PB88-132881
Household Solvent Products
A National Usage Survey
Battelle Colaobus Div., Washington, 3C
Prepared for
Environner.tal Protection Agency, Washington,
Jul 87
u.s, or
-------
-------
F38B-132Sei
FIHAL
HOUSEHOLD SOLVENT PRODUCTS;
A NATIONAL USAGE SURVEY
Prepared by;
WESTAT, Inc.
3650 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 2OS50
Under subcontract to:
Battelle Coiiraibus Division
Washington Operations
2030 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.c. 20036
Under EPA Contract No, 68-02-4243-
For the:
Exposure Evaluation Division
Office of Toxic Substances
Office of pesticides and Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
July, 1987
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared under contract to an agency of the
United States Government. Neither the United States Government
nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their
employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes
any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use
or the results of such use of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents that
its use by such third party would not infringe on privately owned
rights.
Publication of the data in this document does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO. 2-
' 'EPA-OTS 560/5-87-005
4. Till* and Subtttll
Household Solvent Products: A National Usage Survey
7. Authortm)
Donna Eisenhower, Ph.D.
Westat, Inc.
1650 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
12. Sponurinc Organization Name a
r»d Addnwi U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Exposure Evaluation Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
3. Recip*ent't Accettion No
PB88 1 328 8 I/AS
5. Report Date
July, 1987
4.
ft. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
10. Proiact/Tatk/Work Unit No.
Task. 3 5
11. Contract(C) or Crant(G) No.
(0 68-02-424 3
(G)
13. Typa of Report I Period Covered
Final Report
Oct. 84 - July '87
14.
15. Supplementary Notem
It. Atxtract (Limit: 200 wordm)
This study was conducted to provide usage information on 32 categories of common household and
automotive products which were thought to contain methylene chloride or its substitutes. Respondents
were selected using a random digit dialing procedure, were contacted by telephone to get their consent
and address, and were then sent a mail questionnaire which included product pictures. Nonrespondents
were followed up with a telephone interview. The main objective was to acquire usage statistics for
each product that can be used to calculate exposure assessments. These usage statistics included
frequency, duration and amount of use, location of use, brand names used, and protective measures
undertaken while using the product. Some major findings follow. Respondents used an average of
seven of the 32 products in their lifetime and five during the last year. Contact cements, superglues
and spray adhesives were used most frequently and brake quieters/cleaners, gasket removers and
transmission cleaners were used least frequently. Duration of use was longest for paint
removers/strippers, adhesive removers and wood stains, varnishes and finishes, and duration was
shortest for ignition/wire dryers, spray shoe polish, and typewriter correction fluid. Most respondents
reported having a window or door open but did not have a fan on while using products, and most
reported that they read directions on the product labels before use. Finally, usage of the products
decreases with increasing age.
17. Document Analymit a. Dctcripton
methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
carbon tetrachloride, Freon 113, chlorinated solvents, toxic substances, usage
statistics, consumer products, I,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane, household solvent products,
cleaning solvents, painting solvents, lubricating solvents, automotive solvents
b. Identlfien/Op*n-Ended Tarmi
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Clami (Thu Report)
I Unclassified
[ 2O. Security Clan fThii Page)
21. No. of Pa>B«&
/ fa f~
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
Set Instructioni on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (*-77
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
-------
AUTHORS AND RESEARCH TEAM
A variety of staff at Westat contributed to the research
design, analysis plan, data collection, data processing, and
analysis that made this report possible. Major contributors
include:
Westat Project Director:
Westat Corporate Officer:
Westat Project Statistician:
Other Research and Computer Staff;
Research Analysts and Assistants:
Telephone Research Support:
Data Preparation Management
and Assistance
Secretarial Support:
Donna Eisenhower
Stephen Dietz
Paul Flyer
John Rogers
Joan Bull
Garrett Moran
Janice Machado
Lisa Puhl
Debbie Bittner
Susan Englehart
Cathy Ann Grundmayer
Diane Sickles
Lisa Caldwalder
Caroline Carr
Sandy Gallagher
Nita Lemanski
Betty Ovington
111
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency Staff:
EPA's OTS Exposure Evaluation Division staff directed
all phases of this research effort. Principal EPA contributors
include:
Task Manager: Mary Frankenberry
Task Consultant: Patrick Kennedy
Project Officer: Cindy Stroup
Battelle Columbus Division
Battelle - Columbus Laboratories, as the prime
contractor, provided general contract support through:
Prime Contract Manager: Jean Chesson
Michael Samuhel
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF TABLES xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ivii
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
I. Background 1-1
II. Survey Methodology 1-4
III. Use of the Data 1-5
IV. Overview to the Report 1-6
2 DESCRIPTION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES 2-1
I. Questionnaire Validation 2-1
II. Sample Quality and Response Rate 2-2
III. Data Collection Methods 2-3
IV. Data Preparation and Processing 2-3
V. Conclusion and Summary 2-5
3 SAMPLING DESIGN AND SELECTION 3-1
I. Sampling Frame 3-1
II. Selection of the Sample 3-2
III. Sampling Error and Statistical Accuracy ... 3-2
IV. Variance Estimation 3-4
4 RESULTS: COMPARISONS AND ANALYSES ACROSS
PRODUCTS 4-1
I. Total Number of Products Used 4-1
A. Products "Ever Used" 4-1
B. Products Used Within the Last Twelve
Months 4-1
II. Rank-Orderings of Products by Question and
Selected Contributions to Total Exposure .. 4-1
III. Cross Use of Products 4-18
A. Users of Aerosol Spray Paint Who Use
Other Products 4-18
Preceding page blank
Vll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
4 III. B. Users of Carburetor Cleaners Who Use
Other Products 4-18
IV. Specialty Group Users 4-22
A. Automotive Users 4-22
B. Paint Users 4-25
V. Gender and Age Differences in Product Use.. 4-27
A. Gender Differences 4-27
B. Age Differences 4-31
VI. Differences Between Mail and Telephone
Completed Questionnaires 4-40
5 RESULTS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS —
PRODUCT-BY-PRODUCT ANALYSIS 5-1
I. Sources of Sampling and Nonsampling Error
in the Data 5-1
II. Descriptive Statistical Aspects and
Overview of the Data 5-2
III. Findings for Products 5-4
A. Spray Shoe Polish 5-9
B. Water Repellents/Protectors (for
Suede, Leather, and Cloth) 5-23
C. Spot Removers 5-37
D. Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or
Degreasers 5-51
E. Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners 5-65
F. Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-79
G. Contact Cement, Super Glues and Spray
Adhesives 5-93
H. Adhesive Removers (General Purpose,
Tile, and Wallpaper) 5-107
, I. Silicone Lubricants (Excluding
Automotive) 5-121
J. Other Lubricants (Excluding
Automotive) 5-135
K. Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for
TV, VCR, Razor, etc.) 5-149
L. Latex Paint 5-163
M. Oil Paint 5-177
N. Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes ... 5-191
O. Paint Removers/Strippers 5-205
P. Paint Thinners 5-219
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
5 III. Q. Aerosol Spray Paint 5-233
R. Primers and Special Primers
(Excluding Automotive 5-247
S. Aerosol Rust Removers 5-261
T. Outdoor Water Repellents (for Wood or
Cement) 5-275
U. Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and
Artificial Snow 5-289
V. Engine Degreasers 5-303
W. Carburetor Cleaners 5-317
X. Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars 5-331
Y. Auto Spray Primers 5-345
Z. Spray Lubricant for Cars 5-359
AA. Transmission Cleaners 5-373
BB. Battery Terminal Protectors 5-387
CC. Brake Quieters/Cleaners 5-401
DD. Gasket Removers 5-415
EE. Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-429
FF. Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-443
IV. Findings for the Drycleaning Questions .... 5-457
A. Frequency of Commercial Drycleaning
Use 5-457
B. Frequency of Self-Service Drycleaning
Use 5-459
V. Respondent Characteristics of the Sample .. 5-463
A. Respondent Age 5-463
B. Respondent Gender 5-463
C. Number of Household Members 5-464
D. Number of Bedrooms in House 5-465
6 BRAND IMPUTATION MODELING 6-1
I. Statement of the Problem 6-1
A. Background 6-1
B. Assignment of Zeros 6-4
II. Brand Imputation Model and Procedures 6-5
A. The Model 6-5
B. Brand Imputation Procedures 6-7
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
6 III. Limitations of the Brand Imputation Model
and Procedures 6-8
A. Bias 6-8
B. Overstated Sample Size 6-11
C. Use or Publication of the Results 6-14
Appendices
A RESULTS OF VARIANCE ESTIMATION A-l
B TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT .... B-l
C ACTUAL MEAN VALUES OF COMPARISONS OF BRANDS BY
PRODUCT FOR THOSE WITH AND WITHOUT LABORATORY
DATA AND THOSE FOUND TO BE WITH AND WITHOUT
THE CHEMICAL C-l
D SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS FOR AEROSOL ONLY
PRODUCTS D-l
E RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECTING LIFETIME
FREQUENCY OF USE E-l
F PRODUCT BRAND STATISTICS F-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Chlorocarbon Household Survey — Statistical
accuracy for selected products used in the last
12 months 3-3
4-1 Descriptive statistics for total number of
products ever used 4-2
4-2 Frequency distribution of total products "ever
used" 4-2
4-3 Percentile rankings for total number of
products ever used 4-3
4-4 Descriptive statistics for total number of
products used during last 12 months 4-3
4-5 Frequency distribution of total products used
during the last 12 months 4-4
4-6 Percentile rankings for total number of
products used during the last 12 months 4-4
4-7 Rank orderings of incidence of use (ever used)
for all products 4-6
4-8 Rank orderings of last time product was used
in months for all products 4-7
4-9 Rank orderings of number of uses of the product
within the last 12 months for all products 4-8
4-10 Rank orderings and average percent of exposure
for time spent using product for all products ... 4-10
4-11 Rank orderings and average percent of exposure
for time spent in the room after last use for
all products 4-11
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
Rank orderings and average percent of exposure
for amount of product used in ounces per year
for all products 4-12
4-13 Rank orderings of those saying they kept a door
or window open to the outside for all products .. 4-14
4-14 Rank orderings of those saying they kept an
exhaust fan on during use for all products 4-15
4-15 Rank orderings of those saying they kept the
door to the room open during use 4-16
4-16 Rank orderings of those saying they read the
directions on the label for last use of
product 4-17
4-17 Percentage of "Ever Users" of Aerosol Spray
Paint who "Ever Used" other products 4-19
4-18 Percentage of users in the last twelve months of
Aerosol Spray Paint who also used other
products in the last twelve months 4-20
4-19 Percentage of "Ever Users" of Carburetor
Cleaners who "Ever Used" other products 4-21
4-20 Percentage of "Users in the Last Twelve Months"
of Carburetor Cleaners who also "Used Other
Products in the Last Twelve Months" 4-23
4-21 Statistics for usage variables for automotive
users (all ten automotive products are assessed
as a group) 4-24
4-22 Statistics for usage variables for paint users
(selected paint products taken as a group) 4-26
4-23 Gender Differences in Product Use by Product .... 4-28
4-24 Age Differences in Product Use by Product 4-32
5-0 Product Tables (listed as Table A-l - Table FF-19):
A. SPRAY SHOE POLISH
A-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spray Shoe Polish 5-11
XII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
A-2 Last time Spray Shoe Polish was used in
months 5-12
A-3 Percentile rankings for Spray Shoe
Polish — months since last use 5-12
A-4 Number of uses of Spray Shoe Polish
within the last 12 months 5-13
A-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Spray Shoe Polish within the last 12
months 5-13
A-6 Time spent using Spray Shoe Polish, last
time used 5-14
A-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Spray Shoe Polish the last time used 5-14
A-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Spray Shoe Polish 5-15
A-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Spray Shoe Polish 5-15
A-10 Percentile rankings for Spray Shoe Polish
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-16
A-ll Brands of Spray Shoe Polish used 5-17
A-12 Percent of respondents saying Spray Shoe
Polish is aerosol 5-17
A-13 Amount of Spray Shoe Polish used in
ounces 5-18
A-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Spray
Shoe Polish used in ounces 5-18
A-15 Location of last use of the product 5-19
A-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Spray Shoe Polish 5-20
Xlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
A-17 Ounces per use of Spray Shoe Polish 5-20
A-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Spray Shoe Polish 5-21
A-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Spray Shoe Polish 5-21
B. WATER REPELLENTS/PROTECTORS (FOR
SUEDE, LEATHER, AND CLOTH)
B-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Water Repellents 5-25
B-2 Last time Water Repellents was used in
months 5-25
B-3 Percentile rankings for Water Repellents
— months since last use 5-26
B-4 Number of uses of Water Repellents within
the last 12 months 5-27
B-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Water Repellents within the last 12
months 5-27
B-6 Time spent using Water Repellents, last
time used 5-28
B-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Water Repellents the last time used 5-28
B-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Water Repellents 5-29
B-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Water Repellents 5-29
B-10 Percentile rankings for Water Repellents
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-30
B-ll Brands of Water Repellents used 5-31
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
B-12 Percent of respondents saying Water
Repellents is aerosol 5-31
B-13 Amount of Water Repellents used in
ounces 5-32
B-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Water
Repellents used in ounces 5-32
B-15 Location of last use of the product 5-33
B-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Water Repellents 5-34
B-17 Ounces per use of Water Repellents 5-34
B-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Water Repellents 5-35
B-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Water Repellents 5-35
C. SPOT REMOVERS
C-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spot Removers 5-39
C-2 Last time Spot Removers was used in
months 5-39
C-3 Percentile rankings for Spot Removers
— months since last use 5-40
C-4 Number of uses of Spot Removers within
the last 12 months 5-41
C-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Spot Removers within the last 12 months... 5-41
C-6 Time spent using Spot Removers, last time
used 5-42
C-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Spot Removers the last time used 5-42
C-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Spot Removers 5-43
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
C-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Spot Removers 5-43
C-10 Percentile rankings for Spot Removers for
time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-44
C-ll Brands of Spot Removers used 5-45
C-12 Percent of respondents saying Spot
Removers is aerosol 5-45
C-13 Amount of Spot Removers used in ounces ... 5-46
C-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Spot
Removers used in ounces 5-46
C-15 Location of last use of the product 5-47
C-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Spot Removers 5-48
C-17 Ounces per use of Spot Removers 5-48
C-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Spot Removers 5-49
C-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Spot Removers 5-49
D. SOLVENT-TYPE CLEANING FLUIDS OR
DEGREASERS
D-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-53
D-2 Last time Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
was used in months 5-53
D-3 Percentile rankings for Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluids — months since last use . 5-54
D-4 Number of uses of Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids within the last 12 months 5-55
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
D-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids within the
last 12 months 5-55
D-6 Time spent using Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids, last time used 5-56
D-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids the last
time used 5-56
D-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-57
D-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-57
D-10 Percentile rankings for Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluids for time spent in the
room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room 5-58
D-ll Brands of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
used 5-59
D-12 Percent of respondents saying Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluids is aerosol 5-59
D-13 Amount of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
used in ounces 5-60
D-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Solvent-
type Cleaning Fluids used in ounces 5-60
D-15 Location of last use of the product 5-61
D-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-62
D-17 Ounces per use of Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids 5-62
D-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-63
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
D-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids 5-63
E. WOOD FLOOR AND PANELING CLEANERS
E-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-67
E-2 Last time Wood Floor Panel Cleaners was
used in months 5-67
E-3 Percentile rankings for Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners — months since last use 5-68
E-4 Number of uses of Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners within the last 12 months 5-69
E-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners within the last
12 months 5-69
E-6 Time spent using Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners, last time used 5-70
E-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners the last time
used 5-70
E-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-71
E-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-71
E-10 Percentile rankings for Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-72
E-ll Brands of Wood Floor Panel Cleaners used. 5-73
E-12 Percent of respondents saying Wood Floor
Panel Cleaners is aerosol 5-73
E-13 Amount of Wood Floor Panel Cleaners used
in ounces 5-74
XVlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
E-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Wood
Floor Panel Cleaners used in ounces 5-74
E-15 Location of last use of the product 5-75
E-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-76
E-17 Ounces per use of Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners 5-76
E-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-77
E-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaners 5-77
F. TYPEWRITER CORRECTION FLUID
F-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-81
F-2 Last time Typewriter Correction Fluid was
used in months 5-81
F-3 Percentile rankings for Typewriter
Correction Fluid — months since last
use 5-82
F-4 Number of uses of Typewriter Correction
Fluid within the last 12 months 5-83
F-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Typewriter Correction Fluid within the
last 12 months 5-83
F-6 Time spent using Typewriter Correction
Fluid, last time used 5-84
F-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Typewriter Correction Fluid the last time
used 5-84
F-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-85
xix
-------
f-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
F-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-85
F-10 Percentile rankings for Typewriter
Correction Fluid for time spent in the
room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room 5-86
F-ll Brands of Typewriter Correction Fluid
used 5-87
F-12 Percent of respondents saying Typewriter
Correction Fluid is aerosol 5-87
F-13 Amount of Typewriter Correction Fluid
used in ounces 5-88
F-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Typewriter Correction Fluid used in
ounces 5-88
F-15 Location of last use of the product 5-89
F-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-90
F-17 Ounces per use of Typewriter Correction
Fluid 5-90
F-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-91
F-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Typewriter Correction Fluid 5-91
6. CONTACT CEMENT, SUPER GLUES AND SPRAY
ADHESIVES
G-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-95
G-2 Last time Contact Cements, Super Glues,
and Spray Adhesives was used in months .. 5-95
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
G-3 Percentile rankings for Contact Cements,
Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives —
months since last use 5-96
G-4 Number of uses of Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives within the
last 12 months 5-97
G-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives within the last 12 months 5-97
G-6 Time spent using Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives, last time
used 5-98
G-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives the last time used 5-98
G-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-99
G-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-99
G-10 Percentile rankings for Contact Cements,
Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives for time
spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-100
G-ll Brands of Contact Cements, Super Glues,
and Spray Adhesives used 5-101
G-12 Percent of respondents saying Contact
Cements, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
is aerosol 5-101
G-13 Amount of Contact Cements, Super Glues,
and Spray Adhesives used in ounces 5-102
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
G-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Contact
Cements, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
used in ounces 5-102
G-15 Location of last use of the product 5-103
G-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Contact Cements, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives 5-104
G-17 Ounces per use of Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives 5-104
G-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-105
G-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives 5-105
H. ADHESIVE REMOVERS (GENERAL PURPOSE,
TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
H-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Adhesive Removers 5-109
H-2 Last time Adhesive Removers was used in
months 5-109
H-3 Percentile rankings for Adhesive
Removers — months since last use 5-110
H-4 Number of uses of Adhesive Removers
within the last 12 months 5-111
H-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Adhesive Removers within the last 12
months 5-111
H-6 Time spent using Adhesive Removers, last
time used 5-112
H-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Adhesive Removers the last time used .... 5-112
H-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Adhesive Removers 5-113
xxi i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
H-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Adhesive Removers 5-113
H-10 Percentile rankings for Adhesive Removers
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-114
H-ll Brands of Adhesive Removers used 5-115
H-12 Percent of respondents saying Adhesive
Removers is aerosol 5-115
H-13 Amount of Adhesive Removers used in
ounces 5-116
H-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Adhesive
Removers used in ounces 5-116
H-15 Location of last use of the product 5-117
H-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Adhesive Removers 5-117
H-17 Ounces per use of Adhesive Removers 5-118
H-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Adhesive Removers 5-118
H-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Adhesive Removers 5-119
I. SILICONE LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
1-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Silicone Lubricants 5-123
1-2 Last time Silicone Lubricants was used in
months 5-123
1-3 Percentile rankings for Silicone Lubricants
— months since last use 5-124
XXlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
1-4 Number of uses of Silicone Lubricants
within the last 12 months 5-125
1-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Silicone Lubricants within the last 12
months 5-125
1-6 Time spent using Silicone Lubricants,
last time used 5-126
1-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Silicone Lubricants the last time used .. 5-126
1-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Silicone Lubricants 5-127
1-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Silicone Lubricants 5-127
1-10 Percentile rankings for Silicone Lubricants
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-128
I-ll Brands of Silicone Lubricants used 5-129
1-12 Percent of respondents saying Silicone
Lubricants is aerosol 5-129
1-13 Amount of Silicone Lubricants used in
ounces 5-130
1-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Silicone Lubricants used in ounces 5-130
1-15 Location of last use of the product 5-131
1-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Silicone Lubricants 5-132
1-17 Ounces per use of Silicone Lubricants ... 5-132
1-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Silicone Lubricants 5-133
xxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
1-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Silicone Lubricants 5-133
J. OTHER LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
J-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Other Lubricants 5-137
J-2 Last time Other Lubricants was used in
months 5-137
J-3 Percentile rankings for Other Lubricants
— months since last use 5-138
J-4 Number of uses of Other Lubricants within
the last 12 months 5-139
J-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Other Lubricants within the last 12
months 5-139
J-6 Time spent using Other Lubricants, last
time used 5-140
J-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Other Lubricants the last time used 5-140
J-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Other Lubricants 5-141
J-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Other Lubricants 5-141
J-10 Percentile rankings for Other Lubricants
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-142
J-ll Brands of Other Lubricants used 5-143
J-12 Percent of respondents saying Other
Lubricants is aerosol 5-143
J-13 Amount of Other Lubricants used in
ounces 5-144
xxv
-------
c-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
J-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Other
Lubricants used in ounces 5-144
J-15 Location of last use of the product 5-145
J-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Other Lubricants 5-146
J-17 Ounces per use of Other Lubricants 5-146
J-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Other Lubricants 5-147
J-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Other Lubricants 5-147
K. SPECIALIZED ELECTRONIC CLEANERS (FOR
TV, VCR, RAZOR, ETC.)
K-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-151
K-2 Last time Specialized Electronic Cleaners
was used in months 5-151
K-3 Percentile rankings for Specialized
Electronic Cleaners — months since last
use 5-152
K-4 Number of uses of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners within the last 12 months 5-153
K-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners within
the last 12 months 5-153
K-6 Time spent using Specialized Electronic
Cleaners, last time used 5-154
K-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Specialized Electronic Cleaners the last
time used 5-154
K-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-155
XXVI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
K-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-155
K-10 Percentile rankings for Specialized
Electronic Cleaners for time spent in the
room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room 5-156
K-ll Brands of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners used 5-157
K-12 Percent of respondents saying Specialized
Electronic Cleaners is aerosol 5-157
K-13 Amount of Specialized Electronic Cleaners
used in ounces 5-158
K-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners used in
ounces 5-158
K-15 Location of last use of the product 5-159
K-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Specialized Electronic Cleaners ... 5-160
K-17 Ounces per use of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners 5-160
K-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-161
K-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners 5-161
L. LATEX PAINT
L-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Latex Paint 5-165
L-2 Last time Latex Paint was used in months. 5-165
L-3 Percentile rankings for Latex Paint —
months since last use 5-166
xxv 11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
L-4 Number of uses of Latex Paint within the
last 12 months 5-167
L-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Latex Paint within the last 12 months ... 5-167
L-6 Time spent using Latex Paint, last time
used 5-168
L-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Latex Paint the last time used 5-168
L-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Latex Paint 5-169
L-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Latex Paint 5-169
L-10 Percentile rankings for Latex Paint for
time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-170
L-ll Brands of Latex Paint used 5-171
L-12 Percent of respondents saying Latex Paint
is aerosol 5-171
L-13 Amount of Latex Paint used in ounces .... 5-172
L-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Latex
Paint used in ounces 5-172
L-15 Location of last use of the product 5-173
L-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Latex Paint 5-174
L-17 Ounces per use of Latex Paint 5-174
L-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Latex Paint 5-175
L-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Latex Paint 5-175
XXVlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
M. OIL PAINT
M-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Oil Paint 5-179
M-2 Last time Oil Paint was used in months .. 5-179
M-3 Percentile rankings for Oil Paint —
months since last use 5-180
M-4 Number of uses of Oil Paint within the
last 12 months 5-181
M-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Oil Paint within the last 12 months 5-181
M-6 Time spent using Oil Paint, last time
used 5-182
M-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Oil Paint the last time used 5-182
M-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Oil Paint 5-183
M-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Oil Paint 5-183
M-10 Percentile rankings for Oil Paint for
time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-184
M-ll Brands of Oil Paint used 5-185
M-12 Percent of respondents saying Oil Paint
is aerosol 5-185
M-13 Amount of Oil Paint used in ounces 5-186
M-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Oil
Paint used in ounces 5-186
M-15 Location of last use of the product 5-187
XXIX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
M-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Oil Paint 5-188
M-17 Ounces per use of Oil Paint 5-188
M-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Oil Paint 5-189
M-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Oil Paint 5-189
N. WOOD STAINS, VARNISHES AND FINISHES
N-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-193
N-2 Last time Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes was used in months 5-193
N-3 Percentile rankings for Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes — months since
last use 5-194
N-4 Number of uses of Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes within the last 12 months .. 5-195
N-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
within the last 12 months 5-195
N-6 Time spent using Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes, last time used 5-196
N-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes the
last time used 5-196
N-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-197
N-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-197
XXX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
N-10 Percentile rankings for Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes for time spent in
the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room 5-198
N-ll Brands of Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes used 5-199
N-12 Percent of respondents saying Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes is aerosol 5-199
N-13 Amount of Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes used in ounces 5-200
N-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Wood
Stains, Varnishes and Finishes used in
ounces 5-200
N-15 Location of last use of the product 5-201
N-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-202
N-17 Ounces per use of Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes 5-202
N-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-203
N-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes 5-203
O. PAINT REMOVERS/STRIPPERS
O-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-207
O-2 Last time Paint Removers/Strippers was
used in months . 5-207
O-3 Percentile rankings for Paint Removers/
Strippers — months since last use 5-208
O-4 Number of uses of Paint Removers/Strippers
within the last 12 months 5-209
xxxi
-------
f-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
O-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Paint Removers/Strippers within the last
12 months 5-209
O-6 Time spent using Paint Removers/Strippers,
last time used 5-210
O-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Paint Removers/Strippers the last time
used 5-210
O-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-211
O-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-211
O-10 Percentile rankings for Paint Removers/
Strippers for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-212
O-ll Brands of Paint Removers/Strippers used.. 5-213
O-12 Percent of respondents saying Paint
Removers/Strippers is aerosol 5-213
O-13 Amount of Paint Removers/Strippers used
in ounces 5-214
O-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Paint
Removers/Strippers used in ounces 5-214
O-15 Location of last use of the product 5-215
O-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Paint Removers/Strippers 5-216
O-17 Ounces per use of Paint Removers/
Strippers 5-216
O-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-217
O-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Paint Removers/Strippers 5-217
xxxn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
P. PAINT THINKERS
P-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Paint Thinners 5-221
P-2 Last time Paint Thinners was used in
months 5-221
P-3 Percentile rankings for Paint Thinners
— months since last use 5-222
P-4 Number of uses of Paint Thinners within
the last 12 months 5-223
P-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Paint Thinners within the last 12 months. 5-223
P-6 Time spent using Paint Thinners, last
time used 5-224
P-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Paint Thinners the last time used 5-224
P-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Paint Thinners 5-225
P-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Paint Thinners 5-225
P-10 Percentile rankings for Paint Thinners
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in the
room 5-226
P-ll Brands of Paint Thinners used 5-227
P-12 Percent of respondents saying Paint
Thinners is aerosol 5-227
P-13 Amount of Paint Thinners used in ounces.. 5-228
P-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Paint
Thinners used in ounces 5-228
P-15 Location of last use of the product 5-229
XXXlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
P-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Paint Thinners 5-230
P-17 Ounces per use of Paint Thinners 5-230
P-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Paint Thinners 5-231
P-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Paint Thinners 5-231
Q. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT
Q-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-235
Q-2 Last time Aerosol Spray Paint was used
in months 5-2 3 5
Q-3 Percentile rankings for Aerosol Spray
Paint — months since last use 5-236
Q-4 Number of uses of Aerosol Spray Paint
within the last 12 months 5-236
Q-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Aerosol Spray Paint within the last 12
months 5-237
Q-6 Time spent using Aerosol Spray Paint,
last time used 5-238
Q-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Aerosol Spray Paint the last time used .. 5-238
Q-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-239
Q-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who did
not spend any time in room but used
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-239
Q-10 Percentile rankings for Aerosol Spray
Paint for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-2 4 0
xxxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Q-ll Brands of Aerosol Spray Paint used 5-241
Q-12 Percent of respondents saying Aerosol
Spray Paint is aerosol 5-241
Q-13 Amount of Aerosol Spray Paint used in
ounces 5-242
Q-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Aerosol
Spray Paint used in ounces 5-242
Q-15 Location of last use of the product 5-243
Q-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Aerosol Spray Paint 5-244
Q-17 Ounces per use of Aerosol Spray Paint ... 5-244
Q-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-245
Q-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Aerosol Spray Paint 5-245
R. PRIMERS AND SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE
R-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Primers 5-249
R-2 Last time Primers was used in months .... 5-249
R-3 Percentile rankings for Primers —
months since last use 5-250
R-4 Number of uses of Primers within the
last 12 months 5-251
R-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Primers within the last 12 months 5-251
R-6 Time spent using Primers, last time used. 5-252
R-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Primers the last time used 5-252
xxxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
R-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Primers 5-253
R-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Primers 5-253
R-10 Percentile rankings for Primers for time
spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room ... 5-254
R-ll Brands of Primers used 5-255
R-12 Percent of respondents saying Primers is
aerosol 5-255
R-13 Amount of Primers used in ounces 5-256
R-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Primers
used in ounces 5-256
R-15 Location of last use of the product 5-257
R-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Primers 5-257
R-17 Ounces per use of Primers 5-258
R-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Primers 5-259
R-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Primers 5-259
S. AEROSOL RUST REMOVERS
S-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Aerosol Rust Removers 5-263
S-2 Last time Aerosol Rust Removers was used
in months 5-263
S-3 Percentile rankings for Aerosol Rust
Removers — months since last use 5-264
S-4 Number of uses of Aerosol Rust Removers
within the last 12 months 5-265
xxxvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
S-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Aerosol Rust Removers within the last
12 months 5-265
S-6 Time spent using Aerosol Rust Removers,
last time used 5-266
S-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Aerosol Rust Removers the last time
used 5-266
S-8 Time spent in the room after last use
of Aerosol Rust Removers 5-267
S-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Aerosol Rust Removers 5-267
S-10 Percentile rankings for Aerosol Rust
Removers for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-268
S-ll Brands of Aerosol Rust Removers used ... 5-269
S-12 Percent of respondents saying Aerosol
Rust Removers is aerosol 5-269
S-13 Amount of Aerosol Rust Removers used
in ounces 5-270
S-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Aerosol Rust Removers used in ounces ... 5-270
S-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-271
S-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Aerosol Rust Removers 5-272
S-17 Ounces per use of Aerosol Rust Removers. 5-272
S-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use
of Aerosol Rust Removers 5-273
S-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Aerosol Rust Removers 5-273
xxxv11
-------
r-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
T. OUTDOOR WATER REPELLENTS (FOR WOOD OR
CEMENT)
T-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-277
T-2 Last time Outdoor Water Repellents was
used in months 5-277
T-3 Percentile rankings for Outdoor Water
Repellents — months since last use .... 5-278
T-4 Number of uses of Outdoor Water Repellents
within the last 12 months 5-279
T-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Outdoor Water Repellents within the last
12 months 5-279
T-6 Time spent using Outdoor Water
Repellents, last time used 5-280
T-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Outdoor Water Repellents the last time
used 5-280
T-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-281
T-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Outdoor Water Repellents 5-281
T-10 Percentile rankings for Outdoor Water
Repellents for time spent in the room
after last use including only those who
spent time in the room 5-282
T-ll Brands of Outdoor Water Repellents used. 5-283
T-12 Percent of respondents saying Outdoor
Water Repellents is aerosol 5-283
T-13 Amount of Outdoor Water Repellents used
in ounces 5-284
XXXVlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
T-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Outdoor
Water Repellents used in ounces 5-284
T-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-285
T-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-286
T-17 Ounces per use of Outdoor Water
Repellents 5-286
T-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-287
T-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Outdoor Water Repellents 5-287
U. GLASS FROSTINGS, WINDOW TINTS, AND
ARTIFICIAL SNOW
U-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-291
U-2 Last time Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow was used in months.. 5-291
U-3 Percentile rankings for Glass Frosting,
Window Tint and Artificial Snow —
months since last use 5-292
U-4 Number of uses of Glass Frosting, Window
Tint and Artificial Snow within the last
12 months 5-293
U-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow within the last 12 months 5-293
U-6 Time spent using Glass Frosting, Window
Tint and Artificial Snow, last time
used 5-294
U-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow the last time used 5-294
XXXIX
-------
C-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
U-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-295
U-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-295
U-10 Percentile rankings for Glass Frosting,
Window Tint and Artificial Snow for time
spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-296
U-ll Brands of Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow used 5-297
U-12 Percent of respondents saying Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow is aerosol 5-297
U-13 Amount of Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow used in ounces 5-298
U-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow used in ounces 5-298
U-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-299
U-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-300
U-17 Ounces per use of Glass Frosting, Window
Tint and Artificial Snow 5-300
U-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-301
U-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow 5-301
xl
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
V. ENGINE DEGREASERS
V-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Engine Degreasers 5-305
V-2 Last time Engine Degreasers was used in
months » 5-305
V-3 Percentile rankings for Engine
Degreasers — months since last use .... 5-306
V-4 Number of uses of Engine Degreasers
within the last 12 months 5-307
V-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Engine Degreasers within the last 12
months 5-307
V-6 Time spent using Engine Degreasers, last
time used 5-308
V-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Engine Degreasers the last time used ... 5-308
V-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Engine Degreasers 5-309
V-g Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Engine Degreasers 5-309
V-10 Percentile rankings for Engine Degreasers
for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time
in the room . 5-310
V-ll Brands of Engine Degreasers used 5-311
V-12 Percent of respondents saying Engine
Degreasers is aerosol 5-311
V-13 Amount of Engine Degreasers used in
ounces 5-312
V-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Engine Degreasers used in ounces 5-312
xli
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
V-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-313
V-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Engine Degreasers 5-314
V-17 Ounces per use of Engine Degreasers .... 5-314
V-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Engine Degreasers 5-315
V-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Engine Degreasers 5-315
W. CARBURETOR CLEANERS
W-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Carburetor Cleaners 5-319
W-2 Last time Carburetor Cleaners was used
in months 5-319
W-3 Percentile rankings for Carburetor
Cleaners — months since last use 5-320
W-4 Number of uses of Carburetor Cleaners
within the last 12 months 5-321
W-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Carburetor Cleaners within the last 12
months 5-321
W-6 Time spent using Carburetor Cleaners,
last time used ". 5-322
W-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Carburetor Cleaners the last time used . 5-322
W-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Carburetor Cleaners 5-323
W-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Carburetor Cleaners 5-323
xlii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
W-10 Percentile rankings for Carburetor
Cleaners for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-324
W-ll Brands of Carburetor Cleaners used 5-325
W-12 Percent of respondents saying Carburetor
Cleaners is aerosol 5-325
W-13 Amount of Carburetor Cleaners used in
ounces 5-326
W-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Carburetor Cleaners used in ounces 5-326
W-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-327
W-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Carburetor Cleaners 5-328
W-17 Ounces per use of Carburetor Cleaners .. 5-328
W-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use
of Carburetor Cleaners 5-329
W-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Carburetor Cleaners 5-329
X. AEROSOL SPRAY FAINT FOR CARS
X-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Auto Spray Paint 5-333
X-2 Last time Auto Spray Paint was used in
months 5-333
X-3 Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Paint
— months since last use 5-334
X-4 Number of uses of Auto Spray Paint within
the last 12 months 5-335
X-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Auto Spray Paint within the last 12
months 5-3 3 5
xliii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
X-6 Time spent using Auto Spray Paint, last
time used 5-336
X-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Auto Spray Paint the last time used .... 5-336
X-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Auto Spray Paint 5-337
X-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Auto Spray Paint 5-337
X-10 Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Paint
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in
the room 5-338
X-ll Brands of Auto Spray Paint used 5-339
X-12 Percent of respondents saying Auto Spray
Paint is aerosol 5-339
X-13 Amount of Auto Spray Paint used in
ounces 5-340
X-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Auto
Spray Paint used in ounces 5-340
X-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-341
X-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Auto Spray Paint 5-342
X-17 Ounces per use of Auto Spray Paint 5-342
X-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use
of Auto Spray Paint 5-343
X-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Auto Spray Paint 5-343
Y. AUTO SPRAY PRIMERS
Y-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Auto Spray Primers 5-347
xliv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Y-2 Last time Auto Spray Primers was used
in months 5-347
Y-3 Percentile rankings for Auto Sr^ay
Primers — months since last use 5-348
Y-4 Number of uses of Auto Spray Primers
within the last 12 months 5-349
Y-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Auto Spray Primers within the last 12
months 5-349
Y-6 Time spent using Auto Spray Primers,
last time used 5-350
Y-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Auto Spray Primers the last time used .. 5-350
Y-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Auto Spray Primers 5-351
Y-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Auto Spray Primers 5-351
Y-10 Percentile rankings for Auto Spray
Primers for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-352
Y-ll Brands of Auto Spray Primers used 5-353
Y-12 Percent of respondents saying Auto Spray
Primers is aerosol 5-353
Y-13 Amount of Auto Spray Primers used in
ounces 5-354
Y-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Auto
Spray Primers used in ounces 5-354
Y-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-355
Y-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Auto Spray Primers 5-356
xlv
-------
f-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Y-17 Ounces per use of Auto Spray Primers ... 5-356
Y-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Auto Spray Primers 5-357
Y-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Auto Spray Primers 5-357
2. SPRAY LUBRICANT FOR CARS
Z-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spray Lubricants 5-361
Z-2 Last time Spray Lubricants was used in
months 5-361
Z-3 Percentile rankings for Spray Lubricants
— months since last use 5-362
Z-4 Number of uses of Spray Lubricants within
the last 12 months 5-363
Z-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Spray Lubricants within the last 12
months 5-363
Z-6 Time spent using Spray Lubricants, last
time used 5-364
Z-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Spray Lubricants the last time used .... 5-364
Z-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Spray Lubricants 5-365
Z-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Spray Lubricants 5-365
Z-10 Percentile rankings for Spray Lubricants
for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time
in the room 5-366
Z-ll Brands of Spray Lubricants used 5-367
xlvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Z-12 Percent of respondents saying Spray
Lubricants is aerosol 5-367
Z-13 Amount of Spray Lubricants used in
ounces 5-368
Z-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Spray
Lubricants used in ounces 5-368
Z-15 Location of last use of the product .... 5-369
Z-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Spray Lubricants 5-370
Z-17 Ounces per use of Spray Lubricants 5-370
Z-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Spray Lubricants 5-371
Z-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Spray Lubricants 5-371
AA. TRANSMISSION CLEANERS
AA-l Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Transmission Cleaner 5-375
AA-2 Last time Transmission Cleaner was used
in months 5-375
AA-3 Percentile rankings for Transmission
Cleaner — months since last use 5-376
AA-4 Number of uses of Transmission Cleaner
within the last 12 months 5-377
AA-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Transmission Cleaner within the last 12
months 5-377
AA-6 Time spent using Transmission Cleaner,
last time used 5-378
AA-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Transmission Cleaner the last time used. 5-378
AA-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Transmission Cleaner 5-379
xlvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
AA-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Transmission Cleaner 5-379
AA-10 Percentile rankings for Transmission
Cleaner for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-380
AA-11 Brands of Transmission Cleaner used 5-381
AA-12 Percent of respondents saying
Transmission Cleaner is aerosol 5-381
AA-13 Amount of Transmission Cleaner used in
ounces 5-382
AA-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Transmission Cleaner used in ounces 5-382
AA-15 Location of last use of the product 5-383
AA-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Transmission Cleaner 5-383
AA-17 Ounces per use of Transmission Cleaner .. 5-384
AA-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Transmission Cleaner 5-384
AA-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Transmission Cleaner 5-385
BB. BATTERY TERMINAL PROTECTORS
BB-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Battery Terminal Protector 5-389
BB-2 Last time Battery Terminal Protector was
used in months 5-389
BB-3 Percentile rankings for Battery Terminal
Protector — months since last use 5-390
BB-4 Number of uses of Battery Terminal
Protector within the last 12 months 5-391
xlviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
BB-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Battery Terminal Protector within the
last 12 months 5-391
BB-6 Time spent using Battery Terminal
Protector, last time used 5-392
BB-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Battery Terminal Protector the last time
used 5-392
BB-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Battery Terminal Protector 5-393
BB-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Battery Terminal Protector 5-393
BB-10 Percentile rankings for Battery Terminal
Protector for time spent in the room
after last use including only those who
spent time in the room 5-394
BB-11 Brands of Battery Terminal Protector
used 5-395
BB-12 Percent of respondents saying Battery
Terminal Protector is aerosol 5-395
BB-13 Amount of Battery Terminal Protector used
in ounces 5-396
BB-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Battery
Terminal Protector used in ounces 5-396
BB-15 Location of last use of the product 5-397
BB-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Battery Terminal Protector 5-398
BB-17 Ounces per use of Battery Terminal
Protector 5-398
BB-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Battery Terminal Protector 5-399
xlix
-------
*•—•
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
BB-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Battery Terminal Protector 5-399
CC. BRAKE QDIETERS/CLEANERB
CC-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-403
CC-2 Last time Brake Quieter/Cleaner was used
in months 5-403
CC-3 Percentile rankings for Brake Quieter/
Cleaner — months since last use 5-404
CC-4 Number of uses of Brake Quieter/Cleaner
within the last 12 months 5-405
CC-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner within the last 12
months 5-405
CC-6 Time spent using Brake Quieter/Cleaner,
last time used 5-406
CC-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Brake Quieter/Cleaner the last time used. 5-406
CC-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-407
CC-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-407
CC-10 Percentile rankings for Brake Quieter/
Cleaner for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-408
CC-ll Brands of Brake Quieter/Cleaner used .... 5-409
CC-12 Percent of respondents saying Brake
Quieter/Cleaner is aerosol 5-409
CC-13 Amount of Brake Quieter/Cleaner used in
ounces 5-410
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
CC-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner used in ounces 5-410
CC-15 Location of last use of the product 5-411
CC-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-412
CC-17 Ounces per use of Brake Quieter/Cleaner.. 5-412
CC-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-413
CC-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner 5-413
DD. GASKET REMOVERS
DD-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Gasket Removers 5-417
DD-2 Last time Gasket Removers was used in
months 5-417
DD-3 Percentile rankings for Gasket Removers
— months since last use 5-418
DD-4 Number of uses of Gasket Removers within
the last 12 months 5-419
DD-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Gasket Removers within the last 12
months 5-419
DD-6 Time spent using Gasket Removers, last
time used 5-420
DD-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Gasket Removers the last time used 5-420
DD-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Gasket Removers 5-421
DD-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Gasket Removers 5-421
li
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
DD-10 Percentile rankings for Gasket Removers
for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time
in the room 5-422
DD-ll Brands of Gasket Removers used 5-423
DD-12 Percent of respondents saying Gasket
Removers is aerosol 5-423
DD-13 Amount of Gasket Removers used in ounces. 5-424
DD-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Gasket
Removers used in ounces 5-424
DD-15 Location of last use of the product 5-425
DD-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Gasket Removers 5-426
DD-17 Ounces per use of Gasket Removers 5-426
DD-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Gasket Removers 5-427
DD-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Gasket Removers 5-427
EE. TIRE/HUBCAP CLEANERS
EE-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-431
EE-2 Last time Tire/Hubcap Cleaners was used
in months 5-431
EE-3 Percentile rankings for Tire/Hubcap
Cleaners — months since last use 5-432
EE-4 Number of uses of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
within the last 12 months 5-433
EE-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners within the last 12
months 5-433
EE-6 Time spent using Tire/Hubcap Cleaners,
last time used 5-434
lii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
EE-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners the last time used.. 5-434
EE-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-435
EE-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use including those who
did not spend any time in room but used
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-435
EE-10 Percentile rankings for Tire/Hubcap
Cleaners for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-436
EE-11 Brands of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners used 5-437
EE-12 Percent of respondents saying Tire/Hubcap
Cleaners is aerosol 5-437
EE-13 Amount of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners used in
ounces 5-438
EE-14 Percentile rankings for amount of Tire/
Hubcap Cleaners used in ounces 5-438
EE-15 Location of last use of the product 5-439
EE-16 Protective measures undertaken while
using Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-440
EE-17 Ounces per use of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners .. 5-440
EE-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-441
EE-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 5-441
FF. IGNITION AND WIRE DRYERS
FF-1 Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-445
FF-2 Last time Ignition and Wire Dryers was
used in months 5-445
liii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
FF-3 Percentile rankings for Ignition and Wire
Dryers — months since last use 5-446
FF-4 Number of uses of Ignition and Wire Dryers
within the last 12 months 5-447
FF-5 Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Ignition and Wire Dryers within the last
12 months 5-447
FF-6 Time spent using Ignition and Wire Dryers,
last time used 5-448
FF-7 Percentile rankings for time spent using
Ignition and Wire Dryers the last time
used 5-448
FF-8 Time spent in the room after last use of
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-449
FF-9 Percentile rankings for time spent in
the room after last use including those
who did not spend any time in room but
used Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-449
FF-10 Percentile rankings for Ignition and Wire
Dryers for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room 5-450
FF-11 Brands of Ignition and Wire Dryers used.. 5-451
FF-12 Percent of respondents saying Ignition
and Wire Dryers is aerosol 5-451
FF-13 Amount of Ignition and Wire Dryers used
in ounces 5-452
FF-14 Percentile rankings for amount of
Ignition and Wire Dryers used in ounces.. 5-452
FF-15 Location of last use of the product 5-453
FF-16 Protective measures undertaken while using
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-453
liv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
FF-17 Ounces per use of Ignition and Wire
Dryers 5-454
FF-18 Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-454
FF-19 Respondent characteristics of users of
Ignition and Wire Dryers 5-455
5-1 Frequency of commercial drycleaning use - users
only for times per month 5-457
5-2 Percentile rankings for frequency of commercial
drycleaning use - users only for time per
month 5-457
5-3 Frequency of commercial drycleaning use - users
and nonusers for times per month 5-458
5-4 Percentile rankings for frequency of commercial
drycleaning use - users and nonusers for times
per month 5-458
5-5 Numbers using and not using self-service laundry
facilities with drycleaning machines 5-459
5-6 Number of times using self-service laundry
facilities with drycleaning machines 5-459
5-7 Percentile rankings for number of times using
self-service laundry facilities with drycleaning
machines 5-460
5-8 Number of times visitors to self-service laundry
facilities used drycleaning machines 5-461
5-9 Percentile rankings of number of times visitors
to self-service laundry facilities used
drycleaning machines 5-461
5-10 Minutes spent inside of laundry facility with
drycleaning machines 5-462
5-11 Percentile rankings of minutes spent inside
laundry facilities with drycleaning machines .... 5-462
5-12 Respondent age 5-463
Iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
5-13 Percentile rankings of respondent age 5-463
5-14 Gender of respondents 5-463
5-15 Number of household members 5-464
5-16 Percentile rankings for number of household
members 5-464
5-17 Number of bedrooms in the house 5-465
5-18 Percentile rankings of number of bedrooms 5-465
6-1 Listing of total number of users, and numbers
and percent of users with and without
laboratory data, by product category 6-2
6-2 Total and numbers and percents of users with
brands attributed zeros, by product category .... 6-6
6-3 Results of the tests of significance for
those using products with laboratory data
versus those using products without
laboratory data 6-9
6-4 Results of the tests of significance for those
using products with a chemical versus those
using products without a chemical 6-12
Ivi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 29, 1985, the National Toxicological Program1
reported positive results for a bioassay that indicated that
methylene chloride is an animal carcinogen. Subsequently, the
Environmental Protection Agency, under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act, made a preliminary determination to list methylene
chloride as a hazardous air pollutant and on May 14, 1985, under
Section 4(f) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, announced its
decision to initiate priority review for risks of human cancer
from exposure to methylene chloride.2
There is potential for exposure to methylene chloride from
environmental sources, occupational activities and from use of
consumer products containing methylene chloride. The EPA found
that there was inadequate information on consumer exposure to
products containing methylene chloride. This report presents the
results of a nationwide study of consumer usage of products
thought to contain methylene chloride or five other chlorinated
solvents used in combination with or as substitutes for methylene
chloride.
The consumer is exposed to methylene chloride and its
substitutes in an array of household cleaning, painting,
lubricating and automotive products. The five other chlorinated
solvents included in this study are: trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, perchloroethylene and
1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane. Thirty such products and others
of general interest are included in this survey.
These products were found to contain these solvents in an
earlier EPA survey ("Household Solvent Products: A 'Shelf
Survey with Laboratory Analysis") . Questions asked on usage
characteristics include how often the products were used; when
the product was last used; how much time was spent using the
product and in the room after the product was used; how much of
the product was used; and what protective measures were
•^National Toxicology Program (NTP) . NTP Final Report, Technical
Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Methylene
Chloride (PCM)in F344-N_Rates and B63F1 Mice. NTP-TR-306.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Publication 85-2562, USHHS,
Public Health Service, NIH, 1985.
2Federal Register. May 14, 1985 (50 FR 20126).
3EPA #560/5-87-006, July, 1987. Available through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia.
Ivii
-------
undertaken during use. This information is used to calculate the
exposure assessments.
The survey methodology had three parts. In Phase I - A
Sample Generation Phase, respondents were contacted using a
random digit dialing procedure and asked to participate and to
give their address. During Phase II - A Mailout with Product
Pictures, the questionnaire and product pictures were sent to
each respondent 18 years and older who agreed to participate in
Phase I. In Phase III - Telephone Followup to Nonrespondents,
respondents who did not return the mailed questionnaire within
four weeks were called and asked to complete the interview over
the telephone.
A complete summary of findings for each product follows this
narrative. Highlights of other findings for the 30 products
thought to contain these solvents include the following:
• Respondents used an average of seven products in
their lifetime and an average of five products
during the last twelve months.
• The highest incidence of products "ever used" was
for contact cements, superglues, and spray
adhesives (60.6%); wood stains, varnishes, and
finishes (42.9%); and spot removers (39.1%). The
lowest incidence was for brake quieters/cleaners
(2.6%); gasket removers (2.7%) and transmission
cleaners (2.1%) .
• The longest periods since last use (given in mean
values) were for spray shoe polish (42.1 months
ago); glass frostings, tints, and artificial snow
(34.2 months ago); and paint removers/strippers
(28.9 months ago). The shortest periods since
last use were for spray automotive lubricants (6.3
months ago) and contact cements, superglues, and
spray adhesives (5.2 months ago).
• The highest mean number of times a product was
used during the last twelve months was for
typewriter correction fluid (40.0 times); solvent
cleaners (16.5); and spot removers (15.6). The
lowest incidence of recent use was for gasket
removers (2.5); transmission cleaners (2.3) and
outdoor water repellents (2.1).
• The most time spent using products other than
latex and oil paint, which are not thought to
contain these particular solvents (given in mean
values), was for paint removers/strippers (125.6
1 v i i i
-------
minutes); adhesive removers (121 minutes) and wood
stains, varnishes, and finishes (117.2 minutes).
The least time was for typewriter correction fluid
(7.6 minutes); spray shoe polish (7.5 minutes);
and ignition/wire dryers (7.2 minutes).
• The greatest amount used in units of ounces per
year per user other than for latex and oil paint,
which would otherwise be the highest (given in
mean values), was for outdoor water repellents
(148.7 ounces); auto spray primers (70.4 ounces);
and paint thinners (69.5 ounces). The least
amount used was for ignition/wire dryers (9.0
ounces); contact cement, super glues, spray
adhesives (7.5 ounces) and typewriter correction
fluid (4.1 ounces).
• Most respondents had a window or door open to the
outside when using products for large jobs that
were done on the inside; most respondents did not
have an exhaust fan on when using these products;
most respondents kept the door to the room open
when using these products; and most people said
that they read the directions on the label.
• In general, use of the products decreases with
increasing age. Gender differences in use of the
products are as might be expected with males using
lubricants, specialized electronic cleaners, and
automotive products more than females, and females
using spot removers, solvent type cleaning fluids,
wood and paneling cleaners, and typewriter
correction fluids more than males.
• Finally, there were no significant differences in
the usage variables between questionnaires
completed by mail and those completed by telephone
interview.
While comparisons across products and general patterns by
age and sex can be made, the main purpose of the study is to
provide usage statistics for each product that can be used to
calculate exposure assessments of the U.S. population to
methylene chloride and its substitutes. These usage statistics
include the mean, median, and/or percentages for the following
variables:
• frequency of use of the product;
• duration of use;
lix
-------
• brand names of product used;
• amount of the product used;
• location of use; and
• degree of ventilation and other protective
measures undertaken when using the product.
All of the information presented in this report has been
forwarded to the Office of Toxic Substances, Exposure Assessment
Branch and incorporated into consumer exposure assessments for
these solvents. The exposure assessments themselves are reported
in the report entitled, Consumer Exposure Estimates for Solvents,
Draft Report. Versar, Inc., April 30, 1987.
A summary of the usage statistics by product is now
presented using the original questionnaire format.
-------
CHLOROCARBON SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY OF SELECTED CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Ixi
-------
PRODUCT
EXAMPLE
SPRAY SHOE
POLISH
1. SPRAY SHOE
POLISH
2. WATER
REPELLENTS/
PROTECTORS (FOR
SUEDE, LEATHER,
AND CLOTH)
3. SPOT REMOVERS
4. SOLVtNT-TYPE
CLEANING
FLUIDS OR
DEGREASERS
5. WODO FLOOR
AW) PALLING
CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER
CORRECTION
FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT,
SUPER GLUES
AND SPRAY
ADHESIVES
6. ADHESIVE
RE HOVERS
(GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE,
AND WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONS
LUBRICANTS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
10. OTHER
LUBRICANTS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
1.
(PRODUCT)? [IF NO, GO
TO NEXT PRODUCT.]
1 Y««
2 No
YBB. ... 12*
No .... BBS
Yee. . . . J6S
No .... 64%
Ye«. . . . 39S
No .... 61S
Yea. . . . 285
No .... 72S
Y».. ... 355
No .... 65S
Yeo. . . . 26*
No .... 74»
Yes. ... 61 S
No .... 39X
Yea. ... 6X
No .... 94%
Yea. . . . 1BX
No .... B2S
Yea. ... 35S
No .... 65S
2.
you lined (PRODUCT)?
dar< 100
aontha too
years ago
a*en 42.1 «o.
Indian 12. 5 "o.
aeon 20.3 ao.
asdien 9.0 «o.
asen 14.7 ao.
aadien 3.0 «o.
•Mn 9.9 mo.
aadian 2.0 "0.
•ean 12.6 "0.
aadian 3.0 "0.
Been 6.9 to.
Indian .9 BO.
M*n 5.2 mo.
BBdian 1.0 "0.
MOT 21 .6 ao.
••dicn 10.0 «o.
M«n 6.5 "o.
wdi«n 2.0 ao.
M«n 5.0 BO.
medi»n 1.0 BO.
3.
uae (PRODUCT) in the
lilt 12 Bonthm?
Nunber of tiBea i»od
p««t 12 Bontn*
•ain 10.3 tiBn
Bediin 4.0 UBM
man 3.5 tiBn
Bedian 2.0 tiBoo
Bean 15.6 tlBea
BKllBn 3.0 tlBM
man 16.5 tiBea
Bedian 4.0 tiBea
•wan B.5 tlBea
Bedian 2.0 tlBea
•een 40.0 tima
Bedian 12.0 ti.e.
Bean B. 9 tiam
Bedian 3.0 tiBm
Baan 4.2 tiBea
Bedian 1.0 tiara
Bean 10.3 tiBn
Bedian 3.0 tiara
Mean 10.6 times
median 4.0 tinea
6.
HOH Much tlB« rid you
•pend laing (Pr^DUCT)
UBfld if
Seconds
Minutie
hour.
MOT 7.3 ainutta
•edian 3.0 Minutes
•ean U.5 Minutee
•edicn 10.0 Minutes
nean 10.7 ninutea
wed i in 5.0 Minutes
•esn 29.5 minutes
mediin 15.0 uinutes
mean 74.0 ninutes
•edisn 30.0 minutes
•can 7.6 fi mutes
nediftn 1.0 Minutes
Mean 15.6 Minutes
Median 4.3 minutes
mean 121.0 Minutes
Median 60.0 Minutes
•wan 10.4 Minutes
Median 2.0 minutes
nesn 8.1 minutes
median 2.0 minutes
5.
Ho** much tiM« did you spend
in the room i-»edj.*tely after
(PRODUCT;?
Hours
Minutes
Mean 31.5 Minutes
median 5.0 minutes
a»an 3.6 Minutes
median 3.0 einutes
mean 43.7 Minutes
Median 5.0 Minutea
mean 33 .3 minutes
median 3.0 minutes
mean 96.7 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
Mean 128.4 minutes
Median 60.0 minutes
mean 68.9 minutes
median 10.0 minutes
Mean 119.3 minutes
median 60.0 Minutes
Mean £5.6 minutes
Median 10.0 minutes
mean 84.1 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
•The categories of:
- Several inalde rooae
- Gsrtge & outline, have been onitted fro« this int.
Ixii
-------
7.
Khst UK of (PRODUCT) did you
uae the last tine you used it?
How Much of a can or how many
cane did you uac during the paat
year? OUNCES PER YEAR
Size used ounces
(1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, etc.)
taount or number of cane used in
year
•can 9.9 ounces
Median 4. 5 ounces
Mean 11 .A ounces
Median 6.0 ounces
mean 26.3 ounces
Median 5.5 ounces
Mean 5B.1 ounces
Median 16.0 ounces
mean 28.4 ounces
median 14.0 ounces
Mean 4.1 ounces
median .9 ounces
Mean 7.3 ounces
median 1.0 ounces
•ean 34.5 ounces
Median 10.6 ounces
Mean 12.3 ounces
•edian 4.3 ounces
mean 9.9 ounces
median 2.3 ounces
• 8.
•tiere did you uae
(PRODUCT) the last
tlMe you used It?
1 BaseMent
2 Living room
3 Other inside rooai
A Garage
3 Outaide in open air
1 B 5.05
2 LR 14.95
3 OR 61.35
A C 3. 45
5 Outs. 13. AS
1 B 10. 5S
2 LR 13.55
3 OR 44.75
4 C 9.05
5 Outs. 19.65
1 B 9.15
2 LR 19.55
3 OR 57.35
A C 4.05
5 Oute. 5.A5
1 B 5. AS
2 LR 2.65
3 OR 49.15
A C 12.25
5 Outs. 28.05
1 B 3.15
2 LR 26.85
3 OR 49.35
4 C 0.65
5 Outs. 1.25
1 B 2.15
2 LR 1A.6S
3 OR 79.85
A C 0.65
5 Outs. 0.45
1 B 5.65
2 LR 11.95
3 OR 61.15
A G 6.25
5 Outs. 11.75
1 B 4.85
2 LR 5. AS
3 OR 75. 4S
4 G 4.2S
5 Outs. 6.6S
IB 4.25
2 LR 4.75
3 OR 28 . 25
4 C 14.05
5 Outs. 37.55
1 B 7.5S
2 LR 5.85
3 OR 34.95
4 C 13.55
5 Outo. 29.65
9.
Khen using 'PRODUCT! the last time, did you ...
dot* open to
the outside''
1 Yes
2 No
Yea. . 41S
No . . 605
Yea. . 405
No . . 60S
Yes. . 455
No . . 565
Yes. . 575
to . . 435
Yes. . 595
No . . 415
Yes. . 265
No . . 745
Yes. . 415
No . . 595
Yes. . 67S
Ho . . 335
Yea. . 525
No . . 485
Yea. . 435
Ha . . 575
exhaust
fan on?
1 Yea
2 No
Yea.. 115
No... B95
Yes.. 85
No... 925
Yes.. 9.75
No.. 90.65
Yes.. 155
No... 855
Yes.. 115
No... 895
Yes.. 85
No... 925
Yes.. 85
No... 925
Yea.. 235
No... 775
Yea.. 85
No... 925
Yes.. «
No... 945
Keep the
to the rooM
open?
1 Yes
2 No
Yea. . 765
No . . 245
Yea. . 735
No . . 275
Yes. . 605
No . . 205
Yes. . 74S
No . . 265
Yes. . 835
No . . 175
Yes. . 745
No . . 265
Yes. . 755
No . . 255
Yea. . 795
No . . 215
Yes. . 715
No . , 295
Yes. . 705
No . . 305
Read the
on the
label?
1 Yes
2 to
Yea. . 715
No . . 295
Tes. . 635
No . . 175
Yes. . 775
No . . 235
Yes . . 685
ho . . 335
Yes. . 725
No . . 285
Yes. . 375
No . . 615
Yes. . 705
No . . 305
Tea. . 825
No . . 185
Tes. . 615
No . . 3?5
Yes. . 45S
No . . 555
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the summary but it is reported in the text.
Ixiii
-------
PRODUCT
11. SOCIALIZED
ELECTRONIC
CLEANERS
(TOR TV, VCR,
RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
15. 1'AINT
REMOVERS/
STRIPPERS
16. PAINT
THINNERS
PAINT
(EXCLUDING
AinONOTIVE)
18. PRIMERS AND
SPECIAL
PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
19. AEROSOL RUST
REMOVERS
20. OUTDOOR WATER
REPELLENTS
(TOR WOOD OR
CEMENT)
21. GLASS
FROSTINGS,
WINDOW TINTS,
AND ARTIFICIAL
SNOW
Have you ever uaed
(PRODUCT)" [IF NO, GO
TO NEXT PRODUCT.]
res. ... 135
No .... 67%
rat. ... 55%
No .... 45%
In. ... 30%
No . . . . 70%
No .... 57%
Tea. ... 30%
No .... 70%
res. . . . 36%
No .... 64%
No .... 65%
rei. ... 14%
No .... 86%
Yea. ... 8%
No .... 72%
rea. ... 9%
No .... 91%
res. ... 10%
No .... 90%
When waa the laat time
you uaed (PRODUCT)?
wan 7.9 an.
median 2.0 no.
•em 16.7 mo.
•edien B.O mo.
•ean 30.4 no.
•edian 12.0 mo.
•edian 9.0 no.
•ean 26.9 no.
median 12.0 an.
mean 21.5 no.
median 7.0 no.
•edian 6.0 mo.
•ean 22.0 an.
median 10.0 BO.
Man 15.1 an.
•edian 5.0 an.
•ean 24.6 no.
Mdian 12.0 «o.
utein 34.2 mo.
median B.O no.
1
Ho» many times did you
use (PRODUCT) in the
last 12 months?
•aan 13.4 tines
•edian 3.0 tiaee
•ear 3.9 tiaws
•edian 2.0 tie-is
•aan 5.7 tinee
•edian 1.0 times
•edian 2.0 tuna
•ean 3.7 timen
•edian 2.0 tins
•ean 6.6 ti*es
median 2.0 times
•edian 2.0 tuaaa
•ean 3.4 times
•edian 1.0 tinea
•ean 6.2 tinea
•edian 2.0 tines
•ean 2*1 tinea
median 1.0 tinea
•ean 2.B times
median 1.0 times
t.
How much time did you
apend using (PRODOCT)
the last time you
used it?
•ean 9.5 ninutes
median 2.0 minutes
•ean 295.1 minutes
median 1BO.O minutes
mean 194.1 minutes
median 120.0 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 125.6 minutes
median 60. 0 minutes
mean 39.4 minutes
median 10.0 minutes
median 20.0 minutes
mean 91 .3 minutea
•edian 30.0 minutes
•ean IB. 6 ainutea
median 5.0 Minutee
mean 104.9 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 29.5 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
5.
Ho» much tlM did you spend
in the room mmodiitely after
uae the laat time you uaad
(PRODUCT)?
•ean 117.2 minutea
median 60.0 minutes
•ean 91*4 ainutes
•edian 5.0 minutaa
•ean 100.5 minutea
median 30.0 minutes
median 30.0 ninutes
mean 31 .4 minutea
median 0.0 minutes
mean 32.9 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
•ean 22.3 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
•ean 15.1 minutes
•edian 0.0 minutes
•ean B.3 Minutes
median 0.0 minutea
mean 137.9 ninutes
median 60.0 minutes
*Tnp categories of:
Several inside rooms
Garage A outeide, hove been omitted from this list.
Ixiv
-------
7.
•hit size of (PRODUCT; ma you
me the last tine you uaed it?
cmi did you use during the piat
yaar? OUNCES PER YEAR
mean 9.5 ounces
•edian 2.0 ounceo
•ear 371.3 ounces
median 256.0 ounces
moan 166.9 OLTCOB
•edian 64.0 OLficea
mean 65.1 ounces
•edian 16.0 ouncea
mean 63.7 ounces
median 32.0 ounces
mean 69.5 ounces
median 20.5 ounces
mean 30.7 ounces
nedicn 13.0 ouncea
mean 68.4 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
•ean 18.2 ouncea
median B.O OLflcee
Bean 148.7 ounces
median 64.0 ounces
mean 13.8 ounces
median 12.0 ounces
6.
Khere did you use
(PRODUCT) the last
1 B 5.65
2 LR 47. 5S
3 OR 36.05
4 G 3.95
5 Outa. 3.35
1 B 2.BS
2 LR 9.95
3 OR 47.65
4 C 2.05
5 Outs. 24.45
1 B 5.95
2 LR 5.9S
3 OR 35.45
4 C 6.155
5 Outs. 41.355
1 B 12.15
2 Lft 7.B5
3 OR 29.15
4 C 13.95
5 Outs. 31.85
1 B 11.05
2 LR 3.25
3 OR 23.65
4 G 18.75
5 Outs. 38.55
1 B 13.45
2 LR 2.85
3 OR 19.65
4 G 19.45
5 Outo. 39.95
1 B 7.35
2 LR 0.85
3 OR 9.25
4 C 15.B5
5 Outs. 64.15
16 4.25
2 LR 1.B5
3 OR 19.65
4 G 15.75
5 Outo. 52.55
1 B 6.75
2 LR 0. 75
3 OR 10.65
4 C 21. B5
5 Outs. 53. 2S
1 B 1.75
2 LR 2.15
3 OR 2.55
4 G 6.25
5 OutB. 83.95
1 B 1.15
2 LR 58.25
3 OR 13.55
It G 1.5S
5 Cuts. 12.05
!
Wie" usinq
do* open to
tne outside
Yes. . 335
No . . 6BS
Yes. . 765
No . . 245
Yes. . 705
No . . 315
Yes. . 645
No . . 365
Yes. . 715
to . . 295
Yes. . 675
No . . 335
Yes. . 635
No . . 37S
Yea. . 785
to . . 225
Yes. . 615
No . . J95
Yea. . 735
No . . 275
Yes. . 245
No . . 765
'PRODUCT' tf
exhaust
fan on?
Yea.. 65
No... 945
Yes.. 165
No... B4X
Yes.. 165
No... B45
Yes.. 155
No... 655
Yes.. 165
No... B45
Yes.. 115
No... 905
Yes.. 105
No... 905
Yes.. 165
to... 845
Yea.. 135
No... 875
Yea.. 75
No... 935
Yes.. 115
No... 895
9.
ie last time, c
Keep tne
to the room
open?
Ye«. . 705
No . . 305
Yea. . 855
No . . 155
Yes. . 775
to . . 235
Yea. . 745
to . . 265
Yes. . 695
no . . 315
Yeg. . 685
to . . 325
Yes. . 615
No . . 395
Yes. . 685
No . . 325
Yes. . 575
No . . 435
Yea. . 655
to . . 355
Yen. . 725
Ho . . 285
10 vou . . .
Read tne
on tne
label7
Yes. . 745
to . . 265
Yes. . 645
to . . 365
Yes. . 695
to . . 315
Yes. . 775
No . . 235
Yen. . 805
to . . 215
Yes. . 595
No . . 415
Yes. . 735
No . . 275
Yes. . 745
to . . 275
Yes. . 685
to . . 325
Yes. . B15
to . . 195
Yes. . 715
to . . 295
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the surrmary but it is reported in the text.
Ixv
-------
PRODUCT
22. ENGINE
DEGREASERS
23. CARBURETOR
CUANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAY
PAINT FOR
CARS
25. AUTO SPRAY
PRIMERS
26. SPRAY
LUBRICANTS
FOR CARS
27. TRANSMISSION
CLEANERS
28. BATTERY
TERMINAL
PROTECTORS
29. BRAKE
QUIETERS/
CLEANERS
30. CASKET
REMOVERS
31. TIRE/HUBCAP
CLEANERS
32. IGNITION AND
HIRE DRYERS
1.
(PRODUCT)? [IF NO, CO
TO NEXT PRODUCT.]
Yaa. ...17*
No .... 835
Yes. . . . 225
No .... IK
Yea. . . . 12S
No .... 885
Yo.. ... 95
No .... 915
Yaa. . . . 185
No .... 825
Yea. ... 25
No .... 985
Yea. ... 75
No .... 935
Yea. ... 35
No .... 975
Yea. ... 35
No .... 97S
Yaa. ... 165
No .... 845
Yes. ... 5S
No .... 955
2.
you uMd (PRODUCT)?
•on 16.5 oo.
•edian 6.0 BO.
•aw 13.1 oo.
median 4.0 wo.
•em 20. B mo.
•adian 8.0 oo.
•aan 24.1 >o.
•adian 11.0 mo.
•aan 6.3 oo.
•adian 2.0 oo.
mean 16.7 no.
•edian 7.0 mo.
•ean 14.0 no.
Median 6.0 mo.
•ean 13.3 mo.
•adian 6.0 oo.
•ean 22. A oo.
•adian 9.0 oo.
•eon 7.2 no.
•edian 1.0 oo.
mean 22.8 no.
median B.O mo.
3.
UH (PRODUCT) in the
last 12 oonthg?
Man 4.2 tiAea
•edian 2.0 time*
•eon 3.8 tijaaa
•edian 2.0 times
Man 4.5 tiMS
radian 2.0 tuna
Man 6.4 tinea
•edian 2.0 tiaea
•aon 10.3 tiMa
median 3.0 times
Man 2.3 tioea
median 1.0 times
mean 3.9 tioaa
•edian 2.0 tinea
••an 3.0 tinaa
wdian 2.0 tinea
•ean 2* 5 times
•adian 1.0 tines
•aan 11.1 tiaee
•edian 4.0 times
•ean 3.0 timea
median 2.0 times
A.
How much time did you
spend usinq (PRODUCT)
used it?
aean 29.8 minute a
•edian 15.0 ninutaa
•oan 13.6 ninutaa
•edian 7.0 ainutoa
•ean 42. B Minutes
•edian 20.0 ninutea
•ean 51.5 n mutes
•edian 27.5 ninutea
«ean 9.9 minutoa
•edian 5.0 aim/tea
mean 27.9 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 9.6 nmute a
median 3.0 ninutea
mean 23. A minutes
median 15.0 ninutea
mean 23.6 minutes
•edian 15.0 minutes
man 22.6 ainuteo
median 15.0 minutes
mean 7.2 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
5.
How much time did you spend
in the room immediately after
(PRODUCT)?
•ean 4.5 minutes
•edian 0.0 minutes
•ean 7.5 minutes
•edian 0.0 Hinutea
•ean 10.7 • mute 8
•edian 0.0 einutes
•ean 11.4 minutes
•edian 0.0 minutes
•ean 4.5 Minutes
•edian 0.0 minutes
mean 6.2 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 3.2 amutea
•edian O.G minutea
mean 10.3 Minutes
•edian 0.0 Minutes
•ean 27.6 minutea
•edian 0.0 minutes
•ean 1.5 minutes
•edian 0.0 minutea
mean 6.4 minutes
median 0.0 minutea
Ixvi
-------
7.
*hat siis of (PRODUCT) did you
UK the laat tine you uaed it?
How much of a cm or hot* many
cans did you use during the post
year? OUNCES PER YEAR
nein 46.9 ounces
median 16.0 ouncee
•ein 22.0 ounces
median 12.0 ounces
mean 44. 9 ounces
median 16.0 ouncee
nean 70.4 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean 18.6 ouncee
median 6.0 ounces
mean 37.7 ounces
median 15.0 ounces
mean 16.4 ounces
median 4.0 ouncee
mean 11.7 ounces
median B.O ouncee
mean 1 3. 3 ounces
median 7.6 ounces
mean 31 .6 ounces
median 12.0 ounces
mean 9.0 ounces
median 6.0 ounces
a.
ttiere did you use
(PRODUCT) the laat
tine you used it?
IB 0.22
2 LR —
3 OR 1.2%
4 G 7.6%
5 Outs. B9.4S
1 B OS
2 LR 05
3 OR 1S
4 G 115
5 Outs. 68%
1 B 0.6%
2 LR —
3 OR 1.1%
4 G 18.7%
5 Outa. 77.7%
1 B 0.8%
2 LR —
3 OR 0.8%
4 C 20.7%
5 Outs. 75.85
1 B 0.4%
2 LR -
3 OR 1.2S
4 G 12.45
5 Outa. 83.55
1 8 0%
2 LR 0%
3 OR 15
4 G 165
5 Outs. 63%
1 B —
2 LR —
3 OR IS
4 G 12%
5 Outs. 875
1 B —
2 LR —
3 OR 2S
4 G 185
5 Outs. 80%
1 B —
2 LR -
3 OR —
4 G 39%
5 Outs. 615
1 B —
2 LR 0.3%
3 OR 0.1%
4 G 3.95
5 Outa. 94.9%
1 B —
2 LR —
3 OR 1%
4 G 9%
5 Outs. 90%
9.
When uainq (PRODUCT) the last time, did you . . .
Have a Bin-
don open to
the outaide?
NA
KM
KM
N»
HA
NA
HA
SA
NA
SA
N»
Have an
exhauat
fan on?
NA
K*
NA
NA
NA
NU
NA
NA
W
NA
NA
Keep the
maids door
to the room
open?
NA
W
NA
NA
NA
N4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Read the
diractiong
on the
laoel?
Yea. . 78%
No . . 22%
Yea. . 74%
ft . . 26%
Yea. . 725
No . . 26%
Yes. . 695
NO . . 31%
Yes. . 55%
No . . 45%
Yes. . 86%
No . . 14%
Yes. . 715
•C . . 295
Yes. . 72%
t> . . 26%
Yes. . 74%
•C . . 265
Yes. . 67%
•0 . . 33%
Yes. . 71%
•*> . . 2°%
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the summary but it is reported in the text.
Ixvii
-------
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
I. BACKGROUND
On March 29, 1985, the National Toxicological Program
reported positive results for a bioassay that indicated that
methylene chloride is an animal carcinogen. Subsequently, the
Environmental Protection Agency, under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act, made a preliminary determination to list methylene
chloride as a hazardous air pollutant and on May 14, 1985, under
Section 4(f) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, announced its
decision to initiate priority review for risks of human cancer
from exposure to methylene chloride.
On October 17, 1985, in an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EPA announced its intention to conduct a regulatory
investigation of methylene chloride in consultation and
cooperation with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food
and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. An inter-agency methylene chloride workgroup,
chaired by the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, was
formed and charged with the responsibility of conducting the
regulatory investigation, which had the objective to determine
whether or not methylene chloride presents an unreasonable risk
to human health or the environment, and to determine if
regulatory controls are needed to eliminate or reduce exposure.
The investigation revealed that other chlorinated solvents
can be used in combination with or as substitutes for methylene
chloride and regulation of methylene chloride alone could lead to
its substitution by these other solvents. On December 11, 1985,
the inter-agency workgroup recommended broadening the regulatory
investigation to include six major chlorinated solvents:
methylene chloride, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, perchloroethylene and 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoro-
ethane. The solvents were selected for study on the basis of
their large production volumes, their interchangeability, and
their known and potential adverse health and environmental
effects.
There is potential for exposure to methylene chloride from
environmental sources, occupational activities and from use of
consumer products containing methylene chloride. The EPA found
that there was inadequate information on consumer exposure to
methylene chloride. The purpose of this study is to provide the
interagency workgroup with information that would assist them in
estimating the magnitude of exposure to methylene chloride in
consumer products. The study is a nationwide consumer survey to
1-1
-------
determine pertinent characteristics of consumer use of various
household cleaning, painting, and automotive products which are
thought to contain methylene chloride or one of its five chemical
substitutes.
The primary role of methylene chloride and its substitutes
is that of a solvent in most of these products. Methylene
chloride is effective in removing all types of surface finishes,
including synthetics and epoxies. Solvent cleaning, often
referred to as degreasing, involves removal of grease, wax and
other forms of dirt from a variety of materials including metal,
plastic, glass and fabric. In addition to methylene chloride's
excellent solvent properties, it is also nonflammable and has a
rapid evaporation rate. The five potential substitute chemicals
have similar physical chemical properties and may, therefore, be
used for similar purposes. In fact, for certain chemical uses
the chemical of choice is often determined by the going price at
the time.
The consumer is exposed to methylene chloride and its
substitutes in an array of household cleaning products, painting
and lubricating products, and automotive products. Thirty such
products are now included in this survey, and laboratory tests
have shown that methylene chloride or one of its substitute
chemicals is, in fact, present in these products. The 30
products plus two additional products included because of general
interest are as follows:
Product List
1. Spray Shoe Polish
2. Water Repellents/Protectors
3. Spot Removers
4. Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids and Degreasers
5. Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
6. Typewriter Correction Fluid
7. Adhesives (Glue)
8. Adhesive Removers
9. Silicone Lubricants
10. Other Lubricants
1-2
-------
11. Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for TVs, VCRs,
Records, Computers and Shavers)
12. Latex Paint*
13. Oil Paint*
14. Wood Stains and Varnishes
15. Paint Removers/Strippers
16. Paint Thinners
17. Aerosol Spray Paint
18. Primers and Special Primers
19. Rust Removers
20. Outdoor Water Repellents (for wood or cement)
21. Glass Frostings
22. Engine Degreasers
23. Carburetor Cleaners
24. Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
25. Auto Spray Primers
26. Spray Lubricant for Cars
27. Transmission Cleaners
28. Battery Terminal Protectors
29. Brake Quieters/Cleaners
30. Gasket Removers
31. Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
32. Wire Dryers
Do not contain methylene chloride but are of interest to EPA for
other reasons.
1-3
-------
Latex and oil paint are not thought to contain methylene
chloride or its substitutes, but do contain other chemicals of
interest to EPA and, therefore, are included as an economy
measure since the design and sample size lend themselves to
surveying these paint users. Personal care products were beyond
the scope of this study and therefore were not included.
This household consumer survey was conducted in conjunction
with a shelf survey and laboratory tests to measure the presence
or absence of methylene chloride and its substitutes. The shelf
survey involved collecting over 1200 household cleaning and
polishing, painting and lubricating, and automotive products from
six cities nationwide. These items were then laboratory tested.
Laboratory tests on products collected from the first city
(Washington, B.C.) reduced the original product list from over 59
product types (suspected to contain the solvents) to the 30
product types listed above.
II. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The survey had a three-part methodology, namely: Part I - A
Sample Generation Phase; Part II - A Mailout with Product
Pictures; and Part III - Telephone Follow-up to Nonrespondents of
the Mail Survey. In Part I the sample was generated using a
random digit dialing procedure. Using this procedure, a random
selection of blocks of numbers (including unpublished numbers)
within a certain exchange were made available. The interviewer
in Phase I made a determination whether a working residential
number had been obtained and then introduced the study; sought
the respondent's participation; asked for the mailing address;
and asked for the names of all of the adults in the household 18
years of age and older.
In Part II a questionnaire and a color foldout of product
pictures was sent to each respondent separately. A pretest
finding indicated that each respondent should receive a package
separately from other respondents in the same household as a
measure to avoid one member filling out each questionnaire for
all respondents in the household. The pretest also indicated
that the product pictures effectively familiarized the
respondents with the products and aided them in answering the
questions. This finding was confirmed in the study, even if the
respondent completed the questionnaire over the telephone.
Part III involved telephone followup to those who did not
respond to the mailed questionnaire within a four-week period.
Telephone followup at the end of the four-week period was thought
to be more effective and efficient than doing a second mailing or
prompting calls especially since time was an important factor.
1-4
-------
The same questionnaire was administered by the interviewer and
the interview took, on the average, twenty to thirty minutes.
The mailed questionnaire with product pictures appeared to be a
positive influence on the response rate even when the
questionnaire was administered over the telephone.
Ill- USE OF THE DATA
Respondents were asked questions as to their usage of the
products. Information included the following:
• Frequency of use of the product;
• Duration of use;
• Brand names of products used;
• Amount of the products used;
• Location of use; and
• Degree of ventilation and other protective measures
undertaken when using the product.
This information was needed for the Environmental Protection
Agency to determine whether the magnitude of exposure to
methylene chloride and its substitutes in consumer products
presents an "unreasonable risk."
Each question in the questionnaire has utility to the risk
assessment for methylene chloride and its substitutes. The main
exposure variables for performing assessments are as follows:
• For inhalation exposure of an individual reported as a
dose (that is, as a quantity absorbed into the body):
1. Frequency (events/year).
2. Years of exposure per lifetime.
3. Duration of exposure (hours/event).
4. Chemical concentration in room air.
5. Inhalation rate.
6. Fraction of inhaled chemical which is
absorbed.
1-5
-------
• For dermal exposure (individual):
1. Frequency.
2. Years of exposure per lifetime.
3. Skin surface area covered by product.
4. Film thickness of layer of product on skin.
5. Density of product.
6. Weight fraction of chemical in product.
7. Dermal absorption rate.
Assumptions can be made with relative certainty based on
physical measurements for some variables. However, without this
survey the frequency and duration of use, ventilation safeguards,
and use of other protective measures would be left to guesswork.
IV. Overview to the Report
Section 1 has provided the background and description of the
study and a description of the study methodology. The remainder
of the report appears as follows:
Section 2 - Describes the quality assurance procedures
including questionnaire validation, the sample quality
and response rate, data collection methods, and data
preparation and processing.
Section 3 - Discusses the sample design and selection,
sampling error, and variance estimation procedures.
Section 4 - Presents findings for comparisons made
between products. It includes statistics for the total
number of products used, rank orderings of products
from highest to lowest values on key usage variables,
and information on automotive and paint product users,
each as a group.
Section 5 - Discusses aspects of the data such as
sources of sampling and nonsampling error in the
product data, and presents the detailed findings for
the usage questions on a product-by-product basis.
1-6
-------
Section 6 - Describes a shelf study and laboratory
testing done for products in conjunction with this
household survey. It also presents a brand imputation
model used to simulate laboratory data where a
respondent named a brand not previously laboratory
tested in the shelf survey.
A series of technical appendices include the following:
• Appendix A - Results of the variance estimation
procedures;
• Appendix B - Results of a calculation for total
minutes of use by product;
• Appendix C - Actual mean values of comparisons of
brands by product for those with and without
laboratory data and those found to be with and
without the chemical;
• Appendix D - Summary of the findings for aerosol
"only" products;
• Appendix E - Recommendations for lifetime
frequency of use; and
• Appendix F - Product Brand Statistics.
1-7
-------
-------
Section 2
DESCRIPTION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
Systematic survey and quality assurance procedures were an
important part of all aspects of this study. Quality assurance
procedures related to questionnaire validation; sample quality
and response rates; data collection and the telephone center
procedures; data preparation and processing are discussed below.
I. QUESTIONNAIRE VALIDATION
This project involved the design of one questionnaire which
addressed consumer use of chemicals contained in an array of
products used around the home and in the automobile. Major
quality assurance procedures were undertaken to assure that valid
and reliable data were collected via the questionnaire format.
These procedures included: the collection of background
information relevant to questionnaire design; the formal
pretesting of the questionnaire; and reliability checks of the
information collected.
To assure valid results, relevant background information was
collected in advance. For example, available market data were
analyzed as to the incidence of use of these products by
consumers. Where market data were not available, such as for
aerosol spray paint and some other products, local store owners
were interviewed prior to the questionnaire preparation. Store
visits were made to become familiarized with the products in
question. Finally, indepth meetings with relevant agencies were
undertaken to assure the development of useful questions.
Once the questionnaire was drafted, formal pretests were
scheduled. The pretest involved mailing out the questionnaire
and doing telephone interviews with nonrespondents. Two
different formats were pretested, some with and some without
pictures of the products. The pretest revealed problems such as
questionnaire length; ability and difficulty comprehending the
two different formats; awkward wording of some questions; and the
respondent's tolerance for a certain repetition of questions.
A formal pretest of the questionnaire was an indispensable
means which led to a more meaningful development of the
questionnaire. It also shed light on measures that needed to be
considered in training the interviewers and, therefore, also
influenced the quality of the information collected. Results of
the pretest were used to choose the most effective format and to
revise the questionnaire.
2-1
-------
II. SAMPLE QUALITY AND RESPONSE RATE
Even though this study was a mailout survey with telephone
followup, the sample itself was generated by using a "random
digit dialing" procedure in which telephone numbers were selected
utilizing an unbiased, equal probability method known as the
"Waksberg Method."
The Waksberg sampling method provided relatively unbiased
results while being cost-effective by reducing the number of
unproductive calls. It takes advantage of the fact that a high
proportion of nonworking and commercial numbers occur in
consecutive sequences. The procedure essentially amounts to
first identifying a sample of blocks of numbers which contain
working residential telephone numbers and dialing random numbers
within those blocks. There are 46,000 blocks or clusters within
the United States. A random selection of 1093 clusters were
selected for this study.
Every effort was made to maximize the response rate. The
response rate for Phase I, the sample generation, was 80% and the
response rate for Phase III, the telephone followup, was 84%.
After taking into account the response rates for all phases,
including the mailed in questionnaires, the overall response rate
produced for the study was 73%. These response rates produced
4,920 completed questionnaires.
Other procedures assuring the quality of the sample and a
high response rate included:
• Internal computer checks to determine and eliminate any
duplication of clusters randomly selected;
• Monitoring of interviewers for the telephone initiation
and followup to assure that the number randomly
generated was the only one utilized;
• Attractive questionnaire design and easy to follow
directions for the mailout, including a foldout of
pictures of the products;
• A toll-free number that respondents could call to
verify the legitimacy of the survey;
• Careful wording of the introduction making it as
interesting as possible and attention to questionnaire
wording and length;
• Scan edits to verify that interviews were, in fact,
completed and ineligibles were, in fact, ineligible;
2-2
-------
Systematic callback procedures over an extended period
of time to maximize the chances of interviewing the
person at the number randomly generated; and
Converting those who initially decline through
systematic callback procedures.
III. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Quality control was assured during data collection by
substantial training of interviewers and receipt clerks, careful
supervision and monitoring of the interviewers during the
interviewing and the receipt clerks for the mail-ins, and careful
handling and storing of the questionnaires. All receipt clerks
on the questionnaire mail-in operation received training by the
project director. Systematic procedures were developed in
advance to carefully handle and store the questionnaires. All
interviewers used in the telephone followups received general
interviewing training and project specific training. The general
training includes the learning of voice and diction techniques,
active listening skills, how to establish rapport with the
respondent, how to probe for answers, how to handle refusals or
difficult clients, and how to edit the written work involved in
the questionnaire. Project specific training involved background
on the study and question-by-question specifications and
instructions. In both cases, interactive lectures, audiovisual
materials, and role plays were utilized.
All interviewers for this survey were assigned to a
Telephone Center Supervisor. The supervisor participated in the
training efforts and monitored the interviews once they began.
Monitoring took place in separate rooms from the interview
carrels. Interviewers were observed and heard on silent
listening devices. Most of the interviews during the first week
of the study were monitored. The supervisor identified problems
and took corrective actions, such as retraining and tutoring, to
assure consistent quality of the interviews.
Finally, all the questionnaires were securely stored. The
security facilities included a vault where completed
questionnaires and other materials will be kept at the close of
the study. A computerized mail receipt system was designed so
that every questionnaire received an interim and a final status.
IV. DATA PREPARATION AND PROCESSING
First, a visual edit of all questionnaire items (for
omissions, incomplete data entries and inconsistencies) was
2-3
-------
completed by the telephone interviewers; then by their
supervisor; and again by the coding supervisor. Any omissions or
errors were corrected prior to data entry. Each coder's initial
day's work was also 100 percent verified by the coding
supervisor. When an acceptable error level was attained,
verification was cut back and performed on at least 15 percent of
each coder's subsequent work.
Second, preceding and precolumning were used in the
questionnaire, as well as a coding manual to instruct coders as
to specifications and decision rules. The questionnaire format
and the manual addressed the following:
• Question numbers and item descriptions for each codable
item;
• Card and column locations of all codable items;
• Codes for all possible responses, including codes for
no data responses such as "inapplicable";
• Clear delineation of skip patterns in the form of
contingency boxes; and
• Editing instructions in the form of editing check lists
and edit boxes. Editing check lists include
instructions for edits which require an overview of a
section of the questionnaire and edit boxes include
instructions for editing particular boxes.
A third quality control measure related particularly to
coding was the maintenance of a decision log to document two
kinds of decisions. The first is a decision documentation
related to inconsistencies or missing data in specific cases, and
these decisions were recorded throughout the coding process. The
second type of decision recording mechanism is that which
involved the broader issues of study methodology from instrument
design and sample selection to the form of the final data
analysis reports. As these decisions affect the nature of the
study, they were only made by the task leader.
After coding was completed, the coded forms were keyed and
the keyed material edited in preparation of a clean data base
necessary for data analysis. All data was 100 percent key
verified. This means that a person other than the original data
entry clerk re-keyed the data, and the two records were compared
and inconsistencies resolved.
2-4
-------
The following are examples of the types of other checks that
were performed on the data:
• Range checks on fields where a limited range was known
to be possible, such as the number of children in the
household or the number of hours spent using a given
product;
• A crosscheck of related fields, such as the number of
people using the product in the last 12 months who also
filled out questions 3 through 9;
• Checks for illegal characters, such as letters in
numeric fields or special characters in alphabetic
fields; and
• Validity checks on all codes such as the brand codes.
Wherever errors were detected, corrections were made or
records deleted by way of a file-updating program.
V. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
In summary, EPA is firmly committed to the principles and
procedures which facilitate quality assurance in its survey
procedures. Quality assurance procedures discussed in this
section are summarized on the next page.
2-5
-------
SUMMARY OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
Quality Control Area
Questionnaire Validation
Sample Quality
Data Collection
Procedures
Data Preparation and
Processing/Procedures
Methods to Be Used
Collection of relevant
background information
regarding use of the
relevant products
Formal pretesting by mail
and in the Telephone
Center
Respondent reliability
checks through re-
interviews
Random Digit Dialing as a
cost-effective and
efficient method for
generating the sample
Computer checks for
duplication of clusters
Systematic callbacks over
an extended period of
time
Receipt clerk training
Interviewer training
Interviewer supervision
Systematic handling and
storing of questionnaires
Visual edits of the
questionnaire
Preceding and
precolumning
Coding manual
Decision logs
100 percent of coding
verified by supervisor
during first day and
15 percent thereafter
100 percent of data keyed
are key verified by a
second data entry clerk
Machine edit of range and
logic checks, as well as
validity of codes and
skip patterns
2-6
-------
Section 3
SAMPLING DESIGN AND SELECTION
I. SAMPLING FRAME
Telephone surveys typically use telephone directories or
numbers generated from random digit dialing (RDD) as the sampling
frame. Telephone directories, however, have the disadvantage of
excluding households with unlisted numbers and households that
have recently moved. Moreover, most telephone companies are
unwilling to release a list of all residential telephone numbers
for sampling purposes since this may violate a commitment made to
customers with unlisted numbers. Current and comprehensive lists
of residential telephone numbers are generally not available for
sampling purposes.
Random digit dialing methods, on the other hand, do not have
these limitations. Although there are several methods of
implementing random digit dialing (RDD), this survey used a
procedure called the Waksberg Method. The Waksberg Method
provides an unbiased sample of households with telephones, with
most households having the same probability of selection.
Moreover, the method is relatively efficient since it requires
fewer telephone calls than the earlier procedures developed for
RDD.
A small percentage of households, 2 to 3 percent, have
multiple phone numbers. The vast majority of multiple phone
number households will have only two phone numbers. Rather than
introduce weights into the data set, the information collected on
the number of homes within a household was ignored. Because of
the very small number of households with multiple phones, the
potential for biasing the results in a meaningful way is remote.
This method of sample selection for telephone interviewing
via RDD, therefore, significantly reduced the cost of this
survey, as compared to dialing numbers completely at random. The
problem with dialing numbers completely at random is that most
numbers dialed turn out to be nonworking numbers. An additional
group represents business or other nonresidential units. Current
estimates are that about 80 percent of the potential numbers
within existing telephone exchanges are non-working and about 3
percent are businesses or institutions of some type. About 20
percent turn out to be residential.
Therefore, with numbers selected at random (within known
telephone exchanges), calls to about five separate numbers are
needed to produce a single residential unit. In many cases, the
telephone companies do not provide a message that the number
3-1
-------
<£-
dialed is not a working number; and additional checking is
necessary to distinguish between not-at-home and nonworking
numbers, adding further to the cost of producing completed
interviews.
The sampling method used in this study was designed to
reduce the number of nonproductive calls. It takes advantage of
the fact that a high proportion of nonworking and commercial
numbers occur in consecutive sequences. The procedure
essentially amounts to first identifying and selecting a sample
of blocks of numbers which contain working residential telephone
numbers and then dialing numbers at random within the blocks. If
the primary number in the block or cluster is residential the
cluster has a greater probability of producing other residential
numbers.
II. SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE
The sample was selected in two waves given a late decision
to increase the sample size. Wave 1 consisted of 600 clusters
with 500 of them with four households per cluster and 100 of them
with five households per cluster. Wave 2 consisted of 493
clusters with two households per cluster. The decision to take
four or five households per cluster in Wave 1 and the decision to
place a cluster in Wave 1 or 2 were decided at random; this means
that the unequal number of households per cluster would not have
disturbed the equal probability of selection for households.
Every adult member (18 years of age or older) within a
household was included in the survey. Five thousand six hundred
and seventy-five (5,675) respondents of 6,700 contacted agreed to
participate and therefore were sent a questionnaire. Four
thousand nine hundred and twenty (4,920) respondents either sent
the questionnaire in or completed the interview over the
telephone.
Ill- SAMPLING ERROR AND STATISTICAL ACCURACY
Like all survey data, the resulting statistical estimates
are subject to sampling error which is presented at the 95
percent confidence limit. The sampling error for four products
each with a different incidence of use is presented in Table 3-1.
This error is calculated by product because the analyses are done
by product. The confidence bounds or level of statistical
precision were deemed acceptable for the intended purposes. This
precision was in fact achieved.
3-2
-------
Table 3-1 has been prepared under the assumption of simple
random sampling. The sample design actually used was a two-stage
sample, with all adults over 18 years old in a selected household
interviewed. Because this sample is made up of clusters of
households in the same general vicinity, as well as multiple
members of the same household, variance estimates made using the
assumption of simple random sampling can either understate or
overstate (this is a rare occurrence) variance. Comparisons are
made in Appendix A which compare estimates of variance made under
the assumption of simple random sampling, with estimates which
take into account the complex sample design used. These
comparisons indicate that the effect of the complex sample design
was negligible. This being the case, estimates based upon simple
random sampling can be used for reference in the absence of
estimates of variance based upon the complex sample design.
Table 3-1: Chlorocarbon Household Survey
Sampling tolerance using a 95% level of confidence in
estimating a proportion
True Value of Proportion estimated
p = 0.01 p = 0.1 p = 0.3 p = 0.5
or or or or
0.99 0.9 0.7 0.5
Incidence of use of product:
Highest
(54%) 2680 respondents ±0.004 +0.012 ±0.018 ±0.019
Moderate
(22%) 1104 respondents ±0.006 ±0.018 ±0.028 ±0.030
Moderately rare
( 6%) 290 respondents ±0.012 ±0.035 ±0.054 ±0.059
Rarest
(1.4%) 69 respondents ±0.024 ±0.072 ±0.110 ±0.120
3-3
-------
IV. VARIANCE ESTIMATION
This survey consists of a two-stage cluster sample in which
the first stage units consist of telephone clusters and the
second stage units consist of households. The selected
households are also made up of clusters of people, but no
subsampling is performed within the household. All persons in
the selected households over 18 years old are included in the
survey.
Ratio Estimation
The vast majority of estimates produced from this survey are
ratio estimates (i.e., both numerator and denominator are random
variables) of the form:
Total Use
Total Number of Users
This ratio was calculated separately for the 32 product types.
Because all respondents had approximately an equal probability of
selection the two waves of the survey were simply added together
to form the ratio:
Wave 1 Total Use + Wave 2 Total Use
Wave 1 Users + Wave 2 Users
If the numerator is represented by Y and the denominator by X
then the estimates are of the form:
Variance of a Ratio
The variance of this ratio, VR, can be estimated by the
following:
A2 2
R S
V
where Sy2 is the estimated variance of Y, Sx2 is the estimated
variance of X and SYX is the estimated covariance of X and Y.
3-4
-------
Because of the independence of the two waves the variance of Y
can be estimated by:
222
s = s + s
Y Y, Y,
where Y^ is the total for Wave 1 and Y2 is the total for Wave 2.
These totals are made up of the sums of n-^ and n2 clusters, which
have been selected with probability proportionate to size and
essentially with replacement. For this situation an estimate of
the variance of Y,, and similarly for Y2, is n.^ times the sample
variance of the cluster totals, Y^ i=l,...n1:
S2 = n.!(Y. - Y.)Vn -1
Y. - i i i
The same types of estimates were used to estimate Vy2 . To
estimate the covariance of Y and X, Syx, the estimates over the
two waves were summed (due to independence) :
SXY =
The covariance terms were estimated for each wave by finding the
simple covariance between the cluster totals and the number of
users in the cluster. For wave 1 this yields the following:
(X.-X.)
1 i
. - n
Variance was estimated by product type for the following
ratio estimates: percent recent users, months since last use,
uses per year, minutes of use (last use) , ounces used per year,
and ounces per year/uses per year.
To investigate the effect of the sample design upon the
estimated variance the variances for many of the variables listed
above were calculated for nine product types as if the responses
were from a simple random sample, ie. , a standard statistical
package was used to estimate variance. The ratios of the
estimated standard error, using the previously described
procedure, to the standard error based upon simple random
sampling were formed. The maximum ratio found was 1.085 and the
minimum was .936, with the vast majority between .96 and 1.04.
This suggests that the clustering had a minimal impact on the
precision of the survey.
3-5
-------
r-
Confidence Intervals
The estimated variance of the ratio mean discussed above was
used to construct an approximate 95% confidence interval. This
was done using the following formula:
R ± 1.96
These intervals can also be interpreted as giving the values of R
that would be accepted based upon the following test:
[R - R ]
< 1.96
It should be remembered that these intervals are based upon the
normal distribution. The right skewed nature of the variables
(primarily estimating amount used) will tend to make this
approximation questionable for ratios based upon 50 respondents
or fewer.
The actual results of the variance estimation for each
product and each variable are presented in Appendix A.
3-6
-------
Section 4
RESULTS:
COMPARISONS AND ANALYSES ACROSS PRPHUCTS
I. TOTAL NUMBER OF PRODUCTS USED
A. Products "Ever Used"
Respondents have, on the average, used slightly fewer than
seven products in their lifetime, to date. As can be seen in
Table 4-1, the mean number of products "ever used" is 6.93 and
the median number is 6.0.
Table 4-2 presents the frequency distribution for the total
number of products ever used. Four and five products were the
number most often used by respondents. Seventy-eight percent of
the respondents used 10 or fewer products and less than 1 percent
used 22 or more products.
As can be seen in Table 4-3, five percent of the respondents
have never used any of the products. The percentiles increase
steadily to 32 products at the maximum percentile.
B- Products Used Within the Last Twelve Months
During the last 12 months, respondents on the average, used
almost five products. As can be seen in Table 4-4, the mean
number of products used during this period is 4.94 and the median
number is 4.00.
Table 4-5 presents the frequency distribution for the total
number of products of the 32 which were used during the last 12
months. Most people used three or four products during the
previous 12 months. Almost 90 percent used 10 or fewer products.
Fewer than 1 percent used 18 or more products during this period.
As Table 4-6 shows, ten percent of the respondents did not
use any of the products during the 12 months prior to the survey.
These percentiles also increase steadily with 18 products being
used at the 99th percentile and 32 being used at the maximum
percentile.
II- RANK-ORDERINGS OF PRODUCTS BY QUESTION AND SELECTED
CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOTAL EXPOSURE
For all key questions, tables are presented in which
variables are rank-ordered from the highest to the lowest value.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1: . Descriptive statistics for total number of products
ever used (N=4920)
Mean 6.93
Median 6.00
Standard deviation 5.08
Table 4-2: Frequency distribution of total products "ever used"
Number of
products
used
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
32
Frequency
299
330
365
427
432
435
371
330
316
302
227
204
180
139
120
93
83
66
61
40
35
17
15
8
9
7
1
4
1
1
2
Percent
6.1
6.7
7.4
8.7
8.8
8.8
7.5
6.7
6.4
6.1
4.6
4.1
3.7
2.8
2.4
1.9
1.7
1.3
1.2
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cumulative
Frequency
299
629
994
1421
1853
2288
2659
2989
3305
3607
3834
4038
4218
4357
4477
4570
4653
4719
4780
4820
4855
4872
4887
4895
4904
4911
4912
4916
4917
4918
4920
Cumulative
Percent
6.1
12.8
20.2
28.9
37.7
46.5
54.0
60.8
67.2
73.3
77.9
82.1
85.7
88.6
91.0
92.9
94.6
95.9
97.2
98.0
98.7
99.0
99.3
99.5
99.7
99.8
99.8
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
4-2
-------
Table 4-3: Percentile rankings for total number of products ever
used (N=4920)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
0
0
0
1
3
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
6
10
14
17
21
32
Table 4-4: Descriptive statistics for total number of products
used during last 12 months
Mean 4.94
Median 4.00
Standard deviation 4 .18
4-3
-------
Table 4-5:
Frequency distribution of total products used during
the last 12 months
Number of
products
used
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
Frequency
528
533
558
614
482
414
371
305
237
221
139
123
94
89
60
42
35
19
13
12
7
5
5
3
4
1
2
1
1
2
Percent
10.7
10.8
11.3
12.5
9.8
8.4
7.5
6.2
4.8
4.5
2.8
2.5
1.9
1.8
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cumulative
Frequency
525
1061
1619
2233
2715
3129
3500
3805
4042
4263
4402
4525
4619
4708
4768
4810
4845
4864
4877
4889
4896
4901
4906
4909
4913
4914
4916
4917
4918
4920
Cumulative
Percent
10.7
21.6
32.9
45.4
55.2
63.6
71.1
77.3
82.2
86.6
89.5
92.0
93.9
95.7
96.9
97.8
98.5
98.9
99.1
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
Table 4-6:
Percentile rankings for total number of products used
during the last 12 months
Minimum
1%
5c;
IC-J
25%
0
0
0
0
2
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
4
7
11
13
18
32
-------
This gives some indication of how to summarize the data for the
products relative to each other. Another column appears for
minutes of use, minutes in the room after use, and ounces used
per year. This column indicates the average percent of use due
to each product type. This is calculated by adding up the
minutes or ounces for all 32 products and then calculating the
percentage of the total for each product. This allows for
subtracting the percentage of minutes of use if it is eliminated
for one or more products.
Table 4-7 presents the rank orderings of products for the
variable "incidence of use". As can be seen, the highest
incidence of "ever used" products is for contact cements, super
glues, and spray adhesives, with 60.6 percent. This may be
partially because some respondents included the more common white
paste glues. The second two highest incidences of "ever used"
products are for latex paint, with 55.2 percent and wood stains,
varnishes, and finishes, with 42.9 percent.
The lowest incidence of "ever used" products is for
automotive products. Transmission cleaners are lowest with only
2.1 percent of respondents ever using them. The next two lowest
are gasket removers with 2.7 percent and brake quieters/cleaners
with 2.6 percent.
Table 4-8 presents the rank orderings of products for the
variable "last time the product was used, in months". Spray shoe
polish was last used, on the average, 42.1 months ago. This is
the longest period since last use and this may reflect the fact
that many manufacturers are discontinuing its production. The
glass frosting, tints, and artificial snow category is the next
longest period, last used 34.2 months ago. Oil paint is the
third longest period, last used 30.4 months ago.
The most recent last use falls to other lubricants
(nonautomotive) with 5.0 months, on the average, since last use;
contact cements, super glues, and spray adhesives with 5.2 months
since last use; and spray lubricants (automotive) with 6.3 months
since last use.
Table 4-9 presents the rank orderings for products for the
variable "number of uses of the product within the last 12
months". By far, the product most used within the last 12 months
is typewriter correction fluid with 40.0 uses. There is a drop
to the next two highest products, solvent cleaners with 16.5 uses
during the previous 12 months and spot removers with 15.6 uses.
The three products least used within the last 12 months are
outdoor water repellents with 2.1 mean uses, transmission
cleaners with 2.3 mean uses, and gasket removers with 2.5 mean
uses.
4-5
-------
Table 4-7:
Rank orderings of incidence of use (ever used) for
all products
Product
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray
adhesive
Latex paint
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Spot removers
Paint thinners
Water repellents
Aerosol spray paint (nonaut emotive)
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Other lubricants (nonaut emotive)
Paint removers/Strippers
Oil paint
Solvent cleaners
Typewriter correction fluids
Carburetor cleaners
Spray lubricants for cars
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Engine degreasers
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Primers (nonautomotive)
Specialized electronic cleaners
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Spray shoe polish
Glass frostings/Tints/Artif icial snow
Outdoor water repellent
Auto spray primers
Aerosol rust removers
Battery terminal protectors
Adhesive removers
Ignition/Wire dryers
Gasket removers
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Transmission cleaners
Ql
Yes %
60.6
55.2
42.9
39.1
35.7
35.8
35.4
34.9
34.3
30.5
29.9
28.1
25.9
21.9
17.9
17.7
17.2
15.9
13.9
13.1
12.1
11.7
10.3
9.2
8.7
8.2
6.7
5.7
4.8
2.7
2.6
2.1
Ql
Number of
Respondents
2982
2717
2113
1924
1756
1762
1743
1719
1695
1498
1471
1382
1276
1075
884
870
847
783
684
645
597
575
509
454
429
403
330
284
237
132
130
103
4-6
-------
Table 4-8: Rank orderings of last time product was used in
months for all products
Q2
Product Mean months
Spray shoe polish
Glass frostings/Tints/Artif icial snow
Oil paint
Paint removers/Strippers
Outdoor water repellents
Auto spray primers
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Ignition/Wire dryers
Gasket removers
Primers (nonautomotive)
Adhesive removers
Paint thinners
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Water repellents
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive)
Latex paint
Transmission cleaners
Engine degreasers
Aerosol rust removers
Spot removers
Battery terminal protectors
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Carburetor cleaners
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Solvent cleaners
Specialized electronic cleaners
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Typewriter correction fluid
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Spray lubricants for cars
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives
Other lubricants (nonautomotive)
42.1
34.2
30.4
28.9
24.6
24.1
23.2
22.8
22.4
22.0
21.6
21.5
20.8
20.5
17.2
16.7
16.7
16.5
15.1
14.7
14.0
13.3
13.1
12.6
9.9
7.9
7.2
6.9
6.5
6.3
5.2
5.0
4-7
-------
Table 4-9: Rank orderings of number of uses of the product
within the last 12 months for all products
Product Q3
Mean uses
Typewriter correction fluid 40.0
Solvent cleaners 16.5
Spot removers 15.6
Specialized electronic cleaners 13.4
Tire/Hubcap cleaners 11.1
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 10.6
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 10.3
Spray lubricants for cars 10.3
Spray shoe polish 10.3
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 8.9
Wood/Floor/Panel cleaners 8.5
Paint thinners 6.8
Auto spray primers 6 . 4
Aerosol rust removers 6 . 2
Oil paint 5.7
Aerosol spray paint for cars 4.5
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 4.2
Engine degreasers 4 . 2
Adhesive removers 4.2
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 4.2
Latex paint 3.9
Battery terminal protectors 3 . 9
Carburetor cleaners 3 . 8
Paint removers/Strippers 3.7
Water repellents 3.5
Primers (nonautomotive) 3.4
Brake guieters/Cleaners 3.0
Ignition/Wire dryers 3 . 0
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 2.8
Gasket removers 2.5
Transmission cleaners 2.3
Outdoor water repellents 2.1
-------
Table 4-10 presents the rank orderings and the average
percent of use for all products for the variable "time spent
using the product". As might be expected, the most time was
spent using latex paint (295.1 mean minutes) and oil paint (194.1
mean minutes). However, latex and oil paint do not contain the
study solvents. Of the other products which are thought to
contain the solvents the three highest number of minutes are:
paint removers/strippers with 125.6 mean number of minutes;
adhesive removers with 121.0 mean number of minutes; and wood
stains, varnishes, and finishes with 117.2 mean number of
minutes.
The least amount of time using a product is for
ignition/wire dryers at 7.2 mean minutes, spray shoe polish at
7.5 mean minutes, and typewriter correction fluid at 7.6 mean
minutes.
Column 2 indicates the average percentage of use (as minutes
of use) due to each product type. Each amount shown is the
percentage of minutes of use which would be eliminated if the use
of any given product is eliminated.
Table 4-11 presents the rank orderings and the average
percent of use for all products for the variable "time spent in
the room after last use". The mean number of minutes spent in
the room after use of the product is greatest for the glass
frostings, tints, and artificial snow category, with 137.9 mean
minutes; next highest for typewriter correction fluid with 128.4
mean minutes; and third highest for adhesive removers with 119.3
mean minutes.
The automotive products have the lowest amount of time spent
in the room because most are used outside or briefly inside the
garage.
Column 2 indicates the average percent of use (as minutes in
the room after use) due to each product type. Each figure is the
percentage of minutes in the room after use which would be
eliminated if use of any given product is eliminated.
Table 4-12 presents the rank orderings and average percent
of use for all products for the variable "amount of product used
in ounces per year". As might be expected, products used for
large jobs have the most ounces used per year. Latex and oil
paint have the highest number*of ounces used with 371.3 and 168.9
ounces, respectively. However, these two products do not contain
the solvents of interest. Of the products with brands thought to
contain chlorinated solvents, the top three number of ounces used
per year are: outdoor water repellents with 148.7 ounces;
4-9
-------
Table 4-11:
Rank orderings and average percent of time spent
in the room after last use for all products
Product
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow
Typewriter correction fluids
Adhesive removers
Specialized electronic cleaners
Oil paint
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Latex paint
Contact cement/Super Glues/Spray
Adhesives
Other lubricants (nonautomotive)
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Spot removers
Water repellents
Solvent cleaners
Paint thinners
Spray shoe polish
Paint removers/Strippers
Gasket removers
Primers (nonautomotive)
Aerosol rust removers
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive)
Auto spray primers
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Outdoor water repellents
Carburetor cleaners
Ignition/Wire dryers
Transmission cleaners
Spray lubricants for cars
Engine degreasers
Battery terminal protectors
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Average percent
of use (as
Q5 minutes in the
mean room after use)
minutes due to each
in room product type
137.9
128.4
119.3
117.2
100.5
96.7
93.4
91.4
88.9
84.1
65.8
43.8
38.2
33.3
32.9
31.5
31.4
27.6
22.3
15.1
12.7
11.4
10.7
10.3
8.3
7.5
6.4
6.2
4.5
4.5
3.2
1.5
9.3%
8.6%
8.0%
7.9%
6.8%
6.5%
6.3%
6.1%
6.0%
5.7%
4.4%
2.9%
2.6%
2.2%
2.2%
2.1%
2.1%
1.9%
1.5%
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
4-11
-------
Table 4-12:
Rank orderings and average percent of use for amount
of product used in ounces per year for all products
Product
Latex paint
Oil paint
Outdoor water repellents
Auto spray primers
Paint thinners
Primers (nonautomotive)
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Paint removers/Strippers
Solvent cleaners
Engine degreasers
Aerosol spray paint for cars
Transmission cleaners
Adhesive removers
Tire/Hubcap cleaners
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive)
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners
Spot removers
Carburetor cleaners
Spray lubricants for cars
Aerosol rust removers
Battery terminal protectors
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow
Gasket removers
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive)
Brake quieters/Cleaners
Water repellents
Spray shoe polish
Other lubricants (nonautomotive)
Specialized electronic cleaners
Ignition/Wire dryers
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray
adhesives
Typewriter correction fluid
Q7
Mean
ounces
per year
371.3
168.9
148.7
70.4
69.5
68.4
65.1
63.7
58.1
46.9
44.9
37.7
34.5
31.6
30.7
28.4
26.1
22.0
18.6
18.2
16.4
13.8
13.3
12.5
11.7
11.3
9.9
9.9
9.5
9.0
7.5
4.1
Average
percent
of use
(as ounces
per year)
due to each
product type
23.9%
10.9%
9.6%
4.5%
4.5%
4.4%
4.2%
4.1%
3.7%
3.0%
2.9%
2.4%
2.2%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
1.4%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
4-12
-------
automotive spray primers with 70.4 ounces; and paint thinners
with 69.5 ounces.
While typewriter correction fluid and cont-act cement, super
glues, and spray adhesives are frequently used, only relatively
small amounts were used, namely: 4.1 ounces per year for the
former and 7.5 for the latter.
Column 2 indicates the average percent of use (as ounces per
year) due to each product type. Ounces per year was a variable
derived from determining the size of can used and the amount or
number of cans used. Each number shows the percentage of ounces
per year which would be eliminated if the use of any given
product is eliminated.
Table 4-13 presents the rank orderings for all products for
the variable "whether or not a door or window was open to the
outside". The highest percentage of respondents kept a door or
window open when using nonautomotive primers (78%), latex paint
(76%), outdoor water repellents (73%) , and paint removers/
strippers (71%). Most of the automotive products were used on
the outside so this question was irrelevant for these
respondents.
Table 4-14 presents the rank orderings for all products for
the variable "whether an exhaust fan was on during use". The
highest percentages of respondents having an exhaust fan on are
25 percent for spot removers and 23 percent for adhesive
removers. Four products with 16 percent of respondents having an
exhaust fan on are: primers (nonautomotive); oil paint; paint
removers/strippers; and latex paint. Most users of automotive
products used them outside and, again, this question does not
apply.
Table 4-15 presents the rank orderings for all products for
the variable "whether the inside door to the room was kept open."
For those respondents who used the product inside, the majority
left the door to the room open while using the product. The
highest percentages leaving the door open were for latex paint
(85%), wood/floor/paneling cleaners (83%), and spot removers
(80%). Once again, the majority of the automotive users used the
product outside and, therefore, this question does not apply.
Table 4-16 presents the rank orderings for all products for
the variable "whether directions on the label were read." The
least used product, transmission cleaners, had the highest
percentage (86%) of respondents who read the directions on the
label. The majority of the respondents for most products said
that they did read the directions on the label. Fewer than 50
percent read the directions on the label for only two products,
nonautomotive "other" lubricants and typewriter correction fluid.
4-13
-------
Table 4-13: Rank orderings of those saying they kept a door or
window open to the outside for all products
Q9a
Product Yes %
Primers (nonautomotive) 78
Latex paint 76
Outdoor water repellents 73
Paint removers/Strippers 71
Oil paint 70
Adhesive removers 67
Paint thinners 67
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 64
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 63
Aerosol rust removers 61
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners 59
Solvent cleaners 57
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 52
Spot removers 45
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 43
Spray shoe polish 41
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 41
Water repellents 40
Specialized electronic cleaners 32
Typewriter correction fluid 26
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 24
Transmission cleaners N/A
Battery terminal protectors N/A
Carburetor cleaners N/A
Brake quieters/Cleaners N/A
Auto spray primers N/A
Gasket removers N/A
Engine degreasers N/A
Spray lubricants for cars N/A
Aerosol spray paint for cars N/A
Tire/Hubcap cleaners N/A
Ignition/Wire dryers N/A
4-14
-------
Table 4-14: Rank orderings of those saying they kept an exhaust
fan on during use for all products
Q9b
Product Yes %
Spot removers 25
Adhesive removers 23
Primers (nonautomotive) 16
Oil paint 16
Paint removers/Strippers 16
Latex paint 16
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 15
Solvent cleaners 15
Aerosol rust removers 13
Spray shoe polish 11
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 11
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners 11
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 10
Paint thinners 10
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 8
Typewriter correction fluid 8
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 8
Water repellents 8
Outdoor water repellents 7
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 6
Specialized electronic cleaners 6
Carburetor cleaners N/A
Battery terminal protectors N/A
Engine degreasers N/A
Brake quieters/Cleaners N/A
Auto spray primers N/A
Gasket removers N/A
Transmission cleaners N/A
Spray lubricants for cars N/A
Aerosol spray paint for cars N/A
Tire/Hubcap cleaners N/A
Ignition/Wire dryers N/A
4-15
-------
Table 4-15: Rank orderings of those saying they kept the door to
the room open during use
Q9c
Product Yes %
Latex paint 85
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners 83
Spot removers 80
Adhesive removers 79
Oil paint 77
Spray shoe polish 76
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 75
Typewriter correction fluid 74
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 74
Solvent cleaners 74
Water repellents 73
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 72
Silicone lubricants (nonautomotive) 71
Specialized electronic cleaners 70
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 70
Paint removers/Strippers 69
Primers (nonautomotive) 68
Paint thinners 68
Outdoor water repellents 65
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 61
Aerosol rust removers 57
Transmission cleaners N/A
Battery terminal protectors N/A
Carburetor cleaners N/A
Brake quieters/Cleaners N/A
Auto spray primers N/A
Gasket removers N/A
Engine degreasers N/A
Spray lubricants for cars N/A
Aerosol spray paint for cars N/A
Tire/Hubcap cleaners N/A
Ignition/Wire dryers N/A
4-16
-------
Table 4-16: Rank orderings of those saying they read the
directions on the label for last use of product
Q9d
Product Yes %
Transmission cleaners 86
Water repellents 83
Adhesive removers 82
Outdoor water repellents 81
Paint removers/Strippers 80
Engine degreasers 78
Wood stains/Varnishes/Finishes 77
Spot removers 77
Primers (nonautomotive) 74
Gasket removers 74
Specialized electronic cleaners 74
Carburetor cleaners 74
Aerosol spray paint (nonautomotive) 73
Wood/Floor/Paneling cleaners 72
Aerosol spray paint for cars 72
Brake quieters/Cleaners 72
Ignition/Wire dryers 71
Spray shoe polish 71
Battery terminal protectors 71
Glass frostings/Tints/Artificial snow 71
Contact cement/Super glues/Spray adhesives 70
Oil paint 69
Auto spray primers 69
Solvent cleaners 68
Aerosol rust removers 68
Tire/Hubcap cleaners 67
Latex paint 64
Silicons lubricants (nonautomotive) 61
Paint thinners 59
Spray lubricants for cars 55
Other lubricants (nonautomotive) 45
Typewriter correction fluid 39
4-17
-------
r-
III. CROSS USE OF PRODUCTS
A. Users of Aerosol Spray Paint Who Use Other Products
Table 4-17 presents the percentage of users who have "ever
used" aerosol spray paint who have also "ever used" the other 31
products. Of particular interest is whether a user of one paint
product also uses other paint products. As might be expected,
the percentage of users of aerosol spray paint who also used
other paint products is high. Almost 76 percent of aerosol spray
paint users have also used latex paint; 45.3 percent have also
used oil paint; 64.1 percent have also used wood stains,
varnishes, and finishes; 49.6 percent have also used paint
removers/strippers; and 54.9 percent have also used paint
thinners. Please also note that the percentage of users of
aerosol spray paint who use one of the other products may be low
because overall use of the product is low. This is true for many
automotive products.
Table 4-18 presents the percentage of aerosol spray paint
users who used it in the last 12 months who also used the other
31 products during the last 12 months. Once again, a fairly high
percentage of users of aerosol spray paint during the last 12
months also used other paint products during the last 12 months.
Almost 58 percent of aerosol spray paint "recent" users also used
latex paint; almost 28 percent also used oil paint; almost 45
percent also used wood stains, varnishes, or finishes; 29 percent
also used paint removers/strippers; and 39 percent also used
paint thinners.
B. Users of Carburetor Cleaners Who Use Other Products
Table 4-19 presents the percentage of users of carburetor
cleaners who have "ever" used it who also have used the other 31
products. Of particular interest is whether a user of one
automotive product also uses other automotive products. Fifty-
four percent of users of carburetor cleaners also use engine
degreasers; 34.4 percent also use aerosol spray paint for cars;
29.3 percent also use auto spray primers; 49.3 percent also use
spray lubricants for cars; 7.2 percent also use transmission
cleaners; 20.3 percent also use battery terminal protectors; 9.9
percent also use brake quieters/cleaners; 9.3 percent also use
gasket removers; 32.1 percent also use tire/hubcap cleaners; and
15.9 percent also use ignition and wire dryers. Again, please
note that the percentage of users of carburetor cleaners who use
one of the other automotive products may seem low because overall
4-18
-------
Table 4-17: Percentage of "Ever Users" of Aerosol Spray Paint
who "Ever Used" other products (N=1746 users)
Other Products Used Percentage "Ever Users"
Using
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Wood/Floor/Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants (nonauto)
Other Lubricants (nonauto)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint (nonauto)
Primers and Special Primers (nonauto)
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
Glass Frostings, Tints, and Artificial
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricants for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Removers
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
15.6%
47.6%
48.8%
38.8%
45.7%
36.4%
79.3%
96.8%
29.0%
52.3%
20.6%
75.6%
45.3%
64.1%
49.6%
54.9%
100.0%
27.4%
15.1%
15.8%
Snow 16.8%
26.2%
31.1%
19.2%
14.9%
28.3%
3.1%
10.5%
4.6%
4.7%
23.4%
8.8%
4-19
-------
Table 4-18: Percentage of Users in the Last Twelve Months of
Aerosol Spray Paint Who Also Used Other Products
"In the Last Twelve Months" (N=1190 recent users)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Other Products Used Percentage
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Wood/Floor/Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants (nonauto)
Other Lubricants (nonauto)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint (nonauto)
Primers and Special Primers (nonauto)
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
Glass Frostings, Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricants for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Removers
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
of "Recent Users"
Using
7.6%
30.5%
36.8%
35.4%
35.9%
32.1%
74.9%
6.7%
29.3%
50.9%
18.1%
57.9%
27.5%
44.5%
29.1%
39.2%
100.0%
21.5%
13.4%
11.0%
9.7%
21.5%
26.5%
14.1%
9.6%
26.0%
27.7%
8.7%
3.7%
3.4%
22.7%
6.1%
4-20
-------
Table 4-19: Percentage of "Ever Users" of Carburetor Cleaners
Who "Ever Used" Other Products (N=1078 users)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Other Products Used Percentage
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Wood/Floor/Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants (nonauto)
Other Lubricants (nonauto)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint (nonauto)
Primers and Special Primers (nonauto)
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
Glass Frost ings, Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
of "Ever Users"
Using
16.1%
44.8%
36.9%
43.0%
33.8%
26.5%
79.3%
9.2%
34.6%
55.4%
28.0%
72.4%
44.2%
59.5%
44.9%
56.1%
50.5%
24.0%
18.0%
16.8%
14.9%
54.3%
Carburetor Cleaners 100.0%
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricants for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Removers
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
34.4%
29.3%
49.3%
7.2%
20.3%
9.9%
9.3%
32.1%
15.9%
4-21
-------
use of the product is low. Actually, a sizable number of users
of carburetor cleaners use other automotive products.
Table 4-20 presents the percentage of users of carburetor
cleaners used within the last 12 months who also used the other
31 products during the last 12 months. Again, of particular
interest is the percentage of recent users of carburetor cleaners
who also used other automotive products. A relatively high
percentage of recent carburetor cleaner users also used other
automotive products, especially when the low usage of some of
these products is taken into account. Almost 47 percent of
carburetor cleaner users using it during the past 12 months also
used engine degreasers; 26.5 percent also used aerosol spray
paint for cars; 20.3 percent also used auto spray primers; 48.8
percent also used spray lubricants for cars; 6.5 percent also
used transmission cleaners, the least used product in the survey;
16.4 percent used battery terminal protectors; 9.2 percent also
used brake guieters/cleaners; 7.5 percent also used gasket
removers; 31.0 percent also used tire/hubcap cleaners; and 11.3
percent also used ignition and wire dryers.
IV. SPECIALTY GROUP USERS
A. Automotive Users
Table 4-21 presents the statistics for four major usage
variables for respondents using any one or more of the ten
automotive products. These respondents are assessed as a group.
The total minutes spent using these products (last use); the
total minutes spent in the room after use (last use); the ounces
used of products per year; and number of automotive products used
during the past 12 months by those who used at least one
automotive product are presented. The mean, median, standard
deviation, and percentile rankings are given for each usage
variable.
As can be seen in Table 4-21, the mean number of minutes
spent by respondents using any of the ten automotive products is
49.82 minutes; the mean number of minutes spent in the room after
use (in this case, probably a garage) is 14.04; and the mean
number of ounces of automotive products used per year is 69.22.
Of special interest, for those using an automotive product during
the last 12 months, the mean number of other automotive products
used during the same period is 2.31 products.
i-99
-------
Table 4-20: Percentage of "Users in the Last Twelve Months" of
Carburetor Cleaners Who Also Used" Other Products
"In the Last Twelve Months" (N=812 recent users)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Other Products Used Percentage
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Wood/Floor/Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants (nonauto)
Other Lubricants (nonauto)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint (nonauto)
Primers and Special Primers (nonauto)
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
Glass Frostings, Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricants for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Removers
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
of "Recent Users"
Using
8.1%
30.3%
26.3%
40.4%
27.1%
24.0%
73.5%
6.1%
31.4%
53.9%
26.0%
52.1%
25.4%
38.8%
25.2%
39.8%
38.8%
15.9%
15.6%
10.6%
9.1%
46.9%
100.0%
26.5%
20.3%
48.8%
6.5%
16.4%
9.2%
7.5%
31.0%
11.3%
4-23
-------
Table 4-21: Statistics for usage variables for automotive users
(respondents using any one or more of the ten
automotive products are assessed as a group)
A. Total Minutes
N = 1777
Mean = 49.82
Median = 20.00
Standard
Deviation = 91
B. Total Minutes
of Use, Last Use
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
.02 25%
.02
.08
.75
2.00
6.00
in Room After Use, Last
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
Use
57.
122.
197.
405.
1130.
16
20
80
89
00
(includes zeros for nonexposure) *
N = 1775
Mean = 14.04
Median = 0.00
Standard
Deviation = 97
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
.54 25%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
0.
10.
60.
281.
234.
00
00
00
00
00
*most automotive use is outside
C. Ounces of Automotive Products
N = 1701
Mean = 69.22
Median = 20.00
Standard
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
Deviation = 214.65 25%
D. Number of Automotive Products
One Automotive
N = 1794
Mean =2.31
Median = 2.00
Standard
Deviation = 1.
*used during
Product*
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
66 25%
the last twelve
Used Per Year
.12
.52
1.56
3.00
8.00
Used by
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
months
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
Those
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
52.
150.
265.
862.
5628.
Who Used
3.
5.
6.
8.
11.
00
80
97
80
00
at Least
00
00
00
00
00
4-24
-------
B. Paint Users
Table 4-22 presents the statistics for four major usage
variables for respondents using one or more of the four paint
products assessed as a group. The four paint products included
are wood stains, varnishes, and finishes; paint
removers/strippers; paint thinners; and nonautomotive aerosol
spray paint. Latex and oil paint are excluded from this
assessment because they are not thought to contain methylene
chloride or its substitutes.
As can be seen in Table 4-22, the mean number of minutes
spent using any or all of the four paint products is 154.75
minutes; the mean number of minutes spent in the room after use
is 60.71 minutes; and the mean number of ounces of these paint
products used per year is 112.08. Again of special interest, for
those using one of these paint products during the last 12
months, the mean number of other paint products used during the
same period is 1.99 products. Therefore, users of one of these
four paint products also use on the average another two of these
products, indicating paint products are used as a group.
4-25
-------
fi-
Table 4-22: Statistics for usage variables for Paint Users
(respondents using one or more of four paint
products)
A.
B.
C.
D.
Total Minutes of
N = 2353
Mean = 154.75
Median = 60.00
Standard
Deviation = 311.
Total Minutes in
(includes zeros
N = 2343
Mean = 60.71
Median = 1.00
Standard
Deviation = 193.
Ounces of Paint
N = 2310
Mean = 112.08
Median = 35.00
Standard
Deviation = 263.
Number of Paint
Use, Last Use
Minimum . 02
1% .25
5% 3.00
10% 5.37
80 25% 20.00
Room After Use, Last
for nonexposure)
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
85 25% 0.00
Products Used Per Year
Minimum . 03
1% 1.00
5% 3.25
10% 6.50
02 25% 16.00
Products Used by Those
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
Use
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
Who Used
180.00
360.00
541.50
1440.00
7220.00
30.00
150.00
314.00
813.60
4325.00
109.78
259.00
448.00
1020.48
5248.00
at Least
One Paint Product*
N = 2380
Mean =1.99
Median =2.00
Standard
Deviation = 1.13
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
75%
90%
95%
99%
100%
3.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
*used during the last twelve months
4-26
-------
V. GENDER AND AGE DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCT USE, BY PRODUCT
A. Gender Differences
Table 4-23 summarizes gender differences for three product
use variables, by product. The three variables are uses per year
(i.e., number of uses during the last 12 months), minutes spent
using the product during the last use, and ounces of the product
used per year. There is also a column indicating the percentages
of users who are male and female.
There are no significant differences at a "p-value" or "p"
(i.e., level of significance) equal to or less than .05 for any
of the three variables for the following products:
Spray shoe polish,
Adhesive removers,
Oil paint,
Paint thinners,
Primers and special primers,
Battery terminal protectors, and
Ignition and wire dryers.
Fifty-six percent of the users of water repellents are
female, and there is no significant difference for uses per year;
there is a significant difference at p = .010 for minutes of last
use, with males spending more time than females; and there is a
significant difference (p = .007) for ounces per year, again with
males using more than females. Sixty-eight percent of the users
of spot removers are female, and there is a significant
difference (p = .000) for uses per year with females using spot
removers more often; there is a significant difference (p = .051)
for minutes of use with males spending more time; and there is a
significant difference (p = .000) for ounces per year with
females using more of the product. Males spend more time using
spot removers, and females use more of the product.
Fifty-three percent of the users of solvent type cleaning
fluids are male, and there is a significant difference (p = .002)
for uses per year with females using more of the product.
Similarly, 70 percent of the users of wood floor and paneling
cleaners are female, and there is a significant difference (p =
.050) for uses per year with females using the product more
often. Sixty-two percent of the users of typewriter correction
fluid are female, and there is a significant difference (p =
.050) for uses per year with females using it more often than
males.
Fifty-one percent of the users of contact cement, super
glues and spray adhesives are female, and there is a significant
4-27
-------
Table 4-23: Gender differences in product use by product
KEY
Blank - Not Significant
M - Significant
Male Higher
F - Significant
Female Higher
(P-value for significant differences in product use
are in parentheses for the last three columns)
(The probability for significant differences is only
approximate for subgroups with less than SO
respondents)
PRODUCT
1. SPRAY SHOE POLISH
2. WATER REPELLENTS/PROTECTORS
(FOR SUEDE, LEATHER, AND CLOTH)
3. SPOT REMOVERS
4. SOLVENT-TYPE CLEANING FLUIDS
OR DEGREASERS
5. WOOD FLOOR AND PANELING CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER CORRECTION FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT, SUPER GLUES AND
SPRAY ADHESIVES
8. ADHESIVE REMOVERS (GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONE LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
10. OTHER LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
11. SPECIALIZED ELECTRONIC CLEANERS
FOR TV, VCR, RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
14. WOOD STAINS, VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
15. PAINT REMOVERS/STRIPPERS
KALE/FEMALE
47/53
(127)7(143)
44/56
(461)7(586)
32/68
(447)7(951)
53/47
(591)/(524)
30/70
(394)/(919)
38/62
(435)7(711)
49/51
(1322)7(1375)
53/47
(93)/(82)
70/30
(531)7(228)
61/39
(941)7(593)
69/31
(382)7(171)
51/49
(916)7(880)
57/43
(424)7(319)
51/49
(647)7(621)
52/48
(399)7(368)
USES
PER VEAR
F
(.000)
F
(.002)
F
(.050)
F
(.050)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.001)
MINUTES
LAST USE
M
(.010)
M
(.051)
F
(.015)
F
( .044)
OUNCES
PER YEAR
M
(.007)
F
(.000)
M
(.011)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.018)
-------
Table 4-23 (Continued)
PRODUCT
16. PAINT THINNERS
17. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
18. PRIMERS AND SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE)
19. AEROSOL RUST REMOVERS
20. OUTDOOR WATER REPELLENTS (FOR
WOOD OR CEMENT)
21. GLASS FROSTINGS, WINDOW TINTS,
AND ARTIFICIAL SNOW
22. ENGINE DEGREASERS
23. CARBURETOR CLEANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT FOR CARS
25. AUTO SPRAY PRIMERS
26. SPRAY LUBRICANTS FOR CARS
27. TRANSMISSION CLEANERS
28. BATTERY TERMINAL PROTECTORS
29. BRAKE QUIETERS/CLEANERS
30. GASKET REMOVERS
31. TIRE/HUBCAP CLEANERS
32. IGNITION AND WIRE DRYERS
%
MALE/FEMALE
61/39
(671)/(433)
54/46
(642)/(547)
66/34
(268)7(138)
74/26
(217)7(76)
65/35
(161)7(86)
38/62
(107)7(175)
90/10
(529)7(59)
88/12
(7U)/(97)
88/12
(326)7(44)
88/12
(231)7(31)
85/15
(661)7(117)
69/31
(52)7(23)
88/12
(204)7(28)
94/6
(92)7(6)
89/11
(70)7(9)
64/36
(445)7(251)
84/16
(123)7(24)
USES
PER YEAR
M
(.002)
M
(.000)
M
(.035)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.000)
M
(.019)
M
(.031)
M
(.017)
M
(.002)
MINUTES
LAST USE
M
(.003)
M
(.017)
OUNCES
PER YEAR
M
(.019)
M
(.004)
M
(.000)
M
(.001)
M
(.000)
M
(.007)
-------
difference (p = .Oil) for ounces per year with males using more
of the product. Seventy percent of the users of silicone
lubricants (excluding automotive) are male, and there is a
significant difference (p = .000) for uses per year with males
using it more often; and there is also a significant difference
(p = .000) for ounces per year with males using more of it.
Similarly, 61 percent of the users of other lubricants (excluding
automotive) are male, and there is a significant difference
(p = .000) for uses per year with males using it more often; and
there is a significant difference (p = .000) for ounces per year
with males using more of it.
Sixty-nine percent of the users of specialized electronic
cleaners are male, and there is a significant difference (p =
.001) for uses per year with males using them more often. Only a
slight majority (51%) of the users of latex paint are male, and
there is only a significant difference (p = .000) for ounces per
year with males using more of it. Fifty-one percent of the users
of wood stains, varnishes and finishes are male, and there is a
significant difference (p = .015) for minutes of last use with
females spending more time; and there is a significant difference
(p = .018) for ounces per year with males using more of the
product. Females spend more time using latex paint while males
use more of it, indicating that males are perhaps faster
painters.
Fifty-two percent of the users of paint removers/strippers
are male, and the only significant difference (p = .044) is for
minutes of last use with females spending more time using the
product. Fifty-four percent of the users of aerosol spray paint
(excluding automotive) are male, and there is a significant
difference (p = .002) for uses per year with males using the
product more often; and there is a significant difference (p =
.019) for ounces per year with males using more of the product.
Seventy-four percent of the users of aerosol rust removers are
male, and there is a significant difference (p = .000) for uses
per year with males using the product more often. Sixty-two
percent of the users of glass frostings, window tints and
artificial snow are female, and there is a significant difference
(p = .004) for ounces per year with males using more of it.
Ninety percent of the users of engine degreasers are male,
and there is a significant difference (p = .035) for uses per
year with males using it more often. Eighty-eight percent of the
users of carburetor cleaners are male, and there is a significant
difference for uses per year with males using it more often; and
there is also a significant difference for ounces per year with
males using more of it. Eighty-eight percent of the users of
aerosol spray paint for cars are male, and again there is a
significant difference (p = .000) for uses per year with males
4-30
-------
using it more often; and there is a significant difference for
ounces per year with males using more of it.
Eighty-five percent of the users of spray lubricants for
cars are male, and there are significant differences for all
three variables with males using the product more often, spending
more time using it, and using more of the product. Sixty-nine
percent of the users of transmission cleaners are male, and there
is a significant difference (p = .019) for uses per year with
males using it more often; and there is a significant difference
(p = .007) for ounces per year with males using more of it.
Ninety-four percent of the users of brake quieters/cleaners
are male, and there is a significant difference for uses per year
with males using it more often; and there is a significant
difference for minutes of last use with males spending more time
using it. Eighty-nine percent of the users of gasket removers
are male, and there is a significant difference (p = .017) for
uses per year with males using it more often. Finally, 64
percent of the users of tire/hubcap cleaners are male, and there
is a significant difference for uses per year with males using it
more often.
It should be noted that the probability of significant
differences is only approximate where a subgroup has fewer than
50. This is the case for female users of aerosol spray paint,
auto spray primers, transmission cleaners, battery terminal
protectors, brake quieters/cleaners, gasket removers, and
ignition and wire dryers.
In summary, there are gender differences for product usage
for a number of products. The most pronounced differences are
for lubricants and automotive products with males being higher
where there are significant differences.
B. Age Differences
Table 4-24 summarizes age differences for three product use
variables, by product. Additional, more detailed comments to
Table 4-24 are provided in the narrative description of each
product. The three variables are the same as those analyzed for
gender, namely: uses per year (i.e., number of uses during the
last 12 months), minutes spent using the product during the last
use, and ounces of the product used per year. There are five age
groups, namely: 18-30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 years, 51-60
years, and 61-96 years.
A few products had no significant differences for any of the
three product usage variables. These are: other lubricants
(excluding automotive); specialized electronic cleaners; wood
4-31
-------
Table 4-24:
KEY
tank - Age Differences Not Significant
• Significant Age Differences,
No Pattern Discernible
Decreasing • Significant Age Differences,
Generally Decreasing Use With Age
ecreasing - Significant Age Differences,
Decreasing Use With Age
Age differences in product use
by product
(P-value for significant differences
in product use are in parentheses)
(The probability for significant differences
is only approximate for subgroups
with less than 50 respondents)
PRODUCT
1. SPRAY SHOE POLISH
2. WATER REPELLENTS/PROTECTORS
(FOR SUEDE, LEATHER, AND CLOTH)
3. SPOT REMOVERS
it. SOLVENT-TYPE CLEANING FLUIDS
OR DEGREASERS
5. WOOD FLOOR AND PANELING CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER CORRECTION FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT, SUPER GLUES AND
SPRAY ADHESIVES
8. ADHESIVE REMOVERS (GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONS LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
10. OTHER LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
11. SPECIALIZED ELECTRONIC CLEANERS
FOR TV, VCR, RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
14. WOOD STAINS, VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
15. PAINT REMOVERS/STRIPPERS
UilS
PER YEAR
(.030)
Decreasing
(.039)
Decreasing
<(.001)
*
(.050)
(.037)
(.029)
MINUTES
LAST USE
»
(.020)
Decreasing
(.005)
Decreasing
(.023)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
(.005)
*
(.011)
Decreasing
(.010)
*
(0.40)
OUNCES
PER YEAR
•Decreasing
(.041)
Decreasing
<(.000)
Decreasing
<( .001)
*
(.031)
Decreasing
(.035)
•Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
( .004)
4-32
-------
Table 4-24 (Continued)
PRODUCT
16. PAINT THINNERS
17. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
18. PRIMERS AND SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE)
19. AEROSOL RUST REMOVERS
20. OUTDOOR WATER REPELLENTS (FOR
WOOD OR CEMENT)
21. GLASS FROSTINGS, WINDOW TINTS,
AND ARTIFICIAL SNOW
22. ENGINE DEGREASERS
23. CARBURETOR CLEANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT FOR CARS
25. AUTO SPRAY PRIMERS
26. SPRAY LUBRICANTS FOR CARS
27. TRANSMISSION CLEANERS
28. BATTERY TERMINAL PROTECTORS
29. BRAKE OUIETERS/CLEANERS
30. GASKET REMOVERS
31. TIRE/HUBCAP CLEANERS
32. IGNITION AND WIRE DRYERS
USES
PER YEAR
*
(.029)
'Decreasing
<(.OD1)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
<(.001)
'Decreasing
(.003)
Decreasing
(.003)
MINUTES
LAST USE
*
(.038)
'Decreasing
(.032)
Decreasing
<(.OQ1)
Decreasing
(.004)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
<(.021)
'Decreasing
(.032)
Decreasing
<(.001)
OUNCES
PER YEAR
Decreasing
<(.OD1)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
<(.001)
Decreasing
(.002)
Decreasing
<(.001)
(.035)
+
(.014)
*
<( .001)
'Decreasing
(.046)
4-33
-------
stains, varnishes and finishes; aerosol spray paint (excluding
automotive); aerosol rust removers; outdoor water repellents; and
ignition and wire dryers.
Detailed comments which elaborate the summary table follow
for each of the products.
Spray Shoe Polish — The differences for uses per year by
age are not significant. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. Respondents
from 18 through 30 years used spray shoe polish for
more time than for those from 31 through 60 years.
There are significant differences in the ounces used
per year, by age. Although the mean ounces used per
year for the 51 through 60 year age group is greater
than for other age groups, the variance of the data in
this age group is greater also. As a result, the data
are consistent with the interpretation that the ounces
used per year decreases with increasing age.
Water Repellents/Protectors — There are significant
differences in the number of uses per year by age. The
number of uses per year increases slightly from age
groups 18 through 30 to 41 through 50. The number of
uses per year decreases from age groups 41 through 50
and 61 through 96 years. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. Respondents up
to 40 years old used water repellents for more time on
their last use than respondents 41 or older. Minutes
of use decreased with increasing age. The differences
for ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Spot Removers — There are significant differences for uses
per year by age. The uses per year decrease with age
with respondents in age group 18 through 30 using the
product more often than in age group 61 through 96.
There are significant differences for minutes of use by
age. The minutes of use decrease with increasing age.
There are very significant differences between ounces
used per year by age. The ounces used per year
decrease with increasing age.
Solvent Type Cleaning Fluids — The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. There are very
significant differences for minutes of use by age.
Although the mean minutes per use for the 51 through 60
year age group is greater than for other age groups,
the variance of the data in this age group is greater
also. As a result, the data are consistent with the
interpretation that the minutes per use decrease with
4-34
-------
increasing age. The differences for ounces used per
year by age are not significant.
Wood Floor and Panel Cleaners — There are very significant
differences for uses per year by age. Respondents in
age group 18 through 30 use wood floor and panel
cleaners more often than age groups 31 through 60 which
in turn use the product more often than respondents 61
through 96 years old. The differences for minutes of
use by age are not significant. There are very
significant differences for ounces used per year by
age. Respondents in age group 18 through 30 used more
wood floor and panel cleaner per year than age groups
31 through 60 which in turn use more product than
respondents 61 through 96 years old.
Typewriter Correction Fluid — The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. There are very
significant differences for minutes of use by age. The
minutes per use decreases with increasing age. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
Contact Cement. Super Glues and Spray Adhesives — The
difference for uses per year by age are not
significant. There are significant differences for
minutes of use by age. The minutes per use decreases
with increasing age. There are significant differences
for ounces used per year by age. Respondents in the
oldest age group (61 through 96 years) used less
contact cements and glues than younger respondents.
Adhesive Removers — Due to the small number of respondents
in each age group, the statistical tests are only
approximate. There are significant differences in the
number of uses per year by age. The 41 through 50 age
group has the lowest number of uses per year while the
18 through 30 age group has the highest mean uses per
year. There are significant differences for minutes of
use by age. The minutes of use increase slightly from
age group 18 through 30 to age group 31 through 40.
The minutes of use decreases from age group 31 through
40 to age group 61 through 96. The differences for
ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Silicone Lubricants — The differences for uses per year by
age are not significant. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. The minutes per
use decreases with increasing age. There are
significant differences for ounces used per year. The
ounces used per year decreases with increasing age.
4-35
-------
f-
Other Lubricants — The differences for uses per year by age
are not significant. The differences for minutes of
use by age are not significant. The differences for
ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Specialized Electronic Cleaners — The differences for uses
per year by age are not significant. The differences
for minutes of use by age are not significant. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
Latex Paint — There are significant differences in the
number of uses per year by age. The 51 through 60 age
group has the lowest number of uses per year while the
18 through 30 age group has the highest mean uses per
year. The differences for minutes of use by age are
not significant. There are very significant
differences for ounces used per year by age. The 41
through 50 age group uses the largest quantity of
product per year while the 61 through 96 age group uses
the least amount of product per year.
Oil Paint — There are significant differences in the number
of uses per year by age. The 51 through 60 age group
has a lower number of uses per year than other age
groups. The differences for minutes of use by age are
not significant. The differences for ounces used per
year by age are not significant.
Wood Stains. Varnishes, and Cleaners — The differences for
uses per year by age are not significant. The
differences for minutes of use by age are not
significant. The differences for minutes of use by age
are not significant. The differences for ounces used
per year by age are not significant.
Paint Removers/Strippers — The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. Respondents
ages 18 through 30 had the smallest minutes of use
while those in the 41 through 50 year age group had the
largest mean minutes of use. There are significant
differences for the ounces used per year by age. The
61 through 96 age group has the smallest quantity usage
of paint removers/strippers while the 41 through 50
year age group has the largest mean product usage.
Paint Thinners — There are significant differences for uses
per year by age. The 51 through 60 year age group has
the smallest mean number of uses per year. The 18
4-36
-------
through 30 age group has the largest mean number of
uses per year. The differences for minutes of use by
age are not significant. The differences for ounces
used per year by age are not significant.
Aerosol Spray Paint — The differences for uses per year by
age are not significant. The differences for minutes
of use by age are not significant. The differences for
ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Primers and Special Primers — The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. There are significant
differences for minutes of use by age. Respondents
aged 41 through 50 have the smallest minutes of use
while those in the 51 through 60 age group had the
largest mean minutes of use. The differences for
ounces used per year by age are not significant.
Aerosol Rust Removers — The differences for uses per year
by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
Outdoor Water Repellents — The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
Glass Frostings. Window Tints, Artificial Snow — Due to the
small number of respondents in each age group, the
statistical tests are only approximate. The
differences for uses per year by age are not
significant. There are significant differences for
minutes of use by age. The minutes per use decrease
with increasing age. The differences for ounces used
per year by age are not significant.
Engine Degreasers — The differences for uses per year by
age are not significant. There are very significant
differences for minutes of use by age. The minutes per
use decreases with increasing age. There are very
significant differences for ounces used per year. The
ounces used per year decrease with increasing age.
Carburetor Cleaners — There are very significant
differences for uses per year by age. Respondents in
age group 51 through 60 use the product less often than
in other age groups. The 18 through 30 age group has
the highest mean number of uses per year. There are
4-37
-------
significant differences for minutes of use by age. The
minutes of use decrease with increasing age. There are
very significant differences between ounces used per
year by age. The ounces used per year decrease with
increasing age.
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars — Due to the small number of
respondents in each age group the statistical tests are
only approximate. There are very significant
differences for uses per year by age. The number of
uses per year decrease with increasing age. There are
very significant differences for minutes of use by age.
The minutes of use decrease with increasing age. There
are very significant differences between ounces used
per year by age. The ounces used per year decreases
with increasing age.
Auto Spray Primers — Due to the small number of respondents
in each age group, the statistical tests are only
approximate. The differences for uses per year by age
are not significant. There are very significant
differences for minutes of use by age. The minutes of
use decrease with increasing age. There are
significant differences between ounces used per year by
age. In general, the ounces used per year decreases
with increasing age. Respondents from the 61 through
96 year age group use the smallest quantity of product
while those in the 18 through 30 age group use the most
product per year.
Spray Lubricants for Cars — There are very significant
differences for uses per year by age. The number of
uses per year decrease with increasing age. There are
significant differences for minutes of use by age.
Respondents ages 61 through 96 have the smallest
minutes of use while those in the 41 through 50 age
group had the largest mean minutes of use. There are
very significant differences between ounces used per
year by age. The ounces used per year decreases with
increasing age.
Transmission Cleaners — Due to the very small number of
respondents in each age group, the statistical tests
are at best approximate. The statistical tests
indicate that there are significant differences for
uses per year by age. Note that all five respondents
in the 51 through 60 age group reported one use per
year; thus there is no variability in this group. The
statistical test indicates that respondents ages 18
through 30 and 61 through 96 have mean responses
greater than 1, the mean for ages 51 through 60. There
4-38
-------
are significant differences for minutes of use by age.
In general, the minutes of use decrease with increasing
age. The differences for ounces used per year by age
are not significant.
Battery Terminal Protectors — Due to the small number of
respondents in each age group, the statistical tests
are only approximate. The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. There are
significant differences for ounces used per year by
age. The 41 through 50 age group uses the smallest
quantity of product per year while the 31 through 40
age group has the largest mean ounces used per year.
Brake Quieters/Cleaners — Due to the very small number of
respondents in each age group, the statistical tests
are at best approximate. The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. The
statistical tests indicate that there are significant
differences for ounces used per year by age. The 61
through 96 age group has the smallest mean ounces used
per year. The 51 through 60 age group has the largest
mean ounces used per year.
Gasket Removers — Due to the very small number of
respondents in each age group, the statistical tests
are at best approximate. The differences for uses per
year by age group are not significant. There are very
significant differences for minutes of use by age. The
minutes of use decrease with increasing age. There are
very significant differences for ounces used per year
by age. The 51 through 60 age group has the smallest
mean ounces used per year. The 41 through 50 age group
has the largest mean ounces used per year.
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners — There are significant differences
for uses per year by age. The number of uses per year
decrease with increasing age. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. There are
significant differences between ounces used per year by
age. The ounces used per year decrease with increasing
age.
Ignition and Wire Dryers — The differences for uses per
year by age are not significant. The differences for
minutes of use by age are not significant. The
differences for ounces used per year by age are not
significant.
In summary, where there is a discernible pattern of usage by
age it is generally one of decreasing use with increasing age.
4-39
-------
VI. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAIL AND TELEPHONE COMPLETED
QUESTIONNAIRES
The differences between mail completed questionnaires and
telephone completed questionnaires for this study were analyzed
for the following variables:
• Uses per year of the product;
• Minutes of use for the last use of the product; and
• Ounces of the product used per year.
Of the total of 4920 respondents with completed
questionnaires, 1628 were completed by mail, 3281 were completed
by telephone and the records for completion of 11 questionnaires
are unresolved due to differences between the data file and the
receipt control file. This analysis covers the 4909
questionnaires for which the method of completion is known at
this time.
The summary statistics provided for each completion method,
by product and question, are:
• Number of responses analyzed;
• Mean of the responses;
• Standard error of the mean; and
• A Chi-square statistic and associated probability for
testing for differences between the responses from the
two methods of completing the questionnaire.
For the data being analyzed, the statistical methods used
work well if there are many respondents in each group. The
standard error, chi-square and significance probability are only
approximate when some groups have few respondents (in this case,
say fewer than 40 respondents).
After reviewing the statistical results, there is no
statistical support for the hypothesis that the two groups, mail
and telephone, have different responses. Seven of the 96
statistical tests are significant at the 5 percent level. This
is close to the level of significance one would expect by chance.
Only one test was significant at the .1 percent level (minutes of
last use for Ignition and Wire Dryers). Since there was no
corresponding significant difference in the ounces used per year
for this product, this result may also be due to chance. The
distribution of the significance probabilities suggests that
there are no differences between the groups that cannot be easily
explained by chance.
4-40
-------
Section 5
RESULTS:
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Product-by-Product Analysis
I- SOURCES OF SAMPLING AND NONSAMPLING ERROR IN THE DATA
The data presented in this report are based on a sample
survey. As with all sample survey data, they are subject to both
sampling and nonsampling error. Sampling error is the difference
between what was obtained in the sample actually drawn and what
would have been obtained had a complete census of the frame been
conducted using the exact same methodology. The confidence
intervals and standard errors presented in this report measure
the sampling errors only.
Nonsampling errors are those errors which are attributable
to sources other than the statistical sampling procedures. There
are various potential sources of sampling errors in any survey
including this one. Although the impact of the errors on the
estimates is generally not quantifiable, it is important to
acknowledge these sources so that users of the data may be aware
of their possible effects. Potential sources of nonsampling
error include: nonresponse bias; misunderstood questions; and
self reporting bias. These sources of nonsampling error are
discussed below.
Of the original 6700 respondents contacted for the survey,
5675 agreed to participate and 4920 actually sent the
questionnaire in or completed the questionnaire as a followup
telephone interview. The nonresponse bias is the difference
between the data collected and that which would have been
collected if all respondents originally sampled had completed the
questionnaire. The nonresponse bias will be small if the
decisions to complete the questionnaire or not are unrelated to
the questionnaire responses, or equivalently if those who
answered the questionnaire are representative of those who did
not. Since the overall response rate was good (73%), the source
of nonresponse bias should be small. In addition, we have no
apparent reason to suspect that the two populations are
necessarily different. Not all of the 4920 respondents answered
all of the questions on the questionnaire. Some additional
nonresponse bias might have been introduced on individual
questions.
Another source of nonsampling error results if the
respondent misunderstands a question (e.g., responds with the
quantity of product used when last used rather than for the
entire last year, or reports use at work and home instead of just
home use). Followup phone calls to verify unusual data values or
5-1
-------
fill in missing data were made whenever an answer appeared to be
the result of any misunderstanding or skipped. In fact, this was
done in 80 percent of mailed questionnaires. For example, if the
person said that they used 600 ounces of typewriter correction
fluid in the past year, this would have been recalled to question
the obvious suspicion that they were including use at work rather
than restricting their answer to use in the home.
The data are user reported responses, not actual use
measurements. This distinction should be made when interpreting
the data, for example, user responses are subject to apparent
rounding. Responses to quantitative questions appear to be
rounded by the respondent to their closest convenient unit, i.e.,
responses are usually one week, two weeks, one month, two months,
three months, six months, one year, two years, etc. and not four
months and 11 days. Actual use would be expected to be spread
evenly over time. The effect of rounding is to reduce the
variance estimate. The unrounded data are not available for
comparison. The effect of the rounding is expected to be small.
In addition, user responses as opposed to use measurements
may reflect influences such as social desirability. For example,
respondents may have said they read and used the amount specified
on the label more than they actually did. Finally, because the
data are for the last use of the product, and not the typical (or
average) use, the mean of the derived variables may be biased on
the high side although the amount of bias is expected to be quite
small. Pretesting showed that people feel that they can more
accurately answer for the last use as opposed to generalizing
over several nonroutine uses of the product and for this reason,
the last use may be more accurate.
II. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ASPECTS AND OVERVIEW OF THE DATA
The subsections in Part III contain summaries of the data by
product. Each summary presents a basic description of the data
for each question. When reading the summary, please note that
the number of data values being summarized for each question will
differ because:
• Not all questions were to be answered by all
respondents, e.g., respondents who had not used the
product in the last year were not to answer Questions 4
through 9.
• The number of "Don't Know and "Not Ascertained"
responses may be different for each question.
Where respondent answers were inconsistent and the problem
could not be resolved by a followup telephone call, a decision
5-2
-------
was made for the purposes of the analysis. Some of the decision
rules to eliminate inconsistent responses were:
• If the answer to Question 1 (Have you ever used the
product?) was "Don't Know" or "Not Ascertained" and any
Questions 4 through 9 were answered, the respondent was
assumed to be a recent user of the product.
• The respondent was assumed to have used the product in
the last year if the stated number of uses in the last
year (Question 3) was greater than 0. The answers to
Questions 2 and 3 were sometimes inconsistent.
• If the product was last used either outside or both
outside and in the garage, the answer to Question 5
(time spent in room after last use) was set to zero and
the answers to Questions 9 a, b, and c, if present,
were not used since they are not relevant for outside
use.
For the qualitative questions (e.g., Have you ever used the
product? or Where did you use the product the last time you used
it?) summary tables show the percent of the responses in each
category. For quantitative questions (Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, and
7) summary tables show the mean, median, standard deviation, and
selected percentiles of the distribution of the data. These
values are a close approximation to the standard deviation and
percentiles of the population; however, because the data are not
from a simple random sample a better estimate of the variance
(and standard deviation) is discussed under variance estimation
and these results are found in Appendix A.
The data for all the quantitative questions are positively
skewed, with many small values and a few large values. A
histogram of the data has a long tail on the high side of the
distribution. A histogram of the logarithm of the nonzero data
values is roughly bell shaped. The median of the data is the
value for which half of the observations are smaller and half are
larger. The median corresponds to the 50th percentile of the
distribution. Because the data are positively skewed, the mean
will be larger than the median. For the quantitative data in
this survey the mean roughly corresponds to the 75th percentile
of the distribution, i.e., roughly three-quarters of the data
values are smaller than the mean of the data.
The median is unaffected by the extreme observations in the
data, and thus provides a measure of location of the data which
is unaffected by the skewness. The mean and standard deviation
are sensitive to the extreme data values. Thus errors in extreme
data values will affect the mean and standard deviation more
readily.
5-3
-------
As mentioned previously, respondents rounded their responses
to the nearest convenient unit, i.e., 5, 10, 15 years rather than
five years and two months. The respondent rounding of the data
might have the following results on the reported statistics:
• The effect on the mean will be small and will decrease
as the sample size increases.
• Standard deviations and confidence intervals will tend
to be smaller than if the unrounded data had been
available.
The results of two derived variables (ounces used per year, and
ounces per use) are reported. Ounces used per year is a variable
derived from ascertaining the size of the can used in ounces
times the amount or number of cans used. Ounces per use is then
derived by dividing ounces used per year by Question 3, the
number of times the product was used during the last 12 months.
Assuming the data used to calculate these variables are unbiased:
• The mean of the derived variables will tend to be
greater than the true mean of the derived variables.
• The standard deviation will tend to be greater than the
true standard deviation.
• The median will be close to the true median.
This discussion was intended to realistically present
various sources of nonsampling error that should be taken into
a-count when interpreting the data. These sources of error are
inherent in a survey of this type and efforts were made to
minimize their effects by wording questions in the most
understandable way possible and by putting them in the time
framework which best facilitated what was needed but also what
the respondent could reasonably answer. The best way to take
these sources of error into account when using the following
sample statistics for the products is to remember that these
statistics are only the best approximate measures of the
statistics for the population as a whole and, therefore, the data
should not be used as precise measures free of nonsampling error.
III. FINDINGS FOR PRODUCTS
The statistical findings for each of the 32 product types
surveyed follow. The presentation of the findings will follow a
question and answer format. There are nine major questions and
some derived variables for each product which will be presented.
The statistics to be presented will include the mean, median, and
5-4
-------
percentile rankings (100%, 95%, 90%, 50%, etc.) for each question
or derived variable.
The percentile rankings are presented for use in developing
profiles of heavy, moderate, and light users o± the products.
All of the usage statistics will be used to calculate exposure
assessments to the chemicals in these products.
A few additional comments are necessary to clarify the
presentation of the findings for each product. For each product,
the findings for Question 1 and Question 2 address whether the
respondent has "ever" used the product and when the last use
occurred regardless of how long ago. Findings for Question 3
through Question 9 include only answers provided by respondents
who used the product during the last 12 months. These
respondents will be referred to as recent users. Furthermore,
the answers to the first three parts to Question 9 entitled
"protective measures" include only users who used the product on
the inside of the home or garage since these questions are only
relevant in that context. These respondents will be referred to
as recent inside users. Due to the wide range of responses two
decimal places are used for all data so that the precision of the
smaller values is not lost. Finally, if there are few responses
for a question, the extreme percentiles (e.g., 1% and 99%) cannot
be estimated from the data and are shown as "—" in the tables.
-------
-------
PRODUCT-BY-PRODUCT
ANAIYSIS
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
SPRAY
SHOE
POLISH
Preceding page blank
5-9
-------
-------
A. Product 1; Spray Shoe Polish
Ql: Have you ever used spray shoe polish?
Table A-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spray Shoe Polish
NumbersPercent
Yes 575 11.7
No 4342 88.3
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table A-l shows that 11.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used spray shoe polish. This is a relatively low
percentage when compared to this incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used spray shoe polish?
Table A-2: Last time Spray Shoe Polish was used in months
(N=574 users)
Mean # of months 42.10
Median # of months 12.50
Standard Deviation 61.60
As Table A-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of spray shoe polish is 42.10 months. This is the longest period
of time since last use for any of the thirty-two products. This
may reflect that spray shoe polish has been discontinued by many
manufacturers over the last few years. The median number of
months is 12.50.
Preceding page blank 5-11
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table A-3: Percentile rankings for Spray Shoe Polish—
months since last use (N=574 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.33
2.00
12.50
60.00
120.00
180.00
270.00
360.00
Table A-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 5 years ago through 30 years ago and appears to
be subject to rounding which was discussed earlier under aspects
of the data (ie. 5, 10, 15 years rather than 5 years 3 months).
The data is still usable for indicating the approximate last use.
5-12
-------
Q3: How many times have you used spray shoe polish in the
last 12 months?
Table A-4: Number of uses of Spray Shoe Polish within the
last 12 months (N=266 recent users)
Mean # of uses 10.28
Median # of uses 4.00
Standard deviation 20.10
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months, was
10.28 and the median 4.0. Almost 49% of these users used the
spray shoe polish three times or less in the last twelve months
with 17.7% using it once; 19.5% using it twice; and 11.7% using
it three times.
Table A-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Spray
Shoe Polish within the last 12 months (N=266
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 4.00
75% 8.00
90% 24.30
95% 52.00
99% 111.26
Maximum 156.00
5-13
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using spray shoe polish the
last time you used it?
Table A-6: Time spent using the Spray Shoe Polish, last
time used (N=263 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 7.49
Median # of minutes 5.00
Standard deviation 9.60
The mean and median number of minutes for using spray shoe
polish are relatively low as would be expected for the time used
polishing shoes.
Table A-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Spray Shoe Polish last time used (N=263 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.03
5% 0.25
10% 0.50
25% 2.00
Median 5.00
75% 10.00
90% 18.00
95% 30.00
99% 60.00
Maximum 60.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum percentile is
60 minutes. For higher percentiles, it may be that these
respondents are polishing more than one pair of shoes at one time
and, thus, spending more time.
5-14
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used spray shoe polish?
Table A-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Spray Shoe Polish (N=255 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 31.40
Median # minutes in room 5.00
Standard deviation 80.50
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 31.4 minutes as opposed to the median of five minutes.
Table A-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Spray Shoe Polish
(N=255 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 5. 00
75% 20.00
90% 120.00
95% 120.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 720.00
Respondents at the 25th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using spray shoe polish. Respondents at
the higher percentile rankings spent from two to twelve hours.
5-15
-------
Table A-10: Percentile rankings for Spray Shoe Polish for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=189
who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
30.00
120.00
180.00
504.00
720.00
Table A-10 is similar to Table A-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-16
-------
Q6A: Which brand of spray shoe polish did you use the last
time you used it?
Table A-ll: Brand distribution for Spray Shoe Polish
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
83
40
10
67
70
270
30.7
14.8
3.7
24.8
26.0
100.0
Seventy-five percent (75.2%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of spray shoe polish
were used by 30.7%, 14.8% and 3.7% of the users, respectively.
All other brands have a relatively low number of users.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table A-12: Percent of respondents saying Spray Shoe Polish
is aerosol (N=265 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 97.7%
No, product is nonaerosol 2.3%
The product was spray shoe polish so all items should be
aerosol. Respondents said that the product was aerosol in 97.7%
of the cases. The 2.3% saying it was nonaerosol either forgot to
check the box indicating it was aerosol or perhaps used a spray
pump and thought this was to be included under spray shoe polish.
5-17
-------
Q7: What size of spray shoe polish did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table A-13: Amount of Spray Shoe Polish used in ounces
(N=247 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 9.90
Median ounces per year 4.50
Standard deviation 17.90
As might be expected, the mean ounces used per year for
spray shoe polish is one of lowest amounts compared to the amount
used of other products. Only the product categories of
typewriter correction fluid, other lubricants, specialized
electronic cleaners, and ignition and wire cleaners are as low.
Table A-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Spray Shoe
Polish used in ounces (N=247 recent users)
Qunces
Minimum 0.04
1% 0.20
5% 0.63
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 4.50
75% 10.00
90% 24.00
95% 36.00
99% 99.36
Maximum 180.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
A-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .04
and the maximum ounces per year at 180.0.
5-18
-------
Q8: Where did you use spray shoe polish the last time you
used it?
Table A-15: Location of last use of the product (N=261
recent users)
Basement 5.0%
Living room 14.9%
Other inside room 61.3%
Several inside rooms 0.9%
Garage 3.4%
Outside 13.4%
Garage & outside 1.1%
Total 100.0%
Most people (61.3%) used spray shoe polish in an "other
inside room" such as the bedroom or den. Almost egual numbers
used it in the living room (14.9%) and in the outside air
(13.4%). The remainder used it in the basement (5.0%); in the
garage (3.4%); in both the garage and the outside (1.1%); and in
several inside rooms (.9%).
5-19
-------
Table A-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Spray Shoe Polish
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 40.5% 59.5%
(N-222 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 10.7% 89.3%
(N=224 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 76.0% 24.0%
(N=225 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 71.4% 28.6%
(N=262 all recent users)
The majority of the spray shoe polish users did not have a
door or window open to the outside (59.5%); did not have an
exhaust fan on during use (89.3%); had the inside door to the
room opened (76.0%); and had read the directions on the label
(71.4%).
Table A-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3 (#
of times used in the last year).
Table A-17: Ounces per use of Spray Shoe Polish (N=246
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 2.39
Median # of ounces per use 1.00
Standard deviation 4.20
The mean ounces per use of spray shoe polish is 2.39, the
median is 1.0.
5-20
-------
Table A-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Spray
Shoe Polish (N=246 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.19
0.50
1.02
2.50
5.74
10.00
24.53
35.00
Table A-18 indicates that here is a large jump between the
95th percentile of 10.0 and the 99th percentile of 24.53 and the
100th percentile of 35.0.
Table A-19:
Respondent characteristics of Spray Shoe Polish
users
1. Respondent age Mean
(N=269 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=270 recent users) Female
3. Number of household
members Mean
(N=268 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=269 recent users)
= 44.40 years
47.0%
53.0%
= 3.10 members
= 2.90 bedrooms
Table A-19 presents the respondent characteristics of spray
shoe polish users. The mean age of these respondents is 44.40
years; 53% of the respondents are female and 47% are male; the
mean number of household members is 3.10; and the mean number of
bedrooms is 2.90. The statistics for the respondent
characteristics of spray shoe polish users is almost identical to
the characteristics of the total sample of respondents.
5-21
-------
-------
WATER
REPELLENTS/
PROTECTORS
(FOR SUEDE, LEATHER,
AND CLOTH)
Preceding page blank
5-23
-------
-------
B. Product 2: Water Repellents
Ql: Have you ever used water repellents?
Table B-l: Numbers and % of respondents every using Water
Repellents
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
1762
3155
4917*
35.8
64.2
100.0
* 3 cases where information was not ascertained.
Table B-l shows that 35.8% of the total respondents have
"ever" used water repellents. This is a moderately high number
when compared to the incidence of other products. It is
comparable to spot removers (39%); wood floor and paneling
cleaners (35%) ; other lubricants (35%); and aerosol spray paint
excluding automotive (35%).
Q2: When was the last time you used water repellents:
Table B-2: Last time a Water Repellent was used in months
(N=1757 users)
Mean # of months 20.50
Median # of months 9.00
Standard deviation 3.60
As Table B-2 shows, the mean number of months water
repellents were last used is 20.50 months. The median number of
months water repellents were last used is 9.0 months.
Receding page blank 5-25
-------
The percentile rankings for this question will now be
presented.
Table B-3: Percentile rankings for Water Repellents-months
since last use (N=1757 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.07
0.46
1.00
4.00
9.00
24.00
60.00
84.00
156.00
240.00
The percentile rankings for months since last use of water
repellents range from a minimum of .03 to a maximum of 240.0.
The increase from one percentile to another is sizable and
steady.
5-26
-------
Q3: How many times have you used water repellents in the
last 12 months?
Table B-4: Number of uses of Water Repellents within the
last 12 Months (N=1042 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.50
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 11.70
The mean number of uses of water repellents were used within
the last 12 months is 3.50 and the median is 2.0. The majority
(81.3%) used it three times or less with 38.4% using it once;
29.8% using it twice; and 13.1% using it three times.
Table B-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Water
Repellents within the last 12 months (N=1042
recent users)
Uses
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
i.oo -
1.00
2.00
3.00
6.00
10.00
35.70
300.00
The percentile rankings for number of uses of water
repellents within the last 12 months ranges from a minimum of one
time to a maximum of 300.0 uses. There is a large jump from the
99th percentile of 35.70 to the maximum of 300.0. The maximum
percentile value suggests that this person used water repellent
almost daily.
5-27
-------
r-
Q4: How much time did you spend using water repellents the
last time you used it?
Table B-6: Time spent using Water Repellents last time
used (N=1035 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 14.46
Median # of minutes 10.00
Standard deviation 24.10
The mean number of minutes spent using water repellents is
14.46 and the median number of minutes is 10.0.
Table B-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using Water
Repellents last time used (N=1035 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.08
5% 0.50
10% 1.40-
25% 3.00
Median 10.00-
75% 15.00
90% 30.00-
95% 60.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 480.00
The percentile rankings for minutes spent using the product
range from a minimum of .02 to a maximum of 480.0. These results
seem to be subject to respondent rounding.
5-28
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used water repellents?
Table B-8: Time spent in the room after use of Water
Repellents (N=1025 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
37.95
3.00
111.40
The time spent in the room after use includes those
respondents who said they did not spend any time in the room
after using water repellents. The mean number of minutes spent
in the room is 37.95 and the median number of minutes spent in
the room is 3.0.
Table B-9 shows that the 25th percentile and less had
respondents who did not spend any time in the room after use.
Table B-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use including those who did not spend any
time in room but used Water Repellents
(N=1025 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 3.00
75% 20.00
90% 120.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 1800.00
The range of percentile rankings depicted in Table B-9 goes
from a minimum of zero minutes to a maximum value suggests that
this user may be overestimating or using water repellents for
large jobs.
5-29
-------
Table B-10: Percentile rankings for Water Repellents for
time spent in the room after use including only
those who spent time in room (N=659 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
240.00
600.00
1800.00
Table B-10 presents the percentile rankings for the time
spent in the room after use for only those respondents who did
actually spend some time in the room (zeros are excluded). As
can be seen, the 10th percentile and less are values of one
minute and the remainder of the percentiles are higher in Table
B-10 than in Table B-9 as can be expected.
5-30
-------
Q6A: Which brand of water repellents did you use the last
time you used it?
Table B-ll: Brand Distribution for Water Repellents
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
330
25
18
382
296
1051
31.5
2.4
1.7
36.4
28.0
100.0
Almost sixty-four percent of the users of water repellents
in the last twelve months specified a brand. The most popular
brand was used by 31.5% of the respondents using the product.
The next two highest brands were used by 2.4% and 1.7% of users,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table B-12: Percent of respondents saying the Water
Repellent is aerosol (N=1039 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 72.1%
No, product is nonaerosol 27.9%
Seventy-two percent said the water repellent used was
aerosol.
5-31
-------
Q7: What size of water repellent did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did you use
during the past year.
These two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table B-13: Amount of Water Repellent used in ounces per
year (N=976 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per year 11.38
Median # of ounces per year 6.00
Standard deviation 22.00
The mean ounces of water repellent used per year is 11.38
and the median is 6.0.
Table B-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Water
Repellents used in ounces per year
(N=976 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.04
1% 0.47
5% 0.98
10% 1.43
25% 2.75
Median 6.00
75% 12.00
90% 24.00
95% 33.00
99% 121.84
Maximum 450.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
B-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .04
and the maximum ounces per year at 450.0.
5-32
-------
Q8: Where did you use a water repellent the last time you
use it?
Table B-15: Location of where Water Repellents used last
time (N=1034 recent users)
Basement 10.5%
Living room 13.5%
Other inside room 44.7%
Several inside rooms 1.5%
Garage 9.0%
Outside 19.6%
Garage & outside 1.2%
Most people used water repellents in an "other inside room"
such as a bedroom or den while 19.6% used it outside; 13.5% used
it in a living room; 10.5% used it in the basement; 9.0% used it
in a garage; 1.5% used it in several inside rooms; and 1.2% used
it both in the garage and outside. The relatively large number
who said they used it in the garage, outside, or both in the
garage and outside may suggest that some people mixed up the
water repellent for cloth with outdoor water repellents although
the latter is also asked in the questionnaire.
5-33
-------
Table B-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Water Repellents
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 39.8% 60.2%
(N=816 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 7.7% 92.3%
(N=822 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 72.8% 27.2%
(N=810 recent users)
4. Whether directions
on label was read 82.6% 17.4%
(N=1034 all recent user)
The majority of users in the last twelve months did not have
a door or window open to the outside (60.2%); did not have an
exhaust fan on during user (92.3%) kept the inside door to the
room opened (72.8%); and did say they read the directions on the
label (82.6%).
Table B-17 indicates that the mean ounces per use is 6.2
ounces and the median is 2.8 ounces.
Table B-17: Ounces per use of Water Repellents (N=974
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 6.23
Median # of ounces per use 2.80
Standard deviation 12.80
Table B-18 presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. The range is from a minimum of .01 to a maximum of 160
ounces.
5-34
-------
Table B-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Water
Repellents (N=974 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/use
0.01
0.10
0.38
0.63
1.33
2.75
6.56
13.00
18.00
61.00
160.00
Table B-19:
Respondent characteristics for users of Water
Repellents
Respondent age
(N=1046 recent users)
Respondent gender
(N=1047 recent users
Number of household
members
(N=1048 recent users)
Number of bedrooms
(N=1048 recent users)
Mean = 38.24 years
Male = 44.1%
Female = 55.9%%
Mean = 3.19
Mean = 3.00
Table B-19 presents the respondent characteristics of those
using water repellents in the last 12 months. The mean age of
these respondents is 38.24 years; slightly more (55.9%) are
female; the mean number of household members is 3.19; and the
mean number of bedrooms is 3.0. When these characteristics are
compared to those for the sample as a whole user of water
repellents are slightly younger (38.24 compared to 44.3); about
the same on the distribution of male and female; and about the
same on the mean number of household members and number of
bedrooms.
5-35
-------
-------
SPOT
REMOVERS
Preceding page blank
5-37
-------
-------
C. Product 3; Spot Removers
Ql: Have you ever used spot removers?
Table C-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Spot Removers
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
1924
2993
4917*
Percent
39.1
60.9
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table C-l shows that 39.1% of the respondents have "ever"
used spot removers.
Q2: When was the last time you used spot removers?
Table C-2: Last time a Spot Remover was used in months
(N=1912 users)
Mean # of months 14.70
Median # of months 3.00
Standard Deviation 31.20
As Table C-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of spot removers is 14.70 months and the median is 3.0 months.
Preceding page blank
5-39
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table C-3: Percentile rankings for Spot Removers - -
months since last use (N=1912 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.46
3.00
12.00
36.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
Table C-3 shows that 25th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. Respondents at the 75th
percentile through the 100th percentile report that they "last
used" the product 1 year ago through 30 years ago. It appears
that their answers are subject to rounding which was discussed
earlier. The data are still usable for indicating the
approximate last use.
5-40
-------
Q3: How many times have you used spot removers in the last
12 months?
Table C-4: Number of uses of Spot Removers within the last
12 months (N=1390 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
15.59
3.00
43.34
The mean number of times spot removers were used in the last
twelve months.is 15.59 and the median 3.0. Almost 51% of the
respondents used a spot remover three times or less with 21.2%
using it once; 18.7% using it twice; and 10.7% using it three
times.
Table C-5:
Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Spot Removers within the last 12 months
(N=1390 recent users)
Uses
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
10.00
40.00
52.00
300.00
365.00
The percentile rankings for the number of uses of spot
removers within the last 12 months range from a minimum of 1 time
to a maximum of 365 times.
5-41
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using spot removers the
last time you used it?
Table C-6: Time spent using a Spot Remover last time used
(N=1385 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 10.68
Median # of minutes 5.00
Standard deviation 22.36
The mean number of minutes using a spot remover the last
time it was used by the respondent is 10.68 minutes and the
median is 5.0 minutes.
Table C-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using a Spot
Remover the last time used (N=1385 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.25
2.00
5.00
10.00
30.00
30.00
120.00
360.00
The percentile rankings for the time spent using a spot
remover the last time used range from a minimum of .02 minutes to
a maximum of 360 minutes (6 hours). The higher values may
reflect respondents who reported using laundry presoaks as spot
removers such as Spray"n Wash when doing their laundry.
5-42
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used spot removers?
Table C-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Spot
Removers (N=1362 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
43.65
5.00
106.97
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last
using spot removers is 43.65 minutes and the median is 5.0.
Table C-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room but used Spot Removers
(N=1362 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% o.oo
10% o.oo
25% 1.00
Median 5.00
75% 30.00
90% 120.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 1440.00
The percentiles in Table C-9 include users of spot removers
who spent no time in the room afterward. The respondents at the
tenth percentile and less did not spend any time in the room
after use. The range in the percentiles is from a minimum of
zero to a maximum of 1440 minutes (24 hours). The responses seem
to be subject to rounding, but can be used as approximate
indicators of time spent in the room afterwards.
5-43
-------
Table C-10:
Percentile rankings for Spot Removers for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room
(N=1105 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
52.00
180.00
300.00
480.00
1440.00
The percentile rankings in Table C-10 for time spent in the
room afterwards includes only those respondents who used the
product and did say that they spent some time in the room. These
percentiles range from a minimum of one minute to a maximum of
1440 minutes (24 hours).
5-44
-------
Q6A: Which brand of spot removers did you use the last time
you used it?
Table C-ll: Brand distribution for Spot Removers
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
357
114
80
304
546
1401
Percent
25.5
8.1
5.7
21.7
39.0
100.0
The top three brands of spot removers were used by 25.5%,
8.1% and 5.7% of users, respectively. These three brands
together account for 39.3% of the use. One of the brands is a
laundry presoak, an example of a laundry presoak named by
respondents as spot removers.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table C-12: Percent of respondents saying Spot Remover
is aerosol (N=1388 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 43.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 56.1%
Almost 44.0% of the spot removers were aerosol.
5-45
-------
Q7: What size of spot remover did you use the last time you
used it? How much of a can or how many cans did you
use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table C-13: Amount of product used per year in ounces
(N=1281 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 26.32
Median ounces per year 5.50
Standard deviation 90.10
The mean number of ounces of spot removers used per year is
26.32 and the median is 5.5. Once again this large amount is
influenced by the respondents who listed laundry presoaks as spot
removers.
Table C-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Spot Removers
used per year in ounces (N=1281 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.24
0.60
1.00
2.00
5.50
16.00
48.00
119.20
384.00
1600.00
The range in the percentile rankings is quite substantial
with a minimum of .01 ounces and a maximum of 1600.0 ounces used
per year.
5-46
-------
Q8: Where did you use spot removers the last time you used
it?
Table C-15: Location of last use of the product
(N=1381 recent users)
Basement 9.1%
Living room 19.5%
Other inside room 57.3%
Several inside rooms 3.6%
Garage 4.0%
Outside 5.4%
Garage & outside 1.2%
Total 100.0%
Most people (57.3%) used the spot remover in an "other
inside room" such as the bedroom or den. Of the remainder, 19.5'
said they used it in the living room; 9.1% used it in the
basement; 5.4% used it outside; 4.0% used it in the garage; and
1.2% used it both in the garage and outside.
5-47
-------
Table C-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Spot Removers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the Outside 44.5% 55.5%
(N=1281 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan on
during use 9.2% 90.8%
(N=1289 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 80.2% 19.8%
(N=1277 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 77.1% 22.9%
(N=1376 all recent users)
The majority of the spot remover users (55.5%) did not have
a door or window open to the outside; 90.8% did not have an
exhaust fan on; 80.2% of indoor users kept the inside door to the
room opened; and the majority (77.1%) read the directions on the
label.
Table C-17 depicts a derived variable ounces per use.
Ounces per use is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used during the last twelve
months).
Table C-17: Ounces per use of Spot Remover (N=1275 recent
users)
Mean # of ounces per use 3.49
Median # of ounces per use 1.30
Standard deviation 10.18
The mean ounces per use is 3.49 and the median is 1.30.
Table C-18 describes the percentile rankings for this variable.
5-48
-------
Table C-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Spot
Remover (N=1275 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.03
0.17
0.25
0.52
1.33
3.00
7.50
11.13
41.92
128.00
Table C-19:
Respondent characteristics of Spot Remover
users
1. Respondent age
(N=1395 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=1398 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=1392 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=1397 recent users)
Mean = 43.02 years
Male = 32.0%
Female = 68.0%
Mean =3.10
Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
Table C-19 presents the respondent characteristics of users
of spot removers. The characteristics of the spot removers are
almost identical to that of the sample as a whole with the
exception of the sex of the user. Sixty-eight percent of the
users of spot removers were female compared to 53.0% who were
female in the sample as a whole.
5-49
-------
-------
SOLVENT-TYPE
CLEANING
FLUIDS OR
DEGREASERS
Preceding page blank
5-51
-------
-------
D. Product 4; Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids or Degreasers
Ql: Have you ever used solvent-type cleaning fluids?
Table D-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
1382
3535
4917*
Percent
28.1
71.9
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table D-l shows that 28.1% of the respondents have "ever"
used solvent-type cleaning fluids. This is about average when
compared to the incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used solvent-type cleaning
fluids?
Table D-2: Last time Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids were used
in months (N=1378 users)
Mean # of months 10.00
Median # of months 2.00
Standard deviation 26.26
The mean number of months since last use of a solvent-type
cleaning fluid is 10.0 months. The median number of months is
2.0.
Preceding page blank
5-53
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table D-3: Percentile rankings for Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids — months since last use (N=1378 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.23
2.00
7.00
24.00
48.00
144.00
300.00
Table D-3 shows that 25th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The range in percentile
rankings goes from a minimum of .03 months to a maximum of 300.
-------
Q3: How many times have you used solvent-type cleaning
fluids in the last 12 months?
Table D-4: Number of uses of a Solvent-type Cleaning Fluid
within the last 12 months (N=1104 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
16.46
4.00
44.12
The mean number of uses of solvent-type cleaning fluids in
the last twelve months is 16.46. This is one of the highest mean
times used being second only to typewriter correction fluid which
is the highest. The median number of times used in the last 12
months is 4.0 times.
Table D-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids within the last
12 months (N=1104 recent users)
Uses
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
12.0
46.0
52.0
300.0
365.0
Fifty percent of the users of solvent-type cleaning fluids
used it four times or less. Twenty percent used it once; 18.7%
used it twice; 9.3% used it 3 times; and 2.% used it four times
during the previous twelve months.
5-55
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using a solvent-type
cleaning fluid the last time you used it?
Table D-6: Time spent using the Solvent-type Cleaning Fluid
last time used (N=1093 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 29.48
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 97.49
The mean number of minutes using a solvent-type cleaning
fluid the last time used is 29.48 minutes and the median is 15.0
minutes. This is about an average amount of time when compared
to other products.
Table D-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluid last time used
(N=1093 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
1.00
2.00
5.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
300.00
1800.00
The percentile rankings for time spent using solvent-type
cleaning fluids the last time used ranges from a minimum of .02
minutes to a maximum of 1800 minutes (30 hours).
5-56
-------
Table D-10: Percentile rankings for Solvent-type cleaning
fluids for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time in the
room (N=649 recent users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
15.00
60.00
150.00
240.00
480.00
1440.00
Table D-10 is similar to Table D-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after use, therefore, all
percentiles have values greater than zero.
5-5c
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used solvent-type cleaning
fluids?
Table D-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids (N=1084 recent
users)
Mean # minutes in room 33.29
Median # minutes in room 3.00
Standard deviation 90.39
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
of a solvent-type cleaning fluid is 33.29 minutes and the median
is 3.0 minutes.
Table D-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids (N=1084 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
28.75
60.00
180.00
480.00
1440.00
Respondents at the 25th percentile and less did not spend
any time in the room after using solvent-type cleaning fluids.
75th to 100th percentile users ranged from 28.75 minutes spent in
the room to 1440 minutes (24 hours).
5-57
-------
Q6A: Which brand of solvent-type cleaning fluid did you use
the last time you used it?
Table D-ll: Brand distribution for Solvent-type Cleaning
Fluids
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
91 -
87
57
412
470
1117
Percent
8.1
7.8
5.1
36.9
42.1
100.0
Sixty-three percent of the users of solvent-type cleaning
fluids specified a brand. The top three brands were used by
8.1%, 7.8% and 5.1% of the users, respectively. These top three
brands represent 21.0% of the use.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table D-12: Percent of respondents saying the Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluid is aerosol (N=1096 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 25.6%
No, product is nonaerosol 74.4%
Almost twenty six percent of the solvent-type cleaning
fluids used were aerosol.
5-59
-------
Q7: What size of solvent-type cleaning fluids did you use
the last time you used it? How much of a can or how
many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table D-13: Amount of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids used
per year in ounces (N=1028 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 58.30
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 226.97
The mean number of ounces used of solvent-type cleaning
fluids is 58.30 and the median is 16.0.
Table D-14:
Percentile rankings for amount of Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluids used in ounces (N=1028 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.04
0.50
2.00
3.00
6.50
16.00
32.00
96.00
192.00
845.00
5120.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
D-14 is quite substantial with a minimum of .04 ounces and a
maximum of 5120.0 ounces.
5-60
-------
Q8: Where did you use solvent-type cleaning fluids the last
time you used it?
Table D-15: Location of last use of the product (N=1095
recent users)
Basement 5.4%
Living room 2 . 6%
Other inside room 49.1%
Several inside rooms 1.5%
Garage 12.2%
Outside 28.0%
Garage & outside 1.2%
Total 100.0%
Most respondents used the solvent-type cleaning fluid in an
other inside room such as the kitchen, bedroom, or den. Twenty-
eight percent used it outside; 12.2% used it in the garage; and
5.4% used it in the basement; 2.6% used it in a living room; and
1.2% used it both in the garage and outside.
5-61
-------
Table D-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 57.0% 43.0%
(N=772 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 14.8% 85.2%
(N=772 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 74.4% 25.6%
(N=767 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 67.5% 32.5%
(N=1087 all recent users)
The majority (57.0%) of users of solvent-type cleaning
fluids did have a door or window open to the outside when using
it; 85.2% did not have an exhaust fan on during use; 74.4% did
have the inside door to the room opened during use; and 67.5%
said they did read the label before using the product.
Table D-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year) .
Table D-17: Ounces per use of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Mean # of ounces per use 9.45
Median # of ounces per use 3.30
Standard deviation 33.19
The mean number of ounces per use is 9.45 and the median is
3.30. The mean ounces per use is about average when compared to
other products.
5-62
-------
Table D-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.05
0.28
0.56
1.33
3.25
8.00
16.00
32.00
80.42
640.00
The percentile rankings for ounces per use range from a
minimum of .01 to a maximum of 640.0 ounces.
Table D-19: Respondent characteristics of Solvent-type
Cleaning Fluid users
1. Respondent age
(N=1113 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=1115 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=1113 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=1114 recent users)
Mean = 41.50 years
Male = 52.6%
Female = 47.4%
Mean = 3.20 members
Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
Respondents using solvent-type cleaning fluids are slightly
younger than the sample as a whole. Respondent ages range from
18 years old to 86 years old. Slightly more males (52.6%) used
solvent-type cleaning fluids than the percentage of males in the
sample as a whole (47.0%). Other characteristics of these users
are identical to the respondent characteristics in the sample as
a whole.
5-63
-------
-------
WOOD FLOOR
AND
PANELING CLEANERS
Preceding page blank
-------
f-
-------
E. Product 5; Wood Floor Panel Cleaners
Ql: Have you ever used a wood floor panel cleaner?
Table E-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table E-l shows that 35.0% of the total respondents have
"ever" used a wood floor panel cleaner.
Q2: When was the last time you used a wood floor panel
cleaner?
Table E-2: Last time Wood Floor Panel Cleaner was
used in months (N=1715 users)
Mean # of months 12.60
Median # of months 3.00
Standard Deviation 26.50
Table E-2 shows that the mean number of months since the
last use of wood floor panel cleaners is 12.60 months and the
median is 3.0 months. There is a difference of approximately 9
months between the mean and median and this is because of a few
extreme responses to the question.
Preceding page blank
5-67
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table E-3: Percentile rankings for Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners — months since last use (N=1715
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.20
0.69
3.00
12.00
36.00
60.00
144.00
252.00
Table E-3 shows that 50% of the product users last used wood
floor panel cleaners 3 months ago or less. The minimum amount of
time since the last use of the product is 0.03 months and the
100th percentile is 252 months. The 75th percentile through the
100th percentile respondents reported last using the product 12
months ago through 252 months (21 years) ago. The data appear to
be subject to rounding which was discussed earlier under aspects
of the data. The data is still usable for indicating the
approximate last use.
5-68
-------
Q3: How many times have you used wood floor panel cleaners
in the last 12 months?
Table E-4: Number of uses of Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
within the last 12 months (N=1312 recent
users)
Mean # of uses 8.48
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 20.89
The average number of uses of the wood floor panel cleaner
in the last 12 months was 8.48 and the median 2.0. Of the 1312
users who answered this question, 29.1% used it once, 25.1% used
it twice and 8.5% used it three times in the last year. Table E-
5 which follows presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents used the
product 56 times or less in the last year. At the 100th
percentile the times the product was used in the last year
increased sharply to 350 times.
Table E-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner within the last 12
months (N=1312 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
Median 2.00-
75% 6.00
90% 24.00
95% 50.00
99% 56.00
Maximum 350.00
5-69
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using wood floor panel
cleaner the last time you used it?
Table E-6: Time spent using Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
last time used (N=1301 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 74.04
Median # of minutes 30.00
Standard deviation 128.43
The average time spent using the product is 74.04 minutes
and the median is 30 minutes. There is a difference of
approximately 44 minutes between the mean and median. Table E-7
which follows shows that the responses range from a minimum of
.02 minutes to a maximum of 45 hours. There is a sharp increase
in the amount of time spent using the product at the 100th
percentile which is 45 hours compared to the 99th percentile
which is just 8 hours. This is because of a few extreme
responses.
Table E-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner last time used
(N=1301 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 1.00
5% 5.00
10% 10.00
25% 20.00
Median 30._00
75% 90.00
90% 147.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 2700.00
5-70
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room
immediately after use the last time you used the
wood floor panel cleaner?
Table E-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner (N=1269 recent
users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
96.75
30.00
192.88
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 96.75 minutes as opposed to the median of 30 minutes.
Table E-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use of Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners including those who did not spend
any time in room (N=1269 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 5.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 240.00
95% 480.00
99% 1062.00
Maximum 1440.00
Fifty percent of the respondents spent 30 minutes or less in
the room after using the product. From the 75th percentile
through the 95th percentile the time spent in the room increased
from 2 hours to 8 hours. A few respondents spent a much greater
time in the room after using the product. Their responses are
reflected in the 99th percentile and 100th percentile where time
spent in the room is 1062 minutes (17.7 hours) and 1440 minutes
(24 hours) respectively.
5-71
-------
Table E-10:
Percentile rankings for Wood Floor Panel
Cleaners for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent
time in the room (N=1071 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
30.00
120.00
300.00
480.00
1440.00
1440.00
Table E-10 is similar to Table E-9 except it includes only
users who did spend some time in the room after using the
product. Of the 1071 respondents who spent time in the room, 50%
spent 30 minutes or less in the room after using the product. As
seen in Table E-7, this is also the median time spent using the
product.
5-72
-------
Q6A: Which brand of wood floor panel cleaner did you
use the last time you used it?
Table E-ll: Brand distribution for Wood Floor Panel Cleaners
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't knows and not ascertained
All other named brands
Total
575
89
59
185
407
1315
43.7
6.8
4.5
14.1
30.9
100. 0
Eighty-six percent (85.9%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of wood floor panel
cleaners named were used by 43.7%, 6.8% and 4.5% of users,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table E-12: Percent of respondents saying the Wood
Floor Panel Cleaner used is in aerosol or
non-aerosol form (N=1306 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 48.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 51.1%
Forty-nine percent (48.9%) of the respondents said the brand
of wood floor panel cleaner that they used was in aerosol form.
Approximately the same number, 51.1%, said the brand they used
was in nonaerosol form.
5-73
-------
Q7: What size of wood floor panel cleaner did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or
how many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table E-13: Amount of Wood Floor Panel Cleaner used in
ounces (N=1229 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 28.41
Median ounces per year 14.00
Standard deviation 57.23
The mean amount of wood floor panel cleaner used per year is
28.41 ounces and the median is 14.0 ounces.
Table E-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Wood
Floor Panel Cleaners used in ounces per
year (N=1229 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.80
5% 2.45
10% 3.50
25% 7.00
Median 14.00
75% 30.00
90% 64.00
95% 96.00
99% 204.40
Maximum 1144.00
The minimum amount of product used is 0.03 ounces and the
maximum 1144.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of the respondents
used 96.0 ounces or less in the last year. This amount increased
sharply at the 99th (204.4 ounces) and the 100th (1144.0 ounces)
percentile.
-------
Q8: Where did you use wood floor panel cleaner the
last time you used it?
Table E-15: Location of last use of the product
(N=1295 recent users)
Basement 3.1%
Living room 26.8%
Other inside room 49.3%
Several inside rooms 18.7%
Garage 0.6%
Outside 1.2%
Garage & outside 0.3%
Total 100.0%
Most people (49.3%) used wood floor panel cleaners in an
"other inside room" such as a bedroom, kitchen or den. The next
two locations used most often were "living room" by 26.8% of the
users and "several inside rooms" used by 18.7%. Only 1.2% of the
users used the product outside. Of the 32 products surveyed, the
only other product used less outside is typewriter correction
fluid which is used by only 0.5% of the users.
5-75
-------
Table E-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 58.9% 41.1%
(N=1269 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 11.3% 88.7
(N=1272 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 82.5% 17.5%
(N=1268 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 72.2% 27.8%
(N=1294 recent users)
The majority of wood floor panel cleaner users (72.2%) had
read the directions on the label. Also, more than half the users
had a door or window open to the outside (58.9%) and an inside
door to the room open (82.5%).
An additional variable ounces used per use of the product
was created by dividing Question 7 by Question 3 and is presented
in Table E-17 which follows.
Table E-17: Ounces per use of Wood Floor Panel Cleaner
(N=1228 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 9.50
Median # of ounces per use 4.33
Standard deviation 18.62
The mean ounces used per use of wood floor panel cleaner is
9.50 ounces and the median is 4.33 ounces. Table E-18 which
follows presents the percentile rankings for this variable. Of
the 1228 respondents who answered this question, 95.0% used 32.0
ounces or less of the product per use. The 100th percentile is
256.0 ounces.
5-76
-------
Table E-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Wood Floor Panel Cleaner (N=1228 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
0.11
0.48
0.88
2.00
4.33
10.50
16.85
32.00
82.84
256.00
Table E-19:
Respondent characteristics of Wood Floor
Panel Cleaner users
1. Respondent age
(N=1308 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=1313 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=1311 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=1312 recent users)
Mean = 41.97 years
Male = 29.9%
Female = 70.1%
Mean = 3.09 members
Mean = 2.97 bedrooms
Table E-19 presents the respondent characteristics of wood
floor panel cleaner users. The average age of these respondents
is 41.97 years. There are a greater number of female respondents
(70.1%) compared to the number of male respondents (29.9%). The
respondent gender characteristics for this product differed from
the characteristics for the total sample of respondents which had
nearly an eg_ual number of male (47.0%) and female (53.0%)
respondents. The other respondent characteristics are almost
identical to the characteristics for the total sample of
respondents.
5-77
-------
f~
-------
TYPEWRITER
CORRECTION
FLUID
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
F. Product 6; Typewriter Correction Fluid
Ql: Have you ever used typewriter correction fluid?
Table F-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Numbers Percent
Yes 1278 26.0
No 3639 74.0
Total 4917* 100.0
* 3 cases where information was not ascertained.
Table F-l shows that 26% of the total respondents have
"ever" used typewriter correction fluid.
Q2: When was the last time you used typewriter correction
fluid?
Table F-2: Last time Typewriter Correction Fluid was
used in months (N=1273 users)
Mean # of months 7.00
Median # of months 0.99
Standard deviation 26.93
As Table F-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of typewriter correction fluid is 7.0 months. The median number
of months is 0.99 and this adjusts for any extreme values given
as answers to this question.
Preceding page blank
5-81
-------
The percentile rankings for this question will now be
presented.
Table F-3: Percentile rankings for Typewriter
Correction Fluid — months since
last use (N=1273 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.99
3.00
12.00
24.00
120.00
480.00
Table F-3 shows that 25% of the users used the product less
than a month ago. The 90th percentile through the 100th
percentile have last used the product 12 months through 480
months ago. The data appear to be subject to rounding, discussed
earlier under aspects of the data. The data are useful in
indicating the approximate last use.
-------
Q3: How many times have you used typewriter correction
fluid in the last 12 months?
Table F-4: Number of uses of Typewriter Correction
Fluid in the last 12 months (N=1137 recent
users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
40.00
12.00
74.78
Users of the product used it on the average of 40.0 times in
the last 12 months. The median was 12.0 uses.
Table F-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Typewriter Correction Fluid within the
last 12 months (N=1137 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 4.00
Median 12.00
75% 40.00
90% 100.00
95% 200.00
99% 365.00
Maximum 520.00
5-83
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using typewriter correction
fluid the last time you used it?
Table F-6: Time spent using Typewriter Correction
Fluid last time used (N=1131 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
7.62
1.00
29.66
The median is 1 minute. The mean of approximately 8 minutes
is higher and could be explained by the highly skewed
distribution.
Table F-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Typewriter Correction Fluid last time used
(N=1131 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.17
1.00
2.00
10.00
32.00
120.00
480.00
Users at the 25th percentile and below used the product for
15 seconds or less. The 99th percentile on the other hand is 120
minutes and the 100th percentile is 480 minutes.
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used Typewriter Correction
Fluid?
Table F-8.
Time spent in the room after last use of
Typewriter Correction Fluid (N=1114 recent
users)
Mean # of minutes 124.70
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 153.46
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 124.70 minutes and the median is 60 minutes. Here again the
difference could be explained on account of the skewed
distribution.
Table F-9:
Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use of Typewriter
Correction Fluid including those who did
not spend any time in the room (N=1114
recent users|
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
1.00
5.00
30.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
480.00
600.00
1800.00
Above the 5th percentile all respondents spent time in the
room after using the product. Except for the 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile, all other respondents spent 3 hours
or less in the room.
5-85
-------
Table F-10. Percentile rankings for Typewriter
Correction Fluid for time spent in the
room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room (N=1082 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 3.00
10% 10.00
25% 30.00
Median 60.00
75% 180.00
90% 360.00
95% 480.00
99% 600.00
Maximum 1800.00
Table F-10 is similar to Table F-9 except it includes only
users who did stay in the room after use, therefore, all
percentiles have values greater than zero.
5-86
-------
Q6A: Which brand of typewriter correction fluid did
you use the last time you used it?
Table F-ll: Brand distribution for Typewriter Correction
Fluid
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
477
374
29
185
82
1147
41.6
32.6
2.5
16.1
7.2
100.0
Of those who used the product in the last 12 months, 962
respondents (83.9%) specified a brand. The two major brands were
used by 41.6% and 32.6% of the users, respectively. These two
together account for 74.2% of users of the named brands.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table F-12: Percent of respondents saying Typewriter
Correction Fluid is in aerosol or non-
aerosol form (N=1131 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 0.1%
No, product is nonaerosol 99.9%
Nearly a hundred percent of the respondents said the
typewriter correction fluid they used was in nonaerosol form.
5-87
-------
Q7: What size of typewriter correction fluid did you use
the last time you used it? How much of a can or how
many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table F-13: Amount of Typewriter Correction Fluid used
in ounces (N=1037 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 4.14
Median ounces per year 0.94
Standard deviation 13.72
Of all the products surveyed, typewriter correction fluid
has the lowest mean and median for ounces per year used.
Table F-14: Percentile rankings for ounces per year
used of Typewriter Correction Fluid
(N=1037 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.12
0.30
0.94
2.40
8.00
18.00
67.44
181.80
The ounces used increased sharply at the 99th percentile.
-------
Q8: Where did you use typewriter correction fluid the last
time you used it?
Table F-15: Location of last use of Typewriter
Correction Fluid (N=1130 recent users)
Basement 2.1%
Living room 14.6%
Other inside room 79.8%
Several inside rooms 2.0%
Garage 0.4%
Outside 0.4%
Garage & outside 0.5%
Most respondents (79.8%) used the product in an "other
inside room". If the questionnaire instructions were
misunderstood this could be a room at their place of work. Only
0.4% of the respondents used the product outside.
5-89
-------
Table F-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Yes No
1. Door or window 25.8% 74.2%
open to the outside
(N=1113 recent users)
2. Exhaust fan 8.2% 91.8%
on during use
(N=1116 recent inside users
3. Whether inside door 74% 26%
to room was open
(N=1107 recent inside users
4. Whether directions
on label were read 39.3% 60.7%
(N=1129 all recent users)
The majority of the respondents did not open a door or
window (74.2%), did not have an exhaust on (91.8%), had the
inside door to the room closed (74%) and had not read the label
(60.7%) .
Table F-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3 (#
of times used in the last year).
Table F-17: Ounces per use of Typewriter Correction
Fluid (N=971 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 0.43
Median # of ounces per use 0.08
Standard deviation 2.28
The median ounces per use is 0.08 minutes. The mean is
higher on account of some extreme values.
5-90
-------
Table F-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Typewriter Correction Fluid (N=971 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.20
0.75
1.50
6.42
60.00
The ounces per use range from a minimum of 0.01 ounces to a
maximum of 60.0 ounces at the 100th percentile. Ninty-nine
percent of the respondents used 6.42 ounces or less of the
product per use. The amount increased sharply at the 100th
percentile to 60.0 ounces per use.
Table F-19: Respondent characteristics of Typewriter
Correction Fluid users
1. Respondent age
(N=1145 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=1146 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=1143 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=1142 recent users)
Mean = 37.80 years
Male = 38.1%
Female = 61.9%
Mean = 3.14 members
Mean = 2.96 bedrooms
5-91
-------
The average age of the respondents is 37.80 years. The
majority of the respondents, 61.9% are female. Respondent
characteristics for typewriter correction fluid users differ from
the characteristics of the total sample of respondents in
respondent age and gender. The average age for the total sample
of respondents is 44.2 years and the percent of male and female
respondents is 47% and 53% respectively.
5-92
-------
CONTACT CEMENT,
SUPER GLUES
AND
SPRAY ADHESIVES
5-93
-------
-------
G. Product 7: Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives
Three types of adhesives thought to contain methylene
chloride or its substitutes are included here, and they are:
contact cements, super glues, and spray adhesives.
Ql: Have you ever used contact cements, super glues, or
spray adhesives?
Table G-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Contact
Cements, Super Glues, or Spray Adhesives
Numbers Percent
Yes 2982 60.6
No 1935 39.4
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table G-l shows that 60.6% of the total respondents have
"ever" used contact cements, super glues, and spray adhesives.
This is the highest incidence of use of any of the products.
Q2: When was the last time you used contact cements, super
glues, or spray adhesives?
Table G-2: Last time Contact Cements, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesives were used in months (N=2973 users)
Mean # of months 5.20
Median # of months 1.00
Standard deviation 13.30
As Table G-2 shows, the mean number of months contact
cements, super glues, or spray adhesives was last used is 5.20
months. This is almost the shortest period of time since last
use for any of the thirty-two products. The median number of
months is 1.0.
Preceding page blank
5-95
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table G-3: Percentile rankings for Contact Cements, Super
Glues and Spray Adhesives — months since last
use (N=2973 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.33
1.00
5.00
12.00
24.00
60.00
180.00
Table G-3 shows that 25th percentile users and below used
the product last less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 5 months ago through 180 months ago. The data
appear to be subject to rounding which was discussed earlier
under aspects of the data. The data is still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-96
-------
Q3: How many times have your used contact cements, super
glues, and spray adhesives within the last 12 months?
Table G-4: Number of uses of the Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives within the last 12
months (N=2681 recent users)
Mean # of uses 8.89
Median # of uses 3.00
Standard deviation 26.20
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months, was
8.89 and the median 3.0. Fifty-one percent of these users used
these adhesives three times or less in the last twelve months
with 19.1% using it once; 18.1% using it twice; and 14.3% using
it three times.
Table G-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Contact
Cements, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
within the last 12 months (N=2681 recent users)
Uses
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
6.00
15.00
28.00
100.00
500.00
The percentile rankings for the number of times used in the
last twelve months range from a minimum of one time to a maximum
of 500 times.
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using contact cements,
super glues, and spray adhesives the last time you used
it?
Table G-6:
Time spent using Contact Cements, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives last time used
(N=2676 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 15.58
Median # of minutes 4.30
Standard deviation 81.80
The mean number of minutes for using these adhesives is
15.58 and the median is 4.3.
Table G-7:
Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Contact Cements, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives last time used (N=2676 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.33
1.00
4.25
10.00
30.00
60.00
180.00
2880.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum percentile
2880 minutes (48 hours).
5-98
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used contact cements, super
glues, and spray adhesives?
Table G-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Contact
Cements, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
(N=2599 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
68.88
10.00
163.72
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
68.88 minutes as opposed to the median of ten minutes.
Table G-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Contact Cement, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives (N=2599 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
720.00
2100.00
Respondents at the 10th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using contact cement, super glues, or
spray adhesives.
5-99
-------
Table G-10: Percentile rankings for Contact Cement, Super
Glues, and Spray Adhesives for time spent in
the room after last use including only those
who spent time in the room (N=2013 recent users
who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
20.00
105.00
240.00
420.00
840oOO
2100.00
Table G-10 is similar to Table G-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have non-zero values.
5-100
-------
Q6A: Which brand of contact cement, super glues, or spray
adhesive did you use the last time you used it?
Table G-ll: Brand distribution for Contact Cement, Super
Glues, or Spray Adhesive
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows & Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
491
454
305
398
1052
2700
18.2
16.8
11.3
14.7
39.0
100.0
Eighty-five percent (85.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of contact cement, super
glues, and spray adhesives were used by 18.2%, 16.8% and 11.3% of
the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table G-12: Percent of respondents saying Contact Cement,
Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives were aerosol
(N=2686 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 2.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 97.1%
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in only 2.9%
of the cases. The product was nonaerosol in 97.1% of the cases.
5-101
-------
Q7: What size of contact cement, super glue, or spray
adhesive did you use the last time you used it? How
much of a can or how many cans did you use during the
past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table G-13: Amount of Contact Cement, Super Glue, or Spray
Adhesive used in ounces per year (N=2275 recent
users)
Mean ounces per year 7.49
Median ounces per year 1.00
Standard deviation 55.90
The mean ounces used per year is 7.49 and the median ounces
is 1.0. While this product is one of the ones used most often
the amount used is one of the smallest amounts.
Table G-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Contact
Cement, Super Glues, and Spray Adhesives
used in ounces per year (N=2275 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.35
1.00
3.00
8.00
20.00
128.00
1280.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
G-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .01
and the maximum ounces per year at 1280.0. There is quite a jump
between the 95th percentile and the 99th and 100th.
5-102
-------
Q8: Where did you use contact cement, super glue, and spray
adhesive the last time you used it?
Table G-15: Location of last use of the product
(N=2657 recent users)
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
5.6%
11.9%
61.1%
1.9%
6.2%
11.7%
1.6%
Total 100.0%
Most people (61.1%) used contact cement, super glue, and
spray adhesives in an "other inside room" such as the kitchen,
bedroom, or den. Almost equal numbers used it in a living room
(11.9%) and in the outside air (11.7%). The remainder used it in
the basement (5.6%); in the garage (6.2%); in both the garage and
the outside (1.6%) and in several inside rooms (1.9%).
5-103
-------
Table G-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Contact Cement, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesives
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 41.0% 59.0%
(N=2296 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 8.1% 91.9%
(N=2304 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 75.1% 24.9%
(N=2286 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 70.1% 29.9%
(N=2664 recent users)
The majority (59.0%) of the users did not have a door or
window open to the outside; did not have an exhaust fan on
(91.9%); did have the inside door to the room opened (75.1%); and
did read the directions on the label (70.1%) before using the
product.
Table G-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table G-17: Ounces per use of Contact Cement, Super Glue,
and Spray Adhesives (N=2230 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 2.98
Median # of ounces per use 0.25
Standard deviation 35.50
The mean number of ounces per use is 2.98 and the median
ounces per use is .25.
5-104
-------
Table G-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Contact Cement, Super Glues, and Spray
Adhesives (N=2230 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.25
0.75
2.00
4.32
42.54
1280.00
The range of percentile rankings is from a minimum of .01 to
a maximum of 1280.0 ounces.
Table G-19: Respondent characteristics of Contact Cement
Super Glue, and Spray Adhesives users
1. Respondent age
(N=2692 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=2697 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=2690 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=2693 recent users)
Mean = 41.10 years
Male = 49.2%
Female = 50.8%
Mean = 3.20 members
Mean = 2.90 bedrooms
Table G-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
contact cement, super glue, and spray adhesive users. These
respondents were slightly younger than respondents as a whole
41.10 compared to 44.3 years of age; there were about the same
number of males 49.2% to 47.0%; the number of household members
was the same 3.20; and the number of bedrooms was the same 2.9
compared to mean age of these respondents is 44.4 years; 53.0% of
the respondents are female and 47.0% are male; the mean number of
household members is 3.10; and the mean number of bedrooms is
2.90.
5-105
-------
-------
ADHESIVE
REMOVERS
(GENERAL PURPOSE,
TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
Preceding page blank
5-107
-------
-------
H. Product 8: Adhesive Removers
Ql: Have you ever used adhesive removers?
Table H-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Adhesive Removers
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
286
4630
4916*
5.8
94.2
100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table H-l shows that only 5.8% of the respondents had "ever"
used adhesive removers. This is a relatively low percentage when
compared to this incidence for other products. Only four other
products—transmission cleaners, brake quieters/cleaners, gasket
removers, and ignition & wire dryers have incidences below 5.8%.
Q2: When was the last time you used adhesive removers?
Table H-2: Last time the Adhesive Remover was used in
months (N=283 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
21.70
10.00
38.01
As Table H-2 shows, the mean number of months adhesive
removers were last used is 21.70 months. The median number of
months is 10.0.
Preceding page blank
5-109
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table H-3: Percentile rankings for Adhesive Removers-
months since last use (N=283 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.11
0.38
2.00
10.00
24.00
60.00
84.00
240.00
360.00
Table H-3 shows that users at the 10th percentile and below
used the product last less than a month ago. From the 75th
percentile through the 100th percentile respondents report that
they last used the product 24 months ago (2 years) through 360
months ago (30 years). The data appear to be subject to rounding
which was discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 2, 5,
30 years rather than 2 years & 4 months). The data are usable
for indicating the approximate last use.
5-110
-------
Q3: How many times have you used adhesive removers in the
last 12 months?
Table H-4: Number of uses of Adhesive Removers within
the last 12 months (N=167 recent users)
Mean # of uses 4.22
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 12.30
In the last 12 months, the average number of times the
product was used was 4.22 and the median was 1 time. Of the 167
respondents who had used the product in the last twelve months,
53.3% used it once, 20.4% used it twice and 10.8% used it three
times. Table H-5 which follows shows the percentile rankings for
the variable. One finds that at the 99th percentile there is a
sharp increase in the number of times the product is used in the
last year.
Table H-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Adhesive Removers within the last 12 months
(N=167 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 3.00
90% 6.00
95% 16.80
99% 100.00
Maximum 100.00
5-111
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using the adhesive
remover the last time you used it?
Table H-6: Time spent using Adhesive Remover last
time used (N=168 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 121.20
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 171.63
When last used, the mean and median number of minutes spent
using adhesive removers are relatively high at 121.20 and 60
minutes respectively. Only three other products — latex paints,
oil paints, and paint removers/strippers have higher average
times spent when the products were last used.
Table H-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Adhesive Remover last time used (N=168
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 1.45
10% 3.00
25% 15.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 246.00
95% 480.00
99% 960.00
Maximum 960.00
Twenty-five percent of the respondents spent 15 minutes or
less using the adhesive remover the last time they used it.
Fifty percent of the respondents spent one hour or less, the
maximum time spent using the product was 960 minutes (16 hours).
5-112
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room
immediately after use the last time you used
adhesive removers?
Table H-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Adhesive Removers (N=1€C recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
94.12
20.00
157.69
The average time spent in the room after use is 94.12
minutes. The median is 20 minutes. The difference between the
mean and median can be explained by a few extreme responses to
the question.
Table H-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the
room after last use of Adhesive Removers
including those who did not spend any time
in the room (N=166 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.75
20.00
120.00
360.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
Fifty percent of the respondents spent 20 minutes or less in
the room after use. The amount of time spent in the room
increases sharply at the 75th percentile where time spent is 120
minutes (2 hours) through the 100th percentile where time spent
in the room after use is 720 minutes (12 hours).
5-113
-------
Table H-10: Percentile rankings for Adhesive Removers
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in the
room (N=131 recent users who stayed in
room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.60
10% 4.00
25% 10.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 420.00
95% 504.00
99% 720.00
Maximum 720.00
Table H-10 is similar to Table H-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product.
The mean now changes to 119.3 minutes and the median is now 60
minutes. The difference between the mean and median has lessened
to 59.3 minutes from 74.12 minutes in Table H-8.
-------
Q6A: Which brand of adhesive remover did you use the last
time you used it?
Table H-ll: Brand distribution for Adhesive Removers
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows or Not ascertained
All other named brands
Total
11
8
5
106
45
175
6.3
4.6
2.9
60.6
25.6
100.0
Thirty-nine percent (39.4%) of the users specified a brand.
The top three brands named were used by 6.3%, 4.6% and 2.9%,
respectively of the users of the named brands.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table H-12: Percent of respondents saying the Adhesive
Remover used is in aerosol or non-aerosol
form (N=167 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol
No, product is nonaerosol
15.0%
85.0%
Of the 167 recent users who answered this question, 85.0%
said the adhesive remover used was nonaerosol whereas 15.0% said
it was an aerosol.
5-115
-------
Q7: What size of adhesive remover did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table H-13: Amount of Adhesive Remover used in ounces
(N=155 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 34.46
Median ounces per year 10.88
Standard deviation 96.60
The average amount of adhesive remover used in the last year
was 34.46 ounces and the median 10.88 ounces.
Table H-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Adhesive
Remover used in ounces per year (N=155
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.25
0.29
1.22
2.80
6.00
10.88
32.00
64.00
138.70
665.60
1024.00
As shown in Table H-14 the responses for ounces used in the
last year is widely spread out and range from a minimum of 0.25
ounces to 1024.0 ounces at the 100th percentile. Ninety percent
of users used 64.0 ounces or less during the year. This amount
increased sharply at the 99th percentile to 665.60 ounces.
5-116
-------
Q8: Where did you use the adhesive remover the last
time you used it?
Table H-15: Location of last use of the product (N=167
recent users)
Basement 4.8%
Living room 5.4%
Other inside room 75.4%
Several inside rooms 2.4%
Garage 4.2%
Outside 6.6%
Garage & outside 1.2%
Total 100.0'
Most of the users (75.4%) used the Adhesive Remover in an
"other inside room". It could be either a bedroom, kitchen or
den or some other room. A .total of 6.6% used the product
outside. Only four other products Typewriter Correction Fluid,
Wood Floor and Panel Cleaners, Specialised Electronic Cleaners
and Spot Removers were used to a lesser degree outdoors.
Table H-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Adhesive Removers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 66.9% 33.1%
(N=154 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 23.1% 76.9%
(N=156 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 78.6% 21.4%
(N=154 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 82.2% 17.8%
(N=169 all recent users)
The majority of respondents (82.2%) had read the directions
on the label. This could account for 66.9% of the respondents
having a door or window open to the outside and 78.6% having an
inside door to the room open.
5-117
-------
An additional variable ounces used per use of the product
was created by dividing Question 7 by Question 3 and is presented
in Table H-17 which follows.
Table H-17:
Ounces per use of Adhesive Removers (N=153
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 22.04
Median # of ounces per use 8.00
Standard deviation 85.44
The mean ounces used up per use of adhesive remover is 22.04
ounces and the median is 8 ounces. Table H-18 which follows
presents the percentile rankings for this variable. The ounces
used per use range from a mimiroum of .04 ounces to 1024 ounces at
the 100th percentile. Ninety-five percent of the respondents
used 64 ounces or less of the product for each use.
Table H-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Adhesive Remover (N=153 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.04
0.06
0.33
0.67
3.00
8.00
16.00
32.00
64.00
574.72
1024.00
5-118
-------
Table H-19:
Respondent characteristics of Adhesive
Remover users
1. Respondent age
(N=174 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=175 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=175 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=175 recent users)
Mean = 39.93 years
Male = 52.6%
Female = 47.4%
Mean = 3.29 members
Mean = 3.07 bedrooms
Table H-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
adhesive remover users. The mean age of these respondents is
39.93 years. There does not seem to be a major difference in the
number of respondents of each sex answering the question. The
respondent characteristics for adhesive remover users is
approximately the same as the characteristics for the total
sample of respondents.
5-119
-------
5-120
-------
SILICONE
LUBRICANTS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
Receding page blank
5-121
-------
-------
I. Product 9: Silicons Lubricants (excluding automotive)
Ql: Have you ever used silicone lubricants?
Table 1-1: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Silicone
Lubricants
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
870
4047
4917*
Percent
17.7
82.3
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table 1-1 shows that 17.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used silicone lubricants.
Q2: When was the last time you used silicone lubricants?
Table 1-2: Last time Silicone Lubricant was used in months
(N=863 users)
Mean # of months 6.50
Median # of months 2 . 00
Standard Deviation 15.43
On the average silicone lubricants were last used 6.50
months ago. This is a very short period of time compared to this
incidence for most of the other 32 products surveyed. The median
number of months is 2.0.
Preceding page blank
5-123
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table 1-3: Percentile rankings for Silicone Lubricants —
months since last use (N=863 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.33
2.00
6.00
18.00
24.00
84.00
180.00
Table 1-3 shows that time since the product was last used
ranges from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 180.0
months. Twenty-five percent of the respondents last used the
product less than a month ago whereas 95% of the respondents used
the product 24.0 months or less ago. The months since last use
may be subject to rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the
data (i.e., 2, 7, 15 years rather than 7 years 3 months). The
data is usable for indicating the approximate last use.
5-124
-------
Q3: How many times have you used silicone lubricants in the
last 12 months?
Table 1-4: Number of uses of Silicone Lubricant within the
last 12 months (N=750 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
10.32
3.00
25.44
The mean number of uses of silicone lubricants in the last
year is 10.32 times and the median is 3.0 times. Of the 750
respondents who used the product in the last year, 21.1% used it
once, 18.3% used it twice and 11.6% used it three times. Table
1-5 which follows presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. The times the product was used ranges from 1 time to
300 times at the 100th percentile. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used the product 46.35 times or less in the last
year.
Table 1-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Silicone Lubricants within the last 12 months
(N=750 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 3.00
75% 10.00
90% 20.00
95% 46.35.
99% 150.00
Maximum 300.00
5-125
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using the silicone
lubricant the last time you used it?
Table 1-6: Time spent using the Silicone Lubricant last
time used (N=747 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 10.42
Median # of minutes 2.00
Standard deviation 29.47
The mean and median number of minutes for using silicone
lubricants are 10.42 and 2.0 minutes respectively.
Table 1-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Silicone Lubricant last time used (N=747 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.17
0.50
2.00
10.00
20.00
45.00
180.00
360.00
The time spent using silicone lubricants ranges from 0.02
minutes to 6 hours at the 100th percentile. Twenty-five percent
of the respondents used the product for less than a minute, 50%
used it for 2 minutes or less, and 95% used it for 45 minutes or
less.
5-126
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used silicons lubricants?
Table 1-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Silicone Lubricants (N=734 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
30.77
0.00
107.39
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
30.77 minutes. The median is 0 as at least 50% of the
respondents did not spend any time in the room after using the
silicone lubricant.
Table 1-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use of Silicone Lubricants including those
who did not spend any time in the room (N=734
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 10.00
90% 60.00
95% 180.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 1440.00
Respondents at the 75th percentile through the 100th
percentile did spend some time in the room after using the
product.
5-127
-------
Table 1-10: Percentile rankings for Silicone Lubricants for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=343
recent users who stayed in the room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
10.00
60.00
216.00
300.00
787.00
1440.00
Table 1-10 is similar to Table 1-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room. The mean time spent in
the room after use is 65.9 minutes and the median is 10. The
maximum time spent in the room after using the product is 24
hours.
5-123
-------
Q6A: Which brand of silicons lubricant did you use the last
time you used it?
Table 1-11: Brand distribution for Silicone Lubricant
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
203
36
35
243
224
741
Percent
26.7
4.7
7.2
31.9
29.5
100.0
Sixty-eight percent (68.1%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of silicone lubricants
named were used by 26.7%, 4.7% and 7.2% of the respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table 1-12: Percent of respondents saying Silicone
Lubricant is in aerosol or nonaerosol form
(N=751 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 79.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 20.1%
The majority of the respondents (79.9%) used a silicone
lubricant in aerosol form.
5-129
-------
Q7: What size of silicone lubricant did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table 1-13:
Amount of Silicone Lubricants used in ounces
(N=687 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 12.50
Median ounces per year 4.50
Standard deviation 27.85
The average amount of silicone lubricants used per year is
12.50 ounces and the median is 4.50 ounces.
Table 1-14:
Percentile rankings for amount of Silicone
Lubricants used in ounces per year (N=687
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.02
0.20
0.69
1.00
2.25
4.50
12.00
24.00
41.20
192.00
312.00
The minimum amount of product used is 0.02 ounces and the
maximum is 312.0 ounces. In the last year, 95% of the
respondents used 41.20 ounces or less of the product. The amount
used increased sharply at the 99th and 100th percentile to 192.0
and 312.0 ounces respectively.
5-130
-------
Q8: Where did you use silicone lubricants the last time you
used it?
Table 1-15: Location of last use of the product (N=742
recent users)
Basement 4.2%
Living room 4.7%
Other inside room 28.2%
Several inside rooms 3.3%
Garage 14.0%
Outside 37.5%
Garage & outside 8.1%
Total 100.0%
The majority of the respondents (37.5%) used the product
outside. The room where the product is used most indoors is the
"other inside room" by 28.2.% of the respondents. 14% of the
respondents used the product in the garage.
5-131
-------
Table 1-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Silicone Lubricants
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 52.0% 48.0%
(N=404 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 8.2% 91.8%
(N=402 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 70.8% 29.2%
(N=394 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 60.6% 39.4%
(N=741 all recent users)
Sixty-one percent (60.6%) of the respondents had read the
label. Approximately half the number of respondents (52.0%) had
a door or window open to the outside. The majority of the
respondents had an exhaust fan off (91.8%) and an inside door to
the room open (70.8%).
Table 1-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table 1-17: Ounces per use of Silicone Lubricants (N=682
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 3.26
Median # of ounces per use 1.13
Standard deviation 8.23
The average amount of silicone lubricant used per use of the
product is 3.26 ounces and the median is 1.13 ounces. Table 1-18
which follows presents the percentile rankings for this variable.
The ounces used per use of the product range from a minimum of
0.01 ounces to a maximum of 90.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 11.21 ounces or less of the product per use.
5-132
-------
Table 1-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Silicone Lubricants (N=682 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
O.C1
0.05
0.16
0.23
0.50
1.13
2.83
6.62
11.21
62.17
90.00
Table 1-19:
Respondent characteristics of Silicone
Lubricant users
1. Respondent age
(N=756 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=759 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=754 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=758 recent users)
Mean = 45.10 years
Male = 69.7%
Female = 30.3%
Mean = 3.01 members
Mean = 2.99 bedrooms
Table 1-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
silicone lubricant users. The mean age of these respondents is
45.10 years. The number of male respondents (69.7%) is more than
twice the number of female respondents (30.3%). The statistics
for the respondent characteristics of silicone lubricant users is
approximately the same as those for the total sample of
respondents with the exception of respondent gender where the
number of male and female respondents is approximately equal for
the total sample of respondents.
5-133
-------
-------
OTHER
LUBRICANTS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
Preceding page blank
5-135
-------
-------
j. Product 10; Other Lubricants (excluding automotive)
Ql: Have you ever used other lubricants?
Table J-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Other
Lubricants
Numbers Percent
Yes 1696 34.5
NO 3221 65.5
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table J-l shows that 34.5% of the total respondents have
"ever" used other lubricants.
Q2: When was the last time you used another lubricant?
Table J-2: Last time Other Lubricant was used in months
(N=1690 users)
Mean # of months 5.10
Median # of months 1.00
Standard deviation 13.37
As Table J-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of other lubricants is 5.10 months. This is the shortest period
of time since last use for any of the 32 products surveyed. The
median number of months is 1 month.
Preceding page blank
5-137
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table J-3: Percentile rankings for Other Lubricants
months since last use (N=1690 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.33
1.00
5.00
12.00
24.00
60.00
240.00
Table J-3 shows that the time since last use of the product
ranges from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 240 months.
Twenty-five percent of the respondents used the product last less
than a month ago. Ninety-nine percent used it 60.0 months (5
years) or less ago. The time since last use increased sharply at
the 100th percentile to 240.0 months (20 years).
5-138
-------
Q3: How many times have you used other lubricants in the
last 12 months?
Table J-4: Number of uses of Other Lubricant within the
last 12 months (N=1531 recent users)
Mean # of uses 10.66
Median # of uses 4.00
Standard deviation 25.46
The mean number of uses of other lubricants in the last year
is 10.66 times. Of the 1531 respondents who used the product in
the last year, 16.3% used it once, 18% used it twice and 13.5%
used it thrice. Table J-5 which follows presents the percentile
rankings for this variable. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used the product 50 times or less in the last year.
The maximum number of times the product is used is 420 times.
Table J-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Other
Lubricants within the last 12 months (N=1531
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 4.00-
75% 10.00
90% 20.00
95% 50.00
99% 100.00
Maximum 420.00
5-139
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using other lubricants the
last time you used it?
Table J-6: Time spent using the Other Lubricants last time
used (N=1518 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
8.12
2.00
32.20
The mean and median number of minutes for using other
lubricants are relatively low as compared to the time spent using
the other products surveyed.
Table J-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Other Lubricants last time used (N=1518 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.50
2.00
5.00
15.00
30.00
90.00
900.00
The minimum time spent using other lubricants is 0.02
minutes and the maximum time spent is 15 hours. Twenty-five
percent of the respondents spent less than 1 minute using the
product and 95% of the respondents spent half an hour or less
using the product.
5-140
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used other lubricants?
Table J-8. Time spent in the room after last use of Other
Lubricants (N=1490 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
47.45
2.00
127.11
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 47.45 minutes and the median is 2 minutes. There is a big
difference between the mean and median because of the large
proportional of respondents who did not spray in the room after
the last use of other lubricants. Table J-9 which follows
presents the percentile rankings for this variable. It shows
that 25% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after using the product. Ninety-five percent of the respondents
spent 240.0 minutes (4 hours) or less in the room. The time
spent in the room after use increased sharply at the 100th
percentile to 1440.0 minutes (24 hours).
Table J-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in the room but used Other Lubricants
(N=1490 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
30.
120.
240.
485.
1440.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
40
00
5-141
-------
Table J-10: Percentile rankings for Other Lubricants for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=841
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
30.00
120.00
180.00
360.00
720.00
1440.00
Table J-10 is similar to Table J-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room. The mean time spent in
the room has increased to 84.10 minutes compared to 47.45 minutes
in Table J-8 as respondents spending no time in room after use
have been excluded. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent
360 minutes (6 hours) or less in the room after using the
product.
5-142
-------
Q6A: Which brand of other lubricants did you use the last
time you used it?
Table J-ll: Brand distribution for Other Lubricants
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
780
448
34
134
149
1545
50.5
29.0
2.2
8.7
9 . 6
100.0
The majority of respondents, 91.3%, specified a brand of
other lubricants that they used. The top three brands of other
lubricants named were used by 50.5%, 29.0% and 2.2% of the
respondents, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table J-12: Percent of respondents saying Other Lubricants
are in aerosol or nonaerosol form (N=1524
recent users
Yes, product is aerosol 32.5%
No, product is nonaerosol 67.5%
Table J-12 shows that number of respondents using a non-
aerosol form of other lubricant is about twice the number of
those using an aerosol form of the product.
5-1A3
-------
Q7: What size of other lubricants did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table J-13: Amount of Other Lubricants used in ounces
(N=1407 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 9.93
Median ounces per year 2.25
Standard deviation 44.18
The mean ounces used per year of other lubricants is 9.93
ounces. This is comparatively low compared to the ounces used
per year for most of the other products surveyed.
Table J-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Other
Lubricants used in ounces per year (N=1407
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.18
0.30
0.52
1.00
2.25
8.00
18.00
32.00
128.00
1280.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
J-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at
0.01 and the maximum ounces per year at 1280.0. Twenty-five
percent of the respondents used 1 ounce or less of the product
whereas 95.0% of the respondents used 32 ounces or less of the
product per year. The amount used increased sharply at the 100th
percentile to 1280.0 ounces.
5-144
-------
Q8: Where did you use other lubricants the last time you
used it?
Table J-15: Location of last use of the product used last
time (N=1514 recent users)
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
Total
7.5%
5.9%
34.9%
2.6%
13.5%
29.6%
6.0%
100.0%
As Table J-15 shows, most people (29.6%) used other
lubricants outside. Approximately the same number (34.9%) used
the product in an "other inside room". A total of 13.5% used the
product in the garage.
5-145
-------
Table J-16. Protective measures undertaken while using
Other Lubricants
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 42.6% 57.4%
(N=968 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 6.4% 93.6%
(N=969 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 70.0% 30.0%
(N=959 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 45.0% 55.0%
(N=1508 all recent users)
Less than half the number of respondents (45.0%) had read
the directions on the label. The majority of the users did not
have an exhaust fan on during use (93.6%) but had the inside door
to the room opened (70.0%). Only 42.6% of the respondents had a
door or window open to the outside.
Table J-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3 (#
of times used in the last year).
Table J-17: Ounces per use of Other Lubricants (N=1400
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 1.61
Median # of ounces per use 0.55
Standard deviation 6.38
The mean ounces per use of other lubricant is 1.61 which is
one of the lowest amounts used when compared to this incidence
for other products. Only the product typewriter correction fluid
had a lower amount used per use of the product (0.43 ounces).
Table J-18 which follows presents the percentile rankings for
ounces used per use. Ninety-five percent of the respondents used
5.0 ounces or less of the product per use. At the 100th
percentile the amount used per use increased sharply to 192.0
ounces.
5-146
-------
Table J-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Other
Lubricants (N=1400 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.55
1.33
3.00
5.00
17.98
192.00
Table J-19: Respondent characteristics of Other Lubricant
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 43.98 years
(N=1537 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 61.1%
(N=1542 recent users) Female = 38.9%
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.07 members
(N=1534 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 2.97 bedrooms
(N=1539 recent users)
Table J-19 presents the respondent characteristics of other
lubricant users. The mean age of these respondents is 43.98
years; the number of household members is 3.07 and the number of
bedrooms 2.97. A greater number of the respondents is male
(61.1%) compared to the number of female respondents (38.9%).
The statistics for the respondent characteristics of other
lubricant users is approximately the same as the characteristics
of the total sample of respondents with the exception of
respondent gender where in the case of the total sample of
respondents the percentage of male and female respondents is
47.0% and 53.0% respectively.
5-U7
-------
-------
SPECIALIZED
ELECTRONIC
CLEANERS
(FOR TV, VCR, RAZOR,
ETC.)
5-149
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
K. Product 11: Specialized Electronic Cleaners
This product group consists of electronic cleaners for TV's
VCRs, cassette players, razors and other electronic equipment.
Ql: Have you ever used specialized electronic cleaners?
Table K-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Numbers Percent
Yes 645 13.1
No 4272 86.9
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table K-l shows that 13.1% of the total respondents have
"ever" used specialized electronic cleaners. This is a
relatively low incidence for a nonautomotive product.
Q2: When was the last time you used specialized electronic
products?
Table K-2: Last time Specialized Electronic Cleaners were
used in months (N=642 users)
Mean # of months 7.90
Median # of months 2.00
Standard deviation 18.26
As Table K-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of specialized electronic cleaners is 7.90 months. This is a
fairly short period of time suggesting a relatively frequently
used product. The median number of months is 2.0.
Preceding page blank
5-151
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table K-3: Percentile rankings for Specialized Electronic
Cleaners — months since last use (N=642 users)
Months
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.46
2.00
6.00
24.00
36.00
96.00
180.00
Table K-3 shows that 25th percentile users and below used
the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile through
the 100th percentile respondents report that they last used the
product 6 months ago through 180 months (15 years) ago. The data
appears to be subject to rounding which was discussed earlier
under aspects of the data (ie. 2, 3, 15 years rather than 2 years
3 months). The data are still usable for indicating the
approximate last use.
5-152
-------
Q3: How many times have you used specialized electronic
cleaners in the last 12 months?
Table K-4: Number of uses of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners within the last 12 months (N=550
recent users)
Mean # of uses 13.41
Median # of times 3.00
Standard deviation 38.16
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months, was
13.41 and the median 3.0. Fifty-four percent of these users used
the specialized electronic cleaners three times or less in the
last twelve months with 24.5% using it once; 20.4% using it
twice; and 9.3% using it three times.
Table K-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners within the last
12 months (N=550 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 3.00
75% 10.00
90% 24.00
95% 52.00
99% 224.50
Maximum 400.00
5-153
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using specialized
electronic cleaners the last time you used it?
Table K-6: Time spent using the Specialized Electronic
Cleaners last time used (N=543 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 9.47
Median # of minutes 2.00
Standard deviation 45.35
The mean and median number of minutes spent using
specialized electronic cleaners are relatively low as would be
expected for the time spent using this product.
Table K-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Specialized Electronic Cleaners last time used
(N=543 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.17
0.50
2.00
5.00
20.00
30.00
93.60
900.00
The range in values for the percentile rankings is
substantial with a minimum of .02 and a maximum of 900 minutes
(15 hours).
5-154
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used specialized electronic
cleaners?
Table K-8:
Time spent in the room after last use of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (N=533 recent
users)
Mean # minutes in room 117.24
Median # minutes in room 60.00
Standard deviation 154.38
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 117.24 minutes as opposed to the median of sixty minutes. The
minutes spent in the room after last use is one of the highest of
all the products.
Table K-9:
Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Specialized Electronic
Cleaners (N=533 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
300.00
480.00
720.00
1440.00
Respondents at the 5th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using Specialized Electronic Cleaners.
Respondents at the higher percentile rankings spent between two
to twenty-four hours.
5-155
-------
Table K-10: Percentile rankings for Specialized Electronic
Cleaners for time spent in the room after last
use including only those who spent time in the
room (N=484 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 2.00
10% 4.00
25% 20.00
Median 60.00
75% 180.00
90% 300.00
95% 480.00
99% 720.00
Maximum 1440.00
Table K-10 is similar to Table K-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have non-zero values.
5-156
-------
Q6A: Which brand of specialized electronic cleaners did you
use the last time you used it?
Table K-ll: Brand distribution for Specialized Electronic
Cleaners
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
67
22
13
251
200
553
12.1
4.0
2.4
45.4
36.1
100.0
About fifty-five percent (54.6%) of the users of the
product specified a brand. This is a relatively low percentage.
The top three brands of specialized electronic cleaners were used
by 12.1%, 4.0% and 2.4% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table K-12: Percent of respondents saying Specialized
Electronic Cleaners are aerosol (N=541 recent
users)
Yes, product is aerosol 34.0%
No, product is nonaerosol 66.0%
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in 34.0% of
the cases. Electronic cleaners come in many forms including
cassette tapes.
5-157
-------
Q7: What size of specialized electronic cleaners did you
use the last time you used it? How much of a can or
how many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table K-13: Amount of Specialized Electronic Cleaners used
per year in ounces (N=456 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 9.48
Median ounces per year 2.00
Standard deviation 55.26
As might be expected, the mean ounces used per year for
specialized electronic cleaners is one of lowest amounts compared
to the amount used of other products. Only the categories of
typewriter correction fluid, adhesives, and ignition and wire
cleaners are as low.
Table K-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Specialized
Electronic Cleaners used in ounces per year
(N=456 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.01
0.05
0.13
0.25
0.52
2.00
6.00
12.65
24.00
109.84
1024.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
K-14 is quite substantial with minimum ounces per year at .01 and
the maximum ounces per year at 1024.0. There is quite a
difference between percentile points with the 95th percentile at
24.0 ounces per year and the 99th percentile at 109.84.
5-158
-------
Q8: Where did you use specialized electronic cleaners the
last time you used them?
Table K-15: Location of last use of the product
(N=539 recent users)
Basement
Living room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
5.6%
47.5%
36.0%
2.0%
3.9%
3.3%
1.7%
Total 100.0%
Most people (47.5%) used specialized electronic cleaners in
the living room and 36.0% used it in an "other inside room". Of
the remainder, 5.6% used it in the basement, 3.9% used it in the
garage, 3.3% used it in the outside air, and 1.7% used it both in
the garage and outside.
5-159
-------
Table K-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the Outside 32.5% 67.5%
(N=511 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 6.4% 93.6%
(N=512 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 70.4% 29.6%
(N=510 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 73.8% 26.2%
(N=539 all recent users)
The majority of the specialized electronic cleaner users did
not have a door or window open to the outside (67.5%); did not
have an exhaust fan on during use (93.6%); had the inside door to
the room opened (70.4%); and had read the directions on the label
(73.8%).
Table K-17 covers derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table K-17: Ounces per use of Specialized Electronic
Cleaners (N=452 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 1.83
Median # of ounces per use .50
Standard deviation 5.31
The mean ounces per use is 1.83. The median ounces per use
is .50.
5-160
-------
Table K-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (N=452 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.13
0.50
1.50
3.49
7.50
24.70
80.00
The percentile rankings for ounces per use range from a
minimum of .01 to a maximum of 80 ounces.
Table K-19: Respondent characteristics of Specialized
Electronic Cleaners users
1. Respondent age Mean
(N=553 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=553 recent users) Female
3. Number of household
members Mean
(N=551 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=552 recent users)
= 37.70 years
68.9%
31.1%
= 3.00 members
= 2.90 bedrooms
Table K-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
specialized electronic cleaners users. The mean age of these
respondents is 37.70 years; 68.9% of the respondents are male;
the mean number of household members is 3.00; and the mean number
of bedrooms is 2.90. The statistics for the respondent
characteristics of specialized electronic cleaners users are
similar to the characteristics of the total sample of respondents
except they are a little younger and a higher percentage of males
used the product (68.9%) compared to the sample for males at
large (47.0%).
5-161
-------
-------
LATEX
PAINT
5-163
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
L. Product 1.2; Latex Paint
Latex paint is included as a paint product of interest;
however, it is not thought to contain methylene chloride or its
five substitute chemicals.
Ql: Have you ever used latex paint?
Table L-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Latex Paint
Numbers Percent
Yes 2717 55.2
No 2201 44.8
Total 4918* 100.0
*2 cases where information was not ascertained
Table L-l shows that 55.2% of the total respondents have
"ever" used latex paint. This incidence of use is second only to
contact cements and super glues.
Q2: When was the last time you used latex paint?
Table L-2: Last time Latex Paint was used in months
(N=2710 users)
Mean # of months 16.70
Median # of months 8.00
Standard deviation 28.20
As Table L-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of latex paint is 16.70 months. The median number of months is
8.0.
Preceding page blank
5-165
-------
The percentlie rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table L-3: Percentile rankings for Latex Paint—months
since last use (N=2710 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.13
0.46
2.00
8.00
24.00
36.00
60.00
144.00
300.00
Table L-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below used
the product last less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 24 months (2 years) ago through 300 months (25
years) ago.
5-166
-------
Q3: How many times have you used latex paint in the last 12
months?
Table L-4: Number of uses of Latex Paint within the last 12
months (N=1794 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.93
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 20.81
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months was
3.93 and the median 2.0. Almost seventy-five percent (74.7%) of
these users used latex paint three times or less in the last
twelve months with 44.6% using it once; 20.1% using it twice; and
10.0% using it three times.
Table L-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Latex
Paint within the last 12 months (N=1794 recent
users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00y
25% 1.00
Median 2.00/
75% 4.00
90% 6.00
95% 10.00 /
99% 30.00
Maximum 800.00
5-167
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using latex paint the last
time you used it?
Table L-6: Time spent using Latex Paint last time
used (N=1769 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 295.08
Median # of minutes 180.00
Standard deviation 476.11
The mean and median number of minutes for using latex paint
are the highest of all the products. This might be expected as
latex is usually used for large jobs such as painting a room.
Table L-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using Latex
Paint last time used (N=1769 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 1.00
5% 22.50
10% 30.00-
25% 90.00
Median 180.00 -
75% 360.00
90% 480.00~
95% 810.00
99% 2880.00
Maximum 5760.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 5760
minutes (96 hours).
5-168
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used latex paint?
Table L-8:
Time spent in the room after last use of Latex
Paint (N=1765 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
91.38
5.00
254.61
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 91.38 minutes as opposed to the median of five minutes.
Table L-9:
Percentile Rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Latex Paint (N=1765
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
60.00
240.00
480.00
1440.00
2880.00
Respondents at the 25th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using latex paint. Respondents at the
higher percentile rankings spent from 60 minutes (1 hour) to 2880
minutes (48 hours).
5-169
-------
Table L-10: Percentile rankings for Latex Paint for time
spent in the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=1005 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum l.oo
1% l.oo
5% l.oo
10% 2.60
25% 10.00
Median 30.00
75% 180.00
90% 480.00
95% 600.00
99% 1440.00
Maximum 2880.00
Table L-10 is similar to Table L-9 except it includes only
users who did, in fact, stay in the room. Therefore, all
percentiles have non-zero values.
5-170
-------
Q6A: Which brand of latex paint did you use the last time
you used it?
Table L-ll: Brand distribution for Latex Paint
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
369
168
124
385
755
1801
Percent
20.5
9.3
6.9
21.4
41.9
100.0
Seventy-eight percent (78.6%) of latex paint users specified
a brand. The top three brands were used by 20.5%, 9.3% and 6.9%
of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table L-12: Percent of respondents saying Latex Paint
is aerosol (N=1781 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 1.3%
No, product is nonaerosol 98.7%
Respondents said that the product was nonaerosol in 98.7% of
the cases.
5-171
-------
Q7: What size of latex paint did you use the last time you
used it? How much of a can or how many cans did you
use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table L-13: Amount of Latex Paint used per year in ounces
(N=1762 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 371.27
Median ounces per year 256.00
Standard deviation 543.86
As might be expected, the mean ounces per year for latex
paint is the highest amount compared to the amount used of other
products.
Table L-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Latex Paint
used in ounces per year (N=1762 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.03
1% 4.00
5% 12.92
10% 32.00
25% 64.00
Median 256.00
75% 384.00
90% 857.60
95% 1280.00
99% 2560.00
Maximum 6400.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
L-14 is substantial, with the minimum ounces per year at .03 and
the maximum at 6400.0.
5-172
-------
Q8: Where did you use latex paint the last time you used
it?
Table L-15: Location of last use of the product (N=1770
recent users)
Basement 2.8%
Living room 9.9%
Other inside room 47.6%
Several inside rooms 11.6%
Garage 2.0%
Outside 24.4%
Garage & outside 1.7%
Total 100.0%
Most people (47.6%) used latex paint in an "other inside
room" such as the bedroom or den. Of the remainder, 24.4% used
it outside; 11.6% used it in several inside rooms; 9.9% used it
in the living room; 2.8% used it in the basement; 2.0% used it in
the garage; and 1.7% used it both outside and in the garage.
5-173
-------
Table L-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Latex Paint
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 75.8% 24.2%
(N=1309 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 15.6% 84.4%
(N=1303 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 84.7% 15.3%
(N=1303 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 64.2% 35.8%
(N=1766 all recent users)
The majority of latex paint users did have a door or window
open to the outside (75.8%); did not have an exhaust fan on
during use (84.4%); had the inside door to the room opened
(84.7%); and had read the directions on the label (64.2%).
Table L-17 is a derived variable, ounces per use, and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table L-17: Ounces per use of Latex Paint (N=1759 recent
users)
Mean # of ounces per use 193.00
Median # of ounces per use 128.00
Standard deviation 310.40
Table L-17 indicates that the mean ounces per use is 193.0
and the median is 128.0.
5-174
-------
Table L-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Latex Paint (N=1795 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
1.49
5.12
10.67
32.00
128.00
240.00
448.00
704.00
1561.60
3840.00
The range of the percentile rankings goes from a minimum of
.02 ounces per use to a maximum of 3840.0.
Table L-19: Respondent characteristics of Latex Paint
users
1. Respondent age Mean
(N=1795 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=1796 recent users) Female
3. Number of household
members Mean
(N=1792 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=1796 recent users)
= 42.20 years
51.3%
48.7%
= 3.20 members
= 3.00 bedrooms
Table L-19 presents the respondent characteristics of latex
paint users. The mean age of these respondents is 42.20 years;
51.3% of the respondents are male; the mean number of household
members is 3.20; and the mean number of bedrooms is 3.00. The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of latex paint
users are almost identical to the characteristics of the total
sample of respondents.
5-175
-------
-------
OIL
PAINT
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
M. Product 13; Oil Paint
Ql: Have you ever used oil paint?
Table M-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Oil
Paint
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
1471
3447
4918*
Percent
29.9
70.1
100.0
*2 cases where information was not ascertained
Table M-l shows that 29.9% of the total respondents have
"ever" used oil paint.
Q2: When was the last time you used oil paint?
Table M-2: Last time Oil Paint was used in months (N=1465
users)
Mean # of months 30.40
Median # of months 12.00
Standard deviation 48.20
As Table M-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of oil paint is 30.40 months. This is the third longest period
of time since last use following only spray shoe polish and glass
frostings. The median number of months is 12.0.
S— 1 7 Q
Preceding page blank
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table M-3: Percentage rankings for Oil Paint—months since
last use (N=1465 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.23
10% 0.69
25% 3.00
Median 12.00
75% 36.00
90% 72.00
95% 120.00
99% 240.00
Maximum 480.00
Table M-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below used
the product last less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 36 months (3 years) ago through 480 months (40
years) ago. The data appear to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e., 5, 10, 15
years rather than 5 years 3 months). The data is still usable
for indicating the approximate last use.
5-180
-------
Q3: How many times have you used oil paint in the last 12
months?
Table M-4: Number of uses of Oil Paint within the last 12
months (N=735 recent users)
Mean # of uses 5.66
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 23.10
The mean number of times using the product in the last
twelve months among users of the product in the last twelve
months, was 5.7 and the median 1.0. Eighty and five-tenths of
these users used the oil paint three times or less in the last
twelve months with 50.9% using it once; 20.7% using it twice; and
9.0% using it three times.
Table M-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Oil
Paint within the last 12 months (N=735 recent
users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 3.00
90% 6.00
95% 12.00
99% 139.20
Maximum 300.00
5-181
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using oil paint the last
time you used it?
Table M-6: Time spent using Oil Paint last time used
(N=726 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 194.12
Median # of minutes 120.00
Standard deviation 345.68
The mean and median number of minutes for using oil paint
are the second highest only to latex paint.
Table M-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Oil Paint last time used (N=726 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.51
5% 15.00
10% 30.00
25% 60.00
Median 120.00--
75% 240.00
90% 480.00-
95% 579.00
99% 1702.80
Maximum 5760.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 5760
minutes (96 hours).
5-182
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used oil paint?
Table M-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Oil
Paint (N=724 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 44.56
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 155.19
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 44.56 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes.
Table M-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Oil Paint (N=724
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 30.00
90% 120.00
95% 240.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 2880.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using oil paint. Respondents at the
higher percentile rankings spent from thirty minutes to 2880
minutes (forty-eight hours).
5-183
-------
Table M-10: Percentage Rankings for Oil Paint for time
spent in the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=321 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 2.00
10% 3.00
25% 10.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 300.00
95% 480.00
99% 860.40
Maximum 2880.00
Table M-10 is similar to Table M-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have non-zero values.
5-184
-------
Q6A: Which brand of oil paint did you use the last time you
used it?
Table M-ll: Brand distribution for Oil Paint
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
69
39
37
228
371
744
Percent
9.3
5.2
5.0
30.6
49.9
100.0
Sixty-nine percent (69.4%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of oil paint were used
by 9.3%, 5.2% and 5.0% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table M-12: Percent of respondents saying Oil Paint is
aerosol (N=727 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 3.6%
No, product is nonaerosol 96.4%
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in only 3.6%
of the cases.
5-185
-------
Q7: What size of oil paint did you use the last time you
used it? How much of a can or how many cans did you
use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the
variable called ounces per year.
Table M-13: Amount of Oil Paint used in ounces (N=702
recent users)
Mean ounces per year 168.92
Median ounces per year 64.00
Standard deviation 367.82
As might be expected, the mean ounces used per year for oil
paint is one of highest amounts second only to latex paint.
Table M-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Oil paint
used in ounces per year (N=702 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.33
5% 4.00
10% 8.00
25% 25.20
Median 64.00
75% 148.48
90% 384.00
95% 640.00
99% 1532.16
Maximum 5120.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
M-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .02
and the maximum ounces per year at 5120.0.
5-186
-------
Q8: Where did you use oil paint the last time you used it?
Table M-15: Location of last use of the product (N=726
recent users
Basement 5.9%
Living Room 5.9%
Other inside room 35.4%
Several inside rooms 3.3%
Garage 6.15
Outside 41.35
Garage & outside 2.1%
Total 100.0%
Forty and three-tenths % used oil paint on the outside and
35.4% used it in an "other inside room". Six and one-tenth %
used it in the garage; 5.9% used it in the basement and another
5.9% used it in the living room; 3.3% used it in several inside
rooms; and 2.1% used it in both the garage and outside.
5-187
-------
Table M-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Oil Paint
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 69.5% 30.5%
(N=407 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan on
during use 16.4% 83.6%
(N=403 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 76.8% 23.2%
(N=40l recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 68.6% 31.4%
(N=716 all recent users)
The majority of the oil paint users did have a door or
window open to the outside (69.5%); did not have an exhaust fan
on during use (83.4%); had the inside door to the room opened
(76.8%); and had read the directions on the label (68.6%).
Table M-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table M-17: Ounces per use of Oil Paint (N=698 recent
users)
Mean # of ounces per use 107.69
Median # of ounces per use 32.00
Standard deviation 303.35
5-188
-------
Table M-18 indicates that the mean ounces per use is 107.69
and the median is 32.0.
Table M-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Oil
Paint (N=698 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.03
1.32
4.00
12.00
32.00
128.00
256.00
384.00
1281.28
5120.00
Table M-19: Respondent characteristics of Oil Paint users
1. Respondent age
(N=741 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=743 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=739 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=742 recent users)
Mean = 43.10 years
Male = 56.8%
Female = 43.2%
Mean = 3.20 members
Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
Table M-19 presents the respondent characteristics of oil
paint users. The mean age of these respondents is 43.10 years;
56.8% of the respondents are male; the mean number of household
members is 3.20; and the mean number of bedrooms is 3.00. The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of oil paint users
are almost identical to the characteristics of the total sample
of respondents except there are slightly more males as users of
oil paint (56.8%) compared to 47.0% of males in the sample.
5-189
-------
-------
WOOD STAINS,
VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
Preceding page blank
i-191
-------
-------
N. Product 14; Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
Ql: Have you ever used wood stains, varnishes or finishes?
Table N-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
Numbers Percent
Yes 2114 43
No 2803 57
Total 4917* 100
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table N-l shows that 43% of the total respondents have
"ever" used wood stains, varnishes and finishes. This is a
relatively high percentage when compared to this incidence for
other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used wood stains, varnishes
or finishes?
Table N-2: Last time Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
were used in months (N=2103 users)
Mean # of months 23.20
Median # of months 9.00
Standard deviation 38.91
As Table N-2 shows, the mean number of months wood stains,
varnishes and finishes were last used is 23.20 months. The
median number of months is 9.0 and this adjusts for any extreme
values given as answers to this questions.
Preceding page blank
5-193
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table N-3: Percentile rankings for Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes—months since last use (N=2103
users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.16
10% 0.46
25% 2.00
Median 9.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 108.00
99% 180.00
Maximum 360.00
The number of months since the product was last used ranges
from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 360 months (30
years). Ninety-five percent of the respondents last used the
product 108 months (9 years) ago or less. From the 75th
percentile through the 100th percentile respondents report that
they last used the product 24 months ago (2 years) through 360
months (30 years) ago. The data appear to be subject to rounding
which was discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e., 5, •
9, 30 years rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are usable
for indicating the approximate last use.
-------
Q3: How many times have you used wood stains, varnishes or
finishes in the last 12 months?
Table N-4: Number of uses of Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes within the last 12 months (N=1259
recent users)
Mean # of uses 4.21
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 12.19
The mean number of times the product was used in the last
twelve months is 4.21 uses and the median is 2.0 uses. Of the
1,259 respondents who used the product in the last year, 47.6%
used it once, 18.3% twice and 9% used it three times. Table N-5
which follows shows the percentile rankings for this variable
which range from a minimum of 1 time to a maximum of 250 times.
Ninety-five percent of the respondents used the product 12 times
or less in the last year.
Table N-5: Percentile rankings of times used the Wood
Stains, Varnishes and Finishes within the last
12 months (N=1259 recent users)
Uses
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
7.00
12.00
50.80
250.00
5-195
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using wood stains,
varnishes or finishes the last time you used it?
Table N-6: Time spent using the Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes last time used (N=1247 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 117.17
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 193.05
The mean and median number of minutes for using wood stains,
varnishes and finishes is 117.17 and 60 minutes respectively and
is relatively high when compared to the time spent using most of
the other 32 products surveyed.
Table N-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes last time
used (N=1247 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.74
5% 5.00
10% 10.00
25% 30.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 140.00
95% 360.00
99% 720.00
Maximum 280.00
Time spent using the product ranges from a minimum of 0.02
minutes to a maximum of 280 minutes (48 hours). Fifty percent of
the respondents used the product for one hour or less. Ninety-
nine percent of the respondents spent 720 minutes (12 hours) or
less using the product. Time spent increased sharply at the
100th percentile to 280 minutes (48 hours).
5-196
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used wood stains, varnishes
or finishes?
Table N-8: Time spent in the room after use of Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes (N=1241 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
48.33
1.00
156.44
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
48.33 minutes and the median is 1.0 minute.
Table N-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use of Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
including those who did not spend any time in
the room (N=1241 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 1.00
75% 30.00
90% 120.00
95% 240.00
99% 694.80
Maximum 2880.00
Respondents at the 25th percentile and below did not spend
any time in the room after using wood stains, varnishes or
finishes. The maximum time spent in the room after use of the
product is 2880 minutes (48 hours) which is the same as the
maximum time spent using the product as seen in Table N-7.
5-197
-------
Table N-10: Percentile rankings for Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes for time spent in the room after
use including only those who spent time in the
room (N=642 recent users staying in room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
30.00
60.00
240.00
480.00
1182.00
2880.00
Table N-10 is similar to Table N-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after use of the product.
A total of 51.7% of the users who used the product in the last
year did stay in the room after using the product. The mean time
spent in the room after use is 93.40 minutes. This differs from
the mean of 48.33 in Table N-8 as respondents who did not spend
any time in the room after using the product have been excluded.
Fifty percent of the respondents spent 30.0 minutes or less in
the room after using the product.
5-'9S
-------
Q6A: Which brand of wood stain, varnish or finish did you
use the last time you used it?
Table N-ll: Brand distribution for Wood Stains, Varnishes
and Finishes
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
179
115
29
465
480
1268
14.1
9.1
2.3
36.7
37.8
100.0
Sixty-three percent (63.3%) of the users who used the
product in the last year specified a brand. The top three brands
named were used by 14.1%, 9.1% and 2.3% of the respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table N-12: Percent of respondents saying the Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes are in aerosol or non-
aerosol form (N=1252 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 7.5%
No, product is nonaerosol 92.5%
The majority of the respondents (92.5%) used a wood stain,
varnish or finish which was in nonaerosol form.
5-199
-------
Q7: What size of wood stains, varnishes or finishes did you
use the last time you used it? How much of a can or
how many cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table N-13: Amount of Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
used in ounces (N=1221 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 65.06
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 174.01
The mean ounces of the product used is 65.06 ounces and the
median is 16.0. There is a big difference between the two
statistics. This is because of a few extreme responses. The
median adjusts for these extreme responses.
Table N-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes used in ounces (N=1221
recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.12
1% 1.09
5% 4.00
10% 4.00
25% 8.00
Median 16.00
75% 64.00
90% 128.00
95% 256.00
99% 768.00
Maximum 3840.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
N-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at
0.12 and the maximum ounces per year at 3,840.0. Ninety-five
percent of the respondents used 256.0 ounces or less of the
product during the year. This amount tripled at the 99th
percentile. The ounces used at the 100th percentile is five
times that at the 99th percentile and shows that a few of the
respondents used a very large amount of the product.
5-200
-------
Q8: Where did you use wood stains, varnishes and finishes
the last time you used it?
Table N-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=1247 recent users)
Basement 12.1%
Living room 7.8%
Other inside room 29.1%
Several inside rooms 3.2%
Garage 13.9%
Outside 31.8%
Garage & outside 2.1%
Total 100.0%
The majority of the respondents, approximately 31.8%, used
the product outside. A total of 29.1% used the product in an
"other inside room", 13.9% used it in the garage, and 12.1% used
it in the basement.
5-201
-------
Table N-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 64.2% 35.8%
(N=822 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 14.8% 85.2%
(N=819 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 74.3% 25.7%
(N=810 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 76.7% 23.3%
(N=1238 all recent users)
The majority of the users of wood stains, varnishes or
finishes did read the directions on the label (76.7%). A total
of 64.2% did have a door or window open to the outside, 14.8% did
have an exhaust fan on during use and 74.3% had the inside door
to the room open.
Table N-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table N-17: Ounces per use of Wood Stains, Varnishes and
Finishes (N=1217 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 33.72
Median # of ounces per use 12.00
Standard deviation 78.51
The mean ounces used per use of the product is 33.72 and the
median is 12.0. Table N-18 which follows shows the percentile
rankings for this variable and shows the ounces used per use
ranges from a minimum of 0.02 ounces to a maximum of 960.0
ounces. Ninety-five percent of the users used 128.0 ounces or
less of the product per use.
5-202
-------
Table N-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Wood
Stains, Varnishes and Finishes (N=1217 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
0.16
1.00
2.00
4.00
12.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
384.00
960.00
Table N-19:
Respondent characteristics of Wood Stains,
Varnishes and Finishes users
1. Respondent age
(N=1267 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=1268 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=1265 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=1267 recent users)
Mean = 41.14 years
Male = 51.1%
Female = 48.9%
Mean = 3.20 members
Mean = 3.04 bedrooms
Table N-19 presents the respondent characteristics of wood
stains, varnishes and finishes users. The mean age of these
respondents is 41.14 years. The number of male respondents
(51.1%) is approximately equal to the number of female
respondents (48.9%). The statistics for the respondent
characteristics of wood stains, varnishes and finishes users is
approximately the same as the characteristics of the total sample
of respondents.
5-203
-------
-------
PAINT REMOVERS/
STRIPPERS
Preceding page blank
5-205
-------
-------
O. Product 15: Paint Removers/Strippers
Ql: Have you ever used paint removers/strippers?
Table O-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Paint Removers/Strippers
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
1498
3418
4916*
30.5
69.5
100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table O-l shows that 30.5% of the total respondents have
"ever" used paint removers/strippers. This is a slightly higher
incidence than the average incidence for all products.
Q2: When was the last time you used paint removers/
strippers?
Table O-2: Last time Paint Removers/Strippers was used
in months (N=1493 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
29.00
12.00
43.69
As Table 0-2 shows, the mean number of months paint
removers/strippers were last used is 29.0 months. This is the
fourth longest period of time since last use for any of the
thirty-two products. This may reflect that the activity of
removing paint is not engaged in frequently. The median number
of months is 12.0.
n ,. 5-207
Preceding page blank
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table O-3: Percentile rankings for Paint
Removers/Strippers—months since last use
(N=1493 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.23
0.69
4.00
12.00
36.00
72.00
120.00
240.00
420.00
Table 0-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 36 months (3 years) ago through 420 months (35
years) ago and appears to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 5, 10, 15 years
rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-208
-------
Q3: How many times have you used paint removers/strippers
in the last 12 months?
Table 0-4: Number of uses of Paint Removers/Strippers
within the last 12 months (N=761 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
3.68
2.00
9.10
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months, was 3.68 and the median is 2.0 uses. Almost 77% of these
users used the paint removers/strippers three times or less in
the last twelve months with 49.3% using it once; 18.4% using it
twice; and 9.5% using it three times.
Table 0-5: Percentile rankings of times used Paint
Removers/Strippers within the last 12 months
(N=761 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 4.00
Median 2.00
75% 3.00
90% 6.00
95% 11.80
99% 44.56
Maximum 100.00
5-209
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using paint
removers/strippers the last time you used it?
Table 0-6: Time spent using Paint Removers/Strippers
last time used (N=752 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 125.57
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 286.59
The mean and median number of minutes using for using paint
removers/strippers are relatively high as would be expected for
the time spent using a paint remover usually involves large jobs.
Table 0-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Paint Removers/Strippers last time used (N=752
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.38
5% 5.00
10% 5.00
25% 20.00
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 240.00
95% 420.00
99% 1200.00
Maximum 4320.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 4320.0
minutes (72 hours).
5-210
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used removers/strippers?
Table 0-8:
Time spent in the room after use of Paint
Removers/Strippers (N=748 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
31.38
0.00
103.07
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
31.38 minutes as opposed to the median of zero indicating that no
time was spent in the room after use.
Table O-9:
Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use including those who did not spend any
time in room but used Paint Removers/Strippers
(N=748 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
60.00
180.00
541.20
1440.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using paint removers/strippers.
Respondents at the higher percentile rankings spent between 20
minutes to 1440 minutes (24 hours).
-------
Table O-10:
Percentile rankings for Paint
Removers/Strippers for time spent in the room
after use including only those who spent time
in the room (N=340 recent users staying in the
room)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
1.00
l.oo
3.10
10.00
30.00
60.00
180.00
240.00
826.20
1440.00
Table O-10 is similar to Table O-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-212
-------
Q6A: Which brand of paint removers/strippers did you use the
last time you used it?
Table O-ll: Brand distribution for Paint Removers/Strippers
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
98
46
44
321
260
769
Percent
12.7
6.0
5.7
41.7
33.9
100.0
Fifty-eight percent (58.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of paint removers/
strippers were used by 12.7%, 6.0%, and 5.7% of the users,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table O-12: Percent of respondents saying Paint Removers/
Strippers are aerosol (N=752 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 6.8%
No, product is nonaerosol 93.2%
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in only 6.8%
of the cases.
5-213
-------
Q7: What size of paint removers/strippers did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table 0-13: Amount of Paint Removers/Strippers used per
year in ounces (N=737 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 63.73
Median ounces per year 32.00
Standard deviation 144.33
As might be expected, the mean ounces used per year for
paint removers/strippers is one of the highest amounts similar to
the other products.
Table O-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Paint
Removers/Strippers used in ounces (N=737 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.64
1.50
4.00
8.00
16.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
256.00
512.00
2560.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
O-14 is substantial with a minimum ounces per year at .64 and the
maximum ounces per year at 2560.0
5-214
-------
Q8: Where did you use paint removers/strippers the last
time you used them?
Table O-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=754 recent users)
Basement 11.0%
Living room 3.2%
Other inside room 23.6%
Several inside rooms 1.6%
Garage 18.7%
Outside 38.5%
Garage & outside 3.4%
Total 100.0%
Most people (38.5%) used paint removers/strippers on the
outside and 23.6% used it in an "other inside room" such as the
bedroom or den. The remainder used it in the garage (18.7%); in
the basement (11.0%); in both the garage and outside (3.4%); in
the living room (3.2%); and in several inside rooms (1.6%).
5-215
-------
Table O-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Paint Removers/Strippers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 70.7% 29.3%
(N=433 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 15.6% 84.4%
(N=429 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 68.6% 31.4%
(N=424 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 79.5% 20.5%
(N=748 all recent users)
The majority of the users did have a door or window open to
the outside (70.7%); did not have an exhaust fan on during use
(84.4%); had the inside door to the room opened (68.6%); and had
read the directions on the label (79.5%). Paint remover/strippers
users have one of the highest percentages of respondents who kept
a door or window opened to the outside.
Table O-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table O-17: Ounces per use of Paint Removers/Strippers
(N=735 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 29.84
Median # of ounces per use 16.00
Standard deviation 50.28
The mean nun^er of ounces used per use is 29.8 and the
median is 16.0.
5-216
-------
Table O-18 indicates that there is a substantial range from
a minimum of .23 to a maximum of 512.0 ounces per use.
Table O-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Paint Removers/Strippers (N=735 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.23
0.65
1.60
2.67
7.15
16.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
256.00
512.00
Table 0-19:
Respondent characteristics of Paint
Removers/Strippers
1. Respondent age Mean
(N=768 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=767 recent users) Female
3. Number of household
members Mean
(N=766 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=768 recent users)
= 40.20 years
51.9%
48.1%
=3.10 members
= 3.00 bedrooms
Table 0-19 presents the respondent characteristics of paint
removers/strippers users. The mean age of these respondents is
40.20 years; 51.9% of the respondents are male; the mean number
of household members is 3.10; and the mean number of bedrooms is
3.00. The statistics for the respondent characteristics of paint
remover/strippers users is almost identical to the
characteristics of the total sample of respondents except the
population is slightly younger and slightly more users are male.
5-217
-------
-------
PAINT
THINNERS
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
P. Product 16; Paint Thinners
Ql: Have you ever used paint thinners?
Table P-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Paint Thinners
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
1755
3162
4917*
Percent
35.7
64.3
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table P-l shows that 35.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used paint thinners. This is a relatively high percentage
when compared to this incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used paint thinners?
Table P-2: Last time Paint Thinners were used in months
(N=1747 users)
Mean # of months 21.50
Median # of months 7.00
Standard deviation 38.89
As Table P-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of paint thinners is 21.50 months. The median number of months is
7.0.
Preceding page blank
5-221
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table P-3: Percentile rankings for Paint Thinners—months
since last use (N=1747 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.23
1.00
7.00
24.00
60.00
96.00
240.00
360.00
Table P-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 24 months (2 years) ago through 360 months (30
years) ago. The data appear to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 5, 10, 15 years
rather than 5 years 3 months). The data is still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
D-ZZJ
-------
Q3: How many times have you used paint thinners in the last
12 months?
Table P-4: Number of uses of Paint Thinners within the last
12 months (N=1104 recent users)
Mean # of times
Median # of times
Standard deviation
6.78
2.00
22.10
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months was
6.8 and the median 2.0. Almost 68% of these users used the paint
thinners three times or less in the last twelve months with 37.4%
using it once; 19.7% using it twice; and 10.7% using it three
times.
Table P-5:
Percentile rankings of number of uses of Paint
Thinners within the last 12 months (N=1104
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Uses
.03
.03
.10
.23
1.00
2.00
4.00
12.00
23.00
100.00
352.00
5-223
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using paint thinners the
last time you used it?
Table P-6: Time spent using the Paint Thinners last time
used (N=1087 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
39.43
10.00
114.85
The mean number of minutes is 39.43 and median number of
minutes for using paint thinners is 10.0.
Table P-7:
Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Paint Thinners last time used (N=1087 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.08
1.00
2.00
5.00
10.00
30.00
60.00
180.00
480.00
2400.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 2400
minutes (40 hours).
5-224
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used paint thinners?
Table P-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Paint
Thinners (N=1079 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
32.86
0.00
105.62
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 32.86 minutes as opposed to the median of zero where no time
was spent in the room after use.
Table P-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Paint Thinners (N=1079
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 15.00
90% 60.00
95% 180.00
99% 480.00
Maximum 1440.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using paint thinners. Respondents at the
higher percentile rankings spent from 15 minutes to 1440 minutes
(24 hours).
-------
Table P-10: Percentile rankings for Paint Thinners for time
spent in the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=486 recent
users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
20.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
720.00
1440.00
Table P-10 is similar to Table P-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-226
-------
Q6A: Which brand of paint thinners did you use the last time
you used it?
Table P-ll: Brand distribution for Paint Thinners
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
70
36
22
646
339
1113
Percent
6.3
3.2
2.0
58.0
30.5
100.0
Forty-two percent (42.0%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of paint thinners were
used by 6.3%, 3.2% and 2.0% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table P-12: Percent of respondents saying Paint Thinners
are aerosol (N=1090 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 2.5%
No, product is nonaerosol 97.5%
Essentially most paint thinners come in nonaerosol form.
97.5% were nonaerosol.
5-227
-------
Q7: What size of paint thinner did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table P-13. Amount of Paint Thinner used per year in ounces
(N=1053 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 69.45
Median ounces per year 20.50
Standard deviation 190.55
Paint thinners are one of the highest ounces per year used
at 69.45. Only the categories of latex paint, oil paint, outdoor
water repellent, and auto primers are higher.
Table P-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Paint
Thinners used in ounces (N=1053 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.03
0.45
3.10
4.00
8.00
20.48
64.00
128.00
256.00
640.00
3200.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
P-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .03
and the maximum ounces per year at 3200.0.
5-228
-------
Q8: Where did you use paint thinners the last time you used
them?
Table P-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=1087 recent users)
Basement 13.4%
Living room 2.8%
Other inside room 19.6%
Several inside rooms 1.7%
Garage 19.4%
Outside 39.9%
Garage & outside 3.1%
Total 100.0%
Most people (39.9%) used paint thinners outside; 19.6% used
it in another inside room; 19.4% used it in the garage; 13.4%
used it in the basement; 3.1% used it in the garage and outside;
2.8% used it in the living room; and 1.7% used it in several
inside rooms.
5-229
-------
Table P-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Paint Thinners
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 67.3% 32.7%
(N=614 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 10.5% 89.5%
(N=612 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 67.8% 32.2%
(N=599 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 59.4% 40.6%
(N=1071 all recent users)
The majority of users of paint thinners did have a door or
window open to the outside (67.3%); did not have an exhaust fan
on during use (89.5%); had the inside door to the room opened
(67.8%); and had read the directions on the label (59.4%).
Table P-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table P-17: Ounces per use of Paint Thinners
(N=1050 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 23.67
Median # of ounces per use 9.40
Standard deviation 52.35
Table P-17 indicates that the mean ounces per use is 23.67
and the median is 9.40.
5-230
-------
Table P-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Paint Thinners (N=1050 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.03
0.10
0.66
1.33
4.00
9.37
21.33
64.00
96.00
223.36
1024.00
The percentiles range from a minimum of .03 ounces per use
to a maximum of 1024.0 ounces per use.
Table P-19: Respondent characteristics of Paint Thinner
users
1. Respondent age Mean
(N=1108 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=1110 recent users) Female
Number of household
members
(N=1106 recent users)
Mean
Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=1109 recent users)
= 42.50 years
61.3%
38.7%
= 3.10 members
= 3.00 bedrooms
Table P-19 presents the respondent characteristics of paint
thinner users. The mean age of these respondents is 42.50 years;
61.3% of the respondents are male; the mean number of household
members is 3.10; and the mean number of bedrooms is 3.00. The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of paint thinner
users are almost identical to the characteristics of the total
sample of respondents except the respondents are slightly younger
and there are more male users 61.3% compared to 47.0% for the
sample as a whole.
5-231
-------
-------
AEROSOL
SPRAY
PAINT
5-933
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
VHAT WE KNOW ABOUT AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT USAGE
FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF USE -
1ONTHS SINCE LAST USE
iSE WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
IME SPENT DURING LAST USE (minutes)
IME SPENT IN ROOM AFTER LAST USE (minutes)
AMOUNT OF SPRAY PAINT USED PER YEAR (ozs)
MOUNT OF PAINT USED PER APPLICATION (ozs)
LOCATION OF USE (N = 1160) -
ASEMENT
IVING ROOM
iTHER INSIDE ROOM
EVERAL INSIDE ROOMS
,ARAGE
lUTSIDE
.ARAGE & OUTSIDE
PROTECTIVE MEASURES -
OOR OR WINDOW OPEN TO THE OUTSIDE
XHAUST FAN ON DURING USE
JSIDE DOOR TO ROOM WAS OPEN
HRECTIONS ON LABEL WAS READ
USER CHARACTERISTICS -
GE (mean years)
1ENDER (%) MALE
FEMALE
IUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (mean)
IUMBER OF BEDROOMS (mean)
Minimum
0.03
1.00
0.02
0.00
1.00
0.02
0.01
1%
0.03
1.00
0.17
0.00
1.00
0.75
0.19
5% 10% 25% Median 75%
O.tO 023 1.00 6.00 18.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00
200 5.00 10.00 20.00 45.00
0.00 000 0.00 0.00 1.00
100 2.00 5.00 15.00 60.00
2.01 3.25 7.00 13.00 32.00
0.80 1.50 3.50 8.00 16.00
90%
48.00
6.10
60.00
30.00
120.00
65.00
26.00
95% 99%
72.00 180.00
12.00 31.05
120.00 300.00
60.00 260.50
222.00 480.00
104.00 240.00
39.00 96.00
Maximun
240.00
365.00
1800.00
1440.00
1440.00
1053.00
526.50
Mean s.d.
17.20 31.10
4.22 15.59
39.54 87.79
12.70 62.80
30.75 52.84
13.80 24.40
% SU MMARY DATA FOR SPRAY PAINT COMPONENTS -
7.3
08
92
0.5
15.8
64.1
2.3
%
629
9.9
61.1
73.2
41.8
54.2
45.8
3.1
3
CONCENTRATION RANGE
N =
385
382
375
1138
N =
iTsg
1169
1189
1178
1188
CHEMICAL NAME
ACETONE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
CYCLOHEXANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXANE
METHYL CYCLOHEXANE
METHYL CYCLOPENTANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
METHYLISOBUTYL KETONE
OCTANE
alpha-PINENE
PROPYLENE OXIDE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TETRAHYDROFURAN
TOLUENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
m-XYLENE
o.p-XYLENE
(%by
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
weight)
100
54
1.2
22.6
30
10
2.9
100
31
3.2
-
0.6
0.2
-
100
1
-
-
45
28
NO.
PRODUCTS
91
78
13
85
14
38
14
134
24
32
1
15
Z
1
163
6
1
1
54
48
-------
-------
Q- Product 17; Aerosol Spray Paint (nonautomotive^
Ql: Have you ever used aerosol spray paint?
Table Q-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Aerosol
Spray Paint
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
1743
3174
4917*
35.4
64.6
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table Q-l shows that 35.4% of the total respondents have
"ever" used aerosol spray paint. This is a relatively high
percentage with only six products having a higher incidence.
Q2: When was the last time you used aerosol spray paint?
Table Q-2: Last time Aerosol Spray Paint was used in
months (N=1737 users)
Mean # of months 17.20
Median # of months 6.00
Standard deviation 31.10
As Table Q-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of aerosol spray paint is 17.20 months. This is about an average
period of time since last use for any of the thirty-two products.
The median number of months is 6.0.
5-235
;eding page blank
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table Q-3: Percentile rankings for Aerosol Spray Paint—
months since last use (N=1737 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
.10
.23
1.00
6.00
18.00
48.00
72.00
180.00
240.00
Table Q-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 18 months ago through 240 months (20 years) ago.
This appears to be subject to rounding which was discussed
earlier under aspects of the data (i.e., 5, 10, 15 years rather
than 5 years 3 months). The data are still usable for indicating
the approximate last use.
Q3: How many times have you used aerosol spray paint in
the last 12 months?
Table Q-4: Number of uses of Aerosol Spray Paint within the
last 12 months (N=1178 recent users)
Mean # of times 4.22
Median # of times 2.00
Standard deviation 15.59
The mean number of times using the product in the last
twelve months among users of the product in the last twelve
months, was 4.22 and the median 2.0. A total of 74.6% of these
users used aerosol spray paint three times or less in the last
twelve months with 43.8% using it once; 20.5% using it twice; and
10.4% using it three times.
5-236
-------
Table Q-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Aerosol
Spray Paint within the last 12 months (N=1178
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 4.00
90% 6.10
95% 12.00
99% 31.05
Maximum 365.00
5-237
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using aerosol spray paint
the last time you used it?
Table Q-6: Time spent using Aerosol Spray Paint last time
used
Mean # of minutes
Mean # of minutes
Standard deviation
39.54
20.00
87.79
The mean number of minutes for using aerosol spray paint is
39.54 minutes and the median is 20.0.
Table Q-7:
Percentile rankings for time spent using the
aerosol spray paint last time used
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
.02
0.17
2.00
5.00
10.00
20.00
45.00
60.00
120.00
300.00
1800.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum percentile is
1800.0 minutes (30 hours). Respondents appear to be giving the
total time the job took rather than the amount for the last
occasion.
5-238
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used aerosol spray paint?
Table Q-8:
Time spent in the room after last use of Aerosol
Spray Paint (N=1158 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Mean # minutes in room
Standard deviation
12.70
0.00
62.80
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 12.70 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes.
Table Q-9:
Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Aerosol Spray Paint
(N=1158 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
30.00
60.00
260.50
1440.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using aerosol spray paint. Respondents at
the higher percentile rankings spent from 1 minute to 1440.0
minutes (24 hours).
5-239
-------
Table Q-10: Percentile rankings for aerosol spray paint for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=305
recent users who stayed in room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
15.00
60.00
120.00
222.00
480.00
1440.00
Table Q-10 is similar to. Table Q-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-240
-------
Q6A: Which brand of aerosol spray paint did you use the last
time you used it?
Table Q-ll: Brand distribution for Aerosol Spray Paint
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
269
152
37
439
293
1190
22.6
12.8
.1
36.9
27.6
100.0
Sixty-three percent (63.1%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of aerosol spray paint
were used by 22.6%, 12.8% and 3.1% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table Q-12: Percent of respondents saying Aerosol Spray
Paint is aerosol (N=1164 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 99.2%
No, product is nonaerosol 0.8%
The product was aerosol spray paint so all items should be
aerosol. Respondents said that the product was aerosol in 99.2%
of the cases. The 0.8% saying it was nonaerosol either forgot to
check the box indicating it was aerosol or perhaps used a spray
pump and thought this was to be included.
5-241
-------
Q7: What size of aerosol spray paint did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table Q-13: Amount of Aerosol Spray Paint used in ounces
(N=1121 recent users)
Mean ounces per year
Median ounces per year
Standard deviation
30.75
13.00
52.84
The mean number of ounces user per year is 30.75 and the
median is 13.0.
Table Q-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Aerosol Spray
Paint used in ounces (N=1121 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.75
5% 2.01
10% 3.25
25% 7.00
Median 13.00
75% 32.00
90% 65.00
95% 104.00
99% 240.00
Maximum 1053.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
Q-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .02
and the maximum ounces per year at 1053.0.
5-242
-------
Q8: Where did you use Aerosol Spray Paint the last time you
used it?
Table Q-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=1160 recent users)
Basement 7.3%
Living room 0.8%
Other inside room 9.2%
Several inside rooms 0.5%
Garage 15.8%
Outside 64.1%
Garage & Outside 2.3%
Total 100.0%
Most people (64.1%) used aerosol spray paint in the outside
air. Of the remainder, 15.8% used it in the garage; 9.2% used it
in another inside room; 7.3% used it in the basement; 2.3% used
it both in the garage and in the outside; .8% used it in the
living room; and 5% used it in several inside rooms.
5-243
-------
Table Q-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Aerosol Spray Paint
Yes No
Door or window
open to the outside 62.9% 37.1%
(N=385 recent inside users)
Exhaust fan
on during use C.9% 90.1%
(N=382 recent inside users)
Whether inside door
to room was open 61.1% 38.9%
(N=375 recent inside users)
Whether directions
on label were read 73.2% 26.8%
(N=1138 all recent users)
The majority of the aerosol spray paint users did have a
door or window open to the outside (62.9%); did not have an
exhaust fan on during use (90.1%); had the inside door to the
room opened (61.1%); and had read the directions on the label
(73.2%).
Table Q-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table Q-17: Ounces per use of aerosol spray paint
(N=1118 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 13.80
Median # of ounces per use 8.00
Standard deviation 24.40
Table Q-17 indicates a mean minutes per use of 13.80 and a
median of 8.0.
5-244
-------
Table Q-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Aerosol Spray Paint (N=1118 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.19
0.80
1.50
3.50
8.00
16.00
26.00
39.00
96.00
526.50
Table Q-19:
Respondent characteristics of Aerosol Spray
Paint users
1. Respondent age Mean
(N=1189 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=1189 recent users) Female
3. Number of household
members Mean
(N=1178 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=1188 recent users)
= 41.80 years
54.2%
45.8%
= 3.10 members
= 3.00 bedrooms
Table Q-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
Aerosol Spray Paint users. The mean age of these respondents is
41.80 years; 54.2% of the respondents are male; the mean number
of household members is 3.10; and the mean number of bedrooms is
3.00. The statistics for the respondent characteristics of
aerosol spray paint users is almost identical to the
characteristics of the total sample of respondents. Slightly
more males use this product than are in the sample as a whole.
5-245
-------
-------
PRIMERS
AND
SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
Preceding page blank
5-247
-------
-------
R. Product 18; Primers and Special Primers
f nonautomot ive)
Ql: Have you ever used primers?
Table R-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Primers
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
684
4232
4916*
13.9
86.1
100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table R-l shows that 13.9% of the total respondents have
"ever" used primers. This is an average incidence when compared
to this incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used primers?
Table R-2: Last time Primers were used in months
(N=682 users)
Mean # of months 22.00
Median # of months 10.00
Standard deviation 36.42
As Table R-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of primers is 22.0 months. The median number of months is 10.0.
Preceding page blank
5-249
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table R-3: Percentile rankings for Primers—months since
last use (N=682 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.20
0.46
2.00
10.00
24.00
60.00
84.00
206.04
360.00
Table R-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below since
last used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 24 months (2 years) ago through 360 months (30
years) ago. This appears to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 5, 10, 15 years
rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-250
-------
Q3: How many times have you used primers in the last 12
months?
Table R-4: Number of uses of Primers within the last 12
months (N=396 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.43
Median # of times 1.00
Standard deviation 8.76
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product in the last twelve months, is
3.43 and the median 1.0. A total of 80.3% of these users used
primers three times or less in the last twelve months with 53.3%
using it once; 18.9% using it twice; and 8.1% using it three
times.
Table R-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Primers
within the last 12 months (N=396 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 3.00
90% 6.00
95% 10.00
99% 50.06
Maximum 104.00
5-251
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using primers the last time
you used it?
Table R-6: Time spent using Primers the last time used
(N=381 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
91.29
30.00
175. 05
The mean and median number of minutes for using primers is
relatively high; only six products are higher.
Table R-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Primers last time used (N=381 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.05
1% 0.24
5% 3.00
10% 5.00
25% 15.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 240.00
95% 360.00
99% 981.60
Maximum 1920.00
The minimum percentile is .05 and the maximum is 1920.0
minutes (32 hours).
5-252
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used primers?
Table R-8:
Time spent in the room after last use of Primers
(N=383 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
22.28
0.00
65.57
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 22.28 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes.
Table R-9:
Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Primers (N=383 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
60.00
120.00
319.20
720.00
Respondents at the 50th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using primers. Respondents at the higher
percentile rankings spent from ten to twelve hours.
5-253
-------
Table R-10: Percentile rankings for Primers for time
spent in the room after last use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=129 recent
users who stayed in the room)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
1.00
1.50
5.00
10.00
30.00
60.00
180.00
240.00
648.00
720.00
Table R-10 is similar to Table R-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-254
-------
Q6A: Which brand of primers did you use the last time you
used it?
Table R-ll: Brand distribution for Primers
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
64
28
19
156
139
406
Percent
15.8
6.9
4.7
38.4
34.2
100.0
Sixty-two percent (61.6%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of primers were used by
15.8%, 6.9% and 4.7% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table R-12: Percent of respondents saying Primers are
aerosol (N=383 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 42.0%
No, product is nonaerosol 51.2%
The product was aerosol in 42.0% of the cases.
5-255
-------
Q7: What size of primers did you use the last time you used
it? How much of a can or how many cans did you use
during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table R-13: Amount of Primers used per year in ounces
(N=364 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 68.39
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 171.21
As might be expected, the mean ounces per year for primers
is one of the highest amounts compared to the amount used of
other products. Only five products have higher amounts.
Table R-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Primers used
in ounces (N=364 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.01
1% 0.09
5% 1.30
10% 3.23
25% 8.00
Median 16.00
75% 60.00
90% 128.00
95% 256.00
99% 867.75
Maximum 1920.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
R-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .01
and the maximum ounces per year at 1920.0. There is quite a
difference between percentile points with the 75th percentile at
60.0 ounces per year and the 100th percentile at 1920.0.
5-256
-------
Q8: Where did you use primers the last time you used them?
Table R-15: Location of last use of the product (N=383
recent users)
Basement 4.2%
Living room 1.8%
Other inside room 19.6%
Several inside rooms 2.9%
Garage 15.7%
Outside 52.5%
Garage & outside 3.4%
Total 100.0%
Most people (52.5%) used primers outside; 19.6% used it in
an other inside room; 15.7% used it in the garage; 4.2% used it
in the basement; 3.4% used it in both the garage and outside;
2.9% used it in several inside rooms; and 1.8% used it in the
living room.
5-257
-------
Table R-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Primers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 77.7% 22.3%
(N=166 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 16.4% 83.6%
(N=165 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 67.7% 32.3%
(N=164 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 73.5% 26.5%
(N=377 all recent users)
The majority of users of primers did have a door or window
open to the outside (77.7%); did not have an exhaust fan on
during use (83.6%); had the inside door to the room opened
(67.7%); and had read the directions on the label (73.5%).
Table R-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table R-17: Ounces per use of Primers (N=363 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 42.14
Median # of ounces per use 11.00
Standard deviation 110.47
5-258
-------
Table R-18 indicates that the minimum percentile is 0.1 and
the maximum is 1053.0.
Table R-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Primers (N=363 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.02
0.65
1.29
4.33
11.00
32.00
94.00
230.80
604.16
1053.00
Table R-19: Respondent characteristics of users of Primers
1. Respondent age Mean
(N=405 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=406 recent users) Female
3. Number of household
members Mean
(N=405 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=406 recent users)
= 43.60 years
65.8%
34.2%
= 3.00 members
= 3.00 bedrooms
Table R-19 presents the respondent characteristics of users
of primers. The mean age of these respondents is 43.60 years;
65.8% of the respondents are male; the mean number of household
members is 3.00; and the mean number of bedrooms is 3.00. The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of users of primers
are almost identical to the characteristics of the total sample
of respondents except more males use the product than are in the
sample at large.
5-259
-------
-------
AEROSOL RUST
REMOVERS
Preceding page blank
5-261
-------
-------
S. Product 19; Aerosol Rust Removers
Ql: Have you ever used an aerosol rust remover?
Table S-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Aerosol
Rust Removers
Numbers Percent
Yes 403 8.2
No 4514 91.8
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table S-l shows that only 8.2% of the total respondents have
"ever" used aerosol rust removers. This is a relatively low
percentage when compared to this incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used aerosol rust removers?
Table S-2: Last time Aerosol Rust Remover was used in
months (N=400 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
15.10
5.00
30.79
As Table S-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of aerosol rust remover is 15.10 months and the median is 5.0
months. The mean is approximately three times the size of the
median. This difference is on account of a few extreme responses
to this question.
Preceding page blank 5-2*3
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table S-3: Percentile rankings for Aerosol Rust Removers-
months since last use (N=400 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.16
1.00
5.00
12.00
36.00
60.00
180.00
240.00
Table S-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 240.0
months (20 years). Twenty-five percent of the respondents used
the product one month or less ago and 95% of the users used the
product last 60.0 months (4 years) or less ago. The number of
months reported may be subject to rounding discussed earlier
under aspects of the data (i.e. 3, 5, 15 years rather than 5
years 3 months). The data are usable for indicating the
approximate last use.
5-264
-------
Q3: How many times have you used aerosol rust removers in
the last 12 months?
Table S-4: Number of uses of Aerosol Rust Remover within
the last 12 months (N=290 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of times
Standard deviation
6.17
2.00
9.82
The mean number of uses aerosol rust removers were used in
the last 12 months is 6.17 times and the median is 2.0 times. Of
the 290 respondents to this question, 33.8% used it once, 17.6%
used it twice and 11% used it three times in the last year. As
shown in Table S-5 which follows, 99% of the respondents used the
product 50.90 times or less in the last year. The maximum number
of times the product is used is 80.0.
Table S-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Aerosol
Rust Removers within the last 12 months (N=290
recent users
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 6.00
90% 15.00
95% 24.45
99% 50.90
Maximum 80.00
5-265
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using aerosol rust remover
the last time you used it?
Table S-6: Time spent using the Aerosol Rust Remover last
time used (N=282 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 18.57
Median # of minutes 5.00
Standard deviation 48.54
The mean and median number of minutes for using aerosol rust
removers are 18.57 and 5.0 minutes respectively.
Table S-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Aerosol Rust Remover last time used (N=282
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.05
5% 0.17
10% 0.25
25% 2.00
Median 5.00
75% 20.00
90% 60.00
95% 60.00
99% 130.20
Maximum 720.00
The time spent using the aerosol rust remover ranges from a
minimum of 0.02 minutes to 720 minutes (12 hours) at the 100th
percentile. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent one
hour or less using the product.
5-266
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used aerosol rust removers?
Table S-8: Time spent in the room after use of Aerosol Rust
Removers (N=282 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 15.06
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 47.58
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
15.06 minutes and the median is 0.0 minutes. The median is zero
as 50% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after using the product.
Table S-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use of Aerosol Rust Removers including
those who did not spend any time in the room
(N=282 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
60.00
60.00
190.20
600.00
Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent 1 hour or less
in the room after using aerosol rust removers. Time spent
increased sharply at the 100th percentile to 600 minutes (10
hours).
5-267
-------
Table S-10: Percentile rankings for Aerosol Rust Removers
for time spent in the room after last use
including only those who spent time in the
room (N=282 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
20.00
60.00
120.00
174.00
592.80
600.00
Table S-10 is similar to Table S-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product.
The mean time spent in the room is 42 minutes. Fifty percent of
the respondents spent 20.0 minutes or less in the room. The
maximum time spent in the room after using the product is 10.0
hours.
5-268
-------
Q6A: Which brand of aerosol rust remover did you use the
last time you used it?
Table S-ll: Brand distribution for Aerosol Rust Remover
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
103
41
24
84
43
295
34.9
13.9
8.1
28.5
14.6
100.0
Seventy-two percent (71.5%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of aerosol rust remover
named were used by 34.9%, 13.9% and 8.1% of respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table S-12: Percent of respondents saying the Aerosol Rust
Remover used is in aerosol or nonaerosol
form (N=286 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 98.3%
No, product is nonaerosol 1.7%
Given the product is aerosol rust remover, one would expect
the respondents to say the product is in aerosol form and 98.3%
of the respondents did say it was. Only 1.7% answered the
question specifying the product they used was in nonaerosol form.
This is obviously respondent error in answering the question.
5-269
-------
Q7: What size of aerosol rust remover did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table S-13: Amount of Aerosol Rust Remover used in ounces
(N=266 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 18.21
Median ounces per year 8.00
Standard deviation 81.37
The mean ounces used per year for aerosol rust removers is
18.21 ounces and the median is 8.0 ounces.
Table S-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Aerosol Rust
Remover used in ounces (N=266 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.09
1% 0.25
5% 1.00
10% 1.43
25% 2.75
Median 8.00
75% 13.00
90% 32.00
95% 42.60
99% 199.80
Maximum 1280.00
The range between the minimum and maximum ounces used is
quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at 0.09 and
the maximum ounces per year at 1280.0. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 42.60 ounces or less per year. There is a
increase in ounces used at the 99th percentile (199.80 ounces)
and the 100th percentile (1280.0 ounces). This shows that a few
respondents used a much greater amount of the product.
5-270
-------
Q8: Where did you use aerosol rust remover the last time
you used it?
Table S-15: Location of last use of the product (N=284
recent users
Basement 6.7%
Living room 0.7%
Other inside room 10.6%
Several inside rooms 1.4%
Garage 21.8%
Outside 53.2%
Garage & outside 5.6%
Total 100.0%
Most of the respondents (53.2%) used the product outside. A
total of 21.8% used it in the garage and 10.6% in an other inside
room.
5-271
-------
Table S-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Aerosol Rust Removers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 61.1% 38.9%
(N=113 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 13.2% 86.8%
(N=114 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 57.3% 42.7%
(N=110 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 68.2% 31.8%
(N=280 all recent users)
The majority of the aerosol rust remover users had read the
directions on the label (68.2%); had a door or window open to the
outside (61.1%); did not have an exhaust fan on during use
(86.8%) and had an inside door to the room open (57.3%).
Table S-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table S-17: Ounces per use of Aerosol Rust Remover
(N=265 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use
Median # of ounces per use
Standard deviation
9.24
2.17
78.62
The mean ounces per use of the product is 9.24 and the
median is 2.17. Table S-18 which follows presents the percentile
rankings for this variable. Twenty-five percent of the
respondents use less than an ounce of the product per use whereas
99% of the respondents use 39.46 ounces or less per use. There
is a sharp increase at the 100th percentile to 1280.0 ounces per
use.
5-272
-------
Table S-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Aerosol Rust Removers (N=265 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.03
0.07
0.24
0.45
0.92
2.17
5.50
12.00
14.70
39.46
1280.00
Table S-19:
Respondent characteristics of Aerosol Rust
Removers users
1. Respondent age
(N=292 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=293 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=291 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=291 recent users)
Mean = 46.07 years
Male = 74.1%
Female = 25.9%
Mean = 3.03 members
Mean = 2.92 bedrooms
Table S-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
aerosol rust removers. The mean age of these respondents is
46.07 years. The number of male respondents (74.1%) is nearly
three times the number of female respondents (25.9%). Except for
respondent gender, the other characteristics are similar to the
characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The total
sample has nearly an equal number of male and female respondents.
5-273
-------
-------
OUTDOOR
WATER
REPELLENTS
(FOR WOOD OR CEMENT)
Preceding page blank
-------
r-
-------
T. Product 20; Outdoor Water Repellents |for Wood/Cement)
Ql: Have you ever used an outdoor water repellent?
Table T-l: Numbers and % of respondents evsr using
Outdoor Water Repellents
Numbers Percent
Yes 428 8.7
NO 4489 91.3
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table T-l shows that only 8.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used outdoor water repellents. This is a relatively low
percentage when compared to this incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used outdoor water
repellents?
Table T-2: Last time Outdoor Water Repellent was used in
months (N=425 users)
Mean # of months 24.70
Median # of months 12.00
Standard deviation 38.56
As Table T-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of outdoor water repellent is 24.70 months and the median is 12.0
months. The mean is approximately twice the size of the median.
This difference is on account of a few extreme responses to this
question.
_ 5-277
Preceding page blank
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table T-3: Percentile rankings for Outdoor Water
Repellents—months since last use (N=425 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.23
1.00
4.00
12.00
24.00
60.00
96.00
224.40
360.00
Table T-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 360
months (30 years). Ninety-five per cent of the users last used
the product 96.0 months (8 years) or less ago. The number of
months since last use increased sharply at the 99th percentile
(224.40 months). The number of months reported may be subject to
rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 2, 5,
8 years rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
-------
Q3: How many times have you used outdoor water repellent in
the last 12 months?
Table T-4: Number of uses of Outdoor Water Repellent within
the last 12 months (N=241 recent users)
Mean # of uses 2.07
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 3.71
The mean number of times outdoor water repellents were used
in the last 12 months is 2.07 times and the median is 1.0 time.
Of the 32 products surveyed, this is the least number of times a
product has been used in the last year. Of the 241 responses to
this question, 60.2% used it once, 24.5% used it twice and 7.1%
used it three times in the last year. As shown in Table T-5
which follows, 99% of the respondents used the product 12.0 times
or less in the last year. The maximum number of times the
product is used is 52.0.
Table T-5: Percentile rankings of times used Outdoor Water
Repellent within the last 12 months (N=241
recent users)
Uses
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.90
12.00
52.00
5-279
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using outdoor water
repellent the last time you used it?
Table T-6:
Time spent using the Outdoor Water Repellent
last time used (N=239 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 104.94
Median # of minutes 60.00
Standard deviation 115.36
The mean and median number of minutes for using outdoor
water repellent are 104.94 and 60.0 minutes respectively.
Table T-7:
Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Outdoor Water Repellent last time used (N=239
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.05
5.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
240.00
300.00
480.00
960.00
The time spent using the outdoor water repellent ranges from
a minimum of 0.02 minutes to 960.0 minutes at the 100th
percentile. Fifty percent of the respondents used the product
for 60.0 minutes or less. At the 75th percentile through the
99th percentile, time spent is 120 minutes (2 hours) through 480
minutes (16 hours).
5-280
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used outdoor water
repellents?
Table T-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Outdoor
Water Repellents (N=241 recervt users)
Mean # minutes in room 8.33
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 43.25
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 8.33 minutes and the median is 0.0 minutes. The median is
zero as 75% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after use of the product.
Table T-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Outdoor Water Repellents
including those who did not spend any time in
the room (N=241 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 5.00
95% 58.50
99% 309.60
Maximum 420.00
Ninety percent of the respondents spent 5.0 minutes or less
in the room after using outdoor water repellents. Time spent
increased sharply at the 99th percentile to approximately 309
minutes (5 hours).
5-281
-------
Table T-10: Percentile rankings for Outdoor Water
Repellents for time spent in the room after
last use including only those who spent time
in the room (N=28 recent users who stayed in
room afterwards)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
1.45
4.70
10.00
30.00
60.00
252.00
393.00
420.00
Table T-10 is similar to Table T-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product
Of the 241 respondents who used the product in the last year only
28 did spend some time in the room after use. Since the number
spending time in the room is small it was not possible to
calculate the 1st and the 99th percentile which are therefore
left blank. The mean time now spent in the room is 71.70 minutes
and the median is 30.0. This differs considerably from the mean
and median in Table T-8 as respondents who did not spend any time
in the room have now been excluded.
5-281
-------
Q6A: Which brand of outdoor water repellent did you use the
last time you used it?
Table T-ll: Brand distribution for Outdoor Water Repellents
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
68
20
10
78
71
247
27.5
8.1
4.0
31.6
28.8
100.0
Sixty-eight percent (68.4%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of outdoor water
repellent named were used by 27.5%, 8.1% and 4.0% of respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table T-12: Percent of respondents saying the Outdoor Water
Repellent used is in aerosol or nonaerosol
form (N=243 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 11.5%
No, product is nonaerosol 88.5%
The majority of respondents (88.5%) said the outdoor water
repellent they used was in nonaerosol form.
5-283
-------
Q7: What size of outdoor water repellent did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table T-13: Amount of Outdoor Water Repellent used in
ounces (N=234 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 148.71
Median ounces per year 64.00
Standard deviation 280.65
The mean ounces used per year for outdoor water repellents
is 148.71 ounces. Only two other products Latex Paint and Oil
Paint have more ounces used.
Table T-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Outdoor Water
Repellent used in ounces (N=234 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.01
1% 0.37
5% 3.63
10% 8.00
25% 16.00
Median 64.00
75% 128.00
90% 448.00
95% 640.00
99% 979.20
Maximum 3200.00
The range between the minimum and maximum ounces used is
quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at 0.01 and
the maximum ounces per year at 3200.0. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 640.0 ounces or less per year. The 99th
percentile is 979.20 ounces. This jumps to 3200.0 at the 100th
percentile.
5-284
-------
Q8: Where did you use outdoor water repellent the last
time you used it?
Table T-15: Location of last use of the product (N=242
recent users)
Basement 1.7%
Living room 2.1%
Other inside room 2.5%
Several inside rooms 0.8%
Garage 6.2%
Outside 83.9%
Garage & outside 2.8%
Total 100.0%
As expected the majority of the respondents, approximately
83.9%, used the product outside. A total of 6.2% of the
respondents used the product in the garage. The remaining 7.1%
of the respondents used the product inside in a room other than
the garage.
5-285
-------
Table T-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Outdoor Water Repellents
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 72.7% 27.3%
(N=33 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 6.5% 93.5%
(N=31 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 64.5% 35.5%
(N=31 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 81.1% 18.9%
(N=233 all recent users)
The majority of the outdoor water repellent users did have a
door or window open to the outside (72.7%); did not have an
exhaust fan on during use (93.5%); had the inside door to the
room opened (64.5%) and had read the directions on the label
(81.1%).
Table T-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table T-17: Ounces per use of Outdoor Water Repellent
(N=230 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 99.53
Median # of ounces per use 32.00
Standard deviation 158.70
The mean ounces per use of the product is 99.53 and the
median is 32.0. Table T-18 which follows presents the percentile
rankings for this variable. Twenty-five percent of the
respondents used 12.80 ounces or less. The ounces used range
from a minimum of 0.01 ounces to a maximum of 896.0 ounces at the
100th percentile. The 95th percentile is 512.0 ounces.
Z86
-------
Table T-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Outdoor Water Repellent (N=230 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.01
0.43
2.04
3.86
12.80
32.00
128.00
256.00
512.00
812.16
896.00
Table T-19: Respondent characteristics of Outdoor Water
Repellent users
1. Respondent age
(N=247 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=247 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=246 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=247 recent users)
Mean = 43.89 years
Male = 65.2%
Female = 34.8%
Mean = 3.13 members
Mean = 3.04 bedrooms
Table T-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
outdoor water repellents. The mean age of these respondents is
43.89 years. The number of male respondents (65.2%) is nearly
twice the number of female respondents (34.8%). Except for
respondent gender, the other characteristics are similar to the
characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The total
sample has nearly an equal number of male and female respondents.
5-287
-------
-------
GLASS FROSTINGS,
WINDOW TINTS,
AND
ARTIFICIAL SNOW
Receding page blank
5-2S9
-------
-------
U. Product 21: Glass Frostings, Window Tints and
Artificial Snow
Ql: Have you ever used glass frostings, window tints or
artificial snow?
Table U-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Glass
Frostings, Window Tints and Artificial Snow
Numbers Percent
Yes 511 10.4
No 4406 89.6
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table U-l shows that only 10.4% of the total respondents
have "ever" used glass frostings, window tints and artificial
snow.
Q2: When was the last time you used a glass frosting,
window tint or artificial snow?
Table U-2: Last time Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow was used in months (N=506
users)
Mean # of months 34.20
Median # of months 8.00
Standard deviation 55.23
As Table U-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of the products is 34.20 months. Other than spray shoe polish
which was last used 42.10 months ago, this product has the
longest period of time since last use. The median number of
months is 8.0 and this adjusts for any extreme values given as
answers to this question.
Preceding page blank
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table U-3: Percentile rankings for Glass Frostings, Window
Tints and Artificial Snow—months since last
use (N=506 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.07
3.35
5.00
6.00
8.00
36.00
108.00
151.80
240.00
360.00
Table U-3 shows that the minimum time since last use is 0.03
months and the maximum is 360 months (30 years).
5-292
-------
Q3: How many times have you used glass frostings, window
tints or artificial snow in the last 12 months?
Table U-4: Number of uses of a Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow within the last 12 months
(N=279 recent users)
Mean # of uses 2.78
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 21.96
The mean number of times the product was used in the last
year is 2.78 times. Of the 279 respondents who used the product
in the last year, the majority (90%) used it once, 5.4% used it
twice and only 1.1% used it three times. Table U-5 which follows
presents the percentile rankings for this variable. Ninety-five
percent of the respondents used the product 2 times or less in
the last year. The number of times the product is used increased
sharply to 365.0 times at 100th percentile.
Table U-5: Percentile rankings of times used Glass
Frostings, Window Tints and Artificial Snow
within the last 12 months (N=279 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 1.00
90% 2.00
95% 2.00
99% 27.20
Maximum 365.00
5-293
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using glass frosting,
window tint or artificial snow the last time you used
it?
Table U-6:
Time spent using Glass Frostings, Window Tints
and Artificial Snow last time used (N=275 recent
users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
29.45
15.00
48.16
The mean and median number of minutes for using the product
is 29.45 and 15.0 minutes respectively. The mean is
approximately twice the median. This difference is because of
some extreme responses to the question.
Table U-7:
Percentile rankings for time spent using Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial Snow last
time used (N=275 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.03
0.14
2.00
3.00
5.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
96.00
268.80
360.00
The minimum time spent using glass frostings, window tints
and artificial snow is 0.03 minutes and the maximum time spent is
360 minutes (6 hours). Ninety percent of the respondents spent
one hour or less. Time spent increased substantially at the 99th
and 100th percentile to 268.8 minutes (4.48 hours) and 360.0
minutes (6.0 hours).
5-294
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used glass frostings,
window tints or artificial snow?
Table U-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Glass
Frostings, Window Tints and Artificial Snow
(N=269 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 137.87
Median # minutes in room 60.00
Standard deviation 243.21
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 137.87 minutes which is the longest period of time spent in
the room after use when compared to this incidence for any of the
other 32 products surveyed. The median is 60.0 minutes. There
is a big difference between the mean and median because of some
extreme responses. Table U-9 which follows presents the
percentile rankings for this variable. It shows that 10% of the
respondents did not spend any time in the room after using the
product. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent 8.0 hours
or less in the room. The time spent in the room after use
increased sharply at the 99th and 100th percentile to 1440
minutes (24.0 hours) and 1800 minutes (30.0 hours).
Table U-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use of Glass Frostings, Window Tints and
Artificial Snow including those who did not
spend any time in room (N=269 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
60.00
180.00
360.00
480.00
1440.00
1800.00
5-295
-------
f-
Table U-10:
Percentile rankings for Glass Frosting, Window
Tint and Artificial Snow for time spent in the
room after last use including only those who
spent time in the room (N=216 recent users who
stayed in room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
22.50
90.00
240.00
480.00
591.50
1440.00
1800.00
Table U-10 is similar to Table U-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room. A total of 80.3% of the
respondents who used the product in the last year, did spend some
time in the room after use. The mean time spent in the room has
increased to 171.70 minutes compared to 137.87 minutes in Table
U-8 as respondents spending no time in room after use have been
excluded. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent
approximately 10.0 hours or less in the room after using the
product. The maximum time spent in the room was 1800 minutes (30
hours).
5-296
-------
Q6A: Which brand of glass frosting, window tint or
artificial snow did you use the last time you used it?
Table U-ll: Brand distribution for Glass Frostings, Window
Tints and Artificial Snows
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
25
16
8
187
47
283
8.8
5.7
2.8
66.1
16.6
100.0
Thirty-four percent (33.9%) of the respondents specified a
brand of glass frosting, window tint or artificial snow that they
had used. The top three brands named were used by 8.8%, 5.7% and
2.8% of the respondents, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table U-12: Percent of respondents saying Glass Frosting,
Window Tint and Artificial Snow is in aerosol
or nonaerosol form (N=276 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 90.2%
No, product is nonaerosol 9.8%
Table U-12 shows that the majority of the respondents
(90.2%) used an aerosol form of the product.
5-297
-------
Q7: What size of glass frosting, window tint or artificial
snow did you use the last time you used it? How much
of a can or how many cans did you use during the past
year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table U-13: Amount of Glass Frosting, Window Tint and
Artificial Snow used in ounces (N=259 recent
users)
Mean ounces per year
Median ounces per year
Standard deviation
13.82
12.00
14.91
The mean ounces used per year of glass frosting, window tint
and artificial snow is 13.82 ounces and the median is 12.0
ounces.
Table U-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial Snow used
in ounces (N=259 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.40
2.38
3.25
6.00
12.00
14.00
28.00
33.00
98.40
120.00
The ounces used per year range from a minimum of 1.0 ounce
to a maximum of 120.0 ounces at the 100th percentile. Twenty-
five percent of the respondents used 6.0 ounces or less of the
product whereas 95% of the respondents used 33.0 ounces or less
of the product per year.
5-298
-------
Q8: Where did you use glass frosting, window tint or
artificial snow the last time you used it?
Table U-15: Location of last use of the product (N=275
recent users)
Basement 1.0%
Living room 58.2%
Other inside room 13.5%
Several inside rooms 12.7%
Garage 1.5%
Outside 12.0%
Garage & outside 1.1%
Total 100.0%
As Table U-15 shows, most respondents (58.2%) used glass
frosting, window tint or artificial snow in the living room.
13.5% used the product in an "other inside room". Approximately
an equal number used the product in "several inside rooms"
(12.7%) and outside (12.0%).
5-299
-------
Table U-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Glass Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial
Snow
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 24.4% 75.6%
(N=238 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 10.5% 89.5%
(N=238 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 71.7% 28.3%
(N=237 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 88871.1% 28.9%
(N=273 all recent users)
Most of the respondents had read the directions on the label
(71.1%) and had an inside door to the room open (71.7%). Only
24.4% had a door or window open to the outside and 10.5% had an
exhaust fan on during use of the product.
Table U-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table U-17: Ounces per use of Glass Frosting, Window Tint
and Artificial Snow
Mean # of ounces per use
Median # of ounces per use
Standard deviation
12.51
9.00
14.01
The ounces used per use of glass frosting, window tint and
artificial snow is 12.51 and the median is 9.0 ounces. Table
U-18 which follows presents the percentile rankings for ounces
used per use. Ninety-five percent of the respondents used 32.0
ounces or less of the product per use. The 99th and 100th
percentile are 86.96 and 120.0 ounces respectively.
5-300
-------
Table U-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Glass
Frosting, Window Tint and Artificial Snow
(N=258 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.23
0.49
1.68
3.00
6.00
9.00
13.00
26.00
32.00
86.96
120.00
Table U-19 presents the respondent characteristics of glass
frosting, window tint and artificial snow users. The mean age of
these respondents is 37.87 years; the number of household members
is 3.36 and the number of bedrooms 2.94. A greater number of the
respondents are female (62.4%) compared to the number of male
respondents (37.6%). The statistics for the respondent
characteristics of glass frosting, window tint and artificial
snow users are approximately the same as the characteristics of
the total sample of respondents except in the cases of respondent
age and respondent gender. For the total sample of respondents
the mean age is 44.30 years and the percentage of male and female
respondents is 47.0% and 53.0% respectively.
Table U-19:
Respondent characteristics of Glass Frosting,
Window Tint and Artificial Snow users
1. Respondent age
(N=278 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=282 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=279 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=282 recent users)
Mean = 37.87 years
Male = 37.6%
Female = 62.4%
Mean = 3.36 members
Mean = 2.94 bedrooms
5-301
-------
-------
ENGINE
DEGREASERS
LI i 5-303
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
V. Product 22; Engine Degreasers
Ql: Have you ever used engine degreasers?
Table V-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Engine Degreasers
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
847
4069
4916*
Percent
17.2
82.8
100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table V-l shows that 17.2% of the total respondents have
"ever" used engine degreasers.
Q2: When was the last time you used engine degreasers?
Table V-2: Last time Engine Degreasers were used in months
(N=846 users)
Mean # of months 16.60
Median # of months 6.00
Standard deviation 29.80
As Table V-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of engine degreasers is 16.60 months. This is about an average
period of time since last use when compared to the other
products. The median number of months is 6.0.
Preceding page blank
5-305
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table V-3: Percentile rankings for Engine Degreasers —
months since last use (N=846 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.16
10% 0.23
25% 1.00
Median 6.00
75% 18.00
90% 48.00
95% 72.00
99% 180.00
Maximum 240.00
Table V-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product eighteen months ago through 240 months (20
years) ago and appears to be subject to rounding which was
discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 5, 10, 15 years
rather than 5 years 3 months). The data are still usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-306
-------
Q3: How many times have you used engine degreasers in the
last 12 months?
Table V-4: Number of uses of the Engine Degreasers within
the last 12 months (N=582 recent users)
Mean # of uses 4 .18
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 13.72
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months among users of the product, is 4.18 and the median 2.0. A
total of 75.1% of these users used engine degreasers three times
or less in the last twelve months with 40.5% using it once; 25.8%
using it twice; and 8.8% using it three times.
Table V-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Engine
Degreasers within the last 12 months (N=582
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 3.25
90% 6.70
95% 12.00
99% 41.70
Maximum 300.00
5-307
-------
f-
Q4: How much time did you spend using engine degreasers the
last time you used it?
Table V-6: Time spent using Engine Degreasers the last time
used (N=578 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 29.29
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 48.14
The mean number of minutes for using engine degreasers is
29.29 and the median is 15.0.
Table V-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Engine Degreasers last time used (N=578 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.95
2.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
180.00
900.00
The minimum percentile is .02 minutes and the maximum is 900
minutes (15 hours).
5-308
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used engine degreasers?
Table V-8:
Time spent in the room after use of Engine
Degreasers (N=577 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 4.52
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 24.39
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
4.52 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes. This is
one of the lowest times spent in the room of all the products and
probably reflects the large majority of users using the product
outside.
Table V-9:
Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use including those who did not spend any
time in room but used Engine Degreasers (N=577
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.50
120. 00
360.00
Respondents at the 90th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using engine degreasers.
5-309
-------
f-
Table V-10: Percentile rankings for Engine Degreasers for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room
(N=41 recent users who stayed in room)
Minutes
Minimum 2.00
1% 2.00
5% 5.00
10% 5.00
25% 12.50
Median 60.00
75% 120.00
90% 120.00
95% 180.00
99%
Maximum 360.00
Table V-10 is similar to Table V-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-310
-------
Q6A: Which brand of engine degreasers did you use the last
time you used it?
Table V-ll: Brand distribution for Engine Degreasers
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
292
46
37
94
119
588
49.7
7.8
6.3
16.0
20.2
100.0
Eighty-four percent (84.0%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of engine degreasers
were used by 49.7%, 7.8% and 6.3% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table V-12: Percent of respondents saying Engine Degreasers
are aerosol (N=577 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 78.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 21.1%
Almost seventy-nine percent of the respondents said the
engine degreaser was aerosol.
5-311
-------
f-
Q7: What size of engine degreasers did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table V-13: Amount of Engine Degreasers used per year in
ounces (N=555 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 46.95
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 135.17
The mean ounces per year is 46.95 and the median is 16.0.
Table V-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Engine
Degreasers used in ounces (N=555 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.04
1.56
4.00
6.00
12.00
16.00
36.00
80.00
160.00
480.00
2560.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
V-14 is quite substantial with the minimum ounces per year at .04
and the maximum ounces per year at 2560.0. There is quite a
difference between percentile points with the 75th percentile at
36.0 ounces per year and the 100th percentile at 2560.0.
5-312
-------
Q8: Where did you use engine degreasers the last time you
used them?
Table V-15: Location of last use of the product (N=577
recent users)
Basement 0.2%
Living room 0.0%
Other inside room 1.2%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 7.8%
Outside 89.4%
Garage & outside 1.4%
Total 100.0%
Most people (89.4%) used engine degreasers outside as might
be expected given the fact that they are working on their car.
Of the remainder, 7.8% used it in their garage; 1.4% used it in
both the garage and open air; 1.2% said that they used it in an
other inside room; and .2% said they used it in their basement.
5-313
-------
Table V-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Engine Degreasers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 80.0% 20.0%
(N=50 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 12.2% 87.8%
(N=49 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 63.8% 36.2%
(N=47 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 77.6% 22.4%
(N=563 all recent users)
The majority of users of engine degreasers did have a door
or window open to the outside (80.0%) especially since most
worked on the outside; did not have an exhaust fan on during use
(87.8%); had the inside door to the room opened (63.8%); and had
read the directions on the label (77.6%).
Table V-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table V-17: Ounces per use of Engine Degreasers (N=554
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 18.72
Median # of ounces per use 11.60
Standard deviation 59.00
Table V-17 indicates that the mean is 18.72 and the median
is 11.60 ounces per use.
5-3U
-------
Table V-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Engine Degreasers (N=554 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
0.24
1.78
2.91
6.00
11.60
16.00
32.00
48.00
128.00
1024.00
The range of percentile rankings goes from a minimum of .02
to a maximum of 1024.0 ounces per use.
Table V-19: Respondent characteristics of Engine Degreasers
users
1. Respondent age
(N=587 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=588 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=587 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=587 recent users)
Mean = 38.70 years
Male = 90.5%
Female =9.5%
Mean = 3.20 members
Mean = 2.90 bedrooms
Table V-19 presents the respondent characteristics of users
of engine degreasers. The mean age of these respondents is 38.70
years; 90.5% of the respondents are male; the mean number of
household members is 3.20; and the mean number of bedrooms is
2.90. The users of this product have a higher percentage of
males than the general sample and these users are slightly
younger as well.
5-315
-------
-------
CARBURETOR
CLEANERS
« Ul I 5~317
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
W. Product 23; Carburetor Cleaner
Ql: Have you ever used carburetor cleaners?
Table W-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Carburetor Cleaners
Numbers Percent
. Yes
No
Total
1075
3842
4917*
21.9
78.1
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table W-l shows that 21.9% of the total respondents have
"ever" used carburetor cleaners. This is an average incidence
when compared to the incidence for other products.
Q2: When was the last time you used carburetor cleaners?
Table W-2: Last time Carburetor Cleaners were used in
months (N=1071 users)
Mean # of months 13.00
Median # of months 4.00
Standard deviation 27.00
As Table W-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of carburetor cleaners is 13.0 months. The median number of
months is 4.0.
Preceding page blank
5-319
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table W-3: Percentile rankings for Carburetor Cleaners—
months since last use (N=1071 users)
Months
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.23
1.00
4.00
12.00
36.00
60.00
171.36
240.00
Table W-3 shows that 10th percentile users and below last
used the product less than a month ago. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product 1 year ago through 240 months (20 years) ago.
5-320
-------
Q3: How many times have you used carburetor cleaners in the
last 12 months?
Table W-4: Number of uses of Carburetor Cleaners within the
last 12 months (N=803 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.77
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 7.10
The mean number of uses of the product in the last twelve
months is 3.77 and the median 2.0. Seventy-six percent (76.1%)
of these users used carburetor cleaners three times or less in
the last twelve months with 36.0% using it once; 27.8% using it
twice; and 12.3% using it three times.
Table w-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses
of Carburetor Cleaners within the last 12 months
(N=803 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 3.00
90% 6.00
95% 12.00
99% 47.28
Maximum 100.00
5-321
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using carburetor cleaners
the last time you used it?
Table W-6:
Time spent using Carburetor Cleaners the last
time used (N=800 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 13.57
Median # of minutes 7.00
Standard deviation 23.00
The mean number of minutes for using carburetor cleaners is
13.57 and the median is 7.0.
Table W-7:
Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Carburetor Cleaners last time used (N=800 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.08
0.33
1.00
3.00
7.00
15.00
30.00
45.00
120.00
300.00
The minimum percentile is .02 and the maximum is 300.0
minutes.
5-322
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used carburetor cleaners?
Table W-8: Time spent in the room after use of Carburetor
Cleaners (N=798 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 7.51
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 68.50
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 7.51 minutes as opposed to the median of zero minutes. These
averages are influenced by the large number of users that used
the product outside and, therefore, did not spend any time in the
room.
Table W-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not spend
any time in room but used Carburetor Cleaners
(N=798 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 0.10
95% 30.00
99% 120.60
Maximum 1800.00
Respondents at the 75th percentile or less did not spend any
time in the room after using carburetor cleaners, again due to
the large number of users who used it outside.
5-323
-------
Table W-10:
Percentile rankings for Carburetor Cleaners for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=79
recent users who stayed in room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
10.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
240.00
1800.00
Table W-10 is similar to Table W-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room, therefore, all
percentiles have values.
5-324
-------
Q6A: Which brand of carburetor cleaners did you use the last
time you used it?
Table W-ll: Brand distribution for Carburetor Cleaners
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
158
151
64
225
214
812
Percent
19.5
18.6
7.9
27.7
26.3
100.0
Seventy-two percent (72.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of carburetor cleaners
were used by 19.5%, 18.6%, and 7.9% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table W-12: Percent of respondents saying Carburetor
Cleaners are aerosol (N=797 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 84.9%
No, product is nonaerosol 15.1%
Respondents said that the product was aerosol in 84.9% of
the cases.
5-325
-------
Q7: What size of carburetor cleaners did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table W-13: Amount of Carburetor Cleaners used per year in
ounces (N=769 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 22.00
Median ounces per year 12.00
Standard deviation 50.60
The mean ounces used per year for carburetor cleaners is
22.0 which is about average compared to the other products. The
median is 12.0.
Table W-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Carburetor
Cleaners used in ounces (N=769 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
, Ounces
0.10
0.50
1.50
3.00
5.22
12.00
16.00
39.00
75.00
212.00
672.00
The minimum ounces per year is 22.0 and maximum value is
672.0 ounces.
5-326
-------
Q8: Where did you use carburetor cleaners the last time you
used them?
Table W-15: Location of last use of the product (N=797
recent users)
Basement 0.1%
Living room 0.1%
Other inside room 1.0%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 10.3%
Outside 86.4%
Garage & outside 2.0%
Total 100.0%
Most people (86.4%) used carburetor cleaners outside. Of the
remainder, 10.3% used it in their garage; 2.0% used it in both
the garage and outside; 1.0% used it in other inside rooms; 0.1%
used it in the basement; and 0.1% used it in the living room.
5-327
-------
Table W-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Carburetor Cleaners
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 73.9% 26.1%
(N=88 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 6.9% 93.1%
(N=87 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 51.2% 48.8%
(N=84 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 51.2% 48.8%
(N=780 all recent users)
The majority of users of carburetor cleaners did have a door
or window open to the outside (73.9%); did not have an exhaust
fan on during use (93.1%); had the inside door to the room opened
(51.2%); and had read the directions on the label (51.2%).
Table W-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table W-17: Ounces per use of Carburetor Cleaners (N=766
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 7.59
Median # of ounces per use 5.00
Standard deviation 9.40
Table W-17 indicates that the mean is 7.59 ounces per use
and the median is 5.0.
5-328
-------
Table W-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Carburetor Cleaners (N=766 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Max
Ounces/Use
0.03
0.15
0.70
1.25
2.41
5.00
9.75
16.00
19.30
48.66
128.00
Table W-19:
Respondent characteristics of Carburetor
Cleaner users
1. Respondent age
(N=8ll recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=8ll recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=8ll recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=810 recent users)
Mean
Male
Female
= 39.70 years
87.5%
12.5%
Mean = 3.30 members
Mean = 2.90 bedrooms
Table W-19 presents the respondent characteristics of users
of carburetor cleaners. The mean age of these respondents is
39.70 years; 87.5% of the respondents are male; the mean number
of household members is 3.30; and the mean number of bedrooms is
2.90. The users of carburetor cleaners are more often male and
slightly younger than the sample at large.
5-329
-------
-------
AEROSOL
SPRAY PAINT
FOR CARS
5-331
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
X. Product 24; Spray Paint for Cars
Ql: Have you ever used an auto spray paint?
Table X-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Auto
Spray Paints
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
595
4321
4916*
12.1
87.9
100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table X-l shows that 12.1% of the total respondents have
"ever" used Auto Spray Paints.
Q2: When was the last time you used Auto Spray Paints?
Table X-2: Last time Auto Spray Paint was used in months
(N=596 users)
Mean # of months 20.90
Median # of months 8.00
Standard deviation 33.41
As Table X-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of auto spray paint is 20.90 months and the median is 8.0 months.
The mean is more than twice the size of the median. This
difference is on account of a few extreme responses to this
question. The median adjusts for these extreme responses.
Preceding page blank
5-333
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table X-3: Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Paints the
months ago last used (N=596 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.16
0.23
2.00
8.00
24.00
60.00
96.00
180.00
240.00
Table X-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 240.0
months. Twenty-five percent of the respondents used the product
2 months or less ago and 95% of the users used the product last 8
years or less ago. The number of months reported may be subject
to rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 2,
8, 20 years rather than 8 years 3 months). The data is usable
for indicating the approximate last use.
5-334
-------
Q3: How many times have you used auto spray paints in the
last 12 months?
Table X-4: Number of uses of the Auto Spray Paint within
the last 12 months (N=367 recent users)
Mean # of uses
Median # of times
Standard deviation
4.50
2.00
9.71
The mean number of uses of Auto Spray Paints in the last 12
months is 4.50 times and the median is 2.0 times. Of the 367
respondents who used the product in the last year, 37.9% used it
once, 22.6% used it twice and 11.4% used it three times. As
shown in Table X-5 which follows, 95% of the respondents used the
product 15 times or less in the last year. The maximum number of
uses is 100.0.
Table X-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Auto
Spray Paints within the last 12 months (N=367
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 4.00
90% 10.00
95% 15.00
99% 60.00
Maximum 100.00
5-335
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using Auto Spray Paint the
last time you used it?
Table X-6: Time spent using the Auto Spray Paint last time
used (N=362 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
42.77
20.00
71.39
The mean and median number of minutes for using auto spray
paints are 42.77 and 20.0 minutes respectively.
Table X-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Auto Spray Paint last time used (N=362 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.03
0.19
1.00
3.00
10.00
20.00
60.00
120.00
145.50
360.00
900.00
The time spent using the auto spray paint ranges from a
minimum of 0.03 minutes to 900.0 minutes (15 hours) at the 100th
percentile. Seventy-five percent of the respondents spent one
hour or less using the product. A few respondents spent a much
greater time using the product. This is reflected in the 99th
and 100th percentile which are 360 minutes (6 hours) and 900.0
(15 hours).
5-336
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used auto spray paints?
Table X-8: Time spent in the room after use of Auto Spray
Paints (N=364 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room
Median # minutes in room
Standard deviation
10.71
0.00
45.53
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 10.71 minutes and the median is 0.0 minutes. The median is
zero as 75% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after using the product.
Table X-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Auto Spray Paints including
those who did not spend any time in the room
(N=364 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 17.50
95% 60.00
99% 282.00
Maximum 480.00
Seventy-five percent of the respondents did not spend any
time in the room after using the product. This is because most
respondents used the product outside as it's a spray paint for
cars. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent 1 hour or
less in the room after using auto spray paints. Time spent
increased sharply at the 100th percentile to 480 minutes (8
hours).
5-337
-------
Table X-10: Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Paints for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=57
recent users who stayed in room afterwards)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
—
1.90
4.60
7.50
35.00
60.00
192.00
360.00
480.00
Table X-10 is similar to Table X-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product.
The mean time spent in the room is 68.40 minutes. Fifty percent
of the respondents spent 35.0 minutes or less in the room. The
maximum time spent in the room after using the product is 480
minutes (8 hours). Only 57 respondents stayed in the room after
using auto spray paints. Since this number is less than a 100,
the 1st and 99th percentiles have not been determined.
5-338
-------
Q6A: Which brand of auto spray paint did you use the last
time you used it?
Table X-ll: Brand distribution for Auto Spray Paints
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
34
33
12
168
125
372
9.1
8.9
3.2
45.2
33.6
100.0
Fifty-five percent (54.8%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of auto spray paint
named were used by 9.1%, 8.9% and 3.2% of respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table X-12: Percent of respondents saying the Auto Spray
Paint used is in aerosol or nonaerosol form
(N=364 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 99.5%
No, product is nonaerosol 0.5%
Given the product is auto spray paint, one would expect the
respondents to say the product is in aerosol form and 99.5% of
the respondents did say it was. Only 0.5% answered the question
specifying the product they used was in nonaerosol form. This
could be attributed to respondent error in answering the
question.
5-339
-------
Q7: What size of auto spray paint did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table X-13: Amount of Auto Spray Paint used in ounces
(N=347 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 44.95
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 89.78
The mean ounces used per year for auto spray paints is 44.95
ounces and the median is 16.0 ounces. The mean is over two times
the size of the median showing that there are some extreme
responses to this question.
Table X-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Auto Spray
Paints used in ounces (N=347 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.04
0.14
1.50
3.00
6.12
16.00
48.00
100.80
156.00
557.76
900.00
The minimum amount of auto spray paint used is 0.04 ounces
and the maximum is 900.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used 156.0 ounces or less per year. There is an
increase in ounces used at the 99th (557.76 ounces) to the 100th
percentile (900.0 ounces).
5-340
-------
Q8: Where did you use auto spray paint the last time you
used it?
Table X-15: Location of last use of the product (N=363
recent users)
Basement 0.6%
Living Room 0.0%
Other inside room 1.1%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 18.7%
Outside 77.7%
Garage & outside 1.9%
Total 100.0%
Most of the respondents 77.7% used the product outside. A
total of 18.7% used it in the garage. The remaining 1.7% used it
either in the basement or an other inside room.
5-341
-------
Table X-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Auto Spray Paints
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 70.4% 29.6%
(N=71 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 19.7% 80.3%
(N=71 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 47.1% 52.9%
(N=68 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 72.0% 28.0%
(N=357 all recent users
The majority of the respondents had read the directions on
the label (72.0%); had a door or window open to the outside
(70.4%) and did not have an exhaust fan on (80.3%). A total of
47.1% had the inside door to the room open while using the
product.
Table X-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table X-17: Ounces per use of Auto Spray Paint (N=347
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use
Median # of ounces per use
Standard deviation
13.76
8.00
19.31
The mean ounces per use of the product is 13.76 ounces and
the median is 8.0. Table X-18 which follows presents the
percentile rankings for this variable. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 48.0 ounces or less of the product per use.
There is a sharp increase at the 100th percentile to 192.0 ounces
per use.
5-342
-------
Table X-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Auto
Spray Paints (N=3347 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.04
0.08
0.77
1.50
3.90
8.00
16.00
32.00
48.00
103.23
192.00
Table X-19 presents the respondent characteristics of auto
spray paints. The mean age of these respondents is 39.48 years.
The majority of the respondents are male (88.4%) compared to the
female respondents (11.6%). Except for respondent age and
gender, the other characteristics are approximately similar to
the characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The
total sample has a respondent age of 44.30 years and nearly an
equal number of male and female respondents.
Table X-19: Respondent characteristics of Auto Spray Paint
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 39.48 years
(N=371 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 88.4%
(N=370 recent users) Female = 11.6%
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.20 members
(N=371 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
(N=37l recent users)
5-343
-------
-------
AUTO
SPRAY
PRIMERS
5-345
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
Y. Product 25; Auto Spray Primers
Ql: Have you ever used auto spray primers?
Table Y-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Auto
Spray Primers
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
452
4465
4917*
Percent
9.2
90.8
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table Y-l shows that only 9.2% of the total respondents have
"ever" used auto spray primers.
Q2: When was the last time you used auto spray primers?
Table Y-2: Last time Auto Spray Primer was used in months
(N=453 users)
Mean # of months 24.00
Median # of months 11.00
Standard deviation 40.91
On the average auto spray primers were last used 24.0 months
ago. The median number of months is a little less than half the
mean at 11.0 months and adjusts for any extreme values given as
answers to this question.
Preceding page blank
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table Y-3: Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Primers—
months since last use (N=453 users)
Months
Minimum 0.03
1% 0.03
5% 0.16
10% 0.40
25% 3.00
Median 11.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 120.00
99% 185.52
Maximum 420.00
Table Y-3 shows that time since the product was last used
ranges from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 420 months
(35 years) at the 100th percentile. Twenty-five percent of the
respondents last used the product 3 months or less ago whereas
95% of the respondents last used the product 120 months (10
years) or less ago. The months since last use may be subject to
rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the data (i.e. 2, 10,
35 years rather than 10 years 3 months). The data are usable for
indicating the approximate last use.
5-348
-------
Q3: How many times have you used auto spray primers in the
last 12 months?
Table Y-4: Number of uses of Auto Spray Primers within the
last 12 months (N=260 recent users)
Mean # of uses 6.42
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 33.89
The mean number of times auto spray primers were used in the
last year is 6.42 uses and the median is 2.0 uses. Of the 260
respondents who used the product in the last year, 44.6% used it
once, 21.9% used it twice and 8.5% used it three times. Table
Y-5 which follows presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. The times the product was used range from a minimum of
1 time to a maximum of 500.0 times. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used the product 15 times or less in the last year.
The times the product was used in the last year increased
substantially at the 99th and 100th percentile to 139.0 and 500.0
times respectively.
Table Y-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of Auto
Spray Primers within the last 12 months (N=260
recent users)
Times
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.75
10.00
15.00
139.00
500.00
5-349
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using the auto spray primer
the last time you used it?
Table Y-6: Time spent using the Auto Spray Primer last
time used (N=258 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 51.45
Median # of minutes 27.50
Standard deviation 86.11
The mean and median number of minutes for using auto spray
primers are 51.45 and 27.50 minutes respectively.
Table Y-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Auto Spray Primer last time used (N=258 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.05
1% 0.22
5% 2.00
10% 5.00
25% 10.00
Median 27.50
75% 60.00
90% 120.00
95% 180.00
99% 529.20
Maximum 600.00
The time spent using auto spray primers ranges from 0.05
minutes to 10.0 hours at the 100th percentile. Twenty-five
percent of the respondents used the product for 10.0 minutes or
less; 50% used it for 27.50 minutes or less and 95% used it for
hours or less. A few respondents used the product for a much
longer period of time. This is reflected in the sharp increase
at the 99th percentile where the product is used for
approximately 9 hours and the 100th percentile where it is used
for 600 minutes (10 hours).
5-350
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used auto spray primers?
Table Y-8: Time spent in the room after use of Auto Spray
Primers (N=258 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 11.37
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 45.08
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 11.37 minutes. The median is 0.0 as 75% of the respondents
did not spend any time in the room after using the product.
Table Y-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Auto Spray Primers including
those who did not spend any time in the room
(N=258 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 20.00
95% 77.25
99% 360.00
Maximum 360.00
Respondents at the 90th percentile through the 100th
percentile did spend some time in the room after using the
product. The maximum time spent in the room after using the
product is 360 minutes (6 hours).
5-351
-------
Table Y-10: Percentile rankings for Auto Spray Primers for
time spent in the room after use including only
those who spent time in the room (N=44 recent
users who stayed in the room afterwards)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
—
1.00
2.50
5.00
30.00
120.00
120.00
360.00
360.00
Table Y-10 is similar to.Table Y-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room. For the 44 respondents
who stayed in the room after using the product, the mean time
spent in the room after use is 66.70 minutes and the median is
30.0 minutes. Time spent in the room after using the product
cannot be ascertained at the 1st and 99th percentile as the
number of respondents in the room is less than a 100.
5-352
-------
Q6A: Which brand of auto spray primer did you use the last
time you used it?
Table Y-ll: Brand distribution for Auto Spray Primers
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
29
21
12
111
91
264
11.0
8.0
4.5
42.0
34.5
100.0
Fifty-eight percent of the users of the product specified a
brand. The top three brands of auto spray primer named were used
by 11.0%, 8.0% and 4.5% of the respondents, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table Y-12: Percent of respondents saying Auto Spray Primer
is in aerosol or nonaerosol form (N=258 recent
users)
Yes, product is aerosol 98.8%
No, product is nonaerosol 1.2%
The majority of the respondents (98.8%) said the product was
in aerosol form. Given the primer is in spray form none of the
respondents should have said the product is nonaerosol. The 1.2%
in Table Y-12 can be attributed to respondent error.
5-353
-------
Q7: What size of auto spray primer did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table Y-13: Amount of Auto Spray Primer used in ounces
(N=247 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 70.37
Median ounces per year 16.00
Standard deviation 274.56
The average amount of auto spray primer used per year is
70.37 ounces and the median is 16.0 ounces. There is a large
difference between the mean and median as a few respondents used
a much greater quantity of the product.
Table Y-14:
Percentile rankings for amount of Auto Spray
Primers used in ounces (N=247 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.12
0.77
3.00
4.00
9.00
16.00
48.00
128.00
222.00
1167.36
3840.00
The minimum amount of product used is 0.12 ounces and the
maximum is 3840.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of the respondents
used 222.0 ounces or less of the product in the last year. The
amount used increased sharply at the 99th and 100th percentile to
1167.36 and 3840.0 ounces respectively showing a few respondents
used a much greater quantity of the product.
5-354
-------
Q8: Where did you use auto spray primers the last time you
used it?
Table Y-15: Location of last use of the product (N=256
recent users)
Basement 0.7%
Living room
Other inside room 0.8%
Several inside rooms %
Garage 20.7%
Outside 75.8%
Garage & outside 2.0%
Total 100.0%
The majority of the respondents (75.8%) used the product
outside. A total of 20.7% of the respondents used the product in
the garage.
5-355
-------
Table Y-16: Protective measures undertaken while using Auto
Spray Primers
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 71.4% 28.6%
(N=56 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 30.4% 69.6%
(N=56 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 46.3% 53.7%
(N=54 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 69.0% 31.0%
(N=252 all recent users)
Sixty-nine percent of the respondents had read the label.
The majority of the respondents had a door or window open to the
outside (71.4%) and had an exhaust fan off (69.6%) while using
the product. A total of 46.3% had an inside door to the room
open.
Table Y-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table Y-17: Ounces per use of Auto Spray Primers
(N=247 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 20.54
Median # of ounces per use 12.00
Standard deviation 43.72
The average amount of auto spray primer used per use of the
product is 20.54 ounces and the median is 12.0 ounces. Table
Y-18 which follows presents the percentile rankings for this
variable. The ounces used per use of the product range from a
minimum of 0.04 ounces to a maximum of 512.0 ounces at the 100th
percentile. Ninety-five percent of the respondents used 64.0
ounces or less of the product per use.
5-356
-------
Table Y-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Auto
Spray Primers (N=247 recent users)
Ounces/Use
Minimum 0.04
1% 0.28
5% 1.50
10% 2.00
25% 4.02
Median 12.00
75% 18.00
90% 38.72
95% 64.00
99% 241.92
Maximum 512.00
Table Y-19 presents the respondent characteristics of auto
spray primer users. The mean age of these respondents is 37.76
years. The majority of the respondents are male (87.8%). The
statistics for the respondent characteristics of auto spray
primer users is approximately the same as those for the total
sample of respondents with the exception of respondent age and
gender. The average age for the total sample of respondents is
44.30 years and the number of male and female respondents is
47.0% and 53.0% respectively.
Table Y-19: Respondent characteristics of Auto Spray Primer
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 37.76 years
(N=263 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 87.8%
Female = 12.2%
(N=262 recent users)
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.45 members
(N=263 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 3.00 bedrooms
(N=263 recent users)
5-357
-------
-------
SPRAY
LUBRICANT
FOR CARS
5-359
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
Z. Product 26; Spray Lubricants for Cars
Ql: Have you ever used spray lubricants?
Table Z-l: Numbers and % of respondents ever using Spray
Lubricants
Numbers Percent
Yes 885 18
No 4032 82.
Total 4917* 100
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table Z-l shows that 18% of the total respondents have
"ever" used spray lubricants.
Q2: When was the last time you used spray lubricants?
Table Z-2: Last time Spray Lubricant was used in months
(N=880 users)
Mean # of months 6.30
Median # of months 2.00
Standard deviation 17.31
As Table Z-2 shows, the mean number of months since last use
of spray lubricant is 6.30 months and the median is 2.0 months.
The mean is approximately three times the size of the median.
This difference is the result of few extreme responses to this
question.
Preceding page blank
5-361
-------
f-
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table Z-3: Percentile rankings for Spray Lubricants—months
since last use (N=880 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.13
0.46
2.00
6.00
12.00
24.00
60.00
300.00
Table Z-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 300
months. Twenty-five percent of the respondents used the product
less than one month ago and 95% of the users used the product
last 24.0 months or less ago. The number of months reported may
be subject to rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the
data (i.e. 2, 5, 25 years rather than 5 years 3 months). The
data are usable for indicating the approximate last use.
5-362
-------
Q3: How many times have you used spray lubricants in the
last 12 months?
Table Z-4: Number of uses of Spray Lubricant within the
last 12 months (N=771 recent users)
Mean # of uses 10.31
Median # of uses 3.00
Standard deviation 30.71
The mean number of uses of spray lubricants that were used
in the last 12 months is 10.31 times and the median is 3.0 times,
Of the 771 respondents who used the product in the last year,
18.4% used it once, 20.8% used it twice and 11.8% used it three
times. As shown in Table Z-5 which follows, 95% of the
respondents used the product 40 times or less in the last year.
The maximum number of times the product is used is 365.0.
Table Z-5: Percentile rankings of times used Spray
Lubricants within the last 12 months (N=771
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 3.00
75% 6.00
90% 20.00
95% 40.00
99% 105.60
Maximum 365.00
5-363
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using spray lubricants the
last time you used it?
Table Z-6: Time spent using the Spray Lubricant last time
used (N=762 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
9.90
5.00
35.62
The mean and median number of minutes for using spray
lubricants are 9.90 and 5.0 minutes respectively.
Table Z-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Spray Lubricant last time used (N=762 recent
users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.02
1% 0.03
5% 0.08
10% 0.17
25% 1.00
Median 5.00
75% 10.00
90% 15.00
95% 30.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 720.00
The time spent using the spray lubricant ranges from a
minimum of 0.02 minutes to 720 minutes (12 hours) at the 100th
percentile. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent a half
hour or less using the product. A few respondents spent a much
greater time using the product. This is reflected in the 99th
and 100th percentile which are 120 minutes (2 hours) and 720.0
minutes (12 hours).
5-364
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used spray lubricants?
Table Z-8: Time spent in the room after use of Spray
Lubricants (N=765 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 4.54
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 30.67
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is 4.54 minutes and the median is 0.0 minutes. The median is
zero as 75% of the respondents did not spend any time in the room
after using the product.
Table Z-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Spray Lubricants including
those who did not spend any time in the room
(N=765 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
15.00
70.20
420.00
Seventy-five percent of the respondents did not spend any
time in the room after using the product. This is because most
respondents used the product outside as it's a lubricant for
cars. Ninety-five percent of the respondents spent 15.0 minutes
or less in the room after using spray lubricants. Time spent
increased at the 100th percentile to 420.0 minutes.
5-365
-------
Table Z-10: Percentile rankings for Spray Lubricants for
time spent in the room after last use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=84
recent users who stayed in the room afterwards)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
1.00
—
1.00
2.00
5.00
10.00
30.00
60.00
300.00
420.00
Table Z-10 is similar to Table Z-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product.
The mean time spent in the room is 41.40 minutes. Fifty percent
of the respondents spent 10.0 minutes or less in the room. The
maximum time spent in the room after using the product is 7.0
hours. Only 84 respondents stayed in the room after using spray
lubricants. Since this number is less than a 100, the 1st and
99th percentiles have not been determined.
5-366
-------
Q6A: Which brand of spray lubricant did you use the last
time you used it?
Table Z-ll: Brand distribution for Spray Lubricants
Brand category Frequency Percent
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
369
30
15
203
164
781
47.2
3.8
1.9
26.0
21.1
100.0
Seventy-four percent (74%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of spray lubricant named
were used by 47.2%, 3.8% and 1.9% of respondents, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table Z-12: Percent of respondents saying the Spray
Lubricant used is in aerosol or nonaerosol
form (N=768 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 99.2%
No, product is nonaerosol 0.8%
Given the product is spray lubricant, one would expect the
respondents to say the product is in aerosol form and 99.2% of
the respondents did say it was. Only 0.8% answered the question
specifying the product they used was in nonaerosol form. This
could be attributed to respondent error in answering the
question.
5-367
-------
Q7: What size of spray lubricant did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table Z-13: Amount of Spray Lubricant used in ounces
(N=705 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 18.63
Median ounces per year 6.00
Standard deviation 54.74
The mean ounces used per year for spray lubricants is 18.63
ounces and the median is 6.0 ounces. The mean is over three
times the size of the median showing that there are some extreme
responses to this question.
Table Z-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Spray
Lubricant used in ounces (N=705 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.08
0.40
0.96
1.00
2.75
6.00
15.50
36.00
64.00
240.00
864.00
The minimum amount of spray lubricant used is 0.08 ounces
and the maximum is 864.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of the
respondents used 64.0 ounces or less per year. There is then an
increase in ounces used at the 99th (240.0 ounces) and the 100th
percentile (864.0 ounces).
5-368
-------
Q8: Where did you use spray lubricants the last time you
used it?
Table Z-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=765 recent users)
Basement 0.4%
Living room 0.0%
Other inside room 1.2%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 12.4%
Outside 83.5%
Garage & outside 2.5%
Total 100.0%
Most of the respondents (83.5%) used the product outside. A
total of 12.4% used it in the garage. The remaining 1.6% used it
either in the basement or other inside room.
5-369
-------
Table Z-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Spray Lubricants
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 66.3% 33.7%
(N=104 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 6.8% 93.2%
(N=103 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 53.0% 47.0%
(N=100 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 55.1% 44.9%
(N=752 all recent users)
A little more than half the respondents had read the
directions on the label (55.1%) and had an inside door to the
room open (53.0%). The majority of the respondents had an
exhaust fan off (93.2%). A total of 66.3% had a door or window
open to the outside.
Table Z-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year) .
Table Z-17: Ounces per use of Spray Lubricants (N=704
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use
Median # of ounces per use
Standard deviation
3.39
1.58
7.60
The mean ounces per use of the product is only 3.39 ounces
and the median is 1.58. Table Z-18 which follows presents the
percentile rankings for this variable. Twenty-five percent of
the respondents use less than an ounce of the product per use
whereas 95% of the respondents use 12.0 ounces or less per use.
There is a sharp increase at the 100th percentile to 128.0 ounces
per use.
5-370
-------
Table Z-18: Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Spray
Lubricants (N=704 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.04
0.08
0.22
0.33
0.75
1.58
3.20
8.00
12.00
27.43
128.00
Table Z-19 presents the respondent characteristics of spray
lubricants. The mean age of these respondents is 40.26 years.
The majority of the respondents are male (85.2%) compared to the
female respondents (14.8%). Except for respondent gender, the
other characteristics are approximately similar to the
characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The total
sample has nearly an equal number of male and female respondents.
Table Z-19: Respondent characteristics of Spray Lubricant
users
1. Respondent age Mean = 40.26 years
(N=779 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male = 85.2%
(N=778 recent users) Female = 14.8%
3. Number of household
members Mean = 3.20 members
(N=778 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean = 2.94 bedrooms
(N=779 recent users)
5-371
-------
-------
TRANSMISSION
CLEANERS
Preceding page Wank
5-373
-------
-------
AA. Product 27; Transmission Cleaner
Ql: Have you ever used transmission cleaner?
Table AA-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Transmission Cleaner
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
107
4809
4916*
2.1
97.9
100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table AA-1 shows that 2.1% of the total respondents have
"ever" used transmission cleaner. This is the lowest usage rate
of any product evaluated.
Q2: When was the last time you used transmission cleaner?
Table AA-2: Last time Transmission Cleaner was used in
months (N=103 users)
Mean # of months 16.70
Median # of months 7.00
Standard deviation 30.63
As Table AA-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of transmission cleaner is 16.70 months. Compared to other
products studied, this is a moderate amount of time since last
use.
Preceding page b'ank
5-375
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table AA-3: Percentile rankings for Transmission Cleaners
— months since last use (N=103 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.23
0.46
1.00
7.00
24.00
48.00
60.00
236.16
240.00
Table AA-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the month preceding
their answering the question. The 75th percentile through the
100th percentile respondents report that they last used the
product between 24 months (2 years) and 240 months (20 years
ago) .
5-376
-------
Q3: How many times have you used transmission cleaner in
the last 12 months?
Table AA-4: Number of uses of Transmission Cleaner in the
last 12 months (N=69 recent users)
Mean # of uses 2.28
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 3.55
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of times it had been used was 2.28,
and the median number of uses was 1.0. Almost two-thirds of the
respondents who had used the product within the past 12 months,
63.8% to be exact, had only one occasion to make use of
transmission cleaner. It was used twice by 17.4%, and 3 times by
10.1% of this group of 75 recent users.
Table AA-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Transmission Cleaner within the last 12 months
(N=69 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 2.00
90% 3.00
95% 9.00
Maximum 26.00
5-377
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using transmission cleaner
the last time you used it?
Table AA-6: Time spent using the Transmission Cleaner last
time used (N=67 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 27.90
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 61.44
The mean number of minutes of use of transmission cleaner is
a little less than half an hour. The median is a quarter hour.
Table AA-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Transmission Cleaner last time used (N=67
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.17
—
0.35
1.80
5.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
60.00
—
450.00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to seven and one-half hours. Respondents spending one hour or
less using the product include more than 95% of those with recent
experience using transmission cleaner.
5-378
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used transmission cleaner?
Table AA-8: Time spent in the room after use of
Transmission Cleaner (N=69 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 5.29
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 29.50
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
just over 5.0 minutes. The median value of zero indicates that
at least half the respondents left the room immediately after
using the product.
Table AA-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after use including those who did not spend any
time in room after use of Transmission Cleaner
(N=69 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% NA .00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 5.00
95% 22.50
99%
Maximum 240.00
More than 75% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while fully 95% stayed in the room
less than 23.0 minutes, and none stayed longer than 240.0 minutes
(4 hours).
5-379
-------
Table AA-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Transmission Cleaner,
including only those respondents who spent
time in the room (N=8 recent users who stayed
in the room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 5.00
1%
5%
10%
25% 6.25
Median 15.00
75% 41.25
90%
95%
99%
Maximum 240.00
Table AA-10 is similar to Table AA-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
5-380
-------
Q6A: Which brand of transmission cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table AA-11: Brand distribution for Transmission Cleaners
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
9
8
6
43
9
75
Percent
12.0
10.7
8.0
57.3
12.0
100.0
A total of 42.7% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top three brands of Transmission Cleaner named were used by
12.0%, 10.7% and 8.0% of the users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table AA-12: Percent of respondents saying Transmission
Cleaner is aerosol (N=69 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 21.7%
No, product is nonaerosol 78.3%
More than three-quarters of the transmission cleaner used by
respondents was in a form other than aerosol.
5-381
-------
Q7: What size of transmission cleaner did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table AA-13: Amount of Transmission Cleaner used in ounces
(N=64 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 35.71
Median ounces per year 15.00
Standard deviation 62.93
The mean number of ounces of transmission cleaner used per
year is moderate to high compared to the amounts used of other
products.
Table AA-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Transmission
Cleaner used in ounces (N=64 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 2.00
1%
5% 3.75
10% 4.00
25% 8.00
Median 15.00
75% 32.00
90% 77.00
95% 140.00
99%
Maximum 360.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
AA-14 is substantial, with the minimum at only 2.0 ounces per
year and the maximum at 360.0 ounces per year. The seventy-fifth
percentile respondent used no more than about 32.0 ounces per
year.
5-382
-------
Q8: Where did you use transmission cleaner the last time
you used it?
Table AA-15: Location where the product was last used
(N=69 recent users)
Basement 0.0%
Living Room 0.0%
Other inside room 1.4%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 14.5%
Outside 79.7%
Garage & outside 4.3%
Total 100.0%
Most people (79.7%) used transmission cleaner outside, with
the second most common usage location being the garage, and the
third being a combination of garage and outside. Rarely (1.4%)
was the product used in a room of the house other than the
garage.
5-383
-------
Table AA-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Transmission Cleaner
Yes No
(#'s) (#'s)
1. Door or Window
Open to the Outside 7 4
(N=ll recent inside users)
2. Exhaust Fan
on During Use 2 9
(N=ll recent inside users)
3. Whether Inside Door
to Room Was Open 6 4
(N=10 recent inside users)
4. Whether Directions
on Label Were Read 59 10
(N=69 all recent users)
For the three questions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there were
only 10 or 11 respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but kept inside door(s)
closed and did not use an exhaust fan. More than 85.0% of the 69
respondents who answered the question regarding reading of the
product label claimed to have done so.
Table AA-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table AA-17: Ounces per use of Transmission Cleaner
(N=63 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 16.60
Median # of ounces per use 12.00
Standard deviation 18.83
Table AA-17 shows the mean value for ounces per use is a
relatively high number compared to those for some other products
encountered.
5-384
-------
Table AA-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Transmission Cleaner (N=63 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
2.00
3.15
4.00
6.00
12.00
18.00
32.00
55.20
128.00
Table AA-18 indicates that there is a jump between the 95th
percentile of 55.20 and the maximum value of 128.00, and more
than a four-fold increase between the median and the 95th
percentile, from 12.0 to 55.20.
Table AA-19: Respondent characteristics of Transmission
Cleaner users
1. Respondent Age Mean
(N=75 recent users)
2. Respondent Gender Male
(N=75 recent users) Female
3. Number of Household
Members Mean
(N=75 recent users)
4. Number of Bedrooms Mean
(N=75 recent users)
= 36.33 years
69.3%
30.7%
= 3.19 members
= 2.63 bedrooms
Table AA-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
transmission cleaner users. The mean age of these respondents,
at 36.33, is about 8 years younger than the mean for the total
sample. These respondents are also predominantly male, while the
total sample is nearly evenly divided between men and women—a
function most likely of the fact that this is an automotive
product. Household membership and number of bedrooms much more
nearly approximate the full sample figures.
5-385
-------
-------
BATTERY
TERMINAL
PROTECTORS
Preceding page blank 5-38?
-------
-------
BB. Product 28; Battery Terminal Protector
Ql: Have you ever used battery terminal protector?
Table BB-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Battery Terminal Protector
Numbers Percent
Yes 333 6.7
No 4584 93.3
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table BB-1 shows that 6.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used battery terminal protector. This is among the lowest
usage rates of any product evaluated.
Q2: When was the last time you used battery terminal
protector?
Table BB-2: Last time Battery Terminal Protector was used
in months (N=327 users)
Mean # of months
Median # of months
Standard deviation
14. 00
6. 00
25.03
As Table BB-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of a battery terminal protector is 14.0 months. Compared to
other products studied, this is a moderate amount of time since
last use.
Preceding page blank
5-389
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table BB-3: Percentile rankings for Battery Terminal
Protector—months since last use (N=327 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.43
2.00
6.00
12.00
36.00
60.00
120.00
240.00
Table BB-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the 2.0 month period
preceding their answering the question. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product between 12 months (1 year) and 240.0 months (20
years) ago.
5-390
-------
Q3: How many times have you used battery terminal protector
in the last 12 months?
Table BB-4: Number of uses of Battery Terminal Protector
within the last 12 months (N=228 recent users)
Mean # of uses 3.95
Median # of uses 2.00
Standard deviation 24.33
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of uses was nearly 4.0, and the median
number of uses .was 2.0. Nearly half of the respondents who had
used the product within the past 12.0 months, 49.6% to be exact,
had only one occasion to make use of battery terminal protector.
It was used twice by 28.9%, and three times by 9.2% of this group
of 228 recent users.
Table BB-5: Percentile rankings of the number of uses of
Battery Terminal Protector within the last 12
months (N=228 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 2.00
90% 4.00
95% 6.55
99% 41.30
Maximum 365.00
5-391
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using battery terminal
protector the last time you used it?
Table BB-6: Time spent using the Battery Terminal Protector
last time used
Mean # of minutes 9.61
Median # of minutes 5
Standard deviation 18.15
Compared to other products, the mean number of minutes of
use of battery terminal protector is relatively low.
Table BB-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Battery Terminal Protector last time used
(N=226 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.23
1.00
5.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
120.00
180. 00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to three hours. Nearly 95% of respondents had spent less than
30.0 minutes using the product, while half had spent 5.0 minutes
or less.
5-392
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used battery terminal
protector?
Table BB-8: Time spent in the room after use of Battery
Terminal Protector (N=226 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 3.25
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 17.27
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use,
is just over 3 minutes. The median value of zero indicates that
at least half the respondents left the room immediately after
using the product.
Table BB-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room after use of Battery
Terminal Protector (N=226 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 2.90
95% 15.00
99% 120.00
Maximum 180.00
More than 75% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while fully 90% stayed in the room
less than 3 minutes.
5-393
-------
Table BB-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Battery Terminal Protector,
including only those who spent time in the
room (N=25 recent users who stayed in the
room afterwards
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.60
25% 5.00
Median 10.00
75% 30.00
90% 120.00
95% 162.00
Maximum 180.00
Table BB-10 is similar to Table BB-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
5-394
-------
Q6A: Which brand of battery terminal protector did you use
the last time you used it?
Table BB-11: Brand distribution for Battery Terminal
Protectors
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
15
10
9
145
53
232
Percent
6.5
4.3
3.9
62.5
22 .8
100.0
A total of 37.5% of the users of the product specified a
brand. The top 3 brands of battery terminal protector named were
used by 6.5%, 4.3% and 3.9% of the respondents, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table BB-12: Percent of respondents saying Battery Terminal
Protector is aerosol (N=226 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 58.4%
No, product is nonaerosol 41.6%
Nearly three-fifths of the battery terminal protector used
by respondents was in aerosol form.
-------
Q7: What size of battery terminal protector did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table BB-13: Amount of Battery Terminal Protector used
in ounces (N=193 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 16.49
Median ounces per year 4.00
Standard deviation 87.84
As might be expected, the mean ounces of battery terminal
protector used per year is rather low compared to the amounts
used of other products. Most of the other products included were
used in larger quantities by those who used them than was battery
terminal protector.
Table BB-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Battery
Terminal protector used in ounces (N=193
recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.12
1% 0.13
5% 0.58
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 4.00
75% 8.00
90% 15.00
95% 24.60
99% 627.00
Maximum 1050.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
BB-14 is tremendous, with the minimum at .12 ounces per year and
the maximum at 1050.0 ounces per year. Nearly three quarters of
the respondents using the product used no more than about 8.0
ounces per year.
5-396
-------
Q8: Where did you use battery terminal protector the last
time you used it?
Table BB-15: Location of last use of the product (N=225
recent users)
Basement
Living Room
Other inside room
Several inside rooms
Garage
Outside
Garage & outside
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
11.6%
86.7%
0.4%
Total
100.0%
Most people (86.7%) used battery terminal protector outside,
with the second most common usage location being the garage.
Rarely (1.3%) was the product used in a room of the house other
than the garage.
5-397
-------
Table BB-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Battery Terminal Protector
Yes No
(#'s) (#'s)
1. Door or window
open to the outside 23 6
(N=29 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan on
during use 3 26
(N=29 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 15 13
(N=28 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 157 63
(N=220 all recent users)
For the three questions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there were
only 28 or 29 respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but kept inside door(s)
closed and did not use an exhaust fan. More than 71.0% of the
220 respondents who answered the question regarding reading of
the product label claimed to have done so.
Table BB-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table BB-17: Ounces per use of Battery Terminal Protector
(N=193 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 8.07
Median # of ounces per use 2.72
Standard deviation 45.40
Table BB-18 shows that the mean ounces per use for battery
terminal protector is moderate compared to other products
included in the study.
5-398
-------
Table BB-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Battery Terminal Protector (N=193 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.06
0.08
0.31
0.60
1.08
2.72
5.00
8.60
13.25
223.96
600.00
Table BB-18 indicates that here is a huge jump between the
95th percentile of 13.25 and the maximum value of 600.00 with the
rate of increase being less dramatic until the 95th percentile.
Table BB-19:
Respondent characteristics of Battery Terminal
Protector users
1. Respondent age Mean
(N=220 recent users)
2. Respondent gender Male
(N=232 recent users) Female
3. Number of household
members Mean
(N=230 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms Mean
(N=232 recent users)
= 42.34 years
87.9%
12.1%
= 3.18 members
= 2.92 bedrooms
Table BB-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
battery terminal protector users. The mean age of these
respondents, at just over 42, is about 2 years younger than the
mean for the total sample. These respondents are also nearly
exclusively male, while the total sample is nearly evenly divided
between men and women—a function most likely due to the fact
that this is an automotive product. Household membership and
number of bedrooms much more nearly approximate the full sample
figures.
5-399
-------
-------
BRAKE
QUIETERS/
CLEANERS
5-401
Preceding page blank
-------
-------
CC. Product 29: Brake Quieter/Cleaner
Ql: Have you ever used the brake quieter/cleaner?
Table CC-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Brake Quieter/Cleaner
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
133
4784
4917*
2.6
97.4
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table CC-1 shows that 2.6% of the total respondents have
"ever" used brake quieter/cleaner. This is among the lowest
usage rates of any product evaluated.
Q2: When was the last time you used brake quieter/cleaner?
Table CC-2: Last time Brake Quieter/Cleaner was used in
months (N=130 users)
Mean # of months 13.30
Median # of months 6.00
Standard deviation 25.90
As Table CC-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of brake quieter/cleaner is 13.30 months. Compared to other
products studied, this is a moderate amount of time since last
use.
Preceding page blank
5-A03
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table CC-3: Percentile rankings for Brake Quieter/Cleaner
—months since last use (N=130 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
.03
0.08
0.33
0.46
1.00
6.00
12.00
46.80
53.40
187.92
240.00
Table CC-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the month preceding
their answering the question. The 75th percentile through the
100th percentile respondents report that they last used the
product between 12 months and 240 months (20 years) ago.
5-404
-------
Q3: How many times have you used brake quieter/cleaner in
the last 12 months?
Table CC-4: Number of uses of Brake Quieter/Cleaner within
the last 12 months (N=95 recent users)
Mean # of times 3.00
Median # of times 2.00
Standard deviation 6.06
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of times it had been used was 3.0 and
the median number of uses was 2.0. Nearly half of the
respondents who had used the product within the past 12 months,
49.5% to be exact, had only one occasion to make use of brake
quieter/cleaner. It was used twice by 29.5%, and 3 times by
6.3%.
Table CC-5: Percentile rankings of the number of uses of
Brake Quieter/Cleaner within the last 12 months
(N=95 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 2.00
90% 6.00
95% 10.40
Maximum 52.00
5-405
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using brake quieter/cleaner
the last time you used it?
Table CC-6: Time spent using the Brake Quieter/Cleaner last
time used (N=96 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 23.38
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 36.32
The mean number of minutes spent during last use of brake
quieter/cleaner is 23.38 and the median is 15.0.
Table CC-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Brake Quieter/Cleaner last time used (N=96
recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.07
5% 0.50
10% 1.00
25% 5.00
median 15.00
75% 30.00
90% 49.50
95% 120.00
Maximum 240.00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to four hours. Nearly 95% of respondents had spent less than 120
minutes (2 hours) using the product, while half had spent 15.0
minutes or less.
5-406
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used brake quieter/cleaner?
Table CC-8: Time spent in the room after use of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner (N=96 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 10.27
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 30.02
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is just over 10 minutes. The median value of zero indicates that
at least half the respondents left the room immediately after
using the product.
Table CC-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room after use of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner (N=96 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 30.00
95% 120.00
Maximum 120.00
More than 75% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while fully 90% stayed in the room
no more than 30.0 minutes. Only 5% of respondents stayed in the
room for 120.0 minutes (2 hours) following use of brake
quieter/cleaner, and none stayed longer.
-------
Table CC-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Brake Quieter/Cleaner,
including only those who spent time in the
room (N=16 recent users who stayed in room
afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
5%
10% 7.30
25% 30.00
Median 30.00
75% 120.00
90% 120.00
95%
Maximum 120.00
Table CC-10 is similar to Table CC-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
5-408
-------
Q6A: Which brand of brake quieter/cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table CC-11: Brand distribution for Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
11
8
6
41
34
98
Percent
11.2
8.2
6.1
41.8
32 . 7
100.0
A total of 58.2% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top 3 brands of brake quieter/cleaner named were used by 11.2%,
8.2% and 6.1% of users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table CC-12: Percent of respondents saying Brake
Quieter/Cleaner is aerosol (N=96 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 65.6%
No, product is nonaerosol 35.4%
Nearly two-thirds of the brake quieter/cleaner used by
respondents was in aerosol form.
-------
Q7: What size of brake quieter/cleaner did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans
did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table CC-13: Amount of Brake Quieter/Cleaner used in ounces
(N=86 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 11.72
Median ounces per year 8.00
Standard deviation 13.25
As might be expected, the mean ounces of brake
quieter/cleaner used per year is rather low compared to the
amounts used of other products. Only a handful of the other
products included were used in smaller quantities by those who
used them than was brake quieter/cleaner.
Table CC-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner used in ounces (N=86 recent
users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.50
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 3.02
Median 8.00
75% 14.25
90% 32.00
95% 38.60
Maximum 78.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
CC-14 is substantial, with the minimum at one-half ounce per year
and the maximum at 78.0 ounces per year. Nearly three quarters
of the respondents using the product used no more than 14.25
ounces per year.
5-410
-------
Q8: Where did you use brake quieter/cleaner the last time
you used it?
Table CC-15: Location of last use of the product (N=96
recent users)
Basement 0.0%
Living Room 0.0%
Other inside room 2.1%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 17.7%
Outside 77.1%
Garage & outside 3.1%
Total 100.0%
Most people (77.1%) used brake quieter/cleaner outside, with
the second most common usage location being the garage, and the
third being a combination of garage and outside. Rarely (2.1%)
was the product used in a room of the house other than the
garage.
5-411
-------
Table CC-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Brake Quieter/Cleaner
Yes No
(#'s) (#'s)
1. Door or window
open to the outside 14 5
(N=19 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 3 16
(N=19 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 13 6
(N=19 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 68 27
(N=95 all recent users)
For the three questions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there were
only nineteen respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but kept inside door(s)
closed and did not use an exhaust fan. More than 71.0% of the
ninety-five respondents who answered the question regarding
reading of the product label claimed to have done so.
Table CC-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table CC-17: Ounces per use of Brake Quieter/Cleaner
(N=85 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use
Median # of ounces per use
Standard deviation
6.26
4.00
6.78
Table CC-17 shows that the mean and median values for ounces
per use are fairly close to each other, indicating a distribution
less skewed than some others encountered.
5-412
-------
Table CC-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner (N=85 recent users)
Minimum
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.32
0.58
1.00
2.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
40.00
Table CC-18 indicates that here is a large jump between the
95th percentile of 16.0 and the maximum value of 40.0 and a
doubling between the 75th and 95th percentiles, from 8.0 to 16.0.
Table CC-19: Respondent characteristics of Brake
Quieter/Cleaner users
1. Respondent age
(N=98 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=98 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=98 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=98 recent users)
Mean = 34.75 years
Male = 93.9?
Female =6.1%
Mean = 3.25 members
Mean = 2.84 bedrooms
Table CC-19 presents the respondent characteristics of brake
quieter/cleaner users. The mean age of these respondents, at
almost 35, is more than 9 years younger than the mean for the
total sample. These respondents are also nearly exclusively
male, while the total sample is nearly evenly divided between men
and women—a function most likely due to the fact that this is an
automotive product. Household membership and number of bedrooms
much more nearly approximate the full sample figures.
5-413
-------
-------
GASKET
REMOVERS
Preceding page blank
5-415
-------
-------
DD. Product 30; Gasket Remover
Ql: Have you ever used gasket remover?
Table DD-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Gasket remover
Numbers Percent
Yes
No
Total
136
4780
4916*
2.7
97.3
100.0
*4 cases where information was not ascertained
Table DD-1 shows that 2.7% of the total respondents have
"ever" used gasket remover. This is among the lowest usage rates
of any product evaluated.
Q2: When was the last time you used gasket remover?
Table DD-2: Last time Gasket Remover was used in
months (N=132 users)
Mean # of months 22.40
Median # of months 9.00
Standard deviation 39.20
As Table DD-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of gasket remover is 22.40 months. Compared to other
products studied, this is a relatively long period of time since
last use.
Preceding page blank
5-417
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table DD-3: Percentile rankings for Gasket Remover—months
since last use (N=132 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.07
0.07
0.23
0.37
2.00
9.00
24.00
60.00
96.60
240.00
240.00
Table DD-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the two month period
preceding their answering the question. The 75th percentile
through the 100th percentile respondents report that they last
used the product between 24.0 months (2 years) and 240.0 months
(20 years) ago.
5-418
-------
Q3: How many times have you used gasket remover in the last
12 months?
Table DD-4: Number of uses of Gasket Remover within the
last 12 months (N=74 recent users)
Mean # of uses 2.50
Median # of uses 1.00
Standard deviation 4.39
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of times it had been used was 2.50,
and the median number of uses was 1.0. Nearly two-thirds of the
respondents who had used the product within the past 12 months,
60.8% to be exact, had only one occasion to make use of gasket
remover. It was used 2 times by 20.3%, and 3 times by 5.4% of
this group of 79 recent users. This makes gasket remover among
the least frequently used products of all those studied.
Table DD-5: Percentile rankings of the number of uses of
Gasket Remover within the last 12 months (N=74
recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1%
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 1.00
75% 2.00
90% 5.00
95% 6.50
99%
Maximum 30.00
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using gasket remover the
last time you used it?
Table DD-6: Time spent using the Gasket Remover last
time used (N=72 recent users)
Mean # of minutes 23.57
Median # of minutes 15.00
Standard deviation 27.18
Compared to other products, the mean and median number of
minutes of use of gasket remover are moderate.
Table DD-7: Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Gasket Remover last time used (N=72 recent
users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.33
—
0.50
2.00
6.25
15.00
30.00
60.00
60.00
—
180.00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to three hours. At least 95% of respondents spent 60.0 (1 hour)
or less using the product, while half spent 15 minutes or less.
5-420
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used gasket remover?
Table DD-8: Time spent in the room after last use of Gasket
Remover (N=73 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 27.56
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 58.54
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is just under one-half hour. The median value of zero indicates
that at least half the respondents left the room immediately
after using the product.
Table DD-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room after use of Gasket
Remover (N=73 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1%
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 12.50
90% 120.00
95% 180.00
99%
Maximum 240.00
More than 50% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while 75% stayed in the room 12.50
minutes. Only about 10% of respondents stayed in the room for
120.0 minutes (two hours) or more following use of gasket
remover.
-------
Table DD-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Gasket Remover, including
only those respondents who spent time in the
room (N-24 recent users who stayed in the room
afterwards)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
2.00
—
2.75
7.50
11.25
60.00
120.00
210.00
240.00
—
240.00
Table DD-10 is similar to Table DD-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
-------
Q6A: Which brand of gasket remover did you use the last time
you used it?
Table DD-11: Brand distribution for Gasket Remover
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
18
6
4
37
!A
79
Percent
22.8
7.6
5. 1
46.8
17.7
100. 0
A total of 53.2% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top 3 brands of gasket remover named were used by 22.8%, 7.6% and
5.1% of users, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table DD-12: Percent of respondents saying Gasket Remover
is aerosol (N=73 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 49.3%
No, product is nonaerosol 50.7%
About one-half of the gasket remover used by respondents was
in aerosol form.
-------
r-
Q7: What size of gasket remover did you use the last time
you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table DD-13: Amount of Gasket Remover used per year in
ounces (N=66 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 13.25
Median ounces per year 7.75
Standard deviation 22.35
As might be expected, the mean ounces of gasket remover used
per year is rather low compared to the amounts used of other
products. Not very many of the other products included were used
in smaller quantities by those who used them than was gasket
remover.
Table DD-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Gasket
Remover used in ounces (N=66 recent users)
Ounces
Minimum 0.50
1%
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 3.75
Median 7.75
75% 16.00
90% 24.00
95% 58.40
99%
Maximum 160.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
DD-14 is substantial, with the minimum at one-half ounce per year
and the maximum at 160.0 ounces per year. Nearly three quarters
of the respondents using the product used no more than about 16.0
ounces per year.
5-424
-------
Q8: Where did you use gasket remover the last time you used
it?
Table DD-15: Location of last use of the product (N=72
recent users)
Basement 0.0%
Living Room 0.0%
Other inside room 0.0%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 37.5%
Outside 59.7%
Garage & outside 2.8%
Total 100.0%
Most people (59.7%) used gasket remover outside, with the
second most common usage location being the garage, and the third
being a combination of garage and outside. The product was never
used in a room of the house other than the garage.
-------
f~
Table DD-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Gasket Remover
Yes No
(#'s) (#'s)
1. Door or window
open to the outside 21 6
(N=27 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 2 25
(N=27 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 13 13
(N=26 recent inside users
4. Whether directions
on label were read 54 19
(N=73 all recent users)
For the three questions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there were
only 26 or 27 respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but did not use an
exhaust fan. Respondents were evenly divided as to whether they
kept inside door(s) open or closed. Nearly three-quarters of the
73 respondents who answered the question regarding reading of the
product label claimed to have done so.
Table DD-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table DD-17: Ounces per use of Gasket Remover
(N=66 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 7.09
Median # of ounces per use 4.00
Standard deviation 9.44
Table DD-17 shows that the mean and median values for ounces
per use are reasonably close to each other, indicating a
distribution less skewed than some others encountered.
-------
Table DD-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Gasket Remover (N=66 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.50
—
0.50
0.97
2.00
4.00
8.00
16.19
25.74
—
64.00
Table DD-18 indicates that there is a jump between the
median value of 4.0 and the maximum value of 64.0.
Table DD-19: Respondent characteristics of Gasket Remover
users
1. Respondent age
(N=79 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=79 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=79 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=79 recent users)
Mean = 36.61 years
Male = 88.6%
Female = 11.4%
Mean = 3.33 members
Mean = 3.01 bedrooms
Table DD-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
gasket remover users. The mean age of these respondents, at less
than 37, is nearly 8 years younger than the mean for the total
sample. These respondents are also much more likely to be male,
while the total sample is nearly evenly divided between men and
women—a function most likely due to the fact that this is an
automotive product. Household membership and number of bedrooms
much more nearly approximate the full sample figures.
5-427
-------
-------
TIRE/
HUBCAP
CLEANERS
Preceding page blank
5-429
-------
-------
EE. Product 31; Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ql: Have you ever used tire/hubcap cleaners?
Table EE-1: Numbers and % of respondents ever using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Numbers Percent
Yes 782 15.9
NO 4135 84.1
Total 4917* 100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table EE-1 shows that 15.9% of the total respondents have
"ever" used tire/hubcap cleaners.
Q2: When was the last time you used tire/hubcap cleaners?
Table EE-2: Last time Tire/Hubcap Cleaner was used in
months (N=777 users)
Mean # of months 7.30
Median # of months 1.00
Standard deviation 20.22
As Table EE-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of tire/hubcap cleaners is 7.30 months and the median is 1.0
month. The mean is more than seven times the size of the median,
This difference is the result of a few extreme responses to this
question.
Preceding page blank
5-431
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table EE-3: Percentile rankings for Tire/Hubcap Cleaners-
months since last use (N=777 users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Months
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.23
1.00
6.00
13.00
36.00
101.28
240.00
Table EE-3 shows that the months since the product was last
used range from a minimum of 0.03 months to a maximum of 240.0
months. Twenty-five percent of the users last used the product
less than a month ago. The number of months reported may be
subject to rounding discussed earlier under aspects of the data
(i.e. 3, 20 years rather than 3 years 3 months). The data are
usable for indicating the approximate last use.
5-432
-------
Q3: How many times have you used tire/hubcap cleaners in
the last 12 months?
Table EE-4: Number of uses of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners within
the last 12 months (N=691 recent users)
Mean # of uses 11.18
Median # of uses 4.00
Standard deviation 18.67
The mean number of uses for tire/hubcap cleaners in the last
12 months is 11.18 uses and the median is 4 uses. Of the 691
respondents who answered this question, 18.7% used it once, 13.7%
used it twice and 10% used it three times in the last year. As
shown in Table EE-5 which follows, 99% of the respondents used
the product 77 times or less in the last year. The maximum
number of times the product was used is 200.
Table EE-5: Percentile rankings of mumber of uses of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners within the last 12 months
(N=691 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 4.00
75% 12.00
90% 30.00
95% 50.00
99% 77.00
Maximum 200.00
5-433
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using tire/hubcap cleaner
the last time you used it?
Table EE-6: Time spent using Tire/Hubcap Cleaners last time
used (N=683 recent users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
22.66
15.00
23.94
The mean and median number of minutes for using tire/hubcap
cleaners are 22.66 and 15.0 minutes respectively.
Table EE-7:
Percentile rankings for time spent using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners last time used (N=683
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Max
Minutes
0.08
0.71
3.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
60.00
120.00
240.00
The time spent using tire/hubcap cleaners ranges from a
minimum of 0.08 minutes to 240.0 minutes at the 100th percentile.
Ninety-five percent of the respondents used the product for 1
hour or less.
5-43^
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used tire/hubcap cleaners?
Table EE-8: Time spent in the room after last use of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners (N=682 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 1.51
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 20.43
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after use is
1.51 minutes. Of the 32 products surveyed, this is the smallest
period of time spent in the room after use of the product. The
median is zero as 95% of the respondents did not spend any time
in the room after use of tire/hubcap cleaners.
Table EE-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
including those who did not spend any time in
the room (N=682 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 0.00
95% 0.00
99% 30.00
Maximum 480.00
Only respondents at the 99th and 100th percentile did spend
time in the room after using tire/hubcap cleaners.
5-435
-------
Table EE-10: Percentile rankings for Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
for time spent in the room after use including
only those who spent time in the room (N=14
recent users who stayed in the room
afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 2.00
1%
5%
10% 3.50
25% 8.75
Median 30.00
75% 75.00
90% 330.00
95%
99%
Maximum 480.00
Table EE-10 is similar to Table EE-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product
Only 14 users did spend some time in the room after use of the
product. Since the number spending time in the room is small it
was not possible to calculate the time spent at the 1st, 5th,
95th and 99th percentile. The mean time now spent in the room is
73.70 minutes and the median is 30.0. This differs considerably
from the mean and median in Table T-8 as respondents who did not
spend any time in the room have now been excluded.
5-436
-------
Q6A: Which brand of tire/hubcap cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table EE-11: Brand distribution for Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
168
42
33
219
225
687
Percent
24.1
6.0
4.7
31.4
33.8
100.0
Sixty-nine percent (68.6%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of tire/hubcap cleaners
named were used by 24.1%, 6.0% and 4.7% of respondents,
respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table EE-12: Percent of respondents saying the Tire/Hubcap
Cleaner used is in aerosol or nonaerosol
form (N=685 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 29.50%
No, product is nonaerosol 70.50%
The majority of respondents (70.5%) said the tire/hubcap
cleaner they used was in nonaerosol form.
5-437
-------
Q7: What size of tire/hubcap cleaner did you use the
last time you used it? How much of a can or how many
cans did you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table EE-13: Amount of Tire/Hubcap Cleaner used in
ounces (N=637 recent users)
Mean ounces per year
Median ounces per year
Standard deviation
31.58
12.00
80.39
The mean ounces used per year for tire/hubcap cleaners is
31.58 ounces and the median is 12.0 ounces.
Table EE-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Tire/Hubcap
Cleaners used in ounces (N=637 recent uses)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.12
0.50
1.82
3.00
6.00
12.00
28.00
64.00
96.00
443.52
960.00
The minimum amount of tire/hubcap cleaners used is 0.12
ounces and the maximum is 960.0 ounces. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 96.0 ounces or less of the product.
5-438
-------
Q8: Where did you use tire/hubcap cleaner the last
time you used it?
Table EE-15: Location of where product used last time
(N=684 recent users)
Basement 0.0%
Living room 0.3%
Other inside room 0.1%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 4.0%
Outside 94.9%
Garage & outside 0.7%
Total 100.0%
As expected the majority of the respondents (94.9%), used
the product outside. A total of 4% used the product in the
garage. The remaining .4% of the respondents used the product
inside in a room other than the garage.
-439
-------
Table EE-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Yes No
1. Door or window
open to the outside 56.0% 44.0%
(N=25 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust fan
on during use 4.3% 95.7%
(N=23 recent inside users)
3. Whether inside door
to room was open 45.8% 54.2%
(N=24 recent inside users)
4. Whether directions
on label were read 67.1% 32.9%
(N=659 all recent users)
The majority of the users who used the product inside, had
read the directions on the label (67.1%). A little more than
half the respondents had a door or window open to the outside
(56%) . Less than half the respondents had an inside door to the
room open (45.8%).
Table EE-17 is a derived variable ounces per use and it is
derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per year) by Question 3
(# of times used in the last year).
Table EE-17: Ounces per use of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
(N=636 recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use 4.90
Median # of ounces per use 2.67
Standard deviation 11.72
The mean ounces per use of the product is 4.90 and the
median is 2.67. Table EE-18 which follows presents the
percentile rankings for this variable. Ninety-five percent of
the respondents used 16.0 ounces or less of the product per use.
The maximum ounces used per use is 256.0.
-------
Table EE-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners (N=636 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.02
0.07
0.30
0.53
1.23
2.67
6.00
10.55
16.00
32. 00
256.00
Table EE-19:
Respondent characteristics of Tire/Hubcap
Cleaner users
1. Respondent age
(N=696 recent users)
2. Respondent gender
(N=696 recent users)
3. Number of household
members
(N=696 recent users)
4. Number of bedrooms
(N=696 recent users)
Mean = 38.04 years
Male = 63.6%
Female = 36.4%
Mean = 3.15 members
Mean = 2.92 bedrooms
Table EE-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
tire/hubcap cleaners. The mean age of these respondents is 38.04
years. The number of male respondents (63.6%) is nearly twice
the number of female respondents (36.4%). Except for respondent
gender, the other characteristics are similar to the
characteristics for the total sample of respondents. The total
sample has nearly an equal number of male and female respondents.
-------
-------
IGNITION
AND
WIRE DRYERS
5-443
-------
-------
FF. Product 32; Ignition Wire Dryer
Ql: Have you ever used ignition wire dryer?
Table FF-1: Numbers and % of Respondents Ever Using
Ignition Wire Dryer
Yes
No
Total
Numbers
240
4677
4917*
Percent
4.8
95.2
100.0
*3 cases where information was not ascertained
Table FF-1 shows that 4.8% of the total respondents have
"ever" used ignition wire dryer. This is among the lowest usage
rates of any product evaluated.
Q2: When was the last time you used ignition wire dryer?
Table FF-2: Last time Ignition Wire Dryer was used in
months (N=234 users)
Mean # of months 22.80
Median # of months 8.00
Standard Deviation 44.33
As Table FF-2 shows, the mean number of months since last
use of ignition wire dryer is 22.8.0 months. Compared to other
products studied, this is a rather long amount of time since last
use.
5-445
-------
The percentile rankings for time since last use are shown
below:
Table FF-3: Percentile rankings for Ignition and Wire
Dryer — months since last use (N=234 users)
Months
Minimum 0.07
1% 0.07
5% 0.23
10% 0.69
25% 3.00
Median 8.00
75% 24.00
90% 60.00
95% 96.00
99% 219.00
Maximum 480.00
Table FF-3 shows that respondents in the lowest 25th
percentile grouping used the product within the three month
period preceding their answering the question. The 75th
percentile through the 100th percentile respondents report that
they last used the product between 24.0 months (2 years) and
480.0 months (40 years) ago.
5-446
-------
Q3: How many times have you used ignition wire dryer in the
last 12 months?
Table FF-4: Number of uses of Ignition Wire Dryer within
the last 12 months (N=142 recent uses)
Mean # of uses
Median # of uses
Standard deviation
3.01
2.00
5.71
Among those respondents who had used the product within the
past year, the mean number of times it had been used was 3.0, and
the median number of uses was 2.0. Nearly half of the
respondents who had used the product within the past 12 months,
45.1% to be exact, had only one ocassion to make use of ignition
wire dryer. It was used twice by 25.4%, and 3 times by 9.9% of
this group of 142 recent users.
Table FF-5: Percentile rankings of number of uses of
Ignition Wire Dryer within the last 12 months
(N=142 recent users)
Uses
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 1.00
Median 2.00
75% 3.00
90% 5.00
95% 9.70
99% 44.52
Maximum 60.00
-------
Q4: How much time did you spend using ignition wire dryer
the last time you used it?
Table FF-6: Time spent using the Ignition Wire Dryer last
time used (N=137 users)
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
7.24
5.00
8.48
The mean number of minutes of use of ignition wire dryer is
the least of all products included in the study.
Table FF-7:
Percentile rankings for time spent using the
Ignition Wire Dryer last time used (N=137
recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Minutes
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.47
1.50
5.00
10.00
15.00
25.50
48.60
60.00
The time spent using the product ranges from a few seconds
to one hour. Nearly 90% of respondents had spent 15.0 minutes or
less using the product, while half had spent 5.0 minutes or less.
5-448
-------
Q5: How much time did you spend in the room immediately
after use the last time you used ignition wire dryer?
Table FF-8: Time spent in the room after use of Ignition
Wire Dryer (N=137 recent users)
Mean # minutes in room 6.39
Median # minutes in room 0.00
Standard deviation 31.63
The mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use
is just over 6.0 minutes. The median value of zero indicates
that at least half the respondents left the room immediately
after using the product.
Table FF-9: Percentile rankings for time spent in the room
after last use including those who did not
spend any time in room after use of Ignition
Wire Dryer (N=137 recent users)
Minutes
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median 0.00
75% 0.00
90% 0.10
95% 30.00
99% 216.60
Maximum 240.00
More than 75% of respondents spent no time in the room
following use of the product, while fully 95% stayed in the room
no more than 30.0 minutes, and none stayed longer than 240.0
minutes (4.0 hours).
5-A49
-------
Table FF-10: Percentile rankings of time spent in the room
after last use of Ignition Wire Dryer,
including only those respondents who spent
time in the room (N=13 recent users who stayed
in room afterwards)
Minutes
Minimum 1.00
1%
5%
10% 1.40
25% 4.50
Median 30.00
75% 150.00
90% 216.00
95%
99%
Maximum 240.00
Table FF-10 is similar to Table FF-9 except it includes only
users who did in fact stay in the room after using the product,
therefore the zero values are eliminated.
-------
Q6A: Which brand of ignition wire dryer did you use the
last time you used it?
Table FF-11: Brand distribution for Ignition Wire Dryer
Brand category
Top brand
Second highest brand
Third highest brand
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
All other named brands
Total
Frequency
15
10
4
90
28
147
Percent
10.2
6.8
2.7
61.2
19.1
100.0
A total of 38.8% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top 3 brands of ignition wire dryer named were used by 10.2%,
6.8% and 2.7% of the respondents, respectively.
Q6B: Was the product in aerosol form?
Table FF-12: Percent of respondents saying Ignition
Wire Dryer is aerosol (N=138 recent users)
Yes, product is aerosol 78.3%
No, product is nonaerosol 21.7%
More than three-quarters of the ignition wire dryer used by
respondents was in aerosol form.
5-451
-------
Q7: What size of ignition wire dryer did you use the last
time you used it? How much of a can or how many cans did
you use during the past year?
The two questions above were used to derive the variable
called ounces per year.
Table FF-13: Amount of Ignition Wire Dryer used in ounces
(N=128 recent users)
Mean ounces per year 9.02
Median ounces per year 6.00
Standard deviation 14.59
As might be expected, the mean ounces of ignition wire dryer
used per year is very low compared to the amounts used of other
products. Only two of the other products studied were used in
smaller quantities by those who used them than was ignition wire
dryer.
Table FF-14: Percentile rankings for amount of Ignition
Wire Dryer used in ounces (N=128 recent users)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces
0.13
0.32
1.09
1.50
3.00
6.00
10.75
16.00
20.55
113.04
120.00
The range between the minimum and maximum values in Table
FF-14 is substantial, with the minimum at a fraction of an ounce
per year and the maximum at 120.0 ounces per year. Ninety
percent of the respondents using the product used no more than
about 16.0 ounces per year.
5-452
-------
Q8: Where did you use ignition wire dryer the last time you
used it?
Table FF-15: Location of last use of the product (N=138
recent users)
Basement 0.0%
Living Room 0.7%
Other inside room 0.7%
Several inside rooms 0.0%
Garage 8.7%
Outside 88.4%
Garage & outside 1.4%
Total 100.0%
Most people (88.4%) used ignition wire dryer outside, with
the second most common usage location being the garage, and the
third being a combination of garage and outside. Rarely (1.4%)
was the product used in a room of the house other than the garage
(Living room or other inside room).
Table FF-16: Protective measures undertaken while using
Ignition Wire Dryer
Yes No
1. Door or Window
Open to the Outside 9% 4%
(N=13 recent inside users)
2. Exhaust Fan
on During Use 2% 11%
(N=13 recent inside users)
3. Whether Inside Door
to Room Was Open 7% 5%
(N=12 recent inside users)
4. Whether Directions
on Label Were Read 95% 38%
(N=133 recent users)
For the three questions concerned with air flow in the room
in which the product was used, it should be noted that there were
only 12 or 13 respondents. Most of these respondents did keep
the window or door open to the outside, but kept inside door(s)
closed and did not use an exhaust fan. More than 71% of the 133
5-453
-------
respondents who answered the question regarding reading of the
product label claimed to have done so.
Table FF-17 is a derived variable indicating the number of
ounces per use. It is derived by dividing Question 7 (ounces per
year) by Question 3 (# of times used in the last year).
Table FF-17:
Ounces per use of Ignition Wire Dryer (128
recent users)
Mean # of ounces per use
Median # of ounces per use
Standard deviation
4.74
3.00
8.99
Table FF-17 shows the mean and median values for ounces per
use. The mean, at 4.74 ounces per use, is relatively low
compared to other products evaluated.
Table FF-18:
Percentile rankings of ounces per use of
Ignition Wire Dryer (N=128 recent user)
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
Ounces/Use
0.07
0.14
0.50
0.94
1.50
3.00
6.00
9.06
12.00
73.96
96.00
Table FF-18 indicates that there is a large jump between the
95th percentile of 12.0 and the maximum value of 96.0, and a
doubling between the 75th and 95th percentiles, from 6.0 to 12.0.
5-A5A
-------
Table FF-19: Respondent characteristics of Ignition Wire
Dryer users
1. Respondent Age
(N=147 recent users)
2. Respondent Gender
(N=147 recent users)
3. Number of Household
Members
(N=147 recent users)
4. Number of Bedrooms
(N=147 recent users)
Mean = 42.99 years
Male = 83.7%
Female = 16.3%
Mean = 3.27 members
Mean = 3.04 bedrooms
Table FF-19 presents the respondent characteristics of
ignition wire dryer users. The mean age of these respondents, at
almost 43, is about one year younger than the mean for the total
sample. These respondents are also predominantly male, while the
total sample is nearly evenly divided between men and women—a
function most likely due to the fact that this is an automotive
product. Household membership and number of bedrooms much more
nearly approximate the full sample figures.
5-455
-------
-------
IV. Findings for the Drycleaninq Questions
A. Frequency of Commercial Drycleaning Use
Q10: During the preceding 12 months, about how often did you
use commercial dry cleaners for dry cleaning use
excluding laundry use?
Table 5-1. Frequency of commercial drycleaning use -
users only for times per month (N=2512)
Mean # times per month 1.87
Median # times per month .42
Standard deviation 7.51
Table 5-1 presents the frequency of commercial drycleaning
use in units of times per months for users only. The mean number
of times per months is 1.87 and the median number is .42 times
per month. Table 5-2 presents the percentile rankings for the
frequency of commercial drycleaning use in units of times per
months for users only.
Table 5-2. Percentile rankings for frequency of
commercial drycleaning use - users only
for time per month (N=2512)
Times per month
Minimum .08
1% .08
5% .08
10% .08
25% .17
Median .48
75% 1.00
90% 3.92
95% 4.33
99% 27.73
Maximum *
*Maximum value is an unrealistically high number so its
value is not presented.
The percentile rankings for frequency of drycleaning use
range from a minimum of .08 times per month to a 99th percentile
value of 27.73 times per month.
Preceding page biank
5-457
-------
Table 5-3. Frequency of commercial drycleaning use
users and nonusers for times per month
(N=4901 19 missing users)
Mean # times per month .96
Median # times per month .08
Standard deviation 5.46
Table 5-3 presents the frequency of commercial drycleaning
use for users as well as nonusers in units of times per month.
Table 5-4 presents the percentile rankings for the same measure.
Table 5-4. Percentile rankings for frequency of
commercial drycleaning use - users and
nonusers for times per month (N=490l 19
missing cases)
Times per month
Minimum 0.00
1% 0.00
5% 0.00
10% 0.00
25% 0.00
Median .08
75% .42
90% 2.00
95% 3.92
99% 12.04
Maximum *
*Maximum value is an unrealistically high number so
that its value is not presented.
5-458
-------
B. Frequency of Self-Service Drvcleaning Use
Qll: During the past year, how often did you visit self-
service laundry facilities with drycleaning machines?
Table 5-5. Numbers using and not using self-service
laundry facilities with drycleaning
machines
Numbers Percent
Those not using 4331 88.0%
Those using 580 11.8%
Not ascertained 9 .2%
4920 100.0'
Table 5-5 reflects the number and percent of respondents
using and not using self-service laundry facilities with dry
cleaning machines. Table 5-6 reflects the number of times it was
used in the past year by the 580 respondents who did in fact use
this type of facility.
Table 5-6. Number of times using self-service laundry
facilities with drycleaning machines
(N=577)
Mean # times per year 11.65
Median # times per year 3.00
Standard deviation 17.94
For those using self-service laundry facilities with dry
cleaning machines, the mean number of times used per year is
11.65 and the median number of times per year is 3.00.
5-459
-------
Table 5-7. Percentile rankings for number of times
using self-service laundry facilities with
drycleaning machines (N=577)
Times per year
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
12.00
48.00
52.00
83.96
104.00
The percentile rankings for the number of times using self-
service laundry facilities with drycleaning machines range from a
minimum of 1.0 to a maximum of 104.0 times per year.
5-460
-------
Q12: On how many of these visits to the laundry facility
during the past year did you actually use the dry
cleaning machines?
Table 5-8.
Number of times visitors to self-service
laundry facilities used drycleaning
machines (N=125)
Mean # times
Median # times
Standard deviation
Times per year
5.54
2.00
9.70
The mean number of times visitors actually used the
drycleaning machines in the past year is 5.54 and the median is
2.0.
Table 5-9.
Percentile rankings of number of times
visitors to self-service laundry facilities
used drycleaning machines
Times per year
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
12.00
24.20
52.00
52.00
The percentile rankings for the number of times visitors to
self-service laundry facilities used drycleaning machines ranged
from a minimum of 1.0 time per year to a maximum of 52.0 times
per year.
5-461
-------
r-
Q13: About how much time do you spend inside during each
visit to the laundry facility regardless of whether you
actually used the drycleaning machines?
Table 5-10. Minutes spent inside of laundry facility
with drycleaning machines
Mean # of minutes
Median # of minutes
Standard deviation
70.36
60.00
133.22
The mean number of minutes spent inside of laundry facility
is 70.36 minutes and the median is 60.00.
Table 5-11. Percentile rankings of minutes spent inside
laundry facilities with drycleaning
machines
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 5.00
10% 5.00
25% 20.00
Median 60.00
75% 90.00
90% 120.00
95% 120.00
99% 300.00
Maximum 2700.00
The percentile rankings for minutes spent inside the laundry
facility with drycleaning machines ranged from a minimum of one
minute to a maximum of 2700.0. Once again the maximum value is a
substantial amount higher than the rest of the values.
5-462
-------
V. Respondent Characteristics of the Sample
A. Respondent Age
Table 5-12 presents the age of the respondents. The mean
age is 44.35 years and the median is 44.00 years.
Table 5-12. Respondent age
Mean # of years 44.35
Median # of years 44.00
Standard deviation 15.87
Table 5-13. Percentile rankings of respondent age
Years of Age
Minimum 18
1% 18
5% 20
10% 24
25% 33
Median 44
75% 56
90% 66
95% 71
99% 81
Maximum 86
B. Respondent Gender
Table 5-14 presents the gender of respondents.
Approximately forty four percent of the sample is male.
Table 5-14. Gender of respondents
Numbers Percent
Male 2178 44.30
Female 2733 55.50
Not Ascertained 9 .20
5-463
-------
f-
C. Number of Household Members
Table 5-15 presents the mean and median number of household
members. The mean number is 3.48 and the median is 3.0.
Table 5-15. Number of household members
Mean # of household members 3.12
Median # of household members 3.00
Standard deviation 1.70
Table 5-16. Percentile rankings for number of
household members
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 1.00
25% 2.00
Median 3.00
75% 4.00
90% 5.00
95% 6.00
99% 10.00
Maximum 13.00
5-464
-------
D. Number of Bedrooms in House
Table 5-17 presents the mean and median number of bedrooms
in the house. The mean is 2.9 and the median is 3.0.
Table 5-17. Number of bedrooms in the house
Mean # bedrooms 2.90
Median # bedrooms 3.00
Standard deviation .95
Table 5-18. Percentile rankings of number of bedrooms
Minimum 1.00
1% 1.00
5% 1.00
10% 2.00
25% 2.00
Median 3.00
75% 3.00
90% 4.00
95% 4.50
99% 5.00
Maximum 6.00
5-465
-------
-------
Section 6
BRAND IMPUTATION MODELING
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
A. Background
A shelf study was conducted in conjunction with this
household survey by the Office of Toxic Substances of EPA.
Twelve hundred items were collected from a sample of stores
within six cities in the United States all of which were thought
to have the possibility of containing either methylene chloride
or one of its five substitutes. Laboratory analyses were then
conducted to determine whether or not each of the six types of
chlorocarbons were present and at what concentrations. The
intention was to match the brand the respondents said that they
used in the household survey to the brand laboratory tested as
the result of the shelf survey, at least, where a match was
possible. The match would produce information on the
concentration of the chemicals which would then be used in
calculations of the exposure assessments of the general
population to these six chemicals.
Table 6-1 depicts the number and percent of users
(respondents) who named brands in the household survey which
found a match in the laboratory data and those who named brands
which did not have a match in the laboratory data.
Excluding latex and oil paint which are included in this
survey because of their general interest rather than the fact
they are thought to contain methylene chloride or one of its
substitutes, the remaining thirty products range from a low of 2
per cent of the users naming brands with a match in the
laboratory data for the category of glass frostings, tints, and
artificial snow to a high of 85 per cent of the users naming
brands with a match in the laboratory data for the category of
other nonautomotive lubricants. As can be seen by this table,
many brands and users of these brands are without laboratory
data.
Because the household survey provides frequency, duration,
amount of product used, and other data used in the exposure
assessments for all of the respondents in the sample, it is
desirable to have the match in the laboratory data for all brands
named in the household survey as well.
Ideally, all brands named in the household survey would have
been purchased and tested in the laboratory for the presence or
6-1
-------
Table 6-1.
Listing of total number of users, and numbers and percent of users with and
without laboratory data, by product category
Product Category
Total
Number
Of
Users
Number of
Users With
Laboratory
Data
Percent of
Users With
Laboratory
Data
Number of
Users W/Out
Laboratory
Data
Percent of
Users W/Out
Laboratory
Data
I
K)
1. Spray Shoe Polish 270
2. Water Repellents 1049
3. Spot Removers 1401
4. Solvent Cleaners 1117
5. Wood/Floor/Panel
Cleaners 1315
6. Typewriter
Correction Fluid 1147
7. Cement/Glue/Spray
Adhesives 2700
8. Adhesive Removers 175
9. Silicone Lubricants 761
10. Other Lubricants,
Non-Automotive 1545
11. Specialized
Electronic
Cleaners 553
12. Latex Paint 1801
13. Oil Paint 744
14. Wood Stains/
Varnishes/
Finishes 1268
15. Paint Removers/
Strippers 769
16. Paint Thinners 1113
143
455
875
400
924
867
605
24
392
1310
100
177
8
786
315
99
53
43
62
36
70
76
22
14
52
85
18
10
1
62
41
9
127
594
526
717
391
280
2095
151
369
235
453
1624
736
482
454
1014
47
57
38
64
30
24
78
86
48
15
82
90
99
38
59
91
-------
Table 6-1.
Listing of total number of users, and numbers and percent of users with and
without laboratory data, by product category (continued)
Product Category
Total
Number
Of
Users
Number of
Users With
Laboratory
Data
Percent of
Users With
Laboratory
Data
Number of
Users W/Out
Laboratory
Data
Percent of
Users W/Out
Laboratory
Data
17. Aerosol Spray
Paint 1190
18. Non Automotive
Primers 406
19. Aerosol Rust
Removers 295
20. Outdoor Water
Repellents 247
21. Glass Frostings/
Tints and
Artificial Snow 283
22. Engine Degreasers 588
23. Carburetor Cleaners 812
24. Aerosol Car Spray
Paint 372
25. Auto Spray Primers 264
26. Car Spray
Lubricants 781
27. Transmission
Cleaners 75
28. Battery Terminal
Protectors 232
29. Brake Quieter/
Cleaner 98
30. Gasket Remover 79
31. Tire/Hubcap Cleaners 697
32. Ignition and Wire
Dryers 147
213
157
181
106
6
134
483
68
72
491
17
40
30
30
98
18
39
61
43
2
23
59
18
27
63
23
17
31
38
14
977
249
114
141
277
454
329
304
192
290
58
192
68
49
599
140
82
61
39
57
98
77
41
82
73
37
77
83
69
62
86
95
-------
absence and the concentrations of methylene chloride and its
substitutes. However, this was beyond the scope and budgetary
limits of the shelf survey. In the absence of this empirical
data, a brand imputation model was developed to provide for the
random assignment of existing laboratory data to the brands
missing actual laboratory data. The brand imputation model and
procedures will be discussed under Subsection II.
B. Assignment of Zeros
Before discussing the brand imputation model itself, certain
brands missing laboratory data were assigned zero concentrations
of the six chemicals in question. These brands fall into
categories which were sufficiently tested in the shelf survey
and, as categories, were found not to have these six chlorinated
solvent chemicals. These categories were as follows:
Stain Removers
NonAerosol Wax
Deodorant Freshener
Oven Cleaners
Laundry Presoaks
Anti-static Sprays
Rug Cleaners
Window Cleaners
Bathroom Cleaners
Dip Dye Metal Cleaners
Brush On Primers
Brush on Stains & Varnishes
All Purpose Cleaners
Starting Fluids
Windshield De-icers
Chrome Protectors
Auto Carpet Cleaners
Upholstery Cleaners
Vinyl Top Cleaners
Of course, for the brand to be listed in the household
survey meant that the brand listed from one of the shelf
categories above was listed under a different household category.
For example, many respondents listed a laundry presoak (a shelf
category) as a spot remover (a household category). The shelf
survey had a greater number of product categories than the
household survey. In fact, the above categories were excluded
from the household survey because no brands were found to have
the chemicals. Nonetheless, some respondents listed a brand of
products from these shelf categories under categories similar but
different in the household. In general, a brand was placed in a
household survey category if the respondent placed it there.
6-4
-------
In any case, brands which fell into a category which was
found not to have the six chemicals were assigned a zero
concentration of the chemicals. Table 6-2 depicts the number and
percent of users naming a brand for each product which was
attributed the zero concentrations. These attributions were
treated as if there were laboratory data in Table 6-1.
II. BRAND IMPUTATION MODEL AND PROCEDURES
A. The Model
A separate brand imputation model was developed within each
product category to randomly assign (proportionate to brand use)
existing laboratory data to those brands and users of those
brands which were missing actual data. The brand imputation
model was basically a simulation approach. For this approach the
brands missing data were made to resemble the brands with
laboratory data on the percent containing each of the six
chemicals so that the overall percent of users using brands
containing the chemical is similar to those with laboratory data.
The underlying assumption for this procedure was that brands
selected for laboratory testing are similar to the brands without
data. Additionally, for brands missing laboratory data (that are
imputed to contain a given chemical) the concentration of
chemical was selected so that the distribution of imputed
chemical matches the brands with the chemical for those having
laboratory data.
The information provided for the imputed data is identical
to that presented for the actual laboratory data. The following
information was generated whether by laboratory data or by
imputation for each brand used in each product category by a
respondent of the household survey. The information which was
imputed follows:
presence or absence of the six chemicals
amount of chemical #1 (blank if no data)
amount of chemical #2
amount of chemical #3
amount of chemical #4
amount of chemical #5
amount of chemical #6
6-5
-------
Table 6-2. Total and Numbers and percents of users with brands
attributed zeros, by product category
Number of Users Percent Users
with Attributed with Attributed
Product Category Zero Values Zero Values
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents
Spot Removers
Solvent Cleaners
Wood/Floor/Panel Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Concentrated Cement/Glue/
Spray Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants, Non-Automotive
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains/Varnishes/Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Non Automotive primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents
Glass Frosting/Tints/Artificial
Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Car Spray Paint
Auto Spray Primers
Car Spray Lubricants
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieter/Cleaner
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
2
2
222
157
164
1
0
1
0
0
0
177
2
744
45
8
7
125
167
2
0
0
20
2
1
0
0
7
0
0
39
0
1
0
16
14
12
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
59
6
1
1
31
57
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
6-6
-------
B. Brand Imputation Procedures
The brand imputation model has been operationalized using
the following procedures:
1. The number and percent of users using each brand in
each of the thirty-two product categories was
calculated.
2. A list of brands named by respondents but missing
laboratory data was created and prepared for
imputation.
3. A list of instances where respondents said they used
but could not remember the brand was also created and
prepared for imputation.
4. For each instance in list #2 or #3 above, a brand with
laboratory data was randomly selected as a donor for a
brand without laboratory data using a type of "hot
deck" procedure. This was performed using the
following algorithm (separately for aerosol and
nonaerosol for each product category):
a) Select for imputation the first brand missing
laboratory data.
b) Randomly select a brand from those with laboratory
data with probability proportionate to the number
of users of the brand. Use this brand to impute
for the first brand missing laboratory data, i.e.
use the amount of each chemical on the selected
brand for imputation.
c) For the remainder of the brands missing laboratory
data the above steps were performed until all the
brands missing data were given an imputed value.
Each selection of a brand to be used as a "donor"
was independent of previous selections. This
means that if a brand was selected to be a donor
it was still available for future selections with
the same probability (i.e. the procedure was
performed with replacement). Thus, if 80 percent
of respondents with laboratory data used brand X,
the formulation for brand X would be applied to 80
percent of those without data.
6-7
-------
III. LIMITATIONS OF THE BRAND IMPUTATION MODEL AND PROCEDURES
The following paragraphs describe limitations in analyses
that might be performed using the imputed data.
A. Bias
The imputation procedure used will not remove bias
associated with the lack of brand data. Data were missing
primarily because either the respondent did not know the name of
the brand used or because it was not included in the shelf
survey. Since neither process is random it is possible that the
brands missing data differ in chemical composition from those
with lab data. The extent of the difference between the brands
with shelf survey data and all other brands is unknown. The
impact of whatever difference exists will also be a function of
the extent of the missing data, and will vary from product type
to product type. Table 6-1 containing the distribution of
missing data should be carefully examined prior to making
inferences.
Table 6-3 summarizes the tests of significance for
differences between respondents using products with laboratory
data and those using products without laboratory data. The
degree of bias in the brand imputation procedures and assumptions
is reflected by the number of significant differences between the
above two groups of respondents. Significant differences are
assessed for three usage variables for 30 of the 32 products
tested. Out of the 90 resulting tests, 20 showed a significant
difference at p < .05 between those using products with
laboratory data and those using products without laboratory data.
Three products had significant differences for two or three of
the three usage variables. These are: water repellents/
protectors, spot removers, and gasket removers.
Although the numbers of significant differences found in
Table 6-3 are greater than would be expected by chance alone, the
numbers are not unusually high when the method of brand selection
for laboratory testing is taken into account. Given that the
number of items purchased for laboratory testing was limited to
1,153 items for budgetary reasons, brand items were specifically
selected for testing over those left behind based on the fact
that they were thought based on predetermined criteria to be more
likely to contain one of the six solvents of interest. When this
fact is taken into account, the number of significant differences
in the usage variables for Table 6-3 can be expected to be higher
than if brands were selected randomly.
The same analysis was done for assessing significant
differences between usage data for products known to have any one
6-8
-------
TABLE 6-3
Results of the Tests of Significance for
Those Using Products With Laboratory Data
Versus Those Using Products Without Laboratory Data
*
(Probabilities Listed - Indicates Significance at < .05)
PRODUCT
1. SPRAY SHOE POLISH
2. WATER REPELLENTS/PROTECTORS
(FOR SUEDE, LEATHER, AND CLOTH)
3. SPOT REMOVERS
4. SOLVENT-TYPE CLEANING FLUIDS
OR DEGREASERS
5. WOOD FLOOR AND PANELING CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER CORRECTION FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT, SUPER GLUES AND
SPRAY ADHESIVES
8. ADHESIVE REMOVERS (GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONE LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
10. OTHER LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
11. SPECIALIZED ELECTRONIC CLEANERS
FOR TV, VCR, RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
14. WOOD STAINS, VARNISHES AW
FINISHES
15. PAIN! REMOVERS/STRIPPERS
USES
PER YEAR
P =
.607
*
.023
»
.000
*
.002
.360
*
.023
,
.036
.518
»
.006
.147
.730
NOT
TESTED
NOT
TESTED
.233
.200
MINUTES
LAST USE
P =
.700
.180
•
.024
.102
.960
.288
.984
.919
.635
.392
.302
NOT
TESTED
NOT
TESTED
.271
.083
OUNCES
PER YEAR
P =
110
*
.001
*
.000
.606
.000
.504
.399
.975
.962
t
.000
*
.018
NOT
TESTED
NOT
TESTED
»
.000
.579
6-9
-------
TABLE 6-3 (Continued)
pROOUcr
16. PAINT WINNERS
17. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
18. PRIMERS AND SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE)
19. AEROSOL RUST REMOVERS
20. OUTDOOR WATER REPELLENTS (FOR
WOOD OR CEMENT)
21. GLASS FROSflNGS, WINDOW TINTS,
AND ARTIFICIAL SNOW
22. ENGINE DEGREASERS
23. CARBURETOR CLEANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT FOR CARS
25. AUTO SPRAY PRIMERS
26. SPRAY LUBRICANTS FOR CARS
27. TRANSMISSION CLEANERS
28. BATTERY TERMINAL PROTECTORS
29. BRAKE QUIETERS/CLEANERS
30. GASKET REMOVERS
31 . TIRE/HUBCAP CLEANERS
32. IGNITION AND WIRE DRYERS
USES
PER YEAR
P =
.969
.763
.079
.187
.264
*
.000
.526
•
.014
.401
.175
*
.045
.603
.652
.324
*
.036
.099
.834
MINUTES
LAST USE
P =
.094
.744
*
.054
.790
.429
.787
.342
.507
.299
.648
.956
.378
.637
.783
.286
«
.006
.616
OUNCES
PER YEAR
P ;
.247
.575
.251
.781
.116
.350
.088
.511
.735
.222
.711
.675
.519
.784
*
.028
.309
.988
6-10
-------
of the chemicals and products known not to have any chemical. As
Table 6-4 indicates, 13 out of the 81 possibilities were
significant (6 squares are not filled in because the products
weren't tested and 9 squares are not filled in because there are
no results.) Significant differences in this second instance
occur 16 percent of the time.
The actual mean values for comparisons of each of the 32
products by those with laboratory data versus those without and
those with the chemical versus those without can be found in
Appendix C.
The preceding paragraphs show that there are some
significant differences between the usage variables for
respondents using brands with lab data and those without lab
data. Additionally, significant usage differences were present
between products known to have any of the chemicals of interest
and those that do not, for those products with lab data. The
number of statistically significant differences are more than
would be expected by chance. However, given the method of brand
selection previously discussed, there are actually fewer
differences than might be expected.
Any imputation procedure should be reviewed carefully in the
context of how the results are going to be used. The imputation
procedure used for this data set will be affected by these
differences between the brands with lab data and those without
because it makes the brands missing lab data resemble those with
lab data. To minimize the relationship of chemical presence to
usage, brands were matched for imputation on the basis of usage.
Given the differences that exist between brands with lab data and
those without lab data, it would be more ideal to have obtained
data for more brands. However, as was mentioned previously, this
was beyond the scope and budgetary limits of the survey.
B. Overstated Sample Size
Subsequent analyses conducted using the data containing
imputed values have the potential to appear more precise than
they actually are. This can happen for a number of reasons: the
variance of estimated means will be dramatically underestimated
(ignoring the question of bias), the sample size will appear much
larger than it is, and subgroup analyses may be differentially
influenced by the imputation procedure. Researchers not familiar
with statistical analysis and those examining the data at a later
date could tend to overlook the limitations brought about by
imputation.
The variance of the mean, as calculated by standard
statistical programs, is S2/n, where n is the sample size. With
6-11
-------
TABLE 6-4
Results of the Tests of Significance for
Those Using Products With a Chemical
Versus Those Using Products Without a Chemical
(Probabilities Listed - Indicates Significance at < .05)
PRODUCT
1. SPRAY SHOE POLISH
2. WATER REPELLENTS/PROTECTORS
(FOR SUEDE, LEATHER, AND CLOTH)
3. SPOT REMOVERS
4. SOLVENT-TYPE CLEANING FLUIDS
OR DEGREASERS
5. WOOD FLOOR AND PANELING CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER CORRECTION FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT, SUPER GLUES AND
SPRAY ADHESIVES
8. ADHESIVE REMOVERS (GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE, AND WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONS LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
10. OTHER LUBRICANTS (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
11. SPECIALIZED ELECTRONIC CLEANERS
FOR TV, VCR, RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
14. WOOD STAINS, VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
15. PAINT REMOVERS/STRIPPERS
USES
PER YEAR
P =
.557
.014*
.000*
.834
.000*
.980
.232
.500
.075
.733
.468
NOT
TESTED
NOT
TESTED
.246
.972
MINUTES
LAST USE
P :
.642
.603
.930
.533
.000*
.661
.000*
.222
.178
.919
.911
NOT
TESTED
NOT
TESTED
.055
.368
OUNCES
PER YEAR
P =
.464
.000*
.000*
.300
.160
.945
.016*
.210
.507
.305
.761
NOT
TESTED
MDT
TESTED
.198
.042*
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-4 (Continued)
PRODUCT
16. PAINT WINNERS
17. AEROSOL SPRAV PAINT (EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
18. PRIMERS AND SPECIAL PRIMERS
(EXCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE)
19. AEROSOL RUST REMOVERS
20. OUTDOOR WATER REPELLENTS (FOR
WOOD OR CEMENT)
21. GLASS FROSTINGS, WINDOW TINTS,
AND ARTIFICIAL SNOW
22. ENGINE DEGREASERS
23. CARBURETOR CLEANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAV PAINT FOR CARS
25. AUTO SPRAV PRIMERS
26. SPRAV LUBRICANTS FOR CARS
27. TRANSMISSION CLEANERS
28. BATFERV TERMINAL PROTECTORS
29. BRAKE QUIE FERS/CLEANERS
30. GASKET REMOVERS
31. TIRE/HUBCAP CLEANERS
32. IGNITION AND WIRE DRVERS
USES
PER VEAR
P ;
.613
.489
.125
.095
.517
.167
.979
.480
.725
.045*
.802
.471
.123
.652
MINUTES
LAST USE
P =
.328
.600
.056
.031*
.107
.301
.812
.782
.857
.441
.666
.805
.460
.438
OUNCES
PER VEAR
P =
.669
.736
.036*
.248
.325
.378
.466
.440
.804
.077
.477
.865
.293
.043*
6-13
-------
the data set containing imputed data the n will be inflated by
the imputed data and so make the variance of the mean appear much
smaller than it really is.
The imputation procedure has been conducted without
considering subgroup analyses (eg. men 60 years and over). It is
possible that some subgroups could have a higher rate of
imputation than the sample as a whole. In the most extreme case
all data for a particular subgroup could come from imputed data.
Researchers using this data set should examine the amount of
imputation that has occurred in subgroups being examined.
C. Use or Publication of the Results
Special care should be taken when using the tape or the hard
copy of brand imputation results so that actual laboratory
results remain distinguished from simulated laboratory data
assigned to a brand using these brand imputation procedures.
-------
Appendix A
RESULTS OF VARIANCE ESTIMATION
A-l
-------
-------
CD
O
CD
Q.
=}'
IQ
CD
(Q
CD
cr
CD
Appendix A
RESULTS OF VARIANCE ESTIMATION
Table 1: Product 1 — Spray Shoe Polish
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4916
574
266
263
189
247
246
R
0.05
42.12
10.28
7.49
42.42
9.99
2.40
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
2.68
1.27
0.59
.6.64
1.15
0.27
95%
Lower
bound
0.05
36.87
7.79
6.34
29.40
7.74
1.87
95%
Upper
bound
0.06
47.38
12.77
8.64
55.43
12.24
2.92
Table 2: Product 2 — Water Repellents
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4913
1757
1042
1035
659
976
974
R
0.21
20.49
3. 54
14.46
59.03
11. 38
6. 23
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.72
0.36
0.75
5.14
0.70
0.42
95%
Lower
bound
0.20
19.08
2.83
13.00
48.95
10.01
5.41
95%
Upper
bound
0.22
21.90
4.26
15.93
69. 10
12.76
7.05
-------
Table 3: Product 3 -- Spot Removers
>
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 4: Product 4 — Cleaning
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4909
1912
1390
1385
1105
1281
1275
Fluids or
Sample
size
4907
1378
1104
1093
649
1028
1022
R
0.28
14.74
15.59
10.68
53.80
26.32
3.49
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.70
1.18
0.60
3.73
2.50
0.28
95%
Lower
bound
0.27
13.37
13.28
9.50
46.49
21.42
2.94
95%
Upper
bound
0.30
16.12
17.91
11.86
61.10
31.22
4.04
Degreasers
R
0.22
10.00
16.46
29.48
55.60
58.13
9.45
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.70
1.34
2.93
4.30
7.01
1.02
95%
Lower
bound
0.21
8.62
13.82
23.75
47.17
44.38
7.45
95%
Upper
bound
0.24
11.37
19.09
35.22
64.02
71.87
11.45
-------
Table 5: Product 5 — Wood Floor/Panel Cleaners
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 6: Product 6 — Typewriter
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4917
1715
1312
1301
1071
1229
1228
R
0.27
12.64
8.48
74.04
114.63
28.41
9.50
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.63
0.56
3.53
6.29
1.67
0.53
95%
Lower
bound
0.25
11.41
7.38
67.13
102.30
25.14
8.45
95%
Upper
bound
0.28
13.86
9.59
80.95
126.96
31.67
10.54
Correction Fluid
Sample
size
4910
1273
1137
1131
1082
1037
971
R
0.23
6.98
40.01
7.62
128.39
4. 14
0.43
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.74
2.31
0.89
4.73
0.44
0.08
95%
Lower
bound
0.22
5.53
35.48
5.88
119.12
3.27
0.28
95%
Upper
bound
0.24
8.43
44.54
9.36
137.67
5.01
0.57
-------
Table 7: Product 7 — Cement, Glue, Spray Adhesives
>
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 8: Product 8 — Adhesive
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Mnutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4901
2973
2681
2676
2013
2275
2230
Removers
Sample
size
4912
283
167
168
131
155
153
R
0.55
5.20
8.89
15.58
88.94
7.49
2.98
R
0.03
21.65
4.22
121.20
119.27
34.46
22.04
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.24
0.51
1.59
4.09
1.16
0.75
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
2.26
0.95
13.34
14.62
7.77
6.90
95%
Lower
bound
0.53
4.72
7.89
12.46
80.92
5.21
1.52
95%
Lower
bound
0.03
17.22
2.35
95.05
90.61
19.23
8.52
95%
Upper
bound
0.56
5.68
9.89
18.71
96.95
9.76
4.45
95%
Upper
bound
0.04
26.08
6.09
147.34
147.92
49.68
35.57
-------
Table 9: Product — Non-Auto Silicone Lubricants
>
i
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 10: Product 10 — Other
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4909
863
750
747
343
687
682
Non-Auto
Sample
size
4906
1690
1531
1518
841
1407
1400
R
0.15
6.52
10.32
10.42
65.85
12.50
3.26
Lubricants
R
0.31
5.05
10.66
8.12
84.07
9.93
1.61
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.51
0.92
1.18
8.14
1.06
0.32
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.33
0.67
0.82
5.56
1.18
0.17
95%
Lower
bound
0.14
5.52
8.52
8.10
49.90
10.42
2.63
95%
Lower
bound
0.30
4.41
9.35
6.52
73.17
7.63
1.28
95%
Upper
bound
0.16
7.53
12.12
12.73
81.81
14.58
3.89
95%
Upper
bound
0.33
5.69
11.97
9.73
94.97
12.24
1.95
-------
Table 11: Product 11 — Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 12: Product 12 — Latex
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4917
642
550
543
484
456
452
Paint
Sample
size
4913
2710
1794
1769
1005
1762
1759
R
0.11
7.93
13.41
9.47
129.11
9.48
1.83
R
0.37
16.70
3.93
295.08
160.48
371.27
193.04
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
0.75
1.60
1.95
7.16
2.58
0.25
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.57
0.49
11.61
10.19
14.59
7.90
95%
Lower
bound
0.10
6.47
10.27
5.65
115.08
4.42
1.34
95%
Lower
bound
0.35
15.59
2.96
272.32
140.51
342.66
177.56
95%
Upper
bound
0.12
9.39
16.55
13.28
143.13
14.54
2.31
95%
Upper
bound
0.38
17.81
4.90
317.85
180.46
399.87
208.52
-------
Table 13: Product 13 — Oil Paint
i
VO
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 14: Product 14 — Wood
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4911
1465
735
726
321
702
698
R
0.15
30.39
5.66
194.12
100.50
168.92
107.69
Stains, Varnishes,
Sample
size
4911
2103
1259
1247
642
1221
1217
R
0.26
23.21
4.21
117.17
93.43
65.06
33.72
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
1.27
0.86
12.98
12.54
14.25
11.42
Finishes
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.87
0.35
6.09
8.22
5.13
2.40
95%
Lower
bound
0.14
27.90
3.98
168.69
75.92
141.00
85.30
95%
Lower
bound
0.24
21.50
3.52
105.24
77.31
55.01
29.02
95%
Upper
bound
0.16
32.87
7.35
219.56
125.07
196.85
130.08
95%
Upper
bound
0.27
24.92
4.90
129.10
109.55
75.11
38.43
-------
Table 15: Product 15 — Paint Removers/Strippers
>
i
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 16: Product 16 — Paint
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4912
1493
761
752
340
737
735
Thinners
Sample
size
4911
1747
1104
1087
486
1053
1050
Standard 95%
deviation Lower
R
0.15
28.96
3.68
125.57
69.03
63.73
29.84
R
0.22
21.48
6.78
39.43
72.96
69.45
23.68
of R
0.01
1.18
0.37
10.62
7.93
5.75
1.99
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.95
0.66
3.48
6.76
6.07
1.62
bound
0.14
26.65
2.95
104.76
53.48
52.46
25.94
95%
Lower
bound
0.21
19.62
5.48
32.61
59.71
57.55
20.50
95%
Upper
bound
0.
31.
4.
146.
84.
74.
33.
95%
Upper
bound
0.24
23.34
8.08
46.25
86.22
81.35
26.86
17
27
41
38
58
99
74
-------
Table 17: Product 17 — Aerosol Spray Paint
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 18: Product 18 — Non-Auto
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4908
1737
1178
1162
305
1121
1118
Primers
Sample
size
4910
682
396
381
129
364
363
R
0.24
17.23
4.22
39.54
48.50
30.75
13.81
R
0.08
22.04
3.43
91.29
66.16
68.39
42.14
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.80
0.45
2.60
6.67
1.61
0.74
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
1.41
0.43
9.04
8.87
8.77
5.61
95%
Lower
bound
0.23
15.66
3.34
34.45
35.43
27.60
12.35
95%
Lower
bound
0.07
19.29
2.58
73.58
48.78
51.19
31.14
95%
Upper
bound
0.25
18.80
5.10
44.64
61.56
33.90
15.26
95%
Upper
bound
0.09
24.79
4.28
109.01
83.53
85.58
53.14
-------
Table 19: Product 19 -- Aerosol Rust Removers
>
i
Standard
95%
Sample deviation Lower
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 20: Product 20 — Outdoor
size
4915
400
290
282
101
266
265
Water
R
0.06
15.09
6.17
18.57
42.04
18.21
9.24
Repellents
Sample
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
size
4914
425
241
239
28
234
230
R
0.05
24.66
2.07
104.94
71.71
148.71
99.53
of R bound
0.00 0
1.55 12
0.58 5
2.88 12
7.17 27
4.98 8
4.83 0
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
1.91
0.25
7.82
20.51
19.21
11.15
.05
.06
.03
.92
.99
.44
.00
95%
Lower
bound
0.04
20.91
1.58
89.61
31.51
111.05
77.68
95%
Upper
bound
0.07
18.12
7.30
24.22
56.09
27.98
18.69
95%
Upper
bound
0.06
28.40
2.55
120.28
111.92
186.36
121.38
-------
Table 21: Product 21 — Glass Frosting, Window tints and Snow
I
I—•
UJ
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 22: Product 22 - Engine
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4916
506
279
275
216
259
258
Degreasers
Sample
size
4914
846
582
578
41
555
554
R
0.06
34.22
2.78
29.45
171.69
13.82
12.51
R
0.12
16.55
4.18
29.29
63.59
46.95
18.72
Standard
95%
deviation Lower
of R bound
0.00
2.53
1.31
2.89
18.32
0.92
0.88
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
1.01
0.56
2.03
10.60
5.67
2.52
0.05
29.26
0.21
23.78
135.79
12.02
10.79
95%
Lower
bound
0.11
14.57
3.08
25.31
42.81
35.84
13.79
95%
Upper
bound
0.
39.
5.
35.
207.
15.
14.
95%
Upper
bound
0.13
18.53
5.29
33.27
84.36
58.06
23.66
06
19
36
12
60
62
23
-------
Table 23: Product 23 — Carburetor Cleaners
>
i
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 24: Product 24 — Aerosol
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4911
1071
803
800
79
769
766
R
0.16
13.05
3.77
13.57
75.82
22.03
7.60
Spray Paint for
Sample
size
4915
596
367
362
57
347
347
R
0.07
20.85
4.50
42.77
68.40
44.95
13.76
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.86
0.25
0.81
23.24
1.85
0.34
Cars
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
1.43
0.49
3.94
12.85
4.63
1.04
95%
Lower
bound
0.15
11.36
3.28
11.98
30.27
18.40
6.93
95%
Lower
bound
0.07
18.05
3.54
35.06
43.22
35.87
11.72
95%
Upper
bound
0.17
14.73
4.26
15.17
121.38
25.66
8.27
95%
Upper
bound
0.08
23.65
5.46
50.48
93.58
54.03
15.81
-------
Table 25: Product 25 — Auto Spray Primers
>
i
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 26: Product 26 — Spray
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4916
453
260
258
44
247
247
Lubricants
Sample
size
4910
880
771
762
84
705
704
R
0.05
24.05
6.42
51.45
66.66
70.37
20.54
for Cars
R
0.16
6.28
10.31
9.90
41.36
18.63
3.40
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
1.90
2.09
5.32
13.65
17.46
2.76
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.59
1.10
1.30
9.19
2.04
0.29
95%
Lower
bound
0.05
20.33
2.31
41.03
39.91
36.16
15.14
95%
Lower
bound
0.15
5.13
8.15
7.36
23.34
14.63
2.83
95%
Upper
bound
0.06
27.76
10.52
61.87
93.40
104.59
25.94
95%
Upper
bound
0.17
7.43
12.46
12.44
59.38
22.63
3.97
-------
Table 27: Product 27 — Transmission Cleaners
>
i
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 28: Product 28 — Battery
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4914
103
69
67
8
64
63
Terminal
Sample
size
4916
327
228
226
25
193
193
R
0.01
16.73
2.28
27.90
45.62
35.71
16.60
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
3.00
0.42
7.45
26.38
7.54
2.32
95%
Lower
bound
0.01
10.84
1.45
13.29
0.00
20.93
12.06
95%
Upper
bound
0.02
22.62
3.11
42.50
97.33
50.50
21.14
Protectors
R
0.05
14.04
3.95
9.61
29.36
16.49
8.07
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
1.36
1.61
1.21
8.89
6.27
3.22
95%
Lower
bound
0.04
11.37
0.80
7.24
11.93
4.20
1.74
95%
Upper
bound
0.05
16.70
7.11
11.97
46.79
28.79
14.39
-------
Table 29: Product 29 — Brake Quieters/Cleaners
>
i
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Table 30: Product 30 — Gasket
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4917
130
95
96
16
86
85
Removers
Sample
size
4915
132
74
72
24
66
66
R
0.02
13.27
3.00
23.38
61.62
11.72
6.26
R
0.02
22.39
2.50
23.57
83.83
13.25
7.09
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
2.29
0.61
3.67
11.69
1.55
0.73
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
3.37
0.51
3.17
15.23
2.77
1.15
95%
Lower
bound
0.02
8.78
1.80
16.18
38.72
8.67
4.84
95%
Lower
bound
0.01
15.78
1.49
17.35
53.98
7.82
4.84
95%
Upper
bound
0.02
17.76
4.20
30.58
84.53
14.76
7.68
95%
Upper
bound
0.02
29.00
3.51
29.79
113.69
18.68
9.34
-------
Table 31: Product 31 — Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4914
111
691
683
14
637
636
0
7
11
22
73
31
4
R
.14
.25
.18
.66
.71
.58
.90
Standard
deviation
of R
0.01
0.72
0.72
0.97
32.73
3.58
0.46
95%
Lower
bound
0.13
5.85
9.77
20.76
9.56
24.56
3.99
95%
Upper
bound
0.15
8.66
12.59
24.55
137.87
38.60
5.81
Table 32: Product 32 — Ignition and Wire Dryers
>
i
Percent recent users
Months since last use
Uses per year
Minutes of use, last use
Minutes in room after last use
Ounces used per year
Ounces per year/Uses per year
Sample
size
4915
234
142
137
13
128
128
R
0.03
22.84
3.01
7.24
67.85
9.02
4.73
Standard
deviation
of R
0.00
3.03
0.48
0.74
22.09
1.29
0.79
95%
Lower
bound
0.02
16.89
2.07
5.78
24.56
6.50
3.18
95%
Upper
bound
0.03
28.78
3.95
8.69
111.13
11.55
6.28
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL MINUTES OF USE
FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT
B-l
-------
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT
Total minutes of use for last use is computed by adding
Question 4, time spent using the product, to Question 5, time
spent in the room after use. If users spent time using the
product but did not spend time in the room after use, their total
minutes of use will equal only the time they spent using the
product.
Product 1. Spray Shoe Polish — Q4 + Q5
N = 255
Mean = 38.87
Median = 12.00
Standard
Deviation = 81.91
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.03
.19
1.40
2.00
5.00
12.00
75% 35.00
90% 120.10
95% 136.00
99% 481.44
Maximum 740.00
Product 2. Water Repellents/Protectors — Q4 + Q5
N = 1022
Mean = 52.54
Median = 15.25
Standard
Deviation = 115.52
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
,02
,25
,00
,00
6.00
15.25
2
3,
75% 50.00
90% 130.00
95% 242.85
99% 485.00
Maximum 1810.00
Product 3. Spot Removers — Q4 + Q5
N = 1362
Mean = 54.35
Median = 15.00
Standard
Deviation = 112.26
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.03
.13
1.17
2.00
5.00
15.00
75% 45.00
90% 150.10
95% 259.25
99% 486.85
Maximum 1470.00
Preceding page blank
3-3
-------
c-
Appendix B
TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT
(Continued)
Product 4. Solvent type Cleaning Fluids — Q4 + Q5
N = 1081
Mean = 62.92
Median = 23.00
Standard
Deviation = 137.
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
22 25%
Median
•
•
2.
4.
10.
23.
02
47
00
00
00
00
Product 5. Wood Floor and Panelincr Cleaners
N = 1267
Mean = 170.35
Median = 90.00
Standard
Deviation = 251.
Product 6 . Typewriter
N = 1112
Mean = 132.51
Median = 62.00
Standard
Deviation = 158.
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
74 25%
Median
Correction
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
48 25%
Median
Product 7. Contact Cement, Super
04 + 05
N = 2593
Mean = 84.92
Median = 20.00
Standard
Deviation = 194.
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
53 25%
Median
•
5.
15.
20.
40.
90.
Fluid
•
,
4.
10.
30.
62.
Glues
•
•
1.
2.
5.
20.
03
00
00
00
00
00
— 04
02
56
00
00
50
00
, and
02
05
00
00
17
00
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
— 04 +
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
+ 05
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
60.
150.
245.
602.
1860.
05
180.
420.
600.
1470.
2880.
181.
360.
480.
609.
1800.
00
00
00
70
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
04
08
35
03
Spray Adhesives —
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
70.
240.
371.
871.
4320.
00
67
50
80
00
Product 8. Adhesive Removers — 04 + 05
N = 166
Mean = 216.33
Median = 124.50
Standard
Deviation = 282 .
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
95 25%
Median
1.
8.
15.
40.
124.
50
17
00
00
00
50
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
270.
512.
759.
1440.
1440.
00
00
00
00
00
3-4
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT
(Continued)
Product 9. Silicone Lubricants — Q4 + Q5
N = 731
Mean = 41.24
Median = 6.00
Standard
Deviation = 112.67
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.02
.04
.17
.50
2 .00
6.00
75% 30.00
90% 120.00
95% 240.05
99% 491.80
Maximum 1442.00
Product 10. Other Lubricants — Q4 + Q5
N = 1487
Mean = 55.71
Median = 10.00
Standard
Deviation = 131.25
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.02
.03
.17
.50
2.02
10.00
75% 60.00
90% 130.00
95% 245.60
99% 573.60
Maximum 1445.00
Product 11. Specialized Electronic Cleaners — Q4 + Q5
N = 532
Mean = 127.01
Median = 65.00
Standard
Deviation = 162.94
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.02
.17
2.00
4.30
15.00
65.00
75% 180.25
90% 305.00
95% 480.39
99% 738.35
Maximum 1440.50
Product 12. Latex Paint — Q4 + Q5
N = 1753
Mean = 385.29
Median = 240.00
Standard
Deviation = 574.06
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.03
3.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
240.00
75% 480.00
90% 738.80
95% 1201.50
99% 3181.80
Maximum 6240.00
Product 13. Oil Paint — Q4 + Q5
N = 719
Mean = 236.64
Median = 130.00
Standard
Deviation = 373.59
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.02
3.00
25.00
30.00
60.00
130.00
75% 300.00
90% 488.00
95% 605.00
99% 1764.00
Maximum 5760.00
B-5
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT
(Continued)
Product 14. Wood Stains. Varnishes, and Finishes •— Q4 + Q5
N = 1235
Mean = 162.32
Median = 90.00
Standard
Deviation = 243.99
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.02
2.00
11.40
20.00
40.00
90.00
75% 180.00
90% 360.00
95% 600.00
99% 960.00
Maximum 3240.00
Product 15. Paint Removers/Strippers — Q4 + Q5
N = 747
Mean = 154.37
Median = 70.00
Standard
Deviation = 305.19
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
.03
1.48
5.00
10.00
30.00
75% 180.00
90% 336.00
95% 483.00
99% 1440.00
Maximum 4350.00
Median 70.00
Product 16. Paint Thinners — Q4 + Q5
N = 1076
Mean = 70.19
Median = 20.00
Standard
Deviation = 148.11
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.02
.08
2.00
4.00
7.00
20.00
75% 60.00
90% 180.02
95% 310.75
99% 755.30
Maximum 1500.00
Product 17. Aerosol Spray Paint — Q4 + Q5
N = 1156
Mean = 52.40
Median = 30.00
Standard
Deviation = 106.71
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
,02
,22
,00
,00
10.00
30.00
3,
5,
75% 60.00
90% 120.00
95% 180.00
99% 445.80
Maximum 1800.00
Product 18. Primers and Special Primers — Q4 + Q5
N = 379
Mean = 114.24
Median = 60.00
Standard
Deviation = 185.25
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.05
.50
4.00
10.00
20.00
60.00
75% 120.00
90% 300.00
95% 480.00
99% 987.00
Maximum 1920.00
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT
(Continued)
Product 19. Aerosol Rust Removers — Q4 + 05
N = 281 Minimum
Mean = 133.74 1%
Median = 15.00 5%
Standard 10%
Deviation = 67.14 25%
Median
.02
.07
.18
.50
5.00
15.00
Product 20. Outdoor Water Repellents — Q4
N = 238 Minimum
Mean = 112.81 1%
Median = 60.00 5%
Standard 10%
Deviation = 122.70 25%
Median
Product 21. Glass Frostincrs, Window
— Q4 + 05
N = 268 Minimum
Mean = 162.42 1%
Median = 70.00 5%
Standard 10%
Deviation = 234.08 25%
Median
Product 22. Enaine Deareasers — Q_4
N = 577 Minimum
Mean = 33.84 1%
Median = 20.00 5%
Standard 10%
Deviation = 54.81 25%
Median
Product 23. Carburetor Cleaners —
N = 796 Minimum
Mean = 21.16 1%
Median = 10.00 5%
Standard 10%
Deviation = 73.73 25%
Median
.02
.05
9.80
15.00
30.00
60.00
Tints,
.03
.40
4.45
6.90
20.00
70.00
+ Q5
.02
.95
2.00
5.00
10.00
20.00
04 + 05
.02
.08
.50
1.00
4.00
10.00
75% 37.50
90% 74.00
95% 120.00
99% 314.80
Maximum 723.00
+ 05
75% 130.00
90% 240.00
95% 360.00
99% 498.30
Maximum 960.00
and Artificial Snow
75% 210.00
90% 427.50
95% 526.50
99% 1442.00
Maximum 1805.00
75% 30.00
90% 71.00
95% 120.00
99% 240.00
Maximum 900.00
75% 15.00
90% 40.00
95% 65.75
99% 240.00
Maximum 1815.00
5-7
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT
(Continued)
Product 24. Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars — 04 + Q5
N = 362
Mean = 53.54
Median = 30.00
Standard
Deviation =
Product 25. Auto
N = 258
Mean = 62 . 82
Median = 30.00
Standard
Deviation =
Product 2 6 . Spray
N = 760
Mean = 14.49
Median = 5.00
Standard
Deviation =
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
84.86 25%
Median
Spray Primers —
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
100.67 25%
Median
Lubricants for
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
47.39 25%
Median
Product 27. Transmission Cleaners
N = 67
Mean = 33.35
Median = 15.00
Standard
Deviation =
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
69.58 25%
Median
.03
.19
1.07
4.00
10.00
30.00
Q4 + 05
.05
.32
5.00
5.00
10.75
30.00
Cars —
.02
.03
.08
.25
2.00
5.00
— 04 +
.17
.17
.35
1.80
5.00
15.00
Product 28. Battery Terminal Protectors -
N = 226
Mean = 12.85
Median = 5. 00
Standard
Deviation =
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
24.67 25%
Median
.03
.04
.11
.45
2.00
5.00
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
04 + 05
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
05
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
-04+05
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
60.00
120.00
192.75
395.55
900.00
60.08
150.00
240.00
600.00
660.00
10.00
30.00
35.00
311.95
720.00
30.00
60.00
168.00
450.00
450.00
15.00
30.00
41.50
165.15
195.00
-------
Appendix B
TOTAL MINUTES OF USE FOR LAST USE OF PRODUCT
(Continued)
Product 29. Brake Quieters/Cleaners — Q4 + Q5
N = 96
Mean = 33.65
Median = 15.00
Standard
Deviation = 49.60
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
Product 30. Gasket Removers — Q4
N = 72
Mean = 51.51
Median = 27.50
Standard
Deviation = 68.76
Product 31. Tire/Hubcap
N = 681
Mean = 24.19
Median = 15 . 00
Standard
Deviation = 31.76
Product 32. Icmition and
N = 137
Mean = 13.67
Median = 5.00
Standard
Deviation = 32.27
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
Cleaners
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.07
.07
.50
1.00
5.00
15.00
+ 05
.50
.50
.83
3.60
10.50
27.50
— 04 + 05
.08
.70
3.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
Wire Dryers — Q4 +
Minimum
1%
5%
10%
25%
Median
.02
.02
.08
.50
2.00
5.00
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
05
75%
90%
95%
99%
Maximum
38.25
120.00
154.50
240.00
240.00
60.00
147.00
211.00
360.00
360.00
30. 00
60.00
60.00
150.00
500.00
15.00
26.00
60.00
219.72
241. 00
-------
-------
Appendix C
ACTUAL MEAN VALUES OF COMPARISONS OF BRANDS
BY PRODUCT FOR THOSE WITH AND WITHOUT
LABORATORY DATA AND THOSE FOUND TO BE
WITH AND WITHOUT THE CHEMICAL
C-l
-------
-------
Spray Shoe Polish
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
18
18
18
7.
8.
6.
50
22
58
No chemical
N Mean
122
123
116
10. 00
7.14
8.59
Approx.
p-value
.5573
.6420
.4641
Spray Shoe Polish
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 140 9.67 126 10.95 .6069
Time spent 141 7.28 122 7.74 .6996
Amount used 134 8.32 113 11.97 .1097
C-3
Preceding page blank
-------
Spot Removers
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
387
387
369
7
9
5
.39
.20
.99
No chemical
N Mean
265
265
245
16.
9.
23.
68
31
38
Approx.
p-value
.0001
.9299
.0001
Spot Removers
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used 652 11.17 738 19.51 .0003
Time spent 652 9.24 733 11.95 .0238
Amount used 614 12.93 667 38.65 .0001
C-4
-------
Solvent Cleaners
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
N
93
93
90
Mean
8.39
21.62
35.00
No chemical
N
147
148
146
Mean
8.98
19.65
61.57
Approx.
p-value
.8342
.5328
.2999
Solvent Cleaners
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 240 8.75 864 18.60 .0022
Time spent 241 20.41 852 32.05 .1019
Amount used 236 51.44 792 60.12 .6063
C-5
-------
Water Repellents
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
430
430
419
2
13
12
.51
.23
.47
No chemical
N Mean
21
21
21
4.43
15.17
44.64
Approx .
p-value
.0142
.6027
.0001
Water Repellents
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
N
Mean
Without
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
451 2.60 591 4.26
451 13.32 584 15.35
440 14.00 536 9.23
.0233
.1802
.0007
C-6
-------
Wood/Floor/Panel Cleaners
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
418
417
398
10.61
56.61
25.86
No chemical
N
437
436
416
Mean
5.69
90.46
22.50
Approx.
p-value
.0001
.0001
.1599
Wood/Floor/Panel Cleaners
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 855 8.10 457 9.21 .3603
Time spent 853 73.91 448 74.28 .9602
Amount used 814 24.14 415 36.78 .0002
C-7
-------
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
N
488
492
457
Mean
42.82
7.49
4.26
No chemical
N
371
371
352
Mean
42.96
6.59
4.33
Approx.
p-value
.9800
.6605
.9448
Typewriter Correction Fluid
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
N
859
863
809
Mean
42.88
7.10
4.29
Without
N
278
268
228
Mean
31.13
9.30
3.60
Approx.
p-value
.0227
.2882
.5042
C-8
-------
Contact Cement, Glue, Spray Adhesives
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
122
124
114
5.57
34.51
23.34
No chemical
N
477
478
414
Mean
7.25
10.75
5.41
Approx .
p-value
.2320
.0001
.0155
Contact Cement, Glue, Spray Adhesives
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
599
602
528
6.91
15.64
9.28
2082
2074
1747
9.46
15.57
6.94
.0361
.9837
.3992
C-9
-------
Adhesive Removers
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
9
10
10
3
71
57
.44
.05
.40
No chemical
N Mean
13
13
13
2
165
15
.08
.79
.78
Approx.
p-value
.4998
.2222
.2103
Adhesive Removers
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 22 2.64 145 4.46 .5182
Time spent 23 124.60 145 120.66 .9188
Amount used 23 33.88 132 34.56 .9754
C-10
-------
Silicone Lubricants
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Chemical
N Mean
No chemical
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
173 9.53 216 15.37
173 7.63 217 11.75
164 13.42 204 11.84
.0745
.1776
.5072
Silicone Lubricants
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
N
Mean
Without
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
389 12.77 361 7.68
390 9.93 357 10.95
368 12.54 319 12.44
.0061
.6354
.9622
C-ll
-------
r~
Other Non-Auto Lubricants
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
27
27
27
11.
8.
11.
70
49
84
No chemical
N Mean
1279
1280
1193
10.
7.
7.
24
82
90
Approx.
p-value
.7331
.9185
.3054
Other Non-Auto Lubricants
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
1306 10.27 225 12.93
1307 7.84 211 9.88
1220 7.98 187 22.66
.1471
.3917
.0001
C-12
-------
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
42
42
38
9.95
5.35
17.57
No chemical
N Mean
58
58
49
13.86
5.16
25.55
Approx.
p-value
.4684
.9106
.7608
Specialized Electronic Cleaners
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
100 12.22 450 13.68
100 5.24 443 10.42
87 22.06 369 6.51
.7304
.3021
.0181
C-13
-------
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Chemical No chemical Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 29 2.07 66 3.41 .3236
Time spent 30 24.91 66 22.69 .7832
Amount used 28 11.15 58 11.99 .7838
C-14
-------
Battery Terminal Protectors
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
16
16
15
2
8
6
.13
.99
.59
No chemical
N Mean
17
17
17
2
7
7
.24
.51
.96
Approx.
p-value
.8024
.6657
.4770
Battery Terminal Protectors
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
33
33
32
2.18
8.23
7.32
195
193
161
4.25
9.84
18.32
.6523
.6374
.5190
C-15
-------
Transmission Cleaners
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Chemical No chemical Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Transmission Cleaners
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 17 1.88 52 2.40 .6025
Time spent 17 39.34 50 24.01 .3782
Amount used 17 30.17 47 37.72 .6752
C-16
-------
Auto Spray Lubricants
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
96
95
89
5
7
9
.36
.00
.24
No chemical
N Mean
391
391
365
13.
10.
21.
62
53
63
Approx .
p-value
.0453
.4406
.0768
Auto Spray Lubricants
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used 487 12.00 284 7.41 .0453
Time spent 486 9.84 276 9.99 .9562
Amount used 454 19.20 251 17.60 .7114
C-17
-------
r-
Oil Paint
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Chemical No chemical Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Oil Paint
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 6 2.17 729 5.69 .7100
Time spent 6 162.50 720 194.39 .8221
Amount used 6 36.21 696 170.07 .3751
C-18
-------
Wood Stains, Varnishes, Finishes
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
162
161
160
3
98
34
.98
.25
.68
No chemical
N Mean
274
274
268
5.
141.
44.
24
34
21
Approx.
p-value
.2455
.0550
.1981
Wood Stains, Varnishes, Finishes
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
N
Mean
Without
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
436 4.77 823 3.91
435 125.39 812 112.77
428 40.65 793 78.24
.2332
.2714
.0003
C-19
-------
Paint Removers/Strippers
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
303
304
301
3
149
58
.17
.25
.64
No chemical
N Mean
9
9
9
3
71
114
.22
.11
.67
Approx.
p-value
.9723
.3678
.0422
Paint Removers/Strippers
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 312 3.17 449 4.03 .1999
Time spent 313 147.00 439 110.29 .0834
Amount used 310 60.26 427 66.24 .5791
C-20
-------
Paint Thinners
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
7
7
7
3
7
34
.57
.86
.86
No chemical
N Mean
84
84
84
6.
21.
48.
95
16
35
Approx.
p-value
.6131
.3279
.6688
Paint Thinners
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 91 6.69 1013 6.79 .9685
Time spent 91 20.14 996 41.19 .0941
Amount used 91 47.31 962 71.54 .2465
C-21
-------
Aerosol Spray Paint (Excluding Automotive)
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
192
193
186
3
42
32
.99
.30
.88
No chemical
N Mean
11
11
11
2.
25.
29.
64
00
05
Approx.
p-value
.4891
.6002
.7356
Aerosol Spray Paint (Excluding Automotive)
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Without
N
Mean
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
203 3.92 975 4.28
204 41.37 958 39.15
197 32.67 924 30.34
.7630
.7436
.5747
C-22
-------
Primers and Special Primers (Non-Automotive)
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
N
16
16
13
Mean
10.06
74.22
65.00
No chemical
N
31
31
30
Mean
3.19
30.24
29.42
Approx.
p-value
.1254
.0561
.0361
Primers and Special Primers (Non-Automotive)
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Without
N
Mean
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
47
47
43
5.53
45.21
40.18
349
334
321
3.14
97.78
72.16
.0792
.0538
.2505
C-23
-------
Aerosol Rust Removers
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
8 3.50
8 23.38
8 17.84
No chemical
N Mean
6
6
6
1
4
4
.83
.28
.91
Approx.
p-value
.0952
.0315
.2482
Aerosol Rust Removers
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
N
14
14
14
Mean
2.79
15.19
12.30
Without
N
276
268
252
Mean
6.34
18.74
18.54
Approx.
p-value
.1874
.7900
.7807
C-24
-------
Outdoor Water Repellents
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
7 1.43
7 35.73
7 48.93
No chemical
N Mean
96
96
94
1
117
191
.78
.29
.71
Approx.
p-value
.5173
.1069
.3247
Outdoor Water Repellents
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Without
N
Mean
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
103 1.76 138 2.30
103 111.75 136 99.79
101 181.81 133 123.56
.2644
.4285
.1160
C-25
-------
Glass Frostings/Tints/Artificial Snow
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Chemical
N Mean
No chemical
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Glass Frostings/Tints/Artificial Snow
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used 6 62.00 273 1.48 .0001
Time spent 6 24.18 269 29.57 .7867
Amount used 6 19.46 253 13.69 .3496
C-26
-------
Engine Degreasers
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
47
47
45
4
29
33
.47
.62
.93
No chemical
N Mean
87
87
84
3.
23.
26.
01
77
63
Approx.
p-value
.1668
.3007
.3778
Engine Degreasers
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Without
N
Mean
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
134 3.52 448 4.38
134 25.82 444 30.34
129 29.17 426 52.34
.5261
.3417
.0882
C-27
-------
f-
Carburetor Cleaners
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Chemical
N Mean
No chemical
N Mean
Approx .
p-value
Last used 143 4.27 329 4.29 .9786
Time spent 143 13.47 329 12.97 .8120
Amount used 140 25.71 326 21.83 .4658
Carburetor Cleaners
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
N
472
472
466
Mean
4.29
13.12
23.00
Without
N
331
328
303
Mean
3.03
14.22
20.54
Approx .
p-value
.0136
.5067
.5109
C-28
-------
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
N
49
49
45
Mean
5.84
35.23
54.24
No chemical
N
17
17
17
Mean
4.18
32.41
33.15
Approx.
p-value
.4799
.7819
.4397
Aerosol Spray Paint for Cars
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With Without Approx.
Variable N Mean N Mean p-value
Last used 66 5.41 301 4.30 .4012
Time spent 66 34.51 296 44.61 .2991
Amount used 62 48.46 285 44.19 .7351
C-29
-------
Auto Spray Primers
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
10
10
10
4.90
52.10
39.40
No chemical
N Mean
61 12
61 46
60 35
.08
.71
.86
Approx.
p-value
.7245
.8572
.8041
Auto Spray Primers
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx .
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
71
71
70
11.07
47.47
36.37
189
187
177
4.67
52.96
83.82
.1752
.6483
.2216
C-30
-------
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
26
25
26
5.12
27.60
17.41
No chemical
N
32
33
33
Mean
9.09
33.36
24.59
Approx.
p-value
.1230
.4603
.2933
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
Variable
With
N Mean
Without
N Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
58 7.31 633 11.54
58 30.88 625 21.89
59 21.43 578 32.62
.0989
. 0062
.3087
C-31
-------
Ignition and Wire Dryers
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last
used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
6
6
6
2
10
10
.83
.25
.25
No chemical
N Mean
1
1
1
1.
0.
2.
00
17
25
Approx.
p-value
.6523
.4384
.0432
Ignition and Wire Dryers
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Without
N
Mean
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
7
7
7
2.57
8.81
9.11
135
130
121
3.04
7.15
9.02
.8343
.6164
.9875
C-32
-------
Gasket Removers
Users With Lab Data
Chemical vs No Chemical
Variable
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
Chemical
N Mean
18
19
18
3.11
20.26
21.04
No chemical
N
11
11
10
Mean
5.00
18. 17
18.80
Approx.
p-value
.4712
.8048
.8648
Gasket Removers
All Users
With Lab Data vs No Lab Data
With
Variable
Without
N
Mean
N
Mean
Approx.
p-value
Last used
Time spent
Amount used
29 3.83
30 19.49
28 20.24
45
42
38
1.64
26.48
8.10
.0359
.2858
.0280
C-33
-------
-------
Appendix D
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS FOR
AEROSOL ONLY PRODUCTS
D-l
-------
-------
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
AEROSOL ONLY
D-3
Preceding page blank
-------
PRODUCT
1. SPRAY SHOE
POLISH
2. WATER
REPELLENTS/
PROTECTORS IFOR
SUEDC, LEATHER,
AND CLOTH)
3. SPOT RDOVERS
4. SOLVENT-TYPE
0£ANINC
FLUIDS OR
DEGREASERS
5. WOOD FLOOR
AND PANELING
CLEANERS
6. TYPEWRITER
CORRECTION
FLUID
7. CONTACT CEMENT,
SUPER CLUES
AND SPRAY
AOHESIVES
8. ADHESIVE
REMOVERS
I GENERAL
PURPOSE, TILE,
AND WALLPAPER)
9. SILICONS
LUBRICANTS
IEXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
1C. OTHER
LUBRICANTS
EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
1.
Percentage Percentage
Aerosol Non-Aerosol
985 K
715 285
VA 565
2« 745
495 515
.15 W.95
(Since only one respon-
dent used this product,
no further calculations
ere provided.)
35 975
155 855
805 205
335 675
2.
you used I PRODUCT)?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.
use ; PRODUCT) in the
last 12 months?
mean 10.3 t imes
median 4.0 times
mean 3.2 times
median 2.0 tines
mean 12.5 tines
median 3.0 times
Mean 11.6 tines
median 3.0 time
man 10.5 times
median 2.0 times
mean 1 0 . 2 t imes
median 3.0 times
mean 5.4 times
median 2.0 times
mean 10.8 times
median 4.0 times
mean 14.0 t lines
median 5.Q times
it.
How ouch time did you
apeno uaing (PRODUCT)
the last time you
uaea it?
mean 7.4 minutes
meaian 3.0 minutes
mean 12.6 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
main 11.1 minutes
median 3.0 minutes
•flan 21.3 minutes
median 10.0 minutes
•ean 62.6 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
mean 28.6 ainutea
median 5.0 minutes
mean 30.2 minutes
median 45.0 minutes
mean 9.3 minutes
median 2.0 minutes
mean 7.5 minutes
median 2.0 minutes
5.
How much time did you spend
in the room immediately after
use the last time you uaed
; PRODUCT)?
mean 31 .4 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 32.2 minutes
median 2.0 minutes
memn 47.5 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 28.7 minutes
median 1.0 minutes
mean 90.3 minutes
median 30.0 minutes
mean 68.6 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 53.0 minutes
median 10.0 minutes
mean 27.7 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 30.8 minutes
median Q.Q minutes
D-4
-------
7.
Wist site of (PRODUCT) did you
use the last time you used it?
cans did you use During the past
year^ OUNCES PER YEAR
mean 10.1 ounces
meoian 4.5 ounces
mean 11.8 ounces
median 6.7 ounces
mean 15.9 ounces
median 6.0 ounces
nean 37.6 ounces
median 14.0 ounces
mean 23.6 ounces
median 13.0 ounces
mean 12.1 ounces
median 4.0 ounces
moan 19.9 ounces
median 8.0 ounces
mean 11.9 ounces
median 6.0 ounces
mean 13.3 ounces
median 6.0 ounces
8.
Wwre did you uae
(PRODUCT) the last
1 B 5.25
2 LR 14. 75
3 OR 62.65
4 G 3.65
5 Outs. 13.95
1 B 10.35
2 LR 12.95
3 OR 44.85
4 G 10.55
5 Outs. 21.55
1 B 9.85
2 LR 23.75
3 OR 5B.25
4 G 3.15
5 Outs. 5.25
1 B 4.75
2 LR 4.45
3 OR 39.85
4 G 11.75
5 Outs. 39.45
1 B 5.K
2 LR 36.95
3 OR 55.95
4 G 0.65
5 Outs. 1.65
1 B 8.25
2 LR 8.25
3 OR 56.25
4 G 8.25
5 Outs. 19.25
1 B 4.35
2 LR 13. K
3 OR 69.75
4 G 8.75
5 Outs. 4.35
IB 4.35
2 LR 5.45
3 OR 31.15
4 G 16.65
5 Outs. 42.65
1 B 3.95
2 LR 6.15
5 OR 24.25
4 G 15.35
5 Outs. 50.55
When usinq
dow open to
the outside?
Yes. . 405
No . . 605
Yes. . 445
No . . 565
Yes. . 475
No . . 535
Yes. . 625
fa . . 385
Yes. . 585
fa . . 425
Yes. . 565
fa . . 445
Yes. . 755
fa . . 255
Yea. . 545
No . . 465
Yes. . 535
No . . 47%
PRODUCT) th
exhaust
fan on?
Yes.. 115
No... 895
Yes.. 85
No... 9K
Yes.. 95
No... 915
Yes.. 175
No... 835
Yes.. 115
fa... 895
Yes.. 95
Its... 715
Yes.. 295
fa... 715
Yes.. 85
fa... 925
Yes.. 65
.No ... 945
9.
5 last time, d
Keep the
to the room
closed?
Yes. . 765
fa . . 245
Yes. . 745
No . . 265
Yes. . 795
.fa . . 215
Yes. . 765
fa . . 245
Yes. . 825
fa . . 185
Yes. . 705
fa . . 305
Yes. . 755
fa . . 255
Yes. . 715
fa . . 295
Yes. . 675
NO . . 335
Id vou . . .
Read the
on the
label?
Yes. . 725
fa . . 285
Yes. . 855
.fa . . 155
Yes. . 805
No . . 2K
Yes. . 755
No . . 255
Yes. . 685
fa . . 325
Yes. . 685
fa . . 325
Yes. . 845
fa . . 165
Yes. . 595
No . . 415
Yes. . 475
No . . 535
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the summary but it is reported in the text.
L>5
-------
f-
PRODUCT
ELECTRONIC
CLEANERS
:FOR TV, VCR,
RAZOR, ETC.)
12. LATEX PAINT
13. OIL PAINT
U. WOO STAINS,
VARNISHES AND
FINISHES
REMOVERS/
STRIPPERS
it. PAINT
THINKERS
17. AEROSOL SPRAY
PAINT
:EXCLLDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
B. PRIMERS AND
SPECIAL
PRIMERS
:EXCLUDING
AUTOMOTIVE)
9. AEROSOL RUST
REMOVERS
0. OUTDOOR WATER
REPELLENTS
:FOR WOOD OR
CEMENT)
1. GLASS
FROST INGS,
WINDOW TINTS,
ASD ARTIFICIAL
S"*OW
1-
Perrtntage Percentage
Aerosol Non-Aerosol
345 661
15 995
45 96%
85 925
25 985
995 1X
025 385
965 25
125 B85
905 105
2.
When Mas the last time
you used IPRODUCT)'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.
Hot* many times did you
use (PRODUCT } in the
last 12 months?
median 2.0 times
ittean 2.8 times
median 1.0 tines
mean 2.0 times
median 1 .0 times
mean 5.0 times
median 2.0 times
median 1.0 times
mean 2.4 times
median 2.0 times
mean 4.2 times
median 2.0 times
mean 2.6 times
median 1.0 times
«ean 6.3 times
median 2.0 times
mean 2.7 times
median 2.0 times
mean 2.9 times
median 1 .0 t imes
it .
How much time did you
spend using '^PRODUCT)
the last time you
used it?
median 2.0 minutes
mean 168.8 minutes
median 120.0 minutes
mean 109.0 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 69.9 minutes
median JO.Q minutes
median 60.0 minutes
mean 66.2 minutes
median 20.0 minutes
mean 39.6 minutes
median 20 . 0 minutes
mean 51. b minutes
median 20.0 minutes
mean 18.6 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 50.4 minutes
median 20.0 minutes
mean 26.0 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
5.
How much time did vou scene
in the room immediately after
use the last time you used
(PRODUCT)?
median 60.0 minutes
mean 59 .4 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
mean 19.7 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 44.7 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
median 2.0 minutes
mean 27.9 minutes
median O.D minutes
mean 12.8 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 15.9 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 15. 1 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 22.9 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 139.3 minutes
median 60.0 minutes
D-6
-------
;
-"--;' size of .PRODUCT; did vou
cans did you use during t he oast
year9 OIACES °ER VEAR
rr^an 12.3 ounces
Tedian 3.0 ounces
mean 111.9 ounces
median 64,0 ounces
mean 43.2 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
1 mean 39. 1 ounces
medi an 16.0 ounces
mean 56.5 ounces
median 28.0 ounces
mean 36 .2 ounces
median 32.0 ounces
mean 30.7 ounces
median 13.0 ounces
t ^an 43.8 ounces
med ian 13.0 ounces
mean 18. ^ ounces
median 8.0 ounces
mean 65.9 ounces
med ian 2^ .0 ounces
mean 13. ^ ounces
median 12.0 ounces
^PRODUCT) the last
1 B 9.65
2 LR 39.65
3 OR 30.75
It G 5.65
5 Outs. 8.55
1 B 9.15
2 LB 9.15
3 OR 45.55
It G 4.55
5 Outs. 31.85
1 B 7. 75
2 LR 0.05
3 OR 19.25
It G 7.75
5 Outs. 65.45
1 B 13.85
2 LR 12.65
3 OR 25.45
4 G 14.95
5 Outs. 33.35
1 B 6.25
2 LR K
3 OR 41.75
4 C 14.65
5 Outs. 37.55
1 B 3.75
2 LR 05
3 Oft 33.35
4 G 11.15
5 Outs. 51.95
1 B 7.o5
2 LR 0.75
3 OB 9.65
4 C 16. D5
5 Outs. 66.15
IB 6.55
2 LR 05
3 OR 6.55
4 C 24.25
5 Outs. 62.75
1 B 6.65
2 LR O.BS
3 OR 11.65
4 G 23.55
5 Outs. 57.55
1 B 7.45
2 LR 3.75
3 DR 11.15
4 G 11.15
5 Outs. 66.75
1 B .95
2 LR 69.35
3 OR 16.35
It G 1.95
^ Outs. 11.65
dow open ta
the outside''
Yes. . 375
So . . 635
Yes. . 715
No . . 295
Yes. . 445
No . . 565
Yes. . 655
No . . 355
Yes. . BOS
Ho . , 205
Yes. . 775
No . . 235
Yes. . 635
No . . 375
Yes. . 825
.No . . 185
Yes. . 625
.No . . 385
Yes. . 675
No . . 335
Yes. . 245
No . . 765
exhaust
fan oh''
Yes.. 85
No... 925
Yes.. 65
•No ... 945
Yes.. 115
No... 895
Yes.. 95
No... 915
Yes.. 235
No... 775
Yes.. 85
No... 925
Yes.. 95
No... 915
Yes.. 115
No... 695
Yes.. 135
No... 875
Yes.. D5
NO...IOK
Yes.. 105
No... 905
3 _
Keep the
to the room
closed1
Yes. . 725
V . . 28%
Yes. . 665
No . . 125
Yes. . 675
No . . 335
Yes. . 715
No . . 295
Yes. . 705
No . . 305
Yes. . 3B5
No . . 625
Yes. . 615
No . . 395
Yes. . 575
No . . 435
Yes. . 5B5
No . . 425
Yes. . 635
No . . 375
Yes. . 725
No . . 285
fleao the
on the
iaoeT
Yes. . 745
No . . 265
Yes. . 745
No . . 265
Yes. . 655
No . . 355
Yes. . 745
.No . . 265
Yes. . 865
No . . 145
Yes. . 735
No . . 275
Yes. . 735
No . . 275
Yea. . 725
No . . 2B5
Yes. . 695
No . . 315
Yes. . 795
No . . 215
Yes. . 715
No . . 295
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the sunmary but it is reported in the text.
L>7
-------
PRODUCT
22. ENGINE
DCC-REASERS
23. CARBURETOR
CLEANERS
24. AEROSOL SPRAY
PA I MI FOR
CARS
25. AUTO SPRAY
PRIMERS
26. SPRAY
LUBRICANTS
FOR CARS
27 TRANSMISSION
CLEANERS
28. BATTERY
TERMINAL
29. BRAKE
OJIETERS/
CLEANERS
REMOVERS
31. TIRE/HUBCAP
CLEANERS
3;. IGNITION AND
WIRE DRYERS
1.
Aerosol Non-Aerosol
795 215
855 155
995 15
995 15
995 IS
225 7B5
585 425
665 345
30* 705
785 225
2.
W th
you used (PRODUCT)?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.
use {PRODUCT', in the
last 12 months?
mean 4. 1 times
median 2.0 times
mean 4.0 times
median 2.0 times
mean 4.5 times
median 2.0 times
mean 6.3 times
median 2.0 times
mean 10.2 times
median 3.0 times
mean 1 9
median 1.0 times
mean 2.B times
meen 2.5 times
median 1.0 times
median 1.0 times
mean 9.6 times
median 4.0 times
mean 2.3 times
a ,
Ho*- mucn time did YOU
1
G
used if
mean 28.8 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 12.3 minutes
median 9.0 minutes
mean 42.9 minutes
median 20.0 minutes
mean 51 .4 minut es
median 25.0 minutes
mean 9.9 minutes
median 5.0 minutes
20 1
median 15.0 minutes
mean 8.6 minut es
mean 25.9 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
median 20.0 minutes
mean 22.7 minutes
median 15.0 minutes
mean 7.2 m mut es
MO« mucn t ime did vou spend
i . e ro eaiate
'PRGOUC*'9
n«an ^.0 minutes
med ian 0.0 minutes
mean 6.9 minutes
med ian 0.0 minutes
mean 10.6 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 11.5 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 4. 1 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
3 3 in tea
median 0.0 minutes
mean 4. a minutes
mean 9.2 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 1.7 minutes
median 0.0 minutes
mean 5.8 minut.es
D-i
-------
What size af IPftODUCT) did vou
use the last tiae you used it?
cans did you use during trie past
year? OUNCES PER YEAR
mean 40.5 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
•ean 21 .8 ounces
median 12.0 ounces
mean 65.0 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean 69.0 ounces
median 16.0 ounces
mean IB. 5 omces
median 6.0 ounces
mean 20.2 ounces
median 12.0 omces
n«sn 7.B ounces
median 6.0 ounces
mean 13.2 OLncea
median 8.0 ouicea
mean 15.2 ounces
median 8.0 ounces
mean 26.8 ounces
median 12.0 ounces
mean 8.0 ounces
median 6.0 ounces
8.
Wiere did you use
(PRODUCT!) the last
1 B 0.25
2 LR O.OS
3 OR 0.75
4 G 7.85
5 Outs. 91.35
IB 0.25
2 LR 0.25
3 OR 1.15
4 G 9.65
5 Outs. 88.95
1 B 0.65
2 LR K
3 OR 1.15
4 G 19.25
5 Outs. 79.15
1 B 0.85
2 LR 0.05
3 OR 0.85
4 G 21.45
5 Outs. 77.05
1 B 0.45
2 LR K
3 OR 1.25
4 G 12.75
5 Outs. 85.75
1 B K
2 LR 05
5 OR 05
4 G 275
5 Outs. Tin
1 B OS
2 LR 05
5 OR 2.35
4 G 12.15
5 Outs. 85.65
1 B 05
2 LR 05
3 OR 3.55
4 G 16.45
5 Outs. 80.35
1 B 05
2 LR 05
5 OR K
4 G 38.25
5 Outs. 61.85
1 B 05
2 LR 0.55
3 OR 0.05
4 G 4.55
5 Outs. 95.LT5
1 8 05
2 LR CK
3 OR 0.95
4 G B. 45
5 Outs. 90.75
When usinq
dow open to
the outside''
fin
NA
MA
NA
W
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PRODUCT) th
exhaust
fen on?
NA
NA
NA
NA
SA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.
'. last time, a
Keep the
to the room
closed?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Id vou . . .
Read the
on the
labeP
Yes. . 785
No . . 225
Yes. . 735
to . . 275
Yes. . 725
No . . 285
Yes. . 69%
Na . . 315
Yes. . 555
No . . 455
Yes. . 935
No . . 75
Yes. . 765
No . . 245
Yea. . 715
No . . 295
Yes. . 835
No . . 175
Yes. . 765
No . . 245
Yes. . 715
No . . 295
Note: Question 6 has been deleted from the summary but it is reported in the text.
L>9
-------
-------
Appendix E
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECTING
LIFETIME FREQUENCY OF USE
E-l
-------
s-
-------
Appendix E
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECTING LIFETIME
FREQUENCY OF USE FROM CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA
A number of options for estimating lifetime frequency
of use for use in exposure assessment have been proposed. The
chosen approach consists basically of assuming that each person's
relative exposure is constant for the person's lifetime. The
level of use might go up or down for other age groups, but the
relative frequency of use stays the same. For example, a current
heavy user in their twenties will remain a heavy user in their
fifties relative to other users in that age group. Respondents
in each age group are used to estimate the percentiles for their
age group, and this distribution is used for people previously
(later) in this age group. It is unlikely that this assumption
will be met completely, but some assumption must be made in order
to make lifetime projections from a non-longitudinal, one-year
study. It seems likely that persons in the extreme percentiles
will move "toward the middle" for previous and later ages, but
the technique should still be useful for extrapolating current
data.
Our understanding of the procedure used was as follows:
1. The data will be divided into five-year age groups
(other groupings would be acceptable as long as
each has at least 100 respondents).
2. Calculate, for each person, a yearly frequency of
use for each product type and for each chemical
(adding over products containing the chemical).
For respondents indicating they used the product
in the last 12 months, the number given will be
treated as the yearly frequency for the entire age
group. For those indicating no usage in the last
Preceding page blank
E-3
-------
year, but a last time used, the estimated yearly
frequency for the age group will be
12 x
2 x # months since last use
For example, if it has been 18 months since the
last use, the estimate of average yearly use would
be .33.
3. Estimate percentiles for frequency of use for each
product type and for each chemical for each age
group, 5%, 10%, 15%,...., 95%.
4. (a) For a person reporting use of a product or
chemical in the last 12 months, the expected
lifetime frequency of use can be calculated by
first finding the percentile for the current age
group and then finding the corresponding
percentile for the other age groups. The
percentile for each age group is then multiplied
by the number of years in the group and summed
over all age groups.
(b) For a person reporting no prior use, assume
no use in prior age groups and follow (a) for
later age groups.
(c) For a person reporting no use in only a few
preceding age groups, the appropriate percentiles
for those age groups not specifically excluded
will be used.
A modification of this procedure should be considered
to improve the lifetime projections. For older respondents past
usage estimates should be modified to take into account the
availability and overall usage rates for previous time periods.
Projections for previous time periods should not use today's
percentiles for a time when the product or chemical was less
frequently used by the general public. Either zero usage or a
lower frequency of use should be used for these years.
E-A
-------
Appendix F
PRODUCT BRAND STATISTICS
F-l
-------
-------
Q6A: Which brand of spray shoe polish did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-l: Brands of Spray Shoe Polish used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
Amway Shoe Spray
Avon
Cavalier protect-All
Child Life
E-Z Off
Emory
Esquire Spray Shine
Griffin
Hess
Hossco
Johnson ' s
Justin E-Z On Spray
Kinney
Kiwi
Kiwi Conditioner/Cleaner
Kiwi Spray Shine
Krylon
Leather Foam
Magix Shoe Color Spray
Navex
Nike
Nu-Life
Nunn-Bush
O ' Leary ' s
Patent Patina
Penny Shoe Shine
Plate Shoe Source
Quick
ReNu
Rease Texas
Roscoe Griffe
Shinola
Shu-Shine
Stain Repel
Stanley
Stride-Rite
Tammy
Tannery
Tom McCann
Water Shield
Total
Frequency
67
40
1
3
1
3
1
3
10
2
1
4
2
3
6
1
83
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
2
270
Percent
24.8
14.8
0.4
1.1
.4
.1
.4
.1
3.7
.7
.4
.5
.7
1.1
2.2
.4
30.7
.4
.4
.7
.4
.4
.7
.4
.4
.4
2.6
.4
.7
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.7
1.5
.4
.4
.7
.7
100.0
Preceding page blank
F-3
-------
Seventy-five percent (75.2%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of spray shoe polish
used were Kiwi Spray with 30.7% of the users; Amway Shoe Polish
with 14.8% of the users; and Griffin with 3.7% of the users. All
other brands have a relatively low number of users.
F-4
-------
Q6A: Which brand of water repellents did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-2: Brands of Water Repellents used
Brands
Don ' t Knows and Not Ascertained
3M
A&P Brand
Aigner
Aigner Leather Protector
All Guard
Amway Drifab
Amway Remove Fabric Cleaner
Armor all
BASF Suede Protector
Bear
Berman ' s
Boot & Shoe
Browning
Butler's
Cadillac
Cadillac Rain & Stain
Camie
Cavalier Mink Oil
Cavalier Protect All
Colorado Old Town
Dexter
Dr. Scholl's Mink Oil
Duck ' s Back
Endicott- Johnson
Esquire
Esquire Rain/Stain Guard
Esquire Water Shed
Favor
Fiebing's
Fleet's
Foot Locker Rain & Stain
Frye
Fuller
Fuller Brush
Genuine Mink Oil
Hardy
Hossco Mink Oil
Hydrostop
Jarman
Johnson's
K Mart
K-Kote
Kel Shield Repellent
Kenyon
Keston
Frequency
382
1
1
1
1
5
17
1
9
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
5
11
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
8
1
1
Percent
36.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
1.6
.1
.2
.0
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.4
.1
.5
.1
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.3
.3
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.5
.1
.8
.1
.1
F-5
-------
Table F-2: Brands of Water Repellents used (Continued)
Brands
Kinney
Kinney Mink Oil
Kiwi
Kiwi Camp Dry
Kiwi Mink Oil
Kiwi Protect -All
Kiwi Saddle Soap
Kiwi Spray Shine
Kiwi Wet-Pruf
Kramer
LL Bean
Lazarus Magic Guard
Leather Boot
Leather Lather
Leather Lather No. 2
Leather-Coat
Meltonian
Millstreet
Mink Oil (Generic)
Morse
Neatsfoot (Generic)
Nobic ' s
Nor y de
Nordstrom
Norligen
Open Country
Original Mink Oil
Otter ' s
Parisian
PayLess
Propert ' s
Protect
Protect-All
Rain & Stain Shield
Rainpruf
Red Wing Boot/Shoe Oil
Reed
Resolve
STP
S avail
Scotch Card Protector
Scotchgard
Seam Tite
Sears
Shoe Saver
Shoe Source
Frequency
25
1
18
14
3
5
2
9
5
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
330
10
1
1
3
6
Percent
2.4
.1
1.7
1.3
.3
.5
.2
.9
.5
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.10
.1
.1
.7
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
31.5
1.0
.1
.1
.3
.6
F-6
-------
Table F-2: Brands of Water Repellents used (Continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Sil-Cone Spray
Silicone for Boots
Smiling Mink oil
Sno Coat
Sno Seal
Sno Seal Paste
Snow
Snow Proof
Stanley
Stay-Dry
Seude Aid
Seude Saver
Swipe
Tana All Protector
Tannery
Tom McCann
Thompson's Sport Seal
Thompson ' s Water Seal
Totes Coat
Touraine
Tuffcote
Water & Stain
Water & Stain Repellent
Water Shield
Water and Stain Protector
Water Shed
Wilson' s
Wolverine
Woly (Switzer)
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
6
8
15
1
7
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.0
.6
.2
1.4
.1
.7
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
Total
1049
100. 0
Almost sixty four percent of the users in the last twelve
months of water repellents specified a brand. Scotch Card
Protector was by far the most popular brand of water repellent
used with 31.5% of the respondents using it. Kinney and Kiwi
followed with 2.4% and 1.7% respectively.
F-7
-------
r
Q6A: Which brand of spot removers did you use the last time
you used it?
Table F-3: Brands of Spot Removers used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
2-12
3M
409
A-l
A-Penn
Advantage
Afta
Afta Cleaning Fluid
Albatross
All Star
Allied-Kelite-Kesol
Allway
Amway LOG
Amway Remove Fabric Cleaner
Bissell
Bissell One Step
Blair
Bo Peep Ammonia
Bolex
Boot's
Bristol-Myers
Brush Top Spot Remover
C60
CT
Carbona #10 Spot Remover
Carbona Spot Remover
Carboxol
Carpet Magic Rug Cleaner
Celebrity
Clorox Prewash
Clorox Soil & Stain Remover
Cutex
Desolv-It
Diacar 2
Dirtbusters
Dry Cleaners
DuPont
Duraclean
E Z Spot
Easy Wash
Energine Cleaning Fluid
Energine Spot Fluid
Energine Spot Remover
Era
Fabric Kleen
Frequency
304
1
3
6
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
33
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
12
80
1
1
1
7
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
68
11
9
1
1
Percent
21.7
.1
.2
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
2.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.9
5.7
.1
.1
.1
.5
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
4.9
.8
.6
.1
.1
Y-i.
-------
Table F-3: Brands of Spot Removers used (Continued)
Brands
Fantastic
Faultless
Flax Soap
Folex
Ford
Fuller Fabric Guard
Gemco Lady Lee
Glamorene Rug Cleaner
Glory
Go Jo
Goddard's Dry Clean
Goof Off
Goop
Gunk
HR Carpet Cleaner
HR Steam
Heddy Carpet
High Tech
Hoky Spot Eater
Hot Shot
JP ' s General Store
Jewel Tea
Johnson ' s
Just-in-Time
K12
K2R Spot Lifter
Kirby
Lestoil
Mox
Murphy
Murphy ' s
Natural Citrus
No Ring
NoDeSolvit
Not Spot
Nylac
On The Spot
Palmolive
Peacock Ail-Purpose Cleaner
Perky Carpet
Pine Sol
Poof
Power Out
Power Plus
ProChem
R&D
Frequency
4
3
1
1
4
11
1
1
4
1
6
2
4
1
3
T_
i
1
2
_[_
1
1
2
1
4
357
7
3
-i
j_
1
1
_>_
1
T_
1
1
J-
1
1
T_
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Percent
. 3
.2
.1
.1
.3
.8
. 1
.1
. 3
.1
.4
.1
.3
.1
.2
.1
. 1
1
• -L
. 1
7
T
. J_
. I
• J.
. 1
. 3
25.5
. 3
.2
.1
. 1
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
I
• J-
.1
.1
. j_
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
-------
Table F-3: Brands of Spot Removers used (Continued)
Brands
Rally
Renault
Renews It
Renuzit
Resolve
Resolve Carpet Cleaners
Rinse & Back
Ronson Kleenol
Rug Doctor Spot-Remover
SR 7
Scotchgard
Service Master
Shaklee
Shell
Shout
Silicone (Generic)
Simple Green
Soil-Off
Spar
Spot Free
Spot Out
Spot Shot
Spots Gone
Spotz
Spray & Wash
Spray "n Wash
Sprayway
Stanley
Stanley All Purpose
Tech
Thoro Spot Remover
Tide
Total Clean
Touch & Go
Turtle
Turtle Wax Carpet Cleaner
Vivid
Vorwerk Carpet
WD 40
Washout
Watson's Quick & Bright
Western Family
Whoosh
Wind
Wisk
Woolite
Frequency
1
1
5
7
9
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
114
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
70
44
1
18
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
11
25
Percent
.1
.1
.4
.5
.6
.2
.1
.2
. 1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
8.1
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
.1
.2
.2
.1
. 1
5.0
3.1
.1
1.3
.1
.1
.1
..1
.1
.1
.1
. 1
.2
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
.1
.1
.1
.8
1.8
-------
Table F-3: Brands of Spot Removers used (Continued)
Brands Frequency Percent
Woolworth's Soil & Stain 1 .1
Zip Strip 1 .1
Zippo 1 .1
Zout 2 .1
Total 1401 100.0
The top three brands of spot removers are K2R Spot Lifter
with 25.5% of the users; Shout with 8.1%; and Carbona Spot
Remover with 5.7%. These three brands together account for 51.3%
of the use. Shout is a laundry presoak and it is one example of
laundry presoaks named by respondents as spot removers.
-------
Q6A: Which brand of solvent-type cleaning fluid did you use
the last time you used it?
Table F-4: Brands of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
111 Trichloroethane
409
5 Star
AMS Oil
AP 2
Acetone (Generic)
Acrysol
Afta Cleaning Fluid
Aj ax
All Star
Allied-Kelite Kesol
Amazing 901
Amoco
Am way
Amway LOG
Ansco
Armorall
Associated
Avon
Basic Age
Berryland
Berryman
Big Brute
Big Red
Bleachwhite
Blue Luster
Blue Shower
Boot's
Brake Cleaner
Brasso
Butcher's Speed Ball
Carbona
Certified
Chemco
Chevron
Chozos-Boroco
Clorox
Coleman Fuel
Comet
Conaco
Costcutter
D-Solvit
DL Hand Cleaner
DNL
Dapper
Frequency
412
1
19
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
27
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Percent
36.9
.1
1.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.2
. i
.1
. 1
.1
.2
2.4
.1
.1
1.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
. 1
.1
.1
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
. 1
.1
.3
. 1
.1
-------
Table F-4:
Brands of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
(Continued)
Brands
Dawn
Desolv-It
Diosol
Dirt Squirt
Doop
Drann
Drive Away
DuPont
ECR
Easy-Of f
Easy-Of Oven Cleaner
Eliminator
Energine Cleaning Fluid
Energine Spot Fluid
Energine Spot Remover
FS 25
Fantastic
Flash
Folex
Ford
Fuller Brush
Future
Glass Plus
Glidden
Go Jo
Goddard
Goop
Grease Off
Grease Release
Grease Relief
Greosol
Guardian
Gulf
Gumout
Gun Slick
Gunk
Gunk Cleaner
Gunk Degreaser
Gunk General Degreaser
Gunk Home/Auto
Handy Clean
Hobte's No. 9
Hoppe ' s
I Luv My Car
IGA
K Mart
Frequency
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
8
19
1
4
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
13
1
2
1
6
1
9
1
6
20
1
1
1
4
1
1
57
91
2
19
T
J_
1
1
1
1
6
Percent
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.4
.1
0.7
1.7
.1
.4
.1
.2
.1
.4
.1
.1
.1
1.2
.1
.2
.1
.5
.1
.8
.1
.5
1.8
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
5.1
8.1
.2
1.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
F-13
-------
Table F—4:
Brands of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
(Continued)
Brands
K2R Spot Lifter
Kawasaki
Kel All Purpose Cleaner
Klink
Kodak
LPS Instant Degreaser
Lestoil
Lime Away
Lysol Basin/Tub Cleaner
MEK Solvent
Marten ' s
McNeff
Mobil
Mox
Mr. Clean
Mr. Muscle Oven Cleaner
Murphy
NB-100
Napa
Nature Pine
Naval Jelly
Outer ' s
Oven-Off
Parks
Parr ' s
Parsons ' Ammonia
Pathmark
Penetrating Oil
Penzoil Engine Cleaner/D
Permapax
Pine Sol
Power Kleen
ProChem
R&M
Rain Dance
Rawley
Real Clean
Red Devil
Ronson Kleenol
SOS
STP
Safety Clean
Safeway Brand
San Diego
Sani Wax
Scotchgard
Frequency
2
1
1
1
1
2
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
8
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
Percent
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.8
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.0
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.4
.7
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.3
.3
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
F-14
-------
Table F-4:
Brands of Solvent-type Cleaning Fluids
(Continued)
Brands
Sears
Shaklee Basic H
Shell Oil
Shop-Rite
Shout
Soft-Scrub
Solvacol
Solvent Touch
Solvitype
Spray & Wash
Spray 'n Wash
Stanley
Stanley All Purpose
Stay-Off
Sterling
Stoddard Solvent
Sunnyside Carbo Chlor
T&R Gun Turp
TCE
Tamor ' s
Tar-X
Texize
Thoro Spot Remover
Tilex
Top Job
Trichlorothane (Generic)
Trisodium Phosphate (Generic)
True Value
Turtle Wax Carpet Cleaner
Unbelievable
Varsol
Vibrant
WD 40
Watkin's
Weepak
Westley's Clear Magic
Windex
Wisk Detergent
Woolite
Woolworth ' s
Wright's Silver Polish
Wynn ' s
Zep
Zippo
Frequency
2
5
2
1
5
2
1
1
1
9
2
6
87
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
4
17
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Percent
.2
.4
.2
.1
.4
.2
.1
.1
.1
.8
.2
.5
7.8
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.4
1.5
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
Total
1117
100.0
F-15
-------
Sixty-three percent of the users of solvent-type cleaning
fluids specified a brand. The top three brands used were Gunk
Degrease with 8.1% of the users; Stanley All Purpose with 7.8%;
and Gunk Cleaner with 5.1%. These top three brands represent
21.0% of the use.
F-16
-------
Q6A: Which brand of wood floor panel cleaner did you
use the last time you used it?
Table F-5: Brands of Wood Floor Panel Cleaners used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
409
Ajax
Allure
Amway
Aulwood
Beauti-f lor
Behold
Bissell One Step
Bravo
Bruce
Buff Up Dust Control
Cabinet Magic
Clean & Shine
Color Tile
Complete
Controll
Counter Life
Countertop Magic
Dir Tex
Dorzersol
Electrolux
Emulso
Fame
Favor
Flak
Flex Soap
Floortastic
Formby ' s
Formby's Furniture Clean.
Formby 's Lemon Oil
Fuller
Fuller Brush Panel
Furniture Polish
Future
Gillespie
Guardsman
Johnson Paste Wax
Johnson1 s
K Mart
Kind
Klean 'n1 Shine
Frequency
185
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
22
3
15
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
14
2
2
6
2
3
1
1
3
44
3
1
1
Percent
14.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
1.7
.2
1.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
. 1
. 1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.2
1.1
.2
.2
.5
.2
.2
.1
.1
.2
3.3
.2
.1
.1
F-I:
-------
Table F-5: Brands of Wood Floor Panel Cleaners used
(continued)
Brands
Kleen Floor
Kleenguard
Kotton Klenser
Kwik
Kwik Deglos
Landmark
Lemon Behold
Lemon Creme Old English
Lemon Endust
Lemon Pledge
Lemon Well
Liminol
Liquid Paper
Liquid Sandpaper
Marlite
Mighty Moe
Minwax Finishing Paste
Mop & Glo
Mr. Clean
Multi-Clean
Murphy's Oil Soap
Old English
Old Gold
One Step Wax Remover
Panel Life
Panel Magic
Panel Nu
Parks
Pine Power
Pine Sol
Pledge
Pratt & Lambert
Pride
Raleigh
Regard
Renuzit
Scott's Liquid Gold
Solid Gold
Sorbez
Spic & Span
Stanley
Telege
Texize
Thompson's
Touch
Frequency
1
2
1
2
1
1
8
7
14
59
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
89
17
1
1
2
50
19
2
1
5
11
1
1
1
9
2
575
1
1
3
19
1
1
1
1
Percent
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.6
.5
1.1
4.5
.2
.1
.1
.1
. 1
.1
.1
.5
.2
.1
6.8
1.3
.1
.1
.2
3.8
1.4
.2
.1
.4
.8
.1
.1
.1
.7
.2
43.7
.1
.1
.2
1.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
-------
Table F-5: Brands of Wood Floor Panel Cleaners used
(continued)
Brands Frequency Percent
Trewax
Trewax Wood Cleaner
True Value
Vanish
Watco Satin Wax Natural
Weiman Panel Bright
Williams
Wood Beautiful
Wood Glo
Wood Kraft
Wood New
Wood Plus
Wood Preen
Wood Saver
1
7
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
6
13
1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.5
1.0
.1
1,315 100.0
Eighty-six percent (85.9%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of wood floor panel
cleaners named were Scott's Liquid Gold, Murphy's Oil Soap and
Lemon Pledge which accounted for 43.7%, 6.8% and 4.5% of the
named brands respectively.
F-19
-------
Q6A: Which brand of typewriter correction fluid did
you use the last time you used it?
Table F-6: Brands of Typewriter Correction Fluid used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
3M
Amco
Associated
Benchmark
Bond White
Boo Boo Goo
Cardinal
Correct -All
Correction Fluid (Generic)
Correcto
Correctype
Daisy
Delete
Dixon
Dry Lite
Eberhard
Formula 109
Houston
IBM Special
Liquid Paper
Liquid Paper Pen & Ink
Meade
Mistake Out
National Office
Opaque
Papermate
Pentel
Quill
ReType
Rotex For Ink
Rotex Thinner
Ryan & Williams
Scripto
Sears
Sno Pake
Tipp-Ex
Touch & Go
Typ-Strip
Wite-Out
X-Pert Tabs
Total
Frequency
185
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
12
1
6
29
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
477
4
3
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
374
1
1147
Percent
16.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.3
.2
.1
1.0
.1
.5
2.5
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
41.6
.3
.3
.1
.1
.1
.8
.1
.1
.1
.3
. 1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.1
32.6
.1
100.0
F-20
-------
Of those who used the product in the last 12 months, 83.9%
specified a brand. Of the 962 respondents specifying a brand,
41.6% named "Liquid Paper", 32.6% named "Wite Out". These were
the 2 major brands used and together account for 74.2% of the
named brands.
F-21
-------
Q6A: Which brand of contact cement, super glues, or spray
adhesive did you use the last time you used it?
Table F-7: Brands of Contact Cement, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesive used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
3M Auto Pack
3M Contact Cement
3M General Trim Adhesive
3M Multi Purpose Adhesive
3M Spray Trim Adhesive
3M Super 77
5 Minute Epoxy
5 Second Nail Glue
AA Super Glue
Aqua
Archer Instant Bonding
Armstrong Contact Cement
Arrow
Barge Cement
Best Test
Black Tack
Bond
Bonini 2
Borden Super Glue
Bordon
Bradlee ' s
Carter ' s Rubber Cement
Contac
Contact Cement (Generic)
Correct-All Super Gel
Cry Super Glue
Dap Contact Cement
Dap Glazing
Delwood
Dennison
Devcon Super Glue
Dropmatic Super Glue
DuPont
DuPont Contact Cement
DuPont Super Glue
Duco Cement
Dunlop Super Glue
Duro Auto Trim Adhesive
Duro Black Plastic Rubber
Duro Contact Cement
Duro Depend II
Frequency
398
3
9
4
2
5
2
1
5
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
6
6
5
2
1
5
1
26
1
1
23
1
1
1
1
2
10
1
11
43
1
1
1
79
3
Percent
14.7
.1
.3
.1
.0
.2
.0
.0
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.2
.2
.2
.1
.0
.2
.0
1.0
.0
.0
.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.4
.0
.4
1.6
.0
.0
.0
2.9
.1
F-22
-------
Table F-7:
Brands of Contact Cement, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesive used (continued)
Brands
Duro Epoxy Glue
Duro Master Mend Resin
Duro Quick Gel
Duro Spray Adhesive
Duro Super Glue 5
Duro White Plastic Rubber
E Z Fix Patch Kit
Elmer1 s
Elmer's Carpenters Glue
Elmer ' s Contact Cement
Elmer ' s Epoxy Hardener
Elmer's Glue All
Elmer ' s Heavy Grip Cement
Elmer's Rubber Cement
Elmer's Silicone Glue
Elmer's Stix All
Elmwood
Eltico Super Glue
Evans St. Clair
Fancy Fingers Nail Glue
Fast Wallpaper Remover
Ford Super Glue
Formica Contact Cement
Foxy Poxy
Franklin Hide Glue
GE Super Glue
Gilman Super Glue
Glu-Stic Contact Cement
Goldenberg's Model Glue
Good Glue
Goodyear Pliobond
Goop Automotive
Goop Household
Grand Acricutes
Grip Contact Cement
Grumbacher
Gunk Super Glue
Hard as Nails
Harwell
Hazel's Super Glue
Hermetite
Hi-Tack
Hold It!
Hot Glue
Hot Stuff
Hydro-Grip
Frequency
5
1
1
4
218
1
1
1
2
22
2
102
3
2
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
±
I
1
2
2
1
Percent
.2
.0
.0
.1
8.1
.0
.0
.0
.1
.8
.1
3.8
.1
.1
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.1
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
F-23
-------
Table F-7:
Brands of Contact Cement, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesive used (continued)
Brands
Hypoxy
Insta-Cure
Instant Success
Instant-Glu Pen
JB Wells Contact Cement
Jet
Jet Super Glue
K Mart
Kodak
Krazy Glue
Krazy Instant Glue
Lepage Rubber Cement
Leech F26 Heavy Adhesive
Liq-Nails
Liquid Paper
Liquid Steel
Loctite
Loctite Quick Gel
Macco Liquid Nails
Magic Glue
Meijer's
Minute Bond Primer
Miracle Black Magic
Nail Glue (Generic)
Napa
Never Mar Contact Cement
Nukote
Old Adhesive/Paint Remover
On The Spot Thick Gel
PDC Weld Contact Glue
PVC Cement
Pactra
PermaLastic
Permabond Super Glue
Permatex Super Glue
Photo Mount
Pierce & Stevens
Plastic Mender Magic
Pliobond Contact Cement
Pro Seal Super Glue
Pro Spray Adhesive
Qualco Super Glue
Rawn
Richbond Super Glue
Ross Rubber Cement
Ross Ultra Super Glue
Frequency
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
15
1
454
1
2
2
1
1
1
7
1
1
4
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
10
1
1
1
21
1
3
1
2
1
1
12
13
Percent
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
.6
.0
16.8
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
.8
.0
.1
.0
.1
.0
.0
.4
.5
F-24
-------
Table F-7:
Brands of Contact Cement, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesive used (continued)
Brands
Rubbermaid Contact Cement
SBR
Sanford
Scotch
Scotch Spray Adhesive
Scotchgard Contact Cement
Scotty 's
Seal-All
Sears
Sear Super Glue
Shoe Goo
Silicone II
Silicone Rubber Adhesive
Sobo
Spay Mount
Spray N Glue
Stanley
Stick-It Nail Glue
Streamline Super Glue
Super Bond
Super Glue (Generic)
Super Glue Brand
Super Goo
Super Hypoxy
Super Jet Super Glue
Super Lightweight One Time
Super Tac
TC-7
Tacky
Talon America
Testers
Testers Model Glue
Testers Super Glue
Tiger Grip
Titebond Wood Glue
Toledo Super Glue
Tru-Bond
True-Value
Velcro
Victor Rubber Cement
WD 40
Walgreen ' s
Walgreen 's Super Glue
Weld-It All Purpose
Weldbond
Weldwood Contact Cement
Frequency
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
34
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
491
305
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
11
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
25
Percent
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.1
.1
.0
.1
1.3
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.1
18.2
11.3
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.4
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.9
F-25
-------
(T-
Table F-7:
Brands of Contact Cement, Super Glues, or Spray
Adhesive used (continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Weldwood Spray 'n Glue
Weldwood Super Glue
Weldwood Touch N Glue
Wilhold Contact Cement
Wite-Out
Wonder Bond Plus
Zap-a-Gap
1
3
2
4
1
85
1
.0
.1
.1
.1
.0
3.1
.0
Total
4920
100.0
Eighty-five percent (85.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of contact cement, super
glues, and spray adhesives used were Super Glue (Generic) with
18.2% of the users; Krazy Glue with 16.8%; and Super Glue Brand
with 11.3% users.
F-26
-------
Q6A: Which brand of adhesive remover did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-8: Brands of Adhesive Removers used
Brands
Don't Knows or Not Ascertained
3M Adhesive Remover
409
Amway
Bestline
Bix
C33
Carbo Chlor
Channel
Clorox
Color Tile
Duco
Fantastic
Fast Wallpaper Remover
Gen Purpose Adhesive Cl
Golden Harvest
Jasco Premium P&E Rem
K&K
Lequior
Locweld
Metylan
Nasco
Old Adhesive/Paint Remover
Old Hard Adhesive Remover
Peerless
Power Kleen
Savagran
Scotchgard
Sears
Sherwin-Williams
Standard Brands
Super Glue (Generic)
Super Glue Remover
Tile Helper
True Value
Wall Off
Walltex
Whisk
Wick
X-14
Zip Strip
Zip Zap
Total
Frequency
106
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
8
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
175
Percent
60.6
.6
.6
.6
1.1
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
2.9
.6
.6
6.3
.6
.6
.6
.6
. 6
.6
1.7
.6
4.6
.6
.6
.6
1.1
.6
.6
1.7
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
1.1
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
100.0
F-27
-------
Thirty-nine percent (39.4%) of the users specified a brand.
The top three brands named were Fast Wallpaper Remover, Old
Adhesive/Paint Remover and Color Tile which account for 6.3%,
4.6% and 2.9% of named brands respectively.
F-28
-------
.Q6A: Which brand of silicone lubricant did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-9: Brands of Silicone Lubricant used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
3-in-l
30-40
3M Auto Pak Silicone Lube
5-5-6
AC 40
AMS Oil
Ace
Aero-Kroil
Amway
Amway Wonder Mist
Armorall
Birchwood Casey
Black & Decker
Brake Free
Break Away
CD 2 Silicone Spray
CRC Heavy Duty Silicone
Camie 888
Casite Spray Lube
Central Hardware
Dana
Dap Slipicone Lubricant
Dow Corning
Dry Lube
DuPont
Duro
Easy Wrench
Electro Wash
Elmer1 s
Exsil Spray & Lube
Fantastic
Ford
GC Electronic
GE
Gold Seal
Gumout
Gunk
Gunk Heavy Duty Silicone
Gunk Silicone Spray Lube
Handy Dandy
Ideal
Frequency
243
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
1
1
36
35
3
1
1
1
5
1
2
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
22
12
1
1
Percent
31.9
.3
.1
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.7
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
4.7
7.2
.4
.1
.1
.1
.7
.1
.3
1.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.5
2.9
1.6
.1
.1
F-29
-------
Table F-9:
Brands of Silicone Lubricant used
(continued)
Brands
K Mart
K Mart White Silicone
Kel Pure Silicone
Krylon Silicone Spray
LaBell
Lube Glide
Lubex
Lubsit
Maxi Glide
NYBCO Spray Glue
Napa
No Squeak
Otter's
Pennzoil
Permatex Lubricant
Purol
Radio Shack
STP
Sears Silicone Spray
Shell
Shop-Dri
Silglide
Silicone Lube Spray
Silicone Penetrant
Slip Plate
Slip Spray
Slip-It
Slipicone
Snap Silicone Spray
Snap Super Heavy Duty
Solder Seal
Solder Seal Super Oil
Somaca
Spray Slik
Sprayway
Stanley
Starrett
Super Silicone
Surface Shield
TMP Silicone Lubricant
Teflon
Texize
This Is It Silicone Spray
Thompson ' s
Tri-Flow Lubricant
True Value
Frequency
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
3
16
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
Percent
.4
.3
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.5
.1
.1
.1
.4
2.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.4
.4
F-30
-------
Table F-9:
Brands of Silicons Lubricant used
(continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Turtle
Union Carbide Silicone
WD 40
Westley ' s
Zayre
Zynolyte Silicone Lube
1
26
203
2
1
2
.1
3.4
26.7
.3
.1
.3
Total
761
100.0
Sixty-eight percent (68.1%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of silicone lubricants
named were WD 40, CRC Heavy Duty Silicone and CD 2 Silicone Spray
by 26.7%, 7.2% and 4.7% of the respondents respectively.
F-31
-------
Q6A:. Which brand of other lubricants did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-10: Brands of Other Lubricants used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained .
1W 40
3-in-l Bolt Loosener
3-in-l Household Oil
3-in-l Plus
3M
A-l
Amway
Armorall
Borden Industrial
Brake Free
Break Free
Bullshot
CML
CRC 5-56
Chain Lube
Chevron
Clock Oil
Conoco
Cutter ' s
DK-50
Drydene
Echo
Electric Clean
Elmer's
Elmer's Slide-All
Fuller Brush Superlube
Greece
Gulf
Gun Slick
Hobte's No. 9
Hoppe ' s
Johnson ' s
K Mart Multi Purpose
Kenmore Sewing Machine Oil
LPS 1 Greaseless
Lakee ' s
Liquid Graphite Lubricant
Liquid Wrench
Lithium Grease
Lock Ease
Lubrease
Lubriplate
MP
Maltby
Frequency
134
8
1
780
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
3
2
1
1
4
7
1
25
1
1
1
1
Percent
8.7
.5
.1
50.5
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.3
.5
.1
1.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
F-32
-------
Table F-10:
Brands of Other Lubricants used
(continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Marvel Air Tool Oil
Master
Mechanic's Choice
Mobile
Necchi Sewing Machine Oil
Never Cease
Otter ' s
Pane ' s
Panel
Pennzoil Motor Oil
Pro Hair Clipper Oil
Quaker State
Quick Silver
Rem Oil
Sears Oil
Shop Foreman
Singer Sewing Machine Oil
Spray-a-Day
Stanley
Sun Oil
Super Oil
Super Slick
SynLec 2
Texaco
Tri-Flow Lubricant
Tronan
True Value
Trumpet Valve Oil
Valvoline
Vaseline
W-44
WD 40
Wahl
White Sewing Machine Oil
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
34
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
448
1
1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
2.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
29.0
.1
.1
Total
1545
100.0
The majority of respondents, 91.3%, specified a brand of
other lubricants that they used. The top three brands of other
lubricants named were 3-in-l Household Oil, WD 40 and Singer
Sewing Machine Oil by 50.5%, 29.0% and 2.2% of the respondents
respectively.
F-33
-------
Q6A: Which brand of specialized electronic cleaners did you
use the last time you used it?
Table F-ll: Brands of Specialized Electronic Cleaners
used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
3M Stereo
AT607
All Stop Dirt
Allose
Allsop3 Cleaning Solution
Alpha
Anti Static Cleaner
Archer Break Free
Archer Dust Remover Spray
Archer TV Cl/Lube
Audio Technica
Avanti
Baldwin
Best Brand
Bib Video Head Cleaner
Black Cat
Blue Shower
CRC
CRC Electronic Cleaner
CRC Lectra-Motive
CRT Screen Cleaner
Channel Master
Chemtronics
Colony
Color TV Tuner Cleaner
Contact
Contact Renu
Curtis
Curtis-Ma this
D4 Discwasher
D4+ Discwasher
Digital Equipment
Discwasher
Electric Motor Cleaner
Electro Contact Cleaner
Electro Shave
Electroswitch
Fine Tune
Fuji
GC
GC Electric
Frequency
251
4
1
1
2
10
1
1
2
3
6
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
13
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
67
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Percent
45.4
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
2.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
12.1
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
F-34
-------
Table F-ll: Brands of Specialized Electronic Cleaners
used (continued)
Brands
HP Video
Head Cleaner HC-3
Humeseal
IBM
JC Penney
Jasco
Jebsee
K Mart
LPS
LPS Cold Galvanize
Lektro Cleaner Lube
Lektro Shaver Saver
MCM
MRP Record Cleaner
Magic Giant
Maxwell
Memorex Cleaning Fluid
Memorex Cleaning Kit
Memorex Record Care Kit
Memorex X HC
Metro
Miller-Stephenson
Moore Corp.
Motion
Motorla
No. 2 Tuner
Norelco
Norelco Razor Cleaner
Norelco Razor Lubricant
Norelco Whisk Off
Nortronics
Oster
Parks Shave Ease
Perfect Data
Precision Lab
Pro-100
Prowick Ionizer
RCA Deluxe Acrylic Spray
Radio Shack
Rawn
Realistic Head Cleaner
Realistic Non-Slip
Realistic Prof. Anti-Stat.
Recoton VCR Head Cl
Relay Clean
Retron
Frequency
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
6
1
1
2
3
4
8
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
2
9
1
1
1
1
1
Percent
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
1.3
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
4.0
0.4
1.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
F-35
-------
Table F-ll:
Brands of Specialized Electronic Cleaners
used (continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Ross
SC
SSK Head Cleaner
Scott's
Sears
Shav-R-Aid Shaver Cleaner
Shaver Sharp
Sony
Sound Guard
Space
Suddreth
SynLec 2
TDK
TEAC Head Cleaner HC3
TV/Computer Screen Cl
Tape Recorder Head Cl
Transcriber
USA Shaver Cleaner
VHS Scotch Tape
Video Magic Head Cleaner
Video Pro
WD 40
Williams
Zetol
Zykkor VCR Head Cleaner
Total
2
3
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
553
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
100.0
About fifty-five percent (54.6%) of the users of the
product specified a brand. This is a relatively low percentage.
The top three brands of specialized electronic cleaners used were
D4 Discwasher with 12.1% of the users; Radio Shack with 4.0% of
the users; and CRC Electronic Cleaner with 2.4% of the users.
F-36
-------
Q6A: Which brand of latex paint did you use the last time
you used it?
Table F-12: Brands of Latex Paint used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
84 Lumber
A-l
Aboff s
Acco
Ace
Aero-Hyde
Acrolux
Ameritone
Ames
Anvil
Bear
Behr
Benjamin Moore
Bennett
Best
Best Brothers
Big Wheel
Blair House
Blue Ridge
Bradlee's
Brod Dugan ' s
Broussard' s
Bruning
Builder's Square
Butte
C&C
Cabot
California
Carolina Coatings
Celolite
Cemico
Channel
Classic
Coast to Coast
Colony
Color Tile
Connecticut
Contempo
Cook's
DeHart
Deen & Byrd
Delmar
Delta
Devoe
DuPont
Frequency
385
1
2
2
2
8
1
1
5
2
1
1
2
57
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
29
3
8
5
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
11
50
Percent
21.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
3.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.6
.2
.4
.3
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.6
2.8
F-37
-------
r-
Table F-12:
Brands of Latex Paint used
(continued)
Brands
Duncan
Dunn-Edwards
Duron
Dutch Boy
Eberhard
Eclipse
Elite-Graham
Enterprise
Evans
F&H
Ferry & Derrick
Fillet
Finneran & Haley
Flex Bon
Forest City
Forum
Fox
Frazee
Fuller-0 ' Brien
General
Gibson
Oilman
Glidden
Glidden Wood & Stain
Graham
Gray Seal
Handy Dandy
Handy Man
Hank ' s
Hardware Fair
Hechinger
Heck ' s
Hide-All
Hirschfield's
Home Club
Home Depot ' s Finest
Hooker
Image
Jones Blair
K Mart
Kelly Moore
Kern-Tone
Knox Lumber
Komac
Krylon Spray Paint
Kwal
Kyanize
Lark
Frequency
1
3
3
68
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
5
1
1
7
168
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
37
9
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Percent
.1
.2
.2
3.8
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.4
9.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
2.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
F-38
-------
Table F-12:
Brands of Latex Paint used
(continued)
Brands
Levy ' s
Litton
Load ' s
Lowe ' s
Lumberjack
Luster Plus
MAB
Magic
Magic Touch Spray Paint
Majestic
Martin (Jim)
Martin Senour
Mautz
Meijer 's
Merytone
Miller
Monarch
Mr . How
Myers
National
New Coat
OK Hardware
Old Quaker
Olympic
Orchard
Ox Line
PPG
Panda
Paydee
Performer
Pergament
Pittsburgh
Porter's
Pratt & Lambert
Pri Man
Red Devil
Regent
Repco-Lite
Rich-Lux
Rickles
Rink's
Rohm & Hass
Rose ' s
Rust
S&T Hardware
Saxon
Schmidt's
Sears
Frequency
2
1
1
5
1
2
8
6
1
1
4
15
3
3
2
3
1
1
5
1
1
3
1
13
2
2
1
2
1
1
12 .
27
11
14
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
5
1
369
Percent
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.4
.3
.1
.1
.2
.8
.2
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.2
.1
.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.7
1.5
.6
.8
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
20.5
F-39
-------
Table F-12:
Brands of Latex Paint used
(continued)
Brands
Sears Metallic Enamel
Sears Spray Enamel
ServiStar
Sherwin-Williams
Shop-Ko
Sieperstein's
Silverlead
Siiruns
Sinclair
Southland DeSoto
Spectratone
St. Louis
Standard Brands
Sterling
Sternberger
Strathmore
Supreme
TCI
TGNY
Target
Town & Ranch
Tripp
True Value
Trutone
Tung-Ox
Tyanize
United Coatings
Valspar
Vegas
Versatex
Virginia Paint
Vista
Wal-Mart
Wards
Weatherall
Wellborn
West Hardware
Wick
Woolsey
Worth Chemical
X-D Rust
Zayre
Total
Frequency
1
1
2
124
4
1
1
1
5
1
1
2
31
3
1
1
4
1
2
4
1
3
23
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
10
26
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1801
Percent
.1
.1
.1
6.9
.2
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
1.7
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
1.3
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.6
1.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
100.0
Seventy-eight percent (78.6%) of latex paint users specified
a brand. The top three brands were Sears with 20.5% of the
users; Glidden with 9.3%; and Sherwin Williams with 6.9% of the
users.
F-40
-------
Q6A: Which brand of oil paint did you use the last time you
used it?
Table F-13: Brands of Oil Paint used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
84 Lumber
Ace
Americana
Ameritone
Ames
Behr
Benjamin Moore
Bennett
Benny & Smith
Big Wheel
Blue Ridge
Broussard1 s
Bru-Toke
Bruning
C&C
Cabot
Cansto
Central Hardware
Channel
Co-op
Coast to Coast
Contempo
Cook1 s
Been & Byrd
Devoe
Diamond
DuPont
Dunn-Edwards
Duron
Dutch Boy
Edwards
Enterprise
Finneran & Haley
Fixall
Flex Bon
Frazee
Fred Myers Brand
Fuller-O'Brien
Gambel ' s
Gibson
Gilman
Glidden
Gold Brand
Frequency
228
1
2
2
2
1
2
34
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
3
1
5
1
7
2
6
21
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
37
1
Percent
30.6
.1
.3
.3
.3
.1
.3
4.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.5
.1
.4
.1
.7
.1
.9
.3
.8
2.8
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.3
.4
.1
.1
.1
5.0
.1
F-41
-------
Table F-13: Brands of Oil Paint used (Continued)
Brands
Graham
Grumbacher
Handy Dandy
Hank ' s
Hechinger
Heck's
Hooker
Interlux
International
Jewell
Jones Blair
K Mart
Kelly Moore
Kilz
Krylon Spray Paint
Kwal
Kyanize
Liquitex
MA Bruder
MAB
Magic
Majestic
Martin (Jim)
Martin Senour
Mautz
McCloskey
McCoy1 s
Murphy's Mart
Mysticote
Napa Valley
National
NazDar
OK Hardware
Olde South
Olympic
PPG
Pactra Spray Paint
Payless
Performer
Pergament
Pioneer
Pittsburgh
Plasti Kote
Porter' s
Pratt & Lambert
Pure Magic
Red Devil
Repco-Lite
Frequency
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
6
4
1
3
2
1
2
2
5
4
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
11
2
1
1
1
3
1
14
1
10
17
1
5
3
Percent
.1
.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.8
.5
.1
.4
.3
.1
.3
.3
.7
.5
.1
.1
1.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.3
.1
1.5
.3
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
1.9
.1
1.3
2.3
.1
.7
.4
F-42
-------
Table F-13: Brands of Oil Paint used (Continued)
Brands
Rich-Lux
Rickles
Rust Oleum
Scotty ' s
Sears
Sears Spray Enamel
ServiStar
Sherwin-Williams
Shiva
Sieperstein1 s
Sign Painter's
Silathane
Silathane Enamel
Sinclair
Spectratone
Stain Block
Standard Brands
Sternberger
Strathmore
Target
Testers
Testers Spray Enamel
Touraine
TriChem
Tripp
True Value
Unico
Universal
Utilac Spray Enamel
Valspar
Varathane
Vista
Wal-Mart
Wards
West Hardware
Windsor & Newton
Woolsey
Zayre
Total
Frequency
1
1
15
1
69
1
2
39
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
19
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
12
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
744
Percent
.1
.1
2.0
.1
9.3
.1
.3
5.2
.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.7
.1
.1
2.6
.1
.1
.1
.9
.1
.3
.1
.1
1.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.4
.5
.1
.3
.1
.1
100.0
Sixty-nine and four-tenths % of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of oil paint used were
Sears with 9.3% of the users; Sherwin Williams with 5.2% of the
users; and Glidden with 5.0% of the users.
F-43
-------
Q6A: Which brand of wood stain, varnish or finish did you
use the last time you used it?
Table F-14: Brands of Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
4 City
84 Lumber
AR
Ace
Ace Spray Stain
Allwoods
Ames Store
Antique Walnut Wiping
Arthur Fomer
BLP Mobil Stain
Barthey Collection
Bean & Berry
Behr
Behr Patio Redwood Stain
Behr Spray Stain & Stealer
Belknap
Benchmark
Benjamin Moore
Benwood
Big Red
Biltmore
Birchwood
Blue Ridge Varnish
Bridges & Smith
Bruce
Bud
Cabot
Channel Varnish
Clear Finish Soft Sheen
Coast to Coast
Coberstar
Colony
Color Rich Wood Stain
Color Tile
Coppernai
Cuprinol
Danish Oil Finish
DeHart
Deft
Deft Clear Wood Finish
Devlin
Diamond
DuPont
Frequency
465
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
2
1
2
6
1
1
7
2
1
8
3
2
1
7
Percent
36.7
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.3
.2
.1
.2
.5
.1
.1
.6
.2
.1
.6
.2
.2
.1
.6
F-AA
-------
Table F-14: Brands of Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
used (Continued)
Brands
Duffy's
Dunn-Edwards
Dura-Shield
Dutch Boy
Evans
Fame
Flecto
Flex Bon
Formby ' s
Formby's Furniture Refin.
Formby 's Tung Oil Finish
Formby's Wiping Stain
Fred Myers Brand
Fuller-O ' Brien
General Finishes 3 -Step
Gillespie
Glid-Tone Clear Oil
Glid-Tone Wood Finish
Glidden Varnish
Gold Ball
Grossman's Linseed Oil
Gym Seal Varnish
Hank ' s Barathine
Hannah Wood Stain
Hardware Hank
Hill's
Home Club
Interior Oil Stain
Jasco Linseed Oil
Jiffy
Johnson' s
K Mart
Kresge
Krylon Spray Varnish
Lacquer Wood Finish
Larson
Last n Last Clear Satin
Last n Last Polyurethane
Lemon Endust
Lemon Pledge
Liquid Plastic
Lowe ' s
MAB
Macolac
Magic
Man O' War Varnish
Frequency
1
2
7
2
1
1
6
1
1
115
10
3
1
2
1
1
1
12
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
7
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
3
Percent
.1
.2
.6
.2
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
9.1
.8
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.9
.2
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.6
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.2
F-45
-------
Table 'F-14:
Brands of Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
used (Continued)
Brands
Mautz
Miller
Miniwax Finishing Wax
Minwax Polyshades
Minwax Spar Urethane
Minwax Tung Oil Finish
Minwax Wood Finish
Mop & Glo
Murphy's Oil Soap
NYBCO Redwood Stain
Old English
Old Masters
Olympic
Open Hearth
Outer ' s
PPG Interior Wood Finish
Panel Magic
Parks
Parks Tung Oil
Payless
Penofin
Pergament
Pittsburgh
Pledge
Polyurethane Clear Satin
Polyurethane Liq. Plastic
Polyurethane Varnish
Polyurethane (Generic)
Porter ' s
Pratt & Lambert
Quick Strip
Red Devil
Red Devil Polyurethane
Regard
Rocky ' s
Sawmill
Scott ' s
Scott's Liquid Gold
Scottie's Patina
Sears
Self Name
ServiStar
Sherwin-Williams
Specto
Spectrum
Spread Urethane Varnish
Frequency
3
1
179
3
4
12
8
1
1
1
10
1
29
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
12
1
4
4
6
1
18
5
1
1
2
3
2
1
25
1
1
25
1
1
10
Percent
.2
.1
14.1
.2
.3
.9
.6
.1
.1
.1
.8
.1
2.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.3
.2
.2
.9
.1
.3
.3
.5
.1
1.4
.4
.1
.1
.2
.2
.2
.1
2.0
.1
.1
2.0
.1
.1
.8
F-46
-------
Table F-14:
Brands of Wood Stains, Varnishes and Finishes
used (continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Standard Brands
Stanley Varnish
Star
Strypeeze
Sutherland
Town Paint
True Value
Valspar
Valspar Varnish Spray
Varathane
Varathane Oil Finish
Varathane Satin
Verastain
Watco Danish Oil Finish
Watco Redwood Finish
Water Rinsable Wood Stain
Wellborn
Welwood
Wipe & Stain
Wood Coat
Wood Glo
Wood Rich
Woodsman
Z-Spar
Zar
Zip Guard
Zip Guard Wood Finish
Zip Strip
Zynolyte Spray Stain
11
1
1
1
2
1
11
7
4
14
1
3
1
11
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
6
2
3
1
1
.9
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.9
.6
.3
1.1
.1
.2
.1
.9
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.5
.2
.2
.1
.1
Total
1268
100.0
Sixty-three percent (63.3%) of the users who used the
product in the last year specified a brand. The top three brands
named are Miniwax Finishing Wax, Formby's Furniture Refin. and
Olympic by 14.1%, 9.1% and 2.3% of the respondents respectively.
F-47
-------
Q6A: Which brand of paint removers/strippers did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-15: Brands of Paint Removers/Strippers used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
3M Woodgrain and Stripe
Acco Strip
Ace Brush Cleaner
Allied-Kelite A127B
Benjamin Moore
Bix Stripper
Brous sard's
Brush & Roller Cleaner
Builder's Square
Circa 6
Coast to Coast
Color Tile
Crown Brush & Roller Cleaner
Cutex Polish Remover
Dap Paint Remover
DeSoto
Devoe
Douglas & Nanke
Dupont
Duffy's
Dupli Color
Dynamite
E Z Paint Deglosser
Eckard
El Pico
•Fix-It
Forbes
Formby's Paint Remover
Formby ' s Remover Wash
Forum Speed
General
Gillespie
Green ' s Liquid Paint Remover
Hip Strip
Hope's Refinisher
Huntsville Roofing
Jasco
Jasco Furniture Refinisher
Jasco Premium P&E Rem
Jasco Speedomatic
Jiffy
Frequency
321
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
98
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
8
2
6
1
Percent
41.7
.1
.1
.7
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.3
12.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.3
.1
.1
1.0
.3
.8
.1
F-48
-------
Table F-15: Brands of Paint Removers/Strippers used
(continued)
Brands
John Deere
Johnson ' s
K Mart
Kern Cleaner
Keti 2
Klean Strip
Klean Strip Brush/Roller Cleaner
Klean-Clean Paint Remover
Kleer Kote
Kutzit Paint Remover
Kutzit Paint/Varnish Remover
Kwik Liquid No-Wash
Liquid Dynamite
Liquid Sandpaper
Lowe ' s
Lutex
Majestic
Mason ' s
Mautz
McCoy ' s
Mineral Springs
Minwax Antique Refinisher
Minwax Stripper
Nasco Paint Remover
Nasco Sandpaper In A Can
Naval Jelly
No Sand
Odish
Die's
Oops Paint Remover
Paint and Varnish Remover
Parks Furniture Refinisher
Pergament
Pittsburgh
Premium Paint Remover
Quick Strip
Red Devil
Redi-Strip
Rust Oleum
Scottie's
Sears Brush/Roller Cleaner
Serv-U
Sherwin-Williams WashAway
Shop-Ko
So Fast Paint Remover
Standard Brands
Frequency
-i
a.
2
6
1
1
4
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
3
1
1
1
2
1
9
4
1
2
3
4
21
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
4
1
Percent
.1
.3
.8
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
2.1
.4
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
1.2
.5
.1
.3
.4
.5
2.7
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.7
.1
.5
.1
F-49
-------
f-
Table F-15: Brands of Paint Removers/Strippers used
(continued)
Brands Frequency Percent
Stanley
Strip X Paint Stripper
Strip-It
Stripper (Generic)
Stripz Em
Strypeeze
Strypeeze Paint Remover
Sunnyside
Sunnyside Brush Cleaner
Super Ease
SuperStrip Paint Remover
Sure Strip
TMP Paint Stripper
Texelle
Thinz It
Times Square
Town & Ranch
Trewax Wax Stripper
True Value
Valco
Var-T
Varsol
Wards
Water Cleanup
West Lumber
Western Auto
Whitney1 s
Wize Stripper
Wonder Paste
Wood Strip
Zar
Zayre
Zemolite
Zip Off
Zip Sander
Zip Strip
Zip-It
1
1
2
2
2
3
44
1
1
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
46
1
.1
.1
.3
.3
.3
.4
5.7
.1
.1
.1
2.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.8
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.0
6.0
.1
Total 769 100.0
Fifty-eight percent (58.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of paint
removers/strippers used were Formby's with 12.7% of the users;
Zip Strip with 6.0% of the users; and Strypeeze Paint Remover
with 5.7% of the users.
F-50
-------
Q6A: Which brand of paint thinner did you use the last time
you used it?
Table F-16: Brands of Paint Thinners used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
Ace
Baldwin
Barber
Barco
Benjamin Moore
Bix Stripper
Blue Ridge
Bortzoil
Bridges & Smith
Brod Dugan ' s
Broussard's
Builder's Square
Caldol
chekr
Coast to Coast
Coleman Fuel
Crown Paint Thinner
Davis
Devoe
Diamond
Diosol
Ditzler
Dope (Generic)
Douglas & Nanke
Dupont 3602SA
Duco
Duron
Dutch Boy
Edwards
Fedco
First Mate
Forbes
Formby ' s
Frazee
Fred Myers Brand
Fuller
Fulton
Glidden
Great Plains
Grumbacher
Handy City
Frequency
646
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
2
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
Percent
58.0
.4
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.3
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.4
.2
.1
1.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
0.5
.1
.2
.1
.1
.3
.1
.2
.2
F-51
-------
Table F-16:
Brands of Paint Thinners used
(Continued)
Brands
Holman
Image
Jamesway
Jasco Paint Thinner
John Deere
Johnson's Mineral Spirits
Jones Blair
K Mart
Kelly Moore
Klean Strip
Klenk's Epoxy Thinner
Lenmar Lacquer Thinner
Lone Star Paint Thinner
Lutex
M&M
MAB
Majestic
Martin Senour
McCloskey
McCoy's
Merker's
Mister
NEK
Namel Thinner
Nankee
Nasco Brush Cleaner
Nasco Linseed Oil
Nasco Paint Thinner
Nasco Sandpaper In A Can
Nasco Turpex
No Brite
Odorless Paint Thinner
Olde South
Ole's
Olympic
PPC
Pactra Aero Gloss
Parks Lacquer Thinner
Parks Paint Thinner
Payless
Pergament
Petroleum Spirits
Pioneer
Pittsburgh
Porter ' s
Power Kleen
Frequency
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
15
2
7
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
70
1
7
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
22
1
6
1
1
4
2
1
Percent
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.2
.1
1.3
.2
.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.2
6.3
.1
.6
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.2
.1
.2
2.0
.1
.5
.1
.1
.4
.2
.1
F-52
-------
Table F-16:
Brands of Paint Thinners used
(Continued)
Brands
Pratt & Lambert
R&M
Red Band
Red Devil
Red Devil Brush Cleaner
Red Label
Repco-Lite
Rust Oleum Thinning Oil
Saxon
Scotty's
Sears Epoxy/Lacquer Thinner
Sears Terpolene Thinner
ServiStar
Sherwin-Williams
Shiva
Sieperstein1 s
Sinclar
So Fast
So Fast Lacquer Thinner
So Fast Paint Thinner
Solvoil
Southern Pine
Standard Brands
Standard Shellac Thinner
Stanley
Strypeeze
Sub-Turp
Sunny side
Sunnyside Brush Cleaner
T&R
T-10
TGNY
Testers
Thinnerine
Thinnex
Thinz It
Thompson ' s
Trewax
TriChem
True Value Mineral Spirit
Tuff Coat
USA Paint
Union Ink
Unisol Town & Country
Frequency
1
1
2
10
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
36
2
19
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
20
3
1
2
1
8
2
2
1
1
7
1
5
8
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
Percent
.1
.1
.2
.9
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.6
3.2
.2
1.7
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.2
.1
.2
1.8
.3
.1
.2
.1
.7
.2
.2
.1
.1
.6
.1
.4
.7
.1
.1
.1
.8
.1
.1
.1
.1
F-53
-------
Table F-16: Brands of Paint Thinners used
(Continued)
Brands Frequency Percent
Val-Kraft
Vanderin
Varsol
Vary
Vinnie's
Vista
Vogart Craft
Wal-Mart
Walton
Wards
Weldwood Cleaner/Thinner
Woolco
Z Spar
2
1
7
1
1
3
1
2
1
4
2
1
1
.2
.1
.6
.1
.1
.3
.1
.2
.1
.4
.2
.1
.1
Total 769 100.0
Forty-two percent (42.0%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of paint thinners used
were Nasco Paint Thinner with 6.3% of the users; Sears Terpolene
Paint Thinner with 3.2% of the users; and Parks Paint Thinner
with 2.0% of the brands.
F-54
-------
Q6A: Which brand of aerosol spray paint did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-17: Brands of Aerosol Spray Paint used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
3M
4 City
4-in-l
Accent
Ace Spray Enamel
Akron
Ames
Bantam
Behlen
Big A
Black Baron
Borden Acrylic Coating
Bradlee1 s
Broma Decorative Enamel
Broma Enamel
Calborn
Central Hardware
Channel
Chevron
Coast to Coast
Coatal Coat
Color Touch Spray Paint
Colorworks Appliance Fin
Consort
Cook's
Crystal Clear Glaze
Dart Enamel
Dart Spray Paint
Daz-L Fluorescent Paint
Derusto
Derusto Enamel Paint
Derusto Epoxy Paint
Devoe
Dollar General
DuPont
Duco
Dutch Boy
Eager Beaver
East Dry Lacquer
Effecto Spray Enamel
Frequency
439
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
5
1
19
1
3
1
1
16
1
3
1
6
2
Percent
36.9
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.8
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.2
.4
.1
.6
.1
.3
.1
.1
.3
.1
.3
.1
.5
.2
F-55
-------
Table F-17:
Brands of Aerosol Spray Paint used
(Continued)
Brands
Family Dollar
Farm & Home
Fay's
Fillet
Fixall Enamel Lacquer
Fluorescent Spray Paint
Ford
Formula 4
Frazee
Fred Myers Brand
Gambel ' s
Gee Bee
Glidden
Gloss Black Lacquer
Great Day Enamel
HWI Hardware
Heck's
Hobby Household Enamel
Imperial Enamel
Johnson 's
Joy Valley
K Mart Spray Enamel
Kelly Moore
Keno
Kiester's Epoxy
Kra-Seal
Krylon Acrylic Spray
Krylon Enamel
Krylon Spray Coating
Krylon Spray Paint
Liquid Wrench
Magic High Gloss Enamel
Magic Spray Enamel
Magicolor Rustreat
Man 0' War
Maypole
Murphy ' s Mart
'NYBCO Siliconized Enamel
Napa
One Coat
Orlac
Pactra Spray Enamel
Pactra Spray Paint
Pamida
Panda
Pep Boys
Frequency
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
37
1
1
1
1
14
1
2
269
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
Percent
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.6
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
. 1
.2
.1
.2
22. 6
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
F-56
-------
Table F-17: Brands of Aerosol Spray Paint used
(Continued)
Brands
Pergament
Pittsburgh
Plasti Kote Epoxy
Plasti Kote Spray Paint
Premium
Quality
Red Devil
Rose ' s
Rough Lock
Rust Beater Touch Coat
Rust Defender
Rust Exit
Rust Guard Halt Rust
Rust Oleum
Rust Oleum Finish
Rust Oleum Spray Paint
Rustall
Rutland
S&T Hardware
Sampson
Scotty 's
Screen Kleen
Sears Metallic Enamel
Sears Spray Enamel
Sherwin-Williams Enamel
Sherwin-Williams Lacquer
Shop-Ko
Sparvar Perma Clear
Sparvar Spray Paint
Spray Arama Enamel
Super Value
Suzuki
TGNY
Target
Tempo Color Spray
Testers Spray Enamel
Tough Coat Spray Enamel
Town & Country
Tru Color
Tru-Test Supreme Enamel
True Value
Utilac Spray Enamel
Varathane
Vary
Wal-Mart
Frequency
/_
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
152
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
7
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
2
9
4
1
1
3
6
1
1
1
16
Percent
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
12.8
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
. 6
.2
.3
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
. 3
.4
.2
.8
.3
.1
.1
. 3
.5
.1
.1
. 1
.3
F-57
-------
Table F-17:
Brands of Aerosol Spray Paint used
(Continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Wards
Western Auto
WoodRich
Zeylone
Zynolyte Spray Paint
1
1
1
1
1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
Total
1190
100.0
Sixty-three percent (63.1%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of aerosol spray paint
used were Krylon Spray Paint with 22.6% of the users; Rust Oleum
with 12.8% of the users; and K Mart Spray Paint with 3.1% users.
F-58
-------
Q6A: Which brand of primers did you use the last time you
used it?
Table F-18: Brands of Primers used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
Aboff 's
Bantam
Behr
Benjamin Moore
Bondo
Bradlee's
Bright Beauty Primer
Cabot
Classic
Coast to Coast
Colony
Cook1 s
Dart Rust-Away Enamel
Decade
Deen & Byrd
Derusto Preventive Enamel
Devoe
Dupont
Dunn-Edwards
Duro Sandable Primer
Dutch Boy
Fay1 s
Fix-It
Flex Bon
Frazee
Glidden
Graham
Hank's
Hercules
Hide-All
Interlux
K Mart
K Mart Sandable Primer
Kelly Moore
Krylon Spray Enamel
Krylon Spray Paint
Krylon Spray Primer
Martin Senour
Minwax
Muralo
Napa
Frequency
156
1
2
1
10
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
19
2
1
1
1
Percent
38.4
.2
.5
.2
2.5
.7
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.7
.2
.2
.2
.2
.7
.2
.5
.7
.2
.2
.2
.2
1.5
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
1.0
.7
.2
.2
.2
4.7
.5
.2
.2
.2
F-59
-------
Table F-18:
Brands of Primers used
(Continued)
Brands
Die's
Olympic Primecoat
Open Hearth
Orlace
Parks
Pep Boys
Pergament
Pinetoff Bottom Primer
Pittsburgh
Porter's
Pratt & Lambert
Redicote
Rickles
Rossow
Rust Oleum
Rust Oleum Auto Primer
Rust Oleum Hunter Green
Rust Oleum Metal Primer
Rust Proof
Rustall
Saxon
Sealz-It
Sears
Seashore
Sherwin-Will iams
Sinclar
Standard Brands
T&R
TVA
Touch & Tone
True Value
Unico
Valspar
Wards
White Pigmented Kilz
Zimmer
Total
Frequency
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
64
1
1
13
1
1
1
1
28
1
12
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
406
Percent
.2
.5
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
1.0
.5
.2
.2
.2
.2
15.8
.2
.2
3.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
6.9
.2
3.0
.2
1.2
.2
.2
.2
.5
.2
.2
.5
.5
.2
100.0
Sixty-two percent (61.6%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of primers were
Rustoleum with 15.8% of the users; Sears with 6.9% of the users;
and Krylon Spray Primer with 4.7% of the users.
F-60
-------
Q6A: Which brand of aerosol rust remover did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-19: Brands of Aerosol Rust Remover used
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
3-in-l
5-5-6
Amway Redu Rust Remover
Bowman
CRC
Conklin Rust Bomb
Derusto Preventive Enamel
Ditzler
Gunk
Krylon
LPS 3 Rust Inhibitor
Liquid Wrench
Liquid Wrench No. 2
Napa
Permatex Solvo Rust
Premier
Quaker State
Red Devil
Rotanium
Rust Exxit
Rust Oleum
RustOff
Rustbuster
STP
Sherwin-Williams
Snap Rust Buster
Solder Seal
WD 40
Wal-Mart
Western Auto
Whink
84
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
103
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
24
2
1
1
1
8
1
41
1
2
2
28.5
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
1.0
.3
.3
.3
.7
34.9
.7
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.7
8.1
.7
.3
.3
.3
2.7
.3
13.9
.3
.7
.7
Total
295
100.0
Seventy-two percent (71.5%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of aerosol rust remover
named were Liquid Wrench, WD 40 and Rust Oleum by 34.9%, 13.9%
and 8.1% of respondents respectively.
F-61
-------
Q6A: Which brand of outdoor water repellent did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-20: Brands of Outdoor Water Repellent used
Brands
Don ' t Knows and Not Ascertained
A-l Water Repellent
Amway Drifab
Armor all
Behr
Benjamin Moore
Browning
Bruning
Cadet Heel and Sole
Clean Wood Preservative
Clear Wood
Coast to Coast
Colony
Cuprinol
Fiebing's
Flex Bon
Genuine Mink Oil
Glidden
HWI Hardware
Johnson ' s
K Mart
Kiwi Camp Dry
Liquid Wrench
Lowe ' s
MAB
Majestic Wood Preserv
Menard's House Brand
Olympic
Penofin
Penta Wood Preservative
Pergament
Polyurethane (Generic)
Pratt & Lambert
Prime Appell
Raid
Rust Oleum
Scotchgard
Seal-Tite
Seal-Treat
Sears
Sherwin-Williams
Thompson's Water Seal
Frequency
78
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
10
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
4
2
68
Percent
31.6
.8
.4
.8
1.2
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
1.2
.4
.4
8.1
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.8
.4
.4
.8
.8
.8
.4
4.0
.4
.4
.8
.4
.4
.4
.4
.8
1.6
.4
.4
1.6
.8
27.5
F-62
-------
Table F-20:
Brands of Outdoor Water Repellent used
(Continued)
Brands
Total
Frequency
Percent
True Value Wood Preserver
Water Lock
Water Seal
Waterlox Water Repellant
Wood Preen
Woodlife Preservative
Z-Ment Seal
1
2
1
1
1
7
1
.4
.8
.4
.4
.4
2.8
.4
247
100.0
Sixty-eight percent (68.4%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of outdoor water
repellent named were Thompson's Water Seal, Cuprinol and Olympic
named by 27.5%, 8.1% and 4.0% of respondents respectively.
F-63
-------
Q6A: Which brand of glass frosting, window tint or
artificial snow did you use the last time you used it?
Table F-21:
Brands of Glass Frostings, Window Tints and
Artificial Snows used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
Artificial Snow (Generic)
Avon
Bliz
Blow Snow
CRC Electronic Cleaner
Dart
Dow Artificial Snow
Eckard
Elco Artificial Snow
Frank's Nursery
Frcon
Frosty
Gila Spray Film
Glass Frosting
Holly Tree
Holly Trim
K Mart
McCrory
Meadows
Motorola
No Vue Window Frosting
Pathmark
PayLess
R&S Strauss
Rainpruf
Santa's Snow
Snow Glow Artificial Snow
Snow King
Snow Star
Snow Tree
Thrifty Artificial Snow
True Snow
VHT
WD 40
Wal-Mart
Western Auto
Frequency
187
25
16
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Percent
66.1
8.8
5.7
1.4
.7
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
1.1
.7
.4
.4
2.8
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.7
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
F-64
-------
Table F-21: Brands of Glass Frostings, Window Tints and
Artificial Snows used (Continued)
Brand Frequency Percent
Windex 1 .4
X-Max Snow 1 .4
Zynolyte Anodized Bronze 2 .7
Zynolyte Glass Frosting 2 .7
Total 283 100.0
Thirty-four percent (33.9%) of the respondents specified a
brand of glass frosting, window tint or artificial snow that they
had used. The top three brands named were Artificial Snow
(Generic), Avon and K Mart by 8.8%, 5.7% and 2.8% of the
respondents respectively.
F-65
-------
Q6A: Which brand of engine degreasers did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-22: Brands of Engine Degreasers used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
10-2
3 M
AMS Oil
Amway Engine Degreaser
B 33 Engine Cleaner
Bardohl
Bel -Ray
Berryman
Bowman
Chemoco
Dupont
Goop
Gumout
Gumout Degreaser/Cleaner
Gumout Steam Cleaner
Gunk Engine Brite
Gunk Foamy Engine Brite
Gunk Motor Flush
Gunk S-C Degreaser
JB
Johnson Bros.
K Mart Engine Degreaser
Kawasaki
M 1 Remover
Napa
Naptha
PayLess
Pep Boys
Permatex
STP
STP Engine Degreaser
STP Heavy Duty Degreaser
Safety Solvent
Sears
Snapon Skippins
Solder Seal EB4
StuHow
Thoroughbred
Frequency
94
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
37
6
292
8
46
6
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
12
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
Percent
16.0
.2
.2
.2
.5
.5
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
1.0
.2
.3
6.3
1.0
49.7
1.4
7.8
1.0
.3
.2
.5
.2
.2
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
1.0
2.0
4.1
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
F-66
-------
Table F-22: Brands of Engine Degreasers used
(Continued)
Brands Frequency Percent
WD 40
Westley ' s
Wynn ' s
Zep
6
1
5
1
1.0
.2
.9
.2
Total 588 100.0
Eighty-four percent (84.0%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of engine degreasers
used were Gunk Engine Brite with 49.7% of the users; Gunk Motor
Flush with 7.8% of the users; and Gumout Degreaser/Cleaner with
6.3% of the users.
F-67
-------
Q6A: Which brand of carburetor cleaners did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-23: Brands of Carburetor Cleaners used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
2+2 Instant Gum Cutter
AMS Oil
Andy Granatelli
Autopro
B12 Chemtool
Bowman
CD 2 Choke/Carb Cleaner
CRC
Carb & Smoke
Carb Medic
Carb-All
Carb-Out
Carb/Choke & Linkage Cleaner
Carter1 s
Chemco
Clean Carb
Co-op
Cyclo
Dupont
Ford
GE
Gaha
Gulf
Gumout
Gumout Carb/Choke/Cleaner
Gunk
Gunk Engine Brite
JB Carburetor Cleaner
K Mart
K Mart Carb & Choke
Lube-Aid
Mechanics Brand
Motorcycle Carb Cleaner
Nack
Nap a
Penzoil
Pep Boys
Permatex
Power Foam
Prestone Carb/Choke Cleaner
Rep co
Frequency
225
2
1
1
2
23
1
19
6
1
64
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
9
151
11
1
3
8
4
2
2
1
1
10
1
3
1
1
3
1
Percent
27.7
.2
.1
.1
.2
2.8
.1
2.3
.7
.1
7.9
.1
.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.1
18.6
1.4
.1
.4
1.0
.5
.2
.2
.1
.1
1.2
.1
.4
.1
.1
.4
.1
F-68
-------
Table F-23: Brands of Carburetor Cleaners used
(Continued)
Brands Frequency Percent
STP
STP Carb Spray Cleaner
Sears
Siloo Carb/Choke Cleaner
Snap Carb & Choke Cleaner
Solder Seal Carb Medic
Taylor Made Carb & Choke
Union 76
WD 40
Wards
Western Auto
Westley ' s
S
158
3
2
52
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1.0
19.5
.4
.2
6.4
.5
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.2
Total 812 100.0
Seventy-two percent (72.3%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of carburetor cleaners
used were STP with 19.5% of the users; Gumout with 18.6% of the
users; and Carb Medic with 7.9% of the users.
F-69
-------
Q6A: Which brand of auto spray paint did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-24: Brands of Auto Spray Paints used
Brands
Don't knows and Not Ascertained
3M
Ace Spray Enamel
Alco
Ames
Appliance Epoxy Finish
BHT
Bantam
Borden Van & Truck
Bradlee 's
Bright Beauty Enamel
Car Color
Car Color Spray Paint
Chemco
Classic Lacquer
Clear Coat
Derusto
Devoe
Ditzler
DuPont
Duco
Dupli Color Auto Panel Paint
Dupli Color Auto Touch Up
Dupli Color Spary Paint
Dutch Boy
East Dry Lacquer
Easy Way Spray Paint
Fay's
Ford
Frazee
GM
Grayson
HWI Hardware
Handy Man
High Heat Paint
Imperial Enamel
K Mart Spray Enamel
Kandicolor
Krylon Acrylic Spray
Krylon Spray Paint
Magic High Gloss Enamel
Majestic
Frequency
168
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
11
1
1
1
1
2
1
12
1
2
1
7
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
2
34
1
1
Percent
45.2
.3
.5
.3
.3
.3
.3
.5
.3
.3
.5
.3
3.0
.3
.3
.3
.3
.5
.3
3.2
.3
.5
.3
1.9
.8
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
1.6
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
2.4
.3
.5
9.1
.3
.3
F-70
-------
Table F-24;
Brands of Auto Spray Paints used
(Continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Mopar
NYBCO Auto Paint
Napa
Pittsburgh
Plasti Kote Car Color
Plasti Kote Rust Not
Plasti Kote Spray Paint
Porter1 s
Raabe
Red Devil
Rust Oleum
Scotty ' s
Sear's Spray Enamel
Sherwin-Williams Enamel
Shriek
Sparvar Spray Paint
Spray Arama Enamel
TGNY
Tempo Auto Touch -Up
Tempo Engine Enamel
Testers Spray Enamel
Touch Up
Tough Coat Spray Enamel
Tradco
Tru Color
Tru-Test Supreme Enamel
Wal-Mart
Wards
Western Auto
Zynolyte Spray Paint
1
2
1
1
9
1
2
1
2
2
33
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
.3
.5
.3
.3
2.4
.3
.5
.3
.5
.5
8.9
.3
.5
.3
.3
.5
.3
.3
.3
.8
.3
.3
1.1
.3
.3
.3
.5
.3
.3
.3
Total
372
100.0
Fifty-five percent (54.8%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of auto spray paint
named were Krylon Spray Paint, Rust Oleum and Dupont by 9.1%,
8.9% and 3.2% of respondents respectively.
F-71
-------
Q6A: Which brand of auto spray primer did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-25: Brands of Auto Spray Primer used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
Ace
Ames
Bantam
Big 8
Bondo Easy Sanding Paper
Bondtite
Bowman
Bradlee's
Bright Beauty Primer
Deluxe
Ditzler
DuPont
Dupli Color Auto
Duro Sandable Primer
Dutch Boy
Easy Way
Ford
GM
Grayson
Hi-Q
K Mart Sandable Primer
Krylon Spray Primer
Majestic
Martin Senour
Multi Color
NYBCO Filler Primer
Napa
Orlac
PPG
PPG Spray Enamel
Panda
Plasti Kote Auto Primer
Plasti Kote Primer
R&M
Raabe
Retardo
Rust Oleum Auto Primer
Rust-Away
Sears
Sherwin-Williams
Snap Rust Buster
Frequency
111
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
12
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
10
21
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
29
1
5
4
1
Percent
42.0
.4
.4
.8
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.8
.4
1.1
4.5
.8
.4
1.5
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
3.8
8.0
.4
1.5
.4
.4
.8
.4
.4
.4
.4
4.2
.4
.4
.4
.4
11.0
.4
1.9
1.5
.4
F-72
-------
Table F-25: Brands of Auto Spray Primer used
(Continued)
Brands Frequency Percent
Solder Seal
Standard Brands
Tempo
Testers
Topco
Trado
Trak Auto
True Value
VHT Prime Coat
Virginia Paint
Wai Mart
Western Auto
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
.4
.4
.4
.4
.8
.4
.4
.8
.4
.4
.4
.8
Total 264 100.0
Fifty-eight percent of the users of the product specified a
brand. The top three brands of auto spray primer named were Rust
Oleum Auto Primer, Krylon Spray Primer and DuPont by 11.0%, 8.0%
and 4.5% of the respondents respectively.
F-73
-------
r-
Q6A: ' Which brand of spray lubricant did you use the last
time you used it?
Table F-26: Brands of Spray Lubricants used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
105
10W 40
2+2 White Lithium Grease
2-5-6
3-in-l Household Oil
3-in-l Plus
3M for Cars
40-D
AMS Oil
Ace
Applied-Kelite Penetrant
Arasoil
Armorall
Autopro
Avon
Belt Ease Belt Dressing
Borden Industrial
Bowman
CD 2 Silcone Spray
CML
CRC 5-56
CRC Heavy Duty Silcone
Casite Spray Lube
Chain Lube
Chevron
Cling
Coast to Coast
Door Ease Spray Lube
Dorsey Chain Lube
Dow
DuPont
Duro
Eviex
Exsil Spray & Lube
Ford
Fuller Brush Superlube
Gumout Pennz Guard
Gunk Cycle Chain Lube
Gunk Heavy Duty Silicone
Gunk Silicone Spray Lube
JB 80
Frequency
203
3
3
1
2
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
30
1
1
4
1
13
2
1
1
1
1
1
15
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
Percent
26.0
.4
.4
.1
.3
.9
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.0
.1
.1
3.8
.1
.1
.5
.1
1.7
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.9
.1
.1
.4
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.3
.3
.1
F-74
-------
Table F-26:
Brands of Spray Lubricants used
(Continued)
Brands
K Mart Auto
K Mart Belt Dressing
K Mart Multi Purpose
K Mart White Silicone
K&W Knock 'er Loose
K2R
KMD
Krylon
Krylon Silicone Spray
LPS 1 Greaseless
LPS 2
Liquid Wrench
Lithium Grease
Lock Ease
Lubriplate
MP
MTV
Mechanic's Choice
Milcon
Napa
Panet
Quaker State
R&S Strauss
Remington
STP
Sears
Sears Silicone Spray
Shell
Sherwin-Williams
Snap Belt Dressing
Snap Silicone Spray
Solder Seal Super Oil
Star White Lithium
Stop Slip
TRW
TVP
Teflon
Texaco
Tri-Flow Lubricant
Union Carbide
Union Carbide Silicone
VHT'
Valvoline
WD 40
Wards
Frequency
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
8
1
1
369
1
Percent
.1
.3
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.3
.5
.3
.5
.5
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
. 1
.1
.9
.4
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.3
1. 0
.1
.1
47.2
.1
F-75
-------
Table F-26:
Brands of Spray Lubricants used
(Continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
White Lithium Grease
Wynn's
Zep
Zet
1
2
2
1
Total
781
.1
.3
.3
.1
100.0
Seventy-four percent (74%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of spray lubricant named
were WD 40, Belt Ease Belt Dressing and Door Ease Spray Lube by
47.2%, 3.8% and 1.9% of respondents respectively.
F-76
-------
Q6A: Which brand of transmission cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-27: Brands of Transmission Cleaner used
Brands Frequency Percent
Don ' t Knows and Not
Bel-Ray
Bowman
Gunk Trans Fusion
Quaker State
STP
Solder Seal
Trans-Medic
Tranto
Wynn ' s
Ascertained
43
2
1
9
1
6
2
8
1
2
57.3
2.7
1.3
12.0
1.3
8.0
2.7
10.7
1.3
2.7
Total 75 100.0
A total of 42.7% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top three brands of Transmission Cleaner named were Gunk Trans
Fusion, Trans-Medic and STP by 12.0%, 10.7% and 8.0% of the
users, respectively.
F-77
-------
Q6A: Which brand of battery terminal protector did you use
the last time you used it?
Table F-28: Brands of Battery Terminal Protector used
Brands
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
2 + 2
3M
Aria & Hammer
Anaorall
Atlas
Auto Motion
Battery Post
Berkebile 2+2 Clean Brake
Berkebile 2+2 Cleaner
Bowman
CRC
Central Hardware
Duro Battery Cleaner
Duro Battery Protector
Durocell
Grand Auto
JB 80
K Mart
Krylon Battery Cleaner
Krylon Battery Protector
MP2
McKay
Mechanic's Choice
Napa
Napper
Naptha
Plasti Kote
Plasti Kote Protector
Protecto
Punk
Sears
Solvex
TRW
Trak Auto
Vaseline
WD 40
Whittaker
Wink
Zeep
Total
Frequency
145
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
15
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
9
1
1
10
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
232
Percent
62.5
0.4
0.9
1.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
6.5
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.7
0.9
1.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
3.9
0.4
0.4
4.3
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
100.0
F-78
-------
A total of 37.5% of the users of the product specified a
brand. The top 3 brands of battery terminal protector named were
Berkebile 2+2 Cleaner, Sears and Plastic Kote Protector by 6.5%,
4.3% and 3.9% of the respondents respectively.
F-79
-------
Q6A: Which brand of brake quieter/cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-29: Brands of Brake Quieter/Cleaner used
Brands Frequency Percent
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
2+2
Bendix
Berkebile 2+2 Clean Brake
Blue Magic
CRC
CRC Brakleen
Dorsey
Ford
GM
K Mart
K56
Masterbrake
Permatex
Permatex Disc Brake Quiet
Prestone
Radiator Specialty Cleaner
STP
STP Brake Parts Cleaner
Safety Clean
Sears
Siloo
Super X
Wagner
Western Auto
Westley ' s
Wynn ' s
Total
41
1
2
6
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
11
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
98
41.8
1.0
2.0
6.1
1.0
1.0
8.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
4.1
11.2
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100.0
A total of 58.2% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top 3 brands of brake quieter/cleaner named were Permatex Disc
Brake Quiet with 11.2%, CRC Brakleen with 8.2% and Berkebile 2+2
Clean Brake with 6.1%.
F-80
-------
Q6A: Which brand of gasket remover did you use the last time
you used it?
Table F-30: Brands of Gasket Remover used
Brands Frequency Percent
Don't Know and Not Ascertained
Amero
Bowman
Gunk
Napa
Permatex Form-a-Gasket
Permatex Gasket Remover
Permatex High Tack
Permatex Spray-a-Gasket
Permatex Ultra Blue
Prestone
STP
Sears
Thush
WD 40
Western Auto
Zippo
37
1
1
1
1
6
18
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
46.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
7.6
22.8
5.1
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Total 79 100.0
A total of 53.2% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top 3 brands of gasket remover named were Permatex Gasket Remover
with 22.8%, Permatex Form-a-Gasket 7.6% and Permatex High Tack
with 5.1%.
F-81
-------
Q6A: Which brand of tire/hubcap cleaner did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-31: Brands of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners used
Brands
Don't Knows & Not Ascertained
409
Ajax
Amway Zoom
Armorall
Bon Ami
Bright & White
Busch Chrome Wash
Chrome Brite
Culleone
DuPont
DuPont Whitewall Cleaner
Eagle 1
Espree
Espree Wheel Seal
Fantastic
Glow
Go-Go
Goodyear
Gumout Whitewall
Gunk
Gunk Silicone Tire Shine
Gunk Tire White
K Mart
Mag Cleaner
Mag White/Bright
Mother's Pride
Mr. Clean
Napa
Nesley
New Vinyl
Penray
Pep Boys
Power White
Pro Tire Cleaner
Rain Dance
Restat
STP
STP Plus
Sears
Simonize
Snap Silicone Tire Shine
Frequency
219
3
1
3
168
1
3
1
1
1
2
3
7
8
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
14
5
9
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
11
2
5
3
4
Percent
31.4
.4
.1
.4
24.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.1
.3
.4
1.0
1.1
.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.7
2.0
.7
1.3
.3
.1
.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
1.6
.3
.7
.4
. 6
F-82
-------
Table F-31:
Brands of Tire/Hubcap Cleaners used
(Continued)
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Snow White
Soft Scrub
Solder Seal Whitewall
Sperex Black Tire
Sperex Black Tire Paint
Sperex Tire Bright
Spray-9
Sprint
State Brite
Super Gloss
Target
Toyota
True Value
Turtle Wax
Turtle Wax Chrome Protect
Viking
WD40
Westley ' s
Westley's Bleche Wite
Westley 's Silicone Tire S
Westley's Tire Shine
Wheel Brite
White Shield
White Sidewall Cleaner
White Wash
White's
White-All
Whitebrite
Whitewall
Whitney's
Wichley All Star
Wilson's
Wyler's
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
24
15
1
1
42
33
6
23
1
1
3
1
2
4
1
6
3
1
1
2
.1
.1
.1
.6
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
3.4
2.2
.1
.1
6.0
4.7
.9
3.3
.1
.1
.4
.1
.3
.6
.1
.9
.4
.1
.1
.3
Total
697
100.0
Sixty-nine percent (68.6%) of the users of the product
specified a brand. The top three brands of tire/hubcap cleaners
named were Armorall, Westley's and Westley's Bleche Wite by
24.1%, 6.0% and 4.7% of respondents respectively.
F-83
-------
Q6A: Which brand of ignition wire dryer did you use the
last time you used it?
Table F-32: Brands of Ignition Wire Dryer used
Brands
Frequency
Percent
Don't Knows and Not Ascertained
5-5-6
Atlas
Bowman
CRC
CRC Brakleen
Chemtronics
Contact Renu
DuPont
Gumout
Gunk
JC Penney
K Mart Wire Drier
LPS
Master Mechanic
Napa
STP
Snap Wire Drier
Solder Seal
Stay-Dry
SynLec 2
TMP
Texaco
True Value
WD 40
Wet-Seal
Woodhill Ignition & Wire
Wynn ' s
90
1
1
1
10
:
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
1
1
2
61.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
6.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.4
2.0
2.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
10.2
0.7
0.7
1.4
Total
147
100.0
A total of 38.8% of the respondents specified a brand. The
top 3 brands of ignition wire dryer named were WD 40, CRC and
Snap Wire Drier by 10.2%, 6.8% and 2.7% of the respondents,
respectively.
F-84
------- |