EPA/600/R-00/029
February 2000
Dermal Transfer Efficiency of
Pesticides from New, Vinyl Sheet
Flooring to Dry and Wetted Palms
by
Jackie M. Clothier
Southwest Research Institute
San Antonio, Texas 78228
Contract Number 68-DO-0049
Work Assignment Manager
Robert G. Lewis
Human Exposure & Atmospheric Sciences Division
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
funded and managed the research described here under contract 68-D5-0049 to ManTech
Environmental Technology, Inc., and ManTech's subcontract 96-0049-01 to Southwest Research
Institute. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
conducts intramural research in the chemical, physical, and biological sciences. This research is
intended to characterize and quantify ambient air pollutant levels and the resulting exposures of
humans and ecosystems; to develop and validate models to predict changes in air pollution levels; to
determine source-receptor relationships affecting ambient air quality and pollutant exposures; and
to solve problems relating to EPA's mission through long-term investigation in the areas of
atmospheric methods, quality assurance, biomarkers, spatial statistics, exposure assessment, and
modeling. The laboratory provides support to Program and Regional offices and state and local
groups in the form of technical advice, methods research and development, quality assurance, field
monitoring, instrument development, and modeling for quantitative risk assessment and regulation.
The laboratory also collects, organizes, manages, and distributes data on air quality, human and
ecosystem exposures and trends for the Program and Regional offices, the Office of Research and
Development, the scientific community, and the public.
The information in this research report was obtained using existing methods, as well as
methods that were developed specifically for this study, to determine the transfer efficiencies of
pesticide residues on vinyl floor covering to dry and wetted human skin. This information is needed
for better the understanding of the bioavailability of residential pesticide residues and assessments of
the potential for human exposures to pesticides used around the home.
Gary J. Foley
Director
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
in
-------
Abstract
This report presents results of a study to determine the transfer efficiencies from sheet vinyl flooring
to human skin of three pesticides commonly used for residential indoor insect control. Formulations
of the insecticides chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I and piperonyl butoxide were applied to new, sheet vinyl
flooring by broadcast spray and allowed to dry for four hours. Deposition coupons were used to
estimate initial surface loadings and the PUF Roller was to measure dislodgeable residues. After the
4-hour drying period, adult volunteers performed hand presses (left and right hands, palm only) with
either dry or wetted skin. Water and the participant's own saliva were used as wetting agents.
Transfer efficiencies for wetted palms were 2.5 to 3.5 times higher than those for dry palms. The
mean (six presses) transfer efficiencies for chlorpyrifos were 5.22% for water-wetted (W), 4.38% for
saliva-wetted (S), and 1.53% for dry skin (D). Similar transfer efficiencies were measured for
piperonyl butoxide: W - 4.8%, S - 4.1%, and D - 1.4%. Transfer efficiencies for pyrethrin I were
about twice as high as those for the other two pesticides: W - 11.9%, S - 8.9%, and D - 3.6%.
IV
-------
Contents
Section Page
Figure v
Tables vi
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 1
3. Experimental Methods 2
3.1 Informed Consent 2
3.2 Test Procedures 2
3.2.1 Palm Moistening Procedure 2
3.2.2 Palm Press and Wipe Procedure 3
3.2.3 PUF Roller Method 3
3.2.4 Broadcast Application of Formulated Mixture 4
4. Experimental Design 4
4.1 Field Procedures 5
4.2 Sample Extraction and Analysis 6
4.3 Data Evaluation 6
5. Results and Discussion 6
5.1 Data Quality 6
5.2 Single Press Transfer of Pesticides from New, Treated Vinyl Sheet Flooring to
Human Palm 6
5.3 Moistened and Dry Palm Transfer Efficiency 7
5.4 Transfer of Pesticides from New, Treated Vinyl Sheet Flooring to Polyurethane
Foam (PUF) Rings 7
6. References 8
Figure
1 Scaled layout for palm press, PUF roller, and deposition coupon sampling on one
4-ft. x 5-ft. section of treated vinyl showing location of samples collected for Day 0
and Blocks 1L, 1R, and 2 on Days 1 and 2 9
-------
Tables
Number Page
1 Ratio of Moistened to Dry-Palm Transfer Efficiencies of Pesticides from One Press
onto New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring Treated by Broadcast Application (Mean ± Std.
Dev. of Six Replicates, %) 10
2 Transfer Efficiency (%) of Chlorpyrifos from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring by Single
Press of Human Palm Which was Dry or Moistened with Water or Human Saliva ... 11
3 Transfer Efficiency (%) of Pyrethrin I from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring by Single
Press of Human Palm Which was Dry or Moistened with Water or Human Saliva ... 12
4 Transfer Efficiency (%) of Piperonyl Butoxide from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring by
Single Press of a Dry or Moistened Palm 13
5 Transfer Efficiency (%) of Pesticides from Treated, New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring onto
PUF Roller and Dry Palm after Single Press 14
6 Comparison of Palm Transfer Rates of Chlorpyrifos, Pyrethrin I and Piperonyl Butoxide
from Day 3 of Experiment 6.2 Using Plush Carpet and Experiment 7 Using
Vinyl Sheeting 15
7 Design for the Transfer Efficiency Test on New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring (Task 7) 16
8 Isopropanol Gauze Palm Wipe, PUF Ring, and Deposition Coupon Blanks 17
9 Recovery of Target Analytes from Matrix Spikes 18
10 Comparison of Chlorpyrifos Transfer from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring by Single Press
of Human Palm (Dry and Moist) 19
11 Comparison of Pyrethrin I Transfer from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring by Single Press
of Human Palm (Dry and Moist) 20
12 Comparison of Piperonyl Butoxide Transfer from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring
by Single Press of Human Palm (Dry and Moist) 21
13 Transfer Amount of Pesticides from Treated, New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring onto PUF
Roller and Dry Palm after Single Press 22
14 Transfer Rate of Pesticides from Treated, New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring onto PUF
Roller and Dry Palm after Single Press 23
VI
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Surface residues of pesticides in residential environments present a major potential risk for
young children. The hands of infants and toddlers are often wet with saliva from frequent hand-to-
mouth activity. Thus their hands may dislodge pesticide residues from surfaces more efficiently than
the dry hands of adults. Preliminary studies have shown that presses with saliva-wetted hands give
larger transfers of pesticides from new cut-pile nylon plush carpet than do presses with dry hands
(Camann et al., 1996). The consistency of pesticide transfer differences between saliva-wetted and
dry hands has been investigated for new and used cut-pile carpets. The same investigation must be
performed on vinyl flooring and grass. It is also important to determine if the pesticide transfers with
water-wetted hands are similar to those with saliva-wetted hands.
The objective of Task 7 of Work Assignment 111-76 is to compare the press transfers of freshly-
applied pesticide residues from treated vinyl flooring to palms of hands which are saliva-wetted,
water-wetted, and dry. The focus is on pesticides approved for use on indoor surfaces (i.e.,
chlorpyrifos, pyrethrins, and piperonyl butoxide). For the experiment, a formulated mixture,
Dursban® plus Kicker®, is applied, since it contains all three pesticides of interest.
This protocol describes experimentation for Task 7, in which press transfer efficiencies are
compared for a dry palm, palms wetted with human saliva (HS) and water, and a dry PUF roller onto
a section of new, vinyl sheet flooring which was recently treated with chlorpyrifos, pyrethrins, and
piperonyl butoxide.
Section 2
Conclusions and Recommendations
Considering measurement variation, one dry palm press gave essentially the same mean (n = 6)
transfer efficiency for chlorpyrifos (1.53%) and piperonyl butoxide (1.41%) with considerably higher
transfer efficiency for pyrethrin I (3.64%). The increased transfer with a moistened palm press relative
to a dry palm press is shown in Table 1 to be the same (3.4-fold) for all three pesticides when water
is the moistening agent and 2.4 to 3-fold for all three pesticides when saliva is the moistening agent.
Considerable loss of pesticide residue transfer occurs with time, possibly because of increased
adhesion to the vinyl surface. The loss is independent of dislodgeable residue method and wetting
agent. When averaging all palm wipe samples in Tables 2 through 4, losses in transfer efficiency on
the second day after application are 58.5% for chlorpyrifos, 63.5% for pyrethrin I, and 61.2% for
piperonyl butoxide. When averaging losses in PUF transfer efficiency (Table 5) very similar results
are obtained: 63% for chlorpyrifos, 54% for pyrethrin I, and 64% for piperonyl butoxide.
The acceptable use of the PUF roller as a mechanical means of approximating dermal exposure
to pesticides from floors is further supported by results of this study. Comparing the mean (n=6)
transfer efficiency of the PUF roller with dry hand presses (Table 5), the PUF roller method gives
1
-------
between 1 and 3 times higher residue removal than a dry palm press but residue removal similar to
that achieved with moistened palms.
When comparing transfer efficiencies of dislodgeable residue passed to palms when in contact
with pesticide-laden, new carpet (Experiment 6.1) and new, vinyl sheet flooring, the amount of
pesticide residue removed from the vinyl floor is considerably higher than that removed from the
carpet. Based on experimental design and deposition coupon loadings, both surfaces were loaded with
similar amounts of chlorpyrifos (3775 ng/cm2 vinyl and 3110 ng/cm2 carpet). However, three times
more chlorpyrifos was removed from vinyl than was removed from plush carpet with a dry or wetted
hand. For pyrethrin I, eleven times more residue was removed from vinyl with dry palms and five
times more with wetted palms than was removed from carpet. For piperonyl butoxide, two to three
times more residue was removed from vinyl with either dry or wetted palms than was removed from
carpet. This finding was expected because carpet fibers provide more surface area for the residues
to adhere. Table 6 summarizes data from application Day 3 of both Experiment 6.2 (used, plush
carpet) and Experiment 7 (vinyl).
Section 3
Experimental Methods
3.1 Informed Consent
A protocol which described the experiment and a consent form were prepared and approved
by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.
Three healthy male subjects who are supervisory employees at Southwest Research Institute
volunteered to perform the palm presses. Informed consent of each volunteer subject was obtained.
3.2 Test Procedures
An empty 7' x 7' carpeted area in a 3-room trailer on the SwRI campus was used to do the
experiment. Two 5' x 6' sections of new, Armstrong Cambray vinyl sheet flooring (A and B) were
laid over the existing carpet and attached using tape.
3.2.1 Palm-Moistening Procedure
Each subj ect collected 5 mL of his own saliva in a Teflon bottle for use in moistening his palm with
HS for some of the field sampling palm presses. The salivary fluids were stored at 4°C.
A 3.5-in. x 3.5-in. (8.9-cm x 8.9-cm) square central area of the clean bare palm of the test hand
was moistened by pressing the palm onto a polyethylene surface, which was supported by small bubble
wrap and on which 250 uL of the salivary fluid had been placed. The wetted surface was prepared by
spiking about six drops of the fluid in the central portion of a 3.5 in. (8.9 cm) diameter circular area
outlined on the underside of a polyethylene sheet. Immediately, the subj ect placed the palm over the wetted
area and rotated the hand with moderate pressure back and forth (to the left and to the right) about six
times to transfer and achieve a uniform coating of the fluid over the center of the palm. Within 6 to 10
-------
seconds after moistening, the subject performed a single press of the moistened palm onto the test surface.
3.2.2 Palm Press and Wipe Procedure
A single press of the treated vinyl sheet was made in a reproducible manner with a palm after
receivingthe designated treatment [i.e., none (dry), water-moistened, orHS-moistened]. Priorto each
daily pair of palm presses, each subj ect thoroughly washed hi s hands with soap and water. The subj ect
was cautioned to avoid touching any extraneous surfaces during the palm-press-and-wipe sequence.
The subject then placed a disposable powder-free latex glove over the non-test hand. The second
hand was gloved to prevent contamination while performing the moistening, press, and wipe
procedures with the first hand and to prevent the isopropanol wipe from abnormally drying the skin
of the second hand prior to its use for a hand press. The test hand was given the designated treatment,
moistening when specified as described above. A clean card-stock template (8.5-in. x l l-in. card-
stock, with a 3.5-in. x 3.5-in. area cut out) was placed over the designated area to expose a 12.25
in.2 (79.2 cm2) area of vinyl. While kneeling on a cardboard mat, each subject performed one press
of the palm of the test hand, with fingers extended above the template, onto the 79.2 cm2 area of
carpet exposed through the template, for 1 sec. at a pressure of ca. 1.0 psi (6,900 Pa). After all
subjects had conducted one palm press, each performed a double isopropanol wipe of the test palm
as a modification of Geno et al. (1996a) in a clean area away from the trailer. After washing both
hands with soap and water, the glove was removed from the second hand, and a clean glove placed
over the previously tested hand. The moistening, press, and wipe procedures described above were
then repeated using the palm of the second hand.
The palm wipe procedure used two 4-in. x 4-in. Sof-Wick® 6-ply gauze dressing sponges that
had been precleaned with isopropanol and 1:1 etherhexane. Each sponge was laced with 10 mL of
isopropanol. The subject performed a general wipe of the palm of the test hand with the first sponge.
The second sponge was used for a more thorough wipe of the entire palm. Both sponges were then
placed in a single container and 25 mL of Baxter pesticide grade methanol was added. The subjects
performed all direct handling of the sponges from preparation through placement in the sample
container, although handling via forceps was also permitted. Immediately following each palm wipe
procedure, the subject thoroughly washed his hands to remove any remaining pesticide residues.
3.2.3 PUFRoller Method
A precleaned dry PUF ring (3-in. length, 3.5-in. OD, 1.62-in. ID) was fitted onto the 3-in.
length x 1.75-in. OD cylindrical aluminum roller of the October 1992 model of the PUF roller sampler
(Camann, 1996b). From a stationary position with the PUF ring setting on aluminum foil, the roller
sampler was pushed or pulled to move the PUF ring over a 3-in. x 3-ft. (696.8 cm2) strip of vinyl
sheeting at 10 cm/sec to make one traverse. After the pass, the PUF ring was removed from the roller
for analysis.
-------
3.2.4 Broadcast Application of Formulated Mixture
On both on Day 1 and on Day 3, a broadcast spray of a chlorpyrifos/pyrethrins/piperonyl
butoxide formulation was applied to the test vinyl section by licensed pest control operator following
according to label directions for light infestation flea control. The formulated emulsifiable concentrate
was composed of Dursban® Pro (EPA Registration No. 62719-166), which contained 22.5%
chlorpyrifos, and Kicker® (EPA Registration No. 4816-707AA), which contained 6.0% pyrethrins
and 60.0% technical piperonyl butoxide. It was tank-mixed at 1.33 fl. oz. (40 mL) Dursban® Pro
and 0.5 fl. oz. (15 mL) Kicker® per gallon of water, to yield 0.25% chlorpyrifos, 0.025% pyrethrins,
and 0.25% piperonyl butoxide in the aqueous spray. The mixture was applied approximately 40 cm
above the test surface at a rate of 1 gallon of diluted mixture per 1600 ft2 with a hand-held fan
broadcast nozzle attached to an air-pressurized tank. Application was performed with a smooth back-
and-forth motion to attempt uniform deposition.
The trailer was maximally ventilated for 2 hours after the application, by opening windows
and the door and through operation of the air conditioning or heating unit in the fresh air mode. The
windows and door were closed and air conditioning/heating returned to the normal recirculated air
mode prior to sampling for the duration of the sampling period. The surface was allowed to dry for
at least four hours before hand presses were performed.
Section 4
Experimental Design
4.1 Field Procedures
Task 7 was performed from October 27, 1998 (Day 0) through November 3, 1998 (Day 4).
The experimental design is presented in Table 7. A PUF roller traverse, a deposition coupon, and a
palm press by each subject were collected from adjacent areas termed a block. The treatment (dry,
water-moistened, or HS-moistened) applied to each palm (left or right) of the three subjects is
specified in Table 7. The layout of PUF roller traverses, deposition coupons, and palm press templates
for all samples collected on one of the sections of treated vinyl over two sampling days is shown in
Figure 1.
Six field method blanks were obtained on a day prior to the pesticide application (Day 0) by
having the three subjects perform a press of each palm using one of the three treatments (for a total
of six blank palm presses) onto designated areas of the untreated vinyl. Before the Dursban and
Kicker mixture was applied, three 4-in. x 4-in. alpha-cellulose pads backed with aluminum foil were
placed on the test area, one at the designated location in each block, as deposition coupons. The PUF
roller pass was performed where designated in a block. Then the deposition coupon in the block were
picked up from the vinyl as a sample just before the three palm presses were performed in that block.
Before the first block of field samples on Day 1 and again after the last block on Day 4, five field
spikes of the target analytes were made: three onto Sof-Wick sponge pairs simulating the three palm
-------
treatments [wetted with 100 jiL of a moistening fluid (when appropriate) and 20 mL of isopropanol]
and one each onto a PUF ring and a trimmed (3-in. x 3-in.) alpha-cellulose pad.
Replicate sampling commenced upon label-allowed reentry, when the vinyl was dry (defined
operationally as four hours after the application). Two blocks were sampled per day on the
application days (Days 1 and 3) and one block on the succeeding days (Days 2 and 4). Section A was
removed and section B laid down at the conclusion of Day 2 sampling. Only one press and wipe was
permitted per subject palm per day to avoid altering skin transfer characteristics and to limit acute
exposure of subjects.
A total of six replicate presses of each palm treatment were collected. Each of the three
subj ects thoroughly washed his hands with dispenser soap and water, dried them, and gloved the hand
which was not to be used for pressing. After treating the palm as specified in Table 7, each subject
made one press of the treated palm onto a 79.2 cm2 area of treated vinyl through a clean cardstock
template. As specified in Table 7, each subject had a different moistening or dry treatment of the palm
of the same hand for the three palm presses onto designated areas of the vinyl comprising a block.
The double isopropanol-gauze wipe method was used to wipe the residue from the pressed palm. On
Days 1 and 3, after removing the glove, each subject had his other palm treated in the specified
manner, pressing it through a clean template onto the vinyl.
4.2 Sample Extraction and Analysis
Wipe samples were cold-shake extracted for neutral pesticides as described in Geno et al.
(1996), according to SwRI SOP 01-17-08, "Extraction of Neutral Pesticides, Acid Herbicides, and
Phenols from Isopropanol Wipes". Extracts were cleaned through a Florisil column. The extraction
procedure involved adding terphenyl-d14 as a recovery surrogate to the sample jar, shaking for 30 min
on a mechanical shaker, then decanting the methanol, and shaking the dressing sponges twice more
for 1 min, each time with 50 mL portions of 1:1 etherhexane. The sponges were squeezed, all solvent
fractions combined, and concentrated in a N-Evap® vessel to a final volume of 20 mL in 10% ether
in hexane. Wipe samples of dry palm presses and field and lab blanks were concentrated to a 5.0 mL
final volume in 10% ether in hexane so as to lower the detection limits of chlorpyrifos and piperonyl
butoxide to 0.10 jig/extract.
The aluminum foil backing and the 0.5-in. border was removed from each deposition coupon
to leave a 3-in. x 3-in. alpha-cellulose pad. PUF rings and 3-in. x 3-in. alpha-cellulose pads were
soxhlet-extracted with 6% ethyl ether/94% hexane. All extracts were analyzed for chlorpyrifos,
pyrethrin I, and piperonyl butoxide on a Fisons MD 800 or FTP 5973 GC/MS operating in selected
ion monitoring mode according to SwRI SOP 01-17-02, "Determination of Pesticides, Acid
Herbicides, Phenols, and PAHs by GC/MS".
-------
4.3 Data Evaluation
The loadings of the three applied pesticides on the treated vinyl at the time of sampling were
estimated from the loading on adjacent deposition coupons: jig on coupon/coupon surface area (58.1
cm2). Palm press transfer rates (ng/cm2) were calculated as the amount (ng) obtained with the
isopropanol palm wipe divided by vinyl area pressed (79.2 cm2). PUF roller transfer rates (ng/cm2)
were calculated as the amount (ng) obtained from one traverse divided by the area of vinyl traversed
(696.8 cm2). The mean and standard deviation of the transfer efficiencies (%) (= transfer rate/carpet
loading) were determined from the six replicates for each analyte and palm treatment.
Section 5
Results and Discussion
5.1 Data Quality
The amounts of chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I and piperonyl butoxide found in the field blanks
(collected on Day 0) and the lab blanks are presented in Table 8. Essentially, no chlorpyrifos,
pyrethrin I or piperonyl butoxide was detected above the detection limit in any lab blank. All field
blanks (including two PUF rings and six isopropanol gauze wipes) showed no detectable amounts of
chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I, or piperonyl butoxide. Therefore, adjustment of data collected on samples
from treated vinyl were unnecessary.
Recoveries of chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I, and piperonyl butoxide from field and lab matrix
spikes of isopropanol gauze, PUF rings, and deposition coupons are given in Table 9. Recovery of
chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I, and piperonyl butoxide from PUF rings was quantitative. The type of
moistening treatment (i.e., palms pressed dry or moistened with water or human saliva) appear to
have no effect on recovery of target compounds from gauze wipe samples. The average of six
recoveries of chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I, and piperonyl butoxide from gauze wipe spikes was 92.8%,
112.0%, and 95.6%, respectively. Field-spiked deposition coupons show poorer recoveries, possibly
because the 0.5-in. border of the coupon was not removed prior to spiking, resulting in some loss of
target compounds when the border was removed prior to extraction. The efficiency of Soxhlet
extraction using deposition coupons in previous experiments has previously been very good as is also
demonstrated by 80-100% recoveries using laboratory matrix spikes.
5.2 Single Press Transfer of Pesticides from New, Treated Vinyl Sheet Flooring to Human
Palm
The amounts of chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I, and piperonyl butoxide recovered from each
deposition coupon and the calculated surface loadings on the treated vinyl during each set of palm
presses are shown in Tables 10,11, and 12, respectively. The surface loading for Day 4 is an estimate
calculated by subtracting the coupon matrix spike from the deposition coupon which was
inadvertently spiked with pesticide. Coupon amounts indicate the broadcast application on Days 1
-------
and 3 gave similar loadings of the applied pesticides to the vinyl. The amounts wiped from each
subject's palm after it had been pressed once, while dry or wetted onto the treated vinyl are also
shown in Tables 10 through 12. The vinyl-to-palm transfer rate calculated from each palm wipe
amount is also presented in Tables 10 through 12, along with the mean and standard deviation of the
transfer rates for dry palms and each palm wetting agent.
5.3 Moistened and Dry Palm Transfer Efficiency
Tables 2, 3, and 4 show palm wipe transfer efficiencies of chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I, and
piperonyl butoxide using dry and wetted palms. Means and standard deviations are reported for six
samples collected over four days. However, because there appears to be an increased adhesion of the
pesticide formulation to the vinyl after 24 hours, statistical comparisons are also made between
samples collected on Days 1 and 3 (n = 4) and Days 2 and 4 (n = 2). This observation is apparent in
the amount of pesticide detected both in PUF rings and isopropanol gauze palm wipes, regardless of
moistening treatment. A similar trend occurred in dislodgeable residue studies on vinyl sheeting
conducted by SwRI in 1993 (Comparison of Methods to Determine Dislodgeable Residue Transfer
From Floors, EPA Contract 68-DO-0007). This trend is also summarized in Tables 2 through 4.
Mean (± standard deviation) transfer efficiencies of chlorpyrifos were 5.22% ± 3.02% for
water-wetted palms, 4.38% ± 2.83% for saliva-wetted palms, and 1.53% ± 0.73% for dry palms. The
same relationship was observed for pyrethrin I and piperonyl butoxide mean transfer efficiencies:
largest for water-wetted palms, slightly less for saliva-wetted palms and substantially lower for dry
palms. The large standard deviations indicate no appreciable differences between the mean pesticide
transfer efficiencies with a saliva-moistened and a water-moistened palm. This finding suggests that
it is the wetness of the saliva rather than its stickiness/viscosity that is primarily responsible for the
enhanced pesticide transfer from a treated sheet of vinyl through contact with a saliva-wetted palm,
compared to a dry palm.
5.4 Transfer of Pesticides from New, Treated Vinyl Sheet Flooring to Polyurethane Foam
(PUF) Rings
The amounts and transfer rates of chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I, and piperonyl butoxide recovered
from PUF rings and dry palm press hand wipes are shown in Tables 13 and 14. Transfer efficiencies
are listed in Table 5, however, because of the noticeable loss in amount of transfer from fresh to day
old treatment, efficiency measurements are also included for Days 1 and 3 compared with Days 2 and
4 for all three pesticides. PUF ring transfer efficiencies reported from the 1993 study are also
included.
-------
References
Camann DE, Majumdar TK, Harding HJ, Ellenson WD, and Lewis RG. "Transfer efficiency of
pesticides from carpet to saliva-moistened hands." In: Measurement of Toxic and Related Air
Pollutants., VIP-64, Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, 532-540, 1996a.
Camann DE, Harding HJ, Geno PW, and Agrawal SR. Comparison of Methods to Determine
Dislodgeable Residue Transfer from Floors. EPA/600/R-96/089, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1996b.
Geno PW, Camann DE, Harding HJ, Villalobos K, and Lewis RG. Handwipe sampling and analysis
procedure for the measurement of dermal contact with pesticides. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol, 3 0,
132-138, 1996.
-------
VINYL SECTION
1L
1R
Note: 0 indicates location of Day 0 Field Blanks
Figure 1. Scaled layout for palm press, PUF roller, and deposition coupon sampling on
one 4-ft. x 5-ft. section of treated vinyl showing location of samples collected
for Day 0 and Blocks 1L, 1R, and 2 on Days 1 and 2.
-------
Table 1. Ratio of Moistened to Dry-Palm Transfer Efficiencies of Pesticides from
One Press onto New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring Treated by Broadcast
Application (Mean ± Std. Dev. of Six Replicates, %)
Piperonyl
Hand Condition Chlorpyrifos Pyrethrin I Butoxide
Dry 1.0 ±0.48 1.0 ±0.61 1.0 ±0.52
Moistened with:
Water 3.4 ±2.0 3.3 ±2.0 3.4 ±2.1
Human Saliva 2.9 ±1.8 2.4 ±1.3 2.9 ±1.9
10
-------
Table 2.
Transfer Efficiency1 (%) of Chlorpyrifos from New, Vinyl
Sheet Flooring by Single Press of Human Palm Which was
Dry or Moistened with Water or Human Saliva
Block
1L
1R
2L
3R
3L
4R
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
Dry
2.04
1.65
0.83
1.35
2.62
0.71
6
1.53
0.73
Water-Wetted
6.74
7.97
1.53
5.24
8.24
1.61
6
5.22
3.02
Saliva-
Wetted
1.81
4.90
2.60
3.75
9.74
3.48
6
4.38
2.83
1993
Vinyl
Study2
Comparison of Wipes From Application Days 1
and 3
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
Comparison of Wipes
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
4
1.92
0.55
From
2
0.77
0.08
% Loss 60
4
7.05
1.37
Davs 2 and 4
2
1.57
0.06
78
4
5.05
3.38
2
3.04
0.62
40
6
4.70
3.31
6
2.05
1.04
56
1 Transfer Efficiency, % = 100 x (transfer rate, ng/cm2)/(mean surface loading,
ng/cm2)
2 Dry palm presses were conducted on 8-10-93, after pesticide application and
again the following day.
11
-------
Table 3. Transfer Efficiency1^) of Pyrethrin I from New, Vinyl Sheet
Flooring by Single Press of Human Palm Which was Dry or
Moistened with Water or Human Saliva
Block
1L
1R
2L
3R
3L
4R
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
Comparison of Wipes
O
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
Comparison of Wipes
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
% Loss
Dry Water-Wetted
6.00
5.04
1.80
2.24
5.78
1.00
6
3.64
2.21
From Application
4
4.76
1.73
From Davs 2 and
2
1.40
0.56
70
16.80
19.20
3.12
11.09
17.70
3.30
6
11.87
7.25
Davs 1 and
4
16.20
3.54
4
2
3.21
0.13
80
Saliva-
Wetted
5.52
10.56
6.12
6.72
17.70
6.72
6
8.89
4.66
4
10.13
5.49
2
6.42
0.42
37
1993
Vinyl
Study2
6
5.48
1.18
6
1.81
3.94
67
1 Transfer Efficiency, % = 100 x (transfer rate, ng/cm2)/(mean surface loading,
ng/cm2)
2 Dry palm presses were conducted on 8-10-93, after pesticide application and
again the following day.
12
-------
Table 4. Transfer Efficiency1 (%) of Piperonyl Butoxide from New, Vinyl Sheet
Flooring by Single Press of Human Palm Which was Dry or Moistened
with Water or Human Saliva
Block
1L
1R
2L
3R
3L
4R
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
Comparison of Wipes
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
Comparison of Wipes
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
% Loss
Dry
1.84
1.64
0.72
1.16
2.52
0.59
6
1.41
0.73
From Application
4
1.79
0.56
From Davs 2 and
2
0.66
0.09
63
Water-Wetted
5.63
7.16
1.23
5.24
8.41
1.42
6
4.85
2.95
Davs 1 and 3
4
6.61
1.46
4
2
1.32
0.13
80
1993
Saliva-Wetted Vinyl Study2
1.84
4.76
2.35
3.24
9.06
3.11
6
4.06
2.64
4 6
4.72 6.23
3.13 4.69
2 6
2.73 2.51
0.54 1.14
42 60
1 Transfer Efficiency, % = 100 x (transfer rate, ng/cm2)/(mean surface loading, ng/cm2)
2 Dry palm presses were conducted on 8-10-93, after pesticide application and again the
following day.
13
-------
Table 5. Transfer Efficiency1 (%) of Pesticides from Treated, New, Vinyl Sheet
Flooring onto PUF Roller and Dry Palm After Single Press
Summary of Pesticide Transfer Efficiency Using Dry Palm
Chlorpyrifos Pyrethrin I
Day
1L2
1R
2L
3R2
3L
4R
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
PUF
2.43
7.05
1.15
5.40
7.64
1.48
6
4.19
2.87
Dry
Palm
2.04
1.65
0.83
1.35
2.62
0.71
6
1.53
0.73
PUF
4.35
10.61
1.90
6.55
8.69
1.87
6
5.66
3.60
Dry
Palm
6.00
5.04
1.80
2.24
5.78
1.00
6
3.64
2.21
Piperonyl
Butoxide
PUF
2.26
8.47
0.93
5.21
7.70
1.10
6
4.28
3.33
Dry
Palm
1.84
1.64
0.72
1.16
2.52
0.59
6
1.41
0.73
Summary of PUF Roller Transfer Efficiency Data From Application Days 1 and 3
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
Summary of PUF Roller
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
% Loss3
Summary of PUF Roller
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
4
5.63
2.33
4
1.92
0.55
Transfer Efficiency Data
2
1.32
0.23
77
2
0.77
0.08
60
Transfer Efficiency Data
2
10.48
7.64
6
4.70
3.31
Summary of PUF Roller Transfer Efficiency Data
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
% Loss4
2
5.26
3.26
50
6
2.05
1.04
56
4
7.55
2.70
4
4.76
1.73
4
5.91
2.80
4
1.79
0.56
From Days 2 and 4
2
1.88
0.02
75
From Day 1
2
8.62
2.97
From Day 2
2
5.84
2.64
32
2
1.40
0.56
70
of 1993 Vinyl Study
6
5.48
1.18
of 1993 Vinyl Study
6
1.81
3.94
67
2
1.02
0.12
83
2
8.40
6.30
2
4.60
3.08
45
2
0.66
0.09
63
6
6.23
4.69
6
2.51
1.14
60
1 Transfer Efficiency, % = 100 x (transfer rate, ng/cm2)/(mean surface loading, ng/cm2)
2 Fresh application of pesticide made on these days
3 (Difference between means of Days 1, 3 and Days 2 , 4/mean of Days 1, 3) x 100
4 (Difference between means of Day 1 and Day 2/mean of Day 1) x 100
14
-------
Table 6. Comparison of Palm Transfer Rates of Chlorpyrifos, Pyrethrin I and
Piperonyl Butoxide from Day 3 of Experiment 6.2 Using Plush Carpet and
Experiment 7 Using Vinyl Sheeting
Chlorpyrifos
Palm Treatment
Dry
Water Moistened
Saliva Moistened
Surface Loading
ng/cm2
from
Vinyl
67.1
227.8
227.9
3391
ng/cm2
from
Carpet
9.1
12.3
11.3
3408
Pyrethrin I
ng/cm2
from Vinyl
4.3
15.4
13.1
118
ng/cm2
from
Carpet
1.3
2.2
1.4
145
Piperonyl
ng/cm2
from
Vinyl
36.1
133.5
120.2
2074
Butoxide
ng/cm2
from
Carpet
10.0
26.4
16.6
3158
15
-------
Table 7. Design for the Transfer Efficiency Test on New, Vinyl Sheet
Flooring (Task 7)
Test Day
Carpet
Section
Day 1: A6
Day 2: A
Day3:B6
Day 4: B
Field Samples
Field Blanks
(Day 0: A )
Field Spikes
(Days 1 & 4)
Total Samples
Human
Dry2
1L7
3R
2L
1R
3L
2R
6
1L, 3R
2
10
Palm Press,1 by Palm
Water-
Moistened3
2L
1R
3L
2R
1L
3R
6
2L, 1R
2
10
Treatment
Saliva-
Moistened4
3L
2R
1L
3R
2L
1R
6
3L, 2R
2
10
Dry
PUF
Roller5
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
2
10
Deposition
Coupons
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
0
2
8
1 One press of treated palm through template onto 3.5-cm x 3.5-cm square of treated
vinyl
2 Dry palm moistened with subject's saliva
3 One pass over 3-foot strip with dry PUF roller
4 Palm dried after washing with soap and water
5 Dry palm moistened with water
6 Fresh treatment of this vinyl section on this day, at least four hours before palm
presses
7 Subject hand (e.g., 1L = left hand of Subject 1)
16
-------
Table 8. Isopropanol Gauze Palm Wipe, PUF Ring, and Deposition Coupon Blanks
(jig/sample)
Blanks
Matrix
Chlorpyrifos
Pyrethrin I
Piperonyl Butoxide
Solvent Blank (PUF/Coupon) <1.0 <0.63 <1.1
Solvent Blank (gauze wipes) <0.10 <0.063 <0.11
Lab Coupon Blank (dry) <2.1 <2.1 <2.2
Lab PUF Ring Blank (dry) <1.0 <0.63 <1.0
Lab Gauze Blank (dry) <0.10 <0.63 <0.11
Field PUF Ring Blank (dry)
DayO(L) <1.0 <0.63 <1.1
DayO(R) <1.0 <0.63 <1.1
Field Blank for Gauze Wipe
Dry Palm - 1L <0.10 <0.063 <0.11
Dry Palm-3R <0.10 <0.063 <0.11
Water-Wetted Palm - 2L <0.10 <0.063 <0.11
Water-Wetted Palm - 1R <0.10 <0.063 <0.11
Saliva-Wetted Palm - 3L <0.10 <0.063 <0.11
Saliva-Wetted Palm - 2R <0.10 <0.063 <0.11
17
-------
Table 9. Recovery of Target Analytes from Matrix Spikes
Matrix/Wetting Agent
Type: Day
PUFRing
Deposition Coupon1
Lab
Field:Day 1
Field:Day 4
Gauze2 (Dry)
Lab
Field:Day 1
Field:Day 4
Gauze/Water
Field:Day 1
Field:Day 4
Gauze/Human Saliva
Field:Day 1
Field:Day 4
Chlorpyrifos
110%
91%
75%
65%
91%
97%
97%
91%
84%
97%
91%
Pyrethrin I
119%
106%
87%
57%
73%
132%
105%
119%
92%
125%
99%
Piperonyl Butoxide
140%
84%
90%
55%
90%
103%
97%
97%
84%
103%
90%
1 Each coupon was spiked with 410 jig chlorpyrifos, 40 jig pyrethrin I, and 412 jig piperonyl
butoxide
2 Wetted Sof-Wick® sponge pairs were moistened with 250 jiL of the specified fluid. Each pair
was then spiked with 15 jig chlorpyrifos, 1.5 jig pyrethrin I, and 15 jig piperonyl butoxide.
18
-------
Table 10. Comparison of Chlorpyrifos Transfer from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring by Single Press of Human Palm (Dry and
Moist)
Deposition
Block
Day I1
1L
1R
Day 2
2L
3R
DayS1
3L
Day 4
4R
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev., s
Coupon
Amount
Mg
317
184
219
221
173
1952
Surface
Loading
ng/cm2
5456
3167
3769
3804
2978
3356
6
3775
895
Subject
Palm
1L
3R
2L
1R
3L
2R
Dry
Palm Wipe
Amount
Mg
6.7
5.4
2.7
3.6
7.0
1.9
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm2
84.1
68.4
34.2
45.6
88.6
24.0
6
57.5
26.8
Subject
Palm
2L
1R
3L
2R
1L
3R
Water
Palm Wipe
Amount
Mg
22
26
5.0
14
22
4.3
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm2
278.5
329.1
63.3
177.2
278.5
54.4
6
196.8
117.8
Subject
Palm
3L
2R
1L
3R
2L
1R
Saliva
Palm Wipe
Amount
Mg
5.9
16
8.5
10
26
9.3
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm2
74.7
202.5
107.60
126.6
329.1
117.7
6
159.7
93.1
1 Fresh pesticide application made on Days 1 and 3
2 Estimated amount is the difference between the field deposition coupon (inadvertently spiked with 410 (jg chlorpyrifos) and field matrix spike
with 410 (jg chlorpyrifos.
-------
Table 11. Comparison of Pyrethrin I Transfer from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring by Single Press of Human Palm (Dry
and Moist)
Deposition
Dry
Water
Saliva
to
o
Block
Day I1
1L
1R
Day 2
2L
DayS1
3R
3L
Day 4
4R
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev. s
Coupon
Amount
Mg
11
4.4
3.0
8.1
5.6
5.02
Surface
Loading
ng/cm2
189.3
75.7
51.6
139.4
96.4
86.1
6
106.4
49.8
Subject
Palm
1L
3R
2L
1R
3L
2R
Palm Wipe
Amount
Mg
0.50
0.42
0.15
0.19
0.49
0.085
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm2
6.33
5.32
1.90
2.41
6.20
1.08
6
3.87
2.34
Subject
Palm
2L
1R
3L
2R
1L
3R
Palm Wipe
Amount
Mg
1.4
1.6
0.26
0.94
1.5
0.28
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm2
17.72
20.25
3.29
11.90
18.99
3.54
6
12.62
7.68
Subjec
t
Palm
3L
2R
1L
3R
2L
1R
Palm Wipe
Amount
Mg
0.46
0.88
0.51
0.57
1.5
0.57
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm2
5.82
11.14
6.46
7.22
18.99
7.22
6
9.47
5.02
1 Fresh pesticide application made on Days 1 and 3
2 Estimated amount is the difference between the field deposition coupon (inadvertently spiked with 40(jg pyrethrum I) and field matrix spike
with 40 (jg pyrethrum I.
-------
Table 12. Comparison of Piperonyl Butoxide Transfer from New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring by Single Press of Human Palm
(Dry and Moist)
Deposition
Block
Day I1
1L
1R
Day 2
2L
DayS1
3R
3L
Day 4
4R
No. Samples, n
Mean, x
Std. Dev. s
Coupon
Amount
Mg
203
109
119
145
96
1002
Surface
Loading
ng/cm2
3494
1876
2048
2496
1652
1721
6
2215
695
Subject
Palm
1L
3R
2L
1R
3L
2R
Dry
Palm Wipe
Amount
Mg
3.6
3.2
1.4
1.8
3.9
0.91
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm2
45.6
40.5
17.7
22.8
49.4
11.5
6
31.2
15.9
Subject
Palm
2L
1R
3L
2R
1L
3R
Water
Palm Wipe
Amount
Mg
11
14
2.4
8.1
13
2.2
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm2
139
177
30.4
102
164
27.8
6
107.0
65.5
Subject
Palm
3L
2R
1L
3R
2L
1R
Saliva
Palm
Wipe
Amount
Mg
3.6
9.3
4.6
5.0
14
4.8
Transfer
Rate
ng/cm
45.6
118
58.2
63.3
177
60.8
6
87.1
50.7
1 Fresh pesticide application made on Days 1 and 3
2 Estimated amount is the difference between the field deposition coupon (inadvertently spiked with 412 (jg piperonyl butoxide) and field matrix
spike with 412 (jg piperonyl butoxide.
-------
Table 13. Transfer Amount of Pesticides from Treated, New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring onto PUF Roller and Dry Palm After
Single Press
to
to
Chlorpyrifos
Day
1L
1R
2L
3R
3L
4R
Deposition
Coupon
US
317
184
219
221
173
195
PUF
Hg
70
203
33
127
180
35
Dry
Palm
Hg
6.7
5.4
2.7
3.6
7.0
1.9
Pyrethrin I
Deposition
Coupon
Hg
11
4.4
3.0
8.1
5.6
5.0
PUF
Hg
3.2
7.8
1.4
4.9
6.5
1.4
Dry Palm
Hg
0.50
0.42
0.15
0.19
0.49
0.08
Deposition
Coupon
Hg
203
109
119
145
96
100
Piperonyl
Butoxide
PUF
Hg
39
146
16
71
105
15
Dry Palm
Hg
3.6
3.2
1.4
1.8
3.9
0.91
-------
to
OJ
Table 14. Transfer Rate of Pesticides from Treated, New, Vinyl Sheet Flooring onto PUF Roller and Dry Palm After
Single Press
Chlorpyrifos
Day
1L
1R
2L
3R
3L
4R
Deposition
Coupon
ng/cm2
5456
3167
3769
3804
2978
3356
PUF
ng/cm2
100.4
291.3
47.4
182.3
258.3
50.2
Dry
Palm
ng/cm2
84.1
68.4
34.2
45.6
88.6
24.0
Pyrethrin I
Deposition
Coupon
ng/cm2
189.4
75.7
51.6
139.4
96.4
86.1
PUF
ng/cm2
4.59
11.2
2.01
7.03
9.33
2.01
Dry
Palm
ng/cm2
6.3
5.3
1.9
2.4
6.2
1.1
Deposition
Coupon
ng/cm2
3494
1876
2048
2496
1652
1721
Piperonyl
Butoxide
PUF
ng/cm2
56.0
209.5
23.0
101.9
150.7
21.5
Dry
Palm
ng/cm2
45.6
40.5
17.7
22.8
49.4
11.5
23
------- |