diary recordings of three 24-hr.
periods within a week.
3-min. intervals of indoor
exercises/two 3-hr outdoor
exercise sessions at 4 activity
levels.
Reference daily IR for adult
females, adult males, children
(10 yrs), and infant (1 yr)
No IR data presented.
Distribution patterns of IR and
EVR by activity levels and
location.
Actual measured ventilation
rates presented.
Estimated IR for adult males,
adult females and children (ages
6 and 10) by various activity
levels.
Validity and accuracy of data set
employed not defined; IR was
estimated not measured.
No useful data were presented for
dose assessments studies.
Small sample size; short-term diary
data.
Small sample size; training
approach may not be cost-effective;
VR obtained for outdoor workers
which are sensitive subpopulation.
Validity and accuracy of data set
employed not defined; IR was
estimated not measured.
Note: IR = inhalation rate: HR = heart rate: EVR = eauivalent ventilation rate.
-------
Table 5-25
. Summary of Adult
Inhalation Rates for Short-Term
Exposure Studies
Arithmetic Mean (m3/hr)
Rest
0.5
--
0.4
0.4
--
Sedentary
0.5
0.6
0.4
--
--
Activity Level
Light
1.4
1.2
0.7
0.6
1.0
Moderate
2.4
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.6
High
3.3
--
3.6
3.0
3.0
Reference
Adams, 1993 (Lab protocols)
Adams, 1993 (Field protocols)
Layton, 1993 (Short-term
exposure)
Layton, 1993 (3rd approach)
Linnetal., 1992
-------
Table 5-26. Summary of Children's (18 years old or less) Inhalation Rates for Long-Term Exposure Studies3
Age Males
less than 1 yr
1-2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
9-11 years 14
12-1 4 years 15
15-1 8 years 17
Arithmetic Mean (m3/day)
Males and
Females Females
4.5
6.8
8.3
10
13
12
12
Reference
Layton, 1993
Layton, 1993
Layton, 1993
Layton, 1993
Layton, 1993
Layton, 1993
Layton, 1993
a Layton, 1993 1st approach.
-------
Table 5-27. Summary of Children's Inhalation Rates for Short-Term Exposure Studies
Arithmetic Mean (m3/hr)
Activity Level
Rest Sedentary Light
0.4 0.4 0.8
--
0.2 0.3 0.5
1.8
0.8
Moderate
--
0.9
1.0
2.0
1.0
High
--
--
2.5
2.2
11
Reference
Adams, 1993 (Lab protocols)
Adams, 1993 (Field protocols)
Layton, 1993 (Short-term data)
Spier etal., 1992 (10-1 2 yrs)
Linnetal., 1992 (10-12 yrs)
-------
Table 5A-1. Mean Minute Ventilation (VF, L/min) by Group and Activity for Laboratory Protocols
Activity
Young Children3
Children
Adult Females
Adult Males
Lying
Sitting
Standing
Walking
1.5 mph
1.875 mph
2.0 mph
2.25 mph
2.5 mph
3.0 mph
3.3 mph
4.0 mph
6.19
6.48
6.76
10.25
10.53
DNP
11.68
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
7.51
7.28
8.49
DNP
DNP
14.13
DNP
15.58
17.79
DNP
DNP
7.12
7.72
8.36
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
20.32
24.20
DNP
DNP
8.93
9.30
10.65
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
24.13
DNP
27.90
36.53
Running
3.5 mph
4.0 mph
4.5 mph
5.0 mph
6.0 mph
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
26.77
31.35
37.22
DNP
DNP
DNP
46.03b
47.86b
50.78b
DNP
DNP
DNP
57.30
58.45
65.66b
3 Young Children, male and female 3-5.9 yr olds; Children, male and female 6-12.9 yr olds; Adult Females,
adolescent, young to middle-aged, and older adult females; Adult Males, adolescent, young to middle-aged,
and older adult males; DNP, group did not perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean
comparisons
b Older adults not included in the mean value since they did not perform running protocol at particular speeds.
Source: Adams. 1993.
-------
Table 5A-2. Mean Minute Ventilation (VF, L/min) by Group and Activity for Field Protocols
Activity
Young
Children3
Children
Adult Females
Adult Males
Play
Car Driving
Car Riding
Yardwork
Housework
Car Maintenance
Mowing
Woodwork! na
11.31
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
17.89
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
8.95
8.19
19.238
17.38
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
10.79
9.83
26.07b/31.89c
DNP
23.21d
36.55e
24.42e
3 Young Children, male and female 3-5.9 yr olds; Children, male and female 6-12.9 yr olds; Adult Females,
adolescent, young to middle-aged, and older adult females; Adult Males, adolescent, young to middle-aged,
and older adult males; DNP, group did not perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean
comparisons;
b Mean value for young to middle-aged adults only
c Mean value for older adults only
d Older adults not included in the mean value since they did not perform this activity.
e Adolescents not included in mean value since they did not perform this activity
Source: Adams. 1993.
-------
Table 5A-3. Characteristics of Individual Subjects: Anthropometric Data, Job Categories, Calibration Results
Subj. # Age (years) Ht. (in.)
1761
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1778
1779
1780
1781
Mean
SD
26 71
29 63
32 71
30 73
31 67
34 74
32 69
32 77
26 70
39 66
32 71
39 69
23 68
42 67
29 70
35 76
40 70
37 75
38 65
33 70
5 4
Wt. (Ib.)
180
135
165
145
170
220
155
230
180
150
260
170
150
150
180
220
175
242
165
181
36
a Abbreviations are interpreted as follows. Ethnic Group:
Ethnic Group"
Wht
Asn
Blk
Wht
His
Wht
Blk
Wht
Wht
Wht
Wht
Wht
His
Wht
His
Ind
Wht
His
His
Asn = Asian-Pacific
Job"
GCW
GCW
Car
GCW
Car
Car
GCW
Car
Car
Car
Car
Irn
Car
Irn
Car
Car
Car
Irn
Lab
Blk = Black,
Site0
Ofc
Ofc
Ofc
Ofc
Ofc
Ofc
Ofc
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
Hosp
His = Hispanic
Calibration
HR
Range"
69-108
80-112
56-87
66-126
75-112
59-114
62-152
69-132
63-106
88-118
83-130
77-128
68-139
76-118
68-152
70-129
72-140
68-120
66-121
70-123
8-16
, Ind = American
r2e
91
95
95
97
89
98
95
99
89
91
97
95
98
88
99
94
99
98
89
94
04
Indian, Wht = White
b
c
d
e
Job: Car = carpenter, GCW = general construction worker, Irn = ironworker,
Site
HR
r2 =
Hosp = hospital buidling, Ofc =
Lab = laborer
medical office complex. Calibration data
range = range of heart rates in calibration study
coefficient of determination (proportion of ventilation
conditions, using quadratic prediction
Source:
Linnetal.. 1993.
equation).
rate variability explainable by heart rate variability
under calibration-study
-------
Table 5A-4. Statistics of the Age/Gender Cohorts Used to Develop Regression Equations for Predicting Basal Metabolic Rates
(BMR)
Gender/Age BMR
(y) MJ d"1
Mates
Under 3 1.51
3to<10 4.14
10 to < 18 5.86
18to<30 6.87
30 to < 60 6.75
60 + 5.59
Females
Under 3 1 .54
3 to < 10 3.85
10 to < 18 5.04
18to<30 5.33
30 to < 60 5.62
60 + 4.85
±SD
0.918
0.498
1.171
0.843
0.872
0.928
0.915
0.493
0.780
0.721
0.630
0.605
cva
0.61
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.13
0.17
0.59
0.13
0.15
0.14
0.11
0.12
Body
Weight
(kg)
6.6
21
42
63
64
62
6.9
21
38
53
61
56
Nb
162
338
734
2879
646
50
137
413
575
829
372
38
BMR Equation0
0.249 bw- 0.1 27
0.095 bw + 2.1 10
0.074 bw + 2.754
0.063 bw + 2.896
0.048 bw + 3.653
0.049 bw + 2.459
0.244 bw- 0.1 30
0.085 bw + 2.033
0.056 bw + 2.898
0.062 bw + 2.036
0.034 bw + 3.538
0.038 bw + 2.755
rd
0.95
0.83
0.93
0.65
0.6
0.71
0.96
0.81
0.8
0.73
0.68
0.68
a Coefficient of variation (SD/mean)
b N = number of subjects
c Body weight (bw) in kg
d coefficient of correlation
Source: Lavton. 1993.
-------
Table 5A-5. Selected Ventilation Values During Different Activity Levels Obtained From Various Literature Sources
Col.
Line
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
Subject
Adult
Man
1 .7 m2 SA
30y; 1 70 cm L
20-33 y
Woman
30 y; 1 60 cm L
20-25 y; 165.8cm L
Pregnant (8th mo)
Adolescent
male, 14-16y
male, 14-15y
female, 14-16y
female, 14-15y; 164.9cm L
Children
1 0 y; 1 40 cm L
males, 10-11 y
males, 10-11 y; 140.6cm L
females, 4-6 y
females, 4-6 y; 1 1 1 .6 cm L
Infant, 1 y
Newborn
20 hrs-1 3 wk
9.6 hrs
6.6 days
W = body weights referable to the dimension
2
W(kg)
68.5
70.4
54
60.3
59.4
56
36.5
32.5
20.8
18.4
2.5
2.5-5.3
3.6
3.7
quoted in column
f
12
12
15
12
15
16
16
15
16
30
34
3
Resting
VT
750
500
500
340
400
650
330
300
300
48
15
4
Light Activity
V* f VT V*
7.4 17 1670 29
6
7.5 16 1250 20
4.5 19 860 16
6 20 940 19
10
5.2
4.5
4.8 24 600 14
1.4"
0.5
5
6
Heavy Work Maximal Work
f VT V* f
21 2030 43
40
30 880 25
46
53
52
58
61
70
66
Exercise
VT
3050
2100
2520
1870
1330
1050
600
520
68b 51a'b
25
29
1;f
21
21
= frequency
0.5
0.6
(breaths/min); VT = tidal volume (ml);
V* = minute volume (l/min); SA =
surface area
During
V*
111
90
113
88
71
61
40
34
3.5b
cm L =
length/height; y = years of age; wk = week.
a Calculated from V* = fxVT.
b Crying.
Source:
ICRP. 1981.
-------
Table 5A-6. Estimated Minute Ventilation Associated with Activity Level for Average Male Adult
Level of work
Light
Light
Light
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Heavy
Heavy
Very heavy
Very heavy
Severe
L/min
13
19
25
30
35
40
55
63
72
85
100+
Representative activities
Level walking at 2 mph; washing clothes
Level walking at 3 mph; bowling; scrubbing floors
Dancing; pushing wheelbarrow with 15-kg load; simple construction; stacking
firewood
Easy cycling; pushing wheelbarrow with 75-kg load; using sledgehammer
Climbing stairs; playing tennis; digging with spade
Cycling at 13 mph; walking on snow; digging trenches
Cross-country skiing; rock climbing; stair climbing
with load; playing squash or handball; chopping
with axe
Level running at 10 mph; competitive cycling
Competitive long distance running; cross-country skiing
a Average adult assumed to weigh 70 kg.
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA, 1985
-------
Table 5A-7. Minute Ventilation Ranges by Age, Sex, and Activity Level
Ventilation ranges
(liters/minute)
Age
(years)
Infants
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Adults
Adults
Sex
M/F
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
n
316
8
10
54
56
5
16
53
77
1
8
50
50
12
595
454
Resting
Range
0.25 - 2.09
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.0-7.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.2-8.3
—
—
4.1 -16.1
7.2-16.3
7.2-15.4
3.1 -15.4
3.1 -15.6
3.1 -27.8
3.1 -26.8
—
—
—
5.8-9.0
—
—
4.2-11.66
2.3-18.8
Light
Mean n Range
0.84
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6.5 16 5.0-32.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7.1 20 5.2-35.0
—
20
15.4
15.4
9.9
8.9 30 3.1-24.9
14.9
14.2
6.2
11.1
15.2
15.6
—
7.3
—
—
5.7 786 4.2 - 29.4
12.2 102 2.3-27.6
Mean n
13.9 4
17.2 9
20.3 20
4
6
5
16.4 29
3
24
1
7
—
12
8.1 106
13.8 102
Moderate
Range
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
28.0 - 43.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
41.0-68.0
—
—
19.6-46.3
18.5-46.3
18.5-46.3
14.4-48.4
21.6-37.1
24.7 - 55.0
27.8 - 46.3
—
—
—
40.0 - 63.0
—
—
20.7 - 34.2
14.4-78.0
Mean
33.3
53.4
33.1
26.5
34.1
30.3
32.8
28.1
39.7
26.8
39.3
48.6
26.5
40.9
n
2
4
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
27
7
21
6
7
9
31
9
7
38
5
16
6
6
8
3
2
3
9
211
267
Heavy
Range
—
—
—
—
32.0 - 32.5
39.3 - 43.3
31.0-35.0
30.9 - 42.6
35.9 - 38.9
35.5 - 43.5
48.2-51.4
44.1 - 55.8
51.2-67.6
59.3 - 62.2
55.8 - 63.4
59.5 - 75.2
46.2-71.1
63.9 - 74.6
49.7 - 80.9
47.6 - 77.5
65.5 - 79.9
58.1 -84.7
67.6-102.6
27.8-105.0
80.7-100.7
42.2-121.0
68.4-97.1
48.4-140.3
73.6-119.1
79.6-132.2
91.9-95.3
89.4-139.3
—
99.7-143.0
23.4-114.8
34.6-183.4
Mean
32.3
41.2
32.8
37.5
37.4
40.3
49.6
50.0
57.6
60.7
50.9
65.7
60.4
70.5
63.5
65.5
71.8
67.7
87.7
57.9
88.9
86.9
87.1
110.5
93.9
102.5
93.6
107.7
120.9
47.9
80.0
n = number of observations
Note:
Values in liters/minute can be converted to units of m3 /hour by multiplying
by the conversion factor,
60 minutes/hour
1000liters/m3
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA, 1985.
-------
Exposure
Chemical
Biologically
Effective
Dose
Potential Applied
Dose Dose
Internal
Dose
i
Effect
Mouth / Nose
Intake
Uptake
Figure 5-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Respiratory Route
Source: U.S. EPA, 1992.
-------
Table 6-1 . Summary of Equation Parameters for Calculating Adult Body Surface Area
Equation for surface areas (m2)
Body Part
Head
Female
Male
Trunk
Female
Male
Upper Extremities
Female
Male
Arms
Female
Male
Upper Arms
Male
Forearms
Male
Hands
Female
Male
Lower Extremities0
Legs
Thighs
Lower legs
Feet
N
57
32
57
32
57
48
13
32
6
6
12b
32
105
45
45
45
45
a0
0.0256
0.0492
0.188
0.0240
0.0288
0.00329
0.00223
0.00111
8.70
0.326
0.0131
0.0257
0.00286
0.00240
0.00352
0.000276
0.000618
Wa1
0.124
0.339
0.647
0.808
0.341
0.466
0.201
0.616
0.741
0.858
0.412
0.573
0.458
0.542
0.629
0.416
0.372
H'2
0.189
-0.0950
-0.304
-0.0131
0.175
0.524
0.748
0.561
-1.40
-0.895
0.0274
-0.218
0.696
0.626
0.379
0.973
0.725
P
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.01
0.001
0.25
0.05
0.1
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
R2
0.302
0.222
0.877
0.894
0.526
0.821
0.731
0.892
0.576
0.897
0.447
0.575
0.802
0.780
0.739
0.727
0.651
S.E.
0.00678
0.0202
0.00567
0.0118
0.00833
0.0101
0.00996
0.0177
0.0387
0.0207
0.0172
0.0187
0.00633
0.0130
0.0149
0.0149
0.0147
a SA = a0 Wa1 Ha2
W = Weight in kilograms; H = Height in centimeters; P = Level of significance; R2 = Coefficient of determination;
SA = Surface Area; S.E. = Standard error; N = Number of observations
b One observation for a female whose body weight exceeded the 95 percentile was not used.
c Although two separate regressions were marginally indicated by the F test, pooling was done for consistency with individual
components of lower extremities.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1985.
-------
Table 6-2. Surface Area of Adult Males in Square Meters
Percentile
Bodv oart
Total
Head
Trunk"
Upper extremities
Arms
Forearms
Hands
Lower extremities
Legs
Thighs
Lower legs
Feet
5
1.66
0.119
0.591
0.321
0.241
0.106
0.085
0.653
0.539
0.318
0.218
0.114
a Standard error for the 5-95
10
1.72
0.121
0.622
0.332
0.252
0.111
0.088
0.676
0.561
0.331
0.226
0.118
percentile
15
1.76
0.123
0.643
0.340
0.259
0.115
0.090
0.692
0.576
0.341
0.232
0.120
25
1.82
0.124
0.674
0.350
0.270
0.121
0.093
0.715
0.597
0.354
0.240
0.124
50
1.94
0.130
0.739
0.372
0.291
0.131
0.099
0.761
0.640
0.382
0.256
0.131
75
2.07
0.135
0.807
0.395
0.314°
0.144°
0.105
0.810
0.686°
0.411°
0.272
0.138
85
2.14
0.138
0.851
0.408
0.328°
0.151°
0.109
0.838
0.714°
0.429°
0.282
0.142
90
2.20
0.140
0.883
0.418
0.339°
0.157°
0.112
0.858
0.734°
0.443°
0.288
0.145
95
2.28
0.143
0.935°
0.432°
0.354°
0.166°
0.117
0.888°
0.762°
0.463°
0.299
0.149
S.E.a
0.00374
0.0202
0.0118
0.00101
0.00387
0.0207
0.0187
0.00633
0.0130
0.0149
0.0149
0.0147
of each body part.
b Trunk includes neck.
c Percentile estimates exceed the maximum measured values upon which the equations are based.
Source: U.S. EPA.
1985.
-------
Table 6-3. Surface Area of Adult Females in Square Meters
Percentile
Body part
Total
Head
Trunk"
Upper extremities
Arms
Hands
Lower extremities
Legs
Thighs
Lower legs
Feet
5
1.45
0.106
0.490
0.260
0.210
0.0730
0.564
0.460
0.271
0.186
0.100
a Standard error for the 5-95
10
1.49
0.107
0.507
0.265
0.214
0.0746
0.582
0.477
0.281
0.192
0.103
percentile
15
1.53
0.108
0.518
0.269
0.217
0.0757
0.595
0.488
0.289
0.197
0.105
of each body
25
1.58
0.109
0.538
0.274
0.221
0.0777
0.615
0.507
0.300
0.204
0.108
part.
50
1.69°
0.111
0.579
0.287
0.230
0.0817
0.657
0.546
0.326
0.218
0.114
75
1.82
0.113
0.636
0.301
0.238°
0.0868
0.704
0.592
0.357
0.233
0.121
85
1.91
0.114
0.677
0.311
0.243°
90
1.98
0.115
0.704
0.318
0.247°
0.0903 0.0927
0.736
0.623
0.379
0.243
0.126
0.757
0.645
0.394
0.249
0.129
95
2.09
0.117
0.752
0.329
0.253°
0.0966°
0.796
0.683°
0.421°
0.261
0.134
S.E."
0.00374
0.00678
0.00567
0.00833
0.00996
0.0172
0.00633
0.0130
0.0149
0.0149
0.0147
b Trunk includes neck.
c Percentile estimates exceed the maximum measured values upon which the equations are
Source: U.S. EPA,
1985.
based.
-------
Table 6-4. Surface Area by Body Part for Adults (m2)
Men
Body part
Head
Trunk
(Incl. Neck)
Upper extremities
Arms
Upper arms
Forearms
Hands
Lower extremities
Legs
Thighs
Lower legs
Feet
TOTAL
Na
32
32
48
32
6
6
32
48
32
32
32
32
Mean
0.118
0.569
0.319
0.228
0.143
0.114
0.084
0.636
0.505
0.198
0.207
0.112
1.94°
(sd)b
(0.0160)
(0.104)
(0.0461)
(0.0374)
(0.0143)
(0.0127)
(0.0127)
(0.0994)
(0.0885)
(0.1470)
(0.0379)
(0.0177)
(0.00374)d
Min.
0.090
0.306 -
0.169 -
0.109
0.122 -
0.0945 -
0.0596 -
0.283
0.221
0.128
0.093 -
0.0611 -
1.66
Max.
0.161
0.893
0.429
0.292
0.156
0.136
0.113
0.868
0.656
0.403
0.296
0.156
2.28"
N
57
57
57
13
-
-
12
57
13
13
13
13
Mean
0.110
0.542
0.276
0.210
-
-
0.0746
0.626
0.488
0.258
0.194
0.0975
1.69°
Women
(sd)
(0.00625)
(0.0712)
(0.0241)
(0.0129)
-
-
(0.00510)
(0.0675)
(0.0515)
(0.0333)
(0.0240)
(0.00903)
(0.00374)d
Min.
0.0953
0.437
0.215
0.193
-
-
0.0639
0.492
0.423
0.258
0.165
0.0834
1.45
Max.
0.127
0.867
0.333
0.235
-
-
0.0824
0.809
0.585
0.360
0.229
0.115
2.09"
a number of observations.
b standard deviation.
c median (see Table 6-2).
d standard error.
8 percentiles (5th -
95th).
Source: Adapted from U.S
EPA, 1985.
-------
Table 6-5
Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Part for Adults
Men
Body part
Head
Trunk
Upper extremities
Arms
Upper arms
Forearms
Hands
Lower extremities
Legs
Thighs
Lower legs
Feet
Na
32
32
48
32
6
6
32
48
32
32
32
32
Mean
7.8
35.9
18.8
14.1
7.4
5.9
5.2
37.5
31.2
18.4
12.8
7.0
(s.d.)b
(1.0)
(2.1)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(1.9)
(1.6)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(0.5)
Min.
6.1
30.5
16.4
12.5
6.7
5.4
4.6
33.3
26.1
15.2
11.0
6.0
Max.
10.6
41.4
21.0
15.5
8.1
6.3
7.0
41.2
33.4
20.2
15.8
7.9
N
57
57
57
13
-
-
12
57
13
13
13
13
Mean
7.1
34.8
17.9
14.0
-
-
5.1
40.3
32.4
19.5
12.8
6.5
Women
(s.d.)
(0.6)
(1.9)
(0.9)
(0.6)
-
-
(0.3)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.3)
Min.
5.6
32.8
15.6
12.4
-
-
4.4
36.0
29.8
18.0
11.4
6.0
Max.
8.1
41.7
19.9
14.8
-
-
5.4
43.2
35.3
21.7
14.9
7.0
a Number of observations.
b Standard deviation.
Source: Adapted from U.S
EPA, 1985
-------
Table 6-6. Total Body Surface Area of Male Children in Square Meters3
Age (yr)b
2<3
3<4
4<5
5<6
6<7
7<8
8<9
9< 10
10< 11
11 < 12
12 < 13
13< 14
14< 15
15< 16
16< 17
17< 18
3<6
6<9
9< 12
12 < 15
15< 18
5
0.527
0.585
0.633
0.692
0.757
0.794
0.836
0.932
1.01
1.00
1.11
1.20
1.33
1.45
1.55
1.54
0.616
0.787
0.972
1.19
1.50
10
0.544
0.606
0.658
0.721
0.788
0.832
0.897
0.966
1.04
1.06
1.13
1.24
1.39
1.49
1.59
1.56
0.636
0.814
1.00
1.24
1.55
a Lack of height measurements for children
15
0.552
0.620
0.673
0.732
0.809
0.848
0.914
0.988
1.06
1.12
1.20
1.27
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.62
0.649
0.834
1.02
1.27
1.59
<2 years in
25
0.569
0.636
0.689
0.746
0.821
0.877
0.932
1.00
1.10
1.16
1.25
1.30
1.51
1.60
1.66
1.69
0.673
0.866
1.07
1.32
1.65
NHANES II
Percentile
50
0.603
0.664
0.731
0.793
0.866
0.936
1.00
1.07
1.18
1.23
1.34
1.47
1.61
1.70
1.76
1.80
0.728
0.931
1.16
1.49
1.75
75
0.629
0.700
0.771
0.840
0.915
0.993
1.06
1.13
1.28
1.40
1.47
1.62
1.73
1.79
1.87
1.91
0.785
1.01
1.28
1.64
1.86
85
0.643
0.719
0,796
0.864
0.957
1.01
1.12
1.16
1.35
1.47
1.52
1.67
1.78
1.84
1.98
1.96
0.817
1.05
1.36
1.73
1.94
90
0.661
0.729
0.809
0.895
1.01
1.06
1.17
1.25
1.40
1.53
1.62
1.75
1.84
1.90
2.03
2.03
0.842
1.09
1.42
1.77
2.01
95
0.682
0.764
0.845
0.918
1.06
1.11
1.24
1.29
1.48
1.60
1.76
1.81
1.91
2.02
2.16
2.09
0.876
1.14
1.52
1.85
2.11
precluded calculation of surface areas for this age group.
b Estimated values calculated using NHANES II data.
Source: U.S
EPA. 1985.
-------
Table 6-7. Total Body Surface Area of Female Children in Square Meters3
Percentile
Age (yr)b
2<3
3<4
4<5
5<6
6<7
7<8
8<9
9< 10
10< 11
11 < 12
12 < 13
13< 14
14< 15
15< 16
16< 17
17< 18
3<6
6<9
9< 12
12 < 15
15< 18
5
0.516
0.555
0.627
0.675
0.723
0.792
0.863
0.897
0.981
1.06
1.13
1.21
1.31
1.38
1.40
1.42
0.585
0.754
0.957
1.21
1.40
10
0.532
0.570
0.639
0.700
0.748
0.808
0.888
0.948
1.01
1.09
1.19
1.28
1.34
1.49
1.46
1.49
0.610
0.790
0.990
1.27
1.44
a Lack of height measurements for children
15
0.544
0.589
0.649
0.714
0.770
0.819
0.913
0.969
1.05
1.12
1.24
1.32
1.39
1.43
1.48
1.51
0.630
0.804
1.03
1.30
1.47
<2 years in
25
0.557
0.607
0.666
0.735
0.791
0.854
0.932
1.01
1.10
1.16
1.27
1.38
1.45
1.47
1.53
1.56
0.654
0.845
1.06
1.37
1.51
NHANES II
50
0.579
0.649
0.706
0.779
0.843
0.917
1.00
1.06
1.17
1.30
1.40
1.48
1.55
1.57
1.60
1.63
0.711
0.919
1.16
1.48
1.60
75
0.610
0.688
0.758
0.830
0.914
0.977
1.05
1.14
1.29
1.40
1.51
1.59
1.66
1.67
1.69
1.73
0.770
1.00
1.31
1.61
1.70
85
0.623
0.707
0.777
0.870
0.961
1.02
1.08
1.22
1.34
1.50
1.62
1.67
1.74
1.72
1.79
1.80
0.808
1.04
1.38
1.68
1.76
90
0.637
0.721
0.794
0.902
0.989
1.06
1.11
1.31
1.37
1.56
1.64
1.75
1.76
1.76
1.84
1.84
0.831
1.07
1.43
1.74
1.82
95
0.653
0.737
0.820
0.952
1.03
1.13
1.18
1.41
1.43
1.62
1.70
1.86
1.88
1.83
1.91
1.94
0.879
1.13
1.56
1.82
1.92
precluded calculation of surface areas for this age group.
b Estimated values calculated using NHANES II data.
Source: U.S. EPA
1985.
-------
Table 6-8. Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Body Part for Children
Percent of Total
Head Trunk Arms Hands Legs Feet
N
Aae (vr) M:F
<1 2:0
1 <2 1:1
2<3 1:0
3 < 4 0:5
4<5 1:3
5<6
6<7 1:0
7<8
8<9
9<10 0:2
11 < 12
12<13 1:0
13<14 1:0
14<15
15< 16
16<17 1:0
17<18 1:0
Mean Min-Max Mean Min-Max Mean
18.2 18.2-18.3 35.7 34.8-36.6 13.7
16.5 16.5-16.5 35.5 34.5-36.6 13.0
14.2 38.5 11.8
13.6 13.3-14.0 31.9 29.9-32.8 14.4
13.8 12.1-15.3 31.5 30.5-32.4 14.0
13.1 35.1 13.1
12.0 11.6-12.5 34.2 33.4-34.9 12.3
8.74 34.7 13.7
9.97 32.7 12.1
7.96 32.7 13.1
7.58 31.7 17.5
Min-Max Mean Min-Max Mean Min-Max Mean Min-Max
12.4-15.1 5.3 5.21-5.39 20.6 18.2-22.9 6.54 6.49-6.59
12.8-13.1 5.68 5.57-5.78 23.1 22.1-24.0 6.27 5.84-6.70
5.30 23.2 7.07
14.2-14.7 6.07 5.83-6.32 26.8 26.0-28.6 7.21 6.80-7.88
1 3.0-1 5.5 5.70 5.1 5-6.62 27.8 26.0-29.3 7.29 6.91 -8.10
4.71 27.1 6.90
11.7-12.8 5.30 5.15-5.44 28.7 28.5-28.8 7.58 7.38-7.77
5.39 30.5 7.03
5.11 32.0 8.02
5.68 33.6 6.93
5.13 30.8 7.28
N: Number of subjects, male to female ratios.
Source: U.S.
EPA 1985.
-------
Table 6-9. Descriptive Statistics for Surface Area/Body Weight (SA/BW) Ratios (nf/kg)
Aae (vrs.1
0-2
2.1 -17.9
> 18
All aaes
Mean
0.0641
0.0423
0.0284
0.0489
Range
Min-Max
0.0421-0.1142
0.0268-0.0670
0.0200-0.0351
0.0200-0.1142
SDa
0.0114
0.0076
0.0028
0.0187
SEb
7.84e-4
1 .05e-3
7.68e-6
9.33e-4
5
0.0470
0.0291
0.0238
0.0253
10
0.0507
0.0328
0.0244
0.0272
25
0.0563
0.0376
0.0270
0.0299
Percentiles
50
0.0617
0.0422
0.0286
0.0495
75
0.0719
0.0454
0.0302
0.0631
90
0.0784
0.0501
0.0316
0.0740
95
0.0846
0.0594
0.0329
0.0788
" Standard deviation.
b Standard error of the mean.
Source: Phillies et al.. 1993.
-------
Table 6-10. Statistical Results for Total Body Surface Area Distributions (m2)
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Source: Murray and Burmaster.
U.S. EPA
1.97
1.96
1.96
0.19
0.27
3.08
U.S. EPA
1.73
1.69
1.68
0.21
0.92
4.30
1992
Bovd
1.95
1.94
1.91
0.18
0.26
3.06
Bovd
1.71
1.68
1.62
0.20
0.88
4.21
Men
DuBois and DuBois
1.94
1.94
1.90
0.17
0.23
3.02
Women
DuBois and DuBois
1.69
1.67
1.60
0.18
0.77
4.01
Costeff
1.89
1.89
1.90
0.16
0.04
2.92
Costeff
1.71
1.68
1.66
0.21
0.69
3.52
-------
Table 6-11. Summary of Field Studies
Activity
Event"
Month (hrs) N"
M F Age
Conditions
Clothing
Indoor
Tae Kwon Do
Greenhouse Workers
Indoor Kids No. 1
Indoor Kids No. 2
Outdoor
Daycare Kids No. 1a
Daycare Kids No. 1 b
Daycare Kids No.2c
Daycare Kids No. 3
Soccer No. 1
Soccer No. 2
Soccer No. 3
Groundskeepers No. 1
Groundskeepers No. 2
Groundskeepers No. 3
Groundskeepers No. 4
Groundskeepers No. 5
Landscape/Rockery
Irrigationlnstallers
Gardeners No. 1
Feb. 1.5 761 8-42 Carpeted floor
Mar. 5.25 2 1 1 37-39 Plant watering.spraying, soil
blending, sterilization
Jan. 2 4 3 1 6-13 Playing on carpeted floor
Feb. 2 6 4 2 3-13 Playing on carpeted floor
Indoor Totals 19 14 5
All in longsleeve-long pants martial
arts uniform, sleeves rolled back,
barefoot
Long pants, elbow length short
sleeve shirt, no gloves
3 of 4 short pants, 2 of 4 short
sleeves, socks, no shoes
5of 6 long pants, 5 of 6 long
sleeves, socks, no shoes
Aug. 3.5 651 1-6.5
Aug. 4 651 1-6.5
Sept. 8 5411-4
Nov. 8 431 1-4.5
Indoors: linoleum surface;
outdoors: grass, bare earth,
barked area
Indoors: linoleum surface;
outdoors: grass, bare earth,
barked area
Indoors, low napped carpeting, 4 of 5 long pants, 3of 5 long
linoleum surfaces sleeves, all barefoot for part of the
day
4 of 6 in long pants, 4 of 6 short
sleeves, shoes
4 of 6 in long pants, 4 of 6 short
sleeves, no shoes
Indoors: linoleum surface,
outside: grass, bare earth,
barked area
Nov. 0.67 8 8 0 13-15 Half grass-half bare earth
Mar. 1.5 808 24-34
Nov. 1.5 7 07 24-34
Mar. 1.5 211 29-52
Mar. 4.25 532 22-37
Mar. 8 752 30-62
Aug. 4.25 743 22-38
Aug. 8 862 19-64
June 9 431 27-43
Oct. 3 660 23-41
Aug. 4 817 16-35
All-weather field (sand-ground
tires)
All-weather field (sand-ground
tires)
Campus grounds, urban
horticulture center, arboretum
Campus grounds,urban
horticulture center, arboretum
Campus grounds,urban
horticulture center, arboretum
Campus grounds,urban
horticulture center, arboretum
Campus grounds,urban
horticulture center, arboretum
Digging (manual
andmechanical), rock moving
Landscaping,surface restoration
Weeding, pruning,digging a
trench
All long pants, 3 of 4 long sleeves,
socks and shoes
6 of 8 long sleeves, 4 of 8 long
pants, 3 of 4 short pants and shin
guards
All in short sleeve shirts, shorts,
knee socks, shin guards
All in short sleeve shirts, shorts,
knee socks, shin guards
All in long pants, intermittent use of
gloves
All in long pants, intermittent use of
gloves
All in long pants, intermittent use of
gloves
5 of 7 in short sleeve shirts,
intermittent use of gloves
5 of 8 in short sleeve shirts,
intermittent use of gloves
All long pants, 2 long sleeves, all
socks and boots
All in long pants, 3 of 6 short sleeve
or sleeveless shirts
6 of 8 long pants, 7 of 8 short
sleeves, 1 sleeveless, socks,
shoes, intermittent use of gloves
-------
Table 6-1 1
Activity
Gardeners No. 2
Rugby No. 1
Rugby No. 2
Rugby No. 3
Archeologists
Construction Workers
Utility Workers No. 1
Utility Workers No.2
Equip. Operators No.1
Equip. Operators No.2
Farmers No. 1
Farmers No. 2
Reed Gatherers
Kids-in-mud No. 1
Kids-in-mud No. 2
Event"
Month (hrs)
Aug.
Mar.
July
Sept
July
Sept
July
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
May
July
Aug.
Sept
Sept
4
1.75
2
2.75
11.5
8
9.5
9.5
8
8
2
2
2
0.17
0.33
Nb
7
8
8
7
7
8
5
6
4
4
4
6
4
6
6
Outdoor Totals
a Event duration
b Number of subject
c Activities were confined to the house
Sources: Kissel et al., 1996b; Holmes et al.,
M
2
8
8
7
3
8
5
6
4
4
2
4
0
5
5
181
Summary of Field Studies (continued)
F
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
1
1
Age
26-52
20-22
23-33
24-30
16-35
21-30
24-45
23-44
21-54
21-54
39-44
18-43
42-67
9-14
9-14
Conditions
Weeding, pruning, digging a
trench, picking fruit, cleaning
Mixed grass-barewet field
Grass field (80% oftime) and all-
weather field (mix of gravel,
sand, and clay) (20% oftime)
Compacted mixedgrass and
bare earth field
Digging withtrowel, screening
dirt, sorting
Mixed bare earth and concrete
surfaces, dust and debris
Cleaning, fixing mains,
excavation (backhoe and
shovel)
Cleaning, fixing mains,
excavation (backhoe and
shovel)
Earth scraping withheavy
machinery, dusty conditions
Earth scraping withheavy
machinery, dusty conditions
Manual weeding, mechanical
cultivation
Manual weeding, mechanical
cultivation
Tidal flats
Lake shoreline
Lake shoreline
Clothing
3 of 7 long pants, 5of 7 short
sleeves, 1 sleeveless, socks,
shoes, no gloves
All in short sleeve shirts, shorts,
variable sock lengths
All in shorts, 7 of 8 in short sleeve
shirts, 6 of 8 in low socks
All short pants, 7 of 8 short or rolled
up sleeves, socks, shoes
6 of 7 short pants.all short sleeves,
3 no shoes or socks, 2 sandals
5 of 8 pants,7 of 8 short sleeves, all
socks and shoes
All long pants.short sleeves, socks,
boots, gloves sometimes
All long pants, 5 of 6 short sleeves,
socks, boots, gloves sometimes
All long pants, 3 of 4 short sleeves,
socks, boots, 2 of 4 gloves
All long pants, 3 of 4 short sleeves,
socks, boots, 1 gloves
All in long pants, heavy shoes, short
sleeve shirts, no gloves
2 of 6 short, 4 of 6long pants, 1 of 6
long sleeve shirt, no gloves
2 of 4 shortsleeve shirts/knee
length pants, all wore shoes
All in short sleeve T-shirts, shorts,
barefoot
All in short sleeveT-shirts, shorts,
barefoot
125 56
1996 (submitted for
oublication).
-------
Table 6-12. Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of
Soil Adherence by Activity and Body Region
Post-activity Dermal Soil Loadings (mg/cm2)
Activity
Indoor
Tae Kwon Do
GreenhouseWorkers
Indoor Kids No. 1
Indoor Kids No. 2
Daycare Kids No. 1a
Daycare Kids No. 1 b
Daycare Kids No. 2
Daycare Kids No. 3
Outdoor
Soccer No. 1
Soccer No. 2
Soccer No. 3
Groundskeepers No. 1
Groundskeepers No. 2
Groundskeepers No. 3
Groundskeepers No. 4
Groundskeepers No. 5
Landscape/Rockery
Irrigation Installers
Gardeners No. 1
Na
7
2
4
6
6
6
5
4
8
8
7
2
5
7
7
8
4
6
8
Hands
0.0063
1.9
0.043
0.0073
1.9
0.014
1.5
0.11
1.9
0.15
2.1
0.073
1.6
0.036
1.3
0.11
1.8
0.035
3.9
0.019
1.5
0.15
0.098
2.1
0.030
2.3
0.045
1.9
0.032
1.7
0.072
2.1
0.19
1.6
0.20
1.9
Arms
0.0019
4.1
0.0064
0.0042
1.9
0.0041
2.0
0.026
1.9
0.031
1.8
0.023
1.4
0.012
1.2
0.011
2.0
0.0043
2.2
0.0029
2.2
0.005
0.0021
2.6
0.0022
1.9
0.014
1.8
0.022
2.8
0.030
2.1
0.018
3.2
0.050
2.1
Legs
0.0020
2.0
0.0015
0.0041
2.3
0.0031
1.5
0.030
1.7
0.023
1.2
0.011
1.4
0.014
3.0
0.031
3.8
0.014
5.3
0.0081
1.6
0.0010
1.5
0.0009
1.8
0.0008
1.9
0.0010
1.4
0.0054
1.8
0.072
Faces
0.0050
0.012
1.5
0.016
1.5
0.012
1.6
0.0021
0.010
2.0
0.0044
2.6
0.0026
1.6
0.0039
2.1
0.0057
1.9
0.0063
1.3
0.058
1.6
Feet
0.0022
2.1
0.012
1.4
0.0091
1.7
0.079
2.4
0.13
1.4
0.044
1.3
0.0053
5.1
0.018
0.0040
0.018
0.17
-------
Table 6-12. Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of
Soil Adherence by Activity and Body Region (continued)
Post-activity Dermal Soil Loadings (mg/cm2)
Activity
Gardeners No. 2
Rugby No. 1
Rugby No. 2
Rugby No. 3
Archeologists
Construction Workers
Utility Workers No. 1
Utility Workers No. 2
Equip. Operators No.
Equip. Operators No.
Farmers No. 1
Farmers No. 2
Reed Gatherers
Kids-in-mud No. 1
Kids-in-mud No. 2
a Number of subjects
Sources: Kissel et al.,
Na
7
8
8
7
7
8
5
6
1 4
2 4
4
6
4
6
6
1996b: Holmes
Hands
0.18
3.4
0.40
1.7
0.14
1.4
0.049
1.7
0.14
1.3
0.24
1.5
0.32
1.7
0.27
2.1
0.26
2.5
0.32
1.6
0.41
1.6
0.47
1.4
0.66
1.8
35
2.3
58
2.3
etal., 1996
Arms
0.054
2.9
0.27
1.6
0.11
1.6
0.031
1.3
0.041
1.9
0.098
1.5
0.20
2.7
0.30
1.8
0.089
1.6
0.27
1.4
0.059
3.2
0.13
2.2
0.036
2.1
11
6.1
11
3.8
(submitted for
Legs
0.022
2.0
0.36
1.7
0.15
1.6
0.057
1.2
0.028
4.1
0.066
1.4
0.0058
2.7
0.037
3.9
0.16
9.2
36
2.0
9.5
2.3
publication).
Faces
0.047
1.6
0.059
2.7
0.046
1.4
0.020
1.5
0.050
1.8
0.029
1.6
0.10
1.5
0.10
1.5
0.10
1.4
0.23
1.7
0.018
1.4
0.041
3.0
Feet
0.26
-
0.24
1.4
0.63
7.1
24
3.6
6.7
12.4
-------
Table 6-1 3. Summary of Surface Area Studies
Study
KEY STUDIES
Phillips etal. (1993)
U.S. EPA (1985)
RELEVANT STUDIES
AICH(1994)
Murray and Burmaster
(1992)
No. of Individuals
Based on data from
U.S. EPA (1985): 401
individuals
401 individuals
Based on data from
U.S. EPA (1989);
Brainard et al. (1991);
Brorby and Finley
(1993)
Based on data from
U.S. EPA (1985): N =
401;
Dubois and Dubois
(1976):N= 9;
Boyd(1935): N= 231;
Costeff(1966):N =
220
Surface Area
Type of Surface Area Recommended
Measurement Formulae Used
NA calculated surface area to
body weight ratios
Based on Gehan and SA=0.0239*W°517*H0417
George (1970)
@Risk simulation Various
software
Calculated based on Various
regression equation using
the data of U.S. EPA
(1985)
Population
Surveyed
Children
Adults
Children
Adults
Adults
Children
Children
Adults
Comments
Developed distributions of
SA/BWand calculated
summary statistics for 3 age
groups and the combined data
set
Provides statistical distribution
data for total SA and SA of
body parts
Distribution data for: adult
men and women and both
sexes combined; total skin
area, children 8-18 years;
exposed skin area (hands and
forearms); head; upper body
Analysis of and comparision
of four models developed by
Dubois & Dubois (191 6),
Boyd(1935), U.S. EPA
(1985), and Costeff (1966).
Presents frequency
distribtions
-------
Table 6-14. Summary of Recommended Values for Skin Surface Area
Surface Area Central Tendency
Adults
Whole body and body see Tables 6-4 and 6-5
parts
Bathing/swimming 20,000 cm2
Outdoor soil contact 5,000 cm2
Children
Whole body
Body parts
Upper Percentile
see Tables 6-2 and 6-3
23,000 cm2
5,800 cm2
see Tables 6-6 and 6-7
see Table 6-8
Multiple Percentiles
see Tables 6-2 and 6-3
—
...
see Tables 6-6 and 6-7
see Table 6-8
-------
Table 6-15. Confidence in Body Surface Area Measurement Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of Peer Review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of interest
• Data pertinent to U.S.
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data collection
period
• Validity of approach
• Representativeness of the
population
• Characterization of variability
• Lack of bias in study design
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement among researchers
Overall Rating
Studies were from peer reviewed journal articles. High
EPA report was peer reviewed before distribution.
The journals used have wide circulation. High
EPA report available from National Technical
Information Service.
Experimental methods are well-described. High
Experiments measured skin area directly. High
Experiments conducted in the U.S. High
Re-analysis of primary data in more detail by two Low
different investigators.
Neither rapidly changing nor controversial area; Low
estimates made in 1935 deemed to be accurate and
subsequently used by others.
Not relevant to exposure factor; parameter not time NA
dependent.
Approach used by other investigators; not challenged High
in other studies.
Not statistically representative of U.S. population. Medium
Individual variability due to age, race, or gender not Low
studied.
Objective subject selection and measurement methods High
used; results reproduced by others with different
methods.
Measurement variations are low; adequately described Low/Medium
by normal statistics.
1 experiment; two independent re-analyses of this data Medium
set.
Consistent results obtained with different analyses; but Medium
from a single set of measurements.
This factor can be directly measured. It is not subject High
to dispute. Influence of age, race, or gender have not
been detailed adequately in these studies.
-------
Table 6-16. Recommendations for Adult Body Surface Area
Water Contact
50th 95th
Bathing and Swimming 20,000 cm2 23,000 cm2
Soil Contact
50th 95th
Outdoor Activities 5,000cm2 5,800cm2
Source: U.S. EPA, 1992.
-------
Study
KEY STUDIES
Kissel etal., 1996a
Kisselletal., 1996b
RELEVANT STUDIES
Driver etal., 1989
Lepowet al., 1975
QueHeeetal., 1985
Roels etal., 1980
Sedman, 1989
Yang etal., 1989
Table 6-17. Summary of
Size Soil
Fraction Adherence
(Aim) (mg/cm2)
<150, 150- Various
200, >250
Various
<150 1.40
<250 0.95
unsieved 0.58
0.5
1.5
0.9-1.5
0.9; 0.5
<150 9
Soil Adherence Studies
Population
Surveyed
28 adults
24 children
12 children
89 adults
Adults
Adults
Adults
10 children
1 adult
661 children
Children
Rats
Comments
Data presented for soil loadings by
body part. See Table 6-11.
Data presented by activity and body
part.
Used 5 soil types and 2-3 soil
horizons (top soils and subsoils);
placed soil over entire hand of test
subject, excess removed by shaking
the hands.
Dirt from hands collected during
play. Represents only fraction of
total present, some dirt may be
trapped in skin folds.
Assumed exposed area = 20 cm2.
Test subject was 14 years old.
Subjects lived near smelter in
Brussels, Belgium. Mean amount
adhering to soil was 0.159 g.
Used estimate of Roels et al. (1980)
and average surface of hand of an
1 1 year old; used estimates of
Lepow et al. (1975), Roels et al.
(1980), and QueHeeetal. (1985)
to develop mean of 0.5 mg/cm2.
Rat skin "monolayer" (i.e., minimal
amount of soil covering the skin); in
vitro and in vivo experiments.
-------
Table 6-18. Confidence in Soil Adherence to Skin Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of Peer Review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of interest
• Data pertinent to U.S.
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data collection
period
• Validity of approach
• Representativeness of the
population
• Characterization of variability
• Lack of bias in study design
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement among researchers
Overall Rating
Studies were from peer reviewed journal articles. High
Articles were published in widely circulated journals. High
Reports clearly describe experimental method. High
The goal of the studies was to determine soil High
adherence to skin.
Experiments were conducted in the U.S. High
Experiments were directly measure soil adherence to High
skin; exposure and dose of chemicals in soil were
measured indirectly or estimated from soil contact.
New studies were presented. High
Seasonal factors may be important, but have not been Medium
studied adequately.
Skin rinsing technique is a widely employed procedure. High
Studies were limited to the State of Washington and Low
may not be representative of other locales.
Variability in soil adherence is affected by many factors Low
including soil properties, activity and individual behavior
patterns.
The studies attempted to measure soil adherence in High
selected activities and conditions to identify important
activities and groups.
The experimental error is low and well controlled, but Low/High
application of results to other similar activities may be
subject to variation.
The experiments were controlled as they were Medium
conducted by a few laboratories; activity patterns were
studied by only one laboratory.
Results from key study were consistent with earlier Medium
estimates from relevant studies and assumptions, but
are limited to hand data.
Data are limited, therefore it is difficult to extrapolate Low
from experiments and field observations to general
conditions .
-------
Exposure
Chemical
Biologically
Effective
Dose
Potential Applied ^
Dose ^^- Dose ^^^
Internal
Dose
Metabolism
Effect
Skin
Uptake
Figure 6-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Dermal Route
Source: U.S. EPA, 1992a.
-------
Infant SA/BW Ratios: LognormtO.0641,0.0114)
Expected Value ^
6.410E-02
IE 17
O.ZS T
0.2}
F
R
0 0.1
B
o.os
o
All Ages SA/BW Ratios: Normal(O.O4S9,0.0187)
Exp»et»d Value .
4.890E-02
0.2E
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Adult SA/BW Ratios: NonnaKO.0284,0,0028)
Expected Value-
2.840E-02
17
27 32
VafuMin 10--3
Figure 6-2. SA/BW Distributions for Infants, Adults, and All Ages Combined
Source: Phillips et al., 1993.
-------
.00
1.00
Surface Area: Men
Frequency Distribution
2.00
2.50
Area in m2, n=5,000, LHS
424
3.00
.00
1.00
Surface Area: Women
Frequency Distribution
1.50
2,00
2.50
to
.o
ffi
3
O
3.00
Area in m2, n=5,000, LHS
Figure 6-3. Frequency Distributions for the Surface Area of Men and Women
Source: Murray and Burmaster, 1992.
-------
Table 7-1 . Smoothed Percentiles of Weight (in kg) by Sex and Age:
Statistics from NCHS and Data from Pels Research Institute, Birth to 36 Months
Smoothed" Percentile
Sex and Age
Male
Birth
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
9 Months
12 Months
18 Months
24 Months
30 Months
36 Months
Female
Birth
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
9 Months
12 Months
18 Months
24 Months
30 Months
36 Months
5th
2.54
3.16
4.43
6.20
7.52
8.43
9.59
10.54
11.44
12.26
2.36
2.97
4.18
5.79
7.00
7.84
8.92
9.87
10.78
11.60
10th
2.78
3.43
4.78
6.61
7.95
8.84
9.92
10.85
11.80
12.69
2.58
3.22
4.47
6.12
7.34
8.19
9.30
10.26
11.21
12.07
25th
3.00
3.82
5.32
7.20
8.56
9.49
10.67
11.65
12.63
13.58
2.93
3.59
4.88
6.60
7.89
8.81
10.04
11.10
12.11
12.99
50th
Weight in Kilograms
3.27
4.29
5.98
7.85
9.18
10.15
11.47
12.59
13.67
14.69
3.23
3.98
5.40
7.21
8.56
9.53
10.82
11.90
12.93
13.93
75th
3.64
4.75
6.56
8.49
9.88
10.91
12.31
13.44
14.51
15.59
3.52
4.36
5.90
7.83
9.24
10.23
11.55
12.74
13.93
15.03
90th
3.82
5.14
7.14
9.10
10.49
11.54
13.05
14.29
15.47
16.66
3.64
4.65
6.39
8.38
9.83
10.87
12.30
13.57
14.81
15.97
95th
4.15
5.38
7.37
9.46
10.93
11.99
13.44
14.70
15.97
17.28
3.81
4.92
6.74
8.73
10.17
11.24
12.76
14.08
15.35
16.54
a Smoothed by cubic-spline approximation.
Source: Hamill et al., 1979.
-------
Table 7-2.
Men
Body Weights of Adults3 (kilograms)
Men and Women
Women
Age (years; ... _
Mean Std. Dev.
18<25
25<35
35<45
45<55
55<65
65<75
18<75
Note: 1
(kg)
73.8
78.7
80.9
80.9
78.8
74.8
78.1
kg = 2.2046 pounds.
12.7
13.7
13.4
13.6
12.8
12.8
13.5
a Includes clothing weight, estimated as
Source:
Mean (kg) Std. Dev.
60.6
64.2
67.1
68.0
67.9
66.6
65.4
ranging
11.9
15.0
15.2
15.3
14.7
13.8
14.6
Mean (kg)
67.2
71.5
74.0
74.5
73.4
70.7
71.8
from 0.09 to 0.28 kilogram.
Adapted from National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS),
1987.
-------
Table 7-3. Body Weights of Children3
Age
Boys
Mean Std. Dev.
(kg)
6-11 months 9.4
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
1 0 years
1 1 years
12 years
1 3 years
14 years
1 5 years
16 years
1 7 years
1 8 years
1 9 years
Note: 1 kg
a Includes
11.8
13.6
15.7
17.8
19.8
23.0
25.1
28.2
31.1
36.4
40.3
44.2
49.9
57.1
61.0
67.1
66.7
71.1
71.7
= 2.2046 pounds.
1.3
1.9
1.7
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
3.9
6.2
6.3
7.7
10.1
10.1
12.3
11.0
11.0
12.4
11.5
12.7
11.6
Girls
Mean (kg)
8.8
10.8
13.0
14.9
17.0
19.6
22.1
24.7
27.9
31.9
36.1
41.8
46.4
50.9
54.8
55.1
58. 1
59.6
59.0
60.2
clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0
Source: Adapted from National
Center
(kilograms)
Std. Dev.
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.4
3.3
4.0
5.0
5.7
8.4
8.0
10.9
10.1
11.8
11.1
9.8
10.1
11.4
11.1
11.0
09 to 0.28
Boys and Girls
Mean
(kg)
9.1
11.3
13.3
15.3
17.4
19.7
22.6
24.9
28.1
31.5
36.3
41.1
45.3
50.4
56.0
58.1
62.6
63.2
65.1
66.0
kilogram.
for Health Statistics (NCHS), 1987.
-------
Table 7-4. Weight in Kilograms for Males 18-74 Years of Age-Number Examined, Mean, Standard
Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Race and Age: United States, 1976-1980a
Percentile
Race and Age
1 8-74 years
1 8-24 years ....
25-34 years
35-44 years ....
45-54 years
55-64 years ....
65-74 years
White
1 8-74 years ....
1 8-24 years
25-34 years ....
35-44 years
45-54 years ....
55-64 years
65-74 years ....
Black
1 8-74 years
1 8-24 years ....
25-34 years
35-44 years ....
45-54 years
55-64 years ....
65-74 years ....
Number of
Persons
Examined
5916
... 988
1 067
... 745
690
. 1 ,227
1 199
. 5,148
846
... 901
653
... 617
1 086
. 1 ,045
649
... 121
139
.... 70
62
... 129
... 128
Mean
(kg)
78.1
73.8
78.7
80.9
80.9
78.8
74.8
78.5
74.2
79.0
81.4
81.0
78.9
75.4
77.9
72.2
78.2
82.5
82.4
78.6
73.3
Standard
Deviation
13.5
12.7
13.7
13.4
13.6
12.8
12.8
13.1
12.8
13.1
12.8
13.4
12.4
12.4
15.2
12.0
16.3
15.4
14.5
14.7
15.3
5th
58.6
56.8
59.5
59.7
50.8
59.9
54.4
59.3
56.8
59.9
62.3
62.0
60.5
55.5
58.0
58.3
58.7
*C
*
56.8
52.5
10th
62.3
60.4
62.9
65.1
65.2
63.8
58.5
62.8
60.5
63.7
66.6
66.1
64.5
59.5
61.1
60.9
63.4
61.7
64.7
61.4
56.7
15th
64.9
61.9
65.4
67.7
67.2
66.4
61.2
65.5
62.0
65.9
68.8
67.3
66.6
62.5
63.6
62.3
64.9
65.2
67.0
64.3
58.0
25th
68.7
64.8
69.3
72.1
71.7
70.2
66.1
69.4
65.0
69.8
72.9
71.9
70.6
67.0
67.2
64.9
68.4
69.7
73.2
68.0
61.0
50th
76.9
72.0
77.5
79.9
79.0
77.7
74.2
77.3
72.4
78.0
80.1
79.0
78.2
74.7
75.3
70.8
75.3
83.1
81.8
77.0
71.2
75th
85.6
80.3
85.6
88.1
89.4
85.6
82.7
85.6
80.6
85.6
88.2
89.4
85.6
83.0
85.4
77.1
84.4
94.8
93.0
86.5
81.1
85th
91.3
85.1
91.1
94.8
94.5
90.5
87.9
91.4
85.5
91.3
94.6
94.2
90.4
87.9
92.9
81.8
90.6
100.4
100.0
93.8
90.8
90th
95.7
90.4
95.1
98.8
99.5
94.7
91.2
95.5
91.0
95.3
98.7
99.0
94.5
91.2
98.3
83.7
92.2
104.2
102.5
98.6
97.3
95th
102.7
99.5
102.7
104.3
105.3
102.3
96.6
102.3
100.0
102.7
104.1
104.5
101.7
96.0
105.4
93.6
106.3
*
104.7
105.1
Note: 1 kg = 2.2046 pounds.
a Includes clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0.09 to 0.28 kilogram.
b Includes all other races not shown as separate categories.
c Data not available.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1987.
-------
Table 7-5. Weight in Kilograms for Females 18-74 Years of Age-Number Examined, Mean, Standard
Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Race and Age: United States, 1976-1980a
Percentile
Race and Age
All races"
18-74 years . . .
18-24 years . . .
25-34 years . . .
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years . . .
65-74 years . . .
White
18-74 years . . .
18-24 years
25-34 years . . .
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years . . .
65-74 years . . .
Black
18-74 years
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65-74 years . . .
Number of
Persons
Examined
. 6,588
. 1,066
. 1,170
844
763
. 1,329
. 1,416
. 5,686
892
. 1,000
726
647
. 1,176
. 1,245
782
147
145
103
100
135
. . . 152
Mean
(kg)
65.4
60.6
64.2
67.1
68.0
67.9
66.6
64.8
60.4
63.6
66.1
67.3
67.2
66.2
71.2
63.1
69.3
75.3
77.7
75.8
72.4
Standard
Deviation 5th
14.6
11.9
15.0
15.2
15.3
14.7
13.8
14.1
11.6
14.5
14.5
14.4
14.4
13.7
17.3
13.9
16.7
18.4
18.8
16.4
13.6
47.7
46.6
47.4
49.2
48.5
48.6
47.1
47.7
47.3
47.3
49.3
48.6
48.5
47.2
48.8
46.2
48.3
50.7
55.1
54.2
52.9
10th
50.3
49.1
49.6
52.0
51.3
51.3
50.8
50.3
49.5
49.5
51.8
51.3
50.7
50.7
51.6
49.0
50.8
55.2
60.3
55.2
56.4
15th
52.2
50.6
51.4
53.3
53.3
54.1
53.2
52.2
50.8
51.3
52.9
53.4
53.7
52.9
55.1
50.6
53.1
57.2
60.8
57.6
60.3
25th 50th
55.4 62.4
53.2 58.0
54.3 60.9
56.9 63.4
57.3 65.5
57.3 65.2
57.4 64.8
55.2 62.1
53.3 57.9
54.0 60.6
56.3 62.4
57.0 65.0
57.1 64.7
57.2 64.3
59.1 67.8
53.8 60.4
57.8 65.3
63.0 70.2
64.5 74.3
65.4 74.6
64.0 70.0
75th
72.1
65.0
69.6
73.9
75.7
75.3
73.8
71.1
64.8
68.9
71.9
74.8
74.5
72.9
80.6
70.0
80.2
85.2
83.6
83.4
82.2
85th
79.2
70.4
78.4
81.7
82.1
82.3
79.8
77.9
69.7
76.3
79.7
81.1
81.8
79.2
87.4
75.8
87.1
95.3
94.5
91.9
84.4
90th
84.4
75.3
84.1
87.5
87.6
87.5
84.4
83.3
74.3
81.5
85.8
85.6
86.2
84.3
94.9
79.1
91.5
103.5
98.2
95.5
86.5
95th
93.1
82.9
93.5
98.9
96.0
95.1
91.3
91.5
82.4
89.7
94.9
94.5
92.8
91.2
105.1
89.3
102.7
113.1
117.5
108.5
98.1
Note: 1 kg = 2.2046 pounds.
a Includes clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0.09 to 0.28 kilogram.
b Includes all other races not shown as separate categories.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1987.
-------
Table 7-6. Weight in Kilograms for Males 6 Months-19 Years of Age-Number Examined, Mean, Standard
Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Sex and Age: United States, 1976-1980a
Percentile
Age
6-1 1 months . .
1 years
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
1 0 years
1 1 years
1 2 years
1 3 years
1 4 years
1 5 years
1 6 years
1 7 years
1 8 years
1 9 years
Number of
Persons
Examined
. . . . 179
370
. ... 375
418
. ... 404
397
. . . . 133
148
. . . . 147
145
. . . . 157
155
. . . . 145
173
. . . . 186
184
. . . . 178
173
. . . . 164
148
Mean
(kg)
9.4
11.8
13.6
15.7
17.8
19.8
23.0
25.1
28.2
31.1
36.4
40.3
44.2
49.9
57.1
61.0
67.1
66.7
71.1
71.7
Standard
Deviation
1.3
1.9
1.7
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
3.9
6.2
6.3
7.7
10.1
10.1
12.3
11.0
11.0
12.4
11.5
12.7
11.6
5th
7.5
9.6
11.1
12.9
14.1
16.0
18.6
19.7
20.4
24.0
27.2
26.8
30.7
35.4
41.0
46.2
51.4
50.7
54.1
55.9
10th
7.6
10.0
11.6
13.5
15.0
16.8
19.2
20.8
22.7
25.6
28.2
28.8
32.5
37.0
44.5
49.1
54.3
53.4
56.6
57.9
15th
8.2
10.3
11.8
13.9
15.3
17.1
19.8
21.2
23.6
26.0
29.6
31.8
35.4
38.3
46.4
50.6
56.1
54.8
60.3
60.5
25th
8.6
10.8
12.6
14.4
16.0
17.7
20.3
22.2
24.6
27.1
31.4
33.5
37.8
40.1
49.8
54.2
57.6
58.8
61.9
63.8
50th
9.4
11.7
13.5
15.4
17.6
19.4
22.0
24.8
27.5
30.2
34.8
37.3
42.5
48.4
56.4
60.1
64.4
65.8
70.4
69.5
75th
10.1
12.6
14.5
16.8
19.0
21.3
24.1
26.9
29.9
33.0
39.2
46.4
48.8
56.3
63.3
64.9
73.6
72.0
76.6
77.9
85th
10.7
13.1
15.2
17.4
19.9
22.9
26.4
28.2
33.0
35.4
43.5
52.0
52.6
59.8
66.1
68.7
78.1
76.8
80.0
84.3
90th
10.9
13.6
15.8
17.9
20.9
23.7
28.3
29.6
35.5
38.6
46.3
57.0
58.9
64.2
68.9
72.8
82.2
82.3
83.5
86.8
95th
11.4
14.4
16.5
19.1
22.2
25.4
30.1
33.9
39.1
43.1
53.4
61.0
67.5
69.9
77.0
81.3
91.2
88.9
95.3
92.1
Note: 1 kg = 2.2046 pounds.
a Includes clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0.09 to 0.28 kilogram.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1987.
-------
Table 7-7. Weight in Kilograms for Females 6 Months-19 Years of Age-Number Examined, Mean, Standard
Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Sex and Age: United States, 1976-1980a
Percentile
Age
6-1 1 months
1 years
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
1 1 years
12 years
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
18 years
19 years
Number of
Persons
Examined
177
... 336
336
... 366
396
... 364
135
... 1 57
123
... 149
136
... 140
147
... 162
178
... 145
170
... 1 34
170
... 158
Mean
(kg)
8.8
10.8
13.0
14.9
17.0
19.6
22.1
24.7
27.9
31.9
36.1
41.8
46.4
50.9
54.8
55.1
58.1
59.6
59.0
60.2
Standard
Deviation 5th
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.4
3.3
4.0
5.0
5.7
8.4
8.0
10.9
10.1
11.8
11.1
9.8
10.1
11.4
11.1
11.0
6.6
8.8
10.8
11.7
13.7
15.3
17.0
19.2
21.4
22.9
25.7
29.8
32.3
35.4
40.3
44.0
44.1
44.5
45.3
48.5
10th
7.3
9.1
11.2
12.3
14.3
16.1
17.8
19.5
22.3
25.0
27.5
30.3
35.0
39.0
42.8
45.1
47.3
48.9
49.5
49.7
15th
7.5
9.4
11.6
12.9
14.5
16.7
18.6
19.8
23.3
25.8
29.0
31.3
36.7
40.3
43.7
46.5
48.9
50.5
50.8
51.7
25th 50th
7.9 8.9
9.9 10.7
12.0 12.7
13.4 14.7
15.2 16.7
17.2 19.0
19.3 21.3
21.4 23.8
24.4 27.5
27.0 29.7
31.0 34.5
33.9 40.3
39.1 45.4
44.1 49.0
47.4 53.1
48.2 53.3
51.3 55.6
52.2 58.4
52.8 56.4
53.9 57.1
75th
9.4
11.7
13.8
16.1
18.4
21.2
23.8
27.1
30.2
33.6
39.5
45.8
52.6
55.2
60.3
59.6
62.5
63.4
63.0
64.4
85th
10.1
12.4
14.5
17.0
19.3
22.8
26.6
28.7
31.3
39.3
44.2
51.0
58.0
60.9
65.7
62.2
68.9
68.4
66.0
70.7
90th
10.4
12.7
14.9
17.4
20.2
24.7
28.9
30.3
33.2
43.3
45.8
56.6
60.5
66.4
67.6
65.5
73.3
71.6
70.1
74.8
95th
10.9
13.4
15.9
18.4
21.1
26.6
29.6
34.0
36.5
48.4
49.6
60.0
64.3
76.3
75.2
76.6
76.8
81.8
78.0
78.1
Note: 1 kg = 2.2046 pounds.
3 Includes clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0.09 to 0.28 kilogram.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1987.
-------
Table 7-8. Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses
Female's Body Weights 6 Months to 20 Years of Age
Lognormal Probability Plots
Age Linear Curve
M2 £2!
6 months to 1 year 2.16 0.145
1 to 2 years 2.38 0.128
2 to 3 years 2.56 0.112
3 to 4 years 2.69 0.137
4 to 5 years 2.83 0.133
5 to 6 years 2.98 0.163
6 to 7 years 3.10 0.174
7 to 8 years 3.19 0.174
8 to 9 years 3.31 0.156
9 to 10 years 3.46 0.214
10 to 11 years 3.57 0.199
11 to 12 years 3.71 0.226
12 to 13 years 3.82 0.213
13 to 14 years 3.92 0.216
14 to 15 years 3.99 0.187
15 to 16 years 4.00 0.156
16 to 17 years 4.06 0.167
17 to 18 years 4.08 0.165
18 to 19 years 4.07 0.147
19 to 20 years 4.10 0.149
a fjQ, o2 - correspond to the mean and standard deviation,
respectively, of the lognormal distribution of body weight (kg).
Source: Burmaster et al., 1994.
-------
Table 7-9. Statistics for Probability Plot Regression
Analyses
Male's Body Weights 6 Months to 20 Years of Age
Lognormal Probability Plots
Age Linear Curve
^ o£
6 months to 1 year 2.23 0.132
1 to 2 years 2.46 0.119
2 to 3 years 2.60 0.120
3 to 4 years 2.75 0.114
4 to 5 years 2.87 0.133
5 to 6 years 2.99 0.138
6 to 7 years 3.13 0.145
7 to 8 years 3.21 0.151
8 to 9 years 3.33 0.181
9 to 10 years 3.43 0.165
10 to 11 years 3.59 0.195
11 to 12 years 3.69 0.252
12 to 13 years 3.78 0.224
13 to 14 years 3.88 0.215
14 to 15 years 4.02 0.181
15 to 16 years 4.09 0.159
16 to 17 years 4.20 0.168
17 to 18 years 4.19 0.167
18 to 19 years 4.25 0.159
19 to 20 years 4.26 0.154
a fjQ, o2 - correspond to the mean and standard
deviation, respectively, of the lognormal distribution of
body weight (kg).
Source: Burmaster et al., 1994.
-------
Table 7-1 0. Summary of Body Weight Studies
Study
KEY STUDIES
Hamilletal. (1979)
NCHS, 1987
(NHANES II)
RELEVANT STUDIES
Brainard and Burmaster,
1992
Burmaster etal., 1994
Number of Subjects
~1 ,000
20,322
12,501 (5,91 6 men and
6,588 women)
8,458 (4,079 females and
4,379 males)
Population
U.S. general
population
U.S. general
population
U.S. general
population
U.S. general
population
Comments
Authors noted that data are accurate measurements
from a large nationally representative sample of
children.
Based on civilian non-institutionalized population aged
6 months to 74 years. Response rate was 73.1
percent.
Used data from NHANES II to fit bivarite distributions
to women and men age 18 to 74 years.
Used data from NHANES II to develop fitted
distributions for children aged 6 to 20 years old.
Adjusted for non-response by age, gender, and race.
-------
Table 7-1 1 . Summary of Recommended Values for Body Weight
Pooulation
Adults
Children
Infants
Mean
71 .8 kg (See Table 7-2)
See Table 7-3
Not Available
Uooer Percentile
See Tables 7-4 and 7-5
See Tables 7-6 and 7-7
See Table 7-1
Multiole Percentiles
See Tables 7-4 and 7-5
See Tables 7-6 and 7-7
See Table 7-1
-------
Table 7-12. Confidence in Body Weight Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of interest
• Data pertinent to US
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data collection
period
• Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of
variability
Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
NHANES II was the major source of data for NCHS (1987). This is a
published study which received a high level of peer review. The
Hamill et al. (1979) is a peer reviewed journal publication.
Both studies are available to the public.
Results can be reproduced by analyzing NHANES II data and the
Pels Research Institute data.
The studies focused on body weight, the exposure factor of interest.
The data represent the U.S. population.
The primary data were generated from NHANES II data and Pels
studies, thus these data are secondary.
The data were collected between 1976-1980.
The NHANES II study included data collected over a period of 4
years. Body weight measurements were taken at various times of the
day and at different seasons of the year.
Direct body weights were measured for both studies. For NHANES II,
subgroups at risk for malnutrition were over-sampled. Weighting was
accomplished by inflating examination results for those not examined
and were stratified by race, age, and sex. The Pels data are from an
ongoing longitudinal study where the data are collected regularly.
The sample size consisted of 28,000 persons for NHANES II. Author
noted in Hamill et al. (1979) that the data set was large.
Data collected focused on the U.S. population for both studies.
Both studies characterized variability regarding age and sex.
Additionally NHANES II characterized race (for Blacks, Whites and
total populations) and sampled persons with low income.
There are no apparent biases in the study designs for NHANES II.
The study design for collecting the Pels data was not provided.
For NHANES II, measurement error should be low since body weights
were performed in a mobile examination center using standardized
procedures and equipment. Also, measurements were taken at
various times of the day to account for weight fluctuations as a result
of recent food or water intake. The authors of Hamill et al. (1979)
report that study data are based on accurate direct measurements
from an ongoing longitudinal study.
There are two studies.
There is consistency among the two studies.
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Medium-
High
High
Low
High
High
-------
LU
r
flCTH
flffTH
T5TH
HJTH
2STH
1QTH
5TH
12 IS 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
AG EN MONTHS
o
lo
tn
ro m
£
ro ^
to
s
CO o
w
CO
to
tn
Figure 7-1. Weight by Age Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth-36 Months
Source: Hamill et al., 1979.
-------
If)
— o
LU
arm
C5T11
In
•B
50TH
10TH
£TH
12 1S IS 21 24 27 30 33 36
MONTHS
m
to
o
W
oo
to
10
Figure 7-2. Weight by Age Percentiles for Girls Aged Birth-36 Months
Source: Hamill et al., 1979
-------
Table 8-1 . Expectation of Life at Birth, 1970 to
YEAR
1970
1975
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Total
70.8
72.6
73.7
74.1
74.5
74.6
74.7
74.7
74.7
74.9
74.9
75.1
75.4
75.5
75.8
75.5
Projections0 1995 76.3
a
b
c
Source:
2000 76.7
2005 77.3
2010 77.9
TOTAL
Male
67.1
68.8
70.0
70.4
70.8
71.0
71.1
71.1
71.2
71.4
71.4
71.7
71.8
71.0
72.3
72.1
72.8
73.2
73.8
74.5
Female
74.7
76.6
77.4
77.8
78.1
78.1
78.2
78.2
78.2
78.3
78.3
78.5
78.8
78.9
79.1
78.9
79.7
80.2
80.7
81.3
Total
71.7
73.4
74.4
74.8
75.1
75.2
75.3
75.3
75.4
75.6
75.6
75.9
76.1
76.3
76.5
76.3
77.0
77.6
78.2
78.8
WHITE
Male
68.0
69.5
70.7
71.1
71.5
71.6
71.8
71.8
71.9
72.1
72.2
72.5
72.7
72.9
73.2
73.0
73.7
74.3
74.9
75.6
Excludes deaths of nonresidents of the United States.
Racial descriptions were not provided in the data source.
Based on middle mortality assumptions; for details, see U
25, No. 1104.
1993, and Projections, 1995 to 2010 (years)3
BLACKAND OTHER"
Female
75.6
77.3
78.1
78.4
78.7
78.7
78.7
78.7
78.8
78.9
78.9
79.2
79.4
79.6
79.8
79.5
80.3
80.9
81.4
81.0
Total Male Female
65.3 61.3
68.0 63.7
69.5 65.3
70.3 66.2
70.9 66.8
70.9 67.0
71.1 67.2
71.0 67.0
70.9 66.8
71.0 66.9
70.8 66.7
70.9 66.7
71.2 67.0
71.5 67.3
71.8 67.7
71.5 67.4
72.5 68.2
72.9 68.3
73.6 69.1
74.3 69.9
S. Bureau of the Census,
69.4
72.4
73.6
74.4
74.9
74.7
74.9
74.8
74.9
75.0
74.8
74.9
75.2
75.5
75.7
75.5
76.8
77.5
78.1
78.7
Total
64.1
66.8
68.1
68.9
69.4
69.4
69.5
69.3
69.1
69.1
68.9
68.8
69.1
69.3
69.6
69.3
70.3
70.2
70.7
71.3
BLACK
Male
60.0
62.4
63.8
64.5
65.1
65.2
65.3
65.0
64.8
64.7
64.4
64.3
64.5
64.6
65.0
64.7
65.8
65.3
65.9
66.5
Femal
e
68.3
71.3
72.5
73.2
73.6
73.5
73.6
73.4
73.4
73.4
73.2
73.3
73.6
73.8
73.9
73.7
74.8
75.1
75.5
76.0
Current Population Reports, Series P-
Bureau of the Census, 1995.
-------
Age in 1 990
(years)
At birth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Table
Total
75.8
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.6
70.6
69.6
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.7
62.7
61.7
60.7
59.8
58.8
57.9
56.9
56.0
55.1
54.1
53.2
52.2
51.3
50.4
49.4
48.5
47.5
46.6
45.7
44.7
43.8
42.9
42.0
41.0
40.1
39.2
38.3
37.4
36.5
35.6
34.7
33.8
32.9
32.0
31.1
30.2
8-2. Expectation of Life by Race, Sex, and Age: 1992
Male
73.2
72.8
71.8
70.9
69.9
68.9
67.9
66.9
65.9
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
59.1
58.1
57.2
56.2
55.3
54.3
53.4
52.5
51.6
50.6
49.7
48.8
47.8
46.9
46.0
45.1
44.1
43.2
42.3
41.4
40.5
39.6
38.7
37.8
36.9
36.0
35.1
34.2
33.3
32.4
31.5
30.6
29.7
28.8
28.0
Expectation of Life in Years
White
Female
79.8
79.3
78.3
77.3
76.3
75.4
74.4
73.4
72.4
71.4
70.4
69.4
68.4
67.4
66.5
65.5
64.5
63.5
62.5
61.6
60.6
59.6
58.7
57.7
56.7
55.7
54.8
53.8
52.8
51.8
50.9
49.9
48.9
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.1
44.1
43.2
42.2
41.2
40.3
39.3
38.4
37.5
36.5
35.6
34.7
33.7
32.8
Male
65.0
65.2
64.3
63.4
62.4
61.4
60.5
59.5
58.5
57.5
56.5
55.5
54.6
53.6
52.6
51.7
50.7
49.8
48.9
48.1
47.2
46.3
45.5
44.6
43.8
42.9
42.1
41.2
40.4
39.5
38.7
37.8
37.0
36.2
35.3
34.5
33.7
32.9
32.1
31.3
30.5
29.7
28.9
28.2
27.4
26.7
25.9
25.2
24.4
23.7
Black
Female
73.9
74.1
73.1
72.2
71.2
70.3
69.3
68.3
67.3
66.3
65.4
64.4
63.4
62.4
61.4
60.4
59.5
58.5
57.5
56.6
55.6
54.6
53.7
52.7
51.8
50.8
49.9
48.9
48.0
47.1
46.1
45.2
44.3
43.4
42.4
41.5
40.6
39.7
38.8
37.9
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.6
32.7
31.9
31.0
30.2
29.3
-------
Table 8-2. Expectation of Life by Race, Sex, and Age: 1992 (continued)
Expectation of Life in Years
White
Age in 1 990
(years)
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
70
75
80
85 and over
Source: U.S. Bureau
Total
29.3
28.5
27.6
26.8
25.9
25.1
24.3
23.5
22.7
21.9
21.1
20.4
19.7
18.9
18.2
17.5
14.2
11.2
8.5
6.2
of Census, 1995.
Male
27.1
26.3
25.4
24.6
23.7
22.9
22.1
21.3
20.6
19.8
19.1
18.3
17.6
16.9
16.2
15.5
12.4
9.6
7.2
5.3
Female
31.9
31.0
30.1
29.2
28.3
27.5
26.6
25.7
24.9
24.1
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.8
20.0
19.3
15.6
12.2
9.2
6.6
Black
Male
23.0
22.3
21.5
20.8
20.1
19.5
18.8
18.2
17.6
16.9
16.3
15.8
15.2
14.6
14.1
13.5
11.0
8.9
6.8
5.1
Female
28.5
27.7
26.8
26.0
25.3
24.5
23.7
23.0
22.2
21.5
20.8
20.1
19.4
18.7
18.0
17.4
14.3
11.4
8.6
6.3
-------
Table 8-3. Confidence in Lifetime Expectancy Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of interest
• Data pertinent to US
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of the population
• Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design (High
rating is desirable)
Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Data are published and have received extensive peer review. High
The study was widely available to the public (Census data). High
Results can be reproduced by analyzing Census data. High
Statistical data on life expectancy were published in this study. High
The study focused on the U.S. population. High
Primary data were analyzed. High
The study was published in 1995 and discusses life expectancy High
trends from 1970 to 1993. The study has also made projections for
1995 until the year 2010.
The data analyzed were collected over a period of years. High
Census data is collected and analyzed over a period of years. High
This study was based on U.S. Census data, thus the population High
study size is expected to be greater than 100.
The data are representative of the U.S. population. High
Data were averaged by gender and race but only for Blacks and Medium
Whites; no other nationalities were represented within the section.
There are no apparent biases. High
Measurement error may be attributed to portions of the population that Medium
avoid or provide misleading information on census surveys.
Data presented in the section are from the U.S. Bureau of the Low
Census publication.
Recommendation was based on only one study, but it is widely High
accepted.
HIGH
-------
Table 9-1 . Sub-category Codes and Definitions Used in the CSFII 1989-91 Analysis
Code Definition
Description
Region"
1 Northeast
2 Midwest
3 South
4 West
Includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont
Includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin
Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and
West Virginia
Includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming
Urbanization
1 Central City
2 Suburban
3 Nonmetropolitan
Cities with populations of 50,000 or more that is the main city within the metropolitan statistical area
(MSA).
An area that is generally within the boundaries of an MSA, but is not within the legal limit of the central
city.
An area that is not within an MSA.
Season
Spring
Summe
r
Fall
Winter
April, May, June
July, August, September
October, November, December
January, February, March
Race
1
2
3
4
5. 8. 9 Other/NA
a Alaska and Hawaii were not
Source: CSFII 1989-91.
White (Caucasian)
Black
Asian and Pacific Islander
Native American, Aleuts, and Eskimos
Don't know, no answer, some other race
included.
-------
Table 9-2. Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations for
1989-91 CSFII Data Used in Analysis of Food Intake
Demographic Factor
Total
Age
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70+
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weighted
242,707,000
7,394,000
7,827,000
1 1 ,795,000
21 ,830,000
26,046,000
78,680,000
71 ,899,000
17,236,000
60,633,000
60,689,000
60,683,000
60,702,000
73,410,000
53,993,000
115,304,000
2,871 ,000
29,721 ,000
2,102,000
7,556,000
200,457,000
59,285,000
50,099,000
83,741 ,000
49,582,000
Unweighted
11,912
424
450
603
1,147
1,250
3,555
3,380
1,103
3,117
3,077
2,856
2,862
3,607
3,119
5,186
149
1,632
171
350
9,610
3,007
2,180
4,203
2,522
-------
Table 9-3. Per Capita Intake of Total Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
NOTE:
Percent
Consum
ing
69.0%
67.9%
76.7%
80.8%
79.2%
62.6%
58.8%
71 .0%
83.3%
68.9%
68.3%
70.4%
68.4%
68.8%
67.4%
70.1%
77.2%
63.7%
61 .4%
64.9%
70.1%
69.9%
73.9%
62.0%
75.4%
Mean
3.381
14.898
1 1 .836
8.422
5.047
2.183
1.875
2.119
2.982
3.579
3.249
3.381
3.314
3.288
3.107
3.567
5.839
3.279
3.319
4.027
3.337
3.236
3.665
3.017
3.880
SE
0.068
1.285
0.582
0.364
0.160
0.095
0.056
0.051
0.087
0.169
0.116
0.131
0.119
0.114
0.113
0.113
0.632
0.188
0.490
0.465
0.075
0.120
0.143
0.105
0.187
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
2.80
2.22
1.30
0
0
0
0.89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.24
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
0
0.17
P50
1.68
8.80
9.76
6.37
3.86
1.36
1.06
1.36
2.42
1.66
1.73
1.80
1.52
1.66
1.51
1.80
4.20
1.51
1.58
1.77
1.66
1.58
1.84
1.42
2.08
P75
4.16
21.90
17.99
12.53
7.17
3.38
2.82
3.24
4.28
3.94
4.14
4.29
4.27
4.00
3.94
4.40
6.76
4.25
4.31
5.10
4.06
4.07
4.70
3.80
4.45
P90
7.98
35.98
25.70
19.29
11.79
5.66
5.08
5.20
6.77
8.20
7.43
7.87
8.33
7.82
7.52
8.43
17.30
7.70
7.57
10.92
7.87
7.87
8.37
7.39
9.18
P95
12.44
42.77
30.69
22.78
14.49
7.24
6.43
6.73
8.31
13.41
12.22
12.26
12.17
11.94
12.25
13.19
20.65
12.34
16.02
14.96
12.21
11.30
12.75
11.67
14.61
P99 P100
26.54 210.72
88.42 210.72
52.27 80.19
32.83 52.87
21 .53 30.37
11.80 16.86
10.26 41.58
10.52 23.07
11.89 15.00
32.62 204.28
23.71 88.42
23.11 210.72
26.54 75.52
23.73 210.72
26.04 84.34
28.13 204.28
29.61 38.95
26.54 210.72
22.66 29.24
47.78 53.89
26.48 204.28
28.64 84.34
31 .67 88.42
24.67 210.72
25.49 204.28
SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on
EPA's analyses of the 1989-91
CSFII
-------
Table 9-4. Per Capita Intake of Total Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consumi
ng
97.2%
74.8%
95.6%
97.2%
97.6%
98.1%
98.2%
98.3%
98.3%
97.8%
96.9%
97.0%
97.0%
97.4%
96.3%
97.6%
93.3%
96.1%
87.1%
96.6%
97.6%
97.0%
97.2%
97.4%
96.9%
Mean
4.259
6.802
7.952
7.125
5.549
3.807
3.529
3.741
4.068
4.366
4.095
4.181
4.394
4.059
4.450
4.296
4.913
4.228
4.880
4.762
4.229
4.123
4.494
4.268
4.168
SE
0.029
0.375
0.228
0.200
0.109
0.070
0.037
0.039
0.071
0.063
0.055
0.059
0.056
0.053
0.060
0.044
0.330
0.093
0.277
0.183
0.031
0.061
0.073
0.047
0.060
P1 P5
0 0.75
0 0
0 1.33
0 1.11
0 1.03
0 0.85
0 0.75
0 0.85
0 0.96
0 0.86
0 0.72
0 0.58
0 0.86
0 0.67
0 0.86
0 0.82
0 0
0 0.36
0 0
0 0
0 0.86
0 0.75
0 0.69
0 0.86
0 0.60
P10
1.29
0
2.32
2.15
1.72
1.30
1.22
1.34
1.47
1.31
1.20
1.16
1.40
1.22
1.41
1.31
1.53
0.85
0.58
1.11
1.37
1.20
1.29
1.39
1.22
P25
2.26
0
4.65
3.79
3.09
2.16
2.06
2.19
2.47
2.28
2.19
2.21
2.36
2.08
2.44
2.30
2.06
1.99
2.40
2.46
2.30
2.09
2.37
2.31
2.25
P50
3.60
5.52
7.28
5.83
4.82
3.49
3.16
3.43
3.67
3.56
3.45
3.54
3.78
3.34
3.72
3.64
3.66
3.19
4.22
4.24
3.60
3.35
3.77
3.66
3.57
P75
5.37
10.41
10.26
9.64
7.31
4.71
4.54
4.94
5.35
5.28
5.19
5.34
5.67
5.17
5.66
5.38
7.52
5.46
6.85
6.20
5.32
5.16
5.70
5.32
5.38
P90
7.93
15.27
14.77
13.87
10.06
6.80
6.36
6.56
6.89
8.33
7.67
7.73
8.03
7.74
8.28
7.86
10.32
8.80
8.87
9.33
7.74
8.03
8.42
7.76
7.78
P95
10.00
19.29
16.32
15.43
11.74
8.52
7.63
7.78
8.17
10.52
9.85
9.54
9.69
9.51
10.08
10.17
14.84
11.35
11.37
11.93
9.75
9.87
11.00
9.80
9.53
P99
15.65
29.61
21.24
25.09
18.39
12.26
10.69
10.91
11.96
17.95
15.33
15.14
15.23
16.04
16.27
15.39
15.43
18.39
13.89
15.02
15.31
16.90
15.86
15.31
15.28
P100
44.99
44.99
32.10
35.56
31.30
27.84
17.07
24.51
18.92
35.56
44.99
41.68
29.69
44.99
35.56
41.68
16.76
32.10
21.77
22.14
44.99
35.56
41.68
44.99
35.56
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1989-91 CSFII
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
28.4%
41 .7%
42.9%
44.1%
41 .6%
23.0%
21 .3%
26.0%
30.8%
33.7%
25.9%
23.2%
30.4%
27.4%
26.8%
29.9%
38.3%
22.7%
20.5%
24.9%
29.4%
29.1%
31 .5%
23.6%
32.7%
Apples
Mean
0.854
5.042
4.085
3.004
1.501
0.394
0.337
0.356
0.435
1.094
0.667
0.751
0.905
0.749
0.759
0.965
0.871
0.688
0.407
0.964
0.879
0.782
0.953
0.828
0.885
SE
0.052
0.823
0.508
0.312
0.123
0.062
0.033
0.027
0.052
0.116
0.078
0.122
0.095
0.081
0.104
0.083
0.327
0.159
0.273
0.256
0.057
0.082
0.116
0.099
0.121
Asparagus
Percent
Consuming Mean
1.5%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
1.1%
2.5%
3.5%
0.8%
2.7%
1.1%
1.3%
1.1%
1.3%
1.8%
2.7%
0.3%
0.0%
0.6%
1.7%
1.8%
1.6%
1.0%
1.8%
0.012
0
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.008
0.025
0.026
0.005
0.023
0.006
0.015
0.013
0.011
0.013
0.067
0.003
0
0.001
0.013
0.015
0.015
0.010
0.012
SE
0.008
0
0.041
0.038
0.019
0.033
0.012
0.016
0.028
0.013
0.017
0.014
0.018
0.018
0.015
0.012
0.123
0.019
0
0.009
0.009
0.016
0.022
0.014
0.015
Bananas
Percent
Consuming Mean
20.9%
24.3%
23.3%
20.1%
16.2%
13.3%
14.4%
26.0%
37.4%
19.3%
21 .3%
20.5%
22.6%
19.6%
20.5%
21 .9%
33.6%
14.4%
17.5%
20.6%
21 .8%
18.8%
23.0%
19.3%
24.0%
0.27
1.33
0.86
0.46
0.29
0.16
0.13
0.22
0.36
0.25
0.27
0.23
0.31
0.25
0.24
0.29
0.54
0.19
0.36
0.33
0.27
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.27
SE
0.02
0.27
0.17
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.20
0.04
0.16
0.15
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
Percent
Consuming
1.8%
1.2%
0.7%
0.5%
0.9%
0.6%
1.3%
2.4%
5.2%
1.2%
2.0%
1.7%
2.3%
1.3%
1.8%
2.0%
0.7%
1.1%
1.2%
0.9%
1.9%
0.8%
2.3%
1.8%
2.4%
Beets
Mean
0.009
0.045
0.006
0.006
0.008
0.001
0.004
0.009
0.029
0.009
0.009
0.005
0.011
0.008
0.010
0.008
0.040
0.007
0.003
0.015
0.008
0.010
0.008
0.009
0.008
SE
0.010
0.296
0.055
0.056
0.040
0.010
0.007
0.009
0.022
0.040
0.012
0.008
0.013
0.031
0.013
0.009
0.320
0.024
0.028
0.101
0.010
0.049
0.012
0.011
0.009
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Broccoli
Percent
Consuming Mean
10.9%
4.2%
7.6%
10.1%
6.8%
8.2%
1 1 .4%
13.8%
1 1 .8%
10.8%
1 1 .7%
8.8%
12.3%
10.6%
9.0%
12.2%
15.4%
8.3%
5.3%
10.3%
1 1 .4%
8.4%
13.5%
9.8%
13.4%
0.107
0.142
0.234
0.307
0.098
0.065
0.081
0.102
0.115
0.089
0.122
0.120
0.098
0.119
0.067
0.119
0.209
0.154
0.021
0.180
0.097
0.077
0.113
0.109
0.135
SE
0.012
0.224
0.134
0.118
0.052
0.028
0.015
0.016
0.028
0.024
0.022
0.032
0.020
0.024
0.017
0.019
0.166
0.047
0.045
0.100
0.012
0.025
0.026
0.022
0.025
ntake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Cabbage
Percent
Consuming Mean
12.2%
2.4%
5.1%
7.5%
7.5%
8.5%
10.6%
17.1%
21.1%
12.3%
12.4%
12.3%
1 1 .9%
10.8%
13.7%
12.4%
27.5%
13.9%
4.7%
6.0%
12.1%
10.1%
1 1 .6%
14.4%
1 1 .8%
0.088
0.023
0.086
0.107
0.049
0.065
0.070
0.115
0.151
0.092
0.086
0.097
0.076
0.073
0.102
0.091
0.400
0.129
0.037
0.041
0.080
0.065
0.083
0.106
0.088
SE
0.009
0.078
0.089
0.081
0.027
0.028
0.015
0.015
0.025
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.014
0.100
0.029
0.068
0.044
0.009
0.016
0.022
0.015
0.016
Percent
Consuming
16.9%
13.4%
13.3%
15.1%
17.1%
1 1 .8%
15.2%
20.1%
21 .3%
17.7%
16.5%
13.9%
19.2%
15.5%
14.4%
19.2%
28.2%
7.0%
11.1%
12.9%
18.6%
16.2%
19.0%
12.4%
23.3%
Carrots
Mean
0.115
0.379
0.214
0.148
0.154
0.056
0.076
0.120
0.132
0.100
0.117
0.083
0.160
0.111
0.095
0.127
0.177
0.066
0.097
0.104
0.122
0.100
0.151
0.074
0.166
SE
0.010
0.165
0.085
0.052
0.037
0.018
0.013
0.016
0.022
0.017
0.022
0.017
0.022
0.019
0.017
0.015
0.101
0.036
0.075
0.063
0.011
0.018
0.027
0.015
0.021
Percent
Consuming
24.1%
1 7.5%
32.9%
31 .5%
35.8%
24.0%
23.8%
20.4%
1 9.0%
23.6%
24.7%
24.8%
23.2%
22.4%
27.6%
23.1%
14.1%
24.6%
30.4%
16.9%
24.3%
26.8%
23.3%
24.9%
20.1%
Corn
Mean
0.206
0.356
0.587
0.490
0.367
0.173
0.154
0.138
0.140
0.171
0.204
0.244
0.205
0.182
0.255
0.198
0.134
0.226
0.373
0.160
0.204
0.242
0.208
0.219
0.138
SE
0.010
0.128
0.091
0.070
0.032
0.024
0.013
0.013
0.027
0.018
0.019
0.022
0.020
0.017
0.020
0.015
0.080
0.028
0.099
0.065
0.011
0.020
0.026
0.016
0.018
-------
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Table 9-5
Cucumbers
Percent
Consuming Mean
15.8%
2.4%
7.3%
12.1%
14.9%
12.6%
17.0%
19.8%
14.8%
14.3%
15.8%
19.0%
14.3%
15.1%
15.1%
16.7%
16.1%
7.8%
6.4%
10.9%
17.5%
15.1%
18.9%
13.8%
17.2%
0.063
0.021
0.062
0.083
0.086
0.050
0.057
0.070
0.055
0.056
0.060
0.092
0.044
0.061
0.071
0.060
0.065
0.040
0.037
0.038
0.067
0.074
0.097
0.042
0.050
Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
SE
0.006
0.107
0.069
0.046
0.032
0.017
0.009
0.008
0.016
0.014
0.009
0.014
0.010
0.011
0.013
0.008
0.036
0.021
0.042
0.029
0.007
0.014
0.018
0.007
0.011
Lettuce
Percent
Consuming Mean
41 .3%
6.8%
18.2%
29.4%
36.3%
40.4%
44.4%
51 .0%
37.4%
38.1%
43.5%
42.3%
41 .5%
37.9%
39.9%
44.6%
40.3%
27.1%
42.7%
41.1%
43.7%
36.1%
43.9%
39.3%
48.7%
0.224
0.025
0.116
0.191
0.247
0.187
0.231
0.264
0.203
0.175
0.259
0.218
0.243
0.196
0.221
0.242
0.231
0.134
0.146
0.186
0.239
0.191
0.246
0.210
0.263
SE
0.006
0.026
0.039
0.031
0.027
0.014
0.010
0.010
0.017
0.010
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.009
0.012
0.009
0.050
0.014
0.034
0.027
0.007
0.012
0.014
0.009
0.013
Lima Beans
Percent
Consuming Mean
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.7%
1.5%
1.9%
0.8%
1.0%
0.9%
1.0%
0.5%
1.5%
0.9%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.4%
0.5%
1.8%
0.5%
0.006
0.005
0.006
0
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.010
0.008
0.004
0.008
0.006
0.007
0.004
0.015
0.004
0
0.006
0
0
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.011
0.002
SE
0.007
0.055
0.069
0
0.017
0.019
0.012
0.013
0.019
0.010
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.007
0
0.021
0
0
0.007
0.019
0.013
0.011
0.009
Percent
Consuming
1.3%
0.5%
0.2%
0.7%
0.3%
1.4%
1.0%
1.8%
2.7%
0.9%
0.8%
2.2%
1.3%
1.0%
1.8%
1.2%
4.7%
2.1%
0.0%
1.7%
1.1%
0.2%
0.6%
3.2%
0.2%
Okra
Mean
0.009
0.003
0.004
0.013
0.005
0.011
0.008
0.008
0.015
0.004
0.009
0.016
0.006
0.004
0.013
0.010
0.084
0.024
0
0.004
0.006
0
0.009
0.016
0.005
SE
0.007
0.040
0.068
0.046
0.028
0.027
0.016
0.010
0.021
0.009
0.020
0.015
0.012
0.008
0.015
0.012
0.074
0.029
0
0.023
0.007
0.004
0.031
0.010
0.022
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
17.4%
1.9%
6.4%
8.0%
9.7%
12.2%
20.5%
24.0%
16.5%
16.3%
19.7%
18.7%
14.8%
16.4%
15.7%
19.1%
20.8%
9.6%
5.3%
15.1%
19.0%
13.8%
20.6%
17.2%
19.2%
Onions
Mean
0.040
0.004
0.012
0.023
0.033
0.030
0.040
0.054
0.043
0.045
0.040
0.040
0.033
0.043
0.033
0.041
0.090
0.034
0.018
0.057
0.039
0.033
0.057
0.034
0.039
SE
0.003
0.022
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.012
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.042
0.014
0.022
0.022
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.004
0.006
Other Berries
Percent
Consuming Mean
2.5%
0.9%
1.3%
2.2%
1.4%
0.8%
2.3%
3.2%
5.1%
2.6%
1.9%
3.4%
2.0%
2.9%
1.6%
2.7%
2.7%
0.9%
2.3%
0.9%
2.8%
2.3%
3.2%
1.7%
3.3%
0.029
0.092
0.053
0.039
0.014
0.011
0.024
0.031
0.049
0.024
0.019
0.032
0.042
0.033
0.016
0.033
0.014
0.008
0.072
0.015
0.033
0.022
0.023
0.030
0.043
SE
0.017
0.369
0.248
0.073
0.056
0.029
0.030
0.023
0.040
0.023
0.024
0.027
0.058
0.030
0.019
0.028
0.057
0.034
0.165
0.069
0.019
0.020
0.024
0.037
0.045
Peaches
Percent
Consuming Mean
8.6%
14.2%
8.9%
10.0%
13.8%
6.9%
4.2%
8.7%
16.1%
6.4%
8.4%
12.5%
7.4%
7.3%
9.8%
8.8%
6.7%
5.6%
9.9%
4.3%
9.3%
9.6%
9.0%
7.9%
8.3%
0.131
0.855
0.286
0.283
0.250
0.084
0.037
0.090
0.161
0.113
0.107
0.166
0.136
0.121
0.156
0.125
0.202
0.111
0.192
0.118
0.132
0.155
0.132
0.113
0.131
SE
0.019
0.268
0.158
0.121
0.063
0.037
0.019
0.021
0.033
0.043
0.037
0.033
0.041
0.035
0.034
0.029
0.235
0.053
0.158
0.145
0.021
0.040
0.048
0.027
0.042
Percent
Consuming
4.8%
12.3%
2.7%
4.5%
7.8%
3.4%
2.4%
5.2%
7.8%
5.5%
4.3%
4.2%
5.1%
4.5%
5.4%
4.6%
2.7%
2.9%
1.2%
5.1%
5.2%
6.0%
5.7%
3.6%
4.5%
Pears
Mean
0.098
1.286
0.105
0.144
0.147
0.025
0.026
0.062
0.087
0.159
0.071
0.076
0.088
0.120
0.083
0.092
0.053
0.066
0.003
0.063
0.106
0.121
0.108
0.051
0.142
SE
0.036
0.598
0.243
0.141
0.057
0.027
0.019
0.022
0.037
0.107
0.041
0.066
0.039
0.091
0.033
0.050
0.151
0.056
0.053
0.089
0.042
0.054
0.064
0.023
0.142
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
12.8%
13.7%
13.6%
12.9%
13.2%
8.4%
10.9%
14.8%
16.4%
13.2%
12.6%
1 1 .2%
14.1%
1 1 .7%
14.5%
12.5%
8.1%
17.0%
2.9%
6.9%
12.5%
10.9%
12.5%
16.2%
9.5%
Peas
Mean
0.095
0.294
0.174
0.199
0.120
0.053
0.067
0.084
0.117
0.120
0.077
0.074
0.111
0.085
0.113
0.094
0.047
0.143
0.007
0.037
0.092
0.071
0.101
0.126
0.067
SE
0.009
0.142
0.083
0.077
0.029
0.021
0.013
0.011
0.024
0.023
0.015
0.019
0.017
0.018
0.020
0.014
0.071
0.032
0.035
0.058
0.010
0.014
0.026
0.017
0.018
Peppers
Percent
Consuming Mean
6.5%
0.7%
2.4%
3.0%
4.7%
5.3%
7.9%
8.6%
4.7%
6.0%
7.3%
7.9%
4.7%
6.5%
6.0%
6.8%
8.1%
3.6%
5.3%
11.1%
6.8%
4.7%
9.0%
5.8%
7.6%
0.022
0.003
0.011
0.014
0.019
0.017
0.026
0.027
0.010
0.023
0.021
0.023
0.019
0.023
0.017
0.023
0.102
0.005
0.015
0.037
0.022
0.016
0.036
0.015
0.025
SE
0.005
0.025
0.031
0.032
0.016
0.014
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.010
0.009
0.006
0.007
0.112
0.007
0.031
0.024
0.005
0.011
0.012
0.006
0.010
as consumed) (continued)
Pumpkins
Percent
Consuming Mean
1.0%
5.2%
0.4%
0.7%
0.4%
0.2%
0.6%
1.2%
1.7%
1.9%
0.6%
0.4%
1.0%
1.1%
0.5%
1.3%
0.7%
0.3%
0.0%
0.9%
1.2%
1.2%
1.4%
0.5%
1.3%
0.026
0.497
0.030
0.018
0.012
0
0.007
0.011
0.034
0.043
0.034
0.012
0.015
0.035
0.015
0.025
0.005
0.037
0
0.024
0.025
0.027
0.061
0.002
0.030
SE
0.032
0.363
0.253
0.148
0.118
0.007
0.026
0.018
0.053
0.056
0.105
0.064
0.037
0.068
0.068
0.041
0.057
0.238
0
0.208
0.030
0.050
0.106
0.026
0.060
Percent
Consuming
21 .5%
1 6.7%
24.9%
25.0%
25.6%
1 8.3%
1 9.0%
22.3%
25.5%
21 .5%
1 8.9%
22.3%
23.7%
20.2%
22.3%
22.0%
1 3.4%
24.1%
21.1%
15.1%
21 .5%
22.4%
1 9.7%
24.3%
1 7.5%
Snap Beans
Mean
0.146
0.439
0.383
0.274
0.183
0.112
0.096
0.124
0.149
0.164
0.109
0.147
0.163
0.133
0.141
0.156
0.059
0.188
0.119
0.168
0.140
0.146
0.131
0.177
0.107
SE
0.008
0.154
0.070
0.048
0.024
0.018
0.010
0.011
0.019
0.018
0.013
0.016
0.017
0.015
0.013
0.013
0.050
0.022
0.048
0.073
0.009
0.014
0.020
0.014
0.019
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Strawberries
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
3.4%
0.7%
1.6%
3.2%
3.3%
2.3%
2.7%
4.5%
5.8%
1.3%
7.7%
2.2%
2.5%
2.8%
3.8%
3.6%
3.4%
1.5%
1.8%
1.4%
3.9%
4.8%
3.3%
2.6%
3.3%
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the
Mean
0.039
0.018
0.155
0.045
0.052
0.016
0.028
0.042
0.050
0.008
0.105
0.030
0.013
0.028
0.052
0.040
0.395
0.031
0.023
0.007
0.037
0.051
0.059
0.025
0.028
1989-91
SE
0.019
0.154
0.598
0.080
0.058
0.028
0.020
0.020
0.040
0.017
0.045
0.032
0.015
0.020
0.029
0.035
1.152
0.056
0.120
0.042
0.013
0.025
0.079
0.019
0.025
CSFII
Tomatoes
Percent
Consuming
91 .8%
64.2%
93.8%
94.9%
95.2%
95.5%
94.7%
90.6%
87.2%
92.5%
90.6%
92.4%
91 .9%
91 .5%
90.7%
92.8%
90.6%
87.4%
84.2%
91 .4%
92.8%
92.2%
93.0%
90.7%
92.3%
Mean
0.876
1.116
1.838
1.700
1.160
0.852
0.791
0.673
0.689
0.907
0.808
0.946
0.844
0.827
0.827
0.931
1.147
0.713
0.890
1.004
0.892
0.814
0.988
0.831
0.914
SE
0.010
0.094
0.103
0.072
0.032
0.022
0.013
0.013
0.027
0.021
0.018
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.018
0.015
0.110
0.027
0.073
0.049
0.011
0.019
0.024
0.016
0.021
White Potatoes
Percent
Consuming
87.6%
59.9%
84.2%
88.1%
90.5%
90.1%
88.6%
88.1%
88.9%
88.9%
86.3%
86.5%
88.7%
84.7%
89.4%
88.5%
77.2%
83.3%
85.4%
77.1%
88.9%
89.2%
86.6%
88.5%
85.1%
Mean
1.093
1.102
2.228
1.817
1.702
1.238
0.897
0.882
0.865
1.169
1.036
1.001
1.167
1.017
1.211
1.087
0.446
1.202
1.735
1.036
1.082
1.246
1.090
1.074
0.946
SE
0.013
0.128
0.113
0.086
0.058
0.042
0.018
0.018
0.031
0.027
0.024
0.029
0.024
0.025
0.027
0.019
0.062
0.047
0.134
0.080
0.014
0.029
0.030
0.021
0.026
-------
Table 9-6. Per Capita Intake of USDA Categories of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Dark Green Vegetables
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
19.1%
7.5%
12.4%
14.8%
13.3%
14.3%
18.8%
24.4%
24.6%
19.6%
21.0%
15.4%
20.0%
20.5%
16.0%
19.9%
30.9%
25.9%
9.4%
15.1%
18.1%
12.6%
21.1%
20.5%
22.6%
Mean SE
0.180 0.012
0.180 0.177
0.364 0.137
0.390 0.119
0.150 0.044
0.112 0.030
0.137 0.016
0.187 0.016
0.255 0.034
0.169 0.023
0.187 0.020
0.182 0.029
0.180 0.024
0.197 0.021
0.133 0.020
0.190 0.019
0.327 0.127
0.318 0.039
0.126 0.092
0.224 0.087
0.156 0.012
0.125 0.026
0.185 0.026
0.206 0.021
0.195 0.022
Deep Yellow Vegetables
Percent
Consuming
20.0%
10.1%
14.4%
16.3%
19.1%
14.0%
17.5%
24.8%
29.4%
22.7%
19.7%
15.6%
21.9%
18.6%
18.4%
22.0%
29.5%
12.5%
10.5%
13.4%
21.6%
18.7%
22.1%
16.8%
25.2%
Mean
0.147
0.178
0.281
0.177
0.185
0.080
0.100
0.164
0.245
0.156
0.144
0.094
0.192
0.133
0.138
0.160
0.221
0.104
0.081
0.106
0.154
0.128
0.175
0.119
0.187
SE
0.010
0.157
0.109
0.063
0.043
0.020
0.015
0.017
0.028
0.020
0.023
0.017
0.023
0.019
0.021
0.016
0.118
0.029
0.060
0.071
0.011
0.020
0.026
0.018
0.021
Citrus Fruits
Percent
Consuming
38.0%
24.8%
43.6%
41 .0%
40.5%
37.0%
33.4%
39.9%
46.8%
38.3%
38.4%
33.8%
41 .3%
39.8%
34.2%
39.1%
51 .0%
40.1%
33.3%
40.3%
37.4%
35.5%
45.6%
33.5%
41 .8%
Mean
1.236
1.929
4.237
2.596
1.805
1.130
0.903
0.864
1.155
1.211
1.225
1.136
1.371
1.187
1.153
1.306
2.479
1.474
0.945
1.439
1.178
1.099
1.430
1.090
1.449
SE
0.039
0.586
0.459
0.267
0.138
0.085
0.049
0.045
0.069
0.074
0.072
0.093
0.073
0.072
0.074
0.058
0.453
0.135
0.219
0.229
0.041
0.077
0.079
0.067
0.092
Other Fruits
Percent
Consuming
57.7%
61 .6%
66.4%
70.0%
70.1%
47.3%
44.9%
60.9%
76.1%
57.6%
56.4%
60.8%
56.0%
55.3%
57.8%
59.2%
69.8%
46.2%
50.9%
52.0%
59.8%
59.8%
60.5%
50.3%
65.0%
Mean
2.141
12.855
7.599
5.826
3.242
1.053
0.972
1.255
1.827
2.354
2.024
2.245
1.943
2.090
1.954
2.262
3.360
1.806
2.375
2.589
2.154
2.137
2.235
1.927
2.414
SE
0.063
1.284
0.498
0.348
0.126
0.070
0.042
0.038
0.067
0.171
0.102
0.112
0.106
0.100
0.100
0.110
0.547
0.156
0.431
0.452
0.071
0.108
0.132
0.095
0.182
Other Vegetables
Percent
Consuming
83.1%
41 .7%
73.6%
78.9%
83.2%
81 .0%
84.1%
88.3%
87.7%
82.5%
83.3%
83.1%
83.4%
81 .4%
83.2%
84.1%
85.2%
78.1%
75.4%
76.3%
84.2%
81 .2%
84.5%
83.2%
83.8%
Mean
1.316
1.346
2.077
1.979
1.534
0.950
1.081
1.374
1.615
1.276
1.297
1.332
1.361
1.245
1.407
1.319
2.228
1.232
1.077
1.116
1.326
1.186
1.445
1.346
1.293
SE
0.016
0.200
0.136
0.102
0.062
0.035
0.022
0.026
0.046
0.032
0.030
0.032
0.031
0.027
0.033
0.023
0.205
0.044
0.107
0.104
0.017
0.029
0.040
0.026
0.033
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1989-91 CSFII
-------
Table 9-7. Per Caoita Intake of Exoosed Fruits (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
44.1%
54.7%
55.3%
56.9%
58.8%
36.4%
32.7%
44.3%
57.7%
45.5%
42.6%
45.3%
43.0%
42.4%
44.0%
45.3%
52.3%
34.6%
35.7%
34.0%
46.1%
47.3%
47.3%
36.9%
49.4%
Mean
1.435
9.224
5.682
4.324
2.316
0.682
0.596
0.716
1.032
1.753
1.184
1.44
1.362
1.322
1.335
1.553
2.118
1.132
0.939
1.614
1.468
1.422
1.518
1.271
1.643
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1989-91
SE
0.062
1.247
0.486
0.344
0.12
0.065
0.038
0.031
0.058
0.179
0.078
0.113
0.097
0.088
0.097
0.112
0.541
0.149
0.316
0.408
0.07
0.091
0.118
0.092
0.198
CSFII
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
2.897
2.897
2.305
1.379
0
0
0
0.534
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.654
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
1.402
12.336
8.598
5.766
3.32
0.871
0.754
1.102
1.452
1.521
1.283
1.389
1.441
1.328
1.445
1.442
1.674
1.045
0.922
1.659
1.441
1.645
1.49
1.177
1.443
P90
3.496
26.98
15.187
11.65
5.879
2.158
1.984
2.139
2.894
3.64
3.208
3.451
3.54
3.481
3.32
3.686
4.299
2.888
2.271
4.084
3.593
3.501
3.898
3.104
3.774
P95
6.075
33.216
19.107
19.049
8.585
3.214
2.858
3.048
4.042
7.537
5.505
6.313
5.703
6.075
5.505
6.614
8.678
4.618
4.157
8.529
6.104
6.114
6.834
5.695
7.009
P99
17.823
75.353
33.353
24.123
15.318
6.703
5.911
5.127
6.983
25.206
14.872
17.427
18.752
15.927
16.057
20.444
25.206
17.351
15.635
35.073
17.427
16.438
19.393
19.91
15.947
P100
204.28
204.28
80.189
48.728
25.367
10.766
28.486
13.206
10.631
204.28
84.336
98.133
59.848
80.189
84.336
204.28
27.337
80.189
17.684
36.71
204.28
84.336
75.353
80.189
204.28
-------
Table 9-8. Per Caoita Intake of Protected Fruits (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population
Grouo
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
NOTE:
Percent
Consumina
52.9%
38.9%
56.7%
57.0%
56.2%
47.7%
45.4%
57.3%
67.5%
50.2%
53.9%
54.1%
53.7%
53.3%
49.4%
54.7%
69.8%
49.6%
46.8%
51 .7%
53.4%
49.5%
59.4%
47.6%
60.1%
Mean
1.692
3.097
5.518
3.443
2.339
1.401
1.188
1.284
1.78
1.539
1.75
1.754
1.727
1.632
1.55
1.797
3.279
1.861
2.019
2.014
1.629
1.501
1.887
1.56
1.947
SE
0.037
0.528
0.455
0.235
0.125
0.081
0.047
0.043
0.072
0.071
0.072
0.082
0.071
0.069
0.069
0.056
0.429
0.126
0.33
0.263
0.039
0.072
0.08
0.064
0.084
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0.598
0
2.618
1.948
1.079
0.598
0.108
0.583
1.236
0.269
0.688
0.672
0.621
0.625
0.334
0.667
2.052
0.621
0.851
0.845
0.574
0.265
0.838
0.465
0.854
P75
2.316
4.353
9.049
5.606
3.727
2.234
1.694
2.009
2.706
2.04
2.407
2.471
2.423
2.276
2.115
2.472
4.382
2.695
2.701
2.472
2.238
2.07
2.675
2.147
2.613
P90
4.687
9.963
15.677
9.826
6.92
4.341
3.645
3.541
4.363
4.323
4.681
4.732
4.941
4.497
4.368
4.897
6.981
5.64
5.995
5.759
4.527
4.353
5.371
4.443
4.88
P95
6.717
15.242
20.912
13.018
8.688
5.761
4.844
4.596
5.779
6.509
6.787
6.571
6.905
6.099
6.961
6.826
17.729
7.241
10.354
8.88
6.425
6.099
7.268
6.39
7.836
P99 P100
13.019 136.69
23.624 136.69
27.432 49.904
17.729 35.141
12.807 27.945
7.894 15.503
8.205 29.275
7.719 21.372
8.611 15.003
13.595 26.751
13.032 44.68
15.503 136.69
12.166 30.692
11.535 136.69
12.076 29.275
14.399 44.68
17.729 18.792
13.572 136.69
11.554 15.244
14.279 44.68
12.53 49.904
12.53 49.904
13.018 42.347
12.076 136.69
16.064 44.68
SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on
EPA's analyses of the 1989-91
CSFII
-------
Table 9-9. Per Caoita Intake of Exoosed Veaetables (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population
Grouo
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
NOTE:
Percent
Consumina
84.9%
42.7%
78.0%
83.6%
84.7%
83.6%
86.3%
89.9%
86.4%
82.8%
85.0%
87.1%
84.9%
83.6%
85.8%
85.2%
83.2%
81 .8%
75.4%
85.4%
85.6%
80.9%
84.7%
86.7%
86.6%
Mean
1.49
1.208
2.268
2.245
1.606
1.181
1.3
1.568
1.603
1.383
1.475
1.634
1.468
1.413
1.55
1.511
2.133
1.472
1.501
1.682
1.476
1.215
1.561
1.609
1.546
SE
0.016
0.17
0.145
0.119
0.059
0.04
0.025
0.026
0.044
0.033
0.031
0.033
0.033
0.029
0.031
0.025
0.195
0.051
0.141
0.092
0.017
0.029
0.041
0.027
0.035
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0.367
0
0.299
0.329
0.293
0.253
0.331
0.557
0.672
0.29
0.383
0.432
0.367
0.302
0.471
0.356
0.606
0.308
0.168
0.338
0.371
0.239
0.378
0.434
0.424
P50
1.043
0
1.132
1.411
1.062
0.804
0.923
1.22
1.326
0.951
1.028
1.272
0.999
0.957
1.185
1.055
1.537
0.908
1.018
1.287
1.045
0.824
1.051
1.208
1.127
P75
2.067
1.55
3.616
3.061
2.222
1.696
1.87
2.177
2.214
1.824
2.075
2.289
2.09
1.952
2.146
2.098
3.135
1.88
2.423
2.748
2.067
1.683
2.126
2.254
2.158
P90
3.403
3.834
5.855
5.433
3.769
2.756
2.968
3.42
3.344
3.151
3.406
3.68
3.109
3.278
3.499
3.464
4.746
3.217
3.445
3.644
3.376
2.843
3.564
3.575
3.524
P95
4.515
6.451
7.404
7.664
5.118
3.84
3.692
4.443
4.206
4.283
4.562
4.765
4.464
4.331
4.59
4.683
6.883
4.989
4.155
4.697
4.464
3.834
4.994
4.562
4.7
P99 P100
7.727 20.492
11.524 18.592
12.808 20.492
12.493 17.872
9.161 15.741
5.699 12.139
6.327 14.837
6.274 13.624
5.928 12.814
8.783 18.592
7.403 20.492
7.399 18.283
7.664 16.152
8.17 20.492
7.283 17.872
7.664 16.152
10.325 11.841
9.219 16.141
6.424 8.189
6.933 8.368
7.359 20.492
6.35 20.492
8.243 18.283
7.404 14.568
7.664 16.152
SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on
EPA's analyses of the 1989-91
CSFII
-------
Table 9-10. Per Caoita Intake of Protected Veaetables (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population
Grouo
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
NOTE:
Percent
Consumina
34.0%
30.9%
41 .6%
39.8%
44.3%
30.1%
31 .6%
32.4%
34.6%
34.1%
34.8%
32.5%
34.4%
31 .7%
37.9%
33.1%
16.1%
37.3%
32.7%
22.9%
34.1%
35.8%
32.4%
36.8%
28.4%
SE = Standard error
Mean
0.332
1.144
0.794
0.703
0.5
0.229
0.233
0.239
0.303
0.336
0.32
0.334
0.337
0.303
0.396
0.32
0.166
0.411
0.38
0.221
0.326
0.344
0.369
0.358
0.236
SE
0.012
0.192
0.104
0.081
0.035
0.025
0.015
0.014
0.028
0.025
0.024
0.024
0.022
0.022
0.024
0.018
0.081
0.038
0.095
0.074
0.013
0.022
0.036
0.019
0.022
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0.414
1.435
1.201
1.205
0.848
0.332
0.323
0.362
0.427
0.394
0.421
0.411
0.42
0.354
0.514
0.39
0
0.502
0.446
0
0.413
0.46
0.376
0.48
0.178
P90
1.038
4.584
2.232
2.443
1.439
0.824
0.78
0.772
1.015
1.064
0.96
1.116
1.109
0.971
1.22
1.029
0.636
1.29
1.062
0.644
1.014
1.127
1.102
1.093
0.791
P95
1.637
6.25
3.766
3.053
2.058
1.339
1.161
1.164
1.491
1.725
1.435
1.7
1.724
1.619
1.725
1.591
1.201
2.014
1.826
1.369
1.587
1.674
1.835
1.726
1.257
P99
3.394
8.752
6.488
4.811
3.32
2.138
2.427
2.033
2.291
3.674
3.493
3.492
2.945
3.098
3.826
3.32
1.506
4.579
2.85
2.767
3.317
3.013
5.022
3.484
2.688
P100
14.4
14.4
9.74
11.3
8.6
4.94
5.6
6.25
5.34
11.3
14.4
10.4
8.68
14.4
11.3
14.1
3.17
9.07
4.64
5.6
14.4
11.3
14.1
14.4
6.25
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on
EPA's analyses of the
1989-91
CSFII
-------
Table 9-1 1 . Per Caoita Intake of Root Veaetables (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population
Grouo
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
NOTE:
Percent
Consumina
80.7%
52.4%
76.2%
77.9%
84.4%
81 .4%
81 .6%
82.8%
80.6%
80.6%
80.5%
80.3%
81 .5%
77.6%
82.3%
81 .9%
55.0%
73.8%
78.9%
65.4%
82.9%
82.2%
80.2%
81 .2%
78.5%
SE = Standard error
Mean
1.245
1.857
2.398
1.914
1.85
1.29
0.988
1.059
1.109
1.324
1.204
1.102
1.348
1.167
1.33
1.254
0.743
1.309
1.791
1.239
1.237
1.361
1.304
1.183
1.15
SE
0.015
0.204
0.129
0.096
0.065
0.045
0.02
0.021
0.04
0.032
0.029
0.031
0.029
0.029
0.03
0.023
0.146
0.052
0.137
0.11
0.016
0.033
0.037
0.024
0.032
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0.226
0
0.52
0.203
0.381
0.279
0.182
0.244
0.312
0.213
0.228
0.152
0.339
0.176
0.311
0.21
0
0.134
0.655
0
0.25
0.29
0.21
0.25
0.146
P50
0.832
0.184
1.879
1.344
1.23
0.909
0.717
0.807
0.821
0.893
0.858
0.655
0.97
0.755
0.893
0.861
0.274
0.761
1.47
0.635
0.858
0.889
0.912
0.796
0.786
P75
1.675
2.66
3.542
2.998
2.638
1.739
1.37
1.488
1.549
1.756
1.557
1.452
1.953
1.545
1.795
1.708
0.814
1.627
2.762
1.75
1.673
1.844
1.781
1.591
1.56
P90
2.974
5.337
5.695
4.596
4.449
3.051
2.385
2.454
2.535
3.238
2.752
2.669
3.1
2.826
3.256
2.972
1.764
3.337
3.858
3.38
2.887
3.238
3.212
2.82
2.673
P95
4.029
8.233
7.084
6.14
6.018
4.177
3.096
3.087
3.203
4.402
3.889
3.858
4.137
3.903
4.422
4.017
3.546
5.358
4.705
4.861
3.942
4.386
4.246
3.906
3.683
P99
7.074
12.5
10.449
7.505
8.165
5.74
5.025
4.983
5.636
7.484
6.644
7.751
5.989
7.505
6.946
7.079
7.269
7.968
7.067
8.253
6.651
7.968
7.022
6.926
7.269
P100
30.609
30.609
16.27
17.416
17.107
24.949
8.002
9.043
10.723
15.625
30.609
24.949
17.416
30.609
19.449
17.416
10.702
17.534
13.578
10.415
30.609
19.449
24.949
30.609
13.578
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on
EPA's analyses of the
1989-91
CSFII
-------
Table 9-1 2. Mean
Food Product
Fruits
Vegetables
Daily Intake of Fruits and
77-78 Data
(g/day)
142
201
Vegetables Per Individual
87-88 Data
(g/day)
142
182
in a Day for USDA
89-91 Data
(g/day)
156
179
1977-78,87-88,
94 Data
(g/day)
171
186
89-91 , 94, and 95 Surveys
95 Data
(g/day)
173
188
Source: USDA, 1980; 1992; 1996a; 1996b.
-------
Table 9-13. Mean Per Capita Intake
Raw Agricultural Commodity"
Alfalfa Sprouts
Apples-Dried
Apples-Fresh
Apples-Juice
Apricots-Dried
Apricots-Fresh
Artichokes-Globe
Artichokes-Jerusalem
Asparagus
Avocados
Bamboo Shoots
Bananas-Dried
Bananas-Fresh
Bananas-Unspecified
Beans-Dry-Blackeye Peas (cowpeas)
Beans-Dry-Broad Beans (Mature
Seed)
Beans-Dry-Garbanzo (Chick Pea)
Beans-Dry-Great Northern
Beans-Dry-Hyacinth (Mature Seeds)
Beans-Dry-Kidney
Beans-Dry-Lima
Beans-Dry-Navy (Pea)
Beans-Dry-Other
Beans-Dry-Pigeon Beans
Beans-Dry-Pinto
Beans-Succulent-Broad Beans
(Immature Seed)
Beans-Succulent-Green
Beans-Succulent-Hyacinth (Young
Pods)
Beans-Succulent-Lima
Beans-Succulent-Other
Beans-Succulent-Yellow, Wax
Beans-Unsoecified
Rates (as consumed) for Fruits and Vegetables Based on
Average Consumption
(Grams/kg Body Weight-Day)
0.0001393
0.0002064
0.4567290
0.2216490
0.0004040
0.0336893
0.0032120
0.0000010
0.0131098
0.0125370
0.0001464
0.0004489
0.2240382
0.0032970
0.0024735
0.0000000
0.0005258
0.0000010
0.0000000
0.0136313
0.0079892
0.0374073
0.0398251
0.0000357
0.0363498
0.0000000
0.2000500
0.0000000
0.0256648
0.0263838
0.0054634
0.0052345
All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Standard Error
0.0000319
0.0000566
0.0142203
0.0142069
0.0001457
0.0022029
0.0007696
*
0.0010290
0.0020182
0.0000505
0.0001232
0.0088206
0.0004938
0.0005469
*
0.0001590
*
*
0.0045628
0.0016493
0.0023595
0.0023773
0.0000357
0.0048479
*
0.0062554
*
0.0021327
0.0042782
0.0009518
0.0012082
-------
Table 9-13. Mean Per Capita Intake
Raw Agricultural Commodity"
Beets-Roots
Beets-Tops (Greens)
Bitter Melon
Blackberries
Blueberries
Boysenberries
Bread Nuts
Bread Fruit
Broccoli
Brussel Sprouts
Cabbage-Chinese/Celery, Inc. Bok
Choy
Cabbage-Green and Red
Cactus Pads
Cantaloupes
Carambola
Carob
Carrots
Casabas
Cassava (Yuca Blanca)
Cauliflower
Celery
Cherimoya
Cherries-Dried
Cherries-Fresh
Cherries-Juice
Chicory (French or Belgian Endive)
Chili Peppers
Chives
Citrus Citron
Coconut-Copra
Coconut-Fresh
Coconut-Water
Rates (as consumed) for Fruits and Vegetables Based on
(continued)
Average Consumption
(Grams/kg Body Weight-Day)
0.0216142
0.0008287
0.0000232
0.0064268
0.0090474
0.0007313
0.0000010
0.0000737
0.0491295
0.0068480
0.0045632
0.0936402
0.0000010
0.0444220
0.0000010
0.0000913
0.1734794
0.0007703
0.0002095
0.0158368
0.060961 1
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0321754
0.0034080
0.0006707
0.0000000
0.0000193
0.0001573
0.0012860
0.0001927
0.0000005
All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Standard Error
0.0014187
0.0003755
0.0000233
0.0007316
0.0008951
0.0006284
*
0.0000590
0.0032966
0.0009061
0.0020966
0.0039046
*
0.0029515
*
0.0000474
0.0041640
0.0003057
0.00001574
0.0011522
0.0014495
*
*
0.0024966
0.0009078
0.0001465
*
0.0000070
0.0000324
0.0000927
0.0000684
0.0000005
-------
Table 9-13. Mean Per Capita Intake
Raw Agricultural Commodity"
Collards
Corn, Pop
Corn, Sweet
Crabapples
Cranberries
Cranberries-Juice
Crenshaws
Cress, Upland
Cress, Garden, Field
Cucumbers
Currants
Dandelion
Dates
Dewberries
Eggplant
Elderberries
Endive, Curley and Escarole
Fennel
Figs
Garlic
Genip (Spanish Lime)
Ginkgo Nuts
Gooseberries
Grapefruit-Juice
Grapefruit-Pulp
Grapes-Fresh
Grapes-Juice
Grapes-Leaves
Grapes-Raisins
Groundcherries (Poha or Cape-
Gooseberries)
Guava
Honevdew Melons
Rates (as consumed) for Fruits and Vegetables Based on
(continued)
Average Consumption
(Grams/kg Body Weight-Day)
0.0188966
0.0067714
0.2367071
0.0003740
0.0150137
0.0170794
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0000000
0.0720821
0.0005462
0.0005039
0.0006662
0.0023430
0.0061858
0.0001364
0.0011851
0.0000000
0.0027847
0.0007621
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0003953
0.0773585
0.0684644
0.0437931
0.0900960
0.0000119
0.0169730
0.0000000
0.0000945
0.0183628
All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Standard Error
0.0032628
0.0003348
0.0062226
*
0.0006153
0.0022223
*
*
*
0.0034389
0.0000892
0.0002225
0.0001498
*
0.0007645
0.0001365
0.0001929
*
0.0005254
0.0000230
*
*
0.0001341
0.0053846
0.0032321
0.0023071
0.0058627
0.0000887
0.0009221
*
0.0000558
0.0042879
-------
Table 9-13. Mean Per Capita Intake
Raw Agricultural Commodity"
Huckleberries (Gaylussacia)
Juneberry
Kale
Kiwi
Kohlrabi
Kumquats
Lambsquarter
Leafy Oriental Vegetables
Leeks
Lemons-Juice
Lemons-Peel
Lemons-Pulp
Lemons-Unspecified
Lentiles-Split
Lentiles- Whole
Lettuce-Head Varieties
Lettuce-Leafy Varieties
Lettuce-Unspecified
Limes-Juice
Limes-Pulp
Limes-Unspecified
Loganberries
Logan Fruit
Loquats
Lychee-Dried
Lychees (Litchi)
Maney (Mammee Apple)
Mangoes
Mulberries
Mung Beans (Sprouts)
Mushrooms
Mustard Greens
Rates (as consumed) for Fruits and Vegetables Based on
(continued)
Average Consumption
(Grams/kg Body Weight-Day)
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0015036
0.0000191
0.0002357
0.0000798
0.0000481
0.0000010
0.0000388
0.0189564
0.0002570
0.0002149
0.0020695
0.0000079
0.0012022
0.2122803
0.0044328
0.0092008
0.0032895
0.0000941
0.0000010
0.0002040
0.0000010
0.0000000
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0005539
0.0000010
0.0066521
0.0213881
0.0145284
All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Standard Error
*
*
0.0006070
0.0000191
0.0001028
0.0000574
0.0000481
*
0.0000221
0.0009004
0.0001082
0.0000378
0.0003048
0.0000064
0.0002351
0.0059226
0.0003840
0.0004328
0.0005473
0.0000344
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.0002121
*
0.0006462
0.0009651
0.0024053
-------
Table 9-13. Mean Per Capita Intake
Raw Agricultural Commodity"
Nectarines
Okra
Olives
Onions-Dehydrated or Dried
Onions-Dry-Bulb (Cipollini)
Onions-Green
Oranges-Juice
Oranges-Peel
Oranges-Pulp
Papayas-Dried
Papayas-Fresh
Papayas-Juice
Parsley Roots
Parsley
Parsnips
Passion Fruit (Granadilla)
Pawpaws
Peaches-Dried
Peaches-Fresh
Pears-Dried
Pears-Fresh
Peas (Garden)-Green Immature
Peas (Garden)-Mature Seeds, Dry
Peppers, Sweet, Garden
Peppers-Other
Persimmons
Persian Melons
Pimentos
Pineapple-Dried
Pineapple-Fresh, Pulp
Pineapple-Fresh, Juice
Pitanaa (Surinam Cherrvl
Rates (as consumed) for Fruits and Vegetables Based on
(continued)
Average Consumption
(Grams/kg Body Weight-Day)
0.0129663
0.0146352
0.0031757
0.0001192
0.1060612
0.0019556
1 .0947265
0.0001358
0.1503524
0.0009598
0.0013389
0.0030536
0.0000010
0.0036679
0.0006974
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0000496
0.2153916
0.0000475
0.1224735
0.1719997
0.0017502
0.0215525
0.0043594
0.0004008
0.0000010
0.0019485
0.0000248
0.0308283
0.0371824
0.0000010
All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Standard Error
0.0013460
0.0017782
0.0002457
0.0000456
0.0021564
0.0001848
0.0283937
0.0000085
0.0092049
0.0000520
0.0005055
0.0012795
*
0.0001459
0.0001746
*
*
0.0000152
0.0078691
0.0000279
0.0050442
0.0067868
0.0002004
0.0010091
0.0004748
0.0002236
*
0.0001482
0.0000195
0.0017136
0.0026438
-------
Table 9-13. Mean Per Capita Intake
Raw Agricultural Commodity"
Plantains
Plums, Prune-Juice
Plums (Damsons)-Fresh
Plums-Prunes (Dried)
Poke Greens
Pomegranates
Potatoes (White)-Whole
Potatoes (White)-Unspecified
Potatoes (White)-Peeled
Potatoes (White)-Dry
Potatoes (White)-Peel Only
Pumpkin
Quinces
Radishes-Roots
Radishes-Tops
Raspberries
Rhubarb
Rutabagas-Roots
Rutabagas-Tops
Salsify (Oyster Plant)
Shallots
Soursop (Annona Muricata)
Soybeans-Sprouted Seeds
Spinach
Squash-Summer
Squash-Winter
Strawberries
Sugar Apples (Sweetsop)
Sweetpotatoes (including Yams)
Swiss Chard
Tangelos
Tanaerine-Juice
Rates (as consumed) for Fruits and Vegetables Based on
(continued)
Average Consumption
(Grams/kg Body Weight-Day)
0.0016370
0.0137548
0.0248626
0.0058071
0.0002957
0.0000820
0.3400582
0.0000822
0.7842573
0.0012994
0.0000217
0.0044182
0.0001870
0.0015558
0.0000000
0.0028661
0.0037685
0.0027949
0.0000000
0.0000028
0.0000000
0.0000010
0.0000000
0.0435310
0.0316479
0.0324417
0.0347089
0.0000010
0.0388326
0.0016915
0.0025555
0.0000839
All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Standard Error
0.0007074
0.0017904
0.0020953
0.0005890
0.0001475
0.0000478
0.0102200
0.0000093
0.0184579
0.0001896
0.0000133
0.0004354
*
0.0001505
*
0.0005845
0.0006588
0.0009720
*
0.0000028
*
*
*
0.0030656
0.0022956
0.0026580
0.0020514
*
0.0035926
0.0004642
0.0006668
0.0000567
-------
Table 9-13. Mean Per Capita Intake Rates (as consumed) for Fruits and Vegetables Based on
(continued)
Raw Agricultural Commodity"
Tangerines
Tapioca
Taro-Greens
Taro-Root
Tomatoes-Catsup
Tomatoes-Juice
Tomatoes-Paste
Tomatoes-Puree
Tomatoes-Whole
Towelgourd
Turnips-Roots
Turnips-Tops
Water Chestnuts
Watercress
Watermelon
Yambean, Tuber
Yautia, Tannier
Younaberries
* Not reported
8 Consumed in any raw or prepared form
Source: ORES data base (based on
Average Consumption
(Grams/kg Body Weight-Day)
0.0088441
0.0012199
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0420320
0.0551351
0.0394767
0.17012311
0.4920164
0.0000010
0.0082392
0.0147111
0.0004060
0.0003553
0.0765054
0.0000422
0.0000856
0.0003570
1977-78 MFCS data).
All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Standard Error
0.0010948
0.0000951
*
*
0.0015878
0.0029515
0.0012512
0.0054679
0.0080927
*
0.0014045
0.0025845
0.0000682
0.0001564
0.0068930
0.0000402
0.0000571
-------
Table 9-14. Mean Total Fruit Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1977-1978)°
Age (yr) Per Capita Intake Percent of Population Using Intake (g/day) for Users Onlyb
(a/dav) Fruit in a Day
Males and Females
1 and under 169 86.8 196
1-2 146 62.9 231
3-5 134 56.1 239
6-8 152 60.1 253
Males
9-11 133 50.5 263
12-14 120 51.2 236
15-18 147 47.0 313
19-22 107 39.4 271
23-34 141 46.4 305
35-50 115 44.0 262
51-64 171 62.4 275
65-74 174 62.2 281
75 and over 186 62.6 197
Females
9-11 148 59.7 247
12-14 120 48.7 247
15-18 126 49.9 251
19-22 133 48.0 278
23-34 122 47.7 255
35-50 133 52.8 252
51-64 171 66.7 256
65-74 179 69.3 259
75 and over 189 64.7 292
Males and Females
All ages 142 54.2 263
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (1977-1978) data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita intake rate by the fraction of the population using fruit in a day.
Source: USDA. 1980.
-------
Table 9-15. Mean Total Fruit Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1987-1988)°
Age (Vr)
Per Capita Intake (a/day)
Percent of Population Using
Fruit in 1 Day
Intake (g/day) for Users Onlyb
Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Males and Females
All Ages
157
182
158
133
154
131
140
142
59.2
63.8
49.4
46.5
58.3
47.1
52.7
51.4
265
285
320
286
264
278
266
276
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (1987-1988) data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita intake rate by the fraction of the population using fruits in a day.
Source: USDA. 1992b.
-------
Table 9-16. Mean Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1977-1978)°
Age (yr) Per Capita Intake Percent of Population Using Intake (g/day) for Users
(g/day) Vegetables in a Day Onlyb
Males and Females
land under 76 62.7 121
1-2 91 78.0 116
3-5 100 79.3 126
6-8 136 84.3 161
Males
9-11 138 83.5 165
12-14 184 84.5 217
15-18 216 85.9 251
19-22 226 84.7 267
23-34 248 88.5 280
35-50 261 86.8 300
51-64 285 90.3 316
65-74 265 88.5 300
75 and over 264 93.6 281
Females
9-11 139 83.7 166
12-14 154 84.6 183
15-18 178 83.8 212
19-22 184 81.1 227
23-34 187 84.7 221
35-50 187 84.6 221
51-64 229 89.8 255
65-74 221 87.2 253
75 & over 198 88.1 226
Males and Females
All Ages 201 85.6 235
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (1977-1978) data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita intake rate by the fraction of the population using vegetables in a
day.
Source: USDA. 1980.
-------
Table 9-17. Mean Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1987-1988)"
Aae (vr) Per Caoita Intake (a/dav)
Males and Females
5 and under 81
Males
6-11 129
12-19 173
20 and over 232
Females
6-11 129
12-19 129
20 and over 1 83
Males and Females
AIIAaes 182
Percent of Population Using
Vegetables in a Dav
74.0
86.8
85.2
85.0
80.6
75.8
82.9
82.6
8 Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (1 987-1 988) data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita intake rate by the fraction of the
day.
Source: USDA. 1992b.
Intake (a/dav) for Users Only"
109
149
203
273
160
170
221
220
population using vegetables in a
-------
Table 9-18. Mean Total Fruit Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1994 and 1995)"
Aae (vr)
Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Males and Females
All Aaes
Per Caoita Intake (a/dav)
1994 1995
230 221
176 219
169 210
175 170
174 172
148 167
157 155
171 173
Based on USDA CSFII (1 994 and 1 995) data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita
Source: USDA. 1996a: 1996b.
Percent of Population Using
Fruit in 1 Dav
1994
70.6
59.8
44.0
50.2
59.3
47.1
55.1
54.1
intake rate
1995
72.6
62.2
47.1
49.6
63.6
44.4
54.4
54.2
by the fraction of the
Intake (a/dav) for Users Only"
1994
326
294
384
349
293
314
285
316
population using fruits in
1995
304
352
446
342
270
376
285
319
a day.
-------
Table
Aae (vrt
Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Males and Females
All Aaes
9-1 9. Mean Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a
Per Caoita Intake (a/dav)
1994
80
118
154
242
115
132
190
186
1995
83
111
202
241
108
144
189
188
Based on USDA CSFII (1 994 and 1 995) data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita
day.
Source: USDA. 1996a: 1996b.
Day by Sex and Age
Percent of Population Using
Veaetables in 1 Dav
1994
75.2
82.4
74.9
85.9
82.9
78.5
84.7
83.2
intake rate
1995
75.0
80.6
79.0
86.4
79.1
76.0
83.2
82.6
by the fraction of the
(1994 and 1995)"
Intake (a/davl for Users Onlvb
1994
106
143
206
282
139
168
224
223
1995
111
138
256
278
137
189
227
228
population using vegetables in a
-------
Table 9-20. Mean Per Capita Intake
Males and Females
5 and
under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and
over
6-11
12-19
20 and
over
Males and Females
All Ages
Total Fats and
1994
4
8
11
19
7
9
16
14
of Fats and Oils (g/day as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1994 and
1995)a
Oils"
1995
3
7
14
18
8
9
14
14
Table Fatsc
1994
2
3
2
5
3
2
4
4
a Based on USDA CSFII 1994 and 1995 data for one day.
b Table fats, cooking fats, vegetable oils, salad dressings, nondairy
and oil.
c Butter, margarines, blends of butter with margarines or vegetable
d Regular and reduced- and low-calorie dressings and mayonnaise
Source: USDA, 1996a: 1996b.
1995
2
3
5
5
3
3
5
4
Salad Dressings"
1994
2
5
8
11
4
6
10
9
cream substitutes, sauces that are
oils, and butter replacements.
1995
1
4
10
10
4
6
7
8
mainly fat
-------
Table 9-21. Mean and Standard Error for the Per Capita Daily Intake of Food Class and Subclass by Region (g/day as consumed)
US population Northeast North Central South West
Total Produce 282.6 ± 3.5 270.6 ± 6.9 282.4 ± 6.7 280.7 ± 5.6 303.1 ± 8.2
Leafy" 39.2 ± 0.8 38.1 ±1.5 37.1 ±1.5 38.4 ±1.2 45.3 ±1.8
Exposed" 86.0 ± 1.5 88.5 ± 3.0 87.8 ± 2.9 76.9 ± 2.4 95.5 ± 3.6
Protected0 150.4±2.3 137.2±4.5 150.1 ±4.3 160.1 ±3.6 152.5±5.3
Other 7.0 ±0.3 6.9 ± 0.6 7.3 ± 0.5 5.4 ±0.4 9.8 ± 0.7
a Produce belonging to this category include: cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, celery, lettuce, and spinach.
b Produce belonging to this category include: apples, pears, berries, cucumber, squash, grapes, peaches, apricots, plums,
prunes, string beans, pea pods, and tomatoes.
c Produce belonging to this category include: carrots, beets, turnips, parsnips, citrus fruits, sweet corn, legumes (peas, beans,
etc.), melons, onion, and potatoes.
NOTE: Northeast = Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania.
North Central = Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, and Kansas.
South = Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma.
West = Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1984b (based on 1977-78 NFCS data).
-------
Table 9-22. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Food Subclasses Per Capita by Age (g/day as consumed)
Age (years)
All Ages
<1
1-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40-59
> 60
Leafy produce"
39.2 ± 0.8
3.2 ±4.9
9.1 ±2.4
20.1 ± 2.0
26.1 ±1.9
31 .4 ±2.0
35.3 ± 2.6
41 .4 ±2.7
44.4 ±2.1
51 .3 ± 1.6
45.4 ± 1 .8
a Produce belonging to this category include:
b Produce belonging to this category include:
string beans, pea pods, and tomatoes.
c Produce belonging to this category include:
melons, onion, and potatoes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1984a (based on 1977-78
Exposed produce1" Protected produce0
86.0 ±1.5
75.5 ± 9.8
55.6 ± 4.8
69.2 ± 4.8
76.8 ± 3.8
71 .9 ±4.0
65.6 ± 5.2
73.4 ±5.3
77.1 ± 4.2
94.7 ± 3.3
11 4.2 ±3.6
150.4 ±2.3
50.8 ± 14.7
94.5 ± 7.2
128.9 ±6.1
151 .7 ±5.7
156.6 ±6.0
144.5 ±7.8
149.8 ±8.0
150.5 ±6.3
162.9 ±4.9
163.9 ±5.5
Other produce
7.0 ±0.3
25.5 ± 1.8
5.1 ±0.9
4.3 ±0.8
8.1 ±0.7
6.2 ±0.7
5.0 ± 1.0
7.0 ±1.0
6.1 ±0.8
6.9 ±0.6
7.6 ±0.7
cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, celery, lettuce, and spinach.
apples, pears, berries, cucumber, squash, grapes, peaches, apricots, plums, prunes,
carrots, beets, turnips, parsnips, citrus fruits, sweet corn, legumes (peas, beans, etc.),
MFCS data).
-------
Table 9-23. Consumption of Foods (g dry weight/day) for Different Age Groups and
Estimated Lifetime Average Daily Food Intakes for a US Citizen
(averaged across sex) Calculated from the FDA Diet Data
Age
(0-1) (1-5) (6-13)
Potatoes 5.67 10.03 14.72
Leafy Veg. 0.84 0.49 0.85
Legume Veg. 3.81 4.56 6.51
Root Veg. 3.04 0.67 1.20
Garden fruits 0.66 1.67 2.57
Peanuts 0.34 2.21 2.56
Mushrooms 0.00 0.01 0.03
Veg. Oils 27.62 17.69 27.54
a The estimated lifetime dietary intakes were estimated by:
Estimated lifetime = IR(0-1) + 5vrs* IR (1-5) + 8 vrs* IR
(in years)
(14-19)
19.40
1.22
8.45
1.73
3.47
2.91
0.04
37.04
(20-44)
17.28
2.16
9.81
1.77
4.75
2.43
0.14
37.20
(45-70)
14.79
2.65
9.50
1.64
4.86
1.91
0.06
27.84
rs*IR (20-441 + 25
Estimated Lifetime
Intake"
15.60
1.97
8.75
1.60
4.15
2.25
0.08
31.24
vrs* I R (45-70)
70 years
where IR = the intake rate for a specific age group.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1989 (based on 1977-78 MFCS and NHANES II data).
-------
Table 9-24. Mean Daily
Age (vrs)
Males and Females
1-4
5-11
Males
12-19
20-39
40-64
65+
Females
12-19
20-39
40-64
65+
Pregnant Females
—
Sample Size
1031
1995
1070
999
1222
881
1162
1347
1500
818
769
Intake of Foods (grams)
Fruit and
Fruit Products
258
312
237
244
194
165
237
204
239
208
301
Based on the Nutrition Canada Dietary Survey"
Vegetables Not
Including Potatoes
56
83
94
155
134
118
97
134
136
103
156
a Report does not specify whether means were calculated per capita or for consumers only.
with the as consumed intake rates for consumers only reported by USDA (1980).
Source: Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare, n.d.
Potatoes
75
110
185
189
131
124
115
99
79
80
114
Nuts and
Legumes
6
13
20
15
15
8
15
8
10
5
15
The reported values are consistent
-------
Table 9-25.
Per Capita Consumption of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in 1991"
Fresh Fruits
Food Item
Citrus
Oranges (includes Temple
oranges)
Tangerines and Tangelos
Lemons
Limes
Grapefruit
Total Fresh Citrus
Noncitrus
Apples
Apricots
Avocados
Bananas
Cherries
Cranberries
Grapes
Kiwi Fruit
Mangoes
Peaches & Nectarines
Pears
Pineapple
Papayas
Plums and Prunes
Strawberries
Total Fresh Noncitrus
Total Fresh Fruits
Per Capita
Consumption
(a/dav1b
10.2
1.6
3.1
0.9
7.1
22.9
21.8
0.1
1.7
31.2
0.5
0.4
8.2
0.5
1.0
7.6
3.7
2.2
0.3
1.7
4.1
85.0
107.7
Fresh Veaetables
Food Item
Artichokes
Asparagus
Snap Beans
Broccoli
Brussel Sprouts
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Sweet Corn
Cucumber
Eggplant
Escarole/Endive
Garlic
Head Lettuce
Onions
Bell Peppers
Radishes
Spinach
Tomatoes
Total Fresh Vegetables
Per Capita
Consumption
(a/dav1b
0.62
0.75
1.4
3.5
0.4
9.5
9.0
2.2
7.8
6.6
5.2
0.5
0.3
1.6
30.2
18.4
5.8
0.6
0.9
16.3
126.1
a Based on retail-weight equivalent. Includes imports; excludes exports and foods grown in home gardens. Data for 1991 used.
b Original data were presented in Ibs/yr; data were converted to g/day by multiplying by a factor of 454 g/lb and dividing by 365
days/yr.
Source: USDA. 1993.
-------
Table 9-26. Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Three Days
Food category
% Indiv. using Quantity consumed per eating
food in 3 days occasion (g)
Average Standard
Deviation
Raw vegetables
White potatoes
Cabbage and coleslaw
Carrots
Cucumbers
Lettuce and tossed salad
Mature onions
Tomatoes
Cooked vegetables
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Corn, whole kernel
Lima beans
Mixed vegetables
Cowpeas, field peas, black-
eyed peas
Green peas
Spinach
String beans
Summer sguash
Sweet potatoes
Tomato juice
Cucumber pickles
Fruits
Grapefruit
Grapefruit juice
Oranges
Orange juice
Apples
Applesauce, cooked apples
Apple juice
Cantaloupe
Raw peaches
Raw pears
Raw strawberries
" Percentiles are cumulative
74.4
9.7
5
5.6
50.7
8.5
27.8
6.2
4.7
9.8
23.9
2.8
3.4
2.9
18.3
4.5
27.3
2.8
4.1
3.9
9.2
4.7
3.6
9
35.5
18.2
9.8
3.8
3.3
4.5
3.1
2.1
125
68
43
80
65
31
81
112
128
70
95
110
117
131
90
121
86
145
136
91
45
159
202
146
190
141
134
191
171
160
163
100
90
45
40
76
59
33
55
68
83
59
56
75
69
88
57
70
54
98
87
122
45
58
99
57
84
49
86
101
91
75
69
58
Consumers-only
Quantity consumed per eating occasion at specified percentiles (g)a
5
29
15
4
8
10
3
30
30
28
19
21
21
28
22
20
24
18
27
38
91
7
106
95
73
95
69
28
63
61
76
82
37
25
63
40
13
24
20
17
45
78
75
46
65
67
91
88
43
78
67
105
86
122
16
134
125
145
125
138
64
124
136
152
164
75
50
105
60
31
70
55
18
62
90
145
75
83
88
94
88
85
103
70
108
114
182
30
134
186
145
187
138
128
186
136
152
164
75
75
170
90
55
110
93
36
113
155
150
92
123
170
182
175
85
185
135
215
185
243
65
165
247
145
249
138
130
248
272
152
164
149
90
235
120
100
158
140
57
123
185
225
150
170
175
187
196
170
205
140
215
225
243
90
268
250
180
249
212
255
248
272
304
164
149
95
280
120
122
220
186
72
182
190
300
155
170
219
187
350
170
205
140
352
238
363
130
268
375
228
311
212
155
372
272
304
328
180
99
426
240
183
316
270
180
246
350
450
276
330
350
374
350
330
380
280
430
450
486
222
330
500
360
498
276
488
496
529
456
328
298
for example, 50 percent of people eat 105 g white potatoes per day or less.
Source: Pao et al.. 1982 (based on 1977-78 MFCS data).
-------
Table 9-27. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Fruits and
Food
Fruit
Apples - dried
Apples -
Apples - juice
Applesauce
Apricots
Apricots - dried
Bananas
Blackberries
Blueberries
Boysenberries
Cantaloupes - unspecified
Casabas
Cherries - sweet
Crabapples
Cranberries
Cranberries - juice cocktail
Currants (red and white)
Elderberries
Grapefruit
Grapefruit -juice
Grapefruit - unspecified
Grapes - fresh
Grapes - juice
Grapes - raisins
Honeydew melons
Kiwi fruit
Kumquats
Lemons -juice
Lemons - peel
Lemons -pulp
Limes- juice
Limes - unspecified
Loganberries
Mulberries
Nectarines
Oranges - unspecified
Peaches
Pears - dried
Pears - fresh
Pineapple
Pineapple - juice
Plums
Quinces
Raspberries
Strawberries
Tangerine -juice
Tangerines
Watermelon
Vegetables
Alfalfa sprouts
Artichokes - globe & French
Artichokes - Jerusalem
Vegetables Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions
Moisture Content (Percent)
Raw Cooked
31.76
83.93*
86.35
31.09
74.26
85.64
84.61
85.90
89.78
91.00
80.76
78.94
86.54
85.00
83.95
79.80
90.89
90.00
90.89
81.30
84.12
15.42
89.66
83.05
81.70
90.73
81.60
88.98
90.21
88.26
84.61
87.68
86.28
86.75
87.66
26.69
83.81
86.50
83.80
86.57
91.57
88.90
87.60
91.51
91.14
84.38
78.01
84.13*
84.46**
87.93
88.35*
86.62*
85.56*
86.59*
84.95*
90.10*
92.46*
92.52*
87.49*
64.44*
86.47*
83.51*
85.53
85.20
89.97*
87.00*
89.51*
86.50
Comments
sulfured; 'without added sugar
*with skin; "without skin
canned or bottled
'unsweetened
'canned juice pack with skin
sulfured; 'without added sugar
'frozen unsweetened
frozen unsweetened
'canned, juice pack
bottled
'canned unsweetened
pink, red, white
American type (slip skin)
canned or bottled
seedless
'canned or bottled
'canned or bottled
all varieties
'canned juice pack
sulfured; 'without added sugar
'canned juice pack
'canned juice pack
canned
'frozen unsweetened
'canned sweetened
'canned juice pack
boiled, drained
-------
Table 9-27. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Fruits and Vegetables Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions (continued)
Food
Asparagus
Bamboo shoots
Beans - dry
Beans - dry - blackeye peas (cowpeas)
Beans - dry - hyacinth (mature seeds)
Beans - dry - navy (pea)
Beans - dry - pinto
Beans - lima
Beans - snap - Italian - green - yellow
Beets
Beets - tops (greens)
Broccoli
Brussel sprouts
Cabbage - Chinese/celery,
including bok choy
Cabbage - red
Cabbage - savoy
Carrots
Cassava (yucca blanca)
Cauliflower
Celeriac
Celery
Chili peppers
Chives
Cole slaw
Collards
Corn - sweet
Cress - garden - field
Cress - garden
Cucumbers
Dandelion - greens
Eggplant
Endive
Garlic
Kale
Kohlrabi
Lambsquarter
Leeks
Lentils - whole
Lettuce - iceberg
Lettuce - romaine
Mung beans (sprouts)
Mushrooms
Mustard greens
Okra
Onions
Onions - dehydrated or dried
Parsley
Parsley roots
Parsnips
Peas (garden) - mature seeds - dry
Peppers - sweet - garden
Potatoes (white) - peeled
Moisture Content (Percent)
Raw Cooked
92.25
91.00
66.80
87.87
79.15
81.30
70.24
90.27
87.32
92.15
90.69
86.00
95.32
91.55
91.00
87.79
68.51
92.26
88.00
94.70
87.74
92.00
81.50
93.90
75.96
89.40
89.40
96.05
85.60
91.93
93.79
58.58
84.46
91.00
84.30
83.00
67.34
95.89
94.91
90.40
91.81
90.80
89.58
90.82
3.93
88.31
88.31
79.53
88.89
92.77
78.96
92.04
95.92
71.80
86.90
76.02
93.39
67.17
89.22
90.90
89.13
90.20
87.32
95.55
93.60
92.00
87.38
92.50
92.30
95.00
92.50*
95.72
69.57
92.50
92.50
89.80
91.77
91.20
90.30
88.90
90.80
68.70
93.39
91.08
94.46
89.91
92.24
77.72
88.91
94.70
75.42
Comments
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
'canned solids & liquid
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
stir-fried
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
baked
-------
Table 9-27. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Fruits and Vegetables Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions (continued)
Food
Potatoes (white) - whole
Pumpkin
Radishes - roots
Rhubarb
Rutabagas - unspecified
Salsify (oyster plant)
Shallots
Soybeans - sprouted seeds
Spinach
Squash - summer
Squash - winter
Sweetpotatoes (including yams)
Swiss chard
Tapioca - pearl
Taro - greens
Taro - root
Tomatoes - juice
Tomatoes - paste
Tomatoes - puree
Tomatoes - raw
Tomatoes - whole
Towelgourd
Turnips - roots
Turnips - tops
Water chestnuts
Yambean - tuber
Moisture Content (Percent)
Raw Cooked
83.29
91.60
94.84
93.61
89.66
77.00
79.80
69.05
91.58
93.68
88.71
72.84
92.66
10.99
85.66
70.64
93.95
93.95
93.85
91.87
91.07
73.46
89.15
71.20
93.69
67.79
90.10
81.00
79.45
91.21
93.70
89.01
71.85
92.65
92.15
63.80
93.90
74.06
87.26
92.40
84.29
93.60
93.20
87.93
Comments
baked
boiled, drained
frozen, cooked with added sugar
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
steamed
boiled, drained
all varieties; boiled, drained
all varieties; baked
baked in skin
boiled, drained
dry
steamed
canned
canned
canned
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
Source: USDA, 1979-1986.
-------
Table 9-28. Summary of Fruit and Vegetable Intake Studies
Study
KEY STUDIES
EPA Analysis of 1989-
91 USDA CSFII data
RELEVANT STUDIES
AIHC, 1994
Canadian Department
of National Health and
Welfare, n.d.
EPA's ORES
Paoetal., 1982
USDA, 1980; 1992b;
1996a; 1996b
USDA, 1993
U.S. EPA/ORP, 1984a;
1984b
U.S. EPA/OST, 1989
Survey Population Used
in Calculating Intake
Per capita data;
consumer only data can
be calculated
Per Capita
Not known if per capita or
consumers only
Per capita (i.e.,
consumers and
nonconsumers)
Consumers only serving
size data provided
Per capita and consumer
only
Per capita consumption
based on "food
disappearance"
Per capita
Estimated lifetime dietary
intake
Types of Data Used Units
1989-91 CSFII data; g/kg-day; as consumed
Based on 3-day average individual
intake rate
Based on the 1977-78 USDA NFCS g/day
data provided in the 1 989 version of
the Exposure Factors Handbook.
1970-72 survey based on 24-hour g/day; not known if as
dietary recall consumed
1 977-78 NFCS g/kg-day; as consumed
3-day individual intake data
1977-78 NFCS g; as consumed
3-day individual intake data
1 977-78 and 1 987-88 NFCS, and g/day; as consumed
1994 and 1995 CSFII
1 -day individual intake data
Based on food supply and utilization g/day; as consumed
data provided by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Customs Service Reports,
and trade associations
1 977-78 N FCS g/day; as consumed
Individual intake data
Based on FDA Total Diet Study Food g/day; dry weight
List which used 1977-78 NFCS data,
and NHANES II data
Food Items
Major food groups; individual food
items; exposed and protected fruits
and vegetables; USDA food
categories
Distributions for vegetables using
@Risk software.
Fruit and fruit products, vegetables
not including potatoes and nuts
and legumes
Intake for a wide variety of fruits
and vegetables presented; complex
food groups were disaggregated
Serving sizes for only a limited
number of products
Total fruits and total vegetables
Various food groups
Exposed, protected, and leafy
produce
Various food groups; complex
foods disaggregated
-------
Table 9-29. Summary of Recommended
Mean 95th Percentile
Total Fruit Intake
3.4 g/kg-day 12g/kg-day
Total Veaetable Intake
4.3 g/kg-day 10 g/kg-day
Individual Fruit and Veaetables Intake
see Table 9-5
Values for Per Capita Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Multiple Percentiles Study
see Table 9-3 EPA Analysis of CSFI I
1989-91 Data
see Table 9-4 EPA Analysis of CSFI I
1989-91 Data
EPA Analysis of CSFI I
1989-91 Data
-------
Table 9-30. Confidence in Fruit and Vegetable Intake Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of interest
• Data pertinent to U.S.
• Primary data
• Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of variability
• Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
USDA CSFII survey receives high level of peer
review. EPA analysis of these data has been
peer reviewed outside the Agency.
CSFII data are publicly available.
Enough information is included to reproduce
results.
Analysis is specifically designed to address
food intake.
Data focuses on the U.S. population.
This is new analysis of primary data.
Were the most current data publicly available at
the time the analysis was conducted for the
Handbook.
Survey is designed to collect short-term data.
Survey methodology was adequate.
Study size was very large and therefore
adequate.
The population studied was the U.S.
population.
Survey was not designed to capture long term
day-to-day variability. Short term distributions
are provided.
Response rate was adequate.
No measurements were taken. The study
relied on survey data.
1; CSFII 1989-91 was the most recent data set
publicly available at the time the analysis was
conducted for the Handbook. Therefore, it was
the only study classified as key study.
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium confidence for average
values;
Low confidence for long term
percentile distribution
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
N/A
Low
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Although the CSFII was the only study High
classified as key study, the results are in good
agreement with earlier data.
The survey is representative of U.S. population.
Although there was only one study considered
key, these data are the most recent and are in
agreement with earlier data. The approach
used to analyzed the data was adequate.
However, due to the limitations of the survey
design estimation of long-term percentile values
(especially the upper percentilesl is uncertain.
High confidence in the average;
Low confidence in the long-term
upper percentiles
-------
Table 9A-1 . Fraction of Grain and Meat Mixture Intake Represented
Grain Mixtures
total vegetables
tomatoes
white potatoes
total meats
beef
pork
poultry
dairy
total grains
Meat Mixtures
total vegetables
tomatoes
white potatoes
total meats
beef
pork
poultry
dairy
total grains
by Various Food Items/Groups
0.2360
0.1685
0.0000
0.0787
0.0449
0.0112
0.0112
0.1348
0.3146
0.2778
0.1111
0.0333
0.3556
0.2000
0.0222
0.0778
0.0556
0.1333
-------
Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data
Food
Product
Food Codes
MAJOR FOOD GROUPS
Total Fruits
Fruits
citrus fruits and juices
dried fruits
other fruits
fruits/juices & nectar
fruit/juices baby food
(includes baby foods)
Total
Vegetables
7- Vegetables (all forms)
white potatoes & PR starchy
dark green vegetables
deep yellow vegetables
tomatoes and torn, mixtures
other vegetables
veg. and mixtures/baby food
veg. with meat mixtures
411- Beans/legumes
412- Beans/legumes
413- Beans/legumes
(includes baby foods; mixtures, mostly vegetables; does not
include nuts and seeds)
Total Meats
20- Meat, type not specified
21- Beef
22- Pork
23- Lamb, veal, game, carcass meat
24- Poultry
25- Organ meats, sausages, lunchmeats, meat spreads
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby foods)
Total Dairy
1- Milk and Milk Products
milk and milk drinks
cream and cream substitutes
milk desserts, sauces, and gravies
cheeses
(includes regular fluid milk, human milk, imitation milk
products, yogurt, milk-based meal replacements, and infant
formulas)
INDIVIDUAL FOODS
White
Potatoes
71- White Potatoes and PR Starchy Veg.
baked, boiled, chips, sticks, creamed, scalloped, au
gratin, fried, mashed, stuffed, puffs, salad, recipes,
soups, Puerto Rican starchy vegetables
(does not include vegetables soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Peppers
7512100 Pepper, hot chili, raw
7512200 Pepper, raw
7512210 Pepper, sweet green, raw
7512220 Pepper, sweet red, raw
7522600 Pepper, green, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522601 Pepper, green, cooked, fat not added
7522602 Pepper, green, cooked, fat added
7522604 Pepper, red, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522605 Pepper, red, cooked, fat not added
7522606 Pepper, red, cooked, fat added
7522609 Pepper, hot, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522610 Pepper, hot, cooked, fat not added
7522611 Pepper, hot, cooked, fat added
7551101 Peppers, hot, sauce
7551102 Peppers, pickled
7551105 Peppers, hot pickled
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Onions
7510950 Chives, raw
7511150 Garlic, raw
7511250 Leek, raw
7511701 Onions, young green, raw
7511702 Onions, mature
7521550 Chives, dried
7521740 Garlic, cooked
7521840 Leek, cooked
7522100 Onions, mature cooked, NS as to fat added
7522101 Onions, mature cooked, fat not added
7522102 Onions, mature cooked, fat added
7522103 Onions, pearl cooked
7522104 Onions, young green cooked, NS as to fat
7522105 Onions, young green cooked, fat not added
7522106 Onions, young green cooked, fat added
7522110 Onion, dehydrated
7541501 Onions, creamed
7541502 Onion rings
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures')
-------
Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in
Food
Product
Corn
Apples
Tomatoes
Snap Beans
Beef
Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data (continued)
Food Codes
7510960 Corn, raw
7521600 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat added
7521601 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat not added
7521602 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat added
7521605 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/cream style
7521607 Corn, cooked, dried
7521610 Corn, cooked, yellow/NS as to fat added
752161 1 Corn, cooked, yellow/fat not added
7521612 Corn, cooked, yellow/fat added
7521615 Corn, yellow, cream style
7521616 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./NS as to fat
7521617 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./fat not added
7521618 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./fat added
7521619 Corn, yellow, cream style, fat added
7521620 Corn, cooked, white/NS as to fat added
6210110 Apples, dried, uncooked
6210115 Apples, dried, uncooked, low sodium
6210120 Apples, dried, cooked, NS as to sweetener
6210122 Apples, dried, cooked, unsweetened
6210123 Apples, dried, cooked, with sugar
6210130 Apple chips
6310100 Apples, raw
63101 1 1 Applesauce, NS as to sweetener
6310112 Applesauce, unsweetened
631 01 1 3 Applesauce with sugar
63101 14 Applesauce with low calorie sweetener
6310121 Apples, cooked or canned with syrup
6310131 Apple, baked NS as to sweetener
6310132 Apple, baked, unsweetened
6310133 Apple, baked with sugar
7521621 Corn, cooked, white/fat not added
7521622 Corn, cooked, white/fat added
7521625 Corn, white, cream style
7521630 Corn, yellow, canned, low sodium, NS fat
7521631 Corn, yell., canned, low sod., fat not add
7521632 Corn, yell., canned, low sod., fat added
7521749 Hominy, cooked
752175- Hominy, cooked
7541101 Corn scalloped or pudding
7541102 Corn fritter
7541 103 Corn with cream sauce
7550101 Corn relish
76405- Corn, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby food)
6310141 Apple rings, fried
6310142 Apple, pickled
6310150 Apple, fried
6340101 Apple, salad
6340106 Apple, candied
6410101 Apple cider
6410401 Apple juice
6410405 Apple juice with vitamin C
6410409 Apple juice with calcium
6710200 Applesauce baby fd., NS as to str. or jr.
6710201 Applesauce baby food, strained
6710202 Applesauce baby food, junior
6720200 Apple juice, baby food
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
74- Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
raw, cooked, juices, sauces, mixtures, soups,
sandwiches
7510180 Beans, string, green, raw
7520498 Beans, string, cooked, NS color/fat added
7520499 Beans, string, cooked, NS color/no fat
7520500 Beans, string, cooked, NS color & fat
7520501 Beans, string, cooked, green/NS fat
7520502 Beans, string, cooked, green/no fat
7520503 Beans, string, cooked, green/fat
752051 1 Beans, str., canned, low sod., green/NS fat
7520512 Beans, str., canned, low sod., green/no fat
7520513 Beans, str., canned, low sod., green/fat
7520600 Beans, string, cooked, yellow/NS fat
7520601 Beans, string, cooked, yellow/no fat
7520602 Beans, string, cooked, yellow/fat
7540301 Beans, string, green, creamed
7540302 Beans, string, green, w/mushroom sauce
7540401 Beans, string, yellow, creamed
7550011 Beans, string, green, pickled
7640100 Beans, green, string, baby
7640101 Beans, green, string, baby, str.
7640102 Beans, green, string, baby, junior
7640103 Beans, green, string, baby, creamed
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods)
21- Beef (excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
beef, nfs plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
beef steak base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby food)
beef oxtails, neckbones, ribs
roasts, stew meat, corned, brisket, sandwich steaks
ground beef, patties, meatballs
other beef items
beef babv food
-------
Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used
Food
Product
Pork
Game
Poultry
Eggs
Broccoli
Carrots
Pumpkin
Asparagus
Lima Beans
Cabbage
in Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data (continued)
Food Codes
22- Pork
pork, nfs; ground dehydrated
chops
steaks, cutlets
ham
roasts
Canadian bacon
bacon, salt pork
other pork items
pork baby food
233- Game
24- Poultry
chicken
turkey
duck
other poultry
poultry baby food
3- Eggs
eggs
egg mixtures
egg substitutes
eggs baby food
froz. meals with egg as main ingred.
722- Broccoli (all forms)
7310- Carrots (all forms)
731 1 1 40 Carrots in Sauce
7311200 Carrot Chips
76201- Carrots, baby
732- Pumpkin (all forms)
733- Winter squash (all forms)
76205- Squash, baby
7510080 Asparagus, raw
75202- Asparagus, cooked
7540101 Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
7510200 Lima Beans, raw
752040- Lima Beans, cooked
752041- Lima Beans, canned
75402- Lima Beans with sauce
7510300 Cabbage, raw
7510400 Cabbage, Chinese, raw
7510500 Cabbage, red, raw
7514100 Cabbage salad or coleslaw
7514130 Cabbage, Chinese, salad
75210- Chinese Cabbage, cooked
7521 1- Green Cabbaae. cooked
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby food)
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
base; and gelatin-based drinks)
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby food)
(includes baby foods)
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetables mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods)
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetables mixtures, or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; does not include succotash)
75212- Red Cabbage, cooked
752130- Savoy Cabbage, cooked
75230- Sauerkraut, cooked
7540701 Cabbage, creamed
755025- Cabbage, pickled or in relish
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
veaetable with meat mixtures')
-------
Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in
Food
Product
Lettuce
Okra
Peas
Cucumbers
Beets
Strawberrie
s
Other
Berries
Peaches
Pears
Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data (continued)
Food Codes
75113- Lettuce, raw
75143- Lettuce salad with other veg.
7514410 Lettuce, wilted, with bacon dressing
7522005 Lettuce, cooked
7522000 Okra, cooked, NS as to fat
7522001 Okra, cooked, fat not added
7522002 Okra, cooked, fat added
7522010 Lufta, cooked (Chinese Okra)
7512000 Peas, green, raw
7512775 Snowpeas, raw
75223- Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
75224- Peas, green, cooked
75225- Peas, pigeon, cooked
75231- Snowpeas, cooked
7541650 Pea salad
7511100 Cucumbers, raw
75142- Cucumber salads
752167- Cucumbers, cooked
7550301 Cucumber pickles, dill
7550302 Cucumber pickles, relish
7550303 Cucumber pickles, sour
7550304 Cucumber pickles, sweet
7510250 Beets, raw
752080- Beets, cooked
752081- Beets, canned
7540501 Beets, harvard
6322- Strawberries
6413250 Strawberry Juice
6320- Other Berries
6321- Other Berries
6341 1 01 Cranberry salad
62116- Dried Peaches
63135- Peaches
6412203 Peach Juice
6420501 Peach Nectar
62119- Dried Pears
63137- Pears
6341201 Pear salad
6421501 Pear Nectar
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
7541450 Okra, fried
7550700 Okra, pickled
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
7541660 Pea salad with cheese
75417- Peas, with sauce or creamed
76409- Peas, baby
76411- Peas, creamed, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
7550305 Cucumber pickles, fresh
7550307 Cucumber, Kim Chee
755031 1 Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
7550314 Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
7550021 Beets, pickled
76403- Beets, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
6410460 Blackberry Juice
64105- Cranberry Juice
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
67108- Peaches ,baby
6711450 Peaches, dry, baby
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
67109- Pears, baby
6711455 Pears, dry, baby
6721200 Pear juice, baby
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
-------
Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in
Food
Product
Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data (continued)
Food Codes
EXPOSED/PROTECTED FRUITS/VEGETABLES, ROOT VEGETABLES
Exposed
Fruits
Protected
Fruits
621011-
621012-
6210130
62104-
62108-
62110-
62116-
62119-
62121-
62122-
62125-
63101-
63102-
63103-
631 ll-
eS! 12-
63113-
63115-
63117-
63123-
6312601
63131-
63135-
63137-
63139-
61-
62107-
62113-
62114-
62120-
62126-
63105-
63107-
63109-
63110-
63119-
63121-
63125-
6312650
6312651
6312660
63127-
63129-
63133-
63134-
63141-
Apple, dried
Apple, dried
Apple chips
Apricot, dried
Currants, dried
Date, dried
Peaches, dried
Pears, dried
Plum, dried
Prune, dried
Raisins
Apples/applesauce
Wi-apple
Apricots
Cherries, maraschino
Acerola
Cherries, sour
Cherries, sweet
Currants, raw
Grapes
Juneberry
Nectarine
Peach
Pear
Persimmons
Citrus Fr., Juices (incl. cit. juice mixtures)
Bananas, dried
Figs, dried
Lychees/Papayas, dried
Pineapple, dried
Tamarind, dried
Avocado, raw
Bananas
Cantaloupe, Carambola
Cassaba Melon
Figs
Genip
Guava/Jackfruit, raw
Kiwi
Lychee, raw
Lychee, cooked
Honeydew
Mango
Papaya
Passion Fruit
Pineaccle
63143- Plum
63146- Quince
63147- Rhubarb/Sapodillo
632- Berries
64101- Apple Cider
64104- Apple Juice
6410409 Apple juice with calcium
64105- Cranberry Juice
64116- Grape Juice
64122- Peach Juice
64132- Prune/Strawberry Juice
6420101 Apricot Nectar
64205- Peach Nectar
64215- Pear Nectar
67102- Applesauce, baby
67108- Peaches, baby
67109- Pears, baby
671 1 450 Peaches, baby, dry
6711455 Pears, baby, dry
67202- Apple Juice, baby
6720380 White Grape Juice, baby
67212- Pear Juice, baby
(includes baby foods/juices except mixtures;
fruit mixtures)
63145- Pomegranate
63148- Sweetsop, Soursop, Tamarind
63149- Watermelon
64120- Papaya Juice
64121- Passion Fruit Juice
64124- Pineapple Juice
64125- Pineapple juice
64133- Watermelon Juice
6420150 Banana Nectar
64202- Cantaloupe Nectar
64203- Guava Nectar
64204- Mango Nectar
64210- Papaya Nectar
64213- Passion Fruit Nectar
64221- Soursop Nectar
6710503 Bananas, baby
6711500 Bananas, baby, dry
6720500 Orange Juice, baby
6721300 Pineapple Juice, baby
(includes baby foods/juices except mixtures;
mixtures')
excludes
excludes fruit
-------
Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used
Food
Product
Exposed
Veg.
in Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data (continued)
Food Codes
721-
722-
74-
7510050
7510075
7510080
75101-
7510260
7510275
7510280
7510300
7510400
7510500
7510700
7510900
7510950
7511100
7511120
7511200
75113-
7511500
7511900
7512100
75122-
7512750
7512775
75128-
7513210
7514100
7514130
7514150
75142-
75143-
7514410
7514600
7514700
7520060
75201-
75202-
75203-
752049-
75205-
75206-
75207-
752085-
752087-
752090-
75210-
75211-
75212-
752130-
75214-
75215-
Dark Green Leafy Veg.
Dark Green NonleafyVeg.
Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
Alfalfa Sprouts
Artichoke, Jerusalem, raw
Asparagus, raw
Beans, sprouts and green, raw
Broccoflower, raw
Brussel Sprouts, raw
Buckwheat Sprouts, raw
Cabbage, raw
Cabbage, Chinese, raw
Cabbage, Red, raw
Cauliflower, raw
Celery, raw
Chives, raw
Cucumber, raw
Eggplant, raw
Kohlrabi, raw
Lettuce, raw
Mushrooms, raw
Parsley
Pepper, hot chili
Peppers, raw
Seaweed, raw
Snowpeas, raw
Summer Squash, raw
Celery Juice
Cabbage or cole slaw
Chinese Cabbage Salad
Celery with cheese
Cucumber salads
Lettuce salads
Lettuce, wilted with bacon dressing
Greek salad
Spinach salad
Algae, dried
Artichoke, cooked
Asparagus, cooked
Bamboo shoots, cooked
Beans, string, cooked
Beans, green, cooked/canned
Beans, yellow, cooked/canned
Bean Sprouts, cooked
Breadfruit
Broccoflower, cooked
Brussel Sprouts, cooked
Cabbage, Chinese, cooked
Cabbage, green, cooked
Cabbage, red, cooked
Cabbage, savoy, cooked
Cauliflower
Celery, Chives, Christophine (chayote)
752167-
752170-
752171-
752172-
752173-
7521801
75219-
75220-
7522116
7522121
75226-
75230-
75231-
75232-
75233-
7540050
7540101
75403-
75404-
7540601
7540701
75409-
75410-
75412-
75413-
75414-
754180-
7541822
755001 1
7550051
7550201
755025-
7550301
7550302
7550303
7550304
7550305
7550307
7550308
755031 1
7550314
7550500
7550700
75510-
7551101
7551102
7551104
7551301
7553500
76102-
76401-
411-
412-
413-
Cucumber, cooked
Eggplant, cooked
Fern shoots
Fern shoots
Flowers of sesbania, squash or lily
Kohlrabi, cooked
Mushrooms, cooked
Okra/lettuce, cooked
Palm Hearts, cooked
Parsley, cooked
Peppers, pimento, cooked
Sauerkraut, cooked/canned
Snowpeas, cooked
Seaweed
Summer Squash
Artichokes, stuffed
Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
Beans, green with sauce
Beans, yellow with sauce
Brussel Sprouts, creamed
Cabbage, creamed
Cauliflower, creamed
Celery/Chiles, creamed
Eggplant, fried, with sauce, etc.
Kohlrabi, creamed
Mushrooms, Okra, fried, stuffed, creamed
Squash, baked, fried, creamed, etc.
Christophine, creamed
Beans, pickled
Celery, pickled
Cauliflower, pickled
Cabbage, pickled
Cucumber pickles, dill
Cucumber pickles, relish
Cucumber pickles, sour
Cucumber pickles, sweet
Cucumber pickles, fresh
Cucumber, Kim Chee
Eggplant, pickled
Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
Mushrooms, pickled
Okra, pickled
Olives
Peppers, hot
Peppers, pickled
Peppers, hot pickled
Seaweed, pickled
Zucchini, pickled
Dark Green Veg., baby
Beans, baby (excl. most soups & mixtures)
Beans/legumes
Beans/legumes
Beans/leaumes
-------
Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data (continued)
Food
Product
Protected
Veg.
Root
Vegetables
Food Codes
732- Pumpkin
733- Winter Squash
7510200 Lima Beans, raw
7510550 Cactus, raw
7510960 Corn, raw
7512000 Peas, raw
7520070 Aloe vera juice
752040- Lima Beans, cooked
752041- Lima Beans, canned
7520829 Bitter Melon
752083- Bitter Melon, cooked
7520950 Burdock
752131- Cactus
752160- Corn, cooked
752161- Corn, yellow, cooked
752162- Corn, white, cooked
752163- Corn, canned
7521749 Hominy
71- White Potatoes and Puerto Rican St
7310- Carrots
731 1 1 40 Carrots in sauce
7311200 Carrot chips
734- Sweetpotatoes
7510250 Beets, raw
7511150 Garlic, raw
7511180 Jicama (yambean), raw
7511250 Leeks, raw
75117- Onions, raw
7512500 Radish, raw
7512700 Rutabaga, raw
7512900 Turnip, raw
752080- Beets, cooked
752081- Beets, canned
7521362 Cassava
7521740 Garlic, cooked
7521771 Horseradish
7521840 Leek, cooked
7521850 Lotus root
752210- Onions, cooked
USDA
Dark Green
Vegetables
Deep
Yellow
Vegetables
Other
Vegetables
Citrus Fruits
72- Dark Green Vegetables
all forms
leafy, nonleafy, dk. gr. veg. soups
73- Deep Yellow Vegetables
all forms
carrots, pumpkin, squash, sweetpotatoes,
veg. soups
75- Other Vegetables
all forms
61- Citrus Fruits and Juices
6720500 Orange Juice, baby food
6720600 Oranae-Acricot Juice, babvfood
752175- Hominy
75223- Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
75224- Peas, green, cooked
75225- Peas, pigeon, cooked
75301- Succotash
75402- Lima Beans with sauce
7541 1- Corn, scalloped, fritter, with cream
7541650 Pea salad
7541660 Pea salad with cheese
75417- Peas, with sauce or creamed
7550101 Corn relish
76205- Squash, yellow, baby
76405- Corn, baby
76409- Peas, baby
76411- Peas, creamed, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Veg. 7522110 Onions, dehydrated
752220- Parsnips, cooked
75227- Radishes, cooked
75228- Rutabaga, cooked
75229- Salsify, cooked
75234- Turnip, cooked
75235- Water Chestnut
7540501 Beets, harvard
75415- Onions, creamed, fried
7541601 Parsnips, creamed
7541810 Turnips, creamed
7550021 Beets, pickled
7550309 Horseradish
7551201 Radishes, pickled
7553403 Turnip, pickled
76201- Carrots, baby
76209- Sweetpotatoes, baby
76403- Beets, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
SUBCATEGORIES
dp. yell.
6720700 Orange-Pineapple Juice, baby food
6721 100 Orange-Apple-Banana Juice, baby food
(excludes dried fruits)
-------
Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Data (continued)
Food
Product
Other Fruits
Food Codes
62-
63-
64-
671-
67202-
67203-
Dried Fruits
Other Fruits
Fruit Juices and Nectars Excluding Citrus
Fruits, baby
Apple Juice, baby
Baby Juices
67204-
67212-
67213-
6725-
673-
674-
Baby Juices
Baby Juices
Baby Juices
Baby Juice
Baby Fruits
Baby Fruits
MIXTURES
Meat
Mixtures
Grain
Mixtures
27- Meat Mixtures
28-
58- Grain
Mixtures
(includes frozen plate meals and
(includes frozen plate meals and
soups)
soups)
-------
Demographic Category
Race
Caucasian
Black
Oriental
Other
Sex
Female
Male
Age (years)
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Census Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Community Type
Rural, non-SMSA
Central city, 2M or more
Outside central city, 2M or more
Central city, 1M -2M
Outside central city, 1M - 2M
Central city, 500K-1M
Outside central city, 500K - 1M
Outside central city, 250K - 500K
Central city, 250K - 500K
Central city, 50K - 250K
Outside central city, 50K - 250K
Other urban
Table 10-1. Total Fish Consumption by
Demographic Variables3
Intake
Mean
14.2
16.0
21.0
13.2
13.2
15.6
6.2
10.1
14.5
15.8
17.4
20.9
21.7
13.3
16.3
16.2
12.9
12.0
15.2
13.0
14.4
12.1
14.2
13.0
19.0
15.9
15.4
14.5
14.2
14.0
12.2
14.1
13.8
11.3
13.5
a The calculations in this table are based on respondents who consumed fish during
respondents are estimated to
Source: Javitz, 1980.
represent 94 percent of the U.S. population.
fg/person/dav)
95th Percentile
41.2
45.2
67.3
29.4
38.4
44.8
16.5
26.8
38.3
42.9
48.1
53.4
55.4
39.8
46.5
47.8
36.9
35.2
44.1
38.4
43.6
32.1
39.6
38.3
55.6
47.3
41.7
41.5
41.0
39.7
32.1
40.5
43.4
31.7
39.2
the survey month. These
-------
Female
Male
Overall
Table 10-2. Mean and 95th
Consumption (g/day) by
Age (years)
0-9
10-19
20-19
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
0-9
10-19
20-19
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
a The calculations in this table are based upon respondents
These respondents
Source: Javitz, 1980.
Percentile of Fish
Sex and Agea
Total Fish
Mean
6.1
9.0
13.4
14.9
16.7
19.5
19.0
10.7
6.3
11.2
16.1
17.0
18.2
22.8
24.4
15.8
14.3
who consumed fish in the
95th Percentile
17.3
25.0
34.5
41.8
49.6
50.1
46.3
31.7
15.8
29.1
43.7
45.6
47.7
57.5
61.1
45.7
41.7
month of the survey.
are estimated to represent 94.0% of the U.S. population.
-------
Table 10-3. Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Females by Agea
Age (yrs)
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Overall
0.0-5.0
5.1-10.0
10.1-15.0
15.1-20.0
Consumption Category (g/day)
20.1-25.0 25.1-30.0 30.1-37.5
37.6-47.5
47.6-60.0
60.1-122.5
over 122.5
Percentage
55.5
17.8
28.1
22.4
17.5
17.0
11.5
41.9
28.9
26.8
31.4
26.1
23.6
21.9
17.4
16.9
22.1
24.0
11.0
15.4
20.4
18.0
20.7
16.8
20.6
12.3
16.8
3.7
6.9
11.8
12.7
13.2
15.5
15.9
9.7
10.7
1.0
3.5
6.7
8.3
9.3
10.5
9.1
5.2
6.4
1.1
2.4
3.5
4.8
4.5
8.5
9.2
2.9
4.3
0.7
1.2
4.4
3.8
4.6
6.8
6.0
2.6
3.5
a The percentage of females in an age bracket whose average daily fish consumption is within the specified
The calculations in this table are based upon the respondents who consumed fish during the month of the survey
U.S. population.
Source: Javitz, 1980.
0.3
0.7
2.2
2.8
2.8
5.2
6.1
1.2
2.4
0.0
0.2
0.9
1.9
3.4
4.2
2.4
0.8
1.6
0.0
0.4
0.9
1.7
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
range.
These respondents are estimated to represent 94% of the
-------
Table 10-4. Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Males by Age"
Consumption Category (g/day)
0.0-5.0 5.1-10.0 10.1-15.0 15.1-20.0 20.1-25.0 25.1-30.0 30.1-37.5 37.6-47.5 47.6-60.0 60.1-122.5 over 122.5
Age (yrs) Percentage
0-9 52.1 30.1 11.9 3.1 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0
10-19 27.8 29.3 19.0 10.4 6.0 3.2 1.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 0.0
20-29 16.7 22.9 19.6 14.5 8.8 6.2 4.4 3.1 1.9 1.9 0.1
30-39 16.6 21.2 19.2 13.2 9.5 7.3 5.2 3.2 1.3 2.2 0.0
40-49 11.9 22.3 18.6 14.7 8.4 8.5 5.3 5.2 3.3 1.7 0.1
50-59 9.9 15.2 15.4 14.4 10.4 9.7 8.7 7.6 4.3 4.1 0.2
60-69 7.4 15.0 15.6 12.8 11.4 8.5 9.9 8.3 5.5 5.5 0.1
70+ 24.5 21.7 15.7 9.9 9.8 5.3 5.4 3.1 1.7 2.8 0.1
Overall 22.6 23.1 17.0 11.3 7J 5J 4.6 3.6 2.2 2J 0.1
a The percentage of males in an age bracket whose average daily fish consumption is within the specified range.
The calculations in this table are based upon respondents who consumed fish during the month of the survey. These respondents are estimated to represent 94% of the U.S.
population.
Source: Javitz, 1980.
-------
Table 10-5. Mean Total Fish Consumption by Species"
Species
Not reported
Aba lone
Anchovies
Bass"
Bluefish
Bluegills"
Bonito"
Buffalofish
Butterfish
Carp"
Catfish (Freshwater)"
Catfish (Marine)"
Clams"
Cod
Crab, King
Crab, other than King"
Crappie"
Croaker"
Dolphin"
Drums
Flounders"
Groupers
Haddock
Hake
Halibut"
Herring
Kingfish
Lobster (Northern)"
Lobster (Spiny)
Mackerel, Jack
Mackerel, other than Jack
Mean consumption
fa/day)
1.173
0.014
0.010
0.258
0.070
0.089
0.035
0.022
0.010
0.016
0.292
0.014
0.442
0.407
0.030
0.254
0.076
0.028
0.012
0.019
1.179
0.026
0.399
0.117
0.170
0.224
0.009
0.162
0.074
0.002
0.172
Species
Mullet"
Oysters"
Perch (Freshwater)"
Perch (Marine)
Pike (Marine)"
Pollock
Pom pa no
Rockfish
Sablefish
Salmon"
Scallops"
Scup"
Sharks
Shrimp"
Smelt"
Snapper
Snook"
Spot"
Squid and Octopi
Sunfish
Swordfish
Tilefish
Trout (Freshwater)"
Trout (Marine)"
Tuna, light
Tuna, White Albacore
Whitefish"
Other finfish"
Other shellfish"
Mean consumption
fa/day)
0.029
0.291
0.062
0.773
0.154
0.266
0.004
0.027
0.002
0.533
0.127
0.014
0.001
1.464
0.057
0.146
0.005
0.046
0.016
0.020
0.012
0.003
0.294
0.070
3.491
0.008
0.141
0.403
0.013
a The calculations in this table are based upon respondents who consumed fish during the month of the survey. These
respondents are estimated to represent 94% percent of the U.S. population.
" Designated as freshwater or estuarine species by Stephan (1 980).
Source: Javitz. 1980.
-------
Table 10-6. Best Fits of Lognormal Distributions Using the Nonlinear Optimization (NLO) Method
Shellfish
fj.
a
(mm SS)
Finfish (freshwater)
fj.
a
(mm SS)
Finfish (saltwater)
fj.
a
(mm SS)
Adults
1.370
0.858
27.57
0.334
1.183
6.45
2.311
0.72
30.13
The following equations may be used with the appropriate
grams, and percentiles of the OCR distribution.
DCR50 = exp (//)
DCR90 = exp [// + z(0.90) • o]
DCR99 = exp [^ + z(0.99) • o]
DCRavg = exp [// + 0.5 • o2]
Source: Ruffle etal.. 1994.
Teenaaers
-0.183
1.092
1.19
0.578
0.822
23.51
1.691
0.830
0.33
fj. and o values to obtain an average Daily Consumption
Children
0.854
0.730
16.06
-0.559
1.141
2.19
0.881
0.970
4.31
Rate (OCR), in
-------
Table 10-7. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for the U.S. Population
Habitat
Fresh/Estuarine
Marine
All Fish
Statistic
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
(Uncooked Fish Weight)
Estimate (90% Interval)
Finfish Shellfish
3.6 (3.0-4.1) 2.4(2.0-2.8)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.4 (0.00 - 0.7) 0.0 (0.0 - 0.3)
21.7(14.8-25.8) 13.3(11.7-17.8)
87.3 (80.1 - 98.0) 63.6 (60.4 - 68.5)
12.5(11.5-13.5) 1.6(1.3-1.9)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
47.5 (43.6 - 49.8) 0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
74.6 (70.3 - 76.3) 0.0 (0.0 - 6.8)
1 33.0 (1 27.8 - 1 43.2) 50.3 (44.5 - 59.0)
16.1(15.0-17.2) 4.0(3.4-4.6)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0) 0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
59.1(54.6-62.3) 0.0(0.0-3.5)
84.4 (81 .3 - 89.6) 22.7 (21 .8 - 26.6)
1 56.7 (1 48.7 - 1 68.1 ) 99.0 (87.8 - 1 09.6)
Total
6.0 (5.3 - 6.7)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
15.9(14.4-17.8)
40.0 (37.9 - 44.8)
107.6(98.3-109.1)
14.1 (13.1 -15.1)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
52.1 (47.8-55.9)
76.5 (74.6 - 80.9)
138.2(133.0-155.1)
20.1 (18.8-21.4)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
70.1 (65.4-74.2)
102.0(99.3-106.7)
173.2(162.8-176.5)
Note: Percentile confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrap method with 1 ,000 replications; percent consuming gives the
percentage of individuals consuming the specified category of fish during the 3-day survey period. Estimates are projected from a
sample of 11,912 individuals to the U.S. population.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996a.
-------
Table 10-8. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) by Habitat for Consumers Only
(Uncooked Fish Weight)
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
90% Interval
Fresh/Estuarine"
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
86.2
48.8
217.9
290.0
489.3
78.4 - 94.0
45.6 - 54.9
205.3 - 237.3
267.1 -325.6
424.9 - 534.2
Marine"
Percent Consuming
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
18.5
113.1
93.3
222.7
271.7
415.9
107.8-118.4
92.0 - 94.9
216.5-225.6
260.6 - 279.9
367.3 - 440.5
All Fish0
Percent Consuming
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
30.1
129.0
101.9
249.1
326.0
497.5
123.7-134.3
98.9-103.9
241.0-264.1
306.1 -335.6
469.2-519.7
Percent Consuming
36.9
Note: Percentile confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrap method with 1,000 replications; percent consuming gives the
percentage of individuals consuming the specified category of fish during the 3-day survey period.
a Sample size = 1,892; population size = 44,946,000
b Sample size = 3,184; population size = 73,100,000
c Sample size = 3,927; population size = 89,800,000
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996a.
-------
Table 10-9. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (mg/kg-day) by Habitat and Fish Type for U.S. Population
(Uncooked Fish Weight)
Habitat
Fresh/Estuarin
e
Marine
All Fish
Note: Percentile
projected from a
Statistic
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Finfish
58.1 (48.4-67.7)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
5.9(0.0-12.3)
340.5(252.9-410.1)
1,401.9(1,283.9-1,511.8)
215.8(195.9-235.6)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
783.4 (752.5 - 842.2)
1,208.1 (1,149.5-1,264.9)
2,400.0(2,284.2-2,660.1)
273.9 (252.0 - 295.7)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
966.1 (893.3-1,039.5)
1 ,434.3 (1 ,371 .2 - 1 ,526.8)
2,857.5 (2,649.6 - 3,003.6)
intervals were estimated using the percentile bootstrap
sample of 11,912 individuals to the U.S. population.
Estimate (90% Interval)
Shellfish
35.9 (30.2 - 41 .6)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 3.8)
190.0(155.7-268.3)
953.5 (871 .3 - 1 ,007.4)
24.3 (20.6 - 28.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 88.8
701 .3 (636.2 - 944.7)
60.2 (52.3 - 68.2)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 47.4)
372.5(324.1 -460.5)
1,412.4(1,296.0-1,552.1)
Total
94.0(83.4-104.6)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
251 .8 (222.5 - 282.6)
677.7(631.9-729.1)
1 ,593.3 (1 ,51 1 .8 - 1 ,659.2)
240.1 (220.1 -260.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
855.6 (809.7 - 909.8)
1 ,271 .5 (1 ,227.2 - 1 ,371 .2)
2,575.3 (2,393.2 - 2,708.6)
334.1 (311.3-356.9)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
1,123.1 (1,090.8-1,179.0)
1,684.2(1,620.5-1,718.5)
3,092.8 (2,973.7 - 3,250.2)
method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications. Estimates are
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996a.
-------
Table 10-10. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) by Habitat for Consumers Only
(Uncooked Fish Weight)
Habitat
Fresh/Estuarine"
Marine"
All Fish0
Statistic
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Percent Consuming
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Percent Consuming
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Percent Consuming
Estimate
1 ,363.4
819.7
3,325.1
4,408.2
7,957.5
18.5
1 ,927.0
1 ,507.7
3,752.9
5,018.7
8,448.3
30.1
2,145.3
1 ,662.8
4,223.9
5,477.9
9,171.5
36.9
Note: Percentile confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrap method with 1 ,000 replications;
percentage of individuals consuming the specified category of fish during the 3-day survey period.
a Sample size =
b Sample size =
c Sample size =
Source: U.S. EPA
1 ,892; population size = 44,946,000
3,184; population size = 73,100,000
3,927; population size = 89,800,000
1996a.
90% Interval
1 ,242.2 - 1 ,484.7
736.9 - 895.7
3,232.6 - 3,677.0
4,085.6 - 4,781 .3
6,979.2-8,921.0
1 ,829.5 - 2,024.4
1 ,470.7 - 1 ,538.8
3,632.0-4,001.2
4,852.1 -5,267.3
7,215.7-9,136.9
2,055.9 - 2,234.6
1,610.7-1,720.1
4,085.8 - 4,454.2
5,163.3-5,686.0
8,605.4 - 9,796.6
percent consuming gives the
-------
Table
10-11. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for the U.
(Cooked Fish Weight - As Consumed)
S. Population
Estimate (90% Interval)
Habitat
Fresh/Estuarine
Marine
All Fish
Statistic
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Finfish
2.8(2.4-3.3)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.3 (0.0 - 0.7)
17.2(12.9-20.8)
70.9 (60.3 - 75.7)
9.7(9.0-10.5)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
37.3 (33.7 - 37.4)
56.2 (55.6 - 58.2)
103.1 (98.5-112.0)
12.6(11.7-13.4)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
46.0 (43.6 - 49.0)
67.0 (63.0 - 70.7)
119.1 (113.9-125.9)
Percentile intervals were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with
from a sample of 11,912 individuals to the U.S. population.
Source: U.S. EPA,
1996a.
Shellfish
1.9(1.6-2.2)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.2)
10.1 (7.9-13.8)
49.9 (45.6 - 56.4)
1.2(1.0-1.4)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 5.3)
37.0 (35.4 - 44.5)
3.1 (2.7-3.5)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
0.0 (0.0 - 2.6)
18.9(16.7-22.1)
74.3 (68.7 - 82.0)
1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Total
4.7 (4.2 - 5.3)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
12.6(10.9-14.0)
32.2 (29.8 - 35.2)
82.5 (77.2 - 86.4)
10.9(10.1 -11.7)
0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
39.5 (37.3 - 42.9)
59.6 (57.0 - 61 .8)
106.8(104.6-114.6)
15.7(14.7-16.6)
0.0 (0.0 - O.-O)
55.0 (51 .4 - 56.0)
78.3 (75.2 - 80.6)
133.5(125.3-140.2)
Estimates are projected
-------
Table 10-12. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat for Consumers Only
(Cooked Fish Weight - As Consumed)
Habitat
Fresh/Estuarine"
Marine"
All Fish0
Statistic
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Percent Consuming
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Percent Consuming
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
Percent Consuming
Estimate
68.0
39.5
170.8
224.8
374.7
18.5
87.8
71.8
169.4
208.5
320.4
30.1
100.6
80.8
197.4
253.4
371.6
36.9
Note: Percentile confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrap method with 1 ,000 replications;
percentage of individuals consuming the specified category of fish during the 3-day survey period.
a Sample size =
b Sample size =
c Sample size =
Source: U.S. EPA
1 ,892; population size = 44,946,000
3,184; population size = 73,100,000
3,927; population size = 89,800,000
1996a.
90% Interval
61.9-74.1
36.2 - 44.7
158.7-181.8
212.9-246.0
336.5 - 341 .3
83.7-91.8
69.7 - 74.2
167.0-173.7
198.1 -221.7
292.8 - 341 .9
96.7-104.6
79.3 - 83.9
188.7-205.1
231 .5 - 264.5
359.3 - 401 .6
percent consuming gives the
-------
Table 10-13. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed
Age
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Sample Size
1431
2891
2340
6662
1546
2151
1553
5250
2977
5042
3893
11912
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were
Source: U.S.
EPA, 1996a.
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
Mean (90% C.I.) 90th % (90% B.I.) 95th % (90% B.I.) 99th % (90% B.I.)
1.58(1.06-2.10) 1.44(0.00-4.07) 12.51(6.00-14.20) 36.09(28.53-43.20)
4.28(3.55-5.02) 10.90(8.79-13.84) 28.80(26.26-33.53) 70.87(64.74-90.56)
5.27(4.21-6.32) 18.72(15.19-22.12) 34.67(29.17-39.38) 85.35(71.71-100.50)
4.02(3.43-4.61) 10.66(8.11-13.19) 28.11(23.14-31.27) 71.98(60.38-86.40)
2.17(1.32-3.02) 0.99(0.21-6.67) 14.94(11.88-22.33) 48.72(37.48-52.29)
6.14(5.08-7.19) 18.19(10.21-24.20) 48.61(35.42-54.65) 96.32(85.60-115.75)
7.12(5.87-8.38) 22.67(19.28-27.83) 46.62(41.27-58.01) 103.07(86.41-125.11)
5.46(4.81-6.11) 16.05(12.41-19.30) 40.29(35.92-43.73) 86.40(78.37-103.07)
1.88(1.36-2.40) 1.31(0.00-4.33) 13.90(9.32-15.05) 40.77(35.15-44.82)
5.17(4.46-5.87) 13.88(12.05-17.21) 36.21(28.64-47.31) 86.14(74.67-96.67)
6.11(5.20-7.02) 21.48(16.69-23.33) 40.55(35.80-47.31) 88.18(85.33-103.07)
4.71(4.17-5.25) 12.62(10.91-13.98) 32.16(29.81-35.15) 82.45(77.17-86.40)
estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
-------
Table 10-14. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(Marine)
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Percentile intervals
Source: U.S. EPA,
1431
2891
2340
6662
1546
2151
1553
5250
2977
5042
3893
11912
(B.I.) were
1996a.
Mean (90% C.I.)
6.60(5.16-8.05)
9.97(8.94-11.01)
12.59(11.36-13.82)
10.10(9.27-10.93)
7.25 (5.72-8.79)
13.33(11.89-14.77)
13.32(11.73-14.92)
11.85(10.75-12.95)
6.93 (5.63-8.23)
11.58(10.55-12.60)
12.92(11.86-13.98)
10.94(10.14-11.73)
90th % (90% B.I.) 95th % (90% B.I.) 99th % (90% B.I.)
24.84(18.67-31.20) 37.32(32.27-42.05) 87.05(63.26-112.06)
36.83(31.42-41.99) 55.53(47.67-59.59) 105.32(96.98-112.00)
42.92(38.92-47.66) 63.85(57.27-72.36) 103.08(91.61-121.52)
36.97(34.86-37.33) 55.54(51.67-56.98) 102.01(97.67-110.69)
24.85(19.92-33.85) 49.89(42.09-56.45) 92.64(65.87-132.39)
52.73(48.34-55.80) 71.49(63.99-80.00) 116.51(106.06-143.31)
50.39(47.13-53.33) 64.51(61.64-74.58) 116.86(106.93-144.94)
47.13(44.52-49.80) 64.50(62.46-67.53) 113.94(103.47-130.00)
24.88(22.64-28.08) 42.07(38.15-48.96) 91.64(68.59-112.06)
44.24(39.84-46.70) 62.18(57.88-69.72) 110.07(103.50-120.49)
46.51(38.98-50.97) 64.19(60.67-72.00) 113.33(104.59-119.53)
39.51(37.29-42.91) 59.62(57.03-61.84) 106.84(104.59-114.55)
estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
-------
Table 10-15. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(All Fish)
Age
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Sample Size
1431
2891
2340
6662
1546
2151
1553
5250
2977
5042
3893
11912
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996a.
Mean (90% C.I.)
8.19(6.53-9.84)
14.25(12.96-15.55)
17.86(16.19-19.52)
14.13(13.07-15.18)
9.42(7.60-11.25)
19.46(17.75-21.18)
20.45(18.41-22.49)
17.31 (16.04-18.59)
8.82(7.39-10.24)
16.74(15.54-17.94)
19.03(17.54-20.52)
15.65(14.67-16.63)
90th % (90% B.I.) 95th % (90% B.I.) 99th % (90% B.I.)
32.28(26.78-37.33) 43.09(37.99-51.55) 95.19(63.26-113.96)
47.13(41.95-55.83) 71.58(64.74-82.11) 120.84(110.69-132.79)
56.70(54.13-62.99) 81.94(74.63-88.23) 130.51(122.02-140.21)
46.44(43.63-49.67) 70.23(67.27-73.91) 120.22(112.06-126.07)
34.85(27.77-42.09) 52.85(49.93-62.50) 98.36(71.74-132.39)
68.60(65.74-74.70) 93.65(85.60-96.96) 149.07(142.73-154.41)
64.44(61.33-69.27) 87.21(85.33-100.19) 168.49(143.78-174.55)
60.23(56.91-62.99) 85.69(80.61-93.32) 143.91(135.35-154.15)
32.88(27.97-37.11) 50.95(44.64-53.86) 98.33(86.40-113.96)
57.88(56.00-60.85) 84.59(79.91-90.83) 138.21(122.84-149.15)
61.32(56.00-65.74) 86.21(77.42-94.70) 143.91(131.12-171.37)
55.02(51.38-56.00) 78.34(75.21-80.56) 133.46(125.27-140.21)
estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
-------
Table 10-16. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat- As Consumed
Habitat
Fresh/Estuarine
Marine
All Fish
Percentile intervals were estimated
Note: Estimates are projected from
Statistic
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Grams/day
Estimate
5.59
0.00
17.80
39.04
86.30
12.42
0.00
45.98
64.08
111.38
18.01
0.00
60.64
86.25
142.96
90% Interval
Lower Bound
4.91
0.00
14.89
36.13
81.99
11.55
0.00
44.48
61.61
101.94
16.85
0.00
57.06
80.29
134.23
using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap
a sample of 8,478 individuals of age
177,807,000 individuals of age 18 and older using
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996a.
18 and older to the U
Upper Bound
6.28
0.00
20.63
42.16
96.67
13.29
0.00
48.34
68.05
120.49
19.17
0.00
64.63
91.00
154.15
replications.
S. population of
3-year combined survey weights.
-------
Table 10-17. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under 1431
15-44 2891
45 or older 2340
All ages 6662
Males
14 or under 1546
15-44 2151
45 or older 1553
All ages 5250
Both Sexes
14 or under 2977
15-44 5042
45 or older 3893
All ages 11912
Mean (90% C.I.)
67.12(46.16-88.09)
66.22 (55.35-77.08)
78.29 (63.27-93.30)
70.32 (60.09-80.55)
73.93(44.89-102.96)
75.35 (62.00-88.70)
86.75(70.91-102.58)
78.36(69.10-87.61)
70.59 (53.29-87.89)
70.58 (61 .27-79.89)
82.12(70.19-94.05)
74.16(65.74-82.57)
90th % (90% B.I.)
57.30(0.00-128.52)
174.96(115.11-205.05)
273.63(209.63-300.11)
177.91 (132.69-212.30)
28.10(8.86-231.33)
230.13(132.30-309.85)
291.50(230.15-364.24)
231.57(186.27-276.04)
53.24(0.00-118.48)
197.11 (154.78-229.29)
286.93 (228.49-332.88)
204.00(177.97-225.16)
95th % (90% B.I.)
460.16(218.56-559.86)
451 .04 (421 .65-505.49)
548.66(466.18-633.87)
497.30 (442.20-558.85)
723.93 (423.52-785.58)
577.84(410.09-706.31)
584.96(512.66-630.77)
589.22 (549.64-630.09)
556.34(417.11-683.80)
502.26(410.09-604.29)
566.30(505.10-625.21)
547.64(505.10-565.37)
99th % (90% B.I.)
1356.54(1295.24-2118.93)
1188.16(977.85-1278.63)
1251.00(1038.97-1324.90)
1269.76(1093.19-1328.24)
1290.10(1279.82-1355.11)
1132.23(1028.61-1416.47)
1231.60(1115.58-1566.68)
1265.10(1133.18-1355.11)
1347.67(1279.82-1390.82)
1167.57(1021.96-1279.82)
1251.55(1115.58-1324.90)
1274.55(1197.29-1324.90)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Age
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Table
Sample Size
1431
2891
2340
6662
1546
2151
1553
5250
2977
5042
3893
11912
10-18. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(Marine)
Mean (90% C.I.)
256.90 (207.04-306.76)
159.79(142.76-176.82)
191.08(171.33-210.83)
190.61 (172.89-208.33)
230.25(188.33-272.17)
165.92(147.73-184.12)
164.37(144.87-183.87)
181.08(163.00-199.15)
243.31 (202.43-284.18)
162.72(148.13-177.31)
178.99(164.13-193.84)
186.06(170.81-201.31)
90th % (90% B.I.)
936.94(723.73-1055.43)
573.49(493.39-663.16)
644.33 (608.39-725.83)
658.64(627.61-700.33)
846.57(734.83-987.18)
626.85 (593.90-680.90)
621 .00 (562.90-691 .03)
670.19(622.62-714.53)
873.87(741.53-1093.69)
602.58 (564.88-648.54)
628.06 (555.84-700.65)
663.00(627.39-717.18)
Percentile intervals were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
95th % (90% B.I.)
1545.15(1260.24-1760.26)
873.73 (780.56-929.55)
978.84(881.06-1103.01)
1024.76(958.94-1096.14)
1 504.37 (1 320.60-1 749.26)
933.05 (833.43-982.30)
839.06 (800.23-946.97)
981.87(934.45-1071.54)
1522.52(1371.10-1587.20)
893.82 (856.58-940.85)
914.67(825.21-1040.75)
991.96(960.40-1044.69)
bootstrap replications.
99th % (90% B.I.)
3060.22 (2403.50-4354.46)
1700.21 (1578.65-1815.48)
1694.58(1488.32-1791.84)
1979.45(1793.40-2137.78)
2885.08 (2631 .87-3430.60)
1472.98(1411.97-1525.47)
1422.94(1293.89-1791.31)
1923.63(1802.17-1972.86)
3059.93 (2732.63-3430.60)
1576.09(1503.11-1697.71)
1568.85(1483.71-1760.74)
1942.17(1815.48-2042.99)
-------
Table 10-19. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(All Fish)
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under 1431
15-44 2891
45 or older 2340
All ages 6662
Males
14 or under 1546
15-44 2151
45 or older 1553
All ages 5250
Both Sexes
14 or under 2977
15-44 5042
45 or older 3893
All ages 11912
Mean (90% C.I.)
324.02 (264.25-383.80)
226.01 (205.01-247.01)
269.37 (243.36-295.38)
260.93(239.15-282.72)
304.17(251.91-356.43)
241.27(219.25-263.29)
251.12(225.48-276.76)
259.43(239.81-279.06)
313.90(268.42-359.38)
233.30(216.16-250.44)
261.10(240.34-281.87)
260.22 (242.60-277.83)
90th % (90% B.I.)
1091.52(929.29-1407.54)
755.51 (641.02-879.29)
862.18(796.63-955.82)
873.61 (796.63-911.89)
1172.17(1085.62-1320.60)
867.70(814.06-919.25)
797.83 (762.30-858.52)
894.96(842.29-938.16)
1128.26(1005.58-1320.60)
828.12(771.73-868.89)
818.10(771.23-882.53)
880.47(844.35-918.79)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
95th % (90% B.I.)
1690.99(1513.97-2072.35)
1126.02(975.49-1269.56)
1296.64(1186.00-1344.85)
1323.29(1269.56-1418.85)
1575.43(1496.19-1943.82)
1208.43(1101.68-1266.32)
1122.80(1041.28-1266.18)
1 298.95 (1 224.82-1 366.86)
1679.91 (1546.20-1848.43)
1155.30(1102.57-1212.19)
1249.97(1101.32-1323.53)
1308.54(1267.15-1346.71)
,000 bootstrap replications.
99th % (90% B.I.)
3982.60(3219.32-4568.45)
2195.86 (1762.90-2310.54)
2147.32(1791.84-2354.25)
2361.12(2272.41-2598.14)
3393.84 (2731 .95-3733.22)
1760.48(1611.45-1851.26)
1922.33(1786.53-2275.93)
2346.64 (1972.86-2631 .87)
3419.49(3184.04-3733.22)
2003.46 (1787.65-2182.19)
1967.01 (1796.52-2257.50)
2356.54 (2224.54-2556.68)
-------
Table 10-20.
for the U
Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
90% Interval
Habitat
Fresh/Estuarine
Marine
All Fish
Statistic
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Estimate Lower Bound
75.56
0.00
242.49
547.61
1,171.84
172.86
0.00
624.83
911.05
1,573.20
248.42
0.00
829.02
1,197.36
2,014.67
Percentile intervals were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with
Note: Estimates are projected
individuals of age 1 8 and older
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996a.
from a sample of 8,478
using 3-year combined
66.37
0.00
205.05
493.47
1,123.52
160.73
0.00
598.84
877.29
1,468.43
232.19
0.00
791.06
1,133.18
1,839.55
1,000 bootstrap
Upper Bound
84.75
0.00
277.26
587.37
1,252.78
184.99
0.00
670.34
952.66
1,713.17
264.64
0.00
872.61
1,264.74
2,180.87
replications.
individuals of age 18 and older to the population of 177,807,000
survey weights.
-------
Age
Sample
Size
Mean (90% C.I.)
90th °
k (90% B.I.)
95th °/
6 (90% B.I.)
99th °/
6 (90% B.I.)
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
Table 10-21. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
138 38.44
445 61.40
453 62.49
1036 58.82(51.57-66.06)
157 52.44
356 81.56
343 82.23
856 77.50(70.21-84.80)
91.30
148.83
150.67
145.65(130.73-152.24)
112.05
224.01
192.31
197.93(169.51-224.85)
128.97
185.44
214.91
190.28(173.88-219.03)
154.44
275.02
255.68
253.48(216.54-290.00)
182.66
363.56
296.69
330.41 (259.20-526.69)
230.74
371.53
449.09
404.65 (371.63-421.60)
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
295
801
796
1892
45.73
71.44
71.81
68.00 (61 .92-74.07)
108.36
180.67
174.54
170.84(158.74-181.79)
136.24
230.95
231 .38
224.78(212.91-245.98)
214.62
371 .52
427.73
374.74 (336.50-431 .34)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
Acute Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
period.
-------
Age
Sample
Size
Mean (90% C.I.)
90th °/
6 (90% B.I.)
95th °/
6 (90% B.I.)
99th °
>0 (90% B.I.)
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
Table 10-22. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(Marine)
315 69.04
774 76.53
715 85.24
1804 78.47(74.43-82.51)
348 78.44
565 104.57
467 101.46
1380 98.59(93.16-104.03)
114.23
149.78
167.11
155.38(147.00-166.64)
160.97
191.29
188.77
184.53(173.46-194.13)
162.37
178.74
218.35
195.15(179.12-212.07)
190.68
227.56
259.85
224.89(210.00-250.28)
336.59
271.06
264.8
279.79(263.48-336.17)
336.98
316.69
333.18
328.18(310.42-348.49)
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
663
1339
1182
3184
73.62
89.93
92.19
87.77 (83.74-91 .80)
153.2
171.88
178.33
169.39(167.00-173.65)
176.9
209.17
223.82
209.50(198.11-221.73)
337.24
308.06
314.44
320.41 (292.80-341.88)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
Acute Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
period.
-------
Table 10-23. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(All Fish)
Age
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Sample Size
378
952
879
2209
429
702
587
1718
807
1654
1466
3927
Mean (90% C.I.)
69.54
88.8
96.47
88.47 (83.98-92.97)
79.72
124.78
119.44
114.18(108.79-119.56)
74.8
106.06
106.62
100.63(96.66-104.60)
90th % (90% B.I.)
126.22
170.01
184.42
170.10(166.63-173.88)
161.62
230.77
224.82
219.96(209.17-229.91)
153.7
203.33
209.34
197.44(188.74-205.12)
95th % (90% B.I.)
165.27
212.56
226.25
220.56 (201 .97-236.00)
190
296.66
262.43
272.49(254.99-301.51)
178.08
271 .66
254.69
253.38(231.51-264.45)
99th % (90% B.I
338.04
361 .04
310.12
)
340.71 (289.17-368.51)
308.59
397.7
434.28
41 1 .68 (371 .43-447.85)
337.46
372.77
407.14
371 .59 (359.29-401
61)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Acute Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-24. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
90% Interval
Habitat Statistic Estimate Lower Bound Upper Bound
Fresh/Estuarine Mean 70.91 64.16 77.65
n = 1,541 50th % 42.45 37.24 46.91
N = 37,166,000 90th % 176.58 165.08 193.26
95th % 230.41 224.00 255.55
99th % 402.56 358.58 518.41
Marine Mean 91.49 87.35 95.64
n = 2,432 50th % 77.56 74.89 78.52
N = 57,830,000 90th % 172.29 168.00 182.00
95th % 215.62 201.99 225.63
99th % 313.05 292.80 324.81
All Fish Mean 106.39 102.37 110.41
n = 3,007 50th % 85.36 84.00 87.36
N = 70,949,000 90th % 206.76 197.84 213.00
95th % 258.22 241.00 266.86
99th % 399.26 336.50 423.56
Percentile intervals were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
Note: Consumers only are individuals who consumed fish at least once during the 3-day reporting period; n = sample size; N =
population size.
Estimates are projected from a sample of consumers only 18 years of age and older to the population of consumers only 18 years of age
and older using 3-year combined survey weights. The population for this survey consisted of individuals in the 48 conterminous states.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-25. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
Age Sample Size Mean (90% C.I.)
Females 0
14 or under 138
15-44 445
45 or older 453
All ages 1036
Males 0
14 or under 157
15-44 356
45 or older 343
All ages 856
Both Sexes 0
14 or under 295
15-44 801
45 or older 796
All ages 1892
0
1639.20
961 .58
927.85
1037.29(905.50-1169.09)
0
1798.24
1004.96
992.11
1117.74(1011.55-1223.94)
0
1721.99
983.19
958.20
1076.80(980.00-1173.61)
90th % (90% B.I.)
0
3915.56
2578.81
2229.97
2582.5 (2248.8-2734.5)
0
3759.29
2744.61
2448.54
2789.95(2526.87-3132.65)
0
3760.67
2616.63
2394.21
2695.81 (2546.77-2819.33)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000
95th % (90% B.I.)
0
6271 .09
3403.75
2894.18
3434.16(2927.72-3979.82)
0
3952.99
3348.86
3281 .38
3399.26 (3256.87-3907.77)
0
4208.18
3360.85
3121.09
3399.46(3132.65-3839.47)
bootstrap replications.
99th % (90% B.I.)
0
10113.24
6167.24
4338.36
6923.5(4757.8-9134.9)
0
7907.38
4569.62
5716.41
5259.97 (4834.34-6593.97)
0
9789.49
5089.78
5157.95
6526.10(5270.61-6931.61)
Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-26. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(Marine)
Sample
Age Size
Females
14 or under 315
15-44 774
45 or older 715
All ages 1804
Males
14 or under 348
15-44 565
45 or older 467
All ages 1380
Both Sexes
14 or under 663
15-44 1339
45 or older 1182
All ages 3184
Mean (90% C.I.)
2591 .57
1227.41
1293.99
1 486.90 (1 400.58-1 573.23)
2471.15
1302.62
1242.49
1505.19(1411.84-1598.55)
2532.95
1263.35
1271.92
1495.37(1422.63-1568.12)
90th % (90% B.I.)
5074.80
2469.67
2642.60
2992.38 (2841 .13-3303.96)
4852.33
2390.20
2251 .43
2899.23 (2797.30-3199.05)
5068.69
2464.80
2461 .37
2956.38 (2838.46-3083.70)
95th % (90% B.I.)
6504.67
3007.98
3565.34
3961 .24 (3768.48-41 92. 1 3)
5860.72
2882.91
2877.73
3836.02 (3563.32-4581 .61)
6376.47
2961 .92
3383.46
3887.52 (3770.65-41 13.22)
99th % (90% B.I.)
9970.44
4800.68
4237.73
6521 .73 (5792.54-7794.41)
8495.57
3887.23
4016.80
5859.85 (5247.79-7895.62)
8749.02
4251 .47
4220.78
6510.73 (5772.57-6852.01)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-27. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumer Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed
(All Fish)
Sample
Age Size
Females
14 or under 378
15-44 952
45 or older 879
All ages 2209
Males
14 or under 429
15-44 702
45 or older 587
All ages 1718
Both Sexes
14 or under 807
15-44 1654
45 or older 1 466
All ages 3927
Mean (90% C.I.)
2683.51
1414.54
1449.43
1 637.08 (1 546.08-1 728.08)
2568.93
1545.93
1451.06
1715.79(1636.68-1794.90)
2624.35
1477.57
1450.15
1674.31 (1606.79-1741.83)
90th % (90% B.I.)
5299.68
2726.46
2838.76
3122.82 (2992.63-3308.93)
4714.97
2854.49
2841 .35
3399.26 (3290.97-3766.18)
5020.14
2798.37
2839.04
3299.54 (3133.69-3462.35)
95th % (90% B.I.)
7160.73
3740.83
3736.61
4312.16 (3969.22-4710.75)
5818.08
3773.51
3366.84
4244.32 (401 5.03-4581 .61 )
6904.83
3747.88
3515.81
4258.69 (4065.32-4483.83)
99th % (90% B.I.)
12473.65
6703.25
4693.94
7163.38 (6852.67-7794.41)
9350.89
5254.04
5091 .31
6818.35 (5792.54-7588.15)
10384.82
5386.43
4922.99
7126.90(6644.11-7794.41)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-28. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
Habitat
Milligrams/kilogram/person/day
Statistic
90% Interval
Estimate
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Fresh/Estuarine
n = 1,541
N = 37,166,000
Marine
n = 2,432
N = 57,830,000
All Fish
n = 3,007
N = 70,949,000
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
959.15
601.88
2,442.97
3,116.28
5,151.98
1,270.78
1,062.93
2,467.68
3,116.74
4,250.22
1,461.71
1,189.29
2,802.28
3,588.11
5,355.90
867.58
532.31
2,233.16
2,839.90
4,432.30
1,214.65
1,019.60
2,331.88
2,906.16
4,037.74
1,406.34
1,156.77
2,685.81
3,308.93
5,095.58
1,050.72
656.86
2,606.66
3,303.96
6,931.61
1,326.90
1,087.06
2,585.09
3,264.98
4,387.96
1,517.09
1,225.43
2,868.73
3,798.54
5,766.99
Percentile intervals were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
Note: Consumers only are individuals who consumed fish at least once during the 3-day reporting period; n = sample size; N =
population size
Estimates are projected from a sample of consumers only 18 years of age and older to the population of consumers only 18 years of age
and older using 3-year combined survey weights. The population for this survey consisted of individuals in the 48 conterminous states.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-29. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under 1431
15-44 2891
45 or older 2340
All ages 6662
Males
14 or under 1546
15-44 2151
45 or older 1553
All ages 5250
Both Sexes
14 or under 2977
15-44 5042
45 or older 3893
Alleges 11912
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996a.
Mean (90% C.I.) 90th % (90% B.I.)
1 .99 (1 .34-2.64) 1 .81 (0.00-4.63)
5.50(4.53-6.48) 13.62(9.99-18.11)
6.65(5.30-8.00) 24.18(18.11-27.41)
5.13(4.37-5.88) 13.31 (10.48-16.67)
2.69 (1 .62-3.76) 1 .07 (0.33-8.67)
7.87 (6.46-9.29) 22.10 (13.43-31.80)
8.87 (7.32-10.43) 28.74 (24.23-33.07)
6.91 (6.07-7.75) 19.00(14.99-23.69)
2.35 (1 .70-3.00) 1 .72 (0.00-5.00)
6.64 (5.71-7.56) 18.30 (14.99-21.14)
7.66(6.50-8.81) 26.11 (21.95-28.85)
5.98(5.29-6.67) 15.89(14.39-17.76)
estimated using the percentile bootstrap
95th % (90% B.I.)
15.88(7.89-18.38)
36.68(32.53-40.31)
46.91 (37.94-52.92)
35.63(28.92-40.07)
18.47(14.39-25.91)
63.26(50.62-70.12)
61.15(52.57-71.59)
51.43(47.32-54.82)
17.46(12.78-18.68)
47.31 (36.22-59.65)
52.92(45.73-61.51)
40.03(37.94-44.75)
99th % (90% B.I.)
46.82 (36.72-54.55)
94.93(75.74-114.34)
108.90(92.06-123.72)
94.61 (77.70-109.09)
57.07(47.32-65.37)
126.61 (108.54-162.80)
125.90(112.28-147.62)
112.11 (108.54-127.19)
50.14(43.58-55.00)
109.66(94.43-127.19)
113.10(107.18-133.74)
107.63(98.25-109.09)
method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
-------
Table 10-30. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Marine)
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Percentile intervals
Source: U.S. EPA
1431
2891
2340
6662
1546
2151
1553
5250
2977
5042
3893
11912
(B.I.) were
1996a.
Mean (90% C.I.) 90th % (90% B.I.) 95th % (90% B.I.) 99th % (90% B.I.)
8.61(6.67-10.56) 31.23(26.85-37.29) 49.75(41.46-57.49) 104.26(83.35-140.07)
12.84(11.51-14.18) 46.66(38.35-54.30) 72.16(63.12-77.18) 133.69(121.33-142.82)
16.26(14.68-17.84) 56.01(50.00-61.97) 84.71(75.05-93.29) 131.43(112.07-156.01)
13.05(11.97-14.12) 46.70(44.49-49.72) 72.22(65.55-75.47) 130.73(121.33-137.18)
9.40(7.36-11.45) 31.32(25.20-44.12) 65.37(54.60-73.39) 118.42(82.34-176.52)
17.11(15.31-18.90) 66.06(62.21-73.20) 93.32(81.26-106.67) 155.16(136.77-181.18)
17.22(15.19-19.25) 62.64(59.39-68.44) 84.96(79.93-99.44) 146.78(142.58-185.44)
15.27(13.86-16.68) 61.12(56.59-63.09) 81.89(77.91-87.16) 147.09(134.55-174.31)
9.02(7.28-10.75) 31.52(30.19-35.75) 56.35(50.22-62.25) 117.75(91.82-140.07)
14.88(13.57-16.19) 55.99(53.04-61.33) 80.70(75.19-87.16) 138.23(128.40-157.23)
16.69(15.34-18.04) 59.12(52.84-64.53) 84.92(76.67-93.32) 142.92(134.55-155.13)
14.11(13.07-15.14) 52.10(47.83-55.93) 76.51(74.58-80.89) 138.22(132.98-155.13)
estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
-------
Table
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Percentile intervals
Source: U.S. EPA
1431
2891
2340
6662
1546
2151
1553
5250
2977
5042
3893
11912
(B.I.) were
1996a.
10-31. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(All Fish)
Mean (90% C.I.)
10.60(8.40-12.81)
18.35(16.67-20.02)
22.91 (20.78-25.04)
18.17(16.82-19.53)
12.09(9.70-14.49)
24.98(22.79-27.17)
26.09(23.52-28.67)
22.18(20.52-23.83)
11.36(9.49-13.24)
21.51 (19.97-23.06)
24.35(22.46-26.24)
20.08(18.82-21.35)
90th
41
62
74
61
45
87
81
76
43
75
77
70
10
21
56
08
59
15
76
13
00
15
57
11
estimated using the percentile
% (90% B.I.)
(35
(54
(65
(56
(34
(80
(76
(74
(34
(73
(72
(65
80-47
47-73
37-79
94-63
69-53
89-94
67-88
22-79
69-47
56-79
07-84
37-74
57)
56)
67)
12)
11)
63)
03)
92)
32)
71)
02)
20)
95th
56.16
93.13
107.66
92.03
68.18
122.29
112.33
110.88
65.34
109.57
110.13
102.01
bootstrap method with
% (90% B.I.)
(49
78-65.55)
(82.29-108.03)
(97.
(86.
(64.
(111
(109
(108
(56.
(106
(100
(99.
64-111.71)
94-96.11)
28-79.90)
.05-124.83)
.65-130.36)
.54-118.56)
28-68.51)
.72-117.47)
.42-119.87)
26-106.67)
99th % (90% B.I.)
130.78(83.35-160.66)
155.75(137.18-174.31)
159.97(157.17-173.74)
157.08(147.34-168.83)
127.20(87.29-176.52)
197.15(179.86-198.87)
211.20(190.74-223.72)
180.90(174.39-198.87)
130.41 (107.12-160.66)
175.73(162.80-198.63)
180.74(164.76-210.75)
173.18(162.80-176.52)
1,000 bootstrap replications.
-------
Table 10-32. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish Weight
90% Interval
Habitat Statistic Estimate Lower Bound Upper Bound
Fresh/Estuarine Mean 7.09 6.22 7.96
50th % 0.00 0.00 0.00
90th % 21.72 18.52 25.82
95th % 49.89 47.32 54.67
99th % 111.13 107.18 116.38
Marine Mean 16.01 14.89 17.12
50th % 0.00 0.00 0.00
90th % 59.35 56.59 61.49
95th % 82.95 80.37 88.36
99th % 142.78 131.02 156.89
All Fish Mean 23.10 21.62 24.58
50th % 0.00 0.00 0.00
90th % 76.84 74.37 80.13
95th % 110.28 106.67 115.32
99th % 177.44 171.73 198.63
Percentile intervals were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
NOTE: Estimates are projected from a sample of 8,478 individuals of age 18 and older to the U.S. population
of 177,807,000 individuals of age 18 and older using 3-year combined survey weights.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-33. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
Age
Sample
Size
Mean (90% C.I.)
90th % (90% B.I.)
95th % (90% B.I.)
99th % (90% B.I.)
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
1431 84.78(58.06-111.50)
2891 85.15(70.68-99.62)
2340 98.97(79.89-118.04)
6662 89.54(76.51-102.58)
1546 91.62(55.18-128.05)
2151 96.91(78.91-114.90)
1553 107.87 (88.47-127.28)
5250 98.86(87.19-110.52)
2977 88.26(66.69-109.83)
5042 90.77(78.37-103.16)
3893 103.00(87.86-118.15)
11912 93.99(83.41-104.57)
70.75(0.00-143.13)
202.83(153.48-259.97)
333.38 (269.96-379.98)
225.51 (176.38-280.11)
38.98(12.26-281.50)
281.17(165.37-387.46)
361.99 (304.96-455.29)
292.58(217.42-342.11)
66.00(0.00-143.13)
250.26(194.04-289.19)
345.69 (291.80-423.39)
251.82 (222.54-282.58)
599.06(266.71-722.58)
584.79 (538.05-631.86)
733.74 (606.36-820.68)
625.30(552.99-713.85)
868.97(485.33-1063.50)
740.91 (546.79-850.52)
702.35(628.25-810.62)
755.53 (677.47-790.85)
717.37(485.60-880.64)
631.31 (538.05-773.91)
719.81 (637.94-790.85)
677.66(631.86-729.11)
1713.06(1511.78-2313.50)
1411.42(1236.72-1659.15)
1561.40(1331.46-1667.88)
1558.08(1394.99-1659.15)
1642.60 (1599.78-1693.88)
1589.97(1353.43-1992.23)
1612.49(1344.07-1848.39)
1596.61 (1538.89-1711.41)
1688.55(1511.78-1824.44)
1529.94(1352.50-1659.15)
1590.13(1373.97-1668.93)
1593.28(1511.78-1659.15)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-34. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Marine)
Age
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Sample
Size
1431
2891
2340
6662
1546
2151
1553
5250
2977
5042
3893
11912
Mean (90% C.I.)
333.99 (267.25-400.72)
206.03(183.95-228.11)
246.73 (221 .45-272.00)
246.47 (223.28-269.66)
296.99(241.85-352.13)
212.88(190.31-235.44)
212.15(187.25-237.04)
233.07 (209.65-256.49)
315.12(260.95-369.29)
209.30(190.68-227.92)
231.06(212.18-249.95)
240.07(220.14-260.01)
90th % (90% B.I.)
1132.99(864.83-1407.24)
762.54(617.86-857.55)
829.52 (777.87-944.26)
847.60(811.19-893.29)
1089.46(1003.46-1256.97)
800.79(741.29-859.61)
792.86(747.56-890.31)
859.01 (798.27-907.76)
1123.28(993.12-1371.24)
780.16(722.86-843.41)
813.12(747.56-907.76)
855.63 (809.67-909.76)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
95th % (90% B.I.)
1959.91 (1780.61-2347.02)
1137.58(1036.38-1211.86)
1236.00(1174.14-1413.34)
1305.49(1215.53-1385.66)
1907.65(1685.30-2186.58)
1191.75(1096.61-1245.94)
1100.20(1039.02-1210.66)
1 255.35 (1 204.46-1 382.05)
1909.37(1785.09-2062.64)
1174.69(1104.42-1215.53)
1193.22(1076.85-1333.72)
1271.54(1227.16-1371.24)
1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
99th % (90% B.I.)
3776.60(3173.86-5736.90)
2174.21 (2014.41-2393.16)
2161.65(1952.51-2303.80)
2615.85 (2365.65-2857.62)
3723.81 (3274.93-4574.13)
1 890.42 (1 685.30-1 969.63)
1842.38(1749.67-2219.32)
2520.94 (2263.58-2733.15)
3820.21 (3370.59-4574.13)
2019.59 (1918.45-2237.22)
2029.16(1863.17-2219.32)
2575.29 (2393.16-2708.59)
-------
Table 10-35. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(All Fish)
Age
Females
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Males
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
45 or older
All ages
Sample
Size Mean (90% C.I.)
1431
2891
2340
6662
1546
2151
1553
5250
2977
5042
3893
11912
418.76
291.18
345.69
336.01
388.61
309.78
320.02
331 .93
403.38
300.06
334.07
334.06
(339.58-497.95)
(263.86-318.50)
(312.49-378.90)
(307.83-364.20)
(320.66-456.56)
(281 .55-338.02)
(287.79-352.25)
(306.46-357.40)
(343.65-463.12)
(277.94-322.19)
(307.87-360.26)
(31 1 .25-356.88)
90th % (90% B.I.)
1389.10(1150.77-1785.09)
993.92(854.63-1127.32)
1122.26(1050.15-1230.68)
1120.91 (1054.05-1172.38)
1476.31 (1371.24-1632.55)
1096.57(1044.57-1194.06)
1013.05(955.37-1096.43)
1126.66(1081.06-1225.66)
1442.72(1279.82-1672.75)
1 040.98 (1 003.55-1 097.08)
1069.14(978.95-1140.98)
1123.14(1090.76-1178.95)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
95th % (90% B.I.)
2341 .90 (2062.64-2860.52)
1436.00(1234.66-1631.25)
1669.72(1556.83-1784.37)
1 720.84 (1 642.63-1 855.69)
2038.58(1909.00-2631.42)
1566.39(1410.20-1609.35)
1459.73(1340.97-1601.79)
1621.80(1599.78-1696.20)
2191.90(2021.16-2536.75)
1514.82(1421.34-1572.40)
1579.43(1373.97-1696.20)
1684.23(1620.48-1718.51)
1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
99th % (90% B.I.)
4985.96
2726.50
2684.71
3093.76
4294.12
2275.15
2392.05
3031 .31
(3971 .54-5736.90)
(2406.11-3044.81)
(2303.80-3064.38)
(2973.66-3265.54)
(3556.31-4574.13)
(2047.18-2465.77)
(2233.16-2806.51)
(2806.51-3274.93)
4425.27 (4000.27-4669.59)
2481 .23 (2383.54-2773.15)
2653.45(2292.45-2806.51)
3092.77 (2973.66-3250.20)
-------
Table 10-36. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish Weight
90% Interval
Habitat
Fresh/Estuarine
Marine
All Fish
Statistic Estimate
Mean 95.99
50th % 0.00
90th % 306.74
95th % 677.39
99th % 1 ,547.81
Mean 222.86
50th % 0.00
90th % 810.43
95th % 1,190.45
99th % 2,033.92
Mean 318.85
50th % 0.00
90th % 1,061.14
95th % 1 ,548.77
99th % 2,559.07
Lower Bound
84.30
0.00
259.97
626.01
1 ,41 1 .56
207.34
0.00
778.50
1,145.61
1 ,870.09
298.20
0.00
1,016.87
1 ,464.72
2,444.24
Upper Bound
107.69
0.00
334.58
734.34
1 ,599.78
238.37
0.00
859.61
1,219.60
2,263.58
339.49
0.00
1,105.01
1,609.14
2,764.50
Percentile intervals were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
NOTE: Estimates are projected from a sample of 8,478 individuals of age 18 and older to the population of
177,807,000 individuals of age 18 and older using 3-year combined survey weights.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-37. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under 138
15-44 445
45 or older 453
All ages 1036
Males
14 or under 157
15-44 356
45 or older 343
All ages 856
Both Sexes
14 or under 295
15-44 801
45 or older 796
All ages 1892
Mean (90% C.I.)
48.3
78.56
78.77
74.67 (65.46-83.88)
64.91
104.86
102.56
98.12(88.60-107.64)
56.95
91.66
90
86.19(78.41-93.97)
90th % (90% B.I.)
117.27
191.95
192.32
181.08(171.19-197.59)
141.35
269.96
234.28
246.93(212.93-283.90)
134.89
237.27
220.76
217.92(205.28-237.27)
95th % (90% B.I.)
161.44
242.76
258.56
239.59 (220.69-284.70)
193.79
343.66
326.96
324.53 (283.28-381 .58)
166.32
322.06
295.41
290.04(267.10-325.61)
99th % (90% B.I.)
230.63
472.21
368.84
409.00 (345.96-671 .54)
287.28
494.38
539.77
499.19(488.41-532.32)
262.87
494.64
523.94
489.29 (424.87-534.20)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Consumers only are individuals reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-38. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Marine)
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under 315
15-44 774
45 or older 715
All ages 1804
Males
14 or under 348
15-44 565
45 or older 467
All ages 1380
Both Sexes
14 or under 663
15-44 1339
45 or older 1182
All ages 3184
Mean (90% C.I.)
89.92
98.53
110
101.30(95.90-106.69)
101.5
133.86
131.2
126.85(119.75-133.94)
95.56
115.41
119.08
113.11 (107.79-118.43)
90th % (90% B.I.)
169.23
194.59
214.73
195.37(186.67-213.33)
205.49
244.46
243.33
238.64(225.57-247.01)
189.32
223.99
226.55
222.67(216.50-225.56)
95th % (90% B.I.)
198.62
231 .22
279.67
252.43(231.53-278.16)
242.28
297.67
327.14
296.68(279.95-316.81)
231 .72
263.76
288.16
271 .70 (260.62-279.95)
99th % (90% B.I.)
432.51
317.42
345.37
372.17(314.67-428.00)
408.68
393.14
428.72
425.98 (403.66-481 .95)
442.87
383.16
418.23
415.88(367.26-440.45)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-39. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(All Fish)
Age Sample Size
Females
14 or under 378
15-44 952
45 or older 879
All ages 2209
Males
14 or under 429
15-44 702
45 or older 587
All ages 1718
Both Sexes
14 or under 807
15-44 1654
45 or older 1466
All ages 3927
Mean (90% C.I.)
89.73
114.04
123.61
113.58(107.69-119.47)
102.01
160.06
152.52
146.18(138.99-153.38)
96.07
136.12
136.38
129.00(123.74-134.27)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile
Consumers only are individuals reported fish consumption at
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
90th % (90% B.I.)
163.47
220.63
236.3
220.44 (206.27-226.80)
205.25
305.61
292.95
283.46 (261 .72-297.95)
195.35
262.15
263.95
249.09(240.99-264.10)
95th % (90% B.I.)
204.14
277.69
298.66
287.08(257.09-312.42)
244.46
379.38
350.26
350.99 (328.70-382.33)
232.85
343.86
326.94
326.00 (306.02-335.58)
99th % (90% B.I.)
476.56
461 .54
397.43
448.57 (393.68-531 .63)
386.47
495.51
555.11
520.51 (488.41-591.47)
466.09
488.9
510.25
497.54(469.23-519.67)
bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
least once during the three day reporting period.
-------
Table 10-40. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day)
for Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish Weight
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
90% Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Fresh/Estuarine
n = 1,541
N = 37,166,000
Marine
n = 2,432
N = 57,830,000
All Fish
n = 3,007
N = 70,949,000
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
89.88
53.64
223.11
296.89
502.93
117.83
98.79
225.51
279.50
403.48
136.33
111.50
262.03
328.66
506.02
81.41
46.44
206.58
283.90
448.23
112.47
95.69
222.67
261.47
369.10
131.11
108.53
253.24
323.61
435.44
98.35
57.81
237.27
325.61
654.55
123.20
100.76
234.00
289.44
427.73
141.55
112.00
272.71
340.52
531.63
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
Note: Consumers only are individuals who consumed fish at least once during the 3-day reporting period; n = sample size; and N =
population size. Estimates are projected from a sample of consumers only 18 years of age and older to the population of consumers
only 18 years of age and older using 3-year combined survey weights. The population for this survey consisted of individuals in the 48
conterminous states.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-41 . Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Freshwater and Estuarine)
Age Sample
Size
Females
14 or under 138
15-44 445
45 or older 453
All ages 1036
Males
14 or under 157
15-44 356
45 or older 343
All ages 856
Both Sexes
14 or under 295
15-44 801
45 or older 796
All ages 1892
Mean (90% C.I.)
2070.41
1229.97
1171.17
1317.18(1150.10-1484.26)
2229.31
1294.27
1235.55
1411.35(1278.61-1544.08)
2153.11
1261.99
1201.57
1 363.44 (1 242.24-1 484.65)
90th % (90% B.I.)
4450.54
3045.41
2886.48
3250.31 (2988.81-3491.38)
4638.34
3318.89
2898.00
3579.06 (3225.84-4060.30)
4634.82
3276.06
2892.52
3325.14 (3232.58-3676.99)
95th % (90% B.I.)
6915.31
4191.25
3519.87
4240.89 (3710.16-5025.02)
5071 .41
4275.83
4097.24
4615.66(4121.91-5081.65)
5756.93
4246.63
3981 .84
4408.18 (4085.55-4781 .34)
99th % (90% B.I.)
13269.61
771 1 .43
5577.34
891 2.52 (6385.55-1 1 533.98)
9622.15
5974.96
7217.68
6594.61 (5980.19-7944.55)
12388.27
6625.15
6378.11
7957.50 (6979.20-8920.99)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-42. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Marine)
Age Sample Size
Females 0
14 or under 315
15-44 774
45 or older 715
All ages 1804
Males 0
14 or under 348
15-44 565
45 or older 467
All ages 1380
Both Sexes 0
14 or under 663
15-44 1339
45 or older 1182
All ages 3184
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were
Mean (90% C.I.)
0
3359.10
1582.77
1669.73
1920.77(1804.28-2037.26)
0
3180.45
1666.42
1604.71
1934.12(1812.97-2055.28)
0
3272.13
1622.75
1641.87
1926.95(1829.50-2024.39)
estimated using the percentile
90th % (90% B.I.)
0
6058.97
3129.41
3429.24
3793.20(3618.55-4328.00)
0
6434.20
3102.24
2931.17
3736.16(3548.08-4072.42)
0
6278.74
3120.60
3320.87
3752.89(3631.98-4001.16)
95th % (90% B.I.)
0
8573.62
3854.14
4397.07
5083.63 (4953.40-5552.65)
0
8089.26
3651.10
3725.63
4884.60(4454.15-5710.83)
0
8424.77
3682.17
4328.34
5018.74(4852.08-5267.31)
99th % (90% B.I.)
0
13050.09
5961 .80
5476.02
8576.60(7527.83-9743.01)
0
10764.01
4998.14
5373.82
8066.96 (6852.67-9869.52)
0
11838.54
5517.95
5406.76
8448.28(7215.72-9136.89)
bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-43. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumer Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(All Fish)
Age Sample
Size
Females
14 or under 378
15-44 952
45 or older 879
All ages 2209
Males
14 or under 429
15-44 702
45 or older 587
All ages 1718
Both Sexes
14 or under 807
15-44 1654
45 or older 1466
All ages 3927
Mean (90% C.I.)
3448.73
1818.32
1857.64
2102.20(1982.89-2221.51)
3273.63
1983.16
1850.69
2193.24 (2089.20-2297.28)
3358.33
1897.40
1854.57
2145.26 (2055.92-2234.61)
90th % (90% B.I.)
7100.43
3506.20
3520.90
4092.51 (3842.15-4282.08)
5734.46
3720.05
3534.61
4385.06 (41 21 .91 -4776.34)
6333.46
3674.88
3522.43
4223.91 (4085.76-4454.15)
95th % (90% B.I.)
9012.18
4661 .96
4740.11
5545.07 (5080.72-6007.28)
7570.83
4769.44
431 1 .83
5351.38(5055.10-5727.01)
861 1 .73
4709.78
4615.22
5477.86 (5163.33-5686.04)
99th % (90% B.I.)
15381.13
8789.33
6561.13
9630.23 (8166.44-9796.61)
11891.85
6121.56
6374.34
8596.82 (7816.70-10199.24)
12406.35
7276.18
6440.17
9171.52(8605.35-9796.61)
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1 ,000 bootstrap replications.
Consumers only are individuals with reported fish consumption at least once during the three day reporting period.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 10-44. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish Weight
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
90% Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Fresh/Estuarine
n = 1,541
N = 37,166,000
Marine
n = 2,432
N = 57,830,000
All Fish
n = 3,007
N = 70,949,000
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
Mean
50th %
90th %
95th %
99th %
1,216.82
740.93
3,050.95
4,025.44
6,638.62
1,637.10
1,370.42
3,169.02
3,926.74
5,452.75
1,873.84
1,515.91
3,599.04
4,665.15
7,022.47
1,101.74
639.11
2,931.26
3,639.76
6,007.28
1,564.27
1,302.29
3,006.55
3,632.70
5,353.12
1,801.93
1,477.99
3,443.64
4,264.03
6,459.64
1,331.90
822.65
3,270.80
4,121.91
8,920.99
1,709.92
1,422.69
3,328.98
4,156.98
5,596.31
1,945.75
1,570.40
3,676.99
4,812.97
7,294.80
Percentile intervals (B.I.) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000 bootstrap replications.
Note: Consumers only are individuals who consumed fish at least once during the 3-day reporting period; n = sample size; and N =
population size. Estimates are projected from a sample of consumers only 18 years of age and older to the population of consumers
only 18 years of age and older using 3-year combined survey weights. The population for this survey consisted of individuals in the 48
conterminous states.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1996a.
-------
Table 1 0-45. Distribution of Quantity of Fish Consumed (in grams) Per Eating Occasion
by Age and Sex
Percentiles
Aqe (vears)-Sex Group
1-2 Male-Female
3-5 Male-Female
6-8 Male-Female
9-1 4 Male
9-1 4 Female
15-1 8 Male
15-1 8 Female
19-34 Male
1 9-34 Female
35-64 Male
35-64 Female
65-74 Male
65-74 Female
75+ Male
75+ Female
Overall
Mean
52
70
81
101
86
117
111
149
104
147
119
145
123
124
112
117
SD
38
51
58
78
62
115
102
125
74
116
98
109
87
68
69
98
5th
8
12
19
28
19
20
24
28
20
28
20
35
24
36
20
20
25th
28
36
40
56
45
57
56
64
57
80
57
75
61
80
61
57
50th
43
57
72
84
79
85
85
113
85
113
85
113
103
106
112
85
75th
58
85
112
113
112
142
130
196
135
180
152
180
168
170
151
152
90th
112
113
160
170
168
200
225
284
184
258
227
270
227
227
196
227
95th
125
170
170
255
206
252
270
362
227
360
280
392
304
227
225
284
99th
168
240
288
425
288
454
568
643
394
577
480
480
448
336
360
456
Source: Paoetal., 1982.
-------
Table 10-46. Mean Fish Intake in a Day, by Sex and Age"
Sex
Age (year)
Males or Females
5 and under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
All individuals
Per capita intake
(g/day)
4
3
3
15
7
9
12
11
Percent of population
consuming fish in 1 day
6.0
3.7
2.2
10.9
7.1
9.0
10.9
9.4
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88 data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita consumption rate by the fraction of the
one day.
Source: USDA, 1992b.
Mean intake (g/day) for
consumers onlyb
67
79
136
138
99
100
110
117
population consuming fish in
-------
Table 10-47. Percent of Respondents That Responded Yes, No, or Don't Know to Eating Seafood in 1 Month (including shellfish, eels, or squid)
Population Group
Overall
Gender
*
Male
Female
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
*
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Hispanic
*
No
Yes
DK
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing data; DK =
Source: Tsang and Klepeis,
Total N
4663
2
2163
2498
84
263
348
326
2972
670
60
3774
463
77
96
193
46
4243
348
26
958
2017
379
1309
1021
399
1253
895
650
445
1048
1036
1601
978
3156
1507
1264
1181
1275
943
4287
341
35
4500
125
38
4424
203
36
Don't know; °
1996.
No
N
1811
1
821
989
25
160
177
179
997
273
20
1475
156
21
39
100
10
1625
165
11
518
630
134
529
550
196
501
304
159
101
370
449
590
402
1254
557
462
469
506
374
1674
131
6
1750
56
50
1726
80
5
'o = Row percentage;
%
38.8
50.0
38.0
39.6
29.8
60.8
50.9
54.9
33.5
40.7
33.3
39.1
33.7
27.3
40.6
51.8
21.7
31.2
35.4
40.4
54.1
31.2
35.4
40.4
53.9
49.1
40.0
34.0
24.5
22.7
35.3
43.3
36.9
41.1
39.7
37.0
36.6
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.0
38.4
17.7
38.9
44.8
13.2
9.0
39.4
13.9
N = Sample size
Response
Yes
N
2780
1
1311
1468
42
102
166
137
1946
387
22
2249
304
56
56
93
412
1366
236
766
412
1366
236
766
434
198
739
584
484
341
655
575
989
561
1848
932
780
691
745
564
2563
207
10
2698
68
14
2648
121
11
%
59.6
50.0
60.6
58.8
50.0
38.8
47.7
42.0
65.5
57.8
36.7
59.6
65.7
72.7
58.3
48.2
43.0
67.7
62.3
58.5
43.0
67.7
62.3
58.5
42.5
49.6
59.0
65.3
74.5
76.6
62.5
55.5
61.8
57.4
58.6
61.8
61.7
58.5
58.4
59.8
59.8
60.7
28.6
60.0
54.4
36.8
59.6
59.6
30.6
N
72
*
31
41
17
1
5
10
29
10
18
50
3
*
1
*
28
21
9
14
28
21
9
14
37
45
13
7
7
3
23
12
22
15
54
18
22
21
24
5
50
3
19
52
1
19
50
2
20
DK
%
1.5
*
1.4
1.6
20.2
0.4
1.4
3.1
1.0
1.5
30.0
1.3
0.6
*
1.0
*
41.3
1.2
*
*
2.9
1.0
2.4
1.1
3.6
1.3
1.0
0.8
1.1
0.7
2.2
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.7
1.8
1.9
0.5
1.2
0.9
54.3
1.2
0.8
50.0
1.1
1.0
55.6
-------
Table 10-48. Number of Respondents Reportinq Consumption of a Specified Number of Servinqs of Seafood in 1 Month
Population Group
Overall
Gender
*
Male
Female
Age (years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
*
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing data; DK =
Source: Tsang and Klepeis,
Total N
2780
1311
1468
1
42
102
166
137
1946
387
2249
304
56
56
93
22
2566
182
15
17
399
1366
236
766
13
434
198
739
584
484
341
655
575
989
561
1848
932
780
691
745
564
2563
207
10
2698
68
14
2648
121
11
Don't know; °
1996.
Number of Servinqs in a Month
1-2
918
405
512
1
13
55
72
68
603
107
731
105
15
22
41
4
844
68
5
1
190
407
70
249
2
205
88
267
161
115
82
191
199
336
192
602
316
262
240
220
196
846
69
3
896
19
3
877
37
4
'o = Row percentage;
3-5
990
458
532
*
16
29
57
54
679
155
818
103
17
18
25
9
922
52
8
8
140
466
95
285
4
149
62
266
219
183
111
241
221
339
189
661
329
284
244
249
213
917
71
2
960
27
3
940
47
3
N = Sample size;
6-10
519
261
258
*
5
12
21
9
408
64
428
56
11
6
14
4
480
34
2
3
40
307
46
124
2
47
20
119
122
121
90
137
102
175
105
346
173
131
123
160
105
475
42
2
509
8
2
495
23
1
Refused
11-19
191
101
90
*
4
2
6
2
145
32
155
16
5
5
9
1
175
15
*
1
11
107
14
57
2
12
6
46
48
43
36
62
17
70
42
129
62
60
45
59
27
180
11
*
183
7
1
185
6
*
20+
98
57
41
*
1
*
4
1
79
13
76
10
5
3
2
2
88
8
*
2
5
57
8
26
2
7
10
21
26
17
17
12
22
41
23
70
28
28
25
31
14
88
9
1
95
1
2
91
6
1
DK
64
29
35
*
3
4
6
3
32
16
41
14
3
2
2
2
57
5
*
2
13
22
3
25
1
14
12
20
8
5
5
12
14
28
10
40
24
15
14
26
9
57
5
2
55
6
3
60
2
2
= Respondent refused to answer.
-------
Table 10-49. Numer of Respondents Reporting Monthly Consumption of Seafood That Was Purchased or Caught by Someone They Knew
Population Group
Overall
Gender
*
Male
Female
Age (years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
*
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing data; DK = Don't know
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
Total N
2780
1311
1468
1
42
102
166
137
1946
387
2249
304
56
56
93
22
2566
182
15
17
399
1366
236
766
13
434
198
739
584
484
341
655
575
989
561
1848
932
780
691
745
564
2563
207
10
2698
68
14
2648
121
11
N = Sample size
«
3
1
2
*
»
*
*
*
3
*
1
1
*
*
*
1
2
*
*
1
»
2
1
«
*
2
1
2
*
1
*
2
1
*
2
1
2
1
*
3
*
*
3
*
*
Mostly Purchased
2584
1206
1377
1
39
94
153
129
1810
359
2092
280
50
55
86
21
2387
169
12
16
368
1285
217
701
13
401
174
680
547
460
322
627
547
897
513
1724
860
741
655
674
514
2384
190
10
2507
63
14
2457
116
11
Mostly Caught
154
85
69
*
3
8
9
6
106
22
124
19
4
*
7
*
140
13
1
*
25
64
15
50
26
20
48
28
19
13
21
20
73
40
100
54
35
27
54
38
142
12
*
151
3
*
149
5
*
DK
39
19
20
*
»
*
4
2
27
6
32
4
2
1
*
*
37
*
2
*
6
15
3
15
7
4
11
7
5
5
5
8
18
8
22
17
4
9
15
11
35
4
*
37
2
*
39
*
*
Refused = Respondent refused to answer.
-------
Table 10-50. Estimated Number of Participants in Marine Recreational Fishing
Subregion
Pacific
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
State
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
TOTAL
Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Virginia
TOTAL
Florida
Georgia
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
TOTAL
Gulf of Mexico Alabama
Florida
Louisiana
Mississippi
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Coastal
Participants
902
534
265
1,701
186
93
377
34
JZ
787
90
540
583
539
294
1,046
1,201
89
398
131
1,819
95
1,053
394
157
1.699
8,053
Non Coastal
Participants
8
99
19
126
*b
9
69
10
*
88
*
32
9
13
29
83
*
61
224
77
362
9
*
48
42
99
760
a Not additive across states. One person can be counted as "OUT OF STATE" for more than
b An asterisk (*) denotes no non-coastal counties in state.
Source: NMFS, 1993.
by State and Subregion
Out of State a
159
63
78
47
100
273
32
157
159
268
433
70
131
741
29
745
304
101
1,349
63
51
one state.
Total Participants
910
633
284
186
102
446
44
97
90
572
592
552
323
1,201
150
622
208
104
1,053
442
200
-------
Table 10-51 . Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and B1) by
Marine Recreational Fishermen, by Wave and Subregion
Atlantic and Gulf
Reaion Weiaht (1000 kcrt
Jan/Feb
Mar/Apr
May/Jun
Jul/Aug
Sep/Oct
Nov/Dec
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
1,060
3.683
4,743
310
1,030
1,913
3.703
6,956
3,272
4,815
4,234
5.936
18,257
4,003
9,693
4,032
5.964
23,692
2,980
7,798
3,296
7.516
21,590
456
1,649
2,404
4.278
8,787
84,025
Reaion
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Pacific
Weiaht M 000 kcrt
418
101
165
684
590
346
144
1,080
1,195
563
581
2,339
1,566
1,101
39
2,706
859
1,032
724
2,615
447
417
.65
929
10,353
Source: NMFS. 1993.
-------
Table 10-52. Average Daily Intake (g/day) of Marine Finfish, by Region and Coastal Status
Intake Among Anglers
Region8
N. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
S. Atlantic
All Atlantic
Gulf
S. California
N. California
Oregon
All Pacific
a N. Atlantic - ME, NH, MA
LA, and FL (Gulf Coast).
Mean 95th Percentile
6.2
6.3
4.7
5.6
7.2
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
Rl, and CT; Mid-Atlantic -
20.1
18.9
15.9
18.0
26.1
5.5
5.7
8.9
6.8
NY, NJ, MD
Per-Capita
(Coastal)'
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.3
3.0
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
DE.andVA; S.Atlantic
Per-Capita
(Coastal & Non-Coastal)0
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.9
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
Proportion of
Population Coastal
0.82
0.70
0.51
0.66
0.60
0.96
0.70
0.87
0.86
- NC, SC, GA, and FL (Atlantic Coast); Gulf - AL, MS,
b Mean intake rate among entire coastal population of region.
c Mean intake rate among entire population of region.
Source: NMFS, 1993.
-------
Table 10-53. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and B1)a by Marine Recreational Fishermen
by Species Group and Subregion, Atlantic and Gulf
Cartilaginous fishes
Eels
Herrings
Catfishes
Toadfishes
Cods and Hakes
Searobins
Sculpins
Temperate Basses
Sea Basses
Bluefish
Jacks
Dolphins
Snappers
Grunts
Porgies
Drums
Mullets
Barracudas
Wrasses
Mackerels and Tunas
Flounders
Triggerfishes/Filefishes
Puffers
Other fishes
North Atlantic
H .000 ka)
66
14
118
0
0
2,404
2
1
837
22
4,177
0
65
0
0
132
3
1
0
783
878
512
0
*
105
Mid Atlantic
H .000 ka)
1,673
9
69
306
7
988
68
*
2,166
2,166
3,962
138
809
*
9
417
2,458
43
«
1,953
3,348
4,259
48
16
72
South Atlantic
H .000 ka)
162
*b
1
138
0
4
*
0
22
644
1,065
760
2,435
508
239
1,082
2,953
382
356
46
4,738
532
109
56
709
Gulf
H .000 ka)
318
0°
89
535
«
0
*
0
4
2,477
158
2,477
1,599
3,219
816
2,629
9,866
658
244
113
4,036
377
544
4
915
All Regions
H .000 ka)
2,219
23
177
979
7
1,396
70
1
2,229
5,309
5,362
3,375
4,908
3,727
1,064
4,160
15,280
1,084
600
2,895
13,000
5,680
701
76
1,801
3 For Catch Type A and B1 , the fish were not thrown back.
b An asterisk (*) denotes data
0 Zero(0) = < 1000kg.
Source: NMFS. 1993.
not reported.
-------
Table 1 0-54. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and B1 )a by Marine Recreational
Fishermen by Species Group and Subregion, Pacific
Southern California Northern California
Soecies Grouo
Cartilaginous fish
Sturgeons
Herrings
Anchovies
Smelts
Cods and Hakes
Silversides
Striped Bass
Sea Basses
Jacks
Croakers
Sea Chubs
Surfperches
Pacific Barracuda
Wrasses
Tunas and Mackerels
Rockfishes
California Scorpionfish
Sablefishes
Greenlings
Sculpins
Flatfishes
Other fishes
(1 .000 kcO
35
Ob
10
*c
0
0
58
0
1,319
469
141
53
74
866
73
1,260
409
86
0
22
6
106
89
(1 .000 kcO
162
89
15
7
71
0
148
51
17
17
136
1
221
10
5
36
1,713
0
0
492
81
251
36
Oregon
(1 .000 kcO
1
13
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
47
0
0
1
890
0
5
363
44
5
307
Total
198
102
65
7
71
0
206
51
1,336
487
277
54
342
876
78
1,297
3,012
86
5
877
131
362
432
a For Catch Type A and B1 , the fish were not thrown back.
b Zero(0) = <1000kg.
c An asterisk (*) denotes data
Source: NMFS. 1993.
not reported.
-------
Table 10-55. Median
Ethnic Group
Caucasian
Black
Mexican-American
Oriental/Samoan
Other
Age (years)
< 17
18-40
41 -65
>65
a Not reported.
Source: Puffer etal.. 1981.
Intake Rates Based on Demographic Data of Sport Fishermen
Percent of total interviewed
42
24
16
13
5
11
52
28
9
and Their Family/Living Group
Median intake rates
(g/person-day)
46.0
24.2
33.0
70.6
..«
27.2
32.5
39.0
113.0
-------
Table 10-56. Cumulative
Percentile
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
Distribution of Total Fish/Shellfish Consumption by Surveyed Sport Fishermen
in the Metropolitan Los Angeles Area
Intake rate (g/person-day)
2.3
4.0
8.3
15.5
23.9
36.9
53.2
79.8
120.8
224.8
338.8
Source: Puffer etal. (1981V
-------
Table 10-57. Catch Information
Species
White Croaker
Pacific Mackerel
Pacific Bonito
Queenfish
Jacksmelt
Walleye Perch
Shiner Perch
Opaleye
Black Perch
Kelp Bass
California Halibut
Shellfish"
a Crab, mussels, lobster, abalone.
Source: Modified from Puffer et al.. 1981 .
for Primary Fish Species Kept by Sport
Average Weight (Grams)
153
334
717
143
223
115
54
307
196
440
1752
421
Fishermen (n = 1059)
Percent of Fishermen who Caught
34
25
18
17
13
10
7
6
5
5
4
3
-------
Table 10-58. Percent of Fishing Frequency During the Summer and Fall Seasons in Commencement Bay, Washington
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Fishing Frequency in the Summer' in the Fallb in the Fall'
Daily 10.4 8.3 5.8
Weekly 50.3 52.3 51.0
Monthly 20.1 15.9 21.1
Bimonthly 6.7 3.8 4.2
Biyearly 4.4 6.1 6.3
Yearly 8J 13.6 11.6
a Summer - July through September, includes 5 survey days and 4 survey areas (i.e., area #1, #2, #3 and #4)
b Fall - September through November, includes 4 survey days and 4 survey areas (i.e., area #1, #2, #3 and #4)
c Fall - September through November, includes 4 survey days described in footnote b plus an additional survey area (5 survey
areas) (i.e., area #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5)
Source: Pierce etal.. 1981.
-------
Table 10-59. Selected Percentile Consumption Estimates (g/day) for the Survey and Total Angler Populations
Based on the Reanalysis of the Puffer et al. (1981) and Pierce et al. (1981) Data
50th Percentile
90th Percentile
Survey Population
Puffer etal. (1981)
Pierce etal. (1981)
Average
Total Angler Population
Puffer etal. (1981)
Pierce etal. (1981)
Average
37
19
28
2.9"
12
2.0
225
155
190
35b
13
24
a Estimated based on the average intake for the 0 - 90th percentile anglers.
b Estimated based on the average intake for the 91 st - 96th percentile anglers.
Source: Price et al.. 1994.
-------
Table 1 0-60. Means and Standard Deviations of Selected Characteristics by
Subpopulation Groups in Everglades, Florida
Variables
(Na=330)
Age (years)
Sex
Female
Male
Race/ethnicity
Black
White
Hispanic
Number of Years Fished
Number Per Week Fished in Past 6 Months of Survey Period
Number Per Week Fished in Last Month of Survey Period
Aware of Health Advisories
Mean ± Std. Dev.b
38.6 ±18.8
38%
62%
46%
43%
11%
15.8± 15.8
1.8 ±2.5
1.5± 1.4
71%
Ranae
2-81
-
-
0-70
0-20
0-12
a Number of respondents who reported consuming fish
b Std. Dev. = standard deviation
Source: U.S. DHHS. 1995
-------
Table 10-61 . Mean Fish Intake Among Individuals Who Eat Fish and Reside
in Households With Recreational Fish Consumption
Grouo
All household
members
Respondents (i.e.,
licensed anglers)
Aae Groups (years)
1-5
6 to 10
1 to 20
21 to 40
40 to 60
60 to 70
71 to 80
80+
All Fish
meals/week
0.686
0.873
0.463
0.49
0.407
0.651
0.923
0.856
1.0
0.8
Source: U.S. EPA analysis usina data
Recreational
Fish meals/week
0.332
0.398
0.223
0.278
0.229
0.291
0.42
0.431
0.622
0.6
from West etal.. 1989
n
2196
748
121
151
349
793
547
160
45
10
Total Fish
arams/dav
21.9
29.4
11.4
13.6
12.3
22
29.3
28.2
32.3
26.5
Recreational
Fish
arams/dav
11.0
14.0
5.63
7.94
7.27
10.2
14.2
14.5
20.1
20
Total Fish
grams/
ka/dav
0.356
0.364
0.737
0.481
0.219
0.306
0.387
0.377
0.441
0.437
Recreational
Fish grams/
ka/dav
0.178
0.168
0.369
0.276
0.123
0.139
0.186
0.193
0.271
0.345
-------
Table 1 0-62. Comparison of Seven-Day Recall and Estimated Seasonal Frequency for Fish Consumption
Usual Fish Consumption
Frequency Cateaorv
Almost daily
2-4 times a week
Once a week
2-3 times a month
Once a month
Less often
Source: U.S. EPA analysis usina
Mean Fish Meals/Week
7-dav Recall Data
no data
1.96
1.19
0.840 (3.6 times/month)
0.459 (1 .9 times/month)
0.306 (1 .3 times/month)
data from West etal.. 1989.
Usual frequency Value Selected
for Data Analysis (times/week)
4 [if needed]
2
1.2
0.7 (3 times/month)
0.4 (1 .7 times/month)
0.2 (0.9 times/month)
-------
Table 10-63. Distribution of Usual Fish Intake Among Survey Main Respondents
Who Fished and Consumed Recreationally Caught Fish
n
mean
10%
25%
50%
75%
90%
95%
Source:
All Fish
Meals/Week
738
0.859
0.300
0.475
0.750
1.200
1.400
1.800
U.S. EPA analysis usina
Recreational
Fish
Meals/Week
738
0.447
0.040
0.125
0.338
0.672
1.050
1.200
data from West et al
All Fish Intake
grams/day
738
27.74
9.69
15.34
24.21
38.74
45.20
58.11
.1989.
Recreational
Fish Intake
grams/day
738
14.42
1.29
4.04
10.90
21.71
33.90
38.74
All Fish Intake
grams/ kg/day
726
0.353
0.119
0.187
0.315
0.478
0.634
0.747
Recreational
Fish Intake
grams/kg/day
726
0.1806
0.0159
0.0504
0.1357
0.2676
0.4146
0.4920
-------
Table 10-64. Estimates of Fish Intake Rates of Licensed Sport Anglers in Maine During the 1989-1990
Ice Fishing or 1990 Open-Water Seasons'
Intake Rates (grams/day)
Percentile Rankings
All Waters"
Rivers and Streams
All Anglers0
(N = 1.369)
Consuming Anglersd
(N = 1.053)
River Anglers8
Consuming Anglers
(N = 464)
50th (median)
66th
75th
90th
95th
Arithmetic Mean'
1.1
2.6
4.2
11.0
21.0
5.0
F791
2.0
4.0
5.8
13.0
26.0
6.4
F771
0.19
0.71
1.3
3.7
6.2
1.9
F821
0.99
1.8
2.5
6.1
12.0
3.7
F811
" Estimates are based on rank except for those of arithmetic mean.
b All waters based on fish obtained from all lakes, ponds, streams and rivers in Maine, from other household sources and from
other non-household sources.
c Licensed anglers who fished during the seasons studied and did or did not consume freshwater fish, and licensed anglers who
did not fish but ate freshwater fish caught in Maine during those seasons.
d Licensed anglers who consumed freshwater fish caught in Maine during the seasons studied.
8 Those of the "all anglers" who fished on rivers or streams (consumers and nonconsumers).
' Values in brackets [ ] are percentiles at the mean consumption rates.
Source: Chemrisk. 1991: Ebertetal.. 1993.
-------
Table 10-65. Analysis of Fish Consumption by Ethnic Groups for "All Waters" (g/day)a
Consuming Anglersb
French
Canadian
Heritage
Irish
Heritage
Italian
Heritage
Native
American
Heritage
Other White
Non-Hispanic
Heritage
Scandinavian
Heritage
N of Cases
Median (50th percentile)c'd
66th percentilec'd
75th percentilec'd
Arithmetic Mean0
Percentile at the Meand
90th percentilec'd
95th percentilec'd
Percentile at 6.5 g/dayd'e
201
2.3
4.1
6.2
7.4
80
15
27
77
138
2.4
4.4
6.0
5.2
70
12
20
75
27
1.8
2.6
5.0
4.5
74
12
21
81
96
2.3
4.7
6.2
10
83
16
51
77
533
1.9
3.8
5.7
6.0
76
13
24
77
37
1.3
2.6
4.9
5.3
78
9.4
25
84
" "All Waters" based on fish obtained from all lakes, ponds, streams and rivers in Maine, from other household sources and from
other non-household sources.
b "Consuming Anglers" refers to only those anglers who consumed freshwater fish obtained from Maine sources during the 1989-
1990 ice fishing or 1990 open water fishing season.
c The average consumption per day by freshwater fish consumers in the household.
d Calculated by rank without any assumption of statistical distribution.
8 Fish consumption rate recommended by U.S. EPA (1984) for use in establishing ambient water quality standards.
Source: Chemrisk, 1991.
-------
Table 10-66. Total Consumption
Species
Landlocked salmon
Atlantic salmon
Togue (Lake trout)
Brook trout
Brown trout
Yellow perch
White perch
Bass (smallmouth and largemouth)
Pickerel
Lake whitefish
Hornpout (Catfish and bullheads)
Bottom fish (Suckers, carp and sturgeon)
Chub
Smelt
Other
TOTALS
of Freshwater Fish Caught by All
Ice
Quantity
Consumed
rttt
832
3
483
1,309
275
235
2,544
474
1,091
111
47
50
0
7,808
201
15.463
Fishing
Grams
(x103)
Consumed
290
1.1
200
100
54
9.1
160
120
180
20
8.2
81
0
150
210
1.583.4
Survey Respondents During the 1990 Season
Lakes and
Quantity
Consumed
rttt
928
33
459
3,294
375
1,649
6,540
73
553
558
1,291
62
252
428
90
16.587
Ponds
Grams
(x103)
Consumed
340
9.9
160
210
56
52
380
5.9
91
13
100
22
35
4.9
110
1.590
Rivers and Streams
Quantity
Consumed
rttt
305
17
33
10,185
338
188
3,013
787
303
55
180
100
219
4,269
54
20.046
Grams
(x103)
Consumed
120
11
2.7
420
23
7.4
180
130
45
2.7
7.8
6.7
130
37
45
1.168
Source: Chemrisk. 1991.
-------
Table 10-67. Mean Sport-Fish Consumption by Demographic Variables, Michigan Sport
Income"
<$1 5,000
$15,000 -$24,999
$25,000 - $39,999
>$40,000
Education
Some High School
High School Degree
Some College-College Degree
Post Graduate
Residence Sizeb
Large City/Suburb (>1 00,000)
Small City (20,000-1 00,000)
Town (2,000-20,000)
Small Town (100-2,000)
Rural, Non Farm
Farm
Age (years)
16-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
Sex"
Male
Female
Race/Ethnicitvb
Minority
White
" P < .01 , F test
b P < .05, F test
Source: Westetal., 1993
Anglers Fish Consumption Study,
N
290
369
662
871
299
1,074
825
231
487
464
475
272
598
140
266
583
556
419
596
299
1,074
160
2,289
1991-1992
Mean (a/davl
21.0
20.6
17.5
14.7
16.5
17.0
17.6
14.5
14.6
12.9
19.4
22.8
17.7
15.1
18.9
16.6
16.5
16.5
16.2
17.5
13.7
23.2
16.3
95% C.I.
16.3-25.8
15.5-25.7
15.0-20.1
12.8-16.7
12.9-20.1
14.9-19.1
14.9-20.2
10.5-18.6
11.8-17.3
10.7-15.0
15.5-23.3
16.8-28.8
15.1 -20.3
10.3-20.0
13.9-23.9
13.5-19.7
13.4-19.6
13.6-19.4
13.8-18.6
15.8-19.1
11.2-16.3
13.4-33.1
14.9-17.6
-------
Table 10-68. Distribution of Fish Intake Rates
(from all sources and from sport-caught sources)
For 1992 Lake Ontario Anglers
Percentile of Lake Ontario Analers Fish from All Sources (a/dav)
Source.
25%
50%
75%
90%
95%
99%
Connelly et al.
8.8
14.1
23.2
34.2
42.3
56.6
1996.
Sport-Cauaht Fish (a/dav)
0.6
2.2
6.6
13.2
17.9
39.8
-------
Table 10-69. Mean Annual Fish Consumption (g/day)
for Lake Ontario Anglers, 1992,
by Sociodemographic Characteristics
Mean Consumption
Demographic Group
Overall
Residence
Rural
Small City
City (25-1 00,000)
City (> 100, 000)
Income
< $20,000
$21,000-34,000
$34,000-50,000
>$50,000
Age (years)
<30
30-39
40-49
50+
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
Some College
College Graduate
Some Post Grad.
Note - Scheffe's test showed statistically
caught) and age groups (all sources).
Source: Connelly et al., 1996.
Fish from all Sources Sport-Caught Fish
17.9
17.6
20.8
19.8
13.1
20.5
17.5
16.5
20.7
13.0
16.6
18.6
21.9
17.3
17.8
18.8
17.4
20.5
significant differences between residence types (for all
4.9
5.1
6.3
5.8
2.2
4.9
4.7
4.8
6.1
4.1
4.3
5.1
6.4
7.1
4.7
5.5
4.2
5.9
sources and sport
-------
Percentile
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
98th
100th
Mean
Source: Raw data
Table 10-70. Percentile and Mean
Annual Number of Sport
4
10
25
50
60
100
365
18
on sport-caught meals from Fiore et
arams per fish meal: this value is dervied from
Intake Rates for Wisconsin Sport Anglers
Cauaht Meals Intake Rate of Sport-Cauaht Meals (a/dav)
1.7
4.1
10.2
20.6
24.6
41.1
150
7.4
al., 1989. EPA calculated intake rates using a value
Paoetal., 1982.
of 150
-------
Table 10-71
Category
Geographic Distribution
Age Distribution (years)
Annual Household Income
Ethnic Background
Sociodemographic Characteristics
of Respondents
Subcateaorv
Upper Hudson
Mid Hudson
Lower Hudson
<14
15-29
30-44
45-59
>60
< $10,000
$10-29,999
$30-49,999
$50-69,999
$70-89,999
> $90,000
Caucasian American
African American
Hispanic American
Asian American
Native American
Percent of Total3
18%
35%
48%
3%
26%
35%
23%
12%
16%
41 %
29%
10%
2%
3%
67%
21 %
10%
1 %
1 %
a A total of 336 shore-based anglers were interviewed
Source: Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.,
1993
-------
Table 1 0-72. Number of Grams Per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult Respondents
(Consumers and Non-consumers
Number of Grams/Dav
0.00
1.6
3.2
4.0
4.9
6.5
7.3
8.1
9.7
12.2
13.0
16.2
19.4
20.2
24.3
29.2
32.4
38.9
40.5
48.6
N = 500
Weighted Mean = 58.7 grams/day
Weighted SE = 3.64
90th Percentile: 97.2 g/d < (90th)
95th Percentile » 170 g/d
99th Percentile = 389 g/d
Source: CRITFC, 1994
Cumulative Percent
8.9%
9.0%
10.4%
10.8%
10.9%
12.8%
12.9%
13.7%
14.4%
14.9%
16.3%
22.8%
24.0%
24.1%
27.9%
28.1%
52.5%
52.9%
56.5%
67.6%
(9/d)
< 130 g/d
Combined) -Throughout the Year
Number of Grams/Dav
64.8
72.9
77.0
81.0
97.2
130
146
162
170
194
243
259
292
324
340
389
486
648
778
972
Cumulative Percent
80.6%
81.2%
81.4%
83.3%
89.3%
92.2%
93.7%
94.4%
94.8%
97.2%
97.3%
97.4%
97.6%
98.3%
98.7%
99.0%
99.6%
99.7%
99.9%
100%
-------
Table 10-73. Fish
Sex
Female
Male
Total
Age (years)
18-39
40-59
60 & Older
Total
Location
On Reservation
Off Reservation
Total
I ntake Throughout the Year by Sex, Age,
N
278
222
500
287
155
58
500
440
60
500
and Location by All Adult
Weighted Mean
(arams/dav)
55.8
62.6
58.7
57.6
55.8
74.4
58.7
60.2
47.9
58.7
Respondents
Weighted SE
4.78
5.60
3.64
4.87
4.88
15.3
3.64
3.98
8.25
3.64
Source: CRITFC, 1994.
-------
Table 10-74. Children's
Number of Grams/Dav
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.1
4.9
6.5
8.1
9.7
12.2
13.0
16.2
19.4
20.3
24.3
32.4
48.6
64.8
72.9
81.0
97.2
162.0
N = 194
Unweighted Mean = 19.6 grams/day
Unweighted SE = 1.94
Fish Consumption Rates - Throughout Year
Unweighted Cumulative Percent
21.1%
21.6%
22.2%
24.7%
25.3%
28.4%
32.0%
33.5%
35.6%
47.4%
48.5%
51.0%
51.5%
72.7%
73.2%
74.2%
76.3%
87.1%
91.2%
94.3%
96.4%
97.4%
98.5%
100%
Source: CRITFC, 1994.
-------
Table 10-75. Sociodemographic Factors and Recent Fish Consumption
Peak Consumption3
Averaae0
All participants (N-323)
Gender
Male(n-148)
Female (n-175)
Age (y)
<35(n-150)
>35(n-173)
High School Graduate
No(n-105)
Yes(n-218)
Unemployed
Yes (n-78)
No (n-245)
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.6
>3d (%)
20
26
15
23
17
18
21
27
18
Walleve
4.2
5.1
3.4
5.3a
3.2
3.6
4.4
4.8
4.0
Recent Consumption11
N. Pike
0.3
0.5a
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.3
Muskellunae
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.2
Bass
0.5
0.7a
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.4
1.1
0.3
a Highest number offish meals consumed/week.
b Number of meals of each species in the previous 2
c Average peak fish consumption.
months.
d Percentage of population reporting peak fish consumption of >3 fish
Source: Peterson et al.. 1994.
meals/week.
-------
Table 10-76. Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period for All Respondents
Time Period
Local Fish During Pregnancy
Meals
Consumed Per Mohawk Control
Y
None
1 -9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50+
Total
P
b P
N
Source
Nc o/
/o
63 64.9
24 24.7
5 5.2
1 1.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
4 4.1
97 100.0
<0. 05 for Mohawk vs. Control.
•O.001 for Mohawk vs. Control.
= number of respondents.
Fitzgerald et al., 1995.
Nc
109
24
7
5
2
1
6
154
%
70.8
15.6
4.5
3.3
1.3
0.6
3.9
100.0
<1 Yr. Before Pregnancy3
Mohawk Control
Nc
42
40
4
3
0
1
7
97
%
43.3
41.2
4.1
3.1
0.0
1.0
7.2
100.0
Nc
99
31
6
3
3
1
11
154
%
64.3
20.1
3.9
1.9
1.9
0.6
7.1
100.0
>Yr. Before
Mohawk
Nc
20
42
6
9
1
1
18
97
%
20.6
43.3
6.2
9.3
1.0
1.0
18.6
100.0
Pregnancyb
Control
Nc
93
35
8
5
1
1
11
154
%
60.4
22.7
5.2
3.3
0.6
0.6
7.1
100.0
-------
Table 10-77. Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time
Period for All Respondents and Consumers Only
All Respondents
(N=97 Mohawks and 154 Controls)
During <1 Yr. Before >1 Yr. Before
Pregnancy Pregnancy Pregnancy
Mohaw 3.9(1.2) 9.2(2.3) 23.4 (4.3)a
k 7.3(2.1) 10.7(2.6) 10.9(2.7)
Control
Consumers Only
(N=82 Mohawks and 72 Controls)
During <1 Yr. Before
Pregnancy Pregnancy
4.6(1.3) 10.9(2.7)
15.5(4.2)a 23.0(5.1)b
>1 Yr. Before
Pregnancy
27.6 (4.9)
23.0(5.5)
a p O.001 for Mohawk vs. Control.
b p<0. 05 for Mohawk vs. Control
( ) = standard error.
Test for linear trend:
p<0.001 for Mohawk (All participants and consumers only);
p=0.07 for Controls (All participants and consumers only).
Source: Fitzgerald etal., 1995.
-------
Table 1 0-78. Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period and Selected
Characteristics for All Respondents (Mohawk, N=97; Control, N=154)
Time Period
Durina Preanancv
Backaround Variable
Age (Yrs)
<20
20-24
25-29
30-34
>34
Education (Yrs)
<12
12
13-15
>15
Cigarette Smoking
Yes
No
Alcohol Consumption
Yes
No
F (4,1 49) = 2.66,
b F (1,1 52) = 3.77,
F (1,1 52) = 5.20,
d F (1,1 52) = 6.42,
Source: Fitzaerald et al
Mohawk
7.7
1.3
3.9
12.0
1.8
6.3
7.3
1.7
0.9
3.8
3.9
4.2
3.8
Control
0.8
5.9
9.9
7.6
11.2
7.9
5.4
10.1
6.8
8.8
6.4
9.9
6.3b
<1 Year Before Preanancv
Mohawk
13.5
5.7
15.5
9.5
1.8
14.8
8.1
8.0
10.7
10.4
8.4
6.8
12.1
Control
13.9
14.5
6.2
2.9
26.2
12.4
8.4
15.4
0.8
13.0
8.3
13.8
4.7°
>1 Year Before
Mohawk
27.4
20.4
25.1
12.0
52.3
24.7
15.3
29.2
18.7
31.6
18.1
18.0
29.8
Preanancv
Control
10.4
15.9
5.4
5.6
22.1"
8.6
11.4
13.3
2.1
10.9
10.8
14.8
2.9d
p=0.035 for Age Among Controls.
p=0.054 for Alcohol Among Controls.
p=0.024 for Alcohol Among Controls.
p=0. 01 2 for Alcohol Among Controls.
. 1995.
-------
Table 10-79. Percentage of Individuals Using Various Cooking Methods at Specified Frequencies
Use
Study Frequency
Connelly et al., Always
1992 Ever
Connelly et al., Always
1996 Ever
CRITFC, 1994 At least
monthly
Ever
Fitzgerald et al., Not
1995 Specified
Puffer et al., As Primary
1981 Method
Bake
24(a)
75(a)
13
84
79
98
16.3
Pan Fry Deep Broil or
Fry Grill
51 13
88 59
4 4
72 42
51 14 27
80 25 39
94(e)(f) 71(e)(g)
52.5 12
Poach Boil Smoke Raw Other
24(a)
75(a)
11 46 31 1 34(b)
29(c)
49(d)
17 73 66 3 67 (b)
71 (c)
75(d)
0.25 19(h)
a 24 and 75 listed as bake, BBQ, or poach
b Dried
c Roasted
d Canned
8 Not specified whether deep or pan fried
' Mohawk women
9 Control population
h boil, stew, soup, or steam
-------
Table 1 0-80. Percent Moisture and Fat Content for
Soecies
Anchovy, European
Bass
Bass, Striped
Bluefish
Butterfish
Carp
Catfish
Cod, Atlantic
Cod, Pacific
Croaker, Atlantic
Dolphinfish, Mahimahi
Drum, Freshwater
Flatfish, Flounder and Sole
Grouper
Haddock
Halibut, Atlantic & Pacific
Halibut, Greenland
Herring, Atlantic & Turbot, domestic species
Herring, Pacific
Mackerel, Atlantic
Mackerel, Jack
Mackerel, King
Mackerel, Pacific & Jack
Mackerel, Spanish
Monkfish
Mullet, Striped
Ocean Perch, Atlantic
Perch, Mixed species
Pike, Northern
Pike. Walleve
Moisture
Content
(%)
73.37
50.30
75.66
79.22
70.86
74.13
76.31
69.63
76.39
58.81
81.22
75.61
75.92
16.14
81.28
78.03
59.76
77.55
77.33
79.06
73.16
79.22
73.36
79.92
74.25
71.48
77.92
71.69
70.27
72.05
64.16
59.70
55.22
71.52
63.55
53.27
69.17
75.85
70.15
71.67
68.46
83.24
77.01
70.52
78.70
72.69
79.13
73.25
78.92
72.97
79.31
Total Fat Content
(%)"
FINFISH
4.101
8.535
3.273
1.951
3.768
NA
4.842
6.208
3.597
12.224
0.456
0.582
0.584
1.608
0.407
2.701
11.713
0.474
4.463
0.845
1.084
0.756
0.970
0.489
0.627
0.651
1.812
2.324
12.164
7.909
10.140
10.822
16.007
12.552
9.076
15.482
4.587
1.587
6.816
5.097
5.745
NA
2.909
3.730
1.296
1.661
0.705
0.904
0.477
0.611
0.990
Selected Species"
Comments
Raw
Canned in oil, drained solids
Freshwater, mixed species, raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Channel, raw
Channel, cooked, breaded and fried
Atlantic, raw
Canned, solids and liquids
Cooked, dry heat
Dried and salted
Raw
Raw
Cooked, breaded and fried
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw, mixed species
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Kippered
Pickled
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Canned, drained solids
Raw
Canned, drained solids
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
-------
Table 1 0-80. Percent Moisture and Fat Content for Selected Species" (continued)
Species
Pollock, Alaska & Walleye
Pollock, Atlantic
Rockfish, Pacific, mixed species
Roughy, Orange
Salmon, Atlantic
Salmon, Chinook
Salmon, Chum
Salmon, Coho
Salmon, Pink
Salmon, Red & Sockeye
Sardine, Atlantic
Sardine, Pacific
Sea Bass, mixed species
Seatrout, mixed species
Shad, American
Shark, mixed species
Snapper, mixed species
Sole, Spot
Sturgeon, mixed species
Sucker, white
Sunfish, Pumpkinseed
Sword fish
Trout, mixed species
Trout, Rainbow
Tuna, light meat
Tuna, white meat
Tuna, Bluefish, fresh
Turbot, European
Whitefish, mixed species
Whiting, mixed species
Yellowtail. mixed species
Moisture
Content
(%)
81.56
74.06
78.18
79.26
73.41
75.90
68.50
73.17
72.00
75.38
70.77
72.63
65.35
76.35
68.81
70.24
68.72
61.84
59.61
68.30
78.27
72.14
78.09
68.19
73.58
60.09
76.87
70.35
75.95
76.55
69.94
62.50
79.71
79.50
75.62
68.75
71.42
71.48
63.43
59.83
74.51
64.02
69.48
68.09
59.09
76.95
72.77
70.83
80.27
74.71
74.52
Total Fat
Content
(%)"
0.701
0.929
0.730
1.182
1.515
3.630
5.625
9.061
3.947
3.279
4.922
4.908
6.213
2.845
5.391
4.560
6.697
9.616
10.545
1 1 .054
1.678
2.152
2.618
NA
3.941
12.841
0.995
1.275
3.870
3.544
4.544
3.829
1.965
0.502
3.564
4.569
5.901
2.883
3.696
7.368
0.730
NA
2.220
4.296
5.509
NA
5.051
0.799
0.948
1.216
NA
Comments
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw (Mixed species)
Cooked, dry heat (mixed species)
Raw
Raw
Raw
Smoked
Raw
Canned, drained solids with bone
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Canned, solids with bone and liquid
Raw
Canned, drained solids with bone
Cooked, dry heat
Canned in oil, drained solids with bone
Canned in tomato sauce, drained solids with bone
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, batter-dipped and fried
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Canned in oil, drained solids
Canned in water, drained solids
Canned in oil
Canned in water, drained solids
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Smoked
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
-------
Table 1 0-80. Percent Moisture and Fat Content for Selected Species" (continued)
Species
Moisture
Content
(%)
Total Fat
Content
(%)b
Comments
SHELLFISH
Crab, Alaska King
Crab, Blue
Crab, Dungeness
Crab, Queen
Crayfish, mixed species
Lobster, Northern
Shrimp, mixed species
Spiny Lobster, mixed species
Clam, mixed species
Mussel, Blue
Octopus, common
Oyster, Eastern
Oyster, Pacific
Scallop, mixed species
Squid
79.57
77.55
79.02
79.16
77.43
71.00
79.18
80.58
80.79
75.37
76.76
76.03
75.86
72.56
52.86
77.28
74.07
81.82
63.64
97.70
61.55
63.64
80.58
61.15
80.25
85.14
85.14
64.72
70.28
82.06
78.57
58.44
73.82
78.55
64.54
NA
0.854
0.801
0.910
1.188
6.571
0.616
0.821
0.732
0.939
NA
0.358
1.250
1.421
10.984
0.926
1.102
0.456
0.912
NA
10.098
0.912
1.538
3.076
0.628
1.620
1.620
11.212
3.240
1.752
0.377
10.023
NA
0.989
6.763
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Imitation, made from surimi
Raw
Canned (dry pack or drained solids of wet pack)
Cooked, moist heat
Crab cakes
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Canned (dry pack or drained solids of wet pack)
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, moist heat
Imitation made from surimi, raw
Raw
Canned, drained solids
Canned, liquid
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Raw
Canned (solids and liquid based) raw
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, breaded and fried
Imitation, made from Surimi
Raw
Cooked, fried
a Data are reported as in the Handbook
b Total Fat Content - saturated, monosaturated and polyunsaturated
NA = Not available
Source: USDA. 1 979-1 984 - U.S. Aaricultural Handbook No. 8
-------
Table 10-81. Recommendations - General Population
Mean Intake
(g/day)
95th Percentile of Long-term
Intake Distribution (g/day)
Study (Reference)
53 (Value of 42 from Javitz was adjusted
upward by 25 percent to account for
recent increase in fish consumption)
20.1 (Total Fish)
14.1 (Marine Fish)
6.0 (Freshwater/Estuarine Fish)
TRI (Javitz, 1980; Ruffle etal., 1994)
U.S. EPA Analysis of CSFII, 1989-91
-------
Table 10-82. Recommendations - General Population -
Fish Serving Size
Mean Intake (grams) 95th Percentile (grams) Study (Reference)
129 326 1989-1991 CSFII (U.S. EPA. 1996)
-------
Table 10-83. Recommendations - Recreational Marine Anglers
Mean Intake (g/day) 95th Percentile (g/day) Study Location Study
5.6 18.0 Atlantic NMFS, 1993
7.2 26.0 Gulf
ZO 6J Pacific
-------
Table 10-84. Recommendations - Freshwater Anglers
Mean Intake (g/day)
5
5
12
17
Upper Percentile (g/day)
13 (95th percentile)
18 (95th percentile)
39 (96th percentile)
—
Study Location
Maine
New York
Michigan
Michigan
Reference
Ebertetal., 1992
Connelly etal., 1996
Westetal, 1989
West etal, 1993
-------
Table 10-85.
Per-Capita (or Mean) Intake
(g/day)
59
16
81
770
Recommendations -
Upper Percentile
(g/day)
170 (95th)
Native American Subsistence
Study Population
4 Columbia River Tribes
94 Alaska Communities
(Lowest of 94)
94 Alaska Communities
(Median of 94)
94 Alaska Communities
(Highest of 94)
Populations
Reference
CRITFC, 1994
Wolfe and Walker, 1989
Wolfe and Walker, 1989
Wolfe and Walker, 1989
-------
Table 10-86. Summary of Fish Intake Studies
Source of Data
(Reference)
Population
Surveyed
Survey Time Period/Type
Analyses Performed (References)
Limitations/Advantages
General Population
Key Studies
Javitz, 1980-TRI
Survey
U.S. EPA, 1996a
Relevant Studies
AIHC, 1994
Paoetal., 1982
25,162 individuals-
general population;
the TRI Survey
sample
11,912 individuals-
general population
37,874 individuals-
general population
Sept. 1973-Aug. 1974 (1 year
survey). Completed diary over 1
month period on date of meal
consumption, species offish,
packaging type, amount offish
prepared, number of servings
consumed, etc.
Participants provided 3
consecutive days of dietary data.
Three survey years (1989-1991)
combined into one data set.
Participants provided 3
consecutive days of dietary data.
Survey conducted between April
1977 and March 1978.
Mean and distribution offish
consumption rates grouped by race,
age, gender, census region, fish
species, community type, and religion.
Lognormal distribution fit to fish intake
distribution by age and region by Ruffle
etal. (1994).
Analysis of CSFII 1989-91. Fish
grouped by habitat (freshwater vs.
marine) and type (finfish vs. shellfish).
Per capita fish intake rates calculated
using cooked and uncooked equivalent
weight and reported in g/day and g/kg-
day; also intake distribution per day
eating fish.
Distributions using @Risk simulation
software.
Mean and distribution of average daily
fish intake and average fish intake per
eating occasion; by age-sex groups and
overall.
High response rate (80%); population
was large and geographically and
seasonally representative;
consumption rates based on one
month of diary data; survey data is over
20 years out of date
Large, geographically representative
study; relatively recent. Based on
short-term (3 day) data so long-term
percentiles offish intake distribution
could not be estimated.
Limited reviews of supporting studies;
good alternative source of information.
Population was large and
geographically representative; data
were based on short-term dietary
recall; data are almost 20 years out of
date.
Tsang and Klepeis,
1996
9,386 individuals-
general population
Participants provided 24-hour diary
data. Follow-up questionnaires,
survey conducted between
October 1992 and September
1994.
Frequency of eating fish and number of
servings per month provided.
Population large and geographically
and seasonally balanced; data based
on recall; intake data not provided.
USDA, 1992
10,000 individuals-
general population
Participants provided 3
consecutive days of dietary data.
Survey conducted between April
1987 and March 1988.
Per capita fish intake rates and percent
of population consuming fish in one
day; by age and sex.
Population was large and
geographically and seasonally
balanced; data based on short-term
dietary recall.
-------
Table 10-86. Summary of Fish Intake Studies (continued)
Source of Data
(Reference)
Population Surveyed
Survey Time Period/Type
Analyses Performed (References)
Limitations/Advantages
Recreational-Marine Fish
Key Study
NMFS 1986a, b, c; 1993
Relevant Studies
Pierce etal., 1981
Puffer etal., 1981
U.S. DHHS, 1995
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts -
41,000 field interviews and
58,000 telephone
interviews; Pacific Coast -
38,000 field interviews and
73,000 telephone
interviews.
~500 anglers in
Commencement Bay,
Washington
1,067 anglers in the Los
Angeles, California area.
330 everglade residents/
subsistence fishermen or
both
Telephone interviews with residents
of coastal counties; information on
fishing frequency and mode of fishing
trips. Field interviews with marine
anglers; information on area and
mode fished, fishing frequency,
species caught, weight offish, and
whether fish were intended to be
consumed.
July-November 1980; creel survey
interviews conducted consisting of 5
summer days and 4 fall days.
Creel survey conducted for the full
1980 calendar year.
1992-1993; questionnaire with
demographic information and fishing
and eating habits.
Intake rates were not calculated;
total catch size grouped by marine
species, seasons, and number of
fishermen for each coastal region
were presented.
Distribution of fishing frequency;
total weight of catch grouped by
species. Re-analysis by Price et
al. (1994) using inverse fishing
frequency as sample weights.
Distribution of sport fish intake
rates. Median rates by age,
ethnicity and fish species. Re-
analysis by Price et al. (1994)
using inverse fishing frequency as
sample weights.
Provides data for fishing frequency
by sex, age, and ethnicity.
Population was large geographically
and seasonally balanced; fish caught
were weighed in the field. No
information on number of potential
consumers of catch.
Local survey. Original analysis by
Pierce et al. (1981) did not calculate
intake rates; analysis over-estimated
fishing frequency distribution by
oversampling frequent anglers. Re-
analysis by Price et. al. (1994)
involved several assumptions; thus
results are questionable.
Local survey. Original (unweighted)
analysis over-estimated fish intake by
oversampling frequent anglers. Re-
analysis by Price et al. (1994) involves
several assumptions; thus results are
questionable.
Intake rates were not reported, study
not representative of the U.S.
population; one of few studies that
target subsistence fishermen.
-------
Table 10-86. Summary of Fish Intake Studies (continued)
Source of Data
(Reference)
Population Surveyed
Survey Time Period/Type
Analyses Performed (References)
Limitations/Advantages
Recreational Fresh Water Fish
Key Studies
Chemrisk, 1991; Ebert
etal., 1993
Connelly et al., 1996
West etal., 1993
West etal., 1989
Relevant Studies
Connelly et al., 1992
Fioreetal., 1989
Hudson River Sloop
Clearwater, Inc.
(1993)
1,612 licensed Maine
anglers
825 anglers with NY State
fishing licenses intending to
fish Lake Ontario.
2,681 persons with
Michigan fishing licenses
1,171 Michigan residents
with fishing licenses
1,030 anglers licensed in
New York
801 individuals with
Wisconsin fish or sporting
licenses
336 shore-based anglers
1989-1990 ice fishing season and
1990 open water season; mailed
survey; one year recall of frequency
of fishing trips, number and length
offish species caught.
Survey consisted of self-recording
information in a diary for 1992
fishing trips and fish consumption.
January 1991 through January 1992;
mailed survey; 7-day recall;
demographics information
requested, and quantity offish
eaten, if any, at each meal based on
a photograph of 1/2 Ib offish (more
about same, or less).
January-May 1988; anglers
completed questionnaires based on
7-day and 1-year recall.
Survey mailed out in Jan. 1992; one
year recall of the period Oct. 1990-
Sept. 1991
1985 summer; mailed survey; one
year recall of sport fish
consumption.
Survey conducted June-November
1991; April-July 1992. Onsite
interview with anglers
Mean and distribution offish
consumption rates by ethnic groups
and overall. Mean and distribution of
fish consumption rates for fish from
rivers and streams. EPA analysis of
fish intake for household members.
Distribution of intake rates of sport
caught fish.
Mean consumption rate for sport
and total fish by demographic
category (West et al., 1993) and
50th, 90th, and 95th percentile (U.S.
EPA, 1995).
Mean intake rates of self-caught fish
based on 7-day recall period
and mean and percentiles of self-
caught fish intake based on one year
recall.
Knowledge and effects of fish health
advisories. Mean number of sport-
caught fish meals.
Mean number of sport caught fish
meals of Wisconsin anglers.
Knowledge and adherance to health
advsisories
Data based on one year recall; high
response rate; area-specific
consumption patterns.
Meal size estimated by comparison
with pictures of 8 oz. fish meals.
Relatively low response made and
only three categories were used to
assign fish portion size. Relatively
large-scale study and reliance on
short-term recall.
Weight offish consumed was
estimated using a picture of an 8 oz.
fish meal; smaller meals were
judged to be 5 oz., larger ones 10
Response rate of 52.8%; only
number of fish mealsreported.
Constant meal size assumed.
Data collected from personal
interviews; intake data not provided;
fish meal data provided.
-------
Table 10-86. Summary of Fish Intake Studies (continued)
Source of Data
(Reference)
Native American
Key Studies
CRITFC, 1994
Fitzgerald et al.
1995
Petersen et al.,
1994
Wolfe and Walker,
1987
Pooulation Surveyed
Four tribes in Washington
state; total of 513 adults
and 204 children under five
97 Mohawk women in New
York; 154 Caucasian
women; nursing mothers
327 residents of Chippewa
reservation, Wisconsin
Ninety-eight communities
in Alaska surveyed by
various researchers
Survey Time Period/Tvoe
Fall and Winter of 1991-1992; stratified
random sampling approach; in-person
interviews; information requested
included 24-hour dietary recall,
seasonal and annual number of fish
meals, average weight offish meals
and species consumed.
1988-1992, up to 3-year recall
Self-administered questionaire
completed in May, 1990.
Surveys conducted between 1980 and
1985; data based on 1-year recall
period. Annual per capita harvest of
fish, land mammals, marine mammals
and other resources estimated for
each community.
Analyses Performed (References)
Mean and distribution offish intake
rates for adults and for children.
Mean intake rates by age and
gender. Frequency of cooking and
preparation methods.
Mean number of sport-caught fish
meals per year.
Mean number of fish meals per
year.
Distribution among communities of
annual per-capita harvests for
each resource category.
Limitations/Advantaaes
Survey was done at only one time of
the year and involved one year recall;
fish intake rates were based on all fish
sources but great majority was locally
caught; study provides consumption
and habits for subsistence
subpopulation group.
Survey for nursing mothers only, recall
for up to 3 years; small sample size;
may be representative of Mohawk
women; measured in fish meals.
Did not distinguish between commercial
and sport-caught meals.
Data based on 1-year recall; data
provided are harvest data that must be
converted to individual intake rates;
surveyed communities are only a
sample of all Alaska communities.
" NFMS - National Marine Fisheries Services.
-------
Table 10-87. Confidence in Fish Intake Recommendations for General Population
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
•D Level of peer review
•D Accessibility
•D Reproducibility
•D Focus on factor of interest
•D Data pertinent to U.S.
•D Primary data
•D Currency
•D Adequacy of data collection period
•D Validity of approach
•D Study size
•D Representativeness of the
population
•D Characterization of variability
•D Lack of bias in study design (high
rating is desirable)
•D Measurement error
Other Elements
•D Number of studies
•D Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Peer reviewed by USDA and EPA.
CSFII data are publicly available. Javitz is a
contractor report to EPA.
Enough information is available to reproduce
results.
The studies focused on fish ingestion.
The studies were conducted for U.S.
population.
The studies are primary studies.
Studies were conducted from 1973-1974 to
1989-1991.
Long-term distribution are based on one month
data collection period.
Data are collected using diaries and one-day
recall. However, data adjusted to account for
changes in eating pattern.
The Range of samples was 10,000 -37,000.
The data are representative of overall U.S.
population.
Long-term distribution (generated from 1973-
1974 data) was shifted upward based on recent
increase in mean consumption.
Response rates were fairly high; there was no
obvious source of bias.
Estimates of intake amounts were imprecise.
There was 1 study for the mean, the results of
2 studies were utilized for long-term
distribution.
High
High (CSFII)
Medium (Javitz)
High
High
High
High
Medium (mean)
Low (Long-Term Distribution)
High (Mean)
Medium (Long-term distribution)
Medium
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium (Mean)
Low (Long-term distribution)
-------
Table 10-88. Confidence in Fish Intake Recommendations for Recreational Marine Anglers
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
•D Level of peer review
•D Accessibility
•D Reproducibility
•D Focus on factor of interest
•D Data pertinent to U.S.
•D Primary data
•D Currency
•D Adequacy of data collection period
•D Validity of approach
•D Study size
•D Representativeness of the
population
•D Characterization of variability
•D Lack of bias in study design (high
rating is desirable)
•D Measurement error
Other Elements
•D Number of studies
•D Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Data were reviewed by NMFS and EPA. High
The analysis of the NMFS data is presented in the High
Handbook and NMFS data can be found in NMFS
publications.
Enough information is available to reproduce results. High
Studies focused on fish catch rather than fish consumption Medium
perse.
The studies were conducted in the U.S. High
Data are from primary studies. High
The data were based on 1993 studies. High
Data were collected once for each angler. The yearly catch Medium
of anglers were estimated from catch on intercepted trip and
reported fishing frequency.
The creel survey provided data on fishing frequency and fish Medium
weight; telephone survey data provided number of anglers.
An average value was used for the number of intended fish
consumers and edible fraction.
Studies encompassed a population of over 100,000. High
Data were representative of overall U.S. coastal state High
population.
Distributions were generated. High
Response rates were fairly high; There was no obvious High
source of bias.
Fish were weighed in the field. High
There was 1 study. Low
N/A
Medium
-------
Table 10-89. Confidence in Recommendations for Fish Consumption - Recreational Freshwater
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
•D Level of peer review
•D Accessibility
•D Reproducibility
•D Focus on factor of interest
•D Data pertinent to U.S.
•D Primary data
•D Currency
•D Adequacy of data collection period
•D Validity of approach
•D Study size
•D Representativeness of the
population
•D Characterization of variability
•D Lack of bias in study design (high
rating is desirable)
•D Measurement error
Other Elements
•D Number of studies
•D Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Studies can be found in peer reviewed journals and has High
been reviewed by the EPA.
The original study analyses are reported in accessible High
journals. Subsequent EPA analyses are detailed in
Handbook.
Enough information is available to reproduce results. High
Studies focused on ingestion offish by the recreational High
freshwater angler.
The studies were conducted in the U.S. High
Data are from primary references. High
Studies were conducted between 1988-1992. High
Data were collected for one year period for 3 studies; and a High
one week period for one study.
Data presented are as follows: one year recall of fishing trips Medium
(2 studies), one week recall offish consumption (1 study),
and one year diary survey (1 study). Weight offish
consumed was estimated using approximate weight of fish
catch and edible fraction or approximate weight offish meal.
Study population ranged from 800-2600. High
Each study was localized to a single state or area. Low
Distributions were generated. High
Response rates were fairly high. One year recall of fishing Medium
trips may result in overestimate.
Weight of fish portions were estimated in one study, fish Medium
weight was estimated from reported fish length in another
study.
There are 4 key studies. High
Intake rates in different parts of country may be expected to Medium
show some variation.
The main drawback is that studies are not nationally Medium
representative and not representative of long-term
consumption.
-------
Table 10-90. Confidence in Recommendations for Native American Subsistence Fish Consumption
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
•D Level of peer review
•D Accessibility
•D Reproducibility
•D Focus on factor of interest
•D Data pertinent to U.S.
•D Primary data
•D Currency
•D Adequacy of data collection period
•D Validity of approach
Studies are from peer reviewed journal (1 study), and Medium
technical reports (1 study).
Journal articles are publicly available. CRITFC is a Medium
technical report.
The studies were adequately detailed. High
Studies focused on fish ingestion and fish harvest. High
All studies were specific to area in the U.S. High
One study used primary data, the other used Medium
secondary data.
Data were from early 1980's to 1992. Medium
Data collected for one year period. High
One study used fish harvest data; EPA used a factor Medium
to convert to individual intake. Other study measured
individual intake directly.
•D Study size
•D Representativeness of the
population
•D Characterization of variability
•D Lack of bias in study design (high
rating is desirable)
•D Measurement error
Other Elements
•D Number of studies
•D Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
The sample population was 500 for the study with
primary data.
Only two states were represented.
Individual variation were not described in summary
study.
The response rate was 69% in study with primary
data. Bias was hard to evaluate in summary study.
The weight of the fish was estimated.
There were two studies; only one study described
individual variation in intake.
Range of per-capita rates from summary study
includes per-capita rate from study with primary data.
Studies are not nationally representative. Upper
percentiles are based on only one study.
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Medium (per capita intake)
Low (upper percentiles)
-------
Table 1 0B-1 . Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Residence Size"
Residence Size
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)b
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)
Large
City/Suburb
32.7
19.6
6.0
23.6
12.4
2.5
3.2
0.0000
393
45.8
12.2
2.8
20.2
11.8
2.7
4.5
0
205
Large City = over 1 00,000; Small City
Small City
31.0
24.0
3.0
20.8
12.4
6.0
2.8
0.0000
317
45.7
14.5
2.3
17.6
8.8
8.5
2.7
0
171
Town Small Town
Total Fish
36.0
23.3
3.4
13.8
10.0
8.3
5.2
0.0000
388
Sport Fish
47.6
17.5
2.9
10.6
6.3
10.4
4.9
0
257
= 20,000-100,000; Town = 2,000-20,000
32.4
24.7
3.7
21.4
10.3
5.0
1.9
0.5
256
41.4
15.2
0.5
25.3
8.7
6.7
1.5
0.7
176
; Small Town
Rural Non-
Farm
38.6
26.2
3.4
13.7
12.7
2.3
2.9
0.2
483
51.2
21.9
3.6
8.2
9.7
1.9
3.5
0
314
= 100-2,000.
Farm
51.6
15.7
3.5
13.1
6.4
7.0
1.8
—
94
63.3
7.3
0
10.4
6.9
9.3
2.8
0
62
b N = Total number of respondents
Source: West et al..
1993.
-------
Table 1 0B-2. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Age
Age (years)
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled or Boiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)a
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)
a N = Total number of respondents.
Source: Westetal.. 1993.
17-30
45.9
23.0
0.0000
15.6
10.8
3.1
1.6
0.0000
246
57.6
18.2
0.0000
15.0
3.6
3.8
1.7
0.0000
174
31-40
Total Fish
31.7
24.7
6.0
15.2
13.0
5.2
4.2
0.0000
448
Sport Fish
42.6
21.0
4.4
10.1
10.4
7.2
4.3
0.0000
287
41-50
30.5
26.9
3.6
24.3
8.7
2.2
3.5
0.3
417
43.4
17.3
0.8
25.9
6.4
3.0
3.2
0.0000
246
51-64
33.9
23.7
3.9
16.1
12.8
6.5
2.7
0.4
502
46.6
14.8
3.2
12.2
11.7
7.5
3.5
0.4
294
>64
40.7
14.0
4.3
18.8
11.5
6.8
4.0
0.0000
287
54.1
7.7
3.1
12.2
9.9
8.2
4.8
0.0000
163
Overall
35.3
23.5
3.9
17.8
11.4
4.7
3.2
0.2
1946
47.9
16.5
2.4
14.8
8.9
5.9
3.5
0.1
1187
-------
Table 10B-3. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)a
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Total (NO
a N = Total number of respondents.
Source: Westetal.. 1993.
Black
40.5
27.0
0
19.4
1.9
9.5
1.6
0
52
44.9
36.2
0
0
5.3
13.6
0
19
Native American
Total Fish
37.5
22.0
1.1
9.8
16.3
6.2
4.2
0
84
Sport Fish
47.9
20.2
0
1.5
18.2
8.6
3.6
60
Hispanic
16.1
83.9
0
0
0
0
3.5
0.3
12
52.1
47.9
0
0
0
0
0
4
White
35.8
22.7
4.3
17.7
11.7
4.5
2.7
0.4
1,744
48.8
15.7
2.7
14.7
8.6
5.6
3.7
39
Other
18.5
18.4
0
57.6
5.4
0
4.0
0
33
22.0
9.6
0
61.9
6.4
0
0
0
-------
Table
Education
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)a
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Baked
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (NO
1 0B-4. Percent of Fish
Through Some H
44.7
23.6
2.2
8.9
8.1
10.0
2.1
0.5
236
56.1
13.6
2.8
6.3
7.4
10.1
2.8
0.8
146
Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking
S. H.S. Degree
Total Fish
41.8
23.6
2.8
10.9
12.1
5.1
3.4
0.3
775
Sport Fish
52.4
15.8
2.4
9.4
10.6
6.3
3.3
0
524
Methods by Education
College Degree
28.8
23.8
5.1
23.8
11.6
3.0
4.0
0
704
41.8
18.6
3.0
21.7
6.1
3.9
4.6
0
421
Post Graduate
Education
22.9
19.4
5.8
34.1
12.8
3.8
1.3
0
211
36.3
12.9
0
28.3
14.9
6.5
1.0
0
91
a N = Total number of respondents.
Source: Westetal.. 1993
-------
Table 10B-5. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Income
Income
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)a
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (NO
a N = Total number of respondents.
Source: Westetal.. 1993.
0 - $24,999
44.8
21.7
2.1
11.3
9.1
8.7
2.4
0
544
51.5
15.8
1.8
12.0
7.2
9.1
2.7
0
387
$25,000 - $39,999
Total Fish
39.1
22.2
3.5
15.8
12.3
2.9
4.0
0.2
518
Sport Fish
51.4
15.8
2.1
12.2
10.0
3.8
4.6
0
344
$40,000 - or more
26.5
23.4
5.6
25.0
13.3
2.5
3.5
0.3
714
42.0
17.2
3.7
19.4
10.0
3.5
3.8
0.3
369
-------
Table 1 0B-6. Percent of Fish Meals Where Fat was Trimmed or Skin was Removed, by Demographic Variables
Pooulation
Residence Size
Large City/Suburb
Small City
Town
Small Town
Rural Non-Farm
Farm
Age (years)
17-30
31-40
41-50
51-65
Over 65
Ethnicity
Black
Native American
Hispanic
White
Other
Education
Some High School
High School Degree
College Degree
Post-Graduate
Income
<$25,000
$25-39,999
$40,000 or more
Overall
Source: Modified from West et. al
Total Fish
Trimmed Fat (%)
51.7
56.9
50.3
52.6
42.4
37.3
50.6
49.7
53.0
48.1
41.6
25.8
50.0
59.5
49.3
77.1
50.8
47.2
51.9
47.6
50.5
47.8
50.2
49.0
. 1993.
Skin Off (%)
31.6
34.1
33.4
45.2
32.4
38.1
36.5
29.7
32.2
35.6
43.1
37.1
41.4
7.1
34.0
61.6
43.9
37.1
31.9
26.6
43.8
34.0
28.6
34.7
Sport Fish
Trimmed Fat (%)
56.7
59.3
51.7
55.8
46.2
39.4
53.9
51.6
58.8
48.8
43.0
16.0
56.3
50.0
51.8
75.7
49.7
49.5
55.9
53.4
50.6
54.9
51.7
52.1
Skin Off (%)
28.9
36.2
33.7
51.3
34.6
42.1
39.3
29.9
37.0
37.2
42.9
40.1
36.7
23.0
35.6
65.5
47.1
37.6
33.8
38.7
47.3
34.6
27.7
36.5
-------
Species
White Croaker
Pacific Mackerel
Pacific Bonito
Queenfish
Jacksmelt
Walleye Perch
Shiner Perch
Opaleye
Black Perch
Kelp Bass
California Halibut
Shellfish"
(n = 1059)
Table 10B-7. Method
Percent of Anglers
Catching Species
34%
25%
18%
17%
13%
10%
7%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
of Cooking of Most Common Species Kept by Sportfishermen
Deep Fry
19%
10%
5%
15%
17%
12%
11%
16%
18%
12%
13%
0%
Use as
Pan Fry
64%
41%
33%
70%
57%
69%
72%
56%
53%
55%
60%
0%
Primary Cooking Method
Bake and Charcoal
Broil
12%
28%
43%
6%
19%
6%
8%
14%
14%
21%
24%
0%
(Percent)
Raw
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Other"
5%
21%
17%
8%
7%
13%
11%
14%
15%
12%
3%
100%
a Crab, mussels, lobster, abalone
b Boil, soup, steam, stew
Source: Modified from
Puffer etal., 1981.
-------
Table 10B-8. Adult Consumption of Fish Parts
Weighted Percent Consuming Specific Parts
Species
Salmon
Lamprey
Trout
Smelt
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squawfish
Sucker
Shad
Number
Consuming
473
249
365
209
125
121
46
15
42
16
Fillet
95.1%
86.4%
89.4%
78.8%
93.8%
94.6%
100%
89.7%
89.3%
93.5%
Skin
55.8%
89.3%
68.5%
88.9%
53.8%
18.2%
20.7%
34.1%
50.0%
15.7%
Head
42.7%
18.1%
13.7%
37.4%
15.4%
6.2%
6.2%
8.1%
19.4%
0.0%
Eggs
42.8%
4.6%
8.7%
46.4%
20.6%
1 1 .9%
9.8%
11.1%
30.4%
0.0%
Bones
12.1%
5.2%
7.1%
28.4%
6.0%
2.6%
2.4%
5.9%
9.8%
3.3%
Organs
3.7%
3.2%
2.3%
27.9%
0.0%
0.3%
0.9%
0.0%
2.1%
0.0%
Source: CRITFC, 1994.
-------
Table 10C-1 . Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption
U.S. Population - Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat - As Consumed Fish
Habitat
Estuarine
Freshwater
Marine
Species
Shrimp
Perch
Flatfish (Estuarine)
Crab (Estuarine)
Flounder
Oyster
Clam (Estuarine)
Mullet
Croaker
Herring
Smelts
Scallop (Estuarine)
Anchovy
Scup
Sturgeon
Catfish
Trout
Carp
Pike
Salmon (Freshwater)
Tuna
Clam (Marine)
Cod
Flatfish (Marine)
Salmon (Marine)
Haddock
Pollock
Crab (Marine)
Ocean Perch
Porgy
Scallop (Marine)
Sea Bass
Lobster
Estimated Mean
Grams/Person/Day
1.37241
0.52580
0.43485
0.29086
0.24590
0.17840
0.14605
0.07089
0.05021
0.02937
0.02768
0.00247
0.00228
0.00050
0.00040
1 .06776
0.43050
0.04846
0.01978
0.00881
4.19998
1.66153
1.22627
1 .06307
0.73778
0.51533
0.44970
0.33870
0.31878
0.29844
0.21805
0.20794
0.20001
Habitat Species
Marine Swordfish
(Cont) Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Sole
Mackerel
Whiting
Halibut
Mussels
Shark
Whitefish
Seafood
Snapper
Octopus
Barracuda
Abalone
Unknown Fish
All Tuna
Species Clam (Marine)
Shrimp
Cod
Catfish
Faltfish (Marine)
Salmon (Marine)
Perch
Haddock
Pollock
Flatfish (Estuarine)
Trout
Crab (Marine)
Ocean Perch
Porgy
Crab (Estuarine)
Estimated Mean
Grams/Person/Day
0.13879
0.12196
0.10013
0.09131
0.07396
0.06379
0.05498
0.02463
0.02217
0.01901
0.00916
0.00574
0.00539
0.00375
0.00111
0.00075
0.00186
4.19998
1.66153
1 .38883
1.22827
1 .06776
1 .06307
0.73778
0.52580
0.51533
0.44970
0.43485
0.43050
0.33870
0.31878
0.29844
0.29088
Habitat Species
All Species Flounder
(Cont) Scallop (Marine)
Sea Bass
Lobster
Oyster
Clam (Estuarine)
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Sole
Mullet
Mackarel
Whiting
Croaker
Carp
Herring
Smelts
Halibut
Mussels
Pike
Shark
Whitefish
Salmon (Freshwater)
Seafood
Snapper
Octopus
Scallop (Estuarine)
Anchovy
Fish
Barracuda
Abalone
Scup
Sturgeon
Estimated Mean
Grams/Person/Day
0.24590
0.21805
0.20794
0.20001
0.17840
0.14605
0.13879
0.12196
0.10313
0.09131
0.07396
0.07089
0.06379
0.05498
0.05021
0.04846
0.02937
0.02768
0.02463
0.02217
0.01978
0.01901
0.00916
0.00881
0.00574
0.00539
0.00375
0.00247
0.00228
0.00166
0.00111
0.00075
0.00050
0.00040
Notes: Estimates are projected from a sample of 11,912 individuals to the U.S. population of 242,707,000 using 3-year combined survey weights. The population for this survey consisted of
individuals in the 48 conteminous states.
Source of individual consumption data: USDA Combined 1989, 1990, and 1991 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).
The fish component of foods containing fish was calculated using data from the recipe file for release 7 of the USDA's Nutrient Data Base for Individual Food Intake Surveys.
-------
Table 10C-2. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption
U.S. Population - Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Estimated Mean
Habitat Species Grams/Person/Day
Estuarine Shrimp 1.78619
Perch 0.66494
Flatfish (Estuarine) 0.50832
Crab (Estuarine) 0.40848
Flounder 0.28559
Oyster 0.18827
Mullet 0.08959
Croaker 0.06539
Smelts 0.03470
Herring 0.03408
Clam (Estuarine) 0.03339
Anchovy 0.00304
Scallop (Estuarine) 0.00297
Scup 0.00050
Sturgeon 0.00040
Freshwater Catfish 1.38715
Trout 0.53777
Carp 0.06012
Pike 0.02244
Salmon (Freshwater) 0.01183
Marine Tuna 5.67438
Cod 1 .47609
Flatfish (Marine) 1 .24268
Salmon (Marine) 0.99093
Haddock 0.62219
Pollock 0.52906
Crab (Marine) 0.47567
Porgy 0.42587
Ocean Perch 0.39327
Clam (Marine) 0.37982
Lobster 0.27583
Sea Bass 0.26661
Scallop (Marine) 0.26199
Estimated Mean
Habitat Species Grams/Person/Day
Marine Swordfish 0.17903
(Cont) Squid 0.14420
Sardine 0.13750
Pompano 0.12160
Mackerel 0.09866
Sole 0.08339
Whiting 0.06514
Mussels 0.03718
Halibut 0.03030
Shark 0.02385
Whitefish 0.00916
Snapper 0.00551
Octopus 0.00457
Barracuda 0.00130
Abalone 0.00094
Seafood 0.00043
Unknown Fish 0.00248
All Tuna 5.67438
Species Shrimp 1.78619
Cod 1 .47609
Catfish 1.38715
Flatfish (Marine) 1 .24268
Salmon (Marine) 0.99093
Perch 0.66494
Haddock 0.62219
Trout 0.53777
Pollock 0.52906
Flatfish (Estuarine) 0.50832
Crab (Marine) 0.47567
Porgy 0.42587
Crab (Estuarine) 0.40848
Ocean Perch 0.39327
Clam (Marine) 0.37982
Estimated Mean
Habitat Species Grams/Person/Day
All Species Flounder 0.28559
(Cont) Lobster 0.27563
Sea Bass 0.26661
Scallop (Marine) 0.26199
Oyster 0.18827
Swordfish 0.17903
Squid 0.14420
Sardine 0.13750
Pompano 0.12160
Mackarel 0.09866
Mullet 0.08958
Sole 0.08339
Croaker 0.06539
Whiting 0.06514
Carp 0.06012
Mussels 0.03718
Smelts 0.03470
Herring 0.03406
Clam (Estuarine) 0.03339
Halibut 0.03030
Shark 0.02385
Pike 0.02244
Salmon (Freshwater) 0.01183
Whitefish 0.00916
Snapper 0.00551
Octopus 0.00457
Anchovy 0.00304
Scallop (Estuarine) 0.00297
Fish 0.00248
Barracuda 0.00130
Abalone 0.00094
Scup 0.00050
Seafood 0.00043
Sturgeon 0.00040
Notes: Estimates are projected from a sample of 11,912 individuals to the U.S. population of 242,707,000 using 3-year combined survey weights. The population for this survey consisted
of individuals in the 48 conteminous states.
Source of individual consumption data: USDA Combined 1989, 1990, and 1991 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).
Amount of consumed fish recorded by survey respondents was converted to uncooked fish quantities using data from the recipe file for release 7 of USDA's Nutrient Data Base for
Individual Food Intake Surveys. The fish component of foods containing fish was calculated using data from the recipe file for release 7 of the USDA's Nutrient Data Base for Individual
Food Intake Surveys.
-------
Table 1 0C-3. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates Of Fish Consumption
Habitat
Estuarine
Freshwater
Marine
Species
Shrimp
Perch
Flatfish
Crab
Flounder
Oyster
Mullet
Croaker
Herring
Smelts
Clam
Scallop
Anchovy
Scup
Sturgeon
Catfish
Trout
Carp
Pike
Salmon
Tuna
Cod
Flatfish
Salmon
Haddock
Pollock
Crab
As Consumed Fish
Estimated
Mean Habitat
Grams/person/day
1 .37241 Marine (Con't.)
0.52580
0.43485
0.29086
0.24590
0.17419
0.07089
0.05021
0.02937
0.02768
0.02691
0.00247
0.00228
0.00050
0.00040
1 .06776
0.43050 Unknown
0.04846
0.01978 All Species
0.00881
4.19998
1 .22827
1 .06307
0.73778
0.51533
0.44970
0.33870
Ocean Perch 0.31878
Estimates are
Source: U.S.
Clam
Porgy
Scallop
Sea Bass
Lobster
projected from
EPA. 1996a.
0.30617
0.29844
0.21805
0.20794
0.20001
- Mean Consumption
U.S. Population
Species
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pom pa no
Sole
Mackerel
Whiting
Halibut
Mussels
Shark
Whitefish
Snapper
Octopus
Barracuda
Aba lone
Seafood
Fish
Tuna
Shrimp
Cod
Catfish
Flatfish (Marine)
Salmon (Marine)
Perch
Haddock
Pollock
Flatfish (Estuarine)
Trout
Crab (Marine)
Ocean Perch
Clam (Marine)
Porgy
Crab (Estuarine)
by Species Within Habitat
Estimated
Mean Habitat
Grams/person/day
0.13879 All Species
0.12196 (Con't.)
0.10313
0.09131
0.07396
0.06379
0.05498
0.02463
0.02217
0.01901
0.00916
0.00539
0.00375
0.00111
0.00075
0.00043
0.00186
4.19998
1 .37241
1 .22827
1 .06776
1 .06307
0.73778
0.52580
0.51533
0.44970
0.43485
0.43050
0.33870
0.31878
0.30617
0.29844
0.29086
Species
Flounder
Scallop (Marine)
Sea Bass
Lobster
Oyster
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pom pa no
Sole
Mullet
Mackerel
Whiting
Croaker
Carp
Herring
Smelts
Clam (Estuarine)
Halibut
Mussels
Pike
Shark
Whitefish
Salmon (Freshwater)
Snapper
Octopus
Scallop (Estuarine)
Anchovy
Fish
Barracuda
Aba lone
Scup
Seafood
Sturgeon
Estimated
Mean
Grams/person/day
0.24590
0.21805
0.20794
0.20001
0.17419
0.13879
0.12196
0.10313
0.09131
0.07396
0.07089
0.06379
0.05498
0.05021
0.04846
0.02937
0.02768
0.02691
0.02463
0.02217
0.01978
0.01901
0.00916
0.00881
0.00539
0.00375
0.00247
0.00228
0.00186
0.00111
0.00075
0.00050
0.00043
0.00040
a sample of 11,912 individuals to the U.S. population of 242,707,000 using 3-year combined survey weights.
-------
Table 1 0C-4. Daily Average Per Capita
Estimates Of Fish Consumption
Uncooked Fish** - Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat
U.S. Population
Habitat
Estuarine
Freshwater
Marine
Species
Shrimp
Perch
Flatfish
Crab
Flounder
Oyster
Mullet
Croaker
Smelts
Herring
Clam
Anchovy
Scallop
Scup
Sturgeon
Catfish
Trout
Carp
Pike
Salmon
Tuna
Cod
Flatfish
Salmon
Haddock
Pollock
Crab
Porgy
Ocean Perch
Clam
Lobster
Sea Bass
Scallop
Estimated
Mean
Grams/person/day
1.78619
0.66494
0.50832
0.40848
0.28559
0.18827
0.08958
0.06539
0.03470
0.03408
0.03339
0.00304
0.00297
0.00050
0.00040
1.38715
0.53777
0.06012
0.02244
0.01183
5.67438
1 .47609
1 .24268
0.99093
0.62219
0.52906
0.47567
0.42587
0.39327
0.37982
0.27563
0.26661
0.26199
Habitat Species
Estimated
Mean Habitat
Species
Grams/person/day
Marine (Con't.) Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pom pa no
Mackerel
Sole
Whiting
Mussels
Halibut
Shark
Whitefish
Snapper
Octopus
Barracuda
Aba lone
Seafood
Unknown Fish
All Species Tuna
Shrimp
Cod
Catfish
Flatfish (Marine)
Salmon (Marine)
Perch
Haddock
Trout
Pollock
Flatfish (Estuarine)
Crab (Marine)
Porgy
Crab (Estuarine)
Ocean Perch
Clam (Marine)
0.17903 All Species
0.14420 (Con't.)
0.13750
0.12160
0.09866
0.08339
0.06514
0.03718
0.03030
0.02385
0.00916
0.00551
0.00457
0.00130
0.00094
0.00043
0.00248
5.67438
1.78619
1 .47609
1.38715
1 .24268
0.99093
0.66494
0.62219
0.53777
0.52906
0.50832
0.47567
0.42587
0.40848
0.39327
0.37982
Estimates are projected from a sample of 11,912 individuals to the U.S. population of 242,707,000 using 3-year combined
Source: U
S. EPA. 1996a.
Flounder
Lobster
Sea Bass
Scallop (Marine)
Oyster
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pom pa no
Mackerel
Mullet
Sole
Croaker
Whiting
Carp
Mussels
Smelts
Herring
Clam (Estuarine)
Halibut
Shark
Pike
Salmon (Freshwater)
Whitefish
Snapper
Octopus
Anchovy
Scallop (Estuarine)
Fish
Barracuda
Aba lone
Scup
Seafood
Sturgeon
survey weights.
Estimated
Mean
Grams/person/day
0.28559
0.27563
0.26661
0.26199
0.18827
0.17903
0.14420
0.13750
0.12160
0.09866
0.08958
0.08339
0.06539
0.06514
0.06012
0.03718
0.03470
0.03408
0.03339
0.03030
0.02385
0.02244
0.01183
0.00916
0.00551
0.00457
0.00304
0.00297
0.00248
0.00130
0.00094
0.00050
0.00043
0.00040
-------
60-
Vvhicn months ot the year do you
eat the most fish?
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
* Participants could Stt more than one month.
Figure 10-1. Seasonal Fish Consumption: Wisconsin Chippewa, 1990
During ihote months of the year when you en the most Iteh,
how many fish meals do you eat in a week7
Figure 10-2. Peak Fish Consumption: Wisconsin Chippewa, 1990
Source: Peterson et al., 1994.
-------
Population Percent
Grouc Consumina Mean
Total 96.4%
Age (years)
< 01 66.7%
01-02 95.6%
03-05 97.5%
06-11 97.6%
12-19 97.7%
20-39 97.9%
40-69 97.3%
70+ 97.1%
Season
Fall 97.1%
Spring 95.8%
Summer 96.3%
Winter 96.4%
Urbanization
Central City 96.7%
Nonmetropolitan 95.7%
Suburban 96.6%
Race
Asian 89.3%
Black 95.5%
Native American 86.5%
Other/NA 95.1%
White 96.9%
Region
Midwest 96.5%
Northeast 96.5%
South 96.7%
West 95.8%
2.146
2.867
4.384
3.873
3.011
2.078
1.923
1.700
1.531
2.182
2.053
2.178
2.173
2.163
2.168
2.126
2.233
2.434
2.269
2.628
2.083
2.204
2.148
2.249
1.903
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1989-91
Table 11-1.
SE
0.014
0.187
0.116
0.092
0.052
0.034
0.019
0.017
0.028
0.029
0.027
0.031
0.029
0.028
0.028
0.021
0.131
0.053
0.131
0.109
0.015
0.029
0.033
0.025
0.030
CSFII
Per Capita
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Intake of Total Meats (g/kg-day as consumed)
PS
0.33
0
1.07
1.12
0.66
0.42
0.39
0.36
0.32
0.37
0.26
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.30
0.39
0
0.33
0
0
0.34
0.44
0.35
0.37
0.08
P10
0.63
0
1.58
1.38
1.02
0.67
0.64
0.59
0.49
0.66
0.61
0.63
0.63
0.59
0.63
0.64
0.60
0.62
0.41
0.65
0.63
0.69
0.67
0.68
0.47
P25
1.13
0
2.70
2.21
1.80
1.19
1.09
1.03
0.89
1.15
1.09
1.11
1.18
1.09
1.15
1.13
1.10
1.15
1.32
1.40
1.12
1.21
1.16
1.18
0.92
P50
1.84
2.34
4.13
3.50
2.78
1.99
1.73
1.58
1.42
1.85
1.75
1.86
1.88
1.79
1.90
1.84
1.86
1.94
1.87
2.29
1.81
1.85
1.89
1.90
1.60
P75
2.78
4.72
5.38
5.04
3.98
2.79
2.54
2.20
2.03
2.80
2.63
2.84
2.87
2.82
2.79
2.74
3.23
3.02
3.38
3.34
2.72
2.82
2.75
2.88
2.54
P90
4.06
6.52
7.69
6.64
5.12
3.49
3.49
2.95
2.73
4.11
3.93
4.10
4.06
4.14
4.04
4.03
4.49
5.03
4.64
4.90
3.87
4.08
3.98
4.35
3.69
P95
5.06
8.56
8.41
8.23
6.08
4.40
4.14
3.47
3.20
5.16
4.91
5.18
5.05
5.22
5.12
4.94
4.66
6.14
5.09
6.03
4.87
5.05
4.99
5.34
4.57
P99 P100
7.67 25.67
11.52 25.67
11.88 21.61
11.25 15.00
8.38 11.68
5.95 8.28
5.46 8.37
4.73 7.64
4.28 6.63
8.06 25.67
7.31 15.00
7.86 18.19
7.35 14.61
7.97 25.67
7.69 14.61
7.31 15.00
6.86 8.13
9.87 25.67
7.32 8.57
11.25 11.25
7.18 18.19
7.86 21.61
8.27 15.00
7.73 13.42
6.64 25.67
-------
Population
Grouc
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuminci
97.1%
89.6%
95.6%
97.5%
97.4%
97.9%
97.9%
96.9%
97.6%
97.7%
96.8%
96.8%
97.1%
97.2%
96.6%
97.4%
94.0%
94.8%
88.9%
97.1%
97.7%
97.3%
97.2%
97.3%
96.7%
Table 11 -2
Mean
8.015
62.735
26.262
21.149
13.334
6.293
3.618
3.098
3.715
8.262
8.273
7.561
7.964
8.528
7.224
8.058
8.730
7.816
6.987
10.727
7.943
9.291
7.890
6.926
8.454
Per Capita Intake of Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
SE
0.147
2.800
0.743
0.517
0.264
0.147
0.062
0.053
0.104
0.286
0.335
0.257
0.293
0.309
0.261
0.209
1.264
0.498
1.057
1.002
0.156
0.341
0.330
0.225
0.313
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PS P10
0.15 0.40
0 0.61
2.69 8.19
3.27 6.75
1.81 3.54
0.27 0.61
0.12 0.30
0.10 0.26
0.16 0.47
0.17 0.38
0.13 0.39
0.14 0.37
0.16 0.43
0.17 0.41
0.10 0.28
0.17 0.43
0 0.14
0.03 0.11
0.02 0.14
0.12 0.33
0.22 0.49
0.20 0.50
0.18 0.42
0.11 0.27
0.17 0.49
P25
1.36
24.68
15.22
11.89
6.72
2.31
0.95
0.94
1.46
1.32
1.37
1.37
1.39
1.44
1.08
1.42
0.63
0.64
0.81
1.03
1.50
1.66
1.42
1.01
1.60
P50
3.61
45.78
23.48
19.52
11.88
5.29
2.64
2.23
3.03
3.53
3.50
3.51
3.90
3.78
3.34
3.61
3.86
2.49
2.83
4.15
3.76
4.20
3.41
3.10
3.93
P75
8.18
91.12
36.13
28.31
18.58
9.20
5.04
4.36
4.93
8.31
7.88
7.93
8.77
8.05
7.82
8.45
7.23
7.29
8.06
11.28
8.24
9.61
7.54
7.49
8.67
P90
18.55
136.69
45.72
39.54
25.38
12.75
8.15
6.99
8.03
20.16
18.02
18.01
17.60
18.25
17.28
19.50
21.62
17.28
20.20
34.64
18.16
21.33
18.07
15.86
19.88
P95
29.72
170.86
55.07
44.16
28.76
15.12
10.64
9.05
9.63
32.71
27.02
30.86
27.34
29.51
24.70
32.04
36.16
27.78
24.17
40.33
28.76
34.35
32.04
25.76
29.89
P99 P100
72.16 390.53
210.72 390.53
69.42 108.95
57.58 62.88
39.60 62.55
23.58 53.47
17.23 43.31
12.99 34.42
16.49 26.33
75.83 351.48
116.00 390.53
64.95 347.93
63.27 307.54
106.93 318.93
59.17 390.53
69.42 351.48
72.01 124.26
116.00 347.93
66.71 139.37
121.50 166.48
66.11 390.53
90.88 390.53
78.15 307.54
54.94 347.93
84.46 174.65
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1989-91 CSFII
-------
Table 11-3. Per Capita Intake of Beef (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population
Grouo
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consumina
91%
64%
93%
95%
95%
95%
94%
90%
87%
92%
91%
90%
92%
91%
91%
92%
89%
87%
82%
90%
93%
92%
93%
90%
92%
Mean
0.825
0.941
1.46
1.392
1.095
0.83
0.789
0.667
0.568
0.834
0.797
0.845
0.823
0.808
0.841
0.828
0.895
0.665
0.995
1.159
0.833
0.853
0.805
0.846
0.775
SE P1
0.007 0
0.075 0
0.056 0
0.05 0
0.028 0
0.02 0
0.012 0
0.011 0
0.018 0
0.014 0
0.014 0
0.017 0
0.015 0
0.013 0
0.015 0
0.011 0
0.072 0
0.019 0
0.088 0
0.069 0
0.008 0
0.015 0
0.017 0
0.013 0
0.016 0
P5
0
0
0
0
0.028
0.032
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10 P25
0.055 0.268
0 0
0.187 0.531
0.14 0.506
0.102 0.337
0.114 0.3
0.087 0.297
0.031 0.221
0 0.151
0.063 0.296
0.046 0.254
0.045 0.254
0.066 0.272
0.037 0.271
0.064 0.269
0.059 0.265
0.08 0.228
0 0.151
0.016 0.182
0 0.389
0.068 0.284
0.07 0.31
0.054 0.253
0.058 0.268
0.039 0.235
P50
0.626
0.488
1.339
1.162
0.924
0.654
0.644
0.536
0.427
0.665
0.595
0.605
0.636
0.611
0.637
0.63
0.694
0.42
0.73
0.739
0.651
0.66
0.595
0.648
0.562
P75
1.163
1.417
2.166
1.905
1.56
1.204
1.109
0.977
0.817
1.167
1.132
1.187
1.157
1.13
1.196
1.163
1.251
0.963
1.299
1.63
1.18
1.191
1.136
1.195
1.105
P90
1.804
2.536
2.783
3.163
2.376
1.775
1.662
1.458
1.324
1.785
1.788
1.887
1.767
1.777
1.852
1.797
2.065
1.488
2.338
2.756
1.784
1.853
1.816
1.805
1.73
P95
2.327
3.205
3.65
3.573
2.92
2.192
2.165
1.76
1.651
2.277
2.295
2.519
2.271
2.329
2.308
2.337
2.444
2.177
2.825
3.269
2.28
2.345
2.352
2.324
2.226
P99
3.478
5.776
4.741
5.908
3.944
3.108
3.059
2.474
2.62
3.339
3.531
3.707
3.266
3.325
3.531
3.511
3.135
3.126
4.958
5.908
3.41
3.65
3.41
3.511
3.219
P100
7.959
7.959
7.571
6.769
6.024
4.508
6.086
4.968
4.02
6.086
7.959
7.085
7.571
6.182
6.66
7.959
5.862
6.769
6.66
6.182
7.959
6.468
6.769
7.959
6.66
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on
EPA s analyses of the 1989-91
CSFII
-------
Table 11-4. Per Capita Intake of Pork (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population
Grouo
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consumina
90.2%
63.0%
92.4%
95.0%
94.5%
94.0%
92.5%
88.3%
86.5%
91.9%
88.8%
89.4%
90.6%
89.5%
90.3%
90.6%
85.9%
89.2%
83.6%
88.3%
90.6%
91.3%
90.4%
89.5%
89.7%
Mean
0.261
0.291
0.492
0.473
0.352
0.27
0.23
0.212
0.207
0.254
0.264
0.245
0.279
0.258
0.299
0.244
0.256
0.418
0.188
0.191
0.241
0.284
0.236
0.283
0.22
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA s analyses of the 1989-91
SE P1
0.005 0
0.04 0
0.041 0
0.035 0
0.018 0
0.013 0
0.007 0
0.007 0
0.011 0
0.008 0
0.009 0
0.01 0
0.009 0
0.009 0
0.01 0
0.006 0
0.049 0
0.019 0
0.024 0
0.021 0
0.005 0
0.009 0
0.01 0
0.008 0
0.009 0
CSFII
P5 P10
0 0.005
0 0
0 0.033
0 0.021
0 0.015
0 0.012
0 0.009
0 0
0 0
0 0.01
0 0
0 0
0 0.006
0 0.001
0 0.007
0 0.006
0 0.003
0 0.002
0 0
0 0
0 0.006
0 0.006
0 0.005
0 0.005
0 0
P25
0.031
0
0.071
0.057
0.052
0.039
0.031
0.025
0.016
0.037
0.027
0.027
0.032
0.027
0.038
0.03
0.027
0.035
0.027
0.027
0.031
0.034
0.027
0.032
0.028
P50
0.083
0.078
0.182
0.147
0.116
0.09
0.08
0.068
0.061
0.098
0.076
0.072
0.084
0.076
0.099
0.078
0.057
0.123
0.08
0.075
0.081
0.095
0.071
0.09
0.072
P75
0.263
0.228
0.424
0.362
0.311
0.289
0.233
0.242
0.223
0.267
0.265
0.22
0.3
0.235
0.324
0.253
0.192
0.48
0.179
0.183
0.249
0.318
0.227
0.281
0.198
P90
0.735
0.69
1.525
1.372
1.098
0.742
0.704
0.613
0.667
0.723
0.728
0.688
0.819
0.736
0.863
0.678
0.72
1.19
0.473
0.48
0.685
0.776
0.699
0.802
0.59
P95
1.137
1.671
2.633
2.35
1.418
1.118
1.039
0.915
0.924
1.045
1.19
1.097
1.195
1.085
1.212
1.098
1.157
2.108
0.889
0.845
1.061
1.113
1.064
1.212
1.009
P99
2.384
3.269
3.633
3.309
2.869
2.699
1.747
1.865
1.74
2.118
2.762
2.43
2.608
2.699
2.808
2.269
2.487
3.178
1.317
1.638
2.035
2.487
2.11
2.769
1.944
P100
8.231
5.431
6.94
8.231
5.024
5.157
6.363
4.342
3.035
5.338
6.94
8.231
5.946
6.94
8.231
5.946
3.966
8.231
1.662
5.252
5.946
6.362
5.338
8.231
5.946
-------
Table 11-5.
Population
Grouo
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consumina
91.7%
64.9%
94.2%
95.0%
95.7%
94.3%
94.6%
90.5%
86.7%
92.9%
91.0%
90.4%
92.6%
91.7%
90.6%
92.4%
88.6%
91.9%
80.7%
91.7%
92.0%
91.7%
92.7%
91.7%
91.0%
Mean
0.598
0.816
1.156
1.068
0.871
0.558
0.53
0.477
0.463
0.635
0.538
0.625
0.595
0.627
0.54
0.608
0.79
0.798
0.54
0.81
0.559
0.551
0.651
0.643
0.526
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA s analyses of the 1989-91
SE
0.007
0.087
0.064
0.049
0.028
0.017
0.01
0.01
0.017
0.015
0.013
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.068
0.025
0.051
0.049
0.007
0.014
0.017
0.012
0.014
CSFII
Per Capita Intake of Poultry (a/ka-dav as consumed)
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0.017
0
0.022
0
0.005
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10
0.015
0
0.08
0.044
0.047
0.02
0.021
0.011
0
0.022
0.009
0.013
0.025
0.011
0.014
0.02
0.035
0.02
0
0.005
0.016
0.013
0.016
0.02
0.011
P25
0.097
0
0.211
0.18
0.166
0.088
0.098
0.084
0.072
0.112
0.071
0.089
0.113
0.095
0.093
0.1
0.112
0.143
0.071
0.169
0.092
0.095
0.093
0.106
0.086
P50 P75
0.344 0.83
0.178 1.07
0.636 1.695
0.607 1.647
0.556 1.364
0.378 0.813
0.332 0.768
0.294 0.696
0.286 0.692
0.366 0.867
0.305 0.74
0.359 0.905
0.372 0.82
0.333 0.877
0.314 0.781
0.37 0.842
0.503 1.15
0.521 1.133
0.324 0.985
0.467 1.252
0.318 0.771
0.318 0.735
0.391 0.934
0.394 0.93
0.28 0.754
P90
1.506
2.467
2.931
2.662
2.182
1.476
1.35
1.192
1.189
1.571
1.368
1.562
1.443
1.589
1.321
1.542
1.901
1.867
1.343
2.11
1.419
1.328
1.687
1.581
1.33
P95
2.035
3.453
4.144
3.603
2.851
1.806
1.744
1.528
1.539
2.209
1.829
2.171
1.94
2.218
1.71
2.06
2.368
2.352
1.545
2.695
1.906
1.938
2.134
2.173
1.766
P99 P100
3.273 12.239
7.373 12.239
5.429 11.747
5.024 7.565
3.861 6.936
2.394 3.535
2.666 3.801
2.358 6.219
2.284 4.092
3.543 12.239
3.052 11.543
3.863 6.596
3.091 8.418
3.518 12.239
3.077 11.543
3.111 8.306
2.939 4.745
4.288 12.239
2.348 4.158
3.863 4.002
3.091 11.543
3.244 11.747
3.38 8.306
3.426 8.418
2.942 12.239
-------
Table 11-6. Per Capita Intake of Game (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population Percent
Grouo Consumina
Total 1.2%
Age (years)
< 01 0.5%
01-02 0.9%
03-05 1.5%
06-11 1.1%
12-19 1.0%
20-39 1.3%
40-69 1.3%
70 + 1.1%
Season
Fall 1.7%
Spring 0.7%
Summer 0.7%
Winter 1.6%
Urbanization
Central City 0.7%
Nonmetropolitan 2.0%
Suburban 1.1%
Race
Asian 0.0%
Black 0.1%
Native American 0.6%
Other/NA 0.3%
White 1.4%
Region
Midwest 2.2%
Northeast 0.5%
South 0.8%
West 1.3%
NOTE: SE = Standard error
Mean
0.01
0.014
0.026
0.01
0.004
0.004
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.016
0.006
0.003
0.013
0.005
0.019
0.008
0
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.011
0.012
0.005
0.009
0.012
SE
0.01
0.091
0.125
0.04
0.016
0.019
0.021
0.017
0.01
0.022
0.019
0.012
0.021
0.014
0.018
0.018
0
0.027
0.012
0.046
0.011
0.012
0.026
0.025
0.022
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5 P10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P99
0.098
1.113
0.692
0
0
0
0.098
0.462
0
0.521
0
0
0.446
0
0.822
0
0
0
0
0
0.329
0.588
0
0
0.446
P100
5.081
1.866
2.638
2.953
1.176
1.78
5.081
2.882
2.261
3.488
2.882
1.78
5.081
1.8
1.866
5.081
0
0.887
0.255
0.636
5.081
1.866
2.055
5.081
2.953
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA s analyses of the 1989-91
CSFII
-------
Table 11-7. Per Capita Intake of Eaas (a/ka-dav as consumed)
Population
Grouo
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consumina
41.4%
32.3%
43.3%
39.6%
36.6%
36.0%
43.3%
44.0%
42.0%
40.1%
42.7%
40.5%
42.2%
41.6%
43.8%
39.7%
38.9%
48.9%
49.7%
55.1%
39.5%
36.9%
35.9%
44.3%
46.6%
Mean
0.317
0.791
0.822
0.677
0.414
0.244
0.271
0.225
0.218
0.291
0.307
0.344
0.325
0.315
0.338
0.309
0.452
0.385
0.491
0.472
0.297
0.288
0.264
0.325
0.392
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA s analyses of the 1989-91
SE
0.009
0.126
0.087
0.088
0.033
0.023
0.012
0.009
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.02
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.013
0.094
0.023
0.17
0.056
0.01
0.019
0.02
0.014
0.022
CSFII
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0.445
1.537
1.381
0.89
0.735
0.345
0.439
0.375
0.328
0.422
0.402
0.476
0.47
0.423
0.493
0.434
0.615
0.595
0.457
0.712
0.408
0.35
0.376
0.469
0.563
P90
0.968
2.744
2.604
2.224
1.312
0.828
0.897
0.725
0.653
0.871
1.015
1.035
0.98
0.924
1.043
0.95
1.47
1.134
1.395
1.26
0.922
0.893
0.791
0.999
1.135
P95
1.422
3.645
3.299
3.106
1.617
1.26
1.193
1.029
0.969
1.237
1.42
1.496
1.409
1.422
1.438
1.399
2.604
1.486
1.61
2.247
1.368
1.44
1.229
1.422
1.603
P99 P100
2.953 13.757
5.487 13.757
5.242 8.577
7.475 10.799
3.037 6.331
2.137 4.12
1.764 5.392
1.496 3.216
1.582 2.791
2.744 6.331
2.604 13.548
3.533 13.757
2.841 11.39
3.106 13.757
2.826 13.548
2.73 11.39
2.672 2.672
2.881 6.213
10.799 13.548
3.292 5.997
2.906 13.757
3.106 13.548
2.815 11.39
2.531 8.737
3.08 13.757
-------
Table 11-8. Main Daily Intake of Meat and Dairy Products Per Individual in a Day for USDA 1977-78, 87-88, 89-91, 94, and
95 Surveys
Food Product
Beef
Poultry
Meat Mixtures1
Dairy Products2
77-78 Data
(g-day)
52
25
69
314
87-88 Data
(g/day)
32
26
86
290
89-91 Data
(g/day)
26
27
90
286
94 Data
(g/day)
24
29
95
277
95 Data
(g/day)
27
24
104
284
1 Includes mixtures having meat, poultry, or fish as a main ingredient; frozen meals in which the main course is a
meat, poultry, or fish item; meat, poultry, or fish sandwiches coded as a single item; and baby-food meat and
poultry mixtures.
2 Includes total milk, cream, milk desserts, and cheese. Total milk includes fluid milk, yogurt, flavored milk, milk
drinks, meal replacements with milk, milk-based infant formulas, and unreconstituted dry milk and powdered
mixtures.
Sources: USDA, 1980; 1992; 1996a; 1996b.
-------
Table 11-9. Mean Per Capita Intake Rates for Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Products (g/kg-d
Based on All
Raw Agricultural Commodity3
Milk-Non-Fat Solids
Milk-Non-Fat Solids (Food additive)
Milk-Fat Solids
Milk-Fat Solids (Food additive)
Milk Sugar (Lactose)
Beef-Meat Byproducts
Beef (Organ Meats) - Other
Beef - Dried
Beef (Boneless) - Fat (Beef Tallow)
Beef (Organ Meats) - Kidney
Beef (Organ Meats) - Liver
Beef (Boneless) - Lean (w/o Removeable Fat)
Goat-Meat Byproducts
Goat (Organ Meats) - Other
Goat (Boneless) - Fat
Goat (Organ Meats) - Kidney
Goat (Organ Meats) - Liver
Goat (Boneless) - Lean (w/o Removeable Fat)
Horse
Rabbit
Sheep - Meat Byproducts
Sheep (Organ Meats) - Other
Sheep (Boneless) - Fat
Sheep (Organ Meats) - Kidney
Sheep (Organ Meats) - Liver
Sheep (Boneless) - Lean (w/o Removeable Fat)
Pork - Meat Byproducts
Pork (Organ Meats) - Other
Pork (Boneless) - Fat (Including Lard)
Pork (Organ Meats) - Kidney
Pork (Organ Meats) - Liver
Pork (Boneless) - Lean (w/o Removeable Fat)
Meat, Game
Turkey - Byproducts
Turkey - Giblets (Liver)
Turkey - Flesh (w/o Skin, w/o Bones)
Turkey - Flesh (+ Skin, w/o Bones)
Turkey - Unspecified
Poultry, Other - Byproducts
Poultry, Other - Giblets (Liver)
Poultry, Other - Flesh (+ Skin, w/o Bones)
Eggs - Whole
Eggs - White Only
Eggs - Yolk Only
Chicken - Byproducts
Chicken - Giblets (Liver)
Chicken - Flesh (w/o Skin, w/o Bones)
Chicken - Flesh (+ Skin, w/o Bones)
NA = Not applicable
a Consumed in any raw or prepared form.
Source: DRES database (based on 1977-78 NFCS)
Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Average Consumption
(Grams/kg Body Weight/Day)
0.9033354
0.9033354
0.4297199
0.4297199
0.0374270
0.0176621
0.0060345
0.0025325
0.3720755
0.0004798
0.0206980
1.1619987
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000397
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0001891
0.0000000
0.0014207
0.0000501
0.0000109
0.0042966
0.0000090
0.0000000
0.0124842
0.0250792
0.0038496
0.2082022
0.0000168
0.0048194
0.3912467
0.0063507
0.0002358
0.0000537
0.0078728
0.0481655
0.0000954
0.0000000
0.0002321
0.0053882
0.5645020
0.0092044
0.0066323
0.0000000
0.0050626
0.0601361
0.3793205
as consumed)
Standard Error
0.0134468
0.0134468
0.0060264
0.0060264
0.0033996
0.0005652
0.0007012
0.0004123
0.0048605
0.0003059
0.0014002
0.0159453
NA
NA
0.0000238
NA
NA
0.0001139
NA
0.00003544
0.0000381
0.0000197
0.0005956
0.0000079
NA
0.0015077
0.0022720
0.0003233
0.0032032
0.0000106
0.0004288
0.0060683
0.0010935
0.0000339
0.0000370
0.0007933
0.0026028
0.0000552
NA
0.0001440
0.0007590
0.0076651
0.0004441
0.0004295
NA
0.0005727
0.0021616
0.0104779
-------
Table 11-10. Mean Meat Intakes Per Individual in a
Total
Meat,
Group Age (yrs.) Poultry and
Fish
Beef
Day, by Sex and
Age (g/day as consumed)" for 1977-1978
Lamb, Frankfurters,
Veal, Sausages,
Pork Game Luncheon Meats,
Spreads
Total
Poultry
Chicken
Only
Meat
Mixtures0
Males and Females
1 and Under
1-2
3-5
6-8
Males
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
75 and Over
Females
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
72
91
121
149
188
218
272
310
285
295
274
231
196
162
176
180
184
183
187
187
159
75 and Over 134
Males and Females
All Aaes
207
9
18
23
33
41
53
82
90
86
75
70
54
41
38
47
46
52
48
49
52
34
31
54
4
6
8
15
22
18
24
21
27
28
32
25
39
17
19
14
19
17
19
19
21
17
20
3
(b)
(b)
1
3
(b)
1
2
1
1
1
2
7
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
2
2
15
15
17
19
25
25
33
30
26
29
22
19
20
18
16
18
16
14
12
12
9
20
4
16
19
20
24
27
37
45
31
31
31
29
28
27
23
28
26
24
24
26
30
19
27
1
13
19
19
21
24
32
43
29
28
29
26
25
23
22
27
24
22
21
24
25
16
24
51
32
49
55
71
87
93
112
94
113
86
72
54
55
61
61
61
66
63
60
47
49
72
" Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78 data for one day.
" Less than 0.5 g/day but more than 0.
0 Includes mixtures containing meat, poultry, or fish as a main ingredient.
Source: USDA, 1980.
-------
Table 11-11. Mean Meat Intakes Per Individual in a Day,
by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1987-1988
Total Meat, Lamb, Frankfurters,
Group Poultry, and Veal, Sausages,
Age (yrs.) Fish Beef Pork Game Luncheon
Meats
Males and Females
5 and Under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
All individuals
92 10 9 <0.5
156 22 14 <0.5
252 38 17 1
250 44 19 23
151 26 9 1
169 31 10 <0.5
170 29 12 1
193 32 14 1
11
13
20
2
11
18
13
17
Total
Poultry
14
27
27
31
20
17
24
26
Chicken
Only
12
24
20
25
17
13
18
20
Meat
Mixtures"
39
74
142
108
74
80
73
86
" Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88 data for one day.
" Includes mixtures containing meat, poultry, or fish as a main ingredient.
Source: USDA, 1992.
-------
Table 11-12. Mean Dairy
Group Age (yrs.)
1 and Under
1-2
3-5
6-8
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
75 and Over
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
75 and Over
All Aaes
Product Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by
Total Milk
618
404
353
433
432
504
519
388
243
203
180
217
193
402
387
316
224
182
130
139
166
214
266
3 Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption
Source: USDA, 1980.
Fluid Milk
361
397
330
401
402
461
467
353
213
192
173
204
184
371
343
279
205
158
117
128
156
205
242
Survey 1977-78 data
Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3
Cheese
1
8
9
10
8
9
13
15
21
18
17
14
18
7
11
11
18
19
18
19
14
20
15
for one day.
for 1977-1978
Eggs
5
20
22
18
26
28
31
32
38
41
36
36
41
14
19
21
26
26
23
24
22
19
27
-------
Table 11-13. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1987-1988
Group Age (yrs.)
Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
All individuals
" Based on USDA Nationwide
Source: USDA, 1992.
Total Fluid Milk
347
439
392
202
310
260
148
224
Food Consumption
Whole Milk
177
224
183
88
135
124
55
99
Survey 1987-88 data
Lowfat/Skim
Milk
129
159
168
94
135
114
81
102
for one day.
Cheese
7
10
12
17
9
12
15
14
Eggs
11
17
17
27
14
18
17
20
-------
Table 11-14. Mean Meat Intakes Per Individual in a Day,
Total Meat,
Group Poultry, and
Age (yrs.) Fish Beef Pork
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994
Males and Females
5 and Under 94 87 10 8 6
Males
6-11 131 161 19 18 9
12-19 238 256 31 29 11
20 and over 266 283 35 41 17
Females
6-11 117 136 18 16 5
12-19 164 158 23 22 5
20 and over 168 167 18 21 9
All individuals 195 202 24 27 11
a Based on USDA CSFI1 1994 and 1995 data for one day.
" Less than 0.5 g/day but more than 0.
0 Includes mixtures containing meat, poultry, or fish as a main
Source: USDA, 1996a; 1996b.
1995
4
7
11
14
5
7
11
10
by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1994 and
Lamb, Veal,
Game
1994
(b)
0
1
2
(b)
(b)
1
1
1995
(b)
(b)
1
1
(b)
0
1
1
Frankfurters,
Sausages,
Luncheon
Meats
1994
17
22
21
29
18
16
16
21
1995
18
27
27
27
20
10
15
21
Total Poultry
1994
16
19
40
39
19
20
25
29
1995
15
25
26
31
17
19
22
24
1995
Chicken Only
1994
14
16
29
30
15
15
20
23
1995
14
22
23
27
14
18
19
21
Meat
Mixtures0
1994
41
51
119
124
51
94
87
98
1995
39
68
150
149
69
82
83
104
ingredient.
-------
Table 11-15. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Individual
Group Age (yrs.)
Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
All individuals
a Based on USDA CSFII
Total Fluid Milk
1994
424
407
346
195
340
239
157
229
1994 and 1995
1995
441
400
396
206
330
235
158
236
data for one day.
Whole
1994
169
107
105
50
101
75
37
65
in a Day, by
Milk
1995
165
128
105
57
93
71
32
66
Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1994 and
Lowfat
1994
130
188
160
83
136
88
56
89
Milk
1995
129
164
176
88
146
107
57
92
Cheese
1994
12
11
19
19
17
14
16
17
1995
9
12
20
16
13
13
15
15
1995
Eggs
1994
11
13
18
23
12
13
15
17
1995
13
15
24
23
15
17
16
19
Source: USDA, 1996a; 1996b.
-------
Table 11-16. Mean and Standard Error for the Dietary Intake
of Food Sub Classes Per Capita by Age (g/day as consumed)
Fresh Cows Other Dairy
Age (yrs.)
All Ages
Milk
253.5 ± 4.9
Products
55.1 ± 1.2
<1 272.0 ±31.9 296.7 ±7.6
1-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40-59
>60
Source: U.S.
337.3 ± 15.6
446.2 ± 13.1
456.0 ± 12.3
404.8 ± 12.9
264.3 ± 16.4
217.6 ±17.2
182.9 ± 13.5
169.1 ± 10.5
192.4 ±11.8
EPA, 1984a (based
41.0 ±3.7
47.3 ± 3.1
53.3 ± 2.9
52.9 ±3.1
44.2 ± 4.0
51.5 ±4.1
53.8 ± 3.2
52.0 ± 2.5
55.9 ± 2.8
on 1977-78
Eggs
26.9 ± 0.5
4.9 ± 3.2
19.8 ±1.6
17.0 ±1.3
19.3 ±1.2
24.8 ± 1.3
28.3 ± 1.7
27.9 ± 1.7
30.1 ± 1.4
31.1 ±1.0
28.7 ± 1.2
NFCS).
Beef
87.6 ±1.1
18.4 ± 7.4
42.2 ± 3.7
63.4 ± 3.1
81.9 ±2.9
99.5 ± 3.0
103.7 ± 3.9
103.8 ±4.0
105.8 ± 3.2
99.0 ± 2.5
74.3 ± 2.8
Pork
28.2 ± 0.6
5.8 ± 3.6
13.6 ±1.8
18.2 ±1.5
22.2 ± 1.4
29.5 ± 1.5
29.6 ± 1.9
31.8 ±2.0
33.0 ± 1.5
33.5 ± 1.2
27.5 ± 1.3
Poultry
31.3 ±0.8
18.4 ±4.9
19.0 ± 2.4
24.7 ± 2.0
30.0 ± 1.9
33.0 ± 2.0
33.0 ± 2.6
33.8 ± 2.7
34.0 ± 2.1
33.8 ± 1.6
31.5 ±1.8
Other Meat
25.1 ± 0.4
2.6 ± 2.8
17.6 ± 1.4
22.3 ± 1.2
26.1 ±1.1
27.6 ±1.1
28.8 ± 1.5
28.9 ± 1.5
28.4 ±1.2
27.4 ± 0.9
21.1 ±1.0
-------
Table 11-17. Mean and Standard Error for the Per Capita Daily Intake of Food Class and Sub Class by Region (g/day as
consumed)
US Population
Northeast
North Central
South
West
Dairy Products (Total)
Fresh Cows Milk
Other
Eggs
Meats (Total)
Beef and Veal
Pork
Poultry
Other
308.6 ± 5.3
253.5 ± 4.9
55.1 ± 1.2
26.9 ± 0.5
172.2 ± 1.6
87.6 ±1.1
28.2 ± 0.6
31.3 ±0.8
25.1 ± 0.4
318.6 ± 10.4
256.1 ± 9.7
62.5 ± 2.3
23.8 ± 1.0
169.9 ± 3.3
82.3 ± 2.3
28.8 ±1.1
31.7 ±1.5
27.1 ±0.9
336.1 ± 10.0
279.7 ± 9.4
56.5 ± 2.2
23.5 ± 0.9
176.9 ±3.1
92.9 ± 2.2
29.6 ±1.1
26.6 ± 1.4
27.8 ± 0.8
253.6 ± 8.4
211.0 ±7.8
42.6 ± 1.9
31.0 ±0.8
171.9 ±2.6
84.0 ± 1.8
30.1 ±0.9
36.5 ± 1.2
21.3 ±0.7
348.1 ± 12.3
283.5 ±11.5
64.6 ± 2.7
29.1 ± 1.2
168.6 ± 3.9
92.9 ± 2.7
22.1 ± 1.3
28.9 ± 1.8
24.7 ± 1.0
NOTE: Northeast = Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
North Central = Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
South = Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma.
West = Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and
California.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1984b (based on 1977-78 NFCS).
-------
Table 11-18. Consumption of Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Products for Different Age Groups (averaged across sex), and
Estimated Lifetime Average Intakes for 70 Kg Adult Citizens Calculated from the FDA Diet Data.
Produce
Baby Toddler
(0-1 yrs) 1-6yrs)
Child Teen Adult Old Estimated
(6-14 yrs) (14-20 yrs) (20-45 yrs) (45-70 yrs) Lifetime
Intake1
g - dry weight/day
Beef
Beef Liver
Lamb
Pork
Poultry
Dairy
Eggs
Beef Fat
Beef Liver Fat
Lamb Fat
Dairy Fat
Pork Fat
Poultry Fat
3.99 9.66
0.17 0.24
0.14 0.08
1.34 4.29
2.27 3.76
40.70 32.94
3.27 6.91
2.45 6.48
0.05 0.07
0.14 0.08
38.99 16.48
2.01 8.19
1.10 0.83
15.64
0.30
0.06
6.57
5.39
38.23
7.22
11.34
0.08
0.07
20.46
10.47
1.12
21.62
0.36
0.05
8.86
7.03
43.52
7.52
16.22
0.10
0.06
24.43
12.75
1.41
23.28
1.08
0.30
10.27
7.64
27.52
8.35
20.40
0.29
0.31
18.97
14.48
1.54
18.34
1.2
0.21
9.94
6.87
22.41
9.33
14.07
0.33
0.22
14.51
13.04
1.31
19.25
0.89
0.20
9.05
6.70
28.87
8.32
15.50
0.25
0.21
18.13
12.73
1.34
1 The estimated lifetime dietary intakes were estimated by:
Estimated lifetime intake = IR(0-1)
where IR = the intake rate for a specific age group.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1989 (based in 1977-78 MFCS and
+ 5vrs * IR (1 -5) + 8 vrs * IR (6-1 31 + 6 vrs
NHANES II data).
70 years
*IR (14-19) +25 vrs*
IR (20-44) + 25 vrs * IR (45-70)
-------
Table 11-19. Per Capita Consumption of Meat and Poultry in 1991a
Food Item
Per Capita Consumption
Carcass" Weight
(g/davl'
Per Capita
Consumption RTC1
(g/davl'
Per Capita Consumption Retail
Cut Equivalent"
(g/davl'
Per Capita Consumption Boneless
Trimmed Equivalent"
(g/davl'
Red Meat
Beef
Veal
Pork
Lamb and Mutton
Total8
Poultry
Young Chicken
Other Chicken
Chicken
Turkey
Total'
118.3
1.5
8.0
2.0
201.7
91.3
22.2
109.2
82.8
1.2
62.1
1.7
147.9
78.3
1.7
77.0
78.4
0.99
58.3
1.2
139.1
54.5W
17.5"
72.1
Includes processed meats and poultry in a fresh basis; excludes shipments to U.S. territories; uses U.S. total population, July 1, and does not include
residents of the U.S. territories.
Beef-Carcass-Weight is the weight of the chilled hanging carcass, which includes the kidney and attached internal fat [kidney, pelvic, and heart fat (kph)]
but not head, feet, and unattached internal organs. Definitions of carcass weight for other red meats differ slightly.
RTC - ready-to-cook poultry weight is the entire dressed bird which includes bones, skin, fat, liver, heart, gizzard, and neck.
Retail equivalents in 1991 were converted from carcass weight by multiplying by a factor of 0.7, 0.83, 0.89, and 0.776 for beef, veal, lamb, and pork,
respectively; 0.877 was the factor used each for young chicken and other chicken.
Boneless equivalent for red meat derived from carcass weight in 1991 by using conversion factors of 0.663, 0.685, 0.658 and 0.729 for beef, veal, lamb,
and pork, respectively; 0.597, 0.597 and 0.790 were the factors used foryoung chicken, other chicken, and turkey.
Original data were presented in Ibs; converted to g/day by multiplying by a factor of 453.6 g/lb and dividing by 365 days/yr.
Computed from unrounded data.
Includes skin, neck, and giblets.
Source: USDA. 1993.
-------
Table 11-20. Per Capita Consumption of Dairy Products in 1991a
Food Item Per Capita
Consumption
(q/dav)J
Eggs
Farm Weight"6 37.8
Retail Weight06 37.3
Fluid Milk and Cream 289.7
Plain Whole Milk 105.3
Lowfat Plain Milk (2%) 98.1
Lowfat Plain Milk (1%) 25.8
Skim Plain Milk 29.7
Whole Flavored Milk and Drink 3.4
Lowfat Flavored Milk and Drink 8.5
Buttermilk (lowfat and skim) 4.2
Half and Half Cream 3.9
Light Cream 0.4
Heavy Cream 1.6
Sour Cream 3.2
Eggnog 0.5
Evaporated and Condensed Milk'
Canned Whole Milk 2.6
Bulk Whole Milk 1.4
Bulk and Canned Skim Milk 6.2
Total6 10.2
Dry Milk Products'
Dry Whole Milk 0.5
Nonfat Dry Milk 3.2
Dry Buttermilk 0.3
Total6 4.0
Dried Whey 4.5
Butter 5.2
Food Item
Cheese
American
Cheddar
Other"
Italian
Provolone
Romano
Parmesan
Mozzarella
Ricotta
Other
Miscellaneous
Swiss'
Brick
Muenster
Cream
Neufchatel
Blue9
Other
Processed Products
Cheese
Foods and spreads
Cheese Content
Consumed as Natural
Cottage Cheese (lowfat)
Frozen Dairy Products
Ice Cream
Ice Milk
Sherbet
Other Frozen Products"
Total6
All Diary Products
USDA Donations
Commercial Sales
Total
" All per capita consumption figures use U.S. total populations, except fluid milk and cream data,
Per Capita
Consumption
(g/dav)J
11.2
2.5
0.8
0.2
0.6
9.0
1.0
0.07
1.5
0.07
0.5
1.9
0.3
0.2
1.2
6.1
4.7
8.5
22.6
1.6
20.3
9.2
1.5
5.3
36.4
17.1
685.2
702.4
which are based on
U.S. residential population. For eggs, excludes shipments to U.S. territories, uses U.S. total population, July 1, which
does not include U.S. territories.
" A dozen eggs converted at 1.57 pounds.
0 The factor for converting farm weight to retail weight was 0.97 in 1960 and was increased 0.003
reached in 1990.
" Includes Colby, washed curd, Monterey, and Jack.
6 Computed from unrounded data.
' Includes imports of Gruyere and Emmenthaler.
9 Includes Gorgonzola.
per year until 0.985 was
11 Includes mellorine, frozen yogurt beginning 1981, and other nonstandardized frozen diary products.
' Includes quantities used in other dairy products.
J Original data were presented in Ibs, conversions to g/day were calculated by multiplying by a factor of 453.6 and
dividing by 365 days.
Source: USDA. 1993.
-------
Table 11-21. Adult Mean Daily Intake (as consumed) of Meat and Poultry Grouped by Region and Gender3
Mean Daily Intake (g/day)
Region
Pacific Mountain North Central Northeast South
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Food Item
Beef
Pork
Lamb
Veal
Variety
Meats/Game
Processed Meats
Poultry
84.8
18.6
1.3
0.4
11.1
22.8
67.3
52.8
12.6
1.2
0.2
7.9
15.4
56.1
89.8
23.7
0.5
0.2
9.1
22.9
51.0
59.6
16.8
0.3
0.2
7.4
13.2
45.2
86.8
26.5
0.4
0.4
11.9
26.3
51.7
55.9
18.8
0.4
0.4
8.0
15.8
44.7
71.8
22.4
1.3
2.8
8.1
21.2
56.2
46.6
15.9
1.0
1.5
6.8
15.5
49.2
87.3
24.4
0.5
0.3
9.4
26.0
57.7
54.9
17.2
0.3
0.3
7.8
17.0
50.2
" Adult population represents consumers ages 19 and above.
NOTE: Pacific = Washington, Oregon and California
Mountain = Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada
North Central = Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
Northeast = Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
South = Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Source: National Livestock and Meat Board, 1993.
-------
Table 11-22. Amount (as consumed) of Meat Consumed by Adults Grouped by Frequency of Eatings6
Percent of Eaters
Frequency of Eatings
Percent of Total
Eaters
Male
Female
Total
Consumption
for 14 Days
(q)
Median Daily
Intake
(q/dav)
Non-Meat Eaters3
Light Meat Eaters"
Medium Meat Eaters0
Heavv Meat Eaters"
1%
30%
33%
36%
20
27
39
73
80
73
61
27
None
<1025
1025-1584
>1548
None
54
93
144
a A female who is employed and on a diet. She lives alone or in a small household (without children).
" Female who may or may not be on a diet. There are probably 2-4 people in her household but that number is not likely
to include children.
0 This person may be of either sex, might be on a diet, and probably lives in a household of 2-4 people, which may
include children.
" Male who is not on a diet and lives in a household of 2-4 individuals, which may include children.
6 Adult population represents consumers ages 19 and above.
Source: National Livestock and Meat Board. 1993.
-------
Table 11-23. Quantity (as consumed) of Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion
and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Three Days
% Indiv. using Quantity consumed per eating
food in 3 days occasion
Food category (g)
Average
Meat3
Beef
Pork
Lamb
Veal
Poultry
Chicken
Turkey
Dairy Products
Eggs
Butter
Margarine
Milkb
Cheese0
84.6
67.3
49.9
1.5
2.3
42.8
38.7
5.8
54.3
31.4
43.1
82.5
40
107
133
69
146
130
128
131
105
82
12
11
203
41
Standard
Deviation
85
85
69
84
71
77
76
73
44
13
11
134
28
Consumers-only
Quantity consumed per eating occasion at Specified Percentiles (g)
5 25 50 75 90 95 99
16 46 86 140 224 252 432
41 84 112 168 224 280 448
8 16 44 92 160 194 320
43 88 123 184 227 280 448
42 84 112 168 224 276 352
42 82 112 168 224 280 388
43 84 112 170 224 280 388
28 57 86 129 172 240 350
40 50 64 100 128 150 237
2 5 7 14 28 28 57
2 5 7 14 28 28 57
15 122 244 245 366 488 552
14 28 28 56 58 85 140
a Meat - beef, pork, lamb, and veal.
" Milk - fluid milk, milk beverages, and milk-based infant formulas.
c Cheese - natural and processed cheese.
Source: Pao et al., 1982 (based on 1977-78 NFCS).
-------
Table 11-24. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible Portions)
of Selected Meat and Dairy Products3
Product
Meats
Beef
Lean only
Lean and fat, 1/4 in. fat trim
Brisket (point half)
Lean and fat
Brisket (flat half)
Lean and fat
Lean only
Pork
Lean only
Lean and fat
Cured shoulder, blade roll, lean and fat
Cured ham, lean and fat
Cured ham, lean only
Sausage
Ham
Ham
Lamb
Lean
Lean and fat
Veal
Lean
Lean and fat
Rabbit
Composite of cuts
Chicken
Meat only
Meat and skin
Turkey
Meat only
Meat and skin
Ground
Fat Percentage
6.16
9.91
19.24
21.54
22.40
4.03
5.88
9.66
14.95
17.18
20.02
12.07
7.57
38.24
4.55
9.55
5.25
9.52
21.59
20.94
2.87
6.58
6.77
11.39
5.55
8.05
3.08
7.41
15.06
13.60
2.86
4.97
8.02
9.73
6.66
Comment
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Unheated
Center slice
Raw, center, country style
Raw, fresh
Cooked, extra lean (5% fat)
Cooked, (11% fat)
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
-------
Table 11-24. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible Portions)
of Selected Meat and Dairy Products3 (continued)
Product
Dairy
Milk
Whole
Human
Lowfat(1%)
Lowfat(2%)
Skim
Cream
Half and half
Medium
Heavy -whipping
Sour
Butter
Cheese
American
Cheddar
Swiss
Cream
Parmesan
Cottage
Colby
Blue
Provolone
Mozzarella
Yogurt
Eggs
a Based on the lipid content in
Source: USDA, 1979-1984.
Fat Percentage
3.16
4.17
0.83
1.83
0.17
18.32
23.71
35.09
19.88
76.93
29.63
31.42
26.02
33.07
24.50; 28.46
1.83
30.45
27.26
25.24
20.48
1.47
8.35
100 grams, edible portion.
Comment
3.3% fat, raw or pasteurized
Whole, mature, fluid
Fluid
Fluid
Fluid
Table or coffee, fluid
25% fat, fluid
Fluid
Cultured
Regular
Pasteurized
Hard; grated
Lowfat, 2% fat
Plain, lowfat
Chicken, whole raw, fresh or frozen
-------
Table 11-25.
Meat Product
3-oz cooked serving (85.05 g)
Beef, retail composite, lean only
Pork, retail composite, lean only
Lamb, retail composite, lean only
Veal, retail composite, lean only
Broiler chicken, flesh only
Turkev. flesh onlv
Fat Content of Meat Products
Total Fat
(g)
8.4
8.0
8.1
5.6
6.3
4.2
Percent Fat
Content (%)
9.9
9.4
9.5
6.6
7.4
4.9
Source: National Livestock and Meat Board. 1993
-------
Table 11-26. Fat Intake, Contribution of Various Food Groups to Fat Intake, and Percentage of the Population in
Various Meat Eater Groups of the U.S. Population
Average Fat Intake (g)
Percent of Population
Meat Group (%)a
Bread Group (%)
Milk Group (%)
Fruits (%)
Vegetables (%)
Fats/oil/sweets (%)
Total
Population
68.3
100
41
24
12
1
9
13
" Meat Group includes meat, poultry, dry beans,
Source: National Livestock and MeatBoard, 1993
Heavy Meat
Eaters
84.5
36
44
23
11
1
9
12
eggs, and nuts.
Medium Meat
Eaters
62.5
33
40
24
13
1
9
13
Light Meat
Eaters
53.5
30
37
26
14
1
9
14
Non-Meat
Eaters
32.3
1
33
25
14
1
11
17
-------
Table 11-27.
Age N
(vrs)
2-11 (months) 871
1-2
3-5
6-11
12-16
16-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
> 80
Total
> 2
a
1,231
1,647
1,745
711
785
1,882
1,628
1,228
929
1,108
851
809
14,801
13.314
Mean Total Daily Dietary Fat Intake (g/day) Grouped by Age and Gender3
Total
Mean Fat Intake
(g/day)
37.52
49.96
60.39
74.17
85.19
100.50
97.12
93.84
84.90
79.29
69.15
61.44
54.61
81.91
82.77
Total dietary fat intake includes all fat (i.e., saturated
beverages (excluding plain
drinking water).
N
439
601
744
868
338
308
844
736
626
473
646
444
290
7,322
6.594
Males
Mean Fat Intake
(g/day)
38.31
51.74
70.27
79.45
101.94
123.23
118.28
114.28
99.26
96.11
80.80
73.35
68.09
97.18
98.74
N
432
630
803
877
373
397
638
791
602
456
560
407
313
7,479
8.720
and unsaturated) derived from consumption
Females
Mean Fat Intake
(g/day)
36.95
48.33
61.51
68.95
71.23
77.46
76.52
74.06
70.80
63.32
59.52
53.34
47.84
67.52
68.06
of foods and
Source: Adapted from CDC. 1994.
-------
Table 11-28. Percentage Mean Moisture Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible Portions)3
Food
Meat
Beef
Beef liver
Chicken (light meat)
Chicken (dark meat)
Duck - domestic
Duck - wild
Goose - domestic
Ham - cured
Horse
Lamb
Lard
Pork
Rabbit - domestic
Turkey
Dairy Products
Eggs
Butter
Cheese American pasteurized
Cheddar
Swiss
Parmesan, hard
Parmesan, grated
Cream, whipping, heavy
Cottage, lowfat
Colby
Blue
Cream
Yogurt
Plain, lowfat
Plain, with fat
Human milk - estimated
from USDA Survey
Human
Skim
Lowfat
a Based on the water content in
Source: USDA, 1979-1984.
Moisture Content
Percent
71.60
68.99
74.86
75.99
73.77
75.51
68.30
66.92
72.63
63.98
73.42
0.00
70.00
72.81
69.11
74.16
74.57
15.87
39.16
36.75
37.21
29.16
17.66
57.71
79.31
38.20
42.41
53.75
85.07
87.90
87.50
90.80
90.80
100 grams, edible portion.
Comments
Raw, composite, trimmed, retail cuts
Raw
Raw, without skin
Raw, without skin
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw, roasted
Cooked, roasted
Raw, composite, trimmed, retail cuts
Raw
Raw
Raw, roasted
Cooked, roasted
Raw
Raw
Regular
Made from whole milk
Whole, mature, fluid
1%
-------
Table 11-29. Summary of Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Intake Studies
Survey Population Used in
Study Calculating Intake
Types of Data Used
Units
Food Items
KEY STUDIES
EPA Analysis of
1989-91 CSFII Data
Per capita
RELEVANT STUDIES
AIHC, 1994 Adults, Per Capita
EPA's ORES
(White et al., 1983)
NLMB, 1993
Pao et al., 1982
USDA, 1980; 1992;
1996a; 1996b
USDA, 1993
U.S. EPA/ORP,
1984a; 1984b
U.S. EPA/OST,
1989
Per capita (i.e., consumers
and nonconsumers)
Adult daily mean intake
rates
Consumers only serving
size data provided
Per capita and consumer
only grouped by age and
Per capita consumption
based on "food
disappearance"
Per capita
Estimated lifetime dietary
intake
1989-91 CSFII data;
Based on 3-day average
individual intake rates.
USDA NFCS 1977-78 data
presented in the 1989 version
of the Exposure Factors
Handbook that were analyzed
by Finley and Paustenbach
(1992).
1977-78 NFCS
3-day individual intake data
MRCA s Menu Census
1977-78 NFCS
3-day individual intake data
1977-78 and 1987-88 NFCS,
and 1994 and 1995 CSFII
1-day individual intake data
Based on food supply and
utilization data which were
provided by National
Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Customs Service
reports, and trade
associations.
1977-78 NFCS
Individual intake data
Based on FDA Total Diet
Study Food List which used
1977-78 NFCS data, and
NHANES II data
g/kg-day; as consumed
g/day
g/kg-day; as consumed
g/day; as consumed
g; as consumed
g/day; as consumed
g/day; as consumed
g/day; as consumed
g/day; dry weight
Distributions of intake rates for total
meats and total dairy; individual
food items.
Distribution for beef consumption
presented in @Risk format.
Intake for a wide variety of meats,
poultry, and dairy products
presented; complex food groups
were disaggregated
Intake rates for various meats by
region and gender.
Distributions of serving sizes for
meats, poultry, and diary products.
Total meat, poultry and fish, total
poultry, total milk, cheese and eggs.
Intake rates of meats, poultry, and
diary products; intake rates of
individual food items.
Mean intake rates for total meats,
total diary products, and individual
food items.
Various food groups; complex
foods disaggregated
-------
Table 11-30. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of
Meat and Dairy Products and Serving Size
Mean 95th Percentile Multiple Percentiles Study
Total Meat Intake
2.1 g/kg-day 5.1 g/kg-day see Table 11-1 EPA Analysis of CSFI11989-91 Data
Total Dairy Intake
8.0 g/kg-day 29.7 g/kg-day see Table 11-2 EPA Analysis of CSFI11989-91 Data
Individual Meat and Dairy Products
see Tables 11-3 to 11-7 see Tables 11-3 to see Tables 11-3 to 11-7 EPA Analysis of CSFI11989-91 Data
11-7
-------
Table 11-31. Confidence in Meats and Dairy Products Intake Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design (high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
USDA CSFII survey receives high level of peer
review. EPA analysis of these data has been peer
reviewed outside the Agency.
CSFII data are publicly available.
Enough information is included to reproduce
results.
Analysis is specifically designed to address food
intake.
Data focuses on the U.S. population.
This is new analysis of primary data.
Were the most current data publicly available at
the time the analysis was conducted for this
Handbook.
Survey is designed to collect short-term data.
Survey methodology was adequate.
Study size was very large and therefore
adequate.
The population studied was the U.S. population.
Survey was not designed to capture long term
day-to-day variability. Short term distributions
are provided for various age groups, regions, etc.
Response rate was adequate.
No measurements were taken. The study relied
on survey data.
The survey is representative of U.S. population.
Although there was only one study considered
key, these data are the most recent and are in
agreement with earlier data. The approach used
to analyze the data was adequate. However, due
to the limitations of the survey design,
estimation of long-term percentile values
(especially the upper percentiles) is uncertain.
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium confidence for average values;
Low confidence for long term percentile
distribution
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
N/A
1 Low
CSFII was the most recent data set publicly
available at the time the analysis was conducted
for this Handbook. Therefore, it was the only
study classified as key study.
Although the CSFII was the only study classified High
as key study, the results are in good agreement
with earlier data.
High confidence in the average;
Low confidence in the long-term upper
percentiles
-------
Table 12-1.
Population Group Percent
Consuming
Total 97.5%
Age (years)
< 01 80.4%
1-2 95.8%
3-5 97.5%
6-1 1 97.7%
12-19 98.2%
20-39 98.4%
40-69 98.3%
70 + 98.7%
Season
Fall 97.9%
Spring 97.0%
Summer 97.5%
Winter 97.6%
Urbanization
Central City 97.6%
Nonmetropolitan 96.9%
Suburban 97.8%
Race
Asian 94.0%
Black 96.9%
Native American 87.7%
Other/NA 97.1%
White 97.9%
Region
Midwest 97.3%
Northeast 97.6%
South 97.9%
West 97.2%
Includes breads; sweets such as cakes,
mixtures.
Note: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analysis of the
MEAN
4.061
7.049
10.567
9.492
6.422
3.764
3.095
2.792
3.263
4.282
3.983
3.948
4.031
4.159
4.013
4.02
6.479
4.372
3.98
4.561
3.962
4.016
4.255
3.943
4.116
Per Capita Intake of Total Grains Including Mixtures (g/kg-day as consumed)3
SE
0.033
0.361
0.285
0.201
0.117
0.065
0.035
0.031
0.066
0.066
0.071
0.062
0.063
0.061
0.067
0.049
0.402
0.103
0.276
0.208
0.035
0.07
0.079
0.052
0.072
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0.74
0
2.86
3.13
2.14
1.15
0.70
0.69
0.38 0.89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
pie, and pastries; snack and
1989-91 CSFII.
0.84
0.70
0.74
0.70
0.75
0.60
0.80
0
0.55
0
0
0.79
0.79
0.78
0.71
0.69
P10
1.16
0
4.34
4.35
2.88
1.52
1.08
0.98
1.24
1.24
1.10
1.13
1.17
1.13
1.11
1.18
1.46
0.94
0.61
1.21
1.18
1.17
1.26
1.10
1.13
P25 P50
1 .90 3.06
1 .46 6.05
6.55 9.59
6.09 8.91
4.07 5.70
2.16 3.31
1 .75 2.73
1 .59 2.47
1 .86 2.72
2.07 3.19
1 .79 2.95
1 .82 2.99
1.95 3.17
1.91 3.06
1.85 3.12
1 .90 3.04
3.02 5.44
1.81 3.05
1 .63 3.67
2.26 3.56
1 .90 3.03
1 .90 2.92
2.02 3.19
1 .83 3.06
1.92 3.13
breakfast foods made with grains; pasta;
P75
4.96
10.18
14.06
11.88
7.82
4.81
4.00
3.54
4.04
5.19
4.73
4.96
4.99
5.07
4.93
4.91
9.07
5.69
5.81
5.36
4.80
4.69
5.37
4.89
5.03
P90
8.04
16.75
18.92
15.13
10.26
6.46
5.47
4.96
5.81
8.54
7.78
7.98
8.00
8.71
7.81
7.79
14.13
9.47
6.90
8.87
7.79
7.80
8.44
8.13
7.98
cooked ready-to-eat, and
P95
10.77
19.50
21.57
19.14
12.85
8.03
6.55
6.09
7.63
11.88
10.52
10.16
10.48
11.61
10.08
10.63
14.63
12.47
9.00
11.72
10.20
11.04
11.61
10.20
10.90
P99
18.53
27.61
28.22
23.87
21.40
10.92
9.57
8.40
10.47
19.10
23.87
15.34
16.86
17.69
21.05
18.53
20.65
18.96
20.43
22.07
18.07
20.36
17.73
16.42
19.50
P100
42.98
37.41
42.98
33.08
31.93
19.30
25.71
20.34
21.45
37.77
31.93
30.13
42.98
37.77
31.93
42.98
23.78
40.07
21.84
30.51
42.98
31.93
42.98
40.07
25.89
baby cereals, rice and grain
-------
Table 1 2-2. Per Capita Intake of Breads (g/kg-day as consumed)3
Population Group Percent MEAN
Consuming
Total 91 .6%
Age (years)
< 01 50.9%
1-2 88.9%
3-5 91 .9%
6-1 1 93.4%
12-19 91.8%
20-39 92.9%
40-69 93.7%
70+ 95.1%
Season
Fall 91 .3%
Spring 91 .4%
Summer 92.4%
Winter 91 .2%
Urbanization
Central City 91 .2%
Nonmetropolitan 91 .7%
Suburban 91 .8%
Race
Asian 78.5%
Black 88.8%
Native American 81 .3%
Other/NA 89.1%
White 92.5%
Region
Midwest 91 .2%
Northeast 91.1%
South 91 .8%
West 92.1%
1.133
1.072
2.611
2.217
1.668
1.068
0.936
0.915
0.976
1.181
1.095
1.126
1.129
1.127
1.184
1.113
0.981
1.159
1.336
1.333
1.121
1.109
1.104
1.155
1.153
Includes breads, rolls, muffins, bagels, biscuits
Note: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analysis of the 1989-91
SE P1 P5
0.010
0.102
0.089
0.063
0.037
0.025
0.012
0.011
0.021
0.020
0.018
0.018
0.019
0.017
0.020
0.014
0.078
0.030
0.133
0.067
0.010
0.018
0.021
0.017
0.022
cornbread
CSFII.
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.15
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
and tortillas.
P10
0.19
0
0.44
0.44
0.40
0.21
0.18
0.20
0.29
0.17
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0
0.11
0.13
0
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.19
P25
0.48
0
1.17
1.19
0.88
0.45
0.43
0.46
0.56
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.49
0.48
0.49
0.34
0.37
0.41
0.62
0.51
0.50
0.51
0.46
0.49
P50
0.90
0.34
2.39
2.03
1.44
0.91
0.81
0.81
0.87
0.94
0.89
0.90
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.89
0.86
0.84
0.72
1.11
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.92
0.91
P75
1.50
1.65
3.86
3.04
2.18
1.46
1.27
1.25
1.31
1.57
1.45
1.51
1.50
1.50
1.54
1.49
1.51
1.55
1.80
1.70
1.48
1.49
1.48
1.54
1.48
P90
2.31
3.29
4.68
4.01
3.16
2.15
1.81
1.77
1.76
2.45
2.18
2.24
2.37
2.33
2.51
2.20
2.57
2.59
2.91
2.66
2.23
2.22
2.26
2.41
2.35
P95
3.04
4.06
5.42
5.14
3.98
2.78
2.27
2.08
2.15
3.16
2.91
2.98
3.07
2.98
3.24
2.89
2.61
3.29
4.13
3.79
2.95
2.91
2.83
3.13
3.12
P99
4.67
6.09
8.23
6.95
5.95
3.43
3.41
2.83
2.76
5.27
4.54
4.43
4.66
4.50
4.97
4.68
3.34
5.58
9.09
6.16
4.51
4.43
4.50
4.89
5.14
P100
12.99
12.99
10.29
12.35
9.17
7.44
7.04
11.16
11.81
11.81
12.35
9.17
12.99
11.81
12.99
12.35
3.34
8.94
11.71
9.98
12.99
7.97
9.98
12.99
12.35
-------
Table 1 2-3. Per Capita Intake of Sweets (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population Percent
Group Consuming
Total 50.2%
Age (years)
<01 28.1%
1-2 49.6%
3-5 59.2%
6-1 1 63.7%
12-19 54.0%
20-39 45.0%
40-69 49.1%
70 + 56.3%
Season
Fall 52.9%
Spring 48.3%
Summer 48.5%
Winter 51 .2%
Urbanization
Central City 45.3%
Nonmetropolitan 52.3%
Suburban 52.4%
Race
Asian 37.6%
Black 39.3%
Native American 33.9%
Other/NA 32.3%
White 53.2%
Region
Midwest 53.0%
Northeast 55.9%
South 47.5%
West 46.7%
MEAN
0.508
0.447
1.144
1.139
0.881
0.511
0.383
0.381
0.444
0.533
0.466
0.527
0.508
0.495
0.593
0.477
0.515
0.387
0.325
0.283
0.537
0.573
0.587
0.471
0.416
Includes cakes, cookies, pies, pastries,
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the
distribution
SE
0.011
0.096
0.111
0.079
0.046
0.030
0.015
0.015
0.029
0.022
0.021
0.025
0.022
0.021
0.025
0.015
0.101
0.030
0.075
0.088
0.012
0.024
0.027
0.018
0.022
doughnuts,
P1 P5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
breakfast bars,
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
and coffee
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cakes.
P50
0.13
0
0.43
0.56
0.43
0.22
0
0.08
0.16
0.14
0.10
0.06
0.19
0.11
0.25
0.10
0.05
0
0
0
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.09
0
P75
0.71
0.41
1.75
1.82
1.29
0.75
0.59
0.55
0.63
0.76
0.65
0.70
0.71
0.65
0.82
0.69
0.78
0.46
0.33
0.21
0.77
0.79
0.83
0.65
0.55
P90
1.50
1.42
3.32
3.01
2.33
1.47
1.24
1.13
1.29
1.55
1.36
1.50
1.55
1.58
1.42
1.82
1.20
1.47
0.64
1.55
1.65
1.63
1.39
1.25
P95
2.12
2.26
4.87
4.33
3.28
1.99
1.66
1.58
1.64
2.21
1.82
2.35
2.00
2.12
2.34
2.00
2.22
1.71
1.48
1.45
2.17
2.41
2.21
1.98
1.91
P99
3.96
5.51
6.51
6.78
5.39
3.25
2.48
2.70
2.73
3.82
3.58
4.54
4.00
4.24
4.52
3.55
2.52
3.51
2.44
3.04
4.09
4.00
4.60
3.89
3.33
P100
13.39
9.35
13.39
9.25
12.97
9.65
7.45
5.70
6.94
13.39
9.35
8.73
10.84
9.94
13.39
9.65
4.06
9.67
3.78
9.94
13.39
12.97
13.39
10.84
9.65
Source: Based on EPA's analysis of the 1989-91 CSFII.
-------
Table 12-4. Per Capita Intake
Population Group Percent
Consuming
Total 40.3%
Age (years)
< 01 31 .4%
1-2 46.7%
3-5 48.9%
6-11 43.1%
12-19 40.2%
20-39 38.2%
40-69 40.3%
70 + 40.9%
Season
Fall 41 .6%
Spring 38.3%
Summer 37.5%
Winter 43.9%
Urbanization
Central City 36.5%
Nonmetropolitan 39.8%
Suburban 43.3%
Race
Asian 22.1%
Black 25.9%
Native American 30.4%
Other/NA 28.3%
White 43.7%
Region
Midwest 45.2%
Northeast 35.8%
South 39.8%
West 39.4%
MEAN SE
0.160
0.321
0.398
0.393
0.269
0.170
0.123
0.104
0.074
0.180
0.136
0.165
0.160
0.158
0.144
0.169
0.077
0.107
0.142
0.139
0.170
0.202
0.113
0.162
0.155
Includes grain snacks such as crackers, salty
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analysis of the 1989-91
0.005
0.064
0.040
0.034
0.023
0.016
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.012
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.035
0.014
0.050
0.026
0.006
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.011
snacks, popcorn
CSFII.
of Snacks Containing Grain (g/kg-day as consumed)
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
and
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
pretzels.
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
0
0.10
0.12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0.18
0.35
0.65
0.58
0.32
0.21
0.15
0.14
0.10
0.18
0.15
0.18
0.19
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.04
0.07
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.23
0.10
0.19
0.16
P90
0.47
1.24
1.30
1.22
0.86
0.50
0.41
0.33
0.20
0.50
0.43
0.52
0.44
0.46
0.44
0.50
0.27
0.33
0.32
0.43
0.49
0.57
0.35
0.46
0.46
P95
0.78
1.82
1.61
1.65
1.24
0.74
0.60
0.46
0.36
0.87
0.67
0.86
0.76
0.81
0.66
0.80
0.37
0.59
0.44
0.69
0.81
0.99
0.61
0.80
0.76
P99
1.74
4.66
2.03
2.20
2.43
1.94
1.21
1.06
0.70
1.99
1.29
1.72
1.77
1.81
1.32
1.75
1.09
1.19
1.29
1.27
1.80
1.95
1.28
1.63
1.81
P100
6.73
5.73
6.73
4.76
4.00
3.51
4.60
2.85
1.47
6.73
3.43
5.73
4.60
3.70
4.76
6.73
1.34
4.76
4.60
1.91
6.73
6.73
5.73
4.76
4.60
-------
Population Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
1-2
3-5
6-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
15.0%
13.2%
20.9%
24.5%
25.0%
18.4%
13.2%
10.8%
12.5%
15.1%
13.2%
14.8%
17.0%
15.1%
13.3%
15.9%
10.1%
1 1 .9%
18.7%
13.7%
15.6%
14.7%
15.2%
12.3%
19.7%
Table 12-5
MEAN
0.144
0.255
0.418
0.446
0.307
0.193
0.086
0.063
0.096
0.146
0.120
0.145
0.168
0.142
0.120
0.157
0.076
0.114
0.156
0.079
0.152
0.121
0.158
0.130
0.184
Per Capita Intake of Breakfast Foods (g/kg-day as consumed) a
SE
0.012
0.108
0.103
0.078
0.045
0.038
0.014
0.011
0.025
0.021
0.023
0.022
0.027
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.060
0.032
0.073
0.037
0.013
0.020
0.034
0.019
0.024
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Includes breakfast foods made with grains such as pancakes, waffles,
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analysis of the 1989-91 .
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P10 P25
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
P50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0
0
0.37
0.56
0.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
P90
0.46
0.57
1.54
1.63
1.12
0.65
0.31
0.23
0.41
0.49
0.34
0.53
0.55
0.42
0.39
0.52
0.24
0.20
0.53
0.40
0.51
0.38
0.43
0.42
0.67
P95
0.95
2.08
2.50
2.33
1.69
1.16
0.61
0.51
0.65
0.93
0.71
0.98
1.04
0.93
0.85
1.06
0.61
0.78
0.61
0.43
0.97
0.75
1.02
0.92
1.14
P99 P100
2.46 13.61
3.82 5.72
4.62 9.92
3.92 1 1 .90
2.82 13.61
3.06 5.38
1 .53 4.41
0.95 2.98
1 .37 3.09
2.61 6.83
2.32 6.23
2.02 7.41
2.94 13.61
2.61 7.17
1.97 7.41
2.45 13.61
1 .04 1 .46
2.46 7.41
1 .23 6.83
1 .40 2.33
2.56 13.61
2.06 7.41
2.61 13.61
2.33 4.59
2.58 6.96
and french toast.
-------
Copulation
Group
Total
Age (years)
= 01
1-2
3-5
3-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
=all
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
\lonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
(\sian
Black
Other/NA
\A/hite
Region
Vlidwest
Mortheast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
13.6%
7.3%
14.0%
15.3%
15.9%
14.3%
15.2%
12.5%
9.9%
14.0%
13.9%
13.6%
12.9%
12.9%
1 1 .4%
15.4%
18.8%
6.6%
8.6%
15.1%
12.8%
21 .9%
9.2%
14.7%
MEAN
0.233
0.172
0.569
0.543
0.338
0.194
0.232
0.172
0.083
0.239
0.250
0.251
0.193
0.197
0.171
0.286
0.918
0.138
0.115
0.243
0.182
0.367
0.179
0.252
Table 12-6.
SE
0.018
0.124
0.212
0.142
0.063
0.047
0.027
0.028
0.029
0.038
0.036
0.039
0.034
0.034
0.032
0.028
0.355
0.054
0.083
0.019
0.030
0.043
0.035
0.038
MOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on EPA's analysis of the
Per Capita Intake of Pasta (g/kg-day as consumed)
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989-91
P5 P10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
CSFII.
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P90
0.90
0.00
1.72
2.19
1.47
0.77
0.96
0.62
0.03
0.94
0.96
0.97
0.68
0.65
0.63
1.12
3.80
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.74
1.47
0.45
1.07
P95
1.60
1.18
5.14
3.37
2.35
1.47
1.57
1.32
0.76
1.72
1.65
1.72
1.33
1.34
1.33
1.96
5.78
1.08
1.16
1.65
1.24
2.14
1.32
1.63
P99
3.67
3.79
6.68
6.51
3.43
3.36
2.83
2.67
1.57
3.77
3.28
3.80
3.22
3.43
2.48
3.92
6.51
3.27
2.43
3.46
2.76
4.62
3.63
3.25
P100
24.01
6.43
24.01
7.72
7.72
7.24
7.17
10.20
2.62
24.01
9.47
11.12
8.73
24.01
11.12
10.20
10.20
5.14
3.86
24.01
9.46
24.01
11.12
10.20
-------
Table 12-7. Per Capita Intake of Cooked Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
<01
1-2
3-5
6-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
NOTE:
Percent
Consuming
17.1%
17.9%
23.6%
21 .2%
18.1%
1 1 .0%
10.5%
18.3%
35.3%
21 .2%
15.8%
12.1%
19.1%
19.3%
20.0%
13.9%
30.3%
17.5%
12.6%
15.1%
15.5%
13.2%
21 .4%
15.2%
MEAN
0.441
1.350
1.783
1.335
0.669
0.156
0.166
0.307
0.782
0.573
0.439
0.288
0.463
0.523
0.483
0.369
0.838
0.372
0.510
0.382
0.507
0.395
0.396
0.483
SE
0.035
0.417
0.365
0.258
0.142
0.065
0.040
0.036
0.079
0.066
0.082
0.069
0.062
0.068
0.066
0.052
0.092
0.196
0.293
0.039
0.083
0.093
0.044
0.086
P1 P5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0
0
1.39
0
0
0
0
0
1.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P90
1.37
7.17
7.00
4.99
2.32
0
0
1.30
2.71
1.90
1.07
0.55
1.57
1.52
1.52
1.09
2.95
2.15
1.12
1.11
1.39
1.00
1.40
1.45
P95
2.79
8.60
9.41
8.18
4.49
1.26
1.33
2.20
3.80
3.71
2.29
1.98
3.12
3.27
2.72
2.35
4.45
2.99
3.18
2.32
3.01
2.73
2.48
3.12
P99
8.18
20.47
14.84
12.51
10.76
3.34
3.33
3.97
7.37
9.15
12.28
5.37
7.00
10.03
7.41
7.37
10.03
4.80
7.60
7.38
10.32
7.02
5.53
9.41
P100
28.63
24.16
28.63
18.66
16.42
11.85
13.18
18.23
10.03
28.63
21.84
24.16
24.34
28.63
20.94
24.34
28.63
5.73
20.94
24.34
21.85
24.34
28.63
16.47
SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source:
Based on
EPA's analysis of the 1989-91
CSFII.
-------
Table 12-8. Per Capita Intake of Rice (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population Percent
Group Consuming
Total 20.0%
Age (years)
< 01 11 .8%
1-2 24.4%
3-5 25.0%
6-1 1 20.8%
12-19 20.1%
20-39 21 .3%
40-69 19.6%
70+ 14.9%
Season
Fall 18.8%
Spring 21 .5%
Summer 19.3%
Winter 20.5%
Urbanization
Central City 26.1%
Nonmetropolitan 15.9%
Suburban 18.3%
Race
Asian 72.5%
Black 37.2%
Other/NA 37.7%
White 15.9%
Region
Midwest 12.3%
Northeast 20.3%
South 25.2%
West 20.4%
NOTE: SE
P = Percentile of the distribution
MEAN
0.357
0.405
0.811
0.736
0.504
0.316
0.341
0.259
0.229
0.307
0.395
0.376
0.350
0.449
0.311
0.320
2.353
0.603
0.655
0.281
0.207
0.378
0.455
0.349
SE
0.022
0.209
0.192
0.127
0.090
0.052
0.037
0.028
0.050
0.041
0.046
0.045
0.041
0.039
0.046
0.031
0.316
0.048
0.116
0.023
0.046
0.050
0.036
0.045
P1 P5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0
0
0.36
0.76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.18
0
0
2.83
0.87
0.80
0
0
0
0
0
P90
1.26
1.40
3.36
2.83
1.71
1.26
1.20
0.94
0.81
0.94
1.34
1.31
1.37
1.51
1.04
1.16
6.20
2.08
2.15
0.94
0.62
1.45
1.62
1.25
P95
2.15
2.89
4.52
3.77
3.33
1.91
1.90
1.64
1.73
2.13
2.47
2.05
2.09
2.51
1.90
2.01
10.39
2.93
3.78
1.79
1.25
2.15
2.71
1.84
P99
4.85
7.87
9.81
6.70
7.86
3.74
5.02
3.35
3.12
4.92
5.05
5.02
4.17
5.54
5.02
4.30
15.06
5.16
6.06
4.30
3.59
4.65
5.21
4.52
P100
17.59
15.54
17.59
14.35
13.39
9.60
12.69
12.00
7.97
16.74
15.54
12.55
17.59
16.74
12.91
17.59
17.59
12.91
10.71
15.54
13.39
16.74
15.54
17.59
= Standard error
Source: Based on EPA's analysis of the 1989-91
CSFII.
-------
Table 12-9. Per Capita Intake of Ready-to-Eat Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)3
Population Group Percent MEAN
Consuming
Total 45.6% 0.306
Age (years)
< 01 38.9% 0.431
1-2 70.7% 0.954
3-5 77.3% 1 .026
6-1 1 69.0% 0.631
12-19 50.8% 0.317
20-39 34.3% 0.174
40-69 37.1% 0.166
70 + 52.4% 0.222
Season
Fall 45.2% 0.293
Spring 45.6% 0.320
Summer 46.6% 0.330
Winter 44.8% 0.280
Urbanization
Central City 46.6% 0.319
Nonmetropolitan 43.6% 0.283
Suburban 46.0% 0.307
Race
Asian 33.6% 0.218
Black 41.1% 0.269
Native American 38.6% 0.298
Other/NA 42.9% 0.340
White 46.7% 0.31 1
Region
Midwest 48.7% 0.328
Northeast 46.9% 0.286
South 41 .4% 0.284
West 47.7% 0.336
SE
0.007
0.059
0.057
0.044
0.025
0.019
0.010
0.008
0.013
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.065
0.018
0.078
0.050
0.008
0.015
0.017
0.012
0.016
P1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Incluldes dry ready-to-eat corn, rice, wheat, and bran cereals in the form
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentile of the distribution
Source: Based on
EPA's analysis of the
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of flakes,
P25
0
0
0
0.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
puffs, etc.
P50
0
0
0.74
0.83
0.45
0.16
0
0
0.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P75
0.42
0.64
1.46
1.48
0.92
0.48
0.23
0.25
0.36
0.40
0.44
0.45
0.39
0.43
0.38
0.44
0.24
0.40
0.32
0.43
0.42
0.47
0.38
0.40
0.46
P90
0.92
1.55
2.28
2.35
1.55
0.90
0.61
0.55
0.64
0.94
0.95
0.99
0.81
0.94
0.85
0.93
0.81
0.82
0.76
1.12
0.94
0.98
0.89
0.81
1.05
P95
1.37
1.94
2.89
2.99
1.97
1.14
0.88
0.74
0.83
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.22
1.42
1.33
1.36
1.28
1.16
1.23
1.59
1.39
1.37
1.33
1.26
1.47
P99
2.61
3.40
4.77
3.67
3.12
2.61
1.51
1.32
1.55
2.38
2.69
2.82
2.61
2.86
2.52
2.46
2.79
2.50
3.26
2.69
2.61
2.55
2.70
2.34
2.84
P100
7.12
4.40
6.47
5.65
7.12
4.06
5.11
3.36
2.71
7.12
5.88
5.65
6.47
5.11
7.12
6.47
3.12
4.46
4.40
4.18
7.12
7.12
6.47
5.88
5.11
1989-91 CSFII.
-------
Table 1 2-1 0. Per Capita Intake of Baby Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population Group
Total
Age (years)3
<01
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
Consuming
1.1%
28.5%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.3%
0.9%
1.0%
0.7%
2.1%
1.2%
3.1%
0.8%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
MEAN SE
0.037 0.051
1 .205 0.280
0.036 0.075
0.059 0.138
0.017 0.068
0.035 0.107
0.048 0.088
0.01 1 0.040
0.042 0.093
0.017 0.137
0.092 0.151
0.010 0.088
0.050 0.133
0.029 0.059
0.020 0.050
0.084 0.208
0.016 0.060
0.046 0.101
P1 P5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
P10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Data presented only for children less than 1 year of age. Available data for other age groups was based on a
NOTE: SE = Standard error
P = Percentileofthe
Source:
distribution
Based on EPA's analysis of the
1989-91 CSFII.
P75
0
0.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
very small
P90
0
4.59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P95
0
6.94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P99
0
16.99
0.69
0.13
0
0
1.05
0
0
1.10
4.59
0
2.94
0
0
1.25
0
1.18
P100
22.57
22.57
14.94
16.99
12.03
22.57
22.57
9.41
16.99
1.10
22.57
1.63
13.42
16.99
12.50
16.99
22.57
10.18
number of observations
-------
Table 12-11. Mean Daily Intakes of Grains Per Individual in a Day for
USDA 1977-78, 87-88, 89-91, 94, and 95 Surveys
Food Product
Grains
Grains
Mixtures
77-78 Data
(g/day)
215
52
87-88 Data
(g/day)
237
72
89-91 Data
(g/day)
273
89
94 Data
(g/day)
300
112
95 Data
(g/day)
303
107
Source: USDA, 1980; 1992; 1996a; 1996b.
-------
Table 12-12. Mean Per Capita Intake Rates for Grains Based
Average Consumption
Raw Agricultural Commodity" (Grams/kg Body Weight-Day)
Oats 0.0825748
Rice-rough 0.0030600
Rice-milled 0.1552627
Rye-rough 0.000001 0
Rye-germ 0.0002735
Rye-flour 0.0040285
Wheat-rough 0.1406118
Wheat-germ 0.0008051
Wheat-bran 0.0121575
Wheat-flour 1 .2572489
Millet 0.0000216
on All Sex/Age/Demographic Subgroups
Standard Error
0.0026061
0.0004343
0.0083546
0.0000483
0.0002922
0.0050410
0.0000789
0.0004864
0.0127412
0.0000104
a Consumed in any raw or prepared form.
Source: ORES data base (based on 1977-78 MFCS).
-------
Table 12-13. Mean Grain Intake Per
Group Age (years)
Males and Females
Under 1
1-2
3-5
6-8
Males
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
75 and Over
Females
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
75 and Over
Males and Females
All Ages
" Based on USDA Nationwide
Total Grains
42
158
181
206
238
288
303
253
256
234
229
235
196
214
235
196
161
163
161
155
175
178
204
Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day
Breads, Rolls,
Biscuits
4
27
46
53
67
76
91
84
82
82
78
71
70
58
57
57
44
49
49
52
57
54
62
Food Consumption Survey 1 977-78 data
b Includes mixtures containing grain as the main
Source: USDA. 1980.
ingredient.
Other Baked
Goods
5
24
37
56
56
80
77
53
60
58
57
60
50
59
61
43
36
38
37
40
42
44
49
for one day.
as consumed)" for 1 977-1 978
Cereals, Pasta
30
44
54
60
51
57
53
64
40
44
48
69
58
44
45
41
33
32
32
36
47
58
44
Mixtures,
Mainly Grainb
3
63
45
38
64
74
82
52
74
50
46
35
19
53
72
55
48
44
43
27
29
22
49
-------
Table 12-14.
Group
Age (years)
Males and Females 5 and
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and Over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and Over
All Individuals
Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)" for 1 987-1 988
Total
Grains
Under 167
268
304
272
231
239
208
237
Yeast
Breads
and Rolls
30
51
65
65
43
45
45
52
Quick
Breads,
Pancakes,
French
Toast
8
16
28
20
19
13
14
16
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88 data for one
b Includes mixtures containing grain as the main ingredient.
Source: USDA, 1992.
Cakes,
Cookies,
Pastries,
Pies
22
37
45
37
30
29
28
32
day.
Crackers,
Popcorn,
Pretzels,
Corn Chips
4
8
10
8
6
7
6
7
Cereals
and Pastas
52
74
72
58
66
52
53
57
Mixtures
, Mostly
Grain"
51
83
82
83
68
91
62
72
-------
Table 12-15. Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day
Group Yeast Breads
Age (years) Total Grains and Rolls
1994
Males and Females
5 and Under 213
Males
6-11 285
12-19 417
20 and Over 357
Females
6-11 260
12-19 317
20 and Over 254
All Individuals 300
1995 1994
210 26
341 51
364 53
365 64
286 43
296 40
257 44
303 50
1995
28
45
54
61
46
37
45
49
Quick Breads,
Pancakes,
French Toast
1994
11
15
30
22
16
16
16
18
1995
11
21
21
24
21
14
15
19
by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)' for
Cakes, Cookies,
Pastries, Pies
1994
22
42
54
43
37
39
33
38
1995
23
46
43
46
51
35
34
39
Crackers,
Popcorn,
Pretzels, Corn
Chips
1994
8
12
17
13
11
17
9
12
1995
7
18
22
15
14
16
10
13
1994 and
1995
Cereals and
Pastas
1994
58
66
82
86
57
63
59
70
1995
57
97
84
91
54
52
69
76
Mixtures, Mostly
Grainb
1994 1995
89 84
101 115
180 138
128 128
94 100
142 143
92 83
112 107
a Based on USDACSFII 1994 and 1995 data for one day.
b Includes mixtures containing grain as the main ingredient.
Source: USDA, 1996a; 1996b.
-------
Table 12-1 6.
Age (years)
All ages
Under 1
1 to 4
5 to 9
10to14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 59
60 and over
Source:
Mean and Standard Error for the
Breads
147.3+1.4
16.2+9.2
104.6+4.5
154.3+3.8
186.2+3.6
188.5+3.7
166.5+4.9
170.0+5.0
156.8+3.9
144.4+3.1
122.1+3.4
Daily Per Capita Intake of Grains,
Cereals
29.9+1 .3
37.9+8.2
38.4+4.0
39.5+3.4
36.4+3.2
28.8+3.3
20.2+4.3
18.2+4.4
18.8+3.5
24.7+2.7
42.5+3.0
by Age (g/day as consumed)
Other Grains
22.9+1 .7
1.8+10.9
14.8+5.4
22.7+4.5
25.6+4.2
27.8+4.4
25.0+5.8
26.6+5.9
26.4+4.6
23.3+3.6
19.3+4.0
U.S. EPA, 1984a (based on 1977-78 MFCS).
-------
Table 12-17. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Grains, by Region (g/day as consumed)
Region
Total Grains
Breads
Cereals
Other
Grains
All Regions
Northeast
North Central
South
West
200.0+3.0
203.5+5.8
192.8+5.6
202.2+4.7
202.6+6.9
147.3+1.4
153.1+2.8
150.9+2.7
143.9+2.3
139.5+3.3
29.9+1 .3
24.6+2.5
28.7+2.4
34.6+2.0
30.9+3.0
22.9+1 .7
25.9+3.3
13.3+3.2
23.7+2.7
32.1+4.0
NOTE: Northeast = Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania.
North Central = Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, and Kansas.
South = Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma.
West = Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1984b (based on 1977-78 NFCS).
-------
Table 1 2-1 8. Consumption of Grains (g dry weight/day) for Different Age Groups and
Estimated Lifetime Average Daily Food Intakes for a U.S. Citizen
(averaged across sex) Calculated from the FDA Diet Data
Wheat
Corn
Rice
Oats
Other Grain
Total Grain
(0-1)
27.60
4.00
2.22
3.73
0.01
37.56
(1-5)
42.23
15.35
4.58
2.65
0.08
64.82
Age
(6-13)
60.80
19.28
5.24
2.27
0.41
87.58
a The estimated lifetime dietary intakes were estimated by:
Estimated lifetime = IR(0-1) + 5vrs* IR (1-5) + 8 vrs* IR
(years)
(14-19)
79.36
23.21
5.89
1.89
0.73
110.34
(6-1 3) + 6 vrs *
Estimated'lifetime
(20-44) (45-70)
65.86 55.13 60.30
12.83 14.82 12.01
5.78 4.21 5.03
1 .32 2.00 1 .85
13.45 4.41 6.49
90.59 76.12 84.19
IR (1 4-1 9) + 25 vrs * IR (20-44) + 25 vrs * IR (45-701
70 years
where IR = the intake rate for a specific age group.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1989 (based on 1977-78 MFCS and NHANES II data).
-------
Table 12-19. Per Capita Consumption of Flour and Cereal Products in 1991a
Per Capita Consumption
Food Item (g/day)a
Total Wheat Flour" 169.8
Rye Flour 0.7
Rice0 20.9
Total Corn Products" 27.2
Oat Products8 10.7
Barley Products' 1.1
Total Flour and Cereal Products9 230.6
a Original data were presented in Ibs/yr; data were converted to g/day by multiplying by a factor of 454 g/lb and dividing by 365
days/yr. Consumption of most items at the processing level. Excludes quantities used in alcoholic beverages and fuel.
b Includes white, whole wheat, and durum flour.
c Milled basis.
d Includes corn flour and meal, hominy and grits, and corn starch.
8 Includes rolled oats, ready-to-eat cereals, oat flour, and oat bran.
f Includes barley flour, pearl barley, and malt and malt extract used in food processing.
9 Excludes wheat not ground into flour, for example, shredded wheat breakfast cereals.
Source: USDA, 1993.
-------
Table 12-20. Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eatinc
and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Three Days
Food category
Yeast Breads
Pancakes
Waffles
Tortillas
Cakes and Cupcakes
Cookies
Pies
Doughnuts
Crackers
Popcorn
Pretzels
Corn-based Salty Snacks
Pasta
Rice
Cooked Cereals
Readv-to-Eat Cereals
Source: Paoetal.. 1982
% Indiv.
using
food in 3
days
93.7
8.3
2.9
2.9
25.5
30.8
11.9
9.9
26.2
5.6
2.2
5.9
11.4
18.5
12.4
43.4
Quantity consumed
per eating occasion
(g)
Average
46
113
87
69
79
32
129
64
22
19
29
33
153
147
203
36
Standard
Deviation
26
85
74
39
59
30
60
40
21
22
28
30
108
91
110
25
Occasion
Consumers-only
Quantity consumed per eating occasion at specified percentiles (g)
5
21
27
20
28
23
7
57
26
6
5
3
9
35
41
31
8
25
25
54
40
30
41
14
97
42
12
9
12
18
70
88
123
22
50
44
81
78
60
63
26
120
43
15
15
21
21
140
165
240
29
75
50
146
100
90
99
40
150
84
24
18
36
40
210
125
245
45
90
75
219
158
120
144
60
195
106
42
36
57
60
280
263
360
60
95
100
282
200
140
184
84
236
126
57
45
85
80
320
350
480
84
99
140
438
400
210
284
144
360
208
113
108
160
156
560
438
490
120
(based on 1977-78 MFCS).
-------
Table 12-21.
Mean Moisture Content of Selected
Grains Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions
Moisture Content (Percent)
Food
Barley - pearled
Corn - grain - endosperm
Corn - grain - bran
Millet
Oats
Rice - rough - white
Rye - rough
Rye - flour - medium
Sorghum (including milo)
Wheat - rough - hard white
Wheat - germ
Wheat - bran
Wheat - flour - whole grain
Raw
10.09
10.37
3.71
8.67
8.22
11.62
10.95
9.85
9.20
9.57
11.12
9.89
10.27
Cooked Comments
68.80
crude
71.41
68.72
crude
crude
Source: USDA, 1979-1986.
-------
Study
KEY STUDIES
EPA Analysis of 1989-91
CSFII Data
RELEVANT STUDIES
EPA's ORES
(White etal., 1983)
Paoetal., 1982
USDA, 1980; 1992;
1996a;1996b
USDA, 1993b
U.S. EPA/ORP,
1984a;1984b
U.S. EPA/OST, 1989
Table
Survey Population Used in
Calculating Intake
Per capita
Per capita (i.e., consumers
and nonconsumers)
Consumers only serving size
data provided
Per capita and consumer
only grouped by age and sex
Per capita consumption
based on "food
disappearance"
Per capita
Estimated lifetime dietary
intake
12-22. Summary of Grain Intake
Types of Data Used
1989-91 CSFII data;
Based on 3-day average
individual intake rates.
1977-78 MFCS
3-day individual intake data
1977-78 MFCS
3-day individual intake data
1977-78 and 1987-88 MFCS,
and 1994 and 1995 CSFII
1 -day individual intake data
Based on food supply and
utilization data
1977-78 MFCS
Individual intake data
Based on FDA Total Diet Study
Food List which used 1 977-78
MFCS data, and NHANES II
data
Studies
Units
g/kg-day; as
consumed
g/kg-day; as
consumed
g; as consumed
g/day; as consumed
g/day; as consumed
g/day; as consumed
g/day; dry weight
Food Items
Distributions of intake rates for total
grain; individual grain items
Intake for a wide variety of grain
products presented; complex food
groups were disaggregated
Distributions of serving sizes for grain
products
Total grains and various grain
products
Intake rates of grain products
Mean intake rates for total grain
products, and individual grain items.
Various food groups; complex foods
disaggregated
-------
Table 12-23. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of Grain Products
Mean 95th Percentile Multiple Percentiles Study
Total Grain Intake
4.1 g/kg-day 10.8 g/kg-day see Table 12-1 EPA Analysis of CSFI11989-91 Data
Individual Grain Products
see Tables 12-2 to 12-10 see Tables 12-2 to 12-10 see Table 12-2 to 12-10 EPA Analysis of CSFI11989-91 Data
-------
Table 12-24. Confidence in Grain Products Intake Recommendation
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to U.S.
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of the
population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
USDA CSFII survey receives high level of peer
review. EPA analysis of these data has been peer
reviewed outside the Agency.
CSFII data are publicly available.
Enough information is included to reproduce results.
Analysis is specifically designed to address food
intake.
Data focuses on the U.S. population.
This is new analysis of primary data.
Were the most current data publicly available at the
time the analysis was conducted for this Handbook.
Survey is designed to collect short-term data.
Survey methodology was adequate.
Study size was very large and therefore adequate.
The population studied was the U.S. population.
Survey was not designed to capture long term day-to-
day variability. Short term distributions are provided
for various age groups, regions, etc.
Response rate was adequate.
No measurements were taken. The study relied on
survey data.
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium confidence for average values;
Low confidence for long term percentile
distribution
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
N/A
1 Low
CSFII was the most recent data set publicly available
at the time the analysis was conducted for this
Handbook. Therefore, it was the only study classified
as key study.
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Although the CSFII was the only study classified as
key study, the results are in good agreement with
earlier data.
The survey is representative of U.S. population.
Although there was only one study considered key,
these data are the most recent and are in agreement
with earlier data. The approach used to analyze the
data was adequate. However, due to the limitations
of the survey design estimation of long-term
percentile values (especially the upper percentiles) is
uncertain.
High
High confidence in the average;
Low confidence in the long-term upper
percentiles
-------
Table 12A-1 . Food Codes and Definitions Used in the Analysis of the 1989-91 USDA CSFII Grains Data
Food Product
Total Grains
Breads
Sweets
Snacks
Breakfast
Foods
Grain Mixtures
Food Codes and Descriptions
51 - breads
52- tortillas
53- sweets
54- snacks
55- breakfast foods
561 - pasta
562- cooked cereals and rice
57- ready-to-eat and baby cereals
Also includes the average portion of grain
mixtures (i.e., 31 percent) and the average
portion of meat mixtures (i.e., 13 percent)
made up by grain.
51 - breads
rolls
muffins
bagel
biscuits
corn bread
52- tortillas
53- cakes
cookies
pies
pastries
doughnuts
breakfast bars
coffee cakes
54- crackers
salty snacks
popcorn
pretzels
55- pancakes
waffles
french toast
58- grain mixtures
Food Product Food Codes and
Pasta 561-
Cooked 56200-
Cereals 56201-
56202-
56203-
562069-
56207-
56208-
56209-
Rice 56204-
56205-
5620601
Ready-to-eat 570-
Cereals 571-
572-
573-
574-
575-
576-
Baby Cereals 578-
Meat Mixtures 27-
28-
Descriptions
macaroni
noodles
spaghetti
includes grits.oatmeal,
cornmeal mush, millet,
etc.
includes all varieties of
rice
includes all varieties of
ready-to-eat cereals
baby cereals
meat mixtures
-------
Table 13-1.
Demographic
Factor
Total
Region/section
East
New England
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
East Central
West Central
South
Deep South
Rest of South
West
Rocky Mountain
Pacific
Size of community
City
Suburb
Small town
Rural
Household size
Single, separated,
divorced, widowed
Married, no children
Married, with children
1986 Vegetable Gardening by Demographic
Percentage of total
households that have
gardens (%)
38
33
37
32
50
50
50
33
44
29
37
53
32
26
33
32
61
54
45
44
Factors
Number of
households (million)
34
7.3
1.9
5.4
11.0
6.6
4.5
9.0
3.1
5.9
6.2
2.3
4.2
6.2
10.2
3.4
14.0
8.5
11.9
13.2
Source: National Gardening Association, 1987.
-------
Table 13-2. Percentage of Gardening
Growing Different Vegetables in
Vegetable
Artichokes
Asparagus
Beans
Beets
Broccoli
Brussel sprouts
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Chard
Corn
Cucumbers
Dried peas
Dry beans
Eggplant
Herbs
Kale
Kohlrabi
Leeks
Lettuce
Melons
Okra
Onions
Oriental vegetables
Parsnips
Peanuts
Peas
Peppers
Potatoes
Pumpkins
Radishes
Rhubarb
Spinach
Summer squash
Sunflowers
Sweet potatoes
Tomato
Turnips
Winter squash
Households
1986
Percent
0.8
8.2
43.4
20.6
19.6
5.7
29.6
34.9
14.0
5.4
3.5
34.4
49.9
2.5
8.9
13.0
9.8
3.1
3.0
1.2
41.7
21.9
13.6
50.3
2.1
2.2
1.9
29.0
57.7
25.5
10.2
30.7
12.2
10.2
25.7
8.2
5.7
85.4
10.7
11.1
Source: National Gardening Association, 1987.
-------
Table 13-3. Sub-category Codes and Definitions
Code
Definition
Description
Region"
1
2
3
4
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont
Includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin
Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia
Includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming
Urbanization
1
2
3
Central City
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
Cities with populations of 50,000 or more that is the main city within the metropolitan
statistical area (MSA).
An area that is generally within the boundaries of an MSA, but is not within the legal
limit of the central city.
An area that is not within an MSA.
Race
1
2
3
4
5,8,9
-
-
-
-
Other/NA
White (Caucasian)
Black
Asian and Pacific Islander
Native American, Aleuts, and Eskimos
Don't know, no answer, some other race
Responses to Survey Questions
Grow
Raise
Animals
Fish/Hunt
Farm
Question 75
Question 76
Question 77
Question 79
Did anyone in the household grow any vegetables or fruit for use in the household?
Did anyone in the household produce any animal products such as milk, eggs, meat,
or poultry for home use in your household?
Did anyone in the household catch any fish or shoot game for home use?
Did anyone in the household operate a farm or ranch?
Season
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
a Alaska and
-
-
-
-
Hawaii were not included.
April, May, June
July, August, September
October, November, December
January, February, March
Source: USDA 1987-88.
-------
Table 13-4. Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations (Individuals)
All Regions
Total
Age (years)
<01
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Surburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
wgtd
188019000
2814000
5699000
8103000
16711000
20488000
61606000
56718000
15880000
47667000
46155000
45485000
48712000
56352000
45023000
86584000
2413000
21746000
1482000
4787000
157531000
unwgtd
9852
156
321
461
937
1084
3058
3039
796
1577
3954
1423
2898
2217
3001
4632
114
1116
91
235
8294
Northeast
wgtd
41167000
545000
1070000
1490000
3589000
4445000
12699000
13500000
3829000
9386000
10538000
9460000
11783000
9668000
5521000
25978000
333000
3542000
38000
1084000
36170000
unwgtd
2018
29
56
92
185
210
600
670
176
277
803
275
663
332
369
1317
13
132
4
51
1818
for NFCS Data Used in Analysis of Food Intake
Midwest
wgtd
46395000
812000
1757000
2251000
4263000
5490000
15627000
13006000
3189000
14399000
10657000
10227000
11112000
17397000
14296000
14702000
849000
2794000
116000
966000
41670000
unwgtd
2592
44
101
133
263
310
823
740
178
496
1026
338
732
681
1053
858
37
126
6
37
2386
South
wgtd
64331000
889000
1792000
2543000
5217000
6720000
21786000
19635000
5749000
13186000
16802000
17752000
16591000
17245000
19100000
27986000
654000
13701000
162000
1545000
48269000
unwgtd
3399
51
105
140
284
369
1070
1080
300
439
1437
562
961
715
1197
1487
32
772
8
86
2501
West
wgtd
36066000
568000
1080000
1789000
3612000
3833000
11494000
10577000
3113000
10696000
8158000
7986000
9226000
12042000
6106000
17918000
577000
1709000
1166000
1192000
31422000
unwgtd
1841
32
59
95
204
195
565
549
142
365
688
246
542
489
382
970
32
86
73
61
1589
Response to Questionnaire
Do you garden?
Do you raise animals?
Do you hunt?
Do you fish?
Do vou farm?
68152000
10097000
20216000
39733000
7329000
3744
631
1148
2194
435
12501000
1178000
3418000
5950000
830000
667
70
194
321
42
22348000
3742000
6948000
12621000
2681000
1272
247
411
725
173
20518000
2603000
6610000
13595000
2232000
1136
162
366
756
130
12725000
2574000
3240000
7567000
1586000
667
152
177
392
90
-------
Table 13-5. Percent Weight Losses from Preparation of Various Meats
Meat Type
Mean Net Cooking Loss (%)'
Mean Range of Means
Standard
Deviation
Mean Net Post Cooking Loss (%)b
Mean Range of Means
Standard
Deviation
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Turkey
Lamb
Veal
Fish0
Shellfish11
27
28
32
32
30
29
30
33
11 to 42
1 to 67
7 to 55
11 to 57
25 to 37
10.to45
-19 to 81
1 to 94
7
10
9
7
5
11
19
30
24
36
31
28
34
25
11
10
10 to 46
14to52
16 to 51
8 to 48
14to61
18 to 37
1 to 26
10to10
9
11
8
10
14
9
6
0
Includes dripping and volatile losses during cooking. Averaged over various cuts and preparation methods.
Includes losses from cutting, shrinkage, excess fat, bones, scraps, and juices. Averaged over various cuts and preparation
methods.
Averaged over a variety offish, to include: bass, bluefish, butterfish, cod, flounder, haddock, halibut, lake trout, makerel,
perch, porgy, red snapper, rockfish, salmon, sea trout, shad, smelt, sole, spot, squid, swordfish steak, trout, and whitefish.
Averaged over a variety of shellfish, to include: clams, crab, crayfish, lobster, oysters, and shrimp and shrimp dishes.
Source: USDA. 1975.
-------
Table 1 3-6. Percent Weight Losses from Preparation of Various Fruits
Mean Net Post Cooking
Type of Fruit
Apples
Pears
Peaches
Strawberries
Oranaes
b
Source:
Mean
25
36
Range of
Means
3 to 42
19 to 50
Loss (%)"
Standard
Deviation
13
12
Mean Paring or Preparation Loss (%)b'c
Mean
22b
22b
41°
24"
10b
30°
29b
Range of
Means
13to40b
12to60b
25 to 47°
6 to 68b
6to14b
96 to 41°
19to38b
Standard
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
b
b
c
b
b
b
Includes losses from draining cooked forms.
Includes losses from removal of skin or peel, core or pit, stems or caps, seeds and defects.
Includes losses from removal of drained liquids from canned or frozen forms.
USDA. 1975
-------
Table 13-7. Percent Weight Losses from Preparation of Various Vegetables
Type of
Vegetable
Mean Net Cooking Loss (%)"
Mean Range of Means
Standard
Deviation
Mean Net Post Cooking Loss (%)"
Mean Range of Means
Standard
Deviation
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Corn
Cucumbers
Lettuce
Lima Beans
Okra
Onions
Peas, green
Peppers
Pumpkins
Snap Beans
Tomatoes
Potatoes
23
28
14
11
19
26
18
22
-12
12
5
2
13
19
18
15
-22
5 to 47
4 to 60
Oto39
4 to 20
2 to 41
-1 to 64
5 to 40
6 to 36
-143 to 56
-10 to 40
-90 to 63
-147 to 62
3 to 27
8 to 30
5 to 42
2 to 34
-527 to 46
16
17
13
6
12
22
14
12
69
16
38
63
9
11
13
10
121
22
1 to 33
11
Includes losses due to paring, trimming, flowering the stalk, thawing, draining, scraping, shelling, slicing, husking,
chopping, and dicing and gains from the addition of water, fat, or other ingredients. Averaged over various preparation
methods.
Includes losses from draining or removal of skin.
Source: USDA. 1975
-------
Table 13-8. Consumer Only Intake of Homeqrown Fruits (q/kq-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age (years)
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who farm
NOTE: SE = standard error
Nc
wqtd
14744000
360000
550000
1044000
1189000
3163000
5633000
2620000
3137000
2963000
4356000
4288000
3668000
4118000
6898000
450000
14185000
12742000
1917000
Nc
unwqtd
817
23
34
75
67
164
309
134
108
301
145
263
143
278
394
20
793
709
112
%
Consuminq Mean
7.84
6.32
6.79
6.25
5.80
5.13
9.93
16.50
6.58
6.42
9.58
8.80
6.51
9.15
7.97
2.07
9.00
18.70
26.16
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987/88 NFCS
2.68E+00
8.74E+00
4.07E+00
3.59E+00
1.94E+00
1.95E+00
2.66E+00
2.25E+00
1.57E+00
1.58E+00
3.86E+00
3.08E+00
2.31 E+00
2.41 E+00
3.07E+00
1.87E+00
2.73E+00
2.79E+00
2.58E+00
SE
1.89E-01
3.10E+00
1.48E+00
6.76E-01
3.66E-01
3.33E-01
3.04E-01
2.34E-01
1.59E-01
1.37E-01
6.40E-01
3.41 E-01
2.64E-01
3.09E-01
3.22E-01
8.53E-01
1.94E-01
2.10E-01
2.59E-01
P1
6.26E-02
9.59E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-02
8.74E-02
8.14E-02
6.26E-02
4.41 E-02
2.63E-01
8.89E-02
1.00E-02
4.41 E-02
4.41 E-02
6.26E-02
1.25E-01
1.32E-01
7.22E-02
5.60E-02
7.22E-02
P5
1.68E-01
1.09E+00
1.00E-02
1.91 E-01
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
1.91 E-01
2.24E-01
3.04E-01
1.98E-01
9.18E-02
1.72E-01
1.82E-01
1.27E-01
2.30E-01
2.84E-01
1.82E-01
1.84E-01
2.76E-01
P10
2.78E-01
1.30E+00
3.62E-01
4.02E-01
2.67E-01
2.04E-01
2.86E-01
3.80E-01
3.90E-01
2.54E-01
1.56E-01
2.69E-01
3.33E-01
2.32E-01
2.95E-01
4.55E-01
2.82E-01
2.87E-01
4.13E-01
- All Regions Combined
P25
4.97E-01
1.64E+00
9.77E-01
6.97E-01
4.41 E-01
3.74E-01
4.69E-01
6. 11 E-01
5.70E-01
4.23E-01
4.45E-01
5.56E-01
5.67E-01
4.50E-01
4.91 E-01
6.08E-01
5.10E-01
5.30E-01
7.53E-01
P50 P75 P90 P95 P99
1.07E+00 2.37E+00 5.97E+00 1.11E+01 2.40E+01
3.48E+00 7.98E+00 1.93E+01 6.06E+01 6.06E+01
1.92E+00 2.73E+00 6.02E+00 8.91 E+00 4.83E+01
1.31E+00 3.08E+00 1.18E+01 1.58E+01 3.22E+01
6.61 E-01 2.35E+00 6.76E+00 8.34E+00 1.85E+01
7.03E-01 1.77E+00 4.17E+00 6.84E+00 1.61E+01
1.03E+00 2.33E+00 5.81 E+00 1.30E+01 2.38E+01
1.18E+00 2.35E+00 5.21E+00 8.69E+00 1.17E+01
1.04E+00 1.92E+00 3.48E+00 4.97E+00 1.06E+01
8.57E-01 1.70E+00 4.07E+00 5.10E+00 8.12E+00
1.26E+00 3.31 E+00 1.09E+01 1.46E+01 5.33E+01
1.15E+00 2.61E+00 8.04E+00 1.53E+01 2.49E+01
1.08E+00 2.46E+00 5.34E+00 1.05E+01 1.43E+01
1.15E+00 2.42E+00 4.46E+00 8.34E+00 2.40E+01
9.93E-01 2.33E+00 7.26E+00 1.52E+01 3.70E+01
1.13E+00 1.53E+00 2.29E+00 2.29E+00 1.93E+01
1.07E+00 2.46E+00 6.10E+00 1.17E+01 2.40E+01
1.12E+00 2.50E+00 6.10E+00 1.18E+01 2.49E+01
1.61 E+00 3.62E+00 5.97E+00 7.82E+00 1.58E+01
P100
6.06E+01
6.06E+01
4.83E+01
3.22E+01
1.85E+01
3.70E+01
5.33E+01
1.53E+01
1.06E+01
3.17E+01
6.06E+01
4.83E+01
1.93E+01
5.33E+01
6.06E+01
1.93E+01
6.06E+01
6.06E+01
1.58E+01
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-9. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (q/kq-day) - Northeast
Population Nc Nc %
Group wqtd unwqtd Consuminq
Total 1279000 72 3.11
Season
Fall 260000 8 2.77
Spring 352000 31 3.34
Summer 271000 9 2.86
Winter 396000 24 3.36
Urbanization
Central City 50000 3 0.52
Nonmetropolitan 176000 10 3.19
Suburban 1053000 59 4.05
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden 983000 59 7.86
Households who farm 132000 4 15.90
Mean
9.29E-01
*
8.80E-01
*
7.10E-01
*
*
1.05E+00
1.04E+00
*
SE P1 P5 P10
2.20E-01 7.91 E-02 8.48E-02 1.61E-01
....
2.32E-01 8.74E-02 1.61E-01 1.68E-01
....
1.13E-01 1.84E-01 2.07E-01 2.30E-01
....
* ...
2.63E-01 1.84E-01 2.30E-01 2.93E-01
2.64E-01 8.74E-02 1.82E-01 2.13E-01
* * * *
P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
3.11E-01 4.85E-01 7.82E-01 1.29E+00 2.16E+00 1.17E+01 1.17E+01
.......
2.87E-01 4.85E-01 8.79E-01 1.83E+00 2.16E+00 7.13E+00 7.13E+00
.......
2.93E-01 5.42E-01 8.81 E-01 1.38E+00 1.79E+00 2.75E+00 2.75E+00
.......
*******
4.37E-01 5.43E-01 8.12E-01 1.29E+00 2.75E+00 1.17E+01 1.17E+01
3.75E-01 5.43E-01 8.81E-01 1.38E+00 2.75E+00 1.17E+01 1.17E+01
*******
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-10. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (q/kq-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wqtd unwqtd
Total 4683000 302
Season
Fall 1138000 43
Spring 1154000 133
Summer 1299000 44
Winter 1092000 82
Urbanization
Central City 1058000 42
Nonmetropolitan 1920000 147
Suburban 1705000 113
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4060000 267
Households who farm 694000 57
%
Consuminq
10.09
7.90
10.83
12.70
9.83
6.08
13.43
11.60
18.17
25.89
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
Mean
3.01 E+00
1.54E+00
1.69E+00
7.03E+00
1.18E+00
1.84E+00
2.52E+00
4.29E+00
3.27E+00
2.59E+00
SE
4.13E-01
1.86E-01
2.76E-01
1.85E+00
1.80E-01
3.93E-01
5.43E-01
8.72E-01
4.69E-01
3.01 E-01
P1
4.41 E-02
2.63E-01
8.89E-02
6.26E-02
2.57E-02
4.15E-02
5.60E-02
9.18E-02
4.41 E-02
5.60E-02
P5 P10
1.25E-01 2.35E-01
3.04E-01 4.74E-01
2.09E-01 2.62E-01
9.18E-02 1.25E-01
5.60E-02 1.46E-01
1.01 E-01 2.63E-01
1.08E-01 1.46E-01
2.04E-01 3.10E-01
1.01 E-01 2.04E-01
1.91 E-01 4.08E-01
P25
4.68E-01
6. 11 E-01
4.23E-01
4.28E-01
3.62E-01
5.21 E-01
3.96E-01
4.81 E-01
4.48E-01
1.26E+00
Midwest
P50 P75
1.03E+00 2.31 E+00
1.07E+00 1.92E+00
9.23E-01 1.72E+00
1.55E+00 8.34E+00
6.09E-01 1.42E+00
1.07E+00 1.90E+00
1.03E+00 2.07E+00
7.64E-01 3.01 E+00
1.07E+00 2.37E+00
1.63E+00 3.89E+00
P90
6.76E+00
3.48E+00
2.89E+00
1.61E+01
2.61 E+00
2.82E+00
4.43E+00
1.39E+01
7.15E+00
6.76E+00
P95
1.39E+01
4.34E+00
4.47E+00
3.70E+01
3.73E+00
9.74E+00
6.84E+00
1.80E+01
1.46E+01
8.34E+00
P99
5.33E+01
5.33E+00
1.60E+01
6.06E+01
1.09E+01
1.09E+01
5.33E+01
6.06E+01
5.33E+01
1.11E+01
P100
6.06E+01
5.33E+00
3.17E+01
6.06E+01
1.09E+01
1.09E+01
5.33E+01
6.06E+01
6.06E+01
1.11E+01
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-11. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (q/kq-day) -
Population Nc Nc %
Group wqtd unwqtd Consuminq Mean SE
Total 4148000 208 6.45
Season
Fall 896000 29 6.80
Spring 620000 59 3.69
Summer 1328000 46 7.48
Winter 1304000 74 7.86
Urbanization
Central City 1066000 39 6.18
Nonmetropolitan 1548000 89 8.10
Suburban 1534000 80 5.48
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 3469000 174 16.91
Households who farm 296000 16 13.26
* Intake data not provided for subpopulatinsfor which there were
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
2.97E+00 3.00E-01
1.99E+00 4.39E-01
2.05E+00 2.55E-01
2.84E+00 6.50E-01
4.21 E+00 6.51 E-01
3.33E+00 5.39E-01
2.56E+00 3.87E-01
3.14E+00 6.02E-01
2.82E+00 2.94E-01
* *
less than 20 observations
P1
1.12E-01
3.92E-01
1.55E-01
8.14E-02
1.12E-01
2.36E-01
8.14E-02
1.12E-01
1.56E-01
*
P5
2.42E-01
4.27E-01
2.82E-01
1.56E-01
2.36E-01
3.92E-01
2.67E-01
1.56E-01
2.84E-01
*
P10
3.55E-01
4.46E-01
3. 11 E-01
2.67E-01
3.82E-01
4.55E-01
3.38E-01
2.84E-01
3.84E-01
*
P25
5.97E-01
6.50E-01
4.50E-01
4.41 E-01
8.92E-01
8.34E-01
6.12E-01
5.08E-01
6.50E-01
*
South
P50
1.35 E+00
1.13E+00
1.06E+00
1.31 E+00
1.88E+00
2.55E+00
1.40 E+00
1.10E+00
1.39E+00
*
P75
3.01 E+00
1.96 E+00
4.09E+00
2.83 E+00
3.71 E+00
4.77E+00
2.83 E+00
2.29E+00
2.94E+00
*
P90
8.18E+00
4.97E+00
5.01 E+00
6.10E+00
1.41E+01
8.18E+00
5.97E+00
1.18E+01
6.10E+00
*
P95
1.41E+01
8.18E+00
6.58E+00
1.43E+01
1.97E+01
1.06E+01
1.04E+01
1.55E+01
1.41E+01
*
P99
2.38E+01
1.06E+01
7.05E+00
2.40E+01
2.38E+01
1.43E+01
2.40E+01
2.38E+01
2.11E+01
*
P100
2.40E+01
1.06E+01
7.05E+00
2.40E+01
2.38E+01
1.43E+01
2.40E+01
2.38E+01
2.40E+01
*
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-12. Consumer Only Intake of Homeqrown Fruits (q/kq-day) - West
Dopulation
3roup
Total
season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wqtd unwqtd
4574000 233
843000 28
837000 78
1398000 44
1496000 83
1494000 59
474000 32
2606000 142
4170000 207
795000 35
%
Consuminq
12.68
7.88
10.26
17.51
16.22
12.41
7.76
14.54
32.77
50.13
Mean SE
2.62E+00 3.07E-01
1.47E+00 2.49E-01
1.37E+00 1.59E-01
2.47E+00 4.72E-01
4.10E+00 7.91E-01
1.99E+00 4.24E-01
2.24E+00 5.25E-01
3.04E+00 4.63E-01
2.76E+00 3.39E-01
1.85E+00 2.59E-01
P1 P5
1.50E-01 2.75E-01
2.91 E-01 2.91 E-01
1.73E-01 1.96E-01
1.86E-01 2.75E-01
7.14E-02 2.96E-01
7.14E-02 2.35E-01
1.84E-01 2.76E-01
1.83E-01 2.75E-01
1.00E-01 2.75E-01
2.75E-01 2.76E-01
P10
3.33E-01
2.95E-01
2.51 E-01
4.04E-01
3.33E-01
3.42E-01
4.24E-01
3.14E-01
3.14E-01
5.98E-01
P25
6.17E-01
4.83E-01
5.10E-01
6.17E-01
7.74E-01
5.26E-01
6.25E-01
7.10E-01
6.29E-01
7.10E-01
P50
1.20E+00
1.04E+00
9.81 E-01
1.28E+00
1.51 E+00
8.63E-01
7.68E-01
1.39 E+00
1.20 E+00
1.26E+00
P75 P90
2.42E+00 5.39E+00
2.15E+00 2.99E+00
1.61 E+00 2.95E+00
3.14E+00 7.26E+00
3.74E+00 1.11E+01
2.04E+00 4.63E+00
2.64E+00 4.25E+00
3.14E+00 5.81 E+00
2.54E+00 5.81 E+00
2.50E+00 4.63E+00
P95
1.09E+01
4.65E+00
5.29 E+00
1.09E+01
1.85E+01
9.52E+00
1.09E+01
1.03E+01
1.09E+01
5.00E+00
P99
2.49E+01
5.39E+00
6.68E+00
1.30E+01
4.83E+01
1.93E+01
1.09E+01
3.22E+01
2.49E+01
6.81 E+00
P100
4.83E+01
5.39E+00
7.02E+00
1.30E+01
4.83E+01
1.93E+01
1.09E+01
4.83E+01
4.83E+01
6.81 E+00
\IOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-13. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined
Population Nc
Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 34392000
Age
01-02 951000
03-05 1235000
06-1 1 3024000
12-19 3293000
20-39 8593000
40-69 12828000
70 + 4002000
Seasons
Fall 11026000
Spring 6540000
Summer 11081000
Winter 5745000
Urbanizations
Central City 6183000
Nonmetropolitan 13808000
Suburban 14341000
Race
Black 1872000
White 31917000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 3021 7000
Households who farm 4319000
1855
53
76
171
183
437
700
211
394
661
375
425
228
878
747
111
1714
1643
262
%
Consuming
18.29
16.69
15.24
18.10
16.07
13.95
22.62
25.20
23.13
14.17
24.36
11.79
10.97
30.67
16.56
8.61
20.26
44.34
58.93
Mean
2.08E+00
5.20E+00
2.46E+00
2.02E+00
1.48E+00
1.47E+00
2.07E+00
2.51 E+00
1.88E+00
1.36E+00
2.86E+00
1.79E+00
1.40E+00
2.68E+00
1.82E+00
1.78E+00
2.10E+00
2.17E+00
3.29E+00
SE P1
6.76E-02 4.79E-03
8.47E-01 2.32E-02
2.79E-01 O.OOE+00
2.54E-01 5.95E-03
1.35E-01 O.OOE+00
9.59E-02 1.69E-02
1.02E-01 5.13E-03
1.94E-01 5.21 E-03
1.28E-01 4.98E-02
7.23E-02 2.44E-03
1.93E-01 6.93E-02
1.14E-01 3.73E-03
1.23E-01 1.01E-02
1.19E-01 2.12E-02
9.12E-02 3.34E-03
2.33E-01 O.OOE+00
7.09E-02 7.34E-03
7.09E-02 5.21 E-03
2.51 E-01 O.OOE+00
P5
1.10E-01
2.45E-01
4.94E-02
1.00E-01
6.46E-02
7.77E-02
1.19E-01
1.51 E-01
1.13E-01
4.47E-02
1.57E-01
4.49E-02
6.59E-02
1.58E-01
1.10E-01
7.77E-02
1.13E-01
1.11 E-01
1.61 E-01
P10
1.80E-01
3.82E-01
3.94E-01
1.60E-01
1.45E-01
1.57E-01
2.14E-01
2.39E-01
1.80E-01
1.35E-01
2.24E-01
1.56E-01
1.50E-01
2.58E-01
1.63E-01
1.39E-01
1.84E-01
1.85E-01
2.92E-01
P25
4.47E-01
1.23E+00
7.13E-01
4.00E-01
3.22E-01
2.73E-01
5.26E-01
5.81 E-01
4.13E-01
3.21 E-01
7.12E-01
4.69E-01
3.00E-01
5.99E-01
3.94E-01
4.38E-01
4.54E-01
4.84E-01
8.46E-01
P50 P75
1.11 E+00 2.47E+00
3.27E+00 5.83E+00
1.25E+00 3.91 E+00
8.86E-01 2.21 E+00
8.09E-01 1.83E+00
7.61 E-01 1.91 E+00
1.18E+00 2.47E+00
1.37E+00 3.69E+00
9.83E-01 2.11 E+00
7.04E-01 1.63E+00
1.62E+00 3.44E+00
1.05E+00 2.27E+00
7.50E-01 1.67E+00
1.45E+00 3.27E+00
9.63E-01 2.18E+00
9.32E-01 2.06E+00
1.12E+00 2.48E+00
1.18E+00 2.68E+00
1.67E+00 3.61 E+00
P90 P95
5.20E+00 7.54E+00
1.31E+01 1.96E+01
6.35E+00 7.74E+00
4.64E+00 6.16E+00
3.71 E+00 6.03E+00
3.44E+00 4.92E+00
5.12E+00 6.94E+00
6.35E+00 8.20E+00
4.88E+00 6.94E+00
3.37E+00 5.21 E+00
6.99E+00 9.75E+00
3.85E+00 6.01 E+00
3.83E+00 4.67E+00
6.35E+00 9.33E+00
4.32E+00 6.78E+00
4.68E+00 5.70E+00
5.18E+00 7.68E+00
5.35E+00 7.72E+00
8.88E+00 1.18E+01
P99
1.55E+01
2.70E+01
1.06E+01
1.76E+01
7.71 E+00
1.05E+01
1.49E+01
1.25E+01
1.25E+01
8.35E+00
1.87E+01
1.06E+01
9.96E+00
1.75E+01
1.25E+01
8.20E+00
1.55E+01
1.55E+01
1.76E+01
P100
2.70E+01
2.70E+01
1.28E+01
2.36E+01
9.04E+00
2.06E+01
2.29E+01
1.55E+01
1.89E+01
2.36E+01
2.70E+01
2.06E+01
1.66E+01
2.70E+01
2.06E+01
1.89E+01
2.70E+01
2.36E+01
2.36E+01
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-14. Cnnsumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Population Nc
Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 4883000
Seasons
Fall 1396000
Spring 1204000
Summer 1544000
Winter 739000
Urbanizations
Central City 380000
Nonmetropolitan 787000
Suburban 3716000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4381 000
Households who farm 352000
236 11.86
41 14.87
102 11.43
48 16.32
45 6.27
14 3.93
48 14.25
174 14.30
211 35.05
19 42.41
Mean
1.78E+00
1.49E+00
8.18E-01
2.83E+00
1.67E+00
*
3.05E+00
1.59E+00
1.92E+00
*
SE
1.68E-01
4.06E-01
1.07E-01
4.67E-01
2.74E-01
*
5.41 E-01
1.74E-01
1.84E-01
*
P1
2.18E-03
8.27E-02
O.OOE+00
1.11 E-01
3.23E-03
*
O.OOE+00
2.44E-03
2.18E-03
*
P5
8.27E-02
1.34E-01
2.89E-03
1.45E-01
4.23E-03
*
4.68E-02
8.27E-02
8.27E-02
*
P10
1.43E-01
1.74E-01
4.47E-02
1.59E-01
9.15E-02
*
1.14E-01
1.42E-01
1.42E-01
*
P25
2.80E-01
2.69E-01
1.72E-01
7.38E-01
2.56E-01
*
2.02E-01
2.75E-01
3.10E-01
*
P50
7.47E-01
5.81 E-01
4.55E-01
1.29 E+00
1.25E+00
*
2.18E+00
7.18E-01
8.83E-01
*
P75
1.89 E+00
1.17E+00
9.52E-01
3.63 E+00
2.77E+00
*
4.61 E+00
1.64E+00
2.18E+00
*
P90 P95 P99
6.03E+00 7.82E+00 1.27E+01
6.64E+00 9.97E+00 1.02E+01
2.26E+00 3.11 E+00 6.52E+00
7.82E+00 9.75E+00 1.49E+01
3.63E+00 6.10E+00 8.44E+00
...
9.04E+00 1.27E+01 1.49E+01
4.82E+00 6.80E+00 1.02E+01
6.16E+00 7.82E+00 1.27E+01
.
P100
1.49E+01
1.02E+01
6.78E+00
1.49E+01
8.44E+00
*
1.49E+01
1.02E+01
1.49E+01
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-15. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Population
Group
Total
Seasons
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanizations
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
NOTE: SE = standard error
Nc Nc
%
wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean
12160000 699
4914000 180
2048000 246
3319000 115
1879000 158
3177000 113
5344000 379
3639000 207
10927000 632
1401000 104
26.21
34.13
19.22
32.45
16.91
18.26
37.38
24.75
48.89
52.26
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
2.26E+00
1.84E+00
1.65E+00
3.38E+00
2.05E+00
1.36E+00
2.73E+00
2.35E+00
2.33E+00
3.97E+00
unweighted numb
SE P1
1.20E-01 1.59E-02
1.76E-01 1.01E-02
1.49E-01 6.04E-02
3.87E-01 1.05E-01
2.64E-01 2.41 E-03
1.91 E-01 O.OOE+00
1.86E-01 2.12E-02
2.16E-01 3.26E-02
1.27E-01 1.59E-02
4.31 E-01 1.40E-01
er of consumers in surve
P5
7.77E-02
6.51 E-02
1.53E-01
1.62E-01
2.14E-02
6.05E-02
1.13E-01
1.54E-01
1.04E-01
3.35E-01
>•
P10
1.80E-01
1.60E-01
2.21 E-01
3.02E-01
6.59E-02
1.10E-01
2.61 E-01
2.22E-01
1.76E-01
5.51 E-01
P25
4.88E-01
4.16E-01
4.59E-01
8.47E-01
3.62E-01
2.45E-01
5.98E-01
6.36E-01
5.03E-01
8.67E-01
P50
1.15E+00
1.03E+00
9.13E-01
2.07E+00
8.77E-01
7.13E-01
1.31E+00
1.39E+00
1.18E+00
2.18E+00
P75 P90
2.58E+00 5.64E+00
2.10E+00 5.27E+00
1.72E+00 4.49E+00
3.94E+00 7.72E+00
2.13E+00 5.32E+00
1.67E+00 3.94E+00
3.15E+00 7.19E+00
2.75E+00 4.87E+00
2.74E+00 5.81 E+00
5.24E+00 1.06E+01
P95
7.74E+00
6.88E+00
5.83E+00
1.40E+01
7.83E+00
5.50E+00
1.06E+01
7.18E+00
7.75E+00
1.44E+01
P99
1.75E+01
1.31E+01
1.28E+01
1.96E+01
1.67E+01
9.96E+00
1.75E+01
1.96E+01
1.67E+01
1.75E+01
P100
2.36E+01
1.31E+01
2.36E+01
2.29E+01
2.06E+01
1.66E+01
2.36E+01
2.06E+01
2.36E+01
2.36E+01
-------
Table 13-16. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wqtd unwqtd
Total 1125400 618
0
Seasons
Fall 2875000 101
Spring 2096000 214
Summer 4273000 151
Winter 2010000 152
Urbanizations
Central City 1144000 45
Nonmetropolitan 6565000 386
Suburban 3545000 187
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 9447000 522
Households who farm 1609000 91
NOTE: SE = standard error
%
Consuming
17.49
21.80
12.47
24.07
12.12
6.63
34.37
12.67
46.04
72.09
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
Mean
2.19E+00
2.07E+00
1.55E+00
2.73E+00
1.88E+00
1.10E+00
2.78E+00
1.44E+00
2.27E+00
3.34E+00
SE
1.21 E-01
2.82E-01
1.13E-01
3.16E-01
1.37E-01
1.62E-01
1.84E-01
1.13E-01
1.22E-01
4.57E-01
P1
2.92E-02
9.59E-02
1.41E-02
1.10E-01
3.03E-03
1.10E-02
5.08E-02
O.OOE+00
3.46E-02
O.OOE+00
unweighted number of consumers in surv
P5
1.60E-01
1.13E-01
9.21 E-02
1.72E-01
1.63E-01
9.59E-02
2.23E-01
1.13E-01
1.61 E-01
1.32E-01
ey.
P10
2.41 E-01
1.91 E-01
2.61 E-01
2.50E-01
3.53E-01
1.50E-01
3.50E-01
1.99E-01
2.62E-01
2.33E-01
P25
5.63E-01
5.24E-01
5.33E-01
6.15E-01
6.40E-01
2.63E-01
7.12E-01
3.96E-01
6.10E-01
1.03E+00
South
P50
1.24E+00
1.14E+00
9.35E-01
1.54E+00
1.37E+00
6.15E-01
1.66E+00
9.33E-01
1.37E+00
1.72E+00
P75 P90 P95
2.69E+00 4.92E+00 7.43E+00
2.69E+00 4.48E+00 6.02E+00
2.07E+00 3.58E+00 4.81 E+00
3.15E+00 5.99E+00 9.70E+00
2.69E+00 3.79E+00 5.35E+00
1.37E+00 2.79E+00 3.70E+00
3.31 E+00 5.99E+00 9.56E+00
1.72E+00 3.61 E+00 5.26E+00
3.02E+00 5.18E+00 7.43E+00
3.15E+00 9.56E+00 1.18E+01
P99
1.70E+01
1.55E+01
8.35E+00
2.36E+01
7.47E+00
4.21 E+00
1.89E+01
8.20E+00
1.55E+01
2.36E+01
P100
2.70E+01
1.89E+01
1.03E+01
2.70E+01
8.36E+00
4.58E+00
2.70E+01
8.20E+00
2.36E+01
2.36E+01
-------
Table 13-17. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wqtd unwqtd Consuming Mean
Total 6035000 300 16.73
Seasons
Fall 1841000 72 17.21
Spring 1192000 99 14.61
Summer 1885000 59 23.60
Winter 1117000 70 12.11
Urbanizations
Central City 1482000 56 12.31
Nonmetropolitan 1112000 65 18.21
Suburban 3441000 179 19.20
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 5402000 276 42.45
Households who farm 957000 48 60.34
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
1.81E+00
2.01 E+00
1.06E+00
2.39 E+00
1.28E+00
1.80 E+00
1.52E+00
1.90E+00
1.91 E+00
2.73E+00
SE
1.38E-01
2.93E-01
1.74E-01
3.71 E-01
1.72E-01
2.76E-01
2.24E-01
1.98E-01
1.04E-03
3.32E-03
P1
7.35E-03
9.83E-02
3.31 E-03
6.93E-02
1.29E-02
2.58E-02
3.42E-03
1.29E-02
8.53E-03
1.17E-01
P5
9.85E-02
1.50E-01
7.35E-03
1.04E-01
1.52E-01
7.39E-02
9.80E-03
1.04E-01
1.04E-01
4.14E-01
P10
1.66E-01
2.04E-01
4.66E-02
2.46E-01
1.99E-01
1.57E-01
2.04E-01
1.52E-01
1.66E-01
4.69E-01
P25
3.79E-01
4.81 E-01
1.95E-01
5.45E-01
4.83E-01
4.81 E-01
2.69E-01
3.94E-01
4.33E-01
7.65E-01
-West
P50
9.01 E-01
1.21 E+00
3.56E-01
1.37E+00
7.65E-01
1.10E+00
6.75E-01
9.32E-01
1.07E+00
1.42E+00
P75 P90
2. 21 E+00 4.64E+00
2. 21 E+00 4.85E+00
9.08E-01 3.37E+00
3.23E+00 4.67E+00
1.43E+00 2.81 E+00
2.95E+00 4.64E+00
2.13E+00 4.13E+00
2.20E+00 4.63E+00
2.37E+00 4.67E+00
3.27E+00 6.94E+00
P95
6.21 E+00
7.72E+00
5.54E+00
8.36E+00
5.12E+00
4.85E+00
5.12E+00
7.98E+00
6.21 E+00
1.09E+01
P99
1.14E+01
1.25E+01
8.60E+00
1.55E+01
7.57E+00
1.14E+01
8.16E+00
1.25E+01
1.25E+01
1.55E+01
P100
1.55E+01
1.25E+01
8.60E+00
1.55E+01
7.98E+00
1.14E+01
8.16E+00
1.55E+01
1.55E+01
1.55E+01
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-1 8. Consumer Only I
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 9257000 569 4.92
Age
01-02 276000 22 4.84
03-05 396000 26 4.89
06-11 1064000 65 6.37
12-19 1272000 78 6.21
20-39 2732000 158 4.43
40-69 2872000 179 5.06
70+ 441000 28 2.78
Seasons
Fall 2852000 107 5.98
Spring 1726000 197 3.74
Summer 2368000 89 5.21
Winter 2311000 176 4.74
Urbanizations
Central City 736000 28 1.31
Nonmetropolitan 4932000 315 10.95
Suburban 3589000 226 4.15
Race
Black 128000 6 0.59
White 8995000 556 5.71
Response to Questionnaire
Households who 5256000 343 52.06
raise animals
Households who farm 3842000 243 52.42
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were le
Mean
2.21 E+00
3.65E+00
3.61 E+00
3.65E+00
1.70E+00
1.82E+00
1.72E+00
1.39E+00
1.57E+00
2.37E+00
3.10E+00
1.98E+00
1.15E+00
2.70E+00
1.77 E+00
*
2.26 E+00
2.80E+00
2.86E+00
ssthan 20 obse
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted numb
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
SE
1.07E-01
6.10E-01
5.09E-01
4.51 E-01
1.68E-01
1.53E-01
1.11 E-01
2.34E-01
1.39E-01
1.52E-01
3.82E-01
1.74E-01
1.83E-01
1.76E-01
1.03E-01
1.09E-01
1.45E-01
1.85E-01
rvations
3r of consume
ntake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined
P1
1.21 E-01
3.85E-01
8.01 E-01
3.72E-01
1.90E-01
1.23E-01
1.81E-02
9.26E-02
1.23E-01
2.44E-01
1.81E-02
1.35E-01
1.82E-01
1.23E-01
2.90E-02
*
9.26E-02
2.12E-01
1.97E-01
;rs in survey.
P5
2.37E-01
9.49E-01
8.01 E-01
6.52E-01
3.20E-01
1.85E-01
2.12E-01
9.26E-02
2.10E-01
3.20E-01
1.85E-01
2.37E-01
1.85E-01
2.63E-01
2.87E-01
*
2.57E-01
3.86E-01
4.45E-01
P10
3.74E-01
9.49E-01
1.51 E+00
7.21 E-01
4.70E-01
2.95E-01
3.43E-01
1.25E-01
3.52E-01
4.46E-01
4.06E-01
3.67E-01
2.10E-01
4.06E-01
3.67E-01
*
3.86E-01
6.23E-01
5.98E-01
P25
6.60E-01
1.19E+00
2.17E+00
1.28E+00
6.23E-01
5.28E-01
5.84E-01
5.47E-01
5.21 E-01
7.76E-01
8.52E-01
6.48E-01
4.42E-01
7.49E-01
6.80E-01
*
6.80E-01
1.03E+00
8.94E-01
P50
1.39E+00
2.66E+00
2.82E+00
2.09E+00
1.23E+00
1.11 E+00
1.17E+00
1.01 E+00
1.11 E+00
1 .69E+00
1 .77E+00
1 .33E+00
7.21 E-01
1 .63E+00
1 .33E+00
*
1.41 E+00
1.94E+00
1 .84E+00
P75 P90
2.89E+00 4.89E+00
4.72E+00 8.68E+00
3.72E+00 7.84E+00
4. 71 E+00 8.00E+00
2.35E+00 3.66E+00
2.65E+00 4.52E+00
2.38E+00 3.67E+00
1.81 E+00 2.82E+00
2.27E+00 3.19E+00
3.48E+00 5.00E+00
4.34E+00 7.01 E+00
2.43E+00 3.96E+00
1 .58E+00 2.69E+00
3. 41 E+00 6.06E+00
2.49E+00 3.66E+00
. .
2. 91 E+00 5.00E+00
3.49E+00 5.90E+00
3.64E+00 6.09E+00
P95
6.78E+00
1.00E+01
9.13E+00
1.40E+01
4.34E+00
6.23E+00
5.16E+00
3.48E+00
4.41 E+00
6.67E+00
1.05E+01
6.40E+00
3.40E+00
8.47E+00
4.71 E+00
*
7.01 E+00
7.84E+00
8.00E+00
P99
1.40E+01
1.15E+01
1.30E+01
1.53E+01
6.78E+00
9.17E+00
5.90E+00
7.41 E+00
6.78E+00
1.01E+01
2.23E+01
1.09E+01
3.64E+00
1.53E+01
7.20E+00
*
1.40E+01
1.40E+01
1.40E+01
P100
2.32E+01
1.15E+01
1.30E+01
1.53E+01
7.51 E+00
1.09E+01
7.46E+00
7.41 E+00
7.84E+00
1.30E+01
2.23E+01
2.32E+01
3.64E+00
2.32E+01
1.01E+01
*
2.32E+01
2.32E+01
2.32E+01
-------
Table 13-19. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (q/kq-day) - Northeast
Population Nc Nc %
Group wqtd unwqtd Consuminq Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75
Total 1113000 52 2.70 1.46E+00 2.10E-01 2.92E-01 3.40E-01 3.52E-01 6.44E-01 8.94E-01 1.87E+00
Seasons
Fall 569000 18 6.06 .......
Spring 66000 8 0.63 .......
Summer 176000 6 1.86 ....... .
Winter 302000 20 2.56 2.02E+00 5.56E-01 2.92E-01 3.14E-01 4.30E-01 6.19E-01 1.11 E+00 2.38E+00
Urbanizations
Central City 0 0 0.00
Nonmetropolitan 391000 17 7.08 .......
Suburban 722000 35 2.78 1.49E+00 1.53E-01 2.92E-01 3.52E-01 4.30E-01 6.80E-01 1.39E+00 2.34E+00
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 509000 25 43.21 2.03E+00 3.85E-01 6.19E-01 6.46E-01 6.46E-01 8.78E-01 1.62E+00 2.38E+00
Households who farm 373000 15 44.94 .......
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
P90 P95 P99 P100
2.68E+00 2.89E+00 1.09E+01 1.09E+01
....
....
....
2.93E+00 7.46E+00 1.09E+01 1.09E+01
* ...
2.68E+00 2.89E+00 3.61 E+00 3.61 E+00
2.93E+00 7.46E+00 1.09E+01 1.09E+01
* ...
-------
Table 13-20. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (q/kq-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wqtd unwqtd Consuminq
Total 3974000 266 8.57
Seasons
Fall 1261000 49 8.76
Spring 940000 116 8.82
Summer 930000 38 9.09
Winter 843000 63 7.59
Urbanizations
Central City 460000 18 2.64
Nonmetropolitan 2477000 175 17.33
Suburban 1037000 73 7.05
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 2165000 165 57.86
Households who farm 1483000 108 55.32
Mean SE
2.55E+00 1.81 E-01
1.76E+00 2.31 E-01
2.58E+00 2.24E-01
4.10E+00 7.45E-01
2.00E+00 2.41 E-01
. .
3.15E+00 2.58E-01
1.75E+00 1.99E-01
3.20E+00 2.23E-01
3.32E+00 2.91 E-01
P1
1.25E-01
2.10E-01
2.44E-01
9.26E-02
1.21 E-01
*
9.26E-02
2.87E-01
2.56E-01
3.65E-01
P5
2.57E-01
2.57E-01
3. 11 E-01
1.25E-01
2.37E-01
*
2.95E-01
3.65E-01
3.86E-01
5.43E-01
P10
3.85E-01
3.72E-01
4.08E-01
5.78E-01
3.28E-01
*
4.25E-01
4.08E-01
5.78E-01
5.89E-01
P25
6.60E-01
4.95E-01
7.33E-01
8.93E-01
6.48E-01
*
8.16E-01
6.60E-01
1.07E+00
1.07E+00
- Midwest
P50
1.40E+00
1.19E+00
1.98 E+00
2.87E+00
1.36 E+00
*
2.38E+00
1.11 E+00
2.56E+00
2.75E+00
P75
3.39E+00
2.66E+00
3.67E+00
5.42E+00
2.69 E+00
*
4.34E+00
2.03 E+00
4.42E+00
4.71 E+00
P90
5.75E+00
3.49E+00
5.14E+00
8.93E+00
4. 11 E+00
*
6.15E+00
4.16E+00
6.06 E+00
6.78E+00
P95
7.20E+00
6.06E+00
7.79E+00
1.53E+01
5.30E+00
*
9.17E+00
5.39E+00
9.13E+00
9.17E+00
P99
1.53E+01
6.78E+00
1.15E+01
2.23E+01
8.10E+00
*
1.53E+01
7.20E+00
1.53E+01
1.53E+01
P100
2.23E+01
6.78E+00
1.30E+01
2.23E+01
1.22E+01
*
2.23E+01
1.01E+01
1.53E+01
1.53E+01
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consume
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
;rs in survey.
-------
Table 13-21. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (q/kq-day)
Population Nc
Group wqtd
Total 2355000
Seasons
Fall 758000
Spring 511000
Summer 522000
Winter 564000
Urbanizations
Central City 40000
Nonmetropolitan 1687000
Suburban 628000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1 222000
Households who farm 1228000
Nc %
unwqtd Consuminq
146 3.66
28 5.75
53 3.04
18 2.94
47 3.40
1 0.23
97 8.83
48 2.24
74 46.95
72 55.02
Mean
2.24E+00
1.81 E+00
2.33E+00
*
1.80E+00
*
2.45E+00
1.79E+00
3.16E+00
2.85E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which there were less than 20 obse
SE
1.94E-01
2.87E-01
2.66E-01
*
2.45E-01
*
2.59E-01
2.30E-01
3.16E-01
3.24E-01
;rvations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consume
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
P1
1.81E-02
1.23E-01
1.93E-01
*
3.70E-02
*
1.23E-01
1.81E-02
2.63E-01
1.95E-01
;rs in survey.
P5
1.56E-01
1.56E-01
2.97E-01
*
1.97E-01
*
1.90E-01
2.90E-02
6.67E-01
4.99E-01
P10
2.97E-01
1.90E-01
4.99E-01
*
2.51 E-01
*
4.02E-01
3.70E-02
8.35E-01
5.98E-01
P25
7.21 E-01
8.19E-01
7.52E-01
*
7.16E-01
*
7.77E-01
6.28E-01
1.34E+00
1.01 E+00
South
P50
1.53E+00
1.53E+00
1.80 E+00
*
1.40 E+00
*
1.61 E+00
1.40 E+00
2. 11 E+00
1.93E+00
P75
3.07E+00
2.38E+00
2.82E+00
*
2.17E+00
*
3.19E+00
2.31 E+00
3.79E+00
3.48E+00
P90 P95 P99
5.07E+00 6.71 E+00 1.40E+01
3.19E+00 4.41 E+00 7.84E+00
5.16E+00 6.71E+00 7.51E+00
...
3.55E+00 4.58E+00 8.47E+00
...
6.09E+00 7.84E+00 1.40E+01
4.56E+00 4.61 E+00 6.40E+00
6.67E+00 8.47E+00 1.40E+01
6.23E+00 8.47E+00 1.40E+01
P100
1.40E+01
7.84E+00
7.51 E+00
*
8.47E+00
*
1.40E+01
6.40E+00
1.40E+01
1.40E+01
-------
Table 13-22. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (q/kq-day) -
Population Nc Nc %
Group wqtd unwqtd Consuminq
Total 1815000 105 5.03
Seasons
Fall 264000 12 2.47
Spring 209000 20 2.56
Summer 740000 27 9.27
Winter 602000 46 6.53
Urbanizations
Central City 236000 9 1.96
Nonmetropolitan 377000 26 6.17
Suburban 1202000 70 6.71
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1360000 79 52.84
Households who farm 758000 48 47.79
Mean
1.89E+00
*
1.86 E+00
2.20E+00
2. 11 E+00
*
2.10E+00
1.95 E+00
2.12E+00
2.41 E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 obse
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted numb
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
SE
2.12E-01
*
2.27E-01
3.18E-01
4.55E-01
*
7.00E-01
1.99E-01
2.65E-01
4.26E-01
rvations
3r of consume
P1
1.52E-01
*
2.99E-01
1.85E-01
1.35E-01
*
3.30E-01
1.52E-01
1.52E-01
1.35E-01
;rs in survey.
P5
2.25E-01
*
4.25E-01
4.06E-01
3.56E-01
*
3.30E-01
2.25E-01
2.25E-01
3.30E-01
P10
3.90E-01
*
8.70E-01
5.35E-01
4.28E-01
*
4.06E-01
3.67E-01
3.90E-01
4.67E-01
P25
6.58E-01
*
1.22E+00
1.07E+00
6.72E-01
*
6.72E-01
7.80E-01
8.15E-01
7.85E-01
West
P50
1.42E+00
*
1.56E+00
1.69E+00
1.19E+00
*
1.19E+00
1.52E+00
1.56E+00
1.55E+00
P75
2.49E+00
*
2.43E+00
3.27E+00
2.35E+00
*
1 .77E+00
2. 71 E+00
2. 71 E+00
2. 91 E+00
P90 P95
3.66E+00 4.71 E+00
. .
3.48E+00 4.20E+00
4.44E+00 4.71 E+00
3.64E+00 7.02E+00
. .
3.72E+00 4.97E+00
4.20E+00 4.71 E+00
4.20E+00 4.97E+00
4.71 E+00 7.02E+00
P99
8.00E+00
*
4.20E+00
8.00E+00
2.32E+01
*
2.32E+01
8.00E+00
8.00E+00
2.32E+01
P100
2.32E+01
*
4.20E+00
8.00E+00
2.32E+01
*
2.32E+01
8.00E+00
2.32E+01
2.32E+01
-------
Population Nc
Nc %
Table 13-23. Consumer Only
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean SE
Total 3914000
Age
01-02 82000
03-05 142000
06-1 1 382000
12-19 346000
20-39 962000
40-69 1524000
70 + 450000
Season
Fall 1220000
Spring 1112000
Summer 911000
Winter 671000
Urbanization
Central City 999000
Nonmetropolitan 1174000
Suburban 1741000
Race
Black 593000
White 3228000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish 3553000
239
6
11
29
21
59
86
24
45
114
29
51
46
94
99
41
188
220
2.08 2.07E+00 2.38E-01
1.44
1.75
2.29 2.78E+00 8.40E-01
1.69 1.52E+00 4.07E-01
1.56 1.91E+00 3.34E-01
2.69 1.79E+00 2.56E-01
2.83 1.22E+00 2.30E-01
2.56 1.31E+00 2.16E-01
2.41 3.08E+00 5.55E-01
2.00 1.88E+00 4.24E-01
1.38 2.05E+00 3.68E-01
1.77 1.79E+00 3.40E-01
2.61 3.15E+00 5.74E-01
2.01 1.50E+00 2.30E-01
2.73 1.81E+00 3.74E-01
2.05 2.07E+00 2.81 E-01
8.94 2.22E+00 2.58E-01
Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day)
P1
8.16E-02
*
«
1.60E-01
1.95E-01
8.16E-02
9.47E-02
9.88E-02
1.84E-01
9.88E-02
8.16E-02
9.47E-02
9.47E-02
9.88E-02
8.16E-02
1.84E-01
8.16E-02
8.16E-02
P5
9.11E-02
*
«
1.60E-01
1.95E-01
8.16E-02
9.47E-02
9.88E-02
1.84E-01
1.16E-01
8.16E-02
9.47E-02
9.47E-02
1.16E-01
8.16E-02
1.84E-01
8.16E-02
8.16E-02
P10
1.95E-01
*
«
1.84E-01
1.95E-01
9.11E-02
2.10E-01
2.33E-01
1.96E-01
3.08E-01
9.11E-02
1.11 E-01
1.60E-01
3.10E-01
1.84E-01
2.01 E-01
1.60E-01
1.84E-01
- All Regions Combined
P25
2.28E-01
*
«
2.28E-01
1.95E-01
1.18E-01
2.75E-01
2.33E-01
2.10E-01
3.40E-01
2.04E-01
1.60E-01
2.84E-01
3.62E-01
2.01 E-01
2.86E-01
2.27E-01
2.27E-01
P50
4.31 E-01
*
«
5.47E-01
3.11 E-01
4.43E-01
3.45E-01
5.68E-01
3.18E-01
5.59E-01
3.01 E-01
5.10E-01
6.08E-01
5.68E-01
2.86E-01
3.18E-01
3.93E-01
4.66E-01
P75
9.97E-01
*
«
1 .03E+00
9.84E-01
1 .06E+00
9.85E-01
7.64E-01
9.16E-01
1 .27E+00
7.64E-01
1 .06E+00
1 .07E+00
1 .88E+00
5.87E-01
9.84E-01
9.97E-01
1 .09E+00
P90 P95
2.17E+00 4.68E+00
. .
.
3.67E+00 7.05E+00
1.79E+00 4.68E+00
2.18E+00 4.46E+00
1.99E+00 4.43E+00
1.56E+00 3.73E+00
1.79E+00 2.64E+00
2.64E+00 6.68E+00
3.19E+00 4.43E+00
2.09E+00 5.89E+00
1.85E+00 3.73E+00
3.86E+00 6.52E+00
1.38E+00 4.37E+00
2.17E+00 4.68E+00
2.16E+00 4.99E+00
2.23E+00 5.61 E+00
P99
7.83E+00
*
«
7.85E+00
6.67E+00
9.57E+00
6.56E+00
3.73E+00
3.73E+00
1.08E+01
5.65E+00
7.85E+00
9.57E+00
7.83E+00
7.05E+00
9.57E+00
6.68E+00
7.85E+00
P100
1.55E+01
*
«
2.53E+01
8.44E+00
1.30E+01
1.08E+01
5.12E+00
6.56E+00
3.73E+01
9.57E+00
1.31E+01
9.57E+00
3.73E+01
1.08E+01
9.57E+00
1.61E+01
1.61E+01
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
= unweighted number of consume
;rs in survey.
-------
Table 13-24. Consumer Only Intake of Home Cauqht Fish (q/kq-day) - Northeast
Population
Group
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish
Nc
wqtd
334000
135000
14000
132000
53000
42000
292000
334000
Nc %
unwqtd Consuminq Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95
12
4
2
3
3
0
4
8
12
0.81 ..........
1.44
0.13 ..........
1.40
0.45 ..........
0.76 ..........
1.12 ..........
5.61 ..........
P99 P100
.
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-25. Consumer Only Intake of Home Cauqht Fish (q/kq-day) -
Population
Group
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish
Nc Nc
wqtd unwqtd
1113000
362000
224000
264000
263000
190000
501000
422000
956000
71
13
27
8
23
9
40
22
60
Consuminq
2.40
2.51
2.10
2.58
2.37
1.09
3.50
2.87
7.57
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
NOTE: SE = standard error
Mean
2.13E+00
*
3.45E+00
*
2.38E+00
*
3.42E+00
9.09E-01
2.35E+00
SE P1 P5 P10 P25
4.19E-01 8.16E-02 8.16E-02 1.96E-01 2.27E-01
.....
1.22E+00 1.16E-01 1.16E-01 1.18E-01 3.10E-01
.....
5.33E-01 5.10E-01 5.10E-01 5.10E-01 5.48E-01
....
7.17E-01 1.16E-01 1.16E-01 3.30E-01 4.66E-01
1.81E-01 8.16E-02 8.16E-02 8.16E-02 1.96E-01
4.85E-01 8.16E-02 8.16E-02 1.18E-01 2.27E-01
Midwest
P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
4.71E-01 1.03E+00 1.95E+00 6.10E+00 6.56E+00 1.61E+01
......
4.87E-01 8.21 E-01 1.67E+00 1.55E+01 1.61E+01 2.53E+01
......
1.03E+00 1.56E+00 2.13E+00 5.89E+00 6.10E+00 1.31E+01
......
5.33E-01 1.88E+00 5.65E+00 6.56E+00 1.31E+01 2.53E+01
3.01 E-01 5.48E-01 1.28E+00 2.09E+00 2.78E+00 3.73E+00
4.66E-01 1.12E+00 2.16E+00 6.52E+00 6.56E+00 2.53E+01
less than 20 observations
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-26. Consumer Only Intake of Home Cauqht Fish (q/kq-day) - South
Population
Group
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish
Nc
wqtd
1440000
274000
538000
376000
252000
281000
550000
609000
1280000
Nc
unwqtd
101
11
58
14
18
16
41
44
95
%
Consuminq
2.24
2.08
3.20
2.12
1.52
1.63
2.88
2.18
9.42
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
Mean
2.74E+00
*
4.00E+00
*
«
*
3.33E+00
2.73E+00
3.00E+00
SE P1 P5 P10
4.76E-01 9.47E-02 9.47E-02 2.04E-01
....
9.42E-01 3.08E-01 3.08E-01 3.87E-01
....
.
....
1.06E+00 2.85E-01 2.85E-01 3.38E-01
4.98E-01 2.04E-01 2.04E-01 2.75E-01
5.14E-01 9.47E-02 9.47E-02 2.04E-01
P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
2.86E-01 5.07E-01 1.48E+00 3.37E+00 5.61 E+00 8.44E+00 3.73E+01
...... .
4.46E-01 8.74E-01 1.94E+00 3.71 E+00 8.33E+00 1.30E+01 4.52E+01
...... .
.
...... .
5.07E-01 1.12E+00 1.94E+00 3.19E+00 4.43E+00 6.67E+00 4.52E+01
2.86E-01 4.26E-01 1.08E+00 4.37E+00 8.33E+00 1.04E+01 1.30E+01
2.80E-01 7.06E-01 1.93E+00 3.67E+00 6.68E+00 8.44E+00 3.73E+01
less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standrad error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-27. Consumer Only Intake of Home Cauqht Fish (q/kq-day) - West
Population
Group
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish
Nc
wqtd
1027000
449000
336000
139000
103000
528000
81000
418000
983000
Nc
unwqtd
55
17
27
4
7
21
9
25
53
%
Consuminq Mean
2.85
4.20
4.12
1.74
1.12
4.38
1.33
2.33
12.99
1.57E+00
*
1.35E+00
*
«
2.03E+00
*
1.09E+00
1.63E+00
SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50
2.72E-01 9.88E-02 1.60E-01 2.01 E-01 2.38E-01 4.43E-01
. .....
2.94E-01 9.88E-02 9.88E-02 2.38E-01 3.27E-01 4.43E-01
. .....
.
5.25E-01 3.27E-01 3.27E-01 4.33E-01 5.29E-01 7.12E-01
* *****
2.49E-01 1.84E-01 1.84E-01 2.01E-01 2.10E-01 3.08E-01
2.81E-01 9.88E-02 1.60E-01 2.01E-01 2.18E-01 5.47E-01
P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
8.38E-01 1.79E+00 3.73E+00 5.67E+00 9.57E+00
.....
6.08E-01 1.68E+00 4.68E+00 5.61 E+00 5.67E+00
.....
.
1.45E+00 1.85E+00 3.73E+00 9.57E+00 9.57E+00
*****
5.87E-01 1.21 E+00 2.90E+00 4.68E+00 5.61 E+00
*
9.64E-01 1.79E+00 3.73E+00 5.67E+00 9.57E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-28. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1409000 89
Age
01-02 79000 6
03-05 57000 5
06-11 264000 16
12-19 84000 5
20-39 612000 36
40-69 216000 16
70 + 77000 3
Seasons
Fall 211000 7
Spring 253000 27
Summer 549000 22
Winter 396000 33
Urbanizations
Central City 115000 7
Nonmetropolitan 988000 59
Suburban 306000 23
Race
Black 0 0
White 1382000 86
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1228000 80
Households who farm 1020000 63
%
Consuming
0.75
1.39
0.70
1.58
0.41
0.99
0.38
0.48
0.44
0.55
1.21
0.81
0.20
2.19
0.35
0.00
0.88
12.16
13.92
Mean SE P1
1.40E+01 1.62E+00 1.80E-01
...
...
.
...
7.41E+00 1.02E+00 2.05E-01
...
* * *
...
1.78E+01 4.27E+00 6.28E-01
1.53E+01 2.73E+00 4.46E-01
8.08E+00 1.99E+00 1.80E-01
...
1.68E+01 2.10E+00 4.79E-01
9.86E+00 2.38E+00 3.96E-01
1.43E+01 1.65E+00 1.80E-01
1.59E+01 1.73E+00 1.80E-01
1.71 E+01 1.99E+00 3.96E-01
P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
4.46E-01 5.08E-01 3.18E+00 1.02E+01 1.95E+01 3.42E+01 4.40E+01 7.26E+01 1.11E+02
.........
.........
.
.........
3.96E-01 4.46E-01 1.89E+00 6.46E+00 1.21 E+01 1.54E+01 1.95E+01 2.30E+01 2.30E+01
.........
*********
.........
6.54E-01 6.72E-01 5.06E+00 1.22E+01 1.95E+01 5.09E+01 8.01 E+01 1.11E+02 1.11E+02
4.46E-01 5.08E-01 5.36E+00 1.06E+01 2.51 E+01 3.49E+01 3.67E+01 4.68E+01 4.68E+01
2.05E-01 2.80E-01 7.36E-01 5.47E+00 1.15E+01 1.98E+01 2.04E+01 7.26E+01 7.26E+01
.........
9.58E-01 1.89E+00 6.74E+00 1.08E+01 2.04E+01 3.49E+01 4.40E+01 8.01 E+01 1.11E+02
3.96E-01 4.46E-01 5.71 E-01 5.36E+00 1.31 E+01 2.81 E+01 2.89E+01 5.09E+01 5.09E+01
4.46E-01 5.08E-01 3.82E+00 1.03E+01 1.95E+01 3.42E+01 4.40E+01 8.01 E+01 1.11E+02
3.96E-01 1.89E+00 6.13E+00 1.08E+01 1.96E+01 3.49E+01 4.40E+01 8.01E+01 1.11E+02
7.36E-01 3.18E+00 9.06E+00 1.21E+01 2.04E+01 3.49E+01 4.40E+01 8.01E+01 1.11E+02
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-29. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Population
Group
Total
Seasons
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanizations
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
312000
48000
36000
116000
112000
0
240000
72000
312000
312000
Nc
unwgtd
16
2
4
4
6
0
10
6
16
16
%
Consuming Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25
0.76 .....
0.51 .....
0.34 .....
1.23
0.95 .....
0.00
4.35 .....
0.28 .....
26.49 .....
37.59 .....
P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
.
.
......
******
.
******
......
******
******
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-30. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Population
Group
Total
Seasons
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanizations
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Nc Nc
%
wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95
594000 36
163000 5
94000 12
252000 1 1
85000 8
43000 1
463000 31
88000 4
490000 32
490000 32
1.28 1.86E+01 3.15E+00 4.46E-01 4.46E-01 1.97E+00 8.27E+00 1.24E+01 2.30E+01 4.40E+01 4.68E+01
1.13 ..........
0.88 ..........
2.46 ..........
0.76 ..........
0.25 ..........
3.24 2.33E+01 3.40E+00 4.25E+00 8.27E+00 9.06E+00 1.21E+01 1.60E+01 3.14E+01 4.40E+01 4.68E+01
0.60 ..........
13.09 2.23E+01 3.33E+00 4.25E+00 5.36E+00 8.27E+00 1.08E+01 1.54E+01 3.14E+01 4.40E+01 4.68E+01
18.28 2.23E+01 3.33E+00 4.25E+00 5.36E+00 8.27E+00 1.08E+01 1.54E+01 3.14E+01 4.40E+01 4.68E+01
P99 P100
1.11E+02 1.11E+02
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
1.11E+02 1.11E+02
. .
1.11E+02 1.11E+02
1.11E+02 1.11E+02
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-31. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - South
Population
Group
Total
Seasons
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanizations
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
242000
0
27000
131000
84000
27000
215000
0
215000
148000
Nc %
unwgtd Consuming Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99
17
0
3
5
9
3
14
0
14
8
0.38 ..... . ....
0.00
0.16 ..... . ....
0.74 ..... . ....
0.51 ..... . ....
0.16 ..... . ....
1.13 ..... . ....
0.00
8.26 ..... . ....
6.63 ..... . ....
P100
«
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1 987-88 NFCS
-------
Population
Group
Total
Seasons
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanizations
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Nc
Nc
Table 13-32. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) -
%
watd unwcrtd Consuming Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25
261000
0
96000
50000
115000
45000
70000
146000
211000
70000
20
0
8
2
10
3
4
13
18
7
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which the
0.72 1.00E+01 2.75E+00 1.80E-01 1.80E-01 2.05E-01 5.08E-01
0.00
1.18 * .....
0.63 * .....
1.25
0.37 * .....
1.15 * .....
0.81 * .....
8.20 * .....
4.41 * .....
;re were less than 20 observations
West
P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
6.10E+00 1.33E+01 2.81E+01 2.89E+01 5.09E+01 5.09E+01
......
......
.
......
******
......
......
******
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Population
Group
Total Vegetables
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
All Regions
Total Fruit
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
All Regions
Total Meat
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
All Regions
Percent
Consuming
16.50
33.25
24.00
23.75
24.60
3.50
12.75
8.00
17.75
10.10
6.25
9.25
5.75
9.50
7.40
P1
1.16E-03
3.69E-03
4.78E-03
1 .80E-03
5.00E-03
3.96E-03
1 .22E-03
6.13E-03
5.50E-04
2.00E-03
3.78E-03
1 .77E-03
6.12E-03
7.24E-04
3.20E-03
Table 13-33.
P5
1 .59E-02
4.11E-02
3.24E-02
1 .91 E-02
2.90E-02
1 .97E-02
7.01 E-03
3.23E-02
5.66E-02
1 .90E-02
3.01 E-02
3.68E-02
2.88E-02
2.83E-02
3.90E-02
Seasonally Adjusted Consumer Only Homegrown Intake (g/kg-day)
P10
3.56E-02
8.26E-02
5.58E-02
3.83E-02
5.90E-02
4.76E-02
1 .46E-02
1 .09E-01
8.82E-02
6.20E-02
7.94E-02
2.21 E-01
5.02E-02
9.56E-02
9.20E-02
P25
1 .99E-01
2.91 E-01
2.05E-01
1.14E-01
2.19E-01
1 .73E-01
1 .36E-01
3.84E-01
2.87E-01
2.50E-01
1 .25E-01
5.25E-02
1 .86E-01
2.35E-01
2.20E-01
P50
4.55E-01
8.11 E-01
6.10E-01
4.92E-01
6.38E-01
3.61 E-01
7.87E-01
9.47E-01
6.88E-01
7.52E-01
2.11 E-01
1.61E+00
5.30E-01
5.64E-01
6.55E-01
P75
1 .37E+00
1 .96E+00
1 .86E+00
1 .46E+00
1 .80E+00
6.55E-01
2.98E+00
2.10E+00
1.81E+00
2.35E+00
7.00E-01
3.41 E+00
1 .84E+00
1 .30E+00
1 .96E+00
P90
3.32E+00
4.40E+00
3.95E+00
2.99E+00
4.00E+00
1 .48E+00
5.79E+00
6.70+00
4.75E+00
5.61 E+00
1 .56E+00
5.25E+00
3.78E+00
2.29E+00
4.05E+00
P95
5.70E+00
7.41 E+00
5.63E+00
5.04E+00
6.08E+00
3.00E+00
9.52E+00
1.02E+01
8.54E+00
9.12E+00
1.91 E+00
7.45E+00
4.95E+00
3.38E+00
5.17E+00
P99
8.78E+00
1.31 E+00
1.20E+01
8.91 E+00
1.17E+01
5.10E+00
2.22E+01
1 .49E+01
1 .45E+01
1.76E+01
4.09E+00
1.19E+01
8.45E+00
7.20E+00
9.40E+00
P100
1.01E+01
2.01 E+01
1.62E+01
1.12E+01
2.01 E+01
5.63E+00
2.71 E+01
1 .64E+01
1 .84E+01
2.71 E+01
4.80E+00
1.36E+01
9.45E+00
9.10E+00
1.36E+01
-------
Table 13-34. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Apples (g/kg-day)
Population Nc
Group wgtd
Total 5306000
Age
01-02 199000
03-05 291000
06-1 1 402000
12-19 296000
20-39 1268000
40-69 1719000
70+ 1061000
Season
Fall 1707000
Spring 639000
Summer 1935000
Winter 1025000
Urbanization
Central City 912000
Nonmetropolitan 2118000
Suburban 2276000
Race
Black 84000
White 5222000
Region
Midwest 2044000
Northeast 442000
South 1310000
West 1510000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4707000
Households who farm 1299000
* Intake data not provided for subpopuls
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distibution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of th
Nc
unwgtd
272
12
16
25
12
61
90
52
60
74
68
70
30
122
120
4
268
123
18
65
66
246
68
%
Consuming
2.82
3.49
3.59
2.41
1.44
2.06
3.03
6.68
3.58
1.38
4.25
2.10
1.62
4.70
2.63
0.39
3.31
4.41
1.07
2.04
4.19
6.91
17.72
Mean SE P1 P5
1.19E+00 7.58E-02 8.34E-02 2.30E-01
....
.
1.28E+00 1.88E-01 4.72E-01 4.72E-01
.
7.95E-01 1.07E-01 1.85E-01 2.30E-01
9.61 E-01 1.37E-01 5.57E-02 8.94E-02
1.45E+00 1.41 E-01 1.99E-01 2.60E-01
1.28E+00 1.24E-01 2.56E-01 2.95E-01
9.50E-01 1.14E-01 1.94E-01 2.38E-01
1.12E+00 1.69E-01 5.57E-02 8.94E-02
1.30E+00 1.78E-01 1.85E-01 2.30E-01
1.24E+00 2.60E-01 2.31 E-01 2.56E-01
1.27E+00 1.26E-01 5.57E-02 1.18E-01
1.09E+00 9.16E-02 1.86E-01 2.37E-01
....
1.18E+00 7.67E-02 8.34E-02 2.30E-01
1.38E+00 1.45E-01 2.16E-01 2.85E-01
.
1.10E+00 1.07E-01 1.99E-01 2.38E-01
1.20E+00 1.29E-01 5.57E-02 1.86E-01
1.21 E+00 8.22E-02 1.27E-01 2.49E-01
1.39E+00 1.31 E-01 5.57E-02 3.57E-01
P10
2.84E-01
*
«
5.63E-01
«
2.56E-01
2.55E-01
4.46E-01
3.20E-01
2.84E-01
1.86E-01
3.23E-01
3.92E-01
2.49E-01
2.91 E-01
*
2.79E-01
3.04E-01
«
3.01 E-01
2.64E-01
2.95E-01
5.36E-01
P25
4.50E-01
*
«
7.40E-01
«
3.04E-01
3.98E-01
6.27E-01
5.83E-01
3.76E-01
3.98E-01
5. 71 E-01
5.10E-01
4. 11 E-01
4.37E-01
*
4.48E-01
5.20E-01
«
4.39E-01
4.72E-01
4.70E-01
7.03E-01
P50
8.17E-01
*
«
9.56E-01
«
6.02E-01
6.48E-01
1.18E+00
1.03E+00
5.67E-01
6.92E-01
8.81 E-01
9.17E-01
9.00E-01
7.74E-01
*
7.98E-01
9.23E-01
«
9.17E-01
7.89E-01
8.17E-01
9.56E-01
P75
1.47E+00
*
«
1.29E+00
«
9.22E-01
1.08E+00
1.82E+00
1.66E+00
1.10E+00
1.41 E+00
1.59E+00
1.59E+00
1.55E+00
1.29E+00
*
1.41 E+00
1.61 E+00
«
1.38E+00
1.82E+00
1.47E+00
1.58E+00
P90
2.38E+00
*
«
2.98E+00
«
1.55E+00
1.59E+00
3.40E+00
2.69E+00
2.00E+00
2.29E+00
2.75E+00
2.19E+00
2.92E+00
2.29E+00
*
2.38E+00
2.69E+00
«
1.90E+00
2.75E+00
2.38E+00
2.99E+00
P95
3.40E+00
*
«
4.00E+00
«
1.97E+00
2.38E+00
3.62E+00
3.40E+00
2.78E+00
2.98E+00
3.40E+00
2.26E+00
3.48E+00
3.40E+00
*
3.40E+00
3.40E+00
«
2.98E+00
3.62E+00
3.40E+00
4.00E+00
P99
5.42E+00
*
«
4.00E+00
«
5.42E+00
9.83E+00
4.20E+00
4.25E+00
5.87E+00
9.83E+00
1.01E+01
1.01E+01
9.83E+00
5.42E+00
*
5.42E+00
9.83E+00
«
4.00E+00
4.25E+00
5.87E+00
4.91 E+00
P100
1.01E+01
*
«
4.00E+00
«
5.42E+00
9.83E+00
4.20E+00
4.25E+00
5.87E+00
9.83E+00
1.01E+01
1.01E+01
9.83E+00
5.42E+00
*
1.01E+01
1.01E+01
«
4.91 E+00
4.25E+00
1.01E+01
5.87E+00
ations for which there were less than 20 observations
consumers; Nc unwgtd =
e1 987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-35. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Asparagus (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
763000
8000
25000
31000
70000
144000
430000
55000
62000
608000
0
93000
190000
215000
358000
0
763000
368000
270000
95000
30000
669000
157000
Nc
unwgtd
66
1
3
3
5
11
38
5
2
59
0
5
9
27
30
0
66
33
20
9
4
59
16
%
Consuming
0.41
0.14
0.31
0.19
0.34
0.23
0.76
0.35
0.13
1.32
0.00
0.19
0.34
0.48
0.41
0.00
0.48
0.79
0.66
0.15
0.08
0.98
2.14
Mean
5.59E-01
*
«
*
«
*
4.65E-01
*
«
6.12E-01
*
*
7.59E-01
4.27E-01
5.59E-01
4.78E-01
7.17E-01
*
*
5.33E-01
*
SE P1
5.12E-02 1.00E-01
. .
.
. .
.
. .
5.38E-02 1.10E-01
* *
.
5.75E-02 1.00E-01
* *
. .
1.19E-01 1.00E-01
4.05E-02 1.10E-01
5.12E-02 1.00E-01
6.49E-02 1.00E-01
9.99E-02 1.81E-01
. .
* *
5.50E-02 1.00E-01
* *
P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
1.41E-01 1.91E-01 2.75E-01 4.00E-01 7.07E-01 1.12E+00 1.63E+00 1.97E+00 1.97E+00
.........
.
.........
.
.........
1.13E-01 1.81E-01 2.34E-01 4.00E-01 5.96E-01 8.84E-01 1.24E+00 1.75E+00 1.75E+00
*********
.
1.57E-01 1.91E-01 2.98E-01 4.46E-01 8.8/.4E-01 1.18E+00 1.63E+00 1.97E+00 1.97E+00
*********
.........
1.13E-01 1.41E-01 2.30E-01 5.43E-01 1.24E+00 1.75E+00 1.92E+00 1.97E+00 1.97E+00
1.69E-01 1.81E-01 2.75E-01 3.65E-01 5.79E-01 7.01E-01 9.31E-01 1.12E+00 1.12E+00
1.41E-01 1.91E-01 2.75E-01 4.00E-01 7.07E-01 1.12E+00 1.63E+00 1.97E+00 1.97E+00
1.10E-01 1.41E-01 2.28E-01 4.00E-01 6.14E-01 9.31E-01 1.12E+00 1.97E+00 1.97E+00
2.34E-01 2.34E-01 3.65E-01 5.96E-01 9.29E-01 1.24E+00 1.63E+00 1.92E+00 1.92E+00
.........
*********
1.41E-01 1.81E-01 2.75E-01 4.00E-01 6.99E-01 1.12E+00 1.63E+00 1.97E+00 1.97E+00
*********
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-36. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Beef (q/kq-day)
Population Nc
Group wqtd
Total 4958000
Age
01-02 110000
03-05 234000
06-1 1 695000
12-19 656000
20-39 1495000
40-69 1490000
70+ 188000
Season
Fall 1404000
Spring 911000
Summer 1755000
Winter 888000
Urbanization
Central City 100000
Nonmetropolitan 3070000
Suburban 1788000
Race
Black 0
White 4950000
Region
Midwest 2261000
Northeast 586000
South 1042000
West 1069000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 3699000
Households who farm 2850000
Nc
unwqtd
304
8
13
38
41
83
105
11
55
108
69
72
5
194
105
0
303
161
25
61
57
239
182
%
Consuminq
2.64
1.93
2.89
4.16
3.20
2.43
2.63
1.18
2.95
1.97
3.86
1.82
0.18
6.82
2.07
0.00
3.14
4.87
1.42
1.62
2.96
36.63
38.89
Mean
2.45E+00
*
*
3.77E+00
1.72E+00
2.06E+00
1.84E+00
*
1.55E+00
2.32E+00
3.48E+00
1.95E+00
*
2.80E+00
1.93E+00
2.45E+00
2.83E+00
1.44E+00
2.45E+00
2.20E+00
2.66E+00
2.63E+00
SE
1.49E-01
*
*
5.94E-01
1.63E-01
2.00E-01
1.41 E-01
*
1.74E-01
1.63E-01
4.12E-01
2.75E-01
*
2.18E-01
1.50E-01
1.50E-01
2.31 E-01
2.13E-01
3.46E-01
2.83E-01
1.60E-01
1.96E-01
P1 P5
1.83E-01 3.74E-01
. .
. .
3.54E-01 6.63E-01
3.78E-01 4.78E-01
2.69E-01 3.52E-01
1.83E-01 3.61 E-01
* *
1.83E-01 3.52E-01
2.70E-01 3.90E-01
1.02E-01 6.08E-01
3.93E-02 3.75E-01
. .
1.83E-01 3.77E-01
2.67E-01 3.75E-01
1.83E-01 3.74E-01
1.83E-01 3.54E-01
3.52E-01 3.52E-01
1.02E-01 3.90E-01
3.13E-01 3.80E-01
1.83E-01 3.88E-01
2.70E-01 3.94E-01
P10
4.65E-01
*
*
7.53E-01
5.13E-01
3.94E-01
4.55E-01
*
3.61 E-01
5.10E-01
7.45E-01
3.94E-01
*
4.99E-01
4.16E-01
4.65E-01
4.16E-01
4.73E-01
5.84E-01
5.56E-01
6.63E-01
5.85E-01
P25
8.78E-01
*
*
1.32E+00
8.96E-01
6.80E-01
8.33E-01
*
5.17E-01
1.04E+00
1.02E+00
6.74E-01
*
8.64E-01
9.07E-01
8.78E-01
8.47E-01
7.42E-01
8.16E-01
1.04E+00
1.04E+00
8.96E-01
P50
1.61 E+00
*
*
2. 11 E+00
1.51 E+00
1.59E+00
1.52E+00
*
1.33E+00
1.96E+00
2.44E+00
1.33E+00
*
1.81 E+00
1.52E+00
1.61 E+00
2.01 E+00
1.06E+00
1.59E+00
1.60E+00
1.83E+00
1.64E+00
P75 P90
3.07E+00 5.29E+00
. .
. .
4.43E+00 1.14E+01
2.44E+00 3.53E+00
2.73E+00 4.88E+00
2.38E+00 4.10E+00
* *
2.01 E+00 2.86E+00
3.29E+00 4.22E+00
4.43E+00 7.51 E+00
2.14E+00 4.23E+00
. .
3.57E+00 6.03E+00
2.44E+00 4.06E+00
3.07E+00 5.29E+00
3.66E+00 5.90E+00
1.68E+00 2.62E+00
2.41 E+00 6.36E+00
2.86E+00 4.06E+00
3.48E+00 5.39E+00
3.25E+00 5.39E+00
P95
7.24E+00
*
*
1.25E+01
3.57E+00
6.50E+00
5.39E+00
*
3.90E+00
5.23E+00
1.14E+01
5.39E+00
*
8.44E+00
5.10E+00
7.24E+00
8.39E+00
2.62E+00
7.24E+00
4.42E+00
7.51 E+00
7.51 E+00
P99 P100
1.33E+01 1.94E+01
. .
. .
1.33E+01 1.33E+01
4.28E+00 4.28E+00
8.26E+00 8.26E+00
5.90E+00 5.90E+00
* *
7.24E+00 7.24E+00
8.62E+00 9.28E+00
1.87E+01 1.87E+01
1.94E+01 1.94E+01
. .
1.87E+01 1.94E+01
7.51 E+00 9.28E+00
1.33E+01 1.94E+01
1.87E+01 1.87E+01
6.03E+00 6.03E+00
1.33E+01 1.33E+01
7.51 E+00 1.94E+01
1.25E+01 1.94E+01
1.13E+01 1.94E+01
* I ntake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1 987-88 NFCS
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 2214000 125 1.18
Age
01-02 27000 2 0.47
03-05 51000 4 0.63
06-11 167000 10 1.00
12-19 227000 13 1.11
20-39 383000 22 0.62
40-69 951000 51 1.68
70 + 408000 23 2.57
Season
Fall 562000 21 1.18
Spring 558000 55 1.21
Summer 676000 22 1.49
Winter 418000 27 0.86
Urbanization
Central City 651000 27 1.16
Nonmetropolitan 758000 51 1.68
Suburban 805000 47 0.93
Race
Black 0 0 0.00
White 2186000 124 1.39
Region
Midwest 885000 53 1.91
Northeast 230000 13 0.56
South 545000 31 0.85
West 554000 28 1.54
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 2107000 120 3.09
Households who farm 229000 11 3.12
Table
Mean
5.12E-01
*
*
«
*
3.81 E-01
4.28E-01
5.80E-01
5.45E-01
4.70E-01
3.85E-01
7.30E-01
5.18E-01
5.77E-01
4.45E-01
5.18E-01
6.30E-01
*
4.51 E-01
3.96E-01
5.26E-01
*
13-37. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Beets (g/kg-day)
SE
4.96E-02
*
*
«
*
6.26E-02
4.34E-02
8.80E-02
9.36E-02
8.98E-02
4.54E-02
1.54E-01
1.15E-01
9.06E-02
5.77E-02
4.99E-02
7.93E-02
*
1.17E-01
7.75E-02
5.16E-02
*
P1
3.21 E-02
*
*
«
*
7.57E-02
5.00E-02
3.21 E-02
3.21 E-02
7.46E-02
7.57E-02
7.31 E-02
1.11E-01
5.00E-02
3.21 E-02
3.21 E-02
5.00E-02
*
7.46E-02
3.21 E-02
3.21 E-02
*
P5 P10
7.37E-02 1.09E-01
. .
. .
.
. .
7.57E-02 1.22E-01
7.31 E-02 7.46E-02
3.21 E-02 4.76E-02
4.76E-02 5.00E-02
8.06E-02 1.09E-01
1.20E-01 1.22E-01
7.31 E-02 7.37E-02
1.35E-01 1.83E-01
7.31 E-02 7.37E-02
4.76E-02 8.06E-02
7.46E-02 1.13E-01
1.13E-01 1.83E-01
. .
7.57E-02 8.06E-02
4.76E-02 7.31 E-02
7.37E-02 9.56E-02
* *
P25
1.88E-01
*
*
«
*
1.43E-01
2.05E-01
2.71 E-01
2.57E-01
1.43E-01
1.84E-01
2.80E-01
2.57E-01
1.80E-01
1.43E-01
2.05E-01
3.15E-01
*
1.80E-01
1.21 E-01
2.05E-01
*
P50
3.97E-01
*
*
«
*
2.85E-01
3.97E-01
4.49E-01
3.56E-01
2.73E-01
3.97E-01
5.20E-01
4.01 E-01
3.86E-01
3.97E-01
3.97E-01
4.54E-01
*
2.64E-01
2.86E-01
4.01 E-01
*
P75
5.87E-01
*
*
«
*
5.56E-01
5.49E-01
9.09E-01
9.49E-01
4.47E-01
5.49E-01
8.28E-01
5.49E-01
6.61 E-01
5.56E-01
5.87E-01
9.09E-01
*
4.84E-01
5.49E-01
6.06E-01
*
P90
1.03E+00
*
*
«
*
9.99E-01
9.25E-01
1.36E+00
1.36E+00
8.73E-01
6.24E-01
1.13E+00
9.09E-01
1.36E+00
9.25E-01
1.03E+00
1.15E+00
*
6.61 E-01
6.24E-01
1.03E+00
*
P95
1.36E+00
*
*
«
*
9.99E-01
1.15E+00
1.36E+00
1.36E+00
1.59E+00
9.09E-01
2.32E+00
1.12E+00
1.40E+00
9.99E-01
1.36E+00
1.36E+00
*
9.44E-01
7.04E-01
1.36E+00
*
P99
3.69E+00
*
*
«
*
1.12E+00
1.40E+00
1.59E+00
1.40E+00
4.08E+00
9.09E-01
3.69E+00
3.69E+00
4.08E+00
2.32E+00
3.69E+00
3.69E+00
*
4.08E+00
2.32E+00
3.69E+00
*
P100
4.08E+00
*
*
«
*
1.12E+00
1.40E+00
1.59E+00
1.40E+00
4.08E+00
9.09E-01
3.69E+00
3.69E+00
4.08E+00
2.32E+00
4.08E+00
3.69E+00
*
4.08E+00
2.32E+00
4.08E+00
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-38. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Broccoli (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1745000 80
Age
01-02 0 0
03-05 13000 1
06-11 187000 9
12-19 102000 4
20-39 486000 19
40-69 761000 37
70+ 196000 10
Season
Fall 624000 20
Spring 258000 27
Summer 682000 22
Winter 181000 11
Urbanization
Central City 165000 5
Nonmetropolitan 647000 34
Suburban 933000 41
Race
Black 0 0
White 1719000 79
Region
Midwest 792000 38
Northeast 427000 19
South 373000 16
West 153000 7
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1729000 78
Households who farm 599000 29
%
Consuming Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95
0.93 4.20E-01 4.75E-02 7.61E-02 8.24E-02 1.56E-01 1.96E-01 2.90E-01 4.59E-01 8.15E-01 9.74E-01
0.00
0.16 .........
1.12 .........
0.50 .........
0.79 .........
1.34 4.12E-01 6.50E-02 8.24E-02 1.06E-01 1.64E-01 2.22E-01 3.51E-01 4.61E-01 6.14E-01 8.15E-01
1.23 .........
1.31 2.87E-01 3.70E-02 7.99E-02 7.99E-02 8.24E-02 1.75E-01 2.31E-01 3.79E-01 4.52E-01 5.29E-01
0.56 5.43E-01 1.18E-01 4.50E-02 1.54E-01 1.70E-01 2.65E-01 3.31E-01 5.89E-01 1.25E+00 2.37E+00
1.50 5.08E-01 1.05E-01 7.61E-02 1.29E-01 1.78E-01 2.15E-01 3.99E-01 6.61E-01 8.86E-01 9.74E-01
0.37 .........
0.29 .........
1.44 4.23E-01 4.21E-02 4.50E-02 1.29E-01 1.70E-01 2.23E-01 3.69E-01 5.89E-01 7.47E-01 8.86E-01
1.08 4.29E-01 8.26E-02 7.99E-02 8.24E-02 1.44E-01 2.13E-01 2.44E-01 4.41E-01 6.84E-01 2.37E+00
0.00
1.09 4.22E-01 4.81E-02 7.61E-02 8.24E-02 1.56E-01 1.96E-01 2.88E-01 4.59E-01 8.15E-01 9.74E-01
1.71 2.63E-01 5.86E-02 7.61E-02 7.99E-02 8.24E-02 1.75E-01 2.13E-01 2.75E-01 3.44E-01 4.03E-01
1.04 .........
0.58 .........
0.42 .........
2.54 4.22E-01 4.83E-02 7.61E-02 8.24E-02 1.64E-01 1.96E-01 2.90E-01 4.59E-01 8.15E-01 9.74E-01
8.17 4.66E-01 8.37E-02 4.50E-02 7.61E-02 1.54E-01 1.95E-01 3.10E-01 6.61E-01 8.86E-01 9.74E-01
P99 P100
2.48E+00 3.02E+00
.
. .
.
. .
3.02E+00 3.02E+00
* *
8.15E-01 8.15E-01
3.02E+00 3.02E+00
2.48E+00 2.48E+00
* *
. .
9.74E-01 9.74E-01
2.48E+00 3.02E+00
2.48E+00 3.02E+00
3.02E+00 3.02E+00
.
. .
* *
2.48E+00 3.02E+00
3.02E+00 3.02E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distibution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-39. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cabbage (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
2019000
14000
29000
61000
203000
391000
966000
326000
570000
126000
1142000
181000
157000
1079000
783000
7000
1867000
884000
277000
616000
242000
1921000
546000
Nc
%
unwgtd Consuming Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99
89
2
1
3
9
16
44
13
21
15
39
14
5
48
36
1
83
37
11
32
9
86
26
1.07 1.03E+00 1.00E-01 1.07E-01 2.03E-01 3.17E-01 4.21E-01 7.76E-01 1.33E+00 1.97E+00 2.35E+00 5.43E+00
0.25 ...........
0.36 ...........
0.37 ...........
0.99 ...........
0.63 ...........
1.70 1.14E+00 1.80E-01 2.17E-01 2.22E-01 3.25E-01 4.08E-01 7.13E-01 1.41E+00 1.82E+00 5.29E+00 5.43E+00
2.05 ...........
1.20 1.28E+00 3.24E-01 1.86E-01 1.86E-01 2.03E-01 3.85E-01 5.42E-01 1.49E+00 5.29E+00 5.43E+00 5.43E+00
0.27 ...........
2.51 9.65E-01 9.35E-02 2.01 E-01 2.22E-01 3.25E-01 5.55E-01 8.28E-01 1.24E+00 1.79E+00 2.35E+00 2.77E+00
0.37 ...........
0.28 ...........
2.40 9.37E-01 8.83E-02 2.01E-01 3.17E-01 3.40E-01 4.54E-01 7.13E-01 1.33E+00 1.79E+00 2.35E+00 2.77E+00
0.90 1.26E+00 2.11E-01 3.20E-02 2.22E-01 3.25E-01 4.49E-01 1.05E+00 1.37E+00 2.17E+00 5.29E+00 5.43E+00
0.03 ...........
1.19 1.05E+00 1.07E-01 1.07E-01 2.03E-01 2.46E-01 4.13E-01 7.88E-01 1.37E+00 1.97E+00 2.35E+00 5.43E+00
1.91 7.42E-01 7.35E-02 1.07E-01 1.86E-01 2.22E-01 3.55E-01 5.95E-01 1.10E+00 1.29E+00 1.49E+00 1.82E+00
0.67 ...........
0.96 1.11E+00 1.34E-01 3.20E-02 2.01E-01 2.17E-01 4.49E-01 8.50E-01 1.79E+00 2.17E+00 2.35E+00 2.77E+00
0.67 ...........
2.82 1.07E+00 1.03E-01 1.07E-01 2.03E-01 3.17E-01 4.54E-01 7.88E-01 1.37E+00 1.97E+00 2.35E+00 5.43E+00
745 996E-01 1 15E-01 2 01 E-01 2 06E-01 3 51 E-01 5 87E-01 8 28E-01 1 37E+00 1 79E+00 2 35E+00 2 35E+00
P100
5.43E+00
*
*
«
*
«
5.43E+00
*
5.43E+00
*
2.77E+00
*
*
2.77E+00
5.43E+00
«
5.43E+00
1.98E+00
*
2.77E+00
*
5.43E+00
2 35E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-40. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Carrots (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
4322000
51000
53000
299000
389000
1043000
1848000
574000
1810000
267000
1544000
701000
963000
1675000
1684000
107000
3970000
2001000
735000
378000
1208000
4054000
833000
Nc
%
unwgtd Consuming
193
4
3
14
17
46
82
24
66
28
49
50
29
94
70
7
178
97
29
20
47
182
40
2.30
0.89
0.65
1.79
1.90
1.69
3.26
3.61
3.80
0.58
3.39
1.44
1.71
3.72
1.94
0.49
2.52
4.31
1.79
0.59
3.35
5.95
11.37
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less ths
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA' analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
Mean
4.38E-01
*
«
*
«
2.83E-01
4.25E-01
4.44E-01
4.61 E-01
5.55E-01
3.88E-01
4.44E-01
2.82E-01
5.18E-01
4.48E-01
*
4.13E-01
4.57E-01
4.05E-01
6.27E-01
3.68E-01
4.04E-01
3.60E-01
an 20 observ
SE
4.29E-02
*
«
*
«
3.46E-02
3.42E-02
5.50E-02
9.77E-02
1.01 E-01
3.95E-02
7.44E-02
3.86E-02
8.98E-02
4.02E-02
*
2.58E-02
3.99E-02
8.79E-02
3.60E-01
3.24E-02
2.67E-02
5.95E-02
ations
= unweighted number of consumers
P1
4.12E-02
*
«
*
«
4.47E-02
3.90E-02
7.39E-02
9.09E-02
1.39E-01
4.12E-02
3.90E-02
3.90E-02
4.12E-02
6.74E-02
*
4.34E-02
3.90E-02
4.12E-02
4.47E-02
6.74E-02
4.12E-02
9.09E-02
n survey.
P5 P10 P25 P50 P75
6.35E-02 9.23E-02 1.79E-01 3.28E-01 5.25E-01
.....
.
.....
.
5.02E-02 8.00E-02 1.20E-01 1.99E-01 4.09E-01
6.74E-02 1.23E-01 2.15E-01 3.67E-01 5.50E-01
1.79E-01 1.96E-01 2.60E-01 3.70E-01 5.39E-01
1.10E-01 1.20E-01 1.99E-01 3.08E-01 5.09E-01
1.49E-01 2.02E-01 2.16E-01 3.92E-01 6.09E-01
5.02E-02 6.74E-02 1.64E-01 3.76E-01 5.13E-01
4.34E-02 6.35E-02 1.56E-01 2.25E-01 6.40E-01
6.35E-02 8.00E-02 1.63E-01 2.09E-01 3.85E-01
5.36E-02 6.81E-02 2.00E-01 3.28E-01 5.13E-01
9.09E-02 1.16E-01 2.02E-01 3.77E-01 6.35E-01
.....
7.96E-02 1.11 E-01 1.94E-01 3.33E-01 5.27E-01
8.00E-02 1.37E-01 2.00E-01 3.73E-01 5.39E-01
5.36E-02 6.15E-02 9.34E-02 1.49E-01 6.35E-01
4.47E-02 5.02E-02 1.49E-01 2.72E-01 4.09E-01
9.11E-02 1.43E-01 1.90E-01 3.33E-01 4.59E-01
6.81 E-02 9.34E-02 1.79E-01 3.28E-01 5.09E-01
9.34E-02 1.10E-01 1.79E-01 2.28E-01 4.59E-01
P90
7.95E-01
*
«
*
«
5.64E-01
7.76E-01
9.64E-01
7.76E-01
9.94E-01
8.40E-01
1.05E+00
5.25E-01
9.55E-01
7.95E-01
*
7.76E-01
9.55E-01
1.09E+00
5.02E-01
7.56E-01
7.62E-01
6.19E-01
P95
1.08E+00
*
«
*
«
7.56E-01
1.01 E+00
1.08E+00
1.08E+00
2. 11 E+00
9.64E-01
1.53E+00
5.88E-01
1.19E+00
1.09E+00
*
1.01 E+00
1.10E+00
1.71 E+00
9.94E-01
8.40E-01
1.08E+00
1.19E+00
P99
2.21 E+00
*
«
*
«
1.19E+00
1.53E+00
1.08E+00
1.71 E+00
2.94E+00
1.19E+00
3.06E+00
9.64E-01
7.79E+00
1.71 E+00
*
1.59E+00
2. 11 E+00
2.21 E+00
7.79E+00
9.64E-01
1.71 E+00
2. 11 E+00
P100
7.79E+00
*
«
*
«
1.19E+00
2.21 E+00
1.08E+00
7.79E+00
2.94E+00
1.19E+00
3.06E+00
9.64E-01
7.79E+00
1.71 E+00
*
3.06E+00
3.06E+00
2.21 E+00
7.79E+00
9.64E-01
3.06E+00
2.94E+00
-------
Population Nc Nc
Group watd unwatd
Total 6891000 421
Age
01-02 205000 13
03-05 313000 24
06-1 1 689000 43
12-19 530000 32
20-39 1913000 108
40-69 2265000 142
70+ 871000 53
Season
Fall 2458000 89
Spring 1380000 160
Summer 1777000 62
Winter 1276000 110
Urbanization
Central City 748000 27
Nonmetropolitan 4122000 268
Suburban 2021000 126
Race
Black 188000 9
White 6703000 412
Region
Midwest 2557000 188
Northeast 586000 33
South 2745000 153
West 1003000 47
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 6233000 387
Households who farm 1739000 114
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which the
%
Consuming
3.67
3.60
3.86
4.12
2.59
3.11
3.99
5.48
5.16
2.99
3.91
2.62
1.33
9.16
2.33
0.86
4.26
5.51
1.42
4.27
2.78
9.15
23.73
Tabl
Mean
8.92E-01
*
1.25E+00
9.32E-01
5.92E-01
5.97E-01
8.64E-01
9.43E-01
5.44E-01
6.35E-01
1.82E+00
5.45E-01
7.37E-01
9.63E-01
8.04E-01
«
8.87E-01
9.34E-01
6.14E-01
8.73E-01
9.99E-01
8.75E-01
1.20E+00
3 13-41. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Corn (g/kg-day)
SE P1
6.48E-02 5.15E-02
. .
2.57E-01 3.25E-01
1.66E-01 1.10E-01
9.56E-02 9.87E-02
6.00E-02 6.59E-02
1.05E-01 1.13E-01
2.59E-01 3.91 E-02
8.37E-02 3.91 E-02
5.57E-02 1.42E-01
2.62E-01 6.59E-02
4.67E-02 1.14E-01
1.41E-01 3.91 E-02
8.18E-02 7.40E-02
1.30E-01 1.05E-01
.
6.51E-02 5.15E-02
9.74E-02 3.91 E-02
8.42E-02 9.87E-02
9.52E-02 7.40E-02
2.77E-01 1.05E-01
6.30E-02 5.15E-02
1.77E-01 3.91 E-02
P5
1.22E-01
*
3.25E-01
1.19E-01
1.05E-01
1.41E-01
1.52E-01
5.15E-02
1.05E-01
1.68E-01
1.78E-01
1.20E-01
3.91 E-02
1.22E-01
1.53E-01
«
1.22E-01
1.19E-01
1.66E-01
1.22E-01
1.47E-01
1.35E-01
1.08E-01
P10
1.65E-01
*
4.00E-01
1.89E-01
1.35E-01
1.52E-01
1.66E-01
1.05E-01
1.42E-01
1.93E-01
3.43E-01
1.49E-01
5.15E-02
1.66E-01
1.66E-01
«
1.63E-01
1.68E-01
1.86E-01
1.66E-01
1.52E-01
1.65E-01
1.66E-01
P25
2.44E-01
*
5.98E-01
2.52E-01
2.12E-01
2.08E-01
2.55E-01
1.88E-01
1.88E-01
2.64E-01
6.44E-01
2.22E-01
1.77E-01
2.49E-01
2.39E-01
«
2.37E-01
2.47E-01
2.44E-01
2.83E-01
1.77E-01
2.44E-01
2.29E-01
P50
4.80E-01
*
1.00E+00
5.13E-01
3.43E-01
3.71 E-01
5.16E-01
3.64E-01
3.17E-01
4.48E-01
9.36E-01
4.05E-01
5.46E-01
5.31 E-01
3.96E-01
«
4.80E-01
4.56E-01
3.81 E-01
5.61 E-01
3.96E-01
5.02E-01
3.81 E-01
P75
9.07E-01
*
1.21E+00
1.08E+00
7. 11 E-01
7.08E-01
8.83E-01
7.57E-01
5.46E-01
7.68E-01
2.13E+00
6.14E-01
9.29E-01
1.00E+00
6.47E-01
«
8.84E-01
9.29E-01
8.83E-01
9.35E-01
7.45E-01
9.14E-01
9.74E-01
P90
1.88E+00
*
1.67E+00
3.13E+00
1.55E+00
1.53E+00
1.42E+00
1.34E+00
1.27E+00
1.21E+00
4.52E+00
1.16E+00
2.04E+00
2.13E+00
1.34E+00
«
1.88E+00
2.28E+00
1.34E+00
1.55E+00
2.23E+00
1.82E+00
3.37E+00
P95
3.37E+00
*
5.35E+00
3.37E+00
1.88E+00
2.04E+00
3.22E+00
6.49E+00
1.42E+00
1.57E+00
6.84E+00
1.47E+00
2.23E+00
3.38E+00
1.71E+00
«
3.22E+00
3.22E+00
1.71E+00
3.37E+00
6.49E+00
3.13E+00
6.49E+00
P99 P100
7.44E+00 9.23E+00
. .
5.35E+00 5.35E+00
4.52E+00 4.52E+00
1.88E+00 1.88E+00
3.70E+00 3.70E+00
7.44E+00 7.44E+00
9.23E+00 9.23E+00
5.35E+00 5.69E+00
5.15E+00 6.68E+00
9.23E+00 9.23E+00
2.04E+00 3.94E+00
3.04E+00 3.04E+00
7.44E+00 8.97E+00
9.23E+00 9.23E+00
.
7.44E+00 9.23E+00
6.84E+00 7.44E+00
1.71E+00 1.71E+00
5.69E+00 8.97E+00
9.23E+00 9.23E+00
6.84E+00 9.23E+00
9.23E+00 9.23E+00
;re were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distributions
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-42. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cucumbers (q/kq-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wqtd unwqtd
Total 3994000 141
Age
01-02 132000 5
03-05 107000 4
06-11 356000 12
12-19 254000 10
20-39 864000 29
40-69 1882000 68
70+ 399000 13
Season
Fall 370000 12
Spring 197000 15
Summer 3427000 114
Winter 0 0
Urbanization
Central City 640000 18
Nonmetropolitan 1530000 64
Suburban 1824000 59
Race
Black 86000 2
White 3724000 132
Region
Midwest 969000 31
Northeast 689000 22
South 1317000 54
West 1019000 34
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 3465000 123
Households who farm 710000 29
%
Consuminq Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25
2.12 1.02E+00 1.55E-01 3.08E-02 6.71E-02 1.08E-01 2.40E-01
2.32 ... ...
1.32
2.13 ... ...
1.24
1.40 5.04E-01 9.27E-02 3.08E-02 5.45E-02 6.31 E-02 1.83E-01
3.32 1.33E+00 3.01E-01 4.16E-02 7.46E-02 1.76E-01 3.93E-01
2.51 ... ...
0.78 ... ...
0.43 ... ...
7.53 1.06E+00 1.83E-01 O.OOE+00 7.46E-02 1.08E-01 2.42E-01
0.00
1.14 ... ...
3.40 1.74E+00 3.43E-01 1.01 E-01 1.21 E-01 1.90E-01 3.86E-01
2.11 6.71 E-01 7.52E-02 O.OOE+00 7.46E-02 1.62E-01 2.78E-01
0.40 ... ...
2.36 9.35E-01 1.62E-01 3.08E-02 6.31 E-02 1.01 E-01 2.22E-01
2.09 1.00E+00 3.92E-01 3.08E-02 4.16E-02 5.45E-02 1.35E-01
1.67 1.92E+00 6.78E-01 2.33E-01 2.78E-01 2.78E-01 4.75E-01
2.05 8.85E-01 1.05E-01 O.OOE+00 1.21 E-01 1.83E-01 2.87E-01
2.83 6.01 E-01 1.06E-01 6.71 E-02 7.46E-02 1.01 E-01 2.09E-01
5.08 1.05E+00 1.75E-01 3.08E-02 6.71 E-02 1.01 E-01 2.78E-01
9.69 6.99E-01 1.07E-01 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 1.43E-01 1.88E-01
P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
5.40E-01 1.13E+00 2.11E+00 2.79E+00 1.34E+01 1.37E+01
......
.
......
.
3.09E-01 6.17E-01 1.35E+00 1.49E+00 2.12E+00 2.12E+00
6.84E-01 1.29E+00 2.11E+00 3.27E+00 1.37E+01 1.37E+01
* *****
.
......
5.18E-01 1.13E+00 2.12E+00 2.79E+00 1.34E+01 1.37E+01
......
1.06E+00 1.67E+00 3.09E+00 4.50E+00 1.37E+01 1.37E+01
4.99E-01 8.33E-01 1.34E+00 1.73E+00 3.27E+00 3.27E+00
......
5.01 E-01 1.03E+00 1.49E+00 2.40E+00 1.34E+01 1.37E+01
4.53E-01 1.03E+00 2.35E+00 2.45E+00 1.34E+01 1.34E+01
6.84E-01 1.53E+00 4.18E+00 1.17E+01 1.37E+01 1.37E+01
7.53E-01 1.28E+00 1.73E+00 2.13E+00 4.50E+00 4.50E+00
4.30E-01 7.01 E-01 1.29E+00 2.11E+00 3.27E+00 3.27E+00
5.18E-01 1.13E+00 2.11E+00 2.79E+00 1.34E+01 1.37E+01
3.86E-01 1.27E+00 1.49E+00 1.71E+00 2.09E+00 2.09E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-43. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Eggs (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Seasons
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
2075000
21000
20000
170000
163000
474000
718000
489000
542000
460000
723000
350000
251000
1076000
748000
63000
2012000
665000
87000
823000
500000
1824000
741000
Nc
unwgtd
124
3
2
12
14
30
43
18
18
54
26
26
9
65
50
9
115
37
7
44
36
113
44
%
Consuming
1.10
0.37
0.25
1.02
0.80
0.77
1.27
3.08
1.14
1.00
1.59
0.72
0.45
2.39
0.86
0.29
1.28
1.43
0.21
1.28
1.39
18.06
10.11
Mean
7.31 E-01
*
«
*
«
6.32E-01
5.91 E-01
*
«
1.31E+00
4.96E-01
8.60E-01
*
7.34E-01
8.54E-01
*
7.41 E-01
7.93E-01
«
5.36E-01
9.21 E-01
7.46E-01
8.98E-01
SE P1 P5
1.00E-01 7.16E-02 1.50E-01
...
.
...
.
9.23E-02 7.16E-02 7.16E-02
5.77E-02 1.37E-01 1.41 E-01
...
.
2.88E-01 1.57E-01 3.25E-01
8.14E-02 7.16E-02 1.37E-01
9.50E-02 1.67E-01 1.75E-01
...
1.23E-01 7.16E-02 1.41E-01
1.98E-01 1.37E-01 1.50E-01
...
1.05E-01 7.16E-02 1.50E-01
1.96E-01 7.16E-02 1.37E-01
.
6.46E-02 1.52E-01 1.77E-01
2.75E-01 1.67E-01 2.06E-01
1.11E-01 7.16E-02 1.50E-01
1.70E-01 1.52E-01 1.65E-01
P10
1.75E-01
*
«
*
«
2.15E-01
1.52E-01
*
«
3.94E-01
1.41 E-01
2.15E-01
*
1.67E-01
2.06E-01
*
1.75E-01
1.41 E-01
«
1.96E-01
2.08E-01
1.65E-01
1.77E-01
P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99
2.68E-01 4.66E-01 9.02E-01 1.36E+00 1.69E+00 6.58E+00
..... .
.
..... .
.
3.00E-01 4.16E-01 8.14E-01 1.32E+00 1.93E+00 2.50E+00
3.17E-01 5.14E-01 8.44E-01 1.30E+00 1.36E+00 1.38E+00
***** *
.
5.02E-01 6.66E-01 1.31E+00 2.10E+00 3.26E+00 1.35E+01
2.60E-01 3.32E-01 5.41 E-01 1.36E+00 1.51E+00 1.65E+00
4.03E-01 7.51 E-01 1.17E+00 1.62E+00 1.93E+00 1.93E+00
..... .
2.60E-01 4.74E-01 9.16E-01 1.34E+00 1.65E+00 6.58E+00
3.80E-01 5.88E-01 1.17E+00 1.36E+00 1.85E+00 1.35E+01
..... .
2.68E-01 4.82E-01 9.03E-01 1.36E+00 1.69E+00 6.58E+00
2.17E-01 3.39E-01 1.08E+00 1.51E+00 2.10E+00 9.16E+00
.
2.60E-01 3.60E-01 5.99E-01 1.18E+00 1.62E+00 1.93E+00
4.58E-01 6.66E-01 1.05E+00 1.36E+00 1.36E+00 1.35E+01
2.56E-01 4.82E-01 9.02E-01 1.36E+00 1.85E+00 6.58E+00
2.72E-01 6.66E-01 1.19E+00 1.65E+00 1.85E+00 6.58E+00
P100
1.35E+01
*
«
*
«
2.50E+00
1.38E+00
*
«
1.35E+01
1.65E+00
1.93E+00
*
9.16E+00
1.35E+01
*
1.35E+01
9.16E+00
«
1.93E+00
1.35E+01
1.35E+01
9.16E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-44. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Game (q/kq-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wqtd unwqtd Consuminq
Total 2707000 185 1.44
Age
01-02 89000 8 1.56
03-05 94000 8 1.16
06-11 362000 28 2.17
12-19 462000 27 2.25
20-39 844000 59 1.37
40-69 694000 41 1.22
70+ 74000 7 0.47
Season
Fall 876000 31 1.84
Spring 554000 68 1.20
Summer 273000 9 0.60
Winter 1004000 77 2.06
Urbanization
Central City 506000 20 0.90
Nonmetropolitan 1259000 101 2.80
Suburban 942000 64 1.09
Race
Black 0 0 0.00
White 2605000 182 1.65
Region
Midwest 1321000 97 2.85
Northeast 394000 20 0.96
South 609000 47 0.95
West 383000 21 1.06
Response to Questionnaire
Households who hunt 2357000 158 11.66
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were le
Mean
9.67E-01
*
*
1.09E+00
1.04E+00
8.24E-01
9.64E-01
*
9.97E-01
9.06E-01
*
1.07E+00
6.89E-01
9.45E-01
1.15E+00
9.77E-01
8.83E-01
1.13E+00
1.26E+00
6.28E-01
1.04E+00
SE
6.14E-02
*
*
1.44E-01
1.39E-01
1.08E-01
1.40E-01
*
1.56E-01
8.78E-02
*
1.05E-01
1.27E-01
8.91 E-02
1.04E-01
6.30E-02
8.32E-02
2.16E-01
1.29E-01
7.21 E-02
6.84E-02
P1
O.OOE+00
*
*
1.16E-01
2.10E-01
1.04E-01
1.24E-01
*
1.17E-01
O.OOE+00
*
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.87E-01
O.OOE+00
1.24E-01
O.OOE+00
P5
1.17E-01
*
*
2.31 E-01
2.10E-01
1.17E-01
1.72E-01
*
1.48E-01
1.04E-01
*
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.17E-01
2.56E-01
1.17E-01
7.53E-02
2.87E-01
1.17E-01
1.51 E-01
1.40E-01
P1 0 P25
2.10E-01 3.97E-01
. .
. .
4.28E-01 6.33E-01
2.91 E-01 6.30E-01
1.88E-01 3.01 E-01
2.87E-01 3.42E-01
* *
2.18E-01 4.28E-01
1.72E-01 4.43E-01
. .
1.65E-01 3.88E-01
1.88E-01 2.77E-01
1.65E-01 3.20E-01
3.97E-01 5.21 E-01
2.02E-01 3.76E-01
2.18E-01 3.42E-01
3.21 E-01 4.30E-01
1.48E-01 6.32E-01
1.88E-01 3.97E-01
2.77E-01 4.42E-01
P50
7.09E-01
*
*
7.61 E-01
8.46E-01
6.31 E-01
5.10E-01
*
6.33E-01
7.46E-01
*
8.18E-01
6.30E-01
6.59E-01
8.18E-01
7.29E-01
6.12E-01
7.74E-01
1.09E+00
6.33E-01
7.46E-01
P75
1.22E+00
*
*
1.48E+00
1.22E+00
1.09E+00
1.41 E+00
*
1.19E+00
1.22E+00
*
1.52E+00
7.74E-01
1.19E+00
1.52E+00
1.38E+00
1.10E+00
1.41 E+00
1.93E+00
7.74E-01
1.44E+00
P90
2.27E+00
*
*
2.67E+00
1.99E+00
1.57E+00
2.51 E+00
*
2.50E+00
1.75E+00
*
2.20E+00
1.48E+00
2.27E+00
2.51 E+00
2.34E+00
1.99E+00
3.13E+00
2.38E+00
1.12E+00
2.38E+00
P95
2.67E+00
*
*
2.85E+00
3.13E+00
2.50E+00
3.19E+00
*
3.13E+00
2.52E+00
*
2.67E+00
1.99E+00
3.05E+00
2.85E+00
2.85E+00
2.51 E+00
3.13E+00
3.19E+00
1.22E+00
2.90E+00
P99
3.61 E+00
*
*
2.90E+00
3.13E+00
4.59E+00
3.61 E+00
*
3.19E+00
3.61 E+00
*
4.59E+00
2.34E+00
4.59E+00
3.13E+00
3.61 E+00
4.59E+00
3.61 E+00
3.19E+00
1.52E+00
3.61 E+00
P100
4.59E+00
*
*
2.90E+00
3.13E+00
4.59E+00
3.61 E+00
*
3.19E+00
3.61 E+00
*
4.59E+00
2.34E+00
4.59E+00
3.61 E+00
4.59E+00
4.59E+00
3.61 E+00
3.19E+00
1.52E+00
4.59E+00
ss than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-45. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Lettuce (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Responses to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
%
wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75
1520000 80
54000 4
25000 2
173000 7
71000 3
379000 17
485000 26
317000 20
214000 8
352000 35
856000 30
98000 7
268000 8
566000 36
686000 36
51000 3
1434000 75
630000 33
336000 16
305000 20
249000 1 1
1506000 78
304000 18
0.81 3.87E-01 3.18E-02 O.OOE+00 4.49E-02 9.43E-02 1.70E-01 2.84E-01 5.45E-01
0.95 ... .....
0.31 ... .....
1.04
0.35 ... .....
0.62 ... .....
0.86 4.84E-01 6.07E-02 1.15E-01 1.15E-01 1.24E-01 2.21E-01 4.91E-01 6.84E-01
2.00 4.52E-01 7.17E-02 5.04E-02 6.71E-02 1.12E-01 2.23E-01 2.88E-01 5.68E-01
0.45 ... .....
0.76 4.52E-01 4.86E-02 5.04E-02 6.71 E-02 1.24E-01 1.99E-01 4.53E-01 5.79E-01
1.88 3.02E-01 3.96E-02 1.98E-02 3.35E-02 4.93E-02 1.42E-01 2.30E-01 4.24E-01
0.20 ... .....
0.48 ... .....
1.26 3.67E-01 4.78E-02 1.98E-02 3.35E-02 4.49E-02 1.23E-01 2.88E-01 5.45E-01
0.79 3.49E-01 4.32E-02 O.OOE+00 9.43E-02 9.68E-02 1.53E-01 2.30E-01 4.91 E-01
0.23 ... .....
0.91 3.79E-01 3.33E-02 O.OOE+00 4.49E-02 9.43E-02 1.56E-01 2.75E-01 5.45E-01
1.36 3.83E-01 5.54E-02 1.98E-02 3.35E-02 4.49E-02 1.56E-01 2.34E-01 5.68E-01
0.82 ... .....
0.47 3.52E-01 5.74E-02 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 1.27E-01 1.64E-01 2.75E-01 4.83E-01
0.69 ... .....
2.21 3.90E-01 3.22E-02 O.OOE+00 4.49E-02 9.43E-02 1.74E-01 2.84E-01 5.45E-01
4.15 ... .....
P90 P95 P99 P100
8.36E-01 1.03E+00 1.05E+00 1.28E+00
....
.
....
.
....
8.86E-01 1.05E+00 1.28E+00 1.28E+00
1.03E+00 1.03E+00 1.03E+00 1.03E+00
.
7.98E-01 9.94E-01 1.28E+00 1.28E+00
5.98E-01 8.14E-01 8.86E-01 8.86E-01
* ...
....
8.14E-01 8.86E-01 1.28E+00 1.28E+00
7.67E-01 9.94E-01 1.05E+00 1.05E+00
....
8.86E-01 1.03E+00 1.05E+00 1.28E+00
9.42E-01 1.03E+00 1.03E+00 1.03E+00
.
5.79E-01 1.04E+00 1.28E+00 1.28E+00
* ...
8.36E-01 1.03E+00 1.05E+00 1.28E+00
* * * *
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-46. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Lima Beans (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
1917000
62000
35000
95000
108000
464000
757000
361000
375000
316000
883000
343000
204000
1075000
638000
213000
1704000
588000
68000
1261000
0
1610000
62000
Nc
unwgtd
109
3
2
7
6
20
44
25
14
39
29
27
8
69
32
9
100
36
6
67
0
97
6
%
Consuming
1.02
1.09
0.43
0.57
0.53
0.75
1.33
2.27
0.79
0.68
1.94
0.70
0.36
2.39
0.74
0.98
1.08
1.27
0.17
1.96
0.00
2.36
0.85
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
Mean
4.53E-01
*
*
«
*
3.84E-01
4.54E-01
5.23E-01
*
4.19E-01
4.99E-01
5.27E-01
*
2.99E-01
7.53E-01
«
3.83E-01
4.28E-01
*
4.72E-01
4.47E-01
*
SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75
4.11E-02 O.OOE+00 9.19E-02 1.21E-01 1.88E-01 2.90E-01 5.45E-01
. . .....
. . .....
.
. . .....
6.87E-02 3.23E-02 1.08E-01 1.30E-01 1.77E-01 2.34E-01 4.87E-01
6.30E-02 9.19E-02 1.06E-01 1.21E-01 2.04E-01 2.93E-01 5.60E-01
1.05E-01 8.20E-02 1.86E-01 1.88E-01 2.25E-01 2.86E-01 6.38E-01
. . .....
5.50E-02 8.20E-02 9.02E-02 1.31 E-01 2.32E-01 3.06E-01 5.45E-01
9.68E-02 O.OOE+00 9.43E-02 1.21 E-01 1.72E-01 2.90E-01 4.87E-01
6.25E-02 O.OOE+00 3.23E-02 1.08E-01 3.05E-01 5.39E-01 7.58E-01
. . .....
3.22E-02 3.23E-02 9.43E-02 1.21E-01 1.71E-01 2.12E-01 3.20E-01
9.60E-02 O.OOE+00 8.20E-02 9.19E-02 3.20E-01 6.78E-01 9.90E-01
.
3.27E-02 O.OOE+00 9.19E-02 1.08E-01 1.77E-01 2.54E-01 4.87E-01
6.17E-02 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 1.06E-01 2.53E-01 3.06E-01 4.15E-01
. . .....
5.62E-02 3.23E-02 1.03E-01 1.30E-01 1.77E-01 2.49E-01 6.34E-01
4.49E-02 3.23E-02 9.43E-02 1.21 E-01 1.77E-01 2.85E-01 5.26E-01
* * *****
P90 P95 P99 P100
9.90E-01 1.69E+00 1.86E+00 1.91E+00
....
....
.
....
9.37E-01 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
8.69E-01 1.71E+00 1.91E+00 1.91E+00
1.86E+00 1.86E+00 1.86E+00 1.86E+00
....
7.48E-01 1.31E+00 1.91E+00 1.91E+00
1.53E+00 1.71E+00 1.86E+00 1.86E+00
8.61 E-01 8.69E-01 1.69E+00 1.69E+00
....
4.87E-01 7.69E-01 1.69E+00 1.91E+00
1.71E+00 1.86E+00 1.86E+00 1.86E+00
.
8.61 E-01 9.90E-01 1.53E+00 1.91E+00
9.90E-01 1.53E+00 1.69E+00 1.69E+00
....
1.10E+00 1.71E+00 1.86E+00 1.91E+00
9.37E-01 1.71E+00 1.86E+00 1.91E+00
* * * *
less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-47. Consumer Only Intake of Homeqrown Okra (q/kq-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wqtd
1696000
53000
68000
218000
194000
417000
587000
130000
228000
236000
1 1 44000
88000
204000
1043000
449000
236000
1419000
113000
1443000
140000
1564000
233000
Nc
%
unwqtd Consuminq Mean SE P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75
82
2
3
11
9
18
32
6
9
24
41
8
6
55
21
13
68
7
70
5
77
14
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which there
0.90
0.93
0.84
1.30
0.95
0.68
1.03
0.82
0.48
0.51
2.52
0.18
0.36
2.32
0.52
1.09
0.90
0.24
2.24
0.39
2.29
3.18
3.91 E-01 3.81 E-02 O.OOE+00 5.03E-02 9.59E-02 1.48E-01 2.99E-01 4.58E-01
. .......
. .......
.
. .......
.
4.00E-01 4.73E-02 6.57E-02 1.11 E-01 1.37E-01 2.47E-01 3.07E-01 4.62E-01
* *******
. .......
3.87E-01 6.22E-02 2.98E-02 4.58E-02 6.57E-02 1.10E-01 4.10E-01 5.95E-01
3.86E-01 5.75E-02 O.OOE+00 5.03E-02 9.59E-02 1.44E-01 2.99E-01 4.38E-01
* *******
. .......
3.65E-01 4.99E-02 O.OOE+00 2.69E-02 8.48E-02 1.48E-01 2.57E-01 4.38E-01
5.14E-01 6.97E-02 6.57E-02 9.60E-02 1.11E-01 3.13E-01 4.62E-01 6.00E-01
.
4.26E-01 4.40E-02 O.OOE+00 6.57E-02 9.60E-02 1.76E-01 3.30E-01 5.23E-01
. .......
3.73E-01 4.21 E-02 O.OOE+00 5.03E-02 8.48E-02 1.44E-01 2.59E-01 4.38E-01
* *******
3.84E-01 4.05E-02 O.OOE+00 5.03E-02 9.59E-02 1.48E-01 2.98E-01 4.52E-01
* *******
P90 P95 P99 P100
7.81 E-01 1.21E+00 1.53E+00 1.53E+00
....
....
.
....
.
7.81E-01 1.14E+00 1.14E+00 1.14E+00
* ...
....
7.81 E-01 9.99E-01 1.07E+00 1.07E+00
1.15E+00 1.53E+00 1.53E+00 1.53E+00
* ...
....
7.81 E-01 1.53E+00 1.53E+00 1.53E+00
1.14E+00 1.15E+00 1.15E+00 1.15E+00
.
1.14E+00 1.21E+00 1.53E+00 1.53E+00
....
7.47E-01 1.21E+00 1.53E+00 1.53E+00
* ...
1.07E+00 1.21E+00 1.53E+00 1.53E+00
* * * *
; were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-48. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Onions (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
6718000 370
291000 17
178000 9
530000 31
652000 37
1566000 78
2402000 143
1038000 52
1557000 59
1434000 147
2891000 101
836000 63
890000 37
2944000 177
2884000 156
253000 16
6266000 345
2487000 143
876000 52
1919000 107
1436000 68
6441000 356
1390000 81
%
Consuming
3.57
5.11
2.20
3.17
3.18
2.54
4.23
6.54
3.27
3.11
6.36
1.72
1.58
6.54
3.33
1.16
3.98
5.36
2.13
2.98
3.98
9.45
18.97
Mean
2.96E-01
*
«
3.03E-01
2. 11 E-01
2.88E-01
2.50E-01
4.33E-01
3.75E-01
1.95E-01
3.06E-01
2.88E-01
2.16E-01
3.24E-01
2.92E-01
*
3.08E-01
2.70E-01
2.32E-01
3.32E-01
3.32E-01
3.00E-01
3.75E-01
SE P1
1.87E-02 3.68E-03
. .
.
5.61 E-02 9.80E-03
3.65E-02 5.14E-03
3.40E-02 9.09E-03
2.07E-02 3.03E-03
8.86E-02 4.76E-03
6.93E-02 3.68E-03
1.96E-02 2.01 E-03
2.91 E-02 8.58E-03
3.86E-02 3.03E-03
2.85E-02 4.76E-03
2.06E-02 8.12E-03
3.70E-02 3.03E-03
. .
1.99E-02 3.57E-03
1.94E-02 4.25E-03
4.43E-02 2.01 E-03
2.93E-02 4.79E-03
6.90E-02 3.57E-03
1.93E-02 3.68E-03
3.84E-02 3.00E-02
P5 P10
9.09E-03 2.90E-02
. .
.
1.08E-02 2.76E-02
8.36E-03 8.58E-03
3.80E-02 5.80E-02
4.59E-03 1.11 E-02
6.68E-03 2.68E-02
2.55E-02 5.80E-02
5.47E-03 2.68E-02
1.68E-02 4.22E-02
4.59E-03 5.04E-03
1.02E-02 2.55E-02
3.14E-02 6.75E-02
5.20E-03 1.10E-02
. .
9.09E-03 3.06E-02
4.02E-02 5.73E-02
3.73E-03 8.36E-03
2.76E-02 3.70E-02
6.68E-03 1.68E-02
9.09E-03 3.06E-02
4.04E-02 5.15E-02
P25 P50
8.81 E-02 2.06E-01
. .
.
1.06E-01 2.28E-01
5.97E-02 1.42E-01
9.40E-02 1.91 E-01
7.66E-02 1.72E-01
1.35E-01 2.86E-01
1.23E-01 2.55E-01
5.73E-02 1.06E-01
1.08E-01 2.28E-01
3.06E-02 1.99E-01
6.60E-02 1.93E-01
1.42E-01 2.55E-01
5.85E-02 1.30E-01
. .
9.16E-02 2.24E-01
1.02E-01 2.24E-01
1.08E-02 1.08E-01
1.46E-01 2.51 E-01
5.68E-02 1.52E-01
9. 11 E-02 2.13E-01
1.11 E-01 2.78E-01
P75
3.77E-01
*
«
3.83E-01
2.55E-01
3.04E-01
3.58E-01
4.61 E-01
4.36E-01
2.59E-01
3.76E-01
4.60E-01
2.96E-01
4.33E-01
3.56E-01
*
3.86E-01
3.43E-01
3.53E-01
3.93E-01
3.86E-01
3.81 E-01
5.15E-01
P90
6.09E-01
*
«
6.09E-01
5.74E-01
6.38E-01
5.52E-01
5.63E-01
6.03E-01
4.26E-01
6.90E-01
6.42E-01
5.18E-01
6.30E-01
6.35E-01
*
6.18E-01
5.63E-01
6.35E-01
6.90E-01
5.49E-01
6.09E-01
9.35E-01
P95
9.12E-01
*
«
1.36E+00
7.59E-01
9.35E-01
6.90E-01
2.68E+00
7.83E-01
5.23E-01
9.69E-01
9.16E-01
5.63E-01
9.12E-01
9.69E-01
*
9.35E-01
7.24E-01
1.05E+00
1.08E+00
9.69E-01
9.16E-01
1.11E+00
P99
1.49E+00
*
«
1.36E+00
9.12E-01
1.49E+00
1.11E+00
3.11E+00
3.11E+00
1.41E+00
1.49E+00
1.36E+00
5.63E-01
1.49E+00
3.11E+00
*
1.77E+00
1.34E+00
1.36E+00
1.49E+00
3.11E+00
1.77E+00
1.49E+00
P100
3.11E+00
*
«
1.36E+00
9.12E-01
1.49E+00
1.41E+00
3.11E+00
3.11E+00
1.77E+00
1.49E+00
1.36E+00
5.63E-01
1.77E+00
3.11E+00
*
3.11E+00
1.34E+00
1.41E+00
1.77E+00
3.11E+00
3.11E+00
1.49E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distributions
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-49. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Berries (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to
Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
1626000
41000
53000
106000
79000
309000
871000
159000
379000
287000
502000
458000
378000
466000
722000
76000
1490000
736000
211000
204000
415000
1333000
219000
Nc
unwgtd
99
2
3
10
5
20
51
7
13
29
18
39
15
37
45
4
93
56
11
12
18
84
16
%
Consuming
0.86
0.72
0.65
0.63
0.39
0.50
1.54
1.00
0.80
0.62
1.10
0.94
0.67
1.04
0.83
0.35
0.95
1.59
0.51
0.32
1.15
1.96
2.99
Mean
4.80E-01
*
«
*
«
3.90E-01
4.89E-01
*
«
3.06E-01
*
5.35E-01
*
6.43E-01
4.48E-01
*
5.03E-01
4.57E-01
«
*
*
4.72E-01
*
SE
4.24E-02
*
«
*
«
6.31 E-02
5.72E-02
*
«
4. 11 E-02
*
7.39E-02
*
8.96E-02
5.32E-02
*
4.43E-02
6.26E-02
«
*
*
4.83E-02
*
P1 P5 P10 P25 P50
O.OOE+00 4.68E-02 9.24E-02 2.32E-01 3.84E-01
.....
.
.....
.
7.95E-02 9.18E-02 9.18E-02 1.25E-01 3.30E-01
7.69E-02 1.01E-01 1.34E-01 2.48E-01 3.89E-01
* * ...
.
4.68E-02 4.68E-02 7.69E-02 1.84E-01 2.54E-01
.....
O.OOE+00 1.02E-01 1.59E-01 2.32E-01 3.89E-01
.....
O.OOE+00 9.24E-02 1.02E-01 2.51 E-01 4.39E-01
9.18E-02 1.25E-01 1.58E-01 2.58E-01 3.84E-01
.....
4.68E-02 9.18E-02 1.01E-01 2.51E-01 3.95E-01
O.OOE+00 7.69E-02 9.18E-02 1.25E-01 3.00E-01
.
.....
* * ...
1.00E-02 O.OOE+00 9.18E-02 2.00E-01 3.53E-01
* * * * *
P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
5.89E-01 1.07E+00 1.28E+00 2.21 E+00 2.21 E+00
.....
.
.....
.
5.52E-01 7.94E-01 1.07E+00 1.07E+00 1.07E+00
6.12E-01 7.68E-01 1.28E+00 2.21E+00 2.21E+00
*****
.
4.08E-01 5.40E-01 7.24E-01 1.07E+00 1.07E+00
.....
6.23E-01 1.07E+00 1.95E+00 2.08E+00 2.08E+00
.....
1.02E+00 1.31 E+00 2.21 E+00 2.21 E+00 2.21 E+00
5.35E-01 5.89E-01 9.02E-01 2.08E+00 2.08E+00
.....
6.04E-01 1.07E+00 1.31 E+00 2.21 E+00 2.21 E+00
5.87E-01 1.12E+00 1.28E+00 2.21E+00 2.21E+00
.
.....
*****
5.52E-01 1.07E+00 1.28E+00 2.21 E+00 2.21 E+00
*****
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1 987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-50. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peaches (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionn
Households who gard
Households who farm
Nc Nc %
wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean
2941000 193 1.56
103000 8 1.81
65000 6 0.80
329000 26 1.97
177000 13 0.86
573000 35 0.93
1076000 70 1.90
598000 33 3.77
485000 19 1.02
756000 91 1.64
1081000 35 2.38
619000 48 1.27
429000 12 0.76
1110000 99 2.47
1402000 82 1.62
39000 1 0.18
2861000 191 1.82
824000 75 1.78
75000 5 0.18
852000 51 1.32
1190000 62 3.30
aire
en 2660000 174 3.90
769000 54 10.49
1.67E+00
*
«
3.11E+00
«
1.17E+00
1.53E+00
1.01E+00
«
1.67E+00
2.26E+00
1.25E+00
*
1.87E+00
1.47E+00
*
1.70E+00
1.39E+00
«
1.67E+00
1.80E+00
1.75E+00
1.56E+00
SE
1.70E-01
*
«
6.32E-01
«
1.74E-01
2.83E-01
1.97E-01
«
3.04E-01
4.78E-01
1.03E-01
*
2.59E-01
1.75E-01
*
1.73E-01
2.91 E-01
«
2.57E-01
3.26E-01
1.85E-01
2.49E-01
P1
5.20E-02
*
«
9.75E-02
«
5.07E-02
5.87E-02
9.13E-02
«
5.07E-02
1.65E-01
3.52E-02
*
5.87E-02
5.07E-02
*
5.20E-02
1.76E-01
«
3.52E-02
5.07E-02
5.20E-02
6.79E-02
P5
1.65E-01
*
«
1.01 E-01
«
5.50E-02
1.90E-01
1.38E-01
«
5.87E-02
2.25E-01
2.39E-01
*
2.62E-01
1.40E-01
*
1.65E-01
2.20E-01
«
1.38E-01
1.40E-01
1.66E-01
1.76E-01
P10
2.25E-01
*
«
1.40E-01
«
2.25E-01
2.39E-01
1.79E-01
«
1.01 E-01
3.61 E-01
5.56E-01
*
3.93E-01
2.04E-01
*
2.30E-01
2.59E-01
«
1.79E-01
2.25E-01
2.59E-01
2.26E-01
P25
4.74E-01
*
«
6.25E-01
«
4.74E-01
5.56E-01
2.82E-01
«
2.76E-01
5.67E-01
7.79E-01
*
6.46E-01
4.61 E-01
*
5.03E-01
4.60E-01
«
6.43E-01
4.68E-01
5.26E-01
4.61 E-01
P50
8.97E-01
*
«
1.13E+00
«
8.09E-01
8.92E-01
8.22E-01
«
7.74E-01
1.12E+00
1.04E+00
*
1.02E+00
9.20E-01
*
8.97E-01
7.40E-01
«
1.02E+00
8.63E-01
9.25E-01
9.02E-01
P75
1.88E+00
*
«
6.36E+00
«
1.30E+00
1.61E+00
1.19E+00
«
1.45E+00
2.99E+00
1.71E+00
*
2.18E+00
1.87E+00
*
1.96E+00
1.19E+00
«
1.96E+00
1.94E+00
1.96E+00
2.02E+00
P90 P95
3.79E+00 6.36E+00
. .
.
8.53E+00 8.53E+00
.
2.92E+00 2.99E+00
2.63E+00 4.43E+00
1.60E+00 3.79E+00
.
4.44E+00 6.77E+00
6.36E+00 8.53E+00
2.35E+00 2.60E+00
. .
3.86E+00 6.36E+00
3.79E+00 4.43E+00
. .
3.79E+00 6.36E+00
3.06E+00 3.56E+00
.
3.83E+00 6.36E+00
4.43E+00 7.37E+00
3.79E+00 6.36E+00
2.99E+00 6.36E+00
P99 P100
1.23E+01 2.23E+01
. .
.
1.15E+01 1.15E+01
.
5.27E+00 5.27E+00
1.23E+01 1.23E+01
7.13E+00 7.13E+00
.
2.23E+01 2.23E+01
1.23E+01 1.23E+01
3.56E+00 3.56E+00
. .
1.15E+01 2.23E+01
7.37E+00 7.37E+00
. .
1.23E+01 2.23E+01
1.15E+01 2.23E+01
.
8.53E+00 8.53E+00
1.23E+01 1.23E+01
1.23E+01 2.23E+01
8.53E+00 8.53E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1 987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-51. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pears (q/kq-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wqtd
1513000
24000
45000
145000
121000
365000
557000
256000
308000
355000
474000
376000
222000
634000
657000
51000
1462000
688000
18000
377000
430000
1312000
528000
Nc
unwqtd
94
3
3
10
7
23
33
15
11
39
16
28
11
44
39
3
91
57
2
13
22
85
35
%
Consuminq
0.80
0.42
0.56
0.87
0.59
0.59
0.98
1.61
0.65
0.77
1.04
0.77
0.39
1.41
0.76
0.23
0.93
1.48
0.04
0.59
1.19
1.93
7.20
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were I
Mean
9.37E-01
*
*
«
*
6.19E-01
6.57E-01
*
*
6.87E-01
*
1.48E+00
*
7.81 E-01
8.50E-01
«
9.65E-01
8.71 E-01
*
«
1.14E+00
9.45E-01
1.09E+00
SE
9.68E-02
*
*
«
*
6.42E-02
5.53E-02
*
*
7.89E-02
*
2.77E-01
*
8.52E-02
1.17E-01
«
9.88E-02
9.49E-02
*
«
2.89E-01
1.04E-01
2.10E-01
P1 P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99
1.01E-01 1.84E-01 2.38E-01 4.28E-01 6.82E-01 1.09E+00 1.60E+00 2.76E+00 5.16E+00
...... . . .
...... . . .
.
...... . . .
1.13E-01 3.18E-01 3.79E-01 4.28E-01 5.03E-01 6.82E-01 1.22E+00 1.24E+00 1.24E+00
1.01E-01 1.08E-01 3.33E-01 4.23E-01 6.45E-01 9.22E-01 1.10E+00 1.13E+00 1.51E+00
****** * * *
...... . . .
1.01E-01 1.13E-01 1.82E-01 3.38E-01 6.02E-01 8.66E-01 1.15E+00 1.83E+00 2.54E+00
...... . . .
1.08E-01 1.08E-01 3.79E-01 6.45E-01 9.49E-01 1.38E+00 4.82E+00 5.16E+00 5.16E+00
...... . . .
3.33E-01 3.52E-01 4.19E-01 4.43E-01 5.70E-01 8.13E-01 1.56E+00 1.86E+00 2.88E+00
1.01E-01 1.08E-01 1.82E-01 3.89E-01 7.29E-01 1.10E+00 1.50E+00 2.57E+00 4.79E+00
.
1.08E-01 2.38E-01 3.52E-01 4.43E-01 7.01E-01 1.09E+00 1.60E+00 2.88E+00 5.16E+00
2.22E-01 3.38E-01 3.76E-01 4.43E-01 6.45E-01 1.04E+00 1.60E+00 2.57E+00 4.79E+00
...... . . .
.
1.01E-01 1.08E-01 1.13E-01 3.56E-01 7.52E-01 1.13E+00 2.76E+00 4.82E+00 5.16E+00
1.01E-01 1.82E-01 3.52E-01 4.31E-01 6.75E-01 1.09E+00 1.56E+00 2.88E+00 5.16E+00
1.08E-01 2.22E-01 3.76E-01 4.28E-01 6.14E-01 1.09E+00 2.76E+00 4.82E+00 5.16E+00
P100
5.16E+00
*
*
«
*
1.24E+00
1.51E+00
*
*
2.54E+00
*
5.16E+00
*
2.88E+00
4.79E+00
«
5.16E+00
4.79E+00
*
«
5.16E+00
5.16E+00
5.16E+00
3ss than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1 987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-52. Consumer Only Intake of Homeqrown Peas (q/kq-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wqtd unwqtd
4252000 226
163000 9
140000 7
515000 26
377000 22
1121000 52
1366000 80
458000 26
1239000 41
765000 78
1516000 51
732000 56
558000 19
2028000 126
1666000 81
355000 19
3784000 203
1004000 55
241000 14
2449000 132
558000 25
3980000 214
884000 55
%
Consuminq
2.26
2.86
1.73
3.08
1.84
1.82
2.41
2.88
2.60
1.66
3.33
1.50
0.99
4.50
1.92
1.63
2.40
2.16
0.59
3.81
1.55
5.84
12.06
Mean
5.05E-01
*
*
6.05E-01
4.08E-01
4.08E-01
4.58E-01
3.34E-01
3.03E-01
4.38E-01
5.85E-01
7.53E-01
*
4.81 E-01
5.13E-01
«
4.95E-01
4.03E-01
*
5.67E-01
3.77E-01
5.13E-01
4.59E-01
SE P1
3.23E-02 4.58E-02
. .
. .
8.91 E-02 1.54E-01
4.28E-02 5.81 E-02
6.21 E-02 9.96E-02
4.61 E-02 6.78E-02
5.58E-02 3.48E-02
2.97E-02 3.48E-02
4.26E-02 5.81 E-02
7.36E-02 6.78E-02
8.86E-02 1.17E-01
. .
3.55E-02 8.42E-02
4.63E-02 6.78E-02
.
3.35E-02 3.48E-02
7.24E-02 3.48E-02
. .
4.30E-02 1.27E-01
5.70E-02 6.78E-02
3.39E-02 3.48E-02
5.83E-02 3.48E-02
P5 P10
1.02E-01 1.40E-01
. .
. .
1.54E-01 2.18E-01
1.33E-01 1.58E-01
1.15E-01 1.40E-01
1.02E-01 1.20E-01
3.48E-02 4.58E-02
4.58E-02 1.15E-01
1.08E-01 1.18E-01
1.27E-01 1.74E-01
1.84E-01 2.12E-01
. .
1.36E-01 1.74E-01
1.15E-01 1.34E-01
.
1.02E-01 1.33E-01
4.58E-02 9.96E-02
. .
1.74E-01 1.96E-01
6.78E-02 1.02E-01
1.02E-01 1.40E-01
4.58E-02 8.65E-02
P25 P50
2.28E-01 3.21 E-01
. .
. .
3.04E-01 3.87E-01
2.35E-01 3.58E-01
1.80E-01 2.54E-01
2.26E-01 3.04E-01
1.84E-01 2.73E-01
2.09E-01 2.62E-01
1.90E-01 3.26E-01
2.24E-01 3.87E-01
2.73E-01 5.44E-01
. .
2.48E-01 3.53E-01
2.29E-01 3.87E-01
.
2.18E-01 3.26E-01
1.40E-01 2.52E-01
. .
2.62E-01 3.72E-01
2.18E-01 2.73E-01
2.28E-01 3.21 E-01
2.08E-01 3.53E-01
P75
6.22E-01
*
*
9.00E-01
5.02E-01
4.06E-01
6.10E-01
3.72E-01
3.53E-01
5.16E-01
8.22E-01
9.48E-01
*
5.79E-01
6.84E-01
«
6.00E-01
3.53E-01
*
6.82E-01
4.79E-01
6.28E-01
5.16E-01
P90
1.04E+00
*
*
1.35E+00
7.10E-01
8.47E-01
9.95E-01
9.95E-01
5.99E-01
9.19E-01
1.35E+00
1.54E+00
*
1.04E+00
9.95E-01
«
9.99E-01
8.80E-01
*
1.24E+00
9.00E-01
1.04E+00
9.00E-01
P95
1.46E+00
*
*
1.40E+00
8.22E-01
1.36E+00
1.30E+00
9.95E-01
7.14E-01
1.40E+00
1.60E+00
2.36E+00
*
1.36E+00
1.30E+00
«
1.40E+00
1.54E+00
*
1.60E+00
9.40E-01
1.54E+00
1.40E+00
P99
2.66E+00
*
*
2.06E+00
8.22E-01
2.71 E+00
2.36E+00
1.46E+00
9.95E-01
2.06E+00
2.66E+00
2.89E+00
*
1.89E+00
2.28E+00
«
2.66E+00
2.71 E+00
*
2.66E+00
1.40E+00
2.66E+00
1.60E+00
P100
2.89E+00
*
*
2.06E+00
8.22E-01
2.71 E+00
2.36E+00
1.46E+00
9.95E-01
2.06E+00
2.66E+00
2.89E+00
*
2.89E+00
2.36E+00
«
2.89E+00
2.89E+00
*
2.66E+00
1.40E+00
2.89E+00
2.89E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted numbe
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
;r of consumers in surve
-
-------
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
5153000 208
163000 6
108000 5
578000 26
342000 16
1048000 40
2221000 88
646000 25
1726000 53
255000 28
2672000 94
500000 33
865000 30
1982000 89
2246000 87
127000 6
4892000 198
1790000 74
786000 31
1739000 72
778000 29
4898000 199
867000 35
%
Consuming
2.74
2.86
1.33
3.46
1.67
1.70
3.92
4.07
3.62
0.55
5.87
1.03
1.53
4.40
2.59
0.58
3.11
3.86
1.91
2.70
2.16
7.19
11.83
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which there were k
Table
Mean
*
*
2.26E-01
*
2.24E-01
2.50E-01
2.56E-01
1.97E-01
2.95E-01
2.46E-01
2.42E-01
2.47E-01
«
2.47E-01
2.34E-01
2.30E-01
2.13E-01
2.35E-01
3.03E-01
13-53. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peppers (g/kg-day)
SE
*
*
4.09E-02
*
6.10E-02
2.78E-02
6.22E-02
2.51 E-02
7.15E-02
4.23E-02
3.93E-02
3.00E-02
«
2.23E-02
4.06E-02
2.89E-02
5.04E-02
2.09E-02
7.50E-02
P1
*
*
O.OOE+00
*
1.74E-02
5.32E-03
1.73E-02
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.86E-02
5.32E-03
O.OOE+00
«
1.74E-02
5.32E-03
3.34E-02
1.73E-02
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
P5
*
*
O.OOE+00
*
3.26E-02
3.40E-02
2.15E-02
3.26E-02
1.73E-02
5.66E-02
2.22E-02
2.70E-02
«
2.96E-02
2.22E-02
6.74E-02
2.30E-02
2.22E-02
2.70E-02
P10 P25
. .
. .
3.03E-02 8.99E-02
. .
5.66E-02 8.55E-02
4.52E-02 7.58E-02
2.30E-02 7.47E-02
4.05E-02 8.55E-02
3.86E-02 6.93E-02
6.72E-02 1.10E-01
3.34E-02 6.93E-02
3.50E-02 8.55E-02
.
4.05E-02 8.55E-02
3.26E-02 5.98E-02
7.60E-02 1.07E-01
2.70E-02 4.05E-02
3.40E-02 7.58E-02
2.96E-02 7.11 E-02
P50
*
*
1.62E-01
*
1.19E-01
1.66E-01
1.38E-01
1.66E-01
1.47E-01
1.84E-01
1.19E-01
1.60E-01
«
1.54E-01
1.47E-01
1.66E-01
8.58E-02
1.54E-01
1.66E-01
P75
*
*
2.98E-01
*
2.18E-01
3.21 E-01
2.39E-01
2.39E-01
3.21 E-01
2.73E-01
2.72E-01
2.91 E-01
«
2.91 E-01
2.57E-01
2.73E-01
2.53E-01
2.85E-01
3.55E-01
P90
*
*
4.25E-01
*
3.97E-01
4.77E-01
9.24E-01
3.49E-01
1.09E+00
3.61 E-01
5.37E-01
4.90E-01
«
4.90E-01
3.90E-01
4.25E-01
5.37E-01
4.77E-01
6.00E-01
P95 P99 P100
...
...
7.70E-01 8.45E-01 8.45E-01
...
6.24E-01 2.48E+00 2.48E+00
7.44E-01 1.50E+00 1.50E+00
9.39E-01 1.07E+00 1.07E+00
3.97E-01 1.07E+00 1.07E+00
1.20E+00 1.53E+00 1.53E+00
9.39E-01 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
7.70E-01 2.48E+00 2.48E+00
9.73E-01 1.50E+00 1.53E+00
.
9.24E-01 1.81E+00 2.48E+00
8.45E-01 2.48E+00 2.48E+00
5.26E-01 1.81E+00 1.81E+00
9.24E-01 1.07E+00 1.07E+00
8.45E-01 1.50E+00 2.48E+00
8.45E-01 2.48E+00 2.48E+00
;ssthan 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-54. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Pork (q/kq-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Nc
Nc
%
wqtd unwqtd Consuminq
1732000
38000
26000
129000
291000
511000
557000
180000
362000
547000
379000
444000
90000
1178000
464000
0
1732000
844000
97000
554000
237000
1428000
1218000
121
5
3
11
20
32
38
12
13
59
15
34
2
77
42
0
121
64
5
32
20
100
82
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which there
0.92
0.67
0.32
0.77
1.42
0.83
0.98
1.13
0.76
1.19
0.83
0.91
0.16
2.62
0.54
0.00
1.10
1.82
0.24
0.86
0.66
14.14
16.62
Mean
1.23E+00
*
*
«
1.28E+00
1.21 E+00
1.02E+00
*
*
1.13E+00
*
1.40E+00
*
1.39E+00
8.77E-01
1.23E+00
1.06E+00
*
1.35E+00
1.15E+00
1.34E+00
1.30E+00
; were less than 20 obse
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted numb
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
SE
9.63E-02
*
*
«
2.42E-01
1.80E-01
1.15E-01
*
*
1.29E-01
*
2.39E-01
*
1.31 E-01
1.20E-01
9.63E-02
1.19E-01
*
1.46E-01
3.09E-01
9.86E-02
1.11 E-01
;rvations
3r of consumers
P1
9.26E-02
*
*
«
3.05E-01
1.11 E-01
1.19E-01
*
*
1.11 E-01
*
1.26E-01
*
9.26E-02
1.11 E-01
9.26E-02
9.26E-02
*
1.81 E-01
1.26E-01
1.40E-01
2.15E-01
n survey.
P5 P10
1.40E-01 3.05E-01
. .
. .
.
3.23E-01 3.37E-01
2.83E-01 4.09E-01
1.81 E-01 2.22E-01
* *
. .
1.40E-01 2.22E-01
. .
2.58E-01 3.77E-01
. .
2.15E-01 4.05E-01
1.19E-01 1.81E-01
1.40E-01 3.05E-01
1.19E-01 2.13E-01
. .
2.58E-01 3.37E-01
3.23E-01 3.77E-01
3.23E-01 4.05E-01
3.42E-01 4.08E-01
P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
5.41 E-01 8.96E-01 1.71 E+00 2.73E+00 3.37E+00 4.93E+00 7.41 E+00
...... .
...... .
.
5.24E-01 8.85E-01 1.75E+00 3.69E+00 3.69E+00 4.29E+00 4.29E+00
5.52E-01 7.89E-01 1.43E+00 2.90E+00 3.08E+00 4.93E+00 4.93E+00
4.05E-01 8.11E-01 1.71E+00 1.78E+00 2.28E+00 3.16E+00 3.16E+00
****** *
...... .
3.52E-01 8.96E-01 1.50E+00 2.68E+00 3.68E+00 4.29E+00 4.29E+00
...... .
5.03E-01 8.83E-01 2.21 E+00 3.08E+00 4.93E+00 7.41 E+00 7.41 E+00
...... .
6.17E-01 9.66E-01 1.75E+00 3.16E+00 3.69E+00 4.93E+00 7.41E+00
3.31E-01 5.89E-01 1.10E+00 2.28E+00 2.73E+00 2.90E+00 2.90E+00
5.41 E-01 8.96E-01 1.71 E+00 2.73E+00 3.37E+00 4.93E+00 7.41 E+00
5.02E-01 6.72E-01 1.20E+00 2.68E+00 3.37E+00 3.69E+00 3.73E+00
...... .
8.11 E-01 1.26E+00 1.75E+00 2.44E+00 3.08E+00 4.29E+00 4.29E+00
4.40E-01 7.29E-01 1.10E+00 1.75E+00 2.73E+00 7.41E+00 7.41E+00
5.89E-01 9.66E-01 1.75E+00 2.90E+00 3.37E+00 4.29E+00 4.93E+00
5.85E-01 9.24E-01 1.71 E+00 3.08E+00 3.69E+00 4.93E+00 4.93E+00
-------
Table 13-55. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Poultry (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
1816000
91000
70000
205000
194000
574000
568000
80000
562000
374000
312000
568000
230000
997000
589000
44000
1772000
765000
64000
654000
333000
1333000
917000
Nc
unwgtd
105
8
5
12
12
33
30
3
23
34
11
37
8
56
41
2
103
41
4
38
22
81
59
%
Consuming
0.97
1.60
0.86
1.23
0.95
0.93
1.00
0.50
1.18
0.81
0.69
1.17
0.41
2.21
0.68
0.20
1.12
1.65
0.16
1.02
0.92
13.20
12.51
Mean
1.57E+00
*
*
«
*
1.17E+00
1.51E+00
*
1.52E+00
1.87E+00
*
1.55E+00
*
1.48E+00
1.94E+00
«
1.57E+00
1.60E+00
*
1.67E+00
1.24E+00
1.58E+00
1.54E+00
SE P1
1.15E-01 1.95E-01
. .
. .
.
. .
1.47E-01 1.73E-01
2.43E-01 1.95E-01
* *
1.75E-01 4.07E-01
2.79E-01 1.73E-01
. .
2.00E-01 1.95E-01
. .
1.32E-01 1.95E-01
2.30E-01 2.28E-01
.
1.17E-01 1.95E-01
1.40E-01 4.07E-01
. .
2.50E-01 1.73E-01
1.80E-01 2.67E-01
1.18E-01 2.28E-01
1.79E-01 1.95E-01
P5
3.03E-01
*
*
«
*
4.02E-01
1.97E-01
*
4.18E-01
2.28E-01
*
1.97E-01
*
2.82E-01
2.67E-01
«
3.03E-01
4.18E-01
*
1.97E-01
2.67E-01
4.07E-01
2.28E-01
P10
4.18E-01
*
*
«
*
4.02E-01
3.03E-01
*
4.60E-01
3.03E-01
*
4.33E-01
*
4.07E-01
4.33E-01
«
4.18E-01
5.57E-01
*
3.03E-01
4.27E-01
4.72E-01
3.03E-01
P25 P50 P75
6.37E-01 1.23E+00 2.19E+00
...
...
.
...
5.57E-01 1.15E+00 1.37E+00
4.91 E-01 7.74E-01 2.69E+00
...
8. 11 E-01 1.39E+00 2.23E+00
5.22E-01 1.38E+00 3.29E+00
...
5.95E-01 1.23E+00 2.18E+00
...
6.72E-01 1.19E+00 2.10E+00
6.24E-01 1.59E+00 2.69E+00
.
6.24E-01 1.23E+00 2.19E+00
9.79E-01 1.39E+00 2.19E+00
...
4.60E-01 9.08E-01 2.11E+00
5.60E-01 1.02E+00 1.89E+00
7.09E-01 1.37E+00 2.19E+00
5.95E-01 1.06E+00 2.18E+00
P90
3.17E+00
*
*
«
*
1.80E+00
3.29E+00
*
2.69E+00
4.60E+00
*
2.95E+00
*
3.17E+00
4.59E+00
«
3.17E+00
2.70E+00
*
4.59E+00
2.45E+00
2.93E+00
3.47E+00
P95 P99
3.83E+00 5.33E+00
. .
. .
.
. .
2.93E+00 4.59E+00
4.60E+00 5.15E+00
* *
3.17E+00 3.17E+00
5.15E+00 5.33E+00
. .
3.47E+00 6.17E+00
. .
3.29E+00 3.86E+00
4.83E+00 6.17E+00
.
3.86E+00 5.33E+00
3.17E+00 3.86E+00
. .
4.83E+00 6.17E+00
2.93E+00 2.93E+00
3.29E+00 5.33E+00
4.83E+00 6.17E+00
P100
6.17E+00
*
*
«
*
4.59E+00
5.15E+00
*
3.17E+00
5.33E+00
*
6.17E+00
*
5.33E+00
6.17E+00
«
6.17E+00
5.33E+00
*
6.17E+00
2.93E+00
6.17E+00
6.17E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-56. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pumpkins (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
2041000
73000
18000
229000
244000
657000
415000
373000
1345000
48000
405000
243000
565000
863000
613000
22000
2019000
1370000
15000
179000
477000
1987000
449000
Nc
%
unwgtd Consuming
87
4
2
9
10
26
20
15
49
6
13
19
20
44
23
1
86
54
1
10
22
85
18
1.09
1.28
0.22
1.37
1.19
1.07
0.73
2.35
2.82
0.10
0.89
0.50
1.00
1.92
0.71
0.10
1.28
2.95
0.04
0.28
1.32
2.92
6.13
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which there were k
Mean SE P1 P5
7.78E-01 6.83E-02 1.25E-01 1.84E-01
....
....
.
....
8.01 E-01 1.29E-01 1.76E-01 1.84E-01
8.22E-01 1.57E-01 2.86E-01 2.86E-01
* ...
8.19E-01 8.91E-02 1.25E-01 1.76E-01
....
....
* ...
6.29E-01 1.08E-01 1.84E-01 1.84E-01
6.44E-01 9.64E-02 1.25E-01 1.65E-01
1.10E+00 1.34E-01 2.86E-01 2.88E-01
.
7.82E-01 6.90E-02 1.25E-01 1.84E-01
8.21 E-01 9.68E-02 1.25E-01 2.34E-01
....
.
7.87E-01 9.65E-02 1.76E-01 1.89E-01
7.70E-01 6.93E-02 1.25E-01 1.84E-01
* ...
;ss than 20 observations
P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
2.41E-01 3.18E-01 5.55E-01 1.07E+00 1.47E+00 1.79E+00 3.02E+00 4.48E+00
........
........
.
........
3.01 E-01 3.77E-01 4.77E-01 1.03E+00 1.73E+00 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 2.67E+00
3.16E-01 3.71E-01 5.23E-01 9.62E-01 1.47E+00 3.02E+00 3.02E+00 3.02E+00
********
2.81E-01 3.71E-01 6.14E-01 1.17E+00 1.73E+00 1.79E+00 3.02E+00 3.02E+00
........
........
********
2.41 E-01 2.81 E-01 3.77E-01 9.40E-01 1.24E+00 1.33E+00 2.24E+00 2.24E+00
1.89E-01 3.10E-01 5.10E-01 6.65E-01 1.22E+00 1.45E+00 4.48E+00 4.48E+00
3.01 E-01 4.67E-01 1.04E+00 1.47E+00 1.79E+00 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 2.67E+00
.
2.41E-01 3.16E-01 5.55E-01 1.10E+00 1.47E+00 1.79E+00 3.02E+00 4.48E+00
2.41E-01 3.18E-01 5.72E-01 1.04E+00 1.73E+00 2.67E+00 3.02E+00 4.48E+00
........
.
3.08E-01 3.71E-01 7.44E-01 1.17E+00 1.47E+00 1.51E+00 1.51E+00 1.51E+00
2.41E-01 3.16E-01 5.55E-01 1.04E+00 1.46E+00 1.79E+00 3.02E+00 4.48E+00
********
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-57. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Snap Beans (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 12308000 739
Age
01-02 246000 17
03-05 455000 32
06-1 1 862000 62
12-19 1151000 69
20-39 2677000 160
40-69 4987000 292
70+ 1801000 100
Season
Fall 3813000 137
Spring 2706000 288
Summer 2946000 98
Winter 2843000 216
Urbanization
Central City 2205000 78
Nonmetropolitan 5696000 404
Suburban 4347000 255
Race
Black 634000 36
White 11519000 694
Region
Midwest 4651000 307
Northeast 990000 52
South 4755000 286
West 1852000 92
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 11843000 700
Households who farm 2591000 157
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which the
%
Consuming
6.55
4.32
5.62
5.16
5.62
4.35
8.79
11.34
8.00
5.86
6.48
5.84
3.91
12.65
5.02
2.92
7.31
10.02
2.40
7.39
5.14
17.38
35.35
Mean
8.00E-01
*
1.49E+00
8.97E-01
6.38E-01
6.13E-01
7.19E-01
9.15E-01
8.12E-01
9.00E-01
6.33E-01
8.64E-01
5.97E-01
9.61 E-01
7.04E-01
7.55E-01
8.10E-01
8.60E-01
5.66E-01
8.82E-01
5.92E-01
7.90E-01
7.95E-01
SE P1
3.02E-02 5.65E-02
. .
2.37E-01 O.OOE+00
1.15E-01 O.OOE+00
6.10E-02 O.OOE+00
4.09E-02 7.05E-02
3.20E-02 9.99E-02
1.16E-01 5.65E-02
8.19E-02 5.65E-02
5.44E-02 2.93E-02
4.81 E-02 O.OOE+00
5.28E-02 1.14E-01
5.59E-02 5.65E-02
5.06E-02 9.35E-02
3.76E-02 9.67E-02
1.43E-01 2.51 E-01
3.12E-02 7.05E-02
6.11 E-02 7.44E-02
6.63E-02 O.OOE+00
4.04E-02 1.33E-01
4.35E-02 7.05E-02
3.08E-02 5.65E-02
4.78E-02 5.65E-02
P5
1.49E-01
*
O.OOE+00
1.99E-01
1.61 E-01
1.31 E-01
1.61 E-01
7.44E-02
1.50E-01
1.51 E-01
1.18E-01
1.80E-01
7.44E-02
1.77E-01
1.39E-01
2.51 E-01
1.50E-01
1.54E-01
9.66E-02
2.13E-01
1.43E-01
1.49E-01
1.27E-01
P10
1.88E-01
*
3.49E-01
2.21 E-01
2.22E-01
1.57E-01
2.28E-01
1.51 E-01
1.83E-01
2.19E-01
1.57E-01
2.44E-01
1.59E-01
2.29E-01
1.88E-01
2.79E-01
1.89E-01
1.89E-01
1.06E-01
2.51 E-01
1.83E-01
1.87E-01
1.89E-01
P25
3.38E-01
*
9.01 E-01
3.21 E-01
3.20E-01
2.60E-01
3.62E-01
3.69E-01
2.72E-01
3.70E-01
3.31 E-01
4.24E-01
2.56E-01
3.67E-01
3.41 E-01
2.99E-01
3.49E-01
3.36E-01
1.81 E-01
3.98E-01
2.72E-01
3.31 E-01
4.05E-01
P50
5.69E-01
*
1.16E+00
6.42E-01
5.04E-01
4.96E-01
5.61 E-01
6.38E-01
5.39E-01
5.91 E-01
5.04E-01
6.20E-01
5.12E-01
6.75E-01
5.20E-01
4.78E-01
5.73E-01
5.50E-01
4.91 E-01
6.75E-01
5.14E-01
5.63E-01
6.59E-01
P75
1.04E+00
*
1.66E+00
1.21 E+00
8. 11 E-01
7.85E-01
8.59E-01
1.22E+00
1.18E+00
1.11 E+00
8.50E-01
1.12E+00
7.12E-01
1.19E+00
9.32E-01
1.04E+00
1.06E+00
9.88E-01
8.15E-01
1.22E+00
7.41 E-01
1.02E+00
1.12E+00
P90
1.58E+00
*
3.20E+00
1.79E+00
1.34E+00
1.24E+00
1.45E+00
1.70E+00
1.52E+00
1.72E+00
1.30E+00
1.72E+00
1.23E+00
1.89E+00
1.36E+00
1.30E+00
1.63E+00
1.70E+00
1.28E+00
1.72E+00
1.20E+00
1.60E+00
1.54E+00
P95
2.01 E+00
*
4.88E+00
2.75E+00
1.79E+00
1.64E+00
1.77E+00
2.01 E+00
2.01 E+00
2.85E+00
1.70E+00
2.02E+00
1.54E+00
2.70E+00
1.77E+00
1.34E+00
2.01 E+00
2.47E+00
1.36E+00
2.01 E+00
1.52E+00
2.01 E+00
1.98E+00
P99 P100
3.90E+00 9.96E+00
. .
6.90E+00 6.90E+00
4.81 E+00 5.66E+00
2.72E+00 2.72E+00
2.05E+00 4.26E+00
2.70E+00 4.23E+00
9.96E+00 9.96E+00
4.82E+00 9.96E+00
5.66E+00 6.90E+00
2.05E+00 2.63E+00
3.85E+00 7.88E+00
1.93E+00 3.35E+00
4.88E+00 9.96E+00
2.98E+00 6.08E+00
5.98E+00 5.98E+00
3.90E+00 9.96E+00
4.88E+00 9.96E+00
1.97E+00 3.09E+00
3.23E+00 5.98E+00
2.19E+00 2.19E+00
3.85E+00 9.96E+00
2.96E+00 4.23E+00
;re were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-58. Consumer Only Intake of Homeqrown Strawberries (q/kq-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wqtd unwqtd Consuminq
Total 2057000 139 1.09
Age
01-02 30000 2 0.53
03-05 66000 6 0.81
06-11 153000 15 0.92
12-19 201000 11 0.98
20-39 316000 22 0.51
40-69 833000 55 1.47
70+ 449000 27 2.83
Season
Fall 250000 8 0.52
Spring 598000 66 1.30
Summer 388000 11 0.85
Winter 821000 54 1.69
Urbanization
Central City 505000 23 0.90
Nonmetropolitan 664000 52 1.47
Suburban 888000 64 1.03
Race
Black 0 0 0.00
White 2057000 139 1.31
Region
Midwest 1123000 76 2.42
Northeast 382000 25 0.93
South 333000 23 0.52
West 219000 15 0.61
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1843000 123 2.70
Households who farm 87000 9 1.19
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
Mean
6.52E-01
*
*
«
*
3.21 E-01
6.44E-01
6.36E-01
*
8.30E-01
*
5.13E-01
7.54E-01
6.18E-01
6.20E-01
6.52E-01
6.85E-01
6.35E-01
6.69E-01
*
6.37E-01
*
SE
5.15E-02
*
*
«
*
6.41 E-02
6.37E-02
1.11 E-01
*
1.03E-01
*
6.42E-02
1.22E-01
1.05E-01
5.88E-02
5.15E-02
8.28E-02
1.01 E-01
8.41 E-02
*
5.48E-02
*
P1
4.15E-02
*
*
«
*
7.92E-02
2.44E-02
4.15E-02
*
7.92E-02
*
2.44E-02
4.15E-02
2.44E-02
7.92E-02
4.15E-02
2.44E-02
8.92E-02
1.33E-01
*
4.15E-02
*
P5
8.16E-02
*
*
«
*
8.16E-02
6.53E-02
4.41 E-02
*
8.92E-02
*
4.41 E-02
4.41 E-02
6.53E-02
1.81 E-01
8.16E-02
6.53E-02
1.59E-01
2.05E-01
*
7.92E-02
*
P10 P25
1.18E-01 2.55E-01
. .
. .
.
. .
1.05E-01 1.18E-01
1.75E-01 3.55E-01
8.64E-02 2.62E-01
. .
1.80E-01 2.75E-01
. .
1.05E-01 2.07E-01
8.92E-02 3.82E-01
8.16E-02 1.25E-01
2.21 E-01 3.45E-01
1.18E-01 2.55E-01
8.16E-02 1.82E-01
1.82E-01 2.55E-01
3.77E-01 5.15E-01
* *
1.18E-01 2.28E-01
* *
P50
4.67E-01
*
*
«
*
2.05E-01
5.83E-01
4.69E-01
*
4.69E-01
*
3.86E-01
4.88E-01
3.85E-01
5.30E-01
4.67E-01
4.16E-01
4.67E-01
6.21 E-01
*
4.53E-01
*
P75
8.20E-01
*
*
«
*
4.59E-01
9.41 E-01
7.00E-01
*
9.73E-01
*
6.01 E-01
1.33E+00
8.14E-01
6.96E-01
8.20E-01
1.00 E+00
8.65E-01
6.96E-01
*
8.20E-01
*
P90
1.47E+00
*
*
«
*
8.20E-01
1.42E+00
1.66 E+00
*
1.93 E+00
*
1.27E+00
1.47E+00
1.66 E+00
1.27E+00
1.47E+00
1.66 E+00
1.46E+00
1.00 E+00
*
1.46 E+00
*
P95
1.77E+00
*
*
«
*
9.73E-01
1.47E+00
1.89 E+00
*
2.54 E+00
*
1.46 E+00
1.69E+00
2.16E+00
1.56E+00
1.77E+00
1.93 E+00
1.83E+00
1.00 E+00
*
1.77 E+00
*
P99
2.72E+00
*
*
«
*
1.56E+00
2.37E+00
2.72E+00
*
4.83E+00
*
2.37E+00
2.37E+00
4.83 E+00
2.97E+00
2.72E+00
2.97E+00
2.16E+00
2.72E+00
*
2.54 E+00
*
P100
4.83E+00
*
*
«
*
1.56E+00
2.37E+00
2.72E+00
*
4.83E+00
*
2.37E+00
2.37E+00
4.83E+00
2.97E+00
4.83E+00
4.83E+00
2.16E+00
2.72E+00
*
4.83E+00
*
ess than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Population Nc
Group wgtd
Total 16737000
Age
01-02 572000
03-05 516000
06-11 1093000
12-19 1411000
20-39 4169000
40-69 6758000
70+ 1989000
Season
Fall 5516000
Spring 1264000
Summer 8122000
Winter 1835000
Urbanization
Central City 2680000
Nonmetropolitan 7389000
Suburban 6668000
Race
Black 743000
White 15658000
Region
Midwest 6747000
Northeast 2480000
South 4358000
West 3152000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 14791000
Households who farm 2269000
Nc
unwgtd
743
26
26
51
61
175
305
89
201
127
279
136
90
378
275
28
703
322
87
202
132
661
112
%
Consuming
8.90
10.04
6.37
6.54
6.89
6.77
11.92
12.53
11.57
2.74
17.86
3.77
4.76
16.41
7.70
3.42
9.94
14.54
6.02
6.77
8.74
21.70
30.96
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
Table
Mean
1.18E+00
3.14E+00
1.61 E+00
1.63E+00
7.15E-01
8.54E-01
1.05E+00
1.26E+00
1.02E+00
8.39E-01
1.30E+00
1.37E+00
1.10E+00
1.26E+00
1.13E+00
6.14E-01
1.22E+00
1.18E+00
1.17E+00
1.15E+00
1.23E+00
1.21 E+00
1.42E+00
unweighted numb
13-59. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Tomatoes (g/kg-day)
SE P1
5.26E-02 7.57E-02
5.30E-01 7.26E-01
2.65E-01 4.96E-01
2.68E-01 2.17E-01
8.52E-02 O.OOE+00
1.03E-01 7.32E-02
5.23E-02 1.13E-01
9.40E-02 1.13E-01
8.55E-02 7.32E-02
6.26E-02 1.36E-01
8.75E-02 1.05E-01
1.77E-01 9.07E-02
1.27E-01 O.OOE+00
7.35E-02 1.13E-01
9.14E-02 7.57E-02
8.60E-02 O.OOE+00
5.54E-02 1.05E-01
8.91 E-02 6.34E-02
1.64E-01 7.57E-02
9.07E-02 O.OOE+00
9.90E-02 1.80E-01
5.70E-02 7.57E-02
1.58E-01 O.OOE+00
3r of consumers in surve
P5
1.52E-01
8.55E-01
5.07E-01
3.10E-01
O.OOE+00
1.31 E-01
1.73E-01
2.36E-01
1.35E-01
1.89E-01
1.66E-01
2.07E-01
1.52E-01
2.16E-01
1.35E-01
O.OOE+00
1.68E-01
1.45E-01
1.35E-01
2.07E-01
2.39E-01
1.52E-01
1.80E-01
P10
2.34E-01
9.34E-01
5.07E-01
3.92E-01
1.82E-01
1.47E-01
2.81 E-01
2.98E-01
2.23E-01
2.39E-01
2.36E-01
2.85E-01
2.25E-01
2.62E-01
1.78E-01
7.32E-02
2.41 E-01
2.06E-01
1.48E-01
2.53E-01
2.84E-01
2.34E-01
2.26E-01
P25
3.92E-01
1.23E+00
7.54E-01
5.30E-01
2.68E-01
2.54E-01
3.97E-01
4.82E-01
3.43E-01
3.73E-01
4.08E-01
4.97E-01
3.54E-01
4.23E-01
3.70E-01
2.36E-01
4.06E-01
3.62E-01
3.50E-01
4.23E-01
4. 11 E-01
4.06E-01
4.23E-01
P50
7.43E-01
1.66E+00
1.25E+00
7.55E-01
5.21 E-01
5.15E-01
7.46E-01
1.14E+00
5.95E-01
6.31 E-01
8.03E-01
8.29E-01
7.54E-01
7.62E-01
6.68E-01
5.07E-01
7.55E-01
6.82E-01
7.51 E-01
7.46E-01
7.65E-01
7.58E-01
7.66E-01
P75
1.46E+00
4.00E+00
1.65E+00
1.66E+00
8.50E-01
1.00E+00
1.41 E+00
1.77E+00
1.34E+00
1.11 E+00
1.55E+00
1.49E+00
1.51 E+00
1.47E+00
1.38E+00
9.02E-01
1.49E+00
1.41 E+00
1.38E+00
1.43E+00
1.84E+00
1.50E+00
1.86E+00
P90 P95
2.50E+00 3.54E+00
7.26E+00 1.07E+01
3.00E+00 6.25E+00
5.20E+00 5.70E+00
1.67E+00 1.94E+00
1.83E+00 2.10E+00
2.40E+00 3.05E+00
2.51 E+00 2.99E+00
2.24E+00 2.87E+00
1.75E+00 2.00E+00
3.05E+00 4.05E+00
2.48E+00 3.38E+00
2.16E+00 2.95E+00
2.77E+00 3.85E+00
2.35E+00 3.32E+00
1.18E+00 1.55E+00
2.55E+00 3.59E+00
2.51 E+00 3.69E+00
2.44E+00 3.52E+00
2.32E+00 3.67E+00
2.78E+00 3.08E+00
2.51 E+00 3.52E+00
3.55E+00 5.20E+00
P99
7.26E+00
1.07E+01
6.25E+00
9.14E+00
3.39E+00
5.52E+00
4.50E+00
3.67E+00
6.25E+00
3.79E+00
7.26E+00
8.29E+00
7.26E+00
6.87E+00
5.52E+00
1.66E+00
7.26E+00
6.87E+00
1.09E+01
6.82E+00
7.26E+00
7.26E+00
9.14E+00
P100
1.93E+01
1.07E+01
6.25E+00
9.14E+00
3.39E+00
1.93E+01
5.00E+00
3.67E+00
1.07E+01
5.28E+00
1.09E+01
1.93E+01
8.29E+00
1.07E+01
1.93E+01
1.66E+00
1.93E+01
1.93E+01
1.09E+01
9.14E+00
7.26E+00
1.93E+01
9.14E+00
-------
Table 13-60. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown White Potatoes (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
5895000 281
147000 10
119000 6
431000 24
751000 31
1501000 66
1855000 95
1021000 45
2267000 86
527000 58
2403000 81
698000 56
679000 25
3046000 159
2110000 95
140000 5
5550000 269
2587000 133
656000 31
1796000 84
796000 31
5291000 250
1082000 62
%
Consuming Mean
3.14
2.58
1.47
2.58
3.67
2.44
3.27
6.43
4.76
1.14
5.28
1.43
1.20
6.77
2.44
0.64
3.52
5.58
1.59
2.79
2.21
7.76
14.76
1.66E+00
*
«
2.19E+00
1.26E+00
1.24E+00
1.86E+00
1.27E+00
1.63E+00
1.23E+00
1.63E+00
2.17E+00
9.60E-01
1.96E+00
1.49E+00
*
1.67E+00
1.77E+00
1.28E+00
2.08E+00
7.61 E-01
1.65E+00
1.83E+00
SE P1
1.05E-01 O.OOE+00
. .
.
3.85E-01 O.OOE+00
1.85E-01 6.67E-02
1.21 E-01 1.64E-01
2.29E-01 1.27E-01
1.22E-01 2.06E-01
2.23E-01 1.64E-01
1.28E-01 6.67E-02
1.82E-01 O.OOE+00
1.98E-01 1.41 E-01
1.51 E-01 1.64E-01
1.55E-01 1.84E-01
1.67E-01 1.05E-01
. .
1.09E-01 1.41 E-01
1.47E-01 1.75E-01
2.04E-01 6.67E-02
2.39E-01 1.64E-01
1.05E-01 1.64E-01
1.09E-01 O.OOE+00
1.78E-01 6.67E-02
P5
1.87E-01
*
«
O.OOE+00
1.87E-01
1.64E-01
2.62E-01
2.17E-01
2.23E-01
1.05E-01
1.87E-01
3.95E-01
1.64E-01
2.65E-01
1.87E-01
*
2.06E-01
2.36E-01
1.27E-01
3.50E-01
2.16E-01
2.06E-01
2.06E-01
P10 P25
3.08E-01 5.50E-01
. .
.
4.10E-01 7.20E-01
2.59E-01 3.84E-01
1.96E-01 4.77E-01
3.50E-01 6.99E-01
3.57E-01 5.50E-01
2.65E-01 4.61 E-01
1.96E-01 4.10E-01
3.19E-01 6.20E-01
4.97E-01 8.64E-01
1.75E-01 3.75E-01
3.68E-01 7.67E-01
3.19E-01 5.40E-01
. .
3.08E-01 5.50E-01
3.39E-01 6.41 E-01
1.67E-01 3.48E-01
4.61 E-01 9.24E-01
2.59E-01 4.11 E-01
3.08E-01 5.55E-01
5.76E-01 9.24E-01
P50
1.27E+00
*
«
1.76E+00
1.22 E+00
1.00E+00
1.31 E+00
1.21 E+00
1.13E+00
8.55E-01
1.32E+00
2.02E+00
5.55E-01
1.50E+00
9.29E-01
*
1.28E+00
1.35E+00
8.64E-01
1.56E+00
5.43E-01
1.28E+00
1.46 E+00
P75
2.07E+00
*
«
3.10E+00
1.80 E+00
1.62E+00
2.04 E+00
1.69E+00
1.79E+00
1.91 E+00
2.09 E+00
2.95E+00
1.52E+00
2.38E+00
1.68 E+00
*
2.09 E+00
2.15E+00
1.97E+00
2.40E+00
9.63E-01
2.09E+00
2.31 E+00
P90 P95
3.11 E+00 4.76E+00
. .
.
5.94E+00 6.52E+00
2.95E+00 3.11 E+00
2.54E+00 3.08E+00
3.43E+00 5.29E+00
2.35E+00 2.88E+00
3.43E+00 4.14E+00
2.86E+00 3.08E+00
3.08E+00 5.29E+00
4.26E+00 5.40E+00
2.07E+00 2.25E+00
3.55E+00 5.64E+00
3.11 E+00 4.76E+00
. .
3.11 E+00 4.76E+00
3.77E+00 5.29E+00
2.95E+00 3.80E+00
3.44E+00 5.64E+00
1.40E+00 1.95E+00
3.10E+00 4.28E+00
3.80E+00 5.09E+00
P99
9.52E+00
*
«
6.52E+00
4.14E+00
4.29E+00
1.28E+01
3.92E+00
1.28E+01
4.28E+00
9.43E+00
6.00E+00
2.54E+00
1.28E+01
9.43E+00
*
9.52E+00
9.43E+00
5.09E+00
1.28E+01
3. 11 E+00
9.52E+00
6.52E+00
P100
1.28E+01
*
«
6.52E+00
4.14E+00
5.09E+00
1.28E+01
3.92E+00
1.28E+01
4.28E+00
9.43E+00
6.00E+00
2.54E+00
1.28E+01
9.43E+00
*
1.28E+01
9.43E+00
5.09E+00
1.28E+01
3. 11 E+00
1.28E+01
6.52E+00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 1 3-61 . Consumer Only Intake of Homeqrown Exposed Fruit (q/kq-day)
Population Nc
Nc
Group wqtd unwqtd
Total 11770000
Age
01-02 306000
03-05 470000
06-11 915000
12-19 896000
20-39 2521000
40-69 4272000
70 + 2285000
Season
Fall 2877000
Spring 2466000
Summer 3588000
Winter 2839000
Urbanization
Central City 2552000
Nonmetropolitan 3891000
Suburban 5267000
Race
Black 250000
White 11411000
Region
Midwest 4429000
Northeast 1219000
South 2532000
West 3530000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 10197000
Households who farm 1917000
679
19
30
68
50
139
247
118
100
265
122
192
99
269
309
12
663
293
69
141
174
596
112
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which the
%
Consuminq
6.26
5.37
5.80
5.48
4.37
4.09
7.53
14.39
6.04
5.34
7.89
5.83
4.53
8.64
6.08
1.15
7.24
9.55
2.96
3.94
9.79
14.96
26.16
Mean
1 .49E+00
*
2.60E+00
2.52E+00
1 .33E+00
1 .09E+00
1 .25E+00
1 .39E+00
1 .37E+00
1 .49E+00
1 .75E+00
1 .27E+00
1 .34E+00
1 .78E+00
1 .36E+00
«
1.51 E+00
1 .60E+00
7.55E-01
1.51 E+00
1 .60E+00
1 .55E+00
2.32E+00
SE P1
8.13E-02 4.41E-02
. .
7.78E-01 O.OOE+00
4.24E-01 O.OOE+00
2.06E-01 8.46E-02
1.44E-01 7.93E-02
1.10E-01 6.46E-02
1.17E-01 4.41E-02
1.16E-01 2.59E-01
1.51 E-01 8.91 E-02
2.50E-01 O.OOE+00
1.06E-01 4.15E-02
1.98E-01 4.41 E-02
1.67E-01 6.46E-02
9.00E-02 9.18E-02
.
8.33E-02 6.49E-02
1.42E-01 4.41 E-02
1.18E-01 8.08E-02
1.84E-01 7.93E-02
1.43E-01 1.00E-01
9.12E-02 4.15E-02
2.50E-01 7.21 E-02
P5
1.37E-01
*
O.OOE+00
1.71 E-01
1.23E-01
1.30E-01
1.64E-01
2.07E-01
2.91 E-01
1.98E-01
8.66E-02
1.04E-01
1.01 E-01
1.04E-01
2.07E-01
«
1.55E-01
1.25E-01
8.66E-02
2.32E-01
2.40E-01
1.58E-01
2.76E-01
P10
2.55E-01
*
3.73E-01
3.73E-01
2.58E-01
1.67E-01
2.54E-01
2.82E-01
3.42E-01
2.54E-01
1.30E-01
2.31 E-01
2.59E-01
1.67E-01
2.93E-01
«
2.59E-01
2.23E-01
1.65E-01
3.01 E-01
3.17E-01
2.58E-01
3.71 E-01
P25
4.46E-01
*
1.00E+00
6.19E-01
4.04E-01
3.04E-01
4.39E-01
5.71 E-01
5.43E-01
4.32E-01
3.89E-01
4.59E-01
4.46E-01
4.15E-01
4.69E-01
«
4.49E-01
4.23E-01
3.00E-01
5.08E-01
5.69E-01
4.49E-01
6.81 E-01
P50
8.33E-01
*
1.82E+00
1.11 E+00
6.09E-01
6.15E-01
7.19E-01
9.57E-01
1.03E+00
8.56E-01
6.41 E-01
8.29E-01
8.63E-01
9.42E-01
7.73E-01
«
8.56E-01
8.78E-01
4.74E-01
9.16E-01
9.57E-01
8.78E-01
1.30E+00
P75 P90
1.70E+00 3.16E+00
. .
2.64E+00 5.41 E+00
2.91 E+00 6.98E+00
2.27E+00 3.41 E+00
1.07E+00 2.00E+00
1.40E+00 2.61 E+00
1.66E+00 3.73E+00
1.88E+00 2.88E+00
1.65E+00 2.91 E+00
1.76E+00 4.29E+00
1.55E+00 2.61 E+00
1.60E+00 2.37E+00
1.94E+00 4.07E+00
1.65E+00 3.16E+00
.
1.72E+00 3.31 E+00
1.88E+00 3.58E+00
7.84E-01 1.39E+00
1.63E+00 2.63E+00
1.97E+00 3.72E+00
1.73E+00 3.41 E+00
3.14E+00 5.00E+00
P95
4.78E+00
*
6.07E+00
1.17E+01
4.78E+00
3.58E+00
3.25E+00
4.42E+00
4.25E+00
4.67E+00
6.12E+00
4.66E+00
2.88E+00
5.98E+00
4.67E+00
«
4.78E+00
4.78E+00
2.86E+00
5.98E+00
5.00E+00
5.00E+00
6.12E+00
P99 P100
1.20E+01 3.25E+01
. .
3.25E+01 3.25E+01
1.57E+01 1.59E+01
5.90E+00 5.90E+00
1.29E+01 1.29E+01
1.30E+01 1.30E+01
5.39E+00 7.13E+00
5.41 E+00 5.41 E+00
8.27E+00 3.25E+01
1.30E+01 1.57E+01
8.16E+00 1.13E+01
1.30E+01 1.30E+01
1.57E+01 3.25E+01
7.29E+00 1.29E+01
.
1.20E+01 3.25E+01
1.20E+01 3.25E+01
5.21E+00 7.13E+00
1.57E+01 1.57E+01
1.30E+01 1.30E+01
1.29E+01 3.25E+01
1.57E+01 1.57E+01
;re were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweig
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
ited number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-62. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Fruits (q/kq-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wqtd
3855000
79000
80000
181000
377000
755000
1702000
601000
394000
497000
1425000
1539000
1312000
506000
2037000
200000
3655000
657000
105000
1805000
1288000
3360000
357000
Nc
unwqtd
173
5
4
9
20
29
77
26
12
36
47
78
50
19
104
8
165
24
5
74
70
146
14
%
Consuminq
2.05
1.39
0.99
1.08
1.84
1.23
3.00
3.78
0.83
1.08
3.13
3.16
2.33
1.12
2.35
0.92
2.32
1.42
0.26
2.81
3.57
4.93
4.87
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
Mean
5.74E+00
*
*
«
2.96E+00
4.51 E+00
5.65E+00
4.44E+00
*
2.08E+00
7.39E+00
6.24E+00
3.94E+00
*
6.83E+00
«
5.91 E+00
1.07E+01
*
4.77E+00
4.85E+00
5.90E+00
*
SE
6.25E-01
*
*
«
9.93E-01
1.08E+00
8.66E-01
6.91 E-01
*
3.47E-01
1.45E+00
9.10E-01
5.80E-01
*
9.38E-01
«
6.48E-01
2.60E+00
*
6.47E-01
9.26E-01
6.97E-01
*
P1 P5 P10
1.50E-01 2.66E-01 3.35E-01
...
...
.
1.17E-01 1.60E-01 2.83E-01
1.81 E-01 3.62E-01 4.87E-01
1.12E-01 2.44E-01 2.87E-01
2.62E-01 2.62E-01 2.85E-01
...
1.60E-01 1.81 E-01 2.55E-01
1.12E-01 2.66E-01 3.93E-01
1.50E-01 3.02E-01 3.76E-01
1.50E-01 2.62E-01 3.33E-01
...
1.12E-01 2.53E-01 2.92E-01
.
1.17E-01 2.62E-01 3.33E-01
2.53E-01 2.62E-01 2.85E-01
...
1.60E-01 3.64E-01 4.50E-01
1.12E-01 1.81E-01 2.68E-01
1.17E-01 2.65E-01 3.35E-01
* * *
P25
9.33E-01
*
*
«
3.93E-01
1.22E+00
6.69E-01
1.95E+00
*
3.78E-01
1.25E+00
1.39E+00
8.34E-01
*
5.94E-01
«
1.06E+00
1.18E+00
*
1.23E+00
4.94E-01
1.16E+00
*
P50 P75
2.34E+00 7.45E+00
. .
. .
.
1.23E+00 2.84E+00
1.88E+00 4.47E+00
2.22E+00 9.36E+00
3.29E+00 7.06E+00
. .
1.22E+00 4.08E+00
3.06E+00 1.03E+01
2.65E+00 8.23E+00
3.01 E+00 5.01 E+00
. .
2.01 E+00 1.03E+01
.
2.44E+00 7.46E+00
7.44E+00 1.46E+01
. .
2.54E+00 5.10E+00
1.84E+00 5.34E+00
2.42E+00 7.46E+00
* *
P90 P95
1.60E+01 1.97E+01
. .
. .
.
7.44E+00 1.14E+01
1.46E+01 1.61 E+01
1.55E+01 2.12E+01
8.97E+00 9.97E+00
. .
5.10E+00 6.57E+00
1.66E+01 2.41 E+01
1.78E+01 2.12E+01
9.23E+00 9.97E+00
. .
1.79E+01 2.38E+01
.
1.60E+01 2.12E+01
2.41E+01 4.13E+01
. .
1.52E+01 1.66E+01
1.23E+01 1.88E+01
1.60E+01 1.91 E+01
* *
P99 P100
4.73E+01 5.36E+01
. .
. .
.
1.91 E+01 1.91 E+01
2.41 E+01 2.41 E+01
4.13E+01 4.13E+01
1.52E+01 1.52E+01
. .
6.79E+00 6.79E+00
5.36E+01 5.36E+01
4.73E+01 4.73E+01
1.88E+01 1.88E+01
. .
5.36E+01 5.36E+01
.
4.73E+01 5.36E+01
5.36E+01 5.36E+01
. .
2.38E+01 2.40E+01
4.73E+01 4.73E+01
4.73E+01 5.36E+01
* *
less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-63. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
NOTE: SE = standard error
Nc
wgtd
28762000
815000
1069000
2454000
2611000
6969000
10993000
3517000
8865000
4863000
10151000
4883000
4859000
11577000
12266000
1713000
26551000
10402000
4050000
9238000
5012000
25737000
3596000
Nc
%
unwgtd Consuming
1511
43
62
134
143
348
579
185
314
487
348
362
173
711
625
100
1386
570
191
503
245
1361
207
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
15.30
14.30
13.19
14.68
12.74
11.31
19.38
22.15
18.60
10.54
22.32
10.02
8.62
25.71
14.17
7.88
16.85
22.42
9.84
14.36
13.90
37.76
49.07
Mean
1.52E+00
3.48E+00
1.74E+00
1.39E+00
1.07E+00
1.05E+00
1.60E+00
1.68E+00
1.31 E+00
1.14E+00
2.03E+00
1.21 E+00
1.11 E+00
1.87E+00
1.35E+00
1.23E+00
1.53E+00
1.48E+00
1.65E+00
1.55E+00
1.43E+00
1.57
2.17
SE P1
5.10E-02 3.25E-03
5.14E-01 2.28E-02
2.20E-01 O.OOE+00
1.76E-01 O.OOE+00
9.43E-02 O.OOE+00
8.14E-02 8.20E-03
8.32E-02 3.25E-03
1.21 E-01 5.21 E-03
9.80E-02 5.24E-02
6.35E-02 2.35E-03
1.26E-01 2.17E-03
9.50E-02 4.23E-03
1.02E-01 1.01 E-02
8.79E-02 1.65E-02
7.01 E-02 2.93E-03
1.27E-01 O.OOE+00
5.41 E-02 4.67E-03
8.91 E-02 1.00E-02
1.78E-01 2.35E-03
7.79E-02 5.20E-02
1.02E-01 3.25E-03
5.50E-02 3.25E-03
1.61 E-01 O.OOE+00
P5 P10
9.15E-02 1.72E-01
2.39E-01 8.34E-01
7.23E-03 4.85E-02
4.44E-02 9.42E-02
2.92E-02 1.42E-01
6.56E-02 1.17E-01
1.41 E-01 2.44E-01
1.51 E-01 2.39E-01
1.11 E-01 1.80E-01
4.53E-02 1.53E-01
1.13E-01 2.04E-01
2.28E-02 1.37E-01
6.04E-02 8.02E-02
1.72E-01 2.52E-01
9.68E-02 1.56E-01
7.74E-02 1.41 E-01
9.74E-02 1.77E-01
7.14E-02 1.57E-01
8.05E-02 1.38E-01
1.63E-01 2.61 E-01
2.61 E-02 1.45E-01
8.87E-02 1.68E-01
1.84E-01 3.72E-01
P25
3.95E-01
1.20E+00
5.79E-01
3.12E-01
3.04E-01
2.55E-01
4.79E-01
5.22E-01
3.33E-01
3.38E-01
6.07E-01
3.70E-01
2.83E-01
5.01 E-01
3.55E-01
3.52E-01
3.95E-01
3.88E-01
2.61 E-01
5.18E-01
3.91 E-01
4.13E-01
6.47E-01
P50
8.60E-01
1.89E+00
1.16E+00
6.43E-01
6.56E-01
5.58E-01
9.81 E-01
1.13E+00
6.49E-01
6.58E-01
1.30E+00
6.67E-01
7.01 E-01
1.16E+00
7.44E-01
8.93E-01
8.59E-01
8.06E-01
6.65E-01
9.99E-01
7.63E-01
8.89E-01
1.38E+00
P75 P90 P95
1.83E+00 3.55E+00 5.12E+00
4.23E+00 1.07E+01 1.19E+01
2.53E+00 3.47E+00 6.29E+00
1.60E+00 3.22E+00 5.47E+00
1.46E+00 2.35E+00 3.78E+00
1.26E+00 2.33E+00 3.32E+00
1.92E+00 3.59E+00 5.22E+00
2.38E+00 4.08E+00 4.96E+00
1.56E+00 3.13E+00 4.45E+00
1.39E+00 2.76E+00 4.02E+00
2.52E+00 4.32E+00 6.35E+00
1.42E+00 2.76E+00 3.69E+00
1.43E+00 2.49E+00 3.29E+00
2.20E+00 4.12E+00 6.10E+00
1.58E+00 3.22E+00 5.22E+00
1.51 E+00 3.32E+00 3.92E+00
1.82E+00 3.48E+00 5.12E+00
1.69E+00 3.55E+00 4.67E+00
1.75E+00 5.58E+00 6.80E+00
1.92E+00 3.19E+00 4.52E+00
2.13E+00 3.45E+00 4.84E+00
1.97E+00 3.63E+00 5.45E+00
2.81 E+00 6.01 E+00 6.83E+00
P99
1.03E+01
1.21E+01
7.36E+00
1.33E+01
5.67E+00
7.57E+00
8.99E+00
6.96E+00
8.92E+00
7.51 E+00
1.27E+01
8.86E+00
8.34E+00
1.22E+01
8.61 E+00
5.55E+00
1.03E+01
1.19E+01
1.27E+01
9.92E+00
7.51 E+00
1.03E+01
1.03E+01
P100
2.06E+01
1.21E+01
8.86E+00
1.33E+01
5.67E+00
2.06E+01
1.90E+01
1.02E+01
1.22E+01
1.07E+01
1.90E+01
2.06E+01
1.21E+01
1.90E+01
2.06E+01
7.19E+00
2.06E+01
2.06E+01
1.49E+01
1.33E+01
8.34E+00
2.06E+01
1.33E+01
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
NOTE: SE = standard error
Nc
wgtd
11428000
348000
440000
1052000
910000
3227000
3818000
1442000
3907000
2086000
3559000
1876000
1342000
5934000
4152000
479000
10836000
4359000
807000
4449000
1813000
10286000
2325000
Nc
unwgtd
656
21
32
63
51
164
226
89
143
236
118
159
49
391
216
27
625
273
48
253
82
602
142
T
%
Consuming
6.08
6.11
5.43
6.30
4.44
5.24
6.73
9.08
8.20
4.52
7.82
3.85
2.38
13.18
4.80
2.20
6.88
9.40
1.96
6.92
5.03
15.09
31.72
able 13-64. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Mean
1.01 E+00
2.46E+00
1.30E+00
1.10E+00
7.76E-01
7.62E-01
9.30E-01
1.05E+00
8.51 E-01
7.02E-01
1.40E+00
9.30E-01
9.96E-01
1.07E+00
9.26E-01
1.50E+00
9.93E-01
1.01 E+00
7.01 E-01
1.08E+00
9.57E-01
1.01 E+00
1.30E+00
SE P1
4.95E-02 1.03E-01
4.91E-01 3.15E-01
2.13E-01 2.33E-01
1.34E-01 1.89E-01
8.71 E-02 5.88E-02
6.03E-02 1.13E-01
7.32E-02 6.87E-02
1.62E-01 1.19E-01
7.02E-02 1.19E-01
4.48E-02 5.88E-02
1.56E-01 1.03E-01
7.70E-02 1.18E-01
1.51E-01 1.19E-01
6.36E-02 1.14E-01
7.97E-02 6.87E-02
2.25E-01 1.62E-01
4.83E-02 1.03E-01
7.38E-02 1.13E-01
8.99E-02 5.88E-02
7.17E-02 1.29E-01
1.62E-01 6.87E-02
4.73E-02 1.03E-01
1.45E-01 8.65E-02
P5 P10
1.54E-01 1.94E-01
3.15E-01 5.38E-01
2.33E-01 3.22E-01
2.08E-01 3.18E-01
1.61 E-01 2.39E-01
1.52E-01 1.71 E-01
1.35E-01 1.66E-01
2.10E-01 2.42E-01
1.61 E-01 2.04E-01
1.35E-01 1.70E-01
1.77E-01 2.33E-01
1.42E-01 1.82E-01
1.53E-01 1.67E-01
1.66E-01 2.14E-01
1.50E-01 1.88E-01
2.64E-01 3.31 E-01
1.53E-01 1.92E-01
1.71 E-01 2.31 E-01
1.50E-01 1.68E-01
1.71E-01 2.14E-01
1.19E-01 1.52E-01
1.53E-01 1.92E-01
1.66E-01 2.09E-01
P25
3.22E-01
1.36E+00
4.80E-01
3.87E-01
3.54E-01
2.41 E-01
3.16E-01
3.57E-01
3.22E-01
2.66E-01
3.81 E-01
3.12E-01
3.18E-01
3.53E-01
2.94E-01
8.66E-01
3.21 E-01
3.26E-01
2.65E-01
3.76E-01
2.08E-01
3.36E-01
3.37E-01
P50
6.25E-01
1.94E+00
1.04 E+00
7.91 E-01
5.83E-01
5.08E-01
6.03E-01
5.72E-01
5.68E-01
4.90E-01
7.81 E-01
6.01 E-01
7.21 E-01
6.48E-01
5.64E-01
9.35E-01
6.10E-01
5.72E-01
5.09E-01
7.12E-01
4.79E-01
6.42E-01
5.99E-01
P75
1.20 E+00
2.96E+00
1.48 E+00
1.31 E+00
8.24E-01
9.67E-01
1.11 E+00
1.21 E+00
1.10E+00
9.08E-01
1.69 E+00
1.20E+00
1.18E+00
1.30E+00
1.15E+00
2.20E+00
1.20 E+00
1.08E+00
9.91 E-01
1.38E+00
1.01 E+00
1.21 E+00
1.40 E+00
P90 P95
2.24E+00 3.05E+00
3.88E+00 9.42E+00
2.51 E+00 5.10E+00
2.14E+00 3.12E+00
1.85E+00 2.20E+00
1.73E+00 2.51 E+00
1.87E+00 3.04E+00
1.86E+00 3.05E+00
1.73E+00 2.51 E+00
1.44E+00 1.86E+00
3.05E+00 5.40E+00
2.32E+00 3.06E+00
2.36E+00 2.83E+00
2.51 E+00 3.55E+00
1.85E+00 2.67E+00
3.05E+00 3.23E+00
2.17E+00 3.04E+00
2.45E+00 3.68E+00
1.71 E+00 2.33E+00
2.32E+00 3.05E+00
1.86E+00 3.12E+00
2.32E+00 3.05E+00
3.55E+00 5.40E+00
P99 P100
6.49E+00 9.42E+00
9.42E+00 9.42E+00
5.31 E+00 5.31 E+00
5.40E+00 5.40E+00
2.69E+00 2.69E+00
3.63E+00 4.76E+00
6.84E+00 7.44E+00
9.23E+00 9.23E+00
4.78E+00 5.31 E+00
3.74E+00 5.73E+00
9.23E+00 9.42E+00
4.76E+00 6.39E+00
4.78E+00 4.78E+00
6.84E+00 9.42E+00
6.49E+00 9.23E+00
4.95E+00 4.95E+00
6.49E+00 9.42E+00
6.84E+00 7.44E+00
2.77E+00 2.77E+00
5.40E+00 9.42E+00
9.23E+00 9.23E+00
6.49E+00 9.23E+00
9.23E+00 9.23E+00
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
-------
Table 13-65. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Root Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
13750000 743
371000 22
390000 23
1106000 67
1465000 76
3252000 164
4903000 276
2096000 107
4026000 153
2552000 260
5011000 169
2161000 161
2385000 96
6094000 366
5211000 279
521000 31
12861000 697
5572000 314
1721000 92
3842000 205
2555000 130
12578000 682
2367000 136
%
Consuming
7.31
6.51
4.81
6.62
7.15
5.28
8.64
13.20
8.45
5.53
11.02
4.44
4.23
13.54
6.02
2.40
8.16
12.01
4.18
5.97
7.08
18.46
32.30
Mean SE
1.16E+00 5.84E-02
2.52E+00 6.10E-01
1.28E+00 3.24E-01
1.32E+00 2.14E-01
9.37E-01 1.19E-01
8.74E-01 7.39E-02
1.13E+00 9.86E-02
1.22E+00 1.02E-01
1.42E+00 1.53E-01
6.87E-01 6.08E-02
1.19E+00 1.20E-01
1.17E+00 1.19E-01
7.49E-01 8.40E-02
1.43E+00 9.81 E-02
1.06E+00 8.62E-02
8.83E-01 3.93E-01
1.18E+00 5.97E-02
1.31 E+00 9.54E-02
8.38E-01 1.03E-01
1.38E+00 1.38E-01
7.68E-01 6.43E-02
1.15E+00 5.72E-02
1.39E+00 1.26E-01
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consum
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
P1
4.72E-03
1.66E-01
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
7.59E-03
1.21 E-02
3.34E-03
1.73E-02
5.15E-02
3.34E-03
O.OOE+00
3.23E-03
2.68E-02
8.57E-03
3.73E-03
4.72E-03
7.79E-03
3.37E-02
3.23E-03
1.10E-02
4.72E-03
4.79E-03
1.11 E-01
ers in survey
P5
3.64E-02
1.66E-01
O.OOE+00
1.39E-02
8.00E-03
5.35E-02
3.29E-02
2.90E-02
1.38E-01
1.73E-02
4.76E-02
8.57E-03
3.90E-02
6.87E-02
1.21 E-02
9.28E-03
4.58E-02
7.48E-02
7.79E-03
5.35E-02
2.24E-02
3.64E-02
1.58E-01
P10 P25
1.12E-01 2.51E-01
2.19E-01 3.59E-01
1.17E-01 2.25E-01
3.64E-02 2.32E-01
6.84E-02 2.69E-01
9.93E-02 2.00E-01
1.17E-01 2.51E-01
1.69E-01 3.76E-01
1.72E-01 3.09E-01
3.00E-02 1.44E-01
1.32E-01 2.77E-01
4.34E-02 2.38E-01
1.43E-01 2.23E-01
1.29E-01 2.78E-01
7.17E-02 2.32E-01
3.64E-02 8.82E-02
1.29E-01 2.61 E-01
1.66E-01 2.69E-01
8.69E-03 1.43E-01
1.32E-01 2.77E-01
1.14E-01 2.38E-01
1.17E-01 2.58E-01
1.84E-01 3.65E-01
P50
6.66E-01
9.20E-01
4.62E-01
5.23E-01
5.65E-01
5.64E-01
6.75E-01
8.51 E-01
9.20E-01
3.65E-01
7.26E-01
5.57E-01
4.26E-01
7.58E-01
7.34E-01
5.42E-01
6.80E-01
7.39E-01
4.81 E-01
6.90E-01
5.70E-01
6.74E-01
8.83E-01
P75
1.47E+00
3.67E+00
1.68E+00
1.63E+00
1.37E+00
1.24E+00
1.27E+00
1.71 E+00
1.67E+00
7.69E-01
1.51 E+00
1.56E+00
9.16E-01
1.85E+00
1.19E+00
7.65E-01
1.50E+00
1.67E+00
1.18E+00
1.70E+00
9.77E-01
1.50E+00
1.85E+00
P90 P95
2.81 E+00 3.71 E+00
7.25E+00 1.04E+01
4.26E+00 4.73E+00
3.83E+00 5.59E+00
2.26E+00 3.32E+00
2.11 E+00 3.08E+00
2.74E+00 3.56E+00
2.86E+00 3.21 E+00
3.26E+00 3.85E+00
1.69E+00 2.80E+00
2.74E+00 3.64E+00
3.08E+00 4.14E+00
1.91 E+00 2.70E+00
3.32E+00 4.24E+00
2.34E+00 3.26E+00
1.06E+00 1.25E+00
2.82E+00 3.72E+00
3.23E+00 4.26E+00
2.05E+00 2.77E+00
3.32E+00 3.83E+00
1.69E+00 2.45E+00
2.81 E+00 3.64E+00
3.11 E+00 4.58E+00
P99
9.52E+00
1.04E+01
4.73E+00
7.47E+00
5.13E+00
4.64E+00
9.52E+00
4.01 E+00
1.23E+01
4.24E+00
1.04E+01
6.21 E+00
3.56E+00
1.13E+01
6.29E+00
1.23E+01
9.52E+00
1.04E+01
4.78E+00
1.23E+01
3.72E+00
7.47E+00
7.47E+00
P100
1.28E+01
1.04E+01
4.73E+00
7.47E+00
5.13E+00
6.03E+00
1.28E+01
4.77E+00
1.28E+01
7.69E+00
1.19E+01
1.13E+01
3.93E+00
1.28E+01
1.19E+01
1.23E+01
1.28E+01
1.19E+01
6.03E+00
1.28E+01
3.72E+00
1.28E+01
7.69E+00
-------
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 8855000 428 4.71
Age
01-02 180000 8 3.16
03-05 226000 12 2.79
06-11 826000 39 4.94
12-19 628000 32 3.07
20-39 1976000 87 3.21
40-69 3710000 184 6.54
70+ 1253000 63 7.89
Season
Fall 2683000 88 5.63
Spring 1251000 127 2.71
Summer 3580000 124 7.87
Winter 1341000 89 2.75
Urbanization
Central City 1298000 48 2.30
Nonmetropolitan 3218000 167 7.15
Suburban 4279000 211 4.94
Race
Black 724000 49 3.33
White 7963000 373 5.05
Region
Midwest 2668000 121 5.75
Northeast 1554000 76 3.77
South 2945000 148 4.58
West 1628000 81 4.51
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 8521000 412 12.50
Households who farm 1450000 66 19.78
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which there were k
Table 13-66.
Mean
3.91 E-01
*
*
3.05E-01
4.20E-01
3.36E-01
4.01 E-01
4.08E-01
4.41 E-01
5.59E-01
3.39E-01
2.72E-01
2.69E-01
3.31 E-01
4.79E-01
1.04E+00
3.21 E-01
2.81 E-01
5.08E-01
4.78E-01
3.18E-01
3.95E-01
3.80E-01
;ss than 20 obse
Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Dark Green Vegetables (g/kg-day)
SE
2.95E-02
*
*
5.19E-02
1.47E-01
6.09E-02
4.24E-02
7.27E-02
7.42E-02
7.90E-02
4.10E-02
3.92E-02
3.68E-02
3.54E-02
5.23E-02
1.80E-01
2.20E-02
3.54E-02
9.14E-02
5.07E-02
7.25E-02
3.03E-02
6.08E-02
;rvations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consum
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
P1
2.01 E-03
*
*
O.OOE+00
4.92E-03
2.21 E-03
2.25E-03
2.84E-03
1.01E-02
1.63E-03
O.OOE+00
2.01 E-03
2.84E-03
2.21 E-03
2.25E-03
O.OOE+00
2.25E-03
2.84E-03
2.17E-03
3.64E-02
2.25E-03
1.63E-03
1.62E-03
3rs in survey.
P5
4.28E-03
*
*
6.34E-03
5.38E-03
3.74E-03
3.67E-03
4.23E-03
4.46E-02
3.66E-03
2.84E-03
3.97E-03
4.71 E-03
4.67E-03
5.21 E-03
1.00E-01
4.67E-03
4.77E-03
2.80E-03
6.83E-02
3.37E-03
4.23E-03
4.67E-03
P10
1.01E-02
*
*
2.42E-02
6.65E-03
1.00E-02
2.60E-02
5.68E-03
8.70E-02
5.72E-03
5.68E-03
5.21 E-03
1.01E-02
1.70E-02
2.15E-02
1.13E-01
1.01E-02
6.26E-03
4.23E-03
9.23E-02
6.34E-03
1.05E-02
5.38E-03
P25
8.70E-02
*
*
9.00E-02
5.62E-02
8.70E-02
8.19E-02
1.10E-01
1.45E-01
1.01 E-01
6.34E-02
2.30E-02
1.06E-01
6.86E-02
9.22E-02
2.21 E-01
7.75E-02
6.34E-02
5.62E-02
1.45E-01
3.50E-02
8.76E-02
6.68E-02
P50
2. 11 E-01
*
*
1.81 E-01
2.03E-01
1.76E-01
2.33E-01
2.31 E-01
2.38E-01
3.09E-01
1.51 E-01
1.51 E-01
2.05E-01
1.72E-01
2.33E-01
5.52E-01
1.99E-01
2. 11 E-01
1.96E-01
2.87E-01
1.10E-01
2.12E-01
2.31 E-01
P75
4.35E-01
*
*
3.87E-01
3.73E-01
3.79E-01
4.80E-01
4.69E-01
4.59E-01
5.38E-01
4.05E-01
3.71 E-01
3.24E-01
4.52E-01
4.59E-01
1.17E+00
3.79E-01
3.58E-01
4.92E-01
6.43E-01
3.09E-01
4.48E-01
4.84E-01
P90
9.19E-01
*
*
9.48E-01
9.24E-01
6.69E-01
9.79E-01
9.29E-01
7.90E-01
1.28E+00
9.79E-01
6.59E-01
6.32E-01
7.52E-01
1.15E+00
3.29E+00
7.76E-01
4.96E-01
1.25E+00
9.24E-01
6.59E-01
9.19E-01
9.48E-01
P95 P99
1.25E+00 3.53E+00
. .
. .
1.04E+00 1.28E+00
1.64E+00 4.86E+00
9.19E-01 2.94E+00
1.25E+00 3.29E+00
1.08E+00 3.45E+00
1.08E+00 3.86E+00
2.81 E+00 4.86E+00
1.15E+00 2.48E+00
1.17E+00 2.04E+00
9.19E-01 1.07E+00
1.00E+00 2.48E+00
2.18E+00 3.86E+00
3.86E+00 4.86E+00
1.07E+00 2.37E+00
9.79E-01 2.48E+00
1.93E+00 3.53E+00
1.28E+00 3.86E+00
9.29E-01 4.86E+00
1.25E+00 3.53E+00
1.25E+00 2.48E+00
P100
5.82E+00
*
*
1.28E+00
4.86E+00
4.29E+00
5.82E+00
3.45E+00
4.29E+00
5.82E+00
2.48E+00
2.18E+00
1.07E+00
5.82E+00
4.86E+00
4.86E+00
5.82E+00
3.02E+00
5.82E+00
4.29E+00
4.86E+00
5.82E+00
3.02E+00
-------
Table 13-67. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Deep Yellow Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
5467000
124000
61000
382000
493000
1475000
2074000
761000
2664000
315000
1619000
869000
1308000
2100000
2059000
129000
5093000
2792000
735000
557000
1383000
5177000
1088000
Nc
%
unwgtd Consuming
245
8
4
17
21
63
96
32
97
34
52
62
43
118
84
8
229
128
29
30
58
233
51
2.91
2.18
0.75
2.29
2.41
2.39
3.66
4.79
5.59
0.68
3.56
1.78
2.32
4.66
2.38
0.59
3.23
6.02
1.79
0.87
3.83
7.60
14.85
* Intake data not provided for subpopulationsfor which there were lessths
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
Mean
6.43E-01
*
«
*
4.73E-01
5.32E-01
5.39E-01
7.81 E-01
7.38E-01
5.64E-01
5.09E-01
6.29E-01
5.07E-01
6.66E-01
7.07E-01
*
6.45E-01
7.52E-01
3.96E-01
5.39E-01
5.97E-01
6.23E-01
6.06E-01
an 20 observ
SE P1
4.44E-02 4.34E-02
. .
.
. .
9.18E-02 6.05E-02
7.54E-02 4.89E-02
5.15E-02 3.90E-02
9.20E-02 7.64E-02
8.18E-02 9.21E-02
7.52E-02 1.43E-01
6.37E-02 4.16E-02
9.15E-02 3.90E-02
7.07E-02 3.90E-02
7.72E-02 4.16E-02
6.99E-02 6.48E-02
. .
4.03E-02 4.89E-02
6.01 E-02 4.34E-02
8.06E-02 4.16E-02
2.08E-01 4.89E-02
7.07E-02 6.48E-02
3.93E-02 4.16E-02
8.52E-02 9.21 E-02
ations
P5 P10
6.70E-02 1.26E-01
. .
.
. .
6.05E-02 6.29E-02
5.55E-02 1.15E-01
9.22E-02 1.43E-01
2.02E-01 2.77E-01
1.22E-01 1.43E-01
1.45E-01 1.98E-01
5.49E-02 6.48E-02
4.34E-02 6.29E-02
6.29E-02 1.43E-01
5.55E-02 9.07E-02
9.22E-02 1.26E-01
. .
9.21 E-02 1.43E-01
1.32E-01 1.93E-01
5.55E-02 6.05E-02
5.49E-02 7.74E-02
1.27E-01 1.43E-01
9.07E-02 1.32E-01
9.22E-02 1.22E-01
P25 P50
2.22E-01 4.17E-01
. .
.
. .
9.07E-02 3.63E-01
1.66E-01 3.05E-01
2.21 E-01 4.03E-01
3.70E-01 5.72E-01
2.61 E-01 4.51 E-01
2.47E-01 4.45E-01
2.26E-01 4.10E-01
1.72E-01 3.52E-01
2.13E-01 3.88E-01
2.20E-01 3.70E-01
2.62E-01 4.25E-01
. .
2.41 E-01 4.25E-01
2.82E-01 5.09E-01
9.22E-02 1.50E-01
2.20E-01 3.05E-01
2.21E-01 4.10E-01
2.32E-01 4.15E-01
1.94E-01 3.40E-01
P75
7.74E-01
*
«
*
7.79E-01
5. 11 E-01
6.54E-01
1.24E+00
9.74E-01
6.43E-01
6.35E-01
7.96E-01
5.88E-01
8.65E-01
9.74E-01
*
7.96E-01
9.55E-01
6.35E-01
4.38E-01
6.42E-01
7.50E-01
9.40E-01
P90
1.44 E+00
*
«
*
1.13E+00
1.22E+00
1.09 E+00
1.61 E+00
1.73E+00
1.01 E+00
9.64E-01
1.54E+00
9.64E-01
1.39E+00
1.67E+00
*
1.50 E+00
1.73E+00
1.09 E+00
7.74E-01
1.44 E+00
1.42E+00
1.28E+00
P95
2.03E+00
*
«
*
1.44 E+00
2.03E+00
1.33E+00
1.99E+00
2.23E+00
1.42E+00
1.67E+00
2.23E+00
1.41 E+00
2.12E+00
2.03E+00
*
2.03E+00
2.23E+00
1.37E+00
1.22E+00
1.89E+00
1.99E+00
1.73E+00
P99 P100
2.67E+00 6.63E+00
. .
.
. .
1.58E+00 1.58E+00
2.67E+00 2.67E+00
3.02E+00 3.02E+00
1.99E+00 1.99E+00
3.02E+00 6.63E+00
2.41 E+00 2.41 E+00
2.31 E+00 2.31 E+00
4.37E+00 4.37E+00
2.24E+00 2.24E+00
4.37E+00 6.63E+00
2.67E+00 2.67E+00
. .
2.67E+00 4.37E+00
3.02E+00 4.37E+00
2.21 E+00 2.21 E+00
6.63E+00 6.63E+00
2.31 E+00 2.31 E+00
2.67E+00 4.37E+00
3.02E+00 3.02E+00
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table13-68. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Vegetables (g/kg-da
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
NOTE: SE = standard error
Nc
wgtd
25221000
613000
887000
2149000
2379000
6020000
9649000
3226000
6934000
5407000
8454000
4426000
4148000
10721000
10292000
1347000
23367000
8296000
2914000
9218000
4733000
22417000
3965000
Nc
%
unwgtd Consuming
1437
38
59
134
141
328
547
174
253
567
283
334
161
710
564
84
1327
522
162
518
233
1291
239
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
13.41
10.76
10.95
12.86
11.61
9.77
17.01
20.31
14.55
11.71
18.59
9.09
7.36
23.81
11.89
6.19
14.83
17.88
7.08
14.33
13.12
32.89
54.10
Mean SE P1
1.38E+00 5.00E-02 9.44E-03
3.80E+00 6.27E-01 1.92E-01
2.15E+00 2.67E-01 O.OOE+00
1.30E+00 1.38E-01 O.OOE+00
9.80E-01 8.56E-02 O.OOE+00
9.30E-01 6.00E-02 3.19E-02
1.40E+00 8.72E-02 5.20E-03
1.58E+00 1.41 E-01 1.85E-02
1.19E+00 8.62E-02 4.92E-02
1.16E+00 6.19E-02 3.66E-03
1.79E+00 1.53E-01 O.OOE+00
1.19E+00 7.28E-02 4.79E-03
9.66E-01 8.81 E-02 3.50E-02
1.78E+00 8.99E-02 2.74E-02
1.14E+00 5.98E-02 4.79E-03
1.30E+00 1.70E-01 4.41 E-02
1.39E+00 5.26E-02 1.29E-02
1.43E+00 9.25E-02 3.19E-02
1.33E+00 1.65E-01 1.97E-03
1.53E+00 7.82E-02 1.41 E-02
1.08E+00 9.85E-02 1.11E-02
1.44E+00 5.25E-02 1.11E-02
1.95E+00 1.63E-01 1.41 E-02
P5
1.07E-01
2.73E-01
2.28E-01
1.21 E-01
5.76E-02
9.37E-02
1.11 E-01
1.52E-01
1.48E-01
4.32E-02
1.18E-01
1.41 E-01
9.37E-02
1.60E-01
8.98E-02
1.74E-01
1.10E-01
1.21 E-01
5.69E-02
1.68E-01
7.06E-02
1.11 E-01
1.36E-01
P10
1.76E-01
4.04E-01
3.72E-01
1.93E-01
1.15E-01
1.48E-01
1.86E-01
2.38E-01
1.86E-01
1.04E-01
1.81 E-01
2.31 E-01
1.63E-01
2.26E-01
1.46E-01
2.06E-01
1.79E-01
1.90E-01
1.07E-01
2.53E-01
1.22E-01
1.80E-01
2.34E-01
P25
3.62E-01
1.04E+00
7.20E-01
3.54E-01
3.17E-01
2.43E-01
3.95E-01
4.62E-01
3.28E-01
3.10E-01
3.85E-01
4.09E-01
3.24E-01
4.68E-01
3.06E-01
3.50E-01
3.76E-01
3.66E-01
2.44E-01
4.87E-01
2.55E-01
3.84E-01
5.20E-01
V)
P50
7.78E-01
2.61 E+00
1.37E+00
8.00E-01
6.40E-01
5.60E-01
8.43E-01
9.48E-01
7.16E-01
7.10E-01
9.68E-01
7.33E-01
6.07E-01
1.01 E+00
6.47E-01
7. 11 E-01
7.93E-01
7.29E-01
5.97E-01
1.03E+00
5.73E-01
8.18E-01
1.21 E+00
P75 P90 P95
1.65E+00 3.09E+00 4.52E+00
4.55E+00 7.74E+00 1.12E+01
3.16E+00 4.47E+00 5.96E+00
1.61 E+00 3.04E+00 4.57E+00
1.33E+00 2.05E+00 3.17E+00
1.12E+00 2.19E+00 3.04E+00
1.58E+00 2.92E+00 4.65E+00
1.91 E+00 3.46E+00 5.79E+00
1.44E+00 2.74E+00 4.00E+00
1.39E+00 2.67E+00 4.21 E+00
1.97E+00 4.13E+00 6.14E+00
1.49E+00 2.41 E+00 3.37E+00
1.23E+00 1.97E+00 3.22E+00
2.01 E+00 4.05E+00 5.74E+00
1.44E+00 2.69E+00 3.77E+00
1.49E+00 3.88E+00 5.47E+00
1.65E+00 3.04E+00 4.49E+00
1.65E+00 3.05E+00 4.65E+00
1.64E+00 3.07E+00 5.41 E+00
1.76E+00 3.37E+00 4.70E+00
1.21 E+00 2.41 E+00 3.73E+00
1.70E+00 3.22E+00 4.65E+00
2.04E+00 5.32E+00 7.02E+00
P99
9.95E+00
1.80E+01
8.41 E+00
9.95E+00
5.41 E+00
5.10E+00
1.41E+01
9.96E+00
6.74E+00
7.35E+00
1.46E+01
7.00E+00
7.00E+00
1.41E+01
6.81 E+00
6.21 E+00
9.96E+00
1.12E+01
1.20E+01
8.33E+00
8.02E+00
9.95E+00
1.46E+01
P100
1.84E+01
1.80E+01
1.40E+01
9.95E+00
5.41 E+00
7.00E+00
1.84E+01
1.14E+01
9.96E+00
1.40E+01
1.84E+01
1.10E+01
8.85E+00
1.84E+01
1.14E+01
7.72E+00
1.84E+01
1.84E+01
1.41E+01
1.80E+01
1.14E+01
1.84E+01
1.59E+01
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-69. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Citrus (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc
wgtd
2530000
54000
51000
181000
194000
402000
1183000
457000
280000
437000
334000
1479000
1053000
0
1477000
200000
2330000
64000
0
1240000
1226000
2151000
130000
Nc
%
unwgtd Consuming Mean SE P1 P5 P10
125
4
3
9
14
18
55
21
8
33
11
73
43
0
82
8
117
4
0
55
66
102
5
1.35
0.95
0.63
1.08
0.95
0.65
2.09
2.88
0.59
0.95
0.73
3.04
1.87
0.00
1.71
0.92
1.48
0.14
0.00
1.93
3.40
3.16
1.77
4.76E+00 6.05E-01 7.82E-02 1.57E-01 2.86E-01
.....
.
.....
.
.....
4.54E+00 8.06E-01 8.11E-02 1.50E-01 2.47E-01
4.43E+00 7.58E-01 7.82E-02 7.82E-02 4.94E-01
.
2.31 E+00 3.76E-01 1.57E-01 1.84E-01 2.35E-01
.....
6.47E+00 9.53E-01 1.50E-01 3.33E-01 4.94E-01
3.57E+00 5.18E-01 1.50E-01 3.33E-01 4.50E-01
5.61E+00 9.14E-01 7.82E-02 1.14E-01 2.47E-01
.....
4.93E+00 6.31 E-01 7.82E-02 1.50E-01 2.84E-01
.....
5.18E+00 7.37E-01 1.57E-01 3.76E-01 6.44E-01
4.56E+00 9.79E-01 7.82E-02 1.14E-01 2.35E-01
4.55E+00 6.61 E-01 7.82E-02 1.50E-01 2.84E-01
*****
P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 P100
7.56E-01 1.99E+00 5.10E+00 1.41E+01 1.97E+01 3.22E+01 4.79E+01
.......
.
.......
.
.......
5.21 E-01 1.74E+00 5.24E+00 1.52E+01 1.97E+01 2.38E+01 2.38E+01
1.95E+00 3.53E+00 6.94E+00 8.97E+00 8.97E+00 1.57E+01 1.57E+01
.
3.69E-01 1.36E+00 4.15E+00 5.10E+00 6.50E+00 7.52E+00 7.52E+00
.......
1.64E+00 2.93E+00 8.59E+00 1.91E+01 2.38E+01 4.79E+01 4.79E+01
1.13E+00 3.01E+00 4.97E+00 7.46E+00 8.97E+00 2.00E+01 2.00E+01
5.17E-01 1.81E+00 8.12E+00 1.79E+01 2.38E+01 4.79E+01 4.79E+01
.......
7.82E-01 2.34E+00 5.34E+00 1.41E+01 1.97E+01 3.22E+01 4.79E+01
.......
1.60E+00 3.42E+00 6.50E+00 1.41E+01 1.97E+01 2.38E+01 2.38E+01
3.69E-01 1.42E+00 4.53E+00 1.24E+01 2.00E+01 4.79E+01 4.79E+01
7.56E-01 1.99E+00 4.99E+00 1.24E+01 1.79E+01 3.22E+01 4.79E+01
*******
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distributions
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Sources: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Table 13-70. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Fruit (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
01-02
03-05
06-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
70 +
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
12615000 706
306000 19
499000 31
915000 68
1021000 54
2761000 146
4610000 259
2326000 119
2923000 102
2526000 268
4327000 144
2839000 192
2681000 102
4118000 278
5756000 324
250000 12
12256000 690
4619000 298
1279000 72
3004000 157
3653000 177
10926000 619
1917000 112
%
Consuming Mean SE
6.71
5.37
6.16
5.48
4.98
4.48
8.13
14.65
6.13
5.47
9.51
5.83
4.76
9.15
6.65
1.15
7.78
9.96
3.11
4.67
10.13
16.03
26.16
2.20E+00 1.86E-01
. .
2.66E+00 7.60E-01
2.60E+00 4.38E-01
1.62E+00 2.77E-01
1.85E+00 3.72E-01
2.09E+00 3.08E-01
1.66E+00 1.84E-01
1.39E+00 1.14E-01
1.47E+00 1.51E-01
1.29E+00 1.08E-01
1.79E+00 2.88E-01
2.43E+00 3.10E-01
2.25E+00 3.06E-01
. .
2.24E+00 1.91E-01
3.07E+00 4.25E-01
9.32E-01 2.20E-01
1.99E+00 2.59E-01
1.76E+00 1.64E-01
2.38E+00 2.12E-01
2.57E+00 2.65E-01
P1
5.41 E-02
*
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
8.40E-02
7.94E-02
6.52E-02
4.41 E-02
2.59E-01
8.66E-02
4.15E-02
4.41 E-02
6.52E-02
1.25E-01
*
6.96E-02
4.41 E-02
7.98E-02
7.94E-02
1.00E-01
4.41 E-02
6.96E-02
P5
1.47E-01
*
O.OOE+00
1.77E-01
1.20E-01
1.30E-01
1.47E-01
2.07E-01
3.04E-01
1.98E-01
1.01E-01
1.66E-01
1.20E-01
1.99E-01
*
1.50E-01
1.25E-01
8.55E-02
2.38E-01
2.16E-01
1.58E-01
2.76E-01
P10 P25
2.55E-01 4.60E-01
. .
3.80E-01 1.02E+00
3.86E-01 6.37E-01
2.57E-01 3.86E-01
1.80E-01 3.07E-01
2.54E-01 4.44E-01
3.56E-01 5.71 E-01
3.81 E-01 5.67E-01
2.54E-01 4.25E-01
2.25E-01 4.54E-01
2.91 E-01 5.21 E-01
2.38E-01 4.50E-01
2.82E-01 4.46E-01
. .
2.59E-01 4.66E-01
2.35E-01 4.54E-01
1.62E-01 3.11 E-01
2.99E-01 5.46E-01
2.91 E-01 5.44E-01
2.57E-01 4.74E-01
3.61 E-01 7.33E-01
P50
9.06E-01
*
1.87E+00
1.14E+00
6.09E-01
6.20E-01
7.68E-01
1.07E+00
1.07E+00
8.33E-01
8.33E-01
8.87E-01
1.13E+00
7.64E-01
*
9.16E-01
1.04E+00
4.75E-01
1.10E+00
9.71 E-01
9.94E-01
1.55E+00
P75 P90
1.91E+00 4.59E+00
. .
2.71 E+00 5.54E+00
2.99E+00 7.13E+00
2.36E+00 3.92E+00
1.39E+00 3.70E+00
1.77E+00 3.17E+00
1.65E+00 4.06E+00
1.88E+00 2.89E+00
1.65E+00 2.89E+00
1.55E+00 2.70E+00
1.60E+00 2.61 E+00
2.43E+00 4.60E+00
1.81 E+00 4.72E+00
. .
1.94E+00 4.65E+00
2.35E+00 6.73E+00
8.12E-01 1.29E+00
1.82E+00 4.06E+00
2.04E+00 4.35E+00
1.96E+00 4.94E+00
3.62E+00 5.80E+00
P95
8.12E+00
*
6.30E+00
1.21E+01
6.81 E+00
6.64E+00
9.77E+00
5.21 E+00
4.06E+00
4.59E+00
4.79E+00
1.04E+01
8.12E+00
7.61 E+00
*
8.26E+00
1.42E+01
2.16E+00
6.30E+00
5.75E+00
1.04E+01
8.06E+00
P99
1.84E+01
*
3.32E+01
1.62E+01
8.12E+00
3.70E+01
1.84E+01
1.17E+01
5.39E+00
8.26E+00
8.06E+00
1.54E+01
2.40E+01
1.84E+01
*
1.84E+01
5.33E+01
1.17E+01
1.62E+01
1.30E+01
1.84E+01
1.62E+01
P100
6.26E+01
*
3.32E+01
1.65E+01
8.12E+00
3.70E+01
5.33E+01
1.17E+01
5.54E+00
3.32E+01
1.13E+01
1.54E+01
5.33E+01
6.26E+01
*
6.26E+01
6.26E+01
1.17E+01
2.40E+01
1.30E+01
6.26E+01
1.62E+01
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations
NOTE: SE = standard error
P = percentile of the distribution
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers; Nc unwgtd =
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
unweighted number of consumers in survey.
-------
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Surburban
Race
Black
White
Regions
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Households who fish
Total
Fruits
0.040
0.021
0.021
0.058
0.059
0.027
0.052
0.047
0.007
0.049
0.005
0.059
0.042
0.062
0.101
0.161
Total
Vegetables
0.068
0.081
0.037
0.116
0.041
0.027
0.144
0.058
0.027
0.081
0.038
0.112
0.069
0.057
0.173
0.308
Table 13-71.
Total
Meats
0.024
0.020
0.020
0.034
0.022
0.003
0.064
0.018
0.001
0.031
0.009
0.046
0.017
0.023
0.306
0.319
-raction of Food Intake that is Home Produced
Total
Dairy
0.012
0.008
0.011
0.022
0.008
0.000
0.043
0.004
0.000
0.014
0.010
0.024
0.006
0.007
0.207
0.254
Total
Fish
0.094
0.076
0.160
0.079
0.063
0.053
0.219
0.075
0.063
0.110
0.008
0.133
0.126
0.108
0.325
Exposed
Vegetables
0.095
0.106
0.05
0.164
0.052
0.037
0.207
0.079
0.037
0.109
0.062
0.148
0.091
0.079
0.233
0.420
Protected
Vegetables
0.069
0.073
0.039
0.101
0.048
0.027
0.134
0.054
0.029
0.081
0.016
0.109
0.077
0.060
0.178
0.394
Root
Vegetables
0.043
0.06
0.02
0.066
0.026
0.016
0.088
0.035
0.012
0.050
0.018
0.077
0.042
0.029
0.106
0.173
Exposed
Fruits
0.050
0.039
0.047
0.068
0.044
0.030
0.100
0.043
0.008
0.059
0.010
0.078
0.040
0.075
0.116
0.328
Protected
Fruits
0.037
0.008
0.008
0.054
0.068
0.026
0.025
0.050
0.007
0.045
0.002
0.048
0.044
0.054
0.094
0.030
-------
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Surburban
Race
Black
White
Regions
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who farm
Dark Green
Vegetables
0.044
0.059
0.037
0.063
0.018
0.012
0.090
0.054
0.053
0.043
0.039
0.054
0.049
0.034
0.120
0.220
Deep Yellow
Vegetables
0.065
0.099
0.017
0.08
0.041
0.038
0.122
0.058
0.056
0.071
0.019
0.174
0.022
0.063
0.140
0.328
Table 13-71.
Other
Vegetables
0.069
0.069
0.051
0.114
0.044
0.026
0.154
0.053
0.026
0.082
0.034
0.102
0.077
0.055
0.180
0.368
-raction of Food Intake that is Home Produced (continued)
Citrus
Fruits
0.038
0.114
0.014
0.01
0.091
0.035
0.000
0.056
0.012
0.045
0.000
0.001
0.060
0.103
0.087
0.005
Other
Fruits
0.042
0.027
0.025
0.07
0.03
0.022
0.077
0.042
0.004
0.051
0.008
0.083
0.031
0.046
0.107
0.227
Apples
0.030
0.032
0.013
0.053
0.024
0.017
0.066
0.024
0.007
0.035
0.004
0.052
0.024
0.043
0.070
0.292
Peaches
0.147
0.09
0.206
0.133
0.183
0.087
0.272
0.121
0.018
0.164
0.027
0.164
0.143
0.238
0.316
0.461
Pears
0.067
0.038
0.075
0.066
0.111
0.038
0.155
0.068
0.004
0.089
0.002
0.112
0.080
0.093
0.169
0.606
Strawberries
0.111
0.408
0.064
0.088
0.217
0.107
0.133
0.101
0.000
0.125
0.085
0.209
0.072
0.044
0.232
0.057
Other Berries
0.217
0.163
0.155
0.232
0.308
0.228
0.282
0.175
0.470
0.214
0.205
0.231
0.177
0.233
0.306
0.548
-------
Table 13-71. Fraction of food Intake that
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Surburban
Race
Black
White
Regions
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who farm
Asparagus
0.063
0.024
0.103
0
0.019
0.058
0.145
0.040
0.000
0.071
0.091
0.194
0.015
0.015
0.125
0.432
Beets
0.203
0.199
0.191
0.209
0.215
0.212
0.377
0.127
0.000
0.224
0.074
0.432
0.145
0.202
0.420
0.316
Broccoli
0.015
0.013
0.011
0.034
0.006
0.004
0.040
0.016
0.000
0.018
0.020
0.025
0.013
0.006
0.043
0.159
Cabbage
0.038
0.054
0.011
0.08
0.008
0.004
0.082
0.045
0.001
0.056
0.047
0.053
0.029
0.029
0.099
0.219
Carrots
0.043
0.066
0.015
0.063
0.025
0.018
0.091
0.039
0.068
0.042
0.025
0.101
0.020
0.039
0.103
0.185
s Home Produced (continued)
Corn
0.078
0.076
0.048
0.118
0.043
0.025
0.173
0.047
0.019
0.093
0.020
0.124
0.088
0.069
0.220
0.524
Cucumbers
0.148
0.055
0.04
0.32
0
0.029
0.377
0.088
0.060
0.155
0.147
0.193
0.140
0.119
0.349
0.524
Lettuce
0.010
0.013
0.01
0.017
0.002
0.009
0.017
0.009
0.007
0.011
0.009
0.020
0.006
0.009
0.031
0.063
Lima Beans
0.121
0.07
0.082
0.176
0.129
0.037
0.132
0.165
0.103
0.135
0.026
0.149
0.140
0.000
0.258
0.103
Okra
0.270
0.299
0.211
0.304
0.123
0.068
0.411
0.299
0.069
0.373
0.000
0.224
0.291
0.333
0.618
0.821
Onions
0.056
0.066
0.033
0.091
0.029
0.017
0.127
0.050
0.009
0.068
0.022
0.098
0.047
0.083
0.148
0.361
-------
Table 13-71. Fraction of Food Intake that is Home Produced (continued)
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Surburban
Race
Black
White
Regions
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who farm
Households who raise animals
Households who hunt
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the
Peas
0.069
0.046
0.048
0.126
0.065
0.033
0.123
0.064
0.047
0.076
0.021
0.058
0.106
0.051
0.193
0.308
1 987-88 NFCS
Peppers
0.107
0.138
0.031
0.194
0.03
0.067
0.228
0.086
0.039
0.121
0.067
0.188
0.113
0.082
0.246
0.564
Pumpkin
0.155
0.161
0.046
0.19
0.154
0.130
0.250
0.127
0.022
0.187
0.002
0.357
0.044
0.181
0.230
0.824
Snap Beans
0.155
0.199
0.152
0.123
0.147
0.066
0.307
0.118
0.046
0.186
0.052
0.243
0.161
0.108
0.384
0.623
Tomatoes
0.184
0.215
0.045
0.318
0.103
0.100
0.313
0.156
0.060
0.202
0.117
0.291
0.149
0.182
0.398
0.616
White
Potatoes
0.038
0.058
0.01
0.06
0.022
0.009
0.080
0.029
0.007
0.044
0.016
0.065
0.042
0.013
0.090
0.134
Beef
0.038
0.028
0.027
0.072
0.022
0.001
0.107
0.026
0.000
0.048
0.014
0.076
0.022
0.041
0.485
0.478
Game
0.276
0.336
0.265
0.1
0.33
0.146
0.323
0.316
0.000
0.359
0.202
0.513
0.199
0.207
0.729
Pork
0.013
0.012
0.015
0.01
0.014
0.001
0.040
0.006
0.000
0.017
0.006
0.021
0.012
0.011
0.242
0.239
Poultry
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.007
0.014
0.002
0.026
0.011
0.001
0.014
0.002
0.021
0.012
0.008
0.156
0.151
Eggs
0.014
0.009
0.022
0.013
0.011
0.002
0.029
0.014
0.002
0.017
0.004
0.019
0.012
0.021
0.146
0.214
-------
Table 13-72. Confidence in Homegrown Food Consumption Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of Peer Review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of interest
• Data pertinent to U.S.
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of the
population
• Bias in study design (high
rating desirable)
• Measurement Error
(high rating desirable)
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
USDA and EPA review
Methods described in detail in Handbook
see above
Yes
U.S. population
Yes
1987-88
Statistical method used to estimate long-
term distribution from one-week survey
data.
Individual intakes inferred from household
consumption.
10,000 individuals, 4500 households
Nationwide survey representative of
general U.S. population
Non-response bias can not be ruled out
due to low response rate.
Individuals' estimates of food weights
imprecise
1
N/A
Highest confidence in means, lowest
confidence in long term percentiles
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High (Means & Short-term distributions)
Low (Long-term distributions)
Medium (Means)
Low (Distributions)
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium (Means)
Medium
(Short-term distributions)
Low (Long-term
distributions)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
MAJOR FOOD GROUPS
Total Fruits
50- Fresh Fruits
citrus
other vitamin-C rich
other fruits
512- Commercially Canned Fruits
522- Commercially Frozen Fruits
533- Canned Fruit Juice
534- Frozen Fruit Juice
535- Aseptically Packed Fruit Juice
536- Fresh Fruit Juice
542- Dried Fruits
(includes baby foods)
6- Fruits
citrus fruits and juices
dried fruits
other fruits
fruits/juices & nectar
fruit/juices baby food
(includes baby foods)
Total
Vegetables
48- Potatoes, Sweetpotatoes
49- Fresh Vegetables
dark green
deep yellow
tomatoes
light green
other
511- Commercially Canned Vegetables
521 - Commercially Frozen Vegetables
531- Canned Vegetable Juice
532- Frozen Vegetable Juice
537- Fresh Vegetable Juice
538- Aseptically Packed Vegetable Juice
541- Dried Vegetables
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures/dinners)
7- Vegetables (all forms)
white potatoes & PR starchy
dark green vegetables
deep yellow vegetables
tomatoes and torn, mixtures
other vegetables
veg. and mixtures/baby food
veg. with meat mixtures
(includes baby foods; mixtures, mostly vegetables)
Total Meats
44- Meat
beef
pork
veal
lamb
mutton
goat
game
lunch meat
mixtures
451- Poultry
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
20- Meat, type not specified
21- Beef
22- Pork
23- Lamb, veal, game, carcass meat
24- Poultry
25- Organ meats, sausages, lunchmeats, meat
spreads
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby
foods)
Total Dairy
40- Milk Equivalent
fresh fluid milk
processed milk
cream and cream substitutes
frozen desserts with milk
cheese
dairy-based dips
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
readv-to-eat dinners)
1 - Milk and Milk Products
milk and milk drinks
cream and cream substitutes
milk desserts, sauces, and gravies
cheeses
(includes regular fluid milk, human milk, imitation milk
products, yogurt, milk-based meal replacements, and
infant formulas)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Total Fish
452- Fish, Shellfish
various species
fresh, frozen, commercial, dried
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners)
26- Fish, Shellfish
various species and forms
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks)
INDIVIDUAL FOODS
White
Potatoes
4811 - White Potatoes, fresh
4821 - White Potatoes, commercially canned
4831 - White Potatoes, commercially frozen
4841 - White Potatoes, dehydrated
4851 - White Potatoes, chips, sticks, salad
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners)
71 - White Potatoes and PR Starchy Veg.
baked, boiled, chips, sticks, creamed,
scalloped, au gratin, fried, mashed, stuffed,
puffs, salad, recipes, soups, Puerto Rican
starchy vegetables
(does not include vegetables soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
Peppers
4913- Green/Red Peppers, fresh
5111201 Sweet Green Peppers, commercially canned
5111202 Hot Chili Peppers, commercially canned
5211301 Sweet Green Peppers, commercially frozen
5211302 Green Chili Peppers, commercially frozen
5211303 Red Chili Peppers, commercially frozen
5413112 Sweet Green Peppers, dry
5413113 Red Chili Peppers, dry
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners)
7512100 Pepper, hot chili, raw
7512200 Pepper, raw
7512210 Pepper, sweet green, raw
7512220 Pepper, sweet red, raw
7522600 Pepper, green, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522601 Pepper, green, cooked, fat not added
7522602 Pepper, green, cooked, fat added
7522604 Pepper, red, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522605 Pepper, red, cooked, fat not added
7522606 Pepper, red, cooked, fat added
7522609 Pepper, hot, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522610 Pepper, hot, cooked, fat not added
7522611 Pepper, hot, cooked, fat added
7551101 Peppers, hot, sauce
7551102 Peppers, pickled
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
Onions
4953- Onions, Garlic, fresh
onions
chives
garlic
leeks
5114908 Garlic Pulp, raw
5114915 Onions, commercially canned
5213722 Onions, commercially frozen
5213723 Onions with Sauce, commercially frozen
5413103 Chives, dried
5413105 Garlic Flakes, dried
5413110 Onion Flakes, dried
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners)
7510950 Chives, raw
7511150 Garlic, raw
7511250 Leek, raw
7511701 Onions, young green, raw
7511702 Onions, mature
7521550 Chives, dried
7521740 Garlic, cooked
7522100 Onions, mature cooked, NS as to fat added
7522101 Onions, mature cooked, fat not added
7522102 Onions, mature cooked, fat added
7522103 Onions, pearl cooked
7522104 Onions, young green cooked, NS as to fat
7522105 Onions, young green cooked, fat not added
7522106 Onions, young green cooked, fat added
7522110 Onion, dehydrated
7541501 Onions, creamed
7541502 Onion rings
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures')
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Corn
4956- Corn, fresh
5114601 Yellow Corn, commercially canned
5114602 White Corn, commercially canned
5114603 Yellow Creamed Corn, commercially canned
5114604 White Creamed Corn, commercially canned
5114605 Corn on Cob, commercially canned
5114607 Hominy, canned
5115306 Low Sodium Corn, commercially canned
5115307 Low Sodium Cr. Corn, commercially canned
5213501 Yellow Corn on Cob, commercially frozen
5213502 Yellow Corn off Cob, commercially frozen
5213503 Yell. Corn with Sauce, commercially frozen
5213504 Corn with other Veg., commercially frozen
5213505 White Corn on Cob, commercially frozen
5213506 White Corn off Cob, commercially frozen
5213507 Wh. Corn with Sauce, commercially frozen
5413104 Corn, dried
5413106 Hominy, dry
5413603 Corn, instant baby food
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby food)
7510960 Corn, raw
7521600 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat added
7521601 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat not added
7521602 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat added
7521605 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/cream style
7521607 Corn, cooked, dried
7521610 Corn, cooked, yellow/NS as to fat added
7521611 Corn, cooked, yellow/fat not added
7521612 Corn, cooked, yellow/fat added
7521615 Corn, yellow, cream style
7521616 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./NS as to fat
7521617 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./fat not added
7521618 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./fat added
7521619 Corn, yellow, cream style, fat added
7521620 Corn, cooked, white/NS as to fat added
7521621 Corn, cooked, white/fat not added
7521622 Corn, cooked, white/fat added
7521625 Corn, white, cream style
7521630 Corn, yellow, canned, low sodium, NS fat
7521631 Corn, yell., canned, low sod., fat not add
7521632 Corn, yell., canned, low sod., fat added
7521749 Hominy, cooked
752175- Hominy, cooked
7541101 Corn scalloped or pudding
7541102 Corn fritter
7541103 Corn with cream sauce
7550101 Corn relish
76405- Corn, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby food)
Apples
5031 - Apples, fresh
5122101 Applesauce with sugar, commercially canned
5122102 Applesauce without sugar, comm. canned
5122103 Apple Pie Filling, commercially canned
5122104 Apples, Applesauce, baby/jr., comm. canned
5122106 Apple Pie Filling, LowCal., comm. canned
5223101 Apple Slices, commercially frozen
5332101 Apple Juice, canned
5332102 Apple Juice, baby, Comm. canned
5342201 Apple Juice, comm. frozen
5342202 Apple Juice, home frozen
5352101 Apple Juice, aseptically packed
5362101 Apple Juice, fresh
5423101 Apples, dried
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
6210110 Apples, dried, uncooked
6210115 Apples, dried, uncooked, low sodium
6210120 Apples, dried, cooked, NS as to sweetener
6210122 Apples, dried, cooked, unsweetened
6210123 Apples, dried, cooked, with sugar
6310100 Apples, raw
6310111 Applesauce, NS as to sweetener
6310112 Applesauce, unsweetened
6310113 Applesauce with sugar
6310114 Applesauce with low calorie sweetener
6310121 Apples, cooked or canned with syrup
6310131 Apple, baked NS as to sweetener
6310132 Apple, baked, unsweetened
6310133 Apple, baked with sugar
6310141 Apple rings, fried
6310142 Apple, pickled
6310150 Apple, fried
6340101 Apple, salad
6340106 Apple, candied
6410101 Apple cider
6410401 Apple juice
6410405 Apple juice with vitamin C
6710200 Applesauce baby fd., NS as to str. or jr.
6710201 Applesauce baby food, strained
6710202 Applesauce baby food, junior
6720200 Apple juice, baby food
(includes baby food: except mixtures')
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Tomatoes
4931 - Tomatoes, fresh
5113- Tomatoes, commercially canned
5115201 Tomatoes, low sodium, commercially canned
5115202 Tomato Sauce, low sodium, comm. canned
5115203 Tomato Paste, low sodium, comm. canned
5115204 Tomato Puree, low sodium, comm. canned
5311 - Canned Tomato Juice and Tomato Mixtures
5321 - Frozen Tomato Juice
5371 - Fresh Tomato Juice
5381102 Tomato Juice, aseptically packed
5413115 Tomatoes, dry
5614- Tomato Soup
5624- Condensed Tomato Soup
5654- Dry Tomato Soup
(does not include mixtures, and ready-to-eat dinners)
74- Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
raw, cooked, juices, sauces, mixtures, soups,
sandwiches
Snap Beans
4943- Snap or Wax Beans, fresh
5114401 Green or Snap Beans, commercially canned
5114402 Wax or Yellow Beans, commercially canned
5114403 Beans, baby/jr., commercially canned
5115302 Green Beans, low sodium, comm. canned
5115303 Yell, or Wax Beans, low sod., comm. canned
5213301 Snap or Green Beans, comm. frozen
5213302 Snap or Green w/sauce, comm. frozen
5213303 Snap or Green Beans w/otherveg., comm. fr.
5213304 Sp. or Gr. Beans w/other veg./sc., comm. fr.
5213305 Wax or Yell. Beans, comm. frozen
(does not include soups, mixtures, and ready-to-eat
dinners; includes baby foods)
7510180 Beans, string, green, raw
7520498 Beans, string, cooked, NS color/fat added
7520499 Beans, string, cooked, NS color/no fat
7520500 Beans, string, cooked, NS color & fat
7520501 Beans, string, cooked, green/NS fat
7520502 Beans, string, cooked, green/no fat
7520503 Beans, string, cooked, green/fat
7520511 Beans, str., canned, low sod.,green/NS fat
7520512 Beans, str., canned, low sod.,green/no fat
7520513 Beans, str., canned, low sod.,green/fat
7520600 Beans, string, cooked, yellow/NS fat
7520601 Beans, string, cooked, yellow/no fat
7520602 Beans, string, cooked, yellow/fat
7540301 Beans, string, green, creamed
7540302 Beans, string, green, w/mushroom sauce
7540401 Beans, string, yellow, creamed
7550011 Beans, string, green, pickled
7640100 Beans, green, string, baby
7640101 Beans, green, string, baby, str.
7640102 Beans, green, string, baby, junior
7640103 Beans, green, string, baby, creamed
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods)
Beef
441- Beef
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
21- Beef
beef, nfs
beefsteak
beef oxtails, neckbones, ribs
roasts, stew meat, corned, brisket, sandwich
steaks
ground beef, patties, meatballs
other beef items
beef baby food
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby
food)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Pork
442- Pork
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
22- Pork
pork, nfs; ground dehydrated
chops
steaks, cutlets
ham
roasts
Canadian bacon
bacon, salt pork
other pork items
pork baby food
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby
food)
Game
445- Variety Meat, Game
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
233- Game
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks)
Poultry
451- Poultry
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
24- Poultry
chicken
turkey
duck
other poultry
poultry baby food
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby
food)
Eggs
46- Eggs (fresh equivalent)
fresh
processed eggs, substitutes
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
3- Eggs
eggs
egg mixtures
egg substitutes
eggs baby food
froz. meals with egg as main ingred.
(includes baby foods)
Broccoli
4912- Fresh Broccoli (and home canned/froz.)
5111203 Broccoli, comm. canned
52112- Comm. Frozen Broccoli
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
722- Broccoli (all forms)
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
Carrots
4921 - Fresh Carrots (and home canned/froz.)
51121 - Comm. Canned Carrots
5115101 Carrots, Low Sodium, Comm. Canned
52121- Comm. Frozen Carrots
5312103 Comm. Canned Carrot Juice
5372102 Carrot Juice Fresh
5413502 Carrots, Dried Baby Food
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures')
7310- Carrots (all forms)
7311140 Carrots in Sauce
7311200 Carrot Chips
76201 - Carrots, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods
except mixtures)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Pumpkin
4922- Fresh Pumpkin, Winter Squash (and home
canned/froz.)
51122- Pumpkin/Squash, Baby or Junior, Comm.
Canned
52122- Winter Squash, Comm. Frozen
5413504 Squash, Dried Baby Food
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
732- Pumpkin (all forms)
733- Winter squash (all forms)
76205- Squash, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetables mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods)
Asparagus
4941 - Fresh Asparagus (and home canned/froz.)
5114101 Comm. Canned Asparagus
5115301 Asparagus, Low Sodium, Comm. Canned
52131- Comm. Frozen Asparagus
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
7510080 Asparagus, raw
75202- Asparagus, cooked
7540101 Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetables mixtures,
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
Lima Beans
4942- Fresh Lima and Fava Beans (and home
canned/froz.)
5114204 Comm. Canned Mature Lima Beans
5114301 Comm. Canned Green Lima Beans
5115304 Comm. Canned Low Sodium Lima Beans
52132- Comm. Frozen Lima Beans
54111 - Dried Lima Beans
5411306 Dried Fava Beans
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures; does not include succotash)
7510200 Lima Beans, raw
752040- Lima Beans, cooked
752041- Lima Beans, canned
75402- Lima Beans with sauce
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures; does not include
succotash)
Cabbage
4944- Fresh Cabbage (and home canned/froz.)
4958601 Sauerkraut, home canned or pkgd
5114801 Sauerkraut, comm. canned
5114904 Comm. Canned Cabbage
5114905 Comm. Canned Cabbage (no sauce; incl.
baby)
5115501 Sauerkraut, low sodium., comm. canned
5312102 Sauerkraut Juice, comm. canned
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
7510300 Cabbage, raw
7510400 Cabbage, Chinese, raw
7510500 Cabbage, red, raw
7514100 Cabbage salad or coleslaw
7514130 Cabbage, Chinese, salad
75210- Chinese Cabbage, cooked
75211 - Green Cabbage, cooked
75212- Red Cabbage, cooked
752130- Savoy Cabbage, cooked
75230- Sauerkraut, cooked
7540701 Cabbage, creamed
755025- Cabbage, pickled or in relish
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
Lettuce
4945- Fresh Lettuce, French Endive (and home
canned/froz.)
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
75113- Lettuce, raw
75143- Lettuce salad with other veg.
7514410 Lettuce, wilted, with bacon dressing
7522005 Lettuce, cooked
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
Okra
4946- Fresh Okra (and home canned/froz.)
5114914 Comm. Canned Okra
5213720 Comm. Frozen Okra
5213721 Comm. Frozen Okra with Oth. Veg. & Sauce
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
7522000 Okra, cooked, NS as to fat
7522001 Okra, cooked, fat not added
7522002 Okra, cooked, fat added
7522010 Lufta, cooked (Chinese Okra)
7541450 Okra, fried
7550700 Okra, pickled
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Peas
4947- Fresh Peas (and home canned/froz.)
51147- Comm Canned Peas (incl. baby)
5115310 Low Sodium Green or English Peas (canned)
5115314 Low Sod. Blackeye, Gr. or Imm. Peas
(canned)
5114205 Blackeyed Peas, comm. canned
52134- Comm. Frozen Peas
5412- Dried Peas and Lentils
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
7512000 Peas, green, raw
7512775 Snowpeas, raw
75223- Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
75224- Peas, green, cooked
75225- Peas, pigeon, cooked
75231 - Snowpeas, cooked
7541650 Pea salad
7541660 Pea salad with cheese
75417- Peas, with sauce or creamed
76409- Peas, baby
76411 - Peas, creamed, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods
except mixtures)
Cucumbers
4952- Fresh Cucumbers (and home canned/froz.)
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
7511100 Cucumbers, raw
75142- Cucumber salads
752167- Cucumbers, cooked
7550301 Cucumber pickles, dill
7550302 Cucumber pickles, relish
7550303 Cucumber pickles, sour
7550304 Cucumber pickles, sweet
7550305 Cucumber pickles, fresh
7550307 Cucumber, Kim Chee
7550311 Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
7550314 Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
Beets
4954- Fresh Beets (and home canned/froz.)
51145- Comm. Canned Beets (incl. baby)
5115305 Low Sodium Beets (canned)
5213714 Comm. Frozen Beets
5312104 Beet Juice
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
7510250 Beets, raw
752080- Beets, cooked
752081 - Beets, canned
7540501 Beets, harvard
7550021 Beets, pickled
76403- Beets, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods
except mixtures)
Strawberries
5022- Fresh Strawberries
5122801 Comm. Canned Strawberries with sugar
5122802 Comm. Canned Strawberries without sugar
5122803 Canned Strawberry Pie Filling
5222- Comm. Frozen Strawberries
(does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby
foods except mixtures')
6322- Strawberries
6413250 Strawberry Juice
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Other
Berries
5033- Fresh Berries Other than Strawberries
5122804 Comm. Canned Blackberries with sugar
5122805 Comm. Canned Blackberries without sugar
5122806 Comm. Canned Blueberries with sugar
5122807 Comm. Canned Blueberries without sugar
5122808 Canned Blueberry Pie Filling
5122809 Comm. Canned Gooseberries with sugar
5122810 Comm. Canned Gooseberries without sugar
5122811 Comm. Canned Raspberries with sugar
5122812 Comm. Canned Raspberries without sugar
5122813 Comm. Canned Cranberry Sauce
5122815 Comm. Canned Cranberry-Orange Relish
52233- Comm. Frozen Berries (not strawberries)
5332404 Blackberry Juice (home and comm. canned)
5423114 Dried Berries (not strawberries)
(does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby
foods except mixtures)
6320- Other Berries
6321- Other Berries
6341101 Cranberry salad
6410460 Blackberry Juice
64105- Cranberry Juice
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
Peaches
5036- Fresh Peaches
51224- Comm. Canned Peaches (incl. baby)
5223601 Comm. Frozen Peaches
5332405 Home Canned Peach Juice
5423105 Dried Peaches (baby)
5423106 Dried Peaches
(does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby
foods except mixtures)
62116- Dried Peaches
63135- Peaches
6412203 Peach Juice
6420501 Peach Nectar
67108- Peaches.baby
6711450 Peaches, dry, baby
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
Pears
5037- Fresh Pears
51225- Comm. Canned Pears (incl. baby)
5332403 Comm. Canned Pear Juice, baby
5362204 Fresh Pear Juice
5423107 Dried Pears
(does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby
foods except mixtures')
62119- Dried Pears
63137- Pears
6341201 Pear salad
6421501 Pear Nectar
67109- Pears, baby
6711455 Pears, dry, baby
(includes baby food: except mixtures')
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
EXPOSED/PROTECTED FRUITS/VEGETABLES, ROOT VEGETABLES
Exposed
Fruits
5022- Strawberries, fresh
5023101 Acerola, fresh
5023401 Currants, fresh
5031- Apples/Applesauce, fresh
5033- Berries other than Strawberries, fresh
5034- Cherries, fresh
5036- Peaches, fresh
5037- Pears, fresh
50381 - Apricots, Nectarines, Loquats, fresh
5038305 Dates, fresh
50384- Grapes, fresh
50386- Plums, fresh
50387- Rhubarb, fresh
5038805 Persimmons, fresh
5038901 Sapote, fresh
51221- Apples/Applesauce, canned
51222- Apricots, canned
51223- Cherries, canned
51224- Peaches, canned
51225- Pears, canned
51228- Berries, canned
5122903 Grapes with sugar, canned
5122904 Grapes without sugar, canned
5122905 Plums with sugar, canned
5122906 Plums without sugar, canned
5122907 Plums, canned, baby
5122911 Prunes, canned, baby
5122912 Prunes, with sugar, canned
5122913 Prunes, without sugar, canned
5122914 Raisin Pie Filling
5222- Frozen Strawberries
52231 - Apples Slices, frozen
52233- Berries, frozen
52234- Cherries, frozen
52236- Peaches, frozen
52239- Rhubarb, frozen
53321 - Canned Apple Juice
53322- Canned Grape Juice
62101- Apple, dried
62104- Apricot, dried
62108- Currants, dried
62110- Date, dried
62116- Peaches, dried
62119- Pears, dried
62121- Plum, dried
62122- Prune, dried
62125- Raisins
63101 - Apples/applesauce
63102- Wi-apple
63103- Apricots
63111 - Cherries, maraschino
63112- Acerola
63113- Cherries, sour
63115- Cherries, sweet
63117- Currants, raw
63123- Grapes
6312601 Juneberry
63131- Nectarine
63135- Peach
63137- Pear
63139- Persimmons
63143- Plum
63146- Quince
63147- Rhubarb/Sapodillo
632- Berries
64101- Apple Cider
64104- Apple Juice
64105- Cranberry Juice
64116- Grape Juice
64122- Peach Juice
64132- Prune/Strawberry Juice
6420101 Apricot Nectar
64205- Peach Nectar
64215- Pear Nectar
67102- Applesauce, baby
67108- Peaches, baby
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Exposed
Fruits
(continued)
5332402 Canned Prune Juice
5332403 Canned Pear Juice
5332404 Canned Blackberry Juice
5332405 Canned Peach Juice
53421 - Frozen Grape Juice
5342201 Frozen Apple Juice, comm. fr.
5342202 Frozen Apple Juice, home fr.
5352101 Apple Juice, asep. packed
5352201 Grape Juice, asep. packed
5362101 Apple Juice, fresh
5362202 Apricot Juice, fresh
5362203 Grape Juice, fresh
5362204 Pear Juice, fresh
5362205 Prune Juice, fresh
5421- Dried Prunes
5422- Raisins, Currants, dried
5423101 Dry Apples
5423102 Dry Apricots
5423103 Dates without pits
5423104 Dates with pits
5423105 Peaches, dry, baby
5423106 Peaches, dry
5423107 Pears, dry
5423114 Berries, dry
5423115 Cherries, dry
(includes baby foods)
67109- Pears, baby
6711450 Peaches, baby, dry
6711455 Pears, baby, dry
67202- Apple Juice, baby
6720380 White Grape Juice, baby
67212- Pear Juice, baby
(includes baby foods/juices except mixtures; excludes
fruit mixtures)
Protected
Fruits
501 - Citrus Fruits, fresh
5021- Cantaloupe, fresh
5023201 Mangoes, fresh
5023301 Guava, fresh
5023601 Kiwi, fresh
5023701 Papayas, fresh
5023801 Passion Fruit, fresh
5032- Bananas, Plantains, fresh
5035- Melons other than Cantaloupe, fresh
50382- Avocados, fresh
5038301 Figs, fresh
5038302 Figs, cooked
5038303 Figs, home canned
5038304 Figs, home frozen
50385- Pineapple, fresh
5038801 Pomegranates, fresh
5038902 Cherimoya, fresh
5038903 Jackfruit, fresh
5038904 Breadfruit, fresh
5038905 Tamarind, fresh
5038906 Carambola, fresh
5038907 Longan, fresh
5121- Citrus, canned
51226- Pineapple, canned
5122901 Figs with sugar, canned
5122902 Figs without sugar, canned
5122909 Bananas, canned, baby
5122910 Bananas and Pineapple, canned, baby
5122915 Litchis. canned
61- Citrus Fr., Juices (incl. cit. juice mixtures)
62107- Bananas, dried
62113- Figs, dried
62114- Lychees/Papayas, dried
62120- Pineapple, dried
62126- Tamarind, dried
63105- Avocado, raw
63107- Bananas
63109- Cantaloupe, Carambola
63110- Cassaba Melon
63119- Figs
63121- Genip
63125- Guava/Jackfruit, raw
6312650 Kiwi
6312651 Lychee, raw
6312660 Lychee, cooked
63127- Honeydew
63129- Mango
63133- Papaya
63134- Passion Fruit
63141- Pineapple
63145- Pomegranate
63148- Sweetsop, Soursop, Tamarind
63149- Watermelon
64120- Papaya Juice
64121 - Passion Fruit Juice
64124- Pineapple Juice
64133- Watermelon Juice
6420150 Banana Nectar
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Protected
Fruits
(continued)
5122916 Mangos with sugar, canned
5122917 Mangos without sugar, canned
5122918 Mangos, canned, baby
5122920 Guava with sugar, canned
5122921 Guava without sugar, canned
5122923 Papaya with sugar, canned
5122924 Papaya without sugar, canned
52232- Bananas, frozen
52235- Melon, frozen
52237- Pineapple, frozen
5331- Canned Citrus Juices
53323- Canned Pineapple Juice
5332408 Canned Papaya Juice
5332410 Canned Mango Juice
5332501 Canned Papaya Concentrate
5341 - Frozen Citrus Juice
5342203 Frozen Pineapple Juice
5351 - Citrus and Citrus Blend Juices, asep. packed
5352302 Pineapple Juice, asep. packed
5361 - Fresh Citrus and Citrus Blend Juices
5362206 Papaya Juice, fresh
5362207 Pineapple-Coconut Juice, fresh
5362208 Mango Juice, fresh
5362209 Pineapple Juice, fresh
5423108 Pineapple, dry
5423109 Papaya, dry
5423110 Bananas, dry
5423111 Mangos, dry
5423117 Litchis, dry
5423118 Tamarind, dry
5423119 Plantain, dry
(includes baby foods')
64202- Cantaloupe Nectar
64203- Guava Nectar
64204- Mango Nectar
64210- Papaya Nectar
64213- Passion Fruit Nectar
64221 - Soursop Nectar
6710503 Bananas, baby
6711500 Bananas, baby, dry
6720500 Orange Juice, baby
6721300 Pineapple Juice, baby
(includes baby foods/juices except mixtures; excludes
fruit mixtures)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Exposed
Veg.
491 - Fresh Dark Green Vegetables
493- Fresh Tomatoes
4941 - Fresh Asparagus
4943- Fresh Beans, Snap or Wax
4944- Fresh Cabbage
4945- Fresh Lettuce
4946- Fresh Okra
49481- Fresh Artichokes
49483- Fresh Brussel Sprouts
4951 - Fresh Celery
4952- Fresh Cucumbers
4955- Fresh Cauliflower
4958103 Fresh Kohlrabi
4958111 Fresh Jerusalem Artichokes
4958112 Fresh Mushrooms
4958113 Mushrooms, home canned
4958114 Mushrooms, home frozen
4958118 Fresh Eggplant
4958119 Eggplant, cooked
4958120 Eggplant, home frozen
4958200 Fresh Summer Squash
4958201 Summer Squash, cooked
4958202 Summer Squash, home canned
4958203 Summer Squash, home frozen
4958402 Fresh Bean Sprouts
4958403 Fresh Alfalfa Sprouts
4958504 Bamboo Shoots
4958506 Seaweed
4958508 Tree Fern, fresh
4958601 Sauerkraut
5111 - Dark Green Vegetables (all are exposed)
5113- Tomatoes
5114101 Asparagus, comm. canned
51144- Beans, green, snap, yellow, comm. canned
5114704 Snow Peas, comm. canned
5114801 Sauerkraut, comm. canned
5114901 Artichokes, comm. canned
5114902 Bamboo Shoots, comm. canned
5114903 Bean Sprouts, comm. canned
5114904 Cabbage, comm. canned
5114905 Cabbage, comm. canned, no sauce
5114906 Cauliflower, comm. canned, no sauce
5114907 Eggplant, comm. canned, no sauce
5114913 Mushrooms, comm. canned
5114914 Okra, comm. canned
5114918 Seaweeds, comm. canned
5114920 Summer Squash, comm. canned
721- Dark Green Leafy Veg.
722- Dark Green Nonleafy Veg.
74- Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
7510050 Alfalfa Sprouts
7510075 Artichoke, Jerusalem, raw
7510080 Asparagus, raw
75101 - Beans, sprouts and green, raw
7510275 Brussel Sprouts, raw
7510280 Buckwheat Sprouts, raw
7510300 Cabbage, raw
7510400 Cabbage, Chinese, raw
7510500 Cabbage, Red, raw
7510700 Cauliflower, raw
7510900 Celery, raw
7510950 Chives, raw
7511100 Cucumber, raw
7511120 Eggplant, raw
7511200 Kohlrabi, raw
75113- Lettuce, raw
7511500 Mushrooms, raw
7511900 Parsley
7512100 Pepper, hot chili
75122- Peppers, raw
7512750 Seaweed, raw
7512775 Snowpeas, raw
75128- Summer Squash, raw
7513210 Celery Juice
7514100 Cabbage or cole slaw
7514130 Chinese Cabbage Salad
7514150 Celery with cheese
75142- Cucumber salads
75143- Lettuce salads
7514410 Lettuce, wilted with bacon dressing
7514600 Greek salad
7514700 Spinach salad
7520600 Algae, dried
75201- Artichoke, cooked
75202- Asparagus, cooked
75203- Bamboo shoots, cooked
752049- Beans, string, cooked
75205- Beans, green, cooked/canned
75206- Beans, yellow, cooked/canned
75207- Bean Sprouts, cooked
752085- Breadfruit
752090- Brussel Sprouts, cooked
75210- Cabbage, Chinese, cooked
75211 - Cabbage, green, cooked
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Exposed
Veg.
(cont.)
5114923 Chinese or Celery Cabbage, comm. canned
51152- Tomatoes, canned, low sod.
5115301 Asparagus, canned, low sod.
5115302 Beans, Green, canned, low sod.
5115303 Beans, Yellow, canned, low sod.
5115309 Mushrooms, canned, low sod.
51154- Greens, canned, low sod.
5115501 Sauerkraut, low sodium
5211- Dark Gr. Veg., comm. frozen (all exp.)
52131- Asparagus, comm. froz.
52133- Beans, snap, green, yellow, comm. froz.
5213407 Peapods, comm froz.
5213408 Peapods, with sauce, comm froz.
5213409 Peapods, with other veg., comm froz.
5213701 Brussel Sprouts, comm. froz.
5213702 Brussel Sprouts, comm. froz. with cheese
5213703 Brussel Sprouts, comm. froz. with other veg.
5213705 Cauliflower, comm. froz.
5213706 Cauliflower, comm. froz. with sauce
5213707 Cauliflower, comm. froz. with other veg.
5213708 Caul., comm. froz. with other veg. & sauce
5213709 Summer Squash, comm. froz.
5213710 Summer Squash, comm. froz. with other veg.
5213716 Eggplant, comm. froz.
5213718 Mushrooms with sauce, comm. froz.
5213719 Mushrooms, comm. froz.
5213720 Okra, comm. froz.
5213721 Okra, comm. froz., with sauce
5311 - Canned Tomato Juice and Tomato Mixtures
5312102 Canned Sauerkraut Juice
5321 - Frozen Tomato Juice
5371 - Fresh Tomato Juice
5381102 Aseptically Packed Tomato Juice
5413101 Dry Algae
5413102 Dry Celery
5413103 Dry Chives
5413109 Dry Mushrooms
5413111 Dry Parsley
5413112 Dry Green Peppers
5413113 Dry Red Peppers
5413114 Dry Seaweed
5413115 Dry Tomatoes
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
75212- Cabbage, red, cooked
752130- Cabbage, savoy, cooked
75214- Cauliflower
75215- Celery, Chives, Christophine (chayote)
752167- Cucumber, cooked
752170- Eggplant, cooked
752171- Fern shoots
752172- Fern shoots
752173- Flowers of sesbania, squash or lily
7521801 Kohlrabi, cooked
75219- Mushrooms, cooked
75220- Okra/lettuce, cooked
7522116 Palm Hearts, cooked
7522121 Parsley, cooked
75226- Peppers, pimento, cooked
75230- Sauerkraut, cooked/canned
75231 - Snowpeas, cooked
75232- Seaweed
75233- Summer Squash
7540050 Artichokes, stuffed
7540101 Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
75403- Beans, green with sauce
75404- Beans, yellow with sauce
7540601 Brussel Sprouts, creamed
7540701 Cabbage, creamed
75409- Cauliflower, creamed
75410- Celery/Chiles, creamed
75412- Eggplant, fried, with sauce, etc.
75413- Kohlrabi, creamed
75414- Mushrooms, Okra, fried, stuffed, creamed
754180- Squash, baked, fried, creamed, etc.
7541822 Christophine, creamed
7550011 Beans, pickled
7550051 Celery, pickled
7550201 Cauliflower, pickled
755025- Cabbage, pickled
7550301 Cucumber pickles, dill
7550302 Cucumber pickles, relish
7550303 Cucumber pickles, sour
7550304 Cucumber pickles, sweet
7550305 Cucumber pickles, fresh
7550307 Cucumber, Kim Chee
7550308 Eggplant, pickled
7550311 Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
7550314 Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
7550500 Mushrooms, pickled
7550700 Okra, pickled
75510- Olives
7551101 Peppers, hot
7551102 Peppers.pickled
7551301 Seaweed, pickled
7553500 Zucchini, pickled
76102- Dark Green Veg., baby
76401 - Beans, baby (excl. most soups & mixtures')
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Protected
Veg.
4922- Fresh Pumpkin, Winter Squash
4942- Fresh Lima Beans
4947- Fresh Peas
49482- Fresh Soy Beans
4956- Fresh Corn
4958303 Succotash, home canned
4958304 Succotash, home frozen
4958401 Fresh Cactus (prickly pear)
4958503 Burdock
4958505 Bitter Melon
4958507 Horseradish Tree Pods
51122- Comm. Canned Pumpkin and Squash (baby)
51142- Beans, comm. canned
51143- Beans, lima and soy, comm. canned
51146- Corn, comm. canned
5114701 Peas, green, comm. canned
5114702 Peas, baby, comm. canned
5114703 Peas, blackeye, comm. canned
5114705 Pigeon Peas, comm. canned
5114919 Succotash, comm. canned
5115304 Lima Beans, canned, low sod.
5115306 Corn, canned, low sod.
5115307 Creamed Corn, canned, low sod.
511531 - Peas and Beans, canned, low sod.
52122- Winter Squash, comm. froz.
52132- Lima Beans, comm. froz.
5213401 Peas, gr., comm. froz.
5213402 Peas, gr., with sauce, comm. froz.
5213403 Peas, gr., with other veg., comm. froz.
5213404 Peas, gr., with other veg., comm. froz.
5213405 Peas, blackeye, comm froz.
5213406 Peas, blackeye, with sauce, comm froz.
52135- Corn, comm. froz.
5213712 Artichoke Hearts, comm. froz.
5213713 Baked Beans, comm. froz.
5213717 Kidney Beans, comm. froz.
5213724 Succotash, comm. froz.
5411- Dried Beans
5412- Dried Peas and Lentils
5413104 Dry Corn
5413106 Dry Hominy
5413504 Dry Squash, baby
5413603 Dry Creamed Corn, baby
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures')
732- Pumpkin
733- Winter Squash
7510200 Lima Beans, raw
7510550 Cactus, raw
7510960 Corn, raw
7512000 Peas, raw
7520070 Aloe vera juice
752040- Lima Beans, cooked
752041- Lima Beans, canned
7520829 Bitter Melon
752083- Bitter Melon, cooked
7520950 Burdock
752131- Cactus
752160- Corn, cooked
752161- Corn, yellow, cooked
752162- Corn, white, cooked
752163- Corn, canned
7521749 Hominy
752175- Hominy
75223- Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
75224- Peas, green, cooked
75225- Peas, pigeon, cooked
75301 - Succotash
75402- Lima Beans with sauce
75411- Corn, scalloped, fritter, with cream
7541650 Pea salad
7541660 Pea salad with cheese
75417- Peas, with sauce or creamed
7550101 Corn relish
76205- Squash, yellow, baby
76405- Corn, baby
76409- Peas, baby
76411 - Peas, creamed, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Root
Vegetables
48- Potatoes, Sweetpotatoes
4921 - Fresh Carrots
4953- Fresh Onions, Garlic
4954- Fresh Beets
4957- Fresh Turnips
4958101 Fresh Celeriac
4958102 Fresh Horseradish
4958104 Fresh Radishes, no greens
4958105 Radishes, home canned
4958106 Radishes, home frozen
4958107 Fresh Radishes, with greens
4958108 Fresh Salsify
4958109 Fresh Rutabagas
4958110 Rutabagas, home frozen
4958115 Fresh Parsnips
4958116 Parsnips, home canned
4958117 Parsnips, home frozen
4958502 Fresh Lotus Root
4958509 Ginger Root
4958510 Jicama, including yambean
51121 - Carrots, comm. canned
51145- Beets, comm. canned
5114908 Garlic Pulp, comm. canned
5114910 Horseradish, comm. prep.
5114915 Onions, comm. canned
5114916 Rutabagas, comm. canned
5114917 Salsify, comm. canned
5114921 Turnips, comm. canned
5114922 Water Chestnuts, comm. canned
51151 - Carrots, canned, low sod.
5115305 Beets, canned, low sod.
5115502 Turnips, low sod.
52121- Carrots, comm. froz.
5213714 Beets, comm. froz.
5213722 Onions, comm. froz.
5213723 Onions, comm. froz., with sauce
5213725 Turnips, comm. froz.
5312103 Canned Carrot Juice
5312104 Canned Beet Juice
5372102 Fresh Carrot Juice
5413105 Dry Garlic
5413110 Dry Onion
5413502 Dry Carrots, baby
5413503 Dry Sweet Potatoes, baby
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures')
71- White Potatoes and Puerto Rican St. Veg.
7310- Carrots
7311140 Carrots in sauce
7311200 Carrot chips
734- Sweetpotatoes
7510250 Beets, raw
7511150 Garlic, raw
7511180 Jicama (yambean), raw
7511250 Leeks, raw
75117- Onions, raw
7512500 Radish, raw
7512700 Rutabaga, raw
7512900 Turnip, raw
752080- Beets, cooked
752081 - Beets, canned
7521362 Cassava
7521740 Garlic, cooked
7521771 Horseradish
7521850 Lotus root
752210- Onions, cooked
7522110 Onions, dehydrated
752220- Parsnips, cooked
75227- Radishes, cooked
75228- Rutabaga, cooked
75229- Salsify, cooked
75234- Turnip, cooked
75235- Water Chestnut
7540501 Beets, harvard
75415- Onions, creamed, fried
7541601 Parsnips, creamed
7541810 Turnips, creamed
7550021 Beets, pickled
7550309 Horseradish
7551201 Radishes, pickled
7553403 Turnip, pickled
76201 - Carrots, baby
76209- Sweetpotatoes, baby
76403- Beets, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures;
or vegetable with meat mixtures)
-------
Appendix 13A. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
USDA SUBCATEGORIES
Dark Green
Vegetables
491 - Fresh Dark Green Vegetables
5111 - Comm. Canned Dark Green Veg.
51154- Low Sodium Dark Green Veg.
5211- Comm. Frozen Dark Green Veg.
5413111 Dry Parsley
5413112 Dry Green Peppers
5413113 Dry Red Peppers
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures/dinners; excludes vegetable juices and dried
vegetables)
72- Dark Green Vegetables
all forms
leafy, nonleafy, dk. gr. veg. soups
Deep Yellow
Vegetables
492- Fresh Deep Yellow Vegetables
5112- Comm. Canned Deep Yellow Veg.
51151 - Low Sodium Carrots
5212- Comm. Frozen Deep Yellow Veg.
5312103 Carrot Juice
54135- Dry Carrots, Squash, Sw. Potatoes
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures/dinners; excludes vegetable juices and dried
vegetables)
73- Deep Yellow Vegetables
all forms
carrots, pumpkin, squash, sweetpotatoes, dp.
yell. veg. soups
Other
Vegetables
494- Fresh Light Green Vegetables
495- Fresh Other Vegetables
5114- Comm. Canned Other Veg.
51153- Low Sodium Other Veg.
51155- Low Sodium Other Veg.
5213- Comm. Frozen Other Veg.
5312102 Sauerkraut Juice
5312104 Beet Juice
5411- Dreid Beans
5412- Dried Peas, Lentils
541310- Dried Other Veg.
5413114 Dry Seaweed
5413603 Dry Cr. Corn, baby
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures/dinners; excludes vegetable juices and dried
vegetables)
75-
Other Vegetables
all forms
Citrus Fruits
501- Fresh Citrus Fruits
5121- Comm. Canned Citrus Fruits
5331 - Canned Citrus and Citrus Blend Juice
5341- Frozen Citrus and Citrus Blend Juice
5351 - Aseptically Packed Citrus and Citr. Blend
Juice
5361 - Fresh Citrus and Citrus Blend Juice
(includes baby foods; excludes dried fruits)
61 - Citrus Fruits and Juices
6720500 Orange Juice, baby food
6720600 Orange-Apricot Juice, baby food
6720700 Orange-Pineapple Juice, baby food
6721100 Orange-Apple-Banana Juice, baby food
(excludes dried fruits)
Other Fruits
502- Fresh Other Vitamin C-Rich Fruits
503- Fresh Other Fruits
5122- Comm. Canned Fruits Other than Citrus
5222- Frozen Strawberries
5223- Frozen Other than Citr. or Vitamin C-Rich Fr.
5332- Canned Fruit Juice Other than Citrus
5342- Frozen Juices Other than Citrus
5352- Aseptically Packed Fruit Juice Other than Citr.
5362- Fresh Fruit Juice Other than Citrus
542- Dry Fruits
(includes baby foods; excludes dried fruits)
62- Dried Fruits
63- Other Fruits
64- Fruit Juices and Nectars Excluding Citrus
671 - Fruits, baby
67202- Apple Juice, baby
67203- Baby Juices
67204- Baby Juices
67212- Baby Juices
67213- Baby Juices
673- Baby Fruits
674- Baby Fruits
-------
Table
Age
Completely Breast-fed
1 month
3 months
6 months
Partially Breast-fed
1 month
3 months
6 months
9 months
a Data expressed as mean
Source: Paoetal.,
14-1. Daily Intakes of Breast Milk
Number of
Infants Surveyed
at Each Time
Period
11
2
1
4
11
6
3
± standard deviation.
1980.
Mean Intake
(ml/day) a
600 ±159
833
682
485 ± 79
467 ±100
395 ±175
<554
Range of
Daily Intake
(ml/day)
426 - 989
645 - 1 ,000
616-786
398 - 655
242 - 698
147-684
451 - 732
-------
Table 14-2. Breast Milk Intake for Infants Aged 1 to 6 Months
Age
(months)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of
Infants
16
19
16
13
11
11
Mean
(ml/day)
673
756
782
810
805
896
SD
(ml/day) a
192
170
172
142
117
122
Range
(ml/day)
341-1,003
449-1 ,055
492-1 ,053
593-1 ,045
554-1 ,045
675-1 ,096
a Standard deviation.
Source:
Dewev and Lb'nnerdal, 1983.
-------
Table
Age (months)
1
2
3
4
14-3. Breast Milk Intake Among Exclusively Breast-fed
Infants During the First 4 Months of Life
Number Breast Milk
of Intake3
Infants (g/day)
37 751.0 ±130.
40 725.0 ±131.
37 723.0 ±114.
41 740.0 ±128.
3 Data expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
b Calculated by dividing breast milk intake (g/day) by
Source: Butte et al., 1984.
Breast Milk
Intake3
(g/kg-day)
0 159.0 ±24.0
0 129.0 ±19.0
0 117.0 ±20.0
0 111.0±17.0
Body
Weight"
(kg)
4.7
5.6
6.2
6.7
breast milk intake (g/kg-day).
-------
Age
(days)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
21
28
35
42
49
56
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
a Negative value
Source: Neville
Table 14-4. Breast
Number
Infants
7
10
11
11
12
10
8
9
10
10
8
10
10
13
12
12
10
13
12
13
13
13
12
10
12
11
9
9
Milk Intake During
of Mean
(g/day)
44
182
371
451
498
508
573
581
580
589
615
653
651
770
668
711
709
694
734
711
838
766
721
622
618
551
554
403
a 24-Hour Period
Standard
Deviation
(g/day)
71
86
153
176
129
167
167
159
76
132
168
154
84
179
117
111
115
98
114
100
134
121
154
210
220
234
240
250
Range
(g/day)
-31-1493
44-355
209-688
164-694
323-736
315-861
406-842
410-923
470-720
366-866
398-934
416-922
554-786
495-1144
465-930
554-896
559-922
556-859
613-942
570-847
688-1173
508-936
486-963
288-1002
223-871
129-894
120-860
65-770
due to insensible water loss correction.
etal.,1988.
-------
Table 14-5. Breast Milk Intake Estimated by the DARLING Study
Age (months)
3
6
9
12
Number of
Infants
73
60
50
42
Mean Intake
(g/day)
812
769
646
448
Standard Deviation
(g/day)
133
171
217
251
Source: Dewey et al. (1 991 b).
-------
Table 14-6.
Age
(months)
1
2
3
Milk Intake for Bottle- and
Infants by Age Group
Breast Milk Substitutes
Mean (g/day)a
713
(500-1 ,000)
811
(670-1,180)
853
(655-1 ,065)
Breast-fed
Breast Milk
Mean (g/day)a
656
(360-860)
773
(575-985)
776
(600-930)
a Range given in parentheses.
Source: Hofvander et al., 1982.
-------
Table
Aae
Breast milk
1
2
3
Breast milk substitute
1
2
3
Source: Hofvander et al
14-7. Milk Intake
Boys
Mean
(a/day)
663
791
811
753
863
862
,1982.
for Boys and
N
12
14
12
10
13
13
Girls
Girls
Mean
(a/day)
649
750
743
687
753
843
N
13
11
13
15
12
12
-------
Table 14-8. Intake of Breast Milk and Formula
Age
(wks)
6
14
22
26
Source:
N
26
21
13
12
Kohler et al.
Breast Milk
Mean
(g/day)
746
726
722
689
1984.
Cow's Formula
SD
(g/day)
101
143
114
120
N
20
19
18
18
Mean
(g/day)
823
921
818
722
SD
(g/day)
111
95
201
209
N
13
13
13
12
Sov Formula
Mean
(g/day)
792
942
861
776
SD
(g/day)
127
78
196
159
-------
Table 14-9. Lipid Content of Human Milk and Estimated
Among Exclusively Breast-fed Infants
Age
1
2
3
4
(months) Number
of
Observations
37
40
37
41
Lipid
Content
(mg/g) a
36.2 ± 7.5
34.4 ±6.8
32.2 ± 7.8
34.8 ± 10.8
Lipid
Content
(percent) b
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.5
Lipid Intake
Lipid
Intake
(g/day) a
28.0 ± 8.5
25.2 ±7.1
23.6 ± 7.2
25.6 ± 8.6
Lipid
Intake
(g/kg-day) a
5.9 ±1.7
4.4 ± 1.2
3.8 ±1.2
3.8 ± 1.3
a Data expressed as means ± standard deviations.
b Percents calculated from lipid content reported in mg/g.
Source: Butte. et al.. 1984.
-------
Table 14-10. Predicted Lipid Intakes for Breast-fed
Under 12 Months of Age
Statistic
Number of Observations in Simulation
Minimum Lipid Intake
Maximum Lipid Intake
Arithmetic Mean Lipid Intake
Standard Deviation Lipid Intake
Infants
Value
1,113
1 .0 g/day
51.5g/day
26.8 g/day
7.4 q/day
Source: Maxwell and Burmaster, 1993.
-------
Table
Age (months)
1
2
3
14-11. Number of Meals Per Day
Bottle-fed Infants Breast-fed
(meals/day) a (meals/day) a
5.4 (4-7) 5.8 (5-7)
4.8 (4-6) 5.3 (5-7)
4.7 (3-6) 5.1 (4-8)
a Data expressed as mean with range in parentheses.
Source: Hofvander et al., 1982.
-------
Table 14-12. Percentage of Mothers Breast-feeding Newborn Infants in the Hospital and Infants at 5 or 6 Months
of Age in the United States in 1989°, by Ethnic Background and Selected Demographic Variables'1
Total
White
Black
Hispanic0
Category
Newborns
5-6 Mo
Infants
Newborn
s
5-6 Mo
Infants
Newborns
5-6 Mo
Infants
Newborns
5-6 Mo
Infants
All mothers 52.2 19.6 58.5 22.7 23.0 7.0 48.4 15.0
Parity
Primiparous 52.6 16.6 58.3 18.9 23.1 5.9 49.9 13.2
Multiparous 51.7 22.7 58.7 26.8 23.0 7.9 47.2 16.5
Marital status
Married 59.8 24.0 61.9 25.3 35.8 12.3 55.3 18.8
Unmarried 30.8 7.7 40.3 9.8 17.2 4.6 37.5 8.6
Maternal age
<20yr 30.2 6.2 36.8 7.2 13.5 3.6 35.3 6.9
20-24 yr 45.2 12.7 50.8 14.5 19.4 4.7 46.9 12.6
25-29 yr 58.8 22.9 63.1 25.0 29.9 9.4 56.2 19.5
30-34 yr 65.5 31.4 70.1 34.8 35.4 13.6 57.6 23.4
>35yr 66.5 36.2 71.9 40.5 35.6 14.3 53.9 24.4
Maternal education
No college 42.1 13.4 48.3 15.6 17.6 5.5 42.6 12.2
College" 70.7 31.1 74.7 34.1 41.1 12.2 66.5 23.4
Family income
<$7,000 28.8 7.9 36.7 9.4 14.5 4.3 35.3 10.3
$7,000-$14,999 44.0 13.5 49.0 15.2 23.5 7.3 47.2 13.0
$15,000-$24,999 54.7 20.4 57.7 22.3 31.7 8.7 52.6 16.5
> $25,000 66.3 27.6 67.8 28.7 42.8 14.5 65.4 23.0
Maternal employment
Fulltime 50.8 10.2 54.8 10.8 30.6 6.9 50.4 9.5
Part time 59.4 23.0 63.8 25.5 26.0 6.6 59.4 17.7
Not employed 51.0 23.1 58.7 27.5 19.3 7.2 46.0 16.7
U.S. census region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
52.2
47.4
47.6
55.9
43.8
37.9
46.0
70.2
70.3
20.3
18.4
18.1
19.9
14.8
12.4
14.7
30.4
28.7
53.2
52.4
53.2
58.2
53.8
45.1
56.2
74.9
76.7
21.4
21.8
20.7
20.7
18.7
15.0
18.4
33.0
33.4
35.6
30.6
21.0
27.7
19.6
14.2
14.5
31.5
43.9
5.0
9.7
7.2
7.9
5.7
3.7
3.8
11.0
15.0
47.6
41.4
46.2
50.8
48.0
23.5
39.2
53.9
58.5
14.9
10.8
12.6
22.8
13.8
5.0
11.4
18.2
19.7
a Mothers were surveyed when their infants were 6 months of age. They were asked to recall the method of feeding the infant
when in the hospital, at age 1 week, at months 1 through 5, and on the day preceding completion of the survey. Numbers in
the columns labeled "5-6 Mo Infants" are an average of the 5-month and previous day responses.
b Based on data from Ross Laboratories.
c Hispanic is not exclusive of white or black.
d College includes all women who reported completing at least 1 year of college.
Source: NAS. 1991.
-------
Table 14-13. Breast Milk Intake Studies
Study
KEY STUDIES
Butteetal., 1984
Dewey et al.,
1991a;1991b
Dewey and
Lbnnerdal, 1983
Neville etal.,
1988
Paoetal., 1980
Number of
Individuals Type of Feeding
45 Exclusively breast-fed
for first 4 months
73 Breast-fed for 12
months; exclusively
breast-fed for at least
first 4 months
20 Most infants exclusively
breast-fed
1 3 Exclusively breast-fed
infants
22 Completely or partially
breast-fed infants
Sampling Time and Interval
Most infants studied over 1
day only, at 1 , 2, 3, 4 months
some studied over 48 to 96
hours to study individual
variability
Test weighing over 4-day
period every 3 months for 1
year
Two test weighings per month
for 6 months
Infants studied over 24-hour
period at each sampling
interval; numerous sampling
intervals over first year of life
Three consecutive days at 1 ,
3, 6, and 9 months
Population Studied
Mid- to upper-
socioeconomic stratum
Highly educated, high-
socioeconomic class from
Davis area of California
Mid to upper class from
Davis area of California
Nonsmoking Caucasian
mothers; middle- to
upper-socioeconomic
status
White middle class from
southeastern Ohio
Comments
Estimated breast milk intake;
corrected for insensible water loss
Estimated breast milk intake;
corrected for insensible water loss
Estimated breast milk intake; did
not correct for insensible water
loss
Estimated breast milk intake and
lipid intake; corrected for
insensible water loss; estimated
frequency and duration of feeding
Estimated breast milk intake; did
not correct for insensible water
loss
-------
Table 14-13. Breast Milk Intake Studies (continued)
Study
RELEVANT
STUDIES
Axelsson et al.,
1987
Brown etal., 1986a;
1986b
Hofvanderet al.,
1982
Kohleretal., 1984
Maxwell and
Burmaster, 1 993
MAS, 1991
Number of
Individuals Type of Feeding
30 Breast-fed infants and
infants fed formula with
two different energy
contents
58, 60 Breast-fed infants
50 25 breast-fed and 25
formula-fed infants
59 25 fully breast-fed and 34
formula-fed infants
1,113 Population of 1,113
breast-fed infants based
on a hypothetical
population of 5,000
breast-fed and bottle-fed
infants
NA Breast-fed infants
Sampling Time and Interval Population Studied
Studied over 2-day periods Swedish infants
at 4.5 and 5.5 months of
age
Studied over 3 days at each Bangledeshi infants;
interval marginally nourished
mothers
Studied 24-hour period at 1 , Swedish infants
2, and 3 months
Studied over 48-hour Swedish infants
periods at 6, 14, 22, and 26
weeks of age
NA NA
NA NA
Comments
Measured intake rates; not
corrected for insensible water loss
Measured milk and nutrient intake
based on nutritional status; not
corrected for insensible water loss
Estimated breast milk and formula
intake; no corrections for insensible
water loss among breast-fed infants;
estimated frequency of feeding
Estimated breast milk and formula
intake based on nutritional status;
no corrections for insensible water
loss among breast-fed infants
Simulated distribution of breast milk
intake based on data from Dewey
1 991 a; estimated percent of breast-
fed infants under 1 2 months of age
Summarizes current
state-of-knowledge on breast milk
volume, composition and
breast-feedina populations
-------
Table 14-14. Confidence in Breast Milk Intake Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
•D Level of peer review
•D Accessibility
•D Reproducibility
•D Focus on factor of interest
•D Data pertinent to U.S.
•D Primary data
•D Currency
•D Adequacy of data collection period
•D Validity of approach
•D Study size
•D Representativeness of the
population
•D Characterization of variability
•D Lack of bias in study design (high
rating is desirable)
•D Measurement error
Other Elements
•D Number of studies
•D Agreement between researchers
All key studies are from peer review literature. High
Papers are widely available from peer review journals. High
Methodology used was clearly presented. High
The focus of the studies was on estimating breast milk intake. High
Subpopulations of the U.S. were the focus of all the key studies. High
All the studies were based on primary data. High
Studies were conducted between 1980-1986. Although incidence of Medium
breast feeding may change with time, breast milk intake among
breastfed infants may not.
Infants were not studied long enough to fully characterize day to day Medium
variability.
Methodology uses changes in body weight as a surrogate for total Medium
ingestion. This is the best methodology there is to estimate breast milk
ingestion. Mothers were instructed in the use of infant scales to
minimize measurement errors. Three out of the 5 studies corrected
data for insensible water loss.
The sample sizes used in the key studies were fairly small (range 13-
73).
Population is not representative of the U.S.; only mid-upper class, well Low
nourished mothers were studied. Socioeconomic factors may affect
the incidence of breastfeeding. Mother's nourishment may affect milk
production.
Not very well characterized. Infants under 1 month not captured, Low
mothers committed to breast feeding over 1 year not captured.
Bias in the studies was not characterized. Three out of 5 studies Low
corrected for insensible water loss. Not correcting for insensible water
loss may underestimate intake. Mothers selected for the studies were
volunteers; therefore response rate does not apply. Population studied
may introduce some bias in the results (see above).
All mothers were well educated and trained in the use of the scale Medium
which helped minimize measurement error.
There are 5 key studies. High
There is good agreement among researchers. High
Overall Rating
Studies were well designed. Results were consistent. Sample size
was fairly low and not representative of U.S. population or population of
nursing mothers. Variability cannot be characterized due to limitations
in data collection period.
Medium
-------
Table 14-15.
Mean (ml/day)
Age: 1 Month
600
729
747
673
weighted avg = 702
Age: 3 Months
833
702
712
782
788
weighted avg = 759
Age: 6 Months
682
744
896
747
weighted avg = 765
Age: 9 Months
600
627
avg = 622
Age: 12 Months
391
435
weighted avg = 427
12-MONTH TIME WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
688
Breast Milk Intake Rates Derived From
N
11
37
13
16
2
37
12
16
73
1
13
11
60
12
50
9
42
Upper Percentile (ml/day)
(mean plus 2 standard
deviations)
918
981
1,095
1,057
1 ,007"
923
934
1,126
1,046
1 ,025"
978
1,140
1,079
1 ,059a
1,027
1,049
1,038
877
923
900
Range 900-1 ,059
(middle of the range 980)
Key Studies
Reference
Paoetal., 1980
Butteetal., 1984
Neville etal., 1988
Dewey and Lbnnerdal,
Paoetal., 1980
Butteetal., 1984
Neville etal., 1988
Dewey and Lbnnerdal,
Dewey etal., 1991b
Paoetal., 1980
Neville etal. ,1988
Dewey and Lbnnerdal,
Dewey etal., 1991b
Neville etal. ,1988
Dewey etal., 1991b
1983
1983
1983
Neville etal., 1988
Dewey etal., 1991 a; 1991b
" Middle of the range.
-------
Table 14-16. Summary of Recommended Breast Milk and Lipid Intake Rates
Age Mean Upper Percentile
Breast Milk
1 -6 Months 742 ml/day 1,033 ml/day
12 Month Average 688 ml/day 980 ml/day
Lipids3
<1 Year 26.0 ml/day 40.4 ml/day
The recommended value for the lioid content of breastmilk is 4.0 percent.
-------
Table 1 5-1 . Time Use Table Locator Guide
Percentile
Averages
Distribution
Distribution
Averages
Averages
Averages
Averages
Averages
Averages
Distribution
Averages
Averages
Distribution
Averages
Distribution
Averages
Average
Averages
Averages
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Averages
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Basis
Activity
Activity
Showering
Activity
Activity
Microenvironment
Microenvironment
Microenvironment
Activity
Activity
Activity by season
Microenvironment
Microenvironment
Microenvironment by
season
Microenvironment near
pollutant
Bathing and swimming
Activity by employment
Occupational Tenure
by race and gender
Occupational Tenure
by employment and
gender
Occupational Tenure
by employment
Occupational Mobility
by age
Population Mobility by
locale
Residence Time by
region, setting
Residence Time by
region, setting
Residence Time by
year moved in
Residence Time by
years in current home
Residence Time by
gender
Residence Time by age
Residence Time by
years in previous house
Residence Time by
tenure in previous
home
Relocation Distance
Pooulation
Children 3-17yrs
Children and Teens
Adults
Adults 1 8-64 yrs
Adults 1 8-64 yrs
Adults 1 8-64 yrs
Children and Adult
Children and Adults
Infants and Children
Infants and Children
Infants and Children
Infants and Children
Infant and Children
Infants and Children
Infant and Children
Adults
Adults
Teens and Adults
Teens and Adults
Teens and Adults
Teens and Adults
All ages
All ages
All ages
All ages
All ages
All ages
All ages
All ages
All ages
All ages
ADDlication
National
National
Foreign-Australia
National
Regional-CA
National/Regional-CA
Regional-California
National
Regional-California
Regional-California
Regional-California
Regional-California
Regional-California
Regional-California
Regional-California
Regional-National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
Studv
Timmeret al., 1985
Timmeretal., 1985
James and Knuiman, 1987
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996
Robinson and Thomas, 1991
Robinson and Thomas, 1991
Robinson and Thomas, 1991
Robinson and Thomas, 1991
Robinson and Thomas, 1991
Wiley etal., 1991
Wiley etal., 1991
Wiley etal., 1991
Wiley etal., 1991
Wiley etal., 1991
Wiley etal., 1991
Wiley etal., 1991
USEPA, 1992
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996
Robinson, 1977
Carey, 1 988
Carey, 1988
Carey, 1 988
Carey, 1990
Census, 1993
Israeli and Nelson, 1992
Israeli and Nelson, 1992
Census, 1993
Census, 1993
Johnson and Capel, 1992
Johnson and Capel, 1992
NAR, 1993
NAR, 1993
NAR, 1993
Table
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-24
15-5
15-5
15-6
15-7 to 15-10
15-7to15-10
15-11
15-12
15-13
15-14
15-15
15-16
15-17
15-18
15-22,15-63
15-147
15-157
15-158
15-159
15-160
Figure 15-1
15-161
15-162
15-163
15-164
15-165
15-166
15-167
15-168
15-169
-------
Table 15-2. Mean
Activity
Time Spenl
(minutes) Performing Major Activities Grouped by Age, Sex and Type of Day
Aae (3-1 1 vearsl
Duration of Time (mins/day)
Weekdays Weekends
Market Work
Household Work
Personal Care
Eating
Sleeping
School
Studying
Church
Visiting
Sports
Outdoors
Hobbies
Art Activities
Playing
TV
Reading
Household Conversations
Other Passive Leisure
NAa
Percent of Time Accounted
for bv Activities Above
Boys
(n=118)
16
17
43
81
584
252
14
7
16
25
10
3
4
137
117
9
10
9
22
94%
Girls
(n=111)
0
21
44
78
590
259
19
4
9
12
7
1
4
115
128
7
11
14
25
92%
Boys
(n=118)
7
32
42
78
625
-
4
53
23
33
30
3
4
177
181
12
14
16
20
93%
Girls
(n=111)
4
43
50
84
619
-
9
61
37
23
23
4
4
166
122
10
9
17
29
89%
Aae(12-17vears)
Duration of Time (mins/day)
Weekdays Weekends
Boys
(n=77)
23
16
48
73
504
314
29
3
17
52
10
7
12
37
143
10
21
21
14
93%
Girls
(n=83)
21
40
71
65
478
342
37
7
25
37
10
4
6
13
108
13
30
14
17
92%
Boys
(n=77)
58
46
35
58
550
-
25
40
46
65
36
4
11
35
187
12
24
43
10
88%
Girls
(n=83)
25
89
76
75
612
-
25
36
53
26
19
7
9
24
140
19
30
33
4
89%
a NA = Unknown
Source: Timmeret al.. 1985.
-------
Table 1 5-3. Mean Time Spent (minutes) in Major Activities Grouped by Type of Day for Five Different Age Groups
Time Duration (mins)
Weekday
Aae (years')
Activities
Market Work
Personal Care
Household Work
Eating
Sleeping
School
Studying
Church
Visiting
Sports
Outdoor activities
Hobbies
Art Activities
Other Passive Leisure
Playing
TV
Reading
Being read to
NA
3-5
-
41
14
82
630
137
2
4
14
5
4
0
5
9
218
111
5
2
30
6-8
14
49
15
81
595
292
8
9
15
24
9
2
4
1
111
99
5
2
14
9-11
8
40
18
73
548
315
29
9
10
21
8
2
3
2
65
146
9
0
23
12-14
14
56
27
69
473
344
33
9
21
40
7
4
3
6
31
142
10
0
25
Weekend
15-17
28
60
34
67
499
314
33
3
20
46
11
6
12
4
14
108
12
0
7
3-5
-
47
17
81
634
-
1
55
10
3
8
1
4
6
267
122
4
3
52
6-8
4
45
27
80
641
-
2
56
8
30
23
5
4
10
180
136
9
2
7
9-11
10
44
51
78
596
-
12
53
13
42
39
3
4
7
92
185
10
0
14
a Effects are significant for weekdays and weekends, unless otherwise specified A = age effect
weekend activities; S = sex effect P<0.05, F>M, M>F = females spend more time than males,
interaction, PO.05.
Source: Timmeret al.. 1985.
12-14
29
60
72
68
604
-
15
32
22
51
25
8
7
10
35
169
10
0
4
15-17
48
51
60
65
562
-
30
37
56
37
26
3
10
18
21
157
18
0
9
Significant
Effects3
A.S.AxS (F>M)
A,S, AxS (F>M)
A
A
A
A
A (Weekend
only)
A,S (M>F)
A
A,S (M>F)
A,S, AxS (M>F)
A
A
A
P<0.05, for both weekdays and
or vice versa; and AxS = age by sex
-------
Table 15-4. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Average
Shower Duration for 2,550 Households
Shower duration (minutes)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
<20
Source: Adapted from James and Knuiman,
Cumulative frequency (percentage)
0.2
0.8
3.1
9.6
22.1
37.5
51.6
62.5
72.0
79.4
84.5
88.4
90.6
92.3
93.7
94.9
95.7
96.7
97.6
98.0
100.0
1987.
-------
Table 15-5.
Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Total Sample
and Gender for the CARS and National Studies (age 1 8-64 years)
Time Duration (mins/day)
Activity Category3
Activity
Codes1"
CARB
(1987-88)
National
(1985)
Total Sample
Paid Work
Household Work
Child Care
Obtaining Goods and
Services
Personal Needs and
Care
Education and Training
Organizational Activities
Entertainment/Social
Activities
Recreation
Communication
00-09
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
a,b Time use for components of activity
c n = total diary days.
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991
nc = 1 ,359
273
102
23
61
642
22
12
60
43
202
n = 1 ,980
252
118
25
55
642
19
17
62
50
196
categories and codes are shown
CARB
(1987-8
Men
n = 639 n
346
68
12
48
630
25
11
57
53
192
in Appendix Table
3)
Women
= 720
200
137
36
73
655
20
13
55
31
214
15A-6.
Men
n = 921
323
79
11
44
636
21
12
64
69
197
National
(1985)
Women
n = 1 ,059
190
155
43
62
645
16
20
62
43
194
-------
Table 1 5-6. Total Mean Time Spent at Three Major Locations Grouped by Total Sample and Gender
for the CARB and National Study (ages 1 8-64 years)
Location3
At Home
Away From Home
Travel
Not Ascertained
Total Time
Code"
WC01-13
WC21-40
WC51-61
WC99
CARB
(1987-88)
Total
nc = 1359
892
430
116
2
1440
National
(1985)
Sample
nc = 1980 n
954
384
94
8
1440
a,b Time use data for the 44 components of location and location codes are
c n = total diary days.
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991 .
CARB
(1987-88)
Men
c = 39
822
487
130
1
1440
presented
Women
nc = 720
963
371
102
4
1440
in Appendix
Men
nc = 921
886
445
101
8
1440
Table 15A-7.
National
(1985)
Women
nc = 1059
1022
324
87
7
1440
-------
Table 15-7. Mean Time Spent at Three Locations for both CARS and
National Studies (ages 12 years and older)
Location Category CARS
(n = 1762)b
Indoor 1255C
Outdoor 86d
In-Vehicle 98?
Total Time Spent 1440
Mean duration
S.E.a
28
5
4
(mins/day)
National
(n = 2762)b S.E.
1279C 21
74d 4
8Z? 2
1440
a S.E. = Standard Error of Mean
b Weighted Number - National sample population was weighted to obtain a ratio of 46.5 males and 53.5 females,
in equal proportion for each day of the week, and for each quarter of the year.
c Difference between the mean values for the CARS and national studies is not statistically significant.
d Difference between the mean values for the CARS and national studies is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991.
-------
Table 1 5-8. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in
and Gender (1 2 years and
Microenvironment
Autoplaces
Restaurant/bar
In-vehicle
In-Vehicle/other
Physical/outdoors
Physical/indoors
Work/study-residence
Work/study-other
Cooking
Other activities/kitchen
Chores/child
Shop/errand
Other/outdoors
Social/cultural
Leisure-eat/indoors
Sleeo/indoors
Microenvironment
Autoplaces
Restaurant/bar
In-vehicle
In-Vehicle/other
Physical/outdoors
Physical/indoors
Work/study-residence
Work/study-other
Cooking
Other activities/kitchen
Chores/child
Shop/errand
Other/outdoors
Social/cultural
Leisure-eat/indoors
Sleeo/indoors
N = 1284b
Men
5(1)
22(2)
92(3)
1(1)
24(3)
11 (1)
17(2)
221 (10)
14(1)
54(3)
88(3)
23(2)
70(6)
71 (4)
235 (8)
491 (14)
N = 867b
Men
31 (8)
45(4)
105(7)
4(1)
25(3)
8(1)
14(3)
213(14)
12(1)
38(3)
66(4)
21 (3)
95(9)
47(4)
223(10)
492(17)
a Standard error of the mean
b Weighted number
c Doer = Respondents who reported participating
Source: Robinson and Thomas. 1991 .
"Doer"c
Men
90
73
99
166
139
84
153
429
35
69
89
56
131
118
241
492
"Doer"c
Men
142
106
119
79
131
63
126
398
43
65
75
61
153
112
240
499
Various Microenvironments Grouped by Total Population
over) in the National and CARS Data
National Data
Mean Duration (mins/day) (standard
N = 1478b "Doer"
Women Women
1 (0) 35
20 (2) 79
82 (3) 94
1 (0) 69
11(2) 101
6(1) 57
15(2) 150
142(7) 384
52 (2) 67
90(4) 102
153(5) 154
38 (2) 74
43 (4) 97
75(4) 110
215(7) 224
496(111 497
CARB Data
Mean Duration (mins/day) (standard
N = 895b "Doer"
Women Women
9 (2) 50
28 (3) 86
85(4) 100
3(2) 106
8(1) 86
5(1) 70
11(2) 120
156(11) 383
42 (2) 65
60 (4) 82
134(6) 140
41 (3) 78
44 (4) 82
59(5) 114
251 (10) 263
504(15) 506
error)3
N = 2762b
Total
3(0)
21(1)
87(2)
1 (0)
17(2)
8(1)
16(1)
179(6)
34(1)
73(2)
12393)
31(1)
56(4)
73(3)
224 (5)
494 (91
error)"
N = 1762b
Total
20(4)
36(3)
95(4)
3(1)
17(2)
7(1)
13(2)
184(9)
27(1)
49(2)
100(4)
31(2)
69(5)
53(3)
237 (7)
498(12)
"Doer"
Total
66
77
97
91
135
74
142
390
57
88
124
67
120
118
232
495
"Doer"
Total
108
102
111
94
107
68
131
450
55
74
109
70
117
112
250
501
in each activity /location spent in microenvironments.
-------
Table 15-9. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Type
of Day for the California and National Surveys
Weekday
Microenvironment
1 Autoplaces
2 Restaurant/Bar
3 In-Vehicle/lnternal Combustion
4 In-Vehicle/Other
5 Physical/Outdoors
6 Physical/Indoors
7 Work/Study-Residence
8 Work/Study-Other
9 Cooking
10 Other Activities/Kitchen
1 1 Chores/Child
12 Shop/Errand
13 Other/Outdoors
14 Social/Cultural
15 Leisure-Eat/Indoors
16 Sleep/Indoors
(sample population
Mean Duration
ages 12 years and older)
(standard error)3
(mins/day)
CARB
(n=1259)c
21(5)
29(3)
90(5)
3(1)
14(2)
7(1)
14(2)
228(11)
27(2)
51(3)
99(5)
30(2)
67(6)
42(3)
230 (9)
490(14)
NAT
(n=1973)c
3(1)
20(2)
85(2)
1(0)
15(2)
8(1)
16(2)
225 (8)
35(2)
73(3)
124(4)
30(2)
51(4)
62(3)
211 (6)
481 (10)
Mean Duration for
(mins/day)
CARB
108
83
104
71
106
64
116
401
58
76
108
67
117
99
244
495
'Doer"b
NAT
73
73
95
116
118
68
147
415
57
87
125
63
107
101
218
483
Weekend
Microenvironment
1 Autoplaces
2 Restaurant/Bar
3 In-Vehicle/lnternal Combustion
4 In-Vehicle/Other
5 Physical/Outdoors
6 Physical/Indoors
7 Work/Study-Residence
8 Work/Study-Other
9 Cooking
10 Other Activities/Kitchen
1 1 Chores/Child
12 Shop/Errand
13 Other/Outdoors
14 Social/Cultural
15 Leisure-Eat/Indoors
16 Sleep/Indoors
3 Standard Error of Mean
b Doer = Respondent who reported
c Weighted Number
Mean Duration
(standard error)3
(mins/day)
CARB
(n=503)c
19(4)
55(6)
108(8)
5(3)
23(3)
7(1)
10(2)
74(11)
27(2)
44(3)
103(7)
35(4)
74(7)
79(7)
256(12)
520 (20)
participating in each
NAT
(n=789)c
3(1)
23(2)
91(6)
0(0)
23(4)
9(2)
15(3)
64(6)
34(2)
73(4)
120(5)
35(3)
67(7)
99(6)
257(11)
525(17)
activity /location spent in
Mean Duration for
(mins/day)
CARB
82
127
125
130
134
72
155
328
60
71
114
81
126
140
273
521
microenvironments.
'Doer"b
NAT
62
84
100
30
132
80
165
361
55
90
121
75
132
141
268
525
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991.
-------
Table 15-10. Mean Time Spent
Microenvironment
Autoplaces
Restaurant/bar
In-vehicle/internal
combustion
In-vehicle/other
Physical/outdoors
Physical/indoors
Work/study-
residence
Work/study-other
Cooking
Other
activities/kitchen
Chores/child
Shop/errands
Other/outdoors
Social/cultural
Leisure-
eat/indoors
Sleep/indoors
(minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age Groups for the National and California Surveys
National Data
Mean Duration (Standard Error)"
Age 12-1 7
years
N=340b
2(1)
9(2)
79(7)
0(0)
32(8)
15(3)
22(4)
159(14)
11 (3)
53(4)
91(7)
26(4)
70(13)
87(10)
237(16)
548(31)
"Doer"0
73
60
88
12
130
87
82
354
40
64
92
68
129
120
242
551
Age 18-24
years
N=340
7(2)
28(3)
103(8)
1(1)
17(4)
8(2)
19(6)
207 (20)
18(2)
42(3)
124(9)
31 (4)
34(4)
100(12)
181 (11)
511 (26)
"Doer"
137
70
109
160
110
76
185
391
39
55
125
65
84
141
189
512
Age 24-44
years
N=340
2(1)
25(3)
94(4)
1(0)
19(4)
7(1)
16(2)
220(11)
38(2)
70(4)
133(6)
33(2)
48(6)
56(3)
200 (8)
479(14)
"Doer"
43
86
101
80
164
71
181
422
57
86
134
66
105
94
208
480
Age 45-64
years
N=340
4(1)
19(2)
82(5)
1 (1)
7(1)
7(2)
9(2)
180(13)
43(3)
90(6)
121 (6)
33(3)
60(7)
73(6)
238(11)
472(15)
"Doer"
73
67
91
198
79
77
169
429
64
101
122
67
118
116
244
472
Age 65+
years
N=340
4(2)
20(5)
62(5)
1(1)
15(4)
7(1)
5(3)
35(6)
50(5)
108(9)
119(7)
35(5)
82(13)
85(8)
303 (20)
507 (26)
"Doer"
57
74
80
277
81
51
297
341
65
119
121
69
140
122
312
509
-------
Microenvironment
Autoplaces
Restaurant/bar
In-vehicle/internal
combustion
In-vehicle/other
Physical/outdoors
Physical/indoors
Work/study-
residence
Work/study-other
Cooking
Other
activities/kitchen
Chores/child
Shop/errands
Other/outdoors
Social/cultural
Leisure-eat/indoors
Sleep/indoors
Table 15-10
Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age Groups (continued)
CARB Data
Mean Duration (Standard Error)"
Age 12-17
years
N=183b
16(8)
16(4)
78(11)
1(0)
32(7)
20(4)
25(5)
196(30)
3(1)
31(4)
72(11)
14(3)
58(8)
63(14)
260 (27)
557 (44)
"Doer"0
124
44
89
19
110
65
76
339
19
51
77
50
78
109
270
560
a Standard error.
b All N's are weighted number.
c Doer = Respondents who reported participating
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991 .
Age 18-24
years
N=250
16(4)
40(8)
111 (13)
3(1)
13(3)
5(2)
30(11)
201 (24)
14(2)
31(5)
79(8)
35(7)
80(15)
65(10)
211 (19)
506 (30)
"Doer"
71
98
122
60
88
77
161
344
40
55
85
71
130
110
234
510
in each activity /location
Age 24-44
years
N=749
25(9)
44(5)
98(5)
5(2)
17(3)
6(1)
7(2)
215(14)
32(2)
43(3)
110(6)
33(4)
68(8)
50(5)
202 (9)
487(17)
"Doer"
114
116
111
143
128
61
137
410
59
65
119
71
127
122
215
491
Age 45-64
years
N=406
20(5)
31 (4)
100(11)
2(1)
14(3)
5(1)
10(3)
173(20)
31 (3)
62(6)
99(8)
32(3)
76(12)
50(5)
248(15)
485 (23)
"Doer"
94
82
117
56
123
77
139
429
68
91
109
77
134
107
261
491
Age 65+
years
N=158
9(2)
25(7)
63(8)
2(1)
15(4)
3(1)
5(3)
30(11)
41(7)
97(14)
123(15)
35(5)
55(7)
49(7)
386 (34)
502(31)
"Doer"
53
99
89
53
104
48
195
336
69
119
141
76
101
114
394
502
spent in microenvironments.
-------
Table 15-11. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Spent in Ten Major
Activity Categories for All Respondents
Mean Median Maximum
Mean Duration Duration Duration Detailed Activity with
Duration % for Doersb for Doer for Doers Highest Avg. Minutes
Activity Cateaorv (mins/davl Doina (mins/davl (mins/davl (mins/davl (code)
Work-related" 10 25 39 30
Household 53 86 61 40
Childcare < 1 < 1 83 30
Goods/Services 21 26 81 60
Personal Needs and Care0 794 1 00 794 770
Education" 110 35 316 335
Organizational Activities 4 4 111 105
Entertain/Social 15 17 87 60
Recreation 239 92 260 240
Communication/Passive 192 93 205 180
Leisure
Don't know/Not coded 2 4 41 15
All Activities8 1441
a Includes eating at school or daycare, an activity not grouped under the "education activities"
b "Doers" indicate the respondents who reported participating in each activity category.
c Personal care includes night sleepand daytime naps, eating, travel for personal care.
d Education includes student and other classes, homework, library, travel for education.
8 Column total may not sum to 1440 due to rounding error
Source: Wiley etal.. 1991.
405 Eating at work/school/daycare (06)
602 Travel to household (1 99)
290 Other child care (27)
450 Errands (38)
1440 Night sleep (45)
790 School classes (50)
435 Attend meetings (60)
490 Visiting with others (75)
835 Games (87)
898 TV use (91)
600 -
(codes 50-59, 549).
-------
Table 1 5-1 2. Mean Time Children Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories
Grouped by Age and Gender
Activity
Category
Work-related
Household
Childcare
Goods/Services
Personal Needs and
Care"
Education11
Organizational Activities
Entertainment/Social
Recreation
Communication/Passive
Leisure
Don't know/Not coded
All Activities0
Sample Sizes
Unweighted N's
0-2 yrs
4
33
0
20
914
60
1
3
217
187
1
1440
172
3-5 yrs
9
45
0
22
799
67
3
15
311
166
4
1441
151
Boys
6-8 yrs
14
55
0
19
736
171
7
5
236
195
1
1439
145
Mean
9-1 1 yrs
12
65
1
14
690
138
6
34
229
250
1
1440
156
Duration (minutes/day)
All
Ages
10
48
<1
19
792
106
4
13
250
197
2
1442
624
0-2 yrs
5
58
0
22
906
41
6
5
223
171
3
1440
141
3-5 yrs
12
44
0
25
816
95
1
16
255
173
1
1438
151
Girls
6-8 yrs
11
51
0
23
766
150
4
9
238
189
<1
1441
124
9-1 1 yrs
10
76
4
22
701
176
6
36
194
213
3
1441
160
All
Ages
10
57
1
23
797
115
4
17
228
186
2
1440
576
a Personal needs and care includes night sleep and daytime naps, eating, travel for personal care.
b Education includes student and other classes, homework, library, travel for education.
c The column totals may differ from 1 440 due to rounding error.
Source: Wilev et al.. 1991.
-------
Table 1 5-1 3. Mean Time Children Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories
Grouped by Seasons and Regions
Mean Duration (minutes/day)
Activity Category
Winter
(Jan-Mar)
Work-related 10
Household 47
Childcare <1
Goods/Services 1 9
Personal Needs and 799
Care"
Education" 124
Organizational 3
Activities
Entertainment/Social 14
Recreation 221
Communication/Passiv 203
e Leisure
Don't know/Not coded <1
All Activities0 1442
Sample Sizes 318
(Unweighted)
Spring
(Apr-June)
10
58
1
17
774
137
5
12
243
180
2
1439
204
Season
Summer
(July-Sept)
6
53
<1
26
815
49
5
12
282
189
3
1441
407
Region of California
Fall All
(Oct-Dec) Seasons
13
52
<1
23
789
131
3
22
211
195
<1
1441
271
10
53
<1
21
794
110
4
15
239
192
2
1441
1200
So.
Coast
10
45
<1
20
799
109
2
17
230
206
1
1440
224
Bay
Area
10
62
<1
21
785
115
6
10
241
190
1
1442
263
Rest of
State
8
55
1
23
794
109
6
16
249
175
3
1439
713
All
Regions
10
53
<1
21
794
110
4
15
239
192
2
1441
1200
a Personal needs and care includes night sleep and daytime naps, eating, travel for personal care.
B Education includes student and other classes, homework, library, travel for education.
c The column totals may not be equal to 1 440 due to rounding error.
Source: Wiley etal., 1991.
-------
Table 15-14. Mean Time Children Spent
Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In-transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not Coded
All Locations
Mean
Duration
(mins)
1,078
109
80
24
69
79
<1
1.440
%
Doing
99
33
32
35
83
57
1
n Six Major Location Categories for All Respondents (minutes/day)
Mean
Duration
for Doers
(mins)
1,086
330
251
69
83
139
37
Median
Duration
for Doers
(minsl
1,110
325
144
50
60
105
30
Maximum
Duration for
Doers
(minsl
1,440
1,260
1,440
475
1,111
1,440
90
Detailed Location with
Avg. Time
Home - bedroom
Highest
School or daycare facility
Friend's/other's house -
Shopping mall
Traveling in car
Park, playground
—
bedroom
Source: Wilev et al.. 1991.
-------
Table 15-15. Mean Time Children Spent in Six Location Categories Grouped by Age and Gender
Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In-transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not Coded
All Locations"
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)
0-2 yrs
1,157
86
67
21
54
54
<1
1,439
172
a The column totals may not sum to
Source: Wiley et al., 1991.
Mean Duration (minutes/day)
Boys Girls
All
3-5 yrs 6-8 yrs 9-1 1 yrs Boys 0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-8 yrs
1,134
88
73
25
62
58
<1
1,440
151
1,044 1,020 1,094 1,151 1,099 1,021
144 120 108 59 102 133
77 109 80 56 47 125
22 15 21 23 35 27
61 62 59 76 88 53
92 114 77 73 68 81
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
1,439 1,440 1,439 1,438 1,440 1,440
145 156 624 141 151 124
All
9-1 1 yrs Girls
968 1 ,061
149 111
102 80
26 28
93 79
102 81
<1 <1
1 ,440 1 ,440
160 576
1 ,440 due to rounding error.
-------
Table 15-1 6. Mean Time Children
Spent in Six Location Categories Grouped by Season and Region
Mean Duration (minutes/day)
Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's
House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In-transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not
Coded
All Locations"
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted N's)
Winter
(Jan-Mar)
1,091
119
69
22
75
63
<1
1,439
318
a The column totals may not sum to 1
Source: Wiley et al., 1991.
Season
Spring Summer
(Apr-June) (July-Sept)
1,042
141
75
21
75
85
<1
1,439
204
1,097
52
108
30
60
93
<1
1,440
407
Region of California
Fall All So. Bay Rest of
(Oct-Dec) Seasons Coast Area State
1 ,081 1 ,078 1 ,078
124 109 113
69 80 73
24 24 26
65 69 71
76 79 79
<1 <1 <1
1 ,439 1 ,439 1 ,439
271 1 ,200 224
1,078
103
86
23
73
76
<1
1,440
263
1,078
108
86
23
63
81
<1
1,440
713
All
Regions
1,078
109
80
24
69
79
<1
1,439
1,200
,440 due to rounding error.
-------
Table 15-17. Mean Time Children Spent in Proximity to Three Potential Exposures Grouped by All Respondents, Age, and Gender
Mean Duration (minutes/day)
Potential Exposures
Tobacco Smoke
Gasoline Fumes
Gas Oven Fumes
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted N's)
a Respondents with
Source: Wiley et al
All
Children
77
2
11
1,166"
Boys
0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-8 yrs 9-1 1 yrs
115 75 66 66
2114
10 15 12 11
168 148 144 150
All
Boys
82
2
12
610
Girls
All
0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-8 yrs 9-1 1 yrs Girls
77 68 71 74 73
11311
12 10 10 7 10
140 147 122 147 556
missing data were excluded.
, 1991.
-------
Table 1 5-1 8. Range of Recommended Defaults for Dermal Exposure Factors
Central
Event time and 1 0 min/event
frequency" 1 event/day
350 days/yr
Exposure 9 years
duration
a Bathing
Source: U.S
Water
Bathing
Upper
1 5 min/event
1 event/day
350 days/yr
30 years
event time is presented to be representative
EPA 1992.
Contact
Central
0.5 hr/event
1 event/day
5 days/yr
9 years
Swimming
Upper
1 .0 hr/event
1 event/day
1 50 days/yr
30 years
Soil Contact
Central Upper
40 events/yr 350 events/yr
9 years 30 years
of baths as well as showers.
-------
Table 1 5-1 9. Number of Times Taking a Shower at Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Times/Day
Overall
GMa\ef
Female
Refused
Age (years)
1 -4
?217
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
BP
AnCa
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
If
Total N
3594
1720
1872
2
64
41
2650
429
239419
65
162
43
31
439
W
515
828
2481
1113
889
1003
761
3312
39>81
22
3419
154
0
2
*
2
*
*
*
1
1
?
*
*
*
2
*
*
i
*
*
*
i
*
*
i
2
*
*
*
2
2
*
i
2
*
Note: * Signifies missing data, Dk= don't know;
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis,1996
1
2747
1259
1486
2
46
30
199
1983
377
2323
40
103
33
2521
190
if
785°
382
622
611
1889
858
674
606
2543
11859
2653
17
2620
1152
2
802
436
366
17
9
636
49
?40
23*
56
7
71 1
81
t
i
177
121
196
334
563
239
205
?45
730
786
4
758
?
3
30
21
9
*
1
6
21
1
V7
2
2
1
24
5
1
187
5
9
7
17
13
9,
10
4
25
§
T
27
2
4
1
1
*
*
*
*
1
1
*
*
*
1
*
*
1
*
1
»
1
1
*
1
1
1
*
1
*
5 8
1 1
*
1 1
* *
* *
* *
1 1
: i
*
* *
* *
1 1
* *
: :
1
; i
* *
: :
« «
1 1
i
* *
1 1
1 1
* *
i i
* *
1 1
* *
10 11:1-0+
1 4
1
1 3
* *
* *
* *
1 3
1
* 4
* *
1 *
4
1 *
1 2
; 2
* *
* 1
1
1
« «
3
1 1
1 4
1
! 2
1 4
1 4
* *
1 4
* *
DK
5
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
*
*
2
4
*
*
1
1
I
3
1
*
3
1
1
4
|
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
N = sample size.
-------
Table 1 5-20. Times (minutes) Spent Taking Showers by the Number of Respondents
Overall
Gender
Male
Refused
Aae
*a
1-4
5-11
>64
FWhfte
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
BP
Bronchitis/Emphysema
NOTE: * - Missing data; DK
3594
1822
64
1 40
2650
429
2911
349
64
3269
277
3?
439
1328
967
22
515
297
1
?483
§8*9
1003
761
3312
261
21
3481
91
22
3f
= don't know;
Minutes/Shower
* *
47
¥
6
1
21
38
5
3
43
1
*
3
4
27
2
10
8
i
ft
n
10
38
4
5
36
4
43°
4
0-10
1640
f
27
1 3
60
1238
208
1406
115
25
1526
98
11
163
875
431
11
190
93
I
^
435
374
1526
108
6
1591
38
11
T
10-20
1348
iii
23
14
977
148
1070
120
25
1188
109
192
165
682
355
4
186
125
1
m
366
280
1222
89
7
1276
f
1OCQ
zoo
20-30
397
213
184
3
1 8
288
38
292
58
10
I
352
40
4
66
13991
97
4
79
51
I
fl§
128
81
362
33
2
389
§
f
N = sample size; Refused = Refused to answer
signifies that more than 60 minutes were spent.
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.
30-40
72
f
1
1
3
58
4
39
20
1
61
10
1
17
32
19
21
6
23
14
1
n
28
29
4
65
7
70
1
¥
40-50
52
I"
*
*
2
37
4
31
11
2
4
4
42
8
2
10
25°
16
1
13
7
17
4
1
?l
11
17
6
44
8
51
1
f
A value of 61 for
50-60
51
37
2
2
4
33
3
26
16
1
44
7
*
12
20
I6
14
6
I
?i
12
5
41
10
51
T
60-61
17
7
2
*
111
3
9
4
1
13
4
*
2
8
6
2
1
4
4
V°
5
1
14
2
1
17
T
number of minutes
-------
Table 1 5-21 . Number of Minutes Spent Taking a Shower (minutes/shower)
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Total
N
3547
1707
1838
40
139
268
2634
408
2873
344
64
65
161
3226
276
1828
324
940
289
1030
760
574
389
821
745
1220
761
2447
1100
929
875
992
751
3274
257
3445
84
3379
151
Percentiles
1
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
5 5
4 5
5 5
3 5
3 5
4 5
4 5
3 4
3 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
3 5
3 5
5 5
3 5
5 5
3 5
3 4
5 5
4 5
3 5
3 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
3 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
10
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
6
5
10
6
5
6
5
5
5
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NOTE: A value of 61 for number of minutes signifies that more than 60 minutes were
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
25 50
10 15
10 15
10 15
5 10
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 10
10 13
10 20
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 12
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 12
10 10
7 10
10 15
10 10
10 15
10 10
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 12
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
spent. N
75
20
20
20
17.5
20
25
20
20
20
30
20
30
25
20
22.5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
20
20
91 95
30 35
30 30
30 40
30 50
30 40
35 45
30 30
30 30
30 30
40 60
30 40
45 60
40 45
30 30
39 45
30 30
30 30
30 40
30 40
30 40
30 30
25 30
25 30
30 32
30 30
30 40
30 30
30 35
30 40
30 40
30 40
30 40
30 30
30 32
40 50
30 35
30 30
30 35
30 40
98
50
45
60
60
60
60
45
45
45
60
48
60
60
45
60
45
45
60
60
60
45
40
45
50
45
60
45
48
60
60
60
45
40
45
60
50
40
50
48
99
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
61
60
61
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
48
60
60
60
45
60
60
100
61
61
61
60
60
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
45
61
61
= doer sample size. Percentiles are the
-------
Table 15-22. Time (minutes) Spent in the Shower
Room Immediately After Showering by the Number of Respondents
Minutes/Shower
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
5241?
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
SWmter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
BP
Angina
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Total N
3594
1872
2
64
41
2650
429
2911
349
i
1483398
328
967
22
515
1246
764
2481
1113
941
889
1003
761
3312
3981
22
3419
154
21
* *
61
39
*
6
*
3
31
20
39
8
i
f
4
20
5
29
3
11
6
1 Q
10
43
18
11
13
25
12
52
52
6
53
6
0-0
241
113
128
*
g
9?
171
30
189
23
7
171
4
2196
I
28
109
21
81
2
38
ig
74
67
165
76
50
56
92
43
225
124
233
3
226
1 2
3
NOTE: * Signifies missing data. DK= respondents answered don't kn<
sample size in specified range of number of minutes spent. A value of
were spent.
Source: Tsang and Klepeis,1996
0-10
2561
m
2
37
18g7
280
2074
254
s
2328
22°2°
1333362
223
655
15
390
536
537
1784
777
678
636
egi
556
2374
178
2495
11
2446
104
11
10-20 20-30
sog
302
*
7
1
388
68
430
42
f
4375°
3
24687
55
138
1
51
iH
I
116
tt?
104
342
167
138
125
138
108
465
f
42826
1
482
26
1
138
£
*
3
4
gg
22
110
17
\
130
*
7?
13
39
1
15
|
31
88
50
36
37
39
26
123
1*5
132
1
131
7
30-40 40-50 50-60 61-61
24
159
*
*
3
ig
2
20
*
3
23
*
132
4
5
3
10
3
20
4
13
4
5
2
ig
5
24
*
23
1
28
244
*
1
1
2
18
6
23
3
1
f
4
4
g
4
4
4
2
16
12
g
8
5
6
24
3
27
*
27
1
27
1
1
*
23
1
21
2
1
}
23
4
*
126
3
6
2
1
7
8
ig
8
4
g
7
26
1
27
*
26
1
*
5
4
*
*
1
4
5
*
*
5
*
?*
*
5
1
|
3
2
4
2
1
1
4
1
5
*
5
*
aw. Refused = respondents refused to answer. N = doer
51 for number of minutes signifies that more than 60 minutes
-------
Table 1 5-23. Number of Minutes Spent in the
Shower
Room Immediately After Showering (minutes/shower)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
N
3533
1698
1833
41
137
2619
2619
409
2872
341
64
62
156
3221
269
1818
323
938
283
Education High School Graduate 1025
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
761
573
387
822
737
1220
754
2438
1095
930
876
978
749
3260
259
3429
88
3366
152
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
25
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.5
NOTE: N = doer sample size. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to
number of minutes signifies that more than 60 minutes were spent.
Source: Tsang and Klepeis,1996
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8.5
5
5
75 90
10 20
10 15
12 20
10 15
10 15
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 15
10 30
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
15 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
10 20
13 20
10 20
15 20
10 20
10 20
95
30
20
30
20
20
30
30
30
30
25
20
35
25
30
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
a given number of minutes
98
40
30
45
45
30
40
40
35
40
30
30
45
40
40
45
35
45
45
45
45
35
35
30
40
35
40
30
40
40
40
45
30
40
38
40
40
30
40
30
99 100
50 61
30 61
60 61
45 45
30 60
52 61
52 61
45 60
50 61
45 60
60 60
52 52
60 60
50 61
60 60
50 60
50 60
60 61
45 61
60 61
50 61
45 60
45 60
50 60
45 60
45 61
60 61
50 61
50 61
45 61
60 61
50 61
53 61
50 61
45 61
50 61
45 45
50 61
45 60
A value of 61 for
-------
Table 1 5-24. Number of Baths Given or Taken in
One Day by Number of Respondents
Number of Baths/Day
Total N
Overall 649
Gender
Male 159
Female 490
Age (years)
y
1 8-64 491
>64 149
Race
E106
12
Some Others 1 2
Hispanic 26
Refused 6
Hispanic
No 600
Yes 40
DK 6
Refused 3
Employment
Full Time 283
Part Time 76
Not Employed 287
Refused 2
Education
< High School 96
High School Graduate 235
< College 163
College Graduate 1 02
Post Graduate 49
Nofthefst*69'0" 137
Midwest 151
South 255
West 106
Day of Week
Weekday 41 5
Weekend 234
Season
Winter 178
Spring 160
Summer 174
Fall 137
Asthma
No 596
Yes 52
DK 1
Angina
NoU 620
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No 610
BP
1
459
117
342
?29
364
^
7
5°
430
2J
3
1
183
2T7
2
4
66
167
112
42
100
116
164
79
2§9
124
424
34
1
435
429
2
144
33
111
W
4
V
127
116
*
*
76
51
*
19
54
25
29
70
20
§9
37
27
129
15
141
137
7
NOTE: * Signifies missing data; Dk= respondents answered
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis.1996
3
20
5
15
.
20
1 3
5
*
I9
1
*
*
12
\
*
3
8
3
4
9
4
10
10
10
\
19
1
?
20
4
9
1
8
.
9
7
1
1
*
9
«
*
*
5
\
*
2
2
4
1
2
2
4
1
i
7
2
9
9
don't know;
5
4
*
4
.
4
2
*
*
2
2
?
*
*
*
\
*
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
4
*
4
4
6
2
1
1
*
2
1
1
*
*
2
*
*
»
2
*
*
*
*
1
*
1
1
?
*
1
2
*
?
*
2
*
N = sample size;
7
1
1
*
1
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
»
1
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
1
1
*
1
*
1
*
1
*
1
*
Refused
10
1
*
1
*
1
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
»
1
*
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
1
*
1
1
*
1
*
1
*
11
1
*
1
*
1
1
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
»
1
*
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
1
1
*
1
*
1
*
15
3
1
2
.
2
2
1
*
3
«
*
»
1
2
»
1
1
1
*
*
2
1
2
1
2
3
*
3
2
1
= respondents refused to
DK
5
*
5
*
§
5
*
*
*
*
5
*
*
»
1
4
*
»
3
2
*
*
2
3
4
2
5
*
f
4
1
answer.
-------
Table 15-25. Total Time
Spent Taking or Giving a Bath by the Number of Respondents
Minutes/Bath
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Age (years)
i8644
Race.
Asian
Some Others
K&
Hispanic
No
If
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
CeNnoSrtUhSeaRs!gi°n
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Yes
DK
Total N
649
159
490
g
149
n
1 2
12
266
f
3
1
283
2
4
96
235
137
151
255
106
234
178
174
137
596
52
1
620
3
610
36
3
0-10 10-20 20-30
18
4
14
2
10
11
4
*
*
2
16
1
*
4
1
1
7
6
4
5
2
9
2
62
5
4
16
1
1
V
1
15
2
1
153
48
105
105
1264
2
2
8
1
1
*
58
*
*
15
57
45
43
42
42
26
63
44
27
144
9
147
*
150
*
237
59
178
4
594
3855
Q
3
2
224
12°
1
*
107
12064
*
2
35
85
53
44
18
36
67
87
47
766
63
52
218
1*9
2i2o6
1
218
2
128
23
105
1
Ve
97
19
2
5
3
120
*
1
64
*
1
16
51
31
26
55
16
84
44
33
34
114
1*4
124
1
119
*
30-40
27
8
19
*
f
16
^
1
*
T
*
»
12
150
*
»
3
13
6
3
16
2
u
9
\
26
1
225
*
26
1
*
40-50 50-60 61-61
29
4
25
*
254
199
*
*
1
27
1
*
12
*
*
6
5
7
3
14
5
263
11
7
7
28
1
28
*
26
3
36
7
29
*
351
294
*
*
*
f
*
»
19
*
»
7
11
1
6
5
21
4
?3
9
6
V4
33
3
35
*
35
1
21
6
15
*
38
61
*
1
*
¥
*
»
7
13
1
»
7
6
3
3
11
4
10
4
4
17
4
21
*
21
*
NOTE: * Signifies missing data. Dk= respondents answered don't know. Refused = respondents refused to answer. N = doer
sample size in a specified range of number of minutes spent. A value of 61 for number of minutes signifies that more than 60 minutes
were spent.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis.1996
-------
Table 1 5-26. Number of Minutes Spent Giving and Taking the Bath(s) (minutes/bath)
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Percentiles
N
631
155
476
485
139
476
102
12
12
25
584
39
279
75
275
89
229
159
102
49
132
149
246
104
403
228
173
154
171
133
580
51
606
23
595
34
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
5
10
5
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
5
1
5
1
1
2
3
5
2
4
2
1
5
4
2
4
2
5
2
5
2
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
10
5
2
5
2
4
4
5
5
5
2
5
1
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
8
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
5
5
5
5
5
8
10
10
6
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
6
10
5
6
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
15
25
15
10
15
15
10
10
15
15
15
10
15
10
15
10
10
15
12
10
15
10
10
10
15
11
15
10
10
10
10
15
12
15
15
10
10
15
NOTE: N = doer sample size. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a
number of minutes signifies that more than 60 minutes were spent.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
50
20
15
20
20
15
20
22.5
20
27.5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
20
20
given
75
30
30
30
30
20
30
40
27.5
30
45
30
30
30
30
30
35
30
30
30
25
30
30
35
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
90 95
45 60
45 60
45 60
60 60
40 60
45 60
60 61
30 40
40 61
61 61
45 60
60 61
45 60
35 40
60 60
60 61
45 60
45 60
45 60
40 45
45 60
30 60
60 60
45 60
45 60
60 60
45 60
45 60
60 60
45 60
45 60
60 61
45 60
40 45
45 60
45 45
number of minutes.
98
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
40
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
61
60
60
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
60
99 100
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
40 40
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
60 60
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
60 61
60 60
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
60 60
61 61
60 60
A value of 61 for
-------
Table 15-27. Time Spent in the Bathroom Immediately After the Bath(s) by the
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Age (years)
Rase.
white
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
-------
Table 15-28. Number of Minutes Spent in the Bathroom
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Immediately After the Bath(s) (minutes/bath)
Percentiles
N
624
153
471
484
133
465
104
12
12
26
575
40
277
75
269
86
229
159
100
47
129
146
246
103
398
226
175
152
165
132
572
51
597
24
588
33
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
NOTE: N = doer sample size. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to
number of minutes signifies that more than 60 minutes were spent.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
25
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
2
0
1
2
1
2
3
2
5
2
2
1.5
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
5
2
2
a given
50
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
75
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
7.5
7.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
90
20
12
20
15
30
18
20
10
10
25
20
22.5
15
15
25
30
15
15
19
15
20
15
20
20
18
20
20
20
15
15
20
15
20
15
20
30
95 98
30 45
20 30
30 45
25 40
35 55
30 45
30 40
20 20
15 15
25 61
30 40
25 61
20 30
25 35
35 58
35 61
30 40
30 45
25 30
20 30
30 30
25 50
30 45
20 30
30 40
30 45
30 58
30 40
20 30
20 45
30 45
30 30
30 45
30 55
30 45
40 45
number of minutes. A value
99 100
55 61
35 45
60 61
50 61
60 60
58 61
45 45
20 20
15 15
61 61
50 61
61 61
30 45
40 40
60 61
61 61
45 58
60 60
37.5 45
30 30
30 60
60 60
55 61
45 58
50 61
60 61
61 61
45 60
45 50
55 60
58 61
45 45
58 61
55 55
58 61
45 45
of 61 for
-------
Table 15-29. Total Time Spent Altogether in the Shower or Bathtub by the Number of Respondents
Minutes/Bath
Total *-* 0-0 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 121-121
N
Overall
G%r
»
Age (years)
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
:efused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Emplo
Refused
Education
-------
Table 1 5-30. Total Number of Minutes Spent Altogether in the Shower or Bathtub (minutes/bath)
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Percentiles
N
4252
1926
2325
198
263
239
2904
567
3425
446
74
78
178
3861
328
1974
395
1161
376
1242
862
554
449
920
947
1497
888
2858
1394
1116
1130
1154
852
3911
325
4117
111
4025
205
1
3
3
3
1
4
4
3
2
3
4
5
5
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
4
4
5
5
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
10
10
7
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
25
10
10
10
15
13
10
50 75
15 20
15 20
15 20
20 30
20 30
15 30
10 13.5 20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
spent
15 20
15 20
15 25
15 15
15 30
15 20
15 20
15 20
10 20
15 20
15 20
15 25
15 20
15 20
10 15
10 15
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
15 20
90
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
N = doer sample
95
35
30
40
60
60
45
30
30
30
45
30
45
45
35
45
30
30
35
45
30
30
30
30
35
30
45
30
30
40
35
40
40
30
30
45
35
30
30
45
size.
98 99 100
60 60 121
60 60 121
60 75 121
120 120 120
90 120 121
60 60 120
50 60 121
45 60 120
60 60 121
75 120 121
60 90 90
60 60 60
90 100 120
60 60 121
60 90 120
45 60 121
45 60 60
60 60 121
60 90 121
60 60 121
45 60 120
45 90 120
45 60 121
60 100 121
45 60 120
60 75 121
45 60 121
60 60 121
60 75 121
60 60 121
60 90 121
60 60 121
60 60 121
60 60 121
60 120 121
60 60 121
45 45 60
60 60 121
60 120 121
Percentiles are
-------
Table 15-31. Time Spent in the Bathroom Immediately Following a Shower or Bath by the Number of Respondents
Minutes/Shower or Bath
Total N
0-0 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 70-80 80-90 110-120 121-121
Overall
Gender
'efused
Age (years)
¥
\t
w
Race
White
Black
\sian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
^o
Refused
Employment
;ullTime
^artTime
\lot Emplc
Refusei'
Education
< High School
HigffSchool Graduate
Co
Po
Census Region
SSH
i/lidwes
I9"
Week
;day
•ispn
\/inter
pring
ummer
Fal
Asthma
10
Anina
^'
Bronchitis/Emphysema
4290 108 348 2770 713
1 ^8 1 ^7
210 14T3
i *
250
183
20
ll
134
T
32
I*
3.2
10
f
2JD 3.2
35
t
7
1 f ?
Note: * Signifies missing data. A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent. DK= respondents
answered "don't know". Refused = respondents refused to answer. N = doer sample size in a specified range or number of minutes
spent.
Source: Tsang and Klepeis.
-------
Table 15-32. Number of Minutes Spent in the Bathroom Immediately
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Following
a Shower or Bath
(minutes/bath)
Percentiles
N
4182
1897
2284
196
260
238
2866
548
3372
438
74
76
176
3797
325
1949
392
1129
358
1220
847
550
446
907
929
1472
874
2802
1380
1090
1119
1129
844
3845
322
4052
108
3961
201
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
25 50
4 5
3 5
5 10
0 2
2 5
5 5
5 10
4 10
4 5
4 6
2 5
5 10
3 5
4 5
3 5
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 8
5 5
5 5
3.5 5
3 5
4 5
4 8
5 7
3 5
3 5
5 8
4 5
3 5
4 5
4.5 5.5
4 5
4 10
75
15
10
15
5
10
10
15
15
15
15
10
15
10
15
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
10
15
15
10
10
15
15
10
10
15
15
10
15
12.5
15
10
90
20
15
30
10
15
20
20
20
20
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
30
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
95 98
30 40
20 30
30 45
15 20
15 30
30 45
30 45
30 40
30 40
30 60
30 35
25 30
30 30
30 45
30 30
30 40
30 45
30 45
30 60
30 45
30 30
30 45
30 30
30 30
30 45
30 40
30 45
30 35
30 45
30 45
30 45
30 40
30 35
30 40
30 60
30 40
30 30
30 40
30 60
99 100
60 121
40 121
60 121
35 45
35 120
45 60
60 121
60 120
60 121
60 60
45 45
60 60
30 60
60 121
30 60
60 121
60 120
60 121
90 121
60 121
60 121
45 60
50 120
45 121
60 121
60 121
45 60
50 121
60 121
60 121
50 120
52 120
60 121
60 121
90 121
60 121
30 60
60 121
88 121
minutes were spent. N = doer sample size. Percentiles are
-------
Table 15-33. Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Number of Times/Day
Total N
0-0
1-2
3-5
6-9
10-19 20-29 30+
DK
Overall
Age (years)
:?1_
I
>64
Mite
:k
an
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Emplo
Refused
Education
< High School
HiarrSchool Graduate
< College
College Graduate
PosfGraduate
Census Region
Nfortheast
vlidwest
[eek
vesl
?n
/inter
rin
all
Asthma
'
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
if
4663
38
I7 f
34
f
4
10
311
131
10
23736
1692
Wo6
1106
ft m m3 &
892
302 1627 1
2 8
223
38
11891
205
11136
21;
178
W
1i6o4
1.56^ 1024 QU
W '77' "6S" 21°67 11605
^454*3
3,4 306 1652 1069 851 218 171
1Z2 175
Note: * Signifies missing data. N = doer sample size in a specified range or number of minutes spent. DK= respondents answered
"don't know". Refused = respondents refused to answer.
Source: Tsang and Klepeis.1996
-------
Table 15-34. Number of Minutes Spent (at home) Working or Being Near Food While Fried, Grilled, or Barbequed (minutes/day)
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Percentiles
N
1055
485
570
35
82
82
747
96
848
115
18
16
48
960
84
506
95
252
96
318
208
135
83
198
248
399
210
662
393
267
296
299
193
960
92
1032
19
1005
47
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
0
5
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis. 1996.
5
2
2
2
2
0
2
3
3
2
5
0
5
5
2
2
3
2
3
2
5
3
2
5
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2.5
2
2
0
2
3
10
5
5
5
2
2
4
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
25
10
10
10
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
5
12.5
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
15
10
10
1 20 minutes were
50
20
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
20
20
10
20
30
20
20
20
15
20
22.5
20
20
20
15
15
20
20
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
20
30
20
30
spent.
75 90
30 105
30 90
30 120
30 45
30 60
45 60
40 120
30 60
30 105
30 61
20 121
45 121
60 90
30 90
60 121
45 121
40 90
30 90
52.5 121
30 120
35 121
30 90
30 60
30 90
30 121
40 90
30 60
30 90
30 120
30 60
45 120
30 90
30 121
30 90
60 121
30 95
30 121
30 90
60 121
95
121
121
121
60
90
90
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
N = doer sample size.
98
121
121
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
Percentiles are
-------
Table 1 5-35. Number of Minutes Spent (at home) Working or Being
Near
Open Flames Including Barbeque Flames (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
:>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
479
252
227
14
29
28
372
31
407
31
5
8
22
436
36
262
44
99
27
130
92
95
55
124
112
149
94
284
195
142
115
137
85
443
35
461
15
461
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
10 10
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
5
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
5
10
3
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
3
10 25
2 10
2 10
2 10
0 5
0 5
2 10
3 10
4 5
2 10
2 5
5 20
10 11
5 5
2 10
5 11
2 10
4 5
3 10
3 5
3 10
2 10
5 10
2 10
3 10
3 10
2 5
2 10
3 10
2 10
2 10
3 10
3 10
3 10
2 10
3 15
2 10
2 10
2 10
5 12.5
Note: A value of '121" for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
50 75
20 60
20 60
20 30
10 30
15 30
22.5 42.5
20 60
17 30
20 45
20 30
40 121
22.5 60
30 60
20 42.5
60 90
20 60
15 52.5
20 40
20 60
20 60
30 90
20 40
20 40
15 30
20 45
20 60
20 60
15 30
30 60
20 60
20 60
20 45
20 40
20 45
30 120
20 45
15 60
20 45
37.5 106
90
121
121
121
121
90
60
121
120
121
60
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
95 98
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 90
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
99
121
121
121
121
121
90
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
100
121
121
121
121
121
90
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
spent. N = doer sample size. Percentiles are
-------
Table 1 5-36. Number of Minutes Spent Working or Being
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
5:>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Near
Excessive Dust in the Air (minutes/day)
Percentiles
N
679
341
338
22
50
52
513
38
556
66
7
15
29
611
57
368
66
122
52
199
140
82
76
138
145
227
169
471
208
154
193
193
139
606
73
662
15
637
41
1
0
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0 0.5
0
2
2
0
1
20
5
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
5
1
3
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
Note: A valueof "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
1
5
2
2
3
20
5
3
2
3
5
2
2
5
0
5
2
5
0
2
2
3
1
2
0
1
2
5
2
3
2
3
2
0
5
5
5
5
0
2
2
5
2
5
5
20
5
5
5
3
7
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
10
7
8
5
2
4
5
10
5
8
5
20
10
7
5
10
15
5
8
7
10
20
15
10
5
10
5
10
7
5
5
5
10
10
5
10
7
30
7
5
25
30
30
30
5
15
5
30
50 75
121 121
121 121
121 121
75 121
75 121
20 120
121 121
35 105.5 121
30
20
60
60
20
30
30
37.5
20
30
35
30
60
30
37.5
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
120 minutes were spent.
121 121
121 121
90 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
90 95
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
N = doer sample size.
98
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
Percentiles are
-------
Table 1 5-37. Range of the Number of Times an Automobile or Motor Vehicle was Started
Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Age(years)
?2-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast3
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Anaina
No
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Yes
DK
Note: "*" Signifies missing data; "DK"
sample size.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis. 1996
Total N
2009
1903790
20
I
296
1763
110
11
1879
111
V2
398
919
149
536
7
48247
464
440
if?
702
477
163|63
567
518
399
1861
146
2
1959
1922
84
3
= respondent answered
1-2
1321
733
13
88460
221
1164
1
1239
68
241
610
93
372
5
25692
336
304
201
159
213
430
318
fli
396
336
276
1228
1
1288
*
1266
54
1
don't know; Refused
Times/day
n a Garage or Carport at
3-5 6-9
559
269
2
49
42
367
60
486
1
¥
519
35
127
253
48
129
2
W
107
107
18°86
1642
221
132
386
136
141
IB
514
44
1
545
532
25
2
- the respondent
78
38
1
50
7
69
?
74
4
*
*
20
35
4
19
221
13
20
289
27
14
63
20
25
15
70
3
*
76
74
4
10+
17
170
1
2
1
12
1
17
17
3
9
2
3
*
4
2
5
2
8
5
6
5
5
6
17
*
17
17
*
refused to answer;
Dk
34
20*
3
1 8
7
27
§
*
30
4
*
*
7
12
2
13
|
6
4
2
16
8
20
14
10
11
3°
32
2
*
33
1
33
1
*
N = doer
-------
Table 1 5-38. Range of the Number of Times Motor Vehicle Was Started with Garage Door Closed
at Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Times/day
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Age (years)
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast M
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Anaina
No
If
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Yes
DK
Note: "*" Signifies missing data; "DK" =
to answer.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis. 1996
Total N
2009
1903790
20
I
296
1763
110
46
24
11
1879
111
V2
398
919
149
536
48247
464
440
289
702
477
163|63
567
518
399
1184661
2
1959
If
1922
84
3
None
1830
970
14
99
141
1112874
265
1616
41
21
46
1714
360
840
137
488
o
37847
429
399
270
628
432
152|9
509
470
375
1163f
2
1785
If
1747
80
3
respondents answered don't know;
1-2
99
58
1
18
82
6
4
*
92
7
*
22
46
6
214
223
24
24
12
14
10
42
25
66
32
29
?5
¥
96
*
96
3
N = doer sample
3-5
26
15
11
»
4
2
22
2
*
2
23
*
5
13
2
6
2
8
I
8
9
2J
9
3
31
23
*
26
*
2.6
*
size;
6-9 Dk
2
2
»
1
*
1
1
2
1
1
*
1
1
i
*
2
1
1
i
2
*
2
*
Refused = the
52
29
5
ll
11
42
6
1
2
48
4
*
10
19
4
19
V°
9
8
134
24
11
g
16
16
55
f
50
2
51
1
respondent refused
-------
Table 15-39. Number of Minutes Spent at a Gas Station or Auto Repair Shop (minutes/day)
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N
967
552
414
29
42
57
760
67
788
95
13
22
42
875
82
542
107
186
70
293
213
143
106
167
246
348
206
634
333
236
232
282
217
892
74
947
17
920
45
1
1
2
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
5
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
0
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
5
0
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
5
3
3
2
0
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
5
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
10
4
4
3
0
3
5
4
4
4
3
2
5
4
4
3
4
5
4
4.5
5
4
4
3
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
25 50
5 6
5 7
5 5.5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5.5
5 10
5 7.5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 10
5 6
5 8
5 7
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 8
5 8
5 5
5 7
5 5
5 8
5 6.5
5 8
5 7
5 5
5 6
5 7.5
5 10
5 5
5 7
5 5
5 6
10 10
5 7
5 5
1 20 minutes were spent.
75
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
12
15
10
10
10
10
10
30
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
15
Percentiles
90 95
30 90
30 120
15 30
20 60
15 15
20 30
30 120
15 40
30 120
15 15
10 10
20 30
25 30
30 120
20 35
30 121
30 120
20 40
121 121
30 121
15 60
15 30
15 35
30 121
30 120
20 45
20 70
30 121
15 30
20 60
30 120
30 120
15 35
25 90
30 120
30 90
15 121
25 60
120 120
N = doer sample size
98
121
121
121
121
120
60
121
120
121
20
10
30
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
56
121
121
120
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
120
121
120
10
30
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
90
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
100
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
120
121
120
10
30
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
Percentiles are
-------
Table
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
1 5-40. Number of Minutes Spent at Home While the Windows Were Left Open (minutes/day)
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Percentiles
N 1
1960 2
893 5
1067 2
99 0
159 3
101 2
1282 6
282 1
1558 2
208 3
47 10
44 1
80 2
1775 2
156 20
822 5
190 1
576 5
163 1
542 2
408 5
247 15
216 10
498 3
390 5
494 1
578 2
1285 3
675 2
308 1
661 10
680 10
311 3
1809 2
145 5
1902 3
49 1
1850 2
100 5
2
10
10
10
1
10
5
16
5
10
10
10
1
20
10
20
15
7
10
6
10
15
15
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
2
20
30
5
10
10
10
1
10
15
5
30
30
30
10
20
24
60
30
30
30
16
60
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
60
30
60
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
10
60
180
30
30
60
30
24
30
35
10
180
180
119
180
60
180
180
180
180
180
180
90
60
180
180
180
60
180
90
180
119
100
180
119
180
90
180
180
119
24
180
180
60
180
118
180
30
180
180
25
360
360
360
180
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
180
360
360
180
360
180
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
180
360
600
180
360
360
360
180
360
480
50 75
840 961
840 961
840 961
600 961
600 961
600 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
600 961
600 961
600 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
600 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
360 961
600 961
961 961
600 961
840 961
840 961
840 961
961 961
840 961
961 961
90
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
95
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
98
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
961
99 100
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
961 961
Note: Values of "180", "360", "600","840" and "961" for number of minutes signify that 2-4 hours, 4-8 hours, 8-12 hours, 12-16 hours,
and more than 1 6 hours, respectively, were spent. N = doer sample size. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a
given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 1 5-41 . Number of Minutes the Outside Door Was Left Open While at Home (minutes/day)
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Percentiles
N
1170
505
665
68
109
79
718
180
968
100
23
22
45
1073
81
451
93
362
96
309
225
150
124
223
221
361
365
732
438
184
407
385
194
1072
97
1133
36
1105
63
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
5
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2.5
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
0.5
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5 10
5 10
3 10
5 10
2 10
3 10
3 5
3 10
10 20
5 10
5.5 13
2 60
1 15
5 5
3 10
5 10
3 10
5 15
5 10
2 11
5 10
3 10
1 15
3 5
5 10
2 10
5 10
5 15
5 10
5 10
2 3
5 20
10 30
2 10
5 10
3 6
5 10
3 10
3 10
10 10
25
60
60
60
30
60
60
60
180
60
60
180
30
45
60
45
60
60
60
75
60
60
60
30
90
60
60
60
60
60
10
180
180
30
60
30
60
104.5
60
90
50
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
360
180
180
360
180
180
180
180
180
180
360
360
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
60
360
360
180
180
180
180
360
180
180
75
600
600
600
360
600
360
600
600
600
600
600
600
360
600
360
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
360
600
600
600
180
600
600
360
600
600
600
360
600
600
90 95
600 721
600 721
600 721
721 721
600 600
600 721
600 721
721 721
600 721
600 600
600 721
600 721
600 600
600 721
600 600
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 600
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 600
600 721
721 721
600 600
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 721
600 600
Note: Values of "1 80", "360", "600", and "721 " for number of minutes signify that 2-4 hours, 4-8 hours, 8-1 2 hours,
respectively, were spent. N = doer sample size. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
98
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
660.5
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
600
721
721
600
721
721
721
721
721
721
99 100
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
600 600
721 721
721 721
600 600
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
721 721
and over 12 hours,
number of minutes.
-------
Table 1 5-42. Number of Times an Outside Door Was Opened in the Home at Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Times/Day
Overall
GeMna6~4
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
Note: * Signifies missing data: "D
Source: Tsang and Kletseis, 199f
Total N
1187
511
676
1 Q
68
182
979
12°33
22
46
14
1086
171
255
49f
369
10
267
98
228
225
a?
185
41 7
398
1087
99
1
1147
319
f
1-2
192
80
112
6
35
155
3
Q
3
179
2
40
79
58
1
42
21
48
1
37
44
V66
19
73
28
175
16
1
183
?
K" = respondent answered don't know;
)
3-5
248
96
152
,1
53
193
I
1 1
3
227
46
81
3
48
17
38
54
W
51
94
35
228
20
241
OQf)
2138°
N = sample size
6-9
229
100
129
i
28
188
21
4
21°68
4
43
69
3
46
15
49
39
Vf
211
18
221
§
1
Refused
10-19
267
118
149
I
171
32
233
7
Q
1
2204
?
60
104
80
1
63
18
71
53
50
11
m
42
90
55
245
22
259
258
20+
196
93
103
21
11273
19
168
14
4
Q
*
1185°
1
53
72
52
1
54
20
38
33
19°06
27
73
30
179
17
192
4
186
10
= respondent refused to
DK
55
24
31
1
15
42
6
2
^
3
48
4
*
3
13
10
29
1
14
7
13
5
i4
7
21
20
49
6
51
4
?
answer.
-------
Table 15-43. Number of Minutes Spent Running,
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Walking, or Standing Alongside a Road with Heavy Traffic (minutes/day)
Percentiles
N
401
202
198
12
20
27
304
31
306
51
10
7
24
356
43
214
50
76
18
106
84
79
50
129
83
105
84
303
98
104
114
104
79
370
31
393
8
378
22
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2 5
1 2
1 2
0 1
1 1
10
2
3
2
2
1 1.5 2
0 2
1 1
2 2
1 2
0 1
3 3
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 2
1 1
0.5 2
1 2
4 4
1 2
0 1
1 1
1 2
1 2
0 1
0 1
2 2
0 2
1 2
0 1
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
0 1
1 2
2 2
1 1
2 5
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
2
2
4
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
5
25
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
3
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5.5
6
5
5.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.5
6
5
5
5
5
5
6.5
5
5
50
15
17.5
10
7.5
6
5
15
20
15
7
7.5
10
17.5
15
10
15
15
15
10
15
20
15
10
20
10
15
15
15
15
10
20
10
20
15
15
15
17.5
15
17.5
1 20 minutes were spenl
75
30
45
30
30
12.5
30
30
45
30
30
15
45
40
30
30
30
30
30
15
60
40
30
20
50
20
30
30
30
30
20
60
30
35
30
30
30
30
30
30
. N =
90
60
120
60
60
25
60
90
60
110
50
17.5
121
60
90
60
120
90
60
30
121
120
60
52.5
120
60
90
60
60
121
60
120
60
120
60
120
90
60
60
121
95
121
121
120
60
60
90
121
121
121
60
20
121
60
121
120
121
121
110
121
121
121
90
90
121
121
121
120
120
121
110
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
121
121
98
121
121
121
60
90
120
121
121
121
60
20
121
120
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
121
121
doer sample size.
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 60
90 90
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
20 20
121 121
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
Percentiles
-------
Table 15-44. Number of Minutes Spent in a
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
Car, Van,
Truck, or
Bus in
Heavy Traffic (minutes/day)
Percentiles
N
1197
534
663
33
63
52
889
139
959
133
20
24
55
1097
95
659
108
279
81
352
276
176
150
229
263
429
276
927
270
286
317
312
282
1108
89
1159
35
1130
64
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
3
1
2
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
3
2
3
2
3
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
0
2
1
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10 10
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
3
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
2
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
25
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
15
10
10
11
12.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
12.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
20
20
25
15
20
12.5
25
30
25
20
20
30
20
20
20
30
20
30
20
30
30
30
20
20
30
30
20
20
25
20
30
30
20
20
30
20
30
20
27.5
75
60
60
60
30
45
27.5
60
60
60
40
30
60
60
60
90
60
48.5
60
40
60
60
60
60
60
45
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
45
60
60
60
70
60
51
1 20 minutes were spent. N =
90
120
120
120
60
60
90
120
121
120
90
45
90
120
120
121
120
121
120
121
120
120
120
97.5
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
121
120
121
120
120
95 98
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 121
120 121
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
52.5 60
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
doer sample size.
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
Percentiles
-------
Table 1 5-45. Number of Minutes Spent in a Parking Garage or Indoor Parking
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
Lot (minutes/day)
Percentiles
N
294
138
156
8
15
20
229
18
208
34
15
7
28
251
39
171
23
58
13
58
54
72
50
53
59
92
90
208
86
67
78
85
64
263
30
291
2
281
12
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
3
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
5
1
1
1
0
1
0 0.5
1
0
1
0
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
3
1
2
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
2
0
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
5
1
0
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
10
2
2
2
0
2
1.5
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
5
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
5
25
3
4
3
2
3
2
5
3
3
5
2
3
4.5
3
5
3
5
4
5
3
4
4.5
5
5
3
3.5
4
3
5
3
3
5
4.5
3
4
4
3
3
5
50
5
5
5
3.5
5
7.5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
5
10
10
9.5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
7
5
5.5
5
5
5
7
5
46.5
5
5.5
1 20 minutes were spent.
75 90
10 30
15 60
10 20
5 10
10 45
15 45
10 30
15 45
10 30
15 20
60 120
15 121
20 60
10 30
30 121
10 30
10 30
20 40
10 30
30 90
15 40
10 15
10 12.5
10 30
10 30
10 30
15 45
10 30
15 30
10 20
15 60
15 30
10 30
10 30
10 30
10 30
90 90
10 30
10 60
95
60
121
40
10
60
90.5
60
90
60
30
121
121
120
60
121
60
60
120
121
121
120
60
20
90
60
60
60
60
60
30
120
90
45
60
121
60
90
60
120
98
121
121
60
10
60
121
121
90
121
30
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
120
40
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
90
121
120
99 100
121 121
121 121
120 121
10 10
60 60
121 121
121 121
90 90
121 121
30 30
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
90 90
121 121
120 120
N = doer sample size. Percentiles
-------
Table 1 5-46. Number of Minutes Spent Walking Outside to a Car in the Driveway or Outside Parking Areas (minutes/day)
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Percentiles
N
3303
1511
1791
132
245
202
2303
373
2756
279
53
63
127
3029
235
1613
312
785
241
935
680
445
381
680
763
1149
711
2209
1094
855
890
903
655
3063
234
3219
72
3132
162
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
25
2
2
2
1.5
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
5
4
5
2
2
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1 20 minutes were spent
75
10
10
10
5
5
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
N
90
20
20
20
15
15
20
20
15
20
10
15
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
15
20
20
15
20
15
20
15
20
20
95 98
30 60
30 60
30 60
20 30
30 45
30 30
30 60
30 30
30 60
20 30
30 32
30 60
60 120
30 60
60 120
30 60
45 120
30 60
30 110
30 60
30 60
30 60
25 30
30 60
30 60
30 60
30 60
30 60
30 60
30 30
30 100
30 60
30 45
30 60
30 120
30 60
30 45
30 60
30 110
= doer sample size.
99 100
121 121
121 121
60 121
60 121
80 121
60 121
120 121
88 121
120 121
45 88
45 45
120 120
121 121
120 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
60 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
60 121
120 121
90 121
120 121
90 121
120 121
120 121
120 121
100 121
120 121
60 121
110 121
120 121
121 121
120 121
110 110
120 121
121 121
Percentiles
-------
Table 1 5-47. Number of Minutes Spent Running or Walking
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (yeaars) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) 5:> 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race 5:hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Outside Other Than to the Car (minutes/day)
Percentiles
N
1273
605
668
82
149
110
772
143
1051
111
21
23
55
1156
99
517
112
300
97
287
234
153
138
265
286
412
310
843
430
312
403
396
162
1162
105
1240
25
1204
62
1
1
2
0
3
4
5
0
1
1
0
2
5
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
5
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
5
3
5
2
5
5
5
2
2
3
3
10
10
8
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
5
3
3
5
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
2
3
5
3
5
3
4
10
5
10
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
10
15
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5.5
5
5
5
10
10
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
25
15
20
15
30
30
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
15
20
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
15
20
15
15
15
15
20
10
20
20
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
50
45
60
30
120
120
60
30
30
45
35
30
60
40
45
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
37.5
45
40
45
45
40
60
42.5
60
55
30
45
45
45
45
45
30
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than 1 20 minutes were spent
are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
75 90
120 121
121 121
116 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
60 121
121 121
120 121
70 120
121 121
90 121
120 121
121 121
120 121
90 121
120 121
90 121
120 121
120 121
120 121
90 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
121 121
90 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
95
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
98
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
N = doer sample size.
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 21
121 21
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 21
121 21
121 121
121 21
121 121
121 21
121 21
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
Percentiles
-------
Table 15-48
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Number of Hours Spent Working for Pay (hours/week)
Percentiles
N 1
4896 0
2466 0
2430 0
0 A
0
14 0
4625 0
181 0
3990 0
499 0
76 0
87 0
194 0
4494 0
341 0
4094 0
802 0
0 A
308 0
Education High School Graduate 1598 0
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
1251 0
954 0
716 0
1096 0
1118 0
1675 0
1007 0
3306 0
1590 0
1306 0
1197 0
1343 0
1050 0
4579 0
302 0
4811 0
66 0
4699 0
182 0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
12
18
6
1
15
0
10
18
7
0
15
12
8
30
0
1
12
15
16
10
14
12
12
9
10
12
10
15
3
14.5
12
9
12
0
12
6
25
33
40
28
9
35
5
32
35
36.5
30
32
33
32
40
10
21
32
30
40
35
32
32
35
30
33
33
32
35
33
32
34
30
34
20
33
30
50
40
40
40
18.5
40
21
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
20
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
75
50
53
43
24
50
40
50
46
50
50
48
50
50
50
30
48
48
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
48
50
50
48
50
50
48
50
44
50
48
90
60
61
55
26
60
50
60
60
61
60
60
60
60
60
38
61
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
6
60
95
61
61
60
31
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
40
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
Note: * Signifies missing data. A value of "61 " for number of hours signifies that more than 60 hours were spent. N
Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of hours.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
98
61
61
61
31
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
99 100
61 61
61 61
61 61
31 31
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
= doer sample size.
-------
Table 15-49. Number of Hours Spent Working for Pay Between 6PM and 6AM (hours/week)
Category Population Group ..
Overall 4894
Gender Male 2465
Gender Female 2429
Age (years) 1 -4 0
Age (years) 5-1 1 0
Age (years) 12-17 14
Age (years) 18-64 4623
Age (years) > 64 181
Race White 3989
Race Black 499
Race Asian 75
Race Some Others 87
Race Hispanic 194
Hispanic No 4492
Hispanic Yes 341
Employment Full Time 4092
Employment Part Time 802
Employment Not Employed 0
Education < High School 308
Education High School Graduate 1597
Education < College 1251
Education College Graduate 953
Education Post Graduate 71 6
Census Region Northeast 1096
Census Region Midwest 1118
Census Region South 1674
Census Region West 1 006
Day of Week Weekday 3306
Day of Week Weekend 1588
Season Winter 1305
Season Spring 1197
Season Summer 1342
Season Fall 1 050
Asthma No 4578
Asthma Yes 301
Angina No 4809
Angina Yes 66
Bronchitis/Emphysema No 4697
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes 182
Percentiles
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: A Value of "61 " for number of hours signifies that more than 60 hours were spent.
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of hours.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
50
0
0
0
0
0
4.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
8
10
5
0
0
20
8
0
8
10
12
7
15
8
13
8
6
0
11
8
9
8
7
7
10
7
10
8
7
8
8
9
7
8
8
8
7
8
10
90
30
35
20
0
0
24
30
20
25
40
30
25
35
27
35
30
20
0
50
35
26
20
20
24
30
30
30
30
28
28
30
30
25
30
28
30
36
30
40
N = doer sample size
95
45
50
39
0
0
25
42
61
40
61
61
45
48
40
50
45
35
0
61
50
40
40
30
40
42
48
47
48
40
40
48
48
40
45
36
44
40
43
50
98
61
61
61
0
0
25
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
0
61
61
60
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
99
61
61
61
0
0
25
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
0
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
100
61
61
61
0
0
25
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
0
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
Percentiles are the
-------
Table 1 5-50. Number of Hours Worked in a Week That Was Outdoors (hours/week)
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
Percentiles
N 1
4891 0
2463 0
2428 0
0 0
0 0
14 0
4621 0
181 0
3986 0
499 0
75 0
87 0
194 0
4489 0
341 0
4090 0
801 0
0 0
308 0
High School Graduate 1594 0
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
1251 0
953 0
716 0
1094 0
1117 0
1674 0
1006 0
3305 0
1586 0
1305 0
1195 0
1341 0
1050 0
4576 0
300 0
4806 0
66 0
4694 0
182 0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NOTE: A value of "61 " for number of hours signifies that more than
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of hours.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis.1996
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lours were spent
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
75
1
16
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
2
1
2
2
0
0
16.5
6
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
4
1
2
90 95
30 50
42 60
2 12
0 0
0 0
0 0
30 50
29 60
30 50
25 48
3 30
17 40
30 50
30 48
35 60
35 50
15 30
0 0
55 61
40 60
30 46
20 35
4 15
25 40
30 50
32 55
33 50
32 50
30 48
25 50
30 50
36 50
30 45
30 50
31 50
30 50
35 50
30 50
30 60
= doer sample size.
98
61
61
55
0
0
0
61
61
61
61
40
48
61
61
61
61
61
0
61
61
61
50
60
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
99 100
61 61
61 61
61 61
0 0
0 0
0 0
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
0 0
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
Percentiles are the
-------
Table 15-51 . Number of Times Floors Were Swept or Vacuumed at Specified Frequencies
by the Number of Respondents
Number of Times
I0lam Almost Every
Overall
GMa\ef
Female
Refused
Age (years)
5-1 1
1 2-1 7
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian ™
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
BP
Angina
4
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
If
Note: * Signifies missing data; DK
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996
4663
2163
2498
2
84
348
326
2972
670
3774
96
193
60
I?
|267
|099
1021
445
1048
978
3156
1507
4287
33451
4152°5°
38
W
921
415
505
1
1 6
96
115
82
524
88
641
1 67
26
68
8
290
28|6
314
34
236
631
290
268
?i
821
fl2
8
871
= respondent answered
Day 3-5/week 1 -2/week
1108
520
588
0
74
107
83
723
110
879
115
61
9
907
10
267
26o3
285
75
230
765
343
309
1?
1013
1080
5
1064
don't know; N
2178
976
1201
1
8*8
120
144
1420
365
1 868
150
32
55
34
2i°i3o5
22
342
1
384
257
484
1458
720
557
1
2030
2098
63
17
¥
= sample size;
1-2/month < Often
373
201
172
0
12
6
1 5
252
84
324
19
7
7
f
24
1
4
31
67
83
111
248
125
105
96
351
3562
5
349
Refused
48
27
21
0
3
o
2
34
9
2
1
433
}
227
1o8
4
6
9
8
10
u
33
15
15
12
39
424
2
44
Never
10
5
5
0
0
o
o
6
4
3
2
§
0
0
§
0
0
e
0
0
2
4
5
5
2
4
10
8
0°
0
9
0
DK
25
19
6
0
1
0
0
13
10
1 8
5
0
0
1
2o5
8
1
1
3
f
3
5
16
9
3
I
23
1
2o4
1
T
= respondent refused to answer.
-------
Table 1 5-52. Number of Days Since the Floor Area in the Home Was Swept or Vacuumed by the Number of Respondents
Number of Days since That Area Was Swept-vacuumed
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
Dk
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
Dk
Angina
No
Yes
Dk
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
Dk
Total 0
N
9386 8112
4294 3688
5088 4421
4 3
187 180
499 67
703 393
589 533
6059 5592
1349 1347
7591 6586
945 825
157 138
182 141
385 300
126 122
8534 7421
702 549
47 42
103 100
1773 974
4096 3826
802 741
2644 2502
71 69
1968 1162
834 793
2612 2447
1801 1681
1247 1155
924 874
2075 1793
2102 1826
3243 2805
1966 1688
6316 5487
3070 2625
2524 2144
2438 2112
2536 2187
1888 1669
8629 7455
694 596
63 61
9061 7793
250 246
75 73
8882 7645
433 397
71 70
Swept-
Vacuumed
Yes'day
550
245
304
1
1
199
121
30
198
1
398
72
5
21
52
2
460
88
1
1
349
96
28
77
0
353
24
76
55
28
14
129
108
193
120
366
184
162
121
167
100
502
48
0
547
2
1
536
13
1
1 2
278 189
136 100
142 89
0 0
0 3
93 54
70 50
12 6
102 76
1 0
232 152
18 17
6 2
7 9
15 9
0 0
248 170
29 17
1 1
0 1
175 112
64 50
10 8
29 18
0 1
175 114
13 2
39 26
25 18
19 17
7 12
65 35
59 47
87 75
67 32
160 125
118 64
79 61
90 48
68 41
41 39
262 171
15 17
1 1
277 189
1 0
0 0
268 182
10 7
0 0
Note: * Signifies missing data, DK = respondents answered don't
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996
3
85
35
50
0
1
24
23
3
34
0
72
7
2
2
2
0
80
5
0
0
50
21
6
8
0
50
1
9
10
10
5
18
21
26
20
57
28
27
19
26
13
80
5
0
83
1
1
84
1
0
know;
4
63
37
26
0
0
19
22
0
22
0
55
3
1
1
2
1
57
4
1
1
41
18
2
2
0
41
0
7
6
5
4
4
17
27
15
51
12
17
19
19
8
59
4
0
63
0
0
61
2
0
N= sample
5
31
19
12
0
0
17
8
0
6
0
29
1
0
0
0
1
29
2
0
0
25
6
0
0
0
25
0
1
0
3
2
9
7
8
7
18
13
7
9
12
3
30
1
0
31
0
0
31
0
0
size;
6 7
17 26
8 10
9 16
0 0
0 0
9 7
2 4
1 2
5 13
0 0
14 24
2 0
0 1
0 0
1 1
0 0
15 24
2 2
0 0
0 0
12 13
4 6
0 4
1 3
0 0
12 13
0 0
2 0
1 3
1 7
1 3
9 6
2 6
3 8
3 6
13 15
4 11
3 13
7 4
3 3
4 6
13 22
4 4
0 0
17 26
0 0
0 0
17 25
0 1
0 0
Refused =
8
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
10
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
14
5
3
2
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
2
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
>2
Weeks Dk
16 11
7 5
9 6
0 0
1 1
6 1
2 5
2 0
5 4
0 0
13 8
0 0
1 1
1 0
1 2
0 0
14 8
1 3
1 0
0 0
9 7
4 0
1 1
1 3
1 0
10 7
0 1
2 2
2 0
1 1
1 0
5 2
2 2
5 4
4 3
11 6
5 5
5 5
5 2
4 3
2 1
16 11
0 0
0 0
16 11
0 0
0 0
15 10
1 1
0 0
respondent refused to answer.
-------
Table 1 5-53. Number of Loads of Laundry Washed in a
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
&
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
NO
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Total N
1762
678
1083
1
30
109
141
127
1161
194
1511
112
22
31
Do
1615
126
6
15
369
734
482
17
413
133
508
321
212
175
||
361
1172
590
458
357
1615
140
7
1710
40
12
1658
8
Note: * Signifies missing data: "DK" =
Source: Tsana And Kleoeis, 1996
Washing Machine at Home by the Number of Respondents
Number of Loads/Day
1
582
219
363
9
29
39
385
82
513
27
7
8
f
8
102
259
15588
5
118
44
175
105
83
57
ii
141
418
164
154
154
548
31
3
564
14
4
544
36
2
2
604
241
363
14
36
52
376
71
519
41
4
12
54526
2
4
143
244
15538
6
160
44
166
101
68
65
il
107
409
195
159
120
545
56
3
592
9
3
572
28
4
3
303
120
183
2
24
18
254
23
3
5
22761
4
2
71
128
23
79
2
77
22
85
61
32
26
1760
60
194
109
73
58
274
28
1
294
7
2
285
16
2
4
123
41
82
3
12
8
10
80
10
101
11
5
1
5
185
*
*
29
42
10
41
1
32
10
35
25
11
10
39
19
62
61
31
26
105
18
113
8
2
112
11
*
respondent answered don't know;
5
55
17
38
1
5
•]
35
7
48
4
1
2
55°
*
*
12
20
8
15
*
12
4
18
9
8
4
13
tf
11
29
26
14
10
20
50
5
54
1
53
2
6
27
8
19
»
2
"|
22
23
1
1
2
f
*
5
10
8
1
6
3
8
3
4
3
5
9
17
10
6
10
27
*
26
1
26
1
N= sample size;
7
11
*
10
1
»
*
1
*
9
1
1 1
11
1
5
*
5
1
2
3
2
3
3
*
4
3
3
4
1 1
*
*
1 1
*
*
10
1
*
Refused
8 9
12 1
1
12 *
« «
* *
1
11 *
* *
12 1
* *
* *
* *
* *
1.2 1
* *
* *
1 1
4 *
6 *
* *
1 1
* *
4
5
1
1
6 1*
4
1
7 1
5
4 1
3 *
12 1
* *
12 1
* *
12 1
* *
* *
10
5
1
4
»
1
1
3
3
1
*
1
4
*
*
2
2
1
*
2
*
2
1
3
2
4
3
1
1
5
*
5
*
5
*
= respondent refused to
>10 DK
1 38
30
1 8
* 1
1
1
* 5
26
* 4
* 3
* 3
1
1 1
: f
1 *
2
* 20
1 10
2
3
* 4
14
1 7
* 5
5
i ft
11
1 26
12
1 9
11
8
10
1 36
* 2
1 37
1
1 37
1
* *
answer.
-------
Table 1 5-54. Number of Times Using a Dishwasher at Specified Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
1-4
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
NO
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
If
Note: * Signifies missing data: "DK"
Source: Tsanq And Klepeis, 1996
2635 1
1235
1399 1
1
35
145
137208 1
2267 1
163
54
45
84 :
2444 1
164
11
16
552
1191 *
678 1
10
593
124 1
582
560
446
330
11 :
630 1
1768 1
867
711
539 *
2439 1
189
7
2570 1
60
5
2533 1
993
= respondent answered
Number of Times/Week
Almost Every Day 3-5/Week
557
259
298
4
9
65
504
19
7
9
524
27
2
4
49
276
181
55
29
153
144
105
71
2|
108
378
179
144
134
521
35
1
538
I?
540
16
don't know; N= sample
678
282
396
13
4
5!
603
32
8
8
635
32
2
9
45
359
70
200
4
51
27
173
181
134
112
230
153
466
212
175
137
622
54
2
664
11
3
646
¥
1-2/Week
529
247
282
11
3
1
487
19
7
1
504
21
2
2
46
298
55
26
114
117
126
91
95
169
155
341
188
149
114
492
35
2
512
16
1
504
<1-2/Week
824
417
406
1
6
118
70
637
90
31
24
739
79
5
1
382
249
1 55
*
400
41
132
117
80
54
il
201
549
275
223
OOQ
?48
765
58
1
809
14
1
796
217
DK
46
30
16
1
11
I
4
35
3
1
3
4
41
5
*
30
9
5
*
32
10
1
2
261
12
33
13
20
14
38
7
1
46
*
46
*
*
size; Refused = respondent refused to answer.
-------
Table 1 5-55. Number of Times Washing Dishes by Hand at Specified Frequencies by the
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
Mi,
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
NO
Sf
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * Signifies missing
Source: Tsana And Klep
Total N
3626
1554
2071
65
587
2928
385
61
67
13487
3322
258
21
25
328
1765
f5
386
354
1106
796
832
811
1214
769
2474
1152
1
3345
263
18
3501
12°05
3146f
19
data. "DK"
eis, -f996
* Almost Every
1 2600
982
1 1618
* 51
1 1979
501
1 2114
261
* 48
1 2383
185
16
16
* 71
1 ^
101
298
1 856
* 606
1 840
555
1759
1 841
i |
1 2407
179
14
2499
i n
i
15
= respondent answered don't know;
Number of Times/Week
Number of Respondents
3-5/Week 1-2/Week <1-2/Week DK
490 326
264 183
225 143
1 *
6 2
1
14 33
3759 26091
46 20
391 257
61 40
6 3
9 9
16?
454 296
32 25
* 3
4 2
57 102
284 145
44 1 7
104
65 107
26 15
140 74
116 57
i?
175 124
111 61
335 236
155 90
|| §
455 290
33 34
2 2
475 321
^
460 314
3 1
N= sample size; Refused
197 12
117 8
80 4
6 *
15 5
157 8
21 2
4 *
8 2
178 10
14 2
2
3
97 1
?8 i
4
112 1
12 3
30 5
16 1
13
14 2
70 4
39 3
136 8
61 4
1 I
183 9
1*4 ?
194 12
? :
192 12
= respondent refused to answer.
-------
Table 15-56. Number of Times for Washing Clothes
in a Washing Machine at Specified Frequencies by the Number of Respondents
Number of Times/Week
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
T
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Total N
4663
2163
2498
2
84
263
348
326
2972
670
3774
463
77
96
193
60
4244
347
26
46
926
2017
379
1309
32
1021
399
1253
895
650
445
1048
1036
1601
978
3156
1507
1264
1181
1275
943
4287
341
35
4500
125
38
4424
203
36
Note: * Signifies missing data: "DK" =
Source: Tsang And Klepeis, 1996
*
404
212
191
1
3
261
101
1
31
7
316
39
4
16
29
*
342
59
2
1
366
21
6
10
1
367
3
14
3
12
5
84
88
147
85
257
147
121
122
102
59
371
32
1
403
1
397
7
Almost Every
Day
566
211
355
*
6
*
2
22
489
47
499
33
1
10
19
4
528
31
3
4
23
305
64
170
4
33
61
218
126
78
50
119
108
229
110
407
159
157
135
163
111
522
42
2
555
8
3
549
15
2
respondent answered don't know;
3-5 /Day 1 -2/week
1033
458
575
*
11
*
4
29
832
157
883
72
12
15
41
10
950
69
6
8
32
569
101
326
5
37
88
367
261
171
109
216
229
376
212
697
336
273
259
280
221
951
79
3
993
37
3
979
51
3
N= sample size
1827
811
1015
1
47
16
83
1328
353
1445
207
39
36
77
23
1674
130
10
13
97
929
166
628
7
129
178
548
432
321
219
454
408
557
408
1217
610
472
464
484
407
1700
118
9
1759
58
10
1724
92
11
; Refused
<1/week
331
154
177
*
3
*
15
67
197
49
246
52
13
8
10
2
307
20
3
1
76
119
29
105
2
89
40
55
51
57
39
81
78
97
75
232
99
101
82
88
60
303
26
2
321
7
3
315
14
2
Never
465
300
165
*
2
1
206
124
83
49
370
55
8
11
17
4
424
38
2
1
327
66
13
58
1
343
27
47
19
9
20
87
121
182
75
320
145
129
113
142
81
421
43
1
451
13
1
441
23
1
= respondent refused to
DK
37
17
20
*
12
1
4
12
8
15
5
*
*
17
19
*
18
5
8
*
12
12
23
2
4
3
2
3
7
4
13
13
26
11
11
6
16
4
19
1
17
18
2
17
19
1
17
answer.
-------
Table 15-57.
Number of Minutes Spent
Playing on Sand or Gravel in a Day by the Number of Respondents
Minutes/Day
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refusedused
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
Note: "*" = Signifies missinc
number of minutes spent. A
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis.
Total N
700
352
347
1
3
216
200
41
237
3
568
68
5
16
41
2
619
77
3
1
461
149
29
60
1
461
22
73
66
54
24
124
128
273
175
445
255
107
240
262
91
638
61
1
699
1
679
21
*.*
41
18
23
*
1
13
7
1
18
1
34
4
*
2
*
36
5
*
*
22
9
2
7
1
22
5
4
2
4
4
8
6
17
10
35
6
10
8
12
11
38
3
*
40
1
41
*
0-0
348
189
158
1
*
115
96
23
112
2
274
42
2
9
19
2
309
36
2
1
234
73
10
31
*
234
9
39
34
26
6
60
69
133
86
216
132
44
113
146
45
319
28
1
348
*
339
9
0-10 10-20 20-30
42 34
20 13
22 21
* *
* 1
15 9
11 12
1 2
15 10
* *
37 30
5 3
* *
* *
1
* *
41 29
1 4
1
* *
27 24
7 7
4 1
4 2
* *
27 24
* *
4 1
6 2
3 3
2 4
8 5
8 6
18 12
8 11
27 22
15 12
9 6
21 14
5 9
7 5
39 34
3
* *
42 34
* *
41 34
1 *
57
25
32
*
*
15
14
4
24
*
49
2
1
*
5
49
8
*
*
33
16
2
6
*
33
3
8
6
6
1
7
14
25
11
40
17
11
22
20
4
51
6
57
*
54
3
30-40 40-50 50-60
4 12
7
4 5
* *
* *
2 3
5
* *
2 4
* *
2 9
1
* *
2
2
* *
4 10
2
* *
* *
2 8
1 3
1
1
* *
2 8
* *
1
2
1 2
4
2
3 3
1 3
3 10
1 2
1 2
1 3
2 5
2
4 10
2
* *
4 12
* *
4 12
* *
data. "DK" = Don't know. Refused = refused to answer. N =
value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
1996.
66
32
34
*
*
15
25
3
23
*
57
4
1
1
3
59
7
*
*
43
17
4
2
*
43
1
6
6
7
3
16
11
30
9
37
29
8
25
25
8
57
9
66
*
62
4
70-80 80-90 90-100
2 9
7
2 2
* *
* *
1 5
1 2
* *
2
* *
1 8
* *
* *
* *
1 1
* *
1 7
1 2
* *
* *
2 7
2
* *
* *
* *
2 7
* *
* i
* *
1
1
2
3
2 3
2 6
3
2 1
2
5
1
2 9
* *
* *
2 9
* *
2 9
* *
2
1
1
*
*
*
1
1
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
2
*
*
*
2
*
2
*
*
2
*
2
*
= Doer sample size in specified
1 20 minutes were spent.
110-120
27
10
17
*
*
7
6
3
11
*
21
3
*
*
3
23
4
*
*
16
6
2
3
*
16
2
2
4
*
3
6
3
6
12
17
10
4
12
9
2
22
5
27
*
26
1
range of
121
56
30
26
*
1
16
20
3
16
*
44
4
1
3
4
49
7
*
*
41
8
3
4
*
41
2
7
4
2
9
7
21
19
28
28
9
19
22
6
51
5
56
*
53
3
-------
Table 1 5-58. Number of Minutes Spent Playing in
Sand or Gravel
(minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
N
659
334
324
203
193
40
219
2
534
64
5
15
39
583
72
140
27
53
17
High School Graduate 69
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
64
50
20
116
122
256
165
410
249
97
232
250
80
600
58
659
638
21
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 20 minutes were spent.
50
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
15
0
1.5
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
30
N =
75 90
45 120
45 120
60 120
30 120
60 121
45 120
45 120
0 0
50 120
15 120
60 121
60 121
60 121
45 120
60 120
45 105
60 121
30 120
60 121
30 121
37.5 120
30 60
60 120
60 120
30 60
45 120
60 121
40 120
60 121
45 120
52.5 120
60 120
30 105
45 120
60 120
45 120
45 120
60 121
95 98
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
0 0
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 121
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
0 0
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
doer sample size. Percentiles
-------
Table 15-59. Number of Minutes Spent Playing in Outdoors on Sand, Gravel, Dirt, or Grass
When Fill Dirt Was Present by the Number of Respondents
Minutes/Day
Total N *-*
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
Ik
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
If
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Anngina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Yes
700
352
347
1
3
lv
3
568
68
5
46
2
3
1
461
60
461
22
124
128
2>i
107
240
91
638
61
1
699
679
21
53
26
27
*
*
!l
23
1
40
8
*
5
f
*
29
V
?
29
5
|
6
12
?i
ft
14
10
12
48
5
53
52
1
0-0
380
1 83
1 96
1
*
1
2
317
33
2
17
1
345
*
240
91
32
240
9
14
70
77
18503
?i
51
134
15423
354
25
1
380
368
12
0-10
51
22
29
*
1
'1
19
40
5
5
*
f
*
32
§
32
\
13
6
?7
6
1 7
99
47
4
51
5.1
10-20 20-30
29
1 8
1 1
*
*
10
*
21
*
%
*
I
*
20
§
1
20
!
3
7
V2
281
160
12
25
4
29
28
1
48
33
1 5
*
*
13
38
2
i
1
f
1
35
2
35
3
4
5
10
?§
ft
5
20
49
41
7
48
46
2
30-40
1
*
1
*
1
*
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
1
*
1
*
*
*
1
1
*
1
1
*
1
1
40-50 50-60 70-80
6 60 7
3 24 5
3 36 2
* * *
1
4 If 4
i 3> i
5 48 5
1 7 1
* * *
* 4 1
? f ?
* * *
5 40 6
1 122 1
: f :
5 40 6
. 2
3
18 1
1 7 2
3 17 4
1 i ?
272
2 21 2
1 ¥ ?
5 50 7
1 1JD *
6 60 6
5 57 7
1 3
80-90
1
1
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
1
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
.
1
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
1
1
*
*
1
1
*
1
1
110-120
21
1 6
5
*
*
\
*
15
3
*
3
V
*
18
3
*
18
1
1
1
2
2
1?
2
1 0
?
19
2
2.1
2.1
Note: "*" Signifies missing data. "DK"k = Respondents answered don't know. Refused = Respondents refused to answer. N =
sample size in specified range of number of minutes spent. A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than 1 20
were spent.
121
43
21
2.2
1
9
38
2
1
2
f
*
35
5
2
35
2
6
4
28
ft
12
1 3
35
40
3
43
42
1
Doer
minutes
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 1 5-60. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Sand, Gravel,
Dirt
or Grass When Fill Dirt Was Present (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Cateaorv
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
N
647
326
320
205
185
38
214
2
528
60
5
16
36
574
69
138
25
52
17
High School Graduate 67
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
62
51
18
118
116
250
163
406
241
93
230
245
79
590
56
646
627
20
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 20 minutes were spent.
50
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
30
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
N =
75 90
30 100
30 120
30 60
30 120
30 120
30 60
15 60
0 0
30 120
30 74
30 121
20 40
60 120
30 90
30 120
15 60
10 60
10 60
60 121
10 60
15 60
15 30
0 60
30 60
20 60
30 90
60 121
30 88
30 120
45 121
30 105
30 90
10 60
30 110
60 60
30 100
30 120
37.5 60
95 98
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 120
120 121
0 0
121 121
120 121
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
60 121
60 121
121 121
88 120
60 121
60 121
120 120
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
90.5 121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 120
121 121
0 0
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
doer sample size. Percentiles
-------
Table 15-61 . Range of the Time Spent Working in a Garden or Other Circumstances in a Month by the Number of Respondents
Hours/Month
Total N
Overall 4663
Gender
Male 2163
Female 2498
Refused 2
Age (years)
* 84
1-4 263
5-1 1 348
12-17 326
i86-r
Race
White 3774
Black 463
Asian 77
Some Others 96
Hispanic 193
Refused 60
Hispanic
No 4244
Yes 347
DK 26
Refused 46
Employment
Full Time 2017
Part Time 379
Not Employed 1 309
Refused 32
Education
1021
< High School 399
High School 1253
Graduate 895
< College 650
College Graduate 445
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast 1048
Midwest 1 036
South 1601
West 978
Day of Week
Weekday 31 56
Weekend 1 507
Season
Winter 1264
Spring 1181
Summer 1275
Fall 943
Asthma
No 4287
Yes 341
DK 35
Angina
No 4500
Yes 125
DK 38
Bronchitis/emphysema
No 4424
Yes 203
DK 36
*-* 0-0
91 2928
38 1309
53 1618
1
11 51
7 189
7 225
5 236
% ^
1 50
2 64
6 126
14 34
65 2669
11 218
1 18
14 23
19 638
18 1235
4 234
39 808
11 13
34 699
18 263
25 770
11 545
1 406
2 245
17 714
23 687
1 6 538
29 99462
39 690
14 586
70 2697
6 216
15 15
74 2825
4 86
13 17
72 2766
5 146
14 16
0-24
1312
628
683
1
17
55
100
75
1128
25
23
50
9
1206
94
5
7
230
600
120
354
8
246
86
355
265
200
160
259
273
334
422
4734
421
286
1206
101
5
1277
29
6
1265
43
4
24-48
145
77
68
*
4
9
6
127
1
2
5
1
135
9
*
1
20
68
1
22
11
41
33
19
19
24
19
96
49
50
56
19
135
10
143
1
1
140
5
*
48-72
81
41
40
2
3
4
1
52
f
2
1
1
73
6
1
1
8
35
3%
8
9
22
18
12
12
12
18
27
290
33
19
77
4
77
3
1
77
2
2
Note: * Signifies missing data. DK = respondents answered don't know.
specified range of number of minutes spent.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis,1996
72-96 96-120 120-
28
16
1*2
2
2
*
186
232
*
1
2
25
3
*
2
12
£
3
4
9
6
3
3
4
5
V
10
|
12
3
27
1
28
*
27
1
Refused
144
23 1
9 1
14 *
1
2 *
1
136 1
21 1
* *
* *
1
1
20 1
3 *
* *
3
9 1
! :
3
4
7
3
5
1 1
8
3
7 1
185 1
7 *
9 1
4
23 1
* *
21 1
2 *
22 1
1 *
144- 168-
168 192
10 5
8 4
2 1
* *
1
1
1
I 2
? 1
1
*
8
1
1
1 2
7 1
: ?
1 2
1
5 2
1
1 1
1
3
i i
2 2
1 ?
2 1
2 1
10 5
* *
10 5
* *
10 5
* *
192- 216- 240-
216 240 264
12
10
2
*
*
*
1
•n
*
i
*
12
*
*
1
10
1
1
1
8
2
*
2
3
i
i
\
3
3
12
*
12
*
12
*
= respondents refused to answer.
8 3
8 2
1
*
*
*
*
§ ?
i :
* *
* *
* *
8 3
* *
* *
* *
8 2
* *
I 1
* *
* *
4
4 3
* *
1
* 3
? :
7 2
1 1
* *
5 2
3 1
* *
6 3
2 ;
8 3
* *
8 3
* *
264- 288-
288 312
1 1
1
* 1
*
*
1
1
1 1
* *
* *
* *
* *
1 1
* *
* *
1 I
* *
* 1
1 I
* 1
* *
* *
1 I
: i
; i
: i
* *
1
1 1
* *
* *
i i
* *
i i
* *
312-
336
14
11
3
*
*
1
13
?
*
2
12
2
*
1
11
1
*
1
2
4
4
2
1
3
2
131
§
4
5
13
1
14
*
1*4
*
N = doer sample size in
-------
Table 1 5-62. Number of Hours Spent Working with Soil in a Garden or Other Circumstances Working (hours/month)
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Grad
Education < College
Education College Grad.
Education Post Grad.
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Percentiles
N
4572
2125
2445
256
341
321
2935
646
3715
454
76
94
187
4179
336
1999
375
1270
381
1228
884
649
443
1031
1013
1566
962
3094
1478
1255
1152
1236
929
4217
335
4426
121
4352
198
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
3
3
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
0
1.5
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
2
3.5
4
3
5
1
2
3
5
3
3
0
5
5
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
90
15
20
12
7
10
5
16
25
16
8
6
15
12
15
15
20
12
20
16
20
20
16
20
10
10
18
20
15
15
4
20
25
10
15
12
15
7
15
7
Note: * Signifies missing data. DK = respondents answered don't know. Refused = respondents refused to
sample size. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
95 98
40 88
50 150
30 60
20 60
20 50
10 40
40 90
60 90
40 88
30 60
15 24
60 150
25 90
40 80
32 90
45 144
32 90
45 64
60 120
50 120
40 90
40 70
40 61
30 90
30 60
40 90
50 90
40 80
40 90
12 50
45 110
50 96
30 88
40 90
30 60
40 88
24 60
40 88
24 60
answer. N
99 100
160 320
230 320
90 320
120 150
60 320
60 200
200 320
160 300
160 320
160 320
40 40
200 200
320 320
180 320
120 320
240 320
120 320
100 320
160 320
200 320
240 320
100 320
90 320
120 320
120 320
180 320
200 320
160 320
150 320
90 320
200 320
160 320
180 320
160 320
80 320
160 320
110 120
180 320
80 100
= doer
-------
Table 1 5-63. Range of Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Grass in a Day by the
Number of Respondents
Minutes/Day
Total *-*
N
Overall 700 43
Gender
Male 352 25
Female 347 1 8
Refused 1 *
Age (years)
3
1-4 216 10
5-11 200 15
12-17 41 2
18-64 237 16
>64 3
Race
White 568 36
Black 68 3
Asian 5 *
Some Others 1 6
Hispanic 41 4
Refused 2 *
Hispanic
No 619 38
Yes 77 5
DK 3
Refused 1 *
Employment
r 461 27
Full Time 149 8
Part Time 29 2
Not Employed 60 5
Refused 1 1
Education
461 27
< High School 22 2
High School Graduate 73 4
< College 66 2
College Graduate 54 3
Post Graduate 24 5
Census Region
Northeast 124 5
Midwest 1 28 8
South 273 21
West 175 9
Day of Week
Weekday 445 33
Weekend 255 10
Season
Winter 107 12
Spring 240 9
Summer 262 12
Fall 91 10
Asthma
No 638 38
Yes 61 5
DK 1
Angina
No 699 43
DK 1
Bronchitis/emphysema
No 679 43
Yes 21
0-0
79
35
44
*
24
24
5
26
*
65
4
5"
1
65
13
*
1
54
16
5
4
54
2
5
3
14
7
22
36
55
24
22
23
20
14
73
6
*
79
*
76
3
0-10
49
26
1
19
10
1
18
*
40
6
1
*
2
44
5
*
31
12
1
5
31
1
1
3
1
10
10
20
9
35
14
6
16
20
7
46
3
*
49
*
49
*
10-20 20-30
49 85
25 41
24 44
1
21 25
10 19
2 8
15 32
1
39 58
7 14
3
? }
42 73
7 11
1
34 52
10 21
1 6
4 6
34 52
1 4
4 6
6 13
4 6
4
4 13
10 15
25 30
10 27
32 55
17 30
6 15
13 28
18 36
12 6
44 78
5 7
* *
48 85
1
47 83
2 2
30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70
7 11
3 5
4 6
* *
1 4
2 3
* 1
4 3
* *
7 9
1
«
1
6 11
1
* *
3 8
3 3
1
3 8
I i
1 1
1
* 3
1 3
5 4
1 1
3 7
4 4
2
1 5
2 5
2 1
7 9
2
* *
7 11
* *
7 11
* *
125 1
if ;
* *
35
38 1
8
44
* *
98 1
15
1 i
110 1
14
1
81 1
25
4 *
15
81 1
3 *
9
20
10
2
26
23
52 1
24
82
43 1
15
49
48 1
13
114 1
10
1
125 1
* *
120 1
5
70-80
1
1
*
1
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
*
1
1
*
1
*
1
*
80-90
21
92
*
8
8
1
4
17
2
1
*
18
3
17
2
2
17
3
*
1
2
4
11
4
15
6
5
7
2
18
3
21
20
1
90- 100-
100
1
1
*
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
*
1
*
*
1
*
1
*
1
*
1
1
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than 1 20 minutes were spent. N = doer sample size
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes. Refused = respondent refused to answer.
Source: Tsanq and KleDeis,1996.
110
2
1
*
1
*
1
1
*
1
1
1
1
*
1
1
1
2
1
*
1
1
2
*
2
2
110-
120
66
33
*
18
20
8
20
*
56
5
§
*
62
4
*
46
13
3
4
46
3
6
2
10
15
23
18
38
28
5
26
29
6
60
6
*
66
*
65
1
121-
121
160
75
1
1
49
49
5
54
2
139
11
1
*
146
13
1
104
36
5
15
104
5
15
5
36
31
57
36
87
73
19
61
63
17
146
14
*
160
*
153
7
Percentiles are
-------
Table 15-64. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Grass (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
N
657
327
329
206
185
39
221
3
532
65
5
16
37
581
72
141
27
55
20
69
64
51
19
119
120
252
166
412
245
95
231
250
81
600
56
656
636
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
3
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
1
0
0
7.5
1
0
0
1
0
1
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
20
20
15
15
30
30
20
30
20
20
30
10
30
20
10
20
15
23
30
15
17.5
30
25
30
30
20
10
15
30
4
30
30
10
20
22.5
20
20
30
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
121
60
58
30
60
60
60
35
60
60
60
60
60
46.5
60
60
60
60
60
45
60
60
30
60
60
35
60
60
60
60
60
NOTE: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than 1 20 minutes were spent.
are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996
75 90
120 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
90 121
30 121
120 121
110 121
121 121
100 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
120.5 121
121 121
60 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
120 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
120.5 121
120 121
120 121
121 121
95 98
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
N = doer sample size. Percentiles
-------
Table 15-65. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in
Freshwater Swimming Pool by the
Number of Respondents
Times/Month
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
5:4i
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
High School Graduate
? 17
'6 29
:2 17
97 67 52
50 27 21
55 :
?2 1
1 159
1 481
17 15
15 13
1*2 §
18 17
* O
11 6
16 9
o 6
13 15
10 12
36 25
11 17
3 1
29 26
132 81 67 43 38
14 11 5 4 3
121*1
143 90 73
3
1 *
47 41
* 1
12 5
| I
12 5
\ I
3 1
it \
3 1
15 9
11 2
? 3
1| §
25 10
1 1
26 10
1
10
8
11
1
4
4
8
14
12
f
12
f
2.6
13***** *
138 91 71
8 1 2
1 2
T f
25 10
1 1
24
1
2 18
2 1,9
* 5
* 193
2 10
* 6
1 24
1 14
* 8
? 27
2 37
2 37
1
2 38
* R
! 1
8
! j
1 I
2 8
* "7
2 18
1 9
* 7
? 134
? f
3 27
* *
2 27
* *
1
1
*
1
*
*
*
*
1
]
*
*
2
*
*
2
*
2
*
*
1
i
*
1
*
i
*
?
*
*
2
*
*
2
*
2
*
*
15 2
R *
1 *
c *
15 2
* *
g
Q O
8 *
21 1
6 1
* *
2 1
24 1
f ;
26 2
1 *
* *
-------
Table 1 5-65. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of Respondents (continued)
Times/Month
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
|4_i7
>6~4
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
NO
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Yes
DK
18 20
2 25
* 10
2 15
* *
: §
1 145
1 1
2 19
3
* 1
* 1
2 23
* 1
1
1 9
* §
1 7
1
i V
6
* 3
1 2
* 4
2 7
7
\ V8
1 3
8
1 10
4
? 231
1
2 24
1
2 22
2
1
Note: * Signifies missing data: "DK" =
Source: Tsang And Klepeis, 1996
23 24 25
1 1 9
* * 4
1 1 5
1 2
* * *
1 * 7
* * *
1 1 9
* *
* *
* *
* *
1 1 9
* *
* *
1 2
* * 5
* * 1
1 * 1
: i ?
1 4
* 2
1 1 4
2
1 1 7,
* * *
2
1 1 I
1 1 ?
* * *
1 1 ?
* * *
1 1 9
* * *
respondent answered
26 28
2 1
2 1
* *
* *
* *
1 1
* *
2 1
* *
* *
* *
* *
2 1
* *
* *
1 *
* 1
1 *
2 *
* *
1
1 *
* 1
1 *
1 1
1 1
1 I
\ :
? i
* *
2 1
* *
don't know;
29 30
1 26
* 10
1 16
* *
1 §
* 1%
2
1 19
* ?
; 3
1 20
* §
* *
1 9
10
1
6
* *
1 ?
4
* 4
* 4
1 9
11
; v9
* *
3
1 21
1 2|
1
1 26
* *
1 23
* 2
N= sample
31
2
2
*
*
2
2
*
«
2
*
»
2
*
*
*
*
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
*
2
*
2
*
size;
32
1
1
*
1
«
*
1
*
«
1
*
1
*
*
*
1
1
1
*
*
1
1
*
1
*
1
*
Refused
40 42
2
1
1
*
*
2
*
2
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
»
2
*
*
*
*
2
1
1
\
*
*
2
2
*
2
*
2
*
2
1
1
*
*
1
1
2
2
»
1
1
*
1
1
i
*
*
2
1
1
*
2
*
}
i
2
*
45
1
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
»
1
*
*
*
1
*
*
1
1
*
*
1
1
*
1
*
1
*
50 60 DK
1 2
* *
1 2
* *
1
I 1
1
* ?
* *
1 I
1 2
* *
1 1
* *
1
* *
1 1
* 1
*
*
1 1
1
1 2
* *
1 1
* 1
i :
1 2
* *
1 2
* *
5
4
*
*
3
1
5
4
1
*
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
4
*
2
2
§
*
5
*
4
1
= respondent refused to answer.
-------
Table 15-66. Range of the Average Amount of Time Actually Spent in the
Water by Swimmers by the Number of Respondents
Minutes/Month
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
NO
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * Signifies missinc
in specified range of nurri
and 3 hours, respectively,
Total
N
653 13
300 5
352 7
1 1
8 1
63 3
100 5
84 1
360 3
38
555 7
30 3
13
12
35 1
8 2
591 11
55 1
2
5 1
243 9
240 3
43
122 1
5
257 9
16
112 1
104 2
93 1
71
136 2
130 3
235 8
152
445 11
208 2
62 2
174 3
363 7
54 1
590 12
56 1
7
639 13
8
6
621 13
26
6
0- 10-
10 20
62 75
31 38
31 37
2 1
5 12
3 2
3 7
45 50
4 3
53 67
1 1
1 1
1 2
5 4
1
57 67
5 8
* *
* *
11 20
31 29
3 10
16 16
1
13 22
4 2
12 10
15 16
8 15
10 10
12 17
10 17
20 19
20 22
45 52
17 23
6 6
21 24
29 36
6 9
52 71
9 3
1 1
60 73
2
2
56 72
5 3
1
20-
30
120
60
60
2
12
12
10
75
9
105
4
3
1
4
3
108
10
*
2
34
51
12
21
2
35
3
16
27
21
18
28
27
37
28
82
38
10
37
64
9
114
4
2
118
1
1
115
4
1
data. DK= respondents answered
ser of minutes spent. Values of 1 20
were scent.
30-
40
20
6
14
*
1
5
2
8
4
18
1
*
1
19
1
*
*
8
4
1
7
8
5
2
2
3
5
4
6
5
14
6
5
7
6
2
19
*
1
19
1
*
19
1
40- 50-
50 60
39 131
17 55
22 76
* *
4 8
4 25
6 15
22 74
3 9
36 109
8
4
3
2 7
1
35 120
3 10
1
1
13 48
14 51
3 2
8 30
1
15 50
3
8 26
4 20
6 17
6 15
9 20
8 24
15 56
7 31
23 87
16 44
3 14
12 32
20 77
4 8
33 117
5 14
1
37 130
1 1
1
37 123
1 7
1 1
don't know. Ref
, 150, and 180
60-
70
8
3
5
*
*
*
*
8
*
8
*
*
*
*
8
*
*
*
3
1
4
*
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
4
7
1
*
*
6
2
8
*
*
8
*
*
7
*
1
70- 80-
80 90
2 31
18
2 13
* *
2
7
1 8
13
1 1
2 24
5
1
* *
* 1
2 29
2
* *
* *
1 16
8
5
1 2
1 17
1
1 5
4
1
3
1 4
6
13
1 8
2 19
12
3
2 6
20
2
2 26
5
* *
2 30
1
* *
2 31
* *
* *
90-
100
2
1
1
*
*
*
1
1
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
1
*
*
1
1
*
1
*
*
*
*
1
1
*
2
1
1
*
*
2
*
*
2
*
*
2
*
*
110-
120
68
28
40
2
7
16
14
26
3
59
1
1
2
4
1
62
5
*
1
37
21
2
7
1
39
*
11
6
10
2
13
17
26
12
46
22
7
13
44
4
64
3
1
66
1
1
67
*
1
150-
150
10
6
4
*
1
2
4
3
*
9
1
*
*
*
*
9
1
*
*
7
3
*
*
7
*
*
1
2
*
3
1
4
2
8
2
1
3
6
*
9
1
*
10
*
*
10
*
*
180- 181-
180 181
32 40
17 15
15 25
* *
3 5
11 8
6 6
12 20
* 1
26 30
1 5
* 1
1 2
4 2
* *
28 34
4 5
* 1
* *
19 19
10 12
* 4
3 5
20 20
2
5 10
2 2
4 5
1 1
9 10
7 5
12 18
4 7
22 27
10 13
1 3
6 7
23 25
2 5
26 35
6 5
* *
32 39
* *
1
30 37
2 3
* *
= respondents refused to answer. N = doer sample size
for number of minutes signify that 2 hours, 2.5 hours,
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis,1996.
-------
Table 15-67. Number of Minutes Spent Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool (minutes/month)
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Percentiles
N
640
295
345
60
95
83
357
38
548
27
13
12
34
580
54
237
43
121
16
111
102
92
71
134
127
227
152
434
206
60
171
356
53
578
55
626
8
608
26
1
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
10
4
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
5
4
5
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
15
3
2
2
3
4
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
10
4
2
3
3
5
4
2
2
1
5
3
3
10
8
5
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
10
3
3
3
15
3
2
Note: A Value of 1 81 for number of minutes signifies that more than
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis.1996.
5
10
8
10
7.5
20
15
5
8
10
15
4
2
5
10
5
5
5
8
1
8
5
10
10
10
10
5
5
8
10
5
5
10
10
10
4
10
15
10
5
10
15
10
15
15
30
20
10
10
15
30
20
15
10
15
15
10
15
10
2
10
10
15
10
15
15
15
10
10
15
12.5
10
15
10
15
10
15
15
15
5
25 50
30 60
30 45
30 60
20 42.5
45 60
40 60
20 45
30 40
30 45
60 60
30 60
25 60
20 60
30 60
30 52.5
20 45
20 30
20 45
12.5 30
30 60
20 30
22.5 42.5
20 30
30 45
30 45
30 60
20 45
30 60
30 60
30 52.5
20 40
30 60
20 45
30 55
30 60
30 60
25 42.5
30 60
15 42.5
1 80 minutes were spent. N
75 90
90 180
90 180
90 180
120 180
120 180
120 180
60 120
60 120
90 180
150 181
60 120
150 181
120 180
90 180
120 180
60 150
90 120
60 120
60.5 181
90 180
60 120
60.5 150
60 70
120 180
90 150
120 180
61 120
90 180
90 180
90 120
60 120
120 180
70 180
90 180
120 180
90 180
75 120
90 180
60 181
95
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
120
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
180
181
181
120
181
120
181
180
181
180
181
181
180.5
180
181
181
181
181
181
120
181
181
= doer sample size.
98
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
180
181
180
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
120
181
181
99 100
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
120 120
181 181
181 181
Percentiles are
-------
Table 15-68. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Working in a Main Job
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
Percentiles
N
3259
1733
1526
80
3
10
38
2993
135
2630
343
57
56
125
48
2980
221
12
46
47
2679
395
112
26
108
217
1045
795
627
467
721
755
1142
641
2788
471
864
791
910
694
3042
195
22
3192
44
23
3120
116
23
Mean
475.909
492.305
457.288
472.375
16.667
150.4
293.158
484.822
366.148
477.536
466.551
464.053
477.411
465.88
492.083
475.393
481 .493
529.583
468.522
257.915
504.35
364.587
270.946
513.577
343.037
473.502
482.03
475.585
484.526
483.041
475.964
477.008
478.231
470.415
487.858
405.18
475.784
472.972
477.185
477.739
477.013
453.354
523.182
475.735
472.068
507.391
476.547
446.991
535.217
Stdev
179.067
186.996
167.74
183.298
1 1 .547
185.796
180.681
173.083
208.656
179.01
175.989
177.305
181.661
185.322
191.623
179.214
174.32
146.226
201.347
202.833
164.818
159.361
216.024
155.456
211.879
216.729
180.638
174.025
159.816
169.574
180.84
182.167
176.739
177.801
166.167
229.526
172.828
195.425
179.907
165.961
176.967
204.227
216.952
178.389
200.68
230.296
178.194
189.381
226.256
Stderr
3.1367
4.4919
4.294
20.4933
6.6667
58.754
29.3103
3.1638
17.9582
3.4906
9.5025
23.4846
24.2754
16.5757
27.6584
3.2829
11.726
42.2117
29.687
29.5863
3.1843
8.0183
20.4123
30.4875
20.3881
14.7125
5.5879
6.172
6.3824
7.847
6.7348
6.6297
5.23
7.0227
3.147
10.576
5.8797
6.9485
5.9639
6.2998
3.2086
14.625
46.2542
3.1574
30.2536
48.02
3.1902
17.5836
47.1777
Min
1
1
2
5
10
2
5
1
5
1
5
5
45
2
50
1
2
295
10
2
1
5
4
170
2
4
1
2
5
1
1
2
1
5
1
2
5
1
1
2
1
5
170
1
10
80
1
5
170
Max
1440
1440
1440
940
30
550
840
1440
990
1440
1037
870
855
840
957
1440
1106
757
860
840
1440
945
990
840
860
1440
1440
1440
1005
945
1440
1440
1440
1080
1440
1440
1440
1440
1215
1005
1440
1440
1215
1440
990
1215
1440
985
1215
5 25
120 395
120 417
120 390
117.5 377.5
10 10
2 10
15 185
140 420
30 185
120 400
105 390
45 390
75 415
95 360
120 410
120 395
150 405
295 425
115 350
5 65
180 450
80 250
9 82.5
225 440
10 176.5
85 360
120 405
140 409
120 424
125 400
120 405
120 395
105 405
120 390
155 425
30 245
150 390
75 390
120 400
130 405
120 400
45 345
225 430
120 395
60 386
170 430
120 400
30 367.5
225 430
50 75
500 570
510 595
485 543
482.5 560
10 30
67.5 264
269 390
505 570
395 500
500 570
490 550
493 553
510 570
485 580
507.5 575
500 570
505 580
554 610
497.5 585
245 390
510 582
365 480
245 377.5
510 570
342.5 510
485 568
500 565
495 563
510 570
510 590
495 570
495 570
505 570
500 570
505 570
415 555
495 570
495 570
500 565
510 570
500 570
480 550
500 565
500 570
500 572.5
500 565
500 570
480 557.5
500 600
90
660
690
620
672.5
30
447.5
510
660
600
660
655
660
680
720
810
660
670
710
780
540
675
540
600
778
610
710
670
648
645
660
669
660
660
657
660
670
660
670
670
645
660
668
780
660
679
780
660
644
860
95 98
740 840
770 890
690 785
850 900
30 30
550 550
675 840
745 840
660 840
735 845
735 880
750 780
765 780
750 825
840 957
740 850
740 825
757 757
818 860
625 840
750 855
600 675
675 795
790 840
675 840
795 940
765 890
750 825
720 765
730 810
740 890
750 825
735 840
730 850
740 840
770 870
735 835
765 850
750 890
720 780
740 840
793 855
860 1215
740 840
730 990
860 1215
740 840
720 800
875 1215
99
930
955
850
940
30
550
840
930
940
933
990
870
855
840
957
940
840
757
860
840
950
795
870
840
840
1080
979
905
815
860
950
940
900
880
930
960
900
915
979
840
930
979
1215
930
990
1215
930
855
1215
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-69. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Food Preparation
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
Percentiles
N
4278
1342
2936
94
24
60
131
3173
796
3584
377
62
66
132
57
3960
254
20
44
210
1988
419
1626
35
291
450
1449
954
659
475
953
956
1452
917
2995
1283
1174
1038
1147
919
3948
300
30
4091
149
38
4024
216
38
Mean Stdev
52.35 52.877
37.77 42.133
59.02 55.872
52 43.217
56.46 60.37
25.17 29.688
21.7 37.69
52.07 52.872
60.5 54.669
51.62 53.259
57.03 52.289
54 41.822
50.59 53.237
58.76 49.73
53.14 49.297
51.84 52.603
58.99 56.694
54.95 53.2
58.61 53.296
27.17 40.549
45.46 46.66
53.85 55.413
63.62 57.743
53.54 66.78
31.71 42.621
61.26 53.232
58.84 56.665
51.99 52.238
46.2 48.078
46.04 48.686
52.3 53.178
53.23 51.814
53.35 53.471
49.91 52.72
50.05 49.979
57.72 58.762
50.62 48.626
54.39 54.484
51.34 54.194
53.54 54.535
52.02 53.176
57.14 49.443
47.63 44.812
52.18 52.97
56.81 48.238
53.97 60.417
52.01 53.092
56.91 46.683
62.39 61.703
Stderr
0.8084
1.1501
1.0311
4.4575
12.3229
3.8327
3.293
0.9386
1.9377
0.8896
2.693
5.3115
6.553
4.3285
6.5295
0.8359
3.5573
1 1 .8959
8.0346
2.7981
1 .0465
2.7071
1.432
11.2879
2.4985
2.5094
1 .4886
1.6913
1.8728
2.2339
1.7226
1 .6758
1 .4032
1.741
0.9132
1 .6405
1.4192
1.6911
1 .6002
1 .7989
0.8463
2.8546
8.1815
0.8282
3.9518
9.8009
0.837
3.1764
10.0096
Min
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
6
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
Max
555
480
555
215
240
120
385
555
525
555
390
210
295
315
210
555
420
240
210
385
480
520
555
340
385
555
520
525
515
375
480
520
555
515
555
420
480
525
555
520
555
272
195
555
340
240
555
240
240
5 25
5 20
5 13
5 25
5 20
5 22.5
2 5
2 5
5 20
5 25
5 19
5 20
5 20
5 15
5 23.5
5 20
5 20
5 20
8 25
5 27.5
2 5
5 15
5 20
5 29
2 20
2 5
5 30
5 22
5 20
5 15
5 15
5 20
5 20
5 15.5
5 15
5 19
5 20
5 18
5 20
5 20
5 20
5 20
5 20.5
5 10
5 20
5 25
2 10
5 20
5 20
2 20
50
35
30
45
40
30
11
10
35
45
35
40
50
33.5
52.5
40
35
45
45
37.5
15
30
40
45
30
15
45
45
34.5
30
30
40
35
35
31
35
40
35
38.5
35
37
35
45
32.5
35
45
32.5
35
45
42.5
75
65
50
75
60
75
30
30
65
80
65
75
70
70
79.5
60
65
75
60
80
30
60
65
90
60
37
90
75
65
60
60
60
65
70
60
60
75
65
70
60
67
65
75
60
65
80
60
65
85
90
90
115
80
120
110
150
60
55
110
120
110
120
105
115
110
120
111
120
112.5
150
60
90
105
125
120
75
120
120
110
100
95
110
120
120
105
105
130
110
120
110
120
110
120
117.5
115
120
120
110
120
150
95
150
105
155
150
180
107
70
145
150
145
150
130
150
135
180
145
155
180
180
90
130
125
170
195
120
150
155
150
125
135
140
150
150
135
132
180
135
150
137
155
145
160
120
150
135
240
145
150
240
98 99
210 265
150 210
224 272
195 215
240 240
120 120
90 90
210 265
240 270
210 265
210 240
175 210
210 295
225 285
195 210
205 255
240 315
240 240
210 210
120 180
180 240
205 255
240 275
340 340
155 195
197 225
240 310
210 245
180 224
200 270
205 255
210 265
195 245
225 265
180 240
240 300
195 240
224 265
208 300
200 265
210 265
199 240
195 195
210 265
180 210
240 240
210 265
198 210
240 240
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-70. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Food Cleanup
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
Percentiles
N Mean
1143 32.9948
204 27.4951
939 34.1896
24 31.0417
5 41.6
9 28.4444
28 26.75
808 31.3317
269 38.8067
976 32.9652
82 33.2805
11 27.0909
17 29.7059
42 35.6429
15 34
1057 32.7351
68 38.9265
6 24.1667
12 26.6667
39 28.1538
432 28.4236
134 28.903
528 38.2254
10 28
59 27.2542
135 41.8593
445 33.3483
259 33.5907
142 27.7254
103 28.9029
295 32.6169
252 28.4643
343 35.9242
253 33.9763
782 32.1957
361 34.7258
303 33.1188
245 30.2939
293 33.157
302 34.904
1047 32.7708
91 35.956
5 26
1092 32.9661
45 32.3111
6 43.3333
1065 31.77
71 50.8592
7 38.1429
Stdev
40.379
20.398
43.44
28.013
48.04
21.634
20.573
27.053
67.357
41.685
28.602
22.047
34.797
39.899
28.234
40.353
44.877
9.704
18.257
25.77
22.686
21.322
53.763
21.884
22.695
58.603
45.827
30.026
21.846
34.476
28.347
22.677
52.496
46.539
43.579
32.371
51.809
26.108
29.932
45.406
40.408
40.996
20.736
40.95
22.926
41.793
28.195
118.417
41.119
Stderr
1.1944
1 .4282
1.4176
5.7182
21.4839
7.2113
3.8879
0.9517
4.1068
1 .3343
3.1585
6.6476
8.4396
6.1565
7.2899
1.2412
5.4422
3.9616
5.2705
4.1265
1.0915
1.842
2.3398
6.9202
2.9546
5.0437
2.1724
1 .8657
1 .8333
3.397
1 .6504
1 .4285
2.8345
2.9259
1 .5584
1.7037
2.9763
1.668
1.7487
2.6128
1 .2488
4.2975
9.2736
1 .2392
3.4175
17.062
0.864
14.0535
15.5417
Min
1
1
1
10
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
3
5
3
5
1
3
10
5
1
2
3
1
10
1
2
1
5
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
5
1
2
2
1
1
2
10
1
5
10
1
3
2
Max
825
180
825
120
120
75
90
330
825
825
180
75
150
255
90
825
270
35
60
120
255
150
825
60
120
570
825
255
180
330
270
210
825
570
825
270
825
250
270
570
825
255
60
825
120
120
330
825
120
5
8
10
5
10
3
1
5
10
5
8
10
3
5
10
5
5
10
10
5
2
8
10
5
10
3
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
10
10
8
8
8
10
5
8
6
8
10
8
5
10
8
5
2
25 50
15 30
15 25
15 30
15 30
15 15
15 30
12.5 20
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 15
10 15
15 30
10 30
15 30
15 30
15 27.5
12.5 25
15 15
15 25
15 25
15 30
10 17.5
10 20
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 22.5
15 25
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 27
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
10 20
15 30
15 30
10 30
15 30
15 29
10 30
75
35
30
35
30
55
30
30
30
40
35
30
30
30
40
60
35
40
30
32.5
30
30
30
45
55
30
45
30
45
30
30
40
30
40
30
30
40
30
30
40
40
35
40
30
35
45
60
35
35
60
90
60
50
60
60
120
75
60
60
60
60
65
60
60
50
90
60
60
35
60
65
50
60
60
60
60
85
60
60
50
50
60
50
65
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
120
60
70
120
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
95
85
60
90
105
120
75
65
80
105
84
90
75
150
60
90
85
120
35
60
90
60
60
105
60
75
120
90
85
60
60
90
60
90
75
75
90
85
65
90
90
85
90
60
85
60
120
80
105
120
98 99
120 135
80 85
120 150
120 120
120 120
75 75
90 90
120 120
130 270
120 130
120 180
75 75
150 150
255 255
90 90
120 130
255 270
35 35
60 60
120 120
90 120
95 100
120 250
60 60
90 120
180 270
120 120
105 150
90 120
60 120
120 120
85 120
120 180
120 255
120 120
120 180
120 120
105 120
120 135
120 180
120 120
250 255
60 60
120 150
120 120
120 120
120 120
570 825
120 120
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-71. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Cleaning House
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
Percentiles
N
1910
351
1559
45
11
49
67
1307
431
1614
139
32
26
73
26
1740
134
14
22
128
673
195
901
13
161
234
665
432
247
171
454
406
636
414
1287
623
464
445
546
455
1764
133
13
1826
70
14
1791
100
19
Mean
114.798
100.353
118.051
136.2
74.091
42.633
78.746
115.55
125.132
115.85
108.712
97.656
80.5
99.781
179.615
114.153
110.134
136.071
180.682
64.453
100.944
119.415
129.566
235
81.379
135.731
121.899
108.343
101.097
126.105
116.969
114.086
114.36
113.79
108.319
128.185
105.554
114.202
109.908
130.677
114.32
114.699
180.769
113.702
120.371
230
113.894
118.11
182.632
Stdev
1 1 1 .683
110.445
111.737
114.124
69.42
35.19
79.357
1 1 1 .597
118.341
1 1 1 .348
106.826
101.091
58.059
110.669
176.878
109.99
115.754
131.591
177.33
66.811
99.87
115.568
118.009
218.908
98.129
121.618
118.814
100.456
96.605
118.897
117.268
1 1 1 .049
112.921
104.234
108.542
116.861
98.348
109.757
113.686
122.137
110.119
117.523
214.533
110.563
103.11
210.868
1 1 1 .025
104.363
179.253
Stderr
2.5555
5.8951
2.8299
17.0127
20.9308
5.0271
9.695
3.0868
5.7003
2.7716
9.0609
17.8705
1 1 .3864
12.9528
34.6886
2.6368
9.9996
35.1691
37.8069
5.9053
3.8497
8.276
3.9314
60.7142
7.7337
7.9504
4.6074
4.8332
6.1468
9.0923
5.5037
5.5113
4.4776
5.1228
3.0256
4.682
4.5657
5.203
4.8653
5.7259
2.6219
10.1905
59.5007
2.5874
12.324
56.3569
2.6234
10.4363
41.1234
Min
1
1
1
10
10
1
1
1
3
1
1
15
5
5
10
1
5
10
10
1
1
1
3
10
1
3
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
5
10
1
5
10
1
5
5
Max
810
810
790
480
270
180
300
810
790
790
490
425
210
548
810
790
658
510
810
300
655
660
790
810
810
715
790
570
525
655
790
720
810
720
790
810
810
720
690
790
790
690
810
790
394
810
790
480
810
5 25 50
10 30 80
10 30 60
15 40 90
10 55 105
10 40 60
5 20 30
5 20 55
15 30 85
10 45 90
10 35 85
5 30 80
15 30 60
10 35 60
10 30 60
20 30 135
10 30 80
10 34 60
10 30 92.5
20 45 138
5 22.5 45
10 30 60
15 45 85
15 50 95
10 120 180
5 28 45
10 50 115
15 40 90
10 30 85
15 30 60
15 45 90
10 30 90
10 30 80
10 30 80
15 40 82.5
10 30 70
15 45 90
10 30 75
15 30 75
10 30 71
15 45 90
10 30 82.5
10 33 64
10 45 120
14 30 80
5 30 90
10 120 210
10 30 80
7.5 32.5 90
5 50 150
75
150
120
160
180
90
53
105
150
170
155
135
127.5
115
120
240
150
135
210
240
77.5
120
175
180
255
100
180
160
149
127
180
164
150
150
160
150
180
150
165
135
180
150
150
240
150
190
255
150
180
240
90
255
240
255
297
90
90
240
270
250
255
270
265
185
210
390
255
240
240
340
180
240
265
285
450
225
297
270
240
240
280
240
240
270
240
240
290
240
240
245
300
255
270
340
255
262.5
480
255
262.5
340
95
335
310
340
320
270
120
240
350
340
330
358
345
190
345
465
330
360
510
390
240
310
390
360
810
265
390
360
315
315
390
330
325
360
330
315
370
285
340
365
390
330
390
810
330
320
810
340
297.5
810
98 99
465 525
400 495
465 540
480 480
270 270
180 180
285 300
435 510
540 570
435 540
480 484
425 425
210 210
470 548
810 810
435 525
480 548
510 510
810 810
270 285
410 480
480 540
480 570
810 810
300 375
540 560
484 610
420 470
390 465
495 540
480 655
475 495
435 525
400 470
465 540
435 525
360 465
465 525
465 548
480 560
450 525
470 480
810 810
465 525
370 394
810 810
450 540
467.5 475
810 810
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-72. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Outdoor Cleaning
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema DK
Percentiles
N
692
417
275
13
4
12
20
479
164
621
30
6
12
14
9
652
26
5
9
38
315
52
280
7
46
96
237
142
99
72
144
155
218
175
420
272
128
252
205
107
640
47
5
665
18
9
661
26
5
Mean
145.9
160.8
123.2
210.5
138.3
104.6
142.3
147.4
139.9
146.4
134.2
65
163.5
128.2
206.7
145.6
115.3
218
216.7
132.1
147.7
135.1
145.1
252.9
136.8
146
154.2
146.7
137.3
134.3
135.2
131
158.7
151.8
132.5
166.6
149.5
151.3
133
153.4
147.3
109.1
312
143.6
144.7
318.9
146.2
104.8
312
Stdev
121.42
131.68
99.98
157.91
116.84
62.921
96.274
125.22
112.13
122.18
99.049
27.568
97.091
82.593
213.95
121.19
76.402
103.05
206.64
88.152
123.2
103.74
122.82
216.41
115.99
124.59
126.38
119.87
124.43
103.25
113.42
1 1 1 .34
117.58
138.65
109.32
135.66
135.12
116.12
104.23
144.65
121.44
87.096
230.04
118.92
96.703
213.67
120.68
85.282
230.04
Stderr
4.616
6.448
6.029
43.796
58.421
18.164
21.527
5.721
8.756
4.903
18.084
1 1 .255
28.028
22.074
71.317
4.746
14.984
46.087
68.88
14.3
6.942
14.387
7.34
81.794
17.101
12.716
8.209
10.059
12.505
12.168
9.451
8.943
7.964
10.481
5.334
8.225
1 1 .943
7.315
7.28
13.984
4.8
12.704
102.879
4.611
22.793
71.223
4.694
16.725
102.879
Min
2
10
2
30
30
30
30
2
2
2
2
30
39
30
30
2
10
120
60
30
4
2
2
15
2
2
5
4
10
10
5
4
2
2
4
2
4
5
5
2
2
5
60
2
30
10
2
5
60
Max
720
720
635
600
285
210
385
690
720
720
405
90
380
300
600
720
300
380
600
385
690
470
720
600
600
510
720
655
555
495
600
655
635
720
660
720
600
690
635
720
720
510
600
720
330
600
720
375
600
5 25
25 60
30 60
10 60
30 112
30 45
30 58
32.5 75
15 60
30 60
25 60
10 60
30 30
39 90
30 65
30 60
25 60
25 60
120 140
60 60
30 60
30 60
15 60
20 60
15 120
30 60
10 60
30 60
30 60
15 60
30 60
15 60
15 60
30 70
25 60
20 60
30 60
15 59.5
30 70
20 60
15 60
27.5 60
15 60
60 120
25 60
30 60
10 120
30 60
10 60
60 120
50 75
120 180
120 200
90 160
140 250
119 231.5
80 165
127 157.5
120 180
120 172.5
120 180
117.5 190
77.5 85
157.5 187.5
105 180
120 300
120 180
116.5 145
210 240
120 300
115 165
120 180
112.5 180
120 180
120 465
112.5 165
119.5 180
120 180
120 185
95 175
120 165
110 185
95 150
120 195
120 180
105 175
120 227.5
102.5 225
120 180
120 180
120 180
120 180
90 135
300 480
120 180
135 165
325 480
120 180
90 135
300 480
90 95
300 405
345 480
268 330
395 600
285 285
190 210
300 372.5
310 435
300 350
305 410
262.5 330
90 90
290 380
255 300
600 600
300 405
240 255
380 380
600 600
255 360
300 435
300 325
310 412.5
600 600
285 360
330 465
310 415
270 375
325 475
290 345
300 330
270 360
330 415
355 475
285 360
345 495
345 465
300 410
270 325
360 480
307.5 400
210 240
600 600
300 385
330 330
600 600
300 395
225 300
600 600
98
510
533
390
600
285
210
385
520
480
510
405
90
380
300
600
510
300
380
600
385
530
325
480
600
600
480
520
560
533
465
510
510
510
530
475
533
510
510
475
655
510
510
600
510
330
600
510
375
600
99
570
600
465
600
285
210
385
570
510
560
405
90
380
300
600
560
300
380
600
385
560
470
655
600
600
510
660
570
555
495
555
560
520
690
530
635
520
530
555
660
560
510
600
560
330
600
560
375
600
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-73. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Clothes Care
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema DK
Percentiles
N Mean Stdev
893 79.479 73.355
117 72.248 67.028
776 80.57 74.241
10 59.5 34.757
4 70 94.251
1 1 39 33.856
21 37.476 39.447
702 80.474 74.354
145 85.455 73.545
737 80.096 73.392
99 68.636 65.289
7 107.857 48.807
10 62.4 39.09
33 92.879 78.01
7 100.714 166.018
836 78.248 72.306
51 91.176 71.178
3 118.333 62.517
3 185 251.942
34 43.412 46.313
402 73.443 73.706
116 80.724 68.545
336 89.804 75.166
5 87.4 74.725
43 47.488 48.217
102 86.51 60.048
337 85.19 82.249
193 85.87 78.466
127 67.756 56.995
91 68.374 64.714
222 76.905 67.875
201 78.448 75.998
304 81 .839 75.654
166 79.849 73.398
607 75.853 72.909
286 87.175 73.832
254 82.291 80.245
213 86.103 79.325
259 76.722 68.328
167 71.03 60.463
829 79.534 74.024
62 79.855 65.269
2 45 21.213
867 79.516 73.48
22 81.591 75.756
4 60 24.495
834 78.45 73.617
58 94.621 68.927
1 60 0
Stderr
2.455
6.197
2.665
10.991
47.126
10.208
8.608
2.806
6.108
2.703
6.562
18.447
12.361
13.58
62.749
2.501
9.967
36.094
145.459
7.943
3.676
6.364
4.101
33.418
7.353
5.946
4.48
5.648
5.058
6.784
4.555
5.36
4.339
5.697
2.959
4.366
5.035
5.435
4.246
4.679
2.571
8.289
15
2.496
16.151
12.247
2.549
9.051
0
Min
2
5
2
15
5
2
3
2
2
2
5
60
18
5
15
2
5
55
20
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
2
2
5
5
2
2
5
2
2
5
2
2
2
3
2
5
30
2
5
30
2
5
60
Max
535
360
535
120
210
92
150
535
375
535
300
210
120
265
475
535
265
180
475
210
535
335
475
180
210
265
535
475
260
360
535
475
450
405
475
535
475
450
535
300
535
375
60
535
335
90
535
335
60
5
10
7
10
15
5
2
5
10
10
10
5
60
18
5
15
10
5
55
20
3
5
10
10
2
5
15
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
5
10
7
10
8
5
10
10
30
10
10
30
8
15
60
25
30
20
30
25
17.5
5
10
28
30
30
15
80
21
20
20
30
20
55
20
10
20
30
35
45
10
38
30
21
20
20
30
20
30
20
25
30
23
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
30
45
25
60
60
50 75
60 118
60 90
60 120
60 90
32.5 122.5
30 60
20 60
60 120
60 120
60 118
45 110
90 120
65 90
90 150
45 60
60 115
90 150
120 180
60 475
30 60
60 100
67.5 117.5
60 120
60 150
30 60
65 120
60 120
60 120
60 90
60 90
60 120
60 115
60 115
60 120
60 105
65 120
60 120
60 120
60 115
60 105
60 118
66.5 120
45 60
60 120
60 120
60 75
60 115
77.5 120
60 60
90
175
150
180
105
210
90
80
180
180
175
165
210
120
210
475
165
190
180
475
92
155
180
185
180
92
175
180
190
150
145
150
170
170
180
160
180
190
180
154
150
180
154
60
178
155
90
170
190
60
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
95
210
210
225
120
210
92
120
210
245
223
210
210
120
225
475
210
225
180
475
150
223
225
235
180
150
210
240
240
190
210
200
210
235
223
210
223
225
240
190
195
225
180
60
210
195
90
210
240
60
98
300
300
300
120
210
92
150
300
300
300
240
210
120
265
475
300
225
180
475
210
300
240
300
180
210
240
375
300
225
245
245
265
330
300
300
300
330
335
240
240
300
200
60
300
335
90
300
300
60
99
375
335
375
120
210
92
150
360
375
375
300
210
120
265
475
360
265
180
475
210
360
330
375
180
210
245
445
375
225
360
300
420
375
360
375
335
445
375
360
300
360
375
60
375
335
90
375
335
60
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-74. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Car Repair/Maintenance
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
«
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
N Mean Stdev
145 123.407 147.198
110 135.582 152.737
35 85.143 122.441
1 60
1 150
1 300
8 106.875 163.837
114 130.342 156.511
20 83.5 68.347
112 139.607 158.66
19 85.789 93.516
2 10 7.071
6 43.333 42.387
6 58 51 .595
133 123.617 144.993
10 98.8 153.362
2 232.5 321.734
10 130.5 156.87
77 122.091 150.192
12 123.167 138.769
46 124.13 146.952
13 120 139.523
17 185.882 224.418
50 111.52 128.261
31 138.226 169.231
20 93.25 99.344
14 103.429 97.566
28 130.75 163.729
31 149.839 173.193
45 106.778 131.409
41 116.659 132.206
79 108.519 125.914
66 141.227 168.477
49 130.673 167.715
39 136.667 156.042
35 121.514 137.704
22 86.727 87.502
137 117.657 139.579
8 221.875 235.553
139 125.712 149.156
5 51 72.921
1 165
140 122.279 145.67
5 155 203.347
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know"
minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min =
Stderr
12.224
14.563
20.696
«
*
*
57.925
14.659
15.283
14.992
21.454
5
17.304
21.063
12.573
48.497
227.5
49.607
17.116
40.059
21.667
38.697
54.429
18.139
30.395
22.214
26.076
30.942
31.106
19.589
20.647
14.166
20.738
23.959
24.987
23.276
18.655
1 1 .925
83.281
12.651
32.611
*
12.311
90.94
Min
5
5
5
60
150
300
20
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
20
5
8
5
15
5
5
5
10
5
8
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
5
5
165
5
5
Max
700
700
690
60
150
300
505
700
300
700
300
15
120
120
700
520
460
505
700
495
690
505
670
690
700
300
300
690
670
700
505
690
700
690
700
505
300
700
670
700
180
165
700
460
5
5
5
5
60
150
300
20
5
12.5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
20
5
8
10
15
5
5
10
10
5
10
10
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
8
5
15
5
5
165
5
5
N = doer sample size. Mean
minimum number of minutes.
25 50
30 60
30 85
15 45
60 60
150 150
300 300
30 45
30 77.5
30 70
30 90
20 60
5 10
10 32.5
13 45
30 80
30 45
5 233
30 52.5
30 60
40 72.5
30 90
30 60
30 90
30 67.5
30 85
15 45
30 75
30 60
45 90
30 60
30 60
15 60
45 82.5
30 60
45 85
30 60
10 70
30 60
30 150
30 75
15 20
165 165
30 67.5
10 30
75
150
170
120
60
150
300
90
165
120
175
95
15
60
120
150
120
460
150
165
150
120
120
220
120
180
135
120
200
120
120
120
150
150
165
150
150
120
120
365
150
35
165
135
270
90
300
300
180
60
150
300
505
300
150
300
300
15
120
120
300
320
460
402.5
300
270
300
300
555
270
280
285
300
300
350
240
300
280
495
350
300
300
240
300
670
300
180
165
300
460
95
495
505
270
60
150
300
505
520
240
520
300
15
120
120
495
520
460
505
520
495
480
505
670
350
600
300
300
520
600
300
460
350
555
600
555
480
270
495
670
505
180
165
500
460
98 99
670 690
600 670
690 690
60 60
150 150
300 300
505 505
670 690
300 300
670 690
300 300
15 15
120 120
120 120
670 690
520 520
460 460
505 505
670 700
495 495
690 690
505 505
670 670
585 690
700 700
300 300
300 300
690 690
670 670
700 700
505 505
480 690
670 700
690 690
700 700
505 505
300 300
600 690
670 670
670 690
180 180
165 165
670 690
460 460
= Mean 24-hour cumulative number of
Max = maximum number of minutes.
Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-75. Statitstics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Other Repairs
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
Percentiles
N
288
200
88
1
3
14
221
49
264
13
3
3
4
1
278
9
1
17
140
27
102
2
18
23
90
64
54
39
55
77
89
67
188
100
62
65
95
66
264
24
281
6
1
276
12
Mean Stdev
184.816 184.111
205.045 187.704
138.841 167.784
540
66.667 55.076
119.5 103.383
198.471 192.928
141.878 146.868
186.367 184.944
150.385 207.961
321.667 89.489
173.667 165.228
127.5 122.848
75
184.917 184.467
160.556 180.666
375
110.176 97.439
199.993 206.025
167.963 153.74
183.314 169.14
61 83.439
110.722 94.558
214.348 215.017
194.4 196.472
202.156 200.764
169 154.537
172.923 174.213
166.164 181.344
188.909 170.219
202.281 212.332
172.224 161.66
178.213 171.94
197.23 205.392
167.097 172.076
203.123 216.629
180.442 182.013
189.727 164.551
180.33 183.699
234.167 185.283
179.687 175.258
448.333 369.995
45
184.681 185.591
187.917 152.591
Stderr
10.849
13.273
17.886
«
31.798
27.63
12.978
20.981
1 1 .382
57.678
51.667
95.395
61.424
*
1 1 .064
60.222
*
23.632
17.412
29.587
16.747
59
22.287
44.834
20.71
25.095
21.03
27.896
24.452
19.398
22.507
19.75
12.54
20.539
21.854
26.87
18.674
20.255
1 1 .306
37.821
10.455
151.05
*
11.171
44.049
Min
2
2
3
540
10
15
2
2
2
10
270
45
10
75
2
10
375
10
5
5
2
2
10
15
3
2
5
2
3
10
2
2
2
3
3
5
2
2
2
5
2
90
45
2
5
Max 5
1080 10
1080 10
900 5
540 540
120 10
345 15
1080 10
526 10
1080 10
750 10
425 270
360 45
290 10
75 75
1080 10
575 10
375 375
345 10
1080 8.5
490 10
670 10
120 2
345 10
900 30
840 5
1080 10
525 10
690 7
840 5
780 15
1080 10
750 7
780 10
1080 5
600 5
900 10
1080 10
600 10
1080 10
670 10
900 10
1080 90
45 45
1080 10
405 5
25
36.5
60
17.5
540
10
30
45
30
36.5
30
270
45
35
75
35
60
375
30
60
25
30
2
30
45
30
32.5
60
38
30
60
30
60
42.5
32.5
15
45
60
55
36.5
45
30
100
45
36.5
45
50
120
150
72.5
540
70
90
120
75
120
90
270
116
105
75
120
60
375
90
120
120
120
61
90
120
132.5
130
97.5
120
75
120
120
120
110
145
90
120
120
120
120
210
120
410
45
120
165
75
300
327.5
192.5
540
120
180
325
209
300
120
425
360
220
75
300
210
375
180
297.5
302
315
120
180
360
300
355
270
270
210
315
315
243
300
296.5
300
300
290
330
288.5
352.5
295
600
45
299
350
90
425
460
360
540
120
285
434
390
430
390
425
360
290
75
425
575
375
285
470
390
420
120
285
480
447
420
425
420
415
420
480
340
430
420
445
480
390
420
420
480
420
1080
45
430
360
95
525
555
425
540
120
345
570
480
525
750
425
360
290
75
525
575
375
345
600
434
480
120
345
490
575
480
490
600
525
460
570
526
490
585
490
670
510
435
525
510
490
1080
45
526
405
98 99
690 840
680 810
750 900
540 540
120 120
345 345
750 840
526 526
670 840
750 750
425 425
360 360
290 290
75 75
690 840
575 575
375 375
345 345
840 900
490 490
526 600
120 120
345 345
900 900
780 840
600 1080
510 525
690 690
600 840
670 780
900 1080
690 750
600 750
870 990
540 600
840 900
750 1080
600 600
690 840
670 670
670 780
1080 1080
45 45
690 840
405 405
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-76. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Plant Care
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
Percentiles
N Mean Stdev
254 103.602 108.761
84 146.274 145.969
170 82.518 76.759
4 51.25 24.622
5 121 120.955
3 51 61.262
157 100.49 104.921
85 112.647 118.439
233 102.124 106.695
8 81.25 90.149
3 140 45.826
2 137.5 187.383
6 164.167 209.796
2 95 49.497
244 102.971 106.161
7 149.286 195.521
1 60
2 42.5 24.749
8 94.75 103.657
94 94.436 1 1 1 .848
25 112.2 104.812
124 108.387 108.655
3 145 99.875
9 86.444 100.113
30 92.333 108.753
93 87.656 95.248
47 118.298 112.855
35 139 107.818
40 104.75 131.036
55 116.055 116.677
41 101.659 109.248
77 82.078 76.081
81 116.593 126.602
170 104.559 105.561
84 101.667 115.595
15 135.333 170.592
96 124.323 108.656
111 89.82 100.882
32 74.375 87.894
239 105 108.541
15 81.333 113.68
240 103.083 107.762
13 120.769 130.286
1 5
248 105.202 109.525
6 37.5 24.238
Stderr
6.824
15.926
5.887
12.311
54.093
35.369
8.374
12.846
6.99
31.872
26.458
132.5
85.649
35
6.796
73.9
*
17.5
36.648
1 1 .536
20.962
9.758
57.663
33.371
19.855
9.877
16.462
18.225
20.719
15.733
17.062
8.67
14.067
8.096
12.612
44.047
11.09
9.575
15.538
7.021
29.352
6.956
36.135
*
6.955
9.895
Min
3
10
3
15
35
3
5
5
3
15
90
5
15
60
3
15
60
25
3
5
15
5
60
3
10
5
5
15
15
3
5
5
10
3
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
3
15
5
3
5
Max
630
630
630
70
330
120
570
630
630
280
180
270
565
130
630
565
60
60
330
630
485
630
255
330
475
565
630
485
630
485
630
475
630
630
630
565
570
630
480
630
450
630
485
5
630
60
5
10
15
10
15
35
3
10
10
10
15
90
5
15
60
10
15
60
25
3
10
15
10
60
3
10
10
10
15
15
10
30
10
14
14
10
5
15
10
10
10
5
10
15
5
10
5
25
30
32.5
30
37.5
60
3
30
35
30
15
90
5
15
60
30
15
60
25
32.5
30
30
40
60
30
15
30
50
55
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
30
25
30
15
30
55
5
30
15
50
60
105
60
60
60
30
60
75
60
50
150
138
90
95
60
60
60
42.5
60
60
90
72.5
120
60
60
60
90
120
60
70
60
60
75
60
60
60
90
60
47.5
60
55
60
60
5
60
42.5
75
130
195
120
65
120
120
135
135
120
112.5
180
270
210
130
132.5
210
60
60
120
120
150
127.5
255
120
120
120
150
195
120
150
120
120
150
130
127.5
175
150
120
102.5
135
90
125
135
5
135
60
90
225
380
180
70
330
120
225
240
225
280
180
270
565
130
225
565
60
60
330
195
210
240
255
330
170
180
240
280
217.5
250
195
175
240
225
240
485
270
190
135
235
175
225
270
5
235
60
95
300
480
210
70
330
120
300
280
300
280
180
270
565
130
280
565
60
60
330
325
270
270
255
330
420
255
240
325
420
420
270
225
330
280
325
565
330
225
195
300
450
290
485
5
300
60
98 99
480 570
570 630
270 325
70 70
330 330
120 120
475 565
630 630
480 570
280 280
180 180
270 270
565 565
130 130
480 570
565 565
60 60
60 60
330 330
570 630
485 485
480 565
255 255
330 330
475 475
480 565
630 630
485 485
630 630
480 485
630 630
300 475
570 630
480 565
570 630
565 565
475 570
420 630
480 480
485 570
450 450
480 570
485 485
5 5
485 570
60 60
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-77. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Animal Care
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
Bronchtis/emphysema DK
Percentiles
N
764
282
482
13
9
27
49
530
136
696
26
5
12
17
8
712
39
6
7
86
376
60
233
9
98
63
231
150
121
101
171
181
247
165
527
237
221
201
216
126
705
57
2
734
27
3
718
43
3
Mean
48.168
57.291
42.83
37.462
59.222
47.296
55.204
45.928
54.824
47.757
37.577
30.4
Stdev
65.029
81.786
52.182
38.606
44.291
43.1
68.276
66.581
64.527
62.011
39.832
21.87
100 193.567
37.765
73.75
47.81
50.872
50
67.857
51.221
44.918
48.883
52.459
38.889
52.347
51.492
52.913
40.593
51.273
38.713
39.789
49.773
51.389
50.267
46.602
51.65
44.62
52.99
51.426
41.111
48.401
45.386
45
47.834
58.704
35
48.357
45.395
42.667
44.992
58.478
61.479
112.78
77.071
62.039
56.803
71.458
56.285
59.357
53.897
57.02
68.122
75.819
49.247
79.213
40.069
44.88
58.716
75.022
72.551
66.468
61.703
66.372
60.351
76.405
45.413
65.505
60.468
21.213
64.308
85.601
22.913
65.56
58.522
15.535
Stderr
2.3527
4.8703
2.3768
10.7074
14.7637
8.2946
9.7537
2.8921
5.5331
2.3505
7.8117
9.7806
55.878
10.9123
20.675
2.304
18.0593
31 .4643
23.4485
6.1252
3.6852
7.2664
3.8886
17.9656
5.7599
8.5825
4.9885
4.021
7.2012
3.987
3.432
4.3644
4.7736
5.6481
2.8954
4.0081
4.4647
4.2568
5.1987
4.0457
2.4671
8.0091
15
2.3737
16.474
13.2288
2.4467
8.9245
8.9691
Min
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
10
5
5
5
1
2
10
5
2
1
3
1
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
1
2
15
1
2
30
Max
760
760
450
135
140
179
308
760
383
760
145
60
690
180
180
760
690
205
180
308
760
230
383
180
308
383
760
280
690
240
273
330
760
690
760
383
690
340
760
280
760
330
60
760
340
60
760
330
60
5 25
5 10
5 15
3 10
2 5
3 30
8 15
5 10
3 10
5 15
4 10
1 10
10 15
5 17.5
5 15
5 32.5
4 10
3 10
10 10
5 20
5 15
3 10
5 12.5
5 15
5 20
5 15
5 15
5 10
4 10
3 15
5 12
3 10
4 14
5 15
3 10
4 10
5 15
4 10
5 15
5 15
3 10
4 10
5 10
30 30
5 10
3 15
15 15
4 10
5 10
30 30
50 75
30 60
30 65
28.5 60
30 55
60 90
38 65
25 90
30 60
30 60
30 60
25 45
20 47
30 65
30 35
55 115
30 60
20 35
15 45
60 120
30 70
25 60
20 60
30 60
30 30
30 70
30 60
30 70
20 55
30 60
30 57
25 60
30 60
30 60
30 60
30 60
30 60
25 55
30 60
30 64
25 60
30 60
30 55
45 60
30 60
30 60
30 60
30 60
30 55
38 60
90
120
120
105
80
140
120
175
109
135
120
120
60
205
120
180
120
120
205
180
120
90
152.5
120
180
140
120
120
97.5
110
80
90
120
120
120
115
120
95
120
120
110
120
105
60
120
135
60
120
90
60
95
155
180
140
135
140
150
180
150
180
155
120
60
690
180
180
151
180
205
180
175
145
176.5
180
180
180
225
165
155
135
105
120
180
165
155
155
180
160
175
165
135
155
195
60
155
330
60
160
150
60
98 99
230 312
308 340
187 273
135 135
140 140
179 179
308 308
230 280
340 340
240 312
145 145
60 60
690 690
180 180
180 180
230 308
690 690
205 205
180 180
240 308
240 340
205 230
273 330
180 180
240 308
273 383
245 330
205 230
340 340
150 185
205 245
240 312
308 383
210 340
195 280
273 330
225 245
240 330
240 383
180 180
225 308
240 330
60 60
225 280
340 340
60 60
230 308
330 330
60 60
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-78. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Other Household Work
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
1322
478
844
21
15
56
84
918
228
1118
102
20
22
43
17
1218
81
7
16
153
555
124
482
8
175
96
418
290
196
147
307
318
394
303
857
465
353
327
391
251
1211
103
8
1269
44
9
1247
64
11
Mean
68.6354
70.3661
67.6552
93.4286
57.1333
24.9464
39.4762
71.2353
78.114
70.6977
46.1176
71.9
67.7727
65.6512
72.9412
67.8342
80.5185
54.1429
75.8125
37.0196
70.0342
62.0726
78.3008
95.625
42.7086
82.5313
75.5574
71.3724
73.6173
58.7007
62.8632
70.8679
74.7056
64.2475
71 .5496
63.2645
64.1558
82.844
62.1125
66.5857
67.8423
75.6893
97.875
68.2041
77.1364
87.8889
67.8043
83.4844
76.4545
Stdev
98.697
101.833
96.923
113.994
85.7
30.134
51.785
101.54
106.158
98.015
65.201
76.619
190.288
118.419
108.744
93.324
159.202
74.627
113.469
52.694
103.005
86.315
105.529
110.014
64.901
114.62
105.946
100.836
104.18
81.662
91.306
98.179
106.703
95.504
106.351
82.596
91.547
118.992
97.341
77.867
98.123
104.033
120.21
99.025
86.104
116.368
97.936
111.726
107.17
Stderr
2.7145
4.6577
3.3362
24.8756
22.1277
4.0269
5.6502
3.3513
7.0305
2.9314
6.4558
17.1324
40.5695
18.0587
26.3742
2.674
17.6891
28.2062
28.3673
4.2601
4.3723
7.7513
4.8067
38.8959
4.906
1 1 .6983
5.182
5.9213
7.4414
6.7354
5.2111
5.5056
5.3756
5.4866
3.6329
3.8303
4.8726
6.5803
4.9227
4.9149
2.8197
10.2507
42.5006
2.7798
12.9807
38.7895
2.7734
13.9658
32.3131
Min
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
5
1
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
5
5
1
1
5
Max
905
905
720
403
290
150
230
905
665
720
300
315 1
905
660
420
720
905
210
420
290
905
420
685
300
450
660
720
905
600
570
665
590
720
905
905
600
590
905
685
480
905
575
300
905
300
300
905
575
300
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
2
5
5
5
3
5
2
5
5
5
5
1
5
2
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
25 50 75
15 30 75
10 30 90
15 30 75
15 30 180
6 25 60
5 12.5 30
5 16.5 50
15 30 90
14.5 30 90
15 30 80
10 15 50
22.5 60 105
10 15 30
10 20 60
15 20 75
15 30 75
10 20 60
10 25 90
15 25 82.5
5 15 45
15 30 85
15 30 65
15 30 100
17.5 32.5 180
5 15 45
15 30 117.5
15 30 90
15 30 100
15 30 85
10 30 65
15 30 63
15 30 90
10 30 85
13 30 75
10 30 85
15 30 75
15 30 65
15 30 115
10 30 60
15 35 90
15 30 75
15 30 100
15 17.5 206.5
15 30 75
10 30 132.5
15 15 180
15 30 75
15 32.5 117.5
15 20 180
90
195
195
190
225
230
60
120
195
225
195
120
162.5
90
155
210
195
155
210
233
90
195
190
224
300
120
240
215
192.5
190
150
180
180
215
180
210
170
195
240
160
180
190
210
300
190
220
300
190
220
233
95
255
265
255
300
290
90
150
265
295
265
210
260
155
270
420
255
360
210
420
150
265
240
270
300
192
328
270
270
330
210
255
270
296
240
295
225
240
305
255
230
255
240
300
255
240
300
255
265
300
98 99
360 480
375 480
360 496
403 403
290 290
120 150
210 230
375 540
420 480
375 480
255 260
315 315
905 905
660 660
420 420
358 420
665 905
210 210
420 420
225 230
375 540
400 403
420 575
300 300
233 300
420 660
420 540
330 375
400 585
315 420
360 400
375 570
380 600
330 420
380 570
296 403
345 480
420 585
400 570
292 345
360 480
400 480
300 300
375 496
300 300
300 300
360 480
480 575
300 300
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 1 5-79. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Indoor Playing
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
Refused
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The
Percentiles
N
188
65
123
3
11
11
4
149
10
153
13
5
7
8
2
172
15
1
26
74
20
68
27
16
59
33
37
16
46
40
64
38
128
60
49
36
47
56
174
13
1
184
3
1
177
10
1
Vlean
105
117
99.5
127
130
93.6
82.5
103
124
110
95
71
108
68.4
64
107
88.1
110
108
102
124
102
108
89.4
102
112
125
72.5
110
111
100
102
99.4
118
130
85.7
92.7
107
107
88.5
110
104
210
110
107
80.1
110
Stdev Stderr Min
82.7
97.1
73.8
47.3
80.2
64.3
45
86
76.4
84.3
84.8
56.8
96.5
46.4
65.1
83.9
71.4
*
69.9
95
74
76
68.6
58.8
83.6
97.7
96.1
40.4
94.4
75.8
73
92.2
71
13
99.2
55.7
77
82.7
84.1
66.4
*
80.7
167
*
83.5
72.5
*
6.03 2
12 10
6.65 2
27.3 90
24.2 15
19.4 30
22.5 30
7.05 2
24.2 20
6.82 2
23.5 15
25.4 10
36.5 30
16.4 42
46 18
6.4 2
18.4 42
* 110
13.7 15
11 2
16.6 30
9.21 15
13.2 15
14.7 20
10.9 2
17 10
15.8 15
10.1 10
13.9 2
12 15
9.13 10
15 10
6.27 2
13.3 15
14.2 18
9.28 2
11.2 10
11 10
6.38 2
18.4 20
* 110
5.95 2
96.4 60
* 110
6.27 2
22.9 10
* 110
Vlax 5
510 20
510 20
420 20
180 90
270 15
195 30
120 30
510 20
270 20
510 20
255 15
150 10
300 30
180 42
110 18
510 20
300 42
110 110
270 30
510 15
340 36
420 30
270 30
220 20
435 20
510 20
420 15
150 10
420 20
340 17.5
435 30
510 18
435 20
510 30
420 20
270 20
435 30
510 15
510 20
245 20
110 110
510 20
390 60
110 110
510 20
245 10
110 110
25 50
55 90
60 90
55 76
90 110
60 115
30 60
45 90
55 76
75 100
60 90
30 60
30 60
55 60
45 50
18 64
60 90
45 60
110 110
55 105
45 70
60 120
60 85
55 110
52.5 60
55 75
55 90
60 105
37.5 65
60 75
50 95
52.5 87.5
60 60
55 90
60 90
60 105
45 77.5
45 60
60 90
55 90
30 75
110 110
55 90
60 180
110 110
60 90
30 60
110 110
respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data.
Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers.
minutes. Max = maximum number of minutes.
Stdev
= standard deviation.
75
127.5
135
120
180
180
175
120
120
150
130
180
105
175
67.5
110
132.5
100
110
160
125
165
120
160
125
135
120
155
102.5
120
175
127.5
120
120
150
180
112.5
120
127.5
130
120
110
122.5
390
110
130
76
110
90
190
255
190
180
255
180
120
190
248
190
220
150
300
180
110
190
180
110
195
195
200
180
195
180
180
190
270
120
245
193
180
180
180
245
300
155
180
195
190
180
110
190
390
110
190
208
110
95
270
300
225
180
270
195
120
292
270
270
255
150
300
180
110
270
300
110
255
300
280
245
255
220
340
300
390
150
375
256
225
300
245
382.5
375
180
195
255
270
245
110
270
390
110
270
245
110
N = doer sample size.
Stderr = standard error. Min =
Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a
98 99
390 435
435 510
340 375
180 180
270 270
195 195
120 120
420 435
270 270
390 435
255 255
150 150
300 300
180 180
110 110
390 435
300 300
110 110
270 270
435 510
340 340
390 420
270 270
220 220
375 435
510 510
420 420
150 150
420 420
340 340
270 435
510 510
300 340
420 510
420 420
270 270
435 435
270 510
390 435
245 245
110 110
375 435
390 390
110 110
390 435
245 245
110 110
Mean =
minimum number of
given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-80. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in
Outdoor Playing
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N
59
26
33
1
4
9
1
40
4
50
2
1
1
5
51
8
15
15
7
22
15
5
10
18
8
3
17
12
15
15
42
17
10
10
31
8
56
3
58
1
55
4
Mean
97.373
108.192
88.848
170
83.25
148.333
15
92.05
52.5
93.94
86.5
100
30
149
93.333
123.125
123.533
67.2
87.714
103.182
123.533
57
148.5
74.667
75.375
58.333
114.059
78.583
109.667
81.2
86.81
123.471
66.5
135.3
92.355
108
94.821
145
96.983
120
90.018
198.5
Stdev
95.372
94.783
96.425
«
89.66
144.265
«
86.358
15
90.208
37.477
«
«
164.864
89.747
130.218
124.379
30.887
54.129
110.136
124.379
6.708
150.482
45.169
35.492
24.664
103.26
32.354
109.536
107.674
79.211
126.007
46.251
114.735
94.966
115.681
91.447
173.853
96.158
«
87.056
157.509
Stderr
12.416
18.588
16.785
«
44.83
48.088
«
13.654
7.5
12.757
26.5
«
«
73.729
12.567
46.039
32.115
7.975
20.459
23.481
32.115
3
47.586
10.646
12.548
14.24
25.044
9.34
28.282
27.801
12.223
30.561
14.626
36.283
17.056
40.899
12.22
100.374
12.626
«
1 1 .739
78.754
Min
5
15
5
170
15
5
15
20
30
5
60
100
30
20
5
20
5
20
30
25
5
45
30
20
30
30
15
30
30
5
5
25
5
45
5
25
5
30
5
120
5
60
Max 5
435 15
360 15
435 5
170 170
210 15
360 5
15 15
435 27.5
60 30
420 15
113 60
100 100
30 30
435 20
420 15
435 20
360 5
135 20
194 30
435 30
360 5
60 45
435 30
194 20
120 30
75 30
360 15
150 30
420 30
435 5
360 15
435 25
150 5
435 45
420 15
360 25
435 15
345 30
435 15
120 120
435 15
420 60
25
45
60
45
170
20
55
15
52.5
45
45
60
100
30
60
45
60
15
45
60
45
15
60
60
45
45
30
60
60
30
20
30
45
30
60
45
30
45
30
45
120
45
90
50 75
60 110
75 135
60 100
170 170
54 146.5
60 280
15 15
65 102.5
60 60
60 100
86.5 113
100 100
30 30
110 120
60 100
90 115
60 210
60 85
60 110
60 105
60 210
60 60
95 135
60 95
75 106.5
70 75
70 120
65 97.5
60 135
60 105
60 100
60 120
60 105
108 165
60 100
67.5 142
60 107.5
60 345
60 105
120 120
60 100
157 307
90
210
280
150
170
210
360
15
142.5
60
202
113
100
30
435
194
435
345
113
194
150
345
60
427.5
150
120
75
345
113
280
165
165
420
135
302.5
210
360
194
345
210
120
170
420
95
360
345
420
170
210
360
15
307
60
345
113
100
30
435
345
435
360
135
194
420
360
60
435
194
120
75
360
150
420
435
280
435
150
435
345
360
360
345
360
120
345
420
98 99
420 435
360 360
435 435
170 170
210 210
360 360
15 15
435 435
60 60
390 420
113 113
100 100
30 30
435 435
360 420
435 435
360 360
135 135
194 194
435 435
360 360
60 60
435 435
194 194
120 120
75 75
360 360
150 150
420 420
435 435
360 360
435 435
150 150
435 435
420 420
360 360
420 435
345 345
420 435
120 120
360 435
420 420
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour cumulative number of
minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum number of minutes.
Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-81. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent for Car Repair Services
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
N Mean
259 33.7876
128 41.6953
131 26.0611
2 88
8 33.125
6 18.3333
13 31.3077
204 32.4853
26 44.8462
226 33.8451
19 49.3158
3 1 1 .6667
5 11
6 12.5
247 34.6154
12 16.75
26 27.7692
137 31.8759
25 32.96
70 40.4714
1 5
28 28.4643
20 36.15
64 41.0781
68 36.2206
41 29.6829
38 24.2632
45 40.4889
66 34.6364
88 34.8182
60 26.3167
176 36.0227
83 29.0482
70 19.4857
70 36.5286
79 41.5316
40 38.725
238 34.7731
21 22.619
253 32.6324
6 82.5
247 33.0607
12 48.75
Stdev Stderr
53.772 3.3413
65.45 5.7851
37.84 3.3061
2.828 2
43.666 15.438
20.897 8.531
32.638 9.0521
52.731 3.6919
75.446 14.796
51.028 3.3943
90.675 20.802
11.547 6.6667
8.944 4
6.124 2.5
54.728 3.4822
22.471 6.4867
33.586 6.5868
52.912 4.5206
49.672 9.9344
62.833 7.51
* *
32.992 6.2349
51.714 11.564
62.959 7.8698
59.709 7.2407
54.536 8.5171
36.541 5.9277
58.498 8.7204
56.367 6.9383
60.547 6.4543
33.054 4.2673
57.142 4.3072
45.78 5.025
27.784 3.3208
48.821 5.8352
66.665 7.5004
64.266 10.161
55.08 3.5703
34.735 7.5799
51.888 3.2622
102.896 42.007
52.903 3.3661
70.522 20.358
Min
1
1
2
86
5
5
3
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
5
3
1
5
1
5
3
5
2
1
1
5
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
5
1
10
1
5
Max
358
358
180
90
115
60
95
280
358
280
358
25
25
20
358
86
115
280
180
358
5
115
180
280
358
270
195
270
280
358
175
358
245
180
245
358
280
358
150
358
245
358
245
5
5
4
5
86
5
5
3
5
2
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
2
4
5
5
5
3
5
5
3
2
5
5
5
4
5
5
10
5
5
25
5
5
5
86
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
10
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
5
5
50 75
10 30
15 45
10 30
88 90
12.5 55
12.5 15
10 55
10 30
15 50
10 35
10 44
5 25
5 15
15 15
10 35
12.5 15
10 50
10 30
15 30
15 35
5 5
12.5 52.5
15 45
15 47.5
15 37.5
10 25
10 20
15 60
10 35
10 30
12.5 30
15 30
10 30
10 20
15 50
15 30
12.5 39.5
10 35
15 15
10 30
22.5 180
10 30
15 77.5
90
90
120
65
90
115
60
79
85
105
90
180
25
25
20
90
20
90
85
105
103
5
90
117.5
105
90
60
70
105
70
95
80
101
79
60
105
160
90.5
90
35
90
245
90
95
95
180
180
105
90
115
60
95
180
180
175
358
25
25
20
180
86
95
175
180
180
5
95
177.5
180
180
160
95
180
180
180
95.5
180
95
60
150
180
222.5
180
90
160
245
175
245
98
195
270
180
90
115
60
95
195
358
195
358
25
25
20
245
86
115
265
180
245
5
115
180
265
180
270
195
270
265
245
115
265
195
90
180
270
280
245
150
180
245
195
245
99
270
280
180
90
115
60
95
265
358
265
358
25
25
20
270
86
115
270
180
358
5
115
180
280
358
270
195
270
280
358
175
280
245
180
245
358
280
270
150
270
245
270
245
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-82. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Washing, etc.
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
6029
2785
3242
2
110
318
407
411
4154
629
4794
664
110
119
269
73
5476
465
30
58
1116
2975
518
1378
42
1245
440
1634
1228
844
638
1356
1303
2136
1234
4184
1845
1688
1584
1636
1121
5559
437
33
5866
125
38
5749
249
31
Mean
23.9338
23.4154
24.3816
20
25.9182
29.2673
26.5184
22.4088
22.7939
27.7424
23.1558
28.7816
24.4727
28.6471
23.8364
22.7945
23.8088
25.7312
23.8
21.3966
25.9758
22.0733
22.3996
26.9354
21.9048
25.3888
30.6
23.7699
22.8575
22.5936
20.7618
23.3274
22.9294
25.2116
23.4489
22.9441
26.1783
24.6226
26.3295
21.8264
22.587
23.9538
24.2288
16.6667
23.9529
25.176
16.8947
23.8629
26.49
16.5484
Stdev
25.5661
28.8168
22.4026
14.1421
30.4752
16.5524
35.9626
14.6309
21.6279
43.1415
26.1288
24.2016
17.5493
27.4768
19.8318
20.46
25.0872
31 .6942
15.0319
18.5708
25.169
21.4639
17.1137
34.8572
15.8865
24.2988
46.38
20.0081
19.6959
32.3617
18.4597
21.7583
27.432
21.6627
32.6116
25.7284
25.0567
20.295
38.468
15.5411
20.8871
26.1095
18.3575
8.7202
25.8029
15.6613
8.5481
25.8064
20.7475
8.0616
Stderr
0.3293
0.5461
0.3935
10
2.9057
0.9282
1.7826
0.7217
0.3356
1.7202
0.3774
0.9392
1 .6733
2.5188
1 .2092
2.3947
0.339
1 .4698
2.7444
2.4385
0.7534
0.3935
0.7519
0.939
2.4513
0.6887
2.2111
0.495
0.5621
1.1139
0.7308
0.5909
0.76
0.4687
0.9284
0.3978
0.5833
0.494
0.9665
0.3842
0.6238
0.3502
0.8782
1.518
0.3369
1 .4008
1 .3867
0.3404
1.3148
1 .4479
Min
1
1
1
10
3
5
2
1
1
1
1
3
5
3
1
3
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
5
1
1
5
Max
705
705
555
30
300
125
690
90
555
705
705
270
90
240
210
105
705
570
60
105
690
555
135
705
90
690
570
270
255
705
240
360
570
300
705
705
555
300
705
150
340
705
145
30
705
100
35
705
150
30
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
5
5
5
5
10
5
7
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
25
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
12
10
15
15
15
10
10
10
15
15
10
15
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
13
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
50 75
20 30
15 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
30 30
20 30
18 30
15 30
20 30
15 30
20 35
20 30
25 30
20 30
15 30
20 30
20 30
17.5 30
15 25
20 30
15 30
15 30
20 30
15 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
15 30
20 30
15 30
15 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
15 30
15 30
20 30
20 30
15 25
20 30
25 30
15 25
20 30
20 30
15 25
90 95
45 60
45 55
45 60
30 30
41.5 60
50 60
45 60
42 50
45 60
45 65
45 60
60 65
47.5 60
50 60
45 60
60 75
45 60
45 60
50 60
30 60
45 60
45 60
45 60
50 60
30 45
45 60
50 60
45 60
45 60
40 60
45 60
45 60
45 60
45 60
45 60
45 60
50 60
45 60
45 60
40 55
45 60
45 60
45 60
30 30
45 60
45 60
30 30
45 60
60 60
30 30
98 99
75 90
65 90
80 90
30 30
60 80
75 85
60 75
60 60
75 90
90 120
70 90
90 105
85 90
100 150
75 90
90 105
75 90
75 90
60 60
80 105
60 75
65 85
70 90
90 120
90 90
60 80
90 240
75 90
75 90
75 110
65 85
75 90
70 85
85 105
65 85
65 90
90 100
75 90
90 125
60 75
75 90
75 90
90 95
30 30
75 90
60 75
35 35
75 90
95 105
30 30
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-83. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Sleeping/Napping
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev
9362 526.287 134.435
4283 523.333 135.183
5075 528.685 133.743
4 645 123.693
185 502.281 125.424
499 732.363 124.328
702 625.058 100.656
588 563.719 110.83
6041 496.93 123.019
1347 517.084 117.477
7576 523.598 129.545
940 541.303 162.726
156 537.09 118.072
181 528.823 142.25
383 537.966 148.886
126 523.421 143.695
8514 525.205 133.218
700 540.053 147.143
45 527.467 139.269
103 521.592 138.874
1771 636.604 128.545
4085 487.152 118.9
798 502.764 117.416
2638 520.277 125.549
70 513.671 136.491
1966 625.586 133.976
832 515.445 135.697
2604 505.367 123.006
1791 496.616 119.862
1245 492.516 117.558
924 486.737 110.394
2068 523.129 133.703
2096 520.846 127.642
3234 529.019 135.651
1964 530.918 139.966
6303 511.13 131.826
3059 557.517 134.392
2514 534.911 134.719
2431 526.839 130.49
2533 527.653 139.46
1884 512.228 131.14
8608 525.05 133.571
692 540.061 143.571
62 544.194 140.992
9039 526.754 134.235
249 513.743 137.698
74 511.392 146.297
8860 526.549 134.267
432 521.713 138.459
70 521.243 131.857
Stderr
1 .3894
2.0656
1.8774
61 .8466
9.2214
5.5657
3.799
4.5706
1 .5828
3.2009
1 .4883
5.3076
9.4533
10.5734
7.6077
12.8014
1 .4438
5.5615
20.7609
13.6837
3.0545
1 .8603
4.1565
2.4444
16.3138
3.0216
4.7045
2.4105
2.8323
3.3317
3.6317
2.9401
2.788
2.3854
3.1583
1 .6605
2.4299
2.6869
2.6466
2.771
3.0213
1 .4397
5.4577
17.906
1.4119
8.7263
17.0067
1 .4264
6.6616
15.7599
Min
30
30
30
540
195
270
120
150
30
30
30
60
300
60
60
180
30
60
195
240
120
30
60
30
210
120
30
30
60
75
105
55
30
30
60
30
30
55
30
30
60
30
30
300
30
60
30
30
80
210
Max
1430
1295
1430
780
908
1320
1110
1015
1420
1430
1430
1415
920
905
1125
1140
1430
1125
842
930
1320
1420
1005
1430
930
1420
1317
1430
1350
1404
1295
1420
1215
1430
1404
1430
1420
1404
1175
1430
1420
1430
1404
1035
1420
1430
930
1430
1110
930
5
345
330
350
540
330
540
480
395
330
345
350
315
345
300
315
330
345
320
345
330
440
325
330
345
320
420
300
330
315
330
345
345
330
345
345
330
360
355
345
330
330
345
330
330
345
300
300
345
300
300
25
445
435
450
540
420
655
570
484
420
450
445
424
467.5
420
450
420
445
450
420
420
555
420
435
450
420
540
435
420
420
420
420
435
440
450
449.5
420
480
450
445
435
430
445
450
465
445
445
420
445
420
450
50
510
510
510
630
480
720
630
550
480
510
510
530
540
525
540
510
510
540
515
510
630
480
495
510
490
628
510
495
480
480
480
510
510
510
510
495
540
520
510
510
505
510
537.5
535
510
510
510
510
510
510
75
600
600
600
750
555
810
680
630
555
570
600
630
600
630
630
600
600
630
659
590
705
540
570
590
570
699
585
570
565
540
540
600
598
600
600
570
630
600
600
600
570
600
617.5
600
600
595
600
600
600
600
90
690
690
690
780
655
900
725
705
630
660
690
737.5
690
720
720
720
690
720
690
720
802
628
645
660
696.5
790
670
659
630
629
615
690
690
699
690
670
720
700
690
699
660
690
715
720
690
660
720
690
705
690
95
760
765
750
780
745
930
780
750
705
720
750
822.5
735
769
765
780
750
777.5
710
780
860
685
720
720
780
855
750
720
690
690
660
760
745
765
769
745
780
780
750
765
735
750
780
780
760
735
780
760
765
745
98 99
850 925
860 925
840 925
780 780
865 900
1005 1110
840 875
810 900
780 868
780 860
840 900
940 1020
840 870
810 842
870 930
870 930
855 925
842.5 915
842 842
865 870
930 975
770 840
780 860
800 885
900 930
926 975
860 900
780 840
779 845
775 900
725 800
860 930
840 870
855 925
862 940
840 920
870 925
870 930
840 900
840 930
840 900
840 915
900 945
930 1035
855 925
795 845
840 930
850 924
840 930
840 930
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-84. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Attending Full Time School
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
884
468
416
7
56
297
271
247
6
665
92
33
29
58
7
771
103
4
6
608
49
89
135
3
666
14
54
100
24
26
186
200
322
176
858
26
302
287
125
170
784
96
4
875
4
5
851
27
6
Mean Stdev
358.537 130.347
369.301 123.186
346.428 137.1
232.143 148.123
365.036 199.152
387.811 98.013
392.28 84.986
292.194 154.58
203.333 147.366
362.913 128.548
351.793 129.647
346.303 156.009
337.828 148.115
345.259 124.048
285 157.03
359.565 130.825
353.107 126.354
315.5 167.773
348.333 140.594
386.497 107.308
206.551 133.583
304.652 134.791
325.274 161.049
270 147.224
384.985 107.925
267.071 129.31
238.481 141.148
303.35 170.598
238.417 145.897
302.808 144.149
351.597 127.019
358.07 123.934
373.879 139.7
338.335 120.469
363.66 126.018
189.5 158.415
375.113 118.518
353.359 133.705
332.448 142.088
357.018 132.833
357.969 130.658
362.958 127.895
363.75 162.551
358.57 130.546
382.5 87.702
333.6 140.481
359.132 130.435
340.111 132.683
357.167 121.491
Stderr
4.384
5.6943
6.7219
55.9853
26.6128
5.6873
5.1625
9.8357
60.1618
4.9849
13.5166
24.1576
27.5043
16.2883
59.3517
4.7116
12.4501
83.8863
57.3973
4.3519
19.0833
14.2879
13.8609
85
4.182
34.5595
19.2079
17.0598
29.781
28.2699
9.3135
8.7634
7.7852
9.0807
4.3022
31.0677
6.8199
7.8924
12.7088
10.1878
4.6663
13.0533
81.2756
4.4133
43.8511
62.8248
4.4713
25.5349
49.5987
Min
1
20
1
10
20
60
10
1
75
1
40
90
58
30
60
1
30
65
150
10
5
25
1
185
10
5
58
1
25
10
60
5
10
1
1
15
5
10
40
1
1
20
120
1
255
120
1
30
120
Max 5
840 95
840 120
710 75
495 10
710 30
645 170
605 200
840 60
480 75
825 107
710 70
840 120
553 70
565 85
440 60
840 100
630 85
416 65
445 150
710 165
502 15
695 90
840 60
440 185
710 160
415 5
785 60
840 60
565 30
535 95
825 120
645 87.5
840 60
630 120
840 120
465 20
695 150
840 90
630 70
785 120
840 95
695 95
450 120
840 95
455 255
460 120
840 95
605 60
440 120
25
300
320
262.5
180
172.5
360
375
180
120
310
286.5
225
212
260
150
300
269
221
185
361
115
210
215
185
360
175
125
185
135
210
268
307.5
330
262.5
310
60
330
290
217
285
295
334
280
300
330
270
300
305
350
50
390
390
385
210
427.5
390
405
289
152.5
392
387.5
365
360
377.5
290
390
385
391
435
400
180
295
340
440
400
310
212
272.5
200
300
375
392.5
405
375
390
120
395
390
375
380
390
390
442.5
390
410
378
390
365
396.5
75
435
435
430
320
530
435
435
400
240
435
432.5
435
445
430
440
435
425
410
440
440
305
395
420
440
440
357
330
90 95
483 550
485 555
480 535
495 495
595 628
485 555
460 485
480 535
480 480
485 550
465 526
500 565
502 540
480 510
440 440
483 550
483 510
415 415
445 445
485 550
430 461
480 500
500 605
440 440
485 550
385 415
400 480
415 525.5 613.5
360
461
420
425
450
410
435
300
440
430
425
430
435
427.5
447.5
435
435
440
435
435
440
430 460
500 502
483 520
470 527.5
500 565
465 540
485 550
460 465
495 550
475 500
470 550
510 565
485 550
475 540
450 450
483 550
455 455
460 460
485 550
450 460
440 440
98
600
595
600
495
665
600
510
645
480
600
645
840
553
510
440
600
595
415
445
595
502
585
785
440
595
415
480
760
565
535
600
577.5
625
555
600
465
612
570
600
605
595
645
450
600
455
460
600
605
440
99
640
645
628
495
710
630
555
785
480
630
710
840
553
565
440
645
600
415
445
625
502
695
825
440
625
415
785
832.5
565
535
785
602
645
600
640
465
640
710
600
645
630
695
450
640
455
460
640
605
440
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table 15-85. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Active Sports
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
1384
753
629
2
23
105
247
215
642
152
1139
109
30
35
59
12
1250
120
4
10
561
375
87
352
9
610
86
233
178
165
112
333
254
479
318
902
482
316
423
425
220
1266
105
13
1343
33
8
1331
43
10
Mean
123.994
136.781
108.628
142.5
108.696
115.848
148.87
137.46
120.315
88.007
125.994
113.431
89.933
135.371
116.288
120
124.471
121.2
113.75
102
137.073
117.579
116.207
112.537
99.444
137.702
101.047
116.794
115.781
116.218
106.446
131.967
116.882
119.476
128.132
115.47
139.946
115.589
130.775
129.541
112.314
122.461
144.829
105
125.491
72.091
86.875
124.101
130
84
Stdev
112.825
120.777
100.648
38.891
78.628
98.855
126.627
124.516
110.376
80.207
116.168
96.788
79.214
112.206
91.326
86.576
113.469
110.791
57.5
72.119
120.838
107.304
87.553
109.99
77.235
121.227
99.745
116.802
100.276
97.925
97.879
129.1
101.859
108.664
108.811
97.84
135.196
115.201
105.017
115.123
118.325
109.594
145.828
110.416
113.589
73.998
41.139
113.19
112.663
39.847
Stderr
3.0328
4.4014
4.0131
27.5
16.395
9.6472
8.0571
8.4919
4.3562
6.5056
3.4421
9.2706
14.4625
18.9663
1 1 .8897
24.9924
3.2094
10.1138
28.75
22.8059
5.1018
5.5412
9.3867
5.8625
25.7451
4.9083
10.7558
7.652
7.516
7.6235
9.2487
7.0746
6.3912
4.965
6.1018
3.2577
6.158
6.4806
5.1061
5.5843
7.9775
3.0801
14.2314
30.6239
3.0995
12.8815
14.5448
3.1026
17.181
12.6007
Min
1
1
1
115
5
10
2
5
1
1
1
5
5
15
1
40
1
1
60
40
2
5
1
1
30
2
10
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
30
1
5
40
1
10
40
Max
1130
1130
1065
170
290
630
975
1065
1130
380
1130
440
310
553
520
300
1130
630
185
290
1065
1130
450
600
280
1065
570
1130
525
600
375
1130
570
975
625
650
1130
1065
650
625
1130
1130
1065
450
1130
330
155
1130
553
155
5
15
20
15
115
30
30
20
15
15
15
15
10
10
20
15
40
15
15
60
40
20
20
15
10
30
20
15
20
15
15
10
15
18
15
25
15
20
15
30
15
15
15
15
30
15
5
40
15
30
40
25 50
50 90
60 105
38 75
115 142.5
40 90
45 90
60 120
60 110
45 90
30 60
50 90
45 86
30 60
60 105
45 115
60 95
45 90
50 90
67.5 105
60 82.5
60 110
45 90
60 95
30 70
45 90
60 110
30 60
45 85
45 90
50 90
40 60
60 100
45 90
45 90
55 92.5
45 90
59 100
45 85
60 105
45 95
43 77.5
45 90
60 110
60 60
50 90
30 50
60 75
50 90
45 110
60 75
75
165
180
150
170
155
159
188
180
160
120
165
150
145
195
145
130
165
147.5
160
105
180
155
160
150
120
180
135
150
160
150
142.5
170
150
160
175
150
180
155
175
178
143.5
162
180
90
165
60
115
165
165
90 95
267 330
285 375
240 300
170 170
220 225
250 330
320 390
265 375
250 330
220 285
270 340
240 332
215 235
270 330
240 305
290 300
270 330
240 335
185 185
215 290
285 370
240 305
235 285
270 330
280 280
285 370
225 270
240 300
270 340
250 310
270 330
275 345
255 315
265 330
295 330
240 300
300 380
240 305
270 330
290 375
240 290
266 330
300 390
165 450
270 332
180 275
155 155
267 330
270 340
105 147.5 155
98 99
435 525
500 558
370 435
170 170
290 290
345 390
510 558
470 520
450 525
315 330
452 530
430 435
310 310
553 553
345 520
300 300
435 515
520 553
185 185
290 290
452 558
380 525
355 450
475 520
280 280
470 558
510 570
420 530
418 475
380 450
360 375
485 558
430 440
410 462
500 525
395 485
500 565
370 475
435 515
462 530
460 565
430 515
553 565
450 450
440 525
330 330
155 155
435 520
553 553
155 155
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean
24-hour cumuFative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max =
maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-86. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Outdoor Recreation
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
253
140
112
1
2
13
21
27
158
32
225
16
3
2
4
3
238
12
3
60
104
19
68
2
64
22
59
54
31
23
52
54
84
63
129
124
31
75
102
45
232
19
2
245
6
2
238
13
2
Mean Stdev
211.23 185.48
231.78 207.41
183.67 150.15
420
337.5 201.53
166.54 177.06
206.14 156.17
155.07 128.28
223.61 192.97
211.06 206.59
209.77 182.74
233.88 231.3
203.33 262.22
327.5 130.82
77.5 53.929
308.33 209.42
211.8 187.07
175.5 149.06
308.33 209.42
177.1 150.02
210.74 153.37
205.26 204.04
244.44 245.03
187.5 10.607
176.73 145.32
259.41 177.97
238.2 228.99
218.09 172.21
224.71 193.06
157.61 178.18
189.6 160.88
212.09 228.41
217.26 175.27
220.29 179.71
197.21 195.32
225.81 174.26
196.61 165.52
198.85 161.67
228.16 204.18
203.53 193.83
208.24 187.69
250.21 166.64
187.5 10.607
206.82 184.85
399.17 151.21
187.5 10.607
212.24 189.23
196.31 122.22
187.5 10.607
Stderr
11.661
17.529
14.188
«
142.5
49.109
34.078
24.687
15.352
36.521
12.183
57.825
151.39
92.5
26.964
120.91
12.126
43.029
120.91
19.368
15.039
46.81
29.715
7.5
18.165
37.943
29.812
23.434
34.675
37.153
22.31
31.083
19.123
22.642
17.197
15.649
29.728
18.668
20.217
28.895
12.323
38.23
7.5
11.81
61.731
7.5
12.266
33.896
7.5
Min
5
5
5
420
195
15
30
5
5
5
5
5
30
235
20
180
5
15
180
5
5
30
5
180
5
5
15
5
20
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
180
5
285
180
5
5
180
Max
1440
1440
645
420
480
630
585
465
1440
735
1440
690
505
420
150
550
1440
511
550
630
670
690
1440
195
630
600
1440
690
690
735
690
1440
645
690
1440
690
585
690
1440
735
1440
570
195
1440
690
195
1440
370
195
5
20
17.5
20
420
195
15
60
5
30
5
20
5
30
235
20
180
20
15
180
12.5
30
30
15
180
15
30
20
25
30
10
30
20
15
30
15
20
5
25
30
20
20
15
180
20
285
180
20
5
180
25 50
60 165
67.5 177
60 150
420 420
195 337.5
30 130
90 165
60 135
80 172.5
30 171
60 165
42.5 150
30 75
235 327.5
42.5 70
180 195
60 165
70 150
180 195
60 147.5
82.5 180
60 150
60 179.5
180 187.5
60 152.5
105 247.5
90 175
65 172.5
60 150
50 80
60 162.5
60 177.5
62.5 150
75 165
60 150
85 180
60 165
75 180
75 179.5
60 120
60 159
80 255
180 187.5
60 160
310 345
180 187.5
60 165
117 160
180 187.5
75
300
90
480
330 502.5
255
420
480
180
245
225
310
375
300
450
505
420
112.5
550
300
255
550
230
294
180
375
195
225
380
310
345
325
200
231.5
280
347.5
280
275
310
280
270
325
330
294
350
195
288
420
195
300
310
195
380
420
480
370
360
420
505
495
460
585
505
420
150
550
480
340
550
395
419
570
525
195
370
525
511
460
505
370
370
419
495
545
465
480
440
465
459
505
480
525
195
480
690
195
495
340
195
95
574
600
525
420
480
630
574
420
585
600
570
690
505
420
150
550
585
511
550
519.5
511
690
690
195
465
600
670
550
645
480
574
600
525
585
525
600
550
545
585
574
585
570
195
570
690
195
585
370
195
98 99
670 690
690 735
585 630
420 420
480 480
630 630
585 585
465 465
690 690
735 735
670 690
690 690
505 505
420 420
150 150
550 550
690 690
511 511
550 550
585 630
600 645
690 690
735 1440
195 195
585 630
600 600
690 1440
570 690
690 690
735 735
670 690
735 1440
600 645
690 690
670 735
690 690
585 585
670 690
690 690
735 735
690 690
570 570
195 195
670 690
690 690
195 195
690 690
370 370
195 195
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-87. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Exercise
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/EMphysema DK
N Mean Stdev Stderr
564 77.429 70.438 2.966
262 84.676 75.778 4.6816
302 71.142 64.927 3.7361
10 76.5 74.014 23.405
11 127.273 187.18 56.437
26 132.5 126.31 24.772
35 67.829 41.589 7.0298
407 77.572 63.597 3.1524
75 54.853 44.455 5.1332
480 78.015 71.517 3.2643
34 74.706 44.67 7.6608
10 46.3 25.038 7.9177
14 80.214 73.944 19.762
19 63 60.658 13.916
7 128.571 130.47 49.313
516 76.872 70.111 3.0865
38 76.553 59.516 9.6548
3 65 69.462 40.104
7 128.571 130.47 49.313
72 99.014 111.6 13.153
300 72.663 55.618 3.2111
50 85.98 83.568 11.818
139 72.683 63.36 5.3742
3 113.333 135.77 78.387
83 101.976 110.97 12.18
21 58.238 66.062 14.416
124 81.048 63.037 5.6609
104 80.856 70.181 6.8818
110 73.627 62.548 5.9637
122 60.861 38.368 3.4737
130 88.423 77.649 6.8102
101 63.564 44.33 4.411
177 75.311 71.62 5.3833
156 79.647 75.331 6.0313
426 73.096 63.872 3.0946
138 90.804 86.574 7.3697
150 67.387 49.859 4.071
140 74.871 55.395 4.6817
192 93.188 91.294 6.5886
82 63.268 63.277 6.9878
523 76.625 70.247 3.0717
37 78.243 51.454 8.459
4 175 167.03 83.517
553 77.259 69.366 2.9497
7 27.286 19.576 7.3992
4 188.75 150.35 75.177
542 77.098 69.465 2.9838
17 64.588 60.635 14.706
5 157 149.57 66.888
Vlin
4
5
4
15
15
15
15
4
6
4
15
15
30
15
30
4
15
20
30
15
5
10
4
30
15
10
4
15
5
5
10
10
5
4
4
6
8
10
5
4
4
20
10
4
6
60
4
10
15
Max
670
670
525
270
670
525
180
480
195
670
250
95
275
265
360
670
265
145
360
670
460
420
480
270
670
300
298
480
460
240
450
300
525
670
670
525
285
360
670
460
670
275
360
670
60
360
670
275
360
5
15
20
15
15
15
25
20
20
10
15
15
15
30
15
30
15
20
20
30
20
20
20
10
30
25
10
15
20
20
15
15
15
15
20
15
15
15
17.5
20
15
15
20
10
15
6
60
15
10
15
25
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
25
30
45
30
30
30
55
30
30
20
55
30
30
30
30
30
30
28
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
35
30
10
62.5
30
30
60
50
60
60
60
60
60
90
60
60
40
60
60
41.5
47.5
45
60
60
60
30
60
60
60
60
60
40
60
30
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
62.5
45
60
65
165
60
25
167.5
60
50
80
75
100
117
90
90
150
180
100
100
70
100
105
60
90
60
270
99
110
145
270
120
90
92
90
270
120
60
115
112.5
98
80
120
89
90
104
90
120
90
90
120
75
100
100
315
100
45
315
100
63
270
90
150
165
125
187.5
160
275
120
145
120
150
120
82.5
179
160
360
145
160
145
360
180
130
167.5
135
270
205
90
179
150
130
110
200
115
150
130
130
200
127.5
147.5
180
120
150
120
360
145
60
360
145
120
360
95
195
205
175
270
670
450
150
185
150
194
130
95
275
265
360
193
250
145
360
275
179.5
300
195
270
275
165
205
170
180
127
240
120
185
183
180
265
175
181
250
135
185
200
360
193
60
360
185
275
360
98
275
285
265
270
670
525
180
265
193
285
250
95
275
265
360
275
265
145
360
525
240
390
240
270
525
300
250
240
285
165
297
170
298
270
240
420
212.5
220
450
300
265
275
360
265
60
360
265
275
360
99
420
450
360
270
670
525
180
300
195
450
250
95
275
265
360
420
265
145
360
670
291
420
265
270
670
300
265
420
297
185
420
215
480
460
298
460
240
298
525
460
420
275
360
420
60
360
420
275
360
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-88. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Food Preparation8
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
4278
1341
2937
94
24
60
131
3173
796
3584
377
62
66
132
57
3960
254
20
44
210
1988
420
1625
35
291
450
1449
954
659
475
952
956
1453
917
2995
1283
1173
1038
1148
919
3948
300
30
4091
149
38
4024
216
38
Mean
52.37
37.8106
59.0177
52
56.4583
25.1667
21.7023
52.0905
60.5025
51.6205
57.0265
54
50.5909
59.2121
53.1404
51.848
59.2244
54.95
58.6136
27.1667
45.4874
53.8643
63.6357
53.5429
31.7079
61.2556
58.8392
52.0073
46.2018
46.1621
52.312
53.2333
53.3944
49.9073
50.0571
57.7693
50.6206
54.3892
51.3972
53.5375
52.0433
57.1433
47.6333
52.1936
56.8054
53.9737
52.0318
56.9074
62.3947
Stdev
52.8802
42.1779
55.862
43.2171
60.3699
29.6877
37.6902
52.8766
54.669
53.2589
52.2893
41.8224
53.2368
49.7947
49.297
52.6035
56.7225
53.2002
53.2957
40.5487
46.6734
55.3474
57.7587
66.7803
42.6211
53.2321
56.6653
52.2377
48.0775
48.7374
53.2054
51.8139
53.4621
52.7204
49.979
58.7687
48.6464
54.484
54.1854
54.5349
53.1805
49.4425
44.8119
52.9733
48.2377
60.4168
53.0963
46.6833
61.7031
Stderr
0.8085
1.1518
1 .0308
4.4575
12.3229
3.8327
3.293
0.9387
1.9377
0.8896
2.693
5.3115
6.553
4.3341
6.5295
0.8359
3.5591
1 1 .8959
8.0346
2.7981
1 .0468
2.7007
1 .4328
11.2879
2.4985
2.5094
1 .4886
1.6913
1.8728
2.2362
1.7244
1 .6758
1 .4025
1.741
0.9132
1 .6407
1 .4204
1.6911
1 .5992
1 .7989
0.8464
2.8546
8.1815
0.8282
3.9518
9.8009
0.837
3.1764
10.0096
Min
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
6
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
Max
555
480
555
215
240
120
385
555
525
555
390
210
295
315
210
555
420
240
210
385
480
520
555
340
385
555
520
525
515
375
480
520
555
515
555
420
480
525
555
520
555
272
195
555
340
240
555
240
240
5 25 50
5 20 35
5 13 30
5 25 45
5 20 40
5 22.5 30
2511
2 5 10
5 20 35
5 25 45
5 19 35
5 20 40
5 20 50
5 15 33.5
5 23.5 55
5 20 40
5 20 35
5 20 45
8 25 45
5 27.5 37.5
2 5 15
5 15 30
5 20 40
5 29 45
2 20 30
2 5 15
5 30 45
5 22 45
5 20 34.5
5 15 30
5 15 30
5 20 40
5 20 35
5 16 35
5 15 31
5 19 35
5 20 40
5 18 35
5 20 38.5
5 20 35
5 20 37
5 20 35
5 20.5 45
5 10 32.5
5 20 35
5 25 45
2 10 32.5
5 20 35
5 20 45
2 20 42.5
75
65
50
75
60
75
30
30
65
80
65
75
70
70
80
60
65
75
60
80
30
60
65
90
60
37
90
75
65
60
60
61
65
70
60
60
75
65
70
60
67
65
75
60
65
80
60
65
85
90
90
115
80
120
110
150
60
55
110
120
110
120
105
115
110
120
111
120
112.5
150
60
90
105
125
120
75
120
120
110
100
96
110
120
120
105
105
130
110
120
110
120
110
120
117.5
115
120
120
110
120
150
95
150
105
155
150
180
107
70
145
150
145
150
130
150
135
180
145
155
180
180
90
130
125
170
195
120
150
155
150
125
135
140
150
150
135
132
180
135
150
137
155
145
160
120
150
135
240
145
150
240
98 99
210 265
150 210
224 272
195 215
240 240
120 120
90 90
210 265
240 270
210 265
210 240
175 210
210 295
225 285
195 210
205 255
240 315
240 240
210 210
120 180
180 240
205 255
240 275
340 340
155 195
197 225
240 310
210 245
180 224
200 270
205 255
210 265
195 245
225 265
180 240
240 300
195 240
224 265
208 300
200 265
210 265
199 240
195 195
210 265
180 210
240 240
210 265
198 210
240 240
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean
24-hour cumuFative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max =
maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-89. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Doing Dishes/Laundry8
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
1865
324
1541
32
10
20
47
1371
385
1560
170
19
25
71
20
1732
112
7
14
73
776
214
789
13
99
216
683
422
262
183
471
405
602
387
1270
595
503
438
510
414
1712
147
6
1790
66
9
1746
112
7
Mean
61.7882
46.1142
65.0837
43.75
49.3
34.25
32.6809
63.2356
63.4416
62.2173
57.8471
56.7368
45.96
69.0141
60.75
61.3077
68.2589
75.7143
62.5
35.3288
56.9549
63.7243
68.5234
58.2308
37.5253
69.7824
67.3616
64.3033
51 .4466
53.6831
59.5223
60.3235
65.8156
59.814
59.5402
66.5866
65.3479
62.7763
61.7294
56.4903
61 .9533
60.8912
36.6667
62.0788
54.7576
55.5556
60.5063
82.7143
46.7143
Stdev
68.894
50.179
71.793
46.49
66.545
28.799
30.603
67.104
79.738
69.493
60.026
51.705
41.361
75.626
104.217
68.206
71.468
66.548
122.266
37.364
63.42
64.791
76.296
59.448
38.655
69.956
76.746
72.277
49.386
60.208
60.067
68.244
75.076
69.562
68.798
68.909
79.461
67.751
62.801
63.125
69.64
60.62
41.793
69.212
62.985
44.19
65.326
109.505
51.403
Stderr
1 .5953
2.7877
1 .8289
8.2183
21.0434
6.4395
4.4639
1.8123
4.0638
1 .7595
4.6038
1 1 .862
8.2721
8.9752
23.3037
1 .6389
6.7531
25.1526
32.677
4.3732
2.2766
4.429
2.7162
16.4878
3.885
4.7599
2.9366
3.5184
3.0511
4.4507
2.7677
3.3911
3.0599
3.536
1 .9305
2.825
3.543
3.2373
2.7809
3.1024
1.6831
4.9999
17.062
1 .6359
7.7529
14.7301
1 .5634
10.3473
19.4284
Min
1
1
1
10
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
3
5
3
5
1
3
10
5
1
2
2
1
10
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
5
1
2
2
1
1
2
10
1
5
10
1
3
2
Max
825
360
825
225
210
92
150
565
825
825
390
210
150
325
475
825
325
180
475
210
565
340
825
180
210
570
825
475
260
360
565
480
825
570
825
565
825
450
565
570
825
375
120
825
335
120
565
825
120
5
10
10
10
10
3
1.5
5
10
9
10
5
3
10
5
7.5
10
5
10
5
3
10
10
10
10
3
25 50
20 30
15 30
20 35
15 30
5 22.5
15 30
10 20
20 30
20 35
20 30
17 30
15 30
15 30
20 35
15 30
20 30
20 30
15 55
15 25
15 20
20 30
15 30
25 40
10 30
10 30
10 26.5 45
10
10
10
5
10
5
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
5
2
20 40
20 30
15 30
15 30
20 35
15 30
20 35
15 30
20 30
20 40
20 30
20 35
20 40
15 30
20 30
20 30
10 25
20 30
25 30
30 30
20 30
20 57.5
10 30
Percentiles
75 90
80 150
60 120
90 150
55 90
55 165
58 82.5
45 65
90 150
80 135
85 147.5
75 150
90 120
80 120
105 200
60 127.5
80 140
103 180
150 180
35 120
50 80
70 125
90 151
90 158
100 150
55 90
90 151
90 150
85 155
70 120
60 120
75 135
75 150
90 150
70 150
75 137.5
90 150
90 150
75 150
90 140
65 130
85 150
76 151
30 120
85 150
60 120
90 120
80 140
103 170
120 120
95
190
135
200
150
210
91
90
198
195
190
180
210
120
225
305
180
225
180
475
120
180
205
210
180
120
195
205
210
158
190
180
198
210
210
190
210
210
190
180
195
195
180
120
190
200
120
190
240
120
98 99
255 335
210 260
270 340
225 225
210 210
92 92
150 150
245 335
285 375
270 335
235 240
210 210
150 150
275 325
475 475
250 335
270 275
180 180
475 475
150 210
240 335
240 275
285 375
180 180
180 210
245 315
285 405
285 360
200 225
245 330
210 285
240 285
270 360
270 345
245 330
275 340
300 360
285 335
240 270
230 270
270 335
250 255
120 120
255 335
315 335
120 120
250 325
360 570
120 120
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean
24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max =
maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
a Includes food cleanup, clothes care.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-90. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Housekeeping0
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
1943 118.833
370 109.419
1573 121.047
47 146.043
11 74.091
54 42.852
72 78.111
1316 120.422
443 128.217
1649 119.056
137 116.555
32 98.75
26 82.423
71 112.648
28 189.286
1771 117.443
134 121.657
15 146.867
23 191.087
138 65.565
673 106.579
193 124.72
925 132.681
14 236.786
171 82.164
246 140.736
677 125.078
433 112.898
245 107.302
171 130.813
464 119.235
413 117.855
648 119.912
418 117.679
1316 113.21
627 130.635
470 111 .4
451 122.621
563 111 .803
459 131.344
1789 118.529
140 115.664
14 189.286
1853 117.731
75 122.88
15 234.667
1816 118.073
107 118.701
20 188.5
Stdev
113.369
116.541
112.533
121.3
69.42
34.096
75.546
113.654
118.925
112.184
109.394
100.467
56.436
129.335
176.198
110.586
129.578
127.912
180.296
68.838
102.376
117.48
119.442
208.221
96.944
125.356
120.495
100.145
102.244
117.998
116.368
112.595
116.159
106.559
111.913
115.567
100.617
114.024
114.5
122.391
112.075
115.811
208.565
112.346
103.762
204
112.929
102.942
176.435
Stderr
2.5719
6.0587
2.8374
17.6935
20.9308
4.6399
8.9031
3.133
5.6503
2.7626
9.3462
17.7602
11.0681
15.3492
33.2983
2.6278
11.1939
33.0268
37.5944
5.8599
3.9463
8.4564
3.9272
55.6495
7.4135
7.9924
4.631
4.8127
6.5321
9.0236
5.4022
5.5405
4.5631
5.212
3.085
4.6153
4.6411
5.3692
4.8256
5.7127
2.6497
9.7878
55.7414
2.6099
11.9814
52.6725
2.65
9.9518
39.452
Min
1
1
1
10
10
1
1
1
3
1
1
15
5
5
10
1
5
10
10
1
1
1
3
10
1
3
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
5
10
1
5
10
1
5
5
Max
810
810
790
480
270
180
300
810
790
790
490
425
210
660
810
790
660
510
810
375
655
660
790
810
810
715
790
570
585
655
790
715
810
720
790
810
810
720
690
790
790
690
810
790
394
810
790
480
810
5
10
10
15
10
10
5
5
15
10
10
5
15
15
8
20
10
10
10
20
5
10
15
15
10
5
10
15
10
15
15
10
10
10
15
10
15
10
15
10
15
10
10
10
13
5
10
10
10
7.5
25
40
30
45
45
40
20
27.5
40
55
40
30
30
40
30
52.5
40
35
30
45
25
30
45
55
120
30
60
45
40
30
60
35
34
40
40
30
55
45
40
30
45
40
36.5
45
40
30
120
40
30
85
50 75
90 165
60 150
90 165
115 240
60 90
30 53
60 105
90 165
90 180
90 165
90 150
60 127.5
60 115
60 135
147.5 247.5
90 165
85 135
120 210
150 255
45 80
70 145
90 180
105 180
182.5 300
45 105
120 180
90 175
90 150
60 150
90 180
90 165
88 165
90 165
90 165
75 150
90 180
85 160
90 180
75 135
90 180
90 165
67 150
122.5 255
90 160
90 210
240 300
90 160
90 180
155 240
90
270
270
270
300
90
80
210
270
270
265
300
265
185
270
420
265
270
240
390
180
240
270
295
430
220
300
270
240
240
280
245
255
285
255
255
290
240
270
255
300
270
277.5
340
265
270
480
270
255
320
95
345
360
345
375
270
120
240
360
345
340
358
345
190
465
465
335
470
510
420
240
325
390
370
810
270
400
375
320
328
390
330
345
370
340
330
370
290
360
365
390
345
377.5
810
345
320
810
355
290
575
98 99
465 540
425 560
465 540
480 480
270 270
150 180
285 300
465 525
540 570
465 540
480 484
425 425
210 210
518 660
810 810
425 525
540 658
510 510
810 810
285 300
413 490
480 540
484 600
810 810
300 375
540 660
490 610
420 470
405 465
495 540
480 655
480 525
435 540
420 470
470 550
435 525
390 480
465 540
465 610
480 560
465 540
470 480
810 810
465 540
370 394
810 810
465 540
465 470
810 810
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
a Includes cleaning house, other repairs, and household work.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-91.
Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Bathing (a)
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev
6416 26.0842 29.6711
2930 24.2416 31.0251
3484 27.6372 28.4021
2 20 14.1421
114 29.0088 38.9855
330 29.9727 19.4226
438 25.7511 35.3164
444 23.1216 18.7078
4383 25.4312 27.1553
707 29.9123 44.502
5117 25.0233 28.5494
707 31.4851 31.5524
112 28.1786 29.7661
122 30.2213 27.2726
280 28.7786 39.2648
78 27.5769 40.3235
5835 25.8833 28.5411
486 28.751 40.5582
33 25.7576 16.7724
62 24.2581 37.2268
1189 26.1329 26.4288
3095 24.1499 25.0984
558 24.7616 23.2468
1528 30.3161 39.9341
46 30.4348 45.176
1330 25.6759 26.4094
474 33.3122 53.0129
1758 25.822 23.5699
1288 26.4099 27.0338
897 25.3813 34.8197
669 22.7788 23.0661
1444 25.0478 24.2512
1402 24.602 30.2958
2266 27.4086 26.0895
1304 26.5238 38.8092
4427 25.2896 30.2913
1989 27.8527 28.1689
1796 26.858 26.9167
1645 28.5854 41.0512
1744 23.9295 20.7343
1231 24.6653 25.5885
5912 26.0658 30.0373
468 26.5427 22.9543
36 23.1389 44.0728
6243 26.0042 29.0175
131 31.145 49.5427
42 22.1905 40.9153
6112 26.0545 29.857
268 27.2463 22.162
36 22.4722 44.0859
Stderr
0.3704
0.5732
0.4812
10
3.6513
1 .0692
1 .6875
0.8878
0.4102
1.6737
0.3991
1.1866
2.8126
2.4691
2.3465
4.5657
0.3736
1 .8398
2.9197
4.7278
0.7665
0.4511
0.9841
1.0216
6.6608
0.7242
2.435
0.5621
0.7533
1.1626
0.8918
0.6382
0.8091
0.5481
1.0747
0.4553
0.6316
0.6351
1.0121
0.4965
0.7293
0.3907
1.0611
7.3455
0.3673
4.3286
6.3134
0.3819
1 .3538
7.3477
Min Max
1 705
1 705
1 555
10 30
2 300
1 170
1 690
1 210
1 555
1 705
1 705
1 295
5 270
1 240
2 546
3 275
1 705
2 570
5 65
3 275
1 690
1 555
1 295
1 705
3 275
1 690
1 570
1 270
1 255
1 705
1 257
1 360
1 570
1 300
1 705
1 705
1 555
1 546
1 705
1 270
1 340
1 705
1 210
3 275
1 705
5 546
3 275
1 705
1 150
3 275
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
25
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
10
10
15
15
10
15
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
11
15
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
13
10
50
20
20
20
20
20
30
20
18
20
20
20
22
20
27.5
20
15
20
20
20
15
20
15
20
20
15
20
20.5
20
20
15
15
20
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
19.5
17
20
20
15
20
25
15
20
20
15
75
30
30
30
30
30
31
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
35
31.5
30
30
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
33
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
30
30
25
30
30
22.5
90
50
45
60
30
60
54.5
45
45
50
60
45
60
60
50
54.5
60
50
50
55
30
45
45
46
60
55
45
60
50
55
50
45
50
45
55
48
45
60
50
60
45
50
50
46
30
50
50
30
50
60
30
95
60
60
75
30
60
60
60
60
60
85
60
80
75
60
62.5
100
60
60
65
60
60
60
60
85
105
60
85
60
75
65
60
60
60
65
60
60
68
60
70
60
60
60
60
30
60
60
30
60
60
30
98
90
75
105
30
105
85
60
65
90
120
90
120
90
100
90
195
90
90
65
105
75
85
90
120
275
75
110
90
105
105
85
90
85
100
90
90
100
90
115
80
95
90
100
275
90
105
275
90
95
275
99
120
100
135
30
275
90
75
90
120
150
115
170
90
150
155
275
120
140
65
275
90
110
110
155
275
90
300
120
150
135
100
105
115
135
133
115
130
110
150
100
120
120
120
275
120
131
275
120
131
275
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
a Includes baby and child care, personal care services, washing and personal hygiene (bathing, showering
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
, etc.)
-------
Table 15-92. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Yardwork/Maintenance (a)
Percentiles
Category
Population Group
N Mean Stdev Stderr Min Max
25 50
75
90
95 98
99
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
1414
804
610
20
12
26
54
1015
287
1249
77
13
26
37
12
1331
65
8
10
92
664
121
526
11
105
160
465
305
211
168
291
314
438
371
878
536
289
438
458
229
1311
98
5
1360
42
12
1352
57
5
147.69
174.84
111.91
181.85
93.167
96.154
116
150.22
149.3
151.52
114.53
140
117.23
102.11
177.08
148.69
106.17
248.75
203.5
106.82
146.73
134.51
157.76
211.55
113.47
158.46
151.39
152.84
145.36
142.2
140.5
145.1
152.69
149.63
140.86
158.88
139.35
162.23
137.92
149.97
146.95
149.27
312
145.34
192.62
257.08
148.48
114.65
312
148.216
160.191
121.979
170.345
80.805
85.532
116.758
154.486
133.834
150.205
127.124
150.111
110.647
113.508
190.793
147.962
127.4
206.48
200.056
101.779
155.488
130.79
147.022
198.724
113.854
164.764
146.985
157.011
138.849
147.773
139.641
143.219
156.36
149.345
140.753
159.193
151.711
150.477
140.291
153.398
147.084
155.758
230.043
145.05
203.363
216.716
148.534
121.376
230.043
3.942
5.649
4.939
38.09
23.326
16.774
15.889
4.849
7.9
4.25
14.487
41.633
21.7
18.661
55.077
4.056
15.802
73.002
63.263
10.611
6.034
11.89
6.41
59.918
11.111
13.026
6.816
8.99
9.559
11.401
8.186
8.082
7.471
7.754
4.75
6.876
8.924
7.19
6.555
10.137
4.062
15.734
102.879
3.933
31.38
62.56
4.04
16.077
102.879
1 1080
1080
900
600
285
330
505
1 1080
2
1
2
5
5
5
30
810
1080
750
425
380
565
600
1 1080
5 575
585
600
505
1 1080
2 554
810
600
600
900
840
1080
625
690
840
780
1080
750
810
1080
690
900
1080
720
5
60
3
1 1080
5
60
1
5
5
1
5
60
670
600
900
1080
600
1080
460
600
5
10
2
5
7.5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
45
60
30
60
30
39
30
35
60
45
20
15
30
20
60
45
20
90
60
5 31.5
5 35
30
60
60
33
45
50
45
40
30
40
55
45
40
40
50
30
60
40
40
45
30
60
5
15
120
45
60
5 52.5
5 45
5
60
30
120
100
120
75
116
82.5
60
90
100
120
105
65
85
88
60
97.5
105
60
190
120
77
90
90
120
120
79
111
110
95
105
90
90
95
111
104
92.5
116.5
75
120
90
97
100
90
300
100
142.5
232.5
105
60
300
205
249.5
145
240
132.5
120
150
210
205
210
165
210
178
120
215
209
120
420
300
147.5
202.5
200
220
375
150
210
210
210
225
180
200
195
205
210
190
225
195
220
180
210
200
210
480
200
255
472.5
205
135
480
360
415
277.5
467.5
178
210
285
360
330
360
285
360
290
255
510
360
255
585
555
240
360
317
370
465
285
412.5
345
360
330
340
330
360
375
350
345
380
360
360
310
390
355
445
600
355
465
510
360
340
600
470
510
360
570
285
300
385
480
420
480
355
425
360
300
600
465
300
585
600
330
490
390
480
600
360
492.5
460
473
465
470
450
445
480
480
460
510
480
480
440
480
465
480
600
465
485
600
470
375
600
570 655
600 670
465 510
600 600
285 285
330 330
450 505
585 670
525 630
575 660
405 750
425 425
380 380
565 565
600 600
570 660
565 575
585 585
600 600
450 505
575 690
490 495
595 655
600 600
450 505
595 810
575 690
600 630
525 533
570 630
525 600
560 655
585 635
575 690
560 625
600 690
565 600
570 700
555 630
600 655
570 635
670 670
600 600
570 655
1080 1080
600 600
570 660
405 460
600 600
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
a Includes car repair services, other repairs services, outdoor cleaning, car repair maintenance, other repairs, plant care, other household work,
domestic crafts, domestic arts.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-93. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Sports/Exercise (a)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
1852
958
892
2
32
114
262
237
992
215
1541
135
37
47
74
18
1678
151
7
16
606
644
125
465
12
663
103
341
265
258
222
437
341
627
447
1264
588
448
533
579
292
1699
137
16
1801
40
11
1782
56
14
Mean
116.322
130.669
100.854
142.5
102.031
118.982
153.496
134.717
109.692
82.051
117.524
110.4
85.432
124.702
108.892
130
116.451
115.583
92.857
120
138.658
102.315
115.272
107.239
102.917
139.46
96.243
109.276
110.068
105.717
87.149
126.865
105.889
112.774
118.951
107.154
136.029
104.094
123.452
125.988
102.901
114.927
132.131
129.063
117.3
68
131.818
116.226
119.429
116.071
Stdev
107.947
117.216
94.795
38.891
79.32
109.17
130.58
122.228
100.801
75.995
110.622
93.06
73.897
106.397
89.177
1 1 1 .698
108.276
106.428
62.773
110
123.665
94.146
91.33
104.105
87.917
123.813
97.046
106.483
94.836
92.204
79.704
122.905
94.38
104.846
105.629
94.026
130.966
104.108
100.904
114.358
110.416
105.239
134.238
134.786
108.373
70.942
116.023
107.987
108.516
108.187
Stderr
2.5084
3.7871
3.174
27.5
14.022
10.2247
8.0673
7.9396
3.2004
5.1828
2.818
8.0094
12.1486
15.5196
10.3667
26.3275
2.6432
8.661
23.726
27.5
5.0235
3.7099
8.1688
4.8277
25.3794
4.8085
9.5622
5.7664
5.8257
5.7404
5.3494
5.8793
5.111
4.1872
4.9961
2.6447
5.401
4.9187
4.3706
4.7525
6.4616
2.5532
1 1 .4687
33.6966
2.5537
11.217
34.9823
2.5581
14.501
28.9143
Min
1
1
1
115
5
10
2
5
1
1
1
5
5
15
1
30
1
1
20
30
2
5
1
1
30
2
10
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
4
1
1
1
5
1
4
1
1
10
1
5
40
1
10
15
Max
1130
1130
1065
170
290
670
975
1065
1130
380
1130
440
310
553
520
420
1130
630
185
420
1065
1130
450
600
280
1065
570
1130
525
600
375
1130
570
975
670
670
1130
1065
650
670
1130
1130
1065
450
1130
330
420
1130
553
420
5 25
17 45
20 55
15 35
115 115
15 40
25 45
20 60
15 60
20 45
10 30
20 45
15 45
10 30
30 40
15 45
30 60
17 45
15 45
20 30
30 60
20 60
20 45
15 45
10 31
30 40
20 60
15 30
15 40
17 45
20 45
15 30
15 50
20 40
15 45
22 48
15 45
20 51.5
15 40
25 60
15 45
15 40
17 45
15 60
10 60
20 45
5.5 30
40 60
17 45
20 42.5
15 60
50
85
97.5
65
143
80
90
120
110
75
60
85
85
60
85
90
82.5
85
90
75
70
110
67.5
90
70
75
110
60
75
80
70
60
95
75
80
85
75
90
70
90
90
60
85
90
60
89
47.5
90
85
75
85
75
150
175
130
170
137.5
159
200
179
145
110
150
150
95
180
145
140
150
145
145
122.5
180
130
160
135
130
180
135
150
145
130
105
165
135
150
160
140
180
130
162
160
127.5
150
165
152.5
150
60
155
150
172.5
140
90 95
253 316
270 355
230 285
170 170
225 270
250 330
330 415
265 360
240 300
195 270
255 320
220 340
210 235
270 325
225 270
300 420
253 316
240 325
185 185
290 420
285 375
225 280
220 300
250 310
270 280
285 383
210 270
235 285
240 305
240 297
208 290
270 338
240 280
250 313
250 325
235 285
297 380
230 280
267 330
283 360
225 275
250 310
265 390
420 450
254 316
172.5 235
270 420
250 315
270 340
270 420
98 99
420 515
475 558
370 435
170 170
290 290
390 630
525 580
470 520
405 510
310 316
435 525
430 435
310 310
553 553
345 520
420 420
430 510
415 553
185 185
420 420
470 580
360 405
420 420
462 515
280 280
510 580
305 510
405 485
418 475
343 450
355 360
470 558
430 438
410 462
475 525
375 485
462 558
360 420
420 500
470 545
460 565
420 510
553 565
450 450
430 515
330 330
420 420
430 515
410 553
420 420
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
a Includes active sports, exercise, hobbies.
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-94.
Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Eating or Drinking
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
8627
3979
4644
4
157
492
680
538
5464
1296
7049
808
148
168
345
109
7861
639
41
86
1695
3684
715
2472
61
1867
758
2363
1612
1160
867
1916
1928
2960
1823
5813
2814
2332
2222
2352
1721
7937
635
55
8318
243
66
8169
397
61
Mean
74.8821
75.8316
74.0814
60
75.3248
93.4837
68.5412
55.8587
71.8673
91.7014
77.0058
59.9047
80.4054
66.0417
68.7043
74.2477
75.5599
68.2754
60.4146
68.9186
72.2083
70.6097
72.2112
83.9498
71 .0492
70.85
72.3206
74.8565
73.9237
78.4991
82.8166
78.2766
75.8117
71.3916
75.9989
71.2069
82.4741
76.0931
76.3096
73.4787
73.3161
75.2016
71.3732
69.2909
74.5795
85.0288
75.6667
74.6605
80.6599
66.9508
Stdev
54.8419
56.2313
53.6353
21.2132
50.1255
52.8671
38.9518
34.9903
55.1199
62.6665
55.6564
46.5954
47.8283
52.0928
51.8926
60.8473
55.2306
50.1994
37.1039
55.4732
44.9086
55.0998
55.4476
59.1281
60.9843
45.3955
57.4352
57.1005
56.5324
55.4196
59.6871
59.1627
51.3702
55.0903
52.9755
52.0446
59.5052
56.4379
55.207
53.2506
54.2737
54.8093
55.0353
56.5874
54.4372
63.5335
67.304
54.3234
65.2442
47.7188
Stderr Min
0.5904 1
0.8914 1
0.7871 2
10.6066 30
4.0005 10
2.3834 2
1 .4937 5
1 .5085 2
0.7457 1
1.7407 5
0.6629 1
1 .6392 2
3.9315 2
4.019 7
2.7938 2
5.8281 8
0.6229 1
1 .9859 2
5.7947 5
5.9818 8
1 .0908 2
0.9078 1
2.0736 2
1.1892 2
7.8082 8
1 .0506 2
2.0861 2
1.1746 1
1 .408 2
1.6272 1
2.0271 2
1.3516 1
1.1699 1
1.0126 2
1.2407 2
0.6826 1
1.1217 2
1.1687 2
1.1712 1
1 .098 1
1 .3083 2
0.6152 1
2.184 2
7.6302 8
0.5969 1
4.0757 2
8.2845 5
0.601 1
3.2745 2
6.1098 8
Max
900
900
640
75
315
345
255
210
900
750
900
505
305
525
435
410
900
435
150
410
345
900
509
750
385
375
460
900
525
640
750
750
435
900
500
900
630
640
630
750
900
900
460
335
900
500
435
900
460
230
5
15
15
15
30
15
20
15
10
15
20
15
15
15
15
12
20
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
25 50
35 60
39 60
34 60
45 67.5
30 65
60 90
40 65
30 50
30 60
50 80
40 64
30 50
45 72.5
30 59.5
30 60
30 60
35 60
30 60
30 55
30 60
40 65
30 60
30 60
45 75
30 55
38 60
30 60
35 60
30 60
40 65
40 70
37 65
40 64
30 60
35 60
33 60
40 70
38.5 65
35 60
35 60
30 60
35 60
30 60
30 60
35 60
45 75
30 60
35 60
30 60
30 60
75
96
96
98
75
100
120
90
75
90
120
100
75
106.5
83
90
90
100
90
90
90
90
90
90
110
90
90
90
96
90
105
110
102.5
100
90
100
90
110
95.5
100
95
95
100
90
90
95
115
90
95
110
90
90
140
140
140
75
145
160
120
105
135
165
145
119
150
120
125
130
140
120
120
115
133
135
135
150
120
130
135
140
145
145
150
145
140
135
150
130
150
140
145
135
140
140
133
120
140
160
150
140
150
120
95
175
180
170
75
150
190
142.5
125
170
200
180
140
160
135
165
180
175
155
130
155
150
165
170
185
145
150
180
175
175
180
185
180
175
165
180
165
190
175
178
170
175
175
170
210
175
180
195
170
180
155
98 99
215 270
210 270
225 270
75 75
195 285
225 270
165 195
150 170
220 270
270 295
225 270
200 225
200 200
190 200
195 225
290 315
220 270
195 225
150 150
210 410
195 210
225 270
230 260
235 285
235 385
190 210
230 315
220 270
230 275
220 265
240 270
240 285
210 255
210 270
210 240
210 250
240 297
240 275
220 275
210 260
210 232
215 270
225 285
215 335
210 265
285 330
215 435
210 260
285 360
215 230
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-95. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at an Auto Repair Shop/Gas Station
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
N
153
105
48
3
4
5
7
118
16
130
12
5
3
3
148
5
16
84
16
35
2
18
16
Education High School Graduate 51
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
32
19
17
29
48
43
33
121
32
28
44
52
29
145
8
149
4
146
7
Mean
190.693
241.476
79.604
161.667
40
22
153.857
223.847
58.125
195.538
149.667
173
15
350
188.926
243
84.188
283.571
104.188
65.914
17.5
95.056
327.188
233.353
253.469
72.895
49
247.31
230.896
165.721
115
204.645
137.938
177.143
189.636
171.692
239.448
191.29
179.875
191.047
177.5
189.048
225
Stdev
234.506
250.274
144.512
115.578
50.166
21.679
205.069
249.335
96.889
237.537
203.31
231.236
10
330.114
233.749
279.701
146.714
263.755
147.369
94.745
17.678
153.879
301.181
243.089
252.8
126.321
73.388
257.069
251.622
211.591
198.907
244.861
184.175
258.088
223.267
223.809
251.391
235.288
234.838
235.262
235.744
234.959
239.948
Stderr
18.959
24.424
20.858
66.729
25.083
9.695
77.509
22.953
24.222
20.833
58.691
103.412
5.774
190.591
19.214
125.086
36.678
28.778
36.842
16.015
12.5
36.27
75.295
34.039
44.689
28.98
17.799
47.737
36.318
32.267
34.625
22.26
32.558
48.774
33.659
31.037
46.682
19.54
83.028
19.273
117.872
19.445
90.692
Min
1
2
1
90
10
5
3
1
2
1
2
5
5
15
1
15
3
3
5
1
5
3
5
2
2
1
5
2
1
3
5
1
2
2
2
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
Max
930
930
595
295
115
60
505
930
358
930
565
525
25
675
930
675
505
930
390
432
30
505
930
748
700
508
235
930
700
675
675
930
540
930
645
680
748
930
600
930
510
930
555
5 25
5 15
5 15
3 10
90 90
10 12.5
5 15
3 5
5 15
2 15
5 15
2 6.5
5 15
5 5
15 15
5 15
15 15
3 12.5
5 17.5
5 12.5
2 15
5 5
3 10
5 60
5 20
5 15
1 5
5 10
3 30
5 17.5
5 15
5 10
5 15
3 15
5 15
5 15
3 10
8 35
5 15
5 5
5 15
5 10
5 15
5 5
50 75
60 360
115 495
15 70
100 295
17.5 67.5
15 15
55 390
75 480
20 42.5
60 390
75 229
25 295
15 25
360 675
60 369.5
150 360
17.5 69.5
230 540
17.5 187.5
30 90
17.5 30
17.5 79
278 615
120 480
157 517.5
20 90
15 35
120 432
74.5 510
50 358
15 100
60 390
40 200
30 355
79.5 384.5
30 347.5
95 445
60 360
37.5 374.5
60 360
97.5 345
57.5 360
95 510
90
565
600
295
295
115
60
505
600
225
587.5
495
525
25
675
565
675
390
630
359
160
30
390
675
565
595
295
225
600
600
555
505
595
505
595
565
540
605
565
600
585
510
585
555
95
645
675
485
295
115
60
505
675
358
645
565
525
25
675
630
675
505
680
390
358
30
505
930
675
680
508
235
748
680
595
645
675
510
700
600
675
695
645
600
645
510
645
555
98 99
695 748
700 748
595 595
295 295
115 115
60 60
505 505
700 748
358 358
700 748
565 565
525 525
25 25
675 675
700 748
675 675
505 505
748 930
390 390
432 432
30 30
505 505
930 930
695 748
700 700
508 508
235 235
930 930
700 700
675 675
675 675
700 748
540 540
930 930
645 645
675 680
748 748
700 748
600 600
700 748
510 510
700 748
555 555
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers.
Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-96. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Numbr of Minutes Spent Indoors at a Gym/Health Club
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
364
176
188
6
5
28
39
254
32
307
30
10
11
4
2
345
17
2
72
176
40
75
1
81
9
61
71
81
61
83
62
118
101
281
83
127
85
81
71
333
28
3
357
4
3
352
10
2
Mean Stdev
129.651 104.343
147.193 115.554
113.229 89.876
202.5 227.854
156 29.875
105.286 69.537
165.385 122.056
123.134 98.827
141.375 114.216
134.261 109.36
117.7 75.418
75.2 36.484
112.909 69.077
83.75 42.696
57.5 3.536
132.017 105.901
90.118 58.765
57.5 3.536
139.625 103.274
131.193 112.511
129.25 92.836
117.867 91.345
40
136.877 99.66
110.556 97.706
128.475 110.005
145.634 129.073
121.975 99.467
115.639 76.916
140.53 107.244
127 88.661
125.669 107.038
126.99 108.452
121.26 96.577
158.06 123.652
139.795 108.258
141.459 115.229
109.864 87.411
119.944 98.963
132.39 106.796
100.071 69.387
101.667 55.752
130.499 104.98
90 47.61
81.667 65.256
130.696 104.843
97.3 92.848
107.5 67.175
Stderr
5.4691
8.7102
6.5549
93.0211
13.3604
13.1413
19.5447
6.2009
20.1907
6.2415
13.7693
1 1 .5372
20.8276
21.3478
2.5
5.7015
14.2527
2.5
12.171
8.4808
14.6787
10.5477
*
1 1 .0733
32.5688
14.0847
15.3181
11.0519
9.8481
11.7716
11.26
9.8537
10.7914
5.7613
13.5726
9.6063
12.4983
9.7123
11.7447
5.8524
13.113
32.1887
5.5561
23.8048
37.6755
5.5882
29.361
47.5
Min
5
5
5
30
105
5
15
5
10
5
5
30
25
40
55
5
5
55
5
5
25
5
40
5
10
5
5
15
10
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
20
5
5
60
5
60
30
5
10
60
Max
686
686
660
560
180
325
660
686
533
686
320
145
270
140
60
686
255
60
660
686
420
533
40
660
300
660
600
686
415
660
440
660
686
686
660
686
600
525
660
686
330
165
686
160
155
686
330
155
5
30
30
30
30
105
30
30
30
30
30
10
30
25
40
55
30
5
55
30
30
35
25
40
30
10
25
35
30
40
40
25
15
50
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
25
60
30
60
30
30
10
60
25 50
60 110
77.5 120
60 92.5
55 75
160 160
58 82.5
90 138
60 100
60 103
65 110
60 115
54 60
65 90
52.5 77.5
55 57.5
65 110
60 90
55 57.5
76 120
60 110
60 95
60 90
40 40
75 120
30 80
75 105
65 110
60 98
60 90
70 120
60 113
60 105
60 92
60 98
77 120
75 120
65 102
60 90
56 98
62 110
60 86
60 80
62 110
60 70
30 60
61 110
45 76.5
60 108
75
155
175
135
420
175
141
206
150
173
164
145
95
153
115
60
160
115
60
165
150
168
145
40
164
165
145
170
135
145
170
170
150
135
145
180
177
164
130
150
160
118
165
155
120
155
158
120
155
90
240
285
200
560
180
165
330
210
292
255
235
133
179
140
60
240
140
60
265
240
285
230
40
215
300
210
285
220
225
240
285
240
225
210
285
240
285
160
215
255
210
165
240
160
155
240
245
155
95
320
360
279
560
180
270
440
295
340
330
285
145
270
140
60
325
255
60
330
330
325
285
40
325
300
310
533
285
265
330
300
330
292
295
415
330
340
310
295
325
230
165
325
160
155
320
330
155
98 99
525 600
533 660
420 560
560 560
180 180
325 325
660 660
475 600
533 533
533 600
320 320
145 145
270 270
140 140
60 60
533 600
255 255
60 60
440 660
560 660
420 420
475 533
40 40
440 660
300 300
525 660
560 600
420 686
320 415
600 660
340 440
533 540
525 560
475 560
600 660
533 660
560 600
440 525
420 660
533 600
330 330
165 165
525 600
160 160
155 155
525 600
330 330
155 155
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-97. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at the Laundromat
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N
40
9
31
3
33
4
31
6
3
37
3
3
20
4
13
3
6
17
6
7
1
6
8
18
8
25
15
11
12
12
5
37
3
40
35
5
Mean
99.275
150.222
84.484
80.667
101.182
97.5
102.161
75.667
116.667
97.865
116.667
80.667
97.6
127.5
97.462
80.667
95
101.353
91.5
126.429
2
168.667
94
85.944
82.5
103.32
92.533
86.455
85.583
118.667
113.8
95.459
146.333
99.275
92.314
148
Stdev
85.209
146.822
51.822
17.926
91.724
63.574
93.832
50.306
30.551
88.241
30.551
17.926
104.739
91.879
60.852
17.926
53.292
64.434
56.387
168.219
«
166.465
60.328
61.82
52.915
100.663
52.697
57.98
71.678
125.78
48.422
83.88
106.514
85.209
84.343
83.262
Stderr
13.4727
48.9407
9.3075
10.3494
15.967
31.7871
16.8527
20.5372
17.6383
14.5068
17.6383
10.3494
23.4203
45.9393
16.8772
10.3494
21.7562
15.6275
23.0199
63.5808
«
67.9591
21.3291
14.5711
18.7083
20.1326
13.6063
17.4816
20.6916
36.3096
21.655
13.7897
61 .4962
13.4727
14.2565
37.2357
Min
2
2
5
60
2
5
2
5
90
2
90
60
2
75
5
60
5
5
10
5
2
45
5
2
5
2
10
2
5
5
34
2
59
2
2
30
Max 5
500 5
500 2
265 5
92 60
500 5
150 5
500 5
130 5
150 90
500 5
150 90
92 60
500 4
265 75
210 5
92 60
150 5
265 5
155 10
500 5
2 2
500 45
210 5
265 2
150 5
500 5
210 10
210 2
265 5
500 5
155 34
500 5
265 59
500 5
500 5
265 30
25 50
54.5 91
115 120
50 80
60 90
50 90
60 118
50 90
34 85
90 110
50 90
90 110
60 90
42 83.5
77.5 85
45 115
60 90
60 113
59 90
34 115
45 70
2 2
75 126
57.5 93.5
50 76
35 100
50 90
60 92
45 80
35 73.5
55 101
115 115
50 90
59 115
54.5 91
50 90
140 150
75
120
150
115
92
120
135
120
115
150
120
150
92
115
178
137
92
130
120
120
110
2
140
118
115
118
115
130
120
120
113
150
120
265
120
115
155
90
153
500
137
92
155
150
155
130
150
155
150
92
143
265
150
92
150
210
155
500
2
500
210
155
150
155
150
140
130
137
155
150
265
153
130
265
95
238
500
155
92
265
150
265
130
150
265
150
92
328
265
210
92
150
265
155
500
2
500
210
265
150
265
210
210
265
500
155
210
265
238
210
265
98 99
500 500
500 500
265 265
92 92
500 500
150 150
500 500
130 130
150 150
500 500
150 150
92 92
500 500
265 265
210 210
92 92
150 150
265 265
155 155
500 500
2 2
500 500
210 210
265 265
150 150
500 500
210 210
210 210
265 265
500 500
155 155
500 500
265 265
500 500
500 500
265 265
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard
deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of
doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table 15-98. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at Work (non-specific)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
137 393.949
96 435.271
41 297.195
4 568.75
2 200
4 33.75
2 207.5
121 409.678
4 293.75
113 397.903
13 379.231
1 405
9 314.778
1 840
121 388.702
12 361.083
2 585
2 717.5
8 118.75
97 440.732
21 341.19
9 250.556
2 425
11 234.091
12 460.417
50 409.6
29 368.897
22 405.682
13 443.692
22 405.545
26 418.577
58 379.707
31 391.71
121 401.843
16 334.25
42 390.81
34 361.324
41 400.902
20 441.75
124 393.218
13 400.923
133 397.677
3 266.667
1 280
131 397.13
5 333.4
1 280
Stdev
242.649
243.979
212.415
394.723
70.711
1 1 .087
166.17
230.934
289.464
235.199
286.501
«
266.161
*
242.092
242.06
35.355
173.241
113.916
237.56
188.235
218.567
586.899
266.306
181.727
273.717
237.58
184.225
218.128
193.817
250.898
233.179
289.538
242.472
243.28
241.456
236.996
262.9
219.411
237.29
300.15
243.291
255.799
*
242.048
299.365
*
Stderr
20.731
24.901
33.174
197.362
50
5.543
117.5
20.994
144.732
22.126
79.461
«
88.72
*
22.008
69.877
25
122.5
40.275
24.121
41.076
72.856
415
80.294
52.46
38.709
44.117
39.277
60.498
41.322
49.205
30.618
52.003
22.043
60.82
37.257
40.644
41.058
49.062
21.309
83.247
21.096
147.686
*
21.148
133.88
*
Min
5
10
5
90
150
20
90
5
10
5
10
405
30
840
5
30
560
595
20
10
30
5
10
20
115
5
10
90
10
15
10
5
10
5
13
10
10
5
10
5
10
5
90
280
5
10
280
Max 5
979 15
979 20
780 15
940 90
250 150
45 20
325 90
979 15
610 10
979 15
850 10
405 405
793 30
840 840
979 15
793 30
610 560
840 595
325 20
979 15
795 115
630 5
840 10
840 20
795 115
979 15
850 10
815 150
793 10
765 90
940 13
979 10
960 20
979 15
795 13
960 30
840 30
979 13
793 12.5
960 20
979 10
979 15
560 90
280 280
979 20
619 10
280 280
25
180
245
90
248
150
25
90
240
50
210
85
405
95
840
180
138
560
595
35
300
240
95
10
40
330
150
160
240
360
320
180
150
90
210
97.5
175
150
210
285
180
240
190
90
280
180
13
280
50
440
473
280
623
200
35
208
450
278
450
405
405
245
840
405
370
585
718
67.5
480
330
150
425
150
495
463
405
375
500
398
473
420
405
450
340
405
360
450
490
440
320
440
150
280
440
460
280
75
555
598
495
890
250
42.5
325
560
538
555
510
405
440
840
550
510
610
840
200
585
435
360
840
325
558
619
510
540
585
540
610
540
630
560
495
550
525
570
620
553
590
555
560
280
555
565
280
90
662
765
550
940
250
45
325
660
610
660
810
405
793
840
660
660
610
840
325
690
590
630
840
610
615
735
660
595
630
660
690
619
795
660
690
660
660
690
661
660
793
662
560
280
662
619
280
95
810
840
590
940
250
45
325
793
610
780
850
405
793
840
795
793
610
840
325
815
610
630
840
840
795
940
765
645
793
662
780
810
850
810
795
765
815
810
727.5
795
979
810
560
280
810
619
280
98 99
940 960
960 979
780 780
940 940
250 250
45 45
325 325
850 960
610 610
940 960
850 850
405 405
793 793
840 840
940 960
793 793
610 610
840 840
325 325
960 979
795 795
630 630
840 840
840 840
795 795
969.5 979
850 850
815 815
793 793
765 765
940 940
815 979
960 960
940 960
795 795
960 960
840 840
979 979
793 793
850 940
979 979
940 960
560 560
280 280
940 960
619 619
280 280
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-99. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at the Dry Cleaners
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N
34
11
23
1
2
28
3
25
7
1
1
31
3
2
25
1
6
2
4
8
6
12
2
8
10
8
8
23
11
12
4
8
10
32
2
33
1
33
1
Mean
82.029
105.545
70.783
485
20
61.036
185
70.72
131.429
10
91
83.806
63.667
20
83.12
500
28.5
20
234
84.125
146.333
13.5
50
110
19.1
197
17.75
93.957
57.091
74.583
44.5
20.25
155.4
86.688
7.5
83.909
20
84.061
15
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
Stderr = standard error. Mm = minimum number of minutes. Max
equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
Stdev
151.651
166.006
146.839
«
21.213
120.923
273.359
143.744
198.95
«
«
158.483
46.479
21.213
151.81
*
33.934
21.213
209.191
165.008
220.347
24.247
63.64
187.293
30.101
211.975
29.359
172.77
95.985
158.092
41.685
32.012
205.739
155.244
3.536
153.599
*
153.532
*
Stderr
26.008
50.053
30.618
«
15
22.852
157.824
28.749
75.196
«
«
28.464
26.835
15
30.362
*
13.853
15
104.595
58.339
89.956
6.999
45
66.218
9.519
74.945
10.38
36.025
28.941
45.637
20.843
11.318
65.061
27.443
2.5
26.738
*
26.726
*
Min
2
2
5
485
5
2
10
2
5
10
91
2
10
5
2
500
5
5
45
5
5
2
5
5
5
15
2
2
5
5
10
2
5
2
5
2
20
2
15
Max 5
515 5
515 2
500 5
485 485
35 5
515 5
500 10
515 5
500 5
10 10
91 91
515 5
91 10
35 5
515 5
500 500
91 5
35 5
500 45
485 5
515 5
90 2
95 5
485 5
103 5
515 15
90 2
515 5
325 5
485 5
103 10
95 2
515 5
515 5
10 5
515 5
20 20
515 5
15 15
25 50
5 10
5 10
5 10
485 485
5 20
5 10
10 45
5 10
10 20
10 10
91 91
5 10
10 90
5 20
5 10
500 500
10 10
5 20
68 196
13 17.5
10 11.5
5 5
5 50
5 10
5 7.5
30 93
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
15 32.5
5 5
13 55
5 11.5
5 7.5
5 10
20 20
5 10
15 15
75
90
103
35
485
35
55
500
35
325
10
91
45
91
35
90
500
45
35
400
62
325
10
95
180
20
400
10
90
95
13
74
23
300
91
10
90
20
90
15
90
325
325
300
485
35
300
500
300
500
10
91
325
91
35
325
500
91
35
500
485
515
10
95
485
61.5
515
90
485
103
325
103
95
507.5
325
10
325
20
325
15
95
500
515
485
485
35
325
500
485
500
10
91
500
91
35
485
500
91
35
500
485
515
90
95
485
103
515
90
500
325
485
103
95
515
500
10
500
20
500
15
98 99
515 515
515 515
500 500
485 485
35 35
515 515
500 500
515 515
500 500
10 10
91 91
515 515
91 91
35 35
515 515
500 500
91 91
35 35
500 500
485 485
515 515
90 90
95 95
485 485
103 103
515 515
90 90
515 515
325 325
485 485
103 103
95 95
515 515
515 515
10 10
515 515
20 20
515 515
15 15
Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation.
= maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or
-------
Table 15-100. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at a Bar/Nightclub/Bowling Alley
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
352
213
139
4
4
8
313
23
297
25
8
7
10
5
327
20
2
3
12
223
43
70
4
13
28
117
95
55
44
83
88
91
90
192
160
93
83
99
77
331
18
3
345
5
2
333
17
2
Mean
175.818
174.319
178.115
158.75
98.75
151.25
180.192
141.217
173.623
205.44
169.875
197.286
121.3
246.6
177.131
144.9
142.5
261
133.75
182.439
201.233
146.3
176.25
146.538
218.036
177.778
205.274
141.764
131.364
179.337
169.818
175.714
178.544
167.458
185.85
182.667
186.12
160.313
176.377
176.308
169.444
160
176.98
82
210
177.273
148.588
165
Stdev
132.206
133.151
131.191
98.011
57.5
77.678
136.706
85.243
132.592
126.551
153.311
187.607
52.326
127.153
134.457
85.08
31.82
171.852
73.55
138.308
155.454
97.375
115.136
84.172
170.225
130.078
152.829
92.766
90.209
137.039
126.238
132.028
135.533
133.473
130.378
131.674
147.597
130.672
117.154
133.715
108.978
124.9
132.759
47.249
127.279
133.27
108.499
190.919
Stderr
7.047
9.123
11.127
49.006
28.75
27.463
7.727
17.774
7.694
25.31
54.204
70.909
16.547
56.864
7.435
19.024
22.5
99.219
21.232
9.262
23.706
1 1 .639
57.568
23.345
32.17
12.026
15.68
12.509
13.599
15.042
13.457
13.84
14.286
9.633
10.307
13.654
16.201
13.133
13.351
7.35
25.686
72.111
7.148
21.131
90
7.303
26.315
135
Min
3
5
3
75
45
50
3
5
3
50
5
70
5
73
3
5
120
73
45
5
5
3
45
45
60
3
5
10
30
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
15
3
60
60
3
5
120
3
50
30
Max
870
870
630
300
170
270
870
328
870
540
479
615
198
410
870
440
165
410
270
870
615
479
300
300
870
630
650
417
400
650
615
870
605
650
870
650
870
630
615
870
530
300
870
120
300
870
530
300
5
30
30
30
75
45
50
30
30
30
60
5
70
5
73
30
38
120
73
45
30
45
30
45
45
75
25
30
20
30
45
30
35
30
30
45
40
30
30
30
30
60
60
30
5
120
30
50
30
25
90
90
95
98
53
80
90
75
90
120
38
110
105
180
90
110
120
73
60
90
90
73
83
60
120
90
105
75
60
89
90
90
85
80
108
87
90
75
100
90
105
60
90
75
120
90
110
30
50 75
150 222.5
140 220
150 225
130 220
90 145
160 205
150 225
135 180
140 220
180 240
175 225
135 185
117.5 160
270 300
150 225
120 160
142.5 165
300 410
135 177.5
150 228
150 270
122.5 180
180 270
150 185
174.5 235
150 225
180 240
120 205
110 177.5
140 240
147.5 211.5
148 225
152.5 225
120 210
165 228
150 240
140 230
120 189
165 220
150 225
135 210
120 300
150 225
90 120
210 300
150 225
120 175
165 300
90 95
328 487
340 479
300 530
300 300
170 170
270 270
370 498
240 325
328 487
417 498
479 479
615 615
179 198
410 410
340 489
221.5 342.5
165 165
410 410
225 270
340 525
455 520
255 328
300 300
270 300
420 568
360 489
462 590
265 340
265 290
328 489
299 487
270 462
407 479
340 520
321.5 474.5
410 455
380 498
285 530
299 410
340 487
270 530
300 300
340 487
120 120
300 300
340 487
210 530
300 300
98 99
570 615
568 615
600 605
300 300
170 170
270 270
590 615
328 328
590 630
540 540
479 479
615 615
198 198
410 410
590 615
440 440
165 165
410 410
270 270
600 630
615 615
462 479
300 300
300 300
870 870
540 570
615 650
410 417
400 400
630 650
568 615
570 870
590 605
590 605
568 630
560 650
570 870
605 630
600 615
590 615
530 530
300 300
590 615
120 120
300 300
590 615
530 530
300 300
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-101. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at a Restaurant
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
2059
986
1073
30
61
84
122
1503
259
1747
148
37
30
78
19
1911
129
5
14
263
1063
208
515
10
299
132
590
431
359
248
409
504
680
466
1291
768
524
559
556
420
1903
150
6
1998
50
11
1945
104
10
Mean
94.539
87.498
101.01
126.13
62.705
56.69
69.836
101.21
83.583
91.658
102.82
81.297
145.17
123
123.84
92.945
116.7
76
114.5
62.251
105.48
122.61
76.33
135
72.177
134.77
99.439
94.935
89.515
95.012
94.379
96.895
92.666
94.863
97.338
89.833
97.735
91.642
95.121
93.636
94.081
96.267
196.33
94.926
68.98
140.27
93.746
96.077
232.8
Stdev
119.93
114.17
124.69
138.22
47.701
38.144
78.361
131.22
83.517
114.69
141.28
78.948
194.83
156.78
127.64
117.6
147.95
134.32
134.74
57.907
142.37
144.83
61.418
133.52
79.595
171.84
136.32
114.88
104.13
109.37
113.64
120.86
125.1
116.88
128.83
103.16
125.69
109.7
123.03
121.74
117.41
143.56
220.89
120.73
53.608
171.27
117.67
130.13
288.24
Stderr
2.643
3.6358
3.8065
25.2349
6.1075
4.1618
7.0945
3.3846
5.1895
2.744
11.613
12.979
35.5705
17.7518
29.2833
2.6901
13.0261
60.0708
36.0117
3.5707
4.3668
10.0423
2.7064
42.223
4.6031
14.9567
5.612
5.5338
5.4957
6.9452
5.619
5.3833
4.7972
5.4145
3.5855
3.7224
5.491
4.6399
5.2177
5.9401
2.6915
11.7219
90.1782
2.701
7.5813
51 .6393
2.668
12.7602
91.1492
Min
1
1
1
15
4
5
2
1
3
1
3
15
5
10
20
1
1
5
30
2
1
1
3
30
1
5
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
4
30
1
3
30
1
5
10
Max
925
900
925
495
330
180
455
925
750
925
805
480
765
700
480
925
765
315
480
455
925
805
490
425
548
925
910
770
765
765
765
805
910
925
925
770
875
925
910
900
910
925
480
925
340
480
910
925
875
5
10
10
10
30
10
10
10
10
19
10
5
18
10
15
20
10
15
5
30
10
10
5
15
30
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
30
10
15
30
10
15
10
25
30
30
40
45
35
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
45
40
30
30
40
10
30
30
35
32.5
40
60
30
30
35
35
35
40
35
30
30
30
30
36
35
35
30
30
35
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
30
50 75
60 95
60 90
60 105
60 150
55 85
45 85
45 65
60 105
60 90
60 95
60 95
60 90
82.5 120
60 110
70 210
60 95
60 115
10 40
60 90
45 80
60 105
65 122.5
60 90
82.5 135
50 85
60 151.5
60 90
60 105
60 100
60 115
60 100
60 105
60 90
60 110
60 93
60 105
60 105
60 95
60 94
60 95
60 100
45.5 90
79 480
60 100
60 90
70 120
60 97
60 90
79 480
90 95
185 351
160 305
230 380
397.5 490
115 120
120 120
165 250
211 400
150 215
175 320
295 430
135 200
432.5 750
375 585
330 480
180 330
360 435
315 315
330 480
120 140
235 485
320 441
145 195
377.5 425
130 250
375 535
202.5 435
180 340
165 295
180 260
210 330
190 340
194.5 365
175 375
210 377
155 280
178 351
180 360
210 360
185 325
180 330
237.5 485
480 480
190 355
105 120
480 480
180 335
235 360
677.5 875
98 99
548 660
550 660
540 670
495 495
130 330
140 180
325 360
570 675
315 520
535 640
555 735
480 480
765 765
660 700
480 480
542 645
660 700
315 315
480 480
273 330
630 735
595 660
260 315
425 425
360 480
700 750
645 680
550 640
490 570
560 675
507 585
560 675
550 650
535 640
555 700
510 620
595 685
505 555
555 675
540 653
545 653
590 670
480 480
550 660
286 340
480 480
548 653
500 620
875 875
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-102. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at School
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
1224 343.35
581 358.599
643 329.572
18 314.056
43 288.465
302 396.308
287 402.551
550 295.422
24 187.708
928 348.525
131 339.809
39 332.385
36 363.583
76 294.039
14 279.714
1082 344.924
127 333.016
5 293
10 329.5
616 390.294
275 331.269
138 280.891
190 258.674
5 166
679 388.943
24 233.333
114 186.649
173 281.41
93 300.43
141 373.525
261 345.724
290 334.445
427 354.037
246 332.78
1179 346.838
45 251.978
392 369.298
353 355.057
207 316.763
272 310.996
1095 342.779
124 350.669
5 287
1209 344.629
9 205.778
6 292.167
1175 344.826
42 306.714
7 315.429
Stdev
179.099
167.7
187.875
230.927
217.621
109.216
125.512
207.294
187.012
180.458
169.282
179.918
155.557
175.697
221.268
179.58
173.803
244.672
180.053
130.206
222.021
174.844
199.529
179.074
132.842
179.648
193.608
209.872
208.704
193.443
181.522
176.652
178.547
180.277
177.477
198.543
164.363
165.488
196.364
195.332
179.195
178.785
190.676
178.874
169.545
178.908
178.845
188.249
163.691
Stderr
5.119
6.957
7.409
54.43
33.187
6.285
7.409
8.839
38.174
5.924
14.79
28.81
25.926
20.154
59.136
5.459
15.423
109.42
56.938
5.246
13.388
14.884
14.475
80.084
5.098
36.67
18.133
15.956
21.642
16.291
1 1 .236
10.373
8.641
1 1 .494
5.169
29.597
8.302
8.808
13.648
1 1 .844
5.415
16.055
85.273
5.144
56.515
73.039
5.217
29.047
61.869
Min
1
1
1
5
5
5
15
1
2
1
2
5
10
2
5
1
2
3
5
5
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
15
5
1
3
5
Max
995
995
855
713
665
665
855
995
585
995
855
840
820
565
681
995
820
562
625
855
995
800
855
440
855
540
785
995
755
683
995
730
855
820
995
820
855
855
995
855
995
855
445
995
510
480
995
632
440
5
10
30
5
5
10
170
120
5
3
10
15
20
105
10
5
10
15
3
5
115
5
10
5
5
100
2
4
5
5
15
11
10
10
15
10
40
20
12
10
5
10
10
5
10
15
5
10
10
5
25
210
255
180
165
60
365
383
104
45
212.5
230
190
272.5
142.5
60
210
200
65
200
365
115
160
60
5
360
30
20
120
115
250
210
180
235
195
222
105
285
250
125
120
200
250
180
210
90
180
212
120
180
50 75
395 454
400 450
390 455
247.5 520
269 500
403 445
420 450
300 460
120 327.5
400 458
390 445
365 450
366 457.5
362.5 432
260 440
395 455
390 445
415 420
350 445
410 450
405 510
285 412
262.5 410
180 200
410 450
297.5 373.5
107.5 295
255 425
320 470
442 510
385 455
390 440
415 462
377.5 440
395 455
180 360
405 457
400 455
365 445
365 445
390 455
401 .5 445
365 440
395 455
180 275
324 440
395 455
377.5 444
378 440
90
540
540
540
625
580
535
500
552.5
480
545
510
560
502
495
625
540
500
562
537.5
525
575
480
527.5
440
525
460
480
550
540
575
535
530
540
555
540
555
545
535
557
540
540
535
445
540
510
480
540
465
440
95
585
600
582
713
595
565
565
612
510
600
580
580
598
525
681
598
565
562
625
570
625
537
572
440
580
465
580
640
580
615
620
585
575
595
585
632
600
575
585
595
585
605
445
595
510
480
595
580
440
98 99
660 723
690 778
640 683
713 713
665 665
625 640
710 778
683 785
585 585
665 723
624 645
840 840
820 820
540 565
681 681
665 730
600 630
562 562
625 625
640 665
690 755
660 683
778 840
440 440
640 710
540 540
645 690
820 855
730 755
655 680
710 855
645 683
640 755
681 713
655 723
820 820
680 710
636 713
640 723
660 778
660 723
645 800
445 445
660 723
510 510
480 480
660 730
632 632
440 440
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table 15-103. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at a Plant/Factory/Warehouse
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev
383 450.896 204.367
271 460.458 205.102
112 427.759 201.609
6 405.667 304.05
1 20
2 107.5 123.744
4 108 136.404
353 463.683 196.321
17 347.765 210.909
322 451.789 201.135
32 466.438 172.559
3 263.333 378.462
6 585.333 156.91
15 385.8 231.348
5 440.4 387.419
350 454.137 202.78
26 419.615 213.155
2 425 162.635
5 397 314.833
7 95.286 113.83
333 481.417 185.222
23 359.87 170.619
19 179.316 221.341
1 30
13 184 234.182
38 491.237 195.919
190 465.374 188.699
85 450.494 199.674
43 463.163 206.51
14 357.5 255.702
71 449.423 207.98
113 462.035 196.506
136 465.912 199.315
63 400.159 221.13
319 476.445 190.875
64 323.547 222.63
89 468.157 188.472
91 445.198 212.648
127 440.646 210.285
76 454.632 204.721
364 452.948 203.838
17 412.353 187.025
2 405 530.33
375 453.928 202.31
5 231 168.389
3 438.333 379.418
362 450.235 204.588
19 468.316 175.293
2 405 530.33
Stderr
10.443
12.459
19.05
124.13
*
87.5
68.202
10.449
51.153
1 1 .209
30.504
218.51
64.058
59.734
173.26
10.839
41.803
115
140.8
43.024
10.15
35.577
50.779
*
64.95
31.782
13.69
21.658
31.492
68.339
24.683
18.486
17.091
27.86
10.687
27.829
19.978
22.292
18.66
23.483
10.684
45.36
375
10.447
75.306
219.06
10.753
40.215
375
Min Max
2 997
2 997
5 820
30 780
20 20
20 195
10 307
5 997
2 705
5 890
2 750
30 700
310 780
5 765
30 997
2 997
5 765
310 540
30 780
10 307
5 997
40 585
2 705
30 30
10 780
2 855
5 997
15 870
5 840
10 700
5 890
2 997
5 870
10 760
5 997
2 820
10 997
10 870
2 890
5 760
2 997
20 580
30 780
2 997
60 475
30 780
2 997
50 720
30 780
5
30
30
15
30
20
20
10
30
2
30
30
30
310
5
30
30
15
310
30
10
50
45
2
30
10
5
30
40
60
10
15
30
20
30
30
10
30
30
15
30
30
20
30
30
60
30
30
50
30
25
350
365
314.5
120
20
20
20
385
180
355
382.5
30
565
230
115
365
240
310
115
20
440
240
25
30
20
435
380
375
405
90
300
405
382
185
435
107.5
360
270
370
352.5
355
340
30
360
90
30
350
375
30
50
510
515
510
414.5
20
107.5
57.5
520
450
517.5
497.5
60
591
435
520
512.5
482.5
425
520
30
525
390
60
30
85
525
520
510
520
355
510
520
522.5
490
525
357.5
520
505
510
520
512.5
495
405
515
230
505
510
510
405
75
568
575
555
675
20
195
196
570
495
568
550
700
675
515
540
570
550
540
540
195
580
505
295
30
270
600
565
565
600
550
565
570
570
550
580
507.5
565
570
560
591
570
540
780
570
300
780
565
568
780
90
670
675
600
780
20
195
307
670
550
650
675
700
780
760
997
666.5
675
540
780
307
675
527
640
30
510
705
667.5
635
670
675
675
640
670
675
675
560
660
675
645
675
675
550
780
670
475
780
663
690
780
95
705
720
675
780
20
195
307
705
705
690
720
700
780
765
997
700
760
540
780
307
720
535
705
30
780
765
705
680
690
700
725
700
720
690
710
620
690
760
700
690
705
580
780
705
475
780
700
720
780
98
770
780
705
780
20
195
307
770
705
770
750
700
780
765
997
770
765
540
780
307
780
585
705
30
780
855
760
820
840
700
780
770
840
710
770
780
780
840
765
720
770
580
780
770
475
780
770
720
780
99
855
870
720
780
20
195
307
855
705
840
750
700
780
765
997
855
765
540
780
307
855
585
705
30
780
855
890
870
840
700
890
820
855
760
855
820
997
870
855
760
855
580
780
855
475
780
855
720
780
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-104. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors on a Sidewalk, Street, or in the Neighborhood
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
896
409
487
15
30
75
74
580
122
727
87
11
18
42
11
807
79
1
9
176
384
74
255
7
198
56
223
172
138
109
202
193
298
203
642
254
210
242
276
168
832
57
7
857
33
6
855
34
7
Mean
85.785
108.775
66.476
72.533
54.8
110.813
52.554
94.279
59.418
85.735
89.184
88.727
80.556
71.357
122.909
87.482
67.797
2
100.778
79.182
102.221
74.446
69.996
45.143
74.914
131.232
100.233
77.186
76.275
78.229
89.134
87.855
79.943
89.059
86.684
83.512
73.548
97.913
83.989
86.56
86.108
85.596
48.857
86.177
81.727
52
84.837
117.735
46.286
Stdev
133.828
168.11
91.863
69.418
52.731
116.76
74.776
153.933
61.519
136.504
132.669
114.01
105.981
110.769
117.699
136.129
110.301
*
115.933
96.345
169.534
113.86
94.045
36.64
92.253
247.289
146.92
128.752
106.589
121.311
132.343
153.329
125.46
127.909
143.938
104.207
144.308
137.243
123.086
131.855
129.455
193.133
27.973
134.897
117.393
29.257
132.316
176.429
27.482
Stderr
4.4709
8.3125
4.1627
17.9236
9.6274
13.4823
8.6925
6.3917
5.5696
5.0627
14.2236
34.3752
24.98
17.092
35.4876
4.792
12.4098
*
38.6443
7.2622
8.6515
13.2359
5.8893
13.8485
6.5561
33.0454
9.8385
9.8173
9.0734
11.6195
9.3116
1 1 .0369
7.2677
8.9775
5.6808
6.5385
9.9582
8.8223
7.4089
10.1729
4.488
25.5811
10.5727
4.608
20.4356
1 1 .9443
4.5251
30.2574
10.3871
Min Max
1 1440
1 1440
1 580
1 290
1 235
1 540
1 435
1 1440
1 380
1 1440
1 565
2 405
10 420
1 525
2 310
1 1440
1 615
2 2
2 310
1 540
1 1440
1 795
1 615
2 90
1 540
1 1440
1 795
1 675
1 600
1 710
1 735
1 1440
1 710
1 795
1 1440
1 565
1 1440
1 795
1 690
1 710
1 795
1 1440
2 90
1 1440
1 465
2 90
1 1440
3 735
2 90
5
2
3
1
1
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
5
1
3
5
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
4
4
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
8
2
25 50
15 40
20 45
15 35
40 55
10 42.5
20 65
15 30
15 40
20 40
15 41
10 35
30 45
20 40
20 40
40 60
15 45
15 30
2 2
40 60
15 45
15 40.5
15 42.5
15 40
4 40
15 40.5
15 40
20 45
10 30
20 45
20 45
15 45
15 30
15 35
20 45
15 40
25 45
15 33
25 45
15 45
15 40
15 40
15 35
30 60
15 40
17 45
40 60
15 40
30 45
32 40
75
90
120
75
90
78
178
60
90
223
330
152
120
125
240
125
82.5 277.5
75
90
120
120
75
75
290
90
62
2
90
110
75
86
85
90
90
118
95
75
70
60
90
85
75
105
80
90
60
120
90
90
90
90
60
90
60
60
85
120
60
120
215
324
149
240
135
300
225
140
2
310
200
330
180
152
90
185
465
275
180
205
200
235
240
185
210
223
220
160
240
200
240
225
180
90
223
250
90
225
215
90
95
405
525
255
290
158
410
200
480
190
405
426
405
420
290
310
410
300
2
310
260
525
255
270
90
240
710
480
435
310
330
410
355
420
300
426
310
270
435
420
405
418
235
90
410
380
90
405
690
90
98 99
565 615
615 710
435 465
290 290
235 235
465 540
338 435
600 690
235 270
570 675
540 565
405 405
420 420
525 525
310 310
565 600
525 615
2 2
310 310
435 465
600 710
390 795
380 485
90 90
435 465
735 1440
600 680
570 600
485 565
560 570
530 570
565 600
532 680
570 615
585 680
440 480
560 710
570 675
525 580
600 615
565 600
260 1440
90 90
565 615
465 465
90 90
560 600
735 735
90 90
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-105. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors in a Parking
Lot
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
226 70.721
106 100.34
120 44.558
3 135
11 39.818
5 62
12 93.75
182 69.984
13 74.462
180 72.122
18 102.444
3 21.667
5 50
17 25.706
3 135
196 69.26
25 42.92
2 465
3 135
26 55.577
117 83.325
37 75.378
43 37.093
3 135
33 69.697
16 73.25
83 83
49 75.898
23 48.783
22 35.5
56 57.357
48 73.438
75 57.92
47 104.298
154 64.851
72 83.278
45 50.533
57 82.912
75 72.027
49 73.082
204 62.98
18 149.722
4 110
217 69.263
5 99.6
4 113.75
211 65.555
11 142.364
4 146.25
Stdev Stderr
126.651 8.425
167.159 16.236
64.826 5.918
195 112.58
38.449 11.593
63.699 28.487
90.81 26.214
132.655 9.833
127.9 35.473
128.299 9.563
167.776 39.545
7.638 4.41
46.098 20.616
39.365 9.547
195 112.58
114.078 8.148
103.34 20.668
629.325 445
195 112.58
59.88 11.743
155.119 14.341
114.734 18.862
46.8 7.137
195 112.58
85.644 14.909
176.778 44.194
124.358 13.65
162.674 23.239
107.169 22.346
54.472 11.613
82.622 11.041
118.574 17.115
106.421 12.288
189.916 27.702
136.686 11.014
101.675 11.982
64.702 9.645
131.245 17.384
146.21 16.883
133.165 19.024
109.369 7.657
238.456 56.205
166.883 83.442
127.076 8.626
83.056 37.144
164.792 82.396
114.21 7.863
265.976 80.195
160.799 80.399
Min
1
1
1
15
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
15
5
1
15
1
1
20
15
5
1
1
1
15
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
15
1
35
15
1
1
15
Max
910
910
295
360
110
170
248
910
465
910
580
30
115
165
360
720
510
910
360
238
910
465
210
360
360
720
580
910
510
185
495
550
720
910
910
465
309
495
910
720
720
910
360
910
238
360
720
910
360
5
2
5
1
15
5
5
5
2
1
2
2
15
5
1
15
2
1
20
15
5
2
1
1
15
5
2
5
2
2
1
1
5
2
5
2
5
5
1
2
1
2
1
15
2
35
15
2
1
15
25
10
15
5
15
10
30
17.5
10
10
10
6
15
10
10
15
10
5
20
15
15
10
5
10
15
15
7.5
10
10
5
5
12.5
10
7
10
7
15
15
10
10
10
10
15
22.5
10
40
22.5
10
10
22.5
50 75
20 60
30 110
20 46.5
30 360
20 90
45 60
52 163
20 60
25 60
20.5 64
27.5 130
20 30
45 75
10 20
30 360
24 67.5
10 20
465 910
30 360
30 90
20 60
21 90
20 60
30 360
30 90
22.5 32.5
25 90
20 60
10 30
15 30
27.5 75
25 62.5
20 50
20 90
20 43
35 113
30 63
20 90
20 60
20 75
20 60
45 145
32.5 198
20 60
75 110
40 205
20 60
40 180
105 270
90
190
315
167.5
360
90
170
238
190
180
205
495
30
115
60
360
190
75
910
360
145
240
180
90
360
180
165
215
210
130
115
135
248
185
450
180
240
130
240
205
205
180
580
360
185
238
360
180
240
360
95
309
495
187.5
360
110
170
248
309
465
302
580
30
115
165
360
295
165
910
360
170
495
450
134
360
248
720
315
450
135
180
180
315
238
510
450
309
180
465
315
295
248
910
360
309
238
360
295
910
360
98
510
580
248
360
110
170
248
550
465
510
580
30
115
165
360
495
510
910
360
238
580
465
210
360
360
720
495
910
510
185
295
550
360
910
550
360
309
495
580
720
495
910
360
510
238
360
495
910
360
99
580
720
285
360
110
170
248
720
465
720
580
30
115
165
360
580
510
910
360
238
720
465
210
360
360
720
580
910
510
185
495
550
720
910
720
465
309
495
910
720
510
910
360
580
238
360
550
910
360
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-106. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a Service Station or Gas Station
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N Mean
191 50.597
90 73.522
101 30.168
1 86
3 6.667
3 66.667
11 7.818
157 54.185
16 47.813
170 50.941
11 80.727
1 5
3 16.667
5 10.2
1 10
179 53.056
12 13.917
16 18.813
110 55.827
26 34.731
38 40.237
1 790
18 17.833
16 103
46 85.739
58 41.759
30 36.633
23 10
33 59.697
48 28.563
68 49.882
42 69.786
122 58.402
69 36.797
56 37.536
54 80.13
51 46.51
30 28.767
174 53.517
16 15.75
1 100
184 46.788
7 150.714
181 47.122
10 113.5
Stdev
125.489
149.969
94.915
«
2.887
98.277
4.513
135.636
69.497
124.015
191.433
«
20.207
7.596
*
129.15
23.008
43.196
136.782
71.829
76.973
*
40.712
164.12
162.855
121.08
111.641
6.396
149.173
77.552
133.967
135.545
145.085
79.004
100.602
157.514
137.689
58.93
130.777
25.736
«
120.622
206.81
123.971
142.946
Stderr
9.0801
15.8082
9.4444
«
1 .6667
56.7401
1 .3606
10.8249
17.3744
9.5115
57.7192
«
1 1 .6667
3.3971
*
9.6531
6.6418
10.799
13.0417
14.0868
12.4867
*
9.5958
41.03
24.0116
15.8986
20.3828
1 .3337
25.9677
11.1936
16.2459
20.9151
13.1354
9.5109
13.4435
21.4349
19.2804
10.7591
9.9141
6.434
«
8.8923
78.1667
9.2147
45.2036
Min
1
1
2
86
5
5
1
2
5
2
4
5
5
1
10
2
1
1
2
3
4
790
1
5
3
2
2
5
2
2
1
4
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
100
1
10
1
5
Max 5
790 5
645 5
790 5
86 86
10 5
180 5
15 1
790 5
240 5
790 5
645 4
5 5
40 5
20 1
10 10
790 5
86 1
180 1
645 5
355 5
380 5
790 790
180 1
520 5
645 5
790 4
570 4
30 5
600 3
510 5
790 5
520 5
790 5
390 4
600 4
645 5
790 5
295 5
790 5
110 2
100 100
790 5
510 10
790 5
380 5
25 50
5 10
5 10
5 10
86 86
5 5
5 15
5 5
5 10
10 18
5 10
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 10
10 10
5 10
5 7.5
5 7.5
5 10
5 10
5 10
790 790
5 7.5
10 15
5 10
5 13
5 6.5
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 13
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 8.5
5 10
5 7.5
100 100
5 10
15 20
5 10
10 58
75
20
30
15
86
10
180
10
15
55
20
44
5
40
15
10
20
10
12.5
15
25
20
790
15
140
85
20
15
10
20
15
15
40
20
15
15
60
15
15
20
15
100
15
380
15
140
90
105
325
44
86
10
180
15
110
180
107.5
140
5
40
20
10
130
15
15
99
100
140
790
15
365
380
60
30
20
105
60
130
270
130
88
60
380
35
93
130
20
100
88
510
85
367.5
95
365
495
105
86
10
180
15
390
240
365
645
5
40
20
10
380
86
180
495
130
240
790
180
520
495
110
270
20
570
110
295
390
495
240
270
510
365
130
380
110
100
295
510
295
380
98
570
600
180
86
10
180
15
570
240
520
645
5
40
20
10
570
86
180
570
355
380
790
180
520
645
510
570
30
600
510
645
520
600
380
355
570
520
295
570
110
100
570
510
570
380
99
645
645
510
86
10
180
15
645
240
600
645
5
40
20
10
645
86
180
600
355
380
790
180
520
645
790
570
30
600
510
790
520
645
390
600
645
790
295
645
110
100
645
510
645
380
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean
24-hour cumuFative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max =
maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-107. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a Construction Site
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N
143
130
13
1
2
1
133
6
125
10
2
3
3
129
9
2
3
3
127
6
7
4
12
68
41
14
4
28
30
57
28
121
22
34
33
46
30
137
6
139
4
140
3
Mean Stdev
437.098 242.073
461.531 232.511
192.769 202.794
510
240 254.558
10
444.549 243.017
396.667 188.75
430.872 247.432
430.1 233.307
492.5 60.104
501.667 170.318
618.333 166.458
426.202 247.087
496.111 166.429
577.5 180.312
635 156.125
163.333 223.681
456.803 236.198
495.833 171.389
146.571 162.79
250 251.794
500.833 227.035
482.162 228.976
417.683 241.023
372.357 247.278
92.5 137.265
481.714 238.306
343.967 231.025
474.018 248.301
417.107 226.287
455.116 238.494
338 243.022
418.5 268.44
412.242 223.533
477.739 221.422
423.2 264.183
437.161 243.531
435.667 225.957
439.108 242.331
367.25 256.288
433.257 240.003
616.333 328.664
Stderr
20.243
20.393
56.245
«
180
*
21.072
77.057
22.131
73.778
42.5
98.333
96.105
21.755
55.476
127.5
90.139
129.142
20.959
69.969
61.529
125.897
65.539
27.767
37.641
66.088
68.632
45.036
42.179
32.888
42.764
21.681
51.813
46.037
38.912
32.647
48.233
20.806
92.247
20.554
128.144
20.284
189.755
Min Max
1 1190
1 1190
5 630
510 510
60 420
10 10
1 1190
60 560
5 1190
1 630
450 535
305 600
510 810
1 1190
240 765
450 705
510 810
10 420
1 1190
155 600
5 430
10 510
60 930
5 1190
1 745
15 660
5 295
5 985
5 810
1 1190
15 930
5 1190
1 705
1 1190
10 810
10 985
5 930
1 1190
60 690
1 1190
10 570
1 1190
354 985
5
10
10
5
510
60
10
10
60
10
1
450
305
510
10
240
450
510
10
15
155
5
10
60
20
10
15
5
25
240
300
60
510
60
10
240
300
240
170
450
305
510
180
410
450
510
10
285
510
6
35
375
395
170
120
7.5
6 357.5
10
10
60
15
5
5
60
60
6
10
60
10
10
10
354
120
410
235
285
60
155
230
325
135
240
354
240
182
240
354
50
510
522.5
135
510
240
10
520
460
510
550
492.5
600
535
510
505
577.5
585
60
520
555
60
240
525
522.5
520
440
35
532.5
342
535
500
525
407.5
505
490
515
532.5
510
440
510
444.5
510
510
75
600
600
165
510
420
10
600
540
600
585
535
600
810
600
600
705
810
420
605
600
300
465
592.5
592.5
615
585
177.5
650
525
615
570
600
525
570
570
630
585
600
630
600
552.5
600
985
90
675
688.5
535
510
420
10
687
560
687
615
535
600
810
665
765
705
810
420
690
600
430
510
735
720
645
643
295
695
637.5
720
630
687
600
645
635
705
700
675
690
687
570
670
985
95
740
745
630
510
420
10
745
560
740
630
535
600
810
735
765
705
810
420
745
600
430
510
930
780
687
660
295
740
660
765
656
745
645
695
740
745
780
745
690
745
570
737.5
985
98 99
930 985
930 985
630 630
510 510
420 420
10 10
930 985
560 560
930 985
630 630
535 535
600 600
810 810
930 985
765 765
705 705
810 810
420 420
930 985
600 600
430 430
510 510
930 930
985 1190
745 745
660 660
295 295
985 985
810 810
780 1190
930 930
930 985
705 705
1190 1190
810 810
985 985
930 930
930 985
690 690
930 985
570 570
810 930
985 985
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-108. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors on School Grounds/Playground
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
259
0.136
123
2
9
64
76
101
7
208
23
6
7
15
225
32
2
143
48
24
42
2
162
11
33
19
19
15
66
53
82
58
205
54
53
88
65
53
237
22
254
5
248
10
1
Mean Stdev
98.386 110.056
118.007 126.395
76.691 83.861
275 374.767
85 61 .084
88.016 95.638
78.658 88.179
119.812 127.563
65 47.258
98.212 106.512
128.435 157.54
59 66.076
70 59.652
83.733 102.972
102.613 113.686
71.219 79.899
57.5 31.82
80.161 88.031
130.271 127.162
129.708 158.934
95.429 94.776
322.5 307.591
86.593 94.553
124.818 171.918
113.636 110.669
129.842 147.389
122.105 149.938
102.933 98.093
105.955 115.248
86.057 109.203
85.463 92.353
119.31 125.638
87.02 105.524
141.537 117.065
72.189 101.951
108.614 96.502
116.446 137.897
85.453 96.241
100.941 113.236
70.864 61.977
99.118 110.809
61.2 53.383
100.565 111.621
52.7 45.363
15 0
Stderr Min
6.839 1
10.84 1
7.562 1
265 10
20.36 10
1 1 .96 5
10.12 3
12.69 1
17.86 5
7.385 1
32.85 5
26.98 10
22.55 10
26.59 1
7.579 3
14.12 1
22.5 35
7.362 3
18.35 1
32.44 3
14.62 1
217.5 105
7.429 3
51.84 1
19.27 3
33.81 5
34.4 5
25.33 1
14.19 5
15 3
10.2 1
16.5 1
7.37 1
15.93 10
14 1
10.29 5
17.1 5
13.22 5
7.355 1
13.21 5
6.953 1
23.87 1
7.088 1
14.35 9
0 15
Max
690
690
570
540
175
625
570
690
150
690
570
179
180
370
690
370
80
625
555
690
440
540
625
540
555
510
690
360
690
540
570
625
625
690
555
540
690
540
690
179
690
130
690
160
15
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
9
5
10
10
1
9
1
35
9
10
10
5
105
10
1
5
5
5
1
10
5
5
10
5
25
3
10
10
5
5
10
5
1
5
9
15
25
30
35
20
10
30
30
25
30
30
30
25
10
10
10
30
12.5
35
25
40
35
30
105
27
5
30
33
50
30
30
20
30
30
25
67
20
45
30
20
30
15
30
15
30
22
15
50 75
70 120
85 148.5
51 120
275 540
65 140
60 120
55 105
85 165
60 95
70 125
67 170
35 85
60 105
30 120
70 125
32.5 110
57.5 80
55 115
85 180
85 143.5
80 120
323 540
60 120
45 180
90 160
70 210
85 125
75 125
85 150
50 115
60 115
85 160
55 115
113 180
35 85
85 147.5
75 135
55 120
70 120
45 145
68.5 120
70 90
71 125
44 60
15 15
90
208
255
180
540
175
170
165
240
150
190
300
179
180
228
210
150
80
160
300
228
180
540
170
345
240
440
235
235
190
190
180
235
180
290
130
215
270
180
215
160
208
130
210
125
15
95
300
370
225
540
175
220
225
360
150
281
540
179
180
370
300
228
80
215
360
510
235
540
220
540
290
510
690
360
281
290
255
440
240
345
315
255
360
235
315
165
300
130
300
160
15
98
540
555
270
540
175
315
370
540
150
510
570
179
180
370
540
370
80
315
555
690
440
540
370
540
555
510
690
360
540
510
360
555
540
440
440
510
625
345
540
179
540
130
540
160
15
99
570
625
440
540
175
625
570
555
150
555
570
179
180
370
570
370
80
570
555
690
440
540
570
540
555
510
690
360
690
540
570
625
555
690
/555
540
690
540
570
179
570
130
570
160
15
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean
24-hour cumuFative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max =
maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-109. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a Park/Golf Course
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education
-------
Table 15-110. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a Pool/River/Lake
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev
283 209.555 185.668
152 229.829 202.702
131 186.031 161.293
6 175 156.971
14 250.571 177.508
29 175.448 117.875
22 128.318 94.389
187 224.492 203.822
25 194.2 161.757
246 201.565 182.298
12 380.583 231.89
4 265 247.083
5 237 129.933
12 161 131.699
4 243.75 208.621
259 208.923 187.792
20 210.9 160.142
4 243.75 208.621
66 176.879 131.256
119 210.748 176.089
26 217.038 199.926
69 238.884 236.16
3 141.667 52.52
73 172.932 129.988
18 267.611 159.382
69 213.217 224.126
62 233.258 192.408
37 230.919 187.271
24 172.708 196.977
61 220.689 172.373
41 219.22 257.201
111 182.198 161.288
70 237.571 181.838
165 188.77 179.894
118 238.619 190.432
30 173.167 181.68
77 206.468 163.551
151 219.709 196.809
25 201.4 189.663
262 209.004 188.208
17 238.824 161.966
4 121.25 59.214
272 205.897 185.199
8 359.375 178.774
3 141.667 52.52
266 210.974 189.082
14 197.143 131.54
3 141.667 52.52
Stderr
1 1 .037
16.441
14.092
64.083
47.441
21.889
20.124
14.905
32.351
1 1 .623
66.941
123.54
58.108
38.018
104.31
1 1 .669
35.809
104.31
16.156
16.142
39.209
28.43
30.322
15.214
37.567
26.982
24.436
30.787
40.208
22.07
40.168
15.309
21.734
14.005
17.531
33.17
18.638
16.016
37.933
1 1 .628
39.282
29.607
11.229
63.206
30.322
1 1 .593
35.156
30.322
Min
5
10
5
60
90
25
40
5
20
5
20
30
70
20
90
5
20
90
25
10
20
5
90
20
40
10
5
14
20
30
10
5
25
10
5
20
15
5
20
5
15
60
5
60
90
5
15
90
Max
1440
1440
645
480
630
390
420
1440
525
1440
690
505
435
390
550
1440
540
550
630
900
670
1440
195
630
600
1440
690
645
900
900
1440
670
690
1440
900
630
690
1440
670
1440
570
195
1440
690
195
1440
440
195
5
25
30
20
60
90
30
58
20
30
25
20
30
70
20
90
25
28.5
90
40
20
30
20
90
30
40
20
30
20
25
30
20
20
40
30
20
20
30
26
45
25
15
60
25
60
90
25
15
90
25
60
82.5
60
85
130
60
60
60
60
60
177.5
52.5
220
52.5
115
60
87.5
115
70
65
60
65
90
70
145
60
65
70
45
60
60
60
90
60
75
40
80
65
70
60
105
75
60
287.5
90
60
90
90
50
150
174
135
115
167.5
145
82.5
150
115
145
450
262.5
225
112.5
167.5
150
155
167.5
142.5
150
120
145
140
140
247.5
145
150
173
112.5
180
120
118
180
125
187.5
102.5
180
155
105
150
225
115
145
340
140
150
172.5
140
75
296
305
280
195
370
293
210
320
277
285
562.5
477.5
235
265
372.5
295
337.5
372.5
235
298
320
370
195
225
375
285
360
400
240
325
280
280
300
255
350
270
288
300
310
295
350
167.5
290.5
435
195
296
300
195
90
480
510
440
480
560
365
225
511
480
440
615
505
435
375
550
480
450.5
550
370
510
570
510
195
370
525
511
550
505
370
390
480
420
547.5
420
555
492.5
480
445
510
480
525
195
480
690
195
480
370
195
95
570
600
550
480
630
375
235
615
510
560
690
505
435
390
550
585
525.5
550
420
600
580
630
195
420
600
670
580
630
480
510
600
525
615
511
630
585
555
580
510
580
570
195
570
690
195
580
440
195
98 99
670 690
690 900
630 630
480 480
630 630
390 390
420 420
690 900
525 525
670 690
690 690
505 505
435 435
390 390
550 550
670 690
540 540
550 550
560 630
645 670
670 670
690 1440
195 195
560 630
600 600
690 1440
615 690
645 645
900 900
670 900
1440 1440
630 645
690 690
615 670
690 690
630 630
670 690
630 900
670 670
670 690
570 570
195 195
645 690
690 690
195 195
670 690
440 440
195 195
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-111. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at
a Restaurant/Picnic
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N Mean
64 81.016
31 111.839
33 52.061
6 57.5
5 112.8
6 60
46 84.804
1 15
54 76
4 57.75
1 75
2 97.5
2 20
1 540
60 81 .833
4 68.75
17 74.647
37 70.838
4 42
6 187.833
18 70.667
1 540
11 56.182
10 108.6
1 1 68.636
13 70.308
19 88.105
15 102.6
16 48.563
14 85.357
35 51.2
29 117
8 79.375
14 138.429
28 71
14 44.571
61 82.131
3 58.333
63 82.222
1 5
63 81.667
1 40
Stdev
114.7
148.921
57.66
61.38
202.59
55.408
116.85
*
105.032
83.108
«
31.82
14.142
*
117.521
66.63
114.206
67.86
32.031
272.841
112.076
«
84.536
164.611
59.544
53.494
116.181
140.685
47.25
138.737
52.665
154.21
75.187
172.811
105.063
52.2
117.182
40.723
115.211
*
115.502
*
Stderr
14.337
26.747
10.037
25.058
90.601
22.62
17.229
*
14.293
41.554
«
22.5
10
*
15.172
33.315
27.699
11.156
16.016
1 1 1 .387
26.416
«
25.489
52.055
17.953
14.836
26.654
36.325
11.812
37.079
8.902
28.636
26.583
46.186
19.855
13.951
15.004
23.511
14.515
*
14.552
*
Min
3
5
3
5
5
5
3
15
3
5
75
75
10
540
3
10
5
3
3
5
3
540
3
5
10
6
3
3
5
10
3
5
10
5
3
5
3
30
3
5
3
40
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean
Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes.
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
Max 5
540 5
540 5
210 3
160 5
473 5
150 5
540 5
15 15
540 5
180 5
75 75
120 75
30 10
540 540
540 5
160 10
473 5
270 5
75 3
540 5
473 3
540 540
270 3
540 5
210 10
180 6
473 3
540 3
140 5
540 10
180 3
540 5
210 10
540 5
540 3
165 5
540 5
105 30
540 5
5 5
540 5
40 40
25
12.5
20
8
15
6
30
10
15
15
5.5
75
75
10
540
12.5
20
15
15
16.5
7
6
540
10
7
20
15
10
15
8.5
15
15
10
20
30
7.5
10
10
30
15
5
10
40
50 75
30 107.5
60 150
30 80
30 105
20 60
35 105
50 120
15 15
30 105
23 110
75 75
97.5 120
20 30
540 540
30 107.5
52.5 117.5
30 105
55 120
45 67.5
17.5 540
30 105
540 540
20 60
30 150
55 110
75 80
60 120
45 165
30 92.5
30 75
30 75
60 135
52.5 135
65 180
35 100
20 60
30 110
40 105
30 110
5 5
30 110
40 40
90
165
270
135
160
473
150
180
15
165
180
75
120
30
540
172.5
160
160
165
75
540
160
540
165
352.5
120
140
270
210
120
160
150
473
210
473
150
150
165
105
165
5
165
40
95
270
540
180
160
473
150
270
15
270
180
75
120
30
540
371.5
160
473
210
75
540
473
540
270
540
210
180
473
540
140
540
165
540
210
540
160
165
270
105
270
5
270
40
98
540
540
210
160
473
150
540
15
473
180
75
120
30
540
540
160
473
270
75
540
473
540
270
540
210
180
473
540
140
540
180
540
210
540
540
165
540
105
540
5
540
40
99
540
540
210
160
473
150
540
15
540
180
75
120
30
540
540
160
473
270
75
540
473
540
270
540
210
180
473
540
140
540
180
540
210
540
540
165
540
105
540
5
540
40
= Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers.
Vlax = maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the
-------
Table 15-112. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at a Farm
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
E mployment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
N
128
86
42
1
3
7
9
91
17
120
4
2
2
123
4
1
19
73
11
24
1
20
12
Education High School Graduate 50
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
25
12
9
11
42
57
18
78
50
32
40
43
13
120
8
127
1
125
3
Mean
252.703
305.186
145.238
510
121.667
1 1 1 .286
157.778
296.67
133.824
260.217
58.75
165
277.5
252.61
297.5
85
134.947
314.781
283
152.917
20
137.2
305
314.54
186.6
290.417
229.444
238.182
202.31
279.702
293.667
276.859
215.02
205.25
224.4
276.093
379.231
256.983
188.5
253.039
210
256.208
106.667
Stdev
232.537
251.432
137.207
«
52.52
76.952
85.416
252.209
134.182
236.226
30.923
21.213
222.739
234.762
189.143
*
77.658
258.07
183.589
183.977
*
76.255
211.058
280.31
165.994
242.903
246.062
299.143
196.644
239.345
242.324
243.801
210.635
207.666
213.304
247.758
264.904
235.209
188.481
233.426
*
233.892
95.699
Stderr
20.554
27.113
21.171
«
30.322
29.085
28.472
26.439
32.544
21.564
15.462
15
157.5
21.168
94.571
*
17.816
30.205
55.354
37.554
*
17.051
60.927
39.642
33.199
70.12
82.021
90.195
30.343
31.702
57.116
27.605
29.788
36.711
33.726
37.783
73.471
21.472
66.638
20.713
*
20.92
55.252
Min
5
5
5
510
70
25
29
5
5
5
25
150
120
5
120
85
25
5
45
5
20
25
30
5
5
30
5
5
15
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
5
5
5
210
5
5
Max 5
955 20
955 29
600 20
510 510
175 70
264 25
265 29
955 20
495 5
955 20
85 25
180 150
435 120
955 20
485 120
85 85
265 25
955 20
525 45
825 5
20 20
265 27
635 30
955 20
555 15
615 30
780 5
955 5
780 20
933 25
855 5
955 15
855 25
955 22
825 25
933 20
780 15
955 21
500 5
955 20
210 210
955 22
195 5
25
75
90
50
510
70
50
90
80
50
75
32.5
150
120
70
135
85
86
85
150
35
20
88
97.5
85
60
67.5
80
30
654
85
120
85
60
77.5
60
70
200
75
700
75
210
75
5
50
176.5
230
105
510
120
100
175
230
85
180
62.5
165
277.5
178
292. .5
85
120
240
230
90
20
120
325
215
155
202.5
150
100
125
195
220
180
120
120
152.5
230
280
180
110
175
210
178
120
Percentiles
75 90
427.5 600
500 660
210 265
510 510
175 175
130 264
265 265
500 635
160 360
472.5 607.5
85 85
180 180
435 435
420 600
460 485
85 85
180 264
525 660
490 495
205 280
20 20
180 262
492.5 510
525 745
255 482
530 600
210 780
490 520
265 510
482 635
525 615
485 615
290 525
245 495
342.5 525
435 660
600 730
427.5 607.5
321.5 500
435 600
210 210
435 600
195 195
95
730
780
482
510
175
264
265
780
495
745
85
180
435
730
485
85
265
780
525
495
20
264.5
635
855
525
615
780
955
635
760
855
780
700
540
625
760
780
745
500
730
210
730
195
98 99
855 933
933 955
600 600
510 510
175 175
264 264
256 265
933 955
495 495
855 933
85 85
180 180
435 435
855 933
485 485
85 85
265 265
933 955
525 525
825 825
20 20
265 265
635 635
944 955
555 555
615 615
780 780
955 955
780 780
825 933
855 855
933 955
792.5 855
955 955
825 825
933 933
780 780
855 933
500 500
855 933
210 210
855 933
195 195
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers.
Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-113. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the Kitchen
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev Stderr
7063 92.646 94.207 1.121
2988 74.998 80.79 1.478
4072 105.636 101.03 1.5832
3 40 31.225 18.028
144 102.688 110.82 9.235
335 73.719 54.382 2.9712
477 60.468 52.988 2.4262
396 55.02 58.111 2.9202
4531 90.313 90.893 1.3503
1180 131.388 119.55 3.4802
5827 95.076 95.151 1.2465
641 79.376 91.989 3.6333
113 89.363 95.45 8.9792
119 69.059 60.786 5.5722
266 84.203 77.297 4.7394
97 90.33 113.55 11.53
6458 93.422 94.778 1.1794
497 83.889 82.921 3.7195
32 82.25 71.901 12.71
76 88.421 118.56 13.6
1200 62.348 55.431 1.6001
2965 77.748 77.466 1.4227
608 97.699 94.046 3.8141
2239 126.929 115.78 2.4468
51 106.373 168.46 23.589
1346 63.922 62.315 1.6985
678 108.114 102.88 3.9511
2043 107.208 102.33 2.264
1348 94.359 101.17 2.7555
933 91.874 92.098 3.0152
715 88.227 87.661 3.2783
1645 99.632 99.739 2.4591
1601 96.066 93.567 2.3384
2383 86.253 87.055 1.7833
1434 91.441 99.061 2.6159
4849 90.068 92.218 1.3243
2214 98.294 98.207 2.0871
1938 96.575 100.32 2.2787
1780 89.02 90.187 2.1376
1890 89.316 90.984 2.0928
1455 96.177 94.494 2.4773
6510 92.448 93.602 1.1601
503 94.038 96.001 4.2805
50 104.44 143.73 20.326
6798 91.625 93.03 1.1283
207 122.469 111.41 7.7437
58 105.948 138.38 18.17
6671 91.827 92.587 1.1336
338 104.784 113.39 6.1676
54 117.889 142.41 19.38
Min
1
1
1
15
5
5
1
1
1
3
1
2
5
2
1
5
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
4
2
1
1
2
Max
1320
840
1320
75
840
392
690
450
1320
825
840
1320
690
315
585
880
1320
675
300
880
690
840
755
1320
880
880
775
840
1320
840
770
840
833
880
1320
1320
840
1320
840
880
770
1320
785
880
1320
657
880
1320
825
880
5
10
10
10
15
15
15
10
5
10
15
10
10
10
7
10
7
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
12
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
30
30
35
15
30
30
30
15
30
49
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
35
30
30
30
30
45
30
30
34
35
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
30
50
60
55
75
30
70
60
50
36
60
100
65
60
75
55
60
60
60
60
60
60
50
60
70
95
48
50
80
75
60
60
60
70
65
60
60
60
65.5
65
60
60
65
60
60
60
60
100
60
60
71
76
75
120
90
145
75
130
100
75
65
120
172
120
100
115
90
110
90
120
110
112.5
90
85
100
133.5
175
130
85
150
150
120
120
113
130
125
115
119
119
135
120
120
120
125
120
120
120
120
155
135
120
135
160
90
205
155
230
75
215
140
120
125
200
275
210
175
150
150
190
190
210
180
185
190
125
165
213
270
210
130
230
235
210
200
190
210
213
190
195
195
220
210
195
195
210
205
210
195
200
255
240
200
225
240
95
270
215
295
75
260
180
150
155
260
360
273
230
220
195
240
275
270
240
240
240
152.5
225
270
342
250
165
295
300
280
261
260
300
270
245
255
255
280
285
255
255
275
270
270
240
265
360
240
265
300
275
98
365
300
395
75
485
225
180
240
345
490
380
275
265
210
305
480
370
315
300
480
212.5
300
405
470
840
235
405
415
380
330
380
390
355
330
380
360
390
390
350
362
375
365
345
712.5
360
415
545
360
480
545
99
460
392
475
75
540
240
235
340
420
620
465
380
650
315
360
880
460
415
300
880
260
376
445
545
880
285
545
500
450
410
405
465
450
420
480
450
480
485
420
430
470
450
450
880
450
620
880
445
657
880
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-114. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in the Bathroom
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev Stderr
6661 35.0237 48.796 0.5979
3006 32.689 50.366 0.9186
3653 36.9491 47.399 0.7842
2 27.5 3.536 2.5
122 43.8689 67.007 6.0665
328 35.939 46.499 2.5675
490 30.9673 38.609 1.7442
445 29.0517 32.934 1.5612
4486 34.4884 46.067 0.6878
790 42.1975 69.431 2.4703
5338 34.3164 48.628 0.6656
711 36.8678 39.559 1.4836
117 33.5556 41.449 3.8319
134 47.306 69.649 6.0167
283 38.6396 61.494 3.6554
78 34.6026 49.182 5.5687
6067 34.5332 45.887 0.5891
498 39.2309 68.582 3.0733
33 44.4242 72.269 12.58
63 44.0794 95.224 11.997
1240 31.9645 39.652 1.1261
3130 33.4086 44.827 0.8012
583 35.5232 43.932 1.8195
1661 40.1854 61.587 1.5111
47 34.6809 54.835 7.9986
1386 32.1717 42.788 1.1493
522 40.8736 64.533 2.8245
1857 35.832 50.155 1.1639
1305 36.0797 44.121 1.2214
913 34.9912 54.071 1.7895
678 32.1475 42.82 1.6445
1497 34.3287 51.244 1.3244
1465 35.7802 54.521 1.4245
2340 35.0739 42.003 0.8683
1359 34.8874 50.399 1.3671
4613 33.9035 46.663 0.687
2048 37.5469 53.214 1.1759
1853 37.0232 50.658 1.1768
1747 36.6474 50.536 1.2091
1772 32.7788 44.543 1.0582
1289 33.0349 49.108 1.3678
6132 34.9204 48.833 0.6236
493 35.2495 38.157 1.7185
36 49.5278 121.114 20.186
6473 34.5801 46.79 0.5816
145 51.9103 88.284 7.3316
43 44.8605 111.216 16.96
6327 34.8211 48.073 0.6044
296 36.8378 47.481 2.7598
38 54.6316 122.723 19.908
Min
1
1
1
25
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
3
1
1
5
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
Max
870
870
665
30
530
600
535
547
665
870
870
460
375
535
546
360
705
870
422
665
600
595
430
870
360
665
870
600
540
705
460
600
870
510
705
870
600
665
870
570
540
870
410
665
870
600
665
870
600
665
5
5
5
5
25
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
5
25
15
15
15
25
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
10
15
15
15
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
11
15
15
10
15
20
10
15
15
10
50
25
20.5
30
27.5
30
30
27
20
25
30
25
30
25
30
24
20
25
25
30
20
30
25
29
30
25
25
30
25
25
20
22
25
25
30
25
25
30
30
30
25
20
25
30
17.5
25
30
15
25
30
17.5
75
40
35
45
30
45
40
35
35
40
45
40
45
40
45
45
35
40
45
45
35
35
40
45
45
30
35
45
40
45
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
45
42
45
38
35
40
45
30
40
45
30
40
43.5
30
90
60
60
70
30
85
60
52.5
60
60
75
60
70
60
95
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
75
55
60
70
63
70
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
65
65
60
60
60
60
65
60
60
75
50
60
60
110
95
90
75
90
30
120
75
60
65
90
120
85
98
90
120
80
135
90
90
120
150
70
80
90
110
75
70
100
90
95
90
75
80
90
90
90
85
90
90
90
80
90
90
90
360
90
185
110
90
90
360
98
137
150
135
30
300
125
100
90
135
240
135
135
110
315
270
165
135
270
422
360
100
123
140
210
360
110
240
135
150
150
110
140
145
135
140
135
150
150
135
135
140
135
140
665
135
546
665
135
180
665
99
255
300
240
30
360
270
200
100
250
360
255
186
210
422
425
360
240
425
422
665
180
240
270
340
360
200
350
270
225
340
300
335
315
214
250
240
300
270
240
210
303
255
220
665
240
570
665
255
250
665
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-115. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the Bedroom
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
9151
4157
4990
4
184
488
689
577
5891
1322
7403
923
153
174
378
120
8326
684
43
98
1736
3992
111
2578
68
1925
807
2549
1740
1223
907
2037
2045
3156
1913
6169
2982
2475
2365
2461
1850
8420
671
60
8836
244
71
8660
423
68
Mean
563.12
549.648
574.274
648.75
525.065
741 .988
669.144
636.189
532.699
550.8
553.424
612.33
612.261
590.713
602.577
555.842
560.878
597.402
542.279
523.439
679.52
513.454
551.613
566.409
513.971
668.265
554.809
534.057
539.07
526.025
525.192
561.515
552.402
570.023
564.897
552.611
584.861
576
558.956
566.114
547.23
560.814
593.846
543.117
564.211
535.545
522.113
563.08
570.102
524.765
Stdev
184.644
182.976
185.332
122.772
193.498
167.051
162.888
210.883
172.964
171.997
175.912
219.9
187.417
200.214
214.353
198.564
182.574
206.333
169.881
180.194
185.535
157.599
169.425
191.218
209.558
188.751
180.581
176.208
176.123
164.899
160.567
185.273
179.232
186.38
186.373
174.489
202.361
183.782
176.729
195.229
179.924
182.769
201.517
218.404
183.935
203.888
193.937
184.244
192.041
186.701
Stderr Min
1 .9302 3
2.8379 3
2.6236 5
61.386 540
14.265 15
7.562 30
6.2055 35
8.7792 15
2.2535 3
4.7305 15
2.0445 3
7.2381 15
15.152 25
15.178 15
11.025 25
18.126 30
2.0009 3
7.8893 15
25.907 135
18.202 30
4.453 15
2.4943 3
6.0781 15
3.7661 5
25.413 30
4.302 15
6.3567 5
3.4901 3
4.2222 5
4.7152 15
5.3315 3
4.105 5
3.9634 3
3.3177 10
4.2611 5
2.2216 3
3.7057 3
3.6942 5
3.6341 15
3.9354 3
4.1832 3
1.9918 3
7.7795 30
28.196 30
1 .9568 3
13.053 20
23.016 30
1 .9799 3
9.3373 15
22.641 30
Max
1440
1440
1440
785
1440
1440
1440
1375
1440
1440
1440
1440
1285
1405
1440
1405
1440
1440
1002
1295
1440
1440
1335
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1404
1355
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1295
1440
1440
1295
1440
1440
1295
5
300
285
312
540
195
489
435
165
295
315
300
300
345
300
265
285
300
300
300
255
390
283
330
300
210
360
300
285
282
300
315
300
280
300
305
325
223
305
315
285
270
300
300
223
300
215
180
300
294
240
25 50
460 540
450 540
470 555
545 635
420 513
635 740
600 665
542 645
440 520
475 540
455 540
480 597
510 600
464 580
480 587.5
440 534
460 540
480 585
420 555
415 515
590 675
435 510
455 540
478 540
420 497.5
575 663
450 540
447 520
450 530
445 515
445 510
457 540
450 540
465 552
460 540
450 539
480 570
475 555
455 540
455 545
450 537.5
460 540
475 580
423 540
460 540
450 522.5
420 540
460 540
450 555
420 540
75
660
640
660
752.5
600
840
740
750
610
610
640
725
705
700
720
90
780
780
790
785
720
930
840
875
723
735
760
895
830
830
865
630 762.5
650
713
660
600
785
585
630
650
585
780
630
607
615
600
600
655
643
660
660
635
690
660
655
660
630
655
690
605
660
612.5
600
660
660
600
780
840
756
735
892
680
750
780
725
885
775
720
735
713
690
781
765
790
793
760
825
805
770
810
750
780
835
760
785
770
690
780
795
700
95
880
860
900
785
860
990
915
970
820
840
850
990
950
960
958
875
870
958
830
795
960
765
835
905
795
960
860
835
825
785
780
885
860
900
875
855
920
900
855
900
850
870
946
982.5
880
840
820
880
900
820
98 99
1005 1141
980 1095
1030 1185
785 785
950 1295
1095 1200
1065 1140
1040 1210
975 1110
1000 1140
975 1105
1160 1323
1005 1245
1050 1152
1095 1213
1290 1295
1000 1140
1095 1200
1002 1002
930 1295
1065 1170
890 1000
1005 1100
1095 1223
1200 1440
1060 1170
1015 1160
975 1151
1005 1135
965 1070
950 1095
1020 1139
965 1035
1055 1155
995 1152
975 1130
1055 1170
1035 1148
960 1095
1030 1190
960 1100
1000 1140
1060 1327
1275 1295
1005 1140
1135 1230
990 1295
1005 1141
1055 1110
930 1295
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-116. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the Garage
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N
193
120
73
1
4
6
12
130
40
165
12
1
6
8
1
174
17
2
21
85
17
70
22
14
63
48
25
21
23
42
60
68
116
77
51
59
51
32
184
9
187
6
185
8
Mean
117.782
144.058
74.589
20
83.5
63.333
80.833
134.508
88.55
109.509
205
5
186.333
120
120
116.615
128.588
127.5
79.714
145.259
50.118
112.271
76.545
188.929
127.286
121.583
118.2
75.857
137.174
131.381
103.683
115.265
128.664
101.39
115.608
136.763
101.078
112.875
118.598
101.111
118.219
104.167
114.146
201.875
Stdev
144.451
162.612
94.322
«
47.459
63.377
78.383
165.117
84.108
127.523
219.483
«
308.416
164.859
*
138.452
207.294
10.607
67.545
175.17
51.967
127.392
67.572
195.036
159.283
147.764
145.773
88.067
159.451
166.398
128.598
139.682
158.968
118.416
161.848
163.341
121.329
110.217
146.349
102.585
146.174
78.639
142.947
163.64
Stderr Min
10.398 1
14.844 2
1 1 .04 1
* 20
23.729 15
25.874 10
22.627 10
14.482 1
13.299 5
9.928 1
63.359 5
5
125.91 10
58.287 15
* 120
10.496 1
50.276 5
7.5 120
14.74 10
19 1
12.604 5
15.226 5
14.406 10
52.126 5
20.068 2
21.328 5
29.155 5
19.218 1
33.248 5
25.676 10
16.602 2
16.939 1
14.76 1
13.495 2
22.663 2
21.265 5
16.989 1
19.484 5
10.789 1
34.195 5
10.689 1
32.104 10
10.51 1
57.856 15
Max 5
790 5
790 10
530 5
20 20
120 15
165 10
240 10
790 5
300 7.5
690 5
570 5
5 5
790 10
510 15
120 120
690 5
790 5
135 120
240 15
790 5
194 5
690 5
240 10
675 5
690 5
790 10
480 5
300 2
510 15
690 20
570 5
790 5
790 5
675 10
690 5
790 10
530 5
480 10
790 5
270 5
790 5
220 10
790 5
450 15
25 50
20 60
30 93.5
15 30
20 20
52 99.5
25 30
20 50.5
20 67.5
25 60
20 60
37.5 90
5 5
18 30
22.5 60
120 120
20 60
20 60
120 127.5
25 51
20 65
15 30
30 75
20 50.5
30 120
25 60
30 60
20 60
10 30
30 60
40 87.5
12.5 52.5
20 72.5
25 60
20 60
15 50
30 90
20 60
25 85
25 60
15 60
20 60
25 110
20 60
60 177.5
75
150
182.5
120
20
115
120
147.5
180
142.5
135
405
5
240
135
120
155
110
135
120
180
60
135
120
235
165
140
120
120
195
120
127.5
152.5
165
120
150
165
120
157.5
150
180
150
150
135
337.5
90
296
315
180
20
120
165
185
360
227.5
240
530
5
790
510
120
296
510
135
165
405
135
255
165
510
300
296
405
195
460
260
283
300
315
240
240
315
260
240
300
270
300
220
260
450
95
480
518
240
20
120
165
240
526
270
315
570
5
790
510
120
460
790
135
185
530
194
450
185
675
530
450
460
260
510
665
427.5
315
510
300
526
570
450
315
480
270
480
220
480
450
98
665
675
450
20
120
165
240
675
300
526
570
5
790
510
120
570
790
135
240
675
194
480
240
675
665
790
480
300
510
690
480
530
665
526
665
675
460
480
665
270
665
220
665
450
99
690
690
530
20
120
165
240
690
300
675
570
5
790
510
120
675
790
135
240
790
194
690
240
675
690
790
480
300
510
690
570
790
690
675
690
790
530
480
690
270
690
220
690
450
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-117. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in the Basement
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev Stderr
274 142.15 162.882 9.84
132 160.386 180.747 15.732
141 125.66 143.283 12.067
1 60
3 171.667 122.712 70.848
8 94.75 55.695 19.691
25 135.4 145.945 29.189
26 97.462 113.063 22.173
170 151.271 172.66 13.242
42 143.833 173.502 26.772
248 133.75 154.08 9.784
15 183.8 165.472 42.725
2 135 106.066 75
3 468.667 455.654 263.072
1 30
5 263.2 173.071 77.4
263 139.046 161.666 9.969
6 185 197.332 80.561
1 185
4 271.25 198.762 99.381
57 115.561 124.205 16.451
107 149.075 178.633 17.269
22 115 114.808 24.477
85 157.953 176.347 19.128
3 151.667 110.265 63.661
65 129.492 133.447 16.552
15 169.867 203.464 52.534
78 159.385 188.681 21.364
48 160.583 184.204 26.588
39 146.744 150.808 24.149
29 73.138 66.272 12.306
90 115.611 118.744 12.517
123 129.024 146.939 13.249
35 187.971 205.847 34.794
26 234.423 247.688 48.576
178 135.331 159.404 11.948
96 154.792 169.263 17.275
80 144.475 147.022 16.438
65 174.215 196.783 24.408
79 142.367 180.698 20.33
50 96.4 83.08 11.749
253 143.126 164.183 10.322
20 124.65 150.961 33.756
1 245
269 141.409 163.736 9.983
3 201.667 122.1 70.494
2 152.5 130.815 92.5
265 138.996 160.98 9.889
8 233.75 214.172 75.721
1 245
Min
1
1
2
60
30
28
15
1
1
5
1
12
60
20
30
60
1
15
185
60
1
1
10
5
30
1
5
5
2
10
1
5
2
10
1
1
5
5
1
1
5
1
1
245
1
65
60
1
20
245
Max
931
931
810
60
245
180
705
515
810
931
810
515
210
931
30
540
931
555
185
540
705
810
535
931
245
705
605
810
931
555
245
555
765
931
810
810
931
630
931
765
332
931
510
245
931
300
245
931
605
245
5
10
10
10
60
30
28
15
10
5
10
10
12
60
20
30
60
10
15
185
60
12
5
25
10
30
15
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
28
1
10
10
13.5
5
5
10
10
5.5
245
10
65
60
10
20
245
25
30
40
30
60
30
47.5
60
30
30
40
30
40
60
20
30
231
30
30
185
150
40
30
60
35
30
45
30
40
25
30
30
40
30
45
30
30
50
30
60
30
30
35
16
245
30
65
60
30
67.5
245
50
90
90
75
60
240
90
105
60
90
90
90
150
135
455
30
240
90
150
185
242.5
90
75
77.5
120
180
90
90
90
120
70
60
72.5
90
110
165
82.5
97.5
90
105
85
60
90
72.5
245
90
240
152.5
90
180
245
75
180
202.5
175
60
245
137.5
140
150
210
170
167.5
270
210
931
30
245
180
210
185
392.5
150
210
150
210
245
160
255
195
202.5
210
100
150
180
255
325
180
190
220.5
210
150
145
180
177.5
245
180
300
245
180
375
245
90
330
490
265
60
245
180
270
240
410
330
315
450
210
931
30
540
330
555
185
540
240
450
185
330
245
270
565
420
400
450
210
250
270
450
705
315
450
315
490
455
240
330
382.5
245
330
300
245
330
605
245
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
95
535
565
420
60
245
180
420
275
555
455
510
515
210
931
30
540
510
555
185
540
420
540
290
600
245
420
605
720
600
510
210
400
510
720
720
535
540
480
555
605
255
540
510
245
535
300
245
515
605
245
98
705
720
705
60
245
180
705
515
720
931
705
515
210
931
30
540
705
555
185
540
515
720
535
720
245
535
605
765
931
555
245
540
605
931
810
720
600
610
810
720
301
705
510
245
705
300
245
705
605
245
99
765
765
720
60
245
180
705
515
765
931
720
515
210
931
30
540
765
555
185
540
705
765
535
931
245
705
605
810
931
555
245
555
630
931
810
765
931
630
931
765
332
765
510
245
765
300
245
765
605
245
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-118. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the Utility Room or Laundry Room
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Gradutae
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
N Mean
458 73.218
70 78.443
388 72.276
6 65.833
3 75
3 105.667
8 55.5
362 73.58
76 72.592
400 69.243
35 100.514
4 82.5
6 86.667
10 95.9
3 170
435 72.069
20 81.7
1 55
2 247.5
12 76.75
206 69.184
51 72.216
187 77.679
2 76
17 72
51 71.765
163 71.583
107 77.234
60 74.033
60 71.267
105 80.933
116 64.948
151 72.695
86 75.872
322 68.643
136 84.051
145 75.248
89 81 .888
132 69.25
92 67.326
432 73.764
26 64.154
440 72.134
16 103.125
2 72.5
428 73.276
30 72.4
Stdev
71.872
95.687
66.796
34.412
116.94
168.423
77.107
73.87
58.092
65.801
103.238
37.749
27.869
78.827
264.15
69.87
62.982
*
321.734
107.831
78.438
62.506
63.835
104.652
90.881
49.445
71.583
71.721
77.252
79.857
84.595
63.307
69.541
69.9
66.724
82.05
80.989
83.016
60.815
58.613
73.182
44.791
70.217
109.877
17.678
73.484
43.498
Stderr
3.358
1 1 .437
3.391
14.049
67.515
97.239
27.261
3.882
6.664
3.29
17.45
18.875
11.377
24.927
152.507
3.35
14.083
*
227.5
31.128
5.465
8.753
4.668
74
22.042
6.924
5.607
6.934
9.973
10.31
8.256
5.878
5.659
7.537
3.718
7.036
6.726
8.8
5.293
6.111
3.521
8.784
3.347
27.469
12.5
3.552
7.942
Min
1
1
2
25
5
2
1
2
2
2
1
30
60
4
15
1
4
55
20
1
2
2
5
2
1
15
2
2
5
5
2
2
1
4
1
5
1
5
2
3
1
10
1
5
60
1
10
Max 5
510 5
510 5
510 5
120 25
210 5
300 2
240 1
510 5
345 10
510 5
510 5
120 30
120 60
225 4
475 15
510 5
225 4.5
55 55
475 20
300 1
510 5
225 5
475 10
150 2
300 1
245 20
510 6
475 5
510 10
360 5
510 5
475 5
510 10
405 5
510 5
510 10
510 5
510 10
360 5
345 10
510 5
200 10
510 5
360 5
85 60
510 5
200 15
25 50
25 60
20 60
28 60
40 60
5 10
2 15
17 33
20 60
30 60
25 60
20 60
60 90
65 78
20 105
15 20
25 60
40 60
55 55
20 248
4 23
20 60
15 55
30 60
2 76
10 35
30 60
30 60
20 60
27 60
18 60
25 60
15 60
30 60
30 60
23 60
30 60
17 60
30 60
25 60
22 60
25 60
25 60
25 60
30 60
60 73
24 60
45 60
75
100
90
105
90
210
300
52.5
105
90
90
135
105
120
120
475
90
120
55
475
135
90
120
115
150
90
90
90
120
97.5
90
120
90
90
115
90
120
90
100
120
90
105
90
100
138
85
105
90
90
150
167.5
150
120
210
300
240
150
150
150
240
120
120
217.5
475
150
182.5
55
475
240
135
150
150
150
240
120
140
155
154
155
180
135
150
150
140
180
165
180
135
125
150
120
150
345
85
150
125
95
200
345
190
120
210
300
240
195
180
180
300
120
120
225
475
190
218
55
475
300
203
180
180
150
300
180
180
200
190
263
225
155
210
180
180
240
215
240
155
180
200
130
185
360
85
200
150
98
300
360
240
120
210
300
240
325
245
258
510
120
120
225
475
300
225
55
475
300
360
225
245
150
300
195
325
225
203
360
345
215
245
360
240
360
360
405
240
245
325
200
270
360
85
325
200
99
360
510
330
120
210
300
240
405
345
352.5
510
120
120
225
475
360
225
55
475
300
405
225
345
150
300
245
405
240
510
360
360
240
330
405
345
405
475
510
325
345
360
200
360
360
85
360
200
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-119. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the Outdoor Pool or Spa
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
85 115.318
34 113.676
51 116.412
2 60
9 85.556
15 164.2
5 97
44 117.614
10 78.9
75 120.893
5 66
1 105
2 112.5
2 37.5
78 116.821
5 123
2 37.5
29 128.207
27 111.889
2 237.5
26 98.962
1 15
30 124.433
8 109.375
15 150
17 80.529
9 120.556
6 81.667
23 135.348
16 64.625
23 114.696
23 131.174
56 114.464
29 116.966
10 118.9
24 97.417
47 124.511
4 105.75
73 109.89
11 160.455
1 15
84 116.512
1 15
78 115.731
6 126.667
1 15
Stdev
103.713
106.758
102.691
63.64
86.329
103.969
53.805
112.718
85.318
107.723
59.729
«
53.033
31.82
104.631
108.374
31.82
96.956
102.499
300.52
94.835
*
97.486
155.367
130.516
66.66
107.308
42.032
113.518
63.636
78.499
129.262
106.726
99.452
159.415
74.622
104.25
107.481
105.481
82.355
«
103.746
*
101.786
137.792
*
Stderr
1 1 .249
18.309
14.38
45
28.776
26.845
24.062
16.993
26.98
12.439
26.711
«
37.5
22.5
1 1 .847
48.466
22.5
18.004
19.726
212.5
18.599
*
17.798
54.93
33.699
16.167
35.769
17.159
23.67
15.909
16.368
26.953
14.262
18.468
50.412
15.232
15.206
53.741
12.346
24.831
«
11.32
*
1 1 .525
56.253
*
Min
1
5
1
15
15
25
40
4
1
1
10
105
75
15
1
30
15
15
4
25
1
15
15
5
1
4
15
30
1
4
15
15
1
10
4
10
1
30
1
85
15
1
15
1
15
15
Max
450
450
450
105
255
450
180
450
258
450
150
105
150
60
450
300
60
450
390
450
360
15
450
450
390
240
297
135
450
255
390
450
450
360
450
360
450
258
450
360
15
450
15
450
360
15
5
15
10
15
15
15
25
40
15
1
15
10
105
75
15
10
30
15
20
10
25
5
15
15
5
1
4
15
30
10
4
20
25
5
20
4
30
15
30
10
85
15
15
15
10
15
15
25
34
45
30
15
30
105
60
32
20
34
20
105
75
15
34
60
15
60
30
25
30
15
60
15
45
30
30
60
40
25
60
30
30
45
20
52.5
40
30
30
90
15
37
15
40
25
15
50 75
90 150
75 150
90 178
60 105
60 75
140 185
100 105
82.5 155
52.5 90
90 180
45 105
105 105
112.5 150
37.5 60
90 160
75 150
37.5 60
105 178
90 150
237.5 450
67.5 130
15 15
105 178
37.5 157.5
105 240
75 90
85 180
67.5 130
100 225
52.5 82.5
105 150
75 195
90 155
85 150
30 135
80 120
90 185
67.5 181.5
75 140
150 225
15 15
90 155
15 15
90 150
67.5 225
15 15
90
255
258
240
105
255
300
180
297
226.5
258
150
105
150
60
255
300
60
255
297
450
240
15
250
450
360
225
297
135
245
135
185
360
255
297
405
180
255
258
255
225
15
255
15
255
360
15
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
95 98
360 450
360 450
360 390
105 105
255 255
450 450
180 180
360 450
258 258
360 450
150 150
105 105
150 150
60 60
360 450
300 300
60 60
300 450
360 390
450 450
258 360
15 15
300 450
450 450
390 390
240 240
297 297
135 135
297 450
255 255
210 390
360 450
390 450
360 360
450 450
195 360
300 450
258 258
360 450
360 360
15 15
360 450
15 15
360 450
360 360
15 15
99
450
450
450
105
255
450
180
450
258
450
150
105
150
60
450
300
60
450
390
450
360
15
450
450
390
240
297
135
450
255
390
450
450
360
450
360
450
258
450
360
15
450
15
450
360
15
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-120. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in the Yard or Other Areas Outside the House
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
2308 137.587
1198 158.448
1107 114.887
3 183.333
27 167.37
151 135.311
271 150.594
157 113.153
1301 136.382
401 141.125
1966 139.037
173 128.416
21 101.19
37 183.541
83 106.108
28 152.321
2122 137.711
153 125
10 213.8
23 176.739
581 137.501
807 131.087
166 126.145
739 146.097
15 198
615 136.348
236 161.017
618 144.706
381 128.843
251 122.968
207 127.126
473 137.67
456 138.853
832 136.472
547 138.155
1453 126.919
855 155.716
399 112.19
787 149.738
796 143.681
326 124.457
2129 137.746
166 131.566
13 188.462
2228 136.521
63 158.683
17 199.118
2191 138.793
105 104.438
12 207.5
Stdev
144.112
160.016
120.869
60.277
164.484
1 1 1 .483
135.111
117.746
147.923
155.213
145.534
144.607
88.485
161.858
96.781
151.049
144.33
134.265
192.232
156.551
125.562
150.703
134.084
149.672
239.029
125.656
186.469
144.929
141.194
135.802
149.975
132.769
155.656
146.655
139.946
131.579
161.693
135.967
139.245
155.886
130.523
144.41
136.006
192.141
141.088
216.341
191.305
144.994
1 1 1 .282
192.23
Stderr
2.9997
4.6231
3.6328
34.801
31 .6549
9.0723
8.2074
9.3972
4.1011
7.751
3.2823
10.9943
19.3091
26.6094
10.6231
28.5455
3.1332
10.8547
60.7892
32.6431
5.2092
5.305
10.407
5.5058
61.7171
5.0669
12.1381
5.8299
7.2336
8.5717
10.424
6.1047
7.2893
5.0843
5.9837
3.4519
5.5298
6.8068
4.9635
5.5252
7.229
3.1297
10.5561
53.2904
2.989
27.2564
46.3983
3.0976
10.86
55.4919
Min Max
1 1290
1 1290
1 1065
120 240
2 600
5 630
2 1250
2 660
1 1080
1 1290
1 1290
1 1250
12 360
2 750
2 610
5 600
1 1290
1 750
3 585
5 600
2 1250
1 1080
1 1080
1 1290
5 660
2 1250
2 1290
1 840
1 1080
1 750
1 1065
1 750
2 1290
1 1080
1 750
1 1250
1 1290
1 1080
1 915
1 1290
1 720
1 1290
1 670
5 600
1 1290
2 1080
5 600
1 1290
1 553
5 600
5
10
10
5
120
5
25
20
5
5
10
10
5
15
3
5
5
10
5
3
5
15
5
10
10
5
15
10
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
5
5
10
5
5
25
40
60
30
120
60
60
60
30
30
45
40
30
35
84
35
60
40
30
60
60
60
30
30
45
30
60
45
40
35
30
30
45
45
35
36
35
45
30
60
45
35
40
30
60
41
30
35
45
30
60
50
90
120
75
190
120
90
120
80
90
90
90
95
90
120
75
97.5
90
85
145
160
110
80
77.5
100
120
105
105
100
85
75
78
90
90
90
90
90
110
60
120
99
87.5
90
90
90
90
75
120
90
60
140
75
180
198
150
240
230
180
190
150
180
180
180
180
125
270
145
210
180
150
380
240
180
175
180
185
465
180
195
195
175
160
150
185
180
180
180
165
210
140
195
180
160
180
165
300
180
180
325
180
145
330
90
320
360
285
240
395
305
310
240
330
302
330
270
210
380
240
360
320
270
503
360
300
307
300
360
600
300
390
360
300
300
320
317
300
310
330
300
360
300
338
330
300
315
345
480
315
420
480
320
270
480
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
95
420
500
360
240
600
345
405
405
435
465
435
390
240
553
270
510
420
435
585
510
370
450
360
465
660
370
510
479
400
390
435
420
440
420
460
395
475
380
430
450
380
420
450
600
420
485
600
430
360
600
98 99
570 660
627 730
450 560
240 240
600 600
450 480
553 570
462 610
570 715
598 660
570 670
462 745
360 360
750 750
330 610
600 600
570 670
575 630
585 585
600 600
480 570
600 745
450 485
585 655
660 660
480 570
765 915
555 660
585 720
575 690
570 630
532 600
575 690
570 730
570 630
553 610
630 745
540 690
555 660
610 715
510 655
570 690
553 610
600 600
570 660
1065 1080
600 600
570 690
415 475
600 600
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-121. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in a Car
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
Refused
«
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
«
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N Mean
6560 87.4261
2852 90.7398
3706 84.9069
2 30
120 94.025
297 63.0101
449 64.6325
393 64.8346
4489 93.8278
812 83.5283
5337 87.6283
640 86.8063
117 78.7607
121 87.6942
265 90.0717
80 82.4
5987 87.4657
477 88.543
29 63.8966
67 86.1194
1124 64.2482
3134 93.5568
632 90.0506
1629 90.3603
41 97.1707
1260 66.531
434 86.0115
1805 91.8476
1335 93.2427
992 95.6683
734 91.5395
1412 85.8343
1492 89.0992
2251 88.2625
1405 85.9089
4427 83.9248
2133 94.6929
1703 83.4692
1735 88.589
1767 88.0266
1355 90.1269
6063 87.4143
463 88.2419
34 78.4118
6368 87.54
154 82.1753
38 89.6053
6224 87.5517
300 85.5833
36 81.0556
Stdev Stderr
88.186 1.0888
97.337 1.8227
80.374 1 .3203
14.142 10
90.218 8.2358
56.758 3.2934
81.08 3.8264
70.974 3.5802
92.302 1.3776
79.436 2.7877
89.72 1.2281
74.343 2.9387
66.315 6.1309
84.48 7.68
101.474 6.2335
73.314 8.1967
87.603 1.1322
97.206 4.4507
73.131 13.5801
78.361 9.5733
72.331 2.1575
92.167 1.6464
81.969 3.2605
90.224 2.2354
83.994 13.1176
72.305 2.0369
82.143 3.943
91.088 2.144
94.302 2.581
95.468 3.0311
82.009 3.027
83.847 2.2314
86.623 2.2426
89.347 1 .8832
92.167 2.4589
85.023 1.2779
94.018 2.0357
82.128 1.9902
91.537 2.1976
86.471 2.0571
93.173 2.5312
88.032 1.1306
92.088 4.2797
57.362 9.8376
88.695 1.1115
68.568 5.5254
72.877 11.8221
88.855 1.1263
76.155 4.3968
63.142 10.5237
Min
1
1
1
20
7
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
5
3
2
5
1
2
5
5
1
2
2
1
10
1
5
1
2
4
4
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
10
1
8
10
1
1
5
Max
1280
1280
878
40
593
390
900
630
1280
780
1280
690
360
540
825
420
1280
825
325
420
900
1280
878
780
330
900
620
870
1280
840
905
780
825
900
1280
905
1280
870
905
900
1280
1280
870
239
1280
365
360
1280
505
239
5
10
10
10
20
10
10
5
9
13
10
10
10
20
10
15
12
10
10
6
14
5
15
10
10
15
6
10
10
10
14
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
34
30
35
20
37.5
25
20
20
40
30
31
35
35
30
35
30
35
30
20
30
20
40
40
35
30
21
35
38
36
40
40
33
35
34
30
30
35
30
30
35
35
34
34
30
34
30
35
34
35
30
50 75
63 110
63 115
63.5 110
30 40
71.5 120
45 80
40 85
41 80
70 120
60 110
64 110
65 115
60 95
60 120
65 100
60 120
65 110
60 103
40 60
60 120
45 81
70 120
70 116.5
60 115
75 120
45 85
60 115
65 115
70 120
73 120
75 115
60 110
65 112.5
65 115
60 110
60 105
70 120
60 105
60 110
65 115
70 115
63 110
64 110
71 100
63.5 110
60 115
73.5 120
62 110
68.5 109
71 120
90
175
185
165
40
180
135
145
136
184
165
175
180
135
180
165
167.5
175
180
187
180
136
180
175
195
220
145
165
190
180
185
175
170
180
175
175
165
190
165
180
170
170
175
165
160
175
162
180
175
185
175
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
95
240
254
220
40
222.5
180
175
185
250
225
240
240
225
250
235
229.5
240
240
200
239
180
242
230
250
290
186.5
210
255
250
250
235
240
250
235
235
225
265
230
250
235
240
240
245
220
240
214
239
240
237.5
220
98 99
345 450
360 526
335 420
40 40
435 450
235 270
310 345
300 380
360 495
315 405
360 460
305 330
320 330
330 345
465 620
315 420
345 440
388 595
325 325
315 420
270 345
360 490
330 384
365 465
330 330
270 350
360 455
385 465
380 460
370 580
330 380
330 410
360 465
338 490
345 435
330 440
360 455
350 425
380 480
330 450
335 545
350 450
345 505
239 239
350 450
285 320
360 360
350 450
305 435
239 239
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-122. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in a Truck (Pick-up/Van)
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
1172 85.3
760 91 .097
412 74.607
13 110.769
41 80.829
89 47.607
80 66.763
859 91 .42
90 79
1022 84.717
68 91.294
3 138.333
20 67.2
48 92.792
11 88.182
1069 85.112
87 89.103
5 58
1 1 85.909
205 60.176
642 93.288
97 89.351
217 83.032
1 1 96.364
230 64.043
119 90.471
392 87.594
238 91 .992
127 85.228
66 112.439
170 85.365
268 91.209
491 87.279
243 74.741
796 80.083
376 96.346
322 78.543
300 92.477
323 86.133
227 84.216
1092 85.288
72 83.639
8 101.875
1142 84.868
20 93.4
10 118.5
1128 85.469
35 77.8
9 93.333
Stdev
95.867
105.368
74.197
129.178
154.295
44.208
71.084
97.968
82.42
96.222
98.465
63.311
48.46
99.31
110.754
95.567
100.75
36.187
1 1 1 .643
86.416
101.354
88.958
85.775
114.26
86.936
81.711
94.724
111.776
74.586
117.975
104.161
94.43
100.099
81.299
90.569
105.493
91.604
100.164
99.255
90.861
93.452
125.252
129.668
95.219
116.003
128.583
96.579
60.527
123.92
Stderr
2.8003
3.8221
3.6554
35.8274
24.0969
4.6861
7.9475
3.3426
8.6878
3.0099
1 1 .9406
36.5529
10.836
14.3341
33.3935
2.9229
10.8015
16.1833
33.6615
6.0355
4.0001
9.0323
5.8228
34.4508
5.7324
7.4904
4.7843
7.2454
6.6184
14.5217
7.9888
5.7682
4.5174
5.2153
3.2101
5.4404
5.1049
5.783
5.5227
6.0306
2.828
14.7611
45.8446
2.8177
25.939
40.6615
2.8756
10.2308
41 .3068
Min
1
1
1
10
1
1
5
2
10
1
6
90
5
5
10
1
5
20
10
1
4
2
5
10
1
5
2
4
5
10
2
1
4
5
1
2
1
1
2
5
1
5
10
1
5
10
1
5
10
Max
955
955
510
450
955
240
352
750
453
955
453
210
165
440
390
955
630
97
390
955
750
460
655
390
955
453
675
750
370
650
695
750
955
478
750
955
955
695
750
675
750
955
390
955
555
390
955
240
390
5
10
10
10
10
10
7
5.5
10
12
10
14
90
7.5
10
10
10
5
20
10
7
10
6
10
10
7
14
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7.5
10
10
5
10
25
30
30
25
35
15
15
15
30
30
30
27.5
90
25
27.5
30
30
29
20
30
15
30
30
30
30
15
35
30
30
30
35
20
30
30
23
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
20
20
30
37.5
30
30
30
20
50 75
60 110
60 115
55 95
60 90
35 70
30 65
37 93.5
60 115
48.5 105
60 110
62.5 105.5
115 210
62.5 102.5
60 120
60 65
60 110
60 115
68 85
35 65
30 75
60 120
60 120
60 110
35 170
35 85
60 120
60 115
60 110
60 110
80 135
50 110
60 118.5
60 111
52 90
55 101
60.5 120
51 95
60 120
60 110
60 105
60 110
46 115
60 127.5
60 110
70 103
60 190
60 110
60 120
60 65
90
180
190
165
300
206
110
180
189
185
180
220
210
137
224
190
180
210
97
190
146
192
190
180
190
160
195
185
190
180
220
186
205
180
160
170
192
170
208
180
165
184
170
390
180
140.5
340
180
165
390
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
95
240
265
220
450
210
130
222.5
260
265
235
295
210
154.5
330
390
240
230
97
390
185
270
270
235
390
206
280
255
290
230
412
260
245
235
235
230
280
220
267.5
233
265
240
235
390
235
350.5
390
240
220
390
98 99
395 478
450 620
300 355
450 450
955 955
180 240
265 352
440 555
390 453
390 510
450 453
210 210
165 165
440 440
390 390
390 478
440 630
97 97
390 390
240 265
450 555
450 460
300 355
390 390
245 352
295 450
450 510
555 655
345 355
445 650
445 630
390 460
445 595
395 440
375 510
430 460
355 445
442.5 549
430 595
395 465
412 478
395 955
390 390
395 475
555 555
390 390
412 478
240 240
390 390
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-123. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on a Motorcycle, Moped, or Scooter
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Not Employed
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N Mean
32 100.125
29 104.276
3 60
2 42.5
1 180
28 103.893
1 30
31 101.516
1 57
31 102.387
1 30
3 88.333
23 62.783
6 249.167
3 88.333
3 305
15 95.667
6 45.833
4 70.5
1 32
6 24.167
12 191.583
6 67.167
8 44.625
21 71.333
11 155.091
5 124
12 121.833
8 55.875
7 96.429
30 85.1
2 325.5
31 102.387
1 30
31 101.516
1 57
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
Stdev
152.222
158.322
74.666
53.033
*
160.69
*
154.532
«
154.191
*
87.797
100.105
251.663
87.797
247.538
170.645
49.54
51.423
*
8.01
216.501
66.764
44.654
110.425
205.865
230.011
153.631
52.267
184.249
134.187
296.278
154.191
*
154.532
*
Stderr
26.909
29.4
43.108
37.5
*
30.367
*
27.755
«
27.693
*
50.69
20.873
102.741
50.69
142.916
44.06
20.224
25.712
*
3.27
62.499
27.256
15.788
24.097
62.071
102.864
44.349
18.479
69.639
24.499
209.5
27.693
*
27.755
*
Min
1
1
5
5
180
1
30
1
57
1
30
5
1
10
5
30
1
10
20
32
10
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
20
5
1
116
1
30
1
57
Max
535
535
145
80
180
535
30
535
57
535
30
180
485
535
180
510
535
145
142
32
30
535
180
142
510
535
535
485
180
510
510
535
535
30
535
57
5
5
5
5
5
180
5
30
5
57
5
30
5
5
10
5
30
1
10
20
32
10
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
20
5
5
116
5
30
5
57
25
25
25
5
5
180
25
30
25
57
25
30
5
25
30
5
30
25
20
37.5
32
20
28
32
15
25
20
20
28
30
5
25
116
25
30
25
57
50 75
31 98
32 80
30 145
42.5 80
180 180
31 90.5
30 30
30 116
57 57
32 116
30 30
80 180
30 57
205 510
80 180
375 510
30 57
32.5 35
60 103.5
32 32
27.5 30
68.5 430
35 116
30 60
32 65
30 375
25 35
43.5 143.5
33.5 60
30 80
30 65
325.5 535
32 116
30 30
30 116
57 57
90
375
485
145
80
180
485
30
375
57
375
30
180
142
535
180
510
485
145
142
32
30
510
180
142
145
485
535
375
180
510
277.5
535
375
30
375
57
95
510
510
145
80
180
510
30
510
57
510
30
180
145
535
180
510
535
145
142
32
30
535
180
142
180
535
535
485
180
510
485
535
510
30
510
57
98 99
535 535
535 535
145 145
80 80
180 180
535 535
30 30
535 535
57 57
535 535
30 30
180 180
485 485
535 535
180 180
510 510
535 535
145 145
142 142
32 32
30 30
535 535
180 180
142 142
510 510
535 535
535 535
485 485
180 180
510 510
510 510
535 535
535 535
30 30
535 535
57 57
Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation.
= maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal
-------
Table 15-124. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in Other Trucks
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
124 135.121
80 174.888
44 62.818
1 35
4 79
9 37.875
7 116.857
96 153.24
9 71.5
110 1440
8 46.125
1 40
1 95
3 246.333
1 35
113 133.673
9 170
1 85
1 35
18 79.278
79 168.468
6 96
19 75.105
2 20
21 70.333
10 389
48 156.958
24 116.25
10 53
1 1 48.545
28 119.179
36 189.194
42 100.595
18 132.333
82 134.793
42 135.762
36 126.444
29 199.793
38 87.447
21 146.952
116 133.69
7 173.143
1 35
120 138.725
3 24.333
1 35
116 135.612
7 141.286
1 35
Stdev Stderr
235.635 21.16
283.085 31.65
57.438 8.659
» »
26.47 13.235
28.002 9.9
83.071 31.398
263.424 26.886
57.887 20.466
242.807 23.151
36.314 12.839
» »
» »
366.947 211.86
» »
240.595 22.633
200.709 66.903
* *
» »
63.15 14.885
286.399 32.222
103.894 42.415
57.278 13.14
21.213 15
62.607 13.662
505.656 159.9
257.81 37.212
124.385 25.39
53.24 16.836
55.111 16.617
237.794 44.939
318.577 53.096
151.868 23.434
194.344 45.807
197.96 21.861
298.573 46.071
219.584 36.597
350.125 65.017
125.316 20.329
213.871 46.67
238.543 22.148
210.169 79.436
» »
238.702 21.79
13.65 7.881
* *
242.76 22.54
83.38 31.515
* *
Min
1
1
1
35
46
10
10
1
18
1
10
40
95
29
35
1
29
85
35
10
1
2
10
5
5
5
1
29
10
1
2
1
1
10
1
1
5
1
2
1
1
32
35
1
15
35
1
18
35
Max
1440
1440
270
35
105
95
250
1440
186
1440
100
40
95
670
35
1440
670
85
35
250
1440
255
186
35
250
1440
1080
600
180
186
1080
1440
750
670
795
1440
1080
1440
750
735
1440
610
35
1440
40
35
1440
250
35
5
5
5
5
35
46
10
10
5
18
5
10
40
95
29
35
5
29
85
35
10
5
2
10
5
10
5
5
32
10
1
5
5
5
10
5
5
10
5
5
15
5
32
35
5
15
35
5
18
35
25
25
27
20
35
58
18.5
60
22.5
25
25
15
40
95
29
35
20
41
85
35
35
20
5
25
5
25
25
19
42.5
15
15
27.5
17
22
35
25
18
26
15
32
30
21
35
35
25
15
35
23.5
60
35
50
48
60
45
35
82.5
30
90
45
60
60
32.5
40
95
40
35
45
105
85
35
65
45
55
75
20
60
45
52.5
77.5
30
30
45.5
45
55
67.5
60
45
53
35
60
74
48
60
35
60
18
35
45
180
35
75
107.5
139
90
35
100
50.5
195
117
99
120
82
40
95
670
35
100
180
85
35
95
114
180
120
35
95
90
270
640
145
35
105
95
250
600
186
412.5
100
40
95
670
35
270
670
85
35
195
670
255
180
35
138
750 1117.5
130
120
90
78
90
197.5
114
105
120
75
92.5
180
95
120
104
250
35
112
40
35
101.5
195
35
610
255
135
103
180
600
186
610
555
250
270
795
195
600
270
610
35
412.5
40
35
555
250
35
95
690
772.5
180
35
105
95
250
750
186
735
100
40
95
670
35
735
670
85
35
250
795
255
186
35
195
1440
690
270
180
186
795
960
205
670
670
960
670
960
255
600
735
610
35
712.5
40
35
735
250
35
98 99
960 1080
1080 1440
270 270
35 35
105 105
95 95
250 250
1080 1440
186 186
960 1080
100 100
40 40
95 95
670 670
35 35
960 1080
670 670
85 85
35 35
250 250
1080 1440
255 255
186 186
35 35
250 250
1440 1440
1080 1080
600 600
180 180
186 186
1080 1080
1440 1440
750 750
670 670
750 795
1440 1440
1080 1080
1440 1440
750 750
735 735
960 1080
610 610
35 35
960 1080
40 40
35 35
960 1080
250 250
35 35
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-125. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on a Bus
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev Stderr
469 74.648 93.532 4.3189
219 77.251 104.119 7.0357
250 72.368 83.306 5.2688
14 145 167.177 44.68
5 56 40.218 17.986
133 48.383 29.431 2.552
143 59.413 46.343 3.8754
147 96.639 128.354 10.587
27 131.963 144.641 27.836
311 70.071 89.462 5.0729
101 85.178 92.396 9.1937
15 58 58.487 15.101
14 107.143 176.48 47.166
24 65.542 71.515 14.598
4 168 196.195 98.098
415 72.839 86.077 4.2253
46 83.913 138.922 20.483
2 47.5 10.607 7.5
6 137.833 159.631 65.169
274 54.018 39.364 2.3781
95 122.579 168.8 17.319
34 83.265 79.298 13.6
61 80.262 69.212 8.8617
5 167.4 169.916 75.989
295 55.302 44.964 2.6179
25 120.4 124.272 24.854
57 111.579 116.718 15.46
38 108.842 133.431 21.645
30 84.633 128.087 23.385
24 110.458 199.236 40.669
145 77.062 75.41 6.2624
102 69.676 103.283 10.227
142 71.718 82.846 6.9523
80 81.813 124.342 13.902
426 70.61 84.646 4.1011
43 114.651 152.229 23.215
158 78.285 98.116 7.8057
140 61.636 53.541 4.525
94 86.617 116.695 12.036
77 76.234 107.505 12.251
413 76.448 96.792 4.7628
50 55.36 39.329 5.562
6 111.5 161.48 65.924
459 73.373 91.312 4.2621
4 168.75 182.683 91.341
6 109.5 162.362 66.284
442 74.814 94.281 4.4845
19 58.158 39.881 9.1493
8 104.625 137.907 48.757
Min
2
5
2
10
15
5
7
2
10
2
5
5
20
15
10
2
7
40
10
5
5
2
5
10
5
10
10
10
2
5
7
2
5
5
2
10
5
2
5
5
2
5
10
2
20
10
2
10
10
Max
945
945
640
605
120
140
370
945
570
945
570
175
690
370
435
945
690
55
435
370
945
468
460
435
435
570
501
640
690
945
435
945
570
690
690
945
690
460
945
640
945
195
435
945
435
435
945
155
435
5
10
10
15
10
15
10
10
10
20
10
15
5
20
20
10
10
15
40
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
30
20
20
5
10
15
10
10
12.5
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
25
30
30
30
60
30
25
30
30
45
30
35
20
30
30
21
30
30
40
32
29
30
40
30
32
29
45
45
40
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
30
60
30
30
30
28.5
50
55
55
55
100
55
43
54
60
73
54
60
20
42.5
42.5
113.5
55
37.5
47.5
77.5
49.5
60
60
65
165
49
90
73
75
60
60
60
55
50
41.5
50
90
58
50
60
50
55
47.5
46
55
110
41
55
55
67.5
75
90
90
90
140
60
67
75
110
130
80
110
120
100
87
315
90
85
55
195
70
120
100
120
195
70
135
120
120
90
101.5
95
85
80
90
125
135
120
435
120
90
110
180
435
120
140
155
225
90
435
125
145
55
435
100
405
135
135
435
100
195
225
195
130
125
135
120
135
90 127.5
85
120
90
75
95
80
90
71
100
90
277.5
100
90
65
100
120
180
125
120
155
125
125
115
435
125
435
435
125
125
435
95
180
180
175
605
120
110
135
405
460
147
185
175
690
120
435
165
370
55
435
120
570
185
165
435
120
405
435
605
300
460
180
125
180
297.5
165
300
180
137.5
225
175
180
135
435
179
435
435
180
155
435
98
435
460
420
605
120
120
179
640
570
405
460
175
690
370
435
420
690
55
435
150
690
468
205
435
155
570
468
640
690
945
435
175
460
640
435
945
435
205
435
570
435
165
435
420
435
435
435
155
435
99
570
570
501
605
120
122
225
690
570
501
468
175
690
370
435
468
690
55
435
179
945
468
460
435
225
570
501
640
690
945
435
468
501
690
501
945
605
225
945
640
570
195
435
570
435
435
570
155
435
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-126
Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Walking
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
1639 29.6718
755 32.4781
883 27.2831
1 20
38 29.5263
58 24.3276
155 18.2129
223 25.8341
944 31.8252
221 33.81
1289 29.5912
175 34.8114
36 26.5556
30 23.7667
88 23.0795
21 33.1905
1467 29.8718
144 26.8403
10 30.2
18 35.7222
431 22.768
561 30.9519
153 26.8693
482 35.5249
12 18.4167
472 22.6737
138 42.7174
366 29.2596
288 32.5313
210 29.7667
165 34.5818
507 34.9172
321 29.271
423 24.9976
388 28.2448
1182 29.2902
457 30.6586
412 32.3034
459 28.854
475 26.6084
293 32.2184
1504 29.6011
120 29.7417
15 36.2
1578 29.5076
44 29
17 46.6471
1553 29.7173
67 26.9851
19 35.4211
Stdev
41.617
48.2611
34.8259
«
23.7416
26.3268
21.0263
32.3753
44.9705
49.3278
43.6801
39.7274
24.6535
21.2192
21.1058
32.9555
41.0288
48.7064
28.8359
34.7847
28.0141
43.7734
37.1231
49.4109
13.4601
27.6375
71.9429
41.5618
39.3063
38.813
44.6107
45.2549
46.8743
37.6654
35.029
39.1911
47.3511
47.7062
41.54
31.325
46.6936
41 .9939
38.3451
27.8162
41.4718
36.0633
63.1456
42.1023
31.8774
31 .3658
Stderr
1.028
1 .7564
1.172
«
3.8514
3.4569
1 .6889
2.168
1 .4637
3.3181
1.2166
3.0031
4.1089
3.8741
2.2499
7.1915
1.0712
4.0589
9.1187
8.1988
1 .3494
1.8481
3.0012
2.2506
3.8856
1.2721
6.1242
2.1725
2.3161
2.6784
3.4729
2.0098
2.6163
1.8314
1.7783
1.1399
2.215
2.3503
1 .9389
1 .4373
2.7279
1 .0828
3.5004
7.1821
1.044
5.4367
15.3151
1 .0684
3.8944
7.1958
Min
1
1
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
8
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
2
5
1
1
3
Max
540
540
360
20
100
160
170
190
410
540
540
250
100
60
100
150
410
540
80
150
190
365
295
540
55
190
540
410
295
300
360
365
540
410
285
540
410
365
540
270
410
540
250
90
540
150
270
540
165
110
5
2
2
2
20
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
8
2
2
2
8
2
2
2
2
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
4
5
2
2
3
25
6
7
6
20
10
10
5
6
6
10
6
10
10
6
5.5
15
6
5.5
10
15
5
7
5
10
10
5
7
5
9.5
8
10
10
6
5
8
7
5
6
6
6
8
6
5
10
6
6
10
6
5
10
50 75
16 39
20 40
15 35
20 20
25 40
15 35
10 25
15 30
18.5 40
20 45
15 35
20 50
20 30
17 43
15 37
20 40
16 40
15 35
17.5 55
25 55
13 30
16 40
15 35
20 50
16.5 20
13 30
20 50
18 35
20 45
18.5 40
20 45
20 45
15 31
10 30
15 40
18 40
15 35
20 38.5
16 35
15 35
20 45
16 35.5
15 40
30 60
16 38
14.5 36
30 60
16 38
16 40
30 60
90
65
70
60
20
60
60
40
60
70
73
65
75
60
60
50
65
65
60
77.5
65
55
70
60
75
30
55
115
65
75
60
80
75
60
60
60
65
60
75
60
60
61
65
70
75
65
60
90
65
60
90
95
95
100
94
20
80
60
60
100
110
95
100
125
78
60
60
65
100
70
80
150
65
100
92
120
55
65
145
100
100
90
95
107
105
80
90
92
120
120
90
85
105
95
117.5
90
95
115
270
95
90
110
98 99
151 190
170 270
140 171
20 20
100 100
70 160
65 100
135 151
171 250
155 180
160 225
160 194
100 100
60 60
92 100
150 150
155 194
100 135
80 80
150 150
131 151
180 250
135 165
150 250
55 55
130 151
360 365
150 240
160 180
140 225
180 200
170 250
160 180
135 171
140 180
145 180
171 200
180 250
146 180
123 160
155 295
152 190
135 150
90 90
151 190
150 150
270 270
151 194
130 165
110 110
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-127. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on a Bicycle/Skateboard/Rollerskate
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
115
82
33
2
2
18
33
53
7
98
7
2
4
3
1
106
8
1
52
27
7
27
2
56
3
18
18
11
9
20
24
26
45
83
32
20
46
34
15
95
18
2
114
1
109
5
1
Mean
45.1217
43.2073
49.8788
15
20
40.2778
31.9697
53.2264
74
46.7245
41.1429
6
47.5
33.3333
20
45.8679
38.375
20
33.8462
56.8519
40.8571
55.4815
55
33.3929
98.3333
41 .5556
42.9444
89.8182
57.2222
42.05
39.125
64.6923
38.3778
44.5783
46.5313
38.6
34.7826
61.7059
47.9333
48.5368
29.3333
25
45.3421
20
45.1284
50
20
Stdev
53.35
56.113
46.228
7.071
14.142
52.985
27.929
62.916
67.295
56.914
21.737
1.414
23.629
25.166
*
55.172
23.323
*
38.258
76.863
24.768
54.258
49.497
36.945
77.835
49.048
35.049
1 1 1 .308
38.415
35.057
47.505
87.03
32.614
56.02
46.508
44.951
35.036
72.243
55.663
57.246
24.22
7.071
53.533
*
53.909
49.624
*
Stderr
4.9749
6.1966
8.0472
5
10
12.4886
4.8618
8.6422
25.4353
5.7492
8.2156
1
11.8145
14.5297
*
5.3587
8.2461
*
5.3054
14.7923
9.3616
10.442
35
4.937
44.9382
1 1 .5606
8.261
33.5605
12.8049
7.839
9.6969
17.0681
4.8619
6.149
8.2215
10.0513
5.1657
12.3896
14.3721
5.8733
5.7086
5
5.0138
*
5.1636
22.1923
*
Min Max
1 400
1 400
5 205
10 20
10 30
1 195
2 115
5 400
23 205
1 400
5 65
5 7
30 80
10 60
20 20
1 400
10 80
20 20
1 195
5 400
10 90
5 205
20 90
1 195
25 180
5 205
5 120
15 400
5 110
5 102
2 180
1 400
5 151
5 400
1 195
1 205
5 195
2 400
2 180
1 400
5 90
20 30
1 400
20 20
1 400
5 115
20 20
5
5
5
5
10
10
1
5
5
23
5
5
5
30
10
20
5
10
20
2
5
10
5
20
2
25
5
5
15
5
5
5
2
5
5
2
3.5
5
5
2
5
5
20
5
20
5
5
20
25 50
11 30
10 27.5
15 45
10 15
10 20
10 15
10 25
20 30
25 35
11 30
25 50
5 6
30 40
10 30
20 20
10 30
23.5 30
20 20
10 20
15 30
30 35
20 30
20 55
10 20
25 90
15 30
20 30
25 53
20 60
10 32.5
10 18.5
15 32.5
18 30
15 30
10 32.5
12.5 27.5
10 22.5
20 42.5
10 20
15 30
7 32.5
20 25
11 30
20 20
15 30
10 30
20 20
75
60
50
60
20
30
55
45
65
110
60
60
7
65
60
20
60
55
20
47.5
60
46
90
90
45
180
46
60
90
90
77.5
57.5
75
50
60
75
47.5
46
90
75
60
40
30
60
20
60
90
20
90
102
90
105
20
30
151
65
105
205
110
65
7
80
60
20
105
80
20
65
115
90
165
90
65
180
100
115
165
110
95
90
195
80
90
110
95 98
151 195
120 195
165 205
20 20
30 30
195 195
102 115
165 180
205 205
165 205
65 65
7 7
80 80
60 60
20 20
151 195
80 80
20 20
115 151
120 400
90 90
180 205
90 90
115 151
180 180
205 205
120 120
400 400
110 110
101 102
165 180
205 400
115 151
151 205
120 195
75 147.5 205
80
115
151
110
60
30
102
20
102
115
20
90 195
165 400
180 180
165 205
90 90
30 30
151 195
20 20
151 195
115 115
20 20
99
205
400
205
20
30
195
115
400
205
400
65
7
80
60
20
205
80
20
195
400
90
205
90
195
180
205
120
400
110
102
180
400
151
400
195
205
195
400
180
400
90
30
205
20
205
115
20
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-128. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Waiting on a Bus, Train, etc. Stop
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N Mean Stdev Stderr
151 18.702 18.7513 1.526
61 16.3443 17.9934 2.3038
90 20.3 19.1818 2.02319
2 21 5.6569 4
2 8 9.8995 7
32 12.5 10.7283 1.8965
50 13.78 11.4843 1.6241
54 25.5 25.616 3.4859
11 27.2727 13.484 4.0656
115 18.2522 17.9501 1.6739
21 17.4762 11.9901 2.6164
3 10 5 2.8868
1 15
10 29.8 35.8137 11.3253
1 15
136 18.0956 17.1036 1.4666
13 25.2308 32.4427 8.998
1 20
1 15
79 13.1646 11.3707 1.2793
31 24.9355 24.8125 4.4565
15 31.6667 31.5179 8.1379
26 20.6154 12.7061 2.4919
87 12.931 10.9723 1.1763
6 32.5 11.726 4.7871
25 23.56 24.5749 4.915
9 28.333 19.2029 6.401
16 33.8125 31.1239 7.781
8 14.875 8.3741 2.9607
63 20.4921 23.43 2.9519
27 17.4074 13.1244 2.5258
39 19.8205 16.6684 2.6691
22 13.1818 11.3458 2.4189
128 17.7891 18.9656 1.6763
23 23.7826 17.0026 3.5453
55 19.9273 15.5693 2.0994
43 17.186 20.6574 3.1502
28 24 25.4675 4.8129
25 12.68 9.8815 1.9763
139 18.7698 18.7788 1.5928
10 20 20.5372 6.4944
2 7.5 3.5355 2.5
151 18.702 18.7513 1.526
145 18.6552 18.969 1.5753
6 19.8333 13.5561 5.5342
Min
1
1
1
17
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
5
15
5
15
1
1
20
15
1
1
5
5
1
15
5
10
5
1
1
3
4
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
4
5
1
1
9
Max
128
120
128
25
15
45
74
128
45
128
45
15
15
120
15
128
120
20
15
75
128
120
45
75
45
120
60
128
30
128
60
75
45
128
65
75
120
128
45
128
65
10
128
128
45
5
4
4
4
17
1
2
3
5
5
4
3
5
15
5
15
4
1
20
15
2
5
5
5
3
15
5
10
5
1
3
4
5
1
3
5
2
4
5
4
3
4
5
4
4
9
25
7
5
10
17
1
5
5
10
20
5
10
5
15
10
15
6
10
20
15
5
10
10
10
5
25
10
10
10
40.5
6
5
10
5
5.5
10
10
5
10
5
10
5
5
7
6
10
50
15
11
15
21
8
10
10
15
30
15
15
10
15
16.5
15
15
15
20
15
10
15
17
20
10
32.5
15
20
30
15
15
15
15
10
15
20
15
10
15
10
15
12
7.5
15
15
16
75
20
20
30
25
15
15
20
30
40
22
23
15
15
20
15
22.5
20
20
15
15
30
45
30
15
45
30
45
37.5
18.5
22
20
28
15
20
35
25
20
32.5
15
20
30
10
20
20
23
90
40
30
42.5
25
15
20
23
60
45
40
35
15
15
92.5
15
40
65
20
15
23
45
67
40
23
45
45
60
65
30
40
35
45
30
35
45
43
33
45
20
40
55
10
40
40
45
95
45
45
60
25
15
43
30
67
45
45
40
15
15
120
15
45
120
20
15
35
65
120
45
30
45
67
60
128
30
65
35
65
30
45
60
60
45
67
35
45
65
10
45
45
45
98
67
65
75
25
15
45
52.5
120
45
67
45
15
15
120
15
67
120
20
15
45
128
120
45
45
45
120
60
128
30
120
60
75
45
75
65
65
120
128
45
75
65
10
67
75
45
99
120
120
128
25
15
45
75
128
45
75
45
15
15
120
15
75
120
20
15
75
128
120
45
75
45
120
60
128
30
128
60
75
45
120
65
75
120
128
45
120
65
10
120
120
45
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-129. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on a Train/Subway/Rapid Transit
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev
116 97.767 136.346
62 91.613 119.437
54 104.833 154.349
8 191.875 256.82
2 92.5 38.891
3 166.667 271.401
2 100 56.569
92 84.967 106.533
9 122.667 219.531
64 89.5 139.691
26 131.385 168.356
3 79.667 17.039
4 71.25 47.675
16 88.625 98.922
3 85 56.347
89 101.281 149.687
22 86.955 85.561
2 79.5 34.648
3 85 56.347
7 126.429 163.598
76 98.526 128.056
10 61.7 46.375
21 101.714 186.201
2 107.5 123.744
10 122 140.024
6 181.833 311.76
30 89.433 109.191
26 125.692 189.64
24 66.5 50.332
20 74.15 59.415
72 111.847 134.554
14 64.214 109.483
15 75.733 121.139
15 83.533 179.444
96 101.604 127.189
20 79.35 176.643
26 138.192 196.327
29 77.276 89.479
37 106.081 140.735
24 65.917 82.217
106 94.151 122.865
7 146.571 294.036
3 111.667 87.797
112 96.527 137.946
4 132.5 82.916
112 98.179 138.009
1 10
3 111.667 87.797
Stderr Mi
n
12.659 1
15.168 5
21.004 1
90.8 20
27.5 65
156.693 5
40 60
11.107 1
73.177 10
17.461 1
33.017 5
9.838 60
23.838 30
24.731 5
32.532 20
15.867 1
18.242 5
24.5 55
32.532 20
61.834 5
14.689 1
14.665 5
40.632 1
87.5 20
44.279 5
127.275 1
19.935 1
37.192 10
10.274 5
13.286 10
15.857 10
29.261 2
31.278 1
46.332 5
12.981 1
39.499 2
38.503 5
16.616 2
23.137 5
16.782 1
1 1 .934 1
111.135 1
50.69 20
13.035 1
41.458 20
13.041 1
* 10
50.69 20
Max
810
720
810
810
120
480
140
720
690
720
810
90
140
415
120
810
415
104
120
480
720
160
810
195
480
810
480
720
180
240
810
380
480
720
720
810
810
480
690
380
720
810
195
810
195
810
10
195
5
5
10
2
20
65
5
60
5
10
5
10
60
30
5
20
5
10
55
20
5
5
5
10
20
5
1
2
10
10
12.5
20
2
1
5
10
3.5
10
5
10
1
5
1
20
5
20
5
10
20
25
27.5
24
30
55
65
5
60
30
10
22
35
60
42.5
20
20
25
40
55
20
15
30
15
10
20
20
5
30
20
24.5
30
49
10
10
10
30
7.5
30
25
30
15
30
10
20
27.5
70
30
10
20
50
60
60
60
117.5
92.5
15
100
60
24
55
117.5
89
57.5
70
115
60
70
79.5
115
65
60
57.5
55
107.5
92.5
70
60
60
55
60
62.5
22.5
30
30
60
32.5
79.5
60
60
42.5
60
30
120
60
157.5
60
10
120
75
120
120
120
180
120
480
140
104.5
120
74
135
90
100
112.5
120
120
120
104
120
140
120
89
90
195
140
135
120
120
102.5
97
122.5
50
90
75
120
60
130
105
120
82.5
120
90
195
117.5
195
120
10
195
90
189
180
195
810
120
480
140
175
690
195
195
90
140
165
120
195
130
104
120
480
189
125
165
195
337.5
810
177.5
380
125
164.5
189
240
160
120
195
120
240
135
195
160
180
810
195
175
195
180
10
195
95
415
240
480
810
120
480
140
240
690
380
480
90
140
415
120
480
165
104
120
480
380
160
415
195
480
810
415
690
175
214.5
415
380
480
720
415
465
720
175
480
180
380
810
195
415
195
415
10
195
98
690
480
690
810
120
480
140
480
690
690
810
90
140
415
120
720
415
104
120
480
690
160
810
195
480
810
480
720
180
240
690
380
480
720
690
810
810
480
690
380
480
810
195
690
195
690
10
195
99
720
720
810
810
120
480
140
720
690
720
810
90
140
415
120
810
415
104
120
480
720
160
810
195
480
810
480
720
180
240
810
380
480
720
720
810
810
480
690
380
690
810
195
720
195
720
10
195
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-130. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on an Airplane
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
N Mean
53 234
28 241.25
25 225.88
3 175
3 113.333
42 226.429
5 405.4
44 241 .068
7 199.286
1 60
1 340
51 234.745
2 215
3 113.333
33 212.424
3 510
13 259.385
1 150
4 122.5
4 111.25
9 253.889
13 293.846
15 194.8
8 305
17 254.706
17 235.118
9 212.778
10 216
37 258.919
16 176.375
17 216.294
14 191.786
17 230.882
5 423
51 224.843
2 467.5
51 233.725
2 241
51 231.608
2 295
Stdev
203.736
230.979
172.581
145.688
118.568
193.962
292.392
215.555
134.364
«
«
206.224
176.777
118.568
194.008
375.899
168.387
*
98.531
179.647
191.046
170.784
113.998
375.129
234.81
234.348
103.565
181.702
192.755
222.825
172.818
160.547
222.171
294.398
201.484
123.744
207.562
65.054
206.7
120.208
Stderr
27.985
43.651
34.516
84.113
68.455
29.929
130.762
32.496
50.785
«
«
28.877
125
68.455
33.773
217.025
46.702
*
49.265
89.823
63.682
47.367
29.434
132.628
56.95
56.838
34.522
57.459
31.689
55.706
41.914
42.908
53.884
131.659
28.213
87.5
29.064
46
28.944
85
Min
10
15
10
15
15
10
195
10
15
60
340
10
90
15
15
150
10
150
15
10
15
20
45
20
15
15
15
10
15
10
20
15
10
180
10
380
10
195
10
210
Max
900
900
660
300
245
900
900
900
435
60
340
900
340
245
900
900
660
150
245
380
660
555
480
900
900
900
340
555
900
900
660
555
900
900
900
555
900
287
900
380
5
15
20
15
15
15
20
195
15
15
60
340
15
90
15
20
150
10
150
15
10
15
20
45
20
15
15
15
10
15
10
20
15
10
180
15
380
15
195
15
210
25
70
65
110
15
15
60
210
65
110
60
340
60
90
15
60
150
195
150
47.5
12.5
195
180
90
45
70
60
150
45
150
37.5
60
90
60
240
60
380
60
195
60
210
50
210
210
210
210
80
202.5
287
210
210
60
340
210
215
80
180
480
225
150
115
27.5
270
300
210
137.5
245
195
255
202.5
230
95
210
150
245
285
210
467.5
210
241
210
295
75
300
292.5
300
300
245
300
435
300
255
60
340
300
340
245
285
900
300
150
197.5
210
285
435
255
577.5
380
287
270
240
305
262.5
275
230
300
510
287
555
300
287
300
380
90 95
480 660
555 900
480 510
300 300
245 245
480 555
900 900
510 660
435 435
60 60
340 340
480 660
340 340
245 245
480 555
900 900
435 660
150 150
245 245
380 380
660 660
510 555
287 480
900 900
510 900
660 900
340 340
517.5 555
510 660
360 900
480 660
435 555
480 900
900 900
480 660
555 555
480 660
287 287
480 660
380 380
98 99
900 900
900 900
660 660
300 300
245 245
900 900
900 900
900 900
435 435
60 60
340 340
900 900
340 340
245 245
900 900
900 900
660 660
150 150
245 245
380 380
660 660
555 555
480 480
900 900
900 900
900 900
340 340
555 555
900 900
900 900
660 660
555 555
900 900
900 900
900 900
555 555
900 900
287 287
900 900
380 380
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev
= standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage
of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-131. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors in a Residence (all rooms)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
9343 1001.39
4269 945.9
5070 1048.07
4 1060
187 1001.07
498 1211.64
700 1005.13
588 969.5
6022 947.91
1348 1174.64
7556 999.36
941 1015.95
157 983.52
181 996.09
382 1009.4
126 1019.69
8498 1000.38
696 1009.84
46 1097.87
103 984.08
1768 1053.3
4068 881 .03
797 982.44
2639 1158.03
71 995.08
1963 1044.47
829 1093.37
2602 1008.1
1788 974.34
1240 939.49
921 943.67
2068 1003.4
2087 1001.73
3230 999
1958 1002.84
6286 965.69
3057 1074.81
2513 1034.92
2424 977.88
2522 980.52
1884 1014.84
8591 999.12
689 1027.42
63 1025.68
9019 997.77
249 1125.47
75 1024.08
8840 997.66
432 1070.48
71 1045.48
Stdev
275.143
273.498
267.864
135.647
279.866
218.745
222.335
241.776
273.033
229.344
275.678
272.54
254.689
268.283
281.75
276.578
275.436
270.816
286.655
269.485
248.46
259.166
243.085
233.775
268.059
251.888
278.592
279.281
272.599
275.004
274.27
278.441
280.646
270.19
273.992
272.596
265.676
278.237
267.177
273.962
277.47
274.377
284.437
264.342
274.112
281.353
285.059
274.78
273.759
273.047
Stderr
2.8465
4.1859
3.7619
67.8233
20.4658
9.8022
8.4035
9.9707
3.5184
6.2466
3.1714
8.8845
20.3264
19.9413
14.4156
24.6396
2.9879
10.2653
42.265
26.5531
5.909
4.0634
8.6105
4.5507
31.8128
5.6852
9.6759
5.4751
6.4468
7.8096
9.0375
6.1229
6.1432
4.7541
6.192
3.4382
4.8051
5.5503
5.4267
5.4553
6.3926
2.9602
10.8362
33.3039
2.8863
17.83
32.9158
2.9225
13.1712
32.4047
Min
8
8
30
900
265
270
190
95
8
60
8
190
30
10
55
270
8
55
401
270
95
8
255
60
445
95
150
30
10
30
8
30
8
10
30
30
8
30
10
8
30
8
190
445
8
180
150
8
205
445
Max
1440
1440
1440
1200
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
5
575
540
620
900
565
795
686
585
540
760
570
600
600
604
555
575
575
585
645
565
675
515
600
735
575
660
630
565
570
528
540
570
565
585
575
567
615
590
580
555
589
576
555
630
575
660
560
575
585
565
25
795
750
840
950
799
1065
845
811.5
750
1030
795
815
810
805
810
840
795
810
835
810
870
715
820
1015
810
855
870
803
775
745
750
795
790
800
800
770
895
825
780
785
805
795
825
840
795
925
840
795
867.5
845
50 75
985 1235
900 1160
1050 1280
1070 1170
955 1230
1260 1410
975 1165
950 1155
900 1165
1210 1375
980 1235
1000 1245
930 1180
975 1198
1004.5 1250
975 1255
980 1235
1000 1230
1172.5 1355
950 1200
1030 1255
835 1045.5
970 1170
1190 1350
940 1255
1020 1254
1130 1345
995 1245
930 1205
885 1165
900 1155
980 1245
989 1250
970 1228
1000 1230
911 1190
1105 1290
1015 1285
955 1185
960 1201
997 1260
980 1230
1025 1260
960 1315
975 1230
1185 1380
975 1305
975 1230
1110 1292.5
975 1320
90
1395
1350
1420
1200
1440
1440
1334
1310
1350
1440
1395
1410
1355
1380
1410
1440
1395
1405
1440
1375
1413
1290
1320
1440
1440
1410
1440
1400
1371
1335
1350
1405
1390
1400
1390
1380
1420
1432
1370
1365
1405
1393
1430
1410
1391
1440
1425
1395
1440
1440
95
1440
1430
1440
1200
1440
1440
1412.5
1405
1428
1440
1440
1440
1420
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1385
1380
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1436
1427.5
1410
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1435
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
98 99
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1200 1200
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
1440 1440
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table 15-132. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors (outside the residence)
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev Stderr
3124 154.03 158.302 2.8322
1533 174.908 173.671 4.4356
1588 133.524 138.801 3.4831
3 340 140 80.829
40 163.95 179.615 28.3996
201 195.652 163.732 11.5488
353 187.564 158.575 8.4401
219 135.26 137.031 9.2597
1809 144.244 155.13 3.6473
502 156.448 168.259 7.5098
2622 156.787 160.173 3.1281
255 141.557 153.169 9.5918
34 115.765 135.554 23.2474
53 167 149.049 20.4735
125 117.28 128.886 11.5279
35 187.143 163.771 27.6824
2857 153.812 158.38 2.9631
222 146.405 154.069 10.3405
15 191.533 178.278 46.0312
30 212.5 165.335 30.186
774 175.762 156.127 5.6119
1110 141.308 159.947 4.8008
240 134.663 140.78 9.0873
978 156.052 159.151 5.0891
22 152.727 209.828 44.7355
825 174.105 156.184 5.4376
306 171.941 188.396 10.7699
837 153.633 154.781 5.35
527 143.362 157.106 6.8436
355 126.868 142.575 7.5671
274 130.504 150.996 9.122
635 147.967 143.678 5.7017
639 156.028 169.151 6.6915
1120 158.577 165.201 4.9363
730 150.579 149.63 5.5381
1933 141.157 148.958 3.388
1191 174.924 170.399 4.9375
548 113.96 138.121 5.9002
1034 171.915 159.391 4.9568
1098 168.309 168.2 5.076
444 126.525 140.747 6.6796
2869 154.516 159.172 2.9717
236 145.835 145.523 9.4727
19 182.421 181.024 41.5298
3023 153.218 156.257 2.842
76 172.855 222.319 25.5017
25 195 170.434 34.0869
2968 154.884 158.787 2.9146
139 129.353 142.494 12.0862
17 206.765 179.765 43.5994
Min
1
1
1
240
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
1
15
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
5
Max
1290
1290
1065
500
720
715
1250
720
1080
1290
1290
1250
480
750
720
600
1290
750
585
600
1250
1080
1080
1290
660
1250
1290
840
1080
750
1065
750
1290
1080
855
1250
1290
1080
990
1290
960
1290
885
600
1290
1080
600
1290
855
600
5
5
10
5
25
40
60
30
240 240
3.5
30
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
5
15
5
5
5
5
15
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
40
75
80
35
30
36
45
30
20
60
30
60
40
30
40
60
60
30
30
40
15
60
45
35
30
30
30
35
45
40
36
31
50
25
60
50
30
40
45
60
40
30
60
40
30
60
50
105
120
90
280
107.5
135
150
100
90
110
105
95
60
130
70
170
105
112.5
140
180
125
85
90
115
60
125
120
105
90
80
75
105
102
110
105
90
120
60
120
120
75
105
105
120
105
68.5
150
105
75
170
75
210
240
190
500
212.5
270
265
190
199
210
215
195
150
238
150
240
210
200
380
345
245
195
182.5
220
125
240
240
215
195
170
180
215
210
210
213
190
260
150
240
235
162.5
210
190
300
210
252.5
300
210
175
300
90
362
420
325
500
430
430
365
300
360
375
375
330
360
320
270
450
362
345
420
457.5
380
358.5
332.5
375
555
380
405
380
360
300
325
345
360
390
360
345
400
280
390
400
313
365
360
480
360
465
465
367
327
480
95
480
540
415
500
600
535
479
452
470
485
485
420
450
475
355
510
480
480
585
510
480
490
422.5
480
600
480
510
480
465
415
465
450
500
495
465
452
500
380
495
510
420
480
450
600
479
660
480
480
415
600
98
610
680
525
500
720
625
600
545
600
645
625
535
480
553
590
600
610
640
585
600
610
660
485
610
660
610
765
598
615
615
570
575
655
640
575
598
660
540
645
630
575
615
575
600
610
1065
600
615
553
600
99
715
745
610
500
720
699
720
610
715
735
720
645
480
750
610
600
720
690
585
600
705
745
525
701
660
699
855
701
720
690
660
610
750
745
660
698
745
690
730
715
655
720
610
600
707
1080
600
715
735
600
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table 15-133. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling Inside a
Vehicle
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
7743 97.278
3603 103.696
4138 91.721
2 30
144 117.035
335 68.116
571 71.033
500 81 .53
5286 104.011
907 90.87
6288 97.248
766 98.723
133 83.414
144 96.181
319 101.734
93 93.591
7050 97.149
578 100.043
34 73
81 98.914
1388 73.609
3732 105.816
720 98.763
1849 96.561
54 120.296
1550 76.39
561 100.822
2166 101.605
1556 103.215
1108 104.532
802 101.938
1662 98.585
1759 101.229
2704 96.051
1618 93.689
5289 94.437
2454 103.399
2037 94.31
2032 99.612
2090 97.792
1584 97.419
7152 97.262
544 97.241
47 100
7516 97.288
172 93.07
55 108.945
7349 97.559
342 90.971
52 98.942
Stdev
104.938
119.736
89.756
14.142
129.103
75.531
77.62
79.8
111.1
93.881
107.173
91.337
74.929
93.965
110.376
90.073
104.847
109.048
68.279
95.273
77.782
116.18
94.999
99.534
108.615
78.923
120.246
107.594
110.128
109.485
108.688
106.64
114.641
97.72
103.717
101.435
1 1 1 .892
101.375
110.464
103.76
103.714
104.554
110.792
95.192
105.235
93.142
99.695
106.055
79.287
93.767
Stderr
1.1926
1 .9948
1 .3953
10
10.7586
4.1267
3.2483
3.5687
1.5281
3.1173
1.3515
3.3001
6.4972
7.8304
6.1799
9.3401
1.2487
4.5358
1 1 .7098
10.5859
2.0878
1.9018
3.5404
2.3147
14.7807
2.0047
5.0768
2.3118
2.7919
3.2891
3.8379
2.6158
2.7334
1 .8792
2.5785
1 .3948
2.2587
2.2461
2.4505
2.2696
2.6059
1 .2363
4.7502
13.8852
1.2139
7.102
13.4429
1.2371
4.2873
13.0031
Min
1
1
1
20
5
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
5
3
2
10
1
2
5
10
1
4
2
1
10
1
5
1
2
4
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
10
1
8
10
1
2
5
Max
1440
1440
995
40
810
955
900
790
1440
900
1440
810
540
690
825
480
1440
825
325
480
955
1440
960
995
480
955
1440
1210
1280
1215
1357
1215
1440
955
1280
1215
1440
1080
1440
1357
1280
1440
955
480
1440
615
480
1440
505
480
5
12
10
12
20
20
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
20
10
20
15
10
15
6
15
10
16
10
10
20
10
15
12
15
15
20
15
10
13
10
10
13
10
12
10
14
10
17
10
11
15
20
10
15
10
25 50
40 70
40 70
40 70
20 30
40 80
30 47
25 51
30 60
43 75
35 60
40 70
45 75
35 70
40 69.5
41 70
30 65
40 70
40 70
25 60
30 65
30 55
45 75
45 75
37 65
35 88
30 60
40 70
40 70
40 75
45 75
45 75.5
40 70
40 70
40 70
35 65
40 66
40 75
35 65
40 70
40 70
40 70
40 70
40 65
30 75
40 70
30 65
35 75
40 70
40 70
30 73.5
75
120
120
115
40
142.5
85
90
90
190
205
180
40
210
150
140
100 165.5
120
120
120
120
105
127.5
120
120
120
120
97
130
90
124
120
120
190
95
120
120
120
125
120
120
120
120
115
115
125
116
120
120
120
120
116.5
120
120
120
150
120
115
145
200
190
190
195
150
180
190
205
190
190
175
220
150
198
195
200
290
155
180
210
195
200
195
190
205
190
180
180
205
190
200
190
180
190
180
220
190
185
235
190
195
195
95
270
295
240
40
435
200
171
232.5
285
258
270
265
210
250
335
255
270
285
200
255
195
290
260
275
330
201
265
286
285
280
270
275
290
250
260
260
280
270
275
260
265
270
255
239
270
280
360
270
240
239
98 99
425 570
478 655
385 465
40 40
593 660
245 270
275 360
345 405
450 620
400 460
425 595
390 485
330 360
345 540
465 620
420 480
420 566
480 630
325 325
420 480
275 382
475 660
380 470
420 526
390 480
302.5 385
460 620
445 570
460 630
450 675
365 480
425 570
435 595
420 558
420 540
435 575
420 540
425 544
440 546
415 558
420 620
425 570
460 705
480 480
425 570
420 540
390 480
425 580
325 460
390 480
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table 15-134. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors Near a Vehicle
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
2825
1388
1436
1
51
102
230
313
1787
342
2275
278
51
50
136
35
2552
230
13
30
632
1169
254
751
19
702
222
702
537
367
295
749
586
836
654
2018
807
703
791
819
512
2596
205
24
2726
76
23
2684
115
26
Mean
79.828
111.21
49.541
20
64.373
45.99
55.909
40.879
96.365
57.55
81.787
78.374
42.431
73.06
55.066
124.4
79.761
68.091
185.31
129.83
46.989
114.86
67.118
56.792
96.947
47.098
105.76
113.18
87.927
70.905
55.186
75.734
77.445
86.447
78.19
84.241
68.793
70.91
80.542
84.178
84.01
80.366
75.088
62.083
79.57
92.434
68.696
79.404
93.843
61.615
Stdev
143.82
184.96
75.947
«
90.949
59.489
86.475
55.718
169.13
85.255
148.41
130.69
61.693
113.02
100.19
186.88
142.98
125.96
321.29
198.28
68.827
193.04
114.34
84.927
185.76
70.151
193.65
185.75
157.3
117.85
86.872
130.56
141.21
160.31
138.28
155.61
108.2
141.83
135.48
150.3
148.27
143.21
157.15
78.548
144.32
139.38
91.209
142.84
175.36
72.201
Stderr
2.7059
4.9645
2.0042
«
12.7354
5.8903
5.702
3.1494
4.0009
4.61
3.1116
7.838
8.6387
15.9836
8.591
31.5887
2.8303
8.3058
89.1098
36.2
2.7378
5.646
7.174
3.099
42.616
2.6477
12.9967
7.0107
6.7878
6.1515
5.0579
4.7705
5.8332
5.5443
5.4072
3.4639
3.8088
5.3492
4.817
5.2519
6.5525
2.8107
10.9756
16.0335
2.7642
15.9879
19.0183
2.7572
16.3523
14.1598
Min Max
1 1440
1 1440
1 790
20 20
1 510
1 420
1 540
1 435
1 1440
1 560
1 1440
1 645
1 405
1 535
1 600
4 810
1 1440
1 765
2 985
10 810
1 540
1 1440
1 795
1 690
5 790
1 540
1 1440
1 1410
1 985
1 660
1 710
1 985
1 1440
1 1410
1 985
1 1440
1 705
1 1440
1 810
1 985
1 930
1 1410
1 1440
5 360
1 1440
1 570
5 360
1 1440
1 985
5 360
5
2
3
2
20
4
2
2
3
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
10
2
2
2
10
2
2
2
2
5
2
4
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
3
10
2
2
7
25
10
11
10
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
20
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
17.5
10
10
20
10
10
27
50 75
30 65
30.5 90
25 60
20 20
40 65
30 60
20 60
21 45
30 75
30 60
30 68
30 70
28 60
40 60
25 54.5
40 120
30 65
30 60
25 100
40 98
23 55
30 90
30 63
30 60
30 90
24 55
30 90
35 90
30 70
30 68
30 60
30 70
30 60
30 61.5
30 65
30 65
30 65
26 60
30 74
30 70
30 70
30 65
30 65
35 67.5
30 65
35 91
40 75
30 65
30 90
40 75
90
200
430
120
20
125
105
170
100
325
120
210
190
85
167.5
110
360
200
147.5
705
435
120
485
165
130
360
120
365
455
240
170
120
179
210
240
180
215
180
160
215
210
225
205
160
98
196
354
98
197
225
110
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
95
465
570
180
20
290
160
215
160
539
205
480
435
120
420
170
565
457
410
985
585
180
570
280
210
790
180
540
555
540
325
200
375
390
525
435
515
310
365
435
510
510
475
309
225
465
465
330
465
465
180
98 99
600 675
675 735
290 420
20 20
360 510
192 245
360 465
220 260
645 720
450 510
600 695
580 600
150 405
492.5 535
525 600
810 810
600 665
565 615
985 985
810 810
265 360
690 740
510 600
360 465
790 790
265 360
720 735
665 740
635 705
565 600
362 560
570 665
560 645
643 710
570 615
625 705
465 540
570 643
570 645
615 705
600 690
600 675
580 690
360 360
600 687
535 570
360 360
600 665
735 985
360 360
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-135. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors Other Than
Near a Residence or Vehicle Such as Parks, Golf Courses, or Farms
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev
1383 200.153 202.665
789 223.482 208.727
593 168.742 189.993
1 420
19 183.368 160.349
54 164.648 177.34
159 171.34 177.947
175 156.903 174.411
858 219.425 215.094
118 181.932 180.158
1186 202.615 203.396
81 185.84 195.119
20 169.45 189.122
30 187.5 161.849
57 158.298 203.27
9 380 250.637
1267 202.593 203.353
103 163.942 185.155
4 67.5 59.231
9 330 259.459
383 163.846 176.805
555 228.526 219.372
126 202.556 211.673
309 191.469 189.268
10 254 240.899
429 163.949 175.476
83 264.482 255.463
313 228.613 228.235
250 217.984 202.991
185 207.27 190.178
123 163.642 173.04
279 196.824 208.372
309 196.702 211.59
468 198.432 195.071
327 208.716 200.465
851 183.982 197.931
532 226.019 207.598
241 175.676 192.682
412 185.806 174.522
508 224.996 220.748
222 196.5 213.598
1283 196.564 196.894
93 244.344 263.314
7 270.714 274.415
1352 199.038 202.274
25 238.64 205.994
6 290.833 275.979
1326 199.761 200.843
51 206.431 239.756
6 233.333 294.035
Stderr
5.45
7.431
7.802
«
36.787
24.133
14.112
13.184
7.343
16.585
5.906
21.68
42.289
29.549
26.924
83.546
5.713
18.244
29.616
86.486
9.034
9.312
18.857
10.767
76.179
8.472
28.041
12.901
12.838
13.982
15.603
12.475
12.037
9.017
1 1 .086
6.785
9
12.412
8.598
9.794
14.336
5.497
27.304
103.719
5.501
41.199
112.668
5.516
33.573
120.039
Min
1
1
1
420
10
1
5
5
1
5
1
1
10
10
1
30
1
1
10
30
1
1
3
1
30
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
30
1
1
30
1
5
15
Max
1440
1440
1440
420
540
980
1210
1065
1440
900
1440
765
665
560
1305
810
1440
1305
145
810
1210
1305
1440
1440
810
1210
1305
1440
1440
930
900
1305
1440
933
1440
1440
1440
1065
980
1440
1130
1440
1440
810
1440
730
810
1440
1100
810
5
10
20
10
420
10
10
15
10
10
20
14
5
10
10
5
30
10
10
10
30
10
14
10
10
30
10
30
10
10
20
10
10
10
15
15
10
20
10
15
15
10
10
15
30
10
5
30
10
10
15
25
60
60
40
420
60
60
55
45
60
55
60
40
32.5
60
30
195
60
30
22.5
140
51
60
60
50
105
55
60
60
60
60
45
60
50
60
60
45
68.5
35
60
60
35
60
60
60
60
60
140
60
50
30
50
130
150
105
420
140
120
115
100
150
112.5
134.5
108
95
120
110
435
130
115
57.5
210
110
150
125
125
167.5
115
180
160
152.5
128
90
130
120
120
150
119
155
93
130
150
120
125
150
195
130
210
202.5
130
110
167.5
75
276
315
238
420
220
175
221
210
310
280
280
240
230
270
228
540
280
228
112.5
510
215
335
280
275
280
210
480
310
330
285
240
265
270
285
285
240
320
253
240
305
280
270
350
450
270
340
360
275
305
210
90
510
540
420
420
510
370
405
385
540
480
510
540
477.5
437.5
370
810
510
400
145
810
385
545
510
480
675
385
555
570
510
505
385
480
510
510
525
490
525
450
473
540
540
495
530
810
510
465
810
500
540
810
95
600
635
540
420
540
560
574
570
635
570
615
585
585
535
435
810
615
511
145
810
560
645
580
565
810
560
600
690
555
600
480
590
635
600
580
585
630
585
555
630
600
600
810
810
600
690
810
600
700
810
98 99
748 915
765 900
700 930
420 420
540 540
630 980
660 725
735 915
780 933
600 735
750 930
690 765
665 665
560 560
555 1305
810 810
748 915
555 555
145 145
810 810
665 915
825 955
690 700
690 735
810 810
665 840
1100 1305
855 990
715 765
690 795
735 780
900 1130
740 900
748 825
725 855
735 900
810 915
750 810
665 740
840 990
780 900
730 855
1100 1440
810 810
740 915
730 730
810 810
735 900
930 1100
810 810
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table 15-136. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in an Office or Factory
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N
1975
1012
963
49
12
14
19
1749
132
1612
191
42
28
74
28
1805
138
7
25
43
1535
164
213
20
80
104
631
462
415
283
465
439
666
405
1759
216
531
470
550
424
1845
114
16
1931
26
18
1873
86
16
Mean
393.972
410.816
376.271
438.918
31.583
100.929
145.421
418.971
145.848
387.646
413.911
428.024
480.893
394.459
482.893
393.453
393.645
262.571
470.04
121.279
455.571
293.03
77.643
449.15
225.1
329.548
396.876
393.108
437.231
396.883
399.075
389.31
408.637
369.052
406.795
289.551
390.716
385.198
393.524
408.358
394.976
371.693
437
395.718
265.462
392.333
395.611
356.43
403.875
Stdev
230.763
233.454
226.676
232.58
25.639
155.126
181.118
218.445
193.973
231.968
218
216.759
200.859
237.847
246.079
229.593
238.608
242.131
258.753
177.984
200.299
196.95
122.957
184.813
248.547
264.402
228.074
228.826
205.198
232.151
226.243
229.075
228.181
240.375
225.173
249.076
231.677
240.678
224.454
226.578
230.383
231.336
272.067
229.668
246.766
282.64
229.961
236.119
289.456
Stderr
5.1926
7.3386
7.3045
33.2257
7.4013
41 .4593
41.5512
5.2233
16.8832
5.7776
15.7739
33.4466
37.9588
27.6492
46.5046
5.404
20.3116
91.5168
51.7505
27.1423
5.1124
15.3792
8.4249
41.3256
27.7884
25.9267
9.0795
10.6459
10.0728
13.7999
10.4918
10.9331
8.8418
1 1 .9443
5.3689
16.9475
10.0539
11.1016
9.5708
1 1 .0036
5.3635
21.6666
68.0168
5.2265
48.3947
66.619
5.3135
25.4614
72.3641
Min
1
1
1
10
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
10
40
1
30
1
1
1
17
1
1
1
1
30
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
5
5
1
5
5
Max
1440
1440
855
900
90
580
625
1440
705
1440
1037
780
795
840
997
1440
840
610
860
685
1440
750
705
675
860
930
997
1440
900
860
930
997
1440
900
997
1440
997
1440
1037
840
1440
840
860
1440
650
860
1440
800
860
5 25
9 180
10 225
5 120
20 299
5 12.5
2 10
1 10
10 273
3 10
6 150
10 268
30 285
75 347.5
5 230
30 373
10 180
5 180
1 12
30 311
2 10
15 400
10 95
3 10
60 334
3 15
5 50.5
10 210
5 210
10 325
5 175
10 215
8 180
10 225
5 95
10 237
3 30
10 180
5 120
9 200
10 238.5
8 185
10 120
5 232.5
10 195
9 15
5 30
8 195
10 75
5 30
Percentiles
50 75
485 550
495 565
480 540
500 555
25 44.5
32.5 178
50 240
500 555
40 205
480 550
485 540
491 .5 553
540 582.5
492.5 560
532.5 607.5
483 550
497.5 560
245 540
525 615
40 178
510 570
342.5 480
30 90
522.5 550
105 470
388.5 552.5
492 550
480 540
510 570
480 565
485 550
480 550
497.5 555
470 550
495 555
282.5 495
480 550
480 553
482.5 540
500 566.5
490 550
462.5 540
520 587.5
490 550
175 490
490 550
490 550
427.5 540
490 582.5
90
630
645
600
675
60
195
510
630
495
628
635
660
715
645
818
630
644
610
810
307
644
525
215
645
607.5
640
615
615
640
640
625
630
630
630
630
600
625
630
613.5
640
630
630
780
630
630
780
630
620
780
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean =
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
95
675
710
645
780
90
580
625
680
540
675
720
745
780
720
860
675
675
610
818
580
700
555
305
675
675
705
675
660
690
675
675
670
675
675
675
670
675
695
675
675
675
675
860
675
645
860
675
660
860
98 99
765 818
780 855
710 750
900 900
90 90
580 580
625 625
765 818
640 675
750 800
803 900
780 780
795 795
765 840
997 997
755 810
765 795
610 610
860 860
685 685
775 837
585 615
570 640
675 675
780 860
765 855
760 800
770 820
750 800
780 818
765 840
750 800
760 840
760 800
755 810
800 900
755 835
775 837
753 810
750 770
760 810
800 837
860 860
760 811
650 650
860 860
760 818
720 800
860 860
Mean 24-hour
= maximum
-------
Table 15-137. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Malls, Grocery Stores, or Other Stores
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
2697 114.975
1020 120.159
1677 111.822
50 139.44
110 90.036
129 77.674
140 88.714
1871 125.927
397 88.572
2234 111.563
237 123
37 158.892
52 150.231
110 133.145
27 124.741
2476 114.387
188 126.074
12 49.417
21 122.429
372 86.946
1170 136.797
285 134.123
854 91.198
16 98.938
420 88.262
206 128.937
792 126.295
583 129.849
411 117.876
285 78.182
622 110.201
601 108.243
871 127.922
603 107.909
1721 117.451
976 110.61
683 111.71
679 115.844
759 113.138
576 120.243
2480 116.246
208 101.111
9 85.111
2607 115.981
74 90.838
16 62.688
2553 115.736
130 104.754
14 71.143
Stdev
140.961
157.143
130.088
137.586
77.887
68.035
101.361
156.815
88.477
139.443
152.318
151.725
146.737
138.309
131.136
141.819
133.15
37.689
138.488
86.322
176.691
147.732
87.218
110.033
91.922
155.722
158.884
149.53
144.142
95.665
134.942
133.098
155.825
130.742
148.879
125.747
134
142.21
147.47
138.948
142.351
124.977
79.634
142.101
103.912
68.084
141.704
131.336
66.864
Stderr
2.7143
4.9203
3.1766
19.4576
7.4263
5.9901
8.5666
3.6253
4.4405
2.9502
9.8941
24.9434
20.3488
13.1872
25.2372
2.8501
9.711
10.8798
30.2206
4.4756
5.1656
8.7509
2.9846
27.5083
4.4853
10.8497
5.6457
6.1929
7.11
5.6667
5.4107
5.4292
5.2799
5.3242
3.5887
4.0251
5.1274
5.4575
5.3528
5.7895
2.8585
8.6656
26.5447
2.7831
12.0795
17.021
2.8045
11.5189
17.8701
Min
1
1
1
15
5
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
10
1
1
2
10
1
1
2
1
10
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
33
1
2
2
1
5
20
Max
1080
840
1080
660
420
320
530
1080
655
1080
800
600
660
720
515
1080
720
122
515
660
1080
540
585
357
660
1080
960
800
720
630
755
840
1080
840
1080
840
840
720
1080
840
1080
600
290
1080
630
290
1080
613
290
5 25
10 30
5 30
10 30
20 45
10 40
5 30
5 20
10 30
10 30
10 30
10 25
14 50
14 65
10 35
10 30
10 30
10 30
2 17.5
20 33
5 30
10 30
6 30
10 30
10 31.5
5 29
10 30
5 30
10 30
10 30
10 25
5 30
10 30
10 30
10 30
10 30
5 30
10 30
10 30
5 30
10 30
10 30
5 30
33 55
10 30
15 37
2 30
10 30
10 25
20 35
50 75
60 135
60 130
60 135
92.5 180
65 105
60 110
45 123.5
60 150
60 120
60 130
60 135
105 220
102.5 180
90 195
60 207
60 131.5
90 172.5
47.5 69.5
60 180
60 120
60 150
65 186
60 120
52.5 115
60 120
75 150
60 150
70 165
60 135
50 90
60 130
60 130
60 155
60 120
60 135
65 135
60 135
60 130
60 125
60 160
60 135
60 120
58 60
60 135
64 105
55 60
60 135
60 135
56.5 70
90
285
375
255
338.5
210
180
222.5
360
180
265
370
410
280
310
300
285
270
105
290
206
480
400
195
290
210
330
365
345
290
160
280
250
320
255
320
255
255
300
300
295
287.5
245
290
290
150
110
285
192.5
110
95
482
530
400
420
250
225
317.5
525
255
495
480
480
588
450
380
495
450
122
380
255
562
480
255
357
262.5
500
524
510
515
250
465
440
520
430
510
380
420
500
510
480
495
420
290
495
190
290
481
505
290
98
570
609
550
565
359
255
384
600
400
570
600
600
600
535
515
570
540
122
515
360
640
520
360
357
384
570
600
563
600
450
563
560
600
550
586
560
568
588
570
550
575
545
290
570
510
290
570
575
290
99
640
658
600
660
360
280
413
658
470
640
613
600
660
540
515
640
610
122
515
384
690
540
420
357
420
605
660
651
640
555
600
645
660
600
650
608
660
645
610
640
640
550
290
640
630
290
640
609
290
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-138. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Schools, Churches, Hospitals, and
Public Buildings
Percentile
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev Stderr
2932 274.332 205.942 3.8033
1234 285.147 206.713 5.8845
1698 266.472 205.082 4.9769
50 268.96 221.042 31.2601
98 233 235.787 23.8181
391 351.202 149.578 7.5645
355 366.338 161.247 8.5581
1653 267.707 221.203 5.4407
385 151.091 128.639 6.556
2310 268.239 204.323 4.2512
332 303.473 207.071 11.3645
61 295 199.398 25.5302
57 314.684 203.549 26.9607
141 283.936 229.828 19.355
31 257.774 192.517 34.5771
2654 271.293 203.551 3.9511
240 306.388 230.835 14.9003
13 279.385 230.736 63.9946
25 286.6 175.367 35.0734
821 343.484 171.113 5.9719
1029 300.3 239.785 7.4751
293 251.324 199.326 11.6447
775 176.406 148.414 5.3312
14 212.857 147.736 39.484
917 340.328 172.613 5.7002
166 172.602 138.026 10.7129
617 207.29 199.027 8.0125
520 247.492 213.609 9.3674
351 261.581 214.287 11.4378
361 319.114 236.166 12.4298
645 272.747 211.594 8.3315
686 275.394 207.157 7.9093
1036 278.387 201.004 6.2449
565 267.418 207.214 8.7176
2091 309.844 212.577 4.6488
841 186.039 156.873 5.4094
847 296.587 201.244 6.9148
805 276.761 204.618 7.2118
667 254.115 209.724 8.1205
613 262.39 207.33 8.374
2689 273.193 207.301 3.9977
229 287.974 191.578 12.6598
14 270 171.24 45.7658
2836 277.127 206.396 3.8757
78 176.423 172.803 19.5661
18 258.278 165.599 39.0321
2794 276.999 207.348 3.9227
121 212.562 166.349 15.1226
17 275.765 163.401 39.6306
Min
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
5
10
2
5
1
1
35
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
5
3
1
10
5
Max
1440
1440
1440
1030
1440
665
935
1440
710
1440
1440
900
967
1440
681
1440
1440
760
625
1440
1440
1030
855
440
1440
735
1440
1000
1005
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1015
1005
1440
855
565
1440
890
565
1440
662
565
5
20
30
20
30
5
70
60
15
21
20
35
30
30
11
5
20
20
35
55
55
15
20
15
5
45
27
15
15
15
30
25
30
20
15
15
40
30
30
20
14
20
25
5
20
28
3
20
30
5
25
95
110
90
100
60
245
260
87
60
90
135
135
135
100
120
94
110
65
145
190
90
85
60
120
190
70
60
85
85
110
90
88
110
100
115
85
120
110
80
75
94
120
145
100
60
145
95
90
145
50
221
255
200
192.5
150
389
415
190
115
210
285
240
360
237
240
215
287.5
235
255
393
215
200
121
190
390
123.5
135
165
180
290
215
239
230
200
340
140
285
220
180
210
217
275
280
230
120
270
228
145
305
75
430
425
430
400
390
440
446
450
195
429
440
425
455
430
430
425
444.5
420
440
441
510
387
250
305
440
235
295
420
450
510
420
425
440
420
460
230
444
420
420
425
430
435
430
430
195
378
430
375
415
90
540
540
540
590
545
535
502
570
340
540
540
535
525
525
495
540
567.5
562
495
520
610
525
400
430
525
375
510
552.5
560
615
545
540
535
555
565
385
545
535
550
540
540
533
445
540
480
480
540
445
440
95
615
620
610
625
595
562
605
655
435
612
630
565
598
630
625
612
695
760
565
570
685
610
475
440
580
465
585
640
625
683
630
615
600
620
632
525
615
600
630
615
615
605
565
615
575
565
615
490
565
98
725
745
713
871.5
900
625
710
760
525
705
775
840
820
840
681
712
840
760
625
645
775
800
570
440
645
525
690
760
750
765
735
745
690
712
750
640
710
725
738
712
725
645
565
725
625
565
726
605
565
99
805
840
800
1030
1440
645
805
855
615
765
1000
900
967
940
681
800
940
760
625
713
900
880
641
440
713
640
785
855
800
900
855
850
778
820
855
735
770
840
890
778
820
800
565
805
890
565
840
630
565
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-139. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Bars/Nightclubs, Bowling Alleys, and Restaurants
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean Stdev
2296 111.735 131.368
1127 109.497 129.654
1169 113.892 133.019
32 138.094 151.816
61 62.705 47.701
88 58.602 39.746
127 76.614 82.038
1718 121.371 142.223
270 92.207 90.483
1945 108.84 127.174
167 121.88 147.847
42 103.976 104.151
36 159.333 196.721
83 130.205 161.594
23 155.913 135.696
2131 110.53 129.679
141 127.319 153.659
7 95 115.109
17 140.353 147.503
273 65.85 61.078
1215 125.765 151.364
236 144.729 157.886
559 88.642 77.231
13 158.077 127.157
309 76.006 81 .68
155 154.155 175.537
665 119.502 145.414
498 121.321 137.839
395 101.096 109.709
274 107.091 117.52
462 115.771 127.168
561 113.688 132.476
748 105.619 133.036
525 114.81 131.486
1407 112.164 138.508
889 111.055 119.269
584 116.783 135.982
615 108.416 124.727
622 110.543 132.965
475 111.385 132.104
2124 111.768 129.918
163 107.301 145.813
9 184.222 186.348
2229 112.481 132.361
54 71.463 52.513
13 151 162.726
2171 111.178 129.886
114 109.807 134.998
11 241.636 274.085
Stderr
2.7416
3.8621
3.8905
26.8376
6.1075
4.2369
7.2797
3.4313
5.5066
2.8836
1 1 .4408
16.0709
32.7868
17.7373
28.2945
2.8092
12.9404
43.507
35.7748
3.6966
4.3424
10.2775
3.2665
35.267
4.6466
14.0995
5.6389
6.1767
5.5201
7.0997
5.9164
5.5932
4.8643
5.7385
3.6926
4.0001
5.627
5.0295
5.3314
6.0614
2.819
1 1 .4209
62.1159
2.8035
7.1461
45.132
2.7876
12.6437
82.6397
Min
1
1
2
15
4
5
2
1
3
1
5
5
5
5
20
1
1
5
30
2
1
1
3
30
1
5
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
30
1
3
30
1
5
10
Max
925
900
925
610
330
180
455
925
750
925
805
497
765
813
480
925
813
315
480
455
925
813
610
425
548
925
910
775
765
765
765
813
910
925
925
870
875
925
910
900
910
925
480
925
340
480
910
925
875
5
10
10
10
30
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
30
10
15
30
10
15
5
30
10
10
10
15
30
10
15
10
10
15
15
15
10
13
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
30
10
15
30
10
15
10
25 50
40 60
35 60
45 60
47.5 65
35 55
30 45
30 50
40 65
45 62.5
40 60
30 60
40 62.5
52.5 90
40 65
60 88
40 60
40 70
10 40
40 70
30 50
40 63
47.5 80
45 60
70 105
30 55
40 90
45 60
40 75
40 60
40 65
45 70
40 65
35 60
37 70
35 60
45 70
40 68.5
41 65
35 60
35 60
40 60
30 57
60 88
40 60
45 60
35 88
40 60
43 65
30 88
75
120
120
120
150
85
85
90
135
100
120
153
120
137.5
143
270
120
120
165
210
85
135
180
115
240
90
209
120
135
120
120
120
120
110
130
120
120
120
120
120
125
120
118
300
120
90
120
120
120
480
90
255
240
270
315
115
120
220
285
177.5
240
300
200
495
360
330
245
360
315
410
120
300
385
180
330
165
388
290
270
225
220
270
250
240
245
270
235
265
240
260
265
255
265
480
260
120
480
255
235
480
95
405
377
424
495
120
137
270
462
255
388
490
240
750
485
410
395
440
315
480
182
500
520
240
425
255
545
485
440
330
330
380
410
390
417
430
351
440
395
390
355
390
485
480
410
120
480
400
375
875
98
568
560
570
610
130
170
325
600
358
560
555
497
765
700
480
560
700
315
480
273
640
615
315
425
330
700
630
610
507
560
560
570
555
590
595
535
595
542
605
550
568
560
480
570
232
480
560
530
875
99
660
660
645
610
330
180
360
680
520
645
735
497
765
813
480
650
765
315
480
330
735
745
388
425
455
870
680
675
570
675
650
675
650
640
675
630
735
585
660
770
660
670
480
660
340
480
660
620
875
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-140. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Other Outdoors
Such as Auto Repair Shops, Laundromats, Gyms, and at Work (non-specific)
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
1214 225.747
612 260.322
602 190.598
21 264.524
27 92.296
59 134.678
76 164.368
903 250.29
128 152.813
996 226.348
118 228.102
25 194.68
23 211.217
42 250.19
10 146.5
1133 224.325
68 230.088
5 483.2
8 229.375
162 140.031
652 276.345
132 240.909
259 145.347
9 194.444
186 148.097
88 301.966
324 249.086
251 266.996
217 202.014
148 191.764
275 218.171
254 250.689
401 223.691
284 213.68
900 224.954
314 228.019
347 241.715
321 220.343
294 224.418
252 212.194
1123 225.742
84 228.5
7 193.571
1178 225.259
28 227.75
8 290.625
1166 226.724
41 198.829
7 220.714
Stdev
231.111
239.586
216.774
273.733
74.852
186.691
159.542
243.45
159.777
228.881
256.391
196.484
236.332
229.16
246.555
231.063
215.421
240.867
310.592
158.915
250.945
227.902
173.086
278.752
168.067
251.244
243.136
256.435
217.284
198.819
216.166
241.492
239.929
222.324
232.145
228.476
239.749
220.658
244.957
214.928
229.228
259.329
201.406
231.28
218.573
269.171
232.003
213.198
197.261
Stderr
6.633
9.685
8.835
59.733
14.405
24.305
18.301
8.101
14.122
7.252
23.603
39.297
49.279
35.36
77.967
6.865
26.124
107.719
109.811
12.486
9.828
19.836
10.755
92.917
12.323
26.783
13.508
16.186
14.75
16.343
13.035
15.153
11.981
13.193
7.738
12.894
12.87
12.316
14.286
13.539
6.84
28.295
76.124
6.739
41.306
95.166
6.794
33.296
74.558
Min
1
1
1
15
10
5
1
1
2
1
2
5
5
5
15
1
5
55
30
1
2
5
1
15
1
5
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
15
1
5
15
1
5
15
Max
1440
1040
1440
940
270
910
660
1440
770
1440
1430
600
800
793
840
1440
793
623
840
910
1430
1440
1150
840
910
930
1150
1440
1005
870
990
1005
1440
960
1430
1440
1440
1005
1040
990
1440
979
510
1440
770
780
1440
780
510
5
10
10
10
30
15
5
5
10
12
10
5
25
10
15
15
10
15
55
30
10
10
15
5
15
5
15
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
5
15
10
10
15
10
12
15
10
10
15
25 50
56 120
60 160
45 105
75 100
25 65
30 80
45 130
60 135
45 95
58.5 120
45 120
58 90
25 115
60 165
55 67.5
55 120
61.5 127.5
560 568
42.5 67.5
30 103.5
60 162.5
67.5 170
40 90
40 75
30 109.5
60 265
53.5 126
60 155
55 110
60 105
60 120
55 150
47 120
60 120
58.5 120
52 120
60 155
54 115
45 115
55.5 120
55 125
59.5 100
60 80
55 120
62.5 135
67.5 217.5
58 120
45 95
60 155
75
370
460
260
420
160
145
208
450
202.5
370
358
300
405
420
105
360
398
610
372.5
170
508
360
160
150
177
487.5
435
480
295
262.5
360
460
360
305
367.5
376
390
390
360
327.5
370
351
450
360
425
480
370
330
450
90
568
605
535
560
180
325
450
600
420
580
525
525
515
600
495
565
545
623
840
325
619
510
432
840
330
670
595
600
570
535
544
600
560
585
565
580
585
550
595
540
565
660
510
570
560
780
570
550
510
95
670
695
600
840
250
720
550
690
510
665
720
530
680
675
840
670
660
623
840
505
700
620
540
840
520
780
690
710
645
590
660
695
635
675
672.5
665
660
630
760
660
660
793
510
670
600
780
670
565
510
98 99
800 910
815 930
720 855
940 940
270 270
855 910
600 660
815 945
600 610
780 910
990 1150
600 600
800 800
793 793
840 840
810 930
790 793
623 623
840 840
660 855
815 945
815 1005
704 770
840 840
720 855
815 930
815 979
800 990
760 855
700 793
765 855
815 940
815 979
793 850
815 942.5
720 815
897 960
730 815
855 979
710 793
780 897
910 979
510 510
810 930
770 770
780 780
810 930
780 780
510 510
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
-------
Table 15-141. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent with Smokers Present
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years) *
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment *
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education *
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
N Mean
4005 381.494
1967 411.359
2035 352.771
3 283.333
54 386.259
155 366.561
224 318.071
256 245.77
2976 403.067
340 342.694
3279 389.219
395 359.977
48 262.063
79 420.671
165 292.624
39 393.538
3666 384.913
288 336.191
18 369.833
33 403.364
624 301.723
2042 405.894
381 378.013
935 383.833
23 341.957
704 308.635
377 497.719
1315 425.682
829 388.807
473 325.871
307 282.518
932 369.46
938 384.067
1409 404.028
726 349.883
2661 374.746
1344 394.854
1046 374.159
1034 384.762
1059 385.134
866 381.999
3687 378.806
298 416.862
20 350
3892 380.923
87 404.31
26 390.577
3749 378.662
236 431.157
20 326.25
Stdev Stderr
300.479 4.748
313 7.057
285.139 6.321
188.171 108.641
305.371 41.556
324.464 26.062
314.016 20.981
243.61 15.226
299.434 5.489
292.209 15.847
303.032 5.292
287.96 14.489
209.928 30.3
339.247 38.168
250.208 19.479
325.254 52.082
301.22 4.975
280.874 16.551
371.484 87.56
322.819 56.195
295.529 11.831
296.349 6.558
291.098 14.913
308.691 10.095
254.245 53.014
292.801 11.035
317.756 16.365
301.711 8.32
295.753 10.272
272.694 12.538
257.117 14.674
287.677 9.423
304.829 9.953
308.501 8.219
291.992 10.837
296.185 5.742
308.482 8.415
304.183 9.405
301.561 9.378
300.394 9.231
295.104 10.028
298.378 4.914
323.967 18.767
304.324 68.049
299.475 4.8
345.105 36.999
300.394 58.912
298.576 4.876
326.848 21.276
291.068 65.085
Min
1
1
1
105
5
5
1
1
2
5
1
2
5
10
5
25
1
1
15
25
1
2
5
3
25
1
2
3
5
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
5
25
1
2
25
1
5
10
Max
1440
1440
1440
480
1440
1440
1440
1260
1440
1440
1440
1440
800
1328
1095
1110
1440
1440
1440
1110
1440
1440
1440
1440
925
1440
1440
1440
1435
1140
1205
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
995
1440
1380
995
1440
1380
995
5
30
30
29
105
25
30
25
10
25 50
120 319
135 355
105 285
105 265
105 370
90 273
105 190
60 165
30 134.5 355
30
30
22
10
30
15
30
30
20
15
30
15
30
30
30
30
15
40
30
30
30
20
30
29
30
30
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
20
27.5
30
30
30
30
30
17.5
100 240
120 330
118 300
64 212.5
135 310
75 220
115 290
120 324
115 252
90 220
120 325
75 190
135 364.5
135 325
120 310
120 325
87.5 205
225 465
155 390
135 330
90 240
60 200
120 314
120 319.5
130 345
110 274
120 315
120 321.5
115 295
120 320
120 330
120 324
120 315
135 342.5
60 290
120 320
120 270
115 342.5
120 315
150 362.5
85 222.5
75
595
638
545
480
555
570
475
360
625
540
610
538
412.5
655
475
655
600
512
600
655
450
625
585
600
450
465
775
650
600
499
430
565
600
630
541
578
625
590
610
591
590
591
652
540
595
703
670
590
680
540
90
815
855
780
480
780
825
775
595
830
797.5
825
775
560
885
660
865
822
760
760
840
735
835
805
825
715
741
905
840
810
735
665
800
825
840
800
810
833
815
810
840
810
810
870
795
815
910
780
810
892
755
95
925
965
870
480
995
1010
1050
774
930
880
930
905
630
1140
800
1040
930
850
1440
1040
900
925
915
930
885
900
990
928
930
860
810
892
930
943
900
915
940
925
900
940
915
915
1015
902.5
920
1015
790
915
980
887.5
98
1060
1105
995
480
995
1140
1210
864
1047
1015
1060
1080
800
1305
845
1110
1060
1010
1440
1110
1140
1005
1080
1110
925
1095
1120
1060
1050
990
900
990
1080
1090
1045
1045
1110
1080
1105
1040
1030
1050
1202
995
1060
1320
995
1060
1205
995
99
1170
1217
1110
480
1440
1305
1250
1020
1150
1205
1190
1160
800
1328
945
1110
1170
1260
1440
1110
1230
1110
1245
1290
925
1217
1369
1202
1155
1035
983
1095
1140
1205
1180
1150
1260
1170
1215
1130
1150
1170
1335
995
1170
1380
995
1170
1260
995
Note: A "*" Signifies missing data. "DK" = The respondent replied "don't know". Refused = Refused data. N = doer sample size. Mean = Mean 24-hour
cumulative number of minutes for doers. Stdev = standard deviation. Stderr = standard error. Min = minimum number of minutes. Max = maximum
number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
1 5-1 42 Range of Time (minutes) Spent Smoking Based on the Number of Respondents
Total N -
9386
4294
5088
4
187
499
703
589
6059
1349
7591
945
157
182
385
126
8534
702
47
103
1773
4096
802
2644
71
1968
834
2612
1801
1247
924
2075
2102
3243
1966
6316
3070
2524
2438
2536
1888
8629
694
63
9061
250
75
8882
433
71
Number of Minutes
* *
5381
2327
3053
1
133
344
479
333
3083
1009
4312
550
109
103
220
87
4868
414
29
70
1149
2054
421
1709
48
1264
457
1297
972
774
617
1143
1164
1834
1240
3655
1726
1478
1404
1477
1022
4942
396
43
5169
63
49
5133
197
51
0-
60
628
280
348
10
29
40
75
412
62
496
66
12
10
39
5
573
48
3
4
143
286
51
145
3
153
34
160
114
88
79
150
145
206
127
430
198
180
154
165
129
580
42
6
610
13
5
593
30
5
60-
120
444
184
259
1
6
23
38
31
305
41
368
41
3
8
17
7
396
38
4
6
91
203
42
105
3
98
28
115
87
70
46
108
110
137
89
301
143
113
120
116
95
419
24
1
430
11
3
423
20
1
120-
180
338
167
171
2
14
32
30
225
35
261
37
7
9
21
3
295
38
2
3
74
140
36
87
1
81
23
94
76
42
22
66
75
116
81
227
111
91
82
88
77
308
29
1
331
5
2
311
24
3
180-
240
285
141
144
3
8
23
20
196
35
233
26
5
5
13
3
267
16
*
2
50
141
25
67
2
56
16
86
62
38
27
73
65
106
41
188
97
81
73
71
60
264
20
1
273
11
1
267
17
1
240-
300
258
119
138
1
2
10
10
22
195
19
208
29
3
7
9
2
238
18
1
1
39
124
32
61
2
49
15
92
50
32
20
61
69
76
52
164
94
65
73
64
56
237
20
1
252
5
1
246
11
1
300-
360
242
114
128
4
7
9
15
187
20
208
18
2
3
9
2
226
14
*
2
29
126
27
56
4
38
23
84
56
24
17
63
37
92
50
146
96
68
61
64
49
223
17
2
235
5
2
224
16
2
360-
420
236
128
108
3
8
6
13
192
14
186
31
5
2
10
2
213
21
1
1
26
134
17
58
1
30
38
69
49
32
18
54
63
85
34
171
65
53
61
68
54
216
20
*
233
2
1
219
17
*
420-
480
192
92
99
1
6
7
12
7
143
17
154
23
3
3
8
1
181
10
*
1
28
96
23
43
2
31
15
71
44
23
8
52
42
58
40
127
65
39
50
61
42
175
16
1
187
5
*
182
10
*
480-
540
228
101
127
4
8
6
13
184
13
173
33
3
5
12
2
202
23
1
2
27
134
28
38
1
30
20
93
52
20
13
56
55
87
30
169
59
60
58
52
58
213
13
2
223
4
1
215
11
2
540-
600
186
92
94
3
7
11
5
148
12
160
15
2
4
5
*
173
11
2
*
22
109
12
43
*
27
26
64
35
22
12
40
51
60
35
128
58
48
40
57
41
172
13
1
184
*
2
177
7
2
600-
660
185
89
96
3
5
6
3
154
14
149
22
1
4
6
3
168
13
1
3
14
110
16
44
1
18
12
76
44
21
14
38
41
76
30
116
69
41
61
45
38
173
12
*
181
4
*
174
11
*
-------
Table 15-142 Range of Time (minutes) Spent Smoking Based on the Number of Respondents (continued)
Number of Minutes
660-
720
Overall 149
Gender
Male 84
Female 65
Refused *
Age (years)
1-4 3
5-11 7
12-17 7
18-64 119
>64 11
Race
White 135
Black 7
Asian *
Some Others 3
Hispanic 3
Refused 1
Hispanic
No 141
Yes 5
DK 1
Refused 2
Employment
16
Full Time 83
Part Time 18
Not Employed 31
Refused 1
Education
19
< High School 15
High School Graduate 60
< College 36
College Graduate 1 1
Post Graduate 8
Census Region
Northeasf 37
Midwest 36
South 52
West 24
Day of Week
Weekday 95
Weekend 54
Season
Winter 30
Spring 41
Summer 38
Fall 40
Asthma
No 134
Yes 15
DK
Angina
No 141
Yes 4
DK 4
Bronchitis/emphysema
No 139
Yes 10
DK
720-
780
135
76
59
*
1
5
2
3
114
10
118
10
*
2
3
2
127
6
1
1
10
82
11
32
12
24
64
22
9
4
34
28
63
10
84
51
47
36
23
29
124
9
2
130
3
2
128
5
2
Note: * = Missing Data; DK =Don't know;
Source: Tsang And Klepeis, 1996.
780-
840
162
87
75
*
1
6
5
5
129
16
139
8
2
6
6
1
149
11
*
2
16
82
16
48
18
34
62
29
12
7
34
36
60
32
103
59
46
44
45
27
150
11
1
157
4
1
150
12
*
840-
900
105
66
39
*
1
3
2
3
91
5
90
9
*
2
2
2
96
8
*
1
8
72
6
18
1
10
16
45
18
10
6
23
29
37
16
63
42
26
29
31
19
92
13
*
103
2
*
91
14
*
900-
960
83
48
35
*
»
2
*
1
72
8
74
6
*
2
1
*
81
2
*
*
3
50
10
19
1
3
16
33
23
6
2
20
15
37
11
55
28
21
10
33
19
77
6
*
82
1
*
75
8
*
960-
1020
53
37
17
*
2
3
1
1
44
2
49
3
*
*
*
1
52
1
*
*
5
34
2
1*2
7
7
17
12
8
2
10
13
21
9
38
15
11
14
13
15
47
5
1
48
4
1
48
4
1
N = Number of Respondents;
1020-
1080
27
18
9
*
»
2
5
*
18
2
21
5
*
*
*
1
25
1
*
1
7
10
2
8
8
6
6
5
1
1
2
11
11
3
17
10
7
5
11
4
24
3
*
26
1
*
25
2
*
Refused
1080-
1140
21
14
7
*
»
2
2
*
17
*
16
2
*
1
1
1
19
1
*
1
4
11
3
3
4
2
5
6
4
4
8
6
3
12
9
6
5
5
5
20
1
*
20
1
*
20
1
*
1140-
1200
12
9
3
*
»
1
2
*
9
*
11
1
*
*
*
*
12
*
*
*
3
5
*
4
3
1
5
3
*
*
2
1
7
2
8
4
4
4
2
2
9
3
*
12
*
*
11
1
*
1200-
1260
12
6
6
*
*
*
3
2
5
2
11
*
*
1
*
*
11
1
*
*
5
2
2
3
5
1
3
2
*
1
2
2
5
3
8
4
1
5
3
3
9
3
*
12
*
*
9
3
*
= Respondent Refused to
1260-
1320
3
3
*
*
»
1
*
*
2
*
2
*
*
1
*
*
2
1
*
*
1
*
*
2
1
*
1
1
*
*
*
1
*
2
2
1
2
1
*
*
3
*
*
2
1
*
3
*
*
Answer.
1320- 1380-
1380 1440
6 15
3 10
3 5
* *
* 1
1
2
* *
5 10
1 1
3 14
2 1
* *
1 *
* *
* *
6 13
1
* 1
* *
3
2 6
1 1
3 5
3
2 3
2 8
2 1
* *
* *
1 2
1 4
4 7
2
1 8
5 7
1 5
2 5
2 2
1 3
5 13
1 2
* *
5 15
1 *
* *
4 15
2
* *
-------
Table 1 5-1 43 Number of Minutes Spent Smoking
minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
Note: N = Doer Sample Size; Percentiles are the
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
N
9386
4294
5088
499
703
589
6059
1349
7591
945
157
182
385
8534
702
4096
802
2644
834
2612
1801
1247
924
2075
2102
3243
1966
6316
3070
2524
2438
2536
1888
8629
694
9061
250
8882
433
Percentage
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
75
240
310
180
75
82
130
345
10
250
225
60
255
175
243
175
360
295
144.5
420
390
288
135
60
259
255
275
140
225
260
210
240
235
285
240
270
240
125
235
405
90
615
685
545
455
370
377
675
340
630
540
375
680
481
625
518
687
630
555
790
710
630
480
380
610
630
655
510
595
651
600
626
600
630
610
668
615
615
605
810
95
795
840
725
735
625
542
830
622
805
715
494
815
652
800
680
835
793
768
880
840
805
660
595
775
810
810
710
780
810
790
785
810
791
790
855
795
835
785
900
98 99 100
930 1035 1440
983 1095 1440
870 960 1440
975 1095 1440
975 1140 1440
810 864 1260
950 1045 1440
825 910 1440
940 1035 1440
910 1071 1440
565 790 800
1140 1305 1328
813 845 1095
940 1035 1440
850 920 1440
945 1005 1440
930 1054 1440
915 1045 1440
1004 1105 1440
956 1060 1440
945 1045 1435
860 970 1140
795 860 1205
915 990 1440
945 1054 1440
950 1060 1440
885 990 1440
925 1015 1440
950 1080 1440
930 1034 1440
920 1060 1440
940 1020 1440
945 1020 1440
928 1020 1440
1020 1170 1440
930 1034 1440
1007.5 1125 1380
928 1020 1440
1040 1205 1380
of Doers below or Equal to a Given Number of Minutes.
-------
Table 15-144 Range of Time Spent Smoking Cigars or Pipe Tobacco
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Age (years)
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Some Others
Hispanic
Hispanic
No
Yes
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
Angina
No
Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
Total N
62
58
4
1
1
46
14
53
5
1
3
57
5
2
39
3
17
1
2
2
24
18
10
6
20
19
12
11
40
22
16
19
19
8
59
3
60
2
60
2
oy the Number of Respondents
Number of Minutes per Dav
*.*
5
5
*
*
1
3
1
3
1
1
*
5
*
1
2
*
1
1
1
*
2
2
*
3
*
1
1
3
2
*
3
1
1
5
*
5
*
4
1
0-3
10
8
2
*
*
10
*
8
2
*
*
9
1
*
7
3
*
*
4
4
2
1
4
3
2
7
3
3
4
1
2
8
2
10
*
10
*
3-6
8
7
1
1
*
4
3
7
1
*
*
8
*
1
4
*
3
1
4
2
1
4
4
*
*
5
3
5
1
1
1
8
*
8
*
8
*
6-9
6
6
*
*
*
6
*
4
1
*
1
5
1
*
5
*
1
*
*
*
3
*
2
1
*
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
4
*
6
*
6
*
6
*
Note: * Signifies missing data; Refused = respondents refused to answer; N = doer sample size
minutes spent.
A value of "61 " for number of minutes signifies that more than 60 minutes were spent.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
9-12 12-15
1 2
1 2
* *
* *
* *
1 1
1
1 1
* *
* *
1
1
1 1
* *
1 1
* *
1
* *
* *
1
1
1
1 *
1
1
* *
1 *
2
1
* *
1 1
* *
1 2
* *
1 2
* *
1 2
* *
in specified range
15-18 18-61
9
9
*
*
*
5
4
9
*
*
*
9
*
*
4
*
5
*
*
*
3
4
1
1
1
4
1
3
7
2
3
2
2
2
8
1
8
1
8
1
of number of
21
20
1
*
*
16
5
20
*
*
1
20
1
*
15
*
6
*
1
8
7
3
2
10
4
4
3
15
6
3
8
8
2
21
*
20
1
21
*
-------
Table 15-145 Number of Minutes Spent Smoking Cigars or Pipe Tobacco (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
N
57
53
4
1
0
43
13
50
4
0
3
52
5
37
3
16
2
22
16
10
6
17
19
11
10
37
20
16
16
18
7
54
3
55
2
56
1
1
2
3
2
15
0
2
15
2
10
0
30
2
10
2
3
15
45
2
3
5
20
10
2
10
10
2
3
3
2
10
3
2
3
2
60
2
60
2
3
5
2
15
0
2
15
2.5
10
0
30
3
10
2
3
15
45
2
3
5
20
10
2
10
10
2
3
3
2
10
3
3
3
3
60
3
60
Note: A value of "61 " for number of minutes signifies that more than 60
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsana and Klepeis. 1996.
5
3
10
2
15
0
3
15
3
10
0
30
3
10
3
3
15
45
10
3
5
20
10
2
10
10
3
6.5
3
2
10
3
10
3
3
60
3
60
10
10
10
2
15
0
10
20
10
10
0
30
10
10
10
3
20
45
10
3
7.5
20
20
3
10
10
10
10
10
5
20
3
10
3
10
60
10
60
25 50
20 60
20 60
2.5 9
15 15
0 0
15 45
45 60
20 60
10 15
0 0
30 45
20 60
30 40
20 60
3 10
37.5 60
45 53
15 45
25 60
20 30
30 52.5
20 61
15 30
10 45
30 60
20 60
20 37.5
15 25
15 60.5
30 60
10 60
20 60
3 5
20 60
60 60.5
20 60
60 60
75
61
61
38
15
0
61
61
61
25
0
61
61
45
61
10
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
60
90
61
61
61
15
0
61
61
61
30
0
61
61
61
61
10
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
60
minutes were spent; N = doer sample size
95
61
61
61
15
0
61
61
61
30
0
61
61
61
61
10
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
60
98
61
61
61
15
0
61
61
61
30
0
61
61
61
61
10
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
60
99 100
61 61
61 61
61 61
15 15
0 0
61 61
61 61
61 61
30 30
0 0
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
10 10
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 61
60 60
61 61
61 61
61 61
60 60
Percentiles are the
-------
Table 1 5-1 46 Range of Numbers of Cigarettes Smoked Based on the Number of Respondents
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Aian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing Data; DK
Total N
4663
2163
2498
2
84
263
348
326
2972
670
3774
463
77
96
193
60
4244
347
26
46
926
2017
379
1309
32
1021
399
1253
895
650
445
1048
1036
1601
978
3156
1507
1264
1181
1275
943
4287
341
35
4500
125
38
4424
203
36
= Don't Know;
Number of Cigarettes Smoked by Respondent on the Day Before the Survey
*
530
278
251
1
2
263
258
1
5
1
413
53
5
22
37
*
452
75
2
1
526
1
*
3
*
526
3
1
*
*
*
112
110
193
115
341
189
163
148
142
77
480
48
2
526
2
2
519
11
*
N=
None
3288
1467
1820
1
72
*
88
315
2232
581
2664
319
71
55
133
46
3010
225
18
35
388
1510
307
1058
25
473
279
899
696
547
394
747
746
1079
716
2239
1049
883
819
906
680
3023
239
26
3161
99
28
3138
120
30
1-2
45
24
21
*
1
*
*
*
42
2
30
7
*
1
7
*
33
11
*
1
*
34
5
6
*
*
1
16
11
11
6
4
11
17
13
28
17
16
13
7
9
40
5
*
45
*
*
43
2
*
Number of Respndents;
3-5
92
38
54
*
1
*
1
1
76
13
63
18
*
4
5
2
79
10
2
1
2
55
7
28
*
4
9
44
19
10
6
12
25
37
18
66
26
23
22
20
27
85
6
1
88
3
1
80
11
1
Refused
6-9
88
32
56
*
*
*
*
3
75
10
63
22
*
1
2
*
79
7
2
*
3
51
6
28
*
3
12
35
20
13
5
19
19
34
16
61
27
21
14
32
21
80
8
*
85
3
*
81
6
1
10-14
182
81
101
*
2
*
*
2
156
22
156
17
*
5
2
2
173
7
1
1
2
100
23
57
*
4
27
73
44
26
8
49
29
76
28
116
66
50
45
47
40
171
10
1
175
5
2
170
11
1
= Respondent
15-24
315
167
148
*
3
*
1
3
276
32
272
22
1
6
7
7
297
12
1
5
3
193
22
92
5
8
42
138
75
32
20
78
73
108
56
217
98
71
94
89
61
292
18
5
304
8
3
284
28
3
25-35
56
30
26
*
1
*
*
*
54
1
54
1
*
1
*
*
56
*
*
*
*
37
4
14
1
*
8
23
18
5
2
10
13
29
4
38
18
18
14
12
12
51
5
*
52
3
1
48
8
*
36+
57
43
14
*
1
*
*
*
51
5
52
1
*
1
*
3
55
*
*
2
*
34
3
20
*
1
16
23
9
5
3
16
8
24
9
43
14
14
10
17
16
56
1
*
54
2
1
52
5
*
DK
10
3
7
*
1
*
*
1
5
3
7
3
*
*
*
*
10
*
*
*
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
4
3
7
3
5
2
3
*
9
1
*
10
*
*
9
1
*
Refused to Answer
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.
-------
Table 1 5-1 47 Range of Number of Cigarettes Smoked by Other People Based
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing Data; DK =Don't
Source: Tsang And Klepeis, 1996.
Total N
4723
2131
2590
2
103
236
355
263
3087
679
3817
482
80
86
192
66
4290
355
21
57
847
2079
423
1335
39
947
435
1359
906
597
479
1027
1066
1642
988
3160
1563
1260
1257
1261
945
4342
353
28
4561
125
37
4458
230
35
know; N
on Number of Respondents
Number of Cigarettes Smoked By Others
*
898
468
428
2
11
236
355
263
32
1
675
119
21
29
50
4
796
95
4
3
845
*
21
30
2
897
*
*
1
*
*
201
196
320
181
596
302
266
270
240
122
802
95
1
894
1
3
875
21
2
None
3209
1403
1806
*
82
*
*
*
2506
621
2616
309
57
51
120
56
2928
223
11
47
2
1740
336
1098
33
44
336
1097
748
536
448
690
726
1090
703
2178
1031
841
821
863
684
2989
196
24
3068
110
31
3016
163
30
1-2
55
21
34
*
*
*
*
*
46
9
42
7
1
*
5
*
49
5
1
*
*
28
6
21
*
*
6
25
10
9
5
14
15
17
9
33
22
17
14
13
11
52
3
*
53
2
*
53
2
*
= Number of Respondents;
3-5
108
35
73
*
2
*
*
*
97
9
89
8
*
*
9
2
91
15
*
2
*
64
15
28
1
1
18
38
29
15
7
29
28
36
15
76
32
23
35
25
25
97
10
1
104
3
1
99
8
1
Refused =
6-9
78
39
39
*
*
*
*
*
74
4
70
6
*
1
1
*
73
3
1
1
*
50
4
24
*
*
9
40
22
5
2
18
13
33
14
54
24
19
22
18
19
69
9
*
78
*
*
75
3
*
10-14
122
61
61
*
*
*
*
*
116
6
106
9
1
3
3
*
114
7
1
*
*
73
14
35
*
*
17
47
36
17
5
14
27
58
23
77
45
29
27
35
31
117
5
*
121
1
*
115
7
*
15-24
121
46
75
*
3
*
*
*
109
9
107
9
*
1
1
3
118
1
*
2
*
59
11
48
3
4
16
62
22
11
6
32
25
44
20
69
52
34
32
30
25
104
16
1
116
4
1
108
12
1
Respondent Refused to
25-35
19
11
8
*
*
*
*
*
16
3
18
1
*
*
*
*
19
*
*
*
*
9
1
9
*
*
4
9
5
*
1
3
4
7
5
12
7
7
4
3
5
15
4
*
19
*
*
17
2
*
Answer.
36+
28
12
16
*
1
*
*
*
24
3
24
2
*
1
1
*
25
1
2
*
*
10
3
15
*
*
10
9
9
*
*
4
7
15
2
14
14
6
10
6
6
22
6
*
26
2
*
23
5
*
DK
85
35
50
*
4
*
*
*
67
14
70
12
*
*
2
1
77
5
1
2
*
46
12
27
*
1
19
32
24
4
5
22
25
22
16
51
34
18
22
28
17
75
9
1
82
2
1
77
7
1
-------
Table 15-148 Range of the Number of Cigarettes Smoked While at Home Based on the Number of Respondents
Total N
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing Data; DK =Don't
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.
4723
2131
2590
2
103
236
355
263
3087
679
3817
482
80
86
192
66
4290
355
21
57
847
2079
423
1335
39
947
435
1359
906
597
479
1027
1066
1642
988
3160
1563
1260
1257
1261
945
4342
353
28
4561
125
37
4458
230
35
Know;
*
516
277
237
2
8
236
268
2
1
1
391
61
13
17
32
2
451
64
*
1
514
1
*
1
*
514
*
*
2
*
*
121
102
177
116
336
180
153
152
139
72
470
46
*
515
*
1
501
15
*
Number of Cigarettes Smoked by Respondent at Home
None
3358
1463
1895
*
83
*
86
248
2352
589
2700
345
65
58
140
50
3045
252
18
43
322
1598
346
1060
32
406
309
989
701
524
429
721
764
1159
714
2277
1081
873
901
896
688
3100
234
24
3225
104
29
3179
149
30
1-2
51
24
27
*
*
*
*
*
47
4
30
10
*
1
8
2
41
8
*
2
*
33
4
14
*
1
5
21
17
6
1
11
12
16
12
32
19
18
7
10
16
45
5
1
49
1
1
46
4
1
N= Number of Respondents;
3-5
193
86
107
*
2
*
*
6
170
15
152
27
2
3
3
6
182
4
1
6
5
122
17
47
2
9
20
78
51
20
15
39
52
62
40
129
64
53
51
44
45
176
15
2
188
2
3
179
12
2
Refused
6-9
126
53
73
*
4
*
*
2
110
10
103
20
*
1
2
*
121
5
*
*
1
88
10
27
*
3
17
64
25
11
6
22
32
51
21
87
39
39
22
33
32
112
14
*
123
3
*
121
5
*
10-14
224
91
133
*
1
*
1
3
193
26
208
9
*
2
3
2
210
10
2
2
3
117
27
76
1
6
32
98
56
19
13
50
53
81
40
134
90
59
55
64
46
208
16
*
217
5
2
210
14
*
= Respondent
15-24
180
98
82
*
2
*
*
1
150
27
164
6
*
3
4
3
167
11
*
2
1
87
12
78
2
4
26
84
39
13
14
46
33
63
38
118
62
42
54
53
31
165
15
*
173
7
*
159
20
1
25-35
23
11
12
*
1
*
*
1
21
0
22
1
*
*
*
*
23
*
*
*
1
11
3
7
1
2
7
7
4
2
1
8
5
8
2
14
9
10
1
7
5
20
3
*
23
*
*
21
2
*
36+
29
17
12
*
*
*
*
*
26
3
28
*
*
1
*
*
29
*
*
*
*
10
3
16
*
*
12
11
5
1
*
5
7
14
3
18
11
6
6
10
7
25
4
*
26
3
*
20
9
*
DK
23
11
12
*
2
*
*
*
17
4
19
3
*
*
*
1
21
1
*
1
*
12
1
9
1
2
7
7
6
1
*
4
6
11
2
15
8
7
8
5
3
21
1
1
22
*
1
22
*
1
Refused to Answer
-------
Table 15-149. Differences in Time Use (hours/week)" Grouped by Sex, Employment Status, and Marital
for the Surveys Conducted in 1965 and 1975
Employed Men
Urban Data
1965
Sleep
Work for Pay
Family Care
Personal Care
Free Time
Organizations
Media
Social Life
Recreation
Other Leisure
Total Time
(Free)
1975
Sleep
Work for Pay
Family Care
Personal Care
Free Time
Organizations
Media
Social Life
Recreation
Other Leisure
Total Time
(Free)
Married
(N=448)
53.1
51.3
9.0
20.9
33.7
2.6
17.1
7.2
1.4
5.4
168.0
(33.7)
(N=245)
53.4
47.4
9.7
21.4
36.1
3.7
18.9
6.4
1.3
5.8
168.0
(36.1)
Single
(N=73)
50.6
51.4
7.7
22.2
36.1
3.6
13.9
10.4
1.3
6.9
168.0
(36.1)
(N=87)
54.1
40.0
9.0
20.0
44.9
4.8
18.5
8.9
4.1
8.6
168.0
(44.9)
Employed Women
Married
(N=190)
53.8
38.4
28.8
20.3
26.7
1.4
10.7
7.9
0.6
6.1
168.0
(26.7)
(N=117)
55.1
30.1
24.9
26.2
31.7
1.1
15.6
6.6
0.8
6.5
168.0
(31.7)
Single
(N=152)
52.6
39.8
20.6
21.7
33.3
3.7
11.1
9.6
0.5
8.4
168.0
(33.3)
(N=108)
54.3
38.8
16.6
21.9
36.4
4.4
14.5
8.9
0.5
8.1
168.0
(36.4)
Status
Housewives
Married
(N=341)
53.9
0.5
50.0
22.6
41.0
3.4
15.3
12.6
0.6
9.1
168.0
(41.0)
(N=141)
56.8
1.1
44.3
21.4
44.4
4.8
20.4
10.1
0.7
8.4
168.0
(44.4)
Single
(N=14)
58.8
1.6
45.7
23.0
38.9
3.4
19.1
10.2
1.1
5.1
168.0
(38.9)
(N=28)
58.6
0.0
42.8
19.2
47.4
3.0
27.2
9.1
0.4
7.7
168.0
(47.4)
Total
(N=1218)
53.3
33.0
25.4
21.5
34.8
2.8
14.7
9.4
0.9
7.0
168.0
(34.8)
(N=726)
54.7
32.5
20.5
21.8
38.5
3.8
18.2
7.8
1.3
7.4
168.0
(38.5)
a Data weighted to ensure equal days of the week.
Source: Robinson, 1977.
-------
Table 15-150. Time Use
(hours/week)" Differences by Age for the Surveys Conducted in 1 965 and 1 975
Mean Duration (hrs/wk)
Age Group (years)
18-25
1965
Activity (N=200)
Sleep
Work for Pay
Family Care
Personal Care
Free Time
Organizations
Media
Social Life
Recreation
Other Leisure
Total Time Free
Time
a Data weighted to
Source: Robinson
54.2
32.6
21.2
20.9
39.1
4.8
13.8
11.3
0.9
8.3
168.0
(39.1)
ensure
1977.
1975
(N=149)
55.4
27.0
15.3
20.3
50.0
8.4
18.5
10.7
2.6
9.8
168.0
(50.0)
equal days
25-35
1965
(N=321)
52.5
29.2
30.4
20.3
35.6
3.0
14.6
10.3
1.2
6.5
168.0
(35.6)
of the week.
1975
(N=234)
53.9
33.4
21.6
20.8
38.4
4.2
17.2
8.7
1.3
7.0
168.0
(38.4)
36-45
1965
(N=306)
53.1
33.1
25.4
22.5
33.8
3.0
14.5
8.4
0.8
7.1
168.0
(33.8)
1975
(N=150)
54.7
34.4
20.4
21.1
37.3
3.3
18.3
7.8
1.0
6.9
168.0
(37.3)
46-55
1965
(N=252)
53.9
33.4
24.9
22.4
33.4
2.0
15.3
8.6
0.6
6.9
168.0
(33.4)
1975
(N=141)
55.4
31.0
23.2
23.1
35.2
3.1
18.8
5.4
1.3
6.6
168.0
(35.2)
56-65
1965
(N=156)
53.6
35.9
20.4
20.9
37.1
2.9
17.4
8.1
1.1
7.6
168.0
(37.1)
1975
(N=111)
56.0
20.4
23.2
26.6
41.8
3.2
22.6
6.2
1.3
8.5
168.0
(41 .8)
-------
Table 1 5-1 51 . Time Use (hours/week)3 Differences by Education for the Surveys Conducted in 1 965 and 1 975
Mean duration (hours/week)
Age Group (in years)
Activity
Sleep
Work for Pay
Family Care
Personal Care
Free Time
Organizations
Media
Social Life
Recreation
Other Leisure
Total Time
Free Time
1965
(N=171)
54.9
31.6
24.7
20.8
35.9
1.8
19.3
7.7
0.9
6.3
168.0
(36.0)
0-8
1975
(N=75)
57.0
30.0
18.7
22.9
39.4
3.0
18.0
8.4
1.3
8.7
168.0
(39.4)
9-11
1965
(N=220)
52.3
33.1
25.4
20.9
36.1
1.5
16.5
9.8
1.4
7.0
168.0(36.2)
1975
(N=114)
53.7
32.0
21.7
22.0
38.6
2.2
20.7
7.9
0.7
7.1
168.0
(38.6)
1965
(N=452)
53.0
30.9
28.9
21.1
34.1
2.5
14.2
9.5
0.7
7.2
168.0
(34.1)
12
1975
(N=319)
55.5
26.9
23.5
22.1
40.0
3.7
19.0
8.5
1.3
7.5
168.0
(40.0)
13-15
1965
(N=195)
53.6
34.4
21.7
21.7
36.5
5.8
13.3
9.0
1.1
7.4
168.0(36.6)
1975
(N=137)
53.6
27.5
18.9
10.5
47.5
9.1
19.7
7.7
2.0
9.0
168.0
(47.5)
16+
1965
(N=191)
53.6
34.5
21.2
22.7
35.9
4.7
12.5
10.2
0.9
7.7
168.0(36.0)
1975
(N=144)
54.8
38.0
16.8
22.3
36.1
4.1
16.2
8.1
1.3
6.4
168.0(36.1)
a Data weighted to ensure equal days of the week.
Source: Robinson, 1977.
-------
Table 15-152.
Time Use (hours/week)"
Differences by Race for the
Mean duration
Surveys Conducted in
(hours/weekl
White
Activity Category
Sleep
Work for Pay
Family Care
Personal Care
Free Time
Organizations
Media
Social Life
Recreation
Other Leisure
Total Time
Free Time
1965
(N = 1030)
53.4
31.9
26.0
21.8
34.9
2.8
14.8
9.3
1.1
6.9
168.0
(34.9)
1975
(N = 680)
54.5
30.0
21.1
22.1
40.3
4.4
18.7
8.2
1.5
7.5
168.0
(40.31
1965
(N = 103)
50.9
36.6
23.6
20.0
36.9
3.0
15.7
9.1
0.6
8.4
168.0
(36.8)
1965 and 1975
Black
1975
(N = 771
54.8
30.0
17.6
21.0
44.6
4.9
19.6
9.8
0.4
9.9
168.0
(44.6)
a Data weighted to ensure equal days of the week.
Source: Robinson. 1977.
-------
Table 15-153.
Mean Time Spent (hours/week)" in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Regions
Activity West
N=200
Activity Actegtory
Market Work
House/yard work
Child care
Services/shop
Personal care
Education
Organizations
Social
entertainment
Active leisure
Passive leisure
Total Time
a Weighted for day of week,
due to rounding.
b N = surveyed population.
c S.D. = standard deviation.
Source: Hill. 1985.
23.44
14.64
2.50
5.22
79.23
2.94
3.42
8.26
5.94
22.47
168.00
North Central
N=304
29.02
14.17
2.82
5.64
76.62
1.43
2.97
8.42
5.28
21.71
168.00
panel loss (not defined in report),
Northeast
N=185
27.34
14.29
2.32
4.92
78.11
0.95
2.45
8.98
4.77
23.94
168.00
South
N=286
24.21
15.44
2.66
4.72
79.38
1.45
2.68
8.22
5.86
23.47
168.00
and correspondence to Census.
Total"
N=975
Mean
26.15
14.66
2.62
5.15
78.24
1.65
2.88
8.43
5.49
22.80
168.00
S.D.'
23.83
12.09
5.14
5.40
12.70
6.34
5.40
8.17
7.81
13.35
0.09
Data may not add to totals shown
-------
Table 15-154. Total Mean
Activity Category
Market Work
House/Yardwork
Child Care
Services/Shopping
Personal Care
Education
Organizations
Social Entertainment
Active Leisure
Passive Leisure
Total Time
Time Spent (minutes/day)
Weekday
[Na = 831]
288.0 (257.7)b
126.3(119.3)
26.6 (50.9)
48.7 (58.7)
639.2(114.8)
16.4(64.4)
21.1 (49.7)
54.9 (69.2)
37.9(71.11)
181.1 (121.9)
1,440
in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped
Time Duration (mins/day)
Saturday
[N = 831]
97.9 (21 1 .9)
160.5(157.2)
19.4(51.5)
64.4 (92.5)
706.8(169.8)
5.4(38.1)
18.4(75.2)
1,114.1 (156.0)
61.4(126.5)
191.8(161.6)
1,440
by Type of Day
Sunday
[N = 831]
58.0(164.8)
124.5(133.3)
24.8 (61 .9)
21 .6 (49.9)
734.3(156.5)
7.3 (48.0)
58.5(104.5)
110.0(151.2)
64.5(120.6)
236.5(167.1)
1,440
a N = Number of respondents.
b ( ) = Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
Source: Hill, 1985.
-------
Table 1 5-1 55. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories During Four Waves of Interviews"
Activity Category
Market work
House/yard work
Child care
Services/shop
Personal care
Education
Organizations
Social entertainment
Active leisure
Passive leisure
Total Time
a Weighted for day of week,
b Dates by which 50% of the
Source: Hill. 1985.
Fall
(Nov. 1, 1975)"
N=861
Wavel
222.94
133.16
25.50
48.98
652.95
22.79
25.30
63.87
42.71
210.75
1440.00
Winter
(Feb. 28, 1976)"
Wave 2
226.53
135.58
22.44
44.09
678.14
12.57
22.55
67.11
47.46
183.48
1440.00
Spring
(June 1, 1976)"
N=861
WaveS
210.44
143.10
25.51
44.61
688.27
2.87
23.21
83.90
46.19
171.85
1440.00
Summer
(Sept. 21,1976)"
N=861
Wave 4
230.92
119.95
21.07
47.75
674.85
10.76
29.91
72.24
42.30
190.19
1440.00
Range of
Standard
Deviations
272-287
129-156
49-58
76-79
143-181
32-93
68-87
102-127
96-105
144-162
panel loss (not defined in report), and correspondence to Census.
interviews for each wave were taken.
-------
Table 1 5-1 56. Mean Time Spent (hours/week) in Ten Major
Activity Categories Grouped by Gender"
Time duration (hours/week)
Men
n =
Activity Category
Market work 35.8
House/yard 8.5
Child care 1 .2
Services/shop 3.9
Personal care 77.3
Education 2.3
Organizations 2.5
Social entertainment 7.9
Active leisure 5.9
Passive leisure 22.8
Total time 168.1
a Detailed components of activities (87) are
140
(23.6)b
(9.0)
(2.5)
(4.5)
(13.0)
(7.7)
(5.5)
(8.3)
(8.2)
(14.1)
presented in Table 1A-4.
Women
n = 561
17.9
20.0
3.9
6.3
79.0
1.1
3.2
8.9
5.2
22.7
168.1
Men and Women
(20.7)
(11.9)
(6.4)
(5.9)
(12.4)
(4.8)
(5.3)
(8.0)
(7.4)
(12.7)
n = 971
26.2
14.7
2.6
5.2
78.2
1.7
2.9
8.4
5.5
22.8
168.1
(23.8)
(12.1)
(5.2)
(5.4)
(12.7)
(6.4)
(5.4)
(8.2)
(7.8)
(13.3)
b ( ) = Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
Source: Hill, 1985.
-------
Table 1 5-1 57. Percent Responses of Children's "Play" (activities) Locations in Maryvale, Arizona"
Location
Residential Yards
School Playgrounds
Parks and Recreation Areas
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Streets
Alleys
Parking Lots
Vacant Lots/Canals/Fields
Preschool
n = 211
143b
0
42
2
0
1
3
1
0
1
Percent Responses
Ranking of Children's "Play"
Locations0
Primary Grades (K-3) Intermediate Grades
n = 45 (4-6)
n = 66
124b
53
53
24
0
2
24
2
9
7
132b
52
33
27
2
0
41
9
9
8
Residential (Own and
Others)
Parks and Recreation Areas
Street/Path/Alley
Natural/Vacant Areas
School
Institutional
Commercial
Parking Lots
Child Built Places
Water
Industrial
a Survey was conducted in Maryvale (West Central Phoenix), Arizona.
b Percentages greater than 1 00, because many children played in more than one location.
c Ranking of children's activity locations were obtained from other literature sources.
Source: Sell, 1989.
-------
Table 15-158.
Aae Group (years)
16-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70 and older
Total
Occupational Tenure
All Workers
1.9
4.4
6.9
9.0
10.7
13.3
15.2
17.7
19.4
20.1
21.9
6.6
of Employed Individuals3 by Age and Sex
Median Tenure (years)
Men
2.0
4.6
7.6
10.4
13.8
17.5
20.0
21.9
23.9
26.9
30.5
7.9
Women
1.9
4.1
6.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
10.8
12.4
14.5
15.6
18.8
5.4
a Working population = 109.1 million persons
Source: Carev, 1988.
-------
Table 15-159.
Race
White
Black
Hispanic
a Working population = 109
Source: Carev, 1988.
Occupational Tenure for
All Individuals
6.7
5.8
4.5
1 million persons.
Employed Individuals3 Grouped by Sex
Median Tenure (Years)
Men
8.3
5.8
5.1
and Race
Women
5.4
5.8
3.7
-------
Table 15-160. Occupational
Employment Status
Full-Time
Part-Time
Tenure for Employed
All Individuals
7.2
3.1
Individuals3 Grouped by Sex and
Median Tenure (Years)
Men
8.4
2.4
Employment Status
Women
5.9
3.6
a Working population = 109.9 million persons.
Source: Carev, 1988.
-------
Table 15-161. Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals3 Grouped by Major Occupational Groups and Age
Median Tenure (years)
Occupational Group
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial
Professional Specialty
Technicians and Related Support
Sales Occupations
Administrative Support, including Clerical
Service Occupations
Precision Production, Craft, and Repair
Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing
Age Group
Total"
8.4
9.6
6.9
5.1
5.4
4.1
9.3
5.5
10.4
16-24
2.4
2.0
2.2
1.7
2.1
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.9
25-34
5.6
5.7
5.7
4.7
5.0
4.4
7.1
4.6
7.9
35-44
10.1
12.0
10.9
7.7
7.6
6.9
13.5
9.1
13.5
45-54
15.1
18.2
17.7
10.5
10.9
9.0
19.9
13.7
20.7
55-64
17.9
25.6
20.8
15.5
14.6
10.6
25.7
18.1
30.5
65+
26.3
36.2
22.2
21.6
15.4
10.4
30.1
14.7
39.8
a Working population = 109.1 million persons.
b Includes all workers 16 years and older
Source: Carey, 1988.
-------
Table 15-162. Voluntary Occupational Mobility Rates for Workers3 Age 16 Years and Older
Age Group (years)
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
64 and older
Total, age 16 and older
a Working population = 109.1 million persons.
b Occupational mobility rate = percentage of persons employed
another occupation.
Source: Carey, 1990.
Occupational Mobility Rateb
(Percent)
12.7
6.6
4.0
1.9
1.0
0.3
5.3
in an occupation who had voluntarily entered it from
-------
Table 15-163. Values and Their Standard Errors for Average Total Residence Time,
Households
All households
Renters
Owners
Farms
Urban
Rural
Northeast region
Midwest region
South region
West region
Average total
residence time
T (years)
4.55 ±0.60
2.35±0.14
11.36±3.87
17.31±13.81
4.19±0.53
7.80±1.17
7.37±0.88
5.11±0.68
3.96±0.47
3.49±0.57
aValues of the average current residence time, TCR,
Source: Israeli and Nelson, 1992.
S.D.ST
8.68
4.02
13.72
18.69
8.17
11.28
11.48
9.37
8.03
6.84
are given
Average current
residence
TCR (years)
10.56±0.10
4.62±0.08
13.96±0.12
18.75±0.38
10.07±0.10
12.06±0.23
12.64±0.12
11.15±0.10
10.12±0.08
8.44±0.11
for comparison.
T, for Each Group in Survey3
Households (percent)
1985
100.0
36.5
63.5
2.1
74.9
25.1
21.2
25.0
34.0
19.8
1987
100.0
36.0
64.0
1.9
74.5
25.5
20.9
24.5
34.4
20.2
-------
Table 15-164.
R(t) =
All households
Renters
Owners
Farms
Urban
Rural
Northeast region
Midwest region
South region
West region
Total Residence Time, t
0.05
23.1
8.0
41.4
58.4
21.7
32.3
34.4
25.7
20.7
17.1
a R(t) = fraction of households living in the
Source: Israeli and Nelson, 1992.
(years),
0.1
12.9
5.2
32.0
48.3
10.9
21.7
22.3
15.0
10.8
8.9
Corresponding to Selected
0.25
3.7
2.6
17.1
26.7
3.4
9.1
7.5
4.3
3.0
2.9
Values of R(t)a
0.5
1.4
1.2
5.2
10.0
1.4
3.3
2.8
1.6
1.2
1.2
by Housing Category
0.75
0.5
0.5
1.4
2.4
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
same residence for t years or more.
-------
Table 15-1 65. Residence
Year household moved into unit
1990-1994
1985-1989
1980-1984
1975-1979
1970-1974
1960-1969
1950-1959
1940-1949
1939 or earlier
Time of Owner/Renter Occupied Units
Total occupied units (numbers in thousands)
24,534
27,054
10,613
9,369
6,233
7,933
4,754
1,772
885
Total 93,147
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993b.
-------
Table 15-166. Percent of Householders Living in
Years lived in current home
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
Total3
a Total does not equal 100 due to rounding errors.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993b.
Houses for Specified Ranges of Time
Percent of total households
26.34
29.04
11.39
10.06
6.69
8.52
5.1
1.9
0.95
99.99
-------
Table 15-1 67.
Statistic
Mean
5th percentile
1 0th percentile
25th percentile
50th percentile
75th percentile
90th percentile
95th percentile
98th percentile
99th percentile
99.5th percentile
99.8th percentile
99.9th percentile
Second largest value
Largest value
a = Number of simulated persons
Source: Johnson and Capel, 1992.
Descriptive Statistics for
Both genders
Na = 500,000
11.7
2
2
3
9
16
26
33
41
47
51
55
59
75
87
Residential Occupancy Period
Residential occupancy period (years)
Males only
N = 244,274
11.1
2
2
4
8
15
24
31
39
44
48
53
56
73
73
Females only
N = 255,726
12.3
2
2
5
9
17
28
35
43
49
53
58
61
75
87
-------
Table 15-1 68. Descriptive
Statistics for
Residential occupancy
Current
age, years
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
All aaes
Source: Johnson and Cacel,
Mean
6.5
8.0
8.9
9.3
9.1
8.2
6.0
5.2
6.0
7.3
8.7
10.4
12.0
13.5
15.3
16.6
17.4
18.3
19.1
19.7
20.2
20.7
21.2
21.6
21.5
21.4
21.2
20.3
20.6
18.9
11.7
1992.
25
3
4
5
5
5
4
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
12
11
11
10
8
4
50
5
7
8
9
8
7
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
20
19
20
19
18
15
9
Both Genders
period (years)
Percentile
75
8
10
12
13
12
11
8
6
8
9
11
13
15
18
20
22
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
29
29
29
29
28
29
27
16
by Current Age
90
13
15
16
16
16
16
13
11
12
14
17
21
24
27
31
32
33
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
37
39
40
26
95
17
18
18
18
18
19
17
15
16
19
23
28
31
35
38
39
39
40
41
40
41
41
42
43
43
44
45
44
46
47
33
99
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
25
27
32
39
47
48
49
52
52
50
50
51
51
51
50
50
53
53
53
55
56
57
56
47
-------
Table 15-169. Summary of Residence Time of Recent Home Buyers (1993)
Number of years lived in previous house Percent of Respondents
1 year or less 2
2-3 16
4-7 40
8-9 10
10 years or more 32
Source: NAR, 1993
-------
Table 15-170. Tenure in
Previous Home (Percentage
Distribution)
Percent
One year or less
2-3 Years
4-7 Years
8-9 Years
10 or More Years
Total
Median
1987
5
25
36
10
24
100
6
1989
8
15
22
11
34
100
6
1991
4
21
37
9
29
100
6
1993
2
16
40
10
32
100
6
Source: NAR, 1993
-------
Miles
Less than 5 miles
5 to 9 miles
10 to 19 miles
20 to 34 miles
35 to 50 miles
51 to 100 miles
Over 100 miles
Total
Median
Mean
Table 15-171.
All Buyers
29
20
18
9
2
5
17
100
9
200
Number of Miles
First-Time
Buyer
33
25
20
11
2
2
6
100
8
110
Moved (Percentage
Repeat Buyer
Percent
27
16
17
8
2
6
24
100
11
270
Distribution)
New Home
Buyer
23
18
20
12
2
6
19
100
11
230
Existing Home
Buyer
31
20
17
9
3
4
16
100
8
190
Source: NAR, 1993
-------
Table 15-172. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
TIME SPENT INDOORS VS. OUTDOORS
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of
interest
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data
collection period
Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of
the population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
The studies received high level of peer review.
The studies are widely available to the public.
The reproducibility of these studies is left to question. Evidence has shown
that activities have tended to shift over the past decade since the studies were
published, due to economic conditions and technological developments, etc.
Thus, it is assumed there would be differences in reproducing these results.
However, if data were reanalyzed in the same manner the results are
expected to be the same.
The study focused on general activity patterns. One study delineated
between indoor and outdoor use of time but in many cases the locations
were specified. Thus, any assumptions were made about the indoor or
outdoor location where event took place.
The studies focused on the U.S. population and California.
One study analyzed data from a two primary studies. Data from the
remaining study was collected to via questionnaires and interviews.
The studies were published in 1985 (data was collected 1981-1982), 1987,
1991 (data was collected 1987-1990) and 1992.
In one study, households were sampled 4 times during 3 month intervals from
February to December, 1981. Robinson's data was based on 1) the CARS
Study where data was collected October 1987 to August 1988; and 2) the
National Study where data was collected January through December 1985.
The approach used to collect data was direct and included questionnaires or
interviews. Responses where based on diaries and 'mailback' surveys based
on what the person planned to do the following day (the "tomorrow
approach"). A 24 hour diary was used in another study.
The study sizes ranged from 922 to 5,000 depending on the sub-group
considered.
Timmer focused on activities of children. Robinson studies activities of both
children and adults. The studies are representative of the US population and
California State.
Variability was characterized by age, gender, and day of the week; location of
activities and various age categories for children. There was no mention of
race and no socio-economic characterizations made.
Biases noted were sampled during time when children were in school
(activities during vacation time are not represented); activities in the 1980's
may different than they are now;
Measurement or recording error may occur since the diaries were based on
recall (in most cases a 24 hour recall).
Two
Difficult to compare due to varying categories of activities and the unique age
distributions found within each study.
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Not
Ranked
Medium
-------
Table 15-172. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (continued)
Considerations
TIME SPENT IN A VEHICLE
Studv Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to US
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of
the population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
Rationale
The study received high level of peer review.
The study is widely available to the public.
The reproducibility of these studies is left to question. Evidence has shown
that activities have tended to shift over the past decade since the studies were
published, due to economic conditions, technological developments, etc.
Thus, it is assumed there would be differences in reproducing these results.
The study focused specifically focused on time spent in vehicle.
The studies focused on the U.S. population and California.
Robinson's study analyzed data from two primary studies, thus it secondary
data.
The studies were published in 1985 (data was collected 1981-1982), 1987,
1991 (data was collected 1987-1990) and 1992.
In one study, households were sampled 4 times during 3 month intervals from
February to December, 1981. Robinson's data was based on 1) the Wiley et
al. (1991) Study where data was collected October 1987 to August 1988;
and 2) the National Study where data was collected January through
December 1985.
The approach used to collect primary data was based on diary entries
recorded the previous day with follow-up telephone interviews. Another study
collected time diary data via mailback of questionnaires, telephone interviews.
'Mailback' surveys were based on the "tomorrow approach" where person
knew they were to record in diaries in advance.
The study sizes ranged from 922 to 5,000 depending on the sub-group
considered.
The studies are representative of the US population and California State.
Variability was characterized by age, gender, and day of the week. There was
no mention of race and no socio-economic characterizations made.
Both studies lacked time distributions and were based on short-term data.
Wiley et al. (1991) data was based recall, is limited to California's population,
and only considered English speaking households.
Measurement or recording error may occur when diaries were based on 24
hr recall.
One secondary study analyzing two primary studies
Similar activity patterns were found in both studies.
Rating
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
-------
Table 15-172. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (continued)
Considerations
TIME SPENT SHOWERING
Studv Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to US
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of
the population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
Rationale
The study received high level of peer review.
Currently, raw data are available to only EPA. It is not known when data will
be publicly available.
Results are reproducible.
The study focused specifically focused on time spent showering.
The study focused on the U.S. general population.
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
The data were collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to 24-
hour diaries, collected information on temporal conditions and demographic
data such as geographic location and socioeconomic status for various U.S.
subgroups.
Study consisted of 9,386 total participants..
The data were representative of the U.S. population.
The study provides a distribution on showering duration.
The study includes distributions for showering duration. Study is based on
short-term data.
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries are based on 24-
hour recall.
One; the study was a national study.
Recommendation is based on only one study but it is a widely accepted study
and average value is comparable to a second key study.
Rating
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Low
High
High
-------
Table 15-172. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (continued)
Considerations
TIME SPENT BATHING
Studv Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to US
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of
the population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
Rationale
The study received high level of peer review.
Currently, raw data are available to only EPA. It is not known when data will
be publicly available.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed and evaluated
provided comparable economic and social conditions exists.
The survey collected information on duration and frequency of selected
activities and time spent in selected micro-environments.
The data represents the U.S. population.
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
The data were collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to 24-
hour diaries, collected information on temporal conditions and demographic
data such as geographic location and socioeconomic status for various U.S.
subgroups. Responses were weighted according to this demographic data.
The study consisted of 9,386 total participants.
The studies were based on the U.S. population.
The study provided data that varied across geographic region, race, gender,
employment status, educational level, day of the week, seasonal conditions,
and medical conditions of respondent..
The study includes distributions for bathing duration. Study is based on
short-term data.
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries were based on
24-hour recall.
One; the study was based on one, primary, national study.
Recommendation was based on only one study.
Rating
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Not
Ranked
High
-------
Table 15-172. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (continued)
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
SHOWER AND BATHING FREQUENCY
Studv Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to US
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of
the population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
The study received high level of peer review.
Currently, raw data is available to only EPA. It is not known when data will be
publicly available.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed and evaluated
provided comparable economic and social conditions exists.
The survey collected information on duration and frequency of selected
activities and time spent in selected micro-environments.
The data represents the U.S. population
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
The data were collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to 24-
hour diaries, collected information on temporal conditions and demographic
data such as geographic location and socioeconomic status for various U.S.
subgroups. Responses were weighted according to this demographic data.
The study consisted of 9,386 total participants
Studies were based on the U.S. population.
The study provided data that varied across geographic region, race, gender,
employment status, educational level, day of the week, seasonal conditions,
and medical conditions of respondent..
Study is based on short term data..
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries were based on
24-hour recall.
One; the study was based on one, primary, national study.
Recommendation was based on only one study.
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Not
Ranked
High
-------
Table 15-172. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (continued)
Considerations
TIME SPENT SWIMMING
Studv Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to US
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of
the population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
Rationale
Study received high level of peer review.
Currently, raw data is available to only EPA. It is not known when data will be
publicly available.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed and evaluated
provided comparable economic and social conditions exists.
The survey collected information on duration and frequency of selected
activities and time spent in selected micro-environments.
The data represents the U.S. population
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
The data were collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to 24-
hour diaries, collected information on temporal conditions and demographic
data such as geographic location and socioeconomic status for various U.S.
subgroups. Responses were weighted according to this demographic data.
The study consisted of 9,386 total participants
Studies were based on the U.S. population.
The study provided data that varied across geographic region, race, gender,
employment status, educational level, day of the week, seasonal conditions,
and medical conditions of respondent..
The study includes distributions for swimming duration. Study is based on
short term data.
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries were based on
24-hour recall.
One; the study was based on one, primary, national study.
Recommendation was based on only one study.
Rating
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Not
Ranked
High
-------
Table 15-172. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (continued)
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
RESIDENTIAL TIME SPENT INDOORS AND OUTDOORS
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
The study received high level of peer review.
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of
interest
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data
collection period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of
the population
Characterization of
variability
Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
Currently, raw data is available to only EPA. It is not known when data will be
publicly available.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed and evaluated
provided comparable economic and social conditions exists.
The survey collected information on duration and frequency of selected
activities and time spent in selected micro-environments.
The data represents the U.S. population
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
Data were collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to 24-
hour diaries, collected information on temporal conditions and demographic
data such as geographic location and socioeconomic status for various U.S.
subgroups. Responses were weighted according to this demographic data.
The study consisted of 9,386 total participants
The studies were based on the U.S. population.
The study provided data that varied across geographic region, race, gender,
employment status, educational level, day of the week, seasonal conditions,
and medical conditions of respondent..
The study includes distribitions for time spent indoors and outdoors at ones
residence. Study is based on short term data.
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries were based on
24-hour recall.
One; the study was based on one, primary, national study.
Recommendation was based on only one study.
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Not
Ranked
High
-------
Table 15-173. Confidence in Occupational Mobility Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
Focus on factor of
interest
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of
the population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
The studies received high level of peer review High
The studies are widely available to the public. High
If the data were re-collected in the same fashion, it is questionable whether Medium
the results would be the same based on changes in the economy that have
occurred since study was conducted (more than 10 years ago). If the same
data were analyzed according to the design of the study then it is expected
the results would be the same.
Occupational tenure was the focus of both key studies. High
The data represents the U.S. population. High
The two studies are secondary data sources since they are based on Medium
supplemental data to the January 1987 Current Population Study (a U.S.
Census publication).
The studies were published in 1988 (data was collection in 1987) and 1990 Medium
(data collected from 1986-1987).
The studies are based on census data, which is collected over a period of High
years. One study analyzed data for January 1987. The remaining study
based data between a January 1986 and January 1987 time frame.
The studies used a valid methodologies and approaches. High
The study size for one is 109 Million; the remaining study's sample size was High
100.1 Million.
The data are representative of the U.S. population. High
The studies provided averaged data according to gender, race, and High
education; age averages and percentiles were provided.
Much of the original study data is not available. Only median values are Medium
reported.
There is no apparent error in measurement High
Two Medium
Difficult to compare between the number of years worked on a job and entry Not
verses exit rate of various occupations. One set of data was recorded in Ranked
number of years. The other set of data was recorded as a percent motility
rate and grouped by age.
High
-------
Study
Israeli and Nelson, 1992
US Bureau of the Census,
Johnson and Capel, 1992
Table 15-174. Recommendations for Population
Value
4.6 yr (averge)
1/6 a person's lifetime
(70yr) = 11. 7 (modeled)
1 993 9 y r (50th percentile)
33 yr (90th percentile)
26 yr (90th percentile)
33 yr (95th percentile)
47 yr (99th percentile)
12 yr (mean)
Mobility
Method
Average of current and total
residence times
Current residence time
Residential occupancy period
-------
Table 15-175. Confidence in Population Mobility Recommendations
Considerations
Studv Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to US
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of
the population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
• Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
Rationale
The studies received high levels of peer review and appear in publications.
The studies are widely available to the public.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed and evaluated.
The Census data provided length of time at current. Two of the studies used
modeling to estimate total time.
The data is based on the U.S. population
Two studies based results on modeled data and one based results on
interviews.
The reports were published in 1992 (based on data collected in 1985-1987)
and 1993 (based on data collected from 1939 and 1994 (projected) .
The collection period was based on data collected over several years.
There are some concerns regarding the validity of approach. Data does not
account for each member of the household, values are more realistic
estimates for the individual's total residence time, than the average time a
household has been living at its current residence. The moving process was
modeled. In another study data was assumed to have an even distribution
within the different ranges which may bias the 50th and 90th percentiles.
The study size ranged from 1 5,000 to 500, 000.
Studies were based on the U.S. population.
Variability across several geographic regions was noted. Type of ownership
was also addressed. One study provided data grouped by race.
Mentioned above in validity of approach section.
There is no apparent error in measurement.
Three
The studies produced very similar results.
Rating
High
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
Not
Ranked
High
High
High
Medium
-------
Table 15-176. Summary of Recommended Values for Activity Factors
Type
Value
Study
Indoor Activities
Outdoor Activities
Time Spent Inside
Vehicle
Taking Baths
Taking Showers
Occupational Tenure
Population Mobility
Swimming
Residential
Indoors
Outdoors
Children (ages 3-11)
19 hr/day (weekdays)
17 hr/day (weekends)
Adults (ages 12 and older)
21 hr/day
Children
5 hr/day (weekdays)
7 hr/day (weekends)
Adults
1.5 hr/day
Adults
1.3 hr/day
20 minutes/event
10 min/day shower duration
1 shower event/day
6.6 yrs (16 years and older)
Average: 9 yr
95th percentile: 30 yr
1 event/month
60 minutes/event
16.4 hr/day
O hr/rlow
Timmer et al., 1985 -Key study
Timmer et al., 1985 -Key study
Robinson and Thomas, 1991 - Key
study
Timmer et al., 1985 -Key study
Timmer et al., 1985 -Key study
Robinson and Thomas, 1991 - Key
study
Robinson and Thomas, 1991 - Key
study
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 - Key study
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 - Key study
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 - Key study
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 - Key study
Carey, 1988 - Key study
US Bureau of the Census, 1993;
Israeli and Nelson, 1992; Johnson
and Capel, 1992 - Key study
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 - Key study
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 - Key study
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries
WORK AND OTHER INCOME-PRODUCING ACTIVITIES
Paid Work
01 - Normal work: activities at the main job including work brought home, travel that is part of the job, and
overtime; "working," "at work"
Work at home; work activities for pay done in the home when home is the main workplace (include
travel as above)
02 - Job search; looking for work, including visits to employment agencies, phone calls to prospective
employers, answering want ads
Unemployment benefits; applying for or collecting unemployment compensation
Welfare, food stamps; applying for or collecting welfare, food stamps
05 - Second job; paid work activities that are not part of the main job (use this code only when R* clearly
indicates a second job or "other" job); paid work for those not having main job; garage sales, rental
property
06 - Lunch at the workplace; lunch eaten at work, cafeteria, lunchroom when "where" = work (lunch at
a restaurant, code 44; lunch at home, code 43)
Eating, smoking, drinking coffee as a secondary activity while working (at workplace)
07 - Before and/or after work at the workplace; activities at the workplace before starting or after stopping
work; include "conversations," other work. Do not code secondary activities with this primary activity
Other work-related
08 - Coffee breaks and other breaks at the workplace; unscheduled breaks and other nonwork during
work hours at the workplace; "took a break"; "had coffee" (as a primary activity). Do not code
secondary activities with this primary activity
09 - Travel; to and from the workplace when R's travel to and from work were both interrupted by stops;
waiting for related travel
Travel to and from the workplace, including time spent awaiting transportation
HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES
Indoor
10 - Meal preparation: cooking, fixing lunches
Serving food, setting table, putting groceries away, unloading car after grocery shopping
11 - Doing dishes, rinsing dishes, loading dishwasher
Meal cleanup, clearing table, unloading dishwasher
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES (continued)
Indoor (continued)
12 - Miscellaneous, "worked around house." NA if indoor or outdoor- Routine indoor cleaning and chores,
picking up, dusting, making beds, washing windows, vacuuming, "cleaning," "fall/spring cleaning,"
"housework"
14 - Laundry and clothes care - wash
Laundry and clothes care - iron, fold, mending, putting away clothes ("Sewing" code 84)
16 - Repairs indoors; fixing, repairing appliances
Repairs indoors; fixing, repairing furniture
Repairs indoors; fixing, repairing furnace, plumbing, painting a room
17 - Care of houseplants
19 - Other indoor, NA whether cleaning or repair; "did things in house"
Outdoor
13 - Routine outdoor cleaning and chores; yard work, raking leaves, mowing grass, garbage removal,
snow shoveling, putting on storm windows, cleaning garage, cutting wood
16 - Repair, maintenance, exterior; fixing repairs outdoors, painting the house, fixing the roof, repairing the
driveway (patching)
Home improvements: additions to and remodeling done to the house, garage; new roof
Improvement to grounds around house; repaved driveway
17 - Gardening; flower or vegetable gardening; spading, weeding, composting, picking, worked in garden"
19 - Other outdoor; "worked outside," "puttering in garage
MISCELLANEOUS HOUSEHOLD CHORES
16 - Car care; necessary repairs and routine care to cars; tune up
Car maintenance; changed oil, changed tires, washed cars; "worked on car" except when clearly as
a hobby - (code 83)
17 - Pet care; care of household pets including activities with pets; playing with the dog; walking the dog;
(caring for pets of relatives, friends, code 42)
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
MISCELLANEOUS HOUSEHOLD CHORES (continued)
19 - Household paperwork; paying bills, balancing the checkbook, making lists, getting the mail, working
on the budget
Other household chores; (no travel), picking up things at home, e.g., "picked up deposit slips" (relate
travel to purpose)
CHILD CARE
Child Care for Children of Household
20 - Baby care; care to children aged 4 and under
21 - Child care; care to children aged 5*-17
Child care; mixed ages or NA ages of children
22 - Helping/teaching children learn, fix, make things; helping son bake cookies; helping daughter fix bike
Help with homework or supervising homework
23 - Giving children orders or instructions; asking them to help; telling the*i*n to behave
Disciplining child; yelling at kids, spanking children; correcting children's behavior
Reading to child
Conversations with household children only; listening to children
24 - Indoor playing; other indoor activities with children (including games ("playing") unless obviously
outdoor games)
25 - Outdoor playing; outdoor activities with children including sports, walks, biking with, other outdoor
games
Coaching/leading outdoor, nonorganizational activities
26 - Medical care at home or outside home; activities associated with children's health; "took son to
doctor," "gave daughter medicine"
Other Child Care
27 - Babysitting (unpaid) or child care outside R's home or for children not residing in HH
Coordinating or facilitating child's social or instructional nonschool activities; (travel related, code 29)
Other child care, including phone conversations relating to child care other than medical
29 - Travel related to child's social and instructional nonschool activities
Other travel related to child care activities; waiting for related travel
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
OBTAINING GOODS AND SERVICES
Goods (include phone calls to obtain goods)
30 - Groceries; supermarket, shopping for food
All other shopping for goods; including for clothing, small appliances; at drugstores, hardware stores,
department stores, "downtown" or "uptown," "shopping," "shopping center," buying gas, "window
shopping"
31 - Durable household goods; shopping for large appliances, cars, furniture
House, apartment: activities connected to buying, selling, renting, looking for house, apartment,
including phone calls; showing house, including traveling around looking at real estate property (for
own use)
Services (include phone conversations to obtain services)
32 - Personal care; beauty, barber shop; hairdressers
33 - Medical care for self; visits to doctor, dentist, optometrist, including making appointments
34 - Financial services; activities related to taking care of financial business; going to the bank, paying
utility bills (not by mail), going to accountant, tax office, loan agency, insurance office
Other government services: post office, driver's license, sporting licenses, marriage licenses, police
station
35 - Auto services; repair and other auto services including waiting for such services
Clothes repair and cleaning; cleaners, laundromat, tailor
Appliance repair: including furnace, water heater, electric or battery operated appliances; including
watching repair person
Household repair services: including furniture; other repair services NA type; including watching repair
person
37 - Other professional services; lawyer, counseling (therapy)
Picking up food at a takeout place - no travel
Other services, "going to the dump"
38 - Errands; "running errands," NA whether for goods or services; borrowing goods
39 - Related travel; travel related to obtaining goods and services and/or household activities except 31;
waiting for related travel
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
PERSONAL NEEDS AND CARE
Care to Self
40 - Washing, showering, bathing
Dressing; getting ready, packing and unpacking clothes, personal hygiene, going to the bathroom
41 - Medical care at home to self
43 - Meals at home; including coffee, drinking, smoking, food from a restaurant eaten at home,
"breakfast," "lunch"
44 - Meals away from home; eaten at a friend's home (including coffee, drinking, smoking)
Meals away from home, except at workplace (06) or at friend's home (44); eating at restaurants, out
for coffee
45 - Night sleep; longest sleep for day; (may occur during day for night shift workers) including "in bed,"
but not asleep
46 - Naps and resting; rest periods, "dozing," "laying down" (relaxing code 98)
48 - Sex, making out
Personal, private; "none of your business"
Affection between household members; giving and getting hugs, kisses, sitting on laps
Help and Care to Others
41 - Medical care to adults in household (HH)
42 - Nonmedical care to adults in HH; routine nonmedical care to adults in household; "got my wife up,"
"ran a bath for my husband"
Help and care to relatives not living in HH; helping care for, providing for needs of relatives; (except
travel) helping move, bringing food, assisting in emergencies, doing housework for relatives; visiting
when sick
Help and care to neighbors, friends
Help and care to others, NA relationship to respondent
Other Personal and Helping
48 - Other personal; watching personal care activities
49 - Travel (helping); travel related to code 42, including travel that is the helping activity; waiting for
related travel
Other personal travel; travel related to other personal care activities; waiting for related travel; travel,
NA purpose of trip - e.g., "went to Memphis" (no further explanation given)
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
50 - Student (full-time); attending classes, school if full-time student; includes daycare, nursery school for
children not in school
51 - Other classes, courses, lectures, academic or professional; R not a full-time student or NA whether
a student; being tutored
54 - Homework, studying, research, reading, related to classes or profession, except for current job (code
07); "went to the library"
56 - Other education
59 - Other school-related travel; travel related to education coded above; waiting for related travel; travel
to school not originating from home
ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Volunteer. Helping Organizations: hospital volunteer group, United Fund, Red Cross, Big Brother/Sister
63 - Attending meetings of volunteer, helping organizations
Officer work; work as an officer of volunteer, helping organizations; R must indicate he/she is an
officer to be coded here
Fund raising activities as a member of volunteer helping organization, collecting money, planning a
collection drive
Direct help to individuals or groups as a member of volunteer helping organizations; visiting, bringing
food, driving
Other activities as a member of volunteer helping organizations, including social events and meals
Religious Practice
65 - Attending services of a church or synagogue, including participating in the service; ushering, singing
in choir, leading youth group, going to church, funerals
Individual practice; religious practice carried out as an individual or in a small group; praying,
meditating, Bible study group (not a church), visiting graves
Religious Groups
64 - Meetings: religious helping groups; attending meetings of helping - oriented church groups -ladies
aid circle, missionary society, Knights of Columbus
Other activities; religious helping groups; other activities as a member of groups listed above,
including social activities and meals
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES (continued)
Religious Groups (continued)
Meetings: other church groups; attending meetings of church group, not primarily helping-oriented,
or NA if helping-oriented
Other activities, other church groups; other activities as a member of church groups that are not
helping-oriented or NA if helping, including social activities and meals; choir practice; Bible class
Professional/Union Organizations: State Education Association; AFL-CIO; Teamsters
60 - Meetings; professional/union; attending meetings of professional or union groups
Other activities, professional/union; other activities as a member of professional or union group
including social activities and meals
Child/Youth/Familv Organizations: PTA, PTO; Boy/Girl Scouts; Little Leagues; YMCA/YWCA; school
volunteer
67 - Meetings, family organizations; attending meetings of chi Id/youth/fa mi ly*-oriented organizations
Other activities, family organizations; other activities as a member of child/youth/family-oriented
organizations including social activities and meals
Fraternal Organizations: Moose, VFW, Kiwanis, Lions, Civitan, Chamber of Commerce, Shriners,
American Legion
66 - Meetings, fraternal organizations; attending meetings of fraternal organizations
Other activities, fraternal organizations; other activities as a member of fraternal organizations
including social activities and helping activities and meals
Political Party and Civic Participation: Citizens' groups, Young Democrats, Young Republicans, radical
political groups, civic duties
62 - Meetings, political/citizen organizations; attending meetings of a political party or citizen group,
including city council
Other activities, political/citizen organizations; other participation in political party and citizens' groups,
including social activities, voting, jury duty, helping with elections, and meals
Special Interest/Identity Organizations (including groups based on sex, race, national origin); NOW;
NAACP; Polish-American Society; neighborhood, block organizations; CR groups; senior citizens; Weight
Watchers
61 - Meetings: identify organizations; attending meetings of special interest, identity organizations
Other activities, identity organizations; other activities as a member of a special interest, identity
organization, including social activities and meals
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES (continued)
Other Miscellaneous Organizations, do not fit above
68 - Other organizations; any activities as a member of an organization not fitting into above categories;
(meetings and other activities included here)
Travel Related to Organizational Activities
69 - Travel related to organizational activities as a member of a volunteer (helping) organization (code 63);
including travel that is the helping activity, waiting for related travel
Travel (other organization-related); travel related to all other organization activities; waiting for related
travel
ENTERTAINMENT/SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
Attending Spectacles. Events
70 - Sports; attending sports events - football, basketball, hockey, etc.
71 - Miscellaneous spectacles, events: circus, fairs, rock concerts, accidents
72 - Movies; "went to the show"
73 - Theater, opera, concert, ballet
74 - Museums, art galleries, exhibitions, zoos
Socializing
75 - Visiting with others; socializing with people other than R's own HH members either at R's home or
another home (visiting on the phone, code 96); talking/chatting in the context of receiving a visit or
paying a visit
76 - Party; reception, weddings
77 - At bar; cocktail lounge, nightclub; socializing or hoping to socialize at bar, lounge
Dancing
78 - Other events; other events or socializing, do not fit above
79 - Related travel; waiting for related travel
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
SPORTS AND ACTIVE LEISURE
Active Sports
80 - Football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, hockey, soccer, field hockey
Tennis, squash, racquetball, paddleball
Golf, miniature golf
Swimming, waterskiing
Skiing, ice skating, sledding, roller skating
Bowling; pool, ping-pong, pinball
Frisbee, catch
Exercises, yoga (gymnastics - code 86)
Judo, boxing, wrestling
Out of Doors
81 - Hunting
Fishing
Boating, sailing, canoeing
Camping, at the beach
Snowmobiling, dune-buggies
Gliding, ballooning, flying
Excursions, pleasure drives (no destination), rides with the family
Picnicking
Walking. Biking
82 - Walking for pleasure
Hiking
Jogging, running
Bicycling
Motorcycling
Horseback riding
Hobbies
83 - Photography
Working on cars - not necessarily related to their running; customizing, painting
Working on or repairing leisure time equipment (repairing the boat, "sorting out fishing tackle")
Collections, scrapbooks
Carpentry and woodworking (as a hobby)
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
SPORTS AND ACTIVE LEISURE (continued)
Domestic Crafts
84 - Preserving foodstuffs (canning, pickling)
Knitting, needlework, weaving, crocheting (including classes), crewel, embroidery, quilting, quilling,
macrame
Sewing
Care of animals/livestock when R is not a farmer (pets, code 17; "farmer", code 01, work)
Art and Literature
85 - Sculpture, painting, potting, drawing
Literature, poetry, writing (not letters), writing a diary
Music/Theater/Dance
86 - Playing a musical instrument (include practicing), whistling
Singing
Acting (rehearsal for play)
Nonsocial dancing (ballet, modern dance, body movement)
Gymnastics (lessons - code 88)
Games
87 - Playing card games (bridge, poker)
Playing board games (Monopoly, Yahtzee, etc.), bingo, dominoes
Playing social games (scavenger hunts), "played games" - NA kind
Puzzles
Classes/Lessons for Active Leisure Activity
88 - Lessons in sports activities: swimming, golf, tennis, skating, roller skating
Lessons in gymnastics, dance, judo, body movement
Lessons in music, singing, instruments
Other lessons, not listed above
Travel
89 - Related travel; travel related to sports and active leisure; waiting for related travel: vacation travel
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
PASSIVE LEISURE
90 - Radio
91 - TV
92 - Records, tapes, "listening to music," listening to others playing a musical instrument
93 - Reading books (current job related, code 07; professionally or class related, code 54)
94 - Reading magazines, reviews, pamphlets
Reading NA what; or other
95 - Reading newspapers
96 - Phone conversations - not coded elsewhere, including all visiting by phone
Other talking/conversations; face-to-face conversations, not coded elsewhere (if children in HH only,
code 23); visiting other than 75
Conversations with HH members only - adults only or children and adults
Arguing or fighting with people other than HH members only, household and nonhousehold
members, or NA
Arguing or fighting with HH members only
97 - Letters (reading or writing); reading mail
98 - Relaxing
Thinking, planning; reflecting
"doing nothing," "sat"; just sat;
Other passive leisure, smoking dope, pestering, teasing, joking around, messing around; laughing
99 - Related travel: waiting for related travel
MISSING DATA CODES
Activities of others reported - R's activity not specified
NA activities; a time gap of greater than 10 minutes.
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES IN "OTHER" CATEGORIES
Other Work Related
07 - Foster parent activities
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES IN "OTHER" CATEGORIES (continued)
Other Household
19 - Typing
Wrapping presents
Checked refrigerator for shopping list
Unpacked gifts from shower
Packing/unpacking car
"Settled in" after trip
Hooked up boat to car
Showed wife car (R was fixing)
Packing to move
Moved boxes
Looking/searching for things at home (inside or out)
Other Child Care
27 - Waited for son to get hair cut
Picked up nephew at sister's house
"Played with kids" (R's children from previous marriage not living with R)
Called babysitter
Other Services
37 - Left clothing at Goodwill
Unloaded furniture (just purchased)
Returned books (at library)
Brought clothes in from car (after laundromat)
Delivered some stuff to a friend
Waited for father to pick up meat
Waited for stores to open
Put away things from swap meet
Sat in car waiting for rain to stop before shopping
Waiting for others while they are shopping
Showing mom what I bought
Other Personal
48 - Waiting to hear from daughter
Stopped at home, NA what for
Getting hysterical
Breaking up a fight (not child care related)
Waited for wife to get up
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES IN "OTHER" CATEGORIES (continued)
Other Personal (continued)
Waiting for dinner at brother's house
Waiting for plane (meeting someone at airport)
Laughing
Crying
Moaning - head hurt
Watching personal care activities ("watched dad shave")
Other Education
56 - Watched a film
In discussion group
Other Organization
68 - Attending "Club House coffee klatch"
Waited for church activities to begin
"Meeting" NA kind
Cleanup after banquet
Checked into swap meet - selling and looking
Other Social. Entertainment
78 - Waiting for movies, other events
Opening presents (at a party)
Looking at gifts
Decorating for party
Tour of a home (friends or otherwise)
Waiting for date
Preparing for a shower (baby shower)
Unloaded uniforms (for parade)
Other Active Leisure
88 - Fed birds, bird watching
Astrology
Swinging
At park
Showing slides
Showing sketches
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-1. Activity Codes and Descriptors Used for Adult Time Diaries (continued)
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES IN "OTHER" CATEGORIES (continued)
Other Active Leisure (continued)
Recording music
Hung around airport (NA reason)
Picked up fishing gear
Inspecting motorcycle
Arranging flowers
Work on model airplane
Picked asparagus
Picked up softball equipment
Registered to play golf
Toured a village or lodge (coded 81)
Other Passive Leisure
98 - Lying in sun
Listening to birds
Looking at slides
Stopped at excavating place
Looking at pictures
Walked around outside
Waiting for a call
Watched plane leave
Girl watching/boy watching
Watching boats
Wasted time
In and out of house
Home movies
* R = Respondent
HH = Household.
Source: Juster et al., 1983.
-------
00-49
00-09
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10-19
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-29
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Table 15A-2.
NON-FREE TIME
PAID WORK
(not used)
Main Job
Unemployment
Travel during work
(not used)
Second job
Eating
Before/after work
Breaks
Travel to/from work
HOUSEHOLD WORK
Food Preparation
Meal Cleanup
Cleaning House
Outdoor Cleaning
Clothes Care
Car Repair/Maintenance
R)
Other Repairs (by R)
Plant Care
Animal Care
Other Household
CHILD CARE
Baby Care
Child Care
Helping/Teaching
Talking/Reading
Indoor Playing
Outdoor Playing
Medical care - Care
Other Child Care
(At Dry Cleaners)
Travel. Child care
Differences in Average Time Spent in Different Activities Between California
and National Studies (minutes per day forage 18-64 years)
California
1987-88
(1359)
224
1
8
-
3
6
1
2
28
29
10
21
9
7
(by 5
8
3
3
7
3
7
2
1
2
2
*
2
4
National
1985
(1980)
211
1
NR
-
3
8
2
2
25
36
11
24
7
11
5
6
5
5
8
8
5
1
1
3
1
1
1
NR
4
50-59
50-99
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60-69
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70-79
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Free Time
California
1987-88
(13591
National
1985
(1980)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Students' Classes
Other Classes
(not used)
(not used)
Homework
Library
Other Education
(not used)
(not used)
Travel. Education
9
1
-
-
8
*
1
-
3
5
3
-
-
7
1
1
-
2
ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Professional/Union
Special Interest
Political/Civic
Volunteer/Helping
Religious Groups
Religious Practice
Fraternal
Child/Youth/Family
Other Organizations
Travel Oraanizations
0
*
0
1
1
5
0
1
2
2
1
1
*
1
2
7
*
*
1
4
ENTERTAINMENT/ SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
Sports Events
Entertainment Events
Movies
Theatre
Museums
Visiting
Parties
Bars/Lounges
Other Social
Travel. Events/Social
2
5
2
1
1
26
6
4
13
2
1
3
1
*
25
7
6
1
16
-------
Table 15A-2. Differences in Average Time Spent in Different Activities Between California
and National Studies (minutes per day for age 18-64 years) (continued)
00-49
30-39
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40-49
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
NR =
* =
Source:
NON-FREE TIME
OBTAINING GOODS AND
SERVICES
Everyday Shopping
Durable/House Shop
Personal Services
Medical Appointments
Gov't/Financial Service
Car Repair services
Other Repair services
Other Services
Errands
Travel. Goods and Services
PERSONAL NEEDS AND
CARE
Washing, Etc.
Medical Care
Help and Care
Meals At Home
Meals Out
Night Sleep
Naps/Day Sleep
Dressing, Etc.
NA Activity
Travel. Personal Care/NA
Not Recorded in National
Survey
Less than 0.5 Min. per day
Robinson and Thomas. 1991 .
California
1987-88
(1359)
8
19
1
2
3
2
*
2
24
21
3
3
44
27
480
16
24
2
22
National
1985
(1980)
5
20
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
20
25
1
4
50
20
469
16
32
12
13
50-59
80-89
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90-99
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Free Time
RECREATION
Active Sports
Outdoor
Walking/Hiking
Hobbies
Domestic Crafts
Art
Music/Drama/Dance
Games
Computer Use/Other
Travel. Recreation
COMMUNICATION
Radio
TV
Records/Tapes
Read Books
Reading Magazines/Other
Reading Newspaper
Conversations
Writing
Think, Relax
Travel. Communication
Total Travel
(Codes 09, 29, 39, 49, 59,
69. 79. 89. 99)
California
1987-88
(1359)
15
3
5
1
3
*
3
5
3
5
1
130
3
4
16
11
15
8
9
5
108
National
1985
(1980)
13
7
4
1
6
1
2
7
3
6
3
126
1
7
10
9
25
9
6
90
-------
Table 15A-3. Time Spent in Various Microenvironments
Men
Mean duration
Women
Total"
Code Description
N = 639
California
N = 914
National
N = 720
California
N = 1059
National
N = 1980
California
N = 1359
National
AT HOME
Kitchen
Living Room
Dining Room
Bathroom
Bedroom
Study
Garage
Basement
Utility Room
Pool, Spa
Yard
Room to Room
Other NR Room
Total at home
AWAY FROM HOME
Office
Plant
Grocery Store
Shopping Mall
School
Other Public Places
Hospital
Restaurant
Bar-Night Club
Church
Indoor Gym
Other's Home
Auto Repair
Playground
Hotel-Motel
Dry Cleaners
Beauty Parlor
Other Locations
Other Indoor
Other Outdoor
Total awav
from home
46
181
18
27
481
8
14
<0.5
1
1
33
9
3
822
78
73
12
30
25
18
9
35
15
7
4
60
18
16
7
<0.5
<0.5
3
17
60
487
56
136
10
27
478
10
5
4
0
NR
160°
888
261
18
13
NR
22
NR
42
NR
27
NR
NR
NR
NR
41
NR
445
98
98
22
38
534
6
6
<0.5
3
1
21
34
4
963
94
12
14
40
29
10
24
25
5
5
4
61
4
8
8
1
4
1
7
13
371
135
180
18
43
531
7
1
6
5
NRb
116
1022
155
33
11
NR
18
11
NR
45
NR
16
NR
NR
NR
NR
24
NR
324
72
189
19
33
508
7
19
<0.5
2
1
27
21
3
892
86
42
13
35
27
14
17
30
10
6
4
61
11
12
8
1
2
2
12
37
430
104
158
15
38
521
8
2
5
4
NRb
37
40
22
954
193
30
15
12
3
23
10
NR
43
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
24
6
383
-------
Table 15A-3. Time Spent in Various Microenvironments (continued)
Men
Mean duration
Women
Total"
Code Description N = 639
California
N = 914
National
N = 720
California
N = 1059
National
N = 1980
California
N = 1359
National
TRAVEL
Car
Van/Truck
Walking
Bus Stop
Bus
Rapid Train
Other Travel
Airplane
Bicycle
Motorcycle
Other or Missing
76
30
10
<0.5
6
1
2
1
1
2
1
86
15
77
11
8
1
2
1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
77
10
76
20
9
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
88
2
3
1
<0.5
1
NR
NR
NR
Total travel 130
Not ascertained 1
Total Time Outdoors
101
8
102
4
87
7
116
2
88
94
9
70
Totals do not necessarily reflect exact averages presented for each gender. Totals were revised, but revisions for each gender were
not provided.
NR = Not Reported
Is total mean duration for those categories; breakdowns per category were not reported.
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991.
Note: Percent at home
Percent away from home
Percent in travel
National
men
women
total
men
women
total
men
women
total
62
71
67
31
23
27
7
6
7
California
men
women
total
men
women
total
men
women
total
= 57
= 67
= 62
= 34
= 26
= 30
= 9
7
-------
Table
Activity code
01-09
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
1 5A-4. Major Time Use Activity Categories3
Activity
Market work
House/yard work
Child care
Services/shopping
Personal care
Education
Organizations
Social entertainment
Active leisure
Passive leisure
a Appendix Table 15A-5 presents a detailed explanation of the coding and activities.
Source: Hill, 1985.
-------
Table 15A-5. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) for 87 Activities Grouped by Day of the Week
Weekday
N=831
Activity
01 -Normal Work
02-Unemployment Acts
05-Second Job
06-Lunch At Work
07-Before/After Work
08-Coffee Breaks
09-Travel: To/From Work
10-Meal Preparation
11 -Meal Cleanup
12-lndoor Cleaning
1 3-Outdoor Cleaning
14-Laundry
1 6-Repairs/Maintenance
1 7-Garden/Pet Care
19-Other Household
20-Baby Care
21 -Child Care
22-Helping/Teaching
23-Reading/Talking
24-lndoor Playing
25-Outdoor Playing
26-Medical Care-Child
27-Babysitting/Other
29-Travel: Child Care
30-Everyday Shopping
31 -Durable/House Shop
32-Personal Care Services
33-Medical Appointments
34-Gov't/Financial Services
35-Repair Services
37-Other Services
38-Errands
39-Travel: Goods/Services
40-Washing/Dressing
41 -Medical Care R/HH Adults
42-Help & Care
43-Meals At Home
44-Meals Out
45-Night Sleep
46-Naps/Resting
48-N.A. Activities
49-Travel: Personal
50-Students' Classes
51 -Other Classes
Mean
240.54
0.98
3.76
10.00
3.51
5.05
24.03
42.18
12.48
26.37
7.48
13.35
9.61
8.52
6.26
6.29
6.26
1.36
2.47
1.75
0.73
0.64
2.93
4.18
19.73
0.58
1.93
3.43
1.90
1.33
1.13
0.74
17.93
44.03
0.77
8.43
53.45
19.55
468.49
22.07
7.52
14.87
6.33
2.65
Std. Dev.
219.10
9.43
25.04
15.81
10.05
11.53
30.37
46.59
19.25
43.84
25.45
30.39
35.43
25.15
20.62
22.91
16.34
8.28
8.65
8.72
6.33
7.42
14.56
10.97
30.28
4.83
10.04
14.49
6.07
7.14
7.17
8.03
23.58
29.82
6.19
28.17
35.57
31.20
79.42
43.92
22.32
27.76
33.79
17.92
Saturday
N=831
Mean
82.43
0.00
2.84
1.82
1.45
1.59
7.74
40.37
12.07
38.88
15.71
11.48
17.36
14.75
9.82
5.89
5.38
0.23
1.71
0.90
1.23
0.16
2.16
1.71
33.52
1.46
3.42
0.60
0.66
1.25
1.55
0.35
21.61
44.25
1.29
12.19
57.86
31.13
498.40
30.67
11.72
19.33
0.96
0.40
Std. Dev.
184.41
0.00
32.64
7.88
9.79
7.32
22.00
59.82
22.96
80.39
58.00
31.04
72.50
49.17
37.58
30.72
21.58
3.64
10.84
7.82
13.03
2.79
19.11
8.72
61.38
14.04
18.94
6.63
4.34
10.24
9.57
5.27
36.35
41.20
15.90
52.58
49.25
56.03
115.55
74.98
41.61
50.42
18.17
11.52
Sunday
N=831
Mean
46.74
0.00
2.65
1.43
1.66
0.93
4.60
42.38
13.97
21.73
9.01
7.79
13.56
8.47
7.60
6.26
7.09
0.76
1.53
2.45
0.91
0.44
3.28
2.08
10.13
1.65
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.52
0.72
0.04
8.45
47.54
1.45
14.32
61.84
25.95
528.86
27.56
8.18
18.58
0.96
0.27
Std. Dev.
139.71
0.00
27.30
8.29
13.76
8.52
17.55
57.42
25.85
48.70
39.39
25.43
62.12
37.54
32.17
33.78
23.15
6.52
9.97
15.11
10.30
7.20
24.89
10.56
30.18
17.92
0.69
0.00
0.43
5.61
4.34
1.04
21.64
40.15
29.18
55.13
49.27
47.60
115.84
66.01
35.79
46.36
20.07
5.63
-------
Table 1 5A-5. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) for 87 Activities Grouped
Weekday
N=831
Activity
54-Homework
56-Other Education
59-Travel: Education
60-Professional/Union Orgs.
61 -Identity Organizations
62-Political/Citizen Orgs
63-Volunteer/Helping Orgs
64-Religious Groups
65-Religious Practice
66-Fraternal Organizations
67-Child/Family Organizations
68-Other Organizations
69-Traves: Organizations
70-Sport Events
71 -Miscellaneous Events
72-Movies
73-Theater
74-Museums
75- Visiting w/Others
76-Parties
77-Bars/Lounges
78-Other Events
79-Travel: Events/Social
80-Active Sports
81 -Outdoors
82-Walking/Biking
83-Hobbies
84-Domestic Crafts
85-Art/Literature
86-Music/Drama/Dance
87-Games
88-Classes/Other
89-Travel: Active Leisure
90-Radio
91 -TV
92-Records/Tapes
93-Reading Books
94-Reading Magazines/N.A.
95-Reading Newspapers
96-Conversations
97-Letters
98-Other Passive Leisure
99-Travel: Passive Leisure
Mean
4.56
0.53
2.29
0.51
1.53
0.14
1.08
2.96
4.98
0.85
1.70
3.91
3.41
2.22
0.32
1.65
0.69
0.19
33.14
2.81
3.62
1.39
8.90
5.30
5.11
2.08
1.78
11.18
0.99
0.45
5.06
2.65
3.31
2.89
113.01
2.58
4.41
13.72
12.03
18.68
2.83
9.72
1.26
Std. Dev.
24.35
5.91
10.36
7.27
11.19
1.25
10.08
17.33
19.92
9.28
11.69
22.85
9.83
13.45
4.89
11.03
7.13
3.32
51.69
16.49
18.07
11.55
16.19
19.60
33.00
9.70
11.73
37.03
10.84
4.91
22.91
15.83
14.77
12.19
103.89
20.26
18.09
31.73
22.65
28.59
12.23
25.02
5.44
by Day of the Week (continued)
Saturday
N=831
Mean
3.48
0.15
0.35
0.13
1.24
0.07
0.02
3.05
7.13
1.73
1.04
1.31
2.66
6.29
1.94
4.74
2.66
0.90
56.78
12.63
7.23
1.33
19.55
9.23
11.58
5.87
3.20
8.67
0.86
0.83
10.14
2.56
8.50
3.53
118.99
2.40
2.76
16.33
12.19
15.45
1.61
17.24
1.32
Std. Dev.
27.98
2.75
4.26
3.64
35.63
1.91
0.45
27.73
30.12
27.71
17.83
20.28
12.22
42.05
19.90
27.04
27.79
13.62
95.61
56.11
35.09
15.52
43.38
43.69
55.07
36.38
32.43
40.49
13.59
8.83
45.11
29.92
48.72
23.42
131.24
16.09
17.85
46.24
34.96
35.27
10.80
57.21
6.80
Sunday
N=831
Mean
5.40
0.45
0.21
0.44
0.48
0.19
0.41
8.59
34.05
0.31
0.26
1.71
12.07
3.44
1.96
3.35
0.77
0.72
69.65
7.16
3.91
1.00
18.02
11.39
15.52
5.92
4.10
6.41
1.13
0.63
7.89
3.37
8.19
2.88
149.67
2.03
5.23
17.18
26.01
14.57
1.96
15.28
1.72
Std. Dev.
38.68
9.85
3.14
8.34
7.58
5.55
7.09
33.31
62.06
6.67
7.63
17.52
37.64
27.78
19.75
22.65
10.37
11.17
114.58
39.02
26.95
10.80
34.45
48.66
62.68
32.28
31.55
34.82
15.07
8.32
40.45
23.60
38.11
18.50
141.43
16.08
30.13
51.01
44.47
34.60
12.59
47.86
9.87
Source: Hill, 1985.
-------
Table 15A-6. Weighted Mean Hours Per Week by Gender: 87 Activities and 10 Subtotals
Men
N=410
Activity
01 - Normal work
02 - Unemployment acts
05 - Second job
06 - Lunch at work
07 - Before/after work
08 - Coffee breaks
09 - Travel: to/from work
1 0 - Meal preparation
1 1 - Meal cleanup
12 - Indoor cleaning
13 -Outdoor cleaning
14- Laundry
1 6 - Repairs/maintenance
1 7 - Gardening/pet care
19 -Other household
20 - Baby care
21 - Child care
22 - Helping/teaching
23 - Reading/talking
24 - Indoor playing
25 - Outdoor playing
26 - Medical care - child
27 - Babysitting/other
29 - Travel: child care
30 - Everyday shopping
31 - Durables/house shopping
32 - Personal care services
33 - Medical appointments
34 - Govt/financial services
35 - Repair services
37 - Other services
38 - Errands
39 - Travel: goods/services
Mean
29.78
0.14
0.73
1.08
0.51
0.57
2.98
1.57
0.33
0.85
1.59
0.13
2.14
0.94
0.92
0.24
0.24
0.07
0.07
0.13
0.06
0.01
0.14
0.23
1.45
0.19
0.06
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.11
0.04
1.60
Std. dev.
20.41
1.06
3.20
1.43
1.27
1.05
2.87
2.61
0.83
2.01
3.59
0.72
4.29
2.78
2.42
1.20
0.78
0.61
0.35
0.69
0.37
0.09
0.78
0.67
2.18
1.39
0.42
0.75
0.44
0.45
0.61
0.41
2.02
Women
N=561
Mean
14.99
0.08
0.17
0.65
0.23
0.36
1.45
7.25
2.30
5.03
0.56
2.44
0.68
1.00
0.72
0.90
0.99
0.15
0.30
0.18
0.12
0.09
0.64
0.50
2.78
0.08
0.35
0.37
0.19
0.17
0.13
0.06
2.14
Std. dev.
17.62
0.75
1.62
1.21
0.69
1.03
2.17
5.04
2.19
5.05
1.59
3.34
3.43
2.19
1.84
3.04
2.11
0.76
0.86
0.82
0.72
0.67
2.58
1.21
3.25
0.51
1.14
1.63
0.61
0.78
0.61
0.68
2.17
Men and women
N=971
Mean
21.82
0.11
0.43
0.85
0.36
0.46
2.16
4.63
1.39
3.10
1.03
1.38
1.35
0.97
0.81
0.60
0.64
0.11
0.19
0.16
0.09
0.05
0.41
0.38
2.17
0.13
0.22
0.27
0.17
0.14
0.12
0.05
1.89
Std. dev.
20.33
0.90
2.49
1.33
1.01
1.04
2.63
4.98
1.97
4.46
2.75
2.75
3.92
2.48
2.13
2.40
1.68
0.70
0.68
0.76
0.58
0.50
1.98
1.00
2.89
1.01
0.90
1.31
0.54
0.65
0.61
0.57
2.12
(Continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-6. Weighted Mean Hours Per Week by Gender: 87 Activities and 10 Subtotals (continued)
Men
N=410
Activity
40 - Washing/dressing
41 - Medical care - adults
42 - Help and care
43 - Meals at home
44 - Meals out
45 - Night sleep
46 - Naps/resting
48 - N.A. activities
49 - Travel: personal
50 - Students' classes
51 - Other classes
54 - Homework
56 - Other education
59 - Travel: education
60 - Professional/union organizations
61 - Identity organizations
62 - Political/citizen organizations
63 - Volunteer/helping organizations
64 - Religious groups
65 - Religious practice
66 - Fraternal organizations
67 - Child/family organizations
68 - Other organizations
69 - Travel: organizations
70 - Sports events
71 - Miscellaneous events
72 - Movies
73 - Theatre
74 - Museums
75 - Visiting with others
76 - Parties
77 - Bars/lounges
78 - Other events
79 - Travel: events/social
Mean
4.33
0.09
1.02
6.59
2.72
55.76
2.94
1.77
2.06
0.92
0.23
0.76
0.11
0.29
0.04
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.38
0.89
0.16
0.10
0.34
0.43
0.30
0.07
0.31
0.13
0.04
4.24
0.64
0.71
0.12
1.40
Std. dev.
2.39
0.67
2.84
3.87
3.48
8.43
5.18
6.12
2.59
4.00
1.68
3.48
0.86
1.07
0.46
0.97
0.08
0.32
1.82
2.05
1.17
0.88
2.40
1.04
1.31
0.52
1.25
0.93
0.37
5.72
2.05
2.21
0.72
1.82
Women
N=561
Mean
5.43
0.18
1.30
6.32
2.24
56.74
3.19
1.99
1.61
0.38
0.15
0.38
0.02
0.16
0.04
0.18
0.02
0.14
0.41
1.31
0.05
0.21
0.32
0.52
0.26
0.08
0.26
0.06
0.03
5.84
0.44
0.46
0.18
1.26
Std. dev.
3.24
1.00
3.04
3.53
2.73
8.49
4.70
5.70
2.51
2.51
1.05
1.87
0.22
1.06
0.62
1.55
0.15
1.05
1.61
2.97
0.66
1.33
1.53
1.02
1.28
0.59
1.13
0.48
0.35
6.42
1.65
2.09
1.18
1.67
Men and women
N=971
Mean
4.92
0.14
1.17
6.44
2.46
56.29
3.08
1.89
1.82
0.63
0.18
0.56
0.06
0.22
0.04
0.16
0.01
0.09
0.40
1.12
0.10
0.16
0.32
0.48
0.28
0.07
0.28
0.09
0.03
5.10
0.53
0.57
0.15
1.32
Std. dev.
2.93
0.86
2.95
3.69
3.10
8.47
4.93
5.89
2.56
3.29
1.38
2.74
0.61
1.07
0.55
1.31
0.12
0.80
1.71
1.60
0.93
1.15
1.98
1.03
1.29
0.56
1.19
0.72
0.36
6.16
1.84
2.15
0.99
1.74
(Continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-6. Weighted Mean Hours Per Week by Gender: 87 Activities and 10 Subtotals (continued)
Men
N=410
Activity
80 - Active sports
81 - Outdoors
82 - Walking/biking
83 - Hobbies
84 - Domestic crafts
85 - Art/literature
86 - Music/drama/dance
87 - Games
88 - Classes/other
89 - Travel: active leisure
90 - Radio
91 -TV
92 - Records/tapes
93 - Reading books
94 - Reading magazines/N.A.
95 - Reading newspapers
96 - Conversations
97 - Letters
98 - Other passive leisure
99 - Travel: passive leisure
Mean
1.05
1.49
0.52
0.69
0.30
0.05
0.06
0.60
0.41
0.76
0.39
14.75
0.46
0.37
1.32
1.86
1.61
0.20
1.68
0.18
Std. dev.
2.62
4.59
1.31
3.88
1.59
0.45
0.49
2.00
1.75
1.91
1.40
12.14
2.35
1.52
2.81
2.72
2.19
1.06
3.53
0.49
Women
N=561
Mean
0.50
0.48
0.23
0.06
2.00
0.13
0.07
0.99
0.28
0.43
0.39
13.95
0.33
0.56
1.97
1.47
2.18
0.31
1.41
0.13
Std. dev.
1.68
1.67
0.98
0.43
4.72
1.03
0.47
3.16
1.50
1.43
1.55
10.67
2.13
1.83
3.67
2.27
2.74
1.12
3.32
0.49
Men and women
N=971
Mean
0.76
0.94
0.36
0.35
1.21
0.09
0.07
0.81
0.34
0.58
0.39
14.32
0.39
0.47
1.67
1.65
1.91
0.26
1.53
0.15
Std. dev.
2.18
3.39
1.16
2.67
3.93
0.81
0.48
2.69
1.62
1.68
1.49
11.38
2.23
1.70
3.32
2.49
2.52
1.10
3.42
0.49
Source: Hill, 1985.
-------
Table 15A-7. Ranking of Occupations by Median Years of Occupational Tenure
Median years of
Occupation occupational tenure
Barbers 24.8
Farmers, except horticultural 21.1
Railroad conductors and yardmasters 18.4
Clergy 15.8
Dentists 15.7
Telephone line installers and repairers 15.0
Millwrights 14.8
Locomotive operating occupations 14.8
Managers; farmers, except horticultural 14.4
Telephone installers and repairers 14.3
Airplane pilots and navigators 14.0
Supervisors: police and detectives 13.8
Grader, dozer, and scraper operators 13.3
Tailors 13.3
Civil engineers 13.0
Crane and tower operators 12.9
Supervisors, n.e.c. 12.9
Teachers, secondary school 12.5
Teachers, elementary school 12.4
Dental laboratory and medical applicance technicians 12.3
Separating, filtering, and clarifying machine oeprators 12.1
Tool and die makers 12.0
Lathe and turning machine operators 11.9
Machinists 11.9
Pharmacists 11.8
Stationary engineers 11.7
Mechanical engineers 11.4
Chemists, except biochemists 11.1
Inspectors, testers, and graders 11.0
Electricians 11.0
Operating engineers 11.0
Radiologic technicians 10.9
Electrical power installers and repairers 10.8
Supervisors; mechanics and repairers 10.7
Heavy equipment mechanics 10.7
Bus, truck, and stationary engine mechanics 10.7
Physicians 10.7
Construction inspectors 10.7
Cabinet makers and bench carpenters 10.6
Industrial machinery repairers 10.6
Automobile body and related repairers 10.4
(Continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-7. Ranking of Occupations by Median Years of Occupational Tenure (continued)
Occupation
Median years of
occupational tenure
Electrical and electronic engineers
Plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters
Licensed practical nurses
Brickmasons and stonemasons
Truck drivers, heavy
Tile setters, hard and soft
Lawyers
Supervisors: production occupations
Administrators, education and related fields
Engineers, n.e.c.
Excavating and loading machine operators
Firefighting occupations
Aircraft engine mechanics
Police and detectives, public service
Counselors, educational and vocational
Architects
Stuctural metal workers
Aerospace engineers
Miscellaneous aterial moving equipment operators
Dental hygienists
Automobile mechanics
Registered nurses
Speech therapists
Binding and twisting machine operators
Managers and administrators, n.e.c.
Personnel and labor relations managers
Office machine repairer
Electronic repairers, commercial and industrial equipment
Welders and cutters
Punching and stamping press machine operators
Sheet metal workers
Administrators and officials, public administraion
Hairdressers and cosmetologists
Industrial engineers
Librarians
Inspectors and compliance officers, except construction
Upholsterers
Payroll and timekeeping clerks
Furnace, kiln, and oven operators, except food
Surveying and mapping technicians
Chemical engineers
10.4
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.4
9.4
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-7. Ranking of Occupations by Median Years of Occupational Tenure (continued)
Occupation
Median years of
occupational tenure
Sheriffs, bailiffs, and other law enforcement officers
Concrete and terrazzo finishers
Sales representatives, mining, manufacturing, and wholesale
Supervisors: general office
Specified mechanics and repairers, n.e.c.
Stenographers
Typesetters and compositors
Financial managers
Psychologists
Teachers: special education
Statistical clerks
Designers
Water and Sewage Treatment plant operators
Printing machine operators
Heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics
Supervisors; distribution, scheduling, and adjusting clerks
Insurance sales occupations
Carpenters
Public transportation attendants
Drafting occupations
Butchers and meatcutters
Miscellaneous electrical and electronic equipment repairers
Dressmakers
Musicians and composers
Supervisors and proprietors; sales occupations
Painters, Sculptors, craft-artists, and artist printmakers
Mechanics and repairers, not specified
Engineering technicians, n.e.c.
Clinical laboratory technologists and technicians
Purchasing managers
Purchasing agents and buyers, n.e.c.
Photographers
Chemical technicians
Managers; properties and real estate
Accountants and auditors
Religious workers, n.e.c.
Secretaries
Social workers
Operations and systems researchers and analysts
Postal clerks, except mail carriers
Managers; marketing, advertising, and public relations
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.3
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-7. Ranking of Occupations by Median Years of Occupational Tenure (continued)
Occupation
Median years of
occupational tenure
Farm workers
Managers; medicine and health
Data processing equipment repairers
Bookkeepers, accounting and auditing clerks
Grinding, abrading, buffing, and polishing machine operators
Management related occupations, n.e.c.
Supervisors; cleaning and building service workers
Management analysts
Science technicians, n.e.c.
Mail carriers, postal service
Knitting, looping, taping, and weaving machine operators
Electrical and electronic technicians
Painting and paint spraying machine operators
Postsecondary teachers, subject not specified
Crossing guards
Inhalation therapists
Carpet installers
Computer systems analysts and scientists
Other financial officers
Industrial truck and tractor equipment operators
Textile sewing machine operators
Correctional institution officers
Teachers, prekindergarten and kindergarten
Supervisors; financial records processing
Miscellaneous Textile machine operators
Production inspectors, checkers, and examiners
Actors and directors
Health technologists and technicians, n.e.c.
Miscellaneous machine operators, n.e.c.
Private household cleaners, and servants
Buyers, wholesale and retail trade, excluding farm products
Real estate sales occupations
Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers
Bus drivers
Editors and reporters
Laundering and dry cleaning machine operators
Meter readers
Painters, construction and maintenance
Driver-sales workers
Teachers, n.e.c.
Order clerks
Physicians' assistants
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.8
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-7. Ranking of Occupations by Median Years of Occupational Tenure (continued)
Occupation
Median years of
occupational tenure
Billing clerks
Drywall installers
Construction trades, n.e.c.
Telephone operators
Authors
Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants
Dental assistants
Timber cutting and logging occupations
Molding and casting machine operators
Miscellaneous hand-working occupations
Production coordinators
Public relations specialists
Personnel clerks, except payroll and bookkeeping
Assemblers
Securities and financial services sales occupations
Salesworkers, furniture and home furnishings
Insurance adjusters, examiners, and investigators
Pressing machine operators
Roofers
Graders and sorters, except agricultural
Supervisors; related agricultural occupations
Typists
Supervisors; motor vehicle operators
Personnel, training, and labor relations specialists
Legal assistants
Physical therapists
Advertising and related sales occupations
Records clerks
Economists
Technicians, n.e.c.
Expediters
Sales occupations, other business services
Computer operators
Computer programmers
Investigators and adjusters, except insurance
Underwriters
Salesworkers, parts
Artists, performers, and related workers, n.e.c.
Teachers' aides
Maids and housemen
Sawing machine operators
Machine operators, not specified
Weighers, measurers, and checkers
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.5
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-7. Ranking of Occupations by Median Years of Occupational Tenure (continued)
Occupation
Median years of
occupational tenure
Traffic, shipping, and receiving clerks
Salesworkers, hardware and building supplies
Biological technicians
Athletes
Bill and account collectors
Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs
Slicing and cutting machine operators
Administrative support occupations, n.e.c.
Mixing and blending machine operators
Waiters and waitresses
Janitors and cleaners
Production helpers
General office clerks
Machine feeders and offbearers
Interviewers
Bartenders
Eligibility clerks, social welfare
Bank tellers
Cooks, except short-order
Health aides, except nursing
Laborers, except construction
Welfare service aides
Salesworkers, motor vehicles and boats
Cost and rate clerks
Construction laborers
Hand packers and packagers
Transportation ticket and reservation agents
Animal caretakers, except farm
Photographic process machine operators
Freight, stock, and material movers, hand, n.e.c.
Data-entry keyers
Bakers
Dispatchers
Guards and police, except public service
Packaging and filling machine operators
Receptionists
Library clerks
Truckdrivers, light
Salesworkers, radio, television, hi-fi, and appliances
Salesworkers, apparel
Sales counter clerks
Salesworkers, other commodities
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15A-7. Ranking of Occupations by Median Years of Occupational Tenure (continued)
Median years of
Occupation occupational tenure
Small engine repairers 3.1
Supervisors, food preparation and service occupations 3.0
Health record technologists and technicians 2.9
Helpers, construction trades 2.9
Attendants, amusement and recreation facilities 2.8
Street and door-to-door salesworkers 2.7
Child-care workers, private household 2.7
Child-care workers, except private household 2.7
Information clerks, n.e.c. 2.7
Hotel clerks 2.7
Personal service occupations, n.e.c. 2.7
Salesworkers, shoes 2.6
Garage and service station related occupations 2.6
Short-order cooks 2.5
File clerks 2.5
Cashiers 2.4
Mail clerks, except postal service 2.3
Miscellaneous food preparation occupations 2.3
News vendors 2.3
Vehicle washers and equipment cleaners 2.3
Messengers 2.3
Kitchen workers, food preparation 2.1
Stock handlers and baggers 1.9
Waiters and waitresses assistants 1.7
Food counter, fountain, and related occupations 1.5
a n.e.c. - not elsewhere classified
Source: Carey, 1988.
-------
Table 15B-1. Annual Geographical Mobility Rates, by Type of Movement for
Selected 1 -Year Periods: 1960-1992 (numbers in thousands)
Mobility
period
NUMBER
1991-92
1990-91
1989-90
1988-89
1987-88
1986-87
1985-86
1984-85
1983-84
1982-83
1981-82
1980-81
1970-71
1960-61
PERCENT
1991-92
1990-91
1989-90
1988-89
1987-88
1986-87
1985-86
1984-85
1983-84
1982-83
1981-82
1980-81
1970-71
1960-61
Residing
Total
movers
42,800
41 ,539
43,381
42,620
42,174
43,693
43,237
46,470
39,379
37,408
38,127
38,200
37,705
36,533
17.3
17.0
17.9
17.8
17.8
18.6
18.6
20.2
17.3
16.6
17.0
17.2
18.7
20.6
Residing in the United States at beginning of period
Total
41 ,545
40,154
41 ,821
41,153
40,974
42,551
42,037
45,043
38,300
36,430
37,039
36,887
36,161
35,535
16.8
16.4
17.3
17.2
17.3
18.1
18.0
19.6
16.8
16.1
16.6
16.6
17.9
20.0
Different
house,
same
county
26,587
25,151
25,726
26,123
26,201
27,196
26,401
30,126
23,659
22,858
23,081
23,097
23,018
24,289
10.7
10.3
10.6
10.9
11.0
11.6
11.3
13.1
10.4
10.1
10.3
10.4
11.4
13.7
Total
14,957
15,003
16,094
15,030
14,772
15,355
15,636
14,917
14,641
13,572
13,959
13,789
13,143
1 1 ,246
6.0
6.1
6.6
6.3
6.2
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.4
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.5
6.3
Different
Same
State
7,853
7,881
8,061
7,949
7,727
8,762
8,665
7,995
8,198
7,403
7,330
7,614
6,197
5,493
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.1
3.1
County
Different
State
7,105
7,122
8,033
7,081
7,046
6,593
6,791
6,921
6,444
6,169
6,628
6,175
6,946
5,753
2.9
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.7
3.0
2.8
3.4
3.2
Different
Region
3,285
3,384
3,761
3,258
3,098
3,546
3,778
3,647
3,540
3,192
3,679
3,363
3,936
3,097
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.5
2.0
1.7
outside the
United States
at the
beginning of
period
1,255
1,385
1,560
1,467
1,200
1,142
1,200
1,427
1,079
978
1,088
1,313
1,544
988
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.6
Source:
U.S. Bureau of Census, 1993.
-------
Table 15B-2. Mobility of the Resident Population by State: 1980
Percent distribution -
residence in 1 975"
Region, division,
and state
United States
Northeast
New England
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Midwest
East North Central
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Persons
5 years
old, and
over"
1980
(1 ,000)
210,323
46,052
1 1 ,594
1,047
857
476
5,398
891
2,925
34,458
16,432
6,904
11,122
54,513
38,623
10,015
5,074
10,593
8,582
4,360
15,890
3,770
2,693
4,564
598
633
1,448
2,184
Same
house
in
1980
as
1975
53.6
61.7
59.1
56.9
51.6
54.4
61.0
60.5
59.0
62.6
61.5
61.5
65.0
55.4
56.0
56.7
54.8
55.5
56.4
56.2
53.9
55.6
55.6
54.0
51.7
52.9
53.1
50.2
Different
house,
same
county
25.1
22.3
23.4
24.0
22.8
23.9
22.7
23.9
24.4
21.9
22.6
20.0
22.0
26.4
27.4
27.9
27.5
28.5
26.2
25.5
24.0
22.8
25.0
24.1
23.1
23.2
24.4
25.1
Different
county,
same
state
9.8
8.0
6.7
7.5
6.2
6.5
7.6
5.0
5.5
8.4
9.3
8.6
7.1
10.2
9.6
9.0
9.6
8.1
11.3
11.0
11.8
13.3
10.9
11.8
11.4
12.1
11.0
10.7
Different
county,
different
state
9.7
6.1
9.2
10.8
18.5
14.3
7.0
8.7
9.3
5.0
3.8
7.8
5.2
7.0
6.0
5.7
7.6
6.1
5.1
6.7
9.4
7.3
7.9
9.4
12.7
11.1
10.5
12.6
(Continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15B-2. Mobility of the Resident Population by State: 1980 (continued)
Percent distribution -
residence in 1 975"
Region, division,
and state
Persons
5 years
old, and
over1"
1980
(1 ,000)
Same
house
in
1980
as
1975
Different
house,
same
county
Different
county,
same
state
Different
county,
different
state
South
West
Mountain
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
69,880
South Atlantic
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East South Central
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
West South Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
34,498
555
3,947
603
4,99i
1,806
5,476
2,884
5,052
9,183
13,556
3,379
4,269
3,601
2,307
21 ,826
2,113
3,847
2,793
13,074
39,879
10,386
722
852
425
2,676
1,188
2,506
1,272
745
52.4
24.1
43.8
28.3
10.0
11.0
12.0
52.7
57.0
55.5
58.2
51.0
60.9
56.9
57.5
52.5
46.2
56.0
54.4
54.2
57.6
59.0
49.6
53.1
57.0
47.6
47.3
22.4
26.3
21.9
22.7
17.9
23.4
23.5
22.3
22.8
23.7
25.9
27.2
27.2
25.3
22.5
25.6
24.8
24.3
24.9
26.2
9.7
2.0
10.3
NA
15.0
6.6
8.9
7.7
12.2
7.8
7.9
8.6
7.4
7.4
8.6
11.8
9.1
9.2
12.3
12.9
13.6
13.3
10.4
16.3
13.9
8.6
9.8
11.5
11.5
19.6
9.5
9.0
10.6
8.9
9.2
11.0
12.4
8.4
13.7
11.0
13.4
42.7
47.3
44.4
38.4
39.8
50.3
41.9
45.8
34.8
25.1
24.5
24.7
23.6
22.7
23.2
27.1
27.8
27.4
9.1
12.3
9.5
8.6
14.8
7.2
5.0
8.4
3.6
21.1
15.0
20.0
28.3
20.6
17.4
23.9
16.0
31.5
(continued on the following page)
-------
Table 15B-2. Mobility of the Resident Population by State: 1980 (continued)
Percent distribution -
residence in 1975°
Region, division,
and state
Persons
5 years
old, and
over"
1980
(1 ,000)
Same
house
in
1980
as
1975
Different
house,
same
county
Different
county,
same
state
Different
county,
different
state
Pacific 29,493 44.2 29.4 11.6 10.7
Washington 3,825 43.7 27.7 10.1 16.2
Oregon 2,437 41.4 26.6 13.4 16.9
California 21,980 44.6 30.2 12.1 8.5
Alaska 363 32.2 27.6 8.7 29.1
Hawaii 888 49.3 25.2 2.8 16.9
a Survey assessed changes in residence between 1975 and 1980.
b Includes persons residing abroad in 1975.
NA = not applicable.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract, 1984.
-------
Different County
Same State
18.5%
Different State
16.8%
Abroad
2.9%
Local Movers, Within
Same County
61.95%
Figure 15-1. Distribution of Individuals Moving by Type of Move: 1991-92
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993a
-------
Table 16-1. Consumer Products Found in the Typical U.S. Household'
Consumer Product Category
Consumer Product
Cosmetics Hygiene Products
Household Furnishings
Garment Conditioning Products
Household Maintenance Products
Adhesive bandages
Bath additives (liquid)
Bath additives (powder)
Cologne/perfume/aftershave
Contact lens solutions
Deodorant/antiperspirant (aerosol)
Deodorant/antiperspirant (wax and liquid)
Depilatories
Facial makeup
Fingernail cosmetics
Hair coloring/tinting products
Hair conditioning products
Hairsprays (aerosol)
Lip products
Mouthwash/breath freshener
Sanitary napkins and pads
Shampoo
Shaving creams (aerosols)
Skin creams (non-drug)
Skin oils (non-drug)
Soap (toilet bar)
Sunscreen/suntan products
Talc/body powder (non-drug)
Toothpaste
Waterless skin cleaners
Carpeting
Draperies/curtains
Rugs (area)
Shower curtains
Vinyl upholstery, furniture
Anti-static spray (aerosol)
Leather treatment (liquid and wax)
Shoe polish
Spray starch (aerosol)
Suede cleaner/polish (liquid and aerosol)
Textile water-proofing (aerosol)
Adhesive (general) (liquid)
Bleach (household) (liquid)
Bleach (see laundry)
Candles
Cat box litter
Charcoal briquets
Charcoal lighter fluid
Drain cleaner (liquid and powder)
Dishwasher detergent (powder)
Dishwashing liquid
Fabric dye (DIY)b
Fabric rinse/softener diauidl
-------
Table 16-1. Consumer Products Found in the Typical U.S. Household' (continued)
Consumer Product Category
Consumer Product
Household Maintenance Products
(continued)
Home Building/Improvement Products (DIY)b
Fabric rinse/softener (powder)
Fertilizer (garden) (liquid)
Fertilizer (garden) (powder)
Fire extinguishers (aerosol)
Floor polish/wax (liquid)
Food packaging and packaged food
Furniture polish (liquid)
Furniture polish (aerosol)
General cleaner/disinfectant (liquid)
General cleaner (powder)
General cleaner/disinfectant (aerosol and pump)
General spot/stain remover (liquid)
General spot/stain remover (aerosol and pump)
Herbicide (garden-patio) (Liquid and aerosol)
Insecticide (home and garden) (powder)
Insecticide (home and garden) (aerosol and pump)
Insect repellent (liquid and aerosol)
Laundry detergent/bleach (liquid)
Laundry detergent (powder)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (powder)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (liquid)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (aerosol and pump)
Lubricant oil (liquid)
Lubricant (aerosol)
Matches
Metal polish
Oven cleaner (aerosol)
Pesticide (home) (solid)
Pesticide (pet dip) (liquid)
Pesticide (pet) (powder)
Pesticide (pet) (aerosol)
Pesticide (pet) (collar)
Petroleum fuels (home( (liquid and aerosol)
Rug cleaner/shampoo (liquid and aerosol)
Rug deodorizer/freshener (powder)
Room deodorizer (solid)
Room deodorizer (aerosol)
Scouring pad
Toilet bowl cleaner
Toiler bowl deodorant (solid)
Water-treating chemicals (swimming pools)
Adhesives, specialty (liquid)
Ceiling tile
Caulks/sealers/fillers
Dry wall/wall board
Flooring (vinyl)
House Paint (interior) (liquid)
House Paint and Stain (exterior) (liquid)
Insulation (solid)
Insulation (Toaml
-------
Table 16-1. Consumer Products Found in the Typical U.S. Household' (continued)
Consumer Product Category
Consumer Product
Home Building/Improvement Products (DIY)b
(Continued)
Automobile-related Products
Personal Materials
Paint/varnish removers
Paint thinner/brush cleaners
Patching/ceiling plaster
Roofing
Refinishing products (polyurethane, varnishes, etc.)
Spray paints (home) (aerosol)
Wall paneling
Wall paper
Wall paper glue
Antifreeze
Car polish/wax
Fuel/lubricant additives
Gasoline/diesel fuel
Interior upholstery/components, synthetic
Motor oil
Radiator flush/cleaner
Automotive touch-up paint (aerosol)
Windshield washer solvents
Clothes/shoes
Diapers/vinyl pants
Jewelry
Printed material (colorprint, newsprint, photographs)
Sheets/towels
Toys (intended to be placed in mouths)
" A subjective listing based on consumer use profiles.
b DIY = Do It Yourself.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1987.
-------
Table 16-2. Frequency of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Use/Year
Products
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or Degreasers
Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants (excluding Automotive)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for TVs, Etc.)
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Primers and Special Primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents (for Wood or Cement)
Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and Artificial
Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paints for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricant for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters Cleaners
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
lanition and Wire Drvers
NA = Not Available
Source: Westat. 1987a
Mean
10.28
3.50
15.59
16.46
8.48
40.00
8.89
4.22
10.32
10.66
13.41
3.93
5.66
4.21
3.68
6.78
4.22
3.43
6.17
2.07
2.78
4.18
3.77
4.50
6.42
10.31
2.28
3.95
3.00
2.50
11.18
3.01
Std. dev.
20.10
11.70
43.34
44.12
20.89
74.78
26.20
12.30
25.44
25.46
38.16
20.81
23.10
12.19
9.10
22.10
15.59
8.76
9.82
3.71
21.96
13.72
7.10
9.71
33.89
30.71
3.55
24.33
6.06
4.39
18.67
5.71
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
NA
1.00
NA
NA
1.00
1.00
5
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.23
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
25
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
NA
4.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
50
4.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
12.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
75
8.00
3.00
10.00
12.00
6.00
40.00
6.00
3.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.00
3.25
3.00
4.00
3.75
6.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
12.00
3.00
90
24.30
6.00
40.00
46.00
24.00
100.00
15.00
6.00
20.00
20.00
24.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
6.00
12.00
6.10
6.00
15.00
3.00
2.00
6.70
6.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
3.00
4.00
6.00
5.00
30.00
5.00
95
52.00
10.00
52.00
52.00
50.00
200.00
28.00
16.80
46.35
50.00
52.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
11.80
23.00
12.00
10.00
24.45
5.90
2.00
12.00
12.00
15.00
15.00
40.00
9.00
6.55
10.40
6.50
50.00
9.70
99
111.26
35.70
300.00
300.00
56.00
365.00
100.00
100.00
150.00
100.00
224.50
30.00
139.20
50.80
44.56
100.00
31.05
50.06
50.90
12.00
27.20
41.70
47.28
60.00
139.00
105.60
NA
41.30
NA
NA
77.00
44.52
Max.
156.00
300.00
365.00
365.00
350.00
520.00
500.00
100.00
300.00
420.00
400.00
800.00
300.00
250.00
100.00
352.00
365.00
104.00
80.00
52.00
365.00
300.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
365.00
26.00
365.00
52.00
30.00
200.00
60.00
-------
Table 16-3. Exposure Time of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Percentile Rankings for Duration of Use (minutes)
Products
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or
Degreasers
Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants (excluding
Automotive)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
(for TVs, Etc.)
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Primers and Special Primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
(for Wood or Cement)
Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and
Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers,
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paints for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricant for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
lanition and Wire Drvers
NA = Not Available
Source: Westat. 1987a
Mean
(mins)
7.49
14.46
10.68
29.48
74.04
7.62
15.58
121.20
10.42
8.12
9.47
295.08
194.12
117.17
125.27
39.43
39.54
91.29
18.57
104.94
29.45
29.29
13.57
42.77
51.45
9.90
27.90
9.61
23.38
23.57
22.66
7.24
Std.
dev.
9.60
24.10
22.36
97.49
128.43
29.66
81.80
171.63
29.47
32.20
45.35
476.11
345.68
193.05
286.59
114.85
87.79
175.05
48.54
115.36
48.16
48.14
23.00
71.39
86.11
35.62
61.44
18.15
36.32
27.18
23.94
8.48
Min.
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.17
0.03
0.07
0.33
0.08
0.02
1
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.03
1.00
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
1.00
0.51
0.74
0.38
0.08
0.17
0.24
0.05
0.05
0.14
0.95
0.08
0.19
0.22
0.03
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.71
0.02
5
0.25
0.50
0.08
1.00
5.00
0.03
0.08
1.45
0.08
0.05
0.08
22.50
15.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.17
5.00
2.00
2.00
0.33
1.00
2.00
0.08
0.35
0.08
0.50
0.50
3.00
0.08
10
0.50
1.40
0.25
2.00
10.00
0.03
0.33
3.00
0.17
0.08
0.17
30.00
30.00
10.00
5.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
0.25
15.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
0.17
1.80
0.23
1.00
2.00
5.00
0.47
25
2.00
3.00
2.00
5.00
20.00
0.17
1.00
15.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
90.00
60.00
30.00
20.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
2.00
30.00
5.00
10.00
3.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
6.25
10.00
1.50
50
5.00
10.00
5.00
15.00
30.00
1.00
4.25
60.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
180.00
12.00
60.00
60.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
5.00
60.00
15.00
15.00
7.00
20.00
27.50
5.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
5.00
75
10.00
15.00
10.00
30.00
90.00
2.00
10.00
120.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
360.00
240.00
120.00
120.00
30.00
45.00
120.00
20.00
120.00
30.00
30.00
15.00
60.00
60.00
10.00
30.00
10.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
10.00
90
18.00
30.00
30.00
60.00
147.00
10.00
30.00
246.00
20.00
15.00
20.00
480.00
480.00
140.00
240.00
60.00
60.00
240.00
60.00
240.00
60.00
60.00
30.00
120.00
120.00
15.00
60.00
20.00
49.50
60.00
60.00
15.00
95
30.00
60.00
30.00
120.00
240.00
32.00
60.00
480.00
45.00
30.00
30.00
810.00
579.00
360.00
420.00
180.00
120.00
360.00
60.00
300.00
96.00
120.00
45.00
145.00
180.00
30.00
60.00
30.00
120.00
60.00
60.00
25.50
99
60.00
120.00
120.00
300.00
480.00
120.00
180.00
960.00
180.00
90.00
93.60
2880.00
1702.80
720.00
1200.00
480.00
300.00
981.60
130.20
480.00
268.80
180.00
120.00
360.00
529.20
120.00
NA
120.00
NA
NA
120.00
48.60
Max.
60.00
480.00
360.00
1800.00
2700.00
480.00
2880.00
960.00
360.00
900.00
900.00
5760.00
5760.00
280.00
4320.00
2400.00
1800.00
1920.00
720.00
960.00
360.00
900.00
300.00
900.00
600.00
720.00
450.00
180.00
240.00
180.00
240.00
60.00
-------
Table 16-4. Amount of Products Used for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Percentile Rankings for Amount of Products Used (ounces/yr)
Products
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or
Degreasers
Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants (excluding
Automotive)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
(for TVs, Etc.)
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and
Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Primers and Special Primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
(for Wood or Cement)
Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and
Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paints for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricant for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
lanition and Wire Drvers
NA = Not Available
Source: Westat. 1987a
Mean
(ounces/yr)
9.90
11.38
26.32
58.30
28.41
4.14
7.49
34.46
12.50
9.93
9.48
371.27
168.92
65.06
63.73
69.45
30.75
68.39
18.21
148.71
13.82
46.95
22.00
44.95
70.37
18.63
35.71
16.49
11.72
13.25
31.58
9.02
Std.
dev
17.90
22.00
90.10
226.97
57.23
13.72
55.90
96.60
27.85
44.18
55.26
543.86
367.82
174.01
144.33
190.55
52.84
171.21
81.37
280.65
14.91
135.17
50.60
89.78
274.56
54.74
62.93
87.84
13.25
22.35
80.39
14.59
Min.
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.64
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.09
0.01
1.00
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.12
0.08
2.00
0.12
0.50
0.50
0.12
0.13
1
0.20
0.47
0.24
0.50
0.80
0.02
0.02
0.29
0.20
0.18
0.05
4.00
0.33
1.09
1.50
0.45
0.75
0.09
0.25
0.37
1.40
1.56
0.50
0.14
0.77
0.40
NA
0.13
NA
NA
0.50
0.32
5
0.63
0.98
0.60
2.00
2.45
0.06
0.05
1.22
0.69
0.30
0.13
12.92
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.10
2.01
1.30
1.00
3.63
2.38
4.00
1.50
1.50
3.00
0.96
3.75
0.58
1.00
1.00
1.82
1.09
10
1.00
1.43
1.00
3.00
3.50
0.12
0.12
2.80
1.00
0.52
0.25
32.00
8.00
4.00
8.00
4.00
3.25
3.23
1.43
8.00
3.25
6.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.50
25
2.00
2.75
2.00
6.50
7.00
0.30
0.35
6.00
2.25
1.00
0.52
64.00
25.20
8.00
16.00
8.00
7.00
8.00
2.75
16.00
6.00
12.00
5.22
6.12
9.00
2.75
8.00
2.00
3.02
3.75
6.00
3.00
50
4.50
6.00
5.50
16.00
14.00
0.94
1.00
10.88
4.50
2.25
2.00
256.00
64.00
16.00
32.00
20.48
13.00
16.00
8.00
64.00
12.00
16.00
12.00
16.00
16.00
6.00
15.00
4.00
8.00
7.75
12.00
6.00
75
10.00
12.00
16.00
32.00
30.00
2.40
3.00
32.00
12.00
8.00
6.00
384.00
148.48
64.00
64.00
64.00
32.00
60.00
13.00
128.00
14.00
36.00
16.00
48.00
48.00
15.50
32.00
8.00
14.25
16.00
28.00
10.75
90
24.00
24.00
48.00
96.00
64.00
8.00
8.00
64.00
24.00
18.00
12.65
857.60
384.00
128.00
128.00
128.00
65.00
128.00
32.00
448.00
28.00
80.00
39.00
100.80
128.00
36.00
77.00
15.00
32.00
24.00
64.00
16.00
95
36.00
33.00
119.20
192.00
96.00
18.00
20.00
138.70
41.20
32.00
24.00
1280.00
640.00
256.00
256.00
256.00
104.00
256.00
42.60
640.00
33.00
160.00
75.00
156.00
222.00
64.00
140.00
24.60
38.60
58.40
96.00
20.55
99
99.36
121.84
384.00
845.00
204.40
67.44
128.00
665.60
192.00
128.00
109.84
2560.00
1532.16
768.00
512.00
640.00
240.00
867.75
199.80
979.20
98.40
480.00
212.00
557.76
1167.36
240.00
NA
627.00
NA
NA
443.52
113.04
Max.
180.00
450.00
1600.00
5120.00
1144.00
181.80
1280.00
1024.00
312.00
1280.00
1024.00
6400.00
5120.00
3840.00
2560.00
3200.00
1053.00
1920.00
1280.00
3200.00
120.00
2560.00
672.00
900.00
3840.00
864.00
360.00
1050.00
78.00
160.00
960.00
120.00
-------
Table 16-5. Time Exposed After Duration of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Percentile Rankings for Time Exposed After Duration of Use (minutes)
Products
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or Degreasers
Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants (excluding Automotive)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
(for TVs, Etc.)
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Primers and Special Primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
(for Wood or Cement)
Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and Artificial
Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paints for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricant for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
lanition and Wire Drvers
NA = Not Available
Source: Westat. 1987a
Mean
(mins)
31.40
37.95
43.65
33.29
96.75
124.70
68.88
94.12
30.77
47.45
117.24
91.38
44.56
48.33
31.38
32.86
12.70
22.28
15.06
8.33
137.87
4.52
7.51
10.71
11.37
4.54
5.29
3.25
10.27
27.56
1.51
6.39
Std.
dev.
80.50
1 1 1 .40
106.97
90.39
192.88
153.46
163.72
157.69
107.39
127.11
154.38
254.61
155.19
156.44
103.07
105.62
62.80
65.57
47.58
43.25
243.21
24.39
68.50
45.53
45.08
30.67
29.50
17.27
30.02
58.54
20.43
31.63
Min.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
5.00
30.00
1.00
1.75
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50
5.00
3.00
5..00
3.00
30.00
60.00
10.00
20.00
0.00
2.00
60.00
5.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
75
20.00
20.00
30.00
28.75
120.00
180.00
60.00
120.00
10.00
30.00
180.00
60.00
30.00
30.00
20.00
15.00
1.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
180.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.50
0.00
0.00
90
120.00
120.00
120.00
60.00
240.00
360.00
180.00
360.00
60.00
120.00
300.00
240.00
120.00
120.00
60.00
60.00
30.00
60.00
60.00
5.00
360.00
0.00
0.10
17.50
20.00
2.00
5.00
2.90
30.00
120.00
0.00
0.10
95
120.00
240.00
240.00
180.00
480.00
480.00
360.00
480.00
180.00
240.00
480.00
480.00
240.00
240.00
180.00
180.00
60.00
120.00
60.00
58.50
480.00
15.50
30.00
60.00
77.25
15.00
22.50
15.00
120.00
180.00
0.00
30.00
99
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
1062.00
600.00
720.00
720.00
480.00
485.40
720.00
1440.00
480.00
694.00
541.20
480.00
260.50
319.20
190.20
309.60
1440.00
120.00
120.60
282.00
360.00
70.20
NA
120.00
NA
NA
30.00
216.60
Max.
720.00
1800.00
1440.00
1440.00
1440.00
1800.00
2100.00
720.00
1440.00
1440.00
1440.00
2880.00
2880.00
2880.00
1440.00
1440.00
1440.00
720.00
600.00
420.00
1800.00
360.00
1800.00
480.00
360.00
420.00
240.00
180.00
120.00
240.00
480.00
240.00
-------
Table 1 6-6. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Adhesive Removers
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum Value
1 st Percentile
5th Percentile
1 0th Percentile
25th Percentile
Median Value
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
Maximum Value
No. of Times
Used Within the
Last 1 2 Months
N=58
1.66
1.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
12.00
12.00
Minutes
Using
N=52
172.87
304.50
5.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
29.50
120.00
240.00
480.00
1440.00
1440.00
1440.00
a Includes those who did not spend anytime in the room
b Includes only those who spent time in the room.
Source: Abt, 1992.
Minutes in Room
After Using"
N=51
13.79
67.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120.00
420.00
420.00
after use.
Minutes in
Room After
Using"
N=5
143.37
169.31
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
20.00
120.00
420.00
420.00
420.00
420.00
1440.00
Amount Used in
Past Year (Fluid
oz.)
N=51
96.95
213.20
13.00
13.00
13.00
16.00
16.00
32.00
96.00
128.00
384.00
1280.00
1280.00
Amount per
Use (Fluid oz.)
N=51
81.84
210.44
5.20
5.20
6.50
10.67
16.00
26.00
64.00
128.00
192.00
1280.00
1280.00
-------
Table 16-7. Adhesive Remover Usage by Gender
Gender
Mean number of months since last time adhesive remover was used - includes aH
respondents. (Unweighted N=240)
Mean number of uses of product in the past year.
Mean number of minutes spent with the product during last use.
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes all
recent users)
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes only
those who did not leave immediately)
Mean ounces of product used in the past year.
Mean ounces of product used per use in the past year.
Male
N=25
35.33
1.94
127.95
19.76
143.37
70.48
48.70
Female
N=33
43.89
1.30
233.43
0
0
139.71
130.36
Source: Abt, 1992.
-------
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum Value
1 st Percentile
5th Percentile
1 0th Percentile
25th Percentile
Median Value
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
Maximum Value
Table 16-8.
No. of Times
Used Within the
Last 12 Months
N=775
8.23
31.98
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
11.00
20.00
104.00
365.00
Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for
Minutes
Using
N=786
40.87
71.71
1.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
10.00
20.00
45.00
90.00
120.00
360.00
960.00
a Includes those who did not spend anytime in the room
b Includes only those who spent time in the room.
Source: Abt, 1992.
Minutes in Room
After Using"
N=791
3.55
22.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120.00
300.00
after use.
Minutes in
Room After
Using"
N=35
65.06
70.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
10.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
120.00
300.00
300.00
Spray Paint
Amount Used in
Past Year
(Fluid oz.)
N=778
83.92
175.32
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
26.00
65.00
156.00
260.00
1170.00
1664.00
Amount per
Use (Fluid oz.)
N=778
19.04
25.34
0.36
0.36
3.47
6.50
9.75
13.00
21.67
36.11
52.00
104.00
312.00
-------
Table 1 6-9. Spray Paint Usage by Gender
Gender
Mean number of months since last time spray paint was used - includes aH
respondents. (Unweighted N=1724)
Mean number of uses of product in the past year.
Mean number of minutes spent with the product during last use.
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes all
recent users)
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes only
those who did not leave immediately)
Mean ounces of product used in the past year.
Mean ounces of product used per use in the past year.
Male
N=405
17.39
10.45
40.87
5.49
67.76
103.07
18.50
Female
N=386
26.46
4.63
40.88
0.40
34.69
59.99
19.92
Source: Abt, 1992.
-------
Table 1 6-1 0. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Paint Removers/Strippers
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum Value
1 st Percentile
5th Percentile
1 0th Percentile
25th Percentile
Median Value
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
Maximum Value
No. of Times
Used Within the
Last 12 Months
N=316
3.54
7.32
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
6.00
12.00
50.00
70.00
Minutes
Using
N=390
144.59
175.54
2.00
5.00
15.00
20.00
45.00
120.00
180.00
360.00
480.00
720.00
1440.00
a Includes those who did not spend anytime in the room
b Includes only those who spent time in the room.
Source: Abt, 1992.
Minutes in
Room After
Using"
N=390
12.96
85.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
1440.00
after use.
Minutes in
Room After
Using"
N=39
93.88
211.71
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
60.00
120.00
180.00
420.00
1440.00
1440.00
Amount Used in
Past Year
(Fluid oz.)
N=307
142.05
321 .73
15.00
15.00
16.00
16.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
256.00
384.00
1920.00
3200.00
Amount per
Use (Fluid oz.)
N=307
64.84
157.50
0.35
2.67
8.00
10.67
16.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
192.00
320.00
2560.00
-------
Table 16-11. Paint Stripper Usage by Gender
Gender
Mean number of months since last time paint stripper was used - includes aH
respondents. (Unweighted N=1724)
Mean number of uses of product in the past year.
Mean number of minutes spent with the product during last use.
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes all
recent users)
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes only
those who did not leave immediately)
Mean ounces of product used in the past year.
Mean ounces of product used per use in the past year.
Male
N=156
32.07
3.88
136.70
15.07
101.42
160.27
74.32
Female
N=162
47.63
3.01
156.85
9.80
80.15
114.05
50.29
Source: Abt, 1992.
-------
Table 16-12
Tasks
Clean Bathroom Sinks and Tubs
Clean Kitchen Sinks
Clean Inside of Cabinets
(such as kitchen)
Clean Outside of Cabinets
Wipe Off Kitchen Counters
Thoroughly Clean Counters
Clean Bathroom Floors
Clean Kitchen Floors
Total Exposure Time of Performing Task and Product Type
Used by Task for Household Cleaning Products
Mean Median Product Type
(hrs/veart (hrs/veart Used
44 26 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
41 18 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
12 5 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
21 6 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
92 55 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
24 13 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
20 9 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
31 14 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
Clean Bathroom or Other Tilted or Ceramic Walls 16 9 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
Percent of
Preference
29%
44%
16%
10%
1%
31%
61%
2%
4%
2%
68%
12%
2%
16%
2%
61%
8%
16%
13%
2%
67%
13%
2%
15%
3%
56%
21%
5%
17%
1%
70%
21%
2%
4%
3%
70%
27%
2%
1%
37%
18%
17%
25%
3%
-------
Table 16-12. Total Exposure Time of Performing Task and Product Type
Task for Household Cleaning Products (continued)
Mean Median
Tasks (hrs/veart (hrs/veart
Clean Outside of Windows 13 6
Clean Inside of Windows 18 6
Clean Glass Surfaces Such as Mirrors & Tables 34 1 3
Clean Outside of Refrigerator and Other Appliances 27 1 3
Clean Spots or Dirt on Walls or Doors 1 9 8
Finishes
Used by
Product Type
Used
Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
Percent of
Preference
27%
2%
6%
65%
24%
1%
8%
66%
2%
13%
1%
8%
76%
2%
48%
3%
7%
38%
4%
46%
15%
4%
30%
4%
Source: Westat. 1987b.
-------
Table 16-13. Percentile Rankings for Total Exposure Time in Performing Household Tasks
Percentile Rankings for Total Exposure Exposure
(hrs/yr)
Tasks
Clean Bathroom Sinks and Tubs
Clean Kitchen Sinks
Clean Inside of Kitchen Cabinets
Clean Outside of Cabinets
Wipe Off Kitchen Counters
Thoroughly Clean Counters
Clean Bathroom Floors
Clean Kitchen Floors
Clean Bathroom or Other Tilted or Ceramic
Walls
Clean Outside of Windows
Clean Inside of Windows
Clean Glass Surfaces Such as Mirrors & Tables
Clean Outside Refrigerator and Other
Appliances
Clean Spots or Dirt on Walls or Doors
100th
365
547.5
208
780
912.5
547.5
365
730
208
468
273
1460
365
312
95th
121.67
121.67
48
78.66
456.25
94.43
71.49
96.98
52
32.6
72
104
95.29
78
90th
91.25
97.6
32.48
36
231.16
52
36.83
52
36
24
36
60.83
91.25
52
75th
52
60.83
12
17.33
91.25
26
26
26
26
11.5
19.5
26
30.42
24
50th
26
18.25
4.75
6
54.75
13
8.67
14
8.67
6
6
13
13
8
Time Performing Task
25th
13
8.67
2
2
24.33
6
4.33
8.67
3
2
3
6
4.33
2
10th
5.2
3.47
1
0.967
12.17
1.75
2
4.33
1
1.5
1.15
1.73
1.81
0.568
Oth
0.4
0.33
0.17
0.07
1.2
0.17
0.1
0.5
0.17
0.07
0.07
0.17
0.1
0.07
Source: Westat, 1987b.
-------
Table 16-14. Mean Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Performing Household Tasks
Percentile Rankings
Tasks
Clean bathroom sinks and tubs
Clean kitchen sinks
Clean inside of cabinets such as those in the
kitchen
Clean outside of cabinets
Wipe off counters such as those in the
kitchen
Thoroughly clean counters
Clean bathroom floors
Clean kitchen floors
Clean bathroom or other tiled or ceramic
walls
Clean outside of windows
Clean inside of windows
Clean other glass surfaces such as mirrors
and tables
Clean outside of refrigerator and other
appliances
Clean spots or dirt on walls or doors
Mean
3 x/week
7 x/week
9 x/year
3 x/month
2x/day
8 x/month
6 x/month
6 x/month
4 x/month
5 x/year
1 0 x/year
7 x/month
10 x/month
6 x/month
Oth
0.2 x/week
0 x/week
1 x/year
0.1 x/month
Ox/day
0.1 x/month
0.2 x/month
0.1 x/month
0.1 x/month
1 x/year
1 x/year
0.1 x/month
0.2 x/month
0.1 x/month
10th
1 x/week
1 x/week
1 x/year
0.1 x/month
0.4 x/day
0.8 x/month
1 x/month
1 x/month
0.2 x/month
1 x/year
1 x/year
1 x/month
1 x/month
0.2 x/month
25th
1 x/week
2 x/week
1 x/year
0.3 x/month
1 x/day
1 x/month
2 x/month
2 x/month
1 x/month
1 x/year
2 x/year
2 x/month
2 x/month
0.3 x/month
50th
2 x/week
7 x/week
2 x/year
1 x/month
1 x/day
4 x/month
4 x/month
4 x/month
2 x/month
2 x/year
4 x/year
4 x/month
4 x/month
1 x/month
75th
3.5 x/week
7 x/week
12 x/year
4 x/month
3 x/day
4 x/month
4 x/month
4 x/month
4 x/month
4 x/year
12 x/year
4 x/month
13 x/month
4 x/month
90th
7 x/week
1 5 x/week
12 x/year
4 x/month
4 x/day
30 x/month
13 x/month
13 x/month
9 x/month
12 x/year
24 x/year
1 7 x/month
30 x/month
13 x/month
95th
7 x/week
21 x/week
52 x/year
22 x/month
6 x/day
30 x/month
30 x/month
30 x/month
13 x/month
12 x/year
52 x/year
30 x/month
30 x/month
30 x/month
100th
42 x/week
28 x/week
156 x/year
30 x/month
16 x/day
183 x/month
30 x/month
30 x/month
30 x/month
156 x/year
156 x/year
61 x/month
61 x/month
152 x/month
Source: Westat, 1987b.
-------
16-15. Mean and Percentile Rankings for Exposure Time Per Event of Performing Household Tasks
Tasks
Clean bathroom sinks and tubs
Clean kitchen sinks
Clean inside of cabinets such as those in the
kitchen
Clean outside of cabinets
Wipe off counters such as those in the kitchen
Thoroughly clean counters
Clean bathroom floors
Clean kitchen floors
Clean bathroom or other tiled or ceramic walls
Clean outside of windows
Clean inside of windows
Clean other glass surfaces such as mirrors and
tables
Clean outside of refrigerator and other
appliances
Clean spots or dirt on walls or doors
Mean
(minutes/event)
20
10
137
52
9
25
16
30
34
180
127
24
19
50
Percentile Rankings (minutes/event)
Oth
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
10th
5
2
24
5
2
5
5
10
5
30
20
5
4
5
25th
10
3
44
15
3
10
10
15
15
60
45
10
5
10
50th
15
5
120
30
5
15
15
20
30
120
90
15
10
20
75th
30
10
180
60
10
30
20
30
45
240
158
30
20
60
90th
45
15
240
120
15
60
30
60
60
420
300
60
30
120
95th
60
20
360
180
30
90
38
60
120
480
381
60
45
216
100th
90
480
2,880
330
120
180
60
180
240
1,200
1,200
180
240
960
Source: Westat, 1987b.
-------
Table 16-1 6. Total
Products
Dish Detergents
Glass Cleaners
Floor Cleaners
Furniture Polish
Bathroom Tile Cleaners
Liquid Cleansers
Scouring Powders
Laundry Detergents
Rug Cleaners/Shampoos
All Puroose Cleaners
Exposure Time for Ten Product Groups Most Frequently Used for Household Cleaning3
Mean
(hrs/yr)
107
67
52
32
47
68
78
66
12
64
Percentile Rankings of Total Exposure Time
(hrs/yr)
Oth
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
10th
6
3
4
0.3
2
2
9
8
0.3
4
25th
24
12
7
1
8
9
17
14
0.3
9
a The data in Table 1 6-1 5 above reflect for only the 1 4 tasks included in the survey
the table underestimate the hours of the use of the product group. For example,
included.
Source: Westat. 1 987b.
50th
56
29
22
12
17
22
35
48
9
26
75th
134
62
52
36
48
52
92
103
26
77
90th
274
139
102
101
115
122
165
174
26
174
95th
486
260
414
215
287
215
281
202
26
262
100th
941
1,508
449
243
369
2,381
747
202
26
677
. Therefore, many of the durations reported in
use of dish detergents to wash dishes is not
-------
Table 16-17. Total Exposure Time of Painting Activity of Interior Painters (hours)
Mean
Types of Paint (hrs) Std. dev.
Latex 12.2 11.28
Oil-based 10.68 15.56
Wood Stains and Varnishes 8.57 10.85
Percentile Rankings for Duration of Painting Activity
(hrs)
Min. 10 25 50 75 90 95 Max.
13 4 9 15 24 40 248
1 1.6 3 6 10 21.6 65.6 72
11 2 4 9.3 24 40 42
Source: Westat, 1987c.
-------
Table 16-18. Exposure Time of Interior Painting Activity/Occasion (hours) and Frequency of Occasions Spent Painting Per Year
Types of Paint
Latex
Oil-based
Wood Stains and
Varnishes
Source: Westat,
Duration of Frequency of
Painting/Occasion Occasions Spent
(hrs) Painting/Year Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Occasions Spent Painting
Mean Median Mean Std. dev. Min 10 25 50
2.97 3 4.16 5.54 1123
2.14 3 5.06 11.98 1112
2.15 2 4.02 4.89 1112
1987c.
75 90 95 Max.
4 9 10 62
4 8 26 72
4 9 20 20
-------
Table 16-19. Amount of Paint Used by Interior Painters
Median
Types of Paint (gallons)
Latex 3.0
Oil-based 2.0
Wood Stains and 0.75
Varnishes
Percentile Rankings for Amount of Paint Used
Mean Std. (gallons)
(gallons) dev.
Min 10 25 50 75 90 95 Max.
3.89 4.56 0.13 1 2 3 5 8 10 50
2.55 3.03 0.13 0.25 0.5 2 3 7 12 12
0.88 0.81 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.75 1 2 2 4.25
Source: Westat, 1987c.
-------
Table 16-20. Number of Respondents Using Cologne, Perfume
, Aftershave or Other Fragrances at Specified Daily Frequencies
Number of Times Used in a Dav
Population Group
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Age (Years)
*
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing Data; DK = Don't
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.
Total N
2223
912
1311
33
26
144
1735
285
1781
242
30
38
111
21
2012
182
11
18
157
1195
240
618
13
208
190
739
504
331
251
459
530
813
421
1480
743
604
588
568
463
2075
143
5
2161
52
10
2112
103
8
Know; Refused
1-2
2100
868
1232
31
24
133
1635
277
1684
233
30
35
98
20
1909
165
9
17
145
1125
228
591
11
194
177
704
480
308
237
434
502
766
398
1402
698
574
549
535
442
1959
136
5
2043
47
10
1994
98
8
= Respondents
3-5
113
44
69
1
2
9
93
8
91
7
*
3
11
1
95
15
2
1
10
67
11
23
2
12
13
32
21
21
14
21
25
46
21
71
42
26
36
31
20
106
7
*
108
5
*
108
5
*
Refused to Answer;
6-9
4
*
4
1
*
*
3
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
2
*
2
*
*
*
2
*
2
*
3
1
*
*
3
1
1
1
2
*
4
*
*
4
*
*
4
*
*
N = Number of
10+
2
*
2
*
*
1
1
*
*
1
*
*
1
*
1
1
*
*
1
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
1
1
*
2
1
1
*
*
2
*
*
2
*
*
2
*
*
Respondents.
DK
4
*
4
*
*
1
3
*
2
1
*
*
1
*
3
1
*
*
1
1
*
2
*
1
*
1
2
*
*
1
2
*
1
4
*
2
1
*
1
4
*
*
4
*
*
4
*
*
-------
Table 1 6-21 . Number of Respondents Using
Such as Deodorant or Hair S
Any Aerosol Spray Product for Personal Care Item
>pray at Specified Daily Frequencies
Number of Times Used in a
Population Group
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
0
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
0
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
0
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing Data; "DK
Source: Tsana And Kleoeis,
Total N
1491
528
962
1
27
40
75
103
1071
175
1232
131
24
22
73
9
1359
119
6
7
210
714
152
404
11
240
128
528
311
161
123
292
340
585
274
994
497
381
408
400
302
1387
100
4
1451
35
5
1411
74
6
= Don't Know;
1996.
1
1019
375
644
0
14
30
57
53
724
141
855
84
18
12
45
5
937
74
3
5
137
492
99
284
7
151
83
365
212
115
93
201
227
388
203
695
324
264
269
282
204
950
66
3
990
26
3
972
44
3
Refused
2
352
125
226
1
8
9
14
31
263
27
285
32
5
8
19
3
316
32
2
2
52
171
35
92
2
61
37
121
77
34
22
70
85
148
49
220
132
86
104
86
76
327
24
1
344
7
1
322
29
1
3
57
14
43
0
1
0
1
12
39
4
47
5
0
1
4
0
49
7
1
0
11
24
7
14
1
14
2
23
7
8
3
8
14
23
12
35
22
15
12
21
9
53
4
0
55
1
1
55
1
1
4
22
4
18
0
2
0
1
4
15
0
17
3
0
0
1
1
20
2
0
0
4
11
0
6
1
6
1
7
3
1
4
8
4
8
2
17
5
5
9
5
3
20
2
0
22
0
0
22
0
0
5
17
3
14
0
1
1
1
1
13
0
8
5
0
0
4
0
13
4
0
0
3
5
5
4
0
4
1
5
6
1
0
1
3
8
5
12
5
4
9
2
2
15
2
0
17
0
0
17
0
0
= Respondents Refused To Answer;
6
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
N= Sample
Dav
7
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Size
10
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
0
2
1
2
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
10+
10
2
8
0
0
0
0
1
8
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
1
4
4
1
0
2
2
1
4
1
0
1
3
4
2
7
3
4
1
1
4
10
0
0
9
1
0
9
0
1
DK
8
3
5
0
1
0
0
0
5
2
5
2
1
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
0
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
0
6
2
3
2
2
1
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
-------
Table 1 6-22. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Being Near Freshly Applied Paints (minutes/day)
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 1 2-1 7
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
N
276
145
131
7
12
20
212
20
241
16
3
2
12
257
17
145
31
61
13
74
72
42
30
60
70
90
56
222
54
67
74
76
59
257
19
270
6
265
11
1
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
45
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
5
5
1
1
1
3
5
0 0.5
0
0
0
0
20
10
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
45
0
0
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
1
0
2
0
20
10
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
2
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
1
1
45
1
0
10 25
2 15
2 10
3 15
3 5
15 20
3 8
2 11
2.5 17.5
4 15
1 2.5
20 20
10 10
1 3.5
3 15
1 6
3 10
1 30
2 30
1 5
5 20
2 12.5
1 6
4.5 15
5 25
2 10
2 10
3 12.5
2 15
5 15
3 15
2 10
2 13.5
5 20
2 15
2 10
2 12
45 60
3 15
2 5
Percentiles
50 75
60 121
48 121
120 121
15 121
45 120
45 75
60 121
90 121
60 121
10 90
30 60
20 30
27.5 120.5
60 121
45 121
60 121
60 121
120 121
45 121
120 121
105 121
60 121
30 121
120 121
55 121
47.5 121
75 121
60 121
45 121
60 121
30 121
90 121
120 121
60 121
45 121
60 121
121 121
60 121
45 121
1 20 minutes were spent; n =
90
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
60
30
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
95
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
30
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
doer sample size
98
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
30
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
30
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
100
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
30
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
; percentiles are
-------
Table 1 6-23. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Household Cleaning
Agents Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 1 2-1 7
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
N
905
278
627
21
26
41
672
127
721
112
16
19
30
838
58
422
98
296
76
304
204
114
109
207
180
309
209
580
325
240
220
244
201
826
79
868
33
843
60
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
5
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
10
1
2
1
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
5
3
2.5
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
25
4
3
4
5
3
2
5
3
4
2
5
5
10
3
5
4
5
3
2
5
4.5
5
3
3
5
4
4
3
5
3
3
4
5
3
5
4
5
4
3.5
50
10
10
10
10
5
5
10
5
10
5
10
10
15
10
12.5
10
10
10
12.5
10
10
10
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
1 20 minutes were spent; n
75 90
20 60
20 60
20 60
15 20
15 30
10 40
20 60
15 30
20 60
12 30
15 20
20 30
30 60
20 60
30 60
30 60
20 60
15 60
30 120
20 60
30 120
20 60
15 30
15 45
30 75
20 60
20 60
20 60
20 60
20 75
17.5 52.5
20 30
30 90
20 60
30 120
20 60
30 120
20 60
32.5 120.5
95
121
121
120
30
30
60
121
60
121
90
30
60
90
121
120
121
121
120
121
120
121
90
60
120
121
120
121
121
90
121
104
60
121
120
121
121
121
120
121
= doer sample size;
98
121
121
121
121
30
60
121
120
121
121
30
60
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
30 30
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
30 30
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
percentiles are the
-------
Table 1 6-24. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities (at home or elsewhere) Working with
or Near Floorwax, Furniture Wax or Shoe Polish (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
325
96
229
13
21
15
238
34
267
32
1
6
18
291
31
150
32
92
26
115
70
29
31
77
70
125
53
210
115
92
78
81
74
296
29
312
12
302
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
0
1
0.5
3
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
5
2
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
4
0
1
2
4
2
5
1
3
2
2
3
0
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
120
10
2
2
3
5
2
1
3
2
2
5
4
0
4
2
5
3
5
2
5
3
3
5
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
25 50
5 10
5 11
5 10
10 15
3 5
2 10
5 15
5 10
5 10
5 15
4 4
2 22.5
5 12.5
5 10
5 10
5 15
10 15
5 10
5 10
5 12
10 15
7 30
4 10
5 10
5 10
5 10
5 15
5 10
5 10
7 13.5
5 15
5 15
5 10
5 10
5 15
5 10
4 10
5 10
5 10
minutes were spent; n
75
30
30
30
20
10
25
30
20
30
30
4
60
30
30
30
30
30
20
15
30
30
60
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
15
30
30
30
12.5
30
15
90 95
60 121
121 121
60 121
60 121
35 60
45 121
120 121
35 121
60 121
60 121
4 4
121 121
120 121
60 121
90 120
121 121
60 121
60 120
60 60
120 121
75 121
121 121
60 121
60 121
90 121
120 121
120 121
120 121
60 120
121 121
60 121
120 121
60 121
60 121
121 121
60 121
30 121
90 121
20 20
= doer sample size;
98
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
4
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
4 4
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
percentiles are the
-------
Table 1 6-25. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Being Near Glue (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 1 2-1 7
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Angina Yes
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
N 1
294 0
151 0
143 0
6 0
36 2
34 0
207 0
10 0
241 0
28 0
4 10
7 1
12 5
260 0
27 3
150 0
24 1
46 0
11 0
69 0
66 0
37 0
32 0
55 0
71 0
98 0
70 0
228 0
66 0
85 0
74 0
66 0
69 0
266 0
28 0
290 0
3 1
283 0
11 1
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
10 10
1
5
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
1
5
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
10
1
2
1
0
5
2
1
0
1
2
10
1
5
1
5
1
3
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
5
5
5
30
5
5
5
0
5
5
12.5
3
5
5
5
5
10
2
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
1
5
2
50 75
15 60
15 70
15 30
30 30
12.5 25
10 30
20 90
3.5 60
15 60
12.5 45
17.5 40
30 90
27.5 90
15 60
30 120
20 120
27.5 90
10 30
5 10
20 90
27.5 121
15 30
15 60
20 60
15 60
15 60
15 60
15 60
15 60
15 45
10 30
20 121
15 60
15 60
17.5 40
15 60
121 121
15 60
30 121
1 20 minutes were spent; n =
90
121
121
121
50
30
30
121
120.5
121
121
60
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
95
121
121
121
50
60
60
121
121
121
121
60
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
doer sample size;
98
121
121
121
50
120
120
121
121
121
121
60
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99
121
121
121
50
120
120
121
121
121
121
60
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
100
121
121
121
50
120
120
121
121
121
121
60
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
percentiles are the
-------
Table 1 6-26. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
495
258
237
7
16
38
407
21
413
40
8
8
23
449
41
299
44
91
35
138
128
69
60
101
122
165
107
362
133
128
127
149
91
445
50
489
6
469
26
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Note: A Value of "1 21 " for Number of Minutes Signifies That More than
the Percentage of Doers below or Equal to a Given Number of Minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
5
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
Solvents, Fumes or Strong
10
2
2
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
3.5
5
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
25
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
2
5
9
10
2.5
5
5
5
10
5
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
1 20 Minutes Were
Percentiles
50 75
20 121
30 121
15 90
5 60
5 17.5
10 60
30 121
5 15
20 121
60 121
Smelling Chemicals (minutes/day)
90 95
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
45 70
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
37.5 120.5 121 121
5 60
30 121
20 121
20 121
30 121
22.5 121
10 60
15 121
30 121
30 121
30 121
27.5 121
20 121
30 121
20 121
20 121
30 121
15 90
20 95
20 121
21 121
30 121
20 121
15 121
20 121
15 121
20 121
17.5 60
Spent; N =
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
Doer Sample
98
121
121
121
121
70
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
70 70
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
Size; Percentiles Are
-------
Table 1 6-27. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Stain or Spot Removers (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category Population Group
Overall
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-1 1
Age (years) 1 2-1 7
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day of Week Weekday
Day of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Angina No
Bronchitis/emphysema No
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes
N
109
42
67
3
3
7
87
9
88
9
2
3
7
97
12
62
8
25
6
34
22
16
16
21
25
38
25
75
34
26
30
37
16
100
9
109
105
4
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
25
2
3
2
0
3
5
2
2
2
5
5
0
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
2
2
0.5
50
5
5
5
0
5
15
5
3
5
5
7.5
2
5
5
3
5
5
4
20
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1.5
1 20 minutes were spent; n
75 90
15 60
60 121
10 20
3 3
5 5
35 60
15 60
15 121
15 60
6 121
10 10
3 3
30 35
15 60
22.5 35
15 120
12.5 20
15 60
30 60
10 120
15 20
12.5 60
15 20
10 121
15 60
15 60
25 60
15 120
15 60
15 60
15 32.5
20 121
15 60
15 60
6 121
15 60
15 60
8.5 15
95
121
121
30
3
5
60
121
121
121
121
10
3
35
121
121
121
20
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
60
120
60
121
60
120
121
121
121
120.5
121
121
121
15
= doer sample size;
98
121
121
60
3
5
60
121
121
121
121
10
3
35
121
121
121
20
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
15
99 100
121 121
121 121
120 120
3 3
5 5
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
10 10
3 3
35 35
121 121
121 121
121 121
20 20
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 120
120 120
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
15 15
percentiles are the
-------
Table 1 6-28. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Gasoline or
Diesel-powered Equipment, Besides Automobiles (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
390
271
119
14
12
25
312
26
355
15
8
2
8
367
19
237
33
66
33
135
89
48
30
57
117
151
65
278
112
97
110
119
64
361
28
381
7
368
21
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
15
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
15
0
2
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
5
1
1
1
0
1
5
1
2
1
1
0
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
15
1
3
10
3
3
2
1
3
5
3
3
3
1
0
1
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
5
3
1
1.5
1
5
3
3
2
5
2
3
5
2
3
3
3
15
3
3
25 50
10 60
15 60
8 30
5 22.5
7.5 25
13 35
15 60
10 25
15 60
2 15
5 11.5
1 23
10 105.5
10 60
5 30
20 90
10 45
10 30
6 60
20 90
15 60
10 60
10 30
10 60
15 90
10 60
10 45
10 60
15 45
10 60
10 60
15 60
5 30
10 60
30 120.5
10 60
20 45
15 60
5 45
1 20 minutes were spent; n
75 90
121 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
50 60
120 121
121 121
90 121
121 121
121 121
17.5 90
45 45
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
= doer sample
95
121
121
121
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
90
45
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
size;
98
121
121
121
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
90
45
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
90 90
45 45
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
percentiles are the
-------
Table 1 6-29. Number of Minutes Spent Using
Any Microwave Oven
(minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category Population Group N
Overall 2298
Gender Male 948
Gender Female 1350
Age (years) 5-1 1 62
Age (years) 12-17 141
Age (years) 18-64 1686
Age (years) > 64 375
Race White 1953
Race Black 1 82
Race Asian 38
Race Some Others 29
Race Hispanic 74
Hispanic No 2128
Hispanic Yes 139
Employment Full Time 1114
Employment Part Time 237
Employment Not Employed 734
Education < High School 190
Education High School Graduate 717
Education < College 518
Education College Graduate 347
Education Post Graduate 288
Census Region Northeast 420
Census Region Midwest 545
Census Region South 831
Census Region West 502
Day of Week Weekday 1567
Day of Week Weekend 731
Season Winter 657
Season Spring 577
Season Summer 565
Season Fall 499
Asthma No 2109
Asthma Yes 1 80
Angina No 2212
Angina Yes 72
Bronchitis/emphysema No 21 64
Bronchitis/emphysema Yes 1 24
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: A Value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.
5
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
120
10
1
1
1.5
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
25
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
50
5
5
5
2
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
minutes were spent; n
75
10
10
10
5
5
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
90
15
15
20
10
10
15
20
16
15
20
30
15
15
20
15
20
20
20
20
18
15
15
20
15
16
15
15
20
15
20
15
20
15
19
15
15
15
30
= doer sample
95
30
30
30
15
15
25
30
30
20
30
30
45
30
30
30
30
30
33
30
30
25
20
30
30
30
20
25
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
size;
98
40
40
42.5
20
30
45
60
40
30
60
50
120
35
120
34
60
45
60
45
60
30
30
60
35
45
30
30
50
40
45
30
45
40
45
40
45
40
60
99 100
60 121
67 121
60 121
30 30
30 60
60 121
60 70
60 121
30 121
60 60
50 50
121 121
60 121
120 121
60 121
120 121
60 120
121 121
60 121
120 121
60 70
30 90
60 121
60 121
60 121
60 121
60 121
120 121
67 121
60 120
60 120
120 121
60 121
60 121
60 121
60 60
60 121
120 121
percentiles are the
-------
Table 16-30. Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home
Almost
Frequency
T. | M Every 3-5 Times a 1-2 Times a
lotalN Day Week Week
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing Data; DK= Don't Know;
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
1047
455
591
1
16
111
88
83
629
120
879
93
18
20
30
7
978
60
5
4
279
416
88
256
8
303
86
251
188
119
100
273
326
302
146
698
349
320
257
269
201
948
92
7
1015
24
8
994
48
5
Refused =
300
135
165
*
3
33
18
21
183
42
268
24
3
1
2
2
286
11
3
*
70
124
22
82
2
74
27
85
53
32
29
84
102
83
31
196
104
135
58
56
51
272
27
1
290
8
2
278
21
1
Respondent Refused to
121
53
68
*
1
16
10
7
77
10
98
10
2
3
7
1
109
11
*
1
32
43
14
29
3
36
15
27
16
17
10
26
37
42
16
83
38
46
23
27
25
110
9
2
116
4
1
117
3
1
Answer;
107
48
59
*
3
7
12
5
70
10
79
15
1
4
8
*
95
12
*
0
25
44
9
29
*
27
14
28
17
13
8
28
32
31
16
70
37
34
29
20
24
95
10
2
103
3
1
102
4
1
1-2 Times a
Month
495
208
286
1
7
53
46
49
287
53
414
42
11
12
13
3
466
25
2
2
147
194
43
109
2
160
29
104
97
56
49
132
142
141
80
335
160
98
144
155
98
448
45
2
482
9
4
473
20
2
DK
24
11
13
*
2
2
2
1
12
5
20
2
1
*
*
1
22
1
*
1
5
11
*
7
1
6
1
7
5
1
4
3
13
5
3
14
10
7
3
11
3
23
1
*
24
*
*
24
*
*
N = Number of Respondents
-------
Table 1 6-31 . Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by the Professional at Home
to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies
Total N
Number of Times Over a 6-month Period
Pesticides Were Applied bv Professionals
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing Data; DK= Don't know;
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.
1946
897
1048
1
33
113
150
143
1264
243
1532
231
24
38
100
21
1750
172
8
16
398
855
163
512
18
436
137
483
416
272
202
335
318
875
418
1303
643
466
449
584
447
1766
167
13
1880
53
13
1833
101
12
Refused =
None
1057
498
558
1
17
60
84
90
660
146
856
107
13
24
45
12
960
83
5
9
229
463
84
272
9
246
80
265
218
137
111
201
202
404
250
702
355
247
240
324
246
969
80
8
1019
30
8
1004
46
7
Respondent
1-2
562
248
314
*
8
35
37
40
387
55
429
78
10
8
33
4
499
56
3
4
111
252
50
145
4
122
31
140
131
87
51
85
84
298
95
374
188
129
128
172
133
509
50
3
549
10
3
524
36
2
Refused to Answer;
3-5
134
64
70
*
4
11
10
5
89
15
98
20
1
4
10
1
121
12
*
1
24
59
14
35
2
27
11
26
28
25
17
2
17
63
34
91
43
29
30
40
35
121
13
*
131
3
*
127
7
*
N =
6-9
150
64
86
*
4
6
18
6
97
19
117
17
*
2
11
3
130
18
*
2
30
60
12
46
2
35
10
38
29
20
18
22
13
86
29
105
45
46
43
34
27
129
19
2
141
7
2
140
8
2
10+
20
11
9
*
*
1
1
*
15
3
14
4
*
*
1
1
19
1
*
*
2
11
2
5
*
2
1
9
4
2
2
3
*
11
6
16
4
9
3
6
2
16
4
*
19
1
*
18
1
1
DK
23
12
11
*
*
*
*
2
16
5
18
5
*
*
*
*
21
2
*
*
2
10
1
9
1
4
4
5
6
1
3
4
2
13
4
15
8
6
5
8
4
22
1
*
21
2
*
20
3
*
Number of Respondents
-------
Table 16-32. Number of Respondents Reporting Pesticides Applied by the Consumer at
To Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies
Total N
Home
Number of Times Over a 6-month
Period Pesticides Applied bv Resident
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/emphysema
No
Yes
DK
Note: * = Missing Data; DK= Don't know;
Source: Tsana and Kleoeis, 1996.
1946
897
1048
1
33
113
150
143
1264
243
1532
231
24
38
100
21
1750
172
8
16
398
855
163
512
18
436
137
483
416
272
202
335
318
875
418
1303
643
466
449
584
447
1766
167
13
1880
53
13
1833
101
12
Refused =
None
721
318
403
*
13
46
50
45
473
94
574
81
4
11
41
10
647
66
2
6
139
298
67
209
8
157
44
184
157
97
82
112
108
363
138
485
236
190
170
204
157
643
73
5
696
21
4
675
41
5
Respondent
1-2
754
367
386
1
12
46
70
64
477
85
600
77
15
12
42
8
677
67
3
7
176
342
66
163
7
189
50
196
158
97
64
131
145
316
162
503
251
153
192
233
176
695
54
5
731
19
4
715
35
4
3-5
286
135
151
*
3
15
24
21
192
31
227
36
3
11
9
*
258
26
1
1
59
131
20
76
*
62
19
53
63
53
36
56
35
119
76
186
100
75
51
89
71
261
25
*
276
8
2
272
14
*
Refused to Answer; N =
6-9
73
31
42
*
1
3
1
5
48
15
55
10
1
1
5
1
63
10
*
*
9
37
4
23
*
10
4
21
18
9
11
12
12
30
19
44
29
18
15
21
19
70
3
*
70
3
0
72
1
*
10+
83
35
48
*
4
3
4
8
55
9
50
25
1
2
3
2
76
3
2
2
14
35
5
27
2
17
14
18
16
12
6
19
12
37
15
66
17
21
16
27
19
70
11
2
80
1
2
71
10
2
DK
29
11
18
*
*
*
1
*
19
9
26
2
*
1
*
*
29
*
*
*
1
12
1
14
1
1
6
11
4
4
3
5
6
10
8
19
10
9
5
10
5
27
1
1
27
1
1
28
*
1
Number of Respondents
-------
Table 1 6-33. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Pesticides, Including Bug Sprays or Bug Strips (minutes/day)
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group
Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
257
121
136
6
16
10
190
31
199
36
2
4
15
231
25
124
26
75
20
87
56
29
29
45
51
106
55
183
74
39
78
105
35
231
24
244
8
240
14
Note: A value of "1 21 " for number of minutes signifies that
Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a
Source: Tsanq and Klepeis, 1996.
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
5
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
10
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
25
2
2
2
3
1.5
2
2
2
2
1
5
1.5
2
2
5
2
2
2
2.5
2
2
1
3
5
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
50
10
10
0
10
7.5
2.5
10
5
10
3
7.5
6.5
20
10
20
10
5
5
22.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
5
10
5
10
5
more than 120 minutes were spent; n =
given number of minutes.
75 90
60 121
90 121
35 121
15 20
30 121
40 121
88 121
15 60
60 121
20 121
10 10
10 10
121 121
60 121
121 121
120.5 121
60 121
30 121
105.5 121
45 121
89 121
90 121
30 121
88 121
121 121
30 121
45 121
60 121
30 121
90 121
60 121
60 121
60 121
60 121
90.5 121
60 121
75.5 121
60 121
30 121
doer sample
95 98
121 121
121 121
121 121
20 20
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
10 10
10 10
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
size.
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
20 20
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
10 10
10 10
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
-------
Table 1 6-34. Amount and Frequency of Use of Various Cosmetic and Baby Products
Product Type
Baby Lotion - baby use
Baby Lotion - adult use
Baby Oil - baby use
Baby Oil - adult use
Baby Powder - baby use
Baby Powder - adult use
Baby Cream - baby use
Baby Cream - adult use
Baby Shampoo - baby use
Baby Shampoo - adult use
Bath Oils
Bath Tablets
Bath Salts
Bubble Baths
Bath Capsules
Bath Crystals
Eyebrow Pencil
Eyeliner
Eye Shadow
Eye Lotion
Eye Makeup Remover
Mascara
Under Eye Cover
Blusher & Rouge
Face Powders
Foundations
Leg and Body Paints
Lipstick & Lip Gloss
Makeup Bases
Makeup Fixatives
Sunscreen
Colognes & Toilet Water
Perfumes
Amount of
Product Pe|
Application
(grams)
1.4
1.0
1.3
5.0
0.8
0.8
—
—
0.5
5.0
14.7
__
18.9
11.8
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.011
0.085
0.265
-
-
0.13
-
3.18
0.65
0.23
Average Frequency of Use
(per day)
Upper 90th Percentile Frequency of Use
(per day)
Survey Type
CTFA
0.38
0.22
0.14
0.06
5.36
0.13
0.43
0.07
0.14
0.02
0.08
0.003
0.006
0.088
0.018
0.006
0.27
0.42
0.69
0.094
0.29
0.79
0.79
1.18
0.35
0.46
0.003
1.73
0.24
0.052
0.003
0.68
0.29
Cosmetic
Co.
1.0
0.19
1.2
0.13
1.5
0.22
1.3
0.10
—
-
0.19
0.008
0.013
0.13
0.019
-
0.49
0.68
0.78
0.34
0.45
0.87
-
1.24
0.67
0.78
0.011
1.23
0.64
0.12
-
0.85
0.26
Market
Research
Bureau
__
0.24d
-
—
0.35d
-
—
—
0.11f
-
0.22g
__
-
—
—
-
-
0.27
0.40
-
-
0.46
-
0.55
0.33
0.47
-
2.62
-
-
0.002
0.56
0.38
CTFA
0.57
0.86
0.14
0.29
8.43
0.57
0.43
0.14
0.14
0.86e
0.29
0.1 4e
0.1 4e
0.43
0.29e
0.29e
1.0
1.43
1.43
0.43
1.0
1.29
0.29
2.0
1.29
1.0
0.1 4e
4.0
0.86
0.14
0.1 4e
1.71
0.86
Survey Type
Cosmetic
Co.
2.0
1.0
3.0
0.57
3.0
1.0
3.0
0.1 4e
—
-
0.86
0.1 4e
0.1 4e
0.57
0.1 4e
0.1 4e
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
1.43
1.0
1.0
0.1 4e
2.86
1.0
1.0
-
1.43
1.0
Market
Research
Bureau
__
1.0d
-
—
1.0d
-
—
—
0.43f
-
1.09
__
-
—
—
-
-
1.0
1.0
-
-
1.5
-
1.5
1.0
1.5
-
6.0
-
-
0.005
1.5
1.5
-------
Table 16-34.
Product Type
Powders
Sachets
Fragrance Lotion
Hair Conditioners
Hair Sprays
Hair Rinses
Shampoos
Tonics and Dressings
Wave Sets
Dentifrices
Mouthwashes
Breath Fresheners
Nail Basecoats
Cuticle Softeners
Nail Creams & Lotions
Nail Extenders
Nail Polish & Enamel
Nail Polish & Enamel
Remover
Nail Undercoats
Bath Soaps
Underarm Deodorants
Douches
Feminine Hygiene
Deodorants
Cleansing Products (cold
creams, cleansing lotions
liquids & pads)
Depilatories
Face, Body & Hand Preps
(excluding shaving preps)
Foot Powder & Sprays
Hormones
Moisturizers
Niqht Skin Care Products
Amount and Frequency of Use of Various Cosmetic and Baby Products (continued)
Amount of
Product Pe|
Application
(grams)
2.01
0.2
12.4
-
12.7
16.4
2.85
2.6
-
-
-
0.23
0.66
0.56
0.28
3.06
-
2.6
0.52
-
1.7
-
3.5
0.53
1.33
Average Frequency
(per day)
CTFA
0.18
0.0061
0.0061
0.4
0.25
0.064
0.82
0.073
0.003h
1.62
0.42
0.052
0.052
0.040
0.070
0.003
0.16
0.088
0.049
1.53
1.01
0.013
0.021
0.63
0.0061
0.65
0.061
0.012
0.98
0.18
Survey Type
Cosmetic
Co.
0.39
0.034
0.40
0.55
0.18
0.59
0.021
0.040
0.67
0.62
0.43
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.013
0.20
0.19
0.12
0.95
0.80
0.089
0.084
0.80
0.051
0.079
0.028
0.88
0.50
of Use
Market
Research
Bureau
-
0.27
0.32
-
0.48
2.12
0.58
0.46
-
-
-
0.07
-
-
-
1.10
0.085
0.05
0.54
0.009
1.12
0.63
-
Upper 90th Percentile Frequency of Use
(per day)
CTFA
1.0
0.1 4e
0.29e
1.0
1.0
0.29
1.0
0.29
h
2.6
1.86
0.14
0.29
0.14
0.29
0.1 4e
0.71
0.29
0.14
3.0
1.29
0.1 4e
1.0"
1.71
0.016
2.0
0.57e
0.57e
2.0
1.0
Survey Type
Cosmetic
Co.
1.0
0.1 4e
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1 4e
0.14
2.0
1.14
1.0
0.29
0.29
0.43
0.1 4e
0.43
0.43
0.29
1.43
1.29
0.29
0.29
2.0
0.14
0.29
0.1 4e
1.71
1.0
Market
Research
Bureau
-
0.86
1.0
-
1.0
4.0
1.5
0.57
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
2.0
0.29
0.14
1.5
0.033
2.14
1.5
-
-------
Table 16-34. Amount and Frequency of Use of Various Cosmetic and Baby Products (continued)
Product Type
Amount of
Product Pe|
Application
(9)
Average Frequency of Use
(per day)
Upper 90th Percentile Frequency of Use
(per day)
Survey Type
Survey Type
CTFA
Cosmetic
Co.
Market
Research
Bureau
CTFA
Cosmetic
Co.
Market
Research
Bureau
Paste Masks (mud packs) 3.7 0.027
Skin Lighteners
Skin Fresheners & Astringents 2.0 0.33
Wrinkle Smoothers (removers) 0.38 0.021
Facial Cream 0.55 0.0061
Permanent Wave 101 0.003
Hair Straighteners 0.156 0.0007
Hair Dye - 0.001
Hair Lighteners - 0.0003
Hair Bleaches - 0.0005
Hair Tints - 0.0001
Hair Rinse (coloring) - 0.0004
Shampoo (coloring) - 0.0005
Hair Color Spray
Shave Cream 1.73
0.20
0.024
0.56
0.15
0.001
0.005
0.14
__d
1.0
1.0"
0.0061
0.0082
0.005d
0.004d
0.005d
0.02d
0.005d
0.02d
0.02d
d
0.43
0.14d
1.43
1.0
0.082
0.005
0.014
0.36
Values reported are the averages of the responses reported by the twenty companies interviewed.
(~'s) indicate no data available.
The averages shown for the Market Research Bureau are not true averages - this is due to the fact that in many cases the class of
most frequent users were indicated by "1 or more" also ranges were used in many cases, i.e., "10-12." The average, therefore, is
underestimated slightly. The "1 or more" designation also skew the 90th percentile figures in many instances. The 90th percentile
values may, in actuality, be somewhat higher for many products.
Average usage among users only for baby products.
Usage data reflected "entire household" use for both baby lotion and baby oil.
Fewer than 10% of individuals surveyed used these products. Value listed is lowest frequency among individuals reporting usage.
In the case of wave sets, skin lighteners, and hair color spray, none of the individuals surveyed by the CTFA used this product during
the period of the study.
Usage data reflected "entire household" use.
Usage data reflected total bath product usage.
None of the individuals surveyed reported using this product.
Source: CTFA, 1983.
-------
Table 16-35. Summary of Consumer Products Use Studies
Study
Study Size
Approach
Relevant Population
Comments
KEY STUDIES
Abt, 1992
Westat, 1987a
Westat, 1987b
Westat, 1987c
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996
RELEVANT STUDY
CTFA, 1983
4,997 product interviews;
527 mailed questionnaires
4,920 individuals
193 households
777 households
9,386 individuals
Survey 1: 47 women
employees and relatives or
employees
Survey 2:1,129 cosmetics
purchasers
Survey 3:19,035 females
Direct - interviews and Adults
questionnaires
Direct - questionnaire
Direct - telephone survey; 2
post-survey validation efforts: 30
reinterviewed, then another 50
reeinterviewed
Direct - telephone survey; 1
post-survey validation effort
conducted with 30 reinterviewed
Direct - interviews and
questionnaires
18+ yrs selected to be
representative of US
population
Adult household members
who do cleaning tasks in
household
Household members who do
painting tasks in household
Representative of U.S.
general population
Survey 1: Direct -1 wk
prospective survey
Survey 2: Direct - prospective
survey
Survey 3: Direct - 9.5 months.
prospective survey
Survey 1: 16-61 yrold
females
Survey 2: Customers of
cosmetic manufacturer
Survey 3: Market research
company sampled female
consumers nationwide
Random digit dialing method used to select sample.
Information on use of 3 products containing methyl chloride
was requested.
Waksberg Method (random digit dialing) used to select
sample. Respondents asked to recall use in past 2 months of
32 catagories of household products containing methyl
chloride.
Waksberg Method (random digit dialing) used to select
sample. Household use of cleaning products requested.
Phone survey during end of year holidays may reflect biased
usage data. Two validation resurveys conducted 3 months
after survey.
Waksberg Method (random digit dialing) used to select
sample. Painting product use information in past 12 months
was requested. One validation resurvey conducted 3 months
after survey.
National Human Activity Patterns Survey (NHAPS).
Participants selected using random Dial Digit (ROD) and
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). 24-hour
diary data, and follow-up questions; nationally representative;
represent all seasons, age groups, and genders.
Interviewees asked to recall their use of cosmetics and some
baby products during a specific past time period. Surveys 1
and 2 had small populations, but Survey 3 had large
population selected to be representative of U.S. population
-------
Table 16A-1. Volumes Included in 1992 Simmons Study
The volumes included in the Media series are as follows:
M1 Publications: Total Audiences
M2 Publications: Qualitative Measurements And In-Home Audiences
M3 Publications: Duplication Of Audiences
M4 Multi-Media Audiences: Adults
M5 Multi-Media Audiences: Males
M6 Multi-Media Audiences: Females and Mothers
M7 Business To Business
M8 Multi-Media Reach and Frequency and Television Attentiveness & Special Events
The following volumes are included in the Product series:
P1 Automobiles, cycles, Trucks & Vans
P2 Automotive Products & Services
P3 Travel
P4 Banking, Investments, Insurance, Credit Cards & Contributions, Memberships & Public Activities
P5 Games & Toys, Children's & Babies' Apparel & Specialty Products
P6 Computers, Books, Discs, Records, Tapes, Stereo, Telephones, TV & Video
P7 Appliances, Garden Care, Sewing & Photography
P8 Home Furnishings & Home Improvements
P9 Sports & Leisure
P10 Restaurants, Stores & Grocery Shopping
P11 Direct Mail & Other In-Home Shopping, Yellow Pages, Florist, Telegrams, Faxes & Greeting Cards
P12 Jewelry, Watches, Luggage, Writing Tools & Men's Apparel
P13 Women's Apparel
P14 Distilled Spirits, Mixed Drinks, Malt Beverages, Wine & Tobacco Products
P15 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Milk, Soft Drinks, Juices & Bottled Water
P16 Dairy Products, Desserts, Baking & Bread Products
P17 Cereals & Spreads, Rice, Pasta, Pizza, Mexican Foods, Fruits & Vegetables
P18 Soup, Meat, Fish, Poultry, Condiments & Dressings
P19 Chewing Gum, Candy, Cookies & Snacks
P20 Soap, Laundry, Paper Products & Kitchen Wraps
P21 Household Cleaners, Room Deodorizers, Pest Controls & Pet Foods
P22 Health Care Products & Remedies
P23 Oral Hygiene Products, Skin Care, Deodorants & Drug Stores
P24 Hair Care, Shaving Products & Fragrances
P25 Women's Beauty Aids, Cosmetics & Personal Products
P26 Relative Volume of Consumption
-------
Table 1 7-1 . Summary of Residential Volume Distributions
in Cubic Meters3
Parameter
Arithmetic Mean
Standard Deviation
10th Percentile
25th Percentile
50th Percentile
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
RECSData(1)
369
258
147
209
310
476
672
PFT Database (2)
369
209
167
225
321
473
575
a In cubic meters
Sources: (1) Thompson, 1995; (2) Versar, 1990
-------
Table 17-2. Average Estimated Volumes of U.S. Residences, by Housing
Type and Ownership
Ownership
Owner-Occupied
Housing Type
Single-Family
(Detached)
Single-Family
(Attached)
Multifamily
(2-4 units)
Multifamily
(5+ Units)
Mobile Home
All Types
Volume3
(m3)
471
406
362
241
221
441
Percent
of Total
53.1
4.6
1.6
1.7
4.6
65.4
3 Volumes calculated from floor areas assuming
Source: Adapted from U.S. DOE, 1995.
Rental
Volume3
(m3)
323
291
216
183
170
233
Percent
of Total
8.5
2.9
6.7
15.2
1.2
34.6
All Units
Volume3
(m3)
451
362
243
190
210
369
Percent
of Total
61.7
7.5
8.3
16.8
5.8
100.0
a ceiling height of 8 feet.
-------
Table 17-3. Residential Volumes in Relation
Size and Year
Household Size
1 Person
2 Persons
3 Persons
4 Persons
5 Persons
6 or More Persons
All Sizes
Year of Construction
1 939 or before
1940 to 1949
1950 to 1959
1960 to 1969
1970 to 1979
1980 to 1984
1985 to 1987
1988 to 1990
1991 to 1993
All Years
of Construction
Volume3
(m3)
269
386
387
431
433
408
369
385
338
365
358
350
344
387
419
438
369
3 Volumes calculated from floor areas assuming a
of 8 feet.
Source: U.S. DOE, 1995.
to Household
Percent of Total
24.3
32.8
17.2
15.1
7.0
3.6
100.0
21.1
7.1
13.5
15.5
18.7
8.8
5.7
4.9
4.7
100.0
ceiling height
-------
Table 17-4. Dimensional Quantities for Residential Rooms
Nominal Dimensions
Eight Foot Ceiling
12'x15'
12'x12'
10'x12'
9'x12'
6'x12'
4'x12'
Twelve Foot Ceiling
12'x15'
12'x12'
10'x12'
9'x12'
6'x12'
4'x12'
Length
(m)
4.6
3.7
3.0
2.7
1.8
1.2
4.6
3.7
3.0
2.7
1.8
1.2
Width
(m)
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
Height
(m)
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
Volume
(m3)
41
33
27
24
16
11
61
49
41
37
24
16
Wall Area
(m2)
40
36
33
31
27
24
60
54
49
47
40
36
Floor Area
(m2)
17
13
11
10
7
4
17
13
11
10
7
4
Total Area
(m2)
74
62
55
51
40
32
94
80
71
67
54
44
-------
Table 17-5. Examples of Products and Materials Associated with Floor
and Wall Surfaces in Residences
Material Sources
Silicone caulk
Floor adhesive
Floor wax
Wood stain
Polyurethane wood finish
Floor varnish or lacquer
Plywood paneling
Chipboard
Gypsum board
Wallpaper
Assumed Amount
of
Surface Covered3
0.2m2
10.0m2
50.0 m2
10.0m2
10.0m2
50.0 m2
100.0m2
100.0m2
100.0m2
100.0m2
3 Based on typical values for a residence.
Source: Adapted from Tucker, 1991 .
-------
Table 17-6
Census Region
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
South
Midwest
West
West
West
. Percent of Residences with Basement
Census Region and EPA Region
EPA
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
All Regions
, by
Percent of
Residences with
Basements
93.4
55.9
67.9
19.3
73.5
4.1
75.3
68.5
10.3
11.5
45.2
Source: Lucas et al.. 1992.
-------
Table 17-7.
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
All Regions
Percent of Residences with
With
Basement
78.0
78.1
18.6
19.4
45.2
Certain Foundation Types by Census
Percent of Residences3
With With Crawlspace
Enclosed Open to Outside
Crawlspace
12.6 2.8
19.5 5.6
31.8 11.0
36.7 8.1
26.0 7.5
Region
With
Concrete Slab
15.8
14.7
44.6
43.5
31.3
a Percentage may add to more than 1 00 percent because more than one foundation type may apply to a given residence.
Source: U.S. DOE, 1995.
-------
US EPA Regions
Region 1
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region 2
New Jersey
New York
Region 3
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Table 17-8. States Associated with
Region 4
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region 5
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
EPA Regions and Census
Region 6
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Region 7
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Region 8
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Regions
Region 9
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Region 10
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
US Bureau of Census Regions
Northeast Region
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
Vermont
Midwest Region
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
South Region
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
West Region
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
-------
Table 1 7-9. Summary of Major Projects Providing Air Exchange Measurements
in the PFT Database
Project Code
ADM
BSG
GSS
FLEMING
GEOMET1
GEOMET2
GEOMET3
LAMBERT1
LAMBERT2
LAMBERTS
LAMBERT4
LBL1
LBL2
LBL3
LBL4
LBL5
LBL6
NAHB
NYSDH
PEI
PIERCE
RTI1
RTI2
RTI3
SOCAL1
SOCAL2
SOCAL3
UMINN
UWISC
State
CA
CA
AZ
NY
FL
MD
TX
ID
MT
OR
WA
OR
WA
ID
WA
WA
ID
MN
NY
MD
CT
CA
CA
NY
CA
CA
CA
MN
Wl
Number of
Month(s)a Measurements
5-7
1,8-12
1-3,8-9
1-6,8-12
1,6-8,10-12
1-6
1-3
2-3,10-11
1-3,11
1-3,10-12
1-3,10-12
1-4,10-12
1-4,10-12
1-5,11-12
1-4,11-12
2-4
3-4
1-5,9-12
1-2,4,12
3-4
1-3
2
7
1-4
3
7
1
1-4
2-5
29
40
25
56
18
23
42
36
51
83
114
126
71
23
29
21
19
28
74
140
25
45
41
397
551
408
330
35
57
Mean Air
Exchange
Rate
0.70
0.53
0.39
0.24
0.31
0.59
0.87
0.25
0.23
0.46
0.30
0.56
0.36
1.03
0.39
0.36
0.28
0.22
0.59
0.59
0.80
0.90
2.77
0.55
0.81
1.51
0.76
0.36
0.82
SDb
0.52
0.30
0.21
0.28
0.16
0.34
0.59
0.13
0.15
0.40
0.15
0.37
0.19
0.47
0.27
0.21
0.14
0.11
0.37
0.45
1.14
0.73
2.12
0.37
0.66
1.48
1.76
0.32
0.76
Percentiles
10th
0.29
0.21
0.16
0.05
0.15
0.12
0.33
0.10
0.10
0.19
0.14
0.28
0.18
0.37
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.28
0.15
0.20
0.38
0.79
0.26
0.29
0.35
0.26
0.17
0.22
25th
0.36
0.30
0.23
0.12
0.18
0.29
0.51
0.17
0.14
0.26
0.20
0.35
0.25
0.73
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.37
0.26
0.22
0.48
1.18
0.33
0.44
0.59
0.37
0.20
0.33
50th
0.48
0.40
0.33
0.22
0.25
0.65
0.71
0.23
0.19
0.38
0.30
0.45
0.32
0.99
0.36
0.30
0.26
0.20
0.50
0.49
0.38
0.78
2.31
0.44
0.66
1.08
0.48
0.28
0.55
75th
0.81
0.70
0.49
0.29
0.48
0.83
1.09
0.33
0.26
0.56
0.39
0.60
0.42
1.34
0.47
0.47
0.38
0.24
0.68
0.83
0.77
1.08
3.59
0.63
0.94
1.90
0.75
0.40
1.04
90th
1.75
0.90
0.77
0.37
0.60
0.92
1.58
0.49
0.38
0.80
0.50
1.02
0.52
1.76
0.63
0.62
0.55
0.38
1.07
1.20
2.35
1.52
5.89
0.94
1.43
3.11
1.11
0.56
1.87
a 1 = January, 2 = February, etc.
b Standard deviation
Source: Adapted from Versar,
1990.
-------
Table 1 7-1 0. Summary Statistics for Air Exchange Rates
(air changes per hour-ACH), by Region
Arithmetic Mean
Arithmetic Standard Deviation
Geometric Mean
Geometric Standard Deviation
1 0th Percentile
50th Percentile
90th Percentile
Maximum
West Region
0.66
0.87
0.47
2.11
0.20
0.43
1.25
23.32
North Central
Region
0.57
0.63
0.39
2.36
0.16
0.35
1.49
4.52
Northeast
Region
0.71
0.60
0.54
2.14
0.23
0.49
1.33
5.49
South Region
0.61
0.51
0.46
2.28
0.16
0.49
1.21
3.44
All Regions
0.63
0.65
0.46
2.25
0.18
0.45
1.26
23.32
Source: Koontz and Rector, 1 995.
-------
Table 17-11. Distributions of Residential Air Exchange Rates8 by Climate Region and Season
Climate Season
Region
Coldest Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Colder Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Warmer Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Warmest Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
" In air changes per hour
Source: Murrav and Burmaster
Sample Size
161
254
5
47
428
43
2
23
96
165
34
37
454
589
488
18
1995.
Arithmetic
Mean
0.36
0.44
0.82
0.25
0.57
0.52
1.31
0.35
0.47
0.59
0.68
0.51
0.63
0.77
1.57
0.72
Standard
Deviation
0.28
0.31
0.69
0.12
0.43
0.91
-
0.18
0.40
0.43
0.50
0.25
0.52
0.62
1.56
1.43
Percentiles
10th
0.11
0.18
0.27
0.10
0.21
0.13
-
0.15
0.19
0.18
0.27
0.30
0.24
0.28
0.33
0.22
25th
0.18
0.24
0.41
0.15
0.30
0.21
-
0.22
0.26
0.28
0.36
0.30
0.34
0.42
0.58
0.25
50th
0.27
0.36
0.57
0.22
0.42
0.24
-
0.33
0.39
0.48
0.51
0.44
0.48
0.63
1.10
0.42
75th
0.48
0.53
1.08
0.34
0.69
0.39
-
0.41
0.58
0.82
0.83
0.60
0.78
0.92
1.98
0.46
90th
0.71
0.80
2.01
0.42
1.18
0.83
-
0.59
0.78
1.11
1.30
0.82
1.13
1.42
3.28
0.74
-------
Table 17-12. Deposition Rates for Indoor Particles
Size Fraction Deposition Rate
PM25 0.39 h'1
PM10 0.65 h'1
Coarse 1.0 h
-1
Source: Adapted from Wallace, 1996.
-------
Table 17-1 3. Particle
Particle Size Range
1-5
5-10
10-25
>25
Deposition During Normal Activities
Particle
Removal Rate
(h-1)
0.5
1.4
2.4
4.1
Source: Adapted from Thatcher and Lavton, 1995.
-------
Table 1 7-1 4. In-house Water Use Rates (gcd), by Study and Type of Use
Study
MWD1
EBMUD2
U.S. DHUD3
Nazaroffetal., 1988
Study 1
Study 2
- Rural
- Urban
Study 3
Study 4
Study 5
Study 6
Study 7
Study 8
Mean Across Studies5
Median Across Studies5
1 Metropolitan Water
2 East Bay Municipa
Total,
All Uses
93
67
40
52
46
43
42
45
70
59
40
52-86
59
53
District of Southern
Utility District, 1992
3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Shower
or Bath Toilet
26
20
15
6
11
10
9
9
21
20
10
20-40
17
15
California, 1991.
Development, 1984.
30
28
10
17
18
18
20
15
32
24
9
4-6
18
18
Laundry
20
9
13
11
14
11
7
11
7
8
11
20-30
13
11
Dishwashina
5
4
2
18
3
4
4
4
7
4
5
8-10
6
4
Other
12
6
-
-
-
-
2
6
3
3
5
-
5
5
4 Results of eight separate studies.
5 The average value from each range reported in Study No. 8 was used to calculate the median across studies. The mean and
median for the "Total, all Uses" column were obtained by summing across the means and medians for individual types of water
use.
-------
Table 17-15. Summary of Selected HUDand Power Authority Water Use Studies
Number of Households Location
U.S. DHUD Studies
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
Study 4
Study 5
Study 6
Power Authority Studies
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
Study 4
TOTAL
Sources:
a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
b Metropolitan Water District of Southern
c East Bay Municipal Utility District, 1 992
37
7
40
7
21
19
32
23
15
10
211
Development, 1984.
California, 1991.
Los Angeles, CA
Sacramento, CA
Walnut Creek, CA
Washington, DC
Sacramento, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Seattle, WA
Denver, CO
Aurora, CO
Fairfax, VA
Reference
a,b
a,c
a,c
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-------
Table 17-16. Showering and Bathing Water Use Characteristics
Characteristic Mean Duration Mean Frequency
Individuals who Shower only 10.4 minutes/shower 0.74 showers/day/person
Individuals who Bath only NA 0.41 baths/day/person
Individuals who Shower and Bath NA NA
Source: Adapted from U. S. DHUD, 1984.
-------
Table 17-17. Showering Characteristics
Shower Head Type
Non-Conserving (> 3 gpm)
Low Flow (< 3 gpm)
Restrictor (< 3 gpm)
Zinplas3
Turboiector3
for Various Types of Shower Heads
Mean Flow Rate
(gpm)
3.4
1.9
2.1
1.8
1.3
a Types of low flow water fixtures.
Source: Adapted from U.S. DHUD, 1984.
-------
Table 17-18. Toilet Water Use
Toilet Type
Non-Conserving
Bottles
Bags
Dams
Low-flush
Characteristics
Average Water Use
(gallons/flush)
5.5
5.0
4.8
4.5
3.5
Source: Adapted from U.S. DHUD, 1984.
-------
Table 17-19. Toilet Frequency Use Characteristics
Study
Flush Frequency
(flushes/person/day)
U.S. DHUD, 1984a 4.2 flushes/household/day
Ligman, et al., 1974 Rural, M-F 3.6 flushes/person/day
Ligman, et al., 1974 Rural, Sat-Sun 3.8 flushes/person/day
Ligman, et al., 1974 Urban, M-F 3.6 flushes/person/day
Ligman, et al., 1974 Urban, Sat-Sun 3.1 flushes/person/day
Siegrist, 1976 2.3 flushes/person/day
Unweighted Mean 3.43 flushes/person/day
The HUD value may in fact be flushes/household/day
-------
Table 17-20. Dishwasher Frequency Use Characteristics
Study Use Frequency
U.S. DHUD, 1984 0.47 loads/person/day
Ligman, et al., 1974 Rural 1.3 loads/day
Siegrist, 1976 0.39 loads/person/day
Unweighted Mean 0.92 loads/day
-------
Table 17-21
Brand
Maytag
Frigidaire
General Electric
Sears
Whirlpool
Wh ite/Westi ng h o use
Waste King
Kitchen Aid
Magic Chef
Unweighted Mean
Source: Adapted from Consumer
. Dishwasher Water Use
Average Water Use
(gallons/regular cycle)
11.5
12
10.5
10
9.5
12
11.5
9.5
11.5
10.9
Reports, 1987.
Characteristics
Cycle Duration
(minutes)
140°F
75
75
80
75
60
75
65
80
70
72.8
120°F
-
75
95
95
110
75
85
80
-
87.9
-------
Table 17-22. Clothes Washer Frequency Use Characteristics
Study Use Frequency
U.S. DHUD, 1984 0.3 loads/person/day
Ligman, et al., 1974 Rural 0.34 loads/person/day
Ligman, et al., 1974 Urban 0.27 loads/person/day
Siegrist, 1976 0.31 loads/day
-------
Table 1 7-23. Clothes Washer Water Use Characteristics
Brand
Maytag
Frigidaire
General Electric
Hotpoint
Sears
Whirlpool
White/Westinghouse
Kelvinator
Norge
Source: Adapted from
Average Water Use
(gallons/regular cycle)
41
48
51
51
49
53
54
46
55
Consumer Reports, 1982.
Cycle Duration
(minutes)
32
40
48
48
40
44
47
52
49
-------
Table 17-24. Range of Water Uses for Clothes Washers
Type of Clothes Washer Range of Water Use
Conventional 27-59 gallons/load
Low Water 16-19 gallons/load
All Clothes Washers 16-59 gallons/load
Source: Adapted from Consumer Reports, 1982.
-------
Table 17-25.
Household
Source:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total Dust Loading
Total Dust Load
(g-nr2)
10.8
4.2
0.3
2.2; 0.8
1.4; 4.3
0.8
6.6
33.7
812.7
for Carpeted Areas
Fine Dust (<150 ^m) Load
(g-nr2)
6.6
3.0
0.1
1.2; 0.3
1.0; 1.1
0.3
4.7
23.3
168.9
Adapted from Roberts et al., 1991.
-------
Table 17-26. Particle Deposition and
Particle Size Range
(urn)
0.3-0.5
0.6-1
1-5
5-10
10-25
>25
Source: Adapted from Thatcher and Lavton,
Resuspension During
Particle
Deposition
Rate
Or1)
(not measured)
(not measured)
0.5
1.4
2.4
4.1
1995.
Normal Activities
Particle Resuspension
Rate
(h-1)
9.9 x10'7
4.4 x10'7
1.8 x1Q-5
8.3 x1Q-5
3.8 x10'4
3.4 x1Q-5
-------
Table 17-27. Dust Mass Loading After One Week
Location in Test House
Tracked area of downstairs carpet
Untracked area of downstairs carpet
Tracked area of linoleum
Untracked area of linoleum
Tracked area of upstairs carpet
Untracked area of upstairs carpet
Front doormat
Without Vacuum Cleaning
Dust Loading (g-
rrr)
2.20
0.58
0.08
0.06
1.08
0.60
43.34
Source: Adapted from Thatcher and Lavton, 1995.
-------
Table 17-28. Simplified Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants
Description
Direct Discharge
Combustion
Volume Discharge
Mass Discharge
Diffusion Limited
Exponential
Transport
Infiltration
Interzonal
Soil Gas
Components
EfHfMf
Ef = emission factor
Hf = fuel content
Mf = fuel consumption rate
QPCp_eD
Qp = volume delivery rate
Cp = concentration in carrier
eD = transfer efficiency
Mpwee
Mp = mass delivery rate
we = weight fraction
eD = transfer efficiency
(D,5a)(Cs-C,)A
Df = diffusivity
5 "1 = boundary layer thickness
Cs = vapor pressure of
surface
C, = room concentration
A = area
A E0 e-kt
A = area
E0 = initial unit emission rate
k = emission decay factor
t =time
Wjj ^-'j
Qji = air flow from zone j
Cj = air concentration in zone
j
Dimensions
gh-1
gJ-1
J mor1
mol h'1
gh-1
m3rr1
g m"3
gg-1
gh-1
gh-1
gg-1
gg-1
gh-1
m2h'1
m
g rrr3
g m"3
m2
gh-1
m2
g h-1 m-2
h'1
h
gh-1
m3h-1
g m"3
-------
Table 1 7-29. Volume of Residence Surveys
Number of
„. , Residences
Studv
Key Studies
U.S. DOE, 1995 Over 7,000
(RECS)
Versar, 1990 Over 2,000
(PFT database)
Murray, 1996 7,041 (RECS)
1,751 (PFT)
Survey Tvoe
Direct measurement of floor
area; estimation of volume
Direct measurement and
estimated
Direct measurements and
estimated
Areas Surveyed
Nationwide (random sample)
Nationwide (not random
sample); a large fraction located
inCA
RECS-Nationwide (random
sample); PFT - Nationwide (not
random sample); a large fraction
located in CA
Comments
Volumes were estimated assuming 8 ft.
ceiling height. Provides relationships
between average residential volumes
and facilities such as housing type,
ownership, household size, and
structure age.
Sample was not geographically
balanced; statistical weighting was
applied to develop nationwide
distributions
Duplicate measurement were eliminated;
tested the effects of using 8 ft.
assumption on ceiling height to calculate
volume; data from both databases were
analyzed.
-------
Table 1 7-30. Air Exchange
Studv
Versar, 1990
(PFT database)
Koontz & Rector, 1 995
(PFT database)
Murray and Burmaster, 1 995
(PFT database)
Nazaroffetal., 1988
Number of
Residences/Measurements
Over 2,000 residences
2,971 measurements
2,844 measurements
255 (Grot and Clark, 1981)
312(Grimsrud, 1983)
Survey Tvoe
Measurements using
PFT technique
Measurements using
PFT technique
Measurements using
PFT technique
Direct measurement
Direct measurement
Rates Surveys
Areas Surveyed
Nationwide (not random
sample); a large fraction located
inCA
Nationwide (not random
sample); a large fraction located
inCA
Nationwide (not random
sample); a large fraction located
inCA
255, low-income families in 14
cities
321 , newer residences, median
aae <10 vears
Comments
Multiple measurements on the
same home were included.
Multiple measurements on the
same home were included.
Compensated for geographic
imbalances. Data are presented by
region of the country and season.
Multiple measurements on the
same home were included. Did not
compensate for geographical
imbalances. Data are presented by
climate region and season.
Sample size was small and not
representative of the U.S.
Sample size was small and not
reoresentative of the U.S.
-------
Table 17-31. Recommendations - Residential Parameters
Volume of Residence 369 m3 (central estimate)" 217 m3 (mean)b
Air Exchange Rate 0.45 ACH (median)0 0.18 ACH (1 Oth percentile)d
a Same mean value presented in two studies (Table 17-1) - recommended to be used as the central estimate.
b Mean of two 25th percentile values (Table 17-1)- recommended to be used as the mean value.
c Recommended to be used as a typical value (Table 17-10).
d Recommended to be used as a conservative value (Table 17-101.
-------
Table 17-32. Confidence in House Volume Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to U.S.
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
Study size
• Representativeness of the
population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
All key studies are from peer reviewed literature.
Papers are widely available from peer review journals.
Direct measurements were made.
The focus of the studies was on estimating house
volume as well as other factors.
Residences in the U.S. was the focus of the key
studies.
All the studies were based on primary data.
Measurements in the PFT database were taken
between 1982-1987. The RECS survey was
conducted in 1993.
Not applicable
For the RECS survey, volumes were estimated
assuming an 8 ft. ceiling height. The effect of this
assumption has been tested by Murray (1996) and
found to be insignificant.
The sample sizes used in the key studies were fairly
large, although only 1 study (RECS) was
representative of the whole U.S. Not all samples
were selected at random; however, RECS samples
were selected at random.
RECS sample is representative of the U.S.
Distributions are presented by housing type and
regions; although some of the sample sizes for the
subcategories were small.
Selection of residences was random for RECS.
Some measurement error may exist since surface
areas were estimated using the assumption of 8 ft.
ceiling height.
There are 3 key studies; however there are only 2
data sets.
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
• Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
There is good agreement among researchers.
Results were consistent; 1 study (RECS) was
representative of residences in the whole U.S.;
volumes were estimated rather than measured in
some cases.
High
Medium
-------
Table 17-33. Confidence in Air Exchange Rate Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
• Level of peer review
• Accessibility
• Reproducibility
• Focus on factor of
interest
• Data pertinent to U.S.
• Primary data
• Currency
• Adequacy of data
collection period
• Validity of approach
• Study size
• Representativeness of the
population
• Characterization of
variability
• Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
• Measurement error
Other Elements
• Number of studies
The studies appear in peer reviewed literature.
Although there are 3 studies, they are all based on
the same database (PFT database).
Papers are widely available from government reports
and peer review journals.
Precision across repeat analyses has been
documented to be acceptable.
The focus of the studies was on estimating air
exchange rates as well as other factors.
Residences in the U.S. was the focus of the PFT
database.
All the studies were based on primary data.
Measurements in the PFT database were taken
between 1982-1987.
Only short term data were collected; some residences
were measured during different seasons; however,
long term air exchange rates are not well
characterized.
Although the PFT technology is an EPA standard
method (Method IP-4A), it has some major limitations
(e.g., uniform mixing assumption).
The sample sizes used in the key studies were fairly
large, although not representative of the whole U.S.
Not all samples were selected at random.
Sample is not representative of the U.S..
Distributions are presented by U.S. regions, seasons,
and climatic regions; although some of the sample
sizes for the subcategories were small and not
representative of U.S. The utility is limited..
Bias may result since the selection of residences was
not random.
Some measurement error may exist.
There are 3 key studies; however there are only 1
data set. However, the database contains results of
20 projects of varying scope.
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
• Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Not applicable
Sample was not representative of residences in the
whole U.S., but covered the range of occurrence.
PFT methodology has limitations. Uniform mixing
assumption may not be adequate. Results will vary
depending on placement of samples and on whether
windows and doors are closed or opened.
Low
-------
Air In
Water In
Soil In
Concentration, C
Source
Exposure, E for Occupant(s)
Decay
Resuspension
Removal
Reversible
Sinks
Out
Figure 17-1. Elements of Residential Exposure
-------
100 200 300 400 500 600
Volune, cUoic meters
700
800
900
1000
Figure 17-2. Cumulative Frequency Distributions for Residential Volumes
from the PFT Data Base and the U.S. DOE's RECs.
-------
COMMON RETURN LAYOUT
Zone 1
A
Return
Zone 2
A
Zone N
A
Supply
t
Filter
fir Handler
BALANCED SUPPLY and RETURN LAYOUT
A Retum A
Zone 1
A
Zone 2
A
Zone H
A
Supply
Filter
ir Handler
Figure 17-3. Configuration for Residential Forced-air Systems
-------
1CH ,
CO
E
o
_o
I
o
o
Q.
(D
Q
ID'6 •:••
10-7
0.001
0.01 0.1
Particle Diameter (|Jm)
Figure 17-4. Idealized Patterns of Particle Deposition Indoors
Source: Adapted from Nazaroff and Cass, 1989.
-------
SINGLE-ZONE
SYSTEM
TWO-ZONE
SYSTEM
THREE-ZONE
SYSTEM
\
N-Zone System Defined by N (N+1) Airflows
Figure 17-5. Air Flows for Multiple-zone Systems
-------
Glossary
GLOSSARY
Absorption fraction (percent absorbed) - The relative amount of a substance that penetrates through a
barrier into the body, reported as a unitless fraction.
Accuracy-The measure of the correctness of data, as given by the difference between the measured value
and the true or standard value.
Activity pattern (time use) data - Information on activities in which various individuals engage, length of time
spent performing various activities, locations in which individuals spend time and length of time spent by
individuals within those various environments.
Air exchange rate - Rate of air leakage through windows, doorways, intakes and exhausts, and "adventitious
openings" (i.e., cracks and seams) that combine to form the leakage configuration of the building envelope plus
natural and mechanical ventilation.
Ambient - The conditions surrounding a person, sampling location, etc.
Analytical uncertainty propagation - Examines how uncertainty in individual parameters affects the overall
uncertainty of the exposure assessment. The uncertainties associated with various parameters may propagate
through a model very differently, even if they have approximately the same uncertainty. Since uncertainty
propagation is a function of both the data and the model structure, this procedure evaluates both input
variances and model sensitivity.
As consumed intake rates - Intake rates that are based on the weight of the food in the form that it is
consumed.
Average daily dose - Dose rate averaged over a pathway-specific period of exposure expressed as a daily
dose on a per-unit-body-weight basis. The ADD is used for exposure to chemicals with non-carcinogenic non-
chronic effects. The ADD is usually expressed in terms of mg/kg-day or other mass/mass-time units.
Best Tracer Method (BTM) - Method for estimating soil ingestion that allows for the selection of the most
recoverable tracer for a particular subject or group of subjects. Selection of the best tracer is made on the
basis of the food/soil (F/S) ratio.
Boneless equivalent - Weights of meat (pork, veal, beef) and poultry, excluding all bones, but including
separable fat sold on retail cuts of red meat.
Carcass weight- Weight of the chilled hanging carcass, which includes the kidney and attached internal fat
(kidney, pelvic, and heart fat), excludes the skin, head, feet, and unattached internal organs. The pork carcass
weight includes the skin and feet but excludes the kidney and attached internal fat.
Chronic intake - The long term period over which a substance crosses the outer boundary of an organism
without passing an absorption barrier.
Comparability- The ability to describe likenesses and differences in the quality and relevance of two or more
data sets.
Consumer-only intake rate - The average quantity of food consumed per person in a population composed
only of individuals who ate the food item of interest during a specified period.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Glossary
Contaminant concentration - Contaminant concentration is the concentration of the contaminant in the
medium (air, food, soil, etc.) contacting the body and has units of mass/volume or mass/mass.
Creel Census - Approach used by fishery managers to obtain harvest data collected onsite from single anglers
or from larger-scale commercial type operations.
Deposition - The removal of airborne substances to available surfaces that occurs as a result of gravitational
settling and diffusion, as well as electrophoresis and thermophoresis.
Diary study- Survey in which individuals are asked to record food intake, activities, or other factors in a diary
which is later used to evaluate exposure factors associated with specific populations.
Distribution - A set of values derived from a specific population or set of measurements that represents the
range and array of data for the factor being studied.
Dose - The amount of a substance available for interaction with metabolic processes or biologically significant
receptors after crossing the outer boundary of an organism. The potential dose is the amount ingested,
inhaled, or applied to the skin. The applied dose is the amount of a substance presented to an absorption
barrier and available for absorption (although not necessarily having yet crossed the outer boundary of the
organism). The absorbed dose is the amount crossing a specific absorption barrier (e.g., the exchange
boundaries of skin, lung, and digestive tract) through uptake processes. Internal dose is a more general term
denoting the amount absorbed without respect to specific absorption barriers or exchange boundaries. The
amount of a chemical available for interaction by any particular organ or cell is termed the delivered dose for
that organ or cell.
Dose-response relationship - The resulting biological responses in an organ or organism expressed as a
function of a series of doses.
Dressed weight - The portion of the harvest brought into kitchens for use, including bones for particular
species.
Dry weight intake rates - Intake rates that are based on the weight of the food consumed after the moisture
content has been removed.
Employer tenure - The length of time a worker has been with the same employer.
Exposed foods - Those foods that are grown above ground and are likely to be contaminated by pollutants
deposited on surfaces that are eaten.
Exposure duration - Total time an individual is exposed to the chemical being evaluated.
Exposure Assessment - The determination or estimation (qualitative or quantitative) of the magnitude,
frequency, or duration, and route or exposure.
Exposure concentration - The concentration of a chemical in its transport or carrier medium at the point of
contact.
Exposure path way-The physical course a chemical takes from the source to the organism exposed.
Exposure route-The way a chemical pollutant enters an organism after contact, e.g., by ingestion, inhalation,
or dermal absorption.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Glossary
Exposure scenario-A set of facts, assumptions, and interferences about how exposure takes place that aids
the exposure assessor in evaluating estimating, or quantifying exposures.
Exposure - Contact of a chemical, physical, or biological agent with the outer boundary of an organism.
Exposure is quantified as the concentration of the agent in the medium in contact integrated over the time
duration of the contact.
Exposure duration - Length of time over which contact with the contaminant lasts.
General population - The total of individuals inhabiting an area or making up a whole group.
Geometric mean - The nth root of the product of n values.
Homegrown/home produced foods - Fruits and vegetables produced by home gardeners, meat and dairy
products derived form consumer-raised livestock, game meat, and home caught fish.
Inhaled dose-The amount of an inhaled substance that is available for interaction with metabolic processes
or biologically significant receptors after crossing the outer boundary of an organism.
Insensible water loss - Evaporative water losses that occur during breastfeeding. Corrections are made to
account for insensible water loss when estimating breast milk intake using the test weighing method.
Intake - The process by which a substance crosses the outer boundary of an organism without passing an
absorption barrier (e.g., through ingestion or inhalation).
Intake rate - Rate of inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact depending on the route of exposure. For
ingestion, the intake rate is simply the amount of food containing the contaminant of interest that an individual
ingests during some specific time period (units of mass/time). For inhalation, the intake rate is the rate at which
contaminated air is inhaled. Factors that affect dermal exposure are the amount of material that comes into
contact with the skin, and the rate at which the contaminant is absorbed.
Internal dose - The amount of a substance penetrating across absorption barriers (the exchange boundaries)
of an organism, via either physical or biological processes (synonymous with absorbed dose).
Interzonal airflows - Transport of air through doorways, ductwork, and service chaseways that interconnect
rooms or zones within a building.
Lifetime average daily dose - Dose rate averaged over a lifetime. The LADD is used for compounds with
carcinogenic or chronic effects. The LADD is usually expressed in terms of mg/kg-day or other
mass/mass-time units.
Limiting Tracer Method (LTM) - Method for evaluating soil ingestion that
assumes that the maximum amount of soil ingested corresponds with the lowest estimate from various tracer
elements.
Local circulation - Convective and adjective air circulation and mixing within a room or within a zone.
Mass-balance/tracer techniques - Method for evaluating soil intake that accounts for both inputs and outputs
of tracer elements. Tracers in soil, food, medicine and other ingested items as well as in feces and urine are
accounted for.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Glossary
Median value - The value in a measurement data set such that half the measured values are greater and half
are less.
Microenvironment - The combination of activities and locations that yield potential exposure.
Moisture content-The portion of foods made up by water. The percent water is needed for converting food
intake rates and residue concentrations between whole weight and dry weight values.
Monte Carlo technique - A repeated random sampling from the distribution of values for each of the
parameters in a generic (exposure or dose) equation to derive an estimate of the distribution of (exposures or
doses in) the population.
Occupational mobility - An indicator of the frequency at which workers change from one occupation to
another.
Occupational tenure - The cumulative number of years a person worked in his or her current occupation,
regardless of number of employers, interruptions in employment, or time spent in other occupations.
Pathway- The physical course a chemical or pollutant takes from the source to the organism exposed.
Per capita intake rate-The average quantity of food consumed per person in a population composed of both
individuals who ate the food during a specified time period and those that did not.
Pica - Deliberate ingestion of non-nutritive substances such as soil.
Population mobility - An indicator of the frequency at which individuals move from one residential location to
another.
Potential dose - The amount of a chemical contained in material ingested, air breathed, or bulk material
applied to the skin.
Precision -A measure of the reproducibility of a measured value under a given set of circumstances.
Preparation losses - Net cooking losses, which include dripping and volatile losses, post cooking losses, which
involve losses from cutting, bones, excess fat, scraps and juices, and other preparation losses which include
losses from paring or coring.
Probabilistic uncertainty analysis - Technique that assigns a probability density function to each input
parameter, then randomly selects values from each of the distributions and inserts them into the exposure
equation. Repeated calculations produce a distribution of predicted values, reflecting the combined impact of
variability in each input to the calculation. Monte Carlo is a common type of probabilistic Uncertainty analysis.
Protected foods - Those foods that have outer protective coatings that are typically removed before
consumption.
Random samples - Samples selected from a statistical population such that each sample has an equal
probability of being selected.
Range - The difference between the largest and smallest values in a measurement data set.
Recreational/sport fishermen - Individuals who catch fish as part of a sporting or recreational activity and not
for the purpose of providing a primary source of food for themselves or for their families.
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Glossary
Representativeness - The degree to which a sample is, or samples are, characteristic of the whole medium,
exposure, or dose for which the samples are being used to make inferences.
Residential volume - The volume (m3) of the structure in which an individual resides and may be exposed to
airborne contaminants.
Residential occupancy period - The time (years) between a person moving into a residence and the time
the person moves out or dies.
Resource utilization - For any quantity Y that is consumed by individuals in a population, the percentiles of the
"resource utilization distribution" of Y can be formally defined as follows: Yp (R) is the pth percentile of the
resource utilization distribution if p percent of the overall consumption of Y in the population is done by
individuals with consumption below Yp (R) and 100-p percent is done by individuals with consumption above
YP(R).
Retail weight equivalent - Weight of food as sold through retail foodstores; therefore, conversion factors are
used to correct carcass weight to retail weight to account for trimming, shrinkage, or loss of meat and chicken
at retail outlets.
Route - The way a chemical or pollutant enters an organism after contact, e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, or
dermal absorption.
Sample - A small part of something designed to show the nature or quality of the whole. Exposure-related
measurements are usually samples of environmental or ambient media, exposures of a small subset of a
population for a short time, or biological samples, all for the purpose of inferring the nature and quality of
parameters important to evaluating exposure.
Screening-level assessments - Typically examine exposures that would fall on or beyond the high end of the
expected exposure distribution.
Sensitivity analysis - Process of changing one variable while leaving the others constant to determine its effect
on the output. This procedure fixes each uncertain quantity at its credible lower and upper bounds (holding all
others at their nominal values, such as medians) and computes the results of each combination of values. The
results help to identify the variables that have the greatest effect on exposure estimates and help focus further
information-gathering efforts.
Serving sizes - The quantities of individual foods consumed per eating occasion. These estimates may be
useful for assessing acute exposures.
Soil adherence - The quantity of soil that adheres to the skin and from which chemical contaminants are
available for uptake at the skin surface.
Subsistence fishermen - Individuals who consume fresh caught fish as a major source of food.
Test weighing - A method for estimating breast milk intake over a 24-hour period in which the infant is weighed
before and after each feeding without changing its clothing. The sum of the difference between the measured
weights over the 24-hour period is assumed to be equivalent to the amount of breast milk consumed daily.
Total tapwater- Water consumed directly from the tap as a beverage or used in the preparation of foods and
beverages (i.e., coffee, tea, frozen juices, soups, etc.).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
Glossary
Total fluid intake- Consumption of all types of fluids including tapwater, milk, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages,
and water intrinsic to purchased foods.
Tracer-element studies - Soil ingestion studies that use trace elements found in soil and poorly metabolized
in the human gut as indicators of soil intake.
Uncertainty- Uncertainty represents a lack of knowledge about factors affecting exposure or risk and can lead
to inaccurate or biased estimates of exposure. The types of uncertainty include: scenario, parameter, and
model.
Upper percentile - Values at the upper end of the distribution of values fora particular set of data.
Uptake - The process by which a substance crosses an absorption barrier and is absorbed into the body.
Variability- Variability arises from true heterogeneity across people, places or time and can affect the precision
of exposure estimates and the degree to which they can be generalized. The types of variability include: spatial,
temporal, and inter-individual.
Ventilation rate (VR) - Alternative term for inhalation rate or breathing rate. Usually measured as minute
volume, i.e. volume (liters) of air exhaled per minute.
Volume of exhaled air (V^ - Product of the number of respiratory cycles in a minute and the volume of air
respired during each respiratory cycle (tidal volume, VT).
Exposure Factors Handbook August 1997
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1
AIHC. (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook. Washington, DC: American Industrial
Health Council.
Calabrese, E.J.; Pastides, H.; Barnes, R.; Edwards, C.; Kostecki, P.T.; et al. (1989)
How much soil do young children ingest: an epidemiologic study. In: Petroleum
Contaminated Soils, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml. pp. 363-397.
Gilbert, R.O. (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
U.S. EPA. (1983-1989) Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances.
Volumes 1-13. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances, Exposure Evaluation
Division.
U.S. EPA. (1984) Pesticide assessment guidelines subdivision K, exposure: reentry
protection. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. EPA/540/9-48/001.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-85-120962.
U.S. EPA. (1986a) Standard scenarios for estimating exposure to chemical substances
during use of consumer products. Volumes I and II. Washington, DC: Office of
Toxic Substance, Exposure Evaluation Division.
U.S. EPA. (1986b) Pesticide assessment guidelines subdivision U, applicator
exposure monitoring. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. EPA/540/9-
87/127. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-85-133286.
U.S. EPA. (1987) Selection criteria for mathematical models used in exposure
assessments: surface water models. Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. WPA/600/8-87/042. Available
from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-88-139928/AS.
U.S. EPA. (1988a) Superfund exposure assessment manual. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/1-88/001. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA; PB-89-135859.
U.S. EPA. (1988b) Selection criteria for mathematical models used in exposure
assessments: groundwater models. Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8-88/075. Available
from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-88-248752/AS.
U.S. EPA. (1989) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Human health evaluation
manual: part A. Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-90-155581.
-------
U.S. EPA. (1990) Methodology for assessing health risks associated with indirect
exposure to combustor emissions. EPA 600/6-90/003. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA; PB-90-187055/AS.
U.S. EPA. (1992a) Guidelines for exposure assessment. Washington, DC: Office of
Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
EPA/600/Z-92/001.
U.S. EPA. (1992b) Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications.
Washington, DC: Office of Health and Environmental Assessments. EPA/600/8-
9/01 1F.
U.S. EPA. (1994) Estimating exposures to dioxin-like compounds. (Draft Report).
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/6-88/005Cb.
U.S. EPA. (1996) Daily average per capita fish consumption estimates based on the
combined 1989, 1990, and 1999 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals
(CSFII) 1989-91 data. Volumes I and II. Preliminary Draft Report. Washington,
DC: Office of Water.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
Bogen, K.T. (1990) Uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Garland
Publishing, New York, NY.
Cox, D.C.; Baybutt, P.C. (1981) Methods for uncertainty analysis. A comparative
survey. Risk Anal. 1(4):251-258.
Duan, N. (1982) Microenvironment types: A model for human exposure to air pollution.
Environ. Intl. 8:305-309.
Inman, R.L.; Helton, J.C. (1988) An investigation of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
techniques for computer models. Risk Anal. 8(1 ):71 -91.
Morgan, M.G.; Henrion, M. (1990) Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in
quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
National Research Council (NRC). (1994) Science and judgment in risk assessment.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Rish, W.R. (1988) Approach to uncertainty in risk analysis. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. ORNL/TM-10746.
Rish, W.R.; Marnicio, R.J. (1988) Review of studies related to uncertainty in risk
analysis. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL/TM-10776.
-------
Seller, F.A. (1987) Error propagation for large errors. Risk Anal. 7(4):509-518.
U.S. EPA (1992) Guidelines for exposure assessment. Washington, DC: Office of
Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
EPA/600/2-92/001.
U.S. EPA (1995) Guidance for risk characterization. Science Policy Council,
Washington, DC.
Whitmore, R.W. (1985) Methodology for characterization of uncertainty in exposure
assessments. EPA/600/8-86/009.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook.
AIHC, Washington, DC.
Bourne, G.H.; Kidder, G.W., eds. (1953) Biochemistry and physiology of nutrition. Vol.
1. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare (1981) Tapwater consumption in
Canada. Document number 82-EHD-80. Public Affairs Directorate, Department of
National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada.
Cantor, K.P.; Hoover, R.; Hartge, P.; Mason, T.J.; Silverman, D.T.; et al. (1987)
Bladder cancer, drinking water source, and tapwater consumption: A case-control
study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 79(6): 1269-1279.
Ershow, A.G.; Brown, L.M.; Cantor, K.P. (1991) Intake of tapwater and total water by
pregnant and lactating women. American Journal of Public Health. 81:328-334.
Ershow, A.G.; Cantor, K.P. (1989) Total water and tapwater intake in the United
States: population-based estimates of quantities and sources. Life Sciences
Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
Evans, C.L., ed. (1941) Starling's principles of human physiology, 8th ed.
Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger.
Gillies, M.E.; Paulin, H.V. (1983) Variability of mineral intakes from drinking water: A
possible explanation for the controversy over the relationship of water quality to
cardiovascular disease. Int. J. Epid. 12(1):45-50.
Guyton, A.C. (1968) Textbook of medical physiology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B.
Saunders Co.
-------
Hopkins, S.M.; Ellis, J.C. (1980) Drinking water consumption in Great Britain: a
survey of drinking habits with special reference to tap-water-based beverages.
Technical Report 137, Water Research Centre, Wiltshire Great Britain.
ICRP. (1981) International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report of the task
group on reference man. New York: Pergammon Press.
McNall, P.E.; Schlegel, J.C. (1968) Practical thermal environmental limits for young
adult males working in hot, humid environments. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Transactions 74:225-235.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1974) Recommended dietary allowances, 8th
ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1977) Drinking water and health. Vol.1.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.
Pennington, J.A.T. (1983) Revision of the total diet study food list and diets. J. Am.
Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Pike, R.L.; Brown, M. (1975) Minerals and water in nutrition-an integrated approach,
2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Randall, H.T. (1973) Water, electrolytes and acid base balance. In: Goodhart RS,
Shils ME, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and
Febiger.
Roseberry, A.M.; Burmaster, D.E. (1992) Lognormal distribution for water intake by
children and adults. Risk Analysis 12:99-104.
Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. (1996) Results tables from a detailed analysis of the
National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) responses. Draft Report prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Lockheed Martin, Contract No. 68-
W6-001, Delivery Order No. 13.
U.S. Army. (1983) Water Consumption Planning Factors Study. Directorate of
Combat Developments, United States Army Quartermaster School, Fort Lee, Virginia.
USDA. (1995) Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 day,
1989-91. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
NFS Report No. 91-2.
U.S. EPA. (1980) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water quality criteria
documents; availability. Federal Register, (November 28) 45(231 ):79318-79379.
U.S. EPA. (1984) An estimation of the daily average food intake by age and sex for
-------
use in assessing the radionuclide intake of individuals in the general population.
EPA-520/1 -84-021.
U.S. EPA. (1991) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation; Final Rule. Federal Register 56(20):3526-3597. January 30,
1991.
Walker, B.S.; Boyd, W.C.; Asimov, I. (1957) Biochemistry and human metabolism, 2nd
ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Co.
Wolf, A.V. (1958) Body water. Sci. Am. 99:125.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook.
AIHC, Washington, DC.
Binder, S.; Sokal, D.; Maughan, D. (1986) Estimating soil ingestion: the use of tracer
elements in estimating the amount of soil ingested by young children. Arch.
Environ. Health. 41(6):341-345.
Behrman, L.E.; Vaughan, V.C., III. (1983) Textbook of Pediatrics. Philadelphia, PA:
W.B. Saunders Company.
Bruhn, C.M.; Pangborn, R.M. (1971) Reported incidence of pica among migrant
families. J. of the Am. Diet. Assoc. 58:417-420.
Calabrese, E.J.; Kostecki, P.T.; Gilbert, C.E. (1987) How much soil do children eat?
An emerging consideration for environmental health risk assessment. In press
(Comments in Toxicology).
Calabrese, E.J.; Pastides, H.; Barnes, R.; Edwards, C.; Kostecki, P.T.; et al. (1989)
How much soil do young children ingest: an epidemiologic study. In: Petroleum
Contaminated Soils, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml. pp. 363-397.
Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J.; Gilbert, C.E.; Barnes, R.M. (1990) Preliminary adult soil
ingestion estimates; results of a pilot study. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 12:88-95.
Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J.; Gilbert, C.E. (1991) Evidence of soil-pica behavior and
quantification of soil ingested. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 10:245-249.
Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J. (1992) Distinguishing outdoor soil ingestion from indoor
dust ingestion in a soil pica child. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15:83-85.
-------
Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J. (1995) Resolving intertracer inconsistencies in soil
ingestion estimation. Environ. Health Perspect. 103(5):454-456.
Clausing, P.; Brunekreef, B.; Van Wijnen, J.H. (1987) A method for estimating soil
ingestion by children. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health (W. Germany) 59(1):73-82.
Danford, D.C. (1982) Pica and nutrition. Annual Review of Nutrition. 2:303-322.
Davis, S.; Waller, P.; Buschbon, R.; Ballou, J.; White, P. (1990) Quantitative
estimates of soil ingestion in normal children between the ages of 2 and 7 years:
population based estimates using aluminum, silicon, and titanium as soil tracer
elements. Arch. Environ. Hlth. 45:112-122.
Day, J.P.; Hart, M.; Robinson, M.S. (1975) Lead in urban street dust. Nature
253:343-345.
Duggan, M.J.; Williams, S. (1977) Lead in dust in city streets. Sci. Total Environ.
7:91-97.
Feldman, M.D. (1986) Pica: current perspectives. Psychosomatics (USA)
27(7):519-523.
Forfar, J.O.; Arneil, G.C., eds. (1984) Textbook of Paediatrics. 3rd ed. London:
Churchill Livingstone.
Hawley, J.K. (1985) Assessment of health risk from exposure to contaminated soil.
Risk Anal. 5:289-302.
Illingworth, R.S. (1983) The normal child. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Kaplan, H.I.; Sadock, B.J. (1985) Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry/IV.
Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Kimbrough, R.; Falk, H.; Stemr, P.; Fries, G. (1984) Health implications of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) contamination of residential soil. J. Toxicol.
Environ. Health 14:47-93.
Krablin, R. (1989) [Letter to Jonathan Z. Cannon concerning soil ingestion rates.]
Denver, CO: Arco Coal Co.; October 13, 1989.
Lepow, M.L.; Bruckman, L; Robino, R.A.; Markowitz, S.; Gillette, M.; etal. (1974) Role
of airborne lead in increased body burden of lead in Hartford children. Environ.
Health Perspect. 6:99-101.
-------
Lepow, M.L.; Buckman, L; Gillette, M.; Markowitz, S.; Robino, R.; et al. (1975)
Investigations into sources of lead in the environment of urban children. Environ.
Res. 10:415-426.
Lourie, R.S.; Layman, E.M.; Millican, F.K. (1963) Why children eat things that are not
food. Children 10:143-146.
Roels, H.; Buchet, J.P.; Lauwerys, R.R. (1980) Exposure to lead by the oral and
pulminary route of children living in the vicinity of a primary lead smelter. Environ.
Res. 22:81-94.
Sayetta, R.B. (1986) Pica: An overview. American Family Physician 33(5): 181-185.
Sedman, R.; Mahmood, R.S. (1994) Soil ingestion by children and adults
reconsidered using the results of recent tracer studies. Air and Waste, 44:141-144.
Sheppard, S.C. (1995) Parameter values to model the soil ingestion pathway.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 34:27-44.
Stanek, E.J.; Calabrese, E.J. (1995a) Daily estimates of soil ingestion in children.
Environ. Health Perspect. 103(3):276-285.
Stanek, E.J.; Calabrese, E.J. (1995b) Soil ingestion estimates for use in site
evaluations based on the best tracer method. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment. 1:133-156.
Thompson, K.M.; Burmaster, D.E. (1991) Parametric distributions for soil ingestion by
children. Risk Analysis. 11:339-342.
U.S. EPA. (1984) Risk analysis of TCDD contaminated soil. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
EPA 600/8-84-031.
Van Wijnen, J.H.; Clausing, P.; Brunekreff, B. (1990) Estimated soil ingestion by
children. Environ. Res. 51:147-162.
Vermeer, D.E.; Frate, D.A. (1979) Geophagia in rural Mississippi: environmental and
cultural contexts and nutritional implications. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32:2129-2135.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5
Adams, W.C. (1993) Measurement of breathing rate and volume in routinely performed
daily activities, Final Report. California Air Resources Board (GARB) Contract No.
A033-205. June 1993. 185 pgs.
-------
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook.
AIHC, Washington, DC.
Basiotis, P.P.; Thomas, R.G.; Kelsay, J.L.; Mertz, W. (1989) Sources of variation in
energy intake by men and women as determined from one year's daily dietary
records. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 50:448-453.
Benjamin, G.S. (1988) "The lungs." In: Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, Third
Edition, Plog, B.A., ed. Chicago, IL: National Safety Council, p. 31-45.
Brorby, G.; Finley, B. (1993) Standard probability density functions for routine use in
environmental health risk assessment. Presented at the Society of Risk Analysis
Meeting, December 1993, Savannah, GA.
ICRP. (1981) International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report of the task
group on reference man. New York: Pergammon Press.
Layton, D.W. (1993) Metabolically consistent breathing rates for use in dose
assessments. Health Physics 64(1 ):23-36.
Linn, W.S.; Shamoo, D.A.; Hackney, J.D. (1992) Documentation of activity patterns in
"high-risk" groups exposed to ozone in the Los Angeles area. In: Proceedings of the
Second EPA/AWMA Conference on Tropospheric Ozone, Atlanta, Nov. 1991. pp.
701-712. Air and Waste Management Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA.
Linn, W.S.; Spier, C.E.; Hackney, J.D. (1993) Activity patterns in ozone-exposed
construction workers. J. Occ. Med. Tox. 2(1): 1-14.
Menzel, D.B.; Amdur, M.O. (1986) Toxic responses of the respiratory system. In:
Klaassen, C.; Amdur, M.O.; Doull, J., eds. Toxicology, The Basic Science of
Poisons. 3rd edition. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Najjar, M.F.; Rowland, M. (1987) Anthropometric reference data and prevalence of
overweight: United States. 1976-80. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
Statistics. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: DHHS Publication No.
(PHS)87-1688.
Palisade. (1992) @Risk User Guide. Newfield, NY: Palisade Corporation.
Sallis, J.F.; Haskell, W.L.; Wood, P.O.; Fortmann, S.P.; Rogers, T.; Blair, S.N.;
Paffenbarger, Jr., R.S. (1985) Physical activity assessment methodology in the Five-
City project. Am. J. Epidemiol. 121:91-106.
Shamoo, D.A.; Trim, S.C.; Little, D.E.; Linn, W.S.; Hackney, J.D. (1990) Improved
quantitation of air pollution dose rates by improved estimation of ventilation rate. In:
-------
Total Exposure Assessment Methodology: A New Horizon, pp. 553-564. Air and
Waste Management Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA.
Shamoo, D.A.; Johnson, T.R.; Trim, S.C.; Little, D.E.; Linn, W.S.; Hackney, J.D. (1991)
Activity patterns in a panel of outdoor workers exposed to oxidant pollution. J. Expos.
Anal. Environ. Epidem. 1(4):423-438.
Shamoo, D.A.; Trim, S.C.; Little, D.E.; Whynot, J.D.; Linn, W.S. (1992) Effectiveness of
training subjects to estimate their level of ventilation. J. Occ. Med. Tox. 1(1):55-62.
Spier, C.E.; Little, D.E.; Trim, S.C.; Johnson, T.R.; Linn, W.S.; Hackney, J.D. (1992)
Activity patterns in elementary and high school students exposed to oxidant
pollution. J. Exp. Anal. Environ. Epid. 2(3):277-293.
U.S. EPA. (1985) Development of statistical distributions or ranges of standard factors
used in exposure assessments. Washington, DC: Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment; EPA report No. EPA 600/8-85-010. Available from:
NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB85-242667.
U.S. EPA. (1989) Exposure factors handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Research
and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/18-
89/043.
U.S. EPA. (1992) Guidelines for exposure assessment. Washington, DC: Office of
Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessments.
EPA/600/Z-92/001.
U.S. EPA. (1994) Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and
application of inhalation dosimetry. Washington, DC: Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/8-90/066F.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook.
Washington, DC: AIHC.
Boyd, E. (1935) The growth of the surface area of the human body. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Brainard, J.B.; Burmaster, D.E. (1992) Bivariate distributions for height and weight,
men and women in the United States. Risk Anal. 12(2):267-275.
Brorby, G.; Finley B. (1993) Standard probability density functions for routine use in
environmental health risk assessment. Presented at the Society of Risk Analysis
Annual Meeting, December 1993, Savannah, GA.
-------
Buhyoff, G.J.; Rauscher, H.M.; Hull, R.B.; Killeen, K.; Kirk, R.C. (1982) User's Manual
for Statistical Processing System (version 3C.1). Southeast Technical Associates,
Inc.
Costeff, H. (1966) A simple empirical formula for calculating approximate surface area
in children. Arch. Dis. Childh. 41:681-683.
Driver, J.H.; Konz, J.J.; Whitmyre, G.K. (1989) Soil adherence to human skin. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43:814-820.
Dubois, D.; Dubois, E.F. (1916) A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if
height and weight be known. Arch, of Intern. Med. 17:863-871.
Gehan, E.; George, G.L. (1970) Estimation of human body surface area from height
and weight. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 54(4):225-235.
Geigy Scientific Tables (1981) Nomograms for determination of body surface area from
height and mass. Lentner, C. (ed.). CIBA-Geigy Corporation, West Caldwell, NJ.
pp. 226-227.
George, S.L.; Gehan, E.A.; Haycock, G.B.; Schwartz, G.J. (1979) Letters to the editor.
J. Red. 94(2):342.
Haycock, G.B.; Schwartz, G.J.; Wisotsky, D.H. (1978) Geometric method for
measuring body surface area: A height-weight formula validated in infants, children,
and adults. J. Red. 93(1):62-66.
Holmes, K.K.; Kissel, J.C.; Richter,K.Y. (1996) Investigation of the influence of oil on
soil adherence to skin. J. Soil Contam. 5(4):301-308.
Kissel, J.; Richter, K.; Duff, R.; Fenske, R. (1996a) Factors Affecting Soil Adherence to
Skin in Hand-Press Trials. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 56:722-728.
Kissel, J.; Richter, K.; Fenske, R. (1996b) Field measurements of dermal soil loading
attributable to various activities: Implications for exposure assessment. Risk Anal.
Lepow, M.L.; Bruckman, L; Gillette, M.; Markowitz, S.; Rubino, R.; Kapish, J. (1975)
Investigations into sources of lead in the environment of urban children. Environ.
Res. 10:415-426.
Murray, D.M.; Burmaster, D.E. (1992) Estimated distributions for total surface area of
men and women in the United States. J. Expos. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 3(4):451-
462.
-------
Palisade. (1992) @Risk users guide. Palisade Corporation, Newfield, NY.
Phillips, L.J.; Fares, R.J.; Schweer, L.G. (1993) Distributions of total skin surface area
to body weight ratios for use in dermal exposure assessments. J. Expos. Anal.
Environ. Epidemiol. 3(3):331-338.
Popendorf, W.J.; Leffingwell, J.T. (1976) Regulating OP pesticide residues for
farmworker protection. In: Residue Review 82. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag
New York, Inc., 1982. pp. 125-201.
Que Hee, S.S.; Peace, B.; Clark, C.S.; Boyle, J.R.; Bornschein, R.L.; Hammond, P.B.
(1985) Evolution of efficient methods to sample lead sources, such as house dust
and hand dust, in the homes of children. Environ. Res. 38: 77-95.
Rochon, J.; Kalsbeek, W.D. (1983) Variance estimation from multi-stage sample
survey data: the jackknife repeated replicate approach. Presented at 1983 SAS
Users Group Conference, New Orleans, Louisiania, January 1983.
Roels, H.A.; Buchet, J.P.; Lauwenys, R.R.; Branx, P.; Claeys-Thoreau, F.; Lafontaine,
A.; Verduyn, G. (1980) Exposure to lead by oral and pulmonary routes of children
living in the vicinity of a primary lead smelter. Environ. Res. 22:81-94.
Sedman, R.M. (1989) The development of applied action levels for soil contact: a
scenario for the exposure of humans to soil in a residential setting. Environ. Health
Perspect. 79:291-313.
Sendroy, J.; Cecchini, L.P. (1954) Determination of human body surface area from
height and weight. J. Appl. Physiol. 7(1):3-12.
Thompson, K.M.; Burmaster, D.E. (1991) Parametric distributions for soil ingestion by
children. Risk . Anal. 11(2):339-342.
U.S. EPA. (1985) Development of statistical distributions or ranges of standard factors
used in exposure assessments. Washington, DC: Office of Research and
Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA 600/8-85-010.
Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA. PB85-242667.
U.S. EPA. (1989) Exposure factors handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Research
and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/18-
89/043.
U.S. EPA. (1992a) Guidelines for exposure assessment. Federal Register. FR
57:104:22888-22938. May 29, 1992.
U.S. EPA. (1992b) Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications.
-------
Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment/OHEA. U.S. EPA/600/8-9-91.
Van Graan, C.H. (1969) The determination of body surface area. Supplement to the
South African J. of Lab. and Clin. Med. 8-2-69.
Versar, Inc. (1991) Analysis of the impact of exposure assumptions on risk assessment
of chemicals in the environment, phase II: uncertainty analyses of existing exposure
assessment methods. Draft Report. Prepared for Exposure Assessment Task
Group, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.
Yang, J.J.; Roy, T.A.; Krueger, A.J.; Neil, W.; Mackerer, C.R. (1989) In vitro and in
vivo percutaneous absorption of benzo[a]pyrene from petroleum crude-fortified soil
in the rat. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43: 207-214.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook.
AIHC, Washington, DC.
Brainard, J.; Burmaster, D. (1992) Bivariate distributions for height and weight of men
and women in the United States. Risk Anal. 12(2):267-275.
Brorby, G.; Finley, G. (1993) Standard probability density functions for routine use in
environmental health risk assessment. Presented at the Society of Risk Analysis
Annual Meeting, December 1993, Savannah, GA.
Burmaster, D.E.; Lloyd, K.J.; Crouch, E.A.C. (1994) Lognormal distributions of body
weight as a function of age for female and male children in the United States.
Submitted 2/19/94 to Risk Analysis for publication.
Hamill, P.V.V.; Drizd, T.A.; Johnson, C.L.; Reed, R.B.; Roche, A.F.; Moore, W.M.
(1979) Physical growth: National Center for Health Statistics Percentiles.
American J. Clin. Nutr. 32:607-609.
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (1987) Anthropometric reference data
and prevalence of overweight, United States, 1976-80. Data from the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Series 11, No. 238. Hyattsville, MD: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Center
for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 87-1688.
Palisade. (1992) @Risk Users Guide. Palisade Corporation, Newfield, NY.
-------
U.S. EPA (1989) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human health
evaluation manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002.
Versar, Inc. (1991) Analysis of the impact of exposure assumptions on risk assessment
of chemicals in the environment, phase II: uncertainty analyses of existing exposure
assessment methods. Draft Report. Prepared for Exposure Assessment Task
Group, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995) Statistical abstracts of the United States.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook.
AIHC, Washington, DC.
Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare, Bureau of National Sciences,
Health Protection Branch (n.d.). Food Consumption, Patterns Report: A report from
Nutrition Canada.
Kariya, J. (1992) Written communication to L. Phillips, Versar, Inc., March 4, 1992.
Pao, E.M.; Fleming, K.H.; Guenther, P.M.; Mickle, S.J. (1982) Foods commonly eaten
by individuals: amount per day and per eating occasion. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Home Economics Report No. 44.
Pennington, J.A.T. (1983) Revision of the total diet study food list and diets. J. Am.
Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1990) SAS Procedures Guide, Version 6, Third Edition, Gary, NC:
SAS Institute, Inc., 1990, 705 pp.
USDA. (1972) Food consumption: households in the United States, Seasons and
year 1965-1966. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA. (1979-1986) Agricultural Handbook No. 8. United States Department of
Agriculture.
USDA. (1980) Food and nutrient intakes of individuals in one day in the United States,
Spring 1977. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-1978. U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Preliminary Report No. 2.
-------
USDA. (1992a) Changes in food consumption and expenditures in American
households during the 1980s. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
Statistical Bulletin No. 849.
USDA. (1992b) Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 day,
1987-88: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service.
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88, NFCS Rpt. No. 87-1-1.
USDA. (1993) Food consumption prices and expenditures (1970-1992) U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Statistical Bulletin, No.
867.
USDA. (1995) Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 day,
1989-91. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. NFS
Report No. 91-2.
USDA. (1996a) Data tables: results from USDA's 1994 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals and 1994 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Riverdale, MD.
USDA. (1996b) Data tables: results from USDA's 1995 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals and 1995 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Riverdale, MD.
U.S. EPA. (1984a) An estimation of the daily average food intake by age and sex for
use in assessing the radionuclide intake of individuals in the general population.
EPA-520/1-84-021.
U.S. EPA. (1984b) An estimation of the daily food intake based on data from the
1977-1978 USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Washington, DC: Office
of Radiation Programs. EPA-520/1-84-015.
U.S. EPA. (1989) Development of risk assessment methodologies for land application
and distribution and marketing of municipal sludge. Washington, DC: Office of
Science and Technology. EPA 600/-89/001.
White, S.B.; Peterson, B.; Clayton, C.A.; Duncan, D.P. (1983) Interim Report Number
1: The construction of a raw agricultural commodity consumption data base.
Prepared by Research Triangle Institute for EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10
American Industrial Hygiene Council (AIHC) (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook.
AIHC, Washington, DC.
-------
ChemRisk (1992) Consumption of freshwater fish by Maine anglers. A Technical
Report. Portland, ME: ChemRisk, A Division of MeLaren / Hart. Revised July 24,
1994
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). (1994) A fish consumption
survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama and Warm Springs tribes of the
Columbia River Basin. Technical Report 94-3. Portland, OR: CRIFTC.
Connelly, N.A.; Knuth, B.A.; Bisogni, C.A. (1992) Effects of the health advisory and
advisory changes on fishing habits and fish consumption in New York sport
fisheries. Human Dimension Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources,
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Fernow Hall, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY. Report for the New York Sea Grant Institute Project No.
R/FHD-2-PD. September.
Connelly, N.A.; Knuth, B.A.; Brown, T.L. (1996) Sportfish consumption patterns of
Lake Ontario anglers and the relationship to health advisories. N. Am. J. Fisheries
Management, 16:90-101.
Ebert, E.; Harrington, N.; Boyle, K.; Knight, J.; Keenan, R. (1993) Estimating
consumption of freshwater fish among Maine anglers. N. Am. J. Fisheries
Management 13:737-745.
Fiore, B.J.; Anderson, H.A.; Hanrahan, L.P.; Olsen, L.J.; Sonzogni, W.C. (1989) Sport
fish consumption and body burden levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons: A study of
Wisconsin anglers. Arch. Environ. Health 44:82-88.
Fitzgerald, E.; Hwang, S.A.; Briz, K.A.; Bush, B.; Cook, K.; Worswick, P. (1995) Fish
PCB concentrations and consumption patterns among Mohawk women at
Akwesasne. J. Exp. Anal. Environ. Epid. 5(1): 1-19.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (1993) Hudson River angler survey. Hudson
River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., Poughkeepsie, NY.
Javitz, H. (1980) Seafood consumption data analysis. SRI International. Final report
prepared for EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards. EPA Contract
68-01-3887.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1986a) Fisheries of the United States,
1985. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 8368. U.S. Department of Commerce.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1986b) National Marine Fisheries
Service. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,
1985. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 8327. U.S. Department of Commerce,
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1986c) National Marine Fisheries
Service. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Pacific Coast. Current
Fisheries Statistics No. 8328. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1993) Data tapes for the 1993 NMFS
provided to U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessments.
Pao, E.M.; Fleming, K.H.; Guenther, P.M.; Mickle, S.J. (1982) Foods commonly eaten
by individuals: amount per day and per eating occasion. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Home Economics Report No. 44.
Peterson, D.; Kanarek, M.; Kuykendall, M.; Diedrich, J.; Anderson, H.; Remington, P.;
Sheffy, T. (1994) Fish consumption patterns and blood mercury levels in
Wisconsin Chippewa Indians. Archives. Environ. Health, 49:53-58.
Pierce, R.S.; Noviello, D.T.; Rogers, S.H. (1981) Commencement Bay seafood
consumption report. Preliminary report. Tacoma, WA: Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department.
Price, P.; Su, S.; Gray, M. (1994) The effects of sampling bias on estimates of angler
consumption rates in creel surveys. Portland, ME: ChemRisk.
Puffer, H.W., Azen, S.P.; Duda, M.J.; Young, D.R. (1981) Consumption rates of
potentially hazardous marine fish caught in the metropolitan Los Angeles area.
EPA Grant #R807 120010.
Ruffle, B.; Burmaster, D.; Anderson, P.; Gordon, D. (1994) Lognormal distributions for
fish consumption by the general U.S. population. Risk Analysis 14(4):395-404.
Rupp, E.; Miler, F.L.; Baes, C.F. III. (1980) Some results of recent surveys of fish and
shellfish consumption by age and region of U.S. residents. Health Physics 39:165-
175.
San Diego County. (1990) San Diego Bay health risk study. San Diego, CA. San
Diego County Department of Health Services.
Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. (1996) Results tables from a detailed analysis of the
National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) response. Draft Report prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Lockheed Martin, Contract No. 68-
W6-001, Delivery Order No. 13.
USDA. (1979-1984) Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
-------
USDA. (1989-1991) Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
USDA. (1992a) Changes in food consumption and expenditures in American
households during the 1980's. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
Statistical Bulletin No. 849.
USDA. (1992b) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service.
Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1987-88:
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88, NFCS Rpt. No. 87-1-1, in
preparation.
USDA. (1996a) Data tables: results from USDA's 1994 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals and 1994 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Riverdale, MD.
USDA. (1996b) Data tables: results from USDA's 1995 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals and 1995 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Riverdale, MD.
U.S. DHHS. (1995) Final Report: Health study to assess the human health effects of
mercury exposure to fish consumed from the Everglades. Prepared by the Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia. PB95-167276.
U.S. EPA. (1984) Ambient water quality criteria for 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-
dioxin. Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations and Standards. EPA 440/5-
84-007.
U.S. EPA. (1989a) Exposure factors handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment,
U.S. EPA. (1989b) Assessing human health risks from chemically contaminated fish
and shellfish: a guidance manual. Washington, DC: Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection. EPA 503/8-89-002.
U.S. EPA. (1992) Consumption surveys for fish and shellfish; a review and analysis of
survey methods. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA 822/R-92-001.
U.S. EPA. (1995) Fish consumption estimates based on the 1991-92 Michigan sport
anglers fish consumption study. Final Report. Prepared by SAIC for the Office of
Science and Technology.
U.S. EPA. (1996a) Daily average per capita fish consumption estimates based on the
combined USDA 1989, 1990 and 1991 continuing survey of food intakes by
-------
individuals (CSFII) 1989-91 data. Volumes I and II. Preliminary Draft Report.
Washington, DC: Office of Water.
U.S. EPA. (1996b) Estimating exposure to dioxin-like compounds. (Draft).
Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment.
West, P.C.; Fly, M.J.; Marans, R.; Larkin, F. (1989) Michigan sport anglers fish
consumption survey. A report to the Michigan Toxic Substance Control
Commission. Michigan Department of Management and Budget Contract No. 87-
20141.
West, P.C.; Fly, J.M.; Marans, R.; Larkin, F.; Rosenblatt, D. (1993) 1991-92 Michigan
sport anglers fish consumption study. Prepared by the University of Michigan,
School of Natural Resources for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Ann Arbor, Ml. Technical Report No. 6. May.
Wolfe, R.J.; Walker, R.J. (1987) Subsistence economies in Alaska: productivity,
geography, and development impacts. Arctic Anthropology 24(2):56-81.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook.
Washington, DC., AIHC.
CDC. (1994) Dietary fat and total food-energy intake. Third National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, Phase 1, 1988-91. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, February 25, 1994: 43(7)118-125.
Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, B.L. (1992) Opportunities for improving exposure
assessments using population distribution estimates. Presented for the Committee
on Risk Assessment Methodology, February 10-11, Washington, DC.
National Livestock and Meat Board (NLMB). (1993) Eating in America today: A
dietary pattern and intake report. National Livestock and Meat Board. Chicago, IL.
Pao, E.M.; Fleming, K.H.; Guenther, P.M.; Mickle, S.J. (1982) Foods commonly eaten
by individuals: amount per day and per eating occasion. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Home Economics Report No. 44.
Pennington, J.A.T. (1983) Revision of the total diet study food list and diets. J. Am.
Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
USDA. (1979-1984) Agricultural Handbook No. 8. United States Department of
Agriculture.
-------
USDA. (1980) Food and nutrient intakes of individuals in one day in the United States,
Spring 1977. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey
1977-1978. Preliminary Report No. 2.
USDA. (1992) Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 day,
1987-88. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service.
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88, NFCS Rpt. No. 87-1-1.
USDA. (1993) Food consumption, prices, and expenditures (1970-1992) U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Statistical Bulletin, No. 867.
USDA. (1994) Meat and poultry inspection; 1994 report of the Secretary of Agriculture
to the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA. (1996a) Data tables: results from USDA's 1994 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals and 1994 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Riverdale, MD.
USDA. (1996b) Data tables: results from USDA's 1995 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals and 1995 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Riverdale, MD.
U.S. EPA. (1984a) An estimation of the daily average food intake by age and sex for
use in assessing the radionuclide intake of individuals in the general population.
EPA-520/1-84-021.
U.S. EPA. (1984b) An estimation of the daily food intake based on data from the
1977-1978 USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Washington, DC: Office of
Radiation Programs. EPA-520/1-84-015.
U.S. EPA. (1989) Development of risk assessment methodologies for land application
and distribution and marketing of municipal sludge. Washington, DC: Office of
Science and Technology. EPA 600/-89/001.
White, S.B.; Peterson, B.; Clayton, C.A.; Duncan, D.P. (1983) Interim Report Number
1: The construction of a raw agricultural commodity consumption data base.
Prepared by Research Triangle Institute for EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12
Pao, E.M.; Fleming, K.H.; Guenther, P.M.; Mickle, S.J. (1982) Foods commonly eaten
by individuals: amount per day and per eating occasion. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Home Economics Report No. 44.
-------
Pennington, J.A.T. (1983) Revision of the total diet study food list and diets. J. Am.
Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
USDA. (1980) Food and nutrient intakes of individuals in one day in the United States,
Spring 1977. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey 1977-1978. Preliminary Report No. 2.
USDA. (1992) Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 day,
1987-88. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service.
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88, NFCS Rpt. No. 87-1-1.
USDA. (1993) Food consumption prices and expenditures (1970-1992) U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Statistical Bulletin, No. 867.
USDA. (1996a) Data tables: results from USDA's 1994 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals and 1994 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Riverdale, MD.
USDA. (1996b) Data tables: results from USDA's 1995 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals and 1995 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Riverdale, MD.
U.S. EPA. (1984a) An estimation of the daily average food intake by age and sex for
use in assessing the radionuclide intake of individuals in the general population.
EPA-520/1-84-021.
U.S. EPA. (1984b) An estimation of the daily food intake based on data from the
1977-1978 USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Washington, DC: Office
of Radiation Programs. EPA-520/1-84-015.
U.S. EPA. (1989) Development of risk assessment methodologies for land application
and distribution and marketing of municipal sludge. Washington, DC: Office of
Science and Technology. EPA 600/-89/001.
White, S.B.; Peterson, B.; Clayton, C.A.; Duncan, D.P. (1983) Interim Report Number
1: The construction of a raw agricultural commodity consumption data base.
Prepared by Research Triangle Institute for EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 13
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC) (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook. AIHC,
Washington, DC.
National Gardening Association. (1987) National gardening survey: 1986-1987.
Burlington, Vermont: The National Gardening Association, Inc.
-------
USDA. (1975) Food yields summarized by different stages of preparation. Agriculture
Handbook No. 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Washington, DC.
USDA. (1987-88) Dataset: Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987/88 Household
Food Use. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 1987/88 NFCS
Database.
USDA. (1992) Changes in food consumption and expenditures in American
households during the 1980's. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
Statistical Bulletin No. 849.
USDA. (1993) Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 Day,
1987-88. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987-88, NFCS Report No. 87-1-1.
USDA. (1994) Food consumption and dietary levels of households in the United
States, 1987-88. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
Report No. 87-H-1.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 14
Axelsson, I.; Borulf, S.; Righard, L; Raiha, N. (1987) Protein and energy intake during
weaning: effects and growth. Acta Paediatr. Scand. 76:321-327.
Brown, K.H.; Akhtar, N.A.; Robertson, A.D.; Ahmed, M.G. (1986a) Lactational capacity
of marginally nourished mothers: relationships between maternal nutritional status
and quantity and proximate composition of milk. Pediatrics. 78: 909-919.
Brown, K.H.; Robertson, A.D.; Akhtar, N.A. (1986b) Lactational capacity of marginally
nourished mothers: infants' milk nutrient consumption and patterns of growth.
Pediatrics. 78: 920-927.
Butte, N.F.; Garza, C.; Smith, E.G.; Nichols, B.L. (1984) Human milk intake and
growth in exclusively breast-fed infants. Journal of Pediatrics. 104:187-195.
Dewey, K.G.; Lonnerdal, B. (1983) Milk and nutrient intake of breast-fed infants from 1
to 6 months:relation to growth and fatness. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology
and Nutrition. 2:497-506.
Dewey, K.G.; Heinig, J.; Nommsen, L.A.; Lonnerdal, B. (1991a) Maternal versus infant
factors related to breast milk intake and residual volume: the DARLING study.
Pediatrics. 87:829-837.
-------
Dewey, K.G.; Heinig, J.; Nommsen, L; Lonnerdal, B. (1991 b) Adequacy of energy
intake among breast-fed infants in the DARLING study: relationships to growth,
velocity, morbidity, and activity levels. The Journal of Pediatrics. 119:538-547.
Hofvander, Y.; Hagman, U.; Hillervik, C.; Sjolin, S. (1982) The amount of milk
consumed by 1-3 months old breast- or bottle-fed infants. Acta Paediatr. Scand.
71:953-958.
Kohler, L.; Meeuwisse, G.; Mortensson, W. (1984) Food intake and growth of infants
between six and twenty-six weeks of age on breast milk, cow's milk formula, and soy
formula. Acta Paediatr. Scand. 73:40-48.
Lonnerdal, B.; Forsum, E.; Gebre-Medhim, M.; Hombraes, L. (1976) Breast milk
composition in Ethiopian and Swedish mothers: lactose, nitrogen, and protein
contents. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 29:1134-1141.
Maxwell, N.I.; Burmaster, D.E. (1993) A simulation model to estimate a distribution of
lipid intake from breast milk during the first year of life. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 3:383-406.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1991) Nutrition during lactation. Washington,
DC. National Academy Press.
Neville, M.C.; Keller, R.; Seacat, J.; Lutes, V.; Neifert, M.; et al. (1988) Studies in
human lactation: milk volumes in lactating women during the onset of lactation and
full lactation. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 48:1375-1386.
Pao, E.M.; Mines, J.M.; Roche, A.F. (1980) Milk intakes and feeding patterns of
breast-fed infants. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 77:540-545.
Ryan, A.S.; Rush, D.; Krieger, F.W.; Lewandowski, G.E. (1991) Recent declines in
breastfeeding in the United States, 1984-1989. Pediatrics. 88:719-727.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 15
AIHC. (1994) Exposure factors sourcebook. Washington, DC. American Industrial
Health Council.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1987) Most occupational exposures are voluntary.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Carey, M. (1988) Occupational tenure in 1987: Many workers have remained in their
fields. Monthly Labor Review. October 1988. 3-12.
-------
Carey, M. (1990) Occupational tenure, employer tenure, and occupational mobility.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Summer 1990: 55-60.
Hill, M.S. (1985) Patterns of time use. In: Juster, FT.; Stafford, P.P., eds. Time,
goods, and well-being. Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan, Survey Research
Center, Institute for Social Research, pp. 133-166.
Israeli, M; Nelson, C.B. (1992) Distribution and expected time of residence for U.S.
households. Risk Anal. 12(1):65-72.
James, I.R.; Knuiman, M.W. (1987) An application of Bayes methodology to the
analysis of diary records from a water use study. J. Am. Sta. Assoc.
82(399):705-711.
Johnson, T. and Capel, J. (1992) A monte carlo approach to simulating residential
occupancy periods and its application to the general U.S. population. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality and
Standards.
Juster, FT.; Hill, M.S.; Stafford, P.P.; Parsons, J.E. (1983) Study description.
1975-1981 time use longitudinal panel study. Ann Arbor, Ml: The University of
Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research.
Lehman, H.J. (1994) Homeowners relocating at faster pace. Virginia Homes
Newspaper, Saturday, June 15, P. E1.
National Association of Realtors (NAR). (1993) The homebuying and selling process:
1993. The Real Estate Business Series. Washington, DC: NAR.
Palisade. (1992) @Risk users guide. Newfield, NY: Palisade Corporation.
Robinson, J.P. (1977) Changes in Americans'use of time: 1965-1975. A progress
report. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State University, Communication Research
Center.
Robinson, J.P; Thomas, J. (1991) Time spent in activities, locations, and
microenvironments: a California-National Comparison Project report. Las Vegas,
NV: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory.
-------
Sell, J. (1989) The use of children's activity patterns in the development of a strategy
for soil sampling in West Central Phoenix. The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, Phoenix, Arizona.
Sexton, K; Ryan, P.B. (1987) Assessment of human exposure to air pollution:
methods, measurements, and models. In: Watson, A.; Bates, R.R.; Kennedy, D.,
eds. Air pollution, the automobile and public health: research opportunities for
quantifying risk. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
Tarshis, B. (1981) The "Average American" book. New York, NY: New American
Library, p. 191.
Timmer, S.G.; Eccles, J.; O'Brien, K. (1985) How children use time. In: Juster, FT.;
Stafford, P.P.; eds. Time, goods, and well-being. Ann Arbor, Ml: University of
Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, pp. 353-380.
Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. (1996) Results tables from a detailed analysis of the
National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) response. Draft Report prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Lockheed Martin, Contract No. 68-
W6-001, Delivery Order No. 13.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1993a) Geographical mobility: March 1991 to March
1992. Current population reports P.20-473.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1993b) American Housing Survey for the United States in
1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. EPA. (1989) Exposure factors handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/08-89/043.
U.S. EPA. (1992) Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications.
Washington, DC: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA No. 600/8-
91-011B. Interim Report.
Wiley, J.A.; Robinson, J.P.; Cheng, Y.; Piazza, T.; Stork, L; Plasden, K. (1991) Study
of children's activity patterns. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Resources Board Research Division. Sacramento, CA.
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 16
Abt. (1992) Methylene chloride consumer products use survey findings. Prepared by
Abt Associates, Inc. for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda,
MD.
Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA). (1983). Summary of the results
of surveys of the amount and frequency of use of cosmetic products by women.
Prepared by Environ Corporation, Washington, DC for CFFA Inc., Washington, DC.
Hakkinen, P.J.; Kelling, C.K.; Callender, J.C. (1991) Exposure assessment of
consumer products: Human body weights and total body surface areas to use; and
sources of data for specific products. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 1 (33):61 -
65.
Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. (1996) Results tables from a detailed analysis of the
National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) response. Draft Report prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Lockheed Martin, Contract No. 68-
W6-001, Delivery Order No. 13.
U.S. EPA. (1986) Standard scenarios for estimating exposure to chemical substances
during use of consumer products. Prepared by Versar, Inc. For the Office of Toxic
Substances, Contract No. 68-02-3968.
U.S. EPA. (1987) Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances - Volume 7
- Methods for assessing consumer exposure to chemical substances. Washington,
DC: Office of Toxic Substances. EPA Report No. 560/5-85-007.
Westat. (1987a) Household solvent products - a national usage survey. Under
Subcontract to Battelle Columbus Div., Washington DC. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA. PB88-132881.
Westat. (1987b) National usage survey of household cleaning products. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances and Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
Westat. (1987c) National household survey of interior painters. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances and Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington DC.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 17
Andelman, J.B. (1990) Total exposure to volatile organic compounds in potable water.
In: Ram, N, et al., eds. Significance and Treatment of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Water Supplies, pp 485-504, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml.
-------
Andersson, B., K. Andersson, J. Sundell, and P.-A. Zingmark. (1993) Mass transfer of
contaminants in rotary enthalpy heat exchangers. Indoor Air. 3:143-148.
ASHRAE. (1988) ASHRAE Handbook: Equipment. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Atlanta, GA
ASHRAE. (1993) ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Atlanta, GA.
ASTM. (1989) Standard laboratory test method for evaluation of carpet-embedded dirt
removal effectiveness of household vacuum cleaners. Designation: F 608-89.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM. (1990) Test method for determining formaldehyde levels from wood products
under defined conditions using a large chamber. Standard E 1333 90. American
Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia.
Axley, J.W. (1988) Progress toward a general analytical method for predicting indoor
air pollution in buildings: indoor air quality modeling phase III report. NBSIR 88-
3814. National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersberg, MD.
Axley, J.W. (1989) Multi-zone dispersal analysis by element assembly. Building and
Environment. 24(2): 113-130.
Axley, J.W.; Lorenzetti, D. (1993) Sorption transport models for indoor air quality
analysis. In: Nagda, N.L. Ed., Modeling of Indoor Air Quality and Exposure. ASTM
STP 1205. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 105-
127.
Baughman, A.V.; Gadgil, A.J.; Nazaroff, W.W. (1994) Mixing of a point source pollutant
by natural convection flow within a room. Indoor Air. 4:114-122.
Chang, J.C.S.; Guo, Z. (1992) Characterization of organic emissions from a wood
finishing product - wood stain. Indoor Air. 2(3): 146-53.
Consumer Reports. (1982) Washing machines. Consumer Reports Magazine. 47(10).
Consumer Reports. (1987) Dishwashers. Consumer Reports Magazine. 52(6).
Cussler, E.L. (1984) Diffusion. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Dietz, R.N.; Goodrich, R.W.; Cote, E.A.; Wieser, R.F. (1986) Detailed description and
performance of a passive perfluorocarbon tracer system for building ventilation and
air exchange measurements. H.R. Trechsel and P.L. Lagus, Eds. In: Measured Air
Leakage of Buildings. ASTM STP 904. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for
Testing and Materials, pp. 203-264.
-------
Drescher, A.C.; Lobascio, C.; Gadgil, A.J.; Nazaroff, W.W. (1995) Mixing of a Point-
Source Indoor Pollutant by Forced Convection. Indoor Air. 5:204-214.
Dunn, J.E. (1987) Models and statistical methods for gaseous emission testing of finite
sources in well-mixed chambers. Atmospheric Environment. (21)2:425-430.
Dunn, J.E.; Chen, T. (1993) Critical evaluation of the diffusion hypothesis in the theory
of porous media volatile organic compounds (VOC) sources and sinks. In: Nagda,
N.L. Ed., Modeling of Indoor Air Quality and Exposure. ASTM STP 1205.
Philadelphia, PA.: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 64-80.
Dunn, J.E.; Tichenor, B.A. (1988) Compensating for sink effects in emissions test
chambers by mathematical modeling. Atmospheric Environ., 22(5)885-894.
EBMUD. (1992) Urban water management plan. East Bay Municipal Utility Water
District, in written communication to J.B. Andelman, July 1992.
Furtaw, E.J.; Pandian, M.D.; Nelson, D.R; Behar, J.V. (1995) Modeling indoor air
concentrations near emission sources in perfectly mixed rooms. Engineering
Solutions to Indoor Air Quality Problems. Presented at Sixth Conference of the
International Society for Environmental Epidemiology and Fourth Conference of the
International Society for Exposure Analysis (Joint Conference), Research Triangle
Park, NC, September 1994.
GEOMET. (1989) Assessment of indoor air pollutant exposure within building zones.
Report Number IE-2149, prepared for USEPA Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment under Contract No. 68-02-4254, Task No. 235. Germantown, MD.:
GEOMET Technologies, Inc.
Giardino, N.J.; Gummerman, E.; Andelman, J.B.; Wilkes, C.R.; Small, M.J. (1990) Real-
time measurements of trichloroethylene in domestic bathrooms using contaminated
water. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and
Climate, Toronto, 2:707-712.
Grimsrud, D.T.; Sherman, M.H.; Sondereggen, R.C. (1983) Calculating infiltration:
implications for a construction quality standard. In: Proceedings of the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Conference.
Thermal Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Buildings II. ASHRAE SP38, Atlanta,
GA, pp. 422-449.
Grot, R.A. (1991) User manual NBS/AVIS CONTAM88. NISTIR 4585, Gaithersberg,
MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Grot, R.A.; Clark, R.E. (1981) Air leakage characteristics and weatherization
techniques for low-income housing. In: Proceedings of the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Conference. Thermal
-------
Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Buildings. ASHRAE SP28, Atlanta, GA, pp.
178-194.
Hanley, J.T.; Ensor, D.S.; Smith, D.D.; Sparks, L.E. (1994) Fractional aerosol filtration
efficiency of in-duct ventilation air cleaners. Indoor Air. 4(3): 179-188.
Hirvonen, A.; Pasanen, P.; Tarhanen, J.; Ruuskanen, J. (1995) Thermal desorption of
organic compounds associated with settled household dust. Indoor Air. 5:255-264.
Jennings, P.O.; Carpenter, C.E.; Krishnan, M.S. (1985) Methods for assessing
exposure to chemical substances volume 12: methods for estimating the
concentration of chemical substances in indoor air. EPA 560/5-85-016, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
Washington, DC.
Jennings, P.O.; Hammerstrom, K.A.; Adkins, L.C.; Chambers, T.; Dixon, D.A. (1987)
Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances volume 7: methods for
assessing consumer exposure to chemical substances. EPA 560/5-85-007, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
Washington, DC.
Koontz, M.D.; Nagda, N.L. (1991) A multichamber model for assessing consumer
inhalation exposure. Indoor Air. 1(4):593-605.
Koontz, M.D.; Rector, H.E. (1995) Estimation of distributions for residential air
Exchange rates, EPA Contract No. 68-D9-0166, Work Assignment No. 3-19, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Washington, DC.
Koontz, M.D.; Rector, H.E.; Fortmann, R.C.; Nagda, N.L. (1988) Preliminary
experiments in a research house to investigate contaminant migration in indoor air.
EPA 560/5-88-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
Layton, D.W.; Thatcher, T.L. (1995) Movement of outdoor particles to the indoor
environment: An analysis of the Arnhem Lead Study. Paper No. 95-MP4.02. Annual
Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association, San Antonio, TX.
Leaderer, B.P.; Schaap, L.; Dietz, R.N. (1985) Evaluation of perfluorocarbon tracer
technique for determining infiltration rates in residences. Environ. Sci. and Technol.
19(12): 1225-1232.
Liddament, M.; Allen, C. (1983) Validation and comparison of mathematical models of
air infiltration. Technical Note AIC 11. Air Infiltration Centre, Great Britain.
-------
Ligman, K.; Hutzler, N.; Boyle, W.C. (1974) Household wastewater characterization. J.
Environ. Eng. 100:201-213.
Little, J.C. (1992) Applying the two-resistance theory to contaminant volatilization in
showers. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 26(7): 1341-1349.
Little, J.C.; Daisey, J.M.; Nazaroff, W.W. (1992) Transport of subsurface contaminants
into buildings - an exposure Pathway for Volatile Organics. Environ. Sci. and
Technol. (26)11:2058-2066.
Lucas, R.M.; Grille, R.B.; Perez-Michael, A.; Kemp, S. (1992) National residential radon
survey statistical analysis - volume 2: summary of the questionnaire data.
RTI/5158/49-2F. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Mage, D.T.; Ott, W.R. (1994) The correction for nonuniform mixing in indoor
environments. ASTM Symposium on Methods for Characterizing Indoor Sources and
Sinks, Washington, DC.
McKone, T.E. (1987) Human exposure to volatile organic compounds in household tap
water: The inhalation pathway. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 21 (12): 1194-1201.
McKone, T.E. (1989) Household exposure models. Toxicol. Letters. 49:321-339.
MWD. (1991) Urban water use characteristics in the metropolitan water district of
southern California. Draft Report. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
August 1991.
Murray, D.M. (1996) residential house and zone volumes in the United States:
Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distributions. Submitted to Risk Analysis in
1996.
Murray, D.M.; Burmaster, D.E. (1995) Residential air exchange rates in the United
States: Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distribution by Season and Climatic
Region. Submitted to Risk Analysis in 1995.
Nazaroff, W.W.; Cass, G.R. (1986) Mathematical modeling of chemically reactive
pollutants in indoor air. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 20:924-934.
Nazaroff, W.W.; Cass, G.R. (1989) Mass-transport aspects of pollutant removal at
indoor surfaces. Environment International, 15:567-584.
Nazaroff, W.W.; Doyle, S.M.; Nero, A.V.; Sextro, R.G. (1988). Radon entry via potable
water. In: Nazaroff, W.W. and Nero, A.V., Eds., Radon and Its Decay Products in
Indoor Air. John Wiley and Sons, NY. pp. 131-157.
-------
Nazaroff, W.W.; Gadgil, A.J.; Weschler, C.J. (1993) Critique of the use of deposition
velocity in modeling indoor air quality. In: Nagda, N.L. Ed., Modeling of Indoor Air
Quality and Exposure, ASTM STP 1205, American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 148-165.
Offerman, F.J.; Sextro, R.G.; Fisk, W.; Nazaroff, W.W.; Nero, A.V.; Revzan, K.L.; Yater,
J. (1984) Control of respirable particles and radon progeny with portable air
cleaners. Report No. LBL-16659, Lawrence Berkley Laboratory, Berkley, CA.
Pandian, M.H.; Behar, J.V.; Thomas, J. (1993) Use of a relational database to predict
human population exposures for different time periods. Proceedings of Indoor Air
'93, Helsinki 3:283-288.
Persily, A.K.; Linteris, G.T. (1984) A comparison of measured and predicted infiltration
rates. ASHRAE Transactions 89(2): 183-199.
Relwani, S.M.; Moschandreas, D.J.; Billick, I.H. (1986) Effects of operational factors on
pollutant emission rates from residential gas appliances. J. Air Poll. Control Assoc.
36:1233-1237.
Roberts, J.W.; Budd, W.T.; Ruby, M.G.; Bond, A.E.; Lewis, R.G.; Wiener, R.W.;
Camann, D.E. (1991) Development and field testing of a high volume sampler for
pesticides and toxics in dust. J. Exposure Anal, and Environ. Epidemiol. (1)2:143-
155
Ryan, P.B. (1991) An overview of human exposure modeling. J. Exposure Anal, and
Environ. Epidemiol. (1)4:453-474.
Sandberg, M. (1984) The Multi-chamber theory reconsidered from the viewpoint of air
quality studies. Building and Environment (19)4:221-233.
Sextro, R.G. (1994) Radon and the natural environment. IN: Nagda, N.L. Ed., Radon -
Prevalence, Measurements, Health Risks and Control, ASTM MNL 15, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 9-32.
Shaughnessy, R.J.; Levetin, E.; Blocker, J.; Sublette, K.L. (1994) Effectiveness of
portable air cleaners: sensory testing results. Indoor Air 4(3): 179-188.
Sherman, M.H. (1989) Analysis of errors associated with passive ventilation
measurement techniques. Building and Environment 24(2): 131-139.
Sherman, M.; Dickerhoff, D. (1996) Air tightness of U.S. dwellings. In: The Role of
Ventilation 15th AIVC Conference Proceedings. Buxton, Great Britain, September
27-30, 1994.
-------
Siegrist, R. (1976) Characteristics of rural household wastewater. J. Environ. Eng.
1:533-548.
Sinden, F.W. (1978) Multi-chamber theory of infiltration. Building and Environment.
13:21-28.
Sparks, L.E. (1988) Indoor air quality model version 1.0. Report
No. EPA-600/8-88-097a.. Research Triangle Park, NC. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Sparks, L.E. (1991) Exposure -Version 2., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Swope, A.D.; Goydan, R.; Reid, R.C. (1992) Methods for assessing exposure to
chemical substances Volume 11: Methodology for Estimating the Migration of
Additives and Impurities from Polymeric Substances. EPA 560/5-85-015, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
Thatcher, T.L.; Layton, D.W. (1995) Deposition, resuspension, and penetration of
particles within a residence. Atmos. Environ. 29(13): 1487-1497.
Thompson, W. (1995) U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) and Energy Information
Administration. Personal communication on distribution of heated floor space area
from the 1993 REGS.
Tichenor, B.A.; Guo, Z.; Dunn, J.E.; Sparks, L.E.; Mason, M.A. (1991) The interaction
of vapor phase organic compounds with indoor sinks. Indoor Air 1:23-35.
Tucker, W.G. (1991) Emission of organic substances from indoor surface materials.
Environ. Internat. 17:357-363.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992) Statistical abstract of the United States: 1992
(112th edition). Table No. 1230, p. 721. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of
Commerce.
U.S. DHUD. (1984) Residential water conservation projects: summary report. Report
Number HUD-PDR-903. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
U.S. DOE. (1995) Housing characteristics 1993, Residential Energy Consumption
Survey (REGS) Report No. DOE/EIA-0314 (93), Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Energy, Energy Information Administration
Versar. (1990) Database of perfluorocarbon tracer (PFT) ventilation measurements:
description and user's manual. USEPA Contract No. 68-02-4254, Task No. 39.
-------
Washington, D.C: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic
Substances.
Wallace, L.A. (1996) Indoor particles: A review. J. Air and Waste Management Assoc.
(46)2:98-126.
Walton, G.N. (1993) CONTAM 93 User Manual. NISTIR 5385. Gaithersburg, MD:
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Wilkes, C.R.; Small, M.J.; Andelman, J.B.; Giardino, N.J.; Marshall, J. (1992) Inhalation
exposure model for volatile chemicals from indoor uses of water. Atmospheric
Environment (26A)12:2227-2236.
Wolkoff, P. (1995) Volatile organic compounds: sources, measurements, emissions,
and the impact on indoor air quality. Indoor Air Supplement No. 3/95, pp 1 -73.
Wolkoff, P.; Wilkins, C.K. (1994) Indoor VOCs from household floor dust: comparison
of headspace with desorbed VOCs; Method for VOC release determination. Indoor
Air 4:248-254.
Zinn, T.W.; Cline, D.; Lehmann, W.F. (1990) Long-term study of formaldehyde
emission decay from particleboard. Forest Products Journal (40)6:15-18.
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 3
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 3-1. Daily Total Tapwater Intake Distribution for Canadians, by Age Group
(approx. 0.20 L increments, both sexes, combined seasons) [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 3-6. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/day) for Both Sexes Combined [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 3-7. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/kg-day) for Both Sexes Combined [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 3-9. Total Tapwater Intake (as percent of total water intake) by Broad Age
Category [WK1, 1 kb]
Table 3-10. General Dietary Sources of Tapwater for Both Sexes [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 3-12. Estimated Quantiles and Means for Total Tapwater Intake Rates (mL/day)
[WK1, 1 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 4
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 4-9. Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates Per Child for
64 Children (mg/day) [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 4-10. Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily Soil Ingestion Based on
Data for 64 Subjects Projected Over 365 Days [WK1, 1 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 5
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 5-3. Distribution of Predicted IR by Location and Activity Levels for Elementary
and High School Students [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 5-5. Distribution Patterns of Daily Inhalation Rates for Elementary (EL) and
High School (HS) Students Grouped by Activity Level [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 5-11. Daily Inhalation Rates Calculated from Food-Energy Intakes [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 5-12. Daily Inhalation Rates Obtained from the Ratios of Total Energy
Expenditure to Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 5-14. Inhalation Rates for Short-Term Exposures [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 5-19. Distribution Pattern of Predicted VR and EVR (equivalent ventilation rate)
for 20 Outdoor Workers [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 5A-3. Characteristics of Individual Subjects: Anthropometric Data, Job
Categories, Calibration Results [WK1, 4 kb]
Table 5A-7. Minute Ventilation Ranges by Age, Sex, and Activity Level [WK1, 9 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 6
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 6-2. Surface Area of Adult Males in Square Meters [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 6-3. Surface Area of Adult Females in Square Meters [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 6-6. Total Body Surface Area of Male Children in Square Meters [WK1, 4 kb]
Table 6-7. Total Body Surface Area of Female Children in Square Meters
[WK1, 4 kb]
Table 6-9. Descriptive Statistics for Surface Area/BodyWeight (SA/WB) Ratios (m /kg)
[WK1, 1 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 7
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 7-4. Weight in Kilograms for Males 18-74 Years of Age-Number Examined,
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Race and Age:
United States, 1976-1980 [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 7-5. Weight in Kilograms for Females 18-74 Years of Age-Number Examined,
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Race and Age:
United States, 1976-1980 [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 7-6. Weight in Kilograms for Males 6 Months-19 Years of Age-Number
Examined, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Sex
and Age: United States, 1976-1980 [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 7-7. Weight in Kilograms for Females 6 Months-19 Years of Age-Number
Examined, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Selected Percentiles, by Sex
and Age: United States, 1976-1980 [WK1, 5 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 8
The following selected table is available for download as a Lotus 1-2-3 worksheet.
Table 8-1. Expectation of Life at Birth, 1970 to 1993, and Projections, 1995 to 2010
[WK1, 5 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 9
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 9-3. Per Capita Intake of Total Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 9-4. Per Capita Intake of Total Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as
consumed) [WK1, 31 kb]
Table 9-6. Per Capita Intake of USDA Categories of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day
as consumed) [WK1, 9 kb]
Table 9-7. Per Capita Intake of Exposed Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 9-8. Per Capita Intake of Protected Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 9-9. Per Capita Intake of Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 9-10. Per Capita Intake of Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 9-11. Per Capita Intake of Root Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 9-26. Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating
Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Three
Days [WK1, 6 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 10
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 10-3. Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Females by Age
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-4. Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Males by Age
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-7. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for
the U.S. Population (Uncooked Fish Weight) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-8. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) by
Habitat for Consumers Only (Uncooked Fish Weight) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-9. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (mg/kg-day) by Habitat and Fish
Type for U.S. Population (Uncooked Fish Weight) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-10. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
by Habitat for Consumers Only (Uncooked Fish Weight) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-11. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for
the U.S. Population (Cooked Fish Weight - As Consumed) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-12. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat for Consumers
Only (Cooked Fish Weight - As Consumed) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-13. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Freshwater and
Estuarine) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-14. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Marine)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-15. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (All Fish)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-16. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (grams/day)
for the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As
Consumed [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-17. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Freshwater
and Estuarine) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-18. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Marine)
[WK1, 2 kb]
-------
Table 10-19. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - As Consumed (All Fish)
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-20. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As
Consumed [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-21. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Freshwater and
Estuarine) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-22. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Marine)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-23. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (All Fish)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-24. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-25. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Freshwater and
Estuarine) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-26. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (Marine)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-27. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - As Consumed (All Fish)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-28. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - As Consumed
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-29. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Freshwater
and Estuarine) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-30. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Marine)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-31. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (All Fish)
[WK1, 2 kb]
-------
Table 10-32. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for the
U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Weight [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-33. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Freshwater and Estuarine) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-34. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Marine) [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-35. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (All
Fish) [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-36. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for the U.S. Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked
Fish Weight [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-37. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Freshwater
and Estuarine) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-38. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Marine)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-39. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (All Fish)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-40. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) for
Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Weight [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-41. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight
(Freshwater and Estuarine) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-42. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (Marine)
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-43. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight (All
Fish) [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-44. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day)
for Consumers Only Aged 18 Years and Older by Habitat - Uncooked Fish
Weight [WK1, 3 kb]
Table 10-45. Distribution of Quantity of Fish Consumed (in grams) Per Eating Occasion,
by Age and Sex [WK1, 2 kb]
-------
Table 10-63. Distribution of Usual Fish Intake Among Survey Main Respondents Who
Fished and Consumed Recreationally Caught Fish [WK1, 1 kb]
Table 10-68. Distribution of Fish Intake Rates (from all sources and from sport-caught
sources) For 1992 Lake Ontario Anglers [WK1, 1 kb]
Table 10-72. Number of Grams Per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult Respondents
(Consumers and Non-consumers Combined) - Throughout the Year
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 10-74. Children's Fish Consumption Rates - Throughout Year [WK1, 1 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 11
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 11-1. Per Capita Intake of Total Meats (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 11-2. Per Capita Intake of Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 11-3. Per Capita Intake of Beef (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1,6kb]
Table 11-4. Per Capita Intake of Pork (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 11-5. Per Capita Intake of Poultry (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 11-6. Per Capita Intake of Game (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 11-7. Per Capita Intake of Eggs (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 11-23. Quantity (as consumed) of Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Products Consumed
Per Eating Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These
Foods in Three Days [WK1, 2 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 12
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 12-1. Per Capita Intake of Total Grains Including Mixtures (g/kg-day as
consumed) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 12-2. Per Capita Intake of Breads (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 12-3. Per Capita Intake of Sweets (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 12-4. Per Capita Intake of Snacks Containing Grain (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 12-5. Per Capita Intake of Breakfast Foods (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 12-6. Per Capita Intake of Pasta (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 12-7. Per Capita Intake of Cooked Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 5 kb]
Table 12-8. Per Capita Intake of Rice (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 12-9. Per Capita Intake of Ready-to-Eat Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 12-10. Per Capita Intake of Baby Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed) [WK1, 4 kb]
Table 12-20. Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating
Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Three
Days [WK1, 3 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 13
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 13-8. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Combined [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-9. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Northeast
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-10. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Midwest
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-11. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - South
[WK1, 4 kb]
Table 13-12. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - West
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-13. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Combined [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-14. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Northeast
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-15. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Midwest
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-16. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - South
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-17. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - West
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-18. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Combined [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-19. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Northeast
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-20. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Midwest
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-21. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - South
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-22. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - West
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-23. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - All Regions
Combined [WK1, 5 kb]
-------
Table 13-24. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - Northeast
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 13-25. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - Midwest
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-26. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - South
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-27. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - West
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-28. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) -All Regions
[WK1, 5 kb]
Table 13-29. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Northeast
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-30. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Midwest
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-31. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - South
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 13-32. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - West
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-33. Seasonally Adjusted Consumer Only Homegrown Intake (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 13-34. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Apples (g/kg-day) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-35. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Asparagus (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-36. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Beef (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-37. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Beets (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-38. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Broccoli (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-39. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cabbage (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-40. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Carrots (g/kg-day) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-41. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Corn (g/kg-day) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-42. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cucumbers (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-43. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Eggs (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-44. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Game (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-45. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Lettuce (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-46. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Lima Beans (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-47. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Okra (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-48. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Onions (g/kg-day) [WK1, 7 kb]
-------
Table 13-49. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Berries (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-50. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peaches (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-51. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pears (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-52. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peas (g/kg-day) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-53. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peppers (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-54. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Pork (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-55. Consumer Only Intake of Home Produced Poultry (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-56. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pumpkins (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-57. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Snap Beans (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-58. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Strawberries (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-59. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Tomatoes (g/kg-day) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-60. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown White Potatoes (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-61. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Fruit (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-62. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Fruits (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-63. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-64. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-65. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Root Vegetables (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-66. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Dark Green Vegetables (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-67. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Deep Yellow Vegetables (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-68. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Vegetables (g/kg-day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 13-69. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Citrus (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 13-70. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Fruit (g/kg-day) [WK1, 6 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 15
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 15-18. Range of Recommended Defaults for Dermal Exposure Factors
[WK1, 1 kb]
Table 15-19. Number of Times Taking a Shower at Specified Daily Frequencies by the
Number of Respondents [WK1, 8 kb]
Table 15-20. Times (minutes) Spent Taking Showers by the Number of Respondents
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-21. Number of Minutes Spent Taking a Shower (minutes/shower)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-22. Time (minutes) Spent in the Shower Room Immediately After Showering
by the Number of Respondents [WK1, 8 kb]
Table 15-23. Number of Minutes Spent in the Shower Room Immediately After
Showering (minutes/shower) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-24. Number of Baths Given or Taken in One Day by Number of Respondents
[WK1, 8 kb]
Table 15-25. Total Time Spent Taking or Giving a Bath by the Number of Respondents
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-26. Number of Minutes Spent Giving and Taking the Bath(s) (minutes/bath)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-27. Time Spent in the Bathroom Immediately After the Bath(s) by the Number
of Respondents [WK1, 8 kb]
Table 15-28. Number of Minutes Spent in the Bathroom Immediately After the Bath(s)
(minutes/bath) [WK1,7kb]
Table 15-29. Total Time Spent Altogether in the Shower or Bathtub by the Number of
Respondents [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-30. Total Number of Minutes Spent Altogether in the Shower or Bathtub
(minutes/bath) [WK1,7kb]
Table 15-31. Time Spent in the Bathroom Immediately Following a Shower or Bath by
the Number of Respondents [WK1, 10 kb]
Table 15-32. Number of Minutes Spent in the Bathroom Immediately Following a
Shower or Bath (minutes/bath) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-33. Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily
Frequencies by the Number of Respondents [WK1, 7 kb]
-------
Table 15-50. Number of Hours Worked in a Week That Was Outdoors (hours/week)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-57. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Sand or Gravel in a Day by the
Number of Respondents [WK1, 10 kb]
Table 15-58. Number of Minutes Spent Playing in Sand or Gravel (minutes/day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-59. Number of Minutes Spent Playing in Outdoors on Sand, Gravel, Dirt, or
Grass When Fill Dirt Was Present by the Number of Respondents
[WK1, 10kb]
Table 15-60. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Sand, Gravel, Dirt, or Grass When
Fill Dirt Was Present (minutes/day) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-61. Range of the Time Spent Working in a Garden or Other Circumstances in
a Month by the Number of Respondents [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-62. Number of Hours Spent Working with Soil in a Garden or Other
Circumstances Working (hours/month) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-63. Range of Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Grass in a Day by the
Number of Respondents [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-64. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Grass (minutes/day) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 15-65. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by
the Number of Respondents [WK1,21 kb]
Table 15-66. Range of the Average Amount of Time Actually Spent in the Water by
Swimmers by the Number of Respondents [WK1, 12 kb]
Table 15-67. Number of Minutes Spent Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming
Pool (minutes/month) [WK1, 8 kb]
Table 15-79. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Indoor
Playing [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-80. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Outdoor
Playing [WK1,10kb]
Table 15-85. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Active
Sports [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-86. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Outdoor
Recreation [WK1, 12kb]
Table 15-87. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Exercise
[WK1, 12kb]
Table 15-91. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in Bathing
[WK1, 12kb]
Table 15-92. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in
Yardwork/Maintenance [WK1,12kb]
-------
Table 15-93. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in
Sports/Exercise [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-102. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors at
School [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-108. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors on
School Grounds/Playground [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-110. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors at
a Pool/River/Lake [WK1, 12 kb]
Table 15-113. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in
the Kitchen [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-114. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in the
Bathroom [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-115. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in
the Bedroom [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-116. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in
the Garage [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-117. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent in the
Basement [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-118. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent at Home in
the Utility Room or Laundry Room [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-121. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in
a Car [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-122. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in
a Truck (Pick-up/Van) [WK1, 12 kb]
Table 15-123. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
a Motorcycle, Moped, or Scooter [WK1, 9 kb]
Table 15-124. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling in
Other Trucks [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-125. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
a Bus [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-126. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Walking
[WK1, 12kb]
Table 15-127. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
a Bicycle/Skateboard/ Rollerskate [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-128. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Waiting on a
Bus, Train etc., Stop [WK1, 11 kb]
Table 15-129. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
a Train/Subway/Rapid Transit [WK1, 12 kb]
-------
Table 15-130. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling on
an Airplane [WK1, 10 kb]
Table 15-131. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Indoors in a
Residence (all rooms) [WK1, 12 kb]
Table 15-132. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors
(outside the residence) [WK1, 12 kb]
Table 15-133. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Traveling
Inside a Vehicle [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-135. Statistics for 24-Hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent Outdoors
Other Than Near a Residence or Vehicle Such as Parks, Golf Courses,
or Farms [WK1,12kb]
Table 15-166. Percent of Householders Living in Houses for Specified Ranges of Time
[WK1, 1 kb]
Table 15-167. Descriptive Statistics for Residential Occupancy Period [WK1, 1 kb]
Table 15-168. Descriptive Statistics for Both Genders by Current Age [WK1, 3 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 16
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 16-2. Frequency of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
[WK1, 6 kb]
Table 16-3. Exposure Time of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 16-4. Amount of Products Used for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 16-5. Time Exposed After Duration of Use for Household Solvent Products
(users-only) [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 16-6. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Adhesive Removers
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 16-8. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Spray Paint
[WK1, 2 kb]
Table 16-10. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Paint
Removers/Strippers [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 16-13. Percentile Rankings for Total Exposure Time in Performing Household
Tasks [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 16-14. Mean Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Performing Household Tasks
[WK1, 3 kb]
Table 16-15. Mean and Percentile Rankings for Exposure Time Per Event of
Performing Household Tasks [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 16-16. Total Exposure Time for Ten Product Groups Most Frequently Used for
Household Cleaning [WK1, 2 kb]
Table 16-17. Total Exposure Time of Painting Activity of Interior Painters (hours)
[WK1, 1 kb]
Table 16-18. Exposure Time of Interior Painting Activity/Occasion (hours) and
Frequency of Occasions Spent Painting Per Year [WK1, 1 kb]
Table 16-19. Amount of Paint Used by Interior Painters [WK1, 1 kb]
Table 16-20. Number of Respondents Using Cologne, Perfume, Aftershave or Other
Fragrances at Specified Daily Frequencies [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 16-21. Number of Respondents Using Any Aerosol Spray Product for Personal
Care Item Such as Deodorant or Hair Spray at Specified Daily
Frequencies [WK1, 7 kb]
-------
Table 16-22. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Being Near Freshly
Applied Paints (minutes/day) [WK1, 8 kb]
Table 16-23. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Household
Cleaning Agents Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day)
[WK1, 8 kb]
Table 16-24. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities (at home or elsewhere) Working
with or Near Floorwax, Furniture Wax or Shoe Polish (minutes/day)
[WK1, 8 kb]
Table 16-25. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Being Near Glue
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 16-26. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Solvents,
Fumes or Strong Smelling Chemicals (minutes/day) [WK1, 8 kb]
Table 16-27. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Stain or Spot
Removers (minutes/day) [WK1, 7 kb]
Table 16-28. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Gasoline or
Diesel-powered Equipment, Besides Automobiles (minutes/day)
[WK1, 8 kb]
Table 16-29. Number of Minutes Spent Using Any Microwave Oven (minutes/day)
[WK1, 7 kb]
Table 16-30. Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 16-31. Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by the
Professional at Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at
Specified Frequencies [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 16-32. Number of Respondents Reporting Pesticides Applied by the Consumer at
Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified
Frequencies [WK1, 5 kb]
Table 16-33. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Pesticides,
Including Bug Sprays or Bug Strips (minutes/day) [WK1, 8 kb]
-------
DOWNLOADABLE TABLES FOR CHAPTER 17
The following selected tables are available for download as Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets.
Table 17-1. Summary of Residential Volume Distributions [WK1, 1 kb]
Table 17-9. Summary of Major Projects Providing Air Exchange Measurements in the
PFT Database [WK1, 6 kb]
Table 17-11. Distributions of Residential Air Exchange Rates by Climate Region and
Season [WK1, 3 kb]
------- |