&EPA
EPA/600/R-08/135 | August 2009 | www.epa.gov/ncea
  United States
  Environmental Protection
  Agency
          Highlights of the Child-Specific
          Exposure Factors Handbook

-------
                                         EPA/600/R-08/135
                                            August 2009
                                         www. epa. gov/ncea
Highlights of the Child-Specific
  Exposure Factors Handbook
        National Center for Environmental Assessment
           Office of Research and Development
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook

CSEFH	


                                          NOTICE


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, funded the research described here under contract no. EP-W-04-035 with Versar, Inc.
This document contains a brief overview of the contents of the 2008 version of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors
Handbook, which was published  earlier, i.e., 2002 and revised in 2005.  This highlights document has been
subjected to the Agency's administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Preferred Citation:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009) Highlights of the child-specific exposure factors handbook.
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/135. Available from the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA and online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
Page                            Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
ii                                                                                  August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                     CSEFH
                                             FOREWORD

In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental  Assessment (NCEA) published a revised version of its original 2002  Child-Specific Exposure
Factors Handbook.   Its purpose  is to provide  exposure/risk  assessors with information on behavioral and
physiological factors that can be used in assessing exposures among children.  The Handbook presents information
on children's exposure factors, based on selected studies published through July 2008. It uses a standard set of age
categories for children, ages 0 to <21 years old, to permit comparison of data among multiple sources and to provide
consistency  among different types of exposure factors.   The Handbook provides  recommended values for the
various exposure factors based on these standard age groups. These revisions assist exposure assessors with the
implementation of  the recommendations presented in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
and the  Supplemental  Guidance for Assessing  Susceptibility from Early-Life  Exposure  to  Carcinogens.
Specifically, the 2005 Guidelines emphasized the need to consider childhood as a series of life stages rather than
children as subpopulations and to sum exposures and risks across life stages rather than relying on the use of a
lifetime average adult exposure to calculate risk.

The goals for revising the Handbook were to

    (1) most importantly, reanalyze data and present the information using the standardized set of childhood age
        groups as  recommended in EPA's 2005 Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
        Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants', and
    (2) incorporate new exposure factors data/research that had become available since the early 2000s.

This Highlights document was developed to provide a brief overview of the contents of the Child-Specific Exposure
Factors Handbook and to facilitate access to its exposure factors recommendations. As such, it contains a subset of
the information provided in the complete Handbook. This Highlights document is a product of the EPA's Exposure
Factors Program. NCEA established the Exposure Factors Program to develop tools and databases that improve the
scientific basis  of  exposure and  risk assessment by (1) identifying exposure factors needs  in consultation  with
clients, and exploring ways for  filling data  gaps;  (2) compiling existing data on  exposure factors  needed for
assessing exposures/risks; and (3) assisting clients in the use of exposure factors data.  These activities  are supported
by and respond to the needs of the various EPA program offices.

EPA invites you to visit http://epa.gov/risk/guidance.htm  where you can view and  download chapters from the
Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook as well as the Exposure Factors Handbook.  Each chapter in  these
handbooks presents recommended values for exposure factors as well as a discussion of the underlying data used to
develop the recommendations.  NCEA intends to update its Web  site periodically so that the information provided
by the Exposure Factors Program is current and relevant.
                 ~\
     l Bu*s.ird
 Director, Washington Diti«,mn
 National t'cnicr fur I:nvir<.inmi3itnl A
PWef Ptrav. PiilJ
Directnr,
N;ifKii,iJ C.VIUCT for f-.nviriinmcnl.il
       , Office ol'ChiMmv's Health
and I M"i tirftnmvnis j i-'dacalmti
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                             Page
                                                Hi

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
  Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                       CSEFH
                                        CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS	vi
ABOUT THE HANDBOOK	vii
INTENDED AUDIENCE	1
BACKGROUND	1
SELECTION OF STUDIES FOR THE HANDBOOK	3
   General Assessment Factors	3
   Selection Criteria	3
APPROACH USED TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPOSURE FACTORS	5
SUGGESTED REFERENCES FOR USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HANDBOOK	6
CONSIDERING LIFESTAGE WHEN CALCULATING EXPOSURE AND RISK	8
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT	8
   Dose Equations	9
   Use of Exposure Factors Data in Probabilistic Analyses	11
CUMULATIVE EXPOSURES	12
REFERENCES	13


                                     LIST OF TABLES

   Table 1.       Summary of Recommended Exposure Factors for Children	17
   Table 2.       Characterization of Variability inExposure Factors	25
   Table 3.       Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values	26
   Table 4.       Summary of Confidence Ratings for Exposure Factor Recommendations	27
   Table 5.       Age-Dependent Potency Adjustment Factor (ADAF) by Exposure Age Group	28

                                     LIST OF FIGURES

   Figure 1.      The Exposure-Dose Effect Continuum	29
  Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
  August 2009
Page
    v

-------
CSEFH
                               Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                             ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADAF
ADD
BMD
C
cm2
ED
g
GAP
Hc
IR
kg
LADD
m2
m3
mg
mL
NCEA
OCHP
OCHPEE
ORD
PBPK
RfD
RfC
SPC
USDA
U.S. EPA
Age Dependent Adjustment Factors
Average Daily Dose
Benchmark Dose
Contaminant Concentration
Square Centimeter
Exposure Duration
Gram
General Assessment Factor
Human Equivalent Concentration
Intake Rate
Kilogram
Lifetime Average Daily Dose
Square Meter
Cubic Meter
Milligram
Milliliter
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Children's Health Protection
Office of Children's Health Protection and Environmental Education
Office of Research and Development
Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic
Reference Dose
Reference Concentration
Science Policy Council
United States Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page
vi
           Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                     CSEFH
                                      ABOUT THE HANDBOOK
    This Highlights document presents an overview
of the information provided in the U.S. EPA's Child-
Specific  Exposure Factors Handbook  (U.S.  EPA
2008a). The Handbook reviews and summarizes data
on the  various  factors   used  in  the  exposure
assessment of children  (i.e.,  individuals  <21 years
old) and provides recommendations for the exposure
assessment community.  The Handbook contains  17
chapters: an introduction (Chapter 1),  a discussion
about  the variability  and  uncertainty  in  assessing
exposure     factors     (Chapter     2),    and
nonchemical-specific data on exposure factors for the
U.S. EPA recommended set of childhood age groups
in the following areas:

  • ingestion  of water  and  other  select  liquids
    (Chapter 3);
  • non-dietary ingestion factors (Chapter 4);
  • ingestion of soil and dust (Chapter 5);
  • inhalation rates (Chapter 6);
  • dermal exposure factors (Chapter 7);
  • body weight (Chapter 8);
  • intake of fruits and vegetables (Chapter 9);
  • intake offish and shellfish (Chapter 10);
  • intake of meat, dairy products, and fats (Chapter
    ii);
  • intake of grain products (Chapter 12);
  • intake of home-produced foods (Chapter 13);
  • total food intake (Chapter 14);
  • human milk intake (Chapter 15);
  • activity factors (Chapter 16); and
  • consumer products (Chapter 17).

    The Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
was first published  in 2002  (U.S.  EPA, 2002a).
Subsequently, the U.S. EPA published its  Guidance
on  Selecting  Age  Groups  for  Monitoring  and
Assessing Childhood  Exposures to  Environmental
Contaminants  (U.S.  EPA, 2005a).  To the extent
possible, source data for the independent studies cited
in the earlier version of the Handbook were obtained
and reanalyzed  to  conform to the  standard age
categories: birth to <1  month, 1 to <3 months, 3 to  <6
months,  6 to <12 months, 1 to <2 years, 2 to  <3
years, 3 to <6 years, 6 to <11 years, 11 to < 16 years,
and 16 to <21 years.

   The data presented in the Child-Specific Exposure
Factors Handbook were  compiled  from  various
sources including the U.S. EPA's Exposure Factors
Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a), government reports,
and information presented in the  scientific literature,
published through July 2008. The data presented are
generally the result of  analyses  by  the  individual
study authors. However, in some cases, the U.S. EPA
conducted analysis of published primary  data  to
present results  for the  recommended  age  groups.
Studies presented  in  the  Handbook  were  chosen
because they were  seen as useful  and appropriate for
estimating exposure factors based on the following
evaluation elements: (1) soundness; (2) applicability
and  utility;  (3)  clarity  and   completeness;  (4)
variability and  uncertainty; and  (5) evaluation and
review.
   Generally, studies  were designated  as "key"  or
"relevant" studies.  Key studies were considered the
most  useful for deriving  recommendations, while
relevant studies  provided applicable or pertinent data,
but not necessarily the  most important for a variety of
reasons (e.g., data were outdated,  limitations in study
design).  The   Handbook  provides  recommended
values for exposure factors based  on its interpretation
of the  key  studies. Key recommendations from the
Handbook are summarized in Table 1  (see pages 17-
24)  of this Highlights  document.    Additional
recommendations    and    detailed    supporting
information  can be found in the  individual chapters
of the Handbook.  These recommendations are  not
legally  binding  and  should  be  interpreted   as
suggestions  that  U.S.  EPA Program Offices  or
individual exposure/risk assessors can consider and
modify as needed based on their own evaluation of a
given  risk-assessment situation.   In certain cases,
different values may be appropriate in consideration
of policy, precedent, strategy, or other factors (e.g.,
more  up-to-date  data of better quality or more
representative of the  population of  concern).  The
U.S. EPA also  assigned confidence ratings of low,
medium, or  high to each recommended value based
on the evaluation elements described above. These
ratings  are  not intended  to  represent uncertainty
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                          Page
                                             VII

-------
                              Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook

CSEFH	


analyses; rather, they  represent  the U.S.  EPA's
judgment on the quality of the underlying data used
to derive the recommendations.

   All tables and figures have been placed at the end
of the Handbook.
Page                         Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
viii                                                                       August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                      CSEFH
    INTENDED AUDIENCE
    The Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
(U.S. EPA 2008a) is  intended for use by  exposure
and risk assessors both within and outside the U.S.
EPA  as  a reference  tool  and primary source  of
exposure  factor information.  It may be  used by
exposure and risk  assessors, economists, and other
interested  parties as a source  for data and/or U.S.
EPA  recommendations  on  numeric estimates  for
behavioral and  physiological characteristics needed
to estimate childhood exposure to toxic contaminants
and other environmental stressors.

    BACKGROUND
    Because   of  physiological   and  behavioral
differences, environmental exposures among children
differ from exposures among adults. Children may be
more exposed to some environmental contaminants
because (1) they consume more of certain foods and
water per  unit of body weight than adults; (2) they
have a higher ratio of body surface area to volume
than adults; and (3) they experience  important, rapid
changes in behavior and physiology that may lead to
differences in exposure.  Many studies have  shown
that  young children  can be  exposed  to  various
contaminants,  including  pesticides, during normal
oral   exploration  of   their   environment   (i.e.,
hand-to-mouth  behavior) and by  touching  floors,
surfaces,  and objects  such as toys (Eskenazi et al.,
1999; Gurunathan et al.,  1998; Lewis et al.,  1999;
Nishioka  et  al.,  1999;  Garry, 2004).  Dust and
tracked-in soil accumulate in carpets, where young
children spend a significant amount of time (Lewis et
al., 1999).  Children living in agricultural areas may
experience higher  exposures to  pesticides than do
other children (Curwin et al., 2007). They may play
in nearby  fields or be exposed via consumption of
contaminated human  milk  from their farmworker
mothers (Eskenazi et al., 1999).
    In terms  of risk, children  may also  differ from
adults  in their vulnerability  to  environmental
pollutants   because  of  toxicodynamic  differences
(e.g., when  exposures  occur during  periods  of
enhanced   susceptibility)   and/or   toxicokinetic
differences   (i.e.,    differences   in   absorption,
metabolism, and excretion)  (U.S. EPA, 2000a). The
immaturity  of  metabolic   enzyme  systems  and
clearance mechanisms  in young children can result in
longer  half-lives  of  environmental  contaminants
(Ginsberg et al., 2002; Clewell et al.,  2004). The
cellular immaturity  of children  and the  ongoing
growth processes account for elevated  risk (AAP,
1997). Toxic chemicals in the environment can cause
neurodevelopmental disabilities, and the developing
brain can be particularly sensitive to environmental
contaminants.  For  example,  elevated  blood  lead
levels  and prenatal exposures to even relatively low
levels  of  lead can result in behavior disorders and
reductions  of  intellectual   function   in  children
(Landrigan et  al., 2005). Exposure to high levels of
methylmercury   can   result  in   developmental
disabilities  (e.g.,  intellectual  deficiency,   speech
disorders, and sensory disturbances) among  children
(Myers et al., 2000). Other authors have described the
importance of exposure timing (i.e., preconceptional,
prenatal,  and  postnatal) and how  it  affects  the
outcomes  observed (Selevan et al., 2000). It has also
been suggested  that higher  levels of exposure  to
indoor air pollution and allergens among inner-city
children compared  to  non-inner-city children may
explain the difference in asthma levels between these
two groups  (Breysee et al.,  2005). With respect to
contaminants that are carcinogenic via a mutagenic
mode  of action, the  U.S.   EPA has  found that
childhood  is  a  particularly  sensitive   period  of
development in which  cancer potencies  per year of
exposure can be an order of magnitude  higher than
during adulthood (U.S. EPA,  2005c).
     Executive Order 13045: Protection  of Children
from Environmental Health  Risks and Safety Risks,
signed  in 1997, requires all federal  agencies  to
address health  and safety   risks to  children,  to
coordinate research priorities  on children's health,
and to ensure  that their standards take  into account
special risks to children (EO, 1997). To implement
the Order, the U.S. EPA established the Office  of
Children's Health Protection (OCHP)  (renamed the
Office  of   Children's  Health   Protection  and
Environmental Education [OCHPEE] in 2005), who
works with  Program and regional offices within the
U.S. EPA to promote a safe and healthy environment
for  children  by  ensuring  that all   regulations,
standards, policies,  and  risk assessments take into
account risks  to  children. Legislation,  such as the
Food Quality  Protection Act and  the Safe Drinking
Water Act amendments  of 1996, has made coverage
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                          Page
                                               1

-------
                                    Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
of children's health issues more explicit, and research
on children's health issues is continually expanding.
As a result of the emphasis on children's  risk, the
U.S. EPA's ORD developed a Strategy for Research
on  Environmental Risks  to Children (U.S. EPA,
2000a). The goal of the  Strategy is to improve the
quality of risk assessments for children. The Child-
Specific  Exposure Factors  Handbook (U.S. EPA,
2008a) is intended to support the U.S. EPA/ORD's
efforts to improve exposure and risk assessments for
children.
    In 1997,  the U.S. EPA/ORD/NCEA published
the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a).
The Handbook includes exposure factors and related
data on both adults and children. Subsequently, the
U.S.  EPA Program  Offices  identified the  need to
consolidate all children's exposure data into a single
document,   and  the  interim final   Child-Specific
Exposure Factors Handbook was published in 2002
to fulfill this need (U.S. EPA, 2002a).  The 2008
Handbook  (U.S. EPA, 2008a)  updates the 2002
edition  of  the  Child-Specific  Exposure  Factors
Handbook. It  provides  nonchemical-specific data on
exposure  factors  that  can be  used  to  assess
contributions from dietary and non-dietary ingestion
exposure, dermal exposure,  and  inhalation exposure
among children.  Although the preconceptional  and
prenatal (fetal) life stages are important to consider,
they   are    not  covered   in   the  Handbook.
Preconceptional  exposures   are  included   in  the
Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.  EPA,  1997a)
since they relate to maternal and paternal exposures,
and  exposure  factors  for  pregnant  and  lactating
women are being developed as part  of  a  separate
effort. The Handbook also highlights the changes in
risk-assessment practices that were first presented in
the  U.S. EPA's  Cancer  Guidelines (U.S. EPA,
2005b), regarding the  need to consider children as
life  stages  rather than as  subpopulations.  It  also
emphasizes  a  major recommendation in U.S. EPA's
Supplemental  Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility
from Early-Life Exposure to  Carcinogens (U.S. EPA,
2005c) to sum exposures and risks across life stages
rather than relying on the use of a lifetime average
adult exposure to calculate risk.
    The  Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
(U.S.    EPA,   2008a)    does    not    include
chemical-specific   data    or    information   on
physiological  parameters that may be  needed for
                    exposure           assessments           involving
                    physiologically-based   pharmacokinetic   (PBPK)
                    modeling. The U.S. EPA has developed guidance on
                    how to use and applications of PBPK information in
                    risk  assessment  in  the   report  titled  Use  of
                    Physiologically  Based  Pharmacokinetic  (PBPK)
                    Models to  Quantify the Impact of Human Age and
                    Interindividual  Differences in  Physiology  and
                    Biochemistry Pertinent to Risk (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
                       With very few exceptions, the data presented in
                    the Handbook were derived from the analyses of the
                    individual   study   authors. Because  the  studies
                    included in the Handbook vary  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  sometimes used
                    different age ranges to describe data for children. In
                    most cases, the  original data were unavailable, and
                    the study results could not be reallocated into  the
                    standard age groups used  in the Handbook.  When
                    adequate detailed  data were available, efforts were
                    made to reallocate source data into the standard age
                    groups recommended by the U.S. EPA in the report
                    titled  Guidance  on  Selecting Age  Groups for
                    Monitoring and Assessing  Childhood Exposures to
                    Environmental  Contaminants  (U.S. EPA, 2005a).
                    Within the  constraint  of  presenting  the original
                    material  as accurately  as  possible,  the  U.S. EPA
                    made an effort to present discussions and results in a
                    consistent manner.  The strengths and limitations of
                    each study were discussed to provide the reader with
                    a better understanding of the uncertainties associated
                    with the values derived from the study.
                       Most of the data presented in the Handbook were
                    derived from studies that  targeted (1) the general
                    national population (e.g., USDA  food consumption
                    surveys)  or (2) a sample population from a specific
                    area or group (e.g., soil ingestion in children from a
                    three-city area in southeastern Washington State). If
                    it is necessary to characterize a population that is not
                    directly covered by the  data in the Handbook, the risk
                    or exposure assessor should evaluate whether these
                    data  may  be used  as  suitable  substitutes for the
                    population of interest or whether there is a need to
                    seek   additional  population-specific   data.     The
                    decision as to whether to use site-specific or national
Page
2
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                     August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                    CSEFH
values for an assessment depends both on the quality
of the competing data sets as well as on the purpose
of the specific assessment.  If information is needed
for identifying and  enumerating  populations  who
may be at risk for greater contaminant exposures or
who exhibit a heightened sensitivity  to  particular
chemicals,    the    reader    is    referred    to
Socio-demographic  Data  Used  for  Identifying
Potentially Highly Exposed Populations (U.S. EPA,
1999).
    In conjunction with the Guidance on  Selecting
Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposures  to  Environmental  Contaminants  (U.S.
EPA, 2005a), the Handbook adopted the age group
notation "X to < Y" (e.g., the age group 3 to <6 years
is meant to span a 3-year time interval from a child's
3rd birthday up until the day before his or her 6th
birthday).

    SELECTION   OF   STUDIES   FOR  THE
    HANDBOOK
    Information in the Handbook was 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 for children. The Handbook contains
summaries of selected studies published through July
2008.
    Certain studies described in the 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 Assessment Factors"  listed below.

    General Assessment Factors
    The U.S. EPA recognizes the need to evaluate
the quality and relevance of scientific  and  technical
information used in support of Agency actions (U.S.
EPA,  2002b,  2003a,  2006b).  When  evaluating
scientific and technical information, the U.S. EPA's
Science Policy Council  (SPC) recommends  using
five  General  Assessment  Factors   (GAFs):  (1)
soundness, (2) applicability and utility, (3) clarity and
completeness, (4) uncertainty and variability, and (5)
evaluation  and review  (U.S.  EPA, 2003a). These
GAFs were adapted and expanded to include specific
considerations  deemed  to  be  important  during
evaluation of exposure factors data, and were used to
judge the quality  of the underlying  data used  to
derive recommendations.

    Selection Criteria
    The  selection of key studies that form the basis
for the exposure factor recommendations provided in
the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 2008a) as well as the confidence  ratings for
these recommendations, were  based on specific
criteria within each of the five GAFs, as follows:

   (1)   Soundness:   Scientific    and    technical
   procedures,   measures,  methods,   or  models
   employed  to   generate  the  information  are
   reasonable for,  and consistent with, the intended
   application.

      Adequacy  of  the   Study   Approach:  In
      general,  more  confidence  was  placed on
      experimental procedures or approaches that
      more likely or closely  captured the desired
      measurement.  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 relied on
      validated indirect measurement   methods.
      Studies were also deemed preferable if based
      on  primary  data, but  studies  based on
      secondary sources were also  included where
      they offered an original analysis.  In general,
      higher confidence was  placed  on  exposure
      factors based on primary data.

      Minimal (or Defined) Bias in Study Design:
      More  confidence  was  placed  on  exposure
      factors based on studies that minimized  bias.
      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 underestimate  of the
      parameter) was either  stated or apparent  from
      the study design.

   (2) Applicability and Utility: The information is
   relevant for  the Agency's intended use.
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                          Page
                                              3

-------
                                    Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
       Focus  on  Exposure Factor  of  Interest:
       Studies were preferred that directly addressed
       the exposure factor of interest,  or addressed
       related factors  that have significance for the
       factor under consideration.

       Representativeness of the Population: More
       confidence   was  placed  in   studies   that
       specifically  addressed  the   United  States
       population. Data from populations outside the
       United States  were  sometimes  included  if
       behavioral patterns or other characteristics of
       exposure  were similar. Additionally, studies
       seeking to characterize a particular region or
       population  were  selected,  if  appropriately
       representative of that population.

       Currency of Information:  More confidence
       was placed in studies that  were sufficiently
       recent   to   represent   current   exposure
       conditions. This is an important consideration
       for those factors that change with time. Older
       data  were  evaluated and  considered  in
       instances where the variability of the exposure
       factor  over time  was   determined to  be
       insignificant or unimportant. In some cases,
       recent data were very limited. Therefore, the
       data provided in these instances were the only
       available  data.  Limitations on the age of the
       data  were noted.  Recent studies are more
       likely    to     use     state-of-the-science
       methodologies  that  reflect  advances in the
       exposure   assessment field.  Consequently,
       exposure  factor recommendations based  on
       current data were given higher confidence
       ratings than those based on older data—except
       in cases where the age of the data would not
       affect the  recommended values.

       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.   Higher
       confidence  ratings were  given to  exposure
       factor recommendations that were based on an
       adequate data collection period.
                       (3)  Clarity and Completeness:  The  degree of
                       clarity and completeness  with  which the data,
                       assumptions,    methods,    quality   assurance,
                       sponsoring organizations, and analyses employed
                       to generate the information are documented.

                          Accessibility:  Studies that  the user  could
                          access in  their  entirety, if  needed,  were
                          preferred.

                          Reproducibilitv:  Studies  that  contained
                          sufficient information so that methods  could
                          be reproduced,  or could  be  evaluated,  based
                          on  the  details  of the author's work, were
                          preferred.

                          Quality Assurance: Studies with documented
                          quality-assurance/quality-control   measures
                          were  preferred.   Higher  confidence ratings
                          were  given to  exposure factors  that were
                          based on  studies  where  appropriate quality
                          assurance/quality control measures were used.

                       (4)  Variability and Uncertainty: The  variability
                       and uncertainty (quantitative and qualitative) in
                       the  information  or  the procedures,  measures,
                       methods,   or   models   are   evaluated   and
                       characterized.

                          Variability  in  the Population:  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
                          interindividual.   Studies  were   sought  that
                          characterized    any    variability    within
                          populations. Higher confidence ratings were
                          given to exposure factors that were based on
                          studies   where   variability    was    well
                          characterized.

                          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.  Studies  were  sought  with minimal
                          uncertainty in the data, which was judged by
                          evaluating all the considerations listed above.
Page
4
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                      August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                     CSEFH
       Studies   were   preferred  that  identified
       uncertainties,  such as  those due to  inherent
       variability    in     environmental     and
       exposure-related   parameters   or   possible
       measurement error. Higher confidence ratings
       were given  to  exposure factors based  on
       studies    where   uncertainty    had   been
       minimized.

   (5) Evaluation and Review:  The  information or
   the procedures, measures, methods, or models are
   independently  verified,   validated,  and  peer
   reviewed.

       Peer Review: Studies selected  were those
       from the peer-reviewed literature and  final
       government reports. Unpublished and internal
       or interim reports were  avoided.

       Number and Agreement of Studies: Higher
       confidence was  placed on recommendations
       where data were available from more  than one
       key  study and  there  was  good agreement
       between studies.

    APPROACH   USED    TO    DEVELOP
    RECOMMENDATIONS FOR  EXPOSURE
    FACTORS
   As a first step to develop recommendations, the
U.S.  EPA reviewed the literature pertaining  to a
factor and determined key studies. These key studies
were  used to derive recommendations for the values
of  each factor.  The  recommended values  were
derived solely  from the U.S. EPA's interpretation of
the  available   data.   Different   values  may  be
appropriate  for the  user  in consideration of policy,
precedent,   strategy,  or  other  factors  such  as
site-specific information.
   In providing recommendations for the various
exposure factors, an attempt  was  made to present
percentile values that are consistent with the exposure
estimators   defined  in   Guidelines  for Exposure
Assessment  (i.e., mean,  50th,  90th, 95th, 98th, and
99.9th percentiles) (U.S. EPA. 1992a). However, this
was not always possible because the data available
were  limited for some  factors, or the study authors
did not provide such information. It is important to
note,  however, that these percentiles were discussed
in  the Guidelines  within  the  context   of   risk
descriptors and not individual exposure factors. For
example, the guidelines state 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 term "upper percentile"  is  used
throughout the Handbook,  and it  is  intended  to
represent values in the  upper tail (i.e., between 90th
and 99.9th percentiles) of the distribution of values
for a particular exposure factor.
    The U.S.  EPA's  procedure  for  developing
recommendations was as follows:

   (1)  Study Review and Evaluation: Key studies
   were evaluated  in  terms of both  quality and
   relevance to  specific populations (general  U.S.
   population, age groups, gender, etc.). The GAFs
   described  earlier  were used  as  criteria  for
   assessing the quality of studies.

   (2)  Single Versus Multiple Key Studies: 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 multiple key studies  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 was 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
   was presented, and the user of the Handbook must
   employ  judgment  in   selecting   the    most
   appropriate value for the population of interest.
   Recommendations for  upper percentiles,  when
   multiple studies  were available, were  calculated
   as the midpoint of the  range of upper percentile
   values of the studies for each age group where
   data were available.

   (3)   Variability:  The  variability  of the  factor
   across  the  population  was  described.  For
   recommended values, as well as for each of the
   studies on which the recommendations are based,
   variability was characterized in one or more  of
   three ways: (1) as a table 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)
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                          Page
                                               5

-------
                                    Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
   to the exposure data were not performed by the
   authors  of the  Handbook,  but  they  have been
   reproduced as they were  found  in the literature.
   Recommendations   on   the   use   of   these
   distributions were made where appropriate based
   on the adequacy of the supporting data. The list of
   exposure factors and the way in which variability
   was characterized throughout the Handbook (i.e.,
   average,   median,  upper  percentiles,  multiple
   percentiles, and fitted distribution) are presented
   in Table 2.

    (4) Uncertainty: Uncertainties were discussed in
   terms  of data limitations.    Such  limitations
   include 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/scenario uncertainties,
   if models/scenarios  were  used to   derive the
   recommended value.  Chapter 2 of the Handbook
   presents   a  discussion   of   variability   and
   uncertainty for exposure factors.

   (5) Confidence Ratings:  Finally,  the U.S. EPA
   assigned a confidence rating of law,  medium, or
   high to  each recommended value. This rating is
   not intended to  represent an uncertainty analysis;
   rather, it represents the U.S. EPA's judgment on
   the quality of the underlying data used to  derive
   the recommendation.  This judgment  was  made
   using the GAFs  described earlier.  Table  3
   provides an  adaptation  of the GAFs as they
   pertain to  the confidence ratings for the exposure
   factor  recommendations.  Clearly, there  is  a
   continuum from  law to  high.  Therefore, the
   assignment  of  a rating  to  a particular  factor
   involves        professional        judgment.
   Recommendations  given  in the Handbook are
   accompanied by a discussion of the rationale for
   their rating.

   It is important  to  note that the study  elements
   listed in Table  3  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 for the various factors is
   subjective  and  based   on  the  professional
   judgment  of the authors  of the Handbook.  Also,
                      the relative weights depend on the exposure factor
                      of interest. For example, the adequacy of the data
                      collection period may be  more important when
                      determining usual intake of foods in a population,
                      but  it is not as  important  for  factors  where
                      long-term variability may  be  small, such as tap
                      water intake. In the case of tap water intake, the
                      currency of the  data was a  critical element in
                      determining the  final  rating.  In general, most
                      studies ranked high with regard to "level of peer
                      review,"  "accessibility," "focus on the factor of
                      interest," and "data pertinent to the United  States"
                      because the U.S. EPA specifically sought  studies
                      for the Handbook that met these criteria.

                      The  elements  in   Table  3 were  important
                      considerations for inclusion  of  a  study  in the
                      Handbook.  However,  a high score  for these
                      elements does not necessarily translate into a high
                      overall rating. Other considerations also informed
                      the  assigned confidence  ratings.  One  such
                      consideration was the ease at which the exposure
                      factor of interest could be measured. For example,
                      soil ingestion by children can be  estimated by
                      measuring, in the feces of children, the levels of
                      certain  elements  found in soil.  Body  weight,
                      however, can be  measured  directly,  and  it is
                      therefore a more reliable measurement.  The fact
                      that soil ingestion is more difficult to measure
                      than body  weight  is  reflected  in the   overall
                      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.

                      (6) Recommendation  Tables: The U.S. EPA
                      developed a table at the beginning of each chapter
                      of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                      (U.S.  EPA,  2008a)   that   summarizes   the
                      recommended values  for  the relevant  factor.
                      Table 1 summarizes the principal exposure  factors
                      addressed in the Handbook. Table 4 summarizes
                      the confidence ratings  assigned  to the  various
                      factors.

                       SUGGESTED REFERENCES FOR USE IN
                       CONJUNCTION WITH THE HANDBOOK
                       The  main steps  for  performing  an exposure
                   assessment  are  (1)  identifying the  source  of the
Page
6
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                     August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                  CSEFH
environmental  contamination  and the media  that
transports  the  contaminant;  (2) determining  the
contaminant  concentration;  (3)  determining  the
exposure scenarios—including pathways and routes
of exposure;  (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 U.S. EPA documents. Some of these provide
guidance while others demonstrate various aspects of
the exposure process. These documents include, but
are not limited, to the following, which are listed in
chronological order:

   •   Methods for Assessing Exposure to Chemical
       Substances,  Volumes  1-13  (U.S. EPA,
        1983-1989)

   •   Standard Scenarios for Estimating Exposure
       to  Chemical Substances During  Use  of
       Consumer Products (U.S. EPA, 1986)

   •   Selection  Criteria for Mathematical Models
        Used  in   Exposure Assessments:  Surface
        Water Models (U.S. EPA, 1987)

   •   Selection  Criteria for Mathematical Models
        Used in Exposure Assessments: Groundwater
       Mo
-------
                                    Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
       Assessing  Susceptibility  from  Early-Life
       Exposure to Carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 2005b)

    •   Supplemental   Guidance   for  Assessing
       Susceptibility from  Early-Life  Exposure  to
       Carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 2005c)

    •   Protocol for Human Health Risk Assessment,
       Protocol for  Hazardous Waste  Combustion
       Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2005d)

    •   A Framework for Assessing Health Risk of
       Environmental Exposures to Children (Final)
       (U.S. EPA, 2006c)

    •   Concepts, Methods,  and Data Sources for
       Cumulative   Health   Risk  assessment  of
       Multiple Chemicals,  Exposures and Effects:
       A Resource Document (Final)  (U.S.  EPA,
       2008b)

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.

    CONSIDERING    LIFESTAGE    WHEN
    CALCULATING EXPOSURE AND RISK
    A key component of U.S. EPA's  Guidance on
Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood    Exposures     to    Environmental
Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005a)  involves  the need
to sum age-specific differences in exposure across
time when assessing long-term exposure, as well as
integrating   these   age-specific  exposures   with
age-specific  differences  in  toxic  potency  in  those
cases where information  exists  to describe  such
differences:  an example is carcinogens that act via a
mutagenic mode of action (Supplemental Guidance
for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure
to Carcinogens [U.S. EPA, 2005c]). When assessing
chronic risks (i.e., exposures greater than 10%  of
human lifespan), rather than assuming  a  constant
level  of  exposure  for 70 years (usually consistent
with an adult level of exposure), the Agency is now
recommending   that  assessors  calculate   chronic
exposures by summing time-weighted exposures that
occur at  each life stage; the  Handbook provides data
arrayed by childhood age in order to follow this new
guidance. This approach is expected to increase the
accuracy of risk assessments because it will account
                   for life-stage differences in exposure. Depending on
                   whether body-weight-adjusted  childhood exposures
                   are either smaller or larger  compared to those  for
                   adults, calculated  risks could  either decrease  or
                   increase when compared with the historical approach
                   of assuming a lifetime of a  constant adult level of
                   exposure.
                       The   Supplemental Guidance  for  Assessing
                   Susceptibility  from   Early-Life   Exposure   to
                   Carcinogens also recommends  that in those cases
                   where age-related differences in toxicity also occur,
                   differences in both toxicity and exposure should be
                   integrated across all  relevant  age  intervals. This
                   guidance describes such a  case for carcinogens that
                   act via a mutagenic  mode  of action, where  age
                   dependent potency adjustments  factors (ADAFs) of
                   lOx and 3x are recommended for children ages birth
                   to <2 years and  2 to <16  years, respectively, when
                   there  is exposure during those  years and available
                   data  are  insufficient   to  derive  chemical-specific
                   adjustment factors.
                       Table  5,   along  with  Chapter  6   of   the
                   Supplemental Guidance, has  been developed to help
                   the reader understand how to  use  the new sets of
                   exposure  and   potency  age  groupings  when
                   calculating risk through the integration of life-stage-
                   specific changes in exposure and potency.
                      Thus, Lifetime Cancer Risk (for a population with
                   average life expectancy of 70 years) = S (Exposure x
                   Duration/70 yrs x Potency  x  ADAF) summed across
                   all  the age groups presented in Table 5. This is a
                   departure from the way cancer risks have historically
                   been  calculated which  was based upon the premise
                   that risk is proportional to the daily average of  the
                   long-term adult dose.

                       FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
                       EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
                       The  definition  of  exposure  as used  by  the
                   International Programme on  Chemical Safety is  the
                   "contact of an organism with a chemical or physical
                   agent, quantified as the  amount of chemical available
                   at the exchange boundaries of the  organism  and
                   available for absorption."  This  means contact with
                   the visible exterior of a person such as the skin, and
                   openings such as orifices and lesions. The process of
                   a chemical entering the  body  can be described in two
                   steps:  contact  (exposure)   followed  by  entry
                   (crossing  the   boundary).  In the  context  of
Page
8
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                    August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                    CSEFH
environmental risk assessment, risk to an individual
or population can be represented as a continuum from
the  source through exposure to dose to effect as
shown in Figure 1 (U.S. EPA, 2003d; IPCS, 2006).
The process begins with a chemical or agent released
from  a source into the environment. Once in the
environment,   the  chemical  or  agent  can  be
transformed and transported through the environment
via  air, water, soil, dust, and diet. Individuals  come in
contact with  the  chemical  through  inhalation,
ingestion,   or skin/eye  contact.  The  individual's
activity patterns as well as the concentration of the
chemical will determine the magnitude, frequency,
and duration of the exposure. The exposure becomes
an  absorbed  dose when the chemical  crosses an
absorption  barrier.  When  the   chemical   or  its
metabolites interact with a target tissue, it becomes a
target tissue  dose, which  may  lead  to  an  adverse
health outcome. The text under the boxes in Figure 1
indicates the specific information that may be needed
to characterize each box.

    Dose Equations
    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 an external dose over the period  of time
exposure occurred, and it is normalized by body
weight (ADDpot)(see equation 1).
 ADDpot =
                  External Dose
          Body Weight  x Averaging Time
The exposure can be expressed in as follows:

External Dose = C x IR x ED              (2)
    Where
        C
        IR
        ED
= Contaminant Concentration
= Intake Rate
= Exposure Duration
    Contaminant concentration is the concentration
of the contaminant in the medium (e.g., air, food, and
soil)  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 of food  containing the  contaminant of
interest  that  an  individual  ingests during  some
specific time period (units of mass/time). Much of the
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 presented in the Handbook that affect dermal
exposure are skin surface area and estimates of the
amount of soil that adheres to the skin.
    The exposure duration  is the  length of time of
contaminant contact. The length of time a person
lives in an area, frequency of bathing, time  spent
indoors versus outdoors, etc., all affect the exposure
duration.  Chapter  16,  Activity Factors,  describes
examples of population behavior/activity patterns that
may be useful for estimating exposure durations.
    When the  parameter values IR and ED 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 the intake rate specified by the other parameters
in the equation.
    Note that the advent of childhood age groupings
means that separate ADDs should be calculated for
each age group considered. Chronic exposures can
then  be  calculated  by   summing  across  each
life-stage-specific ADD.
    Cancer risks have traditionally been calculated in
those  cases  where a linear nonthreshold model is
assumed,  in  terms  of  lifetime  probabilities,  by
utilizing dose values presented in terms of lifetime
ADDs  (LADDs). The  LADD takes  the form of
Equation 1, with lifetime replacing averaging time.
While the use of LADD may be  appropriate when
developing screening level estimates of cancer risk,
as  discussed  above,   the   U.S.   EPA   is  now
recommending that risks should  be calculated by
integrating exposures or risks throughout all life
stages (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
    For  some  types  of analyses,   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
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                                                                    Page
                                                                                        9

-------
                                    Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
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
exposures),   the   dose-response   parameters  for
carcinogenic  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.
    For carcinogens, the duration of a lifetime has
traditionally been assigned the nominal value of 70
years as 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 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 (exposure duration). The objective
in selecting the exposure averaging time is to express
the exposure in a way that can be combined with the
dose-response relationship to calculate risk.
    The body weight to  be used in the  exposure
equation (see  Equation 1) depends on the units of the
exposure  data  presented  in  the Handbook.  For
example, 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
g/kg body weight-day. In this case, the body weight
has already been included in the "intake rate" term in
Equations 1-2, and  the  exposure  assessor does not
need to explicitly include body weight.
    The units of intake in the Handbook for the
incidental  ingestion of  soil  and  dust   are  not
normalized to body weight. In this case, the exposure
assessor will  need to use the average  weight of the
exposed  population during the time when  the
exposure  actually  occurs  (shown in Equation  1).
When making body weight  assumptions,  care must
be taken  that the  values  used for the population
parameters  in  the   dose-response   analysis  are
                    consistent with the population parameters used in the
                    exposure analysis. Intraspecies adjustments based on
                    lifestage can be made using a scaling factor of BW 4
                    (U.S. EPA,  2006c; 2006d). Some of the parameters
                    (primarily   concentrations)  used   in  estimating
                    exposure are exclusively site specific, and, therefore,
                    default  recommendations  should  not be  used. It
                    should be noted that body weight is correlated  with
                    food consumption rates and inhalation rates.
                        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 (e.g.,  serving  size per  event).  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.
                        Inhalation  dosimetry is employed  to derive the
                    human  equivalent concentration   (Hc)  on  which
                    inhalation unit risks,  and  reference  concentrations,
                    are  based  (U.S. EPA,  1994b).   U.S.   EPA   has
                    traditionally approximated  children's  respiratory
                    exposure by using adult values, although a recent
                    review (Ginsberg et al., 2002) concluded that there
                    may be  some cases where young children's  greater
                    inhalation rate per body weight or pulmonary surface
                    area  as  compared to  adults  can  result in  greater
                    exposures  than  adults. The  implications  of   this
                    difference  for  inhalation dosimetry  and children's
                    risk assessment were discussed at a peer involvement
                    workshop hosted by the U.S. EPA in 2006 (Foos et
                    al., 2008).
                        Consideration      of      life-stage-particular
                    physiological characteristics in the dosimetry analysis
Page
10
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                      August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                     CSEFH
may result in a refinement to the human equivalent
concentration (Hc)   to  insure  relevance  in  risk
assessment across life  stages, or might conceivably
conclude  with  multiple   Hcs,  and  corresponding
inhalation  unit   risk  values   (e.g.,  separate   for
childhood and adulthood). The RfC methodology,
which is  described  in Methods for  Derivation of
Inhalation    Reference     Concentrations    and
Applications  of Inhalation Dosimetry (U.S. EPA,
1994b),   allows    the    user   to   incorporate
population-specific assumptions into the models. The
reader is referred to U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA,
1994b) on how to make these adjustments.
    There    are    no  specific   exposure   factor
assumptions  in the derivation  of Reference Doses
(RfDs). The  assessment of the potential for adverse
health effects in infants and children is part of the
overall hazard and dose-response assessment for a
chemical.  Available  data pertinent  to  children's
health risks are evaluated along with data on adults
and  the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
or benchmark dose  (BMD) for the most  sensitive
critical effect(s),  based on consideration of all health
effects. By doing this, protection of the health of
children will  be  considered along with that of other
sensitive populations. In some cases, it is appropriate
to evaluate the potential hazard to children separately
from the assessment for the general population or
other population subgroups.

    Use of Exposure Factors Data in Probabilistic
    Analyses
    Although the Handbook  is not intended to
provide complete guidance on the use of Monte Carlo
and other probabilistic  analyses, some of the data in
the  Handbook  may  be   appropriate for use in
probabilistic assessments. The use of Monte Carlo or
other probabilistic analysis requires characterization
of the variability of exposure factors and requires the
selection of distributions or histograms for the input
parameters of the dose equations presented earlier.
The   following   suggestions   are   provided   for
consideration 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 unless a nonlinear model
      is used. 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. Alternatively, the
      assessor may  use  the maximum values for
      those  parameters  that  have  the  greatest
      variance.

      It is important to  note that the selection of
      distributions can be  highly site  specific and
      dependent on the purpose of the assessment. In
      some cases, the selection of distributions  is
      driven by specific legislation. It will always
      involve   some   degree    of   judgment.
      Distributions derived from national data may
      not represent  local conditions. The  assessor
      needs to evaluate the  site-specific data, when
      available,  to   assess   their  quality  and
      applicability. The assessor may decide to use
      distributional data drawn from the national or
      other surrogate population. In this case, it  is
      important that the assessor address the extent
      to which local conditions may differ from the
      surrogate data.

      It  is   also   important  to   consider  the
      independence/dependence of  variables and
      data used in a  simulation. For example, it may
      be reasonable to assume that ingestion rate and
      contaminant   concentration   in  foods  are
      independent variables, but ingestion rate and
      body weight may or may not be independent.

    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
      probabilistic analysis may be derived by fitting
      an appropriate function to empirical  data.  In
      doing this,  it should be recognized that in the
      lower and  upper tails  of the  distribution the
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                          Page
                                              11

-------
                                    Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
      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 technique
      is using the empirical data itself rather than an
      analytic function. Another is to  do separate
      analyses with  several  functions that 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. Off-the-shelf
      computer software can be used to statistically
      determine the distributions that fit  the data.
      Other software tools  are available to identify
      outliers   and for conducting  Monte  Carlo
      simulations.

      If  only  a range of values is known  for an
      exposure factor, the  exposure  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; or

          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 the following:

          ~   data are missing or very limited for  a
              key parameter;

          ~   data were collected over a short time
              period   and   may   not   represent
              long-term  trends (the  respondent's
              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; for example,
                                 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;  for example,  soil
                                 ingestion by children.

                       CUMULATIVE EXPOSURES
                       The U.S. EPA recognizes that children may be
                   exposed to mixtures of chemicals  both indoors and
                   outdoors  through  more  than one pathway.  New
                   directions in risk assessments  in the U.S.  EPA put
                   more  emphasis on total  exposures  of multiple
                   chemicals through multiple pathways (U.S. EPA,
                   1986a; 2000c).  Over the last several years, the U.S.
                   EPA has developed a methodology for assessing risk
                   from multiple chemicals. For more information, the
                   reader is referred to  the U.S. EPA's Framework for
                   Cumulative Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2003b).
Page
12
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                     August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                    CSEFH
    REFERENCES

AAP  (1997) Child  health issues for the second
session  of  the  106th Congress.   Environmental
Health. American Academy of Pediatrics Department
of Federal Affairs, 601 13th Street, NW  Suite 400
North, Washington, DC 20005.  Available online at
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/washing/chieh/htm.

Breysee,  P.N.;  Buckley,  T.J.;  Williams, D.; Beck,
C.M.;  Jo,  S.;  Merriman, B.;  Kanchanaraksa, S.;
Swartz,  L.J.;   Callahan,  K.A.; Butz,  A.M.; Rand,
C.S.;  Diette, G.B.; Krishman, J.A.; Moseley, A.M.;
Curlin-Brosnan,  I;  Durkin,  N.B.; Eggleston,  P.A.
(2005)  Indoor   exposures  to   air  pollutants  and
allergens in the  homes of asthmatic children in inner-
city Baltimore.  Environ Res 98:167-176.

Clewell,  H.J.;   Gentry,   P.R.;  Covington,  T.R.;
Sarangapani, R.; Teeguarden, J.G.  (2004) Evaluation
of the potential impact of age and gender-specific
pharmacokinetic differences on  tissue  dosimetry.
ToxicolSci 79:381-393.

Curwin, B.D.; Hein, M.J.; Sanderson, W.T.; Striley,
C.; Heederik,   D.;  Kromhout, H.;  Reynolds, I;
Alavanja, M.C.  (2007) Pesticide dose estimates for
children of Iowa farmers and non-farmers. Environ
Res 105:307-315.

EO (1997)  Executive Order  13045. Protection of
children  for environmental health risks and safety
risks.  Available online at
http://yosemite.epa.gOv/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/w
hatwe_executiv. htm.

Eskenazi, B.; Bradman,  A.;  Castriona,  R. (1999)
Exposure of children to organophosphate  pesticides
and their potential adverse health effects. Environ
Health Perspect  107(3):409-419.

Garry, V.F.  (2004) Pesticides and children. Toxicol
ApplPharmaol 198:152-163.

Ginsberg, G.; Hattis, D.;  Sonawame, B.;  Russ, A.;
Banati, P.; Kozlak, M.;  Smolenski,  S.;  Goble, R.
(2002) Evaluation of child/adult pharmacokinetic
differences  from  a  database  derived   from  the
therapeutic drug literature. Toxicol Sci 66:185-200.
Gurunathan, S.; Robson, M.; Freeman N.; Buckley,
B.; Roy, A.; Meyer,  R.; Bukowski, I; Lioy, P.J.
(1998) Accumulation of chloropyrifos on residential
surfaces and toys  accessible to children.  Environ
Health Perspect 106(1):916.

IPCS (2006) Principles for evaluating health risks in
children  associated with  exposure to  chemicals.
Environmental  Health Criteria  237.  International
Programme  on  Chemical  Safety,  World  Health
Organization.

Landrigan,   P.J.;   Sonawane,   B.;  Butler,   R.N.;
Transande, L.; Callan, R. (2005) Early environmental
origins of  neurodegenerative  disease  in later life.
Environ Health Perspect 113(9): 1230-1233.

Lewis, R. G.; Fortune  C.; Willis, R. D.; Camann, D.
E.; Antley, J. T. (1999) Distribution of pesticides and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in house dust as a
function of particle size. Environ Health Perspect
107(9):721-726.

Myers,   G.J.;  Davidson,   P.W.   (2000)   Does
methylmercury have a  role in causing developmental
disabilities  in children?  Environ Health  Perspect
108(3):413-419.

Nishioka, M.G.; Burkholder, H.M.;  and Brinkman,
M.C.;  Lewis, R.G.   (1999)  Distribution  of  2,4-
dihlorophenoxyacetic acid in floor dust throughout
homes following homeowner and commercial lawn
application: quantitative effects of children, pets, and
shoes. Environ Sci Technol 33:1359-1365.

Selevan,  S.G.; Kimmel, C.A.; Mendola, P. (2000)
Identifying  critical  windows  of  exposure   for
children's  health.    Monograph based on papers
developed from the workshop: Identifying  Critical
Windows  of Exposure for Children's Health held
September  14-15,  1999 in Richmond,  VA. Environ
Health Perspect 108(3):451-455.

U.S.  EPA.  (1983-1989)  Methods for  assessing
exposure to  chemical  substances.  Volumes  1-13.
Office of Toxic Substances, Exposure Evaluation
Division, Washington, DC.
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                          Page
                                             13

-------
                                   Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
U.S. EPA. (1986) Standard scenarios for estimating
exposure to  chemical  substances  during  use of
consumer   products.  Volumes  I and  II.  Office of
Toxic  Substance,  Exposure  Evaluation  Division,
Washington, DC.

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;  EPA/600/8-87/042.  Available  from  NTIS,
Springfield, VA; PB-88-139928/AS.

U.S. EPA. (1988) Selection criteria for mathematical
models used in exposure  assessments: groundwater
models. Exposure  Assessment  Group,  Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington,
DC;  EPA/600/88/075.   Available   from   NTIS,
Springfield, VA; PB-88-248752/AS.

U.S. EPA.  (1989) Risk  assessment  guidance  for
Superfund.  Volume  I. Human health  evaluation
manual: Part A. Interim final. Office of Solid Waste
and   Emergency   Response,  Washington,   DC;
EPA/540-189/002.     Available      online    at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa
/index, htm.

U.S. EPA. (1990) Methodology for assessing health
risks associated with indirect exposure to combustor
emissions.  Office  of Health  and  Environmental
Assessment, Washington,  DC;  EPA 600/6-90/003.
Available  from  NTIS,  Springfield,  VA;  PB-90-
187055/AS.

U.S. EPA.  (1991a) Risk assessment  guidance  for
Superfund.  Volume  I. Human health  evaluation
manual:  Part  B,   Development  of  preliminary
remediation  goals.  Office  of  Solid  Waste  and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC; EPA/540/R-
92/003. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsb
/index, htm.

U.S. EPA.  (1991b) Risk assessment  guidance  for
Superfund.  Volume  I. Human health  evaluation
manual:  Part C,  Risk  evaluation  of  remedial
alternatives. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC. Publication 9285.7-01C.
                   Available online at
                   http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsc
                   /index, htm.

                   U.S.   EPA   (1992a)   Guidelines  for  exposure
                   assessment.  Office  of Research  and Development,
                   Office  of Health  and Environmental Assessment,
                   Washington, DC; EPA/600/Z-92/001.

                   U.S.  EPA.  (1992b) Dermal  exposure  assessment:
                   principles and applications. Office  of  Health  and
                   Environmental  Assessment,  Washington,   DC;
                   EPA/600/8-9/01 IF.  Available online at
                   http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/efh/references
                   /derexp.pdf.

                   U.S.  EPA. (1994a)  Estimating exposures to dioxin-
                   like compounds. Draft Report. Office of Research
                   and  Development,  Washington,   DC;  EPA/600/6-
                   88/005Cb.

                   U.S.  EPA.   (1994b)  Methods  for  derivation  of
                   inhalation reference concentrations and  applications
                   of inhalation dosimetry.   Office  of  Health  and
                   Environmental  Assessment,  Washington,   DC;
                   EPA/600/8-90/066F.

                   U.S.EPA (1996a) Soil screening guidance. Office of
                   Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
                   DC;   EPA/540/F-95/041.   Available  online   at
                   http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil
                   /index, htm.

                   U.S.EPA.  (1996b)  Series  875  occupational  and
                   residential exposure test guidelines - final guidelines
                   -  Group A  - application exposure  monitoring  test
                   guidelines.   Office   of  Pesticides  and   Toxic
                   Substances,   Washington,  DC;  EPA/712/C96/261.
                   Available online at
                   http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_
                   Harmonized/875_Occupational_and_Residential_
                   Exposure_Test_Guidelines/Series/875_OOO.pdf.

                   U.S.  EPA.  (1996c) Series  875   occupational  and
                   residential exposure test guidelines - group B - post
                   application  exposure   monitoring  test  guidelines.
                   Office   of   Pesticides   and  Toxic   Substances,
                   Washington,   DC;   EPA/712/C96/266.   Available
Page
14
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                   August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                   CSEFH
online at
http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_
Harmonized/875_Occupational_and_Residential_
Exposure_Test_Guidelines/Series/875-2000.pdf.

U.S.  EPA  (1997a)  Exposure  factors  handbook.
National  Center  for Environmental  Assessment,
Office  of Research and  Development, Washington,
DC; EPA/600/P-95/002Fa,b,c.

U.S. EPA. (1997b) Policy for use of probabilistic
analysis in risk assessment at the U.S. Environmental
Protection   Agency.    Science   Policy  Council.
Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/pdfs/probpol.pdf.

U.S. EPA. (1997c)   Guiding principles for Monte
Carlo analysis. Office of Research and Development,
Risk   Assessment   Forum,   Washington,   DC;
EPA/600/R-97/001.     Available     online     at
http ://cfpub .epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid
=29596.

U.S. EPA. (1999) Sociodemographic  data used for
identifying potentially highly  exposed populations.
National  Center  for Environmental  Assessment,
Washington,  DC;  EPA/600/R-99/060.  Available
online at
http ://cfpub .epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid
=22562.

U.S. EPA. (2000a) Strategy for research on risks to
children.  Office  of  Research  and  Development,
Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-00/068.

U.S.   EPA.   (2000b)   Options   for  developing
parametric  probability  distributions  for  exposure
factors.   National   Center   for   Environmental
Assessment, Office of Research and  Development,
Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-00/058. Available  on
line at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/paramprob4ef.htm.

U.S. EPA.  (2000c)  Supplementary  guidance  for
conducting  health risk  assessment  of  chemical
mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum,  Washington, DC;
EPA/630/R-00/002F.     Available    online    at
http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/raf/pdfs/chem_mix/chem
_mix_08_2001.pdf.
U.S. EPA. (200la) Risk assessment guidance for
Superfund. Volume  I.  Human  health  evaluation
manual: Part D. Standardized planning, reporting and
review of Superfund risk assessments. Office of Solid
Waste  and Emergency  Response, Washington, DC.
Publication   9285.7-47.   Available   online   at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment
/ragsd/tara.htm.

U.S. EPA. (200Ib) Risk assessment guidance for
Superfund.  Volume   III.   Part  A.  Process  for
conducting probabilistic risk assessment. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
DC;  EPA/540/R-02/002.   Available   online   at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/rags3adt/.

U.S. EPA. (2002a) Child-specific exposure factors
handbook.  Interim  Final.  National  Center  for
Environmental   Assessment,   Washington,   DC;
EPA/600/P-00/002B.

U.S. EPA (2002b). Overview  of the EPA quality
system for environmental data and technology. Office
of   Environmental  Information, Washington DC;
EPA/240/R-02/003.     Available    online     at
http ://www. epa. gov/quality/qs-docs/overview-
final.pdf.

U.S. EPA (2003a). A summary of general assessment
factors for evaluating the quality of scientific and
technical  information.   Science  Policy   Council,
Washington   DC;  EPA/100/B-03/001.   Available
online at
http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/assess2.pdf.

U. S. EPA. (2003b) Framework for cumulative risk
assessment. Risk  Assessment  Forum, Washington,
DC;  EPA/630/P-02/001F.  Available  online  at
http ://cfpub .epa. gov/ncea/raf/recordisplay. cfm?deid=
54944.

U.S. EPA. (2003c)  Example  exposure  scenarios.
National  Center  for Environmental  Assessment,
Washington,   DC.  EPA/600/R-03/036.  Available
online                                        at
http ://cfpub .epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid
=85843.
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                         Page
                                             15

-------
                                   Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
U.S. EPA. (2003d) Human health research strategy.
Office  of Research and Development,  Washington,
DC;  EPA/600/R-02/050.   Available   online   at
http://www.epa.gov/OPxD/htm/researchstrategies.htm
#rs01.

U.S. EPA. (2004) Risk  assessment  guidance  for
Superfund.  Volume  I. Human  health  evaluation
manual: Part E.  Supplemental guidance for  dermal
risk assessment. Interim. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC; EPA/540/R-
99/005.         Available        online         at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragse
/index, htm.

U.S. EPA (2005a) Guidance on selecting age  groups
for monitoring and assessing childhood exposures to
environmental contaminants Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC; EPA/630/P-03/003F.

U.S. EPA.  (2005b) Guidelines for  carcinogen risk
assessment. Risk Assessment Forum,  Washington,
DC; EPA/630/P-03/001F. Available online at
http ://cfpub .epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid
=116283.

U.S.  EPA.  (2005c)   Supplemental guidance  for
assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure  to
carcinogens.  Risk Assessment Forum,  Washington,
DC;  EPA/630/R03/003F.   Available  online  at:
http ://cfpub .epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid
=116283.

U.S. EPA. (2005d) Protocol  for human health risk
assessment protocol for hazardous waste combustion
facilities. U.S.  EPA, Washington, DC;  EPA/530/R-
05/006.         Available        online         at
http://www.epa.gov/combustion/risk.htm.

U.S. EPA. (2006a) Use  of  physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic  (PBPK)  models  to  quantify the
impact of human age and interindividual differences
in physiology  and biochemistry pertinent to risk
(Final Report).  Office of Research and Development,
                   Washington,  DC;  EPA/600/R-06/014A.  Available
                   online at
                   http ://cfpub .epa. gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay. cfm
                   ?deid=151384

                   U.S.  EPA (2006b) Guidance on systematic planning
                   using the data quality objectives process. Office  of
                   Environmental   Information,   Washington   DC;
                   EPA/240B/06/001.     Available      online     at
                   http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf.

                   U.S.  EPA. (2006c) A framework for assessing health
                   risk of environmental exposures to children (Final).
                   Office  of Research and Development,  Washington,
                   DC;   EPA/600/R-05/093F.  Available  online  at
                   http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm7deid
                   = 158363.

                   U.S.  EPA  (2006d)  Harmonization in interspecies
                   extrapolation: use of BW3/4  as default method  in
                   derivation of the oral RfD (External Review Draft).
                   Risk   Assessment   Forum,   Washington,   DC;
                   EPA/630/R-06/001.     Available     online     at
                   http://cfpub.epa. gov/ncea/raf/recordisplay.cfm?deid=
                   148525.

                   U.S.  EPA (2008a) Child-specific  exposure factors
                   handbook.  National  Center   for Environmental
                   Assessment,  Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-06/096F.
                   Available online at www.epa.gov/ncea.

                   U.S.  EPA  (2008b)  Concepts,  methods,  and  data
                   sources for  cumulative health risk assessment  of
                   multiple chemicals, exposures and effects: a resource
                   document  (final).   Office   of   Research   and
                   Development,  Washington,  DC;     EPA/600/R-
                   06/013F.         Available         online        at
                   http ://cfpub. epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid
                   = 190187.
Page
16
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                    August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook Page
August 2009 17


Table 1. Summary of Recommended Exposure Factors for Children
Age Group
0 to <1 1 to <3
mo mos
3 to <6
mos
6to<12
mos
1 to<2
yrs
2to<3
yrs
3 to <6
yrs
6 to <1 1
yrs
11 to <16
yrs
16 to <18
yrs
18to<21
yrs
Ingestion of Drinking Water (mL/day) — see Chapter 3
Mean per capita
95th percentile per capita
Mean consumer only
95th percentile consumer only
1 84 227
839 896
470 552
858 1,053
362
1,056
556
1,171
360
1,055
467
1,147
271
837
308
893
317
877
356
912
380
1,078
417
1,099
447
1,235
480
1,251
606
1,727
652
1,744
731
1,983
792
2,002
826
2,540
895
2,565
Ingestion of Drinking Water (mL/kg-day) — see Chapter 3
Mean per capita
95th percentile per capita
Mean consumer only
95th percentile consumer only
52 48
232 205
137 119
238 285
52
159
80
173
41
126
53
129
23
71
27
75
23
60
26
62
22
61
24
65
16
43
17
45
12
34
13
34
11
31
12
32
12
35
13
35
Ingestion of Water while Swimming (mL/hour) — see Chapter 3
Mean
Upper percentile

50
100

20
70
Hand-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) — see Chapter 4
Indoor Mean
95th percentile
Outdoor Mean
95th percentile

28
65
19
52
15
47
20
63
14
42
13
37
5
20
15
54
9
36
7
21
12

Object-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) — see Chapter 4
Mean
95th percentile

20
10
1

Object- to-Mouth Duration (minutes/hour) — see Chapter 4
Mean
95th percentile
_
11
26
8
22
13
16
_


Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH

-------
^S3
QTQ
ft
S
•5-
<£
S«
8-
^
S^
ft
Q
*^.
£
&
3
f
1
§
s
S
&
1
X 3
s h~
*« S
B 55
§ a
** a.
K> *•
* S
<5> S
o sa-




lable 1. Summary of Recommended Exposure Factors for Children (Continued)
Age Group
0 to <1 1 to <3
mo mos
3 to <6
mos
6to<12
mos
1 to<2
yrs
2to<3
yrs
3to<6
yrs
6to
-------
&  5
§  SK
*•* QTQ
K> S"
   s
   I:
   ft
   f
   I
   1=
Table I . Summary of Recommended Exposure Factors for Children (Continued)
Age Group

0 to <1
mo
1 to<3
mos
3 to <6
mos
6to<12
mos
1 to<2
yrs
2to<3
yrs
3to<6
yrs
6to
-------
u
"Q








HH
°ft^
c^
8
,s
^
ft"
ft
-^
s
?r

^/5
ft
i
S
s:

Sa
ft
"Si
^
i?
kG
g
&
5?
ft

S
^
^

-------
*•* QTQ
K) S"
   ft
   S
   &

   5a
Table 1 . Summary of Recommended Exposure Factors for Children (Continued)
Age Group
0 to <1 1 to <3
mo mos
3 to <6
mos
6to<12
mos
1 to<2
yrs
Total Meat Intake (g/kg-day)a —
Mean per capita
95th percentile per capita
Mean consumer only
95th percentile consumer
1.2
6.7
3.0
9.2
2to<3
yrs
3to<6
yrs
6to
-------
*SJ *T4
*SJ £5
CfQ
CTQ-
1"
^
Q
I:
a
a
8"
& ^
*Q *!
1 1


Table I . Summary of Recommended Exposure Factors for Children (Continued)
Age Group
0 to <1 1 to <3 3 to <6
mo mos mos
6to<12
mos
lto<2 2to<3 3to<6 6to
-------
*•* QTQ
K) S"
   ft
   S
   &

   5a
   5?
   »Q
   ft
Table 1 . Summary of Recommended Exposure Factors for Children (Continued)
Age Group
Oto
-------
< 5?
*Q
TO


Highlights oft
s«
TO
/^
S"
Sj
a.
^5
1?
f
&
*
t*
£
£
?i
5.
*Q !5|
S s
^ gj




Table 1 . Summary of Recommended Exposure Factors for Children (Continued)
Age Group 0 to <1 1 to <3 3 to <6 6to<12 1 to <2 2 to <3 3 to <6 6to>P

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                            CSEFH
Table 2.
Exposure Factors
Ingestion of water and other select
liquids
Non-dietary ingestion
Soil and dust ingestion
Inhalation rate
Surface area
Soil adherence
Body weight
Intake of fruits and vegetables
Intake of fish and shellfish
Intake of meats, dairy products, and
Intake of grain products
Intake of home produced foods
Total food intake
Human milk intake
Time indoors
Time outdoors
Time showering
Time bathing
Time swimming
Time playing on sand/gravel
Time playing on grass
Time playing on dirt
Characterization of Variability in Exposure
Average
y
y
y
y
y
J
y
J
J
fats J
J
J
J
J
J
y
j
y
j
y
y
y
Median
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y

y
y
y
y
y
y
Factors
Upper percentile
y
y
ya
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y

Multiple
Percentiles
y


y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y

y
y
y
y
y
y
a Soil pica and geophagy.
y = Data available.
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
Page
  25

-------
CSEFH
                                           Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                              Table 3.  Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values
 General Assessment Factors
                                             Increasing Confidence
                                                       Decreasing Confidence
  Soundness
   Adequacy of Approach
   Minimal (or defined) Bias
The studies used the best available
methodology and capture the measurement of
interest.

As the sample size relative to that of the
target population increases, there is greater
assurance that the results are reflective of the
target population.

The response rate is greater than 80% for in-
person interviews and telephone surveys, or
greater than 70 % for mail surveys.

The studies analyzed primary data.

The study design minimizes measurement
There are serious limitations with the approach used;
study design does not accurately capture the
measurement of interest.

Sample size is too small to represent the population
of interest.
                                                                             The response rate is less than 40 %.
The studies are based on secondary sources.

Uncertainties with the data exist due to measurement
error.
 Applicability and Utility
   Exposure Factor of Interest
   Representativeness
   Currency
   Data Collection Period
The studies focused on the exposure factor of   The purpose of the studies was to characterize a
interest.                                   related factor.

The studies focused on the U.S. population.     Studies are not representative of the U.S. population.
The studies represent current exposure
conditions.

The data collection period is sufficient to
estimate long-term behaviors.
Studies may not be representative of current
exposure conditions.

Shorter data collection periods may not represent
long-term exposures.
 Clarity and Completeness
   Accessibility

   Reproducibility
   Quality Assurance
The study data could be accessed.

The results can be reproduced, or
methodology can be followed and evaluated.
The studies applied and documented quality
assurance/quality control measures.
Access to the primary data set was limited.

The results cannot be reproduced, the methodology
is hard to follow, and the author(s) cannot be located.

Information on quality assurance/control was limited
or absent.
 Variability and Uncertainty
   Variability in Population
   Uncertainty
The studies characterize variability in the
population studied.

The uncertainties are minimal and can be
identified. Potential biases in the studies are
stated or can be determined from the study
design.
The characterization of variability is limited.
Estimates are highly uncertain and cannot be
characterized. The study design introduces biases in
the results.
 Evaluation and Review
   Peer Review
                                   The studies received high level of peer
                                   review (e.g., they are published in peer-
                                   reviewed journals).
   Number and Agreement of Studies   The number of studies is greater than three.
                                   The results of studies from different
                                   researchers are in agreement.
                                          The studies received limited peer review.
                                          The number of studies is one. The results of studies
                                          from different researchers are in disagreement.
Page
26
         Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                         August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                            CSEFH
Table 4. Summary of Confidence Ratings For Exposure Factor Recommendations
Exposure Factor
Ingestion of drinking water — see Chapter 3
Ingestion of water while swimming — see Chapter 3
Mouthing frequency and duration — see Chapter 4
Soil and dust ingestion — see Chapter 5
Inhalation rates — see Chapter 6
Skin surface area — see Chapter 7
Soil adherence — see Chapter 7
Body Weight — see Chapter 8
Intake of Fruits and Vegetables — see Chapter 9
Intake of Fish and Shellfish — see Chapter 10
Intake of Meats, Dairy, and Fats — see Chapter 11
Intake of Grains — see Chapter 12
Intake of Home-produced Foods — see Chapter 13
Total Food Intake — see Chapter 14
Human Milk Intake — see Chapter 15
Activity Factors — see Chapter 16
Overall Confidence Rating
Medium to High
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium for Total Surface Area
Low for Surface Area of Individual Body Parts
Low
High
High for means
Low for long-term upper percentiles
High for mean
Medium for upper percentile
High for means
Low for long-term upper percentiles
High for means
Low for long-term upper percentiles
Low to Medium for means and short-term distributions
Low for long-term distributions
Medium
Medium
Medium for means
Low for upper percentiles
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
Page
  27

-------
                         Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
CSEFH
Table 5. Age-Dependent Potency Adjustment Factor (ADAF) by Exposure Age Group a
Exposure Age Group3
Birth to < 1 mo
1 to <3 mos
3 to <6 mos
6 to <12 mos
1 to <2 yrs
2 to <3 yrs
3 to <6 yrs
6to21yrs(21to<70yr)
Exposure Duration (years)
0.083
0.167
0.25
0.5
1
1
3
5
5
5
49
ADAF (Age-Dependent Potency
Adjustment Factor)
lOx
lOx
lOx
lOx
lOx
3x
3x
3x
3x
Ix
Ix
a Integrating U.S. EPA's Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005a) with U.S. EPA's Supplemental Guidance for
Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 2005c) for those
contaminants which act via a mutagenic mode of action.
Page
28
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     August 2009

-------
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                    CSEFH
     SOURCE/STRESSOR
         FORMATION
                                                                        DISEASE
Chemical
Physical
Microbia
 Magnitude
 Duration
 Timin
   TRANSPORT/
TRANSFORMATION


ALTERED STRUCTURE/
FUNCTION
                                                                                   Cancer
                                                                                   Asthma
                                                                                   Infertility
       Dispersion
       Kinetics
       Thermodynamics
       Distributions
       Meteorolog
s
1

ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERIZATION


EARLY BIOLOGICAL
EFFECT
                                                                              Edema
                                                                              Arrhythmia
                                                                              Enzymuria
                                                                              Necrosis
                  Air
                  Water
                  Diet
                  Soil and
                               EXPOSURE
                                                                    Molecular
                                                                    Biochemical
                                                                    Cellular
                                                                    Organ
                                                                    Organis
       I
       \
          Activity
          Pattern
                  Pathway
                  Route
                  Duration
                  Frequency
                  Magnitud
Individual
Community
Population
                                                       Absorbed
                                                       Target
                                                       Internal
                                                       Biologically
                                               Statistical Profile
                                               Reference
                                               Susceptible
                                               Susceptible
                                               Population
Figure 1.  The Exposure-Dose-Effect Continuum
    The exposure-dose-effect continuum depicts the trajectory of a chemical or agent from its
    source to an effect. The chemical or agent can be transformed and transported through the
    environment via air, water, soil, dust, and diet.  Children can become in contact with the
    chemical through inhalation, ingestion, or skin/eye contact. The child's physiology, behavior,
    and activity patterns as well as the concentration of the chemical will determine the magnitude,
    frequency, and duration of the exposure. The exposure becomes an absorbed dose once the
    chemical crosses the absorption barrier (i.e., skin, lungs, eyes, gastrointestinal tract, placenta).
    Interactions of the chemical or its metabolites with a target tissue may lead to an adverse health
    outcome. The text under the boxes indicates the specific information that may be needed to
    characterize each box in the exposure-dose-effect continuum.
Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
August 2009
                                                                                      Page
                                                                                         29

-------
oEPA
     United States
     Environmental Protection
     Agency
      National Center for Environmental Assessment
      Offfie of Research and Development
      Washington, DC 20460

      Offfiial Business
      Penalty for Private Use
      $300
PRESORTED STANDARD
 POSTAGE & FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERM IT NO. G-35
       Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that
       contains a minimum of 50% post-consumer fiber
       content and processed chlorine free.

-------