Exposure Factors Handbook 2009 Update


                                        External Review Draft
                                                   July 2009
                                          EPA/600/R-09/052A
  EXPOSURE FACTORS HANDBOOK:
             2009 UPDATE
    Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Assessment
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Washington, DC 20460

-------
 EFH
                                           DISCLAIMER

        This document is an external draft for review purposes only.  It has not been subjected to peer and
administrative review and does not constitute U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Page                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook
ii	July 2009

-------
EFH
FOREWORD

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) National
Center for Environmental Assessment's (NCEA) mission is to provide guidance and risk assessments aimed at protecting
human health and the environment. To accomplish this mission, NCEA works to develop and improve the models,
databases, tools, assumptions, extrapolations used in risk assessments. NCEA established the Exposure Factors Program
to develop tools and databases that improve the scientific basis of exposure and risk assessment by: (1) identifying
exposure factors needs in consultation with clients, and exploring ways for filling data gaps; (2) compiling existing data
on exposure factors needed for assessing exposures/risks; and (3) assisting clients in the use of exposure factors data.
The Exposure Factors Handbook and the Child-specific Exposure Factors Handbook, as well as other companion
documents, such as Example Exposure Scenarios, are products of the Exposure Factors Program.
The Exposure Factors Handbook provides information on various physiological and behavioral factors
commonly used in assessing exposure to environmental chemicals. The handbook was first published in 1989 and was
updated in 1997. Since then, new data have become available. This updated version incorporates data available since
1997 up to June 2009. It also reflects the revisions made to the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook, which was
updated and published in 2008. Each chapter in the revised Exposure Factors Handbook presents recommended values
for the exposure factors covered in the chapter as well as a discussion of the underlying data used in developing the
recommendations. These recommended values are based solely on NCEA's interpretations of the available data. In many
situations different values may be appropriate to use in consideration of policy, precedent, or other factors.
David Bussard
Director, Washington Division
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Exposure Factors Handbook Page
July 2 009 iii

-------
EFH
AUTHORS ANDCONTRIBUTORS
The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development was
responsible for the preparation of this handbook. Jacqueline Moya served as Work Assignment Manager for the current
updated version, providing overall direction, technical assistance, and serving as contributing author. The current draft
was prepared by Westat Inc. under contract with U.S. EPA (contract number GS-23F-8144H). Earlier drafts of this
report were prepared by Versar Inc.

AUTHORS WORD PROCESSING
U.S. EPA Versar. Inc.
Jacqueline Moya Malikah Moore
Linda Phillips Westat. Inc.
Laurie Schuda . .,.,.,,
Annmane Wmkler
Versar. Inc.
Patricia Wood
Adria Diaz
Ron Lee
Robert Fare, consultant with
Risk Management Initiative
Westat. Inc.
Robert Clickner
Kathryn Mahaffey
Peter Blood
Rey de Castro
Rebecca Jeffries Birch
Kathleen Chapman
Naa Adjei
Page Exposure Factors Handbook
iv July 2009

-------
                                                                               EFH
                                         REVIEWERS

       The following U.S. EPA individuals reviewed earlier drafts of this document and provided valuable
comments:

Heidi Bethel, OW                                 John Langstaff, OAQPS
Margot Brown, OCHP                              Sarah Levinson, Region 1
Lisa Conner, OAQPS                               Matthew Lorber, NCEA
Mark Corrales, OPEI                               Tom McCurdy, NERL
Dave Crawford, OSWER                           Robert McGaughy, NCEA (retired)
Becky Cuthbertson, OSW                           Marian Olsen, Region 2
Lynn Delpire, OPPTS                              David Riley, Region 6
Cathy Fehrenbacher, OPPTS                         Rita Schoeny, OW
Gary Foureman, NCEA                             Marc Stifelman, Region 10
Ann Johnson, OPEI                                Zachary Pekar, OAQPS
Henry Kahn, NCEA                               Aaron Yeow, OSWER
Youngmoo Kim, Region 6                           Linda Watson, Region 3
Lon Kissinger, Region 10                           Valerie Zartarian, NERL
This document was reviewed by an external panel of experts. The panel was composed of the following individuals:
[To be added upon review]
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                            Page
July 2 009	v

-------
 EFH
                                      ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the important contributions of the following U.S. EPA individuals who conducted
additional analyses for the revisions of this handbook:

David Hrdy, Office of Pesticide Programs
Henry Kahn, National Center for Environmental Assessment
David Miller, Office of Pesticide Programs
James Nguyen, Office of Pesticide Programs
Bernard Scheneider, Office of Pesticide Programs
Nicole Tulve, National Exposure Research Laboratory
Philip Villanueva, Office of Pesticide Programs

        In  addition, the U.S.  EPA ORD National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) made an important
contribution to this handbook by conducting additional analyses of the National Human Activity Pattern Survey
(NHAPS) data. U.S. EPA input to the NHAPS data analysis came from Karen A. Hammerstrom and Jacqueline Moya
from NCEA-Washington Division; William C. Nelson from NERL-Research Triangle Park, and Stephen C. Hern, Joseph
V. Behar (retired), and William H. Englemann from NERL-Las Vegas.

        The U.S. EPA Office of Water and Office of Pesticide Programs made important contributions by conducting an
analysis of the USD A Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individual (CSFII) data. They provided food intake rates
for the general population.
Page                                                                 Exposure Factors Handbook
vi	July 2009

-------
                                                                                      EFH
                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
        This Exposure Factors Handbook has been prepared to provide information and recommendations on various
factors used in assessing exposure to both adults and children. This handbook provides nonchemical-specific data on the
following exposure factors:
•   ingestion of water and other selected liquids (Chapter 3)
•   non-dietary ingestion factors (Chapter 4)
•   ingestion of soil and dust (Chapter 5)
•   inhalation rates (Chapter 6)
•   dermal factors (Chapter 7)
•   body weight (Chapter 8)
•   intake of fruits and vegetables (Chapter 9)
•   intake offish (Chapter 10)
•   intake of meat and dairy products (Chapter 11)
•   intake of grain products (Chapter 12)
•   intake of homeproduced food (Chapter 13)
•   total food intake (Chapter 14)
•   human milk intake (Chapter 15)
•   activity factors (Chapter 16)
•   consumer products (Chapter 17)
•   lifetime (Chapter 18)
•   residential characteristics (Chapter 19)

        The handbook was first published in 1989 and was revised in 1997. Recognizing that exposures among infants,
toddlers, adolescents, and teenagers can vary significantly, the U.S. EPA published the Child-Specific Exposure Factors
Handbook in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2002) and its revision in 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2008). The 2008 revision of the Child-Specific
Exposure Factors Handbook as well as this version of the Exposure Factors Handbook reflect the age categories
recommended in the U. S. EPA Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to
Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA 2005).  This version of the Exposure Factors Handbook also incorporates new
factors and data provided in the 2008 Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA 2008) and other relevant
information published through June 2009.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                 Page
July 2 009	vii

-------
EFH
The data presented in this handbook have been compiled from various sources, including government
reports and information presented in the scientific literature. The data presented are the result of analyses by the
individual study authors. However, in some cases the U.S. EPA has conducted additional analysis of published
primary data to present results in a way that will be useful to exposure assessors and/or in a manner that is consistent
with the recommended age groups. Studies presented in this handbook were chosen because they were seen as useful
and appropriate for estimating exposure factors based on the following considerations: (1) soundness (adequacy of
approach and minimal or defined bias); (2) applicability and utility (focus on the exposure factor of interest,
representativeness of the population, currency of the information, and adequacy of the data collection period); (3)
clarity and completeness (accessibility, reproducibility, and quality assurance); (4) variability and uncertainty
(variability in the population and uncertainty in the results); and (5) evaluation and review (level of peer review and
number and agreement of studies). The handbook contains summaries of selected studies published through June
2009. Generally, studies were designated as "key" or "relevant" studies. Key studies were considered the most
useful for deriving recommendations; while relevant studies provided applicable or pertinent data, but not
necessarily the most important for a variety of reasons (e.g., data were outdated, limitations in study design). The
recommended values for exposure factors are based on the results of key studies. The U.S. EPA also assigned
confidence ratings of low, medium, or high to each recommended value based on the evaluation elements described
above. These ratings are not intended to represent uncertainty analyses; rather, they represent the U.S. EPA's
judgment on the quality of the underlying data used to derive the recommendations.
Key recommendations from the Handbook are summarized in Table ES-1; additional recommendations and
detailed supporting information for these recommendations can be found in the individual chapters of this handbook.
In the providing recommendations for the various exposure factors, an attempt was made to present percentile values
that are consistent with the exposure estimators defined in Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992)
(i.e., mean and upper percentile). However, this was not always possible, because the data available were limited for
some factors, or the authors of the study did not provide such information. As used throughout this handbook, the
term "upper percentile" is intended to represent values in the upper tail (i.e., between 90th and 99.9th percentile) of
the distribution of values for a particular exposure factor. The recommendations provided in this handbook are not
legally binding on any U.S. EPA program and should be interpreted as suggestions that Program Offices or
individual exposure/risk assessors can consider and modify as needed based on their own evaluation of a given risk-
assessment situation. In certain cases, different values may be appropriate in consideration of policy, precedent,
strategy, or other factors (e.g., more up-to-date data of better quality or more representative of the population of
concern).
Page Exposure Factors Handbook
VIH July 2009

-------
                                                                                    EFH
References:

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

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

U.S. EPA (2002) Child-specific exposure factors handbook, Interim draft.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment.

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

U.S. EPA (2008) Child-specific-exposure factors handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/R-06/096F.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                               Page
July 2 009	ix

-------
 EFH
Table ES-1. Summary of Exposure Factor Recommendations
Study population/ Age category (yrs)
Chapter 3
PER CAPITA INGESTION OF DRINKING WATER
CONSUMERS ONLY INGESTION OF
DRINKING WATER
Mean 95th Percentile Mean
mL/day mL/kg-day mL/day mL/kg-day mL/day mL/kg-
day
Children
Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6 to < 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16to< 18 yrs
18 to < 21 yrs
Adults
>21 yrs
>65 yrs
Pregnant women
Lactating women
Chapter 3


184
227
362
360
271
317
380
447
606
731
826

1,104
1,127
819
1,379

52
48
52
41
23
23
22
16
12
11
12

15
16
13
21

839
896
1,056
1,055
837
877
1,078
1,235
1,727
1,983
2,540

2,811
2,551
2,503
3,434

232
205
159
126
71
60
61
43
34
31
35

39
36
43
55

470
552
556
467
308
356
417
480
652
792
895

1,183
1,242
872
1,665

137
119
80
53
27
26
24
17
13
12
13

16
18
14
26
95th Percentile
mL/day mL/kg-
day

858
1,053
1,171
1,147
893
912
1,099
1,251
1,744
2,002
2,565

2,848
2,604
2,589
3,588

238
285
173
129
75
62
65
45
34
32
35

39
37
43
55
INGESTION OF WATER WHILE SWIMMING


mL/event
Children
Adults
All
Chapter 4
37
16
-



Mean
mL/hr
49
21
-
95th Percentile




mL/event
154
53
-




mL/hr
205
71
90




MOUTHING FREQUENCY AND DURATION
Hand-to-Mouth
Indoor Frequency


Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6to< 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
Chapter 5




6to< 12 mo
1 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 21 yrs
Adult
Mean
contacts/h
r

-
-
28
19
20
13
15
7
-
-
95th
Percentile
contacts/h
r
-
-
65
52
63
37
54
21
-
-
Outdoor Frequency

Mean ^
„ 95 Percentile
contacts/h , , „
contacts/hr
r

-
-
-
15 47
14 42
5 20
9 36
3 12
-
-











Object-to-Mouth
Frequency

95th
Mean _ ^.,
. . „ Percentile
contacts/hr
contacts/hr

-
-
-
31
24
12
9
1
-
-











Duration

95th
Mean _ ^.,
. „ Percentile
mm/hr . „
mm/hr

-
-
11
9
7
10
-
-
-
-

-
-
26
19
22
11
-
-
-
-
SOIL AND DUST INGESTION


Central
Tendency
30
50
50
50


Soil
Upper Percentile


Soil-Pica Geophagy
mg/day mg/day




-
1,000 50,000
1,000 50,000
50,000




Dust

Central Tendency
mg/day
30
60
60
-
Soil + Dust



Central Tendency





mg/day
60
100
100
-





Page
x
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009

-------
                                                                  EFH
Chapter 6
INHALATION
Long-term Inhalation Rates
Mean
m3/day
Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6 to < 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
Birth to < lyr
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
21 to < 31 yrs
31 to < 41 yrs
41 to < 51 yrs
51 to < 61 yrs
61 to < 71 yrs
71 to < 81 yrs
> 81 yrs
3.6
3.5
4.1
5.4
5.4
8.0
8.9
10.1
12.0
15.2
16.3
15.7
16.0
16.0
15.7
14.2
12.9
12.2
95th Percentile
mVday
7.1
5.8
6.1
8.0
9.2
12.8
13.7
13.8
16.6
21.9
24.6
21.3
21.4
21.2
21.3
18.1
16.6
15.7


Short-term Inhalation Rates, by Activity Level
Sleep or Nap


Birth to < lyr
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
21 to < 31 yrs
31 to < 41 yrs
41 to < 51 yrs
51 to <61 yrs
61 to < 71 yrs
71 to < 81 yrs
> 81 yrs
Chapter 7


Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6to< 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
Adult Males
21 to < 30 yrs
30 to < 40 yrs
40 to < 50 yrs
50 to < 60 yrs
60 to < 70 yrs
70 to < 80 yrs
80 yrs and over
Mean
mVmin
3.0E-03
4.5E-03
4.6E-03
4.3E-03
4.5E-03
5.0E-03
4.9E-03
4.3E-03
4.6E-03
5.0E-03
5.2E-03
5.2E-03
5.3E-03
5.2E-03
95th
m3/min
4.6E-03
6.4E-03
6.4E-03
5.8E-03
6.3E-03
7.4E-03
7.1E-03
6.5E-03
6.6E-03
7.1E-03
7.5E-03
7.2E-03
7.2E-03
7.0E-03
Sedentary/Passive
Mean
mVmin
3.1E-03
4.7E-03
4.8E-03
4.5E-03
4.8E-03
5.4E-03
5.3E-03
4.2E-03
4.3E-03
4.8E-03
5.0E-03
4.9E-03
5.0E-03
4.9E-03
95th
mVmin
4.7E-03
6.5E-03
6.5E-03
5.8E-03
6.4E-03
7.5E-03
7.2E-03
6.5E-03
6.6E-03
7.0E-03
7.3E-03
7.3E-03
7.2E-03
7.0E-03
Light Intensity
Mean
m3/min
7.6E-03
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.2E-02
95th
m3/min
1.1E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
Moderate Intensity
Mean
mVmin
1.4E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.2E-02
2.5E-02
2.6E-02
2.6E-02
2.7E-02
2.8E-02
2.9E-02
2.6E-02
2.5E-02
2.5E-02
95th
nrVmin
2.2E-02
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
2.7E-02
2.9E-02
3.4E-02
3.7E-02
3.8E-02
3.7E-02
3.9E-02
4.0E-02
3.4E-02
3.2E-02
3.1E-02
High Intensity
Mean
m3/min
2.6E-02
3.8E-02
3.9E-02
3.7E-02
4.2E-02
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
5.0E-02
4.9E-02
5.2E-02
5.3E-02
4.7E-02
4.7E-02
4.8E-02
95th
nrVmin
4.1E-02
5.2E-02
5.3E-02
4.8E-02
5.9E-02
7.0E-02
7.3E-02
7.6E-02
7.2E-02
7.6E-02
7.8E-02
6.6E-02
6.5E-02
6.8E-02
TOTAL BODY SURFACE AREA








































Mean
m2
0.29
0.33
0.38
0.45
0.53
0.61
0.76
1.08
1.59
1.84

2.05
2.10
2.15
2.11
2.08
2.05
1.92
















































































95th Percentile
m2
0.34
0.38
0.44
0.51
0.61
0.70
0.95
1.48
2.06
2.33

2.52
2.50
2.56
2.55
2.46
2.45
2.22








































Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2 009	
Page
   xi

-------
 EFH
Adult Females
21 to < 30 yrs
30 to < 40 yrs
40 to < 50 yrs
50 to < 60 yrs
60 to < 70 yrs
70 to < 80 yrs
> 80 yrs
Chapter 7


1.81
1.85
1.88
1.89
1.88
1.77
1.69
2.25
2.31
2.36
2.38
2.34
2.13
1.98

SURFACE AREA OF BODY PARTS
Head
Trunk Arms
Hands Legs Feet

Mean Percent of Total Surface Area
Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6to< 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
Adult Males >21
Adult Females
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
16.5
14.2
13.7
12.6
9.4
7.8
6.6
6.2
35.7 13.7
35.7 13.7
35.7 13.7
35.7 13.7
35.5 13.0
38.5 11.8
31.7 14.2
34.7 12.7
33.7 12.9
32.2 15.3
40.1 15.2
35.4 12.8
5.3 20.6 6.5
5.3 20.6 6.5
5.3 20.6 6.5
5.3 20.6 6.5
5.7 23.1 6.3
5.3 23.2 7.1
5.9 27.3 7.3
5.0 27.9 7.2
5.3 31.3 7.5
5.4 32.2 7.1
5.2 33.1 6.7
4.8 32.3 6.6












Surface Area


Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6to< 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
Adult Males >21
Adult Females
Chapter 8


Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6 to < 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
Adults
Chapter 9



Mean 95th
m m
0.053 0.062
0.060 0.069
0.069 0.080
0.082 0.093
0.087 0.101
0.087 0.099
0.104 0.130
0.136 0.186
0.149 0.194
0.144 0.182
0.136 0.154
0.114 0.121














Mean 95th Mean 95th
m m m m
0.140 0.121 0.040 0.047
0.118 0.136 0.045 0.052
0.136 0.157 0.052 0.060
0.161 0.182 0.062 0.070
0.188 0.217 0.069 0.079
0.235 0.270 0.072 0.083
0.241 0.301 0.108 0.135
0.375 0.514 0.137 0.188
0.536 0.694 0.205 0.266
0.592 0.750 0.282 0.356
0.827 1.10 0.314 0.399
0.654 0.850 0.237 0.266














Mean 95th Mean 95th Mean
m m m m m
0.015 0.018 0.060 0.070 0.019
0.017 0.020 0.068 0.078 0.021
0.020 0.023 0.078 0.091 0.025
0.024 0.027 0.093 0.105 0.029
0.030 0.035 0.122 0.141 0.033
0.032 0.037 0.142 0.162 0.043
0.045 0.056 0.207 0.259 0.055
0.054 0.074 0.301 0.413 0.078
0.084 0.109 0.498 0.645 0.119
0.099 0.126 0.592 0.750 0.131
0.107 0.131 0.682 0.847 0.137
0.089 0.106 0.598 0.764 0.122
BODY WEIGHT
Mean
kg
4.8
5.9
7.4
9.2
11.4
13.8
18.6
31.8
56.8
71.6
80.0
95th
m
0.022
0.025
0.029
0.033
0.038
0.050
0.069
0.107
0.155
0.165
0.161
0.146














TOTAL FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INTAKE
Per Capita
Mean
g/kg-day

95th Percentile
g/kg-day
Consumers Only
Mean 95th Percentile
g/kg-day g/kg-day



Total Fruits
Birth to 1 yr
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
5.7
6.2
6.2
4.6
21.3
18.5
18.5
14.4
10.1 26.4
6.9 19.0
6.9 19.0
5.1 15.0




Page
xii
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009

-------
                                                                   EFH
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
20 to < 50 yrs
> 50 yrs

2.4 8.8 2.7
0.8 3.5 1.1
0.8 3.5 1.1
0.9 3.9 1.2
1.4 4.8 1.6
9.3
3.7
3.7
4.4
5.0
Total Vegetables
Birth to 1 yr
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
20 to < 50 yrs
> 50 yrs
Chapter

10
4.5 14.8 6.2
6.9 17.1 6.9
6.9 17.1 6.9
5.9 14.7 5.9
4.1 9.9 4.1
2.9 6.9 2.9
2.9 6.9 2.9
2.9 6.8 2.9
3.1 7.0 3.1
FISH INTAKE
16.1
17.1
17.1
14.7
9.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
7.0

Per Capita Consumer Only

3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to < 18 years
>18 years
g/day
7.7
8.5
12.0
10.6
19.9
Mean 95th Percentile Mean
g/kg-day g/day g/kg-day g/day g/kg-day g/day
General Population - Total Fish
0.43 51.0 3.0 74 4.2 184
0.28 56.4 1.9 95 3.2 313
0.23 87.4 1.5 113 2.2 308
0.16 83.5 1.3 136 2.1 357
0.27 111.3 1.5 - -
95th Percentile
g/kg-day
10
8.7
6.2
6.6
General Population - Marine Fish
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to < 18 years
>18 years
5.5
5.6
7.6
6.1
12.4
0.31 39.4 2.3 66 3.7 165
0.20 38.4 1.5 78 2.8 202
0.15 56.5 1.3 102 2.0 262
0.10 29.5 0.5 126* 2.0 353
0.17 80.7 1.1 - -
9.3
8.0
5.2
6.5
General Population - Freshwater/Estuarine Fish
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to < 18 years
>18 years
2.2
3.0
4.3
4.6
7.5
0.12 12.2 0.7 40 2.3 129
0.08 13.1 0.4 61 1.8 248
0.08 25.8 0.5 71 1.3 199
0.07 19.3 0.3 100 1.4 242
0.10 49.6 0.7 - -
7.2
6.2
4.4
3.3
Recreational Population - Marine Fish - Atlantic
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to < 18 years
>18 years
2.5
2.5
3.4
2.8
5.6
8.2
9.1 ....
14 ....
14 ....
18
-
Recreational Population - Marine Fish - Gulf
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to < 18 years
>18 years
3.2
3.3
4.4
3.5
7.2
12
13 ....
21
20
26
-
Recreational Population - Marine Fish - Pacific
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to < 18 years
>18 years
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.0
2.0
3.1
3.4
5.3
5.1 ....
6.8
-
Recreational Population - Freshwater Fish - See Chapter 10
Native American Subsistence Population- See Chapter 10
Other Populations - See Chapter 10
Chapterl 1

MEATS, DAIRY PRODUCTS, AND FAT INTAKE

Per Capita Consumers Only
Mean 95th Percentile Mean 95th Percentile
g/kg-day g/kg-day g/kg-day g/kg-day
Total Meats
Birth to 1 yr

1.2 6.7 3.0
9.2
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2 009	
Page
 xiii

-------
 EFH
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
20 to < 50 yrs
> 50 yrs
4.1
4.1
4.1
2.9
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.5
9.8
9.8
9.4
6.5
4.8
4.8
4.2
3.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
2.9
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.5








9.8
9.8
9.4
6.5
4.8
4.8
4.2
3.3
Total Dairy Products
Birth to 1 yr
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
20 to < 50 yrs
> 50 yrs
12.6
36.7
36.7
23.3
13.6
5.6
5.6
3.3
3.2
48.7
88.3
88.3
49.4
31.5
15.5
15.5
9.9
8.9
15.9
36.8
36.8
23.3
13.6
5.6
5.6
3.3
3.2









57.5
88.3
88.3
49.4
31.5
15.5
15.5
9.9
8.9
Total Fats
Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6 to < 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
21 to < 31 yrs
31 to < 41 yrs
41 to < 51 yrs
51 to < 61 yrs
61 to < 71 yrs
71 to < 81 yrs
>81 yrs
Chapter 12



Birth to 1 yr
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
20 to < 50 yrs
> 50 yrs
Chapter 13


5.2
4.5
4.1
3.7
4.0
3.6
3.4
2.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9


Mean
g/Kg-day
2.5
6.4
6.4
6.3
4.3
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.7
16
11
8.2
7.0
7.1
6.4
5.8
4.2
3.0
2.7
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5

Per Capita
7.8
6.0
4.4
3.7
4.0
3.6
3.4
2.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
GRAINS INTAKE

95th Percentile Mean
g/Kg-day
8.6
12
12
12
8.2
5.1
5.1
4.7
3.5
g/Kg-day
3.6
6.4
6.4
6.3
4.3
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.7


















Consumers Only
95










16
12
8.3
7.0
7.1
6.4
5.8
4.2
3.0
2.7
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5


01 Percentile
g/Kg-day
9.2
12
12
12
8.2
5.1
5.1
4.7
3.5
HOME-PRODUCED FOOD INTAKE


Mean
g/kg-day


95th Percentile
g/kg-day


Home-produced Fruits
1 to 2 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
6 to 1 1 yrs
12 to 19 yrs
20 to 39 yrs
40 to 69 yrs
> 70 yrs







8.7
4.1
3.6
1.9
2.0
2.7
2.3







60.6
8.9
15.8
8.3
6.8
13.0
8.7







Home-produced Vegetables
1 to 2 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
6 to 1 1 yrs
12 to 19 yrs
20 to 39 yrs





5.2
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.5





19.6
7.7
6.2
6.0
4.9





Page
xiv
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009

-------
                                                                 EFH
40 to 69 yrs
> 70 yrs
2.0
2.5

6.9
8.2

Home-produced Meats
1 to 2 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
6 to 1 1 yrs
12 to 19 yrs
20 to 39 yrs
40 to 69 yrs
> 70 yrs
3.7
3.6
3.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.4

10.0
9.1
14.0
4.3
6.2
5.1
3.5

Home-caught Fish
1 to 2 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
6 to 1 1 yrs
12 to 19 yrs
20 to 39 yrs
40 to 69 yrs
> 70 yrs
Chapter 14

Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6 to < 12 mo
1 to < 2 yrs
2 to < 3 yrs
3 to < 6 yrs
6 to < 1 1 yrs
11 to< 16 yrs
16 to < 21 yrs
20 to < 40 yrs
40 to < 70 yrs
> 70 yrs
2.8
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.2

Mean
g/Kg-day
20
16
28
56
90
74
61
40
24
18
16
14
15

TOTAL FOOD INTAKE


7.1
4.7
4.5
4.4
3.7

95th Percentile
g/Kg-day
61
40
65
134
161
126
102
70
45
35
30
26
27





Chapter 15



Mean
mL/day
HUMAN MILK AND LIPID INTAKE


Upper Percentile
mL/kg-day mL/day

mL/kg-day
Human Milk Intake
Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6 to < 12 mo
510
690
770
620
150 950
140 980
110 1,000
83 1,000

220
190
150
130
Lipid Intake
Birth to 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
3 to < 6 mo
6 to < 12 mo
Chapter 16


Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
18 to <65 years
20
27
30
25

Time Indoors (total)
minutes/day
Mean 95th Percentile
1,440
1,432
1,414
1,301
1,353
1,316
1,278
1,244
1,260
1,248
1,159
6.0 38
5.5 40
4.2 42
3.3 42
ACTIVITY FACTORS
Time Outdoors (total)
minutes/day


8.7
8.0
6.1
5.2

Time Indoors (at residence)
minutes/day
Mean 95th Percentile
0
8
26
139
36
76
107
132
100
102
281

95th
Mean Percentile
1,108 1,440
1,065 1,440
979 1,296
957 1,355
893 1,275
889 1,315
833 1,288
948 1,428
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2 009	
Page
  xv

-------
 EFH
> 65 years

Birth to 65 years

Birth to <1 year
1 to < 2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
18 to < 64 years
> 65 years

Birth to <1 year
1 to < 2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
18 to <65 years
>65 years
1,142
Showering
minutes/day
Mean 95th Percentile
15
20
22 44
17 34
18 41
18 40
20 45
-
-
Playing on Sand/Gravel
minutes/day
Mean 95th Percentile
18
43 121
53 121
60 121
67 121
67 121
83
0 121
0

Mean
96
105
116
137
151
139
145
45a
40a
298
Bathing
minutes/day
Mean 95th
19
23
23
24
24
25
33
-
-
Playing on Grass
minutes/day
Mean 95th
52
68
62
79
73
75
60
60
121
Swimming
minutes/month






1,175 1,440
Bathing/Showering
minutes/day
95th
Percentile Mean Percentile
30
32
45
60
46
43
60
17
17
Playing on Dirt
minutes/day
95th
Percentile Mean Percentile
33
121 56 121
121 47 121
121 63 121
121 63 121
121 49 120
30
121 0 120
0

95th Percentile
-
-
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
Occupational Mobility
Median Tenure (years)
Men
All ages, > 16
years
16-24 years
25-29 years
30-34 years
35-39 years
40-44 years
45-49 years
50-54 years
55-59 years
60-64 years
65-69 years
>70 years


All
Chapter 17
7.9
2.0
4.6
7.6
10.4
13.8
17.5
20.0
21.9
23.9
26.9
30.5

Residential Occupancy
Mean
12 year







Population Mobility
Period
95th Percentile
33 years
See chapter 17
Median Tenure (years)
Women
5.4
1.9
4.1
6.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
10.8
12.4
14.5
15.6
18.8

Current Residence Time
Mean 95th Percentile
13 years 46 years

Page
xvi
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009

-------
                                                                  EFH
Chapter 18
LIFE EXPECTANCY
Yrs
Total
Males
Females
78
75
80
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                  Page
July 2 009	xvii

-------
                                                                         EFH
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
1      INTRODUCTION	 -1
       1.1     PURPOSE	 -1
       1.2     INTENDED AUDIENCE	 -1
       1.3     BACKGROUND	 -1
       1.4     SELECTION OF STUDIES FOR THE HANDBOOK	 -2
              1.4.1   General Assessment Factors	1-3
              1.4.2   Selection Criteria	1-3
        .5     APPROACH USED TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPOSURE FACTORS.... 1-5
        .6     SUGGESTED REFERENCES FOR USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS HANDBOOK	1-6
        .7     THE USE OF AGE GROUPINGS WHEN ASSESSING EXPOSURE	1-7
        .8     CONSIDERING LIFE STAGE WHEN CALCULATING EXPOSURE AND RISK	1-9
        .9     FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT	1-10
              1.9.1   Dose Equations	1-10
              1.9.2   Use of Exposure Factors Data in Probabilistic Analyses	1-12
       1.10    CUMULATIVE  EXPOSURES	1-13
       1.11    ORGANIZATION	1-13
       1.12    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1	1-14


Table 1-1.      Characterization  of Variability in Exposure Factors	1-18
Table 1-2.      Considerations Used to Rate Confidence  in Recommended Values	1-19
Table 1-3.      Age-Dependent Potency Adjustment Factors by Age Groups	1-20
Figure 1-1.
The Exposure-Dose Effect Continuum	1-21
Page
xviii
                                               Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                 Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
       VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY	2-1
       2.1     VARIABILITY VERSUS UNCERTAINTY	2-2
       2.2     TYPES OF VARIABILITY	2-2
       2.3     COPING WITH VARIABILITY	2-3
       2.4     TYPES OF UNCERTAINTY	2-4
       2.5     REDUCING UNCERTAINTY	2-5
       2.6     ANALYZING VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY	2-5
       2.7     PRESENTING RESULTS OF VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS	2-8
       2.8     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2	2-9
Table 2-1.      Four Strategies for Confronting Variability	2-12
Table 2-2.      Three Types of Uncertainty and Associated Sources and Examples	2-12
Table 2-3.      Approaches to Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty	2-13

Figure 2-1      Illustration of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods	2-7
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                          Page
July 2009                                                                               xix

-------
                                                                                    EFH
3       INGESTION OF WATER AND OTHER SELECT LIQUIDS	3-1
        3.1      INTRODUCTION	3-1
        3.2      RECOMMENDATIONS	3-2
                3.2.1   Water Ingestion from Consumption of Water as a Beverage and from Food and Drink .3-2
                3.2.2   Water Ingestion while Swimming	3-2
                3.2.3   Pregnant and Lactating Women	3-2
        3.3      DRINKING WATER INGESTION STUDIES	3-9
                3.3.1   Key Drinking Water Ingestion Study	3-9
                       3.3.1.1  Kahn and Stralka, 2008a; Kahn (2008)	3-9
                3.3.2   Relevant Drinking Water Ingestion Studies	3-10
                       3.3.2.1  Wolf, A.V., 1958	3-10
                       3.3.2.2  Hopkins and Ellis, 1977	3-10
                       3.3.2.3  National Academy of Sciences, 1977	3-10
                       3.3.2.4  Canada Department of Health and Welfare, 1981	3-11
                       3.3.2.5  Gillies and Paulin, 1983	3-11
                       3.3.2.6  Pennington, 1983	3-12
                       3.3.2.7  U.S. EPA, 1984	3-12
                       3.3.2.8  Cantoretal., 1987	3-13
                       3.3.2.9  Ershow and Cantor, 1989	3-13
                       3.3.2.10 Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992	3-14
                       3.3.2.11 AIHC,  1994	3-14
                       3.3.2.12 Levy etal., 1995	3-14
                       3.3.2.13 USDA, 1995	3-15
                       3.3.2.14 Tsang and Klepeis, 1996	3-16
                       3.3.2.15 Heller et al., 2000	3-16
                       3.3.2.16 Sichert-Hellertetal., 2001	3-16
                       3.3.2.17 Sohnetal., 2001	3-17
                       3.3.2.18 Hilbigetal., 2002	3-17
                       3.3.2.19 Marshall etal., 2003a	3-18
                       3.3.2.20 Marshall etal.,2003b	3-18
                       3.3.2.21 Skinner etal., 2004	3-19
        3.4      PREGNANT AND LACTATING WOMEN	3-19
                3.4.1   Key Study on Pregnant and Lactating Women	3-19
                       3.4.1.1  Kahn and Stralka, 2008b	3-19
                3.5.2   Relevant Studies on Pregnant and Lactating Women	3-20
                       3.4.2.1  Ershow etal., 1991 	3-20
                       3.4.2.2  Forssenetal., 2007	3-20
        3.5      HIGH ACTIVITY LEVELS/HOT CLIMATES	3-20
                3.5.1   Relevant Studies on High Activity Levels/Hot Climates	3-20
                       3.5.1.1  McNall and Schlegel, 1968 	3-20
                       3.5.1.2  United  States Army, 1983	3-21
        3.6      WATER INGESTION WHILE SWIMMING	3-21
                3.6.1   Key Study on Water Ingestion While Swimming	3-21
                       3.6.1.1  Dufour et al., 2006	3-21
        3.7      REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3	3-22


Table 3-1.       Recommended Values for Drinking Water Ingestion Rates	3-3
Table 3-2.       Confidence in Recommendations for Drinking Water Ingestion Rates	3-4
Table 3-3.       Recommended Values for Water Ingestion While Swimming	3-5
Table 3-4.       Confidence in Recommendations for Water Ingestion while Swimming	3-6
Table 3 -5.       Recommended Values for Water Ingestion Rates for Pregnant and Lactating Women	3-7
Table 3-6        Confidence in Recommendations for Water Ingestion for Pregnant/Lactating Women	3-8
Table 3-7.       Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct  and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Page
xx
Exposure Factors Handbook
                     Jufy2009

-------
EFH
Community Water (mL/day) 3-25
Table 3-8. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/day ) 3-26
Table 3-9. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/day ) 3-27
Table 3-10. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/day) 3-28
Table 3-11. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, Mean Confidence Intervals
and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th Percentiles: All Sources (mL/day) 3-29
Table 3-12. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Community Water (mL/kg-day) 3-30
Table 3-13. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/kg-day) 3-31
Table 3-14. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-32
Table 3-15. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-33
Table 3-16. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, Mean Confidence
Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th Percentiles: All Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-34
Table 3-17. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Community Water (mL/day) 3-35
Table 3-18. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/day) 3-36
Table 3-19. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/day) 3-37
Table 3-20. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/day) 3-38
Table 3-21. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, Mean
Confidence Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th Percentiles:
All Sources (mL/day) 3-39
Table 3-22. Consumers Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Community Water (mL/kg-day ) 3-40
Table 3-23. Consumers Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/kg-day) 3-41
Table 3-24. Consumers Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-42
Table 3-25. Consumers Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/kg-day ) 3-43
Table 3-26. Consumer Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, Mean
Confidence Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th Percentiles:
All Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-44
Table 3-27. Assumed Tapwater Content of Beverages in Great Britain 3-45
Table 3-28. Intake of Total Liquid, Total Tapwater, and Various Beverages (L/day) by the British
Population 3-46
Table 3-29. Summary of total Liquid and Total Tapwater Intake for Males and Females (L/day) in Great
Britain 3-47
Table 3-30. Daily Total Tapwater Intake Distribution for Canadians, by Age Group (Approx. 0.20 L
increments, both sexes, combined seasons) 3-48
Table 3-31. Average Daily Tapwater Intake of Canadians (expressed as milliliters per kilogram body
weight) 3-49
Table 3-32. Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians, by Age and Season (L/day) 3-49
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xxi

-------
EFH
Table 3-33. Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians as a Function of Level of Physical
Activity at Work and in Spare Time (16 years and older, combined seasons, L/day) 3-50
Table 3-34. Average Daily Tapwater Intake by Canadians, Apportioned Among Various Beverages
(Both Sexes, By age, combined seasons, L/day) 3-50
Table 3-35. Intake Rates of Total Fluids and Total Tapwater by Age Group 3-51
Table 3-36. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Beverages and Tapwater by Age 3-51
Table 3-37. Average Total Tapwater Intake Rate by Sex, Age, and Geographic Area 3-52
Table 3-38. Frequency Distribution of Total Tapwater Intake Rates 3-52
Table 3-39.. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/day) for Both Sexes Combined 3-53
Table 3-40. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/kg-day) for Both Sexes Combined 3-54
Table 3-41. Summary of Tapwater Intake by Age 3-55
Table 3-42. Total Tapwater Intake (as percent of total water intake) by Broad Age Category 3-55
Table 3-43. General Dietary Sources of Tapwater for Both Sexes 3-56
Table 3-44. Summary Statistics for Best-Fit Lognormal Distributions for Water Intake Rates 3-57
Table 3 -45. Estimated Quantiles and Means for Total Tapwater Intake Rates (mL/day) 3-57
Table 3-46. Water Ingested (mL/day) from Water By Itself and Water Added to Other Beverages
and Foods 3-58
Table 3-47. Mean Per Capita Drinking Water Intake Based on USD A, CSFII Data From 1989-91
(mL/day) 3-59
Table 3 -48. Number of Respondents that Consumed Tapwater at a Specified Daily Frequency 3-60
Table 3-49. Number of Respondents that Consumed Juice Reconstituted with Tapwater at a Specified
Daily Frequency 3-61
Table 3-50. Mean Water Consumption (mL/kg-day) by Race/Ethnicity 3-62
Table 3-51 Plain Tap Water and Total Water Consumption by Age, Sex, Region, Urbanicity, and
Poverty Category 3-63
Table 3-52. Intake of Water from Various Sources in 2-13-y-old Participants of the DONALD Study
1985-1999 3-64
Table 3-53. Mean (± Standard Error) Fluid Intake (mL/kg/day) by Children Aged 1-10 years,
NHANESIII, 1988-94 3-64
Table 3-54. Estimated Mean (± Standard Error) Amount of Total Fluid and Plain Water Intake among
Children Aged 1-10 Years by Age, Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Poverty Income Ratio, Region, and
Urbanicity (NHANES III, 1988-94) 3-65
Table 3-55. Tap Water Intake in Breastfed and Formula-fed Infants and Mixed-fed Young Children at
Different Age Points 3-66
Table 3-56. Percentage of Subjects Consuming Beverages and Mean Daily Beverage Intakes (mL/day)
for Children With Returned Questionnaires 3-67
Table 3-57. Mean (± Standard Deviation) Daily Beverage Intakes Reported on Beverage Frequency
Questionnaire and 3-day Food and Beverage Dairies 3-68
Table 3-58. Consumption of Beverages by Infants and Toddlers (Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study) 3-69
Table 3-59 Per Capita Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant,
Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/kg-day) 3-70
Table 3-60 Per Capita Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant,
Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/day) 3-71
Table 3-61 Per Capita Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant, Lactating,
and Childbearing Age Women (mL/kg-day) 3-71
Table 3-62 Per Capita Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant,
Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/day) 3-72
Table 3-63 Estimates of Consumers Only Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant,
Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/kg-day) 3-72
Table 3-64 Estimates of Consumers Only Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant,
Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/day) 3-73
Page
xxii
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
Table 3-65      Consumers Only Estimated Direct and Indirect Community water Ingestion by Pregnant,
               Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/kg-day)	3-73
Table 3-66      Consumers Only Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant,
               Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/day)	3-74
Table 3-67.     Total Fluid Intake of Women 15-49 Years Old	3-74
Table 3-68.     Total Tapwater Intake of Women 15-49 Years Old	3-75
Table 3-69.     Total Fluid (mL/day) Derived from Various Dietary Sources by Women Aged 15-49 Years	3-75
Table 3-70.     Total Tapwater and Bottled Water Intake by Pregnant Women (L/day)	3-76
Table 3-71.     Percentage of Mean Water Intake Consumed as Unfiltered and Filtered Tapwater by
               Pregnant Women	3-78
Table 3-72      Water Intake at Various Levels (L/hr)	3-80
Table 3-73      Planning Factors for Individual Tapwater Consumption	3-80
Table 3-74.     Pool Water IngestionBy Swimmers	3-81
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                Page
July 2009                                                                                    xxiii

-------
                                                                                     EFH
4       NON-DIETARY INGESTION FACTORS	4-1
        4.1      INTRODUCTION	4-1
        4.2      RECOMMENDATIONS	4-2
        4.3      NON-DIETARY INGESTION - MOUTHING FREQUENCY STUDIES	4-5
                4.3.1   Key Studies of Mouthing Frequency	4-5
                       4.3. .1  Zartarianetal., 1997a/Zartarianetal., 1997b	4-5
                       4.3. .2  Reed etal., 1999	4-5
                       4.3. .3  Freeman et al., 2001	4-6
                       4.3. .4  Tulve etal., 2002	4-6
                       4.3. .5  AuYeung et al., 2004	4-7
                       4.3. .6  Black etal., 2005	4-7
                       4.3. .7  Xue etal., 2007	4-8
                       4.3. .8  Beamer et al., 2008	4-9
                       4.3. .9  Xue et al., 2009	4-9
                4.3.2   Relevant Studies of Mouthing Frequency	4-9
                       4.3.2.1  Davis etal., 1995	4-9
                       4.3.2.2  Lew and Butterworth, 1997	4-10
                       4.3.2.3  Tudella et al., 2000	4-11
                       4.3.2.4  Ko etal., 2007	4-11
        4.4      NON-DIETARY INGESTION - MOUTHING DURATION STUDIES	4-12
                4.4.1   Key Mouthing Duration Studies	4-12
                       4.4.1.1  Jubergetal., 2001	4-12
                       4.4.1.2  Greene, 2002	4-12
                       4.4.1.3  Beamer etal., 2008	4-13
                4.4.2   Relevant Mouthing Duration Studies	4-13
                       4.4.2.1  Barr etal., 1994	4-13
                       4.4.2.2  Zartarianetal., 1997a/Zartarianetal., 1997b	4-14
                       4.4.2.3  Grootetal., 1998	4-14
                       4.4.2.4  Smith and Norris, 2003/Norris and Smith, 2002	4-15
                       4.4.2.5  AuYeung et al, 2004	4-16
        4.5      MOUTHING PREVALENCE	4-16
                4.5.1   Staneketal., 1998	4-16
                4.5.2   Warren etal., 2000	4-17
        4.6      REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4	4-17


Table 4-1.       Summary of Recommended Mouthing Frequency and Duration	4-3
Table 4-2.       Confidence in Mouthing Frequency and Duration Recommendations	4-4
Table 4-3.       New Jersey Children's Mouthing Frequency (contacts/hour) from Video-transcription	4-20
Table 4-4.       Survey-Reported Percent of 168 Minnesota Children Exhibiting Behavior, by Age	4-20
Table 4-5.       Video-transcription Median (Mean) Observed Mouthing in 19 Minnesota Children
                (contacts/hour)	4-20
Table 4-6.       Variability in Objects Mouthed by Washington State Children (contacts/hour)	4-21
Table 4-7.       Indoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts per hour), Video-transcription of 9 Children with
                >15 minutes in View Indoors	4-22
Table 4-8.       Outdoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts per hour), Video-transcription of 38 Children	4-22
Table 4-9.       Videotaped Mouthing Activity of Texas Children, Median Frequency (Mean ± SD)	4-23
Table 4-10.      Indoor Hand-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various
                Studies	4-23
Table 4-11.      Outdoor Hand-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various
                Studies	4-23
Table 4-12.      Object/Surface Hand and Mouth Contact Frequency (events/hour)	4-24
Page
xxiv
Exposure Factors Handbook
                     Jufy2009

-------
EFH
Table 4-13. Distributions Mouthing Frequency and Duration of Non-Dietary Objects for Infants
and Toddlers 4-25
Table 4-14. Indoor Object-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various
Studies 4-26
Table 4-15. Outdoor Object-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various
Studies 4-26
Table 4-16. Survey Reported Mouthing Behaviors for 92 Washington State Children 4-27
Table 4-17. Estimated Daily Mean Mouthing Times of New York State Children, for Pacifiers and
Other Objects 4-27
Table 4-18. Percent of Houston-area and Chicago-area Children Observed Mouthing, by Category
and Child's Age 4-27
Table 4-19. Estimates of Mouthing Time for Various Objects (minutes/hour) 4-28
Table 4-20. Object/Surface Hand and Mouth Contact Duration (minutes/hour) 4-29
Table 4-21. Mouthing Times of Dutch Children Extrapolated to Total Time While Awake, Without
Pacifier, in Minutes per Day 4-30
Table 4-22. Estimated Mean Daily Mouthing Duration by Age Group for Pacifiers, Fingers, Toys,
and Other Objects (hours:minutes:seconds) 4-31
Table 4-23. Outdoor Median Mouthing Duration (seconds per contact), Video-transcription of 38
Children 4-32
Table 4-24. Indoor Mouthing Duration (minutes per hour), Video-transcription of 9 Children with >15
minutes in View Indoors 4-32
Table 4-25. Outdoor Mouthing Duration (minutes per hour), Video-transcription of 3 8 Children 4-33
Table 4-26. 95th Percentile Object-to-Mouth Duration for Key Studies Combined (minutes/hour) 4-34
Table 4-27. Reported Daily Prevalence of Massachusetts Children's Non-Food Mouthing/Ingestion
Behaviors 4-35
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xxv

-------
                                                                                      EFH
5       SOIL AND DUST INGESTION	5-1
        5.1     INTRODUCTION	5-1
        5.2     RECOMMENDATIONS	5-2
        5.3     KEY AND RELEVANT STUDIES	5-7
                5.3.1    Methodologies Used in Key Studies	5-7
                        5.3.1.1  Tracer Element Methodology 	5-7
                        5.3.1.2  Biokinetic Model Comparison Methodology	5-8
                        5.3.1.3  Survey Response Methodology	5-8
                5.3.2    Key Studies of Primary Analysis	5-9
                        5.3.2.1  Vermeerand Frate, 1979  	5-9
                        5.3.2.2  Calabrese et al., 1989/Barnes, 1990/Calabrese et al., 1991	5-9
                        5.3.2.3  VanWijnenetal., 1990	5-10
                        5.3.2.4  Davis etal., 1990	5-10
                        5.3.2.5  Calabrese etal., 1997a	5-11
                        5.3.2.6  Staneketal. 1998/Calabrese etal., 1997b	5-11
                        5.3.2.7  Davis and Mirick, 2006 	5-12
                5.3.3    Key Studies of Secondary Analysis	5-12
                        5.3.3.1  Wong, 1988/Calabrese and Stanek, 1993	5-12
                        5.3.3.2  Hoganetal., 1998	5-13
                5.3.4    Relevant Studies of Primary Analysis	5-13
                        5.3.4.1  Dickins andFord, 1942	5-13
                        5.3.4.2  Ferguson and Keaton, 1950	5-14
                        5.3.4.3  Cooper, 1957	5-14
                        5.3.4.4  Barltrop, 1966	5-14
                        5.3.4.5  Bruhnand Pangborn, 1971	5-14
                        5.3.4.6  Robischon,  1971	5-14
                        5.3.4.7  Bronstein and Dollar,  1974	5-15
                        5.3.4.8  Hook, 1978	5-15
                        5.3.4.9  Binder etal., 1986	5-15
                        5.3.4.10 Clausing, et al.,  1987	5-16
                        5.3.4.11 Calabrese etal.,  1990  	5-16
                        5.3.4.12 Cooksey, 1995	5-17
                        5.3.4.13 Smulianetal., 1995	5-17
                        5.3.4.14 Grigsby, 1999	5-17
                        5.3.4.15 Ward and Kutner, 1999	5-18
                        5.3.4.16 Simpson, 2000	5-18
                        5.3.4.17 Obialo, 2001	5-18
                        5.3.4.18 Klitzman, 2002	5-18
                5.3.5    Relevant Studies of Secondary  Analysis	5-19
                        5.3.5.1  Stanek etal.,2001a	5-19
                        5.3.5.2  Calabrese and Stanek, 1995	5-19
                        5.3.5.3  Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a	5-20
                        5.3.5.4  Calabrese and Stanek, 1992b	5-20
                        5.3.5.5  Calabrese etal., 1996	5-20
                        5.3.5.6  Staneketal., 1999	5-21
                        5.3.5.7  Stanek and Calabrese, 1995b	5-21
                        5.3.5.8  Stanek and Calabrese, 2000	5-21
                        5.3.5.9  Stanek etal., 200 Ib	5-22
                        5.3.5.10vonLindernetal.,2003	5-22
        5.4     LIMITATIONS OF KEY STUDY METHODOLOGIES	5-22
                5.4.1    Tracer Element Methodology	5-22
                5.4.2    Biokinetic Model Comparison Methodology	5-25
                5.4.3    Survey Response Methodology	5-25
                5.4.4    Key Studies: Representativeness of U.S. Population	5-26

Page                                                                 Exposure Factors Handbook
xxviJufy2009

-------
EFH
5.5 SUMMARY OF SOIL AND DUST INGESTION ESTIMATES FROM KEY STUDIES 5-27
5.6 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 5-27

Table 5-1. Recommended Values for Soil, Dust, and Soil + Dust Ingestion 5-5
Table 5-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Ingestion of Soil and Dust 5-6
Table 5-3. Soil, Dust and Soil + Dust Ingestion Estimates for Amherst, Massachusetts Study Children 5-32
Table 5-4. Amherst, Massachusetts Soil-Pica Child's Daily Ingestion Estimates by Tracer and by
Week(mg/day) 5-33
Table 5-5. Amherst, Massachusetts Soil-Pica Child's Tracer Ratios 5-33
Table 5-6. Van Wijnen et al., 1990 Limiting Tracer Method (LTM) Soil Ingestion Estimates for
Sample of Dutch Children 5-34
Table 5-7. Estimated Geometric Mean Limiting Tracer Method (LTM) Values of Children
Attending Day care Centers According to Age, Weather Category, and Sampling Period 5-35
Table 5-8. Estimated Soil Ingestion for Sample of Washington State Children 5-35
Table 5-9. Soil Ingestion Estimates for 64 Anaconda Children 5-36
Table 5-10. Soil Ingestion Estimates for Massachusetts Child Displaying Soil Pica Behavior (mg/day) 5-36
Table 5-11. Mean and Median Soil Ingestion (mg/day) by Family Member 5-37
Table 5-12. Estimated Soil Ingestion for Six High Soil Ingesting Jamaican Children 5-38
Table 5-13. Estimated Daily Soil Ingestion for East Helena, Montana Children 5-39
Table 5-14. Estimated Soil Ingestion for Sample of Dutch Nursery School Children 5-39
Table 5-15. Estimated Soil Ingestion for Sample of Dutch Hospitalized, Bedridden Children 5-40
Table 5-16. Items Ingested by Low-Income Mexican-Born Women Who Practiced Pica During
Pregnancy in the United States 5-40
Table 5-17. Positive/negative Error (Bias) in Soil Ingestion Estimates in Calabrese et al. (1989)
Study: Effect on Mean Soil Ingestion Estimate (mg/day) 5-41
Table 5-18. Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates per Child for 64
Children (mg/day) 5-41
Table 5-19. Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Data for 64 Subjects
Projected over 365 Days 5-42
Table 5-20. Summary of Estimates of Soil and Dust Ingestion by Children (0.5-14 years old) from
Key Studies (mg/day) 5-42
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xxvii

-------
                                                                                     EFH
6       INHALATION RATES	6-1
        6.1      INTRODUCTION	6-1
        6.2      RECOMMENDATIONS	6-2
        6.3      KEY INHALATION RATE STUDIES	6-7
                6.3.1   Brochuetal.,2006a	6-7
                6.3.2   U.S. EPA, 2006	6-7
                6.3.3   Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell, 2007	6-9
                6.3.4   Stifelman, 2007	6-10
                6.3.5   Key Studies Combined	6-10
        6.4      RELEVANT INHALATION RATE STUDIES	6-10
                6.4.1   International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), 1981	6-10
                6.4.2   U.S. EPA, 1985	6-11
                6.4.3   Shamooetal., 1990	6-11
                6.4.4   Shamooetal., 1991	6-12
                6.4.5   Linnetal., 1992	6-13
                6.4.6   Shamooetal., 1992	6-14
                6.4.7   Spier etal., 1992	6-14
                6.4.8   Adams, 1993	6-15
                6.4.9   Layton, 1993	6-15
                6.4.10  Linnetal., 1993	6-17
                6.4.11  Rusconi et al., 1994	6-18
                6.4.12  Price etal., 2003	6-19
                6.3.13  Brochu et al., 2006b	6-19
        6.5      REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6	6-20


Table 6-1.       Recommended Long-Term Exposure (More Than 30 Days) Values for Inhalation
                (Males and Females Combined)	6-3
Table 6-2.       Recommended Short-Term Exposure (Less Than 30 Days) Values for Inhalation
                (Males and Females Combined)	6-4
Table 6-3.       Confidence in Recommendations for Inhalation Rates	6-6
Table 6-4.       Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (mVday) for Free-living
                Normal-weight Males and Females Aged 2.6 months to 96 years 	6-22
Table 6-5.       Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (nfYday) for Free-living Normal-weight
                Males, Females, and Males and Females Combined	6-23
Table 6-6.       Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (nfYday) for Free-living
                Normal-weight and Overweight/obese Males and Females Aged 4 to 96 years	6-25
Table 6-7.       Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates per Unit of Body Weight
                (nrYkg-day) for Free-living Normal-weight Males and Females Aged 2.6 months
                to 96 years	6-26
Table 6-8.       Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (m3/kg-day) for Free-
                living Normal-weight and Overweight/obese Males and Females Aged 4 to 96 years	6-27
Table 6-9.       Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates forNewborns Aged 1 Month or Less	6-28
Table 6-10.      Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Inhalation Rate in Males, by Age Category	6-29
Table 6-11.      Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Inhalation Rate inFemales, by Age Category	6-30
Table 6-12.      Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (nrVday) for Males, Females and
                Males and Females Combined	6-31
Table 6-13.      Descriptive Statistics for Average Ventilation Rate While Performing Activities Within the
                Specified Activity Category, for Males by Age Category	6-33
Page
xxviii
Exposure Factors Handbook
                     Jufy2009

-------
EFH
Table 6-14. Descriptive Statistics for Average Ventilation Rate While Performing Activities Within the
Specified Activity Category, for Females by Age Category 6-35
Table 6-15. Descriptive Statistics for Duration of Time (hours/day) Spent Performing Activities
Within the Specified Activity Category, by Age and Gender Categories 6-37
Table 6-16. Nonnormalized Daily Inhalation Rates (mVday) Derived Using Layton's (1993)
Method and CSFII Energy Intake Data 6-39
Table 6-17. Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (mVday) for Males and Females
Combined 6-40
Table 6-18. Summary of Institute of Medicine Energy Expenditure Recommendations
for Active and Very Active People with Equivalent Inhalation Rates 6-41
Table 6-19. Mean Inhalation Rate Values (nfYday) for Males, Females, and Males and Females
Combined 6-42
Table 6-20. Mean Inhalation Rate Values (nrYday) from Key Studies for Males and Females
Combined 6-43
Table 6-21. 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (nrVday) from Key Studies for Males and Females
Combined 6-44
Table 6-22. Daily Inhalation Rates Estimated From Daily Activities 6-45
Table 6-23. Selected Inhalation Rate Values During Different Activity Levels Obtained From Various
Literature Sources 6-46
Table 6-24. Summary of Human Inhalation Rates by Activity Level (nrYhour) 6-47
Table 6-25. Estimated Minute Ventilation Associated with Activity Level for Average Male Adult 6-47
Table 6-26. Activity Pattern Data Aggregated for Three Microenvironments by Activity Level for
All Age Groups 6-48
Table 6-27. Summary of Daily Inhalation Rates Grouped by Age and Activity Level 6-48
Table 6-28. Distribution Pattern of Predicted VR and EVR (equivalent ventilation rate) for 20 Outdoor
Workers 6-49
Table 6-29. Distribution Pattern of Inhalation rate by Location and Activity Type for 20 Outdoor
Workers 6-50
Table 6-30. Calibration and Field Protocols for Self-monitoring of Activities Grouped by
Subject Panels 6-51
Table 6-31. Subject Panel Inhalation Rates by Mean VR, Upper Percentiles, and Self-estimated
Breathing Rates 6-52
Table 6-32. Actual Inhalation Rates Measured at Four Ventilation Levels 6-52
Table 6-33. Distribution of Predicted Inhalation Rates by Location and Activity Levels for Elementary
and High School Students 6-53
Table 6-34. Average Hours Spent Per Day in a Given Location and Activity Level for Elementary and
High School Students 6-54
Table 6-35. Distribution Patters of Daily Inhalation Rates for Elementary (EL) and High School (HS)
Students Grouped by Activity Level 6-54
Table 6-36. Mean Minute Inhalation Rate (nrYminute) by Group and Activity for Laboratory Protocols 6-55
Table 6-37. Mean Minute Inhalation Rate (nrVminute) by Group and Activity for Field Protocols 6-55
Table 6-38. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hour) by Age Group and Activity Levels for
Laboratory Protocols 6-56
Table 6-39. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hour) by Age Group and Activity Levels in
Field Protocols 6-57
Table 6-40. Comparisons of Estimated Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) with Average Food-energy
Intakes (EFD) for Individuals Sampled in the 1977-78 NFCS 6-58
Table 6-41. Daily Inhalation Rates Calculated from Food-energy Intakes 6-59
Table 6-42. Statistics of the Age/gender Cohorts Used to Develop Regression Equations for Predicting
Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) 6-60
Table 6-43. Daily Inhalation Rates Obtained from the Ratios of Total Energy Expenditure to Basal
Metabolic Rate (BMR) 6-60
Table 6-44. Daily Inhalation Rates Based on Time-Activity Survey 6-61
Table 6-45. Inhalation Rates for Short-term Exposures 6-62
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xxix

-------
EFH
Table 6-46. Distributions of Individual and Group Inhalation/Ventilation Rate for Outdoor Workers 6-63
Table 6-47. Individual Mean Inhalation Rate(m3/hour) by Self-Estimated Breathing Rate or Job Activity
Category for Outdoor Workers 6-63
Table 6-48. Mean, Median, and SD of Inhalation Rate According to Waking or Sleeping in 618
Infants and Children Grouped in Classes of Age 6-64
Table 6-49. Distribution of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rate (nrVday) Percentiles For Free-Living
Underweight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy and Post
Partum Weeks 6-66
Table 6-50. Distribution of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rate (nrYday) Percentiles For Free-Living
Normal Weight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy and Post
Partum Weeks 6-67
Table 6-51. Distribution of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rate (mVday) Percentiles For Free-Living
Overweight/Obese Weight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy
and Post Partum Weeks 6-68
Table 6-52. Distribution of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rate (m3/kg-day) Percentiles For Free-Living
Underweight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy and Post Partum
Weeks 6-69
Table 6-53. Distribution of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rate (m3/kg-day) Percentiles For Free-Living
Normal Weight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy and Post
Partum Weeks 6-70
Table 6-54. Distribution of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rate (m3/kg-day) Percentiles For Free-Living
Overweight/Obese Weight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy
and Post Partum Weeks 6-71
Table 6-55. Concordance of age groupings between EPA 2006 and Key Studies 6-72

Figure 6-1. 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Centiles by Age in Awake Subjects 6-65
Figure 6-2. 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Centiles by Age in Asleep Subjects 6-65
Page
xxx
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
EFH
7 DERMAL EXPOSURE FACTORS 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1
7.2.1 Body Surface Area 7-1
7.2.2 Adherence of Solids to Skin 7-2
7.3 SURF ACE AREA 7-11
7.3.1 Key Body Surface Area Studies 7-11
7.3.1.1 U.S. EPA, 1985 7-11
7.3.1.2 U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES 2005-2006 and 1999-2006 Data 7-11
7.3.2 RelevantBody Surface Area Studies 7-12
7.3.2.1 Murray and Burmaster, 1992 7-12
7.3.2.2 Phillips et al., 1993 7-12
7.3.2.3 Wong et al., 2000 7-13
7.4 ADHERENCE OF SOLIDS TO SKIN 7-13
7.4.1 Key Adherence of Solids to Skin Studies 7-13
7.4.1.1 Kissel etal., 1996a 7-13
7.4.1.2 Holmes etal., 1999 7-13
7.4.1.3 Shoaf etal., 2005 7-14
7.4.2 Relevant Adherence of Solids to Skin Studies 7-14
7.4.2.1 QueHeeetal, 1985 7-14
7.4.2.2 Driver etal, 1989 7-15
7.4.2.3 Sedman, 1989 7-15
7.4.2.4 Kissel etal., 1996b 7-15
7.4.2.5 Kissel etal., 1998 7-16
7.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 7-16

APPENDIX 7A 7A-1
Table 7-1. Recommended Values for Total Body Surface Area for Children (Genders Combined) and
Adults by Gender 7-4
Table 7-2. Recommended Values for Surface Area of Body Parts 7-5
Table 7-3. Confidence in Recommendations for Body Surface Area 7-7
Table 7-4. Recommended Values for Mean Solids Adherence to Skin 7-9
Table 7-5. Confidence in Recommendations for Solids Adherence to Skin 7-10
Table 7-6. Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Body Part for Children (Genders Combined)
and Adults by Gender 7-18
Table 7-7. Summary of Equation Parameters for Calculating Adult Body Surface Area 7-19
Table 7-8. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES
1999-2006 Males and Females Combined for Children <21 Years and NHANES 2005-2006
for Adults >=21 Years 7-20
Table 7-9. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES
1999-2006 for Children <21 years and NHANES 2005-2006 for Adults >=21 Years, Males 7-21
Table 7-10. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES
1999-2006 for Children <21 years and NHANES 2005-2006 for Adults >=21 Years, Females .7-22
Table 7-11 Surface Area of Adult Males (21 Years and Older) in Square Meters 7-23
Table 7-12 Surface Area of Adult Females (21 Years and Older) in Square Meters 7-23
Table 7-13. Statistical Results for Total Body Surface Area Distributions (m2), for Adults 7-24
Table 7-14. Descriptive Statistics For Surface Area/Body Weight (SA/BW) Ratios (m2/kg) 7-26
Table 7-15. Estimated Skin Surface Exposed During Warm Weather Outdoor Activities 7-26
Table 7-16. Summary of Field Studies 7-27
Table 7-17. Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of Solids Adherence by
Activity and Body Region 7-30
Table 7-18. Summary of Controlled Greenhouse Trials 7-32

Exposure Factors Handbook Page
July 2009 xxxi

-------
                                                                                   EFH
Table 7A-1.     Estimated Parameter Values for Different Age Intervals	7A-5
Table 7A-2.     Summary of Surface Area Parameter Values for the Dubois and Dubois Model	7A-5
Figure 7-1.      Frequency Distributions for the Surface Area of Men and Women	7-25
Figure 7-2.      Skin Coverage as Determined by Fluorescence vs. Body Part for Adults Transplanting
               Plants and Children Playing in Wet Soils	7-33
Figure 7-3.      Gravimetric Loading vs. Body Part for Adults Transplanting Plants in Wet Soil and
               Children Playing in Wet and Dry Soils	7-33
Page                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook
xxxii                                                                                    Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
8
        BODY WEIGHT STUDIES [[[ 8-1
        8.1     INTRODUCTION [[[ 8-1
        8.2     RECOMMENDATIONS [[[ 8-1
        8.3     KEY BODY WEIGHT STUDY [[[ 8-4
               8.3.1    U.S. EPA analysis of NHANES 1999-2006 data [[[ 8-4
        8.4     RELEVANT BODY WEIGHT STUDIES [[[ 8-4
               8.4.1    National Center for Health Statistics, 1987 [[[ 8-4
               8.4.2    Brainard and Burmaster, 1992 [[[ 8-5
               8.4.3    Burmasterand Crouch, 1997 [[[ 8-5
               8.4.4    U.S. EPA, 2000 [[[ 8-6
               8.4.5    Kuczmarskietal.,2002 [[[ 8-6
               8.4.6    U.S. EPA, 2004 [[[ 8-6
               8.4.7    Ogdenetal., 2004 [[[ 8-6
               8.4.8    Freedman et al., 2006 [[[ 8-7
               8.4.9    Martin etal., 2007 [[[ 8-7
               8.4.10   Portier etal., 2007 [[[ 8-8
               8.4.11   Kahn and Stralka, 2008 [[[ 8-8
        8.5     RELEVANT FETAL WEIGHT STUDIES [[[ 8-8
               8.5.1    Brenner etal., 1976 [[[ 8-8
               8.5.2    Doubilet et al.,  1997 [[[ 8-9
        8.6     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8 [[[ 8-9


Table 8-1.      Recommended Values for Body Weight [[[ 8-2
Table 8-2.      Confidence in Recommendations for Body Weight [[[ 8-3
Table 8-3.      Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kilograms) Derived from NHANES 1999-2006,
               Males and Females Combined [[[ 8-11
Table 8-4.      Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kilograms) for Males Derived from
               NHANES 1999-2006 [[[ 8-12
Table 8-5.      Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kilograms) for Females Derived from
               NHANES 1999-2006 [[[ 8-13
Table 8-6.      Weight in Kilograms for Males 2 Months-2 1 Years of Age- Number Examined, Mean, and

-------
EFH
Table 8-10. Mean body mass index (BMI) by survey, sex, race/ethnicity, and age group;
adults: United States 8-36
Table 8-20. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity3 Among Children 8-37
Table 8-21. Numbers of Live Births by Weight and Percentages of Live Births with Low and Very
Low Birth Weights, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother: United States, 2005 8-38
Table 8-22. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single-Year Age Groups Using
NHANESIIData 8-39
Table 8-23. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single-Year Age Groups Using
NHANES III Data 8-41
Table 8-24. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single-Year Age Groups Using
NHANES IV Data 8-43
Table 8-25. Estimated Body Weights of Typical Age Groups of Interest in U.S. EPA Risk Assessments 8-45
Table 8-26. Estimated Percentile Distribution of Body Weight by Fine Age Categories
Derived from 1994-96, 1998 CSFII 8-46
Table 8-27. Estimated Percentile Distribution of Body Weight By Fine Age Categories With
Confidence Interval 8-47
Table 8-28. Fetal Weight (grams) Percentiles Throughout Pregnancy 8-48
Table 8-29. Neonatal Weight by Gestational Age for Males and Females Combined 8-49

Figure 8-1. Weight by Age Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth to 36 Months 8-21
Figure 8-2. Weight by Age Percentiles for Girls Aged Birth to 36 Months 8-22
Figure 8-3. Weight by Length Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth to 36 Months 8-23
Figure 8-4. Weight by Length Percentiles for Girls Aged Birth to 36 Months 8-24
Figure 8-5. Body Mass Index-for-Age Percentiles: Boys, 2 to 20 Years 8-25
Figure 8-6. Body Mass Index-for-Age Percentiles: Girls, 2 to 20 Years 8-26
Page
xxxiv
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
EFH
9 INTAKE OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 9-1
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 9-2
9.3 INTAKE STUDIES 9-5
9.3.1 Key Fruits and Vegetables Intake Study 9-5
9.3.1.1 U.S. EPA Analysis of CSFII1994-96, 1998 9-5
9.3.2 Relevant Fruit and Vegetable Intake Studies 9-6
9.3.2.1 USDA, 1980, 1992, 1996a, 1996b 9-6
9.3.2.2 USDA, 1993 9-7
9.3.2.3 USDA, 1999 9-7
9.3.2.4 Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002 9-7
9.3.2.5 Vitolins et al., 2002 9-8
9.3.2.6 Fox et al., 2004 9-9
9.3.2.7 Ponza et al., 2004 9-9
9.3.2.8 Fox et al., 2006 9-10
9.3.2.9 Menella et al., 2006 9-10
9.4 CONVERSION BETWEEN WET AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES 9-10
9.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9 9-11

APPENDIX 9A 9A-1

Table 9-1. Recommended Values for Intake of Fruits and Vegetables, As Consumed 9-3
Table 9-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Fruits and Vegetables 9-4
Table 9-3. Per Capita Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-12
Table 9-4. Consumer Only Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-14
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-16
Table 9-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-25
Table 9-7. Per Capita Intake of Exposed Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-32
Table 9-8. Per Capita Intake of Protected Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-33
Table 9-9. Per Capita Intake of Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-34
Table 9-10. Per Capita Intake of Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-35
Table 9-11. Per Capita Intake of Root Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) 9-36
Table 9-12. Mean Total Fruit and Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex
and Age (1977-1978) 9-37
Table 9-13. Mean Total Fruit and Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by
Sex and Age (1987-88, 1994, and 1995) 9-38
Table 9-14. Per Capita Consumption of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in 1991 9-39
Table 9-15 Mean Quantities of Vegetables Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, for Children, Per
Capita (g/day) 9-40
Table 9-16. Percentage of Individuals Consuming Vegetables, by Sex and Age, for Children (%) 9-41
Table 9-17. Mean Quantities of Fruits Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, for Children,
Per Capita (g/day) 9-42
Table 9-18. Percentage of Individuals Consuming, Fruits by Sex and Age, for Children (%) 9-43
Table 9-19. Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the
Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days 9-44
Table 9-20. Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating Occasion and
Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days, by Age 9-45
Table 9-21. Consumption of Major Food Groups: Median Servings (and Ranges) by Demographic
and Health Characteristics, for Older Adults 9-47
Table 9-22. Characteristics of the FITS Sample Population 9-48
Table 9-23. Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Vegetables 9-49
Table 9-24. Top Five Vegetables Consumed by Infants and Toddlers 9-50
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xxxv

-------
                                                                                     EFH
Table 9-25.      Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Fruits	9-51
Table 9-26.      Top Five Fruits Consumed by Infants and Toddlers	9-52
Table 9-27.      Characteristics of WIC Participants and Non-participants (Percentages)	9-53
Table 9-28.      Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC Participation Status	9-54
Table 9-29.      Average Portion Sizes per Eating Occasion of Fruits and Vegetables Commonly
                Consumed by Infants from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	9-55
Table 9-30.      Average Portion Sizes per Eating Occasion of Fruits and Vegetables Commonly
                Consumed by Toddlers from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	9-56
Table 9-31.      Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different
                Types of Fruits and Vegetables on A Given Day	9-57
Table 9-32.      Top Five Fruits and Vegetables Consumed by Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and
                Toddlers Per Age Group	9-58
Table 9-33.      Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible
                Portions	9-59
Table 9A-1.      Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96,  1998 USDA CSFII Data	9A-2
Page
xxxvi
Exposure Factors Handbook
                     Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
10      INTAKE OF FISH AND SHELLFISH	10-1
        10.1     INTRODUCTION	10-1
        10.2     RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY	10-2
                10.2.1  Recommendations - General Population	10-3
                10.2.2  Recommendations - Recreational Marine Anglers	10-3
                10.2.3  Recommendations - Recreational Freshwater Anglers	10-4
                10.2.4  Recommendations -Native American Subsistence Populations	10-4
        10.3     GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES	10-11
                10.3.1  Key General Population Study	10-11
                       10.3.1.1 U.S.EPA,2002	10-11
                10.3.2  Relevant General Population Studies	10-12
                       10.3.2.1TRF,1975	10-12
                       10.3.2.2 Paoetal., 1982	10-14
                       10.3.2.3 USDA, 1992b	10-14
                       10.3.2.4 Tsang and Klepeis, 1996	10-15
                       10.3.2.5 Westat, 2006	10-16
                       10.3.2.6 Moyaetal, 2008	10-16
        10.4     MARINE RECREATIONAL STUDIES	10-17
                10.4.1  Key Marine Recreational Study	10-17
                       10.4.1.1 National Marine Fisheries Service, 1986a	10-17
                10.4.2  Relevant Marine Recreational Studies	10-18
                       10.4.2.1 Pierce etal., 1981	10-18
                       10.4.2.2 Puffer etal., 1981	10-19
                       10.4.2.3 Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M., 1991	10-20
                       10.4.2.4 Burger etal., 1992	10-21
                       10.4.2.5 KCA Research Division, 1994	10-21
                       10.4.2.6 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1994	10-22
                       10.4.2.7 Alcoa, 1998	10-23
                       10.4.2.8 Burger, etal., 1998	10-23
                       10.4.2.9 Chiang, 1998	10-24
                       10.4.2.10 San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), 2000	10-25
        10.5     FRESHWATER RECREATIONAL STUDIES	10-25
                10.5.1  Fioreetal., 1989	10-25
                10.5.2  West etal., 1989	10-26
                10.5.3  Chemrisk, 1992	10-28
                10.5.4  Connelly et al., 1992	10-29
                10.5.5  Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., 1993	10-30
                10.5.6  West etal., 1993	10-31
                10.5.7  Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1994	10-31
                10.5.8  U.S. DHHS, 1995	10-32
                10.5.9  Connelly et al., 1996	10-33
                10.5.10 Balcometal., 1999	10-34
                10.5.11 Burger etal., 1999	10-35
                10.5.12 Williams et al., 1999	10-35
                10.5.13 Burger, I, 2000	10-35
                10.5.14 Williams et al., 2000	10-36
                10.5.15 Benson etal., 2001	10-36
                10.5.16 Campbell etal., 2002	10-37
        10.6     NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES	10-38
                10.6.1  Wolfe and Walker, 1987	10-38
                10.6.2  Chemrisk, 1992	10-39
                10.6.3  CRITFC, 1994	10-39
                10.6.4  Peterson etal.,  1994	10-40
                10.6.5  Fitzgerald et al., 1995	10-41


Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                Page
July 2009                                                                                    xxxvii

-------
EFH
10.6.6 Toyetal., 1996 10-42
10.6.7 Duncan, 2000 10-43
10.6.8 Polissaretal, 2006 10-44
10.7 OTHER POPULATION STUDIES 10-45
10.7.1 U.S. EPA, 1999 10-45
10.8 SERVING SIZE STUDIES 10-46
10.8.1 Paoetal., 1982 10-46
10.8.2 Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002 10-46
10.9 OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER FOR FISH CONSUMPTION 10-46
10.9.1 Conversion Between Wet and Dry Weight 10-47
10.9.2 Conversion Between Wet Weight and Lipid Weight Intake Rates 10-47
10.10 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 10-48

APPENDIX 10A 10A-1
APPENDIX 10B 10B-1

Table 10-1. Recommended Values for General Population Fish Intake 10-5
Table 10-2. Confidence in Recommendations for General Population Fish Intake 10-6
Table 10-3. Recommended Values for Recreational Marine Fish Intake 10-7
Table 10-4. Confidence in Recommendations for Recreational Marine Fish Intake 10-8
Table 10-5. Summary of Relevant Studies on Freshwater Recreational Fish Intake 10-9
Table 10-6. Summary of Relevant Studies on Native American Subsistence Fish Intake 10-10
Table 10-7. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for the U.S.
Population (As Prepared) 10-52
Table 10-8. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption U.S. Population - Mean Consumption
by Species Within Habitat - As Prepared Fish 10-53
Table 10-9. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for the U.S.
Population (Uncooked Fish Weight) 10-54
Table 10-10. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption U.S. Population - Mean
Consumption by Species Within Habitat - Uncooked Fish 10-55
Table 10-11. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - As Prepared 10-56
Table 10-12. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) - As Prepared 10-58
Table 10-13. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) -
Uncooked Fish Weight 10-60
Table 10-14. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) - Uncooked
Fish Weight 10-62
Table 10-15. Consumer Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - As Prepared 10-64
Table 10-16. Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish)
Intake (mg/kg/day) -As Prepared 10-66
Table 10-17. Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) -
Uncooked Fish Weight 10-68
Table 10-18. Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) -
Uncooked Fish Weight 10-70
Table 10-19. Total Fish Consumption, Consumers Only, by Demographic Variables 10-72
Table 10-20. Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Females andMalesby Age 10-74
Table 10-21. Mean Total Fish Consumption by Species 10-75
Table 10-22. Best Fits of Lognormal Distributions Using the NonLinear Optimization (NLO) Method 10-76
Table 10-23. Mean Fish Intake in a Day, by Sex and Age 10-77
Table 10-24. Percent of Respondents That Responded Yes, No, or Don't Know to Eating Seafood In 1 Month ...
(including shellfish, eels, or squid) 10-78
Table 10-25. Number of Respondents Reporting Consumption of a Specified Number of Servings of
Seafood in 1 Month 10-80
Table 10-26. Number of Respondents Reporting Monthly Consumption of Seafood That Was Purchased or
Caught by Someone They Know 10-82
Page
xxxviii
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
EFH
Table 10-27. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
As-consumed g/kg/day 10-84
Table 10-28. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumer only, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
As-consumed g/kg/day 10-88
Table 10-29. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Acquisition Method,
As-consumed g/kg/day 10-92
Table 10-30. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Acquisition Method,
As-consumed g/kg/day 10-95
Table 10-31 Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Uncooked g/kg/day 10-98
Table 10-32. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumer only, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Uncooked g/kg/day 10-102
Table 10-33. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Acquisition Method,
Uncooked g/kg/day 10-106
Table 10-34. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Acquisition Method,
Uncooked g/kg/day 10-109
Table 10-35. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Subpopulation, and Gender,
As-consumed g/kg/day 10-112
Table 10-36. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Subpopulation, and Gender,
As-consumed g/kg/day 10-114
Table 10-37. Fish Consumption Among General Population Children in Four States, Consumers Only, g/kg-day
As-Consumed 10-117
Table 10-38. Estimated Number of Participants in Marine Recreational Fishing by State and Subregion....lO-119
Table 10-39. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and Bl) by Marine Recreational Fishermen, by
Wave and Subregion 10-120
Table 10-40. Average Daily Intake (g/day) of Marine Finfish, by Region and Coastal Status 10-121
Table 10-41. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and Bl) by Marine Recreational Fishermen by
Species Group and Subregion 10-122
Table 10-42. Percent of Fishing Frequency During the Summer and Fall Seasons in Commencement Bay,
Washington 10-123
Table 10-43. Selected Percentile Consumption Estimates (g/day) for the Survey and Total Angler Populations
Based on the Reanalysis of the Puffer et al. (1981) and Pierce et al. (1981) Data 10-123
Table 10-44. Median Intake Rates Based on Demographic Data of Sport Fishermen and Their Family/
Living Group 10-124
Table 10-45. Cumulative Distribution of Total Fish/Shellfish Consumption by Surveyed Sport Fishermen in the
Metropolitan Los Angeles Area 10-124
Table 10-46. Catch Information for Primary Fish Species Kept by Sport Fishermen (n=1059) 10-125
Table 10-47. Fishing and Crabbing Behavior of Fishermen at Humacao, Puerto Rico 10-125
Table 10-48. Fish Consumption of Delaware Recreational Fishermen and Their Households 10-126
Table 10-49. Seafood Consumption Rates of All Fish by Ethnic and Income Groups of Santa Monica Bay
Consumption Rates of Recreational Marine Fish and Shellfish at Specific Locations 10-127
Table 10-50. Grams Per Day of Self-Caught Fish Consumed by Recreational Anglers -
Alcoa/Lavaca Bay 10-127
Table 10-51. Number of Meals and Portion Sizes of Self-Caught Fish Consumed by Recreational Anglers
LavacaBay, Texas 10-128
Table 10-52. Consumption Patterns of People Fishing and Crabbing in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey 10-129
Table 10-53. Fish Intake Rates of Members of the Loatian Community of West Contra Costa County,
California 10-129
Table 10-54. Consumption Rates (grams/day) among Recent Consumers by Demographic Factor 10-130
Table 10-55. Percentile and Mean Intake Rates for Wisconsin Sport Anglers 10-131
Table 10-56. Mean Fish Intake Among Individuals Who Eat Fish and Reside in Households
With Recreational Fish Consumption 10-131
Table 10-57. Comparison of Seven-Day Recall and Estimated Seasonal Frequency for
Fish Consumption 10-131
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xxxix

-------
EFH
Table 10-58. Distribution of Usual Fish Intake Among Survey Main Respondents Who Fished
And Consumed Recreationally Caught Fish 10-132
Table 10-59. Estimates of Fish Intake Rates of Licensed Sport Anglers in Maine During the
1989-1990 Ice Fishing or 1990 Open-Water Seasons 10-132
Table 10-60. Analysis of Fish Consumption by Ethnic Groups for "All Waters" (g/day) 10-133
Table 10-61. Total Consumption of Freshwater Fish Caught by All Survey Respondents
During the 1990 Season 10-133
Table 10-62. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents 10-134
Table 10-63. Mean Sport-Fish Consumption by Demographic Variables, Michigan Sport
Anglers Fish Consumption Study, 1991-1992 10-135
Table 10-64. Mean Per Capita Freshwater Fish Intake of Alabama Anglers 10-136
Table 10-65. Means and Standard Deviations of Selected Characteristics by Subpopulation
Groups in Everglades, Florida 10-136
Table 10-66. Distribution of Fish Intake Rates (from all sources and from sport-caught sources)
For 1992 Lake Ontario Anglers 10-137
Table 10-67. Mean Annual Fish Consumption (g/day) for Lake Ontario Anglers, 1992, by
Sociodemographic Characteristics 10-137
Table 10-68. Seafood Consumption Rates of Nine Connecticut Population Groups (Cooked,
Edible Meat, g/day) 10-138
Table 10-69. Fishing Patterns and Consumption Rates of People Fishing Along the Savannah
River (Mean ± SE) 10-138
Table 10-70. Fish Consumption Rates for Indiana Anglers - Mail Survey, g/day 10-138
Table 10-71. Fish Consumption Rates for Indiana Anglers - On-site Survey, g/day 10-139
Table 10-72. Consumption of Sport-Caught and Purchased Fish by Minnesota and North
Dakota Residents, g/day 10-140
Table 10-73. Fishing Patterns and Consumption Rates of Anglers along the Clinch River Arm
of Watts Bar Reservoir (Mean ±SE) 10-141
Table 10-74. Number of Grams Per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult Respondents
(Consumers and Non-consumers Combined) - Throughout the Year 10-142
Table 10-75. Fish Intake Throughout the Year by Sex, Age, and Location by All Adult Respondents 10-142
Table 10-76. Fish Consumption Rates among Native American Children (age 5 years and under) 10-143
Table 10-77. Number of Fish Meal Eaten per Month and Fish Intake Among Native American
Children who Consume Particular Species 10-143
Table 10-78. Sociodemographic Factors and Recent Fish Consumption 10-144
Table 10-79. Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period for All Respondents 10-144
Table 10-80. Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period for
All Respondents and Consumers Only 10-145
Table 10-81. Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period and Selected
Characteristics for All Respondents (Mohawk, N=97; Control, N=154) 10-145
Table 10-82. Percentile and Mean of Adult Tribal Member Consumption Rates (g/kg/day) 10-146
Table 10-83. Median and Mean Consumption Rates by Gender (g/kg/day) Within Each Tribe 10-147
Table 10-84. Median Consumption Rate for Total Fish by Gender and Tribe (g/day) 10-147
Table 10-85. Percentiles of Adult Consumption Rates by Age (g/kg/day) 10-148
Table 10-86. Median Consumption Rates by Income (g/kg/day) Within Each Tribe 10-149
Table 10-87. Mean, 50th, and 90th Percentiles of Consumption Rates for Children Age Birth to
Five Years (g/kg/day) 10-150
Table 10-88. Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day): Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups 10-151
Table 10-89. Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) for Consumers Only 10-152
Table 10-90. Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) by Gender 10-155
Table 10-91. Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) by Age 10-156
Table 10-92. Consumption Rates for Native American Children (g/kg/day), All Children
(including non-consumers): Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups 10-158
Table 10-93. Consumption Rates for Native American Children (g/kg/day), Consumers Only:
Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups 10-159
Page
xl
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
EFH
Table 10-94. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates for Adult Consumers Only (g/kg/day) 10-160
Table 10-95 Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Gender for Adult Consumers Only
(g/kg/day) 10-161
Table 10-96. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Age for Adult Consumers Only -
Squaxin Island Tribe (g/kg/day) 10-163
Table 10-97. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Age for Adult Consumers Only -
Tulalip Tribe (g/kg/day) 10-165
Table 10-98. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates for Child Consumers Only (g/kg/day) 10-166
Table 10-99. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Gender for Child Consumers Only
(g/kg/day) 10-167
Table 10-100. Consumption Rates of API Community Members 10-168
Table 10-101. Demographic Characteristics of "Higher" and "Lower" Seafood Consumers 10-169
Table 10-102. Seafood Consumption Rates by Ethnicity for Asian and Pacific Islander Community
(g/kg/day) 10-170
Table 10-103. Consumption Rates by Gender for All Asian and Pacific Islander Community 10-174
Table 10-104. Types of Seafood Consumed/Respondents Who Consumed (%) 10-175
Table 10-105. Distribution of Quantity of Fish Consumed (in grams) Per Eating Occasion,
by Age and Sex 10-176
Table 10-106. Distribution of Quantity of Canned Tuna Consumed (grams) Per Eating Occasion,
by Age and Sex 10-177
Table 10-107. Distribution of Quantity of Other Finfish Consumed (grams) Per Eating Occasion,
by Age and Sex 10-178
Table 10-108. Percentage of Individuals Using Various Cooking Methods at Specified Frequencies 10-179
Table 10-109. Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content for Selected Species 10-180
Table 10B-1. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Residence Size 10B-2
Table 10B-2. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Age 10B-3
Table 10B-3. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Ethnicity 10B-4
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xli

-------
EFH
11 INTAKE OF MEATS, DAIRY PRODUCTS AND FATS 11-1
11.1 INTRODUCTION 11-1
11.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 11-2
11.3 INTAKE OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS 11-6
11.3.1 Key Meat and Dairy Intake Study 11-6
11.3.1.1 U.S. EPA Analysis of CSFII1994-96, 1998, Based on USDA (2000)
and U.S. EPA (2000) 11-6
11.3.2 Relevant Meat and Dairy Intake Studies 11-7
11.3.2.1 USDA, 1980, 1992, 1996a, 1996b 11-7
11.3.2.2 USDA, 1999a 11-7
11.3.2.3 Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002 11-8
11.3.2.4 Vitolins et al., 2002 11-8
11.3.2.5 Fox et al., 2004 11-9
11.3.2.6 Ponzaetal., 2004 11-9
11.3.2.7 Mennellaetal., 2006 11-10
11.3.2.8 Fox etal., 2006 11-10
11.4 INTAKE OF FAT 11-10
11.4.1 Key Fat Intake Study 11-10
11.4.1.1 U.S. EPA, 2007 11-10
11.4.2 Relevant Fat Intake Study 11-11
11.4.2.1 Cresanta et al., 1988; Nicklas etal., 1993; and Frank etal., 1986 11-11
11.5 CONVERSION BETWEEN WET AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES 11-12
11.6 CONVERSION BETWEEN WET WEIGHT AND LIPID WEIGHT INTAKE RATES 11-12
11.7 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11 11-12

APPENDIX 11A 11A-1
Table 11-1. Recommended Values for Intake of Meats, Dairy Products, and Fats, As Consumed 11-3
Table 11-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Meats, Dairy Products, and Fats 11-5
Table 11-3. Per Capita Intake of Total Meat and Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed) 11-14
Table 11-4. Consumer Only Intake of Total Meat and Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed) 11-16
Table 11-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Meats and Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed) 11-18
Table 11-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Meats and Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed) 11-19
Table 11-7. Mean Meat Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
for 1977-1978 11-20
Table 11-8. Mean Meat Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
for 1987-1988 11-21
Table 11-9. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
for 1977-1978 11-22
Table 11-10. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
for 1987-1988 11-23
Table 11-11. Mean Meat Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
for 1994 and 1995 11-24
Table 11-12. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
for 1994 and 1995 11-25
Table 11-13. Mean Quantities of Meat and Eggs consumed Daily by Sex and Age, Per Capita (g/day).... 11 -26
Table 11-14. Percentage of Individuals Consuming Meats and Eggs, by Sex and Age (%) 11-27
Table 11-15. Mean Quantities of Dairy Products Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, Per Capita (g/day)... 11-28
Table 11-16. Percentage of Individuals Consuming Dairy Products, by Sex and Age (%) 11-29
Table 11-17. Quantity (as consumed) of Meat and Dairy Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and
Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days 11-30
Page
xlii
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
EFH
Table 11-18 Consumption of Milk, Yogurt and Cheese: Median Daily Servings (and Ranges) by
Demographic and Health Characteristics 11-32
Table 11-19. Characteristics of FITS Sample Population 11-33
Table 11-20. Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Meat or Other Protein Sources 11-34
Table 11-21. Characteristics of WIC Participants and Non-participants (Percentages) 11-35
Table 11-22. Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC Participation Status 11-36
Table 11-23. Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different
Types of Milk, Meats or Other Protein Sources on A Given Day 11-36
Table 11-24. Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Meats and Dairy Products Commonly
Consumed by Infants from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 11-37
Table 11-25. Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Meats and Dairy Products Commonly
Consumed by Toddlers from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 11-37
Table 11-26. Total Fat Intake (Per capita; g/day) 11-38
Table 11-27. Total Fat Intake (Per capita; g/kg-day) 11-40
Table 11-28. Total Fat Intake (Consumers Only; g/day) 11-42
Table 11-29. Total Fat Intake (Consumers Only; g/kg-day) 11-44
Table 11-30. Total Fat Intake - Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers (Consumers Only; g/day) 11-46
Table 11-31. Total Fat Intake - Top 10%of Animal Fat Consumers (Consumers Only; g/kg-day) 11-48
Table 11-32. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study,
1973-1982 (g/day) 11-50
Table 11-33. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study,
1973-1982 (g/kg-day) 11-52
Table 11-34. Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content of Selected Meat and Dairy Products 11-54

Table 11A-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96, 1998 USDA CSFII Data 11A-2
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xliii

-------
EFH
12
INTAKE OF GRAIN PRODUCTS 12-1
12.1 INTRODUCTION 12-1
12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 12-2
12.3 INTAKE STUDIES OF GRAIN PRODUCTS 12-5
12.3.1 Key Grain Intake Study 12-5
12.3.1.1 U.S. EPA Analysis of CSFII1994-96, 1998 12-5
12.3.2 Relevant Grain Intake Studies 12-6
12.3.2.1 USDA, 1980 12-6
12.3.2.2 USDA, 1999a 12-6
12.3.2.3 USDA, 1999b 12-7
12.3.2.4 Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002 12-7
12.3.2.5 Vitolins et. al., 2002 12-8
12.3.2.6 Fox etal., 2004 12-8
12.3.2.7 Ponzaetal., 2004 12-9
12.3.2.8 Fox etal., 2006 12-9
12.3.2.9 Mennellaetal., 2006 12-9
12.4 CONVERSION BETWEEN WET AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES 12-10
12.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12 12-10

APPENDIX 12A 12A-1

Table 12-1. Recommended Values for Intake of Grains, As Consumed 12-3
Table 12-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Grain Products 12-4
Table 12-3. Per Capita Intake of Total Grains (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-12
Table 12-4. Consumer Only Intake of Total Grains (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-13
Table 12-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Grain Products (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-14
Table 12-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Grain Products (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-15
Table 12-7. Per Capita Intake of Breads (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-16
Table 12-8. Per Capita Intake of Sweets (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-17
Table 12-9. Per Capita Intake of Snacks Containing Grains (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-18
Table 12-10. Per Capita Intake of Breakfast Foods (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-19
Table 12-11. Per Capita Intake of Pasta (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-20
Table 12-12. Per Capita Intake of Cooked Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-21
Table 12-13. Per Capita Intake of Ready-to-Eat Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-22
Table 12-14. Per Capita Intake of Baby Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed) 12-23
Table 12-15 Mean Daily Intakes of Grains Per Individual in a Day for USDA 1977-78, 87-88, 89-91,
94, and 95 Surveys 12-24
Table 12-16. Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed) for
1977-1978 12-24
Table 12-17. Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed) for
1987-1988 12-25
Table 12-18. Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed) for
1994 and 1995 12-25
Table 12-19. Per Capita Consumption of Flour and Cereal Products in 1997 12-26
Table 12-20. Mean Quantities of Grain Products Consumed by Children Under 20 Years of Age,
by Sex and Age, Per Capita (g/day) 12-27
Table 12-21. Percentage of Individuals Under 20 Years of Age Consuming Grain Products, by Sex
andAge(%) 12-28
Table 12-22. Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the
Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days 12-29
Table 12-23. Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and
Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days, by Sex and Age 12-30
Table 12-24. Consumption of Major Food Groups by Older Adults: Median Daily Servings (and
Page
xliv
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
                Ranges) by Demographic and Health Characteristics	12-32
Table 12-25.     Characteristics of the FITS Sample Population	12-33
Table 12-26.     Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Grain Products	12-34
Table 12-27.     Characteristics of WIC Participants and Non-participants (Percentages)	12-35
Table 12-28.     Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC Participation Status	12-36
Table 12-29.     Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Grain Products Commonly Consumed
                by Infants from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	12-37
Table 12-30.     Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Grain Products Commonly Consumed
                by Toddlers from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	12-37
Table 12-31.     Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different
                Types of Grain Products on A Given Day	12-38
Table 12-32.     Mean Moisture Content of Selected Grain Products Expressed as Percentages of Edible
                Portions (grams per lOOg of Edible Portion)	12-39

Table 12A-1.     Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96,  1998 USDA CSFII Data	12A-2
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                Page
July 2009                                                                                       xlv

-------
                                                                                EFH
13
INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS	13-1
        13.1    INTRODUCTION	13-1
        13.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	13-1
        13.3    KEY STUDY FOR INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS	13-4
               13.3.1 U.S. EPA Analysis of NFCS1987-1988 (1997); Moya and Phillips (2001)	13-4
        13.4    RELEVANT STUDY FOR INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS	13-8
               13.4.1 National Gardening Association (2009)	13-8
13.5    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 13	13-8

APPENDIX 13A FOOD CODES AND DEFINITIONS OF MAJOR FOOD GROUPS USED IN ANALYSIS
               OF THE 1987-1988 USDA NFCS DATA TO ESTIMATE HOME-PRODUCED INTAKE
               RATES	13A-1
APPENDIX 13B 1987-1988 NFCS FOOD CODES AND DEFINITIONS OF INDIVIDUAL FOOD ITEMS
               USED IN ESTIMATING FRACTION OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD INTAKE THAT IS
               HOME-PRODUCED	13B-1



Table 13-1.      Summary of Recommended Values for Intake of Home-produced Foods (Consumers Only)	13-2
Table 13-2.      Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Home-produced Foods	13-3
Table 13-3.      Sub-category Codes and Definitions	13-10
Table 13-4.      Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations (Individuals) for NFCS Data Used in
               Analysis of Food Intake	13-11
Table 13-5.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) -All Regions Combined	13-12
Table 13-6.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Northeast	13-13
Table 13-7.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Midwest	13-14
Table 13-8.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day)- South	13-15
Table 13-9.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - West	13-16
Table 13-10.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined	13-17
Table 13-11.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Northeast	13-18
Table 13-12.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Midwest	13-19
Table 13-13.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day)- South	13-20
Table 13-14.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - West	13-21
Table 13-15.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined	13-22
Table 13-16.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Northeast	13-23
Table 13-17.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Midwest	13-24
Table 13-18.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day)- South	13-25
Table 13-19.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day) -West	13-26
Table 13 -20.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined	13-27
Table 13-21.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - Northeast	13-28
Table 13-22.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day)-Midwest	13-29
Table 13-23.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - South	13-30
Table 13-24.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day)-West	13-31
Table 13-25.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - All Regions	13-32
Table 13-26.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Northeast	13-33
Table 13-27.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Midwest	13-34
Table 13-28.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day)-South	13-35
Table 13-29.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - West	13-36
Table 13-30.     Seasonally Adjusted Consumer Only Homegrown Intake (g/kg-day)	13-37
Table 13-31.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Apples (g/kg-day)	13-38
Table 13-32.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Asparagus (g/kg-day)	13-39
Table 13-33.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Beef (g/kg-day)	13-40
Table 13-34.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Beets (g/kg-day)	13-41
Table 13-35.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Broccoli (g/kg-day)	13-42
Page
xlvi
                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                               Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
Table 13-36.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cabbage (g/kg-day)	13-43
Table 13-37.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Carrots (g/kg-day)	13-44
Table 13-38.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Corn (g/kg-day)	13-45
Table 13-39.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cucumbers (g/kg-day)	13-46
Table 13-40.    Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Eggs (g/kg-day)	13-47
Table 13-41.    Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Game (g/kg-day)	13-48
Table 13-42.    Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Lettuce (g/kg-day)	13-49
Table 13-43.    Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Lima Beans (g/kg-day)	13-50
Table 13-44.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Okra (g/kg-day)	13-51
Table 13-45.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Onions (g/kg-day)	13-52
Table 13-46.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Berries (g/kg-day)	13-53
Table 13-47.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peaches (g/kg-day)	13-54
Table 13-48.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pears (g/kg-day)	13-55
Table 13-49.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peas (g/kg-day)	13-56
Table 13-50.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peppers (g/kg-day)	13-57
Table 13-51.    Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Pork (g/kg-day)	13-58
Table 13-52.    Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Poultry (g/kg-day)	13-59
Table 13-53.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pumpkins (g/kg-day)	13-60
Table 13-54.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Snap Beans (g/kg-day)	13-61
Table 13-55.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Strawberries (g/kg-day)	13-62
Table 13-56.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Tomatoes (g/kg-day)	13-63
Table 13-57.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown White Potatoes (g/kg-day)	13-64
Table 13-58.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Fruit (g/kg-day)	13-65
Table 13-59.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Fruits (g/kg-day)	13-66
Table 13-60.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-67
Table 13-61.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-68
Table 13-62.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Root Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-69
Table 13-63.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Dark Green Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-70
Table 13-64.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Deep Yellow Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-71
Table 13-65.    Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-72
Table 13-66.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Citrus (g/kg-day)	13-73
Table 13-67.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Fruit (g/kg-day)	13-74
Table 13-68.    Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-Produced	13-75
Table 13-69.    Percent Weight Losses from Food Preparation	13-79
Table 13-70.    2008 Food Gardening by Demographic Factors	13-80
Table 13-71.    Percentage of Gardening Households Growing Different Vegetables in 2008	13-81
Table 13A-1.    Food Codes and Definitions of Major Food Groups Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988
               USD A NFCS Data to Estimate Intake of Home-produced Foods	13A-2
Table 13B-1.    Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988
               USDA NFCS Household Data to Estimate Fraction of Food Intake  that is Home-produced.... 13B-2
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 xlvii

-------
                                                                                    EFH
14
TOTAL DIETARY INTAKE	14-1
        14.1    INTRODUCTION	14-1
        14.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	14-1
        14.3    KEY STUDY OF TOTAL FOOD INTAKE	14-4
               14.3.1   U.S. EPA, 2007	14-4
        14.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 14	14-5


Table 14-1.     Recommended Values for Per Capita Total Intake of Foods, As Consumed	14-2
Table 14-2.     Confidence in Recommendations for Total Food Intake	14-3
Table 14-3.     Per Capita Total Food Intake	14-6
Table 14-4.     Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, As Consumed)	14-7
Table 14-5.     Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg-day, As Consumed) .14-11
Table 14-6.     Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Food Intake	14-15
Table 14-7.     Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat Intake	14-19
Table 14-8.     Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat and Dairy Intake	14-23
Table 14-9.     Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fish Intake	14-27
Table 14-10.    Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fruit and Vegetable Intake	14-31
Table 14-11.    Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Dairy Intake	14-35
Page
xlviii
                                                             Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                  Jufy2009

-------
EFH
15
HUMAN MILK INTAKE 15-1
15.1 INTRODUCTION 15-1
15.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 15-1
15.2.1 Human Milk Intake 15-2
15.2.2 Lipid Content and Lipid Intake 15-2
15.3 KEY STUDIES ON HUMAN MILK INTAKE 15-9
15.3.1 Paoetal, 1980 15-9
15.3.2 Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983 15-9
15.3.3 Butteetal., 1984 15-9
15.3.4 Neville et al., 1988 15-10
15.3.5 Dewey etal., 1991a,b 15-10
15.3.6 Butte, etal., 2000 15-11
15.3.7 Arcus-Arthetal., 2005 15-11
15.4 KEY STUDIES ON LIPID CONTENT AND LIPID INTAKE FROM HUMAN MILK 15-12
15.4.1 Butteetal., 1984 15-12
15.4.2 Mitoulas et al., 2002 15-13
15.4.3 Mitoulas etal., 2003 15-13
15.4.4 Arcus-Arth etal., 2005 15-14
15.4.5 Kent et al., 2006 15-14
15.5 RELEVANT STUDY ON LIPID INTAKE FROM HUMAN MILK 15-14
15.5.1 Maxwell and Burmaster, 1993 15-14
15.6 OTHER FACTORS 15-15
15.6.1 Population of Nursing Infants 15-15
15.6.2 Intake Rates Based on Nutritional Status 15-17
15.6.3 Frequency and Duration of Feeding 15-17
15.7 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 15 15-18

Table 15-1. Recommended Values for Human Milk And Lipid Intake Rates for Exclusively Breastfed
Infants 15-3
Table 15-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Human Milk Intake 15-4
Table 15-3. Human Milk Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies for Exclusively Breast-fed Infants
(mL/day) 15-5
Table 15-4. Human Milk Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies for Exclusively Breast-fed Infants
(mL/kg/day) 15-6
Table 15-5. Lipid Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies for Exclusively Breastfed Infants (mL/day).... 15-7
Table 15-6. Lipid Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies for Exclusively Breast-fed Infants
(mL/kg/day) 15-8
Table 15-7. Daily Intakes of Human Milk 15-20
Table 15-8. Human Milk Intakes for Infants Aged 1 to 6 Months 15-20
Table 15-9. Human Milk Intake Among Exclusively Breast-fed Infants During the First 4 Months
of Life 15-20
Table 15-10. Human Milk Intake During a 24-hour Period 15-21
Table 15-11. Human Milk Intake Estimated by the Darling Study 15-22
Table 15-12. Mean Breastfed Infants Characteristics 15-22
Table 15-13. Mean Human Milk Intake of Breastfed Infants (mL/day) 15-22
Table 15-14. Feeding Practices by Percent of Infants 15-23
Table 15-15. Body Weight of Breastfed Infants 15-23
Table 15-16. AAP Dataset Milk Intake Rates at Different Ages 15-24
Table 15-17. Average Daily Human Milk Intake (mL/kg day) 15-24
Table 15-18. Lipid Content of Human Milk and Estimated Lipid Intake Among Exclusively Breast-fed
Infants 15-25
Table 15-19. Human Milk Production and Composition Over the First 12 Months of Lactation 15-25
Table 15-20. Changes in Volume of Human Milk Produced and Milk Fat Content Over the First Year of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
xlix

-------
EFH
Lactation 15-26
Table 15-21. Changes in Fatty Acid Composition of Human Milk Overthe First Year of Lactation
(g/100 g total fatty acids) 15-26
Table 15-22. Comparison of Lipid Content Assumptions (mL/kg-day) 15-27
Table 15-23. Distribution of Average Daily Lipid Intake (mL/kg day) assuming 4% Milk Lipid Content 15-27
Table 15-24. Predicted Lipid Intakes for Breast-fed Infants Under 12 Months of Age 15-27
Table 15-25. Socio-economic Characteristics of Exclusively Breast-fed Infants Born in 2004 15-28
Tablel5-26. Geographic-specific Breastfeeding Percent Rates Among Children Born in 2004 15-29
Table 15-27. Percentage of Mothers in Developing Countries by Feeding Practices for Infants 0-6
Months Old 15-31
Table 15-28. Percentage of Mothers in Developing Countries by Feeding Practices for Infants 6-12
Months Old 15-32
Table 15-29. Population Weighted Averages of Mothers Who Reported Selected Feeding Practices
During the Previous 24-hours 15-33
Table 15-30. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Proportion of Children Ever Breastfed, NHANES III
(1988-1994) 15-34
Table 15-31. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Proportion of Children Who Received Any Human Milk
at 6 Months (NHANES III, 1988-1994) 15-36
Table 15-32. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Proportion of Children Exclusively Breastfed at 4
Months (NHANES III, 1991-1994) 15-38
Table 15-33. Percentage of Mothers Breast-feeding Newborn Infants in the Hospital and Infants at 5 or 6
Months of Age in the United States in 1989 and 1995, by Ethnic Background and Selected
Demographic Variables 15-40
Table 15-34. Percentage of Mothers Breast-feeding Newborn Infants in the Hospital and Infants at 6 and
12 Months of Age in the United States in 2003, by Ethnic Background and Selected
Demographic Variables 15-41
Table 15-35. Number of Meals Per Day 15-42
Table 15-36. Comparison of Breastfeeding Patterns Between Age and Groups (Mean±SD) 15-42
Page
I
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
16      ACTIVITY FACTORS	16-1
        16.1    INTRODUCTION	16-1
        16.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	16-1
               16.2.1   Activity Patterns	16-1
               16.2.2   Occupational Mobility	16-2
               16.2.3   Population Mobility	16-2
        16.3    ACTIVITY PATTERNS	16-11
               16.3.1   KEY STUDIES	16-11
                       16.3.1.1 Wiley etal.,  1991  	16-11
                       16.3.1.2 U.S. EPA, 1996	16-12
               16.3.2   RELEVANT STUDIES	16-13
                       16.3.2.1 Hill, 1985	16-13
                       16.3.2.2 Timmeretal., 1985	16-14
                       16.3.2.3 Robinson and Thomas, 1991	16-15
                       16.3.2.4 Funk etal., 1998	16-15
                       16.3.2.5 Hubaletal.,  2000	16-16
                       16.3.2.6 Wong etal.,  2000	16-17
                       16.3.2.7 Graham and  McCurdy, 2004	16-17
                       16.3.2.8 Justeretal., 2004	16-18
                       16.3.2.9 Vanderwater et al., 2004	16-18
                       16.3.2.10  U.S. Department of Labor, 2007	16-18
                       16.3.2.11  Nader etal., 2008	16-19
        16.4    OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY	16-19
               16.4.1   KEY OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY STUDIES	16-19
                       16.4.1.1 Carey, 1988	16-19
                       16.4.1.2 Carey, 1990	16-20
        16.5    POPULATION MOBILITY	16-20
               16.5.1   KEY POPULATION  MOBILITY STUDY	16-20
                       16.5.1.1 Johnson and  Capel (1992)	16-20
                       16.5.1.2 U.S. Bureau  of the Census (2008a)	16-21
               16.5.2   RELEVANT POPULATION MOBILITY STUDIES	16-21
                       16.5.2.1 Israeli and Nelson (1992)	16-21
                       16.5.2.2 National Association of Realtors (NAR) (1993)	16-22
                       16.5.2.3 U.S. Bureau  of the Census (2008b)	16-22
        16.6    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 16	16-22


Table 16-1.     Recommended Values for Activity Patterns	16-3
Table 16-2.     Confidence in Recommendations for Activity Patterns	16-6
Table 16-3      Recommended Values for Occupational Mobility	16-7
Table 16-4      Confidence in Recommendations for Occupational Mobility	16-8
Table 16-5.     Recommended Values for Population Mobility	16-9
Table 16-6.     Confidence in Recommendations for Population Mobility	16-10
Table 16-7.     Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Ten Major Activity
               Categories, for All Respondents and Doers	16-25
Table 16-8.     Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Ten Major Activity
               Categories, by Age and Gender	16-26
Table 16-9.     Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Ten Major Activity
               Categories, Grouped by Seasons and Regions	16-27
Table 16-10.    Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Six Major Location
               Categories, for All Respondents and Doers	16-27
Table 16-11.    Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Six Location
               Categories, Grouped by Age and Gender	16-28
Table 16-12.    Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Six Location
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
    li

-------
                                                                                    EFH
               Categories, Grouped by Season and Region	16-29
Table 16-13.    Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Proximity to
               Two Potential Sources of Exposure, Grouped by All Respondents, Age, and Gender	16-29
Table 16-14.    Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent Indoors and
               Outdoors, Grouped by Age and Gender	16-30
Table 16-15.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined Whole
               Population and Doers Only, Children <21 Years	16-31
Table 16-16.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined,
               Doers Only	16-34
Table 16-17.    Time Spent (minutes/day) at Selected Indoor Locations Whole Population and Doers Only,
               Children <21 Years	16-42
Table 16-18.    Time Spent (minutes/day) at Selected Indoor Locations, Doers Only	16-43
Table 16-19.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations Whole Population and Doers
               Only, Children <21 Years	16-50
Table 16-20.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations, Doers Only	16-51
Table 16-21.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) Inside and Outside, by Age Category, Children <21 Years... 16-57
Table 16-22.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) Outside and Iside, Adults 18 Years and Older, Doers Only... 16-57
Table 16-23.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined Whole
               Population and Doers Only, Children <21 Years	16-58
Table 16-24.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined, Doers Only	16-60
Table 16-25.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities Whole Population and Doers Only,
               Children <21 Years	16-64
Table 16-26.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only	16-67
Table 16-27.    Number of Showers Taken per Day, by Number of Respondents, Children <21 Years	16-78
Table 16-28.    Time Spent (minutes) Bathing, Showering, and in Bathroom Immediately after Bathing and
               Showering, Children <21 Years	16-79
Table 16-29.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) and Bathing/Showering, Adults 18 Years and Older,
               Doers Only	16-80
Table 16-30.    Number of Times Respondent Took Shower or Bathed, Doers Only	16-81
Table 16-31.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Bathing and Showering, Doers Only 	16-83
Table 16-32.    Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by the
               Number of Respondents, Children <21 Years	16-84
Table 16-33.    Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by the
               Number of Respondents, Doers Only	16-85
Table 16-34.    Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of
               Respondents, Children <21 Years	16-86
Table 16-35.    Time Spent (minutes/month) Swimming in Freshwater Swimming Pool, Children <21
               Years	16-86
Table 16-36.    Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of
               Respondents, Doers Only	16-87
Table 16-37.    Time spent (minutes/month) in Freshwater Swimming Pool, Doers Only	16-90
Table 16-38.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Playing on Dirt, Sand/Gravel, or Grass Whole Population and
               Doers only, Children <21 Years	16-91
Table 16-39.    Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Selected Outdoor Surfaces (minutes/day),
               Doers Only	16-92
Table 16-40.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air, Children
               <21 Years	16-95
Table 16-41.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air, Doers Only	16-96
Table 16-42.    Time Spent (minutes/day) with Smokers Present, Children <21 Years	16-97
Table 16-43.    Time Spent (minutes/day) with Smokers Present, Doers Only	16-98
Table 16-44.    Mean Time Spent (hours/week) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Regions	16-99
Page
Hi
Exposure Factors Handbook
                     Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
Table 16-45.    Total Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Type
               of Day	16-99
Table 16-46.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories During Four Waves of
               Interviews	16-100
Table 16-47.    Mean Time Spent (hours/week) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Gender	16-100
Table 16-48.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) Performing Major Activities, by Age, Sex and Type
               of Day	16-101
Table 16-49.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Major Activities, by Type of Day for Five Different
               Age Groups	16-102
Table 16-50.    Mean Time Spent (hours/day) Indoors and Outdoors, by Age and Day of the Week	16-103
Table 16-51.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age Groups for the
               National and California Surveys	16-104
Table 16-52.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Total
               Sample and Gender for the CARD and National Studies (age 18-64 years)	16-105
Table 16-53.    Total Mean Time Spent at Three Major Locations Grouped by Total Sample and Gender
               forthe CARB and National Study (ages 18-64 years)	16-105
Table 16-54.    Mean Time Spent at Three Locations for both CARB and National Studies (ages 12 years
               and older)	16-106
Table 16-55.    Gender and Age Groups	16-106
Table 16-56.    Assignment of At-Home Activities to Inhalation Rate Levels for All Individuals	16-107
Table 16-57.    Aggregate Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home in Activity Groups	16-108
Table 16-58.    Comparison of Mean Time Spent  (minutes/day) At-Home, by Gender	16-108
Table 16-59.    Comparison of Mean Time Spent  (minutes/day) At-Home, by Gender and Age for Children 16-109
Table 16-60.    Number of Person-Days/Individuals for Children Less than 12 Years in CHAD Database	16-109
Table 16-61.    Time Spent (hours/day) in Various Microenvironments, by Age	16-110
Table 16-62.    Mean Time Children Spent (hours/day) Doing Various Macroactivities While Indoors
               at Home	16-110
Table 16-63.    Time Children Spent (hours/day) in Various Microenvironments, by Age Recast into New
               Standard Age Categories	16-111
Table 16-64.    Time Children Spent (hours/day) in Various Macroactivities While Indoors at Home
               Recast Into New Standard Age Categories	16-111
Table 16-65.    Number and Percentage of Respondents with Children and Those Reporting Outdoor Play
               Activities in both Warm and Cold Weather	16-112
Table 16-66.    Play Frequency and Duration for all Child Players (from SCS-II  data)	16-112
Table 16-67.    Hand Washing and Bathing Frequency for all Child Players (from SCS-II data)	16-112
Table 16-68.    NHAPS and SCS-II Play Duration Comparison (Children Only)	16-113
Table 16-69.    NHAPS and SCS-II Hand Wash Frequency Comparison (Children Only)	16-113
Table 16-70.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Outdoors Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)	16-114
Table 16-71.    Comparison of Daily Time Spent Outdoors (minutes/day), Considering Gender and Age
               Cohort (Doers Only)	16-115
Table 16-72.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Indoors Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)	16-116
Table 16-73.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Motor Vehicles Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)	16-117
Table 16-74.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Activity Categories,  by Age - Weekday
               (Children Only)	16-118
Table 16-75.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Activity Categories,  by Age - Weekend Day
               (Children Only)	16-119
Table 16-76.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/week) in Various Activity Categories for Children, Ages 6 to
               17 Years	16-120
Table 16-77.    Time Spent (minutes/two-day period) in Various Activities by Children Participating
               in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), 1997 Child Development Supplement
               (CDS)	16-121
Table 16-78.    Annual Average Time Spent (Hours/Day) on Various Activities According to Age, Race,
               Ethnicity, Marital Status, and Educational Level (ages 15 years and over)	16-122
Table 16-79.    Annual Average Time Use by the U.S. Civilian Population, Ages 15 Years and Older	16-123
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
  /HI

-------
EFH
Table 16-80. Mean Time Use (hours/day) by Children, Ages 15 to 19 Years 16-124
Table 16-81. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity
(Children Only) 16-125
Table 16-82. Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals by Age and Sex 16-125
Table 16-83. Occupational Tenure for Employed Individuals Grouped by Sex and Race 16-126
Table 16-84. Occupational Tenure for Employed Individuals Grouped by Sex and Employment Status 16-126
Table 16-85. Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals Grouped by Major Occupational
Groups and Age 16-126
Table 16-86. Voluntary Occupational Mobility Rates for Workers Age 16 Years and Older 16-127
Table 16-87. Descriptive Statistics for Residential Occupancy Period (years) 16-128
Table 16-88. Descriptive Statistics for Both Genders by Current Age 16-129
Table 16-89. Residence Time of Owner/Renter Occupied Units 16-130
Table 16-90. Percent of Householders Living in Houses for Specified Ranges of Time, and Statistics
for Years Lived in Current Home 16-130
Table 16-91. Values and Their Standard Errors for Average Total Residence Time, T, for Each
Group in Survey 16-131
Table 16-92. Total Residence Time, t (years), Corresponding to Selected Values of R(t) by
Housing Category 16-131
Table 16-93. Summary of Residence Time of Recent Home Buyers (1993) 16-132
Table 16-94. Tenure in Previous Home (Percentage Distribution) 16-132
Table 16-95. Number of Miles Moved (Percentage Distribution) 16-132
Table 16-96. General Mobility, by Race and Hispanic Origin, Region, Sex, Age, Educational
Attainment, Marital Status, Nativity, Tenure, and Poverty Level: 2006 to 2007
(Numbers in thousands) 16-133
Table 16-97. Distance of Intercounty Move, by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin, Educational
Attainment, Marital Status, Nativity, Tenure, Poverty Status, Reason for Move, and
State of Residence 1 Year Ago: 2006 to 2007 16-135
Page
liv
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
EFH
17
CONSUMER PRODUCTS 17-1
17.1 INTRODUCTION 17-1
17.1.1 Background 17-1
17.1.2 Additional Sources of Information 17-1
17.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 17-2
17.3 CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDIES 17-2
17.3.1 CTFA, 1983 17-2
17.3.2 Westat, 1987a 17-3
17.3.3 Westat, 1987b 17-3
17.3.4 Westat, 1987c 17-4
17.3.5 Abt, 1992 17-5
17.3.6 U.S. EPA, 1996 17-5
17.3.7 Bass etal., 2001 17-6
17.3.8 Weegels and van Veen, 2001 17-6
17.3.9 Loretz et al., 2005 17-7
17.3.10 Loretz et al., 2006 17-7
17.3.11 Hall, 2007 17-8
17.3.12 Loretz et al., 2008 17-8
17.3.13 Sathyanarayanaetal., 2008 17-8
17.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 17 17-8

Table 17-1. Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Households 17-11
Table 17-2. Volumes Included in 1992 Simmons Study 17-12
Table 17-3. Amount and Frequency of Use of Various Cosmetic and Baby Products 17-13
Table 17-4. Frequency of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only) 17-15
Table 17-5. Exposure Time of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only) 17-16
Table 17-6. Amount of Products Used for Household Solvent Products (users only) 17-17
Table 17-7. Time Exposed After Duration of Use for Household Solvent Products 17-18
Table 17-8. Total Exposure Time of Performing Task and Product Type Used by Task for Household
Cleaning Products 17-19
Table 17-9. Percentile Rankings for Total Exposure Time in Performing Household Tasks 17-21
Table 17-10. Mean Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Performing Household Tasks 17-22
Table 17-11. Mean and Percentile Ratings for Exposure Time Per Event of Performing Household Tasks... 17-23
Table 17-12. Total Exposure Time for Ten Product Groups Most Frequently Used for Household Cleaning 17-24
Table 17-13. Total Exposure Time of Painting Activity of Interior Painters (hours) 17-24
Table 17-14. Exposure Time of Interior Painting Activity/Occasion (hours) and Frequency of Occasions
Spent Painting Per Year 17-24
Table 17-15. Amount of Paint Used by Interior Painters 17-24
Table 17-16. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Adhesive Removers 17-25
Table 17-17. Adhesive Remover Usage by Gender 17-25
Table 17-18. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Spray Paint 17-26
Table 17-19. Spray Paint Usage By Gender 17-26
Table 17-20. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Paint Removers/Strippers 17-27
Table 17-21. Paint Stripper Usage By Gender 17-27
Table 17-22. Number of Minutes Spent Using Any Microwave Oven (minutes/day) 17-28
Table 17-23. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Freshly Applied
Paints (minutes/day) 17-29
Table 17-24. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Household Cleaning
Agents Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day) 17-29
Table 17-25. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities (at home or elsewhere) Working With
or Near Floorwax, Furniture Wax or Shoe Polish (minutes/day) 17-29
Table 17-26. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Glue (minutes/day) 17-30
Table 17-27. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Solvents, Fumes or
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
Iv

-------
EFH
Strong Smelling Chemicals (minutes/day) 17-30
Table 17-28. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Stain or Spot Removers
(minutes/day) 17-30
Table 17-29. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Gasoline or
Diesel-powered Equipment, Besides Automobiles (minutes/day) 17-31
Table 17-30. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Pesticides,
Including Bug Sprays or Bug Strips (minutes/day) 17-31
Table 17-31. Number of Respondents Using Cologne, Perfume, Aftershave or Other Fragrances at
Specified Daily Frequencies 17-31
Table 17-32. Number of Respondents Using Any Aerosol Spray Product for Personal Care Item
Such as Deodorant or Hair Spray at Specified Daily Frequencies 17-32
Table 17-33. Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home 17-32
Table 17-34. Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by the Professional at
Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies 17-32
Table 17-35. Number of Respondents Reporting Pesticides Applied by the Consumer at Home
to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies 17-33
Table 17-36. Household Demographics, and Pesticide Types, Characteristics, and Frequency of
Pesticide Use 17-34
Table 17-37. Amount and Frequency of Use of Household Products 17-35
Table 17-38. Frequency of Use of Cosmetic Products 17-35
Table 17-39. Amount of Test Product used (grams) for Lipstick, Body Lotion and Face Cream 17-36
Table 17-40. Frequency of Use of Personal Care Products 17-38
Table 17-41. Average Amount of Product Applied per Application (grams) 17-39
Table 17-42. Average Amount of Product Applied per Use Day (grams) 17-40
Table 17-43. Body Lotion Exposure for Consumers Only, (Males and Females) 17-41
Table 17-44. Deodorant/Antiperspirant Spray Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females) -
Under Arms Only 17-42
Table 17-45. Deodorant/Antiperspirant Spray Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females) -
Using Product over Torso and Under Arms 17-43
Table 17-46. Deodorant/Antiperspirant Non-Spray for Consumers Only (Males and Females) 17-44
Table 17-47. Lipstick Exposure for Consumers Only (Females) 17-45
Table 17-48. Facial Moisturizer Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females) 17-46
Table 17-49. Shampoo Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females) 17-47
Table 17-50. Toothpaste Exposure for Consumers only (Males and Females) 17-48
Table 17-51. Average Number of Applications Per Use Day 17-49
Table 17-52. Average Amount of Product Applied Per Use Day (grams) 17-50
Table 17-53. Average Amount of Product Applied Per Application (grams) 17-51
Table 17-54. Characteristics of the Study Population and the Percent Using Selected Baby Care
Products 17-52
Page
hi
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
18.     LIFETIME	1
       18.1    INTRODUCTION	1
       18.2    RECOMMENDATIONS 	1
       18.3    KEY STUDY ON LIFETIME 	4
               18.3.1  Combination of Data Compiled by the Census Bureau	4
       18.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 18	4
Table 18-1.      Recommended Values for Expectation of Life at Birth: 2005	18-2
Table 18-2.      Confidence in Lifetime Expectancy Recommendations	18-3
Table 18-3.      Expectation of Life at Birth, 1970 to 2005, and Projections, 2010 to 2020 (years)	18-5
Table 18-4.      Expectation of Life by Race, Sex and Age: 2005	18-6
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                             Page
July 2009                                                                                  Mi

-------
EFH
19.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS 19-1
19.1 INTRODUCTION 19-1
19.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 19-2
19.3 BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS STUDIES 19-6
19.3.1 Volumes of Residence Studies 19-6
19.3.1.2 Versar,1990 19-6
19.3.1.2 Murray, 1996 19-6
19.3.1.3 U.S. DOE, 2005 19-6
19.3.1.1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 19-7
19.3.2 Room Volume, Surface Area, Products and Materials 19-7
19.3.3.1 Room Volume 19-7
19.3.3.2 Surface Areas 19-7
19.3.3.3 Products and Materials 19-7
19.3.4 Mechanical System Configurations 19-8
19.3.5 Type of Foundation 19-9
19.3.5.1 Lucas etal., 1992 19-9
19.3.5.2 U.S. DOE, 2005 19-9
19.4 TRANSPORT RATES STUDIES 19-9
19.4.1 Air Exchange Rates 19-9
19.4.1.1 Nazaroffetal., 1988 19-10
19.4.1.2 Versar, 1990 19-10
19.4.1.3 Koontz and Rector, 1995 19-10
19.4.1.4 Murray and Burmaster, 1995 19-11
19.4.2 Infiltration Models 19-11
19.4.3 Deposition and Filtration 19-12
19.4.3.1 Deposition 19-12
19.4.3.1.1 Thatcher and Layton, 1995 19-12
19.4.3.1.2 Wallace, 1996 19-12
19.4.3.2 Filtration 19-12
19.4.4 Interzonal Airflows 19-13
19.4.5 House Dust and Soil Loadings 19-13
19.4.6.1 Roberts etal., 1991 19-13
19.4.6.2 Thatcher and Layton, 1995 19-13
19.5 SOURCES 19-14
19.5.1 Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants 19-14
19.5.2 Source Descriptions for Waterborne Contaminants 19-15
19.5.3 Soil and House Dust Sources 19-16
19.6 ADVANCED CONCEPTS 19-16
19.6.1 Uniform Mixing Assumption 19-16
19.6.2 Reversible Sinks 19-16
19.7 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 19 19-17

Table 19-1. Recommendations - Residential Parameters 19-4
Table 19-2. Confidence inHouse Volume Recommendations 19-4
Table 19-3. Confidence in Air Exchange Rate Recommendations 19-5
Table 19-4. Summary of Residential Volume Distributions in Cubic Meters 19-21
Table 19-5. Average Estimated Volumes of U.S. Residences, by Housing Type and Ownership 19-22
Table 19-6. Residential Volumes in Relation to Household Size and Year of Construction 19-23
Table 19-7. . Number of Residential Single Detached and Manufactured/mobile Homes by Volume 19-23
Table 19-8. Dimensional Quantities for Residential Rooms 19-24
Table 19-9. Examples of Products and Materials Associated with Floor and Wall Surfaces in Residences. 19-24
Table 19-10. Percent of Residences with Basement, by Census Region and U.S. EPA Region 19-26
Table 19-11. States Associated with U.S. EPA Regions and Census Regions 19-27
Page
Iviii
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
Table 19-12.     Percent of Residences with Certain Foundation Types by Census Region	19-28
Table 19-13.     Summary of Major Projects Providing Air Exchange Measurements in the PFT Database	19-29
Table 19-14.     Summary Statistics for Air Exchange Rates (air changes per hour-ACH), by Region	19-30
Table 19-15.     Distributions of Residential Air Exchange Rates by Climate Region and Season	19-30
Table 19-16.     Particle Deposition During Normal Activities	19-31
Table 19-17.     Deposition Rates for Indoor Particles	19-31
Table 19-18.     Total Dust Loading for Carpeted Areas	19-33
Table 19-19.     Particle Deposition and Resuspension During Normal Activities	19-33
Table 19-20.     Dust Mass Loading After One Week Without Vacuum Cleaning	19-33
Table 19-21.     Simplified Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants	19-34

Figure 19-1.     Elements of Residential Exposure	19-21
Figure 19-2.     Cumulative Frequency Distributions for Residential Volumes	19-22
Figure 19-3.     Configuration for Residential Forced-air Systems	19-25
Figure 19-4.     Idealized Patterns of Particle Deposition Indoors	19-31
Figure 19-5.     Air Flows for Multiple-zone Systems	19-32


GLOSSARY	G-l
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
   lix

-------
                                                                                  EFH
A
AAP
ADAF
ADD
ADI
AF
AIR
Al
ANOVA
API
ARS
ATSDR
ATUS
Ba
BI
BLS
BMD
BMI
BMR
BTM
BW
C
Cdw
*^ww
PA
*-'-rMjrme
^Apool
CARB
CATI
CDC
CDS
CHAD
CI
cm2
cm3
CNRC
C02
CPS
CPSC
CRITFC
CSFII
CT
CTFA
CV
DARLING
OCR
DIY
DK
DLW
DNP
DONALD
EorEE
     ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Ratio of Food Energy Intakes to Basal Metabolic Rate
American Academy of Pediatrics
Age Dependent Potency Adjustment Factors
Average Daily Dose
Average Daily Intake
Adherence Factor
Acid Insoluble Residue
Aluminum
       Analysis of Variance
Asian Pacific Islander
Agricultural Research Service
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
American Time Use Study
Barium
Bootstrap Interval
Bureau of Labor and Statistics
Benchmark Dose
Body Mass Index
Basal Metabolic Rate
Best Tracer Method
Body Weight
Contaminant Concentration
Dry Weight Concentration
Wet Weight Concentration
Concentration of Cyanuric Acid in Urine
Concentration of Cyanuric Acid in Pool Water
California Air Resources Board
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Child Development Supplement
Consolidated Human Activity Database
Confidence Interval
Square Centimeter
Cubic Centimeter
Children's Nutrition Research Center
Carbon Dioxide
Current Population Study
Consumer Product  Safety Commission
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Continuing Survey  of Food Intake by Individuals
Central Tendency
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association
Coefficient of Variation
Davis Area Research on Lactation, Infant Nutrition and Growth
Daily Consumption Rate
Do-it-yourself
Don't Know
Doubly Labeled Water
Did Not Perform
Dortmund Nutritional and Anthropometric Longitudinally Designed
Energy Expenditure or Number of Eaters
Page
be
                                             Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                  Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
EBF
ECG
ED
EFD
El
EL
ENR
EPA
ERS
EVR
F
FAO
FCID
FDA
FITS
FQPA
F/S
g
GAP
GCW
GLM
GM
GSD
H
HEC
HHHQ
HPV
HR
HS
I
IA
ICRP
IEUBK
IPS
IOM
IPCS
IR
IRdw
IRP
JRww
IRIS
K
Kcal
KJ
KS
kg
L
Li
L2
LADD
LCI
Exclusively Breastfed
Energy Cost of Growth
Exposure Duration
Food Energy Intake
Energy Intake
Elementary School
Equivalent Ventilation Rate
Environmental Protection Agency
Economic Research Services
Ventilation Rate per Square Meter of Body Surface Area
Fahrenheit or Frequency of Fishing or Female
Fecal Dry Weight
Breathing Frequency
Concentration of element e in Fecal Sample of Child 1th
Food Agriculture Organization
Food Commodity Intake Database
Food and Drug Administration
Feeding Infant and Toddler Study
Food Quality Protection Act
Food/Soil
Gram
General Assessment Factor
General Construction Worker
General Linear Model
Geometric Mean
Geometric Standard Deviation
Oxygen Uptake Factor
Human Equivalent Exposure Concentrations
Health Habits and History Questionnaire
High Production Volume
Heart Rate
High School
Tabulated Intake Rate
Adjusted Intake Rate
International Commission on Radiological Protection
Integrated Exposure and Uptake Biokinetic Model
Iowa Fluoride Study
Institute of Medicine
International Programme on Chemical Safety
Intake Rate or Inhalation Rate
Dry Weight Intake Rate
Intake Rate Percentile
Wet Weight Intake Rate
Integrated Risk Information System
Number of Activity Periods or Edible Fraction of Fish
Kilocalories
Kilo Joules
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Kilogram
Liter
Cooking or Preparation Loss
Post-cooking Loss
Lifetime Average Daily Dose
Lower Confidence  Interval
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                       Page
                                                                          Ixi

-------
                                                                                   EFH
LCL
LMP
LSRO/FASEB

LTM
M
m2
m3
mg
MJ
mL
METS
Mn
MSA
MSB
MVPA
N
NA
Nc
NT
NAR
NAS
NCEA
NCHS
NCI
NERL
NFCS
NHANES
NHAPS
NHES
NHEXAS
NIS
NLO
NMFS
NOAEL
NPD
NR
NRC
NS
02
03
OPP
ORD
P
P
PAL
PBPK
PC
PDIR
PSID
r
R2
RAGS
ROD
Lower Confidence Limit
Age of Last Menstrual Period
Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology
Limiting Tracer Method
Male
Square Meter
Cubic Meter
Milligram
Mega Joules
Milliliter
Metabolic Equivalents of Work
Manganese
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Multiplicative Standard Error
Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity
Number of Subjects or Respondents
Not Applicable
Weighted Number of Individuals Consuming Homegrown Food Item
Weighted Total Number of Individuals Surveyed
National Association of Realtors
National Academy of Sciences
National Center for Environmental Assessment
National Center for Health Statistics
National Cancer Institute
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
National Human Activity Pattern Survey
National Health Examination Survey
National Human Exposure Assessment Survey
National Immunization Survey
Non-linear Optimization
National Marine Fisheries Service
No-observed-adverse-effect-level
National Purchase Diary
Not Reported
National Research Council
No Statistical Difference
Oxygen
Ozone
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Research and Development
Percentile
Probability
Physical Activity Level
Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic
Percent Consuming
Physiological Daily Inhalation Rate
Panel Study of Income Dynamics
Coefficient of Correlation
Coefficient of Determination
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Random Digit Dial
Page
Ixii
                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                  Jufy2009

-------
 EFH
RfD
RfC
RME
ROP
RQ
RTF
Su
SA
SAB
SA/BW
scs
SD
SDA
SE
SEM
SES
SFEI
Si
SMBRP
SPC
SPS
SRD
T
t;
Ti,e
TDEE
TFEI
Ti
TRI
UCL
UCI
USDA
USDL
USDHHS
UV
V
vpool
^ urine
V02
VQ
VR
VT
W
V/i
WHO
WIC
Y
Z
n
um
Reference Dose
Reference Concentration
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Residential Occupancy Period
Respiratory Quotient
Ready to Feed
Concentration of Element e in Child i's yard
Surface Area
Spontaneous Abortions
Surface Area to Body Weight Ratio
Soil Contact Survey
Standard Deviation
Soaps and Detergent Association
Standard Error
Standard Error of the Mean
Socioeconomic Status
San Francisco Estuary  Institute
Silicon
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
Science Policy Council
Statistical Processing System
Source Ranking Database
Exposure Time
Hours Spent per Day in 1th Activity
Estimated Soil Ingestion for 1th Child Based on Element e
Total Daily Energy Expenditure
Total Food Energy Intake
Titanium
Tuna Research Institute
Upper Confidence Limit
Upper Confidence Interval
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Labor
United States Department of Health and Human Services
Ultraviolet
Vanadium
Volume of Pool f Water
Volume of Urine
Oxygen Consumption Rate
Ventilatory Equivalent
Ventilation Rate
Tidal Volume
Weight
Sample Weight Assigned to Observation xt.
World Health Organization
USDA's Women, Infants, and Children Program
Ytrium
Zirconium
Sample Mean
Micrometer
 i'h observation
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                       Page
                                                                        Ixiii

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 1 — Introduction
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

       NTRODUCTION	1-1
       .1     PURPOSE	1-1
       .2     INTENDED AUDIENCE	1-1
       .3     BACKGROUND	1-1
       .4     SELECTION OF STUDIES FOR THE HANDBOOK	1-2
             1.4.1   General Assessment Factors	1-2
             1.4.2   Selection Criteria	1-3
       1.5     APPROACH USED TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPOSURE FACTORS ....1-5
       1.6     SUGGESTED REFERENCES FOR USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS HANDBOOK	1-6
       1.7     THE USE OF AGE GROUPINGS WHEN ASSESSING EXPOSURE	1-7
       1.8     CONSIDERING LIFE STAGE WHEN CALCULATING EXPOSURE AND RISK	1-9
       1.9     FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT	1-10
             1.9.1   Dose Equations	1-10
             1.9.2   Use of Exposure Factors Data in Probabilistic Analyses	1-12
       1.10    CUMULATIVE EXPOSURES	1-13
       1.11    ORGANIZATION	1-13
       1.12    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1	1-14
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page

-------
                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                     Chapter 1 — Introduction
                                       LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1.      Characterization of Variability in Exposure Factors	1-18
Table 1-2.      Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values	1-19
Table 1-3.      Age-Dependent Potency Adjustment Factors by Age Groups	1-20
Page                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook
1-ii	July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 1 — Introduction
                                   LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1.     The Exposure-Dose Effect Continuum	1-21
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                        Page
July 2009	1-iii

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

-------
           Factors
Chapter 1 —
1
1.1
        The  purpose  of  the  Exposure  Factors
Handbook  is  to (1)  summarize  data on  human
behaviors and characteristics that affect exposure to
environmental  contaminants,  and  (2) recommend
values  to   use  for   these   factors.      These
recommendations are not  legally binding on any U.S.
EPA  program   and   should   be  interpreted  as
suggestions  which  program  offices  or  individual
exposure assessors can  consider  and modify  as
needed. Many of these factors  are best quantified on
a site or situation-specific basis.  The  decision as to
whether to use site-specific or national values for an
assessment   may
depend   on  the
quality   of  the
competing    data
sets as well as on
the purpose of the
specific assessment.   The handbook has strived to
include  full discussions of the issues  that assessors
should consider in deciding how to use these data and
recommendations.
        The  handbook incorporates the changes in
risk assessment practices  that were  first presented in
the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency's (U.S.
EPA) Cancer Guidelines,  regarding  the need to
consider life  stages  rather than as subpopulations
(U.S. EPA,  2005a).   It  also  emphasizes a major
recommendation  in   U.S.  EPAs   Supplemental
Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life
Exposure to Carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 2005b) to sum
exposures and  risks across life stages rather than
relying  on the  use  of  a lifetime  average  adult
exposure to calculate risk.  This handbook also uses
updated information to incorporate any new exposure
factors  data/research  that  have become  available
since it was  last revised in 1997  and is consistent
with  the U.S.  EPA's   new  set  of  standardized
childhood age  groups  (U.S. EPA  2005c),  that are
recommended for  use  in  exposure  assessments.
Available data through June 2009 are included in the
handbook.

1.2     INTENDED AUDIENCE
        The Exposure Factors Handbook is intended
for use  by exposure and risk assessors both within
and  outside the U.S.  EPA as  a reference tool and
primary  source  of  exposure factor information.  It
may  be  used by scientists, economists,  and other
interested parties as a source of data and/or U.S. EPA
recommendations   on   numeric   estimates   for
behavioral and  physiological characteristics  needed
to estimate exposure to toxic contaminants.
1.3
        This handbook is the update of an earlier
version prepared in  1997 (U.S. EPA  1997a) and it
incorporates data from the Child-Specific  Exposure
Factors Handbook that was published in September
2008.   All  chapters have been revised to include
published literature up to June 2009. Some of the
main revisions are highlighted below:

  *   Added data from the United States Department
      of Agriculture Continuing  Survey  of Food
      Intake by Individuals (CSFII1994-96, 98);
                    Added fat intake data and total
                    food intake data;

                    Added mouthing behavior data
                    for children;
   *   Updated    soil    ingestion    rates    for
      children and adults;

   *   Updated data on dermal exposure;

   *   Updated fish intake data;

   *   Updated body  weight data  with  NHANES
      1999 - 2006;

   *   Added body weight data for infants;

   *   Updated   children's   factors   with   new
      recommended  age  groupings   (U.S.  EPA,
      2005c);

   *   Updated life expectancy data with U.S. Bureau
      of Census data 2006;

   *   Updated data on  breast milk ingestion  and
      prevalence of breast feeding;

        This document does not include chemical-
specific  data  or  information on  physiological
parameters  that  may  be  needed  for  exposure
assessments      involving    physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. Information on
the application of PBPK models and supporting data
is found in U.S. EPA (2006a,  2006b).

Variation Among Studies
        This handbook is a compilation of data from
a  variety of  different  sources.   With  very  few
exceptions, the data presented are the analyses of the
individual study authors.  Since the studies included
           Factors
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                             1-1

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
in this handbook varied in terms of their objectives,
design, scope, presentation of results, etc., the level
of detail, statistics, and terminology may vary from
study to study and from factor to factor. For
example, some authors used geometric means to
present their results, while others used arithmetic
means or distributions. Authors have sometimes used
different terms to describe the same racial
populations. Within the constraint of presenting the
original material as accurately as possible, the U.S.
EPA has made an effort to present discussions and
results in a consistent manner and using consistent
terminology. The strengths and limitations of each
study are discussed to provide the reader with a better
understanding of the uncertainties associated with the
values derived from the study.
Because of physiological and behavioral
differences, exposures among children are expected
to be different from exposures among adults.
Children may be more exposed to some
environmental contaminants, because they consume
more of certain foods and water per unit of body
weight and have a higher ratio of body surface area to
volume than adults. Equally important, rapid
changes in behavior and physiology may lead to
differences in exposure as a child grows up.
Recognizing that exposures among infants, toddlers,
adolescents, and teenagers can vary significantly, the
U.S. EPA attempted to reallocate source data for
children into the standard age groups recommended
by the U.S. EPA in the report entitled Guidance on
Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood Exposures to Environmental
Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005c; see Section 1.7),
when sufficiently detailed data are available. U.S.
EPA's recommended set of childhood age groups are:

> Less than 12 months old: birth to <1 month,
1 to <3 months, 3 to <6 months, and 6 to
<12 months.
> Greater than 12 months old: 1 to <2 years, 2
to <3 years, 3 to <6 years, 6 to <11 years, 11
to <16 years, and 16 to <21 years.

Also, in conjunction with the Guidance on
Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood Exposures to Environmental
Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005c), this handbook
adopted the age group notation "X to < Y" (e.g., the
age group 3 to < 6 years is meant to span a 3-year
time interval from a child's 3rd birthday up until the
day before his or her 6th birthday). No specific
guidance is available for presenting adult data. Adult
data are presented using the age groups defined by
the authors of the individual studies.
Most of the data presented in this handbook
are derived from studies that target (1) the general
population (e.g., USDA food consumption surveys)
or (2) a sample population from a specific area or
group (e.g., fish consumption among Native
American children). If it is necessary to characterize
a population that is not directly covered by the data in
this handbook, the risk or exposure assessor may
need to evaluate whether these data may be used as
suitable substitutes for the population of interest or
whether there is a need to seek additional population-
specific data. If information is needed for identifying
and enumerating populations who may be at risk for
greater contaminant exposures or who exhibit a
heightened sensitivity to particular chemicals, the
reader is referred to Socio-demographic Data Used
for Identifying Potentially Highly Exposed
Populations (U.S. EPA, 1999).
Because of the large number of tables in this
handbook, tables are presented at the end of each
chapter, before the appendices, if any.

1.4 SELECTION OF STUDIES FOR THE
HANDBOOK
Information in this handbook has been
summarized from studies documented in the
scientific literature and other publicly available
sources. Studies were chosen that were seen as
useful and appropriate for estimating exposure
factors for both adults and children. The handbook
contains summaries of selected studies published
through June 2009.
Certain studies described in this handbook
are designated as "key," that is, the most useful for
deriving exposure factors. The recommended values
for most exposure factors are based on the results of
the key studies (See Section 1.5). Other studies are
designated "relevant," meaning applicable or
pertinent, but not necessarily the most important.
This distinction was made on the strength of the
attributes listed in Section 1.4.1, "General
Assessment Factors" below.

1.4.1 General Assessment Factors
Many scientific studies were reviewed for
possible inclusion in this handbook. Studies were
designated as key or relevant. Key studies were
generally defined as the most useful for deriving
recommendations for exposure factors. The
recommended values for most exposure factors were
based on the results of these studies. The Agency
recognizes the need to evaluate the quality and
relevance of scientific and technical information used
in support of Agency actions (U.S. EPA 2002, 2003a,
2006c). When evaluating scientific and technical
Page
1-2
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
information, the U.S. EPA's Science Policy  Council
(SPC)  recommends using five General Assessment
Factors (GAFs): (1) soundness, (2) applicability and
utility,  (3) clarity and completeness, (4) uncertainty
and variability, and (5) evaluation and review (U.S.
EPA 2003a).     These  GAFs  were  adapted and
expanded to include specific considerations  deemed
to be important during evaluation of exposure factors
data, and were used to judge  the quality  of  the
underlying data used to derive recommendations.

1.4.2    Selection Criteria
        The   confidence  ratings  for the  various
exposure factor recommendations, and selection of
the  key studies that form  the  basis  for these
recommendations, were  based on  specific   criteria
within  each of the five GAFs, as follows:

(1)  Soundness: Scientific and technical procedures,
measures, methods or models employed to generate
the  information are reasonable for, and  consistent
with, the intended application. The  soundness of the
experimental  procedures  or  approaches in the study
designs of  the  available   studies  were  evaluated
according to the following:

        Adequacy  of the Study Approach Used:
        In general, more confidence was  placed  on
        experimental procedures or approaches that
        more likely or closely captured the  desired
        measurement.      Direct   exposure  data
        collection   techniques,  such  as    direct
        observation, personal monitoring devices, or
        other known methods were preferred where
        available.    If  studies   utilizing   direct
        measurement were  not available,   studies
        were   selected   that  relied  on  validated
        indirect  measurement  methods  such   as
        surrogate measures (such as heart  rate  for
        inhalation rate),  and use of questionnaires.
        If questionnaires  or surveys  were used,
        proper design and procedures include  an
        adequate sample size  for  the  population
        under consideration,  a  response  rate large
        enough to  avoid biases, and  avoidance  of
        bias  in the design of  the  instrument and
        interpretation    of    the   results.    More
        confidence was placed in exposures factors
        that relied  on studies that gave appropriate
        consideration to these study design issues.
        Studies  were also  deemed  preferable  if
        based on primary data, but studies based on
        secondary sources were also included where
        they offered an original analysis.  In  general,
        higher confidence  was placed on exposure
        factors based on primary data.

        Minimal  (or  Defined)  Bias  in  Study
        Design:   Studies were  sought that were
        designed with minimal bias, or at least if
        biases were  suspected to  be present,  the
        direction  of the  bias (i.e.,  an  over  or
        underestimate  of the parameter) was either
        stated or  apparent from the study design.
        More confidence was placed on  exposure
        factors based on studies that minimized bias.

(2)   Applicability and utility: The information is
relevant  for  the  Agency's  intended  use.    The
applicability and utility of the available studies were
evaluated based on the following criteria:

        Focus on  Exposure  Factor of  Interest:
        Studies  were   preferred   that   directly
        addressed the exposure factor of interest, or
        addressed   related   factors   that  have
        significance   for    the    factor   under
        consideration.  As an example of  the latter
        case,  a  selected  study  contained useful
        ancillary information concerning fat content
        in fish, although it did not directly address
        fish consumption.

        Representativeness   of  the  Population:
        More confidence  was placed in studies that
        addressed the  U.S. population.   Data from
        populations    outside   the   U.S.   were
        sometimes included if behavioral patterns or
        other  characteristics   of  exposure  were
        similar.  Studies  seeking  to  characterize a
        particular region or   sub-population were
        selected, if  appropriately  representative  of
        that population.   In cases where data were
        limited, studies with limitations in this area
        were  included and limitations were noted in
        the handbook.   Higher confidence ratings
        were  given  to  exposure  factors where  the
        available  data  were  representative of  the
        population of interest.
        Currency    of    Information:
More
        confidence was placed in studies that were
        sufficiently  recent  to  represent  current
        exposure conditions.  This is an important
        consideration for those factors that change
        with time.   Older data were  evaluated and
        considered in instances where the variability
        of  the  exposure factor over time  was
        determined   to   be   insignificant    or
        unimportant.  In  some  cases, recent  data
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                             1-3

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
were very limited. Therefore, the data
provided in these instances were the only
available data. Limitations on the age of the
data were noted. Recent studies are more
likely to use state-of-the-art methodologies
that reflect advances in the exposure
assessment field. Consequently, exposure
factor recommendations based on current
data were given higher confidence ratings
than those based on older data, except in
cases where the age of the data would not
affect the recommended values.

Adequacy of data collection period:
Because most users of the handbook are
primarily addressing chronic exposures,
studies were sought that utilized the most
appropriate techniques for collecting data to
characterize long-term behavior. Higher
confidence ratings were given to exposure
factor recommendations that were based on
an adequate data collection period.

(3) Clarity and completeness: The degree of clarity
and completeness with which the data, assumptions,
methods, quality assurance, sponsoring organizations
and analyses employed to generate the information
are documented. Clarity and completeness was
evaluated based on the following criteria.

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

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

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

(4) Variability and uncertainty: The variability and
uncertainty (quantitative and qualitative) in
the information or the procedures, measures,
methods or models are evaluated and
characterized. Variability arises from true
heterogeneity across people, places or time
and can affect the precision of exposure
estimates and the degree to which they can
be generalized. The types of variability
include: spatial, temporal, and inter-
individual. Uncertainty represents a lack of
knowledge about factors affecting exposure
or risk and can lead to inaccurate or biased
estimates of exposure. The types of
uncertainty include: scenario, parameter, and
model. The uncertainty and variability
associated with the studies was evaluated
based on the following criteria.

Variability in the population: Studies
were sought that characterized any
variability within populations. The
variability associated with the studies
presented in this handbook is characterized
as described in Section 1.5. Higher
confidence ratings were given to exposure
factors that were based on studies where
variability was well characterized.

Uncertainty: Studies were sought with
minimal uncertainty in the data, which was
judged by evaluating all the considerations
listed above. Studies were preferred that
identified uncertainties, such as those due to
inherent variability in environmental and
exposure-related parameters or possible
measurement error. Higher confidence
ratings were given to exposure factors based
on studies where uncertainty had been
minimized.

(5) Evaluation and review: The information or the
procedures, measures, methods or models
are independently verified, validated, and
peer reviewed. Relevant factors that were
considered included:

Peer review: Studies selected were those
from the peer-reviewed literature and final
government reports. Unpublished and
internal or interim reports were avoided,
where possible, but were used in some cases
to supplement information in published
literature or government reports.

Number and agreement of studies:
Higher confidence was placed on
recommendations where data were available
from more than one key study and there was
good agreement between studies.
Page
1-4
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
1.5     APPROACH  USED   TO   DEVELOP
        RECOMMENDATIONS            FOR
        EXPOSURE FACTORS
        As discussed above,  the  U.S. EPA first
reviewed  the  literature pertaining to  a factor and
determined key studies.  These key studies were used
to derive  recommendations for  the values of each
factor. The recommended values were derived solely
from  the U.S. EPA's  interpretation  of the available
data.   Different values may  be  appropriate for the
user in consideration of policy, precedent, strategy, or
other  factors such as  site-specific information.  The
U.S.    EPA's    procedure    for     developing
recommendations was as follows:

(1) Study Review and Evaluation: Key studies were
evaluated  in terms of both quality and relevance to
specific populations (general U. S.  population, age
groups, gender, etc.).   The criteria for assessing the
quality of studies are described in Section 1.4.

(2) Single versus Multiple Key Studies:  If only one
study  was classified as key for a particular factor, the
mean value from that study was  selected  as  the
recommended central  value for that population.  If
multiple key studies with reasonably equal quality,
relevance,   and  study  design  information  were
available,    a   weighted   mean  (if   appropriate,
considering sample size and other statistical factors)
of the studies was chosen as the recommended mean
value. Recommendations for upper percentiles, when
multiple studies were available, were  calculated  as
the midpoint of the range of upper percentile values
of the studies for each age group where data were
available.

(3) Variability: The variability of the factor across
the population  is discussed.   For  recommended
values, as well as for each of the studies on which the
recommendations   are   base,   variability    was
characterized in one or more of three ways: (1) as a
table with various percentiles or ranges of values; (2)
as analytical distributions with specified parameters;
and/or (3) as a qualitative discussion. Analyses to fit
standard or parametric distributions  (e.g., normal,
lognormal)  to  the exposure  data  have  not been
performed by the authors of this handbook, but have
been reproduced as they were found in the literature.
Recommendations on the  use of these distributions
were made where appropriate based on the adequacy
of the supporting data.  The list of exposure  factors
and   the   way  in  which  variability  has  been
characterized throughout this handbook (i.e., average,
median, upper percentiles, multiple percentiles, fitted
distribution) are presented in Table 1-1.
        In  providing    recommendations for  the
various exposure factors, an attempt was made to
present percentile values that are consistent with the
exposure  estimators   defined  in  Guidelines  for
Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992a) (i.e., mean,
50th,   90th,  95th,  98th,  and  99.9th percentile).
However,  this was not always possible, because the
data available were limited for some factors, or the
authors of the study did not provide such information.
It is important to note, however, that these percentiles
were discussed in the guidelines within the context of
risk descriptors and not individual exposure factors.
For example,  the guidelines  state  that the assessor
may derive a high-end estimate of exposure by using
maximum or near maximum values for one or more
sensitive exposure factors,  leaving others at their
mean value.   The term "upper percentile"  is used
throughout this  handbook,  and  it is intended to
represent values  in the upper tail (i.e., between 90th
and 99.9th percentile) of the distribution of values for
a particular exposure factor.

(4)  Uncertainty:  Uncertainties are discussed in terms
of data limitations,  the range of circumstances over
which the estimates were (or were not)  applicable,
possible biases in the values themselves, a statement
about  parameter uncertainties  (measurement  error,
sampling error) and model or scenario uncertainties if
models or  scenarios   were  used to  derive  the
recommended value.  A discussion of variability  and
uncertainty  for  exposure  factors   is  presented in
Chapter 2 of this handbook.

(5)  Confidence  Ratings:   Finally, the U.S.  EPA
assigned a confidence rating of low, medium or high
to  each recommended value.  This qualitative rating
is not  intended to represent an uncertainty analysis;
rather, it represents the  U.S. EPA's judgment on the
quality of  the underlying data used  to  derive  the
recommendation. This judgment was made using the
General Assessment Factors  (GAFs)  described in
Section 1.4. Table 1-2 provides an adaptation of the
GAFs, as  they pertain to the confidence ratings for
the exposure factor recommendations.   Clearly, there
is a continuum from low to high, and judgment was
used   to   assign  a   rating  to   each   factor.
Recommendations given  in  this  handbook  are
accompanied by  a discussion of the rationale for their
rating.
        It  is important to  note  that  the  study
elements listed in Table 1-2  do not have the same
weight when arriving at the overall confidence rating
for the various exposure factors. The relative weight
of each of these elements for the various factors were
subjective and based on the professional judgment of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                             1-5

-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                            Chapter 1 — Introduction
the authors  of this handbook.   Also, the  relative
weights depend on the exposure factor of  interest.
For example,  the  adequacy of the data collection
period may  be more  important when determining
usual  intake  of foods in a population, but it is not as
important for factors where long-term variability may
be small, such as  tapwater intake.  In the  case  of
tapwater intake, the currency  of  the  data was  a
critical element in determining  the final rating.  In
general,  most  studies ranked high with regard  to
"level of peer  review," "accessibility,"  "focus on the
factor of interest," and "data pertinent to the U.S."
because the U.S. EPA specifically sought studies for
the handbook that met these criteria.
        The elements in Table  1-2 were important
considerations  for  inclusion  of  a study  in this
handbook. However, a high score for these elements
did not necessarily translate into  a high overall score.
Other  considerations  went  into   determining  the
overall score. One such consideration was the ease at
which the exposure factor of interest  could be
measured.  For example, soil ingestion by  children
can be estimated by measuring, in feces, the levels of
certain  elements   found  in soil.   Body  weight,
however, can be measured directly, and it is therefore
a more reliable measurement than estimation of soil
ingestion.   The fact  that soil ingestion is  more
difficult to measure than body weight is reflected in
the overall confidence rating given to  both  of these
factors.  In general, the better the methodology used
to measure  the  exposure factor,   the  higher  the
confidence in the value.

(6) Recommendation  Tables:     The  U.S.  EPA
developed a table  at the beginning  of each chapter
that summarizes the recommended values  for the
relevant  factor.    Table   ES-1  of the  Executive
Summary of this handbook summarizes the principal
exposure factors  addressed in  this handbook and
provides the confidence ratings for each exposure
factor.

1.6     SUGGESTED REFERENCES FOR USE
        IN    CONJUNCTION   WITH   THIS
        HANDBOOK
        Some   of the  steps   for  performing an
exposure assessment are: (1) identifying the source of
the environmental  contamination and the media that
transports the  contaminant;  (2)  determining  the
contaminant  concentration;  (3)  determining  the
exposure scenarios, and  pathways  and routes   of
exposure; (4)  determining  the   exposure  time,
frequency, and duration;  and  (5)  identifying  the
exposed population.  Many of the  issues related to
characterizing  exposure   from  selected exposure
pathways  have  been addressed  in  a number  of
existing U.S. EPA documents.  Some of these provide
guidance while others demonstrate various aspects of
the exposure process.  These include, but are  not
limited, to   the  following  references  listed   in
chronological order:

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

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

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

>        Selection Criteria for Mathematical Models
        Used    in    Exposure    Assessments:
        Groundwater Models (U.S. EPA, 1988);

>        Risk Assessment Guidance for  Superfund,
        Volume I, Part A, Human Health Evaluation
        Manual (U.S. EPA, 1989);

>        Methodology for Assessing  Health  Risks
        Associated  with   Indirect  Exposure   to
        Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA, 1990);

>        Risk Assessment Guidance for  Superfund,
        Volume   I,   Part  B,   Development   of
        Preliminary Remediation  Goals (U.S. EPA,
        1991a);

>        Risk Assessment Guidance for  Superfund,
        Volume  I,  Part  C,   Risk Evaluation   of
        Remedial Alternatives (U.S. EPA, 1991b);

>        Guidelines for Exposure  Assessment (U.S.
        EPA, 1992a);

>        Dermal Exposure Assessment:  Principles
        and Applications (U.S. EPA, 1992b);

>        Estimating  Exposures    to    Dioxin-Like
        Compounds (U.S. EPA, 1994a);

>        5*0/7 Screening Guidance (U.S. EPA 1996a);

>        Series  875  Occupational and Residential
Page
1-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
        Exposure Test Guidelines - Final Guidelines
           Group  A   -  Application   Exposure
        Monitoring  Test  Guidelines  (U.S.  EPA
        1996b);

        Series 875 Occupational and Residential
        Exposure Test Guidelines - Group B - Post
        Application  Exposure  Monitoring   Test
        Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1996c);

        Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in
        Risk Assessment at the U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, (U.S. EPA, 1997b);

        Guiding  Principles   for   Monte   Carlo
        Analysis (U.S. EPA, 1997c);

        Sociodemographic  Data for   Identifying
        Potentially  Highly  Exposed Populations
        (U.S. EPA, 1999);

        Options    for    Developing   Parametric
        Probability  Distributions   for   Exposure
        Factors (U.S. EPA2000a);

        Risk Assessment Guidance for  Superfund,
        Volume I, Part D, Standardized Planning,
        Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk
        Assessments (U.S. EPA, 200la);

        Risk Assessment Guidance  for Superfund
        Volume III, Part A, Process for Conducting
        Probabilistic Risk Assessments (U.S. EPA,
        200 Ib);

        Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment
        (U.S. EPA, 2003b);

        Example  Exposure Scenarios  (U.S. EPA,
        2003c);

        Risk Assessment Guidance for  Superfund,
        Volume I, Part E,  Supplemental Guidance
        for  Dermal  Risk Assessment  (U.S. EPA,
        2004);

        Cancer  Guidelines for Carcinogen  Risk
        Assessment  Supplemental  Guidance  for
        Assessing Susceptibility from  Early-Life
        Exposure  to  Carcinogens   (U.S.  EPA,
        2005a);
>        Supplemental  Guidance  for  Assessing
        Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to
        Carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 2005b);

>        Guidance  on  Selecting Age Groups for
        Monitoring  and  Assessing   Childhood
        Exposures to Environmental Contaminants
        (U.S. EPA, 2005c);

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

>        Aging and Toxic Response: Issues Relevant
        to Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA 2005e);

>        A Framework for Assessing Health  Risk of
        Environmental  Exposures to Children  (U.S.
        EPA2006d);

>        Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook
        (U.S. EPA2008a);and

>        Concepts, methods, and data sources for
        cumulative   health   risk  assessment  of
        multiple chemicals, exposures and effects: a
        resource document (U.S. EPA, 2008b).

These documents may serve as valuable information
resources to assist in the assessment  of exposure.
The reader is encouraged to refer to them for  more
detailed discussion.

1.7     THE USE OF AGE GROUPINGS WHEN
        ASSESSING EXPOSURE
        When this handbook was published in  1997,
no specific guidance existed with regard to which age
groupings should be used when assessing children's
exposure.  Age groupings  varied from case  to case
and among Program Offices within the  U.S.  EPA.
They depended on availability of data and were  often
based on professional judgment.  More recently, the
U.S. EPA has established a consistent  set  of age
groupings and published guidance on this  topic  (U.S.
EPA 2005c). This revision of the handbook attempts
to present data in a manner consistent with the U.S.
EPA's  recommended set  of  age  groupings for
children.   To  this  date,  no  specific guidance is
available with regard to age groupings for presenting
adult data.  Therefore, adult data (i.e., >21 years old)
are presented using the age groups defined by the
authors  of the individual  studies.   No attempt was
made  to reanalyze the data using a  consistent set of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           1-7

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 1 — Introduction
age groups. In cases where data were analyzed by
the U.S. EPA, age categories were defined as finely
as possible based on adequacy of sample size.
The development of standardized age bins
for children was the subject of discussion in a 2000
workshop sponsored by the U.S. EPA Risk
Assessment Forum. The workshop was titled Issues
Associated with Considering Developmental Changes
in Behavior and Anatomy When Assessing Exposure
to Children (U.S. EPA, 200Ic). The purpose of this
workshop was to gain insight and input into factors
that need to be considered when developing
standardized age bins and identify future research
necessary to accomplish these goals. Panelists were
divided into two groups. One group focused their
discussions on defining and characterizing the
important facets of behavioral development during
childhood, while the other group focused on defining
and characterizing physiological development during
childhood. During the workshop, it was recognized
that the ultimate goal of exposure assessment is to
develop a day-to-day model of human life that can
predict the chemical exposures an individual is likely
to face at any point in life. However, this is not likely
to be accomplished in the near future, and assessors
often need to classify individuals into age bins in
order to simplify the exposure model. The
recommendations listed below are those of the panel
members and were considered by the U.S. EPA in the
development of age groupings:

> Panelists agreed that child development is a
series of discrete events, but these events
occur along a continuum.

> Age grouping/bins are a useful guide to
fulfill the Agency's immediate need, but are
only a crude approximation of an underlying
distribution. Ultimately, sufficient data
should be gathered to develop a continuous
multivariate model that can replace bins.

> Adequacy of existing exposure data is
highly variable.

> A considerable amount of additional
information already exists, but it is dispersed
in the literature. It was recommended that
the U.S. EPA consults with experts in
developmental biology, physiology,
pharmacology, and toxicology and conducts
an in-depth review of the literature.

> Long term research should include the
development of integrated data sets that
combines information about the exposure
factors with biomarkers of exposure and
effects.

> The definition of age groups/bins for
childhood exposure assessment is
inextricably linked to toxicokinetic and
toxicodynamic issues.

> The two break out groups (i.e., behavioral
and physiological) offered the following
preliminary ideas for age groupings:

Age grouping based on behavioral characteristics
0 to 2 months
2 to 6 months
6 to 12 months
1 to 2 years
2 to 6 years
6 to 11 years
11 to 16 years
16 to 21 years

Age grouping based on physiological characteristics
0 to 1 month
1 to 6 months
6 to 12 months
1 to 3 years
3 to 9 years
9 to 21 years

One can observe that there was fairly good
agreement among the two groups with regard to the
age groupings that are important for infants and
toddlers. However, there was some disagreement
with regard to the older children. Appropriate age
groupings depend not only on behavioral and
physiological characteristics, but also on the specific
scenario being studied and chemical of concern.
Based upon consideration of the findings of
the technical workshop, as well as analysis of
available data, U.S. EPA developed guidance that
established a set of recommended age groups for
development of exposure factors for children entitled
Guidance for Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring
and Assessing Childhood Exposures to
Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005c).
This revision of the handbook for individuals < 21
years of age presents exposure factors data in a
manner consistent with U.S. EPA's recommended set
of childhood age groupings. The recommended age
groups (U.S. EPA, 2005c) are as follows:
Page
1-8
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16to<21years
1.8
CONSIDERING LIFE STAGE WHEN
CALCULATING EXPOSURE AND
RISK
In recent years, there has been an increased
concern regarding the potential impact of
environmental exposures to children and other
susceptible populations such as older adults and
pregnant/lactating women. As a result, the U.S. EPA
and others have developed policy, guidance, and
undertaken research to better incorporate life stage
data into human health risk assessment (Brown et al.
2008). A framework for considering life stages in
human health risk assessments was developed by the
U.S. EPA in the report entitled A Framework for
Assessing Health Risks of Environmental Exposures
to Children (U.S. EPA2006d). Life stages are defined
as "temporal stages (or intervals) of life that have
distinct anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and/or
functional characteristics that contribute to potential
differences in environmental exposures" (Brown et
al. 2008). Although the framework discusses the
importance of incorporating life stages in the
evaluation of risks to children, the approach can also
be applied to other life stages that may have their
own unique susceptibilities. For example, older
individuals may experience differential exposures
and risks to environmental contaminants due to
biological changes that occur during aging, disease
status, drug interactions, different exposure patterns
and activities. More information on the toxicokinetic
and toxicodynamic impact of environmental agents in
older adults can be found in U.S. EPAs document
entitled Aging and Toxic Response: Issues Relevant to
Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA 2005e). The need to
better characterize differential exposures of the older
adult population to environmental agents was
recognized at the U.S. EPAs workshop on the
development of exposure factors for the aging (U.S.
EPA 2007). A panel of experts in the fields of
gerontology, physiology, exposure assessment, risk
assessment, and behavioral science discussed existing
data, data gaps, and current relevant research on the
behavior and physiology of older adults, as well as
practical considerations of the utility of developing
an exposure factors handbook for the aging (U.S.
EPA 2007). Pregnant and lactating women may also
be a life stage of concern due to physiological
changes during pregnancy and lactation. For
example, lead is mobilized from the maternal
skeleton during pregnancy and postpartum period
increasing the chances for fetal lead exposure
(Gulson et al. 2004).
The U.S. EPA encourages the consideration
of all life stages and endpoints to ensure that
vulnerabilities during specific time periods are taken
into account (Brown et al. 2008). Although the
importance of assessing risks from environmental
exposures to all susceptible populations is
recognized, most of the guidance developed thus far
relates to children. A key component of U.S. EPAs
Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring
and Assessing Childhood Exposures to
Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA 2005c)
involves the need to sum age-specific exposures
across time when assessing long-term exposure, as
well as integrating these age-specific exposures with
age-specific differences in toxic potency in those
cases where information exists to describe such
differences: an example is carcinogens that act via a
mutagenic mode of action (Supplemental Guidance
for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure
to Carcinogens - U.S. EPA, 2005b). When assessing
chronic risks (i.e., exposures greater than 10% of
human lifespan), rather than assuming a constant
level of exposure for 70 years (usually consistent
with an adult level of exposure), the Agency is now
recommending that assessors calculate chronic
exposures by summing time-weighted exposures that
occur at each lifestage; this handbook provides data
arrayed by childhood age in order to follow this new
guidance (U.S. EPA 2005c). This approach is
expected to increase the accuracy of risk assessments,
because it will take into account lifestage differences
in exposure. Depending on whether body-weight-
adjusted childhood exposures are either smaller or
larger compared to those for adults, calculated risks
could either decrease or increase when compared
with the historical approach of assuming a lifetime of
a constant adult level of exposure.
The Supplemental Guidance report also
recommended that in those cases where age-related
differences in toxicity were also found to occur,
differences in both toxicity and exposure would need
to be integrated across all relevant age intervals (U.S.
EPA 2005b). This guidance describes such a case for
carcinogens that act via a mutagenic mode of action,
where age dependent potency adjustments factors
(ADAFs) of 10 x and 3* are recommended for
children ages birth < 2 years, and 2 < 16 years,
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
1-9

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
respectively when there is exposure during those
years and available data are insufficient to derive
chemical-specific adjustment factors.
Table 1-3, along with Chapter 6 of the
Supplemental Guidance report have been developed
to help the reader understand how to use the new sets
of exposure and potency age groupings when
calculating risk through the integration of lifestage
specific changes in exposure and potency.
Thus, Lifetime Cancer Risk (for a
population with average life expectancy of 70 years)
= Z (Exposure x Duration/70 yrs x Potency x
ADAF) summed across all the age groups presented
in Table 1-3. This is a departure from the way cancer
risks have historically been calculated based upon the
premise that risk is proportional to the daily average
of the long term adult dose.
1.9
OF
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The definition of exposure as used by the
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS,
2001) is the "contact of an organism with a chemical
or physical agent, quantified as the amount of
chemical available at the exchange boundaries of the
organism and available for absorption." This means
contact with the visible exterior of a person such as
the skin, and openings such as the mouth, nostrils,
and lesions. The process of a chemical entering the
body can be described in two steps: contact
(exposure) followed by entry (crossing the
boundary). In the context of environmental risk
assessment, risk to an individual or population can be
represented as a continuum from the source through
exposure to dose to effect as shown in Figure 1-1
(U.S. EPA, 2003d; IPCS, 2006). The process begins
with a chemical or agent released from a source into
the environment. Once in the environment, the
chemical or agent can be transformed and transported
through the environment via air, water, soil, dust, and
diet. Individuals become in contact with the
chemical through inhalation, ingestion, or skin/eye
contact. The individual's activity patterns as well as
the concentration of the chemical will determine the
magnitude, frequency, and duration of the exposure.
The exposure becomes an absorbed dose when the
chemical crosses an absorption barrier. When the
chemical or its metabolites interact with a target
tissue, it becomes a target tissue dose, which may
lead to an adverse health outcome. The text under
the boxes in Figure 1-1 indicates the specific
information that may be needed to characterize each
box.
1.9.1 Dose Equations
Starting with a general integral equation for
exposure (U.S. EPA, 1992a), several dose equations
can be derived depending upon boundary
assumptions. One of the more useful of these derived
equations is the Average Daily Dose (ADD). The
ADD, which is used for many noncancer effects,
averages exposures or doses over the period of time
exposure occurred. The ADD can be calculated by
averaging the potential dose over body weight and an
_ External Dose averaging
J"' Body Weight x Averaging Time time.

(Eqn. 1-1)

The exposure can be expressed as follows:

External Dose = C x IR x ED (Eqn. 1-2)

Where:
C = Contaminant Concentration
IR = Intake Rate
ED = Exposure Duration

Contaminant concentration is the
concentration of the contaminant in the medium (air,
food, soil, etc.) contacting the body and has units of
mass/volume or mass/mass.
The intake rate refers to the rates of
inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact, depending
on the route of exposure. For ingestion, the intake
rate is simply the amount of food containing the
contaminant of interest that an individual ingests
during some specific time period (units of
mass/time). Much of this handbook is devoted to
rates of ingestion for some broad classes of food. For
inhalation, the intake rate is the rate at which
contaminated air is inhaled. Factors presented in this
handbook that affect dermal exposure are skin
surface area and estimates of the amount of soil that
adheres to the skin.
The exposure duration is the length of time
of contaminant contact. The length time a person
lives in an area, frequency of bathing, time spent
indoors versus outdoors, etc., all affect the exposure
duration. Chapter 16, Activity Factors, gives some
examples of population behavior/activity patterns that
may be useful for estimating exposure durations.
When the above parameter values IR and
ED remain constant over time, they are substituted
directly into the exposure equation. When they
change with time, a summation approach is needed to
calculate exposure. In either case, the exposure
duration is the length of time exposure occurs at the
concentration and the intake rate specified by the
Page
1-10
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
other parameters in the equation.
        Note  that  the  advent  of  childhood age
groupings means that  separate  ADD's  should be
calculated for each age group considered.  Chronic
exposures can then be calculated by summing across
each lifestage-specific ADD.
        Cancer   risks   have   traditionally   been
calculated in those cases where a linear non-threshold
model is assumed, in terms of lifetime probabilities
by utilizing dose values presented in terms of lifetime
ADDs (LADDs). The LADD takes the form of the
Equation 1-1, with lifetime  replacing averaging time.
While  the use of LADD may be  appropriate when
developing screening  level  estimates of cancer risk,
as  discussed  in  Section  1.8,  the  U.S.   EPA
recommends that risks should be  calculated by
integrating  exposures   or  risks   throughout  all
lifestages (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
        For some types of  analyses,  dose can be
expressed as a total amount (with units of mass, e.g.,
mg) or as a dose rate in terms  of mass/time (e.g.,
mg/day), or  as a rate normalized to body mass (e.g.,
with units of mg of chemical per kg of body weight
per  day  (mg/kg-day)).    The  LADD is  usually
expressed in terms of mg/kg-day or other mass/mass-
time units.
        In  most cases  (inhalation  and  ingestion
exposures),   the  dose-response  parameters  for
carcinogenic risks  have  been  adjusted  for the
difference in absorption across body barriers between
humans and the  experimental animals used to derive
such parameters.  Therefore, the exposure assessment
in these cases is  based on the potential dose, with no
explicit  correction   for   the  fraction  absorbed.
However,  the exposure assessor needs to make such
an adjustment when calculating dermal exposure and
in other specific cases  when current  information
indicates that the human absorption factor used in the
derivation   of   the   dose-response   factor   is
inappropriate.
        For carcinogens, the duration  of a lifetime
has traditionally  been assigned the nominal value of
70  years  as  a  reasonable  approximation.    For
exposure estimates to be used for  assessments other
than carcinogenic risk,  various averaging  periods
have been used.   For  acute exposures, the doses are
usually averaged over a day  or a single event. For
nonchronic noncancer effects, the time period used is
the  actual period of  exposure (exposure duration).
The objective in selecting the exposure averaging
time is to express the exposure in a  way which can be
combined with  the  dose-response relationship to
calculate risk.
        The body weight to be used in the exposure
Equation 1-1 depends on the units of the exposure
data presented in this handbook.  For example, for
food ingestion, the body weights of the surveyed
populations were  known in the USDA surveys, and
they were explicitly factored into the food intake data
in order to calculate the intake as  g/kg body weight-
day. In this case, the body weight has already been
included in the "intake  rate" term in Equation 1-2,
and the exposure assessor does not need to explicitly
include body weight.
        The units of intake in this handbook for the
incidental  ingestion  of  soil  and  dust  are   not
normalized to body weight.  In this case, the exposure
assessor  will  need  to  use  (in Equation 1-1)  the
average weight of the exposed population during the
time when the  exposure actually  occurs.   When
making body weight assumptions,  care must be taken
that the values used for the population parameters in
the dose-response analysis are consistent with the
population parameters used in the exposure analysis.
Intraspecies  adjustments  based on lifestage  can be
made using a scaling factor of  BW3/4  (U.S.  EPA
2006d, 2006e).  Some of the parameters (primarily
concentrations) used in  estimating  exposure  are
exclusively  site  specific,  and  therefore  default
recommendations should not  be used.  It should be
noted  that body weight is  correlated  with food
consumption rates and inhalation rates.
        The link between the intake rate value and
the exposure duration value is a common source of
confusion in  defining  exposure  scenarios.    It  is
important to define the duration estimate so that it is
consistent with the intake rate:

•       The   intake  rate  can  be  based  on an
        individual  event  (e.g.,  serving size   per
        event). The duration should be based on the
        number of events or, in this case, meals.

•       The intake rate also can be based on a long-
        term average, such as 10  g/day.  In this  case
        the  duration  should  be based on the  total
        time  interval  over  which  the exposure
        occurs.

        The objective is to define the terms  so  that,
when multiplied,  they give the appropriate estimate
of mass of contaminant contacted.  This  can be
accomplished by  basing  the intake  rate on either a
long-term average (chronic exposure) or an event
(acute  exposure) basis, as long as the duration value
is selected appropriately.
        Inhalation dosimetry is employed to derive
the human equivalent exposure  concentrations on
which   inhalation   unit  risks,   and   reference
concentrations, are based (U.S. EPA,  1994b).   U.S.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            1-11

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
EPA has traditionally approximated children's
respiratory exposure by using adult values, although
a recent review (Ginsberg et al, 2005) concluded that
there may be some cases where young children's
greater inhalation rate per body weight or pulmonary
surface area as compared to adults can result in
greater exposures than adults. The implications of
this difference for inhalation dosimetry and children's
risk assessment were discussed at a peer involvement
workshop hosted by the U.S. EPA in 2006 (Foos et
al., 2008).
Consideration of life stage-particular
physiological characteristics in the dosimetry analysis
may result in a refinement to the human equivalent
concentration to insure relevance in risk assessment
across lifestages, or might conceivably conclude with
multiple human equivalent concentrations, and
corresponding inhalation unit risk values (e.g.,
separate for childhood and adulthood) (U.S. EPA,
2005a). The RfC methodology, which is described in
Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference
Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation
Dosimetry (U.S. EPA, 1994b), allows the user to
incorporate population-specific assumptions into the
models. The reader is referred to U.S. EPA guidance
(U.S. EPA, 1994b) on how to make these
adjustments.
There are no specific exposure factor
assumptions in the derivation of Reference Doses
(RfDs) for susceptible populations. With regard to
childhood exposures as a susceptible population, for
example, the assessment of the potential for adverse
health effects in infants and children is part of the
overall hazard and dose-response assessment for a
chemical. Available data pertinent to children's
health risks are evaluated along with data on adults
and the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
or benchmark dose (BMD) for the most sensitive
critical effect(s), based on consideration of all health
effects. By doing this, protection of the health of
children will be considered along with that of other
sensitive populations. In some cases, it is appropriate
to evaluate the potential hazard to a susceptible
population (e.g., children) separately from the
assessment for the general population or other
population groups.

1.9.2 Use of Exposure Factors Data in
Probabilistic Analyses
Although this handbook is not intended to
provide complete guidance on the use of Monte Carlo
and other probabilistic analyses, some of the data in
this handbook may be appropriate for use in
probabilistic assessments. The use of Monte Carlo or
other probabilistic analysis requires characterization
of the variability of exposure factors and requires the
selection of distributions or histograms for the input
parameters of the dose equations presented in Section
1.9.1. The following suggestions are provided for
consideration when using such techniques:

• The exposure assessor should only consider
using probabilistic analysis when there are
credible distribution data (or ranges) for the
factor under consideration. Even if these
distributions are known, it may not be
necessary to apply this technique. For
example, if only average exposure values
are needed, these can often be computed
accurately by using average values for each
of the input parameters unless a non-linear
model is used. Probabilistic analysis is also
not necessary when conducting assessments
for screening purposes, i.e., to determine if
unimportant pathways can be eliminated. In
this case, bounding estimates can be
calculated using maximum or near
maximum values for each of the input
parameters. Alternatively, the assessor may
use the maximum values for those
parameters that have the greatest variance.

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

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

In addition to a qualitative statement of
uncertainty, the representativeness assumption should
Page
1-12
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
be appropriately addressed as part of a sensitivity
analysis.

•       Distribution functions used in probabilistic
        analysis  may be derived  by  fitting  an
        appropriate function  to empirical data.  In
        doing this, it should be recognized that in
        the lower and upper tails of the distribution
        the data are scarce, so that several functions,
        with  radically   different  shapes   in  the
        extreme tails, may be consistent with the
        data.  To  avoid  introducing errors into the
        analysis  by  the  arbitrary  choice  of  an
        inappropriate function,  several  techniques
        can be used.  One technique is to avoid the
        problem by using the empirical data  itself
        rather than an analytic function.  Another is
        to  do  separate  analyses   with  several
        functions  that have  adequate fit but  form
        upper and lower bounds to  the empirical
        data.   A third  way is  to use  truncated
        analytical distributions.  Judgment must be
        used in choosing the appropriate goodness-
        of-fit test.   Information  on the  theoretical
        basis for fitting distributions can be found in
        a standard statistics text, (e.g., Gilbert, 1987,
        among  others).    Off-the-shelf  computer
        software  can  be  used  to  statistically
        determine the distributions that fit the data.
        Other software tools are available to identify
        outliers and  for  conducting  Monte Carlo
        simulations.

•       If only a  range of values is known for an
        exposure  factor,  the  assessor has  several
        options.
            keep that variable constant at its central
            value.
            assume several values within the range
            of values for the  exposure factor.
            calculate a point estimate(s) instead of
            using probabilistic analysis.
            assume a distribution.  (The rationale
            for the selection  of a distribution should
            be  discussed at  length.)    There  are,
            however, cases  where   assuming  a
            distribution is not recommended. These
            include:
            ~   data are missing or very limited for
                a key parameter;
            ~   data were collected  over  a  short
                time period  and  may not represent
                long term trends  (the  respondent
                usual behavior) - examples include:
                food consumption surveys;  activity
                pattern data;
                data  are  not  representative of the
                population  of  interest   because
                sample  size  was  small  or  the
                population  studied was  selected
                from a local area and was therefore
                not representative  of  the  area of
                interest; for example, soil ingestion
                by children; and
                ranges for  a  key  variable  are
                uncertain due to experimental error
                or other  limitations in the  study
                design   or   methodology;   for
                example,  soil ingestion by children.
1.10
        CUMULATIVE EXPOSURES
        The  U.S.  EPA recognizes  that individuals
may be  exposed  to  mixtures of  chemicals  both
indoors and outdoors through more than one pathway.
New directions in risk assessments in the  U.S. EPA
put more emphasis on total exposures via multiple
pathways (U.S. EPA, 2003d, U.S. EPA, 2008b).  Over
the last several years,  the U.S. EPA has developed a
methodology   for   assessing  risk  from   multiple
chemicals (U.S. EPA, 1986b,  2000b).   For  more
information, the  reader is referred to the U.S. EPA's
Framework for  Cumulative Risk Assessment  (U.S.
EPA,  2003b).  The recent report by the  National
Academy of  Sciences  (NAS) also recommends the
development   of approaches   to  incorporate  the
interactions  between  chemical  and  nonchemical
stressors (NAS 2009).

1.11    ORGANIZATION
        The handbook is organized as follows:

    Chapter 1      Introduction

    Chapter 2      Variability and uncertainty

    Chapter 3      Ingestion of  water and  other
                   select liquids

    Chapter 4      Non-dietary ingestion

    Chapter 5      Soil and dust ingestion

    Chapter 6      Inhalation rates

    Chapter 7      Dermal exposure factors

    Chapter 8      Body weight

    Chapter 9      Intake of fruits and vegetables
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           1-13

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
Chapter 10 Intake offish and shellfish

Chapter 11 Intake of meats, dairy products,
and fats

Chapter 12 Intake of grain products

Chapter 13 Intake of home-produced foods

Chapter 14 Total food intake

Chapter 15 Human milk intake

Chapter 16 Activity factors

Chapter 17 Consumer products

Chapter 18 Life Expectancy

Chapter 19 Residential Characteristics

Recommended values for exposure factors
are presented at the beginning of each chapter,
followed by detailed discussions of the data on which
these recommendations are based. Because of the
large number of tables in this handbook, tables are
presented at the end of each chapter, before the
appendices, if any.

1.12 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1
Brown, R.; Barone, S.; Kimmel, C. (2008) Children's
health risk assessment: incorporating a
lifestage approach into the risk assessment
process. Birth Defects Research Part B:
Developmental and Reproductive
Toxicology. (83)6:511-521.
Foos, B.; Marty, M; Schwartz, I; Bennet, W.; Moya,
I; Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2008)
Focusing on children's inhalation dosimetry
and health effects for risk assessment: an
introduction. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part
A, 71(3):149-165.
Gilbert, R.O. (1987) Statistical methods for
environmental pollution monitoring. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Ginsberg, G; Foos, B.P, Firestone, M.P (2005)
Review and analysis of inhalation dosimetry
methods for application to children's risk
assessment. Toxicol Environ Health A.
68(8):573-615.
Gulson, B.L., Pounds, J.G, Mushak, P., Thomas, B.J.,
Gray, B., Korsch, MJ. (2004) Estimation of
cumulative lead releases (lead flux) from the
maternal skeleton during pregnancy and
lactation. J Clinical Med. 13 4(6): 631-640.
IPCS (2001) Glossary of exposure assessment-related
terms: a compilation. IPCS Exposure
Terminology Subcommittee, International
Programme on Chemical Safety, World
Health Organization. Available on line at
http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/metho
ds/harmonization/en/compilation nov2001 .p
df
IPCS (2006) Principles for Evaluating Health Risks
in Children Associated with Exposure to
Chemicals. Environmental Health Criteria
237. International Programme on Chemical
Safety, World Health Organization.
National Academy Sciences. (2009) Science and
decisions advancing risk assessment. The
National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA. (1983-1989) Methods for assessing
exposure to chemical substances. Volumes 1
- 13. Office of Toxic Substances, Exposure
Evaluation Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. (1986a) Standard scenarios for estimating
exposure to chemical substances during use
of consumer products. Volumes I and II.
Office of Toxic Substance, Exposure
Evaluation Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. (1986b) Guidance for the health risk
assessment of chemical mixtures. Risk
Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
EPA/630/R-98/002. Available on line at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Re
port. cfm?dirEntryID=205 3 3
U.S. EPA. (1987) Selection criteria for mathematical
models used in exposure assessments:
surface water models. Exposure Assessment
Group, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. WPA/600/8
87/042. Available from NTIS, Springfield,
VA; PB-88-139928/AS.
U.S. EPA. (1988) Selection criteria for mathematical
models used in exposure assessments:
groundwater models. Exposure Assessment
Group, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8
88/075. Available from NTIS, Springfield,
VA; PB-88-248752/AS.
U.S. EPA. (1989) Risk assessment guidance for
Superfund. Volume I Human health
evaluation manual: Part A. Interim Final.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540-1-
89/002. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ra
gsa/index.htm.
U.S. EPA. (1990) Methodology for assessing health
risks associated with indirect exposure to
Page
1-14
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
        combustor emissions.   EPA 600/6-90/003.
        Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-
        90-187055/AS.
U.S. EPA.  (1991a) Risk assessment guidance for
        Superfund.    Volume  I  Human   health
        evaluation manual:  Part B, Development of
        preliminary remediation goals.   Office of
        Solid  Waste  and  Emergency  Response,
        Washington,    DC.    EPA/540/R-92-003.
        Available            online            at
        http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ra
        gsb/index.htm.
U.S. EPA.  (1991b) Risk assessment guidance for
        Superfund.    Volume  I  Human   health
        evaluation manual:  Part C, Risk evaluation
        of remedial alternatives.   Office of Solid
        Waste    and    Emergency    Response,
        Washington,  DC.  Publication 9285.7-01C.
        Available            online            at
        http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ra
        gsc/index.htm.
U.S.  EPA.  (1992a)  Guidelines  for  exposure
        assessment.   Washington, DC: Office of
        Research  and  Development,   Office  of
        Health  and  Environmental  Assessment.
        EPA/600/Z-92/001.       Available      at
        http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/raf/pdfs/exposur
        e.pdf.
U.S. EPA.  (1992b) Dermal exposure  assessment:
        principles  and applications.   Washington,
        DC: Office of Health  and Environmental
        Assessments.  EPA/600/8-9/01 IF. Available
        online                                at
        http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/efh/references
        /DEREXP.PDF.
U.S. EPA.  (1994a) Estimating exposures to  dioxin-
        like compounds.  Draft Report. Office of
        Research and Development,  Washington,
        DC. EPA/600/6-88/005Cb.
U.S. EPA.   (1994b) Methods for  derivation of
        inhalation  reference  concentrations  and
        applications   of   inhalation   dosimetry
        Washington, DC.  EPA/600/8-90/066F.
U.S.EPA (1996a) Soil screening guidance. Office of
        Solid  Waste  and  Emergency  Response,
        Washington,   DC.      EPA/540/F-95/041.
        Available            online            at
        http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conme
        dia/soil/index.htm
U.S.EPA.   (1996b) Series  875 Occupational and
        Residential Exposure   Test  Guidelines  -
        Final  Guidelines  -  Group  A -  Application
        Exposure  Monitoring   Test   Guidelines.
        EPA712-C96-261.     Available  online at
        http://www.epa.gOv/opptsfrs/publications/O
        PPTS Harmonized/875  Occupational and
        Residential Exposure Test Guidelines/Seri
        es/875  OOO.pdf
U.S. EPA.   (1996c) Series  875 Occupational  and
        Residential Exposure   Test  Guidelines  -
        Group  B  -  Post  Application  Exposure
        Monitoring Test Guidelines.  EPA712-C96-
        266.          Available     online     at
        http://www.epa.gOv/opptsfrs/publications/O
        PPTS Harmonized/875  Occupational and
        Residential Exposure Test Guidelines/Seri
        es/875-2000.pdf
U.S. EPA.    (1997a)  Exposure factors  handbook.
        National    Center   for    Environmental
        Assessment,  Office  of  Research   and
        Development,       Washington,      DC.
        EPA/600/P-95/002Fa,b,c.  Available online
        at  http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/.
U.S. EPA.  (1997b) Policy for  use of probabilistic
        analysis  in  risk  assessment  at  the  U.S.
        Environmental Protection  Agency.  Science
        Policy   Council.    Available   online  at
        http://www.epa.gOv/OSA/spc/pdfs/probpol.p
        df
U.S. EPA.   (1997c) Guiding principles  for Monte
        Carlo analysis.    Office  of  Research  and
        Development,  Risk Assessment  Forum,
        Washington,  DC.     EPA/600/R-97/001.
        Available            online            at
        http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.c
        fm?deid=29596.
U.S. EPA.  (1999) Sociodemographic data used for
        identifying  potentially   highly   exposed
        populations. U.S. Environmental Protection
        Agency,  Washington,   DC.   EPA/600/R-
        99/060.         Available   online    at
        http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.c
        fm?deid=22562.
U.S.  EPA.    (2000a)   Options  for  developing
        parametric  probability   distributions  for
        exposure factors.     National  Center for
        Environmental  Assessment,   Office   of
        Research  and Development,  Washington,
        DC.  EPA/600/R-00/058.  Available on  line
        at
        http://www.epa.gov/ncea/paramprob4ef.htm.
U.S. EPA.    (2000b)  Supplementary guidance for
        conducting  health  risk   assessment   of
        chemical  mixutres.      Risk  Assessment
        Forum, Washington,  DC. EPA/630/00/002F
        Available        on       line        at
        http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/raf/pdfs/chem m
        ix/chem mix  08 2001 .pdf
U.S. EPA.  (200la) Risk  assessment guidance for
        Superfund.    Volume  I  Human health
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                         Page
                                          1-15

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 1 — Introduction
evaluation manual: Part D, Standardized
planning, reporting and review of Superfund
risk assessments. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
Publication 9285.7-47. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ra
gsd/tara.htm.
U.S. EPA. (200Ib) Risk assessment guidance for
Superfund. Volume III, Part A, Process for
conducting probabilistic risk assessment.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-
02/002. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ra
gs3adt/
U.S. EPA (2001c) Summary report of the technical
workshop on issues associated with
considering developmental changes in
behavior and anatomy when assessing
exposure to children. Office of Research and
Development, Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-00/005.
Available online at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/recordisplav.cf
m?deid=20680
U.S. EPA (2002). Overview of the EPA quality
system for environmental data and
technology. Office of Environmental
Information, Washington DC. EPA/240-
R/02/003. Accessed online at
http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-
docs/overview-final.pdf
U.S. EPA (2003a). A summary of general assessment
factors for evaluating the quality of
scientific and technical information.
Science Policy Council, Washington DC.
EPA/100/B-03/001. Accessed online at
http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/assess2.pdf
U. S. EPA. (2003b) Framework for cumulative risk
assessment. Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-02/001F.
Available online at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/recordisplav.cf
m?deid=54944.
U.S. EPA. (2003c) Example exposure scenarios.
Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC; EPA/600/R03/036.
Available online at
http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.c
fm?deid=85843.
U.S. EPA. (2003d) Human health research strategy.
Office of Research and Development,
Washington DC 20460. EPA/600/R-02/050.
Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/htm/researchstrate
gies.htm#rs01
U.S. EPA. (2004) Risk assessment guidance for
Superfund. Volume I Human health
evaluation manual: Part E, Supplemental
guidance for dermal risk assessment.
Interim. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/R/99/005. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ra
gse/index.htm.
U.S. EPA. (2005a) Guidelines for carcinogen risk
assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Available
online at
http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.c
fm?deid=116283.
U.S. EPA. (2005b) Supplemental guidance for
assessing susceptibility from early-life
exposure to carcinogens. Risk Assessment
Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-
03/003F. Available online at:
http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.c
fm?deid=116283.
U.S. EPA. (2005c) Guidance on selecting age
groups for monitoring and assessing
childhood exposures to environmental
contaminants. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/630/P-03/003F. Available online at
http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.c
fm?deid=146583
U.S. EPA. (2005d) Protocol for human health risk
assessment protocol for hazardous waste
combustion facilities. EPA530-R-05-006.
Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/combustion/risk.htm
U.S. EPA. (2005e) Aging and toxic response: issues
relevant to risk assessment.
EPA/600/P03/004A. Available online at
http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.c
fm?deid= 156648
U.S. EPA. (2006a) Approaches for the application of
physiologically based pharmacokinetic
(PBPK) models and supporting data in risk
assessment. Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC. EPA/600/R-
05/043F. Available online at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.
cfm?deid= 157668
U.S. EPA. (2006b) Use of physiologically based
pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models to quantify
the impact of human age and interindividual
differences in physiology and biochemistry
pertinent to risk (Final Report). Office of
Research and Development, Washington,
DC. EPA/600/R-06/014A. Available online
Page
1-16
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 1 — Introduction
        at
        http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplav.
        cfm?deid=151384
U.S. EPA (2006c)  Guidance on systematic planning
        using the  data  quality objectives process.
        Office   of   Environmental  Information,
        Washington   DC.      EPA/240B/06/001.
        Availabel            online            at
        http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/g4-
        final.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2006d)  A framework for assessing health
        risk of environmental exposures to children
        (Final).    Office   of    Research    and
        Development,       Washington,       DC.
        EPA/600/R-05/093F.   Available  online  at
        http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.c
        fm?deid=158363
U.S. EPA  (2006e) Harmonization  in  interspecies
        extrapolation: use of BW  3/4  as default
        method in  derivation of  the  oral  RfD
        (External Review Draft). Risk Assessment
        Forum,  Washington,  DC.    EPA/630/R-
        06/001.     Available       online      at
        http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/recordisplav.cf
        m?deid=148525
U.S.  EPA   (2007)  Summary  report  of a  peer
        involvement workshop on the development
        of an  exposure  factors  handbook for the
        aging. Office  of Researh and Development,
        Washington,  DC.     EPA/600/R-07/061.
        Available            online            at
        http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.c
        fm?deid=171923
U.S. EPA (2008a)  Child-Specific  Exposure Factors
        Handbook.    Office  of  Research  and
        Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-
        06/096F.        Available    online    at
        http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.c
        fm?deid= 199243
U.S. EPA  (2008b) Concepts, methods,  and  data
        sources    for   cumulative  health  risk
        assessment of multiple chemicals, exposures
        and  effects: a  resource  document (final).
        Office   of Research  and  Development,
        Washington,  DC.    EPA/600/R-06/013F.
        Available            online            at
        http://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.c
        fm?deid=190187
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                  Page
July 2009	1-17

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                            Chapter 1 — Introduction
Table 1-1 . Characterization of Variability in Exposure Factors
Exposure Factors
Ingestion of water and other select liquids (Chapter 3)
Non-dietary ingestion
Soil and dust ingestion
Inhalation rate
Surface area
Soil adherence
Body weight
Intake of fruits and vegetables
Intake of fish and shellfish
Intake of meats, dairy products, and fats
Intake of grain products
Intake of home produced foods
Total food intake
Human milk intake
Time indoors
Time outdoors
Time showering
Time bathing
Time swimming
Time playing on sand/gravel
Time playing on grass
Time playing on dirt
Life expectancy
Volume of residence
Air exchange rates
Chapter Average Median Upper Multiple
percentile Percentiles
3 / / / /
4 / / /
5 / / /a
6 / / / /
7 / / /
7
8 / / / /
9 / / / /
10 / / / /
11 / / / /
12 / / / /
13 / / / /
14 / / / /
15 / /
16 /
16 /
16 / / / /
16 / / / /
16 / / / /
16 / / / /
16 / / / /
16 / / / /
18 /
19 / /b
19 b
a Soil pica and geophagy.
b lower percentile.
/ = Data available.
Page
1-18
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 1 — Introduction
Table 1-2. Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values
General Assessment Factors
Increasing Confidence
Decreasing Confidence
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
The studies used the best available
methodology and capture the
measurement of interest.
There are serious limitations with the
approach used; study design does not
accurately capture the measurement of
interest.
As the sample size relative to that of Sample size too small to represent the
the target population increases, there population of interest.
is greater assurance that the results
are reflective of the target
population.
Minimal (or defined) Bias
The response rate is greater than 80
percent for in-person interviews and
telephone surveys, or greater than 70
percent for mail surveys.

The studies analyzed primary data.
The study design minimizes
measurement errors.
The response rate is less than 40 percent.
The studies are based on secondary
sources.

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

The studies represent current
exposure conditions.

The data collection period is
sufficient to estimate long-term
behaviors.
Studies are not representative of the U.S.
population.

Studies may not be representative of
current exposure conditions.

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

Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
The study data could be accessed. Access to the primary data set was limited.
The results can be reproduced or
methodology can be followed and
evaluated.
The results cannot be reproduced, the
methodology is hard to follow, and the
author(s) cannot be located.
The studies applied and documented Information on quality assurance/control
quality assurance/quality control was limited or absent.
measures
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
1-19

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 1 — Introduction
Table 1-2. Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values (continued)
General Assessment Factors
Increasing Confidence
Decreasing Confidence
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population The studies characterize variability in The characterization of variability is
the population studied. limited.
Uncertainty
The uncertainties are minimal and
can be identified. Potential bias in
the studies are stated or can be
determined from the study design.
Estimates are highly uncertain and cannot
be characterized. The study design
introduces biases in the results.
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of
Studies
The studies received high level of The studies received limited peer review.
peer review (e.g., they are published
in peer review journals).

The number of studies is greater than The number of studies is 1. The results of
3. The results of studies from studies from different researchers are in
different researchers are in disagreement.
agreement.
Table 1-3. Age-Dependent Potency Adjustment Factor by Age Group
Exposure Age Group3
Birth to < 1 month
1 < 3 months
3 < 6 months
6 < 12 months
1 to < 2 years
2 to < 3 years
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 11 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to < 21 years
> 21 years (21 to < 70 yr)
U.S. EPA's recommended childhood age
Exposure Duration (yr)
0.083
0.167
0.25
0.5
1
1
3
5
5
5
49
groups (excluding ages >21 years).
ADAF (Age-Dependent Potency
Adjustment Factor)
10x
10x
10x
10x
10x
3x
3x
3x
3x
lx
lx

Page
1-20
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
           Factors

Chapter 1 —
SOURCE/STRESSOR
FORMATION
Chemical
Physical
Microbial
Magnitude
Duration
Timing
Disp
Wnel
Ther
Distr
Mete
/
I
s
j
I
TRANSPORT/
TRANSFORMAT ON
ersion
ics
modynamics
buttons i '
orology „ ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERIZATION
Air I
Water 1
Diet ¥
Soil and Dust EXPOSURE

Pathway . |ncjf
Activity Duration / • Cor
P*rn F=y / , ^


DISEASE

ALTERED STRUCTURE/
FUNCTION

Cancer
Asthma

Edema
Arrhyttimia
EARLY BIOLOGICAL ^
EFFECT
Molecular
Biochemical
DOSE Or9an
Organism
Absorbed
Target
	 Internal
yjdual Biologically Effective
nm unity
ulation
^ymuna
:rosis etc.
                                               Statistical Profile
                                               Reference Population
                                               Susceptible Individual
                                               Susceptible Populations
                                               Populafon Distribuf ons
                               Figure 1-1. Exposure-Dose-Effect Continuum

Source:  Redrawn from: U.S. EPA, 2003d; IPCS, 2006.
           Factors
July 2009	
Page
 1-21

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

       VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY	2-1
       2.1     VARIABILITY VERSUS UNCERTAINTY	2-2
       2.2     TYPES OF VARIABILITY	2-2
       2.3     COPING WITH VARIABILITY	2-3
       2.4     TYPES OF UNCERTAINTY	2-4
       2.5     REDUCING UNCERTAINTY	2-5
       2.6     ANALYZING VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY	2-5
       2.7     PRESENTING RESULTS OF VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS	2-8
       2.8     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2	2-9
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                      Page
July 2009                                                                         2-i

-------
                                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
                                        LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1.       Four Strategies for Confronting Variability	2-12
Table 2-2.       Three Types of Uncertainty and Associated Sources and Examples	2-12
Table 2-3.       Approaches to Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty	2-13

                                        LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1.      Illustration of probabilistic risk assessment methods	2-7
Page                                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
2-ii                                                                                    July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
2       VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY
        Accounting for variability and uncertainty is
fundamental  to  exposure  assessment  and   risk
analysis.    Properly  addressing  variability   and
uncertainty will increase the likelihood that results of
an  assessment  or  analysis will be used  in  an
appropriate    manner.        Characterizing    and
communicating uncertainty and variability should be
done  throughout all  the  components of the  risk
assessment  process (NRC,  2009).  Thus,   careful
consideration of the  variabilities and uncertainties
associated with the exposure factors information used
in an exposure assessment is of utmost importance.
Proper characterization of variability and uncertainty
will  also  support effective communication  of  risk
estimates to risk managers and the public.
        Exposure assessment can involve a broad
array  of information sources and analysis techniques
(U.S.  EPA,  1992).  Even  in situations where actual
exposure-related measurements exist, assumptions or
inferences will still  be required because data  are not
likely to be available for all aspects of the exposure
assessment.   Moreover, the data that are available
may  be of questionable  quality.   Thus, exposure
assessors have a responsibility to present clear and
explicit  explanations   of  the   implications   and
limitations of their analyses.
        Morgan  and Henrion  (1990) provide  an
argument for the need for variability and uncertainty
analysis in  exposure  assessment.  They state  that
when  scientists   report  quantities  that  they  have
measured, they are expected to routinely report an
estimate of the  uncertainty associated with  such
measurements.      They   conclude   that  because
variabilities and uncertainties  inherent  in  policy
analysis (which  includes exposure assessment) tend
to be  even greater than those in the natural sciences,
exposure assessors also  should be expected to report
or comment on  the  variabilities  and uncertainties
associated with their estimates.
        Some  additional  reasons  for  addressing
variability  and  uncertainty  in  exposure  or  risk
assessments (U.S. EPA, 1992, Morgan and Henrion,
1990) include the following:

•       Decisions  may need  to be made  about
        whether  or how  to  expend resources to
        acquire  additional information;
•       Biases may occur in providing a so-called
        "best estimate"  that in actuality is not very
        accurate; and
•       Important  factors and potential sources of
        disagreement in a problem may be able to be
        identified.
        This  chapter  is  intended  to acquaint the
exposure  assessor with  some of the  fundamental
concepts of variability  and uncertainty as they relate
to exposure  assessment and the exposure  factors
presented in this handbook. It also provides methods
and considerations for  evaluating and presenting the
uncertainty  associated  with  exposure  estimates.
Subsequent sections in  this chapter are devoted to the
following topics:

•       Variability versus uncertainty;
•       Types of variability;
•       Coping with variability;
•       Types of uncertainty;
•       Reducing uncertainty;
•       Analysis of variability and uncertainty; and
•       Presenting results of variability/uncertainty
        analysis.

        Treatises  on the topic of uncertainty have
been provided, for example, by Morgan and Henrion
(1990), the National Research Council (NRC, 1994)
and the U.S. EPA (1992; 1995). The topic commonly
has been treated as it relates to the overall process of
conducting  risk   assessments.  Because  exposure
assessment is a component  of the  risk-assessment
process, the general concepts  apply  equally  to the
exposure-assessment    component.     Since    the
publication of the National Research Council's report
entitled Science  and Judgement in Risk Assessment
(NRC, 1994),  the field  of variability and uncertainty
analysis has  continued  to  evolve.    The  use  of
probabilistic  techniques  to  address  variability  and
uncertainty has continued to increase.  More recently,
the NRC report Science  and Decisions Advancing
Risk  Assessments  (NRC,  2009)  recommends  a
"tiered" approach for selecting the level of detail to
be used in characterizing uncertainty  and variability
in risk assessments. Although  there  is a  lack  of
guidance  on  the  appropriate  level  of detail  and
sophistication   needed  in   an   uncertainty   and
variability analysis,  NRC  emphasizes  the need to
describe the extent and nature of the  analysis needed
in the  planning  and  scoping  phase  of  the risk
assessment (NRC,  2009).  Many problems  can  be
addressed by  an initial sensitivity analysis  to help
identify the parameters that have the most impact on
a  decision  and   thus needing  a  more  detailed
uncertainty analysis (NRC, 2009).
        There are numerous ongoing efforts  in the
Agency  and  elsewhere  to   further  improve  the
characterization of variability and uncertainty. The
U.S. EPA's Risk Assessment Forum has established a
workgroup  to promote  the  use  of  probabilistic
techniques to  better assess and  communicate risk.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             2-1

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
The U.S. EPA's Science Policy Council is developing
white papers on the use of expert elicitation for
characterizing uncertainty in risk assessments.
Expert judgment has been used in the past by some
regulatory agencies when limited data or knowledge
result in large uncertainties (NRC, 2009). The
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS)
is developing guidance on characterizing and
communicating uncertainty in exposure assessment
(WHO, 2006). IPCS also encourages the use of a
tiered approach consisting of a screening analysis
followed by a qualitative analysis and two levels of
quantitative analysis (WHO, 2006).

2.1 VARIABILITY VERSUS
UNCERTAINTY
While some authors have treated variability
as a specific type or component of uncertainty, the
U.S. EPA (1995) has advised the risk assessor (and,
by analogy, the exposure assessor) to distinguish
between variability and uncertainty. Uncertainty
represents a lack of knowledge about factors
affecting exposure or risk, whereas variability arises
from heterogeneity across people, places or time. In
other words, uncertainty can lead to inaccurate or
biased estimates, whereas variability can affect the
precision of the estimates and the degree to which
they can be generalized. The key difference between
uncertainty and variability analysis is that variability
cannot be reduced; only better characterized (NRC,
2009). Most of the data presented in this handbook
concerns variability. Factors contributing to
variability in risk in the population include variability
in exposure potential (e.g., behavioral patterns,
location), variability in susceptibility due to
endogenous factors (e.g., age, gender, genetics, pre-
existing disease), variability in susceptibility due to
exogenous factors (e.g., exposures to other agents)
(NRC, 2009).
It should be emphasized that variability and
uncertainty can be confounded and it may not always
be appropriate to
Uncertainty - a lack of gjve special
knowledge about factors significance to
affecting exposure or risk. distinguishing
Variability - arises from between the two.
heterogeneity among test Consider a situation
subjects, populations, that relates to
places or time. exposure, such as
estimating the
average daily dose by one exposure route -- ingestion
of contaminated drinking water. Suppose that it is
possible to measure an individual's daily water
consumption (and concentration of the contaminant)
exactly, thereby eliminating uncertainty in the
measured daily dose. The daily dose still has an
inherent day-to-day variability due to changes in the
individual's daily water intake or the contaminant
concentration in water.
It is impractical to measure the individual's
dose every day. For this reason, the exposure
assessor may estimate the average daily dose (ADD)
based on a finite number of measurements, in an
attempt to "average out" the day-to-day variability.
The individual has a true (but unknown) ADD, which
has now been estimated based on a sample of
measurements. Because the individual's true average
is unknown, it is uncertain how close the estimate is
to the true value. Thus, the variability across daily
doses has been translated into uncertainty in the
ADD. Although the individual's true ADD has no
variability, the estimate of the ADD has some
uncertainty. It should be noted, however, that a rigid
delineation of variability and uncertainty may not be
as useful as assessing the available information and
attendant variation and properly accounting for it
(e.g., sensitivity analysis).
The above discussion pertains to the ADD
for one person. Now consider a probability
distribution of ADDs across individuals in a defined
population (e.g., the general U.S. population). In this
case, variability refers to the range and distribution of
ADDs across individuals in the population. By
comparison, uncertainty refers to the exposure
assessor's state of knowledge about that distribution,
or about parameters describing the distribution (e.g.,
mean, standard deviation, general shape, various
percentiles).
As noted by the National Research Council
(NRC, 1994), the realms of variability and
uncertainty have fundamentally different
ramifications for science and judgment. For
example, uncertainty may force decision-makers to
judge how probable it is that exposures have been
overestimated or underestimated for every member of
the exposed population, whereas variability forces
them to cope with the certainty that different
individuals are subject to exposures both above and
below any of the exposure levels chosen as a
reference point.

2.2 TYPES OF VARIABILITY
Variability in exposure potential is a
function of the variability in human exposure factors
(i.e., those related to an individual's location, activity,
behavior or preferences at a particular point in time,
or physiological characteristics such as body weight),
as well as variations in contaminants concentrations
(i.e., those related to pollutant emission rates and
physical/chemical processes that affect
Page
2-2
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
concentrations in various media; e.g., air,  soil, food
and water). The variations in human exposure factors
and  chemical  concentrations  are not  necessarily
independent  of  one  another.   For  example, both
personal activities and pollutant  concentrations at  a
specific location might vary in response to weather
conditions, or between weekdays and weekends.
        At a more fundamental level, four types of
variability can be distinguished:

•       Variability across locations (Spatial
        Variability);
•       Variability over time (Temporal Variability);
•       Variability within an individual (Intra-
        individual Variability; and
•       Variability among individuals (Inter-
        individual Variability).

        Spatial  variability  can occur   both  at
regional (macroscale) and local (microscale)  levels.
For example, fish intake rates can vary depending on
the region of the country.  Higher consumption may
occur among populations located near large bodies of
water  such as the Great Lakes or coastal areas.  As
another example,  outdoor  pollutant  levels can be
affected at the regional level by  industrial activities
and at the local level by  activities of  individuals. In
general, higher exposures tend to be  associated with
closer proximity to the pollutant source, whether it be
an industrial plant or related to  a personal activity
such as showering or gardening.  In the context of
exposure to  airborne  pollutants,  the concept of  a
"microenvironment" has been   introduced  (Duan,
1982) to denote  a  specific locality (e.g., a residential
lot  or  a room  in a specific  building) where  the
airborne   concentration    can    be   treated   as
homogeneous (i.e., invariant) at a particular point in
time.
        Temporal variability refers to variations
over time,  whether long-  or short-term.  Seasonal
fluctuations in weather, pesticide  applications, use of
woodburning appliances and fraction of time spent
outdoors are examples  of longer-term variability.
Examples of shorter-term variability  are differences
in industrial  or personal  activities  on weekdays
versus weekends or at different times of the day.
        Intra-individual variability  is a function of
fluctuations in an individual's physiologic (e.g., body
weight), or behavioral characteristics  (e.g., ingestion
rates or activity  patterns).  For example, patterns of
food intake change from day to day, and may change
significantly   over  a  lifetime.     Intra-individual
variability may be  associated with spatial or temporal
variability.  For  example,  because  an  individual's
dietary  intake may reflect local food  sources, intake
patterns may change if place of residence changes.
Also, physical activity may vary depending upon the
season,  life stage, or  other factors  associated with
temporal variability.
        Inter-individual variability can be either of
two types:  (1) human characteristics such as age or
body  weight, and  (2)  human behaviors such as
location, activity patterns, and ingestion rates.  Each
of these variabilities, in turn, may be  related to
several  underlying  phenomena   that  vary.    For
example, the natural variability in human weight is
due to a combination of genetic, nutritional, and other
lifestyle or environmental factors. Variability arising
from    independent    factors    that    combine
multiplicatively    generally   will   lead    to   an
approximately  lognormal  probability   distribution
across the  population,  or across  spatial/temporal
dimensions.  Inter-individual  variability may  also be
related to spatial and temporal factors.
        Variability in susceptibility can be a result of
both  endogenous  and  exogenous  factors   (NRC,
2009).   Endogenous  factors include age,  gender,
genetics, and pre-existing  diseases  and conditions.
Exogenous factors include prior or current exposures
to  other   agents,   social  and   economic  factors
influencing  exposure and biologic response  (NRC,
2009).

2.3     COPING WITH VARIABILITY
        As noted  in Section  1.6  of this handbook,
this document attempts to characterize variability of
each of the exposure factors presented. Variability is
addressed by presenting data on the exposure factors
in one of the following three ways: (1) as tables with
percentiles or ranges  of values,  (2) as probability
distributions  with  specified  parameters  including
confidence  intervals  to indicate  the  degree  of
uncertainty  in the  estimated  values, or  (3) as a
qualitative discussion.
        According to the National Research Council
(NRC 1994), variability in exposure estimates can be
addressed,  especially with  regard  to point estimates
such as central tendency  (CT) or high end exposures
(e.g.,  reasonable maximum exposure (RME)  used in
the Superfund program) in four basic ways (Table 2-
1)  when  dealing   with science-policy  questions
surrounding  issues   such  as  exposure  or  risk
assessment.   The first is to ignore  the  variability.
This strategy is likely to be used in combination with
one of the other strategies described  below (e.g., use
the average value), and tends to work best when the
variability is relatively small, as in the case with adult
body weights. For example, the U.S.EPA practice of
assuming that all adults  weigh 70 kg is likely to be
correct within ±25% for most adults and within a
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                            Page
                                              2-3

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
factor of 3 for virtually all adults (NRC, 1994).
However, it is cautioned that this approach may not
be appropriate for children, where variability may be
large.
The second strategy involves
disaggregating the variability in some explicit way,
in order to better understand it or reduce it.
Mathematical models are appropriate in some cases,
as in fitting a sine wave to the annual outdoor
concentration cycle for a particular pollutant and
location. In other cases, particularly those involving
human characteristics or behaviors, it is easier to
disaggregate the data by considering all the relevant
subgroups or subpopulations. For example,
probability distributions of body weight could be
developed separately for adults, adolescents and
children, and even for males and females within each
of these subgroups. Temporal and spatial analogies
for this concept involve measurements on appropriate
time scales and choosing appropriate subregions or
microenvironments.
The third strategy is to use the average
value of a quantity that varies. Although this strategy
might appear as tantamount to ignoring variability, it
needs to be based on a decision that the average value
can be estimated reliably in light of the variability
(e.g., when the variability is known to be relatively
small, as in the case of adult body weight).
The fourth strategy involves using the
maximum or minimum value for an exposure
factor. In this case, the variability is characterized by
the range between the extreme values and a measure
of central tendency. This is perhaps the most
common method of dealing with variability in
exposure or risk assessment -- to focus on one time
period (e.g., the period of peak exposure), one spatial
region (e.g., in close proximity to the pollutant source
of concern), or one subpopulation (e.g., exercising
asthmatics). As noted by the U.S. EPA (1992), when
an exposure assessor develops estimates of high-end
individual exposure and dose, care must be taken not
to set all factors to values that maximize exposure or
dose --such an approach will almost always lead to an
overestimate.
While these approaches provide a means of
addressing variability, they in effect remove
variability from the analysis. That is, ignoring
variability, use of an average, use of a subcategory
average or use of a maximum or minimum value
results in removing variability from the analysis by
substituting a single value for a value characterized
by variation that is appropriately described by a
probability distribution. While it may not be possible
in all situations to base analyses on a distributional
properties, it should be possible in most, if not all,
cases to investigate the sensitivity of the results to
variation in key input variables. For example, if an
analysis is based on a mean value, either assumed or
observed, the effect of changing the mean to some
alternative plausible value, such as a proportion of
the value or an upper percentile of the distribution,
should be investigated.
Another approach to investigating the effect
of variation in key parameter values is the use of
probabilistic techniques (e.g., Monte Carlo or Latin
Hypercube Simulation) which may be used to
characterize the variability in risk estimates by
computer simulation of repeated sampling of the
probability distributions of the risk equation variables
and using the results to calculate a distribution of
risk. Related to Monte Carlo analysis are Bootstrap
methods which may be used to estimate confidence
intervals for population parameters by simulated re-
sampling of empirical distributions (see, e.g., Efron
and Tibshirani (1993), the method was used in, e.g.,
Kahn and Stralka (2009) and (2008)). This approach
is used less frequently in uncertainty analysis.
Techniques for characterizing both uncertainty and
variability are available, and generally require two-
dimensional Monte Carlo analysis (U.S. EPA, 2001).
In situations in which an analyst wishes to apply
probabilistic techniques, and data lend themselves to
such analysis, more robust techniques to describe
model goodness-of-fit, identification of data outliers,
and sensitivity analysis should be used to address
parameter variability. These techniques are described
in Section 1.9.2 of this document.

2.4 TYPES OF UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainty in exposure analysis is related to
the lack of knowledge concerning one or more
components of the assessment process.
The U.S. EPA (1992) has classified
uncertainty in exposure assessment into three broad
categories:

1. Uncertainty regarding missing or incomplete
information needed to fully define exposure
and dose (Scenario Uncertainty).
2. Uncertainty regarding some parameter
(Parameter Uncertainty).
3. Uncertainty regarding gaps in scientific
theory required to make predictions on the
basis of causal inferences (Model
Uncertainty).

Sometimes uncertainties can be characterized as
"unknown unknowns." These uncertainties refer to
factors that the assessor is unaware of. They can only
be addressed by an interactive approach to detect,
Page
2-4
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
analyze, and correct in a timely fashion (NRC, 2009).
Sources and  examples for each type of uncertainty
are summarized in Table 2-2. As described in Section
1.6 of this handbook, U.S. EPA  has attempted to
address the uncertainty associated with the various
exposure  factors presented  in the  handbook by
applying confidence  ratings to the recommended
data.    In general, these  confidence  ratings  are
based on detailed discussions of any limitations of
the data presented. This information may be useful in
analyzing the uncertainty  associated with an overall
exposure/risk assessment.

2.5     REDUCING UNCERTAINTY
        Identification of the sources of uncertainty
in an  exposure  assessment  is  the first step  in
determining how to reduce that uncertainty.   The
types of uncertainty listed  in Table 2-2 can be further
defined by examining their principal causes.   There
are,  however,  some  uncertainties  that cannot be
reduced  or  quantified  (NRC,  2009).  Because
uncertainty in exposure assessments is fundamentally
tied  to  a  lack  of knowledge  concerning important
exposure  factors  (i.e.,   parameter   uncertainty),
strategies   for   reducing   uncertainty   necessarily
involve reduction or elimination of knowledge gaps.
Example strategies to reduce uncertainty include (1)
collection of  new data using a larger sample size, an
unbiased sample design, a more direct measurement
method or a more appropriate target population, and
(2) use of more sophisticated modeling  and analysis
tools if data  quality allows.   The strategy selected
depends on the degree of confidence necessary  in the
results.

2.6     ANALYZING    VARIABILITY    AND
        UNCERTAINTY
        There are  different strategies available for
addressing  variability  and  uncertainty.     These
strategies vary in their level of sophistication  (NRC,
2009).   The  level of effort required to  conduct the
analysis needs to be balanced  against the need for
transparency  and  timeliness  (NRC, 2009).    The
analysis  needs  to  be  tailored  to  provide  enough
resolution to distinguish among the various decision-
making options (NRC, 2009). The goal is to improve
the capacity of the  decision maker to make the best
informed   decisions    given    the   presence   of
uncertainties.
        Exposure assessments  are  often  developed
in a tiered approach.  The initial tier usually screens
out the exposure  scenarios or pathways that are not
expected to pose  much risk, to eliminate them from
more detailed, resource-intensive review. Screening-
level assessments typically examine exposures on the
higher end  of the  expected exposure  distribution.
Because   screening-level   analyses   usually   are
included in  the final exposure assessment, the  final
document may contain  scenarios that  differ quite
markedly   in  sophistication,  data  quality,  and
amenability  to quantitative expressions of variability
or uncertainty.
        According   to  the  U.S.   EPA  (1992),
uncertainty    characterization    and    uncertainty
assessment are two ways of describing uncertainty at
different degrees  of  sophistication.    Uncertainty
characterization   usually  involves   a   qualitative
discussion of the thought processes used to select or
reject  specific  data,  estimates,  scenarios,  etc.
Uncertainty  assessment is a more quantitative process
that  may  range  from  simple  to more  complex
measures and analytical techniques.  The level  of
sophistication depends on the amount  of information
needed to inform specific risk management decisions
(NRC, 2009).  Its goal is to provide decision makers
with  information  concerning  the  quality  of  an
assessment,  including the potential variability in the
estimated exposures, major data gaps, and the effect
that these data gaps have on the exposure estimates
developed.
        A   distinction  between   variability  and
uncertainty was made in Section 2.1.  Although the
quantitative  process mentioned above applies more
directly to  variability  and the  qualitative approach
more  so to  uncertainty,  there is some  degree  of
overlap.   In general, either method provides the
assessor  or  decision-maker  with insights to better
evaluate  the assessment  in the context  of available
data and assumptions.   The following paragraphs
describe  some of the  more common procedures for
analyzing variability  and uncertainty  in exposure
assessments.
        Several  approaches   can   be  used   to
characterize uncertainty in parameter  values.  These
include the use of defaults, quantitative analysis, and
expert judgment.  When  uncertainty  is  high,  for
example, the assessor may  use  the  straightforward
approach  of setting  order-of-magnitude bounding
estimates of parameter ranges (e.g., from 0.1 to  10
liters  for daily water  intake).   Exposure and risk
assessors often rely on the use of default assumptions
when data   are unavailable.   Selection and  use  of
default assumptions is sometimes controversial.  A
consistent and credible  approach  for  the  use  of
defaults is important in the  risk assessment process
(NRC, 2009). Another simple method describes the
range for each parameter including the lower and
upper bounds as well as a "best estimate" determined
by available data or professional judgment.
        Most approaches to  quantitative analysis,
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             2-5

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
however, examine how variability and uncertainty in
values of specific parameters translate into the overall
uncertainty of the assessment. These approaches can
generally be described (in order of increasing
complexity and data needs) as: (1) sensitivity
analysis; (2) analytical uncertainty propagation;
(3) probabilistic uncertainty analysis; or (4) classical
statistical methods (U.S. EPA 1992). The four
approaches are summarized in Table 2-3. A
sensitivity analysis can be used to determine which
parameters have the most impact in the final risk
calculation (NRC, 2009). The International
Programme on Chemical Safety also proposes a four
tier approach for addressing uncertainty and
variability (WHO, 2006). The four tiers are similar
to those proposed in U.S. EPA 1992 and include the
use of default assumptions, a qualitative, systematic
identification and characterization of uncertainty, a
qualitative evaluation of uncertainty using bounding
estimates, interval analysis, and sensitivity analysis,
and a more sophisticated one or two-stage
probabilistic analysis (WHO, 2006). The two-stage
probabilistic analysis combines the analysis of both
uncertainty and variability.
Notably, Cox Jr. (1999) argues that, based
on information theory, models with greater
complexity lead to more certain risk estimates. This
may only be true if there is some degree of certainty
in the assumptions used by the model. Uncertainties
associated with the model need to be evaluated
(NRC, 2009). Reviews of these methods are
available in Bogen and Spear (1987), Cox and
Baybutt (1981), Rish and Marnicio (1988), and
Whitmore (1985). In another review by Seiler
(1987), the analysis of error propagation is discussed
with respect to general mathematical formulations
typically found in risk assessment, such as linear
combinations, powers of one variable, and
multiplicative normally distributed variables. Even
for large and uncertain errors, the formulations in
Seiler (1987) are demonstrated to have practical
value. Iman and Helton (1988) compared three
methodologies for uncertainty and sensitivity
analysis: response surface, Latin hypercube sampling
(with and without regression analysis), and
differential analysis. They found that Latin
hypercube sampling with regression analysis had the
best performance in terms of flexibility, estimability,
and ease of use. Saltelli (2002) and Frey (2002) offer
views on the role of sensitivity analysis in risk
assessment, and Frey and Patil (2002) compare
methods for sensitivity analysis and recommend that
two or more different sensitivity assessment methods
should be used in order to obtain robust results. A
Bayesian perspective on sensitivity analysis is
described in Greenland (2001), who recommends that
sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo risk analysis
should begin with specification of prior distributions,
as in Bayesian analysis. A Bayesian approach to
uncertainty analysis is described in Nayak and Kundu
(2001).
Price, et al. (1999) review the history of the
inter-individual (or intra-species) uncertainty factor,
as well as the relative merits of the sensitive
population conceptual model versus the finite sample
size model in determining the magnitude of the
uncertainty factor. They found that both models
represent different sources of uncertainty and that
both should be considered when developing inter-
individual uncertainty factors. Uncertainties related
to inter-individual and inter-species variability are
treated in Hattis (1997) and Meek (2001),
respectively. And Renwick (1999) demonstrates how
inter-species and inter-individual uncertainty factors
can be decomposed into kinetic and dynamic defaults
by taking into account toxicodynamic and
toxicokinetic differences. Burin and Saunders (1999)
evaluate the robustness of the intra-species
uncertainty factor and recommend intra-species
uncertainty factoring in the range of 1-10.
Based on Monte Carlo analysis, Shlyakhter
(1994) recommends inflation of estimated
uncertainties by default safety factors in order to
account for unsuspected uncertainties.
Jayjock (1997) defines uncertainty as either
natural variability or lack of knowledge, and also
provides a demonstration of uncertainty and
sensitivity analysis utilizing computer simulation.
Additional approaches for coping with uncertainties
in exposure modeling and monitoring are addressed
by Nicas and Jayjock (2002).
Distributional risk assessment should be
employed when data are available that support its
use. Fayerweather, et al. (1999) describe
distributional risk assessment, as well as its strengths
and weaknesses. Exposure metrics for distributional
risk assessment using log-normal distributions of
time spent showering (Burmaster 1998a), water
intake (Burmaster 1998b), and body weight
(Burmaster, D.E.; Crouch, E.A.C. 1997), Burmaster,
D.E. (1998c) have been developed. The lognormal
provides a succinct mathematical form that facilitates
exposure and risk analyses. However, Burmaster and
his co-workers fit the lognormal distribution to data
obtained from surveys that were designed according
to complex weighting schemes. As a consequence,
the data do not satisfy the basic assumption of the
lognormal of independent and identically distributed
observations. The fitted lognormal distributions are
therefore approximations that should be carefully
Page
2-6
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
evaluated.  One approach  is to compare lognormal
distributions  with   other  models  (e.g.,  Weibull,
Gamma).    As  an  alternative  to  the  lognormal
approximations,  analysis of empirical  distributions
that account for data weighting should be considered
where possible.  This is the approach used by Jacobs
et al  (1998) and  U.S. EPA  (2002)  in developing
estimates of fish consumption and U.S. EPA (2004)
and Kahn and Stralka  (2009)  for estimates of water
ingestion.   These  estimates were derived from the
Continuing Survey of  Food  Intake by Individuals
(CSFII) which was a Nation wide statistical survey of
the population of the United States conducted by the
USD A.  The CSFII  collected extensive information
on  food and beverage intake  by  a  sample that
represented the population  of the United States and
the sample weights provided with the data supported
the estimation of empirical distributions of intakes for
the entire population  and various  sub-populations
such as intake distributions  by various age categories.
Kahn and  Stralka (2008)  used  the CSFII data to
estimate empirical  distributions of water ingestion by
pregnant and lactating women  and  compared the
results to those presented by Burmaster (1998b). The
comparison  highlights the  differences  between the
older data used by Burmaster  and the CSFII and the
differences between fitted approximate  lognormal
distributions  and empirical distributions. The CSFII
also collected data on  body weight self reported by
respondents which supported the estimation of body
weight  distributions  by   age  categories  that are
presented  in Kahn  and Stralka (2009).  Detailed
summary tables  of results  based on the CSFII data
used by Kahn and Stralka (2009)  are  presented in
Kahn (2008) personal communication (Kahn, 2008).
        When  sensitivity  analysis  or  uncertainty
propagation   analysis  indicate  that  a  parameter
profoundly   influences  exposure   estimates,   the
assessor should, if possible, develop a  probabilistic
description of its  range. It is also possible to use
estimates derived from a large scale survey such as
the CSFII as  a basis for alternative parameter values
that may be used in a sensitivity analysis. The CSFII
provides the basis for an objective point of reference
for food and beverage intake variables that  are a
critical  component  of many  risk and  exposure
assessments.  For  example, an assumed value  for a
mean or upper percentile  could be compared to a
suitable value from  the CSFII to assess sensitivity.
Deterministic  and probabilistic approaches to risk
assessment are reviewed for noncarcinogenic health
effects in Karlbelah, et al. 2003, with  attention to
quantifying   sources  of uncertainty.    Kelly  and
Campbell  (2000)  review  guidance  for conducting
Monte Carlo analysis  and  clarify  the distinction
between variability and uncertainty.  This distinction
is represented in two-stage Monte Carlo simulation,
where a probability distribution represents variability
in a  population, while  a separate  distribution  for
uncertainty  defines the  degree  of variation in  the
parameters of the population variability distribution
(Figure  1). Price, et al.  (1997) utilize a Monte Carlo
approach  to characterize uncertainties for a method
aimed at estimating the probability of adverse, non-
cancer health effects for exposures exceeding  the
Reference  Dose (RID).   Their method relies  on
general toxicologic information for a compound, such
as    the    no-observed-adverse-effect-level    dose
(NOAEL). Semple, et al. (2003) examine uncertainty
arising  in reconstructed  exposure  estimates using
Monte Carlo methods. Uncertainty in PBPK models
is evaluated in  Simon  (1997).   Slob and  Pieters
(1998)  propose replacing uncertainty  factors  with
probabilistic  uncertainty  distributions  and  discuss
how  uncertainties  may be  quantified  for  animal
NOAELs  and extrapolation factors.   Zheng and Frey
(2005) demonstrate the  use of Monte Carlo methods
for characterizing  uncertainty  and  emphasize  that
uncertainty estimates  will be biased if contributions
from  sampling error and measurement error  are  not
accounted for separately.
 j Dose-response-modelling
                            LogAF
                                             LogAF
                  Monte-Carlo analysis
                 Density function for target population
Figure 1.  Illustration of probabilistic risk assessment
methods:  the probability of effects for a predefined
low effect level for the target population is derived by
mathematically  combining  (e.g.,  by Monte  Carlo
Analysis)  the distributions of the assessment factors
(AFs) which describe the dose-response curve and
the individual extrapolation  steps.  (Adapted from
Karlbelah, et al., 2003)

Distributional biometric data for probabilistic risk
assessment are available for  some exposure factors.
Empirical distributions are provided in this handbook
when  available.  If  the  data  are  unavailable or
otherwise inadequate, expert judgment can be used to
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                            Page
                                              2-7

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
generate a subjective probabilistic representation.
Such judgments should be developed in a consistent,
well-documented manner. Morgan and Henrion
(1990) and Rish (1988) describe techniques to solicit
expert judgment, while Weiss (2001) demonstrates
use of a web-based survey.
If there are enough data to support their use,
standard statistical methods are preferred and may be
less cumbersome than a probabilistic approach.
Epidemiologic analyses may, for example, be used to
estimate variability in human populations, as in
Peretz, et al. (1997), who describe variation in
exposure time. Sources of variation and uncertainty
may also be explored and quantified using a linear
regression modeling framework, as in Robinson and
Hurst (1997). A general framework for statistical
assessment of uncertainty and variance are given for
additive and multiplicative models in Rai, et al.
(1996) and Rai and Krewski (1998), respectively.
Wallace and Williams (2005) describes a robust
method for estimating long-term exposures based on
short-term measurements.
In addition to the use of defaults and
quantitative analysis, exposure and risk assessors
often rely on expert judgment when information is
insufficient to establish uncertainty bounds (NRC,
2009). There are, however, some biases introduced
during expert elicitation. Some of these include
availability, anchoring and adjustment,
representativeness, disqualification, belief in "law of
small numbers," and overconfidence (NRC, 2009).
Availability refers to the tendency to assign greater
probability to commonly encountered or frequently
mentioned events (NRC, 2009). Anchoring and
adjustment is the tendency to be over-influenced by
the first information seen or provided (NRC, 2009).
Representativeness is the tendency to judge and event
by reference to another (NRC, 2009).
Disqualification is the tendency to ignore data or
evidence that contradicts strongly held convictions
(NRC, 2009). The belief in the "law of small
numbers" is the believe that small samples from a
population are more representative than is justified
(NRC, 2009). Overconfidence is the tendency of
expert to belief that their answers are correct (NRC,
2009).

2.7 PRESENTING RESULTS OF
VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive qualitative analysis and
rigorous quantitative analysis are of little value for
use in the decision-making process if their results are
not clearly presented. In this chapter, variability
(differing levels of exposure among individuals) has
been distinguished from uncertainty (the lack of
knowledge about the correct value for a specific
exposure measure or estimate). Most of the data are
presented in this handbook deal with variability
directly through inclusion of statistics that pertain to
the probability distributions for various exposure
factors.
Not all approaches historically used to
construct measures or estimates of exposure have
attempted to distinguish between variability and
uncertainty. The assessor is advised to use a variety
of exposure descriptors, and where possible, the full
population distribution, when presenting the results.
This information will provide risk managers with a
better understanding of how exposures are distributed
over the population and how variability in population
activities influences this distribution.
Although incomplete analysis is essentially
unquantifiable as a source of uncertainty, it should
not be ignored. At a minimum, the assessor should
describe the rationale for excluding particular
exposure scenarios; characterize the uncertainty in
these decisions as high, medium, or low; and state
whether they were based on data, analogy, or
professional judgment. Where uncertainty is high, a
sensitivity analysis can be used to estimate upper
limits on exposure by way of a series of "what if"
questions.
Although assessors have always used
descriptors (e.g., high-end, worst case, average) to
communicate the kind of scenario being addressed,
the 1992 Exposure Guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1992)
establish clear quantitative definitions for these risk
descriptors. Individual descriptors address risks
borne by individuals within a population, including
measures of central tendency (e.g., average or
median), as well as risks at the higher end of the
distribution. These definitions were established to
ensure that consistent terminology is used throughout
the Agency. The risk descriptors in the Exposure
Guidelines include those for individual and
population risk. Population risk descriptors refer to
the extent of harm to the population as a whole. It
can be either an estimate of the number of cases of a
particular effect that might occur in a population (or
population segment), or a description of what fraction
of the population receives exposures, doses, or risks
greater than a specified value. The data presented in
this handbook are one of the tools available to
exposure assessors to construct the various risk
descriptors.
However, it is not sufficient to merely
present the results using different exposure
descriptors. Risk managers should also be presented
with an analysis of the uncertainties surrounding
Page
2-8
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
these descriptors.   Uncertainty may  be presented
using  simple  or  very  sophisticated  techniques,
depending on the requirements of the assessment and
the amount of data available. It is beyond the scope
of  this  handbook  to  discuss  the  mechanics  of
uncertainty  analysis in detail.   The  assessor  can
address  uncertainty  qualitatively  by  answering
questions such as:

•       What is the basis or rationale for  selecting
        these assumptions/parameters, such as data,
        modeling,   scientific  judgment,   Agency
        policy, and "what if considerations?

•       What is the range or variability of the  key
        parameters? How were the parameter values
        selected for use  in the assessment?  Were
        average, median,  or upper-percentile values
        chosen? If other choices had been  made,
        how would the results have differed?

•       What is the assessor's confidence (including
        qualitative  confidence aspects)  in the  key
        parameters  and  the  overall  assessment?
        What are the quality and the extent of the
        data base(s) supporting the selection  of the
        chosen values?

        Any  exposure  estimate developed  by  an
assessor will have associated assumptions about the
setting, chemical, population characteristics, and how
contact with the chemical  occurs through various
exposure  routes and   pathways.    The  exposure
assessor  will  need to  examine many  sources  of
information  that bear either directly or indirectly on
these components  of the  exposure assessment.   In
addition, the  assessor  may need to make  many
decisions regarding the use of existing information in
constructing scenarios  and  setting up  the  exposure
equations.   In presenting the  scenario  results,  the
assessor  should  strive for a balanced  and  impartial
treatment of the  evidence  bearing on the conclusions
with the key assumptions highlighted.  For these  key
assumptions, one should cite data sources and explain
any adjustments  of the data.
        The  exposure   assessor   also    should
qualitatively describe the  rationale for selection of
any  conceptual  or  mathematical  models that may
have been used.  This discussion should address their
verification  and validation status, how well they
represent the situation being assessed (e.g., average
versus  high-end  estimates),  and  any  plausible
alternatives  in  terms of  their  acceptance by  the
scientific community.
        Table 2-2  summarizes  the  three  types of
uncertainty, associated sources, and examples.  Table
2-3   summarizes   four   approaches   to   analyze
uncertainty  quantitatively.    These   are  described
further in the 1992 Exposure Guidelines (U.S. EPA,
1992).
        To  the  extent  possible,   this  handbook
provides information that can be used to characterize
the variability and uncertainty of data for the various
exposure factors.  In general, variability is addressed
by   providing   probability   distributions,   where
available, or qualitative discussions of the data sets
used.     Uncertainty  is  addressed  by   applying
confidence rating to the  recommendations provided
for  the  various   factors,   along   with  detailed
discussions of any limitations of the data presented.

2.8     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
Bogen,  K.T.  (1990)  Uncertainty in environmental
        health risk assessment.  Garland Publishing,
        New York, NY.
Bogen,  K.T.;  Spear,  R.C.    (1987).   Integrating
        uncertainty and interindividual variability in
        environmental   risk  assessment.    Risk
        Analysis.  7(4):427-436.
Burin,  G.J.; Saunders,  D.R.  (1999).  Addressing
        human  variability  in  risk  assessment-the
        robustness of the  intraspecies uncertainty
        factor.  Reg. Tox. Pharm. 30: 209-216.
Burmaster, D.E.; Crouch, E.A.C. (1997). Lognormal
        distributions for body weight as a function
        of age for  males and females in the  United
        States, 1976-1980.  Risk Analysis.  17:499-
        505.
Burmaster, D.E. (1998a). A lognormal distribution
        for  time spent showering.   Risk Analysis.
        18: 33-35.
Burmaster, D.E. (1998b).   Lognormal  distributions
        for total water intake and tap water intake by
        pregnant and lactating women in the  United
        States.  Risk Analysis 18:215-219.
Burmaster, D.E. (1998c).   Lognormal  distributions
        for skin area as  a function of body weight.
        Risk Analysis 18: 27-32.
Cox,  D.C.;  Baybutt,  PC.  (1981)    Methods  for
        uncertainty analysis. A comparative  survey.
        Risk Analysis 1(4):251-258.
Cox  Jr., L.A.  (1999).   Internal dose, uncertainty
        analysis, and  complexity of risk models.
        Environ. Inter. 25: 841-852.
Cullen,  A.C.;   Frey,  H.C.  (1999).    Probabilistic
        Techniques in Exposure Assessment. New
        York:  Plenum Press.
Duan, N. (1982) Microenvironment types: A model
        for  human  exposure  to   air  pollution.
        Environ. Intl. 8:305-309.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             2-9

-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                             Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Efron,  B.   and  Tibshirani,  R.J.,   (1993).  An
        Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman &
        Hall, New York.
Fayerweather,  W.E.; Collins, J.J.; Schnatter, A.R.;
        Hearne, F.T.; Menning, R.A.;  Reyner, D.P.
        (1999).   Quantifying uncertainty  in  a risk
        assessment  using  human  data.     Risk
        Analysis 19: 1077-1090.
Finkel, A.M. (1997).   Not to decide is to  decide:
        ignoring susceptibility in not 'good science'.
        Environ. Tox. Pharm. 4:219-228.
Frey,  H.C. (2002).  Guest Editorial: Introduction to
        special  section on sensitivity  analysis  and
        summary  of NCSU/USDA workshop  on
        sensitivity analysis.  Risk Analysis 22: 539-
        545.
Frey,  H.C.;  Patil, S.R.  (2002).   Identification  and
        review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk
        Analysis 22: 553-578.
Greenland, S.  (2001).   Sensitivity analysis, Monte
        Carlo   risk    analysis,   and   Bayesian
        uncertainty assessment. Risk Analysis  21:
        579-583.
Hattis,  D.   (1997).     Human   variability   in
        susceptibility: how big, how  often, for what
        responses to  what agents?  Environ. Tox.
        Pharm.  4: 195-208.
Hattis,  D.   and  Silver,  K.  (1994).    Human
        interindividual variability - A major  source
        of  uncertainty   in  assessing  risks  for
        noncancer  health effects.    Risk  Analysis.
        14(4):421-431.
Illing, H.P.A. (1999).  Are societal judgements being
        incorporated into the  uncertainty factor used
        in toxicological  risk assessment?    Reg.
        Toxicol. Pharm. 29: 300-308.
Iman, R.L.; Helton, J.C. (1988). An investigation of
        uncertainty    and   sensitivity    analysis
        techniques for  computer models.    Risk
        Analysis. 8(1):71-91.
Jacobs,  H.,  Kahn, H.D.,  Stralka,  K., and  Phan,
        D.,  (1998).  Estimates of Per Capita Fish
        Consumption  in  the U.S.  Based  on  the
        Continuing  Survey  of  Food Intake   by
        Individuals  (CSFII)   (with  H.   Jacobs,
        K.Stralka,  and  D.  Phan),  Risk  Analysis
        (1998), Vol.l8,No.3,pp.283-291.
Jayjock, M.A. (1997).   Uncertainty  analysis  in the
        estimation  of  exposure.   Amer. Ind. Hyg.
        Assoc. J. 58: 380-382.
Kalberlah,  K;     Schneider,  K.; et   al.   (2003).
        Uncertainty in toxicological risk assessment
        for  non-carcinogenic health  effects.   Reg.
        Tox. Pharm. 37: 92-104.
Kahn, H.D. and  Stralka, K. (2009). Estimated daily
        average  per  capita  water  ingestion  by
        child  and  adult age  categories based  on
        USDA's   1994-96   and  1998  continuing
        survey  of  food  intake  by   individuals,
        J. Expo Sci and  Environ Epidemiol.    19:
        396-404.
Kahn,  H.D. and  Stralka, K,(2008).   Estimates of
        water  ingestion for women in pregnant,
        lactating  and   non-pregnant  and   non-
        lactating child  bearing age  groups  based
        on  USDA's  1994-96,  1998  continuing
        survey  of  food  intake  by   individuals,
        J.      Human   and   Ecological   Risk
        Assessment,  Volume   14,  Issue 6,  pages
        1273-1290.
Kahn,  H.D. Personal communication to Moya, J.,
        September  18,  2008,      Memorandum:
        Additional  statistical  analysis  of  water
        ingestion  and body weight data from the
        Continuing  Survey  of  Food  Intake  by
        Individuals 1994-1996, 1998.
Kelly,  E.J.;    Campbell,  K.  (2000).   Separating
        variability and uncertainty in environmental
        risk  assessment-making  choices.   Human
        Ecol. Risk Assess. 6: 1-13.
Meek,  M.E. (2001)  Categorical default uncertainty
        factors-interspecies  variation  and adequacy
        of database.  Human Ecol. Risk Assess.  7:
        157-163.
Morgan, M.G;  Henrion, M.  (1990).  Uncertainty: A
        Guide  to  Dealing  with  Uncertainty  in
        Quantitative  Risk  and  Policy Analysis.
        Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
National Research Council (NRC). (1994).  Science
        and Judgment in Risk Assessment.  National
        Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC)  (2009).  Science
        and Decisions Advancing Risk Assessments.
        National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
Nayak, T.K.; Kundu, S. (2001).  Calculating and
        describing  uncertainty  in  risk  assessment:
        The Bayesian approach. Human Ecol. Risk
        Assess. 7: 307-328.
Nicas,  M.;   Jayjock, M. (2002).   Uncertainty in
        exposure  estimates  made  by  modeling
        versus monitoring. AIHAJ. 63:275-283.
Peretz, C.;  Goldberg, P.;  Kahan,  E.;  Grady,  S.;
        Goren,  A.  (1997).    The  variability  of
        exposure   over   time:    a   prospective
        longitudinal study.   Ann. Occup. Hyg.  41:
        485-500.
Price,  PS.; Keenan, R.E.;    Schwab,  B.  (1999).
        Defining  the interindividual  (intraspecies)
        uncertainty  factor.     Human  Ecol.  Risk
        Assess. 5: 1023-1033.
Page
2-10
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Price, P.S.;  Keenan, R.E.;  Swartout, J.C.,  Gillis,
        C.A.,   Carlson-Lynch,  H.,  and Dourson,
        M.L.  (1997).  An approach for modeling
        noncancer dose responses with  an emphasis
        on uncertainty. Risk Analysis 17:427-437.
Rai, S.N.;  Krewski, D.  (1998).   Uncertainty and
        variability  analysis in  multiplicative risk
        models. Risk Analysis.  18: 37-45.
Rai, S.N.; Krewski, D.; Bartlett, S. (1996). A general
        framework  for the  analysis  of uncertainty
        and variability in risk assessment.  Human
        and  Ecological Risk Assessment. 2:  972-
        989.
Renwick, A.G.  (1999).  Subdivision  of uncertainty
        factors  to  allow  for  toxicokinetics and
        toxicodynamics.       Human  Ecol.   Risk
        Assess.  5: 1035-1050.
Renwick, A.G; Dome, J.-L.C.M; Walton, K. (2001).
        Pathway-related  factors: The potential for
        human data to improve the  scientific basis of
        risk assessment.  Human Ecol. Risk Assess.
        7:  165-180.
Rish, W.R.  (1988).  Approach to uncertainty in risk
        analysis.   Oak Ridge  National Laboratory.
        ORNL/TM-10746.
Rish, W.R.; Marnicio, R.J. (1988).  Review of studies
        related to uncertainty in risk  analysis.  Oak
        Ridge  National  Laboratory.    ORNL/TM-
        10776.
Robinson,  R.B.;  Hurst,  B.T.  (1997).    Statistical
        quantification of the sources  of variance in
        uncertainty analyses.  Risk Analysis.   17:
        447-453.
Saltelli,  A.  (2002).     Sensitivity  Analysis  for
        Importance Assessment. Risk Analysis.  22:
        579-590.
Seller,  F.A. (1987).    Error propagation for   large
        errors.  Risk Analysis 7(4):509-518.
Semple, S.E.; Proud,  L.A.;   Cherrie, J.W. (2003).
        Use   of  Monte   Carlo   simulation  to
        investigate    uncertainty   in    exposure
        modeling.   Scand. J. Work Environ. Health.
        29: 347-353.
Shlyakhter, A.I. (1994). An improved  framework for
        uncertainty   analysis:    Accounting    for
        unsupected errors.  Risk Analysis.   14(4):
        441-447.
Simon,  T.W (1997).   Combining physiologically
        based   pharmacokinetic   modeling   with
        Monte Carlo simulation to derive an  acute
        inhalation      guidance     value     for
        trichlorethylene.  Reg. Tox. Pharm. 26: 257-
        270.
Slob,  W.;  Pieters,  M.N.   (1998).  A  probabilistic
        approach for  deriving  acceptable human
        intake  limits and human health risks  from
        toxicological  studies:  General framework.
        Risk Analysis. 18:787-798.
U.S.  EPA  (1992)     Guidelines   for   exposure
        assessment.   Washington,  DC:  Office  of
        Research  and  Development,  Office   of
        Health  and  Environmental  Assessment.
        EPA/600/2-92/001.
U.S. EPA (1995)  Guidance for risk characterization.
        Science Policy Council, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA  (2001) Risk Assessment Guidance  for
        Superfund: Volume III - Part A, Process for
        Conducting Probabilistic  Risk Assessment.
        Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and
        Emergency Response. EPA/540-R-02-002.
US  EPA  (2002):   "Estimated   per  capita  fish
        consumption  in the United  States",  EPA -
        821-C-02-003,   Available   on   line   at
        http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/cons
        umption_report.pdf.
US  EPA  (2004).  Estimated Per  Capita  Water
        Ingestion and Body Weight in the  United
        States-An Update Based on  Data Collected
        by  the  United   States  Department   of
        Agriculture's    1994-1996    and   1998
        Continuing Survey of  Food Intakes  by
        Individuals.EPA-822-R-OO-OOl,
        http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria
        /drinking/percapita/2004.pdf.
Wallace, L.A. et al. (1994).  Can long-term exposure
        distributions be predicted from short-term
        measurements?  Risk Analysis . 14(l):75-85.
Wallace,  L;. Williams, R.  (2005).   Validation of a
        method for estimating long-term  exposures
        based on short-term measurements.   Risk
        Analysis. 25(3): 687-694.
Weiss, B.  (2001).  A Web-based  survey method for
        evaluating    different    components    of
        uncertainty in relative health risk judgments.
        Neurotoxicology 22: 707-721.
WHO (2006).  Draft guidance on characterizing and
        communicating   uncertainty  in   exposure
        assessment.   Accessed    on    line   at:
        http: //www. who. int/ipcs/methods/harmoniza
        tion/areas/exposure_assessment/en/index.ht
        ml
Whitmore,   R.W.   (1985).     Methodology   for
        characterization of uncertainty in  exposure
        assessments. EPA/600/8-86/009.
Zheng, J.; Frey, H.C. (2005). Quantitative analysis of
        variability  and  uncertainty  with  known
        measurement  error: Methodology  and case
        study. Risk Analysis.  25:663-675.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                          Page
                                           2-11

-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty

Strategy
Ignore variability
Disaggregate the variability
Use the average value
Use a maximum or
minimum value
Table 2-1. Four Strategies
Example
Assume that all adults weigh 70
kg
Develop probability distributions
of body weight for age/gender
groups
Use average body weight for
adults
Use a lower-end value from the
weight distribution
for Coping With Variability
Comment
Works best when variability is small
Variability will be smaller in each group; it depends on
availability of data
Can the average be estimated reliably given what is known
about the variability of a specific population or group with
potential exposures?
Conservative approach — can lead to unrealistically high
exposure estimate if taken for all factors. It may be useful as
a screening method for eliminating pathways of exposure that
are not significant.
Source: NRC, 1994.
Table
Type of Uncertainty
Scenario Uncertainty



Parameter Uncertainty



Model Uncertainty

2-2. Three Types of Uncertainty
Sources
Descriptive errors
Aggregation errors
Judgment errors
Incomplete analysis
Measurement errors
Sampling errors
Variability
Surrogate data
Relationship errors
Modeling errors
With Associated Sources and Examples
Examples
Incorrect or insufficient information
Spatial or temporal approximations
Selection of an incorrect model
Overlooking an important pathway
Imprecise or biased measurements
Small or unrepresentative samples
In time, space or activities
Structurally-related chemicals
Incorrect inference on the basis for correlations
Excluding relevant variables
Source: U.S. EPA, 1992.
Page
2-12
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 2 - Variability and Uncertainty
Table 2-3. Approaches to Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty
Approach
Sensitivity Analysis
Analytical Uncertainty
Propagation
Probabilistic Uncertainty Analysis
Classical Statistical Methods
Description
Changing one input variable at a time while
leaving others constant, to examine effect
on output
Examining how uncertainty in individual
parameters affects the overall uncertainty of
the exposure assessment
Varying each of the input variables over
various values of their respective
probability distributions
Estimating the population exposure
distribution directly, based on measured
values from a representative sample
Example
Fix each input at lower (then upper)
bound while holding others at nominal
values (e.g., medians)
Analytically or numerically obtain a
partial derivative of the exposure equation
with respect to each input parameter
Assign probability density function to
each parameter; randomly sample values
from each distribution and insert them in
the exposure equation (Monte Carlo)
Compute confidence interval estimates for
various percentiles of the exposure
distribution
Source: U.S. EPA, 1992.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                     Page
July 2009                                                                       2-13

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

        INGESTION OF WATER AND OTHER SELECT LIQUIDS	3-1
        3.1     INTRODUCTION	3-1
        3.2     RECOMMENDATIONS	3-2
               3.2.1   Water Ingestion from Consumption of Water as aBeverage and from Food and Drink..3-2
               3.2.2   Pregnant and Lactating Women	3-2
               3.2.3   Water Ingestion while Swimming	3-2
        3.3     DRINKING WATER INGESTION STUDIES	3-9
               3.3.1   Key Drinking Water Ingestion Study	3-9
                      3.3.1.1  Kahn and Stralka, 2008a; Kahn (2008)	3-9
               3.3.2   Relevant Drinking Water Ingestion Studies	3-10
                      3.3.2.1  Wolf, A.V, 1958	3-10
                      3.3.2.2  Hopkins and Ellis,  1977	3-10
                      3.3.2.3  National Academy  of Sciences, 1977	3-10
                      3.3.2.4  Canada Department of Health and Welfare, 1981	3-11
                      3.3.2.5  Gillies andPaulin,  1983	3-11
                      3.3.2.6  Pennington, 1983	3-12
                      3.3.2.7  U.S. EPA, 1984	3-12
                      3.3.2.8  Cantoretal., 1987	3-13
                      3.3.2.9  Ershow and Cantor, 1989	3-13
                      3.3.2.10 Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992	3-14
                      3.3.2.11 Levy etal., 1995	3-14
                      3.3.2.12 USDA, 1995	3-15
                      3.3.2.13 Tsang andKlepeis, 1996	3-15
                      3.3.2.14 Heller etal., 2000	3-16
                      3.3.2.15 Sichert-Hellertetal., 2001	3-16
                      3.3.2.16 Sohnetal., 2001	3-17
                      3.3.2.17 Hilbigetal., 2002	3-17
                      3.3.2.18 Marshall etal., 2003a	3-18
                      3.3.2.19 Marshall etal., 2003b	3-18
                      3.3.2.20 Skinner etal., 2004	3-19
        3.4     PREGNANT AND LACTATING WOMEN	3-19
               3.4.1   Key Study on Pregnant and Lactating Women	3-19
                      3.4.1.1  Kahn and Stralka, 2008b	3-19
               3.4.2   Relevant Studies on Pregnant and Lactating Women	3-20
                      3.4.2.1  Ershow etal.,  1991 	3-20
                      3.4.2.2  Forssenetal., 2007	3-20
        3.5     HIGH ACTIVITY LEVELS/HOT CLIMATES	3-20
               3.5.1   Relevant Studies on High Activity Levels/Hot Climates	3-20
                      3.5.1.1  McNall and Schlegel, 1968 	3-20
                      3.5.1.2  United States Army, 1983 	3-21
        3.6     WATER INGESTION WHILE SWIMMING	3-21
               3.6.1   Key Study on Water Ingestion While Swimming	3-21
                      3.6.1.1  Dufouretal., 2006	3-21
        3.7     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3	3-22
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                               Page
Jufy2009                                                                                     3-i

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Recommended Values for Drinking Water Ingestion Rates 3-3
Table 3-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Drinking Water Ingestion Rates 3-4
Table 3 -3. Recommended Values for Water Ingestion Rates for Pregnant and Lactating Women 3-5
Table 3-4 Confidence in Recommendations for Water Ingestion for Pregnant/Lactating Women 3-6
Table 3-5. Recommended Values for Water Ingestion While Swimming 3-7
Table 3-6. Confidence in Recommendations for Water Ingestion while Swimming 3-8
Table 3-7. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Community Water (mL/day) 3-25
Table 3-8. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/day ) 3-26
Table 3-9. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/day ) 3-27
Table 3-10. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/day) 3-28
Table 3-11. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, Mean Confidence Intervals
and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th Percentiles: All Sources (mL/day) 3-29
Table 3-12. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Community Water (mL/kg-day) 3-30
Table 3-13. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/kg-day) 3-31
Table 3-14. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-32
Table 3-15. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-33
Table 3-16. Per Capita Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, Mean Confidence
Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th Percentiles: All Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-34
Table 3-17. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Community Water (mL/day) 3-35
Table 3-18. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/day) 3-36
Table 3-19. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/day) 3-37
Table 3-20. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/day) 3-38
Table 3-21. Consumers Only Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, Mean
Confidence Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th Percentiles:
All Sources (mL/day) 3-39
Table 3-22. Consumers Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Community Water (mL/kg-day ) 3-40
Table 3-23. Consumers Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/kg-day) 3-41
Table 3-24. Consumers Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-42
Table 3-25. Consumers Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/kg-day ) 3-43
Table 3-26. Consumer Only Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, Mean
Confidence Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th Percentiles:
All Sources (mL/kg-day) 3-44
Table 3-27. Assumed Tapwater Content of Beverages in Great Britain 3-45
Table 3-28. Intake of Total Liquid, Total Tapwater, and Various Beverages (L/day) by the British
Population 3-46
Page
3-ii
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 3-29. Summary of total Liquid and Total Tapwater Intake for Males and Females (L/day) in Great
Britain 3-47
Table 3-30. Daily Total Tapwater Intake Distribution for Canadians, by Age Group (Approx. 0.20 L
increments, both sexes, combined seasons) 3-48
Table 3-31. Average Daily Tapwater Intake of Canadians (expressed as milliliters per kilogram body
weight) 3-49
Table 3-32. Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians, by Age and Season (L/day) 3-49
Table 3-33. Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians as a Function of Level of Physical
Activity at Work and in Spare Time (16 years and older, combined seasons, L/day) 3-50
Table 3-34. Average Daily Tapwater Intake by Canadians, Apportioned Among Various Beverages
(Both Sexes, By age, combined seasons, L/day) 3-50
Table 3-35. Intake Rates of Total Fluids and Total Tapwater by Age Group 3-51
Table 3-36. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Beverages and Tapwater by Age 3-51
Table 3-37. Average Total Tapwater Intake Rate by Sex, Age, and Geographic Area 3-52
Table 3-38. Frequency Distribution of Total Tapwater Intake Rates 3-52
Table 3-39.. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/day) for Both Sexes Combined 3-53
Table 3-40. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/kg-day) for Both Sexes Combined 3-54
Table 3-41. Summary of Tapwater Intake by Age 3-55
Table 3-42. Total Tapwater Intake (as percent of total water intake) by Broad Age Category 3-55
Table 3-43. General Dietary Sources of Tapwater for Both Sexes 3-56
Table 3-44. Summary Statistics for Best-Fit Lognormal Distributions for Water Intake Rates 3-57
Table 3 -45. Estimated Quantiles and Means for Total Tapwater Intake Rates (mL/day) 3-57
Table 3-46. Water Ingested (mL/day) from Water By Itself and Water Added to Other Beverages
and Foods 3-58
Table 3-47. Mean Per Capita Drinking Water Intake Based on USD A, CSFII Data From 1989-91
(mL/day) 3-59
Table 3-48. Number of Respondents that Consumed Tapwater at a Specified Daily Frequency 3-60
Table 3-49. Number of Respondents that Consumed Juice Reconstituted with Tapwater at a Specified
Daily Frequency 3-61
Table 3-50. Mean Water Consumption (mL/kg-day) by Race/Ethnicity 3-62
Table 3-51 Plain Tap Water and Total Water Consumption by Age, Sex, Region, Urbanicity, and
Poverty Category 3-63
Table 3-52. Intake of Water from Various Sources in 2-13-y-old Participants of the DONALD Study
1985-1999 3-64
Table 3-53. Mean (± Standard Error) Fluid Intake (mL/kg/day) by Children Aged 1-10 years,
NHANESIII, 1988-94 3-64
Table 3-54. Estimated Mean (± Standard Error) Amount of Total Fluid and Plain Water Intake among
Children Aged 1-10 Years by Age, Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Poverty Income Ratio, Region, and
Urbanicity (NHANES III, 1988-94) 3-65
Table 3-55. Tap Water Intake in Breastfed and Formula-fed Infants and Mixed-fed Young Children at
Different Age Points 3-66
Table 3-56. Percentage of Subjects Consuming Beverages and Mean Daily Beverage Intakes (mL/day)
for Children With Returned Questionnaires 3-67
Table 3-57. Mean (± Standard Deviation) Daily Beverage Intakes Reported on Beverage Frequency
Questionnaire and 3-day Food and Beverage Dairies 3-68
Table 3-58. Consumption of Beverages by Infants and Toddlers (Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study) 3-69
Table 3-59 Per Capita Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant, Lactating,
and Childbearing Age Women (mL/kg-day) 3-70
Table 3-60 Per Capita Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant, Lactating,
and Childbearing Age Women (mL/day) 3-71
Table 3-61 Per Capita Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant, Lactating, and
Childbearing Age Women (mL/kg-day) 3-71
Exposure Factors Handbook
Jufy2009
Page
3-iii

-------
                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                      Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
                                    LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 3-62      Per Capita Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant,
               Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/day)	3-72
Table 3-63      Estimates of Consumers Only Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant,
               Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/kg-day)	3-72
Table 3-64      Estimates of Consumers Only Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant,
               Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/day)	3-73
Table 3-65      Consumers Only Estimated Direct and Indirect Community water Ingestion by Pregnant,
               Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/kg-day)	3-73
Table 3-66      Consumers Only Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant,
               Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women (mL/day)	3-74
Table 3-67      Total Fluid Intake of Women 15-49 Years Old	3-74
Table 3-68      Total Tapwater Intake of Women 15-49 Years Old	3-75
Table 3-69      Total Fluid (mL/day) Derived from Various Dietary Sources by Women Aged 15-49 Years	3-75
Table 3-70      Total Tapwater and Bottled Water Intake by Pregnant Women (L/day)	3-76
Table 3-71      Percentage of Mean Water Intake Consumed as Unfiltered and Filtered Tapwater by
               Pregnant Women	3-78
Table 3-72      Water Intake at Various Levels (L/hr)	3-80
Table 3-73      Planning Factors for Individual Tapwater Consumption	3-80
Table 3-74      Pool Water Ingestion By Swimmers	3-81
Page
3-iv
Exposure Factors Handbook
                    July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
3       INGESTION OF WATER AND OTHER
        SELECT LIQUIDS
3.1     INTRODUCTION
        Water  ingestion is  another  pathway  of
exposure     to      environmental      chemicals.
Contamination  of water may  occur at the water
supply source (ground water or surface water); during
treatment  (for  example toxic by-products may be
formed during chlorination); or post-treatment (such
as leaching of lead or other materials from plumbing
systems).  People may be exposed to contaminants in
water when consuming water directly as a beverage,
indirectly from  foods and drinks made with water, or
incidentally while   swimming.    Estimating   the
magnitude of the potential dose of toxics from water
ingestion  requires information on  the  quantity  of
water consumed.  The purpose of this section is to
describe  key and relevant published   studies  that
provide information  on water ingestion for various
populations and to provide  recommended ingestion
rate  values for use in exposure assessments.  The
studies described in this section provide information
on ingestion of  water consumed  as   a  beverage,
ingestion of other select liquids,  and  ingestion of
water while swimming.
        Historically, the U.S.  EPA  has assumed a
drinking water ingestion rate of 2 L per day for adults
and  1  L per day for  infants and children under  10
years of age (U.S. EPA, 2000).  This rate includes
water  consumed  in  the form  of juices and other
beverages  containing  tapwater.    The   National
Academy  of Sciences (NAS, 1977) estimated that
daily consumption of water may vary with levels of
physical activity and fluctuations in temperature and
humidity.   It is reasonable to assume  that  people
engaging in physically-demanding activities or living
in warmer  regions may have higher levels of water
ingestion.   However, there is limited information on
the effects of activity level and climatic conditions on
water ingestion.
        The U.S. EPA selected  Kahn  and  Stralka
(2008a) as a key study of drinking water ingestion for
the general population based on the  applicability of
the survey design to exposure  assessments  of the
entire U.S. population.   Kahn and Stralka (2008b)
was  selected as a  key study  of  drinking water
ingestion for pregnant and lactating women. In these
studies, ingestion  rates  for  direct and  indirect
ingestion of water are reported.  Direct ingestion is
defined as direct consumption of water as a beverage,
while indirect ingestion includes water added during
food preparation, but not water intrinsic to purchased
foods (i.e. water that is naturally contained in foods)
(Kahn and  Stralka, 2008a).  Data for consumption of
water  from various  sources  (i.e.,  the  community
water supply, bottled water, and  other sources) are
also presented.    For  the  purposes  of exposure
assessments  involving   site-specific  contaminated
drinking  water,  ingestion   rates  based  on  the
community supply are most appropriate.  Given the
assumption that bottled  water, and purchased  foods
and beverages  that contain  water  are  widely
distributed and less likely to contain source-specific
water,  the use of total  water  ingestion rates may
overestimate   the   potential  exposure   to   toxic
substances present only  in  local  water supplies;
therefore, tapwater ingestion of  community  water,
rather than total water ingestion, is emphasized in this
section.
        The  studies  on  water ingestion  that  are
currently available for the general population and the
population of pregnant/lactating women are based on
short-term survey data (two  days).  Although  short-
term data may be  suitable  for obtaining mean or
median ingestion values that are representative of
both short- and  long-term  ingestion  distributions,
upper and lower -percentile values may be different
for short-term and long-term data. It should also be
noted that most  currently available water ingestion
surveys are based on respondent recall.  This may be
a source  of uncertainty  in the estimated ingestion
rates because of the subjective nature of this type of
survey technique.  Percentile distributions for  water
ingestion  are  presented in this  handbook,  where
sufficient data are available.  Data are  not provided
for the  location  of water consumption (i.e.,  home,
school, day care center, etc.).
        Limited information was available regarding
incidental ingestion  of  water while  swimming.  A
recent pilot study (Dufour et al., 2006) has provided
some  quantitative   experimental  data  on   water
ingestion among swimmers.  These data are provided
in this chapter. The recommendations and confidence
ratings for general water ingestion ingestion among
pregnant and lactating women, and ingestion  while
swimming  are   found  in  Section  3.2.     The
recommended values are based on studies identified
by  U.S. EPA as  key:  Kahn and  Stralka (2008a,
2008b), and supplemental data in Kahn (2008), and
Dufour  (2006).  The key studies for general  water
ingestion  rates  are  provided  in  Section   3.3.1,
ingestion rates for pregnant and lactating  women are
provided in Section 3.4.1, and ingestion rates for
swimming in Section 3.6.1.   For water ingestion at
high   activity   levels    or    hot   climates,   no
recommendations are provided, but relevant studies
are included in Section  3.5.  Relevant studies on all
subcategories of water ingestion are also presented to
provide the reader with added  perspective on the
current state-of-knowledge pertaining to ingestion of
water and select liquids.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             3-1

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.2.1 Water Ingestion from Consumption of
Water as a Beverage and from Food and
Drink
The recommended water ingestion from the
consumption of water as a beverage and from food
and drink are based on Kahn and Stralka (2008a) and
supplementary data prepared by Kahn (2008) for
EPA. This study presents estimates of water
ingestion by age range categories for the population
of the United States using data collected in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDAs) 1994-96 and
1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII) (USDA, 1998). A summary of
the recommended values for water ingestion from the
consumption of water as a beverage and from food
and drink is presented in Table 3-1. Per capita mean
and 95th percentile values range from 184 mL/day to
1,127 mL/day and 837 mL/day to 2,811 mL/day,
respectively, depending on the age group. A
characterization of the overall confidence in the
accuracy and appropriateness of the
recommendations for drinking water intake is
presented in Table 3-2.

3.2.2 Pregnant and Lactating Women
Based upon the results of Kahn and Stralka
(2008b), per capita mean and 95th percentile values
for ingestion of drinking water among pregnant
women were 819 mL/day and 2,503 mL/day,
respectively. The per capita mean and 95th percentile
values for lactating women were 1,379 mL/day and
3,434 mL/day, respectively. A summary of the
recommended values for water ingestion rates is
presented in Table 3-3. The confidence ratings for
these recommendations are presented in Table 3-4.

3.2.3 Water Ingestion While Swimming
Based on the results of the Dufour et al.
(2006) study, a mean water ingestion rate of 49
mL/hour for children under 18 years of age and 21
mL/hour for adults is recommended for exposure
scenarios involving swimming activities. Although
these estimates were derived from swimming pool
experiments, Dufour et al. (2006) noted that
swimming behavior of pool swimmers may be
similar to freshwater swimmers. Estimates may be
different for salt water swimmers. Because the data
set is limited, the upper percentile water ingestion
rate for swimming activities is based on the
maximum value observed in the Dufour et al. (2006)
study: 205 mL/hour for children (154 mL/0.75 hour)
and 71 mL/hour for adults (53 mL/0.75 hour). A
summary of the recommended values for water
ingestion rates is presented in Table 3-5. The
confidence ratings for these recommendations are
presented in Table 3-6. Data on the amount of time
spent swimming can be found in Chapter 16 of this
handbook.
Page
3-2
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion





Table 3-1. Recommended Values for Drinking Water Ingestion Rates3
Age Group
Mean
95th Percentile
mL/day mL/kg-day mL/day mL/kg-day Multiple Percentiles
Per Capita
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <18 years
18to<21years
>21 years
> 65 years0
All ages
184
227
362
360
271
317
380
447
606
731
826
1,104
1,127
926
52
48
52
41
23
23
22
16
12
11
12
15
16
16
83 9b
896b
1,056
1,055
837
877
1,078
1,235
1,727
l,983b
2,540b
2,811
2,551
2,544
232b
205b
159
126
71
60
fi1 See Tables
3-7 and 3-12
43
34
31b
35b
39
37
43
Consumers Only
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to <18 years
18to<21years
>21 years
> 65 years0
All ages
470b
552
556
467
308
356
417
480
652
792
895
1,183
1,242
1,000
137b
119
80
53
27
26
24
17
13
12
13
16
18
17
858b
l,053b
l,171b
1,147
893
912
1,099
1,251
1,744
2,002b
2,565b
2,848
2,604
2,601
23 8b
285b
173b
129
75
62
See Tables
3-17 and 3-22
45
34
32b
35b
39
37
44
a Ingestion rates for combined direct and indirect water from community water supply.
b The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report
on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
U.S. EPA, 2004.
Source: Kahn, 2008
Individuals
(Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
(CSFII).

Exposure Factors
July 2009
Handbook

































Page
3-3

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook




 Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion

Table 3-2. Confidence
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
in Recommendations for Drinking Water Ingestion Rates
Rationale
The survey methodology and data analysis was
adequate. The survey sampled approximately
20,000 individuals; sample size varied with age.
No physical measurements were taken. The method
relied on recent recall of standardized volumes of
drinking water containers.
The key study was directly relevant to water
ingestion.
The data were demographically representative
(based on stratified random sample).
Data were collected between 1994 and 1998.
Data were collected for two non-consecutive days.
However, long term variability may be small. Use
of a short-term average as a chronic ingestion
measure can be assumed.
The CSFII data are publicly available. The Kahn
and Stralka (2008a) analysis of the CSFII 1994-96,
1998 data was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The methodology was clearly presented; enough
information was included to reproduce the results.
Quality assurance of the CSFII data was good;
quality control of the secondary data analysis was
not well described.
Full distributions were given in a separate document
(Kahn, 2008).
Except for data collection based on recall, sources
of uncertainty were minimal.
The USD A CSFII survey received high level of peer
review. The Kahn and Stralka (2008a) study was
published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There was 1 key study for drinking water ingestion.

Rating
Medium to High
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium to High

Page
3-4
Exposure Factors Handbool
July 200<

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion

Table 3-3. Recommended Values for Water Ingestion Rates of Community Water for
Pregnant and Lactating Women3
Per Capita
Mean 95th Percentile
Gioup
mL/day mL/kg-day mL/day mL/kg-day
Pregnant women 819 b 13 b 2,503 b 43 b
Lactating women 1,379 b 21 b 3,434 b 55 b
Consumers Only
Mean 95th Percentile
Gioup
mL/day mL/kg-day mL/day mL/kg-day
Pregnant women 872b 14 b 2,589 b 43 b
Lactating women 1,665 b 26 b 3,588 b 55 b
a Ingestion rates for combined direct and indirect water from community water
supply.
b The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the
Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn and Stralka, 2008b.

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
  3-5

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook




 Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion

Table 3-4. Confidence in Recommendations for Water Ingestion for Pregnant/Lactating Women
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Rationale Rating
Low
The survey methodology and data analysis was
adequate. The sample size was small, approximately
99 pregnant and lactating women.
No physical measurements were taken. The method
relied on recent recall of standardized volumes of
drinking water containers.
Low to Medium
The key study was directly relevant to water ingestion.
The data were demographically representative (based
on stratified random sample).
Data were collected between 1994 and 1998.
Data were collected for two non-consecutive days.
However, long term variability may be small. Use of
a short-term average as a chronic ingestion measure
can be assumed.
Medium
The CSFII data are publicly available. The Kahn and
Stralka (2008b) analysis of the CSFII 1994-96, 1998
data was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The methodology was clearly presented; enough
information was included to reproduce the results.
Quality assurance of the CSFII data was good; quality
control of the secondary data analysis was not well
described.
Low
Full distributions were given in a separate document
(Kahn, 2008).
Except for data collection based on recall, sources of
uncertainty were minimal.
Medium
The USD A CSFII survey received high level of peer
review. The Kahn and Stralka (2008b) study was
published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There was 1 key study for pregnant/lactating women
water ingestion.
Low

Page
3-6
Exposure Factors Handbool
July 200<

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-5. Recommended Values for Water Ingestion
While Swimming
Ag
Children
Adults
All
a
NR
Source:
Mean
3 Gioup
mL/eventa
37
16
NR
Participants swam for 45
Not reported.
Dufour et al., 2006.
mL/hour
49
21
NR
minutes.
95th Percentile
mL/eventa mL/hour
154 205
53 71
NR 90

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
  3-7

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-6. Confidence in Recommendations for Water Ingestion While Swimming
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Rationale
The approach appears to be appropriate given that
cyanuric acid (a tracer used in treated pool water) is not
metabolized, but the sample size was small (41 children
and 12 adults). The Dufour et al. (2006) study analyzed
primary data on water ingestion during swimming.
Data were collected over a period of 45 minutes; this may
not accurately reflect the time spent by a recreational
swimmer.
The key study was directly relevant to water ingestion
while swimming.
The sample was not representative of the U.S. population.
Data cannot be broken out by age categories
It appears that the study was conducted in 2005.
Data were collected over a period of 45 minutes.
The Dufour et al. (2006) study was published in a peer-
reviewed journal.
The methodology was clearly presented; enough
information was included to reproduce the results.
Quality assurance methods were not described in the
study.
Full distributions were not available.. Data were not
broken out by age groups
There were multiple sources of uncertainty (e.g., sample
population may not reflect swimming practices for all
swimmers, rates based on swimming duration of 45
minutes, differences by age group not defined).
Dufour et al. (2006) was published in a peer-reviewed
journal.
There was 1 key study for ingestion of water when
swimming.

Rating
Medium
Low to Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Page
3-8
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
3.3 DRINKING WATER INGESTION STUDIES
3.3.1    Key Drinking Water Ingestion Study
3.3.1.1  Kahn and Stralka, 2008a - Estimated Daily
        Average  Per  Capita Water  Ingestion  by
        Child and Adult Age Categories Based on
        USDA's  1994-96 and 1998 Continuing
        Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and
        Supplemental Data, Kahn 2008
        Kahn and  Stralka  (2008a)  analyzed the
combined 1994-96 and 1998 Continuing Survey of
Food  Intakes  by Individuals  (CSFII)  data  sets to
examine water ingestion rates of more than 20,000
individuals   surveyed,   including   approximately
10,000 under age 21 and 9,000 under age 11. USDA
surveyed households in the United States and District
of Columbia and  collected food and beverage recall
data as part  of the CSFII (USDA, 1998).  Data were
collected by an in-home interviewer.  The day two
interview was  conducted 3 to 10 days later and on a
different day of the week.  Each  individual  in the
survey was assigned a sample weight based on his or
her demographic data.  These weights were taken into
account when  calculating mean and percentile water
ingestion rates from various sources.
        Kahn and Stralka  (2008a) derived mean and
percentile estimates of daily average water ingestion
for the following  age categories: <1 month, 1 to <3
months, 3 to <6 months, 6 to <12 months, 1 to  <2
years  of age, 2 to <3 years, 3 to <6 years, 6 to <11
years, 11 to <16 years, 16 to <18 years, and 18  to <21
years  of age, 21 years and older, 65 years and older,
and all ages. The increased sample size for children
younger than  11  years of age (from 4,339  in the
initial  1994-96  survey to  9,643  children  in the
combined  1994-96,  1998 survey) enabled  water
ingestion estimates to be  categorized  into the finer
age categories recommended by U.S.  EPA (2005).
Per capita  and  consumers  only  water  ingestion
estimates  were reported in the Kahn and  Stralka
(2008a) study for two water source categories:  all
sources and  community   water.   "All sources"
included water from  all  supply  sources  such  as
community  water supply  (i.e., tap water),  bottled
water,   other  sources,  and  missing   sources.
"Community water"  included tap water  from  a
community or municipal water supply.  Other sources
included wells, springs, and cisterns; missing sources
represented water sources that the survey respondent
was unable to identify.  The water ingestion estimates
included both  water ingested directly as a beverage
(direct  water)  and  water   added  to  foods  and
beverages during final  preparation at  home  or  by
local  food  service  establishments  such  as  school
cafeterias    and   restaurants   (indirect   water).
Commercial water added by a manufacturer (i.e.,
water contained in soda or beer) and intrinsic water in
foods and  liquids (i.e., milk and  natural undiluted
juice) were not included in the estimates. Kahn and
Stralka (2008a) only reported the mean, 90th and 95th
percentile estimates of per capita and consumers only
ingestion. The full distribution of ingestion estimates
for various water  source  categories  (all  sources,
community water, bottled water, and other sources)
were provided by the author (Kahn,  2008).  Tables
3-7 to 3-10 provide mean and percentile per capita
ingestion estimates of total water  (combined direct
and indirect water) in mL/day for the various water
source categories (i.e., community, bottled, other, and
all  sources).   The  90 percent confidence intervals
around  the estimated  means  and the 90  percent
bootstrap  intervals around  the   90th  and   95th
percentiles  of total water ingestion from all water
sources are presented in Table 3-11. Tables 3-12 to 3-
16 present the same information as Tables 3-7 to 3-11
but  in   units  of  mL/kg-day.    Consumers  only
combined  direct  and  indirect  water  ingestion
estimates in mL/day for the various source categories
are provided in Tables 3-17 to  3-20.   Table 3-21
presents  confidence and bootstrap intervals for total
water ingestion estimates by consumers only from all
sources.  Tables  3-22  to  3-26  present the same
information as  Tables  3-17  to 3-21 but in units of
mL/kg-day. The data show that the total quantity of
water ingested per unit mass of body weight is  at a
maximum in the first  month  of life and decreases
with increasing age.  The per capita ingestion rate of
water from all sources combined for children under 1
month of age is approximately four times higher than
that adults, and consumers younger than 1 month of
age ingest approximately 8 times the amount of water
(all sources combined) as adults (Kahn and  Stralka,
2008a).   The pattern of decreasing water ingestion
per unit of body weight is also  observed in per capita
and consumers only estimates of community water
(Tables 3-12 and 3-22), bottled water (Table 3-13 and
3-23), other sources (Tables 3-14 and 3-24) and all
sources (Tables 3-15 and 3-25).  For adults (age >21
years),  the  mean  and 95th percentile  per capita
ingestion rates are 1.1 and 2.8 L/day, respectively.
         The  CSFII 1994-96,  1998 data have both
strengths and limitations with regard to estimating
water ingestion.  These are discussed in detail in U.S.
EPA (2004)  and Kahn and Stralka  (2008a).   The
principal advantages of this survey are (1) that  the
survey was designed to  obtain a  statistically valid
sample of  the  entire  United States population  that
included children and low income groups; (2) sample
weights were provided that facilitated proper analysis
of the data and accounted for non-response;  and (3)
the number  of  individuals sampled  (more  than
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             3-9

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
20,000) is sufficient to allow categorization within
narrowly defined age categories. Over sampling of
children enhanced the precision and accuracy of the
estimates for the child population subsets. One
limitation of this survey is that data were collected
for only 2 days and does not necessarily represent
"usual intake." "Usual dietary intake" refers to the
long-term average of daily intakes by an individual.
Thus, upper percentile water ingestion estimates
based on short-term data may differ from long-term
rates because short-term consumption data tend to be
inherently more variable. However, Kahn and
Stralka (2008a) noted that variability due to short
term duration of the survey does not result in bias of
estimates of overall mean. In addition, the survey
was conducted on non-consecutive days, which
improves the variance over consecutive days of
consumption. However, the two non-consecutive
days of data collection, although an advantage over
two consecutive days, provide limited information on
individual respondents. The two-day mean for an
individual can easily be skewed for numerous
reasons. Estimation at the individual respondent
level was not, however, an objective of the survey.
The large sample provides useful information on the
overall distribution of ingestion by the population,
and should adequately reflect the range among
respondent variability. Another limitation of these
data is that the survey design, while being well-
tailored for the overall population of the United
States and conducted throughout the year to account
for seasonal variation, is of limited utility for
assessing small and potentially at-risk subpopulations
based on ethnicity, medical status, geography/climate,
or other factors such as activity level.

3.3.2 Relevant Drinking Water Ingestion
Studies
3.3.2.1 Wolf, ,1958- Body water content
Wolf (1958) provided information on the
water content of human bodies. Wolf (1958) stated
that a newborn baby is about 77% water while an
adult male is about 60% water by weight. An adult
male gains and loses about 2,750 mL of water each
day. Water intake in dissimilar mammals varies
according to 0.88 power of body weight.

3.3.2.2 National Academy of Sciences, 1977 -
Drinking Water and Health
NAS (1977) calculated the average per
capita water (liquid) consumption per day to be 1.63
L. This figure was based on a survey of the
following literature sources: Evans (1941); Bourne
and Kidder (1953); Walker et al. (1957); Wolf (1958);
Guyton (1968); McNall and Schlegel (1968); Randall
(1973); NAS (1974); and Pike and Brown (1975), as
cited in NAS (1977) Although the calculated average
intake rate was 1.63 L per day, NAS (1977) adopted a
larger rate (2 L per day) to represent the intake of the
majority of water consumers. This value is relatively
consistent with the total tapwater intakes rate
estimated from the key study presented previously.
However, the use of the term "liquid" was not clearly
defined in this study, and it is not known whether the
populations surveyed are representative of the adult
U.S. population. Consequently, the results of this
study are of limited use in recommending total
tapwater intake rates and this study is not considered
a key study.

3.3.2.3 Hopkins and Ellis, 1980 - Drinking Water
Consumption in Great Britain
A study conducted in Great Britain over a 6-
week period during September and October 1978,
estimated the drinking water consumption rates of
3,564 individuals from 1,320 households in England,
Scotland, and Wales (Hopkins and Ellis, 1980). The
participants were selected randomly and were asked
to complete a questionnaire and a diary indicating the
type and quantity of beverages consumed over a 1-
week period. Total liquid intake included total
tapwater taken at home and away from home;
purchased alcoholic beverages; and non-tapwater-
based drinks. Total tapwater included water content
of tea, coffee, and other hot water drinks; homemade
alcoholic beverages; and tapwater consumed directly
as a beverage. The assumed tapwater contents for
these beverages are presented in Table 3-27. Based
on responses from 3,564 participants, the mean intake
rates and frequency distribution data for various
beverage categories were estimated by Hopkins and
Ellis (1980). These data are listed in Table 3-28. The
mean per capita total liquid intake rate for all
individuals surveyed was 1.59 L/day, and the mean
per capita total tapwater intake rate was 0.96 L/day,
with a 90th percentile value of about 1.57 L/day.
Liquid intake rates were also estimated for males and
females in various age groups. Table 3-29
summarizes the total liquid and total tapwater intake
rates for 1,758 males and 1,800 females grouped into
six age categories (Hopkins and Ellis, 1980). The
mean and 90th percentile total tapwater intake values
for adults over age 18 years are, respectively, 1.07
L/day and 1.87 L/day, as determined by pooling data
for males and females for the three adult age ranges
in Table 3-29. This calculation assumes, as does
Table 3-28 and 3-29, that the underlying distribution
is normal and not lognormal.
The advantage of these data is that the
responses were not generated on a recall basis, but by
Page
3-10
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
recording daily intake in diaries.  The latter approach
may  result  in  more  accurate  responses  being
generated.  Diaries were maintained for one week,
which is longer than other surveys (e.g., CSFII).  The
use of total liquid and total tapwater was well defined
in this  study.   Also,  these data were based on the
population of Great Britain and not the United States.
Drinking  patterns   may   differ   among  these
populations as a result of varying weather conditions
and socio-economic factors.  For these reasons this
study is not considered a key study in this document.

3.3.2.4   Canada  Department  of  Health   and
         Welfare, 1981 - Tapwater Consumption in
         Canada
         In  a  study  conducted by  the  Canadian
Department of Health and  Welfare, 970 individuals
from 295 households were surveyed to determine the
per capita total  tapwater  intake rates  for  various
age/sex groups  during winter and summer  seasons
(Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare,
1981). Intake rate was also  evaluated as a function of
physical activity. The population that was surveyed
matched the  Canadian 1976 census with respect to
the proportion in different age, regional, community
size   and dwelling type  groups.      Participants
monitored  water  intake  for a 2-day  period (1
weekday, and 1 weekend day) in both late summer of
1977  and  winter of 1978.   All  970  individuals
participated in both the summer and winter surveys.
The  amount  of tapwater consumed was  estimated
based on the respondents' identification of the  type
and size of beverage container used, compared to
standard sized  vessels.   The survey  questionnaires
included a pictorial  guide  to  help  participants in
classifying the  sizes of the vessels. For example, a
small glass of water was assumed to be equivalent to
4.0 ounces of water, and a large glass was assumed to
contain  9.0  ounces  of water.    The  study  also
accounted for  water  derived from  ice  cubes  and
popsicles, and  water  in soups, infant formula,  and
juices.  The survey did not attempt to differentiate
between tapwater consumed at  home and  tapwater
consumed away from  home. The survey also did not
attempt to estimate intake rates for fluids other  than
tapwater.   Consequently,  no intake rates for  total
fluids were reported.
         Daily consumption distribution patterns for
various age groups  are presented in Table 3-30.  For
adults (over 18 years  of age) only, the average  total
tapwater intake rate was  1.38 L/day, and the  90th
percentile rate  was 2.41  L/day as  determined by
graphical interpolation.     These   data  follow  a
lognormal distribution.  The intake data for males,
females, and both sexes  combined as a function of
age  and expressed in the units of milliliters per
kilogram body  weight are presented in Table  3-31.
The tapwater survey did not include body weights of
the participants, but the body weight information was
taken from a Canadian health survey dated 1981; it
averaged 65.1 kg for males and 55.6 kg for females.
Intake rates for specific age  groups and seasons are
presented in Table 3-32.  The  average  daily total
tapwater  intake rates for  all  ages   and seasons
combined was  1.34 L/day, and  the 90th percentile
rate was 2.36 L/day.  The summer intake rates are
nearly the same as  the  winter  intake rates.   The
authors speculate  that  the   reason for  the   small
seasonal variation  is  that in Canada,  even in the
summer, the ambient  temperature  seldom exceeded
20  degrees  C and   marked   increase   in  water
consumption with  high activity  levels  has  been
observed  in  other studies only  when  the ambient
temperature  has   been higher  than  20  degrees.
Average daily total tapwater intake rates as a function
of the level of  physical  activity,  as  estimated
subjectively,  are  presented  in  Table  3-33.    The
amounts of tapwater consumed that are  derived from
various foods and beverages are presented in Table 3-
34.   Note  that the consumption of  direct  "raw"
tapwater is  almost constant  across all age groups
from  school-age children through the  oldest  ages.
The  increase in total tapwater consumption beyond
school age is due to coffee and tea consumption.
          This survey may be more representative of
total  tapwater  consumption  than  some  other less
comprehensive  surveys because  it included data for
some tapwater-containing items not covered by other
studies (i.e., ice cubes, popsicles,  and infant formula).
One  potential source  of error in the study is that
estimated intake rates were based on identification of
standard vessel sizes; the accuracy of this type of
survey  data is  not known.   The cooler  climate of
Canada may have  reduced the  importance of large
tapwater intakes resulting  from high activity levels,
therefore  making  the study  less applicable to the
United States. The authors were not able to explain
the surprisingly large  variations between regional
tapwater intakes; the largest  regional difference was
between Ontario (1.18 liters/day) and Quebec  (1.55
liters/day).

3.3.2.5 Gillies and Paulin,  1983 - Variability of
        Mineral Intakes from Drinking Water
        Gillies and Paulin (1983) conducted a study
to evaluate  variability  of  mineral   intake   from
drinking water.  A study population of 109 adults (75
females; 34 males) ranging  in age from 16  to 80
years (mean age = 44 years) in New  Zealand was
asked to collect duplicate samples of water consumed
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                           3-11

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
directly from the tap or used in beverage preparation
during a 24-hour period. Participants were asked to
collect the samples on a day when all of the water
consumed would be from their own home.
Individuals were selected based on their willingness
to participate and their ability to comprehend the
collection procedures. The mean total tapwater
intake rate for this population was 1.25 (±0.39)
L/day, and the 90th percentile rate was 1.90 L/day.
The median total tapwater intake rate (1.26 L/day)
was very similar to the mean intake rate. The
reported range was 0.26 to 2.80 L/day.
The advantage of these data is that they were
generated using duplicate sampling techniques.
Because this approach is more objective than recall
methods, it may result in more accurate responses.
However, these data are based on a short-term
survey that may not be representative of long-term
behavior, the population surveyed is small and the
procedures for selecting the survey population were
not designed to be representative of the New Zealand
population, and the results may not be applicable to
the United States. For these reasons the study is not
regarded as a key study in this document.

3.3.2.6 Pennington, 1983 - Revision of the Total
Diet Study Food List and Diets
Based on data from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA's) Total Diet Study,
Pennington (1983) reported average intake rates for
various foods and beverages for five age groups of
the population. The Total Diet Study is conducted
annually to monitor the nutrient and contaminant
content of the U.S. food supply and to evaluate trends
in consumption. Representative diets were developed
based on 24-hour recall and 2-day diary data from the
1977-1978 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) and
24-hour recall data from the Second National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II).
The number of participants in NFCS and NHANES II
was approximately 30,000 and 20,000, respectively.
The diets were developed to "approximate 90 percent
or more of the weight of the foods usually consumed"
(Pennington, 1983). The source of water (bottled
water as distinguished from tapwater) was not stated
in the Pennington study. For the purposes of this
report, the consumption rates for the food categories
defined by Pennington (1983) were used to calculate
total fluid and total water intake rates for five age
groups. Total water includes water, tea, coffee, soft
drinks, and soups and frozen juices that are
reconstituted with water. Reconstituted soups were
assumed to be composed of 50 percent water, and
juices were assumed to contain 75 percent water.
Total fluids include total water in addition to milk,
ready-to-use infant formula, milk-based soups,
carbonated soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, and
canned fruit juices. These intake rates are presented
in Table 3-35. Based on the average intake rates for
total water for the two adult age groups, 1.04 and
1.26 L/day, the average adult intake rate is about 1.15
L/day. These rates should be more representative of
the amount of source-specific water consumed than
are total fluid intake rates. Because this study was
designed to measure food intake, and it used both
USDA 1978 data and NHANES II data, there was not
necessarily a systematic attempt to define tapwater
intake per se, as distinguished from bottled water.
For this reason, it is not considered a key tapwater
study in this document.

3.3.2.7 U.S. EPA, 1984 - An Estimation of the
Daily Average Food Intake by Age and Sex
for Use in Assessing the Radionuclide
Intake of the General Population
Using data collected by USDA in the 1977-
78 NFCS, U.S. EPA (1984) determined daily food
and beverage intake levels by age to be used in
assessing radionuclide intake through food
consumption. Tapwater, water-based drinks, and
soups were identified subcategories of the total
beverage category. Daily intake rates for tapwater,
water-based drinks, soup, and total beverage are
presented in Table 3-36. As seen in Table 3-36, mean
tapwater intake for different adult age groups (age 20
years and older) ranged from 0.62 to 0.76 L/day,
water-based drinks intake ranged from 0.34 to 0.69
L/day, soup intake ranged from 0.04 to 0.06 L/day,
and mean total beverage intake levels ranged from
1.48 to 1.73 L/day. Total tapwater intake rates were
estimated by combining the average daily intakes of
tapwater, water-based drinks, and soups for each age
group. For adults (ages 20 years and older), mean
total tapwater intake rates range from 1.04 to 1.47
L/day, and for children (ages <1 to 19 years), mean
intake rates range from 0.19 to 0.90 L/day. The total
tapwater intake rates, derived by combining data on
tapwater, water-based drinks, and soup should be
more representative of source-specific drinking water
intake than the total beverage intake rates reported in
this study. The chief limitation of the study is that the
data were collected in 1978 and do not reflect the
expected increase in the U.S. consumption of soft
drinks and bottled water or changes in the diet within
the last two decades. Since the data were collected
for only a three-day period, the extrapolation to
chronic intake is uncertain. Also, these intake rates
do not include reconstituted infant formula.
Page
3-12
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
3.3.2.8  Cantor et al,  1987  - Bladder Cancer,
        Drinking  Water  Source,   and  Tapwater
        Consumption
        The  National  Cancer Institute  (NCI),  in a
population-based, case control study investigating the
possible  relationship  between  bladder  cancer and
drinking water,  interviewed  approximately  8,000
adult white individuals, 21 to 84 years of age  (2,805
cases and 5,258  controls)  in  their homes, using a
standardized questionnaire (Cantor et al., 1987).  The
cases and controls resided in one of five metropolitan
areas (Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, San Francisco,
and Seattle) and five States (Connecticut, Iowa, New
Jersey, New  Mexico, and  Utah).   The individuals
interviewed were asked to recall the level of intake of
tapwater and other beverages  in  a typical week
during the winter  prior to  the interview.    Total
beverage intake was divided into the following two
components:   1) beverages  derived  from tapwater;
and 2) beverages from other sources. Tapwater used
in cooking foods and in ice cubes was apparently not
considered. Participants also supplied information on
the primary  source of the water  consumed  (i.e.,
private well,  community  supply, bottled water, etc.).
The  control population was randomly selected from
the general population and frequency matched to the
bladder cancer case population in terms of age, sex,
and  geographic location of residence.   The  case
population consisted of Whites only, had no  people
under the age of 21 years and 57 percent were  over
the age of 65 years.  The fluid intake rates for the
bladder cancer cases were  not  used because their
participation  in the  study  was  based  on selection
factors that could bias the intake estimates for the
general population.  Based  on responses from 5,258
White controls (3,892 males; 1,366 females), average
tapwater intake rates  for  a  "typical"  week were
compiled by  sex,  age group, and geographic region.
These rates are listed in Table  3-37.  The average
total fluid intake rate  was 2.01 L/day  for men of
which  70 percent  (1.4  L/day)  was derived from
tapwater, and 1.72  L/day for women of  which 79
percent  (1.35 L/day) was derived  from tapwater.
Frequency distribution data for the 5,081  controls, for
which the authors had information on both tapwater
consumption  and  cigarette  smoking  habits,   are
presented in Table  3-37.    These  data  follow a
lognormal distribution having an average value of
1.30 L/day and an upper  90th  percentile value of
approximately  2.40 L/day.    These values  were
determined by  graphically  interpolating the data of
Table 3-38  after plotting  it on log probability graph
paper.   These  values represent the usual level of
intake for this population of adults in the winter.
Limitations associated with this data set are that the
population surveyed  was  older  than the  general
population and  consisted  exclusively  of Whites.
Also, the intake data are based on recall of behavior
during the winter only.  Extrapolation of the data to
other seasons is difficult.
        The  authors presented data on person-years
of residence  with  various types  of water supply
sources (municipal versus private, chlorinated versus
nonchlorinated,  and  surface  versus well water).
Unfortunately, these data cannot be  used to  draw
conclusions about the national average apportionment
of surface versus groundwater since a large fraction
(24 percent) of municipal water intake in this survey
could not be  specifically attributed to either ground
or surface water.

3.3.2.9  Ershow and Cantor, 1989 - Total Water
        and  Tapwater Intake in the  United States:
        Population-Based  Estimates of Quantities
        and Sources
        Ershow  and Cantor (1989) estimated water
intake  rates based on data collected  by the USDA
1977-1978 Nationwide  Food  Consumption Survey
(NFCS).   The   survey was  conducted through
interview and diary.  Daily intake rates for tapwater
and  total water  were calculated  for various age
groups for males, females, and both sexes combined.
Tapwater  was  defined  as  "all  water  from  the
household tap consumed directly as  a beverage  or
used to prepare foods and  beverages."  Total water
was defined as tapwater plus "water intrinsic to foods
and beverages" (i.e., water contained in  purchased
food and beverages).  The  authors  showed that the
age,  sex,  and racial distribution  of the  surveyed
population closely matched the estimated 1977  U. S.
population.
        Daily total tapwater intake rates,  expressed
as mL per day by age group are presented in Table 3-
39. These data follow a lognormal distribution.  The
same data, expressed as mL per kg body weight per
day are presented in Table 3-40. A summary of these
tables,  showing  the  mean,  the   10th   and   90th
percentile intakes, expressed as both mL/day and
mL/kg-day as a function of age, is presented in Table
3-41. This shows that the mean and 90th percentile
intake   rates  for  adults  (ages 20  to   65+)  are
approximately 1,410 mL/day and 2,280 mL/day and
for all ages the mean and 90th percentile intake rates
are 1,193 mL/day and 2,092 mL/day.  Note that older
adults  have greater intakes than do  adults between
age  20 and  65,  an observation bearing  on  the
interpretation of the Cantor  et al. (1987) study which
surveyed  a  population that  was  older  than  the
national average (see Section 3.3.2.8).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                           3-13

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Ershow and Cantor (1989) also measured
total water intake for the same age groups and
concluded that it averaged 2,070 mL/day for all
groups combined and that tapwater intake (1,190
mL/day) is 55 percent of the total water intake. (The
detailed intake data for various age groups are
presented in Table 3-42). Ershow and Cantor (1989)
also concluded that, for all age groups combined, the
proportion of tapwater consumed as drinking water,
or used to prepare foods and beverages is 54 percent,
10 percent and 36 percent, respectively. (The
detailed data on proportion of tapwater consumed for
various age groups are presented in Table 3-43).
Ershow and Cantor (1989) also observed that males
of all age groups had higher total water and tapwater
consumption rates than females; the variation of each
from the combined-sexes mean was about 8 percent.
With respect to region of the country, the
northeast states had slightly lower average tapwater
intake (1,200 mL/day) than the three other regions
(which were approximately equal at 1,400 mL/day).
This survey has an adequately large size
(26,446 individuals) and it is a representative sample
of the United States population with respect to age
distribution and residential location. The data are
more than 20 years old and may not be entirely
representative of current patterns of water intake, but
in general, the rates are similar to those presented in
the key drinking water study in this chapter.

3.3.2.10 Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992 -
Lognormal Distributions for Water Intake
Roseberry and Burmaster (1992) fit
lognormal distributions to the water intake data
population-wide distributions for total fluid and total
tapwater intake based on proportions of the
population in each age group. Their publication
shows the data and the fitted log-normal
distributions graphically. The mean was estimated as
the zero intercept, and the standard deviation was
estimated as the slope of the best fit line for the
natural logarithm of the intake rates plotted against
their corresponding z-scores (Roseberry and
Burmaster, 1992). Least squares techniques were
used to estimate the best fit straight lines for the
transformed data. Summary statistics for the best-fit
lognormal distribution are presented in Table 3-44.
In this table, the simulated balanced population
represents an adjustment to account for the different
age distribution of the United States population in
1988 from the age distribution in 1978 when Ershow
and Cantor (1989) collected their data. Table 3-45
summarizes the quantiles and means of tapwater
intake as estimated from the best-fit distributions.
The mean total tapwater intake rates for the two adult
populations (age 20 to 65 years, and 65+ years) were
estimated to be 1.27 and 1.34 L/day.
These intake rates were based on the data
originally presented by Ershow and Cantor (1989).
Consequently, the same advantages and
disadvantages associated with the Ershow and Cantor
(1989) study apply to this data set.

3.3.2.11 Levy et al, 1995 - Infant Fluoride Intake
From Drinking Water Added to Formula,
Beverages, and Food
Levy et al. (1995) conducted a study to
determine fluoride intake by infants through drinking
water and other beverages prepared with water and
baby foods. The study was longitudinal and covered
the ages from birth to 9 months old. A total of 192
mothers, recruited from the post partum wards of two
hospitals in Iowa City, completed mail questionnaires
and three-day beverage and food diaries for their
infants at ages 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 9 months of age
(Levy et al., 1995). The questionnaire addressed
feeding habits, water sources and ingestion, and the
use of dietary fluoride supplements during the
preceding week (Levy et al., 1995). Data on the
quantity of water consumed by itself or as an additive
to infant formula, other beverages, or foods were
obtained. In addition, the questionnaire addressed the
infants' ingestion of cow's milk, breast-milk, ready-
to-feed infant products (formula, juices, beverages,
baby food), and table foods.
Mothers were contacted for any
clarifications of missing data and discrepancies (Levy
et al., 1995). Levy et al. (1995) assessed non-
response bias and found no significant differences in
the reported number of adults or children in the
family, water sources, or family income at 3, 6, or 9
months. Table 3-46 provides the range of water
ingestion from water by itself and from addition to
selected foods and beverages. The percentage of
infants ingesting water by itself increased from 28
percent at 6 weeks to 66 percent at 9 months,
respectively, and the mean intake increased slightly
over this time frame. During this time frame, the
largest proportion of the infants' water ingestion (i.e.,
36 percent at 9 months to 48 percent at 6 months)
came from the addition of water to formula. Levy et
al. (1995) noted that 32 percent of the infants at age 6
weeks and 23 percent of the infants at age 3 months
did not receive any water from any of the sources
studied. Levy et al. (1995) also noted that the
proportion of children ingesting some water from all
sources gradually increased with age.
The advantages of this study are that it
provides information on water ingestion of infants
starting at 6 weeks old and the data are for water only
Page
3-14
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
and for water added to beverages and foods.  The
limitations of the study are that the sample size was
small for each age group, it  captured information
from a  select  geographical location,  and data were
collected through serf reporting.  The authors noted,
however, that the three-day diary has been shown to
be a valid assessment tool. Levy et  al. (1995) also
stated that (1) for each time period, the ages of the
infants varied by a few days to  a few weeks, and are,
therefore, not exact and could,  at early ages, have an
effect on age-specific  intake  patterns, and (2) the
same number of infants were not available at each of
the four time periods.

3.3.2.12 USDA, 1995 - Food  and Nutrient Intakes
        by Individuals in the  United States, 1 Day
        1989-91
        USDA (1995) collected data on the  quantity
of "plain drinking water" and various other beverages
consumed by individuals in  1  day during 1989
through 1991.  The data were collected as part of
USDA's  Continuing  Survey of  Food  Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII). The data used to estimate mean
per capita  intake rates combined one-day dietary
recall data from 3 survey years: 1989, 1990, and 1991
during which  15,128  individuals supplied  one-day
intake data. Individuals from all income levels in the
48 conterminous  states  and Washington D.C. were
included in the  sample.   A  complex  three-stage
sampling  design was employed and the overall
response rate  for the  study was 58 percent.  To
minimize the biasing effects of the low response rate
and adjust for the seasonality,  a series of weighting
factors was incorporated into the data  analysis.  The
intake rates based on this study  are presented in Table
3-47.    Table  3-47  includes   data for:   a) "plain
drinking water", which  might  be assumed to mean
tapwater directly consumed rather than bottled water;
b) coffee and tea, which might be assumed  to be
constituted from  tapwater; and c) fruit  drinks and
ades, which might be  assumed  to be reconstituted
from tapwater rather than canned products; and d) the
total of the three sources. With these assumptions,
the mean per capita total intake of water is estimated
to be 1,416 mL/day for adult males (i.e., 20  years of
age and older), 1,288 mL/day for adult females  (i.e.,
20 years of age and older) and 1,150 mL/day for all
ages and both sexes combined.  Although these
assumptions appear reasonable, a close reading of the
definitions  used by USDA (1995) reveals  that the
word "tapwater" does not occur, and this uncertainty
prevents the  use of this study  as a  key  study  of
tapwater intake.
        The advantages of using these data  are that;
1) the  survey  had a large sample size;  and 2) the
authors attempted to represent the general United
States   population  by  oversampling  low-income
groups and by weighting the data to compensate for
low response rates. The disadvantages are that: 1) the
word "tapwater" was not defined and the assumptions
that must be used in order to compare the  data with
the other tapwater studies might not be valid; 2) the
data collection period reflects only a one-day intake
period, and may not reflect long-term drinking water
intake  patterns;   3)  data on the  percentiles  of the
distribution of intakes were not given; and 4) the data
are almost  20  years old  are  may  not  be entirely
representative of current intake patterns.

3.3.2.13 Tsang  and  Klepeis,  1996  -  National
        Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)
        The U.S. EPA collected information  on the
number  of  glasses  of  drinking water  and juice
reconstituted with tapwater consumed by the general
population as part of the  National Human Activity
Pattern Survey  (Tsang and Klepeis,  1996).  NHAPS
was conducted between October 1992 and September
1994.  Over 9,000 individuals in the 48 contiguous
United  States provided data on the  duration and
frequency of selected activities and the time spent in
selected  microenvironments  via  24-hour  diaries.
Over  4,000 NHAPS  respondents also  provided
information  on the number of 8-ounce glasses  of
water and the number of 8-ounce glasses of juice
reconstituted with water than they drank during the
24-hour survey period (Tables 3-48 and  3-49). The
median number of glasses of tapwater consumed was
1-2 and the  median number  of glasses of juice with
tapwater consumed was 1-2.
        For both  individuals who drank tapwater and
individuals  who  drank juices  reconstituted with
tapwater, the number of glasses consumed in a day
ranged from 1 to  20 glasses.  The  highest percentage
of the population  (37.1 percent) who drank tapwater,
consumed in the  range of  3-5 glasses a day and the
highest percentage of the  population (51.5 percent)
who consumed juice reconstituted  with tapwater
consumed 1-2  glasses  in  a day.  Based  on the
assumption  that each glass  contained 8  ounces  of
water (226.4 mL), the total volume of tapwater and
juice with tapwater consumed would range from 0.23
L/day  (1 glass)  to  4.5  L/day  (20 glasses)  for
respondents  who  drank  tapwater.  Using  the same
assumption,  the volume of tapwater consumed for the
population who consumed  3-5 glasses would be 0.68
L/day  to 1.13 L/day and the volume  of juice with
tapwater consumed for the population who consumed
1-2 glasses  would  be 0.23  L/day to 0.46  L/day.
Assuming that the average individual consumes 3-5
glasses of tapwater plus 1-2 glasses  of juice with
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                          Page
                                           3-15

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
tapwater, the range of total tapwater intake for this
individual would range from 0.9 L/day to 1.64 L/day.
These values are consistent with the average intake
rates observed in other studies.
The advantages of NHAPS is that the data
were collected for a large number of individuals and
that the data are representative of the U.S. population.
However, evaluation of drinking water intake rates
was not the primary purpose of the study and the data
do not reflect the total volume of tapwater consumed.
In addition, using the assumptions described above,
the estimated drinking water intake rates from this
study are within the same ranges observed for other
drinking water studies.

3.3.2.14 Heller et al, 2000 - Water Consumption
and Nursing Characteristics of Infants by
Race and Ethnicity
Heller et al. (2000) analyzed data from the
1994-96 CSFII to evaluate racial/ethnic differences in
the ingestion rates of water in children younger than
2 years old. Using data from 946 children in this age
group, the mean amounts of water consumed from
eight sources were determined for various
racial/ethnic groups, including black non-Hispanic,
white non-Hispanic, Hispanic and "other" (Asian,
Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaskan Native,
and other non-specified racial/ethnic groups). The
sources analyzed included: (1) plain tap water, (2)
milk and milk drinks, (3) reconstituted powdered or
liquid infant formula made from drinking water, (4)
ready-to-feed and other infant formula, (5) baby food,
(6) carbonated beverages, (7) fruit and vegetable
juices and other noncarbonated drinks, and (8) other
foods and beverages. In addition, Heller et al. (2000)
calculated mean plain water and total water ingestion
rates for children by age, sex, region, urbanicity, and
poverty category. Ages were defined as less than 12
months and 12 to 24 months. Region was
categorized as Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.
The states represented by each of these regions was
not reported in Heller et al. (2000). However, it is
likely that these regions were defined in the same
way as in Sohnetal. (2001). See Section 3.3.2.16 for
a discussion on the Sohn et al. (2001) study.
Urbanicity of the residence was defined as urban (i.e.,
being in a Metropolitan Statistical Area [MSA],
suburban [outside of an MSA], or rural [being in a
non-MSA]). Poverty category was derived from the
poverty income ratio. In this study, a poverty income
ratio was calculated by dividing the family's annual
income by the federal poverty threshold for that size
household. The poverty categories used were 0-
1.30, 1.31 to 3.50, and greater than 3.50 times the
federal poverty level (Heller et al., 2000).
Table 3-50 provides water ingestion
estimates for the eight water sources evaluated, for
each of the race/ethnic groups. Heller et al. (2000)
reported that black non-Hispanic children had the
highest mean plain tap water intake (21 mL/kg-day),
and white non-Hispanic children had the lowest mean
plain tap water intake (13 mL/kg-day). The only
statistically significant difference between the
racial/ethnic groups was found to be in plain tap
water consumption and total water consumption.
Reconstituted baby formula made up the highest
proportion of total water intake for all race/ethnic
groups. Table 3-51 presents tap water and total water
ingestion by age, sex, region, urbanicity, and poverty
category. On average, children younger than 12
months of age consumed less plain tap water (11
mL/kg-day) than children aged 12-24 months (18
mL/kg-day). There were no significant differences in
plain tap water consumption by sex, region, or
urbanicity. Heller et al. (2000) reported a significant
association between higher income and lower plain
tap water consumption. For total water consumption,
ingestion per kg body weight was lower for the 12-
24-month-old children than for those younger than 12
months of age. Urban children consumed more plain
tap water and total water than suburban and rural
children. In addition, plain tap water and total water
ingestion was found to decrease with increasing
poverty category (i.e., higher wealth).
A major strength of the Heller et al. (2000)
study is that it provides information on tap water and
total water consumption by race, age, sex, region,
urbanicity, and family income. The weaknesses in
the CSFII data set have been discussed under Kahn
and Stralka (2008a) and U.S. EPA (2004) and include
surveying participants for only two days.

3.3.2.15 Sichert-Hellert et al, 2001 - Fifteen Year
Trends in Water Intake in German
Children and Adolescents: Results of the
DONALD Study
Water and beverage consumption was
evaluated by Sichert-Hellert et al. (2001) using 3-day
dietary records of 733 children, ages 2 to 13 years,
enrolled in the Dortmund Nutritional and
Anthropometric Longitudinally Designed Study
(DONALD study). The DONALD study is a cohort
study, conducted in Germany, that collects data on
diet, metabolism, growth and development from
healthy subjects between infancy and adulthood
(Sichert-Hellert et al., 2001). Beginning in 1985,
approximately 40 to 50 infants were enrolled in the
study annually. Mothers of the participants were
recruited in hospital maternity wards. Older children
and parents of younger children were asked to keep
Page
3-16
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
dietary  records  for  three  days by recording and
weighing (to the nearest 1 gram) all foods and fluids,
including water, consumed.
        Sichert-Hellert et al. (2001) evaluated 3,736
dietary records from 733 subjects (354 males and 379
females) collected between 1985  and  1999.   Total
water ingestion  was defined as the sum  of  water
content from food (intrinsic water), beverages and
oxidation.  Beverages included milk, mineral water,
tap water, juice, soft drinks,  and coffee and tea.  Table
3-52 presents the mean water ingestion rates for these
different sources, as  well as mean  total   water
ingestion rates for three age ranges  of children (age 2
to 3  years,  age 4 to 8 years, and age 9 to 13 years).
According to Sichert-Hellert et al. (2001), mean total
water  ingestion  increased  with  age   from   1,114
mL/day in the 2 to 3 year old subjects to 1,891 and
1,676 mL/day in 9 to  13-year-old boys  and girls,
respectively.  However,  mean total water intake per
body weight  decreased with age.   Sichert-Hellert et
al. (2001) observed that the most important source of
total water ingestion  was  mineral water for  all
children, except the  2 to  3 year  olds.   For these
children, the most important source of total  water
ingestion was milk.
        One of the limitations of this study is  that it
evaluated   water and  beverage  consumption   in
German  children and,  as  such,  it may not  be
representative of consumption patterns  of U.S.
children.

3.3.2.16 Sohn et al, 2001 -  Fluid Consumption
        Related to Climate Among Children in the
        United States
        Sohn  et  al.   (2001)   investigated the
relationship  between  fluid   consumption  among
children aged 1 to 10 years and local climate using
data from the third  National  Health and Nutrition
Examination   Survey  (NHANES   III,  1988-94).
Children aged 1  to 10 years who completed the 24-
hour dietary  interview (or proxy  interview for the
younger children) during  the  NHANES III  survey
were selected for the analysis.  Breast-fed children
were excluded from  the  analysis.  Among  8,613
children who were surveyed, 688 (18 percent) were
excluded due to incomplete data.  A total of 7,925
eligible children remained.   Since  data for climatic
conditions were  not  collected  in the NHANES III
survey, the mean daily maximum  temperature from
1961 to 1990, averaged for the month during which
the  NHANES  III   survey was  conducted,  was
obtained for each survey location from the U.S. Local
Climate Historical Database.   Of the 7,925 eligible
children  with complete  dietary  data,  temperature
information was derived for only 3,869 children (48.8
percent)   since  detailed   information  on   survey
location, in terms of county and state, was released
only for counties with a population of more than a
half million.
        Sohn et  al.  (2001)  calculated  the total
amount of fluid  intake for  each child by adding the
fluid intake from plain drinking water and the fluid
intake  from foods  and beverages other than plain
drinking water provided by  NHANES III.  Sohn et al.
(2001) identified major fluid  sources as milk (and
milk drinks), juice (fruit and vegetable  juices and
other noncarbonated drinks), carbonated drinks, and
plain water.  Fluid intake  from sources other than
these major sources were all grouped into other foods
and beverages.  Other foods and beverages included
bottled water, coffee, tea,  baby  food, soup, water-
based beverages, and water used for dilution of food.
Mean fluid ingestion rates  of selected fluids for the
total sample  population and for the  subsets of the
sample  population with and without  temperature
information are  presented in Table 3-53.   The
estimated mean total fluid and plain water ingestion
rates for the  3,869 children for whom temperature
information was  obtained are presented in Table 3-54
according  to   age  (years),   sex,   race/ethnicity,
poverty/income  ratio,  region,  and  urban or rural.
Poverty/income ratio was defined as the ratio of the
reported family income to the  federal poverty level.
The  following   categories  were  assigned:  low
socioeconomic status (SES) = 0.000 to 1.300 times
the poverty/income ratio; medium SES = 1.3.01 to
3.500 times the poverty/income level; and high  SES
=  3.501  or greater times the  poverty/income level.
Regions  were as  Northeast, Midwest, South,  and
West, as defined by the U.S. Census (see Table 3-54).
Sohn et al. (2001) did not find  significant association
between mean daily maximum temperature and total
fluid or plain water ingestion, either before  or after
controlling for sex, age, SES  and race or ethnicity.
However,  significant  associations   between  fluid
ingestion and age, sex, socioeconomic  status and race
and ethnicity were reported.
        The main strength of the Sohn et al. (2001)
study is the evaluation of water intake as it relates to
weather data. The main limitations of this study were
that  northeast   and western  regions  were  over
represented since temperature data was only available
for counties  with populations in excess  of a  half
million.  In addition, whites were under-represented
compared to  other racial  or ethnic groups.   Other
limitations include  lack of data  for  children from
extremely cold or hot weather conditions.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                           3-17

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
3.3.2.17 Hilbig et al., 2002 - Measured
Consumption of Tap Water in German
Infants and Young Children as
Background for Potential Health Risk
Assessment: Data of the DONALD Study
Hilbig et al. (2002) estimated tap water
ingestion rates based on 3-day dietary records of 504
German children aged 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 36
months. The data were collected between 1990 and
1998 as part of the DONALD study. Details of data
collection for the DONALD study have been
provided previously under the Sichert-Hellert et al.
(2001) study in Section 3.3.2.15 of this handbook.
Tap water ingestion rates were calculated for three
subgroups of children: (1) breast-fed infants <12
months of age (exclusive and partial breast-fed
infants) (2) formula-fed infants <12 months of age
(no human milk, but including weaning food) and (3)
mixed-fed young children aged 18 to 36 months.
Hilbig et al. (2002) defined "total tap water from
household" as water from the tap consumed as a
beverage or used in food preparation. "Tap water
from food manufacturing" was defined as water used
in industrial production of foods, and "Total Tap
Water" was defined as tap water consumed from both
the household and that used in manufacturing.
Table 3-55 summarizes total tap water
ingestion (in mL/day and mL/kg-day) and tap water
ingestion from household and manufacturing sources
(in mL/kg-day) for breastfed, formula fed and mixed-
fed children. Mean total tap water intake was higher
in formula-fed infants (53 mL/kg-day) than in breast-
fed infants (17 g/kg-day) and mixed-fed young
children (19 g/kg-day). Tap water from household
sources constituted 66 to 97 percent of total tap water
ingestion in the different age groups.
The major limitation of this study is that the
study sample consists of families from an upper
social background in Germany (Hilbig et al., 2002).
Because the study was conducted in Germany, the
data may not be directly applicable to the U.S.
population.

3.3.2.18 Marshall et al, 2003a - Patterns of
Beverage Consumption during the
Transition Stage of Infant Nutrition
Marshall et al. (2003a) investigated
beverage ingestion during the transition stage of
infant nutrition. Mean ingestion of infant formula,
cow's milk, combined juice and juice drinks, water,
and other beverages were estimated using a
frequency questionnaire. A total of 701 children,
ages six months through 24 months, participated in
the Iowa Fluoride Study (IPS). Mothers of newborns
were recruited from 1992 through 1995. The parents
were sent questionnaires when the children were 6, 9,
12, 16, 20, and 24 months old. Of the 701 children,
470 returned all six questionnaires, 162 returned five,
58 returned four and 11 returned three, with the
minimum criteria being three questionnaires to be
included in the data set (Marshall et al., 2003a). The
questionnaire was designed to assess the type and
quantity of the beverages consumed during the
previous week. The validity of the questionnaire was
assessed using a three-day food diary for reference
(Marshall et al., 2003a). The percentage of subjects
consuming beverages and mean daily beverage
ingestion for children with returned questionnaires
are presented in Table 3-56. Human milk ingestion
was not quantified, but the percent of children
consuming human milk was provided at each age
category (Table 3-56). Juice (100 percent) and juice
drinks were not distinguished separately, but
categorized as juice and juice drinks. Water used to
dilute beverages beyond normal dilution and water
consumed alone were combined. Based on Table 3-
56, 97 percent of the children consumed human milk,
formula, or cow's milk throughout the study period,
and the percentage of infants consuming human milk
decreased with age, while the percent consuming
water increased (Marshall et al., 2003a). Marshall et
al. (2003a) observed that in general, lower family
incomes were associated with less breastfeeding and
increased ingestion of other beverages.
The advantage of this study is that it
provides mean ingestion data for various beverages.
Limitations of the study are that it is based on
samples gathered in one geographical area and may
not be reflective of the general population. The
authors also noted the following limitations: the
parents were not asked to differentiate between 100
percent juice and juice drinks; the data are parent-
reported and could reflect perceptions of appropriate
ingestion instead of actual ingestion, and a substantial
number of the infants from well educated,
economically secure households dropped out during
the initial phase.

3.3.2.19 Marshall et al., 2003b - Relative Validation
of a Beverage Frequency Questionnaire in
Children Ages 6 Months through 5 Years
Using 3-day Food and Beverage Diaries
Marshall et al. (2003b) conducted a study
based on data taken from 700 children in the IPS.
This study compared estimated beverage ingestion
rates reported in questionnaires for the preceding
week and dairies for the following week. Packets
were sent periodically (every 4 to 6 months) to
parents of children aged 6 weeks through 5 years of
Page
3-18
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
age.  This study analyzed data from children, ages 6
and 12 months, and 2 and 5 years of age. Beverages
were  categorized as human  milk, infant formula,
cow's milk, juice and juice drinks, carbonated  and
rehydration   beverages,  prepared   drinks   (from
powder) and water.  The beverage questionnaire was
completed by parents and  summarized the average
amount of each beverage consumed per day by their
children.     The   data  collection  for  the  diaries
maintained by parents included 1 weekend day and 2
week days and included detailed  information about
beverages consumed.  Table 3-57  presents  the mean
ingestion rates of all beverages for children aged 6
and 12 months and 3 and 5 years.  Marshall et al.
(2003b)  concluded  that   estimates   of  beverage
ingestion derived from quantitative questionnaires are
similar to those  derived from diaries.  They found
that it is  particularly useful to estimate ingestion of
beverages consumed  frequently  using quantitative
questionnaires.
        The  advantage of this   study is that  the
survey was  conducted  in  two  different  forms
(questionnaire and  diary)  and  that  diaries  for
recording beverage ingestion were maintained  by
parents for three days.  The  main limitation is the
lack  of information  regarding whether the diaries
were  populated on consecutive or non-consecutive
days.   The  IPS  survey participants  may  not  be
representative of the general population of the U.S.
since  participants were primarily white,  and from
affluent and well-educated families in one geographic
region of the country.

3.3.2.20 Skinner et al, 2004 - Transition in Infants'
        and Toddlers' Beverage Patterns
        Skinner et al. (2004) investigated the pattern
of beverage  consumption by infants  and  children
participating  in  the  Feeding Infant  and  Toddlers
Study  (FITS)  sponsored  by   Gerber   Products
Company.   The  FITS  is  a cross-sectional study
designed  to  collect  and analyze data on feeding
practices,  food  consumption, and usual  nutrient
intake of U.S. infants and toddlers (Devaney et al.,
2004).  It  included a  stratified random sample of
3,022 infants and toddlers between 4 and 24  months
of age.   Parents or primary  caregivers of sampled
infants and toddlers  completed  a  single  24-hour
dietary recall of all foods and beverages consumed by
the child  on the previous day by telephone interview.
All recalls were completed between March and July
2002.   Detailed information on data collection,
coding and analyses related to FITS are provided in
Devaney  et al. (2004).
        Beverages consumed by  FITS participants
were identified as total milks (i.e., human milk, infant
formulas,  cows  milk,  soy milk, goat  milk),  100
percent juices,  fruit drinks, carbonated beverages,
water and "other"  drinks (i.e., tea, cocoa,  dry milk
mixtures,  and electrolyte replacement  beverages).
There were six age groupings in the FITS study: 4 to
6, 7 to 8,  9 to 11,  12 to 14, 15 to 18, and 19 to 24
months.    Skinner  et  al. (2004)  calculated the
percentage of children in each age group consuming
any amount in a beverage category and the mean
amounts consumed.  Table 3-58 provides the mean
beverage consumption rates in mL/day for the six age
categories.  Skinner et al.  (2004) found that some
form of milk beverage was consumed by almost all
children at each age; however,  total milk  ingestion
decreased  with increasing  age.  Water consumption
also doubled with age, from 163 mL/day in children
aged 4 to  6  months old to 337  mL/day  at 19 to 24
months old.  The percentages of children consuming
water increased from 34 percent at 4 to 6 months of
age to 77 percent at 19 to 24 months of age.
        A major strength of the  Skinner et al. (2004)
study   is  the large  sample  size  (3,022 children).
However,  beverage ingestion estimates are  based on
one day  of dietary recall data  and human  milk
quantity derived from studies that weighed infants
before  and  after  each  feeding to  determine the
quantity of human milk consumed (Devaney et al.,
2004); therefore,  estimates of  total milk  ingestion
may not be accurate.
3.4
AND
LACTATING
        PREGNANT
        WOMEN
3.4.1    Key Study  on  Pregnant  and  Lactating
        Women
3.4.1.1  Kahn and Stralka, 2008b  -  Estimates of
        Water Ingestion for Women  in  Pregnant,
        Lactating and Non-Pregnant  and  Non-
        Lactating Child Bearing Age Groups Based
        on USDA's 1994-1996,1998 CSFII
        The   combined    1994-96   and   1998
Continuing Survey  of Food Intake by  Individuals
(CSFII) data sets were  analyzed to  examine  the
ingestion of water by various segments of the U.S.
population as described in  Section 3.2.  This study
provided water intake  data for pregnant,  lactating,
and  child-bearing age  women.  Mean  and  upper
percentile distribution data  are provided.  Lactating
women had an estimated per capita mean community
water  ingestion  of 1.38 L/day,  the highest  water
ingestion rates of any identified subpopulation. The
mean  consumer  only population was 1.67 L/day.
Tables 3-59 through 3-66 provide estimated drinking
water intake for pregnant and lactating women,  and
non-pregnant, non-lactating women 15-44 years old.
The same advantages and disadvantages discussed in
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                          Page
                                           3-19

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Section 3.2 apply to these data.
3.4.2 Relevant Studies on Pregnant and
Lactating Women
3.4.2.1 Ershow et al, 1991 - Intake of Tapwater
and Total Water by Pregnant and Lactating
Women
Ershow et al. (1991) used data from the
1977-78 USD A NFCS to estimate total fluid and total
tapwater intake among pregnant and lactating women
(ages 15-49 years). Data for 188 pregnant women,
77 lactating women, and 6,201 non-pregnant, non-
lactating control women were evaluated. The
participants were interviewed based on 24 hour
recall, and then asked to record a food diary for the
next 2 days. "Tapwater" included tapwater consumed
directly as a beverage and tapwater used to prepare
food and tapwater-based beverages. "Total water"
was defined as all water from tapwater and non-
tapwater sources, including water contained in food.
Estimated total fluid and total tapwater intake rates
for the three groups are presented in Tables 3-67 and
3-68, respectively. Lactating women had the highest
mean total fluid intake rate (2.24 L/day) compared
with both pregnant women (2.08 L/day) and control
women (1.94 L/day). Lactating women also had a
higher mean total tapwater intake rate (1.31 L/day)
than pregnant women (1.19 L/day) and control
women (1.16 L/day). The tapwater distributions are
neither normal nor lognormal, but lactating women
had a higher mean tapwater intake than controls and
pregnant women. Ershow et al. (1991) also reported
that rural women (n= 1,885) consumed more total
water (1.99 L/day) and tapwater (1.24 L/day) than
urban/suburban women (n=4,581, 1.93 and 1.13
L/day, respectively). Total water and tapwater intake
rates were lowest in the northeastern region of the
United States (1.82 and 1.03 L/day) and highest in
the western region of the United States (2.06 L/day
and 1.21 L/day). Mean intake per unit body weight
was highest among lactating women for both total
fluid and total tapwater intake. Total tapwater intake
accounted for over 50 percent of mean total fluid in
all three groups of women (Table 3-68). Drinking
water accounted for the largest single proportion of
the total fluid intake for control (30 percent),
pregnant (34 percent), and lactating women (30
percent) (Table 3-69). All other beverages combined
accounted for approximately 46 percent, 43 percent,
and 45 percent of the total water intake for control,
pregnant, and lactating women, respectively. Food
accounted for the remaining portion of total water
intake. The same advantages and limitations
associated with the Ershow and Cantor (1989) data
also apply to these data sets (Section 3.3.2.9). A
further advantage of this study is that it provides
information on estimates of total water and tapwater
intake rates for pregnant and lactating women. This
topic has rarely been addressed in the literature.

3.4.2.2 Forssen et al, 2007 - Predictors of Use and
Consumption of Public Drinking Water
Among Pregnant Women
Forssen et al. (2007) evaluated the
demographic and behavioral characteristics that
would be important in predicting water consumption
among pregnant women in the United States. Data
were collected through telephone interviews with
2,297 pregnant women in three geographical areas.
Women 18 years old and 12 weeks pregnant were
recruited from the local communities and from both
private and public prenatal care facilities in the
southern United States. Variables studied included
demographic, health status and history (e.g., diabetes,
pregnancy history), behavioral (e.g., exercise,
smoking, caffeine consumption), and some
physiological characteristics (e.g., pre-pregnancy
weight). Daily amount of water ingestion was
estimated based on cup sizes defined in the interview.
Water consumption was reported as cold tapwater
(filtered and unfiltered) and bottled water. Other
behavioral information on water use such as
showering and bathing habits, use of swimming
pools, hot tubs, and Jacuzzis was collected. The
overall mean tapwater ingested was 1.7 L/day
(percentiles: 25th = 0.5 L/day, 50th = 1.4 L/day, 75th =
2.4 L/day, and 90th =3.8 L/day). The overall mean
bottled water ingested was 0.6 L/day (percentiles:
25th = 0.1 L/day, 50th = 0.2 L/day, 75th = 0.6 L/day,
and 90th = 1.8 L/day. Table 3-70 presents water
ingestion by the different variables studied and Table
3-71 presents the percentage of ingested tapwater that
is filtered and unfiltered by various variables.

3.5 HIGH ACTIVITY LEVELS/HOT
CLIMATES
3.5.1 Relevant Studies on High Activity
Levels/Hot Climates
3.5.1.1 McNall and Schlegel, 1968 - Practical
Thermal Environmental Limits for Young
Adult Males Working in Hot, Humid
Environments
McNall and Schlegel (1968) conducted a
study that evaluated the physiological tolerance of
adult males working under varying degrees of
physical activity. Subjects were required to pedal
pedal-driven propeller fans for 8-hour work cycles
under varying environmental conditions. The activity
pattern for each individual was: cycled at 15 minute
pedaling and 15 minute rest for each 8-hour period.
Two groups of eight subjects each were used. Work
Page
3-20
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 -  Water Ingestion
rates were divided into three categories as follows:
high activity level [0.15 horsepower (hp) per person],
medium activity level  (0.1 hp per person), and low
activity level  (0.05  hp per person).   Evidence  of
physical  stress  (i.e.,  increased body temperature,
blood pressure, etc.) was recorded, and individuals
were eliminated from further testing if certain stress
criteria were met. The  amount of water consumed by
the test subjects  during the  work cycles was also
recorded.  Water was provided to the  individuals on
request.
        The water intake rates  obtained at the three
different    activity    levels    and   the    various
environmental temperatures are  presented in Table 3-
72.  The  data presented  are for test subjects with
continuous data only  (i.e. those test subjects who
were not eliminated at any  stage of the study as  a
result of  stress conditions).  Water intake was  the
highest  at all  activity levels  when  environmental
temperatures were increased.  The highest intake rate
was observed at the low activity level  at 100°F (0.65
L/hour) however, there  were  no data for  higher
activity levels at 100°F.  It should be  noted that this
study estimated intake on an  hourly basis  during
various  levels  of physical activity.   These  hourly
intake rates cannot be converted to daily intake rates
by multiplying by 24 hours/day because they are only
representative  of intake during  the specified activity
levels and the intake rates for the rest of the day are
not known.  Therefore,  comparison  of intake rate
values  from this study cannot be made with values
from the  previously described studies on drinking
water intake.

3.5.1.2  United  States   Army,   1983   -  Water
        Consumption  Planning Factors Study
        The   U.S.   Army  has  developed   water
consumption  planning factors  to enable  them  to
transport an adequate amount of water to soldiers in
the field under various  conditions (U.S. Army, 1983).
Both  climate  and  activity  levels  were  used  to
determine the  appropriate water consumption needs.
Consumption factors have been established for  the
following uses:   1)  drinking, 2) heat treatment,  3)
personal  hygiene, 4)  centralized hygiene, 5) food
preparation, 6) laundry,  7)  medical  treatment,  8)
vehicle   and   aircraft  maintenance,  9)   graves
registration, and  10) construction.   Only personal
drinking  water consumption factors  are  described
here.  Drinking water  consumption planning  factors
are based on the estimated amount of water needed to
replace  fluids  lost  by urination,  perspiration, and
respiration.   It assumes that water lost to urinary
output  averages  one  quart/day (0.9 L/day)  and
perspiration losses range  from  almost nothing in  a
controlled environment to 1.5 quarts/day (1.4 L/day)
in  a  very  hot  climate  where  individuals  are
performing  strenuous  work.    Water  losses  to
respiration are typically very low except in  extreme
cold where water  losses can  range from  1 to  3
quarts/day (0.9 to 2.8 L/day).  This occurs when the
humidity of inhaled air is near zero, but expired air is
98 percent saturated at body temperature (U.S. Army,
1983).
        Drinking water is defined by the U.S. Army
(1983) as  "all fluids  consumed by individuals  to
satisfy body needs for internal water." This includes
soups, hot and cold drinks, and tapwater. Planning
factors have been established for hot, temperate, and
cold climates based  on the following mixture  of
activities among the work force:   15 percent of the
force performing light work, 65 percent of the force
performing medium work, and 20 percent of the force
performing heavy work.  Hot climates are defined as
tropical and  arid  areas where the temperature  is
greater than 80°F.  Temperate climates are defined as
areas where the mean daily temperature ranges from
32°F to SOT.  Cold regions are areas where the mean
daily temperature is less than 32°F.  Drinking water
consumption  factors  for these three  climates  are
presented in Table 3-73.  These factors are based  on
research  on  individuals  and  small unit  training
exercises.    The  estimates  are  assumed  to   be
conservative because they are rounded up to account
for the subjective  nature of the  activity mix and
minor water losses that are not considered (U.S.
Army, 1983).
        The  advantage of using these  data is that
they provide  a  conservative  estimate  of drinking
water intake among individuals performing at various
levels of physical activity in hot, temperate, and cold
climates.  However, the planning factors described
here are based on assumptions about water loss from
urination, perspiration, and respiration,  and are  not
based on survey data or actual measurements.

3.6      WATER      INGESTION     WHILE
         SWIMMING
3.6.1   Key  Study  on  Water  Ingestion  While
        Swimming
3.6.1.1  Dufour  et al, 2006 -  Water  Ingestion
        During Swimming Activities in a Pool: A
        Pilot Study
        Dufour et al.  (2006) estimated the amount of
water ingested while swimming, using cyanuric acid
as an  indicator  of pool water ingestion exposure.
Cyanuric   acid   is  a  breakdown  product   of
chloroisocyanates  which are  commonly  used  as
disinfectant   stabilizers  in   recreational    water
treatment.  Because  ingested cyanuric  acid passes
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                            3-21

-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                         Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
through the body unmetabolized, the volume of water
ingested can be  estimated based on the amount of
cyanuric acid measured in the pool water and in the
urine of swimmers, as follows:
 pool water ingested  ^ urine -^ ^-^ urine ^^ pool
                                         il. J~i)
where:


 * pool water ingested


 » urine            ~~



CA^


CAp00i          —
                        volume of pool water
                        ingested (mL)
                        volume of urine collected
                        over a 24-hour period
                        (mL)
                        concentration of cyanuric
                        acid in urine (mg/L)
                        concentration of cyanuric
                        acid in pool water (mg/L)
        Dufour et al. (2006) estimated  pool water
intake among 53 swimmers that participated in a pilot
study at an  outdoor  swimming pool treated with
chloroisocyanate.    This  pilot  study  population
included 12 adults (4  males  and 8  females) and 41
children under 18 years of  age  (20  males and 21
females).  The study participants were asked not to
swim for 24 hours before or after a 45 minute period
of active swimming in the pool. Pool water samples
were  collected prior to  the  start  of  swimming
activities and swimmers' urine was collected for 24
hours after the swimming event ended.   The pool
water and urine sample were analyzed for cyanuric
acid.
        The results of this pilot study are presented
in Table 3-74. The mean volume of water ingested
over a 45-minute period was 16 mL for adults and 37
mL for children.   The maximum volume  of water
ingested by adults was 53  mL and by children was
154    mL/45   minutes,    as   found    in   the
recommendations  table for  water  ingestion while
swimming (Table 3-5). The 95th percentile volume of
water ingested by  all participants  combined  was
approximately 90 mL/hour (Table 3-5).
        The advantage of this  study is that it is one
of the first attempts to measure water ingested while
swimming.     However,   the   number  of  study
participants was low and data cannot be  broken out
by the recommended age categories. As noted by the
Dufour  et al.  (2006), swimming behavior of pool
swimmers may be similar to freshwater swimmers,
but may differ from salt water swimmers.
        Based on the results  of the Dufour et al.
(2006) study, the recommended mean water ingestion
rate  for exposure  scenarios involving  swimming
activities is 21 mL/hour for  adults  and 50  mL/hour
for children under 18 years of age. Because the data
set is limited, upper percentile  water ingestion rates
for swimming  is based  on the maximum  values
observed in the  Dufour et al.  (2006) study:  71
mL/hour for adults and 200 mL/hour  for children
(Table 3-5).

3.7     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
Bourne,  G.H.;   Kidder,   G.W.,   eds.     (1953)
        Biochemistry and physiology  of  nutrition.
        Vol. 1.  New York, NY: Academic Press.
Canadian Ministry of National Health  and Welfare
        (1981)   Tapwater consumption in Canada.
        Document  number 82-EHD-80.    Public
        Affairs Directorate, Department of National
        Health  and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada.
Cantor,  K.P; Hoover, R.; Hartge, P.; Mason,  T.J.;
        Silverman,  D.T.; et al.   (1987)  Bladder
        cancer, drinking water source, and tapwater
        consumption: A case-control study. J. Natl.
        Cancer Inst. 79(6): 1269-1279.
Devaney, B.; Kalb, L.; Briefel, R.; Zavitsky-Novak,
        T.; Clusen, N.;  Ziegler,  P. (2004) Feeding
        Infants and Toddlers Study: Overview of the
        study  design.    J  Am Diet  Assoc   104
        (supplement 1): S8-S13.
Dufour, A.P; Evans, O.;  Behymer, T.D., Cantu, R.
        (2006)  Water ingestion  during swimming
        activities in  a pool: a  pilot study.  J Water
        Health  4(4):425-430.
Ershow, A.G.; Cantor, K.P.  (1989)  Total water and
        tapwater intake  in  the  United  States:
        population-based estimates of quantities and
        sources.   Life  Sciences  Research  Office,
        Federation   of   American   Societies   for
        Experimental Biology.
Ershow, A.G.;  Brown, L.M.;  Cantor, K.P.   (1991)
        Intake of  tapwater and  total water  by
        pregnant and lactating women. American
        Journal of Public Health.  81:328-334.
Evans,  C.L.,  ed.   (1941)  Starling's principles of
        human physiology,  8th  ed.   Philadelphia,
        PA: Lea and Febiger.
Forssen, U.; Herring, D; Savitz, D.; Nieuwenhuijsen,
        M.; et  al.   (2007) Predictors  of use and
        consumption of public  drinking  water
        among  pregnant  woman.  J.  Exp.  Sci. and
        Env. Epid., (17) 159-169.
Gillies,  M.E.; Paulin, H.V.   (1983)   Variability of
        mineral intakes  from drinking water:  A
        possible  explanation  for the  controversy
        over the relationship  of water quality to
        cardiovascular  disease.     Int.   J.  Epid.
        12(1):45-50.
Page
3-22
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                            July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Guyton,  A.C.     (1968)  Textbook   of  medical
        physiology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B.
        Saunders Co.
Heller, K.; Sohn,  W.;  Burt, B.; Feigal,  R.  (2000)
        Water     consumption    and    nursing
        characteristics   of infants  by  race   and
        ethnicity.  J Public Health Dent 60 (3) 140-
        146.
Hilbig, A.; Kersting, M; Sichert-Hellert, W. (2002) -
        Measured consumption of  tap   water in
        German  infants  and  young  children  as
        background   for  potential   health   risk
        assessment: Data of the DONALD study.
        Food Addit Contam  19 (9): 829-836.
Hopkins, S.M.; Ellis, J.C.  (1980)  Drinking water
        consumption in Great Britain:  a survey of
        drinking habits with special reference to  tap-
        water-based  beverages.   Technical  Report
        137,  Water Research Centre, Wiltshire Great
        Britain.
Kahn,  H.; Stralka,  K.  (2008a) Estimated  daily
        average per capita water ingestion by child
        and adult age categories based on USDA's
        1994-96 and 1998 continuing survey of food
        intakes by individuals.  Journal of Exposure
        Science and Environmental Epidemiology:
        1-9.
Kahn, H;  Stralka, K.   (2008b) Estimates of water
        ingestion for women in pregnant, lactating,
        and  non-pregnant and non-lactating child-
        bearing age groups based on USDA's 1994-
        96, 1998 Continuing Survey Of Food Intake
        By Individuals. Human and Ecological Risk
        Assessment:   An   International   Journal,
        14:6,1273-1290.
Kahn,  H.  (2008).  Letter from Henry   Kahn to
        Jacqueline    Moya,    EPA,    providing
        supplemental   data   to  "Estimated  daily
        average per capita water ingestion by child
        and adult age categories based on USDA's
        1994-96 and 1998 continuing survey of food
        intakes  by  individuals"  (September  18,
        2008).
Levy, S.; Kohout, F.; Guha-Chowdhury, N.; Kiristy,
        J., Heilman, et al. (1995) Infants' fluoride
        intake from drinking water alone, and from
        water added  to  formula, beverages,  and
        food. J Dent Res (74): 1399-1407.
LSRO  (1995)   Life   Sciences  Research Office,
        Federation of  American   Societies  for
        Experimental  Biology  Prepared for  the
        Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring
        and  Related  Research. Third Report  on
        Nutrition Monitoring  in the  United States:
        Volume 1. U.S. Government Printing Office,
        Washington, D.C.
Marshall,  T.; Levy,  S.; Broffitt, B.; Eichenberger-
        Gilmore, J.; Stumbo, P. (2003a) Patterns of
        beverage consumption during the transition
        stage of infant nutrition. J Amer Diet Assoc
        103(10):1350-1353.
Marshall,  T; Eichenberger  Gilmore,  J; Broffitt, B.;
        Levy,   S.;  Stumbo,  P. (2003b)  Relative
        Validation   of  a  beverage   frequency
        questionnaire in children  Ages  6 months
        through  5  years  using  3-day  food and
        beverage diaries. J Amer Diet Assoc  103
        (6):714-720.
McNall,  P.E.;   Schlegel, J.C.    (1968)   Practical
        thermal environmental limits  for  young
        adult   males   working  in  hot,   humid
        environments.      American   Society   of
        Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
        Engineers (ASHRAE) Transactions 74:225-
        235.
National  Academy  of  Sciences  (NAS).   (1974)
        Recommended  dietary  allowances, 8th ed.
        Washington,  DC:  National  Academy  of
        Sciences-National Research Council.
National Academy  of  Sciences  (NAS).    (1977)
        Drinking  water  and  health.    Vol.  1.
        Washington, DC:   National Academy  of
        Sciences-National Research Council.
Pennington,  J.A.T. (1983)  Revision of the total diet
        study food list and diets. J.  Am. Diet. Assoc.
        82:166-173.
Pike, R.L.; Brown, M.  (1975) Minerals and water in
        nutrition~an integrated approach, 2nd ed.
        New York, NY: John Wiley.
Randall, H.T   (1973)  Water, electrolytes  and acid
        base balance.  In:  Goodhart  RS, Shils ME,
        eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease.
        Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger.
Roseberry, A.M.; Burmaster, D.E. (1992) Lognormal
        distribution for water intake by children and
        adults. Risk Analysis 12:99-104.
Sichert-Hellert,  W;  Kersting, M.; Manz, F.  (2001)
        Fifteen  year trends  in  water  intake  in
        German children and adolescents: results of
        the  DONALD study. Acta Paediatr 90: 732-
        7.
Skinner, J.; Ziegler, P.; Ponza, M. (2004) - Transition
        in Infants' and Toddlers' Beverage Patterns.
        J Amer Diet Assoc Supplement 1 104 (1):
        S45-S50.
Sohn, W.; Heller, K. E.; Burt, B.  A. (2001) Fluid
        consumption  related   to  climate   among
        children  in the United States.   J  Public
        Health Dent. 61(2): 99-106.
Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis,  N.E.  (1996)  Results tables
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                          Page
                                           3-23

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
from a detailed analysis of the National
Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)
responses. Draft Report prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by
Lockheed Martin, Contract No. 68-W6-001,
Delivery Order No. 13.
U.S. Army. (1983) Water Consumption Planning
Factors Study. Directorate of Combat
Developments, United States Army
Quartermaster School, Fort Lee, Virginia.
USD A. (1995) Food and nutrient intakes by
individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1989-
91. United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
NFS Report No. 91-2.
USD A. (1998) Continuing survey of food intakes by
individuals: 1994-96, 1998. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service.
U.S. EPA. (1984) An estimation of the daily average
food intake by age and sex for use in
assessing the radionuclide intake of
individuals in the general population. EPA-
520/1-84-021.
U.S. EPA. (2000) Methodology for deriving
ambient water quality criteria for the
protection of human health (2000). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C., EPA-822-00-004.
October 2000.
U.S. EPA. (2004) Estimated Per Capita Water
Ingestion and Body Weight in the United
States— an Update: Based on Data
Collected by the United States Department
of Agriculture's 1994-96 and 1998
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.,
EPA-822-R-00-001. October 2004.
U.S. EPA. (2005) Guidance on Selecting Age Groups
for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposures to Environmental Contaminants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., EPA/630/P-03/003F.
November 2005.
Walker, B.S.; Boyd, W.C.; Asimov, I. (1957)
Biochemistry and human metabolism, 2nd
ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Co.
Wolf, A.V., (1958) Body water. Scientific American
1958 Nov; 199(5): 125-6
Page
3-24
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
      Table 3-7. Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion: Community Water
                                              (mL/day)
          Age
Sample   , ,
  .  r    Mean
                                                               Percentiles
                        size
                                         10
                           25
50
75
90
95
99
   Birth to <1 month      91      184      -        -        -       322     687*    839*     860*

   1 to <3 months         253     227      -        -        -       456     804     896*    1,165*

   3 to <6 months         428     362      -        -       148      695     928     1,056    1,424*

   6 to <12 months        714     360      -       17      218      628     885     1,055    1,511*

   1 to <2 years          1,040    271      -       60      188      402     624      837    1,215*

   2 to <3 years          1,056    317      -       78      246      479     683      877    1,364*

   3 to <6 years          4,391    380      4       98      291      547     834     1,078     1,654

   6to21 years             9,207   1,104    69       422      928     1,530     2,230    2,811     4,523

   >65 years'           2,170   1,127    16       545     1,067    1,601     2,139    2,551     4,242

   All ages            20,607    926     30       263      710     1,311     2,014    2,544     4,242
   a        Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during survey
           period.
   b        Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
           in the preparation of food or beverages.
           U.S. EPA, 2004.
           = Zero.
   *        The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
           Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).

   Source: Kahn, 2008 (based on 1994-1996, 1998 USD A Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
          (CSFII).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                        Page
                                                                        3-25

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
















Table 3-8. Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13
. Sample ,f
Slze 10 25 50
Birth to <1 month 91 104
1 to <3 months 253 106 -
3 to <6 months 428 120 -
6 to <12 months 714 120 -
1 to <2 years 1,040 59
2 to <3 years 1,056 76
3 to <6 years 4,391 84
6to21 years 9,207 189 -
>65 years' 2,170 136 -
All ages 20,607 163 -

Water Ingestion: Bottled Water (mL/day)
Percentiles
75 90 95 99
18 437* 556* 1,007*
541 771* 1,056*
572 774 1,443*
53 506 761 1,284*
212 350 801*
280 494 1,001*
325 531 1,031*
330 532 1,079*
382 709 1,431*
426 680* 1,605*
514 1,141* 2,364*
754 1,183 2,129
591 1,038 1,957
592 1,059 2,007
a Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during survey
period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
= Zero.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII).















Page
3-26
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
















Table 3-9. Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13
Sample
Slze 10 25 50
Birth to <1 month 91 13 -
1 to <3 months 253 35
3 to <6 months 428 45
6 to <12 months 714 45
1 to <2 years 1,040 22
2 to <3 years 1,056 39
3 to <6 years 4,391 43
6to21 years 9,207 156 -
>65yearsc 2,170 171
All ages 20,607 128 -

Water Ingestion: Other Sources (mL/day)
Percentiles
75 90 95 99
393*
367* 687*
365 938*
31 406 963*
118 482*
52 344 718*
58 343 830
181 468 1,047*
344 786 1,698*
295 740* 1,760*
246* 1,047*
541 1,257 2,381
697 1,416 2,269
345 1,008 2,151
a Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during survey
period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
= Zero.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII).















Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009                                                                     3-27

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion


Table 3-10. Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion: All Sources
, Sample Tf Percentiles
Age . Mean
Slze 10 25 50 75 90 95
Birth to <1 month 91 301 - - 135 542 846* 877*
1 to <3 months 253 368 - - 267 694 889 1,020*
3 to <6 months 428 528 - 89 549 812 1,025 1,303
6 to <12 months 714 530 37 181 505 771 1,029 1,278
1 to <2 years 1,040 358 68 147 287 477 735 961
2 to <3 years 1,056 437 104 211 372 588 825 999
3 to <6 years 4,391 514 126 251 438 681 980 1,200
6to21 years 9,207 1,466 500 828 1,278 1,871 2,553 3,195
>65yearsc 2,170 1,451 651 935 1,344 1,832 2,323 2,708
All ages 20,607 1,233 285 573 1,038 1,633 2,341 2,908

(mL/day)

99
1,088*
1,265*
1,509*
1,690*
1,281*
1,662*
1,794
2,167*
3,179*
3,854*
4,955*
5,174
3,747
4,805
a Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during survey
period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
= Zero.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn,2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII).

Page
3-28
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009

-------
i
    a
    I
    1=
Table 3-11. Per Capita* Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion, Mean Confidence Intervals
and 95th Percentiles: All Sources (mL/day)





A w
rtge

Birth to <1 month
Ito
3 to
6 to
Ito
2 to
3 to
6 to
<3 months
<6 months
<12 months
<2 years
<3 years
<6 years
<11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <18 years
18 to <21 years
>21
>65
All
a
b

c
*
years
years"
ages
Includes all

Sample
size

91
253
428
714
1,040
1,056
4,391
1,670
1,005
363
389
9,207
2,170
20,607

Mean
90th percentile
90% C.I.
Estimate Lower

301
368
528
530
358
437
514
600
834
964
1,075
1,466
1,451
1,233
participants whether or not
Bound
215
304
485
495
338
418
494
571
770
870
980
1,427
1,412
1,200
Upper
Bound
387
432
571
564
377
455
533
629
898
1,057
1,171
1,506
1,489
1,265
Estimate

846*
889
1,025
1,029
735
825
980
1,130
1,649
1,842
2,117
2,553
2,323
2,341
they ingested any water from the source
and Bootstrap Intervals
for 90th
95th percentile
90% B.I.
Lower
Bound
638*
862
955
973
686
784
953
1,065
1,567
1,743
1,952
2,511
2,279
2,303
Upper
Bound
859*
896
1,083
1,100
778
857
1,004
1,162
1,775
1,988
2,299
2,607
2,388
2,377
Estimate

839*
896*
1,056
1,055
837
877
1,078
1,235
1,727
1,983*
2,540*
2,811
2,708
2,908
90% B.I.
Lower
Bound
638*
878*
1,043
1,008
754
828
1,053
1,148
1,615
1,843*
1,908*
2,732
2,632
2,812
Upper
Bound
859*
1,022*
1,170
1,254
925
939
1,109
1,317
1,780
2,128*
2,934*
2,924
2,760
2,975
during survey period.
Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added in the
beverages.







preparation of food or



U.S. EPA, 2004.
The sample
size does not meet
minimum requirements
as described in the Third Report on
Nutrition Monitoring in the
United States
(LSRO, 1995).
CI
BI
= Confidence Interval.
= Bootstrap Interval.
Source: Kahn,2008
(Based on 1994- 1996, 1998
USDA Continuing Survey
of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).
   >

-------
                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                      Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
     Table 3-12.  Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion: Community Water
                                            (mL/kg-day)
          .            Sample  , ,
         Age           .      Mean
                                                              Percentiles
                       Slze              10      25       50      75       90      95       99
  Birth to <1 month       88      52               -        -       101     196*    232*     253*
  1 to <3 months        245      48      -        -        -       91      151     205*     310*
  3 to <6 months        411      52      -        -        20      98      135      159     216*
  6 to <12 months       678      41      -        2        24      71      102      126     185*
  1 to <2 years          1,002     23      -        5        17      34       53      71      106*
  2 to <3 years          994      23      -        6        17      33       50      60      113*
  3 to <6 years          4,112     22      -        6        17      31       48      61       93
  6to21 years             9,049     15      1        6        12      21       31      39       62
  >65 years'            2,139     16      -        7        15      23       31      37       52
  All ages             19,850     16      1        5        12      21       32      43       75
  a       Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during survey period.
  b       Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added in
          the preparation of food or beverages.
          U.S. EPA, 2004.
          = Zero.
  *       The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
          Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
  Source:  Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
          (CSFII).
Page                                                               Exposure Factors Handbook
3-30                                                                                   July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion

















Table 3-13. Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion:
Bottled Water (mL/kg-day)
, Sample
Age . Mean
size 10 25 50
Birth to <1 month 88 33 -
1 to <3 months 245 22
3 to <6 months 411 16
6 to <12 months 678 13
1 to <2 years 1,002 5 - - -
2 to <3 years 994 5 -
3 to <6 years 4,112 5 - - -
6to21 years 9.049 3 - - -
>65 years' 2,139 2 - - -
All ages 19,850 3 - - -
Percentiles
75 90 95 99
6 131* 243* 324*
97 161* 242*
74 117 193*
4 52 87 139*
18 28 67*
19 35 84*
18 30 59
10 18 41*
8 14 26*
6 10* 27*
8 19* 34*
10 17 32
9 15 27
10 18 39
a Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during survey
period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
= Zero.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing
(CSFII).
Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals















Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-31

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion

















Table 3-14. Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/kg-day)
Sample „ Percentiles
Slze 10 25 50 75
Birth to <1 month 88 4 -
1 to <3 months 245 7 ....
3 to <6 months 411 7 -
6 to <12 months 678 5 - - - -
1 to <2 years 1,002 2
2 to <3 years 994 3 - - - -
3 to <6 years 4,112 2
6to21 years 9,049 2
>65yearsc 2,139 2
All ages 19,850 2

90 95 99
122*
52* 148*
55 155*
3 35 95*
11 45*
4 23 61*
3 19 48
7 16 36*
7 14 34*
5 11* 27*
4* 14*
7 17 33
10 20 35
6 16 35
a Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during survey
period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
= Zero.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII).















Page
3-32
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion

























Table 3-15. Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion:
All Sources (mL/kg-day)
Age
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <18 years
18to<21years
>21 years
>65 years0
All ages
Sample
size
88
245
411
678
1,002
994
4,112
1,553
975
360
383
9,049
2,139
20,850
Mean
89
77
75
59
31
31
29
21
16
15
16
20
21
21

10
-
-
-
4
6
7
7
6
4
4
3
7
9
6

25
-
-
9
20
13
15
14
10
8
6
6
11
13
10

50
21
46
73
53
24
26
25
18
13
12
12
17
19
17
Percentiles
75
168
134
118
86
39
41
38
27
20
18
21
26
27
26

90
235*
173
156
118
63
59
56
39
31
28
32
36
34
38

95
269*
246*
186
148
85
73
69
50
39
37*
41*
44
39
50

99
338*
336*
225*
194*
122*
130*
102
76*
60*
59*
73*
68
54
87
a Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during survey
period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
= Zero.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008
(CSFII).
(Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals















Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-33

-------

Table 3-16. Per Capita3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect15 Water Ingestion, Mean Confidence Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals for 90th and 95th
Percentiles: All Sources (mL/kg-day)
Mean
A pp
rtgC
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <18 years
18to<21 years
>21 years
> 65 years0
All ages
Sample
size
88
245
411
678
1,002
994
4,112
1,553
975
360
383
9,049
2,139
19,850
90th percentile
90% C.I.
^ .. , Lower
Estimate „ ,
Bound
89
77
75
59
31
31
29
21
16
15
16
20
21
21
64
62
68
54
29
30
28
20
15
13
14
19
20
20
Upper
Bound
114
91
82
63
32
33
30
22
17
16
17
21
21
21
Estimate
235*
173
156
118
63
59
56
39
31
28
32
36
34
38
a Includes all participants whether or not they ingested any water from the source during
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly
U.S. EPA, 2004.


90% B.I.
Lower
Bound
198*
164
145
112
59
57
54
36
29
27
29
35
34
38
Upper
Bound
269*
217
162
128
68
62
56
41
34
32
35
37
35
39
Estimate
269*
246*
186
148
85
73
69
50
39
37*
41*
44
39
50
95th percentile
90% B.l


Lower Upper
Bound Bound
236*
187*
176
134
73
69
66
47
36
33*
36*
43
37
48
332*
295*
199
166
95
81
72
52
41
44*
44*
45
41
51
survey period.
as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added in the preparation of food or beverages.


* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the



Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the



United States (LSRO, 1995).
CI = Confidence Interval.
BI = Bootstrap Interval.
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on
1994-1996, 1998 USDA
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII)



I
 §
s
I
 3
                                                                                                                                                                 I
 1=

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
     Table 3-17. Consumers Only3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion: Community
                                           Water (mL/day)
          .            Sample   , ,
          Age            .      Mean 	
                        size             10
                                                              Percentiles
25
50
75
90
95
99
   Birth to <1 month      40     470*     32*     215*    482*     692*    849*     858*    919*
   1 to <3 months         114     552     67*     339      533     801     943*    1,053*   1,264*
   3 to <6 months         281     556     44      180      561     837     1,021    1,171*   1,440*
   6 to <12 months        562     467     44      105      426     710      971     1,147    1,586*
   1 to <2 years           916     308     43      107      229     428      674     893     1,248*
   2 to <3 years           934     356     49      126      281     510      700     912     1,388*
   3 to <6 years          3,960     417     57      146      336     581      867     1,099    1,684
   6to21 years             8,505    1,183     208     529     1,006     1,582    2,289     2,848    4,665
   >65 years'           1,958    1,242     310     704     1,149     1,657    2,190     2,604    3,668
   All ages             18,509   1,000     127     355      786     1,375    2,069     2,601    4,274
   a       Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the survey period.
   b       Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
          in the preparation of food or beverages.
          U.S. EPA, 2004.
   *       The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
          Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
   Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
          (CSFII).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                            Page
                                             3-35

-------
                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                      Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
           Table 3-18. Consumers Only3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion:
                                       Bottled Water (mL/day)
          Age
Sample
 size
Mean
                                                              Percentiles
                                        10
                           25
                           50
75
90
95
99
   Birth to <1 month      25       --------
   1 to <3 months         64     450*     31*     62*     329*     743*    886*    1,045*   1,562*
   3 to <6 months         103      507     48*      88      493     747     1,041*   1,436*   1,506*
   6 to <12 months        200      425     47      114      353     630     945*    1,103*   1,413*
   1 to <2 years           229      262     45       88      188     324      600     709*    1,083*
   2 to <3 years           232      352     57      116      241     471      736     977*    1,665*
   3 to <6 years          1,021     380     72      149      291     502      796     958     1,635*
   6to21 years             1,893     831     167     354      650     1,071    1,773     2,093    3,505
   >65 years'            302      910     234     465      785     1,182    1,766     2,074    2,548
   All ages             4,451     736     118     266      532     975     1,567     1,964    3,312
   a       Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the survey period.
   b       Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
          in the preparation of food or beverages.
          U.S. EPA, 2004.
          Insufficient sample size to estimate mean and percentiles.
   *       The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
          Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
   Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
          (CSFII).
Page
3-36
                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                  July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion



Table 3-19. Consumers Only3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion:
Other Sources (mL/day)
Sample „ Percentiles
Slze 10 25 50 75 90 95
Birth to <1 month 3 .......
1 to <3 months 19 .......
3 to <6 months 38 562* 59* 179* 412* 739* 983* 1,205*
6 to <12 months 73 407* 31* 121* 300* 563* 961* 1,032*
1 to <2 years 98 262 18* 65 143 371 602* 899*
2 to <3 years 129 354 56* 134 318 472 704* 851*
3 to <6 years 533 396 59 148 314 546 796 1,019
6to21 years 1,386 1,137 236 503 976 1,533 2,161 2,739
>65 years' 323 1,259 360 680 1,188 1,660 2,136 2,470
All ages 2,735 963 148 347 741 1,344 1,970 2,468

99
2,264*
1,144*
1,204*
1,334*
1,543*
1,596*
2,891*
2,635*
1,962*
4,673
3,707*
3,814
a Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the survey period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
Insufficient sample size to estimate means and percentiles.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII).

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-37

-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                      Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
           Table 3-20. Consumers Only3 Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion:
                                        All Sources (mL/day)
          Age
Sample
 size
Mean
                                                              Percentiles
                                         10
                           25
                           50
75
90
95
99
   Birth to <1 month      58     511*     51*     266*     520*    713*     858*    986*    1,274*

   1 to <3 months         178     555     68*     275      545      801      946*    1,072*   1,470*

   3 to <6 months         363     629     69      384      612      851      1,064    1,330*   1,522*

   6 to <12 months        667     567     90      250      551      784      1,050    1,303    1,692*

   1 to <2 years          1,017    366     84      159      294      481      735      978    1,281*

   2 to <3 years          1,051    439     105     213      375      589      825     1,001    1,663*

   3 to <6 years          4,350    518     134     255      442      682      980     1,206     1,796

   6to21 years            9,178   1,472     506     829      1,282    1,877     2,559    3,195     5,175

   >65yearsc           2,167   1,453     651     939      1,345    1,833     2,324    2,708     3,750

   All ages            20,261   1,242     296     585      1,047    1,642     2,345    2,923     4,808
   a       Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the survey period.
   b       Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
          in the preparation of food or beverages.
          U.S. EPA, 2004.
   *       The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
          Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).

   Source: Kahn, 2008  (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
          (CSFII).
Page
3-38
                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                  July 2009

-------
if
  >  £
  >  a
I
1=
                     Table 3-21.  Consumers Only1" Estimates of Combined Direct and Indirect15 Water Ingestion, Mean Confidence Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals
                                                             for 90th and 95th Percentiles: All Sources (mL/day)
                                                              Mean
                                                    90th percentile
                                                        95th percentile
                           Age
Sample
  size
                                                                  90% C.I.
                             90% B.I.
                                                   90% B.I.
                                                  Estimate
                     Lower
                     Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
                   Birth to <1 month        58       511*       417*      606*          858*      856*       993*         986*       974*      1,076*
                   1 to <3 months           178       555       487        622          946*      891*      1,042*        1,072*     1,022*     1,183*
                   3 to <6 months           363       629       587        672          1,064      1,011       1,177         1,330*     1,183*     1,431*
                   6 to <12 months          667       567       534        600          1,050      1,001       1,141         1,303       1,181       1,372
                   1 to <2 years            1,017       366       346        385          735        715       765          978        915       1,001
                   2 to <3 years            1,051       439       420        457          825        784       857         1,001        944       1,075
                   3 to <6 years            4,350       518       499        537          980        961       1,000         1,206       1,171       1,253
                   6to21 years               9,178      1,472       1,472      1,432          2,559      2,522       2,602         3,195       3,121       3,363
                   >65 years0              2,167      1,453       1,415      1,491          2,324      2,279       2,388         2,708       2,636       2,789
                   All ages _ 20,261     1,242       1,210      1,274 _ 2,345      2,284       2,403 _ 2,923       2,842       2,997
                   a       Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the survey period.
                   b       Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added in the preparation of food or beverages.
                            U.S. EPA, 2004.
                   *       The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States (LSRO,
                           1995).
                   CI      = Confidence Interval.
                   BI      = Bootstrap Interval.
                   Source: Kahn, 2008  (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion



Table 3-22. Consumers Only3 Estimates of Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion:
Community Water (mL/kg-day)
Sample „ Percentiles
Slze 10 25 50 75 90 95
Birth to <1 month 37 137* 11* 65* 138* 197* 235* 238*
1 to <3 months 108 119 12* 71 107 151 228* 285*
3 to <6 months 269 80 7 27 77 118 148 173*
6 to <12 months 534 53 5 12 47 81 112 129
1 to <2 years 880 27 4 9 20 36 56 75
2 to <3 years 879 26 4 9 21 36 52 62
3 to <6 years 3,703 24 3 8 19 33 49 65
6to21 years 8,355 16 3 7 13 22 32 39
>65 years' 1,927 18 5 10 16 24 34 37
All ages 17,815 17 3 7 13 22 33 44

99
263*
345*
222*
186*
109*
121*
97
72*
54*
58*
63*
63
53
77
a Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the survey period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII).

Page
3-40
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion






























Table 3-23. Consumers Only3 Estimates of Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion:
A^e Mean

Slze 10 25 50
Birth to <1 month 25 - - - -
1 to <3 months 64 92* 7* 12* 76*
3 to <6 months 95 72 6* 15 69
6 to <12 months 185 47 5* 11 34
1 to <2 years 216 22 5 8 16
2 to <3 years 211 25 4 8 17
3 to <6 years 946 21 4 8 16
6to21 years 1,861 12 2 5 9
>65 years' 297 13 3 7 12
All ages 4,234 13 2 5 9
Percentiles

75
-
151*
100
73
27
35
29
19
14
11*
14
16
17
17
a Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beveraj
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
Insufficient sample size to estimate means and percentiles.






Bottled Water (mL/kg-day)


90 95
-
164* 220*
149* 184*
104* 120*
49 66*
54 81*
45 57
30 42*
24* 27*
23* 27*
27* 30*
25 31
26 30
27 36
survey period.


99
-
411*
213*
166*
103*
91*
90*
69*
44*
37*
54*
45
42*
72

*e; indirect water defined as water added






* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USD A Continuing
(CSFII).





Nutrition

; Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals






























Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009




Page
3-41

-------
                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                      Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
   Table 3-24. Consumers Only3 Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion: Other Sources (mL/kg-day)
          Age
Sample
 size
Mean
                                                              Percentiles
                                        10
                           25
                          50
75
90
95
99
   Birth to <1 month       3        -----        ...

   1 to <3 months         19       -----        ...

   3 to <6 months         38      80*     10*     23*     59*     106*      170*    200*    246*

   6 to <12 months        68      44*     4*      10*     33*     65*      95*     106*    147*

   1 to <2 years           95      23      1*       5       13      28       46*      84*    125*

   2 to <3 years           124     26      4*       10      21      34       55*      66*    114*

   3 to <6 years           505     22       3        8       17      30        46      56     79*

   6to21 years             1,365     15       3        6       13      21        30      39      58

   >65yearsc            322     18       5        9       16      24        31      37     50*

   All ages             2,657     16       3        6       12      21        32      41      67
   a       Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the survey period.
   b       Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
          in the preparation of food or beverages.
          U.S. EPA, 2004.
          Indicates insufficient sample size to estimate distribution percentiles.
   *       The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition
          Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).

   Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
          (CSFII).
Page
3-42
                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                  July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion

















Table 3-25. Consumers Only3
Age Sample
6 size
Birth to <1 month 55
1 to <3 months 172
3 to <6 months 346
6 to <12 months 631
1 to <2 years 980
2 to <3 years 989
3 to <6 years 4,072
6to21 years 9,020
>65 years' 2,136
All ages 19,509



Estimates


153*
116
90
63
31
31
29
21
16
15
16
20
21
21












of Direct and Indirect13 Water Ingestion:

10
13*
12*
9
10
7
7
7
6
4
4
3
7
9
6

25
83*
50
52
27
14
15
15
10
8
7
6
11
13
11

50
142*
107
86
58
25
27
25
18
13
12
12
17
19
17
Percentiles
75
208*
161
125
88
40
41
38
27
20
18
21
26
27
26









All Sources (mL/kg-day)

90
269*
216*
161
120
64
59
56
39
31
29
32
36
34
38

95
273*
291*
195*
152
86
73
70
50
39
37*
41*
44
39
50

99
400*
361*
233*
198*
122*
130*
102*
76*
60*
60*
73*
68
54
87
a Excludes individuals who did not ingest water from the source during the survey period.
b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added
in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
* The sample size does not meet minimum requirements as described in the
Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, 1995).
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on 1994-1996
(CSFII).
, 1998
Third Report on
Nutrition
USD A Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
















Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-43

-------
Table 3-26. Consumer Onlya Estimates of Direct and Indirect15 Water Ingestion, Mean Confidence Intervals and Bootstrap Intervals
for 90th and 95th Percentiles (mL/kg-day)

Sample
size

Birth to <1 month 55
1 to <3 months 172
3 to <6 months 346
6 to <12 months 631
1 to <2 years 980
2 to <3 years 989
3 to <6 years 4,072
6to21 years 9,020
>65 years0 1,025
All ages 19,509
a Excludes individuals who

Mean
90th percentile
90% C.I.
Estimate

153*
116
90
63
31
31
29
21
16
15
16
20
22
21
Lower
Bound
125*
100
83
59
30
30
28
20
15
14
15
20
21
21
95th percentile
90% B.I.
UPPer Estimate Lower
Bound
181*
132
97
67
33
33
30
22
17
16
18
21
22
22

269*
216*
161
120
64
59
56
39
31
29
32
36
35
38
did not ingest water from the source during the survey
Bound
234*
176*
145
117
57
56
54
37
29
27
29
34
34
38
period.
Upper
Bound
273*
259*
178
127
67
61
57
41
33
32
35
37
37
39

Estimate

273*
291*
195*
152
86
73
70
50
39
37*
41*
44
50
50

90% B.I.
Lower
Bound
263*
214*
174*
137
70
67
67
46
38
33v
36*
42
48
49

Upper
Bound
332
316
212
*
*
*
166
89
81
73
52
42





44*
56*
46
52
51





b Direct water defined as water ingested directly as a beverage; indirect water defined as water added in the preparation of food or beverages.
U.S. EPA, 2004.
* The sample size does not
CI = Confidence Interval.
BI = Bootstrap Interval.
Source: Kahn, 2008 (Based on



meet minimum requirements as described in the


1994-1996,


1998 USDA


Continuing Survey





Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States (LSRO,




of Food Intakes by


Individuals


(CSFII).




1995).








  s


  5a
  1

l!
vo
                                                                           Q
5

!
i
s
».
§

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
                        Table 3-27. Assumed Tapwater Content of Beverages in Great Britain
              Beverage
% Tapwater
              Cold Water
              Home-made Beer/Cider/Lager
              Home-made Wine
              Other Hot Water Drinks
              Ground/Instant Coffee:3
                 Black
                 White
                 Half Milk
                 All Milk
              Tea
              Hot Milk
              Cocoa/Other Hot Milk Drinks
              Water-based Fruit Drink
              Fizzy Drinks
              Fruit Juice lb
              Fruit Juice 2b
              Milk
              Mineral Water0
              Bought cider/beer/lager
              Bought Wine	
    100
    100
    100
    100

    100
    80
    50
    0
    80
    0
    0
    75
    0
    0
    75
    0
    0
    0
    0
              a        Black - coffee with all water, milk not added; White - coffee with 80% water, 20%
                      milk; Half Milk - coffee with 50% water, 50% milk; All Milk - coffee with all milk,
                      water not added.
              b        Fruit juice: individuals were asked in the questionnaire if they consumed ready-made
                      fruit juice (type 1 above), or the variety that is diluted (type 2).
              0        Information on volume of mineral water consumed was obtained only as "number of
                      bottles per week." A bottle was estimated at 500 mL, and the volume was split so that
                      2/7 was assumed to be consumed on weekends, and 5/7 during the week.

              Source:  Hopkins and Ellis, 1980.	
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                    Page
                                     3-45

-------
 I
 ri
l!
Table 3-28. Intake of Total Liquid, Total Tapwater, and Various Beverages (L/day) by the British Population
Beverage
Total Liquid
Total Liquid
Home
Total Liquid
Away
Total Tapwater
Total Tapwater
Home
Total Tapwater
Away
Tea
Coffee
Other Hot Water
Drinks
Cold Water
Fruit Drinks
Non Tapwater
Home-brew
Bought
Alcoholic
Beverages

Mean
Intake
1.589
1.104
0.484
0.955
0.754
0.201
0.584
0.19
0.011
0.103
0.057
0.427
0.01
0.206
a "Consumers only"
Source: Hopkins and Ellis,

Approx. Std.
Error of Mean
0.0203
0.0143
0.0152
0.0129
0.0116
0.0056
0.0122
0.0059
0.0015
0.0049
0.0027
0.0058
0.0017
0.0123
All Individuals
Approx. 95%
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
1.547-1.629
1.075-1.133
0.454-0.514
0.929-0.981
0.731-0.777
0.190-0.212
0.560-0.608
0.178-0.202
0.008-0.014
0.093-0.113
0.052-0.062
0.415-0.439
0.007-0.013
0.181-0.231

10 and 90
Percentiles
0.77-2.57
0.49-1.79
0.00-1.15
0.39-1.57
0.26-1.31
0.00-0.49
0.01-1.19
0.00-0.56
0.00-0.00
0.00-0.31
0.00-0.19
0.20-0.70
0.00-0.00
0.00-0.68

1 and 99
Percentiles
0.34-4.50
0.23-3.10
0.00-2.89
0.10-2.60
0.02-2.30
0.00-0.96
0.00-2.03
0.00-1.27
0.00-0.25
0.00-0.85
0.00-0.49
0.06-1.27
0.00-0.20
0.00-2.33
Consumers Only"
Percentage of
Total Number of
Individuals
100
100
89.9
99.8
99.4
79.6
90.9
63
9.2
51
46.2
99.8
7
43.5
Mean
Intake
1.589
1.104
0.539
0.958
0.759
0.253
0.643
0.302
0.12
0.203
0.123
0.428
0.138
0.474
Approx.
Std. Error of
Mean
0.0203
0.0143
0.0163
0.0129
0.0116
0.0063
0.0125
0.0105
0.0133
0.0083
0.0049
0.0058
0.0209
0.025
Approx. 95%
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
1.547-1.629
1.075-1.133
0.506-0.572
0.932-0.984
0.736-0.782
0.240-0.266
0.618-0.668
0.281-0.323
0.093-0.147
0.186-0.220
0.113-0.133
0.416-0.440
0.096-0.180
0.424-0.524
is defined as only those individuals who reported consuming the beverage during the survey period.
1980.






S
                                                          I
I
I
vo

-------
1=

I
Table 3-29. Summary
Beverage


Total Liquid
Intake




Total Tapwater
Intake



Source: Hopkins
Age
Group
(years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-30
31-54
>55
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-30
31-54
>55
and Ellis,
Number
Male
88
249
180
333
512
396
88
249
180
333
512
396
1980.
Female
75
201
169
350
551
454
75
201
169
350
551
454

of Total Liquid and Total Tapwater Intake for Males and Females (L/day) in Great Britian
Mean Intake
Male
0.853
0.986
1.401
2.184
2.112
1.83
0.477
0.55
0.805
1.006
1.201
1.133

Female
0.888
0.902
1.198
1.547
1.601
1.482
0.464
0.533
0.725
0.991
1.091
1.027

Approx. Std. Error of
Mean
Male
0.0557
0.0296
0.0619
0.0691
0.0526
0.0498
0.0403
0.0223
0.0372
0.0363
0.0309
0.0347

Female
0.066
0.0306
0.0429
0.0392
0.0215
0.0356
0.0453
0.0239
0.0328
0.0304
0.024
0.0273

Approx 95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Male
0.742-0.964
0.917-1.045
1.277-1.525
2.046-2.322
2.007-2.217
1.730-1.930
0.396-0.558
0.505-0.595
0.731-0.8790
0.933-1.079
1.139-1.263
1.064-1.202

Female
0.756-1.020
0.841-0.963
1.112-1.284
1.469-1.625
1.558-1.694
1.411-1.553
0.373-0.555
0.485-0.581
0.659-0.791
0.930-1.052
1.043-1.139
0.972-1.082

10 and 90 Percentiles
Male
0.38-1.51
0.54-1.48
0.75-2.27
1.12-3.49
1.15-3.27
1.03-2.77
0.17-0.85
0.22-0.90
0.29-1.35
0.45-1.62
0.64-1.88
0.62-1.72

Female
0.39-1.48
0.51-1.39
0.65-1.74
0.93-2.30
0.95-2.36
0.84-2.17
0.15-0.89
0.22-0.93
0.31-1.16
0.50-1.55
0.62-1.68
0.54-1.57

 sr
 I
I
 I.

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-30. Daily Total Tapwater Intake Distribution for Canadians, by Age Group
(Approx. 0.20 L increments, both sexes, combined seasons)
Amount Consumed a
L/day
0.00-0.21
0.22 - 0.43
0.44 - 0.65
0.66-0.86
0.87-1.07
1.08-1.29
1.30-1.50
1.51-1.71
1.72-1.93
1.94-2.14
2.15-2.36
2.37-2.57
2.58-2.79
2.80-3.00
3.01-3.21
3.22 - 3.43
3.44 - 3.64
3.65-3.86
>3.86
TOTAL
a Includes tapwater and
Age Group (years)
5
%
11.1
17.3
24.8
9.9
11.1
11.1
4.9
6.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
and Under
Number
9
14
20
8
9
9
4
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81

%
2.8
10.0
13.2
13.6
14.4
14.8
9.6
6.8
2.4
1.2
4.0
0.4
2.4
2.4
0.4
-
-
-
1.6
100.0
6-17
Number
7
25
33
34
36
37
24
17
6
3
10
1
6
6
1
0
0
0
4
250
18 and Over
%
0.5
1.9
5.9
8.5
13.1
14.8
15.3
12.1
6.9
5.6
3.4
3.1
2.7
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.8
-
2.0
100.0
Number
3
12
38
54
84
94
98
77
44
36
22
20
17
9
7
6
5
0
13
639
foods and beverages derived from tapwater.
Source: Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1981.
Page
3-48
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-31. Average Daily Tapwater Intake of Canadians
(expressed as milliliters per kilogram body weight)
Age Group (years) -
<3
3 to 5
6 to 17
18 to 34
35 to 54
>55
Total Population

Females
53
49
24
23
25
24
24
Average Daily
Males
35
48
27
19
19
21
21
Intake (mL/kg)
Both Sexes
45
48
26
21
22
22
22
Source: Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1981.
Table 3-32. Average Daily
Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians, by Age and Season (L/day )a
Age (years)
<3
Average
Summer 0.57
Winter 0.66
Summer/Winter 0.61
90th Percentile
Summer/Winter 1.5
3 to 5

0.86
0.88
0.87

1.5
6 to 17 18 to 34 35 to 54 <55

1.14 1.33 1.52 1.53
1.13 1.42 1.59 1.62
1.14 1.38 1.55 1.57

2.21 2.57 2.57 2.29
All Ages

1.31
1.37
1.34

2.36
a Includes tapwater and foods and beverages derived from tapwater.
Source: Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare,
1981.

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-49

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-33 . Average Daily Total Tapwater Intake of Canadians as a Function of
Level of Physical Activity at Work and in Spare Time
(16 years and older, combined seasons, L/day)

Work
Activity Consumption15 Number of Respondents
Level" L/day
Extremely Active
Very Active
Somewhat Active
Not Very Active
Not At All Active
Did Not State
TOTAL
1.72 99
1.47 244
1.47 217
1.27 67
1.3 16
1.3 45
688
Spare Time
Consumption15
L/day
1.57
1.51
1.44
1.52
1.35
1.31

a The levels of physical activity listed here were not defined any further by the survey report,
activity level by survey participants is assumed to be subjective.
b Includes tapwater and foods and beverages derived from tapwater.
Number of Respondents
52
151
302
131
26
26
688
and categorization of
Source: Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1981.
Table 3-34. Average Daily Tapwater Intake by Canadians, Apportioned Among Various Beverages
(Both sexes, by age, combined seasons, L/day )a
Age Group (years)

Total Number in Group
Water
Ice/Mix
Tea
Coffee
"Other Type of Drink"
Reconstituted Milk
Soup
Homemade Beer/Wine
Homemade Popsicles
Baby Formula, etc.
TOTAL
a Includes tapwater and
* Less than 0.01 L/day.
<3
34
0.14
0.01
*
0.01
0.21
0.1
0.04
*
0.01
0.09
0.61
3 to 5
47
0.31
0.01
0.01
*
0.34
0.08
0.08
*
0.03
*
0.86
6 to 17
250
0.42
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.34
0.12
0.07
0.02
0.03
*
1.14
18 to 34
232
0.39
0.04
0.21
0.37
0.2
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.01
*
1.38
35 to 54
254
0.38
0.03
0.31
0.5
0.14
0.04
0.08
0.07
*
*
1.55
> 55
153
0.38
0.02
0.42
0.42
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.03
*
*
1.57
foods and beverages derived from tapwater.
Source: Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1981.
Page
3-50
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
               Table 3-35. Intake Rates of Total Fluids and Total Tapwater by Age Group
                            Average Daily Consumption Rate (L/day)
                 Age Group	Total Fluids'	Total Tapwaterb
                6 to 11 months
                   2 years
                14 to 16 years
                25 to 30 years
                60 to 65 years
0.80
0.99
1.47
1.76
1.63
0.20
0.50
0.72
1.04
1.26
         a        Includes milk, "ready-to-use" formula, milk-based soup, carbonated soda,
                 alcoholic beverages, canned juices, water, coffee, tea, reconstituted juices, and
                 reconstituted soups.  Does not include reconstituted infant formula.
         b        Includes water, coffee, tea, reconstituted juices, and reconstituted soups.

         Source:  Derived from Pennington, 1983.	
Table 3-36. Mean and Standard Error for the Daily Intake of Beverages and Tapwater by Age
Age (years) Tapwater Intake Water-Based Drinks
(mL) (mL)a
All ages
<1
Ito4
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 59
>60
a
b
Source:
662.5 ± 9.9
170.7 ±64.5
434.6 ±31.4
521.0 ±26.4
620.2 ±24.7
664.7 ±26.0
656.4 ±33.9
619.8 ±34.6
636.5 ±27.2
735.3±21.1
762.5 ±23. 7
Includes water-based drinks such as coffee, etc.
457.1 ±6.7
8. 3 ±43.7
97.9 ±21.5
116. 5 ±18.0
140.0 ±16.9
201. 5 ±17.7
343.1 ±23.1
441. 6 ±23. 6
601.0 ±18.6
686.5 ±14.4
561.1 ±16.2
Soups Total Beverage Intakeb
(mL) (mL)
45.9 ±1.2
10.1 ±7.9
43.8 ±3.9
36.6 ±3.2
35.4 ±3.0
34. 8 ±3.2
38.9 ±4.2
41. 3 ±4.2
40.6 ±3. 3
51.6±2.6
59.4 ±2.9
Reconstituted infant formula does not appear to
group.
Includes tapwater and water-based drinks such as coffee, tea, soups,
and alcoholic drinks.
U.S. EPA, 1984.

and other drinks such as sof

1,434.0 ±13.7
307.0 ±89.2
743.0 ±43.5
861.0 ±36.5
1,025.0 ±34.2
1,241.0 ±35. 9
1,484.0 ±46.9
1,531. 0±48.0
1,642.0 ±37.7
1,732.0 ±29.3
1,547.0 ±32. 8
be included in this
drinks, fruitades,

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                   Page
                                                                   3-51

-------
                                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                              Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
   Table 3-37. Average Total Tapwater Intake Rate by Sex
               Age, and Geographic Area
 Group/Subgroup
Total group
Sex
  Males
  Females
Age, years
  21 to 44
  45 to 64
  65 to 84
Geographic area
  Atlanta
  Connecticut
  Detroit
  Iowa
  New Jersey
  New Mexico
  New Orleans
  San Francisco
  Seattle
  Utah
 Number of
Respondents
  Average Total
Tapwater Intake,a>b
     L/day
   5,258

   3,892
   1,366

    291
   1,991
   2,976

    207
    844
    429
    743
   1,542
    165
    112
    621
    316
    279
      1.39

      1.40
      1.35

      1.30
      1.48
      1.33

      1.39
      1.37
      1.33
      1.61
      1.27
      1.49
      1.61
      1.36
      1.44
      1.35
a       Standard deviations not reported in Cantor et al.
        (1987).
b       Total tapwater defined as all water and beverages
        derived from tapwater.

Source:  Cantor etal., 1987.
                                            Table 3-38. Frequency Distribution of Total
                                                      Tapwater Intake Rates3
  Consumption
  Rate (L/day)
                                                                             Frequency15 (%)
               Cumulative
             Frequency* (%)
<0.80
0.81-1.12
1.13-1.44
1.45-1.95
>1.96
20.6
21.3
20.5
19.5
18.1
20.6
41.9
62.4
81.9
100.0
a       Represents consumption of tapwater and beverages
        derived from tapwater in a "typical" winter week.
b       Extracted from Table 3 in the article by Cantor et
        al. (1987).

Source:  Cantor, et al., 1987.
Page
3-52
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                             July 2009

-------
i
    a
I
1=
liable 3-39. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/day) for Both Sexes Combined3
. , . Number of
Age (years) „, , .
Observations
<0.5
0.5 to 0.9
1 to 3
4 to 6
7 to 10
11 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 44
45 to 64
65 to 74
>75
182
221
1,498
1,702
2,405
2,803
2,998
7,171
4,560
1,663
878
Infants (ages <1) 403
Children (ages 110) 5,605
Teens (ages 11- 19) 5,801
Adults (ages 20-64) 11,731
Adults (ages >65) 2,541
All 26,081
a
*
Source:
Mean
272
328
646
742
787
925
999
1,255
1,546
1,500
1,381
302
736
965
1,366
1,459
1,193
SD
247
265
390
406
417
521
593
709
723
660
600
258
410
562
728
643
702
S.E. of
Mean
18
18
10
10
9
10
11
8
11
16
20
13
5
7
7
13
4
Percentile Distribution
1
*
*
33
68
68
76
55
105
335
301
279
0
56
67
148
299
80
Total tapwater is defined as "all water from the household tap consumed directly
Value not reported due to insufficient number of observations.
Ershow and Cantor, 1989.




5
0
0
169
204
241
244
239
337
591
611
568
0
192
240
416
598
286
10
0
0
240
303
318
360
348
483
745
766
728
0
286
353
559
751
423
25
80
117
374
459
484
561
587
766
1,057
1,044
961
113
442
574
870
1,019
690
50
240
268
567
660
731
838
897
1,144
1,439
1,394
1,302
240
665
867
1,252
1,367
1,081
as a beverage or used to prepare foods




75 90
332 640
480 688
820 1,162
972 1,302
1,016 1,338
1,196 1,621
1,294 1,763
1,610 2,121
1,898 2,451
1,873 2,333
1,706 2,170
424 649
960 1,294
1,246 1,701
1,737 2,268
1,806 2,287
1,561 2,092
and beverages. "

95 99
800 *
764 *
1,419 1,899
1,520 1,932
1,556 1,998
1,924 2,503
2,134 2,871
2,559 3,634
2,870 3,994
2,693 3,479
2,476 3,087
775 1,102
1,516 1,954
2,026 2,748
2,707 3,780
2,636 3,338
2,477 3,415


                                                                                                                                                                     I



                                                                                                                                                                    I

-------
 -
   I
Table 3-40. Total Tapwater Intake (mL/kg-day) for Both Sexes Combined3
Number of
Observations
Age (years) Actual Weighted
Age (years; ^^ ^^
<0.5 182 201.2
0.5 to 0.9 221 243.2
1 to 3 1,498 1,687.7
4 to 6 1,702 1,923.9
7 to 10 2,405 2,742.4
11 to 14 2,803 3,146.9
15 to 19 2,998 3,677.9
20 to 44 7,171 13,444.5
45 to 64 4,560 8,300.4
65 to 74 1,663 2,740.2
>75+ 878 1,401.8
Infants (ages <1) 403 444.3
Children (ages 1-10) 5,605 6,354.1
Teens (ages 11 -19) 5,801 6,824.9
Adults (ages 20-64) 11,731 21,744.9
Adults (ages >65) 2,541 4,142.0
All 26,081 39,510.2
Percentile Distribution
Mean SD
52.4 53.2
36.2 29.2
46.8 28.1
37.9 21.8
26.9 15.3
20.2 11.6
16.4 9.6
18.6 10.7
22 10.8
21.9 9.9
21.6 9.5
43.5 42.5
35.5 22.9
18.2 10.8
19.9 10.8
21.8 9.8
22.6 15.4
S.E. of
Mean
3.9
2
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
2.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
1
*
*
2.7
3.4
2.2
1.5
1
1.6
4.4
4.6
3.8
0
2.7
1.2
2.2
4.5
1.7
a Total tapwater is defined as "all water from the household tap consumed directly
* Value not reported due to insufficient number of observations.
Source: Ershow and Cantor, 1989.



5
0
0
11.8
10.3
7.4
4.9
3.9
4.9
8
8.7
8.8
0
8.3
4.3
5.9
8.7
5.8
10
0
0
17.8
14.9
10.3
7.5
5.7
7.1
10.3
10.9
10.7
0
12.5
6.5
8.0
10.9
8.2
as a beverage


25
14.8
15.3
27.2
21.9
16
11.9
9.6
11.2
14.7
15.1
15
15.3
19.6
10.6
12.4
15.0
13.0
50
37.8
32.2
41.4
33.3
24
18.1
14.8
16.8
20.2
20.2
20.5
35.3
30.5
16.3
18.2
20.3
19.4
75
66.1
48.1
60.4
48.7
35.5
26.2
21.5
23.7
27.2
27.2
27.1
54.7
46.0
23.6
25.3
27.1
28.0
90
128.3
69.4
82.1
69.3
47.3
35.7
29
32.2
35.5
35.2
33.9
101.8
64.4
32.3
33.7
34.7
39.8
95
155.6
102.9
101.6
81.1
55.2
41.9
35
38.4
42.1
40.6
38.6
126.5
79.4
38.9
40.0
40.0
50.0
99
*
*
140.6
103.4
70.5
55
46.3
53.4
57.8
51.6
47.2
220.5
113.9
52.6
54.8
51.3
79.8
or used to prepare foods and beverages."






   1=
^o

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-41. Summary of Tapwater Intake


Infants (<1 year)
Children (1 to 10 years)
Teens (11 to 19 years)
Adults (20 to 64 years)
Adults (>65 years)
All ages
Source: Ershow and Cantor,

Mean
302
736
965
1,366
1,459
1,193
1989.
Intake (mL/day)
10th-90thPercentiles
0-649
286-1,294
353-1,701
559-2,268
751-2,287
423-2,092

by Age

Mean
43.5
35.5
18.2
19.9
21.8
22.6


Intake (mL/kg-day)
10th- 90th Percentiles
0-100
12.5-64.4
6.5-32.3
8.0-33.7
10.9-34.7
8.2-39.8

Table 3-42. Total Tapwater Intake (as percent of total water intake) by Broad Age Categorya'b
Age (years) Mean
<1
Ito 10
11 to 19
20 to 64
>65
a
b
0
Source:
26
45
47
59
65
Percentile Distribution
1
0
6
6
12
25
5
0
19
18
27
41
10
0
24
24
35
47
25
12
34
35
49
58
50
22
45
47
61
67
Does not include pregnant women, lactating women, or breast-fed children.
Total tapwater is defined as "all water from the household tap consumed directly
foods and beverages. "
= Less than 0.5 percent.
Ershow and Cantor, 1989.










75
37
57
59
72
74
90
55
67
69
79
81
95
62
72
74
83
84
as a beverage or used to






99
82
81
83
90
90
prepare


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-55

-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-43. General Dietary Sources of Tapwater for Both Sexesa>
% of Tapwater
Age (years) Source
<1



Ito 10



11 to 19



20 to 64



>65



All



Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
Food0
Drinking Water
Other Beverages
All Sources
Mean
11
69
20
100
15
65
20
100
13
65
22
100
8
47
45
100
8
50
42
100
10
54
36
100
a Does not include pregnant women, lactating
b
c
0
Source:
Standard
Deviation
24
37
33

16
25
21

15
25
23

10
26
26

9
23
23

13
27
27

5
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
3

0
0
0

women, or breast-fed chi
25
0
39
0

5
52
0

3
52
0

2
29
25

2
36
27

2
36
14

Idren.
50
0
87
0

10
70
15

8
70
16

5
48
44

5
52
40

6
56
34


75
10
100
22

19
84
32

17
85
34

11
67
63

11
66
57

13
75
55


95
70
100
100

44
96
63

38
98
68

25
91
91

23
87
85

31
95
87


99
100
100
100

100
100
93

100
100
96

49
100
100

38
99
100

64
100
100


Individual values may not add to totals due to rounding.
Food category includes soups.
= Less than 0.5 percent.
Ershow and Cantor, 1989.
























Page
3-56
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009

-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-44. Summary Statistics for Best-Fit Lognormal Distributions for Water Intake Ratesa
Group
(Age in Years)
0 < age < 1
l#age age 65
All ages
Simulated balanced population
Group
(Age in Years)
0 < age < 1
l#age age 65
All ages
Simulated balanced population
a These values (mL/day) were used
averages for total tapwater intake

0
6.979
7.182
7.490
7.563
7.583
7.487
7.492

0
5.587
6.429
6.667
7.023
7.088
6.870
6.864
in the following
shown in Table
In Total Fluid Intake Rate
a
0.291
0.340
0.347
0.400
0.360
0.405
0.407
In Total Fluid Intake Rate
O
0.615
0.498
0.535
0.489
0.476
0.530
0.575

R2
0.996
0.953
0.966
0.977
0.988
0.984
1.000

R2
0.970
0.984
0.986
0.956
0.978
0.978
0.995
equations to estimate the quantiles and
3-13.
97.5 percentile intake rate = exp [O + (1.96 a)]
75 percentile intake rate = exp [O + (0.6745 a)]
50 percentile intake rate = exp [O]
25 percentile intake rate = exp [O - (0.6745 a)]
2.5 percentile intake rate = exp [O - (1 .96 a)]
Mean intake rate - exp [O + 0.5 a2)]
Source: Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992.



Table 3-45. Estimated Quantiles and Means for Total Tapwater Intake Rates (mL/day f
Age Group
(years)
0  age 65
All ages
Simulated Balanced Population
2.5
80
233
275
430
471
341
310
25
176
443
548
807
869
674
649
Percentile
50
267
620
786
1,122
1,198
963
957
a Total tapwater is defined as "all water from the household tap consumed
foods and beverages. "
Source: Roseberry and Burmaster, 1992.
75
404
867
1,128
1,561
1,651
1,377
1,411
directly
Arithmetic
975 Average
891
1,644
2,243
2,926
3,044
2,721
2,954
as a beverage or used to
323
701
907
1,265
1,341
1,108
1,129
prepare
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-57

-------
     s
     s
 g  S

f  I
 >\>  &1
Table 3-46. Water Ingested (mL/day)a from Water By Itself and Water Added to Other Beverages and Foods
Category
Water by Itself Range
Per capita meanb ± SD
Consumer only mean0
Percent consuming11
Water Added to Formula Range
Powdered Concentrate Per capita mean ± SD
Consumer only me an
Percent consuming
Liquid Concentrate Range
Per capita mean SD
Consumer only mean
Percent consuming
All Concentrated Formula Range
Per capita mean ± SD
Consumer only mean
Percent consuming
Water Added to Juices Range
and Other Beverages Per capita mean ± SD
Consumer only mean
Percent consuming
Water Added to Powdered Range
Baby Foods and Cereals Per capita mean ± SD
Consumer only mean
Percent consuming
Water Added to Other Foods Range
(Soups, Jell-o, Puddings) Per capita mean ± SD
Consumer only mean
Percent consuming
ALL SOURCES OF WATER Range
Per capita mean ± SD
Consumer only mean
Percent consuming
6 Weeks
(N = 124)
0-355
30 ±89
89
28
0-1,242
177 ±296
473
39
0-621
89 ± 148
355
23
0-1,242
266 ± 296
444
60
0-118
<30 ± 30
89
3
0-30
<30 ± 30
30
2
0
0-1,242
296 ±325
414
68
3 Months
(N = 120)
0-355
30 ±59
89
24
0-1,242
266 ±384
621
42
0-680
237 ± 207
384
30
0-1,242
384 ±355
562
68
0-710
30 ±89
207
9
0-177
<30 ± 30
59
17
0-118
30 ±30
89
2
0-1,419
414 ±414
562
77
6 Months
(N = 99)
0-266
30 ±59
118
42
0-1,124
266 ±355
562
48
0-710
148 ± 207
414
35
0-1,123
414 ±325
532
81
0-473
30 ±89
148
18
0-266
59 ±59
89
64
0-118
<30 ± 30
59
8
0-1,123
473 ± 325
503
94
9 Months
(N = 77)
0-473
89 ±89
118
66
0-1,064
207 ± 325
562
36
0-532
59 ± 148
325
21
0-1,064
266 ± 296
503
56
0-887
59 ± 148
207
32
0-177
30 ±59
89
43
0-355
30 ±59
118
29
0-1,745
444 ±355
473
97
a Converted from ounces/day; 1 fluid ounce = 29.57 mL.
b Mean intake among entire sample.
c Mean intake for only those ingesting water from the particular category.
d Percentage of infants receiving water from that individual source.
N = Number of observations.
SD = Standard Deviation.
Indicates there is insufficient sample size to estimate means
Source : Levy et al. , 1 995 .












 s
^
 I
 
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-47. Mean Per Capita Drinking Water Intake Based on USDA, CSFII Data From 1989-91 (mL/day)
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
<1
Ito2
3 to 5
<5
Males:
6 to 11
12 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
70 to79
^80
>20
Females:
6 to 11
12 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
70 to 79
^80 and over
> 20 and over
All individuals
Plain Drinking
Water

194
333
409
359

537
725
842
793
745
755
946
824
747
809

476
604
739
732
781
819
829
111
856
774
711
a Includes regular and low calorie fruit drinks,
Excludes fruit juices and carbonated drinks.
Source: USDA, 1995.

Coffee

0
<0.5
2
1

2
12
168
407
534
551
506
430
326
408

1
21
154
317
412
438
429
324
275
327
260
punches, and ades,

Tea

<0.5
9
26
17

44
95
136
136
149
168
115
115
165
139

40
87
120
136
174
137
124
161
149
141
114
Fruit Drinks and
Adesa

17
85
100
86

114
104
101
50
53
51
34
45
57
60

86
87
61
59
36
37
36
34
28
46
65
Total

211.5
427.5
537
463

697
936
1,247
1,386
1,481
1,525
1,601
1,414
1,295
1,416

603
799
1,074
1,244
1,403
1,431
1,418
1,291
1,308
1,288
1,150
including those made from powdered mix and frozen concentrate.



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-59
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-48. Number of Respondents that Consumed Tapwater at a Specified Daily Frequency

Population Group
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
Ito4
5 to 11
12 to 17
18 to 64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full-time
Part-time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Em physem a
No
Yes
DK
= Missing Data
DK = Don't know
N = sample size

Total N
4,663

2,163
2,498
2

263
348
326
2,972
670

3,774
463
77
96
193
60

4,244
347
26
46

2,017
379
1,309
32

399
1,253
895
650
445

1,048
1,036
1,601
978

3,156
1,507

1,264
1,181
1,275
943

4,287
341
35

4,500
125
38

4,424
203
36




None
1,334

604
728
2

114
90
86
908
117

1,048
147
25
36
63
15

1,202
116
5
11

637
90
313
6

89
364
258
195
127

351
243
450
290

864
470

398
337
352
247

1,232
96
6

1,308
18
8

1,280
48
6



Number of Glasses in a Day
1-2
1,225

582
643
-

96
127
109
751
127

1,024
113
18
18
42
10

1,134
80
6
5

525
94
275
4

95
315
197
157
109

262
285
437
241

840
385

321
282
323
299

1,137
83
5

1,195
25
5

1,161
55
9



3-5
1,253

569
684
-

40
86
88
769
243

1,026
129
23
22
40
13

1,162
73
7
11

497
120
413
11

118
330
275
181
113

266
308
408
271

862
391

336
339
344
234

1,155
91
7

1,206
40
7

1,189
58
6



6-9
500

216
284
-

7
15
22
334
112

416
38
6
6
28
6

451
41
4
4

218
50
188
1

51
132
118
82
62

95
127
165
113

334
166

128
127
155
90

459
40
1

470
27
3

474
24
2



10-19
151

87
64
-

1
7
7
115
20

123
9
1
7
10
1

129
18
3
1

72
13
49
2

14
52
31
19
16

32
26
62
31

96
55

45
33
41
32

134
16
1

143
6
2

142
9
-



20+
31

25
6
-

0
2
-
26
2

25
1
-
2
2
1

26
4
-
1

18
7
3
1

2
13
5
4
3

7
9
11
4

27
4

5
10
9
7

29
1
1

29
1
1

29
1
1



DK
138

65
73
-

5
20
11
54
42

92
21
4
5
7
9

116
13
1
8

40
5
54
4

28
37
9
6
12

28
33
57
20

106
32

26
40
40
32

115
13
10

123
6
9

124
5
9



Refused = respondent refused to answer
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.








Page
3-60
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-49. Number of Respondents that Consumed Juice Reconstituted with Tapwater at a Specified Daily Frequency

Population Group
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
Ito4
5 to 11
12 to 17
18 to 64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full-time
Part-time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Em physem a
No
Yes
DK
= Missing Data
DK = Don't know
N = sample size

Total N
4,663

2,163
2,498
2

263
348
326
2,972
670

3,774
463
77
96
193
60

4,244
347
26
46

2,017
379
1,309
32

399
1,253
895
650
445

1,048
1,036
1,601
978

3,156
1,507

1,264
1,181
1,275
943

4,287
341
35

4,500
125
38

4,424
203
36



Number of Glasses
None
1,877

897
980
-

126
123
112
1,277
206

1,479
200
33
46
95
24

1,681
165
11
20

871
156
479
15

146
520
367
274
182

440
396
593
448

1,261
616

529
473
490
385

1,734
130
13

1,834
31
12

1,782
84
11



1-2
1,418

590
826
2

71
140
118
817
252

1,168
142
27
19
51
11

1,318
87
6
7

559
102
426
4

131
355
253
201
130

297
337
516
268

969
449

382
382
389
265

1,313
102
3

1,362
53
3

1,361
53
4



3-5
933

451
482
-

48
58
63
614
133

774
83
15
24
30
7

863
61
5
4

412
88
265
4

82
254
192
125
92

220
200
332
181

616
307

245
215
263
210

853
74
6

900
25
8

882
44
7



6-9
241

124
117
-

11
12
18
155
43

216
15
1
2
5
2

226
14
-
1

103
19
75
2

25
68
47
31
26

51
63
84
43

162
79

66
54
68
53

216
25
-

231
7
3

230
10
1



in a Day
10-19
73

35
38
-

4
2
7
46
12

57
9
-
1
5
1

64
7
1
1

32
7
20
1

7
21
18
7
5

13
17
26
17

51
22

23
19
18
13

69
3
1

67
5
1

65
6
2




20+
21

17
4
-

1
1
1
16
2

16
1
-
3
1
-

17
4
-
-

9
2
7
-

2
7
5
1
3

4
4
10
3

11
10

4
8
6
3

20
1
-

20
1
-

21
-
-




DK
66

33
33
-

2
11
4
30
14

44
7
0
1
5
9

49
7
3
7

20
5
21
3

4
17
11
5
4

15
14
28
9

46
20

10
17
28
11

55
5
6

59
1
6

57
3
6



Refused = Respondent refused to answer
Source: Tsang and Klepeis,
1996.







Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-61
-------
V" 3>
8$
&
  1=


Table 3-50.
Mean and (Standard Error) Water Consumption (mL/kg-day) by Race/Ethnicity
TI n^-n • T->I • Milk and
Race/Ethnic N Plam ^
Group Tap Water ^^
Black non- 121
Hispanic
White non- 620
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
a
N
RTF
Note:
Source:
146
59
21
(1.7)
13
(0.8)
15
(1.2)
21
(2.4)
24
(4.6)
23
(1.2)
23
(2.4)
19
(3.7)
Totals may be slightly different from the
= Number of observations.
= Ready -to-Feed.
Standard Error shown in parentheses.
Heller etal, 2000


„ i-j.ii TTTT^ T-, i Juices and
Reconstituted RTF Baby „ , , ,
„ , „ , „ , Carbonated
Formula Formula Food _. . .
Dnnks
35
(6.0)
29
(2.7)
3$,
(7.3)
31
(9.1)
sums of all cate^

4
(2.0)
8
(1.5)
12
(4.0)
19
(11.2)
'ories due to roundin

8 2
(1.6) (0.7)
10 1
(1.2) (0.2)
10 1
(1.4) (0.3)
7 I
(4.0) (0.5)
g-

Non-
carbonated
Drinks
14
(1.3)
11
(0.7)
10
(1.6)
8
(2.0)


Other
21
(1.7)
18
(0.8)
16
(1.4)
19
(3.2)


Total3
129
(5.7)
113
(2.6)
123
(5.2)
124
(10.6)


                                                                                               Q
                                                                                               I
  ri
                                                                                               I
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-51. Plain Tap Water and Total Water Consumption by Age, Sex, Region, Urbanicity, and Poverty
Category
Plain Tap Water
(mL/kg-day)
Variable
Age
<12 months
12 to 24 months
Sex
Male
Female
Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Urbanicity
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Poverty category3
0-1.30
1.31-3.50
>3.50
Total
N
296
650

475
471
175
197
352
222

305
446
195
289
424
233
946
a Poverty category represents family's
times the federal poverty level.
N = Number of observations.
SE = Standard Error.
Source: Heller etal., 2000.


Mean
11
18

15
15
13
14
15
17

16
13
15
19
14
12
15
annual incomes


SE
1.0
0.8

1.0
0.8
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.1

1.5
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.3
0.6
of 0-1. 30,


Total Water
(mL/kg-day)
Mean
130
108

116
119
121
120
113
119

123
117
109
128
117
109
118
1.31-3.50, and g


SE
4.6
1.7

4.1
3.2
6.3
3.1
3.7
4.6

3.5
3.1
3.9
2.6
4.2
3.5
2.3
;reaterthan3.50


Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009                                                                      3-63
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-52. Intake of Water from Various Sources in 2-13-y-old Participants of the DONALD Study 1985-1999
Water Intake from:
Boys and girls
2 to 3 years
N = 858b
Boys and girls
4 to 8 years
N=l,795b
Boys
9 to 1 3 years
N=541b
Girls
9 to 13 years
N = 542b
Mean
Water in Food (mL/day)a
Beverages (mL/day)a
Milk (mL/day)a
Mineral water (mL/day)a
Tap water (mL/day)a
Juice (mL/day)a
Soft drinks (mL/day)a
Coffee/tea (mL/day)a

Total water intakea>d (mL/day)
Total water intakea>d (mL/kg-day)
Total water intakea>d (mL/kcal-day)
365 (33)c
614(55)
191 (17)
130(12)
45(4)
114(10)
57(5)
77(7)

1,114±289
78 ±22
1.1 ±0.3
a Converted from g/day, g/kg-day, or g/kcal-day; 1 g =
b N = Number of records.
487 (36)
693(51)
177(13)
179(13)
36(3)
122 (0)
111(8)
69(5)
Mean±
1,363 ±333
61 ±13
0.9 ±0.2
ImL.
673 (36)
969(51)
203(11)
282(15)
62(3)
133 (7)
203(11)
87(4)
SD
1,891 ±428
49 ±11
1.0 ±0.2

634 (38)
823 (49)
144 (9)
242(15)
56(3)
138(8)
155(9)
87(5)

1,676 ±3 86
43 ±10
1.0 ±0.2

0 Percent of total water shown in parentheses.
d Total water = water in food + beverages + oxidation.
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Sichert-Hellert et al, 2001 .




Table 3-53. Mean (± Standard Error) Fluid Intake (mL/kg/day) by Children Aged 1 to 10

Total fluid
Plain water
Milk
Carbonated drinks
Juice
Total Sample
(N = 7,925)
84 ±1.0
27 ±0.8
18±0.3
6 ±0.2
12 ±0.3
Sample with
Temperature Information
(N = 3,869)
84 ±1.0
27 ±1.0
18 ±0.6
5 ±0.3
11 ±0.6
years, NHANES III, 1988-94
Sample without
Temperature Information
(N = 4,056)
85 ±1.4
26 ±1.1
18 ±0.4
6 ±0.3
12 ±0.4
N = Number of observations.
Source: Sohnetal., 2001.
Page
3-64
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
       Table 3-54. Estimated Mean (± Standard Error) Amount of Total Fluid and Plain Water Intake among Children8 Aged 1 to 10 Years by Age, Sex,
                               Race/Ethnicity, Poverty Income Ratio, Region, and Urbanicity (NHANES III, 1988-94)
                                                                    Total Fluid
                                                                                                           Plain Water
                                                           mL/day
                                   mL/kg-day
                                          mL/day
                                    mL/kg-day
      Age (years)

              1

              2

              3

              4

              5

              6

              7

              8

              9

              10

      Sex

              Male

              Female

      Race/ethnicity

              White

              African American

              Mexican American

              Other

      Poverty income ratio

              Low

              Medium

              High

      Region0'11

              Northeast

              Midwest

              South

              West

      Urban/rurald
 578

 579

 502

 511

 465

 255

 235

 247

 254

 243


1,974

1,895


 736

1,122

1,728

 283


1,868

1,204

 379


 679

 699

 869

1,622
 1,393 ±31

 1,446 ±31

 1,548 ±75

 1,601 ±41

 1,670 ± 54

1,855 ± 125

 1,808 ±66

 1,792 ±37

 2,113 ±78

 2,051 ±97


 1,802 ±30

 1,664 ±24


 1,653 ± 26

 1,859 ±42

 1,817 ±25

 1,813 ±47


 1,828 ±32

 1,690 ±31

 1,668 ±54


 1,735 ±31

 1,734 ±45

 1,739 ±31

 737 ± 25
124 ±2.9

107 ±2.3

100 ±4.6

91 ±2.8

84 ±2.3

81 ±4.9

71 ±2.3

61 ± 1.8

65 ±2.1

58 ±2.4


86 ± 1.8

81 ± 1.5


79 ± 1.8

88 ± 1.8

89 ± 1.7

90 ± 4.2


93 ± 2.6

80 ± 1.6

76 ±2.5


87 ±2.3

84 ± 1.5

83 ± 2.2

81 ± 1.7
298 ± 19

430 ± 26

482 ± 27

517 ±23

525 ± 36

718±  118

674 ± 46

626 ± 37

878 ± 59

867 ± 74


636 ± 32

579 ± 26


552 ±34

795 ± 36

633 ± 23

565 ± 39


662 ± 27

604 ±35

533 ±41


568 ±52

640 ± 54

613 ±24

624 ± 44
26 ± 1.8

32 ± 1.9

31 ± 1.8

29 ± 1.3

26 ± 1.7

31 ±4.7

26 ± 1.9

21 ± 1.2

26 ± 1.4

24 ± 2.0


29 ± 1.3

26 ± 1.0


24 ±.3

36 ± 1.5

29 ± 1.1

26 ± 1.7


32 ± 1.3

26 ± 1.4

22 ± 1.7


26 ±2.1

29 ± 1.8

28 ± 1.3

27 ± 1.9
Urban
Rural
Total
3,358
511
3,869
1,736 ± 18
1,737 ± 19
1,737 ± 15
84 ± 1.0
84 ±4.3
84± 1.1
609 ± 29
608 ± 20
609 ± 24
27 ± 1.1
28 ± 1.2
27 ± 1.0
                Children for whom temperature data were obtained.
                Based on ratio of household income to federal poverty threshold. Low: <1.300; medium: 1.301-3.500; high >3.501.
                All variables except for Region and Urban/rural showed statistically significant differences for both total fluid and plain water intake
                by Bonferroni multiple comparison method.
                Northeast = Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont;
                Midwest = Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin;
                South = Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North
                Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia;
                West = Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.
                = Number of observations.
      Source:     Sohn et al., 2001.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                                Page
                                                                                 3-65
-------
Table 3-55. Tap Water Intake in Breastfed and Formula-fed Infants and Mixed-fed Young Children at Different Age Points
Tapwater Intake13 (mL/day)
Age Na Total
Mean SD Median
Breastfed
#1 year, total 300 130 180 50
3 months 111 67 167 0
6 months 124 136 150 68
9 months 47 254 218 207
12 months 18 144 170 85
Formula fed
#1 year, total 758 441 244 440
3 months 78 662 154 673
6 months 141 500 178 519
9 months 242 434 236 406
12 months 297 360 256 335
Mixed - Breast and Formula
1 to 3 years, total 904 241 243 175
18 months 277 280 264 205
24 months 292 232 263 158
36 months 335 217 199 164
P95 Max

525 1,172
493 746
479 634
656 1,172
649 649

828 1,603
874 994
757 888
839 1,579
789 1,603

676 2,441
828 1,881
630 2,441
578 1,544
Tapwater Intake13 (mL/kg-day)
Mean

17
10
18
30
15

53
107
63
49
37

19
25
18
14
SD

24**
25**
20**
27**
18**

33
23
23
27
26

20
23
21
13
Total
Median P95

6 65
0 74
8 5'8
23 77
9 66

49 115
107 147
65 99
45 94
32 83

14 56
18 70
12 49
11 36
Max

150
125
85
150
66

200
159
109
200
175

203
183
203
103
From Household0
%e Mean SD %f

17 15
10 10
18 14
28 26
19 13

51 49
93 103
64 59
50 44
39 33

24 15
28 22
23 15
22 9

23**
25**
19**
27**
18**

33
28
25
27
25

20
23
21
12

85
97
79
87
86

92
97
92
91
91

78
88
80
66
From Manufacturing01
Mean SD %f

2.4
0.3
3.8
3.7
2.2

4.0
3.4
4.8
4.5
3.3

3.9
3.0
3.7
4.9

4.7**
1.9**
6.3*
3.4
2.1

8.0
17.9
8.0
6.3
3.7

5.5
4.1
5.0
6.6

15
3
21
13
14

8
3
8
9
9

22
12
20
34
a Numbers of 3-day diet records.
b Total tap water = tap water from the household and tap water from food manufacturing. Converted from g/day and g/kg-day; 1 g = 1 mL.
c Tap water from household = tap water from the household tap consumed directly as a beverage or used to prepare foods and beverages.
d Tap water from food = manufacturing tap water from the industrial food production used for the preparation of foods (bread, butter/margarine, tinned fruit, vegetables
and legumes, ready to serve meals, commercial weaning food) and mixed beverages (lemonade, soft drinks).
e Mean as a percentage of total water.
f Mean as a percentage of total tap water.
* Significantly different from formula-fed infants, p<0.05.
** Significantly different from formula-fed infants, p<0.0001.
SD = Standard Deviation.
P95 = 95th percentile.
Source: Hilbig et al., 2002.










                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
fcsi
<5>
*
vo
-------
i
    a
    ri



    1
    1=
Table 3-56. Percentage of Subjects Consuming Beverages and Mean Daily Bevera^
Age at Questionnaire 6 Months 9 Months 12 Months
>e Intakes (mL/day) for Children With Returned Questionnaires
16 Months
20 Months
Actual Age (Months) 6.29 ± 0.35 9.28 ±0.35 12.36 ±0.46 16.31 ±0.49 20.46 ±0.57
Nb 677 681 659
Human Milkd 30 19 11
Infant Formula'
%A 68 69 29
mL/dayf 798 ± 234 615 ±328 160 ± 275
Cows' Milke
%A 5 25 79
mL/dayf 30 ± 145 136 ±278 470 ±310
Formula and Cows ' Milke
%"> 70 81 88
mL/dayf 828 ±186 751 ±213 630 ± 245
Juice and Juice Drinks
%A 55 73 89
mL/dayf 65 ± 95 103 ±112 169 ±151
Water
%A 36 59 75
mL/dayf 27 ±47 53 ±71 92 ± 109
Other Beverages'
%A 1 9 23
mL/dayf 3 ±18 6 ± 27 27 ±71
Total Beverages mL/daye'f'j 934 ±219 917 ±245 926 ± 293
641
5

4
12 ±77

91
467 ±251

92
479 ± 248

94
228 ± 166

87
124 ± 118

42
53 ± 109
887 ±3 10
632
3

2
9 ±83

93
402 ± 237

94
411 ±237

95
269 ± 189

90
142 ± 127

62
83 ±121
908 ±310
24 Months
24.41 ±0.53
605
0

0
-

97
358 ±225

98
358 ±228

93
228 ± 172

94
145 ± 148

86
89 ± 133
8 19 ±299
6 to 24 Months8
-
585C
-

67g
207 ± 112

67s
355 ± 163

67s
562 ±154

99h
183 ±103

99h
109 ± 74

80h
44 ±59
920 ± 207
a Cumulative number of children and percentage of children consuming beverage and beverage intakes for the 6 through 24 month period.
b Number of children with returned questionnaires at each time period.
c Number of children with cumulative intakes for six-through 24 month period.
d Percentage of children consuming beverage.
e Children are not included when consuming human milk.
















f Mean standard deviation of beverage intake. Converted from ounces/day; 1 fluid ounce = 29.57 mL.
8 Percentage of children consuming beverage during six-through 24 month period. Children who
h Percentage of children consuming beverage during six-through 24 month period.
' Other beverages include non juice beverages (e.g., carbonated beverages, Kool-Aid)
J Total beverages includes all beverages except human milk.
Indicates there is insufficient data
Source: Marshall et al., 2003a.





consumed human milk are not included.















    I?
 X)
-------
Table 3-57. Mean (± Standard Deviation) Daily Beverage Intakes Reported on Beverage Frequency Questionnaire and 3-day Food and Beverage Dairies
Age
6 months (N = 240)
Beverage Questionnaire Diary
mL/daya %b
Human Milk 204 ±373 195 ±358 28.0
Infant formula 609 ±387 603 ± 364 85.8
Cow's milk 24 ±124 24 ±124 6.7
Juice/juice drinks 56 ± 124 33 ± 59 57.5
Liquid soft drinks 6 ± 68 0±0 1.3
Powdered soft drinks 0±18 0±0 0.4
Water 44 ±80 30 ± 53 61.7
Total 940 ±319 896 ±195 100
12 months (N = 192) 3 years (N = 129)
Questionnaire Diary Questionnaire Diary
mL/daya %b mL/daya %b
9 ±21 56 ±225 12.6 NAC NA
180 ±290 139 ±251 37.0 NA NA
429 ±349 408 ±331 90.4 316 ±216 358 ±216 100
151 ±136 106 ±101 92.2 192 ±169 198 ±169 96.9
9 ±30 3 ±15 20.9 62 ±71 74 ±101 74.2
12±47 3±18 10.5 62±115 47±101 51.2
127 ±136 80 ±109 84.9 177 ±204 136 ±177 95.3
905 ±387 804 ±284 100 795 ± 355 816 ±299 100
5 years (N = 112)
Questionnaire Diary
mL/daya %b
NA NA
NA NA
319 ±198 325 ±177 98.2
189 ±169 180 ±163 95.5
74 ±95 101 ±121 82.1
74 ±124 47 ±95 52.7
240 ±242 169 ±183 99.1
896 ±399 819 ±302 100
a Mean standard deviation of all subjects. Converted from ounces/day; 1 fluid ounce = 29.57 mL.
b Percent of subjects consuming beverage on either questionnaire or diary.
c NA = not applicable.
N = Number of observations.
Indicates there is insufficient data to calculate percentage
Source: Marshall et al., 2003b.


    1
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
    ri
                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
^o
-------
If
s
  I
Table 3-58. Consumption of Beverages by Infants and Toddlers (Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study)
Age (months)
4 to 6 Months (N=862) 7 to 8 Months (N=483) 9 to 1 1 Months (N=679) 12 to 14 Months (N=3 74) 15 to 18 Months (N=308)
Beverage
_. . _. Mean ± _ Mean ± _ Mean ± _ , . __ _
Category Consumers Consumers Consumers Consumers Mean±SD Consumers
SD SD SD
%a mL/dayb %a mL/dayb %a mL/dayb %a mL/dayb %a
Total milks' 100 778 ± 257 100 692 ± 257 99.7 659 ± 284 98.2 618 ±293 94.2
lOOroJuice"1 21.3 121 ± 89 45.6 145 ± 109 55.3 160 ±127 56.2 186 ±145 57.8
^mlt, e 1.6 101 ±77 7.1 98 ±77 12.4 157 ±139 29.1 231 ±186 38.6
Drinks
Carbonated 0.1 86 ± 0 1.1 6±9 1.7 89 ± 92 4.5 115 ±83 11.2
Water 33.7 163 ±231 56.1 174 ±219 66.9 210 ±234 72.2 302 ±316 74.0
Other1 1.4 201 ± 192 2.2 201 ±219 3.5 169 ±166 6.6 251 ±378 12.2
.Total 100 863 ±254 100 866 ±310 100 911 ±361 100 1,017 ±399 100
beverages
a Weighted percentages, adjusted for over sampling, nonresponse, and under representation of some racial and ethnic groups.
b Amounts consumed only by those children who had a beverage from this beverage category. Converted from ounces/day; 1 fluid ounce
c Includes human milk, infant formula, cow's milk, soy milk, and goat's milk.
d Fruit or vegetable juices with no added sweeteners.
e Includes beverages with less than 100% juice and often with added sweeteners; some were fortified with one or more nutrients.
f "Other" beverages category included tea, cocoa and similar dry milk beverages, and electrolyte replacement beverages for infants.
N = Number of observations.
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Skinner et al., 2004.
Mean ± SD
mL/dayb
580 ±305
275 ± 189
260 ±231
157 ± 106
313 ±260
198 ±231
1,079 ± 399
= 29.57 mL.


1 9 to 24 Months (N=3 16)
Consumers Mean ± SD
%a mL/dayb
93.4 532 ±281
61.6 281 ±189
42.6 305 ± 308
11.9 163 ±172
77.0 337 ± 245
11.2 166 ±248
100 1,097 ±482



                                                                            Q
                                                                              I
                                                                              I
                                                                              I
§
5
3
S
ri

!

&
&
1=
I
ST-
-------
                                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                         Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
  Table 3-59. Per Capita Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant, Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women
                                                         (mL/kg-day)
                                       Mean                           90th Percentile                     95th Percentile
                                             90% C.I.                           90% B.I.                        90% B.I.
   Women     Sample      Estimate      Lower      Upper      Estimate      Lower     Upper   Estimate    Lower      Upper
  Categories     Size                    Bound      Bound                   Bound     Bound              Bound      Bound
Pregnant         69          21*         19*        22*         39*         33*        46*       44*        38*         46*

Lactating         40          21*         15*        28*         53*         44*        55*       55*        52*         57*

Non-Pregnant,    2,166         19           19        20           35           35        36        36        46         47
Non-Lactating
Age 15 to 44
NOTE:     Source of data: 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFIIO; (2) Estimates are based on 2-day averages; (3)
          Interval estimates may involve aggregation of variance estimation units when data are too sparse to support estimation of the variance; (4) All estimates
          exclude commercial and biological water.

90% C.I    90% confidence intervals for estimated means; 90% B.I.: 90% Bootstrap intervals for percentile estimates using boot strap method with 1,000
          replications;
*         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States, 1994-
          96" (LSRO, 1995).

Source:    Kahn and Stralka, 2008b (Based on CSFH 1994-96 and 1998).
Page                                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook
3-70                                                                                                          July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 -  Water Ingestion
  Table 3-60. Per Capita Estimates of Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant, Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women
                                                             (mL/day)
                                        Mean
                                                                         90th Percentile
                                                                                         95th Percentile
                                              90% C.I.
                                                                                  90% B.I.
                                                                                                                   90% B.I.
   Women      Sample
  Categories      Size
                            Estimate
                        Lower
                        Bound
                        Upper
                        Bound
                                                                Estimate
                                  Lower
                                  Bound
                                   Upper   Estimate    Lower      Upper
                                   Bound               Bound      Bound
Pregnant

Lactating
70

41
Non-Pregnant,   2,221
Non-Lactating
Age 15 to 44
1,318*       1,199*      1,436*       2,336*       1,851*     3,690*    2,674*     2,167*     3,690*

1,806*       1,374*      2,238*       3,021*       2,722*     3,794*    3,767*     3,452*     3,803*

 1,243        1,193       1,292        2,336       2,222       2,488     2,937     2,774       3,211
NOTE:    Source of data: 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFIIO; (2) Estimates are based on 2-day averages; (3)
          Interval estimates may involve aggregation of variance estimation units when data are too sparse to support estimation of the variance; (4) All estimates
          exclude commercial and biological water.

90% C.I.   90% confidence intervals for estimated means; 90% B.I.: 90% Bootstrap intervals for percentile estimates using boot strap method with 1,000
          replications;
*         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United  States, 1994-
          96" (LSRO, 1995).

Source:   Kahn and Stralka, 2008b (Based on CSFH 1994-96 and 1998).
  Table 3-61. Per Capita Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant, Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women
                                                         (mL/kg-day)
                                          Mean
                                                                       90th Percentile
                                                                                     95th Percentile
                                               90% C.I.
                                                                               90% B.I.
                                                                                                               90% B.I.
Women
Categories
  Sample
   Size
                              Estimate
             Lower
             Bound
         Upper
         Bound
                                                               Estimate
                     Lower
                     Bound
                    Upper
                    Bound
                                                                                               Estimate
          Lower
          Bound
         Upper
         Bound
Pregnant

Lactating

Non-Pregnant,
Non-Lactating
Age 15 to 44
    40
  2,166
    13*

    21*


     14
11*

15*


 14
14*

28*


 15
31*

53*


31
                                                          28*       46*

                                                          44*       55*
                                                           30
                                                                     32
43*

55*


38
33*       46*

52*       57*
                                                                                           36
                                                                                                     39
NOTE:    Source of data: 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFIIO; (2) Estimates are based on 2-day averages;
          (3) Interval estimates may involve aggregation of variance estimation units when data are too sparse to support estimation of the variance; (4) All
          estimates exclude commercial and biological water.

90% C.I.   90% confidence intervals for estimated means; 90% B.I.: 90% Bootstrap intervals for percentile estimates using boot strap method with 1,000
          replications;
*         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United  States,
          1994-96" (LSRO, 1995).

Source:   Kahn and Stralka, 2008b (Based on CSFH 1994-96 and 1998).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                                                         Page
                                                                                                          3-71
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion


Table 3-62. Per Capita Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant, Lactating, and Childbearing Age Women
(mL/day)
Mean 90th Percentile
90% C.I. 90% B.I.
Women Sample Estimate Lower Upper Estimate Lower Upper
Categories Size Bound Bound Bound Bound
Pregnant 70 819* 669* 969* 1,815* 1,479* 2,808*
Lactating 41 1,379* 1,021* 1,737* 2,872* 2,722* 3,452*
Non-Pregnant,
Non-Lactating 2,221 916 882 951 1,953 1,854 2,065
Age 15 to 44
95th Percentile
90% B.I.
Estimate Lower Upper
Bound Bound
2,503* 2,167* 3,690*
3,434* 2,987* 3,803*
2,575 2,403 2,908
NOTE: Source of data: 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFIIO; (2) Estimates are based on 2-day averages;
(3) Interval estimates may involve aggregation of variance estimation units when data are too sparse to support estimation of the variance; (4) All
estimates exclude commercial and biological water.
90% C.I. 90% confidence intervals for estimated means; 90% B.I.: 90% Bootstrap intervals for percentile estimates using boot strap method with 1,000
replications;
* The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States,
1994-96(L$RO, 1995).
Source: Kahn and Stralka, 2008b (Based on CSFH 1994-96 and 1998).

Table 3-63. Estimates of Consumers Only Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by
Women (mL/kg-day)


Mean


90% C.I.
Women Sample
Categories Size
Pregnant
Lactating
69
40
Non-Pregnant, 2,149
Estimate Lower
Bound
21* 19*
28* 19*
19 19
Upper
Bound
22*
38*
20
90th Percentile
Pregnant, Lactating, and Childbearing Age


90% B.I.
Estimate Lower

39*
53*
35
Bound
33*
44*
34
95th Percentile

90% B.I.
Upper Estimate Lower
Bound
46*
57*
37

44*
57*
46
Bound
38*
52*
42
Upper
Bound
46*
58*
48
Non-Lactating
Age 15 to 44
NOTE:
Source of data:
1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFIIO
Interval estimates may involve aggregation of varic
(2) Estimates are based on 2-day averages; (3)
nee estimation units when data are too sparse to support estimat
on of the variance; (4) All
estimates
exclude commercial and biological water.
90% C.I

*

Source:
90% confidence intervals for estimated means; 90°/
replications;

/oB.I.:90%!

bootstrap intervals for percentile estimates using boot strap method with 1 ,000

The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described
(LSRO, 1995).


Kahn and Stralka, 2008b (Based on CSFH 1994-96 and

1998).



in the Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring







in the United States



1994-96


Page
3-72
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 -  Water Ingestion
   Table 3-64.  Estimates of Consumers Only Direct and Indirect Water Intake from All Sources by Pregnant, Lactating, and Childbearing Age
                                                         Women (mL/day)
                                        Mean
                                                                         90th Percentile
                                                                                         95th Percentile
                                              90% C.I.
                                                                                  90% B.I.
                                                                                                                  90% B.I.
 Women      Sample
Categories      Size
                            Estimate
                                         Lower
                                         Bound
                                   Upper
                                   Bound
                                                                Estimate
                                                 Lower
                                                 Bound
                                   Upper    Estimate    Lower      Upper
                                   Bound               Bound      Bound
Pregnant

Lactating
70

41
Non-Pregnant,   2,203
Non-Lactating
Age 15 to 44
1,318*       1,199*      1,436*      2,336*       1,851*     3,690*    2,674*     2,167*      3,690*

1,806*       1,374*      2,238*      3,021*       2,722*     3,794*    3,767*     3,452*      3,803*

 1,252        1,202       1,303        2,338       2,256      2,404     2,941      2,834       3,179
NOTE:    Source of data: 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFIIO; (2) Estimates are based on 2-day averages; (3)
          Interval estimates may involve aggregation of variance estimation units when data are too sparse to support estimation of the variance; (4) All estimates
          exclude commercial and biological water.

90% C.I.   90% confidence intervals for estimated means; 90% B.I.: 90% Bootstrap intervals for percentile estimates using boot strap method with 1,000
          replications;
*         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States, 1994-96
          (LSRO, 1995).

Source:   Kahn and Stralka, 2008b (Based on CSFH 1994-96 and 1998).
  Table 3-65. Consumers Only Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant, Lactating, and Childbearing Age
                                                     Women (mL/kg/day)
                                          Mean
                                                                      90th Percentile
                                                                                     95th Percentile
                                               90% C.I.
                                                                              90% B.I.
                                                                                                               90% B.I.
Women
Categories
  Sample
   Size
                              Estimate
             Lower
             Bound
                                                   Upper
                                                   Bound
                                                               Estimate
                     Lower
                     Bound
                    Upper
                    Bound
                                                                                               Estimate
                               Lower
                               Bound
                               Upper
                               Bound
Pregnant

Lactating

Non-Pregnant,
Non-Lactating
Age 15 to 44
    65

    33


  2,028
    14*

    26*


     15
                                          12*

                                          18*


                                          14
15*

18*


 16
33*

54*


32
29*

44*


 31
46*

55*


33
43*

55*


38
33*       46*

53*       57*
                                                                                36
                                                                                          42
NOTE:    Source of data: 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFIIO; (2) Estimates are based on 2-day averages;
          (3) Interval estimates may involve aggregation of variance estimation units when data are too sparse to support estimation of the variance; (4) All
          estimates exclude commercial and biological water.

90% C.I.   90% confidence intervals for estimated means; 90% B.I.: 90% Bootstrap intervals for percentile estimates using boot strap method with 1,000
          replications;
*         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States,
          1994-96 (LSRO, 1995).

Source:   Kahn and Stralka, 2008b (Based on CSFH 1994-96 and 1998).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                                                         Page
                                                                                                          3-73
-------
                                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                         Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
  Table 3-66. Consumers Only Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion by Pregnant, Lactating, and Childbearing Age
                                                    Women (mL/day)
                                         Mean
                                                                    90th Percentile
                                                                                95th Percentile
                                             90% C.I.
                                                                            90% B.I.
                                                                                                           90% B.I.
Women
Categories
Sample
 Size
                             Estimate
Lower
Bound
                     Upper
                     Bound
                                                             Estimate
                               Lower
                               Bound
Upper
Bound
                                                                                           Estimate
Lower
Bound
          Upper
          Bound
Pregnant

Lactating

Non-Pregnant,
Non-Lactating
Age 15 to 44
  65

  34


 2,077
 872*

1,665*


 976
 728*

1,181*


 937
1,016*

2,148*


 1,014
                     1,844*    1,776*    3,690*     2,589*     2,167*    3,690*

                     2,959*    2,722*    3,452*     3,588*     2,987*    4,026*
                     2,013
                                1,893
                                                    2,065
           2,614
2,475
          2,873
NOTE:     Source of data: 1994-1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFIIO; (2) Estimates are based on 2-day averages;
          (3) Interval estimates may involve aggregation of variance estimation units when data are too sparse to support estimation of the variance; (4) All
          estimates exclude commercial and biological water.

90% C.I.   90% confidence intervals for estimated means; 90% B.I.: 90% Bootstrap intervals for percentile estimates using boot strap method with 1,000
          replications;
*         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States,
          1994-96ILSRO, 1995).

Source:   Kahn and Stralka, 2008b (Based on CSFH 1994-96 and 1998).
Table 3-67. Total Fluid Intake of Women 15 to 49 Years Old
Reproductive
Status3
mL/day
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
mL/kg/day
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
Standard
Mean Deviation
1,940
2,076
2,242
32.3
32.1
37.0
a Number of observations:
Source: Ershow et al. , 1991.
686
743
658
12.3
11.8
11.6
Percentile Distribution
5
995
1,085
1,185
15.8
16.4
19.6
10
1,172
1,236
1,434
18.5
17.8
21.8
25
1,467
1,553
1,833
23.8
17.8
21.8
nonpregnant, nonlactating controls (n = 6,201);
50
1,835
1,928
2,164
30.5
30.5
35.1
pregnant (n
75
2,305
2,444
2,658
38.7
40.4
45.0
= 188);
90
2,831
3,028
3,169
48.4
48.9
53.7
lactating (n =
95
3,186
3,475
3,353
55.4
53.5
59.2
77).
Page
3-74
                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                              July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-68. Total Tapwater Intake of Women 15 to 49 Years Old
Reproductive Status3
mL/day
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
mL/kg/day
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
Fraction of daily fluid
Control
Pregnant
Lactating
Mean
1,157
1,189
1,310
19.1
18.3
21.4
Standard
Deviation
635
699
591
10.8
10.4
9.8
intake that is tapwater (%)
57.2 18.0
54.1 18.2
57.0 15.8
a Number of observations:
Source: Ershow et al. , 1991.
Percentile Distribution
5
310
274
430
5.2
4.9
7.4
24.6
21.2
27.4
nonpregnant, nonlactating
10
453
419
612
7.5
5.9
9.8
32.2
27.9
38.0
controls (n
25
709
713
855
11.7
10.7
14.8
45.9
42.9
49.5
= 6,201);
50
1,065
1,063
1,330
17.3
16.4
20.5
59.0
54.8
58.1
pregnant (n =
75
1,503
1,501
1,693
24.4
23.8
26.8
70.7
67.6
65.9
188);
90
1,983
2,191
1,945
33.1
34.5
35.1
79.0
76.6
76.4
lactating (n =
95
2,310
2,424
2,191
39.1
39.6
37.4
83.2
83.2
80.5
77).
Table 3-69. Total Fluid (mL/Day) Derived from Various Dietary Sources by Women Aged 15 to 49 Years8
Control Women
Sources

Drinking Water
Milk and Milk Drinks
Other Dairy Products
Meats, Poultry, Fish, Eggs
Legumes, Nuts, and Seeds
Grains and Grain Products
Citrus and Noncitrus Fruit Juices
Fruits, Potatoes, Vegetables, Tomatoes
Fats, Oils, Dressings, Sugars, Sweets
Tea
Coffee and Coffee Substitutes
Carbonated Soft Drinks'
Noncarbonated Soft Drinks'
Beer
Wine Spirits, Liqueurs, Mixed Drinks
All Sources
Pregnant Women
Percentile
Meanb
583
162
23
126
13
90
57
198
9
148
291
174
38
17
10
1,940
a Number of observations: nonpregnant, nonlactating controls (n
b Individual means may not add to £
50
480
107
8
114
0
65
0
171
3
0
159
110
0
0
0
NA
= 6,201);
95
1,440
523
93
263
77
257
234
459
41
630
1,045
590
222
110
66
NA
pregnant (n
Meanb
695
308
24
121
18
98
69
212
9
132
197
130
48
7
5
2,076
= 188); 1
Lactating Women
Percentile
50
640
273
9
104
0
69
0
185
3
0
0
73
0
0
0
NA
ictating (n
95
1,760
749
93
252
88
246
280
486
40
617
955
464
257
0
25
NA
= 77).
Meanb
677
306
36
133
15
119
64
245
10
253
205
117
38
17
6
2,242

Percentile
50
560
285
27
117
0
82
0
197
6
77
80
57
0
0
0
NA

95
1,600
820
113
256
72
387
219
582
50
848
955
440
222
147
59
NA

11-sources total due to rounding.
c Includes regular, low-calorie, and noncalorie soft drinks.
NA: Not appropriate to sum the columns for the 50th and 95th percentiles of intake.
Source: Ershow et al., 1991.









Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-75
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-70. Total Tapwater and Bottled Water Intake by Pregnant Women (L/day)
Variables
Demographics
Home
Work
Total
Geographic Region
Sitel
Site 2
Site 3
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Age at IMP"
17-25
26-30
31 -35
>36
Education
< High school
Some college
> 4-year college
Race/ethnicity
White, non Hispanic
Black, non Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
Other
Marital Status
Single, never married
Married
Other
Annual Income ($)
< 40,000
40,000 - 80,000
> 80,000
Employment
No
Yes
BMI
Low
Normal
Overweight
Obese
Cold Tapwater
N

2,293
2,295
2,293

1,019
864
410

587
622
566
518

852
714
539
188

691
498
1,103

1,276
727
204
84

719
1,497
76

967
730
501

681
1,611

268
1,128
288
542
Mean (SD)

1.3(1.2)
0.4(0.6)
1.7(1.4)

1.8(1.4)
1.9(1.4)
1.1(1.3)

1.6(1.3)
1.7(1.4)
1.8(1.6)
1.8(1.5)

1.6(1.4)
1.8(1.5)
1.7(1.3)
1.8(1.4)

1.5(1.5)
1.7(1.5)
1.8(1.3)

1.8(1.4)
1.6(1.5)
1.1 (1.3)
1.9(1.5)

1.6(1.5)
1.8(1.4)
1.7(1.9)

1.6(1.5)
1.8(1.4)
1.7(1.3)

1.7(1.5)
1.7(1.4)

1.6(1.3)
1.7(1.4)
1.7(1.5)
1.8(1.6)
Bottled Water
N

0
c
2,284

1,016
862
406

584
622
560
518

848
710
538
188

687
496
1,100

1,273
722
202
85

713
1,494
76

962
730
499

679
1,604

267
1,123
288
540
Mean (SD)

c
c
0.6 (0.9)

0.5 (0.9)
0.4 (0.7)
1.1(1.2)

0.6(1.0)
0.6(1.0)
0.6 (0.9)
0.5 (0.9)

0.6(1.0)
0.6(1.0)
0.5 (0.8)
0.5 (0.9)

0.6(1.0)
0.6(1.0)
0.5 (0.9)

0.5 (0.9)
0.6 (0.9)
1.1 (1.2)
0.5 (0.9)

0.6(1.0)
0.5 (0.9)
0.5 (0.9)

0.6(1.0)
0.5 (0.9)
0.5 (0.9)

0.5 (0.9)
0.6 (0.9)

0.6(1.0)
0.5 (0.9)
0.6 (0.9)
0.6(1.0)
Page
3-76
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-70. Total Tapwater and Bottled Water Intake by Pregnant Women (L/day) (continued)


Diabetes
No diabetes
Regular diabetes
Gestational diabetes
Nausea during pregnancy
No
Yes
Pregnancy history
No prior pregnancy
Prior pregnancy with no SABb
Prior pregnancy with SAB
Caffeine
0 mg/day
1 - 150 mg/day
151 -3 00 mg/day
> 300 mg/day
Vitamin use
No
Yes
Smoking
Nonsmoker
< 10 cigarettes/day
> 10 cigarettes/day
Alcohol use
No
Yes
Recreational exercise
No
Yes
Illicit drug use
No
Yes
Cold Tapwater
N

2,221
17
55

387
1,904

691
1,064
538

578
522
433
760

180
2,113

2,164
84
45

2,257
36

1,061
1,232

2,024
268
Mean (SD)

1.7(1.4)
2.6(2.1)
1.6(1.6)

1.6(1.4)
1.7(1.4)

1.7(1.4)
1.7(1.4)
1.8(1.5)

1.8(1.5)
1.6(1.3)
1.6(1.4)
1.7(1.5)

1.4(1.4)
1.7(1.4)

1.7(1.4)
1.8(1.5)
1.8(1.6)

1.7(1.4)
1.6(1.2)

1.5(1.4)
1.8(1.4)

1.7(1.4)
1.7(1.5)
Bottled Water
N

2,213
17
54

385
1,897

685
1,063
536

577
522
433
752

176
2,108

2,155
84
45

2,247
37

1,054
1,230

2,017
266
Mean (SD)

0.6 (0.9)
0.4(0.8)
0.6(1.0)

0.6(1.0)
0.6 (0.9)

0.6(1.0)
0.5 (0.9)
0.6(1.0)

0.6(1.0)
0.5 (0.8)
0.6 (0.9)
0.6(1.0)

0.5 (0.8)
0.6 (0.9)

0.6 (0.9)
0.8(1.3)
0.4(0.7)

0.6 (0.9)
0.6(0.8)

0.6 (0.9)
0.6(1.0)

0.6 (0.9)
0.6(1.0)
" LMP - Age of Last Menstrual Period
b SAB - spontaneous abortion
c Data is not reported in the source document.
Source: Forssen et al., 2007.




Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-77
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-71. Percentage of Mean Water Intake Consumed as Unfiltered and Filtered Tapwater by Pregnant Women
Variables
Total
Geographic Region
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
AgeatLMP"
<25
26-30
31 -35
>36
Education
< High school
Some college
> 4-year college
Race/ethnicity
White, non Hispanic
Black, non Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
Other
Marital Status
Single, never married
Married
Other
Annual Income ($)
< 40,000
40,000 - 80,000
> 80,000
Employment
No
Yes
BMI
Low
Normal
Overweight

N
2,280

1,014
860
406

583
621
559
517

845
709
538
188

685
495
1,099

1,272
720
202
84

711
1,492
76

960
728
499

678
1,601

266
1,121
287
Cold Unfiltered
Tapwater
Percent
52

46
67
37

52
53
50
54

55
49
51
53

56
53
49

50
60
37
48

57
50
57

56
51
45

52
52

50
51
53
Cold Filtered
Tapwater
Percent
19

28
13
10

19
19
20
19

11
22
27
22

8
16
27

26
9
9
27

9
25
9

11
24
29

21
19

21
22
18
Bottled Water
Percent
28

26
19
53

29
28
29
26

33
28
22
25

34
30
23

23
30
54
25

33
25
34

33
24
25

27
29

29
27
28
Page
3-78
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-71. Percentage of Mean Water Intake Consumed as Unfiltered and Filtered Tapwater by Pregnant Women
(continued)
Variables
Obese
Diabetes
No diabetes
Regular diabetes
Gestational diabetes
Nausea during pregnancy
No
Yes
Pregnancy history
No prior pregnancy
Prior pregnancy with no SABb
Prior pregnancy with SAB
Caffeine
0 mg/day
1 - 150 mg/day
151 -300 mg/day
> 300 mg/day
Vitamin use
No
Yes
Smoking
Nonsmoker
< 10 cigarettes/day
> 10 cigarettes/day
Alcohol use
No
Yes
Recreational exercise
No
Yes
Illicit drug use
No
Yes

N
540

2,209
17
54

385
1,893

685
1,060
535

577
520
432
751

176
2,104

2,151
84
45

2,244
36

1,053
1,227

2,013
266
Cold Unfiltered
Tapwater
Percent
56

52
69
50

54
52

48
54
53

50
53
52
53

57
52

51
60
66

52
58

54
51

51
56
Cold Filtered
Tapwater
Percent
14

19
15
22

18
20

21
18
20

22
17
17
19

8
20

20
10
7

19
19

14
24

20
12
Bottled Water
Percent
29

28
16
27

28
28

31
27
26

27
29
30
27

34
28

28
28
22

28
23

31
26

28
31
" LMP - Age of Last Menstrual Period
b SAB - spontaneous abortion
Source: Forssen et al., 2007.




Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
3-79
-------
                                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                      Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion
Table 3-72. Water Intake at Various Activity Levels (L/hr)a
Room Temperature11 (°F)
Activity Level

High (0.15 hp/man)c Medium (0. 10 hp/man)c Low (0.05 hp/man)c





b
i
Source:
No.d
100
95 18
90 7
85 7
80 16
Intake No. Intake No.
15
0.540 12 0.345 6
(0.31) (0.59)
0.286 7 0.385 16
(0.26) (0.26)
0.218 16 0.213
(0.36) (0.20)
0.222
(0.14)
Intake
0.653
(0.75)
0.50
(0.31)
0.23
(0.20)
-
-
Data expressed as mean intake with standard deviation in parentheses.
Humidity = 80 percent; air velocity = 60 ft/min.
The symbol "hp" refers to horsepower.
Number of subjects with continuous data.
Data not reported in the source document.
McNall and Schlegel, 1968.


                               Table 3-73.  Planning Factors for Individual Tapwater Consumption
        Environmental Condition
                                          Recommended Planning Factor (gal/day)a
                         Recommended Planning Factor (L/day)a-
                 Hot
               Temperate
                 Cold
3.0C
1.5"
2.0e
11.4
5.7
7.6
         Based on a mix of activities among the work force as follows: 15% light work; 65% medium work; 20% heavy work.  These
         factors apply to the conventional battlefield where no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are used.
         Converted from gal/day to L/day.
         This assumes 1 quart/12-hour rest period/man for perspiration losses and 1 quart/day/man for urination plus 6 quarts/12-hours light
         work/man, 9 quarts/12-hours moderate work/man, and 12 quarts/12-hours heavy work/man.
         This assumes 1 quart/12-hour rest period/man for perspiration losses and 1 quart/day/man for urination plus 1 quart/12-hours light
         work/man, 3 quarts/12-hours moderate work/man, and 6 quarts/12-hours heavy work/man.
         This assumes 1 quart/12-hour rest period/man for perspiration losses, 1 quart/day/man for urination, and 2 quarts/day/man for
         respiration losses plus 1 quart/12-hours light work/man, 3 quarts/12-hours moderate work/man, and 6 quarts/6-hours heavy
         work/man.
Source:   U.S. Army, 1983.
Page
3-80
                           Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                    July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 3 - Water Ingestion

Study Group
Children < 16 years old
Males < 16 years old
Females <16 years old
Adults (>1 8 years)
Men
Women
Table 3-74.
Number of
Participants
41
20
21
12
4
8
Pool Water Ingestion by Swimmers
Average Water Ingestion Rate
(mL/45-minute interval)
37
45
30
16
22
12

Average Water Ingestion Rate
(mL/hour)a
49
60
43
21
29
16
a Converted from mL/45 minute interval.
Source: Dufour et al., 2006.



Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009                                                                      3-81
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

        NON-DIETARY INGESTION FACTORS	4-1
        4.1     INTRODUCTION	4-1
        4.2     RECOMMENDATIONS	4-2
        4.3     NON-DIETARY INGESTION - MOUTHING FREQUENCY STUDIES	4-5
               4.3.1   Key Studies of Mouthing Frequency	4-5
                      4.3.1.1  Zartarian et al., 1997a/Zartarianetal., 1997b	4-5
                      4.3.1.2  Reed etal., 1999	4-5
                      4.3.1.3  Freeman etal., 2001	4-6
                      4.3.1.4  Tulve et al., 2002	4-6
                      4.3.1.5  AuYeung et al., 2004	4-7
                      4.3.1.6  Black et al., 2005	4-7
                      4.3.1.7  Xue et al., 2007	4-8
                      4.3.1.8  Beamer et al., 2008	4-9
                      4.3.1.9  Xue etal., 2009	4-9
               4.3.2   Relevant Studies of Mouthing Frequency	4-9
                      4.3.2.1  Davis etal., 1995	4-9
                      4.3.2.2  Lew and Butterworth, 1997	4-10
                      4.3.2.3  Tudella et al., 2000	4-11
                      4.3.2.4  Ko etal., 2007	4-11
        4.4     NON-DIETARY INGESTION-MOUTHING DURATION STUDIES	4-12
               4.4.1   Key Mouthing Duration Studies	4-12
                      4.4.1.1  Jubergetal., 2001	4-12
                      4.4.1.2  Greene, 2002	4-12
                      4.4.1.3  Beamer et al., 2008	4-13
               4.4.2   Relevant Mouthing Duration Studies	4-13
                      4.4.2.1  Barr etal., 1994	4-13
                      4.4.2.2  Zartarian et al., 1997a/Zartarianetal., 1997b	4-14
                      4.4.2.3  Grootetal., 1998	4-14
                      4.4.2.4  Smith and Norris, 2003/Norris and Smith, 2002	4-15
                      4.4.2.5  AuYeung et al, 2004	4-16
        4.5     MOUTHING PREVALENCE	4-16
               4.5.1   Staneketal., 1998	4-16
               4.5.2   Warren et al., 2000	4-17
        4.6     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4	4-17
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                              Page
July 2009                                                                                     4-i
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
                                           LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1.       Summary of Recommended Mouthing Frequency and Duration	4-3
Table 4-2.       Confidence in Mouthing Frequency and Duration Recommendations	4-4
Table 4-3.       New Jersey Children's Mouthing Frequency (contacts/hour) from Video-transcription	4-20
Table 4-4.       Survey-Reported Percent of 168 Minnesota Children Exhibiting Behavior, by Age	4-20
Table 4-5.       Video-transcription Median (Mean) Observed Mouthing in 19 Minnesota Children
                (contacts/hour)	4-20
Table 4-6.       Variability in Objects Mouthed by Washington State Children (contacts/hour)	4-21
Table 4-7.       Indoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts per hour), Video-transcription of 9 Children with
                >15 minutes in View Indoors	4-22
Table 4-8.       Outdoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts per hour), Video-transcription of 38 Children	4-22
Table 4-9.       Videotaped Mouthing Activity of Texas Children, Median Frequency (Mean± SD)	4-23
Table 4-10.      Indoor Hand-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various
                Studies	4-23
Table 4-11.      Outdoor Hand-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various
                Studies	4-23
Table 4-12.      Object/Surface Hand and Mouth Contact Frequency (events/hour)	4-24
Table 4-13.      Distributions Mouthing Frequency and Duration of Non-Dietary Obj ects for Infants
                and Toddlers	4-25
Table 4-14.      Indoor Object-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various
                Studies	4-26
Table 4-15.      Outdoor Object-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various
                Studies	4-26
Table 4-16.      Survey Reported Mouthing Behaviors for 92 Washington State Children	4-27
Table 4-17.      Estimated Daily Mean Mouthing Times of New York State Children, for Pacifiers and
                Other Objects	4-27
Table 4-18.      Percent of Houston-area and Chicago-area Children Observed Mouthing, by Category
                and Child's Age	4-27
Table 4-19.      Estimates of Mouthing Time for Various Obj ects (minutes/hour)	4-28
Table 4-20.      Object/Surface Hand and Mouth Contact Duration (minutes/hour)	4-29
Table 4-21.      Mouthing Times of Dutch Children Extrapolated to Total Time While Awake, Without
                Pacifier, in Minutes per Day	4-30
Table 4-22.      Estimated Mean Daily Mouthing Duration by Age Group for Pacifiers, Fingers, Toys,
                and Other Objects (hours:minutes:seconds)	4-31
Table 4-23.      Outdoor Median Mouthing Duration (seconds per contact), Video-transcription of 3 8
                Children	4-32
Table 4-24.      Indoor Mouthing Duration (minutes per hour), Video-transcription of 9 Children with
                >15 minutes in View Indoors	4-32
Table 4-25.      Outdoor Mouthing Duration (minutes per hour), Video-transcription of 38 Children	4-33
Table 4-26.      95th Percentile Object-to-Mouth Duration for Key Studies Combined (minutes/hour)	4-34
Table 4-27.      Reported Daily Prevalence of Massachusetts Children's Non-Food Mouthing/Ingestion
                Behaviors	4-35
Page
4-ii
Exposure Factors Handbook
                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
4       NON-DIETARY INGESTION FACTORS
4.1     INTRODUCTION
        Adults and  children have the potential for
exposure  to  toxic  substances  through non-dietary
ingestion pathways other than soil and dust ingestion
(e.g.,  ingesting  pesticide  residues  that have been
transferred from treated surfaces  to  the  hands  or
objects that are mouthed). Adults mouth objects such
as cigarettes,  pens/pencils, or their hands.   Young
children mouth objects, surfaces or their  fingers  as
they explore their environment.  Mouthing behavior
includes  all activities  in  which  objects,  including
fingers, are  touched by the mouth or put into the
mouth except  for eating and drinking, and includes
licking, sucking,  chewing,  and biting (Groot et al.,
1998).    Videotaped  observations   of  children's
mouthing  behavior  demonstrate  the  intermittent
nature of hand  to  mouth and  object  to  mouth
behaviors  in  terms  of the  number of contacts
recorded per unit of time (e.g., Ko et al., 2007).
        Adult and children's mouthing behavior can
potentially result in ingestion of toxic  substances
(Lepow et al., 1975).  Although no  studies were
located that provided data on mouthing frequency or
duration   for  adults,  adults  with  developmental
disabilities  frequently   exhibit  excessive  hand-
mouthing behavior (Cannella et al., 2005).  In a large
non-random sample  of children born  in Iowa,  non-
nutritive sucking behaviors were reported by parents
to be  very common in infancy, and to  continue for a
substantial proportion of children up to the third and
fourth birthdays  (Warren et al.,  2000).   Hand-to-
mouth behavior has been observed in both pre-term
and full term infants (Rochat et al., 1988, Blass et al.,
1989, Takaya  et al.,  2003).  Infants are born with a
sucking reflex for breast feeding, and  within a few
months, they begin to use sucking or mouthing as a
means to  explore their surroundings.   Sucking also
becomes a means of comfort when a child is tired or
upset.     In   addition,  teething  normally   causes
substantial mouthing  behavior  (i.e.,  sucking  or
chewing) to  alleviate discomfort in the gums (Groot
et al., 1998).
        There are three general approaches to gather
data on children's mouthing behavior: real-time hand
recording,  in which  trained  observers  manually
record information (e.g., Davis et al.,  1995); video-
transcription, in  which trained videographers tape a
child's  activities  and   subsequently  extract  the
pertinent data manually or with computer software
(e.g., Black et  al., 2005); and questionnaire, or survey
response, techniques  (e.g., Stanek et al., 1998). With
real-time  hand  recording,  observations  made by
trained professionals (rather than parents)  may offer
the advantage of consistency in interpreting visible
behaviors  and   may   be  less  subjective   than
observations made by someone who maintains a care
giving relationship to the child.  On the other hand,
young children's behavior may be influenced by the
presence of unfamiliar people  (e.g., Davis  et al.,
1995).   Groot et al.  (1998) indicated that  parent
observers perceived  that deviating from their usual
care giving behavior  by observing and  recording
mouthing behavior appeared to have influenced the
children's   behavior.    With   video-transcription
methodology,  an assumption   is  made  that  the
presence of the videographer or camera does  not
influence the child's  behavior.  This assumption may
result  in minimal biases introduced when  filming
newborns, or when the camera and videographer are
not visible to  the child.  However, if the children
being studied are older than newborns and can see the
camera or videographer, biases  may be introduced.
Ferguson et al. (2006) described apprehension caused
by  videotaping  and described  situations where  a
child's  awareness of the videotaping  crew caused
"play-acting" to occur, or parents indicated that the
child was  behaving differently during the  taping
session.  Another possible source  of  measurement
error may be introduced when children's movements
or positions cause their mouthing not to be captured
by  the  camera.   Data  transcription errors can bias
results in either the negative or positive  direction.
Finally, measurement error can occur if  situations
arise   in  which   care  givers   are  absent   during
videotaping  and researchers must stop videotaping
and intervene to prevent risky behaviors (Zartarian et
al., 1995). Survey response studies rely on responses
to questions about a child's mouthing behavior posed
to parents or care givers.  Measurement errors from
these studies could occur for a number of different
reasons,   including   language/dialect   differences
between  interviewers   and  respondents,  question
wording problems and lack of definitions for terms
used   in  questions,   differences  in  respondents'
interpretation  of questions,   and  recall/memory
effects.
         Some    researchers    express   mouthing
behavior  as  the  frequency  of occurrence  (e.g.,
contacts per hour or contacts per minute).   Others
describe the duration of specific mouthing events,
expressed in units of  seconds  or minutes.    This
handbook  does   not  address  issues  related  to
contaminant transfer from thumbs, fingers,  or objects
or surfaces, into the mouth, and subsequent ingestion.
The recommendations  for  mouthing frequency and
duration are provided in the next section for children
only, along with a summary of the confidence ratings
for  these  recommendations.    The recommended
values for children are based on key studies identified
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             4-1
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
by U.S. EPA for this factor. Although some studies in
Sections  4.3.1 and 4.4.1  are classified as key, they
were   not   directly   used   to   provide   the
recommendations.  They are included as key because
they were used by Xue et al, 2007 or Xue et al., 2009
in meta analyses, which are  the primary sources of
the recommendations provided in this chapter for
hand-to-mouth   and   object-to-mouth  frequency,
respectively.  Following the recommendations, key
and relevant studies on mouthing frequency  (Section
4.3) and  duration (Section 4.4) are summarized and
the methodologies  used  in  the key  and  relevant
studies are described.  Information on the prevalence
of mouthing behavior is presented in Section 4.5.

4.2     RECOMMENDATIONS
        The key studies described in Section 4.3 and
Section 4.4 were used  to  develop recommended
values  for   mouthing  frequency  and   duration,
respectively,  among children.     No  studies were
located that provided data on mouthing frequency or
duration for adults.  In several cases, key studies pre-
dated the recommendations on age groups in U.S.
EPA's  Guidance  on  Selecting Age   Groups  for
Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to
Environmental Contaminants U.S. EPA (2005), and
were  performed on groups of  children of varying
ages.  For cases in which age groups of children in
the key studies did not correspond  exactly to U.S.
EPA's  recommended  age groups,  the  closest age
group was used.
        Table 4-1  shows recommended mouthing
frequencies, expressed in units  of contacts per hour,
between either any part of the hand (including fingers
and thumbs) and the mouth, or between an object or
surface and the mouth. The recommended hand-to-
mouth frequencies are based on data from Xue et al.
(2007).   Xue et al.  (2007) conducted a  secondary
analysis  of  data  from  several  of  the   studies
summarized in this chapter, as well as  data from
unpublished studies.  Xue et al. (2007) provided data
for the age  groups of interest to  U.S.  EPA and
categorized the data according to indoor and outdoor
contacts.   The recommendations  for frequency  of
object-to-mouth contact are based on data from Xue
et al.  (2009).    Xue  et  al.  (2009)  conducted  a
secondary analysis of data from several of the studies
summarized in  this chapter.  Recommendations for
duration  of  object-to-mouth  contacts are based on
data from Juberg et al. (2001)  and Greene (2002).
Recommendations for  hand-to-mouth duration are
not provided  since  those  estimates  may  not be
relevant  to  environmental  exposures.   Table  4-2
presents the confidence ratings for the recommended
values. The overall confidence  rating is low for both
frequency and duration of hand-to-mouth and object-
to-mouth.
Page
4-2
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
                          Table 4-1. Summary of Recommended Mouthing Frequency and Duration
     Age Group
                                                  Hand-to-Mouth
Indoor Frequency (contacts/hour)
               Outdoor Frequency (contacts/hour)
                                                                                                        Source
                           Mean
                                          95th Percentile
                                                                 Mean
                                                        95th Percentile
 Birth to <1 month
 1 to <3 months
 3 to <6 months
 6 to < 12 months
 1 to <2 years
 2 to <3 years
 3 to <6 years
 6 to <11 years
 11 to <16 years
 16 to <21 years
    28
    19
    20
    13
    15
     7
 65
 52
 63
 37
 54
 21
  15
  14
   5
   9
   3
  47
  42
  20
  36
  12
Xueetal.,2007
                                                  Obj ect-to-mouth
                        Indoor Frequency (contacts/hour)
                                    Outdoor Frequency (contacts/hour)
                          Mean
                                         95th Percentile
                                                               Mean
                                                      95th Percentile
 Birth to <1 month
 1 to <3 months
 3 to <6 months
 6 to < 12 months
 1 to <2 years
 2 to <3 years
 3 to <6 years
 6 to <11 years
 11 to <16 years
 16 to <21 years
    11
    28
    27
    15
    10
    1.3
32
84
82
36
39
3.7
8.1
8.3
1.9
21
40
30
9.1
                                    Xueetal.,2009
                         Mean Duration (minutes/hour)
                                   95  Percentile Duration (minutes/hour)
 Birth to <1 month
 1 to <3 months
 3 to <6 months
 6 to < 12 months
 1 to <2 years
 2 to <3 years
 3 to <6 years
 6 to <11 years
 11 to <16 years
 16 to <21 years
             9C
             T
             10f
                            26b
                            19J
                            22e
                            II8
                                Juberg et al., 2001, Greene,
                               2002, and Beamer et al., 2008
          Mean calculated from Juberg et al., 2001 (0 to 18 months) and Greene, 2002 (3 to 12 months).
          Calculated 95th percentile from Greene, 2002 (3 to 12 months).
          Mean calculated from Juberg, et al., 2001 (0 to 18 months) and Greene, 2002 ( 3 to 12 months), and Beamer et al., 2008 (6 to 13
          months).
          Calculated 95th percentile from Greene, 2002 ( 3 to 12 months) and Beamer et al., 2008 (6 to 13 months).
          Mean and 95th percentile from Greene, 2002 (12 to 24 months).
          Mean calculated from Juberg, et al., 2001 (19 to  36 months) and Greene, 2002 (24 to 36 months), and Beamer et al., 2008 (20 to 26
          months).
          Calculated 95th percentile from Greene, 2002 (24 to 36 months) and Beamer et al., 2008 (20 to 26 months).
          = No data.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                                          Page
                                                                                             4-3
-------
                                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                    Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
                         Table 4-2. Confidence in Mouthing Frequency and Duration Recommendations
    General Assessment Factors
                             Rationale
Rating
 Soundness
  Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or defined) Bias
The approaches for data collection and analysis used were adequate for
providing estimates of children's mouthing frequencies and durations.
Sample sizes were very small relative to the population of interest. Almost
all key studies published primary data; in cases where secondary data were
used, U.S. EPA judged the secondary data to be of suitable utility for  the
purposes for developing recommendations.

Bias in either  direction likely exists in both frequency and duration
estimates; the magnitude of bias is unknown.
                                                                                                             Low
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest
  Representativeness
  Currency
  Data Collection Period
Key studies for older children focused on mouthing behavior while the
infant studies were designed to research developmental issues.

Most key studies were of samples of U.S. children, but due to the small
sample sizes and small number of locations under study, the study subjects
may not be representative of the overall U.S. child population.

The studies were conducted over a wide range of dates. However, the
currency of the data is not expected to affect mouthing behavior
recommendations.

Extremely short data collection periods may not represent behaviors over
longer time periods.
                                                                                                             Low
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility
  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
The journal articles are in the public domain, but in many cases, primary
data were unavailable.

Data collection methodologies were capable of providing results that were
reproducible within a certain range, when compared with results obtained
using alternate data collection techniques (e.g., Smith and Norris, 2003).

Several of the key studies applied and documented quality
assurance/quality control measures.
                                                                                                             Low
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population
  Description of Uncertainty
The key studies characterized inter-individual variability to a limited
extent, and did not characterize intra-individual variability over diurnal or
longer term time frames.

The study authors typically did not attempt to quantify uncertainties
inherent in data collection methodology (such as the influence of observers
on behavior), although some described these uncertainties qualitatively.
The study authors typically did attempt to quantify uncertainties in data
analysis methodologies (if video-transcription methods were used).
Uncertainties arising from short data collection periods typically were
unaddressed either qualitatively or quantitatively.
                                                                                                             Low
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review

 Number and Agreement of
 Studies
All key studies appear in peer review journals.

Several key studies were available for both frequency and duration, but
data were not available for all age groups. The results of studies from
different researchers are generally in agreement.
                                                                                                           Medium
 Overall rating
                                                                                                             Low
Page
4-4
                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                            July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
4.3     NON-DIETARY     INGESTION
        MOUTHING FREQUENCY STUDIES
4.3.1    Key Studies of Mouthing Frequency
4.3.1.1  Zartarian  et al,  1997a  -  Quantifying
        Videotaped   Activity    Patterns:   Video
        Translation   Software   and   Training
        Technologies/Zartarian   et  al.,  1997b  -
        Quantified Dermal Activity Data From a
        Four-Child Pilot Field Study/Zartarian  et
        al., 1998 - Quantified Mouthing Activity
        Data From a Four-Child Pilot Field Study
        Zartarian  et  al.  (1997a,   1997b,  1998)
conducted  a pilot study of the video-transcription
methodology to investigate the applicability of using
videotaping for  gathering  information  related  to
children's activities, dermal exposures and mouthing
behaviors.   The researchers had conducted studies
using the  real-time hand recording  methodology,
resulting  in  poor  inter-observer  reliability  and
observer fatigue when attempted for long periods  of
time,   prompting   the   investigation   into  using
videotaping  with  transcription  of  the  children's
activities at a point in time after the observations
(videotaping) occurred.
        Four  Mexican-American   farm  worker
children in the Salinas Valley of California each were
videotaped  with  a hand-held videocamera during
their  waking  hours,  excluding  time  spent in the
bathroom,  over one day in September  1993.   The
boys  were 2 years 10 months old and  3 years, 9
months  old; the girls were 2 years 5 months old and 4
years 2 months  old.  Time  of videotaping was 6.0
hours for the younger girl, 6.6 hours for the older girl,
8.4 hours for the younger boy and 10.1 hours for the
older boy.  The videotaping gathered information on
detailed micro-activity patterns of children to be used
to evaluate software  for  videotaped  activities  and
translation  training  methods.   The  researchers
reported measures  taken to  assess  inter-observer
reliability   and several  problems with  the video-
transcription process.
        The hourly data showed that  non-dietary
object mouthing occurred in 30  of the 31 hours  of
tape time, with one child eating during  the hour  in
which no  non-dietary  object  mouthing  occurred.
Average object to mouth  contacts  for the  four
children were reported to be 9 contacts per hour, with
the average per child  ranging from 1 to  19 contacts
per hour (Zartarian et al.,  1997a). Objects mouthed
included     bedding/towels,     clothes,     dirt,
grass/vegetation, hard surfaces, hard toys, paper/card,
plush toy,  and skin (Zartarian et al., 1997a). Average
hand  to mouth contacts for the  four children were
reported to  be  13  contacts per hour (averaging the
sum of left hand and right hand to mouth contacts
and averaging across children, from Zartarian et al.,
1997b), with the average per child ranging from 9 to
19 contacts per hour.
        This study's primary purpose was to develop
and evaluate the video-transcription methodology; a
secondary  purpose  was  collection  of  mouthing
behavior data.  The sample of children studied was
very small and not likely to be representative of the
national   population.     As   with   other  video-
transcription studies,  the  presence of non-family-
member videographers, and a video camera may have
influenced the children's behavior.

4.3.1.2  Reed  et  al.,   1999   -  Quantification of
        Children's Hand and Mouthing Activities
        Through a Videotaping Methodology
        In  this study,  Reed  et al.  (1999)  used a
video-transcription  methodology  to   quantify  the
frequency and type of children's  hand and mouth
contacts, as well as a survey response methodology,
and compared the videotaped behaviors with parents'
perceptions of those behaviors. Twenty children ages
3 to 6 years  old selected randomly at a day  care
center  in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and ten
children ages 2 to 5 years old at residences in Newark
and Jersey City, New Jersey who were not selected
randomly, were studied (gender not specified).  For
the video-transcription  methodology,  inter-observer
reliability tests were  performed  during observer
training and at four points during the two years of the
study.   The researchers compared  the  results of
videotaping the ten children in the residences  with
their parents' reports of the children's daily activities.
Mouthing behaviors studied included hand to mouth
and hand bringing object to mouth.
        The video-transcription  mouthing  contact
frequency results are  presented  in Table 4-3.   The
authors analyzed parents' responses on frequencies of
their children's mouthing behaviors and  compared
those  responses  with  the   children's videotaped
behaviors,  which revealed  certain  discrepancies.
Parents' reported  hand to mouth contact of "almost
never"  corresponded  to overall  somewhat lower
videotaped hand to mouth frequencies than those of
children  whose parents reported "sometimes," but
there  was little  correspondence between parents'
reports of object to mouth frequency and videotaped
behavior.
        The advantages of this study were that it
compared the  results of video-transcription with the
survey response methodology results, and described
quality assurance  steps taken  to  assure reliability of
transcribed videotape  data.  However,  only  a small
number of  children were studied, some  were not
selected for observation randomly, and the  sample of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             4-5
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
children studied may not be representative of either
the locations studied or the national population.  Due
to the children's ages,  the  presence of unfamiliar
persons following the children with a video camera
may influence  the video-transcription results.   The
parents' survey responses may also be influenced by
recall/memory effects and other limitations of survey
methodologies.

4.3.1.3  Freeman   et   aL,  2001  -  Quantitative
        Analysis   of  Children's   Microactivity
        Patterns:   The   Minnesota   Children's
        Pesticide Exposure Study
        Freeman et al.  (2001)  conducted a survey
response and video-transcription study of some of the
respondents in a phased study of children's pesticide
exposures in the summer and early fall of 1997.  A
probability-based  sample  of  168  families  with
children  ages   3   to   <14   years   old  in  urban
(Minneapolis/St. Paul)  and  non-urban  (Rice  and
Goodhue  Counties) areas  of Minnesota answered
questions about children's mouthing  of paint chips,
food-eating without utensils, eating of food dropped
on  the floor,  mouthing  of non-food  items,  and
mouthing of thumbs/fingers.  For the survey response
portion of the study, parents provided the responses
for children ages 3 and 4 years, and collaborated with
or assisted older children with their responses. Of the
168 families  responding to  the  survey, 102  were
available,  selected,  and  agreed  to measurements  of
pesticide exposure.  Of these 102 families, 19 agreed
to videotaping of the study children's activities for a
period of four consecutive hours.
        Based on  the  survey responses  for  168
children, the  3 year olds had significantly  more
positive responses for all reported behavior compared
to the other age groups.  The authors  stated that they
did not know whether parent reporting of 3 year olds'
behavior influenced the  responses given.  Table 4-4
shows the percent of children, grouped by age,  who
were  reported to exhibit non-food related mouthing
behaviors.  Table 4-5 presents the mean  and median
number of mouthing contacts  by age  for the  19
videotaped children.  Among the four age categories
of these children,  object  to  mouth  activities  were
significantly greater for the 3 and 4  year olds  than
any other age group, with a median of 3  and a mean
of 6 contacts per hour (P = 0.002, Kruskal Wallis test
comparison across four age groups).  Hand to mouth
contacts had a median of 3.5 and mean of 4 contacts
per hour for the three  3 and 4 year olds observed,
median of 2.5 and mean  of 8 contacts per hour for the
seven 5 and 6 year olds observed, median of 3 and
mean of 5 contacts per hour for the four 7 and 8 year
olds observed, and median of 2 and mean of 4 for the
five  10,  11 and 12 year  olds  observed.   Gender
differences were observed for some of the activities,
with boys spending significantly  more time outdoors
than girls.  Hand  to mouth and object  to  mouth
activities were less frequent outdoors than indoors for
both boys and girls.
        For the  19 children in the video-transcription
portion of the  study, inter-observer reliability checks
and  quality  control  checks  were  performed  on
randomly sampled tapes. For four children's tapes,
comparison of the manual video-transcription with a
computerized transcription  method (Zartarian et  al.,
1995) was also performed; no significant differences
were found in the frequency of events recorded using
the two techniques. The frequency  of six behaviors
(hand to mouth, hand to object, object to mouth, hand
to smooth surface, hand to textured surface, and hand
to clothing) was  recorded. The amount of time each
child spent indoors, outdoors, in  contact with soil or
grass, and whether the child was barefoot was also
recorded.   For the  four children whose tapes were
analyzed with the computerized transcription method,
which  calculates event durations, the authors stated
that  most hand to mouth and object  to  mouth
activities  were  observed during periods  of lower
physical activity, such as television viewing.
        An advantage to this study is that it included
results  from  two  separate  methodologies,  and
included  quality assurance steps taken  to  assure
reliability of transcribed videotape  data.   However,
the children in this study may not be representative of
all children in the U.S. Variation  in who provided the
survey responses (sometimes parents only, sometimes
children  with parents)  may  have influenced  the
responses given.  Children  studied using the video-
transcription methodology were not chosen randomly
from the  survey  response group.  The  presence of
unfamiliar persons following  the children with a
video  camera  may  have  influenced  the  video-
transcription methodology results.

4.3.1.4  Tulve et aL, 2002 - Frequency of Mouthing
        Behavior in Young Children
        Tulve et al. (2002) coded the unpublished
Davis  et  al.  (1995) data for  location (indoor and
outdoor)  and  activity  type (quiet or  active)  and
analyzed  the subset of the data that  consisted of
indoor mouthing behavior during quiet  activity  (72
children, ranging in age from  11 to 60 months).  A
total of  186  15-minute  observation  periods were
included in the study, with the number of observation
periods per child ranging from 1 to 6.
        Results  of the data analyses  indicated that
there  was   no   association  between   mouthing
frequency and gender, but a  clear  association between
Page
4-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
mouthing frequency and  age was  observed.   The
analysis indicated that children <24 months had the
highest  frequency  of  mouthing  behavior  (81
events/hour) and children >24 months had the lowest
(42 events/hour) (Table 4-6). Both groups of children
were  observed  to  mouth toys  and  hands  more
frequently  than household surfaces or body  parts
other than hands.
        An advantage  of this study  is that the
randomized design  may  mean that  the  children
studied were   relatively  representative  of young
children living  in the study area, although they may
not be representative of the U.S. population.  Due to
the ages of the children studied, the observers' use of
headphones and manual  recording  of  mouthing
behavior on observation sheets may have influenced
the children's behavior.

4.3.1.5  AuYeung et al, 2004 -  Young Children's
        Mouthing  Behavior:  An  Observational
        Study  via  Videotaping   in   a Primarily
        Outdoor Residential Setting
        AuYeung  et  al.  (2004)   used  a  video-
transcription methodology  to study a  group  of 38
children (20 females and 18 males; ages 1 to 6 years),
37 of whom were selected randomly via a telephone
screening survey of a 300 to 400 square mile portion
of the San Francisco, California peninsula, along with
one  child  selected by  convenience  due  to  time
constraints. Families who lived in a residence with a
lawn and whose annual  income was >$35,000 were
asked to participate. Videotaping took place between
August 1998 and May 1999  for approximately two
hours per child. Videotaping by one researcher was
supplemented with field notes taken by  a  second
researcher who  was also present during taping.  Most
of the videotaping  took place during outdoor play,
however, data were included for several children (one
child <2 years old and 8 children >2 years old) who
had more than 15 minutes of indoor play during their
videotaping sessions.
        The videotapes were translated into ASCII
computer files using VirtualTimingDevice™ software
described in Zartarian et al. (1997a). Both frequency
and duration (see Section 4.4.2.5  of this Chapter)
were analyzed.  Between 5 and 10 percent of the data
files translated were  randomly chosen for  quality
control   checks   for   inter-observer   agreement.
Ferguson  et  al.  (2006)  described quality  control
aspects of the study in detail.
        For analysis, the  mouthing contacts  were
divided into indoor and outdoor  locations, and 16
object/surface categories.  Mouthing frequency was
analyzed  by age and  gender separately, and in
combination.    Mouthing contacts  were defined as
contact with the lips, inside of the mouth, and/or the
tongue; dietary contacts were  ignored.  Mouthing
frequencies for indoor locations are shown in Table
4-7.  For the one child observed that was <24 months
of age,  the  total  mouthing  frequency was  84.8
contacts/hour; for children >24 months, the median
indoor mouthing frequency was 19.5 contacts/hour.
Outdoor  median mouthing frequencies  (Table 4-8)
were very similar for children <24  months of age
(13.9  contacts/hour)   and  >24   months  (14.6
contacts/hour).
        Nonparametric  tests, such as the Wilcoxon
rank sum test were used for the data analyses. Both
age and  gender were found  to be associated with
differences  in  mouthing  behavior.    Girls   had
significantly higher frequencies of mouthing contacts
with the hands and non-dietary objects than boys (p =
0.01  and;? = 0.008, respectively).
        This study provides distributions of outdoor
mouthing frequencies with a variety of objects  and
surfaces.  Although indoor mouthing data were also
included  in this study, the results  were based on a
small number of children (N=9) and a limited amount
of indoor play.   The sample of  children may  be
representative of certain socioeconomic  strata in the
study area, but is not likely to be representative of the
national population.  Due to the children's ages, the
presence  of unfamiliar persons following the children
with a video  camera may have influenced the video-
transcription methodology results.

4.3.1.6  Black  et al, 2005 -  Children's Mouthing
        and   Food-Handling  Behavior   in   an
        Agricultural     Community   on    the
        U.S./Mexico Border
        Black  et  al.  (2005)  studied  mouthing
behavior  of  children   in   a  Mexican-American
community along the Rio Grande River in Texas, in
the spring  and  summer of  2000,  using  a survey
response  and a video-transcription methodology. A
companion study of this community (Shalat et al.,
2003) identified 870 occupied households during the
April 2000 U.S. census and contacted  643  of these
via in-person interview to  determine presence of
children  under the age of  3 years.   Of  the  643
contacted, 91 had at least one child under the age of 3
years (Shalat et al., 2003).  Of these 91 households,
the mouthing and food-handling behavior of  52
children (26 boys and 26 girls) from 29 homes was
videotaped,  and  the  children's  parents  answered
questions about children's hygiene, mouthing  and
food-handling activities (Black et al.,  2005).   The
study was of children ages 7  to 53 months, grouped
into four age  categories: infants (7 to 12 months), 1
year olds (13 to 24 months), 2 year olds (25 to 36
months),  and  preschoolers (37 to 53 months).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             4-7
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
        The survey asked questions about children's
ages, genders, reported hand-washing, mouthing and
food-handling  behavior  (N=52),   and  activities
(N=49).  Parental reports of thumb/finger placement
in the mouth  showed  decreases  with age.   The
researchers attempted to videotape each child for four
hours.     The  children  were  followed   by   the
videographers through the house and yard, except for
times when they were napping or using the bathroom.
Virtual Timing Device™ software, mentioned earlier,
was used to analyze the videotapes.
        Based on the results of videotaping, most of
the children (49 of 52) spent the majority  of their
time indoors. Of the 39 children who  spent time both
indoors and outdoors,  all three behaviors  (hand to
mouth, object to mouth  and  food handling)  were
more  frequent and  longer while the  child  was
indoors.  Hand to mouth activity was recorded during
videotaping for all but one child, a 30 month old girl.
        For the four age groups, the mean hourly
hand to mouth frequency ranged  from 11.9 (2 year
olds) to  22.1  (preschoolers), and  the mean hourly
object to mouth frequency ranged from 7.8 (2 year
olds) to 24.4 (infants).  No  significant linear trends
were seen with age or gender for hand  to mouth
hourly  frequency.   A  significant  linear trend  was
observed for hourly object to mouth frequency, which
decreased as age increased (adjusted R2 = 0.179; P =
0.003). Results of this study are shown in Table 4-9.
        One  advantage  of this  study  is  that it
compared   survey   responses   with  videotaped
information on mouthing behavior.  A limitation is
that the  sample was fairly  small  and was from a
limited  area  (mid-Rio Grande Valley)  and is  not
likely to be representative of the national population.
Due to the children's ages, the presence of unfamiliar
persons following the children with a video camera
may   have   influenced   the   video-transcription
methodology results.

4.3.1.7  Xue et al,  2007  -  A  Meta-analysis  of
        Children's  Hand-to-Mouth   Frequency
        Data for Estimating Nondietary  Ingestion
        Exposure
        Xue et al. (2007) gathered hand-to-mouth
frequency data from  9 available studies representing
429 subjects and more  than 2,000 hours of behavior
observation.   The  studies  used  in this   analysis
included several of the studies summarized in this
chapter (Zartarian et al.,1998; Reed et al., 1999;
Freeman et al., 2001;  Greene, 2002; Tulve et  al.,
2002; Black et al., 2005,  and Beamer et al., 2008).
These data were used to conduct  a meta-analysis to
study differences  in hand-to-mouth behavior.   The
purpose of the analysis was to:
1)      examine differences across  studies by age
        (using the new U.S. EPA recommended age
        groupings (U.S.  EPA, 2005)),  gender, and
        indoor/outdoor location;
2)      fit variability  distributions to the  available
        hand-to-mouth frequency data for use in one
        dimensional   Monte   Carlo     exposure
        assessments;
3)      fit uncertainty distributions to the  available
        hand-to-mouth frequency data for use in two
        dimensional   Monte   Carlo     exposure
        assessments; and
4)      assess hand-to-mouth frequency data needs
        using the new U.S. EPA recommended age
        groupings (U.S. EPA, 2005).
        The  data were sorted into  age groupings.
Visual inspection of the data and statistical methods
(method of  moments  and  maximum likelihood
estimation) were used, and goodness-of-fit tests were
applied to  verify the  selection among lognormal,
Weibull, and  normal distributions (Xue et al., 2007).
Analyses  to   study  inter-  and  intra- individual
variability  of indoor  and outdoor hand to  mouth
frequency were conducted.  There were 894 hours of
behavior observation data for the 429 children, ages
0.3 to  12 years,  across all available studies.  It was
found that age and location (indoor vs. outdoor) were
important factors contributing to hand to  mouth
frequency, but study and gender were not (Xue et al.,
2007).  Distributions of hand to  mouth frequencies
were   developed for  both   indoor  and   outdoor
activities. Distributions are presented in Table 4-10
for indoor settings and  Table  4-11  for  outdoor
settings. Hand to mouth frequencies decreased for
both indoor and  outdoor activity  as age increased,
and were higher indoors than outdoors  for all age
groups (Xue et al., 2007).
        A  strength of this study is that it is the first
effort to fit hand to mouth  distributions using U.S.
EPA's recommended age groups using available data
on mouthing behavior from studies  using  different
methodologies, of  children in  different locations.
Limitations of the studies used in this meta-analysis
apply to the  results from the meta-analysis as well;
the uncertainty analysis in this study does not account
for uncertainties  arising  out  of  differences   in
approaches used  in the various studies  used in  the
meta-analysis.
Page
4-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
4.3.1.8  Beamer et al (2008) - Quantified Activity
        Pattern Data From 6  to  27-Month-Old
        Farmworker Children for Use in Exposure
        Assessment
        Beamer et al. (2008) conducted a follow-up
to the pilot  study  performed by Zartarian et al.
(1997a,  1997b,  1998)  and  described  in Sections
4.3.1.1 and 4.4.2.2.  For this study, a convenience
sample of 23 children  residing in the  farmworker
community  of Salinas  Valley,  CA was  enrolled.
Participants were 6-13 month old infants or 20-26
month old toddlers.  Two researchers videotaped each
child's activities for a minimum of 4 hours, and kept
a detailed written log of locations visited and objects
and surfaces contacted by the child. A questionnaire
was  administered to an  adult in the household  to
acquire  demographic data,  housing  and  cleaning
characteristics, eating patterns, and other information
pertinent to the child's potential pesticide exposure.
        The mean and median object/surface contact
frequency in events/hour are presented in Table 4-12.
The   mean frequency   of  hand  contact  of  all
objects/surfaces for both hands combined was 686.3
events/hour.   The  mean hand-to-mouth  frequency
was  18.4 events/hour. The mean mouthing frequency
of non-dietary objects was 29.2 events/hour. Table 4-
13 presents the distributions for the mouthing of non-
dietary objects for both infants and toddlers. Toddlers
had  higher mouthing frequencies with non-dietary
items associated with  pica (i.e., paper) while infants
had  higher mouthing frequencies with other non-
dietary  objects.  In  addition,  boys  had higher
mouthing frequencies than girls.  The advantage  of
this study is that it included both infants and toddlers.
Differences between the two age groups, as well  as
gender differences, could be observed.  As with other
video-transcription  studies, the presence  of non-
family-member videographers and a video camera
may have influenced the children's behavior.

4.3.1.9  Xue et al,  2009 - A Meta-analysis  of
        Children's   Object-to-Mouth   Frequency
        Data for Estimating Nondietary Ingestion
        Exposure
        Xue  et al. (2009) gathered object-to-mouth
frequency data from 7 available studies representing
438  subjects  and  approximately 1,500  hours  of
behavior observation.    The  studies  used  in this
analysis included several of the studies  summarized
in this chapter (Reed et al., 1999; Freeman et al.,
2001; Greene, 2002; Tulve et al., 2002; Au Yeung et
al., 2004, and Beamer et al., 2008) as well as Hore
2003.  These data  were  used to  conduct a meta-
analysis  to study  differences  in  object-to-mouth
behavior. The purpose of the analysis was to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
        examine differences across  studies by age
        (using the new U.S. EPA recommended age
        groupings (U.S.  EPA, 2005)),  gender, and
        indoor/outdoor location;
        fit variability  distributions to the  available
        object to-mouth frequency data for use  in
        one  dimensional  Monte Carlo   exposure
        assessments;
        fit uncertainty distributions to the  available
        object-to-mouth  frequency data for use  in
        two  dimensional  Monte Carlo   exposure
        assessments; and
        assess object-to-mouth frequency data needs
        using the new U.S. EPA recommended age
        groupings (U.S. EPA, 2005).
        The  data were  sorted into  age groupings.
Visual inspection of the data and statistical methods
(method of  moments   and  maximum likelihood
estimation) were used, and goodness-of-fit tests were
applied to  verify the  selection among lognormal,
Weibull, and  normal distributions (Xue et al., 2009).
Analyses  to   study  inter-  and  intra- individual
variability  of indoor  and  outdoor object-to-mouth
frequency were  conducted.  It was found  that age,
location (indoor vs.  outdoor),  and   study  were
important factors contributing  to  object-to-mouth
frequency, but study and gender were not (Xue et al.,
2009).  Distributions of object-to-mouth frequencies
were   developed for  both   indoor  and   outdoor
activities. Distributions are presented in Table 4-14
for indoor settings  and Table  4-15   for  outdoor
settings. Object-to-mouth frequencies decreased for
both indoor  and outdoor activity  as age increased
(i.e., after age <6 to 12  months for indoor activity;
and after <3 to 6 years for outdoor activity),  and were
higher indoors than outdoors for all age  groups (Xue
et al., 2009).
        A strength of this study is that it is the first
effort to fit object-to-mouth distributions using U.S.
EPA's recommended age  groups using available data
on mouthing behavior from studies  using  different
methodologies,  of  children in  different  locations.
Limitations of the studies used in this meta-analysis
apply to the  results from the meta-analysis as well;
the uncertainty analysis in this study does not account
for  uncertainties  arising  out  of  differences   in
approaches used in the various  studies  used in the
meta-analysis.

4.3.2    Relevant Studies of Mouthing Frequency
4.3.2.1  Davis  et al, 1995  -  Soil Ingestion  in
        Children with Pica: Final Report
        In 1992, under  a  Cooperative Agreement
with U.S. EPA, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center  conducted a survey response and  real-time
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             4-9
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
hand recording study of mouthing behavior data. The
study included 92 children  (46  males, 46 females)
ranging in age from <12 months to 60 months, from
Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco, Washington.  The
children were selected randomly based on date of
birth  through  a combination  of birth  certificate
records  and random  digit  dialing of  residential
telephone numbers.    For  each child,  data  were
collected during a seven day period in  January to
April, 1992. Eligibility included residence within the
city limits, residence duration >1 month, and at least
one parent or guardian who  spoke English. Most of
the adults who responded to the survey reported their
marital  status  as being married (90 percent), their
race  as  Caucasian  (89  percent), their  household
income in the >$30,000 range (56 percent) or their
housing status as single-family home occupants (69
percent).
        The survey  asked questions about thumb-
sucking and frequency questions about pacifier use,
placing fingers, hands and  feet in the  mouth, and
mouthing of furniture, railings, window  sills,  floor,
dirt,  sand, grass, rocks, mud, clothes, toys, crayons,
pens, and other items.  Table 4-16  shows the survey
responses for the 92 study children. For most of the
children in the study,  the mouthing behavior real-time
hand recording data were collected simultaneously by
parents  and  by trained observers who described and
quantified the mouthing behavior of the children in
their home  environment.   The  observers  recorded
mouth and tongue contacts  with hands, other body
parts, natural  objects,  surfaces,  and toys every 15
seconds during 15 minute observation periods spread
over 4  days.  Parents  and  trained observers  wore
headphones  that indicated elapsed time (Davis et al.,
1995).    If all  attempted observation periods  were
successful,  each child would have a total of 16 15
minute  observation  periods  with  60   15-second
intervals per 15-minute observation  period, or 960
15-second intervals in all.  The number of successful
intervals of observation ranged  from 0 to 840 per
child.  Comparisons  of the  inter-observer reliability
between the trained observers and parents showed "a
high degree  of correlation between the overall degree
of both mouth and tongue activity recorded by
parents and observers. For total mouth activity, there
was  a  significant correlation between the rankings
obtained according to parents  and  observers, and
parents were able to identify the  same individuals as
observers as being most and least oral in 60 percent
of the cases."
        One  advantage  of  this  study  is  the
simultaneous  observations  by  both parents  and
trained observers that allows comparisons to be  made
regarding   the   consistency   of   the    recorded
observations.   The  random nature in  which  the
population was selected may provide a representative
population  of  the   study  area,  within  certain
limitations,  but  not  of  the  national  population.
Simultaneous  collection of food, medication, fecal,
and urine samples that occurred as part of the overall
study (not described  in this  summary)  may have
contributed  a  degree  of  deviation  from  normal
routines within the households during the 7 days of
data collection and may have influenced children's
usual behaviors. Wearing of headphones by parents
and trained observers during mouthing observations,
presence  of  non-family-member  observers,  and
parents' roles as observers as well as care  givers may
also  have influenced  the results; the authors state
"Having  the  child  play   naturally  while  being
observed was  challenging.  Usually the first day of
observation was the most difficult in this respect, and
by the third or fourth  day of observation the child
generally paid little attention to the observers."

4.3.2.2  Lew  and  Butterworth,  1997  -   The
        Development of Hand-Mouth Coordination
        in 2- to 5-Month-Old Infants: Similarities
        With Reaching and Grasping
        Lew  and Butterworth  (1997)  studied  14
mostly first-born infants (10  males, 4 females) in
Stirling, United  Kingdom,  in  1990 using a  video-
transcription methodology.   Attempts were made to
study each infant within a week of the  infant's 2-
month,  3-month, 4-month and  5-month birthdays.
After becoming accustomed to the testing laboratory,
and with their  mothers present, infants were placed in
semi-reclining   seats   and   filmed  during   an
experimental protocol  in which researchers  placed
various objects into the infants' hands.  Infants were
observed for two baseline periods of 2 minutes each.
The  researchers  coded all  contacts  to the face and
mouth that occurred during baseline  periods (prior to
and  after the object  handling period)  as well as
contacts occurring during the object  handling period.
Hand to mouth contacts included  contacts  that landed
directly  in or on the mouth as well as those in which
the hand landed on the face first and then moved to
the mouth.  The researchers assessed inter-observer
agreement using a rater not involved with the study,
for a random proportion (approximately 10 percent)
of the movements documented during  the  object
handling  period,  and   reported   inter-observer
agreement  of 0.90 using  Cohen's kappa for  the
location of  contacts.    The frequency of contacts
ranged between 0 and 1 contacts per minute.
        The advantages of this study were that use
of video cameras could be expected  to have minimal
impact on infant behavior for  infants of these ages,
Page
4-10
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
and the researchers performed tests of inter-observer
reliability.  A disadvantage is that the study included
baseline observation periods of only  2  minutes'
duration, during which spontaneous  hand to mouth
movements could be observed. The extent to which
these infants' behavior  is  representative  of other
infants of these ages is unknown.

4.3.2.3  Tudella et al., 2000 - The Effect of Oral-
        Gustatory,  Tactile-Bucal,  and   Tactile-
        Manual Stimulation on the Behavior of the
        Hands in Newborns
        Tudella et al.  (2000) studied the  frequency
of hand to mouth contact, as well as other behaviors,
in 24 full-term Brazilian newborns (10 to 14 days
old) using a video-transcription methodology.  Infants
were in an alert state, in their homes in  silent and
previously heated rooms in a supine position and had
been fed between 1  and 1  1/2 hours before testing.
Infants were studied for a four minute baseline period
without stimuli  before  experimental stimuli were
administered.  Results from the four minute baseline
period,  without stimuli, indicated that  the  mean
frequency of hand to mouth  contact (defined as right
hand or left hand touching  the  lips or entering the
buccal cavity, either with or without rhythmic jaw
movements) was  almost 3  right hand contacts and
slightly more than 1.5  left hand contacts, for a total
hand to mouth contact  frequency of about  4 contacts
in the four minute period. The researchers performed
inter-observer reliability tests  on the videotape data
and reported an inter-coder Index of Concordance  of
93 percent.
        The  advantages of this  study were that use
of video cameras could be expected to have virtually
no impact on newborns' behavior, and inter-observer
reliability tests were  performed.  However,  the study
data may  not represent newborn  hand  to  mouth
contact during non-alert periods such as sleep.  The
extent   to  which  these   infants'  behavior   is
representative of other full-term 10  to  14 day old
infants' behavior is unknown.

4.3.2.4  Ko et al., 2007 -  Relationships  of Video
        Assessments of Touching and Mouthing
        Behaviors During Outdoor Play  in  Urban
        Residential  Yards  to Parental Perceptions
        of Child Behaviors and Blood Lead Levels
        Ko et al. (2007) compared parent  survey
responses with  results from a video-transcription
study of children's  mouthing behavior in outdoor
settings, as part of a study of relationships between
children's  mouthing behavior and other  variables
with blood lead levels.  A convenience sample of  37
children (51 percent males, 49 percent females) 14 to
69  months old was recruited via an urban health
center and direct contacts  in the surrounding area,
apparently in Chicago, Illinois. Participating children
were  primarily Hispanic (89 percent).  The  mouth
area was  defined  as  within 1  inch of the mouth,
including  the lips.  Items  passing beyond the lips
were defined as in the mouth. Placement of an object
or food item in the mouth along with part of the hand
was counted as both hand and  food or object  in
mouth.  Mouthing behaviors included hand-to-mouth
area both with and not with food, hand- in-mouth
with or without food,  and object-in-mouth including
food, drinks, toys or other objects.
        Survey responses for the 37 children who
were  also videotaped  included  parents  reporting
children's inserting hand,  toys or objects in mouth
when playing outside, and  inserting dirt, stones  or
sticks  in  mouth.    Video-transcription  results  of
outdoor play for these 37 children indicated 0 to 27
hand-in-mouth, and 3  to 69  object-in-mouth touches
per hour for the 13 children reported to frequently
insert hand, toys or objects in mouth when playing
outside; 0 to 67 hand in mouth, and 7 to 40 object-in-
mouth touches per hour for  the 10 children reported
to "sometimes" perform this behavior; 0 to  30 hand-
in-mouth,  and 0 to 125 object in  mouth touches per
hour for the 12 children reported to  "hardly ever"
perform this behavior, and 1 to 8 hand-in-mouth, and
3 to 6 object-in-mouth touches per hour for the 2
children reported to "never" perform this behavior.
        Videotaping was  attempted for two hours
per child over two or  more  play  sessions, with
videographers trying to avoid  interacting  with the
children.  Children played with their usual toys and
partners, and no instructions were given to parents
regarding  their supervision of the children's play.
The authors  stated that during some portion of the
videotape time, children's hands and mouths were out
of  camera  view.    Videotape   transcription  was
performed manually, according to  a modified version
of the protocol used in the  Reed et al. (1999) study.
Inter-observer  reliability   between   three   video-
transcribers was checked with seven 30 minute video
segments.
        One strength of this study is its comparison
of  survey responses with  results from  the  video-
transcription  methodology.   A limitation is that the
non-randomly selected sample of  children studied is
unlikely   to  be   representative  of  the  national
population.  Comparing results from this study with
results from other video-transcription studies may be
problematic  due to inclusion of food  handling with
hand to mouth and object to mouth frequency counts.
Due to the children's ages, their behavior may have
differed from normal patterns due to the presence  of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                            4-11
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
strangers who videotaped them.

4.4     NON-DIETARY     INGESTION
        MOUTHING DURATION STUDIES
4.4.1    Key Mouthing Duration Studies
4.4.1.1  Juberg et al.,  2001  - An Observational
        Study  of Object Mouthing Behavior by
        Young Children
        Juberg et al. (2001)  studied 385  children
ages 0 to 36 months in western New York state, with
parents collecting real-time hand-recording mouthing
behavior data,  primarily  in  children's  own home
environments.  The study consisted of an initial pilot
study conducted in February 1998, a second phase
conducted in April 1998, and a third phase conducted
at an unspecified later time.  The study's sample was
drawn from families  identified in a  child play
research center database  or whose children attended a
child  care facility in the  same  general area; some
geographic  variation within  the  local  area  was
obtained by selecting  families  with different zip
codes in the different study phases.  The pilot phase
had 30 children who participated out of 150  surveys
distributed; the  second phase had 187 children out  of
approximately 300 surveys distributed, and the third
phase  had  168  participants out  of 300   surveys
distributed.
        Parents were asked to observe their child's
mouthing of objects only; hand to mouth behavior
was not included.  Data were  collected on a single
day (pilot and second  phases) or five  days (third
phase); parents  recorded the insertion of objects into
the mouth by noting the  "time in" and "time out" and
the researchers summed  the recorded data to tabulate
total times spent mouthing the various objects during
the day(s) of observation.  Thus,  the study data were
presented as minutes per day  of object mouthing
time.   Mouthed items were classified  as  pacifiers,
teethers, plastic toys, or other objects.
        The results of the combined pilot and second
phase II data are shown  in Table 4-17. For both age
groups, mouthing time for pacifiers greatly exceeded
mouthing time for non-pacifiers, with the difference
more  acute  for the  older age group than  for the
younger age group. Histograms of the observed data
show a peak in the low  end of the distribution (0  to
100 minutes per day) and a rapid  decline at longer
durations.
        A third  phase of  the  study  focused  on
children between  the ages of 3 and  18 months and
included only  non-pacifier objects.  Subjects were
observed for 5 non-consecutive days over a 2 month
period. A total  of 168 participants returned  surveys
for at least one day, providing a total of 793  person-
days of data. The  data yielded a mean non-pacifier
object mouthing duration of 36 minutes per day; the
mean was the same when calculated on the basis of
793 person-days of data as on the basis of 168 daily
average mouthing times.
        One advantage of this  study is  the  large
sample  size  (385  children);  however, the children
apparently  were  not selected  randomly,  although
some effort was made to obtain local geographic
variation among  study participants.  There is  no
description of the socioeconomic status or racial and
ethnic identities  of the  study  participants.  The
authors  do not describe the  methodology (such as
stopwatches,  analog or digital  clocks, or guesses)
parents used to record mouthing event durations. The
authors  stated that using  mouthing event duration
units  of minutes, rather  than  seconds, may  have
yielded observations rounded to the nearest minute.

4.4.1.2  Greene,  2002 - A Mouthing Observation
        Study of Children Under Six Years of Age
        The   U.S.   Consumer   Product  Safety
Commission  (CPSC)  conducted a  survey response
and   real-time  hand   recording   study  between
December  1999  and February 2001 to quantify the
cumulative time per day that young children spend
awake,   not   eating,   and   mouthing    objects.
"Mouthing" was defined  as sucking, chewing,  or
otherwise putting an object on his/her lips  or into
his/her  mouth.  Participants were recruited via a
random digit dialing telephone survey in urban and
nearby rural  areas of Houston,  Texas and Chicago,
Illinois.   Of the 115,289 households surveyed, 1,745
households had a child under the age of 6 years and
were willing to participate. In the initial phase of the
study, 491children ages 3 to 81  months participated.
Parents  were instructed to use watches with second
hands, or count seconds to estimate mouthing event
durations.  Parents also were  to  record  mouthing
frequency and types of objects  mouthed.   Parents
collected data in four separate,  non-consecutive 15-
minute observation periods.   Initially, parents  were
called back by the researchers and asked to  provide
their data over the telephone. Of the 491 children, 43
children  (8.8 percent)  had at least one  15-minute
observation period  with mouthing event  durations
recorded as exceeding  15 minutes.  Due to this data
quality problem, the researchers excluded the parent
observation data from further analysis.
        In a second phase, trained observers used
stopwatches to record  the mouthing behaviors and
mouthing event  durations of the subset of  109 of
these children ages 3 to 36 months, and an additional
60 children (total in second phase, 169), on two hours
of each  of two days.  The  observations were  done at
different times of the day at the child's home and/or
Page
4-12
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
child care facility.  Table 4-18 shows the prevalence
of observed mouthing among the 169 children in the
second phase. All children were observed to mouth
during the four hours of observation time; 99 percent
mouthed  the  category  defined  as  "anatomy."
Pacifiers were mouthed by 27 percent in an  age-
declining pattern ranging from 47 percent of children
less than 12 months old to 10 percent of the  2 to <3
year olds.
        Table 4-19 provides the  average mouthing
time by object category  and age in minutes per hour.
The  average  mouthing  time  for all objects ranged
from 5.3 to 10.5 minutes per hour,  with the  highest
mouthing time corresponding to children <1  year of
age  and the  lowest to  the 2 to <3 years  of age
category.   Among the  objects  mouthed, pacifiers
represented about  one third  of the total mouthing
time, with 3.4 minutes per hour for the youngest
children, 2.6  minutes  per  hour for  the  children
between 1 and 2 years and 1.8 minutes per hour for
children 2 to <3 years old.  The next largest single
item category was anatomy. In this category, children
under 1 year of age spent  2.4  minutes per hour
mouthing fingers and thumbs; this behavior declined
with age to 1.2 minutes per hour for children 2 to <3
years old.
        Of the  169 children in the second phase,
there were usable  data  on the time awake and not
eating (or "exposure time") for only  109; data for the
remaining 60 children were missing. Thus, in order
to develop extrapolated  estimates  of daily mouthing
time, from the 2 hours of observation per day for two
days, for the  109 children, the researchers developed
a statistical model that  accounted for the children's
demographic  characteristics,  in  order  to estimate
exposure  times  for  the 60  children for whom
exposure time data were missing, and then computed
statistics for  the extrapolated daily  mouthing times
for all 169 children, using a "bootstrap" procedure.
Using   this  method,   the  estimated  mean  daily
mouthing time of objects other than pacifiers ranged
from 37 minutes/day to 70 minutes/day with the
lowest number corresponding to the  2 to <3 year old
children and the largest number corresponding to the
3 to < 12 month old children.
        The  551  child participants  were 55  percent
males, 45 percent females.  The study's sample was
drawn in  an attempt  to duplicate the overall U.S.
demographic  characteristics with  respect to  race,
ethnicity,      socioeconomic      status      and
urban/suburban/rural settings.  The  sample families'
reported annual incomes were generally higher  than
those of the overall U.S.  population.
        This study's strength was that it consisted of
a randomly selected sample  of children from both
urban  and  non-urban  areas  in  two   different
geographic areas within the  U.S.   However, the
observers' presence and use of a stopwatch to time
mouthing durations may have affected the children's
behavior.

4.4.1.3  Reamer et al (2008) - Quantified Activity
        Pattern Data From 6  to  27-Month-Old
        Farmworker Children for Use in Exposure
        Assessment
        Beamer et al. (2008) conducted a follow-up
to the pilot  study  performed by Zartarian et al.
(1997a,  1997b,  1998)  and  described in  Sections
4.3.1.1 and 4.4.2.2.  For this study, a convenience
sample of  23 children  residing in the  farmworker
community  of Salinas  Valley,  CA was   enrolled.
Participants were 6-13 month old infants or 20-26
month old toddlers.  Two researchers videotaped each
child's activities for a minimum of 4 hours,  and kept
a detailed written log of locations visited and objects
and surfaces contacted by the child.  A questionnaire
was  administered to an adult in the household to
acquire  demographic data, housing  and  cleaning
characteristics, eating patterns, and other information
pertinent to the child's potential pesticide exposure.
        The  object/surface hourly contact  duration
in minutes/hour are presented in Table 4-20.   The
mean hourly  mouthing duration for hands and non-
dietary  objects  was  1.4  and 3.5  minutes/hour,
respectively.   Infants had  higher  hourly mouthing
duration  with toys and all  non-dietary objects than
toddlers.   Girls had higher contact durations than
boys.
        The  advantage  of  this study is  that  it
included  both  infants and toddlers.   Differences
between  the  two  age groups, as  well  as gender
differences, could be observed.  As with other video-
transcription  studies,  the  presence of non-family-
member videographers and a video camera may have
influenced the children's behavior.

4.4.2    Relevant Mouthing Duration Studies
4.4.2.1  Barr et al, 1994 - Effects of Intra-Oral
        Sucrose on Crying,  Mouthing and Hand-
        Mouth Contact in Newborn and Six Week
        Old Infants
        Barr et al. (1994) studied hand to mouth
contact, as well as other behaviors, in 15 newborn (8
males, 7  females) and 15 five to seven week old (8
males, 7  females) full-term Canadian infants using a
video-transcription  methodology.   The newborns
were  2  to  3 days  old, in  a quiet,  temperature-
controlled room at the hospital, in a supine position
and had  been fed between 2 1/2  and 3 1/2 hours
before testing.   Barr et al. (1994) analyzed a one
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                           4-13
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
minute baseline period, with no experimental stimuli,
immediately before a sustained crying episode lasting
15 seconds.  For the newborns, reported durations of
hand to mouth contact during  10 second intervals of
the one minute baseline period were in the range of 0
to 2 percent.  The five  to seven  week old  infants
apparently  were  studied at primary  care  pediatric
facilities when they were in bassinets inclined at an
angle of 10 degrees.  For these slightly older infants,
the baseline periods  analyzed were  less  than  20
seconds  in length, but Barr  et al. (1994)  reported
similarly low  mean  percentages of the 10  second
intervals (approximately  1 percent of the time with
hand to mouth contact). Hand to mouth contact was
defined as  "any part  of  the hand  touching the lips
and/or the  inside of  the mouth."   The researchers
performed  inter-observer reliability  tests   on  the
videotape data  and reported  a mean inter-observer
reliability of 0.78 by Cohen's kappa.
        The advantages  of this study were that  use
of video  cameras could be expected to have virtually
no impact on newborns' or five to seven week  old
infants' behavior, and inter-observer reliability tests
were performed.  The study  data  did  not  represent
newborn or five to seven week old infant hand to
mouth contact  during periods in  which infants  of
these ages were in a sleeping or other non-alert state,
and may only represent behavior immediately prior to
a state of distress (sustained crying episode).  The
extent  to   which   these  infants'   behavior   is
representative of other full-term infants of these ages
is unknown.

4.4.2.2  Zartarian  et al,  1997a -   Quantifying
         Videotaped   Activity  Patterns:    Video
         Translation    Software    and    Training
         Technologies/Zartarian  et al.,  1997b -
        Quantified Dermal Activity Data  From a
        Four-Child Pilot Field Study/Zartarian et
        al., 1998 -  Quantified Mouthing Activity
        Data From a Four-Child Pilot Field Study
        As described in Section 4.3.1.1, Zartarian et
al. (1997a,  1997b, 1998) conducted a pilot study of
the video-transcription methodology  to investigate
the applicability of using videotaping  for gathering
information related to children's  activities,  dermal
exposures and mouthing behaviors. The researchers
had  conducted  studies  using the real-time hand
recording methodology,   resulting in  poor inter-
observer reliability   and  observer fatigue  when
attempted for long periods of time, prompting  the
investigation   into    using   videotaping   with
transcription of the children's activities at a point in
time after the observations (videotaping) occurred.
        Four   Mexican-American  farm   worker
children in the Salinas Valley of California each were
videotaped with  a hand-held  videocamera  during
their  waking  hours,  excluding time spent  in  the
bathroom, over one day in September  1993.  The
boys  were 2 years 10  months old and  3  years, 9
months old; the girls were 2 years 5 months old and 4
years 2 months old.  Time of videotaping was  6.0
hours for the younger girl, 6.6 hours for the older girl,
8.4 hours for the younger boy and 10.1 hours for the
older boy.  The videotaping gathered information on
detailed micro-activity patterns of children to be used
to evaluate  software  for  videotaped activities and
translation training methods.
        The   four  children  mouthed  non-dietary
objects an average of 4.35 percent (range 1.41 to 7.67
percent) of the total observation time, excluding the
time  during which the children were  out  of  the
camera's view (Zartarian et al., 1997a).   Objects
mouthed  included bedding/towels,  clothes,  dirt,
grass/vegetation, hard surfaces, hard toys, paper/card,
plush  toy,  and  skin  (Zartarian   et  al.,   1997a).
Frequency distributions  for the four children's non-
dietary object  contact durations were reported to be
similar in shape.   Reported hand to mouth contact
presumably  is a  subset  of  the object to  mouth
contacts described in Zartarian et al., 1997a, and is
described in  Zartarian  et al.,  1997b.   The  four
children  mouthed their hands  an average  of 2.35
percent (range  1.0 to 4.4 percent) of observation time.
The researchers  reported  measures taken to assess
inter-observer  reliability and  several problems with
the video-transcription process.
        This study's primary purpose was to develop
and evaluate the video-transcription methodology; a
secondary  purpose  was   collection  of  mouthing
behavior data.   The sample of children studied was
very small and not likely to be representative of the
national population.  Thus, U.S. EPA did not judge it
to be  suitable for consideration as a key  study  of
children's mouthing behavior.  As with other video-
transcription studies,  the  presence  of non-family-
member videographers, and a video camera may have
influenced the  children's behavior.

4.4.2.3  Groot et al, 1998 - Mouthing Behavior of
        Young Children: An Observational Study
        In this study, Groot et al. (1998) examined
the mouthing behavior of 42 Dutch children (21 boys
and 21 girls) between the ages of 3 and 36 months in
late July and August 1998.  Parent observations were
made of children in 36 families.  Parents were asked
to observe their children  ten times per day for 15
minute intervals (i.e.,  150  minutes total per day) for
two  days  and  measure  mouthing times  with a
stopwatch. In this study,  mouthing was defined as
Page
4-14
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
"all activities in which objects are touched by mouth
or put into the mouth except for eating and drinking.
This  term includes  licking  as  well as  sucking,
chewing and biting."
        For  the   study, a  distinction  was  made
between toys meant  for mouthing (e.g., pacifiers,
teething rings) and those not meant  for mouthing.
Inter-observer  and  intra-observer  reliability  was
measured by trained  observers who  co-observed a
portion  of observation periods in three families, and
who  co-observed  and  repeatedly  observed  some
video-transcriptions made of one child.   Another
quality  assurance  procedure  performed  for  the
extrapolated total mouthing  time data was to  select
12 times per hour randomly during the entire waking
period of four children during one day, in which the
researchers recorded  activities and total  mouthing
times.
        Although  the  sample size  was  relatively
small, the results  provided estimates of mouthing
times, other  than pacifier use, during a day.   The
results were extrapolated to  the entire day based on
the 150  minutes of observation per day, and the mean
value for each child for  the two days of observations
was  interpreted as the  estimate  for  that  child.
Summary statistics are  shown in Table 4-21.  The
standard deviation in all four age categories except
the 3 to 6 month old children exceeded the estimated
mean.   The  3 to  6 month  children (N=5)  were
estimated to   have  mean  non-pacifier  mouthing
durations  of 36.9 minutes per day, with toys as the
most frequently mouthed product category, and the 6
to 12 month children (N=14) 44  minutes per day
(fingers most frequently mouthed).   The 12 to 18
month  olds'  (N=12)  estimated mean non-pacifier
mouthing time was 16.4  minutes per day, with fingers
most frequently mouthed, and 18 to 36 month olds'
(N=ll)  estimated mean non-pacifier mouthing time
was  9.3 minutes  per day (fingers  most frequently
mouthed).
        One   strength  of  this  study is that  the
researchers recognized that observing children might
affect their behavior, and emphasized to the parents
the  importance  of  making  observations  under
conditions that were as  normal as possible.  In spite
of these efforts, many  parents perceived that their
children's behavior was affected by being observed,
and   observation   interfered  with  care   giving
responsibilities such as comforting  children  when
they were upset.  Other limitations included a small
sample  size that was not representative of the Dutch
population and that also  may not be representative of
U.S.  children.    Technical  problems   with  the
stopwatches affected at least  14 of 36 parents' data.
4.4.2.4  Smith  and  Norris,  2003 - Reducing  the
        Risk  of Choking   Hazards:  Mouthing
        Behavior of Children Aged 1 Month to 5
        Years/Norris and Smith, 2002 - Research
        Into the Mouthing Behaviour of Children
        up to 5 Years Old
        Smith and Norris (2003) conducted a real-
time hand recording study  of  mouthing behavior
among 236 children (111 males,  125 females) in the
United Kingdom (exact locations not specified) who
were from 1 month to 5 years  old. Children were
observed at home by parents, who used stopwatches
to record the time that mouthing began, the type of
mouthing, the type of object being mouthed, and the
time that mouthing ceased. Children were observed
for a total of 5 hours over a two week period;  the
observation  time  consisted  of  twenty   15  minute
periods spread over different times and days during
the child's waking hours.  Parents also recorded the
times each child was awake and  not eating meals so
that the researchers  could extrapolate estimates of
total   daily   mouthing  time   from   the  shorter
observation  periods.   Mouthing  was  defined as
licking/lip touching, sucking/trying to  bite, biting or
chewing,  with  a  description  of  each  category,
together with pictures, given to parents as guidance
for what to record.
        The results of the study are shown in Table
4-22. While  no overall pattern could be found in the
different age  groups tested, a Kruskal-Wallis test on
the data for all items mouthed  indicated that there
was a significant difference between the age groups.
Across all age groups and types of items, licking and
sucking accounted for 64 percent of all mouthing
behavior. Pacifiers and fingers exhibited less variety
on mouthing behavior (principally  sucking), while
other items had a higher frequency of licking, biting,
or other mouthing.
        The  researchers  selected 25 of  the  236
children randomly for a single 15 minute observation
of  each child  (total  observation time  across  all
children: 375 minutes),  in  order to compare  the
mouthing  frequency  and  duration  data  obtained
according to the  real-time hand recording and  the
video-transcription methodologies,  as  well as  the
reliability  of parent observations versus those made
by  trained professionals.   For this  group  of 25
children, the total number  of  mouthing behavior
events   recorded  by  video   (160)  exceeded those
recorded by  parents  (114)   and trained  observers
(110).  Similarly, the total duration recorded by video
(24 minutes  and 15 seconds)  exceeded that recorded
by  observers  (parents and  trained observers both
recorded identical  totals of 19 minutes and  44
seconds).   The  mean  and  standard deviation of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                           4-15
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
observed  mouthing  time were  both  lower when
recorded by video versus real-time hand recording.
The  maximum observed  mouthing time  was also
lower (6 minutes and 7 seconds by video versus 9
minutes and 43 seconds for both parents and trained
observers).
        The   strengths  of this  study   were  its
comparison of three types of observation (parents,
trained professional observers, and videotaping), and
its detailed reporting of mouthing behaviors by type,
object/item mouthed, and  age group.  However, the
children  studied may not be representative of the
study population, and may not be representative of
U.S. children.

4.4.2.5  AuYeung  et al, 2004 -  Young Children's
        Mouthing  Behavior:  An  Observational
        Study  via  Videotaping  in  a  Primarily
        Outdoor Residential Setting
        As described in Section 4.3.2.4, AuYeung et
al. (2004) used a video-transcription methodology to
study a group  of  38 children (20 females  and  18
males; ages 1 to 6 years), 37 of whom were selected
randomly via a telephone  screening survey of a 300
to 400 square  mile  portion of the San Francisco,
California peninsula, along with one child selected by
convenience due to time constraints.  Families who
lived in a residence with  a lawn and whose annual
income was  >$35,000  were asked to participate.
Videotaping took place between August 1998 and
May  1999 for approximately two hours per child.
Videotaping by one researcher  was  supplemented
with field notes taken  by a second researcher who
was  also present  during taping.   Most  of the
videotaping took place during outdoor play, however,
data were included for several children (one child <2
years old and 8 children >2 years old) who  had more
than  15  minutes  of  indoor  play  during  their
videotaping sessions.
        The videotapes were translated into ASCII
computer files using VirtualTimingDevice™ software
described in Zartarian et al. (1997a). Both frequency
(see  Section  4.3.2.4 of this Chapter) and duration
were analyzed.  Between 5 and 10 percent of the data
files translated were randomly chosen for  quality
control   checks   for   inter-observer   agreement.
Ferguson  et  al. (2006) described quality  control
aspects of the study in detail.
        For analysis, the  mouthing contacts  were
divided into indoor and outdoor locations,  and  16
object/surface  categories.  Mouthing durations were
analyzed  by  age  and  gender  separately,  and  in
combination.    Mouthing contacts  were defined as
contact with the lips, inside of the mouth, and/or the
tongue; dietary contacts  were ignored.  Mouthing
durations   are  shown  in  Table  4-23  (outdoor
locations).  For the children in all  age groups, the
median duration of each mouthing contact was 1 to 2
seconds,   confirming   the   observations  of  other
researchers that children's mouthing contacts are of
very short duration. For the one child observed that
was <24 months, the total indoor  mouthing duration
was 11.1 minutes/hour; for children  >24 months, the
median  indoor   mouthing  duration  was   0.9
minutes/hour   (Table   4-24).      For   outdoor
environments, median contact durations for these age
groups  decreased  to  0.8  and   0.6  minutes/hour,
respectively (Table 4-25).
        Nonparametric  tests, such as  the Wilcoxon
rank sum test were used for the data analyses.  Both
age and gender were found to be  associated with
differences in mouthing behavior.  Girls' hand to
mouth contact  durations were significantly  shorter
than for boys (^ = 0.04).
        This study provides distributions of outdoor
mouthing  durations with  a  variety of  objects and
surfaces.  Although indoor mouthing data were also
included in this study,  the results were based  on a
small number of children (N=9) and a limited  amount
of indoor play.  The  sample of children may  be
representative of certain socioeconomic  strata in the
study area, but is not likely to be representative of the
national population.  Due to the children's ages, the
presence of unfamiliar persons following the children
with a video  camera may have influenced the video-
transcription methodology results.

4.5     MOUTHING PREVALENCE
4.5.1    Stanek et  al.,  1998 - Prevalence  of Soil
        Mouthing/Ingestion   Among   Healthy
        Children Aged 1 to 6
        Stanek  et al.  (1998)   characterized the
prevalence  of  mouthing behavior among  healthy
children based on a survey response study of parents
or  guardians of  533  children (289  females, 244
males) ages 1 to 6 years old.  Study participants were
attendees  at  scheduled well-child  visits at  three
clinics in Western  Massachusetts  in August through
October,  1992.  Participants were questioned about
the frequency  of  28  mouthing  behaviors  of the
children over the  preceding month in addition to
exposure time (e.g., time outdoors,  play in sand or
dirt) and children's characteristics (e.g., teething).
        Table  4-27 presents  the prevalence  of
reported non-food  ingestion/mouthing behaviors  by
child's age as the percent of children whose  parents
reported the behavior in the preceding month.  The
table includes a column of data for the 3 to <6 year
age category; this column was calculated by  U.S.
EPA as a weighted mean value of  the individual data
Page
4-16
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
for 3, 4, and 5 year olds in order to conform to the
standardized  age categories used in this handbook.
Among all the age groups, 1 year olds had the highest
reported  daily   sucking  of  fingers/thumb;   the
proportion dropped for two  year  olds, but  rose
slightly for three and four year olds  and declined
again after age 4. A similar pattern was reported for
more than weekly finger/thumb sucking, while more
than monthly finger/thumb sucking showed a  very
slight increase for 6 year olds.  Reported pacifier use
was highest for one year olds and declined with age
for daily and more than weekly use; for more  than
monthly use  of a pacifier several six year olds were
reported to use  pacifiers, which altered  the  age-
declining pattern for the daily and more than weekly
reported pacifier use. A pattern similar to pacifier use
existed with reported mouthing of teething toys, with
highest reported use for one year olds, a decline with
age until age  6 when reported use for daily, more than
weekly, and more than monthly use of teething toys
increased.
        The authors developed an outdoor mouthing
rate for each child as the sum of rates for responses to
four questions on mouthing specific outdoor objects.
Survey responses were converted to mouthing  rates
per  week, using values of 0, 0.25, 1,  and 7 for
responses  of never,  monthly,  weekly,  and  daily
ingestion.  Reported outdoor soil mouthing behavior
prevalence was  found to  be  higher than reported
indoor dust mouthing prevalence, but both behaviors
had the highest reported prevalence among 1 year old
children and decreased for children 2 years and older.
The investigators conducted  principal  component
analyses on responses to four questions relating to
ingestion/mouthing  of outdoor objects in an attempt
to     characterize     variability.          Outdoor
ingestion/mouthing rates constructed from the survey
responses were  that  children 1 year  of age were
reported to mouth or ingest  outdoor objects  4.73
times per week while 2 to 6 year olds were reported
to mouth or ingest outdoor objects 0.44 times per
week.  The authors developed regression models to
identify factors  related to high  outdoor mouthing
rates.  The authors found that  children who were
reported to play in sand or dirt had higher outdoor
object ingestion/mouthing rates.
        A strength of this study is that it was a large
sample obtained in an area with urban and semi-
urban   residents  within  various  socioeconomic
categories and with varying racial/ethnic identities.
However, difficulties with parents' recall of  past
events may  have caused  either over-estimates  or
under-estimates of the behaviors studied.
4.5.2    Warren  et  al.,  2000  -   Non-nutritive
        Sucking Behaviors in Preschool Children:
        A Longitudinal Study
        Warren et al.  (2000) conducted a  survey
response study of a non-random cohort  of children
born in certain  Iowa hospitals from early 1992 to
early  1995, as part of a study of children's fluoride
exposure.   For this longitudinal study of children's
non-nutritive  sucking behaviors,  1,374 mothers were
recruited at the  time of their newborns' birth,  and
over 600 were active in the study until the children
were at least  3 years old.  Survey questions on non-
nutritive sucking behaviors were administered to the
mothers when the children were 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12,
16  and 24  months old,  and yearly after  age 24
months.  Questions were posed regarding the child's
sucking behavior over the previous 3 to 12 months.
        The  authors reported that nearly  all children
sucked  non-nutritive   items,   including pacifiers,
thumbs or other fingers,  and/or other objects, at some
point  in  their  early years.    The  parent-reported
sucking behavior prevalence peaked at 91 percent for
3 month old  children. At 2 years of age, a majority
(53 percent) retained  a  sucking habit, while 29
percent  retained the  habit at age 3 years  and 21
percent  at age 4 years.  Parent-reported pacifier use
was 28%  for 1 year olds, 25% for 2 year olds,  and
10% for 3 year olds.  The authors cautioned  against
generalizing the  results to other children due to study
design limitations.
        Strengths of this study were its longitudinal
design and the large sample size.  A limitation is that
the  non-random  selection   of  original   study
participants and  the self-selected nature of the cohort
of  survey respondents  who participated over time
means that the results may not be representative of
other U.S. children of these ages.

4.6     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
AuYeung, W.;  Canales, R.; Beamer, R; Ferguson,
        A.C.; Leckie, J.O. (2004) Young children's
        mouthing behavior: An observational study
        via  videotaping  in  a  primarily  outdoor
        residential setting. J Children's  Health 2(3-
        4):271-295.
Barr, R.G.; Quek, V.S.H.; Cousineau,  D.;  Oberlander,
        T.F.; Brian, J.A.; Young, S.N. (1994)  Effects
        of Intra-oral sucrose  on  crying, mouthing
        and hand-mouth contact in newborn and  six-
        week-old infants.  Dev Med Child  Neurol
        36:608-618.
Beamer,  R;  Key, M.E.;  Ferguson,  A.C.;  Canales,
        R.A.; Auyeung, W.;  Leckie, J.O.   (2008)
        Quantified activity pattern data from 6 to
        27-month-old farmworker children  for  use
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                            4-17
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                         Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
        in  exposure  assessment.    Environ Res
        108(2): 239-46.
Black, K.; Shalat,  S.L.;  Freeman, N.C.G.; Jimenez,
        M; Donnelly, K.C.; Calvin,  J.A.   (2005)
        Children's  mouthing  and  food-handling
        behavior in an  agricultural community on
        the US/Mexico border. J Expo Anal Environ
        Epidemiol 15:244-251.
Blass,  E.M.; Pillion,  T.J.;  Rochat,  P.; Hoffmeyer,
        L.B.; Metzger, M.A. (1989)  Sensorimotor
        and Motivational  Determinants  of  Hand-
        Mouth Coordination in 1-3-Day-Old Human
        Infants.  Dev Psych 25(6): 963-975.
Cannella,  H.I.;  O'Reilly, M.F.;  and Lancioni, G.E.
        (2006)  Treatment  of  hand  mouthing  in
        individuals  with   severe   to   profound
        developmental disabilities: A review of the
        literature.  Res Devel Disabil 27(5):529-544.
Davis, S.; Myers,  PA.; Kohler, E.;  Wiggins, C.
        (1995).   Soil Ingestion in Children with
        Pica: Final Report. U.S. EPA Cooperative
        Agreement  CR   816334-01.     Seattle,
        Washington:  Fred  Hutchinson  Cancer
        Research Center.
Ferguson,  A.C.; Canales, R.A.; Beamer, P.; AuYeung,
        W.; Key, M.; Munninghoff, A.; Lee, K. T.-
        W.; Robertson,  A., Leckie, J.O.   (2006)
        Video  methods  in the  quantification of
        children's  exposures.  J Expo  Sci Environ
        Epidemiol 16:287-298.
Freeman, C.G.; Jimenez, M.; Reed, K.J.; Gurunathan,
        S.;  Edwards,  R.D.; Roy, A.;  Adgate, J.L.;
        Pellizzari,  E.D.; Quackenboss, J.; Sexton,
        K.; Lioy, PJ.  (2001) Quantitative analysis
        of  children's microactivity  patterns: The
        Minnesota  children's  pesticide   exposure
        study.   J Expo Anal  Environ Epidemiol
        11:501-509.
Greene, M.A.  (2002) Mouthing times  for children
        from  the  observational   study.     U.S.
        Consumer  Product  Safety  Commission,
        Bethesda, MD.
Groot, M.  E.; Lekkerkerk, M. C.; Steenbekkers, L. P.
        A.  (1998)  Mouthing  Behavior  of  Young
        Children:    An   observational    Study.
        Wageningen    Agricultural    University,
        Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Hore, P. (2003) Pesticide accumulation patterns for
        child  accessible  surfaces and  objects and
        urinary excretion by children for two weeks
        after  a  professional   crack  and crevice
        application. Ph.D.  Dissertation, Rutgers and
        the University of Medicine and Dentistry of
        New Jersey.
Juberg, D.R.; Alfano, K.; Coughlin, R.J.; Thompson,
        K.M.  (2001)  An Observational  Study  of
        Object  Mouthing  Behavior  by  Young
        Children. Pediatrics  107(1)135-142.
Ko, S.; Schaefer, P.; Vicario, C.; Binns, H.J.  (2007)
        Relationships  of  video  assessments  of
        touching and  mouthing  behaviors  during
        outdoor play in  urban residential yards  to
        parental perceptions of child behaviors and
        blood lead levels.    J  Expo  Sci Environ
        Epidemiol 17:47-47.
Lepow, M.L.; Bruckman, L.; Gillette, M.; Markowitz,
        S.;   Robino,   R.;   Kapish,  J.   (1975)
        Investigations into Sources of Lead in the
        Environment of  Urban Children.  Environ
        Res 10:415-26.
Lew, A.R.; Butterworth, G (1997) The Development
        of Hand-Mouth  Coordination  in  2- to  5-
        Mo nth-Old   Infants:    Similarities    with
        Reaching and Grasping.  Infant Behav Dev
        20(l):59-69.
Norris,  B.;  Smith,  S.  (2002) Research  into the
        mouthing  behaviour of children  up  to  5
        years   old.     London:   Consumer  and
        Competition Policy Directorate, Department
        of Trade and Industry.
Reed, K.; Jimenez, M.; Freeman, N.; Lioy, P.  (1999)
        Quantification  of  children's  hand  and
        mouthing  activities  through a videotaping
        methodology.     J  Expo  Anal  Environ
        Epidemiol 9:513-520.
Rochat,  P.;  Blass, E.M.; Hoffmeyer,  L.B.  (1988)
        Oropharyngeal   Control  of  Hand-Mouth
        Coordination in  Newborn Infants.    Dev
        Psych 24(4):459-63.
Shalat,  S.L.;  Donnelly,   K.C.;  Freeman,  N.C.G;
        Calvin,  J.A.;  Ramesh,  S.;  Jimenez, M.;
        Black,  K.; Coutinho,  C.; Needham, L.L.;
        Barr, D.B.; Ramirez, J.  (2003) Nondietary
        ingestion of pesticides by children  in  an
        agricultural community on the  U.S./Mexico
        border: Preliminary  Results.  J Expos Anal
        Environ Epidemiol 13:42-50.
Smith, S.A.; Norris, B. (2003). Reducing the  risk  of
        choking  hazards:  mouthing  behavior  of
        children aged  1  month to  5  years. Injury
        Control and  Safety Promotion 10(3): 145-
        154.
Stanek, E.J.; Calabrese, E.J.; Mundt, K.; Pekow,  P.;
        Yeatts, K.B.   (1998) Prevalence of soil
        mouthing/ingestion among healthy children
        aged 1 to 6. J Soil Contam 7(2):227-242.
Takaya,  R.; Yukuo,  K.;  Bos, A.F.;  Einspieler,  C.
        (2003) Preterm to early postterm changes in
        the  development  of hand-mouth contact and
        other motor patterns.  Early Hum Dev  75
Page
4-18
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
        Suppl. S193-S202.
Tudella, E.; Oishi, I; Puglia Bermasco, N.H. (2000)
        The Effect of Oral-Gustatory, Tactile-Bucal,
        and  Tactile-Manual  Stimulation  on  the
        Behavior of the Hands  in Newborns.  Dev
        Psychobiol 37:82-89.
Tulve, N.S.; Suggs, J.C.; McCurdy, T.; Cohen Hubal,
        E.A.;  Moya,  J.    (2002)  Frequency  of
        mouthing behavior in young children.   J
        Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 12:259-264.
U.S. EPA. (2005) Guidance on selecting age groups
        for  monitoring  and assessing  childhood
        exposures  to  environmental contaminants.
        Washington,  DC.:   U.S.   Environmental
        Protection Agency, Office of Research and
        Development. EPA/630/P-03/003F.
Warren, J.J.; Levy, S.M.; Nowak, A.J.; Tang. S. Non-
        nutritive  sucking behaviors in preschool
        children:  a  longitudinal study.    (2000)
        Pediatr Dent 22(3): 187-91.
Xue,  J.; Zartarian, V;  Moya,  J.;   Freeman,  N.;
        Beamer, P.; Black, K; Tulve, N.; Shalat, S.
        (2007) A Meta-Analysis of Children's Hand-
        to-Mouth Frequency Data  for Estimating
        Nondietary   Ingestion  Exposure.     Risk
        Analy sis 27(2) :411-420.
Xue, J.; Zartarian, V; Tulve, N.; Moya, J.; Freeman,
        N.;  AuYeung,  W.; Beamer,  P.  (2009) A
        Meta-Analysis  of  Children's  Object-to-
        Mouth   Frequency  Data  for Estimating
        Nondietary  Ingestion Exposure.   Accepted
        for publication in the J Expo Sci Environ
        Epidemiol
Zartarian,  V.G; Streicker,  J.; Rivera,  A.;  Cornejo,
        C.S.; Molina, S.; Valadez, O.F.; Leckie, J.O.
        (1995)  A  Pilot  Study  to   Collect Micro-
        Activity Data  of Two- to  Four-Year-Old
        Farm  Labor  Children  in   Salinas Valley,
        California.  J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol
        5(l):21-34.
Zartarian V.G; Ferguson A.C.; Ong,  C.G; Leckie J.
        (1997a)   Quantifying Videotaped  Activity
        Patterns:  Video Translation Software  and
        Training  Methodologies.    J Expo Anal
        Environ Epidemiol 7(4):535-542.
Zartarian V.G;  Ferguson  A.; Leckie J.   (1997b)
        Quantified dermal activity data from a four-
        child pilot field study. J Expo Anal Environ
        Epidemiol 7(4):543-553.
Zartarian, V.G; Ferguson, A.C.; Leckie, J.O. (1998)
        Quantified mouthing activity data from a
        four-child pilot field study.   J Expo Anal
        Environ Epidemiol 8(4):543-553.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                  Page
July 2009                                                                                       4-19
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-3. New Jersey Children's Mouthing Frequency (contacts/hour) from Video-transcription
Category
Hand to mouth
Object to mouth
Minimum
0.4
0
Mean
9.5
16.3
Median
8.5
3.6
90th Percentile
20.1
77.1
Maximum
25.7
86.2
Source: Reed etal, 1999.
Table 4-4. Survey-Reported Percent of 168 Minnesota Children Exhibiting Behavior,

3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
11 years
12 years
-
Source:
Age Group Thumbs/fingers in Mouth
71
63
33
30
28
33
43
38
33
33
= No data.
Freeman etal., 2001.
by Age
Toes in Mouth Non-food Items in Mouth
29
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


71
31
20
29
28
40
38
38
48
17


Table 4-5. Video-transcription Median (Mean) Observed Mouthing in
Age Group N Object- to-moutha
3 to 4 years 3 3 (6)
5 to 6 years 7 0(1)
7 to 8 years 4 0(1)
10 to 12 years 5 0(1)
1 9 Minnesota Children (contacts/hour)
Hand-to-mouth
3.5 (4)
2.5 (8)
3(5)
2(4)
a Kruskal Wallis test comparison across four age groups, P=0.002.
N = Number of observations.
Source: Freeman et al, 2001 .
Page
4-20
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
ri
s
I
liable 4-6. Variability in Objects Mouthed

Variable
Mouth-body
Mouth-hand
Mouth- surface
Mouth-toy
Total events

Na
186
186
186
186
186
All
Meanb
8
16
4
27
56
Subjects
Median
2
11
1
18
44

95% CIC
2-3
9-14
0.8-1.2
14-23
36-52

Na
69
69
69
69
69
by Washington State Children (contacts/hour)
<24
Meanb
10
18
7
45
81
Months
Median
4
12
5
39
73

95% CIC
3-6
9-16
3-8
31-48
60-88

Na
117
117
117
117
117
>24
Meanb
7
16
2
17
42
Months
Median 95% CIC
1 0.8-1.3
9 7-12
1 0.9-1.1
9 7-12
31 25-39
a Number of observations.
b Arithmetic mean.
0 The 95% confidence intervals (CI) apply to median. Values were calculated in logs and converted to original units.
Source: Tulve et al
, 2002.








I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ri
I
 £
 a
 S
 S
 ri
 !
 £
 a
          I
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-7. Indoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts per hour), Video-transcription of 9 Children with >1 5 minutes in View
Indoors
Age Group N
13 to 84 months 9
<24 months 1
>24 months 8
a Object/surface categories mouthed
and wood.
N = Number of subjects.
Source: AuYeung et al., 2004.
Statistic
Mean
Median
Range
-
Mean
Median
Range
indoors included:
Hands
20.5
14.8
2.5 - 70.4
73.5
13.9
13.3
2.2-34.1
Total non-dietary3
29.6
22.1
3.2 - 82.2
84.8
22.7
19.5
2.8-51.3
Clothes/towels, hands, metal, paper/wrapper, plastic, skin, toys,
Table 4-8. Outdoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts per hour), Video-transcription of 38 Children
Age Group






13 to 84 months


<24 months






>24 months
N Statistic
Mean
5th percentile
25 percentile
50th percentile
75th percentile
95th percentile
38 99th percentile
Mean
Median
8 Range 1
Mean
5th percentile
25* percentile
50th percentile
75th percentile
95th percentile
30 99th percentile
a Object/surface categories mouthed outdoors included: animal, clothes/towels
paper/wrapper, plastic,
N = Number of subjects.
Source: AuYeung et al., 2004.
skin, toys, vegetation/grass, and wood.


Hands
11.7
0.4
4.4
8.4
14.8
31.5
47.6
13.0
7.0
3 - 47.7
11.3
0.2
4.7
8.6
14.8
27.7
39.5
, fabric, hands,



Total non-dietary3
18.3
0.8
9.2
14.5
22.4
51.7
56.6
20.4
13.9
6.2 - 56.4
17.7
0.6
7.6
14.6
22.4
43.8
53.0
metal, non-dietary water,



Page
4-22
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-9. Videotaped Mouthing Activity of Texas Children, Median Frequency (Mean ± SD)

Age N
7-12 months 13
13-24 months 12
25-36 months 18
37-53 months 9
Hand to mouth
Frequency
(contacts/hour)
14 (19. 8 ±14. 5)
13. 3 (15. 8 ±8.7)
9.9(11.9±9.3)
19.4 (22.1 ±22.1)
Object to Mouth
Frequency
(contacts/hour)
18. 1(24.4 ±11. 6)
8.4 (9. 8 ±6.3)
5.5 (7.8 ±5.8)
8.4 (10.1 ±12.4)
N = Number of subjects.
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Black et al., 2005.
Table 4-10. Indoor Hand-to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various Studies
. „ Weibull
Age Group . ,
scale parameter
3 to <6 months 1.28
6 to <12 months 1.02
1 to <2 years 0.91
2 to <3 years 0.76
3 to <6 years 0.75
6to
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-12. Object/Surface Hands and Mouth Contact Frequency (events/hour)
Object/Surface

Animal
Body
Clothes/towel
Fabric
Floor
Food
Footwear
Hand/moutha
Metal
Non-dietary water
Paper/wrapper
Plastic
Rock/brick
Toys
Vegetation
Wood
Non-dietary objects
All objects/surfaces
Mouth
Range
_
0.0-5.0
0.3-13.6
0.0-5.7
0.0-1.3
2.3-68.3
0.0-8.9
2.0-62.1
0.0-2.1
-
0.0-13.6
0.0-14.3
-
0.3-48.4
0.0-18.2
0.0-3.9
6.2-82.3
24.4-145.9
Both Hands
Mean Median
_
1.5
5.4
1.1
0.2
28.9
0.7
18.4
0.3
-
2.1
2.0
-
14.7
0.8
0.5
29.2
76.5
_
0.8
3.6
0.3
0.0
28.2
0.0
15.2
0.0
-
0.8
1.4
-
12.5
0.0
0.0
27.2
77.4
Range
0.0-4.3
16.6-147.1
39.2-237.9
0.0-134.4
0.0-594.5
0.0-170.7
0.0-47.0
2.0-62.1
0.0-52.4
0.0-2.6
0.0-75.3
10.9-294.9
0.0-17.4
28.3-300.4
0.0-16.3
0.0-65.4
266.8-1,180.0
303.1-1,206.0
Mean
0.2
76.8
113.8
45.6
96.0
51.8
7.8
18.2
17.3
0.2
18.1
87.1
3.4
121.2
3.8
24.9
600.8
686.3
Median
0.0
70.5
100.9
37.6
41.5
42.7
2.4
14.5
14.5
0.0
18.7
76.1
1.6
98.8
0.3
27.2
568.7
689.4
a Mouth for contacts with both hands.
No mouth contact with these objects/surfaces occurred.
Source: Beamer et al.
2008.





Page
4-24
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
Table 4-13. Distributions Mouthing Frequency
and Duration of Non-Dietary Objects for Infants and Toddlers
Object/Surface Infants (6- 13 months) Mouthing Frequency (contacts/hr)
N Range Mean 5th 25th
Clothes/towel 13 2-13.3 6.8 2.7 4.8
Paper/wrapper 13 0.0-7.2 1.1 0.0 0.2
Toys 13 6.5-48.4 21.1 7.3 14.4
Non-dietary objects 13 14-82.3 37.8 20.0 28.3
Toddlers (20-26 months)Mouthing
N Range Mean 5* 25th
Clothes/towel 10 0.3-13.6 3.5 0.6 2.0
Paper/wrapper 10 0.3-12.6 6.3 1.0 2.8
Toys 10 0.3-13.6 3.5 0.6 2.0
Non-dietary objects 10 6.2-41.2 18.0 7.0 9.4
50th
6.3
0.7
20.2
35.2
Frequency
50*
2.6
5.4
2.6
15.9
75th 95th
7.2 12.7
0.8 4.3
25.5 40.8
38.6 72.8
(contacts/hr)
75th 95th
3.6 9.1
9.6 12.5
3.6 9.1
22.0 35.2
99th
12.1
6.6
46.9
64.0

99th
12.7
12.6
12.7
40.5
Infants (6- 1 3 months) Mouthing Duration (minutes/hr)
Range
0.0-0.7
0.7-17.9
1.1-18.4
Mean
0.1
3.6
4.5
5th
0.0
0.8
1.2
25th
0.0
1.2
2.2
50th
0.0
1.7
2.8
75*
0.1
2.8
4.1
95*
0.4
11.6
12.6
99*
0.6
16.6
17.2
Toddlers (20-26 months)Mouthing Duration (minutes/hr)
Range
0.0-0.8
0.0-6.8
0.3-6.9
Mean
0.2
1.5
2.1
5th
0.0
0.1
0.4
25th
0.0
0.2
0.7
50*
0.1
0.5
1.3
75*
0.2
0.7
1.8
95*
0.6
6.1
6.3
99*
0.7
6.6
6.7
No mouth contact with these objects/surfaces occurred.
Source: Beamer et al, 2008 supplemental data.
                                                                                                                                                                                                          I
 !?
QTQ
 ft
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-14. Indoor Object- to-Mouth Frequency (contacts/hour) Weibull Distributions from Various Studies
. „ Weibull
Age Group . ,
scale parameter
3 to <6 months 9.83
6 to <12 months 29.91
1 to <2 years 26.82
2 to <3 years 13.03
3 to <6 years 6.90
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-1 6.
Survey Reported Mouthing Behaviors for 92 Washington State Children
Never
N
Hand/Foot in Mouth 4
Pacifier 74
Mouth on Object 14
Non-Food in Mouth 5
Eat Dirt/Sand 37
N = Number of subjects.
Source: Davis etal., 1995.
%
4
81
15
5
40


Seldom
N
27
6
30
25
39


%
30
7
33
27
43


Occasionally
N
23
2
25
33
11


%
25
2
27
36
12


Frequently
N
31
9
19
24
4


%
34
10
21
26
4


Always
N
4
1
1
5
1


%
4
1
1
5
1


Unknown
N
3
0
3
0
0


%
3
0
3
0
0


       Table 4-17.  Estimated Daily Mean Mouthing Times of New York State Children, for Pacifiers and Other Objects
                                 Age 0 to 18 months
                                                                 Age 19 to 36 months
      Object Type
                 All Children
Only Children Who
 Mouthed Objecta
All Children
Only Children Who
 Mouthed Objecta
                            Minutes
                                        Minutes
                         Minutes
                      Minutes
 Pacifier
 Teether
 Plastic Toy
 Other Objects
                 108 (N= 107)
                  6 (N=107)
                  17(N=107)
                  9 (N=107)
   221 (N=52)
    20 (N=34)
    28 (N=66)
    22 (N=46)
126(N=110)
 0(N=110)
 2(N=110)
 2(N=110)
   462 (N=52)
    30(N=1)
    11 (N=21)
    15(N=18)
 N
Refers to means calculated for the subset of the sample children who mouthed the object stated (zeroes are eliminated
from the calculation of the mean).
= Number of children.
 Source:   Juberg et al, 2001.
Table 4-18. Percent of Houston-area and Chicago-area Children Observed Mouthing, by Category and Child's Age
Object Category
All Objects
Pacifiers
Non-pacifiers
Soft Plastic Food Content Items
Anatomy
Non-soft Plastic Toys, Teethers, and Rattles
Other Items
All ages
100
27
100
28
99
91
98
<1 year
100
43
100
13
100
94
98
1 to 2 years
100
27
100
30
97
91
97
2 to 3 years
100
10
100
41
100
86
98
Source: Greene, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                                         Page
                                                                                         4-27
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-19. Estimates of Mouthing Time for Various Objects (minutes/hour)
Age Group
Mean (SD)
Median 95th
Percentile
99th Percentile
All Items3
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
10.5 (7.3)
7.3 (6.8)
5.3(8.2)
9.6
5.5
2.4
26.2
22.0
15.6
39.8
28.8
47.8
Non Pacifiersb
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
7.1 (3.6)
4.7(3.7)
3.5(3.6)
6.9
3.6
2.3
13.1
12.8
12.8
14.4
18.9
15.6
All Soft Plastic Items
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
0.5 (0.6)
0.4 (0.4)
0.4 (0.6)
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.8
1.3
1.6
2.5
1.9
2.9
Soft Plastic Items Not Food Contact
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months

3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
0.4 (0.6)
0.3 (0.4)
0.2 (0.4)
0.3(0.5)
0.2(0.3)
0.1 (0.2)
0.1
0.1
0.0
Soft Plastic Toys, Teethers, and Rattles
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.1
1.3
1.8
0.9
0.2
2.0
1.5
1.8
2.0
1.3
1.6
Soft Plastic Toys
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
0.1 (0.3)
0.2(0.3)
0.1 (0.2)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.2
1.1
1.3
1.6
Soft Plastic Teethers and Rattles
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
0.2 (0.4)
0.0(0.1)
0.0(0.1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
2.0
0.6
1.0
Other Soft Plastic Items
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
0.1 (0.2)
0.1(0.1)
0.1 (0.3)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.6
1.4
Soft Plastic Food Contact Items
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
0.0 (0.2)
0.1 (0.2)
0.2 (0.4)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.9
Anatomy
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
2.4 (2.8)
1.7(2.7)
1.2(2.3)
1.5
0.8
0.4
10.1
8.3
5.1
12.2
14.8
13.6
Page
4-28
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
                 Table 4-19. Estimates of Mouthing Time for Various Objects (minutes/hour) (continued)
      Age Group
                   Mean (SD)
Median
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
                                    Non Soft Plastic Toys, Teethers, and Rattles
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
1.8(1.8)
0.6(0.8)
0.2 (0.4)
1.3
0.3
0.1
6.5
1.8
0.9
7.7
4.6
2.3
                                                  Other Items
3 to <12 months
12 to <24 months
24 to <36 months
2.5(2.1)
2.1 (2.0)
1.7(2.6)
2.1
1.4
0.7
7.8
6.6
7.1
8.1
9.0
14.3
                                                   Pacifiers
 3 to <12 months
 12 to <24 months
 24 to <36 months
                    3.4(6.9)
                    2.6(6.5)
                    1.8(7.9)
                       19.5
                       19.9
                        4.8
                          37.3
                          28.6
                          46.3
 SD
Object category "all items" is subdivided into pacifiers and non-pacifiers.
Object category "non-pacifiers" is subdivided into all soft plastic items, anatomy ( which includes hair, skin, fingers
and hands), non-soft plastic toys/teethers/rattles, and other items.
Object category "all soft plastic items" is subdivided into food contact items, nonfood contact items (toys, teethers
and rattles) and other soft plastic.
= Standard Deviation.
 Source:  Greene, 2002.
Table 4-20. Object/Surface Hands and Mouth Contact Duration (minutes/hour)
Object/Surface

Animal
Body
Clothes/towel
Fabric
Floor
Food
Footwear
Hand/mouthb
Metal
Non-dietary water
Paper/wrapper
Plastic
Rock/brick
Toys
Vegetation
Wood
Non-dietary objects
All objects/surfaces
Mouth
Range
0.0-0.0
0.0-0.3
0.0-0.9
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.1
0.3-15.0
0.0-1.4
0.2-5.4
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.0
0.0-0.8
0.0-0.6
0.0-0.0
0.0-17.9
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.3
0.3-18.4
2.2-33.6
Both Hands*
Mean
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
3.5
9.6
a Hourly contact duration for both hands is the sum
independently.
b Mouth for contacts with both hands.
Source: Beamer et al. , 2008


Median
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.2
8.8
of the hourly

Range
0.0-0.2
1.6-21.9
4.5-31.0
2.1-21.6
0.0-32.2
0.0-37.1
0.0-7.7
0.1-7.4
0.0-5.2
0.0-0.0
0.0-13.9
0.9-50.6
0.0-1.8
9.8-54.1
0.0-2.2
0.0-10.6
62.6-106.2
76.4-124.1
contact durations

Mean
0.0
7.5
13.1
10.3
7.0
14.2
1.1
1.8
2.0
0.0
3.7
13.5
0.3
25.2
0.3
3.5
83.1
99.1
Median
0.0
5.9
12.4
9.1
4.3
12.1
0.3
1.5
1.9
0.0
3.1
10.9
0.1
9.8
0.0
3.9
83.2
100.5
for the left and right hands


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                                               Page
                                                                                               4-29
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-21. Mouthing Times of Dutch Children Extrapolated to Total Time While Awake, Without Pacifier, in Minutes per Day
Age Group N
3 to 6 months 5
6 to 12 months 14
12 to 18 months 12
18 to 36 months 11
Note: The object most mouthed in all
toys.
N = Number of children.
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Groot et al., 1998.
Mean
36.9
44
16.4
9.3
age groups was the lingers,
SD
19.1
44.7
18.2
9.8
except for the 6 to
Minimum Maximum
14.5
2.4
0
0
12 month {
67
171.5
53.2
30.9
^roup which mostly mouthed
Page                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook
4-30                                                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-22. Estimated Mean Daily Mouthing
Duration by
Age Group for Pacifiers, Fingers, Toys, and Other Objects (hours: minutes: seconds)
Age Group
Item
Mouthed
N =
Dummy (Pacifier)
Fingers
Toys
Other Objects
Not Recorded
Total (all objects)
1 to 3 3 to 6
months months
9 14
0:47:13 0:27:45
0:18:22 0:49:03
0:00:14 0:28:20
0:05:14 0:12:29
0:00:45 0:00:24
1:11:48 1:57:41
6 to 9
months
15
0:14:36
0:16:54
0:39:10
0:24:30
0:00:00
1:35:11
9 to 12
months
17
0:41:39
0:14:07
0:23:04
0:16:25
0:00:01
1:35:16
12 to 15
months
16
1:00:15
0:08:24
0:15:18
0:12:02
0:00:02
1:36:01
15 to 18
months
14
0:25:22
0:10:07
0:16:34
0:23:01
0:00:08
0:15:13
18 to 21
months
16
1:09:02
0:18:40
0:11:07
0:19:49
0:00:11
1:58:49
21 to 24
months
12
0:25:12
0:35:34
0:15:46
0:12:53
0:14:13
1:43:39
2
years
39
0:32:55
0:29:43
0:12:23
0:21:46
0:02:40
1:39:27
3
years
31
0:48:42
0:34:42
0:11:37
0:15:16
0:00:01
1:50:19
4
years
29
0:16:40
0:19:26
0:03:11
0:10:44
0:00:05
0:50:05
5
years
24
0:00:20
0:44:06
0:01:53
0:10:00
0:02:58
0:59:17
N = Number of children in sample.
Source: Smith and Norris, 2003 .
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 4-31
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-23. Outdoor Median Mouthing Duration (seconds per contact), Video-transcription of 38 Children
Age Group



13 to 84 months




<24 months
N Statistic
Mean
5th percentile
25* percentile
38 50th percentile
75th percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
Mean
8 Median
Hands
3.5
0
1
1
2
12
41.6
9
3
Range 0 to 136



>24 months



Mean
5th percentile
25 percentile
30 50th percentile
75th percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
a Object/surface categories mouthed outdoors included: animal, clothes/towels
paper/wrapper, plastic,
N = Number of subjects.
Source: AuYeung et al., 2004.
skin, toys, vegetation/grass, and wood.


3.5
0
1
1
2
12
41.6
, fabric,



Total non-dietary8
3.4
0
1
1
3
11
40
2
1
Oto40
3.4
0
1
1
3
11
40
hands, metal, non-dietary water,



Table 4-24. Indoor Mouthing Duration (minutes per hour), Video-transcription of 9 Children with >1 5 minutes in View Indoors
Age Group N
13 to 84 months 9
<24 months 1
>24 months 8
a Object/surface categories mouthed
and wood.
N = Number of subjects.
Source: AuYeung et al., 2004.
Statistic
Mean
Median
Range
Hands
1.8
0.7
0-10.7
Observation 10.7
Mean
Median
Range
indoors included:
0.7
0.7
0-1.9
Total non-dietary3
2.3
0.9
0-11.1
11.1
1.2
0.9
0-3.7
Clothes/towels, hands, metal, paper/wrapper, plastic, skin, toys,
Page
4-32
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-25. Outdoor Mouthing Duration (minutes per hour), Video-transcription of 38 Children
Age Group N Statistic
Mean
5th percentile
25 percentile
50 nprrpntilp
13 to 84 months 38 -,^th ^-i
75 percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
Range
Mean
5th percentile
25 percentile
,,. ,. „ 50th percentile
<24 months 8 _cth ,-,
~ 75 percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
Range
Mean
5th percentile
25th percentile
,. ,. ,,„ Median
>24 months 30 _cth t-,
75 percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
Range
a Object/surface categories mouthed outdoors included: animal,
paper/wrapper, plastic, skin, toys, vegetation/grass, and wood.
N = Number of subjects.
Source: AuYeung et al, 2004.
Hands
0.9
0
0.1
0.2
0.6
2.6
11.2
0-15.5
2.7
0
0.2
0.4
1.5
11.5
14.7
0-15.5
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.2
2.2
0-2.4
clothes/towels, fabric,



Total non-dietary3
1.2
0
0.2
0.6
1.2
2.9
11.5
0-15.8
3.1
0.2
0.2
0.8
3.1
11.7
15
0.2-15.8
0.7
0
0.2
0.6
1
2.1
2.5
0-2.6
hands, metal, non-dietary water,



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                              Page
                                                                               4-33
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-26. 95th
Age Group

Birth to 1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to < 6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to < 2 years
2 to < 3 years
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
Percentile Object-to-Mouth Duration for Key
(minutes/hour)
Greene,
N
-
-
54
54
66
43
-
-
-
-
Studies Combined
2002 Beamer et al, 2008 Combined Studies
N
-
-
26.2
26.2 10 12.6
22
15.6 10 6.3
-
-
-
-
N
-
-
26
64 19
66 22
53 11
-
-
-
-
N Sample size.
No data available.
Page
4-34
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 4 - Non-dietary Ingestion Factors
Table 4-27. Reported Daily Prevalence of Massachusetts Children's Non-Food Mouthing/Ingestion Behaviors

Object or substance mouthed
or ingested

Grass, leaves, flowers
Twigs, sticks, woodchips
Teething toys
Other toys
Blankets, cloth
Shoes, Footwear
Clothing
Crib, chairs, furniture
Paper, cardboard, tissues
Crayons, pencils, erasers
Toothpaste
Soap, detergent, shampoo
Plastic, plastic wrap
Cigarette butts, tobacco
Suck fingers/thumb
Suck feet or toes
Bite nails
Use pacifier
a Weighted mean of 3, 4,
used in this Handbook.
Source: Stanek et al. (1998).

1 year
N=171
16
12
44
63
29
20
25
13
28
19
52
15
7
4
44
8
2
20
and 5 year-olds'


Percent of children
2 years 3
N=70
0
0
6
27
11
1
7
3
9
17
87
14
4
0
21
1
7
6
data calculated by U.S.


reported to mouth/ingest daily
to <6 yearsa
N=265
1
0
2
12
10
0
9
1
5
5
89
2
1
1
24
0
10
2
EPA to conform to


6 years
N=22
0
0
9
5
5
0
14
0
5
18
82
0
0
0
14
0
14
0
All years
N=528
6
4
17
30
16
7
14
5
13
12
77
8
3
2
30
3
7
9
standardized age categories




Exposure Factors Handbook                                                     Page
July 2009                                                                      4-35
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

        SOIL AND DUST INGESTION	5-1
        5.1      INTRODUCTION	5-1
        5.2      RECOMMENDATIONS	5-2
        5.3      KEY AND RELEVANT STUDIES	5-7
                5.3.1   Methodologies Used in Key Studies	5-7
                       5.3.1.1  Tracer Element Methodology 	5-7
                       5.3.1.2  Biokinetic Model Comparison Methodology	5-8
                       5.3.1.3  Survey Response Methodology	5-8
                5.3.2   Key Studies of Primary Analysis	5-9
                       5.3.2.1  Vermeer and Frate, 1979	5-9
                       5.3.2.2  Calabrese et al., 1989/Barnes, 1990/Calabrese et al., 1991	5-9
                       5.3.2.3  VanWijnenetal, 1990 	5-10
                       5.3.2.4  Davis etal., 1990	5-10
                       5.3.2.5  Calabrese et al., 1997a	5-11
                       5.3.2.6  Stanek et al. 1998/Calabrese et al., 1997b	5-11
                       5.3.2.7  Davis and Mirick, 2006 	5-12
                5.3.3   Key Studies of Secondary Analysis	5-12
                       5.3.3.1  Wong, 1988/Calabrese and Stanek, 1993	5-12
                       5.3.3.2  Hoganetal., 1998	5-13
                5.3.4   Relevant Studies of Primary Analysis	5-13
                       5.3.4.1  Dickins and Ford, 1942	5-13
                       5.3.4.2  Ferguson and Keaton, 1950	5-14
                       5.3.4.3  Cooper, 1957	5-14
                       5.3.4.4  Barltrop, 1966	5-14
                       5.3.4.5  BruhnandPangborn, 1971	5-14
                       5.3.4.6  Robischon, 1971	5-14
                       5.3.4.7  Bronstein and Dollar, 1974	5-15
                       5.3.4.8  Hook, 1978	5-15
                       5.3.4.9  Binder etal., 1986	5-15
                       5.3.4.10 Clausing, etal., 1987	5-16
                       5.3.4.11 Calabrese etal.,  1990 	5-16
                       5.3.4.12 Cooksey, 1995	5-17
                       5.3.4.13 Smulianetal., 1995	5-17
                       5.3.4.14 Grigsby, 1999	5-17
                       5.3.4.15 Ward and Kutner,  1999	5-18
                       5.3.4.16 Simpson, 2000	5-18
                       5.3.4.17 Obialo, 2001	5-18
                       5.3.4.18 Klitzman, 2002	5-18
                5.3.5   Relevant Studies of Secondary Analysis	5-19
                       5.3.5.1  Stanek etal.,2001a	5-19
                       5.3.5.2  Calabrese and Stanek, 1995	5-19
                       5.3.5.3  Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a	5-20
                       5.3.5.4  Calabrese and Stanek, 1992b	5-20
                       5.3.5.5  Calabrese et al., 1996	5-20
                       5.3.5.6  Stanek etal., 1999	5-21
                       5.3.5.7  Stanek and Calabrese, 1995b	5-21
                       5.3.5.8  Stanek and Calabrese, 2000	5-21
                       5.3.5.9  Stanek etal., 200 Ib	5-22
                       5.3.5.10vonLindernetal., 2003	5-22
        5.4      LIMITATIONS OF KEY STUDY METHODOLOGIES	5-22
                5.4.1   Tracer Element Methodology	5-22
                5.4.2   Biokinetic Model Comparison Methodology	5-25
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                 Page
July 2009	5-i
-------
                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

              5.4.3   Survey Response Methodology	5-25
              5.4.4   Key Studies: Representativeness of U.S. Population	5-26
       5.5     SUMMARY OF SOIL AND DUST INGESTION ESTIMATES FROM KEY STUDIES	5-27
       5.6     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5	5-27
Page                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
5-ii	Julyy 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1.       Recommended Values for Soil, Dust, and Soil + Dust Ingestion	5-5
Table 5-2.       Confidence in Recommendations for Ingestion of Soil and Dust 	5-6
Table 5-3.       Soil, Dust and Soil + Dust Ingestion Estimates for Amherst, Massachusetts Study Children	5-32
Table 5-4.       Amherst, Massachusetts Soil-Pica Child's Daily Ingestion Estimates by Tracer and by
                Week(mg/day)	5-33
Table 5-5.       Amherst, Massachusetts Soil-Pica Child's Tracer Ratios	5-33
Table 5-6.       Van Wijnen et al., 1990 Limiting Tracer Method (LTM) Soil Ingestion Estimates for
                Sample of Dutch Children	5-34
Table 5-7.       Estimated Geometric Mean Limiting Tracer Method (LTM) Values of Children
                Attending Daycare Centers According to Age, Weather Category, and Sampling Period	5-35
Table 5-8.       Estimated  Soil Ingestion for Sample of Washington State Children	5-35
Table 5-9.       Soil Ingestion Estimates for 64 Anaconda Children	5-36
Table 5-10.      Soil Ingestion Estimates for Massachusetts  Child Displaying Soil Pica Behavior (mg/day)	5-36
Table 5-11.      Mean and Median Soil Ingestion (mg/day) by Family Member	5-36
Table 5-12.      Estimated Soil Ingestion for Six High Soil Ingesting Jamaican Children	5-38
Table 5-13.      Estimated Daily Soil Ingestion for East Helena, Montana Children	5-39
Table 5-14.      Estimated Soil Ingestion for Sample of Dutch Nursery School Children	5-39
Table 5-15.      Estimated Soil Ingestionfor Sample of Dutch Hospitalized, Bedridden Children	5-40
Table 5-16.      Items Ingested by Low-Income Mexican-Born Women Who Practiced Pica During
                Pregnancy in the United States	5-40
Table 5-17.      Positive/negative Error (Bias) in Soil Ingestion Estimates in Calabrese et al. (1989)
                Study: Effect on Mean Soil Ingestion Estimate (mg/day)	5-41
Table 5-18.      Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates per Child for 64
                Children (mg/day)	5-41
Table 5-19.      Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Data for 64 Subjects
                Projected over 365 Days	5-42
Table 5-20.      Summary of Estimates of Soil and Dust Ingestion by Children (0.5-14 years old) from
                Key Studies (mg/day)	5-42
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
-------
This page is intentionally left blank
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
5       SOIL AND DUST INGESTION
5.1     INTRODUCTION
        The ingestion of soil and dust is a potential
route of exposure for both adults and  children to
environmental  chemicals.   Children,  in particular,
may ingest significant quantities of soil, due to their
tendency to  play on  the floor indoors and  on the
ground outdoors and their tendency to mouth objects
or their hands.  Children may ingest  soil and dust
through deliberate  hand to mouth movements,  or
unintentionally by eating food that has dropped  on
the floor. Adults may  also ingest soil or dust particles
that adhere to food, cigarettes, or their hands.  Thus,
understanding soil and dust ingestion patterns is  an
important part of estimating  overall  exposures  to
environmental chemicals.
        At this point  in time, knowledge of soil and
dust ingestion patterns within the  United States is
somewhat limited.    Only a few researchers  have
attempted to quantify  soil and dust ingestion patterns
in U.S. adults or children. This chapter explains the
concepts of soil ingestion, soil pica, and geophagy,
defines   these terms  for  the  purpose   of this
handbook's  exposure  factors, and presents available
data from the literature on the amount of soil and dust
ingested.
        The  Centers  for  Disease   Control and
Prevention's  Agency   for Toxic  Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) held a workshop in June
2000  in which a panel of soil ingestion  experts
developed definitions  for soil ingestion, soil-pica, and
geophagy, to distinguish aspects of soil  ingestion
patterns  that  are   important   from  a  research
perspective  (ATSDR,  2001).   This  chapter uses the
definitions  that are based on those  developed  by
participants in that workshop:
        Soil ingestion is the consumption of soil.
        This  may  result  from  various behaviors
        including,  but  not limited  to,  mouthing,
        contacting dirty  hands, eating dropped food,
        or consuming soil directly.
        Soil-pica   is  the  recurrent  ingestion  of
        unusually high amounts  of soil (i.e., on the
        order of 1,000 - 5,000 mg/day or more).
        Geophagy is the intentional ingestion  of
        earths and is  usually associated with cultural
        practices.
        Some studies are of  a behavior known as
"pica,"  and  the subset  of "pica"  that  consists  of
ingesting soil.  A general definition of the concept of
pica is  that of ingesting  non-food substances,  or
ingesting large quantities of certain particular foods.
Definitions  of pica  often include  references  to
recurring or  repeated  ingestion of these  substances.
Soil-pica is pica that is specific to ingesting materials
that are defined as soil, such as clays, yard soil, and
flower-pot soil.   Researchers  in many  different
disciplines have hypothesized motivations for human
soil-pica or geophagy behavior, including alleviating
nutritional deficiencies, a desire to remove toxins or
serf-medicate, and  other  physiological  or cultural
influences (e.g.,  Danford,  1982).    Bruhn  and
Pangborn (1971)  and  Harris  and  Harper  (1997)
suggest a religious  context  for certain geophagy or
soil  ingestion  practices.    Some  researchers  have
investigated populations that may be more likely than
others to exhibit soil-pica behavior on  a  recurring
basis.   These  populations  might  include  pregnant
women who  exhibit soil-pica behavior (Simpson et
al., 2000), adults and children who practice geophagy
(Vermeer and Frate,  1979), institutionalized children
(Wong,  1988),  and  children  with developmental
delays (Danford,  1983), autism (Kinnell, 1985), or
celiac disease (Korman, 1990). However, identifying
specific soil-pica and geophagy populations remains
difficult due to limited research on this topic.
         In this handbook,  soil, indoor  settled  and
outdoor settled dust,  and dust ingestion  are defined
generally as:
         Soil.   Particles of unconsolidated mineral
         and/or  organic matter  from  the  earth's
         surface that are located outdoors, or are used
         indoors to support plant growth. It includes
        particles that  have settled  onto  outdoor
         objects and surfaces (outdoor settled dust).
         Indoor Settled Dust.  Particles in building
         interiors  that  have settled  onto  objects,
         surfaces,  floors,  and  carpeting.     These
        particles may include soil particles that have
        been tracked into  the indoor environment
        from outdoors as well as organic matter.
         Outdoor Settled Dust. Particles that have
         settled onto outdoor objects and surfaces due
        to either wet or dry deposition. Note that it
         is not possible to distinguish between soil
         and  outdoor settled dust, since  outdoor
         settled dust generally would be present on
        the uppermost surface layer of soil.
For the  purposes of this handbook, soil  ingestion
includes both soil and outdoor settled dust, and dust
ingestion includes indoor settled dust only.
         There are several methodologies represented
in the literature related to  soil  and dust ingestion.
Three     methodologies     combine    biomarker
measurements with measurements of the biomarker
substance's presence in environmental  media.  A
fourth  methodology  offers indirect  evidence  of
soil/dust ingestion behaviors from the responses of
adults,   caregivers,   and/or  children   to   survey
questions.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                             5-1
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
        The first  of the  biomarker methodologies
measures  quantities of specific elements present in
feces, urine, food and medications, yard soil, house
dust, and  sometimes also  community soil and dust,
and  combines  this  information  using  certain
assumptions  about the  elements' behavior in  the
gastrointestinal tract to produce estimates of soil and
dust quantities ingested (e.g., Davis et al., 1990).  In
this chapter, this methodology  is referred to as  the
"tracer  element"   methodology.     The   second
biomarker methodology  compares results  from  a
biokinetic model of lead  exposure and uptake that
predict   blood   lead   levels,   with   biomarker
measurements of lead in blood (e.g., von Lindern et
al., 2003).  The model  predictions are  made using
assumptions about ingested soil and dust quantities
that are based, in part, on results from early versions
of the first methodology.  Therefore, the comparison
with actual measured blood lead levels serves  to
confirm,  to  some  extent,  the  assumptions about
ingested  soil and  dust   quantities  used  in  the
biokinetic model. In this chapter, this methodology is
referred to  as the  "biokinetic model comparison"
methodology.  The third biomarker methodology, the
"lead    isotope   ratio"    methodology,   involves
measurements of different  lead  isotopes in blood
and/or   urine,  food,  water,  and  house dust  and
compares  the ratio of different lead isotopes to infer
sources of lead  exposure  that may include dust or
other environmental  exposures (e.g., Manton et  al.,
2000).  In the fourth, "survey response" methodology,
responses  to survey questions regarding soil and dust
ingestion  are analyzed.  This methodology includes
questions   asked about  soil   and  dust ingestion
behaviors, frequency, and sometimes quantity (e.g.,
Barltrop, 1966).
        Although  not  directly  evaluated  in  this
chapter,  a  fifth  methodology  uses   assumptions
regarding  ingested quantities of soil and  dust that are
based on  a general knowledge of human behavior,
and potentially supplemented or informed by data
from other methodologies (e.g., Hawley,  1985; Kissel
et al., 1998; Wong et al., 2000).
        The recommendations for soil, dust, and soil
+  dust ingestion  rates  are  provided in the next
section, along with  a summary  of the  confidence
ratings    for  these   recommendations.      The
recommended values  are  based on key  studies
identified  by U.S. EPA for this factor.  Following the
recommendations,  key  studies  on  soil and dust
ingestion are summarized.  Summaries of the relevant
studies,     methodology     descriptions     and
methodological  strengths  and  limitations  are  also
provided.
5.2     RECOMMENDATIONS
        The  key studies  described  in  Section  5.3
were  used to  recommend values for soil and dust
ingestion for adults and children.  Table 5-1 shows
the central tendency  recommendations  for  daily
ingestion of soil, dust,  or soil + dust, in mg/day.  It
also   shows    the    soil-pica   or    geophagy
recommendations for  daily  ingestion  of  soil,  in
mg/day.   No  data are available  on which  to base
comparable upper percentile recommendations  for
"dust" or "soil + dust" for adults or children. Due to
the current state of  research on  soil  and dust
ingestion, the upper percentile recommendations  are
called "soil-pica" or "geophagy" recommendations
that are  likely to  represent  high soil  ingestion
episodes or behaviors  at an  unknown point on  the
high  end  of  the  distribution of  soil  ingestion.
Published estimates from the key studies have been
rounded to one significant figure.
        The soil ingestion recommendations  in Table
5-1  are  intended  to  represent ingestion  of a
combination of soil and outdoor settled dust, without
distinguishing  between these  two  sources.   The
source of the soil in these recommendations could be
outdoor  soil,   indoor  containerized  soil  used  to
support  growth of indoor plants, or a combination of
both  outdoor  soil  and containerized  indoor soil.
These recommendations are called "soil."  The dust
ingestion recommendations in Table 5-1,  provided for
children  only, include  soil tracked into the indoor
setting,   indoor  settled   dust   and  air-suspended
paniculate matter that  is  inhaled  and swallowed.
Central   tendency  "dust"   recommendations   are
provided,   in  the  event   that   assessors  need
recommendations  for  an   indoor   or  inside  a
transportation vehicle scenario in which dust, but not
outdoor soil, is the  exposure  medium  of concern.
The soil + dust recommendations would include soil,
either from outdoor or containerized indoor  sources,
dust that  is a combination of  outdoor  settled dust,
indoor settled  dust, and  air-suspended paniculate
matter that is  inhaled,  subsequently  trapped  in
mucous and moved from the respiratory system to the
gastrointestinal  tract,  and  a  soil-origin   material
located  on indoor floor surfaces that was  tracked
indoors  by building  occupants.    Soil  and dust
recommendations exclude the soil or dust's moisture
content.    In  other words,  recommended values
represent  mass  of ingested soil or  dust  that  is
represented on a dry weight basis.
        Studies estimating adult soil ingestion  are
extremely  limited,  and  only  two  of these  are
considered to  be key  studies  (Vermeer and Frate,
1979 and Davis and Mirick, 2006). In the Davis and
Mirick (2006)  study,  soil ingestion for adults and
Page
5-2
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
children in the same family was calculated using a
mass-balance approach.  The adult data were seen to
be more variable than for the  children in the study,
possibly   indicating  an   important  occupational
contribution of soil ingestion in some of the adults.
For the aluminum and silicon tracers, soil ingestion
rates ranged from 23-92 mg/day (mean), 0-23 mg/day
(median),  and 138-814 mg/day (maximum), with an
overall mean value of 52 mg/day for the adults in the
study.  Based on this value, the recommended mean
value from  the  Davis  and Mirick (2006) study is
estimated  to be  50 mg/day for  adult soil ingestion
(Table 5-1).     There  are   no  available  studies
estimating the ingestion of dust by adults, therefore,
no recommended values are provided for adults for
either dust or soil + dust ingestion.
        The key studies  pre-dated the age groups
recommended for children by  U.S. EPA (2005) and
were  performed  on groups of children  of varying
ages.  As a result, central tendency recommendations
can be used for the life stage categories of 6 to <12
months, 1 to <2 years,  2 to <3 years, 3 to <6 years,
and part  of the  6 to <11 years categories. Upper
percentile recommendations can be used for the life
stage  categories of 1 to <2 years, 2 to <3 years, 3 to
<6 years,  6 to <11 years, and part or all of the 11 to
<16 years category.
        The recommended central tendency soil +
dust ingestion estimate for infants from 6 months up
to their first birthday is 60 mg/day.  If an estimate is
needed for soil only, from  outdoor or indoor sources,
or  both   outdoor   and  indoor  sources,    the
recommendation  is 30 mg/day.   If an estimate for
indoor dust only is needed,   that would  include a
certain quantity  of tracked-in  soil from outside, the
recommendation is 30 mg/day.  The confidence rating
for  this recommendation  is low due to  the small
numbers of  study subjects in the study on which the
recommendation is based  and  the inferences needed
to develop a quantitative estimate. Examples of these
inferences include:  an assumption that the relative
proportions  of soil and dust  ingested by 6 to  <12
month old  children is  the   same  as  the central
tendency assumption for older children (45 percent
soil, 55 percent dust, based on  U.S. EPA (1994a)),
and the assumption that pre-natal or non-soil,  non-
dust sources of lead exposure do not dominate these
children's blood lead levels.
        When assessing risks for individuals  who
are  not expected to exhibit  soil-pica or geophagy
behavior,  the recommended central tendency soil +
dust ingestion estimate is  100 mg/day for children
ages 1 to  <21 years.  If an estimate  for soil only is
needed, for exposure  to soil such as manufactured
topsoil or potted-plant soil that could occur in either
an  indoor or  outdoor  setting,  or when  the  risk
assessment is not considering children's ingestion of
indoor  dust  (in  an  indoor  setting)  as well,  the
recommendation is 50 mg/day.  If an  estimate for
indoor dust only is needed, the recommendation is 60
mg/day.   Although these  quantities add up to  110
mg/day, the sum is rounded to one significant figure.
Although there were no tracer  element studies  or
biokinetic model  comparison studies performed for
children 6 to <21 years, as a group, their  mean or
central tendency soil ingestion would not be zero.  In
the absence of data that can be  used to develop
specific  central tendency  soil and  dust ingestion
recommendations for children aged 6 to <11 years, 11
to  <16  years  and  16 to  <21  years,  U.S.   EPA
recommends using the same central tendency soil and
dust  ingestion rates that  are  recommended  for
children in the 1 to <6 year old age range.
        No key studies are available estimating soil-
pica behavior in adults, therefore, no recommended
value is provided.  When assessing risks for children
who may exhibit soil-pica behavior, or a group of
children that includes individual children who  may
exhibit  soil-pica  behavior,  the  soil-pica ingestion
estimate in the literature for children up to age  14
ranges from  400  to  41,000  mg/day.   Due to  the
definition of soil-pica used in this chapter, that sets a
lower bound on the quantity referred to as "soil-pica"
at 1,000 mg/day, and due to the significant number of
observations in the U.S. tracer element studies that
are at or exceed that quantity, the recommended soil-
pica ingestion rate  is 1,000 mg/day.  Currently, no
data are  available for upper  percentile,  soil-pica
behavior for children ages 6 to <21 years.  Because
pica behavior may occur among some children ages
~1 to 21 years old (Hyman et al., 1990), it is prudent
to assume that, for some children, soil-pica  behavior
may occur at any age up to 21 years.
        The recommended geophagy soil estimate is
50,000  mg/day (50  grams) for both adults  and
children (Vermeer and Frate,  1979).  Risk assessors
should use this value for soil ingestion in areas where
residents are known to exhibit geophagy behaviors.
        These  recommendations  are  not  robust
enough for use in probabilistic risk assessments.
        Table 5-2 shows the confidence ratings for
these recommendations.  Section 5.4 gives a more
detailed explanation of the basis for the confidence
ratings.
        An important factor to consider when using
these recommendations is  that they are limited to
estimates of soil  and dust quantities ingested.  The
scope of this chapter is limited to quantities of soil
and dust taken into the gastrointestinal tract,  and does
not  extend  to  issues regarding bioavailability  of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                             5-3
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                             Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
environmental contaminants present in that soil and
dust.  Information from other sources is  needed to
address   bioavailability.     In addition,  as  more
information     becomes     available    regarding
gastrointestinal   absorption   of    environmental
contaminants,  adjustments  to the  soil  and  dust
ingestion exposure equations may need to be made,
to better represent the direction of movement of those
contaminants within the gastrointestinal tract.
        To   place  these  recommendations  into
context, it is useful to compare these soil ingestion
rates to common measurements.  The bulk densities
of surface soils are often in the range of  1.3 to 1.7
g/cm3.   U.S.  EPA (1996)  recommends  using  1.5
g/cm3 as a default value for  dry soil bulk density.
The central tendency recommendation of 50 mg/day,
or 0.050  g/day, dry weight basis, with a  1.5 g/cm3
bulk density would be equivalent to  approximately
0.03  cm3.  A teaspoon  is approximately  5 cm3  in
volume, so the 50 mg/day quantity would be roughly
equivalent to seven thousandths  of a teaspoon per
day.   The 50 g/day ingestion rate recommended to
represent  geophagy  behavior would  be  roughly
equivalent to 5 to 7 teaspoons per day in volume.
        Indoor settled dust could be  expected  to
have a lower dry bulk density than the surface soil
bulk density cited above  (for example, bulk densities
of five grain  dusts are  reported by  Parnell et al.
(1986) to be 0.15-0.31 g/cm3,  "specific density"  of
Danish office building dust is reported by Melhave et
al. (2000) to be  1.0 gm/cm3).   Thus, volumes  of
indoor settled dust could be expected to weigh less
than comparable volumes of surface soil. The central
tendency "dust" recommendation for  children of 60
mg/day, or 0.060 g/day, dry weight  basis, with a 1.0
g/cm3  bulk   density  would  be  equivalent   to
approximately 0.06 cm3, or  roughly equivalent  to
twelve thousandths of a teaspoon per day.
Page
5-4
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-1. Recommended Values for Daily Soil, Dust, and Soil +


Soil8

Dust Ingestion
Dustb

Soil + Dust
Upper Percentile

Central Tendency
Age Group (mg/day)
6 to <12 months 30
1 to < 6 years 50
6to<21years 50
Adult 50
b
c
No recommendation.
Includes soil and outdoor settled dust.
Includes indoor settled dust only.
Total soil and dust ingestion rate is 110 mg
Soil-Pica
(mg/day)
1,000
1,000
Geophagy
(mg/day)
50,000
50,000
50,000
/day; rounded to one significant figure it is
Central Tendency
(mg/day)
30
60
60
100 mg/day.
Central Tendency
(mg/day)
60
100C
100C

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
  5-5
-------
                                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                            Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
                               Table 5-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Ingestion of Soil and Dust
 General Assessment Factors
                                                                     Rationale
                                                                                                                     Rating
 Soundness
  Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or defined) Bias
The methodologies have significant limitations.  The studies did not capture all of the
information needed (quantities ingested, frequency of high soil ingestion episodes,
prevalence of high soil ingestion). Four of the 9 key studies were of census or
randomized design. Sample selection may have introduced some bias in the results
(i.e., children near smelter or Superfund sites, volunteers in nursery schools). The
total number of adults and children in key studies were 122 and 1,203 (859 U.S.
children, 292 Dutch, and 52 Jamaican children), respectively, while the target
population currently numbers more than 74 million (U.S. DOC, 2008). The response
rates for in-person interviews  and telephone surveys were often not stated in published
articles. Primary data were collected for 381 U.S. children and 292 Dutch children;
secondary data for 478 U.S. children and 52 Jamaican children.  Two key studies
provided data for adults.

Numerous sources of measurement error exist in the tracer element studies.
Biokinetic model comparison study may contain less measurement error than tracer
element studies. Survey response study may contain measurement error.
                                                                                                                      Low
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest
  Representativeness


  Currency

  Data Collection Period
Eight of the 9 key studies focused on the soil exposure factor, with no or less focus on
the dust exposure factor. The biokinetic model comparison study did not focus
exclusively on soil and dust exposure factors.

The study samples may not be representative of the U.S. in terms of race, ethnicity,
socio-economics, and geographical location; studies focused on specific areas.

Studies results are likely to represent current conditions.

Tracer element studies' data collection periods may not represent long-term behaviors.
Biokinetic model comparison and survey response studies do represent longer term
behaviors.
                                                                                                                      Low
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility

  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
Observations for individual children are available for only 3 of the 9 key studies.

For the methodologies used by more than one research group, reproducible results
were obtained in some instances. Some methodologies have been used by only one
research group and have not been reproduced by others.

For some studies, information on quality assurance/quality control was limited or
absent.
                                                                                                                      Low
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population
  Minimal Uncertainty
Tracer element studies characterized variability among study sample members;
biokinetic model comparison and survey response studies did not.  Day-to-day and
seasonal variability was not very well characterized.  Numerous factors that may
influence variability have not been explored in detail.

Estimates are highly uncertain. Tracer element studies' design appears to introduce
biases in the results.
                                                                                                                      Low
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review

  Number and Agreement of Studies
All key studies appeared in peer review journals.

9 key studies. Researchers using similar methodologies obtained generally similar
results; somewhat general agreement between researchers using different
methodologies.
                                                                                                                    Medium
 Overall Rating
                                                                                                                      Low
Page
5-6
                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                    	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
5.3     KEY AND RELEVANT STUDIES
        The key  tracer element, biokinetic model
comparison,  and  survey   response   studies  are
summarized  in the  following sections.   Certain
studies  were considered "key" and were used as a
basis for developing  the  recommendations,  using
judgment  about   the  study's   design  features,
applicability, and utility of the data to U.S. soil and
dust ingestion  rates,  clarity  and  completeness,  and
characterization of  uncertainty  and variability in
ingestion estimates.  Because the studies often were
performed for  reasons unrelated  to  developing  soil
and dust ingestion recommendations, their attributes
that were   characterized  as  "limitations" in  this
chapter might not be limitations when viewed in the
context of the  study's original purpose.   However,
when studies are used for developing a soil or dust
ingestion recommendation, U.S. EPA has categorized
some studies' design or implementation as preferable
to  others.    In general,  U.S. EPA chose  studies
designed either with a census or randomized sample
approach  over studies  that used  a  convenience
sample, or other non-randomized approach, as well as
studies that more clearly explained various factors in
the study's implementation that affect interpretation
of the results.  However, in some cases,  studies  that
used a  non-randomized design contain information
that is  useful  for   developing exposure   factor
recommendations (for example, if they are the only
studies of children in a particular age category), and
thus may have been  designated as  "key" studies.
Other  studies  were considered "relevant" but not
"key" because  they provide useful  information for
evaluating the  reasonableness of the data in the key
studies, but in U.S. EPA's judgment they did not meet
the same level  of soundness,  applicability and utility,
clarity  and  completeness,  and characterization of
uncertainty and variability  that the key studies  did.
In addition,  studies that did not contain information
that  can   be  used   to    develop   a   specific
recommendation for mg/day  soil  and dust ingestion
were classified  as relevant rather than key.
        Some   studies  are  re-analyses  of  data
previously published.  For this reason, the sections
that follow are  organized   into  key  and relevant
studies of primary analysis (that is, studies in which
researchers have developed primary data pertaining
to  soil  and dust  ingestion)  and key and relevant
studies  of secondary  analysis (that is,  studies in
which  researchers   have    interpreted   previously
published  results,  or  data  that  were   originally
collected for a different purpose).
5.3.1    Methodologies Used in Key Studies
5.3.1.1  Tracer Element Methodology
        The tracer element methodology attempts to
quantify the amounts of soil ingested by analyzing
samples of soil  and dust from residences and/or
children's  play areas, and feces or urine.  The soil,
dust, fecal, and urine samples  are analyzed for the
presence and quantity of tracer elements - typically,
aluminum, silicon, titanium, and other elements.  A
key underlying assumption is that these elements are
not metabolized into other substances in the body or
absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract in significant
quantities, and thus their presence in feces and urine
can be used to estimate the quantity of soil ingested
by mouth.  Although they are sometimes called mass
balance studies,  none  of the  studies  attempt  to
quantify  amounts excreted  in perspiration,  tears,
glandular secretions, or shed skin, hair or finger- and
toe-nails,  nor do  they  account for tracer element
exposure via the dermal or inhalation into the  lung
routes, and thus they  are  not a complete "mass
balance"  methodology.    Early studies  using this
methodology  did  not  always  account  for  the
contribution   of  tracer elements   from  non-soil
substances (food, medications, and non-food sources
such as toothpaste) that might  be swallowed.   U.S.
studies using this methodology  in or after the mid to
late  1980s account for, or attempt to account for,
tracer  element  contributions  from  these  non-soil
sources.    Some  study  authors adjust  their soil
ingestion estimate results to account for the potential
contribution of tracer elements  found in household
dust as well as soil.
        The  general  algorithm that  is used  to
calculate the quantity of soil or dust estimated to have
been ingested is as follows: the quantity of a given
tracer element, in milligrams, present in the feces and
urine, minus the  quantity of that tracer  element, in
milligrams,  present in the food and medicine, the
result of which is divided by the tracer element's soil
concentration, in milligrams  of tracer per gram  of
soil, to yield an estimate of ingested soil, in grams.
        The U.S. tracer element researchers have all
assumed  a certain  offset,  or lag  time between
ingestion  of  food,  medication and  soil,  and  the
resulting fecal and urinary output. The lag times used
are typically 24 or 28 hours; thus, these researchers
subtract the  previous  day's food  and  medication
tracer  element quantity ingested from the current
day's fecal and urinary tracer element quantity that
was excreted.  When compositing food, medication,
fecal  and  urine  samples across  the entire  study
period, daily estimates can be  obtained by  dividing
the total estimated soil  ingestion by the number of
days  in  which fecal  and/or  urine  samples  were
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                             5-7
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
collected.  A variation of the algorithm that provides
slightly higher estimates of soil ingestion is to divide
the total estimated soil  ingestion by the number of
days  on which feces  were produced,  which  by
definition would be  equal to or less  than the total
number of  days of the  study period's fecal  sample
collection.
        Substituting     tracer     element    dust
concentrations for tracer element soil concentrations
yields a dust ingestion estimate.  Because the actual
non-food,   non-medication  quantity  ingested  is  a
combination of soil and dust, the unknown true soil
and dust ingestion is likely to be somewhere between
the estimates that  are based  on soil concentrations
and estimates that  are based on dust concentrations.
Tracer element researchers have described ingestion
estimates   for   soil   that  actually  represent   a
combination of soil  and dust,  but  were calculated
based  on  tracer  element  concentrations in  soil.
Similarly, they have described ingestion estimates for
dust that are actually for a combination of soil and
dust but were  calculated  based on tracer element
concentrations  in dust.  Other variations on these
general soil and dust ingestion algorithms have been
published,  in  attempts  to  account for  time spent
indoors, time spent away  from the house, etc. that
could be expected to influence the relative proportion
of soil vs. dust.
        Each individual's soil and dust ingestion can
be represented  as an unknown  constant in a set of
simultaneous equations of  soil or  dust  ingestion
represented by  different tracer  elements.  To  date,
only one of the U.S.  research teams (Lasztity et al.,
1989) has published estimates calculated for pairs of
tracer elements  using  simultaneous equations.
        The U.S.  tracer element studies have been
performed for only short-duration study periods, and
only for 33 adults (Davis and Mirick, 2006) and 241
children (101 in Davis et al., 1990, 12 of whom were
studied again   in Davis and Mirick, 2006;  64  in
Calabrese et al., 1989/Barnes 1990; 64 in Calabrese
et al., 1997a;  and 12  in  Calabrese  et al.,  1997b).
They provide information  on quantities  of soil and
dust ingested for the studied groups for short time
periods, but provide  limited information on  overall
prevalence  of  soil ingestion  by  U.S.  adults  and
children, and limited information on the frequency of
higher soil ingestion episodes.
        The tracer element studies appear to  contain
numerous   sources  of  error  that  influence  the
estimates upward  and downward.   Sometimes the
error sources cause individual soil  or  dust ingestion
estimates to be negative,  which is not physically
possible.  In some studies, for some of the tracers, so
many  individual  "mass  balance"  soil  ingestion
estimates  were  negative  that  median or  mean
estimates based on that tracer were negative.  For soil
and dust ingestion estimates based on each particular
tracer,  or averaged across tracers, the net impact of
these competing upward and downward sources of
error is unclear.

5.3.1.2  Biokinetic       Model       Comparison
        Methodology
        The    Biokinetic    Model    Comparison
methodology  compares  direct  measurements  of a
biomarker, such as blood or urine levels of a toxicant,
with predictions from a biokinetic model  of oral,
dermal and inhalation exposure routes with air, food,
water, soil, and dust toxicant sources. An example is
to compare  measured children's  blood lead  levels
with predictions from the Integrated Exposure and
Uptake  Biokinetic   (IEUBK)   model.     Where
environmental contamination of lead in soil, dust, and
drinking water  has  been  measured  and  those
measurements can be used as model inputs for the
children in  a specific community, the  model's
assumed soil and  dust ingestion  values  can  be
confirmed  or refuted by  comparing  the  model's
predictions  of blood lead levels with those children's
measured blood lead levels.    It should be noted,
however, that such  confirmation of the predicted
blood lead  levels would be confirmation of the net
impact of all  model inputs, and not just soil and dust
ingestions.   Under  the  assumption that the  actual
measured blood lead levels  of various groups of
children studied  have  minimal  error, and  those
measured  blood  lead  levels  roughly  match the
biokinetic model predictions for those  groups of
children, then the model's default assumptions may
be roughly  accurate  for  the central tendency, or
typical, children in an  assessed group  of children.
The  model's  default assumptions likely are not as
useful  for predicting  outcomes  for highly exposed
children.

5.3.1.3  Survey Response Methodology
        The  survey response methodology includes
studies  that  survey  adults,  children's  caretakers, or
children themselves, via in-person or mailed surveys
that  ask about mouthing behavior and ingestion of
various non-food items.  Sometimes, questions about
amounts ingested  are   included  in   the   survey
instrument.   There could be either false positive or
false  negative  responses to these  questions, for
various reasons.
Page
5-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
5.3.2    Key Studies of Primary Analysis
5.3.2.1  Vermeer and Frate, 1979 -  Geophagia in
        Rural  Mississippi:  Environmental  and
        Cultural    Contexts   and   Nutritional
        Implications
        Vermeer  and  Frate  (1979) performed  a
survey   response   study  in   Holmes  County,
Mississippi  in  the   1970s   (date   unspecified).
Questions  about   geophagy  (defined  as  regular
consumption of clay over a period of weeks) were
asked  of  household  members  (N=229  in  50
households;  56 were women, 33 were men, and 140
were children or adolescents) of a subset of a random
sample of nutrition survey respondents. Caregiver
responses to questions about 115 children under 13
indicate that geophagy was likely to be practiced by a
minimum of 18 (16%) of these children; however, 16
of these 18 children were 1 to 4 years old, and only 2
of the 18 were older than 4 years. Of the 56 women,
32 (57%) reported eating clay. There was no reported
geophagy among  33 men or 25  adolescent  study
subjects questioned.
        In  a  separately  administered   survey,
geophagy and pica data were  obtained from 142
pregnant  women   over  a  period  of  10  months.
Geophagy was reported by 40 of these women (28%),
and an additional  27 respondents (19%)  reported
other  pica behavior, including the consumption of
laundry starch, dry powdered milk and baking soda.
        The average daily amount of clay consumed
was reported to be  about 50 grams, for the adult and
child  respondents   who  acknowledged practicing
geophagy.   Quantities were  usually  described as
either portions or multiples of the amount that could
be  held  in a  single,  cupped  hand.   Clays for
consumption were generally obtained from the B soil
horizon, or subsoil  rather than an uppermost layer, at
a depth of 50 to 130 centimeters.

5.3.2.2  Calabrese et al, 1989 - How Much Soil Do
        Young Children  Ingest: An Epidemiologic
        Study/Barnes,  1990  -  Childhood  Soil
        Ingestion:  How  Much   Dirt Do  Kids
        Eat?/Calabrese et al., 1991 - Evidence of
        Soil-Pica Behaviour and Quantification of
        Soil Ingested
        Calabrese  et al.  (1989) and Barnes  (1990)
studied soil ingestion among children using eight
tracer  elements—aluminum,  barium,  manganese,
silicon, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and zirconium.
A non-random sample of 30 male and 34 female 1, 2
and   3   year-olds  from  the   greater  Amherst,
Massachusetts  area were  studied,  presumably in
1987.   The children were predominantly from two-
parent households  where  the parents were  highly
educated.  The study was conducted over a period of
eight  days spread over two weeks.   During each
week,   duplicate   samples  of  food,  beverages,
medicines, and vitamins were collected on Monday
through Wednesday, while excreta were collected for
four 24-hour cycles running from Monday/Tuesday
through Thursday/Friday. Soil and dust samples were
also collected from the child's  home and play area.
Study  participants were supplied with  toothpaste,
baby cornstarch, diaper rash cream, and soap with
low levels of most of the tracer elements. Fecal and
urine samples, excluding wipes and toilet paper, were
also collected and analyzed for tracer elements.
        Table 5-3 shows  the  published mean soil
ingestion estimates ranging from -294 mg/day based
on  manganese to  459 mg/day  based on vanadium,
median soil  ingestion estimates ranging from -261
mg/day based on manganese to 96 mg/day based on
vanadium, and 95th percentile estimates ranged from
106 mg/day based on yttrium to 1,903 mg/day based
on  vanadium.    Maximum  daily  soil  ingestion
estimates  ranged   from 1,391  mg/day  based  on
zirconium to 7,281 mg/day based on manganese.
Dust ingestions calculated using tracer concentrations
in dust were  often, but not always, higher than soil
ingestions calculated using tracer  concentrations in
soil.
        Data for  the uppermost 23  subject-weeks
(the highest  soil ingestion  estimates, averaged over
the four days of excreta collection during each of the
two weeks) were published  in Calabrese et al. (1991).
One child's  soil-pica  behavior was  estimated in
Barnes  (1990) using  both the subtraction/division
algorithm and the simultaneous equations method.
On two particular days during the second week of the
study   period,  the  child's aluminum-based  soil
ingestion estimates were 19 g/day (18,700 mg/day)
and 36 g/day (35,600 mg/day),  silicon-based soil
ingestion estimates were 20 g/day (20,000 mg/day)
and 24 g/day (24,000), and simultaneous-equation
soil ingestion estimates were 20  g/day  (20,100
mg/day)  and  23  g/day (23,100  mg/day) (Barnes
1990).   By  tracer, averaged across the entire week,
this child's estimates ranged from approximately 10
to 14  g/day  during the second  week of observation
(Calabrese et al.,   1991, shown in Table 5-4), and
averaged  6  g/day across  the  entire  study  period.
Additional information about this  child's apparent
ingestion  of soil vs.  dust  during the  study  period,
shown in Table 5-5, was published in Calabrese and
Stanek (1992a).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                            5-9
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
5.3.2.3  Van Wijnen at al, 1990 - Estimated Soil
        Ingestion by Children
        In a tracer element study by Van Wijnen et
al.  (1990),  soil  ingestion among  Dutch  children
ranging in age from 1 to 5 years was evaluated using
a tracer element  methodology.   Van Wijnen et al.
(1990) measured  three tracers (titanium, aluminum,
and acid insoluble residue (AIR)) in soil and feces.
The  authors  estimated soil ingestion based  on an
assumption  called  the  Limiting  Tracer  Method
(LTM),  which assumed that soil ingestion could not
be higher than the lowest value of the three tracers.
LTM values represented soil ingestion estimates that
were not corrected for dietary intake.
        An average daily feces dry weight of 15 g
was  assumed.  A total  of 292 children  attending
daycare centers were studied  during the first of two
sampling periods  and 187  children  were studied in
the second sampling period;  162 of these  children
were  studied during  both  periods  (i.e.,  at  the
beginning and near the end of the summer of  1986).
A total of 78 children were studied at campgrounds.
The authors  reported geometric  mean  LTM  values
because soil ingestion rates were found to be skewed
and the log  transformed data were approximately
normally distributed.  Geometric mean LTM  values
were  estimated to be  111 mg/day  for children in
daycare  centers  and  174  mg/day  for  children
vacationing at campgrounds (Table 5-6). For the 162
daycare center children studied during both sampling
periods  the arithmetic mean LTM was  162 mg/day,
and the median was 114 mg/day.
        Fifteen hospitalized  children were studied
and used as a control group.  These children's LTM
soil ingestion estimates were 74 (geometric mean),
93 (mean), and 110 (median) mg/day.  The authors
assumed the hospitalized children's soil  ingestion
estimates  represented  dietary  intake  of  tracer
elements,  and used rounded  95 percent confidence
limits on the arithmetic mean, 70  to 120 mg/day, to
correct the day-care and campground children's LTM
estimates for dietary intake of tracers. Corrected soil
ingestion rates were 69 mg/day (162 mg/day  minus
93 mg/day) for  daycare  children and  120 mg/day
(213  mg/day minus  93  mg/day) for  campers.
Corrected  geometric  mean  soil  ingestion  was
estimated to range from 0 to 90 mg/day, with  a 90th
percentile value of up to  190 mg/day for the various
age categories within the daycare group  and 30 to
200 mg/day, with  a 90th percentile value of up  to 300
mg/day  for  the  various  age  categories within the
camping group.
        AIR was the  limiting tracer  in about  80
percent  of the samples.  Among children attending
daycare centers, soil ingestion was also found to be
higher  when the  weather  was  good  (i.e.,  <2
days/week precipitation) than when the weather was
bad (i.e., >4 days/week precipitation (Table 5-7).

5.3.2.4  Davis et al., 1990 - Quantitative Estimates
        of Soil  Ingestion   in  Normal Children
        between  the Ages  of 2  and  7  Years:
        Population-based     Estimates     Using
        Aluminum, Silicon,  and Titanium as  Soil
        Tracer Elements
        Davis et al.  (1990)  used a  tracer element
technique to estimate  soil ingestion among children.
In this study,  104 children between the ages of 2 and
7 years were randomly selected from a three-city area
in southeastern  Washington  State.   Soil and  dust
ingestion was evaluated by analyzing soil and house
dust,  feces,  urine,  and  duplicate  food,  dietary
supplement, medication and mouthwash samples for
aluminum, silicon, and titanium. Data were collected
for 101 of the 104  children during July, August or
September, 1987. In each family, data were collected
over a seven day period, with four days of excreta
sample  collection.  Participants were  supplied with
toothpaste with known tracer element content.  In
addition,  information  on   dietary   habits   and
demographics was collected in an attempt to identify
behavioral  and   demographic  characteristics  that
influence soil ingestion rates among  children.  The
amount of  soil  ingested on  a daily  basis  was
estimated using equation 5-1:

Sia=(((DWf_+ DWp) xEf) + 2EJ - (DW^xEJ    (Eq. 5-1)
                      Esoii
where:

Si>e     =   soil ingested for child /' based on tracer
            e (g);
DWf    =   feces dry weight (g);
DWP    =   feces dry weight on toilet paper (g);
Ef      =   tracer concentration in feces (ug/g);
Eu      =   tracer amount in urine (ug);
DWfd   =   food dry weight (g);
Efd     =   tracer concentration in food (ug/g); and
Eso;i    =   tracer concentration in soil (ug/g).

The soil ingestion rates were corrected by adding the
amount of tracer in vitamins and medications to the
amount of tracer in food, and adjusting the food, fecal
and urine sample weights to account for missing
samples.   Food,  fecal  and  urine  samples  were
composited over  a  4-day  period, and estimates for
daily soil ingestion were obtained by dividing the 4
day composited tracer quantities by 4.
Page
5-10
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
        Soil ingestion rates  were highly variable,
especially those based on titanium.  Mean daily soil
ingestion estimates were 38.9 mg/day for aluminum,
82.4  mg/day  for silicon  and  245.5  mg/day  for
titanium (Table 5-8).  Median values were 25 mg/day
for aluminum, 59 mg/day for silicon, and 81 mg/day
for titanium.  The investigators also  evaluated  the
extent to which differences in tracer concentrations in
house  dust  and  yard soil  impacted estimated soil
ingestion rates. The value used in the denominator of
the soil ingestion estimate equation was recalculated
to  represent  a  weighted  average  of  the  tracer
concentration  in yard soil and house dust based on
the proportion of time the child spent indoors and
outdoors, using an assumption that the  likelihood of
ingesting  soil outdoors was the same  as that of
ingesting dust indoors. The adjusted mean soil/dust
ingestion  rates were 64.5 mg/day for  aluminum,
160.0  mg/day for silicon, and 268.4 mg/day  for
titanium.  Adjusted median soil/dust ingestion rates
were:  51.8 mg/day for aluminum, 112.4 mg/day for
silicon, and  116.6 mg/day for titanium.  The authors
investigated   whether    nine   behavioral    and
demographic factors  could be  used to predict soil
ingestion,  and  found  family  income  less  than
$15,000/year  and  swallowing  toothpaste  to  be
significant  predictors with silicon-based estimates;
residing in one of the three cities to be a significant
predictor  with   aluminum-based   estimates,   and
washing the  face   before  eating  significant  for
titanium-based estimates.

5.3.2.5  Calabrese et al   1997a - Soil Ingestion
        Estimates for  Children  Residing  on  a
        Superfund Site
        Calabrese et  al.  (1997a)  estimated  soil
ingestion rates for children residing on a Superfund
site  using  a  methodology  in which  eight  tracer
elements were analyzed.  The methodology used in
this study is similar to that employed in Calabrese et
al.  (1989),  except that rather than  using barium,
manganese,  and  vanadium as three  of the  eight
tracers, the researchers replaced them with cerium,
lanthanum and neodymium. A total of 64 children
ages 1-3 years (36 male, 28 female) were selected for
this study of the Anaconda, Montana area. The  study
was  conducted for seven  consecutive days during
September or  September and October, apparently in
1992, shortly after soil was removed and replaced in
some residential yards in the area. Duplicate samples
of meals, beverages,  and over-the-counter medicines
and  vitamins  were  collected  over the  seven day
period,  along  with fecal samples.  In addition, soil
and dust samples were collected from the children's
home  and  play  areas.    Toothpaste  containing
nondetectable levels of the tracer elements, with the
exception of  silica, was provided  to all of the
children.    Infants   were  provided   with  baby
cornstarch, diaper rash cream,  and soap which were
found  to contain  low  levels  of tracer  elements.
Calabrese et al. (1997a) estimated soil ingestion by
each tracer element, as shown in Table 5-9.

5.3.2.6  Stanek et al.  1998 - Prevalence  of Soil
        Mouthing/Ingestion    among    Healthy
        Children Aged 1 to 6/Cahibrese et al. 1997b
        -  Soil  Ingestion   Rates   in  Children
        Identified  by  Parental  Observation  as
        Likely High Soil Ingesters
        Stanek et al.  (1998)  conducted  a survey
response study using in-person interviews of parents
of children  attending well  visits  at three western
Massachusetts medical clinics in August, September
and October of 1992.  Of 528  children ages 1  to 7
with completed interviews,  parents  reported  daily
mouthing or ingestion  of  sand and  stones  in  6
percent, daily mouthing or ingestion of soil and dirt
in 4 percent, and daily mouthing or ingestion of dust,
lint and dustballs in 1 percent. Parents reported more
than weekly mouthing or ingestion of sand and stones
in 16   percent,  more   than weekly  mouthing or
ingestion of soil and dirt in 10 percent, and more than
weekly  mouthing  or ingestion of dust,  lint  and
dustballs in 3  percent.   Parents reported more  than
monthly mouthing or ingestion of sand  and stones in
27 percent, more than monthly mouthing or ingestion
of soil and dirt in 18 percent, and more  than monthly
mouthing or ingestion of dust, lint and dustballs in 6
percent.
        Calabrese   and   colleagues   performed  a
follow-up tracer  element study  (Calabrese  et al.
1997b) for a subset (n=12) of the Stanek et al. (1998)
children whose  caregivers  had  reported  daily
sand/soil ingestion (n=17).  The time  frame of the
follow-up tracer study relative  to the original survey
response study was not stated; the study duration was
7 days.  Of the 12 children in Calabrese et al. 1997b,
one exhibited behavior that the authors  believed was
clearly  soil  pica; Table 5-10  shows estimated soil
ingestion rates for this child  during the  study period.
Estimated average  daily  soil  ingestion  estimates
(calculated   based   on    soil   tracer   element
concentrations only)  ranged from  -0.015 to +1.783
g/day based on aluminum,  -0.046 to  +0.931 g/day
based on silicon, and -0.047 to +3.581 g/day based on
titanium.   Estimated  average daily  dust ingestion
estimates  (calculated based  on dust  tracer element
concentrations only)  ranged from  -0.039 to +2.652
g/day based on aluminum,  -0.028 to  +3.145 g/day
based on silicon, and -0.098 to +3.632 g/day based on
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           5-11
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
titanium.   Calabrese et al.  (1997b)  question  the
validity of retrospective caregiver reports of soil pica
on the basis of the tracer element results.

5.3.2.7  Davis and Mirick, 2006 - Soil ingestion in
        children and adults in the same family
        Davis  and  Mirick (2006)  calculated  soil
ingestion for children and adults in the same family
using a tracer element approach.  Data were collected
in 1988, one year after the  Davis et al. (1990) study
was conducted.  Samples were collected and prepared
for laboratory analysis and  then stored for a 12-year
period prior to  tracer element quantification with
laboratory analysis.  The 20 families  in this study
were  a nonrandom subset  of the 104 families who
participated in the soil ingestion study by Davis et al.
(1990). Data collection issues resulted in sufficiently
complete  data  for  only  19   of  the 20  families
consisting of a child participant from the Davis et al.
(1990) study ages 3 to 7,  inclusive, and a female and
male  parent or guardian living in the same house.
Duplicate  samples of all  food  and medication items
consumed, and all feces excreted, were collected for
11 consecutive days.  Urine samples were collected
twice daily for 9 of the 11 days; for the remaining 2
days,  attempts  were made to  collect full  24-hour
urine  specimens.  Soil and  house dust samples were
also  collected.   Only  12 children had sufficiently
complete data for use in the soil and dust ingestion
estimates.
        Tracer  elements  for   this   study  included
aluminum, silicon  and  titanium.   Toothpaste  was
supplied for use by study participants. In addition,
parents completed  a daily diary  of activities  for
themselves and the participant child for 4 consecutive
days during the study period.
        Soil ingestion rates are shown for all three
family member participants in Table 5-11. The mean
and median estimates for children for all three tracers
ranged from 36.7 to 206.9  mg/day and 26.4 to 46.7
mg/day, respectively,  and fall  within  the range  of
those reported by Davis et al., 1990.   Adult soil
ingestion estimates ranged from 23.2 to 624.9 mg/day
for mean  values  and from 0  to 259.5 mg/day  for
median values.   Adult soil  ingestion estimates were
more  variable than those of children in  the study
regardless of the tracer.  The  authors believed that
this   higher  variability  may  have  indicated  an
important  occupational contribution of soil ingestion
in some, but not all, of the adults. Similar to previous
studies, the soil ingestion estimates were the highest
for titanium.  Although toothpaste is a known source
of titanium, the titanium content of the toothpaste
used by study participants was not determined.
        Only  three  of a  number  of  behaviors
examined for their relationship to soil ingestion were
found to be associated with increased soil ingestion
in this study:

•   reported eating of dirt (for children);
•   occupational contact with soil (for adults); and
•   hand washing before meals (for both children
    and adults).

Several  typical  childhood   behaviors,  however,
including   thumb-sucking,  furniture   licking,  and
carrying around a blanket or toy were not associated
with increased soil  ingestion  for the participating
children. Among both parents and children, neither
nail-biting  nor eating unwashed fruits or vegetables
was  correlated with  increased soil ingestion. When
investigating correlations within the  same family, a
child's soil ingestion was not found to be associated
with either parent's soil ingestion, nor did the mother
and father's soil ingestion appear to be correlated.

5.3.3   Key Studies of Secondary Analysis
5.3.3.1  Wong, 1988 - The Role of Environmental
        and   Host   Behavioural    Factors   in
        Determining Exposure to Infection with
        Ascaris   lumbricoides   and   Trichuris
        Trichiura/Calabrese and Stanek,  1993 -
        Soil Pica: Not a Rare Event
        Calabrese and  Stanek (1993)  reviewed a
tracer element study that was  conducted  by Wong
(1988) to estimate the amount of soil ingested by two
groups of children. Wong (1988) studied a total of 52
children in two government institutions in Jamaica.
The  younger group  included  24 children with an
average age of 3.1 years (range of 0.3 to 7.5 years).
The older group included 28 children with an average
age of 7.2 years (range of 1.8 to 14 years).  One fecal
sample was collected each month from each subject
over the four-month study period.  The amount of
silicon in dry  feces  was measured to  estimate soil
ingestion.
        An unspecified  number of  daily  fecal
samples were collected from a hospital control group
of 30 children with an average age of 4.8 years (range
of 0.3  to  12 years).  Dry feces were  observed to
contain 1.45 percent silicon,  or 14.5 mg Si per gram
of dry feces.   This quantity  was used to correct
measured fecal silicon from dietary sources.  Fecal
silicon quantities greater than 1.45 percent in the 52
studied children were interpreted as originating from
soil ingestion.
        For the 28  children in the older group, soil
ingestion was  estimated to be  58 mg/day, based on
Page
5-12
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
the mean minus one outlier, and 1,520 mg/day, based
on the mean of all the children.  The outlier was a
child with an estimated average soil ingestion rate of
41 g/day over the 4 months.
        Estimates of soil ingestion were higher in
the younger group of 24 children.  The mean soil
ingestion of all the children was 470 ± 370 mg/day.
Due to some  sample  losses,  of the 24  children
studied, only 15 had samples for each of the 4 months
of the study. Over the entire 4-month study period, 9
of 84 samples (or 10.5 percent) yielded soil ingestion
estimates in excess of 1 g/day.
        Of the 52 children studied, 6 had one-day
estimates of more than 1,000 mg/day.  The estimated
soil ingestion for these six children is shown in Table
5-12. The  article describes 5 of 24 (or 20.8 percent)
in the younger group of children as having a >1,000
mg/day estimate on  at  least one of the  four study
days; in the older group one child is described in this
manner.  A high degree of daily variability in soil
ingestion was observed  among these  six children;
three showed soil-pica behavior on 2,  3, and 4 days,
respectively, with the  most consistent (4 out of 4
days) soil-pica child having the highest estimated soil
ingestion, 3.8 to 60.7 g/day.

5.3.3.2  Hogan  et al, 1998 - Integrated Exposure
        Uptake Biokinetic Model for  Lead  in
        Children:  Empirical  Comparisons  with
        Epidemiologic Data
        Hogan  et al. (1998)  used the biokinetic
model   comparison  methodology  to review   the
measured blood lead levels of 478  children.  These
children were a subset of the  entire population of
children  living  in  three historic  lead smelting
communities, whose environmental lead exposures
(soil and dust lead levels) had been collected as part
of public health evaluations in these communities.
        The  Integrated   Exposure  and   Uptake
Biokinetic  (IEUBK) model is a biokinetic model  for
predicting  children's  blood lead levels that uses
measurements of lead content  in house dust, soil,
drinking water,  food  and  air,  and  child-specific
estimates of intake for each exposure medium (dust,
soil, drinking water, food and air). Model users can
also use default assumptions for the lead contents and
intake rates for each exposure medium when they do
not have specific information for each child.
        Hogan  et al.  (1998)  compared children's
measured  blood lead levels with biokinetic  model
predictions (IEUBK version  0.99d) of blood lead
levels,  using the children's measured drinking water,
soil, and dust lead contamination levels together with
default  IEUBK model  inputs  for  soil  and dust
ingestion,   relative  proportions  of  soil and dust
ingestion, lead bioavailability from soil and dust, and
other model parameters.  Thus, the default soil and
dust ingestion rates in the model, and other default
assumptions in the model, were tested by comparing
measured  blood  lead levels with the  model's
predictions for those children's  blood lead levels.
        For  Palmerton,  Pennsylvania  (n=34), the
community-wide  geometric  mean measured blood
lead levels (6.8 ug/dl) were slightly over-predicted by
the   model   (7.5    ug/dl);    for   southeastern
Kansas/southwestern Missouri (n=lll),  the blood
lead levels (5.2 ug/dl)  were  slightly under-predicted
(4.6 ug/dl), and for Madison County, Illinois (n=333),
the  geometric  mean  measured blood  lead levels
matched the model predictions (5.9 ug/dl measured
and predicted), with very slight differences in the 95
percent confidence interval.   These  results  suggest
that the default soil and dust ingestion rates used  in
this version of the IEUBK model (approximately 50
mg/day soil and 60 mg/day dust for a total soil + dust
ingestion of 110 mg/day, averaged over children ages
1 through 6) may be roughly accurate in representing
the central tendency  soil and dust ingestion rates  of
residence-dwelling children in the three locations
studied.

5.3.4   Relevant Studies of Primary Analysis
        The following  studies  are  classified   as
relevant rather than key.  The  tracer element studies
described in this section are not  designated as key
because  the  methodology to  account for non-soil
tracer exposures was not as well-developed as the
methodology  in  the U.S.  tracer element studies
described in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, or because they
do  not  provide  a  quantitative  estimate   of  soil
ingestion.  However, the method of  Clausing et al.
(1987) was used in developing the biokinetic model
default soil and dust ingestion rates (U.S.  EPA 1994a)
used in the Hogan et  al. (1998) study, which was
designated as key.  In the survey response studies,  in
most cases  the  studies were  of a non-randomized
design,  insufficient  information  was provided  to
determine important details  regarding study design,
or  no  data  were provided to allow  quantitative
estimates of soil and/or dust ingestion rates.

5.3.4.1  Dickins and Ford,  1942 - Geophagy  (Dirt
        Eating) Among Mississippi Negro School
        Children
        Dickens  and  Ford  conducted a survey
response study of rural black  school children (4th
grade and above) in Oktibbeha  County, Mississippi in
September 1941. A total of 52  of 207 children (18  of
69  boys and 34 of 138 girls)  studied gave positive
responses to questions administered in a test-taking
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           5-13
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
format regarding having eaten dirt in the previous 10
to 16 days. The authors stated that the study sample
likely  was   more  representative  of  the  higher
socioeconomic  levels  in  the  community, because
older children  from  lower  socioeconomic  levels
sometimes left school in order to work, and because
children  in  the  lower  grades, who  were  more
socioeconomically   representative  of the  overall
community, were excluded from the study. Clay was
identified as the predominant type of soil eaten.

5.3.4.2  Ferguson and Keaton, 1950 - Studies of the
        Diets of Pregnant Women  in Mississippi:
        Ingestion of Clay and Laundry Starch
        Ferguson and  Keaton  (1950) conducted a
survey response study  of a group of 361 pregnant
women receiving health care at the Mississippi State
Board  of  Health, who were  interviewed regarding
their diet,  including the  consumption of clay  or
starch.  All  of  the women were from  the  lowest
economic and educational level in the area, and 92%
were black. Of the black women, 27% reported clay-
eating and 41% starch-eating.  In the group of white
women, 7  and 10% reporting clay- and starch-eating,
respectively.  The amount of starch eaten ranged from
2-3 small lumps to 3 boxes (24 ounces) per day.  The
amount of clay  eaten ranged from 1  tablespoon to 1
cup per day.

5.3.4.3  Cooper, 1957 - Present Study
        Cooper (1957) conducted a non-randomized
survey response study in the 1950s of children age 7
months or older referred to a Baltimore, Maryland
mental hygiene clinic.  For 86  out of 784 children
studied, parents or caretakers gave positive responses
to the question,  "Does your child have a habit, or did
he ever have a habit, of eating dirt, plaster, ashes,
etc.?" and identified dirt, or dirt combined with other
substances, as the substance ingested.  Cooper (1957)
described  a  pattern of pica  behavior,  including
ingesting  substances other than  soil, being most
common between ages 2 and 4 or 5 years, with one of
the 86 children  ingesting clay at age 10 years and 9
months.

5.3.4.4  Barltrop, 1966 - The Prevalence of Pica
        Barltrop (1966) conducted  a randomized
survey response study  of children born  in Boston,
Massachusetts between 1958 and  1962,  inclusive,
whose  parents  resided in Boston and  who were
neither illegitimate nor  adopted. A stratified random
subsample of 500 of these children were contacted
for in-person  caregiver interviews, in which a total of
186 families  (37 percent) participated.  A separate
stratified subsample of 1,000  children was selected
for a mailed survey, in which 277 (28 percent) of the
families  participated.     Interview-obtained   data
regarding care- giver reports of pica (in this study is
defined as placing nonfood items in the mouth and
swallowing them) behavior in all children ages 1 to 6
in the 186 families (n=439) indicated 19 had ingested
dirt (defined as yard  dirt, house dust, plant-pot soil,
pebbles, ashes,  cigarette  ash, glass fragments, lint,
and hair combings) in the preceding 14 days. It does
not appear that these data were corrected for unequal
selection probability in the stratified random sample,
nor  were  they  corrected  for  non-response  bias.
Interviews were  conducted  in the March/April time
frame, presumably in 1964.  Mail-survey obtained
data   regarding   caregiver reports  of pica in  the
preceding 14 days indicated that  39 of 277 children
had  ingested  dirt,  presumably  using the  same
definition  as above.    Barltrop  (1966)  mentions
several possible  limitations of the study,  including
non-participation bias and respondents' memory,  or
recall, effects.

5.3.4.5  Bruhn   and Pangborn,  1971 -  Reported
        Incidence of Pica among Migrant Families
        Bruhn  and Pangborn (1971) conducted a
survey among 91 low income families of migrant
agricultural workers  in  California  in  May through
August 1969.  Families were  of Mexican descent in
two labor camps (Madison camp, 10 miles west of
Woodland, and Davis camp, 10 miles east of Davis)
and were "Anglo" families at the  Harney Lane camp
17 miles north of Stockton. Participation was 34 of
50 families  at the Madison camp, 31 of 50 families at
the Davis camp, and 26 of 26  families  at the Harney
Lane  camp.  Respondents  for the studied families
(primarily wives) gave positive responses to open-
ended questions  such as  "Do you  know of anyone
who   eats  dirt  or laundry  starch?"  Bruhn  and
Pangborn (1971) apparently asked a modified version
of this question pertaining to the respondents' own or
relatives' families.  They reported 18 percent (12 of
65)  of  Mexican families' respondents as  giving
positive responses for consumption of "dirt" among
children within  the Mexican respondents' own  or
relatives' families.  They reported 42 percent (11  of
26)  of  "Anglo"  families' respondents as  giving
positive responses for consumption of "dirt" among
children  within  the  Anglo  respondents'  own  or
relatives' families.

5.3.4.6  Robischon, 1971 - Pica Practice and Other
        Hand-Mouth  Behavior   and  Children's
        Developmental Level
        A  survey  response sample of  19- to 24-
month old children examined  at an urban well-child
Page
5-14
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
clinic in the  late 1960s or 1970 in  an unspecified
location indicated that 48 of the  130 children whose
caregivers were interviewed, exhibited pica behavior
(defined as "ate nonedibles more than once a week").
The specific substances eaten were reported for 30 of
the 48 children.  All except 2  of the  30  children
habitually ate more  than one nonedible substance.
The soil and dust-like substances reported as eaten by
these  30  children were: ashes (17), "earth" (5), dust
(3), fuzz from rugs (2), clay (1), and pebbles/stones
(1).   Caregivers for some of  the  study  subjects
(between 0 and 52 of the 130  subjects, exact number
not  specified)  reported  that   the  children  "ate
nonedibles less than once a week."

5.3.4.7  Bronstein and Dollar,  1974  - Pica  in
        Pregnancy
        The  frequency and effects of pica behavior
was investigated by  Bronstein and Dollar (1974) in
410 pregnant, low- income  women from both urban
(n = 201) and rural (n = 209)  areas in Georgia. The
women  selected  were  part   of  the  Nutrition
Demonstration Project,  a  study investigating  the
effect of nutrition on the outcome of the pregnancy,
conducted  at  the   Eugene  Talmadge  Memorial
Hospital   and  University  Hospital  in  Augusta,
Georgia.   During their initial  prenatal visit,  each
patient was interviewed by a nutrition counselor who
questioned her food frequency,  social  and  dietary
history, and  the presence of pica.  Patients were
categorized by age,  parity  and  place  of residence
(rural or urban).
        Of the 410  women interviewed, 65 (16%)
stated  that  they practiced  pica.    A variety  of
substances were ingested, with laundry starch being
the most  common.    There was  no  significant
difference in  the practice of pica between rural and
urban women, although older rural women (20-35
years)  showed a greater tendency to practice pica
than younger  rural or urban women (<20 years). The
number of previous pregnancies did not influence the
practice of pica.  The  authors noted that the frequency
of pica among rural patients had declined  from a
previous  study  conducted  8  years  earlier,   and
attributed the  reduction to a program of intensified
nutrition education and counseling provided in the
area.  No specific information on the amount of pica
substances ingested was provided by  this study,  and
the data are more than 30 years old.

5.3.4.8  Hook,  1978  -  Dietary  Cravings  and
        Aversions During Pregnancy
        Hook (1978) conducted interviews  of  250
women who had delivered a live infant  at two New
York  hospitals; the interviews took place in 1975.
The mothers were first asked about any differences in
consumption  of  seven  beverages  during  their
pregnancy, and the reasons for any changes.  They
were then asked, without mentioning specific items,
about any cravings or aversions for other foods or
nonfood items that may have developed at any time
during their pregnancy.
        Nonfood items reportedly  ingested during
pregnancy were ice, reported by 3 women, and chalk
from a river clay bank, reported by  one woman.  In
addition, one woman reported an aversion to nonfood
items (specific nonfood item  not  reported).   No
quantity data were provided by this study.

5.3.4.9  Binder  et al,  1986  - Estimating Soil
        Ingestion:  The Use of Tracer Elements in
        Estimating the Amount of Soil Ingested by
        Young Children
        Binder et al. (1986) used a tracer technique
modified from a method previously used to measure
soil ingestion  among  grazing animals  to study the
ingestion of soil among children 1 to 3 years of age
who wore diapers.  The children were studied during
the summer of  1984  as part of a  larger study of
residents living near a lead smelter in  East Helena,
Montana.  Soiled diapers were collected over a 3-day
period from 65 children (42 males and 23  females),
and composited samples of soil were obtained from
the children's yards.  Both excreta and soil samples
were analyzed for aluminum, silicon, and titanium.
These elements were found in soil but were thought
to be poorly absorbed in the gut and to have been
present in the diet only in limited quantities. Excreta
measurements  were obtained for 59 of the children.
Soil ingestion by each child was estimated on the
basis  of each  of the three tracer elements using a
standard assumed fecal dry weight  of 15 g/day,  and
the following equation (5-2):
                -^ ie  _/  % r y
where:
Fi
Si.
                            (Eq. 5-2)
estimated soil ingestion for child /' based
on element e (g/day);
concentration  of element  e in  fecal
sample of child / (mg/g);
fecal dry weight (g/day); and
concentration of element e in child i's
yard soil (mg/g).
The  analysis assumed that (1) the tracer elements
were  neither  lost  nor introduced during  sample
processing;  (2)  the  soil  ingested  by  children
originates primarily from  their own yards; and (3)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           5-15
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
that  absorption of the tracer elements by children
occurred in only small amounts.  The study did not
distinguish between ingestion of soil and house dust,
nor did  it account for the presence of the tracer
elements in ingested foods or medicines.
        The   arithmetic   mean  quantity  of  soil
ingested  by the children  in the  Binder et al. (1986)
study was estimated to be 181  mg/day (range 25 to
1,324) based on the  aluminum tracer;  184 mg/day
(range 31 to  799) based on the silicon tracer; and
1,834  mg/day (range  4  to 17,076) based on the
titanium  tracer (Table 5-13).  The overall mean soil
ingestion estimate,  based on the minimum of the
three  individual tracer estimates for each child, was
108 mg/day (range 4 to  708).  The median values
were  121 mg/day,  136 mg/day,  and 618 mg/day for
aluminum, silicon, and titanium,  respectively.  The
95th  percentile values for aluminum, silicon,  and
titanium  were 584 mg/day, 578 mg/day, and 9,590
mg/day,  respectively.   The 95th percentile value
based on the minimum of the three individual tracer
estimates for each child was 386 mg/day.
        The  authors  were  not  able  to explain the
difference between the results for titanium and for the
other  two  elements, but  they  speculated that
unrecognized sources of titanium in the diet or in the
laboratory  processing of stool samples  may  have
accounted for the  increased levels.   The frequency
distribution graph of soil ingestion estimates based on
titanium  shows  that  a  group  of 21 children had
particularly  high   titanium  values   (i.e.,  >1,000
mg/day).   The remainder  of the  children showed
titanium  ingestion  estimates at  lower levels, with a
distribution more comparable  to that  of  the  other
elements.

5.3.4.WClausing,  et  al,  1987  -  A  method for
        estimating soil ingestion by children
        Clausing  et  al.  (1987)  conducted a  soil
ingestion study with Dutch children using a tracer
element  methodology.    Clausing  et  al. (1987)
measured aluminum,  titanium,  and  acid-insoluble
residue contents of fecal samples from children aged
2 to  4 years  attending  a  nursery school, and for
samples of playground dirt at that school. Over a 5-
day period, 27 daily fecal samples were obtained for
18 children.  Using the average soil concentrations
present at the school,  and assuming a standard fecal
dry weight of 10 g/day, soil ingestion was estimated
for each  tracer. Six hospitalized, bedridden children
served as a control group, representing children who
had very limited access to soil; 8 daily fecal samples
were collected from the hospitalized children.
        Without correcting for the  tracer element
contribution from  background  sources, represented
by the hospitalized children's soil ingestion estimates,
the aluminum-based soil ingestion estimates for the
school children in this study ranged from 23 to 979
mg/day, the AIR-based estimates ranged from 48 to
362 mg/day, and the titanium-based estimates ranged
from 64 to  11,620 mg/day.  As in the  Binder et al.
(1986) study, a fraction of the children (6/18) showed
titanium values above 1,000 mg/day, with most of the
remaining  children  showing  substantially  lower
values.  Calculating an arithmetic  mean quantity of
soil ingested based on each fecal sample yielded 230
mg/day for aluminum; 129 mg/day for AIR,  and
1,430 mg/day for titanium (Table 5-14).  Based on
the Limiting Tracer Method (LTM)  and averaging
across  each fecal  sample, the arithmetic mean soil
ingestion was estimated to  be 105 mg/day with a
population standard deviation of 67 mg/day (range 23
to 362 mg/day); geometric mean soil ingestion was
estimated to be 90 mg/day. Use of the LTM  assumed
that  "the   maximum  amount  of  soil   ingested
corresponded with the lowest estimate from  the three
tracers" (Clausing et al., 1987).
        The hospitalized children's arithmetic mean
aluminum-based  soil  ingestion  estimate  was  56
mg/day; titanium-based estimates included estimates
for three of the  six  children that exceeded 1,000
mg/day, with the remaining three children in the
range  of  28 to  58  mg/day  (Table  5-15).   AIR
measurements were not reported for the hospitalized
children.   Using the LTM  method,  the  mean soil
ingestion rate was estimated to be 49 mg/day with a
population standard deviation of 22 mg/day (range 26
to 84 mg/day).   The geometric mean soil ingestion
rate was 45 mg/day.  The hospitalized children's data
suggested a  major nonsoil  source of  titanium for
some  children and a background nonsoil source of
aluminum.     However,  conditions  specific  to
hospitalization   (e.g.,   medications)   were   not
considered.
        Clausing  et al.  (1987) estimated  that the
average soil ingestion of the nursery school children
was 56 mg/day, after subtracting the mean LTM soil
ingestion for the  hospitalized  children  (49  mg/day)
from the nursery school children's mean LTM soil
ingestion (105 mg/day), to account for background
tracer intake from dietary and other nonsoil sources.

5.3.4.11 Calabrese et al., 1990 - Preliminary Adult
        Soil Ingestion Estimates: Results of a Pilot
        Study
        Calabrese et al., (1990) studied six  adults to
evaluate the extent to which they  ingest  soil.  This
adult study  was originally part of the  children soil
ingestion study (Calabrese et al., 1989) and was used
to validate part of the analytical methodology used in
Page
5-16
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
the children's study. The participants were six healty
adults, three  males and three females,  25-41  years
old.   Each volunteer  ingested one  empty gelatin
capsule at breakfast  and one  at  dinner  Monday,
Tuesday, and Wednesday during the first week of the
study.  During the second week, they ingested 50 mg
of sterilized soil within a gelatin capsule at breakfast
and at dinner (a total of 100 mg of sterilized soil per
day) for 3 days.  For the third week, the participants
ingested 250 mg of sterilized soil in a gelatin capsule
at breakfast and at dinner (a total of 500 mg of soil
per day)  during the  three days.   Duplicate  meal
samples (food and beverage) were collected from the
six adults.  The sample included all foods ingested
from  breakfast Monday, through the evening meal
Wednesday during  each of the 3 weeks.  In addition,
all medications  and vitamins ingested by  the adults
were collected.  Total excretory  output was collected
from Monday noon through Friday midnight over 3
consecutive weeks.
        Data obtained from the first week,  when
empty gelatin capsules were ingested, were used to
estimate  soil intake by adults.   On the  basis  of
recovery values, Al, Si, Y, and Zr were considered the
most valid tracers.  The mean values for these four
tracers were:  Al, 110 mg; Si, 30 mg; Y, 63 mg; and
Zr, 134 mg.

5.3.4.12 Cooksey,,   1995  - Pica   and  Olfactory
        Craving of Pregnancy: How Deep Are the
        Secrets?
        Postpartum   interviews  were  conducted
between  1992 and  1994  of 300 women  at a mid-
western hospital, to document  their experiences  of
pica  behavior.  The majority of women were  black
and low-income, and  ranged in age from  13  to  42
years.  In addition to  questions regarding nutrition,
each woman was asked if during her pregnancy she
experienced a craving to eat ice or other things that
are not food.
        Of the 300 women, 194  (65%)  described
ingesting one or more pica substances  during their
pregnancy, and the majority (78%) ate ice/freezer
frost alone or in addition to other pica substances.
Reported quantities of items ingested on a daily basis
were  3-4  8-pound bags  of   ice,  2-3  boxes  of
cornstarch, 2 cans of baking powder, 1 cereal bowl of
dirt,  5 quarts of freezer frost,  and 1 large can  of
powdered cleanser.

5.3.4.13 Smulian  et aL,  1995  - Pica  in  a Rural
        Obstetric Population
        In 1992, Smulian et al. (1995)  conducted a
survey response study  of pica in a convenience
sample of 125 pregnant women in Muscogee County,
Georgia, who ranged in age from 12 to 37.  Of these,
73 were black, 47 were white, 4 were Hispanic, and 1
was Asian.  Interviews were conducted at the time of
the   first   prenatal   visit,   using   nondirective
questionnaires  to   obtain  information  regarding
substances  ingested as well  as patterns of  pica
behavior and  influences on pica behavior.   Only
women ingesting nonfood items  were considered to
have pica.  Ingestion of ice  was included as a pica
behavior only  if the ice was reported to be ingested
multiple times per day,  if the  ice  was purchased
solely for ingestion, or if the ice was obtained from
an unusual source such as freezer frost.
        The overall prevalence of pica behavior in
this study was 14.4% (18  of 125 women), and was
highest among black women (17.8%).  There was no
significant difference between groups with respect to
age,  race, weight,  or gestational age at the time of
enrollment in the study.  The most common form of
pica was ice eating (pagophagia), reported by 44.4%
of the  patients.    Nine  of the women  reported
information  on the frequency  and  amount  of the
substances they  were  ingesting.  Of these women,
66.7%  reported  daily  consumption  and  33.3%
reported pica behavior 3 times per week.  Soap, paint
chips, or burnt matches were reportedly ingested  3
days per week.  One patient ate ice 60 times per
week.  Women who ate dirt or clay reported ingesting
0.5-1  pound per week.  The largest amount of ice
consumed was 5 pounds per day.

5.3.4.14 Grigsby et al,  1999  - Chalk Eating In
        Middle    Georgia:   A   Culture-Bound
        Syndrome of Pica?
        Grigsby  et  al.   (1999) investigated  the
ingestion of kaolin, also known as white dirt, chalk,
or white clay, in the central Georgia Piedmont area as
a culture-bound syndrome. A total of 21 individuals
who  consumed kaolin at the time or  had a history of
consuming kaolin were interviewed, using a seven-
item,  one-page  interview protocol.    All  of those
interviewed were black, ranging in age from 28 to 88
years (mean age of 46.5 years), and  all were female
except for one.
        Reasons for eating kaolin included liking the
taste, being pregnant, craving it, and to gain weight.
Eight respondents  indicated that they obtained the
kaolin from others, five reported getting it directly
from the earth, four purchased it from a store,  and
two obtained it from a kaolin pit mine. The majority
of the respondents  reported that they liked the  taste
and feel of  the  kaolin as they ate  it.  Only three
individuals  reported knowing either  males or white
persons who consumed kaolin.   Most individuals
were not forthcoming in discussing their ingestion of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           5-17
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                             Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
kaolin and  recognized that their behavior  was
unusual.
        The  study  suggests  that  kaolin-eating  is
primarily  practiced by black women who  were
introduced to the behavior by family members or
friends, during childhood or pregnancy. The authors
concluded that  kaolin ingestion is a  culturally-
transmitted form of pica,  not associated  with any
other psychopathology.  Although information on
kaolin eating habits and attitudes were provided by
this   study,   no   quantitative   information   on
consumption   was  included,  and   the   sample
population was small and non-random.

5.3.4.15 Ward, and Kutner, ,  1999 - Reported Pica
        Behavior in a Sample of Incident Dialysis
        Patients
        Structured interviews were conducted with a
sample of 226 dialysis patients in the metropolitan
Atlanta,  Georgia area from September   1996 to
September  1997.   Interviewers  were trained in
nutrition  data collection methods, and patients  also
received a 3-day diet diary that they were  asked to
complete and return by mail.  If a subject reported a
strong past or current  food or nonfood  craving, a
separate form was used to collect information to
determine if this was a pica behavior.
        Pica behavior  was reported by  37  of the
dialysis patients  studied (16%),  and most  of these
patients (31 of 37)  reported that they were currently
practicing some form of pica behavior.  The patients'
race and gender were  significantly associated with
pica behavior, with black patients and women making
up   86%  and  84%   of  those  reporting  pica,
respectively.  Those reporting pica behavior were also
younger  than the  remainder of  the  sample,  and
approximately two  thirds  described  a  persistent
craving for  ice.   Other pica   items  reportedly
consumed included starch, dirt, flour, or aspirin.

5.3.4.16 Simpson  et  al.,   2000  - Pica   During
        Pregnancy in  Low-Income Women Born in
        Mexico
        Simpson et al.   (2000)  interviewed  225
Mexican-born women, aged 18-42 years (mean age
of 25 years), using a questionnaire administered in
Spanish.   Subjects were  recruited by approaching
women in medical  facilities that served low-income
populations in the cities of Ensenada, Mexico (n=75),
and  Santa Ana, Bakerfield, and East Los Angeles,
California (n=150).  Criteria for  participation were
that  the  women had  to  be  Mexican-born, speak
Spanish as their primary language, and be pregnant or
have been pregnant within  the past year.  Only  data
for U.S. women are included in this handbook.
        Pica behavior was reported in 31%  of the
women interviewed in the  U.S.  The items ingested
and the number of women reporting the pica behavior
are shown in Table  5-16. Of the items ingested only
ice was  said to  be routinely  eaten outside  of
pregnancy, and was only reported by U.S. women,
probably  because none of the low-income women
interviewed   in  Mexico  owned  a   refrigerator.
Removing the 12 women who reported eating only
ice from the survey  lowers the percentage of U.S.
women who  reported pica behavior to 23%. Women
said they engaged  in pica behavior because  of the
taste,  smell  or texture of  the items, for medicinal
purposes, or because of advice from someone, and
one woman reported eating clay for religious reasons.
Magnesium  carbonate, a pica item not found to be
previously reported in the  literature, was reportedly
consumed by 17%  of  women.    The amount of
magnesium carbonate ingested ranged from a quarter
of a block to five  blocks per day;  the blocks were
approximately the  size of  a  3 5-mm film box.  No
specific quantity  information on the amounts of pica
substances ingested were provided in the study.

5.3.4.17 Obialo et  al., 2001 - Clay Pica Has No
        Hematologic or  Metabolic  Correlate  to
        Chronic Hemodialysis Patients
        A total  of  138  dialysis  patients  at the
Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia,
were  interviewed about their unusual  cravings or
food habits.  The patients were black and ranged in
age from 37 to 78 years.
        Thirty of the patients (22%) reported some
form  of  pica behavior,  while 13  patients  (9.4%)
reported  clay  pica.  The  patients with clay pica
reported daily consumption of 225-450 g of clay.

5.3.4.18 Klitzman  et al.,  2002 - Lead Poisoning
       Among Pregnant Women in New York City:
        Risk Factors and Screening Practices
        Klitzman  et al.  (2002)  interviewed  33
pregnant women  whose blood lead levels were >20
ug/dL as reported to the New York  City Department
of Health between  1996 and 1999.  The median age
of the women was 24 years (range of 15 to 43 years),
and the  majority were  foreign born.   The women
were interviewed regarding their work, reproductive
and lead exposure  history.  A home visit was also
conducted and included a visual  inspection  and a
colorimetric  swab test; consumable items suspected
to contain lead were sent to  a laboratory for analysis.
        There were 13 women (39%) who reported
pica behavior during their  current pregnancies.  Of
these, 10 reported eating soil, dirt or clay, 2 reported
pulverizing and eating pottery, and 1 reported eating
Page
5-18
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
soap.    One  of   the   women   reported  eating
approximately  one  quart  of dirt  daily  from  her
backyard  for the past  three  months.   No other
quantity data were reported.

5.3.5   Relevant Studies of Secondary Analysis
        The secondary analysis literature on soil and
dust ingestion rates  gives  important insights  into
methodological strengths and limitations.  The tracer
element studies described in this section are grouped
to some  extent according to methodological issues
associated  with  the  tracer  element  methodology.
These  methodological issues include  attempting to
determine  the origins   of  apparent  positive  and
negative  bias in the methodologies, including:  food
input/fecal   output   misalignment;   missed  fecal
samples;  assumptions about children's fecal weights;
particle sizes of,  and relative contributions of soils
and  dusts  to total  soil and  dust ingestion;  and
attempts  to  identify a  "best" tracer element or
combination of tracer elements.  Potential error from
using short-term studies'  estimates for long term soil
and  dust  ingestion behavior  estimates  is   also
discussed.

5.3.5.1  Stanek et al, 2001a - Biasing Factors for
        Simple Soil Ingestion  Estimates in Mass
        Balance Studies of Soil Ingestion
        In  order to  identify  and  evaluate  biasing
factors for  soil  ingestion  estimates,  the  authors
developed  a simulation  model based  on data from
previous  soil ingestion studies.   The  soil ingestion
data used in this model were taken from Calabrese et
al. (1989)  (the Amherst  study); Davis et al. (1990)
(southeastern Washington  State);  Calabrese et al.
(1997a) (the Anaconda  study)  and Calabrese et al.
(1997b) (soil-pica in Massachusetts), and relied only
on the aluminum and silicon trace element estimates
provided in these studies.
        Of the biasing factors  explored, the impact
of study  duration  was  the  most  striking,  with  a
positive  bias of more  than 100 percent for  95th
percentile estimates in a  4-day  tracer element study.
A smaller bias was observed for the  impact of
absorption of trace elements from food. Although the
trace elements selected for use  in these studies are
believed to have low absorption, whatever amount is
not accounted for will result in an underestimation of
the soil ingestion distribution.  In these simulations,
the absorption of trace elements from food of up to
30  percent  was  shown  to  negatively  bias  the
estimated soil ingestion distribution by less than 20
mg/day.     No   biasing effect  was  found  for
misidentifying play  areas for  soil sampling  (i.e.,
ingested  soil  from  a yard other than the subject's
yard).

5.3.5.2  Calabrese  and  Stanek,  1995  -  Resolving
        Intertracer    Inconsistencies    in    Soil
        Ingestion Estimation
        Calabrese  and   Stanek  (1995)  explored
sources and magnitude of positive and negative errors
in soil ingestion estimates for children on a subject-
week and trace element basis. Calabrese and Stanek
(1995) identified possible sources of positive errors
to be:
•   Ingestion of high levels of tracers before the start
    of the study and low ingestion during the study
    period; and
•   Ingestion of element tracers from a non-food or
    non-soil source during the study period.
Possible sources of negative bias were identified as:
•   Ingestion of tracers in food that are not captured
    in the fecal sample either due to slow lag  time or
    not having a fecal sample available on the final
    study day; and
•   Sample  measurement  errors   that  result  in
    diminished detection of fecal tracers, but not in
    soil tracer levels.
The authors developed an approach that attempted to
reduce the magnitude of  error in the individual trace
element ingestion estimates.  Results from a previous
study conducted by Calabrese et al. (1989) were used
to quantify  these  errors based  on the  following
criteria: (1) a lag period of 28 hours was assumed for
the passage of tracers ingested in food to the feces
(this value was applied to all subject-day estimates);
(2) a daily soil ingestion rate was estimated for each
tracer  for  each 24-hour day a  fecal  sample was
obtained;  (3) the median tracer-based soil ingestion
rate for each subject-day was determined;  and (4)
negative  errors due to missing fecal samples at the
end of the  study period were also determined. Also,
upper- and lower-bound  estimates were determined
based on criteria formed using an assumption of the
magnitude of the relative standard deviation (RSD)
presented in another study conducted by Stanek  and
Calabrese  (1995a).   Daily  soil ingestion rates  for
tracers that fell beyond the  upper and lower ranges
were excluded from subsequent calculations, and the
median soil ingestion  rates  of the  remaining tracer
elements were  considered the best  estimate for that
particular day.  The magnitude of positive or negative
error  for a specific tracer per day was derived by
determining the difference between the value for the
tracer and the median value.
        Table 5-17 presents the estimated magnitude
of positive and negative error for six tracer elements
in the children's study (conducted by Calabrese et al.,
1989). The original non-negative mean soil ingestion
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            5-19
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
rates (Table 5-3) ranged from a low of 21 mg/day
based on zirconium to a high of 459 mg/day based on
vanadium.   The  adjusted mean soil ingestion rate
after  correcting  for  negative  and  positive errors
ranged from 97  mg/day based  on yttrium to 208
mg/day based on titanium.   Calabrese and  Stanek
(1995) concluded that correcting for  errors at the
individual  level  for  each  tracer element provides
more reliable estimates of soil ingestion.

5.3.5.3  Stanek   and  Calabrese,  1995a  - Daily
        Estimates of Soil Ingestion in Children
        Stanek and  Calabrese  (1995a) presented  a
methodology which  links the physical  passage of
food  and  fecal  samples to  construct daily  soil
ingestion estimates from daily food and fecal trace-
element  concentrations.   Soil  ingestion  data for
children obtained from the Amherst study (Calabrese
et  al,  1989)  were  reanalyzed  by   Stanek  and
Calabrese (1995a). A lag period of 28 hours between
food intake and  fecal output was assumed  for all
respondents.     Day  1  for   the   food  sample
corresponded to the 24 hour period from midnight on
Sunday to midnight on Monday of a study week; day
1 of the fecal sample corresponded  to the 24  hour
period from noon on Monday to noon on Tuesday.
Based  on these definitions, the food soil equivalent
was subtracted  from  the fecal soil equivalent to
obtain an  estimate  of soil  ingestion  for a trace
element.    A daily overall  ingestion  estimate  was
constructed for each child as the median of trace
element values remaining after tracers falling outside
of a defined range around the overall  median were
excluded.
        Table  5-18  presents  adjusted  estimates,
modified according to the input/output  misalignment
correction,  of mean daily  soil  ingestion per child
(mg/day) for the 64 study participants. The approach
adopted in this  paper led  to  changes  in  ingestion
estimates from those presented  in Calabrese et al.
(1989).
        Estimates  of children's   soil   ingestion
projected over a period of 365 days were derived by
fitting  log-normal distributions to  the  overall daily
soil ingestion estimates using  estimates  modified
according to the input/output misalignment correction
(Table 5-19). The estimated median  value  of the 64
respondents' daily soil ingestion averaged over a year
was 75 mg/day,  while the 95th percentile was 1,751
mg/day.  In developing the 365-day soil  ingestion
estimates, data that were obtained over a short period
of time (as  is the case with all available soil ingestion
studies) were extrapolated over a year.  The 2-week
study period may not reflect variability  in tracer
element ingestion over a year.  While Stanek and
Calabrese (1995a) attempted to address this through
modeling  of  the  long   term  ingestion,   new
uncertainties were introduced through the parametric
modeling of the limited subject day data.

5.3.5.4  Calabrese and Stanek,  1992b  -   What
        Proportion of Household Dust  is Derived
        from Outdoor Soil?
        Calabrese and Stanek (1992b) estimated the
amount of outdoor soil in indoor dust using statistical
modeling.  The model used soil and dust data from
the 60 households that participated in the Calabrese
et al. (1989) study, by preparing scatter plots of each
tracer's concentration in soil versus dust.  Correlation
analysis  of the scatter  plots was performed.   The
scatter plots showed little  evidence  of a consistent
relationship between outdoor soil and indoor dust
concentrations.  The model estimated the proportion
of outdoor soil in indoor dust using  the simplifying
assumption that  the   following variables  were
constants in all houses: the  amount of dust produced
every day from both indoor and outdoor sources; the
proportion of indoor dust due to outdoor soil; and the
concentration of the tracer element in dust produced
from indoor sources.  Using these assumptions, the
model predicted that 31.3 percent by weight of indoor
dust came  from outdoor soil.  This model was then
used  to  adjust the soil ingestion   estimates  from
Calabrese et al. (1989).  Using an assumption that 50
percent of excess  fecal tracers were  from indoor
origin and  50 percent were  from outdoor  origin, and
multiplying the 50 percent indoor-origin excess fecal
tracer by the model prediction that 31.3  percent of
indoor dust came from outdoor soil, results  in an
estimate that 15 percent of excess fecal tracers were
from soil materials that  were present in indoor dust.
Adding this 15 percent to  the 50 percent  assumed
outdoor  (soil)  origin excess  fecal  tracer  quantity
results in an estimate that approximately  65 percent
of the  total residual excess fecal tracer was of soil
origin (Calabrese and Stanek, 1992b).

5.3.5.5  Calabrese et al.,  1996 - Methodology to
        Estimate the Amount and Particle Size of
        Soil Ingested by Children: Implications for
        Exposure Assessment at Waste Sites
        Calabrese  et  al.,   1996   examined  the
hypothesis that one cause  of  the variation between
tracers seen in soil ingestion studies could be related
to differences in soil tracer concentrations by particle
size.  This study,  published prior to the Calabrese et
al.  (1997a) primary  analysis study results,  used
laboratory  analytical   results  for  the   Anaconda,
Montana soil's tracer concentration after it had been
sieved to a particle size of <250 um in diameter (it
Page
5-20
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
was sieved to <2 mm soil particle size in Calabrese et
al. (1997a)).  The smaller particle size was examined
based on the assumption that children  principally
ingest soil of small particle size adhering to fingertips
and under fingernails. For five of the tracers used in
the original study  (aluminum,  silicon,  titanium,
yttrium, and zirconium),  soil concentration was not
changed  by particle  size.    However,  the  soil
concentrations of three tracers  (lanthanum, cerium,
and neodymium) were increased two- to fourfold at
the smaller soil particle size.  Soil ingestion estimates
for  these   three  tracers   were   decreased   by
approximately 60 percent  at  the  95th percentile
compared to the Calabrese et al. (1997a) results.

5.3.5.6  Stanek  et  al,   1999  -  Soil  Ingestion
        Estimates for Children in Anaconda Using
        Trace Element Concentrations in Different
        Particle Size Fractions
        Stanek  et al. (1999) extends  the  findings
from Calabrese  et al. (1996) by quantifying trace
element concentrations in soil based on sieving to
particle sizes of  100 to 250 um and to  particle sizes
of 53 to < 100 um. This study used the data from soil
concentrations from  the Anaconda, Montana  site
reported by  Calabrese et al.  (1997a). Results of the
study indicated that soil concentrations of aluminum,
silicon and titanium do not increase at  the two finer
particle  size ranges  measured.     However,  soil
concentrations of cerium, lanthanum and neodymium
increased by a factor of 2.5 to 4.0 in the 100-250 um
particle size  range when compared with the 0 to 2 um
particle  size range.   There  was not  a  significant
increase in concentration in the 53 to 100 um particle
size range.

5.3.5.7  Stanek  and  Calabrese,   1995b  -  Soil
        Ingestion  Estimates  for  Use   in  Site
        Evaluations  Based on  the  Best  Tracer
        Method
        Stanek  and Calabrese (1995b) recalculated
soil ingestion rates for adults and children from two
previous  studies,  using  data for  8  tracers  from
Calabrese et al.,  1989  and 3 tracers from Davis et al.,
1990.  Recalculations  were performed using the Best
Tracer Method  (BTM).   This method selected the
"best"tracer(s), by dividing the total amount of tracer
in a particular child's duplicate food sample by tracer
concentration in that  child's  soil  sample to yield a
food/soil (F/S) ratio.   The F/S ratio was small when
the tracer concentration in food was low compared to
the tracer concentration in soil. Small F/S ratios were
desirable because they lessened the impact of transit
time error (the  error that occurs when fecal output
does not reflect food ingestion,  due to fluctuation in
gastrointestinal transit time)  in the soil  ingestion
calculation.
        For adults,  Stanek and Calabrese (1995b)
used data for 8 tracers  from the Calabrese et al.
(1989) study to estimate soil ingestion by the BTM.
The lowest F/S ratios were Zr and Al and the element
with the highest F/S ratio was Mn. For soil ingestion
estimates based on the median of the lowest four F/S
ratios, the tracers contributing most often to the soil
ingestion estimates were Al,  Si,  Ti, Y, V, and Zr.
Using the median of the soil ingestion rates based on
the best four tracer elements, the average adult soil
ingestion rate was  estimated to be 64 mg/day with a
median of 87 mg/day.  The  95th  percentile  soil
ingestion estimate  was 142 mg/day.  These estimates
are based on 18  subject weeks for the  six  adult
volunteers described in Calabrese et al. (1989).
        The  BTM used a ranking scheme  of F/S
ratios to determine the best tracers  for use  in the
ingestion rate  calculation. To  reduce the impact of
biases that may occur as a result of sources of fecal
tracers other  than  food or soil,  the  median of soil
ingestion estimates based on  the four lowest F/S
ratios was used to represent soil ingestion.
        Using the lowest four F/S ratios for each
individual, calculated on a per-week ("subject-week")
basis, the median of the soil ingestion estimates from
the Calabrese et al. (1989) study most often included
aluminum, silicon,  titanium, yttrium,  and zirconium.
Based on the median of soil ingestion estimates from
the best four tracers, the mean soil ingestion rate for
children was  132  mg/day and the median was 33
mg/day.  The 95th  percentile value was 154 mg/day.
For the 101 children in the Davis et al. (1990) study,
the mean soil  ingestion rate was 69 mg/day and the
median soil ingestion rate was  44 mg/day.  The  95th
percentile estimate  was 246 mg/day.  These data are
based on the three tracers (i.e., aluminum, silicon and
titanium) from the  Davis et al. (1990) study.  When
the results for the 128 subject-weeks  in Calabrese et
al. (1989) and 101 children in Davis et al. (1990)
were  combined,  soil  ingestion for  children  was
estimated to  be 104 mg/day  (mean);  37 mg/day
(median);  and 217 mg/day (95th percentile), using
the BTM.

5.3.5.8  Stanek and Calabrese, 2000 - Daily  Soil
        Ingestion  Estimates  for  Children   at  a
        Superfund Site
        Stanek and Calabrese (2000) reanalyzed the
soil ingestion  data from the Anaconda study.   The
authors assumed a  lognormal distribution for the soil
ingestion estimates in the Anaconda study to predict
average soil ingestion for children over a longer time
period.  Using "best linear unbiased predictors," the
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           5-21
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
authors predicted 95th percentile soil ingestion values
over time periods of 7 days,  30 days, 90 days, and
365 days.  The 95th percentile soil ingestion values
were predicted to be 133  mg/day over 7 days, 112
mg/day over 30 days, 108  mg/day over 90 days, and
106 mg/day over 365 days.  Based on this analysis,
estimates of the distribution of longer term average
soil ingestion are  expected to be narrower, with the
95th percentile estimates being as much as 25  percent
lower (Stanek and Calabrese, 2000).

5.3.5.9  Stanek  et  al,  2001b -  Soil Ingestion
        Distributions  for   Monte  Carlo  Risk
        Assessment in  Children
        Stanek et al. (200 Ib) developed "best linear
unbiased predictors" to reduce the biasing effect of
short-term  soil ingestion estimates.    This study
estimated  the  long-term  average  soil  ingestion
distribution using daily soil ingestion estimates from
children who participated in the Anaconda, Montana
study.  In this long-term (annual) distribution,  the soil
ingestion estimates were: mean 31,  median 24, 75th
percentile 42,  90th percentile 75, and 95th percentile
91 mg/day.

5.3.5.10 von  Lindern  et  al,  2003 -  Assessing
        remedial effectiveness through the blood
        lead:soil/dust  lead  relationship   at  the
        Bunker Hill Superfund Site in the Silver
        Valley of Idaho
        Similar to Hogan et al. (1998), von Lindern
et al. (2003) used the IEUBK  model to predict blood
lead  levels in a  non-random  sample  of  several
hundred  children  ages 0-9  years  in an  area of
northern  Idaho from 1989-1998 during community-
wide soil remediation. Von Lindern et al.  (2003) used
the IEUBK default soil  and dust ingestion  rates
together  with  observed house  dust/soil  lead levels
(and imputed values based on community soil and
dust  lead levels, when observations were  missing).
The authors compared the predicted blood lead levels
with observed blood lead  levels and found that the
default IEUBK soil and dust ingestion rates and lead
bioavailability value overpredicted blood lead levels,
with the overprediction decreasing as the community
soil remediation progressed.  The authors stated that
the overprediction may have been caused either by a
default soil and dust ingestion that was too  high, a
default bioavailability  value for lead that was too
high,  or  some combination of the two.  They also
noted underpredictions  for some children, for whom
follow up interviews  revealed exposures  to lead
sources not accounted  for by the model, and noted
that the study sample included many children with a
short residence time within the community.
        Von Lindern  et  al.  (2003) developed  a
statistical model that apportioned the contributions of
community  soils, yard soils  of the  residence,  and
house  dust to  lead  intake;  the models'  results
suggested that community soils contributed more (50
percent) than neighborhood soils (28 percent) or yard
soils (22 percent) to soil found in house dust of the
studied children.

5.4     LIMITATIONS   OF   KEY    STUDY
        METHODOLOGIES
        The three types of information  needed to
provide recommendations  to  exposure assessors on
soil and dust ingestion rates among U.S.  children
include quantities of soil and dust ingested, frequency
of  high soil   and dust  ingestion  episodes,  and
prevalence  of  high soil  and  dust  ingesters.  The
methodologies provide different types of information:
the tracer element  and biokinetic model comparison
methodologies provide  information on quantities of
soil   and   dust   ingested;   the   tracer   element
methodology provides  limited  evidence   of  the
frequency of high soil ingestion episodes; the survey
response methodology can shed light on prevalence
of high soil ingesters  and frequency of high  soil
ingestion episodes.   The  methodologies  used to
estimate soil and dust ingestion rates  and prevalence
of soil  and dust ingestion behaviors have certain
limitations, when used for the purpose of developing
recommended  soil and dust  ingestion  rates.  This
section  describes some of the known  limitations,
presents  an evaluation of the  current  state of the
science  for  U.S. children's soil and dust  ingestion
rates,  and describes how  the limitations affect the
confidence ratings given to the recommendations.

5.4.1    Tracer Element Methodology
        This  section  describes  some  previously
identified  limitations   of   the   tracer   element
methodology as it has been implemented  by U.S.
researchers, as well as additional potential limitations
that have not been explored.  Some of these same
limitations  would  also apply  to the Dutch  and
Jamaican  studies  that  used  a control  group  of
hospitalized children  to  account  for  dietary  and
pharmaceutical tracer intakes.
        Binder et  al. (1986)  described some of the
major and obvious limitations of the early U.S. tracer
element methodology as follows:
        [T]he algorithm assumes that children ingest
        predominantly  soil from their own yards and
        that concentrations of elements in composite
        soil samples from front and  back yards are
        representative  of  overall  concentrations in
        the  yards....children  probably    eat   a
Page
5-22
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
        combination of soil and dust; the algorithm
        used does not distinguish between soil and
        dust ingestion....fecal sample weights...were
        much lower than expected...the assumption
        that aluminum, silicon and titanium are  not
        absorbed is not entirely true....dietary intake
        of  aluminum, silicon  and titanium  is  not
        negligible when compared with the potential
        intake  of these elements  from soil....Before
        accepting  these estimates as true values of
        soil ingestion in toddlers, we need a better
        understanding  of  the   metabolisms   of
        aluminum, silicon and titanium in children,
        and the validity of the assumptions we made
        in  our calculations  should  be explored
        further.
The   subsequent  U.S.   tracer   element  studies
(Calabrese et al. (1989)/Barnes (1990), Davis et al.
(1990),  Calabrese  et  al.  (1997a),  and  Davis and
Mirick (2006)) made  some progress in addressing
some of  the Binder  et  al.  (1986) study's  stated
limitations.
        Regarding   the    issue   of   non-yard
(community-wide)  soil as  a source  of ingested soil,
one  study  (Calabrese  et al.  1989/Barnes  1990)
addressed this  issue to some  extent, by including
samples  of children's day care  center soil  in  the
analysis.    Calabrese  et  al.  (1997a) attempted  to
address the  issue by excluding children in day care
from the study sample frame.   Homogeneity  of
community soils' tracer element content would play a
role  in whether this  issue is  an important  biasing
factor for the tracer element studies' estimates. Davis
et al. (1990) evaluated community soils' aluminum,
silicon and titanium content and found little variation
among 101 yards  throughout  the   three-city  area.
Stanek et al. (2001a) conclude that there is "minimal
impact" on  estimates of soil ingestion due to mis-
specifying a child's play area.
        Regarding the  issue of soil and dust both
contributing to  measured tracer element quantities in
excreta samples, the  five key  U.S. tracer element
studies all attempt to  address the  issue by including
samples  of  household dust  in  the  analysis, and in
some cases  estimates  are presented in the published
articles that adjust soil ingestion estimates on  the
basis of  the measured tracer elements found in  the
household  dust.    The  relationship between soil
ingestion rates and indoor  settled dust ingestion rates
has been evaluated in some of the secondary studies
(e.g., Calabrese and Stanek, 1992b).  An issue similar
to the community-wide soil exposures in the previous
paragraph could  also exist with community-wide
indoor dust exposures (such as dust found in schools
and community buildings occupied by study subjects
during or prior to the study period).  A portion of the
community-wide  indoor dust exposures (that due to
occupying day care facilities) was addressed in the
Calabrese et al. (1989)/Barnes (1990) study, but not
in the other  three key tracer element  studies.   In
addition, if the key studies' vacuum cleaner collection
method for household and  day  care indoor settled
dust samples influenced tracer element composition
of  indoor  settled dust samples, the  dust sample
collection  method  would  be   another  area  of
uncertainty with the key studies' indoor dust related
estimates. The survey response  studies suggest that
some young  children may prefer ingesting dust to
ingesting soil.  The existing literature on soil versus
dust sources of children's lead exposure may provide
useful information that has not yet been compiled for
use in soil and dust ingestion recommendations.
        Regarding the issue of fecal sample weights
and the  related  issue of missing  fecal and urine
samples, the  five key tracer element studies have
varying strengths and limitations. The Calabrese et
al.  (1989) article stated that wipes  and toilet paper
were not collected  by the researchers, and  thus
underestimates of fecal quantities may have occurred.
Calabrese et al. (1989) stated that cotton cloth diapers
were supplied for use during the study; commodes
apparently were used to collect both feces and urine
for  those children who  were  not using  diapers.
Barnes  (1990) described  cellulose and polyester
disposable  diapers  with  significant variability  in
silicon  and  titanium  content and  suggested  that
children's urine was  not  included  in the  analysis.
Thus, it is unclear to what extent complete fecal and
urine output  was obtained,  for  each study  subject.
The Calabrese et al. (1997a) study  did not describe
missing fecal samples  and  did not state whether
urinary tracer element quantities were used in the soil
and dust ingestion estimates, but stated that wipes
and toilet paper were not collected.  Missing fecal
samples may have resulted in negative bias in the
estimates from both of these studies.  Davis et al.
(1990) and Davis and Mirick (2006) were limited to
children who no  longer wore diapers.  Missed fecal
sample  adjustments  might affect  those  studies'
estimates in either a positive or negative direction,
due to the  assumptions the  authors  made regarding
the quantities of feces and urine in  missed samples.
Adjustments  for  missing  fecal  and urine samples
could introduce errors sufficient to cause negative
estimates if missed samples were heavier than the
collected samples used in the soil and dust ingestion
estimate calculations.
        Regarding the issue  of dietary  intake, the
five  key U.S.   tracer  element  studies  have  all
addressed dietary (and non-dietary,  non-soil) intake
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            5-23
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
by subtracting quantitated estimates of these sources
of  tracer  elements from excreta  tracer  element
quantities,  or  by  providing  study  subjects  with
personal hygiene products that  were low in  tracer
element content. Applying the food and non-dietary,
non-soil  corrections required subtracting  the  tracer
element  contributions  from these non-soil sources
from   the   measured  fecal/urine  tracer  element
quantities.    To perform  this   correction required
assumptions to be made regarding the gastrointestinal
transit time,  or the time lag between inputs  (food,
non-dietary non-soil, and soil) and outputs (fecal and
urine).  The  gastrointestinal transit time assumption
introduced a new potential source of bias that some
authors (e.g., Stanek and  Calabrese, 1995a)  called
input/output misalignment or transit time error.  This
lag time  may also be a function  of age. Davis et al.
(1990) and Davis and Mirick (2006) assumed a 24-
hour lag time in contrast to the 28-hour lag times
used in  Calabrese et al. (1989)/Barnes (1990)  and
Calabrese et al.  (1997a).  ICRP (2002) suggested a
lag time  of 37 hours for one year old children and 5
to  15  year  old children.   Stanek  and  Calabrese
(1995a) describe a  method designed to reduce bias
from this error source.
        Regarding  gastrointestinal absorption,  the
authors of three of the studies appeared to agree that
the presence  of silicon in urine represented evidence
that  silicon   was  being  absorbed  from  the
gastrointestinal tract (Davis et al., 1990; Calabrese et
al., 1989/Barnes (1990); Davis  and Mirick, 2006).
There was some evidence of aluminum absorption in
Calabrese et al.,  1989/Barnes  (1990);  Davis  and
Mirick (2006) stated that aluminum and titanium did
not appear to have been  absorbed, based on  low
urinary levels.  Davis et al. (1990) stated that silicon
appears to have been absorbed  to a greater degree
than  aluminum  and  titanium, based   on  urine
concentrations.
        Aside from the  gastrointestinal absorption,
lag time and missed fecal  sample issues,  Davis and
Mirick (2006) offer another possible explanation for
the negative  soil and dust ingestion rates estimated
for some study participants. Because the weights of
dried   food  and   liquid  (input)   samples  were
sufficiently  great,  relative to the urine  and fecal
(output)   samples,   overestimates   in   laboratory
analytical values for the input samples would not be
compensated for by a  similar  overestimate in the
output samples.
        Another limitation on  accuracy of  tracer
element-based estimates  of soil and dust ingestion
relates to  inaccuracies inherent in  environmental
sampling and laboratory analytical techniques.  The
"percent recovery" of different tracer elements  varies
(according to  validation of the study methodology
performed with  adults  who  swallowed  gelatin
capsules with  known quantities of sterilized soil, as
part of the Calabrese et al., 1989 and 1997a studies).
Estimates based on a particular tracer element with a
lower  or higher recovery than  the  expected  100
percent  in any of  the  study  samples would  be
influenced in either a positive or negative direction,
depending on  the recoveries  in the various samples
and their degree of deviation from 100 percent (e.g.,
Calabrese etal.,  1989).
         Davis et al. (1990) offered an assessment of
the impact of swallowed toothpaste  on the  tracer-
based  estimates by  adjusting estimates  for those
children whose  caregivers reported  that they  had
swallowed toothpaste.   Davis  et al.  (1990)  had
supplied study children with toothpaste that had been
pre-analyzed for its tracer element content, but it is
not known to  what extent the children actually used
the supplied toothpaste.  Similarly, Calabrese et al.,
1989 and 1997a supplied children in the  Amherst,
Massachusetts and Anaconda, Montana studies with
toothpaste containing low levels of most tracers, but
it is unclear to what extent those children used the
supplied toothpaste.
         Other research suggests  additional possible
limitations that  have  not yet been explored.   First,
lymph tissue  structures in the gastrointestinal tract
might serve as reservoirs for titanium dioxide food
additives and  soil   particles,  which  could  bias
estimates either  upward or downward depending on
tracers' entrapment within, or release from, these
reservoirs during  the study  period  (ICRP,   2002;
Shepherd et al.,  1987;  Powell et al., 1996). Second,
gastrointestinal uptake of silicon may have occurred,
which   could   bias   those  estimates   downward.
Evidence of silicon's  role in bone formation (e.g.,
Carlisle,  1980)  supported by newer  research  on
dietary  silicon uptake (Jugdaohsingh et al.,  2002);
Van Dyck et al., 2000) suggests a possible negative
bias in  the silicon-based  soil ingestion  estimates,
depending on  the  quantities  of silicon  absorbed by
growing children.  Third, regarding the potential for
swallowed toothpaste to bias  soil ingestion estimates
upward,   commercially  available  toothpaste  may
contain quantities of titanium  and perhaps silicon and
aluminum in  the range  that could be expected to
affect the soil  and dust ingestion estimates.  Fourth,
for those children who drank bottled or tap water
during the study period, and did not include those
drinking  water  samples in  their duplicate food
samples, slight upward bias may exist  in some of the
estimates for  those  children, since drinking  water
may contain small, but relevant, quantities of silicon
and potentially other tracer elements. Fifth, the tracer
Page
5-24
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
element studies conducted to date have not explored
the impact of soil properties' influence on toxicant
uptake or excretion within the gastrointestinal tract.
Nutrition researchers investigating influence  of clay
geophagy behavior on human nutrition have begun
using in vitro models of the human digestion (e.g.,
Dominy et al., 2003; Hooda et al, 2004).  A recent
review  (Wilson,  2003)  covers  a  wide  range  of
geophagy research in humans and various hypotheses
proposed to  explain soil  ingestion  behaviors, with
emphasis   on  the soil  properties  of  geophagy
materials.

5.4.2    Biokinetic      Model       Comparison
        Methodology
        It  is  possible that  the  IEUBK biokinetic
model comparison methodology contained sources of
both  positive and negative  bias,  like the tracer
element  studies,  and that the net impact  of the
competing  biases was  in either the  positive  or
negative direction.  U.S. EPA's judgment  about the
major  sources of bias  in the  biokinetic   model
comparison studies  is  that  there  may  be  three
significant  sources of bias.   The  first source  of
potential bias was the possibility that  the biokinetic
model failed to account for sources of lead exposure
that are important for certain children.   For these
children, the model might either under-predict,  or
accurately  predict,  blood lead  levels  compared to
actual measured lead levels.   However, this result
may actually  mean that the  default  assumed lead
intake  rates via either  soil  and dust  ingestion,  or
another lead source that is accounted for  by the
model, are  too high.  The second source of potential
bias was use of the biokinetic model  for predicting
blood lead levels in children who have not  spent a
significant  amount of time in the areas characterized
as the main sources of environmental lead  exposure.
Modeling  this population could  result  in either
upward or  downward  biases in predicted blood lead
levels.  Comparing upward-biased predictions with
actual  measured  blood lead  levels and  finding  a
relatively good match could lead to inferences that
the model's default soil and dust ingestion rates are
accurate, when in fact the children's  soil and dust
ingestion  rates,  or some other  lead  source,  were
actually higher than the default assumption. The third
source of potential bias was the assumption within
the model itself regarding the biokinetics of absorbed
lead,  which  could result  in  either  positively  or
negatively biased predictions and  the same kinds of
incorrect inferences as the second source of potential
bias.
5.4.3    Survey Response Methodology
        Each data collection methodology (in-person
interview,  mailed   questionnaire,   or   questions
administered in "test" format in a school setting) may
have had  specific limitations.  In-person interviews
could result in either positive or negative response
bias due to distractions  posed by young children,
especially     when     interview     respondents
simultaneously  care for young children and answer
questions.   Other  limitations include positive  or
negative  response   bias   due  to   respondents'
perceptions of a "correct" answer, question wording
difficulties, lack of understanding of definitions of
terms used, language and  dialect differences between
investigators and respondents, respondents' desires to
avoid negative emotions  associated  with giving a
particular type  of answer,  and respondent memory
problems  ("recall" effects) concerning past events.
Mailed  questionnaires have  many  of  the same
limitations as in-person interviews,  but may allow
respondents to respond when they are not distracted
by childcare duties.  An in-school test format is more
problematic than either interviews or mailed surveys,
because   respondent   bias  related  to   teacher
expectations could influence responses.
        Unweighted  survey  responses  from  the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) I and II regarding children's clay and dirt
ingestion  are  available (U.S. DHHS  1981a, U.S.
DHHS  1981b,  U.S.  DHHS  1985a, U.S.  DHHS
1985b)  and  appear generally  to corroborate  the
results of the survey response studies summarized in
this chapter, in that a small proportion of respondents
acknowledge eating dirt  or  clay.   U.S.  EPA  has
undertaken an effort to weight the survey  responses
among    adult    caregiver    respondents   who
acknowledged clay  and  dirt ingestion by children
under age 12 years and among child respondents ages
12 up to 21 years who acknowledged clay and dirt
ingestion, to develop an estimate of prevalence of the
behavior among children.
        One  approach to evaluating the degree of
bias in survey response studies may be to make use
of  a   surrogate  biomarker  indicator   providing
suggestive  evidence  of  ingestion  of  significant
quantities of soil (although quantitative  estimates
would not be possible).   The biomarker  technique
measures  the  presence   of  serum  antibodies  to
Toxocara  species, a parasitic roundworm from cat
and  dog  feces.   Two  U.S. studies  have  found
associations between reported soil  ingestion  and
positive serum antibody tests for Toxocara infection
(Marmor et al., 1987;  Glickman et al., 1981); a third
(Nelson et al., 1996) has not, but the authors state that
reliability  of  survey  responses  regarding  soil
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           5-25
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
ingestion  may  have  been  an  issue.    Further
refinement  of  survey   response   methodologies,
together   with  recent  NHANES  data  on  U.S.
prevalence  of  positive   serum  antibody   status
regarding  infection with Toxocara species,  may be
useful.

5.4.4    Key  Studies:  Representativeness  of U.S.
        Population
        The two key studies of Dutch and Jamaican
children  may  represent  different  conditions and
different study populations  than those in the U.S.;
thus, it is unclear to what extent those children's soil
ingestion behaviors may  differ from U.S. children's
soil ingestion  behaviors.   The subjects in the Davis
and  Mirick   (2006)  study  may  not  have been
representative  of the general population since they
were  selected for their  high  compliance with the
protocol from a previous study.
        Limitations  regarding  the   key   studies
performed in  the U.S. for estimating soil and dust
ingestion  rates  in the entire  population of U.S.
children ages  0 to  <21 years fall  into  the  broad
categories of  geographic range and demographics
(age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status).
        Regarding geographic range, the two most
obvious issues relate to soil types  and climate. Soil
properties   might   influence  the   soil  ingestion
estimates that  are based on excreted tracer elements.
The   Davis   et   al.  (1990),  Calabrese   et  al.
(1989)/Barnes (1990), Davis and Mirick (2006) and
Calabrese  et al. (1997a) tracer element studies were
in locations  with soils that had sand content ranging
from 21-80 percent, silt content ranging from 16-71
percent, and clay content ranging from 3-20 percent
by weight, based on data from USDA (2008).  The
location of children in the Calabrese et al.  (1997b)
study was not specified,  but due to the  original
survey  response  study's  occurrence  in  western
Massachusetts, the  soil types  in the vicinity of the
Calabrese  et al. (1997b) study are likely to be similar
to those in the Calabrese et al. (1989)/Barnes (1990)
study.
        The Hogan et  al. (1998)  study included
locations in the central part of the U.S. (an area along
the Kansas/Missouri border, and an area in  western
Illinois) and one  in the eastern  U.S.  (Palmerton,
Pennsylvania).  The only key study conducted in the
southern part  of the U.S. was Vermeer  and Frate
(1979).
        Children might be outside and have access
to soil in  a very wide range of weather  conditions
(Wong et  al.,  2000).   In the parts of the U.S. that
experience moderate temperatures year-round, soil
ingestion  rates  may be  fairly  evenly  distributed
throughout the year.  During conditions of deep snow
cover, extreme cold, or extreme heat,  children could
be expected to have minimal contact with outside
soil.  All children, regardless of location, could ingest
soils located indoors in plant containers, or outdoor
soil tracked inside buildings  by human or  animal
building occupants. Davis et al. (1990) did not find a
clear or consistent association between the number of
hours spent indoors per day and soil ingestion, but
reported a consistent association between spending a
greater number of hours outdoors and high (defined
as the uppermost tertile) soil ingestion levels across
all three tracers used.
        The five key tracer element studies all took
place  in northern latitudes.   The temperature  and
precipitation patterns that occurred during these four
studies'  data  collection  periods were  difficult to
discern due to no mention of specific  data collection
dates in the published  articles.  The Calabrese et al.
(1989)/Barnes (1990) study  apparently took place in
mid- to late September 1987  in and  near Amherst,
Massachusetts;  Calabrese  et al. (1997a) apparently
took place in late September and early October 1992,
in Anaconda, Montana; Davis et al. (1990) took place
in July, August  and September 1987, in Richland,
Kennewick and  Pasco, Washington;  and Davis  and
Mirick (2006) took place in the same Washington
state location in late  July,  August and very early
September 1988  (raw data).   Inferring exact data
collection dates, a wide range of temperatures may
have occurred during the four studies'  data collection
periods  (daily lows from 22-60 °F and 25-48 °F, and
daily highs from 53-81 °F  and 55-88 °F in Calabrese
et  al.  (1989)  and  Calabrese  et   al.  (1997a),
respectively, and daily lows from 51-72 °F and 51 -
67 °F, and daily highs from 69-103 °F and 80-102 °F
in Davis et al. (1990) and Davis and Mirick (2006),
respectively) (National Climatic Data  Center, 2008).
Significant amounts of precipitation occurred during
Calabrese et al. (1989) (more than 0.1 inches per 24
hour  period)  on  several  days;  somewhat   less
precipitation was observed  during Calabrese  et al.
(1997a); precipitation  in  Kennewick and Richland
during the data collection periods of Davis  et al.
(1990) was almost nonexistent; there was no recorded
precipitation in Kennewick  or Richland during the
data collection period  for Davis and  Mirick (2006)
(National Climatic Data Center, 2008).
        The key biokinetic model comparison study
(Hogan et al.,  1998) targeted three locations in more
southerly  latitudes  (Pennsylvania,  southern  Illinois,
and southern Kansas/Missouri) than the five  tracer
element studies.   The  biokinetic model comparison
methodology   had  an advantage  over  the  tracer
element studies in  that the  study  represented long-
Page
5-26
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
term environmental  exposures  over periods up to
several years that would include a range of seasons
and climate conditions.
        A brief review of the representativeness of
the key studies' samples with respect to gender and
age  suggested  that  males  and  females  were
represented  roughly  equally in  those  studies for
which study subjects' gender was stated.  Children up
to age 8  years  were studied in  seven  of the nine
studies, with an  emphasis on  younger  children.
Wong  (1988)/Calabrese et al.  (1993) and Vermeer
and Frate  (1979) are the only studies with children 8
years or older.
        A brief review of the representativeness of
the  key    studies'   samples   with   respect  to
socioeconomic   status  and  racial/ethnic   identity
suggested  that  there  were  some  discrepancies
between  the study subjects and  the current U.S.
population of children age 0 to <21 years. The single
survey response study (Vermeer  and Frate (1979))
was specifically targeted toward a predominantly
rural black  population in  a  particular county in
Mississippi.    The  tracer  element  studies are of
predominantly  white  populations,  apparently with
limited representation from other racial and ethnic
groups.      The  Amherst,   Massachusetts   study
(Calabrese et al. 1989/Barnes 1990)  did not publish
the study participants' socioeconomic status or racial
and ethnic identities.  The socioeconomic level of the
Davis et al.  (1990)  studied children was reported to
be primarily of middle to high income. Self-reported
race and ethnicity of relatives of the children studied
(in most cases,  they were the parents of the children
studied) in  Davis  et al. (1990)  were  White  (86.5
percent), Asian (6.7 percent), Hispanic (4.8 percent),
Native  American  (1.0  percent),  and  Other  (1.0
percent), and the  91 married or living-as-married
respondents  identified their  spouses  as  White (86.8
percent), Hispanic (7.7 percent), Asian (4.4 percent),
and Other (1.1 percent).  Davis and Mirick (2006) did
not state the race and ethnicity of the follow-up study
participants, who were a subset of the original study
participants  from  Davis  et al.   (1990).   For the
Calabrese  et al.  (1997a) study in Anaconda, Montana,
population demographics were not presented in the
published  article. The study sample appeared to have
been drawn from a door-to-door census of Anaconda
residents that identified  642 toilet trained children
who were less than 72 months of age.  Of the 414
children participating in a companion study (out of
the  642  eligible   children  identified),  271  had
complete study  data for that companion study, and of
these 271, 97.4 percent were identified as white and
the remaining 2.6 percent were identified as native
American, black, Asian and  Hispanic (Hwang et al.,
1997).   The 64 children  in  the  Calabrese et al.
(1997a) study apparently were a stratified  random
sample drawn from the 642 children identified in the
door-to-door  census.    Presumably  these  children
identified as similar  races and  ethnicities to the
Hwang et al. (1997) study children. The Calabrese et
al. (1997b) study indicated that 11 of the 12 children
studied were white.

5.5     SUMMARY  OF  SOIL  AND  DUST
        INGESTION ESTIMATES FROM  KEY
        STUDIES
        Table 5-20 summarizes the  soil and  dust
ingestion estimates from the 9 key studies.  For the
U.S.  tracer element studies, in order to  compare
estimates that were calculated in a similar manner,
the summary is limited to estimates that use the same
basic algorithm of ((fecal and urine tracer content) -
(food and  medication tracer content))/(soil  or  dust
tracer concentration).   Note  that several  of the
published reanalyses suggest different variations on
these algorithms, or suggest adjustments that should
be  made  for various reasons.   However, because
individual observations were not available from the
studies  with  reanalyzed  data,  those   reanalyzed
estimates were  not included in the summary table.
Other reanalyses suggested that omitting some of the
data  according  to  statistical  criteria would  be  a
worthwhile exercise. Due to the current state of the
science  regarding soil and  dust ingestion estimates,
U.S. EPA does  not advise  omitting  an individual's
soil  or dust ingestion estimate, based on statistical
criteria, at this point in time.
        There is a wide range of estimated soil and
dust ingestion across key studies.  Note that some  of
the  soil-pica ingestion estimates  from  the tracer
element studies  were  consistent with the estimated
mean soil ingestion from the survey response  study
of geophagy behavior.  Also note that the biokinetic
model comparison methodology's confirmation  of
central  tendency soil and  dust ingestion  default
assumptions corresponded roughly with some of the
central tendency  tracer element study estimates.

5.6     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5
Agency for Toxic  Substances  and Disease Registry
        (ATSDR).  (2001) Summary report for the
        ATSDR  soil-pica  workshop.     ATSDR,
        Atlanta, GA.  March 20, 2001. Available on
        line                                   at:
        http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/NEWS/soilpica.html.
Barltrop, D. (1966) The Prevalence of Pica.  Amer J
        Dis Child  112:116-123.
Barnes, R. (1990) Childhood  Soil Ingestion:  How
        Much  Dirt  Do Kids  Eat?   Anal Chem
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           5-27
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
        62:1024-1033.
Binder,   S.;  Sokal,  D.;  Maughan,  D.    (1986)
        Estimating soil ingestion:  the use of tracer
        elements in estimating the amount of soil
        ingested by young children. Arch Environ
        Health 41(6):341-345.
Bronstein ES, Dollar J.  1974. Pica in pregnancy. J
        Med Assoc Ga 63:332-335.
Bruhn,  C.M.;  Pangborn, R.M.  (1971)   Reported
        incidence of pica among migrant families. J
        Am Diet Assoc 58:417-420.
Calabrese,   E.J.,   and  Stanek,    EJ.   (1992a)
        Distinguishing  outdoor soil  ingestion from
        indoor dust ingestion  in  a soil picachild.
        Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 15:83-85.
Calabrese, E.J., and Stanek, EJ. (1992b) What
        proportion of household dust is derived from
        outdoor soil?  J Soil Contam  l(3):253-263.
Calabrese, E.J., and Stanek, EJ. (1993) Soil pica: not
        a  rare event.   J Environ  Sci  Health
        A28(2):373-384.
Calabrese, EJ., and Stanek, EJ. (1995)  Resolving
        intertracer inconsistencies  in soil ingestion
        estimation.     Environ  Health  Perspect
        103(5):454-456
Calabrese, EJ.; Barnes, R.; Stanek, EJ. Ill; Pastides,
        H.; Gilbert, C.; Veneman,  P.;  Wang, X.;
        Lasztity, A.; Kostecki, PT.  (1989)   How
        much  soil do young children ingest:   an
        epidemiologic   study.      In:   Petroleum
        Contaminated   Soils,  Lewis   Publishers,
        Chelsea, MI.   pp.  363-397 and in:  Regul
        Toxicol Pharm 10:123-137.
Calabrese,  EJ.; Stanek, EJ.;  Gilbert,  C.E.;  and
        Barnes, R. (1990)  Preliminary  adult  soil
        ingestion estimates:  Results of a pilot study.
        Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 12:88-95.
Calabrese, EJ.; Stanek, EJ.; Gilbert, C.E.   (1991)
        Evidence   of  Soil-Pica   behavior   and
        Quantification of Soil Ingested.  Hum Exp
        Toxicol 10:245-249.
Calabrese, EJ.; Stanek, EJ.; Barnes, R.M.  (1996)
        Methodology  to estimate  the  amount  and
        particle size of soil ingested by children:
        Implications  for  exposure  assessment  at
        waste  sites.  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 24:
        264-268.
Calabrese, EJ.; Stanek, EJ.;  Pekow, P.; Barnes, R.M.
        (1997a)    Soil  ingestion  estimates  for
        children  residing   on  a  Superfund site.
        Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 36:258-268.
Calabrese, EJ.; Stanek, EJ.; Barnes, R.M.  (1997b)
        Soil ingestion  rates in children identified by
        parental  observation  as   likely  high  soil
        ingesters.  J Soil Contam 6(3): 271-279.
Carlisle, E.  (1980) Biochemical and Morphological
        Changes  Associated  with  Long  Bone
        Abnormalities in Silicon Deficiency. J Nutr
        110:1046-1055.
Clausing,  P.;  Brunekreef,  B.;  Van  Wijnen,  J.H.
        (1987)    A  method for  estimating  soil
        ingestion  by children.   Int Arch Occup
        Environ Health 59(l):73-82.
Cooksey, N.R. (1995)  Pica and olfactory craving of
        pregnancy: how deep are the secrets? Birth
        22(3):129-137.
Cooper, M.  (1957) Present Study.  Chapter In: Pica:
        A survey of the  historical literature as well
        as reports from the fields  of veterinary
        medicine  and  anthropology,  the present
        study of  pica  in  young children, and  a
        discussion of its pediatric and psychological
        implications.    Springfield, IL: Charles C.
        Thomas.
Danford, D.E.  (1982) Pica and nutrition. Annu Rev
        Nutr 2:303-322.
Danford, D.E. (1983) Pica and zinc.  Zinc Deficiency
        in Human Subjects,  pp.  185-195.   New
        York: Alan R. Liss Inc.
Davis, S.; Waller,  P.; Buschbom,  R.;  Ballou,  J.;
        White, P.  (1990) Quantitative estimates of
        soil ingestion in normal children between
        the ages of 2 and 7 years: population based
        estimates  using  aluminum,  silicon,   and
        titanium as  soil tracer elements.   Arch
        Environ Health 45:112-122.
Davis, S.  and Mirick, D. (2006) Soil ingestion in
        children and  adults  in the  same family.  J
        Exp Anal Environ Epidem 16:63-75.
Dickens, D. and  Ford, R.N.  (1942) Geophagy  (Dirt
        Eating)  Among  Mississippi Negro School
        Children. Amer Soc
        Rev 7:59-65.
Dominy, N.J.; Davoust,  E.;  Minekus, M.  (2003)
        Adaptive function of soil consumption: an in
        vitro study modeling the human stomach
        and small intestine.   J Exp Biol  207(Pt 2):
        319-324.
Ferguson,  J.  H.  and  A.  Keaton, II.  (1950)   Diet
        patterns. New Orleans Medical and Surgical
        Journal,  103:81.
Grigsby, R. K.,  Thyer, B.A., Waller,  R.J., Johston,
        GA. Jr. (1999) Chalk  eating  in  middle
        Georgia:  A  culture-bound  syndrome  of
        pica?  Southern Medical  Journal 92(2):
        190-192.
Glickman, L.T., Chaudry, I.U., Costantino, J., Clack,
        F.B., Cypess. R.H., Winslow, L.  (1981) Pica
        Patterns,Toxocariasis,  and Elevated Blood
        Lead in Children.   Am J  Trop Med Hyg
Page
5-28
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
        30(1):77-80.
Harris, S.G.; Harper, B.L.  (1997) A Native American
        Exposure Scenario.   Risk Anal 17(6):789-
        795.
Hawley, J.K. (1985) Assessment of Health Risk from
        Exposure to Contaminated Soil. Risk Anal
        5(4): 289-302.
Hogan, K.; Marcus, A.; Smith, R.; White, P. (1998)
        Integrated exposure uptake biokinetic model
        for lead in  children: empirical comparisons
        with epidemiologic  data.  Environ Health
        Perspect 106(Supp 6): 1557-1567.
Hooda, P.; Henry, C.; Seyoum, T.; Armstrong, L.; and
        Fowler, M.   (2004) The potential impact of
        soil ingestion on human  mineral nutrition.
        Sci Total Environ 333:74-87.
Hook, E.B. (1978)  Dietary  cravings and aversions
        during pregnancy.   Am  J  of Clini Nutri
        31:1355-1362.
Hwang, Y.-H.; Bornschein, R.L.; Grote, J.; Menrath,
        W.; and  Roda,  S.   (1997) Environmental
        Arsenic  Exposure  of  Children  around a
        Former Copper  Smelter Site.  Environ Res
        72:72-81.
Hyman, S.L.; Fisher, W.; Mercugliano, M.; Cataldo,
        M.F.  (1990) Children With Self-Injurious
        Behavior. Pediatrics 85:437-441.
ICRP (2002).  Basic anatomical  and  physiological
        data for use  in radiological  protection:
        reference  values:  ICRP Publication   89.
        Annals of the ICRP 32 (3-4): 1-277.
Jugdaohsingh,  R.; Anderson, S.; Tucker, K.; Elliott,
        H.; Kiel,  D.;  Thompson,  R.;  Powell,  J.
        (2002) Dietary silicon intake and absorption.
        AmJClinNutr 75(5): 887-893.
Klitzman,S., Sharma,A., Nicaj,L., Vitkevich,
        R., Leighton, J.  (2002)  Lead  poisoning
        among pregnant women in New York City:
        risk factors  and screening practices. J Urban
        Health.79(2):225-237.
Kinnell, H.G. (1985) Pica as a Feature of Autism. Br J
        Psychiatry 147:80-82.
Kissel, J.C., Shirai, J.H., Richter, K.Y, Fenske, R.A.
        (1998) Empirical Investigation of Hand-to-
        Mouth  Transfer  of  Soil  Bull  Environ
        Contam Toxicol 60:379-86.
Korman,  S. (1990) Pica as a presenting symptom in
        childhood celiac disease. Am J Clin Nutr
        51:139-141.
 Lasztity, A.; Wang, X.;  Viczian, M.; Israel, Y; and
        Barnes,  R. (1989)  Inductively  Coupled
        Plasma  Spectrometry  in  the  Study  of
        Childhood  Soil  Ingestion.  J  Anal Atomic
        Spectrom 4:737-742.
Manton, W.I.; Angle, C.R.; Stanek, K.L.; Reese, Y.R.;
        Kuehnemann, T.J.  (2000)  Acquisition and
        Retention  of Lead  by Young  Children.
        Environ Res Sec A 82:60-80.
Marmor, M.,  Glickman,  L., Shofer, F., Faich, L.A.,
        Rosenberg, C., Cornblatt, B., Friedman, S.
        (1987) Toxocara canis Infection of Children:
        Epidemiologic   and   Neuropsychologic
        Findings. Am J Public Health 77:554-559.
Melhave, L.;  Schneider, T; Kjsrgaard, S.K.; Larsen,
        L.; Norn,  S.;  Jergensen, O. (2000) House
        dust  in seven Danish offices.  Atmospher
        Environ 34:4767-4779.
National  Climatic  Data  Center  (2008).    U.S.
        Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
        and  Atmospheric Administration,  National
        Environmental   Satellite,    Data    and
        Information  Service.   Data Set TD3200:
        U.S.  Cooperative Summary of the Day Data,
        Daily Surface  Data.   Accessed online at:
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/station
        locator.html on March 7-13, 2008.
Nelson,  S.;  Greene,  T;  Ernhart,  C.B.   (1996)
        Toxocara canis  Infection in Preschool Age
        Children:  Risk  Factors  and the  Cognitive
        Development    of    Preschool   Children.
        Neurotoxicol Teratol 18(2): 167-174.
Obialo, C.I., Crowell, A.K., Wen, X.J., Conner, A.C.,
        Simmons,  E.L.  (2001)   Clay  pica has no
        hematologic  or  metabolic  correlate  in
        chronic hemodialysis patients.  J Ren Nutr.
Parnell,  C.B.;   Jones,  D.D.;  Rutherford,  R.D.;
        Goforth, KJ.  (1986) Physical Properties of
        Five Grain Dust  Types.   Environ Health
        Perspect 66: 183-188.
Powell, J.J.; Ainley, C.C.; Harvey, R.S.; Mason, I.M.;
        Kendall, M.D.; Sankey, E.A.; Dhillon, A.P;
        Thompson, R.P (1996)  Characterisation of
        inorganic microparticles in pigment cells of
        human gut associated lymphoid tissue.  Gut
        (38):390-395.
Robischon, P. (1971)  Pica Practice and Other Hand-
        Mouth    Behavior     and    Children's
        Developmental Level. Nurs Res 20(1):4-16.
Shepherd, N.A.; Crocker, PR.; Smith, A.P; Levison,
        D.A.  (1987) Exogenous pigment in Peyer's
        patches. HumPathol 18(l):50-54.
Simpson, E., Mull, J.D., Longley, E., East, J. (2000)
        Pica  during   pregnancy  in  low-income
        women  born  in  Mexico.  West  J Med.
        173(l):20-24.
Smulian, J.C.; Motiwala, S.; Sigman, R.K.  (1995)
        Pica in a rural obstetric  population.  South
        MedJ88(12):1236-1240.
Stanek, E.J.,  and Calabrese, E.J.  (1995a)  Daily
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          5-29
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                             Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
        estimates  of soil  ingestion  in children.
        Environ Health Perspect 103(3):276-285.
Stanek,  E.J.,  and  Calabrese,  E.J.  (1995b)  Soil
        ingestion   estimates   for  use   in  site
        evaluations based on the best tracer method.
        Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1:133-156.
Stanek,  E.J., and  Calabrese, E.J. (2000) Daily soil
        ingestion  estimates  for  children   at  a
        Superfund site. Risk Anal 20(5): 627-635.
Stanek,  E.J.; Calabrese, E.J.; Mundt, K.; Pekow, P.;
        Yeatts, K.B. (1998)  Prevalence  of  Soil
        Mouthing/Ingestion     among    Healthy
        Children  Aged  1 to 6.   J  Soil Contam
        7(2):227-242.
Stanek,  E.J.; Calabrese, E.J.; Barnes, R. (1999) Soil
        ingestion estimates for children in Anaconda
        using   trace  element  concentrations  in
        different  particle  size  fractions.   Human
        Ecol Risk Assess 5(3): 547-558.
Stanek,  E.J.; Calabrese,  E.J.;  Zorn, M.   (2001a)
        Biasing factors for simple soil ingestion
        estimates in mass  balance  studies  of soil
        ingestion.  Hum Ecol  Risk Assess   7(2):
        329-355.
Stanek,  E.J.; Calabrese, E.J.; Zorn, M.  (2001b) Soil
        ingestion distributions for Monte Carlo risk
        assessment in children.  Hum  Ecol Risk
        Assess 7(2): 357-368.
USD A.  (2008)  Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources
        Conservation Service, United States
        Department   of Agriculture,  Web   Soil
        Survey, accessed February 25, 2008.
U.S. DHHS (1981a) U.S. Department of Health and
        Human Services, Public  Health  Service,
        Centers for Disease Control, National Center
        for Health Statistics.  Public Use Data Tape
        Documentation:      Medical     History
        Questionnaire, Ages  1-11, Tape  Number
        4067.   National  Health   and   Nutrition
        Examination Survey, 1971-1975. May 1981.
        Hyattsville, MD.
U.S. DHHS (1981b) U.S. Department of Health and
        Human Services, Public  Health  Service,
        Centers for Disease Control, National Center
        for Health Statistics.  Public Use Data Tape
        Documentation:      Medical     History
        Questionnaire, Ages  12-74, Tape  Number
        4081.     National  Health  and  Nutrition
        Examination Survey, 1971-1975.  May 1981.
        Hyattsville, MD.
U.S. DHHS (1985a) U.S. Department of Health and
        Human Services, Public  Health  Service,
        Centers for Disease Control, National Center
        for Health Statistics.  Public Use Data Tape
        Documentation: Medical History 6 Months -
        11 Years,  Tape Number 5010.  National
        Health and Nutrition Examination  Survey,
        1976-1980. May 1985. Hyattsville, MD.
U.S. DHHS (1985b) U.S. Department of Health and
        Human  Services,  Public Health  Service,
        Centers for Disease Control, National Center
        for Health Statistics.  Public Use Data Tape
        Documentation: Medical History Ages 12-
        74 Years, Tape Number  5020.  National
        Health and Nutrition Examination  Survey,
        1976-1980. May 1985. Hyattsville, MD.
U.S. DOC (2008)  U.S.  Department of Commerce,
        Bureau of the Census, Population Division.
        Table 2: Annual Estimates of the Population
        by Sex  and  Selected Age Groups  for the
        United States: April 1, 2000  to July  1, 2007
        (NC-EST2007-02).
U.S. EPA (1994a) Guidance Manual  for the  IEUBK
        Model for Lead in Children.  Washington,
        DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        Office of  Solid  Waste  and  Emergency
        Response.  EPA540/R-93/081.
U.S. EPA (1994b) Technical Support Document:
        Parameters and  Equations  Used  in the
        Integrated  Exposure   Uptake   Biokinetic
        (IEUBK) Model for  Lead  in  Children (v
        0.99d).    Washington,     D.C.:     U.S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Technical
        Review Workgroup for Lead with assistance
        from  the  Environmental   Criteria   and
        Assessment Office, Research Triangle  Park,
        NC.  EPA 9285.7-22.
U.S. EPA.  (1996)  Soil Screening Guidance: User's
        Guide.       Washington,    DC:    U.S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
        Solid Waste  and  Emergency  Response.
        Publication 9355.4-23.
U.S. EPA. (2005) Guidance on selecting age groups
        for  monitoring and  assessing childhood
        exposures  to  environmental contaminants.
        Washington,   DC.:   U.S.   Environmental
        Protection Agency, Office of Research and
        Development. EPA/630/P-03/003F.
Van Dyck, K.; Robberecht, H.; Van  Cauwenburgh,
        R.; Van Vlaslaer, V;  Deelstra, H.  (2000)
        Indication of silicon essentiality in humans:
        serum concentrations  in  Belgian  children
        and adults, including pregnant women. Biol
        Trace Elem Res 77(l):25-32.
Van Wijnen,   J.H.; Clausing,  P.;  Brunekreff,  B.
        (1990) Estimated soil ingestion by children.
        Environ Res 51:147-162.
Vermeer, D.E.; Frate,  D.A.   (1979)   Geophagia in
        rural   Mississippi:     environmental   and
        cultural     contexts    and    nutritional
Page
5-30
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
        implications. Am J Clin Nutr 32:2129-2135.
Von Lindern, I.; Spalinger, S.; Petroysan, V; von
        Braun,   M.   (2003)  Assessing  remedial
        effectiveness    through     the     blood
        lead: soil/dust lead relationship at the Bunker
        Hill Superfund Site in the  Silver Valley of
        Idaho.  Sci Total Environ 303(1-2): 139-170.
Wilson, M.J.    Clay  Mineralogical  and Related
        Characteristics of  Geophagic  Materials.
        (2003)  J Chem Ecol 29(7): 1525-1547.
Wong, M.S.  (1988) The Role of Environmental and
        Host Behavioural Factors  in Determining
        Exposure   to   Infection  with  Ascaris
        lumbricoldes and Trichuris  trichiura.  Ph.D.
        Thesis,  Faculty   of Natural   Sciences,
        University of the West Indies.  1988.
Wong, E.Y., Shirai, J.H.,  Garlock, T.J.,  and Kissel,
        J.C.   (2000)  Adult  proxy responses  to  a
        survey  of  children's dermal  soil contact
        activities.   J Exp Anal Environ Epidem
        10:509-517.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                 Page
July 2009	5-31
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-3. Soil, Dust and Soil + Dust Ingestion Estimates for Amherst, Massachusetts Study Children
Ingestion (mg/day)

iracer iMemenL
Aluminum
soil
dust
soil/dust
combined
Barium
soil
dust
soil/dust
combined
Manganese
soil
dust
soil/dust
combined
Silicon
soil
dust
soil/dust
combined
Vanadium
soil
dust
soil//dust
combined
Yttrium
soil
dust
soil/dust
combined
Zirconium
soil
dust
soil/dust
combined
Titanium
soil
dust
soil/dust
combined



64
64
64


64
64
64


64
64
64


64
64
64


62
64
62


62
64
62


62
64
62


64
64
64


Mean

153
317
154


32
31
29


-294
-1,289
-496


154
964
483


459
453
456


85
62
65


21
27
23


218
163
170


Median

29
31
30


-37
-18
-19


-261
-340
-340


40
49
49


96
127
123


9
15
11


16
12
11


55
28
30


SD

852
1,272
629


1,002
860
868


1,266
9,087
1,974


693
6,848
3,105


1,037
1,005
1,013


890
687
717


209
133
138


1,150
659
691


95th Percentile

223
506
478


283
337
331


788
2,916
3,174


276
692
653


1,903
1,918
1,783


106
169
159


110
160
159


1,432
1,266
1,059


Maximum

6,837
8,462
4,929


6,773
5,480
5,626


7,281
20,575
4,189


5,549
54,870
24,900


5,676
6,782
6,736


6,736
5,096
5,269


1,391
789
838


6,707
3,354
3,597

SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Calabrese et al.
1989.





Page
5-32
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-4. Amherst,
Tracer
element
Al
Ba
Mn
Si
Ti
V
Y
Zr
Massachusetts Soil-Pica Child's Daily

Week
74
458
2,221
142
1,543
1,269
147
86
Ingestion Estimates by Tracer and by Week (mg/day)
Estimated Soil Ingestion (mg/day)
1 Week 2
13,600
12,088
12,341
10,955
11,870
10,071
13,325
2,695
Source: Calabrese et al., 1991.
Table 5-5. Amherst, Massachusetts Soil-Pica Child's Tracer Ratios



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Source

Tracer Pairs

Mn/Ti
Ba/Ti
Si/Ti
V/Ti
Ai/Ti
Y/Ti
Mn/Y
Ba/Y
Si/Y
V/Y
Al/Y
Mn/Al
Ba/Al
Si/Al
V/A1
Si/V
Mn/Si
Ba/Si
Mn/Ba
Calabrese and Stanek,

Soil

208.368
187.448
148.117
14.603
18.410
8.577
24.293
21.854
17.268
1.702
2.146
11.318
10.182
8.045
0.793
10.143
1.407
1.266
1.112
1992a.
Ratio
Fecal

215.241
206.191
136.662
10.261
21.087
9.621
22.373
21.432
14.205
1.067
2.192
10.207
9.778
6.481
0.487
13.318
1.575
1.509
1.044


Dust

260.126
115.837
7.490
17.887
13.326
5.669
45.882
20.432
1.321
3.155
2.351
19.520
8.692
0.562
1.342
0.419
34.732
15.466
2.246

Estimated Residual Fecal
Tracers of Soil Origin as
Predicted by Specific
Tracer Ratios (%)
87
100
92
100
100
100
100
71
81
100
88
100
73
81
100
100
99
83
100

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 5-33
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-6. Van Wijnen et al., 1990 Limiting Tracer Method (LTM) Soil Ingestion Estimates for Sample of Dutch Children
Daycare Centers
Age (years) Sex

Birth to

lto<2

2to<3

3to<4

4to<5

All girls
All boys
Total
b
N
GM
LTM
GSD
NA
Source:
N
<1 Girls 3
Boys 1
Girls 20
Boys 17
Girls 34
Boys 17
Girls 26
Boys 29
Girls 1
Boys 4
86
72
162a
Age and/or sex not registered for 8 children;
Age not registered for 7 children; geometric
= Number of subjects.
= Geometric mean.
= Limiting tracer method.
= Geometric standard deviation.
= Not available.
Adapted from Van Wijnen et al., 1990.
GMLTM
(mg/day)
81
75
124
114
118
96
111
110
180
99
117
104
111
GSD LTM
(mg/day)
1.09
-
1.87
1.47
1.74
1.53
1.57
1.32
-
1.62
1.70
1.46
1.60

N
NA
NA
3
5
4
8
6
8
19
18
36
42
78b
Campgrounds
GMLTM
(mg/day)
NA
NA
207
312
367
232
164
148
164
136
179
169
174

GSD LTM
(mg/day)
NA
NA
1.99
2.58
2.44
2.15
1.27
1.42
1.48
1.30
1.67
1.79
1.73
one untransformed value = 0.
mean LTM value =140.















Page
5-34
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-7. Estimated Geometric Mean Limiting Tracer Method (LTM) Values of Children Attending Daycare Centers
According to Age, Weather Category, and Sampling Period
First Sampling Period

Weather Category



Bad
(>4 days/week
precipitation)

Reasonable
(2-3 days/week
precipitation)


Good
(<2 days/week
precipitation)



Age (years)



<1
lto<2
2to<3
4to<5
<1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<4
4to<5
<1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<4
4to<5


N


3
18
33
5





4
42
65
67
10
Estimated Geometric
Mean

LTM Value
(mg/day)
94
103
109
124





102
229
166
138
132
Second Sampling Period


N


3
33
48
6
1
10
13
19
1





Estimated Geometric
Mean

LTM Value
(mg/day)
67
80
91
109
61
96
99
94
61





N = Number of subjects.
LTM = Limiting tracer method.
Source: Van Wijnen et al.
1990.







Element
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
Minimum
Maximum
a
b
Source:
Table 5-8.
Mean
(mg/day)
38.9
82.4
245.5
38.9
245.5
Estimated Soil Ingestion for Sample of Washington State Children a
Median
(mg/day)
25.3
59.4
81.3
25.3
81.3
Standard Error of the
Mean
(mg/day)
14.4
12.2
119.7
12.2
119.7
Range
(mg/day)b
-279.0 to 904. 5
-404.0 to 534.6
-5,820.8 to 6,182.2
-5,820.8
6,182.2
Excludes three children who did not provide any samples (N=101).
Negative values occurred as a result of correction for non-soil sources of the tracer elements. For aluminum, lower end of range
published as 279.0 mg/day in article appears to be a typographical error that omitted the negative sign.
Adapted from Davis et al., 1990.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 5-35
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-9. Soil Ingestion Estimates for 64 Anaconda Children
Tracei
Al
Ce
La
Nd
Si
Ti
Y
Zr
P
SD
Note:
Source:

PI
-202.8
-219.8
-10,673
-387.2
-128.8
-15,736
-441.3
-298.3
Estimated Soil Ingestion (mg/day)
P50
-3.3
44.9
84.5
220.1
-18.2
11.9
32.1
-30.8
P75
17.7
164.6
247.9
410.5
1.4
398.2
85.0
17.7
P90
66.6
424.7
460.8
812.6
36.9
1,237.9
200.6
94.6
P95
94.3
455.8
639.0
875.2
68.9
1,377.8
242.6
122.8
Max
461.1
862.2
1,089.7
993.5
262.3
4,066.6
299.3
376.1
Mean
2.7
116.9
8.6
269.6
-16.5
-544.4
42.3
-19.6
SD
95.8
186.1
1,377.2
304.8
57.3
2,509.0
113.7
92.5
= Percentile.
= Standard deviation.
Negative values are a result of limitations in the methodology.
Calabrese et al., 1997a







Table 5- 10. Soil Inj
Study day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
jestion Estimates for Massachusetts
Al-based estimate
53
7,253
2,755
725
5
1,452
238
Child Displaying Soil
Si-based estimate
9
2,704
1,841
573
12
1,393
92
Pica Behavior (mg/day)
Ti-based estimate
153
5,437
2,007
801
21
794
84
Source: Calabrese et al., 1997b.
Page
5-36
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust

Participant
Childb


Mother0


Father11


Table 5-11. Mean and Median Soil
Ingestion (mg/day) by Family Member
Estimated Soil Ingestion8
Mean
Aluminum 36.7
Silicon 38.1
Titanium 206.9
Aluminum 92.1
Silicon 23.2
Titanium 359.0
Aluminum 68.4
Silicon 26.1
Titanium 624.9
Median
33.3
26.4
46.7
0
5.2
259.5
23.2
0.2
198.7
a For some study participants, estimated soil ingestion resulted in a negative value
tabulation and analysis.
c
i
Source:
(mg/day)
Std
35.4
31.4
277.5
218.3
37.0
421.5
129.9
49.0
835.0
— Maximum
107.9
95.0
808.3
813.6
138.1
1394.3
537.4
196.8
2899.1
These estimates have been set to 0 mg/day for
Results based on 12 children with complete food, excreta, and soil data.
Results based on 16 mothers with complete food, excreta, and soil data.
Results based on 17 fathers with complete food, excreta, and soil data.
Davis and Mirick 2006.



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 5-37
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-12. Estimated Soil Ingestion for Six High Soil
Child Month
11 1
2
3
4
12 1
2
3
4
14 1
2
3
4
18 1
2
3
4
22 1
2
3
4
27 1
2
3
4
= No data.
Source: Calabrese and Stanek, 1993.
Ingesting Jamaican Children
Estimated soil ingestion (mg/day)
55
1,447
22
40
0
0
7,924
192
1,016
464
2,690
898
30
10,343
4,222
1,404
0
5,341
0
48,314
60,692
51,422
3,782


Page
5-38
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-13. Estimated Daily Soil Ingestion for East Helena, Montana Children
Estimation
Method
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
Minimum
Source: Binder etal.,
Mean
(mg/day)
181
184
1,834
108
1986.
Median
(mg/day)
121
136
618
88

Standard Deviation
(mg/day)
203
175
3,091
121

Range
(mg/day)
25-1,324
31-799
4-17,076
4-708

95th Percentile
(mg/day)
584
578
9,590
386

Geometric Mean
(mg/day)
128
130
401
65

Table 5-14. Estimated Soil Ingestion for Sample of Dutch Nursery School Children
Child
1


2


3

4

5

6

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Arithmetic Mean
= No data.
Sample
Number
L3
L14
L25
L5
L13
L27
L2
L17
L4
Lll
L8
L21
L12
L16
L18
L22
LI
L6
L7
L9
L10
L15
L19
L20
L23
L24
L26


Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from Ti
(mg/day)
103
154
130
131
184
142
124
670
246
2,990
293
313
1,110
176
11,620
11,320
3,060
624
600
133
354
2,400
124
269
1,130
64
184
1,431

Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from Al
(mg/day)
300
211
23
_
103
81
42
566
62
65
_
-
693
-
_
77
82
979
200
-
195
-
71
212
51
566
56
232

Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from AIR
(mg/day)
107
172
-
71
82
84
84
174
145
139
108
152
362
145
120
-
96
111
124
95
106
48
93
274
84
-
-
129

Limiting Tracer
(mg/day)
103
154
23
71
82
81
42
174
62
65
108
152
362
145
120
77
82
111
124
95
106
48
71
212
51
64
56
105

Source: Adapted from Clausing et al., 1987.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 5-39
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Table 5-15. Estimated Soil Ingestion for Sample of Dutch Hospitalized, Bedridden Children
Child
1
2
3
4
5
6
Arithmetic Mean
Source: Adapted from Clausing
Sample
G5
G6
Gl
G2
G8
G3
G4
G7

et al., 1987.
Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from Ti
(mg/day)
3,290
4,790
28
6,570
2,480
28
1,100
58
2,293

Soil Ingestion as
Calculated from Al
(mg/day)
57
71
26
94
57
77
30
38
56

Limiting Tracer
(mg/day)
57
71
26
84
57
28
30
38
49

Table 5-16. Items Ingested by Low-Income Mexican-Born Women Who Practiced Pica During Pregnancy in
the United States (N = 46).
Item Ingested Number (%) Ingesting Items
Dirt
Bean stones8
Magnesium carbonate
Ashes
Clay
Ice
Otherb
N = Number of individuals reporting pica behavior.
a Little clods of dirt found among unwashed beans.
b Including eggshells, starch, paper, lipstick, pieces of clay pot,
Source: Simpson et al. 2000.
11 (24)
17(37)
8(17)
5(11)
4(9)
18(39)
17(37)
and adobe.

Page
5-40
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust
                  Table 5-17. Positive/negative Error (Bias) in Soil Ingestion Estimates in Calabrese et al. (1989) Study:
                                         Effect on Mean Soil Ingestion Estimate (mg/day)a
                                                               Negative Error
     Tracer       Lack of Fecal                   -,,..,,,   ..      -,,.,,,...
                     .     .   .     ,         b    Total Negative    Total Positive      T.T * u         r\- •  \\t       AJ--.JIM
                Sample on r mal   Other Causes        „  °           „             Net Error     Original Mean   Ad usted Mean
                   _f ,                              Error           Error
                   Study Day
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zirconium
14
15
82
66
8
6
11
6
187
55
26
91
25
21
269
121
34
97
43
41
282
432
22
5
+18
+20
+13
+311
-12
-92
153
154
218
459
85
21
136
133
208
148
97
113
 a         How to read table: for example, aluminum as a soil tracer displayed both negative and positive error. The cumulative total negative
          error is estimated to bias the mean estimate by 25 mg/day downward. However, aluminum has positive error biasing the original
          mean upward by 43 mg/day.  The net bias in the original mean was 18 mg/day positive bias.  Thus, the original 156 mg/day mean for
          aluminum should be corrected downward to 136 mg/day.
 b         Values indicate impact on mean of 128-subject-weeks in milligrams of soil ingested per day.

 Source:   Calabrese and Stanek, 1995.
               Table 5-18. Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates per Child for 64 Children (mg/day)
    Type of Estimate        Overall        Al          Ba         Mn        Si         Ti          V         Y        Zr
   Number of Samples        64          64          33          19         63         56          52         61        62
 Mean                      179         122         655       1,053       139        271        112        165       23

 25th Percentile               10           10          28         35          5           8          800

 50th Percentile               45           19          65         121        32         31         47        15        15

 75th Percentile               88           73          260        319        94         93         177        47        41

 90th Percentile               186         131         470        478        206        154        340        105       87

 95th Percentile               208         254         518       17,374       224        279        398        144       117

 Maximum                 7,703        4,692       17,991      17,374      4,975       12,055       845       8,976       208
 a         For each child, estimates of soil ingestion were formed on days 4-8 and the mean of these estimates was then  evaluated for each
          child. The values in the column "overall" correspond to percentiles of the distribution of these means over the 64 children. When
          specific trace elements were not excluded via the relative standard deviation criteria, estimates of soil ingestion based on the specific
          trace element were formed for 108 days for each subject.  The mean soil ingestion estimate was again evaluated. The distribution of
          these means for specific trace elements is shown.

 Source:   Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                               Page
July 2009	5-41
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 5 - Ingestion of Soil and Dust



Table 5-19. Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily Soil Ingestion
Based on Data for 64 Subjects Projected over 365 Days8
Range
50th Percentile (median)
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
1 - 2,268 mg/db
75 mg/d
l,190mg/d
1,751 mg/d
a Based on fitting a log-normal distribution to model daily soil ingestion values.
b Subject with pica excluded.
Source: Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a.

Table 5- 20. Summary of Estimates of Soil and Dust Ingestion by Adults and Children (0.5- 14 years old) from Key Studies (mg/day)
Sample Age
Size (years)
292 0.1 -<1

1 -<5
101 2-<8

64 l-<4



33 Adult

12 3-<8

64 l-<4

478 
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

       INHALATION RATES	6-1
       6.1     INTRODUCTION	6-1
       6.2     RECOMMENDATIONS	6-2
       6.3     KEY INHALATION RATE STUDIES	6-7
               6.3.1   Brochuetal.,2006a	6-7
               6.3.2   U.S. EPA, 2009	6-7
               6.3.3   Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell, 2007	6-9
               6.3.4   Stifelman, 2007	6-10
               6.3.5   Key Studies Combined	6-10
       6.4     RELEVANT INHALATION RATE STUDIES	6-10
               6.4.1   International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), 1981	6-10
               6.4.2   U.S. EPA, 1985 	6-11
               6.4.3   Shamooetal., 1990	6-11
               6.4.4   Shamooetal., 1991	6-12
               6.4.5   Linnetal., 1992	6-13
               6.4.6   Shamooetal., 1992	6-14
               6.4.7   Spier etal., 1992	6-14
               6.4.8   Adams, 1993	6-15
               6.4.9   Layton, 1993	6-15
               6.4.10  Linnetal., 1993	6-17
               6.4.11   Rusconi et al., 1994	6-18
               6.4.12  Price etal., 2003	6-19
               6.3.13  Brochuetal.,2006b	6-19
       6.5     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6	6-20
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                            Page
July 2009                                                                                  6-i
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                                           LIST OF TABLES

Table 6-1.       Recommended Long-Term Exposure (More Than 30 Days) Values for Inhalation
                (Males and Females Combined)	6-3
Table 6-2.       Recommended Short-Term Exposure (Less Than 30 Days) Values for Inhalation
                (Males and Females Combined)	6-4
Table 6-3.       Confidence in Recommendations for Inhalation Rates	6-6
Table 6-4.       Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (nrVday) for Free-living
                Normal-weight Males and Females Aged 2.6 months to 96 years 	6-22
Table 6-5.       Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (nrVday) for Free-living Normal-weight
                Males,  Females, and Males and Females Combined	6-23
Table 6-6.       Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (nrVday) for Free-living
                Normal-weight and Overweight/obese Males and Females Aged 4 to 96 years	6-25
Table 6-7.       Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates per Unit of Body Weight
                (m3/kg-day) for Free-living Normal-weight Males and Females Aged 2.6 months
                to 96 years 	6-26
Table 6-8.       Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (m3/kg-day) for Free-
                living Normal-weight and Overweight/obese Males and Females Aged 4 to 96 years	6-27
Table 6-9.       Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates for Newborns Aged 1 Month or Less	6-28
Table 6-10.      Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Inhalation Rate in Males, by Age Category	6-29
Table 6-11.      Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Inhalation Rate in Females, by Age Category	6-30
Table 6-12.      Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (nrVday) for Males, Females and
                Males and Females Combined	6-31
Table 6-13.      Descriptive Statistics for Average Ventilation Rate While Performing Activities Within the
                Specified Activity Category, for Males by Age Category	6-33
Table 6-14.      Descriptive Statistics for Average Ventilation Rate While Performing Activities Within the
                Specified Activity Category, for Females by Age Category	6-35
Table 6-15.      Descriptive Statistics for Duration of Time (hours/day) Spent Performing Activities
                Within the Specified Activity  Category, by Age and Gender Categories	6-37
Table 6-16.      Nonnormalized Daily Inhalation Rates (nrVday) Derived Using Layton's (1993)
                Method and CSFII Energy Intake Data	6-39
Table 6-17.      Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (nrYday) for Males and Females
                Combined	6-40
Table 6-18.      Summary of Institute of Medicine Energy Expenditure Recommendations
                for Active and Very Active People with Equivalent Inhalation Rates	6-41
Table 6-19.      Mean Inhalation Rate Values (nrYday) for Males, Females, and Males and Females
                Combined	6-42
Table 6-20.      Mean Inhalation Rate Values (nrYday) from Key Studies for Males and Females
                Combined	6-43
Table 6-21.      95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (nrVday) from Key Studies for Males and Females
                Combined	6-44
Table 6-22.      Daily Inhalation Rates Estimated From Daily Activities	6-45
Table 6-23.      Selected Inhalation Rate Values During Different Activity Levels Obtained From Various
                Literature Sources	6-46
Table 6-24.      Summary of Human Inhalation Rates by Activity Level (nrVhour)	6-47
Table 6-25.      Estimated Minute Ventilation Associated with Activity Level for Average Male Adult	6-47
Table 6-26.      Activity Pattern Data Aggregated for Three Microenvironments by Activity Level for
                All Age Groups	6-48
Table 6-27.      Summary of Daily Inhalation Rates Grouped by Age and Activity Level	6-48
Table 6-28.      Distribution Pattern of Predicted VR and EVR (equivalent ventilation rate) for 20 Outdoor
                Workers	6-49
Table 6-29.      Distribution Pattern of Inhalation rate by Location and Activity Type for 20 Outdoor
                Workers	6-50
Table 6-30.      Calibration and Field Protocols for Self-monitoring of Activities Grouped by
                Subject Panels	6-51
Page
6-ii
Exposure Factors Handbook
                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                                     LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 6-31.      Subject Panel Inhalation Rates by Mean VR, Upper Percentiles, and Self-estimated
                Breathing Rates	6-52
Table 6-32.      Actual Inhalation Rates Measured at Four Ventilation Levels	6-52
Table 6-3 3.      Distribution of Predicted Inhalation Rates by Location and Activity Levels for Elementary
                and High School Students	6-53
Table 6-34.      Average Hours Spent Per Day in a Given Location and Activity Level for Elementary and
                High School Students	6-54
Table 6-35.      Distribution Patters of Daily Inhalation Rates for Elementary (EL) and High School (HS)
                Students Grouped by Activity Level 	6-54
Table 6-36.      Mean Minute Inhalation Rate (nrVminute) by Group and Activity for Laboratory Protocols	6-55
Table 6-37.      Mean Minute Inhalation Rate (nrVminute) by Group and Activity for Field Protocols	6-55
Table 6-38.      Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hour) by Age Group and Activity Levels for
                Laboratory Protocols	6-56
Table 6-39.      Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hour) by Age Group and Activity Levels in
                Field Protocols	6-57
Table 6-40.      Comparisons of Estimated Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) with Average Food-energy
                Intakes (EFD) for Individuals Sampled in the 1977-78 NFCS	6-58
Table 6-41.      Daily  Inhalation Rates Calculated from Food-energy Intakes	6-59
Table 6-42.      Statistics of the Age/gender Cohorts Used to  Develop Regression Equations for Predicting
                Basal  Metabolic Rates (BMR)	6-60
Table 6-43.      Daily  Inhalation Rates Obtained from the Ratios of Total Energy Expenditure to Basal
                Metabolic Rate (BMR)	6-60
Table 6-44.      Daily  Inhalation Rates Based on Time-Activity Survey	6-61
Table 6-45.      Inhalation Rates for Short-term Exposures	6-62
Table 6-46.      Distributions of Individual and Group Inhalation/Ventilation Rate for Outdoor Workers	6-63
Table 6-47.      Individual Mean Inhalation  Rate (m3/hour) by Serf-Estimated Breathing Rate or Job Activity
                Category for Outdoor Workers	6-63
Table 6-48.      Mean, Median, and SD of Inhalation Rate According to Waking or Sleeping in 618
                Infants and Children Grouped in Classes of Age	6-64
Table 6-49.      Distribution of Physiological Daily  Inhalation Rate (nrYday) Percentiles for Free-Living
                Underweight Adolescents and Women Aged  11-55 Years During Pregnancy and Post
                Partum Weeks	6-66
Table 6-50.      Distribution of Physiological Daily  Inhalation Rate (nrYday) Percentiles for Free-Living
                Normal Weight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy and Post
                Partum Weeks	6-67
Table 6-51.      Distribution of Physiological Daily  Inhalation Rate (nrYday) Percentiles for Free-Living
                Overweight/Obese Weight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy
                and Post Partum Weeks	6-68
Table 6-52.      Distribution of Physiological Daily  Inhalation Rate (nrYkg-day) Percentiles for Free-Living
                Underweight Adolescents and Women Aged  11-55 Years During Pregnancy and Post Partum
                Weeks	6-69
Table 6-53.      Distribution of Physiological Daily  Inhalation Rate (nrYkg-day) Percentiles for Free-Living
                Normal Weight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy and Post
                Partum Weeks	6-70
Table 6-54.      Distribution of Physiological Daily  Inhalation Rate (nrYkg-day) Percentiles for Free-Living
                Overweight/Obese Weight Adolescents and Women Aged 11-55 Years During Pregnancy
                and Post Partum Weeks	6-71
Table 6-55.      Concordance of Age Groupings Among Key Studies 	6-72
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-iii
-------
                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                 Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                                      LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 6-1.     5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Gentiles by Age in Awake Subjects	6-65
Figure 6-2.     5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Gentiles by Age in Asleep Subjects	6-65
Page                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook
6-iv                                                                               July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
6       INHALATION RATES
6.1     INTRODUCTION
        Ambient and indoor air are potential sources
of exposure to toxic substances. Adults and children
can be exposed to contaminated air during a variety
of activities in different environments. They may be
exposed to contaminants in ambient air, and may also
inhale  chemicals from the  indoor use  of  various
consumer products.  Due to  their size, physiology,
and  activity level, the  inhalation rates of children
differ from those of adults.
        Infants  and  children have  a  higher resting
metabolic rate and oxygen consumption rate per unit
of body  weight  than adults,  because  of their rapid
growth and relatively larger lung surface area per unit
of body weight that requires  cooling.  For example,
the oxygen consumption rate  for  a  resting infant
between one week and one year of age is 7 milliliters
per kilogram of body  weight (mL/kg)  per  minute,
while the rate for an adult under the same conditions
is 3-5 mL/kg per minute (WHO, 1986).  Thus, while
greater amounts  of air  and pollutants are inhaled by
adults than children over similar time periods on an
absolute basis, the volume of air passing through the
lungs of a resting infant is  up to  twice that of a
resting adult on a body weight basis.
        The   Agency   defines  exposure   as  the
chemical concentration at the boundary  of the body
(U.S. EPA, 1992).   In the  case  of inhalation, the
situation is complicated by  the  fact that  oxygen
exchange  with carbon  dioxide takes place in the
distal portion of the  lung.   The  anatomy  and
physiology of the  respiratory system as well as the
characteristics of the inhaled agent diminishes the
pollutant concentration in inspired air (potential dose)
such that the amount of a  pollutant that actually
enters the body  through the  lung (internal dose)  is
less than that measured at the boundary of the body.
A detailed discussion of this concept can be found in
Guidelines for  Exposure Assessment  (U.S.  EPA,
1992).    When  constructing  risk  assessments  that
concern the inhalation route of exposure, one must be
aware of any adjustments that have been employed in
the  estimation  of  the pollutant  concentration  to
account for this reduction in potential dose.
        Children's inhalation dosimetry  and health
effects were  topics  of discussion  at a U.S. EPA
workshop held in June 2006 (Foos and Sonawane,
2008).  Age related differences in lung structure and
function, breathing patterns, and how these affect the
inhaled  dose  and the deposition of particles in the
lung are important factors in assessing  risks from
inhalation exposures (Foos et al., 2008).  Children
may have  a  lesser nasal contribution to breathing
during rest and while performing various activities.
The uptake of particles in the nasal airways is also
less efficient in children.  Thus, the deposition  of
particles in the lower respiratory tract may be greater
(Foos et al., 2008).
        Inclusion of this chapter in the Exposure
Factors Handbook does not imply that assessors will
always need to select and use inhalation rates  when
evaluating  exposure  to  air  contaminants.    For
example, it is unnecessary to calculate inhaled dose
when using dose-response factors from the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA,  1994),
because  the   IRIS   methodology  accounts for
inhalation  rates  in  the development  of "dose-
response" relationships.  Information in this chapter
may be used by  toxicologists in their derivation  of
human equivalent concentrations.  When using IRIS
for inhalation  risk  assessments, "dose-response"
relationships    require   only   an   average   air
concentration to evaluate health concerns:

•       For non-carcinogens, IRIS uses Reference
        Concentrations (RfCs) which are expressed
        in concentration units. Hazard  is evaluated
        by comparing the inspired air concentration
        to the RfC.
•       For carcinogens, IRIS uses unit risk values
        which are expressed in inverse concentration
        units.  Risk is evaluated by multiplying the
        unit risk by the inspired air concentration.

Detailed descriptions of the  IRIS methodology for
derivation of inhalation reference concentrations can
be found in two  methods manuals produced by the
Agency (U.S. EPA, 1992; 1994).
        The Superfund Program has also updated  its
approach for determining inhalation risk, eliminating
the use of inhalation rates when evaluating exposure
to air contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2008).   The current
methodology  recommends that risk assessors use the
concentration of the chemical  in air as the exposure
metric  (e.g.,  mg/m3),  instead of the   intake  of a
contaminant in  air based on inhalation rate and body
weight (e.g., mg/kg-day).
        Recommended inhalation rates (both  long-
and  short-term) are provided in the next section,
along   with  the  confidence ratings   for   these
recommendations. These recommendations are  based
on four key studies identified by U.S.  EPA for this
factor.  Long-term exposure is repeated exposure for
more  than 30 days, up to approximately 10% of the
life span in humans (more than 30 days). Long-term
inhalation rates for  adults and children (including
infants) are presented as daily rates (m3/day).  Short-
term exposure is repeated exposure for more than 24
hours, up to 30 days.  Short-term inhalation rates are
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             6-1
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                         Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
reported for adults and children (including infants)
performing   various   activities   in   nrVminute.
Following the recommendations, the available studies
(both key and relevant studies) on inhalation rates are
summarized.

6.2     RECOMMENDATIONS
        The recommended inhalation rates for adults
and  children  are based  on three recent studies
(Brochu et  al.,  2006a;   U.S.  EPA,  2009;  and
Stifelman, 2007), as well  as an additional study  of
children (Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell, 2007).  These
studies   represent  an  improvement  upon  those
previously used for recommended inhalation rates in
previous versions of this handbook, because they use
a large  data set  that is representative of the United
States  as a  whole and  consider the  correlation
between body weight and inhalation rate.
        The selection of inhalation rates to be used
for exposure assessments depends on the age of the
exposed population and the specific  activity levels of
this  population  during various exposure  scenarios.
The  recommended long-term values for adults and
children (including  infants)  for   use  in  various
exposure scenarios are presented in Table 6-1. For
children, the age  groups  included  are  from EPAs
Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring
and    Assessing    Childhood     Exposures     to
Environmental  Contaminants (U.S.  EPA,  2005a).
Concordance between  the age groupings  used for
adults and children in this  handbook and the original
age groups in the key studies is shown in Table 6-55.
As shown in Table 6-1, the daily average inhalation
rates for long-term exposures for children (males and
females combined, unadjusted for body weight) range
from 3.5 m3/day for children from 1 to <3 months to
16.3 nrVday for children aged 16 to  <21 years. Mean
values for adults range from 12.2 nrVday (81  years
and older) to 16.0 nrVday (31 to <51 years). The 95th
percentile values for children range  from 5.8 nrVday
(1 to <3 months) to 24.6  nrVday (16 to <21 years)
and for adults range from  15.7 nrVday (81 years and
older) to 21.4 nrVday (31 to <41 years). The  mean
and  95th percentile values  shown  in  Table 6-1
represent averages of the inhalation rate data from the
key studies for which data were available for selected
age groups.  It should be noted that there may be a
high degree of uncertainty associated with the upper
percentiles.  These values  represent unusually  high
estimates  of caloric intake  per day,  and  are  not
representative  of the average adult or  child.   For
example, using Layton's equation (Layton, 1993) for
estimating metabolically consistent inhalation rates to
calculate caloric equivalence (see Section 6.4.9), the
95th percentile value for 16 to <21 year old children is
greater than 4,000 kcal/day (Stifelman, 2003). All of
the 95th percentile values listed in Table 6-1 represent
unusually  high  inhalation  rates   for  long-term
exposures, even for the upper end of the distribution,
but  were included  in  this  handbook to  provide
exposure assessors a sense of the possible  range of
inhalation rates for adults and children.  These values
should be used with caution when  estimating long-
term exposures.
        Short-term mean and 95th percentile data in
nrVminute are provided in Table 6-2 for males and
females combined for adults and children for which
activity patterns are  known. These  values represent
averages of the activity  level data from the one key
study from which short-term inhalation rate data were
available (U.S. EPA, 2009).
        The  confidence ratings for the inhalation
rate recommendations  are shown  in Table  6-3.
Multiple  percentiles  for  long-   and  short-term
inhalation rates for both  males and females  are
provided in Tables 6-4 through 6-11 and 6-13 and 6-
14.
Page
6-2
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                Table 6-1. Recommended Long-Term Exposure (More Than 30 Days) Values for Inhalation
                                           (Males and Females Combined)
        Age Groupf
 Mean
m3/day
Sources Used  95th Percentile6
 for Means        m3/day
             Sources Used
           for 95th Percentiles
               Multiple Percentiles
    Birth to <1 month
    1 to <3 months
    3 to <6 months
    6 to <12 months

    Birth to <1 year
    1 to <2 years
    2 to <3 years
    3 to <6 years
    6 to <11 years
    11 to <16 years
    16 to <21 years
    21 to <31 years
    31 to <41 years
    41 to <51 years
    51 to <61 years
    61 to <71 years
    71 to <81 years
    81 years and older
  3.6
  3.5
  4.1
  5.4

  5.4
  8.0
  8.9
  10.1
  12.0
  15.2
  16.3
  15.7
  16.0
  16.0
  15.7
  14.2
  12.9
  12.2
     a
    a,b
    a,b
    a,b

  a, b, c, d
  a, b, c, d
  a, b, c, d
  a, b, c, d
  a, b, c, d
  a, b, c, d
  a, b, c, d
   b, c, d
   b, c, d
   b, c, d
   b, c, d
   b, c, d
    b,c
    b,c
7.1
5.8
6.1
8.0

9.2
12.8
13.7
13.8
16.6
21.9
24.6
21.3
21.4
21.2
21.3
18.1
16.6
15.7
  a
 a,b
 a,b
 a,b

a, b, c
a, b, c
a, b, c
a, b, c
a, b, c
a, b, c
a, b, c
 b, c
 b, c
 b, c
 b, c
 b, c
 b, c
 b, c
See Tables 6-4 through
6-11 (none available for
   Stifelman, 2007)
             Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell, 2007.
             Brochuetal.,2006a.
             U.S. EPA, 2009.
             Stifelman, 2007.
             Some 95th percentile values may be unrealistically high and not representative of the average person.
             When age groupings in the original reference did not match the U.S. EPA groupings used for this handbook,
             means from all age groupings in the original reference that overlapped U.S. EPA's age groupings by more
             than 1 year were averaged, weighted by the number of observations contributed from each age group.
             Similar calculations were performed for the 95th percentiles. See Table 6-55 for concordance with EPA age
             groupings.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                                 Page
                                                                                   6-3
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-2. Recommended Short- Term Exposure (Less Than 30 Days) Values for Inhalation
(Males and Females Combined)
Activity Level
Sleep or Nap













Sedentary/
Passive












Light Intensity






Age Group
years
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-2
Activity Level






Moderate Intensity













High Intensity













Source: U.S. EPA,
. Recommended Short- Term Exposure (Less Than 30 Days) Values for Inhalation
(Males and Females Combined) (continued)
Age Group
years
21 to <31 years
31 to<41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to<61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16to<21 years
21 to <31 years
31 to<41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to<61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
81 years and older
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to<31 years
31 to<41 years
41 to<51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to<71 years
71 to<81 years
81 years and older
2009.
Mean
nrVminute
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.2E-02
2.5E-02
2.6E-02
2.6E-02
2.7E-02
2.8E-02
2.9E-02
2.6E-02
2.5E-02
2.5E-02
2.6E-02
3.8E-02
3.9E-02
3.7E-02
4.2E-02
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
5.0E-02
4.9E-02
5.2E-02
5.3E-02
4.7E-02
4.7E-02
4.8E-02

95th Percentile
m3/minute Multiple Percentiles
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
2.2E-02
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
2.7E-02
2.9E-02
3.4E-02
3.7E-02
3.8E-02
3.7E-02
3.9E-02
4.0E-02
3.4E-02
3.2E-02
3.1E-02
4.1E-02
5.2E-02
5.3E-02
4.8E-02
5.9E-02
7.0E-02
7.3E-02
7.6E-02
7.2E-02
7.6E-02
7.8E-02
6.6E-02
6.5E-02
6.8E-02

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
  6-5
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-3. Confidence in Recommendations for Inhalation Rates
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Rationale
The survey methodology and data analysis was adequate.
Measurements were made by indirect methods. The
studies analyzed existing primary data.
Potential bias within the studies was fairly well
documented.
The studies focused on inhalation rates and factors
influencing them.
The studies focused on the U.S. population. A wide range
of age groups were included.
The studies were published during 2006 and 2009 and
represent current exposure conditions.
The data collection period for the studies may not be
representative of long-term exposures.
All key studies are available from the peer reviewed
literature.
The methodologies were clearly presented; enough
information was included to reproduce most results.
Information on ensuring data quality in the key studies
was limited.
In general, the key studies addressed variability in
inhalation rates based on age and activity level. And
although some factors affecting inhalation rate, such as
body mass, are discussed, other factors (e.g., ethnicity) are
omitted.
Multiple sources of uncertainty exist for these studies.
Assumptions associated with Energy Expenditure (EE)
based estimation procedures are a source of uncertainty in
inhalation rate estimates.
Three of the key studies appeared in peer reviewed
journals, and one key study is a U.S. EPA peer reviewed
report.
There are four key studies. The results of studies from
different researchers are in general agreement.

Rating
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Page
6-6
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
6.3     KEY INHALATION RATE STUDIES
6.3.1    Brochu et al, 2006a - Physiological Daily
        Inhalation     Rates   for   Free-living
        Individuals Aged  1 Month to  96 Years,
        Using  Data from  Doubly  Labeled Water
        Measurements: A proposal for Air Quality
        Criteria, Standard Calculations and Health
        Risk Assessment
        Brochu   et    al.     (2006a)    calculated
physiological daily inhalation rates (PDIR) for 2,210
individuals aged 3  weeks  to  96 years  using the
reported disappearance rates of oral doses of doubly
labeled  water (DLW)  (2H2O and H218O) in urine,
monitored by gas-isotope-ratio mass spectrometry for
an aggregate period of more than 30,000 days. DLW
data were complemented with indirect calorimetry
and nutritional balance measurements.
        In the  DLW  method,  the disappearance of
the stable isotopes deuterium (2H) and heavy oxygen-
18 (18O) are monitored in  urine, saliva, or blood
samples over a long period of time (from 7 to 21
days) after subjects receive oral doses of 2H2O and
H218O.  The disappearance rate of 2H reflects water
output and that of 18O represents water output plus
carbon dioxide (CO2)  production rates.   The  CO2
production rate is  then calculated by  difference
between the two disappearance rates.  Total daily
energy expenditures (TDEEs)  are determined from
CO2  production  rates  using  classic respirometry
formulas, in which values for the respiratory quotient
(RQ = CO2 produced /O2 consumed)  are derived from the
composition of the diet during  the period  of time of
each  study.    The DLW method  also  allows for
measurement of the energy  cost of growth (ECG).
TDEE and ECG measurements  can be converted into
PDIR values using the following equation developed
by Layton (1993):
PDIR = (TDEE + ECG) xHxVQlff1
(Eqn. 6-1)
where:
    PDIR   =     physiological daily inhalation
                  rates (m3/day);
    TDEE  =     total daily energy expenditure
                  (kcal/day);
    ECG    =     stored daily energy cost for
                  growth (kcal/day);
        H  =     oxygen uptake factor, volume of
                  0.21 L of oxygen (at standard
                  temperature and pressure, dry
                  air) consumed to produce 1 kcal
                  of energy expended;
        VQ =     ventilatory equivalent ratio of the
                  minute volume (VE) at body
                         io-3 =
                  temperature pressure saturation)
                  to the oxygen uptake rate (VO2 at
                  standard temperature and
                  pressure, dry air) VE/VO2 = 27;
                  and
                  conversion factor (L/m3).
        Brochu  et  al.  (2006a)  calculated  daily
inhalation rates (expressed in mVday and m3/kg-day)
for the following  age groups  and  physiological
conditions: (1) healthy newborns aged 3 to 5 weeks
old (n = 33),  (2) healthy normal-weight males and
females aged 2.6 months to 96 years (n = 1252), (3)
low-body  mass index (BMI)  subjects (underweight
women, n  = 17; adults from less affluent societies n =
59) and (4) overweight/obese  individuals (n = 679),
as well as (5)  athletes,  explorers, and soldiers when
reaching very  high energy  expenditures (n  = 170).
Published  data on BMI, body weight, basal metabolic
rate (BMR), ECG and TDEE measurements (based
on  DLW   method  and  indirect  calorimetry)  for
subjects aged  2.6  months to 96 years  were used.
Data  for underweight,  healthy  normal-weight, and
overweight/obese   individuals  were  gathered and
defined according to BMI cutoffs. Data for newborns
were  included regardless of  BMI  values,  because
they  were clinically  evaluated as  being  healthy
infants.
        The distribution of daily inhalation rates for
normal-weight and overweight/obese individuals by
gender and age groups are presented in Tables 6-4 to
6-8.    Mean  inhalation  rates  for  newborns  are
presented  in  Table 6-9.   Due to  the  insufficient
number of subjects, no distributions were derived for
this group.
        An advantage of this study is that data are
provided for age  groups of less than one year.  A
limitation  of this study is that  data for individuals
with pre-existing medical conditions was lacking.

6.3.2    U.S.   EPA,  2009  -  Metabolically-derived
        Human    Ventilation  Rates:  A   Revised
        Approach    Based    Upon     Oxygen
        Consumption Rates
        U.S.   EPA (2009)  conducted  a study to
ascertain inhalation rates for children and  adults.
Specifically, U.S. EPA  sought to improve upon the
methodology  used by  Layton  (1993) and  other
studies  that relied upon the  ventilatory equivalent
(VQ)   and a  linear relationship  between  oxygen
consumption and fitness rate.  A revised approach,
developed  by  U.S.   EPAs   National  Exposure
Research Laboratory (NERL), was used, in which an
individual's inhalation rate was  derived from his or
her assumed oxygen consumption  rate.   U.S. EPA
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                           Page
                                                             6-7
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
applied this revised approach using body weight data
from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition
Examination  Survey  (NHANES)  and  metabolic
equivalents   (METS)   data   from   U.S.   EPA's
Consolidated Human Activity Database (CHAD).  In
this database,  metabolic cost is given in units  of
"METS" or "metabolic  equivalents  of work,"  an
energy   expenditure   metric  used   by  exercise
physiologists and clinical nutritionists  to  represent
activity levels. An activity's METS value represents
a dimensionless  ratio of its metabolic  rate (energy
expenditure) to a person's resting, or basal metabolic
rate (BMR).
        NHANES provided age,  gender, and body
weight data for 19,022 individuals from throughout
the United  States.  From these data, basal metabolic
rate  (BMR) was estimated using an age-specific
linear  equation   used  in  the  Exposure  Factors
Handbook  (U.S. EPA, 1997), and in several other
studies and reference works.
        The  CHAD database is  a compilation  of
several databases of human activity  patterns. U.S.
EPA used one of these studies, the National Human
Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS), as its  source for
METS values because it was more representative of
the entire United States population than the other
studies  in  the  database.   The NHAPS  data set
included activity data for 9,196  individuals, each of
which  provided  24  hours  of activity  pattern data
using  a diary-based  questionnaire.  While NHAPS
was identified as the best available data source for
activity patterns, there were some shortcomings in
the quality  of the data.  Study  respondents did not
provide body  weights; instead,  body  weights  are
simulated using  statistical  sampling.    Also,  the
NHAPS  data extracted from CHAD could  not  be
corrected to account for non-random  sampling  of
study participants and survey days.
        NHANES and NHAPS data were grouped
into age categories using the age categories presented
elsewhere in this handbook, with the exception that
children under the age of one year were placed into a
single category to preserve  an adequate sample size
within the category.  For each NHANES participant,
a "simulated" 24-hour activity pattern was generated
by randomly sampling activity patterns from the set
of NHAPS participants with the same gender and age
category  as the NHANES participant.  Twenty such
patterns were selected at random for each NHANES
participant,  resulting in 480  hours  of simulated
activity data for each NHANES participant. The data
were then scaled down to a 24-hour time frame to
yield an average 24-hour activity pattern for each of
the 19,022 NHANES individuals.
        Each activity was  assigned a METS value
based  on statistical sampling  of the  distribution
assigned by  CHAD to each activity code.  For most
codes,  these  distributions were not age-dependent,
but age was  a factor for some activities for which
intensity level  varies  strongly with  age.  Using
statistical  software, equations for METS  based  on
normal,  lognormal, exponential,  triangular,  and
uniform distributions were  generated as needed for
the various activity codes.  The METS values  were
then translated  into energy  expenditure  (EE)  by
multiplying the METS by  the basal  metabolic rate
(BMR), which was calculated as a linear function of
body weight.  The  oxygen consumption rate (VO2)
was calculated by multiplying EE by  H, the volume
of oxygen consumed per unit of energy.  VO2 was
calculated both as volume per time and as volume per
time per unit body weight.
        The  inhalation rate for each  activity within
the 24-hour  simulated  activity pattern  for  each
individual was estimated as a function of VO2,  body
weight, age,  and gender. Following this, the average
inhalation rate was calculated for each individual for
the entire 24-hour period, as well as for four separate
classes  of   activities   based  on   METS  value
(sedentary/passive (METS less than or equal to 1.5),
light intensity (METS greater than 1.5 and less than
or equal to 3.0), moderate  intensity (METS greater
than 3.0 and less  than or  equal to 6.0),  and high
intensity  (METS  greater  than 6.0).     Data for
individuals were then  used to  generate  summary
tables based on gender and age categories.
        Data from this study are presented in Tables
6-10, 11 and Tables 6-12 through 6-15. Tables 6-10
and 6-11  present,  for male  and female subjects,
respectively,  summary  statistics for  daily average
inhalation rate  by  age category  on a volumetric
(nrVday)  and  body-weight  adjusted  (m3/day-kg)
basis.   Table  6-12 presents  the  mean  and 95th
percentile  values for males, females, and males and
females combined. Tables 6-13 and 6-14 present, for
male   and  female  subjects,   respectively,  mean
ventilation rates by  age  category on a volumetric
(nrVmin)  and  body-weight  adjusted  (m3/min-kg)
basis  for  the five different  activity level ranges
described above.  Table 6-15 presents the number of
hours spent per day at  each activity level by  males
and females.
        An  advantage of  this study is  the  large
sample size.   In addition, the datasets used, NHAPS
and NHANES, are representative of the  U.S. general
population. Limitations are that the NHAPS data are
10  years  old, there is variability in  the 24-hour
activity, and there  is  uncertainty   in  the METs
randomization,  all  of  which  were  noted by the
authors.
Page
6-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
6.3.3    Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell, 2007 - Statistical
        Distributions of Daily Breathing Rates for
        Narrow  Age  Groups  of  Infants  and
        Children
        Arcus-Arth  and  Blaisdell (2007)  derived
daily  breathing rates  for narrow age  ranges of
children using the metabolic conversion method of
Layton  (1993)  and energy intake data adjusted to
represent the U.S. population from the Continuing
Survey of Food Intake for Individuals  (CSFII) 1994-
1996,   1998.     Normalized   (m3/kg-day)   and
nonnormalized  (m3/day) breathing rates for children
0-18 years of age were derived using the  general
equation developed by  Layton  (1993) to calculate
energy-dependent inhalation rates (see Equation 6-2).
                                       (Eqn. 6-2)
where:
    VE =   volume of air breathed per day
            (nrVday);
    H  =   volume of oxygen consumed to produce
            1 kcal of energy (m3/kcal);
    VQ =   ratio of the volume of air to the volume
            of oxygen breathed per unit time
            (unitless); and
    EE =   energy (kcal) expended per day.

        Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell (2007) calculated
H values of 0.22 and 0.21 for infants and noninfant
children, respectively, using  the  1977-1978  NFCS
and CSFII data  sets.  Ventilatory equivalent (VQ)
data, including those for infants, were obtained from
13 studies that reported VQ data for children aged 4-
8 ears.   Separate  preadolescent  (4-8  years) and
adolescent (9-18  years) VQ values were calculated in
addition to separate VQ values for adolescent boys
and girls. Two-day-averaged daily energy intake (El)
values reported  in the CSFII data set were used a
surrogate for EE. CSFII records that did not report
body  weight and those for children  who consumed
breast milk  or were breast fed were  excluded from
their analyses.  The Els of children 9 years of age and
older were multiplied by 1.2, the value calculated by
Layton (1993) to adjust for potential bias  related to
underreporting of dietary intakes by  older  children.
For infants,  El values were  adjusted by subtracting
the  amount of energy put into storage by infants as
estimated by Scrimshaw et al. (1996). Serf-reported
body weights for each individual from the CSFII data
set  were used to calculate nonnormalized  (nrVday)
and normalized  (m3/kg-day) breathing rates,  which
decreased the  variability in the  resulting  breathing
rate data.  Daily breathing rates were grouped into
three-month age  groups for infants, one-year age
groups for children 1 to 18 years of age, and the age
groups recommended by U.S. EPA cancer guidelines
supplement  (U.S.  EPA,  2005b) to  receive greater
weighting for mutagenic carcinogens (0 to  <2  years
of age, and 2 to < 16 years of age).  Data were also
presented for adolescent boys and girls, aged 9  to 18
years (Table 6-16).  For each age and age-gender
group, Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell (2007)  calculated
the arithmetic  mean,  standard error of the mean,
percentiles  (50th,  90th, and  95th),  geometric mean,
standard deviation, and best-fit parametric models of
the breathing rate distributions. Overall, the CSFII-
derived nonnormalized breathing rates progressively
increased with age from infancy through 18 years of
age, while normalized breathing rates progressively
decreased.  The data are presented in Table 6-17 in
units  of nrVday.  There were statistical differences
between boys and girls 9 to 18 years of age, both for
these years combined (p< 0.00) and for each year of
age separately (p< 0.05).  The authors reasoned that
since the fat-free mass (basically  muscle mass) of
boys  typically  increases  during  adolescence, and
because fat-free mass  is highly correlated to  basal
metabolism which accounts  for the majority of EE,
nonnormalized  breathing rates  for adolescent boys
may be  expected  to  increase with  increasing age.
Table 6-17 presents the mean and  95th percentile
values for males and females combined, averaged to
fit within the standard U.S. EPA age groups.
        The  CSFII-derived  mean breathing  rates
derived by Arcus-Arth and  Blaisdell  (2007)  were
compared to the mean breathing  rates estimated in
studies  that utilized doubly labeled water (DLW)
technique EE data that had been coupled  with the
Layton  (1993)  method.   The infants' CSFII-derived
breathing rates were 15 to 27 percent  greater than the
comparison  DLW EE  breathing  rates  while the
children's CSFII rates ranged from 23 percent less to
14 percent greater than comparison rates.  Thus, the
CSFII and comparison rates were quite similar across
age groups.
        An advantage of this study is that it provides
breathing rates  specific to narrow  age ranges, which
can be  useful for assessing  inhalation dose during
periods of greatest susceptibility. However, the  study
is   limited  by  the   potential  for  misreporting,
underestimating, or overestimating of food intake
data in the CSFII. In  addition to underreporting of
food  intake  by adolescents, El values for younger
children  may   be   under-  or   overestimated.
Overweight  children  (or their parents) may  also
underreport food  intakes.  In addition, adolescents
who misreport food intake may have also misreported
body weights.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             6-9
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                         Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
6.3.4    Stifelman,  2007 -  Using Doubly-labeled
        Water Measurements  of Human  Energy
        Expenditure to Estimate Inhalation Rates
        Stifelman (2007) estimated inhalation rates
using  DLW  energy   data.    The  DLW  method
administers two forms of stable isotopically labeled
water:   deuterium-labeled  (2H2O)  and  ^oxygen-
labeled (H218O).   The difference  in  disappearance
rates between the two isotopes represents the energy
expended  over  a  period of 1-3  half-lives of  the
labeled water  (Stifelman, 2007).    The  resulting
duration of  observation  is  typically  1-3 weeks,
depending on the size and activity level.
        The  DLW  database  contains  subjects from
areas  around the world  and  represents diversity in
ethnicity, age, activity, body  type,  and fitness level.
DLW data have been compiled by the Institute of
Medicine  (IOM) Panel on Macronutrients  and  the
Food  and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO).  Stifelman (2007) used the equation
of Layton (1993) to convert the recommended energy
levels  of IOM for  the active-very active  people to
their equivalent inhalation rates.  The IOM reports
recommend  energy  expenditure levels organized by
gender, age and body size (Stifelman, 2007).
        The equivalent inhalation rates are shown in
Table 6-18. Shown in Table 6-19 are the mean values
for the IOM "active" energy level category, averaged
to fit within the standard  EPA age groups.  Stifelman
(2007) noted that the estimates based on the DLW are
consistent with previous  findings of Layton (1993)
and the  Exposure  Factors  Handbook  (U.S.  EPA,
1997)  and  that  inhalation rates based on the IOM
active  classification are  consistent with  the mean
inhalation rate in the handbook.
        The  advantages  of this study are that  the
inhalation rates were estimated using  the DLW data
from a large data set. Stifelman (2007) noted that
DLW methods are advantageous; the data are robust,
measurements are direct  and  avoid errors associated
with indirect measurements (heart rate), subjects  are
free-living, and  the period of observation is longer
than what is possible  from staged activity  measures.
Observations over a longer period of time reduce  the
uncertainties  associated  with using  short duration
studies  to  infer long-term  inhalation  rates.    A
limitation with the  study is that the inhalation rates
that are presented are for active/very  active persons
only.
6.3.5    Key Studies Combined
        In order to provide the recommended long-
term inhalation rates shown in Table 6-1, data from
the four key studies were combined.  Mean and 95th
percentile inhalation rate values for the four key
studies  are  shown  in Tables  6-20   and  6-21,
respectively.    The  data  from  each  study  were
averaged by gender and grouped according to the age
groups  selected for use  in this handbook,  when
possible.  Concordance between  the age groupings
used in this handbook and the original age groups in
the key studies is shown in Table 6-55.

6.4     RELEVANT    INHALATION   RATE
        STUDIES
6.4.1    International  Commission on Radiological
        Protection (ICRP), 1981 -  Report of the
        Task Group on Reference Man
        The    International    Commission    on
Radiological Protection (ICRP, 1981)  estimated daily
inhalation  rates  for   reference  adult  males  and
females, children (10 years  old), infants (1 year old),
and newborn  babies  by   using a  time-activity-
ventilation approach.   This  approach for estimating
an inhalation rate over a specified period of time was
based  on calculating a time weighted  average  of
inhalation rates associated with physical activities  of
varying  durations  (Table   6-22).    ICRP  (1981)
compiled  reference values  (Table 6-23) of minute
volume/inhalation   rates  from   various  literature
sources.    ICRP  (1981)  assumed  that the  daily
activities of a reference male, female, and child (10
years of age) consisted of  8 hours  of  rest  and  16
hours of light activities. It was also assumed that  16
hours were divided evenly between occupational and
non-occupational activities.  It  was assumed that a
day consisted of 14 hours resting and 10 hours light
activity for  an  infant (1 year).  A newborn's daily
activities consisted of  23 hours  resting and 1 hour
light activity.   The estimated inhalation rates were
22.8 nrVday for adult  males, 21.1 nrVday for adult
females, 14.8 nrVday for children (age 10 years), 3.76
nrVday for infants  (age 1 year), and 0.78 nrVday for
newborns (Table 6-22).
        A limitation associated with this study is that
the validity and accuracy of the  inhalation rate data
used in the compilation of reference values were not
specified.     This  introduces    some   degree   of
uncertainty  in   the  results obtained.    Also, the
approach used  required that assumptions be  made
regarding the hours  spent by various  age/gender
cohorts in specific activities. These assumptions may
over/under-estimate the inhalation rates obtained.
Page
6-10
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
6.4.2    U.S. EPA, 1985 - Development of Statistical
        Distributions   or   Ranges  of  Standard
        Factors Used in Exposure Assessments
        The U.S. EPA (1985)  compiled measured
values of minute ventilation for various age/gender
cohorts from early studies.  The data compiled by the
U.S. EPA (1985) for each age/gender cohorts were
obtained  at  various  activity levels  (Table 6-24).
These levels were categorized as light, moderate, or
heavy according to the criteria developed by  the U.S.
EPA   Office  of   Environmental   Criteria  and
Assessment for the Ozone Criteria Document. These
criteria were developed for a reference  male adult
with a body weight of 70 kg (U.S. EPA, 1985).  The
minute ventilation  rates for adult  males based  on
these activity level categories are detailed in  Table 6-
25.
        Table 6-24 presents a summary of inhalation
rates by  age and activity  level.  A  description  of
activities  included  in each activity  level  is  also
presented in Table 6-24.  Table 6-24 indicates that at
rest, the  average adult inhalation rate is  0.5 m3/hr.
Table 6-24 indicates that at rest, the mean inhalation
rate for children, ages 6 and 10 years, is 0.4 mVhr.
Table 6-26 presents  activity pattern data aggregated
for three microenvironments by  activity level for  all
age groups.  The total average  hours spent indoors
was 20.4, outdoors was  1.77, and in a transportation
vehicle was  1.77.  Based on the data presented in
Tables 6-24  and 6-26,  a daily  inhalation rate was
calculated for adults and children by using a time-
activity-ventilation   approach.    These  data  are
presented for adults and children in  Table  6-27.  The
calculated average daily inhalation rate is  16 m3/day
for adults. The average daily inhalation rate for 6 and
10 years  old children is 16.74 and  21.02  m3/day,
respectively.
        Limitations associated with this study are its
age and  that many  of the values used in  the data
compilation were from early studies.  The accuracy
and/or validity of the values used and data collection
method were not presented in U.S. EPA (1985).  This
introduces uncertainty in the  results  obtained.   An
advantage of this study  is that the data  are actual
measurement data for a large number of  adults and
children.

6.4.3    Shamoo   et   al,   1990  -   Improved
        Quantitation of Air Pollution Dose Rates by
        Improved Estimation of Ventilation  Rate
        Shamoo  et al. (1990) conducted  a  study to
develop  and validate  new methods  to  accurately
estimate  ventilation rates  for  typical  individuals
during  their  normal  activities.    Two  practical
approaches  were tested for estimating  ventilation
rates  indirectly:  (1)  volunteers  were  trained  to
estimate their own VR at various controlled levels of
exercise; and (2) individual VR and HR relationships
were  determined in another set of volunteers during
supervised exercise sessions (Shamoo et al., 1990).
In the first approach, the training session involved 9
volunteers (3 females  and 6 males) from 21 to  37
years old.   Initially  the  subjects were trained  on a
treadmill  with  regularly  increasing speeds.  VR
measurements were recorded during the  last minute
of the  3-minute interval at  each speed.   VR was
reported to the subjects as low (1.4 m3/hr),  medium
(1.5-2.3  nrVhr), heavy  (2.4-3.8 nrVhr),  and  very
heavy (3.8 nrVhr or higher) (Shamoo et al., 1990).
        Following the initial test, treadmill training
sessions were conducted on a different day in which
7 different speeds were presented, each for 3 minutes
in arbitrary order. VR was measured and the subjects
were  given feedback with the four ventilation ranges
provided previously.  After resting, a treadmill testing
session was conducted in which seven speeds  were
presented  in different  arbitrary   order  from the
training session. VR was measured and each subject
estimated their own ventilation level  at each speed.
The correct level was then revealed to each subject
after his/her own estimate.  Subsequently, two 3-hour
outdoor supervised exercise sessions were conducted
in the summer on two consecutive days.  Each hour
consisted  of 15 minutes  each of rest, slow walking,
jogging, and fast walking. The subjects' ventilation
level  and VR were recorded; however, no feedback
was given to the subjects.  Electrocardiograms  were
recorded via direct connection or telemetry  and HR
was   measured   concurrently   with  ventilation
measurement for all treadmill sessions.
        The second  approach  consisted  of two
protocol phases (indoor/outdoor exercise sessions and
field testing). Twenty outdoor adult workers between
19 and 50  years  old  were recruited.  Indoor and
outdoor supervised exercises similar to the protocols
in the first approach were conducted;  however,  there
were  no   feedbacks.    Also,  in  this  approach,
electrocardiograms  were  recorded  and HR  was
measured concurrently with VR.   During the  field
testing phase, subjects were trained to record  their
activities  during  three  different  24-hour  periods
during one week.  These periods included their most
active working  and non-working  days.   HR was
measured  quasi-continuously during the  24-hour
periods that activities were recorded.  The  subjects
recorded in a diary all changes  in physical  activity,
location, and exercise levels during  waking hours.
Serf-estimated activities in supervised exercises and
field  studies were categorized as slow (resting,  slow
walking or equivalent), medium (fast walking or
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                            6-11
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                          Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
equivalent), and fast (jogging or equivalent).
        Inhalation rates were not presented in this
study.  In the first approach, about 68 percent of all
serf-estimates were correct for the 9 subjects sampled
(Shamoo  et  al,  1990).   Inaccurate serf-estimates
occurred in the younger male population who  were
highly physically fit and were competitive aerobic
trainers.  This subset of the sample population tended
to underestimate their own physical activity levels at
higher VR ranges.  Shamoo et al. (1990) attributed
this to a "macho effect."  In the second approach, a
regression analysis was conducted that  related the
logarithm of VR  to  HR.   The logarithm of VR
correlated better with HR than VR itself (Shamoo et
al., 1990).
        Limitations associated with this study are its
age  and  that  the  population  sampled  is  not
representative of the general U.S. population.  Also,
ventilation rates  were  not presented.    Training
individuals to estimate their VR may  contribute to
uncertainty in the  results because the estimates are
subjective. Another limitation is that calibration data
were not  obtained at extreme conditions; therefore,
the VR/HR relationship obtained may be biased. An
additional limitation is that training subjects may  be
too labor-intensive for widespread use in exposure
assessment studies. An advantage of this study is that
HR recordings are useful  in predicting  ventilation
rates which in turn are useful in estimating exposure.

6.4.4    Shamoo et al., 1991 - Activity Patterns in a
        Panel  of  Outdoor Workers  Exposed  to
        Oxidant Pollution
        Shamoo et al. (1991)  investigated  summer
activity  patterns  in  20   adult  volunteers   with
potentially  high  exposure to  ambient  oxidant
pollution.  The selected volunteer subjects were  15
men and  5 women ages 19-50 years from  the Los
Angeles  area.  All volunteers  worked outdoors at
least 10 hours per week. The experimental approach
involved two stages: (1) indirect objective estimation
of  VR  from  HR  measurements;  and  (2)  self
estimation of inhalation/ventilation rates recorded  by
subjects in diaries during their normal activities.
        The  approach consisted of calibrating the
relationship between VR and HR for each test subject
in controlled exercise; monitoring by subjects of their
own normal activities with  diaries and electronic HR
recorders; and  then relating VR with  the activities
described in the  diaries  (Shamoo  et  al.,  1991).
Calibration tests  were  conducted  for  indoor and
outdoor supervised exercises to determine individual
relationships between  VR  and HR.   Indoors,  each
subject was  tested on a  treadmill  at rest and  at
increasing speeds.  HR and VR were measured at the
third  minute at each 3-minute  interval  speed.   In
addition, subjects were tested while walking a 90-
meter course in a corridor at 3  serf-selected speeds
(normal, slower than normal, and faster than normal)
for 3 minutes.
        Two  outdoor testing  sessions  (one  hour
each) were conducted for each subject, 7 days apart.
Subjects exercised on a 260-meter asphalt course. A
session involved  15 minutes  each  of rest,  slow
walking, jogging, and fast walking during the first
hour.   The  sequence was  also repeated during the
second  hour.    HR  and VR  measurements were
recorded starting at the 8th minute of each 15-minute
segment.   Following the  calibration tests,  a  field
study  was  conducted  in  which  subject's  serf-
monitored their activities by filling out activity diary
booklets,  serf-estimated  their breathing rates,  and
their HR.  Breathing rates were defined as sleep, slow
(slow or normal  walking);  medium (fast walking);
and fast (running) (Shamoo et al., 1991).  Changes in
location, activity, or breathing rates during three 24-
hr periods within a  week  were recorded.   These
periods included their most active working and non-
working days.   Each subject wore Heart Watches
which recorded their HR once per minute during the
field study.  Ventilation rates were estimated for the
following categories: sleep,  slow, medium, and fast.
        Calibration data were fit to the equation log
(VR)  = intercept + (slope  x HR), each  individual's
intercept and  slope  were determined separately to
provide  a  specific   equation  that  predicts  each
subject's VR from measured HR  (Shamoo et al.,
1991).  The average measured  VRs were 0.48,  0.9,
1.68, and 4.02 m3/hr for rest, slow walking or normal
walking,  fast  walking  and jogging,  respectively
(Shamoo  et al.,  1991).    Collectively, the diary
recordings  showed that sleep  occupied about  33
percent of the subject's time; slow activity 59 percent;
medium activity 7 percent; and fast activity 1 percent.
The diary data covered an average of 69 hours per
subject  (Shamoo et al., 1991).  Table 6-28 presents
the distribution pattern of predicted ventilation rates
and equivalent ventilation rates (EVR) obtained at the
four activity levels. EVR was defined as the VR per
square meter of body surface  area,  and also  as a
percentage of the subjects average VR over the entire
field monitoring period (Shamoo et al.,  1991).  The
overall mean predicted VR was 0.42 mVhr for sleep;
0.71 m3/hr for slow activity;  0.84 mVhr for medium
activity; and 2.63 m3/hr for fast activity.
        The  mean   predicted   VR  and  standard
deviation, and the percentage of time spent in each
combination of VR, activity type (essential and non-
essential),  and location  (indoor and outdoor)  are
presented in Table 6-29. Essential activities include
Page
6-12
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
income-related work, household  chores, child care,
study and other school activities, personal care and
destination-oriented travel.  Non-essential activities
include sports and  active  leisure,  passive  leisure,
some travel, and social or civic activities (Shamoo et
al., 1991).   Table 6-29 shows that inhalation rates
were  higher outdoors than indoors at slow, medium,
and fast activity levels.  Also, inhalation rates were
higher for  outdoor non-essential activities than  for
indoor non-essential activity levels at slow, medium,
and fast serf-reported breathing rates (Table 6-29).
        An advantage of this study is that subjective
activity diary data can provide  exposure modelers
with  useful rough estimates  of  VR for groups  of
generally healthy people.  Limitation of this study is
its age and that the results obtained show high within-
person and between-person variability in VR at each
diary-recorded level, indicating  that VR  estimates
from  diary reports could potentially be substantially
misleading in individual cases.  Another limitation of
this study is that elevated HR data of slow activity at
the second  hour of  the  exercise session  reflect
persistent effects  of  exercise and/or heat  stress.
Therefore,  predictions  of VR  from  the  VR/HR
relationship may be biased.

6.4.5    Linn  et  al, 1992  -  Documentation   of
        Activity  Patterns in  "High-risk"  Groups
        Exposed to Ozone in the Los Angeles Area
        Linn et  al.  (1992) conducted  a study that
estimated  the  inhalation  rates  for  "high-risk"
subpopulation groups exposed to  ozone in their daily
activities in the Los Angeles  area.  The population
surveyed consisted of seven subject panels:  Panel 1:
20 healthy outdoor  workers (15 males, 5 females,
ages  19-50 years); Panel 2: 17  healthy elementary
school students (5 males,  12  females,  ages 10-12
years); Panel  3: 19 healthy high school students  (7
males, 12 females, ages  13-17 years); Panel 4:  49
asthmatic adults  (clinically  mild,  moderate,  and
severe,  15  males, 34 females, ages  18-50  years);
Panel 5: 24 asthmatic adults from  2 neighborhoods of
contrasting O3 air quality (10 males, 14 females, ages
19-46 years); Panel 6: 13 young asthmatics (7 males,
6 females,  ages 11-16 years); Panel 7: construction
workers  (7  males,   ages  26-34 years).An  initial
calibration test was conducted, followed by a training
session.  Finally, a  field study  that involved  the
subjects collecting their own heart rates and diary
data was conducted.   During the  calibration tests,
ventilation  rate (VR), breathing rate, and heart rate
(HR)  were measured simultaneously at each exercise
level.  From  the  calibration data an  equation was
developed using linear regression analysis to predict
VR from measured HR.
        In  the  field  study,  each  subject  (except
construction workers) recorded in diaries their daily
activities, change in locations (indoors, outdoors, or
in a vehicle), self-estimated breathing rates during
each  activity/location,   and  time  spent at  each
activity/location.  Healthy subjects recorded their HR
once  every 60  seconds using  a Heart  Watch,  an
automated system  consisting of  a  transmitter and
receiver  worn on  the  body.   Asthmatic  subjects
recorded  their diary  information once every  hour.
Subjective breathing rates were defined as  slow
(walking at their normal pace), medium (faster than
normal  walking),  and  fast (running  or similarly
strenuous  exercise).     Table  6-30  presents the
calibration and field protocols for self-monitoring of
activities for each subject panel.
        Table   6-31   presents   the   mean,   99th
percentile, and mean VR at each  subjective  activity
level  (slow,  medium, fast).  The mean  and 99th
percentile VR were derived from all HR recordings
that appeared to be valid,  without  considering the
diary  data.   Each  of the  three activity levels was
determined from both the concurrent diary data and
HR recordings by  direct calculation or regression.
The mean VR for healthy adults was 0.78 m3/hr while
the mean VR for asthmatic adults was 1.02  m3/hr
(Table 6-31).  The  preliminary data for construction
workers indicated that during a 10-hr work shift, their
mean VR (1.50 m3/hr) exceeded the VRs of all other
subject panels (Table 6-31).  The authors reported
that the diary data showed that on a typical day, most
individuals spent most of their time indoors  at slow
activity  level.   During  slow  activity,  asthmatic
subjects had higher VRs than healthy subjects (Table
6-31).  The authors also reported that in every  panel
the predicted VR  correlated  significantly with the
subjective estimates of activity levels.
        A limitation of this study is that calibration
data may overestimate  the predictive power of HR
during actual field  monitoring.  The wide variety of
exercises  in everyday activities may  result in greater
variation  of  the   VR-HR relationship  than was
calibrated.  Another limitation is the  small  sample
size of each subpopulation surveyed. An advantage
of this study  is that diary  data  can provide rough
estimates  of ventilation patterns which are useful in
exposure  assessments.   Another  advantage  is that
inhalation  rates   were   presented  for   various
subpopulations (i.e., healthy outdoor adult workers,
healthy    children,   asthmatics,   and   construction
workers).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                            Page
                                            6-13
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                          Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
6.4.6    Shamoo et al.,  1992  -  Effectiveness  of
        Training Subjects to Estimate Their Level
        of Ventilation
        Shamoo et  al. (1992)  conducted a study
where  nine non-sedentary subjects in  good health
were trained on a treadmill to  estimate their own
ventilation rates at four activity levels: low, medium,
heavy,  and very heavy.  The purpose of the study was
to train the subjects  self-estimation of ventilation in
the field and assess the effectiveness of the training
(Shamoo  et  al.,  1992).   The subjects included  3
females and 6 males between 21 to 37 years  of age.
The tests  were conducted in four stages.   First,  an
initial  treadmill pretest was  conducted indoors  at
various speeds until  the four ventilation levels were
experienced by each subject; VR was measured and
feedback was given to the  subjects.   Second, two
treadmill training sessions which involved seven 3-
minute segments of  varying  speeds based on initial
tests  were   conducted;  VR was  measured  and
feedback was given to  the subjects. Another  similar
session  was  conducted;  however,   the  subjects
estimated their own  ventilation level during the last
20  seconds of each segment and VR was measured
during the last minute  of each segment.  Immediate
feedback was given to  the subject's estimate; and the
third and fourth stages involved 2 outdoor sessions of
3 hours each.  Each hour comprised 15 minutes each
of rest, slow walking, jogging, and fast walking. The
subjects estimated their own ventilation level at the
middle of each segment.  The subject's estimate was
verified by a respirometer which measured VR in the
middle of each 15-minute activity.  No feedback was
given to the subject.  The  overall percent  correct
score  obtained  for  all ventilation levels was  68
percent (Shamoo et al., 1992). Therefore, Shamoo et
al.  (1992) concluded that this training protocol was
effective in training subjects to correctly estimate
their minute ventilation levels.
        For  this handbook, inhalation rates were
analyzed from the raw data provided by Shamoo et
al.  (1992). Table 6-32 presents  the mean  inhalation
rates obtained from  this analysis at four ventilation
levels  in two microenvironments (i.e.,  indoors and
outdoors)  for all subjects.  The mean inhalation rates
for all  subjects were  0.93, 1.92,  3.01,  4.80 nrVhr for
low, medium,  heavy,  and   very  heavy  activities,
respectively.
        Limitations  of this study are its age and the
population sample size used in this study was small
and was not selected to represent the general U.S.
population. The training approach employed may not
be  cost  effective because it was  labor  intensive;
therefore, this approach may not be viable in field
studies  especially for field  studies  within large
sample sizes.

6.4.7    Spier et al,  1992 - Activity  Patterns  in
        Elementary  and  High  School  Students
        Exposed to Oxidant Pollution
        Spier et  al.  (1992) investigated the activity
patterns of 17 elementary  school students  (10-12
years  old) and 19 high school students (13-17 years
old) in suburban Los Angeles from late September to
October (oxidant pollution season).  Calibration tests
were  conducted  in  supervised  outdoor  exercise
sessions.   The  exercise sessions consisted of  5
minutes each of rest, slow walking, jogging, and fast
walking. HR and VR were measured during the last 2
minutes of each  exercise.   Individual VR and HR
relationships for each individual were determined by
fitting a regression line  to HR  values and log VR
values.  Each subject recorded their daily activities,
changes in location, and breathing rates in diaries for
3 consecutive days.   Serf-estimated breathing  rates
were  recorded as  slow  (slow walking),  medium
(walking faster than normal), and fast (running). HR
was recorded once per minute during the 3 days using
a Heart Watch.   VR values for each self-estimated
breathing rate and activity type were estimated from
the HR recordings by employing  the  VR and HR
equation obtained from the calibration tests.
        The data presented in Table 6-33  represent
HR distribution patterns and corresponding  predicted
VR for each age group during hours spent awake. At
the same  self-reported activity  levels  for  both age
groups,  inhalation  rates were  higher  for outdoor
activities than for indoor activities.  The total number
of hours spent indoors was higher for high  school
students  (21.2 hours)  than  for elementary  school
students (19.6 hours).  The converse  was true for
outdoor activities: 2.7 hours for high school students
and 4.4 hours for elementary school students (Table
6-34). Table 6-35 describes the  distribution patterns
of daily inhalation  rates for  elementary  and  high
school students grouped by activity  level.
        A limitation of this study is the small  sample
size.  The results may not be representative of all
children in these  age groups.  Another limitation is
that the accuracy of the self-estimated breathing rates
reported by younger age groups is uncertain.  This
may affect the validity of the data set generated. An
advantage of this study is that inhalation rates were
determined for children and adolescents.  These data
are useful  in estimating exposure for the younger
population.
Page
6-14
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
6.4.8   Adams, 1993 - Measurement of Breathing
        Rate and Volume in Routinely Performed
        Daily Activities, Final Report
        Adams   (1993)  conducted  research  to
accomplish two main objectives: (1) identification of
mean and ranges of  inhalation rates for various
age/gender cohorts and specific  activities,  and (2)
derivation of simple linear and multiple regression
equations that  could be used to predict  inhalation
rates  through other  measured  variables:  breathing
frequency and oxygen consumption.  A total of 160
subjects  participated in the primary  study.  There
were  four age dependent groups:  (1)  children 6 to
12.9 years old,  (2) adolescents between 13 and 18.9
years old, (3) adults  between 19 and 59.9 years old,
and (4) seniors >60  years old  (Adams, 1993).  An
additional 40 children from 6 to 12 years old and 12
young children from 3 to 5 years old were identified
as subjects for pilot testing purposes in this age group
(Adams,  1993). An additional 40 children from 6 to
12.9 years old  and 12 young children from 3 to 5.9
years old were  identified as subjects for pilot testing
purposes.
        Resting   protocols   conducted   in   the
laboratory  for  all age  groups  consisted  of  three
phases (25  minutes  each)  of  lying,  sitting,  and
standing.  The phases were categorized as resting and
sedentary  activities.    Two   active  protocols—
moderate (walking)  and  heavy (jogging/ running)
phases— were performed on  a treadmill over  a
progressive continuum of intensity levels made up of
6-minute intervals at three speeds ranging from slow
to moderately fast. All protocols involved measuring
VR,  HR, fB (breathing frequency), and VO2 (oxygen
consumption). Measurements were taken in the last 5
minutes of each phase of the resting protocol and the
last 3 minutes of the  6-minute intervals at each speed
designated in the active protocols.
        In  the   field,   all   children  completed
spontaneous play  protocols,   the older adolescent
population (16 to 18 years) completed car driving and
riding, car  maintenance  (males),  and  housework
(females) protocols.   All adult females (19 to  60
years) and most of the senior (60 to 77 years) females
completed housework, yardwork, and car driving and
riding protocols.  Adult and senior males completed
car  driving  and  riding,  yardwork,   and mowing
protocols.  HR, VR, and  fB  were measured during
each protocol. Most protocols were conducted for 30
minutes.    All  the   active  field  protocols   were
conducted twice.
        During all activities in either the laboratory
or field  protocols,  VR for the  children's group
revealed  no significant gender differences, but those
for the adult groups demonstrated gender differences.
Therefore, IR data presented in Tables 6-36 and 6-37
were  categorized  as  young  children, children (no
gender),  and for adult female,  and adult male by
activity type (lying, sitting, standing,  walking,  and
running).  These categorized data from Tables 6-36
and 6-37 are summarized as inhalation rates in Tables
6-38 and 6-39. The laboratory protocols are shown in
Table 6-38.  Table 6-39 presents the mean inhalation
rates by  group and for moderate activity  levels in
field protocols.  A comparison of the data  shown in
Tables 6-38 and 6-39  suggest that during  light and
sedentary activities in laboratory and field protocols,
similar  inhalation  rates were  obtained  for  adult
females and adult  males.  Accurate  predictions of
inhalation rates  across all  population groups  and
activity types were  obtained by including  body
surface area (SA),  HR, and breathing frequency in
multiple regression analysis (Adams, 1993). Adams
(1993) calculated SA from measured height and body
weight using the  equation:

SA = HeighfJ25) x Weight(0'425> x 71.84     (Eqn. 6-3)

        A limitation associated with this study is that
the population does not represent the general U.S.
population.  Also, the classification of activity types
(i.e.,  laboratory  and  field protocols) into activity
levels  may  bias the  inhalation  rates obtained for
various age/gender cohorts. The estimated rates were
based on short-term data and may not reflect long-
term patterns.

6.4.9    Layton,  1993  -  Metabolically  Consistent
        Breathing  Rates   for  Use   in   Dose
        Assessments
        Layton   (1993)  presented  a method  for
estimating metabolically consistent inhalation  rates
for use in quantitative dose  assessments of airborne
radionuclides.  Generally, the approach for estimating
the breathing rate  for a specified time frame was to
calculate a time-weighted-average of ventilation rates
associated  with  physical  activities  of  varying
durations.  However, in this  study,  breathing  rates
were calculated on the basis of oxygen consumption
associated with energy expenditures for short (hours)
and long (weeks and months) periods of time, using
the following  general  equation to calculate energy-
dependent inhalation rates:
   VE =ExHxVQ

where:
                       (Eqn. 6-4)
    VE =
    E   =
ventilation rate (mVmin or mVday);
energy expenditure rate;
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                            6-15
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                         Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                [kilojoules/minute (KJ/min) or
                megajoules/hour (MJ/hr)];
    H  =       volume of oxygen (at standard
                temperature and pressure, dry air
                consumed in the production of 1
                kilojoule (KJ) of energy expended
                (L/KJ or m3/MJ)); and
    VQ =       ventilatory equivalent (ratio of
                minute volume (nrVmin) to oxygen
                uptake (m3/min)) unitless.

        Layton  (1993) used  three  approaches  to
estimate daily chronic (long term) inhalation rates for
different age/gender cohorts of the  U.S. population
using this methodology.

        First Approach
        Inhalation   rates   were   estimated   by
multiplying  average daily food  energy intakes  for
different age/gender cohorts, H, and VQ, as shown in
the equation above.  The average food energy intake
data (Table 6-40) are based on approximately 30,000
individuals and  were  obtained  from  the  1977-78
USDA-NFCS.   The  food  energy  intakes  were
adjusted  upwards by a constant factor of 1.2 for all
individuals  9   years  and  older.     This  factor
compensated for a  consistent bias in USDA-NFCS
that was attributed to under-reporting  of the  foods
consumed or the methods used to ascertain dietary
intakes.  Layton (1993) used a weighted average
oxygen  uptake  of  0.05   L   O2/KJ   which  was
determined from data reported in the  1977-78 USDA-
NFCS and the second NHANES (NHANES II). The
survey sample for NHANES II  was approximately
20,000  participants.   A  VQ  of 27  used in  the
calculations was calculated as the geometric mean of
VQ data that were obtained from several studies.
        The inhalation rate estimation techniques are
shown in footnote  (a) of Table 6-41.  Table 6-42
presents the daily inhalation rate for each age/gender
cohort.   The highest daily inhalation rates were 10
nrYday for children between the ages  of 6  and 8
years,  17 nrYday for males between 15 and 18 years,
and  13 nrVday for females between 9 and 11 years.
Estimated average lifetime inhalation rates for males
and   females  are   14  nrVday   and   10   nrYday,
respectively  (Table 6-41).  Inhalation rates were also
calculated for active and inactive  periods  for  the
various age/gender cohorts.
        The inhalation rate for inactive periods was
estimated by multiplying  the BMR  times  H  times
VQ.  BMR was  defined as "the minimum amount of
energy required  to support basic cellular respiration
while at rest and not actively digesting food" (Layton,
1993).  The inhalation  rate for  active periods was
calculated by multiplying the inactive inhalation rate
by the ratio of the rate of energy expenditure during
active  hours to the estimated BMR.   This  ratio is
presented as F in Table 6-41.  These data for active
and inactive inhalation rates are also  presented in
Table  6-41.   For  children, inactive  and  active
inhalation rates ranged from 2.35 to 5.95 nrVday and
from 6.35 to 13.09 nrYday, respectively.  For adult
males (19 to 64 years old), the average inactive and
active inhalation rates were approximately  10 and 19
nrYday, respectively.  Also, the average inactive and
active  inhalation  rates for  adult females  (19 to 64
years  old) were  approximately  8 and 12  nrVday,
respectively.

        Second Approach
        Inhalation  rates  were  calculated  as  the
product of the BMR  of the population cohorts,  the
ratio of total daily energy expenditure to daily BMR,
H, and VQ.   The BMR  data  obtained  from  the
literature were statistically  analyzed, and  regression
equations were developed to predict BMR from body
weights of various age/gender cohorts.  The statistical
data  used to develop the  regression  equations  are
presented in Table 6-42. The data obtained from the
second  approach are  presented  in  Table  6-43.
Inhalation rates for children (6 months -  10 years)
ranged from 7.3 to 9.3 nrVday for male and 5.6 to 8.6
nrYday for female children; for older children (10 to
18 years), inhalation rates were  15 nrYday for males
and 12 nrYday for females.  Adult females (18 years
and older)  ranged  from 9.9-11  nrYday  and adult
males  (18  years  and  older) ranged  from 13-17
nrYday. These rates are similar to the daily inhalation
rates obtained using  the first approach.   Also,  the
inactive  inhalation rates  obtained from the  first
approach are lower than the inhalation rates obtained
using the second approach. This may be attributed to
the BMR multiplier employed in the equation of the
second approach to calculate inhalation rates.

        Third Approach
        Inhalation   rates   were   calculated   by
multiplying estimated energy expenditures  associated
with different levels of physical  activity engaged in
over the course of an average day by VQ  and H for
each age/gender  cohort.   The energy  expenditure
associated with each level of activity was estimated
by multiplying BMRs of each activity level by  the
metabolic equivalent  (MET) and by  the time spent
per day performing each activity for each age/gender
population.   The time-activity  data  used  in this
approach were obtained from a survey conducted by
Sallis et al. (1985) (Layton,  1993). In that survey, the
physical-activity  categories  and  associated  MET
Page
6-16
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
values  used  were  sleep,  MET=1;  light-activity,
MET=1.5;  moderate activity, MET=4; hard activity,
MET=6; and very  hard activity,  MET=10.   The
physical activities were based on recall by the test
subject  (Layton,  1993).   The survey  sample was
2,126 individuals (1,120 women and 1,006 men) ages
20-74 years that  were randomly  selected from four
communities in California.  The body weights were
obtained from a  study  conducted by  Najjar and
Rowland (1987) which randomly sampled individuals
from the U.S. population (Layton, 1993). Table 6-44
presents the inhalation  rates  (VE) in m3/day and
m3/hr for adult males and females aged 20-74 years at
five  physical  activity  levels.    The  total   daily
inhalation rates ranged from 13-17 nrYday for adult
males and 11-15 m3/day for adult females.
      The  rates for adult females were higher when
compared with the other two approaches.  Layton
(1993)  reported that the estimated inhalation rates
obtained from the third  approach were particularly
sensitive to  the  MET value  that represented the
energy  expenditures  for light activities.   Layton
(1993) stated further that in the original time-activity
survey  (i.e., conducted by Sallis  et al., 1985), time
spent performing light activities was not presented.
Therefore,  the time  spent  at light  activities was
estimated by subtracting the total time spent at sleep,
moderate, heavy,  and very heavy activities from  24
hours (Layton,  1993).  The range of inhalation rates
for adult females were 9.6 to 11 nrYday, 9.9 to  11
nrYday, and 11 to 15 nrYday, for the first, second, and
third approach, respectively.  The  inhalation rates for
adult males ranged from  13 to  16  m3/day for the first
approach, and 13 to  17  nrVday  for the second and
third approaches.
        Inhalation rates were also obtained for short-
term exposures for various  age/gender cohorts and
five  energy-expenditure  categories (rest, sedentary,
light,  moderate, and heavy). BMRs were multiplied
by the  product of MET, H,  and  VQ.  The data
obtained for short-term exposures  are  presented in
Table 6-45.
        This study obtained similar results using two
different approaches.  The  major  strengths of the
Layton  (1993) study are that it obtains similar results
using   three  different  approaches   to  estimate
inhalation rates in different  age groups and that the
populations are large, consisting of men, women, and
children. Explanations for differences in results due
to metabolic  measurements,  reported diet, or activity
patterns are supported by observations reported  by
other investigators in other studies. Major limitations
of this  study are (1) the estimated activity pattern
levels are somewhat  subjective;  (2) the explanation
that activity  pattern differences  are responsible for
the lower level obtained with the metabolic approach
(25 %) compared to the activity pattern approach is
not well supported  by the data;  and (3) different
populations were used in each approach, which may
have introduced error.

6.4.10  Linn et al.,  1993 - Activity  patterns  in
        Ozone Exposed Construction Workers
        Linn et al.  (1993) -  Activity  patterns in
Ozone Exposed  Construction Workers -  Linn et al.
(1993)  estimated   the  inhalation   rates  of  19
construction  workers who perform  heavy outdoor
labor before  and during  a typical work shift.  The
workers (laborers, iron workers, and carpenters) were
employed at a site on a hospital campus in suburban
Los Angeles.  The construction site included a new
hospital  building  and a  separate  medical  office
complex.   The study was  conducted between mid-
July and early November,  1991. During this period,
ozone (O3) levels were typically high. Initially, each
subject was calibrated with a 25-minute  exercise  test
that included slow walking, fast  walking, jogging,
lifting, and  carrying.   All  calibration  tests were
conducted  in the  mornings.   VR  and  HR were
measured simultaneously during the  test.   The data
were  analyzed  using  least  squares  regression  to
derive an equation for  predicting VR at  a given HR.
Following the calibration tests, each subject recorded
the type  of activities to  be performed  during their
work   shift    (i.e.,   sitting/standing,    walking,
lifting/carrying, and  "working at trade"  -  defined as
tasks  specific to the individual's job classification).
Location,  and self-estimated breathing rates ("slow"
similar to  slow  walking,  "medium"  similar  to fast
walking,  and "fast"  similar to running)  were also
recorded in the diary.  During work, an investigator
recorded  the diary information  dictated by  the
subjects.   HR was recorded minute by minute for
each subject before work and during the entire work
shift.  Thus,  VR ranges for each breathing rate and
activity  category  were  estimated  from the  HR
recordings  by employing  the relationship between
VR and HR obtained from the calibration tests.
        A total of 182 hours of HR recordings were
obtained  during  the  survey from the  19 volunteers;
144 hours reflected actual working time according to
the diary records.  The lowest actual working hours
recorded was 6.6 hours and the highest recorded for a
complete work  shift was  11.6 hours  (Linn et  al.,
1993).    Summary   statistics  for  predicted  VR
distributions  for all subjects, and for  job or  site
defined subgroups  are  presented in Table 6-46. The
data reflect all recordings  before  and during  work,
and at break times. For all  subjects, the mean IR was
1.68 m3/hr with a standard  deviation of ±0.72 (Table
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                            6-17
-------
                                                                          Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                          Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
6-46).   Also, for most  subjects,  the  1st  and 99th
percentiles of HR were outside of the calibration
range.  Therefore, corresponding IR percentiles were
extrapolated using the calibration data (Linn et al.,
1993).
        The data presented in Table  6-47  represent
distribution patterns of  IR for each  subject, total
subjects, and job or site defined subgroups by serf-
estimated breathing rates (slow, medium, fast) or by
type of job activity.  All data include working and
non-working hours.  The mean inhalation rates for
most  individuals  showed  statistically significant
increases  with higher serf-estimated breathing rates
or with increasingly strenuous job activity  (Linn et
al., 1993).  Inhalation rates were  higher in hospital
site workers when compared with office site workers
(Table  6-47).  In spite of their higher predicted VR
workers  at  the  hospital  site  reported  a higher
percentage of slow breathing time (31 percent) than
workers at the office site (20 percent), and a lower
percentage of fast breathing time, 3  percent and 5
percent, respectively (Linn et  al., 1993). Therefore,
individuals whose work was objectively heavier than
average (from VR predictions) tended  to  describe
their work as lighter than average (Linn et al., 1993).
Linn et al. (1993) also concluded that during an O3
pollution   episode,  construction  workers  should
experience similar microenvironmental Os  exposure
concentrations as other healthy outdoor workers, but
with approximately twice as high  a VR. Therefore,
the inhaled dose  of O3 should be almost two times
higher for typical heavy-construction workers than
for typical healthy adults performing less  strenuous
outdoor jobs.
        Limitations associated with this study are its
age and the small sample size.  Another limitation of
this study is that calibration data were not obtained at
extreme conditions.  Therefore, it was necessary to
predict IR values that were  outside the calibration
range.   This may introduce an unknown amount of
uncertainty to the data set.  Subjective  self-estimated
breathing  rates may be another source of uncertainty
in the  inhalation rates estimated.  An advantage is
that this  study  provides empirical  data useful in
exposure assessments for a subpopulation thought to
be the most highly exposed  common  occupational
group (outdoor workers).

6.4.11   Rusconi et al, 1994 - Reference Values for
        Respiratory Rate in the First 3 Years of Life
        Rusconi  et al.  (1994)  examined a  large
number of infants and  children in Milano, Italy in
order  to  determine  the  reference  values  for
respiratory rate in children aged 15 days to 3 years. A
total of 618 infants and children (336  males and 282
females) who did not have respiratory infections or
any severe disease were included in the study. Of the
618, a total  of 309 were in good health and  were
observed in day care centers, while the remaining 309
were seen in hospitals or as outpatients.
        Respiratory rates were recorded twice,  30 to
60 minutes apart, listening to breath sounds for 60
seconds  with a  stethoscope, when the child  was
awake and calm and when the child was  sleeping
quietly  (sleep not associated with any spontaneous
movement,    including   eye    movements    or
vocalizations)  (Table   6-48).  The  children  were
assessed for one year in order  to  determine the
repeatability of the recordings, to compare respiratory
rate   counts   obtained  by  stethoscope   and  by
observation,  and to construct reference  percentile
curves by age in a large number of subjects.
        The  authors plotted the differences  between
respiratory rate counts determined by stethoscope at
30- to 60-minute intervals against their mean count in
waking and sleeping subjects. The standard deviation
of the differences between the two counts  was 2.5
and 1.7  breaths/minute, respectively, for waking and
sleeping children. This  standard  deviation yielded
95% repeatability coefficients of 4.9 breaths/minute
when the infants and children were awake  and 3.3
breaths/minute when they were asleep.
        In both waking  and  sleeping  states, the
respiratory rate  counts determined by stethoscope
were  found  to be higher than those obtained by
observation.  The mean difference was 2.6  and 1.8
breaths  per  minute, respectively, in waking  and
sleeping states.  The mean respiratory rate counts
were significantly higher in infants and children at all
ages when awake  and calm than when asleep. A
decrease in respiratory rate with increasing  age was
seen in  waking and  sleeping infants and children. A
scatter diagram of respiratory rate counts by age in
waking and sleeping subjects showed that the pattern
of respiratory rate decline with age was  similar in
both states, but  it was  much faster in the first few
months of life. The authors constructed centile curves
by first log-transforming the data and then applying a
second  degree polynomial  curve,  which  allowed
excellent fitting to observed data.  Figures 6-1 and 6-
2 show  smoothed percentiles by age in waking and
sleeping subjects, respectively.   The  variability of
respiratory rate among subjects was higher in the first
few  months  of  life, which may be  attributable to
biological events  that occur  during  these  months,
such  as maturation of the  neurologic  control of
breathing and changes  in  lung  and chest  wall
compliance and lung volumes.
        An advantage of this study is that it provides
distribution data for respiratory rate for children from
Page
6-18
                 Exposure Factors Handbook
                                      July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
infancy (less than 2 months) to 36 months old.  These
data are  not U.S. data;  U.S.  distributions were not
available. Although, there is no reason to believe that
the respiratory  rates for Italian  children would be
different  from that of U.S.  children, this study only
provided data for a narrow range of activities.

6.4.12  Price   et   al,    2003   -   Modeling
        Interindividual Variation  in Physiological
        Factors Used in PBPK Models of Humans
        Price et al. (2003) developed a database of
values for physiological parameters often used in
physiologically-based    pharmacokinetic   models
(PBPK).   The database consisted of approximately
31,000 records  containing  information on volumes
and  masses of selected organs  and tissues,  blood
flows for the organ and tissues, and  total  resting
cardiac output and average inhalation rates. Records
were created based on data from the NHANES III
survey.
        The  study  authors note  that the database
provides  a source of  data for human physiological
parameters  were  the  parameter  values  for  an
individual  are  correlated  with one another  and
capture interindividual variation in populations of a
specific gender,  race,  and age range.  A computer
program,   Physiological  Parameters   for   PBPK
Modeling  (PPPM  or  P3M),  which   is publicly
available  (The  Lifeline Group,  2007), was  also
developed  to randomly  retrieve  records  from the
database  for groups of  individuals of specified age
ranges, gender,  and ethnicities.   Price et al. (2003)
recommends that output sets be used  as  inputs to
Monte Carlo-based PBPK models of interindividual
variation in dose.

6.3.13  Brochu et al., 2006b - Physiological Daily
        Inhalation Rates for Free-Living Pregnant
        and Lactating  Adolescents  and Women
        Aged 11 to  55 Years,  Using  Data from
        Doubly Labeled Water  Measurements for
        Use in Health Risk Assessment
        Physiological daily inhalation rates (PDIRs)
were determined by  Brochu et  al.  (2006b) for
underweight,  normal-weight,  and overweight/obese
pregnant and lactating females aged 11  to 55 years
using  published  data  on   total  daily   energy
expenditures, and energy costs for growth, pregnancy
and  lactation (breast-energy  output  and maternal
milk-energy synthesis) in free-living females.  These
data were obtained using the doubly labeled water
methodology (DWL) in which disappearance rates of
predetermined doses of DLW (2H2O and H218O) in
urine from non-pregnant and non-lactating females (n
= 357) and normal-weight males (n = 131) as well as
saliva from gravid and breastfeeding females (n = 91)
were    monitored    by   gas-isotope-ratio   mass
spectrometry.
        PDIRs  were  calculated  for underweight,
normal-weigth, and overweight/obese females aged
11 to  55 years in prepregnancy, at weeks 9, 22,  and
36 during pregnancy, and weeks 6 and 27 postpartum.
Weight  groups  were  determined by BMI  cutoffs
settled by the  IOM (1990) for prepregnant females.
Underweight, normal-weight, and overweight/obese
individuals were defined as those having BMIs lower
than 19.8 kg/m2, between 19.8 and  26 kg/m2,  and
greater than 26 kg/m2, respectively. Parameters used
for breast-energy output and the extra energy cost for
milk synthesis were 539.29 ± 106.26 kcal/day (IOM,
2002) and 107.86  ± 21.25  kcal/day,  respectively.
Monte Carlo simulations were necessary to integrate
total daily energy requirements of non-pregnant  and
non-lactating females  into energy costs and weight
changes at the 9th,  22nd, and  36th week of pregnancy
and at the 6th and 27th postpartum week.  A total of
108 sets of 5,000 energetic data were run resulting in
a simulation of  540,000 data, pertaining to 45,000
simulated subjects.  Means, standard deviations,  and
percentiles of  energetic values  in kcal/day  and
kcal/kg-day for  males  and females were converted
into PDIRs in m3/day  and m3/kg-day by using the
equation developed by Layton (1993).
        Tables  6-49, 6-50,   and  6-51 present  the
distribution of physiological daily inhalation  rate
percentiles in  nrVday  for   underweight,  normal-
weight,  and overweight/obese females, respectively,
during pregnancy and postpartum weeks.  Tables 6-
52, 6-53,  and  6-54  present  physiological daily
inhalation rate percentiles in  m3/kg-day for the same
categories.    PDIRs  for   under-,  normal-,  and
overweight/obese pregnant  and  lactating  females
were higher than those for males reported in Brochu
et al. (2006a).  In normal-weight subjects, inhalation
rates are higher by 18 to 41% throughout pregnancy
and 23  to 39% during  postpartum weeks:  actual
values were higher in females by 1.13 to 2.01 nrVday
at the 9th week of pregnancy, 3.74 to 4.53 nrVday at
the 22nd week and 4.41 to 5.20 nrVday at the  36th
week,  and  by  4.43  to 5.30  nrVday  at the  6th
postpartum week and 4.22 to 5.11 nrVday at the  27th
postpartum week.  The highest 99th percentiles were
found to be 0.622 m3/kg-day  in pregnant females and
0.647 nrVkg-day in lactating females. By comparison,
the highest 99th percentile value for individuals aged
2.6 months to 96 years was  determined to be 0.725
nrVkg-day  (Brochu,  et al.  2006a).    The authors
concluded  that  air  quality   criteria and standard
calculations based  on  the  latter value  for non-
carcinogenic toxic  compounds should  therefore be
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                          Page
                                           6-19
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
protective for virtually all  pregnant  and lactating
females.  Brochu et  al. (2006b)  also noted that the
default assumption used by IRIS to derive human
equivalent concentrations  (HECs) (total respiratory
tract surface  of an adult human male of 54.3m2 is
exposed to a total daily air intake of 20 m3) would
underestimate exposures  to  pregnant  or lactating
females  since  approximately  one  pregnant  or
lactating female out of two is exposed to a total daily
air intake of 20 m3 up to the highest 99th percentile of
47.3 m3.

6.5      REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
Adams, W.C.  (1993) Measurement of breathing rate
        and  volume in routinely  performed  daily
        activities, Final  Report.   California  Air
        Resources  Board (CARB)  Contract  No.
        A033-205June 1993.  185 pgs.
Arcus-Arth, A. and Blaisdell, R.  J. (2007) Statistical
        distributions of daily  breathing rates for
        narrow age  groups of infants and children.
        Risk Anal 27(1):97-110.
Basiotis, P.P.; Thomas,  R.G.; Kelsay, J.L.; Mertz, W.
        (1989) Sources of variation in energy intake
        by men and  women as determined from one
        year's daily  dietary records.  Am.  J.  Clin.
        Nutr. 50:448-453.
Brochu, P.; Ducre-Robitaille, J.;  Brodeur, J. (2006a)
        Physiological daily inhalation rates for free-
        living individuals aged 1 month to 96 years,
        using  data  from  doubly   labeled  water
        measurements:  a proposal  for  air  quality
        criteria, standard calculations and  health
        risk  assessment.   Human  and Ecological
        Risk Assessment 12:675-701.
Brochu, P., Ducre-Robitaille, J., Brodeur, J.  (2006b)
        Physiological  Daily Inhalation  Rates for
        Free-Living    Pregnant   and   Lactating
        Adolescents  and  Women  Aged 11 to  55
        Years, Using  Data from Doubly  Labeled
        Water Measurements for Use in Health Risk
        Assessment.  Human and Ecological  Risk
        Assessment  12: 702-735.
FASEB/LSRO (Federation of American Societies for
        Experimental   Biology,  Life   Sciences
        Research Office). (1995)  Joint  policy  on
        variance  estimation and  statistical standards
        on   NHANES  III   and   CSFII   reports
        (Appendix   III).   In:   Third  Report  on
        Nutrition Monitoring  in the United States.
        Prepared for  the Interagency  Board for
        Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research.
        Washington, DC:  U.S. Government Printing
        Office.
Foos, B., Sonwane, B.   (2008) Overview: workshop
        on  children's  inhalation  dosimetry  and
        health effects for risk assessment.  J Toxicol
        Environ Health Part A 71(3): 147-148.
Foos, B.; Marty,  M.; Schwartz,  J.;  Bennett,  W.;
        Moya,  J.; Jarabek, A;  Salmon, A.  (2008)
        Focusing on children's  inhalation dosimetry
        and health effects for  risk assessment: an
        introduction.  J Toxicol Environ Health  Part
        A71(3):149-165.
International    Commission    on    Radiological
        Protection. (1981) Report of the task group
        on reference man.  New York:  Pergammon
        Press.
Layton,  D.W.    (1993)  Metabolically  consistent
        breathing rates for use  in dose assessments.
        Health Phys 64(l):23-36.
Linn, W.S.;  Shamoo, D.A.; Hackney, J.D.  (1992)
        Documentation of activity patterns in  "high-
        risk" groups  exposed to ozone in the  Los
        Angeles area. In: Proceedings of the Second
        EPA/AWMA Conference  on  Tropospheric
        Ozone, Atlanta, Nov.  1991.   pp.  701-712.
        Air  and  Waste  Management  Assoc.,
        Pittsburgh, PA.
Linn,  W.S.;  Spier,  C.E.; Hackney,   J.D.  (1993)
        Activity    patterns    in   ozone-exposed
        construction  workers.  J.  Occ.  Med. Tox.
Najjar, M.F.; Rowland, M.  (1987) Anthropometric
        reference    data    and   prevalence   of
        overweight:   United   States.     1976-80.
        Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
        Statistics.  U.S. Department of Health and
        Human Services:  DHHS  Publication  No.
        (PHS)87-1688.
Price, P.; Conolly, R.; Chaisson, C.; Gross, E.; Young,
        J.; Mathis, E.; Tedder,  D.  (2003) Modeling
        interindividual  variation  in  physiological
        factors used in PBPK models  of humans.
        Crit Rev Toxicol 33 (5):469- 503.
Rusconi, K; Castagneto, M.; Garliardi, L.; Leo, G;
        Pellegatta, A.; Porta, N.; Razon, S.; Braga,
        M.  (1994) Reference values for respiratory
        rate in the first 3  years of life.  Pediatrics
        94(3):350-355.
Sallis, J.F.;  Haskell,  W.L.; Wood, P.O.; Fortmann,
        S.P; Rogers, T; Blair,  S.N.; Paffenbarger,
        Jr., R.S. (1985) Physical activity assessment
        methodology in the Five-City project. Am.
        J. Epidemiol. 121:91-106.
Scrimshaw,  N. S.;  Waterlow,  J.  C.;  Schurch,  B.
        (Eds.).   (1996)   Energy   and  Protein
        Requirements.    Proceedings    of    an
        International    Dietary    and   Energy
        Consultancy  Group Workshop;  1994  Oct
Page
6-20
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
        31-Nov 4; London, UK: Stockton Press.
Shamoo, D.A.; Trim, S.C.; Little, D.E.; Linn, W.S.;
        Hackney, J.D. (1990)  Improved quantitation
        of air  pollution dose  rates  by  improved
        estimation of ventilation rate.   In:  Total
        Exposure Assessment Methodology: A New
        Horizon,  pp.  553-564.   Air  and  Waste
        Management Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA.
Shamoo, D.A.; Johnson, T.R.;  Trim,  S.C.;  Little,
        D.E.;  Linn,  W.S.; Hackney,  J.D.   (1991)
        Activity  patterns  in  a panel  of outdoor
        workers  exposed  to  oxidant  pollution. J.
        Expos. Anal. Environ.  Epidem.  1(4):423-
        438.
Shamoo, D.A.; Trim, S.C.; Little, D.E.; Whynot, J.D.;
        Linn, W.S. (1992) Effectiveness of training
        subjects to estimate their level of ventilation.
        J. Occ. Med. Tox. l(l):55-62.
Spier, C.E.; Little, D.E.; Trim, S.C.; Johnson, T.R.;
        Linn,  W.S.; Hackney, J.D.  (1992) Activity
        patterns  in  elementary  and  high school
        students exposed to oxidant pollution. J Exp
        Anal Environ Epidemiol 2(3):277-293.
Stifelman, M.  (2003) Letter to the editor. Risk Anal
        23(5):859-860.
Stifelman, M.   (2007) Using doubly-labeled water
        measurements of human energy expenditure
        to estimate  inhalation  rates.   Sci Total
        Environ 373:585-590.
The Lifeline Group. (2007) Physiological parameters
        for PBPK modeling™ version 1.3 (P3M™).
        Accessed  May   2007.    Available   at:
        http://www.thelifelinegroup.org/p3m/
U.S.  EPA.    (1985)  Development  of  statistical
        distributions or ranges  of standard factors
        used in exposure assessments.  Washington,
        DC:   Office of Health  and Environmental
        Assessment; EPA Report No. EPA 600/8-85-
        010.   Available from:  NTIS,  Springfield,
        VA; PB85-242667.
U.S.  EPA.     (1992)  Guidelines  for  exposure
        assessment.   Washington,  DC: Office  of
        Research  and  Development,  Office  of
        Health and Environmental Assessments.
U.S.  EPA.   (1994)   Methods for  derivation  of
        inhalation  reference   concentrations  and
        application   of   inhalation   dosimetry.
        Washington, DC:  Office  of  Health  and
        Environmental Assessment.    EPA/600/8-
        90/066F.
U.S. EPA.  (1997)  Exposure  Factors Handbook.
          Washington, DC: Office of Research and
          Development,  Office of  Health  and
          Environmental Assessment.
U.S. EPA. (2005a) Guidance on selecting age groups
          for  monitoring and assessing childhood
          exposures to environmental contaminants.
          Washington, DC.:  U.S.  Environmental
          Protection Agency, Office of Research and
          Development. EPA/630/P-03/003F.
U.S.  EPA.  (2005b).  Supplemental  guidance  for
        assessing  susceptibility  from  early-life
        exposure to carcinogens.  Washington, DC:
        Risk  Assessment  Forum.     EPA/63 0/R-
        03/003F.
U.S.  EPA.  (2009)  Metabolically-derived  human
        ventilation rates: A revised approach based
        upon oxygen consumption rates. Office of
        Research and Development,  Washington,
        DC. EPA/600/R-06/129F.
U.S. EPA. (2008)  Risk Assessment  Guidance for
        Superfund:   Volume   I:  Human  Health
        Evaluation Manual (Part  F,  Supplemental
        Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment).
        Washington,   DC:  Office  of  Superfund
        Remediation  and  Technology  Innovation.
        Peer Review Draft. Prepared for  USEPA,
        Contract No. 68-W-01-05.
WHO. (1986)  Principles for evaluating  health risks
        from  chemicals during infancy and early
        childhood: the need for a  special approach.
        Environmental Health  Criteria 59, World
        Health     Organization,      International
        Programme on Chemical Safety.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                         Page
                                          6-21
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-4. Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (m3/day) for Free-living Normal-weight
Males and Females Aged 2.6 months to 96 years
Body Weight8
Age Group N (kg)
(years) Mean
±SD
Physiological Daily Inhalation
Mean ± SD -
Rates'1 (m3/day)
Percentile0
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
Males
0.22to<0.5 32 6.7 ±1.0
0.5to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-5. Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (mVday) for Free-living Normal-weight
Males, Females, and Males and Females Combined

Age Group"' c N
Meanb
95«h,b
Males
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2to<3
3to<6
6to81
32
32
40
72
35
25
25
38
30
30
64
41
33
33
83
50
50
3.38
3.38
4.22
3.85
5.12
7.60
7.60
10.59
17.23
17.23
17.36
16.88
16.24
16.24
14.26
12.96
12.96
4.57
4.57
5.51
5.09
6.56
9.71
9.71
13.87
23.26
23.26
22.65
21.00
20.64
20.64
18.47
17.03
17.03
Females
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2to<3
3to<6
6to81
53
53
63
116
66
36
36
161
87
87
155
59
58
58
103
45
45
3.26
3.26
3.96
3.64
4.78
7.06
7.06
9.84
13.28
13.28
13.45
13.68
12.31
12.31
11.21
9.80
9.80
4.36
4.36
5.14
4.78
6.36
8.97
8.97
12.61
17.56
17.56
17.50
16.58
15.71
15.71
14.69
13.37
13.37
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-23
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-5. Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (mVday) for Free-living Normal-weight
Males, Females, and Males and Females Combined (continued)
Age Group"' c
N Meanb
95th. b
Males and Females Combined
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2to<3
3to<6
6to81
85
85
103
188
101
61
61
199
117
117
219
100
91
91
186
95
95
a No other age groups from Table 6-4 (Brochu et al., 2006a) fit into the U.S. EPA age
b Weighted (where possible) average of reported study means and 95th percentiles.
c See Table 6-55 for concordance with EPA age groupings.
N = Number of individuals.
Source: Brochu et al., 2006a.


3.31
3.31
4.06
3.72
4.90
7.28
7.28
9.98
14.29
14.29
14.59
14.99
13.74
13.74
12.57
11.46
11.46
groupings.


4.44
4.44
5.28
4.90
6.43
9.27
9.27
12.85
19.02
19.02
19.00
18.39
17.50
17.50
16.37
15.30
15.30



Page
6-24
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-6. Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (m3/day) for Free-living Normal-weight and Overweight/obese
Males and Females Aged 4 to 96 years
Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates' (m3/day)
Age Group Body Weight3 (kg)
Cvearsl Mean ± SD i\f--,,, i ^n
5th 10th 25th
Percentile0
50th
75th
90th 95th
99th
Males - Normal-weight
4to<5.1 77 19.0 ±1.9 7.90 ±0.97 6.31 6.66 7.25
5.1to<9.1 52 22.6±3.5 9.14±1.44 6.77 7.29 8.17
9.1to<18.1 36 41.4±12.1 13.69±3.95 7.19 8.63 11.02
18.1to<40.1 98 71. 3 ±6.1 17.41±2.70 12.96 13.94 15.58
40.1to<70.1 34 70.0 ±7.8 15.60 ±2.89 10.85 11.89 13.65
70.1to<96 38 68.9 ±6.8 12.69 ±2.33 8.85 9.70 11.11
7.90
9.14
13.69
17.41
15.60
12.69
8.56
10.11
16.35
19.23
17.54
14.26
9.15 9.50
10.99 11.51
18.75 20.19
20.87 21.85
19.30 20.34
15.68 16.53
10.16
12.49
22.88
23.69
22.31
18.12
Males - Overweight/obese
4to<5.1 54 26.5 ±4.9 9.59 ±1.26 7.52 7.98 8.74
5.1to<9.1 40 32.5 ±9.2 10.88 ±2.49 6.78 7.69 9.20
9.1to<18.1 33 55. 8 ±10.8 14.52 ±1.98 11.25 11.98 13.18
18.1to<40.1 52 98.1 ±25.2 20.39 ±3.62 14.44 15.75 17.95
40.1to<70.1 81 93.2 ±14.9 17.96 ±3.71 11.85 13.20 15.45
70.1to<96 32 82.3 ±10.3 14.23 ±2.94 9.40 10.46 12.25
9.59
10.88
14.52
20.39
17.96
14.23
10.44
12.56
15.85
22.83
20.46
16.21
11.21 11.66
14.07 14.98
17.06 17.78
25.03 26.35
22.71 24.06
18.00 19.06
12.52
16.68
19.13
28.81
26.59
21.07
Females - Normal-weight
4to<5.1 82 18.7±2.0 7.41±0.91 5.92 6.25 6.80
5.1to<9.1 151 25.5 ±4.1 9.39 ±1.62 6.72 7.31 8.30
9.1to<18.1 124 42.7±11.1 12.04 ±2.86 7.34 8.38 10.11
18.1to<40.1 135 59.1 ±6.3 13.73 ± 2.01 10.41 11.15 12.37
40.1to<70.1 79 59.1 ±5.3 11.93 ±2.16 8.38 9.16 10.47
70.1to<96 24 54.8±7.5 8.87±1.79 5.92 6.57 7.66
7.41
9.39
12.04
13.73
11.93
8.87
8.02
10.48
13.97
15.09
13.38
10.07
8.57 8.90
11.47 12.05
15.70 16.74
16.31 17.04
14.69 15.48
11.16 11.81
9.52
13.16
18.68
18.41
16.95
13.03
Females - Overweight/obese
4to<5.1 56 26.1 ±5. 5 8.70 ± 1.13 6.84 7.26 7.94
5.1to<9.1 68 34.6 ±9.9 10.55 ± 2.23 6.88 7.69 9.05
9.1to<18.1 68 59.2±12.8 14.27±2.70 9.83 10.81 12.45
18.1to<40.1 76 84.4 ±16.3 15.66 ±2.11 12.18 12.95 14.23
40.1to<70.1 91 81.7 ±17.2 13.01 ±2.82 8.37 9.40 11.11
70.1to<96 28 69.0 ±7.8 10.00 ±1.78 7.07 7.71 8.80
8.70
10.55
14.27
15.66
13.01
10.00
9.47
12.06
16.09
17.08
14.91
11.20
10.15 10.56
13.41 14.22
17.73 18.71
18.36 19.13
16.62 17.64
12.28 12.93
11.33
15.75
20.55
20.57
19.56
14.14
a Measured body weight. Normal-weight and overweight/obese males defined according to the body mass index (BMI) cut-offs.
b Physiological daily inhalation rates were calculated using the following equation: (TDEE + ECG)*H*(VE/VO2)* 10"3, where H = 0.21
L of O2/Kcal, VE/VO2 = 27 (Layton, 1993), TDEE = total daily energy expenditure (kcal/day) and ECG = stored daily energy cost for
growth (kcal/day).
c Percentiles based on a normal distribution assumption for age groups.
N = Number of individuals.
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Brochu et al., 2006a.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-25
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-7. Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates per Unit of Body Weight (m3/kg-day) for
Free-living Normal-weight Males and Females Aged 2.6 months to 96 years
Age
(yt

Ciroup
;ars) Mean±SD -
Physiological Daily Inhalation Ratesa (m3/kg-day)
Percentileb
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
Males
0.22 to <0. 5 0.51 ±0.09
0.5to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-8. Distribution Percentiles of Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates (m3/kg-day) for Free-living Normal-weight
and Overweight/obese Males and Females Aged 4 to 96 years
Physiological Daily Inhalation Ratesa (m3
Age Group (years)
Mean ± SD


4to<5.1
5.1
9.1
18.
40.
70.
to<9.1
to<18.1
1 to<40.1
1 to<70.1
1 to <96

0.42 ± 0.04
0.41 ±0.06
0.33 ±0.05
0.25± 0.04
0.22 ± 0.04
0.19 ±0.03

5th

0.35
0.31
0.26
0.18
0.16
0.13
/kg-day)
Percentileb
10th
Males -
0.36
0.34
0.27
0.20
0.17
0.14
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
Normal-weight
0.39
0.37
0.30
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.42
0.41
0.33
0.25
0.22
0.19
0.45
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.25
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
48
40
29
28
23
0.49
0.50
0.41
0.31
0.29
0.24
0.52
0.54
0.45
0.33
0.32
0.26
Males - Overweight/obese
4to<5.1
5.1
9.1
18.
40.
70.

to<9.1
to<18.1
1 to<40.1
1 to<70.1
1 to <96

4to<5.1
5.1
9.1
18.
40.
70.

to<9.1
to<18.1
1 to<40.1
1 to<70.1
1 to <96

4to<5.1
5.1
9.1
18.
40.
70.
a
b
SD
to<9.1
to<18.1
1 to<40.1
1 to<70.1
1 to <96
0.37 ±0.04
0.35 ±0.08
0.27 ±0.04
0.21 ±0.04
0.19 ±0.03
0.17 ±0.03

0.40 ±0.05
0.37 ±0.06
0.29 ±0.06
0.23 ±0.04
0.20 ± 0.04
0.16 ±0.04

0.34 ±0.04
0.32 ±0.07
0.25 ±0.05
0.19 ±0.03
0.16 ±0.03
0.15 ±0.03
0.30
0.22
0.20
0.15
0.14
0.12

0.32
0.27
0.20
0.17
0.14
0.11

0.27
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.10
0.31
0.25
0.22
0.17
0.15
0.13
Females
0.34
0.29
0.22
0.19
0.15
0.12
Females -
0.28
0.23
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.34
0.29
0.24
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.37
0.35
0.27
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.40
0.40
0.29
0.22
0.22
0.19
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
45
32
26
24
21
0.44
0.47
0.33
0.27
0.25
0.22
0.47
0.53
0.36
0.30
0.28
0.24
- Normal- weight
0.37
0.33
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.14
0.40
0.37
0.29
0.23
0.20
0.16
0.43
0.41
0.33
0.26
0.23
0.19
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
45
36
28
25
20
0.48
0.47
0.38
0.30
0.27
0.22
0.51
0.52
0.42
0.32
0.29
0.24
Overweight/obese
0.31
0.27
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.13
0.34
0.32
0.25
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.37
0.36
0.28
0.21
0.18
0.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
31
22
20
18
Physiological daily inhalation rates were calculated using the following equation: (TDEE +
ECG)*H*(VE/V02)*10-3, where H = 0.21 L of O2/Kcal, VE/VO2 = 27 (Layton, 1993), TDEE
energy expenditure (kcal/day) and ECG = stored daily energy cost for growth (kcal/day).
Percentiles based on a normal distribution assumption for age groups.
= Standard deviation.
Source: Brochu
et al., 2006a.







0.41
0.43
0.33
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.44
0.47
0.36
0.25
0.23
0.21
= total daily


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-27
-------
                                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                   Table 6-9.  Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates for Newboms Aged 1 Month or Less
                                                                     Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates6
            .    „                  ,T       Body Weight (kg)                     Mean ± SD
            Age Group             N          iL^-TcA     	Mean±MJ	
                                                                    (m3/day)               (m3/kg-day)
    21 days (3 weeks)              13a'c          1.2 ±0.2            0.85±0.17f              0.74±0.09f
    32 days (~ 1 month)            10b'd          4.7 ±0.7            2.45±0.59g              0.53±0.10g
    33 days (~ 1 month)            10a'd          4.8 ±0.3            2.99±0.47B              0.62±0.09B
    a        Formula-fed infants.
    b        Breast-fed infants.
    c        Healthy infants with very low birth weight.
    d        Infants evaluated as being clinically healthy and neither underweight or overweight.
    e        Physiological daily inhalation rates were calculated using the following equation: (TDEE + ECG)*H*(VE/VO2)* 10"3,
             where H = 0.21 L of O2/Kcal, Vi/VOj = 27 (Layton, 1993), TDEE = total daily energy expenditure (kcal/day) and ECG
             = stored daily energy cost for growth (kcal/day).
    f        TDEEs based on nutritional balance measurements during 3-day periods.
    8        TDEEs based on 2H2O and H218O disappearance rates from urine.

    N        = Number of individuals.
    SD       = Standard deviation.

    Source:  Brochu et al., 2006a.
Page                                                                          Exposure Factors Handbook
6-28                                                                                                  July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-10. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Inhalation Rate in Males, by Age Category8
Daily Average Inhalation Rate, Unadjusted for Body Weight
(mVday)
Age Group
Birth to <1 year
1 to < 2 years
2 to < 3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16to<21 years
2 1 to <3 1 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
8 1 years and older
Age Group
Birth to <1 year
1 to < 2 years
2 to < 3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
2 1 to <3 1 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
8 1 years and older
N
419
308
261
540
940
1,337
1,241
701
728
753
627
678
496
255

N
419
308
261
540
940
1,337
1,241
701
728
753
627
678
496
255
Mean
8.76
13.49
13.23
12.64
13.42
15.32
17.21
18.82
20.29
20.94
20.91
17.94
16.34
15.15

Mean
1.09
1.19
0.95
0.70
0.44
0.29
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.20

5th
4.78
9.73
9.45
10.43
10.08
11.40
12.60
12.69
14.00
14.66
14.99
13.91
13.10
11.95


5th
0.91
0.96
0.78
0.52
0.32
0.21
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.17

10th
5.70
10.41
10.21
10.87
10.68
12.11
13.41
13.56
14.96
15.54
16.07
14.50
13.61
12.57
Daily Avera;

10th
0.94
1.02
0.82
0.56
0.34
0.22
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18

25th
7.16
11.65
11.43
11.39
11.74
13.28
14.49
15.49
16.96
17.50
17.60
15.88
14.66
13.82
Percentiles
50th
8.70
13.12
13.19
12.59
13.09
14.79
16.63
18.17
19.83
20.59
20.40
17.60
16.23
14.90

75th
10.43
15.02
14.50
13.64
14.73
16.82
19.17
21.24
23.01
23.89
23.16
19.54
17.57
16.32
je Inhalation Rate, Adjusted for Body
(m3/day-kg)

25th
1.00
1.09
0.87
0.61
0.38
0.25
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
Percentiles
50th
1.09
1.17
0.94
0.69
0.43
0.28
0.23
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.20
0.20
0.20

75th
1.16
1.26
1.01
0.78
0.50
0.32
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.27
0.22
0.21
0.22

90th
11.92
17.02
16.27
14.63
16.56
19.54
21.93
24.57
26.77
26.71
27.01
21.77
19.43
18.01
Weight

90th
1.26
1.37
1.09
0.87
0.55
0.36
0.28
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.30
0.24
0.23
0.23

95th
12.69
17.90
17.71
15.41
17.73
21.21
23.37
27.13
28.90
28.37
29.09
23.50
20.42
18.69


95th
1.29
1.48
1.13
0.92
0.58
0.38
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.25
0.24
0.25
8 Individual daily averages are weighted by their 4-year sampling weights as assigned within NHANES 1999-2002 when
the statistics in this table. Inhalation rate was estimated using a multiple linear regression model.
N = Number of individuals.
BW = Body
weight.








Maximum
17.05
24.24
28.17
19.53
24.97
28.54
39.21
43.42
40.72
45.98
38.17
28.09
24.52
22.64

Maximum
1.48
1.73
1.36
1.08
0.80
0.51
0.39
0.51
0.46
0.47
0.43
0.32
0.31
0.28
calculating

Source: U.S. EPA, 2009.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-29
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-11. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Inhalation Rate in Females, by Age Category"
Daily Average Inhalation Rate, Unadjusted for Body Weight
(m3/day)
Age Group
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to<31 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
8 1 years and older
Age Group
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
2 1 to <3 1 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
8 1 years and older
N
415
245
255
543
894
1,451
1,182
1,023
869
763
622
700
470
306

N
415
245
255
543
894
1,451
1,182
1,023
869
763
622
700
470
306
Mean
8.52
13.31
12.74
12.17
12.41
13.44
13.59
14.57
14.98
16.20
16.19
12.99
12.04
11.15

Mean
1.14
1.20
0.95
0.69
0.43
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.18
0.18
0.18

5th
4.84
9.09
8.91
9.88
9.99
10.47
9.86
10.15
11.07
12.11
12.33
10.40
9.89
9.19


5th
0.91
0.97
0.82
0.48
0.28
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.14

10th
5.49
10.12
10.07
10.38
10.35
11.12
10.61
10.67
11.81
12.57
12.96
10.77
10.20
9.46
Daily Average

10th
0.97
1.01
0.84
0.54
0.31
0.20
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15

25th
6.84
11.25
11.38
11.20
11.02
12.04
11.78
11.94
13.02
14.16
14.07
11.78
10.89
10.14
Percentiles
50th
8.41
13.03
12.60
12.02
11.95
13.08
13.20
14.10
14.69
15.88
15.90
12.92
11.82
11.02

75th
9.78
14.64
13.95
13.02
13.42
14.54
15.02
16.62
16.32
17.96
17.80
13.91
12.96
11.87
Inhalation Rate, Adjusted for Body
(m3/day-kg)

25th
1.04
1.10
0.89
0.60
0.36
0.22
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.16
Percentiles
50th
1.13
1.18
0.96
0.68
0.43
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.18

75th
1.24
1.30
1.01
0.77
0.49
0.28
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.24
0.19
0.19
0.20

90th
11.65
17.45
15.58
14.03
15.13
16.26
17.12
19.32
18.50
19.92
19.93
15.39
14.11
12.84
Weight

90th
1.33
1.41
1.07
0.88
0.55
0.31
0.27
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.21
0.21
0.21

95th
12.66
18.62
16.36
14.93
16.34
17.41
18.29
21.14
20.45
21.34
21.21
16.14
15.19
13.94


95th
1.38
1.46
1.10
0.92
0.58
0.34
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.31
0.30
0.22
0.23
0.22
a Individual daily averages are weighted by their 4-year sampling weights as assigned within NHANES 1999-2002 when
the statistics in this table. Inhalation rate was estimated using a multiple linear regression model.
N = Number of individuals.
Source: U.S. EPA,
2009.








- Maximum
26.25
24.77
23.01
19.74
20.82
26.58
30.11
30.23
28.28
35.88
25.70
20.33
17.70
16.93

- Maximum
1.60
1.73
1.23
1.12
0.75
0.47
0.36
0.40
0.43
0.41
0.40
0.27
0.34
0.28
calculating

Page
6-30
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6- 12.
Age Group
Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (m
Males and Females Combined
N
3/day) for Males, Females and
Mean

95th
Males
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to<31 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
8 1 years and older
419
308
261
540
940
1,337
1,241
701
728
753
627
678
496
255
8.76
13.49
13.23
12.64
13.42
15.32
17.21
18.82
20.29
20.94
20.91
17.94
16.34
15.15
12.69
17.90
17.71
15.41
17.73
21.21
23.37
27.13
28.90
28.37
29.09
23.50
20.42
18.69
Females
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to<31 years
31 to<41 years
41 to <51 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
8 1 years and older
415
245
255
543
894
1,451
1,182
1,023
869
763
622
700
470
306
8.52
13.31
12.74
12.17
12.41
13.44
13.59
14.57
14.98
16.20
16.19
12.99
12.04
11.15
12.66
18.62
16.36
14.93
16.34
17.41
18.29
21.14
20.45
21.34
21.21
16.14
15.19
13.94
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-31
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-12. Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (mVday) for Males, Females and
Males and Females Combined (continued)
Age Group
N
Mean
95th
Males and Females Combined8
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to<31 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
8 1 years and older
834
553
516
1,083
1,834
2,788
2,423
1,724
1,597
1,516
1,249
1,378
966
561
8.64
13.41
12.99
12.40
12.93
14.34
15.44
16.30
17.40
18.55
18.56
15.43
14.25
12.97
12.67
18.22
17.04
15.17
17.05
19.23
20.89
23.57
24.30
24.83
25.17
19.76
17.88
16.10
a Weighted average of reported male and female means and 95th percentiles.
N = Number of individuals.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2009.



Page
6-32
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------




Table 6-13.
Descriptive Statistics for Average Ventilation Rate3 While Performing Activities Within the Specified Activity Category, for Males by Age Category
Average Ventilation Rate (mVmin), Unadjusted for Body Weight
Age Group

N


Mean

5*

10th

25*
Percentiles
50*

75*

90*

95*

Maximum
Average Ventilation Rate (m3/min-kg), Adjusted for Body Weight

Mean

5*

10*

25*
Percentiles
50* 75* 90*

95*

Maximum
Sleep or nap (Activity ID = 14500)
Birth to-------
Table 6-13. Descriptive Statistics for Average Ventilation Rate3 While Performing Activities Within the Specified Activity Category, for Males by Age Category (continued)
Average Ventilation Rate (m3/min), Unadjusted for Body Weight
Age Group N
5th

10th 25th
Percentiles
50th

75th

90th 95*


Average Ventilation Rate (m3/min-kg), Adjusted for Body Weight

5

10th
Percentiles
25* 50th

75*

90th 95th

Maximum
Moderate Intensity Activities (3.0 < METS < 6.0)
Birthto 6.0)
Birthto
-------
Table 6-14. Descriptive Statistics for Average Ventilation Rate3 While Performing Activities Within the Specified Activity Category, for Females by Age Category

Age Group


N
Mean
Average
Ventilation Rate (
m'/min), U
Percentiles
5th 10*
25th
50*
ladjusted for Body Weight

75th 90th 95th


5th
Average Ventilation Rate

10th 25*
m3/min-kg), Adjusted for
Percentiles
50th 75*
Body Weight

90*


95*


Maximum
Sleep or nap (Activity ID - 14500)
Birth to
-------




























^VJ
^2
^
sure Factors
i Handbook

Table 6-14. Descriptive Statistics for Average Ventilation Rate3 While Performing Activities Within the Specified Activity Category
Age Group

N
Mean
Average Ventilation Rate (m3/min), Unadjusted for Body Weight
Perc entiles
5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95*
for Females
by Age Category (continued)




Average Ventilation Rate (mVmin-kg), Adjusted for Body Weight
Mean

5th

10th
Percentiles
25th 50th

75*

90th

95th
Maximum
Moderate Intensity Activities (3.0 < METS < 6.0)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 11 years
11 to< 16 years
16 to< 21 years
21 to<31 years
3 1 to <4 1 years
4 1 to <5 1 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to<71 years
71 to<81 years
415 1.40E-02
245 2.10E-02
255 2.13E-02
543 2.00E-02
894 2.10E-02
1,451 2.36E-02
1,182 2.32E-02
1,023 2.29E-02
869 2.27E-02
763 2.45E-02
622 2.52E-02
700 2.14E-02
470 2.11E-02
81 years and older 306 2.09E-02
7.91E-03 9.00E-03 1.12E-02 1.35E-02 1.63E-02 1.94E-02 2.23E-02 4.09E-02
1.56E-02 1.63E-02 1.79E-02 2.01E-02 2.35E-02 2.71E-02 2.93E-02 3.45E-02
1.42E-02 1.56E-02 1.82E-02 2.15E-02 2.39E-02 2.76E-02 2.88E-02 3.76E-02
1.53E-02 1.63E-02 1.78E-02 1.98E-02 2.16E-02 2.38E-02 2.59E-02 3.29E-02
1.60E-02 1.68E-02 1.85E-02 2.04E-02 2.30E-02 2.61E-02 2.81E-02 4.31E-02
1.82E-02 1.95E-02 2.08E-02 2.30E-02 2.54E-02 2.84E-02 3.14E-02 4.24E-02
1.66E-02 1.76E-02 1.96E-02 2.24E-02 2.61E-02 3.03E-02 3.20E-02 5.25E-02
1.56E-02 1.67E-02 1.90E-02 2.19E-02 2.60E-02 3.00E-02 3.28E-02 5.42E-02
1.69E-02 1.76E-02 1.95E-02 2.20E-02 2.48E-02 2.89E-02 3.11E-02 4.73E-02
1.76E-02 1.89E-02 2.08E-02 2.39E-02 2.74E-02 3.08E-02 3.36E-02 5.07E-02
1.88E-02 1.98E-02 2.18E-02 2.43E-02 2.81E-02 3.19E-02 3.50E-02 4.62E-02
1.69E-02 1.77E-02 1.92E-02 2.09E-02 2.32E-02 2.57E-02 2.73E-02 3.55E-02
1.69E-02 1.76E-02 1.89E-02 2.07E-02 2.29E-02 2.49E-02 2.64E-02 3.44E-02
1.65E-02 1.75E-02 1.91E-02 2.06E-02 2.25E-02 2.46E-02 2.60E-02 2.93E-02
1.87E-03
1.90E-03
1.60E-03
1.14E-03
7.23E-04
4.41E-04
3.65E-04
3.25E-04
3.16E-04
3.33E-04
3.39E-04
2.92E-04
3.08E-04
3.35E-04
1.47E-03
1.52E-03
1.27E-03
7.92E-04
4.62E-04
3.17E-04
2.67E-04
2.35E-04
2.13E-04
2.21E-04
2.35E-04
2.24E-04
2.40E-04
2.47E-04
1.52E-03
1.62E-03
1.31E-03
8.53E-04
5.12E-04
3.38E-04
2.82E-04
2.45E-04
2.31E-04
2.36E-04
2.54E-04
2.38E-04
2.50E-04
2.66E-04
1.67E-03 1.85E-03
1.73E-03 1.87E-03
1.44E-03 1.58E-03
9.64E-04 1.11E-03
5.98E-04 7.15E-04
3.80E-04 4.31E-04
3.10E-04 3.51E-04
2.81E-04 3.16E-04
2.68E-04 3.04E-04
2.76E-04 3.25E-04
2.83E-04 3.26E-04
2.59E-04 2.85E-04
2.70E-04 2.99E-04
2.98E-04 3.33E-04
2.01E-03
2.02E-03
1.75E-03
1.31E-03
8.38E-04
4.92E-04
4.07E-04
3.60E-04
3.50E-04
3.76E-04
3.83E-04
3.20E-04
3.40E-04
3.72E-04
2.25E-03
2.24E-03
1.92E-03
1.45E-03
9.42E-04
5.51E-04
4.63E-04
4.16E-04
4.10E-04
4.41E-04
4.38E-04
3.51E-04
3.75E-04
4.02E-04
2.40E-03
2.37E-03
2.02E-03
1.56E-03
1.01E-03
6.11E-04
4.94E-04
4.52E-04
4.60E-04
4.88E-04
4.86E-04
3.71E-04
4.07E-04
4.20E-04
2.83E-03
3.24E-03
2.59E-03
1.93E-03
1.37E-03
9.86E-04
6.50E-04
6.57E-04
7.08E-04
6.20E-04
3.69E-04
5.11E-04
6.77E-04
5.20E-04
High Intensity (METS > 6.0)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 11 years
11 to< 16 years
16 to< 21 years
21 to<31 years
3 1 to <4 1 years
4 1 to <5 1 years
5 1 to <6 1 years
61 to<71 years
71 to<81 years
79 2.42E-02
55 3.65E-02
130 3.76E-02
347 3.45E-02
707 3.94E-02
1,170 4.66E-02
887 4.41E-02
796 4.57E-02
687 4.44E-02
515 4.70E-02
424 4.74E-02
465 4.00E-02
304 4.06E-02
8 1 years and older 188 4 . 1 9E-02
1.24E-02 1.33E-02 1.72E-02 2.25E-02 2.93E-02 3.56E-02 4.07E-02 7.46E-02
2.59E-02 2.62E-02 3.04E-02 3.61E-02 4.20E-02 4.73E-02 4.86E-02 7.70E-02
2.90E-02 3.05E-02 3.23E-02 3.64E-02 4.08E-02 4.81E-02 5.14E-02 7.30E-02
2.70E-02 2.82E-02 3.00E-02 3.33E-02 3.76E-02 4.32E-02 4.47E-02 5.66E-02
2.86E-02 3.01E-02 3.37E-02 3.80E-02 4.41E-02 5.05E-02 5.46E-02 8.29E-02
3.11E-02 3.38E-02 3.88E-02 4.53E-02 5.29E-02 6.08E-02 6.63E-02 1.02E-01
2.87E-02 3.06E-02 3.65E-02 4.27E-02 5.02E-02 5.82E-02 6.34E-02 1.09E-01
2.88E-02 3.12E-02 3.67E-02 4.31E-02 5.22E-02 6.19E-02 6.89E-02 1.08E-01
3.03E-02 3.29E-02 3.70E-02 4.22E-02 5.05E-02 5.95E-02 6.53E-02 8.95E-02
3.10E-02 3.40E-02 3.84E-02 4.56E-02 5.41E-02 6.15E-02 6.74E-02 8.87E-02
3.15E-02 3.48E-02 3.94E-02 4.57E-02 5.41E-02 6.23E-02 6.88E-02 8.44E-02
2.76E-02 3.06E-02 3.46E-02 3.87E-02 4.53E-02 5.08E-02 5.64E-02 7.13E-02
2.85E-02 3.01E-02 3.43E-02 3.96E-02 4.70E-02 5.20E-02 5.41E-02 7.53E-02
2.85E-02 3.09E-03 3.44E-02 4.14E-02 4.76E-02 5.56E-02 5.83E-02 7.21E-02
3.26E-03
3.38E-03
2.80E-03
1.98E-03
1.33E-03
8.79E-04
6.96E-04
6.50E-04
6.13E-04
6.35E-04
6.34E-04
5.44E-04
5.94E-04
6.66E-04
2.53E-03
2.57E-03
2.20E-03
1.36E-03
8.85E-04
5.89E-04
4.52E-04
4.17E-04
3.84E-04
3.79E-04
3.93E-04
3.64E-04
3.95E-04
4.54E-04
2.62E-03
2.75E-03
2.31E-03
1.51E-03
9.67E-04
6.25E-04
4.96E-04
4.62E-04
4.20E-04
4.44E-04
4.31E-04
4.04E-04
4.45E-04
4.80E-04
2.89E-03 3.23E-03
2.97E-03 3.24E-03
2.48E-03 2.81E-03
1.69E-03 1.90E-03
1.12E-03 1.33E-03
7.12E-04 8.53E-04
5.67E-04 6.86E-04
5.46E-04 6.27E-04
4.96E-04 5.90E-04
5.17E-04 6.41E-04
5.07E-04 6.12E-04
4.49E-04 5.29E-04
4.98E-04 5.80E-04
5.43E-04 6.26E-04
3.63E-03
3.71E-03
3.13E-03
2.19E-03
1.52E-03
1.01E-03
7.93E-04
7.30E-04
7.08E-04
7.65E-04
7.55E-04
6.10E-04
6.75E-04
7.68E-04
3.96E-03
4.16E-03
3.36E-03
2.50E-03
1.72E-03
1.18E-03
9.16E-04
8.84E-04
8.35E-04
8.79E-04
8.51E-04
7.18E-04
7.76E-04
9.32E-04
a An individual's ventilation rate for the given activity category equals the weighted average of the individual's activity-specific ventilation rates for activities falling within the category, estimated using a multiple linear regression model, with weight
number of minutes spent performing the activity. Numbers in these two columns represent averages, calculated across individuals in the specified age category, of these weighted averages. These are weighted averages
with the w
4.08E-03
4.87E-03
3.48E-03
2.99E-03
1.81E-03
1.31E-03
l.OOE-03
9.39E-04
9.05E-04
9.50E-04
9.28E-04
8.03E-04
8.29E-04
9.72E-04
5.02E-03
4.88E-03
3.88E-03
3.24E-03
2.22E-03
2.05E-03
1.50E-03
1.30E-03
1.55E-03
1.61E-03
1.37E-03
1.11E-03
1.26E-03
1.22E-03
s corresponding to the
/eights corresponding to the 4-year
sampling weights assigned within NHANES 1999-2002.
N
MET
Number of individuals.
Metabolic equivalent.
















Source: U.S. EPA, 2009.

S
I
?
-------
Table 6-1 5. Descr
ptive Statistics for Duration of Time (hours/day) Spent Performing Activities Within the Specified Activity Category,
Duration (hours/day) Spent at Activity - Males
Age Group

N


Mean
Percentiles
5*
10*
25* 50*
75*
90*

95*
by Age and Gender
Categories3
Duration (hours/day) Spent at Activity - Females
N
5* 10*
Percentiles
25*
50*
75*
90*
95*

Maximum
Sleep or nap (Activity ID = 14SOO)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 1 6 years
1 6 to < 21 years
21 to <31 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
81 years and older
419
308
261
540
940
1,337
1,241
701
728
753
627
678
496
255
13.51
12.61
12.06
11.18
10.18
9.38
8.69
8.36
8.06
7.89
7.96
8.31
8.51
9.24
12.63
11.89
11.19
10.57
9.65
8.84
7.91
7.54
7.36
7.15
7.29
7.65
7.80
8.48
12.78
12.15
11.45
10.70
9.75
8.94
8.08
7.70
7.50
7.30
7.51
7.78
8.02
8.64
13.19 13.53
12.34 12.61
11.80 12.07
10.94 11.18
9.93 10.19
9.15 9.38
8.36 8.67
8.02 8.36
7.77 8.06
7.58 7.88
7.69 7.96
8.01 8.30
8.27 8.53
8.97 9.25
13.88
12.89
12.39
11.45
10.39
9.61
9.03
8.67
8.36
8.17
8.23
8.6
8.74
9.54
14.24
13.13
12.65
11.63
10.59
9.83
9.34
9.03
8.59
8.48
8.48
8.83
8.99
9.74
14.46
13.29
12.75
11.82
10.72
9.95
9.50
9.23
8.76
8.68
8.66
9.01
9.10
9.96
15.03
13.79
13.40
12.39
11.24
10.33
10.44
9.77
9.82
9.38
9.04
9.66
9.89
10.69
415 12.99 12.00 12.16
245 12.58 11.59 11.88
255 12.09 11.45 11.68
543 11.13 10.45 10.70
894 10.26 9.55 9.73
1,451 9.57 8.82 8.97
1,182 9.08 8.26 8.44
1,023 8.60 7.89 7.99
869 8.31 7.54 7.70
763 8.32 7.58 7.75
622 8.12 7.36 7.53
700 8.40 7.67 7.88
470 8.58 7.85 8.01
306 9.11 8.35 8.53
12.53
12.29
11.86
10.92
10.01
9.27
8.74
8.26
7.98
7.99
7.81
8.15
8.26
8.84
12.96
12.63
12.08
11.12
10.27
9.55
9.08
8.59
8.28
8.31
8.11
8.40
8.55
9.10
13.44
12.96
12.34
11.38
10.54
9.87
9.39
8.90
8.59
8.63
8.43
8.68
8.89
9.34
13.82
13.16
12.57
11.58
10.74
10.17
9.79
9.20
8.92
8.93
8.73
8.93
9.19
9.73
14.07
13.31
12.66
11.75
10.91
10.31
10.02
9.38
9.17
9.13
8.85
9.09
9.46
10.04
14.82
14.55
13.48
12.23
11.43
11.52
11.11
10.35
10.22
10.02
9.29
9.80
10.34
10.55
Sedentary & Passive Activities (METS < 1.5 - Includes Sleep or Nap)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 1 6 years
1 6 to < 21 years
21 to <31 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to <81 years
81 years and older
419
308
261
540
940
1,337
1,241
701
728
753
627
678
496
255
14.95
14.27
14.62
14.12
13.51
13.85
13.21
12.41
12.31
12.32
13.06
14.49
15.90
16.58
13.82
13.22
13.52
13.01
12.19
12.39
11.39
10.69
10.73
10.56
11.47
12.96
14.22
15.13
14.03
13.33
13.67
13.18
12.45
12.65
11.72
11.06
10.98
11.00
11.86
13.24
14.67
15.45
14.49 14.88
13.76 14.25
14.11 14.54
13.54 14.03
12.86 13.30
13.06 13.61
12.32 13.08
11.74 12.39
11.61 12.24
11.67 12.30
12.36 13.03
13.76 14.48
15.25 15.94
15.92 16.64
15.44
14.74
15.11
14.53
13.85
14.30
13.97
13.09
12.98
12.95
13.72
15.16
16.65
17.21
15.90
15.08
15.60
15.26
14.82
15.41
14.83
13.75
13.63
13.67
14.38
15.72
17.11
17.7
16.12
15.38
15.77
15.62
15.94
16.76
15.44
14.16
14.05
13.98
14.76
16.24
17.46
18.06
Light Intensity Activii
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 1 6 years
1 6 to < 21 years
21 to <31 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to<71 years
71 to<81 years
81 years and older
419
308
261
540
940
1,337
1,241
701
728
753
627
678
496
255
5.30
5.52
5.48
6.60
7.62
7.50
7.13
6.09
5.72
6.07
5.64
5.49
4.96
4.86
2.97
2.68
3.06
3.86
5.07
4.48
4.37
3.15
2.80
2.97
3.21
3.50
3.45
3.54
3.25
2.89
3.26
4.25
5.57
5.59
4.97
3.50
3.12
3.41
3.44
3.82
3.75
3.71
3.71 4.52
3.37 4.31
3.85 4.58
5.16 6.20
6.63 7.63
6.75 7.67
6.00 7.02
4.20 5.08
3.70 4.64
3.92 4.82
4.03 4.79
4.58 5.29
4.29 4.81
4.17 4.74
7.29
8.23
7.58
8.26
8.72
8.51
8.29
8.49
8.34
8.56
7.59
6.41
5.59
5.39
8.08
9.04
8.83
9.31
9.78
9.19
9.43
9.96
9.87
10.19
8.94
7.40
6.26
6.33
8.50
9.73
9.04
9.70
10.12
9.63
10.03
10.47
10.49
10.79
9.75
7.95
6.59
6.59
17.48
16.45
17.28
17.29
19.21
18.79
18.70
15.35
15.58
15.48
15.95
17.50
18.47
18.76
415 14.07 12.86 13.05
245 14.32 13.02 13.25
255 14.86 13.81 13.95
543 14.27 12.88 13.15
894 13.97 12.49 12.74
1,451 14.19 12.38 12.76
1,182 13.58 11.80 12.17
1,023 12.59 10.97 11.29
869 12.29 10.91 11.14
763 12.22 10.78 11.08
622 12.66 11.08 11.40
700 14.25 12.89 13.16
470 15.38 13.66 14.20
306 16.48 14.87 15.09
ies (1.5 < METS < 3.0)
9.91
10.90
9.92
10.74
11.59
10.91
11.50
12.25
12.10
12.68
12.09
10.23
9.90
7.56
415 6.00 3.49 3.70
245 5.61 2.83 2.94
255 5.78 3.20 3.54
543 6.25 3.78 4.10
894 7.27 4.63 5.46
1,451 7.55 4.89 5.62
1,182 6.98 4.60 5.08
1,023 6.42 3.66 4.09
869 6.51 4.06 4.33
763 6.56 3.99 4.30
622 6.52 4.09 4.42
700 6.23 4.40 4.74
470 5.96 4.22 4.51
306 5.3 3.67 3.96
13.53
13.73
14.44
13.56
13.22
13.34
12.79
11.88
11.61
11.56
12.08
13.68
14.76
15.80

4.26
3.46
4.29
4.79
6.33
6.75
5.91
4.84
5.06
4.97
5.19
5.47
5.24
4.63
14.08
14.31
14.81
14.23
13.82
14.05
13.52
12.60
12.24
12.18
12.64
14.22
15.41
16.59

5.01
4.39
5.33
5.84
7.17
7.67
6.85
5.82
5.98
5.90
6.05
6.23
5.92
5.16
14.54
14.88
15.32
14.82
14.50
14.82
14.29
13.21
12.91
12.82
13.30
14.86
16.05
17.15

8.43
8.28
7.48
7.86
8.34
8.55
7.96
8.18
8.14
8.40
7.95
6.96
6.63
6.00
15.08
15.36
15.78
15.43
15.34
15.87
15.08
13.75
13.50
13.40
13.89
15.38
16.62
17.71

9.31
9.03
8.46
8.84
9.42
9.27
9.16
9.56
9.46
9.75
9.12
7.67
7.46
6.70
15.49
15.80
16.03
15.85
16.36
16.81
15.67
14.19
13.90
13.79
14.12
15.69
16.94
18.07

9.77
9.39
8.74
9.38
9.79
9.57
9.57
10.14
9.93
10.18
9.43
8.17
7.91
7.01
16.14
16.40
16.91
17.96
18.68
19.27
16.96
16.24
15.18
15.17
15.80
17.14
17.90
19.13

10.53
10.57
9.93
10.32
11.06
10.85
12.29
12.11
13.12
11.83
11.58
11.13
9.43
8.78
X)  ft
-------
s
5a
Table 6-15. Descriptive Statistics for Duration of Time (hours/day) Spent Performing Activities Within the Specified Activity Category, by Age and Gender Categories3 (continued)
Duration (hours/day) Spent at Activity - Males
Age Group

N
Mean
Percentiles
5* 10*
25* 50*
75* 90*
95*

Maximum
Duration (hours/day) Spent
N
Mean

5* 10*
Percentiles
25* 50*
atActivity - Females

75* 90*

95*
Moderate Intensity Activities (3.0 < METS < 6.0)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 1 6 years
1 6 to < 21 years
21 to <31 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to <81 years
81 years and older
419 3.67
308 4.04
261 3.83
540 3.15
940 2.66
1,337 2.35
1,241 3.35
701 5.24
728 5.69
753 5.40
627 5.00
678 3.73
496 2.87
255 2.35
0.63 0.97
0.45 0.59
0.59 0.76
0.55 0.75
0.65 0.92
0.88 1.09
1.13 1.42
1.15 1.58
1.26 1.65
1.21 1.55
1.29 1.63
1.62 1.97
1.56 1.83
1.32 1.45
1.74 4.20
1.14 5.29
1.23 4.74
1.30 3.80
1.65 2.68
1.66 2.30
2.19 3.45
2.52 6.01
2.84 6.67
2.39 6.46
2.72 5.68
2.81 3.70
2.28 2.86
1.79 2.29
5.20 5.80
6.06 6.61
5.37 5.82
4.52 5.11
3.57 4.36
3.02 3.62
4.37 5.24
7.15 7.95
7.75 8.45
7.57 8.40
6.75 7.60
4.67 5.45
3.45 3.95
2.85 3.28
6.21
6.94
6.15
5.32
4.79
3.89
5.59
8.39
8.90
8.85
8.01
6.01
4.31
3.61
7.52
7.68
7.40
6.30
5.95
5.90
6.83
9.94
9.87
10.52
9.94
7.45
5.44
4.37
415 3.91
245 4.02
255 3.27
543 3.35
894 2.57
1,451 2.01
1,182 3.26
1,023 4.80
869 5.00
763 5.05
622 4.58
700 3.31
470 2.48
306 2.06
0.53 0.74
0.52 0.73
0.50 0.78
0.70 0.89
0.65 0.95
0.89 1.08
1.27 1.48
1.62 1.94
1.71 2.06
1.75 2.00
1.71 2.13
1.65 1.97
1.19 1.36
1.01 1.25
1.10 4.87
1.08 5.14
1.22 4.01
1.61 3.88
1.82 2.66
1.45 1.96
2.21 3.39
2.78 5.37
3.09 5.41
2.97 5.48
3.10 4.79
2.56 3.34
1.82 2.48
1.55 1.99
5.77 6.27
6.10 7.00
4.88 5.35
4.71 5.29
3.41 3.95
2.51 3.03
4.24 4.74
6.42 7.19
6.60 7.31
6.66 7.50
5.98 6.89
4.01 4.61
2.99 3.64
2.51 3.07
6.54 7.68
7.37 8.07
5.57 6.93
5.65 7.58
4.32 6.10
3.28 4.96
5.07 6.68
7.52 9.21
7.58 9.59
7.97 10.16
7.14 8.97
5.01 6.90
4.01 5.63
3.44 4.68
High Intensity (METS > 6.0)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
11 to < 1 6 years
1 6 to < 21 years
21 to <31 years
31 to <41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to <81 years
81 years and older
Individual
183 0.20
164 0.31
162 0.10
263 0.27
637 0.32
1,111 0.38
968 0.40
546 0.33
567 0.38
487 0.34
452 0.41
490 0.37
343 0.39
168 0.32
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
0.01 0.01
0.03 0.04
0.03 0.04
0.02 0.05
0.03 0.07
0.03 0.05
0.03 0.05
0.03 0.05
0.01 0.03
0.02 0.03
0.01 0.14
0.03 0.22
0.03 0.05
0.04 0.13
0.03 0.13
0.10 0.21
0.14 0.27
0.11 0.27
0.14 0.28
0.09 0.23
0.13 0.34
0.13 0.28
0.10 0.29
0.08 0.25
measures are weighted by their 4-year sampling weights as
0.28 0.50
0.56 0.78
0.14 0.25
0.33 0.75
0.38 1.10
0.47 1.03
0.53 0.99
0.45 0.69
0.51 0.83
0.50 0.78
0.59 0.87
0.49 0.80
0.57 0.90
0.47 0.71
0.59
0.93
0.33
1.16
1.50
1.34
1.29
0.85
1.03
1.00
1.13
1.08
1.11
0.88
0.96
1.52
0.48
1.48
3.20
2.35
2.59
1.95
1.77
2.40
1.95
2.21
2.06
1.76
79 0.17
55 0.22
130 0.15
347 0.19
707 0.24
1,170 0.30
887 0.24
796 0.26
687 0.25
515 0.26
424 0.34
465 0.32
304 0.29
188 0.26
0.03 0.05
0.03 0.05
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.02
0.02 0.03
0.03 0.04
0.01 0.03
0.03 0.05
0.03 0.05
0.03 0.04
0.03 0.04
0.03 0.04
0.03 0.05
0.02 0.03
assigned within NHANES 1 999-2000 when ca culating the statistics in this table. Ventilat
0.09 0.14
0.09 0.18
0.03 0.08
0.05 0.10
0.06 0.12
0.08 0.19
0.08 0.18
0.10 0.19
0.09 0.19
0.09 0.20
0.12 0.28
0.10 0.23
0.10 0.25
0.09 0.21
on rate was estimate
0.21 0.33
0.35 0.40
0.16 0.48
0.22 0.46
0.26 0.67
0.40 0.66
0.34 0.51
0.36 0.56
0.33 0.52
0.36 0.55
0.50 0.74
0.46 0.68
0.43 0.60
0.38 0.59
0.40 0.58
0.43 0.48
0.65 1.01
0.73 1.43
0.98 1.71
0.96 3.16
0.60 1.61
0.67 1.40
0.72 1.40
0.68 1.49
0.85 1.58
0.89 1.77
0.71 1.24
0.71 1.23
d using a multiple linear regression model.
N = Number of individuals.
MET = Metabolic equivalent.
Source: U.S. EPA,
2009.









                                                                                                                                                                    s
                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-16. Nonnormalized Daily Inhalation Rates (m3/day) Derived Using Layton's (1993)
Method and CSFII Energy Intake Data
Sample Size
ge (Nonweighted)
Mean
SEM


50th
Percentiles
90th

95th
SE of 95th
percentile
Infancy
0-2 months 182
3-5 months 294
6-8 months 261
9- 11 months 283
0-11 months 1,020
3.63
4.92
6.09
7.41
5.70
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.20
0.10
3.30
4.56
5.67
6.96
5.32
5.44
6.86
8.38
10.21
8.74
7.10
7.72
9.76
11.77
9.95
0.64
0.48
0.86
-
0.55
Children
1 year 934
2 years 989
3 years 1,644
4 years 1,673
5 years 790
6 years 525
7 years 270
8 years 253
9 years 271
10 years 234
11 years 233
12 years 170
13 years 194
14 years 193
15 years 185
16 years 201
17 years 159
18 years 135
8.77
9.76
10.64
11.40
12.07
12.25
12.86
13.05
14.93
15.37
15.49
17.59
15.87
17.87
18.55
18.34
17.98
18.59
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.13
0.18
0.21
0.25
0.29
0.35
0.32
0.54
0.44
0.62
0.55
0.54
0.96
0.78
8.30
9.38
10.28
11.05
11.56
11.95
12.51
12.42
14.45
15.19
15.07
17.11
14.92
15.90
17.91
17.37
15.90
17.34
12.19
13.56
14.59
15.53
15.72
16.34
16.96
17.46
19.68
20.87
21.04
25.07a
22.8T
25.75"
28.11a
27.56
31.42"
28.80"
13.79
14.81
16.03
17.57
18.26
17.97
19.06
19.02
22.45a
22.90s
23.91s
29.17s
26.23a
29.45a
29.93a
31.01
36.69a
35.24a
0.25
0.35
0.27
0.23
0.47
0.87
1.27
1.08
1.35
1.02
1.62
1.61
1.11
4.38
1.79
2.07
-
4.24
Adolescent Boys
9- 18 years 983
19.27
0.28
17.96
28.78
32.82
1.39
Adolescent Girls
9- 18 years 992
14.27
0.22
13.99
21.17
23.30
0.61
U.S. EPA Cancer Guidelines' Age Groups with Greater Weighting
0 through 1 year 1,954
2 through 15 years 7,624
FASEB/LSRO (1995) convention,
estimates due to small cell size.
Denotes unable to calculate.
SEM = Standard error of the mean.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell, 2007.
7.50
14.09
adopted by

0.08
0.12
7.19
13.13
11.50
20.99
12.86
23.88
0.17
0.50
CSFII, denotes a value that might be less statistically reliable than other





Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-39
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-17. Mean and 95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (m3/day) for Males and Females Combined
Age Group3'
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
0 Sample Size
182
182
294
544
1,020
934
989
4,107
1,553
975
495
Meanb
3.63
3.63
4.92
6.78
5.70
8.77
9.76
11.22
13.42
16.98
18.29
a No other age groups from Table 6-16 (Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell, 2007) fit into the U.S. EPA age
b Weighted (where possible) average of reported study means and 95th percentiles.
c See Table 6-55 for concordance with EPA age groupings.
9^
7.10
7.10
7.72
10.81
9.95
13.79
14.81
17.09
19.86
27.53
33.99
groupings.
Source: Arcus-Arth and Blaisdell, 2007.
Page                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
6-40                                                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-18. Summary of Institute of Medicine Energy Expenditure Recommendations
for Active and Very Active People with Equivalent Inhalation Rates
Males
Age
Years
<1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19—30
31—50
51—70
Energy
Expenditure
(kcal/day)
607
869
1,050
1,485—1,683
1,566—1,783
1,658—1,894
1,742—1,997
1,840—2,115
1,931—2,225
2,043—2,359
2,149—2,486
2,279—2,640
2,428—2,817
2,618—3,038
2,829—3,283
3,013—3,499
3,152—3,663
3,226—3,754
2,823—3,804
3,015—3,490
2,862—3,338
2,671—3,147
Inhalation Rate
(nrVday)
3.4
4.9
5.9
8.4—9.5
8.8—10.1
9.4—10.7
9.8—11.3
10.4—11.9
10.9—12.6
11.5—13.3
12.1—14.0
12.9—14.9
13.7—15.9
14.8—17.2
16.0—18.5
17.0—19.8
17.8—20.7
18.2—21.2
18.4—21.5
17.0—19.7
16.2—18.9
15.1—17.8
Females
Energy Expenditure
(kcal/day)
607
869
977
1,395—1,649
1,475—1,750
1,557—1,854
1,642—1,961
1,719—2,058
1,810—2,173
1,890—2,273
1,972—2,376
2,071—2,500
2,183—2,640
2,281—2,762
2,334—2,831
2,362—2,870
2,368—2,883
2,353—2,871
2,336—2,858
2,373—2,683
2,263—2,573
2,124—2,435
Inhalation Rate
(nrVday)
3.4
4.9
5.5
7.9—9.3
8.3—9.9
8.8—10.5
9.3—11.1
9.7—11.6
10.2—12.3
10.7—12.8
11.1—13.4
11.7—14.1
12.3—14.9
12.9—15.6
13.2—16.0
13.3—16.2
13.4—16.3
13.3—16.2
13.2—16.1
13.4—15.2
12.8—14.5
12.0—13.8
Source: Stifelman, 2007.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-41
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates

















Table 6-19. Mean Inhalation Rate Values (m3/day) for Males, Females, and Males and Females Combined.3
AgeGroupb'd
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to <31 years
31 to<41 years
41 to<51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
Males0
3.4
4.9
5.9
9.5
11.8
16.1
19.3
18.4
17.6
17.6
16.5
16.5
Females0
3.4
4.9
5.5
9.1
11.2
14.0
14.6
14.3
13.7
13.7
12.9
12.9
Combined0
3.4
4.9
5.7
9.3
11.5
15.0
17.0
16.3
15.6
15.6
14.7
14.7
a Inhalation rates are for IOM Physical Activity Level (PAL) category "active"; the total number of subjects for all PAL
categories was 3007. Sample sizes were not reported.
b Age groups from Table 6-18 were regrouped to fit into the EPA age groupings.
c Weighted (where possible) average of reported study means.
d See Table 6-55 for concordance with EPA age groupings.
Source: Stifelman, 2007.
















Page                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
6-42                                                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-20. Mean Inhalation Rate Values (m3/day) from Key Studies for Males and Females Combined
Age Groupd
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to <31 years
31 to<41 years
41 to<51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
81 years and older
U.S. EPA(2009)a
Nc
-
-
-
-
834
553
516
1,083
1,834
2,788
2,423
1,724
1,597
1,516
1,249
1,378
966
561
Mean
-
-
-
-
8.64
13.41
12.99
12.40
12.93
14.34
15.44
16.30
17.40
18.55
18.56
15.43
14.25
12.97
Brochu et al.
(2006a)a
N Mean
-
85
85
103
188
101
61
61
199
117
117
219
100
91
91
186
95
95
-
3.31
3.31
4.06
3.72
4.90
7.28
7.28
9.98
14.29
14.29
14.59
14.99
13.74
13.74
12.57
11.46
11.46
Arcus-Arth and
Blaisdell (2007) a Stifelman (2007)
N
182
182
294
544
1,020
934
989
4,107
1,553
975
495
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mean N
3.63
3.63
4.92
6.78
5.70
8.77
9.76
11.22
13.42
16.98
18.29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mean
-
-
-
-
3.4
4.9
5.7
9.3
11.5
15.0
17.0
16.3
15.6
15.6
14.7
14.7
-
-
Combined Key
Studies'3
N
182
267
379
647
2,042
1,588
1,566
5,251
3,586
3,880
3,035
1,943
1,697
1,607
1,340
1,564
1,061
656
Mean
3
3
4
5
5
7
8
10
11
15
16
15
16
15
15
14
12
63
47
11
42
36
99
93
.05
.96
.17
.25
.74
.00
.96
.66
.23
.86
12.21
a Weighted (where possible) average of reported study means.
b Unweighted average of means from Key Studies.
c The total number of subjects for Stifelman (2007) was 3,007.
d When age groupings in the original reference did not match the US EPA groupings used for this handbook, means from all age
groupings in the original reference that overlapped EPA's age groupings by more than 1 year were averaged, weighted by the
number of observations contributed from each age group. See Table 6-55 for concordance with EPA age groupings.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-43
-------
                                                                                  Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                   Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
       Table 6-21 .  95th Percentile Inhalation Rate Values (m3/day) from Key Studies for Males and Females Combined
AgeGroupd      U.S. EPA(2009)a
                                          Brochu et al.      Arcus-Arth and
                                            (2006a) a        Blaisdell (2007) a    Stifelman (2007) c
                                                                              Combined Key
                                                                                 Studies15
                       Na
          95th
                                      N
         95th
           N
          95th
           N
95th
N
95th
 Birth to <1 month
 1 to <3 months
 3 to <6 months
 6 to <12 months

 Birth to <1 year

 1 to <2 years
 2 to <3 years
 3 to <6 years
 6 to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                          Table 6-22.  Daily Inhalation Rates Estimated From Daily Activities*
                                       Inhalation Rate (m3/hour)                                        ,™r>Nb
        Subject        	-	-	    Daily Inhalation Rate (DIR)
                                 Resting                  Light Activity                      (m3/day)
Child (10 years)                    0.29                       0.78                            14.8
Infant (1 year)                     0.09                       0.25                            3.76
Newborn                          0.03                       0.09                            0.78
Adult Man                        0.45                        1.2                            22.8
AdultWoman                      0.36                       1.14                            21.1
         Assumptions made were based on 8 hours resting and 16 hours light activity for adults and children (10 yrs); 14 hours resting and
         10 hours light activity for infants (1 yr); 23 hours resting and 1 hour light activity for newborns.
                  T •
                  1  i=\
DIR      = Daily Inhalation Rate
IRi       = Corresponding inhalation rate at i"1 activity
tj        = Hours spent during the i"1 activity
k        = Number of activity periods
T        = Total time of the exposure period (i.e., a day)

Source:   ICRP, 1981.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                         Page
July 2009                                                                                                 6-45
-------
Table 6-23. Selected Inhalation Rate Values During Different Activity Levels Obtained From Various Literature Sources
Subject

Adolescent
Male, 14-1 6 y
Male, 14-1 5 y
Female, 14-16 y
Female, 14-15 y; 164.9 cm L
Children
10 y; 140 cm L
Males, 10-11 y
Males, 10-11 y; 140. 6 cm L
Females, 4-6 y
Females, 4-6 y; 111.6cmL
Infant, 1 y
Newborn
20hrs-13 wk
9.6 hrs
6.6 days
Adult
Man
1.7m2SA
30y; 170cm L
20-33 y
Woman
30y;160cmL
20-25 y 165. 8cm L
Pregnant (8th mo)
W = Body weights; f =
a Calculated from V*
b Crying.
Source: ICRP, 1981.
W(kg)



59.4

56


36.5
32.5
20.8
18.4

2.5
2.5-5.3
3.6
3.7

68.5


70.4
54

60.3


f

16

15


16




30
34

25
29

12
12
15

12
15

16
frequency (breaths/min);
= fxVT.





Resting
VT

330

300


300




48
15

21
21

750
500
500

340
400

650
VT = tidal



T ..,.,.., TT ,,, , Maximal Work Dunng
Light Activity Heavy Work _ . b
0 J J Exercise
V* f VT V* f VT V* f

5.2 53

4.5
52

4.8 24 600 14
58
61
70
66
1.4a
0.5
68b
0.5
0.6

7.4 17 1,670 29 21 2,030 43
6
7.5 16 1,250 20
40
4.5 19 860 16 30 880 25
6 20 940 19
46
10
volume (ml); V* = minute volume (1/min); cm L = length/height; y = years of a;



VT V*

2,520 113


1,870 88


1,330 71
1,050 61
600 40
520 34


51a'b 3.5b






3,050 111


2,100 90

ie; wk = week.



                                                                                                                                                                        s
                                                                                                                                                                        I
   1=
                                                                                                                                                                        ?
^o
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                       Table 6-24.  Summary of Human Inhalation Rates by Activity Level (m3/hour)a
                           Nb        Resting0      Nb       Lightd      Nb     Moderate6      Nb         Heavyf
Child, 6 years
Child, 10 years
Adult male
Adult female
Average adult
8
10
454
595
1,049
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.5
16
40
102
786
888
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.6
4
29
102
106
208
2.0
3.2
2.5
1.6
2.1
5
43
267
211
478
2.3
3.9
4.8
2.9
3.9
 a        Values of inhalation rates for children (male and female) presented in this table represent the mean of values reported for each activity
         level in 1985.
 b        Number of observations at each activity level.
 c        Includes watching television, reading, and sleeping.
 d        includes most domestic work, attending to personal needs and care, hobbies, and conducting minor indoor repairs and home
         improvements.
 e        Includes heavy indoor cleanup, performance of major indoor repairs and alterations, and climbing stairs.
 f        Includes vigorous physical exercise and climbing stairs carrying a load.

 Source:  Adapted from U.S. EPA,  1985.
             Table 6-25 . Estimated Minute Ventilation Associated with Activity Level for Average Male Adulta
   Level of work       L/min                                   Representative activities
Light                   13      Level walking at 2 mph; washing clothes
Light                   19      Level walking at 3 mph; bowling; scrubbing floors
Light                   25      Dancing; pushing wheelbarrow with 15-kg load; simple construction; stacking firewood
Moderate                30      Easy cycling; pushing wheelbarrow with 75-kg load; using sledgehammer
Moderate                35      Climbing stairs; playing tennis; digging with spade
Moderate                40      Cycling at 13 mph; walking on snow; digging trenches
Heavy                  55      Cross-country skiing; rock climbing; stair climbing
Heavy                          with load; playing squash or handball; chopping
Very heavy                      with axe
Very heavy              85      Level running at 10 mph; competitive cycling
Severe                 100+     Competitive long distance running; cross-country skiing
a         Average adult assumed to weigh 70 kg.
Source:   Adapted from U.S. EPA, 1985.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                          Page
July 2009                                                                                                  6-47
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-26. Activity Pattern Data Aggregated for Three Microenvironments by Activity Level for
All Age Groups
Microenvironment
Indoors


Outdoors

In Transportation Vehicle


Source: Adapted from U.S
. , • • , T , Average Hours Per Day in Each
Activity Level ,,. . , , _ , J. ,. ., T ,
J Microenvironment at Each Activity Level
Resting
Light
Moderate
Heavy
TOTAL
Resting
Light
Moderate
Heavy
TOTAL
Resting
Light
Moderate
Heavy
TOTAL
EPA, 1985.
9.82
9.82
0.71
0.10
20.4
0.51
0.51
0.65
0.12
1.77
0.86
0.86
0.05
0.0012
1.77

Table 6-27. Summary of Daily Inhalation Rates Grouped by
Age and Activity Level
Daily Inhalation Rate (m3/day)a
Resting Light Moderate Heavy
Child, 6 years 4.47 8.95 2.82 0.50
Child, 10 years 4.47 11.19 4.51 0.85
Adult Male 7.83 8.95 3.53 1.05
Adult Female 3.35 5.59 2.26 0.64
AdultAverage 5.60 6.71 2.96 0.85
Total Daily IRb
(m3/day)
16.74
21.02
21.4
11.8
16
a Daily inhalation rate was calculated using the following equation:
IR- 1 TIR t
* ' i=\
IRi = Inhalation rate at i* activity
tj = Hours spent per day during i* activity
k = Number of activity periods
T = Total time of the exposure period (e.g., a day)
b Total daily inhalation rate was calculated by summing the specific activity (resting, light, moderate, heavy) and
dividing them by the total amount of time spent on all activities.
Source: Generated using the data from U.S. EPA (1985) as shown in Tables 6-24 and 6-26.
Page
6-48
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-28. Distribution Pattern of Predicted VR and EVR (equivalent
VR (m3/hr)a
Self-Reported ,,c Arithmetic
Activity Level Mean ± SD
Sleep
Slow
Medium
Fast
18,597 0.42
41,745 0.71
3,898 0.84
572 2.63
±0.16
±0.4
±0.47
±2.16
Geometric
Mean ± SD
0.39 ±0.08
0.65 ±0.09
0.76 ± 0.09
1.87 ±0.14
ventilation rate) for 20 Outdoor Workers
EVRb (nrVhr/m2 body surface)
Arithmetic
Mean ± SD
0.23 ±0.08
0.38 ±0.20
0.48 ± 0.24
1.42 ±1.20
Geometric
Mean ± SD
0.22 ±0.08
0.35 ±0.09
0.44 ±0.09
1.00 ±0.14
Percentile Rankings, VR
Sleep
Slow
Medium
Fast
1
0.18
0.30
0.36
0.42
5
0.18
0.36
0.42
0.54
10
0.24
0.36
0.48
0.60
50
0.36
0.66
0.72
1.74
90
0.66
1.08
1.32
5.70
95
0
1
1
6
72
32
68
84
99
0
1
2
9
90
98
64
18
99.9
1
4
3
10
20
38
84
.26
Percentile Rankings, EVR
Sleep
Slow
Medium
Fast
a
b
c
Source:
1
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.24
5
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.30
10
0.12
0.24
0.30
0.36
50
0.24
0.36
0.42
0.90
90
0.36
0.54
0.72
3.24
95
0
0
0
3
Data presented by Shamoo et al. (1991) in liters/minute were converted to m3/hr.
EVR = VR per square meter of body surface area.
Number of minutes with valid appearing heart rate records and corresponding daily
Shamoo etal., 1991.





36
66
90
72
99
0.48
1.08
1
4
38
86
records of breathing



99.9
0.60
2.40
2
5
rate.

28
52


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-49
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates

Table 6-29. Distribution Pattern of Inhalation Rate by Location and Activity
Location Activity Typea
Indoor


Indoor


Outdoor


Outdoor


Essential


Non-essential


Essential


Non-essential


Type for 20 Outdoor Workers
Self-reported Inhalation rate (m3/hr)b
Activity Level % of Time ± SD
Sleep
Slow
Medium
Fast
Slow
Medium
Fast
Slow
Medium
Fast
Slow
Medium
Fast
28.7
29.5
2.4
0
20.4
0.9
0.2
11.3
1.8
0
3.2
0.8
0.7
0.42
0.72
0

0
0
1
0
0

0
1
2
72

66
78
86
78
84

90
26
82
a Essential activities include income-related work, household chores, child care, study
destination-oriented travel; Non-essential activities include sports and active leisure
b
Source:
civic activities.
Data presented by Shamoo
Statistic was calculated by
±
±
±
0
±
±
±
±
±
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

12
36
30

36
30
96
36
54

±0.66
±
0.60
±2
28
% of Avg.c
69 ±
106 ±
129 ±
0
98 ±
120 ±
278 ±
15
43
38

36
50
124
117 ±42
130 ±
0
136 ±
213 ±
56

90
91
362 ± 275
and other school activities, personal care, and
passive leisure, some travel, and social or
et al. (1991) in liters/minute were converted to m3/hr.
converting each VR for a given subject to a percentage of her/his overall average.
Adapted from Shamoo et al., 1991.
Page
6-50
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-30. Calibration and Field Protocols for Self-monitoring of Activities Grouped by Subject Panels
Panel
Panel 1 - Healthy Outdoor Workers -
15 female, 5 male, age 19-50




Panel 2 - Healthy Elementary School
Students - 5 male, 12 female,
ages 10-12

Panel 3 - Healthy High School Students
7 male, 12 female, ages 13-17

Panel 4 -Adult Asthmatics, clinically
mild, moderate, and severe -
15 male, 34 female, age 18-50




Panel 5 - Adult Asthmatics from 2
neighborhoods of contrasting O3 air
quality - 10 male, 14 female, age 19-46


Panel 6 - Young Asthmatics -
7 male, 6 female, ages 11-16


Panel 7 - Construction Workers -
7 male, age 26-34


Calibration Protocol
Laboratory treadmill exercise tests,
indoor hallway walking tests at
different self-chosen speeds, 2
outdoor tests consisted of 1-hour
cycles each of rest, walking, and
jogging.
Outdoor exercises each consisted of
20 minute rest, slow walking, jogging
and fast walking

Outdoor exercises each consisted of
20 minute rest, slow walking, jogging
and fast walking
Treadmill and hallway exercise tests






Treadmill and hallway exercise tests




Laboratory exercise tests on bicycles
and treadmills


Performed similar exercises as Panel
2 and 3, and also performed job-
related tests including lifting and
carrying a 9-kg pipe.
Field Protocol
3 days in 1 typical summer week
(included most active workday and
most active day off); HR recordings
and activity diary during waking hours.


Saturday, Sunday and Monday (school
day) in early autumn; heart rate
recordings and activity diary during
waking hours and during sleep.
Same as Panel 2, however, no heart
rate recordings during sleep for most
subjects.
1 typical summer week, 1 typical
winter week; hourly activity /health
diary during waking hours; lung
function tests 3 times daily; HR
recordings during waking hours on at
least 3 days (including most active
work day and day off).
Similar to Panel 4, personal NO2 and
acid exposure monitoring included.
(Panels 4 and 5 were studied in
different years, and had 10 subjects in
common).
Summer monitoring for 2 successive
weeks, including 2 controlled exposure
studies with few or no observable
respiratory effects.
HR recordings and diary information
during 1 typical summer work day.


Source: Linnet al, 1992.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-51
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-31. Subject Panel Inhalation Rates by Mean VR, Upper Percentiles, and Self-estimated Breathing Rates

Panel Number
and Description

Healthy
1 -Adults
2 - Elementary School Students
3 - High School Students
7 -Construction Workers0
Asthmatics
4 -Adults
5 -Adultsd
6 - Elementary and High School
Students
Inhalation Rates (m3/hour)
Na
99th Percentile
MeanVR

20
17
19
7

49
24
13


0.78
0.90
0.84
1.50

1.02
1.20
1.20

VR

2.46
1.98
2.22
4.26

1.92
2.40
2.40

Mean VR at Activity Levels1"
Slow

0.72
0.84
0.78
1.26

1.02
1.20
1.20

Medium Fast

1.02
0.96
1.14
1.50

1.68
2.04
1.20


3.06
1.14
1.62
1.68

2.46
4.02
1.50

a Number of individuals in each survey panel.
b Some subjects did not report medium and/or fast activity. Group means were calculated from individual
means (i.e.
give equal
weight to each individual who recorded any time at the indicated activity level).
c Construction workers recorded only on
d Excluding subjects also in Panel 4.
VR = Ventilation rate.
Source: Linn etal., 1992.
1 day, mostly during work, while others recorded on >









1 work or school day and > 1 day off.









Table 6-32. Actual Inhalation Rates Measured at
Four Ventilation Levels
Subject
All
subjects
Source:

Location
Indoor (Treadmill post)
Outdoor
Total
Original data were presented in
L/min * 0.001 m3/L * 60 min/hr
Adapted from Shamoo et al.

Low
1.23
0.88
0.93
Mean Inhalation Ratea
Medium
1.83
1.96
1.92
(m3/hr)a
Heavy
3.13
2.93
3.01

Very Heavy
4.13
4.90
4.80
L/min. Conversion to m3/hr was obtained as follows:
= m3/hr
1992.
Page
6-52
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-33. Distribution of Predicted Inhalation Rates by Location and Activity Levels
for Elementary and High School Students


Age (years) Student

Location

Activity
Level


Inhalation Rates (m3/hour)
% Recorded
Time A/TO™ _i_ QT^>
ivii-aii -J- uj_^
10-12





13-17





ELC
(N^IV)




HSC
(NM9)




Indoors


Outdoors


Indoors


Outdoors


slow
medium
fast
slow
medium
fast
slow
medium
fast
slow
medium
fast
49.6
23.6
2.4
8.9
11.2
4.3
70.7
10.9
1.4
8.2
7.4
1.4
" Recorded time averaged about 23 hr per elementary school student
b
Geometric means closely approximated
50th percentiles;
geometric
0
0
1
0
1
1
84 ±0
96 ±0
02 ±0
96 ±0
36
36
60
54
08 ±0.48
14 ±0
0.78 ±0
0
1
0
1
1
60
36
96 ± 0.42
26 ±0
66
96 ±0.48
26 ±0
44 ±1
and 33 hours per hi
78
08
Percentile Ranking sb
1st
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.36
0.24
0.48
0.30
0.42
0.54
0.42
0.48
0.48
gh school student
standard deviations were
50th 99
0.78
0.84
0.84
0.78
0.96
0.96
0.72
0.84
1.08
0.90
1.08
1.02
2
2
3
4
3
3
3
9th
34
58
42
32
36
60
24
4.02
6.84e
5
5
5
28
70
94
over 72-hour periods.
1.2-1.3 for HR,1. 5-1. 8 for VR.
c Elementary school student or high school student.
d
e
SD
Source:
Number of students that participated in survey.
Highest single value.
= Standard deviation.
Spier etal., 1992.






























Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-53
-------
                                                                               Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-34. Average Hours Spent Per Day in a Given Location and Activity Level for Elementary and High School Students
Students
Elementary school, ages
10-12 years
(N=17)
High school,
ages 13- 17 years
(N=19)
Activity Level
Slow Medium Fast
Indoors 16.3 2.9 0.4
Outdoors 2.2 1.7 0.5
Indoors 19.5 1.5 0.2
Outdoors 1.2 1.3 0.2
Total Time Spent
(hours/day)
19.6
4.4
21.2
2.7
N = Number of students that participated in survey.
Source: Spier etal., 1992.
  Table 6-35. Distribution Patterns of Daily Inhalation Rates for Elementary (EL) and High School (HS) Students Grouped by
                                                   Activity Level
   Students
Age
(yrs)
Location     Activity typea
Mean IR"
(nrVday)
                                                                                   Percentile Rankings
                                                                           1st
                                                                         50th
                                                                                99.9th
 EL(nc=17)    10-12     Indoor
     EL
     HS
         Outdoor
  HS(n=19)    13-17     Indoor
         Outdoor
                 Light
               Moderate
                Heavy

                 Light
               Moderate
                Heavy

                 Light
               Moderate
                Heavy

                 Light
               Moderate
                Heavy
   13.7
   2.8
   0.4

   2.1
   1.84
   0.57

   15.2
   1.4
   0.25

   1.15
   1.64
   0.29
2.93
0.70
0.10

0.79
0.41
0.24

5.85
0.63
0.11

 0.5
0.62
0.10
12.71
2.44
0.34

1.72
1.63
0.48

14.04
1.26
0.22

1.08
1.40
0.20
38.14
 7.48
 1.37

 9.5
 5.71
 1.80

63.18
 6.03
 1.37

 6.34
 7.41
 1.19
 a         For this report, activity type presented in tables 6-33 and 6-34 was redefined as light activity for slow, moderate activity for medium,
          and heavy activity for fast.
 b         Daily inhalation rate was calculated by multiplying the hours spent at each activity level (Table 6-34) by the corresponding
          inhalation rate (Table 6-33).
 c         Number of elementary (EL) and high school students (HS).

 Source:   Adapted from Spier et al., 1992 (Generated using data from Tables 6-33 and 6-34).
Page
6-54
                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                       July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-36.
Activity
Lying
Sitting
Standing
Walking
1.5 mph
1.875 mph
2.0 mph
2.25 mph
2.5 mph
3.0 mph
3.3 mph
4.0 mph
Running
3.5 mph
4.0 mph
4.5 mph
5.0 mph
6.0 mph
Mean Minute Inhalation Rate (nrVminute) by Group and Activity for Laboratory Protocols
Young Children" Children" Adult Females" Adult Males" , Af"UltS,,a
& (combined)
6.19E-03 7.51E-03 7.12E-03 8.93E-03 8.03E-03
6.48E-03 7.28E-03 7.72E-03 9.30E-03 8.51E-03
6.76E-03 8.49E-03 8.36E-03 10.65E-03 9.51E-03
1.03E-02 DNPb DNP DNP DNP
1.05E-02 DNP DNP DNP DNP
DNP 1.41E-02 DNP DNP DNP
1.17E-02 DNP DNP DNP DNP
DNP 1.56E-02 2.03E-02 2.41E-02 2.22E-02
DNP 1.78E-02 2.42E-02 DNP DNP
DNP DNP DNP 2.79E-02 DNP
DNP DNP DNP 3.65E-02 DNP
DNP 2.68E-02 DNP DNP DNP
DNP 3.12E-02 4.60E-02b DNP DNP
DNP 3.72E-02 4.79E-02b 5.73E-02 5.26E-02
DNP DNP 5.08E-02b 5.85E-02 5.47E-02
DNP DNP DNP 6.57E-02b DNP
" Young Children, male and female 3-5.9 yr olds; Children, male and female 6-12.9 yr olds; Adult Females, adolescent, young to
middle-aged, and older adult females; Adult Males, adolescent, young to middle-aged, and older adult males; DNP, group did not
perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean comparisons.
b Older adults not included in the mean value since they did not perform running protocol at particular speeds.
Source: Adams, 1993.
                    Table 6-37. Mean Minute Inhalation Rate (m3/minute) by Group and Activity for Field Protocols
Activity
Young Children8
                                             Children8
Adult Females8
Adult Males8
Adults (combined)"
Play
Car Driving
Car Riding
Yardwork
Housework
Car Maintenance
Mowing
Woodworking
1.13E-02
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
1.79E-02
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
8.95E-03
8.19E-03
1.92E-02e
1.74E-02
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
1.08E-02
9.83E-03
2.61E-02b/3.19E-02c
DNP
2.32E-0211
3.66E-02e
2.44E-02e
DNP
9.87E-03
9.01E-03
2.27E-02b/2.56E-02c
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
         Young Children, male and female 3-5.9 yr olds; Children, male and female 6-12.9 yr olds; Adult Females, adolescent, young to
         middle-aged, and older adult females; Adult Males, adolescent, young to middle-aged, and older adult males; DNP, group did not
         perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean comparisons.
         Mean value for young to middle-aged adults only.
         Mean value for older adults only.
         Older adults not included in the mean value since they did not perform this activity.
         Adolescents not included in mean value since they did not perform this activity.
Source:   Adams, 1993.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                                                         Page
                                                                                          6-55
-------
                                                                             Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                              Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                            Table 6-38. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hour) by
                               Age Group and Activity Levels for Laboratory Protocols
                                                                     Activity Level
               Age Group
                                           Resting"       Sedentary15       Light0        Moderate"1       Heavy6
 Young Children                             0.37           0.40           0.65           DNPf         DNP
   (3-5.9 years)
   Average inhalation rate (m /hour)
   (N=12, gender not specified)

 Children                                   0.45           0.47           0.95           1.74          2.23
   (6-12.9 years)
   Average inhalation rate (m /hour)
   (N=40, 20 male and 20 female)

 Adults (females)                             0.43           0.48           1.33           2.76          2.96B
   (Adolescent, young to middle aged, and
   older adult females)
   (N=37)
 Adults (males)                               0.54           0.60           1.45           1.93          3.63
   (Adolescent, young to middle aged, and
   older adult males)
   (N=39)
 Adults (combined)                           0.49           0.54           1.38           2.35          3.30
   (N=76)
 a        Resting defined as lying (see Table 6-36 for original data).
 b        Sedentary defined as sitting and standing (see Table 6-36 for original data).
 0        Light defined as walking at speed level 1.5 - 3.0 mph (see Table 6-36 for original data).
 d        Moderate defined as fast walking (3.3 - 4.0 mph) and slow running (3.5 - 4.0 mph) (see Table 6-36 for original data).
 e        Heavy defined as fast running (4.5-6.0 mph) (see Table 6-36 for original data).
 f        Group did not perform (DNP) this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean comparisons. All young
          children did not run.
 8        Older Adults not included in mean value since they did not perform running protocols at particular speeds.

 Source:   Adapted from Adams, 1993.
Page                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
6-56                                                                                               July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
      Table 6-39. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hour) by Age Group And Activity Levels in Field Protocols
                       Age Group                          Light Activity8    Sedentary Activity15   Moderate Activity0
 Young Children (3-5.9 years)                                     DNPd             DNP               0.68
  Average inhalation rate (m3/hour)
  (N=12, gender not specified)

 Children (6-12.9 years)                                          DNP              DNP               1.07
  Average inhalation rate (m3/hour)
  (N=40, 20 male and 20 female)

 Adults (females)                                               1.1 Oe              0.51               DNP
  (Adolescent, young to middle aged, and older adult females)
  (N=37)
 Adults (males)                                                 1.40              0.62               1.78f
  (Adolescent, young to middle aged, and older adult males)
  (N=39)

 Adults (combined)                                              1.25              0.57               DNP
  (N=76)
 a        Light activity was defined as car maintenance (males), housework (females), and yard work (females) (see Table 6-37
         for original data).
 b        Sedentary activity was defined as car driving and riding (both genders) (see Table 6-37 for original data).
 0        Moderate activity was defined as mowing (males); wood working (males); yard work (males); and play (children) (see
         Table 6-37 for original data).
 d        DNP. Group did not perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean comparisons.
 e        Older adults not included in mean value since they did not perform this activity.
 f        Adolescents not included in mean value since they did not perform this activity.
 N       = Number of individuals.

 Source:  Adams, 1993.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                      Page
July 2009                                                                                              6-57
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-40. Comparisons of Estimated Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) with Average Food-energy Intakes (EFD) for Individuals
Sampled in the 1977-78 NFCS
Cohort/Age Body Weight
(years) (kg)
BMRa
MJ/dayb
Kcal/dayc
Energy
MJ/day
Intake (EFD)
Kcal/day
Ratio
EFDd/BMR
Males and Females
<1
Ito2
3 to 5
6 to 8
7.6
13
18
26
1.74
3.08
3.69
4.41
416
734
881
1,053
3.32
5.07
6.14
7.43
793
1,209
1,466
1,774
1.90
1.65
1.66
1.68
Males
9 to 11
12 to 14
15 to 18
19 to 22
23 to 34
35 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 74
75 +
36
50
66
74
79
82
80
76
71
5.42
6.45
7.64
7.56
7.87
7.59
7.49
6.18
5.94
1,293
1,540
1,823
1,804
1,879
1,811
1,788
1,476
1,417
8.55
9.54
10.8
10.0
10.1
9.51
9.04
8.02
7.82
2,040
2,276
2,568
2,395
2,418
2,270
2,158
1,913
1,866
1.58
1.48
1.41
1.33
1.29
1.25
1.21
1.30
1.32
Females
9 to 11
12 to 14
15 to 18
19 to 22
23 to 34
35 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 74
75 +
a
b
c
d
Source:
36
49
56
59
62
66
67
66
62
4.91
5.64
6.03
5.69
5.88
5.78
5.82
5.26
5.11
1,173
1,347
1,440
1,359
1,403
1,380
1,388
1,256
1,220
7.75
7.72
7.32
6.71
6.72
6.34
6.40
5.99
5.94
1,849
1,842
1,748
1,601
1,603
1,514
1,528
1,430
1,417
1.58
1.37
1.21
1.18
1.14
1.10
1.10
1.14
1.16
Calculated from the appropriate age and gender-based BMR equations given in Table 6-42.
MJ/day - mega joules/day.
Kcal/d - kilo calories/day.
Food energy intake (Kcal/day) or (MJ/day).
Layton, 1993.





Page
6-58
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-41. Daily Inhalation Rates Calculated from Food-energy Intakes



METb Value
Cohort/ Age (years) L , 3/, . n +.
5 u ' (m /day) (hours) Ae pf

Inhalation Rates
Inactive0 Active0
(mVday) (m3/day)
Males and Females




<1 1 4.5 11 1.9 2.7
Ito2 2 6.8 11 1.6 2.2
3 to 5 3 8.3 10 1.7 2.2
6 to 8 3 10 10 1.7 2.2
2.35 6.35
4.16 9.15
4.98 10.96
5.95 13.09
Males










9toll 3 14 9 1.9 2.5
12 to 14 3 15 9 1.8 2.2
15 to 18 4 17 8 1.7 2.1
19 to 22 4 16 8 1.6 1.9
23 to 34 11 16 8 1.5 1.8
35 to 50 16 15 8 1.5 1.8
51 to 64 14 15 8 1.4 1.7
65 to 74 10 13 8 1.6 1.8
75+ 1 13 8 1.6 1.9
Lifetime average g 14
7.32 18.3
8.71 19.16
10.31 21.65
10.21 19.4
10.62 19.12
10.25 18.45
10.11 17.19
8.34 15.01
8.02 15.24

Females










'
9toll 3 13 9 1.9 2.5
12 to 14 3 12 9 1.6 2.0
15 to 18 4 12 8 1.5 1.7
19 to 22 4 11 8 1.4 1.6
23 to 34 11 11 8 1.4 1.6
35 to 50 16 10 8 1.3 1.5
51 to 64 14 10 8 1.3 1.5
65 to 74 10 9.7 8 1.4 1.5
75+ 1 M 8 1.4 1.6
Lifetime average g 10
Daily inhalation rate was calculated by multiplying the EFD values (see Table 6-40) by H x VQ x (m3
6.63 16.58
7.61 15.22
8.14 13.84
7.68 12.29
7.94 12.7
7.80 11.7
7.86 11.8
7.10 10.65
6.90 11.04

1,000 L4) for subjects under 9
years of age and by 1.2 x H x VQ x (m3 1,000 L"1) (for subjects 9 years of age and older (see text for explanation).




b
c


d
Where:
EFD = Food energy intake (Kcal/day) or (MJ/day)
H = Oxygen uptake = 0.05 LO2/KJ or 0.21 LO2/Kcal
VQ = Ventilation equivalent = 27 = geometric mean of VQs (unitless)
MET = Metabolic equivalent.





Inhalation rate for inactive periods was calculated as BMR x H x VQ x (d 1,440 min"1) and for active periods by multiplying inactive
inhalation rate by F (See footnote f); BMR values are from Table 6-40.
Where BMR = Basal metabolic rate (MJ/day) or (kg/hr).
L is the number of years for each age cohort.



e For individuals 9 years of age and older, A was calculated by multiplying the ratio for EFD/BMR (unitless) (Table 6-40) by the

f

factor 1.2 (see text for explanation).

F = (24A- S)/(24 - S) (unitless), ratio of the rate of energy expenditure during active hours to the estimated BMR (unitless)
Where S = Number of hours spent sleeping each day (hrs)

8 Lifetime average was calculated by multiplying individual inhalation rate by corresponding L values summing the products across

cohorts and dividing the result by 75, the total of the cohort age spans.

Source: Layton, 1993.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 6-59
-------
                                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                 Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-42. Statistics of the Age/gender Cohorts Used to Develop Regression Equations for Predicting
Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR)
Gender, BMR
Age (years) ^-i §D
Males
Under 3
3 to < 10
10 to < 18
18to<30
30 to <60
>60
Females
Under 3
3 to < 10
10 to < 18
18to<30
30 to <60
>60

1.51 0.92
4.14 0.50
5.86 1.17
6.87 0.84
6.75 0.87
5.59 0.93

1.54 0.92
3.85 0.49
5.04 0.78
5.33 0.72
5.62 0.63
4.85 0.61
CV

0.61
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.13
0.17

0.59
0.13
0.15
0.14
0.11
0.12
Body Weight
(kg) N

6.6
21
42
63
64
62

6.9
21
38
53
61
56

162
338
734
2,879
646
50

137
413
575
829
372
38
BMR Equation8

0.249 bw- 0.127
0.095 bw + 2. 110
0.074 bw + 2.754
0.063 bw + 2.896
0.048 bw+ 3.653
0.049 bw + 2.459

0.244 bw- 0.1 30
0.085 bw + 2.033
0.056 bw + 2. 898
0.062 bw + 2.036
0.034 bw+ 3.538
0.038 bw + 2.755
r

0.95
0.83
0.93
0.65
0.60
0.71

0.96
0.81
0.80
0.73
0.68
0.68
a Body weight (bw) in kg.
SD = Standard deviation.
CV
N
r
Coefficient of variation (SD/mean).
Number of observations.
Coefficient of correlation.










Source: Layton, 1993.
   Table 6-43.  Daily Inhalation Rates Obtained from the Ratios of Total Energy Expenditure to Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR)
   Gender/Age
     (years)
Body Weight3
     (kg)
 BMR"
(MJ/day)
VQ
Ac
    H
(m3O2/MJ)
Inhalation Rate, VE
    (m3/day)d
 Males
  0.5 to <3
  3to<10
  10to<18
  18to<30
  30 to <60
  >60
     14
     23
     53
     76
     80
     75
   3.4
   4.3
   6.7
   7.7
   7.5
   6.1
27
27
27
27
27
27
 1.6
 1.6
 1.7
1.59
1.59
1.59
   0.05
   0.05
   0.05
   0.05
   0.05
   0.05
       7.3
       9.3
        15
        17
        16
        13
Females
0.5 to <3
3to<10
10to<18
18to<30
30 to <60
>60

11
23
50
62
68
67

2.6
4.0
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.3

27
27
27
27
27
27

1.6
1.6
1.5
1.38
1.38
1.38

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

5.6
8.6
12
11
11
9.9
          Body weight was based on the average weights for age/gender cohorts in the U.S. population.
          The BMRs (basal metabolic rate) are calculated using the respective body weights and BMR equations (see Table 6-42).
          The values of the BMR multiplier (EFD/BMR) for those 18 years and older were derived from the Basiotis et al. (1989) study:
          Male = 1.59, Female = 1.38.  For males and females under 10 years old, the mean BMR multiplier used was 1.6. For males and
          females aged 10 to < 18 years, the mean values for A given in Table 6-41 for 12-14 years and 15-18 years, age brackets for males
          and females were used: male = 1.7 and female = 1.5.
          Inhalation rate = BMR x A x H x VQ; VQ = ventilation equivalent and H = oxygen uptake.
 Source:   Layton, 1993.
Page
6-60
                                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                     July 2009
-------
Table 6-44. Daily Inhalation Rates Based on Time-Activity Survey


g Y. . MET
and Activity
20-34
Sleep
Light
Moderate
Hard
Very Hard
Totals
35-49
Sleep
Light
Moderate
Hard
Very Hard
Totals
50-64
Sleep
Light
Moderate
Hard
Very Hard
Totals
65-74
Sleep
Light
Moderate
Hard
Very Hard
Totals
a
b
d
e
f
Source:

1
1.5
4
6
10

1
1.5
4
6
10


1
1.5
4
6
10


1
1.5
4
6
10


Body BMRb . c
Weight8 (KJ/hr ""J10"
i\ \ \ (hr/day)
(kg) )

76
76
76
76
76

81
81
81
81
81


80
80
80
80
80


75
75
75
75
75

320 7.2
320 14.5
320 1.2
320 0.64
320 0.23
24

314 7.1
314 14.6
314 1.4
314 0.59
314 0.29
24

312 7.3
312 14.9
312 1.1
312 0.50
312 0.14
24

256 7.3
256 14.9
256 1.1
256 0.5
256 0.14
24
Males
Females
Ed T r e
VE
(MJ/day) (mVday)

2.3
7.0
1.5
1.2
0.74
17

2.2
6.9
1.8
1.1
0.91
13

2.3
7.0
1.4
0.94
0.44
12

1.9
5.7
1.1
0.8
0.36
9.8

3.1
9.4
2.1
1.7
1.0
17

3.0
9.3
2.4
1.5
1.2
17

3.1
9.4
1.9
1.3
0.6
16

2.5
7.7
1.5
1.0
0.48
13
VEf \^°duta BMRb Duration0
(m3/hr) ^y (KJ/hr) (hr/day)

0.4
0.7
1.7
2.6
4.3

0.4
0.6
1.7
2.5
4.2


0.4
0.6
1.7
2.5
4.2


0.3
0.5
1.4
2.1
3.5

62 283
62 283
62 283
62 283
62 283

67 242
67 242
67 242
67 242
67 242


68 244
68 244
68 244
68 244
68 244


67 221
67 221
67 221
67 221
67 221

7.2
14.5
1.2
0.64
0.23
24

7.1
14.6
1.4
0.59
0.29
24

7.3
14.9
1.1
0.5
0.14
24

7.3
14.9
1.1
0.5
0.14
24
E"
(MJ/day)

2.0
6.2
1.4
1.1
0.65
11

1.7
5.3
1.4
0.9
0.70
9.9

1.8
5.4
1.1
0.7
0.34
9.4

1.6
4.9
1.0
0.7
0.31
8.5
VEe
(mVday)

2.8
8.3
1.8
1.5
0.88
15

2.3
7.2
1.8
1.2
0.95
13

2.4
7.4
1.4
1.0
0.46
13

2.2
6.7
1.3
0.9
0.42
11
VEf
(m3/hr)

0.4
0.6
1.5
2.3
3.8

0.3
0.5
1.3
2.0
3.2


0.3
0.5
1.3
2.0
3.3


0.3
0.4
1.2
1.8
3.0
Body weights were obtained from Najjar and Rowland (1987).
The basal metabolic rates (BMRs) for the age/gender cohorts were calculated using the respective body weights and the BMR equations (Table 6-42).
Duration of activities were obtained from Sallis et al. (1985).
Energy expenditure rate (E) was calculated by multiplying BMR (KJ/hr) x (MJ/1000 KJ) x duration (hr/day) x MET.
VE (inhalation rate) was calculated by multiplying E (MJ/day) by H(0.05 m3 oxygen/MJ) by VQ (27).
VE (m3/hr) was calculated by multiplying BMR (KJ/hr) x (MJ/1000 KJ) x MET x H (0.05 m3 oxygen/MJ) x VQ (27).
Layton, 1993.









ON
-------
                                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                             Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                                Table 6-45. Inhalation Rates for Short-term Exposures
      Gender/Age
        (years)
                                                                        Activity Type
 Body
Weight
 (kg)a
                                                 Rest
                                   Sedentary
                                      Light
                                     Moderate
 BMR"
(MJ/day)
                    MET (BMR Multiplier)
                                                              1.2
                                                                 Inhalation Rate (m3/minute)f>B
                                         Heavy
                                                                              10e
 Males
 0.5 to <3
 3to<10
 10to<18
 18to<30
 30 to <60
 60+

 Females
 0.5 to <3
 3to<10
 10to<18
 18to<30
 30 to <60
 60+
  14
  23
  53
  76
  80
  75
  11
  23
  50
  62
  68
  67
  3.40
  4.30
  6.70
  7.70
  7.50
  6.10
  2.60
  4.00
  5.70
  5.90
  5.80
  5.30
3.2E-03
4.0E-03
6.3E-03
7.2E-03
7.0E-03
5.7E-03
2.4E-03
3.8E-03
5.3E-03
5.5E-03
5.3E-03
5.0E-03
3.8E-03
4.8E-03
7.5E-03
8.7 E-03
8.3 E-03
6.8 E-03
2.8E-03
4.5E-03
6.3E-03
6.7 E-03
6.5 E-03
6.0 E-03
6.3E-03
8.2E-03
1.3E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.1E-02
4.8E-03
7.5E-03
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
9.8 E-03
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
2.5E-02
2.9E-02
2.8E-02
2.3E-02
l.OE-02
1.5E-02
2.1E-02
2.2E-02
2.2E-02
2.0E-02
   _h
   _h

6.3E-02
7.2 E-02
7.0 E-02
5.7 E-02
   _h
   _h

5.3E-02
5.5 E-02
5.4 E-02
5.0 E-02
         Body weights were based on average weights for age/gender cohorts of the U.S. population
         The BMRs for the age/gender cohorts were calculated using the respective body weights and the BMR
         equations (Table 6-42).
         Range = 1.5 -2.5.
         Range = 3-5.
         Range = >5 - 20.
         The inhalation rate was calculated as IR = BMR (MJ/day) x H (0.05 L/KJ) x MET x VQ (27) x (day/1440 min)
         Original data were presented in L/min. Conversion to m3/min was obtained as follows:   n?     L
                                                                                     1000L   min
         The maximum possible MET sustainable for more than 5 minutes does not reach 10 for females and males until age
          13 and 12, respectively. Therefore, a METs of 10 is not possible for this age category.
 Source:  Layton, 1993.
Page
6-62
                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                          July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
             Table 6-46. Distributions of Individual and Group Inhalation/Ventilation Rate for Outdoor Workers
                                                                         Ventilation Rate (VR) (m3/hr)
     Population Group and Subgroup*             Mean ± SD                          Percentile
                                                                                     50th           99th
 All Subjects (nb= 19)                          1.68 ±0.72               0.66            1.62           3.90
 Job
    GCWc/Laborers (n=5)                      1.44 ±0.66               0.48            1.32           3.66
    Iron Workers (n=3)                         1.62 ±0.66               0.60            1.56           3.24
    Carpenters (n= 11)                          1.86 ±0.78               0.78            1.74           4.14
 Site
    Medical Office Site (n=7)                   1.38 ±0.66               0.60            1.20           3.72
    Hospital Site (n=12)                        1.86 ±0.78               0.72            1.80           3.96
          Each group or subgroup mean was calculated from individual means, not from pooled data.
          n = number of individuals performing specific jobs or number of individuals at survey sites.
          GCW - general construction worker.
 Source:   Linn etal, 1993.
Table 6-47. Individual Mean Inhalation Rate (m3/hr) by Self-Estimated Breathing Rate or Job Activity Category for Outdoor
Workers
Population Group and S
All Subjects (n= 19)
Job
GCWVLaborers (n=5)
Iron Workers (n=3)
Carpenters (n=ll)
Site
Office Site (n=12)
Hospital Site (n=12)
Self-Estimated
ab"roup Breathing Rate (nrVhr)
Slow
1.44

1.20
1.38
1.62

1.14
1.62
a GCW - general construction worker.
b Trade - "Working at Trade" (i.e., tasks specific
Source: Linn etal., 1993.

Med
1.86

1.56
1.86
2.04

1.44
2.16
Fast
2.04

1.68
2.10
2.28

1.62
2.40
Job Activity Category (m3/hr)
Sit/Std Walk Carry
1.56 1.80 2.10

1.26 1.44 1.74
1.62 1.74 1.98
1.62 1.92 2.28

1.14 1.38 1.68
1.80 2.04 2.34
Tradeb
1.92

1.56
1.92
2.04

1.44
2.16
to the individual's job classification).




Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                     Page
July 2009                                                                                            6-63
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
Table 6-48. Mean, Median, and SD of Inhalation Rate According to Waking or Sleeping
618 Infants and Children Grouped in Classes of Age
in
Inhalation Rate (breaths/min)
Age (months) N
<2
2to<6
6 to <12
12to<18
18to<24
24 to <30
30 to 36
SD
N
Source:
104
106
126
77
65
79
61
= Standard deviation.
= Number of individuals.
Rusconietal., 1994.
Waking
Mean ± SD
48.0 ±9.1
44.1 ±9.9
39.1 ±8.5
34. 5 ±5. 8
32.0 ±4.8
30.0 ±6.2
27.1 ±4.1



Median
47
42
38
34
32
30
28



Sleeping
Mean ± SD
39.8 ±8.7
33.4 ±7.0
29.6 ±7.0
27.2 ±5.6
25. 3 ±4.6
23.1 ±4.6
21. 5 ±3.7



Median
39
32
28
26
24
23
21



Page
6-64
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook



Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
           0    3    6    9    12   15    18   21   24   2?   30   33   3S


                                    Age (months)
Figure 6-1.     5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Gentiles by Age in Awake Subjects (RR

              respiratory rate). Source: Rusconi et al., 1994.
        70



        SO
    jam*

    .£

    -I  50
    
-------
Table 6-49. Distribution of physiological daily inhalation rate (m /day) percentiles for free-living underweight8 adolescents and women aged 1 1 to 55 years during pregnancy and postpartum
weeks.


Age group Progression of the
(years)
llto<23






23 to <30






30 to 55






reproductive cycle
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnancy 0 week
Pregnancy 9th week
Pregnancy 22ntl week
Pregnancy 36th week
Postpartum 6th week
Postpartum 27th week
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnancy 0 week
Pregnancy 9th week
Pregnancy 22ntl week
Pregnancy 36th week
Postpartum 6th week
Postpartum 27th week
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnancy 0 week
Pregnancy 9th week
Pregnancy 22ntl week
Pregnancy 36th week
Postpartum 6th week
Postpartum 27th week
Number of
subjects'1
nExp or
NSim
50
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
17
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
14
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Physiological daily
inhalation rates' (m3/day)
Percentile
Mean+ S.D.
12.18 + 2.08
12.27+1.95
17.83 + 4.52
17.98 ±4. 77
18.68 + 4.73
20.39 + 2.69
20.21 + 2.66
13.93 + 2.27
13.91+2.17
20.03 ±5.01
20.15 + 4.24
20.91 + 5.37
22.45 + 2.91
22.25 + 2.89
12.89+1.40
12.91 ±1.36
18.68 + 3.95
18.84 + 4.08
19.60 + 4.66
21.19±1.96
21.01 + 1.94
5th
8.76
9.35
13.20
13.19
13.44
16.31
16.17
10.20
11.41
15.83
15.81
15.97
18.70
18.53
10.58
10.85
15.33
15.30
15.54
18.30
18.14
a Underweight females are defined as those having a body mass index lower than
b
c
nExp = number of experimental non-pregnant and non-lactating females
; nSim-
10th
9.52
9.74
13.91
13.95
14.25
17.02
16.88
11.02
11.50
16.17
16.16
16.37
19.15
18.98
11.09
11.28
15.93
15.93
16.14
18.86
18.69
25th
10.78
10.79
15.40
15.47
15.96
18.47
18.31
12.40
12.08
17.08
17.07
17.56
20.14
19.96
11.94
11.99
16.79
16.80
17.03
19.79
19.62
50th
12.18
12.18
17.34
17.46
17.88
20.31
20.14
13.93
13.92
19.75
19.80
20.29
22.23
22.04
12.89
12.49
18.05
18.07
18.73
20.92
20.74
75th
13.58
13.72
19.55
19.73
20.24
22.22
22.02
13.93
15.32
21.60
21.67
22.31
24.15
23.94
12.89
13.98
20.22
20.23
20.74
22.58
22.39
90th
14.84
14.63
21.38
22.09
23.01
23.79
23.58
16.83
16.01
23.76
24.49
26.42
25.65
25.42
14.69
14.99
21.39
21.52
23.04
23.98
23.77
95th
15.60
15.48
23.13
23.90
25.59
24.82
24.61
17.65
17.81
26.94
27.46
28.95
27.68
27.44
15.20
15.13
22.69
23.20
25.58
24.53
24.31
99th
17.02
16.90
27.40
30.69
34.45
26.62
26.39
19.20
19.97
34.21
32.69
38.26
30.57
30.30
16.16
15.18
27.38
30.80
34.26
25.28
25.07
19.8kg/m in prepregnancy.
= number of simulated females. S
D. = standard deviation.
Resulting TDERs from the integration of energetic measurements in underweight non-pregnant and non-lactating females with those during pregnancy and lactation by Monte Carlo
simulations were converted into physiological daily inhalation rates by the following equation: TDER*

Source:
stored daily energy cost for g
Brochu et al., 2006b.
;rowth; TDEE

= total daily energy





H*(VE/VO2)*10~3


TDER = total


energy


requirement


(EGG + TDEE).


EGG =


    1
                                                                                                                                                                                                      S
I
    ri
    &
                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
^o
-------
X)  ft
Table 6-50. Distribution of physiological daily inhalation rate (mVday) percentiles for free-living normal-weight8 adolescents and women aged 11 to 55 years during pregnancy and postpartum weeks.



Age group Progression of the
(years)
llto<23







23 to <30







30 to 55







a
b
c
reproductive cycle
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnan
cy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Postpartum
Postpartum
0 week

9th week
22ntl week
36th week
6th week
27th week
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnan
cy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Postpartum
Postpartum
0 week

9th week
22ntlweek
36th week
6th week
27th week
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnan
cy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Postpartum
Postpartum
0 week

9th week
22ntlweek
36th week
6th week
27th week
Number of
subjects'
nExp or
NSim
57
5,000

5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
54
5,000

5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
61
5,000

5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Normal-weight females are defined as those having
Physiological daily
inhalation rates' (mVday)
Percentile
Mean + S.D. 5th
14.55+2.70 10.11
14.55+2.69 9.71

19.99 ±3.89 13.32
22.59 + 4.83 15.35
23.27 + 4.63 16.01
23.28 + 3.60 16.91
23.08 + 3.56 16.76
13.59 + 2.23 9.92
13.66 ±2.29 10.19

19.00 + 9.98 13.92
21.36 + 4.36 15.54
22.14 + 4.13 16.21
22.15 + 30.5 17.37
21.96 ±3.02 17.22
13.82+1.91 10.67
13.79 + 1.83 11.07

19.02 + 3.81 15.18
21.53 + 4.06 16.71
22.20 ±3.68 17.45
22.31+2.50 18.72
22.12 + 2.48 18.55
a body mass index varyin
nExp = number of experimental non-pregnant and non-lactating females; nSim-
10th
11.09
10.83

14.84
17.09
17.76
18.36
18.20
10.73
10.64

14.55
16.70
17.34
18.26
18.10
11.37
11.48

15.74
17.56
18.19
19.35
19.18
g between 19.8 and
25th
12.73
13.29

18.32
20.06
20.69
21.40
21.21
12.09
12.12

16.55
18.63
19.35
20.11
19.93
12.53
12.54

17.14
19.01
19.69
20.58
20.40
26 kg/m2 in prepre
= number of simulated females. S.D. =
50th
14.55
14.78

20.26
22.27
23.10
23.56
23.36
13.59
13.73

18.76
20.89
21.69
22.11
21.91
13.82
13.61

18.63
20.85
21.73
22.09
21.90
gnancy.
75th
16.37
15.89

21.86
24.69
25.55
25.24
25.02
15.09
14.90

20.49
23.58
24.55
23.96
23.75
15.12
14.91

20.46
23.45
24.16
23.84
23.64

90th
18.01
17.34

23.86
28.25
28.77
27.17
26.93
16.45
16.49

22.80
26.59
27.59
26.21
25.98
16.28
16.40

22.45
26.03
26.78
25.70
25.47

95th
18.99
18.71

25.89
30.75
31.07
28.98
28.73
17.26
17.87

24.49
28.43
29.27
27.53
27.29
16.97
17.02

23.38
28.30
28.53
26.70
26.47

99th
20.83
20.91

28.75
35.88
35.65
31.80
31.52
18.78
19.09

27.04
33.98
32.77
29.21
28.96
18.28
18.32

27.39
33.44
32.75
28.39
28.14

standard deviation.
Resulting TDERs from the integration of energetic measurements in underweight non-pregnant and non-lactating females with those during pregnancy and lactation by Monte Carlo
simulations were converted into physiological daily inhalation rates by the following equation: TDER*H*(VE/VO2)* 10~3. TDER = total
stored daily energy cost for £
Source:
rowth; TDEE =
total daily energy.



energy

requirement (EGG

+ TDEE). EGG =


Brochu et al., 2006b.
                                                                                                                                                                             Q
-------
^o
^

































fq
,c
a
!
-------
ft
Table 6-52. Distribution of physiological daily inhalation rate (ms/kg-day) percentiles for free-living underweight8 adolescents and women aged 11 to 55 years during pregnancy and postpartum
weeks, years during pregnancy and postpartum weeks.


Age group Progression of the
(years)
llto<23







23 to <30







30 to 55







reproductive cycle
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnanc 0 week
y
Pregnancy 9th week
Pregnancy 22nd week
Pregnancy 36th week
Postpartum 6th week
Postpartum 27th week
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnanc 0 week
y
Pregnancy 9th week
Pregnancy 22nd week
Pregnancy 36th week
Postpartum 6th week
Postpartum 27th week
Non-pregnant females
Prepregnanc 0 week
y
Pregnancy 9th week
Pregnancy 22ntl week
Pregnancy 36th week
Postpartum 6th week
Postpartum 27th week
Number of
subjects'1
nExp or
NSim
50
5,000

5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
17
5,000

5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
14
5,000

5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Physiological daily inhalation rates' (m /kg-day)
Percentile
Mean±S.D.
0.277 + 0.046
0.276 + 0.045

0.385 + 0.110
0.343 + 0.093
0.323 + 0.083
0.368 + 0.058
0.383 + 0.064
0.264 ±0.047
0.264 + 0.046

0.366 + 0.098
0.332 + 0.076
0.317+0.086
0.352 ±0.056
0.364 + 0.061
0.249 + 0.027
0.249 ±0.026

0.347 + 0.075
0.315 ±0.071
0.301+0.074
0.337 + 0.038
0.349 + 0.042
5th
0.201
0.209

0.278
0.246
0.230
0.321
0.329
0.186
0.206

0.277
0.250
0.233
0.307
0.316
0.204
0.208

0.279
0.252
0.233
0.312
0.320
8 Underweight females are defined as those having a body mass index lower than
b
nExp = number of experimental non-pregnant and non-lactating females; nSim-
10th
0.218
0.218

0.291
0.259
0.243
0.337
0.348
0.203
0.212

0.287
0.260
0.242
0.320
0.330
0.214
0.220

0.291
0.262
0.243
0.326
0.333
19.8 kg/m2 in preprej
25th
0.246
0.238

0.327
0.291
0.274
0.370
0.383
0.232
0.228

0.311
0.282
0.266
0.348
0.357
0.231
0.232

0.311
0.280
0.260
0.347
0.357
;nancy.
50th
0.277
0.277

0.377
0.335
0.314
0.414
0.433
0.264
0.257

0.351
0.318
0.301
0.385
0.397
0.249
0.242

0.337
0.305
0.287
0.376
0.389

75th
0.277
0.313

0.428
0.378
0.357
0.467
0.491
0.264
0.284

0.400
0.362
0.346
0.431
0.449
0.249
0.268

0.370
0.335
0.321
0.408
0.425

90th
0.335
0.337

0.474
0.419
0.404
0.517
0.549
0.325
0.342

0.468
0.421
0.402
0.486
0.508
0.283
0.286

0.405
0.368
0.360
0.439
0.462

95th
0.352
0.345

0.504
0.455
0.452
0.548
0.584
0.342
0.361

0.501
0.452
0.439
0.518
0.545
0.293
0.294

0.431
0.401
0.404
0.457
0.483

99th
0.383
0.368

0.622
0.602
0.575
0.596
0.647
0.374
0.362

0.591
0.532
0.582
0.573
0.606
0.312
0.299

0.529
0.529
0.529
0.489
0.518

= number of simulated females. S.D. = standard deviation.
c Resulting TDERs from the integration of energetic and weight measurements in normal-weight non-pregnant and non-lactating females with those during pregnancy and
Monte Carlo simulations were converted into physiological daily inhalation rates by the following equation: TDER*

Source:
TDEE). ECG = stored daily energy
Brochu et al., 2006b.
cost for growth;

H*(VE/VC>2)>
40- .TDER
lactation by
= total energy requirement (EGG +
TDEE = total daily energy expenditure.









                                                                                                                                                             Q
-------
^o
^































bq
a
a
!2)*


and lactation by Monte Carlo
10- . TDER = total energy requirement (EGG + TDEE). ECG = stored
daily energy cost for growth; TDEE = total daily energy expenditure.
Source: Brochu et al., 2006b.










































n
S«
>§
^
ft
*s
gn
»
1?
2
1
-------
Table 6-54. Distribution of physiological daily inhalation rate (m3/kg-day) percentiles for free- living overweight/obese8 adolescents and women aged 11 to 55 years during pregnancy
postpartum weeks.

Number of Physiological daily inhalation rates' (m /kg-day)


and

Age group Progression of the subjects'1 Percentile
(years)
llto<23






23 to <30






30 to 55






"
b
c


Source:
reproductive cycle nExp or „, „, „, „ „
NSim -
Non-pregnant females 15 0.206 + 0.033 0.151 0.163 0.184 0.206 0.229
Prepregnancy 0 week 5,000 0.207 + 0.032 0.146 0.153 0.188 0.214 0.227
Pregnancy 9th week 5,000 0.302 + 0.075 0.205 0.223 0.263 0.298 0.329
Pregnancy 22ntlweek 5,000 0.287 + 0.079 0.191 0.206 0.246 0.279 0.314
Pregnancy 36th week 5,000 0.270 + 0.090 0.179 0.193 0.225 0.259 0.296
Postpartum 6th week 5,000 0.280 + 0.050 0.213 0.230 0.266 0.301 0.337
Postpartum 27th week 5,000 0.285 + 0.053 0.214 0.233 0.269 0.307 0.344
Non-pregnant females 54 0.186 + 0.025 0.144 0.153 0.169 0.186 0.203
Prepregnancy 0 week 5,000 0.186 + 0.025 0.143 0.155 0.172 0.183 0.201
Pregnancy 9th week 5,000 0.274 + 0.068 0.203 0.217 0.238 0.263 0.298
Pregnancy 22ntlweek 5,000 0.261+0.069 0.193 0.205 0.224 0.248 0.283
Pregnancy 362)*10


95th
0.261
0.253
0.401
0.391
0.377
0.395
0.409
0.227
0.233
0.374
0.360
0.360
0.360
0.372
0.235
0.226
0.378
0.363
0.351
0.364
0.374


during pregnancy
~3. TDER = total


99th
0.284
0.259
0.515
0.512
0.521
0.444
0.464
0.244
0.236
0.476
0.466
0.498
0.406
0.426
0.257
0.246
0.465
0.490
0.455
0.404
0.430


and
energy


Q
        §
        5

        3


        S
        ft


        !
        sT
        a

        1=

        I
        ST-
-------
                                                                             Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                             Chapter 6 - Inhalation Rates
                              Table 6-55. Concordance of Age Groupings Among Key Studies
           Age Groupa
U.S. EPA (2009)     Brochu (2006a)
                                        Arcus-Arth and
                                        Blaisdell (2007)
                                           Stifelman (2007)
        Birth to <1 month
          1 to <3 months
          3 to <6 months
                   0.22 to <0.5 year
                   0.22 to <0.5 year
                     0 to 2 months
                     0 to 2 months
                     3 to 5 months
         6 to < 12 months
                     0.5 to <1 year
                     6 to 8 months
                     9 to 11 months
         Birth to <1 year
           1 to <2 years
           2 to <3 years
 Birth to <1 year
  1 to < 2 years
  2 to < 3 years
0.22 to <0.5 year
 0.5 to <1 year

  1 to <2 years
  2 to <5 years
                     0 to 1 1 months
                         1 year
                        2 years
                                                                  <1 year
                                                                   1 year
                                                                  2 years
           3 to <6 years
  3 to <6 years
 2 to <5 years
                                           3 years
                                           4 years
                                           5 years
                                                3 years
                                                4 years
                                                5 years
          6 to <11 years
  6 to <11 years
 7 to <11 years
          11 to <16 years
          16 to <21 years
 11 to <16 years
 16 to <21 years
11 to <23 years
1 1 to <23 years
                                           6 years
                                           7 years
                                           8 years
                                           9 years
                                           10 years

                                           11 years
                                           12 years
                                           13 years
                                           14 years
                                           15 years

                                           16 years
                                           17 years
                                           18 years
                                               6 years
                                               7 years
                                               8 years
                                               9 years
                                               10 years

                                               11  years
                                               12 years
                                               13 years
                                               14 years
                                               15 years

                                               16 years
                                               17 years
                                               18 years
                                             19 to  30 years
          21 to<31 years
 21 to<31 years
                   11 to <23 years
                   23 to <30 years
                                            19 to 30 years
          31 to<41 years
          41 to<51 years
          51 to <61 years
 31 to<41 years
 41 to<51 years
 51 to <61 years
30 to <40 years
40 to <65 years
40 to <65 years
                                                               31 to 50 years
                                                               31 to 50 years
                                                               51 to 70 years
          61 to <71 years
          71 to <81 years
        81 years and older
 61 to <71 years
 71 to <81 years
81 years and older
                   40 to <65 years
                   65 to <96 years

                   65 to <96 years
                   65 to <96 years
                                            5 1 to 70 years
             When age groups in the original reference did not match the EPA groupings used for this handbook, statistics
             were averaged from all age groupings in the original reference that overlapped EPA's age groupings by more than
             1 year, weighted by the number of observations contributed from each age group. For example, Brochu 2006a
             contributes its 2 to <5-year age group data to both EPA's 2 to < 3-year and 3 to <6-year age groups.	
Page
6-72
                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                    July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

7      DERMAL EXPOSURE FACTORS	7-1
       7.1     INTRODUCTION	7-1
       7.2     RECOMMENDATIONS	7-1
               7.2.1    Body Surface Area	7-1
               7.2.2    Adherence of Solids to Skin	7-2
       7.3     SURFACE AREA	7-11
               7.3.1    Key Body Surface Area Studies	7-11
                      7.3.1.1  U.S. EPA, 1985	7-11
                      7.3.1.2  U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES 2005-2006 and 1999-2006 Data	7-11
               7.3.2    Relevant Body Surface Area Studies	7-12
                      7.3.2.1  Murray and Burmaster, 1992	7-12
                      7.3.2.2  Phillips et al., 1993	7-12
                      7.3.2.3  Wong et al., 2000	7-13
       7.4     ADHERENCE OF SOLIDS TO SKIN	7-13
               7.4.1    Key Adherence of Solids to Skin Studies	7-13
                      7.4.1.1  Kissel etal., 1996a	7-13
                      7.4.1.2  Holmes etal., 1999	7-13
                      7.4.1.3  Shoaf etal., 2005	7-14
               7.4.2    Relevant Adherence of Solids to Skin Studies	7-14
                      7.4.2.1  QueHeeetal, 1985	7-14
                      7.4.2.2  Driver etal, 1989	7-15
                      7.4.2.3  Sedman, 1989	7-15
                      7.4.2.4  Kissel etal., 1996b	7-15
                      7.4.2.5  Kissel etal., 1998	7-16
       7.5     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7	7-16

APPENDIX 7A	7A-1
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                             Page
July 2009	7-4
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
                                         LIST OF TABLES

Table 7-1.       Recommended Values for Total Body Surface Area for Children (Genders Combined) and
               Adults by Gender	7-4
Table 7-2.       Recommended Values for Surface Area of Body Parts	7-5
Table 7-3.       Confidence in Recommendations for Body Surface Area	7-7
Table 7-4.       Recommended Values for Mean Solids Adherence to Skin	7-9
Table 7-5.       Confidence in Recommendations for Solids Adherence to Skin	7-10
Table 7-6.       Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Body Part for Children (Genders Combined)
               and Adults by Gender	7-18
Table 7-7.       Summary of Equation Parameters for Calculating Adult Body Surface Area	7-19
Table 7-8.       Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES
               1999-2006 Males and Females Combined for Children <21 Years and NHANES 2005-2006
               for Adults >=21 Years	7-20
Table 7-9.       Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES
               1999-2006 for Children <21 years and NHANES  2005-2006 for Adults >=21 Years, Males	7-21
Table 7-10.      Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES
               1999-2006 for Children <21 years and NHANES  2005-2006 for Adults >=21 Years, Females..7-22
Table 7-11      Surface Area of Adult Males (21 Years and Older) in Square Meters	7-23
Table 7-12      Surface Area of Adult Females (21 Years and Older) in Square Meters	7-23
Table 7-13.      Statistical Results for Total Body Surface Area Distributions (m2), for Adults	7-24
Table 7-14.      Descriptive Statistics For Surface Area/Body Weight (SA/BW) Ratios (m2/kg)	7-26
Table 7-15.      Estimated Skin Surface Exposed During Warm Weather Outdoor Activities	7-26
Table 7-16.      Summary of Field Studies	7-27
Table 7-17.      Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of Solids Adherence by
               Activity and Body Region	7-30
Table 7-18.      Summary of Controlled Greenhouse Trials	7-32

Table 7A-1.     Estimated Parameter Values for Different Age Intervals	7A-5
Table 7A-2.     Summary of Surface Area Parameter Values for the Dubois and Dubois Model	7A-5
Page
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
                                       LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 7-1.      Frequency Distributions for the Surface Area of Men and Women	7-25
Figure 7-2.      Skin Coverage as Determined by Fluorescence vs. Body Part for Adults Transplanting
               Plants and Children Playing in Wet Soils	7-33
Figure 7-3.      Gravimetric Loading vs. Body Part for Adults Transplanting Plants in Wet Soil and
               Children Playing in Wet and Dry Soils	7-33
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                             Page
July 2009	7-i«
-------
This page is intentionally left blank
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
1       DERMAL EXPOSURE FACTORS
7.1     INTRODUCTION
        Dermal exposure can occur during a variety
of activities  in  different environmental media and
microenvironments  (U.S. EPA, 1992a; 1992b; 2004).
These include:

    •   Water (e.g., bathing, washing, swimming);
    •   Soil (e.g.,  outdoor  recreation,  gardening,
        construction);
    •   Sediment (e.g., wading, fishing);
    •   Liquids (e.g., use of commercial products);
    •   Vapors/fumes   (e.g.,  use  of commercial
        products); and
    •   Indoor  dust (e.g., carpets,  floors, counter
        tops).

        This chapter focuses on measurements of
body surface area and dermal adherence of solids to
the skin.  These are only two of several parameters
that  influence  dermal  absorption.    Other  factors
include the concentration of chemical in contact with
the  skin,  characteristics  of  the   chemical  (i.e.,
lipophilicity, polarity, volatility, solubility),  the site of
application (i.e., the  thickness of the stratum corneum
varies over parts of the body), absorption of chemical
through the skin and factors that affect  absorption
(i.e, thickness,  age, condition),  and the amount of
chemical delivered to the target organ.  For guidance
on how to use skin surface area and dermal  adherence
factors, as well as these other factors to assess dermal
exposure,  readers are referred to Dermal Exposure
Assessment:  Principles and Applications (U.S.  EPA,
1992b)   and  Risk Assessment   Guidelines  for
Superfund  (RAGs)   Part  E   (U.S.  EPA,  2004).
Frequency and duration of contact also affect dermal
exposure.     Information  on  activity factors  is
presented in Chapter 16 of this handbook.
        Surface area of the skin can be determined
using  measurement   or  estimation  techniques.
Coating,  triangulation, and surface  integration  are
direct measurement  techniques that have been used to
measure total body  surface  area and the surface area
of specific body parts.  The coating method consists
of coating either the whole body or specific  body
regions with a  substance  of  known density and
thickness.  Triangulation consists of marking the area
of the  body into  geometric figures,  then calculating
the figure areas from their linear dimensions. Surface
integration is performed by using a planimeter and
adding the areas. The results of studies conducted
using   these   various  techniques   have   been
summarized   in   Development    of   Statistical
Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in
Exposure Assessments (U.S. EPA, 1985). Because of
the difficulties associated with direct measurements
of body surface area, the existing direct measurement
data are  limited  and  dated.   However,  several
researchers have developed methods for estimating
body surface area from measurements of other body
dimensions (DuBois and DuBois, 1916; Boyd, 1935;
Gehan and George, 1970).  Generally, these formulas
are based on the  observation that body weight and
height  are  correlated  with surface area  and are
derived using multiple regression techniques.  U.S.
EPA (1985) evaluated the various  formulas for
estimating total body surface area.  A discussion and
comparison  of formulas are presented  in Appendix
7A.  The key studies on body surface  area that are
presented in Section 7.3 of this chapter are based on
these formulas, and weight and height data from the
National Health  and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES).
        Several field studies have been conducted to
estimate the adherence of solids to skin.  These field
studies consider factors such as activity, gender, age,
field conditions,  and clothing worn. These studies
are presented in Section 7.4 of this chapter.
        The recommendations for  skin surface area
and dermal adherence of solids to skin are provided
in the  next  section,  along with a  summary of the
confidence ratings for these recommendations. The
recommended values  are  based  on  key  studies
identified by U.S. EPA for these factors.  Following
the recommendations, the  two key studies on skin
surface area and the three  key studies on dermal
adherence of solids to skin are summarized. Relevant
data on these factors are also presented to provide
added   perspective   on   the   state-of-knowledge
pertaining to dermal exposure factors.

7.2     RECOMMENDATIONS
7.2.1    Body Surface Area
        The recommended mean and 95th percentile
total body  surface area values are summarized in
Table  7-1.   If  gender-specific  data  for children,
gender-combined data for adults, or data for statistics
other than the mean or 95th percentile are needed, the
reader  is referred to Tables 7-8 through 7-10 of this
chapter. The recommendations for total body surface
area are based on the U.S. EPA analysis of NHANES
1999-2006 data for children under age 21 years and
are  presented  for  the   standard  age  groupings
recommended by  U.S.  EPA (2005) for male  and
female children combined.  For adults 21 years and
over, the recommendations for total body surface area
are based on the  U.S. EPA analysis  of NHANES
2005-2006 data. The  U.S. EPA analysis  of NHANES
data uses  correlations with body weight and height
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                             7-1
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
for deriving skin surface area (see Section 7.3.1.2 and
Appendix  7A).    NHANES   1999-2006  used  a
statistically-based survey design which should ensure
that  the  data  are  reasonably  representative of the
general population for each two year interval, e.g.
1999-2000, 2001-2002, etc. Multiple NHANES  study
years, supplying a larger sample size, were necessary
for estimating  surface area for children given the
multiple stratifications by age. The recommendations
for  the  percentage  of total  body  surface  area
represented by individual  body parts  are based on
data from U.S. EPA (1985), and  are presented in
Table  7-2  (See  Section  7.3.1).    Table  7-2 also
provides age-specific body part surface  areas (m2)
that were obtained by multiplying the mean body part
percentages by the total body surface areas presented
in Table 7-1.   If gender-specific data for children,
gender-combined data for adults, or data for statistics
other than the mean and 95th percentile  are needed,
the body part percentages  in Table  7-2  may  be
applied to the total skin surface area data in Tables 7-
8 through 7-10.  Tables 7-11  and 7-12 present the
surface area of body  parts for males  and females
respectively, 21 years of  age  and older. Table 7-3
presents    the    confidence    ratings   for   the
recommendations for body  surface area.
        For swimming and bathing scenarios, past
exposure assessments have assumed that 75 to 100
percent of  the  skin surface  is exposed  (U.S.  EPA,
1992b).    More   recent  guidance   recommends
assuming 100  percent exposure for these scenarios
(U.S. EPA,  2004).  For other exposure scenarios, it is
reasonable  to  assume that  clothing  reduces the
contact area. However, while it is generally assumed
that  adherence  of solids to skin occurs  to only the
areas of the  body not covered by clothing,  it is
important to understand that soil and  dust particles
can get under clothing and be deposited on skin to
varying  degrees  depending   on  the  protective
properties of the clothing.  Likewise, liquids may
soak through clothing and contact covered  areas of
the  skin.     Assessors  should   consider   these
possibilities for the scenario of concern and select
skin areas that are judged appropriate.

7.2.2   Adherence of Solids to Skin
        The  adherence factor (AF)  describes the
amount of material that adheres to the skin per unit of
surface area. Although most research in this area has
focused on soils, a variety  of other solid residues can
accumulate  on skin,  including  household  dust,
sediments and commercial powders. Studies on soil
adherence  have  shown  that:   1)  soil  properties
influence  adherence;   2)  soil  adherence  varies
considerably across different parts of the body; and 3)
soil adherence varies with activity (U.S. EPA, 2004).
It  is recommended  that  exposure assessors  use
adherence data derived from testing that matches the
exposure scenario of concern in terms of solid type,
exposed  body parts,  and  activities, as  closely as
possible.  Assessors  should  refer to the activities
described in Table 7-16 to  select those that  best
represent the exposure scenarios  of concern and use
the corresponding adherence values from Table 7-17.
Table 7-16 lists the age ranges covered by  each study.
This may be  used  as a general guide to the ages
covered by  these  data.  Recommended mean AF
values are summarized in Table 7-4 according to
common activities.. Insufficient  data were available
to  develop distributions or  probability functions for
these values.  Also, the small number of  subjects in
these  studies  prevented   the   development  of
recommendations for  the  childhood  specific  age
groups recommended by U.S. EPA (2005).
        RAGS Part E (U.S. EPA, 2004) recommends
that  scenario-specific  adherence values be weighted
according to  the body parts exposed.   Weighted
adherence factors may be estimated according to the
following equation:

AFwtd= (AF1)(SA1) + (AF,)(SA,) + . . .. (AF;)(SA)
                SAj  + SA2 + . . . SA;
(Eqn. 7-1)
where:
    AF
    AF
    SA
weighted adherence factor;
adherence factor; and
surface area.
        For  the  purposes  of this  calculation, the
surface area of the  face may be assumed to be 1/3
that  of the  head,  forearms may  be assumed to
represent 45 percent of the arms and lower legs may
be assumed to represent 40 percent of the legs  (U.S.
EPA, 2004).
        The recommended dermal AFs represent the
amount of material on the skin  at  the  time of
measurement.    U.S.  EPA  (1992b)  recommends
interpreting AFs as  representative of contact events.
Assuming that the amount of solids measured on the
skin represents accumulation between washings, and
that  people  wash  at  least once  per day,  these
adherence values can be interpreted as daily contact
rates  (U.S.  EPA,  1992b).   The  rate  of  solids
accumulation on skin over time has not been well
studied,   but  probably   occurs   fairly   quickly.
Therefore,  pro-rating  the  adherence  values for
exposure time periods  of less than one day is not
recommended.
        The   confidence   ratings  for  these  AF
Page
7-2
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
recommendations are shown in Table 7-5.  It should
be noted that while  the recommendations are based
on the best available  estimates  of activity-specific
adherence,  they  are based on  limited data from
studies  that have   focused  primarily   on  soil.
Therefore, they have a high degree of uncertainty and
considerable judgment must be used when selecting
them for an assessment. It should also be noted that
the  skin adherence studies have  not considered the
influence  of skin  moisture  on adherence.    Skin
moisture varies  depending on a  number of factors,
including     activity     level     and    ambient
temperature/humidity.  It is uncertain how well this
variability has been captured in the dermal adherence
studies.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                Page
July 2009	7-3
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-1. Recommended Values for Total Body Surface Area,
For Children (Genders Combined) and Adults by Gender
Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
Adult Males
21 to 30 years
30 to <40 years
40 to < 50 years
50 to < 60 years
60 to < 70 years
70 to < 80 years
80 years and over
Adult Females
21 to 30 years
30 to <40 years
40 to < 50 years
50 to < 60 years
60 to < 70 years
70 to < 80 years
80 years and over
Mean

0.29
0.33
0.38
0.45
0.53
0.61
0.76
1.08
1.59
1.84

2.05
2.10
2.15
2.11
2.08
2.05
1.92

1.81
1.85
1.88
1.89
1.88
1.77
1.69
95th Percentile
m2
0.34
0.38
0.44
0.51
0.61
0.70
0.95
1.48
2.06
2.33

2.52
2.50
2.56
2.55
2.46
2.45
2.22

2.25
2.31
2.36
2.38
2.34
2.13
1.98
Multiple
Percentiles




See Tables 7-8,
7-9, and 7-10






See Tables 7-8
(for gender-
combined data),
7-9 and 7-10




See Tables 7-8
(for gender-
combined data),
7-9, and 7-10


Source




U.S. EPAAnalysisof
NHANES 1999-2006 data






U.S. EPAAnalysisof
NHANES 2005-2006 data




U.S. EPAAnalysisof
NHANES 2005-2006 data


Page
7-4
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors

Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
Adult Males
21+ years
Adult Females
21+ years


Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
Adult Males
21+ years
Adult Females
21+ years
Table 7-2
Head
. Recommended Values for Surface Area of Body Parts
Trunk
Arms
Hands
Legs
Feet
Mean Percent of Total Surface Area
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
16.5
14.2
13.7
12.6
9.4
7.8
6.6
6.2


0.053
0.060
0.069
0.082
0.087
0.087
0.104
0.136
0.149
0.144
0.136
0.114
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.5
38.5
31.7
34.7
33.7
32.2
40.1
35.4
Mean

0.104
0.118
0.136
0.161
0.188
0.235
0.241
0.375
0.536
0.592
0.827
0.654
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.0
11.8
14.2
12.7
12.9
15.3
15.2
12.8
Surface

0.040
0.045
0.052
0.062
0.069
0.072
0.108
0.137
0.205
0.282
0.314
0.237
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.7
5.3
5.9
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.2
4.8
Area by
m2
0.015
0.017
0.020
0.024
0.030
0.032
0.045
0.054
0.084
0.099
0.107
0.089
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
23.1
23.2
27.3
27.9
31.3
32.2
33.1
32.3
Body Part3

0.060
0.068
0.078
0.093
0.122
0.142
0.207
0.301
0.498
0.592
0.682
0.598
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.3
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.1
6.7
6.6


0.019
0.021
0.025
0.029
0.033
0.043
0.055
0.078
0.119
0.131
0.137
0.122






U.S. EPA, 1985




U.S. EPA Analysis
of NHANES 2005-
2006 data and U.S.
EPA, 1985





U.S. EPA Analysis
of NHANES 1999-
2006 data and U.S.
EPA, 1985



U.S. EPA Analysis
of NHANES 2005-
2006 data and U.S.
EPA, 1985
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
  7-5
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-2
. Recommended Values for Surface Area of Body Parts (continued)
Head
Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
Adult Males
21+ years
Adult Females
21+ years
Trunk
Arms
Hands
95th Percentile Surface
m2
0.062
0
069
0.080
0.093
0.101
0.099
0.130
0.186
0
0
0
0
194
182
154
121
0.121
0.136
0.157
0.182
0.217
0.270
0.301
0.514
0.694
0.750
1.10
0.850
a Calculated as mean percentage
b Calculated as mean percentage
Note: Surface area values reported in
0.047
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.079
0.083
0.135
0.188
0.266
0.356
0.399
0.266
Area by
0.018
0
020
0.023
0.027
0.035
0.037
0.056
0.074
0
0
0
0
109
126
131
106
Legs
Body Part
0.070
0.078
0.091
0.105
0.141
0.162
0.259
0.413
0.645
0.750
0.847
0.764
Feet
b
0.022
0.025
0.029
0.033
0.038
0.050
0.069
0.107
0.155
0.165
0.161
0.146



Source









U.S. EPA Analysis
of NHANES 1999-
2006 data and U.S.
EPA, 1985









U.S. EPA Analysis
of NHANES 2005-
2006 data and U.S.
EPA, 1985
of body part times mean total body surface area.
of body part times 95th percentile total body surface area.
m2 can be converted to cm2 by multiplying by 10,000 cm2/m2.
Page
7-6
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
                     Table 7-3.  Confidence in Recommendations for Body Surface Area
 General Assessment Factors
                        Rationale
Rating
 Soundness
 Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or Defined) Bias
Total surface area estimates were based on algorithms developed
using direct measurements and data from NHANES surveys.  The
methods used for developing these algorithms were adequate.
The NHANES data and the secondary data analyses to estimate
total surface areas were appropriate. NHANES included a large
sample sizes; sample size varied with age. Body part percentages
were based on direct measurements from a limited number of
subjects.

The data used to develop the  algorithms for estimating surface
area from height and weight data were limited. NHANES
collected physical measurements of weight and height. Body part
data were based on direct measurements from a limited number
of subjects.
                                                             Medium
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest

  Representativeness
  Currency
  Data Collection Period
The key studies were directly relevant to surface area estimates.

The direct measurement data used to develop the algorithms for
estimating total body surface area from weight and height may
not be representative of the U.S. population. However, NHANES
height and weight data were collected using a complex, stratified,
multi-stage probability cluster sampling design intended to be
representative of the U.S. population.  The sample used to derive
body part percentages of total surface was not representative of
U.S. population.

The U.S. EPA analysis used the most current data at the time both
studies were conducted. The data on body part percentages were
dated; however, the age of the data is not expected to affect its
utility.

The U.S. EPA analysis was based on four NHANES data sets
covering 1999-2006 for children and one NHANES data set,
2005-2006, for adults.
                                                             Medium
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility
  Reproducibility


  Quality Assurance
The U.S. EPA analysis of the NHANES data is unpublished, but
available upon request. U.S. EPA (1985) is a U.S. EPA-published
report.

The methodology was clearly presented; enough information was
included to reproduce the results.

Quality assurance of NHANES data was good; quality control of
secondary  data analysis was not well described.
                                                             Medium
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                   Page
                                                                     7-7
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-3. Confidence in Recommendations for Body Surface Area (continued)
General Assessment Factors
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating



Rationale
The full distributions were given for total surface area.
A source of uncertainty in total surface areas resulted
from the limitations in data used to develop the
algorithms for estimating total surface from height and
weight. Because of the small sample size, there is
uncertainty in the body part percentage estimates.

The NHANES surveys received a high level of peer
review. The U.S. EPA analysis was not published in a
peer-reviewed j ournal.
There is one key study for total surface area and one key
study for the surface area of body parts.




Rating
Medium

Medium


Medium for Total
Surface Area and
Low for Surface
Area of Individual
Body Parts
Page
7-8
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
                       Table 7-4.  Recommended Values for Mean Solids Adherence to Skin
                                     Face   Arms    Hands   Legs    Feet
                                                      mg/cm2
                                                      Source
   Children

    Residential (indoors)3
    Daycare (indoors & outdoors)13
    Outdoor sports0
    Indoor sportsd
    Activities with soil6
    Playing in mudf

    Playing in sediment8
 0.012
0.0041

 0.024

 0.011
0.011

0.099

 0.11
0.0035   0.010

 0.020   0.071

 0.031
        0.0019  0.0063   0.0020   0.0022

 0.054   0.046    0.17     0.051     0.20

           11       47       23       15

 0.040   0.17     0.49     0.70      21
Holmes et al., 1999
Holmes et al., 1999
Kissel etal.,  1996a
Kissel etal.,  1996a
Holmes etal., 1999
Kissel etal.,  1996a
 Shoaf etal., 2005
   Adults
    Outdoor sports
    Activities with soil'
    Construction Activities'
0.0314  0.0872  0.1336   0.1223
0.0240  0.0379  0.1595   0.0189   0.1393

0.0982  0.1859  0.2763   0.0660
                                       Holmes etal., 1999;
                                        Kissel etal., 1996a
                                       Holmes etal., 1999;
                                        Kissel etal., 1996a
                                        Holmes etal., 1999
           Based on weighted average of geometric mean soil loadings for 2 groups of children (ages 3 to!3 years; N = 10)
           playing indoors.
           Based on weighted average of geometric mean soil loadings for 4 groups of daycare children (ages 1 to 6.5 years;
           N = 21) playing both indoors and outdoors.
           Based on geometric mean soil loadings of 8 children (ages 13 to 15 years) playing soccer.
           Based on geometric mean soil loadings of 6 children (ages >8 years) and 1 adult engaging in Tae Kwon Do.
           Based on weighted average of geometric mean soil loadings for gardeners and archeologists (ages 16 to 35 years).
           Based on weighted average of geometric mean soil loadings of 2 groups of children (age 9 to 14 years; N= 12)
           playing in mud.
           Based on weighted average of geometric mean soil loading of 6 children (ages 9 to 14 years) playing in mud.
           Based on geometric mean soil loadings of 9 children (ages 7 to  12 years) playing in tidal flats.
           Based on weighted average of geometric mean soil loadings of 3 groups of adults(ages 23 to 33 years) playing
           rugby and 2 groups of adults (ages 24 to 34) playing soccer.
           Based on weighted average of geometric mean soil loadings for 69 gardeners, farmers, groundskeepers,
           landscapers and archeologists (ages 16 to 64 years) for faces, arms and hands; 65 gardeners, farmers,
           groundskeepers, and archeologists (ages 16 to 64 years) for legs; and 36 gardeners, groundskeepers and
           archeologists (ages 16 to 62) for feet.
           Based on weighted average of geometric mean soil loadings for 27 construction workers, utility workers and
           equipment operators (ages 21 to 54) for faces, arms and hands; and based on geometric mean soil loadings for 8
           construction workers (ages 21 to 30 years) for legs.
           = No data.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                  Page
                                                                    7-9
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-5. Confidence in Recommendations for Solids Adherence to Skin
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or Defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Rationale
The approach was adequate; the skin rinsing technique
is widely employed for purposes similar to this. Small
sample sizes were used in the studies; the key studies
directly measured soil adherence to skin.
The studies attempted to measure soil adherence for
selected activities and conditions. The number of
activities and study participants was limited.
The studies were relevant to the factor of interest; the
goal was to determine soil adherence to skin.
The soil/dust studies were limited to the State of
Washington and the sediment study was limited to
Rhode Island. The data may not be representative of
other locales.
The studies were published between 1996 and 2005.
Short-term data were collected. Seasonal factors may
be important, but have not been studied adequately.
Articles were published in widely circulated
journals/reports.
The reports clearly describe the experimental methods,
and enough information was provided to allow for the
study to be reproduced.
Quality control was not well described.
Variability in soil adherence is affected by many
factors including soil properties, activity and
individual behavior patterns. Not all age groups were
represented in the sample.
The estimates are highly uncertain; the soil adherence
values were derived from a small number of
observations for a limited set of activities.
The studies were reported in peer reviewed journal
articles.
There are three key studies that evaluated different
activities in children and adults.

Rating
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Page
7-10
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
7.3     SURFACE AREA
7.3.1    Key Body Surface Area Studies
7.3.1.1  U.S. EPA, 1985 - Development of Statistical
        Distributions  or  Ranges  of  Standard
        Factors Used in Exposure Assessments
        The U.S. EPA (1985) summarized the direct
measurements  of the surface  area of adults' and
children's body parts provided by Boyd (1935) and
Van Graan (1969) as a percentage of total surface
area. These percentages are presented in Table 7-6. A
total of 21  children less than 18 years of age were
included.  Because of the small sample size, it is
unclear how accurately  these  estimates  represent
averages for the age groups.  A total of 89 adults, 18
years  and older  were included, providing greater
accuracy for  the  adult  estimates.  Note  that  the
proportion of total body surface area contributed by
the head decreases from childhood to  adulthood,
whereas  the  proportion  contributed  by  the  leg
increases.
        U.S. EPA (1985) analyzed the direct surface
area measurement data of Gehan and George  (1970)
using  the   Statistical  Processing   System  (SPS)
software package of Buhyoff et al. (1982). Gehan and
George (1970) selected 401 measurements  made by
Boyd (1935) that  were  complete  for  surface area,
height, weight, and  age  for their  analysis.   Boyd
(1935) had reported surface area estimates for 1,114
individuals  using coating, triangulation,  or surface
integration methods (U.S. EPA, 1985).
        U.S. EPA (1985)  used SPS to  generate
equations to calculate surface area  as a function of
height   and   weight.     These  equations   were
subsequently   used by U.S.  EPA to calculate body
surface area distributions of the U.S. population using
the height  and  weight data  obtained from  the
National Health  and Nutrition Examination Survey,
1999-2000 (CDC, 2006) (see Section 7.3.1.2).
        The  equation  proposed   by  Gehan  and
George (1970) was determined by U.S. EPA  (1985)
to be the best choice for estimating total body surface
area.   However,  the paper by  Gehan and George
(1970) gave insufficient information to estimate  the
standard error about the  regression.   Therefore, U.S.
EPA (1985) used  the 401 direct  measurements of
children and adults and reanalyzed the data using the
formula of Dubois and  Dubois (1916) and SPS to
obtain the standard error (U.S. EPA,  1985).
        Regression equations  were developed  for
specific body  parts using the Dubois and Dubois
(1916) formula and using the surface area of various
body parts provided by Boyd (1935) and Van Graan
(1969)  in  conjunction  with  SPS.   Regression
equations for adults were developed for the  head,
trunk  (including the neck), upper extremities (arms
and  hands, upper  arms,  and forearms) and lower
extremities (legs and  feet,  thighs,  and lower legs)
(U.S. EPA, 1985).  Table 7-7 presents a summary of
the equation parameters  developed by U.S. EPA
(1985) for calculating surface area of adult body
parts.  Equations to estimate  the body part surface
area of children  were not developed because of
insufficient data.

7.3.1.2  U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES 2005-2006
        and 1999-2006 Data
        The U.S. EPA estimated total body surface
areas using the empirical relationship shown in
Appendix  7A and U.S. EPA (1985), and body weight
and height data from  the  1999-2006 NHANES  for
children and the  2005-2006  NHANES  for  adults.
NHANES  is conducted annually by the Center  for
Disease Control (CDC), National Center of Health
Statistics (NCHS).  The survey's target population is
the civilian,  noninstitutionalized  U.S. population.
The NHANES 1999-2006 survey was conducted on a
nationwide  probability  sample  of  approximately
40,000 persons for all  ages, of which approximately
20,000 were children.  The survey is designed to
obtain  nationally representative  information on  the
health and nutritional status of the population of the
United States through  interviews and direct physical
examinations.    A number  of   anthropometrical
measurements  were taken for each participant in the
study,  including body weight  and height.   Unit
nonresponse to the  household interview  was  19
percent,  and  an  additional  4  percent  did   not
participate  in  the physical  examinations (including
body weight measurements).
        The NHANES 1999-2006 survey  includes
over-sampling  of low-income persons, adolescents 12
to 19  years,  persons 60+ years  of  age,  African
Americans, and Mexican Americans.  Sample data
were  assigned weights to account  both  for  the
disparity in sample sizes for these groups  and  for
other inadequacies  in sampling, such as the  presence
of non-respondents.   For children's  estimates,  the
U.S. EPA utilized  four NHANES  data sets in its
analysis (NHANES 1999-2000,  2001-2002, 2003-
2004, and  2005-2006) to ensure adequate sample size
for the  age groupings of interest.  Sample  weights
were  developed  for  the  combined  data set  in
accordance  with   CDC   guidance    from   the
NHANES'website   (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/
major/nhanes/nhanes20052006/faqs05_06.htm#questi
on%2012). For adult estimates, the U.S. EPA utilized
NHANES   years  2005-2006  in its  estimates  for
currency.
        Table  7-8  presents the mean and percentile
estimates of body  surface  area by  age category  for
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           7-11
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
males and females, combined.  Tables 7-9 and 7-10
present the mean and percentiles of body surface area
by age category for males and  females, respectively.
Tables 7-11 and 7-12 present the mean and percentile
estimates of body surface area of specific  body parts
for  males  and  females   21   years  and  older,
respectively. An advantage of using the  NHANES
datasets to derive surface area  estimates is that data
are available for infants from birth  and  older.  In
addition,  the   NHANES  data   are   nationally
representative  and remain the  principal  source  of
body  weight and height data  collected nationwide
from a large number of subjects. It should be noted
that in the  NHANES surveys  height measurements
for children under 2 years  of age were based  on
recumbent length while  standing height information
was collected  for children aged 2 years  and older.
Some  studies have  reported  differences between
recumbent length and standing height measurements
for the same individual, ranging from 0.5 to 2 cm,
with recumbent length being the larger of the two
measurements  (Buyken  et al., 2005).  The use  of
height data  obtained from  two different types  of
height measurements to estimate  surface  area  of
children  may  potentially  introduce errors into the
estimates.

7.3.2    Relevant Body Surface Area Studies
7.3.2.1  Murray  and Burmaster,  1992  Estimated
        Distributions for Total Body Surface Area
        of Men and Women in the United States
        In this  study,  distributions  of total  body
surface area for men and women ages 18 to 74 years
were estimated using Monte  Carlo simulations based
on height and weight distribution data. Four different
formulae for  estimating body surface  area  as  a
function  of  height  and  weight  were  employed:
Dubois and Dubois (1916); Boyd (1935); U.S. EPA
(1985); and Costeff (1966).  The formulae  of  Dubois
and Dubois (1916); Boyd  (1935); and  U.S. EPA
(1985) are based on height and weight.  The formula
developed  by  Costeff  (1966)  is  based  on 220
observations that estimate body surface area based on
weight only. Formulae were compared and the effect
of the correlation between height and weight on the
body surface area distribution was analyzed.
        Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to
estimate body  surface area distributions.   They were
based on the bivariate distributions  estimated  by
Brainard and Burmaster (1992)  for height and natural
logarithm of  weight and  the  formulae  described
above.  A total of 5,000 random samples each for
men  and women  were  selected  from the two
correlated bivariate distributions. Body surface area
calculations were made for each sample, and for each
formula, resulting in body surface area distributions.
Murray and Burmaster (1992), found that the body
surface area frequency distributions were similar for
the four models (Table 7-13).  Using the U.S. EPA
(1985) formula, the median surface area values were
calculated to be 1.96 m2 for men and 1.69 m2 for
women. The median value for women is identical to
that generated by U.S. EPA (1985) but differs for men
by approximately 1 percent.  Body surface area was
found to have lognormal distributions  for both men
and women (Figure 7-1).  It was also found that
assuming  correlation between  height  and  weight
influences  the  final  distribution by  less than  1
percent.

7.3.2.2  Phillips et al, 1993 - Distributions of Total
        Skin Surf ace Area to Body Weight Ratios
        Phillips et al.  (1993)  observed  a strong
correlation (0.986) between body surface area and
body  weight and studied the effect of using these
factors as independent variables in the  lifetime
average daily dose (LADD) equation  (See Chapter
1).   The  authors  suggested that, because  of the
correlation between these two variables, the use of
body surface area to body weight (SA/BW) ratios in
human  exposure   assessments  may   be  more
appropriate than treating these factors as independent
variables.    Direct  measurement data  from  the
scientific  literature  were used to calculate SA/BW
ratios for three age groups of the population (infants
aged 0 to 2 years, children aged 2.1 to 17.9 years, and
adults  18  years  and older).  These  ratios were
calculated  by  dividing  body  surface  areas  by
corresponding body weights for the 401 individuals
analyzed  by   Gehan  and  George  (1970)  and
summarized by U.S. EPA (1985).  Distributions of
SA/BW  ratios  were   developed,  and   summary
statistics were calculated for the three age groups and
the combined data set.
        Summary   statistics  for  both adults and
children are presented in Table 7-14.  The shapes of
these  SA/BW distributions were determined using
D'Agostino's test, as described in D'Agostino et al.
(1990). The results indicate that the SA/BW ratios
for infants are lognormally distributed. The SA/BW
ratios for adults and all ages combined were normaly
distributed. SA/BW ratios for children were neither
normally nor lognormally distributed.  According to
Phillips et al. (1993), SA/BW ratios may be used to
calculate LADDs by replacing the body surface area
factor in the numerator of the LADD equation with
the SA/BW ratio and eliminating the body  weight
factor in the denominator of the LADD equation.
        The  effect of gender and age on SA/BW
distribution was also analyzed  by classifying the
Page
7-12
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
401 observations  by  gender and  age.    Statistical
analyses indicated no significant differences between
SA/BW ratios for males and females.  SA/BW ratios
were  found to  decrease  with increasing age.  The
advantage of this study is that it studied correlations
between surface area and body weight.   However,
data could not be broken out by finer age categories.

7.3.2.3  Wong et al, 2000 - Adult Proxy Responses
        to a Survey  of Children's Dermal  Soil
        Contact A ctivities
        Wong et al. (2000) reported on two surveys
that gathered information on activity patterns related
to dermal  contact  with soil.  The  first  of these
national phone surveys (also reported on by  Garlock
et al.,  1999)  was conducted  in 1996 using random
digit dialing.    Information about  211 children was
gathered from adults over the age  of 18.  For older
children (those between the ages of 5 and 17 years),
information was  gathered on their participation  in
"gardening and  yardwork,"  "outdoor sports," and
"outdoor play activities."  For children less than 5
years old, information was gathered on "outdoor play
activities," including whether the activity occurred on
a playground or yard with "bare dirt or mixed grass
and  dirt" surfaces.   Information  on the  types  of
clothing worn  while  participating  in these  play
activities during warm weather months (April though
October) was obtained.  The results of this survey
indicate that most children wore short pants, a dress
or skirt, short sleeve shirts, no socks, and leather  or
canvas  shoes during the outdoor  play activities  of
interest.  Using the  survey data on  clothing and total
body  surface area data from  U.S. EPA  (1985),
estimates  were  made of  the skin  area exposed
(expressed as percentages of total body surface area)
associated with  various  age ranges and  activities.
These estimates are provided in Table 7-15.

7.4     ADHERENCE OF SOLIDS TO SKIN
7.4.1    Key Adherence of Solids to Skin Studies
7.4.1.1  Kissel et al.,  1996a  - Field Measurements
        of Dermal Soil Loading Attributable  to
        Various  Activities:    Implications  for
        Exposure Assessment
        Kissel   et  al.  (1996a)  collected  direct
measurements of soil  loading on the surface of the
skin  of volunteers,  before  and  after  activities
expected to result in  soil contact.   Soil  adherence
associated with  the following  indoor and  outdoor
activities were estimated: greenhouse gardening, tae
kwon  do  karate,  soccer,  rugby,  reed   gathering,
irrigation   installation,   truck  farming,   outdoor
gardening  and landscaping  (Groundskeepers)  and
playing in mud.   Skin surface  areas  monitored
included hands, forearms, lower legs, faces  and/or
feet (Kissel etal., 1996a).
        The activities, information on their duration,
sample  size and clothing worn by participants  is
provided in Table 7-16. The subjects' body surfaces
(forearms, hands, lower legs for all sample groups;
faces and/or feet pairs in some sample groups) were
washed before and  after the  monitored  activities.
Paired samples were  pooled into single ones.  The
mass recovered was  converted to soil loading using
allometric models of surface area.
        Geometric   means  for  post-activity  soil
adherence by activity and body  region for the  four
groups of volunteers evaluated are presented in Table
7-17.  Children playing in the mud had the highest
soil  loadings  among  the groups evaluated.   The
results also indicate  that, in general, the amount  of
soil adherence to the hands is higher  than for other
parts of the body during the same activity.
        An advantage of this study is that it provides
information on soil adherence to various body parts
resulting from  unscripted activities.  However, the
study authors noted that, because the activities were
unstaged,  "control  of  variables such as specific
behaviors within each activity,  clothing worn by
participants, and duration of activity was limited."  In
addition, soil adherence values were estimated based
on a  small number of observations and very  young
children and indoor activities were under-represented
in the study.

7.4.1.2  Holmes et al.,  1999 - Field Measurements
        of Dermal Loadings in Occupational and
        Recreational A ctivities
        Holmes et al. (1999) collected pre- and post-
activity soil  loadings  on  various body parts  of
individuals  within  groups  engaged  in various
occupational  and recreational  activities.    These
groups  included:  children  at  a  daycare  center
(Daycare  Kids), children  playing indoors in  a
residential   setting   (Indoor    Kids),  individuals
removing   historical   artifacts   from   a   site
(Archeologists), individuals erecting   a  corrugated
metal wall (Construction Workers), heavy equipment
operators (Equipment Operators), individuals playing
rugby  (Rugby   Players),  utility  workers  jack-
hammering   and   excavating   trenches   (Utility
Workers), individuals  conducting  landscaping  and
rockery   (Landscape/Rockery),   and  individuals
performing gardening work (Gardeners).  This study
was  conducted  as a follow up to previous field
sampling   of   soil    adherence   on  individuals
participating  in various activities (Kissel   et al.,
1996a). For this round of sampling, soil loading data
were  collected utilizing the same methods used and
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            7-13
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
described in Kissel et al.  (1996a).   Information
regarding the groups  studied  and their observed
activities is presented in Table 7-16.
        The daycare children studied were all at one
location, and  measurements were  taken on  three
different days.    The  children freely  played both
indoors in the house and outdoors in  the backyard.
The number of children within each day's group and
the clothing worn is described in Table 7-16.  For the
second  observation  day  (Daycare Kids  No.  2),
postactivity data were collected for five children. All
the activities on this day occurred indoors.   For the
third  daycare  group  (Daycare Kids  No.  3), four
children were studied.
        On two  separate   days, children  playing
indoors in a home environment were monitored.  The
first  group (Indoor Kids No.  1)  had  four children
while the second group (Indoor Kids No. 2) had six
children. The play area was  described by the authors
as being primarily carpeted.  The clothing  worn by
the children within each day's group is described in
Table 7-16.
        Seven  individuals   (Archeologists)  were
monitored while excavating, screening, sorting, and
cataloging historical artifacts from an ancient Native
American site during a single  event.   Eight rugby
players  were  monitored  on  two  occasions  after
playing or practicing rugby.  Eight volunteers from a
construction company were monitored one day while
erecting  corrugated  metal  walls. Four  volunteers
(Landscape/Rockery)    were    monitored   while
relocating a rock wall in a park. Four excavation
workers  (Equipment  Operators)  were  monitored
twice after operation of heavy equipment. Utility
workers  cleaning  and  fixing  water  mains, jack-
hammering and excavating trenches (Utility Workers)
were monitored on two days, five participated on the
first  day and four on the second. Eight volunteers
(Gardeners), ages  16 to  35 years,  were monitored
while performing  gardening  activities (i.e., weeding,
pruning, digging  small irrigation trenches,  picking
and  cleaning fruit).   The  clothing worn by these
groups is described in Table 7-16.
        The   geometric   means  and   standard
deviations of the postactivity soil adherence for each
group  of individuals and for  each body  part are
summarized in Table 7-17. According to the authors,
variations in the soil loading data from the daycare
participants  reflect  differences  in the  weather and
access to the outdoors.
        An advantage of this study is that it provides
a  supplement  to  soil  loading  data collected in a
previous round of studies (Kissel et al.,  1996a). Also,
the data support the assumption that hand loading can
be used as a conservative estimate of soil loading on
other body  surfaces  for  the  same  activity.   The
activities studied represent normal child play both
indoors  and   outdoors,   as   well   as  different
combinations of clothing.   The  small number of
participants is a disadvantage of this study.  Also, the
children studied and the activity setting may not be
representative of the U.S. population.

7.4.1.3  Shoafet al, 2005 - Child Dermal Sediment
        Loads Following Play in a Tide Flat
        The  purpose of this  study  was to obtain
sediment adherence  data for children playing in a
tidal flat (Shoreline Play).  The study was conducted
on one day in late September 2003 at a tidal flat in
Jamestown,  Rhode  Island.   Nine  subjects  (three
females and  six males) ages  7 to  12 years old
participated in  the  study.   Information on activity
duration,  sample  size  and   clothing  worn  by
participants is provided in Table 7-16.  Participants'
parents  completed   questionnaires  regarding  their
child's typical activity patterns during tidal flat play,
exposure frequency and duration, clothing  choices,
bathing practices and clothes laundering.
        This study reported direct measurements of
sediment loadings on five body parts (face, forearms,
hands, lower legs, and feet) after play in a tide flat.
Each of nine  subjects  participated  in two  timed
sessions and pre- and post-activity sediment loading
data were collected.  Geometric mean (geometric
standard deviations) dermal loadings (mg/cm2) on the
face,  forearm, hands, lower legs,  and feet for the
combined sessions, as shown in Table 7-17,  were
0.04 (2.9), 0.17  (3.1), 0.49 (8.2), 0.70  (3.6)  and 21
(1.9), respectively.
        The primary advantage of this study is that it
provides adherence  data  specific  to children and
sediments  which  had   previously  been   largely
unavailable.  Results will be useful to risk assessors
considering  exposure  scenarios  involving   child
activities at  a coastal shoreline  or  tidal flat.   The
limited  number of  participants (9)  and  sampling
during just  one  day and at one  location,  make
extrapolation to other situations uncertain.

7.4.2    Relevant Adherence  of  Solids  to  Skin
        Studies
7.4.2.1  Que  Hee  et al,  1985  - Evolution  of
        Efficient Methods to Sample Lead Sources,
        Such as House Dust and Hand Dust, in the
        Homes of Children
        Que  Hee et al.  (1985)  used  soil  having
particle sizes ranging from < 44 to 833 um diameters,
fractionated  into six size  ranges, to  estimate the
amount that adhered to the palm of the hand that are
assumed to be approximately 160 cm2 (test subject
Page
7-14
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
with an average total body surface area of 16,000 cm2
and  a  total hand surface area of 400 cm2).   The
amount of soil that  adhered to skin was determined
by applying approximately  5 g of soil for each size
fraction, removing excess soil by shaking the hands,
and then measuring the difference in weight before
and  after application.   Several assumptions  were
made to apply these results to other soil types and
exposure  scenarios:   (a) the  soil is  composed of
particles of the indicated diameters; (b) all soil types
and particle sizes adhere to the skin to the degree
observed in this study; and an equivalent weight of
particles of any diameter adhere to the same surface
area of skin.  On average, 31.2 mg of soil adhered to
the palm of the hand.

7.4.2.2  Driver et al, 1989  - Soil Adherence to
        Human Skin
        Driver  et  al.   (1989)  conducted   soil
adherence  experiments using  various  soil  types
collected from sites in  Virginia.  A total of five soil
types were collected:  Hyde, Chapanoke,  Panorama,
Jackland, and Montalto. Both top soils and subsoils
were collected for each soil type.  The soils were also
characterized by cation exchange capacity, organic
content,   clay   mineralogy,   and   particle   size
distribution.  The  soils were  dry  sieved  to obtain
particle sizes of <250  um and <150 um.   For each
soil type,  the amount of soil adhering to adult male
hands,  using both sieved and unsieved  soils,  was
determined  gravimetrically  (i.e.,  measuring  the
difference in soil sample weight before and after soil
application to the hands).
        An attempt was  made to measure  only the
minimal  or "monolayer"  of  soil  adhering to the
hands.   This was done  by mixing  a  pre-weighed
amount of soil over the  entire surface area of the
hands  for  a period  of approximately  30  seconds,
followed by removal of excess  soil by gently rubbing
the hands together after contact with the soil. Excess
soil that was removed from the hands was collected,
weighed, and compared to  the original soil sample
weight. The authors measured average adherence of
1.40 mg/cm2 for particle sizes  less than 150 um, 0.95
mg/cm2 for particle sizes less than 250 um, and 0.58
mg/cm2 for unsieved  soils.   Analysis of  variance
statistics   showed that the most  important  factor
affecting adherence variability  was particle size (p <
0.001).  The next most important factor is soil type
and subtype (p < 0.001).  The  interaction of soil type
and particle size was also significant, but at a lower
significance level (p < 0.01).
        Driver  et  al.  (1989)  found  statistically
significant  increases  in  soil  adherence   with
decreasing particle  size;  whereas, Que Hee  et al.
(1985) found relatively small changes with changes
in particle size. The amount of soil adherence found
by Driver et al. (1989) was greater than that reported
by Que Hee etal. (1985).

7.4.2.3  Sedman,  1989  -  The  Development  of
        Applied Action Levels for Soil Contact: A
        Scenario for the Exposure of Humans to
        Soil in a Residential Setting
        Sedman (1989) used the estimate from Roels
et al. (1980), 0.159 g, and the average surface area of
the  hand of an 11 year old, 307 cm2 to estimate the
amount of  soil adhering per unit area of skin to be
0.9  mg/cm2.  This  assumed that  approximately  60
percent (185 cm2)  of the  lead on the hands was
recovered by the method employed by Roels et al.
(1980).
        Sedman (1989) used estimates from Lepow
et al. (1975), Roels  et al. (1980), and Que Hee et al.
(1985) to develop a maximum soil load that could
occur on the skin. A rounded arithmetic mean of 0.5
mg/cm2 was calculated  from these three studies.
According  to  Sedman  (1989), this  was  near the
maximum load of soil that could  occur on the skin
but it is unlikely that most  skin surfaces would be
covered with this amount of soil (Sedman, 1989).

7.4.2.4  Kissel et al, 1996b - Factors Affecting Soil
        Adherence to  Skin in Hand-press Trials:
        Investigation of Soil Contact  and Skin
        Coverage
        Kissel  et   al.   (1996b)  conducted  soil
adherence experiments using five soil types obtained
locally in the  Seattle, WA,  area: sand, 2  types of
loamy sand, sandy loam, and silt loam.  All soils were
analyzed  by   hydrometer  (settling  velocity)  to
determine composition.   Clay content  ranged from
0.5  to  7.0   percent.     Organic   carbon  content,
determined by  combustion, ranged from 0.7  to 4.6
percent.  Soils  were dry-sieved to obtain particle size
ranges of <150, 150-250, and >250  um.  For each
soil type, the  amount of  soil adhering to  an adult
female hand, using both sieved and unsieved soils,
was determined by measuring the soil sample weight
before and after  the hand was pressed into  a pan
containing the  test soil.  Loadings were estimated by
dividing the recovered soil mass by total hand area,
although loading occurred primarily on only one side
of  the hand.   Results showed that  generally,  soil
adherence  to  hands was directly  correlated with
moisture content, inversely correlated  with particle
size, and independent of clay content or organic
carbon content. The advantage of this study is that it
provides information on how soil type  can affect
adherence to the skin.  However, the soil adherence
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           7-15
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
data are for a single subject and the data are limited
to five soil samples.

7.4.2.5  Kissel et al., 1998 - Investigation of Dermal
        Contact with Soil in Controlled Trials
        Kissel   et  al.   (1998)  measured  dermal
exposure to soil from staged activities conducted in a
greenhouse. A fluorescent marker was mixed in soil
so that soil contact for a  particular skin surface area
could be identified.  The subjects were video-imaged
under a long-wave ultraviolet (UV) light before and
after soil contact.  In this manner, soil contact on
hands, forearms, lower legs, and faces was assessed
by  presence  of  fluorescence.    In  addition  to
fluorometric  data,  gravimetric  measurements  for
preactivity and  postactivity were obtained from the
different body parts examined.
        The   studied   groups    included   adults
transplanting 14 plants for 9 to 18  minutes, children
playing  for 20 minutes  in  a soil bed of varying
moisture content representing wet and dry  soils, and
adults laying plastic pipes for 15, 30 or 45 minutes.
The parameters describing each of these activities are
summarized in Table 7-18.  Before each trial, each
participant was  washed in  order  to   obtain  a
preactivity or background gravimetric measurement.
        For  wet  soil,  postactivity  fluorescence
results indicated that  the hand had a  much higher
fractional coverage than other body  surfaces  (see
Figure 7-2).
        As shown  in  Figure  7-3,  postactivity
gravimetric measurements for children playing and
adults transplanting showed higher soil loading on
hands  and much  lower  amounts on other body
surfaces, as was observed with fluorescence  data.
This was also observed  in adults  laying pipe.  The
arithmetic  mean  percent  of  hand  surface  area
fluorescing was 65% after 15 minutes laying pipe in
wet soil and 85% after 30 and 45 minutes laying pipe
in wet soil. The arithmetic mean percent of lower leg
surface area fluorescing was -20% after 15 minutes
of laying pipe in wet soil, 25% after 30 minutes and
40% after 45  minutes. According to Kissel et al.
(1998), the relatively low loadings  observed on non-
hand body parts may  be  a result of a more limited
area of  contact for the body part rather than lower
localized loadings.  The highest soil loading observed
was a geometric mean dermal loading of 1.1 mg/cm2,
found on the adult's hands following transplanting in
wet soil. Mean loadings were lower on hands in the
dry soil trial and on lower legs, forearms, and faces in
both the wet and dry soil trials. Higher loadings were
observed  for all  body  surfaces  with the higher
moisture content soils.
        This report is  valuable  in  showing  soil
loadings from soils of different moisture content and
providing evidence that dermal exposure to soil is not
uniform for various body surfaces.  This study  also
provides  some evidence of the protective  effect of
clothing.   Disadvantages of  the  study include the
small number of study participants and  a short
activity duration.

7.5     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7
Boyd, E.  (1935) The growth of the  surface  area of
        the  human  body.     Minneapolis, MN:
        University of Minnesota Press.
Brainard, J.B.; Burmaster, D.E.   (1992)  Bivariate
        distributions for height and weight, men and
        women  in  the United  States.   Risk Anal.
        12(2):267-275.
Buhyoff,  G.J.; Rauscher, H.M.;  Hull, R.B.;  Killeen,
        K.; Kirk, R.C.  (1982)  User's Manual for
        Statistical Processing System (version 3C.1).
        Southeast Technical Associates, Inc.
Buyken,  A.E.;  Hahn,  S.;   Kroke,  A.     (2005)
        Differences between recumbent length  and
        stature measurement  in groups of 2- and 3-
        y-old children and its relevance for  the use
        of European body mass index references.
        IntJObes 29:24-28.
Centers  for Disease  Control  and Prevention, 2006.
        National  Center  for   Health   Statistics
        (NCHS).  National  Health  and Nutrition
        Examination Survey Data. Hyattsville, MD:
        U.S.  Department of Health  and   Human
        Services, Centers for Disease  Control  and
        Prevention,     Retrieved     2006     at
        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Costeff, H.  (1966) A simple empirical formula for
        calculating  approximate surface  area in
        children. Arch. Dis. Childh. 41:681-683.
D'Agostino, R.B.; Belanger, A.;  D'Agostino, R.B. Jr.
        (1990) A suggestion for using powerful and
        informative   tests   of  normality.   The
        American Statistician 44(4):316-321.
Driver, J.H.; Konz, J.J.; Whitmyre, G.K. (1989)  Soil
        adherence to human skin.   Bull.  Environ.
        Contam. Toxicol. 43:814-820.
Dubois, D.;  Dubois,  E.F    (1916)  A formula to
        estimate the  approximate  surface   area if
        height and weight be known.  Arch Intern
        Med 17:863-871.
Garlock, T.J.; Shirai, J.H.; Kissel, J.C. (1999) Adult
        responses to a survey of soil contact related
        behaviors.  J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol
        9:134-142.
Gehan, E.; George, GL.  (1970) Estimation of human
        body surface area from height and  weight.
        Cancer Chemother Rep 54(4):225-235.
Page
7-16
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
George, S.L.; Gehan, E.A.; Haycock, G.B.; Schwartz,
        GJ.  (1979) Letters to the editor.  J Pediatr
        94(2):342.
Holmes, Jr., K.K.; Shirai, J.H.; Richter, K.Y.; Kissel,
        J.C.  (1999) Field measurement of dermal
        loadings  in occupational and recreational
        activities.   Environ Res Section A 80: MS-
        IS?.
Kissel, J.C.; Richter, K.; Fenske, R.  (1996a) Field
        measurements   of  dermal  soil  loading
        attributable    to    various    activities:
        Implications for exposure assessment. Risk
        Anall6(l):116-125.
Kissel,  J.C.; Richter,  K.; Duff, R.;  Fenske, R.
        (1996b) Factors affecting soil adherence to
        skin in hand-press trials.   Bull Environ
        Contam Toxicol 56:722-728.
Kissel, J.C.; Shirai, J.H.; Richter, K.Y.; Fenske, R.A.
        (1998)  Investigation of dermal contact with
        soil in controlled trials.  J Soil Contam 7(6):
        737-752.
Lepow, M.L.; Bruckman, L.; Gillette, M; Markowitz,
        S.;   Rubino,   R.;  Kapish,   J.     (1975)
        Investigations  into sources  of lead  in the
        environment of urban  children.   Environ.
        Res. 10:415-426.
Murray, D.M.; Burmaster, D.E.  (1992)   Estimated
        distributions for total surface area of men
        and women in the United States. J. Expos.
        Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 3(4):451-462.
Phillips,  L.J.; Fares, R.J.; Schweer, L.G   (1993)
        Distributions  of total skin  surface area to
        body weight  ratios  for  use  in dermal
        exposure assessments. J Expo Anal Environ
        Epidemiol  3(3):331-338.
Que Hee, S.S.;  Peace,  B.; Clark, C.S.; Boyle, J.R.;
        Bornschein, R.L.; Hammond, PB.   (1985)
        Evolution  of efficient  methods to sample
        lead sources,  such as house  dust and hand
        dust, in the homes of children.  Environ.
        Res. 38: 77-95.
Roels, H.A.; Buchet, J.P; Lauwenys,  R.R.; Branx, P.;
        Claeys-Thoreau,    F.;   Lafontaine,    A.;
        Verduyn, G  (1980)  Exposure  to lead by
        oral and pulmonary routes of children living
        in the  vicinity  of a  primary lead smelter.
        Environ. Res. 22:81-94.
Sedman,  R.M.  (1989)  The development of applied
        action levels for soil  contact: a scenario for
        the  exposure  of humans   to  soil  in a
        residential   setting.     Environ.   Health
        Perspect. 79:291-313.
Shoaf, M.B.; Shirai, J.H.; Kedan, G;  Schaum, J.;
        Kissel,  J.C.  (2005) Child dermal sediment
        loads following play  in a tide flat.  J Expo
        Anal Environ Epidemiol 15:407-412.
U.S.  EPA    (1985)  Development  of  statistical
        distributions or ranges of standard factors
        used in exposure assessments. Washington,
        DC:  Office of Research and Development,
        Office   of  Health   and  Environmental
        Assessment. EPA 600/8-85-010.  Available
        from: NTIS, Springfield, VA. PB85-242667.
U.S.  EPA    (1992a)  Guidelines  for  exposure
        assessment.     Federal   Register.      FR
        57:104:22888-22938. May 29, 1992.
U.S. EPA   (1992b) Dermal exposure  assessment:
        principles  and  applications.   Washington,
        DC:  Office of Research and Development,
        Office   of  Health   and  Environmental
        Assessment/OHEA.  U.S. EPA/600/8-9-91.
U.S. EPA   (2004) Risk assessment guidance  for
        Superfund  (RAGS):  Volume  I,  Human
        Health  Evaluation   Manual,   Part   E.
        Washington, DC. EPA/540/R/99/005.
U.S. EPA (2005) Guidance on selecting age groups
        for  monitoring  and  assessing  childhood
        exposures  to  environmental  contaminants.
        U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Washington,  DC.     EPA/630/P-03/003F.
        November 2005.
Van Graan, C.H. (1969) The determination of body
        surface area. S Afr Med J 43(31):952-959.
Wong, E.Y.; Shirai, J.H.; Garlock,  T.J.; Kissel, J.C.
        (2000) Adult proxy responses to a survey of
        children's  dermal soil contact activities.  J
        Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:509-517.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           7-17
-------
   I



Table

Age (years)



















<1
1<2
2<3
3<4
4<5
5<6
6<7
7<8
8<9
9<10
IK 12
12<13
13<14
14<15
15<16
16<17
17<18
Males, 18+ years
Females, 18+ years
N
Min.
Max.
a
b
Source
7-6. Percentage

N
M:F
2:0
1:1
1:0
0:5
1:3

1:0


0:2

1:0
1:0


1:0
1:0
32
57
= Number of subjects,

of Total Body Surface Area by Body


Head Trunk
Mean
18.2
16.5
14.2
13.6
13.8

13.1


12.0

8.7
10.0


8.0
7.6
7.8
7.1
(M:F =
Min-Max Mean
18.2-18.3 35.7
16.5-16.5 35.5
38.5
13.3-14.0 31.9
12.1-15.3 31.5

35.1


11.6-12.5 34.2

34.7
32.7


32.7
31.7
6.1-10.6 35.9
5.6-8.1 34.8
males:females).
Part For Children (Genders Combined) and Adults by Gender

Percent of Total

Arms Hands
Min-Max Mean
34.8-36.6 13
34.5-36.6 13
11
29.9-32.8 14
30.5-32.4 14

13


33.4-34.9 12

13
12


13
17
30.5-41.4 14
32.8-41.7 14

.7
.0
.8
.4
.0

.1


o
.J

.7
.1


.1
.5
.1
Oa

Min-Max Mean
12.4-15.1 5.3
12.8-13.1 5.7
5.3
14.2-14.7 6.1
13.0-15.5 5.7

4.7


11.7-12.8 5.3

5.4
5.1


5.7
5.1
12.5-15.5 5.2
12.4-14.8 5.1b


Legs
Min-Max Mean Min-Max
5.2-5.4 20
5.6-5.8 23
23
5.8-6.3 26
5.2-6.6 27

27


5.2-5.4 28

30
32


33
30
4.6-7.0 31
4.4-5.4 32

6 18.2-22.9
1 22.1-24.0
2
8 26.0-28.6
8 26.0-29.3

1


7 28.5-28.8

5
0


6
8
2 26.1-33.4
4a 29.8-35.3



Feet
Mean
6.5
6.3
7.1
7.2
7.3

6.9


7.6

7.0
8.0


6.9
7.3
7.0
6.5a

Min-Max
6.5-6.6
5.8-6.7

6.8-7.9
6.9-8.1




7.4-7.8







6.0-7.9
6.0-7.0

= Minimum percent.
= Maximum percent.
Sample size =
Sample size =
13
12


















: U.S. EPA, 1985.
                                                                                                                                                                                      Q

s
ri
                                                                                                                                                                                             1=
vo
-------
 !? t?
^5" 'a
 K) *
 * a
  *t
 ^o ft

    £
    ft


    !
    sT
    a

    1=

    I
    ST-
Table 7-7. Summary of Equation Parameters for Calculating
Equation for surface
Body Part
Head
Female
Male
Trunk
Female
Male
Upper Extremities
Female
Male
Arms
Female
Male
Upper Arms
Male
Forearms
Male
Hands
Female
Male
Lower Extremities0
Legs
Thighs
Lower legs
Feet
aSA = a0 Wal Ha2
N a°

57 0.0256
32 0.0492

57 0.188
32 0.0240
57 0.0288
48 0.00329

13 0.00223
32 0.00111
6 8.70

6 0.326
12b 0.0131
32 0.0257
105 0.00286
45 0.00240
45 0.00352
45 0.000276
45 0.000618

Wal

0.124
0.339

0.647
0.808
0.341
0.466

0.201
0.616
0.741

0.858
0.412
0.573
0.458
0.542
0.629
0.416
0.372

areas (m2)
ff2

0.189
-0.0950

-0.304
-0.0131
0.175
0.524

0.748
0.561
-1.40

-0.895
0.0274
-0.218
0.696
0.626
0.379
0.973
0.725

Adult Body Surface Area
P

0.01
0.01

0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001

0.01
0.001
0.25

0.05
0.1
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001

R2

0.302
0.222

0.877
0.894
0.526
0.821

0.731
0.892
0.576

0.897
0.447
0.575
0.802
0.780
0.739
0.727
0.651

W = Weight in kilograms; H = Height in centimeters; P = Level of significance; R2 = Coefficient of determination;
SA = Surface Area; S.E. = Standard error; N = Number of observations
b One observation for a female whose body weight exceeded the 95 percentile was not used.
c Although two separate regressions were marginally indicated by the F test, pooling was done for consistency with
components of lower extremities.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1985.
S.E.

0.00678
0.0202

0.00567
0.0118
0.00833
0.0101

0.00996
0.0177
0.0387

0.0207
0.0172
0.0187
0.00633
0.0130
0.0149
0.0149
0.0147

individual
                                                                                                                                                                                  s
                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                   XI

                                                                                                                                                                                   b
                                                                                                                                                                                   §
                                                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                                                  1
                                                                                                                                                                                  s
CTQ

 ft
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-8. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES 1999-2006
Males and Females Combined for Children < 21 Years and NHANES 2005-2006 for Adults > 21 Years.
Age
Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to <30 years
30 to <40 years
40 to < 50 years
50 to < 60 years
60 to < 70 years
70 to < 80 years
80 years and over
N Mean —
154
281
488
923
1159
1122
2303
3590
5294
4843
914
813
806
624
645
454
330
0.29
0.33
0.38
0.45
0.53
0.61
0.76
1.08
1.59
1.84
1.93
1.97
2.01
2.00
1.98
1.89
1.77
Percentiles
5*
0.24
0.27
0.33
0.38
0.45
0.52
0.61
0.81
1.19
1.47
1.51
1.55
1.59
1.57
1.58
1.48
1.45
10*
0.25
0.29
0.34
0.39
0.46
0.54
0.64
0.85
1.25
1.53
1.56
1.63
1.66
1.63
1.63
1.56
1.53
15th
0.26
0.29
0.35
0.40
0.47
0.55
0.66
0.88
1.31
1.58
1.62
1.67
1.71
1.69
1.70
1.64
1.56
25th
0.27
0.31
0.36
0.42
0.49
0.57
0.68
0.93
1.4
1.65
1.73
1.77
1.80
1.80
1.78
1.72
1.62
50th
0.29
0.33
0.38
0.45
0.53
0.61
0.74
1.05
1.57
1.80
1.91
1.95
1.99
1.97
1.98
1.90
1.76
75*
0.31
0.35
0.40
0.48
0.56
0.64
0.81
1.21
1.75
1.99
2.09
2.16
2.21
2.19
2.15
2.05
1.92
85th
0.31
0.37
0.42
0.49
0.58
0.67
0.85
1.31
1.86
2.10
2.21
2.26
2.31
2.29
2.26
2.15
2.00
90th
0.33
0.37
0.43
0.50
0.59
0.68
0.89
1.36
1.94
2.21
2.29
2.31
2.40
2.37
2.33
2.22
2.05
95*
0.34
0.38
0.44
0.51
0.61
0.70
0.95
1.48
2.06
2.33
2.43
2.43
2.48
2.51
2.43
2.30
2.12
N = Number of observations.
Source: U.S. EPAAnalysis
of NHANES
1999-2006
data (children) NHANES
2005-2006
data (adults).
Page
7-20
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-9. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES 1999-2006
for Children <21 Years and NHANES 2005-2006 for Adults >21 Years
Males
Age
Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to 30 years
30 to <40 years
40 to < 50 years
50 to < 60 years
60 to < 70 years
70 to < 80 years
80 years and over
N
85
151
255
471
620
548
1150
1794
2593
2457
361
390
399
310
323
249
163
Mean -
0.29
0.33
0.39
0.45
0.53
0.62
0.76
1.09
1.61
1.94
2.05
2.10
2.15
2.11
2.08
2.05
1.92
Percentiles
5th
0.24
0.28
0.34
0.39
0.46
0.54
0.61
0.82
1.17
1.61
1.70
1.74
1.78
1.68
1.72
1.71
1.67
10*
0.25
0.29
0.35
0.41
0.47
0.56
0.64
0.86
1.23
1.66
1.76
1.81
1.86
1.81
1.78
1.80
1.71
15th
0.26
0.30
0.36
0.42
0.48
0.56
0.66
0.89
1.28
1.7
1.81
1.85
1.90
1.86
1.84
1.84
1.74
25th
0.27
0.31
0.37
0.43
0.50
0.58
0.69
0.94
1.39
1.76
1.87
1.93
1.97
1.94
1.94
1.92
1.80
50*
0.29
0.34
0.39
0.46
0.53
0.62
0.75
1.06
1.60
1.91
2.01
2.08
2.12
2.12
2.08
2.05
1.92
75th
0.31
0.36
0.41
0.48
0.57
0.65
0.82
1.21
1.79
2.08
2.18
2.24
2.29
2.26
2.25
2.18
2.02
85*
0.33
0.37
0.42
0.49
0.58
0.67
0.86
1.29
1.90
2.22
2.30
2.31
2.41
2.34
2.33
2.23
2.08
90th
0.34
0.37
0.43
0.50
0.59
0.68
0.89
1.34
1.99
2.30
2.39
2.39
2.47
2.46
2.37
2.31
2.13
95th
0.36
0.38
0.44
0.51
0.62
0.70
0.95
1.46
2.12
2.42
2.52
2.50
2.56
2.55
2.46
2.45
2.22
N = Number of observations.
Source: U.S. EPAAnalysis
of NHANES
1999-2006
data (children) NHANES
2005-2006
data (adults).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 7-21
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-10. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES 1999-2006
for Children <21 Years and NHANES 2005-2006 for Adults >21 Years
Females
Age
Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to 30 years
30 to <40 years
40 to < 50 years
50 to < 60 years
60 to < 70 years
70 to < 80 years
80 years and over
N Mean -
69
130
233
452
539
574
1153
1796
2701
2386
553
423
407
314
322
205
167
0.28
0.32
0.38
0.44
0.52
0.60
0.75
1.08
1.57
1.73
1.81
1.85
1.88
1.89
1.88
1.77
1.69
Percentiles
5*
0.24
0.27
0.32
0.38
0.44
0.51
0.61
0.80
1.20
1.42
1.45
1.50
1.54
1.54
1.49
1.44
1.41
10*
0.25
0.28
0.33
0.39
0.46
0.53
0.64
0.85
1.28
1.47
1.51
1.55
1.59
1.58
1.59
1.48
1.46
15th
0.26
0.29
0.34
0.40
0.47
0.54
0.66
0.87
1.34
1.51
1.54
1.61
1.63
1.62
1.62
1.55
1.51
25th
0.27
0.30
0.35
0.41
0.48
0.56
0.68
0.92
1.42
1.57
1.60
1.67
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.62
1.56
50th
0.28
0.31
0.38
0.44
0.52
0.59
0.74
1.04
1.55
1.69
1.79
1.82
1.83
1.85
1.85
1.77
1.68
75*
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.47
0.56
0.63
0.80
1.21
1.69
1.85
1.94
2.00
2.04
2.005
2.04
1.91
1.80
85th
0.30
0.36
0.40
0.48
0.57
0.66
0.84
1.33
1.8
1.98
2.08
2.13
2.19
2.19
2.14
1.99
1.86
90th
0.31
0.37
0.41
0.49
0.58
0.67
0.88
1.39
1.88
2.06
2.17
2.23
2.27
2.26
2.20
2.03
1.92
95*
0.33
0.37
0.43
0.51
0.59
0.70
0.94
1.51
2.00
2.17
2.25
2.31
2.36
2.38
2.34
2.13
1.98
N = Number of observations.
Source: U.S. EPAAnalysis
of NHANES
1999-2006
data (children) NHANES
2005-2006
data (adults).
Page
7-22
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-11. Surface Area of Adult Males (21 Years and Older)
in Square Meters
Percentile
Body part
Total
Head
Trunk3
Upper Extremities
Arms
Upper Arms
Forearms
Hands
Lower Extremities
Legs
Thighs
Lower Legs
Feet
Mean
2.06
0.136
0.827
0.393
0.314
0.172
0.148
0.107
0.802
0.682
0.412
0.268
0.137
5
1.73
0.123
0.636
0.332
0.253
0.139
0.115
0.090
0.673
0.560
0.334
0.225
0.118
10
1.80
0.126
0.672
0.346
0.265
0.145
0.121
0.093
0.703
0.587
0.349
0.234
0.123

1
0.
0.
0.
15
.84
128
701
354
0.274
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
149
125
096
721
603
360
241
125
25
1.93
0.131
0.74
0.369
0.289
0.156
0.132
0.100
0.752
0.634
0.379
0.252
0.130
50
2.07
0.136
0.820
0.395
0.316
0.169
0.146
0.107
0.808
0.686
0.4113
0.271
0.138
75
2.23
0.143
0.918
0.425
0.346
0.185
0.163
0.115
0.868
0.746
0.452
0.292
0.147
85
2.34
0.147
0.984
0.442
0.364
0.196
0.173
0.121
0.903
0.780
0.478
0.302
0.152
90
2.41
0.149
1.02
0.456
0.379
0.205
0.181
0.124
0.936
0.811
0.495
0.312
0.156
95
2.52
0.154
1.10
0.474
0.399
0.220
0.197
0.131
0.972
0.847
0.523
0.324
0.161
a Trunk includes neck.
Source: Based on U.S
EPA (1985)
and NHANES
2005-2006.
Table 7-12. Surface Area of Adult Females (21 Years and Older) in Square Meters
Percentile
Body part
Total
Head
Trunk3
Upper Extremities
Arms
Hands
Lower Extremities
Legs
Thighs
Lower Legs
Feet
Mean
1.85
0.114
0.654
0.304
0.237
0.089
0.707
0.598
0.364
0.233
0.122
5
1.49
0.108
0.511
0.266
0.213
0.076
0.579
0.474
0.281
0.191
0.103
10
1.55
0.109
0.530
0.272
0.218
0.078
0.599
0.494
0.294
0.198
0.106

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
.59
110
544
277
221
079
616
509
303
204
109
25
1.66
0.111
0.571
0.284
0.227
0.082
0.643
0.533
0.319
0.213
0.113
50
1.82
0.114
0.633
0.301
0.237
0.087
0.698
0.588
0.356
0.230
0.121
75
1.99
0.116
0.708
0.320
0.248
0.094
0.761
0.649
0.397
0.250
0.130
85
2.12
0.118
0.765
0.333
0.254
0.099
0.805
0.693
0.428
0.263
0.136
90
2.21
0.119
0.795
0.342
0.259
0.102
0.835
0.724
0.450
0.273
0.140
95
2.33
0.121
0.850
0.354
0.266
0.106
0.875
0.764
0.479
0.286
0.146
a Trunk includes neck.
Source: Based on U.S
EPA (1985) and
NHANES
2005-2006.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 7-23
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-13.
Statistical Results
for Total Body Surface Area
Distributions (m2), for Adults

Men

Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
U.S. EPA
1.97
1.96
1.96
0.19
0.27
3.08
Boyd
1.95
1.94
1.91
0.18
0.26
3.06
DuBois and DuBois
1.94
1.94
1.90
0.17
0.23
3.02
Costeff
1.89
1.89
1.90
0.16
0.04
2.92
Women

Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
U.S. EPA
1.73
1.69
1.68
0.21
0.92
4.30
Boyd
1.71
1.68
1.62
0.20
0.88
4.21
DuBois and DuBois
1.69
1.67
1.60
0.18
0.77
4.01
Costeff
1.71
1.68
1.66
0.21
0.69
3.52
Source: Murray and Burmaster, 1992
Page
7-24
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
          ,00
             1,00

                         IJtt
2.00
a. so
                                  In m2,         LKS


                                   Area: Women
                             Frequency Distribute*
                                    2JO
           2,10
                                                                 1CS
                                                                     r>
                                                                     IB
a.oo
           a.oo
                             .Area in rar n=£,Q§Q, LHS

Figure 7-1.     Frequency Distributions for the Surface Area of Men and Women.


             Source: Murray and Burmaster, 1992.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                            Page
                                             7-25
-------
'OTQ

Age
(years)
Oto2
Table 7-14. Descriptive Statistics For Surface Area/Body
Ranee c c
Mean ,,. ,, SD SE
Mm-Max ^th ^th
0.064 0.042-0.114 0.011 0.001 0.047 0.051
2.1 to 17.9 0.042 0.027-0.067 0.008 0.001 0.029 0.033
>18
All ages
SD
SE
Source:
0.028 0.020-0.031 0.003 7.68e-6 0.024 0.024
0.049 0.020-0.114 0.019 9.33e-4 0.025 0.027
= Standard deviation.
= Standard error of the mean.
Phillips et al., 1993.
Weight (SA/BW) Ratios (m2/kg)
Percentiles
25th 50th 75th 90th 95th
0.056 0.062 0.072 0.0784 0.0846
0.038 0.042 0.045 0.0501 0.0594
0.027 0.029 0.030 0.032 0.033
0.030 0.050 0.063 0.074 0.079


 I
   ri
Table 7-15. Estimated Skin Surface Exposed During Warm Weather Outdoor Activities


Age (years)
N
Mean
Median
SD
N = Number of observations.
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Wong etal., 2000.

Play
<5
41
38.0
36.5
6.0


Skin Area Exposed (% of total body
Gardening/yardwork
5-17
437
33.8
33.0
8.3


surface area)
Organized Team Sport
5-17
65
29.0
30.0
10.5


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ri
-------
Table 7-1 6. Summary of Field Studies
Activity

Month

Event*
(hrs)
N

M

F

Age (years)

Conditions

Clothing Study

Indoor
Tae Kwon Do


Greenhouse Workers

Indoor Kids No. 1

Indoor Kids No. 2

Daycare Kids No. 1 a


Daycare Kids No. 1 b



Day care Kids No. 2b


Daycare Kids No. 3


Feb.


Mar.

Jan.

Feb.

Aug.


Aug.



Sept.


Nov.


1.5


5.25

2

2

3.5


4



8


8


7


2

4

6

6


6



5


4


6


1

3

4

5


5



4


3


1


1

1

2

1


1



1


1


8-42


37-39

6-13

3-13

1-6.5


1-6.5



1-4


1-4.5


Carpeted floor


Plant watering, spraying,
soil blending, sterilization
Playing on carpeted floor

Playing on carpeted floor

Indoors: linoleum
surface; Outdoors: grass,
bare earth, barked area
Indoors: linoleum
surface; Outdoors: grass,
bare earth, barked area

Indoors: low napped
carpeting, linoleum
surfaces
Indoors: linoleum
surface, Outside: grass,
bare earth, barked area
All in long sleeve-long pants Kissel et al,
martial arts uniform, sleeves 1996a
rolled back, barefoot
Long pants, elbow length short
sleeve shirt, no gloves
3 or 4 short pants, 2 of 4 short Holmes et al.,
sleeves, socks, no shoes 1999
5 of 6 long pants, 5 of 6 long
sleeves, socks, no shoes
4 of 6 in long pants, 5 of 6 short
sleeves, socks, shoes

4 of 6 long pants, 5 of 6 short
sleeves, 3 of 6 barefoot all
afternoon, others barefoot half the
afternoon
4 of 5 long pants, 3 of 5 long
sleeves, all barefoot for part of the
day
All long pants, 3 of 4 long
sleeves, socks and shoes

Outdoor
Soccer No. 1


Soccer No. 2

Soccer No. 3

GroundskeepersNo. 1


Groundskeepers No. 2


GroundskeepersNo. 3


Nov.


Mar.

Nov.

Mar.


Mar.


Mar.


0.67


1.5

1.5

1.5


4.25


8


8


8

7

2


5


7


8


0

0

1


3


5


0


8

7

1


2


2


13-15


24-34

24-34

29-52


22-37


30-62


Half grass-half bare
earth

All weather field (sand-
ground tires)
All weather field (sand-
ground tires)
Campus grounds, urban
horticulture center,
arboretum
Campus grounds, urban
horticulture center,
arboretum
Campus grounds, urban
horticulture center,
arboretum
6 of 8 long sleeves, 4 of 8 long Kissel et al.,
pants, 3 of 4 short pants and shin 1996a
guards
All in short sleeve shirts, shorts,
knee socks, shin guards
All in short sleeve shirts, shorts,
knee socks, shin guards
All in long pants, intermittent use
of gloves

All in long pants, intermittent use
of gloves

All in long pants, intermittent use
of gloves

 Q
 I
 X)
I
 i
 8
 ri
I
I
I
-------
oo
   QTQ
   I
    ri
Table 7-16. Summary of Field Studies (continued)
Activity
Groundskeepers No. 4


GroundskeepersNo. 5


Irrigation installers

Rugby No. 1

Farmers No. 1

Farmers No. 2

Reed Gatherers

Kids-in-mudNo. 1

Kids-in-mudNo. 2

Gardeners No. 1


Gardeners No. 2


Rugby No. 2



Rugby No. 3

Archeologists

Construction Workers


Landscape/Rockery

Month
Aug.


Aug.


Oct.

Mar.

May

July

Aug.

Sept.

Sept.

Aug.


Aug.


July



Sept.

July

Sept.


June

Event" (hrs)
4.25


8


3

1.75

2

2

2

0.17

0.33

4


4


2



2.75

11.5

8


9

N
7


8


6

8

4

6

4

6

6

8


7


8



7

7

8


4

M
4


6


6

8

2

4

0

5

5

1


2


8



7

3

8


3

F
3


2


0

0

2

2

4

1

1

7


5


0



0

4

0


1

Age
22-38


19-64


23-41

20-22

39-44

18-43

42-67

9-14

9-14

16-35


26-52


23-33



24-30

16-35

21-30


27-43

Conditions
Campus grounds, urban
horticulture center,
arboretum
Campus grounds, urban
horticulture center,
arboretum
Landscaping, surface
restoration
Mixed grass-bare wet field

Manual weeding, mechanical
cultivation
Manual weeding, mechanical
cultivation
Tidal flats

Lake shoreline

Lake shoreline

Weeding, pruning, digging a
trench

Weeding, pruning, digging a
trench, picking fruit,
cleaning
Grass field (80% of time)
and all-weather field (mix of
gravel, sand, and clay) (20%
of time)
Compacted mixed grass and
bare earth field
Digging with trowel,
screening dirt, sorting
Mixed bare earth and
concrete surfaces, dust and
debris
Digging (manual and
mechanical), rock moving
Clothing
5 of 7 in short sleeve shirts,
intermittent use of gloves

5 of 8 in short sleeve shirts,
intermittent use of gloves

All in long pants, 3 of 6 short
sleeve or sleeveless shirts
All in short sleeve shirts, shorts,
variable sock lengths
All in long pants, heavy shoes,
short sleeve shirts, no gloves
2 of 6 short, 4 of 61ong pants, 1 of
6 long sleeve shirt, no gloves
2 of 4 short sleeve shirts/knee
length pants, all wore shoes
All in short sleeve T-shirts, shorts,
barefoot
All in short sleeve T-shirts, shorts,
barefoot
6 of 8 long pants, 7 of 8 short
sleeves, 1 sleeveless, socks, shoes,
intermittent use of gloves
3 of 7 long pants, 5 of 7 short
sleeves, 1 sleeveless, socks, shoes,
no gloves
All in shorts, 7 of 8 in short sleeve
shirts, 6 of 8 in low socks


All short pants, 7 of 8 short or
rolled up sleeves, socks, shoes
6 of 7 short pants, all short sleeves,
3 no shoes or socks, 2 sandals
5 of 8 pants,7 of 8 short sleeves, all
socks and shoes

All long pants, 2 long sleeves, all
socks and boots
Study
Kissel et
al., 1996a


















Holmes et
al., 1999

















                                                                                                                                                                                                             X)
                                                                                                                                                                                                             ri
vo
-------
Table 7-16. Summary of
Activity Month
Utility Workers No. 1 July
Utility Workers No . 2 Aug .
Equip. Operators No. 1 Aug.
Equip. Operators No.2 Aug.
Shoreline Play Sept.
Event" (hrs) N M
9.5 5 5
9.5 6 6
8 44
8 44
0.33-1.0 9 6
F
0
0
0
0
3
Age
24-45
23-44
21-54
21-54
7-12
Field Studies (continued)
Conditions
Cleaning, fixing mains,
excavation (backhoe and
shovel)
Cleaning, fixing mains,
excavation (backhoe and
shovel)
Earth scraping with heavy
machinery, dusty conditions
Earth scraping with heavy
machinery, dusty conditions
Tidal flat

Clothing
All long pants,short sleeves,
socks, boots, gloves sometimes
All long pants, 5 of 6 short sleeves,
socks, boots, gloves sometimes
All long pants, 3 of 4 short sleeves,
socks, boots, 2 of 4 gloves
All long pants, 3 of 4 short sleeves,
socks, boots, 1 gloves
No shirt or short sleeve T-shirts,
shorts, barefoot

Study
Holmes et
al., 1999
Shoafet
al., 2005
a Event duration.
b Activities were confined to the house.
N = Number of subjects.
M = Male.
F = Female.
 Q
 I
 X)
I
 i
 8
 ri
I
I
-------
 Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-17. Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of Solids Adherence
Activity and Body Region3
Activity
N
by
Post-activity Dermal Solids Loadings (mg/cm2)
Hands
Arms
Legs
Faces
Feet
Indoor
Tae Kwon Do
Greenhouse workers
Indoor Kids No. 1
Indoor Kids No. 2
Day care Kids No. la
Day care Kids No. Ib
Day care Kids No. 2
Day care Kids No. 3
7
2
4
6
6
6
5
4
0.0063
1.9
0.043
0.0073
1.9
0.014
1.5
0.11
1.9
0.15
2.1
0.073
1.6
0.036
1.3
0.0019
4.1
0.0064
0.0042
1.9
0.0041
2.0
0.026
1.9
0.031
1.8
0.023
1.4
0.012
1.2
0.0020
2.0
0.0015
0.0041
2.3
0.0031
1.5
0.030
1.7
0.023
1.2
0.011
1.4
0.014
3.0

0.0050






0.0022
2.1

0.012
1.4
0.0091
1.7
0.079
2.4
0.13
1.4
0.044
1.3
0.0053
5.1
Outdoor
Soccer No. 1
Soccer No. 2
Soccer No. 3
Groundskeepers No. 1
Groundskeepers No. 2
Groundskeepers No. 3
Groundskeepers No. 4
Groundskeepers No. 5
Irrigation Installers
8
8
7
2
5
7
7
8
6
0.11
1.8
0.035
3.9
0.019
1.5
0.15
0.098
2.1
0.030
2.3
0.045
1.9
0.032
1.7
0.19
1.6
0.011
2.0
0.0043
2.2
0.0029
2.2
0.005
0.0021
2.6
0.0022
1.9
0.014
1.8
0.022
2.8
0.018
3.2
0.031
3.8
0.014
5.3
0.0081
1.6

0.0010
1.5
0.0009
1.8
0.0008
1.9
0.0010
1.4
0.0054
1.8
0.012
1.5
0.016
1.5
0.012
1.6
0.0021
0.010
2.0
0.0044
2.6
0.0026
1.6
0.0039
2.1
0.0063
1.3



0.018

0.0040
0.018


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 7-30
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7-17. Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of Solids Adherence by
Activity and Body Region3 (continued)

Activity N
Rugby No. 1 8
Farmers No. 1 4

Farmers No. 2 6

Reed Gatherers 4

Kids-in-mud No. 1 6

Kids-in-mud No. 2 6

Gardeners No. 1 8

Gardeners No. 2 7

Rugby No. 2 8
Rugby No. 3 7
Archeologists 7
Construction Workers 8

Landscape/Rockery 4
Utility Workers No. 1 5
Utility Workers No. 2 6

Equip. Operators No. 1 4
Equip. Operators No. 2 4
Shoreline Play 9

Post-activity Dermal Solids Loadings (mg/cm2)
Hands
0.40
1.7
0.41
1.6
0.47
1.4
0.66
1.8
35
2.3
58
2.3
0.20
1.9
0.18
3.4
0.14
1.4
0.049
1.7
0.14
1.3
0.24
1.5
0.072
2.1
0.32
1.7
0.27
2.1
0.26
2.5
0.32
1.6
0.49
8.2
Arms
0.27
1.6
0.059
3.2
0.13
2.2
0.036
2.1
11
6.1
11
3.8
0.050
2.1
0.054
2.9
0.11
1.6
0.031
1.3
0.041
1.9
0.098
1.5
0.030
2.1
0.20
2.7
0.30
1.8
0.089
1.6
0.27
1.4
0.17
3.1
Legs
0.36
1.7
0.0058
2.7
0.037
3.9
0.16
9.2
36
2.0
9.5
2.3
0.072
~
0.022
2.0
0.15
1.6
0.057
1.2
0.028
4.1
0.066
1.4






0.70
3.6
a Means are presented above the standard deviations. The standard deviations
by large amounts indicating high variability in the data.
N = Number of subjects.
Sources: Kissel et al., 1996a; Holmes et al., 1999; Shoaf et al., 2005.
Faces
0.059
2.7
0.018
1.4
0.041
3.0






0.058
1.6
0.047
1.6
0.046
1.4
0.020
1.5
0.050
1.8
0.029
1.6
0.0057
1.9
0.10
1.5
0.10
1.5
0.10
1.4
0.23
1.7
0.04
2.9
generally
Feet





0.63
7.1
24
3.6
6.7
12.4
0.17
~
0.26
~


0.24
1.4








21
1.9
exceed the means
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 7-31
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors


Table 7-18.
Activity Ages Duration (min)
(years)
Transplanting Adults ~12b



a
b
Playing 8 to 12 20

Pipe Laying Adults 15, 30, 45
L, long sleeves and long pants; S
Arithmetic mean (range was 9 to
than at a fixed time.
Summary of Controlled Greenhouse Trials
Soil Moisture Clothing3
(%)
17-19
15-18
17-18
16-18
3-4
9-12
5-7
L
S
L
S
S
S
S
N
4
13
4
9
5
7
6
Male
2
6
o
J
5
o
6
4
3
short sleeves and short pants.
18 minutes). Activity was terminated after completion of the
Female
2
7
1
4
2
3
3
task rather
N = Number of subjects.
Source: Kissel etal., 1998.
Page
7-32
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
                   Hands
    Lower Jcgs/short pants *
    Forearnis/shon sleeves
                   Faces
Figure 7-2.
Figure 7-3 .
                          i-
                                                    Adult g
                                                    Child Q
                              -r—r-r-r-r-T"><••, . t  ,	-,	r-
                                20     40     ®      SO
                                   Percent
                                                            i—I
                                                             100
               Skin Coverage as Determined by Fluorescence vs. Body Part for Adults Transplanting Plants and
               Children Playing in Wet Soils (bars are arithmetic means and corresponding 95% confidence
               intervals)
               Source: Kissel etal., 1998.

                      IQi
               cs
               "S)
                00
                    0.01
                        .
                            ?I
             adult     X

         child, wet     ^

         child, dry     ^
                                 I
                             Hands
                                          Legs
Amis
Faces
               Gravimetric Loading vs. Body Part for Adults Transplanting Plants in Wet Soil and Children
               Playing in Wet and Dry Soils (symbols are geometric means and 95% confidence intervals)

               Source: Kissel etal., 1998.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                            Page
                                                                                             7-33
-------
-------
This page is intentionally left blank
-------
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
                                  APPENDIX 7A

                    FORMULAS FOR TOTAL BODY SURFACE AREA
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                  Page
July 2009	7A-1
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
APPENDIX  7A -  FORMULAS
BODY SURFACE AREA
  FOR TOTAL
        Most  formulas for estimating surface  area
(SA) relate height to weight  to surface  area.  The
following formula  was  proposed by  Gehan  and
George (1970):
        SA = KW
                •2/3
(Eqn. 7A-1)
where:
        SA =   surface area in square meters;
        W  =   weight in kg; and
        K   =   constant.

        While the above equation has been criticized
because  human  bodies  have  different  specific
gravities and  because the surface  area per  unit
volume differs  for individuals with  different body
builds, it gives a reasonably good estimate of surface
area.
        A formula published in 1916 that still finds
wide  acceptance and use  is that  of DuBois and
DuBois (1916).  Their model can be written:
        SA = anHai W2
(Eqn. 7A-2)
where:
        SA =   surface area in square meters;
        H   =   height in centimeters; and
        W  =   weight in kg.

        The values of a0  (0.007182), al  (0.725), and
a2 (0.425) were estimated  from a sample of only nine
individuals  for  whom surface area was  directly
measured.   Boyd (1935)  stated  that  the  Dubois
formula  was  considered  a  reasonably adequate
substitute for measuring surface area.   Nomograms
for  determining  surface area from height and mass
presented in Volume I of the Geigy Scientific Tables
(1981) are based on the DuBois and DuBois formula.
In  addition,   a computerized  literature   search
conducted for this report identified  several articles
written in the last 10 years in which the DuBois and
DuBois formula was used to estimate body surface
area.
        Boyd (1935)  developed new constants  for
the  DuBois and DuBois model based on 231 direct
measurements of body  surface area found in  the
literature.  These data were  limited to measurements
of  surface  area by coating methods (122  cases),
surface  integration (93 cases), and triangulation  (16
cases). The subjects were Caucasians of normal body
build for  whom data on  weight,  height,  and age
(except  for  exact  age  of  adults)  were  complete.
Resulting values for the constants in the DuBois and
DuBois model were a0 = 0.01787, ai = 0.500, and a2
=  0.4838.  Boyd also developed a formula based
exclusively on weight,  which was inferior  to the
DuBois  and DuBois formula based on height and
weight.
        Gehan and  George (1970) proposed another
set of constants for the DuBois and DuBois model.
The  constants were based on a total of 401 direct
measurements of surface area, height, and weight  of
all postnatal  subjects  listed in Boyd (1935).   The
methods used to measure these subjects were coating
(163 cases),  surface  integration (222  cases),  and
triangulation (16 cases).
        Gehan and  George (1970)  used a least-
squares  method  to identify  the  values  of the
constants.   The values of  the constants chosen are
those that  minimize  the  sum  of  the  squared
percentage errors of the predicted values of surface
area.    This  approach  was   used  because  the
importance of an error of 0.1 square meter depends
on the surface area of the individual.  Gehan and
George (1970) used the 401 observations summarized
in Boyd  (1935) in  the least-squares  method.   The
following  estimates  of the  constants were obtained:
a0 = 0.02350, al = 0.42246,  and a2 =  0.51456. Hence,
their equation for predicting SA is:
                        SA = 0.02350 H'
                        or in logarithmic form:
                                (Eqn. 7A-3)
                        lnSA= -3.75080 + 0.42246 InH + 0.51456 InW
                        (Eqn. 7A-4)

                        where:

                               SA =   surface area in square meters;
                               H  =   height in centimeters; and
                               W  =   weight in kg.

                               This  prediction explains  more  than  99
                        percent of the variations in  surface area among the
                        401 individuals measured (Gehan and George, 1970).

                               The  equation  proposed  by  Gehan  and
                        George (1970)  was determined by  the  U.S.  EPA
                        (1985) as the  best choice for estimating total body
                        surface area.   However, the paper by  Gehan  and
                        George gave insufficient information to estimate the
                        standard error about the  regression.  Therefore, the
                        401 direct measurements  of children and adults (i.e.,
Page
7A-2
                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                       	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Boyd,  1935) were reanalyzed in U.S. EPA (1985)
using the formula of Dubois and Dubois (1916) and
the  Statistical Processing System (SPS)  software
package to obtain the standard error.
        The Dubois and Dubois (1916) formula uses
weight and height as independent variables to predict
total body surface area (SA), and can be written as:
= a0 Hi
W "2
                                    (Eqn. 7 A-5)
or in logarithmic form:

ln(SA)i = Ina0 + ajlnH, + a2lnW, + me,  (Eqn. 7A-6)

where:

    SA;          =   surface area of the i-th
                     individual (m2);
    H!           =   height of the i-th individual
                     (cm);
    Wi          =   weight of the i-th individual
                     (kg);
    a0, ai, and a2  =   parameters to be estimated;
                     and
    Ci            =   a random error term with
                     mean zero and constant
                     variance.

        Using the least squares procedure  for  the
401 observations, the following parameter estimates
and their standard errors were obtained:

a0 = -3.73 (0.18), a1 =  0.417  (0.054),  a2  = 0.517
(0.022)
The model is then:
    SA = 0.0239 H°'417 W°'517
or in logarithmic form:
              (Eqn. 7A-7)
In SA= 3.73 + 0.417 InH + 0.517 InW  (Eqn. 7A-8)

with a standard error about the regression of 0.00374.
This model explains more than 99 percent of the total
variation in surface area among the observations, and
is identical to two significant figures with the model
developed by Gehanand George (1970).
        When natural logarithms of  the  measured
surface areas are plotted against natural logarithms of
the surface predicted by the equation, the observed
surface  areas are symmetrically distributed around a
line of perfect fit, with only a few large percentage
deviations.  Only five subjects differed  from  the
measured value by 25 percent or more. Because each
of the five subjects weighed less than 13 pounds, the
amount of difference was small.  Eighteen estimates
differed from measurements by 15 to 24 percent.  Of
these,  12 weighed less than 15 pounds each, 1  was
overweight (5 feet 7 inches, 172 pounds),  1 was very
thin (4 feet 11 inches, 78  pounds), and 4 were of
average build.  Since the  same observer measured
surface area for these 4 subjects, the possibility of
some bias in measured values cannot be  discounted
(Gehan and George 1970).  Gehan and George (1970)
also considered separate constants for  different age
groups: less than 5 years old, 5 years old to less than
20  years old,  and greater than 20 years old.   The
different values for the constants  are  presented in
Table 7A-1.
        The   surface  areas  estimated  using  the
parameter values for all  ages were compared to
surface areas estimated by the  values for each age
group   for   subjects  at   the   3rd,   50th,   and
97th percentiles of weight  and height.   Nearly all
differences in  surface area  estimates were less than
0.01 square meter, and the largest difference was 0.03
m2 for an  18-year-old at  the  97th percentile.   The
authors concluded that there is no advantage in using
separate values of a0, ai, and a2 by age interval.
        Haycock et al. (1978) without knowledge of
the work by  Gehan  and  George (1970), developed
values  for the parameters ao, ai, and a2 for the DuBois
and DuBois model.   Their interest  in making the
DuBois and DuBois model more  accurate resulted
from their work in pediatrics and the fact that DuBois
and DuBois (1916) included only one child  in their
study  group,  a severely undernourished girl who
weighed only  13.8  pounds  at  age  21  months.
Haycock et al.  (1978)  used their own geometric
method for  estimating surface  area  from 34 body
measurements for 81 subjects.  Their study included
newborn  infants  (10 cases),   infants  (12 cases),
children (40 cases),   and   adult  members  of  the
medical  and  secretarial  staffs  of 2 hospitals  (19
cases).  The  subjects all had  grossly normal body
structure, but the sample included subjects of widely
varying physique  ranging from thin to obese. Black,
Hispanic, and  white children were included  in their
sample.  The values of the model parameters were
solved for the relationship between surface area and
height  and weight by multiple regression analysis.
The least squares best fit for this equation yielded the
following values  for the  three coefficients:   a0  =
0.024265, aj = 0.3964, and a2 = 0.5378.  The result
was the  following equation for estimating  surface
area:
                                      SA = 0.024265H'
                                                     0.3964 -IT70.5378
                                                                                (Eqn. 7A-9)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                            Page
                                                                             7A-3
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                             Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
expressed logarithmically as:

In SA = In 0.024265 + 0.3964 In H + 0.5378 In W
(Eqn. 7A-10)

        The  coefficients for  this equation agree
remarkably  with  those obtained by Gehan  and
George (1970) for 401 measurements.
        George et al. (1979) agree that a model more
complex  than the model of DuBois and DuBois for
estimating surface area is unnecessary.  Based  on
samples of direct measurements by Boyd (1935) and
Gehan and George (1970), and samples of geometric
estimates by Haycock  etal. (1978),  these  authors
have obtained parameters for the DuBois and DuBois
model that   are  different  than  those  originally
postulated in 1916.  The DuBois and DuBois model
can be written logarithmically as:
lnSA= Ina0
InH + a2lnW
                               (Eqn.
        The values for ao, a1; and a2 obtained by the
various authors discussed in this section are presented
in Table 7A-2.
        The   agreement   between   the  model
parameters  estimated by Gehan and  George (1970)
and Haycock et al. (1978) is remarkable in view of
the fact that Haycock et al. (1978) were unaware of
the previous work.  Haycock et al. (1978) used an
entirely different set of subjects, and used geometric
estimates   of  surface  area   rather  than  direct
measurements.    It  has  been  determined  that the
Gehan and George model is the formula of choice for
estimating total surface area of the body since it is
based on the largest number of direct measurements.
        Sendroy and  Cecchini (1954) proposed  a
method of creating a nomogram, a diagram relating
height and weight to surface area. However, they do
not give an explicit model for calculating surface
area.   The  nomogram was  developed empirically
based on 252 cases, 127 of which were from the 401
direct measurements reported by Boyd (1935).  In the
other 125 cases the surface area was estimated using
the  linear method  of DuBois  and DuBois  (1916).
Because  the  Sendroy and  Cecchini  method is
graphical,   it is  inherently  less precise  and  less
accurate than the formulas of other authors discussed
above.
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX 7A
Boyd, E.  (1935) The growth of the  surface area of
        the   human  body.    Minneapolis,  MN:
        University of Minnesota Press.
Dubois, D.;  Dubois, E.F.   (1916)  A  formula to
        estimate the approximate  surface  area if
        height and weight be known.  Arch Intern
        Med 17:863-871.
Gehan, E.; George, GL. (1970) Estimation of human
        body surface area from height and weight.
        Cancer Chemother Rep 54(4):225-235.
Geigy  Scientific Tables   (1981) Nomograms for
        determination of body  surface  area  from
        height and mass. Lentner, C. (ed.). CIBA-
        Geigy Corporation, West Caldwell, NJ. pp.
        226-227.
George, S.L.; Gehan, E.A.; Haycock, G.B.; Schwartz,
        GJ.  (1979) Letters to the editor.  J Pediatr
        94(2):342.
Haycock,  G.B.;  Schwartz,  G.J.;  Wisotsky,  D.H.
        (1978)  Geometric  method  for  measuring
        body surface area: A height-weight formula
        validated in infants, children, and adults.  J
        Pediatr 93(l):62-66.
Sendroy, J.; Cecchini, L.P (1954) Determination of
        human body surface area from height and
        weight. JApplPhysiol7(l):3-12.
Page
7A-4
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                       	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 7 - Dermal Exposure Factors
Table 7A-1. Estimated Parameter Values for Different Age Intervals
Age
Group
All ages
<5 years old
>5 to <20 years old
>20 years old
Source: Gehanand
Number
of persons
401
229
42
30
George, 1970.
a0
0.02350
0.02667
0.03050
0.01545

ai
0.42246
0.38217
0.35129
0.54468

a2
0.51456
0.53937
0.54375
0.46336

Table 7A-2. Summary of Surface Area Parameter Values for the Dubois and Dubois Model
Author
(year)
DuBois and DuBois (1916)
Boyd (1935)
Gehan and George (1970)
Haycock etal. (1978)
Number
of persons
9
231
401
81
3o
0.007184
0.01787
0.02350
0.024265
ai
0.725
0.500
0.42246
0.3964
a2
0.425
0.4838
0.51456
0.5378
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
7A-5
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

       BODY WEIGHT STUDIES	8-1
       8.1     INTRODUCTION	8-1
       8.2     RECOMMENDATIONS	8-1
       8.3     KEY BODY WEIGHT STUDY	8-4
              8.3.1   U.S. EPA analysis of NHANES 1999-2006 data	8-4
       8.4     RELEVANT BODY WEIGHT STUDIES	8-4
              8.4.1   National Center for Health Statistics, 1987	8-4
              8.4.2   Brainard and Burmaster, 1992	8-5
              8.4.3   Burmasterand Crouch, 1997	8-5
              8.4.4   U.S. EPA, 2000	8-6
              8.4.5   Kuczmarskietal, 2002	8-6
              8.4.6   U.S. EPA, 2004	8-6
              8.4.7   Ogdenetal.,2004	8-6
              8.4.8   Freedman et al., 2006	8-7
              8.4.9   Martin etal., 2007	8-7
              8.4.10  Portier et al., 2007	8-8
              8.4.11  Kahn and Stralka, 2008	8-8
       8.5     RELEVANT FETAL WEIGHT STUDIES	8-8
              8.5.1   Brenner etal., 1976	8-8
              8.5.2   Doubilet et al., 1997	8-9
       8.6     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8	8-9
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                           Page
July 2009                                                                                  8-i
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                         Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                                         LIST OF TABLES

Table 8-1.      Recommended Values for Body Weight	8-2
Table 8-2.      Confidence in Recommendations for Body Weight	8-3
Table 8-3.      Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kilograms) Derived from NHANES 1999-2006,
               Males and Females Combined	8-11
Table 8-4.      Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kilograms) for Males Derived from
               NHANES 1999-2006 	8-12
Table 8-5.      Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kilograms) for Females Derived from
               NHANES 1999-2006	8-13
Table 8-6.      Weight in Kilograms for Males 2 Months-21 Years of Age- Number Examined, Mean, and
               Selected Percentiles, by Age Category: United States, 1976-1980	8-14
Table 8-7.      Weight in Kilograms for Females 6 Months-21 Years of Age- Number Examined, Mean,
               and Selected Percentiles, by Age Category: United States,  1976-1980	8-15
Table 8-8.      Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses: Females Body Weights
               6 Months to 70 Years of Age	8-16
Table 8-9.      Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses: Males Body Weights
               6 Months to 70 Years of Age	8-17
Table 8-10.     Body Weight Estimates (kilograms) by Age and Gender, U.S. Population Derived From
               NHANES III (1988-94)	8-18
Table 8-11.     Body Weight Estimates (in kilograms) by Age, U.S. Population Derived From
               NHANES III (1988-94)	8-19
Table 8-12.     Observed Mean, Standard Deviation and Selected Percentiles for Weight (kilograms) by
               Gender and Age: Birth to 36 Months	8-20
Table 8-13.     Estimated Distribution of Body Weight by Fine Age Categories, Males and Females
               Combined,  (kilograms)	8-27
Table 8-14.     Mean Body Weight (kilograms) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys	8-28
Table 8-15.     Mean Height (centimeters) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys	8-30
Table 8-16.     Mean Body Mass Index (BMI) by Age and Gender Across  Multiple  Surveys	8-32
Table 8-17.     Sample Sizes by Age, Sex, Race, and Examination	8-34
Table 8-18.     Mean BMI  (kg/m2) Levels and Change in the Mean Z-Scores by Race-Ethnicity and Sex	8-35
Table 8-19.     Mean body  mass index (BMI) by survey, sex, race/ethnicity, and age group;
               adults: United States	8-36
Table 8-20.     Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity3 Among Children	8-37
Table 8-21.     Numbers of Live Births by Weight and Percentages of Live Births with Low and Very
               Low Birth Weights, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother: United States, 2005 	8-38
Table 8-22.     Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single-Year Age Groups Using
               NHANES II Data 	8-39
Table 8-23.     Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single-Year Age Groups Using
               NHANES III Data	8-41
Table 8-24.     Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single-Year Age Groups Using
               NHANES IV Data	8-43
Table 8-25.     Estimated Body Weights of Typical Age Groups of Interest in U.S. EPA Risk Assessments	8-45
Table 8-26.     Estimated Percentile Distribution of Body Weight by Fine Age Categories
               Derived from 1994-96,  1998 CSFII	8-46
Table 8-27.     Estimated Percentile Distribution of Body Weight By Fine  Age Categories With
               Confidence Interval	8-47
Table 8-28.     Fetal Weight (grams) Percentiles Throughout Pregnancy	8-48
Table 8-29.     Neonatal Weight by Gestational Age for Males and Females Combined	8-49
Page
8-ii
Exposure Factors Handbook
                    July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                                       LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8-1.      Weight by Age Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth to 36 Months	8-21
Figure 8-2.      Weight by Age Percentiles for Girls Aged Birth to 36 Months	8-22
Figure 8-3.      Weight by Length Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth to 36 Months	8-23
Figure 8-4.      Weight by Length Percentiles for Girls Aged Birth to 36 Months	8-24
Figure 8-5.      Body Mass Index-for-Age Percentiles: Boys, 2 to 20 Years	8-25
Figure 8-6.      Body Mass Index-for-Age Percentiles: Girls, 2 to 20 Years	8-26
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                             Page
July 2009                                                                                  8-iii
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
8       BODY WEIGHT STUDIES
8.1     INTRODUCTION
        There  are  several  physiological  factors
needed  to  calculate  potential  exposures.   These
include skin surface area (Chapter 7), inhalation rate
(Chapter 6) life expectancy (Chapter 18), and body
weight.  The average daily dose (ADD) is a dose that
is typically normalized to the average body weight of
the exposed population.   If exposure  occurs  only
during childhood  years,  the  average  child body
weight during the exposure period should be used to
estimate risk (U.S. EPA, 1989).  Conversely, if adult
exposures are being evaluated, an adult  body weight
value should be used.
        The purpose of this  chapter is to describe a
published studies on body weight in the  general U.S.
population.   The recommendations for  body weight
are provided  in  the next  section,  along with  a
summary  of  the  confidence   ratings for  these
recommendations.   The  recommended values are
based on one key  study identified by U.S. EPA for
this factor.  Following the recommendations, the key
study on body weight is summarized. Relevant data
on body  weight are also  provided.  These  relevant
data are  included  because they  may be useful for
trend analysis.  Since obesity is  a growing concern
and may  increase the risk of chronic diseases during
adulthood, information on body  mass index (BMI)
and height are also provided.

8.2     RECOMMENDATIONS
        The key study described in this section was
used  in  selecting recommended values  for body
weight.   The recommendations for body weight are
summarized in Table 8-1.   The recommended values
represent mean body weights  in kilograms for the age
groups for  children recommended by U.S.  EPA in
Guidance for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposures  to  Environmental  Contaminants  (U.S.
EPA, 2005) and for adults.  Table 8-2  presents the
confidence     ratings    for    body     weight
recommendations.
        The mean body weight for all  adults (male
and female, all age groups) combined is 80.0 kg as
shown in Table  8-1.  If percentile data are needed
Tables 8-3  through. 8-5 can be  used to  select the
appropriate data for percentiles or mean values.
        The mean recommended  value for adults (80
kg) is different from the 70 kg commonly assumed in
EPA risk assessments.  Assessors are encouraged to
use values which most accurately reflect the exposed
population.   When using values other  than 70 kg,
however, the assessors should consider if the  dose
estimate will be used to estimate risk by  combining it
with a dose-response relationship which was derived
assuming  a body  weight of 70  kg.   If such  an
inconsistency exists, the  assessor  should  adjust the
dose-response   relationship  as  described  in  the
appendix  to Chapter 1.    The  Integrated  Risk
Information System (IRIS) does not use a 70 kg body
weight assumption in the derivation of  RfCs and
RfDs,  but  does  make   this assumption  in  the
derivation of cancer slope  factors and unit risks.
        Use of upper percentile body weight values
are not routinely recommended for calculating ADDs
because inclusion of an upper percentile value in the
denominator of the ADD equation would be a non-
conservative approach.   However,  distributions  of
body weight data are provided in Section  8.3 of this
chapter.    These  distributions  may be  useful  if
probabilistic methods are used  to assess exposure.
Also, if gender-specific data are needed, or if data for
finer age bins are needed, the reader should refer to
the tables in Section 8.3.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                          Page
                                            8-1
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-1.
Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <11 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to <21 years
Adults
Recommended Values for Body Weight
Mean Multiple
„ f.. Source
kg Percentiles
4.8
5.9
7.4
9.2
n-4 T hi U.S. EPA analysis of
r ' I \ NHANES, 1999-2006
13.8 through 8-5 ^
18.6
31.8
56.8
71.6
80.0
Page
8-2
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-2.
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or Defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Confidence in Recommendations for Body Weight
Rationale
The survey methodology and secondary data analysis was
adequate. NHANES consisted of a large sample size;
sample size varied with age. Direct measurements were
taken during a physical examination.
No significant biases were apparent.
The key study is directly relevant to body weight.
NHANES was a nationally representative sample of the U.S.
population; participants are selected using a complex,
stratified, multi-stage probability cluster sampling design.
The U.S. EPA analysis used the most current NHANES
data.
The U.S. EPA analysis was based on 4 data sets of
NHANES data covering 1999-2006.
NHANES data are available from NCHS; the U.S. EPA
analysis of the NHANES data is available upon request.
The methods used were well-described; enough information
was provided to allow for reproduction of results.
Quality assurance of NHANES data was good; quality
control of secondary data analysis was not well described.
The full distributions were given in the key study.
No significant uncertainties were apparent in the NHANES
data, nor in the secondary analyses of the data.
NHANES received a high level of peer review. The
U.S. EPA analysis was not published in a peer-reviewed
journal.
The number of studies is 1 .


Rating
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
  8-3
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
8.3     KEY BODY WEIGHT STUDY
8.3.1    U.S. EPA analysis of NHANES 1999-2006
        data
        The U.S. EPA analyzed data from the 1999-
2006  National  Health and  Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES) to  generate distributions of body
weight for various age ranges of children and adults.
NHANES is  conducted annually by the Center for
Disease Control (CDC), National Center of Health
Statistics (NCHS). The survey's target population is
the civilian,  noninstitutionalized  U.S. population.
The NHANES 1999-2006 survey was conducted on a
nationwide  probability  sample  of  approximately
40,000 persons  for all  ages, of which approximately
20,000 were  children.  The survey is designed to
obtain nationally  representative information on the
health and nutritional status of the population of the
United States through  interviews and direct physical
examinations.     A   number  of  anthropometric
measurements, including body weight, were taken for
each participant in the study.  Unit non-response to
the household  interview  was  19 percent,  and an
additional 4 percent did not participate in the physical
examinations (including body weight measurements).
        The  NHANES 1999-2006 survey includes
over-sampling of low-income  persons, adolescents
12-19  years, persons  60+ years of  age,  African
Americans  and Mexican Americans.  Sample  data
were  assigned  weights to  account  both for  the
disparity in  sample sizes for these groups and for
other  inadequacies in sampling, such as the presence
of non-respondents. Because the U.S. EPA utilized
four NHANES  data sets  in its analysis (NHANES
1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2003-2004, and 2005-2006)
sample  weights were  developed for the  combined
data set in accordance with CDC guidance from the
NHANES'                               website
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhane
s2005-2006/faqs05_06.htm#question%2012).
        Using  the data and the weighting factors
from  the four  NHANES  data  sets, U.S.  EPA
calculated body weight statistics for the standard age
categories.  The mean value for a given group was
calculated using the following formula:
where:
    ~X
            x =
sample mean;
the /'* observation;
                       (Eqn. 8-1)
    w,   =   sample weight assigned to observation
             xt.
        Percentile values  were generated by  first
calculating  the  sum   of the  weights  for  all
observations in a given group and multiplying this
sum by the percentile of interest (e.g., multiplying by
0.25  to   determine  the  25th  percentile).    The
observations were then ordered from least to greatest,
and  each observation  was assigned a  cumulative
weight, equal to its own weight plus all weights listed
before the observation.  The first observation listed
with  a cumulative  weight greater  than  the value
calculated for the percentile of interest was selected.
        Table 8-3 presents the body weight means
and  percentiles, by  age category,  for  males  and
females  combined.  Tables 8-4 and  8-5 present the
body  weight means  and percentiles for males and
females, respectively.
        The  advantage of this  study  is  that  it
provides  body  weight  distributions ranging from
infancy to adults.  A limitation of the  study is that the
data in Tables  8-3 to 8-5 may underestimate current
body  weights due to an observed upward trend  in
body  weights (Ogden et al., 2004).   However, the
NHANES data  are  nationally representative  and
remain the  principal  source  of body weight  data
collected nationwide from a large number of subjects.

8.4     RELEVANT BODY WEIGHT STUDIES
8.4.1    National Center for Health  Statistics, 1987
        - Anthropometric  reference  data  and
       prevalence of overweight,  United  States,
        1976-80
        The National  Center  for Health Statistics
(1987) collected  anthropometric measurement  data
for body weight for the U.S. population as part of the
second National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey  (NHANES  II).   NHANES  II  began  in
February 1976 and was completed in February 1980.
The   survey  was  conducted  on   a   nationwide
probability sample of 27,801 persons aged 6 months
to 74 years from the  civilian, noninstitutionalized
population of the United States.  A  total of  20,322
individuals in  the  sample were  interviewed  and
examined, resulting  in a response rate of  73.1
percent.   The  sample was selected  so that  certain
subgroups thought to be at high risk of malnutrition
(persons with low incomes, preschool children, and
the elderly) were over sampled. The estimates were
weighted  to reflect  national  population  estimates.
The   weighting   was  accomplished  by  inflating
examination results for each subject by the reciprocal
of selection probabilities,  adjusted  to  account for
those who were not examined,  and-post stratifying by
race, age, and sex.
Page
8-4
                                                          Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                               July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 8 - Body Weight
        NHANES  II  collected   standard  body
measurements of sample subjects,  including height
and weight, that were made at various times of the
day  and in  different seasons of  the  year.   This
technique was used because an individual's weight
may vary  between winter and  summer and  may
fluctuate with patterns of food and water intake and
other daily activities (NCHS, 1987). NCHS (1987)
provided descriptive statistics of the body weight
data.  Means and percentiles, by age category, are
presented in Table 8-6 for males, and in Table 8-7 for
females. The limitation of the study is the age of the
data.

8.4.2    Brainard and Burmaster,  1992 - Bivariate
        Distributions for  Height and Weight  of
        Men and Women in the United States
        Brainard and Burmaster (1992) examined
data on the height and weight of adults published by
the U.S. Public  Health Service  and  fit  bivariate
distributions  to the tabulated  values for men and
women, separately.  Height  and weight of 5,916 men
and 6,588 women in the age range of 18 to  74 years
were taken from the NHANES II (1976-1980) study
and  statistically  adjusted  to represent the  U.S.
population  aged 18 to 74 years with regard to age
structure, sex, and race.  Estimation techniques  were
used to fit  normal  distributions  to the cumulative
marginal data and goodness-of-fit tests were used to
test the hypothesis that height and lognormal weight
follow a normal  distribution for each sex.   It was
found that the marginal data and goodness-of-fit tests
were  used  to test the  hypothesis that  height and
lognormal weight follow a normal distribution for
each sex. It was found that the marginal distributions
of height and lognormal weight for both men and
women  are  Gaussian  (normal)  in  form.   This
conclusion was reached by visual observation and the
high R2 values for best-fit lines obtained using linear
regression.    The R2  values for men's  height and
lognormal weight are  reported to be 0.999.  The R2
values for women's height and lognormal weight are
0.999 and 0.985, respectively.
        Brainard and Burmaster  (1992) fit bivariate
distributions  to   estimated  numbers  of men and
women aged 18 to 74 years in cells representing  1
inch height intervals and 10 pound weight intervals.
Adjusted height and lognormal weight data  for men
were fit to a single bivariate normal distribution with
an  estimated  mean  height of  1.75  meters (69.2
inches) and an estimated mean weight  of  78.6 kg
(173.2 pounds).   For women, height and lognormal
weight data  were fit to a pair of  superimposed
bivariate   normal  distributions   (Brainard  and
Burmaster,  1992). The average height and weight for
women were estimated from the combined bivariate
analyses.  Mean height for women was estimated to
be 1.62 meters (63.8 inches)  and  mean weight was
estimated to be 65.8 kg (145.0 pounds). For women,
a  calculation  using  a  single   bivarite   normal
distribution   gave  poor  results   (Brainard  and
Burmaster,  1992).    According  to  Brainard and
Burmaster (1992), the  distributions are suitable for
use in Monte Carlo simulation. These distributions
are based on dated information.

8.4.3    Burmaster and Crouch, 1997 - Lognormal
        distributions for body weight as a function
        of age for males and females in the United
        States, 1976-1980
        Burmaster  and Crouch (1997) performed
data  analysis   to   fit   normal   and  lognormal
distributions  to  the body  weights of females and
males aged 9 months to 70 years.   The data used in
this analysis were from the  second survey of the
National  Center  for Health Statistics, NHANES  II,
which was based on a national probability sample of
27,801 persons 6 months to  74 years of age in the
U.S. (Burmaster and Crouch,  1997).  The NHANES
II  data had been  statistically adjusted for  non-
response  and probability of selection, and stratified
by  age,  sex,  and race to reflect the entire  U.S.
population prior to reporting.  Burmaster and Crouch
(1997) conducted exploratory  and quantitative data
analyses and fit  normal and  lognormal distributions
to  percentiles of body weights as a function of age.
Cumulative  distribution functions  were plotted for
female and  male body weights on both linear and
logarithmic scales.
        Burmaster   and   Crouch  (1997)   used
"maximum likelihood" estimation to  fit lognormal
distributions  to  the data.    Linear  and quadratic
regression lines were fitted to the data. A number of
goodness-of-fit measures were conducted on the data
generated.   The  investigators found that lognormal
distributions  gave strong fits  to the data  for  each
gender across all age groups.  The statistics for the
lognormal probability plots for females and males
aged 9 months to 74 years are presented in Tables 8-8
and 8-9,  respectively.  These  data can be used for
further analyses of body  weight  distribution  (i.e.,
application of Monte Carlo analysis).
        The  advantage   of   this  study   is  that
NHANES data were used for the  analysis  and the
data are representative nationally.  It also provides
statistics for probability plot regression analyses for
females and males from 6 months to 70 years of age.
However,  the analysis  is based on an older set of
NHANES data.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                          Page
                                            8-5
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
8.4.4    U.S. EPA, 2000 - Body weight estimates
        on NHANES III Data
        U.S. EPA's  Office of Water has estimated
body  weights by age and gender using data from
NHANES III, which was  conducted from 1988  to
1994.  NHANES III  collected body  weight data for
approximately 30,000 individuals between the  ages
of 2 months and 44 years.  Table 8-10 presents the
body  weight estimates  in  kilograms by  age  and
gender. Table 8-11 shows the body weight estimates
for infants under the age of 3 months.
        The limitations of this analysis are that data
were  not available for infants  under 2 months old,
and that the data are roughly 15 to 20  years old. With
the upward trends in body weight from NHANES II
(1976-1980) to NHANES III, which may  still be
valid,  the  data  in  Tables  8-10  and 8-11  may
underestimate current body weights.  However, the
data are national in scope and  represent the general
population.

8.4.5    Kuczmarski et al, 2002 - 2000 CDC growth
        charts for the United States: methods and
        development
        NCHS  published growth charts for infants,
birth  to 36 months of  age, and  children  and
adolescents, 2 to 20 years of age (Kuczmarski et al.,
2002). Growth charts were developed with data from
five national health examination surveys:  National
Health Examination Survey (NHES)  II (1963-65) for
ages 6-11 years, NHES III (1966-70) for ages 12-17
years,  National Health and  Nutrition  Examination
Survey (NHANES) I (1971-74) for ages 1-17 years,
NHANES II (1976-80) beginning at 6 months of age,
and NHANES III (1988-94) beginning at 2 months of
age.  Data from these national surveys were pooled
because no single survey had enough observations to
develop these charts.  For the infant charts, a limited
number of additional  data points were obtained from
other sources where  national data were either not
available or insufficient.  Birth weights <1,500 grams
were excluded when generating the charts for weights
and lengths. Also, the length-for-age charts exclude
data  from  NHANES III  for  ages <3.5 months.
Supplemental birth certificate data from the U.S.  vital
statistics were used in the weight-for-age charts and
supplemental birth certificate data from Wisconsin
and Missouri vital statistics, CDC Pediatric Nutrition
Surveillance System data were used for ages 0.5, 1.5,
2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 months for the length-for-age charts.
The  Missouri and Wisconsin birth  certificate  data
were  also used to supplement the  surveys for the
weight-for-length charts.   Table 8-12  presents the
percentiles of weight by gender and age. Figures 8-1
and 8-2 present weight by age percentiles for boys
and  girls, aged  birth to 36  months, respectively.
Figures 8-3  and  8-4 present weight  by  length
percentiles for boys and girls, respectively.  Figures
8-5 and 8-6 provide the Body Mass Index (BMI) for
boys and girls aged 2 to 20 years old.
        A limitation of this analysis is that trends in
the weight data cannot be assessed because data from
various years were combined. The advantages of this
analysis  are  that  it is  based  on  a  nationally
representative  sample  of  the U.S.  population and it
provides body  weight on a month-by-month basis up
to 36 months of age, as well as BMI data for children
through age 20 years.

8.4.6    U.S.EPA,  2004 -  Estimated Per  Capita
        Water Ingestion and  body Weight in the
        United States - An Update
        U.S EPA (2004) developed estimates from
empirical distributions of body weights, based on
data from the  USDA's 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII.
The weights recorded in the survey, and consequently
the estimates reported are based on self-reported data
by the participants.
        When viewed across  genders and all age
categories, the average self-reported body weight for
individuals in the United States  during the 1994-1996
and 1998 period is 65 kg, or 143  Ib. The estimated
median body weight for all individuals is 67 kg (147
Ib). Table 8-13 provides the estimated distribution of
body weights for all individuals.
        For the fine age categories reported in the
summary data, the mean and median estimated body
weights are the same for children in categories less
than 2  years of age. This  suggests that body weights
follow  an approximately normal distribution. After
the age of 2 years, estimated mean body weights are
higher  than  estimated median  body weights as age
categories   increase.   This   suggests   that  the
distributions of body weights are skewed to the right.
When viewed across ages, the estimated median body
weight  is higher than  the  estimated mean body
weight.  This   suggests  that   the  body   weight
distribution across the  entire survey weighted sample
is slightly skewed to the left.  The limitation of this
analysis is that body weights were self reported.

8.4.7    Ogden et al., 2004 - Mean  body weight,
        height, and body mass index,  United States
        1960-2002
        Ogden et al. (2004) analyzed trends in body
weight measured by the National Health Examination
Surveys II and III (NHES II and III), the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys I, II, and
III (NHANES I, II, and  III), and NHANES 1999-
2002.  The surveys covered the period from 1960 to
Page
8-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 8 - Body Weight
2002.   Table  8-14 presents the  measured  body
weights for various age groups as measured in NHES
and NHANES.  Tables 8-15 and 8-16 present the
mean height and BMI data for the same population,
respectively.   The BMI  data  were  calculated as
weight in kilograms divided by  the  square of height
in meters.  Population  means were  calculated using
sample weights to  account for variation in sampling
for certain  subsets of the U.S. population,  non-
response,  and non-coverage  (Ogden  et al., 2004).
The  data  indicate that  mean  body weight  has
increased over the period analyzed.
        There is  some uncertainty  inherent  in such
an analysis, however, because of changes in sampling
methods during the 42 year time span covered by the
studies. Because this study is based on an analysis of
NHANES data, its limitations are the  same as those
for that study.  However, it serves to illustrate the
importance of the use of timely data when analyzing
body weight.

8.4.8    Freedman et al,  2006 - Racial and ethnic
        differences in  secular trends for childhood
        BMI, weight, and height
        Freedman et al.  (2006) examined sex and
race/ethnicity  differences  in  secular  trends  for
childhood BMI, overweight, weight,  and height in the
United States using data from NHANES I (1971 to
1974), NHANES  II (1976- 1980),  NHANES  III
(1988  to   1994)  and  NHANES  1999-2002.   The
analyses included children 2 to 17 years old. Persons
with  missing  weight  or  height  information  were
excluded from the analyses (Freedman et al., 2006).
The  authors  categorized  the data  across the four
examinations and presented the data for non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic Black, or Mexican American.
Freedman et al. (2006) excluded other categories of
race/ethnicity such as other Hispanics, because the
sample  sizes were small.   Height and weight data
were  obtained for  each survey  and  BMI   was
calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height
in meters  square.    Sex  specific  z-scores  and
percentiles of  weight-for-age,  height-for-age,  and
BMI-for-age were calculated.  Childhood overweight
was  defined as BMI-for-age >95th percentile  and
childhood obesity  was  defined as  children with a
BMI-for-age >99th percentile.
        In the analyses, sample weights were used to
account for differential probabilities,  non-selection,
non response,  and non-coverage.  The sample  sizes
used in the analyses by  age, race and survey are
presented in Table 8-17. Mean BMI levels for ages 2
to 17 are provided in Table 8-18.  BMI mean levels
for adults 20 years and older are shown in Table 8-19
(Ogden et al., 2004). Table 8-18 shows that in 1971-
1974  survey total  population, Mexican American
children  had the  highest  mean  BMI  level  (18.6
kg/m2). However the greatest increase throughout the
survey occurred among  Black children increasing
from 17.8 to 20 kg/m2 (Freedman et al.,  2006).  The
prevalence of overweight and obesity for children 2
to 17 years old is shown in Table 8-20. These results
show that 2 to 5 year old White children had slightly
larger increases in overweight, but among the  older
children, the largest increases were among the Black
and Mexican American children  (Freedman et al.,
2006).   Overall, in most  sex-age groups, Mexican
Americans experienced the greater increase  in BMI
and overweight than what was  experienced by Black
and White Children (Freedman et al., 2006). Black
children experienced larger secular increases in  BMI,
weight,   and  height  than  did  White  children
(Freedman et al., 2006). According to Freedman et al.
(2006) racial/ethnicity differences were  less  marked
in the 2 to 5 years old children.
        The  advantages  of the study  are  that the
sample size is large and the analysis was designed to
represent  the general population  of the racial and
ethnic groups studied.  The disadvantage  is that  some
ethnic population groups were excluded because of
small sample sizes.

8.4.9    Martin et al, 2007 - Births: final data for
        2005
        Martin et al.(2007) provided statistics on the
percentage of live births categorized as having low or
very low birth weights in the U.S. Low birth weight
was defined as <2,500 grams (<5 pounds 8  ounces)
and very  low birth weight was defined as  < 1,500
grams (<3 pounds  4 ounces).  The data used in the
analysis were from birth certificates registered  in all
states  and  the  District  of Columbia  for births
occurring in 2005.  Data were presented for maternal
demographic characteristics including race ethnicity:
non-Hispanic  White,  non-Hispanic   Black,   and
Hispanic.
        The numbers of live  births within  various
weight ranges, and the percentages of live births with
low or very low birth weights are  presented in Table
8-21.  The percentage  of live  births with low birth
weights was 8.2, and the percentage of very low birth
weights was 1.5 in 2005.  Non-Hispanic Blacks had
the highest percentage of low birth weights  (14.0
percent)  and very  low birth weights (3.3 percent).
Martin et al. (2007) also provided  statistics on the
numbers  and percentages of pre-term live births in
the U.S.   Of the 4,138,349 live births in the  U.S. in
2005,  522,913 were defined as pre-term (i.e., less
than 37 weeks gestation).  A total of 43.3 percent of
these pre-term infants had low birth weights  an 11.3
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                           Page
                                             8-7
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                             Chapter 8 - Body Weight
percent had very low birth weights.  The advantage
of this data set is that it is nationally representative
and provides data for infants.  It  provides data on
prevalence of low birth weight in the population.

8.4.10  Portier  et  al,   2007  -  Body  weight
        distributions for risk assessment
        Portier et al. (2007) provided  age-specific
distributions of body weight based on NHANES II,
III, and IV data. The number of observations in these
surveys was 20,322, 33,311, and 9,965, respectively.
Portier  et al.  (2007)  computed  the  means  and
standard  deviations  of  body weight  as  back
transformations of the weighted means and standard
deviations of natural log-transformed body weights.
Body weight distributions were  computed by gender
and various age brackets (Portier et al.,  2007).  The
estimated mean body weights are shown in Tables 8-
22, 8-23,  and 8-24 using NHANES  II, III, and IV
data, respectively.  The sample size (N) shown in the
tables is the observed number of individuals and not
the expected population size  (sum  of the sample
weights) in each age category (Portier et al., 2007).
The authors noted that the age groups are defined as
starting at the birth month and include the next eleven
months (i.e., age group 2 includes  children 24-35
months at the time of the health assessment).  Table
8-25 provides estimates for age  groups that are often
considered in risk assessments (Portier et al., 2007).
The authors concluded that the data show changes in
the average body weight  over time and that  the
changes are not constant for all ages. The reader is
referred  to Portier  et  al. (2007)  for  equations
suggested by the authors to be used when performing
risk assessments where  shifts and  changes in body
weight distributions need factoring in.
        The  advantages of this study are that it
represents the U.S. general population, it provides
distribution data, and can be used for trend analysis.
In addition, the data are provided  for both genders
and for single-year age groups.  The study results are
also based on a large sample size.

8.4.11  Kahn and Stralka, 2008 - Estimated daily
        average per capita water ingestion by child
        and adult age categories based on USDA 's
        1994-96  and 1998 Continuing Survey of
        Food Intakes
        As part of an analysis of water  ingestion,
Kahn  and Stralka (2008) provided body weight
distributions for the U.S. Population.   The analysis
was based on self reported body weights from the
1994 - 1996, 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intake
Among Individuals  (CSFII).    The  average body
weight  across  all individuals  was  65 kilograms.
According to Kahn and Stralka (2008), 10 kilograms,
which is often used as the default body  weight for
babies, is the 95th value of the distribution of body
weight for children in the 3  to <6 months category.
The  median weight is  9 kilograms  for the 6 to 12
month age category and 11 kilograms for the 1 to 2
year old category (Kahn and Stralka, 2008).   The
body weight distributions are presented in Table 8-26
and the intervals around the mean and 90th and 95th
percentiles are presented in Table 8-27.
        The  advantages  of  the  study are  its  large
sample size  and that it is representative of the U.S.
population for the age groups presented. A limitation
of the  study  is  that the data  are  based on serf
reporting from the participants.

8.5     RELEVANT      FETAL      WEIGHT
        STUDIES
8.5.1   Brenner et al., 1976 - A Standard of Fetal
        Growth for the United States of America
        Brenner  et al.  (1976) determined  fetal
weights for 430 fetuses aborted at 8  to 20 weeks of
gestation and for 30,772 liveborn infants delivered at
21 to 44 weeks of gestation.   Gestational  age for the
aborted  fetuses   was  determined  through  a
combination of the physician's  estimate  of uterine
size  and the patient's  stated last normal menstrual
period.  Data were not used when these two estimates
differed by more than 2 weeks.  To  determine fetal
growth, the fetuses were  weighed  and measured
(crown-to-rump  and crown-to  heel  lengths).   All
abortions  were   legally  performed  at  Memorial
Hospital, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
from 1972  to  1975. For the liveborn infants, data
were analyzed from single birth deliveries  with the
infant living at the onset of labor, among pregnancies
not complicated by pre-eclampsia, diabetes or other
disorders. Infants were weighed on  a balance scale
immediately after delivery.   The liveborn infants
were delivered  at  MacDonald  House,  University
Hospitals of Cleveland, Ohio from 1962 to 1969.
        Percentiles for fetal weight were calculated
from the data at each  week of gestation and are
shown in Table 8-28. The resulting percentile curves
were smoothed with  two-point weighted  means.
Variables associated with significant differences in
fetal weight in the latter part of pregnancy (after 34-
38 weeks of gestation) included  maternal parity and
race, and fetal gender.
        The  advantage of this  study is the  large
sample size.  Limitations of the study are that the data
were collected more than 30 years ago in only two
U.S. states. In addition, a number of variables which
may  affect  fetal weight  (i.e.,  maternal smoking,
Page
8-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                     July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 8 - Body Weight
disease, nutrition, and addictions) were not evaluated
in this study.

8.5.2    Doubilet et al,  1997  -  Improved  Birth
        Weight Table for Neonates Developed from
        Gestations      Dated      by      Early
        Ultrasonography
        Doubilet et al. (1997) matched a database of
obstetrical ultrasonograms  over a period of 5 years
from 1988 to 1993 to birth records  for 3,718 infants
(1,857   males and   1,861  females).   The  study
population included  1,514 Whites, 770 Blacks, 1,256
Hispanics, and 178 who were either unclassified, or
classified as "other."  Birth weights were obtained
from hospital records  and  a  gestational  age was
assigned based   on  the   earliest  first   trimester
sonogram.  The  database was screened for possible
outliers, defined as  infants with birth weights that
exceeded 5000  grams.  Labor and  delivery records
and mother-infant medical records were retrieved to
correct any errors in data entry for infants with birth
weights  exceeding  5000  grams.    The   mean
gestational  age  at initial sonogram was  9.5  ±  2.3
weeks.  Regression analysis techniques were used to
derive weight tables for neonates at each gestational
age for  25 weeks of gestation onward.  Weights for
each gestational  age were found to conform to a
natural logarithm distribution. Polynomial equations
were derived from the regression analysis to estimate
mean weight by  gestational age for males, females,
and  males   and  females  combined.   Table 8-29
provides the distribution  of neonatal weights  by
gestational age from 25 weeks of gestation onward.

8.6     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8
Brainard,   I;   Burmaster,  D.  (1992)   Bivariate
        distributions for height and weight of men
        and women in the  United States. Risk Anal.
        12(2):267-275.
Brenner, W.E.;  Edelman,  D.A.; Hendricks, C.H.
        (1976)  A standard of fetal growth for  the
        United States of  America.  Am J  Obstet
        Gynecol l:126(5):555-64.
Burmaster, D.E.; Crouch, E.A.C. (1997) Lognormal
        distributions for body  weight as a function
        of age for males and females in the United
        States,  1976-1980.  Risk Anal  17(4):499-
        505.
Doubilet, P.M.; Benson, C.B.;  Nadel, A.S.; Ringer,
        S.A. (1997) Improved birth weight table for
        neonates developed from gestations dated by
        early ultrasonography.   J  Ultrasound Med
        16:241-249.
Freedman, D.; Kettel, K.;  Serdula, M; Ogden,  C.;
        Dietz,  W.    (2006)   Racial  and   ethnic
        differences in secular trends for childhood
        BMI,    weight,   and   height.    Obesity
        14(2):301:307.
Kahn, H.; Stralka, K. (2008) Estimated daily average
        per capita water ingestion by child and adult
        age categories based on  USDA's  1994-96
        and 1998 continuing survey of food intakes
        (CSFII).  J Expo Sci  Environ Epidemiol
        (2008) 1-9.
Kuczmarski, R.J.; Ogden, C.L.; Guo, S.S.; Grummer-
        Strawn, L.; Flegal, K., et al.  (2000) CDC
        growth charts for the United States: methods
        and  development.  National  Center  for
        Health   Statistics.   Vital   Health   Stat.
        11(246)2002.
LSRO (1995) Third report on nutrition monitoring in
        the United  States: Volume 1.  Prepared by:
        Federation   of   American   Societies   for
        Experimental   Biology,   Life   Sciences
        Research Office  for the Interagency Board
        for  Nutrition  Monitoring   and   Related
        Research.    Washington,  D.C.:     U.S.
        Government Printing Office.
Martin,  J.;  Hamilton, B.;  Sutton, P.; Ventura, S.;
        Fay, M.; et al. (2007) Births: final data for
        2005. CDC National Vital Statistics Report,
        Volume 56. No. 6.
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (1987)
        Anthropometric   reference   data   and
        prevalence  of overweight,  United  States,
        1976-80. Data from the National Health and
        Nutrition Examination Survey,  Series  11,
        No. 238. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department
        of Health  and  Human  Services,  Public
        Health Service,  National  Center for Health
        Statistics.  DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 87-
        1688.
Ogden,  C.L.; Fryar, C.D.; Carroll, M.D.; Flegal, K.
        M.  (2004) Mean Body Weight, Height, and
        Body Mass Index, United States  1960-2002.
        Advance  Data  from  Vital  and  Health
        Statistics, No. 347, October 27,  2004.  U.S.
        Department of Health and Human Services,
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
        National Center for Health Statistics.
Portier  K.; Tolson, J.; Roberts,  S.   (2007) Body
        weight  distributions  for risk assessment.
        Risk Anal 27(1)11-26.
U.S. EPA   (1989) Risk  assessment  guidance for
        Superfund,  Volume   I:  Human  health
        evaluation manual. Washington, DC:  U.S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
        Emergency   and   Remedial  Response.
        EPA/540/1-89/002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                          Page
                                            8-9
-------
                                                                  Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                      Chapter 8 - Body Weight
U.S. EPA  (2000) Memorandum entitled:   Body
       weight estimates  on NHANES  III data,
       revised,  Contract  68-C-99-242,   Work
       Assignment 0-1 from Bob Clickner, Westat
       Inc.  to  Helen Jacobs, U.S.  EPA dated
       March 3, 2000.
U.S. EPA  (2004)  Estimated  Per  Capita Water
       Ingestion in the United States-An Update.
       EPA-822R-00-001.     Washington  DC,
       USEPA Office of Water.
U.S. EPA (2005) Guidance on selecting age groups
       for monitoring  and  assessing  childhood
       exposures  to environmental contaminants
       (2005).     Washington,    D.C.:    U.S.
       Environmental    Protection     Agency,
       EPA/630/P-03/003F.
Page
8-10
Exposure Factors Handbook
                   July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-3. Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kilograms) Derived from NHANES 1999-2006,
Males and Females Combined
Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
21 to <30 years
30 to <40 years
40 to <50 years
50 to <60 years
60 to <70 years
70 to <80 years
Over 80 years
N
158
284
489
927
1,176
1,144
2,318
3,593
5,297
4,851
3,232
3,176
3,121
2,387
2,782
2,033
1,430
Mean
4.8
5.9
7.4
9.2
11.4
13.8
18.6
31.8
56.8
71.6
78.4
80.8
83.6
83.4
82.6
76.4
68.5
Percentiles
5th
3.6
4.5
5.7
7.1
8.9
10.9
13.5
19.7
34.0
48.2
50.8
53.5
54.3
54.7
55.2
52.0
46.9
10th
3.9
4.7
6.1
7.5
9.3
11.5
14.4
21.3
37.2
52.0
54.7
57.4
58.8
59.0
59.8
56.5
51.4
15th
4.1
4.9
6.3
7.9
9.7
11.9
14.9
22.3
40.6
54.5
57.9
60.1
62.1
62.8
63.3
59.7
53.8
25th
4.2
5.2
6.7
8.3
10.3
12.4
15.8
24.4
45.0
58.4
63.3
66.1
68.3
69.1
69.0
64.4
58.2
50th
4.8
5.9
7.3
9.1
11.3
13.6
17.8
29.3
54.2
67.6
75.2
77.9
81.4
80.8
80.5
74.9
67.4
75*
5.1
6.6
8.0
10.1
12.4
14.9
20.3
36.8
65.0
80.6
88.2
92.4
95.0
95.5
94.2
86.8
77.4
85th
5.5
6.9
8.4
10.5
13.0
15.8
22.0
42.1
73.0
90.8
98.5
101.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
93.8
82.6
90th
5.8
7.1
8.7
10.8
13.4
16.3
23.6
45.6
79.3
97.7
106.0
107.0
111.0
110.0
109.0
98.0
87.2
95th
6.2
7.3
9.1
11.3
14.0
17.1
26.2
52.5
88.8
108.0
118.0
118.0
122.0
120.0
116.0
106.0
93.6
Source: U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES 1 999-2006 data.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-11
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-4

Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-5.

Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to
-------
Table 8-6. Weight
Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <2 months
2 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <1 2 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <1 1 years
11 to <16 years
16to<21 years
in Kilograms for Males 2 Months-2 1
Number of
Persons Mean
Examined (kg)
-
-
103
287
589
613
627
1,556
1,373
1,037
890
-
-
6.6
7.7
9.4
11.7
13.7
18.0
30.7
55.2
71.8
Years of Age- Number Examined, Mean, and Selected Percent

5th
-
-
5.3
6.3
7.5
9.4
11.4
13.7
19.5
34.0
54.1
a Includes clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0.09 to 0
No data available for infants less than two months old.

10th
-
-
5.5
6.6
7.9
9.8
11.8
14.6
21.1
36.5
56.6
28 kilogram.

15th
-
-
5.7
6.7
8.1
10.1
12.2
14.9
22.1
38.7
58.3


25th
-
-
5.9
7.0
8.6
10.8
12.6
15.7
24.0
42.8
61.8

Percentiles
50th
-
-
6.8
7.7
9.4
11.7
13.6
17.5
28.5
53.0
68.7

les, by Age Category: United States,

75th
-
-
7.2
8.4
10.2
12.6
14.6
19.7
35.2
63.0
77.9


85th
-
-
7.6
8.9
10.6
13.1
15.2
21.0
40.5
69.4
84.3


90th
-
-
7.8
9.2
10.9
13.7
15.8
22.0
43.5
74.8
89.7

1976-1980"

95th
-
-
8.4
9.6
11.4
14.5
16.5
24.0
48.7
84.3
101.0

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1987.
    1
    ri
 s
^
 I
 oo
                                                                                                                                                                                 &

                                                                                                                                                                                <£•
vo
f
 "S.
-------
II
                                                                                             Q
  ri
  1=
  I
Table 8-7. Weight in Kilograms for Females
Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <2 months
2 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
6 Months-21 Years of A
Number of
_ Mean
Persons
Examined
-
-
131
269
574
617
597
1,658
1,321
1,144
1,001
-
-
6.0
7.1
8.8
11.0
13.4
18.0
30.6
53.2
62.2

5th
-
-
4.7
5.8
7.2
9.1
10.8
13.3
19.0
34.1
46.7
a Includes clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0.09 to 0
No data available for infants less than two months old.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics,
1987.

je- Number Examined
1980a

10th
-
-
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.4
11.2
14.0
20.5
37.2
48.2
28 kilogram.


15th
-
-
5.2
6.1
7.7
9.6
11.6
14.5
21.3
40.4
49.7


Mean, and Selected Percentiles, by Age Category:

25th
-
-
5.6
6.4
8.0
9.9
12.1
15.4
23.4
45.2
52.2


Percentiles
50th
-
-
6.0
7.1
8.7
10.9
13.2
17.2
28.9
51.6
58.9



75th
-
-
6.5
7.7
9.4
11.9
14.6
19.7
35.0
60.0
68.3



85th
-
-
7.1
7.9
10.1
12.6
15.4
21.1
39.6
67.2
74.7


United States, 1976-

90th
-
-
7.3
8.4
10.4
12.9
15.6
22.6
44.3
70.6
80.8



95th
-
-
7.8
8.7
10.8
13.4
16.3
25.1
50.2
78.2
92.6


                                                                                             oo
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             QTQ
<•»! ft
-------
                                                                                  Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                       Chapter 8 - Body Weight
            Table 8-8. Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses: Females Body Weights 6 Months to 70 Years of Age
                                                             Lognormal Probability Plots
      Age Midpoint (years)                                             Linear Curve
             0.75                                 2.16                                         0.145
             1.5                                  2.38                                         0.129
             2.5                                  2.56                                         0.112
             3.5                                  2.69                                         0.136
             4.5                                  2.83                                         0.134
             5.5                                  2.98                                         0.164
             6.5                                  3.10                                         0.174
             7.5                                  3.19                                         0.174
             8.5                                  3.31                                         0.156
             9.5                                  3.46                                         0.214
             10.5                                 3.57                                         0.199
             11.5                                 3.71                                         0.226
             12.5                                 3.82                                         0.213
             13.5                                 3.92                                         0.215
             14.5                                 3.99                                         0.187
             15.5                                 4.00                                         0.156
             16.5                                 4.05                                         0.167
             17.5                                 4.08                                         0.165
             18.5                                 4.07                                         0.147
             19.5                                 4.10                                         0.149
             21.5                                 4.10                                         0.168
             30                                  4.15                                         0.204
             40                                  4.19                                         0.207
             50                                  4.20                                         0.208
             60                                  4.20                                         0.205
             70                                  4.18                                         0.198
 a         (1)2, o2 - correspond to the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of the lognormal distribution of body weight (kg).

 Source:   Burmaster and Crouch, 1997.
Page                                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook
8-16                                                                                                    July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
            Table 8-9.  Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses: Males Body Weights 6 Months to 70 Years of Age
                                                               Lognormal Probability Plots
       Age Midpoint (years)                                            Linear Curve
                                                                                              02"
              0.75                                 2.23                                       0.131
               1.5                                  2.46                                       0.120
               2.5                                  2.60                                       0.120
               3.5                                  2.75                                       0.114
               4.5                                  2.87                                       0.133
               5.5                                  2.98                                       0.138
               6.5                                  3.13                                       0.145
               7.5                                  3.21                                       0.151
               8.5                                  3.33                                       0.181
               9.5                                  3.43                                       0.165
              10.5                                 3.59                                       0.195
              11.5                                 3.69                                       0.252
              12.5                                 3.78                                       0.224
              13.5                                 3.88                                       0.215
              14.5                                 4.02                                       0.181
              15.5                                 4.09                                       0.159
              16.5                                 4.20                                       0.168
              17.5                                 4.19                                       0.167
              18.5                                 4.25                                       0.159
              19.5                                 4.26                                       0.154
              21.5                                 4.29                                       0.163
               30                                  4.35                                       0.163
               40                                  4.38                                       0.165
               50                                  4.38                                       0.166
               60                                  4.35                                       0.157
               70                                  4.29                                       0.174
 "       ®2, "2 - correspond to the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of the lognormal distribution of body weight (kg).

 Source:  Burmaster and Crouch, 1997.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                            Page
July 2009                                                                                                     8-17
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-10. Body Weight Estimates (kilograms) by Age and Gender, U.S. Population Derived From NHANES III (1988-94)
Age Group
2 to 6 months
7 to 12 months
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
1 1 years
12 years
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
1 and older
1 to 3 years
1 to 14 years
15 to 44 years
Source: U.S
Sample Size
1,020
1,072
1,258
1,513
1,309
1,284
1,234
750
736
711
770
751
754
431
428
415
378
427
410
31,311
4,080
12,344
10,393
EPA, 2000.
Population
1,732,702
1,925,573
3,935,114
4,459,167
4,317,234
4,008,079
4,298,097
3,942,457
4,064,397
3,863,515
4,385,199
3,991,345
4,270,211
3,497,661
3,567,181
4,054,117
3,269,777
3,652,041
3,719,690
251,097,002
12,711,515
56,653,796
118,430,653

Male and Female
Median
7.4
9.4
11.3
13.2
15.3
17.2
19.6
21.3
25.0
27.4
31.8
35.2
40.6
47.2
53.0
56.9
59.6
63.2
65.1
66.5
13.2
24.9
70.8

Mean
7.4
9.4
11.4
12.9
15.1
17.1
19.4
21.7
25.5
28.1
32.7
35.6
41.5
46.9
55.1
61.1
62.8
65.8
67.5
64.5
13.1
29.9
73.5

Male
Median
7.6
9.7
11.7
13.5
15.5
17.2
19.7
21.5
25.4
27.2
32.0
35.9
38.8
48.1
52.6
61.3
62.6
66.6
70.0
73.9
13.4
25.1
77.5

Mean
7.7
9.7
11.7
13.1
15.2
17.0
19.3
22.1
25.5
28.4
32.3
36.0
40.0
49.1
54.5
64.5
66.9
69.4
72.4
89.0
13.4
30.0
80.2

Female
Median
7.0
9.1
10.9
13.0
15.1
17.3
19.6
20.9
24.1
27.9
31.1
34.3
43.4
45.7
53.7
53.7
57.1
56.3
60.7
80.8
13.0
24.7
63.2

Mean
7.0
9.1
11.0
12.5
14.9
17.2
19.4
21.3
25.6
27.9
33.0
35.2
42.8
48.6
55.9
57.9
59.2
61.6
62.2
80.3
12.9
29.7
67.3

Page
8-18
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-11. Body Weight Estimates (in kilograms) by Age, U.S. Population Derived From
NHANES III (1988-94)

Age Gioup Sample Size Population
2 months 243 408,837 6.3
3 months 190 332,823 7.0
3 months and younger 433 741,660 6.6
Male and Female
Mean 95% CI
6.3 6.1-6.4
6.9 6.7-7.1
6.6 6.4-6.7
CI = Confidence Interval.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2000.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009                                                                    8-19
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-12. Observed Mean, Standard Deviation and Selected Percentiles for Weight (kilograms) by Gender and Age: Birth to 36 Months

Age Group Mean SD
10th
25th
Percentile
50th
75th
90th
95th
Boys
Birth
0 < 1 months
1< 2 months
2 < 3 months
3 < 4 months
4 < 5 months
5 < 6 months
6 < 7 months
7 < 8 months
8 < 9 months
9 < 10 months
10 < 11 months
11 < 12 months
12 < 15 months
15 < 18 months
18<21 months
21 < 24 months
24 < 30 months
30 < 36 months
3.4
-
-
6.5
7.0
7.2
7.9
8.4
8.6
9.3
9.3
9.5
10.0
10.6
11.4
12.1
12.4
13.1
14.0
0.6
-
-
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.5
2.7
-
-
5.6
5.9
6.3
6.7
7.3
7.1
7.9
8.2
8.3
8.7
9.2
9.9
10.4
10.9
11.3
12.0
3.1
-
-
5.8
6.5
6.7
7.5
7.6
7.8
8.6
8.6
8.7
9.5
9.8
10.5
11.0
11.6
12.1
13.0
3.4
-
-
6.7
7.0
7.2
7.8
8.4
8.6
9.2
9.3
9.3
10.0
10.6
11.3
11.9
12.4
12.9
13.8
3.8
-
-
6.9
7.5
7.7
8.6
9.0
9.5
10.1
10.0
10.1
10.6
11.3
12.0
12.7
13.1
14.1
14.7
4.1
-
-
7.4
8.2
8.0
9.4
10.2
10.1
10.5
10.8
11.3
11.1
12.1
12.8
13.9
14.4
15.1
16.0
4.3
-
-
7.5
8.5
8.4
9.6
10.7
10.4
11.0
10.9
11.5
11.6
12.4
13.5
15.5
14.7
15.9
16.6
Girls
Birth
0 < 1 months
1< 2 months
2 < 3 months
3 < 4 months
4 < 5 months
5 < 6 months
6 < 7 months
7 < 8 months
8 < 9 months
9 < 10 months
10 < 11 months
11 < 12 months
12 < 15 months
15 < 18 months
18<21 months
21 < 24 months
24 < 30 months
30 < 36 months
No data available
Source: Kuczmarski et al.
3.3
-
-
5.4
6.3
6.7
7.3
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.9
9.0
9.3
9.8
10.4
11.1
11.8
12.5
13.6

, 2002.
0.5
-
-
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.4
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.7


2.6
-
-
4.8
5.6
5.8
6.3
6.6
6.7
7.3
7.8
7.8
7.9
8.5
9.1
9.6
10.1
10.8
11.8


3.0
-
-
5.0
5.8
6.1
6.7
7.1
7.4
7.8
8.1
8.4
8.6
9.1
9.7
10.2
10.9
11.5
12.5


3.3
-
-
5.6
6.3
6.6
7.1
7.6
7.8
8.3
8.7
9.0
9.2
9.8
10.3
11.0
11.8
12.4
13.4


3.6
-
-
5.9
6.8
7.4
7.7
8.1
8.6
8.9
9.4
9.5
10.1
10.4
11.2
11.9
12.8
13.3
14.52


3.9
-
-
6.0
7.4
8.0
8.5
8.9
9.4
9.4
10.1
10.4
10.6
11.3
11.8
12.8
13.5
14.5
15.7


4.1
-
-
-
7.8
8.3
8.8
9.0
9.8
9.8
10.5
10.9
10.9
11.6
12.0
13.5
13.9
15.1
16.4


Page
8-20
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                            CDC Growth Charts: United States
                       Weight-for-age percentiles:
                         Boys, birth to 36 months
                                       Age (niomhs}




Figure 8-1.     Weight by Age Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth to 36 Months

Source:        Kuczmarski et aL 2002.

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-21
-------
                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                               Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                            CDC Growth Charts: United States
                       Weight-for-age percentiles:
                         Girls, birth to 36 months
                                       Age (months)
Figure 8-2.     Weight by Age Percentiles for Girls Aged Birth to 36 Months

Source:        Kuczmarski et aL 2002.
Page
8-22
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                          CDC Growth Charts: United States
          Kfl-




          22'

          21 •

          20.


          18-

          18'
Weight-for-length percent!les:
   Boys, birth to 36 months
                        22 23 ii
                       T-'T
                       55   60
        » 37  £8 29 30 31 32 3(
       "i   -j-~r—- r^T
       *33   70   /o   &3
              Length
i& -^L "iS. ^ 21 J® IE, 4Cj _J
^^^^^^^          J
Figure 8-3.     Weight by Length Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth to 36 Months

Source:        Kuczmarski et aL 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
                                                        Page
                                                        8-23
-------
                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                               Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                            CDC Growth Charts: United States
                         Weight-for-!ength percentiles;
                             Girls, birth to 36 months
               _lp 13 '9 zn 21 22 23 24 25 Sfi_£7»_J»_Jjn_3l 32 33 1i S 36 _37  » 39 40 _

               Cm 45   SO   50   f!0   S5    ?P   75   S3   85   SI   HS  10U
                                        Length
Figure 8-4.     Weight by Length Percentiles for Girls Aged Birth to 36 Months

Source:        Kuczmarski et aL 2002.
Page
8-24
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                          CDC Growth Charts: United States
                  Body mass index-for-age percent! Ies:
                            Boys, 2 to 20 years
                              B  3  !0 '!  52 13  14  10  *6  17  1E 1'j  2)
Figure 8-5.     Body Mass Index-for-Age Percentiles: Boys, 2 to 20 Years

Source:        Kuczmarski et aL 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-25
-------
                                                          Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                              Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                            COG Growth Charts: United States
                  Body mass index-for-age percentiles:
                            Girls, 2 to 20 years
Figure 8-6.     Body Mass Index-for-Age Percentiles: Girls, 2 to 20 Years

Source:        Kuczmarski et aL 2002.
Page
8-26
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-13. Estimated Distribution of Body Weight by Fine Age Categories All Individuals, Males and Females
Combined (kilograms)
Ages
<0.5
0.5 - 0.9
1-3
4-6
7- 10
11 - 14
15- 19
20-24
25-54
55-64
65 +
Sample Size Population
744 1,890,461
678 1,770,700
3,645 11,746,146
2,988 11,570,747
1,028 14,541,011
790 15,183,156
816 17,825,164
676 18,402,877
4,830 111,382,877
1,516 20,691,260
2,139 30,578,210
Mean
6
9
14
21
32
51
67
72
77
77
72
Percentiles
10th
3
7
10
16
22
35
50
53
54
57
54
25th
4
8
11
17
26
42
56
59
63
65
62
50th
6
9
13
20
29
50
63
68
75
75
71
75th
7
10
16
22
36
58
73
81
86
87
81
90th
8
11
18
26
43
68
85
94
100
99
93
95th
9
12
19
28
48
79
99
104
109
105
100
Summary Data
20 +
<2
2- 15
15 +
<6
6- 15
All ages
NOTE:
Source:
9,161 181,055,224
2,424 7,695,535
7,449 49,006,686
9,977 198,880,388
7,530 23,160,174
2,343 33,542,047
19,850 255,582,609
76
10
33
75
15
40
65
54
5
15
54
8
22
22
63
7
19
61
11
27
52
73
10
28
72
14
36
67
86
11
43
84
18
50
81
98
13
56
97
21
59
95
107
14
63
106
23
68
104
757 individuals did not report body weight. They represent 6,3 14,627 individuals in the
population.
U.S. EPA, 2004 (based on 1994 - 1996, 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII)),
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-27
-------
oo
oo
    QTQ
    S

    5a
    5
^ I,
Table 8-14. Mean Body
Gender
and Age
(years)
Male
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-74
75+
NHES II, 1963-65
N Mean SE
-
-
575
632
618
603
576
595
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22.0
24.7
27.8
31.2
33.7
38.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Weight (kilograms) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys
NHES III, 1966-70
N Mean SE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
643
626
618
613
556
458
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42.9
50.0
56.7
61.6
64.8
68.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NHANES II, 1976-80
N Mean SE
370
421
405
393
146
150
145
141
165
153
147
165
188
180
180
183
156
150
1,261
871
695
691
2,086
-
13.4
15.5
17.6
19.7
22.8
24.9
28.0
30.7
36.2
39.7
44.1
49.5
56.4
61.2
66.5
66.7
71.1
71.8
76.3
79.8
81.7
80.0
76.1
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
-
NHANES III, 1988-94
N Mean SE
644
516
549
497
283
269
266
281
297
281
203
187
188
187
194
196
176
168
1,638
1,468
1,220
851
1,683
895
13.6
15.8
17.6
20.1
23.2
26.3
30.2
34.4
37.3
42.5
49.1
54.0
64.1
66.9
68.7
72.9
71.3
73.0
78.4
82.9
85.1
86.0
82.2
75.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
3.6
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.7
2.2
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
NHANES 1999-2002
N Mean SE
262
216
179
147
182
185
214
174
187
182
299
298
266
283
306
313
284
270
712
704
776
598
1,001
523
13.7
15.9
18.5
21.3
23.5
27.2
32.7
36.0
38.6
43.7
50.4
53.9
63.9
68.3
74.4
75.6
75.6
78.2
83.4
86.0
89.1
88.8
87.1
78.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.9
1.6
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.3
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.6
 vo
-------
If
 > £
  a
 > -t
  ri
  1=
  I
Table 8-14. Mean Body Weight (kilograms) by Ag
Gender
and Age
(years)
Female
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-74
75+
e and Gender Across
NHES II, 1963-65 NHES III, 1966-70 NHANES II, 1976-80
N Mean SE N Mean SE N Mean SE
-
-
536
609
613
581
584
525
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
21.5 0.2
24.2 0.2
27.5 0.2
31.4 0.4
35.2 0.4
39.8 0.4
547 46.6
582 50.5
586 54.2
503 56.5
536 58.1
442 57.6
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
330
367
388
369
150
154
125
154
128
143
0.4 146
0.5 155
0.4 181
0.5 144
0.7 167
0.6 134
156
158
1,290
964
765
793
2,349
-
12.8
14.8
16.8
19.4
21.9
24.6
27.5
31.7
35.7
41.4
46.1
50.9
54.3
55.0
57.7
59.6
59.0
59.8
61.7
66.1
67.6
68.4
66.8
-
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
-
Multiple Surveys (continued)
NHANES III, 1988-94
N Mean SE
624
587
537
554
272
274
248
280
258
275
236
220
218
191
208
201
175
177
1,663
1,773
1,355
996
1,674
1,022
13.2
15.4
17.9
20.2
22.6
26.4
29.9
34.4
37.9
44.1
49.0
55.8
58.5
58.1
61.3
62.4
61.2
63.2
64.4
70.2
71.6
74.3
70.1
63.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.9
1.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.6
NHANES 1999-2002
N Mean SE
248
178
191
186
171
196
184
183
164
194
316
321
324
266
273
256
243
225
656
699
787
593
1,010
554
13.3
15.2
17.9
20.6
22.4
25.9
31.9
35.4
40.0
47.9
52.0
57.7
59.9
61.1
63.0
61.7
65.2
67.9
71.1
74.1
76.5
76.9
74.9
66.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.2
0.7
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.0
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.9
Data not available.
N
SE
Source:
= Number of individuals.
= Standard error.
Ogden et al.
2004.









  ft
-------
Table 8-15. Mean Height (centimeters) by
Gender
and Age
(years)
Male
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-74
75+
NHES II, 1963-65 NHES III, 1966-70
N Mean SE N Mean SE
-
-
575
632
618
603
576
595
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
118.9
124.5
130.0
135.5
140.2
145.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
643
626
618
613
556
458
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
152.3
159.8
166.7
171.4
174.3
175.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys
NHANES II, 1976-80
N Mean SE
350
421
405
393
146
150
145
141
165
153
147
165
188
180
180
183
156
150
1,261
871
695
691
2,086
-
91.1
98.7
105.5
112.3
119.1
124.5
129.6
135.0
141.3
145.5
152.5
158.3
166.8
171.2
173.4
174.8
177.3
176.1
177.1
176.3
175.9
174.7
172.1
-
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
-
NHANES III, 1988-94
N Mean SE
589
513
551
497
283
270
269
280
297
285
207
190
191
188
197
196
176
169
1,639
1,468
1,220
851
1,684
895
90.9
98.8
105.2
112.3
118.9
125.9
131.3
137.7
142.0
147.4
155.5
161.6
169.0
172.8
175.0
176.5
177.3
175.5
176.1
176.6
176.3
175.8
173.6
170.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
NHANES 1999-2002
N Mean SE
254
222
183
156
188
187
217
177
188
187
301
298
267
287
310
317
289
275
724
717
784
601
1,010
505
91.2
98.6
106.5
113.0
119.2
126.2
1325.
138.1
141.4
148.7
154.8
160.1
168.5
173.8
175.3
175.3
176.4
176.7
176.7
176.4
177.2
175.8
174.4
171.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
    a



    5a
    5

^ I,
 vo
 s

^

 I
 oo



 &

<£•


 I
Cfq'
 S«
-------
If
 > £
  a
 > -t
s
^
I
oo
  ri
  1=

  I
Table 8-15. Mean Height (centimeters) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys (continued)
Gender
and Age
(years)
female
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-74
75+
NHES II. 1963-65 NHES III. 1966-70

N

-
-
-
-
536
609
613
581
584
525
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Mean SE N Mean SE

.
.
.
.
117.8 0.3 - -
123.5 0.2 - -
129.4 0.3 - -
135.5 0.3 - -
140.9 0.3 - -
147.3 0.3 - -
547 46.6 0.3
582 50.5 0.3
586 54.2 0.3
503 56.5 0.5
536 58.1 0.3
442 57.6 0.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NHANES II. 1976-80

N

314
367
388
369
150
154
125
154
128
143
146
155
181
144
167
134
156
158
1,290
964
765
793
2,349
-

Mean

89.4
97.1
104.2
111.2
117.9
123.4
129.5
134.1
141.7
147.4
143.8
158.7
160.7
163.3
162.8
163.5
162.8
163.2
163.3
163.1
162.3
160.5
158.8
-

SE

0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
-
NHANES III. 1988-94

N

564
590
535
557
274
275
247
282
262
275
239
225
224
195
214
201
175
178
1,665
1,776
1,354
998
1,680
1,025

Mean

89.7
98.2
105.1
112.2
117.9
124.3
131.1
136.6
142.7
150.2
155.5
159.9
161.2
162.8
163.0
163.6
163.2
163.4
162.8
163.4
162.8
161.8
159.8
156.2

SE

0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
NHANES 1999-2002

N

233
187
195
190
172
200
184
189
164
194
318
324
326
271
275
258
249
231
663
708
794
601
1,004
538

Mean

90.1
97.6
105.9
112.4
117.1
124.4
130.9
136.9
143.3
151.4
156.0
159.1
161.8
162.0
161.9
163.2
163.0
163.1
162.8
163.0
163.4
162.3
160.0
157.4

SE

0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
Data not available.
N
SE
Source:
= Number of individuals.
= Standard error.
Ogden et al
, 2004.









CO

4


I
s«
-------
 oo
  :*«
Table 8-16. Mean Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m2) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys
Gender
and Age
(years)
Male
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-74
75+
NHES II, 1963-65 NHES III, 1966-70 NHANES I, 1971-74
N Mean SE N Mean SE N

298
308
304
273
575 15.6 0.1 - - - 179
632 15.9 0.1 - - - 164
618 16.3 0.1 - - - 152
603 16.9 0.2 - - - 169
576 17.1 0.1 - - - 184
595 17.9 0.1 - - - 178
643 18.4 0.1 200
626 19.4 0.1 174
618 20.2 0.2 174
613 20.9 0.1 171
556 21.3 0.1 169
458 22.1 0.1 176
124
136
986
654
715
717
1920
----- - - -
Mean

16.3
16.0
15.7
15.6
15.7
15.8
15.8
17.1
17.3
18.0
18.7
19.6
20.2
20.5
21.8
21.9
23.7
23.3
24.5
26.1
26.2
26.0
25.4
-
SE

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
-
NHANES II, 1976-80
N

350
421
405
393
146
150
145
141
165
153
147
165
188
180
180
183
156
150
1261
871
695
691
2086
-
Mean

16.2
15.9
15.8
15.6
16.0
16.0
16.5
16.8
18.0
18.6
18.8
19.5
20.2
20.8
22.0
21.8
22.6
23.1
24.3
25.6
26.4
26.2
25.7
-
SE

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
-
NHANES III, 1988-94
N

588
512
547
495
282
269
266
279
297
280
203
187
188
187
194
196
176
168
1638
1468
1220
851
1683
895
Mean

16.5
16.1
15.9
15.9
16.3
16.5
17.3
18.0
18.4
19.4
20.1
20.5
22.3
22.3
22.3
23.4
22.6
23.7
25.2
26.5
27.3
27.8
27.2
25.9
SE

0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
NHANES 1999-2002
N

225
209
178
147
182
185
214
174
187
182
299
298
266
283
306
313
284
269
712
704
774
594
991
487
Mean

16.6
16.2
16.3
16.5
16.4
17.0
18.4
18.7
19.1
19.6
20.7
20.7
22.3
22.5
24.1
24.5
24.2
24.9
26.6
27.5
28.4
28.7
28.6
26.8
SE

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
                                                                                                                                                   s
                                                                                                                                                   oo
o«a
^  a.
  j  §=

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                 s
a
-t
I
oo
ri
1=

I
Table 8-16. Mean Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m2) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys (continued)
Gender
and Ase
(years)
female
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-74
75+
.
N
SE
Source:
NHES II, 1963-65 NHES III, 1966-70 NHANES I, 1971-74

N Mean SE N Mean

.
.
.
.
536 115.4 0.1
609 15.8 0.1
613 16.4 0.1
581 17.0 0.1
584 17.6 0.2
525 18.2 0.2
547 19.2
582 19.9
586 20.8
503 21.4
536 21.9
442 21.7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
Data not available.
= Number of individuals.
= Standard error.
Ogden et al, 2004.

SE N

272
292
281
314
176
169
152
171
197
166
0.1 177
0.1 198
0.1 184
0.2 167
0.2 171
0.2 150
141
130
2122
1654
1232
780
2131
-





Mean

15.9
15.7
15.5
15.5
15.4
15.6
16.4
17.2
17.1
18.6
19.5
20.4
21.1
21.1
21.7
22.6
21.5
22.5
23.0
24.7
25.7
26.2
26.5
-





SE

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
-




NHANES II, 1976-80

N

314
367
388
369
150
154
125
154
128
143
146
155
181
144
167
134
156
158
1290
964
765
793
2349
-





Mean

16.1
15.6
15.5
15.6
15.6
16.1
16.3
17.5
17.7
18.9
19.3
20.1
21.0
20.6
21.8
22.3
22.3
22.4
23.1
24.9
25.7
26.5
26.5
-





SE

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
-




NHANES III, 1988-94

N

562
582
533
554
272
274
247
280
258
275
236
220
218
191
208
201
175
177
1663
1773
1354
996
1673
1021





Mean

16.5
15.9
16.0
15.9
16.1
16.9
17.3
18.2
18.4
19.4
20.2
21.8
22.4
21.9
23.0
23.3
22.9
23.7
24.3
26.3
27.1
28.4
27.4
25.9





SE

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2




NHANES 1999-2002

N

214
173
190
186
170
196
184
183
163
194
315
321
324
266
273
255
243
225
654
698
783
591
993
524





Mean

16.4
16.0
15.9
16.1
16.2
16.6
18.3
18.7
19.3
20.7
21.2
22.6
22.9
23.2
24.0
23.1
24.4
25.5
26.8
27.9
28.6
29.2
29.2
26.8





SE

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4




                                                                                                                                                                                                4
                                                                                                                                                                                                I
-------
                                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                Chapter 8 - Body Weight
                            Table 8-17.  Sample Sizes by Age, Sex, Race, and Examination
                                                                       NHANES Examination
    Age Group
  Sex
Racea
                                    11(1976-1980)      111(1988-1994)
                                                        1999-2002
 Overall
 (2 to 17 years)
 2 to 5 years
 6 to 11 years
 12 to 17 years
 20 to 39 years0
 40-59 years0
 60 years and over0
 Boys     White
           Black
           Mexican American
 Girls     White
           Black
           Mexican American
 Boys     White
           Black
           Mexican American
 Girls     White
           Black
           Mexican American
 Boys     White
           Black
           Mexican American
 Girls     White
           Black
           Mexican American
 Males     White
           Black
           Mexican American
Females    White
           Black
           Mexican American
 Males     White
           Black
           Mexican American
Females    White
           Black
           Mexican American
 Males     White
           Black
           Mexican American
Females    White
           Black
           Mexican American
                  6395 (10.6)b
                   1082(4.1)
                   273(4.1)
                   105 (4.2)
                   1028 (4.0)
                   234 (4.0)
                   102 (4.2)
                   667 (9.0)
                   137(9.0)
                    60 (9.2)
                   631 (9.1)
                   155 (9.0)
                    40(9.3)
                   786(15.1)
                   155(15.1)
                   49(15.0)
                   695(15.1)
                   159(15.0)
                   37(15.2)
9610(9.9)
 605 (4.0)
 693 (3.9)
 732 (4.0)
 639 (4.0)
 684 (3.9)
 800 (3.9)
 446 (8.9)
 584 (9.0)
 565 (9.0)
 428(9.1)
 538 (9.0)
 581 (8.9)
282(14.9)
412(15.0)
406(15.0)
344(15.0)
450(14.9)
421 (14.8)
6710(10.1)
 226 (3.9)
 234 (4.0)
 231 (3.9)
 235(4.1)
 222 (4.0)
 238(4.1
 298(8.9)
 371 (9.0)
 384 (9.0)
 293 (8.9)
 363(9.1)
 361 (9.0)
449(14.9)
543(14.9)
648(15.0)
456(14.9)
528(14.8)
631 (14.9)
   607
   279
   399
   569
   298
   358
   676
   289
   310
   632
   297
   332
   866
   256
   318
   862
   275
   329
 a        Race was receded in the first two examinations (using data concerning ancestry/national origin) to create
          comparable categories in all surveys.
 b        Mean ages are shown in parentheses. There are no mean ages available for the older age group data (ages 20 and
          above).
          Data from Ogden et al., 2004.
          No data available.

 Source:   Freeman et al., 2006 and Ogden et al, 2004.	
Page
8-34
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                             July 2009
-------
If
 > £
  a
 > -t
Q
I
oo
  ri
  1=

  I
Table 8-18. Mean BMI (kg/m2) Levels and Change in the Mean Z-Scores by Race-Ethnicity and Sex (Ages 2-17)
Examination Yeara


Overall


Sex






Age








a
b



Boys


Girls


(years)
2 to 5


6 to 11


12 to 17


Race
White
Black
Mexican-American

White
Black
Mexican-American
White
Black
Mexican-American
White
Black
Mexican-American
White
Black
Mexican-American
White
Black
Mexican-American
1971-1974
18.0"
17.8
18.6

17.9
17.7
18.6
18.0
17.9
18.5
15.8
15.8
16.5
16.7
16.5
16.9
20.7
20.4
21.6
1976-1980 1988-1994
18.0
18.2
18.8

18.0
17.8
18.9
18.0
18.6
18.6
15.7
15.7
16.2
16.9
17.1
17.7
20.6
20.9
21.5
18.8
19.1
19.5

18.8
18.8
19.4
18.7
19.5
19.6
16.0
15.9
16.5
17.6
17.9
18.5
21.8
22.4
22.6
Secular trends for BMI, BMI-for-age, weight-for-age, and height- for-age were each
age, and weight also differed (p <0.001) by race.
Mean BMI levels have been adjusted for differences in age and sex across exams.
Increase in Mean z-score
From 1971-1974 to 1999-2002
1999-2002 BMI
19.0
20.0
20.1

19.0
19.6
20.3
19.0
20.4
19.9
16.2
16.2
16.5
17.9
18.7
18.8
22.0
23.7
24.0
statistically sij
+0.33
+0.61
+0.32

+0.37
+0.53
+0.38
+0.30
+0.71
+0.25
+0.21
+0.34
-0.02
+0.42
+0.67
+0.50
+0.32
+0.72
+0.37
mificant at the 0.001
Weight Height
+0
+0
+0

36
.63
.52

+0.42
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
.58
.67
32
.69
.35
22
.32
.29
+0.47
+0
+0
+0
+9
+0
level.
.69
.65
.35
,77
.55
Trends in BM
+0
+0
+0

+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
20
31
39

25
32
57
16
30
21
13
18
+0.43
+0
+0
30
36
+0.41
+0
+0
+0
15
33
34
, BMI-for-
Source: Freedmanetal., 2006.
I


I
<•»! ft
-------
Page Exposure Factors Handbook


Table 8-19. Mean body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) by survey, sex, race/ethnicity, and age group; adults: United States
HHANES, 1982-84
Standard
Sample error of
Sex, race/ethnicity, and age Size Mean the mean
Male
Non-Hispanic white:3
20 years and over -
20-39years 	
40-59years 	 ...
60 years and over -
Non-Hispanic black:
20 years and over3 -
20-39years3 	
40—59 years -
60 years and over3 	 ...
Mexican American: 3
20 years and over 	 ...
20-74years 	 2,273 26.2 0.2
20-39 years 1 133 256 03
40-59years 	 856 26.9 0.1
60-74 years 284 26 3 02
60 years and over 	 ...
Female
Non-Hispanic white:3
20 years and over -
20-39years 	
40—59 years -
60 years and over 	 ...
Non-Hispanic black:3
20 years and over 	 ...
20-39 years
40-59years 	 ...
60 years and over 	 ...
Mexican American:
20 years and over 	 ...
20-74 years3 3 039 27 1 01
20-39years3 	 1,482 25.6 0.2
40-59 years3 1 159 282 02
60-74years3 	 398 28.1 0.3
60 years and over 	 ...
NHANES III, 1988-94
Standard
Sample error of
Size Mean the mean
3,152 26.8 0.1
846 25.9 0.2
842 27.6 0.2
1,464 27.0 0.1
2,091 26.6 0.1
985 26.3 0.2
583 27.1 0.2
523 26.4 0.3
2,229 27.3 0.1
2,127 27.3 0.1
1,143 26.1 0.2
558 28.6 0.2
426 27.4 0.3
528 27.1 0.3
3,554 26.1 0.2
1,030 24.7 0.2
950 27.2 0.3
1,574 26.7 0.2
2,451 29.1 0.2
1,191 27.6 0.3
721 30.4 0.3
539 29.4 0.4
2,106 28.4 0.2
2,013 28.5 0.2
1,063 27.2 0.2
557 29.7 0.3
393 29.2 0.4
486 28.7 0.4
NHANES, 1999-2002
Standard
Sample error of
Size Mean the mean
2,116 27.9 0.2
607 27.1 0.2
673 28.7 0.3
836 28.3 0.1
820 27.5 0.2
279 27.1 0.3
289 27.7 0.4
252 28.0 0.3
1,018 28.0 0.2
959 28.1 0.2
399 27.1 0.3
309 28.9 0.3
251 28.6 0.3
310 28.1 0.3
2,026 27.6 0.2
567 26.7 0.3
629 28.3 0.4
830 28.2 0.2
863 31.1 0.3
298 30.2 0.5
294 32.1 0.5
271 31.1 0.6
1,012 29.0 0.3
960 29.1 0.3
358 27.8 0.4
332 30.4 0.5
270 29.5 0.3
322 28.9 0.4
NOTES: BMI is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by square of height in meters. HHANES: Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; and NHANES:
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
3 Statistically significant trend or difference p<0.05 for all years available.
Data not available.
Source: Ogden et al, 2004.


Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 8 - Body Weight
-------
,|"|

 & 5
   ri
   1=
   I
Table 8-20. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity3 Among Children
Examination year
Race
Overall White
Black
Mexican-American
Sex
Boys White
Black
Mexican-American
Girls White
Black
Mexican-American
Age (years)
2 to 5 White
Black
Mexican-American
6 to 1 1 White
Black
Mexican-American
12 to 17 White
Black
Mexican-American
a Overweight is defined as a BMI >
1971-1974
5% (if
6%(1)
8%(1)

5% (I)
6% (2)
8%(1)
5% (1)
6%(1)
8% (2)

4%(1)
7% (3)
10% (5)
4% (0)
4% (0)
6% (0)
o /o (1 )
o /o ( 1 1
9% (0)
95th percentile or > 30 k£
1976-1980
5% (I)
7% (2)
10% (1)

5% (1)
5% (1)
12% (1)
5% (1)
9% (2)
7% (0)

3%(1)
4% (0)
11% (3)
6%(1)
9% (3)
11% (0)
4% (0)
O /O ( 1 1
o /o ( 1 1
1988-1994
9% (2)
12% (3)
14% (4)

10% (2)
11% (3)
15% (4)
9% (2)
14% (3)
14% (3)

5% (1)
8% (3)
12% (5)
11% (3)
1 5% (3)
17% (4)
11% (2)
13% (3)
14% (2)
>/m2', obesity is defined as a BMI >
1999-2002
12% (3)
l^%(5)
21% (5)

13% (4)
16% (5)
24% (4)
12% (2)
21% (6)
17% (4)

9% (3)
9% (4)
13% (5)
13% (4)
20% (5)
22% (5)
13% (2)
22% (6)
25% (5)
Increase in Prevalence From 1971-
1974 to 1999-2002
Overweight
+8
+12
+12

+8
+10
+16
+7
+14
+9

+5
+2
+3
+10
+15
+16
+7
+14
+15
Obesity
+2
+4
+4

+3
+3
+6
+1
+5
+2

+2
+1
0
+3
+4
+5
+1
+5
+5
99th percentile or > 40 kg/m2.
b Values are percentage of overweight children (percentage of obese children).
Source: Freedman et al.,2006.






X) ft
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-21. Numbers of Live Births by Weight and Percentages of Live Births with Low and Very Low
Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother: United States, 2005

Total Births
Weight (grams)
<500
500-999
1,000-1,499
1,500-1,999
2,000-2,499
2,500-2,999
3,000-3,499
3,500-3,999
4,000-4499
4,500-4999
>5,000
Not stated
All Races"
4,138,349
Non-Hispanic
Whiteb
2,279,768
Non-Hispanic
Blackb
583,759
Birth Weights, by
Hispanic0
985,505
Number of Live Births
6,599
23,864
31,325
66,453
210,324
748,042
1,596,944
1,114,887
289,098
42,119
4,715
3,979
2,497
10,015
14,967
33,687
104,935
364,726
857,136
672,270
167,269
27,541
2,840
1,885
2,477
8,014
8,573
15,764
46,846
144,803
221,819
108,698
22,149
3,203
405
1,008
1,212
4,586
5,988
12,710
43,300
176,438
399,295
266,338
64,704
9,167
1,174
593
Percent of Total
Low Birth Weightd
8.2
Very Low Birth Weight6 1 . 5
7.3
1.2
14.0
3.3
6.9
1.2
a All Races includes White, Black, and races other than White and Black and origin not stated.
b Race categories are consistent with the 1977 Office of Management and Budget standards.
0 Hispanic includes all persons of Hispanic origin of any race.
d Low birth weight is birth weight less than 2,500 grams (5 Ib 8 oz).
e Very low birth weight is birth weight less than 1 ,500grams (3 Ib 4 oz).
Source: Martin et
al, 2007.



Page
8-38
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-22. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single- Year Age Groups Using NHANES II Data
Age Groupa
0 to 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 3 years
3 to 4 years
4 to 5 years
5 to 6 years
6 to 7 years
7 to 8 years
8 to 9 years
9 to 10 years
10 to 11 years
11 to 12 years
12 to 13 years
13 to 14 years
14 to 15 years
15 to 16 years
16 to 17 years
17 to 18 years
18 to 19 years
19 to 20 years
20 to 21 years
21 to 22 years
22 to 23 years
23 to 24 years
24 to 25 years
25 to 26 years
26 to 27 years
27 to 28 years
28 to 29 years
29 to 30 years
30 to 31 years
3 1 to 32 years
32 to 33 years
33 to 34 years
34 to 35 years
35 to 36 years
36 to 37 years
37 to 38 years
38 to 39 years
39 to 40 years
40 to 41 years
41 to 42 years
42 to 43 years
43 to 44 years
44 to 45 years
45 to 46 years
46 to 47 years
47 to 48 years
48 to 49 years
49 to 50 years
50 to 51 years
5 1 to 52 years
52 to 53 years
53 to 54 years
Males (kg)
Mean
9.4
11.8
13.6
15.6
17.8
19.8
23.0
25.1
28.2
31.1
36.4
40.2
44.2
49.8
57.1
61.0
67.1
66.7
71.0
71.7
71.6
74.76
76.10
75.93
75.18
76.34
79.49
76.17
79.80
77.64
78.63
78.19
79.15
80.73
81.24
79.04
80.41
79.06
83.01
79.85
84.20
81.20
79.67
81.50
82.76
80.91
82.83
82.29
81.52
80.60
81.14
81.25
82.38
79.37
SD
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.4
2.8
3.7
3.8
5.6
5.8
7.2
9.8
9.8
11.4
10.7
10.4
11.7
11.3
12.0
11.3
12.0
12.73
12.88
11.76
11.65
11.52
14.18
12.34
14.15
11.63
13.63
14.19
12.99
12.67
14.83
12.81
14.10
12.41
15.40
13.02
13.22
15.07
11.86
14.04
13.41
13.77
15.28
11.83
12.63
13.31
14.23
11.27
15.03
12.94
N
179
370
375
418
404
397
133
148
147
145
157
155
145
173
186
184
178
173
164
148
114
150
135
148
129
118
127
112
104
124
103
108
102
86
83
91
79
83
65
71
76
73
74
68
65
62
68
55
77
77
79
69
73
69
Females (kg)
Mean
8.8
10.8
13.0
14.9
17.0
19.6
22.1
24.7
27.8
31.8
36.1
41.8
46.4
50.9
54.7
55.1
58.1
59.6
59.0
60.1
60.5
60.39
60.51
61.21
62.71
62.64
61.74
62.83
63.79
63.33
64.90
67.71
68.94
63.43
63.03
67.30
65.41
66.81
66.56
67.21
70.56
65.25
65.81
68.45
66.96
65.18
70.45
68.02
67.39
66.83
70.81
67.20
66.07
68.83
SD
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.3
3.2
3.9
4.6
4.8
7.3
7.7
10.1
10.1
11.2
10.7
9.0
9.6
10.4
10.2
10.1
10.7
11.14
10.11
11.48
13.44
12.46
11.77
12.18
14.34
12.92
13.71
14.45
17.51
11.77
14.43
15.62
11.27
13.08
15.72
13.85
17.70
12.91
12.14
14.89
15.19
14.78
15.91
13.67
15.71
14.54
14.67
11.99
14.58
14.83
N
177
336
336
366
396
364
135
157
123
149
136
140
147
162
178
145
170
134
170
158
162
170
150
133
123
120
118
130
138
122
139
116
104
92
91
113
84
97
71
79
77
70
98
84
71
65
82
73
67
79
98
67
88
73
Overall (kg)
Mean
9.1
11.3
13.3
15.2
17.4
19.7
22.5
24.8
28.1
31.4
36.2
41.0
45.4
50.4
55.9
58.0
62.4
63.3
64.6
65.3
65.2
66.71
67.30
68.43
68.43
68.80
70.57
68.24
69.79
69.97
70.44
72.33
73.43
71.82
70.91
72.24
72.03
71.82
74.14
73.19
76.49
73.47
71.23
73.38
73.70
72.33
75.24
73.42
74.28
73.07
75.12
73.81
72.70
73.71
SD
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.4
2.8
3.6
3.8
5.6
5.9
7.1
9.9
10.0
11.5
10.5
9.9
10.9
10.7
10.9
10.3
10.9
11.35
11.39
10.60
10.60
10.38
12.59
11.06
12.38
10.48
12.21
13.13
12.05
11.27
12.94
11.71
12.63
11.27
13.76
11.94
12.01
13.63
10.60
12.64
11.94
12.31
13.89
10.55
11.51
12.06
13.17
10.23
13.27
12.02
N
356
706
711
784
800
761
268
305
270
294
293
295
292
335
364
329
348
307
334
306
276
320
285
281
252
238
245
242
242
246
242
224
206
178
174
204
163
180
136
150
153
143
172
152
136
127
150
128
144
156
177
136
161
142
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-39
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-22. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single- Year Age Groups Using NHANES II
(continued)
Age Group8
54 to
55 to
56 to
57 to
58 to
59 to
60 to
61 to
62 to
63 to
64 to
65 to
66 to
67 to
68 to
69 to
70 to
71 to
72 to
73 to
74+
a
SD
N
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
Males (kg)
Mean
76.63
81.92
77.36
79.85
79.23
80.00
79.76
78.42
77.06
77.07
77.27
77.36
75.35
73.98
74.14
74.40
75.17
74.45
73.47
72.80
75.89
Data were converted
23 months.
SD
13.36
15.12
11.28
13.02
12.52
12.47
12.92
11.75
12.33
11.31
13.63
13.25
13.21
12.82
14.60
13.20
13.03
12.60
12.36
12.17
13.38
from aj
N
61
62
69
64
73
72
183
169
188
162
185
158
138
143
124
129
128
115
100
82
82
^es in months to i
Females (kg)
Mean
67.62
71.93
70.82
66.87
68.73
64.43
67.28
68.12
66.09
66.41
67.45
68.48
67.36
65.98
68.87
65.59
65.04
65.62
64.89
65.59
67.20
iges in years.
SD
14.64
16.17
15.40
14.41
13.60
12.88
12.83
13.83
13.69
14.03
13.77
14.68
13.95
13.47
13.63
13.39
12.47
13.53
11.58
12.71
14.48
For instance,
N
71
90
67
99
70
70
218
176
184
178
177
185
182
149
161
119
136
139
135
108
102
age
Data
Overall (kg)
Mean
71
75
73
71
73
71
72
72
71
70
72
71
52
32
59
60
28
45
75
68
00
72
26
84
70.40
69.19
71
69
69
69
68
68
70
02
37
32
00
17
36
55
SD
12.47
13.90
10.73
11.68
11.58
11.14
11.79
10.89
11.36
10.38
12.74
12.30
12.34
11.99
13.98
12.30
12.01
11.67
11.46
11.43
12.44
1-2 years represents ages from
N
132
152
136
163
143
142
401
345
372
340
362
343
320
292
285
248
264
254
235
190
184
12 to
= Standard Deviation.
= Number of individuals.
Source: Portieret al., 2007.
Page
8-40
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-23. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single- Year Age Groups Using NHANES III Data
Age Group3
0 to 1 years
1 to 2 years
2 to 3 years
3 to 4 years
4 to 5 years
5 to 6 years
6 to 7 years
7 to 8 years
8 to 9 years
9 to 10 years
10 to 11 years
11 to 12 years
12 to 13 years
13 to 14 years
14 to 15 years
15 to 16 years
16 to 17 years
17 to 18 years
18 to 19 years
19 to 20 years
20 to 21 years
21 to 22 years
22 to 23 years
23 to 24 years
24 to 25 years
25 to 26 years
26 to 27 years
27 to 28 years
28 to 29 years
29 to 30 years
30 to 3 1 years
31 to 32 years
32 to 33 years
33 to 34 years
34 to 35 years
35 to 36 years
36 to 37 years
37 to 38 years
38 to 39 years
39 to 40 years
40 to 41 years
41 to 42 years
42 to 43 years
43 to 44 years
44 to 45 years
45 to 46 years
46 to 47 years
47 to 48 years
48 to 49 years
49 to 50 years
50 to 5 1 years
51 to 52 years
52 to 53 years
53 to 54 years

Mean
8.5
11.6
13.6
15.8
17.6
20.1
23.2
26.3
30.1
34.4
37.3
42.5
49.1
54.0
63.7
66.8
68.6
111
71.2
73.0
72.5
72.92
76.34
77.85
78.56
80.33
75.88
81.17
81.10
81.93
83.56
79.48
81.65
84.03
82.95
81.24
87.67
83.33
82.53
82.62
85.84
86.19
85.12
86.37
90.62
83.58
80.70
85.54
82.29
82.25
81.69
85.78
87.02
89.44
Males (kg)
SD
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.3
2.4
3.0
5.0
5.0
6.9
7.9
8.6
10.5
11.1
12.9
17.1
14.9
14.9
13.3
14.3
12.8
13.4
12.86
14.72
14.37
15.38
17.89
12.84
14.90
18.23
16.89
16.71
13.12
15.82
16.63
15.56
16.16
21.26
17.61
14.47
12.46
15.23
18.93
16.76
17.71
20.37
13.46
13.00
17.28
14.93
16.11
13.24
15.39
13.66
14.86
Females (kg)
N
902
660
644
516
549
497
283
269
266
281
297
281
203
187
188
187
194
196
176
168
149
161
160
172
187
171
143
176
154
156
163
155
159
153
162
143
163
123
136
122
152
148
161
139
120
108
102
116
93
85
77
84
93
86
Mean
7.8
10.9
13.2
15.4
17.9
20.2
22.6
26.3
29.8
34.3
37.9
44.2
49.1
55.7
58.3
58.3
61.5
62.4
61.5
63.6
61.7
65.01
64.07
66.99
62.79
66.19
64.89
65.10
66.97
65.89
67.76
72.48
67.53
68.49
67.55
71.45
66.02
72.04
71.58
74.57
68.70
70.11
72.72
68.94
72.61
71.78
72.07
72.09
75.80
73.41
74.05
79.48
72.00
73.92
SD
1.6
1.4
1.8
2.2
3.2
3.5
4.7
6.2
6.7
9.0
9.5
10.5
11.6
13.2
11.8
10.1
12.8
11.9
14.2
14.5
12.9
16.03
13.61
16.24
12.62
16.05
15.19
14.43
15.26
13.65
16.85
19.32
17.22
16.03
14.27
17.47
14.29
17.69
17.43
19.41
15.80
13.80
19.46
15.35
17.15
15.76
15.53
15.98
16.09
18.26
18.03
19.60
16.86
17.08
N
910
647
624
587
537
554
272
274
248
280
258
275
236
220
220
197
215
217
193
193
180
188
193
205
200
157
184
184
190
177
202
204
179
176
186
188
180
202
183
157
198
183
171
123
152
125
113
102
95
106
118
85
100
97
Overall (kg)
Mean
8.17
11.2
13.4
15.6
17.8
20.2
22.9
26.4
30.0
34.4
37.7
43.4
49.1
54.8
60.6
61.7
65.2
67.6
66.4
68.3
66.1
69.24
69.48
72.72
70.16
74.11
69.73
73.33
73.28
73.33
75.11
77.04
74.33
75.09
76.47
76.02
77.32
76.42
76.85
79.34
75.55
78.34
79.25
77.80
79.13
78.22
76.30
79.28
79.21
77.95
77.31
83.81
79.97
81.86
SD
1.7
1.5
1.8
2.2
3.2
3.5
4.8
6.2
6.7
9.0
9.4
10.3
11.7
13.0
12.2
10.7
13.6
12.9
15.3
15.6
13.8
17.08
14.75
17.63
14.10
17.97
16.33
16.25
16.70
15.19
18.68
20.54
18.95
17.58
16.16
18.59
16.74
18.77
18.71
20.65
17.37
15.42
21.21
17.33
18.69
17.18
16.44
17.57
16.82
19.39
18.82
20.67
18.72
18.91
N
1,812
1,307
1,268
1,103
1,086
1,051
555
543
514
561
555
556
439
407
408
384
409
413
369
361
329
349
353
377
387
328
327
360
344
333
365
359
338
329
348
331
343
325
319
279
350
331
332
262
272
233
215
218
188
191
195
169
193
183
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-41
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-23. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single- Year Age Groups Using NHANES II]
(continued)
Age Group3
54 to 55 years
55 to 56 years
56 to 57 years
57 to 58 years
58 to 59 years
59 to 60 years
60 to 61 years
61 to 62 years
62 to 63 years
63 to 64 years
64 to 65 years
65 to 66 years
66 to 67 years
67 to 68 years
68 to 69 years
69 to 70 years
70 to 71 years
71 to 72 years
72 to 73 years
73 to 74 years
74 to 75 years
75 to 76 years
76 to 77 years
77 to 78 years
78 to 79 years
79 to 80 years
80 to 81 years
81 to 82 years
82 to 83 years
83 to 84 years
84 to 85 years
85+
Males (kg)
Mean
86.02
83.10
87.16
86.31
83.54
87.93
83.54
81.91
81.98
84.15
84.28
85.10
81.43
84.35
80.60
84.81
80.18
79.34
78.97
82.07
79.32
77.18
79.30
80.70
75.21
78.75
76.94
73.70
73.25
72.10
72.09
70.08
SD
16.76
14.99
15.10
15.04
15.67
16.14
14.22
15.03
15.47
14.50
15.73
14.75
15.03
15.22
11.75
18.18
14.14
14.64
13.36
17.26
15.37
10.47
14.88
13.98
11.34
11.32
15.15
13.30
12.32
15.31
10.73
11.64
N
86
82
96
89
81
74
130
119
116
118
116
127
102
117
98
113
92
126
119
109
84
75
64
64
50
45
108
96
81
63
62
189
a Data were converted from ages in months to a
23 months.
Females (kg)
Mean
74.63
72.56
77.69
75.65
72.26
74.00
68.73
72.26
72.97
71.32
74.34
67.47
71.82
68.98
70.72
66.57
68.36
70.74
66.70
68.24
69.08
68.58
65.68
67.33
63.67
60.21
63.55
63.17
61.96
62.78
63.68
59.67
ges in years.
SD
19.97
14.06
16.74
17.87
16.47
15.33
13.60
15.42
17.54
14.48
17.40
16.08
14.58
15.22
16.56
11.74
15.72
17.89
13.89
14.14
13.67
13.50
13.88
14.16
14.31
14.41
13.10
12.70
12.01
12.23
11.43
11.69
For instance,
N
113
102
105
97
100
82
104
141
114
111
126
118
118
95
110
97
124
98
101
115
97
85
94
86
63
61
101
112
69
63
57
240
age
Data
Overall (kg)
Mean
79.88
76.59
83.15
82.12
76.89
80.48
75.88
76.50
77.18
76.88
78.86
76.14
76.49
76.08
76.07
74.84
72.95
75.64
72.76
74.37
73.57
72.89
70.38
72.43
67.94
67.28
68.77
66.94
67.05
65.80
66.74
63.11
SD
21.38
14.84
17.91
19.40
17.52
16.67
15.02
16.32
18.55
15.61
18.46
18.14
15.53
16.78
17.81
13.20
16.78
19.13
15.15
15.41
14.56
14.35
14.87
15.23
15.27
16.10
14.18
13.45
12.99
12.82
11.97
12.36
1-2 years represents ages from
N
199
184
201
186
181
156
234
260
230
229
242
245
220
212
208
210
216
224
220
224
181
160
158
150
113
106
209
208
150
126
119
429
12 to
SD = Standard Deviation.
N = Number of individuals.
Source: Portier et al., 2007.
Page
8-42
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-24. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single- Year Age Groups Using NHANES IV Data
Age Group3
0 to 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 3 years
3 to 4 years
4 to 5 years
5 to 6 years
6 to 7 years
7to 8 years
8 to 9 years
9 to 10 years
10 to 11 years
11 to 12 years
12 to 13 years
13 to 14 years
14 to 15 years
15 to 16 years
16 to 17 years
17 to 18 years
18 to 19 years
19 to 20 years
20 to 21 years
21 to 22 years
22 to 23 years
23 to 24 years
24 to 25 years
25 to 26 years
26 to 27 years
27 to 28 years
28 to 29 years
29 to 30 years
30 to 31 years
3 1 to 32 years
32 to 33 years
33 to 34 years
34 to 35 years
35 to 36 years
36 to 37 years
37 to 38 years
38 to 39 years
39 to 40 years
40 to 41 years
41 to 42 years
42 to 43 years
43 to 44 years
44 to 45 years
45 to 46 years
46 to 47 years
47 to 48 years
48 to 49 years
49 to 50 years
50 to 51 years
5 1 to 52 years
52 to 53 years
53 to 54 years
Males (kg)
Mean
9.3
11.3
13.7
16.4
18.8
20.2
22.9
28.1
31.9
36.1
39.5
42.0
49.4
54.9
65.1
68.2
72.5
75.4
74.8
80.1
80.0
73.84
89.62
83.39
80.26
87.47
72.11
85.78
88.04
84.02
80.10
84.65
90.99
90.90
79.09
91.15
88.96
84.62
80.52
84.77
92.21
83.11
91.94
89.48
87.00
84.61
93.27
80.87
85.58
88.84
90.09
90.63
90.62
92.42
SD
1.8
1.4
2.0
2.3
2.6
3.3
4.3
5.6
8.6
7.5
9.0
10.2
12.7
16.2
19.9
15.7
18.6
17.9
15.9
17.2
15.5
12.87
23.98
18.31
19.38
14.89
14.64
22.69
26.64
15.16
22.28
18.59
15.77
18.74
19.50
25.45
17.15
17.62
17.26
14.26
26.63
14.06
15.56
16.15
14.63
17.53
20.48
11.38
17.91
24.90
14.51
18.22
19.52
21.93
N
116
144
130
105
95
65
94
100
100
76
92
84
158
161
137
142
153
146
131
129
37
33
37
36
20
27
33
30
36
35
29
33
35
37
33
33
29
47
29
37
40
37
46
40
34
33
28
29
21
28
26
35
24
28
Females (kg)
Mean
9.3
11.5
13.3
15.2
18.1
20.7
22.0
26.0
30.8
36.0
39.4
47.2
51.6
59.8
59.9
63.4
63.4
59.9
65.0
68.7
66.3
65.89
67.27
73.58
71.81
71.64
78.09
72.48
76.18
71.88
74.00
79.12
77.53
76.60
73.26
79.91
72.10
70.75
80.86
78.08
73.87
75.91
82.03
71.59
74.86
81.15
74.94
68.24
82.10
75.55
83.22
76.89
80.89
76.12
SD
1.5
1.9
1.9
2.1
3.2
4.9
4.5
6.2
7.2
8.4
10.2
12.2
12.3
15.3
13.3
13.9
16.0
11.9
15.2
17.4
15.5
15.49
15.47
23.21
21.27
20.31
20.98
18.10
16.18
16.60
22.71
22.51
18.15
22.28
16.92
22.74
20.29
15.39
22.32
19.34
18.14
17.38
21.78
17.81
18.15
23.52
16.84
16.97
29.55
21.74
27.42
16.09
19.78
16.64
N
101
98
113
77
87
92
74
82
89
84
84
97
160
156
158
126
142
128
139
132
44
47
49
53
54
44
47
49
34
50
48
49
55
29
49
37
38
35
40
43
47
37
41
27
42
50
34
38
34
24
27
36
42
32
Overall (kg)
Mean
9.3
11.4
13.5
15.9
18.5
20.6
22.5
27.4
31.3
36.2
39.5
44.6
50.3
56.9
61.5
65.9
68.0
66.6
70.2
74.6
74.3
69.40
75.85
80.27
75.04
80.45
75.63
78.75
81.29
78.10
77.01
82.51
83.82
85.94
75.72
84.60
80.17
79.21
81.18
81.92
82.13
79.56
88.15
83.18
80.04
83.21
82.90
74.29
84.51
82.17
88.10
83.63
85.03
82.96
SD
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.2
3.3
4.9
4.6
6.5
7.3
8.5
10.2
11.6
11.9
14.6
13.7
14.4
17.1
13.2
16.4
19.0
17.4
16.32
17.44
25.32
22.23
22.80
20.32
19.67
17.26
18.04
23.63
23.48
19.62
25.00
17.49
24.07
22.55
17.23
22.41
20.29
20.17
18.21
23.41
20.69
19.41
24.12
18.63
18.48
30.42
23.64
29.03
17.50
20.79
18.13
N
217
242
243
182
182
157
168
182
189
160
176
181
318
317
295
268
295
274
270
261
81
80
86
89
74
71
80
79
70
85
77
82
90
66
82
70
67
82
69
80
87
74
87
67
76
83
62
67
55
52
53
71
66
60
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-43
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-24. Estimated Mean Body Weights of Males and Females by Single- Year Age Groups Using NHANES IV Data
(continued)
Age Groupa
54 to
55 to
56 to
57 to
58 to
59 to
60 to
61 to
62 to
63 to
64 to
65 to
66 to
67 to
68 to
69 to
70 to
71 to
72 to
73 to
74 to
75 to
76 to
77 to
78 to
79 to
80 to
81 to
82 to
83 to
84 to
85+
a
SD
N
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
Males (kg)
Mean
90.51
84.84
84.48
86.02
89.11
83.82
89.53
86.04
84.46
86.51
91.45
89.46
90.40
85.34
84.48
92.35
81.91
79.65
84.67
89.70
80.85
84.26
86.13
81.68
81.99
80.18
75.90
73.77
81.01
76.07
73.06
74.10
Data were converted
to 23 months.
SD
21.10
18.72
18.55
20.50
21.33
16.33
17.90
15.44
16.28
20.07
16.88
18.44
20.13
19.18
12.92
16.95
16.38
21.31
17.45
15.36
17.00
11.94
15.45
14.15
16.39
10.39
12.07
7.40
13.46
10.63
12.88
12.23
from a£
N
32
20
26
26
19
25
60
34
41
24
39
41
49
36
26
24
47
25
32
35
17
25
20
18
26
19
27
31
20
12
12
46
>es in months to
Females (kg)
Mean
75.19
79.87
80.68
73.07
71.21
76.28
75.97
77.01
75.78
77.95
76.75
72.95
79.00
77.76
73.28
69.94
70.50
66.22
76.89
72.75
69.21
68.61
67.42
78.35
72.30
67.95
60.97
68.76
62.93
66.24
66.29
59.68
ages in years
SD
18.07
16.71
20.24
13.79
16.01
16.36
18.66
16.67
13.13
16.96
18.29
18.37
17.67
18.21
14.12
9.20
12.94
13.04
15.30
16.80
16.35
10.42
11.34
17.45
14.16
12.54
14.46
13.75
9.81
11.68
15.04
10.04
For instance
N
36
25
32
24
17
17
43
37
45
39
42
41
26
35
35
32
32
35
21
27
31
21
25
21
17
21
23
25
20
12
17
59
, age
Overall (kg)
Mean
81.46
82.39
82.72
80.20
79.97
80.76
83.70
81.12
79.50
80.73
83.98
80.38
86.09
81.18
78.20
80.53
76.06
68.99
81.08
81.69
73.34
75.14
73.62
80.09
77.77
73.39
65.39
71.28
68.51
70.90
68.79
64.45
SD
19.58
17.24
20.75
15.13
17.97
17.32
20.56
17.56
13.78
17.56
20.01
20.24
19.26
19.01
15.07
10.59
13.96
13.58
16.13
18.87
17.32
11.41
12.38
17.84
15.23
13.54
15.51
14.25
10.68
12.50
15.60
10.84
N
68
45
58
50
36
42
103
71
86
63
81
82
75
71
61
56
79
60
53
62
48
46
45
39
43
40
50
56
40
24
29
105
1-2 years represents ages from 12
= Standard Deviation.
= Number of individuals.
Source: Portieret al., 2007.
Page
8-44
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-25. Estimated Body
Age Group NHANI

II
1 to 6 years III


IV
II
7 to 16 years III

18 to 65
years

IV
II
III
IV
II
65 years + III

a
SD
N
Source:
IV
Weights of Typical Age Groups of Interest in U. S . EPA Risk Assessments3
q Males (kg)
Mean
17.0
16.9
17.1
45.2
49.3
47.9
78.65
82.19
85.47
74.45
79.42
83.50
SD
4.6
4.7
4.9
17.6
20.9
20.1
13.23
16.18
19.03
13.05
14.66
16.35
N
2,097
3,149
633
1,618
2,549
1,203
4,711
6,250
1,908
1,041
1,857
547
Estimates were weighted using the sample wei^
= Standard Deviation.
= Number of individuals.
Portieret al.,
2007.


Females (kg)
Mean
16.3
16.5
17.5
43.9
46.8
47.9
65.47
69.45
74.55
66.26
66.76
69.59
SD
4.7
4.9
5.0
15.9
18.0
19.2
13.77
16.55
19.32
13.25
14.52
14.63
N
1,933
3,221
541
1,507
2,640
1,178
5,187
7,182
2,202
1,231
1,986
535
Overall (kg)
Mean
16
16
17
44
47
47
71
75
79
69
72
75
.7
.8
.3
.8
.8
.7
23
61
96
56
25
54
SD
4.5
5.0
5.0
17.5
18.4
19.1
11.97
18.02
20.73
12.20
15.71
15.88
N
4,030
6,370
1,174
3,125
5,189
2,381
9,898
13,462
4,110
2,272
3,843
1,082
>hts provided with each survey.







Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-45
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-26. Estimated Percentile Distribution of Body Weight by Fine Age Categories Derived From 1994-
96, 1998 CSFII
Weight (kilograms)
Age Group
Birth to 1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <18 years
18to<21years
21 years and older
65 years and older
All ages
Sample , ,
„. r Mean
Size
88
245
411
678
1,002
994
4,112
1,553
975
360
383
9,049
2,139
19,850
4
5
7
9
12
14
18
30
54
67
69
76
72
65
Percentile
1st
1"
2a
4a
6a
8a
10a
11
16a
29a
41a
45a
45
44
8
a Sample size does meet minimum reporting
Nutrition Monitoring in the United States"
Source: Kahnand
Stralka, 2008.


5th
2a
oa
J
5
1
9
10
13
18
33
46a
48a
51
50
15
10th 25th
3a
4
5
7
9
11
13
20
36
50
51
54
54
22
; requirements as
(LSRO, 1995).


3
4
6
8
10
12
16
23
44
56
58
63
62
52
50th 75th 90th
3
5
7
9
11
14
18
27
52
63
66
74
71
67
described


4
6
8
10
13
16
20
35
61
73
77
86
81
81
in the "

4a
6
9
11
14
18
23
41
72
86
89
99
93
95
95th
5a
7a
10
12
15
19
25
45
82
100a
100a
107
100
104
99th
5a
8a
12a
13a
19a
22a
32
57a
95a
114a
117a
126
113
122
Third Report on



Page
8-46
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
i
     ri
     s
     I
Table 8-27. Estimated Percentile Distribution of Body Weight By Fine Age Categories With Confidence Interval
Weight (Kilograms)
Age Group
Birth to 1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                           Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-28. Fetal Weight (
Gestational Number of
Age (weeks) Women
8 6
9 7
10 15
11 13
12 18
13 43
14 61
15 63
16 59
17 36
18 58
19 31
20 21
21 43
22 69
23 71
24 74
25 48
26 86
27 76
28 91
29 88
30 128
31 113
32 210
33 242
34 373
35 492
36 1,085
37 1,798
38 3,908
39 5,413
40 10,586
41 3,399
42 1,725
43 507
44 147
a Data not available.
b Median fetal weights ma>
delivered at these weeks'
Source: Brenner etal, 1976.

10th
a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
280
320
370
420
490
570
660
770
890
1,030
1,180
1,310
1,480
1,670
1,870
2,190
2,310
2,510
2,680
2,750
2,800
2,830
2,840
2,790
be overestimated.
gestation.

grams) Percentiles Throughout Pregnancy

25th
-
-
-
-
11
23
3,405
51
80
125
172
217
255
330
410
460
530
630
730
840
980
1,100
1,260
1,410
1,570
1,720
1,910
2,130
2,470
2,580
2,770
2,910
3,010
3,070
3,110
3,110
3,050
They were


50th
6.1"
7.3b
8.1b
11. 9b
21
35
51
77
117
166
220
283
325
410
480
550
640
740
860
990
1,150
1,310
1,460
1,630
1,810
2,010
2,220
2,430
2,650
2,870
3,030
3,170
3,280
3,360
3,410
3,420
3,390
derived from only


75th
-
-
-
-
34
55
77
108
151
212
298
394
460
570
630
690
780
890
1,020
1,160
1,350
1,530
1,710
1,880
2,090
2,280
2,510
2,730
2,950
3,160
3,320
3,470
3,590
3,680
3,740
3,780
3,770
a small proportion of the


90th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
860
920
990
1,080
1,180
1,320
1,470
1,660
1,890
2,100
2,290
2,500
2,690
2,880
3,090
3,290
3,470
3,610
3,750
3,870
3,980
4,060
4,100
4,110
fetuses

Page
8-48
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 8 - Body Weight
Table 8-29. Neonatal Weight by Gestational
Gestational Age
(weeks)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Source: Doubiletet

5*
450
523
609
707
820
947
1,090
1,249
1,422
1,608
1,804
2,006
2,210
2,409
2,595
2,762
2,900
3,002
3,061
al., 1997.

10th
490
568
660
765
884
1,020
1,171
1,338
1,519
1,714
1,919
2,129
2,340
2,544
2,735
2,904
3,042
3,142
3,195


25th
564
652
754
870
1,003
1,151
1,317
1,499
1,696
1,906
2,125
2,349
2,572
2,786
2,984
3,155
3,293
3,388
3,432

Age for Males and Females Combined
Weight (g)
50*
660
760
875
1,005
1,153
1,319
1,502
1,702
1,918
2,146
2,383
2,622
2,859
3,083
3,288
3,462
3,597
3,685
3,717


75*
772
885
1,015
1,162
1,327
1,511
1,713
1,933
2,169
2,416
2,671
2,927
3,177
3,412
3,622
3,798
3,930
4,008
4,026


90*
889
1,016
1,160
1,322
1,504
1,706
1,928
2,167
2,421
2,687
2,959
3,230
3,493
3,736
3,952
4,127
4,254
4,322
4,324


95*
968
1,103
1,257
1,430
1,623
1,836
2,070
2,321
2,587
2,865
3,148
3,428
3,698
3,947
4,164
4,340
4,462
4,523
4,515

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
 8-49
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

9      INTAKE OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES	9-1
       9.1     INTRODUCTION	9-1
       9.2     RECOMMENDATIONS	9-2
       9.3     INTAKE STUDIES	9-5
              9.3.1    Key Fruits and Vegetables Intake Study	9-5
                      9.3.1.1  U.S. EPA Analysis of CSFII1994-96, 1998	9-5
              9.3.2    Relevant Fruit and Vegetable Intake Studies	9-6
                      9.3.2.1  USDA, 1980, 1992, 1996a, 1996b	9-6
                      9.3.2.2  USDA, 1993	9-7
                      9.3.2.3  USDA, 1999	9-7
                      9.3.2.4  Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002	9-7
                      9.3.2.5  Vitolinsetal.,2002	9-8
                      9.3.2.6  Fox et al., 2004	9-9
                      9.3.2.7  Ponzaetal.,2004	9-9
                      9.3.2.8  Fox et al., 2006	9-10
                      9.3.2.9  Menella et al., 2006	9-10
       9.4     CONVERSION BETWEEN WET AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES	9-10
       9.5     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9	9-11

APPENDIX 9A	9A-1
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                            Page
July 2009	9-i
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 9-1.        Recommended Values for Intake of Fruits and Vegetables, As Consumed	9-3
Table 9-2.        Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Fruits and Vegetables	9-4
Table 9-3.        Per Capita Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-12
Table 9-4.        Consumer Only Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-14
Table 9-5.        Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-16
Table 9-6.        Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-25
Table 9-7.        Per Capita Intake of Exposed Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-32
Table 9-8.        Per Capita Intake of Protected Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-33
Table 9-9.        Per Capita Intake of Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-34
Table 9-10.      Per Capita Intake of Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-35
Table 9-11.      Per Capita Intake of Root Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)	9-36
Table 9-12.      Mean Total Fruit and Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a
                Day by Sex and Age (1977-1978)	9-37
Table 9-13.      Mean Total Fruit and Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by
                Sex and Age (1987-88, 1994, and 1995)	9-38
Table 9-14.      Per Capita Consumption of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in 1991	9-39
Table 9-15       Mean Quantities of Vegetables Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, for Children, Per
                Capita (g/day)	9-40
Table 9-16.      Percentage of Individuals Consuming Vegetables, by Sex and Age, for Children (%)	9-41
Table 9-17.      Mean Quantities of Fruits Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, for Children,
                Per Capita (g/day)  	9-42
Table 9-18.      Percentage of Individuals Consuming, Fruits by Sex and Age, for Children (%)	9-43
Table 9-19.      Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the
                Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days	9-44
Table 9-20.      Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating Occasion and
                Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days, by Age	9-45
Table 9-21.      Consumption of Major Food Groups: Median Servings (and Ranges) by Demographic
                and Health Characteristics, for Older Adults	9-47
Table 9-22.      Characteristics of the FITS Sample Population	9-48
Table 9-23.      Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Vegetables	9-49
Table 9-24.      Top Five Vegetables Consumed by Infants and Toddlers	9-50
Table 9-25.      Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Fruits	9-51
Table 9-26.      Top Five Fruits Consumed by Infants and Toddlers	9-52
Table 9-27.      Characteristics of WIC Participants and Non-participants (Percentages)	9-53
Table 9-28.      Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC Participation Status	9-54
Table 9-29.      Average Portion Sizes per Eating Occasion of Fruits and Vegetables Commonly
                Consumed by Infants from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	9-55
Table 9-30.      Average Portion Sizes per Eating Occasion of Fruits and Vegetables Commonly
                Consumed by Toddlers from the  2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	9-56
Table 9-31.      Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different
                Types of Fruits and Vegetables on A Given Day	9-57
Table 9-32.      Top Five Fruits and Vegetables Consumed by Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and
                Toddlers Per Age Group	9-58
Table 9-3 3.      Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible
                Portions	9-59
Table 9A-1.      Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96, 1998 USDA CSFII Data	9A-2
Page
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
9       INTAKE     OF     FRUITS      AND
        VEGETABLES
9.1     INTRODUCTION
        The  American  food supply  is  generally
considered to be one of the safest  in the  world.
Nevertheless,  fruits  and vegetables  may become
contaminated  with  toxic  chemicals by  several
different pathways.  Ambient pollutants from the air
may be deposited on or absorbed by the  plants,  or
dissolved in rainfall or irrigation waters that contact
the plants.  Pollutants may also be absorbed through
plant roots from contaminated soil and ground water.
The addition  of pesticides, soil  additives,  and
fertilizers  may also  result in contamination of fruits
and vegetables.   To  assess  exposure through this
pathway, information on fruit and vegetable ingestion
rates is needed.
        A variety of terms may  be used to define
intake of fruits and vegetables (e.g., consumer-only
intake,  per  capita  intake, total  fruit intake, total
vegetable  intake, as-consumed intake,  dry weight
intake).  These terms are defined below to assist the
reader in interpreting and using the intake rates that
are  appropriate  for the  exposure scenario  being
assessed.
        Consumer-only  intake  is  defined as the
quantity of  fruits  and vegetables consumed  by
individuals during the survey  period. These data are
generated  by  averaging intake   across  only the
individuals in the survey who consumed these food
items.   Per  capita intake rates  are  generated by
averaging consumer-only intakes  over  the entire
population (including those individuals that reported
no  intake).  In general,  per  capita intake rates are
appropriate  for  use  in  exposure  assessments for
which average dose estimates are of interest because
they represent both individuals  who  ate  the  foods
during the survey period and individuals who may eat
the food items at some time, but did not consume
them during  the  survey  period.   Per capita  intake,
therefore,  represents an average across  the entire
population of interest, but does so at the expense  of
underestimating consumption for the subset of the
population that consumed the food in question. Total
fruit intake refers to the sum of all fruits consumed in
a  day  including  canned, dried,  frozen,   and fresh
fruits.  Likewise,  total vegetable  intake refers to the
sum of  all vegetables consumed in a day including
canned,  dried, frozen, and fresh vegetables.
        Intake rates may be  expressed on the basis
of the as-consumed weight (e.g., cooked or prepared)
or  on  the uncooked  or  unprepared  weight.   As-
consumed intake rates are based on the weight of the
food in  the form  that it is consumed and  should be
used  in  assessments   where the basis  for the
contaminant concentrations in foods is also indexed
to the as-consumed weight.   The food ingestion
values provided in this chapter are expressed as as-
consumed intake rates because this is  the fashion in
which data were reported by survey respondents.
This is of importance because concentration data to
be used in the  dose equation are often measured in
uncooked food samples. It should be recognized that
cooking can either increase or decrease food weight.
Similarly,  cooking  can   increase  the  mass   of
contaminant in food (due  to formation reactions, or
absorption  from cooking oils  or water) or decrease
the mass of contaminant in food (due to vaporization,
fat  loss  or leaching).   The  combined effects  of
changes in weight and changes in contaminant mass
can  result in  either an  increase  or decrease  in
contaminant   concentration    in   cooked   food.
Therefore,  if the as-consumed ingestion rate and the
uncooked  concentration  are  used  in   the  dose
equation,  dose  may  be  under-estimated or  over-
estimated.  Ideally, after-cooking food  concentrations
should be  combined  with the as-consumed intake
rates.  In the absence of data, it is  reasonable to
assume that no change in  contaminant concentration
occurs after cooking.  It is important for the assessor
to be aware of these issues and choose  intake rate
data that best match the concentration data that are
being used.  For more information on cooking losses
and conversions necessary to account for such losses,
the reader is referred to Chapter 13 of this handbook.
        Sometimes  contaminant concentrations  in
food are reported on a dry weight basis.  When these
data  are used  in  an exposure  assessment,  it is
recommended  that dry-weight intake  rates  also be
used.  Dry-weight  food concentrations  and intake
rates are based on the weight of the food consumed
after the moisture content has been removed.   For
information on converting the intake rates presented
in this chapter to dry weight intake rates, the reader is
referred to Section 9.4.
        The purpose of this  chapter is  to  provide
intake  data  for  fruits   and  vegetables.   The
recommendations for fruit and vegetable ingestion
rates are provided in the next section, along with a
summary   of  the  confidence  ratings  for  these
recommendations.   The  recommended values  are
based on the key study identified by U.S. EPA for this
factor.   Following  the recommendations, the key
study on fruit and vegetable ingestion is summarized.
Relevant data  on ingestion of fruits and vegetables
are also provided.    These data are  presented  to
provide the reader  with added perspective on  the
current state-of-knowledge pertaining to ingestion of
fruits and vegetables.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                             9-1
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
9.2     RECOMMENDATIONS
        Table  9-1  presents  a summary  of  the
recommended values for per capita and  consumer-
only  intake  of fruits  and  vegetables,  on an  as-
consumed basis. Confidence ratings for the fruit  and
vegetable  intake recommendations are provided in
Table 9-2.
        The U.S.  EPA analysis of data from  the
1994-96 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intake
by  Individuals  (CSFII)  was  used  in  selecting
recommended intake rates  for general population
children.   The U.S. EPA  analysis was  conducted
using  childhood age groups that  differed slightly
from U.S. EPA's Guidance on Selecting Age Groups
for Monitoring and Assessing  Childhood Exposures
to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005).
However,  for the purposes  of the recommendations
presented  here, childhood data were placed in  the
standardized age categories closest to those used in
the analysis.  Also, the  CSFII data on  which  the
recommendations are based are short-term survey
data and may not necessarily  reflect the long-term
distribution of average  daily intake rates.  However,
since  broad categories  of food  (i.e., total fruits  and
total  vegetables),   are  eaten  on  a  daily  basis
throughout the year with minimal seasonality,  the
short   term  distribution  may  be  a  reasonable
approximation of the long-term distribution, although
it will display somewhat increased variability. This
implies that the upper percentiles  shown here may
tend to overestimate the corresponding percentiles of
the true long-term  distribution.  It should also be
noted that because these recommendations are based
on  1994-96  and 1998  CSFII  data, they  may  not
reflect  the  most  recent changes  that may have
occurred in consumption patterns.  More current data
from  the   National  Health and  Nutrition Survey
(NHANES) will be incorporated as the data become
available and are analyzed.
Page
9-2
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
                   Table 9-1. Recommended Values for Intake of Fruits and Vegetables, As Consumed3
    Age Group
                            Per Capita
                                 Consumers Only
                       Mean
                     g/kg-day
                             Mean
                         95th Percentile
                             Multiple
                            Percentiles
                                                                            Source
              g/kg-day
             g/kg-day
             g/kg-day
                                                   Total Fruits
 Birth to 1 year
 1 to <2 years
 2 to < 3 years
 3 to <6 years
 6 to50 years
5.7
6.2
6.2
4.6
2.4
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.4
21.3
18.5
18.5
14.4
8.8
3.5
3.5
3.9
4.8
10.1
6.9
6.9
5.1
2.7
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.6
26.4
19.0
19.0
15.0
9.3
3.7
3.7
4.4
5.0
                  U.S. EPA
              Analysis of CSFII,
See Tables 9-3  1994-96 and 1998,
   and 9-4      based on USDA
               (2000) and U.S.
                 EPA (2000).
                                                 Total Vegetables
 Birth to 1 year
 1 to <2 years
 2 to <3 years
 3 to <6 years
 6 to50 years
4.5
6.9
6.9
5.9
4.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.1
14.8
17.1
17.1
14.7
9.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
7.0
6.2
6.9
6.9
5.9
4.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.1
16.1
17.1
17.1
14.7
9.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
7.0
                  U.S. EPA
              Analysis of CSFII,
See Tables 9-3  1994-96 and 1998,
   and 9-4      based on USDA
               (2000) and U.S.
                 EPA (2000).
                               Individual Fruits and Vegetables - See Tables 9-5 and 9-6
         Analysis was conducted using slightly different childhood age groups than those recommended in Guidance on
         Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA.
         2005). Data were placed in the standardized age categories closest to those used in the analysis.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                  Page
                                                                                    9-3
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables

Table 9-2.
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or Defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Rationale
The survey methodology and data analysis was adequate.
The survey sampled more than 20,000 individuals. However,
samples size for some individual fruits and vegetables for
some of the age groups are small. An analysis of primary data
was conducted.
No physical measurements were taken. The method relied on
recent recall of fruits and vegetables eaten.
The key study was directly relevant to fruit and vegetable
intake.
The data were demographically representative of the U.S.
population (based on stratified random sample).
Data were collected between 1994 and 1998.
Data were collected for two non-consecutive days.
The CSFII data are publicly available.
The methodology used was clearly described; enough
information was included to reproduce the results.
Quality assurance of the CSFII data was good; quality control
of the secondary data analysis was not well described.
Full distributions were provided for total fruits and total
vegetables. Means were provided for individual fruits and
vegetables.
Data collection was based on recall of consumption for a 2-
day period; the accuracy of using these data to estimate long-
term intake (especially at the upper percentiles) is uncertain.
However, use of short-term data to estimate chronic ingestion
can be assumed for broad categories of foods such as total
fruits and total vegetables. Uncertainty is likely to be greater
for individual fruits and vegetables.
The USDA CSFII survey received a high level of peer
review. The U.S. EPA analysis of these data has not been
peer reviewed outside the Agency.
There was 1 key study.

Rating
High for total fruits and
vegetables, low for some
individual fruits and
vegetables with small
sample size
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium-High confidence
in the averages; Low for
some individual fruits and
vegetables with small
sample size
Low confidence in the long-
term upper percentiles
Page
9-4
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
9.3     INTAKE STUDIES
        The primary source of recent information on
consumption rates of fruits and vegetables is the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA)  CSFII.   Data
from the  1994-96  CSFII  and the 1998 Children's
supplement to the 1994-96 CSFII have been used in
various  studies  to  generate consumer-only and per
capita intake rates for both individual fruits  and
vegetables and total fruits and vegetables. The CSFII
is  a series of surveys designed to measure the kinds
and amounts of foods  eaten by  Americans.    The
CSFII 1994-96 was conducted between January  1994
and January  1997  with a target population of non-
institutionalized  individuals  in all 50  states  and
Washington, D.C. In each of the 3 survey years, data
were collected for a nationally representative sample
of individuals of all  ages.   The  CSFII 1998  was
conducted between December 1997 and December
1998  and surveyed  children 9 years of age  and
younger.  It  used  the same  sample design  as the
CSFII 1994-96 and was intended to be merged with
CSFII   1994-96  to increase  the  sample  size for
children.  The  merged surveys  are designated as
CSFII  1994-96,  1998  (USDA, 2000).  Additional
information on these surveys can be obtained at
http://www.ars.usda. gov/Services/docs.htm?docid= 14531.
        The  CSFII 1994-96,  1998 collected dietary
intake data through in-person interviews on 2  non-
consecutive days.  The data  were  based on 24-hour
recall. A total of 21,662 individuals provided data for
the first day; of those individuals, 20,607 provided
data for a second day. The  2-day response rate for
the 1994-1996 CSFII was approximately 76 percent.
The 2-day response rate  for CSFII  1998 was 82
percent.
        The  CSFII 1994-96, 98 surveys were based
on a  complex  multistage area probability sample
design.  The sampling frame was organized  using
1990  U.S. population  census  estimates,  and the
stratification  plan took into account  geographic
location, degree of urbanization, and socioeconomic
characteristics.  Several sets of sampling weights are
available for use with the intake  data.  By  using
appropriate weights,  data for all  four years  of the
surveys  can be combined.  USDA recommends that
all 4  years  be combined in order to  provide an
adequate sample size for children.

9.3.1    Key  Fruits and Vegetables Intake Study
9.3.1.1  U.S.  EPA Analysis of CSFII 1994-96, 1998
        based on  USDA  (2000) and U.S.   EPA
        (2000)
        For many years, the U.S. EPA's Office of
Pesticide   Programs    (OPP)  has   used    food
consumption  data collected by the U.S. Department
of  Agriculture   (USDA)  for  its   dietary  risk
assessments. Most recently, OPP, in cooperation with
USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), used
data from the  1994-96,  1998 CSFII to develop the
Food Commodity Intake  Database  (FCID)  (U.S.
EPA, 2000, USDA, 2000).  CSFII data on the foods
people  reported  eating  were  converted  to  the
quantities   of   agricultural   commodities   eaten.
"Agricultural commodity" is a term used by U.S. EPA
to mean plant (or animal) parts  consumed by humans
as food; when such  items  are raw or unprocessed,
they  are   referred  to  as   "raw  agricultural
commodities."    For example,  an apple  pie may
contain the commodities apples, flour, fat, sugar and
spices.  FCID contains  approximately 553  unique
commodity names and  8-digit codes.   The  FCID
commodity  names  and  codes were  selected and
defined by U.S. EPA and were based on the U.S. EPA
Food Commodity Vocabulary
(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeedA.
        The   fruit   and   vegetable  items/groups
selected for the  U.S. EPA analysis  included total
fruits and total vegetables, and individual fruits such
as:  apples, bananas, peaches,  pears, strawberries,
citrus fruits,  pome  fruit, stone  fruit, and tropical
fruits; and individual vegetables such as:  asparagus,
beets, broccoli, cabbage, carrots,  corn, cucumbers,
lettuce, okra, onions, peas, peppers, pumpkin, beans,
tomatoes, white potatoes,  bulb vegetables, fruiting
vegetables, leafy vegetables, legumes, and small stalk
stem vegetables.  Appendix 9A presents the food
codes and definitions used to determine the various
fruits and vegetables used in  the analysis.   Intake
rates for these food items/groups represent intake of
all forms of the  product (e.g.,  both home produced
and  commercially  produced).    Individuals  who
provided data for two   days  of  the  survey were
included in the intake estimates. Individuals who did
not provide information on body weight or for whom
identifying  information  was   unavailable  were
excluded from the analysis. Two-day average  intake
rates  were  calculated  for all individuals  in  the
database for each of the food  items/groups.   These
average  daily  intake rates were  divided by each
individual's reported body weight to generate  intake
rates in units of grams per kilogram of body weight
per  day  (g/kg-day).    The  data were   weighted
according  to the  four-year,  two-day sample weights
provided in the 1994-96, 1998 CSFII to  adjust the
data for the sample population to reflect the national
population.
        Summary statistics were generated on both a
per capita and a consumer only basis.  For per capita
intake, both users and non-users  of  the  food item
were included in the analysis.  Consumer only  intake
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                            9-5
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                         Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
rates  were  calculated  using  data for  only  those
individuals who ate the food item of interest during
the survey period. Intake data from the CSFII were
based on as-  consumed (i.e., cooked or prepared)
forms of the food items/groups.  Summary statistics,
including: number of observations, percentage  of the
population consuming the fruits  or vegetables being
analyzed, mean intake rate, and standard error of the
mean intake rate were calculated for total fruits, total
vegetables,  and  selected  individual   fruits  and
vegetables. Percentiles of the intake rate distribution
(i.e., 1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, 95th, 99th,
and the  maximum value) were also provided for total
fruits and total vegetables.  Data were provided for
the following  age groups:  birth to  1 year, 1 to  2
years, 3 to 5 years, 6 to 12 years,  13 to 19 years, 20 to
49 years, and >50 years.   Because these data were
developed for use in U.S. EPA's pesticide registration
program, the childhood age groups used are slightly
different than those  recommended  in U.S.  EPA's
Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring
and   Assessing    Childhood   Exposures    to
Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005).
        Table 9-3 presents as-consumed per  capita
intake data for total fruits and vegetables in g/kg-day;
as-consumed  consumer only  intake  data for total
fruits and vegetables in  g/kg-day  are  provided in
Table 9-4.  Table 9-5 provides per capita intake data
for individual fruits and  vegetables  and Table  9-6
provides consumer  only intake  data for individual
fruits and vegetables. Data for exposed/protected and
root food items are presented in Tables 9-7 through 9-
11. These five tables were created using only  CSFII
1994-96.
        The results are presented in units of g/kg-
day. Thus, use of these data in calculating potential
dose does not require the body  weight factor to be
included in the denominator of the average daily dose
(ADD) equation. It should be noted that converting
these intake rates into units of g/day by multiplying
by  a single average body weight is inappropriate,
because individual intake rates were  indexed  to the
reported body  weights of the survey  respondents.  It
should be noted  that the distribution of average daily
intake rates generated using short-term data (e.g., 2-
day)  do  not   necessarily  reflect  the  long-term
distribution  of  average daily intake rates.    The
distributions generated  from  short-term  and  long-
term  data will  differ  to the  extent  that each
individual's  intake  varies  from day to day;  the
distributions  will be  similar to the  extent  that
individuals'  intakes are constant from day to day.
Day-to-day variation in intake among individuals  will
be  high for fruits  and vegetables that are highly
seasonal and for fruits and vegetables that are eaten
year-round, but that are not typically eaten every day.
For these fruits and vegetables, the intake distribution
generated from short-term data will not be a good
reflection of the long-term distribution.  On the other
hand, for broad categories of foods (e.g., total fruits
and total vegetables) that are eaten on a daily basis
throughout the year, the  short-term distribution may
be a reasonable approximation  of the true long-term
distribution, although it  will show somewhat more
variability. In this chapter, distributions are provided
only for broad categories of fruits  and vegetables
(i.e., total fruits and total vegetables).   Because of
the   increased  variability   of   the   short-term
distribution, the short-term upper percentiles shown
here may  overestimate the corresponding percentiles
of the long-term distribution.  For individual foods,
only the mean, standard error, and percent consuming
are provided.
        The strengths of U.S. EPA's analysis are that
it provides distributions  of intake rates for various
age groups  of children  and adults, normalized  by
body  weight.   The analysis uses the  1994-96, 1998
CSFII  data   set   which  was  designed  to   be
representative  of the U.S. population.   The data  set
includes four years of intake data combined, and is
based  on a two-day  survey period.   As discussed
above, short-term  dietary data  may  not  accurately
reflect long-term  eating  patterns and  may  under-
represent  infrequent  consumers  of a  given  food.
This is particularly true for the tails (extremes) of the
distribution of food intake.  Also, the analysis was
conducted  using  slightly  different  childhood age
groups  than  those  recommended in  U.S. EPA's
Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring
and    Assessing    Childhood    Exposures    to
Environmental Contaminants  (U.S.   EPA,  2005).
However, given the similarities  in the age groups
used,  the data   should provide  suitable  intake
estimates for the age groups of interest.

9.3.2    Relevant   Fruit  and Vegetable Intake
        Studies
9.3.2.1  USDA (1980, 1992, 1996a, 1996b) - Food
        and Nutrient Intakes of Individuals in One
        Day in the U.S.
        USDA calculated mean intake rates for total
fruits and total vegetables using data from the  1977-
78  and  1987-88  Nationwide   Food  Consumption
Surveys (NFCS) (USDA,  1980;  USDA,  1992) and
CSFII data  from  1994  and 1995  (USDA,  1996a;
1996b).  The  mean per capita  total intake rates for
total fruits and total vegetables from  the 1977-78
NFCS are presented  in Table  9-12.  Table 9-13
presents similar data from the 1987-88 NFCS and the
1994   and  1995   CSFII.    Note   that  the  age
Page
9-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
classifications used in these surveys were  slightly
different than those used  in the 1977-78  NFCS.
Tables 9-12 and 9-13 include both per capita intake
rates and intake rates for consumers-only for various
ages of individuals. Intake rates for consumers-only
were   calculated  by   dividing   the  per   capita
consumption rate by the fraction of the population
using vegetables or fruits in a day.
        The advantages of using these data  are that
they provide intake estimates  for all fruits or all
vegetables,  combined.   Again, these estimates are
based on one-day dietary data which  may not reflect
usual consumption patterns.

9.3.2.2  USDA (1993) - Food Consumption, Prices,
        and Expenditures, 1970-92
        The USDA's Economic Research  Service
(ERS)  calculates  the amount of food  available for
human consumption in the United States on an annual
basis (USDA, 1993). Supply and utilization  balance
sheets are generated based on the flow of food items
from production to end uses for the years  1970 to
1992.  Total available supply is estimated as the sum
of production and imports (USDA,  1993).   The
availability of food for human use commonly termed
as "food disappearance"  is determined by subtracting
exported  foods  from  the  total  available  supply
(USDA, 1993).   USDA (1993) calculates  the per
capita food consumption by dividing the total food
disappearance by the total  U.S. population.  USDA
(1993)  estimated per capita consumption data for
various fruit and vegetable products from 1970-1992
(1992 data are published).  Retail weight per capita
data are presented in Table 9-14.  These data have
been derived from  the annual per capita  values in
units of pounds per year, presented by USDA (1993),
by converting to units of g/day.
        One of the limitations of this study is that
disappearance data do not account for losses from the
food supply from waste or spoilage.  As a result,
intake  rates based on these data may overestimate
daily consumption because they are based on the total
quantity of marketable  commodity utilized.   Thus,
these  data represent bounding estimates  of intake
rates only.  It should also  be  noted  that per capita
estimates  based on food disappearance  are not a
direct  measure  of actual consumption or quantity
ingested, instead the data are used as indicators of
changes in usage over time (USDA, 1993).  An
advantage of this study is that it provides per capita
consumption rates for fruits and vegetables  that are
representative   of  long-term   intake    because
disappearance data are generated annually.
9.3.2.3  USDA,  1999 - Food and Nutrient Intakes
        by Children 1994-96,1998, Table Set 17
        USDA (1999) calculated national probability
estimates  of food and nutrient  intake by  children
based on all 4 years of the CSFII  (1994-96 and 1998)
for children age 9  years and under, and on CSFII
1994-96 only for children age  10 years and  over.
Sample weights were used to adjust for non-response,
to match the sample to the U.S.  population in terms
of  demographic  characteristics,  and  to  equalize
intakes over the 4 quarters of the  year and the 7 days
of the week.  A total of 503 breast-fed children were
excluded from the estimates, but both consumers and
non-consumers were included in the analysis.
        USDA (1999) provided data on the mean per
capita   quantities   (grams)  of  various   food
products/groups consumed per individual for one day,
and the percent of individuals consuming those foods
in one day of the survey.  Tables 9-15 through 9-18
present data on the  mean quantities (grams) of fruits
and vegetables consumed per individual for one day,
and the percentage  of survey individuals consuming
fruits and vegetables on  that survey day.   Data on
mean intakes or mean  percentages are based on
respondents' day-1 intakes.
        The advantage of the USDA (1999) study is
that  it uses  the  1994-96, 98 CSFII data set, which
includes four years of intake  data, combined, and
includes the supplemental data on children.  These
data are expected to be generally representative of the
U.S. population  and they  include  data on  a  wide
variety of fruits and vegetables.  The data set is one
of a series  of USDA data sets that  are  publicly
available.  One limitation of this  data set is that it is
based on a one-day, and short-term dietary data may
not  accurately  reflect  long-term  eating patterns.
Other  limitations  of this  study  are that  it  only
provides   mean   values   of  food  intake  rates,
consumption is not  normalized by body  weight, and
presentation of results is not  consistent with U.S.
EPA's recommended age groups.

9.3.2.4  Smiciklas-Wright  et  al,  2002  - Foods
        Commonly Eaten  in  the United States:
        Quantities  Consumed per Eating Occasion
        and in a Day, 1994-1996
        Using data gathered in  the 1994-96 USDA
CSFII, Smiciklas-Wright et al.  (2002)   calculated
distributions   for  the  quantities  of  fruits   and
vegetables  consumed  per  eating  occasion  by
members of the U.S. population  (i.e., serving sizes).
The  estimates of serving size were based on  data
obtained from 14,262 respondents, ages  2 years and
above, who provided 2  days   of dietary intake
information.  Only dietary intake data from users of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                             9-7
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                        Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
the specified food were used in the analysis (i.e.,
consumers only data).
        Table 9-19 presents serving size  data for
selected fruits and vegetables and Table 9-20 presents
serving size  data by  age  group.   These  data are
presented on  an as-consumed  basis (grams)  and
represent  the  quantity  of fruits  and  vegetables
consumed per eating occasion. These estimates may
be  useful  for  assessing  acute  exposures  to
contaminants in specific foods, or other assessments
where  the amount consumed per eating occasion is
necessary.   Only the mean and standard deviation
serving size  data and  percent  of  the  population
consuming the food during the 2-day survey period
are presented  in this  handbook.   Percentiles  of
serving sizes of the foods consumed by these age
groups  of  the  U.S.  population  can be  found in
Smiciklas-Wright et al. (2002).
        The advantages of using these data are that
they were derived from the  USDA CSFII and are
representative of the U.S. population. The analysis
conducted  by   Smiciklas-Wright  et  al.  (2002)
accounted  for  individual   foods  consumed  as
ingredients of  mixed  foods.   Mixed foods  were
disaggregated via recipe files so that the individual
ingredients could be grouped together with similar
foods that were reported separately. Thus, weights of
foods consumed as  ingredients were combined with
weights of foods reported separately to provide  a
more   thorough  representation   of  consumption.
However, it should be  noted that since the recipes for
the mixed foods consumed were  not provided by the
respondents, standard recipes were used.  As a result,
the estimates of quantity consumed for some food
types are based on assumptions about the types and
quantities of ingredients consumed as part of mixed
foods.  This study used data from the 1994 to  1996
CSFII; data from the  1998  children's  supplement
were not included.

9.3.2.5  Vitolins et al  (2002)  - Quality of Diets
        Consumed by Older Rural Adults
        Vitolins et al. (2002) conducted a survey to
evaluate the dietary intake, by food groups, of older
(>70 years) rural adults.  The sample consisted of 130
community  dwelling  residents  from  two  rural
counties  in North Carolina.  Data on dietary intake
over the preceding year were obtained in face-to-face
interviews conducted in participants' homes, or in a
few cases,  a senior  center. The  food frequency
questionnaire used  in the survey was  a modified
version of the National Cancer Institute Health Habits
and History Questionnaire (HHHQ); this modified
version included an expanded food list containing a
greater number of ethnic foods than the original food
frequency form.   Demographic and  personal data
collected included gender, ethnicity, age, education,
denture use, marital  status, chronic disease,  and
weight.
        Food items reported in the survey  were
grouped into food groups similar to the USDA Food
Guide Pyramid and the National Cancer Institute's 5
A Day for Better Health program.  These groups are:
(1) fruits and vegetables; (2) bread, cereal, rice, and
pasta;  (3) milk, yogurt  and cheese;  (4) meat, fish,
poultry, beans and eggs; and (5) fats, oils, sweets, and
snacks. Medians, ranges, frequencies and percentages
were used to summarize intake of each  food group,
broken   down   by   demographic   and   health
characteristics.  To assess the univariate  associations
of these characteristics with consumption, Wilcoxon
rank-sum  tests were  used.   In  addition,  multiple
regression models were used to determine  which
demographic  and  health  factors   were  jointly
predictive of intake of each of the five food groups.
        Thirty-four   percent   of   the   survey
participants  were  African  American,  36%  were
European American, and 30% were Native American.
Sixty-two percent  were  female, 62% were not
married at the time of the  interview,  and 65% had
some  high  school education or  were high school
graduates. Almost  all  of the participants (95%) had
one or more chronic diseases.  Sixty percent of the
respondents  were between 70 and 79 years of age; the
median age  was 78 years old.  The median servings
of fruits and vegetables broken down by demographic
and health characteristic are presented in Table 9-21.
The only variable  predictive of fruit  and vegetable
intake  was  ethnicity  (p = 0.02),  with European
Americans consuming significantly more than either
African Americans  or  Native  Americans.    The
multiple  regression model  indicated  a  statistically
significant interaction between gender and ethnicity
(p = 0.04) and a significant main effect for chronic
disease  (p   =  0.04)  for  fruit  and vegetable
consumption.  Among males, European Americans
consumed significantly  more fruits and vegetables
than either African Americans or Native Americans.
Men and women did not differ significantly in their
fruit and vegetable consumption, except for African
Americans, where women had a significantly greater
intake (p = 0.01).
        One limitation of the study, as noted by the
study   authors,  is  that  the  study did  not  collect
information  on the length of time the participants had
been practicing the dietary behaviors reported in the
survey.  Also, the survey results are based on dietary
recall;  the  questionnaire  required  participants to
report the frequency of food consumption during the
past year.  The study authors noted  that,  currently,
Page
9-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
there  are no  dietary assessment  tools that allow
collecting comprehensive dietary data over years of
food consumption. Another limitation of the study is
that the small sample size used makes associations by
gender and ethnicity difficult.

9.3.2.6  Fox et al, 2004 -  Feeding  Infants  and
        Toddlers study: What Foods Are Infants
        and Toddlers Eating
        Fox et al. (2004) used data from the Feeding
Infants and  Toddlers study (FITS)  to assess food
consumption patterns in infants  and toddlers.  The
FITS  was sponsored by Gerber  Products  Company
and was  conducted  to obtain  current information on
food and nutrient intakes of  children, ages 4 to 24
months old,  in the 50  states and the District of
Columbia.    The FITS  is described  in  detail in
Devaney et al. (2004). FITS was based on a random
sample  of 3,022 infants and  toddlers for  which
dietary intake data were collected by telephone from
their parents  or caregivers between March and  July
2002. An initial recruitment and household interview
was conducted, followed by  an  interview  to  obtain
information on intake based on 24-hour recall.  The
interview also  addressed growth, development and
feeding patterns.  A second dietary recall  interview
was conducted for a subset of 703 randomly selected
respondents.  The study  over-sampled children in the
4 to 6 and 9 to 11 months age groups; sample weights
were adjusted for non-response,  over-sampling, and
under-coverage of some subgroups.  The  response
rate for the FITS was 73 percent for the recruitment
interview. Of the recruited households, there was a
response  rate  of  94 percent  for the dietary recall
interviews (Devaney et al., 2004). The characteristics
of the FITS study population is shown in Table 9-22.
        Fox et al. (2004) analyzed the first set of 24-
hour recall data collected from all study participants.
For this analysis, children were grouped into six age
categories: 4 to 6 months, 7 to  8 months, 9 to 11
months, 12 to 14 months, 15 to 18 months,  and 19 to
24 months.  Table  9-23 provides the percentage of
infants and  toddlers consuming different  types of
vegetables at least once in a day.  The percentages of
children  eating any type of vegetable  ranged from
39.9 percent for 4 to 6 month olds to 81.6 percent for
19 to 24 month olds. Table 9-24 provides the top five
vegetables consumed by age group.  Some  of the
highest percentages ranged from baby food carrots
(9.6 percent) in the 4 to  6 month old group to french
fries (25.5 percent) in the 19 to 24 month old group.
Table  9-25  provides the  percentage  of children
consuming different types of fruit  at least  once per
day.  The percentages of children eating any type of
fruit ranged from 41.9 percent to 4 to 6 month olds to
77.2 percent for 12 to 14 month olds.  Table 9-26
provides information on the top five fruits eaten by
infants  and toddlers  at least  once per day.   The
highest  percentages were for bananas among infants
9 to 24 months, and baby food applesauce among
infants 4 to 8 months old.
        The advantages of this study were that the
study population represented the U.S. population and
the sample  size was  large.   One  limitation of the
analysis done  by Fox et  al. (2004) was that only
frequency data were  provided; no information on
actual intake  rates  was  included.    In  addition,
Devaney  et  al. (2004)  noted several limitations
associated with  the  FITS  data.    For  the  FITS, a
commercial  list of infants and toddlers was used to
obtain the sample used in the study.  Since many of
the households could not be located and did not have
children in the target population,  a lower response
rate than  would have occurred  in a true  national
sample  was obtained (Devaney  et al., 2004).   In
addition,  the  sample  was  likely  from a higher
socioeconomic status  when compared with all U.S.
infants in this age group (4 to 24 months old) and the
use of a telephone survey may have omitted lower-
income  households  without telephones (Devaney et
al., 2004).

9.3.2.7  Ponza et al.,  2004 - Nutrient Food Intakes
        and Food Choices of Infants and Toddlers
        Participating in WIC
        Ponza et al. (2004) conducted a study using
selected  data  from the  FITS  to assess  feeding
patterns, food choices and nutrient intake of infants
and  toddlers   participating   in   the   Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC).  Ponza et al. (2004) evaluated
FITS data for the  following age groups: 4  to  6
months  (N = 862), 7 to 11 months (N = 1,159) and 12
to  24 months  (N=  996).   The  total  sample  size
described by WIC participants and non-participants is
shown in Table 9-27.
        The foods  consumed were analyzed  by
tabulating the  percentage of infants who consumed
specific  foods/food groups  per day (Ponza et al.,
2004). Weighted data were used in all of the analyses
used in  the  study (Ponza et al., 2004).  Table 9-27
presents the demographic data for WIC participants
and  non-participants.     Table   9-28  provides
information  on the food choices for the infants and
toddlers  studied.    There was little  difference in
vegetable  choices among WIC participants and non-
participants (Table  9-28). However, there were some
differences for fruits.
        An advantage of this  study is  that it had a
relatively large sample size and was representative of
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                             9-9
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                        Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
the U.S.  general population of infants and children.
A limitation of the study is  that intake values  for
foods were not provided.  Other limitations are those
associated  with   the  FITS  data,   as described
previously in Section 9.3.2.6.

9.3.2.8  Fox et aL, 2006 - Average Portion of Foods
        Commonly Eaten by Infants and Toddlers
        in the United States
        Fox et al. (2006) estimated average  portion
sizes consumed per eating occasion by children 4 to
24  months of age who participated in the  Feeding
Infant  and Toddlers Study (FITS).  The FITS is a
cross-sectional study designed to collect  and  analyze
data on  feeding  practices, food  consumption,  and
usual nutrient  intake of U.S. infants and toddlers and
is described in Section 9.3.2.6 of this  chapter.   It
included  a stratified random sample of 3,022 children
between 4 and 24  months of age.
        Using the 24-hour recall data,  Fox et  al.
(2006) derived average portion sizes for major food
groups, including fruits  and vegetables.  Average
portion sizes for select individual foods within these
major groups were also estimated. For this analysis,
children were  grouped into six age categories: 4 to 5
months, 6  to  8 months,  9  to 11  months, 12 to  14
months,  15 to 18  months, and 19 to  24  months.
Tables 9-29 and  9-30 present the average  portion
sizes  for  fruits  and  vegetables for infants  and
toddlers,  respectively.

9.3.2.9  Menella  et aL, 2006 - Feeding Infants and
        Toddlers  Study: The  Types of Foods Fed to
        Hispanic Infants and Toddlers
        Menella  et al. (2006) investigated the types
of food and beverages consumed by Hispanic infants
and toddlers  in  comparison to  the  non-Hispanic
infants and toddlers in the United States. The FITS
2002 data for  children between 4 and 24 months of
age were used for the study.  The data represent a
random sample  of 371  Hispanic and  2,367 non-
Hispanic infants and toddlers  (Menella et al., 2006).
Menella et al.  (2006) grouped the  infants as follows:
4 to 5 months (N  = 84 Hispanic; 538 non-Hispanic),
6 to 11 months (N =  163 Hispanic and  1,228 non-
Hispanic), and 12 to 24 months (N  = 124 Hispanic
and 871 non-Hispanic) of age.
        Table 9-31 provides the  percentages  of
Hispanic  and non-Hispanic  infants  and  toddlers
consuming fruits  and vegetables.  In most instances
the percentages  consuming  the  different types  of
fruits and vegetables were similar.  However, 4 to 5
month old  Hispanic infants were  more likely to  eat
fruits than non-Hispanic infants in  this  age  group.
Table 9-32 provides the top five fruits and vegetables
consumed and the percentage of children consuming
these foods at least once in a day.  Apples and
bananas  were the foods  with the  highest  percent
consuming for both the Hispanic and non-Hispanic
study  groups.    Potatoes and carrots  were the
vegetables with the highest percentage of infants and
toddlers consuming in both study groups.
        The advantage of the study is that it provides
information on food preferences for Hispanic and
non-Hispanic infants and toddlers.  A limitation  is
that the study did not provide food intake data, but
provided frequency  of  use  data  instead.   Other
limitations  are those noted  previously in  Section
9.3.2.6 for the FITS data.

9.4     CONVERSION  BETWEEN WET AND
        DRY WEIGHT  INTAKE RATES
        The intake data presented in this chapter are
reported  in units of wet weight (i.e.,  as-consumed
fruits and vegetables consumed per day or per eating
occasion).  However, data on the concentration of
contaminants  in fruits  and  vegetables  may  be
reported in units of either wet or dry weight.(e.g., mg
contaminant  per gram-dry-weight  of fruits  and
vegetables.)  It is essential that exposure assessors be
aware of this difference  so  that they may ensure
consistency between the  units used for intake rates
and  those  used  for concentration  data (i.e., if the
contaminant concentration is measured in dry weight
of fruits  and vegetables,   then the dry weight units
should be used for their intake values).
        If necessary, wet weight (e.g., as-consumed)
intake rates may be converted to dry weight intake
rates   using   the   moisture   content  percentages
presented in Table  9-33 (USDA,  2007)  and the
following equation:
                  \oo-w
                   100
                               (Eqn. 9-1)
where:
W
                =   dry weight intake rate;
                =   wet weight intake rate; and
                =   percent water content
Alternatively, dry weight residue levels in fruits and
vegetables may be converted to wet weight residue
levels for use with wet weight  (e.g., as-consumed)
intake rates as follows:
        100-K
          100
                                       (Eqn. 9-2)
where:
Page
9-10
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
        Cww     =   wet weight intake rate;
        Cdw     =   dry weight intake rate; and
        W      =   percent water content.

The  moisture data presented in Table 9-33 are  for
selected fruits  and vegetables  taken from USDA
(2007).

9.5     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9
Devaney, B.; Kalb, L.; Briefel, R.; Zavitsky-Novak,
        T.; Clusen, N.; Ziegler,  P. (2004) Feeding
        infants and toddlers study: overview of the
        study design.  J Am Diet Assoc 104(Suppl
        1): S8-S13.
Fox,  M.K.; Pac,  S.; Devaney, B.;  Jankowski, L.
        (2004) Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study:
        what foods are infants and toddlers eating. J
        Am Diet Assoc  104 (Suppl):S22-S30.
Fox, M.K.; Reidy, K.; Karwe, V; Ziegler, P. (2006)
        Average portions of foods commonly eaten
        by infants and toddlers in the United States.
        J Am Diet Assoc 106 (Suppl 1):S66-S76.
Mennella,  J.; Ziegler, P.;  Briefel,  R.; Novak, T.
        (2006) Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study:
        the types  of foods fed to Hispanic infants
        and toddlers. J Am Diet Assoc 106 (Suppl
        1): S96-S106.
Ponza,  M; Devaney,  B.;  Ziegler,  P.; Reidy,  K.;
        Squatrito, C. (2004)  Nutrient intakes and
        food  choices  of  infants   and  toddlers
        participating in WIC. J Am Diet Assoc 104
        (Suppl): S71-S79.
Smiciklas-Wright,  H.; Mitchell, D.C.; Mickle, S.J.;
        Cook,  A.J.;  Goldman,  J.D.  (2002)  Foods
        commonly  eaten  in  the  United  States:
        Quantities consumed per eating  occasion
        and in a day, 1994-1996.  U.S. Department
        of Agriculture NFS Report No. 96-5, pre-
        publication version, 252 pp.
USDA.   (1980)   Food  and nutrient intakes of
        individuals in one day in the United States,
        Spring    1977.       Nationwide    Food
        Consumption  Survey   1977-1978.   U.S.
        Department  of Agriculture.   Preliminary
        Report No. 2.
USDA.   (1992)  Food  and  nutrient intakes  by
        individuals  in the United  States, 1 day,
        1987-88:  U.S. Department of Agriculture,
        Human  Nutrition  Information   Service.
        Nationwide  Food  Consumption  Survey
        1987-88, NFCS Rpt. No. 87
USDA.   (1993)  Food  consumption prices and
        expenditures (1970-1992) U.S. Department
        of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
        Statistical Bulletin, No. 867.
USDA.  (1996a) Data tables: results from USDA's
        1994 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
        Individuals  and  1994  Diet and  Health
        Knowledge  Survey.  U.S.  Department of
        Agriculture,  Agricultural Research Service,
        Riverdale, MD.
USDA.  (1996b) Data tables: results from USDA's
        1995 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
        Individuals  and  1995  Diet and  Health
        Knowledge  Survey.  U.S.  Department of
        Agriculture,  Agricultural Research Service,
        Riverdale, MD.
USDA. (1999) Food and nutrient intakes by children
        1994-96,  1998:  Table Set  17.  Beltsville,
        MD:  Food  Surveys  Research  Group,
        Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center,
        Agricultural   Research   Service,   U.S.
        Department of Agriculture.
USDA.  (2000) 1994-96, 1998 Continuing Survey of
        Food  Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). CD-
        ROM.     Agricultural  Research  Service,
        Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center,
        Beltsville, MD.  Available from the National
        Technical  Information Service, Springfield,
        VA; PB-2000-500027.
USDA (2007)  USDA National Nutrient Database for
        Standard     Reference,     Release     20.
        Agricultural Research Service Nutrient Data
        Laboratory                        Home
        Page, http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl
U.S. EPA.  (2000)  Food commodity intake database
        [FCID raw data file].  Office of Pesticide
        Programs, Washington,  DC. Available from
        the National Technical Information Service,
        Springfield, VA; PB2000-5000101.
U.S.  EPA.   (2005)  Guidance on Selecting Age
        Groups  for  Monitoring   and   Assessing
        Childhood  Exposures  to  Environmental
        Contaminants.      U.S.   Environmental
        Protection  Agency,   Washington,  D.C.,
        EPA/630/P-03/003F.
Vitolins, M.; Quandt,  S.; Bell, R.; Arcury, T.; Case,
        L.D.  (2002) Quality of Diets Consumed by
        Older Rural Adults. The  Journal of Rural
        Health 18 (l):49-56.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           9-11
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-3. Per Capita Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (gfkg-day as consumed)
Domain
N
Percent
Consuming
Mean
SE
Percentiles
1st
5th
10th
25*
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
Max
Fruits
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to I year
I to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
>50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
20,607

1,486
2,096
4,391
2,089
1,222
4,677
4,646

4,687
5,308
5,890
4,722

557
177
2,740
1,638
15,495

4,822
3,692
7,208
4,885

6,164
9,598
4,845
80.0

56.4
89.5
90.0
88.3
73.2
75.3
85.8

79.6
80.2
78.3
81.7

78.8
77.8
71.3
78.5
81.5

82.3
83.4
74.7
82.7

79.0
82.5
75.9
1.6

5.7
6.2
4.6
2.4
0.8
0.9
1.4

1.5
1.6
1.5
1.7

2.1
1.9
1.2
2.2
1.6

1.6
1.7
1.3
2.0

1.6
1.7
1.3
0.0

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.0

0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5

1.5
4.7
3.2
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.9

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7

1.1
0.9
0.1
0.9
0.6

0.6
0.8
0.2
0.9

0.5
0.7
0.3
2.0

9.6
9.4
7.0
3.3
1.1
1.3
2.1

2.0
1.9
1.9
2.1

3.2
1.9
1.2
2.9
2.0

2.0
2.2
1.5
2.6

2.0
2.1
1.6
4.2

17.1
14.6
11.4
6.4
2.4
2.7
3.6

4.2
4.2
4.0
4.4

6.0
5.3
3.6
6.1
4.1

4.1
4.2
3.5
5.2

4.4
4.5
3.6
6.5

21.3
18.5
14.4
8.8
3.5
3.9
4.8

6.4
6.7
6.2
6.6

7.4
9.6
5.6
10.0
6.3

6.2
6.3
5.7
8.0

6.3
6.9
5.4
14.0

32.2
26.4
22.3
14.3
6.9
6.2
7.6

13.3
14.7
12.8
14.3

14.7
16.4
13.3
18.5
13.4

13.1
14.1
13.0
15.3

14.1
14.5
12.8
73.8

73.8
44.0
45.5
25.0
12.8
16.7
18.4

43.8
73.8
53.2
37.5

43.5
20.9
40.0
45.5
73.8

43.5
40.0
73.8
45.5

45.5
43.8
73.8
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
 s
a
3
ft
1=
I
Table 9-3. Per Capita Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)

Domain


Percent
Consuming

Mean
CT7
sE
Percentiles
1st
5th
10th
25*
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
Max
Vegetables
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
>50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on unpublished U
20,607

1,486
2,096
4,391
2,089
1,222
4,677
4,646

4,687
5,308
5,890
4,722

557
177
2,740
1,638
15,495

4,822
3,692
7,208
4,885

6,164
9,598
4,845


99.5

72.1
99.7
100.0
99.9
100.0
99.9
99.9

99.6
99.5
99.5
99.5

99.0
99.7
99.5
98.8
99.6

99.6
99.7
99.5
99.3

99.5
99.5
99.6


S. EPA analysis of 1994-96,
3.4

4.5
6.9
5.9
4.1
2.9
2.9
3.1

3.3
3.4
3.6
3.2

4.4
3.9
3.0
4.1
3.3

3.4
3.3
3.2
3.6

3.3
3.4
3.3


1998 CSFII.
0.0

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.0
0.1



0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0



0.4

0.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5

0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5

0.8
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5

0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5

0.4
0.5
0.5



0.8

0.0
1.5
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.9

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9

1.3
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.8

0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9

0.7
0.9
0.8



1.6

0.0
3.2
2.8
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.6

1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6

2.3
1.6
1.2
1.7
1.6

1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7

1.5
1.6
1.6



2.7

2.7
5.6
4.7
3.2
2.4
2.5
2.6

2.7
2.6
2.9
2.6

3.9
2.8
2.1
3.0
2.7

2.7
2.6
2.6
2.9

2.7
2.7
2.6



4.3

7.4
9.3
7.7
5.3
3.8
3.8
4.0

4.3
4.2
4.6
4.2

5.6
5.2
3.9
5.1
4.3

4.3
4.3
4.1
4.6

4.3
4.3
4.2



6.4

12.2
13.9
11.7
7.8
5.5
5.4
5.7

6.2
6.6
7.2
5.8

8.2
8.1
6.2
8.2
6.2

6.5
6.2
6.2
7.0

6.4
6.5
6.4



8.3

14.8
17.1
14.7
9.9
6.9
6.8
7.0

7.6
8.8
9.5
7.5

10.2
9.8
8.4
11.6
8.0

8.6
8.2
7.9
8.8

8.5
8.3
8.1



14.8

25.3
26.5
23.4
17.4
11.4
10.0
10.6

13.0
16.0
15.8
12.8

15.9
18.4
16.1
21.1
13.5

14.1
14.4
14.2
15.5

15.3
14.0
14.9



58.2

56.8
58.2
50.9
53.7
29.5
42.7
38.7

58.2
53.7
50.9
56.8

32.3
34.5
56.8
58.2
50.9

53.7
42.7
58.2
50.9

58.2
53.7
49.4




 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
ft
-------
    1
    s
liable 9-4. Consumer Only Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Domain
N
Mean
SE
Percentiles
1st
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
Max
Fruits
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
>50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
16,762

830
1,878
3,957
1,846
898
3,458
3,895

3,796
4,289
4,744
3,933

427
146
2,065
1,323
12,801

4,023
3,145
5,531
4,063

4,985
8,046
3,731
2.0

10.1
6.9
5.1
2.7
1.1
1.2
1.6

1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0

2.7
2.4
1.7
2.9
1.9

1.9
2.0
1.7
2.4

2.0
2.1
1.7
0.0

0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1

3.7
2.2
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.3

0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2

0.5
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.2

0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3

0.1
0.2
0.1
1.0

8.5
5.4
3.8
1.7
0.5
0.7
1.1

0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1

1.7
1.1
0.6
1.5
1.0

1.0
1.1
0.7
1.3

1.0
1.1
0.8
2.5

14.4
10.1
7.5
3.7
1.5
1.7
2.3

2.4
2.4
2.4
2.6

3.8
2.9
2.0
3.6
2.4

2.3
2.6
2.1
3.0

2.7
2.5
2.1
4.9

20.4
15.3
11.9
6.7
2.9
3.2
3.8

4.9
4.9
4.7
4.9

6.6
5.8
4.6
7.7
4.7

4.7
4.6
4.5
5.8

4.9
5.1
4.1
7.3

26.4
19.0
15.0
9.3
3.7
4.4
5.0

7.1
7.5
7.1
7.6

7.8
10.0
6.7
11.2
7.0

6.7
6.9
6.9
8.9

7.1
7.7
6.3
15.0

34.7
27.1
22.8
14.8
7.6
6.6
8.0

14.4
16.1
14.5
15.3

14.7
17.6
15.7
19.3
14.5

14.4
14.8
14.4
16.4

14.8
15.6
13.9
73.8

73.8
44.0
45.5
25.0
12.8
16.7
18.4

43.8
73.8
53.2
37.5

43.5
20.9
40.0
45.5
73.8

43.5
40.0
73.8
45.5

45.5
43.8
73.8
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
        I
    a
    3
    ft
    1=
    I
Table 9-4. Consumer Only Intake of Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)

Domain



Mean
CT7
sE
Percentiles
1st
5*
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
Max
Vegetables
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
>50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on unpublished U.S.
20,163

1,062
2,090
4,389
2,087
1,222
4,673
4,640

4,606
5,185
5,740
4,632

530
174
2,683
1,577
15,199

4,721
3,634
7,078
4,730

6,029
9,381
4,753


3.4

6.2
6.9
5.9
4.1
2.9
2.9
3.1

3.3
3.4
3.6
3.2

4.4
3.9
3.1
4.2
3.3

3.4
3.3
3.3
3.6

3.4
3.4
3.3


EPA analysis of 1994- 96,
0.0

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.0
0.1


1998CSFII.
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1

0.0
0.1
0.0



0.5

0.1
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6

1.0
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.5

0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5

0.4
0.5
0.5



0.8

0.1
1.5
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.9

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9

1.4
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.9

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9

0.8
0.9
0.9



1.6

2.0
3.2
2.8
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.6

1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6

2.4
1.7
1.2
1.8
1.6

1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7

1.5
1.7
1.6



2.7

4.9
5.6
4.7
3.2
2.4
2.5
2.6

2.8
2.6
2.9
2.7

3.9
2.9
2.1
3.0
2.7

2.7
2.6
2.6
2.9

2.7
2.8
2.7



4.3

9.4
9.3
7.7
5.3
3.8
3.8
4.0

4.3
4.2
4.6
4.2

5.6
5.2
3.9
5.2
4.3

4.3
4.3
4.1
4.6

4.3
4.4
4.2



6.4

13.4
13.9
11.7
7.8
5.5
5.4
5.7

6.2
6.7
7.2
5.9

8.2
8.1
6.2
8.3
6.2

6.5
6.2
6.2
7.1

6.4
6.5
6.4



8.4

16.1
17.1
14.7
9.9
6.9
6.8
7.0

7.7
8.8
9.5
7.5

10.2
9.8
8.4
11.7
8.0

8.6
8.2
7.9
8.9

8.6
8.4
8.1



14.8

26.4
26.5
23.4
17.4
11.4
10.0
10.6

13.0
16.0
15.8
12.8

15.9
18.4
16.1
21.3
13.6

14.2
14.4
14.2
15.6

15.4
14.0
14.9



58.2

56.8
58.2
50.9
53.7
29.5
42.7
38.7

58.2
53.7
50.9
56.8

32.3
34.5
56.8
58.2
50.9

53.7
42.7
58.2
50.9

58.2
53.7
49.4




 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                                                                                                                    §•
<•»!  ft
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Domain N

Whole Population 20,607
Age Group
Birth to 1 year 1,486
1 to 2 years 2,096
3 to 5 years 4,391
6 to 12 years 2,089
13 to 19 years 1,222
20 to 49 years 4,677
>50 years 4,646
Season
Fall 4,687
Spring 5,308
Summer 5,890
Winter 4,722
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander 557
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177
Black 2,740
Other/NA 1,638
White 15,495
Region
Midwest 4,822
Northeast 3,692
South 7,208
West 4,885
Urbanization
City Center 6,164
Suburban 9,598
Nonmetropolitan 4,845
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Apples
30.5 0.45 0.01

34.6 2.32 0.13
44.8 1.79 0.09
44.6 1.64 0.05
38.2 0.83 0.05
22.5 0.20 0.02
25.7 0.21 0.01
34.5 0.32 0.02

35.0 0.55 0.03
29.6 0.45 0.02
25.5 0.34 0.02
32.2 0.46 0.02

33.5 0.53 0.06
31.0 0.60 0.12
22.0 0.36 0.02
27.7 0.55 0.05
32.0 0.45 0.01

34.5 0.47 0.02
32.7 0.48 0.03
25.3 0.36 0.01
32.7 0.55 0.02

28.9 0.42 0.02
33.2 0.49 0.02
27.0 0.39 0.02
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Asparagus
1.4 0.01 0.00

0.2 0.01 0.00
0.8 0.02 0.01
0.5 0.01 0.00
0.7 0.01 0.00
0.6 0.00 0.00
1.3 0.01 0.00
2.5 0.02 0.00

1.2 0.01 0.00
1.9 0.02 0.00
0.9 0.01 0.00
1.6 0.02 0.00

1.0 0.01 0.00
2.5 0.02 0.01
0.4 0.00 0.00
0.2 0.00 0.00
1.7 0.01 0.00

1.5 0.01 0.00
1.3 0.01 0.00
1.1 0.01 0.00
1.9 0.01 0.00

1.7 0.01 0.00
1.1 0.01 0.00
1.5 0.01 0.00
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Bananas
48.1 0.35 0.01

40.7 1.24 0.06
62.8 1.77 0.09
60.7 0.93 0.04
57.7 0.38 0.03
42.1 0.13 0.02
41.7 0.21 0.01
54.1 0.35 0.01

45.6 0.36 0.02
49.8 0.35 0.02
49.6 0.33 0.02
47.3 0.38 0.01

45.4 0.43 0.04
44.1 0.39 0.05
45.4 0.43 0.04
44.1 0.26 0.02
47.5 0.58 0.07

51.1 0.35 0.02
52.9 0.36 0.01
42.4 0.30 0.02
49.6 0.44 0.03

48.4 0.36 0.02
50.5 0.38 0.01
42.3 0.28 0.03
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Beans
44.9 0.27 0.01

21.6 0.43 0.04
46.8 0.76 0.04
43.0 0.52 0.02
38.8 0.32 0.02
36.0 0.18 0.02
45.5 0.22 0.01
51.4 0.26 0.01

47.3 0.29 0.01
43.3 0.25 0.01
43.6 0.28 0.01
45.5 0.26 0.01

52.0 0.25 0.02
37.8 0.26 0.06
45.2 0.32 0.02
60.6 0.43 0.03
43.6 0.25 0.01

43.6 0.26 0.01
36.7 0.21 0.01
48.8 0.33 0.01
47.5 0.25 0.02

46.2 0.29 0.01
42.4 0.25 0.01
48.7 0.30 0.02
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
    1
    s
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                      Q
    a
    3
    ft
    1=
    I
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain N

Whole Population 20,607
Age Group
Birth to 1 year 1,486
1 to 2 years 2,096
3 to 5 years 4,391
6 to 12 years 2,089
13 to 19 years 1,222
20 to 49 years 4,677
>50 years 4,646
Season
Fall 4,687
Spring 5,308
Summer 5,890
Winter 4,722
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander 557
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177
Black 2,740
Other/NA 1,638
White 15,495
Region
Midwest 4,822
Northeast 3,692
South 7,208
West 4,885
Urbanization
City Center 6,164
Suburban 9,598
Nonmetropolitan 4,845
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Beets
2.2 0.01 0.00

0.4 0.01 0.01
0.7 0.01 0.00
0.8 0.01 0.00
0.8 0.01 0.00
0.7 0.00 0.00
1.9 0.00 0.00
4.6 0.02 0.00

2.0 0.01 0.00
2.3 0.01 0.00
2.3 0.01 0.00
2.3 0.01 0.00

2.7 0.00 0.00
0.3 0.00 0.00
0.9 0.00 0.00
1.3 0.01 0.00
2.5 0.01 0.00

2.3 0.01 0.00
2.4 0.01 0.00
1.7 0.01 0.00
2.8 0.01 0.00

2.3 0.01 0.00
2.2 0.01 0.00
2.4 0.01 0.00
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Berries and Small Fruit
58.7 0.23 0.01

16.5 0.13 0.02
66.2 0.91 0.05
72.7 0.72 0.03
73.4 0.40 0.03
55.4 0.15 0.02
53.1 0.14 0.01
63.0 0.19 0.01

57.4 0.18 0.01
60.6 0.27 0.02
60.4 0.29 0.02
56.6 0.20 0.01

41.7 0.28 0.06
49.6 0.13 0.02
50.6 0.14 0.01
47.5 0.21 0.03
61.6 0.25 0.01

63.1 0.25 0.02
63.2 0.24 0.02
53.3 0.19 0.01
58.7 0.28 0.03

57.3 0.22 0.01
62.0 0.27 0.02
53.6 0.17 0.02
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Broccoli
13.9 0.11 0.01

3.5 0.07 0.02
12.0 0.25 0.03
10.7 0.18 0.01
11.0 0.14 0.02
8.3 0.06 0.01
14.7 0.10 0.01
17.3 0.11 0.01

14.6 0.12 0.01
13.5 0.11 0.02
13.7 0.11 0.01
13.7 0.10 0.01

25.7 0.23 0.06
9.1 0.11 0.07
13.2 0.14 0.02
8.2 0.09 0.02
14.0 0.10 0.01

13.0 0.09 0.01
15.3 0.13 0.01
13.1 0.11 0.01
14.6 0.12 0.02

15.1 0.13 0.01
14.9 0.12 0.01
9.7 0.06 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Bulb Vegetables
95.3 0.20 0.00

33.4 0.07 0.01
93.3 0.30 0.01
95.8 0.27 0.01
97.3 0.21 0.01
97.7 0.19 0.01
97.4 0.21 0.01
93.4 0.17 0.00

95.8 0.21 0.01
95.4 0.20 0.01
94.3 0.19 0.01
95.5 0.21 0.01

95.0 0.38 0.03
99.3 0.25 0.04
92.9 0.16 0.01
95.0 0.31 0.02
95.6 0.19 0.00

96.2 0.19 0.01
94.5 0.19 0.01
94.4 0.18 0.01
96.3 0.25 0.01

95.0 0.21 0.01
95.7 0.20 0.01
94.7 0.19 0.01

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                      1
X)  ft
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain N

Whole Population 20,607
Age Group
Birth to I year 1,486
1 to 2 years 2,096
3 to 5 years 4,391
6 to 12 years 2,089
13 to 19 years 1,222
20 to 49 years 4,677
>50 years 4,646
Season
Fall 4,687
Spring 5,308
Summer 5,890
Winter 4,722
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander 557
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177
Black 2,740
Other/NA 1,638
White 15,495
Region
Midwest 4,822
Northeast 3,692
South 7,208
West 4,885
Urbanization
City Center 6,164
Suburban 9,598
Nonmetropolitan 4,845
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Cabbage
15.5 0.08 0.01

1.0 0.01 0.00
8.0 0.06 0.01
8.9 0.07 0.01
9.5 0.06 0.01
9.0 0.04 0.01
16.0 0.07 0.01
22.8 0.12 0.01

16.2 0.07 0.01
15.1 0.08 0.01
14.5 0.08 0.01
16.3 0.08 0.01

33.9 0.24 0.04
15.8 0.05 0.04
15.9 0.14 0.03
9.5 0.02 0.01
15.2 0.07 0.00

15.5 0.08 0.01
13.4 0.08 0.01
16.8 0.09 0.01
15.5 0.06 0.01

16.4 0.09 0.01
16.0 0.07 0.00
13.4 0.06 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Carrots
49.8 0.17 0.00

12.3 0.17 0.03
46.8 0.41 0.02
46.2 0.34 0.02
44.4 0.22 0.01
40.3 0.11 0.01
50.2 0.14 0.01
58.1 0.17 0.01

53.9 0.19 0.01
46.5 0.17 0.01
44.3 0.14 0.01
54.5 0.18 0.01

59.4 0.28 0.04
47.3 0.12 0.02
36.6 0.10 0.01
46.2 0.21 0.02
51.9 0.18 0.01

50.9 0.17 0.01
53.8 0.18 0.01
44.9 0.14 0.01
52.8 0.21 0.01

48.8 0.16 0.01
52.3 0.19 0.01
45.7 0.15 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Citrus Fruits
19.3 0.19 0.01

2.5 0.07 0.02
15.5 0.47 0.05
18.2 0.50 0.03
16.0 0.26 0.02
12.3 0.11 0.02
18.1 0.12 0.01
27.1 0.23 0.01

16.6 0.16 0.01
20.3 0.20 0.01
15.8 0.08 0.01
24.6 0.33 0.02

23.4 0.35 0.07
20.4 0.33 0.13
13.0 0.15 0.02
22.4 0.37 0.06
20.0 0.18 0.01

18.9 0.16 0.01
22.4 0.21 0.02
15.1 0.14 0.01
23.7 0.28 0.02

19.8 0.20 0.01
20.0 0.19 0.01
17.0 0.17 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Corn
94.6 0.44 0.01

46.0 0.48 0.03
96.5 1.13 0.05
98.7 1.24 0.03
98.9 0.87 0.03
95.7 0.43 0.02
94.7 0.32 0.01
94.2 0.26 0.01

94.2 0.42 0.01
94.5 0.44 0.02
95.1 0.50 0.02
94.8 0.41 0.02

85.6 0.32 0.04
93.6 0.51 0.06
93.7 0.49 0.02
92.6 0.70 0.05
95.3 0.42 0.01

96.6 0.46 0.02
93.3 0.40 0.01
94.4 0.44 0.01
94.1 0.47 0.02

93.8 0.44 0.01
94.8 0.45 0.01
95.5 0.43 0.02
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
    1
    s
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
a
3
ft
1=
I
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain N

Whole Population 20,607
Age Group
Birth to 1 year 1,486
1 to 2 years 2,096
3 to 5 years 4,391
6 to 12 years 2,089
13 to 19 years 1,222
20 to 49 years 4,677
>50 years 4,646
Season
Fall 4,687
Spring 5,308
Summer 5,890
Winter 4,722
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander 557
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177
Black 2,740
Other/NA 1,638
White 15,495
Region
Midwest 4,822
Northeast 3,692
South 7,208
West 4,885
Urbanization
City Center 6,164
Suburban 9,598
Nonmetropolitan 4,845
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Cucumbers
40.1 0.10 0.01

1.7 0.00 0.00
20.5 0.11 0.01
29.3 0.16 0.02
32.6 0.14 0.02
41.3 0.11 0.03
44.8 0.09 0.01
41.0 0.08 0.01

36.7 0.08 0.01
43.3 0.10 0.01
43.2 0.14 0.02
37.2 0.07 0.01

34.9 0.24 0.16
41.0 0.09 0.03
39.1 0.06 0.01
33.4 0.10 0.01
40.9 0.10 0.01

42.1 0.10 0.01
39.4 0.10 0.01
39.7 0.09 0.01
39.3 0.11 0.03

39.7 0.09 0.00
40.6 0.11 0.01
39.7 0.10 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Cucurbits
48.9 0.40 0.02

14.0 0.45 0.04
31.3 0.72 0.06
38.7 0.83 0.07
39.9 0.54 0.06
46.7 0.32 0.08
52.8 0.29 0.01
52.8 0.43 0.03

45.4 0.21 0.01
51.8 0.48 0.04
55.6 0.73 0.06
43.0 0.16 0.01

46.9 0.90 0.39
51.3 0.53 0.13
43.4 0.27 0.04
46.1 0.53 0.09
50.1 0.39 0.02

49.6 0.37 0.03
50.7 0.43 0.05
46.7 0.33 0.03
50.1 0.50 0.06

48.3 0.34 0.02
49.9 0.44 0.04
47.8 0.37 0.03
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Fruiting Vegetables
93.8 0.82 0.01

25.5 0.32 0.04
92.1 1.56 0.06
95.4 1.46 0.03
95.9 1.05 0.03
96.1 0.79 0.03
96.0 0.75 0.02
92.0 0.66 0.02

92.6 0.81 0.03
94.3 0.77 0.02
94.5 0.88 0.02
93.7 0.80 0.02

88.4 0.86 0.06
98.2 0.91 0.08
91.9 0.69 0.04
93.6 1.25 0.05
94.3 0.80 0.01

94.8 0.81 0.02
92.3 0.82 0.02
93.3 0.76 0.03
94.9 0.91 0.03

93.9 0.84 0.03
93.5 0.81 0.01
94.3 0.80 0.04
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Leafy Vegetables
90.1 0.59 0.01

44.2 0.29 0.05
82.1 0.71 0.04
86.9 0.67 0.02
89.5 0.55 0.03
90.3 0.43 0.02
92.2 0.58 0.02
90.7 0.66 0.02

89.7 0.59 0.02
90.9 0.60 0.02
90.1 0.56 0.02
89.6 0.59 0.02

92.8 1.13 0.12
89.3 0.52 0.17
89.5 0.65 0.04
85.3 0.50 0.03
90.4 0.56 0.01

92.1 0.55 0.03
87.4 0.62 0.03
90.1 0.55 0.02
90.3 0.64 0.03

89.2 0.64 0.02
90.5 0.60 0.02
90.5 0.46 0.03

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
ft
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain N

Whole Population 20,607
Age Group
Birth to I year 1,486
1 to 2 years 2,096
3 to 5 years 4,391
6 to 12 years 2,089
13 to 19 years 1,222
20 to 49 years 4,677
>50 years 4,646
Season
Fall 4,687
Spring 5,308
Summer 5,890
Winter 4,722
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander 557
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177
Black 2,740
Other/NA 1,638
White 15,495
Region
Midwest 4,822
Northeast 3,692
South 7,208
West 4,885
Urbanization
City Center 6,164
Suburban 9,598
Nonmetropolitan 4,845
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Legumes
95.5 0.43 0.01

51.7 1.21 0.06
96.9 1.30 0.08
98.3 0.85 0.06
98.1 0.48 0.03
94.9 0.27 0.02
95.7 0.34 0.01
96.2 0.40 0.01

96.0 0.44 0.02
95.3 0.40 0.02
95.2 0.43 0.02
95.5 0.44 0.02

96.1 0.76 0.09
97.5 0.42 0.07
95.6 0.50 0.04
93.5 0.55 0.04
95.6 0.40 0.01

96.9 0.40 0.02
93.4 0.38 0.02
96.1 0.47 0.02
95.0 0.44 0.02

95.1 0.47 0.02
95.4 0.41 0.01
96.2 0.41 0.02
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Lettuce
52.2 0.24 0.01

1.1 0.00 0.00
23.3 0.14 0.01
33.4 0.21 0.01
41.7 0.22 0.01
55.2 0.22 0.02
60.1 0.27 0.01
51.4 0.23 0.01

50.6 0.23 0.01
54.5 0.25 0.01
51.7 0.23 0.01
52.1 0.24 0.01

48.1 0.28 0.05
61.3 0.21 0.04
42.7 0.15 0.01
52.1 0.25 0.02
53.8 0.25 0.01

53.3 0.25 0.02
49.3 0.24 0.01
50.7 0.21 0.01
56.0 0.27 0.01

51.3 0.24 0.01
53.0 0.26 0.01
51.6 0.20 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Okra
1.4 0.01 0.00

0.2 0.00 0.00
1.3 0.01 0.00
0.8 0.01 0.00
1.3 0.01 0.00
0.8 0.00 0.00
1.3 0.01 0.00
2.1 0.01 0.00

1.7 0.01 0.00
1.1 0.01 0.00
1.7 0.01 0.00
1.0 0.01 0.00

4.8 0.01 0.01
0.6 0.00 0.00
2.4 0.01 0.00
0.6 0.00 0.00
1.2 0.01 0.00

0.4 0.00 0.00
0.8 0.00 0.00
2.6 0.01 0.00
1.2 0.00 0.00

1.8 0.01 0.00
1.0 0.01 0.00
1.7 0.01 0.00
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Onions
94.9 0.19 0.00

32.8 0.07 0.01
93.0 0.29 0.01
95.6 0.26 0.01
96.8 0.20 0.01
97.3 0.18 0.01
97.1 0.20 0.01
93.2 0.16 0.00

95.5 0.20 0.01
95.0 0.19 0.01
94.0 0.18 0.00
95.3 0.20 0.01

94.9 0.37 0.03
99.3 0.25 0.04
92.6 0.16 0.01
95.0 0.30 0.02
95.3 0.18 0.00

96.0 0.18 0.01
94.0 0.18 0.01
94.1 0.18 0.01
96.1 0.24 0.01

94.8 0.20 0.01
95.3 0.19 0.01
94.3 0.19 0.01
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
    1
    s
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
a
3
ft
1=
I
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain N

Whole Population 20,607
Age Group
Birth to 1 year 1,486
1 to 2 years 2,096
3 to 5 years 4,391
6 to 12 years 2,089
13 to 19 years 1,222
20 to 49 years 4,677
>50 years 4,646
Season
Fall 4,687
Spring 5,308
Summer 5,890
Winter 4,722
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander 557
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177
Black 2,740
Other/NA 1,638
White 15,495
Region
Midwest 4,822
Northeast 3,692
South 7,208
West 4,885
Urbanization
City Center 6,164
Suburban 9,598
Nonmetropolitan 4,845
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Peaches
40.8 0.11 0.00

24.4 0.85 0.08
50.7 0.47 0.04
55.4 0.26 0.02
54.7 0.14 0.02
39.1 0.06 0.01
34.5 0.05 0.00
44.1 0.10 0.01

35.9 0.07 0.01
42.9 0.10 0.01
46.6 0.17 0.01
37.9 0.09 0.01

32.2 0.07 0.02
38.0 0.20 0.06
39.4 0.10 0.01
35.2 0.13 0.02
41.8 0.11 0.01

45.3 0.11 0.01
44.0 0.10 0.01
35.8 0.11 0.01
41.1 0.11 0.01

39.9 0.11 0.01
43.1 0.11 0.01
37.1 0.10 0.00
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Pears
8.2 0.09 0.00

15.9 0.73 0.07
17.2 0.40 0.04
16.6 0.26 0.03
17.5 0.14 0.01
5.9 0.03 0.01
4.4 0.04 0.00
9.0 0.07 0.01

9.6 0.11 0.01
7.7 0.07 0.00
6.8 0.07 0.01
8.7 0.10 0.01

9.2 0.13 0.03
11.2 0.15 0.06
5.6 0.06 0.01
8.3 0.11 0.02
8.6 0.09 0.00

9.1 0.09 0.01
9.4 0.10 0.01
6.5 0.07 0.01
8.9 0.10 0.01

8.1 0.09 0.01
8.8 0.10 0.01
7.2 0.06 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Peas
22.3 0.11 0.01

29.5 0.47 0.04
28.3 0.34 0.03
20.5 0.21 0.02
17.2 0.12 0.01
14.0 0.07 0.01
21.3 0.08 0.01
28.4 0.10 0.01

24.1 0.10 0.01
20.2 0.10 0.01
19.8 0.10 0.01
24.9 0.13 0.01

41.0 0.15 0.02
22.5 0.13 0.03
20.9 0.13 0.02
19.8 0.07 0.01
21.9 0.10 0.01

22.1 0.10 0.01
24.7 0.13 0.02
19.9 0.10 0.01
24.0 0.10 0.01

24.0 0.12 0.01
22.3 0.11 0.01
19.6 0.09 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Peppers
83.0 0.06 0.00

15.6 0.01 0.00
77.5 0.05 0.01
84.6 0.05 0.00
85.1 0.05 0.00
84.8 0.04 0.00
86.9 0.08 0.01
78.9 0.06 0.01

81.3 0.07 0.01
84.8 0.06 0.00
83.1 0.06 0.00
83.0 0.06 0.00

70.9 0.08 0.01
89.3 0.08 0.02
82.8 0.04 0.01
81.7 0.12 0.01
83.6 0.06 0.00

85.6 0.06 0.01
79.0 0.07 0.01
82.1 0.05 0.00
85.4 0.08 0.01

83.4 0.07 0.01
82.2 0.06 0.00
84.4 0.06 0.01

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
-------
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain N

Whole Population 20,607
Age Group
Birth to I year 1,486
1 to 2 years 2,096
3 to 5 years 4,391
6 to 12 years 2,089
13 to 19 years 1,222
20 to 49 years 4,677
>50 years 4,646
Season
Fall 4,687
Spring 5,308
Summer 5,890
Winter 4,722
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander 557
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177
Black 2,740
Other/NA 1,638
White 15,495
Region
Midwest 4,822
Northeast 3,692
South 7,208
West 4,885
Urbanization
City Center 6,164
Suburban 9,598
Nonmetropolitan 4,845
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Pome Fruit
34.7 0.54 0.01

40.0 3.04 0.17
52.0 2.19 0.10
51.7 1.90 0.06
47.9 0.97 0.06
26.5 0.23 0.02
27.9 0.25 0.01
39.0 0.39 0.02

39.5 0.66 0.04
33.6 0.52 0.03
29.1 0.41 0.02
36.7 0.56 0.03

36.5 0.66 0.08
39.5 0.75 0.14
24.8 0.42 0.03
32.7 0.67 0.06
36.4 0.54 0.01

38.9 0.55 0.03
37.3 0.57 0.02
28.9 0.43 0.02
37.2 0.65 0.03

33.2 0.51 0.02
37.6 0.59 0.02
30.7 0.45 0.03
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Pumpkins
1.8 0.01 0.00

0.3 0.00 0.00
0.7 0.01 0.00
0.9 0.01 0.00
1.8 0.01 0.00
1.3 0.01 0.00
1.7 0.00 0.00
2.3 0.01 0.00

4.9 0.01 0.00
0.4 0.00 0.00
0.7 0.00 0.00
1.0 0.00 0.00

1.0 0.00 0.00
1.2 0.00 0.00
0.5 0.00 0.00
3.5 0.01 0.00
1.9 0.01 0.00

2.4 0.01 0.00
2.0 0.01 0.00
1.1 0.00 0.00
1.9 0.01 0.00

1.5 0.00 0.00
1.8 0.00 0.00
2.0 0.01 0.00
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Root Tuber Vegetables
99.2 1.42 0.02

61.7 2.60 0.15
99.6 3.38 0.09
100.0 2.96 0.07
100.0 2.09 0.07
99.9 1.36 0.06
99.7 1.12 0.02
99.7 1.13 0.02

99.4 1.49 0.04
99.3 1.41 0.03
99.2 1.34 0.03
99.0 1.45 0.04

97.3 1.31 0.10
99.7 1.71 0.30
99.0 1.31 0.09
98.0 1.47 0.05
99.4 1.44 0.02

99.5 1.57 0.05
99.4 1.33 0.05
99.2 1.40 0.04
98.8 1.38 0.05

99.0 1.34 0.04
99.3 1.44 0.03
99.4 1.52 0.06
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Stalk, Stem Vegetables
19.4 0.05 0.00

1.9 0.01 0.00
13.2 0.06 0.01
10.9 0.04 0.00
10.7 0.03 0.01
16.6 0.03 0.01
24.5 0.05 0.00
18.3 0.05 0.00

18.5 0.04 0.00
20.1 0.05 0.00
17.0 0.03 0.00
21.8 0.06 0.01

36.5 0.11 0.01
21.6 0.05 0.02
8.1 0.01 0.00
14.5 0.03 0.00
20.9 0.05 0.00

22.1 0.05 0.00
17.2 0.05 0.01
16.4 0.04 0.00
23.1 0.06 0.00

19.6 0.05 0.00
20.0 0.05 0.00
17.8 0.04 0.00
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
    1
    s
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
 s
a
3
ft
1=
I
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain N

Whole Population 20,607
Age Group
Birth to 1 year 1,486
1 to 2 years 2,096
3 to 5 years 4,391
6 to 12 years 2,089
13 to 19 years 1,222
20 to 49 years 4,677
>50 years 4,646
Season
Fall 4,687
Spring 5,308
Summer 5,890
Winter 4,722
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander 557
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177
Black 2,740
Other/NA 1,638
White 15,495
Region
Midwest 4,822
Northeast 3,692
South 7,208
West 4,885
Urbanization
City Center 6,164
Suburban 9,598
Nonmetropolitan 4,845
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Strawberries
32.4 0.06 0.00

6.8 0.02 0.00
33.5 0.19 0.03
37.1 0.14 0.01
37.3 0.10 0.01
26.8 0.05 0.01
29.8 0.05 0.00
37.7 0.06 0.00

26.8 0.03 0.00
36.8 0.11 0.01
36.1 0.06 0.01
29.9 0.05 0.01

23.9 0.07 0.03
28.2 0.03 0.02
21.1 0.02 0.00
22.3 0.05 0.01
35.3 0.07 0.00

34.9 0.07 0.01
37.1 0.06 0.01
27.2 0.05 0.00
33.9 0.08 0.01

29.7 0.05 0.01
36.2 0.08 0.00
28.1 0.05 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Stone Fruit
44.5 0.17 0.01

29.2 1.15 0.10
53.6 0.60 0.04
57.5 0.38 0.02
56.8 0.23 0.02
41.1 0.09 0.01
38.1 0.09 0.01
49.4 0.17 0.01

39.3 0.11 0.01
46.8 0.17 0.01
50.3 0.28 0.02
41.6 0.12 0.01

36.5 0.16 0.04
39.2 0.24 0.07
40.7 0.14 0.02
38.2 0.19 0.03
45.9 0.17 0.01

49.9 0.18 0.01
47.5 0.15 0.01
38.9 0.15 0.01
44.8 0.20 0.01

43.5 0.17 0.01
46.9 0.18 0.01
40.6 0.15 0.01
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Tomatoes
84.4 0.74 0.01

21.5 0.30 0.03
80.7 1.50 0.05
85.7 1.40 0.03
86.9 1.00 0.03
90.2 0.74 0.03
87.1 0.66 0.01
80.1 0.57 0.01

83.5 0.73 0.03
84.3 0.69 0.02
85.1 0.80 0.02
84.5 0.72 0.02

74.1 0.73 0.06
89.2 0.82 0.07
78.1 0.63 0.03
89.6 1.11 0.05
85.4 0.73 0.01

85.5 0.74 0.02
83.4 0.73 0.02
82.7 0.69 0.02
86.6 0.81 0.02

84.1 0.75 0.02
84.5 0.73 0.01
84.4 0.73 0.03
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Tropical Fruits
58.3 0.43 0.01

42.2 1.31 0.07
70.1 1.97 0.10
69.7 1.10 0.04
67.0 0.50 0.04
54.5 0.19 0.02
52.8 0.27 0.01
63.1 0.41 0.01

56.5 0.42 0.02
59.4 0.43 0.02
58.2 0.41 0.02
58.9 0.45 0.02

55.4 0.61 0.07
54.1 0.43 0.05
53.6 0.36 0.03
60.9 0.77 0.09
59.0 0.41 0.01

60.1 0.40 0.03
62.4 0.47 0.02
53.1 0.36 0.02
60.8 0.53 0.03

58.8 0.46 0.02
60.2 0.44 0.01
53.0 0.34 0.03

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
ft
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)

Domain

N

Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to I year
I to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
SE =Standard Error
20,607

1,486
2,096
4,391
2,089
1,222
4,677
4,646

4,687
5,308
5,890
4,722

557
177
2,740
1,638
15,495

4,822
3,692
7,208
4,885

6,164
9,598
4,845
Percent
„ . Mean
Consuming

SE
White Potatoes
91.3 0.89

39.9 0.64
91.2 1.95
95.1 1.75
93.9 1.21
92.6 0.93
91.5 0.74
91.7 0.72

91.5 0.91
91.3 0.87
91.3 0.86
91.1 0.90

82.3 0.72
92.7 1.29
88.5 0.81
86.5 0.86
92.4 0.90

94.5 1.00
88.6 0.79
91.8 0.90
89.6 0.82

89.5 0.81
91.2 0.87
94.2 1.02

Note: Data for fruits and vegetables for which only small percentages
percentages consuming.
Source: Based on unpublished U. S

0.02

0.07
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.02

0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.09
0.32
0.07
0.07
0.02

0.03
0.04
0.04
0.06

0.04
0.02
0.06

































of the population reported consumption may be less reliable than data for fruits and vegetables with higher

EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFH
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Q
     s
    a
    3
    ft
    1=
    I
Table 9-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Domain
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N Mean SE
Apples
7,193 1.47 0.03

496 6.71 0.31
947 4.00 0.15
1,978 3.68 0.08
792 2.17 0.12
271 0.90 0.06
1,171 0.82 0.03
1,538 0.92 0.04

1,841 1.57 0.06
1,818 1.52 0.07
1,801 1.32 0.06
1,733 1.44 0.05

182 1.59 0.12
58 1.93 0.27
762 1.62 0.12
536 2.00 0.13
5,655 1.42 0.03

1,792 1.35 0.06
1,385 1.46 0.05
2,201 1.44 0.05
1,815 1.67 0.06

2,091 1.46 0.05
3,647 1.49 0.05
1,455 1.45 0.03
N Mean SE
Asparagus
233 0.85 0.04

3 2.59 1.16
19 1.99 0.54
23 1.37 0.32
13 1.77 0.43
4 0.56 0.08
58 0.79 0.08
113 0.77 0.07

44 0.80 0.13
91 0.90 0.07
36 0.66 0.12
62 0.94 0.10

5 0.62 0.15
2 0.81
8 1.01 0.64
5 0.31 0.09
213 0.86 0.05

63 0.91 0.08
43 0.72 0.10
64 1.07 0.09
63 0.69 0.04

81 0.85 0.07
97 0.78 0.07
55 0.98 0.11
N Mean SE
Bananas
10,734 0.73 0.02

605 3.04 0.12
1,328 2.82 0.12
2,746 1.54 0.06
1,214 0.66 0.05
511 0.30 0.04
1,887 0.50 0.01
2,443 0.65 0.02

2,292 0.79 0.04
2,856 0.70 0.03
3,124 0.66 0.03
2,462 0.80 0.03

265 0.95 0.10
88 0.87 0.15
1,288 0.59 0.05
865 1.21 0.11
8,228 0.71 0.02

2,589 0.68 0.04
2,122 0.68 0.02
3,356 0.70 0.04
2,667 0.89 0.03

3,182 0.75 0.03
5,303 0.75 0.02
2,249 0.67 0.04
N Mean SE
Beans
9,086 0.60 0.01

313 2.00 0.16
996 1.63 0.08
1,909 1.22 0.04
833 0.82 0.05
472 0.49 0.03
2,153 0.48 0.01
2,410 0.52 0.02

2,122 0.60 0.02
2,311 0.59 0.02
2,539 0.65 0.02
2,114 0.57 0.02

265 0.48 0.05
74 0.70 0.12
1,205 0.71 0.04
911 0.71 0.04
6,631 0.58 0.01

2,071 0.59 0.02
1,342 0.56 0.02
3,465 0.68 0.02
2,208 0.52 0.03

2,840 0.62 0.02
3,957 0.58 0.01
2,289 0.61 0.01
N Mean SE
Beets
374 0.35 0

6 1.42 0.9
13 0.98 0.3
36 0.9 0.2
16 0.66 0.3
9 0.2 0.1
93 0.23 0
201 0.38 0

90 0.25 0
92 0.45 0.1
104 0.34 0.1
88 0.33 0.1

16 0.04 0
1 0.02
18 0.29 0.1
16 0.39 0.2
323 0.36 0

90 0.35 0.1
78 0.42 0.1
99 0.29 0
107 0.33 0.1

110 0.28 0
171 0.39 0.1
93 0.35 0

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                                             1
<•»!  ft
-------
    ft
    1
    s
Table 9-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N Mean SE
Berries and Small Fruits
12,206 0.40 0.01

229 0.81 0.07
1,396 1.38 0.06
3,166 0.99 0.04
1,523 0.54 0.04
679 0.27 0.03
2,393 0.27 0.02
2,820 0.31 0.01

2,706 0.31 0.02
3,202 0.45 0.03
3,558 0.48 0.02
2,740 0.35 0.02

252 0.66 0.13
85 0.26 0.04
1,430 0.27 0.02
782 0.45 0.06
9,657 0.41 0.01

3,042 0.40 0.03
2,383 0.37 0.03
3,896 0.35 0.02
2,885 0.48 0.03

3,525 0.38 0.02
6,039 0.44 0.02
2,642 0.31 0.03
N Mean SE
Broccoli
2,474 0.80 0.03

49 2.09 0.33
242 2.11 0.16
475 1.67 0.09
213 1.29 0.16
102 0.69 0.07
640 0.68 0.04
753 0.63 0.03

582 0.81 0.05
651 0.82 0.07
660 0.79 0.05
581 0.76 0.07

118 0.89 0.12
16 1.18 0.43
286 1.06 0.12
131 1.09 0.10
1,923 0.73 0.03

533 0.66 0.03
511 0.84 0.07
810 0.83 0.04
620 0.83 0.08

741 0.83 0.06
1,283 0.81 0.03
450 0.64 0.05
N Mean SE
N Mean SE
Bulb Vegetables Cabbage
18,738 0.21 0.00

489 0.22 0.02
1,957 0.32 0.01
4,207 0.28 0.01
2,040 0.22 0.01
1,194 0.20 0.01
4,546 0.22 0.01
4,305 0.18 0.00

4,310 0.22 0.01
4,835 0.21 0.01
5,280 0.20 0.01
4,313 0.22 0.01

481 0.40 0.03
169 0.25 0.04
2,438 0.18 0.01
1,484 0.33 0.02
14,166 0.20 0.00

4,457 0.20 0.01
3,324 0.20 0.01
6,497 0.19 0.01
4,460 0.26 0.01

5,547 0.22 0.01
8,768 0.21 0.01
4,423 0.20 0.01
2,633 0.50 0.03

15 0.61 0.41
160 0.73 0.11
369 0.78 0.07
190 0.63 0.11
106 0.40 0.06
746 0.45 0.03
1,047 0.52 0.02

623 0.44 0.03
684 0.52 0.03
676 0.56 0.07
650 0.48 0.04

152 0.69 0.09
18 0.34 0.13
359 0.87 0.11
144 0.24 0.05
1,960 0.43 0.02

629 0.49 0.04
413 0.56 0.06
978 0.52 0.06
613 0.41 0.03

794 0.58 0.07
1,251 0.45 0.02
588 0.48 0.04
N Mean SE
Carrots
9,513 0.34 0.01

179 1.39 0.20
999 0.87 0.05
2,048 0.74 0.03
904 0.50 0.03
482 0.27 0.02
2,289 0.28 0.01
2,612 0.29 0.01

2,338 0.35 0.02
2,345 0.36 0.02
2,440 0.33 0.01
2,390 0.34 0.01

329 0.47 0.05
82 0.26 0.03
958 0.28 0.02
749 0.45 0.03
7,395 0.34 0.01

2,313 0.34 0.02
1,843 0.34 0.01
2,981 0.31 0.01
2,376 0.40 0.01

2,759 0.34 0.01
4,690 0.36 0.01
2,064 0.32 0.01
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
 s
a
3
ft
1=
I
Table 9-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N Mean SE
Citrus Fruits
3,656 0.99 0.03

37 2.79 0.53
336 3.06 0.20
751 2.75 0.15
324 1.60 0.12
157 0.90 0.15
841 0.68 0.04
1,210 0.84 0.03

761 0.93 0.06
1,002 0.97 0.05
815 0.53 0.04
1,078 1.32 0.06

117 1.50 0.19
41 1.61 0.17
369 1.15 0.08
347 1.66 0.16
2,782 0.89 0.03

842 0.84 0.06
754 0.94 0.06
998 0.94 0.04
1,062 1.20 0.07

1,146 1.01 0.04
1,738 0.97 0.04
772 0.99 0.07
N Mean SE
Corn
19,059 0.47 0.01

671 1.05 0.07
2,027 1.17 0.05
4,334 1.26 0.03
2,064 0.88 0.03
1,176 0.45 0.01
4,415 0.34 0.01
4,372 0.28 0.01

4,342 0.44 0.01
4,909 0.47 0.02
5,423 0.52 0.02
4,385 0.44 0.02

454 0.37 0.05
165 0.55 0.06
2,502 0.52 0.02
1,475 0.76 0.05
14,463 0.44 0.01

4,562 0.48 0.02
3,377 0.43 0.01
6,648 0.46 0.01
4,472 0.49 0.02

5,641 0.47 0.01
8,886 0.47 0.01
4,532 0.45 0.02
N Mean SE
Cucumbers
6,779 0.24 0.02

25 0.28 0.11
439 0.52 0.05
1,266 0.56 0.05
667 0.43 0.06
500 0.26 0.06
2,033 0.20 0.01
1,849 0.21 0.01

1,374 0.22 0.02
1,906 0.23 0.01
2,070 0.32 0.05
1,429 0.20 0.02

134 0.68 0.43
60 0.23 0.06
858 0.17 0.01
413 0.30 0.03
5,314 0.24 0.01

1,693 0.23 0.02
1,191 0.25 0.02
2,356 0.22 0.02
1,539 0.29 0.07

1,965 0.22 0.01
3,151 0.26 0.03
1,663 0.25 0.03
N Mean SE
Cucurbits
8,763 0.81 0.04

213 3.19 0.29
682 2.29 0.17
1,694 2.15 0.17
833 1.34 0.15
563 0.69 0.16
2,400 0.55 0.03
2,378 0.81 0.05

1,778 0.46 0.03
2,408 0.94 0.07
2,855 1.32 0.10
1,722 0.36 0.03

217 1.92 0.79
75 1.04 0.32
987 0.62 0.08
633 1.14 0.19
6,851 0.77 0.03

2,091 0.75 0.05
1,614 0.85 0.08
2,905 0.70 0.06
2,153 0.99 0.12

2,570 0.71 0.05
4,119 0.89 0.07
2,074 0.78 0.06
N Mean SE
Fruiting Vegetables
18,407 0.87 0.01

371 1.24 0.11
1,927 1.70 0.06
4,180 1.53 0.03
2,014 1.10 0.03
1,176 0.82 0.03
4,489 0.78 0.02
4,250 0.71 0.02

4,186 0.87 0.03
4,755 0.82 0.02
5,262 0.93 0.02
4,204 0.85 0.03

439 0.98 0.06
162 0.93 0.08
2,398 0.75 0.04
1,447 1.34 0.05
13,961 0.85 0.01

4,379 0.85 0.02
3,254 0.88 0.02
6,416 0.81 0.03
4,358 0.96 0.03

5,477 0.89 0.03
8,563 0.86 0.01
4,367 0.85 0.04

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
ft
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N Mean SE
Leafy Vegetables
17,637 0.65 0.01

639 0.65 0.11
1,729 0.87 0.05
3,815 0.77 0.03
1,860 0.62 0.03
1,101 0.47 0.02
4,308 0.63 0.02
4,185 0.72 0.02

4,046 0.66 0.03
4,579 0.66 0.02
4,964 0.62 0.02
4,048 0.66 0.02

469 1.22 0.12
151 0.59 0.19
2,367 0.73 0.04
1,329 0.59 0.04
13,321 0.62 0.01

4,226 0.60 0.03
3,081 0.71 0.03
6,174 0.61 0.02
4,156 0.71 0.04

5,232 0.72 0.03
8,220 0.67 0.02
4,185 0.51 0.03
N Mean SE
Legumes
19,258 0.45 0.01

754 2.34 0.11
2,037 1.34 0.08
4,308 0.86 0.06
2,045 0.49 0.03
1,168 0.29 0.02
4,477 0.36 0.01
4,469 0.41 0.01

4,412 0.46 0.02
4,952 0.42 0.02
5,476 0.45 0.02
4,418 0.46 0.02

503 0.79 0.09
170 0.44 0.08
2,563 0.52 0.04
1,478 0.58 0.05
14,544 0.42 0.01

4,577 0.41 0.02
3,421 0.40 0.02
6,771 0.49 0.02
4,489 0.47 0.03

5,735 0.50 0.02
8,950 0.43 0.02
4,573 0.43 0.02
N Mean SE
Lettuce
8,430 0.46 0.01

15 0.17 0.02
481 0.58 0.04
1,415 0.62 0.03
858 0.53 0.02
669 0.40 0.03
2,693 0.45 0.01
2,299 0.45 0.01

1,894 0.46 0.02
2,279 0.46 0.02
2,325 0.45 0.01
1,932 0.46 0.02

191 0.58 0.09
88 0.34 0.04
884 0.35 0.02
643 0.49 0.04
6,624 0.47 0.01

2,035 0.47 0.03
1,396 0.49 0.02
2,830 0.41 0.02
2,169 0.49 0.03

2,414 0.46 0.02
3,999 0.49 0.01
2,017 0.39 0.02
N Mean SE
Okra
272 0.51 0.04

4 1.50 0.54
29 0.64 0.19
34 1.16 0.32
21 0.62 0.15
12 0.43 0.13
62 0.44 0.06
110 0.50 0.05

58 0.39 0.04
66 0.47 0.09
106 0.65 0.08
42 0.53 0.13

15 0.20 0.06
2 0.40
67 0.63 0.08
15 0.70 0.25
173 0.51 0.05

24 0.42 0.20
22 0.50 0.18
178 0.58 0.05
48 0.30 0.07

96 0.49 0.07
102 0.59 0.07
74 0.42 0.04
N Mean SE
Onions
18,678 0.20 0.00

481 0.22 0.02
1,948 0.31 0.01
4,200 0.27 0.01
2,030 0.21 0.01
1,190 0.19 0.01
4,533 0.21 0.01
4,296 0.17 0.00

4,300 0.21 0.01
4,815 0.20 0.01
5,265 0.19 0.01
4,298 0.21 0.01

480 0.39 0.03
169 0.25 0.04
2,431 0.17 0.01
1,484 0.32 0.02
14,114 0.19 0.00

4,448 0.19 0.01
3,308 0.19 0.01
6,479 0.19 0.01
4,443 0.25 0.01

5,531 0.21 0.01
8,739 0.20 0.01
4,408 0.20 0.01
                                                                                                                                                                                         Q
                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                         •*•
                                                                                                                                                                                         a-
£5
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                         I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
 s
a
3
ft
1=
I
Table 9-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N Mean SE
Peaches
9,069 0.26 0.01

344 3.47 0.28
1,067 0.93 0.08
2,461 0.48 0.03
1,150 0.26 0.03
480 0.15 0.03
1,544 0.14 0.01
2,023 0.22 0.01

1,841 0.20 0.02
2,439 0.23 0.02
2,815 0.37 0.02
1,974 0.22 0.02

200 0.23 0.04
68 0.54 0.17
1,146 0.25 0.03
590 0.38 0.07
7,065 0.26 0.01

2,283 0.25 0.02
1,778 0.22 0.02
2,849 0.30 0.02
2,159 0.26 0.02

2,640 0.27 0.02
4,457 0.26 0.01
1,972 0.27 0.01
N Mean SE
Pears
2,355 1.06 0.04

217 4.55 0.28
354 2.33 0.16
711 1.59 0.12
382 0.81 0.07
72 0.45 0.09
205 0.80 0.05
414 0.81 0.04

596 1.15 0.08
590 0.86 0.05
585 1.05 0.06
584 1.14 0.09

56 1.43 0.21
23 1.31 0.60
244 1.09 0.15
171 1.39 0.22
1,861 1.02 0.04

625 0.96 0.06
470 1.04 0.06
648 1.08 0.10
612 1.17 0.08

686 1.06 0.06
1,205 1.12 0.06
464 0.89 0.05
N Mean SE
Peas
4,661 0.48 0.02

417 1.60 0.09
609 1.21 0.06
888 1.02 0.07
346 0.68 0.06
168 0.48 0.06
959 0.37 0.02
1,274 0.37 0.02

1,172 0.43 0.02
1,120 0.51 0.03
1,213 0.48 0.02
1,156 0.52 0.04

192 0.35 0.04
51 0.59 0.10
612 0.64 0.05
323 0.38 0.04
3,483 0.48 0.02

1,108 0.46 0.02
923 0.52 0.05
1,526 0.51 0.03
1,104 0.43 0.04

1,480 0.50 0.03
2,179 0.48 0.03
1,002 0.45 0.04
N Mean SE
Peppers
16,093 0.08 0.00

224 0.05 0.01
1,627 0.06 0.01
3,706 0.06 0.00
1,784 0.05 0.01
1,041 0.05 0.00
4,068 0.09 0.01
3,643 0.08 0.01

3,643 0.08 0.01
4,212 0.07 0.01
4,568 0.08 0.01
3,670 0.07 0.01

344 0.11 0.01
144 0.09 0.03
2,150 0.05 0.01
1,233 0.15 0.01
12,222 0.07 0.00

3,920 0.07 0.01
2,711 0.08 0.01
5,579 0.06 0.01
3,883 0.10 0.01

4,780 0.09 0.01
7,436 0.07 0.00
3,877 0.07 0.01
N Mean SE
Pome Fruit
8,316 1.55 0.03

572 7.60 0.34
1,097 4.21 0.13
2,291 3.68 0.08
1,012 2.03 0.10
320 0.87 0.06
1,274 0.88 0.03
1,750 1.00 0.03

2,102 1.67 0.07
2,102 1.54 0.06
2,092 1.40 0.06
2,020 1.53 0.06

209 1.82 0.14
73 1.89 0.29
878 1.68 0.12
624 2.05 0.14
6,532 1.48 0.03

2,094 1.42 0.07
1,598 1.54 0.05
2,535 1.50 0.05
2,089 1.74 0.07

2,408 1.54 0.05
4,224 1.58 0.06
1,684 1.48 0.03

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
ft
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N Mean SE
Pumpkins
299 0.30 0.02

3 1.06 0.71
15 1.08 0.51
36 0.56 0.10
37 0.52 0.11
14 0.42 0.16
89 0.24 0.02
105 0.22 0.01

193 0.29 0.02
22 0.65 0.18
40 0.22 0.06
44 0.25 0.04

4 0.33 0.07
3 0.11 0.01
12 0.34 0.05
43 0.21 0.08
237 0.31 0.02

87 0.31 0.01
62 0.30 0.09
70 0.28 0.03
80 0.30 0.05

76 0.31 0.05
137 0.26 0.02
86 0.36 0.04
N Mean SE
Root Tuber Vegetables
19,997 1.44 0.02

916 4.21 0.19
2,087 3.40 0.09
4,388 2.96 0.07
2,089 2.09 0.07
1,221 1.36 0.06
4,664 1.12 0.02
4,632 1.14 0.02

4,565 1.50 0.04
5,151 1.43 0.03
5,690 1.35 0.03
4,591 1.46 0.03

518 1.35 0.10
174 1.71 0.30
2,642 1.32 0.09
1,561 1.50 0.05
15,102 1.45 0.02

4,709 1.58 0.05
3,598 1.34 0.05
6,998 1.41 0.04
4,692 1.40 0.05

5,961 1.36 0.04
9,315 1.45 0.03
4,721 1.53 0.07
N Mean SE
Stalk, Stem Vegetables
3,095 0.24 0.01

24 0.56 0.22
272 0.48 0.05
502 0.38 0.03
218 0.32 0.04
190 0.20 0.03
1,079 0.20 0.01
810 0.27 0.02

720 0.22 0.02
825 0.25 0.01
796 0.20 0.01
754 0.26 0.02

158 0.29 0.03
32 0.25 0.05
188 0.18 0.03
172 0.21 0.02
2,545 0.24 0.01

883 0.22 0.02
467 0.26 0.03
908 0.24 0.02
837 0.24 0.02

891 0.25 0.02
1,492 0.23 0.01
712 0.24 0.02
N Mean SE
Strawberries
6,675 0.20 0.01

96 0.26 0.06
729 0.57 0.08
1,710 0.38 0.03
783 0.28 0.02
326 0.18 0.03
1,330 0.15 0.02
1,701 0.15 0.01

1,250 0.13 0.01
1,911 0.30 0.03
2,060 0.17 0.02
1,454 0.16 0.02

149 0.29 0.11
50 0.11 0.04
550 0.11 0.02
367 0.22 0.06
5,559 0.20 0.01

1,668 0.20 0.01
1,381 0.16 0.02
1,952 0.18 0.02
1,674 0.23 0.03

1,772 0.18 0.02
3,517 0.22 0.01
1,386 0.17 0.03
N Mean SE
Stone Fruit
9,786 0.38 0.01

418 3.95 0.25
1,130 1.13 0.08
2,556 0.66 0.03
1,194 0.41 0.03
508 0.21 0.03
1,715 0.23 0.01
2,265 0.34 0.02

1,987 0.27 0.02
2,627 0.35 0.02
3,029 0.56 0.03
2,143 0.29 0.02

218 0.44 0.08
73 0.60 0.18
1,184 0.34 0.04
649 0.50 0.08
7,662 0.38 0.01

2,469 0.36 0.02
1,912 0.32 0.02
3,060 0.39 0.02
2,345 0.45 0.03

2,845 0.38 0.02
4,808 0.38 0.02
2,133 0.36 0.01
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
a
3
ft
1=
I
Table 9-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Fruits and Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Black
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
City Center
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
N Mean SE
Tomatoes
16,403 0.87 0.01

315 1.42 0.13
1,684 1.86 0.06
3,764 1.63 0.03
1,832 1.15 0.03
1,098 0.82 0.03
4,053 0.75 0.02
3,657 0.72 0.01

3,732 0.87 0.03
4,173 0.82 0.02
4,731 0.94 0.02
3,767 0.86 0.03

373 0.99 0.08
146 0.92 0.08
2,017 0.80 0.04
1,369 1.24 0.05
12,498 0.85 0.01

3,915 0.87 0.02
2,906 0.88 0.02
5,629 0.83 0.02
3,953 0.93 0.02

4,867 0.89 0.02
7,647 0.87 0.01
3,889 0.86 0.03
N Mean SE
Tropical Fruits
12,539 0.73 0.02

630 3.09 0.12
1,476 2.81 0.12
3,106 1.57 0.05
1,407 0.75 0.05
652 0.35 0.04
2,428 0.51 0.02
2,840 0.64 0.02

2,748 0.75 0.03
3,291 0.72 0.03
3,595 0.70 0.02
2,905 0.77 0.03

314 1.10 0.13
103 0.79 0.12
1,541 0.67 0.05
1,034 1.26 0.10
9,547 0.69 0.02

2,989 0.67 0.04
2,412 0.75 0.02
4,016 0.67 0.03
3,122 0.87 0.03

3,750 0.79 0.03
6,092 0.73 0.02
2,697 0.64 0.05
N Mean SE
White Potatoes
18,261 0.97 0.02

577 1.60 0.15
1,918 2.14 0.09
4,147 1.84 0.06
1,963 1.29 0.06
4,271 0.81 0.02
2,664 0.75 0.02
4,254 0.78 0.02

4,205 1.00 0.04
4,703 0.96 0.03
5,190 0.94 0.03
4,163 0.99 0.03

428 0.88 0.09
162 1.40 0.33
2,365 0.92 0.08
1,353 1.00 0.06
13,953 0.98 0.02

4,436 1.06 0.04
3,199 0.90 0.03
6,415 0.98 0.04
4,211 0.92 0.06

5,337 0.91 0.04
8,488 0.96 0.02
4,436 1.08 0.06































SE =Standard Error
Note: Data for fruits and vegetables for which only small percentages of the population reported consumption may be less reliable than data for fruits and vegetables
with higher percentages consuming.
Source: Based on unpublished U.S. EPAanalysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFH

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
ft
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-7. Per Capita Intake of Exposed Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population
Group
Whole Population
Age Group
0 to 5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
consuming
39.9

32.8
79.9
54.9
69.2
59.8
50
32.7
29.6
40
51.6

40.7
40.4
39.7
38.6

39.6
33.6
42.9

41.6
29
33.2
38.2
41.7

42.2
45.3
33.3
42.9
Percentile
Mean
1.5

6.4
14.1
10.0
10.9
5.6
2.2
0.87
0.58
0.69
0.97

1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5

1.6
1.1
1.6

1.7
1.3
1.2
1.9
1.5

1.5
1.8
1.3
1.6
SE
0.06

1.6
1.2
1.0
0.47
0.28
0.14
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.06

0.11
0.10
0.11
0.12

0.11
0.10
0.08

0.35
0.17
0.57
0.29
0.06

0.11
0.13
0.10
0.12
1st
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
5th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
10th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
25th
0

0
4.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
50th
0

0
11.8
4.5
5.7
2.7
0
0
0
0
0.11

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
75th
1.3

6.9
19.3
16.5
15.7
8.1
3.1
1.1
0.60
0.94
1.3

1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2

1.4
0.8
1.4

1.8
0.67
0.99
1.4
1.3

1.4
1.5
0.86
1.6
90th
3.8

23.7
32.7
30.1
29.4
15.8
6.3
2.9
2.0
2.2
2.8

4.0
3.8
3.7
3.4

4.3
2.8
3.9

5.0
3.3
3.8
4.3
3.7

3.7
4.5
3.2
4.2
95th
7.0

40.2
37.1
38.8
39.0
22.2
8.8
4.9
3.1
3.3
4.1

7.0
7.1
6.9
7.1

7.3
5.4
7.5

6.4
6.3
6.4
8.8
7.1

6.7
7.5
6.4
7.5
99th
22.6

48.5
63.7
58.5
65.8
35.0
17.6
8.8
6.2
6.3
7.5

22.5
20.9
23.7
21.2

23.6
16.5
23.7

22.1
22.4
14.0
28.4
21.6

21.0
24.6
20.4
22.1
Max
101.3

63.4
69.6
69.6
101.3
77.1
32.2
14.9
16.0
18.6
18.6

101.3
77.1
81.1
83.6

83.6
65.8
101.3

61.9
101.3
40.8
69.6
83.6

101.3
81.1
81.3
83.6
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on
U.S. EPA's
analyses of the 1994-96
CSFII.









                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
 s
a
3
ft
1=
I
Table 9-8. Per Capita Intake of Protected Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population Percent
Group consuming Mean
Whole Population 53 1.9
Age Group
0 to 5 months 10.8 0.5
6 to 12 months 49 3.1
<1 years 28.7 1.7
1 to 2 years 61.8 6.5
3 to 5 years 56.2 4.4
6 to 11 years 50.7 2.7
12 to 19 years 47.3 1.8
20 to 39 years 48 1.4
40 to 69 years 56.5 1.4
>70 years 68.7 1.8
Season
Fall 50.8 1.8
Spring 53.5 2.0
Summer 52.4 2.0
Winter 55.4 1.9
Urbanization
Central City 55.5 2.1
Nonmetropolitan 45.6 1.5
Suburban 54.6 2.0
Race
Asian 62.3 3.0
Black 48.1 1.8
Native American 44 . 1 2.0
Other/NA 60.3 2.8
White 53 1.8
Region
Midwest 51 1.8
Northeast 62.5 2.4
South 47.6 1.6
West 55.3 2.0
SE = Standard error.
Percentile
SE
0.04

0.34
0.58
0.39
0.31
0.22
0.17
0.12
0.07
0.04
0.07

0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07

0.07
0.08
0.06

0.30
0.11
0.65
0.21
0.04

0.08
0.09
0.06
0.09

1st
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

5th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

10th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

25th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

50th
0.38

0
0
0
3.6
2.1
0.17
0
0
0.61
1.3

0.06
0.46
0.29
0.61

0.67
0
0.59

1.5
0
0
0.98
0.37

0.08
1.1
0
0.61

75th
2.6

0
4.4
2.0
9.2
6.7
3.8
2.6
1.9
2.2
2.8

2.3
2.6
2.7
2.6

2.8
1.9
2.7

4.1
2.2
2.5
3.9
2.5

2.4
3.2
2.1
2.8

90th
5.4

1.3
8.3
6.0
17.8
12.1
8.1
5.4
4.3
4.1
4.7

5.0
5.4
5.5
5.5

5.8
4.4
5.5

8.1
5.4
6.8
7.5
5.1

5.3
6.2
4.7
5.8

95th
8.1

4.3
11.2
8.3
24.2
17.2
11.4
8.4
6.3
5.5
5.9

7.3
8.8
8.4
8.0

8.5
7.0
8.3

11.7
8.1
7.9
10.8
7.7

7.8
9.5
7.1
8.4

99th
16.3

7.7
26.8
16.6
39.0
27.9
19.8
15.4
11.8
9.7
9.2

16.1
18.7
15.9
15.1

17.2
14.9
16.6

18.7
16.6
17.0
22.4
15.7

16.5
19.5
14.9
15.3

Max
113.4

12.5
30.3
30.3
113.4
66.5
31.7
27.0
39.3
45.8
27.6

75.7
47.4
113.4
52.0

66.5
61.9
113.4

64.0
50.1
61.9
113.4
75.7

75.7
66.5
65.7
113.4

Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analyses of the 1994-96 CSFII.

 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
ft
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-9. Per Capita Intake of Exposed Ve$.
Population
Group
Whole Population
Age Group
Oto 5 months
6 to 12 months
70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
P.ace
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Percent
consuming
79.2

6
40.8
22.3
63.3
67.8
70.8
77.4
82.6
84
83.2

79.6
78.8
81.2
77.4

79.5
78
79.6

82.2
76.3
70.7
73.8
80.1

80.2
79.4
79.6
77.5
'etables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Percentile
Mean
1.3

0.48
2.0
1.2
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.97
1.3
1.4
1.5

1.3
1.3
1.5
1.2

1.4
1.2
1.4

2.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3

1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
SE
0.02

0.62
0.49
0.37
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.05

0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.03
0.03
0.02

0.15
0.04
0.40
0.08
0.02

0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
1st 5m
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
10th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
25m
0.11

0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.15
0.28
0.31

0.12
0.09
0.16
0.08

0.12
0.08
0.12

0.34
0.04
0
0
0.13

0.12
0.12
0.12
0.08
50th
0.80

0
0
0
0.59
0.67
0.60
0.53
0.81
0.97
1.09

0.79
0.79
0.92
0.74

0.83
0.69
0.85

1.39
0.66
0.45
0.73
0.82

0.81
0.91
0.78
0.78
75m
1.9

0
3.1
0
2.7
2.2
1.6
1.3
1.8
2.0
2.1

1.9
1.8
2.1
1.7

2.0
1.6
1.9

3.0
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.9

1.8
2.1
1.8
1.8
90th
3.4

0
5.8
5.0
5.8
4.4
3.4
2.5
3.2
3.3
3.6

3.4
3.3
3.5
3.2

3.5
2.9
3.4

4.9
3.3
2.0
3.3
3.3

3.3
3.5
3.2
3.4
95m
4.4

4.6
10.3
7.4
8.6
6.4
4.8
3.6
4.1
4.3
4.4

4.4
4.3
4.8
4.2

4.5
4.1
4.5

7.1
4.1
4.5
4.7
4.4

4.4
4.6
4.2
4.6
99th
7.6

11.8
14.7
14.7
14.9
12.8
8.1
5.8
6.9
6.4
7.2

7.3
7.9
8.6
7.0

8.1
6.9
7.8

13.0
7.2
9.5
10.4
7.2

7.1
7.9
7.1
8.9
Max
45.0

12.5
19.0
19.0
45.0
25.1
19.6
13.0
18.4
16.4
20.1

45.0
25.1
25.1
20.9

25.1
45.0
25.1

20.1
20.9
45.0
24.8
25.1

24.8
25.1
25.1
45.0
SE = Standard error.
Source: Eased on U.S. EPA's analyses of the 1994-96
CSFII.








                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Q
    a
    3
    ft
    1=
    I

Population Percent
Group consuming
Whole Population 38.0
Age Group
0 to 5 months 10.3
6 to 12 months 34.8
<1 years 21.8
1 to 2 years 40.8
3 to 5 years 38.2
6 to 11 years 38.8
12 to 19 years 30.4
20 to 39 years 36.7
40 to 69 years 41.2
>70 years 42.2
Season
Fall 37.9
Spring 37.8
Summer 39.3
Winter 37.1
Urbanization
Central City 38.9
Nonmetropolitan 39.7
Suburban 36.6
Race
Asian 45.4
Black 36.2
Native American 32.0
Other/NA 50.4
White 37.2
Region
Midwest 36.3
Northeast 37.5
South 38.5
West 39.5
SE = Standard error.
Table
9-10. Per Capita Intake of Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Percentile
Mean
0.63

0.49
2.2
1.3
1.5
1.1
0.78
0.46
0.53
0.56
0.65

0.62
0.62
0.67
0.61

0.70
0.62
0.59

0.85
0.72
0.34
1.1
0.57

0.57
0.61
0.66
0.67

SE
0.02

0.41
0.55
0.37
0.13
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.05

0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04

0.04
0.04
0.03

0.14
0.07
0.13
0.10
0.02

0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04

Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analyses of the 1994-96
1st
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

CSFII.
5th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0


10th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0


25m
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0


50th
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0.04
0

0
0
0
0


75m
0.73

0
4.4
0
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.44
0.61
0.73
0.86

0.71
0.67
0.85
0.71

0.78
0.75
0.68

1.1
0.77
0.13
1.5
0.68

0.62
0.75
0.78
0.75


90th
2.0

1.4
7.3
5.4
4.4
3.5
2.6
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.0

2.1
1.8
1.9
1.9

2.1
1.9
1.9

2.7
2.2
1.6
3.4
1.8

1.8
1.8
2.1
2.1


95m
3.1

3.9
9.6
7.8
7.0
5.4
3.9
2.4
2.7
2.6
3.1

3.2
2.9
3.1
3.0

3.4
3.1
2.9

4.1
3.5
2.0
5.2
2.8

2.9
2.9
3.1
3.3


99th
6.6

9.2
19.5
11.9
14.2
10.3
7.5
5.8
5.5
4.8
5.7

5.9
7.6
6.3
6.9

7.3
6.0
5.9

7.8
7.9
3.5
10.0
5.9

5.6
6.3
6.3
7.8


Max
45.8

11.0
23.1
23.1
27.8
18.0
26.5
21.6
23.6
45.8
21.5

21.6
23.6
45.8
27.8

45.8
25.8
27.8

23.3
45.8
5.3
26.5
27.8

21.5
27.8
45.8
23.1



 I
 ft
•s,
 I
 *•*•
 a
                                                                                                                                                                                                             1
<•»!  ft
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-11. Per Capita Intake of Root Vegetables (g/kg-day as consumed)
Population Percent
Group consuming
Whole Population
Age Group
0 to 5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Nonmetropolitan
Suburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
75.4
12
56.9
33
67.5
71.9
73.8
76.4
77.5
77.2
73.2
77.3
75.9
74
74.4

71.9
78.5
76.4

64.2
68.9
71.1
67
77.5
79.4
72.3
77
71.3
Percentile
Mean
1.2
0.96
2.8
1.8
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.3
1.1
0.99
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2

1.2
1.4
1.2

0.97
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.1
SE
0.02
0.61
0.45
0.36
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.03
0.04
0.02

0.10
0.05
0.27
0.10
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
1st
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25th
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.09
0.10
0.08
0
0.09
0.05
0
0

0
0.14
0.07

0
0
0
0
0.09
0.16
0
0.09
0
50th
0.75
0
0.80
0
1.5
1.4
1.0
0.82
0.73
0.68
0.70
0.83
0.73
0.73
0.74

0.66
0.89
0.77

0.37
0.62
1.0
0.50
0.81
0.90
0.64
0.81
0.61
75th
1.7
0
4.6
2.3
3.6
3.2
2.3
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7

1.6
1.9
1.7

1.3
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.5
90th
3.0
3.9
8.0
6.9
6.8
5.5
4.2
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.7
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.0

2.9
3.2
3.0

2.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.0
2.8
95th
4.1
8.3
10.4
9.6
8.3
7.1
5.3
4.0
3.5
3.2
3.4
4.2
4.3
3.9
4.1

4.2
4.5
4.0

4.0
4.2
3.0
3.7
4.2
4.6
3.8
4.1
3.7
99th
7.6
11.9
16.6
15.6
16.8
14.1
9.5
7.7
6.0
4.8
5.3
8.1
7.7
7.4
7.4

7.3
9.5
7.2

7.1
7.6
11.2
9.6
7.5
8.6
7.1
7.6
6.9
Max
83.3
21.9
32.9
32.9
83.3
32.1
20.6
22.5
16.6
15.1
9.8
83.3
30.0
25.8
34.3

83.3
34.3
26.1

17.3
32.9
34.3
83.3
32.1
26.1
20.7
83.3
34.3
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on U.S
. EPA's analyses of the 1994-96
CSFII.









                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
vo
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9- 12. Mean Total
Age (years)
Fruit and Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age (1977-1978)8
Per Capita Intake
(g/day)
Percent of Population Using in a Consumer Only Intake (g/day)
Day
Fruits
Males and Females
< 1
Ito2
3 to 5
6 to 8
Males
9 to 11
12 to 14
15 to 18
19 to 22
23 to 34
35 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 74
>75
Females
9 to 11
12 to 14
15 to 18
19 to 22
23 to 34
35 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 74
>75
Males and Females
All ages

169
146
134
152

133
120
147
107
141
115
171
174
186

148
120
126
133
122
133
171
179
189

142

86.8
62.9
56.1
60.1

50.5
51.2
47.0
39.4
46.4
44.0
62.4
62.2
62.6

59.7
48.7
49.9
48.0
47.7
52.8
66.7
69.3
64.7

54.2

196
231
239
253

263
236
313
271
305
262
275
281
197

247
247
251
278
255
252
256
259
292

263
Vegetables
Males and Females
< 1
Ito2
3 to 5
6 to 8
Males
9 to 11
12 to 14
15 to 18
19 to 22
23 to 34
35 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 74
>75
Females
9 to 11
12 to 14
15 to 18
19 to 22
23 to 34
35 to 50
51 to 64
65 to 74
>75
Males and Females
All ages
a Based on USDA Nationwide

76
91
100
136

138
184
216
226
248
261
285
265
264

139
154
178
184
187
187
229
221
198

201
Food Consumption Survey

62.7
78.0
79.3
84.3

83.5
84.5
85.9
84.7
88.5
86.8
90.3
88.5
93.6

83.7
84.6
83.8
81.1
84.7
84.6
89.8
87.2
88.1

85.6
(1977-1978) data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita intake rate by the fraction of the population usinj
in a day.
Source: USDA, 1980.





121
116
126
161

165
217
251
267
280
300
316
300
281

166
183
212
227
221
221
255
253
226

235

fruit


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 9-37
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-13. Mean Total Fruit and Total Vegetable Intake (as consumed) in a Day by Sex and Age
(1987-88, 1994, and 1995)a
Age (yr)


Per Capita Intake (g/day)

1987-88

1994

1995
Percent of Population Using
in 1 Day

1987-8

8 1994

1995
Consumer Only Intake

1987-88
(g/day)°
1994

1995
Fruits
Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6 to 11
12 to 19
>20
Females
6 to 11
12 to 19
>20
Males and Females
All Ages

157

182
158
133

154
131
140

142

230

176
169
175

174
148
157

171

221

219
210
170

172
167
155

173

59.2

63.8
49.4
46.5

58.3
47.1
52.7

51.4

70.6

59.8
44.0
50.2

59.3
47.1
55.1

54.1

72.6

62.2
47.1
49.6

63.6
44.4
54.4

54.2

265

285
320
286

264
278
266

276

326

294
384
349

293
314
285

316

304

352
446
342

270
376
285

319
Vegetables
Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6 to 11
12 to 19
>20
Females
6 to 11
12 to 19
>20
Males and Females
All Ages

81

129
173
232

129
129
183

182

80

118
154
242

115
132
190

186
Based on USDA NFCS (1 987-88) and CSFII
b Intake for users only
fruits in a day.

83

111
202
241

108
144
189

188
(1994 and

74.0

86.8
85.2
85.0

80.6
75.8
82.9

82.6

75.2

82.4
74.9
85.9

82.9
78.5
84.7

83.2

75.0

80.6
79.0
86.4

79.1
76.0
83.2

82.6

109

149
203
273

160
170
221

220

106

143
206
282

139
168
224

223

111

138
256
278

137
189
227

228
1995) data for one day.
was calculated by dividing the per capita intake rate by the





fraction of the population using




Source: USDA, 1996a; 1996b.
Page
9-38
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-14. Per Capita Consumption of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in 1991a
Fresh Fruits

Food Item

Citrus
Oranges (includes Temple oranges)
Tangerines and Tangelos
Lemons
Limes
Grapefruit
Total Fresh Citrus

Non-citrus
Apples
Apricots
Avocados
Bananas
Cherries
Cranberries
Grapes
Kiwi Fruit
Mangoes
Peaches & Nectarines
Pears
Pineapple
Papayas
Plums and Prunes
Strawberries
Total Fresh Non-citrus
Total Fresh Fruits

Per Capita
Consumption
(g/day)b

10.2
1.6
3.1
0.9
7.1
22.9


21.8
0.1
1.7
31.2
0.5
0.4
8.2
0.5
1.0
7.6
3.7
2.2
0.3
1.7
4.1
85.0
107.7
Fresh Vegetables

Food Item

Artichokes
Asparagus
Snap Beans
Broccoli
Brussel Sprouts
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Sweet Corn
Cucumber
Eggplant
Escarole/Endive
Garlic
Head Lettuce
Onions
Bell Peppers
Radishes
Spinach
Tomatoes
Total Fresh Vegetables





a Based on retail-weight equivalent. Includes imports; excludes exports and foods grown in home
1991 used.



Per Capita
Consumption
(g/day)b
0.62
0.75
1.4
3.5
0.4
9.5
9.0
2.2
7.8
6.6
5.2
0.5
0.3
1.6
30.2
18.4
5.8
0.6
0.9
16.3
126.1





gardens. Data for

b Original data were presented in Ibs/yr; data were converted to g/day by multiplying by a factor of 454 g/lb and
dividing by 365 days/yr.
Source: USDA, 1993.






Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 9-39
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-15. Mean Quantities of Vegetables Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, for Children, Per Capita (g/day)
Age Group
Sample Size
Total
White Potatoes
Total
Fried
Dark Green „
,, . , , Y
Vegetables
)eep
;llow
etables
Tomatoes
Lettuce,
lettuce-
based
salads
Green
beans
Corn,
green
peas, lima
beans
Other
vegetables
Males and Females
Under I year
I year
2 years
I to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
< 5 years
1,126
1,016
1,102
2,118
1,831
1,859
884
4,574
7,818
57
79
87
83
91
97
103
97
88
9
26
32
29
34
37
44
38
31
1
11
17
14
17
19
22
20
16
2
5
4
5
5
6
4
5
4
19
9
5
7
5
5
6
5
7
la
7
11
9
13
11
12
12
10
a,b
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
6
8
7
7
5
5
6
5
6
5
9
10
9
11
12
12
11
10
16
16
17
17
16
18
17
17
17
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
110
115
176
47
50
85
26
27
44
4
5
6
5
5
6
16
16
28
5
5
12
5
5
3a
11
11
10
16
18
25
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
110
116
145
42
46
61
22
25
31
5
5
9
4
4
4
14
15
18
6
7
12
5
5
4
13
12
8
21
22
28
Males and Females
< 9 years
< 19 years
9,309
11,287
97
125
37
53
19
27
Estimate is not statistically reliable due to small samples size reporting
Value less than 0
5 but greater than 0.



4
6
intake.

6
6


12
17


3
7


6
5


11
10


18
22


Note: Consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
Source: USDA, 1999.











vo
                                                                                                                                                                                           Q
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                                           •**
                                                                                                                                                                                           a-
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                                           a.

                                                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
-------

£
a
a
ft
I
1=
Table 9-16. Percentage of Individuals Consuming Vegetables, by Sex and Age, for Children (%)
Age Group
Sample Size Total
White Potatoes
Total
Dark Green
Vegetables
Fried
Deep
Yellow
egetables
Tomatoes
Lettuce,
lettuce-
based
salads
Green
beans
Corn,
green
peas, lima
beans
Other
vegetables
Males and Females
Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
1 to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
< 5 years
1,126
1,016
1,102
2,118
1,831
1,859
884
4,574
7,818
47.2
73.3
78.4
75.9
80.5
80.7
83.0
81.4
75.4
12.3
40.4
46.7
43.6
46.7
47.3
50.7
48.2
42.3
4.3
25.2
34.5
29.9
34.7
34.8
38.3
35.9
30.1
2.3
6.4
7.6
7.0
7.0
7.2
4.6
6.3
6.1
20.5
13.3
10.5
11.8
10.7
12.0
13.3
12.0
13.0
1.8
18.0
30.8
24.6
34.1
33.0
36.5
34.5
27.2
0.2a
3.9
7.5
5.7
8.3
10.0
13.4
10.6
7.6
7.8
13.7
11.5
12.6
10.1
9.0
10.4
9.9
10.5
8.5
17.6
15.0
16.2
14.6
16.4
16.1
15.7
15.0
14.8
19.4
22.3
20.9
24.7
26.5
28.8
26.7
23.3
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
78.8
79.3
78.2
47.9
48.7
49.5
38.0
38.4
38.6
6.3
6.1
3.6
12.5
12.4
8.0
38.2
38.7
43.0
13.1
13.9
23.8
7.8
6.7
3.5
15.0
13.8
7.4
29.7
30.8
33.2
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
80.5
81.7
79.5
48.2
50.8
46.4
36.3
38.9
34.6
5.9
5.4
7.0
11.9
11.4
10.6
33.8
33.5
35.3
15.8
17.1
25.1
8.4
7.8
4.4
15.9
15.1
7.4
26.6
29.2
34.5
Males and Females
< 9 years
< 19 years
9,309
11,287
Estimate is not statistically
77.1
78.3
44.6
46.8
32.9
35.3
6.1
5.6
12.7
11.2
30.7
34.6
10.3
16.6
9.6
7.0
15.2
11.9
25.2
29.4
reliable due to small samples size reporting intake.
Note: Consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day
Source: USDA, 1999.




of each participant's survey

response.











                                                                                                                                                         Q

                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                         ft
                                                                                                                                                        •s,
                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                        1
-------
    1
    s
Table 9-17. Mean Quantities of Fruits Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, for Ch
Citrus Fruits and Juices
Age Group
Sample Size
Total
Total
Juices
Dried
fruits
Total
Apples
Idren, Per Capita (g/day)
Other fruits, mixtures, and juices
Bananas
Melons and
berries
Other fruits
and mixtures
(mainly fruit)
Non-citrus
juices and
nectars
Males and Females
Under I year
I year
2 years
I to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
< 5 years
1,126
1,016
1,102
2,118
1,831
1,859
884
4,574
7,818
131
267
276
271
256
243
218
239
237
4
47
65
56
61
62
55
59
52
4
42
56
49
51
52
44
49
44
a,b
2
2
2
1
1
a,b
1
1
126
216
207
212
191
177
160
176
182
14
22
27
24
27
31
31
30
26
10
23
20
22
18
17
14
16
17
la
8
10
9
13
14
13
13
10
39
29
20
24
24
22
24
23
26
61
134
130
132
110
92
78
93
103
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
194
183
174
58
67
102
51
60
94
_a,b
a,b
1"
133
113
70
32
28
13
11
11
8
21
16
ir
20
19
10
50
40
29
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
180
169
157
63
64
72
54
54
67
r
_a,b
_a,b
113
103
83
23
21
13
10
8
5
10
8
15
25
23
14
46
42
35
Males and Females
< 9 years
< 19 years
9,309
11,287
217
191
55
70
47
62
1
1
159
118
" Estimate is not statistically reliable due to small samples size reporting intake.
b Value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Indicates value as not statistically significant or less than 0.5, but greater than 0
Note: Consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey
27
21
response
15
11

12
12

24
19

81
56

Source: USDA, 1999.
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-

                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I

vo
-------

£
a
a
ft
I
1=
Table 9-18. Percentage of Individuals Consuming, Fruits by Sex and Age, for Children (%)
Citrus Fruits and Juices
Age Group
Sample Size
Total
Total
Juices
Dried
fruits
Total
Apples
Other fruits, mixtures, and juices
Bananas
Melons and
berries
Other fruits
and mixtures
(mainly fruit)
Non-citrus
juices and
nectars
Males and Females
Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
1 to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
< 5 years
1,126
1,016
1,102
2,118
1,831
1,859
884
4,574
7,818
59.7
81.0
76.6
78.8
74.5
72.6
67.6
71.6
72.6
3.6
23.6
30.6
27.2
27.9
28.0
26.9
27.6
24.6
2.7
19.0
23.4
21.3
21.4
21.8
19.5
20.9
18.8
0.4a
5.9
5.3
5.6
4.1
3.0
1.3"
2.8
3.5
59.0
73.0
64.7
68.8
64.2
62.1
56.9
61.0
63.5
15.7
23.4
24.0
23.7
22.4
23.7
21.9
22.7
22.2
13.3
25.1
20.2
22.6
17.5
15.7
12.6
15.3
17.6
1.8
6.9
8.5
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.6
6.9
29.9
26.5
19.4
22.9
20.1
20.0
19.0
19.7
22.0
33.0
43.2
37.0
40.0
33.3
30.8
24.5
29.5
33.5
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
59.0
56.5
44.5
24.8
25.2
24.7
20.5
21.6
21.7
0.8a
1.1"
1.0a
49.1
44.2
27.1
20.3
18.2
8.2
8.7
8.0
6.0
7.3
6.6
4.1
16.8
15.4
7.1
15.5
12.7
8.2
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
64.9
62.1
45.6
27.9
27.7
22.4
22.3
21.5
18.1
1.5a
1.1"
1.1"
50.4
47.2
30.2
17.3
16.2
8.2
8.8
7.3
4.4
7.4
7.4
6.0
20.4
19.0
11.3
17.3
14.9
9.7
Males and Females
< 9 years
< 19 years
a Estimate
Note: Percenta
9,309
11,287
68.3
57.8
25.2
24.8
19.8
20.1
2.5
1.8
58.0
44.4
20.9
15.2
14.0
9.7
7.1
6.2
20.6
15.5
26.7
17.9
is not statistically reliable due to small samples size reporting intake.
jes shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
Source: USDA, 1999.
                                                                                                                                                         Q

                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                         ft
                                                                                                                                                        •s,
                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                        1
ft
-------
    1
    s
liable 9-19. Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals
Using These Foods in Two Days
Food category
Quantity consumed
PC per eating occasion (g)
Average SE
Raw vegetables
Cucumbers
Lettuce
Mixed lettuce-based salad
Carrots
Tomatoes
Coleslaw
Onions
Cooked vegetables
Broccoli
Carrots
Total tomato sauce
String beans
Peas
Corn
French-fried potatoes
Home- fried and hash-browned
potatoes
Baked potatoes
Boiled potatoes
Mashed potatoes
Dried beans and peas
Baked beans
Fruits
Raw oranges
Orange juice
Raw apples
Applesauce and cooked apples
Apple juice
Raw bananas

10.8
53.3
2.2
14.1
32.0
5.0
14.4

7.3
5.8
54.3
13.2
6.1
15.1
25.5
8.9
12.4
5.3
15.0
8.0
4.7


7.9
27.2
15.6
4.6
7.0
20.8

48
41
97
33
53
102
23

119
72
34
90
86
101
83
135
120
157
188
133
171


132
268
135
134
271
111

3
1
6
1
1
3
1

4
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
5
3
3
6


2
4
2
4
7
1
5

7
7
11
5
15
18
3

23
13
1
17
11
20
28
36
48
34
46
22
24


42
124
46
31
117
55
Consumers-only Quantity consumed per eating occasion
at specified percentiles (g)a
10

14
8
18
7
20
32
7

35
19
2
31
21
33
35
47
61
52
61
33
47


64
124
68
59
120
58
25

16
13
55
14
27
55
10

61
36
7
52
40
55
57
70
92
91
105
64
84


95
187
105
85
182
100
50

29
27
74
27
40
91
15

92
65
17
68
80
82
70
105
106
123
156
101
126


127
249
134
121
242
117
75

54
55
123
40
61
134
28

156
78
40
125
120
123
112
192
143
197
207
173
235


131
311
137
142
307
118
90

100
91
167
61
93
179
41

232
146
80
136
167
171
125
284
184
308
397
259
314


183
447
209
249
481
135
95

157
110
229
100
123
183
60

275
156
124
202
170
228
140
308
217
368
413
345
385


253
498
211
254
525
136
PC = Percent consuming at least once in 2 days.
SE = Standard error of the mean.
Source: Smiciklas- Wright et al. , 2002


(based on 1994-1 996

CSFII data).














                                                                                                                                                                                           Q
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                                           •**
                                                                                                                                                                                           a-
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                                           a.

                                                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
vo
-------

£
a
a
ft
I
1=
Table 9-20. Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating Occasion and Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days, by Age
Quantity consumed per eating occasion (grams)
2 to 5 years
Food category
Male and Female
(N = 2,109)
PC
Mean.
SE
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
Male and Female Male
(N= 1,432) (N=696)
PC
Mean
SE PC Mean
SE
PC
Female
(N = 702)
Mean

SE
Raw Vegetables
Carrots
Cucumbers
Lettuce
Onions
Tomatoes
10.4
6.4
34.0
3.9
14.8
27
32
17
9
31
2
4
1
2
2
17.8
6.6
40.8
4.5
14.0
32
39
26
17
42
2 9.2
6 6.1
1 56.0
2 11.1
4 25.7
35
?1a
32
28
49
6
22a
3
4
5
11.9
6.8
52.3
7.9
23.9
32
48
34
23
44
4
11
2
4
3
Cooked Vegetables
Beans (string) 16.8
Broccoli 7.2
Carrots 6.0
Com 18.9
Peas 8.4
Potatoes (French-fried) 32.7
Potatoes home- fried and hash-browned) 9.3
Potatoes baked) 7.6
Potatoes boiled) 4.8
Potatoes (mashed) 14.8
50
61
48
68
48
52
85
70
81
118
2
3
4
3
3
1
5
4
9
6
12.1
5.6
3.8
22.2
6.8
33.7
10.1
8.2
2.7
13.3
71
102
46
79
72
67
93
95
103a
162
6 8.3
16 3.9
5 2.8
4 12.8
9 3.6
2 41.7
6 10.1
6 8.6
17a 2.0
12 14.6
85
127a
81a
125
115a
97
145
152
250a
245
9
17a
16a
9
15a
3
13
15
40a
16
7.6
5.7
2.1
12.3
2.4
38.1
6.1
8.8
3.2
11.9
78
109a
75a
100
93a
81
138
115
144a
170
5
14a
17a
6
17a
4
13
10
16a
17
Fruits
Apples (raw)
Apples (cooked and applesauce)
Apple juice
Bananas (raw)
Oranges (raw)
Orange juice
26.8
10.1
26.3
25.0
11.1
34.4
106
118
207
95
103
190
2
5
5
2
5
4
a Indicates a statistic that is potentially unreliable because of small
PC = Percent consuming at least once in 2 days.
SE = Standard error of the mean.
Source: Smiciklas- Wright et al, 2002 (based on 1994-1996 CSFII data).
21.9
9.0
12.2
16.5
10.5
30.9
123
130
223
105
114
224
3 11.7
7 2.3
10 7.8
3 10.3
5 4.3
6 30.8
149
153a
346
122
187a
354
9
19a
22
6
38a
16
12.4
2.6
8.5
8.4
5.4
29.5
129
200a
360
119
109a
305
5
47a
44
5
8a
11
sample size or large coefficient of variation
                                                                                                                                                           Q

                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                           ft
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          1
I
 §
 a
 3


 I
 3

 &
 &
 1=
 tt
 &
ft
-------
    ft
    1
    s
Table 9-20. Quantity (as consumed) of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed Per Eating Occasion and Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days, by
(continued)
Food category
Quantity
20 to <40 years


Male
(N= 1,543)
PC Mean SE
Female
(N= 1,449)
PC Mean
SE
Age
consumed per eating occasion (grams)
40 to <60 years
Male
(N= 1,663)
PC
Mean SE
Female
(N= 1,694)
PC Mean
SE
>=60 years
Male
(N= 1,545)
PC Mean
SE
Female
(N= 1,429)
PC Mean
SE
Raw Vegetables
Carrots
Cucumbers
Lettuce
Onions
Tomatoes
12.3 35 4
10.5 62 12
63.4 40 2
17.9 27 2
33.1 57 2
15.4 38
10.4 45
57.6 44
14.7 22
32.3 49
4
4
2
1
2
14.4
12.5
55.5
19.6
38.1
35 2
47 4
48 2
26 1
60 2
18.1 31
15.7 41
59.1 48
18.3 19
42.4 53
2
3
1
1
1
13.6 29
14.2 51
48.1 47
19.0 19
40.0 62
2
4
2
1
3
12.7 27
13.2 45
46.1 42
15.6 19
41.0 52
1
3
2
1
2
Cooked Vegetables
Beans (string)
Broccoli
Carrots
Com
Peas
Potatoes (French-fried)
Potatoes (home-fried/hash-browned)
Potatoes (baked)
Potatoes (boiled)
Potatoes (mashed)
10.6 111 5
7.6 152 13
5.0 79 7
12.7 122 5
4.4 109 10
35.3 107 2
9.5 160 10
11.4 154 7
3.9 185 16
14.7 269 12
12.5 89
6.7 129
5.3 69
15.3 98
4.9 82
23.9 79
8.8 129
11.1 126
2.9 162
13.5 167
6
13
6
5
9
3
7
5
15
5
13.7
7.8
6.7
17.1
7.4
20.6
11.
13.0
6.3
16.0
114 6
127 7
83 7
133 6
113 7
89 2
174 10
133 3
209 12
225 11
13.4 93
7.6 114
6.4 66
13.5 90
6.3 79
16.8 72
6.4 119
16.5 112
7.0 142
14.3 156
4
7
4
3
7
3
7
3
9
7
18.3 99
8.5 117
9.6 78
14.2 109
8.4 88
11.2 76
10.4 152
17.9 115
11.0 166
19.7 173
4
7
4
4
7
3
8
3
6
6
19.7 78
10.9 107
9.0 75
13.0 83
9.4 73
8.1 58
7.1 110
18.1 100
10.2 131
18.1 140
3
6
4
5
5
3
9
4
5
5
Fruits
Apples (raw)
Apples (cooked and applesauce)
Apple juice
Bananas (raw)
Oranges (raw)
Orange juice
6.6 153 8
24.3 373 20
12.1 161 6
1.3 153a 31a
4.2 345 20
14.4 126 2
6.3 126
23.2 289
12.9 134
2.4 155 a
4.7 302
18.5 112
a Indicates a statistic that is potentially unreliable because of small
PC = Percent consuming at least once in 2 days.
SE = Standard error of the mean.
Source: Smiciklas- Wright et al. , 2002 (based on 1 994- 1 996 CSFII data).
6
12
3
21 a
19
2
sample
7.4
24.1
14.1
3.1
4.7
21.9
148 8
285 10
145 3
142 12
358 33
125 3
8.3 132
25.2 231
16.2 136
3.9 125
3.2 259
24.4 111
5
6
4
10
21
2
8.9 133
30.2 213
17.6 145
8.1 135
4.8 233
36.5 105
5
5
8
10
11
2
11.2 129
31.7 196
16.1 128
9.2 121
5.0 225
34.0 96
4
5
3
7
13
2
size or large coefficient of variation
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                    •**
                                                                                                                                                                                                    a-

                                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                   I

vo
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-21. Consumption of Major Food Groups: Median Servings (and Ranges) by Demographic and
Health Characteristics, for Older Adults
Subject Characteristic
Gender
Female
Male
Ethnicity
African American
European American
Native American
Age
70 to 74
75 to 79
80 to 84
>85
Marital Status
Married
Not Married
Education
8th grade or less
9th to 12th grades
> High School
Dentures
Yes
No
Chronic Diseases
0
1
2
3
4+
Weight"
130
131 to 150
151 to 170
171 to 190
191
N = Number of individuals.
a Two missing values.
* p<0.05.
Source: Vitolins et al., 2002 .
N

80
50

44
47
39

42
36
36
16

49
81

37
47
46

83
47

7
31
56
26
10

18
32
27
22
29



Fruits and Vegetables

5.7(1.5-5
4.5(0.8-5
*
4.5(0.8-5
6.0(1.5-5
4.5(1.6-5

4.5(1.6-5
5.6(0.8-5
5.6(1.5-5
5.4(1.8-5

4.5(1.6-5
5.6(0.8-5

5.0(1.5-5
4.5(0.8-5
6.0(1.5-5

5.4(1.5-5
4.7(0.8-5

7.0 (5.2 - 5
5.4(1.5-5
5.4(1.6-5
4.5 (2.0 - 5
5.5(0.8-5

6.0(1.8-5
5.5(1.5-5
5.7(1.7-5
5.6(1.8-5
4.5(0.8-5




5.1)
5.8)

5.0)
5.0)
5.8)

5.1)
5.0)
5.8)
5.0)

5.0)
5.8)

5.1)
5.0)
5.8)

5.8)
5.0)

5.8)
5.0)
5.1)
5.0)
5.0)

5.0)
5.0)
5.1)
5.8)
5.0)



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 9-47
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-22. Characteristics of the FITS Sample Population

Gender
Male
Female
Age of Child
4 to 6 months
7 to 8 months
9 to 1 1 months
12 to 14 months
15 to 18 months
19 to 24 months
Child's Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Non-Hispanic or Latino
Missing
Child's Race
White
Black
Other
Urbanicity
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Missing
Household Income
Under $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 and Over
Missing
Receives WIC
Yes
No
Missing
Sample Size (Unweighted)
WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Source: Devaney et al., 2004.
Sample Size

1,549
1,473

862
483
679
374
308
316

367
2,641
14

2,417
225
380

1,389
1,014
577
42

48
48
221
359
723
588
311
272
452

821
2,196
5
3,022
Infants, and Children.

Percentage of Sample

51.3
48.7

28.5
16.0
22.5
12.4
10.2
10.4

12.1
87.4
0.5

80.0
7.4
12.6

46.0
33.6
19.1
1.3

1.6
1.6
7.3
11.9
23.9
19.5
10.3
9.0
14.9

27.2
72.6
0.2
100.0


Page
9-48
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-23. Percentag
>e of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Vegetables
Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Food Group/Food
Any Vegetable
Baby Food Vegetables
Cooked Vegetables
Raw Vegetables
4to6 7to8 9 to 11 12 to 14
months months months months
39.9
35.7
5.2
0.5
66.5 72.6 76.5
54.5 34.4 12.7
17.4 45.9 66.3
1.6 5.5 7.9
15 to 18
months
79.2
3.0
72.9
14.3
19 to 24
months
81.6
1.6
75.6
18.6
Types of Vegetables8
Dark Green Vegetables'1
Deep Yellow Vegetables'
White Potatoes
French Fries and Other Fried Potatoes
Other Starchy Vegetables'"
Other Vegetables
0.1
26.5
3.6
0.7
6.5
11.2
2.9 4.2 5.0
39.3 29.0 24.0
12.4 24.1 33.2
2.9 8.6 12.9
10.9 16.9 17.3
25.9 35.1 39.1
a Totals include commercial baby food, cooked vegetables, and raw vegetables.
b Reported dark green vegetables include broccoli, spinach and other greens, and romaine lettuce.
c Reported deep yellow vegetables include carrots, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, and winter squash.
d Reported starchy vegetables include corn, green peas, immature lima beans, black-eyed peas (not dried),
Source: Fox etal., 2004.
10.4
13.6
42.0
19.8
20.8
45.6
7.8
13.4
40.6
25.5
24.2
43.3
cassava, and rutabaga.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 9-49
-------
             Exposure Factors Handbook




Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables


Table 9-24.
Top Vegetables by Age Group8

Top Five Vegetables Consumed by Infants and Toddlers
Percentage Consuming at Least Once in a Day
4 to 6 months
Baby Food Carrots
Baby Food Sweet Potatoes
Baby Food Squash
Baby Food Green Beans
Baby Food Peas
9.6
9.1
8.1
7.2
5.0
7 to 8 months
Baby Food Carrots
Baby Food Sweet Potatoes
Baby Food Squash
Baby Food Green Beans
Baby Food Mixed/Garden Vegetables
14.2
12.9
12.9
11.2
10.1
9 to 11 months
Cooked Green Beans
Mashed/Whipped Potatoes
French Fries/Other Fried Potatoes
Baby Food Mixed/Garden Vegetables
Cooked Carrots
9.7
9.0
8.6
8.4
8.0
12 to 14 months
Cooked Green Beans
French Fries/Other Fried Potatoes
Cooked Carrots
Mashed/Whipped Potatoes
Cooked Peas
18.2
12.9
11.5
10.3
8.4
15 to 18 months
French Fries/Other Fried Potatoes
Cooked Green Beans
Cooked Peas
Cooked Tomatoes/Tomato Sauce
Mashed/Whipped Potatoes
19.8
16.7
13.9
13.7
12.4
19 to 24 months
French Fries/Other Fried Potatoes
Cooked Green Beans
Cooked Corn
Cooked Peas
Cooked Tomatoes/Tomato Sauce
25.5
16.8
15.2
11.4
9.4
a Baby food vegetables include single vegetables (majority of vegetables reported) as well as mixtures with the named
vegetables the predominant vegetable, e.g., broccoli and cauliflower or broccoli and carrots.
Source: Fox etal., 2004.

Page
9-50


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-25. Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Fruits
Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Food Group/Food
Any Fruit
Baby Food Fruit
Non-baby Food Fruit
4 to 6 months
41.9
39.1
5.3
7 to 8 months 9 to
75.5
67.9
14.3
1 1 months
75.8
44.8
44.2
12 to 14
months
77.2
16.2
67.1
15 to 18
months
71.8
4.2
69.4
19 to 24
months
67.3
1.8
66.8
Types of Non-baby Food Fruit
Canned Fruit
Packed in Syrup
Packed in Juice or Water
Unknown Pack
Fresh Fruit
Dried Fruit
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.0
4.4
0.0
5.8
0.7
4.5
0.7
9.5
0.4
21.6
8.1
13.5
1.5
29.5
2.1
31.9
14.9
18.5
1.2
52.1
3.5
25.1
12.7
11.3
3.1
55.0
7.1
20.2
8.1
11.4
1.2
54.6
9.4
Types of Fruit"
Apples
Bananas
Berries
Citrus Fruits
Melons
a Totals include all baby
Source: Fox etal., 2004.
18.6
16.0
0.1
0.2
0.6
33.1
30.6
0.6
0.4
1.0
31.6
34.5
5.3
1.6
4.4
27.5
37.8
6.6
4.9
7.3
19.8
32.4
11.3
7.3
7.2
22.4
30.0
7.7
5.1
9.6
food and non-baby food fruits.






Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 9-51
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables



Table 9-26. Top Five Fruits Consumed by Infants and Toddlers
Top Fruits by Age Group8
Percentage Consuming at Least Once in a Day
4 to 6 months
Baby Food Applesauce
Baby Food Bananas
Baby Food Pears
Baby Food Peaches
Fresh Banana
17.5
13.0
7.5
7.4
0.3
7 to 8 months
Baby Food Applesauce
Baby Food Bananas
Baby Food Pears
Baby Food Peaches
Fresh Banana
29.0
25.2
18.2
13.1
6.6
9 to 1 1 months
Fresh Banana
Baby Food Applesauce
Baby Food Bananas
Baby Food Pears
Canned Applesauce
19.0
17.7
16.8
12.4
11.1
12 to 14 months
Fresh Banana
Canned Applesauce
Fresh Grapes
Fresh Apple
Canned Peaches
Canned Fruit Cocktail
33.0
15.2
9.0
8.8
7.2
7.2
15 to 18 Months
Fresh Banana
Fresh Grapes
Fresh Apple
Fresh Strawberries
Canned peaches
30.5
13.2
11.2
10.6
8.9
19 to 24 months
Fresh Banana
Fresh Apple
Fresh Grapes
Raisins
Fresh Strawberries
29.6
15.0
11.2
9.0
7.6
a Baby food fruits include single fruits (majority of fruits reported) as well as mixtures with the named fruit as the
predominant fruit, e.g., pears and raspberries or prunes with pears. Baby food fruits with tapioca and other baby food
dessert fruits were counted as desserts.
Source: Fox et al., 2004.

Page
9-52


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
                          Table 9-27. Characteristics of WIC Participants and Non-participants" (Percentages)
                                 Infants 4 to 6 months
                                                                Infants 7 to 11 months
                                                                                               Toddlers 12 to 24 months
                               WIC
                             Participant
                                 Non-participant
  WIC
Participant
Non-participant
  WIC
Participant
Non-participant
 Gender
  Male                          55
  Female                        45

 Child's Ethnicity

  Hispanic or Latino               20
  Non-Hispanic or  Latino         80

 Child's Race

  White                         63
  Black                         15
  Other                         22

 Child In Day Care

  Yes                           39
  No                            61

 Age of Mother

  14 to 19                       18
  20 to 24                       33
  25 to 29                       29
  30 to 34                        9
  >35                            9
  Missing                        2

 Mother's Education

  11th Grade or Less               23
  Completed High School          35
  Some Postsecondary             33
  Completed College               7
  Missing                        2

 Parent's Marital Status

  Married                       49
  Not Married                    50
  Missing                        1

 Mother or Female Guardian Works

  Yes                           46
  No                            53
  Missing                        1

 Urbanicity

  Urban                         34
  Suburban                      36
  Rural                          28
  Missing                         2
 Sample Size (Unweighted)        265
                                      54
                                      46
                                      11
                                      84
                                       4
                                      11
                                      38
                                      62
                                       1
                                      13
                                      29
                                      33
                                      23
                                       2
                                       2
                                      19
                                      26
                                      53
                                       1
                                      93
                                       7
                                       1
                                      51
                                      48
                                       1
                                      55
                                      31
                                      13
                                        1
                                      597
    55
    45
                                                      24
                                                      76
   63
   17
   20
   34
   66
    13
    38
    23
    15
    11
    1
    15
    42
    32
    9
    2
    57
    42
    1
   45
   54
    1
    37
    31
    30
     2
   351
      51
      49
                                                                      92
      86
      5
      9
      46
      54
      1
      11
      30
      36
      21
      1
      2
      20
      27
      51
      0
      93
      7
      0
      60
      40
      0
      50
      34
      15
       1
     808
   57
   43
                                   22
                                   78
   67
   13
   20
   43
   57
    9
   33
   29
   18
   11
    0
    17
    42
    31
    9
    1
   58
   41
    1
   55
   45
    0
    35
    35
    28
     2
   205
      52
      48
                                                                                                      10
      84
      5
      11
      53
      47
      1
      14
      26
      34
      26
      1
      3
      19
      28
      48
      2
      11
      1
      61
      38
      1
      48
      35
      16
       2
     791
 WIC
X2 test were conducted to test for statistical significance in the differences between WIC participants and non-participants within
each age group for each variable.  The results of X2 test are listed next to the variable under the column labeled non-participants for
each of the three age groups.
P<0.05 non-participants significantly different from WIC participants on the variable.
P>0.01 non-participants significantly different from WIC participants on the variable.
= Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
 Source:   Ponza et al., 2004.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                                         Page
                                                                                                         9-53
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-28. Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC
Infants 4 to 6 months

WIC
Participant
Infants 7 to
Non- WIC
participant Participant
Participation Status
11 months
Non-
participant
Toddlers
WIC
Participant
12 to 24 months
Non-participant
Vegetables
Any Vegetable
Baby Food Vegetables
Cooked Vegetables
Raw Vegetables
Dark Green Vegetables
Deep Yellow Vegetables
Other Starchy Vegetables
Potatoes
40.2
32.9
8.0
1.4
0.4
23.2
6.5
6.0
39.8
37.0
3.9*
0.1**
0.0
28.1
6.4
2.4*
68.2
38.2
33.8
3.6
2.9
30.1
12.9
20.7
70.7
45.0
33.8
4.1
4.0
34.8
15.2
18.2
77.5
4.8
73.1
11.8
6.3
12.5
21.1
43.1
80.2
4.7
72.3
15.4
8.4
16.9
21.5
38.3
Fruits
Any Fruit
Baby Food Fruits
Non-Baby Food Fruit
Fresh Fruit
Canned Fruit
Sample Size (unweighted)
47.8
43.8
8.1
5.4
3.4
265
39.2*
36.9
4.0
3.8
0.5**
597
64.7
48.4
22.9
14.3
10.3
351
81.0**
57.4*
35.9**
24.3**
17.3**
808
58.5
3.8
56.4
43.6
22.3
205
74.6**
6.5
70.9**
57.0**
25.3
791
* = P<0.05 non-participants significantly different from WIC participants.
** = P<0.01 non-participants significantly different from WIC participants.
WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Source: Ponza et al. 2004.






Page
9-54
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-29. Average Portion Sizes per Eating Occasion of Fruits and Vegetables Commonly Consumed by
Infants from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study
4 to 5 months
Food group

Reference
unit

(N=624)


6 to 8 months
(N=708)

Meani SEM
9 to 1 1 months
(N=687)


Fruits and Juices
All fruits
Baby food fruit
Baby food peaches
Baby food pears
Baby food bananas
Baby food applesauce
Canned fruit
Fresh fruit
100% juice
Apple/apple blends
Grape
Pear
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
fluid ounce
fluid ounce
fluid ounce
fluid ounce
3.6±0.19
3.3±0.16
3.6±0.37
3.5±0.46
3.4±0.23
3.7±0.29
-
-
2.5±0.17
2.7±0.22
-
-
4.7±0.11
4.6±0.11
4.4±0.26
4.5±0.21
5.0±0.21
4.6±0.17
4.5±0.59
5.3±0.52
2.8±0.11
2.9±0.13
2.6±0.19
2.6±0.29
5.8±0.17
5.6±0.17
5.3±0.36
6.0±0.40
5.9±0.35
5.6±0.25
4.8±0.25
6.4±0.37
3.1±0.09
3.2±0.11
3.1±0.21
3.1±0.28
Vegetables
All vegetables
Baby food vegetables
Baby food green beans
Baby food squash
Baby food sweet
Baby food carrots
Cooked vegetables, excluding french fries
Deep yellow vegetables
Mashed potatoes
Green beans
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
tablespoon
3.8±0.20
4.0±0.20
3.5±0.33
4.3±0.47
4.3±0.31
3.5±0.33
-
-
-
-
5.8±0.16
5.9±0.16
5.1±0.28
5.6±0.30
6.1±0.34
5.6±0.27
4.2±0.47
3.2±0.59
4.1±0.67
3.2±0.62
5.6±0.20
6.6±0.21
6.1±0.50
6.9±0.41
7.2±0.69
6.7±0.48
3.8±0.31
3.2±0.39
2.8±0.37
5.0±0.61
= Cell size was too small to generate a reliable estimate.
N = Number of respondents.
SEM = Standard error.
Source: Fox et al., 2006.












Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 9-55
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-30. Average Portion Sizes per Eating Occasion of Fruits and Vegetables Commonly Consumed by
Toddlers from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study
Food group
Reference
unit
12 to 14 months
(N=371)

15 to 18 months
(N=312)
Meani SEM
19 to 24 months
(N=320)

Fruits and Juices
All fruits
Canned fruit
Fresh fruit
Fresh apple

Fresh banana

Fresh grapes
100% juice
Orange/orange blends
Apple/apple blends
Grape
cup
cup
cup
cup, slice
1 medium
cup, slice
1 medium
cup
fluid ounce
fluid ounce
fluid ounce
fluid ounce
0.4±0.02
0.3±0.02
0.4±0.02
0.4±0.05
0.3±0.04
0.4+0.02
0.6±0.03
0.2±0.01
3.7±0.15
3.3+0.38
3.6+0.21
3.6+0.38
0.5+0.03
0.4+0.03
0.5+0.03
0.6+0.07
0.5+0.06
0.5+0.03
0.7+0.03
0.3+0.03
5.0+0.20
4.5+0.33
4.5+0.29
5.6+0.43
0.6+0.03
0.4+0.04
0.6+0.03
0.8+0.14
0.6+0.11
0.5+0.03
0.7+0.04
0.3+0.02
5.1+0.18
5.2+0.35
4.9+0.27
4.7+0.31
Vegetables
All vegetables
Cooked vegetables,
excluding french fries
Deep yellow vegetables
Corn
Peas
Green beans
Mashed potatoes
Baked, boiled potatoes
French fries
cup
cup
cup
cup
cup
cup
cup
cup
cup
0.4+0.02
0.3+0.03
0.2+0.03
0.2+0.03
0.2+0.02
0.4+0.05
0.3+0.05
0.3+0.05
0.4+0.05
0.4+0.03
0.3+0.03
0.3+0.05
0.2+0.03
0.2+0.02
0.4+0.05
0.4+0.05
0.4+0.06
0.6+0.05
0.4+0.02
0.3+0.02
0.3+0.05
0.2+0.03
0.2+0.02
0.3+0.03
0.3+0.05
-
0.6+0.05
Cell size too small to generate reliable estimate.
N = Number of respondents.
SEM = Standard error of the mean.
Source: Fox et al., 2006.




Page
9-56
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-31. Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming
Different Types of Fruits and Vegetables on A Given Day


Age 4 to 5 months Age 6 to 11 months Age 12 to 24 months
Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic
(n=84) (n=538) (n=163) (n=l,228) (n=124)
Non-Hispanic
(n=871)
Fruits
Any Fruit or 100% Fruit Juice 45.0 35.9 86.2 86.8 84.6
Any Fruit8 39.4 28.8 68.1 76.0 67.6
100% Fruit Juice 19.3 15.3 57.8 47.7 64.1
Fruit Preparation
Baby Food Fruit 32.6 28.4 42.9* 58.1 5.6f
Non-Baby Food Fruit 9.1f 1.3f 35.8 27.4 64.2
Canned Fruit 2.3f - 8.8 13.7 12.1**
Fresh Fruit 9.1*f - 30.0** 17.7 59.3
87.2
71.5
58.9

6.3
68.0
26.2
53.1
Vegetables
Any Vegetable or 100% Vegetable Juiceb 30.0 27.3 66.2 70.3 76.0
Type of Preparation
Baby Food Vegetables 25.7 25.4 34.4* 47.6 4.1f
Cooked Vegetables 4.2f 2.4f 33.2 29.4 71.4
Raw Vegetables 2.3f - 8.3f 2.6 25.0
Types of Vegetables'1
Dark Green Vegetables' - - 3.3f 3.1 H.4f
Deep Yellow Vegetables'1 21.0 18.2 32.2 25.9 20.0
Starchy Vegetable:
White Potatoes 1.4f 2.3f 20.7 17.4 43.5
French Fries/Fried Potatoes . - 5 .y-j- 5.3 23.4
Baked/Mashed . - 144^- 10.7 19.8
Other Starchy Vegetables' 5 of 4.0 6.7** 15.1 16.6
Other Non-starchy Vegetables' g if 8.0 28.5 29-° 42.0
a Total includes all baby food and non-baby food fruits and excludes 100% fruit juices and juice drinks.
b Total includes commercial baby food, cooked vegetables, raw vegetables, and 100% vegetable juices.
' Reported dark green vegetables include broccoli, spinach, romaine lettuce and other greens such as kale.
d Reported yellow vegetables include carrots, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, and winter squash.
' Reported starchy vegetables include corn, green peas, immature lima beans, black-eyed peas (not dried), cassava,
Corn is also shown as a subcategory of other starchy vegetables.
f Reported non-starchy vegetables include asparagus, cauliflower, cabbage, onions, green beans, mixed vegetables,
tomatoes.
= Less than 1 percent of the group consumed this food on a given day.
* = Significantly different from non-Hispanic at the P<0.05.
** = Significantly different from non-Hispanic atthePXXOl.
f = Statistic is potentially unreliable because of a high coefficient of variation.
Source: Mennella et al., 2006.
80.5

4.9
72.9
13.1

7.5
15.4

39.0
20.3
17.7
22.2
43.4




and rutabaga.

peppers, and






Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 9-57
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-32
Age
4 to 5 months
6 to 1 1 months
12 to 24 months

4 to 5 months
6 to 1 1 months
12 to 24 months
Top Five Fruits and Vegetables Consumed by Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Per Age Group a
N
84 Hispanic
538 non-Hispanic
136 Hispanic
1,228 non-Hispanic
124 Hispanic
871 non-Hispanic

84 Hispanic
538 non-Hispanic
136 Hispanic
1,228 non-Hispanic
124 Hispanic
871 non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Bananas (16.3%)
Apples (14.7%)
Peaches (10.9%)
Melons (3.5%)
Pears (2.5%)
Bananas (35.9%)
Apples (29.7%)
Pears (15.2%)
Peaches (11.7%)
Melons (4.7%)
Bananas (4 1.5%)
Apples (25.7%)
Berries (8.5%)
Melons (7.6%)
Pears (7.3%)
Top Vegetables By A;
Carrots (9.9%)
Sweet Potatoes (6.8%)
Green Beans (5.8%)
Peas (5.0%)
Squash (4.3%)
Potatoes (20.7%)
Carrots (19.0%)
Mixed Vegetables (11. 1%)
Green Beans (11.0%)
Sweet Potatoes (8.7%)
Potatoes (43. 5%)
Tomatoes (23. 1%)
Carrots (18. 6%)
Onions (11. 8%)
Corn (10.2%)
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic
Top Fruits By Age Group
Apples (12.5%)
Bananas (10.0%)
Pears (5.9%)
Peaches (5.8%)
Prunes (1.6%)
Apples (32.9%)
Bananas (31.5%)
Pears (17.5%)
Peaches (13.9%)
Apricots (3.7%)
Bananas (30.9%)
Apples (22.0%)
Grapes (12.3%)
Peaches (9.6%)
Berries (8.7%)
je Group
Sweet Potatoes (7.5%)
Carrots (6.6%)
Green Beans (5.9%)
Squash (5.4%)
Peas (3.8%)
Carrots (17.5%)
Potatoes (16.4%)
Green Beans (15.9%)
Squash (11. 8%)
Sweet Potatoes (11. 4%)
Potatoes (39.0%)
Green Beans (19.6%)
Peas (12.8%)
Carrots (12.3%)
Tomatoes (11.9%)
a Percentage consuming at least one in a day is in parentheses.
Source: Mennella, et al., 2006.
Page
9-58
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-33. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions
Food
Moisture Content
Raw
Cooked

— Comments
Fruits
Apples - dried
Apples

Apples - juice
Applesauce
Apricots
Apricots - dried
Bananas
Blackberries
Blueberries
Boysenberries
Cantaloupes
Casabas
Cherries - sweet
Crabapples
Cranberries
Cranberries - juice cocktail
Currants (red and white)
Elderberries
Grapefruit (pink, red and white)
Grapefruit -juice
Grapefruit - unspecified
Grapes - fresh
Grapes - juice
Grapes - raisins
Honeydew melons
Kiwi fruit
Kumquats
Lemons - juice
Lemons - peel
Lemons - pulp
Limes
Limes - juice
Loganberries
Mulberries
Nectarines
Oranges - unspecified
Peaches
Pears - dried
Pears - fresh
Pineapple
Pineapple - juice
Plums - dried (prunes)
Plums
Quinces
Raspberries
Strawberries
Tangerine - juice
Tangerines
Watermelon
31.76
85.56*
86.67**
-
-
86.35
30.09
74.91
88.15
84.21
85.90
90.15
91.85
82.25
78.94
87.13
85.00
83.95
79.80
90.89
90.00
90.89
81.30
84.12
15.43
89.82
83.07
80.85
90.73
81.60
88.98
88.26
90.79
84.61*
87.68
87.59
86.75
88.87
26.69
83.71
86.00
-
30.92
87.23
83.80
85.75
90.95
88.90
85.17
91.45
84.13*
-
-
87.93
88.35*
86.62*
75.56*
-
-
86.59*
-
-
-
84.95*
-
-
-
-
-
-
90.10*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
92.46*
-
-
-
92.52*
-
-
-
-
87.49*
64.44*
86.47*
83.51*
86.37
-
84.02*
-
-
89.97*
87.00*
89.51*
-
sulfured; * without added sugar
*with skin
** without skin
canned or bottled
*unsweetened
* canned juice pack with skin
sulfured; *without added sugar


*frozen unsweetened
frozen unsweetened


*canned, juice pack


bottled



* canned unsweetened
pink, red, white
American type (slip skin)
canned or bottled
seedless



* canned or bottled



* canned or bottled
*frozen


all varieties
*canned juice pack
sulfured; *without added sugar
* canned juice pack
* canned juice pack
canned

* canned juice pack


*frozen unsweetened
* canned sweetened
* canned juice pack

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 9-59
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9-33. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions (continued)
Food
Moisture Content
Raw
Cooked

Comments
Vegetables
Alfalfa seeds - sprouted
Artichokes - globe & French
Artichokes - Jerusalem
Asparagus
Bamboo shoots
Beans - dry - blackeye peas (cowpeas)
Beans - dry - hyacinth (mature seeds)
Beans - dry - navy (mature seeds)
Beans - dry - pinto (mature seeds)
Beans - lima
Beans - snap - green - yellow
Beets
Beets - tops (greens)
Broccoli
Brussel sprouts
Cabbage - Chinese (pak-choi)
Cabbage - red
Cabbage - savoy
Carrots
Cassava (yucca blanca)
Cauliflower
Celeriac
Celery
Chives
Cole slaw
Collards
Corn - sweet
Cress - garden
Cucumbers - peeled
Dandelion - greens
Eggplant
Endive
Garlic
Kale
Kohlrabi
Lambsquarter
Leeks - bulb and lower leaf-portion
Lentils - sprouted
Lettuce - iceberg
Lettuce - cos or romaine
Mung beans - mature seeds (sprouted)
Mushrooms - unspecified
Mushrooms - oyster
Mushrooms - Maitake
Mushrooms - portabella
Mustard greens
Okra
Onions
Onions - dehydrated or dried
Parsley
Parsnips
Peas - edible-podded
Peppers - sweet - green
Peppers - hot chili-green
92.82
84.94
78.01
93.22
91.00
77.20
87.87
79.15
81.30
70.24
90.27
87.58
91.02
90.69
86.00
95.32
90.39
91.00
88.29
59.68
91.91
88.00
95.43
90.65
81.50
90.55
75.96
89.40
96.73
85.60
92.41
93.79
58.58
84.46
91.00
84.30
83.00
67.34
95.64
94.61
90.40
-
88.80
90.53
91.20
90.80
90.17
89.11
3.93
87.71
79.53
88.89
93.89
87.74

84.08
-
92.63
95.92
75.48
86.90
76.02
93.39
67.17
89.22
87.06
89.13
89.25
88.90
95.55
90.84
92.00
90.17
-
93.00
92.30
94.11
-
-
91.86
69.57
92.50
-
89.80
89.67
-
-
91.20
90.30
88.90
90.80
68.70
-
-
93.39
91.08
-
-
-
94.46
92.57
87.86
-
-
80.24
88.91
91.87
92.50*

boiled, drained

boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained

boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained


boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained

boiled, drained
boiled, drained


boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
stir-fried


boiled, drained
boiled, drained



boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained


boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
* canned solids & liquid
Page
9-60
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
           Table 9-33.  Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions (continued)
                     Food
                                                   Moisture Content
                                                 Raw
                                                               Cooked
                                                                                            Comments
   Potatoes (white)
   Pumpkin
   Radishes
   Rutabagas - unspecified
   Salsify (vegetable oyster)
   Shallots
   Soybeans - mature seeds - sprouted
   Spinach
   Squash - summer
   Squash - winter
   Sweet Potatoes
   Swiss chard
   Taro - leaves
   Taro
   Tomatoes - juice
   Tomatoes - paste
   Tomatoes - puree
   Tomatoes
   Towelgourd
   Turnips
   Turnips - greens
   Water chestnuts - Chinese
   Yambean - tuber
81.58
91.60
95.27
89.66
77.00
79.80
69.05
91.40
94.64
89.76
77.28
92.66
85.66
70.64
93.95
93.85
91.87
89.67
73.46
90.07
75.43      baked
93.69      boiled, drained

88.88      boiled, drained
81.00      boiled, drained

79.45      steamed
91.21      boiled, drained
93.70      all varieties; boiled, drained
89.02      all varieties; baked
75.78      baked in skin
92.65      boiled, drained
92.15      steamed
63.80
93.90      canned
73.50      canned
87.88      canned

84.29      boiled, drained
93.60      boiled, drained
93.20      boiled, drained
86.42*      *canned solids and liquids
90.07      boiled, drained
            Indicates data are not available for the fruit or vegetable under those conditions.
   Source:   USDA, 2007.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                  Page
                                                                   9-61
-------
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
                              APPENDIX 9A

  CODES AND DEFINITIONS USED TO DETERMINE THE VARIOUS FRUITS AND
     VEGETABLES USED IN THE U.S. EPA ANALYSIS OF CSFII DATA IN FCID
Exposure Factors Handbook                                               Page
July 2009	9A-1
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9A-1.
Food Category
Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96, 1998 USDACSFII Data
EPA Food Commodity Codes
TOTAL FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Total Fruits






















































95000010
11000090
11000091
11000070
11000080
11000081
11000110
11000111
12000120
12000130
12000121
95000200
95000230
95000240
95000241
95000231
13010550
13020570
13020571
13010580
95000600
95000740
95000890
12000900
12000901
10001060
10001070
95001120
95001110
95001111
95001130
11001290
95001300
95001310
95001301
13021360
13021370
95001410
13011420
08001480
13021490
95001510
95001530
95001540
13021740
95001750
95001780
10001800
95001830
95001831
13021910
95001920
95003580
95003590
95003591
Acerola
Apple, dried
Apple, dried-babyfood
Apple, fruit with peel
Apple, peeled fruit
Apple, peeled fruit-babyfood
Apple, sauce
Apple, sauce-babyfood
Apricot
Apricot, dried
Apricot-babyfood
Avocado
Banana
Banana, dried
Banana, dried-babyfood
Banana-babyfood
Blackberry
Blueberry
Blueberry-babyfood
Boysenberry
Breadfruit
Canistel
Cherimoya
Cherry
Cherry-babyfood
Citrus citron
Citrus hybrids
Coconut, dried
Coconut, meat
Coconut, meat-babyfood
Coconut, milk
Crabapple
Cranberry
Cranberry, dried
Cranberry-babyfood
Currant
Currant, dried
Date
Dewberry
Eggplant
Elderberry
Feijoa
Fig
Fig, dried
Gooseberry
Grape
Grape, raisin
Grapefruit
Guava
Guava-babyfood
Huckleberry
Jaboticaba
Starfruit
Strawberry
Strawberry-babyfood
95001930
95001950
10001970
10001990
10002010
10002060
13012080
95002090
11002100
95002110
95002120
95002140
95002150
95002160
95002151
95002270
12002300
10002400
10002420
95002450
95002460
95002451
95002520
95002521
95002540
12002600
12002610
12002611
12002601
11002660
11002670
11002661
95002770
95002790
95002800
95002791
95002830
95002840
12002850
12002870
12002871
12002860
12002861
12002851
95002890
10003070
11003100
13013200
13013201
95003330
95003460
95003510
95003610
95003680
10003690
Jackfruit
Kiwifruit
Kumquat
Lemon
Lemon, peel
Lime
Loganberry
Longan
Loquat
Lychee
Lychee, dried
Mamey apple
Mango
Mango, dried
Mango-babyfood
Mulberry
Nectarine
Orange
Orange, peel
Papaya
Papaya, dried
Papaya-babyfood
Passionfruit
Passionfruit-babyfood
Pawpaw
Peach
Peach, dried
Peach, dried-babyfood
Peach-babyfood
Pear
Pear, dried
Pear-babyfood
Persimmon
Pineapple
Pineapple, dried
Pineapple-babyfood
Plantain
Plantain, dried
Plum
Plum, prune, dried
Plum, prune, dried-babyfood
Plum, prune, fresh
Plum, prune, fresh-babyfood
Plum-babyfood
Pomegranate
Pummelo
Quince
Raspberry
Raspberry-babyfood
Sapote, Mamey
Sours op
Spanish lime
Sugar apple
Tamarind
Tangerine
Page
9A-2
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
              Table 9A-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96, 1998 USDACSFII Data (continued)
 Food Category
                                     EPA Food Commodity Codes
 Total Vegetables
18000020    Alfalfa, seed
04010050    Amaranth, leafy
01030150    Arrowroot, flour
01030151    Arrowroot, flour-babyfood
95000160    Artichoke, globe
01030170    Artichoke, Jerusalem
04010180    Arugula
95000190    Asparagus
09020210    Balsam pear
95000220    Bamboo, shoots
19010290    Basil, dried  leaves
19010291    Basil, dried  leaves-babyfood
19010280    Basil, fresh leaves
19010281    Basil, fresh leaves-babyfood
06020330    Bean, cowpea, succulent
06030360    Bean, kidney, seed
06030380    Bean, lima, seed
06020370    Bean, lima, succulent
06030390    Bean, mung, seed
06030400    Bean, navy,  seed
06030410    Bean, pink, seed
06030420    Bean, pinto, seed
06010430    Bean, snap,  succulent
06010431    Bean, snap,  succulent-babyfood
01010500    Beet, garden, roots
01010501    Beet, garden, roots-babyfood
02000510    Beet, garden, tops
95000540    Belgium endive
05010610    Broccoli
05020630    Broccoli raab
05010620    Broccoli, Chinese
05010611    Broccoli-babyfood
05010640    Brussels sprouts
05010690    Cabbage
05020700    Cabbage, Chinese, bok choy
05010720    Cabbage, Chinese, mustard
05010710    Cabbage, Chinese, napa
95000730    Cactus
09010750    Cantaloupe
04020760    Cardoon
01010780    Carrot
01010781    Carrot-babyfood
09010800    Casaba
01030820    Cassava
01030821    Cassava-babyfood
05010830    Cauliflower
01010840    Celeriac
04020850    Celery
04020851    Celery-babyfood
04020870    Celtuce
04012480    Parsley, leaves
01012500    Parsley, turnip rooted
01012510    Parsnip
01012511    Parsnip-babyfood
06032560    Pea, dry
06032561    Pea, dry-babyfood
06012570    Pea, edible podded, succulent
06032580    Pea, pigeon, seed
06022590    Pea, pigeon, succulent
06022550    Pea, succulent
06022551    Pea, succulent-babyfood
08002700    Pepper, bell
08002710    Pepper, bell, dried
09020880    Chayote, fruit
06030990    Chickpea, flour
06030980    Chickpea, seed
06030981    Chickpea, seed-babyfood
01011000    Chicory, roots
02001010    Chicory, tops
09021020    Chinese waxgourd
19011030    Chive
04011040    Chrysanthemum, garland
19021050    Cinnamon
19021051    Cinnamon-babyfood
19011180    Coriander, leaves
19011181    Coriander, leaves-babyfood
19021190    Coriander, seed
19021191    Coriander, seed-babyfood
04011380    Dandelion, leaves
01031390    Dasheen, corm
02001400    Dasheen, leaves
19011440    Dill
19021430    Dill, seed
04021520    Fennel, Florence
03001640    Garlic
03001650    Garlic, dried
03001651    Garlic, dried-babyfood
01031660    Ginger
01031670    Ginger, dried
01031661    Ginger-babyfood
01011680    Ginseng, dried
95001770    Grape, leaves
06031820    Guar, seed
06031821    Guar, seed-babyfood
19011840    Herbs, other
19011841    Herbs, other-babyfood
05021940    Kale
05011960    Kohlrabi
03001980    Leek
19012020    Lemongrass
04012040    Lettuce, head
04012050    Lettuce, leaf
19012200    Marjoram
19012201    Marjoram-babyfood
08002340    Okra
03002370    Onion, dry bulb
03002380    Onion, dry bulb, dried
03002381    Onion, dry bulb, dried-babyfood
03002371    Onion, dry bulb-babyfood
03002390    Onion, green
95002430    Palm heart, leaves
19012490    Parsley, dried leaves
19012491    Parsley, dried leaves-babyfood
01013270    Rutabaga
01013310    Salsify, roots
02003320    Salsify, tops
19013340    Savory 95003350Seaweed
95003351    Seaweed-babyfood
03003380    Shallot
06003480    Soybean, flour
06003481    Soybean, flour-babyfood
06003470    Soybean, seed
19023540    Spices, other
19023541    Spices, other-babyfood
09023560    Squash, summer
09023561    Squash, summer-babyfood
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                              Page
                                                                                               9A-3
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9A-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the
Food Category
Total Vegetables
(continued)























1994-96, 1998 USDACSFII Data (continued)
EPA Food Commodity Codes
08002711
08002701
19022740
19022741
08002720
08002730
08002721
95002750
01032960
01032970
01032971
01032980
01032981
01033000
01033001
01032990
01032991
09023080
04013130
01013160
02003170
01013140
02003150
05023180
04023220
Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood
Pepper, bell-babyfood
Pepper, black and white
Pepper, black and white-babyfood
Pepper, nonbell
Pepper, nonbell, dried
Pepper, nonbell-babyfood
Peppermint
Potato, chips
Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)
Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-babyfood
Potato, flour
Potato, flour-babyfood
Potato, tuber, w/o peel
Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood
Potato, tuber, w/peel
Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood
Pumpkin
Radicchio
Radish, Oriental, roots
Radish, Oriental, tops
Radish, roots
Radish, tops
Rape greens
Rhubarb
09023570
09023571
01033660
01033661
04023670
01033710
08003740
08003750
08003780
08003781
08003760
08003761
08003770
08003771
95003800
08003751
01033870
05023890
01013880
95003970
95003980
09013990
01034070
01034060

Squash, winter
Squash, winter-babyfood
Sweet potato
Sweet potato-babyfood
Swiss chard
Tanier, corm
Tomatillo
Tomato
Tomato, dried
Tomato, dried-babyfood
Tomato, paste
Tomato, paste-babyfood
Tomato, puree
Tomato, puree-babyfood
Tomato, Tree
Tomato-babyfood
Turmeric
Turnip, greens
Turnip, roots
Water chestnut
Watercress
Watermelon
Yam bean
Yam, true

INDIVIDUAL FRUIT CATEGORIES
Apples




Bananas



Berries and Small
Fruits










Citrus Fruits





Peaches



11000090
11000091
11000070
11000100
11000101
95000230
95000240
95000241
95000231
13010550
13010580
13011420
13012080
13013200
13013201
13020570
13020571
13021360
13021370
13021490
13021740
10001060
10001070
10001800
10001970
10001990
10002010
12002600
12002610
12002611
12002601
Apple, dried
Apple, dried-babyfood
Apple, fruit with peel
Apple, juice
Apple, juice-babyfood
Banana
Banana, dried
Banana, dried-babyfood
Banana-babyfood
Blackberry
Boysenberry
Dewberry
Loganberry
Raspberry
Raspberry-babyfood
Blueberry
Blueberry-babyfood
Currant
Currant, dried
Elderberry
Gooseberry
Citrus citron
Citrus hybrids
Grapefruit
Kumquat
Lemon
Lemon, peel
Peach
Peach, dried
Peach, dried-babyfood
Peach-babyfood
11000080
11000081
11000110
11000111

95002830
95002840


13021910
95001300
95001301
95001310
95001750
95001770
95001780
95001950
95002270
95003590
95003591

10002060
10002400
10002420
10003070
10003690





Apple, peeled fruit
Apple, peeled fruit-babyfood
Apple, sauce
Apple, sauce-babyfood

Plantain
Plantain, dried


Huckleberry
Cranberry
Cranberry-babyfood
Cranberry, dried
Grape
Grape, leaves
Grape, raisin
Kiwifruit
Mulberry
Strawberry
Strawberry-babyfood

Lime
Orange
Orange, peel
Pummelo
Tangerine





Page
9A-4
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9A-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the
Food Category
Pears




Pome Fruits






Strawberries

Stone Fruits








Tropical Fruits






















1994-96, 1998 USDACSFII Data (continued)
EPA Food Commodity Codes
11002660
11002670
11002680
11002681
11002661
11000070
11000080
11000081
11000090
11000091
11000110
11000111
95003590
95003591
12000120
12000121
12000130
12000900
12000901
12002300
12002600
12002601
12002610
95000010
95000220
95000230
95000231
95000240
95000241
95000600
95000740
95000890
95001110
95001111
95001120
95001130
95001410
95001510
95001530
95001540
95001830
95001831
95001930
95002090
95002110
95002120
Pear
Pear, dried
Pear, juice
Pear, juice-babyfood
Pear-babyfood
Apple, fruit with peel
Apple, peeled fruit
Apple, peeled fruit-babyfood
Apple, dried
Apple, dried-babyfood
Apple, sauce
Apple, sauce-babyfood
Strawberry
Strawberry-babyfood
Apricot
Apricot-babyfood
Apricot, dried
Cherry
Cherry-babyfood
Nectarine
Peach
Peach-babyfood
Peach, dried
Acerola
Avocado
Banana
Banana-babyfood
Banana, dried
Banana, dried-babyfood
Breadfruit
Canistel
Cherimoya
Coconut, meat
Coconut, meat-babyfood
Coconut, dried
Coconut, milk
Date
Feijoa
Fig
Fig, dried
Guava
Guava-babyfood
Jackfruit
Longan
Lychee
Lychee, dried





11001290
11002100
11002660
11002661
11002670
11003100



12002611
12002850
12002851
12002860
12002861
12002870
12002871


95002140
95002150
95002151
95002160
95002450
95002451
95002460
95002520
95002521
95002540
95002790
95002791
95002800
95002830
95002840
95002890
95003330
95003460
95003510
95003580
95003610
95003680






Crabapple
Loquat
Pear
Pear-babyfood
Pear, dried
Quince



Peach, dried-babyfood
Plum
Plum-babyfood
Plum, prune, fresh
Plum, prune, fresh-babyfood
Plum, prune, dried
Plum, prune, dried-babyfood


Mamey apple
Mango
Mango-babyfood
Mango, dried
Papaya
Papaya-babyfood
Papaya, dried
Passionfruit
Passionfruit-babyfood
Pawpaw
Pineapple
Pineapple-babyfood
Pineapple, dried
Plantain
Plantain, dried
Pomegranate
Sapote, Mamey
Soursop
Spanish lime
Starfruit
Sugar apple
Tamarind

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
9A-5
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9A-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the
Food Category
1994-96, 1998 USDACSFII Data (continued)
EPA Food Commodity Codes
INDIVIDUAL VEGETABLE CATEGORIES
Asparagus
Beans
Beets
Broccoli
Bulb Vegetables
Cabbage
Carrots
Corn
Cucumbers
Cucurbit Vegetables
Fruiting Vegetables
95000190
06030350
06030300
06030320
06020310
06030340
06020330
06030360
06030380
01010500
01010501
02000510
05010610
05010611
03001640
03001650
03001651
03001980
03002370
Asparagus
Bean, great northern, seed
Bean, black, seed
Bean, broad, seed
Bean, broad, succulent
Bean, cowpea, seed
Bean, cowpea, succulent
Bean, kidney, seed
Bean, lima, seed
Beet, garden, roots
Beet, garden, roots-babyfood
Beet, garden, tops
Broccoli
Broccoli-babyfood
Garlic
Garlic, dried
Garlic, dried-babyfood
Leek
Onion, dry bulb

06020370
06030390
06030400
06030410
06030420
06010430
06010431


03002371
03002380
03002381
03002390
03003380

Bean, lima, succulent
Bean, mung, seed
Bean, navy, seed
Bean, pink, seed
Bean, pinto, seed
Bean, snap, succulent
Bean, snap, succulent-babyfood


Onion, dry bulb-babyfood
Onion, dry bulb, dried
Onion, dry bulb, dried-babyfood
Onion, green
Shallot
05010690Cabbage
05010720 Cabbage, Chinese, mustard
05010710 Cabbage, Chinese, napa
01010780
15001220
15001200
15001201
15001210
15001211
15001230
09021350
09010750
09010800
09011870
09013990
09020210
09020880
09021020
08001480
08002340
08002700
08002701
08002710
08002711
08002720
08002721
08002730
08003740
Carrot
Corn, field, bran
Corn, field, flour
Corn, field, flour-babyfood
Corn, field, meal
Corn, field, meal-babyfood
Corn, field, starch
Cucumber
Cantaloupe
Casaba
Honeydew melon
Watermelon
Balsam pear
Chayote, fruit
Chinese waxgourd
Eggplant
Okra
Pepper, bell
Pepper, bell-babyfood
Pepper, bell, dried
Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood
Pepper, nonbell
Pepper, nonbell-babyfood
Pepper, nonbell, dried
Tomatillo

15001231
15001260
15001270
15001271

09021350
09023080
09023090
09023560
09023561
09023570
09023571
08003750
08003751
08003760
08003761
08003770
08003771
08003780
08003781

Corn, field, starch-babyfood
Corn, pop
Corn, sweet
Corn, sweet-babyfood

Cucumber
Pumpkin
Pumpkin, seed
Squash, summer
Squash, summer-babyfood
Squash, winter
Squash, winter-babyfood
Tomato
Tomato-babyfood
Tomato, paste
Tomato, paste-babyfood
Tomato, puree
Tomato, puree-babyfood
Tomato, dried
Tomato, dried-babyfood
Page
9A-6
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9A-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the
Food Category
Leafy Vegetables
(Brassica and
Nonbrassica)




















Legume Vegetables
















Lettuce

Okra
Onions




Peas




Peppers




1994-96, 1998 USDACSFII Data (continued)
EPA Food Commodity Codes
02000510
02001010
02001400
02003150
02003170
02003320
04010050
04010180
04011040
04011330
04011340
04011380
04011500
04012040
04012050
04012480
04013130
04013550
04013551
04020760
04020850
04020851
04020870
06003470
06003480
06003481
06003490
06003491

06010430
06010431
06012570
06020310
06020330
06020370
06022550
06022551
06022590
06030300
06030320
04012040
04012050
08002340
03002370
03002380
03002381
03002371
03002390
06032560
06032561
06012570
06032580
06022590
08002700
08002710
08002711
08002701
08002720
Beet, garden, tops
Chicory, tops
Dasheen, leaves
Radish, tops
Radish, Oriental, tops
Salsify, tops
Amaranth, leafy
Arugula
Chrysanthemum, garland
Cress, garden
Cress, upland
Dandelion, leaves
Endive
Lettuce, head
Lettuce, leaf
Parsley, leaves
Radicchio
Spinach
Spinach-babyfood
Cardoon
Celery
Celery-babyfood
Celtuce
Soybean, seed
Soybean, flour
Soybean, flour-babyfood
Soybean, soy milk
Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or infant
formula
Bean, snap, succulent
Bean, snap, succulent-babyfood
Pea, edible podded, succulent
Bean, broad, succulent
Bean, cowpea, succulent
Bean, lima, succulent
Pea, succulent
Pea, succulent-babyfood
Pea, pigeon, succulent
Bean, black, seed
Bean, broad, seed
Lettuce, head
Lettuce, leaf
Okra
Onion, dry bulb
Onion, dry bulb, dried
Onion, dry bulb, dried-babyfood
Onion, dry bulb-babyfood
Onion, green
Pea, dry
Pea, dry-babyfood
Pea, edible podded, succulent
Pea, pigeon, seed
Pea, pigeon, succulent
Pepper, bell
Pepper, bell, dried
Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood
Pepper, bell-babyfood
Pepper, nonbell
04021520
04023220
04023670
05010610
05010611
05010620
05010640
05010690
05010710
05010720
05010830
05011960
05020630
05020700
05021170
05021940
05022290
05023180
05023890
95000540
95003350
95003351
95003980
06030340
06030350
06030360
06030380
06030390
06030400
06030410
06030420
06030980
06030981
06030990
06031820
06031821
06032030
06032560
06032561
06032580








06022550
06022551



08002730
08002721



Fennel, Florence
Rhubarb
Swiss chard
Broccoli
Broccoli-babyfood
Broccoli, Chinese
Brussels sprouts
Cabbage
Cabbage, Chinese, napa
Cabbage, Chinese, mustard
Cauliflower
Kohlrabi
Broccoli raab
Cabbage, Chinese, bok choy
Collards
Kale
Mustard greens
Rape greens
Turnip, greens
Belgium endive
Seaweed
Seaweed - babyfood
Watercress
Bean, cowpea, seed
Bean, great northern, seed
Bean, kidney, seed
Bean, lima, seed
Bean, mung, seed
Bean, navy, seed
Bean, pink, seed
Bean, pinto, seed
Chickpea, seed
Chickpea, seed-babyfood
Chickpea, flour
Guar, seed
Guar, seed-babyfood
Lentil, seed
Pea, dry
Pea, dry-babyfood
Pea, pigeon, seed








Pea, succulent
Pea, succulent-babyfood



Pepper, nonbell, dried
Pepper, nonbell-babyfood



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
9A-7
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                            Chapter 9 — Intake of Fruits and Vegetables
Table 9A-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the
Food Category
Pumpkin

Root and Tuber
Vegetables




















Stalk and Stem
Vegetable and Edible
Fungi


Tomatoes




White Potatoes




1994-96, 1998 USDACSFII Data (continued)
EPA Food Commodity Codes
09023080
09023090
01030150
01030151
01030170
01010500
01010501
02000510
01010520
01010521
01010670
01010780
01010781
01030820
01030821
01010840
01011000
01031390
01031660
01031670
01031661
01011680
01011900
01012500
95000160
95000190
95000220
95002280
95002430
08003750
08003780
08003781
08003760
08003761
01032960
01032970
01032971
01032980
01032981
Pumpkin
Pumpkin, seed
Arrowroot, flour
Arrowroot, flour-babyfood
Artichoke, Jerusalem
Beet, garden, roots
Beet, garden, roots-babyfood
Beet, garden, tops
Beet, sugar
Beet, sugar-babyfood
Burdock
Carrot
Carrot-babyfood
Cassava
Cassava-babyfood
Celeriac
Chicory, roots
Dasheen, corm
Ginger
Ginger, dried
Ginger-babyfood
Ginseng, dried
Horseradish
Parsley, turnip rooted
Artichoke, globe
Asparagus
Bamboo, shoots
Mushroom
Palm heart, leaves
Tomato
Tomato, dried
Tomato, dried-babyfood
Tomato, paste
Tomato, paste-babyfood
Potato, chips
Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)
Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-babyfood
Potato, flour
Potato, flour-babyfood


01012510
01012511
01032960
01032970
01032971
01032980
01032981
01033000
01033001
01032990
01032991
01013160
01013140
01013270
01033660
01033661
01033710
01033870
01013880
95003970
01034070
01034060





08003770
08003771
08003751


01033000
01033001
01032990
01032991



Parsnip
Parsnip-babyfood
Potato, chips
Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)
Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-babyfood
Potato, flour
Potato, flour-babyfood
Potato, tuber, w/o peel
Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood
Potato, tuber, w/peel
Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood
Radish, Oriental, roots
Radish, roots
Rutabaga
Sweet potato
Sweet potato-babyfood
Tanier, corm
Turmeric
Turnip, roots
Water chestnut
Yam bean
Yam, true





Tomato, puree
Tomato, puree-babyfood
Tomato-babyfood


Potato, tuber, w/o peel
Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood
Potato, tuber, w/peel
Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood

Page
9A-8
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

10      INTAKE OF FISH AND SHELLFISH	10-1
        10.1    INTRODUCTION	10-1
        10.2    RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY	10-2
               10.2.1   Recommendations - General Population	10-3
               10.2.2   Recommendations - Recreational Marine Anglers	10-3
               10.2.3   Recommendations - Recreational Freshwater Anglers	10-4
               10.2.4   Recommendations - Native American Subsistence Populations	10-4
        10.3    GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES	10-11
               10.3.1   Key General Population Study	10-11
                       10.3.1.1 U.S. EPA, 2002	10-11
               10.3.2   Relevant General Population Studies	10-12
                       10.3.2.1 TRF, 1975	10-12
                       10.3.2.2 Paoetal., 1982	10-14
                       10.3.2.3 USDA, 1992b	10-14
                       10.3.2.4 Tsang andKlepeis, 1996	10-15
                       10.3.2.5 Westat, 2006	10-16
                       10.3.2.6 Moyaetal., 2008	10-16
        10.4    MARINE RECREATIONAL  STUDIES	10-17
               10.4.1   Key Marine Recreational Study	10-17
                       10.4.1.1 National Marine Fisheries Service, 1986a	10-17
               10.4.2   Relevant Marine Recreational Studies	10-18
                       10.4.2.1 Pierce etal., 1981	10-18
                       10.4.2.2 Puffer etal., 1981	10-19
                       10.4.2.3 Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M., 1991	10-20
                       10.4.2.4 Burger etal., 1992	10-21
                       10.4.2.5 KCA Research Division, 1994	10-21
                       10.4.2.6 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1994	10-22
                       10.4.2.7 Alcoa,  1998	10-23
                       10.4.2.8 Burger, etal., 1998	10-23
                       10.4.2.9 Chiang, 1998	10-24
                       10.4.2.10 San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), 2000	10-25
        10.5    FRESHWATER RECREATIONAL STUDIES	10-25
               10.5.1   Fioreetal., 1989	10-25
               10.5.2   West etal., 1989	10-26
               10.5.3   Chemrisk, 1992	10-28
               10.5.4   Connelly etal., 1992	10-29
               10.5.5   Hudson River Sloop  Clearwater, Inc., 1993	10-30
               10.5.6   West etal., 1993	10-31
               10.5.7   Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1994	10-31
               10.5.8   U.S. DHHS, 1995	10-32
               10.5.9   Connelly etal., 1996	10-33
               10.5.10  Balcometal., 1999	10-34
               10.5.11  Burger etal.,  1999	10-35
               10.5.12  Williams etal., 1999	10-35
               10.5.13  Burger, I, 2000	10-35
               10.5.14  Williams etal., 2000	10-36
               10.5.15  Benson etal., 2001	10-36
               10.5.16   Campbell etal., 2002	10-37
        10.6    NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES	10-38
               10.6.1   Wolfe and Walker, 1987	10-38
               10.6.2   Chemrisk, 1992	10-39
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                               Page
July 2009	10-i
-------
                                                               Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                   Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                         (continued)

              10.6.3  CRITFC, 1994	10-39
              10.6.4  Peterson et al, 1994	10-40
              10.6.5  Fitzgerald et al., 1995	10-41
              10.6.6  Toyetal, 1996	10-42
              10.6.7  Duncan, 2000	10-43
              10.6.8  Polissaretal.,2006	10-44
       10.7    OTHER POPULATION STUDIES	10-45
              10.7.1  U.S. EPA, 1999	10-45
       10.8    SERVING SIZE STUDIES	10-46
              10.8.1  Paoetal., 1982	10-46
              10.8.2  Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002	10-46
       10.9    OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER FOR FISH CONSUMPTION	10-46
              10.9.1  Conversion Between Wet and Dry Weight	10-47
              10.9.2  Conversion Between Wet Weight and Lipid Weight Intake Rates	10-47
       10.10   REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10	10-48

APPENDIX 10A	10A-1
APPENDIX 10B	10B-1
Page                                                          Exposure Factors Handbook
10-ii	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 10-1.      Recommended Values for General Population Fish Intake	10-5
Table 10-2.      Confidence in Recommendations for General Population Fish Intake	10-6
Table 10-3.      Recommended Values for Recreational Marine Fish Intake	10-7
Table 10-4.      Confidence in Recommendations for Recreational Marine Fish Intake	10-8
Table 10-5.      Summary of Relevant Studies on Freshwater Recreational Fish Intake	10-9
Table 10-6.      Summary of Relevant Studies on Native American Subsistence Fish Intake	10-10
Table 10-7.      Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for the U.S.
                Population (As Prepared)	10-52
Table 10-8.      Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption U.S. Population - Mean
                Consumption by Species Within Habitat - As Prepared Fish	10-53
Table 10-9.      Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for the U.S.
                Population (Uncooked Fish Weight)	10-54
Table 10-10.     Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption U.S. Population - Mean
                Consumption by Species Within Habitat - Uncooked Fish	10-55
Table 10-11.     Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - As Prepared	10-56
Table 10-12.     Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) - As Prepared	10-58
Table 10-13.     Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - Uncooked
                Fish Weight	10-60
Table 10-14.     Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) - Uncooked
                Fish Weight	10-62
Table 10-15.     Consumer Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) -
                As Prepared	10-64
Table 10-16.     Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) -
                As Prepared	10-66
Table 10-17.     Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) -
                Uncooked Fish Weight	10-68
Table 10-18.     Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) -
                Uncooked Fish Weight	10-70
Table 10-19.     Total Fish Consumption, Consumers Only, by Demographic Variables	10-72
Table 10-20.     Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Females and Males by Age	10-74
Table 10-21.     Mean Total Fish Consumption by Species	10-75
Table 10-22.     Best Fits of Lognormal Distributions Using the NonLinear Optimization (NLO)
                Method	10-76
Table 10-23.     Mean Fish Intake inaDay,by SexandAge	10-77
Table 10-24.     Percent of Respondents That Responded Yes, No, or Don't Know to Eating Seafood
                In 1 Month (including shellfish, eels, or squid)	10-78
Table 10-25.     Number of Respondents Reporting Consumption of a Specified Number of Servings
                of Seafood in 1 Month	10-80
Table 10-26.     Number of Respondents Reporting Monthly Consumption of Seafood That Was
                Purchased or Caught by Someone They Know	10-82
Table 10-27.     Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic
                Characteristics, As-consumed g/kg/day	10-84
Table 10-28.     Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumer only, by Selected Demographic
                Characteristics, As-consumed g/kg/day	10-88
Table 10-29.     Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Acquisition
                Method, As-consumed g/kg/day	10-92
Table 10-30.     Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Acquisition
                Method,, As-consumed g/kg/day	10-95
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-iii
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                         LIST OF TABLES
                                             (continued)

Table 10-31.    Fish Consumption per Kg Body weight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic
               Characteristics, Uncooked g/kg/day	10-98
Table 10-32.    Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumer only, by Selected Demographic
               Characteristics, Uncooked g/kg/day	10-102
Table 10-33.    Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Acquisition
               Method, Uncooked g/kg/day	10-106
Table 10-34.    Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Acquisition
               Method, Uncooked g/kg/day	10-109
Table 10-35.    Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Subpopulation,
               and Gender, As-consumed g/kg/day	10-112
Table 10-36.    Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Subpopulation,
               and Gender, As-consumed g/kg/day	10-114
Table 10-37.    Fish Consumption Among General Population Children in Four States, Consumers
               Only, g/kg-day As-Consumed	10-117
Table 10-38.    Estimated Number of Participants in Marine Recreational Fishing by State and
               Subregion	10-119
Table 10-39.    Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and B1) by Marine Recreational
               Fishermen,  by Wave and Subregion	10-120
Table 10-40.    Average Daily Intake (g/day) of Marine Finfish, by Region and Coastal Status	10-121
Table 10-41.    Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and B1) by Marine Recreational
               Fishermen by Species Group and Subregion	10-122
Table 10-42.    Percent of Fishing Frequency During the Summer and Fall Seasons in
               Commencement Bay, Washington	10-123
Table 10-43.    Selected Percentile Consumption Estimates (g/day) for the Survey and Total
               Angler Populations Based on the Reanalysis of the Puffer et al. (1981) and
               Pierce etal. (1981) Data	10-123
Table 10-44.    Median Intake Rates Based on Demographic Data of Sport Fishermen and
               Their Family/Living Group	10-124
Table 10-45.    Cumulative Distribution of Total Fish/Shellfish Consumption by Surveyed Sport
               Fishermen in the Metropolitan Los Angeles Area	10-124
Table 10-46.    Catch Information for Primary Fish Species Kept by Sport Fishermen (n=1059)	10-125
Table 10-47.    Fishing and Crabbing Behavior of Fishermen at Humacao, Puerto Rico	10-125
Table 10-48.    Fish Consumption of Delaware Recreational Fishermen and Their Households	10-126
Table 10-49.    Seafood Consumption Rates of All Fish by Ethnic and Income Groups of
               Santa Monica Bay Consumption Rates of Recreational Marine Fish and Shellfish
               at Specific Locations	10-127
Table 10-50.    Grams Per Day of Serf-Caught Fish Consumed by Recreational Anglers -
               Alcoa/Lavaca Bay	10-127
Table 10-51.    Number of  Meals and Portion Sizes of Serf-Caught Fish Consumed by
               Recreational Anglers Lavaca Bay, Texas	10-128
Table 10-52.    Consumption Patterns of People Fishing and Crabbing in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey	10-129
Table 10-53.    Fish Intake  Rates of Members of the Loatian Community of West Contra Costa
               County, California	10-129
Table 10-54.    Consumption Rates (grams/day) among Recent Consumers by Demographic Factor	10-130
Table 10-55.    Percentile and Mean Intake Rates for Wisconsin Sport Anglers	10-131
Table 10-56.    Mean Fish Intake Among Individuals Who Eat Fish and Reside in Households
               With Recreational Fish Consumption	10-131
Table 10-57.    Comparison of Seven-Day Recall and Estimated Seasonal Frequency for Fish
               Consumption	10-131
Page
10-iv
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                         LIST OF TABLES
                                             (continued)

Table 10-58.    Distribution of Usual Fish Intake Among Survey Main Respondents Who Fished
               And Consumed Recreationally Caught Fish	10-132
Table 10-59.    Estimates of Fish Intake Rates of Licensed Sport Anglers in Maine During the
               1989-1990 Ice Fishing or 1990 Open-Water Seasons	10-132
Table 10-60.    Analysis of Fish Consumption by Ethnic Groups for "All Waters" (g/day)	10-133
Table 10-61.    Total Consumption of Freshwater Fish Caught by All Survey Respondents
               During the 1990 Season	10-133
Table 10-62.    Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents	10-134
Table 10-63.    Mean Sport-Fish Consumption by Demographic Variables, Michigan Sport
               Anglers Fish Consumption Study, 1991-1992	10-135
Table 10-64.    Mean Per Capita Freshwater Fish Intake of Alabama Anglers	10-136
Table 10-65.    Means and Standard Deviations of Selected Characteristics by Subpopulation
               Groups in Everglades, Florida	10-136
Table 10-66.    Distribution of Fish Intake Rates (from all sources and from sport-caught sources)
               For 1992 Lake Ontario Anglers	10-137
Table 10-67.    Mean Annual Fish Consumption (g/day) for Lake Ontario Anglers, 1992, by
               Sociodemographic Characteristics	10-137
Table 10-68.    Seafood Consumption Rates of Nine Connecticut Population Groups (Cooked,
               Edible Meat, g/day)	10-138
Table 10-69.    Fishing Patterns and Consumption Rates of People Fishing Along the Savannah
               River (Mean ± SE)	10-138
Table 10-70.    Fish Consumption Rates for Indiana Anglers - Mail Survey, g/day	10-138
Table 10-71.    Fish Consumption Rates for Indiana Anglers - On-site Survey, g/day	10-139
Table 10-72.    Consumption of Sport-Caught and Purchased Fish by Minnesota and North
               Dakota Residents, g/day	10-140
Table 10-73.    Fishing Patterns and Consumption Rates of Anglers along the Clinch River Arm
               of Watts Bar Reservoir (Mean ± SE)	10-141
Table 10-74.    Number of Grams Per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult Respondents
               (Consumers and Non-consumers Combined) - Throughout the Year	10-142
Table 10-75.    Fish Intake Throughout the Year by Sex, Age, and Location by All Adult Respondents	10-142
Table 10-76.    Fish Consumption Rates among Native American Children (age 5 years and under)	10-143
Table 10-77.    Number of Fish Meal Eaten per Month and Fish Intake Among Native American
               Children who Consume Particular Species	10-143
Table 10-78.    Sociodemographic Factors and Recent Fish Consumption	10-144
Table 10-79.    Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period for All Respondents	10-144
Table 10-80.    Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period for
               All Respondents and Consumers Only	10-145
Table 10-81.    Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period and Selected
               Characteristics for All Respondents (Mohawk, N=97; Control, N=154)	10-145
Table 10-82.    Percentile and Mean of Adult Tribal Member Consumption Rates (g/kg/day)	10-146
Table 10-83.    Median and Mean Consumption Rates by Gender (g/kg/day) Within Each Tribe	10-147
Table 10-84.    Median Consumption Rate for Total Fish by Gender and Tribe (g/day)	10-147
Table 10-85.    Percentiles of Adult Consumption Rates by Age (g/kg/day)	10-148
Table 10-86.    Median Consumption Rates by Income (g/kg/day) Within Each Tribe	10-149
Table 10-87.    Mean, 50th,  and 90th Percentiles of Consumption Rates for Children Age Birth to
               Five Years (g/kg/day)	10-150
Table 10-88.    Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day): Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups	10-151
Table 10-89.    Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) for Consumers Only	10-152
Table 10-90.    Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) by Gender	10-155
Table 10-91.    Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) by Age	10-156
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 10-v
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                         LIST OF TABLES
                                             (continued)

Table 10-92.    Consumption Rates for Native American Children (g/kg/day), All Children
               (including non-consumers):  Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups	10-158
Table 10-93.    Consumption Rates for Native American Children (g/kg/day), Consumers Only:
               Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups	10-159
Table 10-94.    Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates for Adult Consumers Only (g/kg/day)	10-160
Table 10-95     Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Gender for Adult Consumers Only
               (g/kg/day)	10-161
Table 10-96.    Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Age for Adult Consumers Only -
               Squaxin Island Tribe (g/kg/day)	10-163
Table 10-97.    Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Age for Adult Consumers Only -
               Tulalip Tribe (g/kg/day)	10-165
Table 10-98.    Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates for Child Consumers Only (g/kg/day)	10-166
Table 10-99.    Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Gender for Child Consumers Only
               (g/kg/day)	10-167
Table 10-100.   Consumption Rates of API Community Members	10-168
Table 10-101.   Demographic Characteristics of "Higher" and "Lower" Seafood Consumers	10-169
Table 10-102.   Seafood Consumption Rates by Ethnicity for Asian and Pacific Islander Community
               (g/kg/day)	10-170
Table 10-103.   Consumption Rates by  Gender for All Asian and Pacific Islander Community	10-174
Table 10-104.   Types of Seafood Consumed/Respondents Who Consumed (%)	10-175
Table 10-105.   Distribution of Quantity of Fish Consumed (in grams) Per Eating Occasion,
               by Age and Sex	10-176
Table 10-106.   Distribution of Quantity of Canned Tuna Consumed (grams) Per Eating Occasion,
               by Age and Sex	10-177
Table 10-107.   Distribution of Quantity of Other Finfish Consumed (grams) Per Eating Occasion,
               by Age and Sex	10-178
Table 10-108.   Percentage of Individuals Using Various Cooking Methods at Specified Frequencies	10-179
Table 10-109.   Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content for Selected Species	10-180
Table 10B-1.    Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Residence Size	10B-2
Table 10B-2.    Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Age	10B-3
Table 10B-3.    Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Ethnicity	10B-4
Page
10-vi
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                               This page intentionally left blank
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                       Page
July 2009	10-vii
-------
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
 Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
 10      INTAKE OF FISH AND SHELLFISH
 10.1     INTRODUCTION
         Contaminated  finfish  and   shellfish  are
 potential  sources  of  human  exposure  to  toxic
 chemicals.   Pollutants are carried in the surface
 waters, but also may be stored and accumulated in
 the sediments as a result of complex physical  and
 chemical processes.    Consequently,  finfish  and
 shellfish are exposed to  these  pollutants  and may
 become sources of contaminated food.
         Accurately  estimating  exposure  to  toxic
 chemicals  in fish  requires information  about  the
 nature  of  the  exposed  population  (i.e., general
 population,   recreational   fishermen,   subsistence
 fishers) and their intake rates.  For example, general
 population  intake  rates  may  be appropriate  for
 assessing contaminants that are widely distributed in
 commercially caught fish.  However, these data may
 not be suitable to estimate exposure to contaminants
 in a particular water source among recreational or
 subsistence fishers.  Since the catch of recreational
 and  subsistence fishermen  is  not "diluted" by  fish
 from other water bodies, these individuals and their
 families  represent the  population  that  is  most
 vulnerable to exposure by intake of contaminated fish
 from a specific location.
         This chapter focuses on intake rates of fish.
 Note that in this section the term  fish  refers to both
 finfish  and shellfish.  Intake rates for the general
 population,  and recreational and Native American
 fishing populations  are  addressed,  and  data  are
 presented  for  intake  rates  for  both  marine  and
 freshwater fish, when available.
         The U.S. EPA has prepared a review of and
 an evaluation of five different survey methods used
 for obtaining fish consumption data. They are:

 •   Recall-Telephone Survey;
 •   Recall-Mail Survey;
 •   Recall-Personal Interview;
 •   Diary; and
 •   Creel Census.

 The  reader is referred to U.S.  EPA (1998)  Guidance
for  Conducting  Fish  and Wildlife  Consumption
 Surveys for more detail on these survey methods  and
 their advantages and limitations.  The type  of survey
 used, its design, and any weighting factors used in
 estimating consumption should  be considered when
 interpreting  survey  data for exposure  assessment
 purposes.   For  surveys used in this handbook,
 respondents are typically adults who have reported on
 fish intake for themselves and for children living in
 their households.
        Generally, surveys are either "creel"  studies
in which fishermen are interviewed while fishing, or
broader  population  surveys  using  either  mailed
questionnaires or phone  interviews.   Both types of
data can be useful for exposure assessment purposes,
but    somewhat   different    applications     and
interpretations are needed. In fact, results from creel
studies  have  often  been  misinterpreted,  due  to
inadequate knowledge  of survey principles.  Below,
some basic facts  about survey design are presented,
followed by an analysis  of the differences between
creel and population based studies.
        Typical  surveys  seek to draw inferences
about a larger population from a smaller sample of
that population.  This larger population, from which
the survey sample is taken and to which the results of
the  survey  are  generalized, is denoted the  target
population of the  survey.  In order to  generalize from
the sample to the  target population, the probability of
being sampled must be known for each member of
the target population.  This probability is reflected in
weights assigned to survey respondents, with weights
being inversely proportional to sampling probability.
When all members of the target population have the
same probability of being sampled, all weights can be
set to one and essentially  ignored.  For example, in a
mail or phone study of licensed anglers, the target
population is  generally  all  licensed anglers in  a
particular area,  and in  the  studies  presented,  the
sampling probability is essentially equal  for all target
population members.
        In a  creel study  (i.e.,  a study  in which
fishermen are  interviewed while  fishing), the target
population is  anyone  who fishes at the  locations
being  studied;  generally,   in  a  creel  study,  the
probability of being sampled is not the  same for all
members of the target population.  For instance, if the
survey is conducted for one day at a  site, then it will
include all persons who fish there  daily,  but only
about 1/7 of the people who fish there weekly, l/30th
of the people who fish there  monthly,  etc.   In  this
example, the probability of being sampled (or inverse
weight) is seen to be proportional to the frequency of
fishing. However, if the survey involves interviewers
revisiting the same site on multiple days, and persons
are only interviewed once for the survey,  then the
probability of being in the survey is not proportional
to  frequency;   in  fact,   it  increases  less than
proportionally with frequency.  At  the extreme of
surveying the  same site  every day over the  survey
period with no re-interviewing, all members of the
target population would have the same probability of
being  sampled   regardless of fishing frequency,
implying that  the survey weights should all equal
one.  On the other hand,  if the survey protocol calls
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            10-1
-------
                                                                          Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                            Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
for individuals  to be  interviewed each time  an
interviewer encounters them (i.e., without regard to
whether they were previously interviewed), then the
inverse weights will again be proportional to  fishing
frequency, no matter  how  many times interviewers
revisit the same site. Note that when individuals can
be interviewed multiple times,  the results of each
interview are included as separate records in the data
base  and  the survey weights should be  inversely
proportional to the expected number of times  that an
individual's interviews are included in the data base.
        In the  published  analyses of  most creel
studies, there is no mention of sampling weights; by
default all weights  are set to  1, implying equal
probability of sampling. However, since the sampling
probabilities  in  a creel study,  even  with repeated
interviewing at a site, are highly dependent on fishing
frequency, the fish intake distributions reported for
these  surveys are not  reflective of the corresponding
target  populations.  Instead, those  individuals with
high fishing frequencies are given too big a  weight
and the distribution is  skewed  to the right, i.e.,  it
overestimates the target population distribution.
        Price et al. (1994) explained this problem
and set out to rectify it by adding weights to creel
survey data;  he used data  from  two  creel  studies
(Puffer et  al., 1981  and  Pierce et  al.,  1981)  as
examples.  Price et al.  (1994) used inverse  fishing
frequency as survey weights  and produced  revised
estimates of median and 95th percentile intake for the
above two  studies.  These  revised estimates were
dramatically lower than the original estimates. The
approach of Price et al. (1994) is discussed in more
detail in Section 10.4 where the Puffer et al.  (1981)
and Pierce et al. (1981) studies are summarized.
        When the correct  weights are applied to
survey  data,  the  resulting percentiles  reflect,  on
average,  the  distribution in the target  population;
thus,  for example,  an estimated 90 percent of the
target population will have intake levels below the
90th percentile of the survey fish intake distribution.
There  is another  way, however, of characterizing
distributions  in  addition to the standard percentile
approach; this approach is reflected in statements of
the form "50 percent of the income is received by, for
example, the top 10 percent of the population, which
consists of individuals making more than $100,000",
for example.  Note that the 50th percentile (median)
of the income distribution is  well below $100,000.
Here the $100,000 level can be thought of as,  not the
50th percentile of the population income distribution,
but as the 50th percentile of the  "resource utilization
distribution"   (see  Appendix   10A  for  technical
discussion of this distribution).  Other  percentiles of
the resource  utilization distribution  have  similar
interpretations;  e.g.,  the  90th  percentile  of the
resource utilization distribution (for income) would
be that level of income such that 90 percent of total
income  is  received by individuals  with incomes
below this level and 10 percent by individuals with
income  above this level. This alternative approach to
characterizing distributions  is  of particular interest
when a  relatively  small   fraction of  individuals
consumes a relatively  large fraction of a resource,
which is the case with regards to  recreational fish
consumption.  In the studies of recreational anglers,
this   alternative   approach,  based   on  resource
utilization,  will be  presented,  where  possible, in
addition to  the primary approach of presenting the
standard percentiles of the fish intake distribution.
        The recommendations  for fish and shellfish
ingestion rates are provided in the next section, along
with summaries of the  confidence  ratings for  these
recommendations. The recommended values for the
general  population and for other  subsets  of the
population are based on the  key studies identified by
U.S.  EPA  for  this   factor.    Following  the
recommendations,  the  studies  on fish  ingestion
among the general population (Section 10.3), marine
recreational  angler  populations  (Section   10.4),
freshwater recreational  populations (Section  10.5),
and Native American populations (Section 10.6) are
summarized.  Information  is provided on the key
studies that form the basis  for  the fish and shellfish
intake rate recommendations.    Relevant data on
ingestion  of fish  and shellfish  are also  provided.
These studies are presented to provide the reader with
added perspective on the current state-of-knowledge
pertaining to ingestion of fish  and shellfish among
children.   Information on  other population  studies
(Section 10.7), serving size (Section 10.8), and other
factors to consider (Section 10.9) are also presented.

10.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
        Considerable variation exists in the mean
and upper percentile fish consumption rates obtained
from the studies presented in this chapter.  This can
be attributed largely to the type of water body (i.e.,
marine,  estuarine,  freshwater) and the characteristics
of the survey population (i.e., general  population,
recreational, Native American),  but other factors such
as study  design,  method  of  data  collection,  and
geographic location also play a  role. Based on these
study variations,  fish  consumption  studies  were
classified into the following categories:
•   General      Population      (total,
    freshwater/estuarine);
•   Recreational Marine Intake;
•   Recreational Freshwater Intake; and
manne,
Page
10-2
                 Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
 Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
•   Native American Subsistence Populations

For exposure  assessment purposes, the selection of
intake  rates  for  the  appropriate  category  (or
categories) will depend on  the  exposure scenario
being evaluated.

10.2.1  Recommendations - General Population
        Fish  consumption rates  are  recommended
for the general population, based  on  the  key  study
presented in Section 10.3.1.   The  key  study  for
estimating mean  fish  intake  among  the  general
population is the U.S. EPA (2002) analysis of data
from  the  U.S. Department of  Agriculture (USDA)
Continuing Survey of Food Intake among Individuals
(CSFII) 1994-1996, 1998.
        For  all  fish  (finfish  and  shellfish),  the
recommended per capita values for  adults  are  7.5
g/day  for freshwater./estuarine  fish, 12.4  g/day  for
marine fish, and 19.9 g/day for all fish (Table  10-1).
Recommended values for children ages 3 to < 6, 6 to
<11, 11 to < 16, and  16 to < 18 years, by habitat (i.e.,
marine, freshwater/estuarine,  or total  fish), are also
shown in Table 10-1.  It should be noted, however,
that the key general population study presented in
this chapter pre-dated the age groups  recommended
by U.S. EPA in Guidance on Selecting Age Groups
for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood  Exposures
to Environmental  Contaminants (U.S. EPA,  2005).
Thus,  recommended values were  not available  for
children less than 3  years old  or  18  to < 21.  The
confidence    ratings   for    the   fish   intake
recommendations  for  the  general population  are
presented in Table  10-2.
        Note that the fish intake values presented in
Table  10-1 are reported as  uncooked fish weights.
The CSFII 1994-1996,  1998 recipe files were used to
convert, for each fish-containing  food, the as-eaten
fish weight consumed into an  uncooked  equivalent
weight of  fish.  This  is  important because  the
concentrations  of  the  contaminants in fish  are
generally   measured  in  the  uncooked   samples.
Assuming that cooking results in some reductions in
weight (e.g., loss of moisture),  and the mass of  the
contaminant in the fish tissue remains constant, then
the contaminant  concentration in the  cooked fish
tissue will increase.
        In  terms  of calculating  the dose,  actual
consumption may  be overestimated when intake is
expressed  on  an  uncooked  basis, but the  actual
concentration  may be  underestimated when it is
based  on the uncooked sample.  The net effect on the
dose would depend on the magnitude of the opposing
effects on these two  exposure factors.   On the other
hand,  if the "as-prepared" (i.e.,  as-consumed) intake
rate and the uncooked concentration are used in the
dose equation, dose may be underestimated since the
concentration in the cooked fish is likely to be higher,
if the mass of the contaminant remains constant after
cooking.    Therefore, it  is more conservative  and
appropriate to  use  uncooked fish  intake rates.   If
concentration data  can be adjusted to account for
changes after cooking, then the "as-prepared" (i.e.,
as-consumed) intake rates are  appropriate. However,
data  on  the effects  of  cooking  on  contaminant
concentrations  are  limited and  assessors generally
make the conservative assumption  that cooking has
no  effect  on the  contaminant  mass.    Both  "as-
prepared"  (i.e.,  as-consumed)  and uncooked general
population  fish intake values are presented in this
handbook so  that the assessor can choose the intake
data that best matches the concentration data that are
being used.
        The  CSFII  data  on  which  the general
population  recommendations  are based,  are  short-
term survey data and could not be used to estimate
the distribution over the long  term.   Also, it  is
important to  note that a limitation associated with
these  data is that the total amount of fish reported by
respondents included fish from all sources  (e.g.,
fresh, frozen, canned, domestic, international origin).
The CSFII  surveys did not identify the source of the
fish consumed.   This type of  information may be
relevant for some assessments.  It should also be
noted that because these recommendations are based
on 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII data, they may not reflect
any  recent changes  that  may have  occurred  in
consumption patterns.
        Recommended  values  should be  selected
that  are  relevant to the assessment,  choosing the
appropriate age  groups  and  source  of fish (i.e.,
freshwater/estuarine, marine, and total fish).  In some
cases a different study or studies may be particularly
relevant to  the needs of an assessment, in which case
results from that specific study or studies may be
used  instead  of the recommended values provided
here.  For  example, it may be  advantageous  to use
available regional or site-specific  estimates  if the
assessment targets  a  particular  region or site.   In
addition, seasonal, gender, and fish species variations
should be considered when appropriate, if data are
available.  Also, relevant data on general population
fish  intake in  this  chapter  and may be  used  if
appropriate to the scenarios being assessed.

10.2.2  Recommendations - Recreational Marine
        Anglers
        The  recommended values  for recreational
marine anglers  are  presented  in Table 10-3.   These
values are  based  on the surveys  of the National
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           10-3
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, 1993).  The values
from  NMFS  (1993)  are  assumed to represent  per
capita intake of recreational marine fish among adult
recreational fishers   Age-specific values were  not
available   from   this    source.       However,
recommendations for children have  been estimated
based on the age-specific ratios of general population
children's  marine fish intake to  general population
adult  marine fish intake, multiplied by the adult
marine recreational fish intake rates. Much of  the
other  relevant data on recreational marine fish intake
in this chapter are limited to certain geographic areas
and cannot be generalized to the U.S. population as a
whole. However, assessors may use the site-specific
data from the relevant studies provided in this chapter
if appropriate to the scenarios being assessed.  The
confidence ratings  for  recommended   recreational
marine fish intake rates are presented in Table 10-4.

10.2.3  Recommendations     -    Recreational
        Freshwater Anglers
        Recommended values are not provided for
recreational  freshwater   fish  intake  because  the
available data are limited to certain geographic areas
and  cannot  be readily  generalized  to the U.S.
population of freshwater recreational  anglers as  a
whole.  However,  data  from   several  relevant
recreational freshwater studies are provided  in this
chapter. Data from these studies are summarized in
Table  10-5.  Assessors   may use  these  data,  if
appropriate to  the  scenarios  and locations being
assessed.

10.2.4  Recommendations   -  Native  American
        Subsistence Populations
        Recommended values are also not provided
for Native American subsistence fish intake because
the available data are limited to certain geographic
areas  and/or tribes and cannot be readily generalized
to Native American tribes as a whole. However, data
from several Native American studies are provided in
this chapter and are summarized in Table 10-6.
Assessors may use these data, if appropriate to the
scenarios and populations being assessed.  These
studies were performed at various study locations
among various tribes.
Page
10-4
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
a
5?
1
1
^
^
^M
ft








Table 10-1.




Recommended Values for General Population Fish Intake3
Per Capita
Age Group


g/day
Mean
g/kg-day
95th
g/day
Percentile
g/kg-day

g/day
Consumer Only

Mean 95th Percentile pp^n'tilL Source
g/kg-day g/day
g/kg-day
Total Fish
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 11 years
11 to < 16 years
16to< 18 years
>1 8 years
7.7
8.5
12.0
10.6
19.9
0.43
0.28
0.23
0.16
0.27
51.0
56.4
87.4
83.5
111.3
3.0
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.5
74
95
113
136*
127
4.2 184
3.2 313*
2.2 308*
2.1* 357*
1.8 334
10
8.7*
6.2*
6.6*
4.5
Marine Fish
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 11 years
11 to < 16 years
16to< 18 years
>18 years
5.5
5.6
7.6
6.1
12.4
0.31
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.17
39.4
38.4
56.5
29.5
80.7
2.3
1.5
1.3
0.5
1.1
66
78
102
126*
108
3.7 165
2.8 202*
2.0 262*
2.0* 353*
1.5 270
9.3* U.S. EPA
80* See Tables 10- (2002)
13,10-14,10- (Rates are for
5 -2 * 1 7, and 1 0- 1 8 uncooked
6.5* weight)
3.7
Freshwater/Estuarine Fish
3 to < 6 years
6 to < 11 years
11 to < 16 years
16to< 18 years
>18 years
2.2
3.0
4.3
4.6
7.5
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.10
12.2
13.1
25.8
19.3
49.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.7
40
61
71
100*
81
2.3 129
1.8 248*
1.3 199*
1.4* 242*
1.1 279
7.2*
6.2*
4.4*
3.3*
3.7
a Analysis was conducted prior to Agency's issuance of Guidance on Selecting Age groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to
Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA 2005). Thus, data were not presented for children less than 3 years old or for 18 to <21 years.
* The sample size does not meet the minimum reporting requirements, as described in the Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States
(LSRO, 1995).


Q
ft
&
a
A,
10
§,
-------
                                                                             Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                               Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                     Table 10-2.  Confidence in Recommendations for General Population Fish Intake
 General Assessment Factors
                      Rationale
Rating
 Soundness
  Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or Defined) Bias
The survey methodology and the analysis of the survey data
were adequate. Primary data were collected and used in a
secondary analysis of the data. The sample size was large.

The response rate was adequate.  The survey data were
based on recent recall. Data were collected over a short-
duration (i.e., 2 days).
                                                           Medium
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest

  Representativeness
  Currency

  Data Collection Period
The key study focused on the exposure factor of interest.

The survey was conducted nationwide and was
representative of the general U.S. population.

The most current CSFII 1994-96; 98 data were used.

Data were collected for two non-consecutive days.
                                                           Medium
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility

  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
The primary data are accessible through USDA.

The methodology was clearly presented; enough information
was available to allow for reproduction of the results.

Quality assurance of CSFII data was good; quality control of
secondary analysis was good.
                                                             High
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population

  Uncertainty
Full distributions were provided by the key study.

The survey was not designed to capture long-term intake
and was based on recall. Otherwise, the sources of
uncertainty were minimal.
                                                           Medium
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review
  Number and Agreement of Studies
The primary data were reviewed by USDA; U.S. EPA
review conducted a review of the secondary data analysis
for fish intake.

The number of studies is 1.
                                                           Medium
 Overall Rating
                                                        Medium (mean)
                                                        Low (long-term
                                                       upper percentiles)
Page
10-6
                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                             July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                         Table 10-3.  Recommended Values for Recreational Marine Fish Intake
            Age Group                                               Per Capita8
                                               Mean g/day                         95th Percentile g/day


3to<6yearsb                                       2.5                                    8.2
6to18 years                                           5.6                                    18.0
3to<6yearsb                                       3.2                                    12.0
6to18 years                                           7.2                                    26.1

                                                                     Pacifi
3 to <6 years
6to1 8 years
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.0
2.0
3.1
3.4
5.3
5.1
6.8
         Represents per capita values for recreational fishing population only. Data from U.S. EPA analysis of NMFS (1993)
         assumed to represent adults >18 years. Per capita values represent both survey individuals who ate recreational fish
         during the survey period and those that did not, but may eat recreationally caught fish during other periods.
         Recommendations for children estimated based on proportion of children's intake to adult intake for general population
         marine fish intake, applied to >18 years marine recreational fish intake rates.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                      Page
July 2009                                                                                              10-7
-------
                                                                              Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                               Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                         Table 10-4. Confidence in Recommendations for Recreational Marine Fish Intake
 General Assessment Factors
Rationale
Rating
 Soundness
  Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or Defined) Bias
The survey methodology and the analysis of the survey data
were adequate. Primary data were collected and used in a
secondary analysis of the data. The sample size was large.

The response rate was adequate.  The survey data were
based on recent recall.
                                                            Medium
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest
  Representativeness



  Currency

  Data Collection Period
The key study was not designed to estimate individual
consumption of fish. U.S. EPA obtained the raw data and
estimated intake distributions by employing assumptions
derived from other data sources.

The survey was conducted in coastal states in the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Gulf regions and was representative of fishing
populations in these regions of the U.S.

The data are from a survey conducted in 1993.

Data were collected in telephone interviews and direct
interviews of fishermen in the field over a short time frame.
                                                            Medium
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility

  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
The primary data are from NMFS.

The methodology was clearly presented; enough
information was available to allow for reproduction of the
results.

Quality assurance of the primary data was not described.
Quality assurance of the secondary analysis was good.
                                                            Medium
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population

  Uncertainty
Mean and 95th percentile values were provided.

The survey was specifically designed to estimate individual
intake rates. U.S. EPA estimated intake based on an
analysis of the raw data, using assumptions about the
number of individuals consuming fish meals from the fish
caught. Estimates for children are based on additional
assumptions regarding the proportion of intake relative the
amount eaten by adults.
                                                                                                   Low
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review
  Number and Agreement of Studies
Data from NMFS (1993) were reviewed by NMFS and U.S.
EPA.

The number of studies is 1.
                                                                                                  Medium
 Overall Rating
                                                        Low to Medium
                                                            (adults)
                                                         Low (children)
Page
10-8
                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               July 2009
-------
a
ri
sT
a

1=

I
Exposure Factors Handbook




Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                                                                                                      Q    J?
                                                                                                                      &    ^Q

Location

Alabama
Clinch River

Connecticut
Lake Ontario
Maine

Michigan



Indiana

Minnesota



North Dakota



Savannah Rive

Wisconsin
Table 10-5. Summary
Population Group

Adults
of Relevant Studies on Freshwater Recreational Fish Intake
Mean
g/day
44a
Adults who eat fish from study area 38b
All Anglers
Sports Fishers
Adults
All Anglers
Consuming Anglers
I to 5 years
6 to 10 years
21 to 80 years
All ages
Active Consumers
Potential & Active Consumers
0 to 14 years
> 14 years (males)
15 to 44 (females)
> 44 (females)
0 to 14 years
> 14 years (males)
15 to 44 (females)
> 44 (females)
Adult Whites
Adult Blacks
Sports Anglers
20b
51
4.9C
5.0
6.4
5.6
7.9
16C
14
20
16
1.2 (50th percentile)
4.5(50thpercentile)
2. 1(50* percentile)
3. 6 (50th percentile)
1.7 (50th percentile)
2. 3 (50th percentile)
4. 3 (50th percentile)
4.2 (50th percentile)
38b
70 b
7.4
95th Percentile Source
g/day
ADEM, 1994
Campbell et al., 2002
-
Balcometal., 1999
18 Connelly etal., 1996
2 1 Chemirisk, 1 992; Ebert et al. , 1 993
26
West etal., 1989, 1993
-
-
39
60.5 Williams et al., 2000a, 2000b

15 Benson et al., 2001
38
25
32
23 Benson et al., 2001
28
35
36
Burger etal., 1999
-
25 Fiore etal., 1989
3 Eased on the average of 2 methods.
b Calculated as amount eaten per year divided by 365
0 Based on averaj
>e of multiple adult age groups.
days per year..



I
                                                                                                                 a

                                                                                                                 I

                                                                                                                 •s,
                                                                                                                      a
                                                                                                                      A,
                                                                                                                     1
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           ri
     sT
     a
                                                                                                                      I
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table
Location/Tribe
94 Alaska Communities
4 Columbia River Tribes
Chippewa Indians
Florida
Maine - Native
Americans
Minnesota
Mohawk
North Dakota
Tulalip
Squaxin Island Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Tulalip Tribe
Squaxin Island Tribe
10-6. Summary of
Population Group
Lowest of 94
Median of 94
Highest of 94
Adults
Chilren < 5 years
Adults
Consumers'5
-
Consumers'5
Women
Consumers'5
Adult
Adults
Adults
Adults
a Results are reported in g/day or g/k^
b Based on uncooled fish weight.
Relevant Studies on Native American Subsistence Fish Intake
Meana
16 g/day
81 g/day
770 g/day
59 g/day
11 g/day (50th
percentile)
19 g/day
1.5 g/kg-day
10 g/day
2.8 g/kg-day
8.8 g/day
0.4 g/kg-day
0.9 g/kg-day
0.9 g/kg-day
2.7 g/kg-day
1 .0 g/kg-day
1 .0 g/kg-day
95th Percentile"
-
170 g/day
98 g/day
-
5.7 g/kg-day
-
-
-
-
2.9 g/kg-day
3.0 g/kg-day
10 g/kg-day
2.6 g/kg-day
3.4 g/kg-day
'-day, depending upon which was provided in the
Source
Wolfe and Walker, 1987
CRITFC, 1994
Peterson etal., 1994
Westat, 2006
Chemirisk, 1992
Westat, 2006
Fitzgerald et al. 1995
Westat, 2006
Toy etal., 1996
Duncan, 2000
Polissar et al., 2006
source material.
Page
10-10
Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
10.3    GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES
10.3.1   Key General Population Study
10.3.1.1 U.S. EPA, 2002 - Estimated Per Capita
        Fish Consumption in the United States
        U.S. EPA's Office  of Water used data from
the  1994-96   CSFII  and  its  1998   Children's
Supplement (referred to collectively as CSFII 1994-
96, 1998) to generate fish intake estimates (U.S. EPA,
2002).    Participants  in the  CSFII  1994-96,  98
provided two non-consecutive days of dietary data.
The Day 2 interview occurred three to ten days after
the Day 1 interview, but not on the same  day of the
week.  Data collection for the CSFII started in April
of the given year and was completed in March of the
following year.  Respondents estimated the weight of
each food that they consumed.  Information on the
consumption of food was  classified  using 11,345
different food codes, and stored in a database in units
of grams consumed per day. A total of 831 of these
food  codes related to  fish  or shellfish;  survey
respondents reported  consumption across 665  of
these codes. The fish component (by weight) of the
various foods  was  calculated using data  from the
recipe  file  for release 7  of USD As Nutrient Data
Base for Individual Food Intake Surveys.
        The amount  of fish  consumed  by  each
individual was then calculated by summing, over all
fish containing foods, the product of  the weight of
food consumed  and the fish component (i.e.,  the
percentage  fish by weight)  of the food.  The recipe
file also contains cooking loss factors associated with
each food.  These were used to convert, for each fish-
containing food, the as-eaten fish weight consumed
into an uncooked equivalent weight of fish.  Analyses
of  fish intake  were  performed  on both  an "as-
prepared" (i.e., as-consumed) and uncooked basis.
        Each fish-related food code was  assigned,
by  U.S.  EPA, to a habitat category.   The habitat
categories included freshwater/estuarine, or marine.
Food  codes  were  also  designated as  finfish  or
shellfish.   Average daily  individual consumption
(g/day)  was calculated, for a  given  fish type-by-
habitat category (e.g., marine finfish), by summing
the amount of fish consumed by the individual across
the two reporting days for all fish-related food codes
in  the  given  fish-by-habitat  category  and  then
dividing by 2.   Individual daily fish consumption
(g/day) was calculated similarly except that total fish
consumption was divided by the specific number of
survey days the individual reported consuming fish;
this was calculated  for fish consumers  only (i.e.,
those  consuming fish  on at least one of the two
survey  days).   The reported body weight of the
individual was used to convert consumption in g/day
to consumption in g/kg-day.
        There were a total of 20,607 respondents in
the combined data set who had two-day  dietary
intake  data.  Survey weights were assigned to this
data set to  make it representative  of  the  U.S.
population  with  respect  to  various  demographic
characteristics related to food intake. Survey weights
were also adjusted for nonresponse.
        U.S. EPA (2002)  reported means, medians,
and estimates of the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of
fish intake.  The 90-percent interval estimates are non-
parametric  estimates from bootstrap techniques.  The
bootstrap estimates result from the percentile method
which calculates the lower and upper bounds for the
interval estimate by the lOOa percentile and 100 (1-a)
percentile  estimates   from   the  non-parametric
distribution of the given point estimate  (U.S. EPA,
2002).
        Analyses of fish intake were  performed on
an as-prepared as well as on an uncooked equivalent
basis and on a g/day and mg/kg-day basis.  Table 10-
7  gives the  mean and various  percentiles of the
distribution of per-capita finfish and shellfish intake
rates (g/day), as prepared, by habitat and  fish type,
for the general population. Per-capita consumption
estimates by species are shown in Table 10-8.  Table
10-9 displays the mean and various percentiles of the
distribution of per-capita finfish and shellfish intake
rates (g/day) by habitat and fish type, on an uncooked
equivalent  basis.  Per capita consumption estimates
by  species on an uncooked equivalent  basis are
shown in Table 10-10.
        Tables 10-11 through 10-18 present data for
daily  average fish consumption.  These data are
presented by  selected  age groupings (14 and  under,
15-44,  45 and older, all ages, children ages 3  to 17,
and ages 18  and  older) and  gender.  It should be
noted  the  analysis   predated   the  age  groups
recommended by U.S. EPA Guidelines on Selecting
Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposure to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA,
2005).   Tables 10-11 through  10-14 present  fish
intake  data (g/day and mg/kg-day; as prepared and
uncooked)  on for a per capita basis and Tables 10-15
through 10-18 provide data for consumers only.
        The  advantages of this  study are its large
size, its relative currency and its representativeness.
The  survey was  also designed  and  conducted to
support unbiased   estimation  of  food consumption
across the population.  In addition, through use of the
USDA recipe files, the analysis  identified all fish-
related food  codes and estimated the percent  fish
content of  each of these  codes.  By contrast, some
analyses of the USDA National Food Consumption
Surveys  (NFCSs)  which  reported per  capita  fish
intake  rates (e.g.,  Pao et al.,  1982; USDA, 1992a),
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          10-11
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                           Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
excluded  certain fish  containing foods  (e.g.,  fish
mixtures, frozen plate meals) in their calculations.
        The  1994-1996,  1998  CSFII data  were
preceded  by  1989-91  CSFII  data.   Over  20,000
people  nationwide  participated  in  the  combined
1994-1996, 1998 surveys,  providing  recalled food
intake information for two separate days.  In 1989-
91, dietary data were collected on 3 consecutive days
by using a 1-day dietary recall and a 2-day dietary
record.  The target population covered all 50 States in
1994-96, 1998 versus the 48 conterminous States in
1989-91. In both sets  of surveys, the low-income
population was oversampled.
        Comparisons between the mean daily fish
intake per individual in a day from the USDA survey
data from years 1977-78, 1987-88, 1989-91, 1994,
1995, and  1996 indicate that  fish intake  has been
relatively constant over time. The  1-day fish intake
rates were 11 g/day, 11 g/day,  13 g/day, 9 g/day, 11
g/day, and 10 g/day for survey years 1977-78, 1987-
88, 1989-91, 1994, and 1995, and 1996 respectively.
The 1-day fish intake rate  was 4 g/day for survey
year 1998. This lower rate  can be attributed to the
fact that the sample selection for the  1998 data was
made in the expectation that all datasets (1994-1996,
1998) would be combined to form one single set.
        The 1998 set was meant to help correct bias
from the previous sets. As such, bias can be found in
the 1998 set (only households that included a child 10
years or younger were included in the data set). After
accounting for the bias, the  similarity in  1-day fish
intake  rates  over  a 20-year  period listed  above
indicates  that  the  1994-1996,  1998 CSFII data
presented in this handbook are probably adequate for
assessing   fish  ingestion   exposure   for   current
populations.

10.3.2   Relevant General Population Studies
10.3.2.1 Javitz, 1980; Tuna Research Foundation
        (TRF), 1975 - Seafood Consumption Study
        The Tuna Research  Institute (TRI) funded a
study of fish  consumption which was performed by
the National Purchase Diary (NPD) during the period
of September,  1973  to August, 1974.  The data tapes
from this survey were obtained by the  NMFS, which
later, along with the  FDA, USDA and TRI, conducted
an intensive effort to identify and correct errors in the
data base. Javitz (1980) summarized the TRI survey
methodology and used the corrected tape to generate
fish intake distributions for various sub-populations.
        The  TRI  survey  sample included  6,980
families  who  were currently participating  in  a
syndicated national purchase diary  panel,  2,400
additional families where the head of household was
female and under 35 years old; and  210 additional
black families (Javitz, 1980). Of the 9,590 families in
the total sample, 7,662 families (25,162  individuals)
completed the questionnaire, a response rate of 80
percent.  The survey was weighted to represent the
U.S. population based on a number of census-defined
controls (i.e., census region,  household size, income,
presence of children, race and age). The  calculations
of  means,  percentiles,  etc.  were  performed on a
weighted basis  with each  person contributing in
proportion to his/her assigned survey weight.
        The survey population was divided into 12
different sample segments and, for each of the 12
survey months, data were collected from a different
segment. Each survey household was given a diary in
which they recorded,  over a one  month period, the
date of  any  fish meals consumed and the following
accompanying  information:  the   species  of  fish
consumed,  whether the fish was  commercially or
recreationally caught, the way the  fish was packaged
(canned, frozen fresh, dried,  smoked), the amount of
fish prepared and  consumed, and the  number of
servings consumed by  household  members  and
guests. Both meals eaten at home  and  away from
home were  recorded.  The amount of fish prepared
was determined as follows (Javitz,  1980): "For fresh
fish, the weight was  recorded in ounces  and may
have included the weight of the head and tail.  For
frozen fish,  the weight was recorded in  packaged
ounces,  and it  was  noted  whether the  fish was
breaded or combined with other ingredients (e.g., TV
dinners). For canned fish, the weight was recorded in
packaged ounces and it was noted whether the  fish
was canned in water, oil, or with other ingredients
(e.g., soups)."
        Javitz  (1980) reported  that the  corrected
survey tapes contained data on 24,652  individuals
who consumed fish in the  survey  month  and  that
tabulations  performed by NPD indicated that these
fish consumers represented  94 percent  of the U.S.
population.  For this population of "fish consumers",
Javitz (1980) calculated means and percentiles offish
consumption by demographic variables (age, sex,
race, census region and community type) and overall
(Table  10-19).  The  overall mean fish  intake  rate
among fish consumers was calculated at 14.3 g/day
and the 95th percentile at 41.7 g/day.
        As  seen in Table 10-19, the mean and 95th
percentile of fish consumption were higher for Asian-
Americans  as compared to  the other racial  groups.
Other differences in intake  rates are those between
gender and age groups. While males (15.6 g/day) eat
slightly  more fish  than  females  (13.2  g/day)  and
adults eat more fish than children, the corresponding
differences   in  body   weight  would  probably
compensate for the different intake rates  in exposure
Page
10-12
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
calculations (Javitz, 1980).  There appeared to be no
large  differences in regional intake  rates,  although
higher rates  are shown in the New  England and
Middle Atlantic census regions.
        Table 10-20 presents the distribution of fish
consumption for females and males, by age; this table
give the percentages of females/males in a given age
bracket with intake rates within various ranges. Table
10-21 presents mean total fish  consumption by fish
species.
        The TRI survey data were also  utilized by
Rupp  et  al.   (1980)   to   generate  fish  intake
distributions for three age groups (1 to 11, 12 to 18,
and 18  to 98 years) within each of the 9  census
regions  and for the entire  United  States.  Separate
distributions  were  derived  for freshwater finfish,
saltwater  finfish and shellfish; thus, a total of 90
(3*3*10)  different  distributions were derived,  each
corresponding to intake of a specific category of fish
for a  given age group  within  a given region.  The
analysis of Rupp et al. (1980) included  only those
respondents with known age.   This  amounted  to
23,213 respondents.
        Ruffle et al. (1994) used the  percentiles data
of Rupp  et al.  (1980)  to  estimate the best fitting
lognormal parameters  for  each distribution. Three
methods  (non-linear optimization, first  probability
plot  and  second  probability  plot)  were  used  to
estimate  optimal parameters.   Ruffle  et al.  (1994)
determined that, of  the three methods, the non-linear
optimization method (NLO) generally gave the best
results.  For some  of the distributions fitted by the
NLO  method, however, it  was determined that the
lognormal model did not adequately fit the empirical
fish intake distribution. Ruffle  et al. (1994)  used  a
criterion of minimum sum  of squares (min SS) less
than  30  to identify  which  distributions provided
adequate fits. Of the 90 distributions studied, 77 were
seen to  have min SS < 30; for these, Ruffle et al.
(1994) concluded that the NLO modeled lognormal
distributions are "well suited for risk assessment". Of
the remaining 13 distributions,  12 had min SS > 30;
for these Ruffle et al. (1994) concluded that modeled
lognormal distributions "may also be appropriate for
use when exercised  with due care and with sensitivity
analyses". One distribution, that of freshwater finfish
intake for children < 11 years of age in New England,
could not be  modeled  due to  the  absence  of any
reported consumption.
        Table 10-22 presents the optimal lognormal
parameters, the mean (u), standard deviation (s), and
min SS. These parameters can be used to determine
percentiles  of  the  corresponding   distribution  of
average daily fish  consumption rates through the
relation DFC(p)=exp[u+ z(p)s]  where DFC(p) is the
pth percentile of the distribution of average daily fish
consumption rates and z(p) is the z-score associated
with the pth percentile (e.g., z(50)=0 ).  The mean
average daily fish consumption rate is given by exp[^i
+ 0.5s2].
        The analyses of Javitz (1980) and Ruffle et
al. (1994) were based on consumers only,  who  are
estimated to represent 94.0  percent  of the U.S.
population.  U.S.  EPA estimated the mean intake in
the general  population by multiplying  the  fraction
consuming,  0.94,  by the mean  among consumers
reported by Javitz (1980) of 14.3 g/day; the resulting
estimate is 13.4 g/day. The 95th percentile estimate
of Javitz  (1980)  of 41.7 g/day  among consumers
would be essentially unchanged when applied to the
general  population; 41.7 g/day would represent  the
95.3  percentile (i.e.,  100*[0.95*0.94+0.06])  among
the general population.
        The advantages of the TRI data survey  are
that it was a large, nationally representative survey
with  a  high response rate (80  percent) and was
conducted   over   an  entire   year.  In  addition,
consumption was recorded in a daily diary over a one
month period; this format should be more  reliable
than one  based on  one-month  recall.   The upper
percentiles presented are  derived from one month of
data, and are likely to overestimate the corresponding
upper percentiles  of the long-term (i.e.,  one year or
more)   average   daily   fish   intake   distribution.
Similarly, the  standard  deviation  of  the  fitted
lognormal distribution probably  overestimates  the
standard deviation  of  the  long-term  distribution.
However, the period of this survey (one month) is
considerably longer  than  those of  many  other
consumption studies, including the USDA National
Food    Consumption   Surveys,   which   report
consumption over a 2 day to one week period.
        Another obvious limitation of this data base
is that it is now over thirty years out of date. Ruffle et
al. (1994) considered this shortcoming and suggested
that one may wish to shift the distribution upward to
account for  the recent increase in fish consumption,
though  CSFII has shown  little change in g/day fish
consumption  from   1978   to   1996.     Adding
ln(l+x/100)  to  the  log  mean  \i  will  shift  the
distribution upward by x percent (e.g., adding 0.22 =
ln(1.25) increases the distribution by  25 percent).
Although the  TRI  survey distinguished  between
recreationally and commercially  caught fish, Javitz
(1980),  Rupp et al. (1980), and Ruffle et al. (1994)
(which  was based  on Rupp et al.,  1980)  did  not
present analyses by this variable.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                          10-13
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                           Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
10.3.2.2 Pao et al, 1982 - Foods Commonly Eaten
        by Individuals: Amount Per Day and Per
        Eating Occasion
        The  USD A  1977-78  Nationwide  Food
Consumption  Survey   (NFCS)  consisted  of  a
household  and  individual  component.   For  the
individual  component,  all  members of  surveyed
households were asked to provide 3 consecutive days
of dietary data.  For the first day's data, participants
supplied  dietary recall  information to  an in-home
interviewer.   Second and third day dietary  intakes
were  recorded by  participants.  A total  of  15,000
households were included in the  1977-78 NFCS and
about 38,000 individuals completed the 3-day  diet
records.    Fish  intake  was  estimated  based  on
consumption of fish products identified in the NFCS
data base according to NFCS-defined  food codes.
These  products  included fresh,  breaded, floured,
canned, raw and dried fish, but not fish mixtures or
frozen plate meals.
        Pao et al. (1982) used  the data from  this
survey set to calculate per capita fish  intake rates.
However, because these data  are now almost 30 years
out of date,  this  analysis is not considered key with
respect to assessing  per capita intake (the average
quantity  of fish  consumed per fish meal  should be
less subject to change  over  time than is  per capita
intake).   In  addition, fish mixtures and frozen plate
meals were  not  included in the calculation  of  fish
intake.  The per capita  fish  intake rate reported by
Pao et al. (1982) was  11.8  g/day.   The 1977-1978
NFCS was a large and well designed survey and the
data are representative of the  U.S. population.

10.3.2.3  USDA, 1992b  - Food and nutrient  intakes
        by individuals in the  United States, 1 day,
        1987-88: Nationwide Food Consumption
        Survey 1987-88
        The  USDA  1987-88  Nationwide  Food
Consumption Survey (NFCS)  is described in more
detail in  Chapter 13.  Briefly, the survey consisted of
a  household  and  individual  component.     The
household component asked about household  food
consumption over the past one week period. For the
individual component,  each  member of a surveyed
household was interviewed (in person) and asked to
recall  all  foods  eaten  the   previous  day;  the
information  from this interview  made up the "one
day data" for the survey.  In  addition, members were
instructed to fill  out a detailed  dietary record for the
day of the interview and the following day.  The data
for this entire 3-day period made up the "3-day  diet
records".  A statistical sampling design was used to
ensure that  all seasons,  geographic regions  of the
U.S.,  demographic, and socioeconomic  groups were
represented.  Sampling weights were used to match
the  population  distribution  of  13  demographic
characteristics related to food intake (USDA, 1992a).
        Total fish intake was  estimated based  on
consumption of fish products identified in the NFCS
data base according to  NFCS-defined food codes.
These  products  included fresh,  breaded,  floured,
canned, raw and dried fish, but not fish mixtures or
frozen plate meals.
        A total of 4,500 households participated in
the 1987-88 survey; the household response rate was
38 percent.  One day data were obtained for 10,172
(81 percent) of the 12,522 individuals in participating
households; 8,468 (68 percent) individuals completed
3-day diet records.
        USDA (1992b) used the one day data to
derive per capita fish intake rate and intake rates for
consumers of total fish.   These rates, calculated by
sex and age group, are shown in Table  10-23. Intake
rates for consumers-only were calculated by dividing
the per capita intake rates by  the fractions of the
population consuming fish in one day.
        The  1987-1988 NFCS  was also utilized to
estimate consumption of home-produced fish (as well
as home-produced fruits, vegetables, meats and dairy
products)   in  the  general U.S.  population.  The
methodology  for  estimating home-produced intake
rates was rather complex and involved combining the
household and individual components  of the NFCS;
the methodology, as well  as  the  estimated intake
rates, are described in detail in Chapter 13. However,
since much of the rest of this chapter is  concerned
with  estimating   consumption  of   recreationally
caught,  i.e., home-produced fish, the methods  and
results  of Chapter  13,  as  they pertain to  fish
consumption, are summarized briefly here.
        A total  of  2.1  percent  of the  survey
population reported home-produced fish consumption
during the survey week. Among consumers, the mean
intake rate was 2.07 g/kg-day and the 95th percentile
was 7.83 g/kg-day; the per-capita intake rate was 0.04
g/kg-day.  Note that intake rates for home-produced
foods were indexed to the weight  of the survey
respondent and reported in g/kg-day.
        It  is possible to compare the estimates of
home-produced fish consumption derived in  this
analysis  with estimates  derived from  studies  of
recreational anglers  (described  in  Sections  10.4-
10.5); however, the intake rates must be  put into a
similar  context.   The  home-produced intake  rates
described refer to average daily intake rates among
individuals consuming  home-produced  fish in  a
week;   results  from  recreational  angler  studies,
however, usually report average daily rates for those
eating   home-produced  fish  (or  for those  who
Page
10-14
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
recreationally fish) at least some time during the year.
Since many  of  these latter individuals eat home-
produced fish at a frequency of less than once per
week, the average daily intake in this group would be
expected to be less than that reported.
        The  NFCS household component contains
the question "Does anyone  in your household fish?"
For the population answering yes to this question (21
percent  of households), the NFCS data show that 9
percent consumed home-produced fish in the week of
the survey; the mean intake rate for these consumers
from fishing households was 2.2 g/kg-day.  (Note that
91 percent of individuals reporting home grown fish
consumption for the week of the survey indicated that
a household member fishes; the overall mean intake
rate   among   home-produced  fish   consumers,
regardless of fishing  status,  was the  above reported
2.07 g/kg-day).  The per capita intake rate among
those living in a  fishing household is  then calculated
as 0.2 g/kg-day  (2.2 * 0.09).  Using the  estimated
average  weight of survey participants of 59 kg, this
translates  into 11.8  g/day.  Among members  of
fishing households, home-produced fish consumption
accounted for 32.5 percent of total fish consumption.
        As   discussed  in  Chapter  13   of  this
handbook,  intake rates  for home-produced foods,
including  fish,  are  based  on the  results  of the
household survey, and as such, reflect the weight of
fish  taken  into  the  household.    In most  of the
recreational  fish surveys  discussed  later in this
section,  the weight of the fish catch (which generally
corresponds to the weight taken into  the household)
is multiplied by  an edible fraction to convert to  an
uncooked equivalent of the  amount consumed.  This
fraction  may be species  specific, but some  studies
used an average  value; these average values ranged
from 0.3 to 0.5.  Using a factor of 0.5 would convert
the above 11.8 g/day rate to  5.9 g/day. This estimate,
5.9 g/day, of the per-capita fish intake rate among
members of fishing households is within the range of
the per-capita intake rates among  recreational anglers
addressed in sections to follow.
        An advantage  of  analyses  based  on the
1987-1988 USDANFCS is that the data set is a large,
geographically and seasonally balanced survey of a
representative sample of the U.S. population.  The
survey response rate, however, was low and an expert
panel concluded  that it was not possible to establish
the presence or absence of non-response bias (USD A,
1992b).  In addition, the data from this survey  have
been superseded by more recent surveys. Limitations
of the home-produced analysis are given in Chapter
13 of this volume.
10.3.2.4 Tsang  and  Klepeis,  1996  -  National
        Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)
        The U.S. EPA collected information for the
general population on the duration and frequency of
time spent in  selected activities and time spent in
selected  microenvironments  via 24-hour  diaries.
Over 9,000 individuals from  48  contiguous states
participated in  NHAPS.   Approximately  4,700
participants also  provided  information on seafood
consumption.  The survey  was conducted between
October  1992 and September 1994.   Data were
collected on (1) the number of people that ate seafood
in the last month,  (2) the number of servings  of
seafood  consumed, and  (3)  whether  the  seafood
consumed  was  caught or purchased (Tsang and
Klepeis,  1996).    The participant responses were
weighted according to selected demographics  such as
age, gender, and race to ensure  that  results were
representative of the U.S. population.  Of those 4,700
respondents,  2,980   (59.6   percent)   ate  seafood
(including shellfish, eels, or squid) in the  last month
(Table 10-24).  The number of servings  per month
were categorized in ranges of 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-19,
and  20+ servings per month  (Table  10-25).  The
highest percentage  (35 percent) of the  respondent
population had an intake of 3-5 servings per month.
Most (92 percent) of  the respondents purchased the
seafood they ate (Table 10-26).
        Intake data were not provided in the survey.
However, intake of fish can be estimated using the
information on the number of servings of fish eaten
from this study  and  serving size data from other
studies. Smiciklas-Wright et al. (2002) estimated that
the mean value for fish serving size for all  age groups
combined is 110 g/serving based  on  the  1994-1996
CSFII  survey (See Section  10.8).  The serving size
CSFII  data are based on all finfish, except canned,
dried, and raw, whether reported separately or as part
of a sandwich or other mixed food. Using this mean
value for serving size  and assuming that the average
individual eats 3-5 servings per month, the amount of
seafood eaten  per month would range from 330 to
550 grams/month or 11.0 to 18.3 g/day for the highest
percentage of the population.    These values  are
within the range  of per capita mean intake values for
total fish (16.9 g/day, uncooked equivalent weight)
calculated by U.S. EPA (2002) analysis of the USDA
CSFII  data. It should be noted that an all inclusive
description for seafood was not presented in Tsang
and Klepeis (1996). It is not known if processed or
canned seafood and seafood mixtures are included in
the seafood category.
        The advantages of NHAPS are that the data
were collected for a large number of individuals and
are representative  of  the U.S. general population.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          10-15
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
However,  evaluation of seafood intake was not the
primary purpose of the study and the data do not
reflect the actual amount of seafood that was eaten.
However, using the assumption described above, the
estimated   seafood   intake   from  this  study  is
comparable  to  that  observed in  the  EPA CSFII
analysis.

10.3.2.5 Westat,  2006  -  Fish   Consumption  in
        Connecticut,   Florida,   Minnesota,   and
        North Dakota
        Westat (2006)  analyzed the raw  data from
three   fish  consumption  studies  to  derive  fish
consumption rates for various age,  gender, and ethnic
groups, and according to the source of fish consumed
(i.e., bought or caught) and habitat (i.e., freshwater,
estuarine,  or marine).  The studies represented data
from four states: Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota and
North Dakota.
        The Connecticut data were   collected  in
1996/1997 by the University of Connecticut to obtain
estimates  of  fish  consumption  for  the  general
population,  sport fishing households, commercial
fishing  households,  minority  and limited income
households,  women of child-bearing years,  and
children. Data  were obtained from 810 households,
representing 2,080 individuals, using a combination
of a mail questionnaire  that included a 10-day diary,
and personal interviews.  The response rate for this
survey was low  (i.e.,   6 percent for the general
population and 10  percent for  anglers),  but  was
considered to  be  adequate by the  study authors
(Balcom et al., 1999).
        The  Florida   data   were  collected  by
telephone and in-person interviews by the University
of Florida, and represented a random sample of 8,000
households  (telephone  interviews), and  500  food
stamp recipients (in-person interviews).  The purpose
of the  survey  was to  obtain information on the
quantity of fish and shellfish eaten, as well as the
cooking method used.  Additional information of the
Florida survey can be found in Degner et al. (1994).
        The Minnesota and North Dakota data were
collected by the University of North Dakota in 2000
and   represented   1,572  households  and  4,273
individuals.  Data on purchased and caught fish were
collected for the  general population,  anglers,  new
mothers, and Native American tribes.  The survey
also collected information of the species of fish eaten.
Additional information on this study can be found in
Benson etal. (2001).
        The primary difference in survey procedures
among the three studies was the manner in which the
fish   consumption  data  were   collected.     In
Connecticut, the  survey requested  information on
how often each type of seafood was eaten, without a
recall period specified.  In Minnesota and North
Dakota, the survey requested information on the rate
of fish or shellfish consumption during the previous
12  months.    In Florida,  the   survey  requested
information  on  fish consumption during the last
seven days  prior to the telephone interview.   In
addition, for the Florida survey, information on away-
from-home fish consumption was collected from a
randomly selected  adult  from  each  participating
household.  Because   this   information  was   not
collected from all household members, the study may
tend to underestimate away-from-home consumption.
The study notes that estimates of fish  consumption
using a shorter recall period  will  decrease  the
proportion of respondents that report eating fish or
shellfish.  This  trend was observed in the Florida
study (in which approximately half of respondents
reported  eating fish/shellfish),  compared   with
Connecticut, Minnesota and North Dakota (in which
approximately 90 percent of respondents reported
eating fish or shellfish).
        Tables   10-27  through  10-36  present key
findings of the Westat (2006) consumption study. The
tables show  the fish and shellfish consumption  rates
for   subgroups   classified   by     demographic
characteristics and by  the  source  of the  fish and
shellfish consumed  (i.e.,  freshwater versus marine,
and bought versus serf caught).   Consumption  rates
are presented in grams per kilogram of bodyweight
per day for  the  entire population (i.e.,  consumption
per capita) and for just those that reported consuming
fish and shellfish (consumption for consumers only).

10.3.2.6 Moya  et al.,  2008  - Estimates  of  Fish
        Consumption  Rates for Consumers  of
        Bought   and   Self-caught  fish    in
        Connecticut,  Florida,  Minnesota,  and
        North Dakota
        Moya et al. (2008) conducted an analysis
based  on the  Westat  (2006) study  described  in
Section  10.3.2.5.  Raw  data  from   three  fish
consumption studies (representing data from  four
states)  were  analyzed  to  derive  fish  consumption
rates . Moya et al. (2008) utilized the data to generate
intake rates for three age groups of children (i.e., 1 to
<6  years, 6 to <11 years, and 11 to <16 years) and
three age groups of adults (16 to <30 years, 30 to <50
years,  and >50 years), which are also listed by
gender.     These  data  represented   the  general
population in the four states.  Recreational fish intake
rates were not provided for children,  and data were
not provided for children according to the source of
intake   (i.e.,  bought or  caught) or  habitat  (i.e.,
freshwater,  estuarine,  or  marine).    Table 10-37
Page
10-16
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
presents the intake rates for the general population
who consumed fish and  shellfish in g/kg-day, as-
consumed. Table 10-37 also provides information on
the fish intake among the sample  populations from
the four states, based on the source of the fish (i.e.,
caught or bought), and provides estimated fish intake
rates  among  the  general populations  and  angler
populations from Connecticut, Minnesota, and North
Dakota.

10.4    MARINE RECREATIONAL STUDIES
10.4.1   Key Marine Recreational Study
10.4.1.1 National Marine Fisheries Service,  1986a,
        b, c; 1993
        The   National  Marine Fisheries  Service
(NMFS)    conducts   systematic   surveys,   on   a
continuing basis,  of  marine  recreational  fishing.
These surveys  are designed to estimate the size of the
recreational marine finfish catch by location, species
and fishing mode. In addition, the surveys  provide
estimates  for  the total number of  participants  in
marine recreational finfishing and the total number of
fishing trips.
        The    NMFS    surveys    involve   two
components,    telephone    surveys    and   direct
interviewing of fishermen in the field.  The telephone
survey randomly samples residents of coastal regions,
defined generally as  counties within 25  miles of the
nearest seacoast, and inquires about participation in
marine recreational  fishing in the resident's home
state in the past year, and more specifically, in the
past two months. This  component of the survey is
used to estimate, for each coastal state,  the  total
number of coastal region residents who participate in
marine recreational  fishing (for finfish) within the
state, as well  as  the total number of (within state)
fishing trips these residents take. To estimate the total
number of participants and fishing trips in the state,
by  coastal residents  and  others,  a ratio  approach,
based on the field interview data, was used. Thus, if
the field survey data found that there was a 4:1  ratio
of  fishing  trips  taken  by  coastal  residents  as
compared to trips taken by non-coastal and out of
state residents, then  an additional 25 percent would
be added  to the  number  of trips  taken by  coastal
residents to generate an estimate of the total number
of within state  trips.
        The  surveys are  not designed to estimate
individual  consumption   of  fish   from   marine
recreational sources, primarily because  they  do not
attempt to estimate  the number  of  individuals
consuming the recreational catch.   Intake rates for
marine  recreational  anglers  can  be  estimated,
however,  by  employing assumptions derived from
other data sources about the number of consumers.
        The field intercept survey is essentially  a
creel type survey.  The survey utilizes a national site
register which details marine fishing locations in each
state.    Sites  for field  interviews  are chosen  in
proportion to fishing frequency at the site.  Anglers
fishing on shore, private boat, and charter/party boat
modes  who had  completed  their  fishing  were
interviewed.  The field  survey included questions
about frequency of fishing, area of fishing, age, and
place  of residence. The fish catch was classified by
the interviewer as either type A, type B1 or type B2
catch. The type A catch denoted fish that were taken
whole from the fishing site and were available for
inspection. The type Bl and B2 catch were  not
available for inspection; the  former consisted of fish
used as bait, filleted,  or  discarded dead while the
latter was fish released alive. The type A catch was
identified  by species and weighed, with the weight
reflecting  total  fish weight, including inedible parts.
The type  Bl catch was not weighed,  but weights
were  estimated using  the average weight derived
from the  type A catch for the given species, state,
fishing mode and season of the year. For both the A
and Bl  catch, the intended  disposition  of the catch
(e.g.,  plan to eat, plan  to  throw  away, etc.) was
ascertained.
        U.S. EPA obtained the raw data tapes from
NMFS in order to generate  intake distributions and
other specialized analyses.  Fish intake  distributions
were generated  using the field survey tapes.  Weights
proportional to  the inverse of the angler's reported
fishing frequency were employed to correct for the
unequal probabilities of sampling; this was the same
approach used by NMFS in  deriving their estimates.
Note  that  in  the   field  survey,   anglers  were
interviewed   regardless   of   past   interviewing
experience; thus, the use of inverse fishing frequency
as weights was justified (see Section 10.1).
        For  each angler interviewed in  the  field
survey,  the yearly amount of fish caught that was
intended to be eaten by the angler and his/her family
or friends  was estimated by U.S. EPA as follows:

    Y = [(wt of A catch) *IA  + (wt ofBl catch)
    * IB]  * [Fishing frequency]          (Eqn. 10-1)

where IA (Is) are indicator variables equal to 1 if the
type A (Bl) catch was intended to be eaten and equal
to 0 otherwise. To convert Y to a daily fish intake rate
by the angler, it was necessary  to convert amount of
fish caught to edible amount of fish, divide by the
number of intended consumers, and convert from
yearly to daily rate.
        Although theoretically  possible,  U.S.  EPA
chose not to use species  specific edible fractions to
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                          10-17
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                           Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
convert overall weight to edible fish weight since
edible  fraction estimates  were not readily available
for many marine species.  Instead, an average value
of 0.5  was employed.  For the number of intended
consumers, U.S. EPA used an average value of 2.5
which  was an average derived from the  results of
several studies  of  recreational  fish  consumption
(Chemrisk, 1992; Puffer et al., 1981; West et al.,
1989).  Thus, the average daily intake rate (ADI) for
each angler was calculated as
    ADI = Y* (0.5)/[2.5 * 365]
(Eqn. 10-2)
Note that ADI will be 0 for those anglers who either
did not intend to eat their catch or who did not catch
any fish.  The distribution of ADI among anglers was
calculated by region and coastal status (i.e., coastal
versus non-coastal counties).
        The  results presented in Tables 10-38 and
10-39 are based on the results of the 1993 survey.
Samples  sizes were 200,000 for the telephone survey
and 120,000 for the field surveys.  All coastal  states
in the continental U.S. were included in the survey
except Texas and Washington.
        Table 10-38 presents the estimated number
of  coastal,   non-coastal,  and  out-of-state  fishing
participants by  state and region  of fishing.  Florida
had the greatest number of both Atlantic and Gulf
participants.  The total number  of coastal  residents
who participated in marine finfishing in their  home
state  was 8  million;  an additional  750,000  non-
coastal residents participated in marine finfishing in
their home state.
        Table  10-39  presents  the estimated total
weight of the A and B1 catch by region and time of
year.   For each  region, the  greatest catches  were
during the  six-month  period from  May  through
October.  This period accounted for about 90 percent
of the North and Mid-Atlantic catch, about 80 percent
of the Northern California and Oregon catch,  about
70 percent of the Southern Atlantic  and  Southern
California catch and 62 percent  of the Gulf catch.
Note that in the North and Mid-Atlantic regions, field
surveys were not done in January and February due
to very low fishing activity.  For all regions, over half
the catch occurred within 3 miles of the  shore or in
inland waterways.
        Table  10-40  presents the mean and 95th
percentile of average  daily intake of recreationally
caught marine finfish among anglers by region.  The
mean ADI among all anglers was 5.6, 7.2,  and  2.0
g/day for the Atlantic, Gulf,  and Pacific  regions,
respectively.  Table 10-41 gives the distribution of the
catch by species for the Atlantic and Gulf, and Pacific
regions.
        The   NMFS  surveys  provide  a  large,
geographically  representative  sample  of  marine
angler activity in the U.S.  The major limitation of
this data base in terms of estimating fish intake is the
lack of information regarding the intended number of
consumers of each angler's catch. In this analysis, it
was assumed that every angler's catch was consumed
by the same number (2.5) of people; this number was
derived from averaging the results of other studies.
This assumption introduces a relatively low level of
uncertainty in the estimated mean intake rates among
anglers, but a somewhat higher level of uncertainty in
the estimated intake distributions.
        Under   the   above   assumption,    the
distributions  shown  here pertain  not  only to  the
population of anglers,  but  also  to the  entire
population of  recreational fish consumers, which is
2.5 times  the number of anglers.  If the number of
consumers was changed, to, for instance, 2.0, then the
distribution would be increased by a factor of  1.25
(2.5/2.0), but the estimated population of recreational
fish consumers to which the distribution would apply
would decrease by a factor of 0.8 (2.0/2.5).
        Another uncertainty involves the use of 0.5
as an (average)  edible  fraction.    This  figure  is
somewhat conservative (i.e., the true average edible
fraction is probably lower);  thus, the intake rates
calculated here may be biased upward somewhat.
        The  recreational fish intake  distributions
given refer only to marine finfish.  In  addition,  the
intake rates calculated are based only on the catch of
anglers in  their  home  state.   Marine  fishing
performed out-of-state would not be included in these
distributions.   Therefore, these distributions give  an
estimate of consumption of locally caught fish.

10.4.2  Relevant Marine Recreational Studies
10.4.2.1 Pierce et al, 1981 - Commencement  Bay
        Seafood Consumption Study
        Pierce et al. (1981) performed a local creel
survey to examine seafood consumption patterns and
demographics  of sport fishermen in Commencement
Bay,  Washington.   The objectives  of this survey
included determining (1) seafood consumption habits
and   demographics   of  non-commercial   anglers
catching seafood;  (2) the extent to which resident fish
were used as food; and (3) the method of preparation
of the fish to be consumed. Salmon were excluded
from the survey since it was believed that they had
little potential for contamination.  The first half of
this survey was conducted from early  July to mid-
September,  1980  and the  second half from mid-
September through most of November.  During the
summer months, interviewers visited each of 4  sub-
areas  of Commencement Bay on five mornings and
Page
10-18
                                  Exposure Factors Handbook
                                  	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
five evenings; in the fall the areas were sampled on 4
complete  survey  days.  Interviews were  conducted
only with persons who had caught fish.  The anglers
were interviewed only once during the survey period.
Data were recorded for species, wet weight, size of
the living group (family), place of residence, fishing
frequency, planned uses of the fish, age, sex, and race
(Pierce et al., 1981).   The analysis of Pierce et al.
(1981) did not employ explicit sampling weights (i.e.,
all weights were set to 1).
        There were 304 interviews in the summer
and 204 in the fall.  About 60 percent of anglers were
white, 20 percent black, 19 percent Asian and the rest
Hispanic or Native American.  Table 10-42 gives the
distribution of fishing frequency calculated by Pierce
et al. (1981);  for both the summer and fall, more than
half  of the  fishermen caught  and  consumed fish
weekly.  The dominant (by weight) species  caught
were Pacific Hake and Walleye Pollock.  Pierce et al.
(1981) did not present a distribution of fish intake or
a mean fish intake rate.
        The  U.S. EPA used the Pierce et al.  (1981)
fishing frequency distribution and an estimate  of the
average amount of fish consumed per angling trip to
create  an  approximate intake  distribution  for the
Pierce  et  al.   (1981)  survey.  The estimate  of the
amount of fish  consumed per angling  trip  (380
g/person-trip) was based on data on mean fish catch
weight and mean number of consumers reported in
Pierce  et al. (1981) and on an edible fraction of 0.5.
The median intake was estimated to be 23 g/day.
        Price et al. (1994) obtained the raw data
from this  survey  and performed  a re-analysis using
sampling  weights  proportional  to inverse  fishing
frequency.   The  rationale for these weights  is
explained in Section 10.1 and in the discussion of the
Puffer  et al. (1981) study  (Section 10.4.2.2).   In the
re-analysis, Pierce et al. (1994)  calculated a median
intake rate of 1.0 g/day and a 90th percentile rate of
13 g/day.   The  distribution  of fishing  frequency
generated by  Price et al. (1994) is shown in Table 10-
43. Note that when equal weights were used, Price et
al. (1994)  found a median rate of 19 g/day, which was
close to the approximate value calculated by the U.S.
EPA of 23 g/day.
        The  same  limitations apply to interpreting
the results presented here to those presented  in the
discussion of Puffer et al.  (1981) (Section 10.4.2.2).
The median intake  rate found by Price et al.  (1994)
(using  inverse frequency weights) is more reflective
of median intake  in the target population than is the
value of  19  g/day  (or 23 g/day); the latter value
reflects more the  50th percentile of the resource
utilization distribution, (i.e., that anglers with intakes
above   19  g/day  consume  50 percent  of  the
recreational fish  catch).   Similarly,  the fishing
frequency  distribution  generated  by  Price  et al.
(1994) is more  reflective of the fishing frequency
distribution in the  target population than  is  the
distribution presented in Pierce et al. (1981).  Note
the target population is those anglers who fished at
Commencement Bay during the time period of the
survey.
        As with  the   Puffer  et  al.  (1981)  data
described in the following section, these  values (1.0
g/day and 19 g/day) are both probably underestimates
since the  sampling  probabilities  are   less  than
proportional to fishing frequency; thus, the true target
population median is probably  somewhat above 1.0
g/day and  the true 50th percentile of the resource
utilization distribution  is probably somewhat higher
than 19 g/day. The data from this survey provide an
indication  of consumption patterns for  the  time
period around 1980 in the Commencement Bay area.
However,  the  data   may   not  reflect  current
consumption patterns because fishing advisories were
instituted  due  to   local  contamination.   Another
limitation of these data is that fish consumption rates
were estimated   indirectly   from   a   series   of
assumptions.

10.4.2.2 Puffer  et  al.,  1981  -  Intake  Rates  of
        Potentially Hazardous Marine Fish Caught
        in the Metropolitan Los Angeles Area
        Puffer et al. (1981) conducted a creel survey
with sport fishermen in the Los Angeles area in 1980.
The survey was conducted at  12  sites in the harbor
and coastal   areas  to  evaluate  intake  rates  of
potentially hazardous marine  fish and  shellfish by
local, non-professional  fishermen.  It was conducted
for the full 1980 calendar year, although inclement
weather in January, February, and March limited the
interview days. Each site was surveyed an average of
three times per month, on different days, and  at  a
different  time  of the day.  The survey questionnaire
was designed to collect information on demographic
characteristics, fishing  patterns,  species,  number of
fish caught, and fish consumption patterns.  Scales
were used to  obtain fish weights.  Interviews were
conducted only with anglers who had caught fish, and
the anglers were interviewed  only  once during the
entire survey period.
        Puffer  et  al.   (1981)   estimated  daily
consumption rates (grams/day) for each angler using
the following equation:
    KxNxWxF)/[Ex365]
(Eqn.  10-3)
where:  K = edible fraction  of fish  (0.25  to  0.5
             depending on species);
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                          10-19
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                            Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
        N = number of fish in catch;
        W= average  weight  of (grams)  fish  in
             catch;
        F=  frequency of fishing/year; and
        E =  number of fish eaters  in family/living
             group.

No explicit  survey weights  were used in analyzing
this survey;  thus, each respondent's data were given
equal weight.
        A total of 1,059 anglers were interviewed for
the survey.    The  ethnic and age  distribution  of
respondents  is shown in Table  10-44; 88 percent of
respondents  were male. The median intake rate was
higher for Asian/Samoan anglers (median 70.6 g/day)
than for other ethnic groups and higher for those ages
over 65 years (median 113.0  g/day) than for other age
groups.   Puffer  et  al.  (1981) found similar median
intake rates  for seasons; 36.3 g/day for November
through March  and 37.7 g/day  for April  through
October.   Puffer et al. (1981) also  evaluated fish
preparation  methods;  these data  are presented  in
Appendix 10B.    The cumulative  distribution  of
recreational  fish (finfish and shellfish) consumption
by survey respondents is presented  in Table 10-45;
this  distribution  was  calculated  only for  those
fishermen who indicated they eat the fish they catch.
The median fish consumption rate was 37 g/day and
the 90th percentile  rate was  225 g/day (Puffer et al.,
1981).  A description  of catch patterns for  primary
fish species kept is presented in Table 10-46.
        As  mentioned in  the  introduction to this
Chapter, intake distributions derived from analyses of
creel  surveys   which  did  not  employ   weights
reflective of sampling probabilities will overestimate
the target population intake  distribution and will, in
fact, be more  reflective of the "resource utilization
distribution." Therefore, the reported median level of
37.3 g/day does not reflect the fact that 50 percent of
the target population  has intake  above this  level;
instead 50 percent of recreational fish consumption is
by individuals consuming at or above 37.3 g/day.  In
order to generate an intake distribution reflective of
that  in the  target population,  weights inversely
proportional to  sampling  probability  need to  be
employed. Price et al.  (1994) made this attempt with
the Puffer et al. (1981) survey data, using inverse
fishing frequencies  as the sampling weights.  Price et
al. (1994) was unable to get the  raw data  for this
survey, but through the use  of frequency tables and
the average level of fish consumption per fishing trip
provided  in Puffer  et  al.  (1981), generated  an
approximate   revised   intake   distribution.   This
distribution  was   dramatically  lower  than  that
obtained by Puffer et al. (1981); the median was
estimated at 2.9 g/day (compared with 37.3 from
Puffer et al., 1981) and the 90th percentile at 35 g/day
(compared to 225 g/day from Puffer et al., 1981).
        There   are  several   limitations   to  the
interpretation of the  percentiles presented by both
Puffer et al. (1981)  and Price et al. (1994).  As
described in Appendix  10A, the interpretation of
percentiles reported from creel surveys in terms of
percentiles of the "resource utilization distribution" is
approximate  and depends  on  several assumptions.
One of these assumptions is that sampling probability
is proportional to inverse fishing frequency.  In  this
survey,  where interviewers revisited sites numerous
times and anglers were  not interviewed more than
once, this assumption is not valid,  though it is likely
that the sampling probability is still highly dependant
on fishing frequency so that the assumption does hold
in  an approximate sense.   The validity  of  this
assumption   also   impacts  the   interpretation   of
percentiles reported by  Price  et  al.  (1994) since
inverse  frequency was used  as sampling weights. It
is likely that the value  (2.9 g/day) of Price et al.
(1994) underestimates somewhat the median  intake
in the target population, but is much closer to the
actual value than the Puffer  et al. (1981) estimate of
37.3 g/day. Similar statements would apply about the
90th  percentile.   Similarly,  the 37.3 g/day median
value, if interpreted  as  the 50th  percentile  of the
"resource utilization distribution",  is also somewhat
of an underestimate.
        The fish intake  distribution  generated by
Puffer et al.  (1981) (and by Price et al., 1994) was
based only on fishermen who caught fish and ate the
fish they caught.  If all anglers were included,  intake
estimates would be somewhat lower.  In contrast, the
survey assumed that the number of fish caught at the
time of the  interview was all that would be caught
that day. If it were possible to interview fishermen at
the conclusion of their fishing day, intake estimates
could be potentially higher.  An  additional  factor
potentially  affecting  intake rates is that fishing
quarantines  were  imposed  in  early spring due to
heavy sewage overflow (Puffer et  al., 1981).   These
data are also over 20 years  old and  may not reflect
current behaviors.

10.4.2.3 Burger,  and Gochfeld, 1991 - Fishing a
        Superfund Site:  Dissonance  and Risk
        Perception of Environmental Hazards by
        Fishermen in Puerto Rico
        Burger   and  Gochfeld  (1991)  examined
fishing  behavior,  consumption patterns, and  risk
perceptions  of  fishermen and  crabbers engaged in
recreational  and subsistence fishing in the Humacao
Lagoons located in eastern Puerto Rico. For a 20-day
Page
10-20
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
period in February and  March  1988, all persons
encountered fishing and  crabbing at the Humacao
lagoons and  at control sites were  interviewed on
fishing  patterns,   consumption  patterns,  cooking
patterns,  fishing   and crabbing  techniques,  and
consumption warnings. The control interviews were
conducted at  sites  that were ecologically similar to
the Humacao  lagoons and contained the same species
of fish and crabs. A total of 45 groups of people (3 to
4 people per group) fishing at the Humacao Lagoons
and 17 control groups (3 to 4 people per group) were
interviewed.
        Most people fished in the late afternoon or
evenings, and on weekends.   Eighty percent of the
fishing groups from  the  lagoons were male.   The
breakdown according to age is as follows: 27 percent
were younger than 20 years, 49 percent were 21-40
years  old, 24 percent were 41-60 years old, and 2
percent were  over  60.  The  age  groups for fishing
were generally lower than the groups  for crabbing.
Caught fish were primarily tilapia and some tarpon.
All crabs caught were all blue crabs.
        On average people at Humacao ate about 7
fish (N=25)  or 13  crabs  (N=20) each week, while
people fishing at  the  control site ate  about  2  fish
(N=9) and 14 crabs  (N=9) a  week (Table 10-47).
One hundred  percent of the crabbers and 96 percent
of the fisherman  at the  lagoons had heard of a
contamination problem.
        All   the   interviewees that  knew  of  a
contamination problem knew that the contaminant
was mercury.  Most fisherman and crabbers believed
that the water was clean and the catch was  safe
(fisherman-96 percent and crabbers-100 percent), and
all fisherman and crabbers ate their catch.  Seventy-
two percent of the  fisherman and crabbers from the
lagoons lived within 3 km,  18 percent lived 17-30 km
away, and one group came from 66 km away. Since
many of the people interviewed had cars, researchers
concluded that they were not impoverished and did
not need the fish as a protein substitute.
        Burger and   Gochfeld (1991)  noted  that
fisherman and crabbers did not know of anyone who
had gotten sick from eating catches from the lagoons
and the potential of  chronic health  effects did not
enter into their consideration.   The study concluded
that   fisherman   and  crabbers  experienced   an
incompatibility between their own experiences, and
the risk driven by media reports of pollution and the
lack of governmental prohibition of fishing.
        One   limitation   of   the  study  is  that
consumption  rates were based  on   groups  not
individuals. In addition, rates were given in terms of
fish per week and  not mass consumed per time or
body weight.
10.4.2.4 Burger et al., 1992 - Exposure Assessment
        for Heavy Metal Ingestion from Sport Fish
        in Puerto Rico: Estimating Risk for Local
        Fishermen
        Burger wt  al.  (1992) conducted  another
study in conjunction with the Burger and Gochfeld
(1991) study.  The study interviewed 45 groups of
fishermen at Humacao and 14 groups at Boqueron in
Puerto Rico. The  respondents were 80 percent male,
50 percent were 21 to 40 years old, most fished with
pole or cast, and most fished for  1.5  hours.   In
Humacao  96 percent claimed that they ate the entire
fish besides the head.  The fish were either fried or
boiled in stews or soups.
        In February  and March, 64 percent of the
group caught only tilapia, but people stated that in
June  they  caught   mostly  robalo and  tarpon.
Generally  the fisherman stated that they ate 2.1 fish
(maximum of  11  fish) form Boqueron and  6.8 fish
(maximum of  23) from Humacao per  week.   The
study reported that adults ate 374  grams of fish per
day, while children ate 127 grams per day.  In order
to calculate the daily mass intake  of fish, the study
assumed that an adult ate 4.4 robalos each weighing
595 grams over a 7-day period and a child ate 1.5
robalos  weighting 595  grams over a 7-day period.
The study used a maximum  consumption  value of
200  g/day for fishermen to  create  various hazard
indices.
        One  limitation  of this  study  is  that the
consumption  rates  were  based  on   groups  not
individuals.   In addition,  consumption  rates were
calculated using the average  fish weight and the
number   of meals   per week  reported   by  the
respondents.

10.4.2.5 KCA  Research  Division,  1994   -  Fish
        Consumption  of Delaware Recreational
        Fishermen and Their Households
        In support of the Delaware Estuary Program,
the  State   of  Delaware's  Department  of  Natural
Resources and Environmental Control conducted a
survey of marine recreational fishermen along the
coastal  areas of Delaware between  July  1992  and
June 1993 (KCA  Research Division, 1994).  There
were two  components of the  study.  One was a field
survey  of fishermen  as  they returned  from their
fishing  trips and  the second part was  a telephone
follow-up  call.
        The purpose of the first component was to
obtain information on their fishing trips  and on their
household composition.  This  information  included
the method and location of fishing,  number of fish
caught and kept by species, and weight  of each fish
kept.   Household information included race, age,
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         10-21
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
gender,  and number of persons in the household.
Information was also recorded as to the location of
the angler intercept  (i.e.,  where  the angler was
interviewed) and the location of the household.
        The purpose of the second component was
to obtain information  on the amount of fish caught
and kept from the fishing trip and then eaten by the
household.   The methods  used for preparing and
cooking the fish were also documented.
        The field portion of the study was designed
to interview 2,000 anglers.  Data were obtained from
1,901   anglers,   representing   6,204   household
members (KCA Research Division, 1994).  While the
primary goal of the study was  to  collect  data  on
marine  recreational fishing practices, the  survey
included some freshwater fishing and crabbing sites.
Followup  phone interviews typically  occurred two
weeks after the  field interview and were  used  to
gather information about consumption.  Interviewers
aided respondents in their estimation of fish intake  by
describing the weight of ordinary products,  for the
purpose of comparison to the quantity of fish eaten.
Information on  the  number  of  fishing  trips   a
respondent had taken during the month was used to
estimate average annual consumption rates.
        For   all    respondents,    the    average
consumption was 17.5 grams per day.  Males were
found to have consumed more fish than women, and
Caucasians consumed more fish per  day than the
other races surveyed (Table 10-48).  More than half
of the study respondents  reported that they skinned
the fish that they ate (i.e., 450 out of 807 who
reported  whether they  skinned  their catch);  the
majority ate filleted fish (i.e.,  617 out of 794 who
reported the preparation method used), and over half
fried their fish (i.e., 506 out of 875 who reported the
cooking  method).    Information on consumption
relative  to preparation method indicated  a higher
consumption   level   for  skinned   fish   (0.627
ounces/day) than for un-skinned fish (0.517 ounces
/day).  Although most respondents fried their catch
(0.553 ounces/day), baking and  broiling  were also
common (0.484 and 0.541 ounces/day, respectively).
        One   limitation  of  this  study   is  that
information on fish consumption is based on anglers'
recall of amount of  fish  eaten.  While this study
provides information on fish consumption of various
ethnic groups, another limitation of this study is that
the sample size  for ethnic  groups was very  small.
Also, the study was limited to one geographic area
and may not be representative of the U.S. population.
10.4.2.6 Santa  Monica Bay  Restoration  Project,
        1994  - Seafood  Consumption Habits  of
        Recreational Anglers in Santa Monica Bay,
        Los Angeles, CA
        The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
(SMBRP)  conducted  a  study  on  the  seafood
consumption habits  of recreational anglers in Santa
Monica Bay,  California.  The  study was conducted
between September  1991 and August 1992.  Surveys
were conducted at 11 piers and jetties, 3 private boat
launches and hoists,  11 beach and intertidal sites, and
5 party boat landings.  Information requested  in the
survey included fishing history, types of fish  eaten,
consumption habits,  methods of preparing fish, and
demographics.  Consumption rates were calculated
based on the anglers' estimates of meal size relative
to a model fish fillet that represented a  150-gram
meal.  Interviewers  identified 67  species of fish, 2
species of crustaceans, 2 species of mollusks, and one
species of echinoderms that had been caught from the
study area by  recreational anglers during the study
period.  The most abundant species caught were chub
mackerel, barred sand bass, kelp bass, white croaker,
Pacific barracuda, and Pacific bonito.
        A  total of 2,376 anglers  were  censused
during 113 separate  surveys.  Of those anglers, 1,243
were  successfully   interviewed and  554  provided
sufficient information for calculation of consumption
rates.   The   socio-demographics  of  the sample
population were as follows: most anglers were male
(93 percent),  21 to  40 years old  (54%), white (43
percent), and had an annual household income  of
$25,000 to $50,000 (39 percent).
        The results  of the survey showed that the
mean consumption rate was 50 g/day while the 90th
percentile was over two times higher at 107  g/day
(Table  10-49).   Of the  identified ethnic groups,
Asians had the highest mean consumption rate (51
g/day)  and the highest  90th  percentile value for
consumption rate (116 g/day).  Anglers with annual
household incomes   greater  than  $50,000  had the
highest mean consumption rate (59 g/day) and the
highest 90th percentile consumption rate (129 g/day).
Species of fish that were consumed in larger amounts
than other species included barred sand bass, Pacific
barracuda, kelp bass, rockfish species, Pacific bonito,
and California halibut.
        About 77 percent of all anglers  were  aware
of health warnings  about consumption of fish from
Santa Monica Bay.  Of these anglers, 50  percent had
altered their seafood consumption habits as a result of
the warnings  (46 percent  stopped consuming some
species, 25  percent ate less of all species, 19 percent
stopped consuming all fish, and 10 percent ate less of
some species).  Most anglers  in the ethnic groups
Page
10-22
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
surveyed were aware of the health-risk warnings, but
Asian and white  anglers were more likely to  alter
their consumption behavior based on these warnings.
        One limitation of this  study  is the  low
numbers of anglers younger than 21 years of age.  In
this study, if several anglers from the same household
were fishing, only the head of the household was
interviewed.   Hence,   young   individuals   were
frequently  not   interviewed   and  therefore,   are
underrepresented in this study.

10.4.2.7 Alcoa,  1998  -  Draft  Report  for   the
        Finfish/Shellfish Consumption Study Alcoa
        (Point Comfort)/Lavaca  Bay  Superfund
        Site
        The  Texas  Saltwater  Angler  Survey  was
conducted in 1996/97 to evaluate  the quantity and
species  of  finfish  and  shellfish  consumed  by
individuals  who fish at Lavaca Bay  (Alcoa, 1998).
The target population for this study was residents of
three Texas counties: Calhoun, Victoria,  and Jackson
(over 70 percent of the anglers who fish Lavaca Bay
are from these three  counties).  The random  sample
design specified that the population percentages for
the counties should be as  follows: 50 percent from
Calhoun, 30 percent from Victoria, and 20 percent
from Jackson.
        Each  individual in the  sample population
was  sent an introductory note  describing the study
and then was contacted by telephone.  People  who
agreed to participate and had taken fewer than six
fishing  trips  to Lavaca Bay  were interviewed by
telephone. Persons who agreed to participate and had
taken more than five fishing trips to Lavaca Bay were
sent a mail survey with the same questions. A total of
1,979 anglers participated in this survey,  representing
a response rate greater than 68 percent.  Data were
collected from the households for men,  women, and
children.
        The  information  collected as  part  of the
survey included recreational fishing trip information
for November 1996 (i.e., fishing site, site facilities,
distance traveled,  number and species caught),  serf-
caught fish consumption (by the  respondent, spouse
and child, if applicable), opinions on different types
of  fishing   experiences,  and  socio-demographics.
Portion size for shellfish was determined by utilizing
the number  of shrimp,  crabs,  oysters,  etc. that an
individual consumed during a meal and  the assumed
tissue weight of the particular species of shellfish.
        Table 10-50 presents the results  of the study.
Adult men consumed 25 grams of self-caught finfish
per day while women consumed  an average of 18
grams daily.  Women of childbearing age consumed
19 grams per day, on average.  Small children were
found to consume 11 g/day and youths consumed 16
g/day, on average.  Less shellfish was consumed by
all  individuals  than finfish.   Men consumed  an
average of 2 g/day, women and youths an average of
1 g/day, and small children consumed less  than 1
g/day of shellfish.
        The study results also showed the number of
average meals and portion sizes for the respondents,
(Table  10-51). On average, members of each cohort
consumed slightly more than three meals per month
of  finfish,  although small  children  and  youths
consumed slightly less than three meals per month of
finfish and less than one meal per month of shellfish.
For finfish,  adult  men consumed  an average,  per
meal, portion size  of 8 ounces,  while women  and
youths consumed  7  ounces,  and  small  children
consumed less than 5 ounces per meal.  The average
number of shellfish meals consumed per month for
all cohorts was less than one.  Adult men consumed
an average shellfish portion size of 4 ounces, women
and youth 3  ounces, and small children consumed 2
ounces per meal.
        The  study  also  discussed  the  species
composition of self-caught fish consumed by source.
Four different sources of fish were included:  fish
consumed from the closure area, fish consumed from
Lavaca Bay, fish consumed from all waters, and all
self-caught finfish and shellfish consumed, including
preserved  (i.e.,  frozen or smoked)  fish where  the
location of  the  catch  is not  known.   Red drum
comprised the bulk of total finfish grams consumed
from any  area while black drum represented  the
smallest amount of finfish grams consumed. Overall,
almost 40 percent of all self-caught finfish consumed
were  red  drum, followed  by speckled sea  trout,
flounder, all other finfish (all  species  were  not
specifically examined in this study), and black drum.
Out of all self-caught shellfish, oysters accounted for
37 percent, blue crabs for 35 percent,  and shrimp for
29 percent of the  total.
        The  study authors noted  that  since  the
survey relied on the anglers' recall of meal frequency
and  portion, fish  consumption  may  have been
overestimated. There was evidence of overestimation
when the data were validated and approximately  10
percent of anglers reported consuming more fish than
what they caught and kept.  Also,  the study was
conducted at one geographic location and may not be
representative of the U.S. population.

10.4.2.8 Burger    et   al,   1998   -   Fishing,
        Consumption,  and  Risk  Perception   in
        Fisherfolk along an East Coast Estuary
        Burger  et  al.  (1998)  examined fishing
behavior, consumption patterns, and risk perceptions
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         10-23
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
of 515  people that  were fishing  and crabbing in
Barnegat Bay, New Jersey.  This research also tested
the  null  hypotheses  that  there  are  no  gender
differences in  fishing behavior  and consumption
patterns and no gender differences  in the perception
offish and crab safety.
        The researchers interviewed 515 people who
were fishing or crabbing on Barnegat Bay and Great
Bay.  Interviews were conducted from June 22 until
September 27,  1996.    Fifteen  percent of  the
fishermen approached refused to be  interviewed,
usually  because they  did not  have the  time  to
participate.  The questionnaire that researchers used
to conduct the interviews contained questions about
fishing  behavior,  consumption  patterns,   cooking
patterns, warnings and safety associated  with the
seafood, environmental problems and changes in the
bay, and personal demographics.
        Eighty-four  percent  of  those  who were
interviewed were men, 95 percent were White,  and
the  rest  were  evenly  divided  between African
American,  Hispanic,  and Asian.    The  age  of
interviewees  ranged  from  13 to  92 years.   The
subjects fished an average of 7 times per month and
crabbed 3 times per month (Table  10-52).  Bluefish
(pomatomus  saltatrix), fluke  or  summer flounder
(paralichthys  dentatus),  and  weakfish (cynoscion
regalis) were the most frequently caught fish.  The
researchers found that the average  consumption rate
for people fishing along the Barnegat Bay was 5 fish
meals per month (eating just under 10 ounces per
meal) for an approximate total of 1,450 g of fish per
month  (48.3  g/day).   Most  of the subjects  (80
percent) ate the fish they caught.
        The  study found that there were significant
differences in fishing behavior and consumption as a
function of gender.  Women had  more children with
them when fishing and more  women fished on foot
along the Bay. The consumption by women included
a significantly lower proportion  of self-caught fish
than of men.  Men  ate significantly  larger portions of
fish per meal than did women and men ate the whole
fish more  often.  The study results showed  that there
were no gender differences with regard to the average
number of fish  caught or in fish  size.  Nearly  90
percent  of the subjects believed the fish and crabs
from  Barnegat  Bay  were  safe  to eat,  although
approximately 40 percent of the  subjects had heard
warnings about their safety.  The subjects  generally
did  not  have  a  clear  understanding  of  the
relationships between contaminants and  fish size or
trophic  level.   The  researchers  suggested that
reducing  the  risk from  contaminants  does  not
necessarily involve a decrease in consumption rates,
but rather a  change in the fish  species and sizes
consumed.
        While  the  study  provides  some  useful
information on gender difference in fishing behavior
and consumption,  the  study  is limited  in that the
majority  of the people surveyed were white males.
There  were low  numbers  for women  and ethnic
groups.

10.4.2.9 Chiang, A., 1998 - A Seafood Consumption
        Survey of the Laotian Community of West
        Contra Costa County, CA
        A  survey  of  members  of the  Laotian
community  of  West  Contra  Costa,   CA,  was
conducted  to obtain data on the fishing and fish
consumption  activities of  this  community.    A
questionnaire was  developed and translated  by the
survey staff into the many ethnic languages  spoken
by the members of the Laotian  community.  The
survey  questions  covered  the  following  topics:
demographics, fishing  and fish consumption habits
back  home, current fishing  and  fish consumption
habits,  fish  preparation  methods,  fish   species
commonly  caught,  fishing locations, and awareness
of the health advisory for this area.  A total of 229
people were surveyed.
        Most respondents reported eating fish a few
times  per month and the most common portion size
was about 3 ounces.  The mean amount of fish eaten
per day was reported as 18.3  g/day, with a maximum
of 182.3 g/day (Table 10-53).  "Fish consumers"  were
considered  to be people who  ate fish at least once a
month and this group made  up 86.9 percent of the
people surveyed. The mean fish consumption rate for
this group  ("fish consumers") averaged  21.4 g/day.
Catfish was most often mentioned when respondents
were asked to name the fish they caught, but striped
bass was the  species reported caught most often by
respondents.  Soups/stews were reported  as the  most
common preparation method of fish (86.4 percent)
followed by frying (78.4 percent), and baking (63.6
percent).
        Of all survey respondents,  48.5   percent
reported  having heard  of the health advisory about
eating fish and shellfish from  San Francisco Bay. Of
those  that  had heard the advisory,  59.5   percent
reported recalling its contents and 60.3 percent said
that   it  had  influenced  their fishing  and  fish
consumption patterns.
        Some sectors of the  Laotian  community
were  not included in the  survey  such as the  Lue,
Hmong, and  Lahu groups.   However, it  was noted
that the  groups excluded from the  survey  do not
differ greatly  from  the sample population in terms of
seafood consumption and fishing practices.  The
study  authors also  indicated that participants  may
Page
10-24
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
have  under-reported fishing and  fish consumption
practices due to recent publicity about contamination
of the Bay, fear of losing disability benefits, and fear
that the survey was linked to law enforcement actions
about fishing from the Bay. Another limitation of the
study involved the use of a 3-oz fish fillet model to
estimate portion size of fish consumed.  The use of
this  small  model may have biased respondents  to
choose a smaller portion size than  what they actually
eat.  In addition, the study authors noted that the fillet
model may not have been appropriate for estimating
fish  portions eaten by  those  respondents who eat
"family style" meals.

10.4.2.10        San  Francisco  Estuary Institute
        (SFEI),  2000  -  Technical  Report: San
        Francisco  Bay  Seafood   Consumption
        Report
        A comprehensive study of 1,331 anglers was
conducted by  the California Department of Health
Services between July 1998 and June 1999 at various
recreational fishing locations in the  San Francisco
Bay   area  (SFEI,  2000).    The  catching and
consumption of 13 finned fish  species  and three
shellfish  species were investigated to determine the
number of meals eaten  from recreational and other
sources such as restaurants and grocery stores. The
method of fish preparation, including the parts of the
fish  eaten, was also documented.   Information was
gathered  on the amount of fish consumed per meal,
as well as respondents' ethnicity, age,  income level,
education, and the mode of fishing (e.g.,  pier, boat,
and beach). Questions were also  asked to ascertain
the anglers' knowledge  and response to local fish
advisories.  Respondents were asked to recall their
fishing/consumption experiences within the previous
four weeks.   Anglers  were  not  asked  about the
consumption habits of other members  of  their
families.
        About 15 percent of the anglers reported that
they do not eat San Francisco Bay  fish (whether self-
caught or commercial).  Of those  who did consume
Bay  fish,  80 percent consumed about one fish meal
per month or less; 10 percent ate about 2 fish meals
per month; and 10 percent ate more than 2 fish meals
per month, which is above the advisory level for fish.
(The advisory  level was 16 grams per day, or about
two  8-ounce meals  per four weeks.)  Two thirds of
those consuming fish at levels above the advisory
limit consumed more than twice the advisory limit.
Difference in income, education, or fishing mode did
not markedly change anglers' likelihood of eating in
excess of the advisory limit.  African Americans and
Filipino anglers  reported higher consumption levels
than Caucasians (Table  10-54).   The  overall mean
consumption rate was 23 g/day.
        More than 50  percent  of the  finned  fish
caught by anglers were striped bass,  and about 25
percent were halibut.  Approximately  15 percent of
the  anglers  caught  each  of the  following  fish:
jacksmelt, sturgeon,  and white croaker.  All other
species were caught by less than 10 percent of the
anglers.  For white  croaker  fish consumption: (1)
lower  income anglers  consumed statistically more
fish than mid- and upper-level income  anglers, (2)
anglers who  did  not have  a  high  school education
consumed  more  than those  anglers  with higher
educations,  and   (3)  anglers   of Asian  descent
consumed significantly more than anglers  of other
ethnic backgrounds. Asian anglers were more likely
to eat  fish skin,  cooking juices, and  raw fish than
other anglers.  These portions  of the fish are believed
to  be   more  likely  to  contain  higher levels  of
contamination.    Likewise, skin  consumption  was
higher for  lower income  and shore-based anglers.
Anglers who had  eaten Bay fish in the previous four
weeks  indicated, in general, that they were  likely to
have eaten one fish meal from another source in the
same time period.
        More  than  60  percent  of  the  anglers
interviewed reported having knowledge of the health
advisories.  Of that 60 percent, only about one-third
reported changing their fish-consumption behavior.
        A limitation of this study is that the sample
size for ethnic groups was very small.

10.5    FRESHWATER       RECREATIONAL
        STUDIES
10.5.1   Fiore   et  al,   1989   -   Sport   Fish
        Consumption and Body Burden Levels of
        Chlorinated  Hydrocarbons:  A Study  of
        Wisconsin Anglers
        This survey, reported by Fiore et al. (1989),
was conducted to assess  sociodemographic factors
and sport-fishing habits  of anglers, to  evaluate
anglers' comprehension of and compliance  with the
Wisconsin Fish Consumption Advisory,  to  measure
body burden  levels  of  PCBs and  DDE  through
analysis of blood  serum samples and to examine the
relationship   between  body   burden   levels   and
consumption of  sport-caught  fish.    The  survey
targeted all Wisconsin residents who had purchased
fishing or sporting licenses in 1984 in any of 10 pre-
selected study counties. These counties were chosen
in part based on their proximity to  water bodies
identified in Wisconsin fish  advisories. A total of
1,600 anglers were sent survey questionnaires during
the summer of 1985.
        The survey questionnaire included questions
about  fishing  history,   locations  fished,  species
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          10-25
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                           Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
targeted, kilograms caught for consumption, overall
fish  consumption  (including commercially  caught)
and knowledge of fish advisories.  The recall period
was one year.
        A total of 801 surveys were returned (50
percent response rate).  Of these,  601 (75 percent)
were from males and 200 from females; the mean age
was  37 years. Fiore et al. (1989)  reported that the
mean  number  of fish meals  for  1984  for  all
respondents was 18 for sport-caught meals and 24 for
non-sport-caught meals. Fiore et al. (1989) assumed
that each fish meal consisted of 8 ounces (227 grams)
of fish to  generate  means  and percentiles of fish
intake. The reported per-capita intake rate of sport-
caught fish was 11.2 g/day; among consumers, who
comprised  91 percent of all respondents,  the mean
sport-caught fish intake rate was 12.3 g/day and the
95th percentile was 37.3 g/day.  The mean daily fish
intake  from   all  sources  (both   sport-caught  and
commercial) was 26.1 g/day with a 95th percentile of
63.4 g/day. The 95th percentile of 37.3 g/day of sport
caught fish represents 60  fish meals per year; 63.4
g/day  (the  95th  percentile  of total fish intake)
represents 102 fish meals per year.
        Fiore et  al.  (1989) assumed a  (constant)
meal size of 8 ounces (227 grams) of fish which may
over-estimate average meal size.  Pao et al. (1982),
using data  from the 1977-78 USD A NFCS, reported
an average fish meal size of slightly less than 150
grams  for adult males.  U.S. EPA obtained the raw
data from this study and calculated  the distribution of
the number  of sport-caught fish meals  and the
distribution  of  fish   intake  rates  (using  150
grams/meal);   these  distributions  are  presented in
Table 10-55.   With this average meal size, the per-
capita estimate is 7.4 g/day.
        This  study is limited  in its  ability to
accurately  estimate  intake rates  because  of the
absence of data on weight of fish consumed. Another
limitation of this study is that the results are based on
one year recall, which may tend to over-estimate the
number of fishing  trips  (Ebert  et al.,  1993). In
addition,  the  response rate was  rather low  (50
percent).

10.5.2   West et al, 1989 - Michigan Sport Anglers
        Fish Consumption Survey
        The    Michigan    Sport   Anglers   Fish
Consumption Survey (West et al.,  1989) surveyed a
stratified random sample of Michigan residents with
fishing licenses.   The  sample was divided  into 18
cohorts,   with  one   cohort  receiving   a  mail
questionnaire each week between  January and May
1989.  The survey included both a short term recall
component, and a usual frequency component.  For
the short-term recall  component, respondents were
asked to identify all household members and list all
fish  meals consumed  by each household member
during the past seven days.   Information on the
source of the fish for each meal was also requested
(serf-caught,    gift,   market,    or     restaurant).
Respondents were asked to categorize serving size by
comparison with pictures of 8 ounce fish portions;
serving sizes could be designated as either "about the
same size", "less", or "more" than the size pictured.
Data on fish species, locations of serf-caught fish and
methods  of  preparation  and  cooking  were  also
obtained.
        The  usual  frequency  component of the
survey  asked  about the  frequency  of  fish meals
during  each  of the  four  seasons  and  requested
respondents to  give  the  overall  percentage  of
household fish meals  that came from  recreational
sources.  A sample of 2,600 individuals was selected
from state records to  receive survey questionnaires.
A total  of  2,334  survey  questionnaires  were
deliverable and 1,104 were completed and returned,
giving a response rate of 47.3 percent..
        In the analysis of the survey data by West et.
al. (1989), the authors did not attempt to  generate the
distribution of recreationally caught fish intake in the
survey population.   U.S.  EPA obtained the raw data
of this survey  for the purpose of generating fish
intake distributions and other specialized analyses.
        As described  elsewhere in this handbook,
percentiles of the distribution of average daily intake
reflective of long-term consumption patterns cannot
in general be estimated using  short-term (e.g., one
week) data.  Such data can be used  to adequately
estimate  mean average daily intake rates (reflective
of short or long term consumption); in addition, short
term  data  can serve to validate estimates of usual
intake based on longer recall.
        U.S. EPA first analyzed the short term data
with the intent of estimating mean fish intake rates.
In order to compare these results with those based on
usual intake,  only  respondents  with information on
both short term and usual intake were included in this
analysis. For the analysis of the short term data, U.S.
EPA modified the serving size weights used by West
et al.  (1989),  which were  5,  8  and  10  oz.,
respectively, for portions  that were less, about the
same, and more than the 8 oz. picture.    U.S. EPA
examined the percentiles of the distribution of fish
meal sizes reported in Pao et al. (1982) derived from
the 1977-1978  USDA National Food Consumption
Survey and observed that  a lognormal distribution
provided  a good visual  fit to the percentile data.
Using this lognormal distribution, the mean values
for serving sizes greater than 8 oz. and for serving
Page
10-26
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
sizes  at  least 10 percent greater  than  8 oz.  were
determined. In both cases a serving  size of 12 oz. was
consistent with the Pao et al. (1982) distribution. The
weights used in the U.S. EPA analysis then were 5, 8,
and 12 oz. for fish meals described as less, about the
same, and more than the 8 oz. picture, respectively.
The mean serving size  from  Pao et al.  (1982) was
about 5  oz., well below the value of  8 oz.  most
commonly reported by respondents in the West et al.
(1989) survey.
        Table 10-56 displays the  mean number of
total and recreational fish meals  for each household
member  based  on the seven day  recall data. Also
shown are mean fish intake rates derived by applying
the weights  described  above to  each  fish  meal.
Intake was  calculated  on both a grams/day and
grams/kg body  weight/day basis.  This analysis was
restricted to  individuals who eat fish and who reside
in  households   reporting  some   recreational  fish
consumption during the previous  year.   About 75
percent of survey respondents (i.e., licensed anglers)
and about 84 percent of respondents who fished in
the prior year reported some  household  recreational
fish consumption.
        The U.S. EPA analysis next attempted to  use
the short term data to validate the usual  intake data.
West et al. (1989) asked the main respondent in each
household  to  provide   estimates   of  their  usual
frequency of fishing and eating  fish,  by  season,
during the previous year.  The survey provides a
series of frequency categories for each season and the
respondent was  asked to check the appropriate range.
The ranges used for all questions were: almost daily,
2-4 times a week, once a week,  2-3 times a month,
once a month, less often, none, and don't know. For
quantitative  analysis of the  data it is necessary to
convert this categorical information into numerical
frequency values.   As some  of the  ranges  are
relatively broad, the choice of conversion values can
have  some effect on intake  estimates.   In order to
obtain optimal values, the usual fish eating frequency
reported by respondents for the season during which
the questionnaire was completed was compared to the
number  of  fish meals  reportedly  consumed  by
respondents  over the  seven  day  short-term recall
period.
        The  results  of these  comparisons   are
displayed in Table 10-57; it shows that,  on average,
there  is general agreement between estimates  made
using one year  recall and estimates based on seven
day recall. The  average number of meals  (1.96/week)
was at the bottom of the range for the most frequent
consumption group with data (2-4  meals/week).  In
contrast,  for the lower usual frequency categories, the
average number of meals was at the top,  or exceeded
the top  of  category  range.   This  suggests  some
tendency  for  relatively  infrequent  fish  eaters to
underestimate   their   usual   frequency   of   fish
consumption. The last column of the table shows the
estimated fish eating  frequency per week that was
selected for use  in making quantitative estimates of
usual fish intake. These values were guided by the
values in the second column,  except that frequency
values  that  were  inconsistent  with  the ranges
provided to respondents in the survey were avoided.
        Using   the   four  seasonal  fish  eating
frequencies provided by  respondents and  the above
conversions  for reported intake frequency, U.S. EPA
estimated the average number of fish meals per week
for each respondent.  This estimate, as well as the
analysis  above, pertain to the total number of fish
meals eaten (in Michigan) regardless of the source of
the fish.   Respondents were not asked to provide a
seasonal   breakdown  for  eating  frequency  of
recreationally caught fish; rather, they provided an
overall estimate  for the past year of the percent of
fish they ate that was obtained from different sources.
U.S.  EPA  estimated the  annual   frequency of
recreationally caught fish meals by multiplying the
estimated total number of fish meals by the reported
percent of fish  meals  obtained  from  recreational
sources;  recreational sources were defined as  either
self caught or a gift from family or friends.
        The usual intake component of the survey
did not include questions  about the usual portion size
for fish meals. In order to estimate usual fish intake,
a portion size of 8 oz. was applied (the majority of
respondents reported this meal size in the 7 day  recall
data).  Individual body  weight data were used to
estimate  intake on a g/kg-day basis.  The fish intake
distribution  estimated by U.S. EPA  is displayed in
Table 10-58.
        The distribution shown in Table  10-58  is
based on respondents who consumed  recreational
caught fish.  As mentioned above, these represent 75
percent  of  all  respondents  and  84  percent of
respondents  who reported having fished in the prior
year.    Among  this  latter  population,  the  mean
recreational fish  intake rate is 14.4*0.84=12.1 g/day;
the value of  38.7  g/day  (95th  percentile among
consumers) corresponds to the 95.8th percentile of
the  fish  intake  distribution  in  this   (fishing)
population.
        The advantages of this data set and analysis
are that the survey was relatively large and contained
both short-term and usual intake data. The presence
of short  term  data  allowed validation of the  usual
intake  data  which was based on long  term recall;
thus, some of the problems associated with surveys
relying on long term recall are mitigated here.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                          10-27
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                           Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
        The response rate of this survey, 47 percent,
was relatively low.  In addition, the usual fish intake
distribution generated here employed a constant fish
meal  size, 8 oz.  Although  use of this value as an
average meal size was  validated by the short-term
recall results, the use of a constant meal size, even if
correct  on  average,  may   seriously  reduce   the
variation in the estimated fish intake distribution.
        This study was conducted in the winter and
spring months of 1988.  This period does not include
the summer months when peak fishing activity can be
anticipated,  leading to  the  possibility that  intake
results based on the 7 day recall data may understate
individuals' usual (annual average)  fish consumption.
A second survey by West et al. (1993) gathered diary
data on fish intake for respondents  spaced over a full
year.   However,  this later  survey did not  include
questions about usual fish intake and  has not been
reanalyzed  here.  The mean recreational  fish intake
rates  derived  from  the  short   term and usual
components were quite similar, however, 14.0 versus
14.4 g/day.

10.5.3  Chemrisk,  1992   -   Consumption   of
        Freshwater Fish by Maine Anglers
        Chemrisk conducted a study to characterize
the rates  of freshwater fish consumption among
Maine residents (Chemrisk, 1992; Ebert et al., 1993).
Since the only dietary source of local freshwater fish
is recreational fish, the anglers in Maine were chosen
as the survey population. The survey was designed to
gather information on the consumption of fish caught
by anglers  from  flowing  (rivers  and  streams) and
standing   (lakes   and   ponds)   water   bodies.
Respondents were asked to  recall the  frequency of
fishing trips during the 1989-1990 ice-fishing season
and the 1990 open water season, the number of fish
species caught during both seasons, and estimate  the
number of fish  consumed from 15  fish species.  The
respondents were also asked to describe the number,
species, and average length of each sport-caught fish
consumed that had been gifts from other members of
their households or other household.  The weight of
fish consumed  by  anglers  was  calculated by first
multiplying the estimated weight of the fish by  the
edible fraction,  and then dividing this product by  the
number of intended consumers.   Species  specific
regression equations were utilized to estimate weight
from  the reported  fish length. The edible fractions
used were 0.4 for salmon, 0.78 for Atlantic smelt, and
0.3 for all other species (Ebert et al., 1993).
        A   total   of   2,500  prospective  survey
participants were randomly  selected from a list of
anglers licensed in Maine. The surveys were mailed
in during October,  1990. Since this was before  the
end of the open fishing season, respondents were also
asked to predict how many more open water fishing
trips they would undertake in 1990.
        Chemrisk (1992) and Ebert et al. (1993)
calculated distributions of freshwater fish intake for
two  populations,  "all  anglers"  and  "consuming
anglers".   All anglers were defined  as  licensed
anglers  who fished during either the  1989-1990 ice-
fishing  season  or the   1990 open-water season
(consumers and non-consumers) and licensed anglers
who did not fish but consumed freshwater fish caught
in Maine during these seasons. "Consuming anglers"
were defined  as those  anglers  who  consumed
freshwater fish obtained from Maine sources during
the  1989-1990 ice fishing or 1990 open water fishing
season.  In addition,  the  distribution of  fish intake
from rivers and streams was also calculated for two
populations,  those  fishing on rivers  and streams
("river  anglers")  and  those  consuming fish  from
rivers and streams ("consuming river anglers").
        A total  of  1,612 surveys  were returned,
giving a  response  rate of 64 percent;  1,369  (85
percent) of the 1,612 respondents were included in
the  "all angler" population and 1,053 (65 percent)
were included in the "consuming angler" population.
Freshwater  fish   intake  distributions   for   these
populations are presented in Table 10-59. The  mean
and  95th  percentile was  5.0  g/day  and 21.0 g/day,
respectively, for "all anglers," and 6.4 g/day and 26.0
g/day, respectively, for "consuming anglers."   Table
10-59  also  presents  intake  distributions  for fish
caught  from  rivers  and  streams.   Among  "river
anglers" the  mean and 95th percentiles were  1.9
g/day  and 6.2  g/day,  respectively,  while among
"consuming river anglers" the mean was 3.7  g/day
and the 95th percentile was 12.0 g/day. Table  10-60
presents fish intake distributions by ethnic group for
consuming anglers.  The  highest mean  intake rates
reported are  for Native Americans  (10  g/day) and
French Canadians (7.4 g/day). Because there was a
low   number  of  respondents  for   Hispanics,
Asian/Pacific  Islanders,   and African  Americans,
intake   rates   within  these  subgroups  were  not
calculated (Chemrisk, 1992).
        The consumption, by species, of freshwater
fish  caught is presented in Table 10-61.  The largest
species  consumption was salmon from  ice fishing
(-292,000 grams); white perch (380,000 grams) for
lakes and ponds; and Brooktrout (420,000 grams) for
rivers and streams (Chemrisk,  1992).
        U.S. EPA obtained the raw data tapes from
the   marine  anglers  survey  and performed  some
specialized  analyses.     One  analysis   involved
examining the percentiles of the "resource utilization
distribution" (this distribution was defined in Section
Page
10-28
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
10.1).  The 50th, or more generally the pth percentile
of the  resource utilization distribution, is defined as
the consumption level  such  that p  percent of the
resource   is   consumed  by   individuals   with
consumptions below this level and 100-p percent by
individuals with consumptions above this level.  U.S.
EPA found that  90  percent of  recreational  fish
consumption was  by  individuals with intake  rates
above  3.1 g/day and 50 percent was by  individuals
with intakes above 20 g/day.  Those above 3.1 g/day
make  up  about 30  percent of the  "all  angler"
population and those above 20 g/day make up about 5
percent of this population; thus, the top 5 percent of
the angler population consumed  50  percent of the
recreational fish catch.
        U.S. EPA also performed an analysis of fish
consumption among anglers and their families. This
analysis was possible because the survey  included
questions  on  the  number, sex,  and age  of  each
individual  in  the household  and  whether  the
individual consumed recreationally caught fish.  The
total population of licensed anglers in this survey and
their household members was 4,872; the average
household  size for the  1,612  anglers in  the survey
was  thus  3.0  persons.    Fifty-six percent of the
population was male and 30 percent was 18 or under.
        A total of 55  percent of this  population was
reported to consume freshwater recreationally caught
fish  in the year of the survey.  The  sex  and ethnic
distribution of the consumers was similar to that of
the overall population. The distribution of fish intake
among the overall household population, or among
consumers in the household, can be calculated under
the assumption  that recreationally caught fish  was
shared equally among all members of the household
reporting  consumption   of  such fish  (note  this
assumption was used above to calculate intake rates
for anglers).  With this assumption, the mean intake
rate among consumers was 5.9 g/day with a median
of 1.8 g/day and a 95th  percentile of 23.1 g/day; for
the overall population the mean was 3.2 g/day and
the 95th percentile was 14.1 g/day.
        The results of this survey can be put into the
context of the overall Maine  population. The 1,612
anglers surveyed represent about  0.7 percent of the
estimated 225,000 licensed anglers in Maine. It is
reasonable to assume  that licensed anglers and their
families   will   have   the   highest   exposure  to
recreationally  caught freshwater  fish.    Thus, to
estimate the number of persons in  Maine  with
recreationally  caught  freshwater fish intake above,
for instance,  6.5 g/day  (the  80th percentile among
household consumers in this survey), one can assume
that virtually all persons  came from the population of
licensed anglers and their families. The  number of
persons above  6.5  g/day in the household survey
population is calculated by  taking 20  percent (i.e.,
100  percent  -  80  percent)  of  the  consuming
population in  the  survey;   this  number  then  is
0.2*(0.55*4872)=536. Dividing this number by the
sampling fraction of 0.007 (0.7 percent), gives about
77,000  persons above  6.5   g/day of  recreational
freshwater fish  consumption statewide.  The  1990
census showed the  population  of Maine to be 1.2
million people; thus the 77,000 persons above 6.5
g/day  represent  about  6  percent of the state's
population.
        Chemrisk  (1992)  reported that the  fish
consumption  estimates  obtained from the survey
were conservative because of assumptions  made  in
the analysis. The assumptions included: a 40 percent
estimate  as the edible  portion  of landlocked  and
Atlantic salmon; inclusion of the intended number  of
future  fishing  trips and  an assumption  that the
average  success  and  consumption rates  for the
individual angler during the trips already taken would
continue through future trips. The data collected for
this study  were based on recall and self-reporting
which  may have resulted in  a biased estimate.   The
social  desirability of the sport  and  frequency  of
fishing are also bias contributing factors; successful
anglers are  among  the  highest  consumers   of
freshwater fish (Chemrisk,  1992).  Over reporting
appears to be  correlated  with  skill level  and the
importance of  the  activity to the individual;  it  is
likely  that the  higher consumption rates  may be
substantially    overstated    (Chemrisk,    1992).
Additionally,  fish advisories are in place  in these
areas  and may affect the rate of fish  consumption
among anglers.  The  survey  results showed that  in
1990,  23  percent  of  all  anglers  consumed  no
freshwater fish, and 55  percent of the  river anglers
ate no freshwater fish. An advantage of this study is
that it presents area-specific consumption patterns
and the sample size is rather large.

10.5.4   Connelly et al, 1992  -  Effects of Health
        Advisory and Advisory Changes on Fishing
        Habits and Fish Consumption in New York
        Sport Fisheries
        Connelly et al.  (1992) conducted a study  to
assess  the  awareness  and knowledge of New  York
anglers about fishing advisories and  contaminants
found in fish and their  fishing  and fish  consuming
behaviors.  The survey sample  consisted of 2,000
anglers with New York State fishing licenses for the
year beginning October 1, 1990 through September
30, 1991.  A questionnaire was mailed to the survey
sample  in January, 1992.   The  questionnaire  was
designed to measure catch and consumption of fish,
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                          10-29
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
as well as methods of fish preparation and knowledge
of and attitudes towards health advisories (Connelly
et al., 1992). The survey adjusted response rate was
52.8 percent (1,030 questionnaires were  completed
and 51 were not deliverable).
        The average and median number of fishing
days per year were 27  and 15  days, respectively
(Connelly et al.,  1992).  The mean number of sport-
caught fish meals was 11.  About 25 percent of
anglers  reported that  they  did  not consume  sport-
caught fish.
        Connelly et al. (1992) found that  80 percent
of anglers statewide did not eat listed  species or ate
them within advisory limits  and followed the 1 sport-
caught fish meal per week recommended  maximum.
The  other  20  percent  of anglers exceeded  the
advisory recommendations in some way;  15 percent
ate listed species above the limit and 5 percent ate
more than one sport caught meal per week.
        Connelly   et  al.   (1992)   found  that
respondents eating more than one sport-caught meal
per week were just as  likely as those eating less than
one meal per week to know the recommended level
of sport-caught fish  consumption, although less than
1/3  in each group knew the level.  An estimated 85
percent of anglers were aware of the health advisory.
Over 50 percent of respondents said that  they made
changes  in  their  fishing  or  fish   consumption
behaviors in response to health advisories.
        The advisory included a section on methods
that can be used to  reduce contaminant exposure.
Respondents were asked what methods they used for
fish cleaning and cooking.  Summary  results  on
preparation  and  cooking methods are  presented in
Appendix 10B.
        A  limitation  of this study with  respect to
estimating fish intake rates is that only the number of
sport-caught meals was ascertained, not the weight of
fish consumed. The  fish meal data can be converted
to an  intake rate (g/day) by assuming a value for a
fish meal such as that from Pao et al.  (1982) (about
150 grams  as the average amount of fish consumed
per eating occasion for adult males - males comprised
88 percent  of  respondents in  the current  study).
Using 150  grams/meal the  mean  intake rate  among
the angler population  would be 4.5 g/day; note that
about 25 percent of this population reported no sport-
caught fish consumption.
        The major  focus of this study was  not  on
consumption, per se,  but on the knowledge  of and
impact of  fish health advisories; Connelly  et  al.
(1992)  provides  important information  on these
issues.
10.5.5   Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., 1993
        - Hudson River Angler Survey
        Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (1993)
conducted a survey of adherence to fish consumption
health advisories among Hudson River anglers.  All
fishing has been banned on the upper Hudson River
where high levels of PCB contamination are well
documented;   while  voluntary   recreational  fish
consumption  advisories have been issued  for areas
south of the  Troy  Dam  (Hudson  River  Sloop
Clearwater, Inc., 1993).
        The  survey consisted of direct interviews
with 336 shore-based anglers between the months of
June and November 1991, and April and July 1992.
Socio-demographic characteristics of the  respondents
are presented in Table 10-62.  The survey sites were
selected based on observations of use by anglers, and
legal accessibility. The selected sites included upper-,
mid-, and lower- Hudson River sites located in both
rural  and  urban settings.    The interviews were
conducted  on  weekends  and  weekdays  during
morning, midday, and evening periods.   The anglers
were asked specific questions concerning:   fishing
and fish consumption habits; perceptions  of presence
of  contaminants  in  fish;  perceptions  of risks
associated with consumption of recreationally caught
fish; and awareness of, attitude toward, and response
to fish consumption advisories or fishing bans.
        Approximately  92 percent of  the  survey
respondents were male. The following statistics were
provided by  Hudson  River  Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
(1993).  The  most common reason given for fishing
was for recreation or enjoyment.  Over 58 percent of
those surveyed indicated that they eat their catch. Of
those anglers who eat their catch, 48 percent reported
being aware of advisories.  Approximately 24 percent
of those who  said they currently do not eat their catch
have done so  in the past.  Anglers were more likely to
eat their catch from the lower Hudson areas where
health advisories, rather than fishing bans, have been
issued.   Approximately  94  percent  of  Hispanic
Americans were likely to eat their catch,  while 77
percent  of African Americans and 47  percent  of
Caucasian Americans intended to eat their catch. Of
those who eat their catch, 87 percent were likely to
share their meal with others (including women of
childbearing  age,  and children  under  the  age  of
fifteen).
        For  subsistence  anglers,  more  low-income
than upper income  anglers eat their catch (Hudson
River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., 1993).  Approximately
10 percent of the respondents stated that food was
their primary reason for fishing; this group is more
likely to be in the  lowest per capita income group
(Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., 1993).
Page
10-30
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
        The average frequency of fish consumption
reported  was just under one  (0.9) meal over the
previous  week, and three meals  over the previous
month. Approximately 35 percent of all anglers who
eat their  catch exceeded the amounts recommended
by the New York State health advisories.  Less than
half (48 percent) of all the anglers interviewed were
aware of the State health advisories or fishing bans.
Only  42  percent  of  those anglers aware  of the
advisories have  changed their fishing habits  as  a
result.
        The advantages  of this study include: in-
person interviews with 95  percent of  all anglers
approached;  field-tested  questions  designed  to
minimize  interviewer  bias; and  candid responses
concerning consumption of fish from contaminated
waters. The limitations of this study are that specific
intake amounts are not indicated, and that only shore-
based anglers were interviewed.

10.5.6   West et al., 1993 - Michigan Sport Anglers
        Fish Consumption Study, 1991-1992
        West  et  al.  (1993)  conducted a  survey
financed  by the  Michigan Great Lakes  Protection
Fund, as a follow-up  to  the earlier 1989 Michigan
survey described previously. The major purpose of
1991-1992survey  was  to provide short-term  recall
data of recreational fish consumption over a full year
period; the 1989 survey, in contrast, was conducted
over only a half year period (West et al., 1993).
        This survey was similar in design to the
1989 Michigan survey.  A sample of 7,000 persons
with  Michigan  fishing  licenses  was drawn  and
surveys were  mailed  in 2-week  cohorts over the
period January, 1991 to January, 1992. Respondents
were  asked to  report  detailed  fish consumption
patterns during the preceding seven days, as well as
demographic information; they were also asked  if
they currently  eat fish.  Enclosed with the  survey
were  pictures  of about  a  half pound of  fish.
Respondents were asked to indicate whether reported
consumption at each meal was more,  less or about the
same  as  the picture.   Based  on responses to  this
question,  respondents  were   assumed  to   have
consumed 10, 5 or 8 ounces offish, respectively.
        A total   of 2,681  surveys were returned.
West et al. (1993) calculated a response  rate for the
survey of 46.8 percent; this was derived by removing
from the  sample those respondents who could not be
located or who did not reside in Michigan for at least
six months.
        Of  these 2,681  respondents,  2,475  (93
percent)  reported  that they currently eat fish; all
subsequent analyses were restricted to the current fish
eaters.  The mean fish consumption rates were found
to be 16.7 g/day for sport fish and 26.5 g/day for total
fish (West et al., 1993).  Table  10-63  shows mean
sport-fish  consumption  rates  by  demographic
categories.  Rates were higher among minorities,
people with  low  income,  and people  residing in
smaller communities.   Consumption rates in g/day
were also higher in males than in females; however,
this difference would  likely disappear if rates were
computed on a g/kg-day basis.
        West  et  al.  (1993)  estimated the  80th
percentile  of  the   survey   fish  consumption
distribution.  More extensive percentile calculations
were performed by U.S. EPA (1995) using the  raw
data from the West et al. (1993) survey and calculated
50th, 90th, and 95th percentiles. However, since this
survey only measured fish consumption over a short
(one week) interval, the resulting distribution will not
be  indicative  of the long-term fish consumption
distribution and the upper percentiles reported from
the U.S.  EPA  analysis will  likely   considerably
overestimate the corresponding long term percentiles.
The overall 95th percentile calculated by U.S.  EPA
(1995) was 77.9; this  is  about double  the  95th
percentile estimated  using  year long consumption
data from the  1989 Michigan survey.
        The  limitations of  this  survey  are  the
relatively  low response  rate and the fact that  only
three categories were used to assign fish portion size.
The main study strengths were its relatively large size
and its reliance on short-term recall.

10.5.7   Alabama    Dept.    of   Environmental
        Management, 1994 - Estimation of Daily
        Per Capita Freshwater Fish Consumption
        of Alabama Anglers
        The Alabama Department of Environmental
Management  (1994) conducted a fish consumption
survey of sport fishing Alabama anglers during the
time period from August 1992 to August of 1993.
The target population  included all anglers who were
Alabama residents.  The survey design consisted of
personal  interviews given to sport fishermen at the
end of their fishing trips at  23 sampling sites. Each
sampling site was surveyed once during each season
(summer,  fall, winter,  and spring).  The survey was
conducted for two consecutive days, either a Friday
and  Saturday or  a   Sunday  and  Monday.   This
approach   minimized   single-day-type  bias   and
maximized surveying  the largest number of anglers
because  a large  amount  of  fishing  occurs  on
weekends.  Anglers were asked about consumption of
fish  caught  at   the  sampling site  as  well  as
consumption  of  fish  caught from  other lakes  and
rivers in Alabama.
        A total  of 1,586 anglers were interviewed
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          10-31
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
during the entire study period, of which 83 percent
reported eating fish they caught from the  sampling
sites  (1,313  anglers).   The  number  of anglers
interviewed during each season was as follows: 488
during the summer, 363 during the fall,  224 during
the winter,  and  511 during  the  spring.    Fish
consumption   rates  were   estimated  using  two
methods: the  4-oz  Serving Method and the Harvest
Method.    The  4-oz  Serving  Method  estimated
consumption based on a typical 4-oz serving  size.
The Harvest Method used the actual harvest of fish
and dressing method reported.   All of the  1,313
anglers were  used in the mean estimates of daily
consumption  based on  the  4-oz Serving Method,
while only the  563  anglers were  utilized  in the
calculations of mean estimates of daily consumption,
based on the Harvest Method.
        Table 10-64 shows the results of the survey.
Adults consumed an annual average of 32.6 g/day
using the Harvest Method,  calculated from study
sites,  and an annual average  of 43.1 g/day using the
Harvest Method,  calculated from study  sites  plus
other  Alabama lakes  and rivers.  The survey  also
showed that adults consumed an annual average of
30.3 g/day using the 4-oz Serving Method, calculated
from study sites, and an annual average of 45.8 g/day
using the 4-oz Serving Method, calculated from study
sites plus other Alabama lakes and rivers.  When the
entire sample was pooled, and a mean was taken over
all respondents for the 4-oz Serving Method, the
average annual consumption was 44.8 g/day.
        The study also  examined fish consumption
in conjunction with socio-demographic factors.  It
was noted that fish consumption tended to increase
with age. Anglers below the age of 20 years were not
well represented in this study.  However, based  on
estimates  of  consumption  rates  using  the  4-oz
Serving  Method,  the  study  found  that  anglers
between 20 and 30 years of age consumed an average
of 16 g/day, anglers between 30 and 50 years old
consumed 39 g/day, and anglers over 50 years old
consumed 76  g/day.   Trends also  emerged when
ethnic groups and income  levels  were  examined
together.  Using the 4-oz Serving Method, estimates
of fish  consumption  for blacks  dropped  from  60
g/day for poverty level families to 15 g/day for upper
income families. For whites, fish consumption  rates
dropped  slightly from 41 g/day  for poverty level
families  to 35 g/day  for upper income  families.
Similar  trends were  observed  with the  Harvest
Method estimates.   Averaging the results from the
two estimation methods, there was a tendency for
upper income white anglers to eat roughly 30 percent
less fish than poverty level white anglers, while upper
income black anglers ate about 80 percent less fish as
poverty level black anglers.
        The analysis of seasonal intake showed that
the highest consumption rates  were  consistently
found to occur in the summer.  It was also found the
lowest fish consumption rate occurred in the spring.

10.5.8   U.S. DHHS, 1995 - Health Study to Assess
        the Human  Health  Effects of Mercury
        Exposure  to  Fish  Consumed from  the
        Everglades
        A health study was conducted in two phases
in the Everglades, Florida for the U.S. Department of
Health and  Human  Services (U.S. DHHS,  1995).
The objectives of the first phase were to: (a) describe
the human populations at risk for mercury exposure
through  their  consumption  of  fish  and  other
contaminated animals from the Everglades and (b)
evaluate the extent of mercury  exposure in those
persons consuming  contaminated  food  and  their
compliance with the voluntary  health advisory.  The
second phase of the study involved neurologic testing
of all study participants who had total mercury levels
in hair greater than  7.5 ug/g.
        Study participants were  identified by using
special targeted  screenings,  mailings to residents,
postings and multi-media advertisements of the study
throughout  the  Everglades  region,  and  direct
discussions with people fishing along the canals and
waterways  in   the   contaminated  areas.     The
contaminated  areas   were   identified   by   the
interviewers and  long-term Everglade residents.  Of a
total of 1,794  individuals sampled, 405  individuals
were eligible to participate in the study because they
had consumed fish  or wildlife from  the Everglades at
least once  per month in the last  3 months of the study
period. The majority of the eligible participants (> 93
percent) were either subsistence fishermen, Everglade
residents,  or both.  Of the total eligible participants,
55 individuals refused to participate in the  survey.
Useable data were obtained from  330 respondents
ranging in age from 10-81 years of age (mean age 39
years ± 18.8) (U.S.  DHHS, 1995). Respondents were
administered a three page questionnaire from which
demographic information, fishing and eating habits,
and other variables  were  obtained (U.S.  DHHS,
1995).
        Table  10-65 shows  the ranges, means, and
standard  deviations  of  selected characteristics by
subgroups  of  the  survey population.    Sixty-two
percent of the respondents were  male with a slight
preponderance of black individuals (43 percent white,
46  percent  black  non-Hispanic,  and  11  percent
Hispanic).  Most of the respondents reported earning
an annual income of $15,000 or less  per  family
before taxes (U.S. DHHS, 1995).  The mean number
Page
10-32
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
of years fished along the canals by the respondents
was  15.8  years  with a standard deviation of 15.8.
The mean number of times per week fish consumers
reported eating fish over the last 6 months and last
month of the survey period was 1.8 and 1.5 per week
with a standard deviation of 2.5 and 1.4, respectively.
Table 10-65  also indicates  that 71 percent  of the
respondents reported knowing about  the  mercury
health advisories.   Of those  who  were aware,  26
percent   reported  that  they  had  lowered  their
consumption of fish caught  in the  Everglades  while
the  rest  (74  percent)  reported  no  change   in
consumption patterns (U.S. DHHS,  1995).
        A limitation of this study is that fish intake
rates (g/day) were not reported.  Another limitation is
that the survey was  site limited, and, therefore, not
representative of the U.S. population.  An advantage
of this  study  is that it is one  of the few studies
targeting subsistence fishermen.

10.5.9  Connelly   et  al,   1996  -   Sportfish
        Consumption Patterns of Lake  Ontario
        Anglers  and the  Relationship to Health
        Advisories, 1992
        The objectives of the Connely et al. (1996)
study were to provide accurate estimates  of fish
consumption (overall  and sport caught) among Lake
Ontario anglers  and to evaluate the effect of Lake
Ontario health advisory recommendations (Connelly
et al., 1996).   To  target Lake Ontario anglers, a
sample  of 2,500 names was randomly drawn from
1990-1991 New  York fishing license records for
licenses purchased  in six counties bordering Lake
Ontario.  Participation in the study  was solicited by
mail with potential participants encouraged to enroll
in the  study  even if they fished infrequently  or
consumed little or no sport  caught  fish. The survey
design involved three survey techniques including a
mail questionnaire asking for 12 month recall of 1991
fishing  trips and fish consumption,  serf-recording
information in a diary for 1992 fishing  trips and fish
consumption, periodic telephone interviews to gather
information recorded in the  diary  and  a  final
telephone interview to determine awareness of health
advisories (Connelly et al., 1996).
        Participants were instructed to  record in the
diary the species of fish eaten, meal size, method by
which fish was acquired (sport-caught or other), fish
preparation and cooking  techniques used  and the
number of household members eating the meal. Fish
meals were defined as finfish only.  Meal  size was
estimated by participants  by comparing their meal
size  to  pictures  of  8 oz. fish steaks and fillets  on
dinner plates.   An  8 oz.  size was assumed  unless
participants noted their meal size was smaller than 8
oz., in which case a 4 oz.  size was assumed, or they
noted it was larger than 8 oz., in which case a 12 oz.
size was assumed.  Participants  were also asked to
record information on fishing trips to Lake Ontario
and species and length of any fish caught.
        From the initial  sample of 2,500 license
buyers, 1,993 (80 percent) were  reachable by phone
or mail and 1,410 of these  were eligible for the study,
in that they intended to fish Lake Ontario in 1992. A
total of 1,202 of these 1,410, or 85 percent, agreed to
participate in the study.   Of the 1,202 participants,
853  either  returned the  diary  or  provided  diary
information by telephone.  Due to changes in health
advisories for Lake Ontario  which resulted in less
Lake Ontario fishing in 1992, only 43 percent, or 366
of these 853 persons indicated that they fished Lake
Ontario  during   1992.     The  study   analyses
summarized below concerning fish consumption and
Lake Ontario fishing participation are based on these
366 persons.
        Anglers who fished Lake Ontario reported
an average of 30.3 (S.E. = 2.3) fish meals per person
from all sources in  1992;  of these meals  28 percent
were sport caught (Connelly et al., 1996).  Less than
1 percent ate no fish for the year and 16 percent ate
no sport caught fish. The mean fish intake rate from
all sources was 17.9  g/day and from sport caught
sources was  4.9 g/day.  Table 10-66  gives  the
distribution of fish intake  rates from  all sources and
from sport caught fish.  The median rates were 14.1
g/day for all sources and 2.2  g/day for sport caught;
the 95th percentiles were 42.3 g/day  and  17.9  g/day
for all sources and sport caught, respectively.  As
seen   in  Table   10-67,   statistically   significant
differences in intake rates were seen across age and
residence  groups, with  residents of large  cities and
younger people having lower intake rates on average.
        The main advantage of this study is the diary
format.   This   format  provides  more  accurate
information   on  fishing   participation   and   fish
consumption, than studies based on 1  year  recall
(Ebert et al., 1993).  However, a considerable portion
of diary respondents participated in the study for only
a portion of the year and some errors may have been
generated  in extrapolating these  respondents' results
to the entire year (Connelly et al., 1996).  In addition,
the response rate for this study  was relatively low,
853 of 1,410 eligible  respondents,  or 60 percent,
which may have engendered some non-response bias.
        The presence of health advisories should be
taken into account when evaluating the intake rates
observed in this study.  Nearly all respondents (>95
percent) were  aware  of  the  Lake  Ontario  health
advisory. This advisory counseled to eat none  of 9
fish species  from Lake  Ontario  and to eat no  more
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                          10-33
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                           Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
than one meal per  month of another 4 species. In
addition, New York State issues a general advisory to
eat no more than 52 sport caught fish meals per year.
Among participants who fished  Lake Ontario in
1992, 32 percent said  they would eat more fish if
health advisories did not exist.  A significant fraction
of respondents did not totally adhere to the  fish
advisory; however, 36 percent of respondents, and 72
percent of  respondents reporting Lake Ontario fish
consumption, ate at least one species of fish over the
advisory limit.  Interestingly,  90 percent of those
violating the advisory  reported that  they believed
they were eating within advisory limits.

10.5.10 Balcom et al,  1999 - Quantification of
        Seafood     Consumption    Rates    for
        Connecticut
        Balcom et al.  (1999)  conducted a seafood
consumption   study utilizing   a  food  frequency
questionnaire  along  with  portion   size  models.
Follow-up  telephone calls were made to  encourage
participation   7-10   days   after    mailing   the
questionnaires   to    improve    response   rates.
Information  requested  in  the  survey  included
frequency of fish consumption, types of fish/seafood
eaten, portion size, parts eaten and the source of the
fish/seafood eaten.  A  diary was  also given  to the
sample  populations to  record  fish  and  seafood
consumption over a ten day period, and to document
where the fish/seafood  was obtained and how it was
prepared.
        The  sample population size for  this study
was 2,354 individuals (1,048 households).  The study
authors divided this overall population into various
population  groups  including the  general population
(460   individuals/216    households),   commercial
fishing  population (178 individuals/73 households),
sport   fishing   and   cultural/subsistence   fishing
population    (514    individuals/348    households),
minority    population    (860     individuals/245
households),  Southeast Asian (329  individuals/89
households),     Non-Southeast     Asian     (531
individuals/156   households),    limited   income
population  (937 individuals/276 households), women
of childbearing age population (493 individuals/420
households),    and   children   population    (559
individuals/305 households).
        It  is important to note that the nine sub-
populations used in this study are  not  mutually
exclusive.  Many individuals were included in more
than one population. For this reason, the authors did
not attempt  to  make  any  statistical  comparisons
between the sub-populations.
        The  survey showed that over 33 percent of
the respondents ate  1-2 meals offish or seafood per
week, including 39 percent of the general population,
35 percent of the sport fishing population, 38 percent
of the commercial and  minority populations, and 39
percent of the limited income population. A total of
36.3 percent  of the  Southeast  Asian  population
consumed 2-3  meals  per  week  with 2.1 percent
consuming 5 or  more meals per week while  43
percent of non-Southeast Asians consume 1-2  meals
of  seafood  per  week.   The  general  population
consumed, on average,  4.2 ounces of fish per meal of
purchased fish and 5.0 ounces  per meal of caught
fish.  Individuals in the sport  fishing  population
showed  a marked difference, consuming 4.7 ounces
per meal of bought fish and 7.3 ounces per meal of
caught fish.   Southeast Asians  consumed smaller
portions of fish per meal, and children consumed the
smallest portions offish per meal.
        On  average,    the  general   population
consumed 27.7 g/day of fish and seafood while the
sport fishing population consumed 51.1 g/day (Table
10-68).  The  commercial fishing population had an
average  consumption rate of 47.4 g/day while the
limited income population's rate was 43.1 g/day. The
overall minority population consumption rate was
50.3 g/day,  with  Southeast Asians  consuming  an
average  of 59.2 g/day  (the highest overall rate) and
non-Southeast Asians consuming an average of 45.0
g/day.    Child-bearing   age  women consumed  an
average  of 45.0 g/day and children  consumed  an
average of 18.3 g/day.
        The  study  also examined fish preparations
and cooking practices for each population group. It
was found that the sport fishing population was most
likely to  perform risk-reducing preparation  methods
compared to the other populations, while the  minority
population was least likely to  use the same  risk-
reducing methods.  Cooking information by specie
was   only   available  for  the   Southeast  Asian
population, but the most common cooking  methods
were  boiling, poaching-boiling-steaming, saute/stir
fry, and deep frying.
        The  authors noted that  there  were  some
limitations  to this  study.   First,  there  was  some
interdependence  within households in terms of the
tendency to eat fish and seafood, but there was  no
dependence between individuals.  Second, the study
had a very low  percent return rate for the general
population mail survey  and it is questionable whether
or not the  responses  accurately  reflect  the  total
population's behavior.
Page
10-34
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
10.5.11  Burger et al, 1999 - Factors in Exposure
        Assessment:  Ethnic  and  Socioeconomic
        Differences in Fishing and Consumption of
        Fish Caught along the Savannah River
        Burger   et   al.   (1999)   examined   the
differences in fishing rates  and fish  consumption of
people  fishing along  the   Savannah River as  a
function of age,  education, ethnicity, employment
history,  and income. A total of 258 people who were
fishing on the Savannah River were interviewed. The
interviews were conducted both on land and by boat
from April to November 1997. Anglers were asked
about   fishing   behavior,   consumption  patterns,
cooking patterns, knowledge of warnings and safety
offish, and personal demographics. The authors used
multiple  regression  procedures  to examine  the
relative  contribution of  ethnicity, income, age, and
education to parameters such as years fished, serving
size, meals/month, and total ounces of fish consumed
per year.
        Eighty-nine percent of people interviewed
were men, 70 percent were White, 28 percent were
African-American, and  2  percent  were  of other
ethnicity not specified in the study.  The age of the
interviewees ranged from 16 to 82 years (mean  = 43
±  1  years).  The study authors reported that the
average fish intake for  all  survey respondents was
1.46 kg of fish per month  (48.7 g/day).  Although
most of the respondents were men, they indicated that
their wives and children consumed fish as often as
they did, and children began to eat fish at 3 to 5 years
of age.
        There were significant differences in fishing
behavior and consumption as a function of ethnicity
(Table 10-69). African-Americans fished more often,
consumed  fish  more  frequently  and  ate  larger
portions of fish than did Whites.  Given the higher
level   of   consumption   by  African-Americans
compared to consumption  by  Whites,   the  study
authors  suggested that the potential  for exposure is
higher  for  African-Americans than for  Whites,
although  the risks   depend  on   the   levels  of
contaminants in the fish. Income and education also
contributed to variations in  fishing and consumption
behavior.  Anglers with low incomes (less than or
equal to $20,000) ate fish more often that those with
higher incomes. Anglers who had not graduated from
high school consumed fish more frequently, eat more
fish per month and per year, and deep fried fish more
often than anglers with more education. At all levels
of education, African-Americans consumed more fish
than Whites.
        The authors acknowledged  that there  may
have been sampling bias in the study since they only
interviewed people who were fishing on the river and
were, therefore, limited to those people they found.
To reduce the bias, the authors conducted the survey
at all times of the day, on all days of the week, and
along  different  sections  of the river.   Another
limitation noted by  the  study  authors is that  the
survey asked questions  about consumption of fish
from two general sources: serf-caught and bought.
The  study authors indicated that it would have been
useful to distinguish between fish obtained directly
from the wild by the anglers, their friends or family,
and store-bought or restaurant fish.

10.5.12 Williams et al,  1999 - Consumption  of
        Indiana Sport Caught Fish: Mail Survey of
        Resident License Holders
        In  1997,  sport  caught fish consumption
among licensed anglers  was assessed using  a mail
survey (Williams et al., 2000b). Anglers were asked
about  their  consumption  patterns during  a three
month recall,  their  fishing rates,  species  of fish
consumed,  awareness of advisory  warnings, and
associated behaviors.
        Average meal size among respondents was
9.3  ounces per meal. Consumers indicated that on
average they ate  between one  and  two meals  per
month. The survey population was divided into active
consumers (those who actively engage in consuming
sport fish meals) and potential consumers (those who
eat fish during other times of the year).  The average
consumption rate for active consumers was reported
as  19.8  g/day.    For both  active  and  potential
consumers, the rate was 16.4 g/day (Table 10-70).
        The statewide  mail  survey  of  licensed
Indiana anglers did not  specifically address lower-
income and minority anglers. The respondents to the
mail survey were predominately white (94.5 percent).
The  recall period for this survey extended from the
summer through the end of fall and early winter.  No
information  was collected on consumption  during
spring or winter. Another limitation of the study was
that   only   sport   caught fish  consumption was
measured among anglers.

10.5.13 Burger, 2000 - Gender Differences in Meal
        Patterns:  Role  of  Self-caught Fish and
        Wild Game in Meat and Fish Diets
        Burger (2000) used the hypothesis that there
are  gender differences in consumption patterns  of
serf-caught fish and  wild  game in a meat and fish
diet. In the study, 457 people were interviewed while
attending  the  Palmetto   Sportsmen's Classic   in
Columbia, South Carolina (March 27-29, 1998).  All
subjects were selected randomly by walking transects
through the  exhibit halls and grounds to ensure that
people were  interviewed from all areas of the show.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         10-35
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
        The questionnaire requested information on
two  different  categories:  socio-demographics and
number of meals  consumed  that included several
types of fish and  wild game.   The demographics
section  contained questions dealing with ethnicity,
gender,  age, location of residence, occupation, and
income. Questions dealing with consumption of wild
game and fish included specific species such as: deer,
wild-caught quail,  restaurant quail,  dove,  duck,
rabbit,  squirrel, raccoon, wild turkey, beef, chicken,
pork,  serf-caught   fish,   store-bought  fish,  and
restaurant fish.
        The study  results showed that the mean age
of the respondents was 40 years and ranged from 15
to 74.  The study showed that there were no gender
differences in the percentage of people who  ate
commercial   protein   sources,  but  there  were
significant gender differences for the consumption of
most wild-caught game and fish. A higher proportion
of men ate wild-caught species than women.
        There  were gender  differences in  mean
monthly meals and mean  serving size for all wild-
caught foods except for raccoon and quail, which
were eaten by few people. The study results indicated
that  men ate  more meals of fish and meat overall,
than woman,  and men  also ate larger portions than
women.    The  study  authors  also  found  that
individuals who consumed a  large number of fish
meals per month consumed a higher percentage of
wild-caught  fish  meals  than  individuals  who
consumed a small number of fish meals per month.
        This study is  limited in that the  subjects
interviewed were people interested in fishing and
hunting; therefore,  their consumption  rates  may be
higher than for the overall population.  In addition, all
subjects interviewed were white.

10.5.14  Williams et al, 2000 - An Examination of
        Fish Consumption by Indiana Recreational
        Anglers: An Onsite Survey
        An on-site survey of Indiana anglers was
conducted in the summer  of  1998  (Williams et  al.,
2000).   A total of 946 surveys were  completed.
Minority anglers accounted for 31.8 percent of those
surveyed, with African American anglers accounting
for the  majority of this group (25.1 percent  of all
respondents).     Respondents   reporting  household
incomes below $25,000 comprised 30.9 percent of
the respondents.  Anglers were asked to  report their
Indiana sport caught fish consumption frequency for
a  three-month  recall  period.   Using  the  meal
frequency  and portion size reported by the  anglers,
the amount of fish consumed was calculated into a
daily amount  called grams  per  day  consumption.
Consumption rates  were  weighted to  correct  for
participation bias.
        Consumption was  reported as 27.2  g/day
among minority consumers and  20.0 g/day among
white consumers (Table 10-71).   Of  the anglers
surveyed,  75.4  percent  of  white  active consumers
reported  being  aware  of the  fish  consumption
advisory,  while  70.0  percent  of  the   minority
consumers  reported awareness.   The study authors
also examined angler consumption rate based on the
level  of awareness  of Indiana  fish  consumption
advisories reported by the anglers. The consumption
rate for those  consumers who were very aware of the
advisory was  35.2 g/day.  For those with a general
awareness of  the advisory, the consumption rate was
14.1  g/day  and for those who  were not aware of the
advisory, the  consumption rate was 21.3 g/day.   In
terms of income, the study  authors found that there
was a significant difference in grams of Indiana sport
caught fish consumed per day. Anglers reporting a
household  income below $25,000 had an  average
consumption  rate  of 18.9 g/day.   Anglers with
incomes between $25,000 and  $34,999 averaged 18.8
g/day and anglers with incomes between $35,000 and
$49,999 averaged  15.2 g/day. The highest  income,
those reporting  an  income  $50,000   or  above,
consumed an average of 48.9 g/day.
        The  authors noted  that  this  study  was
designed to  determine  the consumption  rates  of
Indiana  anglers, particularly those in minority and
low  income groups, during a portion of the year.
Information was not collected for the period  of
September  through January so calculation  of year
round consumption was not possible.

10.5.15  Benson et al.,  2001  - Fish Consumption
        Survey: Minnesota and North Dakota
        Benson et  al.  (2001)  conducted a  fish
consumption  survey among Minnesota and North
Dakota residents. The target population included the
general population, licensed anglers, and members of
Native American tribes.   The survey  focused on
obtaining the  most recent year's fish intake from all
sources,  including  locally caught fish.    Survey
questionnaires were mailed to potential respondent
households. For the entire population, approximately
1,570 surveys were returned completed (out of 7,835
that were mailed out).
        Groups of interest were selected and allotted
a portion  of the  total  number  of surveys to be
distributed  to  each  group as  follows:   a group
categorized as  the  general population  and anglers
received 37.5  percent of the surveys and new mothers
and Native Americans each received 12.5 percent of
the total surveys distributed. The  survey distribution
was  split  60/40 between Minnesota  and North
Page
10-36
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Dakota.  For the entire survey population, a total of
1,565 surveys were returned completed (out of 7,835
that were mailed out), resulting in a  total of 4,273
respondents.  A target of 100 completed telephone
interviews  of non-respondents was set  in  order to
characterize the non-respondent population; however,
this target was not met.
        The  Minnesota survey showed  a total fish
mean and median consumption rate for the general
population (2,312 respondents) of 12.3  and 2.8 g/day,
respectively (Table 10-72).  The  total  number of
Minnesota Bois Forte Tribe respondents was 232 and
total fish consumption in g/day was 2.8 and 22.4 for
the 50th  and 95th percentiles, respectively.   For
Minnesota  residents  with fishing  licenses  (2,020
respondents), total fish consumption  in g/day  was
13.2 and 64.5  for the  50th  and 95th  percentiles
(lognormal distribution), respectively. For Minnesota
respondents  without  fishing  licenses,   total  fish
consumption in g/day  was 7.5  and 58.7 for the 50th
and   95th  percentiles   (lognormal  distribution),
respectively.  The survey results also show that total
consumption rates were highest for men,  followed by
women over the age of 44 years, followed by women,
ages 15 to 44 years.  The lowest consumption was
shown for children.
        The North Dakota survey showed a total fish
mean and median consumption rate for the general
population (1,406 respondents) of 12.6  and 3.0 g/day,
respectively (Table 10-72).  The  total  number of
North Dakota Spirit Lake Nation and Three Affiliated
Tribes  respondents was  105  and the total  fish
consumption in g/day was 1.4 and 27.3 for the mean
and  the  95th percentile, respectively.   For  North
Dakota  residents  with  fishing  licenses   (1,101
respondents), total fish consumption  in g/day  was
14.0 and 76.2  for the  50th  and 95th  percentiles
(lognormal distribution),  respectively.   For  North
Dakota respondents without  fishing  licenses, total
fish consumption in g/day was 7.2 and 54.1 for the
50th and 95th  percentiles (lognormal distribution),
respectively. The survey results also showed that the
total consumption rates were highest for females ages
15 to 44 years, followed by men, followed by women
over the  age of 44 years.  The lowest consumption
was found for children.
        The  authors   noted   that  80  percent  of
respondents  in  Minnesota  and  72  percent  of
respondents in  North  Dakota lived in a household
that included a licensed angler.  They stated that this
was  a result of a direct intent to  oversample the
angling population in both states by  sending 37.5
percent  of surveys  distributed  to  persons  who
purchased a fishing license in either  Minnesota or
North Dakota. The data were adjusted  to incorporate
overall  licensed angler rates  in both states  (47.3
percent of households in Minnesota and 40.0 percent
of households in North Dakota).
        An advantage  of this  study is its  large
overall sample size.  A limitation of the study is the
low numbers of Native Americans surveyed; thus, the
survey may not be representative of overall Native
American populations in Minnesota. In addition, the
study did  not  include  Asian Immigrants, African
Americans,   African   immigrants,   or   Latino
populations,  and   was   limited  to   two   states.
Therefore,  the results may not be representative of
the U.S. population as a whole.

10.5.16 Campbell  et al, 2002 - Fishing along the
        Clinch  River  Arm  of  Watts  Reservoir
        Adjacent  to  the  Oak Ridge Reservation,
        Tennessee: Behavior, Knowledge and Risk
        Perception
        Campbell    et    al.    (2002)   examined
consumption habits  of anglers  fishing  along the
Clinch River arm of Watts Bar Reservoir, adjacent to
the   U.S.  Department  of  Energy's  Oak  Ridge
Reservation (ORR) in East Tennessee.   The study
area included  the  Clinch River arm  of  Watts Bar
Reservoir from Melton Hill Dam to the confluence
with  Poplar Creek,  and Poplar  Creek from the
confluence  with Clinch River to the intersection with
Poplar Creek Road.   A  total  of 202 anglers were
interviewed on 65  sampling days, which included 48
weekdays and  17 weekend days.  Eighty-six percent
of fishermen interviewed were fishing from the shore
while 14 percent  were  fishing  from  a  boat.   The
questionnaire utilized in the study included questions
on  demographics,  fishing  behavior, perceptions,
cooking   patterns,   consumption  patterns,   and
consumption warnings.  Interviews  were conducted
by two people who were local to the area in order to
promote participation in the study.
        Out   of   all    anglers    interviewed,
approximately 35 percent did not eat fish. Of the 65
percent who ate fish, only 38 percent ate fish from
the  study area.  This 38 percent  (77 people)  was
considered  useful  to  the  study  and thus, were the
main focus of the  data  analysis.   These  anglers
averaged two  meals of  fish per month  with an
average consumption rate of 37 grams  per day or
13.7 kilograms per year (Table 10-73).  They caught
almost 90 percent of the fish they ate, had a mean age
of 42 years, and a mean  income of $28,800.  The
species of fish most often  mentioned by anglers who
caught and ate fish from the study area were crappie,
striped bass, white bass, sauger, and catfish.
        A  limitation of this study is  that the small
size of the  population does not allow for statistically
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                          10-37
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
significant analysis of the data.

10.6    NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES
10.6.1   Wolfe  and  Walker (1987)  - Subsistence
        Economies   in   Alaska:   Productivity,
        Geography, and Development Impacts
        Wolfe and Walker (1987) analyzed a dataset
from  98 communities  for harvests  of  fish,  land
mammals,   marine  mammals,  and  other  wild
resources.  The analysis was performed to evaluate
the distribution and productivity  of  subsistence
harvests in Alaska  during the 1980s.  Harvest levels
were used as a measure of productivity.  Wolfe and
Walker (1987) defined harvest to represent a single
year's production from a complete  seasonal round.
The harvest levels were derived primarily from a
compilation  of  data  from  subsistence   studies
conducted  between  1980  and  1985 by  various
researchers in the  Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Division of Subsistence.
        Of the 98 communities studied, four were
large urban population  centers and 94  were small
communities.  The  harvests  for  these  latter  94
communities  were  documented  through detailed
retrospective  interviews with  harvesters from  a
sample of  households (Wolfe and Walker,  1987).
Harvesters were asked to estimate the quantities of a
particular species that were harvested and used by
members of that household during the previous 12-
month period.  Wolfe and Walker (1987) converted
harvests to a common unit for comparison, pounds
dressed weight per  capita per year, by multiplying the
harvests  of households  within each community  by
standard  factors converting total pounds  to dressed
weight,   summing  across  households,  and  then
dividing by the total  number of household members
in the household sample. Dressed weight varied by
species and community but in general was 70 to 75
percent of total fish weight; dressed weight for fish
represents that  portion brought into the kitchen for
use (Wolfe and Walker, 1987).
        Harvests for the four urban populations were
developed from a statewide data set gathered by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of
Game and Sports  Fish.   Urban  sport-fish harvest
estimates were derived from a survey that was mailed
to a randomly selected statewide sample of anglers
(Wolfe and Walker, 1987).  Sport-fish harvests were
disaggregated by urban residency and the dataset was
analyzed by converting the harvests into pounds and
dividing by the 1983 urban population.
        For the overall analysis,  each  of the  98
communities was treated as a single unit of analysis
and the entire group of communities was assumed to
be a sample of all communities in Alaska (Wolfe and
Walker, 1987).   Each community was given equal
weight, regardless of population size.  Annual per
capita harvests were calculated for each community.
For the four urban centers, fish harvests ranged from
5 to 21 pounds per capita per year (6.2 g/day to 26.2
g/day).
        The range for the 94 small communities was
25 to 1,239  pounds per capita per year (31 g/day to
1,541 g/day). For these 94 communities, the median
per capita fish harvest was 130 pounds per year (162
g/day).  In most (68 percent) of the 98 communities
analyzed, resource harvests for fish were greater than
the harvests of  the other wildlife  categories  (land
mammal, marine mammal, and other) combined.
        The communities in  this  study were not
made up entirely of Alaska Natives. For roughly half
the  communities, Alaska  Natives   comprised  80
percent or more of the population, but for about 40
percent of the communities they comprised less than
50 percent  of  the  population. Wolfe and Walker
(1987)  performed  a  regression  analysis  which
showed that the per capita harvest of a community
tended to increase as a function of the percentage of
Alaska  Natives  in  the  community.  Although this
analysis was done for total  harvest (i.e., fish, land
mammal, marine mammal and others)  the same result
should hold for fish  harvest since  fish  harvest is
highly correlated with total harvest.
        A limitation of this report is  that it presents
per-capita harvest rates  as  opposed  to  individual
intake rates.  Wolfe and Walker (1987) compared the
per capita harvest rates reported to the results for the
household  component of  the  1977-1978  USD A
National Food Consumption Survey  (NFCS).  The
NFCS  showed that about 222 pounds of meat, fish,
and  poultry  were purchased and brought into the
household kitchen for each person each year in the
western region of the  United States.  This contrasts
with a median total resource  harvest of 260 Ibs/yr in
the 94 communities studied.  This comparison, and
the fact that Wolfe  and Walker (1987)  state that
"harvests  represent that  portion brought into the
kitchen for use," suggest that the same factors used to
convert household consumption rates in the NFCS to
individual intake rates can be used  to convert per
capita  harvest rates to individual intake  rates.  In
Section 10.3, a factor of 0.5 was used to convert fish
consumption from household  to individual intake
rates.  Applying  this  factor, the median  per capita
individual fish intake  in the  94 communities would
be 81 g/day and the range  15.5 to 770 g/day.
        A limitation of this study is that the data
were based  on  1-year recall from a  mailed survey.
An advantage of the study is that it is one of the few
studies  that present  fish  harvest  patterns  for
Page
10-38
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
subsistence populations.

10.6.2  Chemrisk,  1992   -   Consumption   of
        Freshwater Fish by Maine Anglers
        As addressed in  Section 10.5.3, Chemrisk
(1992) conducted a study of 1,612 randomly selected
Maine licensed anglers  in 1990 to  characterize the
rates   of   freshwater   fish  consumption   among
residents.   Freshwater fish intake distributions for
these  populations are presented in Table  10-60. The
mean and  95th percentile  was  5.0  g/day  and 21.0
g/day, respectively, for  all anglers,  but  the  highest
mean intake rate was 10 g/day for Native Americans
(Chemrisk, 1992).

10.6.3  Columbia   River   Inter-Tribal    Fish
        Commission  (CRITFC), 1994 - A  Fish
        Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez
        Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes
        of the Columbia River Basin
        The  Columbia  River  Inter-Tribal  Fish
Commission (CRITFC)  (1994) conducted  a fish
consumption survey  among  four  Columbia River
Basin Native  American tribes  during the fall and
winter of 1991-1992. The target population included
all adult tribal members who lived on  or near the
Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla or  Nez  Perce
reservations.   The  survey  was based on a stratified
random sampling  design where  respondents  were
selected from  patient registration files at the Indian
Health Service. Interviews were performed in person
at a central location on the member's reservation.
        The overall  response rate was  69 percent
yielding a  sample  size  of 513  tribal  members,  18
years  old and above.   Of these, 58  percent  were
female and 59  percent were under 40 years old. Each
participating adult was  asked  if there were any
children  5  years  old  or  younger in  his  or her
household.   Those responding  affirmatively  were
asked a set of survey questions  about  the fish
consumption patterns  of the  youngest child in the
household  (CRITFC,  1994).   Information for 204
children, 5 years old and younger, was provided by
participating adult  respondents.   Consumption data
were available  for 194 of these children.
        Participants  were asked to  describe and
quantify  all food  and  drink  consumed during the
previous day.  They were  then asked to  identify the
months in which they ate the most and the least fish,
and the number of fish meals  consumed per week
during each of those periods and an average value for
the whole year. The typical portion size (in ounces)
was determined with the aid of food models provided
by  the questioner.   The next  set  of questions
identified specific  species of  fish and  addressed the
number of times per month each was eaten, as well as
what parts (e.g., fillet, skin, head, eggs, bones, other)
were eaten.  Respondents were then asked to identify
the  frequency  with  which  they  used  various
preparation  methods,  expressed  as a  percentage.
Respondents sharing a household with a child, aged 5
years or less, were  asked to repeat the serving size,
eating frequency, and species questions for the child's
consumption behavior. All respondents  were asked
about  the   geographic  origin of  any  fish  they
personally caught and consumed, and to  identify the
major sources  of fish in their diet (e.g.,  self-caught,
grocery store,  tribe, etc.).   Fish  intake rates  were
calculated by  multiplying the annual frequency of
fish meals by the average serving size per fish meal.
        The population sizes of the four tribes were
highly  unequal,   ranging  from   818   to   3,872
individuals (CRITFC, 1994).   In order to ensure an
adequate sample size from each tribe, the study was
designed to  give nearly equal  sample sizes for each
tribe.  Weighting factors were  applied to the pooled
data (in proportion to tribal population size) so that
the survey results would be  representative of the
overall population of the four  tribes for adults only.
Because the sample size for children was considered
small, only  an unweighted analysis was  performed
for this population.  Based on  a desired sample size
of approximately 500  and an expected response rate
of 70 percent,  744  individuals  were  selected at
random from lists of eligible patients; the numbers
from each tribe were approximately equal.
        The results of the survey showed that adults
consumed an average of 1.71  fish  meals/week and
had an average intake of 58.7 grams/day (CRITFC,
1994).  Table  10-74 shows the  adult  fish  intake
distribution; the median was  between  29  and  32
g/day and the  95th percentile about  170 g/day. A
small percentage (7 percent) of respondents indicated
that  they  were not fish consumers.  Table  10-75
shows that mean intake was slightly higher in males
than females (63 g/d versus 56 g/d) and was higher in
the over 60 years age group (74.4 g/d) than in the 18-
39 years (57.6 g/d) or 40-59  years (55.8 g/d) age
groups.  Intake also tended to be higher among those
living on the  reservation.  The  mean  intake for
nursing mothers, 59.1  g/d, was similar to the overall
mean intake.    Intake  rates  were calculated for
children for which both the number of fish meals per
week and serving size information were available.
        A total of 49 percent  of respondents  of the
total survey population reported that they caught fish
from the Columbia River basin and its tributaries for
personal use or for tribal ceremonies and distributions
to other tribe members and 88 percent reported that
they obtained fish from either serf-harvesting, family
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          10-39
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
or  friends,  at tribal  ceremonies  or  from  tribal
distributions.  Of all fish consumed, 41 percent came
from self or family harvesting, 11 percent from the
harvest of friends, 35 percent from tribal ceremonies
or distribution, 9 percent from stores and 4 percent
from other sources (CRITFC, 1994).
        Of the 204 children,  the  total number of
respondents used in the analysis varied from 167 to
202, depending on the topic (amount and species
consumed,   fish   meals  consumed  /week,   age
consumption began, serving size, consumption of fish
parts) of the analysis.  The unweighted mean for the
age when children begin eating fish was 13.1 months
of age (N = 167). The unweighted mean number of
fish meals consumed per week by children was 1.2
meals per week (N = 195) and the unweighted mean
serving size  of fish for children aged five years old
and less was 95 grams (i.e., 3.36 ounces) (N = 201).
The unweighted percent of fish consumed by children
by species was 82.7 percent for salmon, followed by
46.5 percent (N = 202) for trout.
        The analysis of seasonal intake showed that
May and June tended to be high-consumption months
and December and January low consumption months.
The mean adult intake  rate for May and June was  108
g/d while  the  mean intake rate for December  and
January was 30.7 g/d.  Salmon was the species eaten
by the highest number of respondents  (92 percent)
followed by trout (70 percent), lamprey (54 percent),
and smelt (52  percent).  Table 10-76 gives the fish
intake distribution for  children under 5 years of age.
The mean intake rate  was 19.6 g/day and the 95th
percentile was approximately 70 g/day.  These mean
intake  rates  include   both  consumers and  non-
consumers.    These  values  are  based  on survey
questions involving estimated  behavior throughout
the year, which survey participants answered in terms
of meals per week or  per month and typical serving
size per meal.  Table 10-77  presents consumption
rates for children  who were reported to consume
particular species offish.
        The authors noted that some non-response
bias  may  have  occurred  in  the  survey  since
respondents were more likely to be female and live
near  the  reservation  than  non-respondents.   In
addition, they hypothesized that non-consumers may
have been more likely to be non-respondents than
fish consumers  since  non-consumers  may  have
thought  their contribution to  the survey  would be
meaningless; if such were the case, this study would
overestimate the mean per capita intake rate.  It was
also noted that the timing of the survey, which was
conducted during low fish consumption months, may
have  led   to  underestimation  of   actual   fish
consumption;  the  authors  conjectured  that  an
individual  may  have   reported   higher  annual
consumption if interviewed during a relatively high
consumption month and lower annual consumption if
interviewed  during  a relatively low  consumption
month.  Finally, with respect to children's intake, it
was observed that some of the respondents provided
the same information for  their children  as  for
themselves; thereby, the reliability of some of these
data  is  questioned   (CRITFC,   1994).      The
combination of four different tribes' survey responses
into   a  single  pooled  data  set  is  somewhat
problematic.  The data presented in  are unweighted
and therefore contain a bias toward the smaller tribes,
who were oversampled compared to the  larger tribes.
        The  limitations of this study, particularly
with   regard   to   the   estimates   of  children's
consumption,  result in a high degree of uncertainty in
the estimated  rates  of consumption.  Although  the
authors have noted these limitations,  this study does
present information on fish consumption patterns and
habits  for a  Native American subpopulation.   It
should be noted that the number  of surveys that
address subsistence subpopulations is  very limited.

10.6.4   Peterson  et al, 1994 - Fish Consumption
        Patterns  and  Blood  Mercury  Levels in
        Wisconsin Chippewa Indians
        Peterson et al. (1994) investigated the extent
of exposure to methylmercury by Chippewa Indians
living  on a  Northern  Wisconsin reservation who
consume fish  caught in Northern Wisconsin lakes.
Chippewa  have   a  reputation  for   high   fish
consumption (Peterson et al., 1994).  The Chippewa
Indians fish by the traditional method of spearfishing.
Spearfishing  (for walleye) occurs  for  about  two
weeks  each spring after the ice breaks,  and although
only a small number of tribal members  participate in
it, the  spearfishing harvest is distributed  widely
within the tribe by an informal distribution network
of family and friends  and through traditional  tribal
feasts (Peterson et al., 1994).
        Potential survey participants, 465 adults, 18
years of age and older, were randomly selected from
the  tribal   registries  (Peterson  et  al.,   1994).
Participants were asked to complete  a  questionnaire
describing their routine fish consumption and, more
extensively, their fish consumption  during the two
previous months. The survey was carried out in May
1990.    A follow-up survey was conducted for a
random sample of 75 non-respondents (80  percent
were  reachable),  and their  demographic and  fish
consumption patterns were obtained.  Peterson et al.
(1994)   reported    that   the   non-respondents'
socioeconomic and fish consumption were similar to
the respondents.
Page
10-40
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
        A total of 175 of the original random sample
(38 percent) participated in the study.  In addition,
152   non-randomly   selected  participants   were
surveyed and  included  in the data analysis;  these
participants were reported by Peterson et al. (1994) to
have fish consumption rates similar to those of the
randomly  selected participants.  Results from  the
survey  showed  that  fish  consumption  varied
seasonally,  with  50  percent  of  the  respondents
reporting April and May (spearfishing season) as the
highest  fish consumption  months  (Peterson  et  al.,
1994). Table 10-78 shows the number of fish meals
consumed per week during the  last  2 months (recent
consumption) before the survey was  conducted and
during the  respondents' peak  consumption months
grouped by gender, age, education,  and employment
level.   During peak  consumption months,  males
consumed more fish  (1.9  meals  per  week) than
females (1.5 meals per week), respondents under 35
years of age consumed more  fish (1.8 meals per
week) than respondents 35 years of age and over (1.6
meals per week),  and  the unemployed  consumed
more fish (1.9 meals per week) than the employed
(1.6  meals per  week).  During the highest fish
consumption season (April and May), 50 percent of
respondents reported eating one or less fish meals per
week and  only  2  percent   reported  daily  fish
consumption.   A total of 72 percent of respondents
reported Walleye consumption in the previous two
months. Peterson et al. (1994)  also  reported that the
mean number  of fish meals usually  consumed per
week by the respondents was 1.2.
        The mean  fish consumption rate reported
(1.2 fish meals per week, or 62.4 meals per year) in
this survey was compared with the rate reported in a
previous survey of Wisconsin  anglers (Fiore et  al.,
1989) of 42  fish  meals per year.  These results
indicate that the Chippewa  Indians  do not consume
much more fish than  the general Wisconsin angler
population (Peterson et al., 1994). The differences in
the two values may be attributed to differences  in
study methodology (Peterson et al.,  1994). Note that
this number (1.2 fish meals per week) includes fish
from all sources.  Peterson et  al. (1994) noted that
subsistence fishing, defined as fishing as a major
food  source,  appears  rare among the  Chippewa.
Using the recommended rate in this  handbook of 110
g/meal as the average weight of fish consumed per
fish meal in the general population,  the rate reported
here of 1.2 fish meals per week translates into a mean
fish intake rate of 19 g/day in this population.
10.6.5   Fitzgerald  et  al.,   1995  -  Fish  PCB
        Concentrations and Consumption Patterns
        Among Mohawk Women atAkwesasne -
        Akwesasne   is  a   Native   American
community of  ten  thousand plus  persons located
along the St. Lawrence River (Fitzgerald et al., 1995.
Fitzgerald et al.  (1995) conducted a recall study from
1986 to  1992  to determine  the fish consumption
patterns among nursing  Mohawk women residing
near three  industrial  sites.     The  study  sample
consisted  of 97 Mohawk women and  154 nursing
Caucasian controls.   The Mohawk  mothers were
significantly younger  (mean age  24.9) than the
controls (mean age 26.4) and had significantly more
years of education (mean 13.1 for Mohawks versus
12.4 for controls). A total of 97  out of 119 Mohawk
nursing women responded,  a response  rate of 78
percent; 154 out of 287 control nursing  Caucasian
women responded, a response rate of 54 percent.
        Potential participants were identified prior
to,  or  shortly after,  delivery.  The  interviews were
conducted at home within one month postpartum and
were   structured   to   collect   information  for
sociodemographics,    vital    statistics,   use   of
medications, occupational and residential histories,
behavioral patterns  (cigarette smoking and alcohol
consumption), drinking water source, diet, and fish
preparation methods  (Fitzgerald et  al.,  1995).  The
dietary data collected were based on recall for food
intake during the index pregnancy, the year before the
pregnancy, and more  than  one  year before the
pregnancy.
        The dietary assessment involved the report
by  each participant on the consumption of various
foods with emphasis on local species of fish and
game   (Fitzgerald  et  al.,  1995).    This  method
combined food  frequency and  dietary histories to
estimate usual intake. Food frequency was evaluated
with a  checklist of foods for indicating the amount of
consumption of a  participant per week,  month or
year.   Information gathered  for the dietary history
included  duration of consumption, changes  in the
diet, and food preparation method.
        Table  10-79 presents the number of local
fish meals per year for both the Mohawk and control
participants.  The highest percentage of participants
reported consuming between  1 and 9 local fish meals
per year.    Table  10-79 indicates  that  Mohawk
respondents consumed statistically significantly more
local fish than did control respondents during the two
time periods prior to pregnancy; for the time period
during  pregnancy there was no significant difference
in fish consumption between the two groups.  Table
10-80 presents the mean number of local fish meals
consumed per year by time period for all respondents
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         10-41
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
and for those ever consuming (consumers only).  A
total of 82 (85 percent) Mohawk mothers and 72 (47
percent)  control mothers reported ever consuming
local fish.   The mean number  of local fish meals
consumed per year by Mohawk respondents declined
over  time,   from  23.4  (over  one  year  before
pregnancy)  to  9.2  (less  than  one  year  before
pregnancy)  to  3.9 (during pregnancy);  a  similar
decline was seen  among consuming Mohawks only.
There  was  also  a decreasing trend over time  in
consumption among controls, though  it was much
less pronounced.
        Table 10-81 presents the mean number  of
fish meals consumed per year for all participants by
time  period  and  selected  characteristics  (age,
education,    cigarette   smoking,  and   alcohol
consumption).   Pairwise  contrasts indicated  that
control  participants over 34 years of age had the
highest fish consumption of local fish meals (22.1)
(Table  10-81).   However,  neither the overall nor
pairwise  differences by  age among  the  Mohawk
women  over  34  years  old  were   statistically
significant,  which may be due to the  small sample
size  (N=6)  (Fitzgerald et  al.,  1995).   The most
common fish consumed by Mohawk  mothers  was
yellow perch; for controls  the  most common fish
consumed was trout.
        An advantage of this study is that it presents
data for  fish  consumption patterns  for  Native
Americans as compared to a demographically  similar
group of Caucasians. Although the data are based on
nursing mothers   as  participants, the  study  also
captures consumption patterns prior to pregnancy (up
to one year before and more than one year before).
Fitzgerald et al. (1995) noted that dietary recall for a
period more than  one year before pregnancy may be
inaccurate,  but these  data  were the best  available
measure of the more distant past.  They also noted
that  the observed decrease  in  fish  consumption
among Mohawks  from one year before pregnancy  to
the period of pregnancy is due to a secular trend  of
declining fish consumption over time  in Mohawks.
This decrease, which was more pronounced than that
seen in controls,  may be  due to health advisories
promulgated by tribal, as well as state, officials.  The
authors  note that this decreasing secular  trend  in
Mohawks is consistent with a survey from 1979-1980
that found an overall mean of 40 fish meals per year
among male and female Mohawk adults.
        The data are presented as  number of fish
meals per year;  the authors did not assign an average
weight to fish meals. If assessors wanted to estimate
the weight of fish consumed, some average value  of
weight per  fish meal would have to  be assumed.
Smiciklas-Wright  et al. (2002) reported 117 grams  as
the average weight  of fish  consumed  per eating
occasion for females 20-39 years old.  Using this
value, the rate reported of 27.6 fish meals per year for
consumers  only  (over  one year before  pregnancy)
translates into a mean fish intake rate of 8.8 g/day.

10.6.6   Toy et  al.,  1996 - A Fish Consumption
        Survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin Island
        Tribes of the Puget Sound Region
        Toy  et  al.  (1996)  conducted a  study  to
determine fish and shellfish consumption rates of the
Tulalip and Squaxin Island tribes living in the Puget
Sound region.  These two Indian tribes were selected
on  the  basis  of  judgment  that  they  would be
representative  of the expected range  of fishing and
fish consumption activities of the fourteen tribes in
the region.  Commercial fishing is a major source of
income for members of both tribes; some  members
the  Squaxin  Island  tribe   also  participate   in
commercial  shellfishing.   Both tribes participate in
subsistence fishing and shellfishing.
        A  survey  was  conducted to  describe fish
consumption for Puget Sound tribal  members  over
the age of 18, and their dependents ages  five and
under,  in  terms  of  their consumption   rate  of
anadromous, pelagic, bottom fish, and shellfish in
grams per kilogram body weight per day.  The survey
focused  on the  frequency  of fish and  shellfish
consumption (number of fish meals eaten per day, per
week, per month, or per year) over a one-year period
and the portion  size of each meal. Data were also
collected  on  fish  parts  consumed,   preparation
methods, patterns  of acquisition for all  fish and
shellfish  consumption (including seasonal variations
in consumption), and children's consumption rates.
Interviews were conducted between February 25 and
May 15, 1994. A total of 190 tribal members, ages 18
years old and older, and 69 children between the ages
birth and 5 years old, were surveyed on consumption
of 52 species.  The  response rate was 77  percent for
the Squaxin  Island  tribe  and  76 percent for  the
Tulalip tribes.
        The appropriate sample size was calculated
based on the enrolled population of each tribe and a
desired confidence  interval of ±20  percent  from the
mean, with an additional 25 percent added to the total
to allow for non-response or  unusable  data.  The
target population, derived from lists of enrolled tribal
members provided by the tribes, consisted of enrolled
tribal members aged 18 years and older and children
aged five years  and younger  living in the same
household as an enrolled  member.  Only  members
living on or within 50 miles of the reservation were
considered  for the survey.  Each  eligible enrolled
tribal member was assigned a number, and computer-
Page
10-42
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
generated random numbers were used to identify the
survey participants.   Children were  not sampled
directly,  but  through  adult  members   of  their
household;  if one adult  had more than one eligible
child in his or her household, one of the children was
selected at  random.  This indirect sampling method
was necessitated by the  available tribal records, but
may have introduced sampling bias to the  process of
selecting children for the study.  A total of 190 adult
tribal members (ages 18  years old and older)  and 69
children between ages birth and 5 years old (i.e., 0 to
<6 years) were surveyed about their consumption of
52  fish  species  in  six  categories:  anadromous,
pelagic,  bottom,   shellfish,  canned  tuna,   and
miscellaneous.
        Respondents  described their consumption
behavior for the  past year in terms of frequency of
fish meals  eaten per week  or per month,  including
seasonal  variations  in consumption rates.  Portion
sizes  (in ounces) were  estimated  with  the  aid of
model  portions provided by the questioner.  Data
were   also  collected  on   fish  parts  consumed,
preparation methods, patterns of acquisition for all
fish  and  shellfish  consumption,  and  children's
consumption rates.
        The adult mean and  median consumption
rates for all forms of fish combined were 0.89  and
0.55 g/kg/day for the Tulalip tribes and 0.89 and 0.52
g/kg/day for the  Squaxin Island tribe, respectively
(Table  10-82). As shown  in Table 10-83, consumption
per body weight varied by gender (males  consumed
more   as   indicated   by   mean  and  median
consumption). The median rates for the Tulalip Tribes
were 53  g/day for males and 34 g/day for females,
while the rates were 66 g/day for males and 25 g/day
for females for the  Squaxin Island tribe (Table 10-
84). Among adults consumption generally followed a
curvilinear  pattern, with  greater median consumption
in the age range of 35-64 years  old  and  lower
consumption in the age range of 18-34 years old and
65 years old and over (Table 10-85). No  consistent
pattern of  consumption  by  income was  found for
either tribe  (Table 10-86).
        The mean and median consumption rates for
children  five years  and younger for both  tribes
combined, were 0.53 and 0.17 g/kg-day, respectively.
These values were significantly lower than those of
adults, even when the consumption rate was adjusted
for body weight (Table 10-87).    Squaxin Island
children  tended to consume more fish than Tulalip
children  (mean 0.825  g/kg/day vs. 0.239  g/kg/day).
The data were insufficient to allow re-analysis to fit
the data to the standard U.S. EPA age categories used
elsewhere in this handbook.  A minority of consumers
ate fish parts that are considered to have a higher
concentration of toxins: skin, head, bones, eggs, and
organs, and for the majority of consumers, fish were
prepared (baking,  boiling, broiling, roasting, and
poaching) and eaten in a manner that tends to reduce
intake of contaminants.  Most anadromous fish and
shellfish were obtained  by harvesting in the  Puget
Sound area rather than by purchasing, though sources
of  harvesting  varied   between  the  tribes  (See
Appendix 10B).
        The advantage of this study is that the data
can be used to improve how exposure assessments
are  conducted  for  populations  that  are  high
consumers  of fish and  shellfish  and  to  identify
cultural  characteristics that may place tribal members
at disproportionate risk  to chemical  contamination.
For males of  both tribes,  the  median consumption
rate  was eight  to  ten  times   higher than  the
recommended national default value.
        One limitation associated with this study is
that  although  data  from the Tulalip and Squaxin
Island tribes may be representative of consumption
rates of these specific tribes, fish consumption rates,
habits, and patterns can vary among tribes and other
sub-populations.  As a result, the consumption rates
of these two tribes may not be useful as a surrogate
for consumption  rates  of other  Native American
tribes. There might also be a possible bias due to the
time the  survey was conducted; many species in the
survey  are  seasonal, and  although the survey was
designed  to   solicit  annual  consumption  rates,
respondents  may  have  weighed  their  responses
toward the interview period. For example, because of
the timing of the  survey, respondents may have
overestimated  their annual consumption  of shellfish
and  underestimated  their annual  consumption  of
salmon.    Furthermore,  there  were  differences  in
consumption patterns between the two tribes included
in this study;  the study provided  data for each tribe
and for the pooled data from both tribes, but the latter
may not be a statistically valid measure for tribes in
the region.

10.6.7   Duncan, 2000 - Fish Consumption Survey
        of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port
        Madison Indian Reservation, Puget Sound
        Region
        The Suquamish Tribal Council conducted a
study of the Suquamish tribal members living on and
near the Port Madison Indian Reservation  in  the
Puget Sound region (Duncan, 2000).  The study was
funded  by  the Agency  for Toxic Substances and
Disease  Registry (ATSDR) through a grant to  the
Washington  State  Department  of  Health.    The
purpose  of the  study  was to determine  seafood
consumption   rates,  patterns,  and  habits  of  the
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         10-43
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                           Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
members  of the Suquamish  Tribe.   The  second
objective  was  to  identify  cultural practices  and
attributes that affect consumption rates, patterns and
habits of members of the Suquamish Tribe.
        A systematic  random sample  of  adults,
defined as individuals age 16 years  and older, were
selected from a sorted Tribal enrollment roster.  The
study had a participation rate of 64.8 percent, which
was calculated on the basis of 92 respondents out of a
total of 142  potentially eligible adults on the list of
those selected into the sample.  Consumption data for
children under six years of age were gathered through
adult respondents who had children in this age group
living  in the household at the time of the  survey.
Data were collected for 31 children under six years
old.
        A survey questionnaire was  administered by
personal interview.  The survey included four parts:
(1) 24-hour dietary recall; (2) identification, portions,
frequency  of  consumption,  preparation,   harvest
location   of  fish;   (3)   shellfish  consumption,
preparation,  harvest  location;  and  (4)  changes in
consumption over time, cultural information, physical
information, and socioeconomic  information.   A
display booklet  was used to  assist  respondents in
providing  consumption data and identifying  harvest
locations of seafood consumed. Physical models of
finfish  and  shellfish  were  constructed  to  assist
respondents  in determining typical  food portions.
Finfish and  shellfish were grouped  into categories
based  on similarities  in  life  history  as well as
practices of Tribal members who fish for subsistence,
ceremonial, and commercial purposes.
        Adult   respondents   reported  a   mean
consumption rate of all finfish and  all shellfish of
2.71 g/kg/day  (Table 10-88).   Tables 10-89,  10-90,
and  10-91 provide consumption rates for adults by
species, gender, and age, respectively.  For children
under six years of age, the mean consumption rate of
all finfish and shellfish was 1.48 g/kg/day (Tables 10-
92  and 10-93).   The  Suquamish  Tribe's  seafood
consumption rates for adults and children under six
years  of  age   represent  the  highest  seafood
consumption rates  reported  in studies  conducted
among the CRITFC, Tulalip Tribes,  Squaxin Island
Tribe,  and the Asian Pacific  Island population of
King  County   (Duncan,  2000).     This  disparity
illustrates  the  high degree   of  variability   found
between tribes even within a small geographic region
(Puget Sound) and indicates that exposure and risk
assessors should exercise  care when imputing fish
consumption rates to a population of interest using
data from tribal studies.
        An  important attribute of this survey is that
it provides consumption rates by individual type of
fish and shellfish.   It is  important to note that the
report indicates that increased levels of development
as well as pollutants from residential, industrial, and
commercial uses have resulted in degraded habitats
and harvesting restrictions.  Despite degraded water
quality and habitat, tribal members continue to  rely
on fish and shellfish as a significant part of their diet.
A limitation of this study is that the sample size for
children was fairly  small (31 children).

10.6.8   Polissar et al, 2006 - A Fish  Consumption
        Survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin Island
        Tribes  of  the  Puget  Sound  Region-
        Consumption  Rates for  Fish-consumers
        Only
        Using fish consumption data from the Toy et
al. (1996) survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin Island
tribes  of Puget  Sound, Polissar et  al.  (2006)
calculated consumption rates for various fish species
groups, considering only the consumers of fish within
each group.  Weight-adjusted consumption rates were
calculated by tribe, age, gender, and species groups.
Species groups (anadromous, bottom, pelagic,  and
shellfish) were defined by life history and distribution
in the  water column.  Data were  available for 69
children, birth to <6 years of age; 18 of these children
had no reported fish consumption and were excluded
from the analysis.  Thus, estimated fish consumption
rates are based on  data for 51 children; 15 from the
Tulalip tribe and 36 from the  Squaxin Island tribe.
Both median and  mean fish consumption rates for
adults and children within each tribe were calculated
in terms of grams  per kilogram of body weight per
day (g/kg-day). Anadromous fish and  shellfish were
the groups of fish most frequently consumed by both
tribes and genders.  Consumption  per body weight
varied  by gender  (males consumed more) and age
(35-64 years consumed more than those younger and
older).  The  consumption rates for groups  of fish
differed between  the tribes.   The distribution of
consumption rates  was skewed toward large values.
In the  Tulalip Tribes,  the  estimated adult mean
consumption rate for all forms of fish combined was
1.0 g/kg-day, and  in the Squaxin  Island tribe, the
estimated mean rate was also 1.0 g/kg-day (Table 10-
94).   Table 10-95 presents consumption  rates for
adults by species and gender.  Tables 10-96 and 10-97
show consumption  rates for adults by species and age
for  the  Squaxin  Island   and  Tulalip  tribes,
respectively.   The  mean consumption rate for the
Tulalip children was 0.45  g/kg-day and 2.9 g/kg-/day
for the Squaxin Island children (Table 10-98). Table
10-99 presents consumption  rates  for children by
species and gender.
        Because this study used the data originally
Page
10-44
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
generated by Toy et al. (1996) the  advantages and
limitations associated with the  Toy et al.  (1996)
study, as described in Section 10.6.6, also apply to
this study.  However, an advantage  of this study is
that  the  consumption  rates   are  based  only  on
individuals who consumed fish within  the selected
categories.

10.7    OTHER POPULATION STUDIES
10.7.1   U.S. EPA, 1999 - Asian & Pacific Islander
        seafood consumption study in King County,
        WA
        This study was  conducted to obtain seafood
consumption rates,  species,  and  seafood  parts
consumed, and  cooking  methods used for the Asian
and Pacific  Islander  (API)  community.  Participants
were seafood consumers who were first or  second
generation members  of the API ethnic group,  18
years  of age or older,  and lived in King County,
Washington. API's represent one  of the most diverse
and rapidly  growing immigrant  populations  in the
United States. In 1997 API's (166,000) accounted for
10 percent of King County's population, an increase
from 8 percent in 1990. Between 1990 and 1997, the
total population of King Country  increased by 9
percent while the population of API's increased by 43
percent (State  of  Washington Population  Trends,
1998).
        This study was conducted in three phases.
Phase I focused on identifying target ethnic  groups
and developing appropriate  questionnaires  in  the
language required for each ethnic group.  Phase II
focused  on  characterizing  seafood  consumption
patterns  for  10 API ethnic   groups  (Cambodian,
Chinese,  Filipino,   Hmong,   Japanese,  Korean,
Laotian, Mien,  Samoan,  and Vietnamese) within the
study area. Phase III focused on developing culturally
appropriate  health  messages   on risks related  to
seafood   consumption   and   disseminating  this
information for the API  community.  The majority of
the  202  respondents  (89  percent)  were  first
generation (i.e., born outside  the U.S.). There were
slightly more  women (53  percent) than men  (47
percent) and 35 percent lived under the 1997 Federal
Poverty Level (FPL).
        In general, it was found that API members
consumed seafood at a very high rate. As shown in
Table  10-100, the mean overall consumption rate for
all seafood  combined was 1.9 grams/per kilogram
body   weight/day   (g/kg/day),  with  a   median
consumption rate of  1.4 g/kg/day. The  predominant
seafood consumed was  shellfish (46 percent of all
seafood).  The  API   community consumed  more
shellfish (average consumption rate of 0.87 g/kg/day)
than all finfish combined (an average  rate of 0.82
g/kg/day). Within the category of finfish, pelagic fish
were consumed most by the API members, mean of
0.38 g/kg/day  (median 0.22 g/kg/day), followed by
anadromous fish with a mean consumption rate  of
0.20 g/kg/day (median  0.09  g/kg/day).  The  mean
consumption for freshwater fish was 0.11 g/kg/day
(median 0.04 g/kg/day), and bottom fish was 0.13
g/kg/day  (median 0.05 g/kg/day). Individuals in the
lowest income level (under the FPL) consumed more
seafood than those in higher income levels (1-2, 2-3,
and >3 times the FPL), but the difference was  not
statistically significant.
        In an effort to  capture  the  participants
consuming large  quantities of  seafood,  the  survey
participants were classified as higher (n=44) or lower
(n=158) consumers of shellfish or  finfish based on
their consumption rates being >75th (higher) or <75th
(lower) percentile. Table 10-101  shows that people in
the  >55  years  old category  had  the greatest
percentage for high consumers  of finfish; they had
approximately  the  same percentage as  other age
groups for shellfish. The  Japanese  had a greater
percentage (52 percent) for  higher finfish consumers
and  Vietnamese (50 percent)  were in  the  higher
shellfish consumer category.
        Table  10-102 presents seafood consumption
rates  by  ethnicity.  In  general, members  of  the
Vietnamese  and  Japanese communities  had  the
highest  overall  consumption  rate,  averaging  2.6
g/kg/day  (median  2.4 g/kg/day) and 2.2  g/kg/day
(median 1.8 g/kg/day), respectively.
        Table  10-103 presents consumption rates by
gender. The mean consumption rate for all seafood
for women was 1.8 g/kg/day (median 1.4 g/kg/day)
and 1.7 g/kg/day (median 1.3 g/kg/day) for men.
        Salmon and tuna were the  most frequently
consumed  finfish. More than  75  percent of  the
respondents consumed shrimp, crab, and squid. These
data are presented in Table 10-104.  For all  survey
participants, the head, bones, eggs,  and other organs
were consumed 20 percent of the time. Fillet without
skin was consumed 45 percent of the time and fillet
with skin, 55  percent  of  the  time.  Consumption
patterns of shellfish parts  varied depending on  the
type of shellfish (See Appendix 10B).
        Preparation methods were  also surveyed in
the  API  community.  The survey covered  two
categories of preparation methods: (1) baked, broiled,
roasted, or  poached and   (2)  canned, fried, raw,
smoked, or dried.  The  respondents  most frequently
prepared  their finfish and  shellfish  using the  bake,
boiled,  broiled,   roasted,  or   poached  method,
averaging 65 percent and 78 percent, respectively, for
these preparation methods (See Appendix 10B).
        The benefit of this  research is that it can be
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         10-45
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                          Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
used to improve API specific risk assessments. API
community members  consume  greater amounts  of
seafood  than the  general  population  and  these
consumption  patterns may pose a health risk  if the
consumed  seafood  is  contaminated  with  toxic
chemicals. Because the survey was based on recall,
the authors selected 20 respondents for a follow-up
re-interview. Its purpose was to  assess the reliability
of the responses.  The  results  of the  re-interview
suggest that,  based on the difference  in  means
between the original and re-interview responses, the
estimated  consumption  rates form  this  study  are
reliable.
        One  limitation associated with this study is
that  it is based on a relatively small  number  of
respondents  within each  ethnic group. Therefore,
extrapolation of data to other ethnic groups should be
used with caution.  Further study of the consumption
patterns and  preparation methods for the Hmong,
Laotian, Mien, and Vietnamese  communities is also
needed  because  of  potential  health  risks  from
contaminated seafood.

10.8    SERVING SIZE STUDIES
10.8.1   Pao  et al, 1982 - Foods Commonly Eaten
        in the United States: Amount Per Day and
        Per Eating Occasion
        Pao et al. (1982) used the 1977-78 NFCS to
examine  the  quantity of fish consumed per eating
occasion.  For each individual consuming fish  in the
3 day survey period, the quantity of  fish consumed
per eating occasion was derived by dividing the total
reported fish intake over  the 3 day  period by the
number of occasions the individual  reported eating
fish.   The distributions, by  age and sex, for the
quantity of fish consumed per  eating occasion are
displayed in Table  10-105 (Pao et al.,  1982). For the
general population, the  average quantity  of fish
consumed per fish meal was  117 g, with a 95th
percentile of 284 g. Males in the age groups 19-34,
35-64 and 65-74 years had the  highest  average and
95th percentile quantities among the age-sex groups
presented.  It should be noted that the  serving size
data from this analysis has been superceded by the
analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII data conducted
by Smiciklas-Wright et al. (2002).

10.8.2   Smiciklas-Wright  et  al,  2002  -  Foods
        Commonly Eaten  in  the  United States:
        Quantities Consumed per Eating Occasion
        and in a Day,1994-1996
        Using data gathered in the 1994-96 USDA
CSFII, Smiciklas-Wright et al. (2002)   calculated
distributions for the quantities  of canned  tuna and
other finfish  consumed per  eating  occasion by
members of the U.S. population (i.e., serving sizes),
over a 2-day period.  The estimates of serving size
are based on data obtained from 14,262 respondents,
ages 2 years and above, who provided 2  days  of
dietary intake information.  Only dietary intake data
from users of the specified food were used in the
analysis (i.e., consumers only data).
        Table  10-106 and Table  10-107  present
serving size data for canned tuna and other finfish,
respectively.   These data are  presented on an as-
consumed basis  (grams), and represent the  quantity
of fish consumed per  eating  occasion.   These
estimates may be useful for assessing acute exposures
to  contaminants  in  specific  foods,  or  other
assessments where the amount consumed per eating
occasion is necessary.
        The advantages of using these data are that
they  were  derived from  the USDA CSFII  and are
representative of the U.S. population.   The  analysis
conducted   by   Smiciklas-Wright   et  al.   (2002)
accounted   for   individual  foods   consumed   as
ingredients  of  mixed  foods.   Mixed foods were
disaggregated via recipe files so that the individual
ingredients could be grouped together with similar
foods that were reported separately. Thus, weights of
foods consumed as ingredients were combined with
weights of foods  reported  separately to provide  a
more  thorough  representation   of  consumption.
However, it should be noted that since the recipes for
the mixed foods consumed by respondents were not
provided by the respondents, standard  recipes were
used. As a result, the estimates of the quantity  of
some food types are based on assumptions about the
types and quantities of ingredients consumed as part
of mixed foods.

10.9     OTHER  FACTORS   TO  CONSIDER
        FOR FISH CONSUMPTION
        Other factors  to consider when using the
available  survey  data  include  location,   climate,
season,  and ethnicity  of the  angler or consumer
population, as well as the parts of fish consumed and
the methods of preparation.  Some contaminants (for
example,  persistent,  bioaccumulative,  and  toxic
contaminants such as  dioxins and  polychlorinated
biphenyls)  have  the affinity to accumulate  more in
certain tissues, such as the fatty tissue, as well as in
certain internal  organs.   The  effects of  cooking
methods for various  food products on the levels  of
dioxin-like  compounds  have  been  addressed by
evaluating a number of studies in U.S. EPA (2003).
These   studies    showed   various    results   for
contamination losses based on the methodology  of
the study and the method of food preparation.  The
Page
10-46
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
reader is referred to U.S. EPA (2003) for a detailed
review of these studies.
        In addition, some studies suggest that there
is  a significant decrease of contaminants in cooked
fish when compared  with raw fish (San  Diego
County, 1990).  Several studies cited in this section
have addressed fish preparation methods and parts of
fish consumed.   Table 10-108  provides summary
results  from  these   studies   on  fish  preparation
methods; further details on preparation methods, as
well as results from some studies on parts of fish
consumed, are presented in Appendix 10B.
        Users of the  data presented in this chapter
should ensure that consistent units are used for intake
rate and concentration of contaminants in fish.  The
following sections provide information on converting
between wet weight and dry weight, and between wet
weight and lipid weight.

10.9.1  Conversion Between Wet and Dry Weight
        The intake data presented in this chapter is
reported in units of wet weight (i.e., as-consumed or
uncooked weight of fish consumed per day  or per
eating occasion). However, data on the concentration
of contaminants  in fish may be reported  in units of
either wet or dry weight (e.g., mg contaminant per
gram-dry-weight offish).  It is essential that exposure
assessors be aware of this difference so that they may
ensure consistency between the units used for intake
rates and those used for concentration data (i.e., if the
contaminant concentration is measured in dry weight
of fish, then the  dry weight units should be used for
fish intake values).
        If necessary, wet weight (e.g., as-consumed)
intake rates may be converted to dry  weight intake
rates   using   the  moisture   content percentages
presented in  Table   10-109  and  the  following
equation:
             =IR
              J-/v
100 -W
  100
                              (Eqn. 10-4)
where:
        IRdw  =   dry weight intake rate;
        IRww  =   wet weight intake rate; and
        W    =   percent water content.

Alternately, dry weight residue levels in fish may be
converted to wet  weight residue levels for use with
wet  weight  (e.g.,  as-consumed)  intake  rates,  as
follows:
c   = r   I 100-1
^~"ww   ^a\
               -dw
                     100
                                      (Eqn. 10-5)
                                                where:
                                                        Cww  =   wet weight intake rate;
                                                        Cdw  =   dry weight intake rate; and
                                                        W    =   percent water content.

                                                       The  moisture content data presented in Table
                                                10-110are for selected fish taken from USD A,  2007.
                                                The moisture content is based on the percent of water
                                                present.

                                                10.9.2  Conversion  Between Wet Weight  and
                                                        Lipid Weight Intake Rates
                                                        The total fat content (percent)  measured
                                                and/or calculated in various fish forms  (i.e., raw,
                                                cooked, smoked,  etc.) for selected fish species are
                                                presented in Table 10-109, based on data from USDA
                                                (2007).   The total percent fat content is based on the
                                                sum    of    saturated,    monounsaturated,    and
                                                polyunsaturated fat.  The moisture content is  based
                                                on the percent of water present.
                                                        In  some   cases,  the  residue   levels  of
                                                contaminants in fish are reported as the concentration
                                                of  contaminant  per gram  of fat.   This may be
                                                particularly  true for lipophilic compounds.   When
                                                using these residue levels, the assessor should ensure
                                                consistency  in the exposure assessment calculations
                                                by  using consumption rates that are based on the
                                                amount of  fat consumed for  the  fish product  of
                                                interest.
                                                        If necessary, wet weight (e.g., as-consumed)
                                                intake rates  may be converted to lipid weight intake
                                                rates  using the fat content percentages presented in
                                                Table 10-109 and the following equation:
                                                                     L 1             (Eqn. 10-6)
                                                                     100
                                                        where:
        IRiw  =   lipid weight intake rate;
        IRww  =   wet weight intake rate; and
        L     =   percent lipid (fat) content.

Alternately, wet weight residue levels in fish may be
estimated by multiplying the levels based on fat by
the fraction of fat per product as follows:
                                      (Eqn. 10-7)
                                                where:
                                                                L
                                                                   100
                                                              =   wet weight intake rate;
                                                              =   lipid weight intake rate; and
                                                              =   percent lipid (fat) content.
                                                        The resulting residue  levels may then be  used in
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                           Page
                                                                                          10-47
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                         Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
conjunction  with wet  weight  (e.g.,  as-consumed)
consumption  rates.    The  total  fat  content  data
presented in Table 10-109 are for selected fish taken
from USD A, 2007.

10.10   REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10
Alabama  Dept.  of  Environmental  Management.
        Estimation of  daily per capita freshwater
        fish  consumption  of  Alabama  anglers.
        Montgomery, AL.
Alcoa  (1998) Draft report  for the finfish/shellfish
        consumption    study    Alcoa    (Point
        Comfort)/Lavaca  Bay   Superfund   Site,
        Volume  B7b:  Bay System  Investigation
        Phase 2. Point Comfort,  TX: Aluminum
        Company of America.
Balcom, N.; Capacchione, C; Hirsch D.W. (1999)
        Quantification of seafood consumption rates
        for Connecticut.   Report prepared for the
        Connecticut Department  of Environmental
        Protection, Office  of Long  Island Sound
        Programs, Hartford, CT Contract No. CWF-
        332-R.
Benson, S.; Crocker,  C.; Erjavec,  I;  Jensen, R.R.;
        Nyberg,   C.M.; Wixo,  C.Y.; Zola,  J.M.
        (2001) Fish consumption survey: Minnesota
        and North Dakota.  Report prepared for the
        U.S.  Department of Energy by the Energy
        and   Environmental   Research   Center,
        University of North Dakota,  Grand Forks,
        ND. DOE Cooperative Agreement No, DE-
        FC26-98FT40321.
Burger J. (2000)  Gender differences in meal patterns:
        Role of serf-caught fish and  wild game in
        meat and fish diets.  Environ Res 83:140-9.
Burger, J.  and  Gochfeld, M.   (1991)  Fishing  a
        Superfund  site:  Dissonance   and  risk
        perception of  environmental hazards by
        fishermen  in  Puerto  Rico.    Risk  Anal
        11:269-77.
Burger, J., Cooper, K., and Gochfeld, M.   (1992)
        Exposure  assessment  for  heavy  metal
        ingestion from sport  fish  in Puerto  Rico:
        Estimating risk for local fishermen.   J.
        Toxicol Environ Health 36:355-65.
Burger, J., Sanchez, J., and Gochfeld, M.   (1998)
        Fishing,  consumption, and risk perception in
        fisherfolk  along an  East Coast estuary.
        Environ Res 77:25-35.
Burger, J., Stephens, W.L., Boring,  C.S., Kuklinski,
        M., Gibbons, J.W., and Gochfeld, M. (1999)
        Factors in exposure assessment: Ethnic and
        socioeconomic differences in fishing and
        consumption  of fish caught  along  the
        Savannah River.  Risk Analysis 19 (3) 427-
        438.
Campbell, K., Dickey, R., and Sexton, R.  (2002)
        Fishing along the Clinch River Arm of Watts
        Reservoir  Adjacent  to  the  Oak  Ridge
        Reservation,      Tennessee:     Behavior,
        Knowledge and  Risk Perception.  Sci Total
        Environ 299:145-61.
ChemRisk  (1992)  Consumption of freshwater fish
        by Maine  anglers,  a  Technical  Report.
        Portland,  ME:    ChemRisk,  a  division  of
        Mclaren/Hart. Revised July 24, 1994,
Chiang, A.  (1998) A seafood consumption survey of
        the  Laotian  community of  West  Contra
        Costa  County,   CA.     Asian  Pacific
        Environmental Network, Oakland.
Columbia  River   Inter-Tribal  Fish   Commission
        (CRITFC)   (1994) A  fish   consumption
        survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama
        and Warm Springs tribes of  the Columbia
        River Basin.    Technical   Report  94-3.
        Portland, OR: CRITFC.
Connelly, N.A.; Knuth, B.A.; Bisogni, C.A.  (1992)
        Effects of the health advisory and advisory
        changes   on  fishing  habits   and  fish
        consumption in  New York sport fisheries.
        Human    Dimension    Research   Unit,
        Department of Natural Resources, New York
        State  College   of Agriculture  and  Life
        Sciences,  Fernow Hall,  Cornell University,
        Ithaca, NY.  Report for the New York Sea
        Grant Institute  Project  No.  R/FHD-2-PD.
        September.
Connelly, N.A.; Knuth, B.A.;  Brown, T.L.  (1996)
        Sporrfish  consumption  patterns  of  Lake
        Ontario  anglers  and the  relationship  to
        health advisories.    N. Am. J. Fisheries
        Management, 16:90-101.
Degner, R.L.;  Adams, C.M.; Moss, S.D.; Mack, S.K.
        (1994) Per   capita  fish   and  shellfish
        consumption in  Florida. Gainesville, FL:
        University of Florida.
Duncan, M. (2000) Fish consumption survey of the
        Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison
        Indian Reservation, Puget  Sound Region.
        Squamish,  WA:  The Suquamish Tribe, Port
        Madison Indian Reservation.
Ebert,  E.; Harrington, N.;  Boyle,  K.;  Knight,  J.;
        Keenan, R. (1993)  Estimating consumption
        of freshwater fish among Maine anglers.  N.
        Am. J. Fisheries Management  13:737-745.
Fiore, B.J.; Anderson, H.A.; Hanrahan, L.P.; Olsen,
        L.J.;  Sonzogni,  WC.   (1989)   Sport fish
        consumption and body  burden levels  of
        chlorinated  hydrocarbons:    A study  of
        Wisconsin anglers. Arch. Environ.  Health
Page
10-48
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
        44:82-88.
Fitzgerald, E.; Hwang, S.A.; Briz, K.A.;  Bush,  B.;
        Cook, K.; Worswick, P.  (1995)  Fish PCB
        concentrations and consumption patterns
        among Mohawk  women at Akwesasne.   J.
        Exp. Anal. Environ. Epid. 5(1): 1-19.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (1993) Hudson
        River angler  survey.   Hudson River Sloop
        Clearwater, Inc., Poughkeepsie, NY.
Javitz,  H.    (1980)   Seafood  consumption data
        analysis.   SRI International.  Final report
        prepared   for  EPA  Office   of  Water
        Regulations   and  Standards.    U.S.  EPA
        Contract 68-01-3 887.
KCA Research Division (1994) Fish consumption of
        Delaware  recreational fishermen and their
        households.    Prepared  for  the  State  of
        Delaware, Department of Natural  Resources
        and Environmental Control in support of the
        Delaware Estuary Program, Dover, DE.
LSRO  (1995)  Life   Sciences  Research  Office,
        Federation  of  American  Societies   for
        Experimental  Biology Prepared for  the
        Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring
        and  Related  Research.  Third Report  on
        Nutrition Monitoring in  the United States:
        Volume 1. U.S. Government Printing Office,
        Washington, DC.
Moya, J.; Itkin,  C.;  Selevan, S.G.; Rogers,  J.W;
        Clickner,   R.P  (2008) Estimates of  fish
        consumption rates for consumers  of bought
        and serf-caught fish in Connecticut, Florida,
        Minnesota, and  North Dakota.   Sci  Tot
        Environ (in press).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1986a)
        Fisheries   of  the United States,  1985.
        Current Fisheries  Statistics No. 8368.  U.S.
        Department   of   Commerce.      National
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1986b)
        National Marine  Fisheries Service.  Marine
        Recreational   Fishery  Statistics  Survey,
        Atlantic and  Gulf Coasts, 1985.  Current
        Fisheries   Statistics   No.   8327.    U.S.
        Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
        and Atmospheric Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1986c)
        National Marine  Fisheries Service.  Marine
        Recreational   Fishery  Statistics  Survey,
        Pacific Coast. Current Fisheries Statistics
        No. 8328.  U.S. Department of Commerce,
        National    Oceanic   and   Atmospheric
        Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1993)
        Data tapes for the 1993 NMFS provided to
        U.S.    EPA,    National    Center    for
        Environmental Assessments.
Pao, E.M.; Fleming,  K.H.; Guenther, P.M.; Mickle,
        S.J.  (1982)  Foods  commonly  eaten  by
        individuals: amount per day and per eating
        occasion.  U.S.  Department of Agriculture.
        Home Economic Report No. 44.
Peterson, D.; Kanarek, M.; Kuykendall, M.; Diedrich,
        J.; Anderson, H.; Remington, P.;  Sheffy, T.
        (1994) Fish consumption patterns and blood
        mercury  levels  in  Wisconsin  Chippewa
        Indians. Archives.  Environ. Health,  49:53-
        58.
Pierce, R.S.;  Noviello,  D.T.;  Rogers, S.H.   (1981)
        Commencement Bay  seafood consumption
        report.  Preliminary report.  Tacoma, WA:
        Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.
Polissar,  N.L.; Neradilek, B.; Liao, S.; Toy, K.A.;
        Mittelstaedt,   GD.   (2006)      A   fish
        consumption  survey  of  the  Tulalip  and
        Squaxin Island  tribes of  the Puget  Sound
        region  -  Consumption   rates  for  fish-
        consumers  only.     Report  prepared  by
        Mountain-Whisper-Light         Statistical
        Consulting, Seattle, WA.
Price, P.;  Su, S.; Gray, M.  (1994)  The  effects of
        sampling  bias  on  estimates  of  angler
        consumption   rates  in   creel   surveys.
        Portland, ME: ChemRisk.
Puffer, H.W., Azen, S.P; Duda, M.J.; Young, D.R.
        (1981)  Consumption rates  of potentially
        hazardous   marine  fish   caught in   the
        metropolitan Los Angeles  area.  U.S. EPA
        Grant #R807 120010.
Ruffle, B.; Burmaster, D.; Anderson, P.; Gordon, D.
        (1994)  Lognormal  distributions for  fish
        consumption by  the general U.S. population.
        Risk Analysis 14(4):395-404.
Rupp, E.; Miler, F.L.; Baes, C.F. III.  (1980)  Some
        results of recent surveys of fish and shellfish
        consumption by age and region of U.S.
        residents. Health Physics 39:165-175.
San Diego County.  (1990) San Diego Bay health risk
        study.  San Diego, CA.  San Diego County
        Department of Health Services.
Santa Monica  Bay  Restoration Project.    (1994)
        Seafood consumption habits of recreational
        anglers in  Santa Monica Bay, Los Angeles,
        CA.  Final Report. June 1994.
San  Francisco  Estuary  Institute  (SFEI).   (2000)
        Technical report: San Francisco Bay seafood
        consumption report.   California Dept.  of
        Health Services, Env. Health Investigators
        Branch, San Francisco, CA.
Smiciklas-Wright, H.; Mitchell,  D.C.; Mickle, S.J.;
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         10-49
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                         Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
        Cook, A.J.;  Goldman,  J.D.  (2002)  Foods
        commonly eaten in the United States 1994-
        1996:  Quantities  consumed  per  eating
        occasion and in a day. U.S. Department of
        Agriculture.  Agricultural  Research Center
        NFS Report No. 96-5, 264 pp.
Toy, K.A.; Polissar, N.L.; Liao, S.; Mittelstaedt, G.D.
        (1996) A fish  consumption survey  of the
        Tulalip and  Squaxin Island  Tribes of the
        Puget Sound Region.   Marysville,  WA:
        Tulalip Tribes, Department of Environment.
Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E.   (1996) Results  tables
        from  a detailed analysis of the  National
        Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)
        response.  Draft Report prepared for the U.S.
        Environmental    Protection   Agency  by
        Lockheed Martin, Contract No. 68-W6-001,
        Delivery Order No.  13.
Tuna Research Foundation (TRF). (1975)  Seafood
        Consumption  Survey.   National Purchase
        Diary Panel, Inc., Schaumburg, IL.
USDA.   (1989-1991)  Continuing Survey  of Food
        Intakes  by  Individuals  (CSFII).    U.S.
        Department of Agriculture.
USDA.  (1992a)  Changes in food consumption and
        expenditures in American households during
        the  1980's. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
        Washington,  D.C.  Statistical Bulletin  No.
        849.
USDA.   (1992b)   Food and nutrient intakes by
        individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1987-
        88:  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human
        Nutrition  Information Service.  Nationwide
        Food Consumption  Survey 1987-88,  NFCS
        Rpt. No. 87.
USDA, Agricultural Research Service. (2007) USDA
        National  Nutrient  Database for  Standard
        Reference,  Release  20.  Nutrient   Data
        Laboratory          Home          Page:
        http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl.
U.S. DHHS.  (1995)  Final Report:  Health study to
        assess the human health effects of mercury
        exposure   to  fish   consumed  from  the
        Everglades.    Prepared  by  the  Florida
        Department of  Health  and  Rehabilitative
        Services for the U.S.  Department of Health
        and  Human  Services,   Atlanta,   Georgia.
        PB95-167276.
U.S. EPA. (1984) Ambient  water quality criteria for
        2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin.
        Washington,   DC:      Office   of  Water
        Regulations and Standards.  EPA 440/5-84-
        007.
U.S. EPA. (1995) Fish consumption estimates based
        on the 1991-92  Michigan sport anglers fish
        consumption study. Final Report. Prepared
        by SAIC  for  the  Office of  Science  and
        Technology.
U.S. EPA (1998) Guidance for conducting fish and
        wildlife consumption surveys.  Washington,
        DC: Office of Water. EPA-823-B-98-007.
U.S. EPA. (1999) Asian and Pacific Islander seafood
        consumption study in King County,  WA.
        Region 10; Seattle, Washington, EPA/910/R-
        99-003.
U.S.  EPA  (2002)  Estimated   Per  Capita  Fish
        Consumption  in   the   United   States.
        Washington,   DC:    Office  of  Water.
        EPA/82 l/C-02/003.
U.S.  EPA (2003)  Exposure  and  human  health
        reassessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
        p-dioxin (TCDD)  and related compounds,
        Part  1: Estimating exposure to dioxin-like
        compounds,    Volume    2:    Properties,
        environmental   levels,   and  background
        exposures.  (National Academy of Sciences
        Review Draft). Washington, DC:  Office of
        Research and Development, National Center
        for       Environmental       Assessment.
        www.epa. gov/NCEA/dioxin.
U.S. EPA (2005) Guidance  on selecting age groups
        for  monitoring and  assessing  childhood
        exposures  to environmental contaminants.
        Washington,   DC:  U.S.   Environmental
        Protection Agency. EPA/630/P-03/003F.
West, PC.; Fly, M.J.; Marans, R.; Larkin, F. (1989)
        Michigan  sport anglers  fish  consumption
        survey.  A report  to the Michigan Toxic
        Substance  Control Commission.   Michigan
        Department  of Management  and Budget
        Contract No. 87-20141.
West,  PC.;  Fly,   J.M.; Marans, R.; Larkin,  F.;
        Rosenblatt, D.   (1993)   1991-92  Michigan
        sport  anglers   fish  consumption  study.
        Prepared  by the University of  Michigan,
        School  of  Natural  Resources  for  the
        Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
        Ann  Arbor, MI.   Technical Report No. 6.
        May.
Westat.   (2006) Fish consumption in Connecticut,
        Florida, Minnesota, and North Dakota: Draft
        final  report.  July 16, 2006.   Submitted by
        Westat,  Rockville,  MD   to  EPA/ORD,
        Washington, DC.
Williams,  R.,  O'Leary,  J., Sheaffer, A., and Mason,
        D.  (1999) Consumption of Indiana sport
        caught fish:  Mail survey of resident license
        holders.   Technical Report 99-D-HDFW-l.
        Dept.  of Forestry and Natural Resources,
        West Lafayette, IN.
Page
10-50
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Williams, R., O'Leary,  J., Sheaffer, A., and Mason,
        D.     (2000)  An   examination  of  fish
        consumption   by   Indiana   recreational
        anglers: An onsite survey. Technical Report
        99-D-HDFW-2.   Dept.  of Forestry  and
        Natural Resources, Purdue University, West
        Lafayette, IN.
Wolfe,   R.J.;  Walker,  R.J.    (1987)  Subsistence
        economics   in  Alaska:     productivity,
        geography,   and   development   impacts.
        Arctic Anthropology 24(2):56-81.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                              Page
July 2009	10-51
-------
                                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                             Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                Table 10-7. Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for the
                                         U.S. Population (As Prepared)
                 Habitat
Statistic
                                                            Estimate (90% Interval)
      Finfish
    Shellfish
           Fresh/Estuarine
           Marine
           All Fish
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%

Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%

Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
   2.6(2.3-2.8)
   0.0(0.0-0.0)
   0.0(0.0-0.0)
   6.7(5.3-9.3)
  67.2(63.5-75.5)

   6.6(6.1-7.0)
   0.0(0.0-0.0)
  26.3(24.3-27.4)
  46.1(43.1-47.5)
 94.7(89.8-100.4)

   9.1(8.6-9.7)
   0.0(0.0-0.0)
  34.8(31.4-36.6)
  59.8(57.5-61.6)
126.3(120.6-130.1)
  2.0(1.8-2.3)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
  0.0 (0.0 - 0.2)
 9.6(7.9-10.6)
59.3(51.5-64.0)

  1.7(1.3-2.0)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
67.9(51.6-84.5)

  3.7(3.2-4.2)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
22.6(17.2-26.3)
90.6(82.9-95.7)
           Note:    Percentile confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrap method with 1,000
                    replications. Estimates are projected from a sample of 20,607 individuals to the U.S.
                    population of 261,897,236 using 4-year combined survey weights.

           Source:  U.S. EPA, 2002.
Page
10-52
                                            Exposure Factors Handbook
                                           	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-8. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption U.S. Population - Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat -As Prepared Fish
Habitat
Estuarine




















Freshwater













Marine








Species
Shrimp
Flounder
Catfish (Estuarine)
Flatfish (Estuarine)
Crab (Estuarine)
Perch (Estuarine)
Oyster
Herring
Croaker
Trout, mixes sp.
Salmon (Estuarine)
Rockfish
Anchovy
Clam (Estuarine)
Mullet
Smelts (Estuarine)
Eel
Scallop (Estuarine)
Smelts, Rainbow
Sturgeon (Estuarine)

Catfish (Freshwater)
Trout
Perch (Freshwater)
Carp
Trout, mixed sp.
Pike
Whitefish (Freshwater)
Crayfish
Snails (Freshwater)
Cisco
Salmon (Freshwater)
Smelts, Rainbow
Sturgeon (Freshwater)

Tuna
Cod
Salmon (Marine)
Clam (Marine)
Pollock
Porgy
Haddock
Crab (Marine)
Whiting
Estimated Mean
Grams/Person/Day
1.63012
0.45769
0.34065
0.27860
0.17971
0.12882
0.11615
0.09409
0.08798
0.08582
0.05059
0.03437
0.02976
0.02692
0.02483
0.00415
0.00255
0.00100
0.00037
0.00013

0.34065
0.15832
0.12882
0.09584
0.08582
0.02958
0.00988
0.00575
0.00198
0.00160
0.00053
0.00037
0.00013

2.62988
1.12504
1.01842
1.00458
0.27685
0.27346
0.25358
0.20404
0.20120
Habitat
Marine (Cont)



















Unknown


All Species




















Species
Lobster
Scallop (Marine)
Squid
Ocean Perch
Sea Bass
Mackerel
Swordfish
Sardine
Pompano
Flatfish (Marine)
Mussels
Octopus
Halibut
Snapper
Whitefish (Marine)
Smelts (Marine)
Shark
Snails (Marine)
Conch
Roe

Fish
Seafood

Tuna
Shrimp
Cod
Salmon (Marine)
Clam (Marine)
Flounder
Catfish (Estuarine)
Catfish (Freshwater)
Flatfish (Estuarine)
Pollock
Porgy
Haddock
Fish
Crab (Marine)
Whiting
Crab (Estuarine)
Trout
Lobster
Scallop (Marine)
Perch (Estuarine)
Estimated Mean
Grams/Person/Day
0.15725
0.14813
0.12121
0.11135
0.09766
0.08780
0.07790
0.07642
0.07134
0.05216
0.05177
0.04978
0.02649
0.02405
0.00988
0.00415
0.00335
0.00198
0.00155
0.00081

0.23047
0.00203

2.62988
1.63012
1.12504
1.01842
1.00458
0.45769
0.34065
0.34065
0.27860
0.27685
0.27346
0.25358
0.23047
0.20404
0.20120
0.17971
0.15832
0.15725
0.14813
0.12882
Habitat
All Species
(Cont)










































Species
Perch (Freshwater)
Squid
Oyster
Ocean Perch
Sea Bass
Carp
Herring
Croaker
Mackerel
Trout (Estuarine)
Trout (Freshwater)
Swordfish
Sardine
Pompano
Flatfish (Marine)
Mussels
Salmon (Estuarine)
Octopus
Rockfish
Anchovy
Pike
Clam (Estuarine)
Halibut
Mullet
Snapper
Whitefish (Freshwater)
Whitefish (Marine)
Crayfish
Smelts (Estuarine)
Smelts (Marine)
Shark
Eel
Seafood
Snails (Freshwater)
Snails (Marine)
Cisco
Conch
Scallop (Estuarine)
Roe
Salmon (Freshwater)
Smelts, Rainbow (Est.)
Smelts, Rainbow
Sturgeon (Estuarine)
Sturgeon (Freshwater)
Estimated Mean
Grams/Person/Day
0.12882
0.12121
0.11615
0.11135
0.09766
0.09584
0.09409
0.08798
0.08780
0.08582
0.08582
0.07790
0.07642
0.07134
0.05216
0.05177
0.05059
0.04978
0.03437
0.02976
0.02958
0.02692
0.02649
0.02483
0.02405
0.00988
0.00988
0.00575
0.00415
0.00415
0.00335
0.00255
0.00203
0.00198
0.00198
0.00160
0.00155
0.00100
0.00081
0.00053
0.00037
0.00037
0.00013
0.00013
Notes: Estimates are projected from a sample of 20,607 individuals to the U.S. population of 261,897,236 using 4-year combined survey weights.
Source of individual consumption data: USDA Combined 1994-1996,1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).
The fish component of foods containing fish was calculated using data from the recipe file of the USDA's Nutrient Data Base for Individual Food Intake Surveys.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
10-53
-------
                                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                             Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                Table 10-9.  Per Capita Distribution of Fish Intake (g/day) by Habitat and Fish Type for the
                                     U.S. Population (Uncooked Fish Weight)
                  Habitat
Statistic
                                                            Estimate (90% Interval)
      Finfish
     Shellfish
            Fresh/Estuarine
            Marine
            All Fish
Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%

Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%

Mean
50th%
90th%
95th%
99th%
   3.6 (3.2-4.0)
   0.0(0.0-0.0)
   0.0 (0.00 - 0.7)
  14.1(10.0-16.8)
 95.3(80.7-100.8)

   9.0(8.4-9.6)
   0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
  37.5(35.7-37.6)
  62.9(61.3-65.5)
128.4(119.3-135.8)

  12.6(11.9-13.3)
   0.0(0.0-0.0)
  48.7(45.3-50.4)
  81.8(79.5-85.0)
173.6(168.0-183.4)
  2.7(2.4-3.1)
  0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
 12.8(10.5-13.8)
 77.0(69.7-84.1)

  1.6(1.2-2.0)
  0.0 (0.0 - 0.0)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
 54.8(33.1-80.6)

  4.3(3.7-4.9)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
  0.0(0.0-0.0)
 23.2(18.3-28.3)
110.5(93.1-112.9)
            Note:    Percentile confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrap method with 1,000
                     replications. Estimates are projected from a sample of 20,607 individuals to the U.S.
                     population of 261,897,236 using 4-year combined survey weights.

            Source:   U.S. EPA, 2002.
Page
10-54
                                             Exposure Factors Handbook
                                            	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-10. Daily Average Per Capita Estimates of Fish Consumption U. S . Population - Mean Consumption by Species Within Habitat - Uncooked Fish
TT . . ,, . Estimated Mean TT , • ~ Estimated Mean TT , •
Habitat Species ^ „ _ Habitat Species ^ „ _ Habitat
Grams/Person/Day Grams/Person/Day
Estuarine Shrimp 2.20926
Flounder 0.58273
Catfish (Estuarine) 0.48928
Flatfish (Estuarine) 0.33365
Crab (Estuarine) 0.25382
Perch (Estuarine) 0.18148
Oyster 0.13963
Croaker 0.13730
Herring 0.13298
Trout, mixes sp. 0.11908
Salmon (Estuarine) 0.06898
Rockfish 0.04448
Anchovy 0.04334
Mullet 0.03617
Clam (Estuarine) 0.01799
Smelts (Estuarine) 0.00611
Eel 0.00324
Scallop (Estuarine) 0.00128
Smelts, Rainbow 0.00052
Sturgeon (Estuarine) 0.00013

Freshwater Catfish (Freshwater) 0.48928
Trout 0.19917
Perch (Freshwater) 0.18148
Carp 0.13406
Trout, mixed sp. 0.11908
Pike 0.03260
Whitefish (Freshwater) 0.00995
Crayfish 0.00746
Snails (Freshwater) 0.00249
Cisco 0.00234
Salmon (Freshwater) 0.00073
Smelts, Rainbow 0.00052
Sturgeon (Freshwater) 0.00013

Marine Tuna 3.61778
Cod 1 .47734
Salmon (Marine) 1 .38873
Clam (Marine) 0.67135
Porgy 0.40148
Pollock 0.32878
Haddock 0.32461
Crab (Marine) 0.28818
Whiting 0.25725
Notes: Estimates are projected from a sample of 20,607 indiv
Marine (Cont) Lobster 0.21290 All Species
Scallop (Marine) 0.18951 (Cont)
Squid 0.15438
Ocean Perch 0.14074
Sea Bass 0.12907
Mackerel 0.11468
Sardine 0.10565
Swordfish 0.10193
Pompano 0.09905
Mussels 0.07432
Octopus 0.06430
Flatfish (Marine) 0.06247
Halibut 0.03226
Snapper 0.02739
Whitefish (Marine) 0.00995
Smelts (Marine) 0.00611
Shark 0.00424
Snails (Marine) 0.00249
Conch 0.00207
Roe 0.00102
Unknown
Fish 0.60608
Seafood 0.00326
All Species
Tuna 3.61778
Shrimp 2.20926
Cod 1.47734
Salmon (Marine) 1.38873
Clam (Marine) 0.67135
Flounder 0.60608
Catfish (Estuarine) 0.58273
Catfish (Freshwater) 0.48928
Porgy 0.48928
Flatfish (Estuarine) 0.40148
Pollock 0.33365
Haddock 0.32878
Fish 0.32461
Crab (Marine) 0.28818
Whiting 0.25725
Crab (Estuarine) 0.25382
Trout 0.21290
Lobster 0.19917
Scallop (Marine) 0. 1 895 1
Perch (Estuarine) 0. 1 8 148
duals to the U.S. population of 261,897,236 using 4-year combined survey weights.
Species
Perch (Freshwater)
Squid
Ocean Perch
Oyster
Croaker
Carp
Herring
Sea Bass
Trout (Estuarine)
Trout (Freshwater)
Mackerel
Sardine
Swordfish
Pompano
Mussels
Salmon (Estuarine)
Octopus
Flatfish (Marine)
Rockfish
Anchovy
Mullet
Pike
Halibut
Snapper
Clam (Estuarine)
Whitefish (Freshwater)
Whitefish (Marine)
Crayfish
Smelts (Estuarine)
Smelts (Marine)
Shark
Seafood
Eel
Snails (Freshwater)
Snails (Marine)
Cisco
Conch
Scallop (Estuarine)
Roe
Salmon (Freshwater)
Smelts, Rainbow (Est.)
Smelts, Rainbow
Sturgeon (Estuarine)
Sturgeon (Freshwater)

Estimated Mean
Grams/Person/Day
0.18148
0.15438
0.14074
0.13963
0.13730
0.13406
0.13298
0.12907
0.11908
0.11908
0.11468
0.10565
0.10193
0.09905
0.07432
0.06898
0.06430
0.06247
0.04448
0.04334
0.03617
0.03260
0.03226
0.02739
0.01799
0.00995
0.00995
0.00746
0.00611
0.00611
0.00424
0.00326
0.00324
0.00249
0.00249
0.00234
0.00207
0.00128
0.00102
0.00073
0.00052
0.00052
0.00013
0.00013

Source of individual consumption data: USDA Combined 1994-1996,1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).
Amount of consumed fish recorded by survey respondents was converted to uncooked fish quantities using data from the recipe file of USDAs Nutrient Data Base for Individual Food Intake Surveys.
The fish component of
foods containing fish was calculated using data from the recipe file of the USDAs Nutrient Data Base for Individual Food Intake Surveys.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2002.



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
10-55
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-11. Per Capita Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - As Prepared"
Age (years)
N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th % (90% BI)
99th % (90% BI)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

5,182
2,332
2,654
10,168

5,277
2,382
2,780
10,439

4,391
1,670
1,005
363
9,596
10,459
4,714
5,434
20,607

1.6(1.2-1.9)
4.3(3.4-5.1)
4.8(4.0-5.6)
3.9(3.3-4.4)

2.1(1.6-2.6)
5.7(4.8-6.6)
7.4(6.3-8.5)
5.3 (4.7-6.0)

1.5(1.2-1.8)
2.1(1.4-2.9)
3.0(2.2-3.8)
3.4(1.6-5.3)
5.5 (4.9-6.0)
1.8(1.5-2.1)
5.0 (4.4-5.6)
6.0 (5.2-6.7)
4.6 (4.2-5.0)

0.0(0.0-0.5)
5.1 (2.8-7.9)
11.8(5.7-16.8)
4.9(2.6-6.3)

0.0 (0.0-0.6)
10.4(9.2-12.4)
23.6(19.7-28.1)
9.3(7.1-10.9)

0.1(0.00-1.0)
0.0 (0.0-0.6)
1.4(0.5-5.5)
0.0(0.0-1.5)
11.7(9.9-14.7)
0.0 (0.0-0.0)
8.6(5.3-10.4)
17.4(13.9-22.1)
6.6(5.3-8.5)

5.8(4.4-10.2)
23.9(21.8-28.6)
32.7(26.7-40.1)
23.8(22.1-27.5)

6.6(4.4-10.4)
38.6(33.7-49.0)
56.6 (52.3-57.2)
37.1(32.1-40.3)

5.1(4.1-6.2)
5.9(3.2-12.7)
18.2(14.8-21.1)
31.1* (5.2-29.2)
38.0 (34.7-43.0)
6.0(5.5-9.5)
31.7(28.6-36.8)
42.7(37.1-52.8)
29.7(28.1-31.6)

40.0 (33.7-52.0)
82.9(75.2-111.2)
79.4 (74.2-87.0)
77.1(74.3-85.2)

60.8 (42.7-74.2)
112.7(91.5-125.1)
112.3(107.5-130.1)
107.1(97.1-125.1)

38.7(32.9-43.6)
60.9* (51.0-86.0)
69. 5* (56.0-75.1)
81.2* (42.0-117.0)
105.1 (91.5-113.5)
51.7(39.4-61.2)
98.9(85.5-125.1)
104.2(91.0-112.0)
91.0(82.6-100.1)
Marine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

5,182
2,332
2,654
10,168

5,277
2,382
2,780
10,439

4,391
1,670
1,005
363
9,596
10,459
4,714
5,434
20,607

3.6 (3.0-4.2)
7.0(6.1-7.9)
10.9(9.6-12.1)
7.6(6.9-8.3)

4.3(3.6-5.1)
9.4 (8.2-10.6)
11.9(10.5-13.2)
8.9(8.1-9.8)

3.7(3.2-4.3)
4.2(3.5-4.9)
5.5 (4.2-6.7)
4.7(2.9-6.4)
9.8(9.0-10.6)
4.0(3.5-4.5)
8.2(7.4-9.1)
11.3(10.3-12.3)
8.3 (7.6-8.9)

10.8(8.1-13.5)
27.9 (24.3-28.2)
42.0 (38.4-42.5)
28.1(27.9-29.2)

11.8(8.4-14.0)
36.6(28.0-43.1)
47.1(42.2-54.5)
34.2 (28.2-38.5)

11.1(10.4-12.6)
13.1 (9.7-17.0)
13.9(9.8-20.6)
0.0 (0.0-6.9)
38.6(36.6-41.5)
10.8(10.1-13.5)
28.2 (27.9-34.3)
42.7(42.0-45.7)
29.2(28.2-32.1)

28.1(24.3-31.0)
48.1 (42.6-53.7)
63.3 (57.8-66.3)
49.6 (46.6-52.4)

29.1(26.7-31.4)
72.8 (58.8-82.8)
71.4(64.4-81.3)
63.3 (59.0-73.2)

27.9(24.4-29.1)
28.7(27.6-33.8)
38.5(30.8-50.3)
24.2* (7.8-71. 5)
63.8(58.8-68.8)
28.2 (27.9-29.8)
56.6(54.5-68.9)
65.1 (63.9-68.0)
55.8(54.7-56.9)

61.3(51.2-70.5)
97.0(86.6-137.6)
128.5(120.5-138.3)
106.6(95.2-119.2)

84.4(77.0-113.3)
127.4(116.3-153.6)
140.1 (114.9-149.6)
122.8(109.4-139.6)

59.8(52.4-71.3)
78.6* (49.2-84.4)
102.3* (84.4-113.6)
107.8* (68.4-118.9)
126.3(117.3-140.1)
79.0 (63.0-98.8)
115.7(98.5-143.8)
136.9(125.6-140.3)
114.6(108.9-120.8)
Page
10-56
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
           Table 10-11. Per Capita Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - As Prepared* (continued)
  Age (years)
  N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th % (90% BI)
  99th % (90% BI)
                                                       All Fish
  Females
   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages

  Males
   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages

  Both Sexes
   3 to 5
   6 to 10
   11 to 15
   16 to 17
   18 and older

   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages
 5,182
 2,332
 2,654
10,168


 5,277
 2,382
 2,780
10,439


 4,391
 1,670
 1,005
 363
 9,596

10,459
 4,714
 5,434
20,607
 5.2 (4.4-5.9)
11.3(10.0-12.7)
15.6(14.0-17.3)
11.4(10.5-12.4)


 6.4(5.5-7.3)
15.1 (13.6-16.6)
19.2 (17.6-20.9)
14.3(13.4-15.2)


 5.2(4.6-5.8)
 6.3(5.3-7.3)
 8.5 (6.9-10.0)
 8.1 (5.4-10.8)
15.3(14.3-16.2)

 5.8(5.2-6.5)
13.2(12.2-14.2)
17.3(16.0-18.6)
12.8(12.1-13.6)
 18.9(15.3-21.1)
 41.2(36.6-46.2)
 56.2 (52.7-60.6)
 42.2 (39.0-45.7)


 21.1(15.7-24.9)
 58.4(51.0-70.3)
 67.7(65.0-72.2)
 55.9(51.0-59.4)


 18.9(15.3-21.3)
 23.9(21.1-27.0)
 28.1(24.9-31.4)
 18.6(7.0-40.9)
 56.2(55.4-58.3)

 19.4(17.2-21.2)
 50.0 (45.3-56.2)
 61.1(56.6-64.2)
 48.2 (46.2-49.9)
 37.5(30.0-41.7)
 66.3(61.0-73.0)
 82.9 (75.6-88.0)
 66.8(63.2-71.4)


 42.2 (34.0-52.5)
 89.1 (85.6-97.5)
98.6(92.7-105.1)
 86.1 (84.3-89.7)


 35.3(31.1-39.5)
 39.6(34.3-51.5)
 60.3 (53.4-74.2)
73.8* (29.2-89.8)
 86.1 (84.3-87.5)

 38.2(36.6-42.1)
 82.9(76.2-86.1)
 90.5 (86.5-93.2)
 79.0 (74.6-83.3)
  80.2 (72.6-83.0)
 143.4 (128.0-148.4)
 158.9(141.6-170.6)
 140.8(128.5-148.4)


 114.3(98.4-130.6)
 177.2(163.0-185.3)
 167.5(157.0-193.3)
 162.6(155.8-178.7)


  72.2(66.7-81.4)
 107.8* (91.6-130.6)
122.2* (106.8-131.9)
142.3* (107.9-200.4)
 162.6(155.8-171.0)

 96.5(83.0-114.3)
 162.6 (147.2-176.2)
 162.7(158.4-170.6)
 153.2(145.9-160.9)
  a         Estimates were projected from sample size to the U.S. population using 4-year combined survey weights.
  N        =       Sample size.
  CI       =       Confidence interval.
  BI       =       Bootstrap interval; percentile intervals (BI) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000
                   bootstrap replications.
  *         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition
           Monitoring in the United States" (LSRO, 1995).

  Note:     Source:  U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                      Page
                                                                                     10-57
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-12. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) - As Prepared"
Age (years)
N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th % (90% BI)
99th % (90% BI)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

4,879
2,275
2,569
9,723

4,994
2,369
2,764
10,127

4,112
1,553
975
360
9,432
9,873
4,644
5,333
19,850

56 (46-66)
67(53-81)
72 (58-85)
66 (58-75)

65 (52-78)
72 (60-83)
88(75-101)
75 (67-84)

82.9 (67-99)
59.3 (39-79)
53.3 (42-64)
49.5 (23-76)
74 (67-82)
61 (52-70)
69 (61-78)
79 (69-90)
71 (65-77)

0.0 (0.0-3.4)
75 (40-107)
184(75-247)
80 (44-104)

0.0(0.0-17)
131(101-170)
272(212-321)
131(107-181)

0.0 (0.0-56)
0.0(0.0-5.3)
0.0 (0.0-78)
0.0 (0.0-33)
158(125-198)
0.0 (0.0-0.0)
104 (72-139)
236(188-284)
106 (87-128)

208 (162-268)
380 (306-435)
491 (369.3-606.2)
398 (364-435)

279 (179-384)
481 (425-574)
666 (540-712)
504 (455-560)

284 (240-353)
178 (88-402)
312(253-390)
213* (106-390)
502 (452-567)
230(187-283)
431 (390-476)
557 (493.7-666)
451 (424-484)

1,516(1,305-1,801)
1,329(1,238-2,021)
1,339(1,133-1,462)
1,352(1,222-1,528)

1,767(1,470-1,888)
1,350(1,228-1,729)
1,378(1,260-1,508)
1,470(1,378-1,568)

2,317(1,736-2,463)
1,662* (1,433-2,335)
1,237* (950-1,521)
1,186* (600-2,096)
1,353(1,238-1,511)
1,689(1,470-1,805)
1,335 (1,238-1,684)
1,351 (1,260-1,462)
1,432(1,325-1,521)
Marine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

4,879
2,275
2,569
9,723

4,994
2,369
2764
10,127

4,112
1,553
975
360
9,432
9,873
4,644
5,333
19,850

147(125-168)
114(98-129)
166(147-185)
139(127-150)

154(132-176)
118(104-132)
149(133-166)
136(125-147)

209(181-237)
150(123-177)
109(84-133)
75 (46-103)
137(126-147)
150(134-167)
116(104-128)
158(144-173)
137(128-147)

381 (324-506)
423 (365-485)
620 (567-658)
501 (465-534)

426 (357-494)
444 (368-547)
568 (504-673)
494 (445-543)

614 (525-696)
416 (326-546)
338(179-413)
0.0 (0.0-124)
527(501-575)
413(366-476)
440 (389-488)
601 (562-642)
497(480-517)

1,028(908-1,149)
768(650-881)
950(900-1,042)
892 (847-923)

1,081 (975-1,293)
880 (760-954)
889 (831-990)
908 (868-954)

1,537(1,340-1,670)
1,055 (969-1,275)
821 (629-1,034)
381* (132-951)
881 (840-945)
1,037(1,002-1,163)
830 (750-920)
921 (882-977)
903 (869-938)

2,819 (2,481-2,908)
1,648(1,428-2,177)
2,022(1,899-2,683)
2,151 (1,858-2,484)

2,678 (2383-3,073)
1,643(1454-1,819)
1,859(1725-2,011)
1,965(1817-2,247)

3,447 (3,274-3,716)
2,800* (2,021-3,298)
1,902* (1,537-2,366)
1,785* (1,226-2,342)
1,798(1,708-1,971)
2,692 (2,481-2,823)
1,651.83(1,487-1,793)
1,975.67(1,785-2,118)
2,014.52 (1,947-2,158)
Page
10-58
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
      Table 10-12.  Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) -As Prepared3 (continued)
Age (years)
  N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
 95th % (90% BI)
  99th % (90% BI)
                                                   All Fish
Females
 14 and under
 15 to 44
 45 and older
 All ages

Males
 14 and under
 15 to 44
 45 and older
 All ages

Both Sexes
 3 to 5
 6 to 10
 11 to 15
 16 to 17
 18 and older

 14 and under
 15 to 44
 45 and older
 All ages
4,879
2,275
2,569
9,723


4,994
2,369
2,764
10,127


4,112
1,553
 975
 360
9,432

9,873
4,644
5,333
19,850
 203 (178-227)
 181 (158-204)
 238 (212-263)
 205(188-221)


 219(252-356)
 190(219-263)
 237 (225-277)
 211 (240-279)


 292 (260-326)
 209 (176-242)
 162(133-191)
 124(83-165)
 211 (197-225)

 211(191-231)
 185(170-200)
 238(219-256)
 208(196-220)
 693 (929-1408)
 641 (641-879)
 812 (797-956)
 731 (797-912)


 745(583-881)
 756(689-851)
 849 (812-920)
 792 (727-884)


1,057(931-1,232)
 780 (644-842)
 570 (476-664)
 261 (110-600)
 779 (743-816)

 713(652-780)
 714 (645-803)
 836 (767-883)
 762 (737-790)
1,344(1,224-1,489)
 1,040(910-1,226)
1,265(1,165-1,353)
1,211 (1,128-1,256)


1,470(1,282-1,775)
1,165(1,060-1,239)
1,253(1,183-1,282)
1,239(1,201-1,282)


1,988(1,813-2,147)
1,357(1,173-1,451)
 1,051 (991-1,313)
1,029* (390-1,239)
1,198(1,165-1,238)

1,429(1,344-1,499)
1,139(1,014-1,228)
1,261 (1,185-1,314)
1,227(1,198-1,251)
 3,297 (2,823-3680)
 2,292 (2,096-2494)
 2,696 (2,247-2974)
 2,651 (2,358-2823)


 3,392 (2,893-3,954)
 2,238 (2,045-2,492)
 2,310(2,079-2,438)
 2,537 (2,324-2,679)


 4,089 (3,733-4,508)
3,350* (2,725-4,408)
2,305* (1,908-2,767)
2,359* (2,096-2,676)
 2,327(2,198-2,438)

 3,354 (3,224-3,458)
 2,290 (2,082-2,476)
 2,386(2,158-2,672)
 2,539 (2,476-2,679)
a        Estimates were projected from sample size to the U.S. population using 4-year combined survey weights.
N       =       Sample size.
CI       =       Confidence interval.
BI       =       Bootstrap interval; percentile intervals (BI) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000
                 bootstrap replications.
*        The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition
         Monitoring in the United States" (LSRO, 1995).

Source:   U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                         Page
                                                                                        10-59
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-13. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - Uncooked Fish Weight*
Age (years)
N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th % (90% BI)
99th % (90% BI)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

5,182
2,332
2,654
10,168

5,277
2,382
2,780
10,439

4,391
1,670
1,005
363
9,596
10,459
4,714
5,434
20,607

2.3(1.8-2.8)
5.8(4.6-6.9)
6.4 (5.3-7.4)
5.2(4.5-5.9)

3.0(2.3-3.7)
7.9(6.7-9.1)
10.2(8.6-11.7)
7.4 (6.6-8.3)

2.2(1.8-2.6)
3.0(1.9-4.1)
4.3 (3.2-5.4)
4.6 (2.2-6.9)
7.5 (6.8-8.3)
2.6(2.2-3.1)
6.8 (6.0-7.6)
8.1(7.1-9.2)
6.3 (5.7-6.9)

0.0 (0.0-0.2)
6.3(4.7-11.4)
17.7(8.9-23.6)
7.3(3.8-11.9)

-i (0.0-0.2)
15.6(13.2-19.8)
32.5 (27.3-37.2)
14.6(12.6-17.7)

0.1(0.0-1.5)
0.0(0.0-0.5)
2.3(0.1-7.7)
0.0(0.0-1.9)
17.4(14.3-21.6)
- (0.0-0.0)
13.0(8.6-15.6)
24.8(18.8-28.6)
11.7(8.4-13.7)

13.1 (9.9-16.4)
32.4 (27.7-38.0)
44.9 (37.4-55.4)
31.9(28.3-37.4)

13.5(10.2-17.0)
49.7 (45.7-66.4)
73.5 (66.2-77.1)
49.3 (45.6-53.2)

12.2(10.3-14.1)
13.1(4.8-20.1)
25.8(21.0-28.9)
19.3* (13.3-36.8)
49.6 (46.9-55.4)
13.1(11.9-14.8)
43.6 (37.8-47.4)
56.5 (48.9-69.7)
41.1 (37.9-43.7)

58.8 (45.8-86.4)
109.8(100.4-154.5)
108.8(95.4-123.9)
102.1(95.5-114.0)

79.0 (55.2-97.9)
151.2(126.4-183.4)
165.9(147.7-190.7)
147.8(132.3-183.4)

52.5(45.6-61.5)
78.5* (63.8-110.5)
94. 8* (83. 1-109. 5)
109.2* (57.7-154.5)
143.4(125.3-156.8)
73.7(51.5-86.4)
135.9(1210-167.0)
144.3(121.7-156.8)
123.9(114.0-138.8)
Marine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

5,182
2,332
2,654
10,168

5,277
2,382
2,780
10,439

4,391
1,670
1,005
363
9,596
10,459
4,714
5,434
20,607

5.2 (4.5-6.0)
9.0(7.8-10.1)
13.7(12.0-15.4)
9.8(8.9-10.6)

6.0 (4.9-7.0)
12.0(10.5-13.5)
15.0(13.3-16.7)
11.5(10.4-12.5)

5.5 (4.8-6.2)
5.6(4.6-6.5)
7.6(5.9-9.4)
6.1 (3.7-8.4)
12.4(11.5-13.4)
5.59(4.9-6.3)
10.5(9.4-11.6)
14.3(13.0-15.6)
10.6(9.8-11.4)

18.8(13.5-21.9)
37.5 (31.0-37.9)
51.4(49.0-55.4)
37.8 (37.3-40.2)

17.0(13.0-21.4)
41.7(37.8-56.3)
58.0(53.5-68.3)
41.3(37.8-49.7)

19.8(16.6-23.1)
18.9 (14.2-24.3)
25.3 (16.4-34.5)
0.0(0.0-9.3)
48.9(47.1-51.2)
18.7(16.1-19.7)
37.9(37.5-41.3)
55.7(53.1-57.9)
38.4 (37.8-40.6)

40.1 (37.9-47.7)
61.7(55.8-71.2)
80.4 (76.9-82.6)
64.7 (59.2-67.7)

39.7(35.9-41.1)
90.2 (75.7-106.7)
90.7 (85.4-97.3)
82.9 (75.7-96.8)

39.4(37.7-41.4)
38.4(37.9-41.6)
56.5 (45.3-67.1)
29. 5* (11.6-90.7)
80.7 (77.8-83.5)
40.2 (39.6-40.4)
75.3 (67.3-83.5)
83.4 (80.7-85.8)
74.9 (69.9-75.6)

81.3(67.0-98.4)
120.6(116.5-132.5)
155.6(148.7-179.2)
128.5(119.4-142.9)

113.3(106.3-140.3)
151.5(134.9-192.5)
168.8(157.1-186.9)
152.3 (136.6-166.9)

82.3 (73.0-95.4)
99.8* (62.8-111.4)
131. 8* (110. 3-148.7)
135.6* (92.0-177.1)
150.8(139.7-164.3)
103.4(82.6-123.5)
137.1 (122.0-151.0)
166.0(155.5-178.0)
139.2(131.3-148.3)
Page
10-60
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
    Table 10-13. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - Uncooked Fish Weight8 (Continued)
 Age (years)
  N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
 95th % (90% BI)
  99th % (90% BI)
                                                     All Fish
 Females
  14 and under
  15 to 44
  45 and older
  All ages

 Males
  14 and under
  15 to 44
  45 and older
  All ages

 Both Sexes
  3 to 5
  6 to 10
  11 to 15
  16 to 17
  18 and older

  14 and under
  15 to 44
  45 and older
  All ages
 5,182
 2,332
 2,654
10,168


 5,277
 2,382
 2,780
10,439
 4,391
 1,670
 1,005
 363
 9,596

10,459
 4,714
 5,434
20,607
  7.5 (6.5-8.5)
14.7(13.0-16.5)
20.1 (17.9-22.2)
15.0(13.7-16.2)


 9.0(7.6-10.3)
19.9(18.0-21.7)
25.2 (23.0-27.3)
18.9(17.7-20.1)


  7.7 (6.9-8.6)
 8.5(7.1-10.0)
 12.0 (9.7-14.2)
 10.6 (7.0-14.2)
19.9(18.7-21.1)

  8.2 (7.3-9.2)
17.3(15.9-18.7)
22.4(20.7-24.1)
16.9(15.9-17.9)
28.5 (25.4-34.0)
53.6(46.6-58.8)
73.4 (67.7-77.3)
56.2(51.0-59.2)


31.5(24.6-37.5)
77.0 (65.8-88.8)
89.7(86.5-94.2)
73.5 (66.6-80.5)


32.6 (27.6-34.0)
32.6 (27.0-37.9)
43.4 (36.7-50.8)
 29.3 (9.4-48.7)
74.8(71.7-75.7)

29.0 (27.6-32.6)
64.6 (57.0-73.5)
80.6(75.0-85.3)
63.5 (59.5-66.2)
 55.2 (49.0-59.2)
 85.2 (77.3-94.6)
 104.0(96.7-112.1)
 86.3(81.2-93.2)


 56.5 (49.0-69.9)
118.6(110.7-127.1)
130.7(125.8-135.5)
113.4(110.7-118.6)


 51.0(46.3-56.7)
 56.4 (49.6-69.8)
 87.4 (69.6-102.6)
 83.5* (42.3-114.5)
111.4(110.0-114.0)

 56.3 (52.2-56.7)
 107.7(99.2-113.6)
115.3(111.7-122.2)
 102.3 (97.9-107.6)
 103.9(95.1-126.2)
 189.9(165.1-197.1)
 213.7(190.1-221.6)
 185.7(162.6-187.2)


 165.2(141.6-177.4)
 242.7 (224.3-254.9)
 226.5 (207.3-278.3)
 219.3(204.8-236.5)


 100.5(89.1-111.4)
144.4* (117.4-183.4)
170.7* (147.9-176.8)
192.5* (120.5-266.0)
 215.7(197.1-228.5)

 127.2(118.2-149.5)
 211.3(197.1-242.3)
 215.7(208.3-227.6)
 198.2(190.7-208.8)
 a         Estimates were projected from sample size to the U.S. population using 4-year combined survey weights.
 N        =       Sample size.
 CI       =       Confidence interval.
 BI       =       Bootstrap interval; percentile intervals (BI) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000
                  bootstrap replications.
 *         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition
          Monitoring in the United States" (LSRO, 1995).

 Source:   U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                         Page
                                                                                         10-61
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-14. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) - Uncooked Fish Weight3
Age (years)
N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th%(90%BI)
99th%(90%BI)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

4,879
2,275
2,569
9,723

4,994
2,369
2,764
10,127

4,112
1,553
975
360
9,432
9,873
4,644
5,333
19,850

83 (69-96)
91(71-110)
96(78-113)
91 (79-103)

95(76-113)
99(84-115)
121 (102-140)
106(94-117)

124 (102-146)
84(55-112)
77 (60-94)
65 (30-100)
102(92-112)
89(76-101)
95 (83-107)
108 (94-122)
98 (90-107)

0.0(0.0-1.6)
107(57-145)
250 (123-322)
117(63-165)

0.0(0.0-1.7)
201 (151-254)
378(317-429)
208 (165-272)

0.0 (0.0-83)
0.0(0.0-1.4)
20(0.0-116)
0.0 (0.0-23)
236(183-277)
0.0 (0.0-0.0)
150(115-195)
322 (250-379)
159(131-198)

443 (269-572)
482 (403-538)
655 (485-776)
535 (485-613)

534 (371-605)
623 (558-810)
891 (754-974)
697 (629-782)

712 (599-784)
354(116-685)
477(411-618)
285* (167-491)
669 (597-749)
485(411-557)
558 (506-623)
751 (653.97-870)
631 (590-675)

2,179 (1,866-2,345)
1,818(1,633-2,767)
1,822(1,515-1,909)
1,871 (1,629-2,025)

2,351 (1,920-2,501)
1,910(1,760-2,221)
1,963(1,731-2,132)
2,034(1,856-2,221)

3,091 (2,495-3,475)
2,322* (1,856-2,994)
1,610* (1,358-2,203)
1,542* (760-2,767)
1,886(1,700-2,049)
2,246 (1,987-2,495)
1,893(1,683-2,221)
1,868(1,709-1,941)
1,943(1,816-2,086)
Marine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

4,879
2,275
2,569
9,723

4,994
2,369
2,764
10,127

4,112
1,553
975
360
9,432
9,873
4,644
5,333
19,850

212 (183-242)
146(126-166)
209(185-233)
181 (167-196)

214 (183-244)
150(132-168)
187(167-208)
175(161-189)

309 (270-348)
198(161-235)
153(117-189)
98(58-137)
173(160-186)
213(190-237)
148(132-163)
199(181-217)
178(167-190)

592 (508-785)
557 (463-632)
802 (757-844)
657(601-718)

609 (480-808)
576 (461-675)
713(658-851)
649(575-711)

1,108(984-1,332)
600 (474-733)
481 (361-609)
0.0 (0.0-177)
672(651-732)
606(517-688)
568 (502-630)
767(718-828)
651 (620-675)

1,532(1,418-1,703)
995 (874-1,078)
1,184(1,132-1,281)
1,158(1,094-1,216)

1,542(1,380-1,887)
1,113(963-1,226)
1,138(1,103-1,213)
1,205(1,127-1,233)

2,314(2,097-2,481)
1,481 (1,310-1549)
1,251 (808-1,390)
460* (197-1, 079)
1,115(1,078-1,182)
1,543(1,491-1,670)
1,052(973-1,184)
1,156(1,115-1,214)
1,178(1,134-1,226)

3,708 (3,276-4,295)
2,056 (1,848-2,330)
2,464 (2,282-2,820)
2,716(2,382-3,051)

3,603(3,212-4,131)
1,990(1,782-2,317)
2,275 (1,993-2,495)
2,545 (2,314-2,705)

4,608 (4,301-5,354)
3,684* (2,458-4,353)
2381* (2,162-3,207)
2,148* (1,648-3,901)
2,157(2,024-2,412)
3,694(3,318-4,0656)
2,023 (1,925-2,197)
2,389 (2,273-2,546)
2,587 (2,454-2,705)
Page
10-62
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
 Table 10-14. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg-day) - Uncooked Fish Weight8 (continued)
Age (years)
  N
Mean (90% CI)
  90th % (90% BI)
  95th%(90%BI)
  99th%(90%BI)
                                                   All Fish
Females
 14 and under
 15 to 44
 45 and older
 All ages

Males
 14 and under
 15 to 44
 45 and older
 All ages

Both Sexes
 3 to 5
 6 to 10
 11 to 15
 16 to 17
 18 and older
4,879
2,275
2,569
9,723


4,994
2,369
2,764
10,127


4,112
1,553
 975
 360
9,432
14 and under    9,873
 15 to 44       4,644
 45 and older   5,333
 All ages       19,850
 295 (261-330)
 237 (206-267)
 305 (272-338)
 272(251-294)


 308 (273-344)
 249 (226-272)
 309 (282-335)
 281 (264-297)


 433 (385-482)
 282 (235-328)
 231 (186-275)
 163(107-219)
 275 (258-292)


 302 (274-330)
 243 (223-262)
 307(283-331)
 276 (261-292)
 1,046(885-1,262)
 834.58(771-981)
1,065.15(98-1,200)
970.64 (906-1,040)


 1,122(774-1,310)
  982(908-1,154)
1,128(1,078-1,206)
 1,058(962-1,201)


1,842(1,555-1,957)
1,045(744.58-1,219)
   824 (657-952)
   406 (145-756)
 1,017(975-1,065)


 1,072(961-1,162)
  938(878-1,019)
1,112(1,002-1,168)
 1,013(976-1,052)
2,03,8(1,853-2,251)
1,362(1,181-1,556)
1,568(1,472-1,671)
1,566(1,511-1,633)


2,136(1,856-2,371)
1,533(1,407-1,619)
1,605(1,534-1,731)
1,644(1,559-1,731)


2,964 (2,790-3,194)
1,854(1,638-2,175)
1,531 (1,362-1,850)
1,272* (558-1,500)
1,549(1,481-1,591)


2,089 (1,987-2,207)
1,451 (1,342-1,602)
1,591 (1,517-1,685)
1,613(1,561-1,651)
 4,548(4,117-4,977)
 3,113 (2,767,-3,361)
 3,071 (2,716-3,941)
 3,566 (3,270-3,782)


 4,518(4,055-5,465)
 3,011 (2,820-3,349)
 2,821 (2,587-3,204)
 3,369 (3,204-3,680)


 5,604(5,231-6,135)
4,371* (3,433-5,814)
3,651* (2,745-3,795)
3,544* (2,767-3,946)
 3,060 (2,771-3,204)


 4,539(4,391-5,108)
 3,094 (2,788-3,349)
 3,014 (2,714-3,226)
 3,457 (3,349-3,680)
a        Estimates were projected from sample size to the U.S. population using 4-year combined survey weights.
N       =       Sample size.
CI       =       Confidence interval.
BI       =       Bootstrap interval; percentile intervals (BI) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with
1,000            bootstrap replications.
*        The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition
         Monitoring in the United States" (LSRO, 1995).

Source:   U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                          Page
                                                                                         10-63
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-15
Age (years)
N
Consumer Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) -As Prepared*
Mean (90% CI)
90th%(90%BI)
95th % (90% BI)
99th % (90% BI)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

445
325
449
1,219

442
361
553
1,356

442
147
107
28
1,633
887
686
1,002
2,575

32.7(26.8-36.6)
55.4 (45.9-64.8)
49.0 (44.3-53.6)
49.4 (44.5-54.3)

41.7(34.9-48.4)
66.6 (59.7-73.6)
65.8 (59.0-72.6)
62.9 (57.8-67.9)

27.1(23.2-31.1)
43.5(31.8-55.2)
49.0(39.4-58.5)
75.8* (58.9-92.7)
59.2 (54.9-63.4)
36.8(32.5-41.1)
61.3(56.4-66.2)
57.3(51.9-62.7)
56.3 (52.5-60.0)

79.9(77.1-103.9)
125.9(117.0-157.8)
122.8(118.7-128.0)
122.7(117.0-126.6)

121.5(85.3-148.4)
165.0(158.8-171.0)
154.3(148.1-174.0)
158.2(148.4-165.8)

72.6 (65.0-79.0)
121.6* (82. 5-187.3)
126.6* (103.9-148.4)
158.5* (151. 1-171.0)
150.2(141.8-154.2)
103.1 (75.5-120.7)
157.8(150.3-163.5)
141.1 (127.6-151.0)
145.3(138.6-151.3)

111.0(103.0-163.5)
189.4(154.2-259.9)
158.3(151.3-165.8)
163.2(151.5-193.8)

161.9(138.6-229.2)
226.3(194.2-250.2)
214.4 (200.2-222.3)
215.4(202.4-226.5)

95.6(87.2-109.6)
186.7* (114. 8-260.2)
149.9* (134.6-192.7)
167.8* (158.8-484.4)
201.0(181.9-216.6)
146.8(114.8-167.4)
217.1(181.8-253.2)
182.5(170.5-200.1)
188.8(178.5-211.9)

185.4(163.5-384.3)
341.4(260.2-853.4)
284.7(241.2-308.5)
320.6 (260.2-345.2)

260.8 (260.2-292.5)
336.9 (327.0-402.9)
400.2(300.8-571.0)
335.9(316.5-437.1)

159.0* (136.1-260.2)
260.4* (172. 1-261. 3)
307.1* (192.7-384.3)
371. 6* (171. 0-484.4)
338.2 (308.5-345.2)
260.0 (250.2-292.5)
342.6(321.1-484.4)
306.9(261.8-345.5)
332.9(308.5-361.3)
Marine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

670
412
588
1,670

677
412
623
1,712

682
217
122
37
1.978
1,347
824
1,211
3,382

48.7(43.7-53.7)
71.0(66.2-75.7)
82.3 (75.9-88.6)
72.2 (68.6-75.8)

59.5(51.3-67.7)
99.1 (91.3-106.9)
90.0(84.9-95.1)
88.7(83.7-93.7)

44.5 (40.6-48.5)
59.4(52.6-66.1)
72.4 (59.9-84.9)
96.9* (65.3-128.5)
85.1(81.3-88.9)
54.1 (48.4-59.9)
85.0 (79.5-90.4)
85.8(81.5-90.2)
80.2 (76.6-83.8)

98.1 (93.3-112.6)
158.5 (128.0-170.8)
153.3(140.1-166.1)
146.3(140.3-158.7)

144.6(113.3-168.7)
186.1 (174.7-199.5)
179.8(167.3-200.1)
178.2(170.0-181.2)

90.6(84.3-104.8)
128.7(111.6-158.4)
165. 3* (157.6-202. 8)
218.9* (179.6-237.8)
168.9(168.9-174.6)
119.1(112.3-144.8)
172.0(168.8-179.6)
168.4(158.7-181.2)
168.9(165.6-169.0)

135.9(112.6-162.2)
181.5(167.4-202.8)
203.5(181.2-252.5)
181.6(169.0-201.6)

168.8 (167.0-227.2)
232.5 (214.0-254.4)
224.4(207.2-280.1)
226.1 (214.4-232.7)

119.1 (102.0-142.8)
159.2* (134.9-219.05)
203.6* (168.8-227.2)
237.5* (179.6-292.5)
214.1 (195.9-227.2)
162.3(141.9-168.7)
213.7(194.3-229.7)
218.7(207.3-229.8)
207.6(197.0-214.4)

196.2(162.2-238.4)
286.7 (234.6-293.2)
362.3 (275.4-485.4)
286.6 (269.5-293.2)

265.1 (170.0-291.6)
403.8(321.5-407.2)
306.3 (292.5-380.9)
354.2(315.3-403.6)

227.6* (168.7-292.5)
242.5* (219.0-291.6)
245.6* (213.6-268. 6)
365.3* (229.8-428.0)
337.2 (306.4-380.9)
238.2(219.0-269.4)
343.7 (304.9-404.2)
320.1 (299.2-485.4)
310.2(299.2-383.5)
Page
10-64
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
      Table 10-15. Consumer Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - As Prepared8 (continued)
Age (years)
  N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th % (90% BI)
99th % (90% BI)
                                                    All Fish
Females
 14 and under
 15 to 44
 45 and older
 All ages

Males
 14 and under
 15 to 44
 45 and older
 All ages

Both Sexes
 3 to 5
 6 to 10
 11 to 15
 16 to 17
 18 and older

 14 and under
 15 to 44
 45 and older
 All ages
 836     54.2 (49.3-59.0)
 554     82.5 (74.8-90.2)
 751     90.5 (85.3-95.7)
2,141    81.5(77.3-85.7)


 836     69.1(61.9-76.3)
 565    111.9(106.0-117.9)
 849    106.5(101.5-111.5)
2,250   102.9(99.0-106.8)


 834     50.2 (46.3-54.0)
 270     70.6 (63.8-77.4)
 172     79.6 (70.4-88.7)
 52    104.1* (75.0-133.1)
2,634   97.56(93.7-101.4)

1,672    61.7(56.6-66.8)
1,119    97.2(92.1-102.4)
1,600    98.1 (93.6-102.6)
4,391    92.0(88.5-95.5)
                     112.5(97.2-136.9)
                    170.8(151.0-184.7)
                    170.5(158.7-181.7)
                    163.6(151.3-171.0)


                    157.0(136.1-168.8)
                    210.6(195.0-242.5)
                    210.3 (193.3-229.8)
                    206.0(192.7-219.0)


                     103.1 (94.5-124.9)
                    154.7(130.0-183.2)
                    167.1* (154.0-192.7)
                   200.5* (167.4-242.5)
                    191.8(184.7-197.9)

                    138.4(125.1-150.1)
                    195.1 (183.2-206.0)
                    187.0(184.1-198.0)
                    184.5 (179.6-195.0)
                      155.4(128.5-162.2)
                      221.7(197.9-260.2)
                      219.8(197.0-242.5)
                      208.2(193.8-238.4)


                      227.5 (168.7-260.2)
                      296.1 (249.7-316.5)
                      271.1(241.4-292.5)
                      262.0(251.3-285.8)


                      133.9(120.7-151.8)
                     218.2* (197.9-261.3)
                      208.8* (205.9-257.0
                     241.9* (215.7-484.4)
                      253.2(243.6-261.8)

                      168.7(162.4-232.8)
                      256.0 (240.2-283.9)
                     248.5 (238.00-260.2)
                      249.3 (234.3-259.8)
                      237.5 (197.9-285.6)
                      336.5 (294.3-345.2)
                      326.0 (308.5-612.9)
                      327.0 (285.6-359.6)


                      276.0 (269.4-292.5)
                      427.9 (403.6-465.6)
                      392.5 (330.6-535.5)
                      404.1 (380.9-428.4)


                     260.0* (195.3-293.3)
                     280.9* (260.2-291.6)
                     285.2* (263.8-327.0)
                     451.0* (292.5-484.4)
                      399.5(359.1-407.2)

                      271.4(260.2-291.6)
                      404.0 (352.4-450.4)
                      381.4(300.6-413.0)
                      379.0 (340.2-413.0)
a        Estimates were projected from sample size to the U.S. population using 4-year combined survey weights; consumers
         only are those individuals who consumed fish at least once during the 2-day reporting period.
N       =       Sample size.
CI       =       Confidence interval.
BI       =       Bootstrap interval; percentile intervals (BI) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000
                 bootstrap replications.
*        The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition
         Monitoring in the United States" (LSRO, 1995).

Source:   U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                           Page
                                                                                           10-65
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table
Age (years)
10-16. Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) - As Prepared3
N
Mean (90% CI)
90th%(90%BI)
95th%(90%BI)
99th % (90% BI)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
410
315
432
1,157
419
358
548
1,325
416
132
101
28
1,599
829
673
980
2,482
1,198(1,029-1,367)
872(7,13-1,032)
736(658-813)
859 (776-943)
1,299(1,106-1,492)
841 (751-931)
782 (701-862)
882 (814-950)
1,532(1320-1743)
1,296(1004-1,588)
869(724.60-1,013)
1,063* (781-1,346)
805(748-861)
1,251 (1,135-1,367)
855 (778-933)
759 (694-824)
871 (816-926)
3,167(2,626-3,601)
2,702(1,777-2,484)
1,943 (1,803-2,128)
2,151 (1,941-2,476)
3,556 (3,068-3830)
2,182(2,057-2,318)
1,804(1,696-1,903)
2,148(2,045-2,318)
4,307 (3,472-4,624)
3,453* (2,626-4,671)
2,030* (1,628-2,104)
2,293* (2,096-2,577)
2,025 (1,888-2,072)
3,456(3,136-3,597)
2,136(2,057-2,371)
1,896(1,739-1,983)
2,152(2,063-2,295)
4,921 (3,601-6,563)
3,153(2,484-4,067)
2,487 (2,249-2,706)
3,004 (2,602-3,368)
4,495 (3,830-4,982)
2,819(2,539-3,241)
2,511 (2,175-2,652)
3,021 (2,867-3,241)
5,257 (4,926-5,746)
4,675* (3,459-8,816)
3, 162* (2,104-3,601)
2,505* (2,096-6,466)
2,679 (2,539-2,947)
4,681 (4,084-5,247)
3,071 (2,675-3,478)
2,512(2,262-2,706)
3,019(2,924-3,101)
9,106 (6,875-10,967)
5,738(4,584-15,930)
3,169 (3,027-7,078)
6,102 (5,475-7,078)
8,714(6,266-11,276)
4,379(4,057-4,931)
4,812 (4,036-6,987)
5,333 (4,548-6,775)
10,644* (9,083-12,735)
8,314* (4,684-9,172)
4,665* (3,597-7,361)
5,067* (2,295-6,466)
4,930 (4,285-5,849)
8,792 (7,361-10,967)
5,795 (4,066-6,096)
4,261 (3,117-6,419)
5,839 (4,926-7,078)
Marine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
629
403
568
1,600
643
409
621
1,673
640
203
120
37
1,944
1,272
812
1,189
3,273
1,988(1,827-2,148)
1,147(1,061-1,234)
1,259(1,159-1,360)
1,323(1,260-1,385)
2,084 (1,842-2,326)
1,242(1,151-1,333)
1,129(1,063-1,195)
1,337(1,267-1,408)
2,492 (2,275-2,709)
2,120(1,880-2,361)
1,427(1,203-1,651)
1,534* (1,063-2,004)
1,187(1,137-1,238)
2,037(1,880-2,195)
1,195(1,127-1,263)
1,198(1,135-1,261)
1,330(1,278-1,382)
4,378 (,3927-4,962)
2,404 (2,014-2660)
2,430 (2,258-2,627)
2,680 (2,477-2,977)
4,734(3,911-5,307)
2,448 (2,349-2,773)
2,294 (2,106-2,452)
2,745(2,513-2,858)
5,303 (4,873-5,930)
4,950 (4,043-5,384)
2,971* (2,858-3,741)
3,602* (2,974-4,649)
2,386 (2,265-2,450)
4,646 (4,213-4,892)
2,442 (2,349-2,660)
2,394 (2,205-2,534)
2,710 (2,618-2,870)
5,767(5,041-6,519)
3,151 (2,621-3,325)
3,274 (2,699-4,029)
3,644 (3,381-4,305)
5,490 (4,944-6,628)
2,985 (2,870-3,265)
2,942 (2,809-3,526)
3,636 (3,450-3,922)
6,762 (6,097-7,168)
5,817* (5,333-6,596)
4,278* (3,026-4,766)
4,475* (3,068-4,685)
2,998(2,907-3,191)
5,664 (5,384-6,093)
3,046 (2,856-3,309)
3,100 (2,933-3,500)
3,637 (3,544-3,927)
8,185(6,907-8,842)
4,774(4,523-5,510)
5,798 (5,365-9,297)
5,895 (5,750-6,956)
9,004 (7,432-10,962)
4,674 (3,637-5,926)
4,622 (4,094-4,936)
5,908 (5,359-6,366)
11,457* (7,432-14,391)
8,092* (6,146-9,184)
5,214* (4,647-5,646)
4,982* (3,467-5,238)
4,961 (4,523-5,510)
8,611 (7,755-9,184)
4,817(3,932-5,238)
5,436 (4,655-7,504)
5,910(5,646-6,711)
Page
10-66
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
       Table 10-16.  Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) - As Prepared* (continued)
  Age (years)
  N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th % (90% BI)
99th % (90% BI)
                                                       All Fish
  Females
   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages

  Males
   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages

  Both Sexes
   3 to 5
   6 to 10
   11 to 15
   16 to 17
   18 and older

   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages
 779      2,183(2,021-2,344)
 541      1,317(1,184-1,451)
 725      1,380(1,299-1,460)
2,045     1,469(1,400-1,539)


 788      2,355 (2,164-2,545)
 561      1,409(1,339-1,478)
 842      1,311 (1,250-1,373
2,191     1,518(1,461-1,575)


 779      2,828 (2,608-3,049)
 250      2,375(2,199-2,551)
 164      1,533(1,384-1,682)
 52       1,578* (1,187-1,969)
2,585     1,349(1,297-1,401)

1,567     2,271 (2,130-2,412)
1,102     1,363(1,292-1,435)
1,567     1,347(1,288-1,406)
4,236     1,494(1,440-1,548)
                   4,786 (4,422-5,138)
                   2,636(2,385-3,051)
                   2,639 (2,406-2,950)
                   3,008 (2,752-3,169)


                   5,097 (4,680-5,535)
                   2,770(2,570-3,241)
                   2,564(2,501-2,801)
                   3,043 (2,867-3,159)


                   5,734 (5,268-6,706)
                   5,135 (4,684-5,816)
                  3,207* (2,945-3,485)
                  3,468* (2,676-4,752)
                   2,641 (2,539-2,773)

                   4,959 (4,647-5,450)
                   2,728 (2,570-2,974)
                   2,619(2,546-2,752)
                   3,021 (2,941-3,082)
                    6,218(5,766-6,738)
                    3,611 (3,225-4,584)
                    3,560 (3,008-3,967)
                    4,088 (3,649-4,544)


                    6,712 (6,146-7,432)
                    3,490 (3,092-3,725)
                    3,133 (3,050-3,584)
                    4,029 (3,779-4,477)


                    7,422 (6,907-8,393)
                    6,561* (5,404-8,816)
                  3,924.64* (3,485-4,764)
                  4,504.25* (3,709-6,466)
                    3,493 (3,258-3,628)

                    6,531 (5,887-6,929)
                    3,583 (3,275-3,999)
                    3,265(3,115-3,569)
                    4,055(3,816-4,218)
                     10,395 (8,680-10,967)
                      5,712 (4,952-5,849)
                      5,929 (5,452-9,905)
                      7,074(6,519-8,761)


                     9,182(8,816-11,276)
                      5,612 (5,163-5,926)
                      4,935 (4,548-6,987)
                      6,736(6,096-7,117)


                    13,829* (11,349-14,391)
                     9,179* (8,130-10,485)
                     5,624* (4,764-6,929)
                     5,738* (4,752-6,466)
                      5,708 (5,085-5,926)

                     10,389 (8,982-10,967)
                      5,694 (4,987-5,849)
                     5,807 (5,073-6,9877)
                      6,920 (6,466-7,527)
  a         Estimates were projected from sample size to the U.S. population using 4-year combined survey weights; consumers
           only are those individuals who consumed fish at least once during the 2-day reporting period..
  N        =       Sample size.
  CI       =       Confidence interval.
  BI       =       Bootstrap interval; percentile intervals (BI) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000
                   bootstrap replications.
  *         The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition
           Monitoring in the United States" (LSRO, 1995).

  Note:     Source:  U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                     Page
                                                                                     10-67
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-17. Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - Uncooked Fish Weight3
Age (years)
N
Mean (90% CI)
90th%(90%BI)
95th%(90%BI)
99th % (90% BI)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
445
325
449
1,219
442
361
553
1,356
442
147
107
28
1,633
887
686
1,002
2,575
47 (40-54)
75 (62-88)
66 (59-72)
67 (60-74)
60 (50-70)
93(82.33-103)
91(81.11-100)
87 (80-95)
40 (35-46)
61 (44-79)
71 (58-83)
100* (80-121)
81 (75-87)
53 (47-59)
84(77-91)
78 (70-86)
78 (72-83)
117(104-142)
173(155-204)
163(153-168)
163(154-170)
158(110-196)
236 (226-246)
221 (204-236)
220 (200-232)
95 (86-102)
157* (117-250)
173* (166-196)
203* (197-248)
200(190-206)
144(101-173)
205(197-226)
191 (170-202)
196(189-202)
172(150-204)
274(204-331)
204(192-226)
219(199-267)
199(189-296)
305 (272-367)
295 (264-332)
296 (289-333)
129 (120-142)
248* (150-381)
199* (173-296)
242* (206-643)
279 (253-301)
196(173-220)
295 (253-345)
245 (230-264)
258 (243-289)
243 (220-514)
503 (381-1,144)
394(303-431)
461 (381-508)
381 (381-401)
495 (444-643)
562 (402-764)
490 (444-595)
205* (200-381)
386* (221-401)
392* (296-5 14)
501* (24 1-643)
506 (444-508)
381 (367-401)
504(438-818)
413 (382-505)
468(431-531)
Marine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
670
412
588
1,670
677
412
623
1,712
682
217
122
37
1,978
1,347
824
1,211
3,382
71 (65-77)
91 (85-96)
104(94-113)
93 (88-98)
81 (69-93)
127(116-137)
113(107-120)
114(107-120)
66(60-71)
78 (67-89)
102(85-118)
126* (80-171)
108(103-113)
76 (68-85)
109(101-116)
108(102-114)
103 (98-108)
134(124-155)
188(163-210)
189(170-213)
183 (174-192)
198(162-227)
240 (227-258)
223 (205-252)
227 (223-236)
125(114-150)
150(129-201)
220* (205-265)
281* (24 1-3 54)
217 (213-223)
161 (149-201)
225 (213-233)
206(195-224)
215 (207-217)
183(151-205)
241 (227-265)
239 (222-283)
232 (227-250)
231 (225-307)
279 (271-370)
285 (250-324)
277 (270-297)
165(139-190)
202* (165-317)
262* (227-307)
353* (241-390)
270(251-283)
220(183-227)
270 (247-279)
272 (250-293)
258 (247-270)
240 (209-379)
376 (347-391)
441 (359-647)
385 (354-397)
353 (244-392)
568 (488-647)
384 (359-480)
483 (390-501)
3 16* (227-390)
350* (223-392)
320* (277-379)
530* (291-650)
464 (391-487)
335 (307-379)
483 (390-634)
407 (374-647)
395 (390-487)
Page
10-68
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
    Table 10-17. Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (g/day) - Uncooked Fish Weight3 (continued)
  Age (years)
  N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th % (90% BI)
99th % (90% BI)
                                                     All Fish
  Females
   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages

  Males
   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages

  Both Sexes
   3 to 5
   6 to 10
   11 to 15
   16 to 17
   18 and older

   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages
 836
 554
 751
2,141


 836
 565
 849
2,250


 834
 270
 172
 52
2,634

1,672
1,119
1,600
4,391
  79 (73-85)
 108(97-118)
 117(109-124)
 107(101-113)


 96 (85-107)
 148(139-156)
 139(132-146)
 136(130-142)


  74 (69-79)
 95(85-106)
 113(99-127)
 136* (97-174)
 127(122-133)
       0-95)
 128(121-135)
 127(120-134)
 121 (116-126)
 158(142-198)
 221 (197-236)
 215 (200-228)
 207(196-227)


 225 (195-254)
 272 (253-334)
 274 (285-304)
 266 (248-289)


 149(136-165)
 200 (177-235)
 227* (205-296)
 242* (206-358)
 248 (236-264)

 191 (173-201)
 255 (241-271)
 244 (230-258)
 241 (233-255)
 205 (180-218)
 315 (246-378)
 270 (236-286)
 275 (246-3000)


 336 (286-353)
 381 (323-431)
 348 (320-374)
 354(315-379)


 184(172-223)
 313* (254-381)
 308* (271-348)
 357* (266-643)
 334 (321-349)

 249 (214-330)
 358(330-381)
 317(304-330)
 329(314-343)
 372(254-381)
 495 (394-508)
 444 (428-817)
 453 (394-508)


 390(381-401)
 636 (595-647)
 505 (439-693)
 595 (505-643)
 363* (310-391)
 387* (381-401)
 380* (353-409)
 645* (390-650)
 519(508-634)

 381 (367-392)
 609 (508-647)
 476 (439-593)
 507 (486-593)
  a        Estimates were projected from sample size to the U.S. population using 4-year combined survey weights; consumers
          only are those individuals who consumed fish at least once during the 2-day reporting period..
  N       =      Sample size.
  CI      =       Confidence interval.
  BI      =       Bootstrap interval; percentile intervals (BI) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000
                  bootstrap replications.
  *        The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition
          Monitoring in the United States" (LSRO, 1995).

  Note:    Source: U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                  Page
                                                                                  10-69
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-18. Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) - Uncooked Fish Weight"
Age (years)
N
Mean (90% CI)
90th%(90%BI)
95th%(90%BI)
99th % (90% BI)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

410
315
432
1,157

419
358
548
1,325

416
132
101
28
1,599
829
673
980
2,482

1,776(1,543-2,009)
1,185(962-1,408)
986(880-1,093)
1,185(1,071-1,299)

1,895(1,618-2,172)
1,167(1,034-1,299)
1,076(963-1,190)
1,238(1,140-1,336)

2,292 (2,012-2,572)
1,830(1,416-2,245)
1,273(1,082-1,464)
1,401* (10,588-1,744)
1,102(1,023-1,181)
1,834(1,680-1,987)
1,175(1,067-1,282)
1,032(941-1,123)
1,213(1,136-1,291)

4,397 (3,635-4,535)
2,922(2,294-3,314)
2,655 (2,313-2,875)
2,875 (2,654-3,266)

4,707 (3,992-4,990)
2,998 (2,724-3,349)
2,467 (2,378-2,597)
3,052(2,735-3,221)

5,852 (4,703-6,068)
4,688* (3,673-5,987)
2,777* (2,091-3,026)
2,971* (2,743-3,692)
2,693 (2,507-2,820)
4,512(4,045-4,780)
2,978(2,739-3,221)
2,508 (2,383-2,797)
2,947(2,808-3,118)

6,855 (4,881-9,166)
4,260 (3,266-5,973)
3,263 (2,944-3,716)
4,033(3,516-4,406)

5,905 (5,522-6,103)
4,015 (3,712-4,635)
3,447 (3,093-3,849)
4,257 (4,039-4,473)

7,160 (6,950-7,442)
6,207* (4,767-12,926)
4,419* (3,026-5,522)
3,279* (2,767-8,577)
3,744 (3,520-4,037)
5,986 (5,531-6,867)
4,125(3,815-4,841)
3,319(3,034-3,716)
4,135 (4,037-4,287)

11,544(9,166-16,108)
8,154 (6,721-20,620)
4,630 (4,037-9,900)
8,608 (7,087-9,900)

12,628(8,111-15,495)
6,534(5,511-8,577)
6,574(5,557-9,351)
7,998(6,539-9,351)

15,600* (11,877-18,670)
12,365* (6,763-12,926)
5,717* (5,457-9,852)
6,819* (3,221-8,577)
7,140 (6,388-8,604)
12,389.(9,852-15,495)
8,580(5,973-9,477)
6,122 (4,422-8,254)
8,587 (6,950-9,900)
Marine
Females
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Males
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages
Both Sexes
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 17
1 8 and older
14 and under
15 to 44
45 and older
All ages

629
403
568
1,600

643
409
621


640
203
120
37
1,944
1,272
812
1,189


2,893 (2,679-3,107)
1,475(1,366-1,584)
1,579(1,439-1,719)
1,732(1,649-1,815)

2,885 (2,540-3,230)
1,579(1,458-1,701)
1,412(1,328-1,496)


3,689 (3,395-3,982)
2,787(2,417-3,157)
2,020 (1,741-2,327)
2,007* (1,302-2,712)
1,501 (1,440-1,562)
2,892(2,674-3,111)
1,527(1,441-1,614)
1,501 (1,416-1,586)


6,279 (5,286-6,554)
3,102 (2,580-3,378)
3,028 (2,676-3,239)
3,558 (3,335-3,880)

6,244(5,390-6,931)
3,063(2,855-3,481)
2,812 (2,589-3,072)


7,253 (6,777-8,504)
5,910 (4,813-7,365)
4,224* (3,744-4,781)
4,468* (3,880-7,802)
2,971 (2,740-3,098)
6,290 (5,748-6,448)
3,093(2,855-3,318)
2,948 (2,664-3,232)


7,899 (7,033-8,478)
3,927 (3,440-4,929)
3,917 (3,584-4,560)
4,878 (4,560-5,640)

8,068 (6,577-8,707)
3,736 (3,554-4,048)
3,724 (3,386-3,987)


9,270(8,415-9,991)
8,001* (6,375-8,707)
5,195* (3,859-6,448)
6,537* (3,991-7,802)
3,749-3,579-3,962
8,047 (7,365-8,564)
3,872(3,564-4,131)
3,889 (3,494-4,030)


10,514(9,322-11,981)
6,491 (5,931-7,802)
7,416 (6,021-12,395)
8,618(7,802-9,322)

11,871 (10,365-14,194)
7,103 (4,634-7,701)
5,504(5,134-6,321)


16,100* (11,980-17,989)
10,754* (8,707-12,055)
6,839* (6,076-8,970)
7,886* (4,661-7,958)
6,345 (5,653-7,224)
11,507(10,124-12,054)
6,898 (5,287-7,701)
6,229 (5,409-9,759)

Page
10-70
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
       Table 10-18. Consumer Only Distributions of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake (mg/kg/day) - Uncooked Fish Weight3
                                                      (continued)
  Age (years)
  N
Mean (90% CI)
90th % (90% BI)
95th % (90% BI)
99th % (90% BI)
                                                       All Fish
  Females
   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages

  Males
   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages

  Both Sexes
   3 to 5
   6 to 10
   11 to 15
   16 to 17
   18 and older

   14 and under
   15 to 44
   45 and older
   All ages
 779      3,202(2,983-3,421)
 541      1,728(1,547-1,909)
 725      1,774(1,657-1,890)
2,045     1,962(1,864-2,061)


 788      3,314(3,022-3,607)
 561      1,851 (1,754-1,947)
 842      1,703(1,616-1,791)
 779      4,198(3,894-4,502)
 250      3,188(2,923-3,452)
 164      2,199(1,950-2,449)
 52      2,066* (1,529-2,603)
2,585     1,758(1,687-1,829)

1,567     3,260(3,062-3,457)
1,102     1,790(1,696-1,884)
1,567     1,740(1,650-1,830)
                   6,854 (6,596-7,365)
                   3,437(3,153-3,925)
                   3,422 (3,098-3,767)
                   4,005 (3,831-4,278)


                   7,402 (6,241-7,626)
                   3,599 (3,232-4,197)
                   3,395(3,118-3,638)
                   8,061 (7,366-9,223)
                   6,544 (6,013-8,707)
                  4,387* (3,785-5,522)
                  3,902* (3,536-7,892)
                   3,438 (3,303-3,584)

                   7,120 (6,533-7,859)
                   3,549(3,318-3,833)
                   3,416 (3,227-3,572)
                    8,808 (8,451-9,408)
                    5,045 (4,221-6,122)
                    4,098 (3,870-4,853)
                    5,792 (5,097-6,059)


                    8,720 (8,323-10,591)
                    4,461 (3,991-5,063)
                    4,253 (3,912-4,685)
                   10,444(9,475-12,261)
                   8,654* (7,086-11,756)
                   6,234* (4,420-7,589)
                   6,594* (4,661-8,577)
                    4,492 (4,271-4,810)

                    8,758 (8,487-9,362)
                    4,806 (4,214-5,422)
                    4,261 (4,017-4,497)
                    13,907(11,461-16,108)
                      8,011(6,721-8,604)
                     7,996(6,121-15,117)
                     9,878 (8,970-12,235)


                    13,025(12,278-16,803)
                      7,621 (7,361-8,473)
                      6,376(5,514-9,351)
                    17,874* (15,290-18,670)
                    12,785* (10,930-13,979)
                     8,345* (6,076-8,970)
                     8,210* (7,892-8,577)
                      7,510(6,679-8,604)

                    13,955(12,926-15,495)
                      7,839 (7,361-8,604)
                      6,704(6,195-9,351)
  a         Estimates were projected from sample size to the U.S. population using 4-year combined survey weights; consumers
           only are those individuals who consumed fish at least once during the 2-day reporting period..
  N        =       Sample size.
  CI      =        Confidence interval.
  BI      =        Bootstrap interval; percentile intervals (BI) were estimated using the percentile bootstrap method with 1,000
                   bootstrap replications.
  *        The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the "Third Report on Nutrition
           Monitoring in the United States" (LSRO, 1995).

  Note:     Source:  U.S. EPA, 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                     Page
                                                                                    10-71
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-19.
Demographic Category
Overall (all fish consumers)
Race
Caucasian
Black
Asian
Other
Sex
Female
Male
Age (years)
Oto9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
>70
Sex and Age (years)
Female
Oto9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
>70
Male
Oto9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
>70
Census Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total Fish Consumption, Consumers Only by Demographic Variables*
Intake (g/person/day)
Mean 95th
14.3

14.2
16.0
21.0
13.2

13.2
15.6
6.2
10.1
14.5
15.8
17.4
20.9
21.7
13.3

6.1
9.0
13.4
14.9
16.7
19.5
19.0
10.7

6.3
11.2
16.1
17.0
18.2
22.8
24.4
15.8
16.3
16.2
12.9
12.0
15.2
13.0
14.4
12.1
14.2


Percentile
41.7

41.2
45.2
67.3
29.4

38.4
44.8
16.5
26.8
38.3
42.9
48.1
53.4
55.4
39.8

17.3
25.0
34.5
41.8
49.6
50.1
46.3
31.7

15.8
29.1
43.7
45.6
47.7
57.5
61.1
45.7
46.5
47.8
36.9
35.2
44.1
38.4
43.6
32.1
39.6
Page
10-72
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-19. Total Fish Consumption by Demographic Variables3 (continued)
Demographic Category
Community Type
Rural, non-SMSA
Central city, 2M or more
Outside central city, 2M or more
Central city, 1M - 2M
Outside central city, 1M - 2M
Central city, 500K - 1M
Outside central city, 500K - 1M
Outside central city, 250K - 500K
Central city, 250K - 500K
Central city, 50K - 250K
Outside central city, 50K - 250K
Other urban











Mean
13.0
19.0
15.9
15.4
14.5
14.2
14.0
12.2
14.1
13.8
11.3
13.5
a The calculations in this table are based on respondents who consumed fish
respondents are estimated to represent 94 percent of the U.S. population.
Source: Javitz, 1980.


Intake (g/person/day)
Mean
38.3
55.6
47.3
41.7
41.5
41.0
39.7
32.1
40.5
43.4
31.7
39.2
during the survey month. These

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-73
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-20. Percent Distribution of Total Fish Consumption for Females and Males by Age8
Consumption Category (g/day)
Age (yrs)
Females
Oto9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
>70
Overall
Males
Oto9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
>70
Overall
a
Source:
0.0-5.0


55.5
17.8
28.1
22.4
17.5
17.0
11.5
41.9
28.9

52.1
27.8
16.7
16.6
11.9
9.9
7.4
24.5
22.6
5.1-10.0


26.8
31.4
26.1
23.6
21.9
17.4
16.9
22.1
24.0

30.1
29.3
22.9
21.2
22.3
15.2
15.0
21.7
23.1
10.1-15.0 15


11.0
15.4
20.4
18.0
20.7
16.8
20.6
12.3
16.8

11.9
19.0
19.6
19.2
18.6
15.4
15.6
15.7
17.0
1-20.0 20.1-25.0 2


3.7
6.9
11.8
12.7
13.2
15.5
15.9
9.7
10.7

3.1
10.4
14.5
13.2
14.7
14.4
12.8
9.9
11.3


1.0
3.5
6.7
8.3
9.3
10.5
9.1
5.2
6.4

1.2
6.0
8.8
9.5
8.4
10.4
11.4
9.8
7.7
5.1-30.0 30.1-37.5


1.1
2.4
3.5
4.8
4.5
8.5
9.2
2.9
4.3

0.6
3.2
6.2
7.3
8.5
9.7
8.5
5.3
5.7


0.7
1.2
4.4
3.8
4.6
6.8
6.0
2.6
3.5

0.7
1.7
4.4
5.2
5.3
8.7
9.9
5.4
4.6
37.6-47.5 47.6-60.0


0.3
0.7
2.2
2.8
2.8
5.2
6.1
1.2
2.4

0.1
1.7
3.1
3.2
5.2
7.6
8.3
3.1
3.6


0.0
0.2
0.9
1.9
3.4
4.2
2.4
0.8
1.6

0.2
0.4
1.9
1.3
3.3
4.3
5.5
1.7
2.2
60.1-122.5


0.0
0.4
0.9
1.7
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.2
1.2

0.1
0.5
1.9
2.2
1.7
4.1
5.5
2.8
2.1
over
122.5


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
The percentage of females in an age bracket whose average daily fish consumption is within the specified range. The calculations in
this table are based upon the respondents who consumed fish during the month of the survey. These respondents are estimated to
represent 94% of the U.S. population.
Javitz, 1980.










Page
10-74
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 1 0-2 1 . Mean Total Fish Consumption by Species8
Mean consumption
Species (g/day) Species
Not reported 1.173 Mulletb
Abalone 0.014 Oystersb
Anchovies 0.010 Perch (Freshwater)b
Bassb 0.258 Perch (Marine)
Bluefish 0.070 Pike (Marine)b
Bluegillsb 0.089 Pollock
Bonitob 0.035 Pompano
Buffalofish 0.022 Rockfish
Butterfish 0.010 Sablefish
Carpb 0.016 Salmonb
Catfish (Freshwater)15 0.292 Scallopsb
Catfish (Marine)b 0.014 Scupb
Clamsb 0.442 Sharks
Cod 0.407 Shrimpb
Crab, King 0.030 Smelt*
Crab, other than Kingb 0.254 Snapper
Crappieb 0.076 Snookb
Croakerb 0.028 Spotb
Dolphinb 0.012 Squid and Octopi
Drums 0.019 Sunfish
Floundersb 1.179 Swordfish
Groupers 0.026 Tilefish
Haddock 0.399 Trout (Freshwater)b
Hake 0.117 Trout (Marine)b
Halibutb 0.170 Tuna, light
Herring 0.224 Tuna, White Albacore
Kingfish 0.009 Whitefishb
Lobster (Northern)15 0 . 1 62 Other finfishb
Lobster (Spiny) 0.074 Other shellfish1"
Mackerel, Jack 0.002
Mackerel, other than Jack 0 . 1 72
a The calculations in this table are based upon respondents who consumed fish during
respondents are estimated to represent 94% percent of the U.S. population.
b Designated as freshwater or estuarine species by Stephan (1 980).
Source: Javitz, 1980.
Mean consumption
(g/day)
0.029
0.291
0.062
0.773
0.154
0.266
0.004
0.027
0.002
0.533
0.127
0.014
0.001
1.464
0.057
0.146
0.005
0.046
0.016
0.020
0.012
0.003
0.294
0.070
3.491
0.008
0.141
0.403
0.013


the month of the survey. These



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-75
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-22. Best Fits of Lognormal Distributions Using the NonLinear Optimization (NLO) Method

Shellfish
0
0
(min SS)
Finfish (freshwater)
0
0
(min SS)
Finfish (saltwater)
0
0
(min SS)
Adults
1.370
0.858
27.57
0.334
1.183
6.45
2.311
0.72
30.13
Teenagers
-0.183
1.092
1.19
0.578
0.822
23.51
1.691
0.830
0.33
The following equations may be used with the appropriate 0 and 0 values to obtain an avera^
(DCR), in grams, and percentiles of the DCR distribution.
DCR50 = exp (0)
DCR90 = exp [0 + z(0.90) s 0]
DCR99 = exp [0 + z(0.99) s 0]
DCRavg = exp [0 + 0.5 s 02]
Source: Ruffle etal, 1994.
Children
0.854
0.730
16.06
-0.559
1.141
2.19
0.881
0.970
4.31
>e Daily Consumption Rate
Page                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
10-76	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-23. Mean Fish Intake in a Day, by Sex and Agea
Sex
Age (years)
Males or Females
5 and under
Males
6 to 11
12 to 19
20 and over
Females
6 to 11
12 to 19
20 and over
All individuals
Per capita intake
(g/day)

4

3
3
15

7
9
12
11
Percent of population
consuming fish in 1 day

6.0

3.7
2.2
10.9

7.1
9.0
10.9
9.4
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1 987-88 data for one day.
b Intake for users only was calculated by dividing the per capita consumption rate by
consuming fish in one day.
Source: USDA, 1992b.


Mean intake (g/day) for
consumers onlyb

67

79
136
138

99
100
110
117
the fraction of the population

Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	10-77
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-24. Percent of Respondents That Responded Yes, No, or Don't Know to Eating Seafood in 1 Month
(including shellfish, eels, or squid)
Population Group
Overall
Gender
*
Male
Female
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
*
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Hispanic
*
No
Yes
DK
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Total N
4663

2
2163
2498
84
263
348
326
2972
670

60
3774
463
77
96
193
46
4243
348
26
958
2017
379
1309

1021
399
1253
895
650
445
1048
1036
1601
978
3156
1507

1264
1181
1275
943

N
1811

1
821
989
25
160
177
179
997
273

20
1475
156
21
39
100
10
1625
165
11
518
630
134
529

550
196
501
304
159
101
370
449
590
402
1254
557

462
469
506
374
No
%
38.8

50.0
38.0
39.6
29.8
60.8
50.9
54.9
33.5
40.7

33.3
39.1
33.7
27.3
40.6
51.8
21.7
31.2
35.4
40.4
54.1
31.2
35.4
40.4

53.9
49.1
40.0
34.0
24.5
22.7
35.3
43.3
36.9
41.1
39.7
37.0

36.6
39.7
39.7
39.7
Response
Yes
N
2780

1
1311
1468
42
102
166
137
1946
387

22
2249
304
56
56
93
412
1366
236
766
412
1366
236
766

434
198
739
584
484
341
655
575
989
561
1848
932

780
691
745
564
%
59.6

50.0
60.6
58.8
50.0
38.8
47.7
42.0
65.5
57.8

36.7
59.6
65.7
72.7
58.3
48.2
43.0
67.7
62.3
58.5
43.0
67.7
62.3
58.5

42.5
49.6
59.0
65.3
74.5
76.6
62.5
55.5
61.8
57.4
58.6
61.8

61.7
58.5
58.4
59.8
N
72

*
31
41
17
1
5
10
29
10

18
50
3
*
1
*
28
21
9
14
28
21
9
14

37
45
13
7
7
3
23
12
22
15
54
18

22
21
24
5
DK
%
1.5

*
1.4
1.6
20.2
0.4
1.4
3.1
1.0
1.5

30.0
1.3
0.6
*
1.0
*
41.3
1.2
*
*
2.9
1.0
2.4
1.1

3.6
1.3
1.0
0.8
1.1
0.7
2.2
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.2

1.7
1.8
1.9
0.5
Page
10-78
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish

Table 10-24.
Population Group
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK







Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
*
DK
%
N
Source:


= Missing data.
= Don't know
= Row percentage.
= Sample size.
Tsang and Klepeis,
Percent of Respondents That Responded Yes, No, or Don't Know to Eating Seafood in 1 Month
(including shellfish, eels, or squid) (continued)
Total N

4287
341
35
4500
125
38
4424
203
36


1996.

N

1674
131
6
1750
56
50
1726
80
5



No
%

39.0
38.4
17.7
38.9
44.8
13.2
9.0
39.4
13.9



Response
Yes
N

2563
207
10
2698
68
14
2648
121
11



%

59.8
60.7
28.6
60.0
54.4
36.8
59.6
59.6
30.6



N

50
3
19
52
1
19
50
2
20



DK
%

1.2
0.9
54.3
1.2
0.8
50.0
1.1
1.0
55.6



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-79
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-25. Number of Respondents Reporting Consumption of a Specified Number of Servings of Seafood in 1 Month
Number of Servings in a Month
Population Group
Overall
Gender
*
Male
Female
Age (years)
*
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
*
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Hispanic
*
No
Yes
DK
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Total N
2780

1311
1468
1

42
102
166
137
1946
387

2249
304
56
56
93
22

2566
182
15
17

399
1366
236
766
13

434
198
739
584
484
341

655
575
989
561

1848
932

780
691
745
564

2563
207
10
1-2
918

405
512
1

13
55
72
68
603
107

731
105
15
22
41
4

844
68
5
1

190
407
70
249
2

205
88
267
161
115
82

191
199
336
192

602
316

262
240
220
196

846
69
3
3-5
990

458
532
*

16
29
57
54
679
155

818
103
17
18
25
9

922
52
8
8

140
466
95
285
4

149
62
266
219
183
111

241
221
339
189

661
329

284
244
249
213

917
71
2
6-10
519

261
258
*

5
12
21
9
408
64

428
56
11
6
14
4

480
34
2
3

40
307
46
124
2

47
20
119
122
121
90

137
102
175
105

346
173

131
123
160
105

475
42
2
11-19
191

101
90
*

4
2
6
2
145
32

155
16
5
5
9
1

175
15
*
1

11
107
14
57
2

12
6
46
48
43
36

62
17
70
42

129
62

60
45
59
27

180
11
*
20+
98

57
41
*

1
*
4
1
79
13

76
10
5
3
2
2

88
8
*
2

5
57
8
26
2

7
10
21
26
17
17

12
22
41
23

70
28

28
25
31
14

88
9
1
DK
64

29
35
*

3
4
6
3
32
16

41
14
3
2
2
2

57
5
*
2

13
22
3
25
1

14
12
20
8
5
5

12
14
28
10

40
24

15
14
26
9

57
5
2
Page
10-80
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-25. Number of Respondents Reporting Consumption of a Specified Number of Servings of Seafood in 1 Month (continued)
Population Group
Angina
No
Yes
DK



Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
*
DK
N
Refused
Source:


= Missing data.
= Don't know.
Number of Servings in a Month
Total N 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-19 20+
2698 896 960 509 183 95
68 19 27 8 7 1
14 3 3 2 1 2
2648 877 940 495 185 91
121 37 47 23 6 6
11 4 3 1 * 1


DK
55
6
3
60
2
2

= Row percentage.
= Sample size.
= Respondent refused to answer.
Tsang and Klepeis,
1996.

Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	10-81
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-26. Number of Respondents Reporting Monthly Consumption of Seafood
That Was Purchased or Caught by Someone They Knew
Population Group
Overall
Gender
*
Male
Female
Age (years)
*
Ito4
5 to 11
12 to 17
18 to 64
>64
Race
*
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Hispanic
*
No
Yes
DK
Employment
*
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
*
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Total N
2780

1311
1468
1

42
102
166
137
1946
387

2249
304
56
56
93
22

2566
182
15
17

399
1366
236
766
13

434
198
739
584
484
341

655
575
989
561

1848
932

780
691
745
564

2563
207
10
*
3

1
2
*

*
*
*
*
3
*

1
1
*
*
*
1

2
*
*
1

*
2
1
*
*

*
*
*
2
*
i

2
*
1
*

2
1

*
*
2
1

2
1
*
Mostly Purchased
2584

1206
1377
1

39
94
153
129
1810
359

2092
280
50
55
86
21

2387
169
12
16

368
1285
217
701
13

401
174
680
547
460
322

627
547
897
513

1724
860

741
655
674
514

2384
190
10
Mostly Caught
154

85
69
*

3
8
9
6
106
22

124
19
4
*
7
*

140
13
1
*

25
64
15
50
*

26
20
48
28
19
13

21
20
73
40

100
54

35
27
54
38

142
12
*
DK
39

19
20
*

*
*
4
2
27
6

32
4
2
1
*
*

37
*
2
*

6
15
3
15
*

7
4
11
7
5
5

5
8
18
8

22
17

4
9
15
11

35
4
*
Page
10-82
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-26. Number of Respondents Reporting Monthly Consumption of Seafood
That Was Purchased or Caught by Someone They Knew (continued)
Population Group Total N
Angina
No 2698
Yes 68
DK 14
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No 2648
Yes 121
DK 11
* = Missing data.
DK = Don't know.
N = Sample size.
Refused = Respondent refused to answer.
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996.
* Mostly Purchased Mostly Caught DK
37
3 2507 151 2
* 63 3 *
* 14 *
3 2457 149 39
* 116 5 *
* 11 * *


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-83
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-27.
Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic
As-consumed g/kg/day
Characteristics,
Percentiles
State
Connecticut
All
Gender


Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity





Respondent Education




Household Income ($)




Florida
All
Gender



Demographic
Characteristic



Male
Female

Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non- Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female
Unknown
Sample Size

420

201
219

26
26
21
17
85
77
14
80
63
11

370
9
20
19
2

13
87
62
258

40
150
214
16

15367

7911
7426
30
Arithmetic
Mean

0.41

0.39
0.43

0.32
0.51
0.27
0.67
0.46
0.43
0.16
0.47
0.35
0.09

0.41
0.05
0.48
0.61
0.01

0.33
0.38
0.41
0.43

0.39
0.47
0.38
0.32

0.47

0.44
0.50
0.41
Percent
Eating Fish

85.1

86.2
84.0

51.7
86.7
85.6
79.9
86.7
90.6
70.5
92.8
90.5
76.1

88.7
33.5
70.9
59.2
43.4

100.0
85.3
88.7
83.4

86.4
87.4
84.1
73.4

50.5

49.2
51.9
48.0
10th

0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
50th

0.25

0.24
0.28

0.05
0.35
0.19
0.31
0.28
0.33
0.14
0.29
0.22
0.02

0.27
0.00
0.21
0.14
0.00

0.15
0.22
0.30
0.25

0.26
0.28
0.24
0.30

0.06

0.00
0.10
0.00
90th

1.00

1.05
0.95

0.95
1.13
0.52
1.06
1.00
0.96
0.41
1.13
0.86
0.37

0.98
0.17
1.53
1.33
*

1.04
1.00
0.80
1.03

0.96
1.04
0.99
0.75

1.27

1.22
1.32
1.41
95th

1.32

1.34
1.30

1.47
1.29
0.89
4.02
1.36
1.33
0.53
1.44
1.11
0.45

1.27
*
2.29
3.80
*

1.39
1.14
1.41
1.32

1.45
1.43
1.27
1.00

1.91

1.84
1.98
2.38
Page
10-84
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-27.
Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Characteristics,
Percentiles
State
Florida (continued)
Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity






Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




Minnesota
All
Gender


Age-Gender Category










Demographic
Characteristic


Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non- Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female

Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown
Sample Size


1102
938
864
1537
2264
2080
1638
2540
2206
198

11607
1603
1556
223
104
274

1481
4992
4791
4012
91

3314
6678
3136
2239

837

419
418

47
46
68
47
132
162
55
120
155
5
Arithmetic
Mean


0.89
0.44
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.41
0.44
0.43
0.38
0.35

0.46
0.54
0.46
0.58
0.63
0.43

0.40
0.46
0.49
0.47
0.46

0.47
0.48
0.51
0.35

0.31

0.26
0.36

0.57
0.33
0.22
0.67
0.24
0.34
0.10
0.24
0.24
0.00
Percent
Eating Fish


37.8
39.4
42.9
49.1
56.6
56.5
46.1
53.0
54.5
54.7

51.6
48.3
45.9
49.5
53.4
45.9

41.5
48.5
52.3
54.2
41.2

45.9
50.4
57.5
47.6

94.4

95.3
93.4

97.4
88.4
92.8
96.0
95.0
94.9
92.3
96.0
99.8
1.6
10th


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.02

0.02
0.02

0.05
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.00
50th


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.11
0.15
0.20

0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.11
0.15
0.00

0.00
0.06
0.21
0.00

0.18

0.16
0.21

0.45
0.21
0.19
0.15
0.22
0.21
0.07
0.16
0.19
0.00
90th


2.75
1.37
1.02
1.10
1.38
1.14
1.11
1.17
0.98
0.88

1.24
1.49
1.20
1.33
1.95
1.17

1.16
1.26
1.30
1.30
1.57

1.21
1.28
1.38
1.09

0.62

0.58
0.65

1.09
0.82
0.54
0.61
0.50
0.90
0.26
0.42
0.53
0.00
95th


3.97
2.03
1.44
1.75
1.98
1.62
1.72
1.77
1.46
1.22

1.84
2.24
1.96
1.78
3.61
1.71

1.69
1.96
1.98
1.85
2.61

2.11
1.92
1.99
1.57

1.07

1.06
1.10

1.74
1.34
0.59
4.48
0.58
1.35
0.33
0.64
0.68
0.00
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-85
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-27. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Characteristics,
Percentiles
State
Minnesota (continued)
Race/Ethnicity






Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




North Dakota
All
Gender


Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity





Demographic
Characteristic


White, Non- Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female

Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non- Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown
Sample Size


775
1
3
7
12
39

46
234
259
255
43

87
326
327
97

575

276
299

30
44
55
42
95
99
36
90
81
3

528
2
4
9
32
Arithmetic
Mean


0.27
0.00
0.65
0.53
2.08
0.32

0.34
0.29
0.41
0.26
0.24

0.40
0.34
0.29
0.24

0.32

0.32
0.32

0.67
0.51
0.40
0.18
0.28
0.38
0.22
0.22
0.29
0.11

0.33
0.25
0.20
0.30
0.30
Percent
Eating Fish


93.8
*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

86.2
92.9
95.3
95.0
99.7

91.0
91.3
97.9
92.9

95.2

96.2
94.2

94.4
92.0
97.1
89.9
98.3
93.4
100.0
97.8
94.0
31.5

95.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.5
10th


0.02
*
*
0.13
0.09
0.10

0.00
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.09

0.03
0.01
0.03
0.03

0.03

0.04
0.03

0.04
0.07
0.06
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.00

0.03
*
*
0.08
0.05
50th


0.17
*
0.27
0.47
0.16
0.24

0.19
0.17
0.20
0.17
0.23

0.20
0.17
0.18
0.21

0.18

0.19
0.17

0.22
0.29
0.21
0.11
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.18
0.18
0.00

0.18
0.25
0.18
0.25
0.13
90th


0.59
*
*
*
*
0.79

1.23
0.65
0.65
0.57
0.41

1.20
0.62
0.62
0.56

0.71

0.68
0.73

1.56
1.14
1.01
0.39
0.55
0.99
0.45
0.45
0.67
*

0.72
*
*
0.69
0.71
95th


0.90
*
*
*
*
1.02

1.56
1.11
0.95
1.05
0.51

1.61
0.90
1.09
0.68

1.18

1.20
1.16

3.83
1.49
1.24
0.63
0.86
1.47
0.56
0.54
1.16
*

1.21
*
*
*
0.94
Page
10-86
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-27.
Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Characteristics,
Percentiles
State
Demographic
Characteristic
Sample Size
Arithmetic
Mean
Percent
Eating Fish
10th
50th
90th
95th
North Dakota (continued)
Respondent Education





Household Income ($)





0-11
High School
Some College
College Grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown

29
138
183
188
37

51
235
233
56
FL Consumption is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN, ND consumption
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home
consumption by children <

0.23
0.42
0.28
0.31
0.35

0.52
0.27
0.31
0.42

86.6
97.3
95.2
96.7
87.2

93.7
94.2
97.1
92.7

0.00
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.00

0.02
0.02
0.05
0.04

0

11
0.20
0
0
0

0
0
18
18
10

17
14
0.22
0
18

0.65
0.89
0.63
0.69
0.73

1.79
0.70
0.63
0.79

0.86
1.56
0.99
1.26
1.32

2.55
1.13
1.02
1.21
is based on rate of consumption
18.






Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states.
Source: Westat, 2006.









Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-87
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-28. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only
As-consumed g/kg/day
by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Percentiles
State
Connecticut
All
Gender


Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity





Respondent Education




Household Income ($)




Florida
All
Gender



Demographic
Characteristic



Male
Female

Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non- Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
Unknown

0-11 years
High School
Some College
College grad

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female
Unknown
Sample
Size

362

175
187

14
22
18
14
74
70
10
74
57
9

331
3
15
12
1

13
76
56
217

35
133
182
12

7757

3880
3861
16
Arithmetic
Mean

0.48

0.45
0.52

0.61
0.59
0.32
0.84
0.53
0.48
0.23
0.51
0.38
0.12

0.46
0.15
0.68
1.03
0.01

0.32
0.44
0.46
0.51

0.45
0.54
0.45
0.44

0.93

0.90
0.95
0.85
Percent
Eating Fish

100

100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100

100
100
100
10th

0.07

0.08
0.05

0.16
0.14
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.01

0.07
*
0.12
0.09
*

0.05
0.05
0.10
0.08

0.08
0.07
0.07
0.10

0.19

0.18
0.19
0.12
50th

0.32

0.29
0.34

0.55
0.47
0.19
0.35
0.34
0.37
0.21
0.35
0.26
0.04

0.32
0.15
0.30
0.48
*

0.15
0.27
0.34
0.33

0.32
0.33
0.30
0.41

0.58

0.55
0.62
0.69
90th

1.09

1.11
1.03

1.42
1.15
0.52
1.12
1.12
1.03
0.47
1.15
0.93
0.39

1.05
*
1.86
1.95
*

0.97
1.04
0.85
1.12

1.13
1.12
1.06
0.84

1.89

1.85
1.94
2.37
95th

1.37

1.40
1.35

1.56
1.30
0.84
3.10
1.48
1.36
0.56
1.46
1.12
*

1.31
*
2.47
4.78
*

1.37
1.15
1.43
1.39

1.47
1.45
1.31
1.03

2.73

2.65
2.78
2.61
Page
10-88
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-28. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Florida (continued)
Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity






Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




Minnesota
All
Gender


Age-Gender Category










Demographic
Characteristic


Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non- Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11 years
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female

Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown
Sample
Size


420
375
365
753
1287
1171
754
1334
1192
106

5957
785
721
110
57
127

613
2405
2511
2190
38

1534
3370
1806
1047

793

401
392

46
42
63
44
127
150
52
115
153
1
Arithmetic
Mean


2.34
1.10
0.85
0.89
0.94
0.73
0.96
0.81
0.70
0.64

0.88
1.11
1.01
1.16
1.17
0.94

0.96
0.96
0.93
0.87
1.13

1.03
0.95
0.89
0.74

0.33

0.28
0.38

0.58
0.38
0.24
0.69
0.25
0.36
0.11
0.25
0.24
0.18
Percent
Eating Fish


100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100

100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10th


0.50
0.28
0.20
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.21

0.18
0.23
0.17
0.27
0.21
0.19

0.22
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.25

0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17

0.04

0.04
0.05

0.07
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.05
*
50th


1.74
0.81
0.63
0.55
0.63
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.50
0.49

0.56
0.73
0.60
0.67
0.69
0.67

0.60
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.85

0.61
0.60
0.56
0.51

0.2

0.17
0.22

0.46
0.25
0.21
0.16
0.23
0.22
0.08
0.17
0.19
*
90th


4.67
2.23
1.62
1.77
1.86
1.52
1.77
1.69
1.41
1.15

1.82
2.27
2.08
1.78
3.13
1.73

1.86
1.98
1.91
1.79
2.69

2.22
1.91
1.87
1.61

0.65

0.62
0.7

1.1
1.01
0.55
0.66
0.51
0.93
0.27
0.42
0.53
*
95th


6.80
2.97
2.16
2.42
2.68
2.05
2.65
2.44
1.93
1.55

2.61
3.21
2.81
3.29
4.70
2.43

2.81
2.83
2.70
2.47
2.74

2.99
2.78
2.73
2.09

1.08

1.07
1.22

1.75
1.36
0.59
2.95
0.58
1.37
0.33
0.64
0.68
*
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-89
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-28. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Minnesota (continued)
Race/Ethnicity






Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




North Dakota
All
Gender


Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity





Respondent Education





Demographic
Characteristic


White, Non- Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11 years
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female

Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non- Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11 years
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown
Sample
Size


732
*
3
7
12
39

41
219
249
242
42

77
301
321
94

546

265
281

28
41
53
38
93
92
36
88
76
1

501
2
4
9
30

25
134
174
181
32
Arithmetic
Mean


0.29
*
0.65
0.53
2.08
0.32

0.39
0.31
0.43
0.27
0.24

0.44
0.37
0.29
0.26

0.34

0.33
0.34

0.70
0.56
0.41
0.20
0.29
0.40
0.22
0.22
0.31
0.34

0.34
0.25
0.20
0.30
0.32

0.26
0.43
0.29
0.32
0.40
Percent
Eating Fish


100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100

100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100
10th


0.04
*
*
0.13
0.09
0.10

0.07
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.09

0.09
0.05
0.03
0.05

0.05

0.04
0.05

0.05
0.11
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
*

0.05
*
*
0.08
0.05

0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
50th


0.19
*
0.27
0.46
0.15
0.24

0.20
0.18
0.22
0.19
0.23

0.20
0.18
0.19
0.23

0.19

0.20
0.18

0.23
0.30
0.22
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.13
0.18
0.19
*

0.19
0.25
0.14
0.25
0.16

0.12
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.13
90th


0.60
*
*
*
*
0.79

1.37
0.68
0.65
0.58
0.41

1.30
0.65
0.62
0.57

0.74

0.74
0.74

1.58
1.17
1.04
0.41
0.56
1.14
0.45
0.45
0.74
*

0.74
*
*
0.61
0.73

0.73
0.98
0.65
0.72
0.84
95th


0.98
*
*
*
*
1.01

1.56
1.13
0.98
1.05
0.50

1.63
0.96
1.10
0.69

1.21

1.22
1.20

3.82
1.51
1.26
0.67
0.87
1.52
0.56
0.54
1.20
*

1.23
*
*
*
0.95

0.90
1.62
1.02
1.30
1.43
Page
10-90
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-28. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State Demographic Sample Arithmetic
Characteristic Size Mean
North Dakota (continued)
Household Income ($)
0-20000 48 0.55
20000-50000 221 0.29
50000- 225 0.32
Unknown 52 0.45
Percent
Eating Fish


100
100
100
100
10th 50th


0.07 0.19
0.04 0.15
0.06 0.23
0.05 0.20
90th 95th


1.80 2.62
0.73 1.17
0.64 1.04
0.82 1.28
FL Consumption is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN, ND consumption is based on rate of consumption
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by children < 1 8.
Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states.
Source: Westat, 2006.









Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-91
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-29. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents by State, Acquisition MethodAs-consumed g/kg/day
Percentiles
State
Connecticut
All
Acquisition Method


Category



Bought
Caught
Sample
Size

420

420
420
Arithmetic
Mean

0.41

0.40
0.01
Percent
Eating
Fish

85.1

84.8
16.3
10th

0.00

0.00
0.00
50th

0.25

0.25
0.00
90th

1.00

0.96
0.01
95th

1.32

1.30
0.03
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Habitat



Fish/Shellfish Type


Florida
All
Acquisition Method


Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
40
150
214
16
40
150
214
16

420
420
420

420
420

15367

15367
15367
0.38
0.46
0.38
0.32
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00

0.01
0.10
0.29

0.13
0.27

0.47

0.41
0.06
86.4
86.6
84.1
73.4
11.0
18.1
16.8
6.2

36.4
76.0
84.8

74.6
82.7

50.5

47.5
7.4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00
0.00
0.26
0.27
0.24
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.04
0.17

0.06
0.14

0.06

0.00
0.00
0.96
0.93
0.99
0.75
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00

0.03
0.23
0.67

0.30
0.69

1.27

1.12
0.00
1.45
1.42
1.27
1.00
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.01

0.07
0.43
0.97

0.55
0.95

1.91

1.70
0.34
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Habitat



Fish/Shellfish Type


Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine

Shellfish
Finfish
3314
6678
3136
2239
3314
6678
3136
2239

15367
15367
15367

15367
15367
0.41
0.41
0.45
0.32
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.03

0.04
0.10
0.33

0.07
0.39
42.5
47.4
54.2
45.3
6.7
7.8
8.4
5.5

9.1
26.5
40.3

21.1
41.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
1.10
1.11
1.27
0.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.32
0.90

0.22
1.10
1.84
1.68
1.79
1.45
0.32
0.38
0.42
0.16

0.26
0.54
1.43

0.43
1.67
Page
10-92
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-29. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents by State, Acquisition MethodAs-consumed g/kg/day
(continued)
Percentiles
State
Minnesota
All
Acquisition Method


Category



Bought
Caught
Sample
Size

837

837
837
Arithmetic
Mean

0.31

0.20
0.11
Percent
Eating
Fish

94.4

89.9
60.6
10th

0.02

0.00
0.00
50th

0.18

0.10
0.03
90th

0.62

0.51
0.22
95th

1.07

0.76
0.37
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Habitat



Fish/Shellfish Type


North Dakota
All
Acquisition Method


Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
87
326
327
97
87
326
327
97

837
837
837

837
837

575

575
575
0.26
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.14
0.15
0.09
0.04

0.11
0.02
0.18

0.04
0.27

0.32

0.23
0.09
90.7
84.4
93.9
91.3
70.4
66.0
55.5
56.7

60.6
67.5
89.9

67.5
94.0

95.2

89.9
68.3
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01

0.03

0.00
0.00
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.18
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02

0.03
0.01
0.09

0.01
0.15

0.18

0.10
0.04
0.61
0.45
0.55
0.54
0.28
0.25
0.24
0.12

0.22
0.05
0.46

0.10
0.57

0.71

0.52
0.24
1.06
0.58
0.86
0.65
1.00
0.36
0.39
0.14

0.37
0.09
0.68

0.18
0.83

1.18

0.93
0.40
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Habitat



Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
51
235
233
56
51
235
233
56

575
575
575
0.41
0.21
0.19
0.30
0.10
0.07
0.12
0.11

0.09
0.02
0.21
88.0
90.6
90.7
85.5
53.9
59.4
76.2
85.7

68.3
71.3
89.9
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.05

0.04
0.01
0.09
1.34
0.48
0.48
0.66
0.23
0.18
0.34
0.22

0.24
0.05
0.45
2.03
1.01
0.77
0.91
0.45
0.30
0.46
0.23

0.40
0.08
0.80
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-93
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish

Table 10-29. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight,
State Category
North Dakota (continued)
Fish/Shellfish Type
Shellfish
Finfish

all Respondents by State, Acquisition MethodAs-consumed g/kg/day
(continued)
Percentiles
Sample Arithmetic Percent 10th 50th 90th 95th
Size Mean Eating
Fish
575 0.04 71.3 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.15
575 0.28 94.3 0.02 0.14 0.63 1.01
FL Consumption is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN, ND consumption is based on rate of consumption
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by children < 18.
Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states.
A respondent can be represented in more than one row.
Source: Westat, 2006.

Page
10-94
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-30. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Acquisition Method, As-consumed
g/kg/day

Percentiles
State
Connecticut
All
Acquisition Method


Category



Bought
Caught
Sample
Size

362

361
71
Arithmetic
Mean

0.48

0.47
0.05
Percent
Eating Fish

100

100
100
10th

0.07

0.07
0.00
50th

0.32

0.31
0.02
90th

1.09

1.05
0.13
95th

1.37

1.38
0.18
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Acquisition Method of



Habitat



Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown
Fish/Shellfish Eaten
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught&Bought
Eats Bought Only

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
35
132
182
12
4
30
36
1

1
70
291

157
327
361
0.44
0.53
0.45
0.44
0.05
0.08
0.03
0.01

0.01
0.49
0.48

0.04
0.14
0.34
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
100
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.10
*
0.00
0.00
*

*
0.10
0.06

0.00
0.01
0.04
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.41
0.01
0.02
0.02
*

*
0.34
0.32

0.02
0.06
0.23
1.13
1.03
1.04
0.84
*
0.23
0.08
*

*
1.10
1.06

0.07
0.30
0.78
1.47
1.46
1.29
1.03
*
0.46
0.11
*

*
1.33
1.39

0.15
0.51
1.09
Eats Freshwater/Estuarine Caught Fish


Fish/Shellfish Type


Florida
All
Acquisition Method


Sometimes
Never

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
50
312

320
353

7757

7246
1212
0.46
0.49

0.18
0.32

0.93

0.86
0.83
100
100

100
100

100

100
100
0.09
0.07

0.02
0.02

0.19

0.17
0.15
0.29
0.32

0.09
0.20

0.58

0.54
0.52
1.10
1.06

0.37
0.77

1.89

1.77
1.74
1.25
1.41

0.68
1.08

2.73

2.55
2.36
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown
1418
3141
1695
992
246
563
274
129
0.97
0.87
0.83
0.71
0.89
0.90
0.76
0.58
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.19
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.15
0.11
0.16
0.58
0.56
0.53
0.48
0.60
0.53
0.49
0.41
2.10
1.74
1.75
1.55
1.94
1.79
1.63
1.07
2.78
2.50
2.54
2.06
2.77
2.38
2.42
1.52
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-95
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-30. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Acquisition MethodAs-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Florida (continued)
Acquisition Method of



Habitat



Category

Fish/Shellfish Eaten
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught&Bought
Eats Bought Only

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
Sample
Size


511
701
6545

1426
4124
6124
Arithmetic
Mean


0.76
1.81
0.85

0.47
0.37
0.81
Percent
Eating Fish


100
100
100

100
100
100
10th


0.15
0.50
0.18

0.07
0.07
0.15
50th


0.50
1.15
0.54

0.30
0.23
0.50
90th


1.67
3.35
1.75

1.09
0.80
1.64
95th


2.34
5.09
2.49

1.51
1.14
2.40
Eats Freshwater/Estuarine Caught Fish



Fish/Shellfish Type


Minnesota
All
Acquisition Method


Exclusively
Sometimes
Never

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
235
458
7064

3260
6428

793

755
593
0.71
1.73
0.88

0.35
0.94

0.33

0.22
0.18
100
100
100

100
100

100

100
100
0.10
0.43
0.18

0.07
0.24

0.04

0.03
0.02
0.42
1.10
0.56

0.21
0.60

0.20

0.12
0.07
1.60
3.44
1.81

0.74
1.85

0.65

0.55
0.30
2.16
4.96
2.60

1.02
2.72

1.08

0.83
0.57
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Acquisition Method of



Habitat



Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown
Fish/Shellfish Eaten
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught&Bought
Eats Bought Only

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
76
284
312
83
56
232
235
70

38
555
200

593
559
755
0.29
0.22
0.21
0.23
0.19
0.23
0.16
0.07

0.16
0.40
0.23

0.18
0.03
0.20
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
100
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.02
0.08
0.02

0.02
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.2
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.03

0.08
0.23
0.14

0.07
0.01
0.10
0.64
0.47
0.57
0.54
0.49
0.30
0.37
0.14

0.37
0.70
0.56

0.30
0.07
0.50
1.08
0.74
0.97
0.65
1.09
0.46
0.65
0.16

0.51
1.32
0.91

0.57
0.12
0.73
Eats Freshwater/Estuarine Caught Fish



Exclusively
Sometimes
Never
38
555
200
0.16
0.40
0.23
100
100
100
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.23
0.14
0.37
0.70
0.56
0.51
1.32
0.91
Page
10-96
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-30. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Acquisition Method, As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Minnesota (continued)
Fish/Shellfish Type


North Dakota
All
Acquisition Method


Category

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
Sample
Size

559
791

546

516
389
Arithmetic
Mean

0.06
0.28

0.34

0.25
0.14
Percent
Eating Fish

100
100

100

100
100
10th

0.01
0.03

0.05

0.03
0.02
50th

0.02
0.16

0.19

0.12
0.07
90th

0.14
0.57

0.74

0.61
0.34
95th

0.24
0.86

1.21

1.02
0.46
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown
45
213
210
48
27
142
173
47
0.47
0.23
0.21
0.35
0.19
0.11
0.15
0.13
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.06
1.54
0.52
0.48
0.70
0.42
0.25
0.38
0.23
2.22
1.03
0.79
1.08
0.64
0.40
0.53
0.24
Acquisition Method of Fish/Shellfish Eaten



Habitat



Eats Freshwater/Estuarine



Fish/Shellfish Type


Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught&Bought
Eats Bought Only

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
Caught Fish
Exclusively
Sometimes
Never

Shellfish
Finfish
30
359
157

389
407
516

30
359
157

407
541
0.21
0.39
0.25

0.14
0.03
0.23

0.21
0.39
0.25

0.05
0.30
100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
0.05
0.07
0.03

0.02
0.00
0.02

0.05
0.07
0.03

0.01
0.04
0.14
0.23
0.10

0.07
0.01
0.10

0.14
0.23
0.10

0.02
0.16
0.33
0.82
0.53

0.34
0.06
0.54

0.33
0.82
0.53

0.13
0.67
0.51
1.25
0.97

0.46
0.10
0.86

0.51
1.25
0.97

0.21
1.08
FL Consumption is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN, ND consumption is based on rate of consumption
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by children < 18.
Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states.
A respondent can be represented in more than one row.
Source: Westat, 2006.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-97
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-31.
Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Uncooked g/kg/day
Percentiles
State
Connecticut
All
Gender


Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity





Respondent Education




Household Income ($)




Florida
All
Gender



Demographic
Characteristic



Male
Female

Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female
Unknown
Sample
Size

420

201
219

26
26
21
17
85
77
14
80
63
11

370
9
20
19
2

13
87
62
258

40
150
214
16

15367

7911
7426
30
Arithmetic
Mean

0.56

0.53
0.59

0.43
0.71
0.37
0.88
0.64
0.59
0.23
0.64
0.47
0.12

0.56
0.07
0.67
0.81
0.01

0.43
0.51
0.56
0.58

0.52
0.64
0.52
0.45

0.59

0.55
0.62
0.51
Percent
Eating
Fish

85.1

86.2
84.0

51.7
86.7
85.6
79.9
86.7
90.6
70.5
92.8
90.5
76.1

88.7
33.5
70.9
59.2
43.4

100.0
85.3
88.7
83.4

86.4
87.4
84.1
73.4

50.5

49.2
51.9
48.0
10th

0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
50th

0.35

0.34
0.39

0.07
0.48
0.25
0.43
0.39
0.45
0.21
0.43
0.36
0.03

0.38
0.00
0.29
0.18
0.00

0.20
0.30
0.41
0.36

0.34
0.39
0.34
0.42

0.08

0.00
0.14
0.00
90th

1.37

1.48
1.29

1.25
1.55
0.71
1.41
1.39
1.28
0.55
1.56
1.15
0.52

1.32
0.23
2.14
1.74
*

1.34
1.40
1.09
1.40

1.28
1.40
1.37
1.02

1.59

1.51
1.66
1.73
95th

1.76

1.78
1.73

1.95
1.74
1.20
5.25
1.80
1.74
0.74
1.97
1.55
0.62

1.69
*
3.43
4.96
*

1.74
1.55
1.87
1.78

1.86
1.93
1.69
1.36

2.39

2.32
2.48
2.90
Page
10-98
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-31.
Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Uncooked g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Florida (continued)
Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity






Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




Minnesota
All
Gender


Demographic
Characteristic


Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11- 15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female
Sample
Size


1102
938
864
1537
2264
2080
1638
2540
2206
198

11607
1603
1556
223
104
274

1481
4992
4791
4012
91

3314
6678
3136
2239

837

419
418
Arithmetic
Mean


1.10
0.54
0.46
0.55
0.67
0.52
0.55
0.54
0.49
0.45

0.57
0.67
0.57
0.72
0.78
0.53

0.50
0.58
0.61
0.60
0.58

0.59
0.61
0.65
0.45

0.41

0.35
0.48
Percent
Eating
Fish


37.8
39.4
42.9
49.1
56.6
56.5
46.1
53.0
54.5
54.7

51.6
48.3
45.9
49.5
53.4
45.9

41.5
48.5
52.3
54.2
41.2

45.9
50.4
57.5
47.6

94.4

95.3
93.4
10th


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.03

0.03
0.02
50th


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.27
0.00
0.16
0.20
0.27

0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.15
0.20
0.00

0.00
0.08
0.27
0.00

0.24

0.22
0.27
90th


3.41
1.69
1.27
1.42
1.73
1.44
1.41
1.49
1.24
1.07

1.56
1.87
1.52
1.65
2.46
1.45

1.45
1.59
1.59
1.64
2.04

1.55
1.61
1.77
1.36

0.83

0.77
0.87
95th


4.85
2.55
1.92
2.20
2.56
2.04
2.20
2.21
1.86
1.53

2.33
2.77
2.46
2.34
4.52
2.14

2.16
2.45
2.47
2.34
3.05

2.61
2.42
2.53
1.99

1.43

1.41
1.46
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
10-99
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-31. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Uncooked g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Minnesota (continued)
Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity






Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




North Dakota
All
Gender


Demographic
Characteristic


Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11- 15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female
Sample
Size


47
46
68
47
132
162
55
120
155
5

775
1
3
7
12
39

46
234
259
255
43

87
326
327
97

575

276
299
Arithmetic
Mean


0.76
0.44
0.29
0.89
0.32
0.46
0.13
0.32
0.32
0.00

0.36
0.00
0.86
0.71
2.77
0.43

0.45
0.39
0.54
0.34
0.32

0.53
0.45
0.38
0.33

0.43

0.43
0.43
Percent
Eating
Fish


97.4
88.4
92.8
96.0
95.0
94.9
92.3
96.0
99.8
1.6

93.8
*
100
100
100
100

86.2
92.9
95.3
95.0
99.7

91.0
91.3
97.9
92.9

95.2

96.2
94.2
10th


0.06
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.00

0.02
*
*
0.18
0.12
0.14

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.12

0.04
0.02
0.04
0.04

0.05

0.05
0.04
50th


0.60
0.28
0.25
0.20
0.29
0.28
0.09
0.22
0.25
0.00

0.23
*
0.36
0.63
0.21
0.31

0.25
0.22
0.27
0.23
0.30

0.27
0.23
0.24
0.29

0.24

0.25
0.23
90th


1.46
1.09
0.72
0.81
0.67
1.19
0.35
0.56
0.70
0.00

0.79
*
*
*
*
1.05

1.64
0.86
0.86
0.76
0.55

1.60
0.83
0.82
0.74

0.95

0.91
0.97
95th


2.32
1.79
0.78
5.97
0.77
1.80
0.44
0.85
0.91
0.00

1.19
*
*
*
*
1.36

2.08
1.48
1.27
1.40
0.68

2.14
1.20
1.46
0.91

1.58

1.60
1.55
Page
10-100
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-31. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Uncooked g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
North Dakota (continued)
Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity





Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




Demographic
Characteristic


Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11- 15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College Grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown
FL Consumption is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN,
Sample
Size


30
44
55
42
95
99
36
90
81
3

528
2
4
9
32

29
138
183
188
37

51
235
233
56
Arithmetic
Mean


0.89
0.68
0.53
0.24
0.38
0.50
0.29
0.29
0.38
0.14

0.43
0.33
0.26
0.40
0.40

0.30
0.56
0.37
0.41
0.46

0.69
0.36
0.41
0.55
Percent
Eating
Fish


94.4
92.0
97.1
89.9
98.3
93.4
100.0
97.8
94.0
31.5

95.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.5

86.6
97.3
95.2
96.7
87.2

93.7
94.2
97.1
92.7
10th


0.05
0.09
0.07
0.00
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.00

0.04
*
*
0.11
0.06

0.00
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.00

0.03
0.03
0.06
0.05
50th


0.30
0.39
0.28
0.15
0.24
0.21
0.17
0.23
0.23
0.00

0.24
0.33
0.24
0.33
0.18

0.15
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.13

0.23
0.18
0.30
0.24
90th


2.08
1.52
1.35
0.52
0.74
1.32
0.61
0.59
0.90
*

0.96
*
*
0.92
0.95

0.86
1.19
0.84
0.92
0.98

2.39
0.93
0.84
1.05
95th


5.10
1.99
1.65
0.84
1.14
1.95
0.75
0.71
1.54
*

1.62
*
*
*
1.25

1.15
2.08
1.32
1.69
1.76

3.40
1.51
1.36
1.62
ND consumption is based on rate of consumption
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by children
< 18.





Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states.
Source: Westat, 2006.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-101
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-32. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Uncooked g/kg/day
State
Connecticut
All
Gender


Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity





Respondent Education




Household Income ($)




Florida
All
Gender



Demographic
Characteristic



Male
Female

Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11-15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female
Unknown
Sample
Size

362

175
187

14
22
18
14
74
70
10
74
57
9

331
3
15
12
1

13
76
56
217

35
133
182
12

7757

3880
3861
16
Arithmetic
Mean

0.66

0.61
0.70

0.83
0.81
0.43
1.10
0.73
0.65
0.32
0.69
0.52
0.16

0.63
0.20
0.95
1.36
0.03

0.43
0.60
0.63
0.70

0.60
0.73
0.62
0.61

1.16

1.12
1.20
1.05
Percent
Eating
Fish

100

100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100

100
100
100
10th

0.10

0.11
0.09

0.21
0.21
0.12
0.15
0.08
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.01

0.10
*
0.16
0.12
*

0.07
0.06
0.16
0.11

0.10
0.12
0.09
0.13

0.24

0.23
0.25
0.15
Percentiles
50th 90th

0.43

0.41
0.47

0.74
0.74
0.30
0.47
0.47
0.50
0.30
0.48
0.38
0.05

0.43
0.20
0.39
0.69
*

0.20
0.37
0.46
0.45

0.43
0.46
0.41
0.57

0.73

0.69
0.77
0.91

1.51

1.54
1.40

1.88
1.57
0.72
1.50
1.60
1.39
0.63
1.58
1.25
0.54

1.41
*
2.95
2.57
*

1.27
1.47
1.16
1.53

1.53
1.55
1.49
1.14

2.39

2.33
2.42
2.90
95th

1.80

1.85
1.77

2.07
1.76
1.14
4.07
1.97
1.76
0.78
1.98
1.55
*

1.75
*
3.52
6.24
*

1.72
1.56
1.89
1.85

1.90
1.98
1.75
1.41

3.37

3.32
3.48
3.19
Page
10-102
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-32. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by Selected Demo
Uncooked g/kg/day (continued)
graphic Characteristics,
Percentiles
State
Florida (continued)
Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity






Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




Minnesota
All
Gender


Demographic
Characteristic


Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11- 15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female
Sample
Size


420
375
365
753
1287
1171
754
1334
1192
106

5957
785
721
110
57
127

613
2405
2511
2190
38

1534
3370
1806
1047

793

401
392
Arithmetic
Mean


2.92
1.37
1.06
1.12
1.18
0.91
1.19
1.02
0.89
0.81

1.11
1.39
1.25
1.46
1.45
1.16

1.20
1.20
1.16
1.10
1.40

1.28
1.20
1.13
0.93

0.44

0.37
0.51
Percent
Eating
Fish


100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100

100
100
10th


0.63
0.38
0.28
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.27

0.24
0.30
0.23
0.35
0.28
0.24

0.27
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.32

0.25
0.25
0.22
0.23

0.06

0.05
0.06
50th


2.16
1.01
0.79
0.71
0.78
0.66
0.66
0.67
0.62
0.61

0.71
0.91
0.75
0.84
0.90
0.81

0.74
0.73
0.72
0.73
1.06

0.77
0.75
0.71
0.64

0.26

0.23
0.29
90th


5.73
2.72
2.02
2.22
2.39
1.92
2.26
2.18
1.75
1.50

2.30
2.81
2.53
2.34
4.02
2.23

2.38
2.49
2.39
2.25
3.08

2.77
2.41
2.39
2.06

0.86

0.82
0.93
95th


8.37
3.45
2.78
3.10
3.31
2.53
3.30
3.05
2.51
2.02

3.28
3.92
3.57
4.08
5.73
3.10

3.53
3.58
3.39
3.17
3.17

3.66
3.45
3.37
2.52

1.44

1.43
1.62
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-103
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-32. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by Selected Demo
Uncooked g/kg/day (continued)
graphic Characteristics,
Percentiles
State
Minnesota (continued)
Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity






Respondent Education





Household Income ($)




North Dakota
All
Gender


Demographic
Characteristic


Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11- 15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown



Male
Female
Sample
Size


46
42
63
44
127
150
52
115
153
1

732
*
3
7
12
39

41
219
249
242
42

77
301
321
94

546

265
281
Arithmetic
Mean


0.78
0.50
0.32
0.92
0.34
0.48
0.14
0.33
0.33
0.24

0.38
*
0.86
0.71
2.77
0.43

0.53
0.42
0.57
0.36
0.32

0.59
0.49
0.39
0.35

0.45

0.44
0.46
Percent
Eating
Fish


100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100

100
100
10th


0.09
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.02
0.09
0.06
*

0.05
*
*
0.18
0.12
0.14

0.10
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.12

0.12
0.07
0.04
0.07

0.07

0.06
0.07
50th


0.62
0.33
0.28
0.21
0.30
0.29
0.11
0.23
0.25
*

0.25
*
0.36
0.62
0.21
0.31

0.26
0.24
0.29
0.25
0.31

0.27
0.24
0.25
0.30

0.25

0.27
0.24
90th


1.47
1.35
0.73
0.88
0.68
1.24
0.36
0.56
0.70
*

0.81
*
*
*
*
1.05

1.83
0.90
0.86
0.78
0.55

1.73
0.86
0.83
0.76

0.99

0.99
0.99
95th


2.33
1.81
0.78
3.93
0.78
1.82
0.44
0.86
0.91
*

1.31
*
*
*
*
1.34

2.08
1.51
1.31
1.41
0.67

2.17
1.28
1.46
0.92

1.62

1.62
1.60
Page
10-104
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-32. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by Selected Demographic Characteristics,
Uncooked g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Demographic
Characteristic
Sample Arithmetic
Size Mean
Percent
Eating
Fish
10th
50th
90th
95th
North Dakota (continued)
Age-Gender Category










Race/Ethnicity





Respondent Education





Household Income ($)





Child 1-5
Child 6- 10
Child 11- 15
Female 16-29
Female 30-49
Female 50+
Male 16-29
Male 30-49
Male 50+
Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Unknown

0-11
High School
Some College
College Grad
Unknown

0-20000
20000-50000
50000-
Unknown
FL Consumption is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN,

28
41
53
38
93
92
36
88
76
1

501
2
4
9
30

25
134
174
181
32

48
221
225
52

0.94
0.74
0.54
0.27
0.38
0.54
0.29
0.29
0.41
0.45

0.45
0.33
0.26
0.40
0.42

0.35
0.57
0.38
0.43
0.53

0.74
0.39
0.42
0.60

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

0.07
0.14
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.05
*

0.06
*
*
0.11
0.07

0.09
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.05

0.09
0.05
0.08
0.06

0.31
0.40
0.29
0.19
0.24
0.23
0.17
0.25
0.25
*

0.25
0.33
0.18
0.33
0.21

0.16
0.27
0.26
0.25
0.17

0.25
0.20
0.31
0.27

2.11
1.56
1.39
0.54
0.75
1.53
0.60
0.60
0.99
*

0.99
*
*
0.82
0.98

0.97
1.30
0.87
0.95
1.12

2.40
0.97
0.85
1.10

5.09
2.02
1.68
0.89
1.16
2.02
0.75
0.72
1.60
*

1.64
*
*
*
1.27

1.20
2.16
1.36
1.73
1.91

3.49
1.55
1.39
1.71
ND consumption is based on rate of consumption
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by children < 18.
Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states.
Source: Westat, 2006.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-105
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-33. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Acquisition MethodUncooked g/kg/day
Percentiles
State Characteristic Sample Arithmetic Percent
Size Mean Eating
Fish
Connecticut
All
Acquisition Method





Bought
Caught

420

420
420

0.56

0.55
0.01

85.1

84.8
16.3
10th

0.00

0.00
0.00
50th

0.35

0.34
0.00
90th

1.37

1.30
0.02
95th

1.76

1.76
0.04
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Habitat



Fish/Shellfish Type


Florida
All
Acquisition Method


Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
40
150
214
16
40
150
214
16

420
420
420

420
420

15367

15367
15367
0.51
0.62
0.52
0.45
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00

0.02
0.15
0.40

0.19
0.36

0.59

0.51
0.08
86.4
86.6
84.1
73.4
11.0
18.1
16.8
6.2

36.4
76.0
84.8

74.6
82.7

50.5

47.5
7.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00
0.00
0.34
0.37
0.33
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.06
0.23

0.09
0.19

0.08

0.00
0.00
1.28
1.22
1.34
1.02
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00

0.05
0.36
0.90

0.43
0.94

1.59

1.41
0.00
1.86
1.93
1.64
1.36
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.01

0.09
0.59
1.29

0.76
1.28

2.39

2.16
0.45
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Habitat



Fish/Shellfish Type


Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine

Shellfish
Finfish
3314
6678
3136
2239
3314
6678
3136
2239

15367
15367
15367

15367
15367
0.51
0.52
0.57
0.40
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.04

0.05
0.13
0.40

0.11
0.48
42.5
47.4
54.2
45.3
6.7
7.8
8.4
5.5

9.1
26.5
40.3

21.1
41.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
1.34
1.40
1.58
1.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.43
1.11

0.32
1.35
2.32
2.12
2.27
1.82
0.42
0.48
0.53
0.21

0.33
0.73
1.76

0.61
2.08
Page
10-106
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-33. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight,
all Respondents, by State, Acquisition MethodUncooked g/kg
/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Minnesota
All
Acquisition Method


Characteristic



Bought
Caught
Sample
Size

837

837
837
Arithmetic
Mean

0.41

0.27
0.15
Percent
Eating
Fish

94.4

89.9
60.6
10th

0.03

0.00
0.00
50th

0.24

0.14
0.03
90th

0.83

0.68
0.30
95th

1.43

1.01
0.49
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Habitat



Fish/Shellfish Type


North Dakota
All
Acquisition Method


Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
87
326
327
97
87
326
327
97

837
837
837

837
837

575

575
575
0.35
0.25
0.27
0.28
0.18
0.20
0.12
0.05

0.15
0.03
0.24

0.06
0.36

0.43

0.30
0.13
90.7
84.4
93.9
91.3
70.4
66.0
55.5
56.7

60.6
67.5
89.9

67.5
94.0

95.2

89.9
68.3
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.02

0.05

0.00
0.00
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.23
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.02

0.03
0.01
0.12

0.02
0.19

0.24

0.13
0.05
0.82
0.60
0.74
0.72
0.38
0.33
0.31
0.16

0.30
0.06
0.61

0.13
0.76

0.95

0.69
0.31
1.42
0.77
1.15
0.86
1.33
0.48
0.53
0.19

0.49
0.12
0.91

0.24
1.11

1.58

1.24
0.53
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Habitat



Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
51
235
233
56
51
235
233
56

575
575
575
0.55
0.28
0.26
0.41
0.14
0.09
0.15
0.15

0.13
0.03
0.28
88.0
90.6
90.7
85.5
53.9
59.4
76.2
85.7

68.3
71.3
89.9
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.07

0.05
0.01
0.11
1.79
0.65
0.64
0.88
0.31
0.23
0.45
0.29

0.31
0.06
0.60
2.71
1.35
1.02
1.21
0.61
0.40
0.61
0.31

0.53
0.10
1.07
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-107
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish


Table 10-33. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Acquisition MethodUncooked g/kg/day (continued)
State Characteristic
North Dakota (continued)
Fish/Shellfish Type
Shellfish
Finfish
Percentiles
Sample Arithmetic Percent 10th 50th 90th 95th
Size Mean Eating
Fish
575 0.05 71.3 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.20
575 0.38 94.3 0.03 0.19 0.84 1.35
FL Consumption is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN, ND consumption is based on rate of consumption
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by children < 18.
Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states.
A respondent can be represented in more than one row.
Source: Westat, 2006.

Page
10-108
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-34. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State
Acquisition MethodUncooked g/kg/day
Percentiles
State
Connecticut
All
Acquisition Method


Category



Bought
Caught
Sample
Size

362

361
71
Arithmetic
Mean

0.66

0.65
0.07
Percent
Eating Fish

100

100
100
10th

0.10

0.10
0.00
50th

0.43

0.43
0.02
90th

1.51

1.43
0.17
95th

1.80

1.80
0.23
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Acquisition Method of



Habitat



Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown
Fish/Shellfish Eaten
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught&Bought
Eats Bought Only

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
35
132
182
12
4
30
36
1

1
70
291

157
327
361
0.59
0.71
0.62
0.61
0.07
0.11
0.04
0.01

0.03
0.67
0.66

0.05
0.19
0.47
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
100
0.10
0.11
0.08
0.13
*
0.01
0.00
*

*
0.13
0.09

0.00
0.01
0.06
0.41
0.45
0.41
0.57
0.02
0.03
0.02
*

*
0.46
0.43

0.03
0.09
0.31
1.53
1.40
1.45
1.14
*
0.30
0.11
*

*
1.54
1.50

0.10
0.40
1.03
1.90
1.98
1.75
1.41
*
0.62
3.15
*

*
1.71
1.82

0.21
0.69
1.45
Eats Freshwater/Estuarine Caught Fish


Fish/Shellfish Type


Florida
All
Acquisition Method


Sometimes
Never

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
50
312

320
353

7757

7246
1212
0.64
0.66

0.26
0.43

1.16

1.07
1.05
100
100

100
100

100

100
100
0.12
0.10

0.03
0.03

0.24

0.23
0.20
0.39
0.44

0.14
0.26

0.73

0.68
0.64
1.53
1.50

0.56
1.03

2.39

2.22
2.18
1.68
1.83

0.91
1.45

3.37

3.18
3.03
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown
1418
3141
1695
992
246
563
274
129
1.20
1.09
1.05
0.89
1.14
1.14
0.95
0.74
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.26
0.20
0.16
0.22
0.72
0.70
0.67
0.60
0.76
0.67
0.61
0.54
2.54
2.18
2.18
1.96
2.40
2.31
2.09
1.36
3.44
3.21
3.17
2.50
3.72
3.13
3.06
2.03
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-109
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-34. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only,
State
Florida (continued)
Category

Sample
Size

by State, Acquisition MethodUncooked g/kg/day (continued)
Arithmetic
Mean

Percent
Eating Fish

10th

Percentiles
50th 90th


95th

Acquisition Method of Fish/Shellfish Eaten



Habitat



Eats Freshwater/Estuarine



Fish/Shellfish Type


Minnesota
All
Acquisition Method


Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught&Bought
Eats Bought Only

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
Caught Fish
Exclusively
Sometimes
Never

Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught
511
701
6545

1426
4124
6124

235
458
7064

3260
6428

793

755
593
0.97
2.28
1.06

0.59
0.50
0.99

0.91
2.21
1.11

0.50
1.15

0.44

0.30
0.24
100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100

100

100
100
0.20
0.65
0.23

0.09
0.10
0.20

0.13
0.56
0.24

0.10
0.29

0.06

0.04
0.02
0.64
1.48
0.68

0.37
0.31
0.62

0.56
1.40
0.71

0.30
0.73

0.26

0.16
0.09
2.14
4.38
2.20

1.36
1.05
2.01

2.14
4.54
2.27

1.07
2.28

0.86

0.73
0.40
2.89
6.37
3.08

1.89
1.46
2.94

2.7
6.17
3.24

1.42
3.32

1.44

1.10
0.76
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown
76
284
312
83
56
232
235
70
0.39
0.29
0.28
0.30
0.26
0.31
0.21
0.09
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.26
0.07
0.10
0.11
0.04
0.85
0.63
0.76
0.73
0.65
0.41
0.5
0.19
1.44
0.99
1.30
0.87
1.45
0.61
0.86
0.21
Acquisition Method of Fish/Shellfish Eaten



Habitat



Eats Freshwater/Estuarine



Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught&Bought
Eats Bought Only

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
Caught Fish
Exclusively
Sometimes
Never
38
555
200

593
559
755

38
555
200
0.21
0.53
0.31

0.24
0.04
0.26

0.21
0.53
0.31
100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
100
0.02
0.11
0.03

0.02
0.00
0.03

0.02
0.11
0.03
0.11
0.31
0.18

0.09
0.02
0.14

0.11
0.31
0.18
0.49
0.93
0.75

0.4
0.09
0.67

0.49
0.93
0.75
0.68
1.76
1.21

0.76
0.16
0.97

0.68
1.76
1.21
Page
10-110
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-34. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, Consumers only, by State, Acquisition MethodUncooked g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Category
Sample Arithmetic
Size Mean
Percent
Eating Fish
10th
50th
90th
95th
Minnesota (continued)
Fish/Shellfish Type


North Dakota
All
Acquisition Method



Shellfish
Finfish



Bought
Caught

559
791

546

516
389

0.08
0.38

0.45

0.34
0.18

100
100

100

100
100

0.01
0.04

0.07

0.04
0.02

0.03
0.21

0.25

0.15
0.09

0.19
0.77

0.99

0.81
0.46

0.32
1.15

1.62

1.36
0.61
Acquisition Method-Household Income ($) Group








Acquisition Method of



Habitat



Bought; 0-20000
Bought; 20000-50000
Bought; 50000-
Bought; Unknown
Caught; 0-20000
Caught; 20000-50000
Caught; 50000-
Caught; Unknown
Fish/Shellfish Eaten
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught&Bought
Eats Bought Only

Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
45
213
210
48
27
142
173
47

30
359
157

389
407
516
0.63
0.30
0.28
0.47
0.25
0.15
0.20
0.17

0.28
0.52
0.33

0.18
0.04
0.31
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100

100
100
100
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04

0.07
0.10
0.03

0.02
0.01
0.03
0.19
0.15
0.15
0.19
0.10
0.07
0.11
0.08

0.18
0.31
0.13

0.09
0.01
0.13
2.06
0.69
0.64
0.93
0.56
0.33
0.51
0.30

0.43
1.10
0.71

0.46
0.08
0.72
2.97
1.37
1.05
1.44
0.86
0.54
0.71
0.32

0.68
1.66
1.29

0.61
0.14
1.15
Eats Freshwater/Estuarine Caught Fish



Fish/Shellfish Type


Exclusively
Sometimes
Never

Shellfish
Finfish
30
359
157

407
541
0.28
0.52
0.33

0.07
0.40
100
100
100

100
100
0.07
0.10
0.03

0.01
0.05
0.18
0.31
0.13

0.03
0.21
0.43
1.10
0.71

0.17
0.89
0.68
1.66
1.29

0.27
1.44
FL Consumption is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN, ND consumption is based on rate of consumption
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by children < 18.
Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states.
A respondent can be represented in more than one row.
Source: Westat, 2006.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
 Page
10-111
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-35. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Subpopulation, and Gender,
As-consumed g/kg/day
Percentiles
State
Connecticut
Category

Sample
Size

Arithmetic
Mean

Percent
Eating
Fish

10th

50th

90th

95th

Population for Sample Selection







Angler
Aquaculture Students
Asians
Commercial Fisherman
EFNEP Participants
General
WIC Participants
250
25
396
173
67
420
699
0.64
0.22
1.15
0.65
1.00
0.41
0.80
97.6
76.0
99.2
96.0
86.6
85.1
79.1
0.08
0.00
0.30
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.07
0.91
0.44
0.31
0.25
0.42
1.51
0.65
2.28
1.51
2.46
1.00
1.93
2.07
0.89
3.15
1.63
3.50
1.32
3.02
Population for Sample Selection and Gender Group















Florida
Angler; Male
Angler; Female
Aquaculture Students; Male
Aquaculture Students; Female
Asians; Male
Asians; Female
Commercial Fishermen; Male
Commercial Fishermen;
Female
EFNEP Participants; Male
EFNEP Participants; Female
General; Male
General; Female
WIC Participants; Male
WIC Participants; Female

197
53
10
15
188
208
94
79

25
42
201
219
312
387

0.68
0.49
0.21
0.24
1.06
1.24
0.67
0.63

1.05
0.96
0.39
0.43
0.94
0.69

97.5
98.1
90.0
66.7
99.5
99.0
92.6
100

88.0
85.7
86.2
84.0
79.2
79.1

0.08
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.36
0.05
0.06

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.41
0.30
0.09
0.03
0.88
0.92
0.46
0.42

0.33
0.26
0.24
0.28
0.45
0.40

1.68
1.06
0.75
0.62
1.99
2.85
1.54
1.40

2.83
2.02
1.05
0.95
2.30
1.64

2.16
1.45
0.85
0.91
2.44
3.33
1.62
1.93

3.80
3.95
1.34
1.30
3.52
2.43

Population for Sample Selection

General
15367
0.47
50.5
0.00
0.06
1.27
1.91
Population for Sample Selection and Gender Group



Minnesota
General; Male
General; Female
Unknown

7911
7426
30

0.44
0.50
0.41

49.2
51.9
48.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.10
0.00

1.22
1.32
1.41

1.84
1.98
2.38

Population for Sample Selection




American Indian
Anglers
General
New Mothers
216
1152
837
401
0.21
0.31
0.31
0.33
88.9
96.3
94.4
85.0
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.13
0.17
0.18
0.15
0.52
0.66
0.62
0.80
0.64
0.97
1.07
1.21
Page
10-112
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-35. Fish Consumption per Kg Bodyweight, all Respondents, by State, Subpopulation, and Gender,
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Category
Sample
Size
Arithmetic
Mean
Percent
Eating
Fish
10th
50th
90th
95th
Minnesota (continued)
Population for Sample Selection and Gender Group








North Dakota
American Indians; Male
American Indians; Female
Anglers; Male
Anglers; Female
General; Male
General; Female
New Mothers; Male
New Mothers; Female

108
108
606
546
419
418
205
196

0.19
0.23
0.30
0.31
0.26
0.36
0.27
0.39

89.8
88.0
96.9
95.6
95.3
93.4
86.3
83.7

0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00

0.14
0.12
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.21
0.15
0.14

0.46
0.57
0.63
0.70
0.58
0.65
0.67
0.95

0.55
0.93
0.93
1.04
1.06
1.10
0.93
1.42

Population for Sample Selection



American Indians
Anglers
General
106
854
575
0.35
0.32
0.32
60.4
94.6
95.2
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.19
0.18
1.10
0.77
0.71
2.27
1.14
1.18
Population for Sample Selection and Gender Group






FL Consumption
American Indians; Male
American Indians; Female
Anglers; Male
Anglers; Female
General; Male
General; Female
is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN
50
56
467
387
276
299
0.35
0.36
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.32
58.0
62.5
95.3
93.8
96.2
94.2
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.76
1.34
0.77
0.77
0.68
0.73
1.39
2.32
1.14
1.18
1.20
1.16
ND consumption is based on rate of consumption.
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by children < 18.
Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states
Subpopulations
statistics are unweij
;hted


Source: Westat, 2006.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
 Page
10-113
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-36. Fish Consumption per Kg, Consumers Only, by State, Subpopulation, and Gender,
As-consumed g/kg/day
Percentiles
State Category
Connecticut
Population for Sample Selection
Angler
Aquaculture Students
Asians
Commercial Fisherman
EFNEP Participants
General
WIC Participants
Population for Sample Selection and Gender Group
Angler; Male
Angler; Female
Aquaculture Students; Male
Aquaculture Students; Female
Asians; Male
Asians; Female
Commercial Fishermen; Male
Commercial Fishermen; Female
EFNEP Participants; Male
EFNEP Participants; Female
General; Male
General; Female
WIC Participants; Male
WIC Participants; Female
Sample Arithmetic
Size Mean


244
19
393
166
58
362
553

192
52
9
10
187
206
87
79
22
36
175
187
247
306


0.66
0.30
1.16
0.68
1.15
0.48
1.01

0.70
0.50
0.23
0.36
1.06
1.25
0.72
0.63
1.20
1.12
0.45
0.52
1.18
0.87
Percent
Eating
Fish


100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10th


0.10
0.02
0.31
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.12

0.10
0.11
0.01
0.03
0.28
0.37
0.12
0.06
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.12
0.12
50th


0.40
0.14
0.91
0.46
0.39
0.32
0.61

0.42
0.33
0.11
0.31
0.88
0.93
0.54
0.42
0.42
0.39
0.29
0.34
0.69
0.59
90th


1.55
0.75
2.28
1.53
2.69
1.09
2.30

1.69
1.07
0.74
0.75
1.99
2.86
1.57
1.40
2.89
2.38
1.11
1.03
2.89
1.87
95th


2.07
0.91
3.16
1.65
4.51
1.37
3.39

2.17
1.45
*
1.00
2.44
3.34
1.63
1.91
3.75
4.50
1.40
1.35
3.78
2.73
Population for Sample Selection and Eats Freshwater/Estuarine Caught Fish Group
Angler; Exclusively
Angler; Sometimes
Angler; Never
Aquaculture Students; Sometimes
Aquaculture Students; Never
Asians; Sometimes
Asians; Never
Commercial Fishermen; Sometimes
Commercial Fishermen; Never
EFNEP Participants; Sometimes
EFNEP Participants; Never
General; Sometimes
General; Never
WIC Participants; Sometimes
WIC Participants; Never
1
190
53
2
17
199
194
120
46
8
50
50
312
67
486
0.04
0.74
0.38
0.34
0.29
1.23
1.09
0.78
0.41
0.25
1.29
0.46
0.49
1.49
0.95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
*
0.14
0.05
*
0.02
0.30
0.34
0.18
0.03
0.14
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.28
0.10
*
0.44
0.27
0.21
0.14
0.93
0.87
0.54
0.30
0.22
0.52
0.29
0.32
0.91
0.60
*
1.69
0.89
*
0.80
2.94
2.03
1.58
0.89
0.40
2.82
1.10
1.06
3.43
2.02
*
2.18
1.00
*
0.93
3.50
2.39
1.98
1.36
*
6.09
1.25
1.41
5.12
3.12
Page
10-114
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-36. Fish Consumption and Fish Consumption per Kg, Consumers Only, by State, Subpopulation, and Gender,
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
Florida
Category

Sample Arithmetic
Size Mean


Percent
Eating
Fish

10th

50th

90th

95th

Population for Sample Selection

General
7757
0.93
100
0.19
0.58
1.89
2.73
Population for Sample Selection and Gender Group



General; Male
General; Female
Unknown
Population for Sample Selection and Eats Freshwater/



Minnesota
General; Exclusively
General; Sometimes
General; Never

3880
3861
16
Estuarine Caught Fish Group
235
458
7064

0.90
0.95
0.85

0.71
1.73
0.88

100
100
100

100
100
100

0.18
0.19
0.12

0.10
0.43
0.18

0.55
0.62
0.69

0.42
1.10
0.56

1.85
1.94
2.37

1.60
3.44
1.81

2.65
2.78
2.61

2.16
4.96
2.60

Population for Sample Selection




American Indian
Anglers
General
New Mothers
192
1109
793
341
0.24
0.32
0.33
0.38
100
100
100
100
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.53
0.67
0.65
0.89
0.70
0.99
1.08
1.30
Population for Sample Selection and Gender Group








American Indians; Male
American Indians; Female
Anglers; Male
Anglers; Female
General; Male
General; Female
New Mothers; Male
New Mothers; Female
Population for Sample Selection and Eats Freshwater/
97
95
587
522
401
392
177
164
Estuarine Caught Fish Group
American Indians; Exclusively 31
American Indians; Sometimes 136










American Indians; Never
Anglers; Exclusively
Anglers; Sometimes
Anglers; Never
General; Exclusively
General; Sometimes
General; Never
New Mothers; Exclusively
New Mothers; Sometimes
New Mothers; Never
25
57
879
173
38
555
200
17
189
135
0.21
0.26
0.31
0.33
0.28
0.38
0.31
0.46

0.18
0.28
0.05
0.35
0.34
0.20
0.16
0.40
0.23
0.06
0.47
0.30
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.05

0.01
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.22
0.19
0.21

0.07
0.18
0.04
0.16
0.20
0.10
0.08
0.23
0.14
0.09
0.27
0.12
0.49
0.59
0.63
0.72
0.62
0.70
0.75
1.04

0.42
0.57
0.12
0.89
0.71
0.46
0.37
0.70
0.56
0.20
1.00
0.74
0.55
0.95
0.93
1.05
1.07
1.22
1.06
1.83

0.55
0.92
0.15
1.93
1.05
0.66
0.51
1.32
0.91
0.25
1.32
1.35
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
 Page
10-115
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-36. Fish Consumption and Fish Consumption per Kg, Consumers Only, by State, Subpopulation, and Gender,
As-consumed g/kg/day (continued)
Percentiles
State
North Dakota
Category

Sample Arithmetic
Size Mean


Percent
Eating
Fish

10th

50th

90th

95th

Population for Sample Selection



American Indians
Anglers
General
64
808
546
0.58
0.34
0.34
100
100
100
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.19
0.20
0.19
1.75
0.81
0.74
2.65
1.17
1.21
Population for Sample Selection and Gender Group






American Indians; Male
American Indians; Female
Anglers; Male
Anglers; Female
General; Male
General; Female
29
35
445
363
265
281
0.60
0.57
0.33
0.35
0.33
0.34
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.18
1.31
2.25
0.78
0.83
0.74
0.74
3.67
2.55
1.14
1.29
1.22
1.20
Population for Sample Selection and Eats Freshwater/Estuarine Caught Fish Group









FL Consumption
American Indians; Exclusively
American Indians; Sometimes
American Indians; Never
Anglers; Exclusively
Anglers; Sometimes
Anglers; Never
General; Exclusively
General; Sometimes
General; Never
4
30
30
47
660
101
30
359
157
0.05
1.08
0.16
0.19
0.38
0.18
0.21
0.39
0.25
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
*
0.13
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.60
0.07
0.07
0.23
0.10
0.14
0.23
0.10
*
2.65
0.36
0.61
0.84
0.41
0.33
0.82
0.53
*
3.62
0.66
1.02
1.29
0.53
0.51
1.25
0.97
is based on a 7-day recall, CT, MN, ND consumption is based on rate of consumption.
FL Consumption excludes away-from-home consumption by
children < 18.


Statistics are weighted to represent the general population in the states. Subpopulations statistics are unweij

;hted






Source: Westat, 2006.
Page
10-116
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-37. Fish Consumption Among General Population Children in Four States, Consumers Only, g/kg-day As-
Consumed

N
Mean
CI
Percentiles
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Maximum
Connecticut
1 to <6 years
6 to50 years
Females
Males
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught and Bought
Eats Bought Only
Anglers
General Population
14
22
18

14
10

74
74

70
57
1
70
291
244
362
0.61
0.59
0.32

0.84
0.23

0.53
0.51

0.48
0.38
0.01
0.49
0.48
0.66
0.48
0.42-0.81
0.040-0.77
0.17-0.46

0.10-1.58
0.14-0.32

0.37-0.70
0.40-0.61

0.37-0.59
0.30-0.46
-
0.36-0.61
0.40-0.57
-
0.16
0.14
0.07

0.11
0.08

0.05
0.11

0.05
0.10
-
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.26
0.23
0.14

0.30
0.13

0.15
0.18

0.13
0.17
-
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.16
0.55
0.47
0.19

0.35
0.21

0.34
0.35

0.37
0.26
-
0.34
0.32
0.40
0.32
0.83
0.96
0.38

0.87
0.25

0.67
0.70

0.72
0.50
-
0.75
0.61
0.80
0.63
1.4
1.2
0.52

1.1
0.47

1.1
1.2

1.0
0.93
-
1.1
1.1
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.3
0.84

3.1
0.56

1.5
1.5

1.4
1.1
-
1.3
1.4
2.1
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.3

7.0
0.58

4.5
2.2

2.7
1.4
0.01
2.2
7.0
3.5
2.4
Florida
1 to <6 years
6 to50 years
Females
Males
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught and Bought
Eats Bought Only
420
375
365

753
754

1287
1334

1171
1192
511
701
6545
2.3
1.1
0.85

0.89
0.96

0.94
0.81

0.73
0.70
0.76
1.8
0.85
2.05-2.63
0.98-1.22
0.73-0.98

0.74-1.04
0.80-1.12

0.87-1.00
0.74-0.88

0.69-0.77
0.66-0.75
0.66-0.86
1.6-2.1
0.81-0.89
0.5
0.28
0.20

0.16
0.16

0.18
0.17

0.19
0.17
0.15
0.50
0.18
1.0
0.52
0.36

0.31
0.28

0.33
0.28

0.31
0.27
0.30
0.76
0.30
1.7
0.81
0.63

0.55
0.52

0.63
0.53

0.52
0.50
0.50
1.2
0.54
2.8
1.4
0.99

0.95
0.99

1.0
0.95

0.94
0.84
0.90
2.0
0.98
4.7
2.2
1.6

1.8
1.8

1.9
1.7

1.5
1.4
1.7
3.4
1.8
6.8
3.0
2.2

2.4
2.7

2.7
2.4

2.1
1.9
2.3
5.1
2.5
14.6
9.4
11.0

25
34

20
23

7.4
14
7.4
34
24
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
 Page
10-117
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-37. Fish Consumption Among General Population Children in Four States, Consumers Only, g/kg-day As-
Consumed (continued)

N
Mean
CI
Percentiles
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Maximum
Minnesota
1 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <30 years
Females
Males
30 to <50 years
Females
Males
>50 years
Females
Males
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught and Bought
Eats Bought Only
Anglers
General Population

1 to <6 years
6 to50 years
Females
Males
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught and Bought
Eats Bought Only
Anglers
General Population
46
42
63

44
52

127
115

150
153
38
555
200
1,109
793

28
41
53

38
36

93
88

92
76
30
359
157
808
546
0.58
0.38
0.24

0.69
0.11

0.25
0.25

0.36
0.24
0.16
0.40
0.23
0.32
0.33

0.70
0.56
0.41

0.20
0.22

0.29
0.22

0.40
0.31
0.21
0.39
0.25
0.34
0.34
0.32-0.85
0.21-0.54
0.16-0.31

-0.21-1.59
0.07-0.15

0.21-0.30
0.17-0.32

0.26-0.46
0.20-0.29
0.05-0.26
0.27-0.52
0.18-0.28
North
0.24-1.17
0.31-0.81
0.23-0.59

0.14-0.26
0.13-0.31

0.22-0.36
0.17-0.27

0.27-0.54
0.20-0.41
0.09-0.32
0.29-0.49
0.13-0.36
0.07
0.05
0.03

0.02
0.02

0.04
0.07

0.05
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.04
Dakota
0.05
0.11
0.06

0.04
0.04

0.05
0.05

0.06
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.07
0.06

0.08
0.02

0.10
0.11

0.11
0.11
0.03
0.11
0.05
0.10
0.10

0.12
0.21
0.12

0.06
0.07

0.10
0.08

0.10
0.08
0.09
0.13
0.05
0.10
0.09
0.46
0.25
0.21

0.16
0.08

0.23
0.17

0.22
0.19
0.08
0.23
0.14
0.18
0.20

0.23
0.30
0.22

0.15
0.13

0.18
0.18

0.17
0.19
0.14
0.23
0.10
0.20
0.19
0.73
0.47
0.32

0.29
0.14

0.32
0.30

0.38
0.28
0.25
0.49
0.26
0.34
0.34

0.68
0.66
0.54

0.26
0.23

0.36
0.26

0.52
0.33
0.22
0.43
0.24
0.39
0.35
1.1
1.0
0.55

0.66
0.27

0.51
0.42

0.93
0.53
0.37
0.70
0.56
0.67
0.65

1.6
1.2
1.0

0.41
0.45

0.56
0.45

1.1
0.74
0.33
0.82
0.53
0.81
0.74
1.8
1.4
0.59

3.0
0.33

0.58
0.64

1.4
0.68
0.51
1.3
0.91
0.99
1.1

3.8
1.5
1.3

0.67
0.56

0.87
0.54

1.5
1.2
0.51
1.3
0.97
1.2
1.2
8.0
5.3
1.4

9.2
0.74

1.3
1.9

1.9
1.3
0.57
9.2
8.0
2.2
1.8

6.8
4.3
2.3

0.80
1.9

2.6
1.3

4.2
1.8
1.8
4.3
6.8
2.0
2.2
N = Sample size.
CI = Confidence interval.
Source: Moyaetal, 2008.










Page
10-118
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-38. Estimated Number of Participants in Marine Recreational Fishing by State and Subregion

Subregion
Pacific


North Atlantic




Mid-Atlantic




South Atlantic


Gulf of Mexico





Coastal
State Participants
Southern California
Northern California
Oregon
TOTAL
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
TOTAL
Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Virginia
TOTAL
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
South Carolina
TOTAL
Alabama
Florida
Louisiana
Mississippi
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
902
534
265
1,701
186
93
377
34
97
787
90
540
583
539
294
1,046
1,201
89
398
131
1,819
95
1,053
394
157
1,699
8,053
a Not additive across states. One person can be counted as
b An asterisk (*) denotes no non-coastal counties in state.
Source: NMFS,
1993.

Non Coastal
Participants
8
99
19
126
*b
9
69
10
*
88
*
32
9
13
29
83
*
61
224
77
362
9
*
48
42
99
760
'OUT OF STATE'


Total
Out of State a Participants3
159
63
78
47
100
273
32
157

159
268
433
70
131
741
29
745
304

101
1,349
63
51

for more than one state.

910
633
284
186
102
446
44
97

90
572
592
552
323
1,201
150
622
208

104
1,053
442
200



Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
 Page
10-119
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-39. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and Bl) by
Marine Recreational Fishermen, by Wave and Subregion


Jan/Feb



Mar/Apr




May/Jim




Jul/Aug




Sep/Oct




Nov/Dec





Atlantic
Region
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL

North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
North Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
and Gulf
Weight (1,000 kg)
1,060
3,683
4,743

310
1,030
1,913
3,703
6,956
3,272
4,815
4,234
5,936
18,257
4,003
9,693
4,032
5,964
23,692
2,980
7,798
3,296
7,516
21,590
456
1,649
2,404
4,278
8,787
84,025

Region
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL
So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL

So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL

So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL

So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL

So. California
N. California
Oregon
TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL
Pacific
Weight (1,000 kg)
418
101
165
684
590
346
144
1,080

1,195
563
581
2,339

1,566
1,101
39
2,706

859
1,032
724
2,615

447
417
65
929

10,353
Source: NMFS, 1993.
Page
10-120
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-40. Average Daily
Intake (g/day) of Marine Finfish, by Region and Coastal Status
Intake Among Anglers
Region8
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
All Atlantic
Gulf
South California
North California
Oregon
All Pacific
Mean
6.2
6.3
4.7
5.6
7.2
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
North Atlantic - ME, NH, MA, RI, and CT; Mid-Atlantic -
(Atlantic Coast); Gulf - AL, MS, LA
Source: NMFS, 1993.
, and FL (Gulf Coast)

95th Percentile
20.1
18.9
15.9
18.0
26.1
5.5
5.7
8.9
6.8
NY, NJ, MD, DE, and VA; South Atlantic - NC, SC, GA, ai


Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	10-121
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table


Cartilaginous fishes
Eels
Herrings
Catfishes
Toadfishes
Cods and Hakes
Searobins
Sculpins
Temperate Basses
Sea Basses
Bluefish
Jacks
Dolphins
Snappers
Grunts
Porgies
Drums
Mullets
Barracudas
Wrasses
Mackerels and Tunas
Flounders
Triggerfishes/Filefishes
Puffers
Other fishes

Species Group
Cartilaginous fish
Sturgeons
Herrings
Anchovies
Smelts
Cods and Hakes
Silversides
Striped Bass
Sea Basses
Jacks
Croakers
Sea Chubs
Surfperches
Pacific Barracuda
Wrasses
Tunas and Mackerels
Rockfishes
California Scorpionfish
Sablefishes
Greenlings
Sculpins
Flatfishes
Other fishes
10-41. Estimated Weight of Fish Caught (Catch Type A and Bl)a by Marine
by Species Group and Subregion
North Atlantic
(1,000 kg)
66
14
118
0
0
2,404
2
1
837
22
4,177
0
65
0
0
132
3
1
0
783
878
512
0
*
105
Southern California
(1,000 kg)
35
Ob
10
*c
0
0
58
0
1,319
469
141
53
74
866
73
1,260
409
86
0
22
6
106
89
Mid Atlantic
(1,000 kg)
1,673
9
69
306
7
988
68
*
2,166
2,166
3,962
138
809
*
9
417
2,458
43
*
1,953
3,348
4,259
48
16
72
Northern California
(1,000 kg)
162
89
15
7
71
0
148
51
17
17
136
1
221
10
5
36
1,713
0
0
492
81
251
36
South Atlantic
(1,000 kg)
162
*b
1
138
0
4
*
0
22
644
1,065
760
2,435
508
239
1,082
2,953
382
356
46
4,738
532
109
56
709
Oregon
(1,000 kg)
1
13
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
47
0
0
1
890
0
5
363
44
5
307
Recreational Fishermen
Gulf
(1,000 kg)
318
Oc
89
535
*
0
*
0
4
2,477
158
2,477
1,599
3,219
816
2,629
9,866
658
244
113
4,036
377
544
4
915

























All Atlantic and Gulf
(1,000 kg)


























All Pacific
198
102
65
7
71
0
206
51
1,336
487
277
54
342
876
78
1,297
3,012
86
5
877
131
362
432
2,219
23
177
979
7
1,396
70
1
2,229
5,309
5,362
3,375
4,908
3,727
1,064
4,160
15,280
1,084
600
2,895
13,000
5,680
701
76
1,801

























a For Catch Type A and Bl, the fish were not thrown back.
b An asterisk (
Zero (0) = <
Source: NMFS, 1993
*) denotes data not reported.
1000 kg.
















Page
10-122
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
    Table 10-42. Percent of Fishing Frequency During the Summer and Fall Seasons in Commencement Bay, Washington

                                   Frequency Percent          Frequency Percent          Frequency Percent
Fishing Frequency                     in the Summer3               in the Fallb                in the Fall0
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Bimonthly
Biy early
Yearly
10.4
50.3
20.1
6.7
4.4
8.1
8.3
52.3
15.9
3.8
6.1
13.6
5.8
51.0
21.1
4.2
6.3
11.6
        Summer - July through September, includes 5 survey days and 4 survey areas (i.e., area #1, #2, #3 and #4)
        Fall- September through November, includes 4 survey days and 4 survey areas (i.e., area#l, #2, #3 and #4)
        Fall - September through November, includes 4 survey days described in footnote b plus an additional survey area (5
        survey areas) (i.e., area #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5)

Source:  Pierce etal, 1981.
Table 10-43. Selected Percentile Consumption Estimates (g/day) for the Survey and Total Angler Populations
Based on the Reanalysis of the Puffer et al. (1981) and Pierce et al. (1981) Data

Survey Population
Puffer etal. (1981)
Pierce etal. (1981)
Average
Total Angler Population
Puffer etal. (1981)
Pierce etal. (1981)
Average
a Estimated based on the average
b Estimated based on the average
Source: Price etal., 1994.
50th Percentile
37
19
28
2.9a
1.0
2.0
intake for the 0 - 90th percentile anglers.
intake for the 91st - 96th percentile anglers.

90th Percentile
225
155
190
35b
13
24


Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                   Page
July 2009	10-123
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                         Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-44. Median Intake Rates Based on Demographic Data of Sport Fishermen and Their Family /Living Group

Ethnic Group
Caucasian
Black
Mexican-American
Asian/Samoan
Other
Age (years)
<17
18 to 40
41 to 65
>65
a Not reported.
Source: Puffer etal., 1981.
Percent of total interviewed
42
24
16
13
5
11
52
28
9


Median intake rates
(g/person-day)
46.0
24.2
33.0
70.6
a
27.2
32.5
39.0
113.0


         Table 10-45.  Cumulative Distribution of Total Fish/Shellfish Consumption by Surveyed Sport Fishermen
                                   in the Metropolitan Los Angeles Area
                 Percentile                                    Intake rate (g/person-day)
                     5                                                2.3
                     10                                                4.0
                     20                                                8.3
                     30                                                15.5
                     40                                                23.9
                     50                                                36.9
                     60                                                53.2
                     70                                                79.8
                     80                                                120.8
                     90                                               224.8
                     95                                               338.8
Source:  Puffer et al., 1981.
Page                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook
10-124	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-46.


Species
White Croaker
Pacific Mackerel
Pacific Bonito
Queenfish
Jacksmelt
Walleye Perch
Shiner Perch
Opaleye
Black Perch
Kelp Bass
California Halibut
Shellfish3
a Crab, mussels,
Catch Information for Primary Fish
by Sport Fishermen (n = 1059)

Average Weight (Grams)
153
334
717
143
223
115
54
307
196
440
1752
421
lobster, abalone.
Species Kept

Percent of Fishermen
who Caught
34
25
18
17
13
10
7
6
5
5
4
3

Source: Modified from Puffer et al, 1981.
Table 10-47. Fishing and Crabbing Behavior of Fishermen at Humacao, Puerto Rico.
Mean ± Standard Error
Crabbing
Number, of interviews
Number of people in group
Number of adults (> 21 years)
Visits to site/month
No. crabs caught per season
Crabs/hr
Crabs eaten/week
Range in no. eaten/week
Fishing
Number of interviews
Number of people in group
Number of adults (> 21 years)
Visits to site/month
No. fish caught per season
Fish/hr
Fish eaten/week
Range in no. eaten/week

20
3.5 ±0.4
2. 3 ±0.3
3.8 ±0.7
21.4±4.7
21.6±4.9
13.3±2.3
0-25

25
2. 9 ±0.3
2.3 ±0.2
2. 8 ±0.4
16.9 ±3.5
11.3±2.5
6. 8 ±0.7
3-30
Source: Burger etal, 1991.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-125
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-48. Fish Consumption of Delaware Recreational Fishermen and Their Households

All respondents
Gender
Males
Females
Age (years)
Oto9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
70 to 79
80 to 89
Race
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Caucasian
N
867

496
369
73
102
95
148
144
149
124
28
4

81
12
12
748
Mean consumption
(g/day)
17.5

18.6
15.9
6.0
11.4
11.7
18.1
12.6
28.6
23.0
21.8
53.9

14.9
5.6
3.0
18.2
Standard Error (%)
5.3

6.6
8.7
13.4
16.8
10.9
13.9
8.5
11.1
12.4
33.4
68.3

27.1
31.2
35.2
5.3
Source: KCA Research Division, 1 994.
Page
10-126
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-49. Seafood Consumption Rates of All Fish by Ethnic and Income Groups of Santa Monica Bay
Consumption Rates of Recreational Marine fish and Shellfish at Specific Locations
Consumption (g/day)
Category
All respondents
Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
Black
Asian
Other
Income
< $5,000
$5,000 - $10,000
$10,000- $25,000
$25,000-$50,000
> $50,000
Source: Santa Monica
N
555

217
137
57
122
14

20
27
90
149
130
Bay Restoration Project,
Mean
49.6

58.1
28.2
48.6
51.1
137.3

42.1
40.5
40.4
46.9
58.9
1994.
95% C.I.
9.3

19.1
5.9
18.9
18.7
92.2

18.0
29.1
9.3
10.5
20.6

50*
21.4

21.4
16.1
24.1
21.4
85.7

32.1
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4

90th
107.1

112.5
64.3
85.7
115.7
173.6

64.3
48.2
80.4
113.0
128.6

Table 10-50. Grams Per Day of Self-Caught Fish Consumed by Recreational Anglers - Alcoa/Lavaca Bay
Cohort
95% Upper Confidence
Mean Limit on Mean
90th or 95th Percentile of
Distribution*
Finfish
Adult men
Adult women
Women of childbearing age
Small children
Youths
24.8
17.9
18.8
11.4
15.6
27.7
19.7
22.1
14.2
17.8
68.1
47.8
45.4
30.3
45.4
Shellfish
Adult men
Adult women
Women of childbearing age
Small children
Youths
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.7
1.6
1.1
1.2
0.6
1.0
5.1
2.4
4.0
2.0
4.5
a For shellfish, the 95th percentile value is provided because less than 90 percent of the individuals consumed
shellfish, resulting in a 90th percentile of zero.
Source: Alcoa, 1998.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-127
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 1 0-5 1 Number of Meals and Portion Sizes of Self-Caught Fish Consumed by Recreational Anglers
Lavaca Bay, Texas
Number of Meals
Age Group
Mean
95% Upper
Confidence Limit
on Mean
Portion Size
(ounces/
95% Upper
Mean Confidence Limit on
Mean
Finfish
Adult Men
Adult Women
Women of Childbearing Age
Small children (<6 years)
Youths (6 to 19 years)
3.2
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.4
3.5
3.0
3.2
3.1
2.7
8.0 8.2
6.8 7.1
6.8 7.3
4.5 4.7
6.6 6.9
Shellfish
Adult Men
Adult Women
Women of Childbearing Age
Small children (<6 years)
Youths (6 to 19 years)
a Converted from ounces;
Source: Alcoa, 1998.
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1 ounce = 28.35 grams

0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4


3.7 4.3
2.9 3.4
3.3 4.3
2.0 2.4
2.5 2.9


Page
10-128
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-52. Consumption Patterns of People Fishing

N
% Eat fish
% Give away fish
% Eat crabs
% Give away crabs
Number of times fish eaten/month
% Eaten that are self-caught
Number of times crabs eaten/month
Average serving size (oz)
Average consumption (males and females) (g/day)
N = Sample size.
Source: Burger et al, 1 998
and Crabbing
Males
434
84.1
55.0
87.9
48.2
5.21 ±0.33
48.7±2.15
2. 14 ±0.32
10.12 ±0.32
48.3


in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey
Females
81
78.05
41.2
94.7
53.1
5.21 ±0.33
48.7±2.15
2.14 ±0.32
10.12 ±0.32



Table 10-53. Fish Intake Rates of Members of the Laotian Community of West Contra Costa County, California
Group
All respondents
Fish consumers3
a "Fish consumers"
Max = Maximum.
Min = Minimum.
Source: Chiang, 1998.
Consumption (g/day)
Sample Size Percentile
Cm 50th 90th 95th
229 18.3 9.1 42.5 85.1
199 21.4 9.1 42.5 85.1
were those who reported consumption offish at least once a month.



182.3
1.5

Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	10-129
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-54. Consumption Rates (grams/day) among Recent Consumers* by Demographic Factor
Percentiles

Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Age (years)
18 to 45
46 to 65
65 and older
Ethnicity
African American
Asian-Chinese
Asian-Filipino
Asian-Other
Asian-Pacific Islander
Asian -Vietnamese
Hispanic
Caucasian
Education
< 12th Grade
HS/GED
Some college
> 4 years college
Annual income
< $20,000
$20,000 - $45,000
> $45,000
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
N
465

410
35
256
148
43

41
26
70
31
12
51
52
158
73
142
126
94

101
119
180

70
76
189
130
Mean
23.0

22.7
22.3
24.2
21.0
21.8

26.7
27.8
32.7
22.0
38.0
21.8
22.0
18.9
24.2
21.5
22.7
25.0

21.9
21.7
25.3

19.4
22.1
23.9
24.4
SD
32.1

32.3
26.8
32.2
32.9
24.4

38.3
34.8
48.8
27.6
44.2
20.7
29.5
27.0
28.7
28.0
29.0
42.1

27.8
32.9
35.3

28.2
37.6
30.6
32.1
10th
4.0

4.0
6.0
5.3
4.0
4.0

8.0
4.0
5.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.3
4.0

4.0
4.0
5.3

4.0
4.0
7.9
5.4
50th
16.0

16.0
16.0
12.0
16.0
16.0

16.0
12.0
16.0
8.0
24.0
16.0
16.0
10.7
16.0
12.0
16.0
12.0

8.0
8.0
8.0

8.0
8.0
16.0
16.0
90th
48.0

48.0
53.2
48.0
32.0
64.0

48.0
80.0
72.0
72.0
96.0
48.0
48.0
36.0
48.0
48.0
45.0
53.2

48.0
40.0
56.0

48.0
40.0
48.0
64.0
95th
80.0

72.0
84.0
84.0
64.0
72.0

6.04
128.0
176.0
72.0
184.0
72.0
84.0
56.0
64.0
72.0
84.0
96.0

72.0
56.0
108.0

80.0
144.0
72.0
96.0
a Recent consumers are defined in the study as anglers who report consuming fish caught from San Francisco
Bay in the four weeks prior to the date they were interviewed. Recent consumers are a subset of the overall
consumer group.
N = Sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: SFEI, 2000.














Page
10-130
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-55. Percentile and Mean Intake Rates for Wisconsin Sport Anglers
Percentile Annual Number of Sport
25th 4
50th 10
75th 25
90th 50
95th 60
98th 100
100th 365
Mean 18
Source: Raw data on sport-caught meals from Fiore et al,
per fish meal; this value is dervied from Pao et al.
Caught Meals Intake Rate of Sport-Caught Meals (g/day)
1.7
4.1
10.2
20.6
24.6
41.1
150
7.4
1 989. U.S. EPA calculated intake rates using a value of 1 50 grams
, 1982.
Table 10-56. Mean Fish Intake Among Individuals Who Eat Fish and Reside
in Households With Recreational Fish Consumption


All Fish
Group meals/week
All household members
Respondents (i.e., licensed anglers)
Age Groups (years)
1 to 5
6 to 10
Ito20
21 to 40
40 to 60
60 to 70
71 to 80
80+
N = Sample size.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis using data
0.686
0.873
0.463
0.49
0.407
0.651
0.923
0.856
1.0
0.8

from West
Recreational
Fish
meals/week
0.332
0.398
0.223
0.278
0.229
0.291
0.42
0.431
0.622
0.6

etal., 1989.

N
2,196
748
121
151
349
793
547
160
45
10



Total Fish
grams/day
21.9
29.4
11.4
13.6
12.3
22
29.3
28.2
32.3
26.5


Recreational
Fish
grams/day
11.0
14.0
5.63
7.94
7.27
10.2
14.2
14.5
20.1
20


Total Fish
grams/kg/
day
0.356
0.364
0.737
0.481
0.219
0.306
0.387
0.377
0.441
0.437


Recreational
Fish grams/
kg/day
0.178
0.168
0.369
0.276
0.123
0.139
0.186
0.193
0.271
0.345


Table 10-57. Comparison of Seven-Day Recall and Estimated Seasonal Frequency for Fish Consumption
Usual Fish Consumption
Frequency Category
Almost daily
2-4 times a week
Once a week
2-3 times a month
Once a month
Less often
Source: U.S. EPA analysis using data
Mean Fish Meals/Week
7-day Recall Data
no data
1.96
1.19
0.840 (3.6 times/month)
0.459 (1.9 times/month)
0.306 (1.3 times/month)
from West etal., 1989.
Usual frequency Value Selected
for Data Analysis (times/week)
4 [if needed]
2
1.2
0.7 (3 times/month)
0.4 (1.7 times/month)
0.2 (0.9 times/month)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-131
-------
                                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                             Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish




N
Mean
10%
25%
50%
75%
90%
95%
N
Source:
Table

All Fish
Meals/Week
738
0.859
0.300
0.475
0.750
1.200
1.400
1.800
= Sample size.
10-58. Distribution of Usual Fish Intake Among Survey Main Respondents
Who Fished and Consumed Recreationally Caught Fish

Recreational Fish
Meals/Week
738
0.447
0.040
0.125
0.338
0.672
1.050
1.200

U.S. EPA analysis using data from West

All Fish Intake
grams/day
738
27.74
9.69
15.34
24.21
38.74
45.20
58.11

etal., 1989.
Recreational
Fish Intake
grams/day
738
14.42
1.29
4.04
10.90
21.71
33.90
38.74



All Fish Intake
grams/kg/day
726
0.353
0.119
0.187
0.315
0.478
0.634
0.747


Recreational
Fish Intake
grams/kg/day
726
0.1806
0.0159
0.0504
0.1357
0.2676
0.4146
0.4920


          Table 10-59. Estimates of Fish Intake Rates of Licensed Sport Anglers in Maine During the 1989-1990
                                    Ice Fishing or 1990 Open-Water Seasons*
                                           Intake Rates (grams/day)
                                        All Waters"
                                                 Rivers and Streams
Percentile Rankings
All Anglers0
(N= 1,369)
Consuming Anglersd
    (N= 1,053)
River Anglers6
  (N=741)
Consuming Anglersd
     (N = 464)
50th (median)
66th
75th
90th
95th
Arithmetic Meanf
1.1
2.6
4.2
11.0
21.0
5.0 [79]
2.0
4.0
5.8
13.0
26.0
6.4 [77]
0.19
0.71
1.3
3.7
6.2
1.9 [82]
0.99
1.8
2.5
6.1
12.0
3.7 [81]
a       Estimates are based on rank except for those of arithmetic mean.
b       All waters based on fish obtained from all lakes, ponds, streams and rivers in Maine, from other household sources
        and from other non-household sources.
0       Licensed anglers who fished during the seasons studied and did or did not consume freshwater fish, and licensed
        anglers who did not fish but ate freshwater fish caught in Maine during those seasons.
d       Licensed anglers who consumed freshwater fish caught in Maine during the seasons studied.
e       Those of the "all anglers" who fished on rivers or streams (consumers and nonconsumers).
f       Values in brackets [ ] are percentiles at the mean consumption rates.

Source:  Chemrisk, 1992; Ebert et al., 1993.
Page
10-132
                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
                                             	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                 Table 10-60. Analysis of Fish Consumption by Ethnic Groups for "All Waters" (g/day)a
                                                           Consuming Anglers*
                              French
                              Canadian
                              Heritage
              Irish
            Heritage
            Italian
           Heritage
           Native
          American
           Heritage
          Other White
         Non-Hispanic
            Heritage
           Scandinavian
             Heritage
N of Cases
Median (50th percentile)°'d
66th percentile°'d
75th percentile°'d
Arithmetic Mean0
Percentile at the Meand
90th percentile°'d
95th percentile°'d
Percentile at 6.5 g/day4e
201
2.3
4.1
6.2
7.4
80
15
27
77
138
2.4
4.4
6.0
5.2
70
12
20
75
27
1.8
2.6
5.0
4.5
74
12
21
81
96
2.3
4.7
6.2
10
83
16
51
77
533
1.9
3.8
5.7
6.0
76
13
24
77
37
1.3
2.6
4.9
5.3
78
9.4
25
84
a        "All Waters" based on fish obtained from all lakes, ponds, streams and rivers in Maine, from other household sources
         and from other non-household sources.
b        "Consuming Anglers" refers to only those anglers who consumed freshwater fish obtained from Maine sources during
         the 1989-1990 ice fishing or 1990 open water fishing season.
0        The average consumption per day by freshwater fish consumers in the household.
d        Calculated by rank without any assumption of statistical distribution.
e        Fish consumption rate recommended by U.S. EPA (1984) for use in establishing ambient water quality standards.

Source:   Chemrisk, 1992.
Table 10-61. Total Consumption of Freshwater Fish Caught by
Ice Fishing


Species
Landlocked salmon
Atlantic salmon
Togue (Lake trout)
Brook trout
Brown trout
Yellow perch
White perch
Bass (smallmouth and largemouth)
Pickerel
Lake whitefish
Hompout (Catfish and bullheads)
Bottom fish (Suckers, carp and sturgeon)
Chub
Smelt
Other
TOTALS
Source: Chemrisk, 1992.
Quantity
Consumed
(#)
832
3
483
1,309
275
235
2,544
474
1,091
111
47
50
0
7,808
201
15,463

Grams
(xlO3)
Consumed
290
1.1
200
100
54
9.1
160
120
180
20
8.2
81
0
150
210
1,583.4

All Survey Respondents During the 1990 Season
Lakes and Ponds
Quantity
Consumed
(#)
928
33
459
3,294
375
1,649
6,540
73
553
558
1,291
62
252
428
90
16,587

Grams
(xlO3)
Consumed
340
9.9
160
210
56
52
380
5.9
91
13
100
22
35
4.9
110
1,590

Rivers and Streams
Quantity
Consumed
(#)
305
17
33
10,185
338
188
3,013
787
303
55
180
100
219
4,269
54
20,046

Grams
(xlO3)
Consumed
120
11
2.7
420
23
7.4
180
130
45
2.7
7.8
6.7
130
37
45
1,168

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                         Page
                                                                       10-133
-------
          Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-62. Sociodemoj
Category
Geographic Distribution

Age Distribution (years)



Annual Household Income




Ethnic Background


graphic Characteristics of Respondents
Subcategory
Upper Hudson
Mid Hudson
Lower Hudson
<14
15-29
30-44
45-59
>60
< $10,000
$10-29,999
$30-49,999
$50 - 69,999
$70 - 89,999
> $90,000
Caucasian American
African American
Hispanic American
Asian American
Native American

Percent of Total3
18%
35%
48%
3%
26%
35%
23%
12%
16%
41%
29%
10%
2%
3%
67%
21%
10%
1%
1 %
a A total of 336 shore-based anglers were interviewed.
Source: Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., 1993.


Page
10-134
          Exposure Factors Handbook
                           July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-63. Mean Sport-Fish Consumption by Demographic Variables, Michigan Sport
Anglers Fish Consumption Study, 1991-1992

Income3
<$ 15,000
$15,000 -$24,999
$25,000 - $39,999
>$40,000
Education
Some High School
High School Degree
Some College-College Degree
Post Graduate
Residence Sizeb
Large City /Suburb (>100,000)
Small City (20,000-100,000)
Town (2,000-20,000)
Small Town (100-2,000)
Rural, Non Farm
Farm
Age (years)
16-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
Sexa
Male
Female
Race/Ethnicity"
Minority
White
P<.01,Ftest
b P<.05,Ftest
Source: West etal., 1993.
N

290
369
662
871

299
1,074
825
231

487
464
475
272
598
140

266
583
556
419
596

299
1,074

160
2,289



Mean (g/day)

21.0
20.6
17.5
14.7

16.5
17.0
17.6
14.5

14.6
12.9
19.4
22.8
17.7
15.1

18.9
16.6
16.5
16.5
16.2

17.5
13.7

23.2
16.3



95% C.I.

16.3
15.5
15.0
12.8

12.9
14.9
14.9
10.5

11.8
10.7
15.5
16.8
15.1
10.3

13.9
13.5
13.4
13.6
13.8

15.8
11.2

13.4
14.9




-25.8
-25.7
-20.1
-16.7

-20.1
-19.1
-20.2
-18.6

-17.3
-15.0
-23.3
-28.8
-20.3
-20.0

-23.9
-19.7
-19.6
-19.4
-18.6

-19.1
-16.3

-33.1
-17.6



Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	10-135
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 1 0-64 . Mean Per Capita Freshwater Fish Intake of Alabama Anglers
Mean Consumption (g/day)

All respondents
All respondents; all
meals; 4 oz serving
method
Age (years)
20 to 30
31 to 50
5 1 and over
Race/Ethnicity
African American
Native American
Asian
Hispanic
Caucasian

N
563




113
0
2
2
413
Harvest Method3

Site meals All meals
32.6




35.4
0
74.7
0
33.9
43.1




49.6
0
74.7
0
48.6

N
1303




232
2
3
2
925
4-oz Serving
Site Meals
30.3




33.4
22.7
44.1
0
29.4
Method"
All Meals
45.8
44.8
16
39
76
50.7
22.7
44.1
0
49.7
3 The Harvest Method used the actual harvest of fish and dressing method reported to calculate consumption rates.
b The 4-oz Serving Method estimated consumption based on a typical 4-oz serving size.
Source: Alabama
Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM),
1994.


Table 10-65. Means and Standard Deviations of Selected Characteristics by
Subpopulation Groups in Everglades, Florida
Variables
(Na=330)
Age (years)
Sex
Female
Male
Race/ethnicity
Black
White
Hispanic
Number of Years Fished
Number Per Week Fished in Past 6 Months of Survey Period
Number Per Week Fished in Last Month of Survey Period
Aware of Health Advisories
a N = Number of respondents who reported consuming fish.
b SD = Standard deviation.
Source: U.S. DHHS, 1995.
Mean ± SD.b
38.6 ±18. 8
38%
62%
46%
43%
11%
15.8±15.8
1.8±2.5
1.5 ±1.4
71%


Range
2-81
-
-
0-70
0-20
0-12
-


Page
10-136
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-66. Distribution of Fish Intake Rates
(from all sources and from sport-caught sources) For 1 992 Lake Ontario Anglers
Percentile of Lake Ontario Anglers
25%
50%
75%
90%
95%
99%
Fish from All Sources (g/day)
8.8
14.1
23.2
34.2
42.3
56.6
Sport-Caught Fish (g/day)
0.6
2.2
6.6
13.2
17.9
39.8
Source. Connelly et al., 1996.
Table 10-67. Mean Annual Fish Consumption (g/day)
for Lake Ontario Anglers, 1992, by Sociodemographic Characteristics

Demographic Group
Overall
Residence
Rural
Small City
City (25-100,000)
City (> 100,000)
Income
< $20,000
$21,000-34,000
$34,000-50,000
>$50,000
Age (years)
<30
30-39
40-49
50+
Education
< High School
High School Graduate
Some College
College Graduate
Some Post Grad.
Note - Scheffe's test showed statistically
and age groups (all sources).
Source: Connelly et al., 1996.
Mean Consumption

Fish from all Sources Sport-Caught Fish
17.9

17.6
20.8
19.8
13.1
20.5
17.5
16.5
20.7
13.0
16.6
18.6
21.9

17.3
17.8
18.8
17.4
20.5
4.9

5.1
6.3
5.8
2.2
4.9
4.7
4.8
6.1
4.1
4.3
5.1
6.4

7.1
4.7
5.5
4.2
5.9
significant differences between residence types (for all sources and sport caught)


Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	10-137
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-68. Seafood Consumption Rates of Nine Connecticut Population Groups. (Cooked, Edible Meat, g/day)

General population
Sport-fishing households
Commercial fishing households
Minority
South East Asians
Non Asians
Limited income households
Women age!5-45 years
Children <1 5 years old
N = Sample size.
Source: Balcomet al, 1999.
N
437
502
178
861
329
532
937
497
559


Mean
21.1
51.1
47.4
50.3
59.2
44.8
43.1
46.5
18.3


Standard
Deviation
42.7
66.1
58.5
57.5
49.3
61.5
60.4
57.4
29.8


Minimum
0
0
0
0
0.13
0
0
0
0


Maximum
494.8
586.0
504.3
430.0
245.6
430.0
571.9
494.8
324.8


Table 10-69. Fishing Patterns and Consumption Rates of People Fishing Along the Savannah River (Mean ± SE)

Ethnicity
White
Black
Income
< $20,000
> $20,000
Education
Not high school graduate
High school graduate
College or technical training
Overall mean (all respondents)
N = Sample size.
Source: Burger et al., 1999.
N
180
72
138
99
45
154
59



Age
42 ± 1
47 ±2
43 ± 1
42 ± 1
49 ±2
43 ± 1
41 ±2



Years
fished
31 ± 1
34 ±2
32±2
30± 1
36 ±2
31 ± 1
28 ±2



Years
fished
Savannah
River
24 ± 1
24 ±2
24 ±2
22 ±2
23 ±3
26 ± 1
17 ±2



Distance
traveled
(km)
42 ±9
15±1
31±4
32 ±9
24 ±4
36 ±9
54 ±24



How
often eat
fish/month
2.88 ±0.30
5.37 ±0.57
3.39 ±0.52
3.97 ±0.36
5.93 ±0.85
3.02 ±0.27
3.36 ±0.67



Serving
size (g)
370 ±6.60
387 ±10.2
379 ± 7.27
375 ±8.10
383 ±13.3
366 ±6.81
398 ± 11.8



Fish/month
(kg)
1.17±0.14
2.13 ±0.24
1.44 ±0.24
1.58±0.16
2.61 ±0.44
1.15±0.11
1.52 ±0.31



Fish/year
(Kg)
14.0 i 1.70
25.6 ±2.92
17.3 ±2. 82
18.9 i 1.88
31.3 ±5.26
13.8 i 1.36
18.2 ±3.66
48.7 g/day


Table 10-70. Fish Consumption Rates for Indiana Anglers - Mail Survey, g/day

Active Consumers
Potential and Active Consumers
Percentile
N Mean 50th 80th 90th 95th
1045 19.8 9.5 28.4 37.8 60.5
1261 16.4 7.6 23.6 37.8 60.5
Source: Williams et al., 1 999.
Page
10-138
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 1 0-7 1 . Fish Consumption Rates for Indiana Anglers - On-site Survey, g/day
Percentile

Active Consumers
White
Minority
Income
< $25,000
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
>$50,000
Potential and Active Consumers
White
Minority
Income
< $25,000
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
>$50,000
Source: Williams et al. , 2000.
N

177
143

101
62
55
60

361
217
180
117
91
126


Mean

20.0
27.2

18.9
18.8
15.2
48.9

6.8
15.3
10.2
7.4
6.8
13.6


50th

7.6
7.6

7.5
7.6
5.7
11.3

0
3.8
3.8
0
0
0


80th

23.6
30.2

18.9
23.6
23.6
113.4

5.7
13.2
9.5
7.6
5.7
7.6


90th

37.8
90.7

37.8
60.5
23.6
181.4

15.1
37.8
23.6
15.1
22.7
37.8


95th

113.4
136.1

136.1
90.7
45.4
181.4

37.8
90.7
37.8
37.8
23.6
113.4


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-139
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-72. Consumption of Sport-Caught and Purchased Fish by Minnesota and
North Dakota Residents, g/day
Percentile

N Mean
50th
75th
90th
95th
Minnesota
All respondents
Sport-caught fish only
Age/Gender
0-14
14 and over (males)
15-44 (females)
44 and over (females)
Purchased fish only
Age/Gender
0-14
14 and over (males)
15-44 (females)
44 and over (females)
Fishing License
Yes
No
2,312 12.3

582
996
505
460

582
996
505
460
2020
490
2.8

1.2
4.5
2.1
3.6

3.6
7.4
6.1
7.1
3.9
0.0
7.5

3.3
10.8
5.8
8.8

8.7
15.5
13.7
14.6
9.2
1.98
18.1.7

8.3
23.7
14.6
19.9

19.2
30.0
28.6
27.9
20.1
4.93
30.7

14.6
37.8
25.3
32.3

30.9
44.6
44.4
41.1
32.1
8.50
North Dakota
All respondents
Sport-caught fish only
Age/Gender
0-14
14 and over (males)
15-44 (females)
44 and over (females)
Purchased fish only
Age/Gender
0-14
14 and over (males)
15-44 (females)
44 and over (females)
Fishing License
Yes
No
Indicates data are not available.
Source: Benson et al., 2001 .
1,406 12.6

343
579
311
278

343
579
311
278
1101
391


3.0

1.7
2.3
4.3
4.2

4.7
6.8
7.1
6.1
4.5
1.17


7.8

5.1
6.4
10.2
10.1

11.6
15.2
15.4
14.0
10.3
1.54


18.1

13.1
16.0
22.3
22.2

26.3
31.5
30.8
29.7
21.7
4.10


29.9

23.3
27.6
35.4
35.7

42.8
48.6
46.7
46.5
33.9
7.37


Page
10-140
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-73. Fishing Patterns and Consumption Rates of Anglers along the Clinch River Arm of Watts Bar Reservoir (Mean ± SE)



All Anglers
Anglers who catch and eat fish
from study area
Ethnicity
White
Black
Income
< $20,000
$20,000 - $29,000
$30,000 - $39,000
> $40,000
Education
Not high school graduate
High school graduate
Some college, associates,
trade school
College, at least a bachelors
degree


N
202
77
71
6

22
19
18
15

18
28
20
10


Age
(years)
39.2± 1
41.8 ±2
42 ±2
43 ±6

42 ±3
35 ±3
43 ±3
47 ±4

44 ±4
40 ±3
40 ±3
42 ±5


Years
fished
31± 1
34 ±2
34 ±2
33 ±7

33 ±4
29 ±4
37 ±4
38 ±4

35 ±4
32 ±3
35 ±4
36 ±5
Years
fished
Clinch
River
11 ± 1
12 ±2
12 ±2
20 ±5

16 ±3
8.8 ±3
8.9 ±3
13.9 ±3

13 ±3
14 ±3
9.0 ±3
10 ±4

Distance
traveled
(km)
61±5
57 ±6
59 ±6
44 ±20

49 ± 10
37 ± 12
69 ±11
81 ± 12

57 ± 12
55 ± 10
61± 11
59 ± 16

How
often eat
fish/month
1.28 ±0.12
2.06 ± 0.22
2.14 ±0.23
0.94 ±0.78

1.37 ±0.40
1.84 ±0.44
2.13 ±0.45
3.01 ±0.49

1.67 ±0.46
2.12 ±0.37
2.05 ± 0.44
2.33 ± 0.62


Serving
size (g)
283 ± 20.9
486 ± 32.7
501 ±33.6
307 ±116

392 ±41.7
548 ± 44.9
482 ±46.1
452 ±50.5

439 ± 67.7
551 ±54.2
486 ± 64.2
414 ±90.8


Fish/month
(kg)
0.62 ±0.08
1.14±0.19
1.21 ±0.20
0.34 ±0.68

0.52 ±0.29
1.19 ±0.32
1.11 ±0.33
1.56 ±0.36

0.83 ±0.39
1.45 ±0.32
1.11±0.38
0.92 ±0.53


Fish/year
(Kg)
7.40 ± 1.01
13.7±2.17
14.5 ±2.36
4.14±8.11

6.29 ±3. 58
14.3 ±3. 85
13.3 ±3.95
18.8 ±4.33

9.99 ± 4.77
17.4 ±3. 82
13.4 ±4.52
11.0 ±6.39
Source: Campbell et al., 2002.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-141
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-74. Number of Grams Per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult Respondents
(Consumers and Non-consumers Combined) - Throughout the Year
Number of Grams/Day
0.00
1.6
3.2
4.0
4.9
6.5
7.3
8.1
9.7
12.2
13.0
16.2
19.4
20.2
24.3
29.2
32.4
38.9
40.5
48.6
N =500
Weighted Mean =58.7 grams/day
Weighted SE =3.64
90th Percentile 97.2 g/d < (90th)
95th Percentile =170 g/d
99th Percentile = 389 g/d
Source: CRITFC, 1994.
Cumulative Percent
8.9%
9.0%
10.4%
10.8%
10.9%
12.8%
12.9%
13.7%
14.4%
14.9%
16.3%
22.8%
24.0%
24.1%
27.9%
28.1%
52.5%
52.9%
56.5%
67.6%

(g/d)
< 130 g/d

Number of Grams/Day
64.8
72.9
77.0
81.0
97.2
130
146
162
170
194
243
259
292
324
340
389
486
648
778
972



Cumulative Percent
80.6%
81.2%
81.4%
83.3%
89.3%
92.2%
93.7%
94.4%
94.8%
97.2%
97.3%
97.4%
97.6%
98.3%
98.7%
99.0%
99.6%
99.7%
99.9%
100%



Table 10-75. Fish Intake Throughout the Year by Sex, Age, and Location by All Adult Respondents

Sex
Female
Male
Total
Age (years)
18 to 39
40 to 59
60 & Older
Total
Location
On Reservation
Off Reservation
Total
Source: CRITFC, 1994.
N

278
222
500

287
155
58
500

440
60
500

Weighted Mean
(grams/day)

55.8
62.6
58.7

57.6
55.8
74.4
58.7

60.2
47.9
58.7

Weighted SE

4.78
5.60
3.64

4.87
4.88
15.3
3.64

3.98
8.25
3.64

Page                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
10-142	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook




Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-76. Fish Consumption Rates among Native American Children (age 5 years and under)3
Grams/Day
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.1
4.9
6.5
8.1
9.7
12.2
13.0
16.2
19.4
20.3
24.3
32.4
48.6
64.8
72.9
81.0
97.2
162.0
a Sample size = 194; unweighted mean
Note: Data are compiled from the Umatilla,
Source: CRITFC, 1994.
Unweighted Cumulative Percent
21.1
21.6
22.2
24.7
25.3
28.4
32.0
33.5
35.6
47.4
48.5
51.0
51.5
72.7
73.2
74.2
76.3
87.1
91.2
94.3
96.4
97.4
98.5
100
= 19.6 grams/day; unweighted standard error = 1.94.
Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs tribes of the Columbia River Basin.

Table 1 0-77. Number of Fish Meal Eaten per Month and Fish Intake Among Native American Children who Consume
Particular Species
Species
Salmon
Lamprey
Trout
Smelt
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squawfish
Sucker
Shad
Fish Meals/Month
N
Unweighted Mean Unweighted SE
164
37
89
39
21
21
5
2
4
3
2.3
0.89
0.96
0.40
3.5
0.43
0.22
0.00
0.35
0.10
0.16
0.27
0.12
0.09
2.83
0.12
0.20
0.22
0.06
Intake (g/day)
Unweighted Mean Unweighted SE
19
8.1
8.8
3.8
21
4.0
2.0
0.0
2.6
1.1
1.5
2.8
1.4
0.99
16
1.3
1.5
1.7
0.57
Not applicable.
SE = Standard error.
Source: CRITFC, 1994






Exposure Factors
July 2009
Handbook



Page
10-143
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-78. Sociodemographic Factors and Recent Fish Consumption
Peak Consumption3
Average0
All participants (N-323) 1.7
Gender
Male(N-148) 1.9
Female (N-175) 1.5
Age (y)
<35(N-150) 1.8
D35(N-173) 1.6
High School Graduate
No(N-105) 1.6
Yes(N-218) 1.7
Unemployed
Yes(N-78) 1.9
No(n-245) 1.6
3d (%)
20

26
15

23
17

18
21

27
18
Walleye
4.2

5.1
3.4

5.3a
3.2

3.6
4.4

4.8
4.0
Recent Consumption15
N. Pike
0.3

0.5a
0.2

0.3
0.4

0.2
0.4

0.6
0.3
Muskellunge
0.3

0.5
0.1

0.2
0.3

0.4
0.2

0.6
0.2
Bass
0.5

0.7a
0.3

0.7
0.3

0.7
0.4

1.1
0.3
a Highest number of fish meals consumed/week.
b Number of meals of each species in the previous 2 months.
0 Average peak fish consumption.
d Percentage of population reporting
Source: Peterson etal., 1994.





peak fish consumption of D3 fish meals/week.





Table 10-79. Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period for All Respondents
Time Period
During Pregnancy <1
Number ol Local Fish Mohawk C(mtrol
Meals 1 rmciitnpri Ppr

None
Ito9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50+
Total
a
b
c
Source:
Year Nc
63
24
5
1
0
0
4
97
p <0.05 for Mohawk vs.
p<0. 001 for Mohawk vs
% Nc
64.9 109
24.7 24
5.2 7
1.0 5
0.0 2
0.0 1
4.1 6
100.0 154
Control.
. Control.
%
70.8
15.6
4.5
3.3
1.3
0.6
3.9
100.0


Yr. Before Pregnancy3 >1
Mohawk
Nc
42
40
4
3
0
1
7
97


%
43.3
41.2
4.1
3.1
0.0
1.0
7.2
100.0


Control
Nc
99
31
6
3
3
1
11
154


%
64.3
20.1
3.9
1.9
1.9
0.6
7.1
100.0


Yr. Before Pregnancy1"
Mohawk
Nc
20
42
6
9
1
1
18
97


%
20.6
43.3
6.2
9.3
1.0
1.0
18.6
100.0


Control
Nc
93
35
8
5
1
1
11
154


%
60.4
22.7
5.2
3.3
0.6
0.6
7.1
100.0


N = number of respondents.
Fitzgerald et al., 1995.










Page
10-144
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-80. Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time
Period for All Respondents and Consumers Only
All Respondents Consumers Only
(N=97 Mohawks and 154 Controls) (N=82 Mohawks and 72 Controls)

Mohawk
Control
During <1 Yr. Before >1 Yr. Before During <1 Yr. Before
Pregnancy Pregnancy Pregnancy Pregnancy Pregnancy
3.9(1.2) 9.2(2.3) 23.4 (4.3)a 4.6(1.3) 10.9(2.7)
7.3(2.1) 10.7(2.6) 10.9(2.7) 15.5 (4.2)a 23.0 (5. l)b
>1 Yr. Before
Pregnancy
27.6 (4.9)
23.0(5.5)
a p O.001 for Mohawk vs. Control..
b p<0.05 for Mohawk vs. Control.
( ) = Standard error..
Test for linear trend:

Source:
p<0.001 for Mohawk (All participants and consumers only);
p=0.07 for Controls (All participants and consumers only).
Fitzgerald etal., 1995.


Table 10-81
. Mean Number of Local Fish Meals Consumed Per Year by Time Period and Selected
Characteristics for All Respondents (Mohawk, N=97; Control, N=154)
Time Period
During Pregnancy <1 Year Before Pregnancy
Variable
Age (Yrs)
<20
20-24
25-29
30-34
>34
Education (Yrs)
12
13- 15
>15
Cigarette Smoking
Yes
No
Alcohol Consumption
Yes
No
F (4,149) = 2.66
b F (1,152) = 3.77
F (1,152) = 5.20
d F (1,152) = 6.42
Source: Fitzgerald et al.,
Mohawk
7.7
1.3
3.9
12.0
1.8
6.3
7.3
1.7
0.9
3.8
3.9
4.2
3.8
Control Mohawk
0.8
5.9
9.9
7.6
11.2
7.9
5.4
10.1
6.8
8.8
6.4
9.9
6.3b
13.5
5.7
15.5
9.5
1.8
14.8
8.1
8.0
10.7
10.4
8.4
6.8
12.1
Control
13.9
14.5
6.2
2.9
26.2
12.4
8.4
15.4
0.8
13.0
8.3
13.8
4.7C
>1 Year Before Pregnancy
Mohawk
27.4
20.4
25.1
12.0
52.3
24.7
15.3
29.2
18.7
31.6
18.1
18.0
29.8
Control
10.4
15.9
5.4
5.6
22.1a
8.6
11.4
13.3
2.1
10.9
10.8
14.8
2.9d
, p=0.035 for Age Among Controls.
, p=0.054 for Alcohol Among Controls.
, p=0.024 for Alcohol Among Controls.
, p=0.012 for Alcohol Among Controls.
1995.





Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
  Page
10-145
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-82. Percentiles and Mean of Adult Tribal Member Consumption Rates (g/kg/day)


Anadromous fish
Pelagic fish
Bottom fish**
Shellfish**
Total finfish
Other fish:+*
Total fish
5%

0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.046
50%

0.190
0.004
0.008
0.153
0.284
0.000
0.552
90%
Tulalip Tribes (N
1.429
0.156
0.111
1.241
1.779
0.113
2.466
95%
= 73)
2.114
0.234
0.186
1.5296
2.149
0.264
2.876
SE

0.068
0.008
0.007
0.059
0.072
0.008
0.111
Mean

0.426
0.036
0.033
0.362
0.495
0.031
0.889
95% CI

(0.297, 0.555)
(0.021,0.051)
(0.020, 0.046)
(0.250, 0.474)
(0.359,0.631)
(0.016, 0.046)
(0.679, 1.099)
Squaxin Island Tribe (N = 1 1 7)
Anadromous fish
Pelagic fish
Bottom fish**
Shellfish**
Total finfish
Other fish:+*
Total fish
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.027
0.000
0.045
0.308
0.003
0.026
0.065
0.383
0.000
0.524
1.639
0.106
0.176
0.579
1.828
0.037
2.348
2.182
0.248
0.345
0.849
2.538
0.123
3.016
0.069
0.009
0.010
0.027
0.075
0.003
0.088
0.590
0.043
0.063
0.181
0.697
0.014
0.891
(0.485, 0.695)
(0.029, 0.057)
(0.048, 0.078)
(0.140,0.222)
(0.583,0.811)
(0.009,0.019)
(0.757, 1.025)
Both Tribes Combined (weighted)
Anadromous fish
Pelagic fish
Bottom fish**
Shellfish**
Total finfish
Other fish:+*
Total fish
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.047
0.239
0.004
0.015
0.115
0.317
0.000
0.531
1.433
0.112
0.118
0.840
1.751
0.049
2.312
2.085
0.226
0.118
1.308
2.188
0.145
2.936
0.042
0.005
0.005
0.030
0.045
0.004
0.064
0.508
0.040
0.048
0.272
0.596
0.023
0.890
(0.425,0.591)
(0.029, 0.050)
(0.038,0.058)
(0.212,0.331)
(0.507, 0.685)
(0.015,0.030)
(0.765, 1.015)
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
CI = Confidence interval.
* p O.05
** p <0.01 comparing two tribes (Wilcoxon-Mann- Whitney test).
Source: Toy etal., 1996







Page
10-146
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish

Table 10-83.
Median and Mean Consumption Rates by Gender (g/kg/day) Within Each Tribe
Tulalip Tribe

Shellfish
Male
Female
N

42
31
Median

0.158
0.153
Mean

0.370
0.353
95% CI N

(0.215,0.525) 65
(0.192,0.514) 52
Squaxin Island Tribe
Median

0.100
0.038
Mean

0.202
0.155
95% CI

(0.149,0.255)
(0.093,0.217)
Total finfish
Male
Female
Total fish
Male
Female
a
N
CI
Source:
42
31
1
42
31
0.414
0.236

0.623
0.472
Total fish includes anadromous, pela
consumption rate by gender within a
= Sample size.
= Confidence interval.
Toy etal., 1996.

0.559
0.409

0.959
0.794
(0.370, 0.748) 65
(0.218,0.600) 52

(0.666,1.252) 65
(0.499,1.089) 52
0.500
0.272

0.775b
0.353
gic, bottom shellfish, finfish, and other fish.b p <.05
tribe (Wilcoxon-Mann- Whitney test).



0.707
0.684

0.926
0.847
for difference

(0.576,0.838)
(0.486, 0.882)

(0.771,1.081)
(0.614,1.080)
in

Table 10-84. Median Consumption Rate for Total Fish by Gender and Tribe (g/day)
Tulalip Tribe Squaxin Island Tribe
Male
Female
Source:
53 66
34 25
Toy etal., 1996.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-147
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish

Table
10-85. Percentiles of Adult Consumption Rates by Age (g/kg/day)
Tulalip Tribes
Ages
Shellfish
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Total finfish
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Total fish3
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Total fish
Source: Toy et al,
5%

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.013
0.002
0.156
0.006

0.044
0.006
0.190
0.050
50%

0.181
0.161
0.173
0.034

0.156
0.533
0.301
0.176

0.571
0.968
0.476
0.195
includes anadromous, pela^
1996.

90%

1.163
1.827
0.549
0.088

1.129
2.188
1.211
0.531

2.034
3.666
11.586
0.623
lie, bottom, shellfish,

95%

1.676
1.836
0.549
0.088

1.956
2.388
1.211
0.531

2.615
4.204
1.586
0.623
finfish,

Squaxin Island Tribe
50%

0.073
0.073
0.000
0.035

0.289
0.383
0.909
0.601

0.500
0.483
1.106
0.775
and other fish.

90%

0.690
0.547
0.671
0.188

1.618
2.052
3.439
2.049

2.385
2.577
3.589
2.153


95%

1.141
1.094
0.671
0.188

2.963
2.495
3.439
2.049

3.147
3.053
3.589
2.153


Page
10-148
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-86. Median Consumption Rates by Income (g/kg/day) Within Each Tribe
Income
Shellfish
<= $10.000
$10,001 -$15,000
$15.001 - $20.000
$20,001 - $25,000
$25,001 - $35,000
$35,001 +
Total fmfish
<=$ 10,000
$10,001 -$15,000
$15,001 -$20,000
$20,001 - $25,000
$25,001 - $35,000
$35,001 +
Total fish
<= $10,000
$10,001 -$15,000
$15,001 - $20,000
$20,001 -$25,000
$25,001 - $35,000
$35,001 +
Tulalip Tribes

0.143
0.071
0.144
0.202
0.416
0.175

0.235
0.095
0.490
0.421
0.236
0.286

0.521
0.266
0.640
0.921
0.930
0.607
Squaxin Island Tribe

0.078
0.121
0.072
0.000
0.030
0.090

0.272
0.254
0.915
0.196
0.387
0.785

0.476
0.432
0.961
0.233
0.426
1.085
Source: Toy etal, 1996.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-149
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-87. Mean, 50th, and 90th Percentiles of Consumption Rates for Children Age Birth to
Five Years (g/kg/day)

Mean (SE)
95% CI
50%
90%
Tulalip Tribes (N = 21)
Shellfish
Total finfish
Total, all fish
0.125(0.056)
0.114(0.030)
0.239 (0.077)
(0.014,0.236)
(0.056,0.173)
(0.088, 0.390)
0.000
0.060
0.078
0.597
0.290
0.738
Squaxin Island Tribe (N = 48)
Shellfish
Total finfish
Total, all fish
0.228 (0.053)
0.250 (0.063)
0.825(0.143)
(0.126,0.374)
(0.126,0.374)
(0.546,1.105)
0.045
0.061
0.508
0.574
0.826
2.056
Both Tribes Combined (weighted)
Shellfish
Total finfish
Total, all fish
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
CI = Confidence interval.
Source: Toy etal., 1996.
0.177(0.039)
0.182(0.035)
0.532(0.081)


(0.101,0.253)
(0.104,0.251)
(0.373,0.691)


0.012
0.064
0.173


0.574
0.615
1.357


Page                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
10-150	July 2009
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
 ri
 I
Table 10-88. Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day): Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups
All Adult Respondents (including non-consumers)
Species/Group
M A Kc*ni-\ QT7
JN Mean at
Group G
Abalone 92 0.001 0.001
Lobster 92 0.022. 0.007
Octopus 92 0.019 0.006
Limpets 92 0.010 0.009
Miscellaneous 92 0.0003 0.0003
Group A 92 0.618 0.074.
Group B 92 0.051 0.016
Group C 92 0.136 0.025
Group D 92 0.097 0.021
Group E 92 1.629 0.262
Group F 92 0.124 0.016
Group G 92 0.052 0.017
All Finfish 92 1.026 0.113
All Shellfish 92 1.680 0.269
All Seafood 92 2.707 0.336
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
LCL = Lower confidence interval.
UCL = Upper confidence interval.
GM = Geometric Mean.
MSB = Multiplicative Standard Error.
95% 95%
LCL UCL

0.000 0.002
0.008 0.036
0.008 0.030
0.000 . 0.027
0.000 0.001
0.473 0.763
0.019 0.082
0.087 0.185
0.056 0.138
1.115 2.143
0.092 0.156
0.019 0.084
1.153 2.208
2.049 3.364
0.000 0.000






Percentiles
5*

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.063
0.000
0.000
0.087
0.063
0.236






50th

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.350
0.003
0.055
0.029
0.740
0.068
0.000
0.639
0.796
1.672






Note: The minimum consumption for all species and groups was zero, except for
A" was 0.005, for "all finfish" was 0.018
Source: Duncan, 2000.
, and for "all seafood" was 0


080.

75th

0.000
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.000
1.002
0.019
0.141
0.076
1.688
0.144
0.038
1.499
1.825
3.598






'GroupA";


90th

0.000
0.085
0.069
0.000
0.000
1.680
0.128
0.369
0.206
4.555
0.352
0.128
2.526
4.590
6.190






"all finfish


95'

0.000
0.139
0.128
.0.000
0.000
2.177
0.270
0.526
0.613
7.749
0.533
0.262
3.412
7.754
10.087






" and "all



Max

0.063
0.549
0.407
0.795
0.023
3.469
1.149
1.716
1.069
15.886
0.778
1.344
5.516
15.976
18.400






seafood".





3
22
25
2
1
92
49
87
76
91
85
42
92
91
92






Consumers Only



3
24
27
2
1
100
53
95
.83
99
92
46
100
99
100






The minimum





GM IV

0.007 3
0.052 1
0.042 1
0.261 3
0.023
0.274 1
0.025 1
0.064 1
0.045 1
0.703 1
0.070 1
0.043 1
0.590 1
0.727 1
1.530 1






rate for "Group


/TQT7
1st

139
266
231
047

167
262
147
168
160
139
240
128
160
123









                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                    a
                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                   •s,
                                                                                                                                                                                   1
CfQ
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-89. Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) for Consumers Only
Consumers only
Group
Group A







Group B

Group C







Group D


Group E









Species
King
Sockeye
Coho
Chum
Pink
Other or Unspecified
Salmon
Steelhead
Salmon (gatherings)
Smelt
Herring
Cod
Perch
Pollock
Sturgeon
Sable Fish
Spiny Dogfish
Greenling
Bull Cod
Halibut
Sole/Flounder
Rock Fish
Manila/Littleneck Clams
Horse Clams
Butter Clams
Geoduck
Cockles
Oysters
Mussels
Moon Snails
Shrimp
Dungeness Crab
N
63
59
50
42
17
32
26
85
49
14
78
2
40
8
5
1
2
1
74
20
12
84
52
72
83
61
60
25
0
86
81
Mean
0.200
0.169
0.191
0.242
0.035
0.159
0.102
0.074
0.078
0.059
0.126
0.012
0.054
0.041
0.018
0.004
0.013
0.016
0.080
0.052
0.169
0.481
0.073
0.263
0.184
0.233
0.164
0.059
—
0.174
0.164
SE
0.031
0.026
0.033
0.046
0.007
0.070
0.035
.0.012
0.024
0.020
0.024
0.002
0.020
0.021
0.009
—
0.002
—
0.018
0.015
0.072
0.154
0.016
0.062
0.039
0.055
0.034
0.020
—
0.027
0.028
Median
0.092
0.070
0.084
0.147
0.034
0.043
0.027
0.031
0.016
0.034
0.051
0.012
0.013
0.021
0.014
—
0.013
—
0.029
0.022
0.066
0.088
0.025
0.123
0.052
0.099
0.068
0.015
—
0.088
0.071
75th
Percentile
0.322
0.293
0.247
0.280
0.057
0.172
0.103
0.079
0.078
0.093
0.140
—
0.060
0.053
0.034
—
—
—
0.069
0.067
0.231
0.284
0.070
0.184
0.167
0.202
0.184
0.085
—
0.196
0.185
90th
Percentile
0.581
0.493
0.584
0.768
0.077
0.261
0.398
0.205
0.247
0.197
0.319
—
0.139
—
—
—
—
—
0.213
0.201
0.728
1.190
0.261
0.599
0.441
0.530
0.567
0.155
—
0.549
0.425
Page
10-152
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-89. Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) for Consumers Only (continued)
Consumers only
Group
Group E
(cont'd)








Group F








Group G











Species
Red Rock Crab
Scallops
Squid
Sea Urchin
Sea Cucumber
Oyster (gatherings)
Clams (gatherings)
Crab (gatherings)
Clams (razor, unspecified)
Crab (king/snow)
Cabazon
Blue Back (sockeye)
Trout/Cutthroat
Tuna (fresh/canned)
Groupers
Sardine
Grunter
Mackerel
Shark
Abalone
Lobster
Octopus
Limpets
Miscellaneous
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group F
Group G
N
19
54
23
6
5
40
61
43
35
1
1
2
3
83
1
1
4
1
1
3
22
25
2
1
92
49
87
76
91
85
42
Mean
0.037
0.037
0.041
0.025
0.056
0.061
0.071
0.056
0.124
0.017
0.080
0.006
0.112
0.129
0.025
0.049
0.056
0.008
0.002
0.022
0.092
0.071
0.440
0.023
0.618
0.095
0.144
0.118
1.647
0.134
0.113
SE
0.010
0.009
0.017
0.008
0.031
0.014
0.016
0.019
0.036
—
—
0.004
0.035
0.017
—
—
0.026
—
—
0.020
0.025
0.017
0.355
—
10.074
0.029
0.026
0.025
0.265
0.017
0.034
Median
0.012
0.011
0.009
0.019
0.008
0.031
0.029
0.027
0.062
—
—
0.006
0.129
0.071
—
—
0.047
—
—
0.003
0.057
0.044
0.440
—
0.350
0.017
0.068
0.042
0.750
0.076
0.042
75th
Percentile
0.057
0.040
0:032
0.048
0.130
0.088
0.064
0.042
0.138
—
—
—
—
0.145
—
—
0.110
—
—
—
0.130
0.123
—
—
1.002
0.098
0.141
0.091
1.691
0.163
0.118
90th
Percentile
0.117
0.110
0.188
—
—
0.152
0.165
0.100
0.284
—
—
—
—
0.346
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.172
0.149
—
—
1.680
0.261
0.403
0.392
4.577
0.372
0.270
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-153
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-89 Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) for Consumers Only (continued)
Group



N
SE
Source:
Species
All Finfish
All Shellfish
All Seafood
= Sample size.
= Standard error.
Duncan, 2000.
Consumers only
N Mean SE Median 75th 90th
92 1.026 0.113 0.639 1.499 2.526
91 1.699 0.271 0.819 1.837 4.600
92 2.707 0.336 1.672 3.598 6.190


Page                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
10-154	July 2009
-------
 ,
a
3
1=
Table 10-90. Adu\t Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) by Gender
All Adult Respondents (including non-consumers)
N Mean
Species/Group
GroupA(p=0.02)
Mule 46 0.817
Female 46 0.419
Group B (p=0.04)
Male 46 0.089
Female 46 0.013
Group C (p=0.03)
Male 46 0.170
Female 46 0. 102
Group D (p=0.08)
Male 46 0.135
Female 46 0.060
Group E (p=0.03)
Male 46 1.865
Female 46 1.392
Group F (p=0.6)
Male 46 0.141
Female 46 0. 107
GroupG(p=0.2)
Male 46 0.081
Female 46 0.023
All Finfish (p=0.007)
Male 46 1.351
Female 46 0.701
All Shellfish (p=0.03)
Male 46 1.946
Female 46 1.415
All Seafood (p=0.008)
Male 46 3.297
Female 46 2.116
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
LCL = Lower confidence interval.
UCL = Upper confidence interval.
GM = Geometric Mean.
MSB = Multiplicative Standard Error.
P-value is 2-sided and based upon Mann- Whitney
respondents.
Source: Duncan, 2000.
SE

0.120
0.077

0.031
0.004

0.043
0.025

0.037
0.018

0.316
0.419

0.026
0.020

0.032
0.007

0.193
0.100

0.335
0.421

0.458
0.480






95%
LCL

0.582
0.268

0.028
0.005

0.086
0.053

0.062
0.025

1.246
0.571

0.090
0.068

0.018
0.009

0.973
0.505

1.289
0.590

2.399
1.175






95%
UCL

1.052
0.570

0.150
0.021

0.254
0.151

0.208
0.095

2.484
2.213

0.192
0.146

0.144
0.037

1.729
0.897

2.603
2.240

4.195
3.057






Percentiles
5th

0.021
0.018

0.000
0.000

0.007
0.000

0.000
0.000

0.068
0.029

0.000
0.005

0.000
0.000

0.115
0.083

0.068
0.029

0.232
0.236






50th

0.459
0.294

0.008
0.000

0.078
0.047

0.045
0.026

1.101
0.644

0.072
0.052

0.001
0.000

0.905
0.465

1.121
0.678

2.473
0.965






test. The 95% CL is based on the normal distribution. The










75th

1.463
0.521

0.076
0.013

0.148
0.102

0.133
0.056

2.608
0.936

0.195
0.126

0.070
0.016

1.871
0.943

2.628
1.007

4.518
2.219






5th and 95th


90th

2.033
1.028

0.269
0.044

0.432
0.277

0.546
0.105

4.980
2.462

0.413
0.322

0.261
0.093

3.341
1.751

5.146
2.462

8.563
4.898






95th

2.236
1.813

0.623
0.099

0.847
0.496

0.948
0.453

7.453
9.184

0.597
0.451

0.476
0.162

4.540
2.508

7.453
9.231

10.008
10.400






N

46
46

27
22

46
41

39
37

46
45

40
45

23
19

46
46

46
45

46
46






percentile are not reported for groups






Consumers Only
%

100
100

59
48

100
89

85
80

100
98

87
98

50
41

100
100

100
98

100
100






GM" MSEb

0.385 1.245
0.195 1.232

0.046 1.378
0.012 1.309

0.075 1.210
0.053 1.215

0.057 1.274
0.035 1.204

0.879 1.238
0.559 1.224

0.089 1.199
0.056 1.198

0.057 1.395
0.031 1.272

0.800 1.191
0.434 1.169

0.909 1.240
0.579 1.221

1.971 1.188
1.188 1.158






with less than 20




a


I
                                                                                                                                                                1
-------
Table 10-91. Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) by
Age

All Adult Respondents (including non-consumers)
Species/Group
GroupA(p=0.04)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
Group B (p=0.001)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
Group C (p=0.6)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
Group D (p=0.2)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
Group E (p=0. 1)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
Group F (p=0.5)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
Group G (p=0.6)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
All Finfish (p=0.03)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
All Shellfish (p=0.1)
16-42 Years
43-54 Years
55 Years and Over
N

58
15
19

58
15
19

58
15
19

58
15
19

58
15
19

58
15
19

58
15
19

58
15
19

58
15
19
Mean

0.512
1.021
0.623

0.042
0.097
0.041

0.122
0.117
0.193

0.079
0.164
0.102

1.537
2.241
1.425

0.119
0.154
0.115

0.052
0.088
0.023

0.874
1.554
1.074

1.589
2.330
1.447
SE

0.083
0.233
0.159

0.022
0.047
0.017

0.026
0.029
0.091

0.023
0.079
0.038

0.289
0.571
0.811

0.021
0.050
0.029

0.024
0.043
0.011

0.136
0.304
0.247

0.301
0.586
0.815
95%
LCL

0.349
0.564
0.311

0.000
0.005
0.008

O.Q71
0.060
0.015

0.034
0.009
0.028

0.971
1.122
0.000

0.078
0.056
0.058

0.005
0.004
0.001

0.607
0.958
0.590

3.626
1.181
0.000
95%
UCL

0.675
1.478
0.935

0.085
0.189
0.074

0.173
0.174
0.371

0.124
0.319
0.176

2.103
3.360
3.015

0.160
0.252
0.172

0.099
0.172
0.045

1.141
2.150
1.558

2.179
3.479
3.044

5th 50th

0.015 0.294
1.020
0.394

0.000 0.000
0.019
0.010

0.000 0.055
0.078
0.050

0.000 0.026
0.049
0.033

0.059 0.740
1.679
0.678

0.000 0.044
0.109
0.072

0.000 0.006
0.000
0.000

0.087 0.536
1.422
0.861

0.059 0.799
1.724
0.688
Percentiles
75th

0.660
1.596
0.868

0.009
0.124
0.054

0.134
0.146
0.141

0.072
0.094
0.088

1.715
4.403
1.159

0.123
0.217
0.145

0.035
0.116
0.018

1.062
2.005
1.525

1.834
4.519
1.160

90th 95th

1.544 2.105
2.468
2.170

0.098 0.295
0.421
0.182

0.301 0.578
0.339
0.503

0.164 0.610
0.862
0.513

3.513 8.259
6.115
1.662

0.387 0.563
0.472
0.302

0.126 0.241
0.420
0.091

2.471 2.754
3.578
2.424

3.626 8.305
6.447
1.837
N

58
15
19

22
12
15

54
15
18

44
15
17

57
15
19

53
14
18

30
5
7

58
15
19

57
15
19



Consumers Only
%

100
100
100

38
80
79

93
100
95

76
100
89

98
100
100

91
93
95

52
33
37

100
100
100

98
100
100
GM"

0.215
0.645
0.294

0.023
0.049
0.017

0.061
0.072
0.066

0.043
0.056
0.041

0.707
1.188
0.456

0.065
0.098
0.066

0.037
0.207
0.028

0.489
1.146
0.619

0.736
1.225
0.464
MSEb

1.219
1.337
1.402

1.447
1.503
1.503

1.186
1.335
1.429

1.218
1.435
1.434

1.199
1.419
1.415

1.180
1.339
1.350

1.259
1.447
1.875

1.163
1.249
1.329

1.197
1.426
1.417
                                                                                                                                                                                                 s
                                                                                                                                                                                                 I

    ri
vo
-------
 ,
a
3
1=

Table 10-91.
Adult Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) by Age (continued)

A\\ Adult Respondents (including non-consumers) Consumers Only
N Mean
Species/Group
All Seafood (p=0.09)
16-42 Years 58 2.463
43-54 Years 15 3.884
55 Years and Over 19 2.522
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
LCL = Lower confidence interval.
UCL = Upper confidence interval.
GM = Geometric Mean.
MSB = Multiplicative Standard Error.
SE 95%
St LCL

0.387 1.704
0.781 2.353
0.927 0.705






95% Percentiles „,
UCL 5th 50th 75th 90th 95th '"

3.222 0.247 1.270 3.410 6.206 9.954 58 100 1.384
5.415 3.869 4.942 9.725 15 100 2.665
4.339 1.393 2.574 5.220 19 100 1.340






MSEb

1.156
1.295
1.293






P-value is 2-sided and based upon Kruskul-Wallis test. The 95% CL is based on the normal distribution. The 5th and 95th percentiles are not reported for groups with less than 20
respondents.
Source: Duncan, 2000.






a


I
                                                                                                                                                                1
-------
    ri
Table 10-92. Consumption Raies for Native American Children (g/kg-day), All Children (including non-consumers): Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups
Group Species N Mean SE 95% LCL
Group E
Manila/Littleneck clams 31 0.095 0.051 0.000
Horse clams 31 0.022 0.013 0.000
Butter clams 31 0.021 0.014 0.000
Geoduck 31 0.112 0.041 0.033
Cockles 31 0.117 0.079 0.000
Oysters 31 0.019 0.012 0.000
Mussels 31 0.001 0.001 0.000
Moon snails 31 0.000
Shrimp 31 0.093 0.038 0.019
Dungeness crab 31 0.300 0.126 0.053
Red rock crab 31 0.007 0.003 0.001
Scallops 31 0.011 0.006 0.000
Squid 31 0.002 0.002 0.000
Sea urchin 31 0.000
Sea cucumber 31 0.000
Group Aa 31 0.271 0.117 0.043
Group Bb 31 0.004 0.002 0.000
Group Cc 31 0.131 0.040 0.052
Group D11 31 0.030 0.011 0.008
Group Fe 31 0.240 0.075 0.094
All Finfish 31 0.677 0.168 0.346
All Shellfish 31 0.801 0.274 0.265
All Seafood 31 1.477 0.346 0.799
95% UCL
0.195
0.048
0.048
0.191
0.271
0.043
0.002
-
0.168
0.547
0.014
0.022
0.005
-
0.499
0.008
0.210
0.053
0.387
1.007
1.337
2.155
P5
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.026
0.000
0.042
Median
0.031
0.000
0.000
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.063
0.000
0.036
0.010
0.092
0.306
0.287
0.724
P75
0.063
0.006
0.000
0.116
0.054
0.056
0.000
0.000
0.059
0.166
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.216
0.000
0.205
0.037
0.254
0.740
0.799
1.983
P90
0.181
0.048
0.041
0.252
0.240
0.058
0.000
0.000
0.394
1.251
0.046
0.031
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.532
0.015
0.339
0.081
0.684
2.110
2.319
3.374
P95
0.763
0.269
0.247
0.841
1.217
0.205
0.011
0.000
0.712
2.689
0.064
0.089
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.064
0.038
0.838
0.191
1.571
3.549
4.994
7.272
Maximum
1.597
0.348
0.422
1.075
2.433
0.362
0.026
0.000
0.982
2.833
0.082
0.174
0.411
0.000
0.000
3.559
0.069
1.014
0.342
1.901
4.101
7.948
9.063
a Group A is salmon, including king, sockeye, coho, chum, pink, and steelhead.
b Group B is finfish, including smelt and herring.
c Group C is finfish, including cod, perch, pollock, sturgeon, sablefish, spiny dogfish and greenling.
d Group D is finfish, including halibut, sole, flounder and rockfish.
e Group F includes tuna, other finfish, and all others not included in Groups A, B, C, and D.
Not applicable.
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error
LCL = Lower confidence limit
UCL = Upper confidence limit
P5...P95 = Percentile value.




Note: The minimum consumption for all species and groups was zero, except for "all finfish" and "all seafood."
Source: Duncan, 2000.






The minimum rate for "all finfish"








was 0.023, and for "all seafood" was



                                                                                                                                                                                                 s
                                                                                                                                                                                                 I

vo
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 1 0-93 . Consumption Rates for Native American Children (g/kg-day
Consumers Only: Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups
Group Species N Mean SE Median
Group E









Group Aa
Group Bb
Group Cc
Group Dd
Group Fe
Manila/Littleneck clams
Horse clams
Butter clams
Geoduck
Cockles
Oysters
Mussels
Moon snails
Shrimp
Dungeness crab
Red rock crab
Scallops
Squid
Sea urchin
Sea cucumber
(tuna/other finfish)
All finfish
All shellfish
All seafood
a
b
c
d
e
N
SE
-
Source:
23 0.128 0.068
12 0.058 0.032
6 0.106 0.066
22 0.158 0.054
10 0.361 0.233
10 0.060 0.035
1 0.026
0
17 0.170 0.064
21 0.443 0.179
5 0.046 0.011
8 0.042 0.019
2 0.033 0.008
0
0
28 0.300 0.128
5 0.023 0.012
25 0.163 0.048
17 0.055 0.019
24 0.311 0.092
31 0.677 0.168
28 0.886 0.299
31 1.477 0.346
0.043
0.009
0.032
0.053
0.078
0.015
-
-
0.035
0.082
0.051
0.027
0.033
-
0.112
0.017
0.048
0.033
0.177
0.306
0.363
0.724
,
Percentiles
75th
0.066
0.046
0.203
0.230
0.291
0.074
-
-
0.299
0.305
0.067
0.032
-
0.246
0.043
0.236
0.064
0.336
0.740
0.847
1.983
90th
0.200
0.308
-
0.554
2.230
0.336
-
-
0.621
2.348
-
-
0.599
0.493
0.140
1.035
2.110
2.466
3.374
Group A is salmon, including king, sockeye, coho, chum, pink, and steelhead.
Group B is finfish, including smelt and herring.
Group C is finfish, including cod, perch, pollock, sturgeon, sablefish, spiny dogfish and greenling.
Group D is finfish, including halibut, sole, flounder and rockfish.
Group F includes tuna, other finfish, and all others not included in Groups A, B, C, and D.
= Sample size.
= Standard error.
= No data.
Duncan, 2000.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-159
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-94. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates for Adult Consumers Only (g/kg/day)
Percentiles
Species
N
Mean
SD
95% CI
5*
10*
25th
50th
75*
90th
95th
Squaxin Island Tribe
Anadromous
fish
Pelagic fish
Bottom fish
Shellfish
Other fish
All fmfish
All fish
117
62
94
86
39
117
117
0.672
0.099
0.093
0.282
0.046
0.799
1.021
1.174
0.203
0.180
0.511
0.066
1.263
1.407
(0.522-1.034)
(0.064-0.181)
(0.065-0.140)
(0.208 - 0.500)
(0.031-0.073)
(0.615-1.136
(0.826-1.368)
0.016
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.031
0.050
0.028
0.007
0.007
0.015
0.005
0.056
0.097
0.093
0.014
0.016
0.051
0.006
0.139
0.233
0.308
0.035
0.037
0.126
0.019
0.383
0.543
0.802
0.086
0.079
0.291
0.046
1.004
1.151
1.563
0.226
0.223
0.659
0.129
1.826
2.510
2.086
0.349
0.370
1.020
0.161
2.537
3.417
Tulalip Tribe
Anadromous
fish
Pelagic fish
Bottom fish
Shellfish
Other fish
All fmfish
All fish
N
SD
CI
72
38
44
61
36
72
73
Sample size.
Standard deviation.
Confidence interval.
0.451
0.077
0.062
0.559
0.075
0.530
1.026


0.671
0.100
0.092
1.087
0.119
0.707
1.563


(0.321-0.648)
(0.051-0.118)
(0.043-0.107)
(0.382-1.037)
(0.044-0.130)
(0.391-0.724)
(0.772-1.635)


0.010
0.005
0.006
0.037
0.004
0.017
0.049


0.020
0.011
0.007
0.047
0.004
0.026
0.074


0.065
0.015
0.011
0.104
0.011
0.119
0.238


0.194
0.030
0.030
0.196
0.022
0.286
0.560


0.529
0.088
0.077
0.570
0.054
0.603
1.134


1.372
0.216
0.142
1.315
0.239
1.642
2.363


1.990
0.266
0.207
1.824
0.372
2.132
2.641


Source: Polissar et al., 2006.
Page
10-160
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
 f
>  £
>  a
  I
  1=
Table W-95.
Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Gender for Adult Consumers Only (g/kg/day)
Percentiles
Species
Gender
N
Mean
SD
95% CI
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Squaxin Island Tribe
Anadromous fish

Pelagic fish

Bottom fish

Shellfish

Other fish

All finfish

All fish

Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
65
52
39
23
55
39
52
34
27
12
65
52
65
52
0.596
0.766
0.104
0.091
0.091
0.096
0.305
0.245
0.047
0.045
0.735
0.878
0.999
1.049
0.629
1.618
0.235
0.136
0.185
0.175
0.586
0.372
0.066
0.068
0.784
1.686
0.991
1.808
(0.465-0.770)
(0.463-1.458)
(0.055-0.219)
(0.050-0.160)
(0.060-0.185)
(0.058-0.177)
(0.215-0.645)
(0.149-0.407)
(0.029-0.085)
(0.016-0.100)
(0.586-0.980)
(0.546-1.652)
(0.794-1.291)
(0.712-1.793)
0.026
0.016
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.003

0.044
0.026
0.082
0.041
0.039
0.023
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.014
0.018
0.005
0.004
0.079
0.039
0.157
0.061
0.163
0.068
0.013
0.017
0.017
0.014
0.052
0.047
0.006
0.008
0.226
0.115
0.335
0.183
0.388
0.184
0.037
0.030
0.041
0.034
0.136
0.119
0.020
0.015
0.500
0.272
0.775
0.353
0.816
0.656
0.074
0.096
0.077
0.089
0.337
0.250
0.061
0.037
1.045
0.840
1.196
1.083
1.313
1.736
0.181
0.322
0.180
0.226
0.662
0.563
0.124
0.144
1.552
1.908
2.036
2.918
1.957
3.321
0.299
0.349
0.365
0.330
0.782
1.163
0.139

2.181
3.687
2.994
4.410
Tulalip Tribe
Anadromous fish

Pelagic fish

Bottom fish

Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
41
31
24
14
24
20
0.546
0.327
0.066
0.096
0.061
0.063
0.754
0.528
0.099
0.103
0.106
0.073
(0.373-0.856)
(0.189-0.578)
(0.037-0.119)
(0.046-0.153)
(0.035-0.147)
(0.039-0.103)
0.011
0.014
0.013

0.006
0.007
0.020
0.028
0.014
0.005
0.006
0.008
0.066
0.066
0.016
0.016
0.009
0.014
0.408
0.134
0.030
0.053
0.030
0.029
0.570
0.290
0.064
0.156
0.070
0.093
1.433
0.625
0.175
0.227
0.097
0.179
2.085
1.543
0.223

0.142
0.214
                                                                                                                                                                  a


                                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                                 1
-------


Table 10-95. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Gender for Adult Consumers Only (g/kg/day) (continued)
Species
Shellfish

Other fish

All fmfish

All fish

N
SD
CI
Gender N
Male 35
Female 26
Male 24
Female 12
Male 41
Female 3 1
Male 42
Female 3 1
= Sample size.
= Standard deviation.
= Confidence interval.
Mean SD 95% CI
0.599 1.261 (0.343-1.499)
0.505 0.818 (0.292-1.018)
0.064 0.114 (0.029-0.134)
0.097 0.131 (0.041-0.190)
0.620 0.795 (0.438-0.966)
0.411 0.561 (0.265-0.678)
1.140 1.805 (0.785-2.047)
0.872 1.168 (0.615-1.453)


5th 10th 25th
0.036 0.048 0.098
0.043 0.047 0.117
0.004 0.004 0.007
0.011 0.015
0.017 0.020 0.098
0.025 0.036 0.126
0.049 0.068 0.208
0.066 0.144 0.305

Percentiles
50th 75th 90th
0.183 0.505 1.329
0.215 0.582 1.074
0.026 0.043 0.174
0.022 0.142 0.254
0.421 0.706 1.995
0.236 0.404 0.924
0.623 1.142 2.496
0.510 0.963 1.938


95th
1.826
1.357
0.334

2.185
1.769
2.638
2.317

Source: Polissar et al., 2006.
                                                                                                                                                                                          s
                                                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                                                                                          a
                                                                                                                                                                                          2*.
                                                                                                                                                                                          a-
                                                                                                                                                                                          &
                                                                                                                                                                                          a
                                                                                                                                                                                          a.

                                                                                                                                                                                          £
                                                                                                                                                                                          ft
vo
-------
  f
>  £
>  a
  I
  1=
Table 10-96. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Age for Adult Consumers Only - Squaxin Island Tribe (g/kg/day)
Percentiles
Species
Anadromous fish



Pelagic fish



Bottom fish



Shellfish



Other fish



Age Group
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
N
54
41
11
11
22
30
4
6
41
35
9
9
44
27
5
10
20
10
2
7
Mean
0.664
0.563
1.126
0.662
0.067
0.128
0.154
0.036
0.063
0.126
0.159
0.035
0.335
0.264
0.321
0.076
0.079
0.014
0.007
0.010
SD
1.392
0.820
1.511
0.681
0.086
0.269
0.239
0.023
0.102
0.225
0.302
0.031
0.657
0.321
0.275
0.079
0.079
0.008
0.003
0.007
95% CI
(0.430-1.438)
(0.376-0.914)
(0.595-2.791)
(0.321-1.097)
(0.040-0.114)
(0.063-0.272)
(0.027-0.396)
(0.020-0.053)
(0.043-0.120)
(0.076-0.276)
(0.029-0.460)
(0.020-0.065)
(0.211-0.729)
(0.171-0.422)
(0.137-0.589)
(0.033-0.124)
(0.053-0.122)
(0.009-0.019)
(0.005-0.009)
(0.006-0.015)
5th 10th
0.019 0.026
0.023 0.031
0.212
0.015
0.006 0.007
0.003 0.005


0.004 0.006
0.010 0.013
0.009
0.006
0.014 0.019
0.016 0.054

0.005
0.004 0.005
0.005


25th
0.078
0.073
0.278
0.107
0.014
0.014
0.033
0.017
0.012
0.023
0.014
0.018
0.041
0.082
0.100
0.007
0.025
0.007

0.006
50th
0.233
0.292
0.771
0.522
0.035
0.029
0.045
0.038
0.034
0.051
0.029
0.034
0.127
0.146
0.335
0.042
0.046
0.015
0.007
0.008
75th
0.863
0.590
0.948
0.924
0.081
0.101
0.166
0.047
0.069
0.111
0.067
0.043
0.327
0.277
0.364
0.155
0.124
0.020

0.014
90th
1.236
1.354
2.160
1.636
0.186
0.248


0.115
0.273
0.451
0.060
0.698
0.582

0.180
0.161
0.022


95th
1.969
2.062


0.228
0.626


0.221
0.446


1.046
0.984


0.218



                                                                                                                                                                                                                a


                                                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                                               1
  QTQ
-------
Table 10-96. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Age for Adult Consumers Only - Squaxin Island Tribe (g/kg/day) (continued)
Species
All fmfish



All fish



N
SD
CI
Source:
Age Group N
18-34 54
35-49 41
50-64 11
>65 11
18-34 54
35-49 41
50-64 11
>65 11
= Sample size.
= Standard deviation.
= Confidence interval.
Polissar et al., 2006.
Mean SD
0.739 1.417
0.764 1.001
1.312 1.744
0.711 0.699
1.041 1.570
0.941 1.217
1.459 1.773
0.786 0.727


95% CI
(0.508-1.372)
(0.527-1.173)
(0.690-3.219)
(0.386-1.259)
(0.729-1.741)
(0.652-1.453)
(0.770-3.258)
(0.446-1.242)


Percentiles
5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th
0.025 0.039 0.105 0.289 0.887 1.466 2.296
0.046 0.082 0.226 0.383 0.816 1.859 2.423
0.212 0.297 0.909 1.119 2.188
0.027 0.119 0.601 0.986 1.637
0.052 0.107 0.217 0.500 1.117 2.669 3.557
0.051 0.136 0.248 0.483 0.975 2.227 3.009
0.317 0.327 1.106 1.301 2.936
0.058 0.122 0.775 1.091 1.687


                                                                                                                                                                                          s
                                                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                                                                                          a
                                                                                                                                                                                          2*.
                                                                                                                                                                                          a-
                                                                                                                                                                                          &
                                                                                                                                                                                          a
                                                                                                                                                                                          a.

                                                                                                                                                                                          £
                                                                                                                                                                                          ft
vo
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-97. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption
Species
Anadromous fish



Pelagic fish



Bottom fish



Shellfish



Other fish



All finfish



All fish



Age
Group
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
18-34
35-49
50-64
>65
Rates by Age for Adult Consumers Only - Tulalip Tribe (g/kg/day)
Percentiles
N
27
23
16
6
12
15
8
3
14
16
11
3
23
19
14
5
15
13
6
2
27
23
16
6
27
24
16
6
Mean
0.298
0.725
0.393
0.251
0.092
0.077
0.077
0.008
0.075
0.066
0.051
0.015
0.440
1.065
0.245
0.062
0.097
0.057
0.075
0.024
0.378
0.821
0.467
0.263
0.806
1.661
0.710
0.322
SD
0.456
0.928
0.550
0.283
0.099
0.118
0.085
0.009
0.138
0.069
0.056
0.005
0.487
1.784
0.216
0.064
0.146
0.085
0.138
0.015
0.548
0.951
0.535
0.293
0.747
2.466
0.591
0.344
95% CI
(0.169-0.524)
(0.436-1.202)
(0.225-0.854)
(0.065-0.475)
(0.051-0.173)
(0.039-0.206)
(0.037-0.160)
(0.002-0.014)
(0.033-0.205)
(0.041-0.112)
(0.026-0.098)
(0.008-0.018)
(0.289-0.702)
(0.536-2.461)
(0.158-0.406)
(0.027-0.135)
(0.043-0.197)
(0.022-0.123)
(0.015-0.215)
(0.014-0.024)
(0.222-0.680)
(0.532-1.315)
(0.311-0.925)
(0.091-0.518)
(0.575-1.182)
(0.974-3.179)
(0.513-1.144)
(0.107-0.642)
5th 10th
0.011 0.016
0.010 0.032
0.059

0.016
0.013


0.007
0.007
0.007

0.049 0.053
0.049 0.074
0.048

0.010
0.004


0.018 0.022
0.020 0.047
0.186

0.071 0.136
0.017 0.069
0.278

25th
0.061
0.078
0.164
0.022
0.021
0.015
0.027
0.003
0.010
0.023
0.011
0.013
0.131
0.123
0.117
0.023
0.017
0.006
0.012

0.080
0.116
0.227
0.030
0.231
0.177
0.370
0.062
50th
0.120
0.431
0.228
0.164
0.054
0.021
0.034
0.004
0.020
0.053
0.036
0.017
0.196
0.250
0.224
0.046
0.033
0.014
0.018
0.024
0.156
0.602
0.301
0.176
0.617
0.968
0.495
0.195
75th
0.315
0.719
0.420
0.425
0.124
0.087
0.090
0.011
0.078
0.077
0.069
0.018
0.582
1.222
0.282
0.060
0.102
0.049
0.038

0.438
0.898
0.503
0.430
1.126
2.005
0.944
0.475
90th
0.713
2.001
0.599

0.218
0.189


0.142
0.152
0.119

1.076
2.265
0.417

0.319
0.187


0.840
2.035
0.615

1.960
3.147
1.070

95th
1.281
2.171










1.410
4.351






1.677
2.268


2.457
5.707


Source: Polissar et al., 2006
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-165
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-98. Percentiles and
Species
N
Mean
Mean of Consumption Rates for Child Consumers Only (g/kg/day)
SD

5th 10th

25th
Percentiles
50th

75th 90th

95th
Squaxin Island Tribe
Anadromous fish
Pelagic fish
Bottom fish
Shellfish
Other fish
All finfish
All fish
33
21
18
31
30
35
36
0.392
0.157
0.167
2.311
0.577
0.538
2.890
1.295
0.245
0.362
8.605
0.584
1.340
8.433
0.005 0.006
0.010 0.014
0.006
0.006 0.025
0.012 0.051
0.005 0.007
0.012 0.019
0.030
0.019
0.014
0.050
0.111
0.046
0.244
0.049
0.044
0.026
0.262
0.400
0.062
0.704
0.130 0.686
0.107 0.547
0.050 0.482
0.404 0.769
0.566 1.620
0.216 1.698
1.495 2.831
0.786
0.712

4.479
1.628
2.334
7.668
Tulalip Tribe
Anadromous fish
Pelagic fish
Bottom fish
Shellfish
Other fish
All finfish
All fish
14
7
2
11
1
15
15
0.148
0.152
0.044
0.311
0.115
0.310
0.449
0.229
0.178
0.005
0.392
0.115
0.332
0.529
0.012


0.012

0.027
0.066
0.026
0.027

0.034

0.082
0.088
0.045
0.053
0.041
0.036

0.133
0.215
0.136 0.334
0.165

0.518 0.803

0.431 0.734
0.601 0.884







N = Sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
CI = Confidence interval.
Source: Polissar et al., 2006.








Page
10-166
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-99. Percentiles and Mean of Consumption Rates by Gender for Child Consumers Only (g/kg/day)
Percentiles
Species
Gender
N
Mean
SD 5th 10th
25th
50th
75th 90th 95th
Squaxin Island Tribe
Anadromous fish Male

Pelagic fish

Bottom fish

Shellfish

Other fish

All finfish

All fish

Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
15
18
8
13
6
12
13
18
13
17
15
20
15
21
0.702
0.155
0.102
0.179
0.038
0.244
0.275
3.799
0.836
0.400
0.787
0.372
1.700
3.655
1.937 0.009
0.253 0.005
0.138
0.280 0.015
0.057
0.442 0.005
0.244 0.036
11.212 0.008
0.663 0.106
0.463 0.013
1.940 0.009
0.719 0.005 0.005
1.965 0.061
10.738 0.008 0.014
0.026
0.025
0.015
0.020
0.016
0.010
0.047
0.050
0.232
0.096
0.038
0.037
0.476
0.160
0.062
0.046
0.058
0.040
0.020
0.028
0.241
0.229
0.448
0.311
0.062
0.071
1.184
0.599
0.331 1.082
0.090 0.600
0.099
0.109 0.681
0.026
0.105 0.736
0.353 0.462
0.490 1.333
1.530 1.625
0.486 0.610
0.521 1.500
0.179 1.408 2.119
1.937 2.444
0.916 2.764 16.374
Tulalip Tribe
Anadromous fish Male

Pelagic fish

Bottom fish

Shellfish

Other fish

All finfish

All fish

N
SD
CI
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Sample size.
Standard deviation.
Confidence interval.
7
7
5
2
0
2
5
6
0
1
8
7
8
7

0.061
0.237
0.106
0.265

0.044
0.141
0.431

0.115
0.208
0.433
0.202
0.745

0.052
0.306
0.081
0.350

0.005
0.221
0.459

0.115
0.176
0.440
0.169
0.670

0.023
0.032
0.044



0.012
0.034


0.087
0.045
0.071
0.155

0.034
0.080
0.053
0.017

0.041
0.027
0.219


0.133
0.165
0.122
0.488

0.067
0.198
0.128



0.110
0.651


0.322
0.652
0.233
0.835

Source: Polissaretal., 2006.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-167
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-100. Consumption Rates of API Community Members
Category N
Anadromous Fish 202
Pelagic Fish 202
Freshwater Fish 202
Bottom Fish 202
Shellfish Fish 202
Seaweed/Kelp 202
Miscellaneous 202
Seafood
All Finfish 202
All Fish 202
All Seafood 202
Median Mean Percentage of 95% LCI 95% UCI 90%tile
(g/kg/d) (g/kg/d) Consumption" SE (g/kg/d) (g/kg/d) (g/kg/d)
0.093 0.201 10.6% 0.008 0.187 0.216
0.215 0.382 20.2% 0.013 0.357 0.407
00.43 0.110 5.8% 0.005 0.101 0.119
0.047 0.125 6.6% 0.006 0.113 0.137
0.498 0.867 45.9% 0.023 0.821 0.913
0.014 0.084 4.4% 0.005 0.075 0.093
0.056 0.121 6.4% 0.004 0.112 0.130

0.515 0.818 43.3% 0.023 0.774 0.863
1.363 1.807 95.6% 0.042 1.724 1.889
1.439 1.891 100.0% 0.043 1.805 1.976
0.509
0.829
0.271
0.272
1.727
0.294
0.296

1.638
3.909
3.928
a Percentage of consumption = the percent of each category that makes up the total (i.e., 10.6% of total fish eaten was
anadromous fish).
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
LCI = 95% lower confidence interval bound.
UCI = 95% upper confidence interval.
Confidence intervals were computed based on the Student's t-distribution. Rates were weighted across ethnic groups.
U.S. EPA, 1999.


Page
10-168
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-101. Demographic Characteristics of "Higher" and '
Lower" Seafood Consumers
All Finfish

Female
Male
18-29
30-54
55+
N
107
95
78
85
39
Cambodian 20
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
Vietnamese 26
Non-fishermen 136
Fishermen
b
N
Source:
66
Higher Consumer: >
Higher Consumer: >
= Sample size.
U.S. EPA, 1999.
Lower Consumers
76
81
85
79
64
90
83
80
48
91
75
90
100
100
69
82
71
75%tile = 1.144 g/day/kg.
75%tile = 1.072g/day/kg.

Higher Consumers8
24
19
15
21
36
10
17
20
52
9
25
10
0
0
31
18
29


Shellfish
Lower Consumers Higher Consumers8
71
79
73
78
72
70
70
87
79
68
75
90
100
100
50
76
73


29
21
27
22
28
30
30
13
21
32
25
10
0
0
50
24
27


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-169
-------
vo
S!



































X
1
a
a
3
fc
a
a
a.
*•
^
^

Table 10-102.

Category Ethnicity

Anadromous fish Cambodian
(p<0.001) Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)
Pelagic Fish Cambodian
(p<0.001) Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)
Freshwater Fish Cambodian
(p<0.001) Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)









Seafood Consumption Rates by

N

20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202










Mean

0.118
0.193
0.152
0.374
0.091
0.187
0.018
0.059
0.067
0.124
0.201
0.088
0.325
0.317
0.576
0.313
0.412
0.107
0.093
0.499
0.377
0.382
0.139
0.084
0.132
0.021
0.032
0.282
0.097
0.133
0.026
0.341
0.110









Ethnicity

SE

0.050
0.052
0.027
0.056
0.026
0.064
0.008
0.013
0.017
0.026
0.008
0.021
0.068
0.081
0.079
0.056
0.138
0.076
0.028
0.060
0.086
0.013
0.045
0.023
0.034
0.006
0.015
0.077
0.039
0.051
0.007
0.064
0.005









for Asian and Pacific Islander Community

10%tile

0.000
0.012
0.025
0.086
0.007
0.002
0.000
n/a
0.012
0.017
0.016
0.000
0.022
0.051
0.132
0.073
0.005
0.000
n/a
0.128
0.059
0.046
0.000
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.007
n/a
0.000
0.068
0.000










Median

0.030
0.066
0.100
0.251
0.048
0.069
0.011
0.071
0.054
0.072
0.093
0.061
0.171
0.132
0.429
0.186
0.115
0.09
0.090
0.535
0.208
0.215
0.045
0.015
0.086
0.007
0.008
0.099
0.070
0.081
0.025
0.191
0.043










90%tile

0.453
0.587
0.384
0.921
0.248
0.603
0.080
n/a
0.185
0.349
0.509
0.293
0.824
0.729
1.072
0.843
1.061
0.716
n/a
0.792
0.956
0.829
0.565
0.327
0.273
0.071
0.160
1.006
0.407
n/a
0.061
1.036
0.271









(g/kg/day)8
% with
Non-zero
Consumption
18
30
29
29
22
18
7
5
10
26
194
17
30
30
29
22
20
7
5
10
26
196
18
24
30
20
13
18
10
5
9
26
173










Cons urn crs

(/o)
90
100
96.7
100
100
90
70
100
100
100
96
85
100
100
100
100
100
70
100
100
100
97
90
80
100
69
59.1
90
100
100
90
100
85.6











95% LCI

0.014
0.086
0.098
0.261
0.037
0.054
0.000
0.026
0.030
0.071
0.187
0.044
0.187
0.151
0.415
0.196
0.124
-0.064
0.021
0.365
0.201
0.357
0.045
0.037
0.062
0.010
0.002
0.122
0.010
0.002
0.011
0.209
0.101











95% UCI

0.223
0.300
0.206
0.488
0.146
0.321
0.036
0.091
0.104
0.176
0.216
0.131
0.463
0.482
0.737
0.429
0.700
0.277
0.164
0.633
0.553
0.407
0.232
0.131
0.202
0.032 (^
0.062 ft"
0.442 "§
0.184 (^
0.263 ^
0.041 ^
0.472 i
0.119 tSH
1
ft
ft"
a
^
^^
!5"
s.
I
-------
it
  ri
  I
Table W-W2. Seafood Consumption Rates by Ethnicity for Asian and Pacific Islander Community (g/kg/day)* (continued)
Category
Bottom Fish
(p<0.001)









Shellfish Fish
(p<0.001)









Seaweed/Kelp
(p<0.001)









Ethnicity
Cambodian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)
Cambodian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)
Cambodian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)
N
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
Mean
0.045
0.082
0.165
0.173
0.119
0.066
0.006
0.036
0.029
0.102
0.125
0.919
0.985
0.613
0.602
1.045
0.898
0.338
0.248
0.154
1.577
0.867
0.002
0.062
0.009
0.190
0.200
0.004
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.017
0.084
SE
0.025
0.026
0.043
0.044
0.026
0.031
0.003
0.021
0.005
0.044
0.006
0.216
0.168
0.067
0.089
0.251
0.259
0.113
0.014
0.024
0.260
0.023
0.001
0.022
0.004
0.043
0.050
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.012
0.005
10%tile
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
n/a
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.085
0.176
0.188
0.116
0.251
0.041
0.015
n/a
0.086
0.247
0.168
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.019
0.011
0.000
0.000
n/a
0.000
0.000
0.000
Median
0.003
0.033
0.103
0.098
0.062
0.006
0.00
0.024
0.026
0.030
0.047
0.695
0.569
0.505
0.401
0.466
0.424
0.201
0.252
0.138
1.196
0.498
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.082
0.087
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.014
90%tile
0.114
0.212
0.560
0.554
0.270
0.173
0.026
n/a
0.058
0.388
0.272
2.003
2.804
1.206
1.428
2.808
2.990
1.058
n/a
0.336
4.029
1.727
0.008
0.314
0.025
0.752
0.686
0.013
0.000
n/a
0.000
0.050
0.294
% with
Non-zero
Consumption
10
28
27
28
19
13
4
3
10
21
163
20
30
30
29
22
19
10
5
10
26
201
7
29
15
29
21
6
0
3
0
6
116
Consumers
(%)
50
93.3
90
96.6
86.4
65
40
60
100
80.8
80.7
100
100
100
100
100
95
100
100
100
100
99.5
35
96.7
50
100
95.5
30
0
60
0
23.1
57.4
95% LCI
-0.006
0.028
0.078
0.083
0.064
0.000
-0.001
-0.017
0.018
0.013
0.113
0.467
0.643
0.477
0.419
0.524
0.357
0.086
0.212
0.100
1.044
0.821
0.000
0.016
0.002
0.101
0.096
-0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.008
0.075
95% UCI
0.097
0.135
0.253
0.263
0.173
0.131
0.013
0.088
0.040
0.192
0.137
1.370
1.327
0.750
0.784
1.566
1.439
0.590
0.283
0.208
2.110
0.913
0.004
0.107
0.016
0.279
0.304
0.009
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.043
0.093
                                                                  a


                                                                  I
                                                                  a
                                                                  A,
                                                                 1
-------
vo
S!

































f*1
^
s
a
a
3
fc
a
a
A,
*•
^
^

Table 10-102.
Category Ethnicity

Miscellaneous Fish Cambodian
(p<0.001) Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)
All Finfish Cambodian
(p<0.001) Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)
All Fish Cambodian
(p<0.001) Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)









Seafood Consumption Rates by Ethnicity for Asian and Pacific
N

20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202









Mean

0.113
0.081
0.083
0.246
0.092
0.074
0.015
0.019
0.076
0.089
0.121
0.390
0.683
0.766
1.144
0.555
0.947
0.228
0.319
0.621
0.944
0.818
1.421
1.749
1.462
1.992
1.692
1.919
0.580
0.585
0.850
2.610
1.807









SE

0.026
0.021
0.025
0.036
0.031
0.021
0.008
0.014
0.028
0.013
0.004
0.098
0.133
0.148
0.124
0.079
0.204
0.117
0.073
0.059
0.171
0.023
0.274
0.283
0.206
0.214
0.275
0.356
0.194
0.069
0.078
0.377
0.042









10%tile

0.000
0.003
0.016
0.032
0.004
0.000
0.000
n/a
0.003
0.013
0.005
0.061
0.114
0.268
0.194
0.180
0.117
0.034
n/a
0.225
0.188
0.166
0.245
0.441
0.660
0.524
0.561
0.358
0.114
n/a
0.363
0.653
0.480









Islander Community (g/kg/day)a (continued)
Median

0.087
0.030
0.043
0.206
0.047
0.025
0.002
0.008
0.045
0.087
0.056
0.223
0.338
0.452
1.151
0.392
0.722
0.097
0.268
0.682
0.543
0.515
1.043
1.337
1.137
1.723
1.122
1.467
0.288
0.521
0.879
2.230
1.363









90%tile

0.345
0.201
0.182
0.620
0.307
0.225
0.063
n/a
0.276
0.184
0.296
1.379
2.024
1.348
2.170
1.204
2.646
1.160
n/a
0.842
2.568
1.638
3.757
4.206
2.423
3.704
3.672
4.147
1.967
n/a
1.188
6.542
3.909









% with _
Consumers
Non-zero fo/ ^
Consumption
18
30
30
29
21
15
7
4
10
25
189
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202










90
100
100
100
95.5
75
70
80
100
96.2
93.6
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100









95% LCI

0.058
0.038
0.032
0.173
0.028
0.029
0.003
0.018
0.014
0.062
0.112
0.185
0.412
0.464
0.890
0.391
0.523
-0.032
0.131
0.490
0.593
0.774
0.850
1.172
1.041
1.555
1.122
1.176
0.149
0.407
0.676
1.835
1.724









95% UCI

0.168
0.123
0.134
0.139
0.156
0.118
0.033
0.055
0.138
0.115
0.130
0.594
0.954
1.067
1.398
0.719
1.372
0.488
0.507
0.751
1.296
0.863
1
2.326
1.883 (-s
2.429 a-
2.262 hS
2.663 55-
1.012 *t
0.764 ^
1.025 ,
3.385 k^
1.889 *
1-
ft
a-
a
^
^^
!5"
s.
I
-------
it
K) «
«> a
  ri
  I
Table 10-102. Seafood Consumption Raies by Ethnicity for Asian and Pacific Islander Community (g/kg/day)* (continued)
Category Ethnicity
All Seafood Cambodian
(p<0.001)





N
SE
LCI
UCI
Note:
Source:
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Mien
Hmong
Samoan
Vietnamese
All Ethnicity (1)
All consumption rates in g/kg body weight/d.
= Sample size.
= Standard error.
= Lower confidence interval.
= Upper confidence interval.
p-value is based on Kruskal Wallis test.
U.S. EPA, 1999.
N
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202
Weighted by



Mean
1.423
1.811
1.471
2.182
1.892
1.923
0.580
0.587
0.850
2.627
1.891
population percenta



SE
0.274
0.294
0.206
0.229
0.294
0.356
0.194
0.069
0.078
0.378
0.043
?e-



10%tile
0.245
0.452
0.660
0.552
0.608
0.400
0.114
n/a
0.363
0.670
0.521




Median
1.043
1.354
1.135
1.830
1.380
1.467
0.288
0.521
0.879
2.384
1.439




90%tile
3.759
4.249
2.425
3.843
4.038
4.147
1.967
n/a
1.188
6.613
3.928




% with
Non-zero
Consumption
20
30
30
29
22
20
10
5
10
26
202




Consumers
(%)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100




95% LCI
0.851
1.210
1.050
1.714
1.281
1.181
0.149
0.410
0.676
1.851
1.805




95% UCI
1.995
2.411
1.892
2.650
2.503
2.665
1.012
0.765
1.025
3.404
1.976




                                                                               a


                                                                               I
                                                                               a
                                                                               A,
                                                                               1
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-103. Consumption Rates by Gender for All Asian and Pacific Islander Community
Female

Mean Median
Category N (g/kg/d) SE (g/kg/d)
Anadromous Fish (p=0.8) 107 0.165 0.022 0.076
Pelagic Fish (p=0.4) 107 0.349 0.037 0.215
Freshwater Fish (p=1.0) 107 0.131 0.021 0.054
Bottom Fish (p=0. 6) 107 0.115 0.019 0.040
Shellfish (p=0.8) 107 0.864 0.086 0.432
Seaweed/Kelp (p=0.5) 107 0.079 0.018 0.005
Miscellaneous Seafood (p=0. 5) 107 0.105 0.013 0.061
AllFinfish(p=0.8) 107 0.759 0.071 0.512
AllFish(p=0.5) 107 1.728 0.135 1.328
All Seafood (p=0.4) 107 1.807 0.139 1.417
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
P- values are based on Mann- Whitney test.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1999.
Male
Median
Mean (g/kg/d)
N (g/kg/d) SE
95 0.169 0.024 0.080
95 0.334 0.045 0.148
95 0.137 0.023 0.054
95 0.087 0.017 0.034
95 0.836 0.104 0.490
95 0.044 0.010 0.002
95 0.104 0.015 0.055
95 0.726 0.072 0.458
95 1.666 0.149 1.202
95 1.710 0.152 1.257



Page
10-174
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-104.
Types of Seafood Consumed/Respondents Who Consumed (%)
Type of Seafood (%)
Anadromous Fish
Salmon
Trout
Smelt
Salmon Eggs
Pelagic Fish
Tuna
Cod
Mackeral
Snapper
Rockfish
Herring
Dogfish
Snowfish
Freshwater Fish
Catfish
Tilapia
Perch
Bass
Carp
Crappie
Bottom Fish
Halibut
Sole/Flounder
Sturgeon
Suckers
Shellfish
Shrimp
Crab
Squid
Oysters

93
61
45
27

86
66
62
50
34
21
7
6

58
45
39
28
22
17

65
42
13
4

98
96
82
71
Manila/Littleneck Clams 72
Lobster
Mussel
Scallops
65
62
57
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-175
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-104. Types of Seafood Consumed/Respondents Who Consumed (%) (continued)
Type of Seafood (%)
Butter Clams
Geoduck
Cockles
Abalone
Razor Clams
Sea Cucumber
Sea Urchin
Horse Clams
Macoma Clams
Moonsnail
Seaweed/Kelp
Seaweed
Kelp
39
34
21
15
16
15
14
13
9
4

57
29
Source: U.S. EPA, 1999.
Table 10-105. Distribution of Quantity of Fish Consumed (in grams) Per Eating Occasion, by Ag
e and Sex

Percentiles
Age (years)-Sex Group
1-2 Male-Female
3-5 Male-Female
6-8 Male-Female
9-14 Male
9-14 Female
15- 18 Male
15- 18 Female
19-34 Male
19-34 Female
35-64 Male
35-64 Female
65-74 Male
65-74 Female
> 75 Male
>75 Female
Overall
Source: Pao et al., 1982.
Mean
52
70
81
101
86
117
111
149
104
147
119
145
123
124
112
117

SD
38
51
58
78
62
115
102
125
74
116
98
109
87
68
69
98

5th
8
12
19
28
19
20
24
28
20
28
20
35
24
36
20
20

25th
28
36
40
56
45
57
56
64
57
80
57
75
61
80
61
57

50th
43
57
72
84
79
85
85
113
85
113
85
113
103
106
112
85

75th
58
85
112
113
112
142
130
196
135
180
152
180
168
170
151
152

90th
112
113
160
170
168
200
225
284
184
258
227
270
227
227
196
227

95th
125
170
170
255
206
252
270
362
227
360
280
392
304
227
225
284

99th
168
240
288
425
288
454
568
643
394
577
480
480
448
336
360
456

Page
10-176
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-106. Distribution of Quantity
Age (years)-Sex Group Mean
2 to 5
Male-Female
6 to 11
Male-Female
12 to 19
Male
Female
20 to 39
Male
Female
40 to 59
Male
Female
60 and older
Male
Female
SE = Standard error.

37

58

98*
64

84
61

72
60

64
67

of Canned Tuna Consumed (grams) Per Eating Occasion, by
SE

3

8

16*
6

7
5

4
4

5
4

Age and Sex
Percentiles
5th

5*

14*

-
14*

15*
14*

14*
13*

12*
12*

10*

8

20*

18*
18*

27*
14*

27
15

17*
23

* Indicates a statistic that is potentially unreliable because of small
Indicates a percentage that could not be estimated.
Source: Smiciklas- Wright et al
, 2002 (based on
1994-1996 CSFII
data).
25th

14

28

49*
28*

49
34

37
28

37
42

50*

29

49

84
56

57
56

57
56

56
57

75th

56

60

162*
77*

113
74

96
74

81
85

90th

73

99*

170*
105*

160*
110*

127
112

114*
112

95th

85*

157*

186*
156*

168*
142*

168*
144

150*
153*

sample size or large coefficient of variation.





Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	10-177
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-107. Distribution of Quantity of Other Finfish Consumed (grams) Per Eating Occasion, by Age and Sex
Age (years)-Sex Group
2 to 5
Male-Female
6 to 11
Male-Female
12 to 19
Male
Female
20 to 39
Male
Female
40 to 59
Male
Female
60 and older
Male
Female
SE = Standard error.
* Indicates a statistic
Mean
64
93
119*
89*
117
111
130
107
111
108
SE
4
8
11*
13*
8
10
7
9
6
6
Percentiles
5*
8*
17*
40*
20*
37*
26*
29*
29*
37*
33*
10th
16
31*
50*
26*
47
36*
47
42
45
42
that is potentially unreliable because of small
Source: Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002
(based on
1994-1996 CSFII
data).
25th
33
50
64*
47*
68
50
75
51
57
57
50th
58
77
89
67
100
85
110
85
90
90
sample size or large


75th
77
119
170*
124*
138
129
153
123
133
130
90th
124
171*
185*
164*
205
209*
243
174
220
200
95th
128*
232*
249*
199*
256*
289*
287*
244*
261*
229*
coefficient of variation.



Page                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
10-178	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-108. Percentag
Use
Study Frequency Bake
Connelly etal., Always 24(a)
1992 Ever 75(a)
Connelly etal., Always 13
1996 Ever 84
CRITFC, 1994 At least 79
monthly
Ever 98
Fitzgerald et al., Not Specified
1995
Puffer etal., 1981 As Primary 16.3
Method
e of Individuals Using Various Cooking Methods at Specified Frequencies
Pan Fry
51
88
4
72
51
80
94(e)(f)
52.5
Broil or
Deep Fry Grill Poach Boil Smoke
13 24(a)
59 75(a)
4
42
14 27 11 46 31
25 39 17 73 66
71(e)(g)
12
Raw Other


1 34(b)
29(c)
49(d)
3 67(b)
71(c)
75(d)

0.25 19(h)
" 24 and 75 listed as bake, BBQ, or poach
b Dried
c Roasted
11 Canned
e Not specified whether deep or pan fried
f Mohawk women
8 Control population
h boil, stew, soup, or steam
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-179
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-109. Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content for Selected Species
Species
Moisture Content
(%)
Total Fat Content
(%)
Comments
FINFISH
Anchovy, European
Bass, Freshwater
Bass, Striped
Bluefish
Burbot
Butterfish
Carp
Catfish, Channel, Farmed
Catfish, Channel, Wild
Cavier, Black and Red
Cisco
Cod, Atlantic
Cod, Pacific
Croaker, Atlantic
Cusk
Dolphinfish
Drum, Freshwater
Eel
Flatfish, Flounder, and Sole
Grouper
Haddock
Halibut, Atlantic and Pacific
73.37
50.30
75.66
68.79
79.22
73.36
70.86
62.64
79.26
73.41
74.13
66.83
76.31
69.63
75.38
71.58
80.36
77.67
47.50
78.93
1.91
81.22
75.61
75.92
16.14
81.28
76.00
78.03
59.76
76.35
69,68
77.55
71.22
77.33
70.94
69.26
59.31
79.06
73.16
79.22
73.36
79.92
74.25
71.48
77.92
71.69
4.84
9.71
3.69
4,73
2.33
2.99
4.24
5.44
0.81
1.04
8.02
10.28
5.60
7.17
7.59
8.02
2.82
2.85
17.90
69.80
11.90
0.67
0.86
0.86
2.37
0.63
0.81
3.17
12.67
0.69
0.88
0.70
0.90
4.93
6.32
11.66
14.95
1.19
1.53
1.02
1.30
0.72
0.93
0.96
2.29
2.94
Raw
Canned in oil, drained solids
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
--
Raw
Smoked
Raw
Canned, solids and liquids
Cooked, dry heat
Dried and salted
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, breaded and fried
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw, mixed species
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Page
10-180
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-109. Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content for Selected Species (continued)
Species
Halibut, Greenland

Herring, Atlantic

Herring, Pacific
Ling
Lingcod
Mackerel, Atlantic

Mackerel, Jack
Mackerel, King
Mackerel, Pacific and Jack

Mackerel, Spanish
Milkfish

Monkfish

Mullet, Striped
Ocean Perch, Atlantic

Perch

Pike, Northern

Pike, Walleye

Pollock, Atlantic

Pollock, Walleye
Pompano, Florida
Pout, Ocean

Rockfish, Pacific

Roe

Moisture Content
70.27
61.88
72.05
64.16
59.70
55.22
71.52
63.49
79.63
73,88
81.03
75.68
63.55
53.27
69.17
75.85
69.04
70.15
61.73
71.67
68.46
70.85
62.63
83.24
78.51
77.01
70.52
78.70
72.69
79.13
73.25
78.92
72.97
79.31
73.47
78.18
72.03
81.56
74.06
71.12
62.97
81.36
76.10
79.26
73.41
67.73
58.63
Total Fat Content
13.84
17.74
9.04
11.59
12.37
18.00
13.88
17.79
0.64
0.82
1.06
1.36
13.89
17.81
6.30
2.00
2.56
7.89
10.12
6.30
6.32
6.73
8.63
1.52
1.95
3.79
4.86
1.63
2.09
0.92
1.18
0.69
0.88
1.22
1.56
0.98
1.26
0.80
1.12
9.47
12.14
0.91
1.17
1.57
2.01
6.42
8.23
Comments
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Kippered
Pickled
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Canned, drained solids
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-181
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-109. Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content for Selected Species (continued)
Species
Roughy, Orange
Sablefish


Salmon, Atlantic, Farmed

Salmon, Atlantic, Wild

Salmon, Chinook

Salmon, Chum

Salmon, Coho, Farmed

Salmon, Coho, Wild

Salmon, Pink

Salmon, Sockeye

Sardine, Atlantic
Sardine, Pacific
Scup
Sea Bass

Seatrout

Shad, American

Shark, mixed species
Sheepshead
Smelt, Rainbow

Snapper
Spot
Sturgeon
Moisture Content
75.67
66.97
71.02
62.85
60.14
68.90
64.75
68.50
59.62
71.64
65.60
72.00
75.38
68.44
70.77
70.47
67.00
72.66
71.50
65.39
76.35
69.68
68.81
70.24
61.84
67.51
59.61
66.65
75.37
68.42
78.27
72.14
78.09
71.91
68.19
59.22
73.58
60.09
77.97
69.04
78.77
72.79
76.87
70.35
75.95
69.17
76.55
69.94
62.50
Total Fat Content
0.70
0.90
15.30
19.62
20.14
10.85
12.35
6.34
8.13
10.43
13.38
4.32
3.77
4.83
5.50
7.67
8.23
5.93
4.30
7.50
3.45
4.42
6.05
8.56
10.97
7.31
11.45
10.46
2.73
3.50
2.00
2.56
3.61
4.63
13.77
17.65
4.51
13.82
2.41
1.63
2.42
3.10
1.34
1.72
4.90
6.28
4.04
5.18
4.40
Comments
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Drained solids with bone
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Canned, solids with bone and liquid
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Canned, drained solids with bone
Canned in oil, drained solids with bone
Canned in tomato sauce, drained solids with bone
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, batter-dipped and fried
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Page
10-182
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-109. Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content for Selected Species (continued)
Species
Sucker, white
Sunfish, Pumpkinseed
Surimi
Swordfish
Tilapia
Tilefish
Trout, Mixed Species
Trout, Rainbow, Farmed
Trout, Rainbow, Wild
Tuna, Fresh, Bluefin
Tuna, Fresh, Skipjack
Tuna, Fresh, Yellowfin
Tuna, Light
Tuna, White
Turbot, European
Whitefish, mixed species
Whiting, mixed species
Wolffish, Atlantic
Yellowtail, mixed species
Moisture Content
(%)
79.71
73.99
79.50
73.72
76.34
75.62
68.75
78.08
71.59
78.90
70.24
71.42
63.36
72.73
67.53
71.87
70.50
68.09
59.09
70.58
62.28
70.99
62.81
59.83
74.51
64.02
73.19
76.95
70.45
72.77
65.09
70.83
80.27
74.71
79.90
74.23
74.52
67.33
Total Fat Content
(%)
2.32
2.97
0.70
0.90
0.90
4.01
5.14
1.70
2.65
2.31
4.69
6.61
8.47
5.40
7.20
3.46
5.82
4.90
6.28
1.01
1.29
0.95
1.22
8.21
0.82
8.08
2.97
2.95
3.78
5.86
7.51
0.93
1.31
1.69
2.39
3.06
5.24
6.72
Comments
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
-
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Canned in oil, drained solids
Canned in water, drained solids
Canned in oil, drained solids
Canned in water, drained solids
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
SHELLFISH
Abalone
Clam
Crab, Alaska King
74.56
60.10
81.82
63.64
97.70
61.55
63.64
79.57
77.55
74.66
0.76
6.78
0.97
1.95
0.02
11.15
1.95
0.60
1.54
0.46
Raw
Coofed, fried
Raw
Canned, drained solids
Canned, liquid
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Imitation, made from surimi
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
10-183
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10-109 Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content for Selected Species (continued)
Species
Crab, Blue



Crab, Dungeness
Crab, Queen
Crayfish, Farmed

Crayfish, Wild
Cuttlefish

Lobster, Northern

Lobster, Spiny
Mussel, Blue

Octopus
Oyster, Eastern




Oyster, Pacific

Scallop, mixed species

Shrimp


Squid
Moisture Content
79.02
79.16
77.43
71.00
79.18
73.31
80.58
75.10
84.05
80.80
82.24
79.37
80.56
61.12
76.76
76.03
74.07
66.76
80.58
61.15
80.25
60.50
86.20
85.16
85.14
64.72
81.95
83.30
70.32
82.06
64.12
78.57
58.44
73.10
75.86
75.85
52.86
77.28
78.55
64.54
Total Fat Content
1.08
1.23
1.77
7.52
0.97
1.24
1.18
1.51
0.97
1.30
0.95
1.20
0.70
1.40
0.90
0.59
1.51
1.94
2.24
4.48
1.04
2.08
1.55
2.46
2.47
12.58
2.12
1.90
4.91
2.30
4.60
0.76
10.94
1.40
1.73
1.36
12.28
1.08
1.38
7.48
Comments
Raw
Canned
Cooked, moist heat
Crab cakes
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw, farmed
Raw, wild
Canned
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, farmed, dry heat
Cooked, wild, dry heat
Cooked, wild, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, breaded and fried
Steamed
Raw
Canned
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, fried
Source: USDA, 2007.
Page
10-184
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                  APPENDIX 10A

                       RESOURCE UTILIZATION DISTRIBUTION
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                   Page
July 2009	10A-1
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                            Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
 Appendix 10A. Resource Utilization Distribution

      The  percentiles  of  the  resource utilization
distribution of Y are to be distinguished from the
percentiles of the (standard) distribution of Y.  The
latter  percentiles   show   what  percentage   of
individuals in the population are consuming below a
given  level.   Thus,  the  50th  percentile of  the
distribution of Y is that level such that 50 percent of
individuals consume below it; on the other hand, the
50th percentile of the resource utilization distribution
is that  level  such  that  50 percent of the overall
consumption in the population is done by individuals
consuming below it.

      The  percentiles  of  the  resource utilization
distribution of Y will always be greater than or equal
to the corresponding percentiles of  the (standard)
distribution of Y, and, in the case of recreational fish
consumption,   usually   considerably  exceed  the
standard percentiles.

      To   generate   the   resource   utilization
distribution, one simply weights each observation in
the data set by the Y level for that observation and
performs a standard percentile  analysis  of weighted
data.   If  the data  already have weights, then one
multiplies the original weights by the Y level for that
observation,   and  then performs  the percentile
analysis.

      Under   certain  assumptions,   the  resource
utilization percentiles of fish  consumption may be
related (approximately) to the  (standard) percentiles
of fish consumption derived  from the analysis  of
creel  studies.  In this instance, it is assumed that the
creel  survey  data analysis did not employ sampling
weights (i.e., weights were implicitly set to one); this
is the case  for many of the published analyses  of
creel   survey  data.    In  creel studies  the  fish
consumption rate for the ith  individual is usually
derived  by   multiplying  the  amount  of  fish
consumption  per  fishing  trip   (say  CO  by  the
frequency of fishing (say Q. If it is assumed that the
probability of sampling of an angler is proportional
to  fishing frequency, then  sampling  weights  of
inverse fishing frequency (I/ fi) should be employed
in the analysis of the survey data.   Above  it was
stated that for data  that are already  weighted  the
resource utilization distribution is  generated  by
multiplying the original weights by the individual's
fish consumption level to create new weights.  Thus,
to generate the resource utilization distribution from
the data with weights of (I/ f; ), one multiplies (I/ fi)
by the fish consumption level of   £  Q to get new
weights of Q.

     Now if Q (amount of consumption per fishing
trip) is constant over the population, then these new
weights are constant and can be taken to  be one.
But weights of one is what (it is assumed) were used
in the original creel survey data analysis. Hence, the
resource utilization distribution is exactly the same
as the  original (standard) distribution derived from
the creel survey using constant weights.

     The accuracy  of this  approximation of  the
resource  utilization distribution of   fish  by  the
(standard) distribution of fish consumption derived
from an unweighted analysis of creel survey data
depends  then on two factors, how  approximately
constant the  Q 's  are in the population and how
approximately proportional the relationship between
sampling  probability  and  fishing  frequency   is.
Sampling probability will be roughly proportional to
frequency if  repeated sampling at the  same site is
limited    or   if   re-interviewing  is  performed
independent of past interviewing status.
Note: For any  quantity  Y that is  consumed by
individuals in a population, the percentiles of the
"resource utilization distribution"  of Y  can be
formally defined  as follows:  Yp  (R) is  the  pth
percentile of the resource utilization distribution if p
percent of the  overall consumption  of  Y in the
population is done by individuals with consumption
below  Yp (R)  and 100-p percent  is  done by
individuals with consumption above YP(R).
Page
10A-2
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
                                  APPENDIX 10B

                     FISH PREPARATION AND COOKING METHODS
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	10B-1
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                              Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table
Residence Size
10B-1 . Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Residence Sizea
Large
City /Suburb Small City
Town
Rural Non-
Small Town Farm
Farm
Total Fish
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc
Don't Know
Total (N)b
32.7
19.6
6.0
23.6
12.4
2.5
.) 3.2
0.0000
393
31.0
24.0
3.0
20.8
12.4
6.0
2.8
0.0000
317
36.0
23.3
3.4
13.8
10.0
8.3
5.2
0.0000
388
32.4
24.7
3.7
21.4
10.3
5.0
1.9
0.5
256
38.6
26.2
3.4
13.7
12.7
2.3
2.9
0.2
483
51.6
15.7
3.5
13.1
6.4
7.0
1.8
94
Sport Fish
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (smoked, etc
Don't Know
Total (N)
45.8
12.2
2.8
20.2
11.8
2.7
) 4.5
0
205
Large City = over 100,000; Small City
b N = Total number of respondents
Source: West etal., 1993.
45.7
14.5
2.3
17.6
8.8
8.5
2.7
0
171
47.6
17.5
2.9
10.6
6.3
10.4
4.9
0
257
= 20,000-100,000; Town =
41.4
15.2
0.5
25.3
8.7
6.7
1.5
0.7
176
2,000-20,000;
51.2
21.9
3.6
8.2
9.7
1.9
3.5
0
314
Small Town = 100-2,000.
63.3
7.3
0
10.4
6.9
9.3
2.8
0
62

Page
10B-2
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 10 - Intake of Fish and Shellfish
Table 10B-2. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Age
Age (years)

Cooking Method
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled or Boiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)a
17-30

45.9
23.0
0.0000
15.6
10.8
3.1
1.6
0.0000
246
31-40
Total
31.7
24.7
6.0
15.2
13.0
5.2
4.2
0.0000
448
41-50
Fish
30.5
26.9
3.6
24.3
8.7
2.2
3.5
0.3
417
51-64

33.9
23.7
3.9
16.1
12.8
6.5
2.7
0.4
502
>64

40.7
14.0
4.3
18.8
11.5
6.8
4.0
0.0000
287
Overall

35.3
23.5
3.9
17.8
11.4
4.7
3.2
0.2
1946
Sport Fish
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)
57.6
18.2
0.0000
15.0
3.6
3.8
1.7
0.0000
174
42.6
21.0
4.4
10.1
10.4
7.2
4.3
0.0000
287
43.4
17.3
0.8
25.9
6.4
3.0
3.2
0.0000
246
46.6
14.8
3.2
12.2
11.7
7.5
3.5
0.4
294
54.1
7.7
3.1
12.2
9.9
8.2
4.8
0.0000
163
47.9
16.5
2.4
14.8
8.9
5.9
3.5
0.1
1187
a N = Total number of respondents.
Source: Westetal., 1993.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
 Page
10B-3
-------
Table 10B-3. Percent of Fish Meals Prepared Using Various Cooking Methods by Ethnicity
Ethnicity Black
Native American
Hispanic
White
Other
Total Fish
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Don't Know
Total (N)a
40.5
27.0
0
19.4
1.9
9.5
1.6
0
52
37.5
22.0
1.1
9.8
16.3
6.2
4.2
0
84
16.1
83.9
0
0
0
0
3.5
0.3
12
35.8
22.7
4.3
17.7
11.7
4.5
2.7
0.4
1,744
18.5
18.4
0
57.6
5.4
0
4.0
0
33
Sport Fish
Pan Fried
Deep Fried
Boiled
Grilled/Broiled
Baked
Combination
Other (Smoked, etc.)
Total (N)
44.9
36.2
0
0
5.3
13.6
0
19
47.9
20.2
0
1.5
18.2
8.6
3.6
60
52.1
47.9
0
0
0
0
0
4
48.8
15.7
2.7
14.7
8.6
5.6
3.7
39
22.0
9.6
0
61.9
6.4
0
0
0
a N = Total number of respondents.
Source: Westetal., 1993.
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

11     INTAKE OF MEATS, DAIRY PRODUCTS AND FATS	11-1
       11.1    INTRODUCTION	11-1
       11.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	11-1
       11.3    INTAKE OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS	11-6
               11.3.1   Key Meat and Dairy Intake Study	11-6
                      11.3.1.1    U.S. EPAAnalysis of CSFII1994-96, 1998, Based onUSDA(2000)
                                and U.S. EPA (2000) 	11-6
               11.3.2   Relevant Meat and Dairy Intake Studies	11-7
                      11.3.2.1    USDA, 1980, 1992, 1996a, 1996b	11-7
                      11.3.2.2    USDA, 1999a	11-7
                      11.3.2.3    Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002	11-8
                      11.3.2.4    Vitolins et al., 2002	11-8
                      11.3.2.5    Fox et al., 2004	11-9
                      11.3.2.6    Ponzaetal.,2004	11-9
                      11.3.2.7    Mennella et al., 2006	11-10
                      11.3.2.8    Fox et al., 2006	11-10
       11.4    INTAKE OF FAT	11-10
               11.4.1   Key Fat Intake Study	11-10
                      11.4.1.1    U.S. EPA, 2007	11-10
               11.4.2   Relevant Fat Intake Studies	11-11
                      11.4.2.1    Cresanta et al., 1988;Nicklasetal., 1993; and Frank etal., 1986	11-11
       11.5    CONVERSION BETWEEN WET AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES	11-12
       11.6    CONVERSION BETWEEN WET WEIGHT AND LIPID WEIGHT INTAKE RATES	11-12
       11.7    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11	11-12

APPENDIX 11A	11A-1
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                            Page
July2009	11-i
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook

                                           Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 11-1.      Recommended Values for Intake of Meats, Dairy Products, and Fats, As Consumed	11-3
Table 11-2.      Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Meats, Dairy Products, and Fats	11-5
Table 11-3.      Per Capita Intake of Total Meat and Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)	11-14
Table 11-4.      Consumer Only Intake of Total Meat and Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)	11-16
Table 11-5.      Per Capita Intake of Individual Meats and Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)	11-18
Table 11-6.      Consumer Only Intake of Individual Meats and Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed).... 11-19
Table 11-7.      Mean Meat Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
                for 1977-1978	11-20
Table 11-8.      Mean Meat Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
                for 1987-1988	11-21
Table 11-9.      Mean Meat Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
                for 1994 and 1995	11-22
Table 11-10.     Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
                for 1977-1978	11-23
Table 11-11.     Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
                for 1987-1988	11-24
Table 11-12.     Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
                for 1994 and 1995	11-25
Table 11-13.     Mean Quantities of Meat and Eggs consumed Daily by Sex and Age, Per Capita (g/day).... 11-26
Table 11-14.     Percentage of Individuals Consuming Meats and Eggs, by Sex and Age (%)	11-27
Table 11-15.     Mean Quantities of Dairy Products Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, Per Capita (g/day)... 11-28
Table 11-16.     Percentage of Individuals Consuming Dairy Products, by Sex and Age (%)	11-29
Table 11-17.     Quantity (as consumed) of Meat and Dairy Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and
                Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods  in Two Days 	11-30
Table 11-18      Consumption of Milk, Yogurt and Cheese: Median Daily Servings (and Ranges) by
                Demographic and Health Characteristics	11-32
Table 11-19.     Characteristics of FITS Sample Population	11-33
Table 11-20.     Percentage of Infants  and Toddlers Consuming Meat or Other Protein Sources	11-34
Table 11-21.     Characteristics of WIC Participants and Non-participants (Percentages)	11-35
Table 11-22.     Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC Participation Status	11-36
Table 11-23.     Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different
                Types of Milk, Meats or Other Protein Sources onAGivenDay	11-36
Table 11-24.     Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Meats  and Dairy Products Commonly
                Consumed by Infants  from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	11-37
Table 11-25.     Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Meats  and Dairy Products Commonly
                Consumed by Toddlers from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	11-37
Table 11-26.     Total Fat Intake (Per capita; g/day)	11-38
Table 11-27.     Total Fat Intake (Per capita; g/kg-day)	11-40
Table 11-28.     Total Fat Intake (Consumers Only; g/day)	11-42
Table 11-29.     Total Fat Intake (Consumers Only; g/kg-day)	11-44
Table 11-30.     Total Fat Intake - Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers (Consumers Only; g/day)	11-46
Table 11-31.     Total Fat Intake - Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers (Consumers Only; g/kg-day)	11-48
Table 11-32.     Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study,
                1973-1982 (g/day)	11-50
Table 11-33.     Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study,
                1973-1982 (g/kg-day)	11-52
Table 11-34.     Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content of Selected Meat and Dairy Products	11-54
Table 11A-1     Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96, 1998 USDA CSFII Data	11A-2
Page
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
11      INTAKE    OF    MEATS,    DAIRY
        PRODUCTS AND FATS
11.1    INTRODUCTION
        The  American food  supply  is  generally
considered to be one of the  safest in the world.
Nevertheless, meats, dairy products, and  fats may
become  contaminated  with toxic  chemicals  by
several pathways.  These foods  sources can become
contaminated if animals are exposed to contaminated
media  (i.e.,  soil,  water, or feed crops).  To  assess
exposure through this pathway, information on meat,
dairy, and fat ingestion rates are needed.
        A variety of terms  may be used  to  define
intake  of meats,  dairy  products,  and fats  (e.g.,
consumer-only intake, per capita intake, total meat,
dairy product, or fat intake, as-consumed intake, dry
weight intake).  As described in Chapter 9, Intake of
Fruits  and  Vegetables,  consumer-only  intake  is
defined as the quantity of meats, dairy products, or
fats  consumed by  individuals  during the  survey
period  averaged  across only the  individuals who
consumed these food items during the survey period.
Per capita intake rates are generated by averaging
consumer-only intakes over the  entire population In
general, per capita intake rates are appropriate for use
in exposure  assessment for which average  dose
estimates are of interest because they represent both
individuals who  ate  the  foods during the  survey
period and individuals who may  eat the food items at
some time, but  did not consume  them during the
survey period. Per capita intake, therefore, represents
an average across the  entire population of interest,
but  does  so  at  the expense  of  underestimating
consumption  for  the  subset of the population that
consumes the food in question.  Total intake refers to
the  sum  of all  meats,  dairy products,  or fats
consumed in a day.
        Intake rates may be expressed on the basis
of the as-consumed weight (e.g., cooked or prepared)
or on  the uncooked or unprepared weight.  As-
consumed intake rates are based on the weight of the
food in the form  that it is consumed and should be
used  in  assessments  where   the   basis  for the
contaminant concentrations in foods is  also indexed
to the  as-consumed weight.   The  food  ingestion
values provided in this chapter  are expressed as  as-
consumed intake rates because this is the fashion in
which  data  were reported by  survey  respondents.
This is of importance because concentration data to
be used in the dose equation are often measured in
uncooked food samples. It should be recognized that
cooking can either increase or decrease food weight.
Similarly,   cooking  can  increase  the   mass  of
contaminant in food (due to formation reactions, or
absorption from cooking oils or water) or decrease
the mass of contaminant in food (due to vaporization,
fat loss  or  leaching).   The  combined  effects of
changes in weight and changes in contaminant mass
can  result in  either an  increase  or decrease in
contaminant   concentration    in   cooked    food.
Therefore, if the as-consumed  ingestion rate and the
uncooked concentration  are   used   in  the  dose
equation,  dose may  be under-estimated or  over-
estimated. Ideally, after-cooking food concentrations
should be combined with the as-consumed  intake
rates.  In the absence of data, it is  reasonable to
assume that  no change in contaminant concentration
occurs after cooking.  It is important for the assessor
to be aware of these issues and choose  intake rate
data that best  match the concentration data that are
being used.  For more information on cooking losses
and conversions necessary to account for such losses,
the reader is referred to Chapter 13 of this handbook.
        Sometimes  contaminant  concentrations in
food are reported  on a dry weight basis. When these
data  are used in  an exposure  assessment,  it is
recommended  that  dry-weight  intake  rates also be
used.  Dry-weight  food concentrations  and  intake
rates are based on the weight of the food consumed
after  the moisture content  has been  removed.
Similarly, when contaminant concentrations in food
are reported on a lipid weight basis, lipid weight
intake rates  should  be  used.   For information on
converting the intake rates presented in this chapter
to dry weight or lipid weight intake rates, the  reader
is referred to Sections 11.5 and  11.6 of this chapter.
        The purpose of this chapter  is  to provide
intake data for meats, dairy products,  and fats. The
recommendations  for ingestion rates of meats, dairy
products, and  fats are provided in the next section,
along with a summary of the confidence  ratings for
these recommendations.  The  recommended values
are based on the key study identified by U.S. EPA for
this factor.  Following the recommendations, the key
study on ingestion of meats, dairy products, and fats
are summarized.    Relevant  data on ingestion of
meats, dairy  products, and fats are  also provided.
These studies are presented to provide the reader with
added perspective on the current state-of-knowledge
pertaining to ingestion of meats, dairy products, and
fats.

11.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
        Table  11-1 presents   a  summary  of the
recommended  values for per capita and consumers-
only intake of meats, dairy products, and  fats, on an
as-consumed basis.   Confidence ratings  for  these
recommendations  are provided in Table 11-2.
        U.S.EPA analyses of data from the 1994-96
and  1998 Continuing Survey  of Food  Intake by
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           11-1
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                           Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Individuals   (CSFII)   were   used  in   selecting
recommended intake rates for the general population.
The U.S. EPA analysis of meat and dairy products
was  conducted using  childhood  age  groups  that
differed  slightly  from  U.S.  EPA's  Guidance  on
Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood     Exposures     to    Environmental
Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005).  However, for  the
purposes  of the  recommendations for  children
presented here, data were placed in the  standardized
age categories closest to those used in the analysis.
The U.S. EPA analysis of fat intake data  from  the
CSFII used the childhood age groups recommended
by U.S. EPA (2005). The CSFII data on which  the
recommendations for meats, dairy products, and fats
are based are short-term survey data and may  not
necessarily  reflect  the  long-term  distribution  of
average daily  intake rates.  However,  since  these
broad categories of food (i.e., total meats  and dairy
products), are eaten on a daily basis throughout  the
year with  minimal seasonality,   the  short  term
distribution may  be a reasonable  approximation of
the long-term distribution, although it  will display
somewhat increased variability. This implies that the
upper   percentiles  shown  here   will   tend  to
overestimate the corresponding percentiles of the true
long-term distribution.    It  should be noted  that
because these recommendations are based on 1994-
96 and  1998 CSFII data,  they  may not reflect  the
most recent  changes  that  may have  occurred in
consumption patterns.
Page                                                                  Exposure Factors Handbook
11-2	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-1. Recommended Values for Intake of Meats, Dairy Products, and Fats, As Consumed
Per Capita
Age Group

Consumers Only
Mean 95th Percentile Mean
g/kg-day j
j/kg-day
g/kg-day
95th Percentile Multiple
95 Percentile percentiles
g/kg-day
Source

Total Meats3
Birth to 1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years

3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years

16to<21 years
20 to <50 years
50+ years
1.2
4.1
4.1

4.1
2.9
2.1

2.1
1.9
1.5
6.7
9.8
9.8

9.4
6.5
4.8

4.8
4.2
3.3
3.0
4.2
4.2

4.2
2.9
2.1

2.1
1.9
1.5
9.2
9.8
9.8

9.4
See Tables 11 -3
6'5 and 11-4
4.8

4.8
4.2
3.3


U.S. EPA
Analysis of
CSFII, 1994-96
and 1998,
based on
USDA (2000)
and U.S. EPA
(2000).


Total Dairy Products3
Birth to 1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years

3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years

16to<21 years
20 to <50 years
50+ years

12.6
36.7
36.7

23.3
13.6
5.6

5.6
3.3
3.2
Individual
48.7
88.3
88.3

49.4
31.5
15.5

15.5
9.9
8.9
15.9
36.8
36.8

23.3
13.6
5.6

5.6
3.3
3.2
57.5
88.3
88.3

49.4
See Tables 11 -3
and 11-4
15.5

15.5
9.9
8.9


U.S. EPA
Analysis of
CSFII, 1994-96
and 1998,
based on
USDA (2000)
and U.S. EPA
(2000).


Meat and Dairy Products - See Tables 11-5 and 11-6
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 11-3
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats


















Table 11-1. Recommended Values for Intake of Meats, Dairy Products, and Fats, As Consumed (continued)
Age Group
Per Capita
Mean 95th Percentile
g/kg-day g/kg-day
Consumers Only
Mean 95th Percentile MultlP.le Source
Perc entiles
g/kg-day g/kg-day
Total Fats
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
                 Table 11-2.  Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Meats, Dairy Products, and Fats
 General Assessment Factors
                      Rationale
Rating
 Soundness
 Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or Defined) Bias
The survey methodology and data analysis was adequate.
The survey sampled approximately 20,000 individuals. An
analysis of primary data was conducted.

No physical measurements were taken. The method relied
on recent recall of meats and dairy products eaten.
                                                               High
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest
  Representativeness


  Currency

  Data Collection Period
The key studies were directly relevant to meat, dairy, and fat
intake.

The data were demographically representative of the U.S.
population (based on stratified random sample).

Data were collected between 1994 and 1998.

Data were collected for two non-consecutive days.
                                                             Medium
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility

  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
The CSFII data are publicly available.

The methodology used was clearly described; enough
information was included to reproduce the results.

Quality assurance of the CSFII data was good; quality
control of the secondary data analysis was not well
described.
                                                               High
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population
  Uncertainty
Full distributions were provided for total meats, total dairy
products, and total fats. Means were provided for
individuals meats and dairy products.

Data collection was based on recall of consumption for a 2-
day period; the accuracy of using these data to estimate
long-term intake (especially at the upper percentiles) is
uncertain. However, use of short-term data to estimate
chronic ingestion can be assumed for broad categories of
foods such as total meats, total dairy products, and total fats.
Uncertainty is likely to be greater for individual meats and
dairy products.
                                                             Medium
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review
  Number and Agreement of Studies
The USDA CSFII survey received a high level of peer
review. The U.S. EPA analysis of these data has not been
peer reviewed outside the Agency.

There was 1 key study for intake of meat and dairy products
and 1 key study for fat intake. Both were based on the
1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
                                                             Medium
 Overall Rating
                                                       High confidence in the
                                                             averages;
                                                       Low confidence in the
                                                          long-term upper
                                                            percentiles
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                      Page
                                                                       11-5
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                           Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
11.3    INTAKE   OF  MEAT  AND  DAIRY
        PRODUCTS
        The primary source of recent information on
consumption rates of meat and dairy products is the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's  (USDA) CSFII.
Data  from  the  1994-96  CSFII  and  the  1998
Children's supplement  to the 1994-96  CSFII have
been used in various studies to generate consumer-
only and per capita intake rates for both individual
meats and dairy products and total meats and dairy
products.  The CSFII is a series of surveys designed
to measure the kinds and amounts of foods eaten by
Americans.   The  CSFII  1994-96 was conducted
between January 1994 and January 1997 with a target
population of non-institutionalized individuals in all
50  states and Washington, D.C.  In each  of the 3
survey years, data were collected  for a nationally
representative sample of individuals of all ages.  The
CSFII 1998 was conducted between December 1997
and December 1998 and surveyed children 9 years of
age and younger.  It used the same sample design as
the CSFII 1994-96 and  was  intended to be merged
with CSFII 1994-96 to increase the sample size for
children.   The merged surveys are  designated as
CSFII  1994-96, 1998.   Additional  information on
these      surveys      can      be      obtained
at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=
14531.
        The CSFII 1994-96, 1998  collected dietary
intake data through in-person interviews on 2 non-
consecutive days.  The data were based  on 24-hour
recall. A total of 21,662 individuals provided data for
the first day; of those individuals,  20,607  provided
data for a second day.  The 2-day response rate for
the 1994-1996 CSFII was approximately  76 percent.
The 2-day response rate for CSFII  1998 was 82
percent.
        The CSFII 1994-96, 98 surveys  were based
on a  complex  multistage  area probability sample
design.  The sampling frame was  organized using
1990  U.S. population  census  estimates,  and  the
stratification  plan took into  account  geographic
location, degree of urbanization, and socioeconomic
characteristics.  Several sets of sampling weights are
available for use with the  intake  data.   By using
appropriate weights data for all  fours years  of the
surveys can be  combined.  USDA recommends that
all  4  years  be  combined in order to  provide an
adequate sample size for children.

11.3.1   Key Meat and Dairy Intake Study
11.3.1.1 U.S. EPA Analysis of CSFII 1994-96, 1998
        based  on  USDA (2000)  and  U.S.  EPA
        (2000)
        For many years, the U.S. EPA Office of
Pesticide   Programs   (OPP)   has   used   food
consumption data collected by the U.S. Department
of  Agriculture   (USDA)  for  its   dietary  risk
assessments. Most recently, OPP, in cooperation with
USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), used
data from the  1994-96, 1998  CSFII to develop  the
Food Commodity Intake  Database  (POD).  CSFII
data on the  foods  people reported  eating were
converted  to   the  quantities  of   agricultural
commodities eaten.   "Agricultural commodity" is a
term used by U.S. EPA to mean animal  (or plant)
parts consumed by humans as food; when such items
are raw or unprocessed, they are referred to as "raw
agricultural commodities."  For example, a beef stew
may contain  the commodities beef,  carrots, and
potatoes. FCID  contains  approximately 553  unique
commodity names and 8-digit codes.  The FCID
commodity names  and codes were  selected and
defined by U.S. EPA and were based on the U.S. EPA
Food           Commodity           Vocabulary
(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeedA.
        The meats and dairy items/groups selected
for the U.S. EPA analysis included total meats and
total dairy products, and individual meats  and dairy
such as beef, pork, poultry, and eggs. Appendix 11A
presents  the  food codes  and  definitions used to
determine the various meats and dairy products used
in  the  analysis.   Intake rates for  these food
items/groups  represent intake  of all forms  of  the
product (e.g., both home produced and commercially
produced).    Individuals   who  did  not provide
information on body weight or for whom identifying
information was  unavailable were excluded from the
analysis.   Two-day  average  intake  rates  were
calculated for all individuals in the database for each
of the food items/groups.  These average daily intake
rates were divided by each individual's reported body
weight to generate intake  rates in units of  grams  per
kilogram of body weight per day (g/kg-day).  The
data were weighted according to the four-year, two-
day sample weights provided in the 1994-96, 1998
CSFII to adjust the data for the sample  population to
reflect the national population.
        Summary statistics were generated on both a
per capita and a consumer only basis.  For per capita
intake, both users and non-users of the food item
were included in the analysis.  Consumer only intake
rates  were calculated  using  data  for only  those
individuals who  ate  the food item of interest  during
the survey period.  Intake data from the  CSFII  are
based on as- consumed (i.e.,  cooked  or  prepared)
forms of the food items/groups. Summary statistics,
including: number of observations, percentage of the
population consuming the  meat or dairy products
being analyzed, means intake rate, and standard error
Page
11-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
of the mean intake rate  were calculated  for  total
meats, total dairy  products, and selected individual
meats and dairy products.  Percentiles of the intake
rate distribution (1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th,
95th,  99th, and maximum value) were also  provided
for total meats and  dairy products.  Because these
data were developed for use in U.S. EPA's  pesticide
registration program, the childhood age groups  used
are slightly different than those recommended in U.S.
EPA's  Guidance  on  Selecting  Age  Groups for
Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures  to
Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005).
        Table 11-3 presents as-consumed per capita
intake data for total meats and dairy products in g/kg-
day; as-consumed consumer-only intake data for total
meats and dairy products in g/kg-day are provided in
Table 11-4.   Table 11-5 provides per capita intake
data for certain individual meats and dairy  products
and Table 11-6 provides consumer only intake data
for these individual meats and dairy products.
        It  should  be noted that the distribution  of
average daily intake rates generated using short-term
data (e.g., 2-day) do  not necessarily reflect the long-
term distribution of average daily intake rates.  The
distributions  generated  from  short-term and  long-
term  data will  differ  to the  extent  that   each
individual's  intake varies from  day  to  day; the
distributions  will  be  similar  to the  extent  that
individuals'  intakes  are constant  from day to  day.
However,  for broad  categories of foods (e.g.,  total
meats and dairy products)  that are eaten on a daily
basis throughout the  year, the short-term distribution
may be a reasonable approximation of the true long-
term distribution,  although it will show somewhat
more  variability.   In this chapter, distributions are
provided only for broad categories of meats and dairy
products (i.e.,  total  meats  and  dairy  products).
Because of the increased variability of the short-term
distribution, the  short-term upper percentiles  shown
here may overestimate the corresponding percentiles
of the long-term distribution.  For individual foods,
only the mean, standard  error, and percent consuming
are provided.
        The strengths of U.S. EPA's analysis are that
it provides distributions of intake rates for various
age groups, normalized by body weight. The analysis
uses the 1994-96,  1998 CSFII data set which was
designed to be representative  of the U.S. population.
The  data set includes  four years of intake  data
combined, and is based  on a two-day survey period.
As discussed above,  short-term dietary data may not
accurately reflect long-term eating patterns  and may
under-represent  infrequent consumers of  a given
food.  This is particularly true for the tails (extremes)
of the distribution of food  intake.   Although the
analysis was conducted using slightly  different age
groups  than those  recommended  in U.S.  EPA's
Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring
and   Assessing    Childhood   Exposures    to
Environmental  Contaminants  (U.S.  EPA,  2005),
given the similarities in the age groups used, the data
should  provide  suitable  intake  estimates for the
childhood age groups of interest

11.3.2  Relevant Meat and Dairy Intake Studies
11.3.2.1 USDA,  1980,  1992, 1996a, 1996b - Food
        and Nutrient Intakes of Individuals in One
        Day in the U.S.
        USDA calculated mean per capita  intake
rates for meat and dairy products using Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) data from 1977-
78 and 1987-88 (USDA, 1980; 1992) and CSFII data
from  1994 and 1995 (USDA, 1996a; 1996b).  The
mean per capita intake rates for meat are presented in
Tables 11-7 through 11-9 based on intake data for one
day from the 1977-78   (Table  11-7)  and 1987-88
NFCSs (Table  11-8),  and  1994 and  1995  CSFII
(Table 11-9).   Tables  11-10 through 11-12 present
similar data for dairy products.   Note that the age
classifications used in the later surveys were slightly
different than those used in the 1977-78 NFCS.
        The advantages of using these data are that
they provide mean  intake estimates for all  meat,
poultry,  and dairy  products.    The  consumption
estimates are based on short-term (i.e., 1-day) dietary
data which may not reflect long-term consumption.

11.3.2.2 USDA, 1999a - Food and Nutrient Intakes
        by Children 1994-96,1998, Table Set 17
        USDA    (1999a)   calculated    national
probability estimates of food and nutrient intake by
children based on all 4 years of the CSFII (1994-96
and 1998) for children age 9 years and under and on
CSFII 1994-96 only for individuals age 10 years and
over.  Sample weights  were used to  adjust for non-
response, to match the sample to the U.S. population
in  terms  of demographic  characteristics, and  to
equalize intakes over the 4 quarters of the year and
the 7 days of the  week.  A  total of 503 breast-fed
children were excluded from the estimates, but both
consumers and  non-consumers were  included in the
analysis.
        USDA (1999a) provided data  on the mean
per  capita  quantities  (grams)  of various  food
products/groups consumed per individual for one day,
and the percent of individuals consuming those foods
in one day of the  survey.  Tables 11-13 and  11-14
present data on the mean quantities (grams) of meat
and eggs consumed per individual for  one day, and
the percentage  of survey  individuals  consuming
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            11-7
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                            Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
meats and eggs on that survey day.  Tables 11-15 and
11-16 present  similar  data for dairy products.  Data
on mean intakes or mean percentages are based on
respondents' day-1 intakes.
        The advantage of the USDA (1999a) study
is that it uses the 1994-96, 98 CSFII data set, which
includes four  years of intake data,  combined,  and
includes the supplemental data  on children. These
data are expected to be generally representative of the
U.S. population  and  they include data on a  wide
variety of meats  and dairy products.  The data set is
one of a series of USDA data sets that are publicly
available.  One limitation of this data set is that it is
based on one-day, and short-term dietary  data may
not accurately  reflect  long-term  eating  patterns.
Other  limitations of  this  study are that  it  only
provides  mean   values  of  food  intake  rates,
consumption is not normalized by body weight, and
presentation of results is  not consistent with U.S.
EPA's recommended age groups.

11.3.2.3 Smiciklas-Wright  et  al,   2002  - Foods
        Commonly Eaten  in  the  United States:
        Quantities Consumed per Eating Occasion
        and in a Day, 1994-1996
        Using data gathered in the 1994-96 USDA
CSFII,  Smiciklas-Wright et al.  (2002)   calculated
distributions for  the quantities of meat, poultry, and
dairy  products consumed per  eating occasion by
members of the U.S. population (i.e., serving sizes).
The  estimates of serving size   are  based  on data
obtained from  14,262 respondents, ages 2 and above,
who provided  2  days  of dietary intake information.
Only dietary intake  data from users of the specified
food were used in the analysis (i.e., consumers only
data).
        Table  11-17 presents serving size data for
meats and dairy  products.  These data are presented
on an as-consumed  basis (grams) and represent the
quantity of meats and dairy  products consumed per
eating occasion.  These estimates may be useful for
assessing acute exposures to  contaminants in specific
foods,   or  other assessments  where  the  amount
consumed per  eating occasion is necessary. Only the
mean and standard  deviation serving size data and
percent of the  population consuming the food during
the 2-day  survey  period  are  presented  in  this
handbook.  Percentiles of serving sizes of the foods
consumed by these age groups of the U.S.  population
can be found in Smiciklas-Wright et al. (2002).
        The advantages of using these data are that
they were derived from the USDA CSFII and are
representative  of the U.S.  population. The analysis
conducted  by  Smiciklas-Wright   et   al.  (2002)
accounted  for  individual   foods   consumed  as
ingredients of  mixed  foods.   Mixed foods  were
disaggregated via recipe files so that the individual
ingredients could be grouped together with similar
foods that were reported separately. Thus, weights of
foods consumed as  ingredients were combined with
weights of foods reported separately to provide  a
more  thorough  representation  of  consumption.
However,  it should be noted that since the recipes for
the mixed foods consumed were not provided by the
respondents, standard recipes were used.  As a result,
the estimates of quantity  consumed for some  food
types are based on assumptions about the types and
quantities  of ingredients consumed as part of mixed
foods. This study used data from the 1994 to  1996
CSFII; data from the  1998  children's  supplement
were not included.

11.3.2.4 Vitolins  et  al,  2002  -  Quality of Diets
        Consumed by Older Rural Adults
        Vitolins et al. (2002) conducted a survey to
evaluate the dietary intake, by food groups, of older
(>70 years) rural adults. The sample consisted of 130
community  dwelling  residents  from  two  rural
counties in North Carolina.  Data on dietary intake
over the preceding year were obtained in face-to-face
interviews conducted in participants' homes, or in a
few cases,  a senior center. The  food frequency
questionnaire used  in  the survey was  a modified
version of the National Cancer Institute Health Habits
and History Questionnaire (HHHQ); this modified
version included an expanded food list containing a
greater number of ethnic foods than the original food
frequency form.  Demographic and personal data
collected included gender, ethnicity, age, education,
denture use,  marital status,  chronic disease,  and
weight.
      Food  items  reported  in  the  survey  were
grouped into food groups similar to the USDA Food
Guide Pyramid and  the National Cancer Institute's 5
A Day for Better Health program.  These groups are:
(1) fruits and vegetables;  (2) bread, cereal, rice, and
pasta; (3) milk, yogurt and cheese; (4) meat,  fish,
poultry, beans and eggs; and (5) fats, oils, sweets, and
snacks. Medians, ranges, frequencies and percentages
were used to summarize intake  of each food group,
broken   down   by   demographic   and  health
characteristics.    In addition,  multiple  regression
models were  used to determine which demographic
and health factors were jointly predictive of intake of
each of the five food groups.
      Thirty-four percent  of the survey  participants
were   African  American, 36%  were   European
American, and  30% were  Native American. Sixty-
two percent were female,  62%  were not married at
the time of the interview, and 65% had some  high
Page
11-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
school education or  were high  school graduates.
Almost all of the participants (95%) had one or more
chronic diseases.   Sixty percent of the  respondents
were between 70 and 79 years of age; the median age
was  78 years old.   The median servings of  milk,
yogurt and cheese broken down by demographic and
health characteristic  are presented in Table 11-18.
None  of the  demographic  characteristics  were
significantly  associated with  milk intake, and only
ethnicity was found to be borderline (P = 0.13).  In
addition, none  of the demographic characteristics
were jointly  predictive of milk, yogurt  and cheese
consumption.
      One limitation of the study, as noted by the
study  authors,  is  that the  study did  not  collect
information on the length of time the participants had
been practicing the dietary behaviors reported in the
survey.   The questionnaire  asked participants  to
report the frequency of food consumption during the
past  year.  The study  authors noted that, currently,
there are no dietary assessment tools that allow the
collection of comprehensive dietary data over  years
of food consumption.  Another limitation  of the  study
is  the   small  sample size  used  which  makes
associations by gender and ethnicity difficult.

11.3.2.5 Fox et al,  2004  -  Feeding Infants and
         Toddlers Study: What Foods Are Infants
        and Toddlers Eating
        Fox et al. (2004) used data from the Feeding
Infants  and  Toddlers study  (FITS) to assess  food
consumption patterns in infants and toddlers.  The
FITS was sponsored by Gerber Products Company
and was  conducted to obtain current information on
food and nutrient intakes of children, ages 4 to  24
months old,  in  the  50 states  and the  District of
Columbia.    The FITS is described in detail  in
Devaney et al. (2004).  FITS was based on a random
sample  of 3,022  infants  and  toddlers  for which
dietary intake data were collected by telephone from
their parents  or caregivers between March and July
2002. An initial recruitment and household interview
was  conducted, followed by an interview to obtain
information on intake based on 24-hour  recall.  The
interview also addressed growth, development and
feeding patterns.  A  second dietary  recall interview
was conducted for a subset of 703 randomly selected
respondents.  The study over-sampled children in the
4 to 6 and 9 to 11 months age groups; sample weights
were adjusted for non-response, over-sampling, and
under-coverage of some subgroups.   The response
rate for the FITS was 73 percent for the recruitment
interview. Of the recruited households,  there was a
response rate of  94  percent  for  the  dietary recall
interviews   (Devaney   et  al.,  2004).       The
characteristics of  the  FITS  study population are
shown in Table 11-19.
        Fox et al. (2004) analyzed the first set of 24-
hour recall data collected from all study participants.
For this analysis, children were grouped into six age
categories: 4  to 6  months,  7 to  8  months, 9 to 11
months, 12 to 14 months, 15 to 18 months, and 19 to
24 months.  Table  11-20 provides the percentage of
infants and toddlers consuming milk, meats or other
protein sources at least once in a day. The percentage
of children consuming any type  of meat or protein
source ranged from 14.2 percent for 4 to 6  month
olds to 97.2 percent for 19  to 24 month olds  (Table
11-20).
        The advantages of this study were that the
study population represented the U.S. population and
the sample size  was large.   One  limitation  of the
analysis done by Fox  et al.  (2004) was  that only
frequency data were provided;  no information on
actual intake  rates  was  included.   In  addition,
Devaney  et  al.  (2004)  noted  several  limitations
associated with the FITS  data.   For the  FITS,  a
commercial list of infants and toddlers was used to
obtain the sample used in the study.  Since many of
the households could not be located and did not have
children in the  target population, a lower response
rate  than  would have  occurred  in a true national
sample was obtained (Devaney  et al.,  2004).  In
addition,  the  sample  was  likely   from  a  higher
socioeconomic status when compared with all U.S.
infants in this age group (4 to  24 months old) and the
use of a telephone survey may have omitted  lower-
income households without telephones (Devaney et
al., 2004).

11.3.2.6 Ponza et al, 2004 - Nutrient Food Intakes
        and Food Choices of Infants and Toddlers
        Participating in WIC
        Ponza et al. (2004) conducted a  study using
selected data from FITS to assess  feeding patterns,
food  choices and nutrient  intake  of infants  and
toddlers participating  in the  Special  Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC).  Ponza et al. (2004) evaluated FITS data for
the following age groups: 4 to 6 months (N = 862), 7
to 11 months (N = 1159) and 12 to 24 months (N=
996).  The  total  sample size described by WIC
participant and non-participant is  shown in Table 11-
21.
        The  foods consumed were  analyzed  by
tabulating the percentage of infants who consumed
specific foods/food groups per  day (Ponza  et al.,
2004). Weighted data were used in all of the analyses
used in the study  (Ponza et al., 2004).  Table 11-21
presents the  demographic data for  WIC  participants
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           11-9
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                            Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
and non-participants. Table 11-22 provides the food
choices for infants  and toddlers.  In general, there
was  little difference in food choices among WIC
participants   and   non-participants,   except   for
consumption of yogurt  by infants 7 to 11 months of
age and toddlers 12 to  24 months of age (Table 11-
22).  Non-participants,  7 to 24 months of age, were
more likely to  eat yogurt than  WIC  participants
(Ponza et al., 2004).
        An advantage  of this study is that it had a
relatively large sample size and was representative of
the U.S.  general population of infants and children.
A limitation of the study is that intake  values for
foods were not provided.  Other limitations  are
associated with  the FITS  data  and are described
previously in Section 11.3.2.5.

11.3.2.7 Mennella et al., 2006 - Feeding Infants and
         Toddlers Study: The Types of Foods Fed to
        Hispanic Infants and Toddlers
        Mennella et al. (2006) investigated the types
of food and beverages consumed by Hispanic infants
and  toddlers  in comparison to  the  non-Hispanic
infants and toddlers in  the United States.  The FITS
2002 data for children between 4 and 24 months old
were used for the study.  The data represent a random
sample  of  371  Hispanic and 2,367  non-Hispanic
infants and toddlers (Menella et al., 2006). Menella
et al. (2006) grouped the infants as follows: 4 to  5
months (N = 84 Hispanic; 538 non-Hispanic), 6 to 11
months (N = 163 Hispanic and 1,228 non-Hispanic),
and 12 to 24 months (N = 124 Hispanic and 871 non-
Hispanic) of age.
        Table 11-23 provides  the  percentages  of
Hispanic and non-Hispanic  infants  and toddlers
consuming milk, meats  or other protein sources on a
given  day.   In most instances  the  percentages
consuming  the different types of meats  and  protein
sources were similar (Mennella et al., 2006).
        The advantage  of the study is that it provides
information on food preferences  for Hispanic  and
non-Hispanic  infants and toddlers.  A  limitation is
that  the study did not provide food  intake data, but
provided frequency  of use data  instead.    Other
limitations  are  those  noted previously in  Section
11.3.2.5 for the FITS data.

11.3.2.8 Fox et al, 2006-Average Portion of Foods
        Commonly Eaten by Infants and Toddlers
        in the United States
        Fox et al.  (2006) estimated average portion
sizes consumed per eating occasion by children 4 to
24 months of age who participated in the FITS. The
FITS is  a cross-sectional  study designed to  collect
and  analyze  data  on feeding  practices,   food
consumption,  and usual  nutrient intake of  U.S.
infants  and toddlers  and is described in Section
11.3.2.5  of this chapter.   It  included  a stratified
random sample of 3,022 children between 4 and 24
months of age.
        Using  the 24-hour  recall  data, Fox  et al.
(2006) derived average portion sizes for six  major
food  groups,  including  meats and other protein
sources.  Average portion sizes for select individual
foods within these major groups were also estimated.
For this analysis, children were grouped into six age
categories:  4 to 5  months,  6 to 8  months, 9  to 11
months, 12 to 14 months, 15  to 18 months, and 19 to
24  months.  Tables  11-24  and  11-25 present the
average portion sizes of meats and dairy products for
infants and toddlers, respectively.

11.4    INTAKE OF FAT
11.4.1   Key Fat Intake Study
11.4.1.1 U.S. EPA, 2007 - Analysis of Fat Intake
        Based  on   the   U.S.    Department  of
        Agriculture's 1994-96,  1998 Continuing
        Survey of Food Intakes  by Individuals
        (CSFII)
        U.S. EPA conducted an analysis to evaluate
the dietary  intake of fats by individuals in the United
States using data from the USDA's  1994-1996, 1998
CSFII  (USDA,  2000). Intakes of CSFII foods were
converted to U.S. EPA food  commodity codes using
data provided in U.S. EPA's FCID (U.S. EPA, 2000).
The FCID contains a "translation file" that was used
to break down the USDA CSFII food codes into 548
U.S. EPA commodity codes.  The method used to
translate USDA food codes into U.S. EPA commodity
codes is discussed in detail in U.S. EPA (2000).
        Each of the 548 U.S. EPA commodity codes
was assigned a value between 0 and 1  that indicated
the mass fraction of fat in that  food item.  For many
sources of  fat, a commodity code existed solely for
the nutrient fat portion of the food.   For example,
beef is represented in the  FCID  database by ten
different commodity  codes;  several of these  codes
specifically exclude fat, and one code is described as
"nutrient fat only."  In these cases, the fat fraction
could be expressed as 0 or 1, as appropriate.  Most
animal  food  products and food oils  were broken
down in this way.  The fat contents of other foods in
the U.S. EPA commodity code list were determined
using  the  USDA  Nutrient  Database  for Standard
Reference,  Release 13 (USDA, 1999b).   For each
food item in the U.S. EPA code list,  the best available
match  in the USDA Nutrient database was used. If
multiple values were available  for different varieties
of the same food  item (e.g., green, white and red
grapes), a mean value was  calculated.  If multiple
Page
11-10
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
values were available for different cooking methods
(i.e, fried vs. dry cooked), the method least likely to
introduce other substances,  such as oil or butter, was
preferred. In some cases, not all of the items that fall
under  a given food  commodity  code  could be
assigned a  fat  content.   For example, the food
commodity   code   list  identified  "turkey,  meat
byproducts" as including gizzard, heart, neck and tail.
Fat contents could be determined only for the gizzard
and  heart.    Because the  relative  amounts  of  the
different items  in the  food commodity  code was
unknown, the mean  fat content of these two items
was assumed to be the best approximation of the fat
content for the food code as a whole.
        The analysis was based on respondents who
had provided body weights and who had completed
both days  of the  two-day survey process.  These
individuals were grouped according to  various  age
categories.  The mean, standard error, and a range of
percentiles  of fat intake were calculated for 12 food
categories (i.e., all fats, animal fats, meat and meat
products, beef,  pork, poultry, organ meats, milk and
dairy       products,       fish,      oils,      and
nuts/seeds/beans/legumes/tubers)      and      98
demographic cohorts. Fat intake was calculated as a
two-day  average consumption across both  survey
days  in  units  of  grams per  day  and  grams  per
kilogram of body weight  per day  for the whole
survey  population  and  for consumers  only.   A
secondary objective of the  study was to evaluate fat
consumption patterns of individuals who  consume
high levels of animal fats.  The entire data  analysis
was repeated for a subset  of individuals who were
identified as high  consumers of animal fats.  The
selection of the high-consumption group was done
for each age category individually, rather than on the
whole  population, because  fat intake on a per-body-
weight basis is heavily  skewed  towards  young
children, and an analysis across the entire American
population  was desired.  For infants, the "less than
one year old" group  was used instead of the smaller
infant  groups (<1 month,   1  to  <3 months, etc.).
Within each of the age  categories, individuals that
ranked at or above  the 90th percentile of consumption
of all  animal fats  on a per-unit body weight basis
were identified. Because  of the sample weighting
factors, the high consumer group was not necessarily
10  percent  of each  age  group.    The  selected
individuals made up  a survey population of 2,134
individuals.   Fat intake of  individuals in this group
was calculated  in g/day and g/kg-day for the whole
population (i.e., per capita) and for consumers only.
        The analysis presented in U.S.  EPA (2007)
was  conducted before  U.S.  EPA published  the
guidance entitled Guidance on Selecting Age Groups
for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures
to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005).
Therefore, the age  groups used for children in U.S.
EPA (2007) were not entirely consistent with the age
groups  recommended in the 2005 guidance.  A re-
analysis of the some of the data was conducted for
the Child-Specific  Exposure Factors Handbook to
conform with U.S. EPA's recommended  age groups
for children.   The results  of this  re-analysis are
included  in Tables 11-26  through  11-31 for all
individuals. Only intake rates of all fats are provided
in these tables;  the reader is referred to U.S. EPA
(2007)  for fat  intake  rates from individual  food
sources. Tables  11-26 and 11-27 present  intake rates
of all fats for the whole population (i.e., per capita) in
g/day and g/kg-day, respectively.  Table 11-28 and
11-29 present intake rates of all fats for consumers
only in g/day and g/kg-day,  respectively.   Fat intake
rates  of all  fats for the  top decile of  animal fat
consumers  from  the  consumers  only  group are
presented in Table 11-30 in g/day and in Table 11-31
in g/kg-day (per capita total fat intake rates for the
top decile of animal fat consumers are not provided
because they  are the same  as  those for consumers
only).

11.4.2   Relevant Fat Intake Studies
11.4.2.1 Cresanta et al, 1988;  Nicklas et al,  1993;
         and Frank et  al., 1986 - Bogalusa Heart
         Study
         Cresanta et al. (1988), Nicklas et al. (1993),
and Frank et al. (1986) analyzed  dietary fat intake
data  as part  of the Bogalusa heart study.    The
Bogalusa study,  an epidemiologic investigation of
cardiovascular     risk-factor     variables     and
environmental determinants, collected dietary data on
subjects residing in Bogalusa, LA, beginning in 1973.
Among other research, the study collected fat intake
data for  children,  adolescents, and young  adults.
Researchers examined various cohorts of subjects,
including (1)  six cohorts of 10-year olds, (2) two
cohorts of 13-year olds, (3)  one cohort  of subjects
from 6  months to 4 years of age, and (4) one cohort
of  subjects from  10 to 17 years of age  (Nicklas,
1995).  To collect the data, interviewers used the 24-
hour  dietary recall method.  According to Nicklas
(1995), "the diets of children in the  Bogalusa study
are similar to those reported in national studies of
children."  Thus, these data are useful in evaluating
the variability  of  fat  intake  among the general
population.  Data  for 6-month old  to 17-year old
individuals collected  during  1973  to   1982  are
presented in Tables 11-32  and 11-33 (Frank et al.,
1986).  Data are presented for total fats,  animal fats,
vegetable fats, and fish fats  in units  of g/day (Table
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           11-11
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                            Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
11-32) and g/kg/day (Table 11-33).

11.5    CONVERSION BETWEEN  WET AND
        DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES
        The intake rates presented in this chapter are
reported in units of wet weight (i.e., as-consumed or
uncooked weight  of  meats  and  dairy  products
consumed per day or per eating occasion). However,
data on the concentration of contaminants in meats
and dairy products  may be reported in units of either
wet or dry weight (e.g., mg contaminant per gram-
dry-weight of meats and dairy  products).     It is
essential  that exposure  assessors be aware  of this
difference so that they may  ensure consistency
between the units used for intake rates and those used
for concentration  data  (i.e.,  if the  contaminant
concentration is measured in dry weight of meats and
dairy  products,  then the dry weight units should be
used for their intake values).
        If necessary, wet weight  (e.g.,  as consumed)
intake rates may be converted to dry weight intake
rates  using  the   moisture  content  percentages
presented in Table 11-34 and the following equation:
         = IR m rio°-^1              (Eqn. 11-1)
where:
        IRdw  =
        IRww  =
        W
                   100
          dry weight intake rate;
          wet weight intake rate; and
          percent water content
        Alternatively, dry weight residue levels in
meat and dairy products may be converted to  wet
weight residue levels for use with wet weight (e.g.,
as-consumed) intake rates as follows:
    C  =
    ^ww
                 100
                              (Eqn. 11-2)
where:
Cdw
W
                  wet weight intake rate;
                  dry weight intake rate; and
                  percent water content.
        The moisture content data presented in Table
11-34 are for selected meats and dairy products taken
from USDA (2007).
11.6
                   BETWEEN     WET
                     LIPID   WEIGHT
        CONVERSION
        WEIGHT    AND
        INTAKE RATES
        In  some  cases,  the  residue  levels  of
contaminants in meat  and dairy  products  may  be
reported  as  the concentration of  contaminant per
                                                gram  of fat.   This  may  be particularly  true  for
                                                lipophilic compounds.   When using these residue
                                                levels, the assessor should ensure consistency in the
                                                exposure   assessment  calculations   by  using
                                                consumption rates that are based on the amount of
                                                lipids  consumed  for  the meat or dairy product of
                                                interest.
                                                        If necessary,  wet weight (e.g., as-consumed)
                                                intake rates may be converted to lipid weight intake
                                                rates using  the fat content percentages presented in
                                                Table 11-34 and the following equation:
                                                                100
                                                                                     (Eqn. 11-3)
                                                where:
                                                        IRiw   =
                                                        Irww   ~~
                                                        L
                                                                         lipid weight intake rate;
                                                                         wet weight intake rate; and
                                                                         percent lipid (fat) content.
                                                        Alternately, wet weight residue levels  in
                                                meat  and dairy  products  may be  estimated  by
                                                multiplying the levels based on fat by the fraction of
                                                fat per product as follows:
                                                               L
                                                              100
                                                                                             (Eqn. 11-4)
                                                        where:
        Cww= wet weight intake rate;
        Ciw   =   lipid weight intake rate; and
        L     =   percent lipid (fat) content.

        The  resulting  residue levels  may  then  be
used  in  conjunction  with  wet weight  (e.g.,  as-
consumed)  consumption rates.  The total fat content
data presented in Table 11-34  are for  selected meat
and dairy products taken from USDA, 2007.

11.7    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11
Cresanta, J.L.; Farris, R.P.;  Croft, J.B.; Frank, G.C.;
        Berenson, G.S.  (1988) Trends in fatty acid
        intakes of 10-year-old children, 1973-1982.
        JAmDietAssoc 88: 178-184.
Devaney, B.;  Kalb, L.;  Briefel, R.; Zavitsky-Novak,
        T.; Clusen, N.; Ziegler, P. (2004) Feeding
        Infants and Toddlers Study: overview of the
        study design.   J Am Diet Assoc  104(Suppl
        1): S8-S13.
Fox, M.K.; Pac, S.;  Devaney,  B.; Jankowski,  L.
        (2004) Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study:
        what foods are infants  and toddlers eating. J
        Am Diet Assoc 104 (Suppl): S22-S30.
Page
11-12
                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Fox, M.K.; Reidy, K.; Karwe, V; Ziegler, P.  (2006)
        Average portions of foods commonly eaten
        by infants and toddlers in the United States.
        J Am Diet Assoc. 106 (Suppl 1): S66-S76.
Frank, G.C.;  Webber, L.S.; Farris, R.P.;  Berenson,
        G.S.  (1986) Dietary  databook: quantifying
        dietary  intakes of  infants,  children, and
        adolescents, the Bogalusa heart study, 1973-
        1983. National Research and Demonstration
        Center - Arteriosclerosis, Louisiana State
        University  Medical  Center,  New Orleans,
        Louisiana.
Mennella, J.;  Ziegler, P.; Briefel,  R.; Novak,  T.
        (2006) Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study:
        the types of foods fed to Hispanic  infants
        and toddlers.  J Am Diet Assoc  106 (Suppl
        1): S96-S106.
Nicklas, T.A.  (1995)  Dietary  studies of children:
        The Bogalusa Heart Study experience. J Am
        DietAssoc  95:1127-1133.
Nicklas,  T.A.;  Webber,  L.S.;   Srinivasan,  S.R.;
        Berenson, G.S.  (1993)   Secular trends  in
        dietary  intakes  and cardiovascular  risk
        factors in 10-y-old children:  the Bogalusa
        heart  study (1973-1988).   Am J Clin Nutr
        57:930-937.
Ponza, M;  Devaney, B.; Ziegler,  P.;  Reidy, K.;
        Squatrito, C.  (2004)  Nutrient intakes and
        food  choices  of  infants  and  toddlers
        participating in WIC.  J Am Diet Assoc 104
        (Suppl): S71-S79.
Smiciklas-Wright, H.; Mitchell, D.C.; Mickle, S.J.;
        Cook, A.J.; Goldman,  J.D.  (2002) Foods
        commonly  eaten in the  United  States:
        quantities consumed per eating occasion and
        in a  day, 1994-1996.  U.S. Department  of
        Agriculture  NFS  Report No.  96-5,  pre-
        publication version, 252 pp.
USD A.    (1980)    Food  and nutrient intakes  of
        individuals  in one day in the United States,
        Spring   1977.     U.S.   Department   of
        Agriculture. Nationwide Food Consumption
        Survey 1977-1978. Preliminary Report No.
        2.
USD A.    (1992)    Food and nutrient  intakes by
        individuals  in the United States, 1 day, 1987-
        88. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human
        Nutrition Information Service. Nationwide
        Food  Consumption Survey 1987-88, NFCS
        Rpt. No. 87-1-1.
USDA.   (1996a) Data tables: results from USDA's
        1994 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
        Individuals   and  1994  Diet  and  Health
        Knowledge  Survey.   U.S.  Department  of
        Agriculture, Agricultural  Research Service,
        Riverdale, MD.
USDA.   (1996b) Data tables: results from USDA's
        1995 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
        Individuals  and  1995  Diet  and  Health
        Knowledge  Survey.   U.S.  Department  of
        Agriculture,  Agricultural Research Service,
        Riverdale, MD.
USDA.    (1999a)  Food and  nutrient intakes by
        children  1994-96,  1998:  Table  Set  17.
        Beltsville, MD: Food  Surveys  Research
        Group, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
        Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.
        Department of Agriculture.
USDA.    (1999b) USDA  Nutrient  Database  for
        Standard     Reference,    Release     13.
        Agricultural   Research  Service,  Nutrient
        Data
        Laboratory,  http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/fo
        odcomp
USDA.  (2000)  1994-96, 1998 Continuing Survey of
        Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). CD-
        ROM.     Agricultural  Research  Service,
        Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center,
        Beltsville, MD.  Available from the National
        Technical  Information Service, Springfield,
        VA; PB-2000-500027.
USDA. (2007) USDA National Nutrient Database for
        Standard     Reference,    Release     20.
        Agricultural   Research  Service,  Nutrient
        Data     Laboratory     Home      Page,
        http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl
U.S. EPA.  (2000) Food commodity intake database
        [FCID  raw  data file].  Office  of Pesticide
        Programs, Washington, DC. Available from
        the National Technical Information Service,
        Springfield, VA; PB2000-5000101.
U.S. EPA. (2005)  Guidance on Selecting Age Groups
        for Monitoring  and Assessing Childhood
        Exposures to Environmental  Contaminants.
        U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Washington, D.C., EPA/630/P-03/003F.
U.S. EPA.  (2007) Analysis of fat intake based on the
        U.S.  Department of Agriculture's 1994-96,
        1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
        Individuals (CSFII).   National Center for
        Environmental  Assessment,   Washington,
        DC;  EPA/600/R-05/021F.  Available from
        the National Technical Information Service,
        Springfield,    VA,    and    online    at
        http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
Vitolins, M.; Quandt,  S.; Bell,  R.; Arcury, T; Case,
       L.D.  (2002)  Quality of Diets Consumed by
       Older Rural Adults. The Journal of  Rural
       Health 18 (l):49-56.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         11-13
-------
    1
    ri
    &
    &

    1=
Table 11-3.
Domain
Per Capita Intake of Total Meat and Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
,, Percent
Consuming
Mean
SE
Percentiles
1st
5th
10th
25th
50th
75*
90th
95th
99th
Max
Total Meat
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
50+ years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
American Indian, Alaska Native
Asian, Pacific Islander
Black
Other
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Urbanization
MSA, Central City
MSA, Outside Central City
Non-MSA
20,607

1,486
2,096
4,391
2,089
1,222
4,677
4,646

4,687
5,308
5,890
4,722

177
557
2,740
1,638
15,495

4,822
3,692
7,208
4,822
4,885

6,164
9,598
4,845
97.5

40.0
97.3
98.8
98.7
98.8
98.2
98.2

96.8
97.6
97.4
98.0

98.4
96.8
97.9
96.5
97.5

97.9
96.3
97.7
97.9
97.6

97.3
97.3
98.1
2.1

1.2
4.1
4.1
2.9
2.1
1.9
1.5

2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0

2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
1.9

2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.0

2.1
2.0
2.1
0.02

0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.02

0.06
0.04
0.03
0.04

0.25
0.17
0.10
0.08
0.02

0.04
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.06

0.04
0.04
0.03
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2

0.0
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2

0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.2

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5

0.0
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

0.5
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5

0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4

0.5
0.5
0.6
1.0

0.0
1.9
2.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.8

1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0

1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9

1.1
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.9

0.9
1.0
1.0
1.7

0.0
3.6
3.6
2.5
1.9
1.6
1.3

1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6

2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.6

1.8
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.6

1.7
1.6
1.7
2.7

1.6
5.7
5.4
3.8
2.7
2.5
1.9

2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6

3.3
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.5

2.8
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.7

2.7
2.6
2.7
4.0

4.2
8.0
7.7
5.4
3.8
3.5
2.7

4.2
4.0
4.0
3.8

4.3
4.5
5.4
4.9
3.7

4.1
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.0

4.2
3.9
4.1
5.3

6.7
9.8
9.4
6.5
4.8
4.2
3.3

5.4
5.2
5.4
5.0

6.3
6.0
7.1
6.5
4.8

5.3
5.4
5.2
5.3
5.2

5.6
5.1
5.1
8.7

10.7
14.1
12.7
9.6
7.1
6.9
4.8

8.7
8.7
8.6
7.9

9.0
9.6
10.4
10.8
7.7

9.1
8.7
8.3
9.1
8.1

8.9
8.0
8.6
30.3

29.6
20.6
23.4
18.0
30.3
13.4
9.7

21.2
23.6
30.3
29.6

12.4
13.0
23.6
29.6
30.3

30.3
20.5
23.4
30.3
29.6

23.6
29.6
30.3
                                                                                                                                                                                Q
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                s
                                                                                                                                                                                a-
                                                                                                                                                                                a
                                                                                                                                                                                I-
I
vo
-------
*!
 ^ &
 * ^
 O ft
  I
  1=
liable 1 1-3. Per Capita Intake of Total Meat and Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Domain
, , Percent , ,
N „ . Mean
Consuming
SE
Percentiles
1st
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th Max
Total Dairy Products
Whole population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
50+ years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
American Indian, Alaska Native
Asian, Pacific Islander
Black
Other
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
MSA, Central City
MSA, Outside Central City
Non-MSA
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
20,607

1,486
2,096
4,391
2,089
1,222
4,677
4,646

4,687
5,308
5,890
4,722

177
557
2,740
1,638
15,495

4,822
3,692
7,208
4,885

6,164
9,598
4,845

99.5

79.5
99.8
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.8
99.8

99.7
99.5
99.6
99.4

99.8
97.0
99.6
99.1
99.6

99.7
99.6
99.6
99.2

99.6
99.4
99.7

6.7

12.6
36.7
23.3
13.6
5.6
3.3
3.2

7.0
6.6
6.4
6.7

8.0
6.4
5.6
9.5
6.6

7.0
6.7
6.0
7.4

6.5
7.0
6.3

0.1

0.9
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

1.1
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.1

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4

0.2
0.1
0.3

0.01

0.0
0.4
1.1
0.3
0.01
0.01
0.02

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.0
3.9
4.2
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.4

0.0
7.7
7.0
3.5
0.5
0.3
0.4

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5

0.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.5

0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4

0.4
0.5
0.4

1.2

1.0
17.4
13.0
6.7
1.5
0.9
1.0

1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3

0.8
0.6
0.6
1.3
1.4

1.4
1.5
1.0
1.4

1.1
1.4
1.1

3.2

8.0
31.3
20.8
11.7
4.2
2.2
2.4

3.4
3.1
3.1
3.4

3.1
3.0
2.1
4.2
3.4

3.5
3.4
2.8
3.7

3.2
3.4
3.0

7.3

14.1
49.8
30.9
18.5
8.1
4.6
4.5

8.0
7.3
6.8
7.3

11.0
7.4
6.5
11.5
7.2

7.7
7.3
6.3
8.5

7.1
7.7
6.8

16.1

24.1
72.1
42.0
26.0
12.5
7.6
6.9

16.9
16.2
15.2
16.4

21.2
14.9
14.7
25.4
15.6

16.9
15.9
14.5
17.5

15.8
16.9
15.0

25.4

48.7
88.3
49.4
31.5
15.5
9.9
8.9

26.9
25.0
24.7
25.0

30.2
28.1
23.3
36.3
24.7

25.8
25.7
23.7
27.6

25.1
26.3
23.9

52.1 223

127 186
126 223
67.7 198
42.7 80.6
25.4 32.7
14.9 36.4
14.1 42.5

55.3 156.8
52.0 185.6
52.8 164.8
49.1 223.2

68.9 146.2
51.7 164.8
45.4 185.6
69.3 185.2
51.2 223.2

52.7 198.4
54.2 185.6
48.6 223.2
54.5 185.2

49.8 198.4
54.3 223.2
51.4 180.7

AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native
Source: Based on unpublished U.S
EPA analysis of 1994-96
, 1998CSFII.



                                                                   ft
                                                                   a-
-------
    1
    ri
    &
    &

    1=
Table
Domain
11-4. Consumer Only Intake of Total Meat and Total Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
N
Mean
SE
Percentiles
1st
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
Max
Total Meat
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
I to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
50+ years
Whole population
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
American Indian, Alaska Native
Asian, Pacific Islander
Black
Other
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
MSA, Central City
MSA, Outside Central City
Non-MSA

575
2,044
4,334
2,065
1,208
4,593
4,565
19,384

4,423
4,995
5,510
4,456

111
503
2,588
1,508
14,614

4,573
3,448
6,798
4,565

5,783
9,004
4,597

3.0
4.2
4.2
2.9
2.1
1.9
1.5
2.1

96.8
97.6
97.4
98.0

98.4
96.8
97.9
96.5
97.5

97.9
96.3
97.7
97.6

97.3
97.3
98.1

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02

2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0

2.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.0

2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1

2.2
2.1
2.2

0.01
0.04
0.04
0.1
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.04

0.06
0.04
0.03
0.04

0.27
0.18
0.10
0.09
0.02

0.04
0.07
0.03
0.06

0.04
0.04
0.02

0.1
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.3
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4

0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.3
0.3
0.4

1.0
2.1
2.2
1.5
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.0

0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5

0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5

0.5
0.6
0.6

2.2
3.6
3.6
2.5
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.7

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0

1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.1

4.2
5.7
5.5
3.9
2.8
2.5
2.0
2.7

1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7

2.1
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.6

1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6

1.7
1.7
1.7

7.4
8.1
7.7
5.4
3.8
3.5
2.7
4.0

2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6

3.3
3.5
3.3
3.2
2.5

2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7

2.8
2.6
2.8

9.2
9.8
9.4
6.5
4.8
4.2
3.3
5.3

4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9

4.3
4.5
5.4
5.0
3.7

4.1
4.2
3.9
4.0

4.2
3.9
4.1

12.9
14.1
12.7
9.6
7.1
6.9
4.8
8.7

5.5
5.2
5.5
5.0

6.3
6.0
7.2
6.6
4.8

5.3
5.5
5.2
5.2

5.6
5.2
5.1

29.6
20.6
23.4
18.0
30.3
13.4
9.7
30.3

8.7
8.8
8.7
7.9

9.0
9.6
10.5
10.9
7.7

9.2
8.7
8.3
8.1

9.1
8.0
8.6
                                                                                                                                                                                Q
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                s
                                                                                                                                                                                a-
                                                                                                                                                                                a
                                                                                                                                                                                I-
I
vo
-------
*!
 ^ &
 S> -s
  I
  1=
liable 11-4. Consumer Only Intake of Total Meat and Total
Domain
N
Mean
SE
Dairy Products (g/kg-day
as consumed) (continued)
Percentiles
1st
5*
10*
25*
50th
75th
90th
95th 99th
Max
Total Dairy Products
Whole population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
50+ years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Asian, Pacific Islander
Black
Other
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
MSA, Central City
MSA, Outside Central City
Non-MSA
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on unpublished U.S.
20,287

1,192
2,093
4,390
2,089
1,221
4,666
4,636

4,630
5,210
5,801
4,646

176
537
2,708
1,607
15,259

4,765
3,638
7,104
4,780

6,072
9,440
4,775

6.7

15.9
36.8
23.3
13.6
5.6
3.3
3.2

99.7
99.5
99.6
99.4

99.8
97.0
99.6
99.1
99.6

99.7
99.6
99.6
99.2

99.6
99.4
99.7

0.1

1.0
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1

7.1
6.6
6.4
6.7

8.0
6.6
5.7
9.6
6.7

7.1
6.8
6.0
7.4

6.5
7.0
6.3

0.02

0.03
0.4
1.1
0.3
0.01
0.01
0.02

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

1.1
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.1

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4

0.2
0.1
0.3

0.2

0.8
4.2
4.2
1.8
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.4

1.9
7.8
7.0
3.5
0.5
0.3
0.4

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.2

1.3

5.8
17.4
13.0
6.7
1.5
0.9
1.1

0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6

0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5

0.4
0.5
0.4

3.3

10.2
31.3
20.8
11.7
4.2
2.3
2.4

1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3

0.8
0.6
0.6
1.3
1.4

1.4
1.5
1.0
1.5

1.2
1.4
1.1

7.4

16.0
49.8
30.9
18.5
8.1
4.6
4.5

3.4
3.2
3.1
3.4

3.1
3.1
2.1
4.3
3.4

3.5
3.4
2.8
3.8

3.2
3.5
3.0

16.2

27.7
72.1
42.0
26.0
12.5
7.6
6.9

8.0
7.3
6.8
7.3

11.1
7.6
6.6
11.6
7.2

7.8
7.3
6.3
8.5

7.2
7.8
6.8

25.5 52.2

57.5 141.8
88.3 126.2
49.4 67.7
31.5 42.7
15.5 25.4
9.9 14.9
8.9 14.1

16.9 26.9
16.3 25.1
15.2 24.7
16.5 25.1

21.2 30.2
15.6 28.1
14.8 23.4
25.5 36.5
15.7 24.7

16.9 25.8
16.0 25.8
14.6 23.8
17.8 27.7

15.9 25.2
17.0 26.4
15.0 23.9

223.2

185.6
223.2
198.4
80.6
32.7
36.4
42.5

55.4
52.1
53.0
49.2

68.9
51.7
45.4
69.3
51.3

52.7
54.3
48.6
54.6

49.8
54.3
51.5

EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.



                                                                                    ft
                                                                                    a-
X)
-------
    1
    ri
    &
    &

    1=
Table 11-5. Per Capita Intake of Individual Meats and Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
Percent
_ . ., ._, Mean SE
Domain N Consuming
Beef
Whole population 20,607 85.9 0.9 0.02
Age Group
Birth to 1 year 1,486 25.3 0.4 0.04
1 to 2 years 2,096 85.5 1.7 0.06
3 to 5 years 4,391 90.8 1.8 0.04
6 to 12 years 2,089 92.7 1.3 0.04
13 to 19 years 1,222 91.1 1.0 0.05
20 to 49 years 4,677 86.1 0.8 0.03
50+ years 4,646 83.5 0.6 0.02
Season
Fall 4,687 85.0 0.9 0.05
Spring 5,308 86.4 0.9 0.03
Summer 5,890 85.7 0.9 0.03
Winter 4,722 86.7 0.9 0.02
Race
American Indian, Alaskan Native 177 87.9 1.3 0.21
Asian, Pacific Islander 557 78.6 0.9 0.08
Black 2,740 85.3 1.1 0.10
Other 1,638 85.0 1.1 0.05
White 15,495 86.4 0.9 0.02
Region
Midwest 4,822 89.8 1.0 0.02
Northeast 3,692 82.0 0.8 0.08
South 7,208 86.1 0.9 0.02
West 4,885 85.1 0.9 0.04
Urbanization
MSA, Central City 6,164 84.0 0.9 0.04
MSA, Outside Central City 9,598 85.9 0.9 0.02
Non-MSA 4,845 88.9 1.0 0.04
Percent
,, . Mean SE
Consuming
Pork
78.5 0.42 0.01

17.7 0.15 0.02
69.7 0.72 0.03
79.8 0.84 0.02
82.4 0.59 0.03
81.5 0.40 0.03
78.9 0.37 0.01
79.3 0.34 0.01

78.5 0.41 0.02
78.1 0.44 0.02
78.1 0.42 0.02
79.1 0.40 0.02

85.2 0.49 0.06
71.5 0.63 0.11
82.1 0.53 0.04
79.4 0.48 0.03
78.0 0.39 0.01

83.1 0.47 0.02
72.1 0.41 0.02
79.8 0.42 0.02
77.0 0.36 0.03

77.1 0.41 0.02
77.2 0.39 0.01
83.3 0.49 0.02
Percent
„ . Mean SE
Consuming
Poultry
67.6 0.71 0.01

30.1 0.66 0.05
73.7 1.7 0.05
73.0 1.5 0.03
67.1 0.93 0.03
65.5 0.68 0.03
69.0 0.64 0.02
66.5 0.52 0.02

69.7 0.76 0.03
66.8 0.70 0.02
65.4 0.69 0.02
68.6 0.70 0.02

78.1 0.62 0.07
78.1 0.90 0.09
73.3 0.93 0.05
68.7 0.83 0.06
66.1 0.66 0.01

66.9 0.69 0.03
68.3 0.78 0.04
67.2 0.70 0.02
68.4 0.70 0.03

70.6 0.78 0.02
68.5 0.72 0.02
61.1 0.60 0.03
Percent
,, . Mean SE
Consuming
Eggs
93.4 0.40 0.01

27.9 0.30 0.04
92.3 1.3 0.04
95.1 0.91 0.03
95.8 0.51 0.02
95.4 0.33 0.02
94.1 0.31 0.01
94.0 0.33 0.01

93.1 0.39 0.02
93.5 0.41 0.02
93.3 0.39 0.01
93.8 0.39 0.02

94.5 0.49 0.06
84.7 0.46 0.05
93.9 0.48 0.01
89.9 0.62 0.05
93.9 0.36 0.01

95.1 0.38 0.01
91.2 0.36 0.02
94.2 0.39 0.01
92.5 0.44 0.02

92.8 0.41 0.01
93.4 0.39 0.01
94.5 0.39 0.01
N =Sample size.
SE =Standard error.
Source: Based on unpublished U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
                                                                                                                                                                                Q
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                s
                                                                                                                                                                                a-
                                                                                                                                                                                a
                                                                                                                                                                                I-
I
vo
-------
*!
 ^ &
 S> -s
  I
  1=
Table 11-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Meats and Dairy Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
^ . N Mean SE
JJomam ~ ^
Beef
Whole population 17,116 1.1 0.02
Age Group
Birth to 1 year 361 1.6 0.2
1 to 2 years 1,795 2.0 0.06
3 to 5 years 3,964 1.9 0.04
6 to 12 years 1,932 1.4 0.04
13 to 19 years 1,118 1.1 0.05
20 to 49 years 4,058 1.0 0.04
50+ years 3,888 07 0.02
Season
Fall 3,894 1.1 0.06
Spring 4,429 1.0 0.03
Summer 4,855 1.1 0.03
Winter 3,938 1.0 0.02
Race
American Indian, Alaskan Native 157 1.5 0.15
Asian, Pacific Islander 413 1.2 0.08
Black 2,280 1.3 0.11
Other 1,296 1.3 0.06
White 12,970 1.0 0.02
Region
Midwest 4,179 1.1 0.02
Northeast 2,936 1.0 0.08
South 6,029 1.0 0.02
West 3,972 1.1 0.04
Urbanization
MSA, Central City 4,992 1.1 0.05
MSA, Outside Central City 7,937 1.0 0.02
Non-MSA 4,187 1.1 0.03
N Mean SE
Pork
15,431 0.53 0.01

248 0.83 0.08
1,488 1.0 0.04
3,491 1.1 0.03
1,731 0.72 0.03
1,002 0.50 0.03
3,732 0.47 0.01
3,739 0.43 0.01

3,547 0.5 0.02
3,979 0.6 0.02
4,354 0.5 0.02
3,551 0.5 0.02

144 0.6 0.05
359 0.9 0.14
2,122 0.6 0.04
1,152 0.6 0.04
11,654 0.5 0.01

3,856 0.6 0.01
2,502 0.6 0.02
5,517 0.5 0.02
3,556 0.5 0.03

4,516 0.5 0.02
7,028 0.5 0.02
3,887 0.6 0.02
N Mean SE
Poultry
13,702 1.1 0.01

434 2.2 0.1
1,552 2.2 0.06
3,210 2.0 0.04
1,421 1.4 0.04
808 1.0 0.04
3,221 0.9 0.02
3,056 0.8 0.02

3,217 1.1 0.03
3,491 1.1 0.02
3,810 1.1 0.03
3,184 1.0 0.03

116 0.8 0.08
410 1.2 0.11
2,025 1.3 0.05
1,125 1.2 0.07
10,026 1.0 0.02

3,115 1.0 0.03
2,522 1.1 0.03
4,770 1.0 0.02
3,295 1.0 0.03

4,275 1.1 0.02
6,461 1.0 0.02
2,966 1.0 0.03
N Mean SE
Eggs
18,450 0.42 0.01

402 1.1 0.1
1,936 1.4 0.04
4,171 0.96 0.03
2,001 0.53 0.02
1,167 0.34 0.02
4,399 0.33 0.01
4,374 0.35 0.01

4,211 0.4 0.02
4,751 0.4 0.02
5,245 0.4 0.01
4,243 0.4 0.02

159 0.5 0.07
434 0.5 0.06
2,462 0.5 0.02
1,404 0.7 0.05
13,991 0.4 0.01

4,398 0.4 0.01
3,236 0.4 0.02
6,510 0.4 0.01
4,306 0.5 0.02

5,475 0.4 0.01
8,565 0.4 0.01
4,410 0.4 0.01
N =Sample size
SE = Standard error
Source: Based on unpublished U.S. EPA analysis of 1 994-96, 1 998 CSFII.



                                                                              a-
-------
    1
    ri
    &
    &

    1=
Table 11-7. Mean Meat Intakes Per Individual in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1977-1978
Group Age (yrs.)
Males and Females
1 and Under
1-2
3-5
6-8
Males
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
75 and Over
Females
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
75 and Over
Males and Females
All Ages
Total Meat,
Poultry and
Fish

72
91
121
149

188
218
272
310
285
295
274
231
196

162
176
180
184
183
187
187
159
134

207
Beef Pork

9
18
23
33

41
53
82
90
86
75
70
54
41

38
47
46
52
48
49
52
34
31

54
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food
b Less than 0.5
g/day but more
0 Includes mixtures containing

4
6
8
15

22
18
24
21
27
28
32
25
39

17
19
14
19
17
19
19
21
17

20
Consumption
Frankfurters,
Lamb, Veal, Sausages,
Game Luncheon
Meats, Spreads

3
b
b
1

3
b
1
2
1
1
1
2
7

1
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
2

2

2
15
15
17

19
25
25
33
30
26
29
22
19

20
18
16
18
16
14
12
12
9

20
Total
Poultry

4
16
19
20

24
27
37
45
31
31
31
29
28

27
23
28
26
24
24
26
30
19

27
Chicken
Only

1
13
19
19

21
24
32
43
29
28
29
26
25

23
22
27
24
22
21
24
25
16

24
Meat
Mixtures0

51
32
49
55

71
87
93
112
94
113
86
72
54

55
61
61
61
66
63
60
47
49

72
Survey 1977-78 data for one day.
thanO.
meat,
poultry, or fish as a main ingredient.
Indicates data is not available
Source: USDA, 1980








                                                                                                                                                                                Q
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                s
                                                                                                                                                                                a-
                                                                                                                                                                                a
                                                                                                                                                                                I-
I
vo
-------
*!
 ^ &
 S> -s
  I
  1=
Table ll-l
3. Mean Meat Intakes Per Capita in a Day,
Total Meat,
Group Age (yrs.) Poultry, and
Fish
Males and Females
5 and Under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
All individuals

92

156
252
250

151
169
170
193
a Based on USDA Nationwide
b Includes mixtures containing
Source: USDA, 1992.

Beef

10

22
38
44

26
31
29
32
Food
meat,

by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1987-1988
Frankfurters,
p , Lamb, Veal, Sausages,
Game Luncheon
Meats

9

14
17
19

9
10
12
14
Consumption Survey

<0.5

<0.5
1
23

1
<0.5
1
1

11

13
20
2

11
18
13
17
Total
Poultry

14

27
27
31

20
17
24
26
Chicken
Only

12

24
20
25

17
13
18
20
Meat
Mixtures'3

39

74
142
108

74
80
73
86
1987-88 data for one day.
poultry, or fish as a main ingredient.









                                                                                         a-
I
§
S
3

S
ri

!
sT
&
                                                                                            I
-------
Table 11-9. Mean Meat Intakes Per Capita
Total Meat,
Poultry, and Beef
Group Age (yrs.) Fish
in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)
Pork
Lamb, Veal,
Game
Frankfurters,
Sausages,
Luncheon
a for 1994 and 1995
Total Poultry
Chicken Only
Meat
Mixtures0
Meats
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994
Males and Females
5 and Under 94 87 10 8
Males
6-11 131 161 19 18
12-19 238 256 31 29
20 and over 266 283 35 41
Females
6-11 117 136 18 16
12-19 164 158 23 22
20 and over 168 167 18 21
All individuals 195 202 24 27
Based on USDA CSFII 1994 and 1995 data
b Less than 0.5 g/day but more than 0.
0 Includes mixtures containing meat, poultry,
Source: USDA, 1996a; 1996b.

6

9
11
17

5
5
9
11
for one day

or fish as a

1995

4

7
11
14

5
7
11
10


main

1994

(b)

0
1
2

(b)
(b)
1
1


ingredient.

1995

(b)

(b)
1
1

(b)
0
1
1




1994

17

22
21
29

18
16
16
21




1995

18

27
27
27

20
10
15
21




1994

16

19
40
39

19
20
25
29




1995

15

25
26
31

17
19
22
24




1994

14

16
29
30

15
15
20
23




1995

14

22
23
27

14
18
19
21




1994

41

51
119
124

51
94
87
98




1995

39

68
150
149

69
82
83
104




                                                                                                                                                                                Q
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                                s
                                                                                                                                                                                a-
    1
    ri
    &
    &

    1=
                                                                                                                                                                                a
                                                                                                                                                                                I-
I
vo
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Q     |
                                                                                                                                                                                                   &      ^Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                  "«      S
                                                                                                                                                                                                   w*.      5
-------
Table 11-11. Mean Dairy

Group Age (yrs.)
Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
All individuals
Product Intakes

Per Capita in a Day, by
1988
Total Fluid Milk Whole Milk

347

439
392
202

310
260
148
224
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food
Source: USDA, 1992.


177

224
183
88

135
124
55
99
Sex and Age (g/day

Lowfat/Skim
Milk

129

159
168
94

135
114
81
102
Consumption Survey 1987-88 data for one


as consumed)3

Cheese

7

10
12
17

9
12
15
14
day.

for 1987-

Eggs

11

17
17
27

14
18
17
20


                                                                                                                                                                                  s
                                                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                                                  a

                                                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                                                 •s,
   I
    ri
a-

b
Si
                                                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                                                  ri
^O
I
 §
 s
 3


 I
 3

 &
 &
 1=
 tt
 &
-------
1=

I
Table 1 1-12. Mean Dairy Product Intakes Per Capita in a Day, by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1994 and
1995

Group Age (yrs.)

Males and Females
5 and under
Males
6-11
12-19
20 and over
Females
6-11
12-19
20 and over
All individuals
Based on USD A
Total Fluid Milk

1994

424

407
346
195

340
239
157
229
CSFII 1994

1995

441

400
396
206

330
235
158
236
and 1995
Whole Milk

1994

169

107
105
50

101
75
37
65

1995

165

128
105
57

93
71
32
66
Lowfat Milk

1994

130

188
160
83

136
88
56
89

1995

129

164
176
88

146
107
57
92
Cheese Eggs

1994

12

11
19
19

17
14
16
17

1995

9

12
20
16

13
13
15
15

1994

11

13
18
23

12
13
15
17

1995

13

15
24
23

15
17
16
19
data for one day.
Source: USDA, 1996a; 1996b.
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
s
                                                                                                                                                                                           I
       I
                                                                                                                                                                                           Q
*      §
§      a
Ki      ^

r      ?
"-H      a.

'      !
sT
a

1=

I
ST-
-------
   I
    ri
    1=
Table 11-13. Mean Quantities
. „ Sample
Age Group „.
of Meat and Eggs consumed Daily by Sex and Aj
Lamb, ^ Frankfurters,
Total
Beef
Pork veal> g sausages,
game luncheon meats
je, Per Capita (g/day)
Poultry
Total Chicken
Eggs
Mixtures,
mainly
meat/poultry/
fish
Males and Females
Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
1 to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
5 years and under
,126
,016
,102
2,118
,831
,859
884
4,574
7,818
24
80
94
87
101
115
121
112
93
la
5
7
6
8
10
14
11
8
a,b a,b a,b
2 _a,b _a,b
6 -^ -^
4 .".b _a,b
6 -^ -^
6 -^ -^
6 -^ -^
6 -b -a'b
5 -b -a'b
2
13
18
15
19
22
22
21
17
3
12
17
15
19
20
22
21
16
2
12
16
14
18
19
19
19
15
3
13
18
16
13
13
13
13
13
16
43
41
42
43
49
51
47
42
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 11 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
151
154
250
18
19
30
7 -
7 -
12 la 0
24
24
28
23
22
31
21
20
26
11
12
22
71
72
134
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 11 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
121
130
158
17
18
21
4 _a,b _a,b
c a,b a,b
c a,b a,b
18
19
15
19
20
21
16
17
19
10
11
13
55
60
85
Males and Females
9 years and under
19 years and under
a Estimate is not
9,309
11,287
110
152
12
18
statistically reliable due to
b Value less than 0 . 5 , but
Note: Consumption amounts
Source: USDA, 1999a.

5 -b -a'b
7 -
small sample size reporting intake.
19
20

18
22

17
19

12
14

50
76

greater than 0.
shown are

representative of the first day of each participant's survey



response.







                                                                                                                                                                                                         s
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                         a
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                         b
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Si
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                         ri
^o
-------
                                                                                                                                                                 Q
1=
I
Table 11-14. Percentage of Individuals
Age Group
Sample
Size
Total
Beef
Lamb
Pork veal>
game
Consuming Meats and Eggs, by Sex and Age (%)
„ Fra
Organ
* s;
meats ,
rune
nkfurters,
lusages,
icon meats
Poultry
Total
Chicken
Eggs ,
Mixtures,
mainly
neat/poultry/
fish
Males and Females
Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
I to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
5 years and under
1,126
1,016
1,102
2,118
1,831
1,859
884
4,574
7,818
26.0
77.4
85.2
81.4
86.2
86.2
87.1
86.5
77.5
2.1
11.9
16.2
14.1
13.8
16.1
18.2
16.0
13.7
1.1"
7.3
14.9
11.2
13.3
13.8
13.2
13.4
11.2
0.2 a
0.8 a
0.8 a
0.8 a
0.5 a
0.5 a
0.6 a
0.5
0.6
0.2 a
0.2 a
0.2 a
0.2 a
a,b
0.2 a
0.2 a
0.2 a
0.2 a
6.1
26.3
33.2
29.9
36.4
37.0
35.1
36.1
30.4
6.3
24.0
27.6
25.8
28.3
27.4
21.1
27.8
24.5
5.0
23.1
25.6
24.4
26.0
25.1
24.8
25.3
22.6
6.7
22.8
27.3
25.1
19.8
16.9
16.4
17.7
18.9
13.7
32.2
31.4
31.8
29.2
30.5
30.8
30.2
28.8
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
87.4
87.8
86.8
20.1
22.0
24.2
11.9
12.2
15.8
0.4 a
0.4 a
0.6 a
O.la
0.2a
0.0
37.4
36.2
31.8
24.8
22.9
20.6
22.3
20.5
17.6
15.1
15.6
17.0
36.2
35.7
38.3
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
84.6
86.5
80.1
19.4
20.2
22.0
9.2
10.0
11.2
0.4 a
0.4 a
0.1 a
0.2 a
0.1 a
0.1 a
33.5
33.1
24.6
23.1
22.9
21.6
20.2
19.8
18.9
13.4
13.3
15.0
32.4
32.8
34.0
Males and Females
9 years and under
19 years and under
a Estimate is not
9,309
11,287
80.9
82.8
statistically reliable
b Value less tlmn 0.5, but
Note: Percentages shown are
Source: USDA, I999a.

16.1
19.6
due to
10.9
12.1
0.5
0.4
0.2 a
0.1 a
24.3
22.7
24.3
22.7
22.0
20.1
17.1
16.4
31.0
33.3
small sample size reporting intake.
greater than 0.
representative of the first day



of each participant's survey response.







                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I
S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
-------
   I
    ri
    1=
Table 11-15. Mean Quantities of Dairy Products Consumed Daily by Sex and Age, Per Capita (g/day)
Age Group
c , Total Milk -
Sample , , ,.,.
„ . and Milk
Size „ , .
Products
Milk, Milk Drinks, Yogurt
Total
Fluid Milk
Total Whole Lowfat
,r_ ^ D
logun
Skim
Milk
ssserts
Cheese
Males and Females
Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
1 to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
5 years and under
1,126
1,016
1,102
2,118
1,831
1,859
884
4,574
7,818
762
546
405
474
419
407
417
414
477
757
526
377
450
384
369
376
376
447
61
475
344
408
347
328
330
335
327
49
347
181
262
166
147
137
150
177
11
115
141
128
150
149
159
153
127
a,b
5a
17
11
26
27
25
26
18
4
14
10
12
10
10
9
10
10
3
11
16
14
22
23
25
23
18
1
9
11
10
12
14
14
13
11
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
450
450
409
405
402
358
343
335
303
127
121
99
176
172
158
29
33
40
6
6
3a
31
35
29
13
12
19
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
380
382
269
337
336
220
288
283
190
105
108
66
146
136
92
26
29
30
4
4
4a
29
30
29
13
14
14
Males and Females
9 years and under
19 years and under
a Estimate is not
9,309
11,287
statistically
453
405
reliable due
417
362
323
291
153
121
to small sample size reporting
141
135
intake.
22
29

8
6

23
27

12
14

b Value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Note: Consumption amounts shown are representative of the first
Source: USDA, 1999a.




day of each participant's



survey response.





                                                                                                                                                                                                         s
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                         a



                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
8


b
Si
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                         ri
^o
-------
1=

I

Age Group
Table
11-16. Percentage of Individuals Consuming Dairy Products, by Sex and Age (%)
Sample Total Milk
Size Milk Produ

ind
cts Total
Milk, milk drinks, yogurt
Fluid Milk
Total Whole
Lowfat
Skim
Yogurt
Milk
Desserts
Cheese
Males and Females
Under 1 year
I year
2 years
I to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
5 years and under
1,126
1,016
1,102
2,118
1,831
1,859
884
4,574
7,818
85.4
95.3
91.6
93.4
94.3
93.2
93.1
93.5
92.5
84.6
92.7
87.3
90.0
88.3
87.8
86.4
87.5
88.0
11.1
87.7
84.3
86.0
84.6
85.0
81.2
83.6
75.7
8.3
61.7
44.8
53.0
42.5
41.3
38.1
40.6
41.0
2
26
36
31
39
40
41
40
32
4
.5
.3
.5
.5
.4
.7
.6
.9
0.2a
1.5a
5.2
3.4
6.8
7.7
6.5
7.0
4.9
3.1
10.0
6.8
8.4
7.3
5.8
5.5
6.2
6.6
4.5
13.9
17.5
15.8
21.4
21.7
21.4
21.5
17.5
6.0
29.7
32.6
31.2
37.0
36.9
34.9
36.3
30.9
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 11 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
93.2
92.3
81.3
85.5
84.6
65.8
80.7
79.0
59.6
32.4
30.8
22.6
44
43
30
.3
.1
.7
8.6
9.5
7.0
3.8
3.7
1.7a
24.0
25.0
13.6
34.6
32.3
37.1
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
90.2
90.2
75.4
82.5
81.5
54.0
77.5
76.0
49.7
31.5
33.2
17.5
40
37
23
.8
.8
.9
8.1
8.4
9.5
2.9
3.0
2.2a
24.1
22.4
17.1
30.9
31.9
36.1
Males and Females
9 years and under
19 years and under
a Estimate is not
9,309
11,287
statistically
92.2
86.7
86.4
75.6
77.1
68.1
reliable due to small sample size reporting
Note: Percentages shown are representative
Source: USDA, I999a.


of the first day

37.4
30.1
intake.
of each participant's survey


36
33

.8
.1

6.3
7.5

5.3
3.8

20.1
18.6

31.7
33.5

response.






                                                                                                                                                                                                   Q     |
                                                                                                                                                                                                   &      ^Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                  "«      S
                                                                                                                                                                                                   w*.      5
-------
   I
    ri
    1=
Table 11-17. Quantity (as consumed) of Meat and Dairy Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days
Quantity
2 to
5 years old

Male and Female
(N = 2,109)
Food category PC
Mean
SE
consumed per eating occasion (grams)
6 to
1 1 years old
12 to 19 years old
Male and Female
(N= 1,432)
PC
Mean
SE
PC
Male
(N = 696)
Mean


SE


PC
Female
(N = 702)
Mean


SE
Meats
Beefsteaks 11.1
Beef roasts 5.2
Ground beef 59.5
Ham 6.9
Pork chops 11.0
Bacon 10.4
Pork breakfast sausage 5 . 3
Frankfurters and luncheon meats 51.7
Total chicken and turkey 63.8
Chicken 44.6
Turkey 5.1
58
49
31
35
48
15
33
49
46
52
63
4
5
1
4
3
1
2
1
1
1
7
11.3
4.8
63.7
8.5
10.1
9.7
6.0
50.9
53.8
36.0
5.7
87
67
41
40
62
19
32
57
62
70
66
9
7
1
4
4
2
3
2
2
3
5
9.5
5.1
73.4
11.6
11.6
14.9
6.3
46.7
58.4
34.3
8.2
168
233a
66
68
100
25
40a
76
100
117
117
14
149a
3
7
8
2
4a
3
4
5
14
9.4
5.5
61.5
9.9
8.5
11.1
3.3
38.5
54.1
36.1
5.8
112
97a
52
40
72
18
40a
57
71
80
60a
10
16a
3
5
7
1
5a
3
2
3
9a
Dairy Products
Fluid milk (all) 92.5
Fluid milk consumed with cereal 68. 1
Whole milk 50.0
Whole milk consumed with cereal 33.8
Lowfatmilk 47.5
Lowfat milk consumed with cereal 31.5
Skim milk 7.8
Skim milk consumed with cereal 4 . 9
Cheese, other than cream or cottage 53.2
Ice cream and ice milk 18.4
Boiled, poached, and baked eggs 8.0
Fried eggs 17.3
Scrambled eggs 10.4
196
149
202
161
189
136
171
131
24
92
36
48
59
3
4
3
5
3
4
9
11
1
3
3
1
4
89.2
64.7
39.5
26.2
52.8
32.7
11.1
7.5
50.4
21.1
8.2
14.0
7.1
a Indicates a statistic that is potentially unreliable because of small sample
PC = Percent consuming at least once in 2
SEM = Standard error of the mean.
days

Source: Smiciklas-Wright et al, 2002 (based on 1994-1996


CSFII


data).
241
202
244
212
238
198
225
188
29
135
34
58
72
size or large



4
5
7
11
4
4
9
14
1
4
3
2
5
72.3
44.4
30.0
14.8
39.6
24.3
9.7
6.5
61.1
14.2
5.0
14.9
7.1
337
276
333
265
326
Til
375
285a
38
221
44a
83
72
8
10
13
18
8
12
38
23a
2
12
9a
5
5
64.4
42.7
22.4
14.1
32.4
21.1
13.5
8.3
53.9
15.2
7.7
13.5
8.9
262
222
258
235
262
227
255
181
27
187
45
59
103
8
8
7
13
13
12
14
13
1
14
7
3
9
coefficient of variation.





















                                                                                                                                                                                                         s
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                         a



                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
8


b
Si
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                         ri
^o
-------
1=

I
Table 11-17. Quantity (as consumed) of Meat and Dairy Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days (continued)
Quantity consumed per eating occasion (j
20 to 39 years old
Male
(N=l,543)
Food category PC Mean
Female
(N=l,449)
SE PC
Mean
SE
;rams)


40 to 59 years old
Male
(N= 1,663)
PC
Mean



60 years and older
Female Male Female
(N=l,694 ) (N= 1,545) (N=l,429)
SE PC
Mean
SE PC
Mean
SE PC
Mean SE
Meats
Beefsteaks 17.1 202
Beefroasts 6.9 132
Ground beef 65.3 80
Ham 10.8 78
Pork chops 12.8 117
Bacon 14.1 26
Pork breakfast sausage 6.6 57
Frankfurters and luncheon meats 46.2 88
Total chicken and turkey 57.3 112
Chicken 37.1 122
Turkey 6.8 131
20 11.8
14 5.8
4 51.5
7 9.7
8 12.5
1 12.4
4 5.1
6 35.6
4 57.8
3 35.5
21 5.6
121
85
52
47
71
18
37
61
78
92
76
8
8
2
4
4
1
3
2
2
3
6
18.3
9.9
50.0
13.5
14.3
17.5
6.6
44.9
56.8
34.5
8.5
159
119
82
68
108
22
48
79
111
124
115
7 10.7
8 9.6
3 44.6
5 12.2
6 13.0
1 14.8
4 5.8
2 34.3
4 58.7
4 36.0
12 8.8
117
74
57
50
67
18
38
59
80
87
81
6 13.4
5 11.7
2 40.7
4 15.2
4 16.4
1 20.6
4 10.7
2 41.6
2 53.8
2 32.1
8 7.7
129
102
73
56
89
19
48
62
87
99
80
7 9.5
6 8.8
3 36.2
3 14.4
3 13.1
1 17.4
4 5.5
2 33.9
3 57.8
3 34.0
7 7.2
95 6
80 4
62 3
45 3
62 3
16 1
34 3
51 2
71 2
79 2
77 7
Dairy Products
Fluid milk (all) 58.0 291
Fluid milk consumed with cereal 26.9 275
Whole milk 22.9 278
Whole milk consumed with cereal 7.9 272
Lowfat milk 29.4 298
Lowfat milk consumed with cereal 14.0 284
Skim milk 9.3 318
Skim milk consumed with cereal 5.6 260
Cheese, other than cream or cottage 63.8 39
Ice cream and ice milk 14.7 200
Boiled, poached, and baked eggs 9.4 50
Fried eggs 15.2 86
Scrambled eggs 10.7 89
9 61.3
12 32.4
11 22.4
16 8.7
15 29.4
22 15.2
13 15.5
12 9.3
2 52.6
2 13.6
4 10.4
2 14.6
4 7.8
209
198
202
216
198
181
235
207
30
136
39
61
74
6
5
10
14
7
5
11
10
1
6
3
3
3
a Indicates a statistic that is potentially unreliable because of small sample size or large
PC = Percent consuming at least once in 2 days
SEM = Standard error of the mean.
60.5
30.1
20.3
6.2
31.2
16.1
15.1
8.7
48.3
18.0
12.0
20.9
11.1
coeffic
238
211
223
216
242
212
244
197
36
173
45
83
83
6 60.2
7 30.2
15 19.0
16 6.1
7 27.7
10 13.1
12 19.2
11 11.8
1 46.3
6 14.2
3 14.2
2 17.5
3 8.0
169
166
142
183
159
151
193
173
29
141
38
60
66
5 73.9
5 48.1
7 22.3
10 10.1
5 40.2
7 26.5
7 17.7
7 12.4
1 40.9
8 22.7
2 15.7
2 24.6
3 12.0
189
170
188
177
189
165
186
174
33
138
45
70
73
5 71.6
5 46.6
9 19.7
10 9.9
5 37.8
5 24.4
9 21.6
9 14.2
2 35.4
5 18.9
3 16.1
2 18.3
4 9.3
154 4
140 6
137 8
156 13
161 6
134 5
154 9
135 9
26 1
107 4
39 2
56 2
64 5
ient of variation.
Source: Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002 (based on 1994-1996 CSFII data).
                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                        I
s
a-
      I
                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-18. Consumption of Milk, Yogurt and Cheese: Median Daily Servings (and Ranges) by
Demographic and Health Characteristics
Subiect Characteristic
Gender
Female
Male
Ethnicity
African American
European American
Native American
Ase
70 to 74
75 to 79
80 to 84
85+
Marital Status
Married
Not Married
Education
8th grade or less
9th to 12th grades
> High School
Dentures
Yes
No
Chronic Diseases
0
1
2
3
4+
Weight3
<130
131 to 150
151 to 170
171 to 190
>191
a Two missing values.
Source: Vitolins et al., 2002.
N

80
50

44
47
39

42
36
36
16

49
81

37
47
46

83
47

7
31
56
26
10

18
32
27
22
29


Milk, Yosurt and Cheese

1.6 (0.2 - 5.6)
1.5(0.3-7.4)

1.9(0.2-4.5)
1.6 (0.2 - 5.6)
1.3(0.5-7.4)

1.8(0.3-7.4)
1.6 (0.2 - 5.6)
1.4(0.2-4.5)
1.6 (0.2 - 3.8)

1.5(0.2-7.4)
1.7 (0.2 - 5.4)

1.8 (0.2 - 5.4)
1.6 (0.2 - 5.6)
1.4(0.3-7.4)

1.5(0.2-7.4)
1.6 (0.3 - 5.6)

2.0(0.8-4.5)
1.8 (0.3 - 5.6)
1.6(0.2-7.4)
1.2(0.2-4.8)
1.5(0.5-4.5)

1.3 (0.3 - 5.4)
1.6 (0.5 - 5.6)
1.8(0.2-4.5)
1.6 (0.2 - 3.7)
1.5(0.2-7.4)


Page
11-32
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-19.

Gender
Male
Female
Age of Child
4 to 6 months
7 to 8 months
9 to 1 1 months
12 to 14 months
1 5 to 18 months
19 to 24 months
Child's Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Non-Hispanic or Latino
Missing
Child's Race
White
Black
Other
Urbanicity
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Missing
Household Income
Under $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 and Over
Missing
Receives WIC
Yes
No
Missing
Sample Size (Unweighted)
Characteristics of the FITS Sample Population
Sample Size

1,549
1,473

862
483
679
374
308
316

367
2,641
14

2,417
225
380

1,389
1,014
577
42

48
48
221
359
723
588
311
272
452

821
2,196
5
3,022

Percentage of Sample

51.3
48.7

28.5
16.0
22.5
12.4
10.2
10.4

12.1
87.4
0.5

80.0
7.4
12.6

46.0
33.6
19.1
1.3

1.6
1.6
7.3
11.9
23.9
19.5
10.3
9.0
14.9

27.2
72.6
0.2
100.0
WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Source: Devaney et al., 2004.


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-33
-------
                                                                              Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
                 Table 1 1-20. Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Meat or Other Protein Sources
                   Food Group/Food
                                                      Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a
                                                                                 Day
                                                        4 to 6     7 to 8    9 to 11    12tol4
                                                       months   months   months    months
                  15tol8   19 to 24
                  months   months
 Cow's Milk                                              0.8       2.9      20.3      84.8      88.3      87.7
  Whole                                                 0.5       2.4      15.1      68.8      71.1      58.8
  Reduce-fat or non-fat                                    0.3       0.5       5.3      17.7      20.7      38.1
  Unfavored                                             0.8       2.9      19.5      84.0      87.0      86.5
  Flavored                                               0.0       0.0       0.9       1.8       4.4       5.6
 Soy Milk                                                0.0       0.5       1.7       1.5       3.9       3.8
 Any Meat or Protein Source                              14.2       54.9      79.2      91.3      92.7      97.2
  BabyFoodMeat                                        1.7       4.0       3.1       1.1       0.0       0.0
  Non-baby Food Meat                                    1.5       8.4      33.7      60.3      76.3      83.7
  Other Protein Sources                                    2.7       9.7      36.1      59.2      66.8      68.9
  Dried Beans and Peas, Vegetarian Meat Substitutes           0.6       1.3       3.3       7.0       6.6       9.9
  Eggs                                                   0.7       2.9       7.3      17.0      25.0      25.2
  Peanut Butter, Nuts, and Seeds                            0.0       0.5       1.9       8.8       11.6      10.4
  Cheese                                                0.4       2.1      18.5      34.0      39.1      41.1
  Yogurt                                                 1.2       4.1      15.7      14.9      20.2      15.3
  Protein Sources in Mixed Dishes                          11.0       43.3      46.2      30.1      25.5      20.5
  Baby Food Dinners                                      9.5       39.8      33.5      10.2      2.4       1.3
  Beans and Rice, Chilli, Other Bean Mixtures                0.0       0.0       0.9       1.2       2.1       2.0
  Mixtures with Vegetables and/or Rice/Pasta                 0.9       1.2       4.7       8.2       9.0       7.8
  Soupa                                                  0.9       3.4      10.1      12.5      13.8      11.5
 Types of Meatb
  Beef                                                   0.9       2.6       7.7      16.1      16.3      19.3
  Chicken or Turkey                                       2.0       7.3      22.4      33.0      46.9      47.3
  Fish and Shellfish                                       0.0       0.5       1.9       5.5       8.7       7.1
  Hotdogs, Sausages, and Cold cuts                         0.0       2.1       7.1      16.4      20.1      27.0
  Pork/Ham                                              0.3       1.7       4.0       9.7       11.2      13.9
  Other                                                  0.3       0.6       2.5       2.8       2.1       3.9
 a        The amount of protein actually provided by soups varies. Soups could not be sorted reliably into different food groups
         because all soups were assigned the same two-digit food code and many food descriptions lacked detail about major
         soup ingredients.
 b        Includes baby food and non-baby food sources.
 Source:  Fox etal., 2004.
Page
11-34
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
                         Table 11-21. Characteristics of WIC Participants and Non-participants" (Percentages)
                                  Infants 4 to 6 months
                                                                Infants 7 to 11 months
                                                                                               Toddlers 12 to 24 months
                                 WIC
                              Participant
                                      Non-
                                    participant
  WIC
Participant
  Non-
participant
  WIC
Participant
  Non-
participant
 Gender
  Male                            55
  Female                          45

 Child's Ethnicity

  Hispanic or Latino                 20
  Non-Hispanic or Latino             80

 Child's Race

  White                           69
  Black                           15
  Other                           22

 Child In Day Care

  Yes                             39
  No                              61

 Age of Mother

  14 to 19 years                     18
  20 to 24 years                     33
  25 to 29 years                     29
  30 to 34 years                     9
  35 years or Older                  9
  Missing                         2

 Mother's Education

  11th Grade or Less                 23
  Completed High School             35
  Some Postsecondary               33
  Completed College                7
  Missing                         2

 Parent's Marital Status

  Married                         49
  Not Married                      50
  Missing                         1

 Mother or Female Guardian Works

  Yes                             46
  No                              53
  Missing                         1

 Urbanicity

  Urban                           34
  Suburban                        36
  Rural                            28
  Missing                         2
  Sample Size (Unweighted)         265
                                        54
                                        46
                                        84
                                        4
                                        11
                                       38
                                       62
                                        1
                                        13
                                        29
                                        33
                                        23
                                        2
                                        2
                                        19
                                        26
                                        53
                                        1
                                       93
                                        7
                                        1
                                        51
                                        48
                                        1
                                        55
                                        31
                                        13
                                         1
                                       597
   55
   45
                                                       24
                                                       76
   63
   17
   20
   34
   66
    13
    38
    23
    15
    11
    1
    15
    42
    32
    9
    2
   57
   42
    1
   45
   54
    1
    37
    31
    30
     2
   351
    51
    49
                                                                       92
    86
    5
    9
   46
   54
    1
    11
    30
    36
    21
    1
    2
   20
   27
   51
    0
   93
    7
    0
   60
   40
    0
    50
    34
    15
     1
   57
   43
                                   22
                                   78
   67
   13
   20
   43
   57
    9
   33
   29
   18
   11
    0
    17
    42
    31
    9
    1
   58
   41
    1
   55
   45
    0
    35
    35
    28
     2
   205
    52
    48
                                                                                                      10
    84
    5
    11
    53
    47
    1
    14
    26
    34
    26
    1
    3
    19
    28
    48
    2
    11
    1
   61
   38
    1
    48
    35
    16
     2
   791
 WIC
X2 test were conducted to test for statistical significance in the differences between WIC participants and non-participants within each
age group for each variable. The results of X2 test are listed next to the variable under the column labeled non-participants for each of
the three age groups.
=P<0.05; non-participants significantly different from WIC participants on the variable.
=P>0.01; non-participants significantly different from WIC participants on the variable.
= Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
 Source:  Ponza et al., 2004.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                                         Page
                                                                                                        11-35
-------
                                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                   Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table


Cow's Milk
Meat or Other Protein Sources
Baby Food Meat
Non-Baby Meat
Eggs
Peanut Butter, Nuts, Seeds
Cheese
Yogurt
Sample Size (unweighted)
1 1-22. Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC
Infants 4 to 6 months
WIC Non-
Participant participant
1.0 0.6

0.9 2.0
3.7 0.5**
0.9 0.6
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.6
0.8 1.4
265 597
Infants 7 to
WIC
Participant
11.4

3.3
25.0
8.5
1.4
9.0
5.5
351
Darticipation Status
1 1 months
Non-
participant
13.2

3.6
22.0
4.2**
1.3
12.5
13.3**
808
Toddlers 12 to
WIC
Participant
92.3

0.0
77.7
24.1
12.9
38.5
9.3
205
24 months
Non-
participant
85.8*

0.3
75.1
23.0
9.8
38.8
18.9**
791
* = P<0.05; non-participants significantly different from WIC participants.
** = P<0.01; non-participants significantly different from WIC participants.
WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Source: Ponzaetal., 2004.





                Table 11-23. Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of
                                      Milk, Meats or Other Protein Sources on A Given Day
 Milk
 Fed Any Cow's or Goat Milk
 Fed Cow's Milk
   Whole
   Reduced Fat or Non-fat
 Meat or Other Protein Sources
  Any Meat or Protein Source"
  Non-Baby Food Meat
  Other Protein Sources
   Beans and Peas
   Eggs
   Cheese
   Yogurt
  Protein Sources in Mixed Dishes
   Baby Food dinners
   Soupb
 Types of Meat8
                                            Age 4 to 5 months
                              Age 6 to 11 months
                                           Age 12 to 24 months
Hispanic
(N=84)
Non-Hispanic
(N=538)
Hispanic
(N=163)
Non-Hispanic
(N=l,228)
Hispanic
(N=124)
Non-Hispanic
(N=871)
9.7f

1.4f
1.4f
7.5f
6.9f
               5.3
4.4
3.9
  7.5f

  5.6f
  2.2f

 71.6
 22.5
 26.5
 5.8f
  9.5
 11.2
  7.7
 44.8
24.7*
16.3**
11.3

 8.3
 3.0

62.0
19.2
21.2
 1.8
 4.2
 9.4
 9.8
41.6
35.3
 5.1
 85.6

 61.7
 29.0

 90.3
 72.3
 70.1
19.1*
 26.4
 29.3
 15.7
 33.3
 3.5f
23.4*
87.7

66.3
27.0

94.7
76.0
65.3
 6.5
22.5
40.2
17.0
22.7
 3.9
10.7
Beef
Chicken and Turkey
Hotdogs, Sausages, and Cold Cuts
Pork/Ham
5.0f
11.2
7.2f
3.8f
4.6
11.9
3.4
1.7
25.2
46.5
14.8
11.7
16.0
43.6
23.3
12.1
         Includes baby food and non-baby food sources.
         The amount of protein actually provided by soups varies.  Soups could not be sorted reliably into different food groups because many
         food descriptions lacked detail about major soup ingredients.
         = Less than 1 percent of the group consumed this food on a given day.
         = Significantly different from non-Hispanic at the P<0.05.
         = Significantly different from non-Hispanic at the P>0.01.
         = Statistic is potentially unreliable because of a high coefficient of variation.
         = Sample size.
 Source:  Mennella et al., 2006.
Page
11-36
                                           Exposure Factors Handbook
                                          	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-24. Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Meats and Dairy Products
Infants from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study
Food group
Non-baby food meats
Cheese
Scrambled eggs
Yoeurt
Babv food dinners
= Cell size was too small to g
N = Number of respondents.
SEM = Standard error of the mean
Source: Fox et al., 2006.
4 to 5 months
Reference Unit (N=624)

ounce
ounce
cup
ounce
ounce 2.9±0.24
generate a reliable estimate.
Commonly Consumed by
6 to 8 months 9 to 1 1 months
(N=708) (N=687)
Meani SEM
0.9±0.16 0.8±0.05
0.7±0.05
0.2±0.02
3.1±0.20
3.3±0.09 3.8±0.11

Table 11-25. Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Meats and Dairy Products Commonly Consumed by
Toddlers from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study
12 to 14 months
Food group
Milk
Milk
Milk, as a beverage
Milk, on cereal
Meats and other protein sources
All meats
Beef
Chicken or turkey, plain
Hot dogs, luncheon meats, sausages
Chicken, breaded8
Scrambled eggs
Peanut butter
Yogurt
Cheese
Reference Unit


fluid ounce
fluid ounce
fluid ounce
ounce
ounce
ounce
ounce
ounce
nugget
cup
tablespoon
ounce
ounce
(N=371)


5.6±0.14
5.7±0.14
3.4±0.37
1.2±0.06
0.8±0.08
1.3±0.10
1.3±0.13
1.5±0.14
2.4±0.22
0.2±0.02
0.7±0.08
3.4±0.19
0.8±0.05
15 to 18 months
(N=312)
Meani SEM

5.9±0.14
6.1±0.14
2.7±0.26
1.3±0.08
1.2±0.15
1.3±0.16
1.5±0.13
1.5±0.13
2.4±0.21
0.3±0.03
0.7±0.09
3.8±0.26
0.8±0.05
19 to 24 months
(N=320)


6.2±0.17
6.4±0.17
3.6±0.29
1.3±0.07
1.2±0.14
1.3±0.10
1.5±0.12
1.8±0.12
2.8±0.19
0.3±0.02
0.9±0.13
3.8±0.28
0.7±0.04
" Not included in total for all meats because weight includes breading.
N = Number of respondents.
SEM = Standard error of the mean.
Source: Fox et al., 2006.




Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-37
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-26. Total Fat Intake (Per capita; g/

Age Group"
Birth to <1 year
all


female
male
N
1,422
728
694
Mean
29
28
30
SE
18
17
18
day)



Percentiles
10th
0
0
0
25th
19
18
20
50th
31
30
32
75th
40
39
40
95th
59
57
61
Max
107
92
107
Birth to <1 month



Ito



3 to



6 to



Ito


2 to


all
female
male
<3 months
all
female
male
<6 months
all
female
male
<12 months
all
female
male
<2 years
all
female
male
<3 years
all
female
male
88
50
38

245
110
135

411
223
188

678
345
333
1,002
499
503
994
494
500
17
19
15

22
20
23

28
27
30

33
32
34
46
45
46
51
49
52
16
15
18

18
16
19

17
17
18

17
17
16
19
18
20
21
20
21
0
0
0

0
0
0

0.1
0
0.2

8.5
5.1
11
24
25
23
27
24
29
0
0
0

0
0
0

20
16
22

25
24
25
33
33
32
37
35
39
19
18
19

27
24
28

31
29
31

34
33
34
43
43
44
48
46
50
32
29
31

34
33
34

39
38
39

43
43
44
55
54
56
60
59
61
52
39
43

47
45
55

52
51
50

62
62
62
79
77
80
87
83
89
64
52
64

75
50
75

107
74
107

100
92
100
159
116
159
197
127
197
3 to <6 years



6 to



11 to



all
female
male
<11 years
all
female
male
<16 years
all
female
male
4,112
2,018
2,094

1,553
742
811

975
493
482
59
56
61

68
64
72

80
69
91
22
21
23

24
22
25

38
29
42
34
33
35

41
38
43

42
37
50
44
43
45

50
48
55

56
49
64
56
54
59

66
61
70

74
65
84
70
68
72

81
77
86

97
82
111
99
96
103

111
101
115

145
123
163
218
194
218

179
156
179

342
259
342
Page
11-38
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-26. Total Fat
Age Group"
16to<21


21to<31


31to<41


41to<51


51to<61


61 to <71


71to<81


81+ years



years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male

all
female
male
N
743
372
371
1,412
682
730
1,628
781
847
1644
816
828
1,578
768
810
1,507
719
788
888
421
467

392
190
202
a Age groups are based on U.S.
Environmental Contaminants.
N
SE
Source:
= Sample size.
= Standard error.

Mean
85
79
92
84
65
103
83
64
101
78
63
93
73
58
88
66
53
78
60
51
68

57
49
64
SE
47
39
53
45
31
48
43
31
45
39
29
42
37
26
40
33
24
35
27
22
29

29
23
32
Intake (Per capita; g/day) (continued)
Percentiles
10th
37
35
41
36
30
50
36
29
49
36
31
46
31
27
39
29
26
37
28
27
34

24
22
31
EPA (2005) Guidance on Selecting



25th
54
49
57
53
43
68
52
42
69
50
43
63
46
39
57
42
36
53
41
37
48

36
32
43
Age Groups for

50th
76
75
77
76
59
93
74
58
96
70
59
87
66
56
82
60
49
73
55
49
67

54
48
61
Monitoring

75th
108
96
114
104
81
125
106
79
127
99
78
119
90
73
110
80
68
98
72
62
86

69
64
82
95th
168
154
186
164
126
181
162
121
190
153
114
166
137
104
156
123
96
138
104
86
114

102
84
106
Max
463
317
463
445
201
445
376
228
376
267
208
267
306
165
306
235
184
235
201
158
201

227
132
227
and Assessing Childhood Exposures to



Based on U.S. EPA, 2007.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-39
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-27. Total Fat Intake (Per capita; g/kg-day)

Age Group8
Birth to <1 year
all


female
male
N
1,422
728
694
Mean
4.0
4.1
4.0
SE
2.8
2.8
2.8
Percentiles
10th
0
0
0
25th
2.3
2.4
2.3
50th
4.1
4.3
4.0
75th
5.6
5.8
5.5
95th
8.9
8.7
9.2
Max
20
18
20
Birth to <1 month



Ito



3 to



6 to



Ito


2 to


3 to


6 to



11 to



all
female
male
<3 months
all
female
male
<6 months
all
female
male
<12 months
all
female
male
<2 years
all
female
male
<3 years
all
female
male
<6 years
all
female
male
<11 years
all
female
male
<16 years
all
female
male
88
50
38

245
110
135

411
223
188

678
345
333
1,002
499
503
994
494
500
4,112
2,018
2,094

1,553
742
811

975
493
482
5.2
5.9
4.3

4.5
4.3
4.7

4.1
4.2
4.1

3.7
3.7
3.6
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.5

2.6
2.4
2.7

1.6
1.4
1.8
4.9
4.6
5.3

3.8
3.6
3.9

2.7
2.8
2.5

1.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.4

1.1
1.0
1.1

0.8
0.7
0.9
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

1.0
0.7
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.9

1.3
1.3
1.4

0.8
0.7
0.9
0
0
0

0
0
0

2.4
2.3
2.6

2.7
2.8
2.6
2.8
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4

1.7
1.6
1.8

1.1
0.9
1.2
5.7
6.2
4.7

4.9
4.8
4.9

4.3
4.5
4.1

3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.2

2.3
2.2
2.4

1.4
1.3
1.6
9.1
8.4
9.7

6.8
6.5
7.0

5.7
6.0
5.5

4.8
5.0
4.6
4.7
5.0
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.1

3.0
2.8
3.1

2.0
1.7
2.1
16
13
18

12
11
10

8.2
8.2
8.2

7.0
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.9
7.2
6.4
6.6
6.1
5.8
5.8
5.8

4.2
4.0
4.4

3.0
2.6
3.3
20
16
20

18
14
18

18
18
16

11
9.8
11
12
9.7
12
12
10
12
11
11
11

9.9
7.7
9.9

5.7
5.0
5.7
Page
11-40
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-27. Total Fat Intake (Per capita; g/kg-day) (continued)
Age Group8
16to<21


21to<31


31to<41


41to<51


51to<61


61 to <71


71to<81


81+ years


a
N
SE
Source:
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
all
female
male
N
743
372
371
1,412
682
730
1,628
781
847
1,644
816
828
1,578
768
810
1,507
719
788
888
421
467
392
190
202
Age groups are based on U.S.
Environmental Contaminants.
= Sample size.
= Standard error.

Mean
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
SE
0.66
0.56
0.73
0.61
0.52
0.66
0.55
0.52
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.53
0.46
0.38
0.50
0.43
0.39
0.45
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.43
0.39
0.47
Percentiles
10th
0.54
0.48
0.63
0.53
0.44
0.63
0.49
0.45
0.59
0.48
0.43
0.53
0.42
0.39
0.47
0.40
0.36
0.46
0.40
0.39
0.42
0.37
0.35
0.39
25th
0.81
0.75
0.85
0.72
0.65
0.85
0.69
0.61
0.85
0.66
0.61
0.72
0.61
0.56
0.65
0.55
0.50
0.61
0.56
0.53
0.61
0.56
0.54
0.56
EPA (2005) Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for




50th
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.86
0.79
0.95
0.79
0.74
0.87
0.78
0.72
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
75th
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
95th
2.7
2.1
2.9
2.3
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
2.3
1.9
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
Max
6.0
4.4
6.0
7.3
3.7
7.3
4.7
4.7
4.3
4.4
2.9
4.4
3.8
2.4
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.2
2.6
3.7
2.1
3.7
Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to




Based on U.S. EPA, 2007.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-41
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-28. Total Fat Intake (Consumers Only; g/day)
Age Group8
Birth to <1 year
all
female
male
Birth to <1 month
all
female
male
1 to <3 months
all
female
male
3 to <6 months
all
female
male
6 to < 12 months
all
female
male
1 to <2 year
all
female
male
2 to <3 years
all
female
male
3 to <6 years
all
female
male
6 to <11 years
all
female
male
11 to <16 years
all
female
male
N
1,301
664
637

59
37
22

182
79
103

384
205
179

676
343
333
1,002
499
503
994
494
500
4,112
2,018
2,094

1,553
742
811

975
493
482
Mean
31
30
32

26
26
25

29
28
31

30
29
31

33
32
34
46
45
46
51
49
52
59
56
61

68
64
72

80
69
91
SE
16
16
16

13
11
17

14
12
16

16
16
17

16
17
16
19
18
20
21
20
21
22
21
23

24
22
25

38
29
42
Percentiles
10th
7.0
5.1
9.0

6.7
7.8
-

5.8
4.3
8.5

2.5
1.2
4.6

8.9
6.2
11
24
25
23
27
24
29
34
33
35

41
38
43

42
37
50
25th
24
24
25

17
17
-

24
21
27

24
24
25

25
24
25
33
33
32
37
35
39
44
43
45

50
48
55

56
49
64
50th
32
32
33

27
25
-

31
30
31

32
31
33

34
34
34
43
43
44
48
46
50
56
54
59

66
61
70

74
65
84
75th
41
40
41

32
32
-

35
35
38

40
39
39

43
43
44
55
54
56
60
59
61
70
68
72

81
77
86

97
82
111
95th
61
58
62

52
39
-

53
46
59

54
52
53

62
62
62
79
77
80
87
83
89
99
96
103

111
101
115

145
123
163
Max
107
92
107

64
52
64

75
50
75

107
72
107

100
92
100
159
116
159
197
127
197
218
194
218

179
156
179

342
259
342
Page
11-42
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-28. Total Fat Intake (Consumers Only; g/day) (continued)
Age Group8
16to<21


21to<31


31to<41


41to<51


51to<61


61 to <71


71to<81


81+ years


years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
all
female
male
N Mean
743
372
371
1,412
682
730
1,628
781
847
1,644
816
828
1,578
768
810
1,507
719
788
888
421
467
392
190
202
85
79
92
84
65
103
83
64
101
78
63
93
73
58
88
66
53
78
60
51
68
57
49
64
SE
47
39
53
45
31
48
43
31
45
39
29
42
37
26
40
33
24
35
27
22
29
29
23
32
Percentiles
10th
37
35
41
36
30
50
36
29
49
36
31
46
31
27
39
29
26
37
28
27
34
24
22
31
25th
54
49
57
53
43
68
52
42
69
50
43
63
46
39
57
42
36
53
41
37
48
36
32
43
a Age groups are based on U.S. EPA (2005) Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for
to Environmental Contaminants.
N
SE
Source:
50th
76
75
77
76
59
93
74
58
96
70
59
87
66
56
82
60
49
73
55
49
67
54
48
61
75th
108
96
114
104
81
125
106
79
127
99
78
119
90
73
110
80
68
98
72
62
86
69
64
82
95th
168
154
186
164
126
181
162
121
190
153
114
166
137
104
156
123
96
138
104
86
114
102
84
106
Max
463
317
463
445
201
445
376
228
376
267
208
267
306
165
306
235
184
235
201
158
201
227
132
227
Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures
= Percentiles were not calculated for sample sizes less than 30.
= Sample size.
= Standard error.
Based on U.S.
EPA, 2007.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-43
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-29. Total Fat Intake (Consumers Only;

Age Group8
Birth to <1 year
all


female
male
N
1,301
664
637
Mean
4.4
4.5
4.3
SE
2.6
2.6
2.6
g/kg-day)



Percentiles
10th
0.94
0.67
1.2
25th
2.9
3.1
2.8
50th
4.3
4.5
4.1
75th
5.8
6.0
5.6
95th
9.2
8.9
9.3
Max
20
18
20
Birth to <1 month



Ito



3 to



6 to



Ito


2 to


3 to


6 to



all
female
male
<3 months
all
female
male
<6 months
all
female
male
<12 months
all
female
male
<2 years
all
female
male
<3 years
all
female
male
<6 years
all
female
male
<11 years
all
female
male
59
37
22

182
79
103

384
205
179

676
343
333
1,002
499
503
994
494
500
4,112
2,018
2,094

1,553
742
811
7.8
8.0
7.4

6.0
5.9
6.1

4.4
4.5
4.3

3.7
3.7
3.6
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.5

2.6
2.4
2.7
4.1
3.5
4.9

3.1
2.9
3.3

2.5
2.6
2.4

1.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.4

1.1
1.0
1.1
1.4
2.0
-

1.0
0.80
1.8

0.35
0.14
0.57

1.0
0.75
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.9

1.3
1.3
1.4
5.4
5.3
-

4.1
4.3
4.1

3.1
3.1
3.1

2.7
2.8
2.6
2.8
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4

1.7
1.6
1.8
8.0
7.7
-

6.0
6.0
6.0

4.5
4.7
4.2

3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.2

2.3
2.2
2.4
9.7
9.1
-

7.8
7.7
7.8

5.8
6.1
5.6

4.8
5.0
4.6
4.7
5.0
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.1

3.0
2.8
3.1
16
13
-

12
12
12

8.3
8.2
8.8

7.0
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.9
7.2
6.4
6.6
6.1
5.8
5.8
5.8

4.2
4.0
4.4
20
16
20

18
14
18

18
18
16

11
9.8
11
12
9.7
12
12
10
12
11
11
11

9.9
7.7
9.9
11 to <16 years



all
female
male
975
493
482
1.6
1.4
1.8
0.80
0.69
0.86
0.77
0.67
0.88
1.1
0.91
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.6
2.0
1.7
2.1
3.0
2.6
3.3
5.7
5.0
5.7
Page
11-44
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-29 Total Fat Intake (Consumers Only; g/kg-day) (continued)
Age Group8
16to<21


21to<31


31to<41


41to<51


51to<61


61 to <71


71to<81


81+ years


a
N
SE
Source:
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
all
female
male
N
743
372
371
1,412
682
730
1,628
781
847
1,644
816
828
1,578
768
810
1,507
719
788
888
421
467
392
190
202
Age groups are based on U.S.
Environmental Contaminants
Mean
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.1
0.98
1.2
1.0
0.92
1.1
0.94
0.83
1.0
0.88
0.79
0.95
0.82
0.77
0.87
0.86
0.83
0.89
SE
0.66
0.56
0.73
0.61
0.52
0.66
0.55
0.52
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.53
0.46
0.38
0.50
0.43
0.39
0.45
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.43
0.39
0.47
Percentiles
10th
0.54
0.48
0.63
0.53
0.44
0.63
0.49
0.45
0.59
0.48
0.43
0.53
0.42
0.39
0.47
0.40
0.36
0.46
0.40
0.39
0.42
0.37
0.35
0.39
25th
0.81
0.75
0.85
0.72
0.65
0.85
0.69
0.61
0.85
0.66
0.61
0.72
0.61
0.56
0.65
0.55
0.50
0.61
0.56
0.53
0.61
0.56
0.54
0.56
EPA (2005) Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for
= Percentiles were not calculated for sample sizes
= Sample size.
= Standard error.
Based on U.S.
EPA, 2007.


less than 30.



50th
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.93
1.2
1.0
0.91
1.2
0.94
0.86
1.0
0.86
0.79
0.95
0.79
0.74
0.87
0.78
0.72
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
75th
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.1
0.99
1.2
1.0
0.95
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
95th
2.7
2.1
2.9
2.3
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
2.3
1.9
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
Max
6.0
4.4
6.0
7.3
3.7
7.3
4.7
4.7
4.3
4.4
2.9
4.4
3.8
2.4
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.2
2.6
3.7
2.1
3.7
Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-45
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-30. Total Fat Intake - Top 10% of Animal
Age Group8
N
Mean
SE
Fat Consumers (Consumers Only; g/day)
Percentiles
10th
25th
50th
75th
95th
Max
Birth to <1 year



1 to<



all
female
male
C2 years
all
female
male
140
70
70

109
54
55
45
45
45

75
68
81
16
15
17

20
16
22
28
26
28

52
52
54
35
35
34

61
57
67
45
45
44

74
70
78
54
54
53

85
78
90
77
69
79

108
89
125
100
92
100

159
114
159
2 to <3 years



3to<



all
female
male
'.6 years
all
female
male
103
58
45

461
217
244
79
77
81

88
84
92
20
16
24

25
24
25
55
55
52

62
59
66
64
65
61

72
68
76
74
74
73

84
80
90
85
79
90

102
95
103
116
109
121

135
130
136
133
116
133

218
194
218
6 to <11 years



11 to
16 to

11 to



21 to



31 to



41 to



all
female
male
<16 years
all
<21 years
all
<21 years
all
female
male
<31 years
all
female
male
<41 years
all
female
male
<51 years
all
female
male
198
71
127
96

68

165
53
112

150
44
106

148
48
100

166
49
117
94
88
97
133

167

146
117
160

151
115
166

147
120
160

137
110
148
25
21
27
53

64

60
30
65

55
31
56

51
33
53

42
30
41
66
58
69
85

98

90
81
94

97
80
107

93
79
110

88
72
106
77
70
78
95

122

105
92
117

113
97
128

110
93
125

110
86
119
88
86
91
121

154

139
111
151

139
108
161

135
106
149

136
103
142
105
100
112
154

189

168
140
191

173
131
177

172
132
201

156
130
166
140
123
168
223

278

254
162
276

236
160
254

352
160
352

208
150
218
178
156
178
342

463

463
195
463

445
201
445

376
228
376

267
208
267
Page
11-46
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-30. Total Fat Intake
Age Group8
51to<61



61to<71



71 to <81

81+ years

71+ years


years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all

all
all
female
male
N Mean

183
39
144

168
47
121

104

40
144
50
94

127
96
135

114
91
123

98

97
98
83
105
Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers (Consumers Only
SE

41
27
41

35
24
35

28

37
30
25
30
g/day) (continued)
Percentiles
10th

80
63
96

74
68
87

65

60
62
54
76
a Age groups are based on U.S. EPA (2005) Guidance on Selecting
to Environmental Contaminants.
N
SE
Source:
25th

98
74
112

88
74
102

76

67
72
63
88
50th

118
86
122

108
87
117

92

86
91
72
97
Age Groups for Monitoring
75th

144
106
151

133
103
140

109

104
107
95
115
andAssessing
95th

206
126
214

183
120
197

144

137
144
123
165
Max

306
165
306

235
184
235

201

227
227
147
227
Childhood Exposures
= Sample size.
= Standard error.
Based on U.S.
EPA, 2007.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-47
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats


Age Group8
Table 11-31
N
Total Fat Intake - Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers (Consumers Only; g/kg-day)
Mean
SE
Percentiles
10th
25th
50th
75th
95th
Max
Birth to <1 year



1 to<



all
female
male
C2 years
all
female
male
140
70
70

109
54
55
4.7
4.8
4.6

6.9
6.6
7.1
1.7
1.6
1.7

1.5
1.2
1.6
2.8
2.7
2.8

5.1
5.1
5.1
3.7
3.7
3.6

5.7
5.7
5.8
4.6
4.7
4.4

6.8
6.7
6.9
6.0
6.0
5.8

7.7
7.4
8.0
7.7
7.7
7.5

9.5
9.3
9.4
11
9.5
11

12
9.7
12
2 to <3 years



3to<


all
female
male
;6 years
all
female
male
6 to <11 years
all


11 to
16 to

llto



21 to



31 to



41 to



female
male
<16 years
all
<21 years
all
<21 years
all
female
male
<31 years
all
female
male
<41 years
all
female
male
<51 years
all
female
male
103
58
45
461
217
244
198
71
127
96

68

165
53
112

150
44
106

148
48
100

166
49
117
6.1
6.2
6.1
5.6
5.5
5.7
4.2
4.2
4.2
3.0

2.5

2.8
2.6
2.9

2.2
2.0
2.2

2.1
2.1
2.1

1.8
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.85

0.74

0.84
0.65
0.90

0.73
0.54
0.79

0.59
0.62
0.58

0.49
0.45
0.50
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.2
4.2
4.2
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.0

1.7

1.9
1.7
1.9

1.5
1.5
1.6

1.5
1.5
1.5

1.3
1.3
1.4
5.2
5.2
5.2
4.7
4.5
4.8
3.4
3.3
3.4
2.4

2.0

2.1
2.0
2.3

1.7
1.8
1.7

1.7
1.7
1.6

1.5
1.4
1.6
5.8
5.9
5.6
5.3
5.3
5.3
3.8
3.8
3.8
2.8

2.4

2.7
2.3
2.8

2.1
1.9
2.1

1.9
1.9
2.0

1.8
1.8
1.8
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.2
6.0
6.2
4.6
4.8
4.5
3.3

2.9

3.1
2.7
3.1

2.4
2.3
2.4

2.4
2.2
2.6

2.1
2.1
2.0
8.3
7.9
8.4
8.3
7.8
8.4
6.0
5.8
6.3
4.6

3.7

4.4
3.4
4.5

3.2
3.1
3.2

3.9
2.8
3.9

2.8
2.6
2.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
11
11
11
9.9
7.7
9.9
5.7

6.0

6.0
4.6
6.0

7.3
3.7
7.3

4.7
4.7
4.3

4.0
2.9
4.0
Page
11-48
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-31. Total Fat
Age Group8
51to<61



61to<71



71 to <81

81+ years

71+ years


years
all
female
male
years
all
female
male
years
all

all
all
female
male
Intake -
N Mean

183
39
144

168
47
121

104

40
144
50
94

1.7
1.5
1.7

1.6
1.6
1.6

1.4

1.6
1.4
1.4
1.5
Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers (Consumers Only; £
SE

0.46
0.34
0.48

0.42
0.42
0.43

0.37

0.48
0.41
0.41
0.41
>/kg-day) (continued)

Percentiles
10th

1.2
1.1
1.2

1.2
1.1
1.2

1.0

1.1
1.0
0.96
1.1
a Age groups are based on U.S. EPA (2005) Guidance on Selecting
to Environmental Contaminants.
N
SE
Source:
25th

1.3
1.3
1.4

1.3
1.3
1.3

1.1

1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
50th

1.6
1.4
1.6

1.5
1.5
1.5

1.3

1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
Age Groups for Monitoring
75th 95th

1.9 2.5
1.7 2.0
1.9 2.6

1.8 2.5
1.7 2.3
1.8 2.5

1.5 2.0

1.7 2.0
1.6 2.0
1.6 1.8
1.5 2.1
Max

3.8
2.4
3.8

3.2
3.2
3.1

3.2

3.7
3.7
3.2
3.7
and Assessing Childhood Exposures
= Sample size.
= Standard error.
Based on U.S.
EPA, 2007.







Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-49
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-32

Age


Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Hean


CTA

Study, 1973-1 982 (g/day)
Percentiles
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th




Total Fat Intake
6 months
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
10 years
13 years
15 years
17 years
125
99
135
106
219
871
148
108
159
37.1
59.1
86.7
91.6
98.6
93.2
107.0
97.7
107.8
17.5
26.0
41.3
38.8
56.1
50.8
53.9
48.7
64.3
18.7
29.1
39.9
50.2
46.0
45.7
53.0
46.1
41.4
25.6
40.4
55.5
63.6
66.8
60.5
69.8
65.2
59.7
33.9
56.1
79.2
82.6
87.0
81.4
90.8
85.8
97.3
46.3
71.4
110.5
114.6
114.6
111.3
130.7
124.0
140.2
60.8
94.4
141.1
153.0
163.3
154.5
184.1
165.2
195.1
3.4
21.6
26.5
32.6
29.3
14.6
9.8
10.0
8.5
107.6
152.7
236.4
232.5
584.6
529.5
282.2
251.3
327.4
Total Animal Fat
6 months
lyear
2 years
3 years
4 years
10 years
13 years
15 years
17 years
125
99
135
106
219
871
148
108
159
18.4
36.5
49.5
50.1
50.8
54.1
56.2
53.8
64.4
16.0
20.0
28.3
29.4
31.7
39.6
39.8
35.1
48.5
0.7
15.2
20.1
21.3
21.4
20.3
19.8
15.9
15.2
4.2
23.1
28.9
29.1
28.1
30.6
28.5
28.3
30.7
13.9
33.0
42.1
42.9
42.6
45.0
44.8
44.7
51.6
28.4
45.9
66.0
64.4
66.4
64.6
72.8
67.9
86.6
42.5
65.3
81.4
88.9
92.6
97.5
109.4
105.8
128.8
0.0
0.0
10.0
14.1
5.9
0.0
4.7
0.6
2.6
61.1
127.1
153.4
182.6
242.2
412.3
209.6
182.1
230.3
Total Vegetable Fat Intake
6 months
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
10 years
13 years
15 years
17 years
125
99
135
106
219
871
148
108
159
9.2
15.4
19.3
21.1
24.5
23.7
34.3
27.3
25.7
12.8
14.3
16.3
15.5
18.6
21.6
27.4
22.8
21.3
0.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
5.7
4.3
8.4
5.1
4.2
1.2
6.1
7.9
8.6
10.4
9.5
17.9
11.9
11.7
2.8
11.3
14.8
18.7
21.8
18.3
31.2
22.6
20.8
11.6
18.1
26.6
26.6
33.3
30.6
44.6
38.1
32.9
29.4
38.0
42.9
45.2
48.5
49.0
57.5
54.4
47.6
0.0
0.2
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.0
0.7
0.0
53.2
70.2
96.6
70.4
109.0
203.7
238.3
132.2
141.5
Page
11-50
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 1 1-32. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa
Age
N Mean
SD

10th

25th
Percentiles
50th
Heart Study, 1973-1982 (g/day) (continued)

75th

90th
Minimum
Maximum
Total Fish Fat Intake
6 months 125
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
10 years
13 years
15 years
17 years
N
SD
Source:
99
135
106
219
871
148
108
159
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.1
2.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
31.1
1.5
2.2
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.9
1.9
4.5
459.2
19.2
25.4
9.5
15.3
= Sample size.
= Standard deviation.
Frank etal., 1986









Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-51
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-33. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, 1973-1982 (g/kg-day)
Age
N
Mean
SD
Percentiles
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Minimum
Maximum
Total Fat Intake
6 months
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
10 years
13 years
15 years
17 years
125
99
132
106
218
861
147
105
149
4.9
6.1
7.0
6.4
6.1
2.7
2.3
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.8
3.3
2.7
3.7
1.5
1.3
0.8
1.0
2.4
3.0
3.4
3.6
2.9
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.7
3.3
4.1
4.5
4.6
4.0
1.7
1.5
1.2
0.9
4.7
5.7
6.2
5.5
5.2
2.4
2.0
1.5
1.6
6.2
7.5
8.6
8.2
7.0
3.3
2.8
2.1
2.2
8.0
9.5
11.9
9.9
10.0
4.5
3.8
3.1
3.1
0.4
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
13.2
16.4
18.7
16.7
38.2
13.9
10.2
4.7
6.2
Total Animal Fat
6 months
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
10 years
13 years
15 years
17 years
125
99
132
106
218
861
147
105
149
2.4
3.8
4.0
3.5
3.1
16
1.2
1.0
1.0
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.0
2.1
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.08
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
2.0
3.4
3.4
3.1
2.6
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
3.7
4.9
5.2
4.2
4.0
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.4
5.5
6.5
6.7
6.1
5.4
2.8
2.3
1.9
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.05
9.0
13.6
13.4
13.1
15.4
10.8
5.2
3.1
4.2
Total Vegetable Fat Intake
6 months
lyear
2 years
3 years
4 years
10 years
13 years
15 years
17 years
125
99
132
106
218
861
147
105
149
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.4
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.2
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.08
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.09
0.07
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.6
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.0
2.8
1.4
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.0
0.01
0.0
8.2
7.6
8.5
5.1
7.3
4.2
8.6
2.2
2.1
Page
11-52
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table
Age
11-33. Fat Intake Among
N
Mean
Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study,
SD

10th

25th
Percentiles
50th

75th
1973-1982 (g/kg-day) (continued)

90th
Minimum
Maximum
Total Fish Fat Intake
6 months 125
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
10 years
13 years
15 years
17 years
N
SD
Source:
99
132
106
218
861
147
105
149
0.01
0.01
0.003
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
2.0
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.04
0.008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
30.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
= Sample size.
= Standard deviation.
Frank etal, 1986.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-53
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11-34. Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content of Selected Meat and Dairy Products3
Product
Moisture
Content
(%)
Total Fat
Content
(%)
Comment
Meats
Beef (composite of trimmed retail cuts; all grades)



Pork (composite of trimmed retail cuts)



Cured ham

Cured bacon




Lamb (composite of trimmed retail cuts)



Veal (composite of trimmed retail cuts)



Rabbit (domesticated)


Chicken (broilers or fryers)







Duck (domesticated)



Turkey (all classes)





70.62
59.25
60.44
51.43
72.34
60.31
65.11
54.55
63.46
55.93
40.20
12.52
12.32
12.12
16.49
73.42
61.96
60.70
53.72
75.91
60.16
72.84
57.08
72.82
60.61
58.82
75.46
66.81
63.79
57.53
65.99
63.93
59.45
52.41
73.77
64.22
48.50
51.84
74.16
64.88
70.40
61.70
71.97
59.42
6.16
9.91
19.24
21.54
5.88
9.66
14.95
17.18
12.90
8.32
45.04
43.27
41.78
40.30
37.27
5.25
9.52
21.59
20.94
2.87
6.58
6.77
11.39
5.55
8.05
8.41
3.08
6.71
7.41
9.12
15.06
12.56
13.60
14.92
5.95
11.20
39.34
28.35
2.86
4.97
8.02
9.73
8.26
13.15
Raw; lean only
Cooked; lean only
Raw; lean and fat, 1/4 in. fat trim
Cooked; lean and fat, 1/4 in. fat trim
Raw; lean only
Cooked; lean only
Raw; lean and fat
Cooked; lean and fat
Center slice, unheated; lean and fat
Raw, center slice, country style; lean only
Raw
Cooked, baked
Cooked, broiled
Cooked, pan-fried
Cooked, microwaved
Raw; lean only
Cooked; lean only
Raw; lean and fat, 1/4 in. fat trim
Cooked; lean and fat, 1/4 in. fat trim
Raw; lean only
Cooked; lean only
Raw; lean and fat, 1/4 in. fat trim
Cooked; lean and fat, 1/4 in. fat trim
Raw
Cooked, roasted
Cooked, stewed
Raw; meat only
Cooked, stewed; meat only
Cooked, roasted; meat only
Cooked, fried; meat only
Raw; meat and skin
Cooked, stewed; meat and skin
Cooked, roasted; meat and skin
Cooked, fried, flour; meat and skin
Raw; meat only
Cooked, roasted; meat only
Raw; meat and skin
Cooked, roasted; meat and skin
Raw; meat only
Cooked, roasted; meat only
Raw; meat and skin
Cooked, roasted; meat and skin
Raw; ground
Cooked; ground
Page
11-54
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 1 1-34. Mean Percent Moisture and Total Fat Content of Selected Meat and Dairy Products3 (continued)



Product
Moisture
Content
Total Fat
Content

Comment


Dairy
Milk





Cream





Butter
Cheese










Yogurt
Eggs
a

Whole
Human
Lowfat (1%)
Reduced fat (2%)
Skim or fat free

Half and half
Light (coffee cream or table cream)
Heavy-whipping
Sour
Sour, reduced fat


American
Cheddar
Swiss
Cream
Parmesan
Cottage, lowfat
Colby
Blue
Provolone
Mozzarella


Based on the water and lipid content

88.32
87.50
89.81
88.86
90.38

80.57
73.75
57.71
70.95
80.14
15.87

39.16
36.75
37.12
53.75
29. 16; 20.84
82.48; 79.31
38.20
42.41
40.95
50. 01; 53. 78
85.07; 87.90
75.84

3.25
4.38
0.97
1.92
0.25

11.50
19.31
37.00
20.96
12.00
81.11

31.25
33.14
27.80
34.87
25.83; 28.61
1.02; 1.93
32.11
28.74
26.62
22.35; 15.92
1.55; 3.25
9.94

3.25%milkfat
Whole, mature, fluid



Fluid, with added non-fat milk solids and vitamin A
Fluid, with added non-fat milk solids and vitamin A
Fluid, with added non-fat milk solids and vitamin A

Fluid
Fluid
Fluid
Cultured
Cultured
Salted

Pasteurized



Hard; grated
l%fat; 2% fat



Whole milk; Skim milk
Plain, lowfat; Plain, with fat
Chicken, whole raw, fresh




















in 100 grams, edible portion. Total Fat Content = saturated, monosaturated and
polyunsaturated. For additional information, consult the USDA nutrient database.
Source:
USDA, 2007.




Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
11-55
-------
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
                              APPENDIX 11A

  CODES AND DEFINITIONS USED TO DETERMINE THE VARIOUS MEATS AND
   DAIRY PRODUCTS USED IN THE U.S. EPA ANALYSIS OF CSFII DATA IN FCID
Exposure Factors Handbook                                               Page
July 2009	11A-1
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                  Chapter 11 — Intake of Meats, Dairy Products and Fats
Table 11A-1
Food Category
Total Meats





























Total Dairy




Beef




Eggs


Pork




Poultry











Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96,
1998 USDACSFII Data
EPA Food Commodity Codes
21000440
21000441
21000450
21000460
21000461
21000470
21000471
23001730
24001890
25002900
25002901
25002910
25002920
25002921
25002930
25002931
25002940
25002950
26003390
26003391
26003400
26003410
26003411
26003420
26003430
28002210
29003120
40000930
40000931
40000940
27002220
27002221
27012230
27012231
27022240
21000440
21000441
21000450
21000460
21000461
70001450
70001451
70001460
25002900
25002901
25002910
25002920
25002921
40000930
40000931
40000940
40000950
40000951
40000960
40000961
40000970
40000971
50003820
50003821
50003830
Beef, meat
Beef, meat-babyfood
Beef, meat, dried
Beef, meat byproducts
Beef, meat byproducts-babyfood
Beef, fat
Beef, fat-babyfood
Goat, liver
Horse, meat
Pork, meat
Pork, meat-babyfood
Pork, skin
Pork, meat byproducts
Pork, meat byproducts-babyfood
Pork, fat
Pork, fat-babyfood
Pork, kidney
Pork, liver
Sheep, meat
Sheep, meat-babyfood
Sheep, meat byproducts
Sheep, fat
Sheep, fat-babyfood
Sheep, kidney
Sheep, liver
Meat, game
Rabbit, meat
Chicken, meat
Chicken, meat-babyfood
Chicken, liver
Milk, fat
Milk, fat - baby food/infant formula
Milk, non-fat solids
Milk, non-fat solids-baby food/infant formula
Milk, water
Beef, meat
Beef, meat-babyfood
Beef, meat, dried
Beef, meat byproducts
Beef, meat byproducts-babyfood
Egg, whole
Egg, whole-babyfood
Egg, white
Pork, meat
Pork, meat-babyfood
Pork, skin
Pork, meat byproducts
Pork, meat byproducts-babyfood
Chicken, meat
Chicken, meat-babyfood
Chicken, liver
Chicken, meat byproducts
Chicken, meat byproducts-babyfood
Chicken, fat
Chicken, fat-babyfood
Chicken, skin
Chicken, skin-babyfood
Turkey, meat
Turkey, meat-babyfood
Turkey, liver
21000480
21000490
21000491
23001690
23001700
23001710
23001720
40000950
40000951
40000960
40000961
40000970
40000971
50003820
50003821
50003830
50003831
50003840
50003841
50003850
50003851
50003860
50003861
60003010
60003020
60003030
60003040
60003050


27022241
27032251



21000470
21000471
21000480
21000490
21000491
70001461
70001470
70001471
25002930
25002931
25002940
25002950

50003831
50003840
50003841
50003850
50003851
50003860
50003861
60003010
60003020
60003030
60003040
60003050
Beef, kidney
Beef, liver
Beef, liver-babyfood
Goat, meat
Goat, meat byproducts
Goat, fat
Goat, kidney
Chicken, meat byproducts
Chicken, meat byproducts-babyfood
Chicken, fat
Chicken, fat-babyfood
Chicken, skin
Chicken, skin-babyfood
Turkey, meat
Turkey, meat-babyfood
Turkey, liver
Turkey, liver-babyfood
Turkey, meat byproducts
Turkey, meat byproducts-babyfood
Turkey, fat
Turkey, fat-babyfood
Turkey, skin
Turkey, skin-babyfood
Poultry, other, meat
Poultry, other, liver
Poultry, other, meat byproducts
Poultry, other, fat
Poultry, other, skin


Milk, water-babyfood/infant formula
Milk, sugar (lactose)-baby food/infant
formula


Beef, fat
Beef, fat-babyfood
Beef, kidney
Beef, liver
Beef, liver-babyfood
Egg, white (solids)-babyfood
Egg, yolk
Egg, yolk-babyfood
Pork, fat
Pork, fat-babyfood
Pork, kidney
Pork, liver

Turkey, liver-babyfood
Turkey, meat byproducts
Turkey, meat byproducts-babyfood
Turkey, fat
Turkey, fat-babyfood
Turkey, skin
Turkey, skin-babyfood
Poultry, other, meat
Poultry, other, liver
Poultry, other, meat byproducts
Poultry, other, fat
Poultry, other, skin
Page
11A-2
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

12     INTAKE OF GRAIN PRODUCTS	12-1
       12.1    INTRODUCTION	12-1
       12.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	12-2
       12.3    INTAKE STUDIES OF GRAIN PRODUCTS	12-5
              12.3.1  Key Grain Intake Study	12-5
                     12.3.1.1 U.S. EPAAnalysis of CSFII1994-96, 1998 	12-5
              12.3.2  Relevant Grain Intake Studies	12-6
                     12.3.2.1 USD A, 1980	12-6
                     12.3.2.2 USDA, 1999a	12-6
                     12.3.2.3 USDA, 1999b	12-7
                     12.3.2.4 Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002 	12-7
                     12.3.2.5 Vitolins et. al., 2002	12-8
                     12.3.2.6 Fox etal., 2004	12-8
                     12.3.2.7 Ponzaetal., 2004	12-9
                     12.3.2.8 Fox etal., 2006 	12-9
                     12.3.2.9 Mennellaetal., 2006	12-9
       12.4    CONVERSION BETWEEN WET AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES	12-10
       12.5    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12	12-10

APPENDIX 12A	12A-1
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                          Page
July 2009	12-i
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                            Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 12-1.      Recommended Values for Intake of Grains, As Consumed	12-3
Table 12-2.      Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Grain Products	12-4
Table 12-3.      Per Capita Intake of Total Grains (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-12
Table 12-4.      Consumer Only Intake of Total Grains (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-13
Table 12-5.      Per Capita Intake of Individual Grain Products (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-14
Table 12-6.      Consumer Only Intake of Individual Grain Products (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-15
Table 12-7.      Per Capita Intake of Breads (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-16
Table 12-8.      Per Capita Intake of Sweets (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-17
Table 12-9.      Per Capita Intake of Snacks Containing Grains (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-18
Table 12-10.     Per Capita Intake of Breakfast Foods (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-19
Table 12-11.     Per Capita Intake of Pasta (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-20
Table 12-12.     Per Capita Intake of Cooked Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-21
Table 12-13.     Per Capita Intake of Ready-to-Eat Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-22
Table 12-14.     Per Capita Intake of Baby Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)	12-23
Table 12-15.     Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed) for
                1977-1978	12-24
Table 12-16.     Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed) for
                1987-1988	12-25
Table 12-17.     Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed) for
                1994 and  1995	12-25
Table 12-18.     Per Capita Consumption of Flour and Cereal Products in 1997	12-26
Table 12-19.     Mean Quantities of Grain Products Consumed by Children Under 20 Years of Age,
                by Sex and Age, Per Capita (g/day)	12-27
Table 12-20.     Percentage of Individuals Under 20 Years of Age Consuming Grain Products, by Sex
                andAge(%)	12-28
Table 12-21.     Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the
                Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days	12-29
Table 12-22.     Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and
                Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days, by Sex and Age	12-30
Table 12-23.     Consumption of Major Food Groups by Older Adults:  Median Daily Servings (and
                Ranges) by Demographic and Health Characteristics	12-32
Table 12-24.     Characteristics of the  FITS Sample Population	12-33
Table 12-25.     Percentage of Infants  and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Grain Products	12-34
Table 12-26.     Characteristics of WIC Participants and Non-participants (Percentages)	12-35
Table 12-27.     Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC Participation Status	12-36
Table 12-28.     Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Grain Products Commonly Consumed
                by Infants from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	12-37
Table 12-29.     Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Grain Products Commonly Consumed
                by Toddlers from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study	12-37
Table 12-30.     Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different
                Types of Grain Products on A Given Day	12-38
Table 12-31.     Mean Moisture  Content of Selected Grain Products Expressed as Percentages of Edible
                Portions (grams per lOOg of Edible Portion)	12-39
Table 12A-1.     Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96, 1998 USDA CSFII Data	12A-2
Page
12-ii
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
12      INTAKE OF GRAIN PRODUCTS
12.1    INTRODUCTION
        The  American food  supply  is  generally
considered to be one  of the  safest in the world.
Nevertheless,   grain   products   may   become
contaminated  with  toxic   chemicals  by  several
different pathways.  Ambient air pollutants may be
deposited on  or absorbed by the  plants, or dissolved
in rainfall or irrigation waters that contact the plants.
Pollutants may also be absorbed through plant roots
from  contaminated soil  and  ground water.    The
addition of pesticides,  soil  additives, and  fertilizers
may also result in contamination of grain products.
To assess exposure through this pathway, information
on ingestion rates of grain products are needed.
        A variety  of terms may be  used to define
intake of grain products (e.g., consumer-only intake,
per capita intake,  total grain intake, as-consumed
intake, dry weight  intake).  As described in Chapter
9, Intake of  Fruits and Vegetables,  consumer-only
intake is defined as the quantity of grain products
consumed by individuals during the survey period.
These data are generated by averaging intake across
only the individuals in the survey who consumed
these  food  items.    Per  capita intake  rates are
generated by  averaging consumer-only  intakes over
the entire population (including those that reported no
intake).    In  general,  per  capita  intake  rates are
appropriate for use in exposure assessment for which
average dose  estimates for individuals are of interest
because they  represent both individuals who ate the
foods during  the survey period and those  who may
eat the food items at some time, but did not consume
them during  the survey period.  Per capita intake,
therefore, represents an  average across  the  entire
population of interest, but does so at the expense of
underestimating consumption for the subset of the
population that consumed the food in question.  Total
grain intake refers to  the sum of all grain products
consumed in a day.
        Intake rates may be expressed on the  basis
of the as-consumed weight (e.g., cooked or prepared)
or on  the uncooked  or unprepared weight.   As-
consumed intake rates are based on the weight of the
food in the form that it is consumed and should be
used  in  assessments  where   the  basis  for the
contaminant concentrations in foods is  also indexed
to the  as-consumed weight.  The food  ingestion
values provided in this chapter are expressed as as-
consumed intake rates because this is the fashion in
which  data were reported by  survey  respondents.
This is  of importance because  concentration data to
be used in the dose equation are often measured in
uncooked food samples. It should be recognized that
cooking can either  increase or decrease  food weight.
Similarly,  cooking  can  increase   the   mass  of
contaminant in food (due to formation reactions, or
absorption from cooking oils or water) or decrease
the mass of contaminant in food (due to vaporization,
fat loss  or  leaching).   The  combined  effects of
changes in weight and changes in contaminant mass
can  result in  either an  increase  or decrease in
contaminant   concentration    in   cooked   food.
Therefore, if the as-consumed  ingestion rate and the
uncooked concentration  are   used   in  the  dose
equation,  dose may  be under-estimated or over-
estimated. Ideally, after-cooking food concentrations
should be combined with  the as-consumed  intake
rates.  In the absence of data, it is  reasonable to
assume that  no change in contaminant concentration
occurs after cooking.  It is important for the assessor
to be aware of these issues and choose intake rate
data that best  match the concentration data that are
being used.  For more information on cooking losses
and conversions necessary to account for such losses,
the reader is referred to Chapter 13 of this handbook.
        Sometimes  contaminant  concentrations in
food are reported on a dry weight basis. When these
data  are used in  an exposure  assessment,  it is
recommended  that  dry-weight  intake  rates also be
used.  Dry-weight  food concentrations and  intake
rates are based on the weight of the food consumed
after the moisture content has been removed.  For
information on converting the  intake rates presented
in this chapter to dry weight intake rates, the reader is
referred to Section 12.4.
        The purpose of this chapter is to provide
intake data for  grain products for  the general
population. The recommendations for ingestion rates
of grain products are provided in the  next section,
along with a summary of the confidence  ratings for
these recommendations.  The  recommended values
are based on the key study identified by U.S. EPA for
this factor.  Following the recommendations, the key
study on ingestion of grain products is summarized.
Relevant data on ingestion of grain products are also
provided.  These  data are presented to provide the
reader with added perspective on the current state-of-
knowledge pertaining to ingestion of grain products
among children.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           12-1
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                             Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
12.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
        Table  12-1  presents  a summary  of the
recommended values for per capita and consumer-
only intake  of  grain products, on  an as-consumed
basis.   Confidence  ratings  for the  grain  intake
recommendations  for the  general  population are
provided in Table 12-2.
        The  U.S.  EPA  analysis of data from the
1994-96 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intake
by  Individuals  (CSFII)  was  used  in selecting
recommended intake  rates.  The U.S. EPA analysis
was conducted using childhood  age  groups  that
differed slightly  from  U.S.  EPAs  Guidance  on
Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood     Exposures     to     Environmental
Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005). However, for the
purposes of the recommendations  presented here,
data were  placed in the  standardized age categories
closest to those used in the analysis.  Also, the CSFII
data on which  the recommendations are based are
short term survey data  and may  not  necessarily
reflect the long-term distribution of average daily
intake rates.   However, for broad categories of food
(i.e., total grains), because they are  eaten on a daily
basis throughout the  year with minimal seasonality,
the short  term distribution may be a reasonable
approximation of the long-term distribution, although
it will display somewhat increased variability. This
implies  that  the upper percentiles shown here will
tend to overestimate the corresponding percentiles of
the true long-term distribution.   It  should also be
noted that because these  recommendations are based
on  1994-96  and  1998  CSFII data, they may not
reflect the  most recent changes  that  may have
occurred in consumption patterns. More current data
from the  National  Health  and Nutrition  Survey
(NHANES) will be incorporated as the data become
available and are analyzed.
Page
12-2
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
                     Table 12-1. Recommended Values for Intake of Grains, As Consumed3
    Age Group
                           Per Capita
                                  Consumers Only
Mean
95th Percentile
Mean
95th Percentile
 Multiple
 Percentiles
                    g/kg-day
              g/kg-day
                   g/kg-day
              g/kg-day
     Source
                                                Total Grains
 Birth to 1 year
 1 to <2 years
 2 to <3 years
 3 to <6 years
 6 to <11 years
 11 to <16 years
 16 to <21 years
 20 to <50
 >50 years
 2.5
 6.4
 6.4
 6.3
 4.3
 2.5
 2.5
 2.2
 1.7
     8.6
     12
     12
     12
     8.2
     5.1
     5.1
     4.7
     3.5
 3.6
 6.4
 6.4
 6.3
 4.3
 2.5
 2.5
 2.2
 1.7
     9.2
     12
     12
     12
     8.2
     5.1
     5.1
     4.7
     3.5
 See Tables
12-3 and 12-
    4
    U.S. EPA
   Analysis of
     CSFII,
   1994-96 and
 1998, based on
USDA (2000) and
U.S. EPA (2000).
                               Individual Grain Products - See Tables 12-5 and 12-6
        Analysis was conducted using slightly different childhood age groups than those recommended in Guidance on
        Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (U.S.
        EPA. 2005). Data were placed in the standardized age categories closest to those used in the analysis.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                 Page
                                                                                  12-3
-------
                                                                              Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                   Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
                        Table 12-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Grain Products
 General Assessment Factors
                     Rationale
Rating
 Soundness
  Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or defined) Bias
The survey methodology and data analysis was
adequate.  The survey sampled more than 20,000
individuals. An analysis of primary data was conducted.

No physical measurements were taken. The method
relied on recent recall of grain products eaten.
                                                            High
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest

  Representativeness
  Currency
  Data Collection Period
The key study was directly relevant to grain intake.

The data were demographically representative of the
U.S. population (based on stratified random sample).

Data were collected between 1994 and 1998.

Data were collected for two non-consecutive days.
                                                           Medium
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility

  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
The CSFII data are publicly available.

The methodology used was clearly described; enough
information was included to reproduce the results.

Quality assurance of the CSFII data was good; quality
control of the secondary data analysis was not well
described.
                                                            High
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population
  Minimal Uncertainty
Full distributions were provided for total grains.  Means
were provided for individual grain products.

Data collection was based on recall for a 2-day period;
the accuracy of using these data to estimate long-term
intake (especially at the upper percentiles) is uncertain.
However, use of short-term data to estimate chronic
ingestion can be assumed for broad categories of foods
such as total grains. Uncertainty is likely to be greater
for individual grain products.
                                                           Medium
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review
  Number and Agreement of Studies
The USDA CSFII survey received a high level of peer
review. The U.S. EPA analysis of these data has not
been peer reviewed outside the Agency.

There was 1 key study.
                                                           Medium
 Overall Rating
                                                   Medium-High confidence
                                                        in the averages;
                                                     Low confidence in the
                                                        long-term upper
                                                          percentiles
Page
12-4
                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                        	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
12.3    INTAKE STUDIES
        The primary source of recent information on
consumption  rates  of  grain  products  is  the  U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) CSFII.   Data
from the  1994-96  CSFII  and the 1998  Children's
supplement to the 1994-96 CSFII have been used in
various  studies  to  generate consumer-only and per
capita intake rates for both individual grain products
and total grains.  The  CSFII  is a series of surveys
designed to measure the kinds and amounts of foods
eaten by Americans.   The  CSFII 1994-96 was
conducted between  January 1994  and January  1997
with a  target  population  of non-institutionalized
individuals in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.  In
each of the 3  survey years, data were collected for a
nationally representative sample of individuals of all
ages.   The  CSFII 1998  was conducted between
December 1997  and December 1998 and surveyed
children 9 years of age and younger.  It used the same
sample  design  as  the CSFII  1994-96   and was
intended to   be  merged with  CSFII  1994-96  to
increase the  sample size for children.   The merged
surveys  are  designated as CSFII  1994-96,  1998.
Additional information on these  surveys can be
obtained
at http://www.ars.usda. gov/Services/docs.htm?docid= 1453
L
        The CSFII 1994-96,  1998 collected dietary
intake data through in-person interviews on 2 non-
consecutive days.  The data were  based on 24-hour
recall. A total of 21,662 individuals provided data for
the first day; of those  individuals, 20,607 provided
data for a second day.  The 2-day response rate for
the 1994-1996 CSFII was approximately 76 percent.
The  2-day response rate  for CSFII 1998 was 82
percent.
        The CSFII 1994-96, 98 surveys were  based
on  a complex  multistage  area probability sample
design.   The sampling frame was organized  using
1990  U.S. population  census  estimates,  and the
stratification  plan   took into  account  geographic
location, degree of urbanization, and socioeconomic
characteristics.  Several sets of sampling weights are
available for use with the intake  data.  By  using
appropriate weights, data for  all  fours  years of the
surveys  can be combined.   USDA recommends that
all  4 years  be combined  in order to provide an
adequate sample size for children.

12.3.1   Key Grain Intake Study
12.3.1.1 U.S. EPA Analysis of CSFII 1994-96,1998
        For many  years, the  U.S. EPA's  Office  of
Pesticide   Programs    (OPP)  has   used    food
consumption data collected by the U.S. Department
of  Agriculture  (USDA)  for   its  dietary   risk
assessments. Most recently, OPP, in cooperation with
USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), used
data from the  1994-96,  1998 CSFII to develop the
Food Commodity Intake Database (FCID).   CSFII
data on  the foods  people reported eating were
converted   to   the  quantities   of  agricultural
commodities eaten.   "Agricultural commodity" is a
term used by U.S. EPA to mean plant (or animal)
parts consumed by humans as food; when such items
are raw or unprocessed, they are referred to as "raw
agricultural commodities."  For example, an apple pie
may contain the commodities apples, flour, fat, sugar
and spices.  FCID contains approximately 553 unique
commodity  names and  8-digit  codes.   The  FCID
commodity  names  and codes  were  selected and
defined by U.S. EPA and were based on the U.S. EPA
Food           Commodity           Vocabulary
(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed/).
        The grain items/groups  selected for the U.S.
EPA analysis included total grains, and individual
grain products such as cereal and rice.  Appendix 12A
presents  the food codes  and  definitions  used  to
determine the  various  grain  products used in the
analysis.   Intake  rates  for these food items/groups
represent intake of all forms of the product (e.g., both
home  produced   and  commercially   produced).
Individuals who provided  data  for two days  of the
survey were  included  in the  intake  estimates.
Individuals who did not provide  information on body
weight or  for  whom identifying  information was
unavailable were excluded from the analysis.  Two-
day  average intake  rates  were calculated for  all
individuals   in the database for each of  the food
items/groups. These average daily intake rates were
divided by each individual's reported body weight to
generate intake  rates  in units of grams per  kilogram
of body weight per day (g/kg-day). The data were
weighted according to the four-year, two-day sample
weights provided in the  1994-96, 1998 CSFII  to
adjust the data for the sample population to reflect the
national population.
        Summary statistics were generated on both a
per capita and a consumer only basis.  For per capita
intake, both users and non-users  of  the food item
were included in the analysis.  Consumer-only  intake
rates  were  calculated  using data for only  those
individuals  who ate the food item of interest during
the survey  period.  Intake  data  from the CSFII are
based  on as-consumed  (i.e., cooked  or prepared)
forms of the food items/groups.  Summary  statistics,
including: number of observations, percentage of the
population   consuming  the grain  product  being
analyzed, mean intake rate, and  standard error of the
mean intake rate were calculated for total grains and
selected individual grain products.  Percentiles of the
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           12-5
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
intake rate distribution (i.e., 1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th,
75th, 90th,  95th, 99th,  and maximum value) were
also provided for total  grains.   Because these data
were developed for  use in U.S.  EPA's  pesticide
registration program, the childhood age groups used
are slightly different than those recommended in U.S.
EPA's Guidance  on  Selecting  Age  Groups  for
Monitoring  and Assessing Childhood Exposures to
Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005).
        Tables 12-3 presents as-consumed per capita
intake data for total grains in g/kg-day; as-consumed
consumer only intake data for total grains in g/kg-day
are provided in Table  12-4. Table 12-5 provides per
capita intake data for individual grain products  and
Table 12-6 provides consumer only intake data for
individual grain products.
        Tables 12-7 through 12-14 present per capita
intake data for individual grain products.   The data
come from  CSFII  1994-96  only.  The results  are
presented in units of g/kg-day.
        The use of these data in calculating potential
dose  does not require the body weight factor to be
included in the denominator of the average daily dose
(ADD) equation.  It should be noted that converting
these intake rates into units of g/day by multiplying
by  a single  average body weight  is inappropriate,
because individual  intake rates were indexed to the
reported  body weights  of the  survey respondents.
However, if there is a need to compare the intake data
presented here to intake  data in units of g/day, a body
weight less  than 70 kg  (i.e., approximately  60  kg;
calculated based on the number of respondents in
each age category and the average body weights for
these age groups, as presented in Chapter 8) should
be used because the total survey population included
children as well as adults.
        It should be  noted that  the distribution of
average daily intake rates generated using short-term
data (e.g., 2-day) do not necessarily reflect  the long-
term distribution of average daily intake rates.  The
distributions  generated  from short-term and long-
term  data  will  differ  to  the  extent  that each
individual's   intake  varies from day  to   day;  the
distributions  will   be  similar  to  the  extent that
individuals'  intakes are  constant from day to day.
However, for broad categories of foods (e.g., total
grains) that are eaten on a daily basis throughout the
year, the short-term distribution may be a reasonable
approximation of  the  true  long-term distribution,
although it will show  somewhat more variability.  In
this chapter, distributions are provided only for total
grains.  Because of the  increased variability of the
short-term   distribution,   the    short-term  upper
percentiles  shown  here  may  overestimate  the
corresponding   percentiles    of   the    long-term
distribution.  For individual grains, only the mean,
standard error, and percent consuming are provided.
        The strengths of U.S. EPA's analysis are that
it  provides distributions of intake rates for various
age  groups  of individuals,  normalized  by  body
weight. The analysis uses the 1994-96, 1998 CSFII
data set which was designed to be representative of
the U.S. population.  The data set includes four years
of intake data combined, and is based on a two-day
survey  period.   As discussed  above,  short-term
dietary  data  may  not accurately  reflect  long-term
eating patterns and  may under-represent infrequent
consumers of a given food. This is particularly true
for the tails (extremes) of the distribution of  food
intake.   Also, the  analysis  was  conducted  using
slightly different childhood age groups than those
recommended in U.S. EPA's Guidance on Selecting
Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposures  to  Environmental  Contaminants  (U.S.
EPA,  2005).  However, given the similarities in the
childhood age groups used, the data should provide
suitable  intake  estimates  for  the  age  groups  of
interest.

12.3.2  Relevant Grain Intake Studies
12.3.2.1 USDA, 1980, 1992,  1996a, 1996b - Food
        and Nutrient Intakes of Individuals in One
        Day in the U.S.
        USDA  calculated mean per capita  intake
rates  for total  and individual  grain products using
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) data
from  1977-78  and 1987-88 (USDA 1980; 1992) and
CSFII data from  1994 and  1995  (USDA,  1996a;
1996b).  The mean per capita intake rates for grain
products are presented in Tables 12-15 and 12-16 for
the two NFCS survey years, respectively.  Table 12-
17 presents similar data  from the 1994  and  1995
CSFII for grain products.
        The advantages of using these data are that
they provide mean intake estimates for various grain
products.   The consumption estimates are based  on
short-term  (i.e.,  1-day) dietary data which may not
reflect long-term consumption.

12.3.2.2 USDA, 1999a - Food Consumption, Prices,
        and Expenditures, 1970-98
      The USDA's  Economic   Research  Service
(ERS) calculates the amount of food  available for
human consumption in the United States annually.
Supply and utilization balance sheets are generated.
These are  based on the  flow of food items from
production to  end uses.   Total  available  supply is
estimated  as  the  sum of production  (i.e.,  some
products are measured at  the  farm level  or  during
processing),   starting   inventories,   and  imports
Page
12-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
(USDA, 1999a). The availability of food for human
use commonly termed  as  "food  disappearance"  is
determined by  subtracting exported foods, products
used in industries, farm inputs  (seed and feed) and
end-of-the year inventories from the total available
supply (USDA,  1999a).  USDA (1999a) calculates
the per capita food consumption by dividing the total
food disappearance by the total U.S. population.
      USDA   (1999a)   estimated   per   capita
consumption data for grain products from 1970-1998
(1998 data are preliminary). In this section, the 1997
values,  which are the most  recent final data, are
presented.     Table   12-18  presents   per   capita
consumption in 1997 for grains.
      One  of the  limitations of  this study  is  that
disappearance data do not account for losses from the
food supply from  waste, spoilage, or foods fed  to
pets.  Thus,  intake rates based on these data may
overestimate  daily  consumption  because they are
based on the total quantity of marketable commodity
utilized.  Therefore, these  data may be useful for
estimating bounding exposure estimates.  It should
also be noted that per capita estimates based on food
disappearance are  not a direct measure  of  actual
consumption or quantity ingested, instead the data are
used as indicators of changes  in usage over time
(USDA, 1999a). An advantage of this study is that it
provides per capita consumption rates  for  grains
which are representative of long-term intake because
disappearance data are generated annually.  Daily per
capita intake rates  are generated by dividing annual
consumption by 365 days/year.

12.3.2.3 USDA, 1999b - Food and Nutrient Intakes
        by Children 1994-96,1998, Table Set 17
        USDA    (1999b)    calculated    national
probability  estimates of food and  nutrient intake by
children based on all 4 years of the CSFII (1994-96
and 1998) for children age 9 years and under, and on
CSFII 1994-96 only for individuals age 10 years and
over.  Sample weights were used  to adjust for non-
response, to match the sample to the U.S. population
in terms  of demographic characteristics, and  to
equalize intakes over  the 4 quarters of the year and
the 7 days  of the  week. A total of 503 breast-fed
children were excluded from the estimates, but both
consumers and non-consumers were included in the
analysis.
        USDA (1999b) provided  data on the mean
per  capita  quantities  (grams)  of various  food
products/groups consumed per individual for one day,
and the percent of individuals consuming those foods
in one day of the  survey.  Tables 12-19 and 12-20
present data on the mean quantities (grams) of grain
products consumed per  individual for one day, and
the percentage of survey individuals consuming grain
products that survey day.  Data on mean intakes or
mean percentages  are based  on respondents' day-1
intakes.
        The advantages of USDA (1999b) study is
that it uses the  1994-96, 98  CSFII data set, which
includes four  years of intake data, combined, and
includes the supplemental data on children.  These
data are expected to be generally representative of the
U.S. population and they include data on a wide
variety  of grain products.  The data set is  one of a
series of USDA data sets that are publicly available.
One limitation of this data set is that it is based on a
one-day,  and  short-term  dietary  data  may not
accurately reflect long-term eating patterns.  Other
limitations of this study are that  it only  provides
mean values of food intake rates, consumption is not
normalized by  body weight, and  presentation of
results   is   not  consistent   with   U.S.   EPA's
recommended age groups.

12.3.2.4 Smiciklas-Wright  et al,  2002  - Foods
        Commonly  Eaten in  the United States:
        Quantities Consumed per Eating Occasion
        and in a Day, 1994-1996
        Using data gathered  in the 1994-96 USDA
CSFII,  Smiciklas-Wright  et  al. (2002) calculated
distributions  for the  quantities  of grain  products
consumed per eating occasion by  members of the
U.S. population (i.e., serving sizes). The estimates of
serving size are based on data obtained from 14,262
respondents, ages 2 and above, who provided 2 days
of dietary intake information.  Only dietary intake
data from users of the specified food were used in the
analysis (i.e.,  consumers  only data).  Table 12-21
presents, as consumed, the quantity of grain products
consumed per eating occasion and the percentage of
individuals using these foods in a two day period for
a selected variety  of grain products.   Table 12-22
presents the same data by sex and age.
        These data are presented on an as-consumed
basis  (grams) and represent  the quantity  of  grain
products consumed  per eating occasion.   These
estimates may be useful for assessing acute exposures
to  contaminants  in  specific  foods,  or   other
assessments where the  amount consumed per eating
occasion is necessary.  Only the mean  and standard
deviation  serving  size data  and percent of the
population consuming  the food during the 2-day
survey  period  are  presented  in this  handbook.
Percentiles of serving sizes of the foods consumed by
these age groups of the U.S. population can be found
in Smiciklas-Wright et al. (2002).
        The advantages of using these data are that
they were derived from the  USDA CSFII and are
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           12-7
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
representative of the U.S. population.  The analysis
conducted  by   Smiciklas-Wright  et   al.  (2002)
accounted  for  individual   foods   consumed  as
ingredients of  mixed  foods.   Mixed foods  were
disaggregated via recipe  files so that the individual
ingredients could be grouped together with similar
foods that were  reported separately. Thus, weights of
foods consumed as  ingredients were combined with
weights of foods reported separately to provide  a
more  thorough  representation  of  consumption.
However, it should be noted that since the recipes for
the mixed foods consumed were not provided by the
respondents, standard recipes were used.  As a result,
the estimates of quantity consumed for some  food
types are based on assumptions about the types and
quantities of ingredients consumed as part of mixed
foods. This study used data from the 1994 to  1996
CSFII; data from the  1998  children's  supplement
were not included.

12.3.2.5 Vitollns  et  al,  2002  -  Quality of Diets
        Consumed by Older Rural Adults
        Vitolins et al. (2002) conducted a survey to
evaluate the dietary intake, by food groups, of older
(>70 years) rural adults. The sample consisted of 130
community  dwelling  residents  from  two  rural
counties in North Carolina.  Data on dietary intake
over the preceding year were obtained in face-to-face
interviews conducted in participants' homes, or in a
few cases,  a senior center. The  food frequency
questionnaire used  in  the survey was  a modified
version of the National Cancer Institute Health Habits
and History Questionnaire (HHHQ); this modified
version included an expanded food list containing a
greater number of ethnic foods than the original food
frequency form.  Demographic and personal data
collected included gender, ethnicity, age, education,
denture use,  marital status,  chronic disease,  and
weight.
        Food items reported in the survey  were
grouped into food groups similar to the USDA Food
Guide Pyramid  and the National Cancer Institute's 5
A Day for Better Health program.  These groups are:
(1) fruits and vegetables;  (2) bread, cereal, rice, and
pasta; (3) milk, yogurt and cheese; (4)  meat,  fish,
poultry, beans and eggs; and (5) fats, oils,  sweets, and
snacks. Medians, ranges, frequencies and percentages
were used to summarize  intake  of each food group,
broken   down   by   demographic   and  health
characteristics.    In addition,  multiple  regression
models were  used to determine which demographic
and health factors were jointly predictive  of intake of
each of the five food groups.
        Thirty-four   percent   of   the   survey
participants  were  African American,  36%  were
European American, and 30% were Native American.
Sixty-two  percent  were  female, 62%  were  not
married at  the time of the interview,  and 65% had
some high school education or  were high school
graduates. Almost all  of the participants (95%) had
one or more chronic diseases.   Sixty percent of the
respondents were between 70 and 79 years of age; the
median age was 78 years old.  The median servings
of bread, cereal,  rice and pasta broken  down by
demographic and health characteristic are  presented
in Table   12-23.    Only  gender  was  statistically
predictive of bread, cereal, rice and pasta intake (P <
0.01), with males consuming approximately an extra
serving per day compared to  women.   Also, the
multiple regression model  indicated that gender was
predictive of breads,  cereal, rice,  and pasta intake
after controlling for other demographic variables.
        One limitation of the study, as noted by the
study  authors,  is  that  the  study did  not collect
information on the length of time the participants had
been practicing the dietary behaviors reported in the
survey.   The  questionnaire  asked participants to
report the frequency of food consumption during the
past  year.  The study authors  noted  that,  currently,
there are no dietary assessment tools that  allow the
collection of comprehensive dietary data over years
of food consumption.  Another limitation of the study
is that the small sample size used makes associations
by gender and ethnicity difficult.

12.3.2.6 Fox  et al,  2004 -  Feeding Infants  and
        Toddlers  study: What Foods Are  Infants
        and Toddlers Eating
        Fox et al. (2004) used data from the Feeding
Infants and Toddlers  study  (FITS) to assess  food
consumption patterns  in infants and  toddlers.   The
FITS was  sponsored by Gerber Products  Company
and was conducted to obtain current information on
food and nutrient intakes  of children, ages 4 to 24
months old, in the  50 states  and the  District of
Columbia.   The  FITS is described in  detail in
Devaney et al.  (2004).  FITS was based on a random
sample  of  3,022 infants  and  toddlers for which
dietary intake data were collected by telephone from
their parents or caregivers between March and July
2002. An initial recruitment and household interview
was  conducted, followed by an interview to obtain
information on intake based on 24-hour recall.   The
interview also addressed growth, development and
feeding patterns.  A second dietary recall  interview
was conducted for a subset of 703 randomly selected
respondents. The study over-sampled children in the
4 to 6 and 9 toll months age groups; sample weights
were adjusted  for non-response, over sampling, and
under coverage of some subgroups.   The response
Page
12-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
rate for the FITS was 73 percent for the recruitment
interview.  Of the recruited households, there was a
response rate  of 94 percent for the  dietary recall
interviews (Devaney et al., 2004).  The characteristics
of the FITS study population are shown in Table  12-
24.
        Fox et al. (2004) analyzed the first set of 24-
hour recall data collected from all study participants.
For this analysis, children were grouped into six age
categories:  4  to  6 months, 7 to 8 months, 9 to 11
months, 12 to 14 months, 15 to  18 months, and 19 to
24 months. Table 12-25  provides the  percentage of
infants  and toddlers consuming  different types of
grains or grain products at least once in a day.  The
percentages of children eating any type of grain or
grain product  ranged from 65.8 percent for 4 to 6
month olds to 99.2 percent for 19 to 24 month olds.
        The advantages  of this study were that  the
study population represents the U.S. population and
the sample size  was  large.   One limitation of  the
analysis  done by  Fox  et al.  (2004)  is  that only
frequency data  were  provided;  no information on
actual  intake  rates was included.    In addition,
Devaney et  al.   (2004)   noted  several  limitations
associated  with  the FITS data.  For the FITS, a
commercial list  of infants and toddlers was used to
obtain the sample used in the study.  Since many of
the households could not be located and did not have
children in the target population, a lower response
rate  than would have occurred in a  true national
sample  was obtained (Devaney et al., 2004).  In
addition, the  sample  was  likely  from  a higher
socioeconomic status when  compared with all U.S.
infants in this age group (4 to 24 months old) and the
use of a telephone  survey may have omitted lower-
income  households  without  telephones (Devaney et
al., 2004).

12.3.2.7 Ponza et al, 2004 - Nutrient Food Intakes
        and Food Choices of Infants and Toddlers
        Participating in  WIC
        Ponza et al. (2004) conducted a study using
selected  data  from the  FITS  to assess feeding
patterns, food  choices and nutrient intake of infants
and   toddlers    participating   in   the   Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC).  Ponza et al. (2004) evaluated
FITS data for the  following age  groups: 4  to 6
months (N = 862), 7 to 11 months (N = 1,159) and 12
to 24  months (N= 996).   The  total sample  size
described by WIC participants and non-participants is
shown in Table 12-26.
        The  foods  consumed were   analyzed  by
tabulating the  percentage of infants who consumed
specific foods/food groups  per day (Ponza et  al.,
2004). Weighted data were used in all of the analyses
used in the study (Ponza et al., 2004).  Table 12-26
presents the demographic data for WIC participants
and   non-participants.     Table   12-27   provides
information on the food choices for the infants and
toddlers  studied.    In general,   there  was  little
difference  in  grain  product  choices among  WIC
participants and non-participants, except for the 7 to
11    months   age    category    (Table    12-27).
Nonparticipants, ages 7 to 11  months, were  more
likely to eat non-infant cereals than WIC participants.
        An advantage  of this study is  that it had a
relatively large sample size and was representative of
the U.S. general population of infants and  children.
A limitation of the study is  that intake values  for
foods were not provided.  Other limitations are those
associated  with  the  FITS  data,  as  described
previously in Section 12.3.2.6.

12.3.2.8 Fox et al., 2006 -Average Portion of Foods
        Commonly Eaten by Infants and  Toddlers
        in the United States
        Fox et al. (2006) estimated average portion
sizes consumed per eating occasion by children 4 to
24 months of age who participated in the FITS. The
FITS  is a cross-sectional study designed to collect
and   analyze   data  on  feeding  practices,  food
consumption,  and usual  nutrient intake  of  U.S.
infants  and toddlers and is described in  Section
12.3.2.6 of this  chapter.   It included  a  stratified
random sample of 3,022 children between 4 and 24
months of age.
        Using the 24-hour  recall data, Fox et  al.
(2006) derived average portion sizes for six major
food groups,  including breads and grains.  Average
portion sizes for select  individual foods within these
major groups were also estimated.  For this  analysis,
children were grouped into six age categories: 4 to 5
months, 6 to  8 months, 9 to 11  months, 12 to  14
months, 15  to 18 months,  and 19 to  24  months.
Tables 12-28 and 12-29 present the average portion
sizes  for grain products for infants  and  toddlers,
respectively.

12.3.2.9 Mennella et al., 2006 - Feeding Infants and
        Toddlers Study: The  Types of Foods Fed to
        Hispanic Infants and Toddlers
        Menella et al.  (2006) investigated the types
of food and beverages consumed by Hispanic infants
and  toddlers  in  comparison  to  the  non-Hispanic
infants and toddlers in  the United States.  The FITS
2002 data for children  between 4 and 24 months of
age were used for the  study.  The data represent a
random sample of 371  Hispanic and  2,367  non-
Hispanic infants and toddlers (Menella et al., 2006).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           12-9
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Menella et al. (2006) grouped the infants as follows:
4 to 5 months (N = 84 Hispanic; 538 non-Hispanic),
6 to 11 months (N = 163 Hispanic and 1,228 non-
Hispanic), and 12 to 24 months (N = 124 Hispanic
and 871 non-Hispanic) of age.
        Table   12-30 provides the  percentage  of
Hispanic  and  non-Hispanic  infants  and  toddlers
consuming grain products.  In most instances the
percentages consuming the different types are similar.
However,  6 to 11 month old Hispanic children were
more likely to eat rice and pasta than non-Hispanic
children in this age groups.
        The advantage of the study is that it provides
information  on food preferences  for Hispanic and
non-Hispanic infants and  toddlers.  A limitation is
that the study did not provide food intake data, but
provided  frequency  of use  data  instead.   Other
limitations are  those noted previously in Section
12.3.2.6 for the FITS data.

12.4    CONVERSION  BETWEEN WET AND
        DRY WEIGHT INTAKE RATES
        The intake data presented in this chapter are
reported in units of wet weight (i.e., as-consumed or
uncooked weight of grain products consumed per day
or  per  eating occasion).   However,  data on the
concentration of contaminants in grain products may
be reported in units of either wet or dry weight.(e.g.,
mg contaminant  per  gram dry-weight  of   grain
products.) It is essential that exposure assessors be
aware  of  this  difference  so that  they may ensure
consistency between the units used for intake rates
and those used  for concentration  data (i.e.,  if the
contaminant concentration is measured in dry weight
of grain products, then the  dry weight units  should be
used for their intake values).
        If necessary, wet weight (e.g., as consumed)
intake  rates may  be converted to dry weight  intake
rates   using  the  moisture   content  percentages
presented in Table 12-31 and the following equation:
             100 -W
               100
                                      (Eqn. 12-1)
where:
IRdw
IRww
W
                  dry weight intake rate;
                  wet weight intake rate; and
                  percent water content
        Alternatively, dry weight residue levels in
grain products may be  converted  to wet  weight
residue  levels for use with  wet weight  (e.g., as-
consumed) intake rates as follows:
C1   = C1
^~"ww   ^di
                                                                   100 -W
                                                                     100
                                      (Eqn. 12-2)
                                                where:
        £««   =   wet weight intake rate;
        Cdw   =   dry weight intake rate; and
        W    =   percent water content.

        The moisture data presented in Table 12-31
are for selected grain products taken from USDA
(2007).

12.5    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 12
Devaney, B.; Kalb, L.; Briefel, R.; Zavitsky-Novak,
        T.; Clusen, N.; Ziegler, P.  (2004) Feeding
        infants and toddlers study:  overview of the
        study  design.  J Am Diet Assoc 104(Suppl
        1): S8-S13.
Fox, M.K.;  Pac, S.;  Devaney, B.; Jankowski,  L.
        (2004) Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study:
        what foods are infants and toddlers eating. J
        Am Diet Assoc 104 (Suppl): S22-S30.
Fox, M.K.; Reidy, K.; Karwe, V; Ziegler, P.  (2006)
        Average portions of foods commonly eaten
        by infants and toddlers in the United States.
        J Am Diet Assoc 106 (Suppl 1): S66-S76.
Mennella, J.;  Ziegler,  P.;  Briefel,  R.;  Novak,  T.
        (2006) Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study:
        the types of foods fed to Hispanic infants
        and toddlers.   J Am Diet  Assoc 106 (Suppl
        1): S96.
Ponza,  M;  Devaney,  B.;  Ziegler,  P.;  Reidy,  K.;
        Squatrito,  C.  (2004)   Nutrient intakes and
        food  choices  of  infants  and  toddlers
        participating in WIC.  J Am Diet Assoc 104
        (Suppl): S71-S79.
Smiciklas-Wright, H.; Mitchell, D.C.; Mickle, S.J.;
        Cook,  A.J.;  Goldman, J.D. (2002) Foods
        commonly  eaten  in the  United  States:
        Quantities consumed per  eating occasion
        and in a day, 1994-1996.  U.S. Department
        of Agriculture NFS Report No.  96-5, pre-
        publication version, 252 pp.
USDA.    (1980)  Food  and  nutrient  intakes  of
        individuals in one day in  the United States,
        Spring  1977.     U.S.   Department   of
        Agriculture.  Nationwide Food Consumption
        Survey 1977-1978. Preliminary Report No.
        2.
USDA.    (1992)  Food  and nutrient  intakes  by
        individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1987-
Page
12-10
                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
        88.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human
        Nutrition Information Service. Nationwide
        Food Consumption Survey 1987-88, NFCS
        Rpt. No. 87-1-1.
USDA.   (1996a) Data tables:  results  from USDA's
        1994 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
        Individuals  and   1994 Diet  and  Health
        Knowledge  Survey.   U.S. Department of
        Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
        Riverdale, MD.
USDA.   (1996b) Data tables:  results  from USDA's
        1995 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
        Individuals  and   1995 Diet  and  Health
        Knowledge  Survey.   U.S. Department of
        Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
        Riverdale, MD.
USDA.   (1999a)   Food  consumption prices  and
        expenditures (1970-1998)  U.S. Department
        of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
        Statistical Bulletin, No. 965. April 1999.
USDA.    (1999b)  Food  and  nutrient  intakes by
        children  1994-96,  1998:  Table  Set  17.
        Beltsville,  MD:  Food Surveys Research
        Group, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
        Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.
        Department of Agriculture.
USDA. (2007) USDA National Nutrient Database for
        Standard    Reference,    Release     20.
        Agricultural  Research Service,  Nutrient
        Data     Laboratory      Home      Page,
        http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl
U.S. EPA.  (2000) Food commodity intake database
        [FCID  raw  data  file]. Office of Pesticide
        Programs, Washington, DC. Available from
        the National Technical Information Service,
        Springfield, VA; PB2000-5000101.
U.S. EPA. (2005) Guidance on Selecting Age Groups
        for  Monitoring  and  Assessing Childhood
        Exposures to Environmental Contaminants.
        U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency,
        Washington,      D.C.,      EPA/630/P-
        03/003F.Vitolins,  M.;  Quandt, S.;  Bell, R.;
        Arcury, T.;  Case,  L.D.  (2002) Quality of
        Diets Consumed by Older Rural Adults. The
        Journal of Rural Health 18  (l):49-56.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                Page
July 2009	12-11
-------
a" a
   A.
liable 12-3. Per Capita Intake ofT^otal Grains (gfkg-day as consumed)
Domain
Whole Population
Age group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
13 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
Black
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Non-metropolitan
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on unpublished U.S
N
20,607

1,486
2,096
4,391
2,089
1,222
4,677
4,646

4,687
5,308
5,890
4,722

557
2,740
177
1,638
15,495

4,822
3,692
7,208
4,885

6,164
9,598
4,845


Percent , ,
„ . Mean
Consuming
99.5

70.5
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
100.0

99.5
99.6
99.5
99.5

98.5
99.4
99.7
98.8
99.6

99.7
99.6
99.5
99.4

99.5
99.5
99.6


2.7

2.5
6.4
6.3
4.3
2.5
2.2
1.7

2.6
2.7
2.6
2.7

3.6
2.6
2.9
3.1
2.6

2.7
2.8
2.5
2.8

2.7
2.7
2.4


SE
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.1


Percentiles
1st
0.2

0.0
1.1
1.8
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2

0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.3

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.3
0.3


5th
0.6

0.0
2.1
2.6
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.6

0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6

1.1
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7

0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7

0.6
0.7
0.6


10th
0.9

0.0
2.8
3.2
2.0
1.1
0.8
0.7

0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9

1.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9

0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9

0.9
0.9
0.8


25th
1.3

0.0
4.2
4.3
2.8
1.5
1.3
1.1

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4

2.3
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.3

1.4
1.4
1.2
1.4

1.3
1.4
1.2


50th
2.1

1.6
5.9
5.9
4.0
2.3
1.9
1.5

2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1

3.2
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.0

2.1
2.2
1.9
2.2

2.1
2.1
1.9


75th
3.3

3.8
7.9
7.8
5.4
3.1
2.8
2.1

3.3
3.4
3.3
3.3

4.7
3.3
4.2
4.1
3.2

3.4
3.5
3.0
3.5

3.5
3.4
2.9


90th
5.2

6.2
10.4
9.9
7.0
4.4
3.9
2.8

5.0
5.5
5.1
5.2

6.2
5.4
6.3
6.1
5.0

5.3
5.3
5.0
5.4

5.4
5.3
4.8


95m
6.8

8.6
12.1
11.5
8.2
5.1
4.7
3.5

6.6
7.0
6.8
6.8

7.3
7.3
7.5
7.7
6.6

7.0
6.8
6.6
7.0

7.0
6.9
6.3


99th Max
10.3 31.6

12.7 26.3
16.8 31.6
15.6 27.0
11.1 17.2
7.9 12.4
7.1 16.1
4.9 11.2

10.0 26.3
10.5 29.4
10.5 28.2
10.1 31.6

11.2 24.6
11.5 29.4
12.0 16.8
11.7 27.0
9.8 31.6

10.4 23.8
11.0 31.6
9.7 28.2
10.3 20.8

10.7 29.4
10.0 31.6
10.4 23.8


EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
                                                                                                                                                                       s
                                                                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                                                                       S1
                                                                                                                                                                       I
   ri
                                                                                                                                                                       I
vo
-------
•s-
&!

&


ft*
    1=
    I
liable 12-4. Consumer Only
Domain
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
Black
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Non-metropolitan
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on unpublished U.S
N
20,157

1,048
2,092
4,389
2,089
1,222
4,673
4,644

4,587
5,190
5,751
4,629

527
2,675
175
1,570
15,210

4,743
3,628
7,053
4,733

6,023
9,378
4,756


EPA analysis of 1994-96,
Mean
2.7

3.6
6.4
6.3
4.3
2.5
2.2
1.7

2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7

3.7
2.6
3.0
3.2
2.6

2.7
2.8
2.5
2.8

2.8
2.7
2.4


1998 CSFII
[ntake of Total Grains (g/kg-day
SE
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.1



as consumed)
Percentiles
1st
0.3

0.1
1.2
1.8
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3

0.8
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.4

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4

0.3
0.4
0.3



5m
0.7

0.3
2.1
2.6
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.6

0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7

1.2
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7

0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7

0.7
0.7
0.6



10m
0.9

0.6
2.8
3.2
2.0
1.1
0.8
0.7

0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9

1.6
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.9

0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9

0.9
0.9
0.8



25m
1.3

1.4
4.2
4.3
2.8
1.5
1.3
1.1

1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4

2.3
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.3

1.4
1.4
1.2
1.4

1.3
1.4
1.2



50m
2.1

2.8
5.9
5.9
4.0
2.3
1.9
1.5

2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1

3.2
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.0

2.1
2.2
1.9
2.2

2.1
2.1
1.9



75th
3.3

4.8
7.9
7.8
5.4
3.1
2.8
2.1

3.3
3.4
3.3
3.3

4.7
3.3
4.2
4.1
3.2

3.4
3.5
3.0
3.5

3.5
3.4
2.9



90th
5.2

7.4
10.4
9.9
7.0
4.4
3.9
2.8

5.0
5.5
5.2
5.2

6.2
5.4
6.3
6.2
5.1

5.3
5.3
5.0
5.4

5.4
5.3
4.8



95m
6.8

9.2
12.1
11.5
8.2
5.1
4.7
3.5

6.6
7.0
6.8
6.8

7.3
7.3
7.5
7.7
6.6

7.0
6.8
6.6
7.0

7.0
6.9
6.4



99th
10.3

13.4
16.8
15.6
11.1
7.9
7.1
4.9

10.0
10.6
10.5
10.1

11.2
11.5
12.0
11.7
9.8

10.4
11.0
9.8
10.3

10.7
10.0
10.4



Max
31.6

26.3
31.6
27.0
17.2
12.4
16.1
11.2

26.3
29.4
28.2
31.6

24.6
29.4
16.8
27.0
31.6

23.8
31.6
28.2
20.8

29.4
31.6
23.8



                                                                                                                                                                                  Q
                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                              f
                                                                                                                                                                              s-
    CfQ

    ft
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-5. Per Capita Intake of
Individual Grain Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
Cereal
Age Group

Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
Black
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Non-metropolitan
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on unpublished U. S
N

20,607

1,486
2,096
4,391
2,089
1,222
4,677
4,646

4,687
5,308
5,890
4,722

557
2,740
177
1,638
15,495

4,822
3,692
7,208
4,885

6,164
9,598
4,845

Percent
Consuming
99.6

74.6
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
100.0

99.6
99.6
99.5
99.6

98.5
99.5
99.7
98.9
99.7

99.7
99.7
99.6
99.4

99.6
99.5
99.7

EPA analysis of 1994- 96,

Mean
3.7

4.0
8.4
8.7
6.2
4.1
3.1
2.2

3.7
3.8
3.8
3.7

4.4
3.8
4.2
4.3
3.7

3.9
3.7
3.6
3.8

3.8
3.8
3.5

1998CSFII

SE
0.03

0.14
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.02

0.06
0.07
0.06
0.05

0.20
0.12
0.15
0.12
0.04

0.09
0.06
0.04
0.09

0.06
0.05
0.06


Percent
Consuming
86.5

60.2
86.4
87.9
88.0
85.8
88.3
84.5

85.1
87.1
86.9
87.1

96.6
86.3
92.6
85.9
86.2

88.2
87.2
85.0
86.7

87.2
86.6
85.6


Rice

Mean
0.3

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

1.7
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4

0.4
0.3
0.2




SE
0.01

0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.19
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.01

0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03

0.02
0.02
0.01


Page
12-14
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-6. Consumer Only Intake of Individual Grain Products (g/kg-day as consumed)
Age Group
Whole Population
Age Group
Birth to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 12 years
1 3 to 19 years
20 to 49 years
> 50 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian, Pacific Islander
Black
American Indian, Alaskan Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Non-metropolitan
N = Sample size.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on unpublished U.S
Cereal
N
20,227

1,116
2,092
4,389
2,089
1,222
4,674
4,645

4,598
5,213
5,768
4,648

529
2,683
175
1,579
15,261

4,759
3,639
7,081
4,748

6,039
9,410
4,778

EPA analysis of 1994-96,
Mean
3.8

5.4
8.4
8.7
6.2
4.1
3.1
2.2

3.7
3.8
3.8
3.7

4.5
3.8
4.3
4.4
3.7

3.9
3.7
3.6
3.9

3.8
3.8
3.6

SE
0.03

0.16
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.02

0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06

0.20
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.04

0.09
0.06
0.04
0.09

0.06
0.05
0.06

N
17,481

900
1,819
3,869
1,847
1,038
4,102
3,906

3,957
4,530
4,989
4,005

513
2,346
151
1,375
13,096

4,186
3,152
6,029
4,114

5,303
8,105
4,073

Rice
Mean
0.3

1.2
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

1.8
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.2

0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5

0.5
0.3
0.2


SE
0.01

0.07
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.19
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.01

0.02
0.04
0.01
0.03

0.03
0.02
0.02

1998CSFII.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
12-15
-------
I
 ri
Table 12-7. Per Capita Intake of Breads8 (g/kg-day as consumed)
Group
Whole Population
Age Group
< 5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian
Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
Percent
Percentile
consuming Mean
87.2
0.9
30.2
14.6
77.2
86.5
87.1
86.2
88.1
90.0
91.6

87.4
87.1
87.3
86.9

69.1
83.1
82.2
80.4
89.0
89.1
88.3
87.5
83.7

85.6
87.7
88.5
1.1
0.0
0.5
0.3
2.0
2.3
1.7
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9

1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1

0.8
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1

1.1
1.1
1.1
SE
0.01
0.08
0.16
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.06
0.03
0.18
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.02
0.01
0.02
1st
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
10th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
25th
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.4
0.4
0.4
50th
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
2.0
1.4
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8

0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8

0.4
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8

0.8
0.9
0.9
75*
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.9
3.3
2.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4

1.2
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4

1.4
1.5
1.5
90th
2.3
0.0
1.8
0.8
4.4
4.7
3.5
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.9

2.4
2.3
2.4
2.3

1.9
2.3
3.6
2.7
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.4

2.3
2.4
2.3
95th
3.1
0.0
3.0
1.7
6.0
5.8
4.3
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.3

3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1

2.9
3.3
4.1
3.4
3.0
3.3
2.9
3.1
3.2

3.1
3.1
3.1
99th Max
5.1 20.0
0.0 1.8
4.8 7.3
4.6 7.3
8.5 20.0
8.7 13.2
6.7 11.3
4.0 7.5
3.9 6.2
3.5 8.4
2.9 4.3

4.9 14.6
5.1 11.6
5.2 17.1
5.1 20.0

4.5 14.6
6.3 11.6
6.2 20.0
5.6 7.5
4.9 17.1
5.7 12.0
4.5 9.8
4.9 17.1
5.1 20.0

5.1 13.2
5.0 14.6
5.0 20.0
a Includes breads, rolls, muffins, bagels, biscuits, cornbread, and tortillas.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analysis of the
1 994-96 CSFII.











                                                                                                                                                                                                             s
                                                                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                                                                             I
 1=
 I
 ST-
I
-------
II
                                                                                                 s
  a
  a
  ft
  s
  1=
Table 12-8. Per Capita Intake of Sweets" (g/kg-day as consumed)
Group
Whole Population
Age Group
<5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian
Black
Percent
consuming
52.6
2.5
23.0
12.1
53.2
62.1
64.2
54.3
47.2
52.9
58.6

53.7
52.2
50.0
54.5

40.2
41.4
American Indian/Alaska Native 35.3
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Non-metropolitan
a Includes breakfast
SE = Standard error.
35.0
56.3
60.1
55.4
49.1
47.7

51.2
54.6
50.5
Percentile
Mean
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5

0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6

0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5

0.6
0.6
0.6
SE
0.01
0.04
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03

0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03

0.08
0.04
0.11
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02

0.02
0.02
0.03
1st
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
5th 10th
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
25th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
50*
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2

0.2
0.1
0.0
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.2
0.1
75th
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9

0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7

0.8
0.9
0.8
90th 95th
1.8 2.5
0.0 0.0
1.1 2.0
0.4 1.0
3.5 4.8
3.6 4.6
3.2 3.9
1.8 2.4
1.4 1.9
1.3 1.9
1.6 2.1

1.8 2.5
1.8 2.6
1.6 2.3
1.9 2.6

1.4 2.0
1.5 2.3
1.7 2.1
1.3 1.9
1.8 2.5
2.0 2.9
1.7 2.5
1.7 2.3
1.6 2.3

1.6 2.3
1.8 2.6
1.8 2.5
99th
4.6
0.4
3.6
3.6
7.2
8.8
6.7
3.7
3.2
3.2
3.6

4.7
4.7
4.1
4.8

3.1
4.7
2.8
4.1
4.7
5.3
4.8
4.4
3.8

4.6
4.5
5.1
Max
22.0
0.6
6.4
6.4
19.3
22.0
20.9
10.7
11.1
7.3
5.7

20.9
22.0
18.2
12.3

15.7
19.3
2.9
7.0
22.0
22.0
12.7
20.9
15.7

20.9
12.7
22.0
foods made with grains such as pancakes, waffles, and french toast.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analysis of the
1 994-96 CSFII.

                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 ft
                                                                                                 •s,
                                                                                                 I1
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 ft
I— CfQ

X) ft
-------
I
 ri
 1=
 I
 ST-
Table 12-9. Per Capita Intake of Snacks Containing Grains3 (g/kg-day as consumed)
Group
Whole Population
Age Group
<5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian
Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Non-metropolitan
Percent
consuming
43.1
1.0
29.0
14.1
58.1
56.7
51.3
45.0
41.1
41.1
37.7

42.3
43.6
40.6
45.8

24.1
29.5
38.3
28.4
47.1
49.2
41.9
41.1
40.7

40.1
44.6
44.1
1 Includes grain snacks such as crackers, salty
SE = Standard error.
Percentile
Mean
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3

0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.2
SE
0.01
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02

0.04
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02

0.01
0.01
0.01
1st
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
5th 10th
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
25th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
50th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
75th
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.3
90th 95th
0.7 1.2
0.0 0.0
0.9 2.2
0.6 0.9
2.0 2.8
1.8 3.2
1.3 1.9
0.9 1.4
0.6 0.9
0.5 0.7
0.3 0.5

0.7 1.0
0.8 1.3
0.7 1.0
0.8 1.3

0.4 1.0
0.5 0.9
0.6 1.1
0.5 0.8
0.8 1.2
0.8 1.2
0.7 1.2
0.7 1.1
0.7 1.2

0.7 1.1
0.7 1.2
0.7 1.1
99th
2.6
0.1
2.5
2.2
5.0
5.9
4.6
2.4
1.8
1.4
0.8

2.3
2.9
2.3
2.9

2.3
2.1
3.2
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.6

2.6
2.7
2.3
Max
9.1
3.7
2.8
3.7
8.9
9.1
7.3
5.1
5.5
5.6
1.8

8.0
8.9
7.1
9.1

4.4
7.4
4.9
8.7
9.1
8.9
9.1
8.0
8.7

7.8
9.1
8.1
snacks, popcorn, and pretzels.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analysis of the 1 994-96 CSFII.
                                                                                                                                                                                                             s
                                                                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                                                                             I
I
-------
II
                                                                                       s
a
a
ft
s
1=
Table 12-10. Per Capita Intake of Breakfast Foods3 (g/kg-day as consumed)
Group
Whole Population
Age Group
<5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian
Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
Percent
consuming
11.8
0.0
4.2
2.0
20.4
20.8
23.7
13.0
8.9
9.5
10.4

11.6
11.6
12.8
11.3

5.9
12.7
8.8
10.2
12.0
12.1
12.7
10.7
12.4

12.0
12.2
10.7
Percentile
Mean
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4.
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.1
SE
0.01
0.00
0.24
0.16
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.07
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02

0.02
0.02
0.02
1st
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
1 Includes breakfast food made with grains such as pancakes, waffles, and
SE = Standard error.
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
10th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
25th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
50th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
75th 90th
0.0 0.4
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.9
0.0 1.6
0.0 1.5
0.0 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1

0.0 0.4
0.0 0.4
0.0 0.5
0.0 0.3

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.0 0.4
0.0 0.5
0.0 0.2
0.0 0.5

0.0 0.4
0.0 0.5
0.0 0.3
95th
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.5
2.2
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7

1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9

0.6
1.2
0.3
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.0

1.0
1.0
0.9
99th Max
2.4 13.6
0.0 0.0
4.1 4.1
2.7 4.1
4.8 13.6
4.5 8.0
3.4 6.5
2.3 3.9
1.5 3.0
1.4 3.8
1.2 3.5

2.3 13.6
2.3 6.4
2.4 6.0
2.6 8.0

2.0 2.8
2.1 6.7
1.2 1.2
2.6 8.0
2.4 13.6
2.6 6.7
2.3 8.0
2.2 7.8
2.6 13.6

2.5 13.6
2.4 7.8
2.2 6.4
french toast.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analysis of the 1994-96 CSFII.

                                                                                         I
                                                                                         ft
                                                                                        •s,
                                                                                         I1
                                                                                       I
                                                                                       ft
CfQ
ft
-------
I
 ri
Table 12-11. Per Capita Intake of Pasta (g/kg-day as consumed)
Group

Whole Population
Age Group
<5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian
Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
SE = Standard error.
Percent
consuming
13.0

0.0
7.5
3.5
16.0
12.8
13.4
11.7
13.9
13.7
9.0

13.6
13.2
12.6
12.6

19.4
7.0
1.8
9.6
14.1

12.1
20.1
9.5
13.2

13.4
14.0
10.3

Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analysis of the 1994-96
Percentile
Mean
0.3

0.0
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3

0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3

0.3
0.3
0.2

CSFII.
SE
0.02

0.00
0.22
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.06

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06

0.17
0.10
0.23
0.09
0.03

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

0.05
0.03
0.05


1st
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0


5m
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0


10th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0


25m
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0


50m
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0


75m
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0


90th
1.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
2.1
2.0
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.0

1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8

2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1

0.8
1.9
0.0
0.9

1.2
1.2
0.1


95th
2.2

0.0
1.0
0.0
6.2
4.4
3.8
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.3

2.4
2.3
2.1
2.1

3.3
1.7
0.0
2.0
2.3

2.1
2.8
1.8
2.2

2.5
2.2
1.5


99th
5.1

0.0
3.3
2.3
10.6
8.4
7.5
4.2
4.1
3.6
2.9

4.7
5.8
5.2
5.1

6.6
3.6
2.4
3.5
5.3

5.2
5.9
4.4
5.7

5.3
5.3
4.2


Max
29.1

0.0
6.7
6.7
16.7
14.3
11.9
29.1
11.2
11.8
7.7

16.7
14.7
15.4
29.1

11.2
29.1
3.6
15.4
16.7

16.7
15.4
29.1
14.1

29.1
16.7
14.1


                                                                                                                                                                                                             s
                                                                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                                                                             I
 1=
 I
 ST-
I
-------
II
                                                                              s
a
a
ft
s
1=


Cjroup
Whole Population
Age Group
<5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian
Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Nonmetropolitan
SE = Standard error.
Table 12-12
Percent
consuming
10.4

0.9
16.6
8.3
18.4
16.0
8.7
5.6
6.2
11.6
24.5

12.0
9.1
9.3
11.1

4.4
20.1
7.6
7.6
9.3

9.6
9.0
12.4
9.4

11.6
9.9
9.7

Per Capita Intake of Cooked Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
Percentile
Mean
0.4

0.1
1.9
0.9
1.6
1.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4

0.2
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.3

0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4

0.4
0.3
0.3

SE
0.04

0.54
1.18
0.82
0.29
0.28
0.17
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.07

0.08
0.06
0.08
0.08

0.20
0.10
0.32
0.30
0.04

0.07
0.10
0.06
0.09

0.08
0.05
0.07

1st
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

5th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

10th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

25th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

50th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

75*
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

90th
0.6

0.0
9.4
0.0
6.9
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
2.2

1.1
0.0
0.0
0.9

0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0

0.9
0.0
0.0

95th
2.3

0.0
16.1
5.7
10.7
7.9
4.0
1.0
1.1
1.9
3.4

2.6
2.0
2.1
2.5

0.0
4.4
2.1
2.0
2.0

2.1
2.2
2.6
2.3

2.6
2.1
2.3

99th Max
7.2 72.5

0.0 5.6
22.8 22.8
22.8 22.8
20.6 33.9
16.1 72.5
9.4 24.1
4.3 10.6
3.3 9.2
4.4 8.7
5.6 10.6

8.1 45.9
6.4 20.9
6.9 72.5
7.4 44.5

5.3 16.1
10.9 33.9
5.8 12.3
10.6 72.5
6.1 45.9

5.7 45.9
5.9 72.5
7.9 31.7
8.0 39.5

8.1 72.5
6.9 45.9
5.7 26.9

Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analysis of the 1994-96 CSFII.

                                                                                I
                                                                                ft
                                                                                •s,
                                                                                I1
                                                                              I
                                                                              ft
-------
I
 ri
Table 12-13. Per Capita Intake of Ready -to-Eat Cereals3 (g/kg-day as consumed)

Cjroup
Whole Population
Age
<5 months
6 to 12 months
<1 years
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
20 to 39 years
40 to 69 years
>70 years
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Race
Asian
Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other/NA
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Urbanization
Central City
Suburban
Non-metropolitan
Percent
consuming
39.7

0.0
19.9
9.3
64.9
69.8
64.0
45.7
30.5
31.8
47.9

39.1
40.1
39.6
39.9

25A
34.0
33.1
33.3
41.7

42.2
42.3
37.4
38.4

40.0
41.2
35.8
Percentile
Mean SE
0.3

0.0
0.1
0.1
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.3
0.4
0.3
0.01

0.00
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.05
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.01

0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02

0.01
0.01
0.01
1 Includes dry ready -to-eat corn, rice, wheat, and bran cereals
SE = Standard error.

Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analysis of the

1994-96

CSFII.
1st 5&
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
10th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
25&
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
50th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
75th
0.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.7
1.2
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.4

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5

0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4

0.5
0.5
0.4
90th 95th
1.0 1.5

0.0 0.0
0.3 1.0
0.0 0.3
2.5 3.3
2.6 3.3
2.0 2.5
1.1 1.5
0.7 1.0
0.6 0.9
0.7 0.9

1.1 1.6
1.0 1.5
1.1 1.6
1.0 1.4

0.8 1.2
1.0 1.5
0.8 1.4
1.1 1.7
1.1 \.5

1.1 1.6
1.1 1.6
1.0 1.3
1.1 1.6

1.1 1.5
1.1 1.6
0.8 1.2
99th
2.9

0.0
1.8
1.7
4.9
4.8
4.0
2.2
1.7
1.4
1.5

2.9
2.9
3.0
2.7

2.7
3.2
2.6
3.0
2.8

2.9
2.9
2.8
3.1

2.8
3.1
2.6
Max
10.1

0.0
2.6
2.6
8.8
10.1
8.0
6.4
5.3
5.2
2.7

8.8
7.7
7.8
10.1

4.9
10.1
4.4
6.6
8.8

8.0
8.0
10.1
8.8

10.1
8.0
8.8
in the form of flakes, puffs, etc.
















                                                                                                                                                                                                             s
                                                                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                                                                             I
 1=
 I
 ST-
I
-------
II
                                                                              s
a
a
ft
s
1=
Table 12-14. Per Capita Intake of Baby Cereals (g/kg-day as consumed)
Percent
Ljroup
r consumin
Whole Population 1.0
Age (years)
<5 months 40.8
6 to 12 months 67.8
<1 years 53.4
1 to 2 years 6.2
3 to 5 years 0.3
6 to 11 years 0.1
12 to 19 years 0.0
20 to 39 years 0.0
40 to 69 years 0.1
>70 years 0.0
Season
Fall 0.9
Spring 1 .2
Summer 0.8
Winter 1.1
Race
Asian 0.7
Black 1.0
American Indian/Alaska Native 0 . 6
Other/NA 1.7
White 1.0
Region
Midwest 1 . 1
Northeast 1.2
South 0.9
West 0.9
Urbanization
Central City 1.1
Suburban 1 . 1
Nonmetropolitan 0.8


g Mean SE
0.0

0.8
2.5
1.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03

0.24
0.45
0.27
0.10
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.07
0.05
0.06
0.06

0.04
0.12
0.04
0.20
0.03

0.08
0.04
0.05
0.06

0.06
0.04
0.06
1 Data presented only for children less than 1 year of age.
SE = Standard error.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA's analysis of the

1994-96

CSFII.

1st
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

5th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

10th
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
Available data for other age






Percentile
25th 50th
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.8
0.0 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0

75*
0.0

1.0
2.8
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
groups was based on a





90th
0.0

2.4
6.9
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
very small



95th
0.0

3.1
11.3
7.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

99th
0.1

8.8
21.1
19.7
5.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.6
0.0
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0

0.3
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.3
0.1
0.0

Max
37.6

26.6
37.6
37.6
12.5
3.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0

21.1
26.6
26.0
37.6

2.1
37.6
0.9
26.6
26.0

21.1
12.5
37.6
26.6

37.6
21.1
26.0
number of observations.







                                                                                I
                                                                                ft
                                                                                •s,
                                                                                I1
                                                                              I
                                                                              ft
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-15. Mean Grain Intake Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1977-1978
„ . , , ^ 4 i ^ • Breads, Rolls, Other Baked „ . „ ,
Group Age (years) Total Grains . ' . ' , Cereals, Pasta
F fe " ' Biscuits Goods
Mixtures, Mainly
Grainb
Males and Females
< 1
1-2
3-5
6-8
Males
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
>75
Females
9-11
12-14
15-18
19-22
23-34
35-50
51-64
65-74
>75
42
158
181
206

238
288
303
253
256
234
229
235
196

214
235
196
161
163
161
155
175
178
4
27
46
53

67
76
91
84
82
82
78
71
70

58
57
57
44
49
49
52
57
54
5
24
37
56

56
80
77
53
60
58
57
60
50

59
61
43
36
38
37
40
42
44
30
44
54
60

51
57
53
64
40
44
48
69
58

44
45
41
33
32
32
36
47
58
3
63
45
38

64
74
82
52
74
50
46
35
19

53
72
55
48
44
43
27
29
22
Males and Females
All Ages 204
a
b
Source:
62
49
44
49
Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1 977-78 data for one day.
Includes mixtures containing grain as the main ingredient.
USDA, 1980.




Page                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
12-24	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-16. Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1987-1988
Group
Age (years)
Males and
Females < 5
Males
6-11
12-19
>20
Females
6-11
12-19
>20
All Individuals
rj, . , „ • Yeast Breads and
Total Grains _ „
Rolls
167

268
304
272

231
239
208
237
30

51
65
65

43
45
45
52
Quick Breads,
Pancakes,
French Toast
8

16
28
20

19
13
14
16
Cakes, Crackers,
Cookies, Popcorn,
Pastries, Pretzels,
Pies Corn Chips
22

37
45
37

30
29
28
32
4

8
10
8

6
7
6
7
Cereals and
Pastas
52

74
72
58

66
52
53
57
Mixtures,
Mostly
Grainb
51

83
82
83

68
91
62
72
a Based on USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1 987-88 data for one day.
b Includes mixtures containing grain as the main ingredient.
Source: USDA
, 1992.






Table 12-17. Mean Grain Intakes Per Individual in a Day by Sex
Group
Age (years) -
Males and
Females < 5
Males
6-11
12-19
>20
Females
6-11
12-19
>20
All
Individuals
Total Grains
1994 1995
213 210

285 341
417 364
357 365

260 286
317 296
254 257
300 303
and Age (g/day as consumed)3 for 1994
,, ,„ , Quick Breads, Cakes,
Yeast Breads „ . . .
, „ .. Pancakes, Cookies,
and Rolls _ . _ , _ , . '
French Toast Pastries, Pies
1994
26

51
53
64

43
40
44
50
Based on USDA CSFII 1 994
b Includes mixtures containing
Source: USDA
, 1996a; 1996b.

1995
28

45
54
61

46
37
45
49
1994 1995 1994
11 11 22

15 21 42
30 21 54
22 24 43

16 21 37
16 14 39
16 15 33
18 19 38
1995
23

46
43
46

51
35
34
39
Crackers,
Popcorn,
Pretzels, Com
Chips
1994
8

12
17
13

11
17
9
12
1995
7

18
22
15

14
16
10
13
Cereals and
Pastas
1994
58

66
82
86

57
63
59
70
1995
57

97
84
91

54
52
69
76
and 1995
Mixtures,
Mostly Grainb
1994
89

101
180
128

94
142
92
112
1995
84

115
138
128

100
143
83
107
and 1995 data for one day.
grain as the main ingredient.









Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
12-25
-------
                                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                 Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
                      Table 12-18. Per Capita Consumption of Flour and Cereal Products in 1997a
                                                                          Per Capita Consumption
 Food Item                                                                        (g/day)a
 Total Wheat Flourb                                                                  186
 Rye Flour                                                                          0.7
 Ricec                                                                              24
 Total Com Products'1                                                                 29
 Oat Products6                                                                        8
 Barley Productsf                                                                    0.9
 Total Flour and Cereal Products8                                                       249
         Original data were presented in Ibs/yr; data were converted to g/day by multiplying by a factor of 454 g/lb and
         dividing by 365 days/yr. Consumption of most items at the processing level. Excludes quantities used in alcoholic
         beverages and fuel.
         Includes white, whole wheat, and durum flour.
         Milled basis.
         Includes corn flour and meal, hominy and grits, and corn starch.
         Includes rolled oats, ready-to-eat oat cereals, oat flour, and oat bran.
         Includes barley flour, pearl barley, and malt and malt extract used in food processing.
         Excludes wheat not ground into flour.
 Source:  USDA, 1999a.
Page                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook
12-26	July 2009
-------
&

   a
   3
   ft
   1=

   I
r* s«
t\>  o

X| ft
Table 12-19. Mean Quantities of Grain Products Consumed by Children Under 20 Years of Age, by Sex and Age, Per Capita (g/day)
Age Group
Sample
Size
Total
-\r
breads,
and rolls
Cereals and Pasta
Total
Ready-to-eat
cereals
Rice
Quick
breads,
Pasta pancakes,
French toast
Cakes,
cookies,
pastries,
pies
Crackers,
popcorn,
pretzels,
corn chips
Mixtures,
mainly
grain
Males and Females
<1 year
1 year
2 years
1 to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
<5 years
,126
,016
,102
2,118
,831
,859
884
4,574
7,818
56
192
219
206
242
264
284
264
219
2
16
26
21
30
36
41
36
27
2
16
26
21
30
36
41
36
27
1
11
16
13
19
22
24
22
16
2
9
15
12
13
15
17
15
13
r
9
12
11
12
11
11
11
10
1
9
12
11
16
17
15
16
12
o
J
16
22
19
23
30
33
29
22
1
7
9
8
11
13
13
12
9
20
87
87
87
98
102
107
102
87
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 11 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
310
318
406
45
46
54
77
80
82
28
31
29
18
16
27
15
18
17
23
23
26
39
40
49
16
15
19
109
115
175
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 11 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
284
280
306
43
43
40
61
62
67
21
20
17
12
14
19
15
15
22
18
19
15
42
42
37
13
14
15
107
101
132
Males and Females
<9 years
<1 9 years
9,309
11,287
250
298
34
40
a Estimate is not statistically reliable due to small
Note: Consumption amounts shown are representative
Source: USD A, 1999b.
64
69
20
22
14
17
sample size reporting intake.
of the first day of each participant's
12
15
survey response.
16
18

30
36

12
14

96
120

                                                                                                                                                                       Q

                                                                                                                                                                       s-
                                                                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                                                                       ft
                                                                                                                                                                      -a,
-------
 ••s
oo
Table 12-201. Percentage of Individuals Under 20 Years of Age Consuming Grain Products, by Sex and Age (%)
Age Group
Sample
Size
Yeast,
Total breads
androl
Cereals and Pasta
Total
s
Ready-to-
eat cereals
Quick
breads,
Rice Pasta pancakes,
French toast
Cakes,
cookies,
pastries,
pies
Crackers,
popcorn,
pretzels,
corn chips
Mixtures,
mainly
grain
Males and Females
<1 year
1 year
2 years
1 to 2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
3 to 5 years
<5 years
,126
,016
,102
2,118
,831
,859
884
4,574
7,818
70.6
98.2a
99.0a
98.7
99.4a
99.5a
99.9a
99.6a
95.8
10.9
48.4
58.7
53.7
64.1
67.0
69.2
66.8
55.5
62.8
70.6
71.1
70.9
69.7
69.1
70.4
69.7
69.3
9.1
45.3
51.9
48.7
53.3
54.8
54.9
54.3
46.9
3.4
11.3
14.4
12.9
11.1
11.4
11.4
11.3
10.9
2.1
9.4
9.4
9.4
8.6
7.1
6.8
7.5
7.5
4.4
23.0
27.5
25.3
28.8
28.6
25.2
27.5
24.0
16.5
47.0
46.6
46.8
46.1
52.3
52.4
50.3
45.0
10.3
39.0
37.9
38.4
38.5
39.4
32.1
36.7
34.1
15.0
47.8
45.3
46.5
49.0
46.2
47.4
47.5
43.3
Males
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
787
1,031
737
98.9a
99.0a
98.2a
69.8
69.1
62.7
62.6
64.0
44.6
50.8
52.4
33.2
10.5
9.7
10.0
7.4
8.1
5.9
28.1
27.1
24.4
52.5
52.3
41.3
36.0
33.8
27.2
44.5
45.3
46.2
Females
6 to 9 years
6 to 1 1 years
12 to 19 years
704
969
732
99.7a
99.3a
97.6a
71.5
71.0
60.9
61.2
59.3
45.9
47.6
45.6
30.3
9.0
9.4
8.6
7.9
7.1
9.3
26.3
27.1
19.8
57.1
55.0
40.6
38.3
37.1
30.9
48.0
45.7
46.1
Males and Females
< 9 years
< 19 years
9,309
11,287
97.2
97.6
61.6
62.4
66.4
57.6
47.9
41.7
10.5
9.9
7.6
7.6
a Estimate is not statistically reliable due to small sample size reporting intake.
Note: Percentages shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey
Source: USDA, 1999b.
25.3
24.2
response.
48.9
46.1

35.3
32.5

44.4
45.1

                                                                                                                       ft
  ft
fcsi
I
a
I
vo
-------
&

                                                                                                                                                        Q
a
3
ft
1=

I
Table 12-21. Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days
Food category
White bread
Whole grain and wheat bread
Rolls
Biscuits
Tortillas
Quickbreads and muffins
Doughnuts and sweet rolls
Crackers
Cookies
Cake
Pie
Pancakes and waffles
Cooked cereal
Oatmeal
Ready-to-east cereal
Corn flakes
Toasted oat rings
Rice
Pasta
Macaroni and cheese
Spaghetti with tomato sauce
Pizza
SE = standard error.
Source: Smiciklas- Wright et al.
% Indiv.
using food
at least
once in 2
days
59.6
28.1
48.0
10.9
15.5
12.5
12.4
17.4
30.7
16.2
8.5
10.3
10.3
6.1
40.6
8.1
6.8
28.0
36.0
8.5
8.0
19.9

2002 (based on
Quantity consumed per
eating occasion
(g)
Average SE
50
50
58
61
60
82
77
26
40
92
150
85
248
264
54
46
42
150
162
244
436
169

1994-1996
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
6
1
1
1
3
3
9
15
5

CSFII data).
Consumers-only
Quantity consumed per eating occasion at Specified Percentiles (g)
5*
21
24
27
19
14
21
26
6
9
22
52
21
81
116
18
17
14
27
26
53
122
36


10th
24
25
33
19
21
28
36
9
12
28
72
35
117
117
24
22
16
40
43
81
124
52


25*
33
37
43
35
32
52
47
12
20
41
102
42
157
176
30
25
27
76
73
121
246
78


50*
46
50
48
57
48
60
65
18
31
77
143
75
233
232
46
37
38
131
133
191
371
140


75*
52
56
70
76
79
94
93
30
50
116
168
109
291
333
67
56
54
192
210
324
494
214


90*
78
72
89
104
107
142
133
47
75
181
246
158
455
454
93
75
65
312
318
477
740
338


95*
104
92
110
139
135
187
164
62
96
217
300
205
484
473
113
100
83
334
420
556
983
422



                                                                                                                                                        s-
                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                        ft
                                                                                                                                                       -a,
                                                                                                                                                        a-
ft
-------
^ble 12-22. Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and
Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Two Days, by Sex and Age
Quantity consumed per eating occasion (grams)
2 to 5 years
Food Category
White bread
Whole grain and wheat bread
Rolls
Biscuits
Tortillas
Quickbreads and muffins
Doughnuts and sweet rolls
Crackers
Cookies
Cake
Pie
Pancakes and waffles
Cooked cereal
Oatmeal
Ready-to-eat cereal
Corn flakes
Toasted oat rings
Rice
Pasta
Macaroni and cheese
Spaghetti with tomato sauce
Pizza
Corn chips
Popcorn
Male and Female
(N = 2,109)
PC
66.9
24.3
40.0
8.3
14.6
9.6
11.3
25.4
51.0
14.6
2.9
19.1
16.8
10.4
72.9
11.2
20.6
29.6
49.4
17.8
16.8
23.7
19.6
11.6
Mean
34
37
39
38
32
55
59
17
28
70
76
49
211
221
33
33
30
84
90
159
242
86
29
20
SE
a
1
1
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
8
1
10
9
1
2
1
3
3
8
11
3
2
1
6
to 11 years
Male and Female
(N= 1,432)
PC
67.1
20.5
53.5
9.7
16.4
9.6
13.4
17.2
46.7
19.7
5.6
21.5
9.0
5.7
67.3
13.1
12.5
24.6
41.4
13.2
11.5
32.8
25.6
12.7
Mean
42
44
48
48
47
67
69
26
37
79
116
77
245
256
47
42
45
124
130
217
322
108
33
31
SE
1
1
1
3
2
5
2
2
2
4
8
3
14
19
1
2
2
6
5
13
18
6
2
2
PC
61.3
14.5
61.9
12.2
22.9
11.0
17.3
10.6
29.0
15.1
6.6
13.5
5.2
2.4
45.6
10.4
7.3
24.2
33.4
7.5
10.1
39.6
26.9
7.8
12 to 19 years
Male
(N = 696)
Mean
56
60
69
72
76
125
102
39
53
99
188
96
310b
348b
72
62
62
203
203
408
583
205
58
54
SE
1
2
2
4
5
12
12
5
3
9
15
6
29b
45b
3
4
5
10
9
46
46
13
5
5
PC
57.9
17.6
48.8
10.3
20.1
11.0
13.8
14.2
31.8
15.5
4.8
8.2
6.0
2.3
46.3
8.7
8.1
28.8
37.8
10.7
8.5
30.5
25.1
10.5
Female
(N = 702)
Mean
47
53
51
55
56
79
78
26
42
85
138b
74
256b
321b
52
49
42
157
155
260
479
143
44
37
SE
1
2
1
4
o
J
10
5
3
2
8
12b
5
31b
40b
2
4
3
10
9
30
51
8
o
J
4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ft
    ft
fcsi
I
a
I
vo
-------
&

                                                                                                                                                        Q
a
3
ft
1=

I
Table 12-22. Quantity (as consumed) of Grain Products Consumed Per Eating Occasion and Percentage
Days, by Sex and Age (continued)
Quantity

Food category


White bread
Whole grain and wheat bread
Rolls
Biscuits
Tortillas
Quickbreads and muffins
Doughnuts and sweet rolls
Crackers
Cookies
Cake
Pie
Pancakes and waffles
Cooked cereal
Oatmeal
Ready -to-eat cereal
Corn flakes
Toasted oat rings
Rice
Pasta
Macaroni and cheese
Spaghetti with tomato sauce
Pizza
Corn chips
Popcorn
20 to <40 years
Male Female
(N= 1,543) (N= 1,449)
PC Mean SE PC Mean SE
63.0 63 2 54.9 47 1
25.3 63 1 25.2 48 1
62.0 73 4 46.4 53 1
11.5 73 3 9.4 55 2
20.6 79 4 20.1 53 2
8.0 93 7 11.3 79 5
13.3 94 5 11.2 68 2
11.9 36 3 15.6 28 2
20.8 56 4 26.5 39 2
13.5 113 6 14.9 94 7
5.8 161 7 7.2 150 9
8.0 126 15 7.4 80 6
5.2 313 30 7.3 219 11
2.7 360a 42a 3.7 258 17
26.9 77 3 34.7 55 1
6.5 73 6 5.3 43 2
4.2 62 4 5.4 42 2
30.8 199 9 32.1 139 6
37.1 214 8 37.1 155 6
7.8 301 19 7.8 235 19
8.6 630 48 7.8 385 22
23.7 253 12 20.2 150 6
16.2 61 5 17.9 35 2
8.1 63 6 9.7 35 2
consumed per eating
of Individuals Using These Foods in Two
occasion (grams)
40 to <60 years

Male

(N = 1,663)
PC
59.7
32.8
47.9
13.4
13.4
15.7
13.4
16.6
27.6
16.5
11.8
7.5
9.7
6.0
29.8
5.9
4.8
29.4
34.3
6.1
5.5
13.0
12.8
9.6
Mean
59
57
65
80
67
93
88
30
47
108
162
117
300
332
68
49
46
167
208
302
543
220
47
50
SE
2
1
1
3
3
7
4
1
2
6
6
8
16
16
2
3
2
5
7
31
59
13
4
4

Female

(N = 1,694)
PC
55.3
32.3
43.4
11.2
12.7
14.9
11.0
17.5
29.0
16.8
9.9
8.0
10.3
6.2
29.7
5.2
4.1
28.8
34.7
6.0
5.4
14.5
12.0
10.9
Mean
46
46
52
56
52
72
72
24
36
83
151
74
243
242
51
40
35
130
140
210
386
147
33
39
SE
1
2
1
2
2
4
4
1
1
4
8
5
11
10
1
3
2
4
5
12
18
8
2
3
Male
>60 years

(N = 1,545)
PC Mean
59.3 51
39.8 48
37.8 54
13.0 58
4.2 47
17.4 86
11.4 65
25.6 23
29.7 40
19.2 85
16.4 154
10.8 99
20.9 255
13.6 257
44.6 53
12.4 37
4.3 36
23.1 147
27.9 167
7.1 230
5.0 450
5.3 187
4.8 30
6.1 52
SE
1
1
1
3
4
5
2
1
2
4
7
5
8
10
1
2
3
6
7
13
22
18
3
4
Female

(N = 1,429)
PC Mean
54.8 41
43.1 41
30.6 43
9.8 48
5.4 41
18.3 72
10.4 56
25.9 17
32.2 30
18.3 87
13.3 137
8.2 68
20.2 216
12.9 224
44.0 41
10.4 30
4.9 27
21.4 118
27.9 132
6.5 215
4.5 379
4.7 109
5.3 21
7.6 34
SE
1
1
1
3
2
4
2
1
1
7
5
4
8
10
1
1
2
5
5
18
33
8
2
3
a Indicates a SE value that is greater than 0 but less than 0.5.
b Indicates a statistic that
PC = Percent consuming at
is potentially unreliable because of small sample size
least once in 2 days.


or large coefficient



of variation.





SE = Standard error of the mean.
Source: Smiciklas-Wrightetal.,
2002 (based on 1994-1996 CSFII data)











                                                                                                                                                        s-
                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                        ft
                                                                                                                                                       -a,
                                                                                                                                                        a-
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                 Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-23. Consumption of Major Food Groups by Older Adults: Median Daily Servings (and Ranges) by Demographic and
Health Characteristics
Subject Characteristic
Gender
Female
Male
Ethnicity
African American
European American
Native American
Age
70 to 74
75 to 79
80 to 84
>85
Marital Status
Married
Not Married
Education
8th grade or less
9th to 12th grades
> High School
Dentures
Yes
No
Chronic Diseases
0
1
2
3
>4
Weight3
<130
131 to 150
151 to 170
171 to 190
>191
a Two missing values.
* p<0.05
Source: Vitolins et al, 2002.
N

80
50

44
47
39

42
36
36
16

49
81

37
47
46

83
47

7
31
56
26
10

18
32
27
22
29


Bread, Cereal, Rice and Pasta
*
2.7(0.9-6.5)
3.6(1.4-7.3)

3.3(1.4-6.4)
3.2(0.9-6.8)
2.9(1.1-7.3)

3.3(1.1-6.3)
3.0(0.9-6.8)
3.2(1.5-6.4)
3.6(1.6-7.3)

3.3(1.1-5.8)
3.0(0.9-7.3)

3.1 (1.1-7.3)
3.3(1.1-6.8)
3.2(0.9-6.5)

3.3(1.1-6.4)
3.1(0.9-7.3)

4.1 (2.2-6.4)
3.3(0.9-7.3)
3.1 (1.1-5.8)
3.7(1.1-5.8)
2.9(1.4-5.3)

3.1 (1.1-5.4)
3.3(0.9-5.2)
3.1(1.4-7.3)
3.6(1.4-6.2)
3.0(1.1-6.8)


Page
12-32
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-24. Characteristics of the FITS Sample Population

Gender
Male
Female
Age of Child
4 to 6 months
7 to 8 months
9 to 1 1 months
12 to 14 months
1 5 to 18 months
1 9 to 24 months
Child's Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Non-Hispanic or Latino
Missing
Child's Race
White
Black
Other
Urbanicity
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Missing
Household Income
Under $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 and Over
Missing
Receives WIC
Yes
No
Missing
Sample Size (Unweighted)
WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Proj
Source: Devaney et al., 2004.
Sample Size

1,549
1,473
862
483
679
374
308
316

367
2,641
14

2,417
225
380

1,389
1,014
577
42

48
48
221
359
723
588
311
272
452

821
2,196
5
3,022
'ram for Women, Infants, and Children.

Percentage of Sample

51.3
48.7
28.5
16.0
22.5
12.4
10.2
10.4

12.1
87.4
0.5

80.0
7.4
12.6

46.0
33.6
19.1
1.3

1.6
1.6
7.3
11.9
23.9
19.5
10.3
9.0
14.9

27.2
72.6
0.2
100.0


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
12-33
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-25. Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different Types of Grain Products
Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Consuming at Least Once in a Day
Food Group/Food
4 to 6 7 to 8
months months
Any Grain or Grain Product
Infant Cereals
Noninfant Cerealsa
not Pre-sweetened
Pre-sweetenedb
Breads and Rolls0
Crackers, Pretzels, Rice Cakes
Cereal or Granola Bars
Pancakes, Waffles, French Toast
Rice and Pastad
Other
Grains in Mixed Dishes
Sandwiches
Burrito, Taco, Enchilada, Nachos
Macaroni and Cheese
Pizza
Pot Pie/Hot Pocket
Spaghetti, Ravioli, Lasagna
65.8
64.8
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.6
3.0
0.0
0.1
2.3
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
91.5
81.2
18.3
17.0
1.8
9.9
16.2
1.1
0.8
4.5
0.1
5.3
1.1
0.0
1.6
0.7
0.9
1.8
a Includes both ready -to-eat and cooked cereals.
b Defined as cereals with more than 2 1 . 1 g sugar per 1 00 g.
0 Does not include bread in sandwiches. Sandwiches are included
d Does not include rice or pasta in mixed dishes.
Source: Fox etal., 2004.


9 to 11
months
97.5
63.8
44.3
37.0
9.0
24.5
33.4
3.4
7.5
18.2
2.7
24.1
8.6
1.0
4.9
2.2
0.5
9.9
in mixed dishes.

12 to 14
months
97.8
23.9
58.9
44.5
17.7
47.3
45.2
9.8
15.1
26.2
2.8
48.3
21.5
4.5
14.6
6.8
2.0
15.3


15 to 18
months
98.6
9.2
60.5
40.6
26.4
52.7
46.4
10.0
16.1
39.0
2.5
52.0
25.8
2.8
15.0
9.0
1.0
12.1


19 to 24
months
99.2
3.1
51.9
31.9
22.7
53.1
44.7
9.7
15.4
35.9
4.5
55.1
25.8
2.1
15.0
9.4
1.8
8.8


Page
12-34
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-26. Characteristics ofWIC Participants and Non-participants* (Percentages)
Infants 4 to 6 months

Gender
Male
Female
Child's Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Non-Hispanic or Latino
Child's Race
White
Black
Other
Child In Day Care
Yes
No
Age of Mother
14 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
>35
Missing
Mother's Education
11th Grade or Less
Completed High School
Some Postsecondary
Completed College
Missing
Parent's Marital Status
Married
Not Married
Missing
WIC
Participant

55
45

20
80

69
15
22

39
61

18
33
29
9
9
2

23
35
33
7
2

49
50
1
Non-participant

54
46
**
11
89
**
84
4
11

38
62
**
1
13
29
33
23
2
**
2
19
26
53
1
**
93
7
1
Infants 7 to 1 1 months
WIC
Participant

55
45

24
76

63
17
20

34
66

13
38
23
15
11
1

15
42
32
9
2

57
42
1
Mother or Female Guardian Works
Yes
No
Missing
46
53
1
51
48
1
45
54
1
Non-participant

51
49
**
8
92
**
86
5
9
**
46
54
**
1
11
30
36
21
1
**
2
20
27
51
0
**
93
7
0
**
60
40
0
Toddlers 12
WIC
Participant

57
43

22
78

67
13
20

43
57

9
33
29
18
11
0

17
42
31
9
1

58
41
1

55
45
0
to 24 months
Non-participant

52
48
**
10
89
**
84
5
11
*
53
47
**
1
14
26
34
26
1
**
3
19
28
48
2
**
88
11
1
*
61
38
1
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
12-35
-------
                                                                             Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                   Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
              Table 12-26.  Characteristics of WIC Participants and Nonparticipantsa (Percentages) (continued)

                                Infants 4 to 6 months          Infants 7 to 11 months       Toddlers 12 to 24 months

                               WIC                         WIC                        WIC
                             Participant   Non-participant   Participant  Non-participant   Participant  Non-participant

 Urbanicity                                     **                          **                          **
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Missing




Sample Size (Unweighted)
34
36
28
2
265
55
31
13
1
597
37
31
30
2
351
50
34
15
1
808
35
35
28
2
205
48
35
16
2
791
         X2 test were conducted to test for statistical significance in the differences between WIC participants and non-
         participants within each age group for each variable.  The results of X2 test are listed next to the variable under the
         column labeled non-participants for each of the three age groups.
         P<0.05 non-participants significantly different from WIC participants on the variable.
  *       P>0.01 non-participants significantly different from WIC participants on the variable.
 WIC    =Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

 Source:  Ponza et al., 2004.
Table 12-27. Food Choices for Infants and Toddlers by WIC Participation


Infant Cereals
Noninfant Cereals, Total
Not Pre- sweetened
Pre-sweetened
Grains in Combination Foods
Sample Size (unweighted)
Infants 4
WIC
Participant
69.7
0.9
0.5
0.0
0.9
265
to 6 months
Non-
participant
62.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.1
597
Infants 7 to
WIC
Participant
74.7
21.7
18.7
4.0
18.8
351
11 months
Non-
participant
69.7
38.5*
32.9*
6.9
14.7
808
Status
Toddlers 12
WIC
Participant
13.5
58.1
43.7
17.7
50.3
205

to 24 months
Non-
participant
9.2
56.0
36.3
24.1
52.9
791
* = P<0.01 non-participants significantly different from WIC participants.
WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Source: Ponza et al., 2004.






Page                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
12-36	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-28. Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Grain Products Commonly Consumed by
Infants from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study
Food group
Infant cereal, dry
Infant cereal, jarred
Ready-to-eat cereal
Crackers
Crackers
Bread
= Cell size was too small to g
N = Number of respondents.
SEM = Standard error of the mean
Source: Fox etal., 2006.
4 to 5 months
Reference (N=624)

tablespoon 3.1±0.14
tablespoon
tablespoon
ounce
saltine
slice
enerate a reliable estimate.
6 to 8 months
(N=708)
Mean± SEM
4.5±0.14
5.6±0.26
2.3±0.34
0.2±0.02
2.2±0.14
0.5±0.10

9 to 1 1 months
(N=687)

5.2±0.18
7.4±0.34
3.4±0.21
0.3±0.01
2.7±0.12
0.8±0.06

Table 12-29. Average Portion Sizes Per Eating Occasion of Grain Products Commonly Consumed by
Toddlers from the 2002 Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study

Food Group
Bread
Rolls
Ready-to-eat cereal
Hot cereal, prepared
Crackers
Crackers
Pasta
Rice
Pancakes and waffles

Reference Unit
slice
ounce
cup
cup
ounce
saltine
cup
cup
1 (4-inch diameter)
12 to 14 months
(N=371)

0.8±0.04
0.9±0.11
0.3+0.02
0.6±0.05
0.3+0.02
3.3+0.22
0.4+0.04
0.3+0.04
1.0+0.08
15 to 18 months
(N=312)
Mean± SEM
0.9+0.05
1.0+0.10
0.5+0.03
0.6+0.05
0.4+0.02
3.5±0.22
0.4+0.04
0.4+0.05
1.4+0.21
19 to 24 months
(N=320)

0.9+0.05
0.9+0.15
0.6+0.04
0.7+0.05
0.4+0.02
3.7+0.22
0.5+0.05
0.4+0.05
1.4+0.17
N = Number of respondents.
SEM = Standard error of the mean.
Source: Fox etal., 2006.




Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
12-37
-------
                                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                 Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
             Table 12-30.  Percentage of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Infants and Toddlers Consuming Different
                                     Types of Grain Products on A Given Day
                                      Age 4 to 5 months
                                                       Age 6 toll months
Age 12 to 24 months
                                   Hispanic    Non-Hispanic   Hispanic   Non-Hispanic   Hispanic   Non-Hispanic
                                    (n=84)      (n=538)      (n=163)    (n=l,228)     (n=124)     (n=871)
Any Grain or Grain Product
Infant Cereal
Non-infant Cereal
Breads"
Tortillas
Crackers, Pretzels, Rice Cakes
Pancakes, Waffles, French Toast
Rice and Pastab
Rice
Grains in Mixed Dishes
Sandwiches
Burrito, Taco, Enchilada, Nachos
Macaroni and Cheese
Pizza
Spaghetti, Ravioli, Lasagna
56.5
55.2
-
1.4f
1.4f
1.3f

_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
56.9 95.0
56.5 74.1
18.5*
18.2
4.0f
27.8
1.4f
20.1*
15.9**
15.9
4.0f
1.3f
3.0f
-
8.3f
93.5
73.6
29.2
15.1
_
22.5
4.3
10.3
4.7
13.0
4.6
_
3.1
1.4
4.6
97.1
15.9
45.3
44.0
6.7f*
35.6
13.0
44.3
26. 9f*
38.8*
24.2
2.1f
10.1
1.0**f
9.3f
98.9
9.3
57.8
52.9
0.6f
46.9
16.0
32.9
13.0
54.4
24.9
3.0
15.5
9.7
12.1
 *
 **
Does not include bread in sandwiches. Sandwiches are included in mixed dishes. Includes tortillas, also shown
separately.
Does not include rice or pasta in mixed dishes. Includes rice (e.g. white, brown, wild, and Spanish rice without meat)
and pasta (e.g. spaghetti, macaroni, and egg noodles). Rice is also shown separately.
= Less than 1 percent of the group consumed this food on a given day.
= Significantly different from non-Hispanic at the PO.05.
= Significantly different from non-Hispanic attheP>0.01.
= Statistic is potentially unreliable because of a high coefficient of variation.
 Source: Mennella et al., 2006.
Page
12-38
                                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                   	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12-31. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Grain Products Expressed as
Percentages of Edible Portions (grams per lOOg of Edible Portion)
Food
Barley - pearled
Corn - grain - endosperm
Corn - grain - bran
Millet
Oats
Rice - white - long-grained
Rye
Rye - flour - medium
Sorghum
Wheat- hard white
Wheat - germ
Wheat - bran
Wheat - flour - whole grain
Indicates that the grain
Source: USDA, 2007.
Moisture Content
Raw Cooked
10.09 68.80
10.37
4.71
8.67 71.41
8.22
11.62 68.44
10.95
9.85
9.20
9.57
11.12
9.89
10.27
product was not assessed for water content under these conditions.

Comments


crude







crude
crude



Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
July 2009	12-39
-------
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
                              APPENDIX 12A

     CODES AND DEFINITIONS USED TO DETERMINE THE VARIOUS GRAIN
      PRODUCTS USED IN THE U.S. EPA ANALYSIS OF CSFII DATA IN FCID
Exposure Factors Handbook                                               Page
July 2009	12A-1
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 12 - Intake of Grain Products
Table 12A-1.
Total Grains 95000060
15000250
15000251
15000260
15000261
15000270
15000650
15000660
15001200
15001201
15001210
15001211
15001220
15001230
15001231
15001260
15001270
15001271
15002260
15002310
15002320
15002321
15002330
Cereal Grains 15000250
15000251
15000260
15000261
15000270
15000650
15000660
15001200
15001201
15001210
15001211
15001220
15001230
15001231
15001240
15001241
15001260
15001270
15001271
15002260
15002310
15002320
15002321
15002330
15002331
Rice 15003260
15003261
15003240
15003241
Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96,
Amaranth, grain
Barley, pearled barley
Barley, pearled barley-babyfood
Barley, flour
Barley, flour-babyfood
Barley, bran
Buckwheat
Buckwheat, flour
Corn, field, flour
Corn, field, flour-babyfood
Corn, field, meal
Corn, field, meal-babyfood
Corn, field, bran
Corn, field, starch
Corn, field, starch-babyfood
Corn, pop
Corn, sweet
Corn, sweet-babyfood
Millet, grain
Oat, bran
Oat, flour
Oat, flour-babyfood
Oat, groats/rolled oats
Barley, pearled barley
Barley, pearled barley-babyfood
Barley, flour
Barley, flour-babyfood
Barley, bran
Buckwheat
Buckwheat, flour
Corn, field, flour
Corn, field, flour-babyfood
Corn, field, meal
Corn, field, meal-babyfood
Corn, field, bran
Corn, field, starch
Corn, field, starch-babyfood
Corn, field, syrup
Corn, field, syrup-babyfood
Corn, pop
Corn, sweet
Corn, sweet-babyfood
Millet, grain
Oat, bran
Oat, flour
Oat, flour-babyfood
Oat, groats/rolled oats
Oat, groats/rolled oats-babyfood
Rice, bran
Rice, bran-babyfood
Rice, brown
Rice, brown-babyfood
15002331
95003060
95003110
15003230
15003231
15003240
15003241
15003250
15003251
15003260
15003261
15003280
15003290
15003440
15003810
15003811
15004010
15004011
15004020
15004021
15004030
15004040
15004050
15003230
15003231
15003240
15003241
15003250
15003251
15003260
15003261
15003280
15003290
15003440
15003450
15003810
15003811
15004010
15004011
15004020
15004021
15004030
15004040
15004050
95000060
95003060
95003110
15003250
15003251
15003230
15003231
1998 USDA CSFII Data
Oat, groats/rolled oats-babyfood
Psyllium, seed
Quinoa, grain
Rice, white
Rice, white-babyfood
Rice, brown
Rice, brown-babyfood
Rice, flour
Rice, flour-babyfood
Rice, bran
Rice, bran-babyfood
Rye, grain
Rye, flour
Sorghum, grain
Triticale, flour
Triticale, flour-babyfood
Wheat, grain
Wheat, grain-babyfood
Wheat, flour
Wheat, flour-babyfood
Wheat, germ
Wheat, bran
Wild rice
Rice, white
Rice, white-babyfood
Rice, brown
Rice, brown-babyfood
Rice, flour
Rice, flour-babyfood
Rice, bran
Rice, bran-babyfood
Rye, grain
Rye, flour
Sorghum, grain
Sorghum, syrup
Triticale, flour
Triticale, flour-babyfood
Wheat, grain
Wheat, grain-babyfood
Wheat, flour
Wheat, flour-babyfood
Wheat, germ
Wheat, bran
Wild rice
Amaranth, grain
Psyllium, seed
Quinoa, grain
Rice, flour
Rice, flour-babyfood
Rice, white
Rice, white-babyfood
Page
12A-2
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

13    INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS	13-1
      13.1    INTRODUCTION	13-1
      13.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	13-1
      13.3    KEY STUDY FOR INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS	13-4
             13.3.1  U.S. EPA Analysis of NFCS 1987-1988 (1997); Moya and Phillips (2001)	13-4
      13.4    RELEVANT STUDY FOR INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS	13-8
             13.4.1  National Gardening Association (2009)	13-8
      13.5    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 13	13-8

APPENDIX 13 A FOOD CODES AND DEFINITIONS OF MAJOR FOOD GROUPS USED IN ANALYSIS OF
             THE 1987-1988 USDANFCS DATA TO ESTIMATE HOME-PRODUCED INTAKE RATES13A-1
APPENDIX 13B 1987-1988 NFCS FOOD CODES AND DEFINITIONS OF INDIVIDUAL FOOD ITEMS USED
             IN ESTIMATING FRACTION OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD INTAKE THAT IS HOME-
             PRODUCED	13B-1
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                      Page
July 2009                                                                        13-i
-------
                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                  Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
                                        LIST OF TABLES

Table 13-1.      Summary of Recommended Values for Intake of Home-produced Foods (Consumers Only)	13-2
Table 13-2.      Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Home-produced Foods	13-3
Table 13-3.      Sub-category Codes and Definitions	13-10
Table 13-4.      Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations (Individuals) for NFCS Data Used in
               Analysis of Food Intake	13-11
Table 13-5.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined	13-12
Table 13-6.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Northeast	13-13
Table 13-7.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Midwest	13-14
Table 13-8.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day)- South	13-15
Table 13-9.      Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - West	13-16
Table 13-10.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined	13-17
Table 13-11.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) -Northeast	13-18
Table 13-12.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - Midwest	13-19
Table 13-13.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day)- South	13-20
Table 13-14.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - West	13-21
Table 13-15.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined	13-22
Table 13-16.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Northeast	13-23
Table 13-17.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Midwest	13-24
Table 13-18.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day)- South	13-25
Table 13-19.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Meats (g/kg-day) - West	13-26
Table 13-20.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined	13-27
Table 13-21.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day)-Northeast	13-28
Table 13-22.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day)-Midwest	13-29
Table 13-23.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - South	13-30
Table 13-24.     Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day)-West	13-31
Table 13-25.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) -All Regions	13-32
Table 13-26.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Northeast	13-33
Table 13-27.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Midwest	13-34
Table 13-28.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day)- South	13-35
Table 13-29.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - West	13-36
Table 13-30.     Seasonally Adjusted Consumer Only Homegrown Intake (g/kg-day)	13-37
Table 13-31.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Apples (g/kg-day)	13-38
Table 13-32.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Asparagus (g/kg-day)	13-39
Table 13-33.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Beef (g/kg-day)	13-40
Table 13-34.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Beets (g/kg-day)	13-41
Table 13-35.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Broccoli (g/kg-day)	13-42
Table 13-36.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cabbage (g/kg-day)	13-43
Table 13-37.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Carrots (g/kg-day)	13-44
Table 13-38.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Corn (g/kg-day)	13-45
Table 13-39.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cucumbers (g/kg-day)	13-46
Table 13-40.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Eggs (g/kg-day)	13-47
Table 13-41.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Game (g/kg-day)	13-48
Table 13-42.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Lettuce (g/kg-day)	13-49
Table 13-43.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Lima Beans (g/kg-day)	13-50
Table 13-44.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Okra (g/kg-day)	13-51
Table 13-45.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Onions (g/kg-day)	13-52
Table 13-46.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Berries (g/kg-day)	13-53
Table 13-47.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peaches (g/kg-day)	13-54
Table 13-48.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pears (g/kg-day)	13-55
Table 13-49.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peas (g/kg-day)	13-56
Table 13-50.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peppers (g/kg-day)	13-57
Table 13-51.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Pork (g/kg-day)	13-58
Table 13-52.     Consumer Only Intake of Home-Produced Poultry (g/kg-day)	13-59
Page
13-ii
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
Table 13-53.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pumpkins (g/kg-day)	13-60
Table 13-54.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Snap Beans (g/kg-day)	13-61
Table 13-55.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Strawberries (g/kg-day)	13-62
Table 13-56.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Tomatoes (g/kg-day)	13-63
Table 13-57.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown White Potatoes (g/kg-day)	13-64
Table 13-58.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Fruit (g/kg-day)	13-65
Table 13-59.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Fruits (g/kg-day)	13-66
Table 13-60.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-67
Table 13-61.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-68
Table 13-62.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Root Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-69
Table 13-63.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Dark Green Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13 -70
Table 13-64.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Deep Yellow Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-71
Table 13-65.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Vegetables (g/kg-day)	13-72
Table 13-66.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Citrus (g/kg-day)	13-73
Table 13-67.     Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Fruit (g/kg-day)	13-74
Table 13-68.     Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-Produced	13-75
Table 13-69.     Percent Weight Losses from Food Preparation	13-79
Table 13-70.     2008 Food Gardening by Demographic Factors	13-80
Table 13-71.     Percentage of Gardening Households Growing Different Vegetables in 2008	13-81
Table 13A-1.    Food Codes and Definitions of Major Food Groups Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988
               USD A NFCS Data to Estimate Intake of Home-produced Foods	13A-2
Table 13B-1.    Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988
               USD A NFCS Household Data to Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced... 13B-2
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009
Page
13-iii
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
13      INTAKE    OF    HOME-PRODUCED
        FOODS
13.1    INTRODUCTION
        Ingestion of home-produced foods can be a
pathway for exposure to environmental contaminants.
Home-produced foods can become contaminated in a
variety of ways. Ambient pollutants in the air may be
deposited on plants, adsorbed onto or absorbed by the
plants, or dissolved in rainfall or irrigation waters that
contact the plants.  Pollutants may also be adsorbed
onto plant roots from  contaminated  soil and water.
Finally, the addition of pesticides, soil additives, and
fertilizers  to  crops or gardens  may  result  in
contamination of  food products.  Meat  and  dairy
products   can become  contaminated  if animals
consume  contaminated soil, water,  or  feed  crops.
Farmers,  as well as rural and urban residents who
consume  home-produced foods, may be potentially
exposed  if  these  foods  become   contaminated.
Exposure  via the consumption of home-produced
foods may be a significant route of exposure for these
populations (U.S. EPA, 1989; U.S. EPA, 1996). For
example,  consumption  of  home-produced  fruits,
vegetables, game, and fish has been shown to have an
impact on blood lead levels in areas where soil lead
contamination exists   (U.S.  EPA,  1994).     At
Superfund sites where soil  contamination is found,
ingestion  of home-produced   foods   has   been
considered a potential route of exposure (U.S. EPA,
1991;  U.S.  EPA,  1993).  Assessing exposures to
individuals  who  consume  home-produced  foods
requires knowledge of intake rates of such foods.
        Data from the 1987-1988 Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey (NFCS) were used to generate
intake rates for home-produced foods.
        The methods used to analyze the 1987-1988
NFCS data are presented in Section 13.3.

13.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
        The  data presented  in this section may be
used  to assess exposure to  contaminants  in foods
grown, raised, or caught at a  specific  site.   The
recommended values for mean and upper percentile
(i.e., 95th percentile)  intake rates among consumers of
the various home-produced food groups are presented
in Table  13-1; these rates can be converted  to per
capita rates  by multiplying by  the fraction of the
population consuming  these food groups during the
survey period  (See Section 13.3).    Table  13-2
presents the confidence  ratings  for home-produced
food intake.  The  data presented in this chapter for
consumers   of  home-produced  foods  represent
average daily intake rates of food items/groups over
the seven-day survey period  and do not account for
variations in eating habits during the rest of the year;
thus the  recommended upper percentile values, as
well as the percentiles of the distributions presented
in Section 13.3 may not necessarily reflect the long-
term distribution of average daily intake of home-
produced foods.
        Because  the  home-produced food  intake
rates presented in this chapter are based on foods as
brought into the household and not in the form in
which they are consumed,  preparation loss factors
should be applied, as appropriate.  These factors are
necessary to convert to  intake rates to those that are
representative of foods  "as  consumed."  Additional
conversions may be necessary to ensure that the form
of the food used to estimate intake (e.g., wet or dry
weight) is consistent with the  form used  to measure
contaminant concentration (see Section 13.3).
        The NFCS data used to generate intake rates
of home-produced foods are over 20 years old and
may not be  reflective of  current  eating patterns
among   consumers  of    home-produced   foods.
Although USDA  and others have conducted other
food consumption studies since the release  of the
1987-1988  NFCS,  these  studies do not  include
information on home-produced foods.
        Because this analysis was conducted prior to
issuance  of U.S. EPA's Guidance  on Selecting Age
Groups for  Monitoring and Assessing  Childhood
Exposures  to  Environmental  Contaminants  (U.S.
EPA, 2005), the age groups  used are not entirely
consistent   with   recent   guidelines.       Also,
recommended home-produced food intake rates are
not provided for children under 1 year of age because
the methodology used is based on apportionment of
home-produced foods used by a household among the
members of that household that consume those foods.
It was assumed that the diets of children under 1 year
of age differ markedly from that of other household
members; thus,  they were not assumed to consume
any portion of the home-produced food brought into
the home.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          13-1
-------
                                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                        Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
           Table 13-1. Summary of Recommended Values for Intake of Home-produced Foods (Consumers Only)
             Age Group"
                                     Mean
            95th Percentile
                                            g/kg-day
                               Multiple
                              Percentiles
                                   Source
                                            Home-produced Fruits
     1 to 2 years
     3 to 5 years
     6 to 11 years
     12 to 19 years
     20 to 39 years
     40 to 69 years
     >70 years
8.7
4.1
3.6
1.9
2.0
2.7
2.3
60.6
 8.9
15.8
 8.3
 6.8
13.0
 8.7
See Table 13-5
U.S. EPA Analysis of
  1987-1988 NFCS
                                          Home-produced Vegetables
     1 to 2 years
     3 to 5 years
     6 to 11 years
     12 to 19 years
     20 to 39 years
     40 to 69 years
     >70 years
5.2
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.5
19.6
7.7
6.2
6.0
4.9
6.9
8.2
See Table 13-10
U.S. EPA Analysis of
  1987-1988 NFCS
                                            Home-produced Meats
     1 to 2 years
     3 to 5 years
     6 to 11 years
     12 to 19 years
     20 to 39 years
     40 to 69 years
     >70 years
3.7
3.6
3.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.4
10.0
9.1
14.0
4.3
6.2
5.2
3.5
See Table 13-15
U.S. EPA Analysis of
  1987-1988 NFCS
                                              Home Caught Fish
     1 to 2 years
     3 to 5 years
     6 to 11 years
     12 to 19 years
     20 to 39 years
     40 to 69 years
     >70 years
2.8
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.2
7.1
4.7
4.5
4.4
3.7
See Table 13-20
U.S. EPA Analysis of
  1987-1988 NFCS
            Analysis was conducted prior to Agency's issuance of Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring
            and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005).
            Data not presented for age groups/food groups where less than 20 observations were available.
Page
13-2
                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
                                   	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
                    Table 13-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Intake of Home-produced Foods
 General Assessment Factors
                  Rationale
          Rating
 Soundness
  Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or Defined) Bias
The survey methodology and the approach to data
analysis were adequate, but individual intakes were
inferred from household consumption data. The
sample size was large (approximately 10,000
individuals).

Non-response bias cannot be ruled out due to low
response rate. Also, some biases may have
occurred from using household data to estimate
individual intake.
      Medium (Means)
     Low (Distributions)
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest
  Representativeness


  Currency

  Data Collection Period
The analysis specifically addressed home-produced
intake.

Data from a nationwide survey, representative of
the general U.S. population was used.

The data were collected in 1987-1988.

Household data were collected over 1 week.
  Low (Means & Short-term
       distributions)
Low (Long-term distributions)
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility
  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
The methods used described to analyze the data are
described in detail in this handbook; the primary
data are accessible through USDA.

Sufficient details on the methods used to analyze
the data are presented to allow for the results to be
reproduced.

Quality assurance of NFCS data was good; quality
control of the secondary data was sufficient.
                                                            High
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population
  Uncertainty
                                                       Low to Medium
Full distributions of home-produced intake rates
were provided.

Sources of uncertainty include: individuals'
estimates of food weights, allocation of household
food to family members, and potential changes in
eating patterns since these data were collected,
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review                     The study was reviewed by USDA and U.S. EPA.

  Number and Agreement of Studies  There was one key study.
                                                          Medium
 Overall Rating
                                                Low-Medium (means and short-
                                                      term distributions)
                                                 Low (long-term distributions)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                        Page
                                                                         13-3
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                    Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
13.3    KEY STUDY FOR INTAKE OF HOME -
        PRODUCED FOODS
13.3.1   U.S. EPA Analysis of NFCS  1987-1988;
        Moya and Phillips (2001)
        U.S.   EPA's    National    Center   for
Environmental   Assessment   (NCEA)   analyzed
USDA's  1987-1988 NFCS  data to generate  intake
rates for home-produced foods.  In addition, Moya
and  Phillips  (2001)  present a  summary of  these
analyses.  For the  purposes of this study, home-
produced foods were defined as homegrown  fruits
and vegetables, meat and dairy products derived from
consumer-raised livestock or game meat, and home
caught fish.
        Until 1988, USD A conducted  the NFCS
every 10  years to  analyze the food consumption
behavior and dietary status of Americans (USDA,
1992). While more recent food consumption surveys
have been conducted to estimate food intake among
the general  population  (e.g., USDA's   Continuing
Survey of Food Intake among Individuals [CSFII]
and the  National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey [NHANES]), these surveys have not collected
data that can be  used to estimate  consumption of
home-produced foods.  Thus, the 1987-1988 NFCS
data set  is currently the best available source of
information for this factor.
        The   1987-1988   NFCS  was   conducted
between April 1987 and August 1988.  The survey
used a  statistical sampling technique designed to
ensure that all seasons, geographic regions of the 48
conterminous states in the U.S., and socioeconomic
and demographic  groups  were  represented (USDA,
1994).   There were two components of  the NFCS.
The household component collected information over
a  seven-day period on the  socioeconomic  and
demographic  characteristics of households, and the
types, amount, value, and sources of foods consumed
by the household  (USDA,  1994).   The individual
intake  component collected information on  food
intakes of individuals within each household over a
three-day period (USDA, 1993).  The sample size for
the  1987-1988 survey  was  approximately  4,300
households (over  10,000 individuals; approximately
3,000 children).    This  was a  decrease over the
previous  survey  conducted in  1977-1978,  which
sampled  approximately   15,000  households   (over
36,000 individuals) (USDA, 1994).  The sample size
was  lower in the 1987-1988 survey as  a result of
budgetary constraints and  low response rate (38
percent for the household survey and 31  percent for
the individual survey) (USDA, 1993).
        The USDA data were adjusted by applying
sample weights calculated by USDA to the data set
prior to  analysis.  The USDA sample weights were
designed to "adjust for survey non-response and other
vagaries of the sample selection process" (USDA,
1987-88).  Also the USDA weights are calculated "so
that  the weighted sample total equals the known
population  total,  in  thousands,   for   several
characteristics  thought to be correlated with eating
behavior"  (USDA 1987-88).
        The food groups  selected for analysis of
home-produced food intake included  major food
groups (such as total fruits, total vegetables, total
meats, total dairy,  total  fish and shellfish)  and
individual  food  items  for which  >30 households
reported eating the home-produced form of the item,
fruits  and  vegetables  categorized   as  exposed,
protected,  and roots, and  various USDA fruit and
vegetable  subcategories (i.e., dark green vegetables,
citrus fruits, etc.).  These food groups were identified
in the NFCS data base according to NFCS-defmed
food codes. Appendix  13A presents the codes and
definitions used to determine the major food groups.
Foods with these codes, for which the source was
identified  as home-produced, were included in the
analysis.  The  codes  and definitions for individual
items in  these  food  groups,  as well  as  other
subcategories (e.g., exposed, protected, dark green,
citrus, etc.) that are considered to be home-produced
are in Appendix 13B.
        Although the individual intake component
of the NFCS gives the best measure  of the amount of
each  food group eaten by each individual  in the
household, it could not be used directly to measure
consumption of  home-produced  food because the
individual component does not identify the source of
the food  item  (i.e.,  as  home-produced  or not).
Therefore, an analytical method which incorporated
data from both the household and individual survey
components was  developed  to  estimate individual
home-produced food intake.
        The household data were used to determine
1) the amount of each home-produced food item used
during a week by household members, and 2) the
number of meals eaten in the household  by each
household member during a week.   Note that the
household survey reports the total amount of a each
food item used in the household (whether by guests
or  household   members);  the   amount  used by
household members was derived by multiplying the
total amount used in the household by the proportion
of all meals served  in the  household (during the
survey week)  that  were  consumed by household
members.  The  individual survey  data were  used to
generate average sex- and  age-specific serving sizes
for each food  item.  The age categories used in the
analysis were as follows: 1 to 2 years; 3 to 5 years; 6
to 11  years; 12 to 19 years; 20 to 39 years; 40 to 69
Page
13-4
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
years;  and over  70 years (intake  rates were not
calculated for children under 1; the rationale for this
is  discussed below). The serving  sizes were  used
during  subsequent  analyses  to  generate  home-
produced food intake rates for individual household
members.   Assuming  that  the  proportion  of the
household  quantity  of  each home-produced  food
item/group was a function of the number of meals
and the mean sex- and age-specific serving size for
each family member, individual intakes of home-
produced food were calculated for all members of the
survey  population  using  the   following  general
equation:
            = w.
(Eqn. 13-1)
where:
        W;  =   Home-produced  amount of  food
                item/group attributed to member /'
                during the week (g/week);
        wf  =   Total  quantity  of home-produced
                food item/group used by the family
                members (g/week);
        m1  =   Number  of meals  of  household
                food consumed by member / during
                the week (meals/week); and
        q;   =   Serving  size  for  an  individual
                within the age and sex category of
                the member (g/meal).

        Daily intake of a home-produced food group
was determined by dividing the weekly value (wO by
seven. Intake rates were indexed to the serf-reported
body weight of the survey respondent and reported in
units of g/kg-day.  Intake rates were not calculated for
children under  one year of age because their  diet
differs markedly  from  that  of other  household
members, and thus the assumption that all members
share  all foods would be invalid for this age group.
        For  the  major  food  groups   (fruits,
vegetables,  meats, dairy,  and  fish) and individual
foods  consumed  by   at  least  30  households,
distributions  of   home-produced  intake   among
consumers were generated for the  entire data set and
for  the   following  subcategories:   age  groups,
urbanization     categories,     seasons,     racial
classifications,    regions,   and    responses    to
questionnaire.
        Consumers were defined as  members of
survey households who reported consumption of the
food  item/group  of  interest  during  the  one week
survey period.
        In addition,  for  the major  food groups,
distributions  were generated  for  each  region by
season,  urbanization,  and  responses   to   the
questionnaire.  Table  13-3  presents  the  codes,
definitions, and a description of the data included in
each  of the  subcategories.   Intake rates  were not
calculated for food items/groups for which less than
30   households  reported   home-produced usage
because  the  number  of  observations  may be
inadequate for generating distributions that would be
representative of that segment of consumers. Fruits
and  vegetables  were  also  classified  as exposed,
protected,  or roots, as shown in Appendix 13B of this
document.  Exposed  foods  are those that are grown
above ground and are likely to be contaminated by
pollutants  deposited on surfaces of the foods that are
eaten.  Protected  products  are those that have outer
protective  coatings that are  typically removed before
consumption. Distributions of intake were tabulated
for these  food classes for the same  subcategories
listed above.   Distributions were also tabulated for
the following USD A food classifications: dark green
vegetables, deep yellow vegetables, other vegetables,
citrus fruits, and other fruits. Finally, the percentages
of total intake  of the food items/groups consumed
within survey households  that can be attributed to
home production were tabulated. The percentage of
intake that was homegrown  was calculated as the
ratio  of  total  intake  of  the  homegrown  food
item/group by  the  survey  population to the  total
intake of all forms  of the  food  by  the survey
population.
        Percentiles of average daily intake derived
from  short time intervals (e.g., 7 days) will not, in
general, be reflective of long term patterns.  This is
especially   true  regarding  consumption  of  many
homegrown products (e.g., fruits, vegetables), where
there  is often a strong seasonal component associated
with their use.  To try to derive, for the major food
categories, the long term distribution of average daily
intake rates from the short-term data available here,
an  approach was developed which  attempted  to
account for seasonal variability in consumption. This
approach   used  regional   "seasonally   adjusted
distributions"  to  approximate regional long  term
distributions  and  then combined  these  regional
adjusted distributions (in proportion to the weights
for each region) to obtain a U.S. adjusted distribution
which approximated the U.S. long term distribution.
See Moya and Phillips (2001) for details.
        The  percentiles of the seasonally  adjusted
distribution for a given region were  generated by
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                            Page
                                                             13-5
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                     Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
averaging the  corresponding percentiles of each of
the four seasonal distributions  of the region.  More
formally, the seasonally adjusted distribution for each
region is such that its inverse cumulative distribution
function  is the average of the inverse cumulative
distribution  functions  of  each  of  the   seasonal
distributions of that region.   The use  of  regional
seasonally  adjusted distributions  to  approximate
regional  long  term distributions is  based on the
assumption that each individual consumes the same
regional  percentile  levels for  each  season  and
consumes as a constant  weekly rate throughout a
given  season.    Thus,  for instance  if the  60th
percentile weekly intake level in the South is 14.0 g
in the summer and  7.0 g in each of  the three other
seasons,  then the individual in the  South  with an
average weekly intake of 14.0 g over the  summer
would be assumed to  have an intake of 14.0 g for
each week of the  summer and an intake of 7.0 g for
each week of the other seasons.
        Note   that   the   seasonally    adjusted
distributions  were  generated  using  the  overall
distributions,  i.e.,  both  consumers  and   non-
consumers. However, since all the other distributions
presented in this section  are  based  on consumers
only,  the  percentiles for the  adjusted distributions
have been revised to  reflect the percentiles among
consumers only.   Given the above assumption about
how  each  individual  consumes,  the  percentage
consuming for the seasonally adjusted distributions
give an estimate of  the percentage of the population
consuming the specified food  category at any time
during the year.
        The   intake   data   presented  here  for
consumers of home-produced  foods  and  the  total
number of individuals surveyed may be  used to
calculate  the  mean  and the  percentiles  of  the
distribution of home-produced  food consumption in
the  overall   population  (consumers  and   non-
consumers) as follows:
        Assuming  that IRP is the  home-produced
intake rate of the food group at the p*11 percentile and
Nc is the weighted number of individuals consuming
the home-produced food item, and NT  is the weighted
total number of individuals surveyed,  then NT - Nc is
the weighted number of individuals  who  reported
zero consumption of the food item. In addition, there
are (p/100 x Nc) individuals below the p* percentile.
Therefore,  the percentile  that  corresponds  to  a
particular intake rate (IRP) for the overall distribution
of  home-produced  food  consumption (including
consumers and non-consumers) can be obtained by:
 p*    -
 roverall ~
                —xN  +(NT-N
                inn    c  \  1     c
                        NT
(Eqn. 13-2)
        For example, the percentile of the overall
population that is equivalent to the 50th percentile
consumer only intake rate  for  homegrown  fruits
would be calculated as follows:
  From Table 13-5, the 50th percentile homegrown
  fruit intake  rate (IR50) is  1.07 g/kg-day.  The
  weighted number of individuals consuming fruits
  (Nc)  is  14,744,000.  From Table  13-70,   the
  weighted total number of  individuals surveyed
  (NT) is  188,019,000. The number of individuals
  consuming fruits below the 50th percentile is:

  p/100 xNc   = (0.5) x (14, 744, 000)

              = 7,372,000

  The number of individuals that did not consume
  fruit during the survey period is:

  NT - Nc      = 188, 019, 000 - 14, 744, 000

              = 173,275,000

  The total number of individuals with homegrown
  intake rates at or below 1.07 g/kg-day is
  (p/100xNc) + (NT-Nc) = 7,372,000+173,275,000

                       = 180,647,000

  The percentile of the overall population that is
  represented by this intake rate is:

  P "'overall  100 x (180,647,000 / 188, 109,000)

           96th percentile
  Therefore, an intake  rate of 1.07 g/kg-day of
  homegrown  fruit  corresponds  to
  percentile of the overall population.
the  96"
Page
13-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
        Following  the  same  procedure described
above, 5.97 g/kg-day, which is the 90th percentile of
the consumers only population,  corresponds to the
99th percentile of the overall population. Likewise,
0.063 g/kg-day,  which is  the  1st percentile of the
consumers only population, corresponds to the  92nd
percentile of the overall population. Note  that the
consumers only distribution corresponds to the tail of
the   distribution  for  the   overall   population.
Consumption rates  below  the 92nd percentile are
very  close  to zero. The mean intake  rate for the
overall population can be  calculated by multiplying
the mean  intake rate  among  consumers  by the
proportion of individuals consuming the homegrown
food item, NC/NT.
        Table 13-4  displays the weighted numbers
NT, as well as the unweighted total  survey  sample
sizes, for each subcategory and overall. It should be
noted  that  the  total  unweighted  number  of
observations in Table 13-4 (9,852) is somewhat lower
than the number of  observations  reported by USDA
because this study only used observations for family
members for  which  age   and  body  weight  were
specified.
        The   intake   rate   distributions   (among
consumers)   for   total   home-produced   fruits,
vegetables,  meats, fish and dairy products are shown,
respectively,  in  Tables  13-5  through  13-29.   Also
shown in these tables is the proportion of respondents
consuming  the item during the  (one-week) survey
period.  Homegrown  vegetables were the   most
commonly  consumed of  the major food  groups
(18.3%), followed by fruit (7.8%), meat (4.9%), fish
(2.1%),  and dairy products (0.7%).  The intake rates
for the major food groups vary according to region,
age, urbanization code, race, and response to survey
questions. In general, intake rates of home-produced
foods  are   higher  among  populations  in  non-
metropolitan and suburban areas and lowest in central
city areas.  Results of the  regional analyses indicate
that intake of homegrown fruits, vegetables, meat and
dairy  products is generally highest for individuals in
the Midwest  and South  and lowest for those in the
Northeast.  Intake rates of home caught fish  were
generally highest among  consumers in the South.
Homegrown  intake was  generally   higher  among
individuals  who  indicated  that they  operate a farm,
grow  their own vegetables, raise animals, and catch
their own fish.  The results of the seasonal analyses
for all regions combined indicated that, in general,
homegrown fruits and vegetables were eaten at a
higher rate in summer,  and home  caught  fish was
consumed  at  a   higher rate in  spring;  however,
seasonal intake varied based on individual regions.
Seasonally  adjusted  intake rate distributions for the
major food groups are presented in Table 13-30.
        Tables   13-31   through   13-57   present
distributions of intake for individual home-produced
food items for households  that reported consuming
the homegrown form of the food during the survey
period.  Intake rate  distributions  among consumers
for homegrown foods categorized as exposed fruits
and vegetables, protected fruits and vegetables, and
root vegetables are presented in Tables 13-58 through
13-62; the intake  distributions for various  USDA
classifications  (e.g.,  dark  green vegetables)  are
presented in Tables 13-63 through 13-67. The results
are presented in units of  g/kg-day.   Table 13-68
presents the fraction of household intake attributed to
home-produced  forms of  the  food  items/groups
evaluated.  Thus, use  of these data in calculating
potential dose does not require the body weight factor
to be included in the  denominator of the average
daily dose  (ADD) equation. It should be noted that
converting these intake rates into units of g/day by
multiplying by  a  single  average body  weight is
inappropriate, because  individual intake rates were
indexed to the  reported body weights of the survey
respondents.
        As  mentioned  above,   the  intake  rates
derived in this section are  based on the amount of
household  food consumption.  As measured by the
NFCS,  the amount  of  food  "consumed"  by the
household  is a  measure  of consumption   in  an
economic  sense, i.e.,  a measure of the weight  of food
brought into  the household that has been consumed
(used up) in some manner.  In addition to food being
consumed  by persons, food may be  used  up by
spoiling, by  being discarded  (e.g.,  inedible parts),
through cooking processes, etc.
        USDA  estimated  preparation  losses  for
various foods  (USDA,  1975).  For meats, a net
cooking loss, which includes  dripping and  volatile
losses, and a net post-cooking loss, which involves
losses  from  cutting,  bones, excess  fat, scraps  and
juices, were derived for a variety of cuts and cooking
methods. For each meat type, U.S. EPA has averaged
these losses across all cuts and cooking methods to
obtain a mean net cooking loss and a mean net post-
cooking loss. Mean percentage values for all meats
and fish are provided in Table  13-69. For individual
fruits   and vegetables,  USDA  (1975) also  gave
cooking  and post-cooking losses.    These  data,
averaged across all types of fruits and vegetables to
give mean net cooking and post cooking losses, are
also provided in Table 13-69.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           13-7
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                     Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
        The  following formula  can be  used  to
convert the home-produced intake rates tabulated
here to rates reflecting actual consumption:

   IA  = I X (l - Zj) X (l - L2)     (Eqn. 13-3)
where:
        IA  =   the adjusted intake rate;
        I   =   the tabulated intake rate;
        L!  =   the cooking or preparation loss; and
        L2  =   the post-cooking loss.

For fruits, corrections based on post-cooking losses
only apply to fruits that are eaten in cooked forms.
For raw forms of the fruits, paring or preparation loss
data should  be used  to  correct for  losses from
removal  of skin,  peel, core, caps, pits, stems, and
defects, or draining of liquids from canned or frozen
forms.   To  obtain  preparation  losses  for   food
categories, the  preparation losses of the  individual
foods making up the category can be averaged.
        In calculating ingestion  exposure, assessors
should use consistent forms (e.g., "as-consumed" or
dry  weight)  in  combining   intake  rates   with
contaminant concentrations, as discussed in Chapter
9 of this handbook.
        The  USDA NFCS data set is the  largest
publicly  available  source of information  on home-
produced food  consumption  habits  in the United
States.  The advantages of using this data set are that
it  is  expected  to  be representative of the  U.S.
population and that it provides information on a wide
variety of food  groups. However, the data collected
by the  USDA NFCS are based on short-term dietary
recall and the intake distributions generated from this
data set may  not accurately reflect long-term intake
patterns,  particularly  with respect to  the  tails
(extremes) of the distributions.  Also, the two survey
components (i.e.,  household and individual) do not
define food items/groups in a consistent manner; as a
result,  some  errors may be introduced into  these
analyses because  the two  survey components are
linked. The results presented here may also be biased
by  assumptions that are  inherent in the analytical
method utilized.   The analytical method may not
capture all high-end consumers within households
because average serving sizes are used in calculating
the proportion of home-produced food consumed by
each household member.  Thus, for instance,  in  a
two-person household where one member had  high
intake and one had low intake,  the method used here
would  assume that both members had an equal and
moderate  level  of intake.  In addition,  the analyses
assume that all family members consume a portion of
the home-produced food used within the household.
However, not all family members may consume each
home-produced food item and serving sizes allocated
here may not be entirely representative of the portion
of  household  foods  consumed  by  each  family
member.  As was mentioned earlier, no analyses were
performed for children under 1 year age.
        The preparation loss factors  discussed above
are  intended  to convert  intake rates  based on
"household consumption" to rates reflective of what
individuals actually consume.  However, these factors
do  not include losses to  spoilage, feeding to pets,
food thrown away, etc. It should also be noted that
because this  analysis is  based  on  the  1987-1988
NFCS, it  may not  reflect recent changes in food
consumption   patterns.    The  low   response rate
associated with the 1987-1988 NFCS also contributes
to the uncertainty of the home-produced intake rates
generated using these data.

13.4    RELEVANT STUDY FOR INTAKE OF
        HOME - PRODUCED FOODS
13.4.1   National Gardening Association (2009)
        According  to a  survey by the National
Gardening  Association  (2009),   an estimated 36
million (or 31 percent) U.S. households participated
in food gardening in 2008.  Food gardening includes
growing vegetables, berries, fruit, and herbs.  Of the
estimated 36 million food-gardening households, 23
percent  participated   in  vegetable  gardening, 12
percent participated in herb gardening, 10 percent
participated in growing fruit trees, and 6 percent grew
berries.  Table 13-70 contains demographic data on
food gardening in 2008 by gender,  age,  education,
household income, and household size.   Table 13-71
contains  information  on  the  types of  vegetables
grown by  home gardeners  in  1986.    Tomatoes,
cucumbers, peppers, beans, carrots,  summer squash,
onions,  lettuce, peas  and  corn are  among  the
vegetables  grown by the  largest  percentage of
gardeners.

13.5    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 13
Moya, J; Phillips, L (2001) Analysis  of consumption
        of home-produced foods. J Anal Environ
        Epidemiol 11  (5): 398-406.
National Gardening Association  (2009) The  Impact
        of Home and  Community Gardening in
        America. South  Burlington, Vermont: The
        National Gardening Association.
USDA (1975) Food yields summarized by different
        stages  of   preparation.      Agricultural
        Handbook No. 102. Washington, DC.  U.S.
        Department   of   Agriculture,  Agriculture
        Research Service.
Page
13-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
USDA   (1987-1988) Dataset:   Nationwide Food
        Consumption  Survey  1987/88  Household
        Food  Use.    Washington,  DC.    U.S.
        Department of Agriculture.  1987/88 NFCS
        Database.
USDA  (1992)  Changes in food consumption  and
        expenditures in American households during
        the  1980's.    Washington,  DC.    U.S.
        Department  of  Agriculture.     Statistical
        Bulletin No. 849.
USDA   (1993)  Food  and nutrient  intakes  by
        individuals in the  United States,  1 Day,
        1987-1988.  Nationwide Food Consumption
        Survey  1987-1988, NFCS Report No. 87-1-
        1.
USDA (1994) Food consumption and dietary levels
        of households in the United States, 1987-
        1988.    U.S.  Department of Agriculture,
        Agricultural Research Service.  Report  No.
        87-H-l.
U.S. EPA  (1989) Risk Assessment  Guidance for
        Superfund (RAGS):  Volume   I,  Human
        Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. Office of
        Solid  Waste  and  Emergency  Response,
        Washington,    DC.   EPA/540/1-89/002.
        Available           online            at
        http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ra
        gsa/index.htm
U.S. EPA  (1991) Record of Decision.   ROD ID
        EPA/ROD/R10-91-029.
U.S. EPA  (1993) Record of Decision.   ROD ID
        EPA/ROD/R04-93-166.
U.S.  EPA    (1994)  Validation   strategy  for  the
        Integrated Exposure  Uptake   Biokinetic
        Model for Lead in Children.  Office of Solid
        Waste    and    Emergency    Response,
        Washington   DC.    EPA/540/R-94-039.
        Available           online            at
        http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/lead/products
        /valstratpdf
U.S.  EPA    (1996)  Soil  Screening  Fact Sheet
        Guidance.    EPA/540/F-95/041.  Available
        online                               at
        http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conme
        dia/soil/index.htm
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                Page
July 2009	13-9
-------
    1
    ri
    &
    &
    1=
liable 13-3. Sub-category Codes and Definitions
Code
Definition
Description

Region"
1
2
3
4
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
and Vermont
Includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin
Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia
Includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming
Urbanization
I
2
3
Central City
Suburban
Non-Metropolitan
Cities with populations of 50,000 or more that is the main city within the metropolitan statistical area (MSA).
An area that is generally within the boundaries of an MSA, but is not within the legal limit of the central city.
An area that is not within an MSA.
Race
I
2
3
4
5,8,9
Other/NA
White (Caucasian)
Black
Asian and Pacific Islander
Native American, Aleuts, and Eskimos
Don't know, no answer, some other race

Responses to Survey Questions
Grow
Raise Animals
Fish/Hunt
Farm
Question 75
Question 76
Question 77
Question 79
Did anyone in the household grow any vegetables or fruit for use in the household?
Did anyone in the household produce any animal products such as milk, eggs, meat, or poultry for home use in your
household?
Did anyone in the household catch any fish or shoot game for home use?
Did anyone in the household operate a farm or ranch?
Season
Spring
Summer
fall
Winter
-
April, May, June
July, August, September
October, November, December
January, February, March

* Alaska and Hawaii were not included.
Source: USDA 1987-88.
                                                                                                                                                                               Q
                                                                                                                                                                               I
                                                                                                                                                                               S1
                                                                                                                                                                               I
vo
I
ri
S,

-------
•s-
&!
a
    ri
    a
    1=
    I
Table
.3-4. Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations (Individuals) for NFCS Data Used in Analysis of Food Intake
All Regions

total
Age (years)
< 1
1-2
3-5
6-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
>70
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non- Metropolitan
Surburban
Race
Asian
Black
Native American
Other/NA
White
Response to Questionnaire
Do you garden?
Do you raise animals?
Do you hunt?
Do you fish?
Do you farm?
wgtd
188,019,000

2,814,000
5,699,000
8,103,000
16,711,000
20,488,000
61,606,000
56,718,000
15,880,000

47,667,000
46,155,000
45,485,000
48,712,000

56,352,000
45,023,000
86,584,000

2,413,000
21,746,000
1,482,000
4,787,000
157,531,000

6,8152,000
10,097,000
20,216,000
39,733,000
7,329,000
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the
unwgtd
9,852

156
321
461
937
1,084
3,058
3,039
796

1,577
3,954
1,423
2,898

2,217
3,001
4,632

114
1,116
91
235
8,294

3,744
631
1,148
2,194
435
1987-88 NFCS.
Northeast
wgtd
41,167,000

545,000
1,070,000
1,490,000
3,589,000
4,445,000
12,699,000
13,500,000
3,829,000

9,386,000
10,538,000
9,460,000
11,783,000

9,668,000
5,521,000
25,978,000

333,000
3,542,000
38,000
1,084,000
36,170,000

12,501,000
1,178,000
3,418,000
5,950,000
830,000

unwgtd
2,018

29
56
92
185
210
600
670
176

277
803
275
663

332
369
1,317

13
132
4
51
1,818

667
70
194
321
42

Midwest
wgtd
46,395,000

812,000
1,757,000
2,251,000
4,263,000
5,490,000
15,627,000
13,006,000
3,189,000

14,399,000
10,657,000
10,227,000
11,112,000

17,397,000
14,296,000
14,702,000

849,000
2,794,000
116,000
966,000
41,670,000

22,348,000
3,742,000
6,948,000
12,621,000
2,681,000

unwgtd
2,592

44
101
133
263
310
823
740
178

496
1,026
338
732

681
1,053
858

37
126
6
37
2,386

1,272
247
411
725
173

South
wgtd
64,331,000

889,000
1,792,000
2,543,000
5,217,000
6,720,000
21,786,000
19,635,000
5,749,000

13,186,000
16,802,000
17,752,000
16,591,000

17,245,000
19,100,000
27,986,000

654,000
13,701,000
162,000
1,545,000
48,269,000

20,518,000
2,603,000
6,610,000
13,595,000
2,232,000

unwgtd
3,399

51
105
140
284
369
1,070
1,080
300

439
1,437
562
961

715
1,197
1,487

32
772
8
86
2,501

1,136
162
366
756
130

West
wgtd
36,066,000

568,000
1,080,000
1,789,000
3,612,000
3,833,000
11,494,000
10,577,000
3,113,000

10,696,000
8,158,000
7,986,000
9,226,000

12,042,000
6,106,000
17,918,000

577,000
1,709,000
1,166,000
1,192,000
31,422,000

12,725,000
2,574,000
3,240,000
7,567,000
1,586,000

unwgtd
1,841

32
59
95
204
195
565
549
142

365
688
246
542

489
382
970

32
86
73
61
1,589

667
152
177
392
90

                                                                                                                                                                     Q
                                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                                     a
                                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                                     •s,
                                                                                                                                                                     I-
                                                                                                                                                                     ri
                                                                                                                                                                     a.
-------
   ft
Table 13-5. Consumer Only Intake
Population Nc Nc
%
Group wgtd Unwgtd Consuming
Total 14,744,000 817
Age (years)
1-2 360,000 23
3-5 550,000 34
6-11 1,044,000 75
12-19 1,189,000 67
20-39 3,163,000 164
40-69 5,633,000 309
> 70 2,620,000 134
Season
Fall 3,137,000 108
Spring 2,963,000 301
Summer 4,356,000 145
Winter 4,288,000 263
Urbanization
Central City 3,668,000 143
Non-Metropolitan 4,118,000 278
Suburban 6,898,000 394
Race
Black 450,000 20
White 14,185,000 793
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden 12,742,000 709
Households who farm 1 ,9 1 7,000 112
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
7.84

6.32
6.79
6.25
5.80
5.13
9.93
16.50

6.58
6.42
9.58
8.80

6.51
9.15
7.97

2.07
9.00

18.70
26.16


Source: Moya and Phillips, 2001. (Based on EPA's analyses of the

Mean
2.68

8.74
4.07
3.59
1.94
1.95
2.66
2.25

1.57
1.58
3.86
3.08

2.31
2.41
3.07

1.87
2.73

2.79
2.58


of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined

SE PI
0.19 0.06

3.10 0.96
1.48 0.01
0.68 0.01
0.37 0.09
0.33 0.08
0.30 0.06
0.23 0.04

0.16 0.26
0.14 0.09
0.64 0.01
0.34 0.04

0.26 0.04
0.31 0.06
0.32 0.13

0.85 0.13
0.19 0.07

0.21 0.06
0.26 0.07



P5
0.17

1.09
0.01
0.19
0.13
0.13
0.19
0.22

0.30
0.20
0.09
0.17

0.18
0.13
0.23

0.28
0.18

0.18
0.28



P10
0.28

1.30
0.36
0.40
0.27
0.20
0.29
0.38

0.39
0.25
0.16
0.27

0.33
0.23
0.30

0.46
0.28

0.29
0.41



P25
0.50

1.64
0.98
0.70
0.44
0.37
0.47
0.61

0.57
0.42
0.45
0.56

0.57
0.45
0.49

0.61
0.51

0.53
0.75



P50
1.07

3.48
1.92
1.31
0.66
0.70
1.03
1.18

1.04
0.86
1.26
1.15

1.08
1.15
0.99

1.13
1.07

1.12
1.61



P75
2.37

7.98
2.73
3.08
2.35
1.77
2.33
2.35

1.92
1.70
3.31
2.61

2.46
2.42
2.33

1.53
2.46

2.50
3.62



P90
5.97

19.30
6.02
11.80
6.76
4.17
5.81
5.21

3.48
4.07
10.90
8.04

5.34
4.46
7.26

2.29
6.10

6.10
5.97



P95
11.10

60.60
8.91
15.80
8.34
6.84
13.00
8.69

4.97
5.10
14.60
15.30

10.50
8.34
15.20

2.29
11.70

11.80
7.82



P99 MAX
24.00 60.60

60.60 60.60
48.30 48.30
32.20 32.20
18.50 18.50
16.10 37.00
23.80 53.30
11.70 15.30

10.60 10.60
8.12 31.70
53.30 60.60
24.90 48.30

14.30 19.30
24.00 53.30
37.00 60.60

19.30 19.30
24.00 60.60

24.90 60.60
15.80 15.80


1987-88 NFCS).
                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                        ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
sT
a

1=
Table 13-6. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Population Nc
Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1,279,000
Season
Fall 260,000
Spring 352,000
Summer 271,000
Winter 396,000
Urbanization
Central City 50,000
Non-Metropolitan 176,000
Suburban 1,053,000
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden 983,000
Households who farm 132,000
72

8
31
9
24

3
10
59

59
4
%
Consuming
3.11

2.77
3.34
2.86
3.36

0.52
3.19
4.05

7.86
15.90

Mean
0.93

*
0.88
*
0.71

*
*
1.05

1.04
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.




SE
0.22

*
0.23
*
0.11

*
*
0.26

0.26
*
less than


PI
0.08

*
0.09
*
0.18

*
*
0.18

0.09
*
20 observat


P5 P10 P25 P50 P75
0.08 0.16 0.31 0.49 0.78

*****
0.16 0.17 0.29 0.49 0.88
*****
0.21 0.23 0.29 0.54 0.88

*****
*****
0.23 0.29 0.44 0.54 0.81

0.18 0.21 0.38 0.54 0.88
*****
ions.


P90 P95 P99 MAX
1.29 2.16 11.70 11.70

* * * *
1.83 2.16 7.13 7.13
* * * *
1.38 1.79 2.75 2.75

* * * *
* * * *
1.29 2.75 11.70 11.70

1.38 2.75 11.70 11.70
* * * *


P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the
1987-88 NFCS.
 a

 I

•s,
1
sT
a
                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                             ri

                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
Table 13-7. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Population Nc Nc
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 4,683,000 302
Season
Fall 1,138,000 43
Spring 1,154,000 133
Summer 1,299,000 44
Winter 1,092,000 82
Urbanization
Central City 1,058,000 42
Non-Metropolitan 1,920,000 147
Suburban 1,705,000 113
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4,060,000 267
Households who farm 694,000 57
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
10.09

7.90
10.83
12.70
9.83

6.08
13.43
11.60

18.17
25.89




Mean
3.01

1.54
1.69
7.03
1.18

1.84
2.52
4.29

3.27
2.59




SE
0.41

0.19
0.28
1.85
0.18

0.39
0.54
0.87

0.47
0.30




PI
0.04

0.26
0.09
0.06
0.03

0.04
0.06
0.09

0.04
0.06




P5
0.13

0.30
0.21
0.09
0.06

0.10
0.11
0.20

0.10
0.19




P10
0.24

0.47
0.26
0.13
0.15

0.26
0.15
0.31

0.20
0.41




P25
0.47

0.61
0.42
0.43
0.36

0.52
0.40
0.48

0.45
1.26




P50
1.03

1.07
0.92
1.55
0.61

1.07
1.03
0.76

1.07
1.63




P75
2.31

1.92
1.72
8.34
1.42

1.90
2.07
3.01

2.37
3.89




P90
6.76

3.48
2.89
16.10
2.61

2.82
4.43
13.90

7.15
6.76




P95
13.90

4.34
4.47
37.00
3.73

9.74
6.84
18.00

14.60
8.34




P99 MAX
53.30 60.60

5.33 5.33
16.00 31.70
60.60 60.60
10.90 10.90

10.90 10.90
53.30 53.30
60.60 60.60

53.30 60.60
11.10 11.10



    ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
5?

ft
Table 13-8. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - South
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 4,148,000 208
Season
Fall 896,000 29
Spring 620,000 59
Summer 1,328,000 46
Winter 1,304,000 74
Urbanization
Central City 1,066,000 39
Non-Metropolitan 1,548,000 89
Suburban 1,534,000 80
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 3,469,000 174
Households who farm 296,000 16
%
Consuming
6.45

6.80
3.69
7.48
7.86

6.18
8.10
5.48

16.91
13.26
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.




Mean
2.97

1.99
2.05
2.84
4.21

3.33
2.56
3.14

2.82
*

SE
0.30

0.44
0.26
0.65
0.65

0.54
0.39
0.60

0.29
*

PI
0.11

0.39
0.16
0.08
0.11

0.24
0.08
0.11

0.16
*

P5 P10
0.24 0.36

0.43 0.45
0.28 0.31
0.16 0.27
0.24 0.38

0.39 0.46
0.27 0.34
0.16 0.28

0.28 0.38
* *

P25
0.60

0.65
0.45
0.44
0.89

0.83
0.61
0.51

0.65
*

P50
1.35

1.13
1.06
1.31
1.88

2.55
1.40
1.10

1.39
*

P75
3.01

1.96
4.09
2.83
3.71

4.77
2.83
2.29

2.94
*

P90
8.18

4.97
5.01
6.10
14.10

8.18
5.97
11.80

6.10
*

P95
14.10

8.18
6.58
14.30
19.70

10.60
10.40
15.50

14.10
*

P99
23.80

10.60
7.05
24.00
23.80

14.30
24.00
23.80

21.10
*

MAX
24.00

10.60
7.05
24.00
23.80

14.30
24.00
23.80

24.00
*
less than 20 observations.

































                                                                                                                                                             a
                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                            •s,
                                                                                                                                                             ri
                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
Table 13-9. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Fruits (g/kg-day) - West
Population Nc
Nc
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 4,574,000
Season
Fall 843,000
Spring 837,000
Summer 1,398,000
Winter 1,496,000
Urbanization
Central City 1,494,000
Non-Metropolitan 474,000
Suburban 2,606,000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4,170,000
Households who farm 795,000
SE = standard error.
233

28
78
44
83

59
32
142

207
35

12.68

7.88
10.26
17.51
16.22

12.41
7.76
14.54

32.77
50.13


Mean
2.62

1.47
1.37
2.47
4.10

1.99
2.24
3.04

2.76
1.85


SE
0.31

0.25
0.16
0.47
0.79

0.42
0.53
0.46

0.34
0.26


PI
0.15

0.29
0.17
0.19
0.07

0.07
0.18
0.18

0.10
0.28


P5
0.28

0.29
0.20
0.28
0.30

0.24
0.28
0.28

0.28
0.28


P10
0.33

0.30
0.25
0.40
0.33

0.34
0.42
0.31

0.31
0.60


P25
0.62

0.48
0.51
0.62
0.77

0.53
0.63
0.71

0.63
0.71


P50
1.20

1.04
0.98
1.28
1.51

0.86
0.77
1.39

1.20
1.26


P75
2.42

2.15
1.61
3.14
3.74

2.04
2.64
3.14

2.54
2.50


P90
5.39

2.99
2.95
7.26
11.10

4.63
4.25
5.81

5.81
4.63


P95
10.90

4.65
5.29
10.90
18.50

9.52
10.90
10.30

10.90
5.00


P99 MAX
24.90 48.30

5.39 5.39
6.68 7.02
13.00 13.00
48.30 48.30

19.30 19.30
10.90 10.90
32.20 48.30

24.90 48.30
6.81 6.81

P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                        ft
   ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
Table 13-10
Population Nc
Group wgtd
Total 34,392,000
Age
1-2 951,000
3-5 1,235,000
6-11 3,024,000
12-19 3,293,000
20-39 8,593,000
40-69 12,828,000
> 70 4,002,000
Seasons
Fall 11,026,000
Spring 6,540,000
Summer 11,081,000
Winter 5,745,000
Urbanizations
Central City 6,183,000
Non-Metropolitan 13,808,000
Suburban 14,341,000
Race
Black 1,872,000
White 31,917,000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 30,217,000
Households who farm 4,3 1 9,000
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers
Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined
Nc
unwgtd
1,855
53
76
171
183
437
700
211

394
661
375
425

228
878
747

111
1,714

1,643
262

in survey.
%
Consuming
18.29
16.69
15.24
18.10
16.07
13.95
22.62
25.20

23.13
14.17
24.36
11.79

10.97
30.67
16.56

8.61
20.26

44.34
58.93



Mean
2.08
570
2.46
2.02
1.48
1.47
2.07
2.51

1.88
1.36
2.86
1.79

1.40
2.68
1.82

1.78
2.10

2.17
3.29



SE
0.07
0.85
0.28
0.25
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.19

0.13
0.07
0.19
0.11

0.12
0.12
0.09

0.23
0.07

0.07
0.25



PI P5
0.00 0.11
0.02 0.25
0.00 0.05
0.01 0.10
0.00 0.06
0.02 0.08
0.01 0.12
0.01 0.15

0.05 0.11
0.00 0.04
0.07 0.16
0.00 0.04

0.01 0.07
0.02 0.16
0.00 0.11

0.00 0.08
0.01 0.11

0.01 0.11
0.00 0.16



P10
0.18
0.38
0.39
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.21
0.24

0.18
0.14
0.22
0.16

0.15
0.26
0.16

0.14
0.18

0.19
0.29



P25
0.45
1.23
0.71
0.40
0.32
0.27
0.53
0.58

0.41
0.32
0.71
0.47

0.30
0.60
0.39

0.44
0.45

0.48
0.85



P50 P75
1.11 2.47
3.27 5.83
1.25 3.91
0.89 2.21
0.81 1.83
0.76 1.91
1.18 2.47
1.37 3.69

0.98 2.11
0.70 1.63
1.62 3.44
1.05 2.27

0.75 1.67
1.45 3.27
0.96 2.18

0.93 2.06
1.12 2.48

1.18 2.68
1.67 3.61



P90
5.20
13.10
6.35
4.64
3.71
3.44
5.12
6.35

4.88
3.37
6.99
3.85

3.83
6.35
4.32

4.68
5.18

5.35
8.88



P95
7.54
19.60
7.74
6.16
6.03
4.92
6.94
8.20

6.94
5.21
9.75
6.01

4.67
9.33
6.78

5.70
7.68

7.72
11.80



P99 MAX
15.50 27.00
27.00 27.00
10.60 12.80
17.60 23.60
7.71 9.04
10.50 20.60
14.90 22.90
12.50 15.50

12.50 18.90
8.35 23.60
18.70 27.00
10.60 20.60

9.96 16.60
17.50 27.00
12.50 20.60

8.20 18.90
15.50 27.00

15.50 23.60
17.60 23.60


Source: Moya and Phillips, 2001. (Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NCFS).
 a

 I
•s,
 ri

 S.
-------
oo
Table 13-1 1 Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (
Population Nc
Group wgtd
Total 4,883,000
Seasons
Fall 1,396,000
Spring 1,204,000
Summer 1,544,000
Winter 739,000
Urbanizations
Central City 380,000
Non-Metropolitan 787,000
Suburban 3,716,000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4,3 8 1 ,000
Households who farm 352,000
Nc
unwgtd
236

41
102
48
45

14
48
174

211
19
%

Consuming Mean
11.86

14.87
11.43
16.32
6.27

3.93 *
14.25
14.30

35.05
42.41 *
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers;

Nc unwgtd

1.78

1.49
0.82
2.83
1.67

*
3.05
1.59

1.92
*
less than


SE PI
0.17 0.00

0.41 0.08
0.11 0.00
0.47 0.11
0.27 0.00

* *
0.54 0.00
0.17 0.00

0.18 0.00
* *
20 observations.


P5
0.08

0.13
0.00
0.15
0.00


0.05
0.08

0.08




P10
0.14

0.17
0.04
0.16
0.09

*
0.11
0.14

0.14
*


j/kg-day) - Northeast

P25 P50
0.28 0.75

0.27 0.58
0.17 0.46
0.74 1.29
0.26 1.25

* *
0.20 2.18
0.28 0.72

0.31 0.88
* *



P75 P90
1.89 6.03

1.17 6.64
0.95 2.26
3.63 7.82
2.77 3.63

* *
4.61 9.04
1.64 4.82

2.18 6.16
* *



P95
7.82

9.97
3.11
9.75
6.10

*
12.70
6.80

7.82
*



P99
12.70

10.20
6.52
14.90
8.44

*
14.90
10.20

12.70
*



MAX
14.90

10.20
6.78
14.90
8.44

*
14.90
10.20

14.90
*


= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                           Q
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           ft
    ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                           I
-------
I
I
Table 13-12. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population Nc
Group wgtd
Total 12,160,000
Seasons
Fall 4,914,000
Spring 2,048,000
Summer 3,319,000
Winter 1,879,000
Urbanizations
Central City 3,177,000
Non-Metropolitan 5,344,000
Suburban 3,639,000
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 10,927,000
Households who farm 1,401,000
SE = standard error.
Nc
unwgtd
699

180
246
115
158

113
379
207

632
104

%
Consuming
26.21

34.13
19.22
32.45
16.91

18.26
37.38
24.75

48.89
52.26


Mean
2.26

1.84
1.65
3.38
2.05

1.36
2.73
2.35

2.33
3.97


SE
0.12

0.18
0.15
0.39
0.26

0.19
0.19
0.22

0.13
0.43


PI
0.02

0.01
0.06
0.11
0.00

0.00
0.02
0.03

0.02
0.14


P5
0.08

0.07
0.15
0.16
0.02

0.06
0.11
0.15

0.10
0.34


P10
0.18

0.16
0.22
0.30
0.07

0.11
0.26
0.22

0.18
0.55

- Midwest

P25
0.49

0.42
0.46
0.85
0.36

0.25
0.60
0.64

0.50
0.87


P50
1.15

1.03
0.91
2.07
0.88

0.71
1.31
1.39

1.18
2.18


P75
2.58

2.10
1.72
3.94
2.13

1.67
3.15
2.75

2.74
5.24


P90
5.64

5.27
4.49
7.72
5.32

3.94
7.19
4.87

5.81
10.60


P95
7.74

6.88
5.83
14.00
7.83

5.50
10.60
7.18

7.75
14.40


P99 MAX
17.50 23.60

13.10 13.10
12.80 23.60
19.60 22.90
16.70 20.60

9.96 16.60
17.50 23.60
19.60 20.60

16.70 23.60
17.50 23.60

P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
 a

 I
•s,
 ri

 S.
-------
^o 2s
i><*
Table 13-13. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - South
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 11,254,000 618 17.49
Seasons
Fall 2,875,000 101 21.80
Spring 2,096,000 214 12.47
Summer 4,273,000 151 24.07
Winter 2,010,000 152 12.12
Urbanizations
Central City 1,144,000 45 6.63
Non-Metropolitan 6,565,000 386 34.37
Suburban 3,545,000 187 12.67
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 9,447,000 522 46.04
Households who farm 1,609,000 91 72.09
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.

Mean
2.19

2.07
1.55
2.73
1.88

1.10
2.78
1.44

2.27
3.34




SE
0.12

0.28
0.11
0.32
0.14

0.16
0.18
0.11

0.12
0.46




PI
0.03

0.10
0.01
0.11
0.00

0.01
0.05
0.00

0.03
0.00




P5
0.16

0.11
0.09
0.17
0.16

0.10
0.22
0.11

0.16
0.13




P10
0.24

0.19
0.26
0.25
0.35

0.15
0.35
0.20

0.26
0.23




P25
0.56

0.52
0.53
0.62
0.64

0.26
0.71
0.40

0.61
1.03




P50
1.24

1.14
0.94
1.54
1.37

0.62
1.66
0.93

1.37
1.72




P75
2.69

2.69
2.07
3.15
2.69

1.37
3.31
1.72

3.02
3.15




P90
4.92

4.48
3.58
5.99
3.79

2.79
5.99
3.61

5.18
9.56




P95
7.43

6.02
4.81
9.70
5.35

3.70
9.56
5.26

7.43
11.80




P99
17.00

15.50
8.35
23.60
7.47

4.21
18.90
8.20

15.50
23.60




MAX
27.00

18.90
10.30
27.00
8.36

4.58
27.00
8.20

23.60
23.60



                                                                                                                                                              Q
                                                                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                                                                              ft
   ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                              I
-------
I
I
5
Table 13-14. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Vegetables (g/kg-day) - West
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 6,035,000 300
Seasons
Fall 1,841,000 72
Spring 1,192,000 99
Summer 1,885,000 59
Winter 1,117,000 70
Urbanizations
Central City 1,482,000 56
Non-Metropolitan 1,112,000 65
Suburban 3,441,000 179
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 5,402,000 276
Households who farm 957,000 48
SE = standard error.
Consuming
16.73

17.21
14.61
23.6
12.11

12.31
18.21
19.20

42.45
60.34

Mean
1.81

2.01
1.06
2.39
1.28

1.80
1.52
1.90

1.91
2.73

SE
0.14

0.29
0.17
0.37
0.17

0.28
0.22
0.20

0.00
0.00

PI
0.01

0.10
0.00
0.07
0.01

0.03
0.00
0.01

0.01
0.12

P5
0.10

0.15
0.01
0.10
0.15

0.07
0.01
0.10

0.10
0.41

P10
0.17

0.20
0.05
0.25
0.20

0.16
0.20
0.15

0.17
0.47

P25
0.38

0.48
0.20
0.55
0.48

0.48
0.27
0.39

0.43
0.77

P50
0.90

1.21
0.36
1.37
0.77

1.10
0.68
0.93

1.07
1.42

P75
2.21

2.21
0.91
3.23
1.43

2.95
2.13
2.20

2.37
3.27

P90
4.64

4.85
3.37
4.67
2.81

4.64
4.13
4.63

4.67
6.94

P95
6.21

7.72
5.54
8.36
5.12

4.85
5.12
7.98

6.21
10.90

P99 MAX
11.40 15.50

12.50 12.50
8.60 8.60
15.50 15.50
7.57 7.98

11.40 11.40
8.16 8.16
12.50 15.50

12.50 15.50
15.50 15.50

P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
^o 2s
i><*
Table 13-15. Consumer Only Iniaks of Home-produced Meais (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 9,257,000 569
Age
1-2 276,000 22
3-5 396,000 26
6-U 1,064,000 65
12-19 1,272,000 78
20-39 2,732,000 158
40-69 2,872,000 179
> 70 441,000 28
Seasons
Fall 2,852,000 107
Spring 1,726,000 197
Summer 2,368,000 89
Winter 2,311,000 176
Urbanizations
Central City 736,000 28
Non-Metropolitan 4,932,000 315
Suburban 3,589,000 226
Race
Black 128,000 6
White 8,995,000 556
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 5,256,000 343
%
Consuming
4.92

4.84
4.89
6.37
6.21
4.43
5.06
2.78

5.98
3.74
5.21
4.74

1.31
10.95
4.15

0.59
5.71

52.06
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.



Mean
2.21

3.65
3.61
3.65
1.70
1.82
1.72
1.39

1.57
2.37
3.10
1.98

1.15
2.70
1.77

*
2.26

2.80
less than



SE
0.11

0.61
0.51
0.45
0.17
0.15
0.11
0.23

0.14
0.15
0.38
0.17

0.18
0.18
0.10


0.11

0.15

PI P5
0.12 0.24

0.39 0.95
0.80 0.80
0.37 0.65
0.19 0.32
0.12 0.19
0.02 0.21
0.09 0.09

0.12 0.21
0.24 0.32
0.02 0.19
0.14 0.24

0.18 0.19
0.12 0.26
0.03 0.29

* *
0.09 0.26

0.21 0.39

P10
0.37

0.95
1.51
0.72
0.47
0.30
0.34
0.13

0.35
0.45
0.41
0.37

0.21
0.41
0.37

*
0.39

0.62

P25
0.66

1.19
2.17
1.28
0.62
0.53
0.58
0.55

0.52
0.78
0.85
0.65

0.44
0.75
0.68

*
0.68

1.03

P50
1.39

2.66
2.82
2.09
1.23
1.11
1.17
1.01

1.11
1.69
1.77
1.33

0.72
1.63
1.33

*
1.41

1.94

P75
2.89

4.72
3.72
4.71
2.35
2.65
2.38
1.81

2.27
3.48
4.34
2.43

1.58
3.41
2.49

*
2.91

3.49

P90
4.89

8.68
7.84
8.00
3.66
4.52
3.67
2.82

3.19
5.00
7.01
3.96

2.69
6.06
3.66

*
5.00

5.90

P95
6.78

10.00
9.13
14.00
4.34
6.23
5.16
3.48

4.41
6.67
10.50
6.40

3.40
8.47
4.71

*
7.01

7.84

P99 MAX
14.00 23.20

11.50 11.50
13.00 13.00
15.30 15.30
6.78 7.51
9.17 10.90
5.90 7.46
7.41 7.41

6.78 7.84
10.10 13.00
22.30 22.30
10.90 23.20

3.64 3.64
15.30 23.20
7.20 10.10

* *
14.00 23.20

14.00 23.20
20 observations.


















Source: Moya and Phillips, 2001. (Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS).
                                                                                                                                                             Q
                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                             ft
                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                             ft
                                                                                                                                                             a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                             I
-------
I
sT
a

1=
Table 13-16
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1,113,000 52
Seasons
Fall 569,000 18
Spring 66,000 8
Summer 176,000 6
Winter 302,000 20
Urbanizations
Central City 0 0
Non-Metropolitan 391,000 17
Suburban 722,000 35
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 509,000 25
Households who farm 373,000 15
. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Northeast
%
Consuming Mean SE PI P5 P10 P25 P50
2.70 1.46 0.21 0.29 0.34 0.35 0.64 0.89

606 *******
063 *******
1 86 *******
2.56 2.02 0.56 0.29 0.31 0.43 0.62 1.11

0.00 .......
708 *******
2.78 1.49 0.15 0.29 0.35 0.43 0.68 1.39

43.21 2.03 0.39 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.88 1.62
44 94 * * * * * * *


P75 P90 P95 P99 MAX
1.87 2.68 2.89 10.90 10.90

*****
*****
*****
2.38 2.93 7.46 10.90 10.90

.
*****
2.34 2.68 2.89 3.61 3.61

2.38 2.93 7.46 10.90 10.90
*****
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey




Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
 a

 I

•s,
1
sT
a
                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                             ri

                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
Table 13-17. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Meats (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 3,974,000 266
Seasons
Fall 1,261,000 49
Spring 940,000 116
Summer 930,000 38
Winter 843,000 63
Urbanizations
Central City 460,000 18
Non-Metropolitan 2,477,000 175
Suburban 1,037,000 73
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 2,165,000 165
Households who farm 1,483,000 108
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for whi
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
%
Consuming
8.57

8.76
8.82
9.09
7.59

2.64
17.33
7.05

57.86
55.32
ch there were




Mean
2.55

1.76
2.58
4.10
2.00

*
3.15
1.75

3.20
3.32
less than




SE
0.18

0.23
0.22
0.75
0.24

*
0.26
0.20

0.22
0.29

PI
0.13

0.21
0.24
0.09
0.12

*
0.09
0.29

0.26
0.37

P5
0.26

0.26
0.31
0.13
0.24

*
0.30
0.37

0.39
0.54

P10
0.39

0.37
0.41
0.58
0.33

*
0.43
0.41

0.58
0.59

P25
0.66

0.50
0.73
0.89
0.65

*
0.82
0.66

1.07
1.07

P50 P75
1.40 3.39

1.19 2.66
1.98 3.67
2.87 5.42
1.36 2.69

* *
2.38 4.34
1.11 2.03

2.56 4.42
2.75 4.71

P90
5.75

3.49
5.14
8.93
4.11

*
6.15
4.16

6.06
6.78

P95
7.20

6.06
7.79
15.30
5.30

*
9.17
5.39

9.13
9.17

P99
15.30

6.78
11.50
22.30
8.10

*
15.30
7.20

15.30
15.30

MAX
22.30

6.78
13.00
22.30
12.20

*
22.30
10.10

15.30
15.30
20 observations.






























                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
    ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
I
 ft
Table 13-18. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Meats (g/kg-day) - South
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 2,355,000 146
Seasons
Fall 758,000 28
Spring 511,000 53
Summer 522,000 18
Winter 564,000 47
Urbanizations
Central City 40,000 1
Non-Metropolitan 1,687,000 97
Suburban 628,000 48
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1,222,000 74
Households who farm 1,228,000 72
%
Consuming
3.66

5.75
3.04
2.94
3.40

0.23
8.83
2.24

46.95
55.02

Mean
2.24

1.81
2.33
*
1.80

*
2.45
1.79

3.16
2.85

SE PI
0.19 0.02

0.29 0.12
0.27 0.19
* *
0.25 0.04

* *
0.26 0.12
0.23 0.02

0.32 0.26
0.32 0.20

P5
0.16

0.16
0.30
*
0.20

*
0.19
0.03

0.67
0.50

P10
0.30

0.19
0.50
*
0.25

*
0.40
0.04

0.84
0.60

P25
0.72

0.82
0.75
*
0.72

*
0.78
0.63

1.34
1.01

P50
1.53

1.53
1.80
*
1.40

*
1.61
1.40

2.11
1.93

P75
3.07

2.38
2.82
*
2.17

*
3.19
2.31

3.79
3.48

P90
5.07

3.19
5.16
*
3.55

*
6.09
4.56

6.67
6.23

P95
6.71

4.41
6.71
*
4.58

*
7.84
4.61

8.47
8.47

P99 MAX
14.00 14.00

7.84 7.84
7.51 7.51
* *
8.47 8.47

* *
14.00 14.00
6.40 6.40

14.00 14.00
14.00 14.00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.

































                                                                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                           •s,
                                                                                                                                                            ri
                                                                                                                                                            S.
-------
^o 2s
i><*
Table 13-19. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Meats (g/kg-day) - West
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1,815,000 105
Seasons
Fall 264,000 12
Spring 209,000 20
Summer 740,000 27
Winter 602,000 46
Urbanizations
Central City 236,000 9
Non-Metropolitan 377,000 26
Suburban 1,202,000 70
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1,360,000 79
Households who farm 758,000 48
%
Consuming
5.03

2.47
2.56
9.27
6.53

1.96
6.17
6.71

52.84
47.79

Mean
1.89

*
1.86
2.20
2.11

*
2.10
1.95

2.12
2.41

SE
0.21

*
0.23
0.32
0.46

*
0.70
0.20

0.27
0.43

PI
0.15

*
0.30
0.19
0.14

*
0.33
0.15

0.15
0.14

P5 P10
0.23 0.39

* *
0.43 0.87
0.41 0.54
0.36 0.43

* *
0.33 0.41
0.23 0.37

0.23 0.39
0.33 0.47

P25
0.66

*
1.22
1.07
0.67

*
0.67
0.78

0.82
0.79

P50
1.42

*
1.56
1.69
1.19

*
1.19
1.52

1.56
1.55

P75
2.49

*
2.43
3.27
2.35

*
1.77
2.71

2.71
2.91

P90
3.66

*
3.48
4.44
3.64

*
3.72
4.20

4.20
4.71

P95
4.71

*
4.20
4.71
7.02

*
4.97
4.71

4.97
7.02

P99 MAX
8.00 23.20

* *
4.20 4.20
8.00 8.00
23.20 23.20

* *
23.20 23.20
8.00 8.00

8.00 23.20
23.20 23.20
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.

































                                                                                                                                                              Q
                                                                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                                                                              ft
   ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                              I
-------
I
I
5
Table 13-20. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - All Regions Combined
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 3,914,000 239
Age
1-2 82,000 6
3-5 142,000 11
6-11 382,000 29
12-19 346,000 21
20-39 962,000 59
40-69 1,524,000 86
> 70 450,000 24
Season
Fall 1,220,000 45
Spring 1,112,000 114
Summer 911,000 29
Winter 671,000 51
Urbanization
Central City 999,000 46
Non- Metropolitan 1,174,000 94
Suburban 1,741,000 99
Race
Black 593,000 41
White 3,228,000 188
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish 3,553,000 220
%

Consuming Mean
2.08

1.44
1.75
2.29
1.69
1.56
2.69
2.83

2.56
2.41
2.00
1.38

1.77
2.61
2.01

2.73
2.05

8.94
2.07

*
*
2.78
1.52
1.91
1.79
1.22

1.31
3.08
1.88
2.05

1.79
3.15
1.50

1.81
2.07

2.22
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.



SE PI
0.24 0.08

* *
* *
0.84 0.16
0.41 0.20
0.33 0.08
0.26 0.09
0.23 0.10

0.22 0.18
0.56 0.10
0.42 0.08
0.37 0.09

0.34 0.09
0.57 0.10
0.23 0.08

0.37 0.18
0.28 0.08

0.26 0.08

P5
0.09

*
*
0.16
0.20
0.08
0.09
0.10

0.18
0.12
0.08
0.09

0.09
0.12
0.08

0.18
0.08

0.08

P10 P25
0.20 0.23

* *
* *
0.18 0.23
0.20 0.20
0.09 0.12
0.21 0.28
0.23 0.23

0.20 0.21
0.31 0.34
0.09 0.20
0.11 0.16

0.16 0.28
0.31 0.36
0.18 0.20

0.20 0.29
0.16 0.23

0.18 0.23

P50
0.43

*
*
0.55
0.31
0.44
0.35
0.57

0.32
0.56
0.30
0.51

0.61
0.57
0.29

0.32
0.39

0.47

P75
1.00

*
*
1.03
0.98
1.06
0.99
0.76

0.92
1.27
0.76
1.06

1.07
1.88
0.59

0.98
1.00

1.09

P90
2.17

*
*
3.67
1.79
2.18
1.99
1.56

1.79
2.64
3.19
2.09

1.85
3.86
1.38

2.17
2.16

2.23

P95
4.68

*
*
7.05
4.68
4.46
4.43
3.73

2.64
6.68
4.43
5.89

3.73
6.52
4.37

4.68
4.99

5.61

P99
7.83

*
*
7.85
6.67
9.57
6.56
3.73

3.73
10.80
5.65
7.85

9.57
7.83
7.05

9.57
6.68

7.85

MAX
15.50

*
*
25.30
8.44
13.00
10.80
5.12

6.56
37.30
9.57
13.10

9.57
37.30
10.80

9.57
16.10

16.10
less than 20 observations.









P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Moya and Phillips, 2001. (Based on EPA's analyses of the
1987-88 NFCS).
                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
oo
Table 13-21
Population
Group
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-Metropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish
Nc
wgtd
334,000

135,000
14,000
132,000
53,000


42,000
292,000
334,000
Nc
unwgtd
12

4
2
3
3

0
4
8
12
Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - Northeast
%
Consuming Mean SE PI
0.81 * * *

1.44 * * *
0.13 * * *
1.40 * * *
0.45 * * *

0.00
0.76 * * *
1.12 * * *
5.61 * * *

P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 MAX
*********

*********
*********
*********
*********

.
*********
*********
*********
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.




P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                           Q
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           ft
    ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                           I
-------
I
sT
a

1=
Table 13-22. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Population
Group
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non- Metropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish
Nc
wgtd
1,113,000

362,000
224,000
264,000
263,000

190,000
501,000
422,000

956,000
Nc
%
unwgtd Consuming
71

13
27
8
23

9
40
22

60
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for whi
SE = standard error.

P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers

in survey.
2.40

2.51
2.10
2.58
2.37

1.09
3.50
2.87

7.57

Mean
2.13

*
3.45
*
2.38

*
3.42
0.91

2.35

SE
0.42

*
1.22
*
0.53


0.72
0.18

0.49

PI P5 P10 P25 P50 P75
0.08 0.08 0.20 0.23 0.47 1.03

***** *
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.31 0.49 0.82
***** *
0.51 0.51 0.51 0.55 1.03 1.56

***** *
0.12 0.12 0.33 0.47 0.53 1.88
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.30 0.55

0.08 0.08 0.12 0.23 0.47 1.12

P90 P95 P99 MAX
1.95 6.10 6.56 16.10

* * * *
1.67 15.50 16.10 25.30
* * * *
2.13 5.89 6.10 13.10

* * * *
5.65 6.56 13.10 25.30
1.28 2.09 2.78 3.73

2.16 6.52 6.56 25.30
ch there were less than 20 observations.










Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
 a

 I

•s,
1
sT
a
                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                             ri

                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
Table 13-23. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught Fish (g/kg-day) - South
Population
Group
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-Metropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
1,440,000 101

274,000 11
538,000 58
376,000 14
252,000 18

281,000 16
550,000 41
609,000 44

1,280,000 95
%
Consuming
2.24

2.08
3.20
2.12
1.52

1.63
2.88
2.18

9.42

Mean
2.74

*
4.00
*
*

*
3.33
2.73

3.00

SE
0.48

*
0.94
*
*

*
1.06
0.50

0.51

PI
0.09

*
0.31
*
*

*
0.29
0.20

0.09

P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90
0.09 0.20 0.29 0.51 1.48 3.37

***** *
0.31 0.39 0.45 0.87 1.94 3.71
***** *
***** *

***** *
0.29 0.34 0.51 1.12 1.94 3.19
0.20 0.28 0.29 0.43 1.08 4.37

0.09 0.20 0.28 0.71 1.93 3.67

P95 P99 MAX
5.61 8.44 37.30

* * *
8.33 13.00 45.20
* * *
* * *

* * *
4.43 6.67 45.20
8.33 10.40 13.00

6.68 8.44 37.30
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.







P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                        ft
   ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
Table 13-24. Consumer Only Intake of Home Caught
Population
Group
Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-Metropolitan
Suburban
Response to Questionnaire
Households who fish
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
1,027,000 55

449,000 17
336,000 27
139,000 4
103,000 7

528,000 21
81,000 9
418,000 25
983,000 53
%
Consuming
2.85

4.20
4.12
1.74
1.12

4.38
1.33
2.33
12.99

Mean
1.57

*
1.35
*
*

2.03
*
1.09
1.63

SE
0.27

*
0.29
*
*

0.53
*
0.25

0.28

PI
0.10

*
0.10
*
*

0.33
*
0.18

0.10
Fish (g/kg-day) - West

P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95
0.16 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.84 1.79 3.73

****** *
0.10 0.24 0.33 0.44 0.61 1.68 4.68
****** *
****** *

0.33 0.43 0.53 0.71 1.45 1.85 3.73
****** *
0.18 0.20 0.21 0.31 0.59 1.21 2.90

0.16 0.20 0.22 0.55 0.96 1.79 3.73


P99 MAX
5.67 9.57

* *
5.61 5.67
* *
* *

9.57 9.57
* *
4.68 5.61
*
5.67 9.57
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.







P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
 a

 I
•s,
 ri

 S.
-------
Table 13-25. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Dairy (g
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1,409,000 89
Age
1-2 79,000 6
3-5 57,000 5
6-11 264,000 16
12-19 84,000 5
20-39 612,000 36
40-69 216,000 16
> 70 77,000 3
Seasons
Fall 211,000 7
Spring 253,000 27
Summer 549,000 22
Winter 396,000 33
Urbanizations
Central City 115,000 7
Non-Metropolitan 988,000 59
Suburban 306,000 23
Race
Black 0 0
White 1,382,000 86
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1,228,000 80
Households who farm 1,020,000 63
%
Consuming
0.75

1.39
0.70
1.58
0.41
0.99
0.38
0.48

0.44
0.55
1.21
0.81

0.20
2.19
0.35

0.00
0.88

12.16
13.92

Mean
14.00

*
*
*
*
7.41
*
*

*
17.80
15.30
8.08

*
16.80
9.86

-
14.30

15.90
17.10

SE
1.62

*
*
*
*
1.02
*
*

*
4.27
2.73
1.99

*
2.10
2.38

-
1.65

1.73
1.99

PI
0.18

*
*
*
*
0.21
*
*

*
0.63
0.45
0.18

*
0.48
0.40

-
0.18

0.18
0.40

P5
0.45

*
*
*
*
0.40
*
*

*
0.65
0.45
0.21

*
0.96
0.40

-
0.45

0.40
0.74
'kg-day)

P10
0.51

*
*
*
*
0.45
*
*

*
0.67
0.51
0.28

*
1.89
0.45

-
0.51

1.89
3.18
- All Regions

P25
3.18

*
*
*
*
1.89
*
*

*
5.06
5.36
0.74

*
6.74
0.57

-
3.82

6.13
9.06

P50 P75
10.20 19.50

* *
* *
* *
* *
6.46 12.10
* *
* *

* *
12.20 19.50
10.60 25.10
5.47 11.50

* *
10.80 20.40
5.36 13.10

-
10.30 19.50

10.80 19.60
12.10 20.40

P90
34.20

*
*
*
*
15.40
*
*

*
50.90
34.90
19.80

*
34.90
28.10

-
34.20

34.90
34.90

P95
44.00

*
*
*
*
19.50
*
*

*
80.10
36.70
20.40

*
44.00
28.90

-
44.00

44.00
44.00

P99 MAX
72.60 111.00

* *
* *
* *
* *
23.00 23.00
* *
* *

* *
111.00 111.00
46.80 46.80
72.60 72.60

* *
80.10 111.00
50.90 50.90

-
80.10 111.00

80.10 111.00
80.10 111.00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.























































Source: Moya and Phillips, 2001. (Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS).
                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                        ft
   ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
sT
a
1=
ft
Table 13-26. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Northeast
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean SE PI P5 P10 P25
Total 312,000 16
Seasons
Fall 48,000 2
Spring 36,000 4
Summer 116,000 4
Winter 112,000 6
Urbanizations
Central City 0 0
Non-Metropolitan 240,000 10
Suburban 72,000 6
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 312,000 16
Households who farm 312,000 16
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for whi
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
076 * * * * * *
05^ * * * * * *
034 * * * * * *
\ 23 * * * * * *
095 * * * * * *
0.00 ......
435 ******
028 ******
2649 ***** *
37.59 ******
ch there were less than 20 observations.
P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 MAX
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******

 a
 I
•s,
                                                                                                                                                             ri
                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
Table 13-27. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - Midwest
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 594,000 36
Seasons
Fall 163,000 5
Spring 94,000 12
Summer 252,000 11
Winter 85,000 8
Urbanizations
Central City 43,000 1
Non-Metropolitan 463,000 31
Suburban 88,000 4
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 490,000 32
Households who farm 490,000 32
%
Consuming
1.28

1.13
0.88
2.46
0.76

0.25
3.24
0.60

13.09
18.28

Mean SE PI P5 P10
18.60 3.15 0.45 0.45 1.97

* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *

*****
23.30 3.40 4.25 8.27 9.06
*****

22.30 3.33 4.25 5.36 8.27
22.30 3.33 4.25 5.36 8.27

P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 MAX
8.27 12.40 23.00 44.00 46.80 111.00 111.00

***** * *
***** * *
***** * *
***** * *

***** * *
12.10 16.00 31.40 44.00 46.80 111.00 111.00
***** * *

10.80 15.40 31.40 44.00 46.80 111.00 111.00
10.80 15.40 31.40 44.00 46.80 111.00 111.00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey






Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                        ft
   ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
a

ft*
I
sT
a

1=
ft
Table 13-28. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Dairy (g/kg-day) - South
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean SE PI P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 P95 P99
Total 242,000 17
Seasons
Fall 0 0
Spring 27,000 3
Summer 131,000 5
Winter 84,000 9
Urbanizations
Central City 27,000 3
Non-Metropolitan 215,000 14
Suburban 0 0
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 215,000 14
Households who farm 148,000 8
Q oo ***** * **** *
o.oo 	 	
016 ***** * **** *
074 ** * * * * * * * * *
051 ***********
Oig ***** * **** *
113 ***** * **** *
0.00 	 	
g 26 ** * * * * * * * * *
g 63 ** * * * * * * * * *
MAX
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
 a

 I

•s,
                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
Table 13-29. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Dairy (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean SE PI P5 P10 P25
Total 261,000 20
Seasons
Fall 0 0
Spring 96,000 8
Summer 50,000 2
Winter 115,000 10
Urbanizations
Central City 45,000 3
Non-Metropolitan 70,000 4
Suburban 146,000 13
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 211,000 18
Households who farm 70 QOO 7
072 10.00 2.75 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.51
0.00 - .....
1 18 * *****
063 * *****
1 25 * *****
0.37 * *****
1.15 * *****
081 * * * * * *
820 * *****
441 * * * * * *
-West
P50 P75 P90 P95 P99 MAX
6.10 13.30 28.10 28.90 50.90 50.90
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                        ft
   ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
   I
   sT
   a
   1=
X)
Table 13-30. Seasonally Adjusted Consumer Only Homegrown Intake (g/kg-day)
Population Group
Total Vegetables
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
All Regions
Total Fruit
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
All Regions
Total Meat
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
All Regions
Percent
Consuming
16.50
33.25
24.00
23.75
24.60
3.50
12.75
8.00
17.75
10.10
6.25
9.25
5.75
9.50
7.40
Source Moya and Phillips, 200 1
PI
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
(Based on U.S
P5
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
EPA's
P10
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.22
0.05
0.10
0.09
analyses of the
P25
0.20
0.29
0.21
0.11
0.22
0.17
0.14
0.38
0.29
0.25
0.13
0.05
0.19
0.24
0.22
1987-88 NFCS).
P50
0.46
0.81
0.61
0.49
0.64
0.36
0.79
0.95
0.69
0.75
0.21
1.61
0.53
0.56
0.66

P75
1.37
1.96
1.86
1.46
1.80
0.66
2.98
2.10
1.81
2.35
0.70
3.41
1.84
1.30
1.96

P90
3.32
4.40
3.95
2.99
4.00
1.48
5.79
6.70
4.75
5.61
1.56
5.25
3.78
2.29
4.05

P95
5.70
7.41
5.63
5.04
6.08
3.00
9.52
10.20
8.54
9.12
1.91
7.45
4.95
3.38
5.17

P99
8.78
1.31
12.00
8.91
11.70
5.10
22.20
14.90
14.50
17.60
4.09
11.90
8.45
7.20
9.40

MAX
10.10
20.10
16.20
11.20
20.10
5.63
27.10
16.40
18.40
27.10
4.80
13.60
9.45
9.10
13.60

 a
 I
•s,
                                                                                                                                                                  ri
                                                                                                                                                                  S.
-------
oo
Table 13-31
Population Nc Nc
Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Apples (g/kg-day)
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 5,306,000 272
Age
1-2 199,000 12
3-5 291,000 16
6-11 402,000 25
12-19 296,000 12
20-39 1,268,000 61
40-69 1,719,000 90
>70 1,061,000 52
Season
Fall 1,707,000 60
Spring 639,000 74
Summer 1,935,000 68
Winter 1,025,000 70
Urbanization
Central City 912,000 30
Non-Metropolitan 2,118,000 122
Suburban 2,276,000 120
Race
Black 84,000 4
White 5,222,000 268
Region
Midwest 2,044,000 123
Northeast 442,000 18
South 1,310,000 65
West 1,510,000 66
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4,707,000 246
Households who farm 1,299,000 68
2.82

3.49
3.59
2.41
1.44
2.06
3.03
6.68

3.58
1.38
4.25
2.10

1.62
4.70
2.63

0.39
3.31

4.41
1.07
2.04
4.19

6.91
17.72

Mean
1.19

*
*
1.28
*
0.80
0.96
1.45

1.28
0.95
1.12
1.30

1.24
1.27
1.09

*
1.18

1.38
*
1.10
1.20

1.21
1.39
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS







SE PI
0.08 0.08

* *
* *
0.19 0.47
* *
0.11 0.19
0.14 0.06
0.14 0.20

0.12 0.26
0.11 0.19
0.17 0.06
0.18 0.19

0.26 0.23
0.13 0.06
0.09 0.19

* *
0.08 0.08

0.15 0.22
* *
0.11 0.20
0.13 0.06

0.08 0.13
0.13 0.06

P5 P10
0.23 0.28

* *
* *
0.47 0.56
* *
0.23 0.26
0.09 0.26
0.26 0.45

0.30 0.32
0.24 0.28
0.09 0.19
0.23 0.32

0.26 0.39
0.12 0.25
0.24 0.29

* *
0.23 0.28

0.29 0.30
* *
0.24 0.30
0.19 0.26

0.25 0.30
0.36 0.54

P25
0.45

*
*
0.74
*
0.30
0.40
0.63

0.58
0.38
0.40
0.57

0.51
0.41
0.44

*
0.45

0.52
*
0.44
0.47

0.47
0.70

P50
0.82

*
*
0.96
*
0.60
0.65
1.18

1.03
0.57
0.69
0.88

0.92
0.90
0.77

*
0.80

0.92
*
0.92
0.79

0.82
0.96

P75
1.47

*
*
1.29
*
0.92
1.08
1.82

1.66
1.10
1.41
1.59

1.59
1.55
1.29

*
1.41

1.61
*
1.38
1.82

1.47
1.58

P90
2.38

*
*
2.98
*
1.55
1.59
3.40

2.69
2.00
2.29
2.75

2.19
2.92
2.29

*
2.38

2.69
*
1.90
2.75

2.38
2.99

P95
3.40

*
*
4.00
*
1.97
2.38
3.62

3.40
2.78
2.98
3.40

2.26
3.48
3.40

*
3.40

3.40
*
2.98
3.62

3.40
4.00

P99
5.42

*
*
4.00
*
5.42
9.83
4.20

4.25
5.87
9.83
10.10

10.10
9.83
5.42

*
5.42

9.83
*
4.00
4.25

5.87
4.91

MAX
10.10

*
*
4.00
*
5.42
9.83
4.20

4.25
5.87
9.83
10.10

10.10
9.83
5.42

*
10.10

10.10
*
4.91
4.25

10.10
5.87
less than 20 observations.



























                                                                                                                                                                   Q
                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                   ft
                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                   ft
                                                                                                                                                                   a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                   I
-------
I
I
Table 13-32. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Asparagus (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 763,000 66
Age
1-2 8,000 1
3-5 25,000 3
6-11 31,000 3
12-19 70,000 5
20-39 144,000 11
40-69 430,000 38
> 70 55,000 5
Season
Fall 62,000 2
Spring 608,000 59
Summpr 0 0
Winter 93,000 5
Urbanization
Central City 190,000 9
Non-Metropolitan 215,000 27
Suburban 358,000 30
Race
Black 0 0
White 763,000 66
Region
Midwest 368,000 33
Northeast 270,000 20
South 95,000 9
West 30,000 4
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 669,000 59
Households who farm 157,000 16
%
Consuming Mean
0.41 0.56

0.14 *
0.31 *
0.19 *
0.34 *
0.23 *
0.76 0.47
0.35 *

0.13 *
1.32 0.61
0 00
0.19 *

0.34 *
0.48 0.76
0.41 0.43

0 00
0.48 0.56

0.79 0.48
0.66 0.72
0.15 *
0.08 *

0.98 0.53
2.14 *

SE
0.05

*
*
*
*
*
0.05
*

*
0.06

*

*
0.12
0.04


0.05

0.06
0.10
*
*

0.06
*

PI
0.10

*
*
*
*
*
0.11
*

*
0.10

*

*
0.10
0.11


0.10

0.10
0.18
*
*

0.10
*

P5
0.14

*
*
*
*
*
0.11
*

*
0.16

*

*
0.11
0.17


0.14

0.11
0.23
*
*

0.14
*

P10
0.19

*
*
*
*
*
0.18
*

*
0.19

*

*
0.14
0.18


0.19

0.14
0.23
*
*

0.18
*

P25 P50
0.28 0.40

* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
0.23 0.40
* *

* *
0.30 0.45

* *

* *
0.23 0.54
0.28 0.37


0.28 0.40

0.23 0.40
0.37 0.60
* *
* *

0.28 0.40
* *

P75
0.71

*
*
*
*
*
0.60
*

*
0.88

*

*
1.24
0.58


0.71

0.61
0.93
*
*

0.70
*

P90
1.12

*
*
*
*
*
0.88
*

*
1.18

*

*
1.75
0.70


1.12

0.93
1.24
*
*

1.12
*

P95
1.63

*
*
*
*
*
1.24
*

*
1.63

*

*
1.92
0.93


1.63

1.12
1.63
*
*

1.63
*

P99
1.97

*
*
*
*
*
1.75
*

*
1.97

*

*
1.97
1.12


1.97

1.97
1.92
*
*

1.97
*

MAX
1.97

*
*
*
*
*
1.75
*

*
1.97

*

*
1.97
1.12


1.97

1.97
1.92
*
*

1.97
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.












































Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
 a

 I
•s,
 ri

 S.
-------
    QTQ
    ft
Table 13-33. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Beef (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 4,958,000 304
Age
1-2 110,000 8
3-5 234,000 13
6-11 695,000 38
12-19 656,000 41
20-39 1,495,000 83
40-69 1,490,000 105
>70 188,000 11
Season
Fall 1,404,000 55
Spring 911,000 108
Summer 1,755,000 69
Winter 888,000 72
Urbanization
Central City 100,000 5
Non-Metropolitan 3,070,000 194
Suburban 1,788,000 105
Race
Black 0 0
White 4,950,000 303
Region
Midwest 2,261,000 161
Northeast 586,000 25
South 1,042,000 61
West 1,069,000 57
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 3,699,000 239
Households who farm 2,850,000 182
%
Consuming
2.64

1.93
2.89
4.16
3.20
2.43
2.63
1.18

2.95
1.97
3.86
1.82

0.18
6.82
2.07

0.00
3.14

4.87
1.42
1.62
2.96

36.63
38.89

Mean
2.45

*
*
3.77
1.72
2.06
1.84
*

1.55
2.32
3.48
1.95

*
2.80
1.93

-
2.45

2.83
1.44
2.45
2.20

2.66
2.63

SE
0.15

*
*
0.59
0.16
0.20
0.14
*

0.17
0.16
0.41
0.28

*
0.22
0.15

-
0.15

0.23
0.21
0.35
0.28

0.16
0.20

PI
0.18

*
*
0.35
0.38
0.27
0.18
*

0.18
0.27
0.10
0.04

*
0.18
0.27

-
0.18

0.18
0.35
0.10
0.31

0.18
0.27

P5 P10
0.37 0.47

* *
* *
0.66 0.75
0.48 0.51
0.35 0.39
0.36 0.46
* *

0.35 0.36
0.39 0.51
0.61 0.75
0.38 0.39

* *
0.38 0.50
0.38 0.42

-
0.37 0.47

0.35 0.42
0.35 0.47
0.39 0.58
0.38 0.56

0.39 0.66
0.39 0.59

P25
0.88

*
*
1.32
0.90
0.68
0.83
*

0.52
1.04
1.02
0.67

*
0.86
0.91

-
0.88

0.85
0.74
0.82
1.04

1.04
0.90

P50
1.61

*
*
2.11
1.51
1.59
1.52
*

1.33
1.96
2.44
1.33

*
1.81
1.52

-
1.61

2.01
1.06
1.59
1.60

1.83
1.64

P75
3.07

*
*
4.43
2.44
2.73
2.38
*

2.01
3.29
4.43
2.14

*
3.57
2.44

-
3.07

3.66
1.68
2.41
2.86

3.48
3.25

P90
5.29

*
*
11.40
3.53
4.88
4.10
*

2.86
4.22
7.51
4.23

*
6.03
4.06

-
5.29

5.90
2.62
6.36
4.06

5.39
5.39

P95
7.24

*
*
12.50
3.57
6.50
5.39
*

3.90
5.23
11.40
5.39

*
8.44
5.10

-
7.24

8.39
2.62
7.24
4.42

7.51
7.51

P99 MAX
13.30 19.40

* *
* *
13.30 13.30
4.28 4.28
8.26 8.26
5.90 5.90
* *

7.24 7.24
8.62 9.28
18.70 18.70
19.40 19.40

* *
18.70 19.40
7.51 9.28

-
13.30 19.40

18.70 18.70
6.03 6.03
13.30 13.30
7.51 19.40

12.50 19.40
11.30 19.40
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS

































                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
-------
I
I
5
Table 13-34. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown
Population Nc Nc
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 2,214,000 125
Age
1-2 27,000 2
3-5 51,000 4
6-11 167,000 10
12-19 227,000 13
20-39 383,000 22
40-69 951,000 51
> 70 408,000 23
Season
Fall 562,000 21
Spring 558,000 55
Summer 676,000 22
Winter 418,000 27
Urbanization
Central City 651,000 27
Non-Metropolitan 758,000 51
Suburban 805,000 47
Race
Black 0 0
White 2,186,000 124
Region
Midwest 885,000 53
Northeast 230,000 13
South 545,000 31
West 554,000 28
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 2,107,000 120
Households who farm 229,000 11
1.18

0.47
0.63
1.00
1.11
0.62
1.68
2.57

1.18
1.21
1.49
0.86

1.16
1.68
0.93

0.00
1.39

1.91
0.56
0.85
1.54

3.09
3.12

Mean SE
0.51 0.05

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.38 0.06
0.43 0.04
0.58 0.09

0.55 0.09
0.47 0.09
0.39 0.05
0.73 0.15

0.52 0.12
0.58 0.09
0.45 0.06

-
0.52 0.05

0.63 0.08
* *
0.45 0.12
0.40 0.08

0.53 0.05
* *
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.







PI
0.03

*
*
*
*
0.08
0.05
0.03

0.03
0.07
0.08
0.07

0.11
0.05
0.03

-
0.03

0.05
*
0.07
0.03

0.03
*

P5
0.07

*
*
*
*
0.08
0.07
0.03

0.05
0.08
0.12
0.07

0.14
0.07
0.05

-
0.07

0.11
*
0.08
0.05

0.07
*
Beets (g/kg-day)

P10
0.11

*
*
*
*
0.12
0.07
0.05

0.05
0.11
0.12
0.07

0.18
0.07
0.08

-
0.11

0.18
*
0.08
0.07

0.10
*

P25
0.19

*
*
*
*
0.14
0.21
0.27

0.26
0.14
0.18
0.28

0.26
0.18
0.14

-
0.21

0.32
*
0.18
0.12

0.21
*

P50
0.40

*
*
*
*
0.29
0.40
0.45

0.36
0.27
0.40
0.52

0.40
0.39
0.40

-
0.40

0.45
*
0.26
0.29

0.40
*

P75
0.59

*
*
*
*
0.56
0.55
0.91

0.95
0.45
0.55
0.83

0.55
0.66
0.56

-
0.59

0.91
*
0.48
0.55

0.61
*

P90
1.03

*
*
*
*
1.00
0.93
1.36

1.36
0.87
0.62
1.13

0.91
1.36
0.93

-
1.03

1.15
*
0.66
0.62

1.03
*

P95
1.36

*
*
*
*
1.00
1.15
1.36

1.36
1.59
0.91
2.32

1.12
1.40
1.00

-
1.36

1.36
*
0.94
0.70

1.36
*

P99
3.69

*
*
*
*
1.12
1.40
1.59

1.40
4.08
0.91
3.69

3.69
4.08
2.32

-
3.69

3.69
*
4.08
2.32

3.69
*

MAX
4.08

*
*
*
*
1.12
1.40
1.59

1.40
4.08
0.91
3.69

3.69
4.08
2.32

-
4.08

3.69
*
4.08
2.32

4.08
*
20 observations.






























                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
f- ^
^O 2s

•L<*
S ^
   ft
Table 13-35. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Broccoli (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 1,745,000 80 0.93
Age
1-2 0 0 0.00
3-5 13,000 1 0.16
6-11 187,000 9 1.12
12-19 102,000 4 0.50
20-39 486,000 19 0.79
40-69 761,000 37 1.34
>70 196,000 10 1.23
Season
Fall 624,000 20 1.31
Spring 258,000 27 0.56
Summer 682,000 22 1.50
Winter 181,000 11 0.37
Urbanization
Central City 165,000 5 0.29
Non- Metropolitan 647,000 34 1.44
Suburban 933,000 41 1.08
Race
Black 00 0.00
White 1,719,000 79 1.09
Region
Midwest 792,000 38 1.71
Northeast 427,000 19 1.04
South 373,000 16 0.58
West 153,000 7 0.42
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,729,000 78 2.54
Households who farm 599,000 29 8.17

Mean
0.42

-
*
*
*
*
0.41
*

0.29
0.54
0.51
*

*
0.42
0.43

-
0.42

0.26
*
*
*

0.42
0.47
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.




SE PI
0.05 0.08

-
* *
* *
* *
* *
0.07 0.08
* *

0.04 0.08
0.12 0.05
0.11 0.08
* *

* *
0.04 0.05
0.08 0.08

-
0.05 0.08

0.06 0.08
* *
* *
* *

0.05 0.08
0.08 0.05

P5
0.08

-
*
*
*
*
0.11
*

0.08
0.15
0.13
*

*
0.13
0.08

-
0.08

0.08
*
*
*

0.08
0.08

P10
0.16

-
*
*
*
*
0.16
*

0.08
0.17
0.18
*

*
0.17
0.14

-
0.16

0.08
*
*
*

0.16
0.15

P25
0.20

-
*
*
*
*
0.22
*

0.18
0.27
0.22
*

*
0.22
0.21

-
0.20

0.18
*
*
*

0.20
0.20

P50
0.29

-
*
*
*
*
0.35
*

0.23
0.33
0.40
*

*
0.37
0.24

-
0.29

0.21
*
*
*

0.29
0.31

P75
0.46

-
*
*
*
*
0.46
*

0.38
0.59
0.66
*

*
0.59
0.44

-
0.46

0.28
*
*
*

0.46
0.66

P90
0.82

-
*
*
*
*
0.61
*

0.45
1.25
0.89
*

*
0.75
0.68

-
0.82

0.34
*
*
*

0.82
0.89

P95
0.97

-
*
*
*
*
0.82
*

0.53
2.37
0.97
*

*
0.89
2.37

-
0.97

0.40
*
*
*

0.97
0.97

P99
2.48

-
*
*
*
*
3.02
*

0.82
3.02
2.48
*

*
0.97
2.48

-
2.48

3.02
*
*
*

2.48
3.02

MAX
3.02

-
*
*
*
*
3.02
*

0.82
3.02
2.48
*

*
0.97
3.02

-
3.02

3.02
*
*
*

3.02
3.02
less than 20 observations.






























                                                                                                                                               Q
                                                                                                                                               I
                                                                                                                                               ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                               I
-------
I
sT
a
1=
Table 13-36. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cabbage (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %

Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming Mean
Total 2,019,000 89 1.07
Age
1-2 14,000 2 0.25
3-5 29,000 1 0.36
6-11 61,000 3 0.37
12-19 203,000 9 0.99
20-39 391,000 16 0.63
40-69 966,000 44 1.70
>70 326,000 13 2.05
Season
Fall 570,000 21 1.20
Spring 126,000 15 0.27
Summer 1,142,000 39 2.51
Winter 181,000 14 0.37
Urbanization
Central City 157,000 5 0.28
Non-Metropolitan 1,079,000 48 2.40
Suburban 783,000 36 0.90
Race
Black 7,000 1 0.03
White 1,867,000 83 1.19
Region
Midwest 884,000 37 1.91
Northeast 277,000 11 0.67
South 616,000 32 0.96
West 242,000 9 0.67
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,921,000 86 2.82
Households who farm 546,000 26 7.45
1.03

*
*
*
*
*
1.14
*

1.28
*
0.97
*

*
0.94
1.26

*
1.05

0.74
*
1.11
*

1.07
1.00
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.




SE PI
0.10 0.11

* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
0.18 0.22
* *

0.32 0.19
* *
0.09 0.20
* *

* *
0.09 0.20
0.21 0.03

* *
0.11 0.11

0.07 0.11
* *
0.13 0.03
* *

0.10 0.11
0.12 0.20

P5
0.20

*
*
*
*
*
0.22
*

0.19
*
0.22
*

*
0.32
0.22

*
0.20

0.19
*
0.20
*

0.20
0.21

P10
0.32

*
*
*
*
*
0.33
*

0.20
*
0.33
*

*
0.34
0.33

*
0.25

0.22
*
0.22
*

0.32
0.35

P25
0.42

*
*
*
*
*
0.41
*

0.39
*
0.56
*

*
0.45
0.45

*
0.41

0.36
*
0.45
*

0.45
0.59

P50
0.78

*
*
*
*
*
0.71
*

0.54
*
0.83
*

*
0.71
1.05

*
0.79

0.60
*
0.85
*

0.79
0.83

P75
1.33

*
*
*
*
*
1.41
*

1.49
*
1.24
*

*
1.33
1.37

*
1.37

1.10
*
1.79
*

1.37
1.37

P90
1.97

*
*
*
*
*
1.82
*

5.29
*
1.79
*

*
1.79
2.17

*
1.97

1.29
*
2.17
*

1.97
1.79

P95
2.35

*
*
*
*
*
5.29
*

5.43
*
2.35
*

*
2.35
5.29

*
2.35

1.49
*
2.35
*

2.35
2.35

P99
5.43

*
*
*
*
*
5.43
*

5.43
*
2.77
*

*
2.77
5.43

*
5.43

1.82
*
2.77
*

5.43
2.35

MAX
5.43

*
*
*
*
*
5.43
*

5.43
*
2.77
*

*
2.77
5.43

*
5.43

1.98
*
2.77
*

5.43
2.35
less than 20 observations.






























 a
 I
•s,
                                                                                                                                                             ri
                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
   QTQ
Table 13-37. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Carrots (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 4,322,000 193 2.30
Age
1-2 51,000 4 0.89
3-5 53,000 3 0.65
6-11 299,000 14 1.79
12-19 389,000 17 1.90
20-39 1,043,000 46 1.69
40-69 1,848,000 82 3.26
>70 574,000 24 3.61
Season
Fall 1,810,000 66 3.80
Spring 267,000 28 0.58
Summer 1,544,000 49 3.39
Winter 701,000 50 1.44
Urbanization
Central City 963,000 29 1.71
Non-Metropolitan 1,675,000 94 3.72
Suburban 1,684,000 70 1.94
Race
Black 107,000 7 0.49
White 3,970,000 178 2.52
Region
Midwest 2,001,000 97 4.31
Northeast 735,000 29 1.79
South 378,000 20 0.59
West 1,208,000 47 3.35
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4,054,000 182 5.95
Households who farm 833,000 40 11.37

Mean
0.44

*
*
*
*
0.28
0.43
0.44

0.46
0.56
0.39
0.44

0.28
0.52
0.45

*
0.41

0.46
0.41
0.63
0.37

0.40
0.36

SE PI
0.04 0.04

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.03 0.04
0.03 0.04
0.06 0.07

0.10 0.09
0.10 0.14
0.04 0.04
0.07 0.04

0.04 0.04
0.09 0.04
0.04 0.07

* *
0.03 0.04

0.04 0.04
0.09 0.04
0.36 0.04
0.03 0.07

0.03 0.04
0.06 0.09

P5
0.06

*
*
*
*
0.05
0.07
0.18

0.11
0.15
0.05
0.04

0.06
0.05
0.09

*
0.08

0.08
0.05
0.04
0.09

0.07
0.09

P10
0.09

*
*
*
*
0.08
0.12
0.20

0.12
0.20
0.07
0.06

0.08
0.07
0.12

*
0.11

0.14
0.06
0.05
0.14

0.09
0.11

P25
0.18

*
*
*
*
0.12
0.22
0.26

0.20
0.22
0.16
0.16

0.16
0.20
0.20

*
0.19

0.20
0.09
0.15
0.19

0.18
0.18

P50
0.33

*
*
*
*
0.20
0.37
0.37

0.31
0.39
0.38
0.23

0.21
0.33
0.38

*
0.33

0.37
0.15
0.27
0.33

0.33
0.23

P75
0.53

*
*
*
*
0.41
0.55
0.54

0.51
0.61
0.51
0.64

0.39
0.51
0.64

*
0.53

0.54
0.64
0.41
0.46

0.51
0.46

P90
0.80

*
*
*
*
0.56
0.78
0.96

0.78
0.99
0.84
1.05

0.53
0.96
0.80

*
0.78

0.96
1.09
0.50
0.76

0.76
0.62

P95
1.08

*
*
*
*
0.76
1.01
1.08

1.08
2.11
0.96
1.53

0.59
1.19
1.09

*
1.01

1.10
1.71
0.99
0.84

1.08
1.19

P99
2.21

*
*
*
*
1.19
1.53
1.08

1.71
2.94
1.19
3.06

0.96
7.79
1.71

*
1.59

2.11
2.21
7.79
0.96

1.71
2.11

MAX
7.79

*
*
*
*
1.19
2.21
1.08

7.79
2.94
1.19
3.06

0.96
7.79
1.71

*
3.06

3.06
2.21
7.79
0.96

3.06
2.94
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.























































                                                                                                                                                                                           Q
                                                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                                                            ft
                                                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                                                            ft
                                                                                                                                                                                            a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                            I
-------
I
I
I
 ft
Table 13-38. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Corn (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 6,891,000 421
Age
1-2 205,000 13
3-5 313,000 24
6-11 689,000 43
12-19 530,000 32
20-39 1,913,000 108
40-69 2,265,000 142
> 70 871,000 53
Season
Fall 2,458,000 89
Spring 1,380,000 160
Summer 1,777,000 62
Winter 1,276,000 110
Urbanization
Central City 748,000 27
Non-Metropolitan 4,122,000 268
Suburban 2,021,000 126
Race
Black 188,000 9
White 6,703,000 412
Region
Midwest 2,557,000 188
Northeast 586,000 33
South 2,745,000 153
West 1,003,000 47
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 6233000 387
Households who farm 1739000 114
%
Consuming Mean
3.67
3.60
3.86
4.12
2.59
3.11
3.99
5.48
5.16
2.99
3.91
2.62
1.33
9.16
2.33
0.86
4.26
5.51
1.42
4.27
2.78
9.15
23.73
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for whi
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
0.89
*
1 25
0.93
0 59
0.60
0 86
0.94
0.54
064
1.82
0 55
074
0.96
0 80
*
0.89
0.93
061
0.87
1 00
0 88
1.20

SE
0.06
*
026
0.17
0 10
0.06
0 11
0.26
0.08
006
0.26
005
0 14
0.08
0 13
*
0.07
0.10
008
0.10
028
006
0.18

PI
0.05
*
033
0.11
0 10
0.07
0 11
0.04
0.04
0 14
0.07
0 11
004
0.07
0 11
*
0.05
0.04
0 10
0.07
0 11
005
0.04

P5
0.12
*
033
0.12
0 11
0.14
0 15
0.05
0.11
0 17
0.18
0 12
004
0.12
0 15
*
0.12
0.12
0 17
0.12
0 15
0 14
0.11

P10 P25
0.17 0.24
* *
0 40 0 60
0.19 0.25
014 021
0.15 0.21
017 026
0.11 0.19
0.14 0.19
019 026
0.34 0.64
015 022
005 018
0.17 0.25
017 024
* *
0.16 0.24
0.17 0.25
019 024
0.17 0.28
015 018
017 024
0.17 0.23

P50
0.48
*
1 00
0.51
034
0.37
0 52
0.36
0.32
045
0.94
041
0 55
0.53
040
*
0.48
0.46
038
0.56
040
0 50
0.38

P75
0.91
*
1 21
1.08
071
0.71
0 88
0.76
0.55
077
2.13
061
093
1.00
065
*
0.88
0.93
088
0.94
075
091
0.97

P90
1.88
*
1 67
3.13
1 55
1.53
1 42
1.34
1.27
1 21
4.52
1 16
204
2.13
1 34
*
1.88
2.28
1 34
1.55
223
1 82
3.37

P95
3.37
*
5 35
3.37
1 88
2.04
3 22
6.49
1.42
1 57
6.84
1 47
223
3.38
1 71
*
3.22
3.22
1 71
3.37
649
3 13
6.49

P99
7.44
*
5 35
4.52
1 88
3.70
744
9.23
5.35
5 15
9.23
204
3 04
7.44
923
*
7.44
6.84
1 71
5.69
923
6 84
9.23

MAX
9.23
*
5 35
4.52
1 88
3.70
744
9.23
5.69
668
9.23
3 94
3 04
8.97
923
*
9.23
7.44
1 71
8.97
923
923
9.23

ch there were less than 20 observations.
                                                                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                           •s,
                                                                                                                                                            ri
                                                                                                                                                            S.
-------
    QTQ
    ft
Table 13-39. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Cue
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 3,994,000 141
Age
1-2 132,000 5
3-5 107,000 4
6-11 356,000 12
12-19 254,000 10
20-39 864,000 29
40-69 1,882,000 68
> 70 399,000 13
Season
Fall 370,000 12
Spring 197,000 15
Summer 3,427,000 114
Winter 0 0
Urbanization
Central City 640,000 18
Non-Metropolitan 1,530,000 64
Suburban 1,824,000 59
Race
Black 86,000 2
White 3,724,000 132
Region
Midwest 969,000 31
Northeast 689,000 22
South 1,317,000 54
West 1,019,000 34
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 3,465,000 123
Households who farm 710,000 29
%
Consuming
2.12

2.32
1.32
2.13
1.24
1.40
3.32
2.51

0.78
0.43
7.53
0.00

1.14
3.40
2.11

0.40
2.36

2.09
1.67
2.05
2.83

5.08
9.69

Mean
1.02

*
*
*
*
0.50
1.33
*

*
*
1.06
-

*
1.74
0.67

*
0.94

1.00
1.92
0.89
0.60

1.05
0.70

SE
0.16

*
*
*
*
0.09
0.30
*

*
*
0.18
-

*
0.34
0.08

*
0.16

0.39
0.68
0.11
0.11

0.18
0.11

PI
0.03

*
*
*
*
0.03
0.04
*

*
*
0.00
-

*
0.10
0.00

*
0.03

0.03
0.23
0.00
0.07

0.03
0.00

P5
0.07

*
*
*
*
0.05
0.07
*

*
*
0.07
-

*
0.12
0.07

*
0.06

0.04
0.28
0.12
0.07

0.07
0.00
umbers (g/kg-day)

P10 P25
0.11 0.24

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.06 0.18
0.18 0.39
* *

* *
* *
0.11 0.24
-

* *
0.19 0.39
0.16 0.28

* *
0.10 0.22

0.05 0.14
0.28 0.48
0.18 0.29
0.10 0.21

0.10 0.28
0.14 0.19

P50
0.54

*
*
*
*
0.31
0.68
*

*
*
0.52
-

*
1.06
0.50

*
0.50

0.45
0.68
0.75
0.43

0.52
0.39

P75
1.13

*
*
*
*
0.62
1.29
*

*
*
1.13
-

*
1.67
0.83

*
1.03

1.03
1.53
1.28
0.70

1.13
1.27

P90
2.11

*
*
*
*
1.35
2.11
*

*
*
2.12
-

*
3.09
1.34

*
1.49

2.35
4.18
1.73
1.29

2.11
1.49

P95
2.79

*
*
*
*
1.49
3.27
*

*
*
2.79
-

*
4.50
1.73

*
2.40

2.45
11.70
2.13
2.11

2.79
1.71

P99 MAX
13.40 13.70

* *
* *
* *
* *
2.12 2.12
13.70 13.70
* *

* *
* *
13.40 13.70
-

* *
13.70 13.70
3.27 3.27

* *
13.40 13.70

13.40 13.40
13.70 13.70
4.50 4.50
3.27 3.27

13.40 13.70
2.09 2.09
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.






















Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
-------
I
I
5

Table 13-40
Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Eggs (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %

Total
Age
1-2
3-5
6-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
>70
Seasons
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Group wgtd unwgtd
2,075,000 124

21,000 3
20,000 2
170,000 12
163,000 14
474,000 30
718,000 43
489,000 18

542,000 18
460,000 54
723,000 26
350,000 26

Central City 251,000 9
Non-Metropolitan 1,076,000 65
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
748,000 50

63,000 9
2,012,000 115

665,000 37
87,000 7
823,000 44
500,000 36
Consuming
1.10

0.37
0.25
1.02
0.80
0.77
1.27
3.08

1.14
1.00
1.59
0.72

0.45
2.39
0.86

0.29
1.28

1.43
0.21
1.28
1.39
Mean
0.73

*
*
*
*
0.63
0.59
*

*
1.31
0.50
0.86

*
0.73
0.85

*
0.74

0.79
*
0.54
0.92
SE PI
0.10 0.07

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.09 0.07
0.06 0.14
* *

* *
0.29 0.16
0.08 0.07
0.10 0.17

* *
0.12 0.07
0.20 0.14

* *
0.11 0.07

0.20 0.07
* *
0.06 0.15
0.28 0.17
P5 P10
0.15 0.18

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.07 0.22
0.14 0.15
* *

* *
0.33 0.39
0.14 0.14
0.18 0.22

* *
0.14 0.17
0.15 0.21

* *
0.15 0.18

0.14 0.14
* *
0.18 0.20
0.21 0.21
P25 P50
0.27 0.47

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.30 0.42
0.32 0.51
* *

* *
0.50 0.67
0.26 0.33
0.40 0.75

* *
0.26 0.47
0.38 0.59

* *
0.27 0.48

0.22 0.34
* *
0.26 0.36
0.46 0.67
P75
0.90

*
*
*
*
0.81
0.84
*

*
1.31
0.54
1.17

*
0.92
1.17

*
0.90

1.08
*
0.60
1.05
P90
1.36

*
*
*
*
1.32
1.30
*

*
2.10
1.36
1.62

*
1.34
1.36

*
1.36

1.51
*
1.18
1.36
P95
1.69

*
*
*
*
1.93
1.36
*

*
3.26
1.51
1.93

*
1.65
1.85

*
1.69

2.10
*
1.62
1.36
P99
6.58

*
*
*
*
2.50
1.38
*

*
13.50
1.65
1.93

*
6.58
13.50

*
6.58

9.16
*
1.93
13.50
MAX
13.50

*
*
*
*
2.50
1.38
*

*
13.50
1.65
1.93

*
9.16
13.50

*
13.50

9.16
*
1.93
13.50
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1,824,000 113
Households who farm 741,000 44
*
SE
P
Nc wgtd
Nc unwgtd
Source:
18.06
10.11
0.75
0.90
0.11 0.07
0.17 0.15
0.15 0.17
0.17 0.18
0.26 0.48
0.27 0.67
0.90
1.19
1.36
1.65
1.85
1.85
6.58
6.58
13.50
9.16
Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
= standard error.
= percentile of the distribution.
= weighted number of consumers.
= unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS






























                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
    QTQ
    ft
Table 13-41. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Game (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 2,707,000 185
Age
1-2 89,000 8
3-5 94,000 8
6-U 362,000 28
U-19 462,000 27
20-39 844,000 59
40-69 694,000 41
> 70 74,000 7
Season
Fall 876,000 31
Spring 554,000 68
Summer 273,000 9
Winter 1,004,000 77
Urbanization
Central City 506,000 20
Non-Metropolitan 1,259,000 101
Suburban 942,000 64
Race
Black 0 0
White 2,605,000 182
Region
Midwest 1,321,000 97
Northeast 394,000 20
South 609,000 47
West 383,000 21
Response to Questionnaire
Households who hunt 2,357,000 158
1.44
1.56
1.16
2.17
2.25
1.37
1.22
0.47
1.84
1.20
0.60
2.06
0.90
2.80
1.09
0.00
1.65
2.85
0.96
0.95
1.06
11.66
Mean
0.97
*
*
1.09
1 04
0.82
096
*
1.00
091
*
1 07
069
0.95
1 15

0.98
0.88
1 13
1.26
063
1 04

SE PI
0.06 0.00
* *
* *
0.14 0.12
014 021
0.11 0.10
0 14 0 12
* *
0.16 0.12
0 09 0 00
* *
Oil 000
013 000
0.09 0.00
010 000

0.06 0.00
0.08 0.00
0 22 0 29
0.13 0.00
0 07 0 12
0 07 0 00

P5
0.12
*
*
0.23
021
0.12
0 17
*
0.15
0 10
*
000
000
0.12
026

0.12
0.08
029
0.12
0 15
0 14

P10 P25
0.21 0.40
* *
* *
0.43 0.63
0 29 0 63
0.19 0.30
0 29 0 34
* *
0.22 0.43
0 17 0 44
* *
017 039
019 028
0.17 0.32
0 40 0 52

0.20 0.38
0.22 0.34
0 32 0 43
0.15 0.63
0 19 0 40
0 28 0 44

P50
0.71
*
*
0.76
0 85
0.63
0 51
*
0.63
075
*
0 82
063
0.66
0 82

0.73
0.61
077
1.09
063
075

P75
1.22
*
*
1.48
1 22
1.09
1 41
*
1.19
1 22
*
1 52
077
1.19
1 52

1.38
1.10
1 41
1.93
077
1 44

P90
2.27
*
*
2.67
1 99
1.57
2 51
*
2.50
1 75
*
220
1 48
2.27
2 51

2.34
1.99
3 13
2.38
1 12
238

P95
2.67
*
*
2.85
3 13
2.50
3 19
*
3.13
2 52
*
267
1 99
3.05
2 85

2.85
2.51
3 13
3.19
1 22
290

P99
3.61
*
*
2.90
3 13
4.59
3 61
*
3.19
3 61
*
459
234
4.59
3 13

3.61
4.59
3 61
3.19
1 52
3 61

MAX
4.59
*
*
2.90
3 13
4.59
3 61
*
3.19
3 61
*
459
234
4.59
3 61

4.59
4.59
3 61
3.19
1 52
459

* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I
-------
I
I
5
Table 13-42. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Lettuce (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1,520,000 80
Age
1-2 54,000 4
3-5 25,000 2
6-11 173,000 7
12-19 71,000 3
20-39 379,000 17
40-69 485,000 26
>70 317,000 20
Season
Fall 214,000 8
Spring 352,000 35
Summer 856,000 30
Winter 98,000 7
Urbanization
Central City 268,000 8
Non-Metropolitan 566,000 36
Suburban 686,000 36
Race
Black 51,000 3
White 1,434,000 75
Region
Midwest 630,000 33
Northeast 336,000 16
South 305,000 20
West 249,000 11
Responses to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,506,000 78
Households who farm 304,000 18
%
Consuming
0.81

0.95
0.31
1.04
0.35
0.62
0.86
2.00

0.45
0.76
1.88
0.20

0.48
1.26
0.79

0.23
0.91

1.36
0.82
0.47
0.69

2.21
4.15

Mean
0.39

*
*
*
*
*
0.48
0.45

*
0.45
0.30
*

*
0.37
0.35

*
0.38

0.38
*
0.35
*

0.39
*

SE
0.03

*
*
*
*
*
0.06
0.07

*
0.05
0.04
*

*
0.05
0.04

*
0.03

0.06
*
0.06
*

0.03
*

PI
0.00

*
*
*
*
*
0.12
0.05

*
0.05
0.02
*

*
0.02
0.00

*
0.00

0.02
*
0.00
*

0.00
*

P5
0.04

*
*
*
*
*
0.12
0.07

*
0.07
0.03
*

*
0.03
0.09

*
0.04

0.03
*
0.00
*

0.04
*

P10
0.09

*
*
*
*
*
0.12
0.11

*
0.12
0.05
*

*
0.04
0.10

*
0.09

0.04
*
0.13
*

0.09
*

P25
0.17

*
*
*
*
*
0.22
0.22

*
0.20
0.14
*

*
0.12
0.15

*
0.16

0.16
*
0.16
*

0.17
*

P50
0.28

*
*
*
*
*
0.49
0.29

*
0.45
0.23
*

*
0.29
0.23

*
0.28

0.23
*
0.28
*

0.28
*

P75
0.55

*
*
*
*
*
0.68
0.57

*
0.58
0.42
*

*
0.55
0.49

*
0.55

0.57
*
0.48
*

0.55
*

P90
0.84

*
*
*
*
*
0.89
1.03

*
0.80
0.60
*

*
0.81
0.77

*
0.89

0.94
*
0.58
*

0.84
*

P95
1.03

*
*
*
*
*
1.05
1.03

*
0.99
0.81
*

*
0.89
0.99

*
1.03

1.03
*
1.04
*

1.03
*

P99 MAX
1.05 1.28

* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
1.28 1.28
1.03 1.03

* *
1.28 1.28
0.89 0.89
* *

* *
1.28 1.28
1.05 1.05

* *
1.05 1.28

1.03 1.03
* *
1.28 1.28
* *

1.05 1.28
* *
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.




































                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
^o  2s
^=^
Table 13-43. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Lima Beans (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group Wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 1,917,000 109 1.02
Age
1-2 62,000 3 1.09
3-5 35,000 2 0.43
6-U 95,000 1 0.57
12-19 108,000 6 0.53
20-39 464,000 20 0.75
40-69 757,000 44 1.33
>70 361,000 25 2.27
Season
Fall 375,000 14 0.79
Spring 316,000 39 0.68
Summer 883,000 29 1.94
Winter 343,000 27 0.70
Urbanization
Central City 204,000 8 0.36
Non-Metropolitan 1,075,000 69 2.39
Suburban 638,000 32 0.74
Race
Black 213,000 9 0.98
White 1,704,000 100 1.08
Region
Midwest 588,000 36 1.27
Northeast 68,000 6 0.17
South 1,261,000 67 1.96
West 00 0.00
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,610,000 97 2.36
Households who farm 62,000 6 0.85


Mean SE
0.45

*
*
*
*
0.38
0.45
0.52

*
0.42
0.50
0.53

*
0.30
0.75

*
0.38

0.43
*
0.47
-

0.45
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.



0.04

*
*
*
*
0.07
0.06
0.11

*
0.06
0.10
0.06

*
0.03
0.10

*
0.03

0.06
*
0.06
-

0.04
*

PI
0.00

*
*
*
*
0.03
0.09
0.08

*
0.08
0.00
0.00

*
0.03
0.00

*
0.00

0.00
*
0.03
-

0.03
*

P5
0.09

*
*
*
*
0.11
0.11
0.19

*
0.09
0.09
0.03

*
0.09
0.08

*
0.09

0.00
*
0.10
-

0.09
*

P10
0.12

*
*
*
*
0.13
0.12
0.19

*
0.13
0.12
0.11

*
0.12
0.09

*
0.11

0.11
*
0.13
-

0.12
*

P25
0.19

*
*
*
*
0.18
0.20
0.23

*
0.23
0.17
0.31

*
0.17
0.32

*
0.18

0.25
*
0.18
-

0.18
*

P50
0.29

*
*
*
*
0.23
0.29
0.29

*
0.31
0.29
0.54

*
0.21
0.68

*
0.25

0.31
*
0.25
-

0.29
*

P75
0.55

*
*
*
*
0.49
0.56
0.64

*
0.55
0.49
0.76

*
0.32
0.99

*
0.49

0.42
*
0.63
-

0.53
*

P90
0.99

*
*
*
*
0.94
0.87
1.86

*
0.75
1.53
0.86

*
0.49
1.71

*
0.86

0.99
*
1.10
-

0.94
*

P95
1.69

*
*
*
*
1.10
1.71
1.86

*
1.31
1.71
0.87

*
0.77
1.86

*
0.99

1.53
*
1.71
-

1.71
*

P99 MAX
1.86 1.91

* *
* *
* *
* *
1.10 1.10
1.91 1.91
1.86 1.86

* *
1.91 1.91
1.86 1.86
1.69 1.69

* *
1.69 1.91
1.86 1.86

* *
1.53 1.91

1.69 1.69
* *
1.86 1.91
-

1.86 1.91
* *
less than 20 observations.






























                                                                                                                             Q
                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                             ft
                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                             ft
                                                                                                                             a,
vo
                                                                                                                             I
-------
I
sT
a
1=
Table
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1,696,000 82
Age
1-2 53,000 2
3-5 68,000 3
6-11 218,000 11
12-19 194,000 9
20-39 417,000 18
40-69 587,000 32
> 70 130,000 6
Season
Fall 228,000 9
Spring 236,000 24
Summer 1,144,000 41
Winter 88,000 8
Urbanization
Central City 204,000 6
Non-Metropolitan 1,043,000 55
Suburban 449,000 21
Race
Black 236,000 13
White 1,419,000 68
Region
Midwest 113,000 7
Northeast
South 1,443,000 70
West 140,000 5
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,564,000 77
Households who farm 233,000 14
13-44. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Okra (g/kg-day)
%
Consuming
0.90

0.93
0.84
1.30
0.95
0.68
1.03
0.82

0.48
0.51
2.52
0.18

0.36
2.32
0.52

1.09
0.90

0.24

2.24
0.39

2.29
3.18

Mean SE
0.39 0.04

* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
0.40 0.05
* *

* *
0.39 0.06
0.39 0.06
* *

* *
0.37 0.05
0.51 0.07

* *
0.43 0.04

* *

0.37 0.04
* *

0.38 0.04
* *

PI
0.00

*
*
*
*
*
0.07
*

*
0.03
0.00
*

*
0.00
0.07

*
0.00

*

0.00
*

0.00
*

P5
0.05

*
*
*
*
*
0.11
*

*
0.05
0.05
*

*
0.03
0.10

*
0.07

*

0.05
*

0.05
*

P10
0.10

*
*
*
*
*
0.14
*

*
0.07
0.10
*

*
0.08
0.11

*
0.10

*

0.08
*

0.10
*

P25
0.15

*
*
*
*
*
0.25
*

*
0.11
0.14
*

*
0.15
0.31

*
0.18

*

0.14
*

0.15
*

P50
0.30

*
*
*
*
*
0.31
*

*
0.41
0.30
*

*
0.26
0.46

*
0.33

*

0.26
*

0.30
*

P75
0.46

*
*
*
*
*
0.46
*

*
0.60
0.44
*

*
0.44
0.60

*
0.52

*

0.44
*

0.45
*

P90
0.78

*
*
*
*
*
0.78
*

*
0.78
1.15
*

*
0.78
1.14

*
1.14

*

0.75
*

1.07
*

P95
1.21

*
*
*
*
*
1.14
*

*
1.00
1.53
*

*
1.53
1.15

*
1.21

*

1.21
*

1.21
*

P99 MAX
1.53 1.53

* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
1.14 1.14
* *

* *
1.07 1.07
1.53 1.53
* *

* *
1.53 1.53
1.15 1.15

* *
1.53 1.53

* *

1.53 1.53
* *

1.53 1.53
* *
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS

































 a
 I
•s,
                                                                                                                                                             ri
                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
^o  2s

^=^
   ft
Table 13-45. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Onions (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
1-2
3-5
6-U
12-19
20-39
40-69
>70
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-Metropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
6,718,000 370

291,000 17
178,000 9
530,000 31
652,000 37
1,566,000 78
2,402,000 143
1,038,000 52

1,557,000 59
1,434,000 147
2,891,000 101
836,000 63

890,000 37
2,944,000 177
2,884,000 156

253,000 16
6,266,000 345

2,487,000 143
876,000 52
1,919,000 107
1,436,000 68

6,441,000 356
1,390,000 81
%
Consuming
3.57

5.11
2.20
3.17
3.18
2.54
4.23
6.54

3.27
3.11
6.36
1.72

1.58
6.54
3.33

1.16
3.98

5.36
2.13
2.98
3.98

9.45
18.97

Mean
0.30

*
*
0.30
0.21
0.29
0.25
0.43

0.38
0.20
0.31
0.29

0.22
0.32
0.29

*
0.31

0.27
0.23
0.33
0.33

0.30
0.38

SE
0.02

*
*
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.09

0.07
0.02
0.03
0.04

0.03
0.02
0.04

*
0.02

0.02
0.04
0.03
0.07

0.02
0.04

PI P5
0.00 0.01

* *
* *
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01

0.00 0.03
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.02
0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01
0.01 0.03
0.00 0.01

* *
0.00 0.01

0.00 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.03
0.00 0.01

0.00 0.01
0.03 0.04

P10
0.03

*
*
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.03

0.06
0.03
0.04
0.01

0.03
0.07
0.01

*
0.03

0.06
0.01
0.04
0.02

0.03
0.05

P25 P50
0.09 0.21

* *
* *
0.11 0.23
0.06 0.14
0.09 0.19
0.08 0.17
0.14 0.29

0.12 0.26
0.06 0.11
0.11 0.23
0.03 0.20

0.07 0.19
0.14 0.26
0.06 0.13

* *
0.09 0.22

0.10 0.22
0.01 0.11
0.15 0.25
0.06 0.15

0.09 0.21
0.11 0.28

P75 P90
0.38 0.61

* *
* *
0.38 0.61
0.26 0.57
0.30 0.64
0.36 0.55
0.46 0.56

0.44 0.60
0.26 0.43
0.38 0.69
0.46 0.64

0.30 0.52
0.43 0.63
0.36 0.64

* *
0.39 0.62

0.34 0.56
0.35 0.64
0.39 0.69
0.39 0.55

0.38 0.61
0.52 0.94

P95
0.91

*
*
1.36
0.76
0.94
0.69
2.68

0.78
0.52
0.97
0.92

0.56
0.91
0.97

*
0.94

0.72
1.05
1.08
0.97

0.92
1.11

P99
1.49

*
*
1.36
0.91
1.49
1.11
3.11

3.11
1.41
1.49
1.36

0.56
1.49
3.11

*
1.77

1.34
1.36
1.49
3.11

1.77
1.49

MAX
3.11

*
*
1.36
0.91
1.49
1.41
3.11

3.11
1.77
1.49
1.36

0.56
1.77
3.11

*
3.11

1.34
1.41
1.77
3.11

3.11
1.49
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.











P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                         Q
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                         I
-------
I
I
Table 13-46. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Berries (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 1,626,000 99
Age
1-2 41,000 2
3-5 53,000 3
6-11 106,000 10
12-19 79,000 5
20-39 309,000 20
40-69 871,000 51
> 70 159,000 7
Season
Fall 379,000 13
Spring 287,000 29
Summer 502,000 18
Winter 458,000 39
Urbanization
Central City 378,000 15
Non-Metropolitan 466,000 37
Suburban 722,000 45
Race
Black 76,000 4
White 1,490,000 93
Region
Midwest 736,000 56
Northeast 211,000 11
South 204,000 12
West 415,000 18
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,333,000 84
Households who farm 219,000 16
0.86

0.72
0.65
0.63
0.39
0.50
1.54
1.00

0.80
0.62
1.10
0.94

0.67
1.04
0.83

0.35
0.95

1.59
0.51
0.32
1.15

1.96
2.99

Mean SE
0.48 0.04

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.39 0.06
0.49 0.06
* *

* *
0.31 0.04
* *
0.54 0.07

* *
0.64 0.09
0.45 0.05

* *
0.50 0.04

0.46 0.06
* *
* *
* *

0.47 0.05
* *
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.







PI
0.00

*
*
*
*
0.08
0.08
*

*
0.05
*
0.00

*
0.00
0.09

*
0.05

0.00
*
*
*

0.01
*
20 observat




P5
0.05

*
*
*
*
0.09
0.10
*

*
0.05
*
0.10

*
0.09
0.13

*
0.09

0.08
*
*
*

0.00
*
ions.




P10
0.09

*
*
*
*
0.09
0.13
*

*
0.08
*
0.16

*
0.10
0.16

*
0.10

0.09
*
*
*

0.09
*





P25
0.23

*
*
*
*
0.13
0.25
*

*
0.18
*
0.23

*
0.25
0.26

*
0.25

0.13
*
*
*

0.20
*





P50
0.38

*
*
*
*
0.33
0.39
*

*
0.25
*
0.39

*
0.44
0.38

*
0.40

0.30
*
*
*

0.35
*





P75
0.59

*
*
*
*
0.55
0.61
*

*
0.41
*
0.62

*
1.02
0.54

*
0.60

0.59
*
*
*

0.55
*





P90
1.07

*
*
*
*
0.79
0.77
*

*
0.54
*
1.07

*
1.31
0.59

*
1.07

1.12
*
*
*

1.07
*





P95
1.28

*
*
*
*
1.07
1.28
*

*
0.72
*
1.95

*
2.21
0.90

*
1.31

1.28
*
*
*

1.28
*





P99
2.21

*
*
*
*
1.07
2.21
*

*
1.07
*
2.08

*
2.21
2.08

*
2.21

2.21
*
*
*

2.21
*





MAX
2.21

*
*
*
*
1.07
2.21
*

*
1.07
*
2.08

*
2.21
2.08

*
2.21

2.21
*
*
*

2.21
*




 a

 I
•s,
 ri

 S.
-------
^o  2s
^=^
Table 13-47. Consumer Only Iniaks of Homegrown Peaches (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group Wgtd unwgtd
Total 2,941,000 193
Age
1-2 103,000 8
3-5 65,000 6
6-11 329,000 26
12-19 177,000 13
20-39 573,000 35
40-69 1,076,000 70
> 70 598,000 33
Season
Fall 485,000 19
Spring 756,000 91
Summer 1,081,000 35
Winter 619,000 48
Urbanization
Central City 429,000 12
Non-Metropolitan 1,110,000 99
Suburban 1,402,000 82
Race
Black 39,000 1
White 2,861,000 191
Region
Midwest 824,000 75
Northeast 75,000 5
South 852,000 51
West 1,190,000 62
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 2,660,000 174
Households who farm 769,000 54
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations
SE = standard error.
%
Consuming
1.56

1.81
0.80
1.97
0.86
0.93
1.90
3.77

1.02
1.64
2.38
1.27

0.76
2.47
1.62

0.18
1.82

1.78
0.18
1.32
3.30

3.90
10.49

Mean
1.67

*
*
3.11
*
1.17
1.53
1.01

*
1.67
2.26
1.25

*
1.87
1.47

*
1.70

1.39
*
1.67
1.80

1.75
1.56

SE PI
0.17 0.05

* *
* *
0.63 0.10
* *
0.17 0.05
0.28 0.06
0.20 0.09

* *
0.30 0.05
0.48 0.17
0.10 0.04

* *
0.26 0.06
0.18 0.05

* *
0.17 0.05

0.29 0.18
* *
0.26 0.04
0.33 0.05

0.19 0.05
0.25 0.07

P5
0.17

*
*
0.10
*
0.06
0.19
0.14

*
0.06
0.23
0.24

*
0.26
0.14

*
0.17

0.22
*
0.14
0.14

0.17
0.18

P10
0.23

*
*
0.14
*
0.23
0.24
0.18

*
0.10
0.36
0.56

*
0.39
0.20

*
0.23

0.26
*
0.18
0.23

0.26
0.23

P25
0.47

*
*
0.63
*
0.47
0.56
0.28

*
0.28
0.57
0.78

*
0.65
0.46

*
0.50

0.46
*
0.64
0.47

0.53
0.46

P50
0.90

*
*
1.13
*
0.81
0.89
0.82

*
0.77
1.12
1.04

*
1.02
0.92

*
0.90

0.74
*
1.02
0.86

0.93
0.90

P75
1.88

*
*
6.36
*
1.30
1.61
1.19

*
1.45
2.99
1.71

*
2.18
1.87

*
1.96

1.19
*
1.96
1.94

1.96
2.02

P90
3.79

*
*
8.53
*
2.92
2.63
1.60

*
4.44
6.36
2.35

*
3.86
3.79

*
3.79

3.06
*
3.83
4.43

3.79
2.99

P95
6.36

*
*
8.53
*
2.99
4.43
3.79

*
6.77
8.53
2.60

*
6.36
4.43

*
6.36

3.56
*
6.36
7.37

6.36
6.36

P99
12.30

*
*
11.50
*
5.27
12.30
7.13

*
22.30
12.30
3.56

*
11.50
7.37

*
12.30

11.50
*
8.53
12.30

12.30
8.53

MAX
22.30

*
*
11.50
*
5.27
12.30
7.13

*
22.30
12.30
3.56

*
22.30
7.37

*
22.30

22.30
*
8.53
12.30

22.30
8.53
for which there were less than 20 observations.












P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                             Q
                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                             ft
                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                             ft
                                                                                                                             a,
vo
                                                                                                                             I
-------
a
3
ft
I
sT
a
1=
ft
Table 13-48. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Pears (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtc
Total 1,513,000 94
Age
1-2 24,000 3
3-5 45,000 3
6-11 145,000 10
12-19 121,000 7
20-39 365,000 23
40-69 557,000 33
>70 256,000 15
Season
Fall 308,000 11
Spring 355,000 39
Summer 474,000 16
Winter 376,000 28
Urbanization
Central City 222,000 11
Non-Metropolitan 634,000 44
Suburban 657,000 39
Race
Black 51,000 3
White 1,462,000 91
Region
Midwest 688,000 57
Northeast 18,000 2
South 377,000 13
West 430,000 22
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,312,000 85
Households who farm 528,000 35
%
Consuming
0.80

0.42
0.56
0.87
0.59
0.59
0.98
1.61

0.65
0.77
1.04
0.77

0.39
1.41
0.76

0.23
0.93

1.48
0.04
0.59
1.19

1.93
7.20

Mean
0.94

*
*
*
*
0.62
0.66
*

*
0.69
*
1.48

*
0.78
0.85

*
0.97

0.87
*
*
1.14

0.95
1.09

SE PI
0.10 0.10

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.06 0.11
0.06 0.10
* *

* *
0.08 0.10
* *
0.28 0.11

* *
0.09 0.33
0.12 0.10

* *
0.10 0.11

0.09 0.22
* *
* *
0.29 0.10

0.10 0.10
0.21 0.11

P5
0.18

*
*
*
*
0.32
0.11
*

*
0.11
*
0.11

*
0.35
0.11

*
0.24

0.34
*
*
0.11

0.18
0.22

P10 P25
0.24 0.43

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.38 0.43
0.33 0.42
* *

* *
0.18 0.34
* *
0.38 0.65

* *
0.42 0.44
0.18 0.39

* *
0.35 0.44

0.38 0.44
* *
* *
0.11 0.36

0.35 0.43
0.38 0.43

P50
0.68

*
*
*
*
0.50
0.65
*

*
0.60
*
0.95

*
0.57
0.73

*
0.70

0.65
*
*
0.75

0.68
0.61

P75
1.09

*
*
*
*
0.68
0.92
*

*
0.87
*
1.38

*
0.81
1.10

*
1.09

1.04
*
*
1.13

1.09
1.09

P90
1.60

*
*
*
*
1.22
1.10
*

*
1.15
*
4.82

*
1.56
1.50

*
1.60

1.60
*
*
2.76

1.56
2.76

P95
2.76

*
*
*
*
1.24
1.13
*

*
1.83
*
5.16

*
1.86
2.57

*
2.88

2.57
*
*
4.82

2.88
4.82

P99
5.16

*
*
*
*
1.24
1.51
*

*
2.54
*
5.16

*
2.88
4.79

*
5.16

4.79
*
*
5.16

5.16
5.16

MAX
5.16

*
*
*
*
1.24
1.51
*

*
2.54
*
5.16

*
2.88
4.79

*
5.16

4.79
*
*
5.16

5.16
5.16
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.

































Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
 a
 I
•s,
                                                                                                                                                      S.
-------
^o  2s

^=^
   ft
Table 13-49. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peas (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 4,252,000 226
Age
1-2 163,000 9
3-5 140,000 7
6-11 515,000 26
12-19 377,000 22
20-39 1,121,000 52
40-69 1,366,000 80
> 70 458,000 26
Season
Fall 1,239,000 41
Spring 765,000 78
Summer 1,516,000 51
Winter 732,000 56
Urbanization
Central City 558,000 19
Non-Metropolitan 2,028,000 126
Suburban 1,666,000 81
Race
Black 355,000 19
White 3,784,000 203
Region
Midwest 1,004,000 55
Northeast 241,000 14
South 2,449,000 132
West 558,000 25
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 3,980,000 214
Households who farm 884,000 55
2.26

2.86
1.73
3.08
1.84
1.82
2.41
2.88

2.60
1.66
3.33
1.50

0.99
4.50
1.92

1.63
2.40

2.16
0.59
3.81
1.55

5.84
12.06

Mean SE
0.51 0.03

* *
* *
0.61 0.09
0.41 0.04
0.41 0.06
0.46 0.05
0.33 0.06

0.30 0.03
0.44 0.04
0.59 0.07
0.75 0.09

* *
0.48 0.04
0.51 0.05

* *
0.50 0.03

0.40 0.07
* *
0.57 0.04
0.38 0.06

0.51 0.03
0.46 0.06
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS







PI
0.05

*
*
0.15
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.03

0.03
0.06
0.07
0.12

*
0.08
0.07

*
0.03

0.03
*
0.13
0.07

0.03
0.03

P5
0.10

*
*
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.03

0.05
0.11
0.13
0.18

*
0.14
0.12

*
0.10

0.05
*
0.17
0.07

0.10
0.05

P10 P25
0.14 0.23

* *
* *
0.22 0.30
0.16 0.24
0.14 0.18
0.12 0.23
0.05 0.18

0.12 0.21
0.12 0.19
0.17 0.22
0.21 0.27

* *
0.17 0.25
0.13 0.23

* *
0.13 0.22

0.10 0.14
* *
0.20 0.26
0.10 0.22

0.14 0.23
0.09 0.21

P50
0.32

*
*
0.39
0.36
0.25
0.30
0.27

0.26
0.33
0.39
0.54

*
0.35
0.39

*
0.33

0.25
*
0.37
0.27

0.32
0.35

P75
0.62

*
*
0.90
0.50
0.41
0.61
0.37

0.35
0.52
0.82
0.95

*
0.58
0.68

*
0.60

0.35
*
0.68
0.48

0.63
0.52

P90
1.04

*
*
1.35
0.71
0.85
1.00
1.00

0.60
0.92
1.35
1.54

*
1.04
1.00

*
1.00

0.88
*
1.24
0.90

1.04
0.90

P95
1.46

*
*
1.40
0.82
1.36
1.30
1.00

0.71
1.40
1.60
2.36

*
1.36
1.30

*
1.40

1.54
*
1.60
0.94

1.54
1.40

P99
2.66

*
*
2.06
0.82
2.71
2.36
1.46

1.00
2.06
2.66
2.89

*
1.89
2.28

*
2.66

2.71
*
2.66
1.40

2.66
1.60

MAX
2.89

*
*
2.06
0.82
2.71
2.36
1.46

1.00
2.06
2.66
2.89

*
2.89
2.36

*
2.89

2.89
*
2.66
1.40

2.89
2.89
20 observations.



























                                                                                                                         Q
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                         I
-------
I
I
Table 13-50. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Peppers (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 5,153,000 208 2.74
Age
1-2 163,000 6 2.86
3-5 108,000 5 1.33
6-11 578,000 26 3.46
12-19 342,000 16 1.67
20-39 1,048,000 40 1.70
40-69 2,221,000 88 3.92
>70 646,000 25 4.07
Season
Fall 1,726,000 53 3.62
Spring 255,000 28 0.55
Summer 2,672,000 94 5.87
Winter 500,000 33 1.03
Urbanization
Central City 865,000 30 1.53
Non-Metropolitan 1,982,000 89 4.40
Suburban 2,246,000 87 2.59
Race
Black 127,000 6 0.58
White 4,892,000 198 3.11
Region
Midwest 1,790,000 74 3.86
Northeast 786,000 31 1.91
South 1,739,000 72 2.70
West 778,000 29 2.16
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 4,898,000 199 7.19
Households who farm 867,000 35 11.83

Mean


*
*
0.23
*
0.22
0.25
0.26

0.20
0.30



0.25
0.24
0.25

*
0.25

0.23

0.23
0.21

0.24
0.30
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.




SE


*
*
0.04
*
0.06
0.03
0.06

0.03
0.07



0.04
0.04
0.03

*
0.02

0.04

0.03
0.05

0.02
0.08
less than




PI


*
*
0.00
*
0.02
0.01
0.02

0.00
0.00



0.04
0.01
0.00

*
0.02

0.01

0.03
0.02

0.00
0.00

P5


*
*
0.00
*
0.03
0.03
0.02

0.03
0.02



0.06
0.02
0.03

*
0.03

0.02

0.07
0.02

0.02
0.03

P10


*
*
0.03
*
0.06
0.05
0.02

0.04
0.04



0.07
0.03
0.04

*
0.04

0.03

0.08
0.03

0.03
0.03

P25


*
*
0.09
*
0.09
0.08
0.07

0.09
0.07



0.11
0.07
0.09

*
0.09

0.06

0.11
0.04

0.08
0.07

P50


*
*
0.16
*
0.12
0.17
0.14

0.17
0.15



0.18
0.12
0.16

*
0.15

0.15

0.17
0.09

0.15
0.17

P75


*
*
0.30
*
0.22
0.32
0.24

0.24
0.32



0.27
0.27
0.29

*
0.29

0.26

0.27
0.25

0.29
0.36

P90


*
*
0.43
*
0.40
0.48
0.92

0.35
1.09



0.36
0.54
0.49

*
0.49

0.39

0.43
0.54

0.48
0.60

P95


*
*
0.77
*
0.62
0.74
0.94

0.40
1.20



0.94
0.77
0.97

*
0.92

0.85

0.53
0.92

0.85
0.85

P99


*
*
0.85
*
2.48
1.50
1.07

1.07
1.53



1.10
2.48
1.50

*
1.81

2.48

1.81
1.07

1.50
2.48

MAX


*
*
0.85
*
2.48
1.50
1.07

1.07
1.53



1.10
2.48
1.53

*
2.48

2.48

1.81
1.07

2.48
2.48
20 observations.






























 a

 I
•s,
 ri

 S.
-------
^o  2s

i.^
oo  ^
Table 13-51. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Pork (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 1,732,000 121
Age
1-2 38,000 5
3-5 26,000 3
6-11 129,000 11
12-19 291,000 20
20-39 511,000 32
40-69 557,000 38
>70 180,000 12
Season
Fall 362,000 13
Spring 547,000 59
Summer 379,000 15
Winter 444,000 34
Urbanization
Central City 90,000 2
Non- Metropolitan 1,178,000 77
Suburban 464,000 42
Race
Black 0 0
White 1,732,000 121
Region
Midwest 844,000 64
Northeast 97,000 5
South 554,000 32
West 237,000 20
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1,428,000 100
Households who farm 1,218,000 82
%

Consuming Mean SE
0.92

0.67
0.32
0.77
1.42
0.83
0.98
1.13

0.76
1.19
0.83
0.91

0.16
2.62
0.54

0.00
1.10

1.82
0.24
0.86
0.66

14.14
16.62
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.



1.23 0.10

* *
* *
* *
1.28 0.24
1.21 0.18
1.02 0.12
* *

* *
1.13 0.13
* *
1.40 0.24

* *
1.39 0.13
0.88 0.12

-
1.23 0.10

1.06 0.12
* *
1.35 0.15
1.15 0.31

1.34 0.10
1.30 0.11

PI
0.09

*
*
*
0.31
0.11
0.12
*

*
0.11
*
0.13

*
0.09
0.11

-
0.09

0.09
*
0.18
0.13

0.14
0.22

P5
0.14

*
*
*
0.32
0.28
0.18
*

*
0.14
*
0.26

*
0.22
0.12

-
0.14

0.12
*
0.26
0.32

0.32
0.34

P10
0.31

*
*
*
0.34
0.41
0.22
*

*
0.22
*
0.38

*
0.41
0.18

-
0.31

0.21
*
0.34
0.38

0.41
0.41

P25
0.54

*
*
*
0.52
0.55
0.41
*

*
0.35
*
0.50

*
0.62
0.33

-
0.54

0.50
*
0.81
0.44

0.59
0.59

P50
0.90

*
*
*
0.89
0.79
0.81
*

*
0.90
*
0.88

*
0.97
0.59

-
0.90

0.67
*
1.26
0.73

0.97
0.92

P75
1.71

*
*
*
1.75
1.43
1.71
*

*
1.50
*
2.21

*
1.75
1.10

-
1.71

1.20
*
1.75
1.10

1.75
1.71

P90
2.73

*
*
*
3.69
2.90
1.78
*

*
2.68
*
3.08

*
3.16
2.28

-
2.73

2.68
*
2.44
1.75

2.90
3.08

P95
3.37

*
*
*
3.69
3.08
2.28
*

*
3.68
*
4.93

*
3.69
2.73

-
3.37

3.37
*
3.08
2.73

3.37
3.69

P99
4.93

*
*
*
4.29
4.93
3.16
*

*
4.29
*
7.41

*
4.93
2.90

-
4.93

3.69
*
4.29
7.41

4.29
4.93

MAX
7.41

*
*
*
4.29
4.93
3.16
*

*
4.29
*
7.41

*
7.41
2.90

-
7.41

3.73
*
4.29
7.41

4.93
4.93
less than 20 observations.

































                                                                                                                                                                           Q
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           ft
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           ft
                                                                                                                                                                           a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                           I
-------
Table 13-52. Consumer Only Intake of Home-produced Poultry (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group Wgtd unwgtd
Total 1,816,000 105
Age
1-2 91,000 8
3-5 70,000 5
6-11 205,000 12
12-19 194,000 12
20-39 574,000 33
40-69 568,000 30
> 70 80,000 3
Season
Fall 562,000 23
Spring 374,000 34
Summer 312,000 11
Winter 568,000 37
Urbanization
Central City 230,000 8
Non-Metropolitan 997,000 56
Suburban 589,000 41
Race
Black 44,000 2
White 1,772,000 103
Region
Midwest 765,000 41
Northeast 64,000 4
South 654,000 38
West 333,000 22
Response to Questionnaire
Households who raise animals 1,333,000 81
Households who farm 917,000 59
%
Consuming
0.97

1.60
0.86
1.23
0.95
0.93
1.00
0.50

1.18
0.81
0.69
1.17

0.41
2.21
0.68

0.20
1.12

1.65
0.16
1.02
0.92

13.20
12.51

Mean
1.57

*
*
*
*
1.17
1.51
*

1.52
1.87
*
1.55

*
1.48
1.94

*
1.57

1.60
*
1.67
1.24

1.58
1.54

SE
0.12

*
*
*
*
0.15
0.24
*

0.18
0.28
*
0.20

*
0.13
0.23

*
0.12

0.14
*
0.25
0.18

0.12
0.18

PI
0.20

*
*
*
*
0.17
0.20
*

0.41
0.17
*
0.20

*
0.20
0.23

*
0.20

0.41
*
0.17
0.27

0.23
0.20

P5
0.30

*
*
*
*
0.40
0.20
*

0.42
0.23
*
0.20

*
0.28
0.27

*
0.30

0.42
*
0.20
0.27

0.41
0.23

P10
0.42

*
*
*
*
0.40
0.30
*

0.46
0.30
*
0.43

*
0.41
0.43

*
0.42

0.56
*
0.30
0.43

0.47
0.30

P25
0.64

*
*
*
*
0.56
0.49
*

0.81
0.52
*
0.60

*
0.67
0.62

*
0.62

0.98
*
0.46
0.56

0.71
0.60

P50
1.23

*
*
*
*
1.15
0.77
*

1.39
1.38
*
1.23

*
1.19
1.59

*
1.23

1.39
*
0.91
1.02

1.37
1.06

P75
2.19

*
*
*
*
1.37
2.69
*

2.23
3.29
*
2.18

*
2.10
2.69

*
2.19

2.19
*
2.11
1.89

2.19
2.18

P90
3.17

*
*
*
*
1.80
3.29
*

2.69
4.60
*
2.95

*
3.17
4.59

*
3.17

2.70
*
4.59
2.45

2.93
3.47

P95
3.83

*
*
*
*
2.93
4.60
*

3.17
5.15
*
3.47

*
3.29
4.83

*
3.86

3.17
*
4.83
2.93

3.29
4.83

P99
5.33

*
*
*
*
4.59
5.15
*

3.17
5.33
*
6.17

*
3.86
6.17

*
5.33

3.86
*
6.17
2.93

5.33
6.17

MAX
6.17

*
*
*
*
4.59
5.15
*

3.17
5.33
*
6.17

*
5.33
6.17

*
6.17

5.33
*
6.17
2.93

6.17
6.17
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS







































 a

 I
•s,
I
I
 ri

 S.
-------
    ri
Table 13-53
Population Nc Nc
Consumer Only
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Toial 2,041,000 87
Age
1-2 73,000 4
3-5 18,000 2
6-U 229,000 9
12-19 244,000 10
20-39 657,000 26
40-69 415,000 20
>70 373,000 15
Season
Fall 1,345,000 49
Spring 48,000 6
Summer 405,000 13
Winter 243,000 19
Urbanization
Central City 565,000 20
Non-Metropolitan 863,000 44
Suburban 613,000 23
Race
Black 22,000 1
White 2,019,000 86
Region
Midwest 1,370,000 54
Northeast 15,000 1
South 179,000 10
West 477,000 22
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,987,000 85
Households who farm 449,000 18
1.09

1.28
0.22
1.37
1.19
1.07
0.73
2.35

2.82
0.10
0.89
0.50

1.00
1.92
0.71

0.10
1.28

2.95
0.04
0.28
1.32

2.92
6.13

Mean
0.78

*
*
*
*
0.80
0.82
*

0.82
*
*
*

0.63
0.64
1.10

*
0.78

0.82
*
*
0.79

0.77
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS






Intake of Homegrown Pumpkins (g/kg-day)

SE PI
0.07 0.13

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.13 0.18
0.16 0.29
* *

0.09 0.13
* *
* *
* *

0.11 0.18
0.10 0.13
0.13 0.29

* *
0.07 0.13

0.10 0.13
* *
* *
0.10 0.18

0.07 0.13
* *

P5
0.18

*
*
*
*
0.18
0.29
*

0.18
*
*
*

0.18
0.17
0.29

*
0.18

0.23
*
*
0.19

0.18
*

P10 P25
0.24 0.32

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.30 0.38
0.32 0.37
* *

0.28 0.37
* *
* *
* *

0.24 0.28
0.19 0.31
0.30 0.47

* *
0.24 0.32

0.24 0.32
* *
* *
0.31 0.37

0.24 0.32
* *

P50
0.56

*
*
*
*
0.48
0.52
*

0.61
*
*
*

0.38
0.51
1.04

*
0.56

0.57
*
*
0.74

0.56
*

P75
1.07

*
*
*
*
1.03
0.96
*

1.17
*
*
*

0.94
0.67
1.47

*
1.10

1.04
*
*
1.17

1.04
*

P90
1.47

*
*
*
*
1.73
1.47
*

1.73
*
*
*

1.24
1.22
1.79

*
1.47

1.73
*
*
1.47

1.46
*

P95
1.79

*
*
*
*
2.67
3.02
*

1.79
*
*
*

1.33
1.45
2.67

*
1.79

2.67
*
*
1.51

1.79
*

P99
3.02

*
*
*
*
2.67
3.02
*

3.02
*
*
*

2.24
4.48
2.67

*
3.02

3.02
*
*
1.51

3.02
*

MAX
4.48

*
*
*
*
2.67
3.02
*

3.02
*
*
*

2.24
4.48
2.67

*
4.48

4.48
*
*
1.51

4.48
*
less than 20 observations.



























                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
5
Table 13-54.
Population Nc Nc
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 12,308,000 739
Age
1-2 246,000 17
3-5 455,000 32
6-11 862,000 62
12-19 1,151,000 69
20-39 2,677,000 160
40-69 4,987,000 292
>70 1,801,000 100
Season
Fall 3,813,000 137
Spring 2,706,000 288
Summer 2,946,000 98
Winter 2,843,000 216
Urbanization
Central City 2,205,000 78
Non-Metropolitan 5,696,000 404
Suburban 4,347,000 255
Race
Black 634,000 36
White 11,519,000 694
Region
Midwest 4,651,000 307
Northeast 990,000 52
South 4,755,000 286
West 1,852,000 92
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 11,843,000 700
Households who farm 2,591,000 157
6.55

4.32
5.62
5.16
5.62
4.35
8.79
11.34

8.00
5.86
6.48
5.84

3.91
12.65
5.02

2.92
7.31

10.02
2.40
7.39
5.14

17.38
35.35
Consumer Only

Mean SE
0.80 0.03

* *
1.49 0.24
0.90 0.12
0.64 0.06
0.61 0.04
0.72 0.03
0.92 0.12

0.81 0.08
0.90 0.05
0.63 0.05
0.86 0.05

0.60 0.06
0.96 0.05
0.70 0.04

0.76 0.14
0.81 0.03

0.86 0.06
0.57 0.07
0.88 0.04
0.59 0.04

0.79 0.03
0.80 0.05
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS






Intake of Homegrown Snap Beans (g/kg-day)

PI
0.06

*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.06

0.06
0.03
0.00
0.11

0.06
0.09
0.10

0.25
0.07

0.07
0.00
0.13
0.07

0.06
0.06

P5
0.15

*
0.00
0.20
0.16
0.13
0.16
0.07

0.15
0.15
0.12
0.18

0.07
0.18
0.14

0.25
0.15

0.15
0.10
0.21
0.14

0.15
0.13

P10
0.19

*
0.35
0.22
0.22
0.16
0.23
0.15

0.18
0.22
0.16
0.24

0.16
0.23
0.19

0.28
0.19

0.19
0.11
0.25
0.18

0.19
0.19

P25
0.34

*
0.90
0.32
0.32
0.26
0.36
0.37

0.27
0.37
0.33
0.42

0.26
0.37
0.34

0.30
0.35

0.34
0.18
0.40
0.27

0.33
0.41

P50
0.57

*
1.16
0.64
0.50
0.50
0.56
0.64

0.54
0.59
0.50
0.62

0.51
0.68
0.52

0.48
0.57

0.55
0.49
0.68
0.51

0.56
0.66

P75
1.04

*
1.66
1.21
0.81
0.79
0.86
1.22

1.18
1.11
0.85
1.12

0.71
1.19
0.93

1.04
1.06

0.99
0.82
1.22
0.74

1.02
1.12

P90
1.58

*
3.20
1.79
1.34
1.24
1.45
1.70

1.52
1.72
1.30
1.72

1.23
1.89
1.36

1.30
1.63

1.70
1.28
1.72
1.20

1.60
1.54

P95
2.01

*
4.88
2.75
1.79
1.64
1.77
2.01

2.01
2.85
1.70
2.02

1.54
2.70
1.77

1.34
2.01

2.47
1.36
2.01
1.52

2.01
1.98

P99
3.90

*
6.90
4.81
2.72
2.05
2.70
9.96

4.82
5.66
2.05
3.85

1.93
4.88
2.98

5.98
3.90

4.88
1.97
3.23
2.19

3.85
2.96

MAX
9.96

*
6.90
5.66
2.72
4.26
4.23
9.96

9.96
6.90
2.63
7.88

3.35
9.96
6.08

5.98
9.96

9.96
3.09
5.98
2.19

9.96
4.23
20 observations.






























                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
f-  ^
^O  2s


fe*
>\>
    ft
Table 13-55. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Strawberries (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 2,057,000 139 1.09
Age
1-2 30,000 2 0.53
3-5 66,000 6 0.81
6-11 153,000 15 0.92
12-19 201,000 11 0.98
20-39 316,000 22 0.51
40-69 833,000 55 1.47
>70 449,000 27 2.83
Season
Fall 250,000 8 0.52
Spring 598,000 66 1.30
Summer 388,000 11 0.85
Winter 821,000 54 1.69
Urbanization
Central City 505,000 23 0.90
Non- Metropolitan 664,000 52 1.47
Suburban 888,000 64 1.03
Race
Black 00 0.00
White 2,057,000 139 1.31
Region
Midwest 1,123,000 76 2.42
Northeast 382,000 25 0.93
South 333,000 23 0.52
West 219,000 15 0.61
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 1,843,000 123 2.70
Households who farm 87,000 9 1.19

Mean
0.65

*
*
*
*
0.32
0.64
0.64

*
0.83
*
0.51

0.75
0.62
0.62

-
0.65

0.69
0.64
0.67
*

0.64
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.




SE PI
0.05 0.04

* *
* *
* *
* *
0.06 0.08
0.06 0.02
0.11 0.04

* *
0.10 0.08
* *
0.06 0.02

0.12 0.04
0.11 0.02
0.06 0.08

-
0.05 0.04

0.08 0.02
0.10 0.09
0.08 0.13
* *

0.05 0.04
* *

P5
0.08

*
*
*
*
0.08
0.07
0.04

*
0.09
*
0.04

0.04
0.07
0.18

-
0.08

0.07
0.16
0.21
*

0.08
*

P10
0.12

*
*
*
*
0.11
0.18
0.09

*
0.18
*
0.11

0.09
0.08
0.22

-
0.12

0.08
0.18
0.38
*

0.12
*

P25
0.26

*
*
*
*
0.12
0.36
0.26

*
0.28
*
0.21

0.38
0.13
0.35

-
0.26

0.18
0.26
0.52
*

0.23
*

P50
0.47

*
*
*
*
0.21
0.58
0.47

*
0.47
*
0.39

0.49
0.39
0.53

-
0.47

0.42
0.47
0.62
*

0.45
*

P75
0.82

*
*
*
*
0.46
0.94
0.70

*
0.97
*
0.60

1.33
0.81
0.70

-
0.82

1.00
0.87
0.70
*

0.82
*

P90
1.47

*
*
*
*
0.82
1.42
1.66

*
1.93
*
1.27

1.47
1.66
1.27

-
1.47

1.66
1.46
1.00
*

1.46
*

P95
1.77

*
*
*
*
0.97
1.47
1.89

*
2.54
*
1.46

1.69
2.16
1.56

-
1.77

1.93
1.83
1.00
*

1.77
*

P99
2.72

*
*
*
*
1.56
2.37
2.72

*
4.83
*
2.37

2.37
4.83
2.97

-
2.72

2.97
2.16
2.72
*

2.54
*

MAX
4.83

*
*
*
*
1.56
2.37
2.72

*
4.83
*
2.37

2.37
4.83
2.97

-
4.83

4.83
2.16
2.72
*

4.83
*
less than 20 observations.






























                                                                                                                                                                                             Q
                                                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                                                             ft
I
I
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                             I
-------
I
I
:!
Table 13-56. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Tomatoes (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 16,737,000 743
Age
1-2 572,000 26
3-5 516,000 26
6-11 1,093,000 51
12-19 1,411,000 61
20-39 4,169,000 175
40-69 6,758,000 305
> 70 1,989,000 89
Season
Fall 5,516,000 201
Spring 1,264,000 127
Summer 8,122,000 279
Winter 1,835,000 136
Urbanization
Central City 2,680,000 90
Non-Metropolitan 7,389,000 378
Suburban 6,668,000 275
Race
Black 743,000 28
White 15,658,000 703
Region
Midwest 6,747,000 322
Northeast 2,480,000 87
South 4,358,000 202
West 3,152,000 132
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 14,791,000 661
Households who farm 2,269,000 112
SE = standard error.
%
Consuming
8.90

10.04
6.37
6.54
6.89
6.77
11.92
12.53

11.57
2.74
17.86
3.77

4.76
16.41
7.70

3.42
9.94

14.54
6.02
6.77
8.74

21.70
30.96


Mean SE
1.18 0.05

3.14 0.53
1.61 0.27
1.63 0.27
0.72 0.09
0.85 0.10
1.05 0.05
1.26 0.09

1.02 0.09
0.84 0.06
1.30 0.09
1.37 0.18

1.10 0.13
1.26 0.07
1.13 0.09

0.61 0.09
1.22 0.06

1.18 0.09
1.17 0.16
1.15 0.09
1.23 0.10

1.21 0.06
1.42 0.16


PI
0.08

0.73
0.50
0.22
0.00
0.07
0.11
0.11

0.07
0.14
0.11
0.09

0.00
0.11
0.08

0.00
0.11

0.06
0.08
0.00
0.18

0.08
0.00


P5
0.15

0.86
0.51
0.31
0.00
0.13
0.17
0.24

0.14
0.19
0.17
0.21

0.15
0.22
0.14

0.00
0.17

0.15
0.14
0.21
0.24

0.15
0.18


P10
0.23

0.93
0.51
0.39
0.18
0.15
0.28
0.30

0.22
0.24
0.24
0.29

0.23
0.26
0.18

0.07
0.24

0.21
0.15
0.25
0.28

0.23
0.23


P25
0.39

1.23
0.75
0.53
0.27
0.25
0.40
0.48

0.34
0.37
0.41
0.50

0.35
0.42
0.37

0.24
0.41

0.36
0.35
0.42
0.41

0.41
0.42


P50
0.74

1.66
1.25
0.76
0.52
0.52
0.75
1.14

0.60
0.63
0.80
0.83

0.75
0.76
0.67

0.51
0.76

0.68
0.75
0.75
0.77

0.76
0.77


P75
1.46

4.00
1.65
1.66
0.85
1.00
1.41
1.77

1.34
1.11
1.55
1.49

1.51
1.47
1.38

0.90
1.49

1.41
1.38
1.43
1.84

1.50
1.86


P90
2.50

7.26
3.00
5.20
1.67
1.83
2.40
2.51

2.24
1.75
3.05
2.48

2.16
2.77
2.35

1.18
2.55

2.51
2.44
2.32
2.78

2.51
3.55


P95
3.54

10.70
6.25
5.70
1.94
2.10
3.05
2.99

2.87
2.00
4.05
3.38

2.95
3.85
3.32

1.55
3.59

3.69
3.52
3.67
3.08

3.52
5.20


P99
7.26

10.70
6.25
9.14
3.39
5.52
4.50
3.67

6.25
3.79
7.26
8.29

7.26
6.87
5.52

1.66
7.26

6.87
10.90
6.82
7.26

7.26
9.14


MAX
19.30

10.70
6.25
9.14
3.39
19.30
5.00
3.67

10.70
5.28
10.90
19.30

8.29
10.70
19.30

1.66
19.30

19.30
10.90
9.14
7.26

19.30
9.14

P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                 a

                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                •s,
                                                                                                                 ri

                                                                                                                 S.
-------
    ri
vo
Table
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 5,895,000 281 3.14
Age
1-2 147,000 10 2.58
3-5 119,000 6 1.47
6-11 431,000 24 2.58
12-19 751,000 31 3.67
20-39 1,501,000 66 2.44
40-69 1,855,000 95 3.27
>70 1,021,000 45 6.43
Season
Fall 2,267,000 86 4.76
Spring 527,000 58 1.14
Summer 2,403,000 81 5.28
Winter 698,000 56 1.43
Urbanization
Central City 679,000 25 1.20
Non-Metropolitan 3,046,000 159 6.77
Suburban 2,110,000 95 2.44
Race
Black 140,000 5 0.64
White 5,550,000 269 3.52
Region
Midwest 2,587,000 133 5.58
Northeast 656,000 31 1.59
South 1,796,000 84 2.79
West 796,000 31 2.21
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 5,291,000 250 7.76
Households who farm 1,082,000 62 14.76
13-57. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown White Potatoes (g/kg-day)

Mean
1.66

*
*
2.19
1.26
1.24
1.86
1.27

1.63
1.23
1.63
2.17

0.96
1.96
1.49

*
1.67

1.77
1.28
2.08
0.76

1.65
1.83
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.






SE PI
0.11 0.00

* *
* *
0.39 0.00
0.19 0.07
0.12 0.16
0.23 0.13
0.12 0.21

0.22 0.16
0.13 0.07
0.18 0.00
0.20 0.14

0.15 0.16
0.16 0.18
0.17 0.11

* *
0.11 0.14

0.15 0.18
0.20 0.07
0.24 0.16
0.11 0.16

0.11 0.00
0.18 0.07

P5
0.19

*
*
0.00
0.19
0.16
0.26
0.22

0.22
0.11
0.19
0.40

0.16
0.27
0.19

*
0.21

0.24
0.13
0.35
0.22

0.21
0.21

P10
0.31

*
*
0.41
0.26
0.20
0.35
0.36

0.27
0.20
0.32
0.50

0.18
0.37
0.32

*
0.31

0.34
0.17
0.46
0.26

0.31
0.58

P25
0.55

*
*
0.72
0.38
0.48
0.70
0.55

0.46
0.41
0.62
0.86

0.38
0.77
0.54

*
0.55

0.64
0.35
0.92
0.41

0.56
0.92

P50
1.27

*
*
1.76
1.22
1.00
1.31
1.21

1.13
0.86
1.32
2.02

0.56
1.50
0.93

*
1.28

1.35
0.86
1.56
0.54

1.28
1.46

P75
2.07

*
*
3.10
1.80
1.62
2.04
1.69

1.79
1.91
2.09
2.95

1.52
2.38
1.68

*
2.09

2.15
1.97
2.40
0.96

2.09
2.31

P90
3.11

*
*
5.94
2.95
2.54
3.43
2.35

3.43
2.86
3.08
4.26

2.07
3.55
3.11

*
3.11

3.77
2.95
3.44
1.40

3.10
3.80

P95
4.76

*
*
6.52
3.11
3.08
5.29
2.88

4.14
3.08
5.29
5.40

2.25
5.64
4.76

*
4.76

5.29
3.80
5.64
1.95

4.28
5.09

P99
9.52

*
*
6.52
4.14
4.29
12.80
3.92

12.80
4.28
9.43
6.00

2.54
12.80
9.43

*
9.52

9.43
5.09
12.80
3.11

9.52
6.52

MAX
12.80

*
*
6.52
4.14
5.09
12.80
3.92

12.80
4.28
9.43
6.00

2.54
12.80
9.43

*
12.80

9.43
5.09
12.80
3.11

12.80
6.52
less than 20 observations.


















































                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
I
-------
I
I
I
 ft
Table 13-58. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Exposed Fruit (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 11,770,000 679 6.26
Age
1-2 306,000 19 5.37
3-5 470,000 30 5.80
6-11 915,000 68 5.48
12-19 896,000 50 4.37
20-39 2,521,000 139 4.09
40-69 4,272,000 247 7.53
>70 2,285,000 118 14.39
Season
Fall 2,877,000 100 6.04
Spring 2,466,000 265 5.34
Summer 3,588,000 122 7.89
Winter 2,839,000 192 5.83
Urbanization
Central City 2,552,000 99 4.53
Non-Metropolitan 3,891,000 269 8.64
Suburban 5,267,000 309 6.08
Race
Black 250,000 12 1.15
White 11,411,000 663 7.24
Region
Midwest 4,429,000 293 9.55
Northeast 1,219,000 69 2.96
South 2,532,000 141 3.94
West 3,530,000 174 9.79
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 10,197,000 596 14.96
Households who farm 1,917,000 112 26.16

Mean
1.49

*
2.60
2.52
1.33
1.09
1.25
1.39

1.37
1.49
1.75
1.27

1.34
1.78
1.36

*
1.51

1.60
0.76
1.51
1.60

1.55
2.32
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.




SE
0.08

*
0.78
0.42
0.21
0.14
0.11
0.12

0.12
0.15
0.25
0.11

0.20
0.17
0.09

*
0.08

0.14
0.12
0.18
0.14

0.09
0.25

PI
0.04

*
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.04

0.26
0.09
0.00
0.04

0.04
0.06
0.09

*
0.06

0.04
0.08
0.08
0.10

0.04
0.07

P5
0.14

*
0.00
0.17
0.12
0.13
0.16
0.21

0.29
0.20
0.09
0.10

0.10
0.10
0.21

*
0.16

0.13
0.09
0.23
0.24

0.16
0.28

P10
0.26

*
0.37
0.37
0.26
0.17
0.25
0.28

0.34
0.25
0.13
0.23

0.26
0.17
0.29

*
0.26

0.22
0.17
0.30
0.32

0.26
0.37

P25
0.45

*
1.00
0.62
0.40
0.30
0.44
0.57

0.54
0.43
0.39
0.46

0.45
0.42
0.47

*
0.45

0.42
0.30
0.51
0.57

0.45
0.68

P50
0.83

*
1.82
1.11
0.61
0.62
0.72
0.96

1.03
0.86
0.64
0.83

0.86
0.94
0.77

*
0.86

0.88
0.47
0.92
0.96

0.88
1.30

P75
1.70

*
2.64
2.91
2.27
1.07
1.40
1.66

1.88
1.65
1.76
1.55

1.60
1.94
1.65

*
1.72

1.88
0.78
1.63
1.97

1.73
3.14

P90
3.16

*
5.41
6.98
3.41
2.00
2.61
3.73

2.88
2.91
4.29
2.61

2.37
4.07
3.16

*
3.31

3.58
1.39
2.63
3.72

3.41
5.00

P95
4.78

*
6.07
11.70
4.78
3.58
3.25
4.42

4.25
4.67
6.12
4.66

2.88
5.98
4.67

*
4.78

4.78
2.86
5.98
5.00

5.00
6.12

P99 MAX
12.00 32.50

* *
32.50 32.50
15.70 15.90
5.90 5.90
12.90 12.90
13.00 13.00
5.39 7.13

5.41 5.41
8.27 32.50
13.00 15.70
8.16 11.30

13.00 13.00
15.70 32.50
7.29 12.90

* *
12.00 32.50

12.00 32.50
5.21 7.13
15.70 15.70
13.00 13.00

12.90 32.50
15.70 15.70
less than 20 observations.






























                                                                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                           •s,
                                                                                                                                                            ri
                                                                                                                                                            S.
-------
    ri
Table 13-59. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Fruits (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc %
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 3,855,000 173 2.05
Age
1-2 79,000 5 1.39
3-5 80,000 4 0.99
6-11 181,000 9 1.08
12-19 377,000 20 1.84
20-39 755,000 29 1.23
40-69 1,702,000 77 3.00
>70 601,000 26 3.78
Season
Fall 394,000 12 0.83
Spring 497,000 36 1.08
Summer 1,425,000 47 3.13
Winter 1,539,000 78 3.16
Urbanization
Central City 1,312,000 50 2.33
Non-Metropolitan 506,000 19 1.12
Suburban 2,037,000 104 2.35
Race
Black 200,000 8 0.92
White 3,655,000 165 2.32
Region
Midwest 657,000 24 1.42
Northeast 105,000 5 0.26
South 1,805,000 74 2.81
West 1,288,000 70 3.57
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 3,360,000 146 4.93
Households who farm 357,000 14 4.87

Mean
5.74

*
*
*
2.96
4.51
5.65
4.44

*
2.08
7.39
6.24

3.94
*
6.83

*
5.91

10.70
*
4.77
4.85

5.90
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.




SE
0.63

*
*
*
0.99
1.08
0.87
0.69

*
0.35
1.45
0.91

0.58
*
0.94

*
0.65

2.60
*
0.65
0.93

0.70
*
less than




PI
0.15

*
*
*
0.12
0.18
0.11
0.26

*
0.16
0.11
0.15

0.15
*
0.11

*
0.12

0.25
*
0.16
0.11

0.12
*

P5
0.27

*
*
*
0.16
0.36
0.24
0.26

*
0.18
0.27
0.30

0.26
*
0.25

*
0.26

0.26
*
0.36
0.18

0.27
*

P10
0.34

*
*
*
0.28
0.49
0.29
0.29

*
0.26
0.39
0.38

0.33
*
0.29

*
0.33

0.29
*
0.45
0.27

0.34
*

P25
0.93

*
*
*
0.39
1.22
0.67
1.95

*
0.38
1.25
1.39

0.83
*
0.59

*
1.06

1.18
*
1.23
0.49

1.16
*

P50
2.34

*
*
*
1.23
1.88
2.22
3.29

*
1.22
3.06
2.65

3.01
*
2.01

*
2.44

7.44
*
2.54
1.84

2.42
*

P75
7.45

*
*
*
2.84
4.47
9.36
7.06

*
4.08
10.30
8.23

5.01
*
10.30

*
7.46

14.60
*
5.10
5.34

7.46
*

P90
16.00

*
*
*
7.44
14.60
15.50
8.97

*
5.10
16.60
17.80

9.23
*
17.90

*
16.00

24.10
*
15.20
12.30

16.00
*

P95
19.70

*
*
*
11.40
16.10
21.20
9.97

*
6.57
24.10
21.20

9.97
*
23.80

*
21.20

41.30
*
16.60
18.80

19.10
*

P99 MAX
47.30 53.60

* *
* *
* *
19.10 19.10
24.10 24.10
41.30 41.30
15.20 15.20

* *
6.79 6.79
53.60 53.60
47.30 47.30

18.80 18.80
* *
53.60 53.60

* *
47.30 53.60

53.60 53.60
* *
23.80 24.00
47.30 47.30

47.30 53.60
* *
20 observations.



























                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
   5
XI
Table 13-60. Consumer Only
Population Nc Nc
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 28,762,000 1,511
Age
1-2 815,000 43
3-5 1,069,000 62
6-11 2,454,000 134
12-19 2,611,000 143
20-39 6,969,000 348
40-69 10,993,000 579
>70 3,517,000 185
Season
Fall 8,865,000 314
Spring 4,863,000 487
Summer 10,151,000 348
Winter 4,883,000 362
Urbanization
Central City 4,859,000 173
Non-Metropolitan 11,577,000 711
Suburban 12,266,000 625
Race
Black 1,713,000 100
White 26,551,000 1,386
Region
Midwest 10,402,000 570
Northeast 4,050,000 191
South 9,238,000 503
West 5,012,000 245
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 25,737,000 1,361
Households who farm 3,596,000 207
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS
15.30

14.30
13.19
14.68
12.74
11.31
19.38
22.15

18.60
10.54
22.32
10.02

8.62
25.71
14.17

7.88
16.85

22.42
9.84
14.36
13.90

37.76
49.07






Mean
1.52

3.48
1.74
1.39
1.07
1.05
1.60
1.68

1.31
1.14
2.03
1.21

1.11
1.87
1.35

1.23
1.53

1.48
1.65
1.55
1.43

1.57
2.17





Intake of Homegrown Exposed Vegetables (g/kg-day)

SE
0.05

0.51
0.22
0.18
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.12

0.10
0.06
0.13
0.10

0.10
0.09
0.07

0.13
0.05

0.09
0.18
0.08
0.10

0.06
0.16






PI
0.00

0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01

0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.02
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00
0.05
0.00

0.00
0.00






P5 P10
0.09 0.17

0.24 0.83
0.01 0.05
0.04 0.09
0.03 0.14
0.07 0.12
0.14 0.24
0.15 0.24

0.11 0.18
0.05 0.15
0.11 0.20
0.02 0.14

0.06 0.08
0.17 0.25
0.10 0.16

0.08 0.14
0.10 0.18

0.07 0.16
0.08 0.14
0.16 0.26
0.03 0.15

0.09 0.17
0.18 0.37






P25
0.40

1.20
0.58
0.31
0.30
0.26
0.48
0.52

0.33
0.34
0.61
0.37

0.28
0.50
0.36

0.35
0.40

0.39
0.26
0.52
0.39

0.41
0.65






P50
0.86

1.89
1.16
0.64
0.66
0.56
0.98
1.13

0.65
0.66
1.30
0.67

0.70
1.16
0.74

0.89
0.86

0.81
0.67
1.00
0.76

0.89
1.38






P75
1.83

4.23
2.53
1.60
1.46
1.26
1.92
2.38

1.56
1.39
2.52
1.42

1.43
2.20
1.58

1.51
1.82

1.69
1.75
1.92
2.13

1.97
2.81






P90
3.55

10.70
3.47
3.22
2.35
2.33
3.59
4.08

3.13
2.76
4.32
2.76

2.49
4.12
3.22

3.32
3.48

3.55
5.58
3.19
3.45

3.63
6.01






P95
5.12

11.90
6.29
5.47
3.78
3.32
5.22
4.96

4.45
4.02
6.35
3.69

3.29
6.10
5.22

3.92
5.12

4.67
6.80
4.52
4.84

5.45
6.83






P99
10.30

12.10
7.36
13.30
5.67
7.57
8.99
6.96

8.92
7.51
12.70
8.86

8.34
12.20
8.61

5.55
10.30

11.90
12.70
9.92
7.51

10.30
10.30






MAX
20.60

12.10
8.86
13.30
5.67
20.60
19.00
10.20

12.20
10.70
19.00
20.60

12.10
19.00
20.60

7.19
20.60

20.60
14.90
13.30
8.34

20.60
13.30





                                                                                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                •s,
                                                                                                                                                                 ri
                                                                                                                                                                 S.
-------
    ri
Table 13-61. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Protected Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
1-2
3-5
6-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
>70
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-Metropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
SE = standard error.
Nc
Wgtd
11,428,000

348,000
440,000
1,052,000
910,000
3,227,000
3,818,000
1,442,000

3,907,000
2,086,000
3,559,000
1,876,000

1,342,000
5,934,000
4,152,000

479,000
10,836,000

4,359,000
807,000
4,449,000
1,813,000

10,286,000
2,325,000

Nc
unwgtd
656

21
32
63
51
164
226
89

143
236
118
159

49
391
216

27
625

273
48
253
82

602
142

%
Consuming
6.08

6.11
5.43
6.30
4.44
5.24
6.73
9.08

8.20
4.52
7.82
3.85

2.38
13.18
4.80

2.20
6.88

9.40
1.96
6.92
5.03

15.09
31.72


Mean SE
1.01 0.05

2.46 0.49
1.30 0.21
1.10 0.13
0.78 0.09
0.76 0.06
0.93 0.07
1.05 0.16

0.85 0.07
0.70 0.04
1.40 0.16
0.93 0.08

1.00 0.15
1.07 0.06
0.93 0.08

1.50 0.23
0.99 0.05

1.01 0.07
0.70 0.09
1.08 0.07
0.96 0.16

1.01 0.05
1.30 0.15


PI P5
0.10 0.15

0.32 0.32
0.23 0.23
0.19 0.21
0.06 0.16
0.11 0.15
0.07 0.14
0.12 0.21

0.12 0.16
0.06 0.14
0.10 0.18
0.12 0.14

0.12 0.15
0.11 0.17
0.07 0.15

0.16 0.26
0.10 0.15

0.11 0.17
0.06 0.15
0.13 0.17
0.07 0.12

0.10 0.15
0.09 0.17


P10
0.19

0.54
0.32
0.32
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.24

0.20
0.17
0.23
0.18

0.17
0.21
0.19

0.33
0.19

0.23
0.17
0.21
0.15

0.19
0.21


P25
0.32

1.36
0.48
0.39
0.35
0.24
0.32
0.36

0.32
0.27
0.38
0.31

0.32
0.35
0.29

0.87
0.32

0.33
0.27
0.38
0.21

0.34
0.34


P50
0.63

1.94
1.04
0.79
0.58
0.51
0.60
0.57

0.57
0.49
0.78
0.60

0.72
0.65
0.56

0.94
0.61

0.57
0.51
0.71
0.48

0.64
0.60


P75
1.20

2.96
1.48
1.31
0.82
0.97
1.11
1.21

1.10
0.91
1.69
1.20

1.18
1.30
1.15

2.20
1.20

1.08
0.99
1.38
1.01

1.21
1.40


P90
2.24

3.88
2.51
2.14
1.85
1.73
1.87
1.86

1.73
1.44
3.05
2.32

2.36
2.51
1.85

3.05
2.17

2.45
1.71
2.32
1.86

2.32
3.55


P95
3.05

9.42
5.10
3.12
2.20
2.51
3.04
3.05

2.51
1.86
5.40
3.06

2.83
3.55
2.67

3.23
3.04

3.68
2.33
3.05
3.12

3.05
5.40


P99
6.49

9.42
5.31
5.40
2.69
3.63
6.84
9.23

4.78
3.74
9.23
4.76

4.78
6.84
6.49

4.95
6.49

6.84
2.77
5.40
9.23

6.49
9.23


MAX
9.42

9.42
5.31
5.40
2.69
4.76
7.44
9.23

5.31
5.73
9.42
6.39

4.78
9.42
9.23

4.95
9.42

7.44
2.77
9.42
9.23

9.23
9.23

P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
5
Table 13-62. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Root Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group Wgtd unwgtd
Total 13,750,000 743
Age
1-2 371,000 22
3-5 390,000 23
6-11 1,106,000 67
12-19 1,465,000 76
20-39 3,252,000 164
40-69 4,903,000 276
> 70 2,096,000 107
Season
Fall 4,026,000 153
Spring 2,552,000 260
Summer 5,011,000 169
Winter 2,161,000 161
Urbanization
Central City 2,385,000 96
Non-Metropolitan 6,094,000 366
Suburban 5,211,000 279
Race
Black 521,000 31
White 12,861,000 697
Region
Midwest 5,572,000 314
Northeast 1,721,000 92
South 3,842,000 205
West 2,555,000 130
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 12,578,000 682
Households who farm 2,367,000 136
SE = standard error.
%
Consuming
7.31

6.51
4.81
6.62
7.15
5.28
8.64
13.20

8.45
5.53
11.02
4.44

4.23
13.54
6.02

2.40
8.16

12.01
4.18
5.97
7.08

18.46
32.30


Mean
1.16

2.52
1.28
1.32
0.94
0.87
1.13
1.22

1.42
0.69
1.19
1.17

0.75
1.43
1.06

0.88
1.18

1.31
0.84
1.38
0.77

1.15
1.39


SE
0.06

0.61
0.32
0.21
0.12
0.07
0.10
0.10

0.15
0.06
0.12
0.12

0.08
0.10
0.09

0.39
0.06

0.10
0.10
0.14
0.06

0.06
0.13


PI
0.00

0.17
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02

0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.03
0.01
0.00

0.00
0.01

0.03
0.00
0.01
0.00

0.00
0.11


P5
0.04

0.17
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.03

0.14
0.02
0.05
0.01

0.04
0.07
0.01

0.01
0.05

0.07
0.01
0.05
0.02

0.04
0.16


P10
0.11

0.22
0.12
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.17

0.17
0.03
0.13
0.04

0.14
0.13
0.07

0.04
0.13

0.17
0.01
0.13
0.11

0.12
0.18


P25
0.25

0.36
0.23
0.23
0.27
0.20
0.25
0.38

0.31
0.14
0.28
0.24

0.22
0.28
0.23

0.09
0.26

0.27
0.14
0.28
0.24

0.26
0.37


P50
0.67

0.92
0.46
0.52
0.57
0.56
0.68
0.85

0.92
0.37
0.73
0.56

0.43
0.76
0.73

0.54
0.68

0.74
0.48
0.69
0.57

0.67
0.88


P75
1.47

3.67
1.68
1.63
1.37
1.24
1.27
1.71

1.67
0.77
1.51
1.56

0.92
1.85
1.19

0.77
1.50

1.67
1.18
1.70
0.98

1.50
1.85


P90
2.81

7.25
4.26
3.83
2.26
2.11
2.74
2.86

3.26
1.69
2.74
3.08

1.91
3.32
2.34

1.06
2.82

3.23
2.05
3.32
1.69

2.81
3.11


P95
3.71

10.40
4.73
5.59
3.32
3.08
3.56
3.21

3.85
2.80
3.64
4.14

2.70
4.24
3.26

1.25
3.72

4.26
2.77
3.83
2.45

3.64
4.58


P99 MAX
9.52 12.80

10.40 10.40
4.73 4.73
7.47 7.47
5.13 5.13
4.64 6.03
9.52 12.80
4.01 4.77

12.30 12.80
4.24 7.69
10.40 11.90
6.21 11.30

3.56 3.93
11.30 12.80
6.29 11.90

12.30 12.30
9.52 12.80

10.40 11.90
4.78 6.03
12.30 12.80
3.72 3.72

7.47 12.80
7.47 7.69

P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
    ri
Table 13-63. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Dark Green Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtc
Total 8,855,000 428
Age
1-2 180,000 8
3-5 226,000 12
6-11 826,000 39
12-19 628,000 32
20-39 1,976,000 87
40-69 3,710,000 184
> 70 1,253,000 63
Season
Fall 2,683,000 88
Spring 1,251,000 127
Summer 3,580,000 124
Winter 1,341,000 89
Urbanization
Central City 1,298,000 48
Non-Metropolitan 3,218,000 167
Suburban 4,279,000 211
Race
Black 724,000 49
White 7,963,000 373
Region
Midwest 2,668,000 121
Northeast 1,554,000 76
South 2,945,000 148
West 1,628,000 81
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 8,521,000 412
Households who farm 1,450,000 66
%
Consuming
4.71

3.16
2.79
4.94
3.07
3.21
6.54
7.89

5.63
2.71
7.87
2.75

2.30
7.15
4.94

3.33
5.05

5.75
3.77
4.58
4.51

12.50
19.78

Mean SE
0.39 0.03

* *
* *
0.31 0.05
0.42 0.15
0.34 0.06
0.40 0.04
0.41 0.07

0.44 0.07
0.56 0.08
0.34 0.04
0.27 0.04

0.27 0.04
0.33 0.04
0.48 0.05

1.04 0.18
0.32 0.02

0.28 0.04
0.51 0.09
0.48 0.05
0.32 0.07

0.40 0.03
0.38 0.06

PI
0.00

*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00

0.00
0.00

P5
0.00

*
*
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.01

0.10
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00

0.00
0.00

P10 P25
0.01 0.09

* *
* *
0.02 0.09
0.01 0.06
0.01 0.09
0.03 0.08
0.01 0.11

0.09 0.15
0.01 0.10
0.01 0.06
0.01 0.02

0.01 0.11
0.02 0.07
0.02 0.09

0.11 0.22
0.01 0.08

0.01 0.06
0.00 0.06
0.09 0.15
0.01 0.04

0.01 0.09
0.01 0.07

P50
0.21

*
*
0.18
0.20
0.18
0.23
0.23

0.24
0.31
0.15
0.15

0.21
0.17
0.23

0.55
0.20

0.21
0.20
0.29
0.11

0.21
0.23

P75
0.44

*
*
0.39
0.37
0.38
0.48
0.47

0.46
0.54
0.41
0.37

0.32
0.45
0.46

1.17
0.38

0.36
0.49
0.64
0.31

0.45
0.48

P90
0.92

*
*
0.95
0.92
0.67
0.98
0.93

0.79
1.28
0.98
0.66

0.63
0.75
1.15

3.29
0.78

0.50
1.25
0.92
0.66

0.92
0.95

P95
1.25

*
*
1.04
1.64
0.92
1.25
1.08

1.08
2.81
1.15
1.17

0.92
1.00
2.18

3.86
1.07

0.98
1.93
1.28
0.93

1.25
1.25

P99
3.53

*
*
1.28
4.86
2.94
3.29
3.45

3.86
4.86
2.48
2.04

1.07
2.48
3.86

4.86
2.37

2.48
3.53
3.86
4.86

3.53
2.48

MAX
5.82

*
*
1.28
4.86
4.29
5.82
3.45

4.29
5.82
2.48
2.18

1.07
5.82
4.86

4.86
5.82

3.02
5.82
4.29
4.86

5.82
3.02
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers



in survey.








































Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
5
Table 13-64. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Deep Yellow Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population
Group
Total
Age
1-2
3-5
6-11
12-19
20-39
40-69
>70
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non- Metropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Region
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden
Households who farm
Nc Nc
wgtd unwgtd
5,467,000 245

124,000 8
61,000 4
382,000 17
493,000 21
1,475,000 63
2,074,000 96
761,000 32

2,664,000 97
315,000 34
1,619,000 52
869,000 62

1,308,000 43
2,100,000 118
2,059,000 84

129,000 8
5,093,000 229

2,792,000 128
735,000 29
557,000 30
1,383,000 58

5,177,000 233
1,088,000 51
%
Consuming
2.91

2.18
0.75
2.29
2.41
2.39
3.66
4.79

5.59
0.68
3.56
1.78

2.32
4.66
2.38

0.59
3.23

6.02
1.79
0.87
3.83

7.60
14.85

Mean SE
0.64 0.04

* *
* *
* *
0.47 0.09
0.53 0.08
0.54 0.05
0.78 0.09

0.74 0.08
0.56 0.08
0.51 0.06
0.63 0.09

0.51 0.07
0.67 0.08
0.71 0.07

* *
0.65 0.04

0.75 0.06
0.40 0.08
0.54 0.21
0.60 0.07

0.62 0.04
0.61 0.09

PI P5
0.04 0.07

* *
* *
* *
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.06
0.04 0.09
0.08 0.20

0.09 0.12
0.14 0.15
0.04 0.05
0.04 0.04

0.04 0.06
0.04 0.06
0.06 0.09

* *
0.05 0.09

0.04 0.13
0.04 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.06 0.13

0.04 0.09
0.09 0.09

P10 P25
0.13 0.22

* *
* *
* *
0.06 0.09
0.12 0.17
0.14 0.22
0.28 0.37

0.14 0.26
0.20 0.25
0.06 0.23
0.06 0.17

0.14 0.21
0.09 0.22
0.13 0.26

* *
0.14 0.24

0.19 0.28
0.06 0.09
0.08 0.22
0.14 0.22

0.13 0.23
0.12 0.19

P50
0.42

*
*
*
0.36
0.31
0.40
0.57

0.45
0.45
0.41
0.35

0.39
0.37
0.43

*
0.43

0.51
0.15
0.31
0.41

0.42
0.34

P75
0.77

*
*
*
0.78
0.51
0.65
1.24

0.97
0.64
0.64
0.80

0.59
0.87
0.97

*
0.80

0.96
0.64
0.44
0.64

0.75
0.94

P90
1.44

*
*
*
1.13
1.22
1.09
1.61

1.73
1.01
0.96
1.54

0.96
1.39
1.67

*
1.50

1.73
1.09
0.77
1.44

1.42
1.28

P95
2.03

*
*
*
1.44
2.03
1.33
1.99

2.23
1.42
1.67
2.23

1.41
2.12
2.03

*
2.03

2.23
1.37
1.22
1.89

1.99
1.73

P99
2.67

*
*
*
1.58
2.67
3.02
1.99

3.02
2.41
2.31
4.37

2.24
4.37
2.67

*
2.67

3.02
2.21
6.63
2.31

2.67
3.02

MAX
6.63

*
*
*
1.58
2.67
3.02
1.99

6.63
2.41
2.31
4.37

2.24
6.63
2.67

*
4.37

4.37
2.21
6.63
2.31

4.37
3.02
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.











P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
    ri
Table 13-65. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Vegetables (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 25,221,000 1,437
Age
1-2 613,000 38
3-5 887,000 59
6-11 2,149,000 134
12-19 2,379,000 141
20-39 6,020,000 328
40-69 9,649,000 547
> 70 3,226,000 174
Season
Fall 6,934,000 253
Spring 5,407,000 567
Summer 8,454,000 283
Winter 4,426,000 334
Urbanization
Central City 4,148,000 161
Non-Metropolitan 10,721,000 710
Suburban 10,292,000 564
Race
Black 1,347,000 84
White 23,367,000 1,327
Region
Midwest 8,296,000 522
Northeast 2,914,000 162
South 9,218,000 518
West 4,733,000 233
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 22,417,000 1,291
Households who farm 3,965,000 239
SE = standard error.
%
Consuming
13.41

10.76
10.95
12.86
11.61
9.77
17.01
20.31

14.55
11.71
18.59
9.09

7.36
23.81
11.89

6.19
14.83

17.88
7.08
14.33
13.12

32.89
54.10


Mean
1.38

3.80
2.15
1.30
0.98
0.93
1.40
1.58

1.19
1.16
1.79
1.19

0.97
1.78
1.14

1.30
1.39

1.43
1.33
1.53
1.08

1.44
1.95


SE
0.05

0.63
0.27
0.14
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.14

0.09
0.06
0.15
0.07

0.09
0.09
0.06

0.17
0.05

0.09
0.17
0.08
0.10

0.05
0.16


PI
0.01

0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.02

0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.04
0.03
0.00

0.04
0.01

0.03
0.00
0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01


P5
0.11

0.27
0.23
0.12
0.06
0.09
0.11
0.15

0.15
0.04
0.12
0.14

0.09
0.16
0.09

0.17
0.11

0.12
0.06
0.17
0.07

0.11
0.14


P10
0.18

0.40
0.37
0.19
0.12
0.15
0.19
0.24

0.19
0.10
0.18
0.23

0.16
0.23
0.15

0.21
0.18

0.19
0.11
0.25
0.12

0.18
0.23


P25
0.36

1.04
0.72
0.35
0.32
0.24
0.40
0.46

0.33
0.31
0.39
0.41

0.32
0.47
0.31

0.35
0.38

0.37
0.24
0.49
0.26

0.38
0.52


P50
0.78

2.61
1.37
0.80
0.64
0.56
0.84
0.95

0.72
0.71
0.97
0.73

0.61
1.01
0.65

0.71
0.79

0.73
0.60
1.03
0.57

0.82
1.21


P75
1.65

4.55
3.16
1.61
1.33
1.12
1.58
1.91

1.44
1.39
1.97
1.49

1.23
2.01
1.44

1.49
1.65

1.65
1.64
1.76
1.21

1.70
2.04


P90
3.09

7.74
4.47
3.04
2.05
2.19
2.92
3.46

2.74
2.67
4.13
2.41

1.97
4.05
2.69

3.88
3.04

3.05
3.07
3.37
2.41

3.22
5.32


P95
4.52

11.20
5.96
4.57
3.17
3.04
4.65
5.79

4.00
4.21
6.14
3.37

3.22
5.74
3.77

5.47
4.49

4.65
5.41
4.70
3.73

4.65
7.02


P99 MAX
9.95 18.40

18.00 18.00
8.41 14.00
9.95 9.95
5.41 5.41
5.10 7.00
14.10 18.40
9.96 11.40

6.74 9.96
7.35 14.00
14.60 18.40
7.00 11.00

7.00 8.85
14.10 18.40
6.81 11.40

6.21 7.72
9.96 18.40

11.20 18.40
12.00 14.10
8.33 18.00
8.02 11.40

9.95 18.40
14.60 15.90

P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
sT
a
1=
Table 13-66. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Citrus (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
Group wgtd unwgtd
Total 2,530,000 125
Age
1-2 54,000 4
3-5 51,000 3
6-11 181,000 9
12-19 194,000 14
20-39 402,000 18
40-69 1,183,000 55
> 70 457,000 21
Season
Fall 280,000 8
Spring 437,000 33
Summer 334,000 11
Winter 1,479,000 73
Urbanization
Central City 1,053,000 43
Non-Metropolitan 0 0
Suburban 1,477,000 82
Race
Black 200,000 8
White 2,330,000 117
Region
Midwest 64,000 4
Northeast 0 0
South 1,240,000 55
West 1,226,000 66
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 2, 1 5 1 ,000 102
Households who farm 130,000 5
%
Consuming
1.35

0.95
0.63
1.08
0.95
0.65
2.09
2.88

0.59
0.95
0.73
3.04

1.87
0.00
1.71

0.92
1.48

0.14
0.00
1.93
3.40

3.16
1.77

Mean
4.76

*
*
*
*
*
4.54
4.43

*
2.31
*
6.47

3.57
-
5.61

*
4.93

*
-
5.18
4.56

4.55
*

SE
0.61

*
*
*
*
*
0.81
0.76

*
0.38
*
0.95

0.52
-
0.91

*
0.63

*
-
0.74
0.98

0.66
*

PI
0.08

*
*
*
*
*
0.08
0.08

*
0.16
*
0.15

0.15
-
0.08

*
0.08

*
-
0.16
0.08

0.08
*

P5
0.16

*
*
*
*
*
0.15
0.08

*
0.18
*
0.33

0.33
-
0.11

*
0.15

*
-
0.38
0.11

0.15
*

P10
0.29

*
*
*
*
*
0.25
0.49

*
0.24
*
0.49

0.45
-
0.25

*
0.28

*
-
0.64
0.24

0.28
*

P25
0.76

*
*
*
*
*
0.52
1.95

*
0.37
*
1.64

1.13
-
0.52

*
0.78

*
-
1.60
0.37

0.76
*

P50
1.99

*
*
*
*
*
1.74
3.53

*
1.36
*
2.93

3.01
-
1.81

*
2.34

*
-
3.42
1.42

1.99
*

P75
5.10

*
*
*
*
*
5.24
6.94

*
4.15
*
8.59

4.97
-
8.12

*
5.34

*
-
6.50
4.53

4.99
*

P90 P95 P99
14.10 19.70 32.20

* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
15.20 19.70 23.80
8.97 8.97 15.70

* * *
5.10 6.50 7.52
* * *
19.10 23.80 47.90

7.46 8.97 20.00
.
17.90 23.80 47.90

* * *
14.10 19.70 32.20

* * *
.
14.10 19.70 23.80
12.40 20.00 47.90

12.40 17.90 32.20
* * *

MAX
47.90

*
*
*
*
*
23.80
15.70

*
7.52
*
47.90

20.00
-
47.90

*
47.90

*
-
23.80
47.90

47.90
*
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
Indicates data are not available.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey























































Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
 a
 I
•s,
                                                                                                                                                             ri
                                                                                                                                                             S.
-------
    ri
Table 13-67. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Other Fruit (g/kg-day)
Population Nc Nc
%
Group wgtd unwgtd Consuming
Total 12,615,000 706
Age
1-2 306,000 19
3-5 499,000 31
6-11 915,000 68
12-19 1,021,000 54
20-39 2,761,000 146
40-69 4,610,000 259
>70 2,326,000 119
Season
Fall 2,923,000 102
Spring 2,526,000 268
Summer 4,327,000 144
Winter 2,839,000 192
Urbanization
Central City 2,681,000 102
Non-Metropolitan 4,118,000 278
Suburban 5,756,000 324
Race
Black 250,000 12
White 12,256,000 690
Region
Midwest 4,619,000 298
Northeast 1,279,000 72
South 3,004,000 157
West 3,653,000 177
Response to Questionnaire
Households who garden 10,926,000 619
Households who farm 1 ,9 1 7,000 112
6.71

5.37
6.16
5.48
4.98
4.48
8.13
14.65

6.13
5.47
9.51
5.83

4.76
9.15
6.65

1.15
7.78

9.96
3.11
4.67
10.13

16.03
26.16

Mean SE
2.20 0.19

* *
2.66 0.76
2.60 0.44
1.62 0.28
1.85 0.37
2.09 0.31
1.66 0.18

1.39 0.11
1.47 0.15

1.29 0.11

1.79 0.29
2.43 0.31
2.25 0.31

* *
2.24 0.19

3.07 0.43
0.93 0.22
1.99 0.26
1.76 0.16

2.38 0.21
2.57 0.27

PI
0.05

*
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.04

0.26
0.09

0.04

0.04
0.07
0.13

*
0.07

0.04
0.08
0.08
0.10

0.04
0.07

P5
0.15

*
0.00
0.18
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.21

0.30
0.20

0.10

0.17
0.12
0.20

*
0.15

0.13
0.09
0.24
0.22

0.16
0.28

P10
0.26

*
0.38
0.39
0.26
0.18
0.25
0.36

0.38
0.25

0.23

0.29
0.24
0.28

*
0.26

0.24
0.16
0.30
0.29

0.26
0.36

P25
0.46

*
1.02
0.64
0.39
0.31
0.44
0.57

0.57
0.43

0.45

0.52
0.45
0.45

*
0.47

0.45
0.31
0.55
0.54

0.47
0.73

P50
0.91

*
1.87
1.14
0.61
0.62
0.77
1.07

1.07
0.83

0.83

0.89
1.13
0.76

*
0.92

1.04
0.48
1.10
0.97

0.99
1.55

P75
1.91

*
2.71
2.99
2.36
1.39
1.77
1.65

1.88
1.65

1.55

1.60
2.43
1.81

*
1.94

2.35
0.81
1.82
2.04

1.96
3.62

P90
4.59

*
5.54
7.13
3.92
3.70
3.17
4.06

2.89
2.89

2.70

2.61
4.60
4.72

*
4.65

6.73
1.29
4.06
4.35

4.94
5.80

P95
8.12

*
6.30
12.10
6.81
6.64
9.77
5.21

4.06
4.59

4.79

10.40
8.12
7.61

*
8.26

14.20
2.16
6.30
5.75

10.40
8.06

P99 MAX
18.40 62.60

* *
33.20 33.20
16.20 16.50
8.12 8.12
37.00 37.00
18.40 53.30
11.70 11.70

5.39 5.54
8.26 33.20

8.06 11.30

15.40 15.40
24.00 53.30
18.40 62.60

* *
18.40 62.60

53.30 62.60
11.70 11.70
16.20 24.00
13.00 13.00

18.40 62.60
16.20 16.20
* Intake data not provided for subpopulations for which there were less than 20 observations.
SE = standard error.
P = percentile of the distribution.
Nc wgtd = weighted number of consumers.
Nc unwgtd = unweighted number of consumers in survey.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS























































                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
I
 ft
Table 13-68. Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced

Total
Season
Fa\\
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-metropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Regions
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who raise animals
Households who farm
Households who fish
Total
Fruits
0.040

0.021
0.021
0.058
0.059

0.027
0.052
0.047

0.007
0.049
0.005
0.059
0.042
0.062
0.101
0.161
-
Total
Vegetables
0.068

0.081
0.037
0.116
0.041

0.027
0.144
0.058

0.027
0.081
0.038
0.112
0.069
0.057
0.173
0.308
-
Total
Meats
0.024

0.020
0.020
0.034
0.022

0.003
0.064
0.018

0.001
0.031
0.009
0.046
0.017
0.023
0.306
0.319
-
Total
Dairy
0.012

0.008
0.011
0.022
0.008

0.000
0.043
0.004

0.000
0.014
0.010
0.024
0.006
0.007
0.207
0.254
-
Total
Fish
0.094

0.076
0.160
0.079
0.063

0.053
0.219
0.075

0.063
0.110
0.008
0.133
0.126
0.108
-
-
0.325
Exposed
Vegetables
0.095

0.106
0.050
0.164
0.052

0.037
0.207
0.079

0.037
0.109
0.062
0.148
0.091
0.079
0.233
0.420
-
Protected
Vegetables
0.069

0.073
0.039
0.101
0.048

0.027
0.134
0.054

0.029
0.081
0.016
0.109
0.077
0.060
0.178
0.394
-
Root
Vegetables
0.043

0.060
0.020
0.066
0.026

0.016
0.088
0.035

0.012
0.050
0.018
0.077
0.042
0.029
0.106
0.173
-
Exposed
Fruits
0.050

0.039
0.047
0.068
0.044

0.030
0.100
0.043

0.008
0.059
0.010
0.078
0.040
0.075
0.116
0.328
-
Protected
Fruits
0.037

0.008
0.008
0.054
0.068

0.026
0.025
0.050

0.007
0.045
0.002
0.048
0.044
0.054
0.094
0.030
-
                                                                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                           •s,
                                                                                                                                                            ri
                                                                                                                                                            S.
-------
    ri
Table 13-68. Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)

Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-metropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Regions
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who farm
Dark Green
Vegetables
0.044

0.059
0.037
0.063
0.018

0.012
0.090
0.054

0.053
0.043
0.039
0.054
0.049
0.034
0.120
0.220
Deep Yellow
Vegetables
0.065

0.099
0.017
0.080
0.041

0.038
0.122
0.058

0.056
0.071
0.019
0.174
0.022
0.063
0.140
0.328
Other
Vegetables
0.069

0.069
0.051
0.114
0.044

0.026
0.154
0.053

0.026
0.082
0.034
0.102
0.077
0.055
0.180
0.368
Citrus
Fruits
0.038

0.114
0.014
0.010
0.091

0.035
0.000
0.056

0.012
0.045
0.000
0.001
0.060
0.103
0.087
0.005
Other
Fruits
0.042

0.027
0.025
0.070
0.030

0.022
0.077
0.042

0.004
0.051
0.008
0.083
0.031
0.046
0.107
0.227
Apples
0.030

0.032
0.013
0.053
0.024

0.017
0.066
0.024

0.007
0.035
0.004
0.052
0.024
0.043
0.070
0.292
Peaches
0.147

0.090
0.206
0.133
0.183

0.087
0.272
0.121

0.018
0.164
0.027
0.164
0.143
0.238
0.316
0.461
Pears
0.067

0.038
0.075
0.066
0.111

0.038
0.155
0.068

0.004
0.089
0.002
0.112
0.080
0.093
0.169
0.606
Strawberries
0.111

0.408
0.064
0.088
0.217

0.107
0.133
0.101

0.000
0.125
0.085
0.209
0.072
0.044
0.232
0.057
Other Berries
0.217

0.163
0.155
0.232
0.308

0.228
0.282
0.175

0.470
0.214
0.205
0.231
0.177
0.233
0.306
0.548
                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
I
I
5


Total
Season
Fa\\
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-metropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Regions
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who farm

Asparagus
0.063

0.024
0.103
0
0.019

0.058
0.145
0.040

0.000
0.071
0.091
0.194
0.015
0.015
0.125
0.432
Table
Beets
0.203

0.199
0.191
0.209
0.215

0.212
0.377
0.127

0.000
0.224
0.074
0.432
0.145
0.202
0.420
0.316
13-68. Fraction of food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)
Broccoli
0.015

0.013
0.011
0.034
0.006

0.004
0.040
0.016

0.000
0.018
0.020
0.025
0.013
0.006
0.043
0.159
Cabbage
0.038

0.054
0.011
0.080
0.008

0.004
0.082
0.045

0.001
0.056
0.047
0.053
0.029
0.029
0.099
0.219
Carrots
0.043

0.066
0.015
0.063
0.025

0.018
0.091
0.039

0.068
0.042
0.025
0.101
0.020
0.039
0.103
0.185
Corn
0.078

0.076
0.048
0.118
0.043

0.025
0.173
0.047

0.019
0.093
0.020
0.124
0.088
0.069
0.220
0.524
Cucumbers
0.148

0.055
0.040
0.320
0

0.029
0.377
0.088

0.060
0.155
0.147
0.193
0.140
0.119
0.349
0.524
Lettuce
0.010

0.013
0.010
0.017
0.002

0.009
0.017
0.009

0.007
0.011
0.009
0.020
0.006
0.009
0.031
0.063
Lima
Beans
0.121

0.070
0.082
0.176
0.129

0.037
0.132
0.165

0.103
0.135
0.026
0.149
0.140
0.000
0.258
0.103
Okra
0.270

0.299
0.211
0.304
0.123

0.068
0.411
0.299

0.069
0.373
0.000
0.224
0.291
0.333
0.618
0.821
Onions
0.056

0.066
0.033
0.091
0.029

0.017
0.127
0.050

0.009
0.068
0.022
0.098
0.047
0.083
0.148
0.361
                                                                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                          •s,
                                                                                                                                                           ri
                                                                                                                                                           S.
-------
Table 13-68. Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)

Total
Season
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Urbanization
Central City
Non-metropolitan
Suburban
Race
Black
White
Regions
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Questionnaire Response
Households who garden
Households who farm
Households who raise animals
Households who hunt
Peas
0.069

0.046
0.048
0.126
0.065

0.033
0.123
0.064

0.047
0.076
0.021
0.058
0.106
0.051
0.193
0.308
-
-
Peppers
0.107

0.138
0.031
0.194
0.03

0.067
0.228
0.086

0.039
0.121
0.067
0.188
0.113
0.082
0.246
0.564
-
-
Pumpkin
0.155

0.161
0.046
0.19
0.154

0.130
0.250
0.127

0.022
0.187
0.002
0.357
0.044
0.181
0.230
0.824
-
-
Snap
Beans
0.155

0.199
0.152
0.123
0.147

0.066
0.307
0.118

0.046
0.186
0.052
0.243
0.161
0.108
0.384
0.623
-
-
Tomatoes
0.184

0.215
0.045
0.318
0.103

0.100
0.313
0.156

0.060
0.202
0.117
0.291
0.149
0.182
0.398
0.616
-
-
White
Potatoes
0.038

0.058
0.010
0.060
0.022

0.009
0.080
0.029

0.007
0.044
0.016
0.065
0.042
0.013
0.090
0.134
-
-
Beef
0.038

0.028
0.027
0.072
0.022

0.001
0.107
0.026

0.000
0.048
0.014
0.076
0.022
0.041
0.485
0.478
-
Game
0.276

0.336
0.265
0.100
0.330

0.146
0.323
0.316

0.000
0.359
0.202
0.513
0.199
0.207
-
-
0.729
Pork
0.013

0.012
0.015
0.010
0.014

0.001
0.040
0.006

0.000
0.017
0.006
0.021
0.012
0.011
0.242
0.239
-
Poultry
0.011

0.011
0.012
0.007
0.014

0.002
0.026
0.011

0.001
0.014
0.002
0.021
0.012
0.008
0.156
0.151
-
Eggs
0.014

0.009
0.022
0.013
0.011

0.002
0.029
0.014

0.002
0.017
0.004
0.019
0.012
0.021
0.146
0.214
-
Indicates data are not available.
Source: Based on EPA's analyses of the 1987-88 NFCS.
                                                                                                                                                                                        Q
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
    ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                                        ri
                                                                                                                                                                                        a,
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                        I
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
                              Table 13-69. Percent Weight Losses from Food Preparation
    Food Group               Mean Net Preparation/Cooking Loss (%)            Mean Net Post Cooking (%)
    Meats"                                   29.7b                                      29.T

    Fish and shellfish4                         31. 5b                                      10. 5C

    Fruits                                    25.4e                                      30.5f

    Vegetables8                               12.4h                                       221
    a        Averaged over various cuts and preparation methods for various meats including beef, pork, chicken, turkey,
            lamb, and veal.
    b        Includes dripping and volatile losses during cooking.
    0        Includes losses from cutting, shrinkage, excess fat, bones, scraps, and juices.
    d        Averaged over a variety offish and shellfish, to include: bass, bluefish, butterfish, cod, flounder, haddock,
            halibut, lake trout, mackerel, perch, porgy, red snapper, rockfish, salmon, sea trout, shad, smelt, sole, spot,
            squid, swordfish steak, trout, whitefish, clams, crab, crayfish, lobster, oysters, and shrimp and shrimp dishes.
    e        Based on preparation losses.  Averaged over apples, pears, peaches, strawberries, and oranges. Includes losses
            from removal of skin or peel, core or pit, stems or caps, seeds, and defects. Also, includes losses from removal
            of drained liquids from canned or frozen forms.
    f        Averaged over apples  and peaches. Include losses from draining cooked forms.
    g        Averaged over various vegetables, to include: asparagus, beets, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, com, cucumbers,
            lettuce, lima beans, okra, onions, green peas, peppers, pumpkins, snap beams, tomatoes, and potatoes.
    h        Includes losses due to  paring, trimming, flowering the stalk, thawing, draining, scraping, shelling, slicing,
            husking, chopping, and dicing and gains from the addition of water, fat, or other ingredients. Averaged over
            various preparation methods.
    1        Includes losses from draining or removal of skin.  Based on potatoes only.

    Source:  U.S. EPA, 1997 (Derived from USDA, 1975).
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                         Page
July 2009	13-79
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
                           Table 13-70.  2008 Food Gardening by Demographic Factors
                             Demographic
                                Factor
Percentage of total households that
       have gardens (%)
                   Total
                    (—36 million)

                   Gender
                    Female
                    Male

                   Age
                    18 to 34
                    35 to 44
                   ..45 to 54
                    55 and over

                   Education
                    College Graduate
                    Some College
                    High School

                   Household income
                    $75,000 and over
                    $50-$74,999
                   ..$35-$49,999
                   ..Under $35,000
                   ..Undesignated

                   Household size
                    One person
                    Two person
                   .. Three-four person
                    Five or more persons
             31
             54
             46
             21
             11
             24
             44


             43
             36
             21


             22
             16
             24
             21
             17


             20
             40
             32
             9
                   Source:  National Gardening Association, 2009.
Page
13-80
                 Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
Table 13-71.
Vegetable
Tomatoes
Cucumbers
Sweet peppers
Beans
Carrots
Summer squash
Onions
Hot peppers
Lettuce
Peas
Sweet Corn
Radish
Potatoes
Salad greens
Pumpkins
Watermelon
Spinach
Broccoli
Melon
Cabbage
Beets
Winter squash
Asparagus
Collards
Cauliflower
Celery
Brussels sprouts
Leeks
Kale
Parsnips
Chinese cabbage
Rutabaga
Source: National
Percentage of Gardening Households Growing
Different Vegetables in 2008
Percent
86
47
46
39
34
32
32
31
28
24
23
20
18
17
17
16
15
15
15
14
11
10
9
9
7
5
5
3
3
2
2
1
Gardening Association, 2009.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
13-81
-------
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
                                 APPENDIX 13A

       FOOD CODES AND DEFINITIONS OF MAJOR FOOD GROUPS USED IN ANALYSIS
     OF THE 1987-1988 USDANFCS DATA TO ESTIMATE HOME-PRODUCED INTAKE RATES
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                   Page
July 2009	13A-1
-------
                                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                 Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13A-1.  Food Codes and Definitions of Major Food Groups Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Data
                                         to Estimate Intake of Home-produced Foods
  Food Product
                                  Household Code/Definition1
                                                                                            Individual Code
                                                  MAJOR FOOD GROUPS
  Total Fruits
                    50-    Fresh Fruits
                             citrus
                             other vitamin-C rich
                             other fruits
                    512-   Commercially Canned Fruits
                    522-   Commercially Frozen Fruits
                    533-   Canned Fruit Juice
                    534-   Frozen Fruit Juice
                    535-   Aseptically Packed Fruit Juice
                    536-   Fresh Fruit Juice
                    542-   Dried Fruits
                    (includes baby foods)
                                                        6-    Fruits
                                                                  citrus fruits and juices
                                                                  dried fruits
                                                                  other fruits
                                                                  fruits/juices & nectar
                                                                  fruit/juices baby food
                                                        (includes baby foods)
  Total Vegetables
48-   Potatoes, Sweet potatoes
49-   Fresh Vegetables
          dark green
          deep yellow
          tomatoes
          light green
          other
511 -  Commercially Canned Vegetables
521-  Commercially Frozen Vegetables
531-  Canned Vegetable Juice
532-  Frozen Vegetable Juice
537-  Fresh Vegetable Juice
538-  Aseptically Packed Vegetable Juice
541-  Dried Vegetables
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures/dinners)
7-    Vegetables (all forms)
          white potatoes & PR starchy
          dark green vegetables
          deep yellow vegetables
          tomatoes and torn, mixtures
          other vegetables
          veg. and mixtures/baby food
          veg. with meat mixtures
(includes baby foods; mixtures, mostly vegetables)
  Total Meats
                    44-    Meat
                             beef
                             pork
                             veal
                             lamb
                             mutton
                             goat
                             game
                             lunch meat
                             mixtures
                    451-   Poultry
                    (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
                    to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
                                                        20-   Meat, type not specified
                                                        21-   Beef
                                                        22-   Pork
                                                        23-   Lamb, veal, game, carcass meat
                                                        24-   Poultry
                                                        25-   Organ meats, sausages, lunchmeats, meat
                                                              spreads
                                                        (excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
                                                        frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat,
                                                        poultry and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks;
                                                        includes baby foods)
  Total Dairy
40-   Milk Equivalent
          fresh fluid milk
          processed milk
          cream and cream substitutes
          frozen desserts with milk
          cheese
          dairy-based dips
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners)
1 -    Milk and Milk Products
          milk and milk drinks
          cream and cream substitutes
          milk desserts, sauces, and gravies
          cheeses
(includes regular fluid milk, human milk, imitation
milk products, yogurt, milk-based meal replacements,
and infant formulas)
  Total Fish
                    452-   Fish, Shellfish
                             various species
                             fresh, frozen, commercial, dried
                    (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
                    to-eat dinners)
                                                        26-   Fish, Shellfish
                                                                  various species and forms
                                                        (excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
                                                        frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat,
                                                        poultry and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks)
           Food items within these categories that were identified by the household as being home-produced or home-caught (i.e., source code pertaining to
           home-produced foods) were included in the analysis.
Page
13A-2
                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                   	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
                                 APPENDIX 13B

    1987-1988 NFCS FOOD CODES AND DEFINITIONS OF INDIVIDUAL FOOD ITEMS USED IN
     ESTIMATING FRACTION OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD INTAKE THAT IS HOME-PRODUCED
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                  Page
July 2009	13B-1
-------
                                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
   	Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced	
  Food  Product
                               Household Code/Definition
                                                                                          Individual Code
                                                    INDIVIDUAL FOODS
  White Potatoes
                  4811 -    White Potatoes, fresh
                  4821-    White Potatoes, commercially canned
                  4831-    White Potatoes, commercially frozen
                  4841-    White Potatoes, dehydrated
                  4851-    White Potatoes, chips, sticks, salad
                  (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                  ready-to-eat dinners)	
                                                     71-        White Potatoes and PR Starchy Veg.
                                                                baked, boiled, chips, sticks, creamed, scalloped,
                                                                au gratin, fried, mashed, stuffed, puffs, salad,
                                                                recipes, soups, Puerto Rican starchy vegetables
                                                     (does not include vegetables soups; vegetable
                                                     mixtures; or vegetable with meat mixtures)
  Peppers
4913-     Green/Red Peppers, fresh
5111201   Sweet Green Peppers, commercially canned
5111202   Hot Chili Peppers, commercially canned
5211301   Sweet Green Peppers, commercially frozen
5211302   Green Chili Peppers, commercially frozen
5211303   Red Chili Peppers, commercially frozen
5413112   Sweet Green Peppers, dry
5413113   Red Chili Peppers, dry
 (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
 ready-to-eat dinners)
7512100   Pepper, hot chili, raw
7512200   Pepper, raw
7512210   Pepper, sweet green, raw
7512220   Pepper, sweet red, raw
7522600   Pepper, green, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522601   Pepper, green, cooked, fat not added
7522602   Pepper, green, cooked, fat added
7522604   Pepper, red, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522605   Pepper, red, cooked, fat not added
7522606   Pepper, red, cooked, fat added
7522609   Pepper, hot, cooked, NS as to fat added
7522610   Pepper, hot, cooked, fat not added
7522611   Pepper, hot, cooked, fat added
7551101   Peppers, hot, sauce
7551102   Peppers, pickled
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
  Onions
                  4953-
                             Onions, Garlic, fresh
                             onions
                             chives
                             garlic
                             leeks
                  5114908   Garlic Pulp, raw
                  5114915   Onions, commercially canned
                  5213722   Onions, commercially frozen
                  5213723   Onions with Sauce, commercially frozen
                  5413103   Chives, dried
                  5413105   Garlic Flakes, dried
                  5413110   Onion Flakes, dried
                  (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                  ready-to-eat dinners)
                                                      7510950   Chives, raw
                                                      7511150   Garlic, raw
                                                      7511250   Leek, raw
                                                      7511701   Onions, young green, raw
                                                      7511702   Onions, mature
                                                      7521550   Chives, dried
                                                      7521740   Garlic, cooked
                                                      7522100   Onions, mature cooked, NS as to fat added
                                                      7522101   Onions, mature cooked, fat not added
                                                      7522102   Onions, mature cooked, fat added
                                                      7522103   Onions, pearl cooked
                                                      7522104   Onions, young green cooked, NS as to fat
                                                      7522105   Onions, young green cooked, fat not added
                                                      7522106   Onions, young green cooked, fat added
                                                      7522110   Onion, dehydrated
                                                      7541501   Onions, creamed
                                                      7541502   Onion rings
                                                      (does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
                                                      vegetable with meat mixtures)	
Page
13B-2
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                    	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
   	Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)	
  Food  Product
                              Household Code/Definition
                                                                                         Individual Code
  Corn
                  4956-     Corn, fresh
                  5114601   Yellow Corn, commercially canned
                  5114602   White Corn, commercially canned
                  5114603   Yellow Creamed Corn, commercially canned
                  5114604   White Creamed Corn, commercially canned
                  5114605   Corn on Cob, commercially canned
                  5114607   Hominy, canned
                  5115306   Low Sodium Corn, commercially canned
                  5115307   Low Sodium Cr. Corn, commercially canned
                  5213501   Yellow Corn on Cob, commercially frozen
                  5213502   Yellow Corn off Cob, commercially frozen
                  5213503   Yell. Corn with Sauce, commercially frozen
                  5213504   Corn with other Veg., commercially frozen
                  5213505   White Corn on Cob, commercially frozen
                  5213506   White Corn off Cob, commercially frozen
                  5213507   Wh. Corn with Sauce, commercially frozen
                  5413104   Corn, dried
                  5413106   Hominy, dry
                  5413603   Corn, instant baby food
                  (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                  ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby food)
                                          7510960   Corn, raw
                                          7521600   Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat added
                                          7521601   Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat not added
                                          7521602   Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat added
                                          7521605   Corn, cooked, NS as to color/cream style
                                          7521607   Corn, cooked, dried
                                          7521610   Corn, cooked, yellow/NS as to fat added
                                          7521611   Corn, cooked, yellow/fat not added
                                          7521612   Corn, cooked, yellow/fat added
                                          7521615   Corn, yellow, cream style
                                          7521616   Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./NS as to fat
                                          7521617   Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./fat not added
                                          7521618   Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./fat added
                                          7521619   Corn, yellow, cream style, fat added
                                          7521620   Corn, cooked, white/NS as to fat added
                                          7521621   Corn, cooked, white/fat not added
                                          7521622   Corn, cooked, white/fat added
                                          7521625   Corn, white, cream style
                                          7521630   Corn, yellow, canned, low sodium, NS fat
                                          7521631   Corn, yell., canned, low sod., fat not add
                                          7521632   Corn, yell., canned, low sod., fat added
                                          7521749   Hominy, cooked
                                          752175-   Hominy, cooked
                                          7541101   Corn scalloped or pudding
                                          7541102   Corn fritter
                                          7541103   Corn with cream sauce
                                          7550101   Corn relish
                                          76405-     Corn, baby
                                          (does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
                                          vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby food)	
  Apples
Apples, fresh
Applesauce with sugar, commercially canned
Applesauce without sugar, comm. canned
Apple Pie Filling, commercially canned
Apples, Applesauce, baby/jr, comm. canned
Apple Pie Filling, Low Cal., comm. canned
Apple Slices, commercially frozen
Apple Juice, canned
Apple Juice, baby, Comm. canned
Apple Juice, comm. frozen
Apple Juice, home frozen
Apple Juice, aseptically packed
Apple Juice, fresh
Apples, dried
5031-
5122101
5122102
5122103
5122104
5122106
5223101
5332101
5332102
5342201
5342202
5352101
5362101
5423101
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
6210110   Apples, dried, uncooked
6210115   Apples, dried, uncooked, low sodium
6210120   Apples, dried, cooked, NS as to sweetener
6210122   Apples, dried, cooked, unsweetened
6210123   Apples, dried, cooked, with sugar
6310100   Apples, raw
6310111   Applesauce, NS as to sweetener
6310112   Applesauce, unsweetened
6310113   Applesauce with sugar
6310114   Applesauce with low calorie sweetener
6310121   Apples, cooked or canned with syrup
6310131   Apple, baked NS as to sweetener
6310132   Apple, baked, unsweetened
6310133   Apple, baked with sugar
6310141   Apple rings, fried
6310142   Apple, pickled
6310150   Apple, fried
6340101   Apple, salad
6340106   Apple, candied
6410101   Apple cider
6410401   Applejuice
6410405   Apple juice with vitamin C
6710200   Applesauce baby fd., NS as to str. or jr.
6710201   Applesauce baby food, strained
6710202   Applesauce baby food, junior
6720200   Apple juice, baby food
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                        Page
                                                                                       13B-3
-------
                                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                               Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
   	Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)	
  Food  Product
                              Household Code/Definition
                                                                                         Individual Code
  Tomatoes
                  4931-     Tomatoes, fresh
                  5113-     Tomatoes, commercially canned
                  5115201   Tomatoes, low sodium, commercially canned
                  5115202   Tomato Sauce, low sodium, comm. canned
                  5115203   Tomato Paste, low sodium, comm. canned
                  5115204   Tomato Puree, low sodium, comm. canned
                  5311-     Canned Tomato Juice and Tomato Mixtures
                  5321-     Frozen Tomato Juice
                  5371-     Fresh Tomato Juice
                  5381102   Tomato Juice, aseptically packed
                  5413115   Tomatoes, dry
                  5614-     Tomato Soup
                  5624-     Condensed Tomato Soup
                  5654-     Dry Tomato Soup
                  (does not include mixtures, and ready-to-eat dinners)
                                                    74-       Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
                                                              raw, cooked, juices, sauces, mixtures, soups,
                                                              sandwiches
  Snap Beans
4943-     Snap or Wax Beans, fresh
5114401   Green or Snap Beans, commercially canned
5114402   Wax or Yellow Beans, commercially canned
5114403   Beans, baby/jr, commercially canned
5115302   Green Beans, low sodium, comm. canned
5115303   Yell, or Wax Beans, low sod., comm. canned
5213301   Snap or Green Beans, comm. frozen
5213302   Snap or Green w/sauce, comm. frozen
5213303   Snap or Green Beans w/other veg., comm. fr.
5213304   Sp. or Gr. Beans w/other veg./sc., comm. fr.
5213305   Wax or Yell. Beans, comm. frozen
(does not include soups, mixtures, and ready-to-eat
dinners; includes baby foods)
7510180   Beans, string, green, raw
7520498   Beans, string, cooked, NS color/fat added
7520499   Beans, string, cooked, NS color/no fat
7520500   Beans, string, cooked, NS color & fat
7520501   Beans, string, cooked, green/NS fat
7520502   Beans, string, cooked, green/no fat
7520503   Beans, string, cooked, green/fat
7520511   Beans, str, canned, low sod.,green/NS fat
7520512   Beans, str, canned, low sod.,green/no fat
7520513   Beans, str, canned, low sod.,green/fat
7520600   Beans, string, cooked, yellow/NS fat
7520601   Beans, string, cooked, yellow/no fat
7520602   Beans, string, cooked, yellow/fat
7540301   Beans, string, green, creamed
7540302   Beans, string, green, w/mushroom sauce
7540401   Beans, string, yellow, creamed
7550011   Beans, string, green, pickled
7640100   Beans, green, string, baby
7640101   Beans, green, string, baby, str.
7640102   Beans, green, string, baby, junior
7640103   Beans, green, string, baby, creamed
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods)
  Beef
                  441-      Beef
                  (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                  ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
                  mixtures)
                                                    21-       Beef
                                                              beef, nfs
                                                              beef steak
                                                              beef oxtails, neckbones, ribs
                                                              roasts, stew meat, corned, brisket, sandwich
                                                              steaks
                                                              ground beef, patties, meatballs
                                                              other beef items
                                                              beef baby food
                                                    (excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
                                                    plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
                                                    base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby food)
Page
13B-4
                                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                  	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
   	Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)	
  Food  Product
                               Household Code/Definition
                                                                                           Individual Code
  Pork
                   442-       Pork
                   (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                   ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
                   mixtures)
                                                     22-        Pork
                                                                pork, nfs; ground dehydrated
                                                                chops
                                                                steaks, cutlets
                                                                ham
                                                                roasts
                                                                Canadian bacon
                                                                bacon, salt pork
                                                                other pork items
                                                                pork baby food
                                                     (excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
                                                     plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
                                                     base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby food)	
  Game
                   445-       Variety Meat, Game
                   (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                   ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
                   mixtures)	
                                                     233-       Game
                                                     (excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
                                                     plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
                                                     base; and gelatin-based drinks)	
  Poultry
451-      Poultry
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
                                           24-        Poultry
                                                     chicken
                                                     turkey
                                                     duck
                                                     other poultry
                                                     poultry baby food
                                           (excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items; frozen
                                           plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry and fish
                                           base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby food)
                   46-        Eggs (fresh equivalent)
                             fresh
                             processed eggs, substitutes
                   (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                   ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
                   mixtures)
                                                                eggs
                                                                egg mixtures
                                                                egg substitutes
                                                                eggs baby food
                                                                froz. meals with egg as main ingred.
                                                     (includes baby foods)	
  Broccoli
                   4912-     Fresh Broccoli (and home canned/froz.)
                   5111203   Broccoli, comm. canned
                   52112-     Comm. Frozen Broccoli
                   (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                   ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
                   mixtures)	
                                                     722-       Broccoli (all forms)
                                                     (does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
                                                     vegetable with meat mixtures)
  Carrots
                   4921-     Fresh Carrots (and home canned/froz.)
                   51121-     Comm. Canned Carrots
                   5115101   Carrots, Low Sodium, Comm. Canned
                   52121-     Comm. Frozen Carrots
                   5312103   Comm. Canned Carrot Juice
                   5372102   Carrot Juice Fresh
                   5413502   Carrots, Dried Baby Food
                   (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                   ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
                   mixtures)
                                                     7310-      Carrots (all forms)
                                                     7311140    Carrots in Sauce
                                                     7311200    Carrot Chips
                                                     76201-     Carrots, baby
                                                     (does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
                                                     vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
                                                     mixtures)
  Pumpkin
4922-

51122-

52122-
5413504
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)	
Fresh Pumpkin, Winter Squash (and home
canned/froz.)
Pumpkin/Squash, Baby or Junior, Comm.
Canned
Winter Squash, Comm. Frozen
Squash, Dried Baby Food
732-       Pumpkin (all forms)
733-       Winter squash (all forms)
76205-     Squash, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetables mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                                    Page
                                                                                                   13B-5
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                         Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)
Food Product
Asparagus
Lima Beans
Cabbage
Lettuce
Okra
Household Code/Definition
4941- Fresh Asparagus (and home canned/froz.)
5114101 Comm. Canned Asparagus
5115301 Asparagus, Low Sodium, Comm. Canned
52131- Comm. Frozen Asparagus
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
4942- Fresh Lima and Fava Beans (and home
canned/froz.)
5 1 14204 Comm. Canned Mature Lima Beans
5 1 14301 Comm. Canned Green Lima Beans
5 1 15304 Comm. Canned Low Sodium Lima Beans
52132- Comm. Frozen Lima Beans
54111- Dried Lima Beans
5411306 Dried Fava Beans
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures; does not include succotash)
4944- Fresh Cabbage (and home canned/froz.)
4958601 Sauerkraut, home canned or pkgd
5114801 Sauerkraut, comm. canned
5114904 Comm. Canned Cabbage
5114905 Comm. Canned Cabbage (no sauce; incl.
baby)
5115501 Sauerkraut, low sodium., comm. canned
5312102 Sauerkraut Juice, comm. canned
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
4945- Fresh Lettuce, French Endive (and home
canned/froz.)
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
4946- Fresh Okra (and home canned/froz.)
5114914 Comm. Canned Okra
5213720 Comm. Frozen Okra
5213721 Comm. Frozen Okra with Oth. Veg. & Sauce
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
Individual Code
7510080 Asparagus, raw
75202- Asparagus, cooked
7540 10 1 Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetables mixtures, or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
7510200 Lima Beans, raw
752040- Lima Beans, cooked
752041- Lima Beans, canned
75402- Lima Beans with sauce
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; does not include succotash)
7510300 Cabbage, raw
7510400 Cabbage, Chinese, raw
7510500 Cabbage, red, raw
7514100 Cabbage salad or coleslaw
7514130 Cabbage, Chinese, salad
75210- Chinese Cabbage, cooked
75211- Green Cabbage, cooked
75212- Red Cabbage, cooked
752130- Savoy Cabbage, cooked
75230- Sauerkraut, cooked
7540701 Cabbage, creamed
755025- Cabbage, pickled or in relish
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
75113- Lettuce, raw
75143- Lettuce salad with other veg.
7514410 Lettuce, wilted, with bacon dressing
7522005 Lettuce, cooked
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
7522000 Okra, cooked, NS as to fat
752200 1 Okra, cooked, fat not added
7522002 Okra, cooked, fat added
7522010 Lufta, cooked (Chinese Okra)
7541450 Okra, fried
7550700 Okra, pickled
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Page
13B-6
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
   	Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)	
  Food Product
                              Household Code/Definition
                                                                                        Individual Code
  Peas
                            Fresh Peas (and home canned/froz.)
                            Comm Canned Peas (incl. baby)
                            Low Sodium Green or English Peas (canned)
                            Low Sod. Blackeye, Gr. or Imm. Peas
                            (canned)
                            Blackeyed Peas, comm. canned
                            Comm. Frozen Peas
                            Dried Peas and Lentils
4947-
51147-
5115310
5115314

5114205
52134-
5412-
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
7512000   Peas, green, raw
7512775   Snowpeas, raw
75223-    Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
75224-    Peas, green, cooked
75225-    Peas, pigeon, cooked
75231-    Snowpeas, cooked
7541650   Pea salad
7541660   Pea salad with cheese
75417-    Peas, with sauce or creamed
76409-    Peas, baby
76411-    Peas, creamed, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
  Cucumbers
                  4952-     Fresh Cucumbers (and home canned/froz.)
                  (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                  ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
                  mixtures)
                                                    7511100   Cucumbers, raw
                                                    75142-     Cucumber salads
                                                    752167-   Cucumbers, cooked
                                                    7550301   Cucumber pickles, dill
                                                    7550302   Cucumber pickles, relish
                                                    7550303   Cucumber pickles, sour
                                                    7550304   Cucumber pickles, sweet
                                                    7550305   Cucumber pickles, fresh
                                                    7550307   Cucumber,  Kim Chee
                                                    7550311   Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
                                                    7550314   Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
                                                    (does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
                                                    vegetable with meat mixtures)
  Beets
                  4954-     Fresh Beets (and home canned/froz.)
                  51145-    Comm. Canned Beets (incl. baby)
                  5115305   Low Sodium Beets (canned)
                  5213714   Comm. Frozen Beets
                  5312104   Beet Juice
                  (does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
                  ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
                  mixtures)
                                                    7510250   Beets, raw
                                                    752080-   Beets, cooked
                                                    752081-   Beets, canned
                                                    7540501   Beets, harvard
                                                    7550021   Beets, pickled
                                                    76403-     Beets, baby
                                                    (does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
                                                    vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
                                                    mixtures)	
  Strawberries
                  5022-     Fresh Strawberries
                  5122801   Comm. Canned Strawberries with sugar
                  5122802   Comm. Canned Strawberries without sugar
                  5122803   Canned Strawberry Pie Filling
                  5222-     Comm. Frozen Strawberries
                  (does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby
                  foods except mixtures)
                                                    6322-      Strawberries
                                                    6413250   Strawberry Juice
                                                    (includes baby food; except mixtures)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                                  Page
                                                                                                13B-7
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                         Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)
Food Product
Other Berries
Peaches
Pears
Household Code/Definition
5033- Fresh Berries Other than Strawberries
5122804 Comm. Canned Blackberries with sugar
5122805 Comm. Canned Blackberries without sugar
5122806 Comm. Canned Blueberries with sugar
5122807 Comm. Canned Blueberries without sugar
5122808 Canned Blueberry Pie Filling
5122809 Comm. Canned Gooseberries with sugar
5122810 Comm. Canned Gooseberries without sugar
5122811 Comm. Canned Raspberries with sugar
5122812 Comm. Canned Raspberries without sugar
5122813 Comm. Canned Cranberry Sauce
5122815 Comm. Canned Cranberry-Orange Relish
52233- Comm. Frozen Berries (not strawberries)
5332404 Blackberry Juice (home and comm. canned)
5423 114 Dried Berries (not strawberries)
(does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby
foods except mixtures)
5036- Fresh Peaches
51224- Comm. Canned Peaches (incl. baby)
5223601 Comm. Frozen Peaches
5332405 Home Canned Peach Juice
5423105 Dried Peaches (baby)
5423106 Dried Peaches
(does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby
foods except mixtures)
5037- Fresh Pears
51225- Comm. Canned Pears (incl. baby)
5332403 Comm. Canned Pear Juice, baby
5362204 Fresh Pear Juice
5423107 Dried Pears
(does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby
foods except mixtures)
Individual Code
6320- Other Berries
6321- Other Berries
6341101 Cranberry salad
6410460 Blackberry Juice
64105- Cranberry Juice
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
62116- Dried Peaches
63135- Peaches
6412203 Peach Juice
6420501 Peach Nectar
67108- Peaches,baby
6711450 Peaches, dry, baby
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
62119- Dried Pears
63137- Pears
6341201 Pear salad
6421501 Pear Nectar
67109- Pears, baby
6711455 Pears, dry, baby
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
Page
13B-8
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data
toEstimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)
Food Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
EXPOSED/PROTECTED FRUITS/VEGETABLES, ROOT VEGETABLES
Exposed Fruits





































5022-
5023101
5023401
5031-
5033-
5034-
5036-
5037-
50381-
5038305
50384-
50386-
50387-
5038805
5038901
51221-
51222-
51223-
51224-
51225-
51228-
5122903
5122904
5122905
5122906
5122907
5122911
5122912
5122913
5122914
5222-
52231-
52233-
52234-
52236-
52239-
53321-
53322-
Strawberries, fresh
Acerola, fresh
Currants, fresh
Apples/Applesauce, fresh
Berries other than Strawberries, fresh
Cherries, fresh
Peaches, fresh
Pears, fresh
Apricots, Nectarines, Loquats, fresh
Dates, fresh
Grapes, fresh
Plums, fresh
Rhubarb, fresh
Persimmons, fresh
Sapote, fresh
Apples/Applesauce, canned
Apricots, canned
Cherries, canned
Peaches, canned
Pears, canned
Berries, canned
Grapes with sugar, canned
Grapes without sugar, canned
Plums with sugar, canned
Plums without sugar, canned
Plums, canned, baby
Prunes, canned, baby
Prunes, with sugar, canned
Prunes, without sugar, canned
Raisin Pie Filling
Frozen Strawberries
Apples Slices, frozen
Berries, frozen
Cherries, frozen
Peaches, frozen
Rhubarb, frozen
Canned Apple Juice
Canned Grape Juice
62101-
62104-
62108-
62110-
62116-
62119-
62121-
62122-
62125-
63101-
63102-
63103-
63111-
63112-
63113-
63115-
63117-
63123-
6312601
63131-
63135-
63137-
63139-
63143-
63146-
63147-
632-
64101-
64104-
64105-
64116-
64122-
64132-
6420101
64205-
64215-
67102-
67108-
Apple, dried
Apricot, dried
Currants, dried
Date, dried
Peaches, dried
Pears, dried
Plum, dried
Prune, dried
Raisins
Apples/applesauce
Wi-apple
Apricots
Cherries, maraschino
Acerola
Cherries, sour
Cherries, sweet
Currants, raw
Grapes
Juneberry
Nectarine
Peach
Pear
Persimmons
Plum
Quince
Rhubarb/Sapodillo
Berries
Apple Cider
Apple Juice
Cranberry Juice
Grape Juice
Peach Juice
Prune/Strawberry Juice
Apricot Nectar
Peach Nectar
Pear Nectar
Applesauce, baby
Peaches, baby
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
 Page
13B-9
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                         Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household

Food Product

Exposed Fruits
(continued)























Protected Fruits




























Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)
Household Code/Definition
5332402
5332403
5332404
5332405
53421-
5342201
5342202
5352101
5352201
5362101
5362202
5362203
5362204
5362205
5421-
5422-
5423101
5423102
5423103
5423104
5423105
5423106
5423107
5423114
5423115
Canned Prune Juice
Canned Pear Juice
Canned Blackberry Juice
Canned Peach Juice
Frozen Grape Juice
Frozen Apple Juice, comm. fr.
Frozen Apple Juice, home fr.
Apple Juice, asep. packed
Grape Juice, asep. packed
Apple Juice, fresh
Apricot Juice, fresh
Grape Juice, fresh
Pear Juice, fresh
Prune Juice, fresh
Dried Prunes
Raisins, Currants, dried
Dry Apples
Dry Apricots
Dates without pits
Dates with pits
Peaches, dry, baby
Peaches, dry
Pears, dry
Berries, dry
Cherries, dry
(includes baby foods)
501-
5021-
5023201
5023301
5023601
5023701
5023801
5032-
5035-
50382-
5038301
5038302
5038303
5038304
50385-
5038801
5038902
5038903
5038904
5038905
5038906
5038907
5121-
51226-
5122901
5122902
5122909
5122910
5122915
Citrus Fruits, fresh
Cantaloupe, fresh
Mangoes, fresh
Guava, fresh
Kiwi, fresh
Papayas, fresh
Passion Fruit, fresh
Bananas, Plantains, fresh
Melons other than Cantaloupe, fresh
Avocados, fresh
Figs, fresh
Figs, cooked
Figs, home canned
Figs, home frozen
Pineapple, fresh
Pomegranates, fresh
Cherimoya, fresh
Jackfruit, fresh
Breadfruit, fresh
Tamarind, fresh
Carambola, fresh
Longan, fresh
Citrus, canned
Pineapple, canned
Figs with sugar, canned
Figs without sugar, canned
Bananas, canned, baby
Bananas and Pineapple, canned, baby
Litchis, canned
Data to

Individual Code
67109- Pears, baby
6711450 Peaches, baby, dry
6711455 Pears, baby, dry
67202- Apple Juice, baby
6720380 White Grape Juice, baby
67212- Pear Juice, baby






(includes baby foods/juices except mixtures; excludes
fruit mixtures)





































61- Citrus Fr, Juices (incl. cit. juice mixtures)
62107- Bananas, dried
62113- Figs, dried
62114- Lychees/Papayas, dried
62120- Pineapple, dried
62126- Tamarind, dried
63105- Avocado, raw
63107- Bananas
63109- Cantaloupe, Carambola
63110- Cassaba Melon
63119- Figs
63121- Genip
63125- Guava/Jackfruit, raw
6312650 Kiwi
6312651 Lychee, raw
6312660 Lychee, cooked
63127- Honeydew
63129- Mango
63133- Papaya
63134- Passion Fruit
63141- Pineapple
63145- Pomegranate
63148- Sweetsop, Soursop, Tamarind
63149- Watermelon
64120- Papaya Juice
64121- Passion Fruit Juice
64124- Pineapple Juice
64133- Watermelon Juice
6420150 Banana Nectar




























Page
13B-10
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1.  Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
   	Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)	
  Food Product
                              Household Code/Definition
                                                                                      Individual Code
  Protected Fruits
  (continued)
Mangos with sugar, canned
Mangos without sugar, canned
Mangos, canned, baby
Guava with sugar, canned
Guava without sugar, canned
Papaya with sugar, canned
Papaya without sugar, canned
Bananas, frozen
Melon, frozen
Pineapple, frozen
Canned Citrus Juices
Canned Pineapple Juice
Canned Papaya Juice
Canned Mango Juice
Canned Papaya Concentrate
Frozen Citrus Juice
Frozen Pineapple Juice
Citrus and Citrus Blend Juices, asep. packed
Pineapple Juice, asep. packed
Fresh Citrus and Citrus Blend Juices
Papaya Juice, fresh
Pineapple-Coconut Juice, fresh
Mango Juice, fresh
Pineapple Juice, fresh
Pineapple, dry
Papaya, dry
Bananas, dry
Mangos, dry
Litchis, dry
Tamarind, dry
Plantain, dry
5122916
5122917
5122918
5122920
5122921
5122923
5122924
52232-
52235-
52237-
5331-
53323-
5332408
5332410
5332501
5341-
5342203
5351-
5352302
5361-
5362206
5362207
5362208
5362209
5423108
5423109
5423110
5423111
5423117
5423118
5423119
(includes baby foods)
64202-    Cantaloupe Nectar
64203-    Guava Nectar
64204-    Mango Nectar
64210-    Papaya Nectar
64213-    Passion Fruit Nectar
64221-    Soursop Nectar
6710503   Bananas, baby
6711500   Bananas, baby, dry
6720500   Orange Juice, baby
6721300   Pineapple Juice, baby
(includes baby foods/juices except mixtures; excludes fruit
mixtures)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                     Page
                                                                                   13B-11
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                         Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)
Food Product
Exposed Veg.














































Household Code/Definition
491-
493-
4941-
4943-
4944-
4945-
4946-
49481-
49483-
4951-
4952-
4955-
4958103
4958111
4958112
4958113
4958114
4958118
4958119
4958120
4958200
4958201
4958202
4958203
4958402
4958403
4958504
4958506
4958508
4958601
5111-
5113-
5114101
51144-
5114704
5114801
5114901
5114902
5114903
5114904
5114905
5114906
5114907
5114913
5114914
5114918
5114920
Fresh Dark Green Vegetables
Fresh Tomatoes
Fresh Asparagus
Fresh Beans, Snap or Wax
Fresh Cabbage
Fresh Lettuce
Fresh Okra
Fresh Artichokes
Fresh Brussel Sprouts
Fresh Celery
Fresh Cucumbers
Fresh Cauliflower
Fresh Kohlrabi
Fresh Jerusalem Artichokes
Fresh Mushrooms
Mushrooms, home canned
Mushrooms, home frozen
Fresh Eggplant
Eggplant, cooked
Eggplant, home frozen
Fresh Summer Squash
Summer Squash, cooked
Summer Squash, home canned
Summer Squash, home frozen
Fresh Bean Sprouts
Fresh Alfalfa Sprouts
Bamboo Shoots
Seaweed
Tree Fern, fresh
Sauerkraut
Dark Green Vegetables (all are exposed)
Tomatoes
Asparagus, comm. canned
Beans, green, snap, yellow, comm. canned
Snow Peas, comm. canned
Sauerkraut, comm. canned
Artichokes, comm. canned
Bamboo Shoots, comm. canned
Bean Sprouts, comm. canned
Cabbage, comm. canned
Cabbage, comm. canned, no sauce
Cauliflower, comm. canned, no sauce
Eggplant, comm. canned, no sauce
Mushrooms, comm. canned
Okra, comm. canned
Seaweeds, comm. canned
Summer Squash, comm. canned
Individual Code
721-
722-
74-
7510050
7510075
7510080
75101-
7510275
7510280
7510300
7510400
7510500
7510700
7510900
7510950
7511100
7511120
7511200
75113-
7511500
7511900
7512100
75122-
7512750
7512775
75128-
7513210
7514100
7514130
7514150
75142-
75143-
7514410
7514600
7514700
7520600
75201-
75202-
75203-
752049-
75205-
75206-
75207-
752085-
752090-
75210-
75211-
Dark Green Leafy Veg.
Dark Green Nonleafy Veg.
Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
Alfalfa Sprouts
Artichoke, Jerusalem, raw
Asparagus, raw
Beans, sprouts and green, raw
Brussel Sprouts, raw
Buckwheat Sprouts, raw
Cabbage, raw
Cabbage, Chinese, raw
Cabbage, Red, raw
Cauliflower, raw
Celery, raw
Chives, raw
Cucumber, raw
Eggplant, raw
Kohlrabi, raw
Lettuce, raw
Mushrooms, raw
Parsley
Pepper, hot chili
Peppers, raw
Seaweed, raw
Snowpeas, raw
Summer Squash, raw
Celery Juice
Cabbage or cole slaw
Chinese Cabbage Salad
Celery with cheese
Cucumber salads
Lettuce salads
Lettuce, wilted with bacon dressing
Greek salad
Spinach salad
Algae, dried
Artichoke, cooked
Asparagus, cooked
Bamboo shoots, cooked
Beans, string, cooked
Beans, green, cooked/canned
Beans, yellow, cooked/canned
Bean Sprouts, cooked
Breadfruit
Brussel Sprouts, cooked
Cabbage, Chinese, cooked
Cabbage, green, cooked
Page
13B-12
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
   	Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)	
  Food Product
                              Household Code/Definition
                                                                                        Individual Code
  Exposed Veg.
  (cont.)
5114923   Chinese or Celery Cabbage, comm. canned
51152-    Tomatoes, canned, low sod.
5115301   Asparagus, canned, low sod.
5115302   Beans, Green, canned, low sod.
5115303   Beans, Yellow, canned, low sod.
5115309   Mushrooms, canned, low sod.
51154-    Greens, canned, low sod.
5115501   Sauerkraut, low sodium
5211-     Dark Gr. Veg., comm. frozen (all exp.)
52131-    Asparagus, comm. froz.
52133-    Beans, snap, green, yellow, comm. froz.
5213407   Peapods, comm froz.
5213408   Peapods, with sauce, comm froz.
5213409   Peapods, with other veg., comm froz.
5213701   Brussel Sprouts, comm. froz.
5213702   Brussel Sprouts, comm. froz. with cheese
5213703   Brussel Sprouts, comm. froz. with other veg.
5213705   Cauliflower, comm. froz.
5213706   Cauliflower, comm. froz. with sauce
5213707   Cauliflower, comm. froz. with other veg.
5213708   Caul., comm. froz. with other veg. & sauce
5213709   Summer Squash, comm. froz.
5213710   Summer Squash, comm. froz. with other veg.
5213716   Eggplant, comm. froz.
5213718   Mushrooms with sauce, comm. froz.
5213719   Mushrooms, comm. froz.
5213720   Okra, comm. froz.
5213721   Okra, comm. froz., with sauce
5311-     Canned Tomato Juice and Tomato Mixtures
5312102   Canned Sauerkraut Juice
5321-     Frozen Tomato Juice
5371-     Fresh Tomato Juice
5381102   Aseptically Packed Tomato Juice
5413101   Dry Algae
5413102   Dry Celery
5413103   Dry Chives
5413109   Dry Mushrooms
5413111   Dry Parsley
5413112   Dry Green Peppers
5413113   Dry Red Peppers
5413114   Dry Seaweed
5413115   Dry Tomatoes
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
75212-    Cabbage, red, cooked
752130-   Cabbage, savoy, cooked
75214-    Cauliflower
75215-    Celery, Chives, Christophine (chayote)
752167-   Cucumber, cooked
752170-   Eggplant, cooked
752171-   Fern shoots
752172-   Fern shoots
752173-   Flowers of sesbania, squash or lily
7521801   Kohlrabi, cooked
75219-    Mushrooms, cooked
75220-    Okra/lettuce, cooked
7522116   Palm Hearts, cooked
7522121   Parsley, cooked
75226-    Peppers, pimento, cooked
75230-    Sauerkraut, cooked/canned
75231-    Snowpeas, cooked
75232-    Seaweed
75233-    Summer Squash
7540050   Artichokes, stuffed
7540101   Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
75403-    Beans, green with sauce
75404-    Beans, yellow with sauce
7540601   Brussel Sprouts, creamed
7540701   Cabbage, creamed
75409-    Cauliflower, creamed
75410-    Celery/Chiles, creamed
75412-    Eggplant, fried, with sauce, etc.
75413-    Kohlrabi, creamed
75414-    Mushrooms, Okra, fried, stuffed, creamed
754180-   Squash, baked, fried, creamed, etc.
7541822   Christophine, creamed
7550011   Beans, pickled
7550051   Celery, pickled
7550201   Cauliflower, pickled
755025-   Cabbage, pickled
7550301   Cucumber pickles, dill
7550302   Cucumber pickles, relish
7550303   Cucumber pickles, sour
7550304   Cucumber pickles, sweet
7550305   Cucumber pickles, fresh
7550307   Cucumber, Kim Chee
7550308   Eggplant, pickled
7550311   Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
7550314   Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
7550500   Mushrooms, pickled
7550700   Okra, pickled
75510-    Olives
7551101   Peppers, hot
7551102   Peppers,pickled
7551301   Seaweed, pickled
7553500   Zucchini, pickled
76102-    Dark Green Veg., baby
76401-    Beans, baby (excl. most soups & mixtures)
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                                                 Page
                                                                                              13B-13
-------
                                                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                              Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1.  Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
   	Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)	
  Food Product
                              Household Code/Definition
                                                                                       Individual Code
  Protected Veg.
4922-     Fresh Pumpkin, Winter Squash
4942-     Fresh Lima Beans
4947-     Fresh Peas
49482-    Fresh Soy Beans
4956-     Fresh Corn
4958303   Succotash, home  canned
4958304   Succotash, home  frozen
4958401   Fresh Cactus (prickly pear)
4958503   Burdock
4958505   Bitter Melon
4958507   Horseradish Tree  Pods
51122-    Comm. Canned Pumpkin and Squash (baby)
51142-    Beans, comm. canned
51143-    Beans, lima and soy, comm. canned
51146-    Corn, comm. canned
5114701   Peas, green, comm. canned
5114702   Peas, baby, comm. canned
5114703   Peas, blackeye, comm. canned
5114705   Pigeon Peas, comm. canned
5114919   Succotash, comm. canned
5115304   Lima Beans, canned, low sod.
5115306   Corn, canned, low sod.
5115307   Creamed Corn, canned, low sod.
511531-   Peas and Beans, canned, low sod.
52122-    Winter Squash, comm. froz.
52132-    Lima Beans, comm. froz.
5213401   Peas, gr, comm. froz.
5213402   Peas, gr, with sauce, comm. froz.
5213403   Peas, gr, with other veg., comm. froz.
5213404   Peas, gr, with other veg., comm. froz.
5213405   Peas, blackeye, comm froz.
5213406   Peas, blackeye, with sauce, comm froz.
52135-    Com, comm. froz.
5213712   Artichoke Hearts, comm. froz.
5213713   Baked Beans, comm. froz.
5213717   Kidney Beans, comm. froz.
5213724   Succotash, comm. froz.
5411-     Dried Beans
5412-     Dried Peas and Lentils
5413104   Dry Corn
5413106   Dry Hominy
5413504   Dry Squash, baby
5413603   Dry Creamed Corn, baby
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
732-      Pumpkin
733-      Winter Squash
7510200   Lima Beans, raw
7510550   Cactus, raw
7510960   Corn, raw
7512000   Peas, raw
7520070   Aloe vera juice
752040-   Lima Beans, cooked
752041-   Lima Beans, canned
7520829   Bitter Melon
752083-   Bitter Melon, cooked
7520950   Burdock
752131-   Cactus
752160-   Corn, cooked
752161 -   Corn, yellow, cooked
752162-   Corn, white, cooked
752163-   Corn, canned
7521749   Hominy
752175-   Hominy
75223-    Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
75224-    Peas, green, cooked
75225-    Peas, pigeon, cooked
75301-    Succotash
75402-    Lima Beans with sauce
75411-    Corn, scalloped, fritter, with cream
7541650   Pea salad
7541660   Pea salad with cheese
75417-    Peas, with sauce or creamed
7550101   Corn relish
76205-    Squash, yellow, baby
76405-    Corn, baby
76409-    Peas, baby
76411-    Peas, creamed, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Page
13B-14
                                                                 Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced (continued)
Food Product
Root Vegetables














































Household Code/Definition
48- Potatoes, Sweetpotatoes
4921- Fresh Carrots
4953- Fresh Onions, Garlic
4954- Fresh Beets
4957- Fresh Turnips
4958101 Fresh Celeriac
4958102 Fresh Horseradish
4958104 Fresh Radishes, no greens
4958105 Radishes, home canned
4958106 Radishes, home frozen
4958107 Fresh Radishes, with greens
4958108 Fresh Salsify
4958109 Fresh Rutabagas
4958110 Rutabagas, home frozen
4958 1 1 5 Fresh Parsnips
4958116 Parsnips, home canned
4958117 Parsnips, home frozen
4958502 Fresh Lotus Root
4958509 Ginger Root
4958510 Jicama, including yambean
51121- Carrots, comm. canned
51145- Beets, comm. canned
5114908 Garlic Pulp, comm. canned
5114910 Horseradish, comm. prep.
5114915 Onions, comm. canned
5114916 Rutabagas, comm. canned
5114917 Salsify, comm. canned
5114921 Turnips, comm. canned
5114922 Water Chestnuts, comm. canned
51151- Carrots, canned, low sod.
5115305 Beets, canned, low sod.
5115502 Turnips, low sod.
52121- Carrots, comm. froz.
5213714 Beets, comm. froz.
5213722 Onions, comm. froz.
5213723 Onions, comm. froz., with sauce
5213725 Turnips, comm. froz.
5312103 Canned Carrot Juice
5312104 Canned Beet Juice
5372102 Fresh Carrot Juice
5413105 Dry Garlic
5413110 Dry Onion
5413502 Dry Carrots, baby
5413503 Dry Sweet Potatoes, baby
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
Individual Code
71- White Potatoes and Puerto Rican St. Veg.
7310- Carrots
73 1 1 1 40 Carrots in sauce
7311200 Carrot chips
734- Sweetpotatoes
7510250 Beets, raw
7511150 Garlic, raw
7511180 Jicama (yambean), raw
7511250 Leeks, raw
75117- Onions, raw
7512500 Radish, raw
7512700 Rutabaga, raw
7512900 Turnip, raw
752080- Beets, cooked
752081- Beets, canned
7521362 Cassava
7521740 Garlic, cooked
7521771 Horseradish
7521850 Lotus root
752210- Onions, cooked
7522110 Onions, dehydrated
752220- Parsnips, cooked
75227- Radishes, cooked
75228- Rutabaga, cooked
75229- Salsify, cooked
75234- Turnip, cooked
75235- Water Chestnut
7540501 Beets, harvard
75415- Onions, creamed, fried
7541601 Parsnips, creamed
7541810 Turnips, creamed
7550021 Beets, pickled
7550309 Horseradish
7551201 Radishes, pickled
7553403 Turnip, pickled
76201- Carrots, baby
76209- Sweetpotatoes, baby
76403- Beets, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)







USDA SUBCATEGORIES
Dark Green
Vegetables









49 1- Fresh Dark Green Vegetables
5111- Comm. Canned Dark Green Veg.
51154- Low Sodium Dark Green Veg.
5211- Comm. Frozen Dark Green Veg.
5413111 Dry Parsley
5413112 Dry Green Peppers
5413113 Dry Red Peppers
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures/dinners; excludes vegetable juices and dried
vegetables)
72- Dark Green Vegetables
all forms
leafy, nonleafy, dk. gr. veg. soups








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
  Page
13B-15
-------
                                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                Chapter 13 - Intake of Home-Produced Foods
    Table 13B-1. Food Codes and Definitions for Individual Food Items Used in Analysis of the 1987-1988 USDANFCS Household Data to
                                    Estimate Fraction of Food Intake that is Home-produced  (continued)
  Food  Product
                               Household Code/Definition
                                                                                          Individual Code
  Deep Yellow
  Vegetables
492-      Fresh Deep Yellow Vegetables
5112-     Comm. Canned Deep Yellow Veg.
51151-    Low Sodium Carrots
5212-     Comm. Frozen Deep Yellow Veg.
5312103   Carrot Juice
54135-    Dry Carrots, Squash, Sw. Potatoes
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures/dinners; excludes vegetable juices and dried
vegetables)
73-       Deep Yellow Vegetables
 all forms
 carrots, pumpkin, squash, sweetpotatoes, dp. yell. veg. soups
  Other
  Vegetables
494-      Fresh Light Green Vegetables
495-      Fresh Other Vegetables
5114-     Comm. Canned Other Veg.
51153-    Low Sodium Other Veg.
51155-    Low Sodium Other Veg.
5213-     Comm. Frozen Other Veg.
5312102   Sauerkraut Juice
5312104   Beet Juice
5411-     Dreid Beans
5412-     Dried Peas, Lentils
541310-   Dried Other Veg.
5413114   Dry Seaweed
5413603   Dry Cr. Corn, baby
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and
ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except
mixtures/dinners; excludes vegetable juices and dried
vegetables)	
75-       Other Vegetables
 all forms
  Citrus Fruits
                   501-       Fresh Citrus Fruits
                   5121-      Comm. Canned Citrus Fruits
                   5331-      Canned Citrus and Citrus Blend Juice
                   5341-      Frozen Citrus and Citrus Blend Juice
                   5351-      Aseptically Packed Citrus and Citr. Blend
                             Juice
                   5361-      Fresh Citrus and Citrus Blend Juice
                   (includes baby foods; excludes dried fruits)	
                                                     61-        Citrus Fruits and Juices
                                                     6720500   Orange Juice, baby food
                                                     6720600   Orange-Apricot Juice, baby food
                                                     6720700   Orange-Pineapple Juice, baby food
                                                     6721100   Orange-Apple-Banana Juice, baby food
                                                     (excludes dried fruits)
  Other Fruits
                   502-       Fresh Other Vitamin C-Rich Fruits
                   503-       Fresh Other Fruits
                   5122-      Comm. Canned Fruits Other than Citrus
                   5222-      Frozen Strawberries
                   5223-      Frozen Other than Citr. or Vitamin C-Rich Fr.
                   5332-      Canned Fruit Juice Other than Citrus
                   5342-      Frozen Juices Other than Citrus
                   5352-      Aseptically Packed Fruit Juice Other than
                             Citr.
                   5362-      Fresh Fruit Juice Other than Citrus
                   542-       Dry Fruits
                   (includes baby foods; excludes dried fruits)	
                                                     62-        Dried Fruits
                                                     63-        Other Fruits
                                                     64-        Fruit Juices and Nectars Excluding Citrus
                                                     671-       Fruits, baby
                                                     67202-     Apple Juice, baby
                                                     67203-     Baby Juices
                                                     67204-     Baby Juices
                                                     67212-     Baby Juices
                                                     67213-     Baby Juices
                                                     673-       Baby Fruits
                                                     674-       Baby Fruits
Page
13B-16
                                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                   	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 14 - Total Food Intake
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

14    TOTAL DIETARY INTAKE	14-1
      14.1    INTRODUCTION	14-1
      14.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	14-1
      14.3    KEY STUDY OF TOTAL FOOD INTAKE	14-4
             14.3.1  U.S. EPA, 2007	14-4
      14.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 14	14-5
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                     Page
July 2009	14-i
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                   Chapter 14 - Total Food Intake
                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 14-1.     Recommended Values for Per Capita Total Intake of Foods, As Consumed	14-2
Table 14-2.     Confidence in Recommendations for Total Food Intake	14-3
Table 14-3.     Per Capita Total Food Intake	14-6
Table 14-4.     Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, As Consumed)	14-7
Table 14-5.     Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg-day, As Consumed). 14-11
Table 14-6.     Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Food Intake	14-15
Table 14-7.     Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat Intake	14-19
Table 14-8.     Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat and Dairy Intake	14-23
Table 14-9.     Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fish Intake	14-27
Table 14-10.    Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fruit and Vegetable Intake	14-31
Table 14-11.    Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
               for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Dairy Intake	14-35
Page
14-ii
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 14 - Total Food Intake
14      TOTAL FOOD INTAKE
14.1    INTRODUCTION
        The   U.S.   food  supply   is   generally
considered to be one of the  safest in the world.
Nevertheless, contamination of foods may occur as a
result of environmental pollution of the air, water, or
soil, or the  intentional use of  chemicals  such as
pesticides or other  agrochemicals.    Ingestion of
contaminated  foods  is  a  potential  pathway  of
exposure to such contaminants.  To assess chemical
exposure through this pathway, information on food
ingestion rates is needed.  Per  capita and consumers
only data on food consumption rates for various food
items and food categories are reported in Chapters 9
through 13 of this handbook. These intake rates were
estimated by  U.S. EPA using databases developed by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  U.S.
EPA (2007) expanded the  analysis of food intake in
order to  examine  individuals'  food  consumption
habits in greater  detail. Using data from the USDA's
Continuing Survey  of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII) conducted in  1994-1996, 1998, U.S. EPA
(2007) derived distributions to characterize (1) total
food  intake  among  various  groups   in  the  U.S.
population,  subdivided by  age, race, geographic
region,  and  urbanization;  (2) the  contribution of
various   food   categories  (e.g.,  meats,   grains,
vegetables, etc.) to total food intake among  these
populations; and (3) the contribution of various food
categories to  total food  intake  among individuals
exhibiting low- or high-end consumption patterns of
a specific food category (e.g.,  individuals below the
10th percentile or above the 90th  percentile for fish
consumption). These data may be useful for assessing
exposure  among populations  exhibiting  lower or
higher than  usual intake of certain types of foods
(e.g., people who eat little or no meat, or people who
eat large quantities offish).
        The  recommendations for total food intake
rates are provided in the next  section,  along with a
summary  of the   confidence  ratings  for   these
recommendations.  Following the recommendations,
the key study on  total food intake  is summarized.

14.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
        A summary of recommended values for total
food intake, on an as-consumed basis, is presented in
Table  14-1.   The  confidence   ratings  for  these
recommendations are presented in Table 14-2.  The
recommended intake rates are based on data from the
U.S.  EPA (2007)  analysis of  CSFII data.    The
analysis presented in U.S. EPA  (2007) was conducted
before U.S.  EPA published the guidance entitled
Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood    Exposures      to     Environmental
Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005).  As a result, the age
groups used for children in U.S. EPA (2007) were not
entirely consistent with the age groups recommended
in the 2005 guidance.  Therefore, a re-analysis of the
data was  conducted  to  conform  to  U.S.  EPA's
recommended age groups for children.
        Because these recommendations are based
on  1994-96  and  1998  CSFII data,  they may not
reflect recent changes that  may have occurred in
consumption patterns.  In addition, these distributions
are  based on  data collected over a 2-day period and
may not necessarily reflect the long-term distribution
of average daily intake rates.  However, because the
broad categories of foods used in this analysis (e.g.,
total foods, total fruits,  total vegetables, etc.) are
typically eaten  on a daily basis throughout the year
with minimal seasonality, the short-term distribution
may be a reasonable approximation of the long-term
distribution,  although it will  display  somewhat
increased variability.   This  implies  that the upper
percentiles shown here will tend to overestimate the
corresponding  percentiles  of the  true  long-term
distribution.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           14-1
-------
                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                      Chapter 14 - Total Food Intake
Table 14-1 . Recommended Values for Per Capita Total Food Intake, As Consumed
Age Group
Children
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months

1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years

3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16to<21 years
Adults
20 to <40 years
40 to <70 years
70 years and older
Note: Total food
fish, eggs,
Mean 95th Percentile Multiple
g/kg-day

20
16
28
56

90
74

61
40
24
18

16
14
15
intake was defined as intake of the
grains, vegetables, fruits, and fats.
Percentiles

61
40
65
134

161
See Table 14-3
126

102
70
45
35

30
26 See Table 14-3
27
sum of all foods in the following major
Source





U.S. EPA re-analysis of
CSFII 1994-96, 98 data
(Based on U.S. EPA,
2007)






U.S. EPA, 2007

food categories: dairy, meats,
Beverages, sugar, candy, and sweets, and nuts and nut products were
not included because they could not be categorized into the major food groups. Also,
included.


human milk intake was not

Page
14-2
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 14 - Total Food Intake
Table
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or Defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
14-2. Confidence in Recommendations for Total Food Intake
Rationale
The survey methodology was adequate and the analytical
approach was competently executed. The study size was very
large; sample size varied with age. The response rate was good.
The key study analyzed primary data on recall of ingestion.
No direct measurements were taken. The study relied on survey
data.
The analysis was specifically designed to address food intake.
The population studied was representative of the U.S.
population.
The data used were the most current data publicly available at
the time the analysis was conducted for the handbook. However,
these data are now 11-15 years old. The national trends in
body weight,(increasing obesity prevalence) may in part be due
to changes in food intake patterns.
Ingestion rates were estimated based on short-term data
collected in the CSFII 1994-96, 1998.
The CSFII data are publicly available. The U.S. EPA (2007)
report is available online.
The methodology was clearly presented; enough information
was included to reproduce results.
Quality assurance methods were not described in the study
report.
Short term distributions were provided. The survey was not
designed to capture long term day-to-day variability.
The survey data were based on recall over a 2-day period.
Other sources of uncertainty were minimal.
The USDA CSFII survey received a high level of peer review.
U.S. EPA (2007) analysis was also peer-reviewed; however, the
re-analysis of these data using the new age categories for
children was not peer reviewed outside the Agency.
Only one key study was available for this factor


Rating
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 14-3
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                      Chapter 14 - Total Food Intake
14.3    KEY   STUDY   OF   TOTAL   FOOD
        INTAKE
14.3.1   U.S. EPA Re-analysis of 1994-96,  1998
        CSFII,  Based  on  U.S.  EPA  (2007)  -
        Analysis  of  Total  Food  Intake   and
        Composition of  Individual's Diet Based
        on  USDA's  1994-96,  1998 Continuing
        Survey of Food Intakes  by Individuals
        (CSFII)
        U.S.    EPA's    National    Center   for
Environmental  Assessment  (NCEA)  conducted an
analysis  to  evaluate  the  total  food  intake  of
individuals in the United States using data from the
USDA's 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII (USDA, 2000) and
U.S.  EPA's  Food  Commodity  Intake   Database
(FCID) (U.S. EPA, 2000).  The 1994-96  CSFII and
its  1998  Supplemental   Children's  Survey  were
designed  to   obtain  data  from   a  statistically
representative sample of noninstitutionalized persons
living in the United States.  Survey participants were
selected using a multistage process.  The respondents
were interviewed twice to collect information on food
consumption during two non-consecutive  days.  For
both survey  days, data were collected by an in-home
interviewer.  The day two interview was conducted 3
to 10 days later and on a different day of the week.
Of the more  than  20,000  individuals   surveyed,
approximately  10,000 were  under 21  years  of age,
and approximately 9,000 were under the  age of 11.
The  1994-96  survey  and  1998  supplement are
referred to  collectively  as  CSFII  1994-96,  1998.
Each individual in the survey was assigned a sample
weight based on his or her demographic  data;  these
weights were taken into account when  calculating
mean and percentile values of food consumption for
the  various demographic  categories   that  were
analyzed in the  study.  The sample weighting  process
used in the  CSFII 1994-96, 1998 are discussed in
detail in USDA (2000).
        For the analysis of total food intake, food
commodity  codes provided  in U.S.  EPA's  Food
Commodity   Intake Database  (FCID) (U.S.  EPA,
2000) were used to translate as-eaten foods (e.g., beef
stew) identified by USDA food codes in the CSFII
data set into food commodities (e.g., beef, potatoes,
carrots, etc.).  The method used to translate USDA
food codes   into  U.S.  EPA commodity codes is
discussed  in detail in USDA (2000).  The U.S. EPA
commodity  codes were  assigned  to broad  food
categories (e.g., total meats, total vegetables, etc.) for
use in the  analysis. Total food intake was defined as
intake of the sum of all foods in the following major
food categories:  dairy,  meats, fish,  eggs,  grains,
vegetables, fruits, and fats.  Beverages, sugar, candy,
and  sweets,  and nuts and  nut products  were not
included because they could not be categorized into
the major food groups.  Also, human milk intake was
not included.   Percent  consuming, mean,  standard
error, and a range of percentile values were calculated
on the basis of grams of food per kilogram of body
weight per day  (g/kg-day) and on the basis of grams
per day (g/day).   In addition to total food intake,
intake  of the various  major food groups for the
various age groups in  units of g/day and g/kg-day
were also estimated for comparison to total intake.
        To evaluate  variability in the contributions
of the  major  food  groups  to  total food intake,
individuals were ranked from  lowest  to  highest,
based  on  total food  intake.   Three   subsets of
individuals were defined, as follows: a group at the
low end of the distribution of total intake (i.e., below
the 10th percentile of total intake), a central group
(i.e., the 45th to 55th percentile of total intake), and a
group  at the high end  of the  distribution of total
intake  (i.e., above the 90th percentile of total intake).
Mean total food intake (in g/day and g/kg-day), mean
intake of each of the major food groups (in g/day and
g/kg-day), and  the percent of total food  intake that
each of these food groups represents were calculated
for each of the three populations (i.e.,  individuals
with  low-end,   central,  and high-end   total  food
intake). A similar analysis was conducted to estimate
the contribution of the  major food groups to total
food intake for individuals at the  low-end, central,
and high-end of the distribution of total meat intake,
total dairy intake, total  meat and dairy intake, total
fish intake, and total  fruit and vegetable intake.  For
example, to evaluate the variability  in the diets of
individuals at the low-end, central range, and high-
end of the distribution of total meat intake, survey
individuals were ranked  according to their reported
total meat intake. Three subsets of individuals were
formed as described above.  Mean total food intake,
intake  of the  major food groups, and the percent of
total food intake represented by each of the major
food  groups  were tabulated.   U.S. EPA (2007)
presented the results of the analysis for the following
age groups: <1 year, 1 to 2 years, 3 to 5 years, 6 to 11
years,  12 to 19  years, 20 to 39 years, 40 to 69 years,
and 70 years  and older.   The data were tabulated in
units of g/kg-day and g/day.
        In order to conform to the standard age
categories for children recommended in Guidance on
Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood     Exposures    to     Environmental
Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005), each of the tables
from U.S. EPA (2007) was modified by re-analyzing
the source data and applying the new childhood age
categories (i.e., <1 month,  1 to <3 months, 3 to <6
months, 6 to <12 months, 1 to <2  years,  2 to <3
Page
14-4
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 14 - Total Food Intake
years, 3 to <6 years, 6 to <11 years, 11 to <16 years,
and 16 to <21 years).
        Distributions  of  total  food  intake   are
presented in Table 14-3 in units of g/day  and g/kg-
day.  Tables 14-4 and 14-5 compare total food intake
to intake of the various major food groups for the
various age groups in  units of g/day and g/kg-day,
respectively. It should be noted that some  U.S.  EPA
commodity codes are listed under more than one  food
category.  For this reason, in the  tables, the intake
rates  for  the individual food  categories  do   not
necessarily add up to the figure given for  total  food
intake (U.S. EPA, 2007). Also, data are not reported
for food groups for  which there were less than 20
consumers  in a  particular age group.  Tables  14-6
through 14-11 present the contributions of the major
food groups to total food intake for individuals (in the
various age groups) at the low-end, central, and high-
end of the distribution of total food intake (Table 14-
6), total meat intake (Table 14-7), total  meat and
dairy intake (Table 14-8), total fish intake (Table 14-
9), total fruit and vegetable intake (Table 14-10), and
total dairy intake (Table 14-11) in units of g/day and
g/kg-day.     For each of  the   three  classes of
consumers,  consumption of nine  different   food
categories is presented  (i.e., total foods, dairy, meats,
fish, eggs,  grains,  vegetables, fruits, and fats).  For
example, in  Table 14-9  one will find  the mean
consumption of meats,  eggs, vegetables, etc.  for
individuals  with  an unusually high (or low or
average) consumption offish.
        As discussed in previous chapters, the 1994-
96,  98  CSFII  data  have  both   advantages  and
limitations  with regard to  estimating food  intake
rates.  The large  sample  size (more than 20,000
persons) is sufficient to allow categorization within
narrowly defined  age  categories.   In addition, the
survey was designed to obtain a  statistically valid
sample of  the entire United States population  that
included children and low income groups.  However,
the survey  design  is of limited utility for assessing
small and potentially at-risk subpopulations based on
ethnicity, medical status, geography, or other factors
such as activity level. Another limitation is that data
are based on a two-day survey period and, as such,
may not accurately reflect long-term eating patterns.
This is particularly  true  for the  extremes of the
distribution of food intake.
14.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 14
USD A  (2000)  1994-96, 1998 Continuing survey of
        food intakes by  individuals  (CSFII).  CD-
        ROM.     Agricultural   Research  Service,
        Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center,
        Beltsville, MD. Available from the National
        Technical Information  Service,  Springfield,
        VA; PB-2000-500027.
U.S. EPA  (2000) Food commodity intake database
        [FCID raw  data file].  Office of Pesticide
        Programs, Washington, DC. Available from
        the National Technical  Information Service,
        Springfield, VA; PB2000-5000101.
U.S. EPA  (2005) Guidance on  selecting age groups
        for monitoring  and assessing   childhood
        exposures to  environmental  contaminants.
        U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Washington,   D.C.,   EPA/630/P-03/003F.
        Available from  the  National   Technical
        Information  Service, Springfield, VA, and
        online at www.epa.gov/ncea.
U.S. EPA  (2007) Analysis of total food intake and
        composition of individual's diet  based on
        USDA's  1994-96, 1998  continuing  survey
        of food  intakes by individuals  (CSFII).
        National   Center   for   Environmental
        Assessment, Washington,  DC; EPA/600/R-
        05/062F.  Available   from   the   National
        Technical Information  Service,  Springfield,
        VA, and online at www.epa.gov/ncea.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           14-5
-------
   I
Table 14-3. Per Capita Total Food Intake
Age Group N a + *L PC
b ^ cons, total
Mean
n-r-i
ah,
Percentile
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
99
Max
Total Food Intake (g/day, as consumed)
Birth to <1 month 59 88 67.0%
1 to <3 month 183 245 74.7%
3 to <6 month 385 411 93.7%
6to<12month 676 678 99.7%
1 to <2 years 1,002 1,002 100%
2 to <3 years 994 994 100%
3 to <6 years 4,112 4,112 100%
6to
-------
                                                                                                                                                                 Q
1=
I
liable 14-4. Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, As Consumed)

Food Group

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake
N
cons.a

59
51
0
0
0
5
27
2
58

183
147
1
0
0
44
88
23
176

385
308
44
28
1
284
263
218
357
N
totalb

88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88

245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245

411
411
411
411
411
411
411
411
411
Percentile
PC

67.0%
58.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.7%
30.7%
2.3%
65.9%

74.7%
60.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
18.0%
35.9%
9.4%
71.8%

93.7%
74.9%
10.7%
6.8%
0.2%
69.1%
64.0%
53.0%
86.9%
Mean

67
41
-
-
-
_
5
-
19

80
37
-
-
-
1
15
4
21

197
56
2
0.23
-
8
34
68
28
SE
Age Birth to
59 0
38 0
-
-
-
_
23 0
-
16 0
Age 1 to <3
70 0
40 0
-
-
-
5 0
33 0
21 0
17 0
Age 3 to <6
150 0
56 0
7 0
3 0
-
11 0
46 0
102 0
17 0
5
<1 month
0
0
-
-
-
_
0
-
0
months
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
months
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
10

0
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
0

0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0

12
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
25

0
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
0

0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0

100
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
20
50

67
40
-
-
-
_
0
-
20

94
19
-
-
-
0
0
0
27

167
60
0
0
-
4
13
15
30
75

108
72
-
-
-
_
0.29
-
32

120
72
-
-
-
0
0.92
0
34

286
85
0
0
-
11
58
99
38
90

142
81
-
-
-
_
16
-
38

168
89
-
-
-
3
74
0
42

385
109
1
0
-
21
102
196
45
95

221
156
-
-
-
_
32
-
64

188
103
-
-
-
9
94
31
49

476
124
13
0.49
-
27
120
282
53
99

222
156
-
-
-
_
108
-
64

273
129
-
-
-
20
119
114
65

705
260
29
4
-
44
184
522
81
Max

222
156
-
-
-
_
125
-
64

404
155
-
-
-
45
211
171
72

1,151
496
92
50
-
68
226
750
106
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
oo
   I


Food Group
Table 14-4
N
cons.a
Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, As Consumed) (continued)
N
totalb
Percentile
PC
Mean
SE
1
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
99 Max
Age 6 to <12 months
Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake
676
628
500
352
34
653
662
639
661

1,002
999
965
906
188
997
1,000
986
1,002

994
994
981
943
190
993
994
970
994
678
678
678
678
678
678
678
678
678

1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002

994
994
994
994
994
994
994
994
994
99.7%
92.6%
73.7%
51.9%
5.0%
96.3%
97.6%
94.2%
97.5%

100%
99.7%
96.3%
90.4%
18.8%
99.5%
99.8%
98.4%
100%

100%
100%
98.7%
94.9%
19.1%
99.9%
100%
97.6%
100%
507
151
22
6
0.62
33
91
169
31

1,039
489
47
14
3
66
120
254
39

1,024
383
60
18
4
81
145
279
42
344
246
27
13
3
28
67
142
16
Agel
407
332
37
21
10
34
75
204
17
Age 2
377
243
41
24
12
35
89
230
18
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to<2
216
1
0
0
0
8
9
0
8
to<3
312
6
0
0
0
16
18
0
11
141
0
0
0
0
0.83
2
0
2
years
414
38
0
0
0
19
25
4
15
years
491
54
8
0
0
32
45
2
17
191
1.0
0
0
0
6
14
17
7

570
94
6
0
0
27
37
30
20

575
104
14
0
0
41
57
25
22
283
26
0
0
0
14
41
70
23

770
241
20
1
0
42
68
99
28

752
201
31
1
0
58
86
117
30
413
71
14
0
0
28
81
147
31

998
451
39
4
0
60
107
209
37

994
346
51
7
0
78
128
231
40
600
124
32
2
0
45
127
232
40

1,244
681
66
23
0
83
155
349
48

1,257
510
80
27
0
99
178
382
51
925
401
59
22
0
66
180
335
51

1,556
917
100
45
11
111
220
532
62

1,517
709
115
50
13
126
249
594
65
1,220
722
78
42
0
84
231
425
58

1,756
1,090
120
57
21
126
255
664
69

1,649
838
139
60
26
147
302
750
73
1,823 2,465
1,297 1,873
117 269
73 103
21 42
125 260
285 452
670 1,254
81 90

2,215 3,605
1,474 2,935
181 221
86 212
45 135
172 209
402 739
828 1,762
87 146

2,071 2,737
1,079 1,378
199 280
93 169
53 127
195 263
431 846
992 2,042
101 129
                                                                                                                                                                             Q
I
^o
                                                                                                                                                                              ft
-------
1=

I
liable 14-4. Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, As Consumed) (continued)

Food Group

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake
N
cons.a

4,112
4,112
4,062
3,910
801
4,111
4,111
4,021
4,112
N
totalb

4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
Percentile
PC

100%
100%
98.8%
95.1%
19.5%
100%
100%
97.8%
100%
Mean

1066
392
73
16
5
101
170
243
50
SE
Age 3
380
249
49
23
16
41
89
220
19
1
to<6
416
14
0
0
0
29
30
0
14
Age6to
-------
   I
    ri
Table 14-4. Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, As Consumed) (continued)
N N
Food Group a , , ,b PC Mean
F cons. total
SE
Percentile
1
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
99
Max
Age 16 to<21 years
Total Food Intake 743 743 100% 1184
Total Dairy Intake 742 743 99.9% 283
Total Meat Intake 730 743 98.3% 139
Total Egg Intake 703 743 94.6% 21
Total Fish Intake 143 743 19.2% 10
Total Grain Intake 743 743 100% 150
Total Vegetable Intake 743 743 100% 325
Total Fruit Intake 671 743 90.3% 168
Total Fat Intake 743 743 100% 74
634
279
127
30
33
93
204
237
42
308
0
0
0
0
13
43
0
13
467
8
12
0
0
48
86
0
22
556
19
28

0
58
128
0
30
750
63
64
1
0
88
194
3
46
1,061
196
116
7
0
132
280
74
67
1,447
410
185
29
0
190
400
242
94
1,883
649
266
59
34
256
562
432
129
2,283
934
310
89
76
307
683
665
148
3,281
1,235
458
126
146
543
1,160
1,023
213
8,840
1,866
2,343
223
399
730
2,495
2,270
391
Age 20 years and older
Total Food Intake 9,161 9,161 100% 1,110
Total Dairy Intake 9,161 9,143 99.8% 221
Total Meat Intake 9,161 9,005 98.3% 130
Total Egg Intake 9,161 8,621 94.1% 24
Total Fish Intake 9,161 2,648 28.9% 15
Total Grain Intake 9,161 9,152 99.9% 136
Total Vegetable Intake 9,161 9,161 100% 309
Total Fruit Intake 9,161 8,566 93.5% 191
Total Fat Intake 9,161 9,161 100% 64
481
228
90
32
36
84
171
224
34
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
477
9
15
0
0
42
91
0
20
570
20
35
0.13
0
53
124
0
26
a Number of consumers. The number of consumers of total food may be less than the number of individuals
was not included in the total food intake estimates presented here.
Sample size.
PC = Percent consuming.
SE = Standard error.
= Value not available or data not reported where the number of consumers was
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.

less than 20





769
60
65
2
0
79
191
18
39
1,030
153
111
10
0
116
281
125
57
1,360
312
171
36
12
167
394
280
81
1,730
509
246
63
56
238
525
473
109
2,010
643
299
87
86
297
626
625
127
in the study sample for the youngest age groups, be










2,650
1,020
457
129
162
462
850
996
178
5,640
3,720
1,010
445
434
1,110
1,810
2,690
359
cause human milk




                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    1=
^o
-------
 s
a
1=

I
Table 14-5. Per Capita Intake of Total
Food Group
N
cons.a
N
totalb
PC
Mean
Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/k
g-day, As Consumed)
Percentile
SE
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
99 Max
Age Birth to <1 month
Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake
59
51
0
0
0
5
27
2
58

183
147
1
0
0
44
88
23
176

385
308
44
28
1
284
263
218
357
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88

245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245

411
411
411
411
411
411
411
411
411
67.0%
58.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.7%
30.7%
2.3%
65.9%

74.7%
60.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
18.0%
35.9%
9.4%
71.8%

93.7%
74.9%
10.7%
6.8%
0.2%
69.1%
64.0%
53.0%
86.9%
20
12
-
-
-
2
6

16
8
-
-
0
3
1
4

28
8
0
0
1
5
9
4
18 0
12 0
-
-
-
6 0
5 0
Age 1 to <3
14 0
9 0
-
-
1 0
6 0
5 0
4 0
Age 3 to <6
21 0
8 0
1 0
0 0
2 0
7 0
15 0
3 0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
months
0
0
-
-
0
0
0
0
months
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0

0
0
-
-
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0

0
0
-
-
0
0
0
0

15
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
19
13
-
-
-
0
6

18
4
-
-
0
0
0
5

24
8
0
0
1
2
2
4
33
21
-
-
-
0
9

25
15
-
-
0
0
0
7

38
12
0
0
1
8
13
6
43
25
-
-
-
4
11

36
20
-
-
1
13
0
9

53
16
0
0
3
14
29
7
61
43
-
-
-
12
18

40
26
-
-
2
17
7
11

65
20
1
0
4
18
37
8
69 69
49 49
-
-
-
30 35
20 20

55 76
34 43
-
-
3 9
26 34
19 43
14 18

107 169
38 73
4 13
1 4
6 10
25 52
72 110
12 17
Q    |

*     §
§      a
 ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
    ri
    a.
    3!
Table 14-5. Per Capita
Food Group

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake
N
cons.a

676
628
500
352
34
653
662
639
661

1,002
999
965
906
188
997
1,000
986
1,002

994
994
981
943
190
993
994
970
994
N
totalb

678
678
678
678
678
678
678
678
678

1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002
1,002

994
994
994
994
994
994
994
994
994
Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg-day, As Consumed) (continued)
PC

99.7%
92.6%
73.7%
51.9%
5.0%
96.3%
97.6%
94.2%
97.5%

100%
99.7%
96.3%
90.4%
18.8%
99.5%
99.8%
98.4%
100%

100%
100%
98.7%
94.9%
19.1%
99.9%
100%
97.6%
100%
Mean

56
16
2
1
0
4
10
19
3

90
43
4
1
0
6
10
22
3

74
28
4
1
0
6
10
20
3
SE
Age
36
26
3
1
0
3
8
16
2
Ag
37
30
3
2
1
3
7
18
2
Ag
29
18
3
2
1
3
6
17
1
Percentile
1
6 to <12
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e 1 to <2
17
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0.73
e 2 to <3
23
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
5
months
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
years
38
3
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
years
34
4
1
0
0
2
3
0
1
10

22
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1

48
8
1
0
0
2
3
3
2

39
7
1
0
0
3
4
2
1
25

33
3
0
0
0
2
5
8
2

65
20
2
0
0
4
6
9
2

52
14
2
0
0
4
6
8
2
50

47
8
1
0
0
3
9
16
3

85
38
3
0
0
5
9
18
3

72
24
4
0
0
5
9
16
3
75

66
14
4
0
0
5
14
26
4

109
59
6
2
0
7
14
31
4

92
37
6
2
0
7
13
27
4
90

99
38
6
2
0
7
20
36
6

137
83
8
4
1
9
19
44
5

113
52
8
4
1
9
18
44
5
95

134
72
8
4
0
9
25
46
7

161
100
10
5
2
11
22
58
6

126
63
9
4
2
10
22
56
5
99

211
165
12
7
2
14
34
84
8

207
137
14
7
3
15
33
81
8

146
84
14
6
4
14
34
71
7
Max

233
180
30
11
4
26
67
138
10

265
216
21
15
12
19
61
144
11

194
108
20
13
11
28
64
114
9
                                                                                                                                                                             Q
I
vo
-------
 s
a
1=

I
Table 14-5. Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg-day, As Consumed) (continued)

Food Group

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake

Total Food Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake
N
cons.a

4,112
4,112
4,062
3,910
801
4,111
4,111
4,021
4,112

1,553
1,553
1,533
1,490
258
1,553
1,553
1,515
1,553

975
975
970
930
167
975
975
923
975
N
totalb

4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112
4,112

1,553
1,553
1,553
1,553
1,553
1,553
1,553
1,553
1,553

975
975
975
975
975
975
975
975
975
Percentile
PC

100%
100%
98.8%
95.1%
19.5%
100%
100%
97.8%
100%

100%
100%
98.7%
95.9%
16.6%
100%
100%
97.6%
100%

100%
100%
99.5%
95.4%
17.1%
100%
100%
94.7%
100%
Mean

61
22
4
1
0
6
10
14
3

40
15
3
1
0
4
7
7
2

24
7
2
0
0
3
5
4
1
SE
Age 3
24
15
3
1
1
3
5
13
1
Age 6
17
10
2
1
1
2
4
7
1
Age 11
11
6
1
1
0
1
3
4
1
1
to
21
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
5
<6 years
30
4
1
0
0
2
3
0
1
10

34
7
1
0
0
3
4
1
2
25

44
12
2
0
0
4
6
5
2
50

57
20
4
0
0
5
9
11
3
75

73
30
5
1
0
7
12
20
3
90

91
41
8
3
1
9
16
30
4
95

102
48
9
3
2
10
19
39
5
99 Max

132 239
66 195
13 23
5 13
4 12
14 27
26 60
57 124
6 10
to <11 years
10
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
17
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
21
4
1
0
0
2
3
0
1
28
7
2
0
0
3
5
2
1
38
13
3
0
0
4
7
5
2
49
20
4
1
0
5
9
10
3
61
27
6
2
1
7
12
16
3
70
33
7
2
1
8
15
21
4
88 122
42 79
10 18
4 8
3 7
11 16
20 50
32 55
5 9
to <16 years
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
11
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
16
3
1
0
0
2
3
1
1
22
6
2
0
0
2
5
3
1
30
10
3
0
0
3
7
6
2
38
15
4
1
1
5
9
10
2
45
20
5
1
1
5
11
14
3
55 82
29 38
7 10
3 7
2 7
7 9
14 31
18 32
4 5
Q    |

*     §
§      a
 ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
    ri
Table 14-5. Per Capita Intake of Total Food and Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg-day, As Consumed) (continued)
Food Group a , , ,b PC
^ cons. total
Mean
SE
Percentile
1
Age 16to<21
Total Food Intake 743 743 100%
Total Dairy Intake 742 743 99.9%
Total Meat Intake 730 743 98.3%
Total Egg Intake 703 743 94.6%
Total Fish Intake 143 743 19.2%
Total Grain Intake 743 743 100%
Total Vegetable Intake 743 743 100%
Total Fruit Intake 671 743 90.3%
Total Fat Intake 743 743 100%
18
4
2
0
0
2
5
3
1
9
4
2
0
1
1
3
4
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
years
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
10

8
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
25

12
1
1
0
0
1
3
0
1
50

16
3
2
0
0
2
4
1
1
75

22
6
3
0
0
3
6
4
1
90

30
10
4
1
1
4
8
7
2
95

35
12
5
1
1
5
10
10
2
99 Max

47 115
19 25
7 30
2 3
2 7
7 12
15 32
16 29
3 5
Age 20 years and older
Total Food Intake 9,161 9,161 100%
Total Dairy Intake 9,161 9,143 99.8%
Total Meat Intake 9,161 9,005 98.3%
Total Egg Intake 9,161 8,621 94.1%
Total Fish Intake 9,161 2,648 28.9%
Total Grain Intake 9,161 9,152 100%
Total Vegetable Intake 9,161 9,161 100%
Total Fruit Intake 9,161 8,566 93.5%
Total Fat Intake 9,161 9,161 100%
15
3
2
0
0
2
4
3
1
7
3
1
0
0
1
2
3
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
10
1
1
0
0
1
3
0
1
a Number of consumers. The number of consumers of total food may be less than the number of individuals in the study
milk was not included in the total food intake estimates presented here.
b Sample size.
PC = Percent consuming.
SE = Standard error.
14
2
2
0
0
2
4
2
1
19
4
2
0
0
2
5
4
1
24
7
3
1
1
3
7
7
1
sample for the youngest a;
28
9
4
1
1
4
9
9
2
37 75
14 41
6 13
2 8
2 8
6 16
12 28
15 52
2 4
je groups, because human
= Data not reported where the number of consumers was less than 20.
x = Value not available.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.











                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    1=
^o
-------
1=

I
Table 14-6. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Food Intake
Food
Group
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake
Percent Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Age 1 to
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Age 3 to
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0.0% 64
0.0% 39
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 5
0.0% 0
0.0% 19
<3 months (g/day,
0.0% 94
0.0% 53
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 1
0.0% 11
0.0% 0
0.0% 27
100.0%
61.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.4%
0.0%
29.4%
as consumed)
100.0%
56.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
12.0%
0.0%
28.4%
196
109
0
0
0
4
24
8
52

206
63
0
0
0
3
58
27
49
100.0%
55.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
12.1%
4.1%
26.2%

100.0%
30.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
28.4%
13.0%
23.6%
<6 months (g/day, as consumed)
100.0% 166
3.0% 69
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 1
74.5% 8
10.9% 27
9.9% 24
1.3% 34
100.0%
41.9%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
4.9%
16.3%
14.6%
20.4%
507
90
4
0
1
14
73
284
36
100.0%
17.8%
0.8%
0.1%
0.1%
2.8%
14.4%
56.0%
7.2%
Food
Group
for
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake


High-end
Consumers
Percent Intake Percent Intake
Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Age 1 to <3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0% 20
0.0% 14
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 6
months (g/kg-day,
0.0% 18
0.0% 9
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 3
0.0% 0
0.0% 5
100.0%
70.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
29.4%
as consumed)
100.0%
51.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
18.9%
0.0%
27.7%
58
35
0
0
0
1
6
0
16

44
20
0
0
0
0
7
5
11
100.0%
60.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
10.0%
0.0%
27.8%

100.0%
45.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
16.4%
12.3%
24.4%
Age 3 to <6 months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100.0% 24
0.5% 9
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
85.0% 1
7.4% 5
6.7% 4
0.2% 5
100.0%
37.3%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
20.8%
15.0%
21.3%
73
13
1
0
0
2
11
40
5
100.0%
17.9%
0.8%
0.1%
0.0%
3.4%
14.5%
55.0%
7.5%
                                                                                                                                                                 Q    |

                                                                                                                                                                 *     §
                                                                                                                                                                 §     a
                                                                                                                                                                   ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
    ri

Food
Group

Table 14-6
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Food Intake (continued)
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age 6 to < 12 months (g/day,
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
124
33
3
0
1
11
30
30
14
Age 1
407
113
28
1
9
44
82
100
24
Age 2
448
118
50
1
12
62
98
70
31
100.0%
26.4%
2.4%
0.2%
0.5%
9.1%
24.2%
24.4%
11.6%
to <2 years (g
100.0%
27.8%
6.9%
0.3%
2.2%
10.8%
20.1%
24.6%
5.8%
to <3 years (g
100.0%
26.3%
11.1%
0.3%
2.7%
13.7%
21.9%
15.6%
6.8%
414
72
19
1
7
37
90
151
35
as consumed)
100.0%
17.5%
4.6%
0.3%
1.6%
8.9%
21.9%
36.5%
8.4%
High-end
Consumers
Intake

1,358
770
47
0
8
50
121
314
44
Percent

100.0%
56.7%
3.5%
0.0%
0.6%
3.7%
8.9%
23.1%
3.2%
/day, as consumed)
998
487
46
3
16
63
101
238
38
100.0%
48.8%
4.6%
0.3%
1.6%
6.3%
10.2%
23.8%
3.8%
1,859
1,008
66
4
22
81
165
446
61
100.0%
54.2%
3.5%
0.2%
1.2%
4.3%
8.9%
24.0%
3.3%
/day, as consumed)
989
370
60
4
14
86
145
255
44
100.0%
37.4%
6.1%
0.4%
1.4%
8.7%
14.6%
25.8%
4.4%
1,760
698
72
7
24
98
185
609
56
100.0%
39.7%
4.1%
0.4%
1.4%
5.6%
10.5%
34.6%
3.2%
Food
Group
for
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent


High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 6 to <12 months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
15 100.0% 47
4 25.4% 6
0 2.3% 2
0 0.2% 0
0 0.9% 1
2 10.7% 4
3 21.9% 10
4 25.9% 19
2 11.4% 4
Age 1 to <2 years (g/kg-day,
35 100.0% 85
10 29.5% 41
3 7.5% 4
0 0.4% 1
1 2.1% 1
4 10.9% 5
7 18.6% 10
8 23.0% 19
2 6.4% 3
Age 2 to <3 years (g/kg-day,
32 100.0% 72
8 24.8% 26
4 11.2% 4
0 0.4% 0
1 3.6% 1
4 13.8% 6
7 22.0% 10
5 16.2% 21
2 7.1% 3
100.0%
13.8%
4.9%
0.2%
1.5%
9.1%
22.4%
40.0%
7.5%
as consumed)
100.0%
48.1%
4.7%
0.5%
1.4%
6.0%
11.9%
22.8%
3.8%
as consumed)
100.0%
36.3%
5.3%
0.2%
1.7%
8.0%
13.3%
29.8%
3.9%
144
77
5
0
1
5
14
37
5

167
94
5
0
2
7
13
40
5

129
54
5
0
2
7
13
42
4
100.0%
53.1%
3.4%
0.0%
0.8%
3.6%
9.8%
25.8%
3.2%

100.0%
56.1%
3.2%
0.2%
0.9%
4.3%
7.8%
24.0%
3.2%

100.0%
42.2%
3.8%
0.3%
1.3%
5.6%
10.0%
32.9%
3.2%
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    1=
^o
-------
1=

I

Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Table 14-6
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age3
527
144
53
3
11
76
117
76
34
Age 6
565
147
65
2
10
89
136
66
39
Age 11
513
92
71
4
10
84
162
42
40
Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Food Intake (continued)
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
to <6 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
27.3%
10.0%
0.6%
2.0%
14.4%
22.3%
14.4%
6.5%
to <11 years (§
100.0%
26.1%
11.4%
0.3%
1.7%
15.8%
24.1%
11.6%
6.8%
1,020
378
72
5
15
103
163
216
50
100.0%
37.0%
7.0%
0.5%
1.5%
10.1%
16.0%
21.2%
4.9%
1,817
728
94
9
24
132
233
509
68
100.0%
40.1%
5.2%
0.5%
1.3%
7.3%
12.8%
28.0%
3.7%
;/day, as consumed)
1,060
370
95
6
16
116
203
178
58
100.0%
34.9%
9.0%
0.6%
1.5%
10.9%
19.2%
16.8%
5.5%
1,886
766
104
10
22
157
294
426
76
100.0%
40.6%
5.5%
0.5%
1.2%
8.3%
15.6%
22.6%
4.0%
to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
17.9%
13.9%
0.8%
1.9%
16.3%
31.6%
8.2%
7.8%
1,127
308
116
7
20
133
258
203
64
100.0%
27.3%
10.3%
0.6%
1.8%
11.8%
22.9%
18.0%
5.7%
2,256
808
172
16
28
207
459
420
114
100.0%
35.8%
7.6%
0.7%
1.2%
9.2%
20.3%
18.6%
5.0%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
28 100.0%
8 27.3%
3 10.4%
0 0.5%
1 2.1%
4 14.0%
6 22.0%
4 15.2%
2 6.4%
Age 6 to <1 1 years (g/kj
16 100.0%
4 26.2%
2 11.9%
0 0.5%
0 1.8%
2 14.7%
4 24.7%
2 11.2%
1 7.3%
57 100.0%
21 36.3%
4 7.1%
0 0.5%
1 1.6%
6 9.9%
9 16.0%
13 22.1%
3 4.8%
^-day, as consumed)
38 100.0%
15 38.6%
3 8.1%
0 0.5%
1 1.6%
4 10.8%
7 18.0%
6 14.9%
2 5.3%
108
43
5
0
1
8
14
31
4

73
30
4
0
1
7
11
15
3
100.0%
40.3%
4.8%
0.4%
1.1%
7.1%
12.5%
29.0%
3.7%

100.0%
40.8%
5.9%
0.4%
1.3%
9.0%
15.5%
21.2%
4.3%
Age 11 to <16 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
8 100.0%
1 17.3%
1 14.7%
0 0.9%
0 1.8%
1 16.6%
3 31.7%
1 7.2%
1 8.3%
22 100.0%
6 26.9%
2 10.3%
0 0.8%
0 2.2%
3 11.7%
5 23.4%
4 17.4%
1 5.9%
46
18
3
0
1
4
9
8
2
100.0%
38.4%
7.0%
0.8%
1.3%
9.3%
18.4%
18.2%
4.8%
                                                                                                                                                                 Q    |

                                                                                                                                                                 *     §
                                                                                                                                                                 §     a
                                                                                                                                                                   ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
Table 14-6. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Food Intake (continued)
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
438 100.0% 1
56 12.8%
61 14.0%
7 1.5%
8 1.9%
67 15.2%
148 33.8%
48 11.0%
33 7.6%
,060 100.0%
219 20.7%
141 13.3%
11 1.1%
17 1.6%
138 13.0%
312 29.4%
138 13.1%
72 6.8%
2,590
759
272
14
29
241
620
487
136
100.0%
29.3%
10.5%
0.5%
1.1%
9.3%
23.9%
18.8%
5.3%
Age 20 years and older (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
451 100.0% 1
55 12.1%
74 16.5%
7 1.6%
15 3.2%
69 15.3%
147 32.6%
40 8.9%
34 7.6%
a Includes added fats such as butter,
,030 100.0%
188 18.3%
128 12.5%
13 1.2%
23 2.3%
130 12.7%
291 28.4%
174 17.0%
60 5.9%
margarine, dressing
2,140
520
210
25
34
230
516
466
105
100.0%
24.3%
9.8%
1.2%
1.6%
10.8%
24.2%
21.8%
4.9%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Age 16 to
6
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
High-end
Consumers
Percent Intake
Percent
<21 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0%
12.2%
15.6%
1.7%
1.8%
14.8%
34.0%
10.2%
8.1%
16
4
2
0
0
2
5
2
1
100.0%
23.8%
11.5%
1.0%
1.6%
13.1%
30.0%
10.9%
7.1%
38
10
4
0
0
4
10
8
2
100.0%
27.4%
10.0%
0.5%
1.1%
9.9%
25.3%
19.7%
5.0%
Age 20 years and older (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
6
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
100.0%
12.5%
17.3%
1.6%
3.5%
15.6%
32.1%
7.9%
7.7%
14
3
2
0
0
2
4
2
1
100.0%
19.4%
12.2%
1.4%
2.3%
13.1%
28.9%
14.9%
6.1%
30
7
2
0
0
3
7
7
1
100.0%
24.9%
8.2%
0.9%
1.5%
10.1%
23.5%
23.6%
4.6%
;s and sauces, vegetable oil, etc; does not include fats eaten as components of other foods such as meats.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    ri
    1=
^o
-------
1=

I

Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Table 14-7.
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Age Birth to
67
41
0
0
0
0
5
1
19
Percent
Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat Intake
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
<1 month (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
61.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
7.7%
1.3%
28.3%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Age 1 to <3 months (g/day, as consumed)0
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
79
37
0
0
0
1
15
4
21
100.0%
46.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
18.6%
5.2%
26.4%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
149
103
1
0
0
0
3
0
42
100.0%
68.9%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
2.1%
0.0%
28.2%
Age 3 to <6 months (g/day, as consumed/
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
181
55
0
0
0
7
31
59
28
100.0%
30.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
3.7%
17.0%
32.9%
15.3%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
316
62
16
0
1
16
56
133
28
100.0%
19.7%
4.9%
0.1%
0.5%
5.0%
17.9%
42.3%
8.9%
Food
Group
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake
Percent Intake Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
20
12
0
0
0
0
2
0
6
Age 1 to <3
16
8
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
Age 3 to <6
26
8
0
0
0
1
4
8
4
100.0%
61.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
7.7%
1.1%
28.4%
months (g/kg-day, as consumed)0
100.0%
47.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
16.8%
5.6%
26.5%
months (g/kg-day, as consumed/
100.0%
30.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
16.9%
32.2%
15.6%
High-end
Consumers
Intake
b
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

47
32
0
0
0
0
1
0
13

41
8
2
0
0
2
7
17
4
Percent

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

100.0%
68.9%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
2.1%
0.0%
28.2%

100.0%
20.5%
4.9%
0.1%
0.3%
4.8%
17.6%
41.7%
9.2%
                                                                                                                                                                 Q    |

                                                                                                                                                                 *     §
                                                                                                                                                                 §     a
                                                                                                                                                                   ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
    ri

Food
Group

Table 14-7
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat Intake (continued)
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age 6 to <12 months (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
347
80
0
0
2
24
69
143
27
Age 1
921
464
2
3
8
56
97
250
30
Age 2
950
426
7
4
12
73
104
279
29
100.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
6.8%
19.8%
41.3%
7.7%
to <2 years (g
100.0%
50.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.9%
6.1%
10.5%
27.2%
3.3%
to <3 years (g
100.0%
44.9%
0.7%
0.5%
1.3%
7.7%
10.9%
29.4%
3.0%
466
108
14
0
3
29
116
162
31
100.0%
23.2%
2.9%
0.1%
0.6%
6.2%
24.8%
34.8%
6.7%
922 100.0%
384 41.6%
85 9.3%
0 0.0%
11 1.2%
51 5.6%
135 14.7%
216 23.4%
43 4.6%
/day, as consumed)
992
483
39
2
14
64
113
228
38
100.0%
48.7%
4.0%
0.2%
1.5%
6.5%
11.3%
23.0%
3.8%
1,229 100.0%
460 37.4%
128 10.4%
6 0.5%
24 1.9%
78 6.4%
189 15.4%
290 23.6%
57 4.6%
/day, as consumed)
947
373
52
4
18
76
146
226
40
100.0%
39.3%
5.4%
0.5%
1.9%
8.1%
15.4%
23.8%
4.2%
1,131 100.0%
374 33.0%
148 13.1%
2 0.2%
21 1.9%
90 8.0%
202 17.9%
232 20.5%
62 5.5%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
for
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake
Age 6 to <12
40
9
0
0
0
3
8
17
2
Age 1 to <2
82
41
0
0
1
5
9
22
3
Age 2 to <3
71
31
1
0
1
6
8
21
2
Percent Intake Percent


High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0% 48
22.6% 11
0.0% 1
0.0% 0
0..5% 0
6.6% 3
19.7% 10
41.9% 17
7.8% 3
years (g/kg-day,
100.0% 90
49.9% 46
0.2% 3
0.3% 0
0.8% 1
6.1% 6
11.1% 10
27.3% 21
3.3% 3
years (g/kg-day,
100.0% 68
44.2% 26
0.7% 4
0.5% 0
1.3% 1
7.8% 6
11.1% 10
29.6% 18
3.1% 3
100.0%
23.9%
3.0%
0.1%
1.0%
6.0%
21.9%
36.5%
7.1%
as consumed)
100.0%
50.5%
3.8%
0.3%
1.4%
6.1%
10.8%
22.7%
3.8%
as consumed)
100.0%
37.7%
5.5%
0.3%
1.3%
8.3%
15.1%
26.7%
4.0%
99
41
9
0
1
6
15
23
5

108
43
11
0
2
7
16
22
5

83
27
10
0
2
7
14
19
4
100.0%
41.1%
9.3%
0.0%
0.9%
5.8%
15.4%
23.1%
4.6%

100.0%
40.1%
10.0%
0.5%
1.9%
6.9%
15.1%
20.8%
4.7%

100.0%
32.3%
12.4%
0.2%
1.8%
8.1%
16.8%
23.1%
5.2%
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    1=
^o
-------
 s
a
1=

I

Food
Group

Table 14-7
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat Intake (continued)
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age3 to <6 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*
991
419
10
7
10
98
128
257
35
100.0%
42.3%
1.0%
0.7%
1.0%
9.9%
13.0%
25.9%
3.6%
Age 6 to <11 years (§
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*
1,028
424
11
6
13
121
164
214
40
Age 11 to
1,043
342
17
13
17
116
227
238
44
100.0%
41.3%
1.1%
0.6%
1.3%
11.8%
16.0%
20.8%
3.9%
1,037
376
65
6
16
101
170
238
48
100.0%
36.3%
6.3%
0.5%
1.5%
9.8%
16.4%
22.9%
4.7%
1,246
389
176
4
24
117
217
243
73
100.0%
31.2%
14.1%
0.3%
1.9%
9.4%
17.4%
19.5%
5.9%
;/day, as consumed)
1,087
386
79
5
15
117
212
191
59
100.0%
35.5%
7.3%
0.5%
1.4%
10.7%
19.5%
17.6%
5.4%
1,300
382
206
4
17
136
270
198
81
100.0%
29.4%
15.8%
0.3%
1.3%
10.4%
20.7%
15.2%
6.2%
<16 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
32.8%
1.6%
1.3%
1.6%
11.1%
21.7%
22.8%
4.2%
1,194
377
101
7
13
144
260
202
67
100.0%
31.6%
8.5%
0.6%
1.1%
12.1%
21.8%
16.9%
5.6%
1,606
435
268
7
21
159
404
204
106
100.0%
27.1%
16.7%
0.4%
1.3%
9.9%
25.2%
12.7%
6.6%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
for
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg-day,
57 100.0% 59
24 42.1% 23
1 1.0% 4
0 0.6% 0
1 1.0% 1
6 9.9% 6
7 13.0% 9
15 26.1% 13
2 3.6% 3
Age 6 to <11 years (g/kg-day,
36 100.0% 39
15 41.5% 15
0 1.0% 3
0 0.9% 0.32
0 1.2% 0.42
4 11.5% 4
5 15.1% 7
8 21.7% 6
1 3.8% 2
as consumed)
100.0%
38.2%
6.0%
0.5%
1.4%
9.5%
15.8%
22.0%
4.8%
as consumed)
100.0%
38.7%
7.0%
0.8%
1.1%
10.7%
19.1%
15.6%
5.1%


High-end
Consumers
Intake

74
23
10
0
1
7
13
15
4

51
15
8
0
1
5
10
8
3
Percent

100.0%
31.3%
13.4%
0.3%
2.0%
9.4%
17.5%
20.1%
5.7%

100.0%
29.7%
14.8%
0.3%
1.5%
10.4%
20.2%
16.5%
6.0%
Age 11 to <16 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
19 100.0% 22
6 31.5% 6
0 1.6% 2
0 1.5% 0
0 1.5% 0
2 11.6% 3
4 22.2% 5
4 23.1% 4
1 4.4% 1
100.0%
27.0%
8.8%
0.5%
1.3%
11.7%
24.1%
18.9%
5.7%
33
10
5
0
0
3
8
4
2
100.0%
29.7%
16.3%
0.5%
1.4%
10.0%
23.3%
11.7%
6.7%
Q    |

*     §
§      a
 ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
    ri
    1=

Food
Group —
Table 14-7
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat Intake (continued)
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
Ag
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
922 100.0%
307 33.3%
12 1.3%
20 2.1%
14 1.5%
131 14.2%
215 23.3%
151 16.4%
42 4.5%
1,084
280
115
9
15
147
287
147
73
100.0%
25.8%
10.6%
0.9%
1.4%
13.6%
26.5%
13.5%
6.7%
1,957 100.0%
403 20.6%
385 19.7%
12 0.6%
31 1.6%
231 11.8%
532 27.2%
226 11.6%
139 7.1%
e 20 years and older (g/day, as consumed)
943 100.0%
213 22.6%
15 1.6%
25 2.6%
17 1.8%
113 12.0%
259 27.4%
234 24.9%
38 4.1%
1,030
211
111
12
21
124
282
192
59
100.0%
20.4%
10.8%
1.2%
2.0%
12.0%
27.2%
18.6%
5.7%
1,560 100.0%
254 16.3%
338 21.7%
13 0.8%
33 2.1%
196 12.5%
446 28.5%
165 10.5%
115 7.4%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Mid-range
Consumers
Percent Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
15
4
0
0
0
2
4
3
1
100.0%
30.3%
1.3%
2.2%
1.4%
14.5%
24.6%
17.8%
4.6%
Age 20 years and older (g/k§
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
14
3
0
0
0
2
4
3
1
100.0%
22.6%
1.6%
2.6%
1.8%
11.9%
27.3%
25.3%
4.0%
18
4
2
0
0
2
5
3
1
100.0%
24.0%
9.6%
1.0%
1.9%
12.8%
27.5%
15.7%
6.2%
28
5
5
0
0
3
8
3
2
100.0%
18.1%
19.8%
0.4%
1.6%
12.3%
28.9%
12.4%
6.5%
;-day, as consumed)
15
3
2
0
0
2
4
3
1
100.0%
20.7%
10.3%
1.3%
2.1%
12.2%
27.6%
18.2%
5.5%
21
3
4
0
0
3
6
3
1
100.0%
15.9%
21.3%
0.9%
2.0%
12.2%
28.2%
12.3%
7.0%
3 Includes added fats such as butter, margarine, dressings and sauces, vegetable oil, etc; does not include fats eaten as components of other foods such as meats.
b All individuals in this sample group consumed 0 grams/day of meat. Therefore, results are reported in the low-end decile.
0 Only one individual in this sample group consumed more than 0 grams/day of meat. This result is reported in the high-end decile. All other samples are
reported in the low-end decile.
d All individuals in this sample group below the 89th percentile consumed 0 grams/day of meat. Therefore, only high-end and low-end consumer groups are
reported.
Source: Based on L
.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
^o
-------
 s
a
1=

I

Food
Group

Table 14-8
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat and Dairy Intake
Mid-range High-end
Consumers Consumers
Intake
Age Birth to <1 month (g/day,
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*
12
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
3
Agel
36
0
0
0
0
0
21
2
10
Age 3
121
0
0
0
0
5
44
52
15
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
66.1%
0.0%
27.1%
60
40
0
0
0
0
2
0
18
Percent Intake
as consumed)
100.0% 185
67.3% 127
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 4
3.4% 1
0.0% 0
29.2% 52
Percent

100.0%
69.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.4%
0.0%
28.4%
to <3 months (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
58.8%
4.3%
26.7%
84
19
0
0
0
1
42
0
21
100.0% 166
22.4% 109
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
1.2% 1
50.7% 4
0.0% 6
25.4% 45
100.0%
65.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
2.7%
3.7%
27.2%
to <6 months (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
36.4%
42.9%
12.3%
204
60
0
0
0
7
29
80
27
100.0% 334
29.7% 159
0.3% 5
0.0% 0
0.1% 1
3.2% 12
14.5% 27
39.0% 74
13.2% 54
100.0%
47.7%
1.4%
0.1%
0.2%
3.7%
8.0%
22.3%
16.3%
Food
Group
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake
Percent Intake
Age Birth to <1 month (g/kg-day,
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
Age 1 to <3
7
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
Age 3 to <6
17
0
0
0
0
1
6
7
2
100.0% 18
0.0% 12
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.2% 0
64.4% 1
0.0% 0
27.5% 5
High-end
Consumers
Percent Intake
as consumed)
100.0%
67.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
0.0%
29.2%

56
39
0
0
0
1
0
0
16
Percent

100.0%
69.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
0.5%
0.0%
28.4%
months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0% 14
0.0% 3
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.8% 0
57.8% 7
5.4% 0
26.4% 4
100.0%
24.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
48.7%
0.0%
25.0%
41
26
0
0
0
0
0
3
11
100.0%
64.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.1%
7.7%
26.5%
months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0% 30
0.0% 8
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
4.5% 1
37.1% 3
41.7% 14
12.6% 3
100.0%
26.5%
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
3.7%
11.2%
46.0%
11.4%
45
24
1
0
0
2
2
8
8
100.0%
53.4%
1.3%
0.1%
0.1%
3.6%
5.3%
17.3%
18.7%
Q    |

*     §
§      a
 ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
    ri
Table 14-8. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat and Dairy Intake (continued)
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age 6 to <12 months (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
253
1
1
0
3
22
95
110
17
Age 1
569
46
30
2
12
54
128
264
25
Age 2
641
57
45
4
21
75
155
240
32
100.0%
0.5%
0.3%
0.0%
1.0%
8.5%
37.7%
43.4%
6.7%
to <2 years (j
100.0%
8.0%
5.2%
0.4%
2.0%
9.5%
22.5%
46.4%
4.5%
to <3 years (j
100.0%
9.0%
6.9%
0.6%
3.2%
11.8%
24.1%
37.5%
5.0%
403
71
17
1
3
32
82
166
32
100.0%
17.6%
4.1%
0.4%
0.7%
8.0%
20.3%
41.1%
8.0%
1,284 100.0%
827 64.5%
45 3.5%
0 0.0%
7 0.5%
45 3.5%
108 8.4%
209 16.3%
41 3.2%
5/day, as consumed)
1,014
456
43
2
13
64
114
278
36
100.0%
45.0%
4.2%
0.2%
1.3%
6.3%
11.3%
27.4%
3.6%
1,687 100.0%
1,165 69.0%
52 3.1%
3 0.2%
19 1.1%
65 3.8%
111 6.6%
209 12.4%
59 3.5%
'/day, as consumed)
981
348
59
3
18
86
148
264
42
100.0%
35.5%
6.0%
0.3%
1.9%
8.7%
15.1%
26.9%
4.3%
1,546 100.0%
883 57.1%
60 3.9%
4 0.3%
20 1.3%
86 5.6%
143 9.2%
286 18.5%
55 3.6%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
for
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent


High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 6 to <12 months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
29 100.0%
0 0.4%
0 0.3%
0 0.0%
0 1.1%
2 8.0%
11 38.2%
13 43.4%
2 6.7%
Age 1 to <2 years (g/k
51 100.0%
4 7.7%
3 5.5%
0 0.2%
1 2.1%
5 9.5%
11 22.2%
24 46.6%
2 4.5%
Age 2 to <3 years (g/k
46 100.0%
4 8.2%
3 7.4%
0 0.4%
1 3.2%
5 11.6%
11 23.6%
18 38.7%
2 5.2%
43
8
2
0
0
3
9
17
4
g-day,
82
38
4
0
1
6
11
19
3
g-day,
73
24
5
0
1
6
11
22
3
100.0%
18.0%
4.7%
0.3%
0.9%
7.1%
20.0%
40.4%
8.3%
as consumed)
100.0%
45.6%
5.3%
0.3%
1.6%
7.2%
13.0%
22.7%
3.8%
as consumed)
100.0%
32.6%
6.5%
0.3%
1.6%
8.7%
14.9%
29.9%
4.3%
135
87
5
0
1
5
12
22
4

155
106
4
0
1
6
11
21
5

114
67
4
0
2
7
11
19
4
100.0%
64.2%
3.3%
0.0%
0.5%
3.5%
8.6%
16.6%
3.2%

100.0%
68.2%
2.8%
0.1%
0.9%
3.7%
6.9%
13.7%
3.4%

100.0%
58.3%
3.8%
0.2%
1.3%
5.7%
9.5%
16.6%
3.7%
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    1=
^o
-------
1=

I
Table 14-8. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat and Dairy Intake (continued)
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Age 3
702
75
52
5
15
85
159
258
35
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
to <6 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
10.7%
7.5%
0.7%
2.2%
12.0%
22.6%
36.7%
5.0%
Age 6 to <11 years (
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
725
76
66
6
16
101
202
198
43
Age 11
727
38
58
10
16
103
234
213
42
100.0%
10.5%
9.2%
0.8%
2.3%
13.9%
27.9%
27.3%
6.0%
1,043
352
79
5
16
107
167
251
51
100.0%
33.8%
7.6%
0.5%
1.5%
10.2%
16.0%
24.1%
4.9%
1,646
878
88
5
19
121
191
259
67
100.0%
53.3%
5.4%
0.3%
1.2%
7.3%
11.6%
15.8%
4.1%
g/day, as consumed)
1,061
366
91
7
17
116
205
178
56
100.0%
34.5%
8.6%
0.7%
1.6%
10.9%
19.4%
16.7%
5.3%
1,727
883
105
6
18
151
245
221
73
100.0%
51.1%
6.1%
0.3%
1.1%
8.7%
14.2%
12.8%
4.2%
to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
5.2%
8.0%
1.4%
2.2%
14.2%
32.2%
29.3%
5.8%
1,111
299
118
11
22
137
265
176
66
100.0%
26.9%
10.6%
1.0%
2.0%
12.4%
23.9%
15.8%
6.0%
2,045
1,004
161
12
26
181
332
204
104
100.0%
49.1%
7.9%
0.6%
1.3%
8.9%
16.2%
10.0%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
for
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg-day,
39 100.0% 59
4 10.8% 20
3 7.6% 4
0 0.8% 0
1 2.2% 1
5 12.0% 6
9 22.7% 10
14 36.1% 15
2 5.1% 3
Age 6 to <11 years (g/kg-day,
21 100.0% 38
2 11.6% 13
2 9.9% 3
0 0.8% 0
1 2.4% 1
3 14.1% 4
6 27.0% 7
6 25.9% 7
1 6.2% 2
as consumed)
100.0%
33.6%
7.1%
0.4%
1.6%
10.0%
16.1%
25.0%
4.7%
as consumed)
100.0%
34.8%
8.2%
0.6%
1.4%
10.9%
18.7%
17.8%
5.4%


High-end
Consumers
Intake

97
52
5
0
1
7
11
16
4

68
35
4
0
1
6
10
8
3
Percent

100.0%
53.1%
5.2%
0.3%
1.0%
7.2%
11.7%
16.2%
4.1%

100.0%
51.0%
5.9%
0.4%
1.0%
9.2%
14.1%
12.4%
4.4%
Age 11 to <16 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
5.1% Total Fats3
12 100.0% 23
1 4.9% 6
1 9.3% 2
0 1.3% 0
0 2.5% 0
2 14.2% 3
4 32.4% 6
3 27.0% 4
1 6.3% 1
100.0%
26.0%
10.9%
0.6%
1.5%
11.5%
24.5%
17.1%
6.1%
43
21
3
0
1
4
7
5
2
100.0%
47.9%
7.5%
0.8%
1.2%
9.1%
15.5%
11.8%
4.9%
                                                                                                                                                                 Q    |

                                                                                                                                                                 *     §
                                                                                                                                                                 §     a
                                                                                                                                                                   ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
Table 14-8. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Meat and Dairy Intake (continued)
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
610 100.0% 1
22 3.5%
42 6.8%
12 1.9%
\3 2.2%
87 14.3%
202 33.1%
177 29.1%
34 5.6%
,017 100.0%
204 20.1%
128 12.6%
12 1.2%
19 1.8%
140 13.8%
305 29.9%
133 13.1%
68 6.6%
2,379
923
256
8
28
233
492
282
127
100.0%
38.8%
10.8%
0.3%
1.2%
9.8%
20.7%
11.9%
5.3%
Age 20 years and older (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
679 100.0% 1
28 4.1%
45 6.6%
21 3.1%
19 2.8%
99 14.6%
236 34.7%
179 26.3%
34 5.0%
a Includes added fats such as butter,
,050 100.0%
157 14.9%
136 12.9%
14 1.3%
22 2.1%
131 12.5%
319 30.3%
190 18.1%
65 6.1%
margarine, dressing
1,860
696
208
17
29
185
385
215
100
100.0%
37.5%
11.2%
0.9%
1.5%
10.0%
20.7%
11.6%
5.4%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Age 16 to
9
0
1
0
0
1
3
3
1
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
High-end
Consumers
Percent Intake
Percent
<21 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0%
3.8%
6.8%
1.8%
2.0%
14.6%
34.0%
28.1%
5.5%
Age 20 years and older (j
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
9
0
1
0
0
1
3
2
0
100.0%
3.9%
6.8%
3.1%
2.8%
14.5%
35.0%
26.1%
5.1%
15
3
2
0
0
2
5
2
1
5/kg-day,
14
2
2
0
0
2
4
3
1
100.0%
19.1%
13.4%
0.9%
1.8%
14.3%
30.4%
12.2%
6.8%
as consumed)
100.0%
15.2%
12.7%
1.4%
2.1%
12.9%
29.9%
18.1%
6.0%
34
13
4
0
0
3
7
4
2

26
10
3
0
0
3
5
3
1
100.0%
39.1%
10.8%
0.3%
1.1%
10.1%
20.8%
11.2%
5.4%

100.0%
37.6%
10.4%
1.0%
1.5%
9.8%
20.3%
13.1%
5.1%
;s and sauces, vegetable oil, etc.; does not include fats eaten as components of other foods such as meats.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    ri
    1=
^o
-------
 s
a
1=

I

Food
Group

Table 14-9.
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fish Intake
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*
67
41
0
0
0
0
5
1
19
100.0%
61.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
7.7%
1.3%
28.3%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Age 1 to <3 months (g/day, as consumed)15
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*
80
37
0
0
0
1
15
4
21
Age 3 to
196
55
2
0
0
8
34
68
28
100.0%
46.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
18.5%
5.2%
26.4%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<6 months (g/day, as consumed)0
100.0%
28.3%
0.8%
0.0%
0.1%
3.9%
17.2%
34.7%
14.1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
410
159
28
17
4
47
34
30
81
100.0%
38.8%
6.8%
4.1%
1.0%
11.5%
8.3%
7.2%
19.8%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/kg-day, as consumed)
20 100.0%
12 61.6%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.7%
2 7.7%
0 1.1%
6 28.4%
High-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
b
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Age 1 to <3 months (g/kg-day, as consumed)15
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
16 100.0%
8 48.2%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 1.4%
3 16.6%
1 5.5%
4 26.5%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Age 3 to <6 months (g/kg-day, as consumed)0
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
28 100.0%
8 28.9%
0 0.7%
0 0.0%
0 0.1%
1 3.8%
5 17.1%
9 33.9%
4 14.5%
53 100.0%
21 38.8%
4 6.8%
2 4.1%
1 1.0%
6 11.5%
4 8.3%
4 7.2%
11 19.8%
Q    |

*     §
§      a
 ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
    ri
Table 14-9. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fish Intake (continued)
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 6 to <12 months (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
799
334
38
0
11
47
101
227
37
Age 1 to
1,032
496
46
0
14
65
118
247
39
Age 2 to
1,015
381
62
0
18
81
144
276
42
100.0%
41.8%
4.7%
0.0%
1.4%
5.9%
12.6%
28.4%
4.7%
<2 years (j
100.0%
48.1%
4.5%
0.0%
1.4%
6.3%
11.4%
24.0%
3.8%
<3 years (j
100.0%
37.6%
6.1%
0.0%
1.8%
7.9%
14.2%
27.2%
4.2%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I/day, as consumed)4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'/day, as consumed)4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
770
287
46
7
14
66
117
194
36

1,139
461
56
26
19
76
151
300
43

1,107
424
53
31
17
84
142
304
43
100.0%
37.3%
6.0%
0.9%
1.9%
8.6%
15.3%
25.2%
4.7%

100.0%
40.5%
4.9%
2.3%
1.7%
6.7%
13.2%
26.3%
3.8%

100.0%
38.3%
4.8%
2.8%
1.6%
7.6%
12.8%
27.4%
3.9%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake
Age 6 to <12
81
34
4
0
1
5
10
23
4
Age 1 to <2
90
43
4
0
1
6
10
22
3
Age 2 to <3
73
28
4
0
1
6
10
20
3
Percent Intake Percent
months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0%
41.8%
4.7%
0.0%
1.4%
5.9%
12.6%
28.4%
4.7%
years (g/kg-day, as consumed)4
100.0%
48.2%
4.4%
0.0%
1.3%
6.2%
11.4%
24.0%
3.8%
years (g/kg-day, as consumed)4
100.0%
37.9%
6.0%
0.0%
1.7%
7.9%
14.1%
27.0%
4.2%
High-end
Consumers
Intake

74
27
4
1
1
6
12
19
3

98
41
5
2
2
7
12
25
4

82
31
4
2
1
6
10
23
3
Percent

100.0%
37.1%
6.0%
0.9%
2.0%
8.4%
15.6%
25.2%
4.7%

100.0%
42.4%
4.8%
2.2%
1.6%
6.7%
12.3%
25.5%
3.8%

100.0%
37.6%
4.6%
2.9%
1.5%
7.5%
12.7%
28.5%
3.9%
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    1=
^o
-------
 s
a
1=

I

Food
Group

Table 14-9
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fish Intake (continued)
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 3 to <6 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
1,053
390
76
0
16
101
168
237
50
Age 6 to
1,109
408
89
0
15
119
208
190
58
Age 11 to
1,197
372
117
0
17
135
111
190
69
100.0%
37.1%
7.2%
0.0%
1.5%
9.6%
15.9%
22.5%
4.8%
<11 years (g
100.0%
36.8%
8.0%
0.0%
1.3%
10.7%
18.8%
17.1%
5.2%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,156
399
62
43
17
103
193
273
50
100.0%
34.5%
5.3%
3.7%
1.4%
8.9%
16.7%
23.6%
4.3%
/day, as consumed)4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,234
430
76
51
22
126
233
218
61
100.0%
34.8%
6.2%
4.1%
1.8%
10.2%
18.9%
17.7%
4.9%
<16 years (g/day, as consumed)4
100.0%
31.1%
9.8%
0.0%
1.4%
11.3%
23.1%
15.8%
5.8%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,378
397
104
72
28
146
310
226
76
100.0%
28.8%
7.5%
5.2%
2.0%
10.6%
22.5%
16.4%
5.5%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake
Age 3 to <6
60
22
4
0
1
6
9
14
3
Age6to
-------
1
 ri
 a.
 3!

Food
Table 14-9.
Low-end
Consumers
P Intake Percent
Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fish Intake (continued)
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/day, as consumed/
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
1,171 100.0%
288 24.6%
143 12.2%
0 0.0%
20 1.7%
146 12.5%
325 27.8%
160 13.7%
75 6.4%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,339
261
139
86
21
162
357
219
80
100.0%
19.5%
10.4%
6.5%
1.6%
12.1%
26.6%
16.3%
6.0%
Age 20 years and older (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
1,040 100.0%
207 20.0%
126 12.1%
0 0.0%
22 2.1%
134 12.9%
303 29.2%
165 15.9%
62 6.0%
1,060 100.0%
205 19.3%
143 13.4%
0 0.0%
24 2.2%
133 12.5%
300 28.3%
180 16.9%
64 6.0%
1,340
250
121
102
27
152
348
238
74
100.0%
18.7%
9.1%
7.7%
2.0%
11.4%
26.0%
17.8%
5.5%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
High-end
Consumers
Percent Intake
Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/kg-day, as consumed/
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
18
4
2
0
0
2
5
2
1
100.0%
24.5%
11.9%
0.0%
1.7%
12.5%
27.9%
13.9%
6.4%
Age 20 years and older (g
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
14
3
2
0
0
2
4
2
1
100.0%
20.2%
11.9%
0.0%
2.0%
13.0%
29.1%
16.1%
5.9%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
/kg-day,
15
3
2
0
0
2
4
3
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
as consumed)
100.0%
19.1%
12.7%
0.0%
2.0%
12.3%
28.3%
18.2%
5.8%
19
4
2
1
0
2
5
3
1

19
4
2
1
0
2
5
4
1
100.0%
20.3%
9.4%
6.7%
1.6%
12.0%
26.0%
16.9%
5.9%

100.0%
19.0%
8.5%
7.6%
1.9%
11.2%
26.0%
18.7%
5.2%
a Includes added fats such as butter, margarine, dressings and sauces, vegetable oil, etc.; does not include fats eaten as components of other foods such as meats.
b All individuals in this sample group consumed 0 grams/day of fish. Therefore, only low-end consumers are reported.
0 Only one individual in this sample group consumed more than 0 grams/day offish. Therefore, this sample is reported in the high-end consumer group and all
other samples are placed in the low-end consumer group.
d All individuals in this sample group below the 80th percentile consumed 0 grams/day of fish. Therefore, only high-end and low-end consumer groups are
reported.
Source: Based on U
S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
 Q

^


 I
 k^
 <

 \


 $

 &
 '"•N



 i1
 A,


 ^

 &
 ST-
 (%
-------
1=

I
Table 14-10. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fruit and Vegetable Intake
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
49
34
0
0
0
1
0
0
14
Agel
49
34
0
0
0
1
0
0
14
Age 3
69
47
0
0
0
2
0
0
20
100.0%
69.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
29.1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
101
21
0
0
0
0.21
44
8
25
100.0%
21.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
43.3%
7.6%
24.8%
to <3 months (g/day, as consumed)15
100.0%
69.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
28.9%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
171
16
0
0
0
2
89
18
40
100.0%
9.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
52.0%
10.2%
23.4%
to <6 months (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
68.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
28.4%
144
51
2
0
1
10
24
29
25
100.0%
35.6%
1.3%
0.3%
0.4%
6.7%
16.6%
19.9%
17.7%
495
49
4
0
0
12
88
311
27
100.0%
9.9%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
17.7%
62.8%
5.4%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
14 100.0%
10 69.6%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 1.3%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
4 29.1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
High-end
Consumers
Intake
b
29
6
0
0
0
0
13
2
7
Percent

100.0%
19.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
44.8%
6.4%
25.4%
Age 1 to <3 months (g/kg-day, as consumed)15
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
11 100.0%
7 69.4%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 1.7%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
3 29.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35
4
0
0
0
0
16
5
8
100.0%
11.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
46.8%
13.9%
22.7%
Age 3 to <6 months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
11 100.0%
7 68.1%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 3.2%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
3 28.5%
21 100.0%
8 37.2%
0 1.5%
0 0.3%
0 0.5%
1 6.6%
3 15.1%
4 20.8%
4 16.9%
70
7
1
0
0
2
12
44
4
100.0%
10.1%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
2.6%
17.7%
62.4%
5.5%
                                                                                                                                                                 Q    |

                                                                                                                                                                 *     §
                                                                                                                                                                 §     a
                                                                                                                                                                   ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
Table 14-10. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fruit and Vegetable Intake (continued)
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 6 to <12 months (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
189
91
8
1
4
23
18
15
31
Age 1
796
578
35
1
8
49
56
26
36
Age 2
601
308
53
2
14
72
81
24
38
100.0%
48.3%
4.0%
0.4%
1.9%
12.1%
9.4%
7.7%
16.3%
to <2 years (j
100.0%
72.7%
4.5%
0.1%
1.0%
6.2%
7.1%
3.2%
4.6%
to <3 years (j
100.0%
51.2%
8.8%
0.3%
2.3%
12.0%
13.4%
4.0%
6.3%
461
129
17
1
9
31
83
158
31
100.0%
28.0%
3.6%
0.2%
1.9%
6.8%
18.1%
34.3%
6.8%
951
207
37
0
8
41
160
459
35
100.0%
21.8%
3.9%
0.0%
0.8%
4.3%
16.8%
48.2%
3.6%
'/day, as consumed)
1,048
535
46
3
16
65
123
210
41
100.0%
51.0%
4.4%
0.3%
1.5%
6.2%
11.7%
20.1%
3.9%
1,499
425
62
5
17
77
179
687
39
100.0%
28.4%
4.2%
0.4%
1.1%
5.1%
11.9%
45.8%
2.6%
'/day, as consumed)
942
352
59
4
18
80
141
237
40
100.0%
37.4%
6.3%
0.5%
2.0%
8.5%
15.0%
25.1%
4.2%
1,589
384
64
5
20
91
202
765
46
100.0%
24.1%
4.0%
0.3%
1.3%
5.7%
12.7%
48.1%
2.9%
Food
Group
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 6 to <12 months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
21 100.0% 57
10 48.1% 19
1 3.6% 2
0 0.4% 0
0 1.7% 1
2 11.4% 4
2 9.3% 10
2 8.4% 18
3 16.8% 4
Age 1 to <2 years (g/kg-day,
68 100.0% 88
49 71.8% 44
3 4.7% 4
0 0.2% 0
1 1.1% 1
4 6.2% 6
5 7.1% 11
2 3.4% 18
3 4.7% 3
Age 2 to <3 years (g/kg-day,
43 100.0% 69
22 51.3% 27
4 8.8% 4
0 0.3% 0
1 2.3% 1
5 12.0% 6
6 13.8% 10
2 3.7% 17
3 6.3% 3
100.0%
33.2%
4.3%
0.1%
1.0%
6.5%
16.9%
30.8%
6.6%
as consumed)
100.0%
49.6%
4.5%
0.3%
1.2%
6.9%
12.6%
20.5%
3.7%
as consumed)
100.0%
39.3%
6.0%
0.4%
1.9%
8.6%
14.0%
24.6%
4.1%
100
18
4
0
1
5
19
50
4

133
39
5
0
2
7
15
60
4

114
27
4
0
2
7
14
56
3
100.0%
17.9%
3.8%
0.0%
0.7%
4.6%
19.0%
49.5%
3.9%

100.0%
29.5%
3.6%
0.2%
1.2%
5.2%
11.6%
45.4%
2.7%

100.0%
23.6%
3.8%
0.4%
1.4%
5.7%
12.4%
49.1%
2.9%
                                                                                                                                                                             Q
I
^o
                                                                                                                                                                              ft
-------
 s
a
1=

I
Table 14-10. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fruit and Vegetable Intake (continued)
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age3
731
388
60
4
13
92
92
27
45
Age 6
784
385
76
5
16
105
103
26
48
Age 11
709
301
91
3
13
106
125
13
49
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
to <6 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
53.1%
8.2%
0.5%
1.7%
12.5%
12.5%
3.6%
6.1%
to <11 years (g
100.0%
49.2%
9.7%
0.6%
2.1%
13.3%
13.2%
3.4%
6.2%
1,014
385
74
7
14
96
174
199
49
100.0%
38.0%
7.3%
0.7%
1.4%
9.4%
17.1%
19.6%
4.9%
1,594 100.0%
401 25.1%
81 5.1%
9 0.6%
21 1.3%
113 7.1%
231 14.5%
668 41.9%
53 3.3%
/day, as consumed)
1,068
406
88
6
16
117
213
144
59
100.0%
38.0%
8.3%
0.6%
1.5%
11.0%
19.9%
13.5%
5.5%
1,664 100.0%
448 26.9%
98 5.9%
8 0.5%
17 1.0%
127 7.6%
313 18.8%
559 33.6%
64 3.9%
to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
42.4%
12.8%
0.4%
1.8%
15.0%
17.7%
1.9%
6.9%
1,149
362
112
10
20
136
286
136
66
100.0%
31.5%
9.7%
0.8%
1.7%
11.8%
24.9%
11.8%
5.8%
1,911 100.0%
395 20.7%
146 7.7%
14 0.7%
24 1.3%
165 8.6%
458 24.0%
597 31.2%
87 4.5%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
40
21
3
0
1
5
5
1
2
Age 6 to
23
11
2
0
1
3
3
1
1
Age 11 to
12
5
1
0
0
2
2
0
1
100.0%
52.7%
8.6%
0.4%
1.6%
12.4%
13.0%
3.4%
6.1%
58 100.0%
22 38.2%
4 7.0%
0 0.6%
1 1.4%
6 10.3%
10 16.5%
11 19.5%
3 4.9%
95
25
5
0
1
7
13
41
3
100.0%
25.8%
4.8%
0.5%
1.1%
6.8%
13.9%
42.5%
3.3%
<11 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0%
47.0%
10.1%
0.8%
2.3%
13.8%
13.8%
3.6%
6.4%
38 100.0%
14 37.6%
3 8.9%
0 0.4%
1 1.5%
5 11.8%
7 19.1%
5 13.3%
2 5.4%
64
18
4
0
1
5
11
22
3
100.0%
27.5%
5.7%
0.5%
1.2%
8.1%
17.7%
33.6%
3.9%
<16 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0%
42.0%
12.4%
0.5%
1.9%
14.8%
18.2%
2.2%
7.0%
23 100.0%
8 33.1%
2 9.8%
0 0.5%
0 1.7%
3 12.1%
5 23.0%
3 12.3%
1 5.9%
39
9
3
0
1
3
9
13
2
100.0%
22.3%
6.4%
0.5%
1.5%
8.8%
22.4%
32.3%
4.2%
Q    |

*     §
§      a
 ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
Table 14-10. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Fruit and Vegetable Intake (continued)
„ , Low-end
Food „
„ Consumers
Mid-range
Consumers
P Intake Percent Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods 624 100.0%
Total Dairy 238 38.1%
Total Meats 76 12.2%
Total Fish 8 1.2%
Total Eggs 21 3.3%
Total Grains 100 16.1%
Total Vegetables 109 17.5%
Total Fruits 18 2.9%
Total Fatsa 46 7.3%
970
203
112
15
16
138
283
121
66
100.0%
21.0%
11.5%
1.6%
1.6%
14.2%
29.2%
12.5%
6.8%
2,353
449
245
17
30
211
615
644
116
100.0%
19.1%
10.4%
0.7%
1.3%
9.0%
26.1%
27.4%
4.9%
Age 20 years and older (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods 602 100.0% 1
Total Dairy 178 29.6%
Total Meats 99 16.4%
Total Fish 11 1.8%
Total Eggs 21 3.5%
Total Grains 105 17.5%
Total Vegetables 115 19.1%
Total Fruits 16 2.6%
Total Fatsa 45 7.5%
,040
215
129
15
23
131
306
138
64
100.0%
20.6%
12.4%
1.4%
2.2%
12.6%
29.4%
13.3%
6.2%
1,920
282
168
23
28
177
527
610
83
100.0%
14.7%
8.7%
1.2%
1.5%
9.2%
27.4%
31.7%
4.3%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
High-end
Consumers
Percent Intake
Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
9
4
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
100.0%
39.0%
11.7%
1.4%
3.4%
16.2%
17.9%
1.8%
7.2%
Age 20 years and older (£
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
8
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
100.0%
28.6%
16.9%
1.8%
3.4%
17.8%
19.6%
2.5%
7.7%
16
3
2
0
0
2
5
1
1
5/kg-day
14
3
2
0
0
2
4
2
1
100.0%
21.0%
12.7%
0.8%
2.5%
14.6%
30.7%
9.1%
7.5%
, as consumed)
100.0%
20.3%
13.0%
1.2%
2.1%
13.2%
29.7%
12.5%
6.3%
34
6
3
0
0
3
9
10
2

27
4
2
0
0
2
7
9
1
100.0%
17.8%
9.6%
0.6%
1.0%
10.0%
25.8%
30.0%
4.4%

100.0%
14.7%
7.5%
1.3%
1.3%
9.0%
27.2%
33.9%
3.8%
a Includes added fats such as butter, margarine, dressings and sauces, vegetable oil, etc; does not include fats eaten as components of other foods such as meats.
b All individuals in this sample group below the 75th percentile consumed 0 grams/day of fruits and vegetables. Therefore, only high-end and low-end consumer
groups are reported.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    ri
    1=
^o
-------
1=

I
Table 14-11. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Dairy Intake
Food
Group
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
12
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
3
Age I
36
0
0
0
0
0
21
2
10
Age 3
132
0
1
0
0
6
46
58
16
100.0% 60
0.0% 40
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.3% 0
66.1% 2
0.0% 0
27.1% 18
to <3 months (g/day,
100.0% 84
0.0% 19
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.9% 1
58.8% 42
4.3% 0
26.7% 21
to <6 months (g/day,
100.0% 217
0.0% 59
0.4% 2
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
4.5% 8
34.9% 37
44.1% 84
11.9% 26
100.0%
67.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
29.2%
as consumed)
100.0%
22.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
50.7%
0.0%
25.4%
as consumed)
100.0%
27.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.2%
3.8%
17.0%
38.8%
12.1%
185
127
0
0
0
4
1
0
52

166
109
0
0
0
0
4
6
45

346
160
4
0
1
12
26
87
55
100.0%
69.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.4%
0.0%
28.4%

100.0%
65.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
2.7%
3.7%
27.2%

100.0%
46.3%
1.1%
0.1%
0.2%
3.4%
7.6%
25.1%
15.8%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
for
Mid-range
Consumers


High-end
Consumers
Intake Percent Intake
Percent
Age Birth to <1 month (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
4 100.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.2%
2 64.4%
0 0.0%
1 27.5%
18
12
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
Age 1 to <3 months (g/kg-day,
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
7 100.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.8%
4 57.8%
0 5.4%
2 26.4%
14
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
4
Age 3 to <6 months (g/kg-day,
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
19 100.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.5%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1 4.5%
7 35.6%
8 43.0%
2 12.2%
32
8
0
0
0
1
4
14
3
100.0%
67.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
0.0%
29.2%
as consumed)
100.0%
24.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
48.7%
0.0%
25.0%
as consumed)
100.0%
24.8%
0.7%
0.0%
0.3%
3.8%
13.7%
45.8%
10.7%
56
39
0
0
0
1
0
0
16

41
26
0
0
0
0
0
3
11

44
24
0
0
0
2
2
7
8
100.0%
69.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
0.5%
0.0%
28.4%

100.0%
64.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.1%
7.7%
26.5%

100.0%
54.9%
1.0%
0.1%
0.1%
3.4%
5.0%
15.9%
19.2%
                                                                                                                                                                 Q    |

                                                                                                                                                                 *     §
                                                                                                                                                                 §     a
                                                                                                                                                                   ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
    ri
Table 14-11. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Dairy Intake (continued)
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 6 to <12 months (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
317 100.0%
0 0.0%
11 3.4%
0 0.0%
3 0.9%
27 8.6%
114 35.9%
137 43.3%
20 6.4%
Age 1 to <2 years (j
601 100.0%
40 6.7%
43 7.1%
3 0.5%
14 2.3%
57 9.5%
139 23.1%
268 44.7%
29 4.8%
Age 2 to <3 years (j
661 100.0%
48 7.3%
61 9.3%
2 0.3%
25 3.8%
78 11.9%
163 24.7%
237 35.8%
37 5.5%
368
71
16
1
5
23
75
147
30
100.0%
19.2%
4.4%
0.3%
1.4%
6.3%
20.4%
39.9%
8.2%
1,285
833
41
0
6
46
106
211
40
100.0%
64.8%
3.2%
0.0%
0.5%
3.6%
8.2%
16.4%
3.1%
5/day, as consumed)
989
451
51
4
15
65
120
240
38
100.0%
45.6%
5.2%
0.4%
1.5%
6.5%
12.1%
24.3%
3.8%
1,700
1,170
45
3
18
63
112
226
58
100.0%
68.8%
2.6%
0.2%
1.1%
3.7%
6.6%
13.3%
3.4%
'/day, as consumed)
996
348
63
6
20
82
144
279
41
100.0%
34.9%
6.3%
0.6%
2.1%
8.2%
14.5%
28.0%
4.1%
1,528
885
55
5
19
86
137
Til
55
100.0%
57.9%
3.6%
0.3%
1.3%
5.6%
9.0%
18.1%
3.6%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
Low-end Mid-range
Consumers Consumers
Intake
Age 6 to <12
36
0
1
0
0
3
13
16
2
Age 1 to <2
55
3
4
0
1
5
12
25
3
Age 2 to <3
47
3
4
0
2
5
12
17
3
Percent Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
months (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0% 43
0.0% 8
3.5% 2
0.0% 0
1.0% 1
7.9% 3
35.3% 8
44.6% 18
6.3% 4
years (g/kg-day,
100.0% 86
6.1% 38
7.2% 4
0.5% 1
2.3% 2
9.5% 6
21.8% 11
46.3% 21
4.7% 3
years (g/kg-day,
100.0% 72
7.2% 24
9.4% 4
0.3% 0
3.7% 1
11.6% 6
24.6% 10
36.4% 22
5.5% 3
100.0%
18.2%
4.8%
0.3%
2.1%
7.7%
17.9%
40.7%
8.1%
as consumed)
100.0%
44.0%
4.8%
0.6%
1.8%
6.9%
13.0%
24.5%
3.7%
as consumed)
100.0%
33.7%
6.2%
0.4%
1.5%
8.5%
14.0%
30.2%
4.2%
135
87
4
0
1
5
11
22
4

154
106
4
0
1
6
10
21
5

114
67
4
0
1
6
11
20
4
100.0%
64.8%
3.0%
0.0%
0.5%
3.5%
8.2%
16.6%
3.1%

100.0%
68.5%
2.6%
0.1%
0.8%
3.7%
6.7%
13.8%
3.4%

100.0%
58.4%
3.6%
0.2%
1.3%
5.7%
9.3%
17.3%
3.6%
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    1=
^o
-------
1=

I

Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats*

Table 14-11
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Age3
725
64
75
4
19
87
168
253
40
Age 6
766
63
99
6
17
105
221
194
49
Age 11
747
22
102
8
20
104
239
197
47
. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Dairy Intake (continued)
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
to <6 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
8.9%
10.4%
0.6%
2.6%
12.1%
23.2%
34.9%
5.6%
to <11 years (g
100.0%
8.2%
12.9%
0.8%
2.2%
13.7%
28.9%
25.3%
6.4%
1,047
355
72
6
15
104
173
257
49
100.0%
33.9%
6.9%
0.5%
1.4%
9.9%
16.5%
24.5%
4.7%
1,612
886
70
6
18
116
183
251
63
100.0%
55.0%
4.3%
0.4%
1.1%
7.2%
11.3%
15.6%
3.9%
/day, as consumed)
1,053
372
80
5
14
113
214
175
56
100.0%
35.4%
7.6%
0.5%
1.3%
10.7%
20.3%
16.6%
5.3%
1,722
892
87
6
17
152
242
227
70
100.0%
51.8%
5.1%
0.4%
1.0%
8.8%
14.0%
13.2%
4.1%
to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
100.0%
3.0%
13.6%
1.1%
2.7%
13.9%
32.0%
26.4%
6.2%
1,094
307
101
9
18
133
265
180
62
100.0%
28.0%
9.2%
0.8%
1.6%
12.2%
24.2%
16.4%
5.6%
2,020
1,017
134
12
25
181
322
204
100
100.0%
50.3%
6.7%
0.6%
1.2%
9.0%
16.0%
10.1%
5.0%
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Intake Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
41 100.0%
4 8.8%
4 10.6%
0 0.5%
1 2.6%
5 12.1%
10 23.8%
14 34.0%
2 5.7%
58 100.0%
20 34.2%
4 6.6%
0 0.5%
1 1.5%
6 9.9%
9 16.3%
14 24.7%
3 4.7%
97
52
4
0
1
7
11
16
4
100.0%
54.0%
4.4%
0.3%
1.0%
7.2%
11.6%
16.5%
4.0%
Age 6 to <11 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
25 100.0%
2 8.1%
3 13.2%
0 0.8%
1 2.3%
3 13.6%
7 29.5%
6 24.4%
2 6.6%
38 100.0%
13 34.2%
2 8.0%
0 0.5%
1 1.8%
4 10.7%
8 19.7%
7 17.8%
2 5.2%
67
35
3
0
1
6
9
9
3
100.0%
51.9%
4.9%
0.4%
0.9%
9.0%
13.7%
13.5%
4.2%
Age 11 to <16 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
13 100.0%
0 2.9%
2 13.8%
0 1.0%
0 2.6%
2 13.7%
4 33.0%
3 25.7%
1 6.2%
22 100.0%
6 27.3%
2 9.6%
0 0.6%
0 1.7%
3 12.2%
5 23.3%
4 17.8%
1 5.9%
42
21
3
0
1
4
6
5
2
100.0%
49.4%
6.4%
0.8%
1.2%
9.1%
15.1%
11.9%
4.8%
                                                                                                                                                                 Q    |

                                                                                                                                                                 *     §
                                                                                                                                                                 §     a
                                                                                                                                                                   ,     S
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 I,

-------
   I
Table 14-11. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Major Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for
Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end Total Dairy Intake (continued)
Food
Group
Low-end
Consumers
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake Percent Intake Percent
High-end
Consumers
Intake
Percent
Age 16 to <21 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
647 100.0% 1
8 1.2%
101 15.7%
8 1.2%
12 1.8%
90 13.9%
228 35.2%
152 23.5%
37 5.8%
,095 100.0%
197 18.0%
125 11.4%
16 1.5%
28 2.5%
162 14.8%
324 29.6%
154 14.1%
73 6.7%
2,233
950
197
8
27
217
438
249
114
100.0%
42.5%
8.8%
0.4%
1.2%
9.7%
19.6%
11.2%
5.1%
Age 20 years and older (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
741 100.0% 1
9 1.2%
117 15.8%
16 2.2%
20 2.7%
113 15.2%
258 34.8%
159 21.4%
42 5.6%
a Includes added fats such as butter,
,030 100.0%
155 15.1%
129 12.6%
16 1.6%
23 2.3%
130 12.6%
304 29.6%
189 18.4%
62 6.0%
margarine, dressing
1,810
725
156
19
26
176
361
226
89
100.0%
40.1%
8.6%
1.1%
1.4%
9.7%
20.0%
12.5%
4.9%
Food
Group

Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats3
Low-end
Consumers
Intake
Age 16 to
10
0
2
0
0
1
4
2
1
Percent
Mid-range
Consumers
Intake
High-end
Consumers
Percent Intake
Percent
<21 years (g/kg-day, as consumed)
100.0%
1.2%
15.1%
1.1%
1.7%
14.1%
35.8%
23.9%
5.6%
Age 20 years and older (j
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fatsa
10
0
2
0
0
2
4
2
1
100.0%
1.2%
15.8%
2.1%
2.7%
15.0%
34.5%
21.9%
5.5%
17
3
2
0
0
2
5
3
1
5/kg-day,
14
2
2
0
0
2
4
3
1
100.0%
16.6%
13.6%
0.9%
2.2%
14.0%
28.6%
16.1%
6.5%
as consumed)
100.0%
14.8%
12.3%
1.6%
2.3%
12.5%
29.5%
19.4%
5.9%
33
14
3
0
0
3
7
3
2

25
10
2
0
0
2
5
3
1
100.0%
42.8%
8.9%
0.3%
1.2%
9.6%
20.0%
10.6%
5.1%

100.0%
41.0%
7.3%
1.0%
1.4%
9.5%
19.4%
14.2%
4.5%
;s and sauces, vegetable oil, etc; does not include fats eaten as components of other foods such as meats.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96, 1998 CSFII.
                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
I
    ri
    1=
^o
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

16
ACTIVITY FACTORS 	
16.1
16.2



16.3















16.4



16.5







16.6
INTRODUCTION 	
RECOMMENDATIONS 	
16.2.1 Activity Patterns 	
16.2.2 Occupational Mobility 	
16.2.3 Population Mobility 	
ACTIVITY PATTERNS 	
16.3.1 KEY STUDIES 	
16.3.1.1 Wiley etal., 1991 	
16.3.1.2 U.S. EPA, 1996 	
16.3.2 RELEVANT STUDIES 	
16.3.2.1 Hill, 1985 	
16.3.2.2 Timmeretal., 1985 	
16.3.2.3 Robinson and Thomas, 1991 	
16.3.2.4 Funk etal., 1998 	
16.3.2.5 Hubal et al., 2000 	
16.3.2.6 Wong et al., 2000 	
16.3.2.7 Graham and McCurdy, 2004 	
16.3.2.8 Juster etal., 2004 	
16.3.2.9 Vanderwater et al., 2004 	
16.3.2.10 U.S. Department of Labor, 2007 	
16.3.2.11 Nader etal., 2008 	
OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY 	
16.4.1 KEY OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY STUDIES 	
16.4.1.1 Carey, 1988 	
16.4.1.2 Carey, 1990 	
POPULATION MOBILITY 	
16.5.1 KEY POPULATION MOBILITY STUDY 	
16.5.1.1 Johnson and Capel (1992) 	
16.5.1.2 U.S. Bureau of the Census (2008a) 	
16.5.2 RELEVANT POPULATION MOBILITY STUDIES 	
16.5.2.1 Israeli and Nelson (1992) 	
16.5.2.2 National Association of Realtors (NAR) (1993) 	
16.5.2.3 U.S. Bureau of the Census (2008b) 	
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 16 	
	 16-1
	 16-1
	 16-1
	 16-1
	 16-2
	 16-2
	 16-11
	 16-11
	 16-11
	 16-12
	 16-13
	 16-13
	 16-14
	 16-15
	 16-15
	 16-16
	 16-17
	 16-17
	 16-18
	 16-18
	 16-18
	 16-19
	 16-19
	 16-19
	 16-19
	 16-20
	 16-20
	 16-20
	 16-20
	 16-21
	 16-21
	 16-21
	 16-22
	 16-22
	 16-22
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                   Page
June 2009                                                                    16-i
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                      Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 16-1.     Recommended Values for Activity Patterns	16-3
Table 16-2.     Confidence in Recommendations for Activity Patterns	16-6
Table 16-3      Recommended Values for Occupational Mobility	16-7
Table 16-4      Confidence in Recommendations for Occupational Mobility	16-8
Table 16-5.     Recommended Values for Population Mobility	16-9
Table 16-6.     Confidence in Recommendations for Population Mobility	16-10
Table 16-7.     Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Ten Major Activity
               Categories, for All Respondents and Doers	16-25
Table 16-8.     Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Ten Major Activity
               Categories, by Age and Gender	16-26
Table 16-9.     Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Ten Major Activity
               Categories, Grouped by Seasons and Regions	16-27
Table 16-10.    Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Six Major Location
               Categories, for All Respondents and Doers	16-27
Table 16-11.    Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Six Location
               Categories, Grouped by Age and Gender	16-28
Table 16-12.    Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Six Location
               Categories, Grouped by Season and Region	16-29
Table 16-13.    Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Proximity to
               Two Potential Sources of Exposure, Grouped by All Respondents, Age, and Gender	16-29
Table 16-14.    Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent Indoors and
               Outdoors, Grouped by Age and Gender	16-30
Table 16-15.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined Whole
               Population and Doers Only, Children <21 Years	16-31
Table 16-16.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined,
               Doers Only	16-34
Table 16-17.    Time Spent (minutes/day) at Selected Indoor Locations Whole Population and Doers Only,
               Children <21 Years	16-42
Table 16-18.    Time Spent (minutes/day) at Selected Indoor Locations, Doers Only	16-43
Table 16-19.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations Whole Population and Doers
               Only, Children <21 Years	16-50
Table 16-20.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations, Doers Only	16-51
Table 16-21.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) Inside and Outside, by Age Category,  Children <21 Years.... 16-57
Table 16-22.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) Outside and Iside, Adults 18 Years and Older, Doers Only ... 16-57
Table 16-23.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined Whole
               Population and Doers Only, Children <21 Years	16-58
Table 16-24.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined, Doers Only	16-60
Table 16-25.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities Whole Population and Doers Only,
               Children <21 Years	16-64
Table 16-26.    Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only	16-67
Table 16-27.    Number of Showers Taken per Day, by Number of Respondents, Children <21 Years	16-78
Table 16-28.    Time Spent (minutes) Bathing, Showering, and in Bathroom Immediately after Bathing and
               Showering, Children <21 Years	16-79
Table 16-29.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) and Bathing/Showering, Adults 18 Years and Older,
               Doers Only	16-80
Table 16-30.    Number of Times Respondent Took Shower or Bathed, Doers Only	16-81
Table 16-31.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Bathing and Showering, Doers Only 	16-83
Table 16-32.    Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by the
               Number of Respondents,  Children <21  Years	16-84
Table 16-33.    Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by the
               Number of Respondents, Doers Only	16-85
Table 16-34.    Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of
               Respondents, Children <21 Years	16-86
Page
16-ii
Exposure Factors Handbook
                   June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                                    LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 16-35.    Time Spent (minutes/month) Swimming in Freshwater Swimming Pool, Children <21
               Years	16-86
Table 16-36.    Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of
               Respondents, Doers Only	16-87
Table 16-37.    Time spent (minutes/month) inFreshwater Swimming Pool, Doers Only	16-90
Table 16-38.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Playing on Dirt, Sand/Gravel, or Grass Whole Population and
               Doers only, Children <21 Years	16-91
Table 16-39.    Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Selected Outdoor Surfaces (minutes/day),
               Doers Only	16-92
Table 16-40.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air, Children
               <21 Years	16-95
Table 16-41.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air, Doers Only	16-96
Table 16-42.    Time Spent (minutes/day) with Smokers Present, Children <21 Years	16-97
Table 16-43.    Time Spent (minutes/day) with Smokers Present, Doers Only	16-98
Table 16-44.    Mean Time Spent (hours/week) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Regions	16-99
Table 16-45.    Total Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Type
               of Day	16-99
Table 16-46.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories During Four Waves of
               Interviews	16-100
Table 16-47.    Mean Time Spent (hours/week) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Gender	16-100
Table 16-48.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) Performing Major Activities, by Age, Sex and Type
               of Day	16-101
Table 16-49.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Major Activities, by Type of Day for Five Different
               Age Groups	16-102
Table 16-50.    Mean Time Spent (hours/day) Indoors and Outdoors, by Age and Day of the Week	16-103
Table 16-51.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age Groups for the
               National and California Surveys	16-104
Table 16-52.    Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Total
               Sample and Gender for the CARD and National Studies (age 18-64 years)	16-105
Table 16-53.    Total Mean Time Spent at Three Major Locations Grouped by Total Sample and  Gender
               for the CARB and National Study (ages 18-64 years)	16-105
Table 16-54.    Mean Time Spent at Three Locations for both CARB and National Studies (ages 12 years
               and older)	16-106
Table 16-55.    Gender and Age Groups	16-106
Table 16-56.    Assignment of At-Home Activities to Inhalation Rate Levels for All Individuals	16-107
Table 16-57.    Aggregate Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home in Activity Groups	16-108
Table 16-58.    Comparison of Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home, by Gender	16-108
Table 16-59.    Comparison of Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home, by Gender and Age for Children 16-109
Table 16-60.    Number of Person-Day s/Individuals for Children Less than 12 Years in CHAD Database	16-109
Table 16-61.    Time Spent (hours/day) in Various Microenvironments, by Age	16-110
Table 16-62.    Mean Time Children Spent (hours/day) Doing Various Macroactivities While Indoors
               at Home	16-110
Table 16-63.    Time Children Spent (hours/day) in Various Microenvironments, by Age Recast into New
               Standard Age Categories	16-111
Table 16-64.    Time Children Spent (hours/day) in Various Macroactivities While Indoors at Home
               Recast Into New Standard Age Categories	16-111
Table 16-65.    Number and Percentage of Respondents with Children and Those Reporting Outdoor Play
               Activities  in both Warm and Cold Weather	16-112
Table 16-66.    Play Frequency and Duration for all Child Players (from SCS-II data)	16-112
Table 16-67.    Hand Washing and Bathing Frequency for all Child Players (from SCS-II data)	16-112
Table 16-68.    NHAPS and SCS-II Play Duration Comparison (Children Only)	16-113
Table 16-69.    NHAPS and SCS-II Hand Wash Frequency Comparison (Children Only)	16-113
Table 16-70.    Time Spent (minutes/day) Outdoors Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)	16-114
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-iii
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                      Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                                    LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 16-71.     Comparison of Daily Time Spent Outdoors (minutes/day), Considering Gender and Age
                Cohort (Doers Only)	16-115
Table 16-72.     Time Spent (minutes/day) Indoors Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)	16-116
Table 16-73.     Time Spent (minutes/day) in Motor Vehicles Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)	16-117
Table 16-74.     Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Activity Categories, by Age - Weekday
                (Children Only)	16-118
Table 16-75.     Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Activity Categories, by Age - Weekend Day
                (Children Only)	16-119
Table 16-76.     Mean Time Spent (minutes/week) in Various Activity Categories for Children, Ages 6 to
                17 Years	16-120
Table 16-77.     Time Spent (minutes/two-day period) in Various Activities by Children Participating
                in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), 1997 Child Development Supplement
                (CDS)	16-121
Table 16-78.     Annual Average Time Spent (Hours/Day) on Various Activities According to Age, Race,
                Ethnicity, Marital Status, and Educational Level (ages 15 years and over)	16-122
Table 16-79.     Annual Average Time Use by the U.S. Civilian Population, Ages 15 Years and Older	16-123
Table 16-80.     Mean Time Use (hours/day) by Children, Ages 15 to 19 Years	16-124
Table 16-81.     Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity
                (Children Only)	16-125
Table 16-82.     Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals by Age and Sex	16-125
Table 16-83.     Occupational Tenure for Employed Individuals Grouped by Sex and Race	16-126
Table 16-84.     Occupational Tenure for Employed Individuals Grouped by Sex and Employment Status	16-126
Table 16-85.     Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals Grouped by  Major Occupational
                Groups and Age	16-126
Table 16-86.     Voluntary Occupational Mobility Rates for Workers Age 16 Years and Older	16-127
Table 16-87.     Descriptive Statistics for Residential Occupancy Period (years)	16-128
Table 16-88.     Descriptive Statistics for Both Genders by CurrentAge	16-129
Table 16-89.     Residence Time of Owner/Renter Occupied Units	16-130
Table 16-90.     Percent of Householders Living in Houses for Specified Ranges of Time, and Statistics
                for Years Lived in Current Home	16-130
Table 16-91.     Values and Their Standard Errors for Average Total Residence Time, T, for Each
                Group in Survey	16-131
Table 16-92.     Total Residence Time, t (years), Corresponding to Selected Values of R(t) by
                Housing Category	16-131
Table 16-93.     Summary of Residence Time of Recent Home Buyers (1993)	16-132
Table 16-94.     Tenure in Previous Home (Percentage Distribution)	16-132
Table 16-95.     Number of Miles Moved (Percentage Distribution)	16-132
Table 16-96.     General Mobility, by Race and Hispanic Origin, Region, Sex, Age, Educational
                Attainment, Marital Status, Nativity, Tenure, and Poverty Level: 2006 to 2007
                (Numbers in thousands)	16-133
Table 16-97.     Distance of Intercounty Move, by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin, Educational
                Attainment, Marital Status, Nativity, Tenure, Poverty Status, Reason for Move, and
                State of Residence 1 Year Ago: 2006 to 2007	16-135
Page
16-iv
Exposure Factors Handbook
                   June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
16      ACTIVITY FACTORS
16.1    INTRODUCTION
        Individual or group activities are important
determinants of potential  exposure, because toxic
chemicals introduced into the  environment may not
cause  harm to  an individual  until an activity is
performed that subjects the individual to contact with
those contaminants.  An activity or time spent in a
given  activity will  vary among individuals  on the
basis of, for  example, culture, ethnicity,  hobbies,
location, gender, age, socioeconomic characteristics,
and   personal   preferences.     However,  limited
information is available regarding ethnic, cultural and
socioeconomic  differences in individuals' choice of
activities or time spent in a given activity. Children
are of special concern because  certain activities and
behaviors specific to children place them at higher
risk  of exposure to  certain environmental  agents
(Chance and Harmsen, 1998).
        In calculating exposure, a person's average
daily dose  is  determined from  a combination of
variables  including  the   pollutant   concentration,
exposure duration, and frequency of  exposure (see
Chapter  1).   These variables  can be  dependent on
human activity patterns  and  time  spent at  each
activity and/or location.
        Time  activity  data are generally  obtained
using recall questionnaires and diaries to record the
person's activities  and  microenvironments.  Other
methods include the use of global positioning system
(GPS)  technology  to  provide  information   on
individuals'  locations (Phillips et al., 2001;  Elgethun
et al., 2003).
        Obtaining accurate information on time and
activities can be challenging. This is especially true
for children (Hubal et al., 2000). Children engage in
more contact activities than adults; therefore, a much
wider distribution of activities need to be considered
when  assessing children's exposure (Hubal et al.,
2000).   Other factors  that  may  affect  children's
activity patterns include:  social status, economics,
and the cultural practices of their families.
        This chapter summarizes  data on how much
time  individuals  spend  participating  in  various
activities in various  microenvironments and  on the
frequency of performing various. Information is also
provided on occupational  mobility and population
mobility. The data in this chapter cover a wide range
of activities and populations, arranged by age group
when such data are available.  One of the objectives
of  this  handbook  is  to  provide   recommended
exposure factor values using a  consistent set of age
groups.  In this chapter, several studies are used as
sources for activity pattern data. In some cases, the
source data could be retrieved and analyzed using the
standard age groupings recommended in Guidance
for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures
to Environmental Contaminants  (U.S. EPA, 2005).
In  other cases,  the original source data were not
available, and the  study results  are presented here
using  the same  age  groups as  the original  study,
whether or  not they conform to the  standard age
groupings.
        The recommendations  for  activity  factors
are  provided in  the  next section,  along with  a
summary  of  the  confidence   ratings   for  these
recommendations.   The  recommended  values are
based  on key studies identified by U.S. EPA for this
factor.  Following the recommendations,  key studies
on activity patterns are summarized.  Relevant data
on activity patterns are also presented to  provide the
reader with added perspective on the current state-of-
knowledge pertaining to activity patterns in  adults
and children.

16.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
16.2.1  ACTIVITY PATTERNS
        Assessors  are  commonly  interested  in
quantitative  information describing several types of
time use data for adults and children including: time
spent  indoors  and  outdoors;  time  spent  bathing,
showering, and swimming; and time spent playing on
various types of surfaces.   The recommended values
for these factors are summarized in Table  16-1.  Note
that, except  for  swimming, all activity  factors are
reported in  units  of  minutes/day.   Time  spent
swimming  is reported  in units  of  minutes/month.
These  data are based on two key studies presented in
this chapter:  a study of children's activity patterns in
California  (Wiley  et al.,  1991) and  the National
Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) (U.S. EPA,
1996).  Both mean and 95th percentile recommended
values  are   provided.    However,  because  these
recommendations are  based on short-term survey
data, 95th percentile values may be misleading for
estimating  chronic (i.e., long term) exposures  and
should be used with  caution.   Also,   the  upper
percentile values for some  activities are truncated as
a  result of the maximum  response included  in the
survey (e.g.,  durations of more than 120 minutes/day
were reported as  121 minutes/day), and could not be
further refined).    The  confidence ratings for the
recommendations are presented in Table 16-2.
        The recommendations for total  time spent
indoors and the total time spent outdoors are based on
U.S. EPA re-analysis of the source data from Wiley et
al.  (1991) for children < 1 year of age and U.S. EPA
(1996) for childhood age  groups > 1 year of age.
Although Wiley et al. (1991) is a study of California
children and the sample  size was  very small for
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                           Page
                                            16-1
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                        Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
infants,  it provides data for children's activities for
the younger age groups.  Data from U.S. EPA (1996)
are representative of the U.S. general population.  In
some cases,  however, the  time  spent  indoors  or
outdoors would be better addressed on a site-specific
basis since the times are likely to vary depending on
the  climate,  residential  setting  (i.e., rural versus
urban),  personal traits  (e.g.,  health  status) and
personal habits.  For  children > 1 year  of age, the
recommended values  for time spent indoors at a
residence, duration of showering  and bathing, time
spent swimming, and time  spent playing on sand,
gravel, grass or  dirt are based on a U.S.  EPA  re-
analysis of the source data from U.S. EPA (1996). For
adults 18 years and older, the recommended values
are taken directly from the source document (U.S.
EPA, 1996).

16.2.2   Occupational Mobility
      The   median  occupational tenure  of  the
working population (109.1  million people) ages  16
years of age and  older in January 1987 was 7.9 years
for men and 5.4 years for women  (Carey,  1988).
Since the  occupational tenure varies significantly
according  to  age and  gender,  the  recommended
values are given  by 5  year age groups separately for
males  and  females  in  Table  16-3.  Table  16-82
presents  occupational  tenure for males and females
combined.  Part-time  employment,  race  and  the
position held are  important to consider in determining
occupational  tenure.   These data are presented  in
Tables 16-83 through 16-86.  Table 16-3 also presents
recommendations for occupational mobility rate,  by
age.  This rate is the percentage of persons employed
in an occupation who had voluntarily entered it from
another  occupation.  The  overall percent was  5.3
(Carey,  1990). The ratings  indicating confidence in
the  occupational  mobility recommendations  are
presented in Table 16-4It should be  noted that the
recommended values are not for use in evaluating job
tenure.  These data can be used for determining time
spent in an occupation and not for time  spent at a
specific job site.

16.2.3   Population Mobility
        An assessment of population mobility can
assist in determining the length of time a household is
exposed  in a particular location.  For example, the
duration of exposure to site-specific  contamination,
such as  a polluted stream from which a family fishes
or contaminated  soil on which children  play  or
vegetables are grown, will be directly related  to the
period of time residents live near the contaminated
site.
      There  are two  key  studies from which the
population mobility recommendations were derived,
the U.S. Bureau of the Census American Housing
Survey, (U.S.  Bureau  of the  Census,  2008a)  and
Johnson and Capel, 1992. The U.S. Buraeu of Census
(2008a) provides data on current residence time and
Johnson and Capel (1992) provide data on residential
occupancy  period.   Table   16-5   presents   the
recommendations  for   population  mobility.   The
confidence ratings for these recommendations are
presented in Table 16-6.
      The 50th  and  90th  percentiles  for current
residence  time from the U.S. Bureau of the Census
(2008a) are 8 years and 32 years, respectively.  The
mean and 90th percentile for residential occupancy
period from Johnson and Capel (1992)  are 12 years
and 26 years, respectively.
Page
16-2
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                    June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Age Group


Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years

6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to<21 years
18 to <65 years
> 65 years


Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to <12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years

6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
18 to<65 years
> 65 years


Birth to  65 years


Birth to  1 8 years: U.S. EPA, 1 996. Total minutes per 24
hours (1,440) minus time outdoors, doers only. See Table
16-22

Time Outdoors (total)
minutes/day
Children, Birth to < 12 months: U.S. EPA analysis of source
data from Wiley etal, 1991. Average for boys and girls,
whole population. See Table 16-14.
Children, 1 to <21 years: U.S. EPA re-analysis of source
data from U.S. EPA, 1996, whole population. See Table 16-


Adults, > 18 years: U.S. EPA, 1996. Sum of minutes spent
outdoors away from the residence and minutes spent
outdoors at the residence. Doers only. See Table 16-22.

Time Indoors (at residence)
minutes/day
1,440
1,440
1,296 Children, Birth to <21 years: U.S. EPA re-analysis of source
1,355 data from U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table 16-15.
1,275
1,315 Adults > 18 years: U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table
1,288 16-16
1,428
1,440
Showering
minutes/day
-
-
44
, . U.S. EPA re-analysis of source data from
4l U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table 16-28.
40
45
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
 16-3
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Age Group


Birth to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years


18 to<65 years
>65 years


Birth to <1 year
1 to < 2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
18 to<65 years
>65 years


Birth to <1 year
1 to < 2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to<21 years
18 to< 64 years
> 65 years


Birth to <1 year
1 to < 2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
18 to<65 years
>65 years
Table 16-1.
Mean


19
23
23
24
24
25
33


17
17


96
105
116
137
151
139
145
45a
40a


18
43
53
60
67
67
83
Oa
Oa


52
68
62
79
73
75
60
60a
121a
Recommended Values for Activity Patterns (continued)
95th Percentile Source
Bathing
minutes/day
30
32
„ U.S. EPA re-analysis of source data from
., U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table 16-28.
46
43
60
Bathing/Showering
minutes/day
U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table 16-29.

Swimming
minutes/month
_
_

















181 Children, Birth to < 21 years: U.S. EPA re-analysis of source
181 data from U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table 16-35.
181
181 Adults, >18 years: U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only
181 16-37.
181
181
Playing on Sand/Gravel
minutes/day
_
121

See Table







121 Children, <21 years: U.S. EPA re-analysis of source data
121 from U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table 16-38.
121
121 Adults, >18 years: U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only
16-39.
121
-
Playing on Grass
minutes/day
-
121

See Table







121 Children, <21 years: U.S. EPA re-analysis of source data
121 from U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table 16-38.
121
121 Adults, >18 years: U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only
16-39.
121
-

See Tables



Page
16-4
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                          Table 16-1. Recommended Values for Activity Patterns (continued)
     Age Group            Mean          95th Percentile                           Source
                                                Playing on Dirt
                                                  minutes/day
 Birth to <1 year             33
 1 to < 2 years               56                 121
 2 to <3 years               47                 121        Children, <21 years: U.S. EPA re-analysis of source data
 3 to <6 years               63                 121        from U.S. EPA, 1996.  Doers only.  See Table 16-38.
 6to18 years: U.S. EPA, 1996. Doers only. See Table
 16 to <21 years             30                  -         16-39.
 18 to <65 years             Oa                 120
 >65 years                  Oa
        Percentiles were not calculated for sample sizes less than 10 or in cases where the mean was calculated by summing
        the means from multiple locations or activities.
 a      Median value, mean not available in U.S. EPA, 1996.
 Note:   All activities are reported in units of minutes/day, except swimming, which is reported in units of minutes/month.
        There are 1,440 minutes in a day. Time indoors and outdoors may not add up to 1,440 minutes due to activities that
        could not be classified as either indoors or outdoors.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                      Page
June 2009                                                                                            16-5
-------
                                                                              Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                               Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                            Table 16-2.  Confidence in Recommendations for Activity Patterns
 General Assessment Factors
                          Rationale
Rating
 Soundness
  Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or Defined) Bias
The survey methodologies and data analyses were adequate. For
the reanalysis of U.S. EPA (1996) study data, responses were
weighted; however, adult data were not reanalyzed.  The California
children's activity pattern survey design (Wiley et al, 1991) and
NHAPS (U.S. EPA, 1996) consisted of large overall sample sizes
that varied with age. Data were collected via questionnaires and
interviews.

Measurement or recording error may have occurred since the diaries
were based on 24 hour recall.  The sample sizes for some age
groups were small for some activity factors. The upper ends of the
distributions were truncated for some factors.  The data were based
on short-term data.
                                                                 High
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest

  Representativeness
  Currency
  Data Collection Period
The key studies focused on activities of children and adults.

U.S. EPA (1996) was a nationally representative survey of the U.S.
population and the reanalysis was weighted; the Wiley et al. (1991)
survey was conducted in California and it was not representative of
the U.S. population.

The Wiley et al. (1991) study was conducted between April 1989
and February 1990; the U.S. EPA (1996) study was conducted
between October 1992 and September 1994.

Data were collected for a 24-hour period.
                                                                Medium
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility
  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
The original studies are widely available to the public; U.S. EPA
analysis of the original raw data from U.S. EPA (1996) is available
upon request.

The methodologies were clearly presented; enough information was
included to reproduce the results.

Quality assurance methods were not well described in study reports.
                                                                Medium
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population
  Uncertainty
Variability was characterized across various age categories of
children and adults.

The studies were based on short term recall data, and the upper ends
of the distributions were truncated.
                                                                Medium
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review
  Number and Agreement of Studies
The original studies received a high level of peer review.  The re-
analysis of the U.S. EPA (1996) data to conform to the standardized
age categories was not peer-reviewed.

There were 2 key studies.
                                                                Medium
 Overall Rating
                                                              Medium for
                                                               the mean;
                                                             low for upper
                                                               percentile
Page
16-6
                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                              June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-3. Recommended Values for Occupational Mobility
Median Tenure Median Tenure
Age Group
All ages, >16 years
16-24 years
25-29 years
30-34 years
35-39 years
40-44 years
45-49 years
50-54 years
55-59 years
60-64 years
65-69 years
>70 years
Age Group
16-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
>64 years
Total, >16 years
a Occupational mobility
occupation..
(years) (years)
Men Women Source
7.9
2.0
4.6
7.6
10.4
13.8
17.5
20.0
21.9
23.9
26.9
30.5





Occupational Mobility
(percent)




rate =

12.7
6.6
4.0
1.9
1.0
0.3
5.3
5.4
1.9
4.1
6.0
7.0
80°0 Carey, 1988. See Table 16-82
10.8
12.4
14.5
15.6
18.8
Rate" „
Source


Carey, 1990. See Table 16-86

percentage of persons employed in an occupation who had voluntarily entered it from another


Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
 16-7
-------
                                                                              Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                              Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                         Table 16-4.  Confidence in Recommendations for Occupational Mobility
 General Assessment Factors
                       Rationale
Rating
 Soundness
  Adequacy of Approach
  Minimal (or Defined) Bias
Both studies are based on the U.S. Bureau of the Census'
Current Population Survey which uses valid methodologies
and approaches and is representative of the U.S. population
with sample sizes of approximately 50,000 a month. Both
studies are secondary analyses based on supplemental data to
the January, 1987, Current Population Survey (a U.S. Census
publication).

Much of the original study data is not available. Only median
values are reported.  There is minimal concern about sampling
and nonsampling  error and nonresponse bias as in all surveys
based on statistical samples.
                                                            Medium
 Applicability and Utility
  Exposure Factor of Interest

  Representativeness


  Currency




  Data Collection Period
Occupational tenure was the focus of both key studies.

The data are statistically representative of the U.S.
population.

The data were collected over 20 years ago in 1986 and 1987.
It is questionable whether the results would be the same if
current data was analyzed based on changes in the economy
that have occurred since the study was conducted.

Data were  collected in 1986-1987.
                                                            Medium
 Clarity and Completeness
  Accessibility
  Reproducibility
  Quality Assurance
The studies are widely available to the public. The Current
Population Survey January, 1987: Occupational Mobility and
Job Tenure data are available from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census.

Results can be reproduced and methodology can be followed
and evaluated.

Quality assurance methods were not well described.
                                                            Medium
 Variability and Uncertainty
  Variability in Population
  Uncertainty
The study provided averages according to gender, race, and
education; age averages and percentiles were provided.

The studies are based on recall data.
                                                              High
 Evaluation and Review
  Peer Review

  Number and Agreement of Studies
The studies received a high level of peer review.

There are two key studies based on the same data source.
                                                            Medium
 Overall Rating
                                                            Medium
Page
16-8
                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                             June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors



Residential Occupancy Period
Current Residence Time
Table
Mean
12yrs
13 yrs
16-5. Recommended Values for Population Mobility
50*
Percentile
9 yrs
8 yrs
90th
Percentile
26 yrs
32 yrs
95th
Percentile
33 yrs
46 yrs
99th
Percentile
47 yrs
62 yrs
Source
Johnson and Capel, 1992.
See Table 16-87.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008a
See Table 16-90.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
June 2009                                                                   16-9
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-6.
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or Defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Confidence in Recommendations for Population Mobility
Rationale
Both key studies are based on U.S. Bureau of the Census,
data which uses valid data collection methodologies and
approaches and is representative of the U.S. population.
Data do not account for each member of the household;
values are more realistic estimates for the individual's total
residence time than the average time a household has been
living at its current residence. The moving process was
modeled in Johnson and Capel (1992). For the mean and
percentile calculations of U.S. Bureau of the Census (2008a)
data, an even distribution was assumed within different
ranges which may bias the statistics.
The Census data provided length of time at current residence.
The other study used modeling to estimate total time.
The sample surveyed was statistically representative of the
U.S. population.
The data were collected in 2007 and 1985-1987, and reported
in 2008 and 1992, respectively.
Data were collected throughout the calendar year..
The studies are widely available to the public.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed
and evaluated.
Quality assurance is discussed in the documentation on the
U.S. Bureau of the Census studies.
The study provided data by age and gender. Variability across
several geographic regions was noted. Type of ownership was
also addressed.
The U.S. Bureau of the Census data was truncated at 65
years..
The studies received high levels of peer review and appear in
publications.
The two studies produced similar results.


Rating
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
Page
16-10
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
16.3    ACTIVITY PATTERNS
16.3.1   KEY STUDIES
16.3.1.1 Wiley  et  al,  1991  -  Study of Children's
        Activity Patterns
        The California Study of Children's Activity
Patterns  survey   (Wiley  et  al.,  1991)  provided
estimates  of  the  time children  spent  in various
activities and  locations  (microenvironments) on a
typical day.  The sample population consisted of 1,200
children, under  12 years  of age,  selected from
English-speaking  households  using Random Digit
Dial (ROD) methods.  This represented  a survey
response rate of 77.9 percent. One child was selected
from each  household.   If the selected child was 8
years old or less, the adult in the household who spent
the most time with the child responded.  However, if
the selected child  was between 9  and 11 years  old,
that child  responded.   The population was  also
stratified to provide representative estimates for major
regions of  the state.   The survey  questionnaire
included a time diary which provided information on
the children's activity and location patterns based on a
24-hour  recall  period.   In  addition,   the  survey
questionnaire   included  questions  about  potential
exposure to  sources  of indoor air pollution (e.g.,
presence of smokers) on the  diary day, and the socio-
demographic characteristics  of children  and adult
respondents.  The questionnaires and the time diaries
were administered via  a computer-assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI) technology (Wiley et al.,  1991).
The telephone  interviews  were   conducted during
April 1989 to February 1990  over four seasons: spring
(April  to June  1989), summer  (July to September
1989),  fall  (October to December  1989), and winter
(January to February 1990).
        The data obtained from the survey interviews
resulted in ten major activity categories, 113 detailed
activity codes, 6 major categories of locations, and 63
detailed location codes. The time  respondents under
12  years of  age spent in the 10 activity categories
(plus a "don't know" or non-coded activity category)
are presented in Table 6-7. For each of the 10 activity
categories,  this table presents the mean duration for
all survey participants, the percentage of respondents
who reported participating in the activity (i.e., percent
doers), and the  mean, median, and maximum duration
for only those survey respondents who engaged in the
activity (i.e., doers).   It also includes  the  detailed
activity with the highest mean duration  of time  for
each activity category.  The activity category with the
highest time expenditure was personal needs and care,
with a  mean of 794 minutes/day (13.2  hours/day).
Night  sleep  was the detailed activity that  had  the
highest mean duration  in that activity category.  The
activity category "don't know" had a mean duration of
about  2 minutes/day and only 4  percent of the
respondents reported missing activity time.
        Table 16-8 presents the mean time spent in
the 10 activity categories by age and gender. Because
the original source data were available, U.S. EPA re-
analyzed the  data according to the standardized age
categories  used  in this  handbook.    Differences
between activity patterns in boys and girls tended to
be small. Table 16-9 presents the mean time spent in
the 10  activity categories grouped by  season and
geographic region in the state of California.  There
were seasonal differences for 5 activity  categories:
personal     needs     and     care,     education,
entertainment/social,        recreation,         and
communication/passive  leisure.  Time  expenditure
differences in various  regions  of  the   state  were
minimal for childcare, work-related, goods/services,
personal     needs     and     care,     education,
entertainment/social, and recreation.
        Table 16-10 presents  the distribution of time
across  six  location categories.  The mean duration
for all survey participants,  the percent of respondents
engaging in  the  activity  (i.e., percent  doers); the
mean,  median, and maximum duration for doers
only;  and  the detailed  locations with  the  highest
average time  expenditure are  shown. For all survey
respondents,  the largest  mean amount of time spent
was at home (1,078  minutes/day); 99  percent of
respondents  spent  time at home  (mean of 1,086
minutes/day for these individuals only).   Tables 16-
11 and 16-12 show the average time spent in the six
locations grouped by age and gender, and season and
region,  respectively.  Again,  because the original
source data were available, the age categories used
by Wiley et al. (1991) have been replaced in Table
16-11 by the  standardized  age categories used in this
handbook.  There were relatively large  differences
among  the age  groups  in  time   expenditure for
educational settings (Table 16-11). There were small
differences in time expenditure at the six locations
by region, but time spent in school  decreased in the
summer months compared to other seasons (Table
16-12).
        Table  16-13   shows  the  average  time
children spent in proximity to gasoline  fumes and
gas oven fumes.   In general, the sampled children
spent more time closer to gasoline fumes  than to gas
oven fumes.  The age categories in Table  16-13 have
been  modified  to conform  to  the  standardized
categories used in this handbook.
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                          Page
                                          16-11
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                         Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
        The U.S.  EPA  estimated  the total  time
indoors and outdoors using the data from the Wiley et
al. (1991) study.  Activities performed indoors were
assumed to  include  household  work,  child  care,
personal    needs   and    care,   education,    and
communication/passive leisure.  The average times
spent in these indoor activities and half the time spent
in each activity which could have  occurred either
indoors    or    outdoors    (i.e.,    work-related,
goods/services,       organizational        activities,
entertainment/social,  don't  know/not  coded)  were
summed.  Table 16-14 summarizes the results of this
analysis using the standard age groups.
        A limitation of this study is that the sampling
population was restricted to only English-speaking
households; therefore,  the   data  obtained do  not
represent  the  diverse  population  group present in
California.  Another limitation is that time use values
obtained from this  survey were based on short-term
recall (24-hr)  data; therefore, the  data  set obtained
may be biased. Other limitations are: the survey was
conducted in California and  is not representative of
the national population, and the significance of the
observed differences in the data obtained (i.e., gender,
age, seasons, and regions) were not tested statistically.
An advantage of this study is that time expenditure in
various activities and  locations were presented for
children grouped by age, gender, and season.  Also,
potential exposures of respondents to pollutants were
explored in the survey. Another advantage  is the use
of the CATI program in obtaining time diaries, which
allows automatic coding of  activities and locations
onto a computer tape, and allows activities forgotten
by respondents to be inserted into their appropriate
position during interviewing.

16.3.1.2 U.S. EPA, 1996 - National Human Activity
        Pattern Survey (NHAPS)
        U.S. EPA (1996) analyzed data collected by
the  National  Human  Activity   Pattern  Survey
(NHAPS).  This survey was conducted by U.S. EPA
and  is the largest and most current human activity
pattern survey available (U.S. EPA, 1996).  Data for
9,386 respondents in the 48 contiguous United States
were collected via minute-by-minute  24-hour diaries.
NHAPS was conducted from October 1992 through
September  1994 by  the  University  of Maryland's
Survey Research Center using CATI technology to
collect 24-hour retrospective diaries and answers to a
number of personal and exposure related  questions
from each respondent. Detailed data were collected
for a maximum of 82 different possible locations, and
a maximum of 91  different  activities.   Participants
were selected using a ROD  method. The response
rate was 63 percent, overall.  If the chosen respondent
was  a child too young to interview, an adult in the
household gave a proxy interview.  Each participant
was  asked to recount their entire daily routine from
midnight to midnight immediately previous  to the
day  that  they  were  interviewed.    The  survey
collected information on duration and frequency of
selected activities and of the time spent in selected
microenvironments.    In  addition,  demographic
information was  collected for each  respondent to
allow for  statistical summaries  to  be generated
according  to  specific  subgroups   of  the  U.S.
population  (i.e.,  by gender,  age, race, employment
status,  census region,  season, etc.).  Saturdays and
Sundays were over sampled  to ensure an adequate
weekend sample.
        For children, the source data from U.S. EPA
have been reviewed and re-analyzed by U.S. EPA to
conform  to  the  age categories  recommended in
Guidance for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposures  to Environmental Contaminants  (U.S.
EPA, 2005).  This analysis was weighted according
to geographic,  socioeconomic, time/season,  and
other demographic factors to ensure that results were
representative of the  U.S. population.  The weighted
sample matched the 1990 U.S. census  population for
each gender,  age group, census region, and the day-
of-week  and seasonal  responses  were  equally
distributed.
        Tables 16-15  through 16-44 provide data
from the NHAPS study.  Because   no data were
available on subjects' age in months, age groups less
than 1 year old were  consolidated  into  a  single
group.   These tables provide statistics for 24-hour
cumulative time spent (mean, minimum, percentiles,
and  maximum) in selected locations or engaging in
selected activities.  The original analysis generated
statistics for the subset of the survey population that
reported being in the location or doing the activity in
questions  (i.e.,  doers  only). For  the reanalysis,
statistics  were calculated for the   entire  survey
population  (i.e.,  whole population)  and for doers
only. When the sample size was 10 persons or fewer,
percentile values were not calculated.  Also note that
some of  these  activities  were  not  necessarily
mutually exclusive (e.g. time spent in active sports
likely overlaps with exercise time).
        Data is presented for the time  children, aged
birth to less than 21 years, spent in various locations
and doing various activities. Each children only table
is followed by  a table  for  the whole population
which  presents data for sub-populations  (i.e.,  by
gender, age, race, ethnicity, employment, education,
Census  region, day  of the  week,  season,  asthma
status,   and   bronchitis/emphysema  status)  and
includes the  time adults, aged 18  years and older,
Page
16-12
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                    June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
spent in various locations and doing various activities.
Tables 16-15 and 16-16 present data for time spent in
rooms of the house (e.g., kitchen, bathroom, bedroom,
and garage), and all rooms combined, for children and
by demographic characteristics (including adulthood)
respectively. Tables 16-17 and 16-18 present data for
time spent in other indoor locations (e.g., restaurants,
indoors at  school, and  grocery/convenience stores).
Tables 16-19 and 16-20 present data for  the  time
survey  participants   spent  outdoors  on  school
grounds/playgrounds, parks or golf courses, or pool
rivers, or lakes.
        Table 16-21 provides  data on time  spent in
indoor and outdoor environments for children birth to
<21 years of age.  The  U.S. EPA estimated the time
spent indoors  by adding  the average  times  spent
indoors at the  respondents'  home (kitchen, living
room, bathroom, etc.),  at other houses, and inside
other locations such as school,  restaurants, etc.  Time
outdoors was estimated  by adding the average  time
spent outdoors  at the respondents' pool and yard,
others' pool and yard, and outside other locations such
as sidewalk, street, neighborhood, parking lot, service
station/gas station, school grounds, park/golf course,
pool, river, lake, farm, etc.  Table 16-22 provides data
on time spent in outdoor and indoor environments for
adults  aged 18  years and  older.  The average  time
spent outdoors was estimated by summing the average
time spent outdoors away from the residence and the
average time spent outdoors at the residence. Note
that these averages are for doers only  and thus over-
estimate the total time spent in the environments for
the population.
        Tables  16-23  and  16-24 present data for the
time spent in various types of vehicles  (i.e., car,
truck/van, bus), and in all vehicles combined.  Tables
16-25 and 16-26 present data for the time children and
adults spent in various major activity categories (i.e.,
sleeping, napping, eating,  attending school, outdoor
recreation, active sports, exercise, and walking).
        Tables   16-27 through 16-31 provide  data
related   to  showering  and   bathing.  Data  on
handwashing activities are in Tables 16-32 and 16-33.
Tables 16-34 and 16-35  provide data for children on
monthly swimming (in a freshwater pool) frequency
by  the  number  of  respondents  and  swimming
duration,  respectively.   Tables  16-36  and 16-37
provide   data    by   demographic   characteristics
(including adulthood) on  monthly swimming (in  a
freshwater   pool)  frequency  by  the  number  of
respondents  and swimming  duration,  respectively.
Table 16-38 provides data on the time children spent
playing on dirt,  sand/gravel, or grass, and Table 16-39
displays  these  data by  demographic  characteristics
(including  adulthood).  Tables  16-40  and 16-41
provide data on the number of minutes spent near
excessive  dust.   Tables  16-42 and  16-43  provide
information  on time  spent   in  the presence  of
smokers. For this data set, the authors' original age
categories  for children  were used because  the
methodology used to generate these  data could not
be reproduced.
        The advantages of the NHAPS data set are
that it  is representative of the  U.S. population. The
reanalysis  done  by  EPA to get  estimates  for
childhood  age  groups  that  correspond  to  the
Guidance for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposures  to Environmental  Contaminants  (U.S.
EPA,  2005)  was  weighted and thus the  results
presented  are balanced geographically,  seasonally,
and for day/time.  Also, the NHAPS  is inclusive of
all ages, genders, and races.  A disadvantage of the
study  is that  for the standard age categories, the
number of respondents is small  for the "doers" of
many activities.  In addition, the durations exceeding
60, 120, and 181 minutes were  not collected for
some activities.  Therefore, the actual time  spent at
the high end of the distribution for these activities
could not be accurately estimated.

16.3.2   RELEVANT STUDIES
16.3.2.1 Hill, 1985 - Patterns of Time Use
        Hill (1985) investigated the total amount of
time American adults spend in one year performing
various activities and the variation in time use across
three     different    dimensions:    demographic
characteristics,  geographical  location, and seasonal
characteristics.   In this  study, time estimates were
based on  data collected from time diaries in four
waves  (1 per season) of a survey conducted in the
fall of 1975 through the fall of 1976 for the  1975-
1976 Time Allocation Study.  The sampling periods
included two weekdays,  one Saturday and  one
Sunday. The information gathered were responses to
the survey question "What were you doing?"  The
survey  also  provided information  on secondary
activities  (i.e.,  respondents performing  more  than
one activity at the same time).  Hill (1985) analyzed
time estimates for 10 broad categories of activities
based on  data collected from  87 activities.  These
estimates  included seasonal variation in time  use
patterns and comparisons of  time use patterns for
different days of the week.
        Analysis  of  the  1975-76   survey  data
revealed very small regional differences in time use
among the broad activity patterns (Hill, 1985).  The
weighted mean hours per week spent performing the
10 major activity categories presented by region are
shown in Table 16-44. Table 16-45 presents the time
spent per  day, by the day of  the week for the  10
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                          Page
                                         16-13
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                         Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
major  activity  categories.  Adult  time  use  was
dominated  in descending  order by personal  care
(including sleep), market work,  passive leisure, and
house work.   Collectively, these activities represent
about 80 percent of available time (Hill, 1985).
        According to Hill (1985), sleep (included in
personal care) was the single most dominant activity
averaging about 56.3  hours per week.   Television
watching (included in passive leisure) averaged about
21.8 hours   per week,  and  housework activities
averaged about 14.7 hours per week.  Weekdays were
predominantly  market-work oriented.    Weekends
(Saturday and Sunday) were predominantly  devoted
to household  tasks ("sleeping in,"  socializing, and
active leisure) (Hill, 1985).  Table 16-46 presents the
mean time  spent  performing these 10  groups  of
activities during each wave of interview (fall, winter,
spring, and summer).  Adjustments were made to the
data to  assure  equal distributions of  weekdays,
Saturdays,  and  Sundays  (Hill,   1985).   The  data
indicates that the time periods adults spent performing
market  work, child  care,  shopping, organizational
activities,  and active leisure  were fairly constant
throughout the year (Hill,  1985).   The mean hours
spent per week  in performing the 10 major activity
patterns are  presented by  gender  in  Table  16-47.
These data indicate that time use patterns determined
by  data collected  for the  mid-1970's survey  show
gender differences. Men spent more time on activities
related  to labor market work  and education, and
women spent more time on household work activities.
        A limitation associated with this study is that
the time data were  obtained from an  old  survey
conducted in the mid-1970s.  Because of fairly  rapid
changes in American society, applying these  data to
current  exposure assessments may  result in  some
biases.   Another limitation is that time use data were
not presented for children.  An advantage of this  study
is that time diaries were kept and data were not based
on recall.  The former approach may result in a  more
accurate data set. Another advantage of this study is
that the survey  is  seasonally balanced since it was
conducted throughout the year and the data are from a
large survey sample.

16.3.2.2 Timmer et al, 1985  -  How Children Use
        Time
        Timmer et al. (1985) conducted a study using
the data obtained on children's time use from a 1981-
1982  panel   study.    Data  were obtained for 389
children between 3  and 17 years of  age.   Data  were
collected using  a  time  diary   and a  standardized
interview. The time diary involved children reporting
their activities beginning at 12:00 a.m. the previous
night, the duration and location  of each activity, the
presence of another individual, and  whether they
were performing  other activities at the same time.
The standardized  interview was administered to the
children  to   gather   information   about   their
psychological,    intellectual    (using    reading
comprehension tests),  and emotional  well-being;
their hopes and goals; their family environment; and
their attitudes and beliefs.
        For  preschool  children,  parents  provided
information  about  the   child's  previous  day's
activities.   Children in first through  third grades
completed  the   time  diary  with  their  parents
assistance and, in addition, completed reading tests.
Children in fourth grade and above  provided their
own diary  information  and  participated  in  the
interview.   Parents were  asked  to  assess  their
children's     socioemotional   and     intellectual
development,  and a survey form was  sent  to  a
teacher of each school-age child to evaluate their
socioemotional and intellectual development.  The
activity descriptor codes used  in  this  study were
developed by Juster et al. (1983).
        The  mean time  spent performing  major
activities on weekdays and weekends by  age, sex,
and type of day  is presented in Table  16-48.  On
weekdays, children spend about 40 percent of their
time sleeping, 20 percent in school, and 10 percent
eating,  and  performing  personal  care  activities
(Timmer et al., 1985).   The data in  Table  16-48
indicate  that  girls  spent  more  time  than boys
performing  household  work   and  personal  care
activities and  less time playing sports.  Also, the
children spent most of  their free time  watching
television.
        Table 16-49 presents the meantime children
spent during weekdays and weekends performing
major activities by five different age groups.  The
significant effects of each variable (i.e., age and sex)
are also shown.  Older  children spent more time
performing household and market work,  studying,
and  watching television  and  less  time  eating,
sleeping, and playing. The authors estimated that, on
average, boys spent 19.4  hours a week  and girls
spent 17.8 hours per week watching television.
        U.S. EPA estimated the total time indoors
and outdoors using the Timmer et al.  (1985) data.
Activities  performed  indoors  were  assumed  to
include household work,   personal  care,  eating,
sleeping,  attending  school,  studying,   attending
church,  watching  television,  and   engaging  in
household conversations.  The average times spent in
these indoor activities and half the time spent in each
activity which could  have occurred  indoors  or
outdoors (e.g., market  work,  sports,  hobbies, art
activities, playing, reading, and other passive leisure)
Page
16-14
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                    June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
were summed. Table 16-50 summarizes the results of
this analysis by age group and day of the week.
        A limitation associated with this study is that
it was conducted in 1981.   It is likely  that activity
patterns of children have changed from 1981 to  the
present. Thus, the application of these data to current
exposure assessments may bias their results. Another
limitation is  that the  data  do not provide overall
annual estimates  of children's time  use since data
were collected only  during the  time of the year when
children  attended school  and not  during  school
vacations.  An advantage of this survey  is that diary
recordings of activity patterns were kept and the data
obtained were not based entirely on recall.  Another
advantage is  that because  parents assisted younger
children   with keeping  their  diaries  and  with
interviews, any bias that may  have been created by
having younger children record their data should have
been minimized.

16.3.2.3 Robinson and Thomas, 1991 - Time Spent
        in     Activities,      Locations,      and
        Microenvironments: A California-National
        Comparison
        Robinson and Thomas (1991) reviewed and
compared  data  from  the   1987-88  California  Air
Resources  Board (CARB)  time-activity  study  for
California residents and from a similar 1985 national
study,  Americans' Use of Time,  conducted  at  the
University of Maryland. Both studies used the diary
approach to collect data.   Time-  use patterns were
collected for individuals aged 12 years and older.
Telephone interviews  based on the ROD  procedure
were conducted for 1,762 and 2,762  respondents for
the CARB study and the national study,  respectively.
Robinson and Thomas  (1991)  defined  a  set of  16
microenvironments based on the activity and location
codes  employed  in the two  studies.    The mean
durations of time  spent in the  16 microenvironments
by age, are presented in Table 16-51.  In both studies,
children and  adults  spent the majority  of their time
sleeping, and engaging in leisure and  work/study-
related activities.
        Table 16-52 shows the mean time spent in
the  10  major activities  by  gender  and  for  all
respondents between the ages  of 18-64  years. Table
16-53  presents the  mean  time spent  at  3  major
locations for  the CARB and national study grouped
by total sample  and gender, ages 18-64 years. The
mean duration of time spent  in locations  for total
sample population,  12 years and older,  across three
types of locations is presented in Table 16-54 for both
studies.
        The limitations associated with the Robinson
and Thomas (1991)  study are that the CARB  survey
was  performed in  California only  and may  not be
representative of the U.S. population as a whole, and
the studies were conducted in the 1980s and activity
patterns may  have changed over time.  Another
limitation  is that the data are based on short-term
studies. Finally, the available data could not be re-
analyzed  to   conform  to   the  standardized  age
categories used in this handbook.

16.3.2.4 Funk  et  al.,  1998 -  Quantifying the
        Distribution  of Inhalation Exposure  in
        Human Populations: Distribution of Time
        Spent by Adults, Adolescents, and Children
        at Home, at Work, and at School
        Funk  et al. (1998) used the data from the
CARB study to determine distributions of exposure
time by tracking the time spent participating in daily
activities for male and female children, adolescents,
and adults. CARB performed two studies from 1987
to 1990; the first was focused on adults (18 years and
older)  and adolescents (12-17 years old), and the
second focused on children  (6-11 years old).  The
targeted groups were  noninstitutionalized  English
speaking  Californians  with telephones  in their
residences. Individuals were contacted by telephone
and  asked to account for every minute within the
previous  24 hours, including the  amount of time
spent on an activity and the  location of the activity.
The  surveys were conducted  on different days of the
week as well as different seasons of the year.
        Using the location descriptors provided  in
the CARB study, Funk et al.  (1998) categorized the
activities into two groups, "at home" (any activity at
principal residence) and "away." Each activity was
assigned to one of three inhalation rate levels (low,
moderate,  or high) based on the level of exertion
expected from the activity.   Ambiguous activities
were assigned  to  moderate  inhalation rate  levels.
Among the adolescents and children studied, means
were determined for  the  aggregate age  groups.
Sample sizes are shown in Table 16-55.
        Funk  et al. (1998)  used several statistical
methods, such as Chi-square, Kolmogorov-Smirnov,
and  Anderson-Darling,  to  determine whether the
time spent  in an  activity   group  had  a  known
distribution.  Most of the activities performed by all
individuals  were  assigned   a  low  or moderate
inhalation rate (Table 16-56).
        The aggregate time periods spent at home in
each activity  are shown in Table 16-57. Aggregate
time spent at  home performing different activities
was  compared between genders.  There were no
significant differences between adolescent males and
females in any of the activity groups (Table  16-58).
There  were  significant  differences  between males
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                          Page
                                         16-15
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                        Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
and females among adults in all activity groups except
for the low activity group (Table 16-58). In children,
ages 6-11 years, differences between gender and age
were observed at the low inhalation rate levels. There
were significant differences  (p<0.05) between two age
groups (6-8 years, and 9-11 years) and gender at the
moderate inhalation rate level (Table  16-59).
        A limitation  of this  study  was that large
proportions of the respondents  in the study did not
participate in high-inhalation rate-level activities. The
Funk et al. (1998) study was based on data from one
geographic location, collected more that a decade ago.
Thus, it may not be representative of current activities
among the general population of the U.S.

16.3.2.5 Hubal et al,  2000 - Children's Exposure
        Assessment:   A   Review  of  Factors
        Influencing Children's Exposure and the
        Date Available to  Characterize and Assess
        that Exposure
        Hubal et al. (2000) reviewed available data
from  the Consolidated  Human  Activity Database
(CHAD),   including   activity   pattern   data,   to
characterize and assess environmental exposures to
children.  CHAD was  developed  by the U.S. EPA's
National Exposure Research Laboratory  (NERL) to
provide access to existing human activity pattern data
for use in exposure  and risk assessment efforts. It is
available  online  at  http://www.epa.gov/chadnetl/.
Data from twelve activity pattern studies conducted at
the city, state,  and national levels  are  included in
CHAD.  CHAD contains both the original raw data
from  each  study  and  data   modified  based on
predefined format requirements. Modifications made
to data included: receding of variables to fit into them
a  common  activity/location   code  system,  and
standardization of time diaries  to an exact 24-hour
length.  Detailed information on  the coding  system
and the studies included in  CHAD is available in the
CHAD      User     Manual,      available      at
http://oaspub.epa.gov/chad/CHAD  DatafilesS.startup
#Manual and in McCurdy et al. (2000).
        A total of 144 activity codes and 115 location
codes were used in CHAD (McCurdy et al.,  2000).
Although some  participants in a study  conducted
multiple   activities,   many activities   were   only
conducted within a few studies.  The same is true for
activity  locations.    The   selection of  exposure
estimates for a particular activity or particular location
should be based on  study parameters that closely
relate to the exposure scenario being assessed.  The
maximum  amount  of time,  on  average, within  a
majority of the studies was sleeping or taking a nap,
while the  maximum  amount  of time  spent  at  a
particular location was at home or at work, depending
on the study.
        Many of the limitations of CHAD data arise
from the incorporation of multiple studies  into the
time diary functions  specified in CHAD.  Activities
and  locations were coded similarly to the  NHAPS
study; studies with differing coding systems were
modified to fit the NHAPS codes.  In some cases
start times and end  times from a study had to be
adjusted to fit a 24-hour period.  Respondents were
not randomly distributed in CHAD.   For example,
some cities or states were  over sampled  because
entire studies were carried out in those places. Other
studies  excluded  large groups of people  such  as
smokers, or non-English speakers, or people without
telephones.  Many surveys  were age-restricted,  or
they preferentially  sampled certain target groups. As
a result, users are cautioned against using random
individuals  in  CHAD   to   represent the U.S.
population as a whole (Glenn et al., 2000).
        CHAD  contains  3,009  person-days   of
macroactivity data for 2,640 children less  than  12
years of age (Hubal et al., 2000) (Table 16-60). The
number of hours  these children spent in various
microenvironments are shown in Table  16-61 and the
time they spent in various activities indoors  at home
is shown in Table 16-62.
        Hubal  et al.  (2000)  noted  that   CHAD
contains approximately "140 activity codes  and 110
location codes,  but  the  data  generally   are  not
available for all  activity  locations for any single
respondent.  In fact,  not all of the codes were used
for most of the studies.  Even though many codes are
used in macroactivity studies,  many of the activity
codes do not adequately capture the richness of what
children actually do.  They are much too  broadly
defined and ignore many child-oriented behaviors.
Thus, there is a need for more and better-focused
research into children's activities."
        U.S. EPA updated the analysis performed
by Hubal et al. (2000) using CHAD data downloaded
in  2000,   sorted  according  to  the   age   groups
recommended in  Guidance  for Monitoring and
Assessing Childhood Exposures  to Environmental
Contaminants (U.S.  EPA, 2005).  The results  are
shown in Tables 16-63 and 16-64. In this analysis,
individual study participants within CHAD whose
behavior patterns were measured over  multiple days
were treated  as multiple one-day activity  patterns.
This is a potential source of error or bias in the
results because a  single  individual may contribute
multiple data sets to  the aggregate population being
studied.
Page
16-16
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                    June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
16.3.2.6 Wong et al, 2000 - Adult Proxy Responses
        to a  Survey  of Children's Dermal  Soil
        Contact A ctivities
        Wong  et al.  (2000)  conducted  telephone
surveys to gather information  on children's activity
patterns as related to dermal contact with soil during
outdoor play on  bare dirt or  mixed grass and dirt
surfaces.  This study, the second Soil Contact Survey
(SCS-II), was a follow-up to the initial Soil Contact
Survey  (SCS-I), conducted in 1996, that primarily
focused on assessing adult behavior related to dermal
contact with soil and dust  (Garlock et al., 1999).  As
part  of SCS-I,  information was  gathered on  the
behavior  of children under the  age of  18  years,
however,  the  questions  were  limited  to  clothing
choices and the length of time between soil contact
and hand washing. Questions were posed for SCS-II
to further define children's  outdoor activities and hand
washing and bathing frequency. For both soil contact
surveys households were randomly phoned in order to
obtain nationally  representative results.  The adult
respondents were questioned as  surrogates for one
randomly  chosen  child under the age of 18 residing
within the household.
        In the SCS-II, of 680 total adult respondents
with a child in their household, 500 (73.5 percent)
reported that their child played outdoors on bare dirt
or mixed  grass  and  dirt  surfaces (identified  as
"players").  Those children that reportedly did  not
play  outdoors ("non-players") were typically very
young (<1 year) or relatively older (>14 years).  Of
the 500 children that played  outdoors, 497 played
outdoors in warm weather months (April through
October)  and  390 were  reported  to play  outdoors
during cold  weather  months (November through
March).  These results  are presented in Table 16-65.
The frequency (days/week), duration (hours/day), and
total hours per  week  spent playing outdoors  was
determined for those children identified as "players"
(Table 16-66).  The responses indicated that children
spent a relatively high percentage of time  outdoors
during the warmer months, and  a lesser amount of
time  outdoors in cold weather.   The  median play
frequency reported was 7 days/week in warm weather
and  3 days/week in cold weather.  Median play
duration was 3 hours/day  in warm weather  and 1
hour/day during cold weather months.
        Adult respondents were then questioned as to
how  many times  per day  their child washed his/her
hands  and how  many  times  the  child bathed  or
showered  per week,  during both  warm and cold
weather  months.    This  information  provided   an
estimate of the time between skin contact with soil
and removal of soil by washing (i.e., exposure time).
Hand washing and  bathing  frequencies  for  child
players are reported in Table 16-67.  Based on these
results, hand washing occurred a median of 4 times
per day during both warm and cold weather months.
The median frequency for  baths and  showers was
estimated to be 7 times per week for both warm and
cold weather.
        Based on  reported  household incomes, the
respondents sampled in SCS-II tended to have higher
incomes than that  of the general population.   This
may be explained by the fact  that phone  surveys
cannot  sample  households  without  telephones.
Additional  uncertainty or error  in the study  results
may have occurred as a result of the use of surrogate
respondents.   Adult respondents were  questioned
regarding child activities that may have occurred  in
prior seasons, introducing the chance of recall error.
In some instances,  a respondent did not know the
answer to a question or refused to answer.  Table 16-
68 compares mean play duration data from SCS-II to
similar activities identified  in NHAPS (U.S. EPA,
1996). Table 16-69 compares the number of times
per day a child washed his or her hands, based on
data from  SCS-II  and NHAPS.  As indicated  in
Tables  16-68  and  16-69,   where  comparison  is
possible,  NHAPS   and  SCS-II results   showed
similarities in observed behaviors.

16.3.2.7 Graham and McCurdy, 2004 - Developing
        Meaningful Cohorts for Human Exposure
        Models
        Graham  and  McCurdy (2004)  used  a
statistical model  [general linear model and analysis
of   variance  (GLM/ANOVA)]  to   assess  the
significance  of  various  factors  in  explaining
variation in time  spent  outdoors, indoors and  in
motor vehicles. These factors, which are commonly
used in developing cohorts  for  exposure modeling,
included age, gender, weather,  ethnicity, day type,
and precipitation.  Activity pattern data from CHAD,
containing 30 or more records per day, were used in
the analysis (Graham and McCurdy, 2004).
        Data on time spent  outdoors for people who
spent >0 time outdoors (i.e., doers) are presented  in
Table 16-70.   Graham and  McCurdy (2004) found
that all  the  factors  evaluated  were  significant
(p<0.001) in explaining  differences in time  spent
outdoors  (Graham  and  McCurdy,  2004).   An
evaluation  of gender  differences  in  time  spent
outdoors by age cohorts was also conducted.  Table
16-71 presents descriptive statistics and the results  of
the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov  (KS) test for
this evaluation. As shown in Table 16-71, there were
statistically significant gender  differences in  time
spent outdoors starting with the 6 to  10 year old age
category and continuing through all  age groups, up
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                          Page
                                         16-17
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                        Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
to and  including >64 years of age.  In addition,
Graham and McCurdy (2004) evaluated the effect of
physical activity and concluded that this was the most
important factor in explaining time spent outdoors.
For time  spent indoors  (Table  16-72), there were
statistically  significant  effects  for all  the  factors
evaluated, with gender, weather,  and day  type being
the most important variables. Regarding time spent in
motor vehicles (Table 16-73), precipitation was  the
only factor found  to have  no  significant effects
(Graham and McCurdy, 2004).
        Based on  the  results  of these analyses,
Graham and McCurdy (2004) noted that "besides age
and gender, other important attributes for defining
cohorts are the physical  activity level of individuals,
weather factors such as  daily maximum temperature
in  combination  with months  of the  year,  and
combined   weekday/weekend   with  employment
status."  The authors also noted that even though the
factors  evaluated  were  found  to be  statistically
significant  in  explaining differences in time  spent
outdoors, indoors, and in motor vehicles, "parameters
such as  lifestyle and life stages that are absent from
CHAD   might  have   reduced  the  amount  of
unexplained variance."   The authors recommended
that, in defining cohorts for exposure modeling, age
and gender should be used as "first-order" attributes,
followed by physical  activity level, daily maximum
temperature, and day type (weekend/weekday or day-
of-the-week/working status)  (Graham and McCurdy,
2004).

16.3.2.8 Juster et al, 2004 - Changing Times of
        American Youth: 1983-2003
        Juster et al. (2004) evaluated changes in time
use patterns of children by  comparing data collected
in a 1981-1982 pilot study of children ages 6 to 17 to
data  from  the  2002-2003  Child  Development
Supplement (CDS)  to the  Panel Study  of  Income
Dynamics (PSID). The  1981-1982 pilot study is the
same study described in Timmer et al.  (1985).  The
2002-2003  CDS gathered 24-hour time diary  data on
2,908 children ages 6 to  17; as was done in the 1997
CDS, information was  collected on one  randomly
selected weekday and one randomly selected weekend
day (Juster et al., 2004).
        Tables 16-74 and  16-75 present  the mean
time children  spent  (in minutes/day)  performing
major activities on  weekdays  and weekend  days,
respectively, for the  years  1981-82 and 2002-2003.
Table 16-76 shows the  weekly time spent in these
activities for the years 1981-82 and 2002-2003. Juster
et al. (2004) noted that the  time  spent in  school and
studying increased while time spent in active sports
and outdoors activities decreased during  the  period
studied.

16.3.2.9 Vandewater et al, 2004 - Linking Obesity
        and  Activity  Level   with   Children's
        Television and Video Game Use
        Vandewater  et   al.   (2004)   evaluated
children's media use and participation in active and
sedentary  activities using  24-hour  time-use diaries
collected in 1997, as part of the Child Development
Supplement (CDS) to the  Panel Study  of Income
Dynamics  (PSID).   The  PSID  is  a  ongoing,
longitudinal study  of  U.S. individuals  and  their
families conducted by the Survey Research Center of
the University  of Michigan. In 1997, PSID families
with  children  younger  than  12  years  of  age
completed  the  CDS and reported all  activities
performed by the children on one randomly selected
weekday and one  randomly selected weekend  day.
Since  minorities,  low  income  families,  and  less
educated individuals were oversampled in the PSID,
sample weights were applied to the data (Vandewater
et al., 2004). More information on the CDS can be
found                 on-line                 at
http ://psidonline. isr.umich. edu/CD S/.
        Using time diary  data from 2,831 children
participating in the CDS, Vandewater et al., (2004)
estimated the time in minutes over the two-day study
period (i.e., sum of time spent on one weekday and
one  weekend  day)  that children  spent watching
television, playing games on video games consoles
or computers, reading, and using computers for other
purposes besides playing games.   In addition, the
time  spent participating in highly active (i.e., playing
sports),  moderately active (i.e., fishing, boating,
camping, taking music  lessons, and singing),  and
sedentary  (i.e.,  using  the phone, doing puzzles,
playing board  games, and relaxing)  activities  was
determined. Table 16-77  presents the means  and
standard deviations for the  time spent in the selected
activities by age and gender.
        A limitation of this study is that the survey
was not designed for exposure assessment purposes.
Therefore,  the  time use data  set  may  be biased.
However, the survey provides a database  of current
information on  various  human activities.   This
information can be used to assess various exposure
pathways   and  scenarios   associated  with these
activities.

16.3.2.10   U.S.  Department of Labor,  2007 -
        American Time Use Survey, 2006 Results
        The American Time Use Study  (ATUS) has
been  conducted annually  since 2003 by  the U.S.
Department of Labor's  Bureau of Labor Statistics
(U.S. DL,  2007).  The  purpose of the  study is to
Page
16-18
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                    June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
collect "data on what activities people do during the
day and how much time they spend doing them." In
2006, the survey focused on  "the  time Americans
worked, did household activities, cared for household
children, participated in educational activities, and
engaged    in   leisure   and   sports   activities."
Approximately  13,000  individuals, 15 years of age
and older, were  interviewed during 2006.  Participants
were  randomly selected and interviewed using  the
CATI method and were asked to recall their activities
on the day before the interview. The survey response
rate  was 55.1  percent  (BLS,  2007).    Data were
collected for all days  of the week, including weekends
(i.e., 10 percent of the individuals were interviewed
about their activities on one of the five weekdays, and
25 percent of the  individuals were interviewed about
their activities  on one  of the two  weekend days).
Demographic  information,  including age,  gender,
race/ethnicity,  marital status, and educational level
were also collected, and sample weights were applied
to records  to "reduce bias in the estimates due to
differences  in  sampling and response  rates  across
subpopulations  and  days of the week."   Data were
collected  for   17  major  activities, which  were
subsequently   combined  into  12   categories  for
publication of  the  results.   Table   16-78 provides
information on  the average amount of time spent in
the 12 major  time  use  categories by gender, age,
race/ethnicity,  marital status, and educational level
USDL (2007). Estimates of time use in sub-categories
of the 12 major categories are presented  in Table  16-
79.  The majority of  time  was spent  engaging in
personal  care  activities  (9.41  hours/day)   which
included sleeping (8.63  hours/day), followed  by
leisure and sports activities  (5.09  hours/day), and
work activities  (3.75 hours/day).   Note that because
these data  are  averaged  over both weekdays and
weekends for the entire year, the amount of time spent
daily on work-related activities does not reflect that of
a typical work day.
        Table  16-80 provides estimates  of time use
for all children  ages 15 to 19 years by gender. It also
provides  a  more detailed breakdown of the  Leisure
and Sports category  for  all children, ages 15  to 19
years old.
        The limitations  of this study is that it did not
account for all activities during the day and therefore
estimates about total time indoors and outdoors could
not be calculated. The advantages are the large sample
size, the representativeness of the sample, and  the
currency of the data.

16.3.2.11  Nader et al. 2008 - Moderate-to-Vigorous
          Physical Activity from Ages 9 to 15 years
        Nader  et  al.  (2008) conducted a longitudinal
study of 1,032 children from ages 9 to 15 years. The
purpose of the study was to determine the amount of
time  children 9 to  15  years of age  engaged  in
moderate-to-vigorous   activities    (MVPA)   and
compare results with the recommendations issued by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) of a
minimum  of 60 minutes per day.  Children's activity
levels were recorded for four to seven days using an
accelerometer.  The study  participants included 517
boys and  515  girls.  The study found that at  age 9
children engaged in 3 hours of MVPA per day.  By
age 15, the amount of time engaged in MVPA was
dropped to  49 minutes/day on  weekdays  and 35
minutes per day on weekends.  Boys spent 18 more
minutes/day of MVPA than girls on weekdays and 13
more  minutes/day  on weekends.  Estimates of the
mean time spent in moderate-to-vigorous activities
by various age groups are  presented in Table 16-81.
The study did not provide information  about the
amount of time spent at specific activities.

16.4    OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY
16.4.1  KEY  OCCUPATIONAL   MOBILITY
        STUDIES
16.4.1.1  Carey, 1988 -   Occupational Tenure  in
         1987: Many Workers Have Remained in
          Their Fields
        Carey    (1988)     presented    median
occupational and employer tenure for different age
groups, gender, earnings, ethnicity, and educational
attainment. Occupational tenure was defined as "the
cumulative number of years a person worked  in his
or her current occupation, regardless of number  of
employers, interruptions  in employment, or time
spent in  other occupations"  (Carey,  1988).   The
information   presented    was   obtained   from
supplemental  data  to  the January  1987  Current
Population Study,  a  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census
publication.     Carey  (1988)  did  not  present
information on the survey design.
        The median occupational tenure by age and
gender, race, and employment status are presented in
Tables 16-82,  16-83, and  16-84, respectively.  The
median  occupational  tenure   of   the   working
population (109.1  million  people) 16 years of age
and older  in January of 1987,  was 6.6 years (Table
16-82).   Table 16-82  also  shows  that  median
occupational  tenure  increased from 1.9  years  for
workers 16-24 years old to  21.9 years for workers 70
years and  older. The median occupational tenure for
men 16 years  and older was higher (7.9 years) than
for women of the same age group (5.4 years).  Table
16-83 indicates that whites had longer occupational
tenure (6.7 years) than  blacks  (5.8  years), and
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                          Page
                                         16-19
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                        Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Hispanics (4.5 years).  Full-time workers had more
occupational tenure than part-time workers 7.2 years
and 3.1 years, respectively (Table 16-84).
        Table    16-85    presents    the    median
occupational   tenure  among   major  occupational
groups.  The median tenure ranged from 4.1 years for
service workers to 10.4 years for people employed in
farming, forestry, and fishing.
        The strength of an individual's attachment to
a  specific  occupation has been attributed  to  the
individual's investment in education (Carey,  1988).
Carey (1988) reported the median occupational tenure
for the  surveyed  working population by  age and
educational level.  Workers with 5 or more years of
college had the highest median occupational tenure of
10.1 years.  Workers that were 65 years and older with
5  or  more  years  of  college  had the  highest
occupational tenure level of 33.8 years. The median
occupational tenure was 10.6 years for self-employed
workers and 6.2 years for wage and salary workers
(Carey, 1988).
        A limitation associated with this study is that
the survey design employed in the data collection was
not presented, though it can be found on the U.S.
Bureau  of the Census's  website.   Therefore,  the
validity  and  accuracy of the  data set  cannot be
determined.  Another limitation is that only median
values were reported in the study.  An advantage of
this study is that occupational tenure (years spent in a
specific  occupation) was  obtained  for various age
groups by gender, ethnicity, employment  status, and
educational level.  Another advantage of this study is
that the data were based on a survey population which
appears to represent the general U.S. population.

16.4.1.2  Carey,   1990  -   Occupational  Tenure,
         Employer   Tenure,   and   Occupational
         Mobility
        Carey (1990) conducted another study that
was similar in scope  to the  study of Carey (1988).
The January  1987 Current Population Study  (CPS)
was used.  This study provided  data on occupational
mobility  and  employer  tenure  in  addition   to
occupational tenure. Occupational tenure was defined
in Carey (1988) as the "the  cumulative  number  of
years  a  person   worked in  his  or her  current
occupation,  regardless of number  of employees,
interruptions in employment,  or time  spent in other
locations."   Employer tenure  was  defined as  "the
length of time a  worker  has been with the same
employer,"  while  occupational mobility was defined
as "the  number of workers who change  from one
occupation  to another" (Carey, 1990).  Occupational
mobility  was measured by asking  individuals who
were  employed in both January  1986 and January
1987 if they were doing the same kind of work in
each of these months (Carey, 1990).  Carey (1990)
further analyzed the occupational  mobility data and
obtained information on entry and  exit rates  for
occupations.   These  rates  were   defined as  "the
percentage of persons employed  in  an occupation
who  had  voluntarily  entered   it  from another
occupation" and an  exit rate was defined as  "the
percentage of persons employed  in  an occupation
who had  voluntarily left for a  new occupation"
(Carey, 1990).
        Table   16-86   shows   the    voluntary
occupational  mobility  rates in January  1987  for
workers 16 years and older.  For all workers,  the
overall voluntary occupational mobility rate was 5.3
percent. These data also show that younger workers
left occupations at a higher rate than  older workers.
Carey (1990) reported that  10  million of the 100.1
million individuals employed in January 1986 and in
January 1987 had changed  occupations during that
period, resulting in an overall mobility rate  of 9.9
percent.  Executive, administrative, and managerial
occupations had the highest entry rate  of 5.3 percent,
followed  by  administrative  support  (including
clerical) at 4.9 percent. Sales had the highest exit
rate  of 5.3 percent and service  had  the  second
highest  exit rate of 4.8 percent (Carey,  1990).   In
January 1987, the median employer  tenure for all
workers was 4.2 years.  The median employee tenure
was 12.4 years for those workers that were 65 years
of age and older (Carey, 1990).
        Because the study was conducted by Carey
(1990) in  a manner similar to that of the previous
study (Carey,  1988),  the   same  advantages  and
disadvantages  associated with  Carey (1988)  also
apply to this data set.

16.5    POPULATION MOBILITY
16.5.1   KEY    POPULATION    MOBILITY
        STUDY
16.5.1.1 Johnson  and  Capel  (1992) - A  Monte
        Carlo Approach to Simulating Residential
        Occupancy Periods and It's Application to
        the General U.S. Population
        Johnson    and   Capel   developed   a
methodology  to  estimate  the  distribution  of  the
residential  occupancy period (ROP) in the national
population. ROP denotes the time (years) between a
person moving into  a residence  and the time  the
person moves out or dies.  The methodology used a
Monte Carlo approach to simulate a  distribution of
ROP for 500,000 persons using data  on population,
mobility, and mortality.
        The  methodology  consisted of  six steps.
The first step defined the population  of interest and
Page
16-20
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                    June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
categorized them by location, gender, age, sex,  and
race.  Next the demographic groups were selected and
the fraction of the specified population that fell  into
each group was  developed using U.S. BOC data. A
mobility  table was developed based  on  census data,
which provided  the  probability  that a  person  with
specified  demographics  did  not move  during  the
previous  year.   The  fifth step  used data on  vital
statistics  published by the National Center for Health
Statistics  and developed a  mortality  table  which
provided the probability that individuals with specific
demographic  characteristics  would  die  during  the
upcoming year.  As  a final step, a computer based
algorithm was used to apply a Monte Carlo approach
to a series of persons selected at random from the
population being analyzed.
        Table   16-87  presents   the   results   for
residential occupancy periods  for the total population,
by  gender.  The estimated mean ROP for the  total
population was  11.7  years.   The distribution  was
skewed (Johnson and Capel,  1992):  the 25th, 50th,
and 75th percentiles  were  3,  9,  and  16  years,
respectively.  The 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles were
26, 33, and 47 years, respectively.  The mean ROP
was 11.1 years for males and 12.3 years for females,
and the median  value was 8 years for males and 9
years for females.
        Descriptive statistics for subgroups defined
by  current ages  were  also calculated.   These data,
presented by  gender,  are  shown in Table 16-88.   The
mean ROP increases from age 3 to age 12 and there is
a noticeable decrease at age 24.  However, there is a
steady increase from age 24 through age 81.
        There   are   a  few biases  within   this
methodology  that have been noted by the authors.  The
probability of not moving is  estimated as  a function
only of gender and age.   The Monte Carlo process
assumes that this probability is independent of (1) the
calendar  year to  which it is applied, and (2) the  past
history  of the  person  being  simulated.   These
assumptions,  according to Johnson and Capel (1992),
are not entirely  correct.  They believe that extreme
values are a function of sample size and will,  for the
most  part, increase   as  the  number of  simulated
persons increases.

16.5.1.2  U.S.  Bureau of the  Census  (2008a)  -
        American Housing  Survey for  the  United
        States in 2007
        This survey  is a national  sample of  55,000
interviews in  which data  were  collected  from
presented owners, renters, Black householders,  and
Hispanic householders.  The  data reflect the number
of years  a unit has been occupied and represent all
occupied housing units that the  residents' rented or
owned at the time of the survey.
        The  results of  the  survey pertaining  to
residence time of owner/renter occupied units in the
U.S. are presented in Table 16-89. Using the data in
Table 16-89, the percentages of householders living
in houses for specified time ranges were determined
and are presented in Table 16-90.  Based on the BOC
data in Table 16-90, the 50th percentile and the 90th
percentile values were  calculated for the number of
years  lived in  the householder's  current  house.
These  values were  calculated by apportioning the
total  sample  size   (110,692  households)   to  the
indicated percentile  associated with the applicable
range of years lived in the current home. Assuming
an even distribution within the appropriate range, the
50th  and 90th percentile values for years living in
current home were  determined  to be 8.0 and 32.0
years, respectively.   Based on the above data, 8 and
32 years are assumed to best  represent a  central
tendency estimate of length of residence and upper
percentile estimate of residence time, respectively.
        A  limitation  associated with the   above
analysis is the assumption  that there is  an even
distribution within the different ranges. As a result,
the 50th and 90th percentile values may be biased.

16.5.2   RELEVANT POPULATION MOBILITY
        STUDIES
16.5.2.1 Israeli and Nelson (1992)  -  Distribution
        and Expected Time of Residence for U.S.
        Households
        In risk assessments,  the  average  current
residence  time  (time  since  moving  into   current
residence) has often been used as a substitute for the
average total residence time (time between moving
into  and out of  a  residence)  (Israeli  and  Nelson,
1992).   Israeli and  Nelson  (1992)  have estimated
distributions of expected  time of residence for U.S.
households.   Distributions and  averages  for both
current and total residence times  were calculated for
several housing categories using  the 1985 and 1987
BOC housing survey data.  The total residence time
distribution was  estimated from current residence
time data by modeling the moving process  (Israeli
and  Nelson,  1992).   Israeli  and  Nelson  (1992)
estimated  the  average total residence time for  a
household to be approximately  4.6  years or 1/6 of
the expected  life span  (see Table  16-91).   The
maximal total residence time that a given fraction of
households  will  live  in the  same  residence  is
presented  in  Table   16-92.  For example,  only  5
percent of the individuals in the "All Households"
category will live in the same residence for 23 years
and 95 percent will move  in less than 23 years.
        The authors note that the data presented are
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                          Page
                                         16-21
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                        Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
for the expected time a household will stay  in the
same residence. The data do not predict the expected
residence  time  for each member of  the household,
which is generally expected to be smaller (Israeli and
Nelson, 1992).   These  values are  more realistic
estimates for the individual total residence time, than
the average  time a household has been living at its
current residence. The expected total residence time
for a household is consistently less than the average
current residence time.  This is the result of greater
weighting of short residence time when calculating
the average total residence time than when calculating
the average current residence time (Israeli and Nelson,
1992).  When averaging total residence over  a time
interval, frequent movers may  appear several times,
but when averaging current residence times, each
household appears only  once   (Israeli  and Nelson,
1992).  According to Israeli and Nelson (1992), the
residence time distribution developed by the model is
skewed and the median values  are considerably less
than the means (T), which are  less than the average
current residence times.

16.5.2.2 National Association   of Realtors   (NAR)
        (1993)  The  Home Buying and  Selling
        Process
        The NAR survey was  conducted by mailing
a questionnaire  to 15,000 home buyers throughout the
U.S. who purchased homes during the second  half of
1993.   The survey was conducted in December 1993
and 1,763  usable responses were received, equaling a
response  rate of 12  percent (NAR, 1993).  Of the
respondents, forty-one percent were first time buyers.
Home buyer names and addresses were obtained from
Dataman Information Services  (DIS).   DIS compiles
information  on residential  real estate transactions
from more than 600  counties throughout the United
States using courthouse deed records.  Most of the
250 Metropolitan Statistical Areas are  also covered in
the DIS data compilation.
        The home buyers were questioned on the
length  of time they owned their previous  home.
Typical homebuyer (40%) was found to have lived in
their previous home between 4 and 7 years (Table 16-
93).  The  survey results  indicate  that the average
tenure of home buyers is 7.1 years based on an overall
residence history of the respondents (NAR,  1993). In
addition,   the  median  length  of   residence  in
respondents' previous homes was found to be 6 years
(see Table 16-94).
        The distances the respondents moved to their
new homes were typically short distances.   Data
presented  in Table   16-95 indicate that  the mean
distances range  from  230 miles  for new home buyers,
270 miles for repeat buyers to 110 miles for first time
buyers and 190 for existing home buyers. Seventeen
(17) percent of respondents  purchased  homes over
100 miles from their previous homes and 49 percent
purchased homes less than 10 miles away.

16.5.2.3 U.S.  Bureau  of the  Census  (2008b)  -
        Current Population Survey 2007, Annual
        Social and Economic Supplement
        The   Current   Population    Survey   is
conducted  monthly  by  the  U.S.  Bureau  of the
Census. The  sample is selected to  be statistically
representative  of the civilian non-institutionalized
U.S. population. The data presented in Tables 16-96
and  16-97 are yearly averages for the year 2006-
2007. Approximately  50,000 people are surveyed
each month.
        Table  16-96  presents  data   on  general
mobility by demographic factors (i.e., gender, age,
education, marital status, nativity, tenure and poverty
status). "Movers" are respondents who did not report
living at the same residence one year earlier than the
date  of  interview.  Of the  total   number  of
respondents, 13% had moved residences. Of those,
65% moved within the same  county.  Table 16-97
presents data on these Intercounty moves and shows
that  of these intercounty moves, over 60% moved
less than 200 miles.
16.6    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 16
Carey, M.   (1988) Occupational tenure in 1987:
        Many workers have remained in their fields.
        Monthly Labor Review.  October 1988. 3-
        12.
Carey, M.   (1990) Occupational  tenure, employer
        tenure,    and   occupational   mobility.
        Occupational Outlook Quarterly.  Summer
        1990: 55-60.
Chance,  W.G.;  Harmsen,  E.  (1998)  Children are
        different:  environmental contaminants and
        children's   health.  Can  J  Public  Health
        89(Supplement):59-513.
Elgethun,  K.,  Fenske, R.A., Yost, M.G., Palcisko,
        G.J.   (2003)   Environ   Health   Persp.
Funk, L.; Sedman,  R.; Beals, J.A.J.;  Fountain, R.
        (1998)  Quantifying  the  distribution  of
        inhalation exposure in human populations:
        distributions  of  time  spent by  adults,
        adolescents, and children at home, at work,
        and at school. Risk Anal 18(l):47-56.
Garlock, T.J.; Shirai, J.H.; Kissel, J.C.  (1999) Adult
        responses to a survey of soil contact related
        behaviors.  J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol
        9:134-142.
Page
16-22
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                    June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Glenn, G; Stallings, C.; Tippett, I; Smith, L. (2000)
        CHAD'S  user guide:  Extracting  human
        activity  information from CHAD on the PC.
        Prepared for the U.S. EPA National Exposure
        Research    Laboratory    by   ManTech
        Environmental Technology, Inc.
Graham, S.E.;  McCurdy,  T.   (2004) Developing
        meaningful  cohorts  for human  exposure
        models.   J Expo Anal  Environ  Epidemiol
        14:23-43.
Hill, M.S.  (1985)  Patterns of time use.  In: Juster,
        F.T.; Stafford,  P.P., eds.  Time, goods, and
        well-being.  Ann Arbor, MI:  University of
        Michigan,  Survey Research Center,  Institute
        for Social Research, pp. 133-166.
Hubal, E.A.;  Sheldon,  L.S.; Burke,  J.M.; McCurdy,
        T.R.; Berry, M.R.; Rigas, M.L.; Zartarian,
        V.G;  Freeman,   N.G  (2000)  Children's
        exposure assessment:  a  review  of factors
        influencing children's exposure and the data
        available  to  characterize and assess  that
        exposure.   Environ Health Persp  108:475-
        485.
Israeli, M;  Nelson, C.B.   (1992)  Distribution and
        expected  time   of   residence  for  U.S.
        households. Risk Anal. 12(l):65-72.
Johnson, T.  (1989) Human  Activity Patterns  in
        Cincinnati, Ohio. Palo Alto, CA:  Electric
        Power Research Institute.
Johnson, T.  and Capel, J.  (1992)   A monte  carlo
        approach to simulating residential occupancy
        periods  and its application  to the  general
        U.S. population.    Research Triangle  Park,
        NC:  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
        Office of Air Quality and Standards.
Juster, F.T.;  Hill, M.S.; Stafford,  P.P.; Parsons, J.E.
        (1983)   Study  description. 1975-1981  time
        use longitudinal panel study. Ann Arbor, MI:
        The   University   of  Michigan,   Survey
        Research   Center,  Institute  for  Social
        Research.
Juster, T; Ono, H.;  Stafford, F. (2004) Changing times
        of American youth: 1981-2003. Institute for
        Social  Research,  University  of  Michigan,
        Ann Arbor, Michigan.  Available on-line at
        http://www.umich.edu/news/
        Releases/2004/Nov04/teen_time_report.pdf
McCurdy, T.; Glen, G;  Smith, L.; Lakkadi, Y. (2000)
        The     National    Exposure    Research
        Laboratory's Consolidated Human Database.
        J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:566-578.
Nader , PR.; Bradley, R.H.; Houts, R.M.; McRitchie,
        S.L.;  O'Brien,  M.   (2008)  Moderate-to-
        vigorous physical  activity from ages 9 to 15
        years. JAMA,  300(3):295-305.
National Association of Realtors (NAR). (1993)  The
        homebuying and  selling process:   1993.
        The   Real   Estate   Business   Series.
        Washington, DC: NAR.
Phillips, M.L., Hall, T.A., Esmen, N.A., Lynch, R.,
        Johnson, D.L. (2001) J Expo Anal Environ
        Epidemiol. 11(3):207-15.
Robinson, J.P; Thomas,  J.  (1991)  Time spent in
        activities,          locations,          and
        microenvironments:  a  California-National
        Comparison Project report. Las Vegas,  NV:
        U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Environmental    Monitoring     Systems
        Laboratory.
Timmer,  S.G; Eccles, J.; O'Brien, K. (1985) How
        children use time.  In:  Juster, F.T.; Stafford,
        P.P.;  eds.   Time, goods,  and well-being.
        Ann  Arbor, MI:   University of Michigan,
        Survey Research Center,  Institute for Social
        Research, pp. 353-380.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and
        U.S.   Department of  Agriculture.  (2005)
        Dietary  Guidelines  for  Americans,  2005.
        6th edition, Washington, DC, Government
        Printing  Office.    Available  online  at
        http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dg
        a2005/document/pdf/DGA2005 .pdf U. S.
U.S. Bureau  of the Census.   (2008a) American
        Housing Survey for the  United States in
        2007.  Washington,  DC: U.S. Government
        Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau  of the Census.    (2008b)  Current
        Population Survey, 2007  Annual Social and
        Economic Supplement.  Table 1.  Internet
        Release.
U.S. Department of Labor  (U.S. DL),  Bureau of
        Labor Statistics. (2007) American Time  Use
        Survey  - 2006  Results.   News  release
        issued at http://www.bls.gov/tus on June 28,
        2007.
U.S. EPA (1996) Descriptive statistics tables from a
        detailed analysis  of the  National Human
        Activity  Pattern  Survey  (NHAPS) data.
        Washington, DC:  Office  of Research  and
        Development. EPA/600/R-96/148.
U.S. EPA   (2000)  Consolidated Human  Activity
        Database   (CHAD).  U.S.   EPA/NERL.
        Available            online           at
        http://www.epa.gov/chadnetl/
U.S. EPA. (2005) Guidance on Selecting Age Groups
        for Monitoring and Assessing  Childhood
        Exposures to Environmental Contaminants.
        U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Washington, D.C., EPA/630/P-03/003F.
Vandewater, E.A.; Shim, M.;  Caplovitz, A.G (2004)
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                         Page
                                         16-23
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                     Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
        Linking  obesity  and  activity  level  with
        children's television and video game use.  J
        Adolesc 27:71-85.
Wiley,  J.A.; Robinson,  J.P.; Cheng, Y; Piazza, T.;
        Stork, L.; Plasden,  K.  (1991)  Study  of
        children's  activity  patterns.     California
        Environmental   Protection  Agency,   Air
        Resources   Board    Research  Division.
        Sacramento, CA.
Wong,  E.Y.; Shirai,  J.H; Garlock,  T.J.; Kissel, J.C.
        (2000) Adult proxy responses to a survey of
        children's dermal soil contact activities.   J
        Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:509-517.
Page
16-24
Exposure Factors Handbook
                   June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
               Table 16-7. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories,
                                                  for All Respondents and Doers
      Activity Category
 Mean
Duration
  (All)
                                            Doers8
 Mean        Median     Maximum
Duration     Duration     Duration
(Doers)"     (Doers)8     (Doers)8
 Detailed Activity with
Highest Average Minutes
 Work-related11                    10

 Household'                      53

 Childcare11                       <1

 Goods/Services'                 21

 Personal Needs and Caref         794

 Education1                       110

 Organizational Activities'1          4

 Entertain/Social'                 15

 Recreationj                     239

 Communication/Passive
                25           39            30          405      Eating at Work/School/Daycare

                86           61            40          602      Travel to Household

                <1           83            30          290      Other Child Care

                26           81            60          450      Errands

                100           794          770         1,440     Night Sleep

                35           316          335          790      School Classes

                4            111          105          435      Attend Meetings

                17           87            60          490      Visiting with Others

                92           260          240          835      Games
Leisure
Don't know/Not coded
All Activities
192
2
1,440
93
4
-
205
41
-
180
15
-
898
600
-
TV Use
-
-
          Doers indicate the respondents who reported participating in each activity category.
          Includes: travel to and during work/school; children's paid work; eating at work/school/daycare; and accompanying or watching adult
          at work.
          Includes: food preparation; meal cleanup; cleaning; clothes care; car and home repair/painting; building a fire; plant and pet care; and
          traveling to household.
          Includes: baby and child care; helping/teaching children; talking and reading; playing while caring for children; medical care; travel
          related to child care; and other care.
          Includes: shopping; medical appointments; obtaining personal care services (e.g., haircuts), government and financial services, and
          repairs; travel related to goods an services; and errands.
          Includes: bathing, showering, and going to bathroom; medical care; help and care; meals; night sleep and daytime naps, dressing and
          grooming;  and travel for personal care.
          Includes: student and other classes; daycare; homework; library; and travel for education.
          Includes: attending meetings and associated travel.
          Includes: sports events; eating and amusements; movies and theater; visiting museums, zoos, art galleries, etc.; visiting others; parties
          and other social events; and travel to social activities.
          Includes: active sports; leisure; hobbies; crafts; art; music/drama/dance; games; playing; and travel to leisure activities.
          Includes: radio and television use; reading; conversation; paperwork; other passive leisure; and travel to passive leisure activities.

 Source:   Wiley et al., 1991.
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
                                                                                           Page
                                                                                          16-25
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Activity
Category8
Work-related
Household
Childcare
Goods/Services
Personal Needs and Care
Education
Organizational Activities
Entertainment/Social
Recreation
Communication/Passive
Leisure
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)
Activity
Category8
Work-related
Household
Childcare
Goods/Services
Personal Needs and Care
Education
Organizational Activities
Entertainment/Social
Recreation
Communication/Passive
Leisure
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)
Table
16-8. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in
Ten Major Activity Categories, by Age and Gender
Boys
Birth to
1 Month
0
12
0
0
910
180C
0
0
0

338
3
lto<3
Months
0
30
0
16
1,143
0
0
0
0

250
7
3to<6
Months
0
49
0
14
937
75
0
0
26

339
15
6to<12
Months
1
28
0
28
919
70
0
0
104

292
31
lto<2
Years
8
35
0
27
903
33
7
8
314

106
54
2to<3
Years
9
44
0
14
889
69
0
6
304

103
62
3to<6
Years
10
44
0
28
802
67
5
15
294

175
151
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-9. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent
Ten Major Activity Categories, Grouped by Seasons and Regions
Activity Category8
Work-related
Household
Childcare
Goods/Services
Personal Needs and
Care
Education
Organizational
Activities
Entertainment/Social
Recreation
Communication/
Passive Leisure
Don't know/Not coded
All Activities'1
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)

Winter
(Jan-Mar)
10
47
<1
19

799
124
3
14
221

203
<1
1,442
318

Season
in


Region of California
Spring Summer Fall All
(Apr-June) (July-Sept) (Oct-Dec) Seasons
10
58
1
17

774
137
5
12
243

180
2
1,439
204
6
53
<1
26

815
49
5
12
282

189
3
1,441
407
13
52
<1
23

789
131
3
22
211

195
<1
1,441
271
10
53
<1
21

794
110
4
15
239

192
2
1,441
1,200
Southern
Coast
10
45
<1
20

799
109
2
17
230

206
1
1,440
224
Bay
Area
10
62
<1
21

785
115
6
10
241

190
1
1,442
263
Rest of
State
8
55
1
23

794
109
6
16
249

175
3
1,439
713
All
Regions
10
53
<1
21

794
110
4
15
239

192
2
1,441
1,200
8 See Table 16-3 for a description of what is included in each activity category.
b The column totals may not be equal to 1,440 due to rounding.
Source: Wiley et al.,
1991.








Table 16-10. Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in
Six Major Location Categories, for All Respondents and Doers
Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In-transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not Coded
All Locations
Mean
Duration
(All)
1,078
109
80

24
69
79
<1
1,440
8 Doers indicate the respondents
Source: Wiley et al., 1991.

% Doers8
99
33
32

35
83
57
1
-
Mean
Duration
(Doers)8
1,086
330
251

69
83
139
37
-
Median Maximum _ ., , T . . ,
_ _ Detailed Location with
Duration Duration TT. , , „.
._ ., ._ ., Highest Average lime
(Doers) (Doers) & &
1,110 1,440 Home -Bedroom
325 1,260 School or Daycare Facility
144 1,440 Friend's/Other's House - Bedroom

50 475 Shopping Mall
60 1,111 Traveling in Car
105 1,440 Park, Playground
30 90
-
who reported participating in each activity category.



Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-27
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-11. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in
Six Location Categories, Grouped by Age and Gender
Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In-transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not Coded
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)
Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In-transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not Coded
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)


Birth to 1 to <3
1 Month Months
938 1
0
418

0
77
7
0
3

,295
1
40

14
51
40
0
7

Birth to 1 to <3
1 Month Months
1,285 1
0
0

0
73
83
0
4
,341
0
12

13
56
19
0
10
a The source data end at 1 1 years of a£
included.
Note: Column totals may not sum to

3to<6
Months
1,164
26
127

21
69
33
0
15

3to<6
Months
1,151
109
44

20
42
73
0
11
>e, so the

6to<12
Months
1,189
53
63

36
63
36
0
31

6to<12
Months
1,192
99
32

15
58
43
0
23

lto<2
Years
1,177
73
54

29
56
52
0
54

lto<2
Years
1,162
56
109

21
55
38
0
43
11 to <16 year categ
Boys
2to<3
Years
1,161
86
69

22
61
41
0
62
Girls
2to<3
Years
1,065
61
103

40
86
86
0
50

3to<6
Years
1,102
79
89

24
67
78
0
151

3to<6
Years
1,118
78
66

32
78
67
1
151

6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's
House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not
Coded
All Locations"
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted N's)
Table

Winter
(Jan- Mar)
1,091
119

69

22
75
63

<1
1,439
318
16-12. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent
Six Location Categories, Grouped by Season and Region

Spring
(Apr-June)
1,042
141

75

21
75
85

<1
1,439
204
Season
Summer
(July- Sept)
1,097
52

108

30
60
93

<1
1,440
407
in


Region of California
Fall
(Oct-Dec)
1,081
124

69

24
65
76

<1
1,439
271
All
Seasons
1,078
109

80

24
69
79

<1
1,439
1,200
Southern
Coast
1,078
113

73

26
71
79

<1
1,439
224
Bay
Area
1,078
103

86

23
73
76

<1
1,440
263
Rest of
State
1,078
108

86

23
63
81

<1
1,440
713
All
Regions
1,078
109

80

24
69
79

<1
1,439
1,200
8 The column totals may not sum to 1,440 due to rounding.
Source: Wiley et al.,
1991.








Table 16-13. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent in
Proximity to Two Potential Sources of Exposure, Grouped by All Respondents, Age, and Gender
Potential
Exposures
Gasoline Fumes
Gas Oven Fumes
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted N's)
Potential
Exposures
Gasoline Fumes
Gas Oven Fumes
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted N's)

Birth to
1 Month
3
0
3

Birth to
1 Month
0
0
4
8 The source data end at

lto<3
Months
9
0
7

lto<3
Months
3
0
10
1 1 years of aj

3to<6
Months
0
2
15

3to<6
Months
0
0
11
;e, so the 1 1
Source: U.S. EPA analysis of source data used by Wiley

6to<12
Months
2
2
31

6to<12
Months
3
0
23
to <16 year
etal., 1991.

lto<2
Years
1
1
54

lto<2
Years
1
0
43
Boys
2to<3
Years
4
3
62
Girls
2to<3
Years
2
3
50

3to<6
Years
2
0
151

3to<6
Years
1
2
151
category is truncated and the 16 to




6to
-------
                                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                     Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
      Table 16-14.  Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Under 12 Years of Age Spent Indoors and Outdoors, Grouped by Age and Gender
                                             Boys
                                                                                                Girls
      Age Group
                          N
                                       Indoors8
                                                          Outdoors
                                                                             N
                                                                                Indoors8
                                                                                                            Outdoors
 Birth to <1 Month

 1 to <3 Months

 3 to <6 Months

 6 to <12 Months

 1 to <2 Years

 2 to <3 Years

 3 to <6 Years

 6 to <11 Years

 11 Years'

 All Ages
                 3

                 7

                 15

                 31

                 54

                 62

                 151

                239

                 62

                624
1,440

1,432

1,407

1,322

1,101

1,121

1,117

1,145

1,166

1,181
33

118

339

319

323

295

274

258
 4

 10

 11

 23

 43

 50

151

225

 59

576
1,440

1,431

1,421

1,280

1,164

1,102

1,140

1,183

1,215

1,181
 0

 9

 19

160

276

338

300

255

225

258
 N
 Note:
Time indoors was estimating by adding the average times spent performing indoor activities (household work, child care, personal
needs and care, education, and communication/passive leisure) and half the time spent in each activity which could have occurred
either indoors or outdoors (i.e., work-related, goods/services, organizational activities, entertainment/social, don't know/not coded).
Time outdoors was estimated by adding the average time spent in recreation activities and half the time spent in each activity which
could have occurred either indoors or outdoors (i.e., work-related, goods/services, organizational activities, entertainment/social,
don't know/not coded).
The source data end at 11 years of age, so the 11 to <16 year category is truncated and the 16 to <21 year category is not included.
= Sample size.
Indoor and outdoor minutes/day may not sum to 1,440 minutes/day due to rounding.
 Source:  U.S. EPA analysis of source data used by Wiley etal., 1991.
Page
16-30
                                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                                   June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-15. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined Whole Population and Doers Only,
Children < 21 years
Age (years)
N
Mean Min -
Percentiles
1
2
5 10 25 50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Kitchen - Whole Population
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-15. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined Whole Population and Doers Only,
Children <2 1 years (continued)
Age (years)
N
Mean Min -
Percentiles
1
2
5 10 25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Bathroom - Whole Population
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-15. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined Whole Population and Doers Only,
Children <2 1 years (continued)
Age (years) N Mean Min -


Percentiles

1

2

5 10
All Rooms Combined
Birth to <
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-16. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined, Doers Only
Kitchen
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
7,063
2,988
4,072
3
144
335
477
396
4,531
1,180
5,827
641
113
119
266
97
6,458
497
32
76
1,200
2,965
608
2,239
51
1,346
678
2,043
1,348
933
715
1,645
1,601
2,383
1,434
4,849
2,214
1,938
1,780
1,890
1,455
6,510
503
50
6,798
207
58
6,671
338
54
Mean
92.6
75.0
105.6
40.0
102.7
73.7
60.5
55.0
90.3
131.4
95.1
79.4
89.4
69.1
84.2
90.3
93.4
83.9
82.3
88.4
62.3
77.7
97.7
126.9
106.4
63.9
108.1
107.2
94.4
91.9
88.2
99.6
96.1
86.3
91.4
90.1
98.3
96.6
89.0
89.3
96.2
92.4
94.0
104.4
91.6
122.5
105.9
91.8
104.8
117.9
SD
94.2
80.8
101.0
31.2
110.8
54.4
53.0
58.1
90.9
119.6
95.2
92.0
95.5
60.8
77.3
113.6
94.8
82.9
71.9
118.6
55.4
77.5
94.0
115.8
168.5
62.3
102.9
102.3
101.2
92.1
87.7
99.7
93.6
87.1
99.1
92.2
98.2
100.3
90.2
91.0
94.5
93.6
96.0
143.7
93.0
111.4
138.4
92.6
113.4
142.4
SE
1.1
1.5
1.6
18.0
9.2
3.0
2.4
2.9
1.4
3.5
1.2
3.6
9.0
5.6
4.7
11.5
1.2
3.7
12.7
13.6
1.6
1.4
3.8
2.4
23.6
1.7
4.0
2.3
2.8
3.0
3.3
2.5
2.3
1.8
2.6
1.3
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.5
1.2
4.3
20.3
1.1
7.7
18.2
1.1
6.2
19.4
Min
1
1
1
15
5
5
1
1
1
3
1
-)
5
-)
1
5
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
4
2
1
1
-)
Max
1,320
840
1,320
75
840
392
690
450
1,320
825
840
1,320
690
315
585
880
1,320
675
300
880
690
840
755
1,320
880
880
775
840
1,320
840
770
840
833
880
1,320
1,320
840
1,320
840
880
770
1,320
785
880
1,320
657
880
1,320
825
880
5
10
10
10
15
15
15
10
5
10
15
10
10
10
7
10
7
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
12
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
30
30
35
15
30
30
30
15
30
49
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
35
30
30
30
30
45
30
30
34
35
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
30
50
60
55
75
30
70
60
50
36
60
100
65
60
75
55
60
60
60
60
60
60
50
60
70
95
48
50
80
75
60
60
60
70
65
60
60
60
66
65
60
60
65
60
60
60
60
100
60
60
71
76
75
120
90
145
75
130
100
75
65
120
172
120
100
115
90
110
90
120
110
113
90
85
100
134
175
130
85
150
150
120
120
113
130
125
115
119
119
135
120
120
120
125
120
120
120
120
155
135
120
135
160
90
205
155
230
75
215
140
120
125
200
275
210
175
150
150
190
190
210
180
185
190
125
165
213
270
210
130
230
235
210
200
190
210
213
190
195
195
220
210
195
195
210
205
210
195
200
255
240
200
225
240
95
270
215
295
75
260
180
150
155
260
360
273
230
220
195
240
275
270
240
240
240
153
225
270
342
250
165
295
300
280
261
260
300
270
245
255
255
280
285
255
255
275
270
270
240
265
360
240
265
300
275
98
365
300
395
75
485
225
180
240
345
490
380
275
265
210
305
480
370
315
300
480
213
300
405
470
840
235
405
415
380
330
380
390
355
330
380
360
390
390
350
362
375
365
345
713
360
415
545
360
480
545
99
460
392
475
75
540
240
235
340
420
620
465
380
650
315
360
880
460
415
300
880
260
376
445
545
880
285
545
500
450
410
405
465
450
420
480
450
480
485
420
430
470
450
450
880
450
620
880
445
657
880
Page
16-34
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-16. Time Spent (minutes/day ) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combinec
, Doers Only (continued)
Bathroom
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
6,661
3,006
3,653
0
122
328
490
445
4,486
790
5,338
711
117
134
283
78
6,067
498
33
63
1,240
3,130
583
1,661
47
1,386
522
1,857
1,305
913
678
1,497
1,465
2,340
1,359
4,613
2,048
1,853
1,747
1,772
1,289
6,132
493
36
6,473
145
43
6,327
296
38
Mean
35.0
32.7
36.9
27.5
43.9
35.9
31.0
29.1
34.5
42.2
34.3
36.9
33.6
47.3
38.6
34.6
34.5
39.2
44.4
44.1
32.0
33.4
35.5
40.2
34.7
32.2
40.9
35.8
36.1
35.0
32.1
34.3
35.8
35.1
34.9
33.9
37.5
37.0
36.6
32.8
33.0
34.9
35.2
49.5
34.6
51.9
44.9
34.8
36.8
54.6
SD
48.8
50.4
47.4
3.5
67.0
46.5
38.6
32.9
46.1
69.4
48.6
39.6
41.4
69.6
61.5
49.2
45.9
68.6
72.3
95.2
39.7
44.8
43.9
61.6
54.8
42.8
64.5
50.2
44.1
54.1
42.8
51.2
54.5
42.0
50.4
46.7
53.2
50.7
50.5
44.5
49.1
48.8
38.2
121.1
46.8
88.3
111.2
48.1
47.5
122.7
SE Mm
0.6 1
0.9 1
0.8 1
2.5 25
6.1 2
2.6 1
1.7 1
1.6 1
0.7 1
2.5 1
0.7 1
1.5 1
3.8 5
6.0 1
3.7 1
5.6 3
0.6 1
3.1 1
12.6 5
12.0 3
1.1 1
0.8 1
1.8 1
1.5 1
8.0 3
1.1 1
2.8 1
1.2 1
1.2 1
1.8 1
1.6 1
1.3 1
1.4 1
0.9 1
1.4 1
0.7 1
1.2 1
1.2 1
1.2 1
1.1 1
1.4 1
0.6 1
1.7 1
20.2 3
0.6 1
7.3 3
17.0 3
0.6 1
2.8 1
19.9 3
Max 5
870 5
870 5
665 5
30 25
530 5
600 10
535 5
547 5
665 5
870 5
870 5
460 5
375 5
535 5
546 5
360 5
705 5
870 5
422 10
665 5
600 5
595 5
430 5
870 5
360 5
665 5
870 5
600 5
540 5
705 5
460 5
600 5
870 5
510 5
705 5
870 5
600 5
665 5
870 5
570 5
540 5
870 5
410 5
665 5
870 5
600 7
665 5
870 5
600 5
665 5
25
15
15
15
25
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
10
15
15
15
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
11
15
15
10
15
20
10
15
15
10
50
25
20.5
30
27.5
30
30
27
20
25
30
25
30
25
30
24
20
25
25
30
20
30
25
29
30
25
25
30
5
5
0
2
5
5
0
5
5
30
30
30
25
20
25
30
17.5
25
30
15
25
30
17.5
75
40
35
45
30
45
40
35
35
40
45
40
45
40
45
45
35
40
45
45
35
35
40
45
45
30
35
45
40
45
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
45
42
45
38
35
40
45
30
40
45
30
40
43.5
30
90
60
60
70
30
85
60
52.5
60
60
75
60
70
60
95
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
75
55
60
70
63
70
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
65
65
60
60
60
60
65
60
60
75
50
60
60
110
95
90
75
90
30
120
75
60
65
90
120
85
98
90
120
80
135
90
90
120
150
70
80
90
110
75
70
100
90
95
90
75
80
90
90
90
85
90
90
90
80
90
90
90
360
90
185
110
90
90
360
98
137
150
135
30
300
125
100
90
135
240
135
135
110
315
270
165
135
270
422
360
100
123
140
210
360
110
240
135
150
150
110
140
145
135
140
135
150
150
135
135
140
135
140
665
135
546
665
135
180
665
99
255
300
240
30
360
270
200
100
250
360
255
186
210
422
425
360
240
425
422
665
180
240
270
340
360
200
350
270
225
340
300
335
315
214
250
240
300
270
240
210
303
255
220
665
240
570
665
255
250
665
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-35
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-16. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined, Doers Only (continued)
Bedroom
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
9,151
4,157
4,990
4
184
488
689
577
5,891
1,322
7,403
923
153
174
378
120
8,326
684
43
98
1,736
3,992
111
2,578
68
1,925
807
2,549
1,740
1,223
907
2,037
2,045
3,156
1,913
6,169
2,982
2,475
2,365
2,461
1,850
8,420
671
60
8,836
244
71
8,660
423
68
Mean
563.1
549.6
574.3
648.8
525.1
742.0
669.1
636.2
532.7
550.8
553.4
612.3
612.3
590.7
602.6
555.8
560.9
597.4
542.3
523.4
679.5
513.5
551.6
566.4
514.0
668.3
554.8
534.1
539.1
526.0
525.2
561.5
552.4
570.0
564.9
552.6
584.9
576.0
559.0
566.1
547.2
560.8
593.8
543.1
564.2
535.5
522.1
563.1
570.1
524.8
SD
184.6
183.0
185.3
122.8
193.5
167.1
162.9
210.9
173.0
172.0
175.9
219.9
187.4
200.2
214.4
198.6
182.6
206.3
169.9
180.2
185.5
157.6
169.4
191.2
209.6
188.8
180.6
176.2
176.1
164.9
160.6
185.3
179.2
186.4
186.4
174.5
202.4
183.8
176.7
195.2
179.9
182.8
201.5
218.4
183.9
203.9
193.9
184.2
192.0
186.7
SE
1.9
2.8
2.6
61.4
14.3
7.6
6.2
8.8
2.3
4.7
2.0
7.2
15.2
15.2
11.0
18.1
2.0
7.9
25.9
18.2
4.5
2.5
6.1
3.8
25.4
4.3
6.4
3.5
4.2
4.7
5.3
4.1
4.0
3.3
4.3
2.2
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.9
4.2
2.0
7.8
28.2
2.0
13.1
23.0
2.0
9.3
22.6
Min
3
3
5
540
15
30
35
15
3
15
3
15
25
15
25
30
3
15
135
30
15
3
15
5
30
15
5
3
5
15
3
5
3
10
5
3
3
5
15
3
3
3
30
30
3
20
30
3
15
30
Max
1,440
1,440
1,440
785
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,375
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,285
1,405
1,440
1,405
1,440
1,440
1,002
1,295
1,440
1,440
1,335
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,404
1,355
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,295
1,440
1,440
1,295
1,440
1,440
1,295

5
300
285
312
540
195
489
435
165
295
315
300
300
345
300
265
285
300
300
300
255
390
283
330
300
210
360
300
285
282
300
315
300
280
300
305
325
223
305
315
285
270
300
300
223
300
215
180
300
294
240

25
460
450
470
545
420
635
600
542
440
475
455
480
510
464
480
440
460
480
420
415
590
435
455
478
420
575
450
447
450
445
445
457
450
465
460
450
480
475
455
455
450
460
475
423
460
450
420
460
450
420

50
540
540
555
635
513
740
665
645
520
540
540
597
600
580
588
534
540
585
555
515
675
510
540
540
498
663
540
520
530
515
510
540
540
552
540
539
570
555
540
545
538
540
580
540
540
523
540
540
555
540
Percent
75
660
640
660
753
600
840
740
750
610
610
640
725
705
700
720
630
650
713
660
600
785
585
630
650
585
780
630
607
615
600
600
655
643
660
660
635
690
660
655
660
630
655
690
605
660
613
600
660
660
600
lies
90
780
780
790
785
720
930
840
875
723
735
760
895
830
830
865
763
780
840
756
735
892
680
750
780
725
885
775
720
735
713
690
781
765
790
793
760
825
805
770
810
750
780
835
760
785
770
690
780
795
700

95
880
860
900
785
860
990
915
970
820
840
850
990
950
960
958
875
870
958
830
795
960
765
835
905
795
960
860
835
825
785
780
885
860
900
875
855
920
900
855
900
850
870
946
983
880
840
820
880
900
820

98
1,005
980
1,030
785
950
1,095
1,065
1,040
975
1,000
975
1,160
1,005
1,050
1,095
1,290
1,000
1,095
1,002
930
1,065
890
1,005
1,095
1,200
1,060
1,015
975
1,005
965
950
1,020
965
1,055
995
975
1,055
1,035
960
1,030
960
1,000
1,060
1,275
1,005
1,135
990
1,005
1,055
930

99
1,141
1,095
1,185
785
1,295
1,200
1,140
1,210
1,110
1,140
1,105
1,323
1,245
1,152
1,213
1,295
1,140
1,200
1,002
1,295
1,170
1,000
1,100
1,223
1,440
1,170
1,160
1,151
1,135
1,070
1,095
1,139
1,035
1,155
1,152
1,130
1,170
1,148
1,095
1,190
1,100
1,140
1,327
1,295
1,140
1,230
1,295
1,141
1,110
1,295
Page
16-36
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-16. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined,
Doers Only (continued)
Garage
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
193
120
73
1
4
6
12
130
40
165
12
1
6
8
1
174
17
2
21
85
17
70
22
14
63
48
25
21
23
42
60
68
116
77
51
59
51
32
184
9
187
6
185
8
Mean
117.8
144.1
74.6
20.0
83.5
63.3
80.8
134.5
88.6
109.5
205.0
5.0
186.3
120.0
120.0
116.6
128.6
127.5
79.7
145.3
50.1
112.3
76.5
188.9
127.3
121.6
118.2
75.9
137.2
131.4
103.7
115.3
128.7
101.4
115.6
136.8
101.1
112.9
118.6
101.1
118.2
104.2
114.1
201.9
SD
144.5
162.6
94.3
-
47.5
63.4
78.4
165.1
84.1
127.5
219.5
-
308.4
164.9

138.5
207.3
10.6
67.5
175.2
52.0
127.4
67.6
195.0
159.3
147.8
145.8
88.1
159.5
166.4
128.6
139.7
159.0
118.4
161.8
163.3
121.3
110.2
146.3
102.6
146.2
78.6
142.9
163.6
SE
10.4
14.8
11.0
-
23.7
25.9
22.6
14.5
13.3
9.9
63.4
-
125.9
58.3

10.5
50.3
7.5
14.7
19.0
12.6
15.2
14.4
52.1
20.1
21.3
29.2
19.2
33.2
25.7
16.6
16.9
14.8
13.5
22.7
21.3
17.0
19.5
10.8
34.2
10.7
32.1
10.5
57.9
Mm
1
-)
1
20
15
10
10
1
5
1
5
5
10
15
120
1
5
120
10
1
5
5
10
5
2
5
5
1
5
10
2
1
1
2
9
5
1
5
1
5
1
10
1
15
Max
790
790
530
20
120
165
240
790
300
690
570
5
790
510
120
690
790
135
240
790
194
690
240
675
690
790
480
300
510
690
570
790
790
675
690
790
530
480
790
270
790
220
790
450
5
5
10
5
20
15
10
10
5
8
5
5
5
10
15
120
5
5
120
15
5
5
5
10
5
5
10
5
0
15
20
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
5
5
10
5
15
25
20
30
15
20
52
25
20
20
25
20
38
5
18
23
120
20
20
120
25
20
15
30
20
30
25
30
20
10
30
40
13
20
25
20
15
30
20
25
25
15
20
25
20
60
50
60
94
30
20
100
30
51
68
60
60
90
5
30
60
120
60
60
128
51
65
30
75
51
120
60
60
60
30
60
88
53
73
60
60
50
90
60
85
60
60
60
110
60
178
75
150
183
120
20
115
120
148
180
143
135
405
5
240
135
120
155
110
135
120
180
60
135
120
235
165
140
120
120
195
120
128
153
165
120
150
165
120
158
150
180
150
150
135
338
90
296
315
180
20
120
165
185
360
228
240
530
5
790
510
120
296
510
135
165
405
135
255
165
510
300
296
405
195
460
260
283
300
315
240
240
315
260
240
300
270
300
220
260
450
95
480
518
240
20
120
165
240
526
270
315
570
5
790
510
120
460
790
135
185
530
194
450
185
675
530
450
460
260
510
665
428
315
510
300
526
570
450
315
480
270
480
220
480
450
98
665
675
450
20
120
165
240
675
300
526
570
5
790
510
120
570
790
135
240
675
194
480
240
675
665
790
480
300
510
690
480
530
665
526
665
675
460
480
665
270
665
220
665
450
99
690
690
530
20
120
165
240
690
300
675
570
5
790
510
120
675
790
135
240
790
194
690
240
675
690
790
480
300
510
690
570
790
690
675
690
790
530
480
690
270
690
220
690
450
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-37
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
T
able 16-16. Time Spent (minutes/ day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined, Doers Only (continued)
Basement
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
274
132
141
1
3
8
25
26
170
42
248
15
2
3
1
5
263
6
1
4
57
107
22
85
3
65
15
78
48
39
29
90
123
35
26
178
96
80
65
79
50
253
20
1
269
3
2
265
8
1
Mean
142.2
160.4
125.7
60.0
171.7
94.8
135.4
97.5
151.3
143.8
133.8
183.8
135.0
468.7
30.0
263.2
139.0
185.0
185.0
271.3
115.6
149.1
115.0
158.0
151.7
129.5
169.9
159.4
160.6
146.7
73.1
115.6
129.0
188.0
234.4
135.3
154.8
144.5
174.2
142.4
96.4
143.1
124.7
245.0
141.4
201.7
152.5
139.0
233.8
245.0
SD
162.9
180.7
143.3
-
122.7
55.7
145.9
113.1
172.7
173.5
154.1
165.5
106.1
455.7

173.1
161.7
197.3

198.8
124.2
178.6
114.8
176.3
110.3
133.4
203.5
188.7
184.2
150.8
66.3
118.7
146.9
205.8
247.7
159.4
169.3
147.0
196.8
180.7
83.1
164.2
151.0

163.7
122.1
130.8
161.0
214.2

SE
9.8
15.7
12.1
-
70.8
19.7
29.2
22.2
13.2
26.8
9.8
42.7
75.0
263.1

77.4
10.0
80.6

99.4
16.5
17.3
24.5
19.1
63.7
16.6
52.5
21.4
26.6
24.1
12.3
12.5
13.2
34.8
48.6
11.9
17.3
16.4
24.4
20.3
11.7
10.3
33.8

10.0
70.5
92.5
9.9
75.7

Mm
1
1
2
60
30
28
15
1
1
5
1
12
60
20
30
60
1
15
185
60
1
1
10
5
30
1
5
5
2
10
1
5
2
10
1
1
5
5
i
i
5
1
1
245
1
65
60
1
20
245
Max
931
931
810
60
245
180
705
515
810
931
810
515
210
931
30
540
931
555
185
540
705
810
535
931
245
705
605
810
931
555
245
555
765
931
810
810
931
630
931
765
332
931
510
245
931
300
245
931
605
245
5
10
10
10
60
30
28
15
10
5
10
10
12
60
20
30
60
10
15
185
60
12
5
25
10
30
15
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
28
1
10
10
14
5
5
10
10
6
245
10
65
60
10
20
245
25
30
40
30
60
30
48
60
30
30
40
30
40
60
20
30
231
30
30
185
150
40
30
60
35
30
45
30
40
25
30
30
40
30
45
30
30
50
30
60
30
30
35
16
245
30
65
60
30
68
245
50
90
90
75
60
240
90
105
60
90
90
90
150
135
455
30
240
90
150
185
243
90
75
78
120
180
90
90
90
120
70
60
73
90
110
165
83
98
90
105
85
60
90
73
245
90
240
153
90
180
245
75
180
203
175
60
245
138
140
150
210
170
168
270
210
931
30
245
180
210
185
393
150
210
150
210
245
160
255
195
203
210
100
150
180
255
325
180
190
221
210
150
145
180
178
245
180
300
245
180
375
245
90
330
490
265
60
245
180
270
240
410
330
315
450
210
931
30
540
330
555
185
540
240
450
185
330
245
270
565
420
400
450
210
250
270
450
705
315
450
315
490
455
240
330
383
245
330
300
245
330
605
245
95
535
565
420
60
245
180
420
275
555
455
510
515
210
931
30
540
510
555
185
540
420
540
290
600
245
420
605
720
600
510
210
400
510
720
720
535
540
480
555
605
255
540
510
245
535
300
245
515
605
245
98
705
720
705
60
245
180
705
515
720
931
705
515
210
931
30
540
705
555
185
540
515
720
535
720
245
535
605
765
931
555
245
540
605
931
810
720
600
610
810
720
301
705
510
245
705
300
245
705
605
245
99
765
765
720
60
245
180
705
515
765
931
720
515
210
931
30
540
765
555
185
540
705
765
535
931
245
705
605
810
931
555
245
555
630
931
810
765
931
630
931
765
332
765
510
245
765
300
245
765
605
245
Page                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook
16-38                                                                  June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-16. Time Spent (minutes/ day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined, Doers Only (continued)
Utility /Laundry Room
Percentiles
Group Name
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Group Code

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Gradutae
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
N
458
70
388
6
3
3
8
362
76
400
35
4
6
10
3
435
20
1
2
12
206
51
187
2
17
51
163
107
60
60
105
116
151
86
322
136
145
89
132
92
432
26
440
16
2
428
30
Mean
73.2
78.4
72.3
65.8
75.0
105.7
55.5
73.6
72.6
69.2
100.5
82.5
86.7
95.9
170.0
72.1
81.7
55.0
247.5
76.8
69.2
72.2
77.7
76.0
72.0
71.8
71.6
77.2
74.0
71.3
80.9
64.9
72.7
75.9
68.6
84.1
75.2
81.9
69.3
67.3
73.8
64.2
72.1
103.1
72.5
73.3
72.4
SD
71.9
95.7
66.8
34.4
116.9
168.4
77.1
73.9
58.1
65.8
103.2
37.7
27.9
78.8
264.2
69.9
63.0

321.7
107.8
78.4
62.5
63.8
104.7
90.9
49.4
71.6
71.7
77.3
79.9
84.6
63.3
69.5
69.9
66.7
82.1
81.0
83.0
60.8
58.6
73.2
44.8
70.2
109.9
17.7
73.5
43.5
SE
3.4
11.4
3.4
14.0
67.5
97.2
27.3
3.9
6.7
3.3
17.5
18.9
11.4
24.9
152.5
3.4
14.1

227.5
31.1
5.5
8.8
4.7
74.0
22.0
6.9
5.6
6.9
10.0
10.3
8.3
5.9
5.7
7.5
3.7
7.0
6.7
8.8
5.3
6.1
3.5
8.8
3.3
27.5
12.5
3.6
7.9
Mm
1
1
2
25
5
2
1
2
2
2
1
30
60
4
15
1
4
5i
20
1
2
2
5
2
1
15
2
2
5
5
2
2
1
4
1
5
i
5
2
3
1
10
1
5
60
1
10
Max
510
510
510
120
210
300
240
510
345
510
510
120
120
225
475
510
225
55
475
300
510
225
475
150
300
245
510
475
510
360
510
475
510
405
510
510
510
510
360
345
510
200
510
360
85
510
200
5
5
5
5
25
5
2
1
5
10
5
5
30
60
4
15
5
5
55
20
1
5
5
10
2
1
20
6
5
10
5
5
5
10
5
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
5
60
5
15
25
25
20
28
40
5
2
17
20
30
25
20
60
65
20
15
25
40
55
20
4
20
15
30
2
10
30
30
20
27
18
25
15
30
30
23
30
17
30
25
22
25
25
25
30
60
24
45
50
60
60
60
60
10
15
33
60
60
60
60
90
78
105
20
60
60
55
248
23
60
55
60
76
35
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
73
60
60
75
100
90
105
90
210
300
53
105
90
90
135
105
120
120
475
90
120
55
475
135
90
120
115
150
90
90
90
120
98
90
120
90
90
115
90
120
90
100
120
90
105
90
100
138
85
105
90
90
150
168
150
120
210
300
240
150
150
150
240
120
120
218
475
150
183
55
475
240
135
150
150
150
240
120
140
155
154
155
180
135
150
150
140
180
165
180
135
125
150
120
150
345
85
150
125
95
200
345
190
120
210
300
240
195
180
180
300
120
120
225
475
190
218
55
475
300
203
180
180
150
300
180
180
200
190
263
225
155
210
180
180
240
215
240
155
180
200
130
185
360
85
200
150
98
300
360
240
120
210
300
240
325
245
258
510
120
120
225
475
300
225
55
475
300
360
225
245
150
300
195
325
225
203
360
345
215
245
360
240
360
360
405
240
245
325
200
270
360
85
325
200
99
360
510
330
120
210
300
240
405
345
353
510
120
120
225
475
360
225
•>5
475
300
405
225
345
150
300
245
405
240
510
360
360
240
330
405
345
405
475
510
325
345
360
200
360
360
85
360
200
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-39
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-16. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms
it Home and in All Rooms Combined,
Doers Only (continued)
Indoors in a Residence (all rooms)
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused

< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
9,343
4,269
5,070
4
187
498
700
588
6,022
1,348
7,556
941
157
181
382
126
8,498
696
46
103
1,768
4,068
797
2,639
71
1,963
829
2,602
1,788
1,240
921
2,068
2,087
3,230
1,958
6,286
3,057
2,513
2,424
2,522
1,884
8,591
689
63
9,019
249
75
8,840
432
71
Mean
1001.4
945.9
1048.1
1060.0
1001.1
1211.6
1005.1
969.5
947.9
1174.6
999.4
1016.0
983.5
996.1
1009.4
1019.7
1000.4
1009.8
1097.9
984.1
1053.3
881.0
982.4
1158.0
995.1
1044.5
1093.4
1008.1
974.3
939.5
943.7
1003.4
1001.7
999.0
1002.8
965.7
1074.8
1034.9
977.9
980.5
1014.8
999.1
1027.4
1025.7
997.8
1125.5
1024.1
997.7
1070.5
1045.5
SD
275.1
273.5
267.9
135.6
279.9
218.7
222.3
241.8
273.0
229.3
275.7
272.5
254.7
268.3
281.8
276.6
275.4
270.8
286.7
269.5
248.5
259.2
243.1
233.8
268.1
251.9
278.6
279.3
272.6
275.0
274.3
278.4
280.6
270.2
274.0
272.6
265.7
278.2
267.2
274.0
277.5
274.4
284.4
264.3
274.1
281.4
285.1
274.8
273.8
273.0
SE
2.8
4.2
3.8
67.8
20.5
9.8
8.4
10.0
3.5
6.2
3.2
8.9
20.3
19.9
14.4
24.6
3.0
10.3
42.3
26.6
5.9
4.1
8.6
4.6
31.8
5.7
9.7
5 5
6.4
7.8
9.0
6.1
6.1
4.8
6.2
3.4
4.8
5.6
5.4
5 5
6.4
3.0
10.8
33.3
2.9
17.8
32.9
2.9
13.2
32.4
Min
8
8
30
900
265
270
190
95
8
60
8
190
30
10
55
270
8
55
401
270
95
8
255
60
445
95
150
30
10
30
8
30
8
10
30
30
8
30
10
8
30
8
190
445
8
180
150
8
205
445
Max
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,200
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
I ,,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
5
575
540
620
900
565
795
686
585
540
760
570
600
600
604
555
575
575
585
645
565
675
515
600
735
575
660
630
565
570
528
540
570
565
585
575
567
615
590
580
555
589
576
555
630
575
660
560
575
585
565
25
795
750
840
950
799
1,065
845
812
750
1,030
795
815
810
805
810
840
795
810
835
810
870
715
820
1,015
810
855
870
803
775
745
750
795
790
800
800
770
895
825
780
785
805
795
825
840
795
925
840
795
868
845
50
985
900
1,050
1,070
955
1,260
975
950
900
1,210
980
1,000
930
975
1,005
975
980
1,000
1,173
950
1,030
835
970
1,190
940
1,020
1,130
995
930
885
900
980
989
970
1,000
911
1,105
1,015
955
960
997
980
1,025
960
975
1,185
975
975
1,110
975
75
1,235
1,160
1,280
1,170
1,230
1,410
1,165
1,155
1,165
1,375
1,235
1,245
1,180
1,198
1,250
1,255
1,235
1,230
1,355
1,200
1,255
1,046
1,170
1,350
1,255
1,254
1,345
1,245
1,205
1,165
1,155
1,245
1,250
1,228
1,230
1,190
1,290
1,285
1,185
1,201
1,260
1,230
1,260
1,315
1,230
1,380
1,305
1,230
1,293
1,320
90
1,395
1,350
1,420
1,200
1,440
1,440
1,334
1,310
1,350
1,440
1,395
1,410
1,355
1,380
1,410
1,440
1,395
1,405
1,440
1,375
1,413
1,290
1,320
1,440
1,440
1,410
1,440
1,400
1,371
1,335
1,350
1,405
1,390
1,400
1,390
1,380
1,420
1,432
1,370
1,365
1,405
1,393
1,430
1,410
1,391
1,440
1,425
1,395
1,440
1,440
95
1,440
1,430
1,440
1,200
1,440
1,440
1,412.5
1,405
1,428
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,420
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,385
1,380
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,436
1,428
1,410
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,435
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
98
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,200
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
99
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,200
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
Page
16-40
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                 Table 16-16. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Rooms at Home and in All Rooms Combined, Doers Only (continued)
          =Indicates missing data.
DK       = The respondent replied "don't know".
Refused    = Refused data.
N        = doer sample size.
Mean      = Mean 24-hour cumulative number of minutes for doers.
SD       = standard deviation.
SE       = standard error.
Min       = minimum number of minutes.
Max       = maximum number of minutes. Percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.

Source:    U.S. EPA, 1996.	
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                           Page
June 2009                                                                                                  16-41
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-17. Time Spent (minutes/day) at Selected Indoor Locations Whole Population and Doers Only, Children <21




years
Percentiles
1
2
5 10 25 50
75
90
95
98
99



Restaurants - Whole Population
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-18. Time Spent (minutes/ day) at Selected Indoor Locations, Doers Only
Restaurant
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
2,059
986
1,073
30
61
84
122
1,503
259
1,747
148
37
30
78
19
1,911
129
5
14
263
1,063
208
515
10
299
132
590
431
359
248
409
504
680
466
1,291
768
524
559
556
420
1,903
150
6
1,998
50
11
1,945
104
10
Mean
94.5
87.5
101.0
126.1
62.7
56.7
69.8
101.2
83.6
91.7
102.8
81.3
145.2
123.0
123.8
92.9
116.7
76.0
114.5
62.3
105.5
122.6
76.3
135.0
72.2
134.8
99.4
94.9
89.5
95.0
94.4
96.9
92.7
94.9
97.3
89.8
97.7
91.6
95.1
93.6
94.1
96.3
196.3
94.9
69.0
140.3
93.7
96.1
232.8
SD
119.9
114.2
124.7
138.2
47.7
38.1
78.4
131.2
83.5
114.7
141.3
78.9
194.8
156.8
127.6
117.6
148.0
134.3
134.7
57.9
142.4
144.8
61.4
133.5
79.6
171.8
136.3
114.9
104.1
109.4
113.6
120.9
125.1
116.9
128.8
103.2
125.7
109.7
123.0
121.7
117.4
143.6
220.9
120.7
53.6
171.3
117.7
130.1
288.2
SE
2.6
3.6
3.8
25.2
6.1
4.2
7.1
3.4
5.2
2.7
11.6
13.0
35.6
17.8
29.3
2.7
13.0
60.1
36.0
3.6
4.4
10.0
2.7
42.2
4.6
15.0
5.6
5.5
5.5
6.9
5.6
5.4
4.8
5.4
3.6
3.7
5.5
4.6
5.2
5.9
2.7
11.7
90.2
2.7
7.6
51.6
2.7
12.8
91.1
Min
1
1
1
15
4
5
0
1
3
1
3
15
5
10
20
1
1
5
30
2
1
1
3
30
1
5
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
4
30
1
3
30
1
5
10
Max
925
900
925
495
330
180
455
925
750
925
805
480
765
700
480
925
765
315
480
455
925
805
490
425
548
925
910
770
765
765
765
805
910
925
925
770
875
925
910
900
910
925
480
925
340
480
910
925
875
5
10
10
10
30
10
10
10
10
19
10
5
18
10
15
20
10
15
5
30
10
10
5
15
30
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
30
10
15
30
10
15
10
25
30
30
40
45
35
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
45
40
30
30
40
10
30
30
35
33
40
60
30
30
35
35
35
40
35
30
30
30
30
36
35
35
30
30
35
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
30
50
60
60
60
60
55
45
45
60
60
60
60
60
83
60
70
60
60
10
60
45
60
65
60
83
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
46
79
60
60
70
60
60
79
75
95
90
105
150
85
85
65
105
90
95
95
90
120
110
210
95
115
40
90
80
105
123
90
135
85
152
90
105
100
115
100
105
90
110
93
105
105
95
94
95
100
90
480
100
90
120
97
90
480
90
185
160
230
398
115
120
165
211
150
175
295
135
433
375
330
180
360
315
330
120
235
320
145
378
130
375
203
180
165
180
210
190
195
175
210
155
178
180
210
185
180
238
480
190
105
480
180
235
678
95
351
305
380
490
120
120
250
400
215
320
430
200
750
585
480
330
435
315
480
140
485
441
195
425
250
535
435
340
295
260
330
340
365
375
377
280
351
360
360
325
330
485
480
355
120
480
335
360
875
98
548
550
540
495
130
140
325
570
315
535
555
480
765
660
480
542
660
315
480
273
630
595
260
425
360
700
645
550
490
560
507
560
550
535
555
510
595
505
555
540
545
590
480
550
286
480
548
500
875
99
660
660
670
495
330
180
360
675
520
640
735
480
765
700
480
645
700
315
480
330
735
660
315
425
480
750
680
640
570
675
585
675
650
640
700
620
685
555
675
653
653
670
480
660
340
480
653
620
875
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-43
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-18. Time Spent (minutes/day) at Selected Indoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
Indoors at Bar/Nightclub/Bowling Alley
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
352
213
139
4
4
8
313
23
297
25
8
7
10
5
327
20
-)
3
12
223
43
70
4
13
28
117
95
55
44
83
88
91
90
192
160
93
83
99
77
331
18
3
345
5
2
333
17
0
Mean
175.8
174.3
178.1
158.8
98.8
151.3
180.2
141.2
173.6
205.4
169.9
197.3
121.3
246.6
177.1
144.9
142.5
261.0
133.8
182.4
201.2
146.3
176.3
146.5
218.0
177.8
205.3
141.8
131.4
179.3
169.8
175.7
178.5
167.5
185.9
182.7
186.1
160.3
176.4
176.3
169.4
160.0
177.0
82.0
210.0
177.3
148.6
165.0
SD
132.2
133.2
131.2
98.0
57.5
77.7
136.7
85.2
132.6
126.6
153.3
187.6
52.3
127.2
134.5
85.1
31.8
171.9
73.6
138.3
155.5
97.4
115.1
84.2
170.2
130.1
152.8
92.8
90.2
137.0
126.2
132.0
135.5
133.5
130.4
131.7
147.6
130.7
117.2
133.7
109.0
124.9
132.8
47.2
127.3
133.3
108.5
190.9
SE
7.0
9.1
11.1
49.0
28.8
27.5
7.7
17.8
7.7
25.3
54.2
70.9
16.5
56.9
7.4
19.0
22.5
99.2
21.2
9.3
23.7
11.6
57.6
23.3
32 2
12.0
15.7
12.5
13.6
15.0
13.5
13.8
14.3
9.6
10.3
13.7
16.2
13.1
13.4
7.4
25.7
72.1
7.1
21.1
90.0
7.3
26.3
135.0
Mm
3
5
3
75
45
50
3
5
3
50
5
70
5
73
3
5
120
73
45
5
5
3
45
45
60
3
5
10
30
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
15
3
60
60
3
5
120
3
50
30
Max
870
870
630
300
170
270
870
328
870
540
479
615
198
410
870
440
165
410
270
870
615
479
300
300
870
630
650
417
400
650
615
870
605
650
870
650
870
630
615
870
530
300
870
120
300
870
530
300
5
30
30
30
75
45
50
30
30
30
60
5
70
5
73
30
38
120
73
45
30
45
30
45
45
75
25
30
20
30
45
30
35
30
30
45
40
30
30
30
30
60
60
30
5
120
30
50
30
25
90
90
95
98
53
80
90
75
90
120
38
110
105
180
90
110
120
73
60
90
90
73
83
60
120
90
105
75
60
89
90
90
85
80
108
87
90
75
100
90
105
60
90
75
120
90
110
30
50
150
140
150
130
90
160
150
135
140
180
175
135
118
270
150
120
143
300
135
150
150
123
180
150
175
150
180
120
110
140
148
148
153
120
165
150
140
120
165
150
135
120
150
90
210
150
120
165
75
223
220
225
220
145
205
225
180
220
240
225
185
160
300
225
160
165
410
178
228
270
180
270
185
235
225
240
205
178
240
212
225
225
210
228
240
230
189
220
225
210
300
225
120
300
225
175
300
90
328
340
300
300
170
270
370
240
328
417
479
615
179
410
340
222
165
410
225
340
455
255
300
270
420
360
462
265
265
328
299
270
407
340
322
410
380
285
299
340
270
300
340
120
300
340
210
300
95
487
479
530
300
170
270
498
325
487
498
479
615
198
410
489
343
165
410
270
525
520
328
300
300
568
489
590
340
290
489
487
462
479
520
475
455
498
530
410
487
530
300
487
120
300
487
530
300
98
570
568
600
300
170
270
590
328
590
540
479
615
198
410
590
440
165
410
270
600
615
462
300
300
870
540
615
410
400
630
568
570
590
590
568
560
570
605
600
590
530
300
590
120
300
590
530
300
99
615
615
605
300
170
270
615
328
630
540
479
615
198
410
615
440
165
410
270
630
615
479
300
300
870
570
650
417
400
650
615
870
605
605
630
650
870
630
615
615
530
300
615
120
300
615
530
300
Page
16-44
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Table 16-1 8. T
me Spent (minutes/day) at Selected Indoor Locations,
Doers Only (continued)
Indoors at School
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
1,224
581
643
18
43
302
287
550
24
928
131
39
36
76
14
1,082
127
5
10
616
275
138
190
5
679
24
114
173
93
141
261
290
427
246
1,179
45
392
353
207
272
1,095
124
5
1,209
9
6
1,175
42
7
Mean
343.4
358.6
329.6
314.1
288.5
396.3
402.6
295.4
187.7
348.5
339.8
332.4
363.6
294.0
279.7
344.9
333.0
293.0
329.5
390.3
331.3
280.9
258.7
166.0
388.9
233.3
186.6
281.4
300.4
373.5
345.7
334.4
354.0
332.8
346.8
252.0
369.3
355.1
316.8
311.0
342.8
350.7
287.0
344.6
205.8
292 2
344.8
306.7
315.4
SD
179.1
167.7
187.9
230.9
217.6
109.2
125.5
207.3
187.0
180.5
169.3
179.9
155.6
175.7
221.3
179.6
244.7
180.1
130.2
222.0
174.8
199.5
179.1
132.8
179.6
193.6
209.9
208.7
193.4
181.5
176.7
178.5
180.3
177.5
198.5
164.4
165.5
196.4
195.3
179.2
178.8
190.7
178.9
169.5
178.9
178.8
188.2
163.7
SE Mm
5.1 1
7.0 1
7.4 1
54.4 5
33.2 5
6.3 5
7.4 15
8.8 1
38.2 2
5.9 1
14.8 2
28.8 5
25.9 10
20.2 2
59.1 5
5.5 1
109.4 3
56.9 5
5.2 5
13.4 1
14.9 1
14.5 1
80.1 5
5.1 5
36.7 1
18.1 1
16.0 1
21.6 1
16.3 1
11.2 1
10.4 1
8.6 1
11.5 1
5.2 1
29.6 20
8.3 1
8.8 1
13.6 2
11.8 1
5.4 1
16.1 1
85.3 5
5.1 1
56.5 15
73.0 5
5.2 1
29.0 3
61.9 5
Max
995
995
855
713
665
665
855
995
585
995
855
840
820
565
681
995
562
625
855
995
800
855
440
855
540
785
995
755
683
995
730
855
820
995
820
855
855
995
855
995
855
445
995
510
480
995
632
440
5
10
30
5
5
10
170
120
5
3
10
15
20
105
10
5
10
3
5
115
5
10
5
5
100
2
4
5
5
15
11
10
10
15
10
40
20
12
10
5
10
10
5
10
15
5
10
10
5
25
210
255
180
165
60
365
383
104
45
213
230
190
273
143
60
210
200
65
200
365
115
160
60
5
360
30
20
120
115
250
210
180
235
195
222
105
285
250
125
120
200
250
180
210
90
180
212
120
180
50
395
400
390
248
269
403
420
300
120
400
390
365
366
363
260
395
390
415
350
410
405
285
263
180
410
298
108
255
320
442
385
390
415
378
395
180
405
400
365
365
390
402
365
395
180
324
395
378
378
75
454
450
455
520
500
445
450
460
328
458
445
450
458
432
440
455
445
420
445
450
510
412
410
200
450
374
295
425
470
510
455
440
462
440
455
360
457
455
445
445
455
445
440
455
275
440
455
444
440
90
540
540
540
625
580
535
500
553
480
545
510
560
502
495
625
540
500
562
538
525
575
480
528
440
525
460
480
550
540
575
535
530
540
555
540
555
545
535
557
540
540
535
445
540
510
480
540
465
440
95
585
600
582
713
595
565
565
612
510
600
580
580
598
525
681
598
565
562
625
570
625
537
572
440
580
465
580
640
580
615
620
585
575
595
585
632
600
575
585
595
585
605
445
595
510
480
595
580
440
98
660
690
640
713
665
625
710
683
585
665
624
840
820
540
681
665
600
562
625
640
690
660
778
440
640
540
645
820
730
655
710
645
640
681
655
820
680
636
640
660
660
645
445
660
510
480
660
632
440
99
723
778
683
713
665
640
778
785
585
723
645
840
820
565
681
730
630
562
625
665
755
683
840
440
710
540
690
855
755
680
855
683
755
713
723
820
710
713
723
778
723
800
445
723
510
480
730
632
440
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-45
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-18. Time Spent (minutes/ day) at Selected Indoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
Office or Factory
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
1,975
1,012
963
49
12
14
19
1,749
132
1,612
191
42
28
74
28
1,805
138
7
25
43
1,535
164
213
20
80
104
631
462
415
283
465
439
666
405
1,759
216
531
470
550
424
1,845
114
16
1,931
26
18
1,873
86
16
Mean
394.0
410.8
376.3
438.9
31.6
100.9
145.4
419.0
145.8
387.6
413.9
428.0
480.9
394.5
482.9
393.5
393.6
262.6
470.0
121.3
455.6
293.0
77.6
449.2
225.1
329.5
396.9
393.1
437.2
396.9
399.1
389.3
408.6
369.1
406.8
289.6
390.7
385.2
393.5
408.4
395.0
371.7
437.0
395.7
265.5
392.3
395.6
356.4
403.9
SD
230.8
233.5
226.7
232.6
25.6
155.1
181.1
218.4
194.0
232.0
218.0
216.8
200.9
237.8
246.1
229.6
238.6
242.1
258.8
178.0
200.3
197.0
123.0
184.8
248.5
264.4
228.1
228.8
205.2
232.2
226.2
229.1
228.2
240.4
225.2
249.1
231.7
240.7
224.5
226.6
230.4
231.3
272.1
229.7
246.8
282.6
230.0
236.1
289.5
SE
5.2
7.3
7.3
33.2
7.4
41.5
41.6
5.2
16.9
5.8
15.8
33.4
38.0
27.6
46.5
5.4
20.3
91.5
51.8
27.1
5.1
15.4
8.4
41.3
27.8
25.9
9.1
10.6
10.1
13.8
10.5
10.9
8.8
11.9
5.4
16.9
10.1
11.1
9.6
11.0
5.4
21.7
68.0
5.2
48.4
66.6
5.3
25.5
72.4
Min
1
1
1
10
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
10
40
1
30
1
1
1
17
1
1
1
1
30
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
5
5
1
5
5
Max
1,440
1,440
855
900
90
580
625
1,440
705
1,440
1,037
780
795
840
997
1,440
840
610
860
685
1,440
750
705
675
860
930
997
1,440
900
860
930
997
1,440
900
997
1,440
997
1,440
1,037
840
1,440
840
860
1,440
650
860
1,440
800
860
5
9
10
5
20
5
2
1
10
3
6
10
30
75
5
30
10
5
1
30
2
15
10
3
60
3
5
10
5
10
5
10
8
10
5
10
3
10
5
9
10
8
10
5
10
9
5
8
10
5
25
180
225
120
299
13
10
10
273
10
150
268
285
348
230
373
180
180
12
311
10
400
95
10
334
15
51
210
210
325
175
215
180
225
95
237
30
180
120
200
239
185
120
233
195
15
30
195
75
30
50
485
495
480
500
25
33
50
500
40
480
485
492
540
493
533
483
498
245
525
40
510
343
30
523
105
389
492
480
510
480
485
480
498
470
495
283
480
480
483
500
490
463
520
490
175
490
490
428
490
75
550
565
540
555
45
178
240
555
205
550
540
553
583
560
608
550
560
540
615
178
570
480
90
550
470
553
550
540
570
565
550
550
555
550
555
495
550
553
540
567
550
540
588
550
490
550
550
540
583
90
630
645
600
675
60
195
510
630
495
628
635
660
715
645
818
630
644
610
810
307
644
525
215
645
608
640
615
615
640
640
625
630
630
630
630
600
625
630
614
640
630
630
780
630
630
780
630
620
780
95
675
710
645
780
90
580
625
680
540
675
720
745
780
720
860
675
675
610
818
580
700
555
305
675
675
705
675
660
690
675
675
670
675
675
675
670
675
695
675
675
675
675
860
675
645
860
675
660
860
98
765
780
710
900
90
580
625
765
640
750
803
780
795
765
997
755
765
610
860
685
775
585
570
675
780
765
760
770
750
780
765
750
760
760
755
800
755
775
753
750
760
800
860
760
650
860
760
720
860
99
818
855
750
900
90
580
625
818
675
800
900
780
795
840
997
810
795
610
860
685
837
615
640
675
860
855
800
820
800
818
840
800
840
800
810
900
835
837
810
770
810
837
860
811
650
860
818
800
860
Page
16-46
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Table 16-18.
Time Spent (minutes/day) at Selected Indoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
Schools, Churches, Hospitals, and Public Buildings
Percentile
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
2,932
1,234
1,698
50
98
391
355
1,653
385
2,310
332
61
57
141
31
2,654
240
13
25
821
1,029
293
775
14
917
166
617
520
351
361
645
686
1,036
565
2,091
841
847
805
667
613
2,689
229
14
2,836
78
18
2,794
121
17
Mean
274.3
285.1
266.5
269.0
233.0
351.2
366.3
267.7
151.1
268.2
303.5
295.0
314.7
283.9
257.8
271.3
306.4
279.4
286.6
343.5
300.3
251.3
176.4
212.9
340.3
172.6
207.3
247.5
261.6
319.1
272.7
275.4
278.4
267.4
309.8
186.0
296.6
276.8
254.1
262.4
273.2
288.0
270.0
277.1
176.4
258.3
277.0
212.6
275.8
SD
205.9
206.7
205.1
221.0
235.8
149.6
161.2
221.2
128.6
204.3
207.1
199.4
203.5
229.8
192.5
203.6
230.8
230.7
175.4
171.1
239.8
199.3
148.4
147.7
172.6
138.0
199.0
213.6
214.3
236.2
211.6
207.2
201.0
207.2
212.6
156.9
201.2
204.6
209.7
207.3
207.3
191.6
171.2
206.4
172.8
165.6
207.3
166.3
163.4
SE
3.8
5.9
5.0
31.3
23.8
7.6
8.6
5.4
6.6
4.3
11.4
25.5
27.0
19.4
34.6
4.0
14.9
64.0
35.1
6.0
7.5
11.6
5.3
39.5
5.7
10.7
8.0
9.4
11.4
12.4
8.3
7.9
6.2
8.7
4.6
5.4
6.9
7.2
8.1
8.4
4.0
12.7
45.8
3.9
19.6
39.0
3.9
15.1
39.6
Min
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
5
10
2
5
1
1
35
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
5
3
1
10
5
Max
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,030
1,440
665
935
1,440
710
1,440
1,440
900
967
1,440
681
1,440
1,440
760
625
1,440
1,440
1,030
855
440
1,440
735
1,440
1,000
1,005
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,015
1,005
1,440
855
565
1,440
890
565
1,440
662
565
5
20
30
20
30
5
70
60
15
21
20
35
30
30
11
5
20
20
35
55
55
15
20
15
5
45
27
15
15
15
30
25
30
20
15
15
40
30
30
20
14
20
25
5
20
28
3
20
30
5
25
95
110
90
100
60
245
260
87
60
90
135
135
135
100
120
94
110
65
145
190
90
85
60
120
190
70
60
85
85
110
90
88
110
100
115
85
120
110
80
75
94
120
145
100
60
145
95
90
145
50
221
255
200
193
150
389
415
190
115
210
285
240
360
237
240
215
288
235
255
393
215
200
121
190
390
124
135
165
180
290
215
239
230
200
340
140
285
220
180
210
217
275
280
230
120
270
228
145
305
75
430
425
430
400
390
440
446
450
195
429
440
425
455
430
430
425
445
420
440
441
510
387
250
305
440
235
295
420
450
510
420
425
440
420
460
230
444
420
420
425
430
435
430
430
195
378
430
375
415
90
540
540
540
590
545
535
502
570
340
540
540
535
525
525
495
540
568
562
495
520
610
525
400
430
525
375
510
553
560
615
545
540
535
555
565
385
545
535
550
540
540
533
445
540
480
480
540
445
440
95
615
620
610
625
595
562
605
655
435
612
630
565
598
630
625
612
695
760
565
570
685
610
475
440
580
465
585
640
625
683
630
615
600
620
632
525
615
600
630
615
615
605
565
615
575
565
615
490
565
98
725
745
713
872
900
625
710
760
525
705
775
840
820
840
681
712
840
760
625
645
775
800
570
440
645
525
690
760
750
765
735
745
690
712
750
640
710
725
738
712
725
645
565
725
625
565
726
605
565
99
805
840
800
1030
1440
645
805
855
615
765
1000
900
967
940
681
800
940
760
625
713
900
880
641
440
713
640
785
855
800
900
855
850
778
820
855
735
770
840
890
778
820
800
565
805
890
565
840
630
565
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-47
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-18. Time Spent (minutes/ day) at Selected Indoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
Malls, Grocery Stores, or Other Stores
Percentiles
Group Name
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Group Code

Male
Female
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused

< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
2,697
1,020
1,677
50
110
129
140
1,871
397
2,234
237
37
52
110
27
2,476
188
12
21
372
1,170
285
854
16
420
206
792
583
411
285
622
601
871
603
1,721
976
683
679
759
576
2,480
208
9
2,607
74
16
2,553
130
14
Mean
115.0
120.2
111.8
139.4
90.0
77.7
88.7
125.9
88.6
111.6
123.0
158.9
150.2
133.1
124.7
114.4
126.1
49.4
122.4
86.9
136.8
134.1
91.2
98.9
88.3
128.9
126.3
129.8
117.9
78.2
110.2
108.2
127.9
107.9
117.5
110.6
111.7
115.8
113.1
120.2
116.2
101.1
85.1
116.0
90.8
62.7
115.7
104.8
71.1
SD
141.0
157.1
130.1
137.6
77.9
68.0
101.4
156.8
88.5
139.4
152.3
151.7
146.7
138.3
131.1
141.8
133.2
37.7
138.5
86.3
176.7
147.7
87.2
110.0
91.9
155.7
158.9
149.5
144.1
95.7
134.9
133.1
155.8
130.7
148.9
125.7
134.0
142.2
147.5
138.9
142.4
125.0
79.6
142.1
103.9
68.1
141.7
131.3
66.9
SE
2.7
4.9
3.2
19.5
7.4
6.0
8.6
3.6
4.4
3.0
9.9
24.9
20.3
13.2
25.2
2.9
9.7
10.9
30.2
4.5
5.2
8.8
3.0
27.5
4.5
10.8
5.6
6.2
7.1
5.7
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
3.6
4.0
5.1
5.5
5.4
5.8
2.9
8.7
26.5
2.8
12.1
17.0
2.8
11.5
17.9
Mm
1
1
1
15
5
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
10
1
1
0
10
1
1
0
1
10
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
33
1
0
-)
1
5
20
Max
1,080
840
1,080
660
420
320
530
1,080
655
1,080
800
600
660
720
515
1,080
720
122
515
660
1,080
540
585
357
660
1,080
960
800
720
630
755
840
1,080
840
1,080
840
840
720
1,080
840
1,080
600
290
1,080
630
290
1,080
613
290
5
10
5
10
20
10
5
5
10
10
10
10
14
14
10
10
10
10
2
20
5
10
6
10
10
5
10
5
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
5
10
10
5
33
10
15
2
10
10
20
25
30
30
30
45
40
30
20
30
30
30
25
50
65
35
30
30
30
18
33
30
30
30
30
32
29
30
30
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
55
30
37
30
30
25
35
50
60
60
60
93
65
60
45
60
60
60
60
105
103
90
60
60
90
48
60
60
60
65
60
53
60
75
60
70
60
50
60
60
60
60
60
65
60
60
60
60
60
60
58
60
64
55
60
60
57
75
135
130
135
180
105
110
124
150
120
130
135
220
180
195
207
132
173
70
180
120
150
186
120
115
120
150
150
165
135
90
130
130
155
120
135
135
135
130
125
160
135
120
60
135
105
60
135
135
70
90
285
375
255
339
210
180
223
360
180
265
370
410
280
310
300
285
270
105
290
206
480
400
195
290
210
330
365
345
290
160
280
250
320
255
320
255
255
300
300
295
288
245
290
290
150
110
285
193
110
95
482
530
400
420
250
225
318
525
255
495
480
480
588
450
380
495
450
122
380
255
562
480
255
357
263
500
524
510
515
250
465
440
520
430
510
380
420
500
510
480
495
420
290
495
190
290
481
505
290
98
570
609
550
565
359
255
384
600
400
570
600
600
600
535
515
570
540
122
515
360
640
520
360
357
384
570
600
563
600
450
563
560
600
550
586
560
568
588
570
550
575
545
290
570
510
290
570
575
290
99
640
658
600
660
360
280
413
658
470
640
613
600
660
540
515
640
610
122
515
384
690
540
420
357
420
605
660
651
640
555
600
645
660
600
650
608
660
645
610
640
640
550
290
640
630
290
640
609
290
Page
16-48
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-18. Time Spent (minutes/ day) at Selected Indoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
Indoors at a Gym/Health Club
Perc entiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Age (years)
Age (years) 1-4
Age (years) 5-11
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic Refused
Employment
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
= Indicates missing data.
DK = The respondent replied "don't know".
Refused = Refused data.
N = Doer sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
SE = Standard error.
Min = Minimum number of minutes.
Max = Maximum number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996
N
364
176
188
6
5
28
39
254
32
307
30
10
11
4
2
345
17
0
72
176
40
75
1
81
9
61
71
81
61
83
62
118
101
281
83
127
85
81
71
333
28
3
357
4
3
352
10
0






Mean
129.7
147.2
113.2
202.5
156.0
105.3
165.4
123.1
141.4
134.3
117.7
75.2
112.9
83.8
57.5
132.0
90.1
57.5
139.6
131.2
129.3
117.9
40.0
136.9
110.6
128.5
145.6
122.0
115.6
140.5
127.0
125.7
127.0
121.3
158.1
139.8
141.5
109.9
119.9
132.4
100.1
101.7
130.5
90.0
81.7
130.7
97.3
107.5






SD
104.3
115.6
89.9
227.9
29.9
69.5
122.1
98.8
114.2
109.4
75.4
36.5
69.1
42.7
3.5
105.9
58.8
3.5
103.3
112.5
92.8
91.3
-
99.7
97.7
110.0
129.1
99.5
76.9
107.2
88.7
107.0
108.5
96.6
123.7
108.3
115.2
87.4
99.0
106.8
69.4
55.8
105.0
47.6
65.3
104.8
92.8
67.2






SE
5.5
8.7
6.6
93.0
13.4
13.1
19.5
6.2
20.2
6.2
13.8
11.5
20.8
21.3
2.5
5.7
14.3
2.5
12.2
8.5
14.7
10.5
-
11.1
32.6
14.1
15.3
11.1
9.8
11.8
11.3
9.9
10.8
5.8
13.6
9.6
12.5
9.7
11.7
5.9
13.1
32 2
5.6
23.8
37.7
5.6
29.4
47.5






Mm
5
5
5
30
105
5
15
5
10
5
5
30
25
40
55
5
5
55
5
5
25
5
40
5
10
5
5
15
10
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
20
5
5
60
5
60
30
5
10
60






Max
686
686
660
560
180
325
660
686
533
686
320
145
270
140
60
686
255
60
660
686
420
533
40
660
300
660
600
686
415
660
440
660
686
686
660
686
600
525
660
686
330
165
686
160
155
686
330
155






5
30
30
30
30
105
30
30
30
30
30
10
30
25
40
55
30
5
55
30
30
35
25
40
30
10
25
35
30
40
40
25
15
50
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
25
60
30
60
30
30
10
60






25
60
78
60
55
160
58
90
60
60
65
60
54
65
53
55
65
60
55
76
60
60
60
40
75
30
75
65
60
60
70
60
60
60
60
77
75
65
60
56
62
60
60
62
60
30
61
45
60






50
110
120
93
75
160
83
138
100
103
110
115
60
90
78
58
110
90
58
120
110
95
90
40
120
80
105
110
98
90
120
113
105
92
98
120
120
102
90
98
110
86
80
110
70
60
110
77
108






75
155
175
135
420
175
141
206
150
173
164
145
95
153
115
60
160
115
60
165
150
168
145
40
164
165
145
170
135
145
170
170
150
135
145
180
177
164
130
150
160
118
165
155
120
155
158
120
155






90
240
285
200
560
180
165
330
210
292
255
235
133
179
140
60
240
140
60
265
240
285
230
40
215
300
210
285
220
225
240
285
240
225
210
285
240
285
160
215
255
210
165
240
160
155
240
245
155






95
320
360
279
560
180
270
440
295
340
330
285
145
270
140
60
325
255
60
330
330
325
285
40
325
300
310
533
285
265
330
300
330
292
295
415
330
340
310
295
325
230
165
325
160
155
320
330
155






98
525
533
420
560
180
325
660
475
533
533
320
145
270
140
60
533
255
60
440
560
420
475
40
440
300
525
560
420
320
600
340
533
525
475
600
533
560
440
420
533
330
165
525
160
155
525
330
155






99
600
660
560
560
180
325
660
600
533
600
320
145
270
140
60
600
255
60
660
660
420
533
40
660
300
660
600
686
415
660
440
540
560
560
660
660
600
525
660
600
330
165
600
160
155
600
330
155






Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-49
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-19. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations Whole Population and Doers Only, Children <21 years
Age (years) N Mean
Min -
Percentiles
1
2 5 10
25 50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
School Grounds/Playground - Whole Population
Birth to <
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-20. Time Spent (minutes /day) in Selected Outdoor Locations,
Doers Only
Outdoors on School Grounds/Playground
Perc entiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused

< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
DK
N
259
0.136
123
o
9
64
76
101
7
208
23
6
7
15
225
32
2
143
48
24
42
2
162
11
33
19
19
15
66
53
82
58
205
54
53
88
65
53
237
22
254
5
248
10
1
Mean
98.4
118.0
76.7
275.0
85.0
88.0
78.7
119.8
65.0
98.2
128.4
59.0
70.0
83.7
102.6
71.2
57.5
80.2
130.3
129.7
95.4
322.5
86.6
124.8
113.6
129.8
122.1
102.9
106.0
86.1
85.5
119.3
87.0
141.5
72.2
108.6
116.4
85.5
100.9
70.9
99.1
61.2
100.6
52.7
15.0
SD
110.1
126.4
83.9
374.8
61.1
95.6
88.2
127.6
47.3
106.5
157.5
66.1
59.7
103.0
113.7
79.9
31.8
88.0
127.2
158.9
94.8
307.6
94.6
171.9
110.7
147.4
149.9
98.1
115.2
109.2
92.4
125.6
105.5
117.1
102.0
96.5
137.9
96.2
113.2
62.0
110.8
53.4
111.6
45.4
0.0
SE
6.8
10.8
7.6
265.0
20.4
12.0
10.1
12.7
17.9
7.4
32.9
27.0
22.6
26.6
7.6
14.1
22.5
7.4
18.4
32.4
14.6
217.5
7.4
51.8
19.3
33.8
34.4
25.3
14.2
15.0
10.2
16.5
7.4
15.9
14.0
10.3
17.1
13.2
7.4
13.2
7.0
23.9
7.1
14.4
0.0
Mm
1
1
1
10
10
5
3
1
5
1
5
10
10
1
3
1
35
3
1
3
1
105
3
1
3
5
5
1
5
3
1
1
1
10
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
1
1
9
15
Max
690
690
570
540
175
625
570
690
150
690
570
179
180
370
690
370
80
625
555
690
440
540
625
540
555
510
690
360
690
540
570
625
625
690
555
540
690
540
690
179
690
130
690
160
15
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
9
5
10
10
1
9
1
35
9
10
10
5
105
10
1
5
5
5
1
10
5
5
10
5
25
3
10
10
5
5
10
5
1
5
9
15
25
30
35
20
10
30
30
25
30
30
30
25
10
10
10
30
13
35
25
40
35
30
105
27
5
30
33
50
30
30
20
30
30
25
67
20
45
30
20
30
15
30
15
30
22
15
50
70
85
51
275
65
60
55
85
60
70
67
35
60
30
70
33
58
55
85
85
80
323
60
45
90
70
85
75
85
50
60
85
55
113
35
85
75
55
70
45
69
70
71
44
15
75
120
149
120
540
140
120
105
165
95
125
170
85
105
120
125
110
80
115
180
144
120
540
120
180
160
210
125
125
150
115
115
160
115
180
85
148
135
120
120
145
120
90
125
60
15
90
208
255
180
540
175
170
165
240
150
190
300
179
180
228
210
150
80
160
300
228
180
540
170
345
240
440
235
235
190
190
180
235
180
290
130
215
270
180
215
160
208
130
210
125
15
95
300
370
225
540
175
220
225
360
150
281
540
179
180
370
300
228
80
215
360
510
235
540
220
540
290
510
690
360
281
290
255
440
240
345
315
255
360
235
315
165
300
130
300
160
15
98
540
555
270
540
175
315
370
540
150
510
570
179
180
370
540
370
80
315
555
690
440
540
370
540
555
510
690
360
540
510
360
555
540
440
440
510
625
345
540
179
540
130
540
160
15
99
570
625
440
540
175
625
570
555
150
555
570
179
180
370
570
370
80
570
555
690
440
540
570
540
555
510
690
360
690
540
570
625
555
690
555
540
690
540
570
179
570
130
570
160
15
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-51
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-20. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
Outdoors at a Park/Golf Course
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-20. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
Outdoors at a Pool/River/L
ike








Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
283
152
131
6
14
29
22
187
25
246
12
4
5
12
4
259
20
4
66
119
26
69
3
73
18
69
62
37
24
61
41
111
70
165
118
30
77
151
25
262
17
4
272
8
3
266
14
3
Mean
209.6
229.8
186.0
175.0
250.6
175.4
128.3
224.5
194.2
201.6
380.6
265.0
237.0
161.0
243.8
208.9
210.9
243.8
176.9
210.7
217.0
238.9
141.7
172.9
267.6
213.2
233.3
230.9
172.7
220.7
219.2
182.2
237.6
188.8
238.6
173.2
206.5
219.7
201.4
209.0
238.8
121.3
205.9
359.4
141.7
211.0
197.1
141.7
SD
185.7
202.7
161.3
157.0
177.5
117.9
94.4
203.8
161.8
182.3
231.9
247.1
129.9
131.7
208.6
187.8
160.1
208.6
131.3
176.1
199.9
236.2
52.5
130.0
159.4
224.1
192.4
187.3
197.0
172.4
257.2
161.3
181.8
179.9
190.4
181.7
163.6
196.8
189.7
188.2
162.0
59.2
185.2
178.8
52.5
189.1
131.5
52.5
SE
11.0
16.4
14.1
64.1
47.4
21.9
20.1
14.9
32.4
11.6
66.9
123.5
58.1
38.0
104.3
11.7
35.8
104.3
16.2
16.1
39.2
28.4
30.3
15.2
37.6
27.0
24.4
30.8
40.2
22.1
40.2
15.3
21.7
14.0
17.5
33.2
18.6
16.0
37.9
11.6
39.3
29.6
11.2
63.2
30.3
11.6
35.2
30.3
Mm
5
10
5
60
90
25
40
5
20
5
20
30
70
20
90
5
20
90
25
10
20
5
90
20
40
10
5
14
20
30
10
5
25
10
5
20
15
5
20
5
15
60
5
60
90
5
15
90
Max
1,440
1,440
645
480
630
390
420
1,440
525
1,440
690
505
435
390
550
1,440
540
550
630
900
670
1,440
195
630
600
1,440
690
645
900
900
1,440
670
690
1,440
900
630
690
1,440
670
1,440
570
195
1,440
690
195
1,440
440
195
5
25
30
20
60
90
30
58
20
30
25
20
30
70
20
90
25
29
90
40
20
30
20
90
30
40
20
30
20
25
30
20
20
40
30
20
20
30
26
45
25
15
60
25
60
90
25
15
90
25
60
83
60
85
130
60
60
60
60
60
178
53
220
53
115
60
88
115
70
65
60
65
90
70
145
60
65
70
45
60
60
60
90
60
75
40
80
65
70
60
105
75
60
288
90
60
90
90
50
150
174
135
115
168
145
83
150
115
145
450
263
225
113
168
150
155
168
143
150
120
145
140
140
248
145
150
173
113
180
120
118
180
125
188
103
180
155
105
150
225
115
145
340
140
150
173
140
75
296
305
280
195
370
293
210
320
277
285
563
478
235
265
373
295
338
373
235
298
320
370
195
225
375
285
360
400
240
325
280
280
300
255
350
270
288
300
310
295
350
168
291
435
195
296
300
195
90
480
510
440
480
560
365
225
511
480
440
615
505
435
375
550
480
451
550
370
510
570
510
195
370
525
511
550
505
370
390
480
420
548
420
555
493
480
445
510
480
525
195
480
690
195
480
370
195
95
570
600
550
480
630
375
235
615
510
560
690
505
435
390
550
585
526
550
420
600
580
630
195
420
600
670
580
630
480
510
600
525
615
511
630
585
555
580
510
580
570
195
570
690
195
580
440
195
98
670
690
630
480
630
390
420
690
525
670
690
505
435
390
550
670
540
550
560
645
670
690
195
560
600
690
615
645
900
670
1,440
630
690
615
690
630
670
630
670
670
570
195
645
690
195
670
440
195
99
690
900
630
480
630
390
420
900
525
690
690
505
435
390
550
690
540
550
630
670
670
1,440
195
630
600
1,440
690
645
900
900
1,440
645
690
670
690
630
690
900
670
690
570
195
690
690
195
690
440
195
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-53
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-20. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
Outdoors on a Sidewalk, Street
or in the Neighborhood
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
896
409
487
15
30
75
74
580
122
727
87
11
18
42
11
807
79
1
9
176
384
74
255
7
198
56
223
172
138
109
202
193
298
203
642
254
210
242
276
168
832
57
7
857
33
6
855
34
7
Mean
85.8
108.8
66.5
72.5
54.8
110.8
52.6
94.3
59.4
85.7
89.2
88.7
80.6
71.4
122.9
87.5
67.8
2.0
100.8
79.2
102.2
74.4
70.0
45.1
74.9
131.2
100.2
77.2
76.3
78.2
89.1
87.9
79.9
89.1
86.7
83.5
73.5
97.9
84.0
86.6
86.1
85.6
48.9
86.2
81.7
52.0
84.8
117.7
46.3
SD
133.8
168.1
91.9
69.4
52.7
116.8
74.8
153.9
61.5
136.5
132.7
114.0
106.0
110.8
117.7
136.1
110.3
115.9
96.3
169.5
113.9
94.0
36.6
92.3
247.3
146.9
128.8
106.6
121.3
132.3
153.3
125.5
127.9
143.9
104.2
144.3
137.2
123.1
131.9
129.5
193.1
28.0
134.9
117.4
29.3
132.3
176.4
27.5
SE
4.5
8.3
4.2
17.9
9.6
13.5
8.7
6.4
5.6
5.1
14.2
34.4
25.0
17.1
35.5
4.8
12.4
38.6
7.3
8.7
13.2
5.9
13.8
6.6
33.0
9.8
9.8
9.1
11.6
9.3
11.0
7.3
9.0
5.7
6.5
10.0
8.8
7.4
10.2
4.5
25.6
10.6
4.6
20.4
11.9
4.5
30.3
10.4
Min
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
10
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
Max
1,440
1,440
580
290
235
540
435
1,440
380
1,440
565
405
420
525
310
1,440
615
2
310
540
1,440
795
615
90
540
1,440
795
675
600
710
735
1,440
710
795
1,440
565
1,440
795
690
710
795
1,440
90
1,440
465
90
1,440
735
90
5
2
3
1
1
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
5
1
3
5
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
4
4
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
8
2
25
15
20
15
40
10
20
15
15
20
15
10
30
20
20
40
15
15
40
15
15
15
15
4
15
15
20
10
20
20
15
15
15
20
15
25
15
25
15
15
15
15
30
15
17
40
15
30
32
50
40
45
35
55
43
65
30
40
40
41
35
45
40
40
60
45
30
60
45
41
43
40
40
41
40
45
30
45
45
45
30
35
45
40
45
33
45
45
40
40
35
60
40
45
60
40
45
40
75
90
120
75
90
78
178
60
83
75
90
120
120
75
75
290
90
62
90
110
75
86
85
90
90
118
95
75
70
60
90
85
75
105
80
90
60
120
90
90
90
90
60
90
60
60
85
120
60
90
223
330
152
120
125
240
125
278
120
215
324
149
240
135
300
225
140
310
200
330
180
152
90
185
465
275
180
205
200
235
240
185
210
223
220
160
240
200
240
225
180
90
223
250
90
225
215
90
95
405
525
255
290
158
410
200
480
190
405
426
405
420
290
310
410
300
310
260
525
255
270
90
240
710
480
435
310
330
410
333
420
300
426
310
270
435
420
405
418
235
90
410
380
90
405
690
90
98
565
615
435
290
235
465
338
600
235
570
540
405
420
525
310
565
525
310
435
600
390
380
90
435
735
600
570
485
560
530
565
532
570
585
440
560
570
525
600
565
260
90
565
465
90
560
735
90
99
615
710
465
290
235
540
435
690
270
675
565
405
420
525
310
600
615
2
310
465
710
795
485
90
465
1,440
680
600
565
570
570
600
680
615
680
480
710
675
580
615
600
1,440
90
615
465
90
600
735
90
Page
16-54
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-20. Time Spent (mmutes/d
ay) in Selected Outdoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)
At Home in the Yard or Other Areas Outside the House
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
2,308
1,198
1,107
3
27
151
271
157
1,301
401
1,966
173
21
37
83
28
2,122
153
10
23
581
807
166
739
15
615
236
618
381
251
207
473
456
832
547
1,453
855
399
787
796
326
2,129
166
13
2,228
63
17
2,191
105
12
Mean
137.6
158.4
114.9
183.3
167.4
135.3
150.6
113.2
136.4
141.1
139.0
128.4
101.2
183.5
106.1
152.3
137.7
125.0
213.8
176.7
137.5
131.1
126.1
146.1
198.0
136.3
161.0
144.7
128.8
123.0
127.1
137.7
138.9
136.5
138.2
126.9
155.7
112.2
149.7
143.7
124.5
137.7
131.6
188.5
136.5
158.7
199.1
138.8
104.4
207.5
SD
144.1
160.0
120.9
60.3
164.5
111.5
135.1
117.7
147.9
155.2
145.5
144.6
88.5
161.9
96.8
151.0
144.3
134.3
192.2
156.6
125.6
150.7
134.1
149.7
239.0
125.7
186.5
144.9
141.2
135.8
150.0
132.8
155.7
146.7
139.9
131.6
161.7
136.0
139.2
155.9
130.5
144.4
136.0
192.1
141.1
216.3
191.3
145.0
111.3
192.2
SE
3.0
4.6
3.6
34.8
31.7
9.1
8.2
9.4
4.1
7.8
3.3
11.0
19.3
26.6
10.6
28.5
3.1
10.9
60.8
32.6
5.2
5.3
10.4
5 5
61.7
5.1
12.1
5.8
7.2
8.6
10.4
6.1
7.3
5.1
6.0
3.5
5.5
6.8
5.0
5 5
7.2
3.1
10.6
53.3
3.0
27.3
46.4
3.1
10.9
55.5
Min Max
1 1,290
1 1,290
1 1,065
120 240
2 600
5 630
2 1,250
2 660
1 1,080
1 1,290
1 1,290
1 1,250
12 360
2 750
2 610
5 600
1 1,290
1 750
3 585
5 600
2 1,250
1 1,080
1 1,080
1 1,290
5 660
2 1,250
2 1,290
1 840
1 1,080
1 750
1 1,065
1 750
2 1,290
1 1,080
1 750
1 1,250
1 1,290
1 1,080
1 915
1 1,290
1 720
1 1,290
1 670
5 600
1 1,290
2 1,080
5 600
1 1,290
1 553
5 600
5
10
10
5
120
5
25
20
5
5
10
10
5
15
3
5
5
10
5
3
5
15
5
10
10
5
15
10
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
5
5
10
5
5
25
40
60
30
120
60
60
60
30
30
45
40
30
35
84
35
60
40
30
60
60
60
30
30
45
30
60
45
40
35
30
30
45
45
35
36
35
45
30
60
45
35
40
30
60
41
30
35
45
30
60
50
90
120
75
190
120
90
120
80
90
90
90
95
90
120
75
98
90
85
145
160
110
80
78
100
120
105
105
100
85
75
78
90
90
90
90
90
110
60
120
99
88
90
90
90
90
75
120
90
60
140
75
180
198
150
240
230
180
190
150
180
180
180
180
125
270
145
210
180
150
380
240
180
175
180
185
465
180
195
195
175
160
150
185
180
180
180
165
210
140
195
180
160
180
165
300
180
180
325
180
145
330
90
320
360
285
240
395
305
310
240
330
302
330
270
210
380
240
360
320
270
503
360
300
307
300
360
600
300
390
360
300
300
320
317
300
310
330
300
360
300
338
330
300
315
345
480
315
420
480
320
270
480
95
420
500
360
240
600
345
405
405
435
465
435
390
240
553
270
510
420
435
585
510
370
450
360
465
660
370
510
479
400
390
435
420
440
420
460
395
475
380
430
450
380
420
450
600
420
485
600
430
360
600
98
570
627
450
240
600
450
553
462
570
598
570
462
360
750
330
600
570
575
585
600
480
600
450
585
660
480
765
555
585
575
570
532
575
570
570
553
630
540
555
610
510
570
553
600
570
1065
600
570
415
600
99
660
730
560
240
600
480
570
610
715
660
670
745
360
750
610
600
670
630
585
600
570
745
485
655
660
570
915
660
720
690
630
600
690
730
630
610
745
690
660
715
655
690
610
600
660
1080
600
690
475
600
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-55
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                        Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-20. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Outdoor Locations, Doers Only (continued)


Cumulati
ve Outdoors (outside the residence)
Percentiles
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years)
Age (years) 1-4
Age (years) 5-11
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
= Indicates missing data.
DK = The respondent replied "don't know
Refused = Refused data.
N = Doer sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
SE = Standard error.
Min = Minimum number of minutes.
Max = Maximum number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
N
3,124
1,533
1,588
3
40
201
353
219
1,809
502
2,622
255
34
53
125
35
2,857
222
15
30
774
1,110
240
978
22
825
306
837
527
355
274
635
639
1,120
730
1,933
1,191
548
1,034
1,098
444
2,869
236
19
3,023
76
25
2,968
139
17






Mean
154.0
174.9
133.5
340.0
164.0
195.7
187.6
135.3
144.2
156.4
156.8
141.6
115.8
167.0
117.3
187.1
153.8
146.4
191.5
212.5
175.8
141.3
134.7
156.1
152.7
174.1
171.9
153.6
143.4
126.9
130.5
148.0
156.0
158.6
150.6
141.2
174.9
114.0
171.9
168.3
126.5
154.5
145.8
182.4
153.2
172.9
195.0
154.9
129.4
206.8






SD
158.3
173.7
138.8
140.0
179.6
163.7
158.6
137.0
155.1
168.3
160.2
153.2
135.6
149.0
128.9
163.8
158.4
154.1
178.3
165.3
156.1
159.9
140.8
159.2
209.8
156.2
188.4
154.8
157.1
142.6
151.0
143.7
169.2
165.2
149.6
149.0
170.4
138.1
159.4
168.2
140.7
159.2
145.5
181.0
156.3
222.3
170.4
158.8
142.5
179.8






SE
2.8
4.4
3.5
80.8
28.4
11.5
8.4
9.3
3.6
7.5
3.1
9.6
23.2
20.5
11.5
TIH
3.0
10.3
46.0
30.2
5.6
4.8
9.1
5.1
44.7
5.4
10.8
5.4
6.8
7.6
9.1
5.7
6.7
4.9
5 5
3.4
4.9
5.9
5.0
5.1
6.7
3.0
9.5
41.5
2.8
25.5
34.1
2.9
12.1
43.6






Min
1
1
1
240
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
1
15
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
5






Max
1,290
1,290
1,065
500
720
715
1,250
720
1,080
1,290
1,290
1,250
480
750
720
600
1,290
750
585
600
1,250
1,080
1,080
1,290
660
1,250
1,290
840
1,080
750
1,065
750
1,290
1,080
855
1,250
1,290
1,080
990
1,290
960
1,290
885
600
1,290
1,080
600
1,290
855
600






5
5
10
5
240
4
30
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
5
15
5
5
5
5
15
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5






25
40
60
30
240
40
75
80
35
30
36
45
30
20
60
30
60
40
30
40
60
60
30
30
40
15
60
45
35
30
30
30
35
45
40
36
31
50
25
60
50
30
40
45
60
40
30
60
40
30
60






50
105
120
90
280
108
135
150
100
90
110
105
95
60
130
70
170
105
113
140
180
125
85
90
115
60
125
120
105
90
80
75
105
102
110
105
90
120
60
120
120
75
105
105
120
105
69
150
105
75
170






75
210
240
190
500
213
270
265
190
199
210
215
195
150
238
150
240
210
200
380
345
245
195
183
220
125
240
240
215
195
170
180
215
210
210
213
190
260
150
240
235
163
210
190
300
210
253
300
210
175
300






90
362
420
325
500
430
430
365
300
360
375
375
330
360
320
270
450
362
345
420
458
380
359
333
375
555
380
405
380
360
300
325
345
360
390
360
345
400
280
390
400
313
365
360
480
360
465
465
367
327
480






95
480
540
415
500
600
535
479
452
470
485
485
420
450
475
355
510
480
480
585
510
480
490
423
480
600
480
510
480
465
415
465
450
500
495
465
452
500
380
495
510
420
480
450
600
479
660
480
480
415
600






98
610
680
525
500
720
625
600
545
600
645
625
535
480
553
590
600
610
640
585
600
610
660
485
610
660
610
765
598
615
615
570
575
655
640
575
598
660
540
645
630
575
615
575
600
610
1,065
600
615
553
600






99
715
745
610
500
720
699
720
610
715
735
720
645
480
750
610
600
720
690
585
600
705
745
525
701
660
699
855
701
720
690
660
610
750
745
660
698
745
690
730
715
655
720
610
600
707
1,080
600
715
735
600






Page
16-56
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
            Table 16-21. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) Inside and Outside, by Age Category, Children <21 years
    Age (years)          N       Average Indoor Minutes3    Average Outdoor Minutes'5   Average Unclassified Minutes0
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to65
Time Outdoors away from
Residence3
Mean 95th %ile
144.2 470
156.5 485
Time Outdoors
at Residence15 Total Time Outdoors0
Mean 95th %ile Mean 95th %ile
136.4 435 281
141.1 465 298
Time Indoors
18-64
>65
a
b
c
Source:
Total Minutes per 24 hours

1,440
1,440
Total Time Outdoors Total Time Indoors0
Mean Mean
281 1,159
298 1,142
For additional statistics see Table 16-27
For additional statistics see Table 16-27
Total Time Outdoors was calculated by summing the time spent outdoors away from the
residence and the time outdoors at the residence.
U.S. EPA, 1996.
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
 Page
16-57
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-23.


Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined Whole Population and Doers Only, Children <21 Years





1

2
Percentiles
5 10 25 50

75

90

95

98

99


Car - Whole Population
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-23. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined Whole Population and Doers Only, Children <21 Years
(continued)
Age (years) N Mean

1
Percentiles
2
5 10
25
50
75
90
95
98

99
All Vehicles - Whole Population
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-24. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined
Doers Only
Car
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused

< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
6,560
2,852
3,706
-)
120
297
449
393
4,489
812
5,337
640
117
121
265
80
5,987
477
29
67
1,124
3,134
632
1,629
41
1,260
434
1,805
1,335
992
734
1,412
1,492
2,251
1,405
4,427
2,133
1,703
1,735
1,767
1,355
6,063
463
34
6,368
154
38
6,224
300
36
Mean
87.4
90.7
84.9
30.0
94.0
63.0
64.6
64.8
93.8
83.5
87.6
86.8
78.8
87.7
90.1
82.4
87.5
88.5
63.9
86.1
64.2
93.6
90.1
90.4
97.2
66.5
86.0
91.8
93.2
95.7
91.5
85.8
89.1
88.3
85.9
83.9
94.7
83.5
88.6
88.0
90.1
87.4
88.2
78.4
87.5
82.2
89.6
87.6
85.6
81.1
SD
88.2
97.3
80.4
14.1
90.2
56.8
81.1
71.0
92.3
79.4
89.7
74.3
66.3
84.5
101.5
73.3
87.6
97.2
73.1
78.4
72.3
92.2
82.0
90.2
84.0
72.3
82.1
91.1
94.3
95.5
82.0
83.8
86.6
89.3
92.2
85.0
94.0
82.1
91.5
86.5
93.2
88.0
92.1
57.4
88.7
68.6
72.9
88.9
76.2
63.1
SE
1.1
1.8
1.3
10.0
8.2
3.3
3.8
3.6
1.4
2.8
1.2
2.9
6.1
7.7
6.2
8.2
1.1
4.5
13.6
9.6
2 2
1.6
3.3
2 2
13.1
2.0
3.9
2.1
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.2
2.2
1.9
2.5
1.3
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.5
1.1
4.3
9.8
1.1
5 5
11.8
1.1
4.4
10.5
Min
1
1
1
20
7
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
5
3
2
5
i
2
5
5
1
2
2
1
10
1
5
i
2
4
4
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
10
1
8
10
1
1
5
Max
1,280
1,280
878
40
593
390
900
630
1,280
780
1,280
690
360
540
825
420
1,280
825
325
420
900
1,280
878
780
330
900
620
870
1,280
840
905
780
825
900
1,280
905
1,280
870
905
900
1,280
1,280
870
239
1,280
365
360
1,280
505
239
5
10
10
10
20
10
10
5
9
13
10
10
10
20
10
15
12
10
10
6
14
5
15
10
10
15
6
10
10
10
14
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
34
30
35
20
38
25
20
20
40
30
31
35
35
30
35
30
35
30
20
30
20
40
40
35
30
21
35
38
36
40
40
33
35
34
30
30
35
30
30
35
35
34
34
30
34
30
35
34
35
30
50
63
63
64
30
72
45
40
41
70
60
64
65
60
60
65
60
65
60
40
60
45
70
70
60
75
45
60
65
70
73
75
60
65
65
60
60
70
60
60
65
70
63
64
71
64
60
74
62
69
71
75
110
115
110
40
120
80
85
80
120
110
110
115
95
120
100
120
110
103
60
120
81
120
117
115
120
85
115
115
120
120
115
110
113
115
110
105
120
105
110
115
115
110
110
100
110
115
120
110
109
120
90
175
185
165
40
180
135
145
136
184
165
175
180
135
180
165
168
175
180
187
180
136
180
175
195
220
145
165
190
180
185
175
170
180
175
175
165
190
165
180
170
170
175
165
160
175
162
180
175
185
175
95
240
254
220
40
223
180
175
185
250
225
240
240
225
250
235
230
240
240
200
239
180
242
230
250
290
187
210
255
250
250
235
240
250
235
235
225
265
230
250
235
240
240
245
220
240
214
239
240
238
220
98
345
360
335
40
435
235
310
300
360
315
360
305
320
330
465
315
345
388
325
315
270
360
330
365
330
270
360
385
380
370
330
330
360
338
345
330
360
350
380
330
335
350
345
239
350
285
360
350
305
239
99
450
526
420
40
450
270
345
380
495
405
460
330
330
345
620
420
440
595
325
420
345
490
384
465
330
350
455
465
460
580
380
410
465
490
435
440
455
425
480
450
545
450
505
239
450
320
360
450
435
239
Page
16-60
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-24. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined, Doers Only (continued)
Truck (Pick-up/Van)
Percentiles
Group Name
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Group Code

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
1,172
760
412
13
41
89
80
859
90
1,022
68
3
20
48
11
1,069
87
5
11
205
642
97
217
11
230
119
392
238
127
66
170
268
491
243
796
376
322
300
323
227
1,092
72
8
1,142
20
10
1,128
35
9
Mean
85.3
91.1
74.6
110.8
80.8
47.6
66.8
91.4
79.0
84.7
91.3
138.3
67.2
92.8
88.2
85.1
89.1
58.0
85.9
60.2
93.3
89.4
83.0
96.4
64.0
90.5
87.6
92.0
85.2
112.4
85.4
91.2
87.3
74.7
80.1
96.3
78.5
92.5
86.1
84.2
85.3
83.6
101.9
84.9
93.4
118.5
85.5
77.8
93.3
SD
95.9
105.4
74.2
129.2
154.3
44.2
71.1
98.0
82.4
96.2
98.5
63.3
48.5
99.3
110.8
95.6
100.8
36.2
111.6
86.4
101.4
89.0
85.8
114.3
86.9
81.7
94.7
111.8
74.6
118.0
104.2
94.4
100.1
81.3
90.6
105.5
91.6
100.2
99.3
90.9
93.5
125.3
129.7
95.2
116.0
128.6
96.6
60.5
123.9
SE
2.8
3.8
3.7
35.8
24.1
4.7
7.9
3.3
8.7
3.0
11.9
36.6
10.8
14.3
33.4
2.9
10.8
16.2
33.7
6.0
4.0
9.0
5.8
34.5
5.7
7.5
4.8
7.2
6.6
14.5
8.0
5.8
4.5
5.2
3.2
5.4
5.1
5.8
5 5
6.0
2.8
14.8
45.8
2.8
25.9
40.7
2.9
10.2
41.3
Min
1
1
1
10
1
1
5
2
10
1
6
90
5
5
10
1
5
20
10
1
4
2
5
10
1
5
2
4
5
10
2
1
4
5
1
2
1
1
2
5
1
5
10
1
5
10
1
5
10
Max
955
955
510
450
955
240
352
750
453
955
453
210
165
440
390
955
630
97
390
955
750
460
655
390
955
453
675
750
370
650
695
750
955
478
750
955
955
695
750
675
750
955
390
955
555
390
955
240
390
5
10
10
10
10
10
7
6
10
12
10
14
90
8
10
10
10
5
20
10
7
10
6
10
10
7
14
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
5
10
25
30
30
25
35
15
15
15
30
30
30
28
90
25
28
30
30
29
20
30
15
30
30
30
30
15
35
30
30
30
35
20
30
30
23
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
20
20
30
38
30
30
30
20
50
60
60
55
60
35
30
37
60
49
60
63
115
63
60
60
60
60
68
35
30
60
60
60
35
35
60
60
60
60
80
50
60
60
52
55
61
51
60
60
60
60
46
60
60
70
60
60
60
60
75
110
115
95
90
70
65
94
115
105
110
106
210
103
120
65
110
115
85
65
75
120
120
110
170
85
120
115
110
110
135
110
119
111
90
101
120
95
120
110
105
110
115
128
110
103
190
110
120
65
90
180
190
165
300
206
110
180
189
185
180
220
210
137
224
190
180
210
97
190
146
192
190
180
190
160
195
185
190
180
220
186
205
180
160
170
192
170
208
180
165
184
170
390
180
141
340
180
165
390
95
240
265
220
450
210
130
223
260
265
235
295
210
155
330
390
240
230
97
390
185
270
270
235
390
206
280
255
290
230
412
260
245
235
235
230
280
220
268
233
265
240
235
390
235
351
390
240
220
390
98
395
450
300
450
955
180
265
440
390
390
450
210
165
440
390
390
440
97
390
240
450
450
300
390
245
295
450
555
345
445
445
390
445
395
375
430
355
443
430
395
412
395
390
395
555
390
412
240
390
99
478
620
355
450
955
240
352
555
453
510
453
210
165
440
390
478
630
97
390
265
555
460
355
390
352
450
510
655
355
650
630
460
595
440
510
460
445
549
595
465
478
955
390
475
555
390
478
240
390
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-61
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-24. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined, Doers Only (continued)
Bus
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
469
219
250
14
5
133
143
147
27
311
101
15
14
24
4
415
46
2
6
274
95
34
61
5
295
25
57
38
30
24
145
102
142
80
426
43
158
140
94
77
413
50
6
459
4
6
442
19
8
Mean
74.6
77.3
72.4
145.0
56.0
48.4
59.4
96.6
132.0
70.1
85.2
58.0
107.1
65.5
168.0
72.8
83.9
47.5
137.8
54.0
122.6
83.3
80.3
167.4
55.3
120.4
111.6
108.8
84.6
110.5
77.1
69.7
71.7
81.8
70.6
114.7
78.3
61.6
86.6
76.2
76.4
55.4
111.5
73.4
168.8
109.5
74.8
58.2
104.6
SD
93.5
104.1
83.3
167.2
40.2
29.4
46.3
128.4
144.6
89.5
92.4
58.5
176.5
71.5
196.2
86.1
138.9
10.6
159.6
39.4
168.8
79.3
69.2
169.9
45.0
124.3
116.7
133.4
128.1
199.2
75.4
103.3
82.8
124.3
84.6
152.2
98.1
53.5
116.7
107.5
96.8
39.3
161.5
91.3
182.7
162.4
94.3
39.9
137.9
SE
4.3
7.0
5.3
44.7
18.0
2.6
3.9
10.6
27.8
5.1
9.2
15.1
47.2
14.6
98.1
4.2
20.5
7.5
65.2
2.4
17.3
13.6
8.9
76.0
2.6
24.9
15.5
21.6
23.4
40.7
6.3
10.2
7.0
13.9
4.1
23.2
7.8
4.5
12.0
12.3
4.8
5.6
65.9
4.3
91.3
66.3
4.5
9.1
48.8
Min
2
5
9
10
15
5
7
0
10
0
5
5
20
15
10
2
7
40
10
5
5
2
5
10
5
10
10
10
0
5
7
-)
5
5
2
10
5
2
5
5
2
5
10
2
20
10
2
10
10
Max
945
945
640
605
120
140
370
945
570
945
570
175
690
370
435
945
690
55
435
370
945
468
460
435
435
570
501
640
690
945
435
945
570
690
690
945
690
460
945
640
945
195
435
945
435
435
945
155
435
5
10
10
15
10
15
10
10
10
20
10
15
5
20
20
10
10
15
40
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
30
20
20
5
10
15
10
10
13
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
25
30
30
30
60
30
25
30
30
45
30
35
20
30
30
21
30
30
40
32
29
30
40
30
32
29
45
45
40
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
45
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
30
60
30
30
30
29
50
55
55
55
100
55
43
54
60
73
54
60
20
43
43
114
55
38
48
78
50
60
60
65
165
49
90
73
75
60
60
60
55
50
42
50
90
58
50
60
50
55
48
46
55
110
41
55
55
68
75
90
90
90
140
60
67
75
110
130
80
110
120
100
87
315
90
85
55
195
70
120
100
120
195
70
135
120
120
90
102
95
85
80
90
85
120
90
75
95
80
90
71
100
90
278
100
90
65
100
90
125
135
120
435
120
90
110
180
435
120
140
155
225
90
435
125
145
55
435
100
405
135
135
435
100
195
225
195
130
125
135
120
135
128
120
180
125
120
155
125
125
115
435
125
435
435
125
125
435
95
180
180
175
605
120
110
135
405
460
147
185
175
690
120
435
165
370
55
435
120
570
185
165
435
120
405
435
605
300
460
180
125
180
298
165
300
180
138
225
175
180
135
435
179
435
435
180
155
435
98
435
460
420
605
120
120
179
640
570
405
460
175
690
370
435
420
690
55
435
150
690
468
205
435
155
570
468
640
690
945
435
175
460
640
435
945
435
205
435
570
435
165
435
420
435
435
435
155
435
99
570
570
501
605
120
122
225
690
570
501
468
175
690
370
435
468
690
55
435
179
945
468
460
435
225
570
501
640
690
945
435
468
501
690
501
945
605
225
945
640
570
195
435
570
435
435
570
155
435
Page
16-62
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-24. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Vehicles and All Vehicles Combined
Doers Only (continued)
All Vehicles Combined
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years)
Age (years) 1-4
Age (years) 5-11
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
= Indicates missing data.
DK = The respondent replied "don't know
Refused = Refused data.
N = Doer sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
SE = Standard error.
Min = Minimum number of minutes.
Max = Maximum number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
N
7,743
3,603
4,138
2
144
335
571
500
5,286
907
6,288
766
133
144
319
93
7,050
578
34
81
1,388
3,732
720
1,849
54
1,550
561
2,166
1,556
1,108
802
1,662
1,759
2,704
1,618
5,289
2,454
2,037
2,032
2,090
1,584
7,152
544
47
7,516
172
55
7,349
342
52






Mean
97.3
103.7
91.7
30.0
117.0
68.1
71.0
81.5
104.0
90.9
97.2
98.7
83.4
96.2
101.7
93.6
97.1
100.0
73.0
98.9
73.6
105.8
98.8
96.6
120.3
76.4
100.8
101.6
103.2
104.5
101.9
98.6
101.2
96.1
93.7
94.4
103.4
94.3
99.6
97.8
97.4
97.3
97.2
100.0
97.3
93.1
108.9
97.6
91.0
98.9






SD
104.9
119.7
89.8
14.1
129.1
75.5
77.6
79.8
111.1
93.9
107.2
91.3
74.9
94.0
110.4
90.1
104.8
109.0
68.3
95.3
77.8
116.2
95.0
99.5
108.6
78.9
120.2
107.6
110.1
109.5
108.7
106.6
114.6
97.7
103.7
101.4
111.9
101.4
110.5
103.8
103.7
104.6
110.8
95.2
105.2
93.1
99.7
106.1
79.3
93.8






SE
1.2
2.0
1.4
10.0
10.8
4.1
3.2
3.6
1.5
3.1
1.4
3.3
6.5
7.8
6.2
9.3
1.2
4.5
11.7
10.6
2.1
1.9
3.5
2.3
14.8
2.0
5.1
2.3
2.8
3.3
3.8
2.6
2.7
1.9
2.6
1.4
2.3
2 2
2.5
2.3
2.6
1.2
4.8
13.9
1.2
7.1
13.4
1.2
4.3
13.0






Mm
1
1
1
20
5
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
5
3
2
10
1
2
5
10
1
4
2
1
10
1
5
i
2
4
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
10
1
8
10
1
2
5






Max
1,440
1,440
995
40
810
955
900
790
1,440
900
1,440
810
540
690
825
480
1,440
825
325
480
955
1,440
960
995
480
955
1,440
1,210
1,280
1,215
1,357
1,215
1,440
955
1,280
1,215
1,440
1,080
1,440
1,357
1,280
1,440
955
480
1,440
615
480
1,440
505
480






5
12
10
12
20
20
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
20
10
20
15
10
15
6
15
10
16
10
10
20
10
15
12
15
15
20
15
10
13
10
10
13
10
12
10
14
10
17
10
11
15
20
10
15
10






25
40
40
40
20
40
30
25
30
43
35
40
45
35
40
41
30
40
40
25
30
30
45
45
37
35
30
40
40
40
45
45
40
40
40
35
40
40
35
40
40
40
40
40
30
40
30
35
40
40
30






50
70
70
70
30
80
47
51
60
75
60
70
75
70
70
70
65
70
70
60
65
55
75
75
65
88
60
70
70
75
75
76
70
70
70
65
66
75
65
70
70
70
70
65
75
70
65
75
70
70
74






75
120
120
115
40
143
85
90
100
120
120
120
120
105
128
120
120
120
120
97
130
90
124
120
120
190
95
120
120
120
125
120
120
120
120
115
115
125
116
120
120
120
120
117
120
120
120
150
120
115
145






90
190
205
180
40
210
150
140
166
200
190
190
195
150
180
190
205
190
190
175
220
150
198
195
200
290
155
180
210
195
200
195
190
205
190
180
180
205
190
200
190
180
190
180
220
190
185
235
190
195
195






95
270
295
240
40
435
200
171
233
285
258
270
265
210
250
335
255
270
285
200
255
195
290
260
275
330
201
265
286
285
280
270
275
290
250
260
260
280
270
275
260
265
270
255
239
270
280
360
270
240
239






98
425
478
385
40
593
245
275
345
450
400
425
390
330
345
465
420
420
480
325
420
275
475
380
420
390
303
460
445
460
450
365
425
435
420
420
435
420
425
440
415
420
425
460
480
425
420
390
425
325
390






99
570
655
465
40
660
270
360
405
620
460
595
485
360
540
620
480
566
630
325
480
382
660
470
526
480
385
620
570
630
675
480
570
595
558
540
575
540
544
546
558
620
570
705
480
570
540
480
580
460
480






Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-63
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-25. Time

Age (years)




Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities Whole Population and Doers Only, Children <2 1 Years



1
Percentiles
2 5 10 25 50

75

90

95

98

99


Sleeping/Napping - Whole Population
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table

Age (years)
16-25. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities Whole Population and Doers Only, Children <21 Years (continued)






Percentiles
1
2
5 10 25 50
75
90
95
98
99


Outdoor Recreation -Whole Population
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-25. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities Whole Population and Doers Only, Children <21 Years (continued)
Age (years) N Mean
Min
Percentiles
1 2
5 10
25
50
75
90
95
98

99
Walking - Whole Population
Birth to <
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-26.
Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities
Doers Only
Sleeping/Napping
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
9,362
4,283
5,075
4
185
499
702
588
6,041
1,347
7,576
940
156
181
383
126
8,514
700
45
103
1,771
4,085
798
2,638
70
1,966
832
2,604
1,791
1,245
924
2,068
,096
,234
,964
,303
,059
,514
,431
,533
1,884
8,608
692
62
9,039
249
74
8,860
432
70
Mean
526.3
523.3
528.7
645.0
502.3
732.4
625.1
563.7
496.9
517.1
523.6
541.3
537.1
528.8
538.0
523.4
525.2
540.1
527.5
521.6
636.6
487.2
502.8
520.3
513.7
625.6
515.4
505.4
496.6
492.5
486.7
523.1
520.8
529.0
530.9
511.1
557.5
534.9
526.8
527.7
512.2
525.1
540.1
544.2
526.8
513.7
511.4
526.5
521.7
521.2
SD
134.4
135.2
133.7
123.7
125.4
124.3
100.7
110.8
123.0
117.5
129.5
162.7
118.1
142.3
148.9
143.7
133.2
147.1
139.3
138.9
128.5
118.9
117.4
125.5
136.5
134.0
135.7
123.0
119.9
117.6
110.4
133.7
127.6
135.7
140.0
131.8
134.4
134.7
130.5
139.5
131.1
133.6
143.6
141.0
134.2
137.7
146.3
134.3
138.5
131.9
SE
1.4
2.1
1.8
61.8
9.2
5.6
3.8
4.6
1.6
3.2
1.5
5.3
9.5
10.6
7.6
12.8
1.4
5.6
20.8
13.7
3.1
1.9
4.2
2.4
16.3
3.0
4.7
2.4
2.8
3.3
3.6
2.9
2.8
2.4
3.2
1.7
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.8
3.0
1.4
5.5
17.9
1.4
8.7
17.0
1.4
6.7
15.8
Min
30
30
30
540
195
270
120
150
30
30
30
60
300
60
60
180
30
60
195
240
120
30
60
30
210
120
30
30
60
75
105
55
30
30
60
30
30
55
30
30
60
30
30
300
30
60
30
30
80
210
Max
1,430
1,295
1,430
780
908
1,320
1,110
1,015
1,420
1,430
1,430
1,415
920
905
1,125
1,140
1,430
1,125
842
930
1,320
1,420
1,005
1,430
930
1,420
1,317
1,430
1,350
1,404
1,295
1,420
1,215
1,430
1,404
1,430
1,420
1,404
1,175
1,430
1,420
1,430
1,404
1,035
1,420
1,430
930
1,430
1,110
930
5
345
330
350
540
330
540
480
395
330
345
350
315
345
300
315
330
345
320
345
330
440
325
330
345
320
420
300
330
315
330
345
345
330
345
345
330
360
355
345
330
330
345
330
330
345
300
300
345
300
300
25
445
435
450
540
420
655
570
484
420
450
445
424
468
420
450
420
445
450
420
420
555
420
435
450
420
540
435
420
420
420
420
435
440
450
450
420
480
450
445
435
430
445
450
465
445
445
420
445
420
450
50
510
510
510
630
480
720
630
550
480
510
510
530
540
525
540
510
510
540
515
510
630
480
495
510
490
628
510
495
480
480
480
510
510
510
510
495
540
520
510
510
505
510
538
535
510
510
510
510
510
510
75
600
600
600
750
555
810
680
630
555
570
600
630
600
630
630
600
600
630
659
590
705
540
570
590
570
699
585
570
565
540
540
600
598
600
600
570
630
600
600
600
570
600
618
600
600
595
600
600
600
600
90
690
690
690
780
655
900
725
705
630
660
690
738
690
720
720
720
690
720
690
720
802
628
645
660
697
790
670
659
630
629
615
690
690
699
690
670
720
700
690
699
660
690
715
720
690
660
720
690
705
690
95
760
765
750
780
745
930
780
750
705
720
750
823
735
769
765
780
750
778
710
780
860
685
720
720
780
855
750
720
690
690
660
760
745
765
769
745
780
780
750
765
735
750
780
780
760
735
780
760
765
745
98
850
860
840
780
865
1,005
840
810
780
780
840
940
840
810
870
870
855
843
842
865
930
770
780
800
900
926
860
780
779
775
725
860
840
855
862
840
870
870
840
840
840
840
900
930
855
795
840
850
840
840
99
925
925
925
780
900
1,110
875
900
868
860
900
1,020
870
842
930
930
925
915
842
870
975
840
860
885
930
975
900
840
845
900
800
930
870
925
940
920
925
930
900
930
900
915
945
1035
925
845
930
924
930
930
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-67
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-26. Time Spent (minutes/ day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only (continued)
Eating or Drinking
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
8,627
3,979
4,644
4
157
492
680
538
5,464
1,296
7,049
808
148
168
345
109
7,861
639
41
86
1,695
3,684
715
2,472
61
1,867
758
2,363
1,612
1,160
867
1,916
1,928
2,960
1,823
5,813
2,814
2,332
2,222
2,352
1,721
7,937
635
55
8,318
243
66
8,169
397
61
Mean
74.9
75.8
74.1
60.0
75.3
93.5
68.5
55.9
71.9
91.7
77.0
59.9
80.4
66.0
68.7
74.2
75.6
68.3
60.4
68.9
72.2
70.6
72.2
83.9
71.0
70.9
72.3
74.9
73.9
78.5
82.8
78.3
75.8
71.4
76.0
71.2
82.5
76.1
76.3
73.5
73.3
75.2
71.4
69.3
74.6
85.0
75.7
74.7
80.7
67.0
SD
54.8
56.2
53.6
21.2
50.1
52.9
39.0
35.0
55.1
62.7
55.7
46.6
47.8
52.1
51.9
60.8
55.2
50.2
37.1
55.5
44.9
55.1
55.4
59.1
61.0
45.4
57.4
57.1
56.5
55.4
59.7
59.2
51.4
55.1
53.0
52.0
59.5
56.4
55.2
53.3
54.3
54.8
55.0
56.6
54.4
63.5
67.3
54.3
65.2
47.7
SE
0.6
0.9
0.8
10.6
4.0
2.4
1.5
1.5
0.7
1.7
0.7
1.6
3.9
4.0
2.8
5.8
0.6
2.0
5.8
6.0
1.1
0.9
2.1
1.2
7.8
1.1
2.1
1.2
1.4
1.6
2.0
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.2
0.7
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.6
2 2
7.6
0.6
4.1
8.3
0.6
3.3
6.1
Min
1
1
2
30
10
2
5
2
1
5
i
2
2
7
2
8
1
2
5
8
2
1
2
2
8
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
8
1
2
5
1
2
8
Max
900
900
640
75
315
345
255
210
900
750
900
505
305
525
435
410
900
435
150
410
345
900
509
750
385
375
460
900
525
640
750
750
435
900
500
900
630
640
630
750
900
900
460
335
900
500
435
900
460
230
5
15
15
15
30
15
20
15
10
15
20
15
15
15
15
12
20
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
25
35
39
34
45
30
60
40
30
30
50
40
30
45
30
30
30
35
30
30
30
40
30
30
45
30
38
30
35
30
40
40
37
40
30
35
33
40
39
35
35
30
35
30
30
35
45
30
35
30
30
50
60
60
60
68
65
90
65
50
60
80
64
50
73
60
60
60
60
60
55
60
65
60
60
75
55
60
60
60
60
65
70
65
64
60
60
60
70
65
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
75
60
60
60
60
75
96
96
98
75
100
120
90
75
90
120
100
75
107
83
90
90
100
90
90
90
90
90
90
110
90
90
90
96
90
105
110
103
100
90
100
90
110
96
100
95
95
100
90
90
95
115
90
95
110
90
90
140
140
140
75
145
160
120
105
135
165
145
119
150
120
125
130
140
120
120
115
133
135
135
150
120
130
135
140
145
145
150
145
140
135
150
130
150
140
145
135
140
140
133
120
140
160
150
140
150
120
95
175
180
170
75
150
190
143
125
170
200
180
140
160
135
165
180
175
155
130
155
150
165
170
185
145
150
180
175
175
180
185
180
175
165
180
165
190
175
178
170
175
175
170
210
175
180
195
170
180
155
98
215
210
225
75
195
225
165
150
220
270
225
200
200
190
195
290
220
195
150
210
195
225
230
235
235
190
230
220
230
220
240
240
210
210
210
210
240
240
220
210
210
215
225
215
210
285
215
210
285
215
99
270
270
270
75
285
270
195
170
270
295
270
225
200
200
225
315
270
225
150
410
210
270
260
285
385
210
315
270
275
265
270
285
255
270
240
250
297
275
275
260
232
270
285
335
265
330
435
260
360
230
Page
16-68
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-26. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only (continued)
Working in a Main Job
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
3,259
1,733
1,526
80
3
10
38
2,993
135
2,630
343
57
56
125
48
2,980
221
12
46
47
2,679
395
112
26
108
217
1,045
795
627
467
721
755
1,142
641
2,788
471
864
791
910
694
3,042
195
22
3,192
44
23
3,120
116
23
Mean
475.9
492.3
457.3
472.4
16.7
150.4
293.2
484.8
366.1
477.5
466.6
464.1
477.4
465.9
492.1
475.4
481.5
529.6
468.5
257.9
504.4
364.6
270.9
513.6
343.0
473.5
482.0
475.6
484.5
483.0
476.0
477.0
478.2
470.4
487.9
405.2
475.8
473.0
477.2
477.7
477.0
453.4
523.2
475.7
472.1
507.4
476.5
447.0
535.2
SD
179.1
187.0
167.7
183.3
11.5
185.8
180.7
173.1
208.7
179.0
176.0
177.3
181.7
185.3
191.6
179.2
174.3
146.2
201.3
202.8
164.8
159.4
216.0
155.5
211.9
216.7
180.6
174.0
159.8
169.6
180.8
182.2
176.7
177.8
166.2
229.5
172.8
195.4
179.9
166.0
177.0
204.2
217.0
178.4
200.7
230.3
178.2
189.4
226.3
SE
3.1
4.5
4.3
20.5
6.7
58.8
29.3
3.2
18.0
3.5
9.5
23.5
24.3
16.6
27.7
3.3
11.7
42.2
29.7
29.6
3.2
8.0
20.4
30.5
20.4
14.7
5.6
6.2
6.4
7.8
6.7
6.6
5.2
7.0
3.1
10.6
5.9
6.9
6.0
6.3
3.2
14.6
46.3
3.2
30.3
48.0
3.2
17.6
47.2
Min
1
1
2
5
10
2
5
i
5
1
5
5
45
2
50
1
2
295
10
2
1
5
4
170
2
4
1
2
5
i
i
2
1
5
1
2
5
1
1
2
1
5
170
1
10
80
1
5
170
Max
1,440
1,440
1,440
940
30
550
840
1,440
990
1,440
1037
870
855
840
957
1,440
1,106
757
860
840
1,440
945
990
840
860
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,005
945
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,080
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,215
1,005
1,440
1,440
1,215
1,440
990
1,215
1,440
985
1,215
5
120
120
120
118
10
2
15
140
30
120
105
45
75
95
120
120
150
295
115
5
180
80
9
225
10
85
120
140
120
125
120
120
105
120
155
30
150
75
120
130
120
45
225
120
60
170
120
30
225
25
395
417
390
378
10
10
185
420
185
400
390
390
415
360
410
395
405
425
350
65
450
250
83
440
177
360
405
409
424
400
405
395
405
390
425
245
390
390
400
405
400
345
430
395
386
430
400
368
430
50
500
510
485
483
10
68
269
505
395
500
490
493
510
485
508
500
505
554
498
245
510
365
245
510
343
485
500
495
510
510
495
495
505
500
505
415
495
495
500
510
500
480
500
500
500
500
500
480
500
75
570
595
543
560
30
264
390
570
500
570
550
553
570
580
575
570
580
610
585
390
582
480
378
570
510
568
565
563
570
590
570
570
570
570
570
555
570
570
565
570
570
550
565
570
573
565
570
558
600
90
660
690
620
673
30
448
510
660
600
660
655
660
680
720
810
660
670
710
780
540
675
540
600
778
610
710
670
648
645
660
669
660
660
657
660
670
660
670
670
645
660
668
780
660
679
780
660
644
860
95
740
770
690
850
30
550
675
745
660
735
735
750
765
750
840
740
740
757
818
625
750
600
675
790
675
795
765
750
720
730
740
750
735
730
740
770
735
765
750
720
740
793
860
740
730
860
740
720
875
98
840
890
785
900
30
550
840
840
840
845
880
780
780
825
957
850
825
757
860
840
855
675
795
840
840
940
890
825
765
810
890
825
840
850
840
870
835
850
890
780
840
855
1,215
840
990
1,215
840
800
1,215
99
930
955
850
940
30
550
840
930
940
933
990
870
855
840
957
940
840
757
860
840
950
795
870
840
840
1,080
979
905
815
860
950
940
900
880
930
960
900
915
979
840
930
979
1,215
930
990
1,215
930
855
1,215
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-69
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Table 16-26
. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only (continued)
Attending Full Time School
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
884
468
416
7
56
297
271
247
6
665
92
33
29
58
7
771
103
4
6
608
49
89
135
3
666
14
54
100
24
26
186
200
322
176
858
26
302
287
125
170
784
96
4
875
4
5
851
27
6
Mean
358.5
369.3
346.4
232.1
365.0
387.8
392.3
292.2
203.3
362.9
351.8
346.3
337.8
345.3
285.0
359.6
353.1
315.5
348.3
386.5
206.6
304.7
325.3
270.0
385.0
267.1
238.5
303.4
238.4
302.8
351.6
358.1
373.9
338.3
363.7
189.5
375.1
353.4
332.4
357.0
358.0
363.0
363.8
358.6
382.5
333.6
359.1
340.1
357.2
SD
130.3
123.2
137.1
148.1
199.2
98.0
85.0
154.6
147.4
128.5
129.6
156.0
148.1
124.0
157.0
130.8
126.4
167.8
140.6
107.3
133.6
134.8
161.0
147.2
107.9
129.3
141.1
170.6
145.9
144.1
127.0
123.9
139.7
120.5
126.0
158.4
118.5
133.7
142.1
132.8
130.7
127.9
162.6
130.5
87.7
140.5
130.4
132.7
121.5
SE
4.4
5.7
6.7
56.0
26.6
5.7
5.2
9.8
60.2
5.0
13.5
24.2
27.5
16.3
59.4
4.7
12.5
83.9
57.4
4.4
19.1
14.3
13.9
85.0
4.2
34.6
19.2
17.1
29.8
28.3
9.3
8.8
7.8
9.1
4.3
31.1
6.8
7.9
12.7
10.2
4.7
13.1
81.3
4.4
43.9
62.8
4.5
25.5
49.6
Min
1
20
1
10
20
60
10
1
75
1
40
90
58
30
60
1
30
65
150
10
5
25
1
185
10
5
58
1
25
10
60
5
10
1
1
15
5
10
40
1
1
20
120
1
255
120
1
30
120
Max
840
840
710
495
710
645
605
840
480
825
710
840
553
565
440
840
630
416
445
710
502
695
840
440
710
415
785
840
565
535
825
645
840
630
840
465
695
840
630
785
840
695
450
840
455
460
840
605
440
5
95
120
75
10
30
170
200
60
75
107
70
120
70
85
60
100
85
65
150
165
15
90
60
185
160
5
60
60
30
95
120
88
60
120
120
20
150
90
70
120
95
95
120
95
255
120
95
60
120
25
300
320
263
180
173
360
375
180
120
310
287
225
212
260
150
300
269
221
185
361
115
210
215
185
360
175
125
185
135
210
268
308
330
263
310
60
330
290
217
285
295
334
280
300
330
270
300
305
350
50
390
390
385
210
428
390
405
289
153
392
388
365
360
378
290
390
385
391
435
400
180
295
340
440
400
310
212
273
200
300
375
393
405
375
390
120
395
390
375
380
390
390
443
390
410
378
390
365
397
75
435
435
430
320
530
435
435
400
240
435
433
435
445
430
440
435
425
410
440
440
305
395
420
440
440
357
330
415
360
461
420
425
450
410
435
300
440
430
425
430
435
428
448
435
435
440
435
435
440
90
483
485
480
495
595
485
460
480
480
485
465
500
502
480
440
483
483
415
445
485
430
480
500
440
485
385
400
526
430
500
483
470
500
465
485
460
495
475
470
510
485
475
450
483
455
460
485
450
440
95
550
555
535
495
628
555
485
535
480
550
526
565
540
510
440
550
510
415
445
550
461
500
605
440
550
415
480
614
460
502
520
528
565
540
550
465
550
500
550
565
550
540
450
550
455
460
550
460
440
98
600
595
600
495
665
600
510
645
480
600
645
840
553
510
440
600
595
415
445
595
502
585
785
440
595
415
480
760
565
535
600
578
625
555
600
465
612
570
600
605
595
645
450
600
455
460
600
605
440
99
640
645
628
495
710
630
555
785
480
630
710
840
553
565
440
645
600
415
445
625
502
695
825
440
625
415
785
833
565
535
785
602
645
600
640
465
640
710
600
645
630
695
450
640
455
460
640
605
440
Page
16-70
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Table 16-2
6. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Act
ivities, Doers Only (continued)
Outdoor Recreation
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused

< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
253
140
112
1
2
13
21
27
158
32
225
16
3
0
4
3
238
12
3
60
104
19
68
2
64
79
59
54
31
23
52
54
84
63
129
124
31
75
102
45
232
19
2
245
6
2
238
13
0
Mean
211.2
231.8
183.7
420.0
337.5
166.5
206.1
155.1
223.6
211.1
209.8
233.9
203.3
327.5
77.5
308.3
211.8
175.5
308.3
177.1
210.7
205.3
244.4
187.5
176.7
259.4
238.2
218.1
224.7
157.6
189.6
212.1
217.3
220.3
197.2
225.8
196.6
198.9
228.2
203.5
208.2
250.2
187.5
206.8
399.2
187.5
212.2
196.3
187.5
SD
185.5
207.4
150.2
-
201.5
177.1
156.2
128.3
193.0
206.6
182.7
231.3
262.2
130.8
53.9
209.4
187.1
149.1
209.4
150.0
153.4
204.0
245.0
10.6
145.3
178.0
229.0
172.2
193.1
178.2
160.9
228.4
175.3
179.7
195.3
174.3
165.5
161.7
204.2
193.8
187.7
166.6
10.6
184.9
151.2
10.6
189.2
122.2
10.6
SE
11.7
17.5
14.2
-
142.5
49.1
34.1
24.7
15.4
36.5
12.2
57.8
151.4
92.5
27.0
120.9
12.1
43.0
120.9
19.4
15.0
46.8
29.7
7.5
18.2
37.9
29.8
23.4
34.7
37.2
22 3
31.1
19.1
22.6
17.2
15.6
29.7
18.7
20.2
28.9
12.3
38.2
7.5
11.8
61.7
7.5
12.3
33.9
7.5
Mm
5
5
5
420
195
15
30
5
5
5
5
5
30
235
20
180
5
15
180
5
5
30
5
180
5
5
15
5
20
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
180
5
285
180
5
5
180
Max
1,440
1,440
645
420
480
630
585
465
1,440
735
1,440
690
505
420
150
550
1,440
511
550
630
670
690
1,440
195
630
600
1,440
690
690
735
690
1,440
645
690
1,440
690
585
690
1,440
735
1,440
570
195
1,440
690
195
1,440
370
195
5
20
18
20
420
195
15
60
5
30
5
20
5
30
235
20
180
20
15
180
13
30
30
15
180
15
30
20
25
30
10
30
20
15
30
15
20
5
25
30
20
20
15
180
20
285
180
20
5
180
25
60
68
60
420
195
30
90
60
80
30
60
43
30
235
43
180
60
70
180
60
83
60
60
180
60
105
90
65
60
50
60
60
63
75
60
85
60
75
75
60
60
80
180
60
310
180
60
117
180
50
165
177
150
420
338
130
165
135
173
171
165
150
75
328
70
195
165
150
195
148
180
150
180
188
153
248
175
173
150
80
163
178
150
165
150
180
165
180
180
120
159
255
188
160
345
188
165
160
1 88
75
300
330
255
420
480
180
245
225
310
375
300
450
505
420
113
550
300
255
550
230
294
180
375
195
225
380
310
345
325
200
232
280
348
280
275
310
280
270
325
330
294
350
195
288
420
195
300
310
195
90
480
503
380
420
480
370
360
420
505
495
460
585
505
420
150
550
480
340
550
395
419
570
525
195
370
525
511
460
505
370
370
419
495
545
465
480
440
465
459
505
480
525
195
480
690
195
495
340
195
95
574
600
525
420
480
630
574
420
585
600
570
690
505
420
150
550
585
511
550
520
511
690
690
195
465
600
670
550
645
480
574
600
525
585
525
600
550
545
585
574
585
570
195
570
690
195
585
370
195
98
670
690
585
420
480
630
585
465
690
735
670
690
505
420
150
550
690
511
550
585
600
690
735
195
585
600
690
570
690
735
670
735
600
690
670
690
585
670
690
735
690
570
195
670
690
195
690
370
195
99
690
735
630
420
480
630
585
465
690
735
690
690
505
420
150
550
690
511
550
630
645
690
1,440
195
630
600
1,440
690
690
735
690
1,440
645
690
735
690
585
690
690
735
690
570
195
690
690
195
690
370
195
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-71
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-26. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only (continued)
Active Sports
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused

Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
1,384
753
629
2
23
105
247
215
642
152
1,139
109
30
35
59
12
1,250
120
4
10
561
375
87
352
9
610
86
233
178
165
112
333
254
479
318
902
482
316
423
425
220
1,266
105
13
1,343
33
8
1,331
43
10
Mean
124.0
136.8
108.6
142.5
108.7
115.8
148.9
137.5
120.3
88.0
126.0
113.4
89.9
135.4
116.3
120.0
124.5
121.2
113.8
102.0
137.1
117.6
116.2
112.5
99.4
137.7
101.0
116.8
115.8
116.2
106.4
132.0
116.9
119.5
128.1
115.5
139.9
115.6
130.8
129.5
112.3
122.5
144.8
105.0
125.5
72.1
86.9
124.1
130.0
84.0
SD
112.8
120.8
100.6
38.9
78.6
98.9
126.6
124.5
110.4
80.2
116.2
96.8
79.2
112.2
91.3
86.6
113.5
110.8
57.5
72.1
120.8
107.3
87.6
110.0
77.2
121.2
99.7
116.8
100.3
97.9
97.9
129.1
101.9
108.7
108.8
97.8
135.2
115.2
105.0
115.1
118.3
109.6
145.8
110.4
113.6
74.0
41.1
113.2
112.7
39.8
SE
3.0
4.4
4.0
27.5
16.4
9.6
8.1
8.5
4.4
6.5
3.4
9.3
14.5
19.0
11.9
25.0
3.2
10.1
28.8
22.8
5.1
5 5
9.4
5.9
25.7
4.9
10.8
7.7
7.5
7.6
9.2
7.1
6.4
5.0
6.1
3.3
6.2
6.5
5.1
5.6
8.0
3.1
14.2
30.6
3.1
12.9
14.5
3.1
17.2
12.6
Mm
1
1
1
115
5
10
2
5
1
1
1
5
5
15
1
40
1
1
60
40
2
5
1
1
30
2
10
1
1
1
5
i
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
i
i
i
i
30
1
5
40
1
10
40
Max
1,130
1,130
1,065
170
290
630
975
1065
1,130
380
1,130
440
310
553
520
300
1,130
630
185
290
1065
1,130
450
600
280
1,065
570
1,130
525
600
375
1,130
570
975
625
650
1,130
1,065
650
625
1,130
1,130
1,065
450
1,130
330
155
1,130
553
155
5
15
20
15
115
30
30
20
15
15
15
15
10
10
20
15
40
15
15
60
40
20
20
15
10
30
20
15
20
15
15
10
15
18
15
25
15
20
15
30
15
15
15
15
30
15
5
40
15
30
40
25
50
60
38
115
40
45
60
60
45
30
50
45
30
60
45
60
45
50
68
60
60
45
60
30
45
60
30
45
45
50
40
60
45
45
55
45
59
45
60
45
43
45
60
60
50
30
60
50
45
60
50
90
105
75
143
90
90
120
110
90
60
90
86
60
105
115
95
90
90
105
83
110
90
95
70
90
110
60
85
90
90
60
100
90
90
93
90
100
85
105
95
78
90
110
60
90
50
75
90
110
75
75
165
180
150
170
155
159
188
180
160
120
165
150
145
195
145
130
165
148
160
105
180
155
160
150
120
180
135
150
160
150
143
170
150
160
175
150
180
155
175
178
144
162
180
90
165
60
115
165
165
105
90
267
285
240
170
220
250
320
265
250
220
270
240
215
270
240
290
270
240
185
215
285
240
235
270
280
285
225
240
270
250
270
275
255
265
295
240
300
240
270
290
240
266
300
165
270
180
155
267
270
148
95
330
375
300
170
225
330
390
375
330
285
340
332
235
330
305
300
330
335
185
290
370
305
285
330
280
370
270
300
340
310
330
345
315
330
330
300
380
305
330
375
290
330
390
450
332
275
155
330
340
155
98
435
500
370
170
290
345
510
470
450
315
452
430
310
553
345
300
435
520
185
290
452
380
355
475
280
470
510
420
418
380
360
485
430
410
500
395
500
370
435
462
460
430
553
450
440
330
155
435
553
155
99
525
558
435
170
290
390
558
520
525
330
530
435
310
553
520
300
515
553
185
290
558
525
450
520
280
558
570
530
475
450
375
558
440
462
525
485
565
475
515
530
565
515
565
450
525
330
155
520
553
155
Page
16-72
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-26. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activ
ties, Doers Only
(continued)
Exercise
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused

< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
564
262
302
10
11
26
35
407
75
480
34
10
14
19
7
516
38
3
7
72
300
50
139
3
83
21
124
104
110
122
130
101
177
156
426
138
150
140
192
82
523
37
4
553
7
4
542
17
5
Mean
77.4
84.7
71.1
76.5
127.3
132.5
67.8
77.6
54.9
78.0
74.7
46.3
80.2
63.0
128.6
76.9
76.6
65.0
128.6
99.0
72.7
86.0
72.7
113.3
102.0
58.2
81.0
80.9
73.6
60.9
88.4
63.6
75.3
79.6
73.1
90.8
67.4
74.9
93.2
63.3
76.6
78.2
175.0
77.3
27.3
188.8
77.1
64.6
157.0
SD
70.4
75.8
64.9
74.0
187.2
126.3
41.6
63.6
44.5
71.5
44.7
25.0
73.9
60.7
130.5
70.1
59.5
69.5
130.5
111.6
55.6
83.6
63.4
135.8
111.0
66.1
63.0
70.2
62.5
38.4
77.6
44.3
71.6
75.3
63.9
86.6
49.9
55.4
91.3
63.3
70.2
51.5
167.0
69.4
19.6
150.4
69.5
60.6
149.6
SE
3.0
4.7
3.7
23.4
56.4
24.8
7.0
3.2
5.1
3.3
7.7
7.9
19.8
13.9
49.3
3.1
9.7
40.1
49.3
13.2
3.2
11.8
5.4
78.4
12.2
14.4
5.7
6.9
6.0
3.5
6.8
4.4
5.4
6.0
3.1
7.4
4.1
4.7
6.6
7.0
3.1
8.5
83.5
2.9
7.4
75.2
3.0
14.7
66.9
Mm
4
5
4
15
15
15
15
4
6
4
15
15
30
15
30
4
15
20
30
15
5
10
4
30
15
10
4
15
5
5
10
10
5
4
4
6
8
10
5
4
4
20
10
4
6
60
4
10
15
Max
670
670
525
270
670
525
180
480
195
670
250
95
275
265
360
670
265
145
360
670
460
420
480
270
670
300
298
480
460
240
450
300
525
670
670
525
285
360
670
460
670
275
360
670
60
360
670
275
360
5
15
20
15
15
15
25
20
20
10
15
15
15
30
15
30
15
20
20
30
20
20
20
10
30
25
10
15
20
20
15
15
15
15
20
15
15
15
18
20
15
15
20
10
15
6
60
15
10
15
25
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
25
30
45
30
30
30
55
30
30
20
55
30
30
30
30
30
30
28
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
35
30
10
63
30
30
60
50
60
60
60
60
60
90
60
60
40
60
60
42
48
45
60
60
60
30
60
60
60
60
60
40
60
30
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
63
45
60
65
165
60
25
168
60
50
80
75
100
117
90
90
150
180
100
100
70
100
105
60
90
60
270
99
110
145
270
120
90
92
90
270
120
60
115
113
98
80
120
89
90
104
90
120
90
90
120
75
100
100
315
100
45
315
100
63
270
90
150
165
125
1 88
160
275
120
145
120
150
120
83
179
160
360
145
160
145
360
180
130
168
135
270
205
90
179
150
130
110
200
115
150
130
130
200
128
148
180
120
150
120
360
145
60
360
145
120
360
95
195
205
175
270
670
450
150
185
150
194
130
95
275
265
360
193
250
145
360
275
180
300
195
270
275
165
205
170
180
127
240
120
185
183
180
265
175
181
250
135
185
200
360
193
60
360
185
275
360
98
275
285
265
270
670
525
180
265
193
285
250
95
275
265
360
275
265
145
360
525
240
390
240
270
525
300
250
240
285
165
297
170
298
270
240
420
213
220
450
300
265
275
360
265
60
360
265
275
360
99
420
450
360
270
670
525
180
300
195
450
250
95
275
265
360
420
265
145
360
670
291
420
265
270
670
300
265
420
297
185
420
215
480
460
298
460
240
298
525
460
420
275
360
420
60
360
420
275
360
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-73
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-26. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only (continued)
Walking
Percent
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
Refused

1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
1,639
755
883
1
38
58
155
223
944
221
1,289
175
36
30
88
21
1,467
144
10
18
431
561
153
482
12
472
138
366
288
210
165
507
321
423
388
1,182
457
412
459
475
293
1,504
120
15
1,578
44
17
1,553
67
19
Mean
29.7
32.5
27.3
20.0
29.5
24.3
18.2
25.8
31.8
33.8
29.6
34.8
26.6
23.8
23.1
33.2
29.9
26.8
30.2
35.7
22.8
31.0
26.9
35.5
18.4
22.7
42.7
29.3
32.5
29.8
34.6
34.9
29.3
25.0
28.2
29.3
30.7
32.3
28.9
26.6
32.2
29.6
29.7
36.2
29.5
29.0
46.6
29.7
27.0
35.4
SD
41.6
48.3
34.8
-
23.7
26.3
21.0
32.4
45.0
49.3
43.7
39.7
24.7
21.2
21.1
33.0
41.0
48.7
28.8
34.8
28.0
43.8
37.1
49.4
13.5
27.6
71.9
41.6
39.3
38.8
44.6
45.3
46.9
37.7
35.0
39.2
47.4
47.7
41.5
31.3
46.7
42.0
38.3
27.8
41.5
36.1
63.1
42.1
31.9
31.4
SE Mm
1.0 1
1.8 1
1.2 1
20
3.9 1
3.5 1
1.7 1
2.2 1
1.5 1
3.3 1
1.2 1
3.0 1
4.1 1
3.9 1
2.2 1
7.2 4
1.1 1
4.1 1
9.1 2
8.2 8
1.3 1
1.8 1
3.0 1
2.3 1
3.9 5
1.3 1
6.1 1
2.2 1
2.3 1
2.7 1
3.5 1
2.0 1
2.6 1
1.8 1
1.8 1
1.1 1
2.2 1
2.4 1
1.9 1
1.4 1
2.7 1
1.1 1
3.5 1
7.2 5
1.0 1
5.4 2
15.3 5
1.1 1
3.9 1
7.2 3
Max
540
540
360
20
100
160
170
190
410
540
540
250
100
60
100
150
410
540
80
150
190
365
295
540
55
190
540
410
295
300
360
365
540
410
285
540
410
365
540
270
410
540
250
90
540
150
270
540
165
110
5
2
2
2
20
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
8
0
2
2
8
2
2
2
2
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
4
5
2
2
3
25
6
7
6
20
10
10
5
6
6
10
6
10
10
6
6
15
6
6
10
15
5
7
5
10
10
5
7
5
10
8
10
10
6
5
8
7
5
6
6
6
8
6
5
10
6
6
10
6
5
10
50
16
20
15
20
25
15
10
15
19
20
15
20
20
17
15
20
16
15
18
25
13
16
15
20
17
13
20
18
20
19
20
20
15
10
15
18
15
20
16
15
20
16
15
30
16
15
30
16
16
30
75
39
40
35
20
40
35
25
30
40
45
35
50
30
43
37
40
40
35
55
55
30
40
35
50
20
30
50
35
45
40
45
45
31
30
40
40
35
39
35
35
45
36
40
60
38
36
60
38
40
60
lies
90
65
70
60
20
60
60
40
60
70
73
65
75
60
60
50
65
65
60
78
65
55
70
60
75
30
55
115
65
75
60
80
75
60
60
60
65
60
75
60
60
61
65
70
75
65
60
90
65
60
90

95
95
100
94
20
80
60
60
100
110
95
100
125
78
60
60
65
100
70
80
150
65
100
92
120
55
65
145
100
100
90
95
107
105
80
90
92
120
120
90
85
105
95
118
90
95
115
270
95
90
110

98
151
170
140
20
100
70
65
135
171
155
160
160
100
60
92
150
155
100
80
150
131
180
135
150
55
130
360
150
160
140
180
170
160
135
140
145
171
180
146
123
155
152
135
90
151
150
270
151
130
110

99
190
270
171
20
100
160
100
151
250
180
225
194
100
60
100
150
194
135
80
150
151
250
165
250
55
151
365
240
180
225
200
250
180
171
180
180
200
250
180
160
295
190
150
90
190
150
270
194
165
110
Page
16-74
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors

Table 16-2
6. Time Spent (minutes/ day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only
(continued)
Housekeeping3
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused

< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
1,943
370
1,573
47
11
54
72
1,316
443
1,649
137
32
26
71
28
1,771
134
15
23
138
673
193
925
14
171
246
677
433
245
171
464
413
648
418
1,316
627
470
451
563
459
1,789
140
14
1,853
75
15
1,816
107
20
Mean
118.8
109.4
121.0
146.0
74.1
42.9
78.1
120.4
128.2
119.1
116.6
98.8
82.4
112.6
189.3
117.4
121.7
146.9
191.1
65.6
106.6
124.7
132.7
236.8
82.2
140.7
125.1
112.9
107.3
130.8
119.2
117.9
119.9
117.7
113.2
130.6
111.4
122.6
111.8
131.3
118.5
115.7
189.3
117.7
122.9
234.7
118.1
118.7
188.5
SD
113.4
116.5
112.5
121.3
69.4
34.1
75.5
113.7
118.9
112.2
109.4
100.5
56.4
129.3
176.2
110.6
129.6
127.9
180.3
68.8
102.4
117.5
119.4
208.2
96.9
125.4
120.5
100.1
102.2
118.0
116.4
112.6
116.2
106.6
111.9
115.6
100.6
114.0
114.5
122.4
112.1
115.8
208.6
112.3
103.8
204.0
112.9
102.9
176.4
SE
2.6
6.1
2.8
17.7
20.9
4.6
8.9
3.1
5.7
2.8
9.3
17.8
11.1
15.3
33.3
2.6
11.2
33.0
37.6
5.9
3.9
8.5
3.9
55.6
7.4
8.0
4.6
4.8
6.5
9.0
5.4
5.5
4.6
5.2
3.1
4.6
4.6
5.4
4.8
5.7
2.6
9.8
55.7
2.6
12.0
52.7
2.7
10.0
39.5
Mm
1
1
1
10
10
1
1
1
3
1
1
15
5
5
10
1
5
10
10
1
1
1
3
10
1
3
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
5
10
1
5
10
1
5
5
Max
810
810
790
480
270
180
300
810
790
790
490
425
210
660
810
790
660
510
810
375
655
660
790
810
810
715
790
570
585
655
790
715
810
720
790
810
810
720
690
790
790
690
810
790
394
810
790
480
810
5
10
10
15
10
10
5
5
15
10
10
5
15
15
8
20
10
10
10
20
5
10
15
15
10
5
10
15
10
15
15
10
10
10
15
10
15
10
15
10
15
10
10
10
13
5
10
10
10
8
25
40
30
45
45
40
20
28
40
55
40
30
30
40
30
53
40
35
30
45
25
30
45
55
120
30
60
45
40
30
60
35
34
40
40
30
55
45
40
30
45
40
37
45
40
30
120
40
30
85
50
90
60
90
115
60
30
60
90
90
90
90
60
60
60
148
90
85
120
150
45
70
90
105
183
45
120
90
90
60
90
90
88
90
90
75
90
85
90
75
90
90
67
123
90
90
240
90
90
155
75
165
150
165
240
90
53
105
165
180
165
150
128
115
135
248
165
135
210
255
80
145
180
180
300
105
180
175
150
150
180
165
165
165
165
150
180
160
180
135
180
165
150
255
160
210
300
160
180
240
90
270
270
270
300
90
80
210
270
270
265
300
265
185
270
420
265
270
240
390
180
240
270
295
430
220
300
270
240
240
280
245
255
285
255
255
290
240
270
255
300
270
278
340
265
270
480
270
255
320
95
345
360
345
375
270
120
240
360
345
340
358
345
190
465
465
335
470
510
420
240
325
390
370
810
270
400
375
320
328
390
330
345
370
340
330
370
290
360
365
390
345
378
810
345
320
810
355
290
575
98
465
425
465
480
270
150
285
465
540
465
480
425
210
518
810
425
540
510
810
285
413
480
484
810
300
540
490
420
405
495
480
480
435
420
470
435
390
465
465
480
465
470
810
465
370
810
465
465
810
99
540
560
540
480
270
180
300
525
570
540
484
425
210
660
810
525
658
510
810
300
490
540
600
810
375
660
610
470
465
540
655
525
540
470
550
525
480
540
610
560
540
480
810
540
394
810
540
470
810
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-75
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-26. Time
Spent (minutes/ day)
n Selected Activities, Doers Only
(continued)
Yardwork/Maintenanceb
Percentiles
Category
All
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day Of Week
Day Of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
No
Yes
DK
Refused
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused

< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
N
1,414
804
610
20
12
26
54
1,015
287
1,249
77
13
26
37
12
1,331
65
8
10
92
664
121
526
11
105
160
465
305
211
168
291
314
438
371
878
536
289
438
458
229
1,311
98
5
1,360
42
12
1,352
57
5
Mean
147.7
174.8
111.9
181.9
93.2
96.2
116.0
150.2
149.3
151.5
1145
140.0
117.2
102.1
177.1
148.7
106.2
248.8
203.5
106.8
146.7
134.5
157.8
211.6
113.5
158.5
151.4
152.8
145.4
142.2
140.5
145.1
152.7
149.6
140.9
158.9
139.4
162.2
137.9
150.0
147.0
149.3
312.0
145.3
192.6
257.1
148.5
114.7
312.0
SD
148.2
160.2
122.0
170.3
80.8
85.5
116.8
154.5
133.8
150.2
127 1
150.1
110.6
113.5
190.8
148.0
127.4
206.5
200.1
101.8
155.5
130.8
147.0
198.7
113.9
164.8
147.0
157.0
138.8
147.8
139.6
143.2
156.4
149.3
140.8
159.2
151.7
150.5
140.3
153.4
147.1
155.8
230.0
145.1
203.4
216.7
148.5
121.4
230.0
SE
3.9
5.6
4.9
38.1
23.3
16.8
15.9
4.8
7.9
4.3
14 5
41.6
21.7
18.7
55.1
4.1
15.8
73.0
63.3
10.6
6.0
11.9
6.4
59.9
11.1
13.0
6.8
9.0
9.6
11.4
8.2
8.1
7.5
7.8
4.8
6.9
8.9
7.2
6.6
10.1
4.1
15.7
102.9
3.9
31.4
62.6
4.0
16.1
102.9
Mm
1
0
1
5
5
5
3
1
2
1
-)
5
5
5
30
1
5
5
60








2
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
1
5
60
1
5
5
1
5
60
Max
1,080
1,080
900
600
285
330
505
1,080
810
1,080
750
425
380
565
600
1,080
575
585
600
505
1,080
554
810
600
600
900
840
1,080
625
690
840
780
1,080
750
810
1,080
690
900
1,080
720
1,080
670
600
900
1,080
600
1,080
460
600
5
5
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
30
5
5
5
60
5
5
5
10
2
5
8
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
60
5
15
5
5
5
60
25
45
60
30
60
30
39
30
35
60
45
20
15
30
20
60
45
20
90
60
32
35
30
60
60
33
45
50
45
40
30
40
55
45
40
40
50
30
60
40
40
45
30
120
45
60
53
45
30
120
50
100
120
75
116
83
60
90
100
120
105
85
88
60
98
105
60
190
120
77
90
90
120
120
79
111
110
95
105
90
90
95
111
104
93
117
75
120
90
97
100
90
300
100
143
233
105
60
300
75
205
250
145
240
133
120
150
210
205
210
165
210
178
120
215
209
120
420
300
148
203
200
220
375
150
210
210
210
225
180
200
195
205
210
190
225
195
220
180
210
200
210
480
200
255
473
205
135
480
90
360
415
278
468
178
210
285
360
330
360
285
360
290
255
510
360
255
585
555
240
360
317
370
465
285
413
345
360
330
340
330
360
375
350
345
380
360
360
310
390
355
445
600
355
465
510
360
340
600
95
470
510
360
570
285
300
385
480
420
480
355
425
360
300
600
465
300
585
600
330
490
390
480
600
360
493
460
473
465
470
450
445
480
480
460
510
480
480
440
480
465
480
600
465
485
600
470
375
600
98
570
600
465
600
285
330
450
585
525
575
405
425
380
565
600
570
565
585
600
450
575
490
595
600
450
595
575
600
525
570
525
560
585
575
560
600
565
570
555
600
570
670
600
570
1080
600
570
405
600
99
655
670
510
600
285
330
505
670
630
660
750
425
380
565
600
660
575
585
600
505
690
495
655
600
505
810
690
630
533
630
600
655
635
690
625
690
600
700
630
655
635
670
600
655
1080
600
660
460
600
Page
16-76
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                              Table 16-26. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Selected Activities, Doers Only (continued)
          = Indicates missing data.
DK       = The respondent replied "don't know".
Refused    = Refused data.
N        = Doer sample size.
SD       = Standard deviation.
SE       = Standard error.
Min       = Minimum number of minutes.
Max      = Maximum number of minutes.

a         Includes cleaning house, other repairs, and household work.
b         Includes car repair services, other repairs services, outdoor cleaning, car repair maintenance, other repairs, plant care, other household work, domestic
          crafts, domestic arts.

Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.	
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                              Page
June 2009                                                                                                      16-77
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-27. Number of Showers Taken per Day, by Number of Respondent, Children <21 Years
Age (years) N

Birth to <
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-28. Time Spent (minutes) Bathing, Showering, and in Bathroom Immediately after Bathing and Showering, Children <21 Years

Age (years)

N



Mean Mm
1
Percentiles
2 5
10 25 50
75 90
95
98
99
Max

Duration of Bath (minutes)
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
                                                                               Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
    Table 16-28. Time Spent (minutes) Bathing, Showering, and in Bathroom Immediately after Bathing and Showering, Children <21 Years
                                                     (continued)
  Age (years)
                      Mean   Min
                                                                  Percentiles
                                    1
                                                        10
                                                               25
                                                                      50
                                                                            75
                                                                                   90
                                                                                          95
                                                                                                 98
                                                                                                       99
                                                                                                             Max
                  Sum of Shower Duration and Time Spent in Shower Room Immediately Following Shower (minutes)
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to65
a
b
c
Source:
16-29. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) and Bathing/Showering, Adults 18 Years and Older,
Doers Only
Median Time Spent in
Mean No. Baths/Showers Shower/Bathb
per Daya (minutes/bath)
1.27 13.5
1.14 15.0
Time Spent in
Shower/Bathc
(minutes/day)
17.1
17.1
For additional statistics see Table 16-31 . Calculated by averaging the reported number of
baths/showers taken per day (truncated at 1 1), by the number of respondents. Respondents
responding Missing and Don't Know were excluded (n=5).
For additional statistics see Table 16-32
Calculated by multiplying the mean number of showers/baths per day by the median time
spent in shower/bath.
U.S. EPA, 1996.
Page
16-80
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-30. Number of Times Respondent Took Shower or Bathed, Doers Only
Group Name
All
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age
-
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
-
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
-
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day Of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
N
3,594

1,720
1,872
2

64
41
140
270
2,650
429

2,911
349
64
65
162
43

3,269
111
17
31

439
1,838
328
967
22

515
297
1,042
111
576
392

828
756
1,246
764

2,481
1,113

941
889
1,003
761

3,312
261
21

3,481
261
22

2

-
2
-

-
-
-
-
1
1

2
-
-
-
-
-

2
-
-
-

-
1
1
-
-

-
-
1
1
-
-

-
-
1
1

-
2

-
-
-
2

2
-
-

1
-
-
1
2,747

1,259
1,486
2

46
30
112
199
1,983
377

2,323
199
49
40
103
33

2,521
190
13
23

330
1,361
261
780
15

382
240
789
589
434
313

622
621
893
611

1,889
858

732
674
735
606

2,543
189
15

2,653
189
17
2
802

436
366
-

17
9
26
65
636
49

562
140
14
23
56
7

711
81
4
6

99
454
65
177
7

121
54
243
176
133
75

196
131
334
141

563
239

198
205
254
145

730
67
5

730
67
4
3
30

21
9
-

-
1
1
6
21
1

17
7
1
2
2
1

24
5
-
1

8
17
-
5
-

9
2
5
4
7
3

7
3
14
6

17
13

9
7
10
4

25
5
-

25
5
-
4 5 8 10 11+
11114

1 ... 1
1113
.

.
.
.
.
3
1

1 - - 4
1 - 1 - -
.
.
1
.

111-4
1
.
.

.
1 2
1 ...
1-1-2
.

.
1
11-1
1
1 ... 1
1

.
.
1 - - - 3
1111

11114
.

1
1
1 - - - 2
11-1

11114
.
.

11114
.
.
DK
5

2
3
-

1
1
1
-
2
-

2
1
-
-
-
2

4
-
-
1

2
2
-
1
-

3
-
1
1
-
-

3
1
-
1

4
1

1
2
1
1

4
-
1

4
-
1
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-81
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-30. Number of Times Respondent Took Shower or Bathed, Doers Only (continued)

Group Name N
4 5 8 10 11+ DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK

DK
Refused
N
SD
SE
Min
Max
Source:
3,419 2 2,620 758 27
154 - 112 39 3
21 15 5
= Indicates missing data.
= The respondent replied "don't know".
= Refused data.
= Doer sample size.
= Standard deviation.
= Standard error.
= Minimum number of minutes.
= Maximum number of minutes.
U.S. EPA, 1996
111144
.
	 1









Page
16-82
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-31. Time Spent (minutes/day) Bathing and Showering, Doers Only a
Group Name Group Code
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years)
Age (years) 1-4
Age (years) 5-11
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 1 8-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
= Indicates missing data.
DK = The respondent replied "don't know
Refused = Refused data.
N = Doer sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
SE = Standard error.
Min = Minimum number of minutes.
Max = Maximum number of minutes.
a Includes baby and child care, persona]
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
N
6,416
2,930
3,484
2
114
330
438
444
4,383
707
5,117
707
112
122
280
78
5,835
486
33
62
1,189
3,095
558
1,528
46
1,330
474
1,758
1,288
897
669
1,444
1,402
2,266
1,304
4,427
1,989
1,796
1,645
1,744
1,231
5,912
468
36
6,243
131
42
6,112
268
36





Mean
26.1
24.2
27.6
20.0
29.0
30.0
25.8
23.1
25.4
29.9
25.0
31.5
28.2
30.2
28.8
27.6
25.9
28.8
25.8
24.3
26.1
24.1
24.8
30.3
30.4
25.7
33.3
25.8
26.4
25.4
22.8
25.0
24.6
27.4
26.5
25.3
27.9
26.9
28.6
23.9
24.7
26.1
26.5
23.1
26.0
31.1
22.2
26.1
27.2
22.5





SD
29.7
31.0
28.4
14.1
39.0
19.4
35.3
18.7
27.2
44.5
28.5
31.6
29.8
27.3
39.3
40.3
28.5
40.6
16.8
37.2
26.4
25.1
23.2
39.9
45.2
26.4
53.0
23.6
27.0
34.8
23.1
24.3
30.3
26.1
38.8
30.3
28.2
26.9
41.1
20.7
25.6
30.0
23.0
44.1
29.0
49.5
40.9
29.9
22 2
44.1







SE Mm Max
0.4
0.6
0.5
10.0
3.7
1.1
1.7
0.9
0.4
1.7
0.4
1.2
2.8
2.5
2 3
4.6
0.4
1.8
2.9
4.7
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.0
6.7
0.7
2.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.4
1.1
7.3
0.4
4.3
6.3
0.4
1.4
7.3





care services, washing and personal hyg




1 705
1 705
1 555
10 30
2 300
1 170
1 690
1 210
1 555
1 705
1 705
1 295
5 270
1 240
2 546
3 275
1 705
2 570
5 65
3 275
1 690
1 555
1 295
1 705
3 275
1 690
1 570
1 270
1 255
1 705
1 257
1 360
1 570
1 300
1 705
1 705
1 555
1 546
1 705
1 270
1 340
1 705
1 210
3 275
1 705
5 546
3 275
1 705
1 150
3 275





ene (bathing,


5
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5





showering


25
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
10
10
15
15
10
15
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
11
15
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
13
10





, etc.)

Percent
50 75
20 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
30 31
20 30
18 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
22 40
20 30
28 35
20 32
15 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
15 25
20 30
15 30
20 30
20 30
15 30
20 30
21 33
20 30
20 30
15 30
15 30
20 30
15 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
20 30
17 30
20 30
20 30
15 25
20 30
25 30
15 25
20 30
20 30
15 23







lies
90
50
45
60
30
60
55
45
45
50
60
45
60
60
50
55
60
50
50
55
30
45
45
46
60
55
45
60
50
55
50
45
50
45
55
48
45
60
50
60
45
50
50
46
30
50
50
30
50
60
30








95
60
60
75
30
60
60
60
60
60
85
60
80
75
60
63
100
60
60
65
60
60
60
60
85
105
60
85
60
75
65
60
60
60
65
60
60
68
60
70
60
60
60
60
30
60
60
30
60
60
30








98 99
90 120
75 100
105 135
30 30
105 275
85 90
60 75
65 90
90 120
120 150
90 115
120 170
90 90
100 150
90 155
195 275
90 120
90 140
65 65
105 275
75 90
85 110
90 110
120 155
275 275
75 90
110 300
90 120
105 150
105 135
85 100
90 105
85 115
100 135
90 133
90 115
100 130
90 110
115 150
80 100
95 120
90 120
100 120
275 275
90 120
105 131
275 275
90 120
95 131
275 275







Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-83
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-32. Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by
Children <21 Years
Age (years) N
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-33. Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of Respondents, Doers Only
Number of Times/Day

Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
_
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
_
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
_
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
= Indicates missing data.
DK = The respondent replied
Refused = Refused data.
N = Doer sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
SE = Standard error.
Total N
4,663

2,163
2,498
2

84
263
348
326
2,972
670

3,774
463
77
96
193
60

4,244
347
26
46

926
2,017
379
1,309
32

1,021
399
1,253
895
650
445

1,048
1,036
1,601
978

3,156
1,507

1,264
1,181
1,275
943

4,287
341
35

4,500
125
38

4,424
203
36

"don't know"




-
38

16
22
-

8
-
1
3
18
8

21
6
1
_
1
9

27
2
-
9

4
12
_
18
4

13
2
12
2
6
3

9
5
14
10

34
4

6
13
15
4

28
1
9

28
2
8

27
3
8






0-0
34

19
15
-

_
15
5
6
7
1

28
2
_
1
3
-

29
5
-
-

26
4
_
4
-

26
-
4
3
_
1

6
7
11
10

22
12

10
9
9
6

32
2
-

34
_
-

33
1
-






1-2
311

218
92
1

1
62
61
46
131
10

251
30
5
10
14
1

276
33
1
1

165
96
13
36
1

174
8
56
28
23
22

68
68
108
67

199
112

91
78
78
64

283
26
2

306
3
2

302
7
2






3-5
1,692

975
716
1

25
125
191
159
1,029
163

1,377
149
29
39
78
20

1,536
130
12
14

471
707
142
365
7

507
120
391
284
238
152

404
373
559
356

1,103
589

507
406
443
336

1,562
126
4

1,652
32
8

1,627
57
8






6-9
1,106

487
619
-

15
35
48
64
760
184

902
120
19
16
42
7

1,022
76
4
4

145
525
101
327
8

158
96
318
246
174
114

243
251
379
233

764
342

286
283
315
222

1,024
77
5

1,069
34
3

1,040
61
5






10-19
892

286
606
-

11
11
21
30
640
179

740
85
12
15
31
9

823
57
5
7

61
406
86
334
5

74
88
298
197
139
96

195
212
299
186

599
293

223
238
232
199

819
69
4

851
36
5

835
55
2






20-29
223

59
164
-

4
2
4
7
168
38

181
19
4
8
10
1

205
17
1
-

13
116
10
83
1

13
26
70
59
28
27

55
41
79
48

155
68

55
60
65
43

207
16
-

218
5
-

213
10
-






30+
178

49
129
-

5
3
2
2
143
23

140
23
1
5
5
4

164
10
1
3

7
103
15
52
1

12
24
47
48
27
20

38
38
66
36

147
31

51
44
48
35

165
10
3

171
3
4

172
3
3






DK
189

54
135
-

15
10
15
9
76
64

134
29
6
2
9
9

162
17
2
8

34
48
12
90
5

44
35
57
28
15
10

30
41
86
32

133
56

35
50
70
34

167
14
8

171
10
8

175
6
8






Min = Minimum number of minutes.
Max = Maximum number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996










Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-85
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-34. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of Respondents, Children <
(years)
Birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-36. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of Respondents,
Doers Only
Times/Month
Total N
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK
Refused
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
Refused
Education
_
< High School
High School Graduate
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-36. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of Respondents Doers
Only (continued)
Times/Month

Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Refused
Age (years)
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
Race
White
Black

/\sian
Hispanic
Refused
Hispanic
No
Yes
DK

Employment
_
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed

Education
_
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Asthma
No
Yes
DK
Angina
No
Yes
DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema
No
Yes
DK
18
2

-
2


_
_
1
-
1

2
-


_
-

2
_



1
_
-
1


1
-
-
_
_
1

-
-
2
-

1
1

1
-
1
-

2
-
-

2
-
-

2
_
-
20 23
25 1

10
15 1


2
3
4
15 1
1

19 1
3
1

1
1

23 1
1

1

9
8
-
7 1
1

11
1
6
3 1
2
2

7
4
7 1
7

18 1
7

3
8
10 1
4

21 1
3
1

24 1
-
1

22 1
2
1
24 25
1 9

4
1 5


_
1 2
-
7
-

1 9
-


_
-

1 9
_



1 2
5
1
1


1 2
-
1
4
2
-

2
1
1 4
2

1 7
2

_
2
1 7
-

1 9
-
-

1 9
-
-

1 9
_
-
26 28 29 30 31
2 1 1 26 2

2 1 - 10 2
1 16


1 2
5
1 - - 2 -
1 1 - 15 2
2

2 1 1 19 2
3


3
1

2 1 1 20 2
6



1-19-
1 - 10 2
1
1 - - 6 -


2-19-
1
4
4
3 2
1 - 5 -

1 - - 2 1
4
1191
1 - - 11 -

1 1 - 19 -
1-172

1 1 - - 1
3
1 - 1 21 1
2

1 1 1 23 2
1 - - 2 -
1

2 1 1 26 2
.
	

2 1 1 23 2
3
.
32 40 42 45
1221

111-
1 1 1


1 ...
.
.
2 1 1
1

122-
.


1
.

122-
1



1 ...
2 1 1
.
1


1 ...
.
1
1
2 1
.

1 1
1
1
1 - - 1

11-1
1 2

1
1
12-1
.

1221
.
.

1211
1
.

1221
.
.
50 60
1 2

.
1 2


_
1
1
-
1

2
-

\

-

1 2
-



1 1
-
-
1


1 1
-
1
-
-
-

-
-
1 1
1

1 2
-

-
1 1
1
-

2
1
-

1 2
-
-

1 2
-
-
DK
5

4
1


_
-
1
3
1

5
-


-
-

4
1



1
2
-
1
I

1
-
1
2
1
-

1
-
4
-

4
1

-
2
3
-

5
-
-

5
-
-

4
1
-
Page
16-88
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-36. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of Respondents Doers Only (continued)
Times/Month
18 20 23
Overall 2 25 1
Gender
Male - 10
Female 2 15 1
Age (years)
1-4 - 2 -
5-11 - 3
12-17 1 4
18-64 - 15 1
>64 11-
Race
White 2 19 1
Black - 3
c rtn.
Hispanic - 1 -
Refused - 1 -
Hispanic
No 2 23 1
Yes - 1 -
DK

Employment
1 9
Full Time - 8
Part Time ...
Not Employed 1 7 1
TJpfiiQpH 1
Education
1 11
< High School - 1
High School Graduate - 6 -
< College - 3 1
College Graduate - 2
Post Graduate 1 2
Census Region
Northeast - 7
Midwest - 4
South 2 7 1
West - 7
Day of Week
Weekday 1 18 1
Weekend 1 7
= Indicates missing data.
DK = The respondent replied "don't know".
Refused = Refused data.
N = Doer sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
SE = Standard error.
Min = Minimum number of minutes.
Max = Maximum number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996
24 25
1 9

4
1 5

_
1 2
.
7
-

1 9
-

-
1 9
-

1 2
5
1
1

1 2
1
4
2
2
1
1 4
2
1 7
2






26 28 29 30 31
2 1 1 26 2

2 1 - 10 2
1 16

1 2
5
1 - - 2 -
1 1 - 15 2
2

2 1 1 19 2
3

3
1
2 1 1 20 2
6

1-19-
1 - 10 2
1
1 - - 6 -

2-19-
1
4
4
3 2
1 - 5 -
1 - - 2 1
4
1191
1 - - 11 -
1 1 - 19 -
1-172






32 40 42 45 50 60
122112

1 1 1 - - -
11112

1 	
1
	 1
2 1 1 - -
1 - - 1

1 2 2 - - 2
	
.
1
122-12
1

1 - - - 1 1
2 1 1 - -
.
1 - - 1

1 - - - 1 1
1 - - 1
1
21---
1 1 ...
1 ...
1 - - 1 1
1 - - 1 - 1
11-112
12---






DK
5

4
1

_
-
1
3
1

5
-
-
4
1

1
2
-
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
.
4
-
4
1






Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-89
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-37. Time spent (minutes/month) in Freshwater Swimming Pool, Doers Only
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
640
295
345
60
95
83
357
38
548
27
13
12
34
580
54
237
43
121
16
111
102
92
71
134
127
227
152
434
206
60
171
356
53
578
55
626
8
608
26
1
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
10
4
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
5
4
5
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
15
3
2
2
3
4
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
10
4
2
3
3
5
4
2
2
1
5
3
3
10
8
5
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
10
3
3
3
15
3
2
N = Doer sample size.
Note : A Value of 1 8 1 for number of minutes signifies that more than
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.




5
10
8
10
7.5
20
15
5
8
10
15
4
2
5
10
5
5
5
8
1
8
5
10
10
10
10
5
5
8
10
5
5
10
10
10
4
10
15
10
5
10
15
10
15
15
30
20
10
10
15
30
20
15
10
15
15
10
15
10
2
10
10
15
10
15
15
15
10
10
15
12.5
10
15
10
15
10
15
15
15
5
25 50
30 60
30 45
30 60
20 42.5
45 60
40 60
20 45
30 40
30 45
60 60
30 60
25 60
20 60
30 60
30 52.5
20 45
20 30
20 45
12.5 30
30 60
20 30
22.5 42.5
20 30
30 45
30 45
30 60
20 45
30 60
30 60
30 52.5
20 40
30 60
20 45
30 55
30 60
30 60
25 42.5
30 60
15 42.5
75 90
90 180
90 180
90 180
120 180
120 180
120 180
60 120
60 120
90 180
150 181
60 120
150 181
120 180
90 180
120 180
60 150
90 120
60 120
60.5 181
90 180
60 120
60.5 150
60 70
120 180
90 150
120 180
61 120
90 180
90 180
90 120
60 120
120 180
70 180
90 180
120 180
90 180
75 120
90 180
60 181
95
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
120
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
180
181
181
120
181
120
181
180
181
180
181
181
180.5
180
181
181
181
181
181
120
181
181
98
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
180
181
180
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
120
181
181
99 100
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
181 181
120 120
181 181
181 181
180 minutes were spent.







Page
16-90
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table
16-38. Time Spent (minutes/day) Playing on Dirt, Sand/Gravel,
Age (years) N Mean
Min

1 2 5 10
or Grass Whole Population and Doers only,
Percentiles
25 50

75

90

95
Children <21 Years

98

99
Max
Playing on Dirt - Whole Population
Birth to <
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-39. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Selected Outdoor Surfaces (minutes/day), Doers Only
Dirt
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
N
647
326
320
205
185
38
214
2
528
60
5
16
36
574
69
138
25
52
17
67
62
51
18
118
116
250
163
406
241
93
230
245
79
590
56
646
627
20
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
30
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
75
30
30
30
30
30
30
15
0
30
30
30
20
60
30
30
15
10
10
60
10
15
15
0
30
20
30
60
30
30
45
30
30
10
30
60
30
30
37.5
90
100
120
60
120
120
60
60
0
120
74
121
40
120
90
120
60
60
60
121
60
60
30
60
60
60
90
121
88
120
121
105
90
60
110
60
100
120
60
95
121
121
121
121
121
120
120
0
121
120
121
60
121
121
121
120
60
60
121
88
60
60
120
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
90.5
98
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
0
121
121
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
0
121
121
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
100
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
0
121
121
121
60
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
Page
16-92
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-39. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Selected Outdoor Surfaces (minutes/day), Doers Only (continued)
Sand or Gravel
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Bronchitis/emphysema
Bronchitis/emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
N
659
334
324
203
193
40
219
2
534
64
5
15
39
583
72
140
27
53
17
69
64
50
20
116
122
256
165
410
249
97
232
250
80
600
58
659
638
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
15
0
1.5
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
30
75
45
45
60
30
60
45
45
0
50
15
60
60
60
45
60
45
60
30
60
30
37.5
30
60
60
30
45
60
40
60
45
52.5
60
30
45
60
45
45
60
90
120
120
120
120
121
120
120
0
120
120
121
121
121
120
120
105
121
120
121
121
120
60
120
120
60
120
121
120
121
120
120
120
105
120
120
120
120
121
95
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
0
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
60
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
98
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
0
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
0
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
100
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
0
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-93
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-39. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Selected Outdoor Surfaces (minutes/day), Doers Only (continued)
Grass
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
N
657
327
329
206
185
39
221
3
532
65
5
16
37
581
72
141
27
55
20
69
64
51
19
119
120
252
166
412
245
95
231
250
81
600
56
656
636
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
3
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
1
0
0
7.5
1
0
0
1
0
1
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
25 50
20 60
20 60
15 60
15 60
30 60
30 60
20 60
30 121
20 60
20 58
30 30
10 60
30 60
20 60
10 35
20 60
15 60
23 60
30 60
15 60
17.5 46.5
30 60
25 60
30 60
30 60
20 60
10 45
15 60
30 60
4 30
30 60
30 60
10 35
20 60
22.5 60
20 60
20 60
30 60
75
120
121
120
120
121
120
120
121
121
90
30
120
110
121
100
121
120
121
120.5
121
60
121
121
121
121
120
120
120
121
120
121
121
120
120
120.5
120
120
121
90 95
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
98
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
N = Doer sample size.
NOTE: Avalueof"121"
Source: U.S. EPA,1996
for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent.











Page
16-94
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-40. Time Spent (minutes/day) Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air, Children <21 Years
Age (years) N
Birth to <
lto<2
2to<3
3to<6
6to
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-41. Time Spent (minutes/day) Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air, Doers Only
Percentiles
Category
Overall
Gender
Gender
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Age (years)
Race
Race
Race
Race
Race
Hispanic
Hispanic
Employment
Employment
Employment
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Census Region
Day of Week
Day of Week
Season
Season
Season
Season
Asthma
Asthma
Angina
Angina
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Bronchitis/Emphysema
Population Group

Male
Female
1-4
5-11
12-17
18-64
5:>64
White
Black
Asian
Some Others
Hispanic
No
Yes
Full Time
Part Time
Not Employed
< High School
High School Graduate
< College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Weekday
Weekend
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
N
679
341
338
22
50
52
513
38
556
66
7
15
29
611
57
368
66
122
52
199
140
82
76
138
145
227
169
471
208
154
193
193
139
606
73
662
15
637
41
1
0
1
0
0
0 0
0
2
2
0
1
2
2
2
2
0
5
1
5
2
2
3
20 20
5
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
5
1
3
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
N = Doer sample size.
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
5
3
2
3
5
2
2
5
0
5
2
5
0
2
2
3
1
2
0
1
2
5
2
3
2
3
2
0
5
5
5
5
0
2
2
5
2
5
5
20
5
5
5
3
7
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
10
7
8
5
2
4
5
10
5
8
5
20
10
7
5
10
15
5
8
7
10
20
15
10
5
10
5
10
7
5
5
5
10
10
5
10
7
30
7
5
25
30
30
30
5
15
5
30
50 75
121 121
121 121
121 121
75 121
75 121
20 120
121 121
35 105.5 121
30
20
60
60
20
30
30
37.5
20
30
35
30
60
30
37.5
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
121 121
121 121
90 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
90
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
95 98
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
99 100
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 minutes were spent.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
Page
16-96
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-42. Time Spent (minutes/day) with Smokers Present, Children <21 Years
Age
(years)
Ito4
5 to 11
12 to 17
N
SD
SE
Min
Max
Source:
N Mean SD SE
155 367 325 26
224 318 314 21
256 246 244 15
= Doer sample size.
= Standard deviation.
= Standard error.
= Minimum.
= Maximum.
U.S. EPA, 1996 (NHAPS).
Percentiles
5 25 50 75 90 95 98 99
5 30 90 273 570 825 1,010 1,140 1,305 1,440
1 25 105 190 475 775 1,050 1,210 1,250 1,440
1 10 60 165 360 595 774 864 1,020 1,260





Exposure Factors Handbook                                                   Page
June 2009                                                                  16-97
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table
16-43. Time Spent (minutes/
day) with Smokers Present, Doers Only
Percentiles
Category Population Group
All
Gender Male
Gender Female
Gender Refused
Age (years)
Age (years) 1 -4
Age (years) 5-11
Age (years) 12-17
Age (years) 18-64
Age (years) > 64
Race White
Race Black
Race Asian
Race Some Others
Race Hispanic
Race Refused
Hispanic No
Hispanic Yes
Hispanic DK
Hispanic Refused
Employment
Employment Full Time
Employment Part Time
Employment Not Employed
Employment Refused
Education
Education < High School
Education High School Graduate
Education < College
Education College Graduate
Education Post Graduate
Census Region Northeast
Census Region Midwest
Census Region South
Census Region West
Day Of Week Weekday
Day Of Week Weekend
Season Winter
Season Spring
Season Summer
Season Fall
Asthma No
Asthma Yes
Asthma DK
Angina No
Angina Yes
Angina DK
Bronchitis/Emphysema No
Bronchitis/Emphysema Yes
Bronchitis/Emphysema DK
= Indicates missing data.
DK = The respondent replied "don't know
Refused = Refused data.
N = Doer sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
SE = Standard error.
Min = Minimum number of minutes.
Max = Maximum number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996
N
4,005
1,967
2,035
3
54
155
224
256
2,976
340
3,279
395
48
79
165
39
3,666
288
18
33
624
2,042
381
935
23
704
377
1,315
829
473
307
932
938
1,409
726
2,661
1,344
1,046
1,034
1,059
866
3,687
298
20
3,892
87
26
3,749
236
20






Mean
381.5
411.4
352.8
283.3
386.3
366.6
318.1
245.8
403.1
342.7
389.2
360.0
262.1
420.7
292.6
393.5
384.9
336.2
369.8
403.4
301.7
405.9
378.0
383.8
342.0
308.6
497.7
425.7
388.8
325.9
282.5
369.5
384.1
404.0
349.9
374.7
394.9
374.2
384.8
385.1
382.0
378.8
416.9
350.0
380.9
404.3
390.6
378.7
431.2
326.3






SD
300.5
313.0
285.1
188.2
305.4
324.5
314.0
243.6
299.4
292.2
303.0
288.0
209.9
339.2
250.2
325.3
301.2
280.9
371.5
322.8
295.5
296.3
291.1
308.7
254.2
292.8
317.8
301.7
295.8
272.7
257.1
287.7
304.8
308.5
292.0
296.2
308.5
304.2
301.6
300.4
295.1
298.4
324.0
304.3
299.5
345.1
300.4
298.6
326.8
291.1






SE
4.7
7.1
6.3
108.6
41.6
26.1
21.0
15.2
5.5
15.8
5.3
14.5
30.3
38.2
19.5
52.1
5.0
16.6
87.6
56.2
11.8
6.6
14.9
10.1
53.0
11.0
16.4
8.3
10.3
12.5
14.7
9.4
10.0
8.2
10.8
5.7
8.4
9.4
9.4
9.2
10.0
4.9
18.8
68.0
4.8
37.0
58.9
4.9
21.3
65.1






Mm
1
1
1
105
5
5
1
1
2
5
i
2
5
10
5
25
1
1
15
25
1
2
5
3
25
1
2
3
5
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
5
25
1
2
25
1
5
10






Max
1,440
1,440
1,440
480
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,260
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
800
1,328
1,095
1,110
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,110
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
925
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,435
1,140
1,205
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,440
995
1,440
1,380
995
1,440
1,380
995






5
30
30
29
105
25
30
25
10
30
30
30
22
10
30
15
30
30
20
15
30
15
30
30
30
30
15
40
30
30
30
20
30
29
30
30
30
30
25
30
30
30
30
20
28
30
30
30
30
30
18






25
120
135
105
105
105
90
105
60
135
100
120
118
64
135
75
115
120
115
90
120
75
135
135
120
120
88
225
155
135
90
60
120
120
130
110
120
120
115
120
120
120
120
135
60
120
120
115
120
150
85






50
319
355
285
265
370
273
190
165
355
240
330
300
213
310
220
290
324
252
220
325
190
365
325
310
325
205
465
390
330
240
200
314
320
345
274
315
322
295
320
330
324
315
343
290
320
270
343
315
363
223






75
595
638
545
480
555
570
475
360
625
540
610
538
413
655
475
655
600
512
600
655
450
625
585
600
450
465
775
650
600
499
430
565
600
630
541
578
625
590
610
591
590
591
652
540
595
703
670
590
680
540






90
815
855
780
480
780
825
775
595
830
798
825
775
560
885
660
865
822
760
760
840
735
835
805
825
715
741
905
840
810
735
665
800
825
840
800
810
833
815
810
840
810
810
870
795
815
910
780
810
892
755






95
925
965
870
480
995
1,010
1,050
774
930
880
930
905
630
1,140
800
1,040
930
850
1,440
1,040
900
925
915
930
885
900
990
928
930
860
810
892
930
943
900
915
940
925
900
940
915
915
1,015
902.5
920
1,015
790
915
980
888






98
1,060
1,105
995
480
995
1,140
1,210
864
1,047
1,015
1,060
1,080
800
1,305
845
1,110
1,060
1,010
1,440
1,110
1,140
1,005
1,080
1,110
925
1,095
1,120
1,060
1,050
990
900
990
1,080
1,090
1,045
1,045
1,110
1,080
1,105
1,040
1,030
1,050
1,202
995
1,060
1,320
995
1,060
1,205
995






99
1,170
1,217
1,110
480
1,440
1,305
1,250
1,020
1,150
1,205
1,190
1,160
800
1,328
945
1,110
1,170
1,260
1,440
1,110
1,230
1,110
1,245
1,290
925
1,217
1,369
1,202
1,155
1,035
983
1,095
1,140
1,205
1,180
1,150
1,260
1,170
1,215
1,130
1,150
1,170
1,335
995
1,170
1,380
995
1,170
1,260
995






Page
16-98
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-44. Mean Time
Spent (hours/week)8 in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Regions
Totalb
N=975

Activity
Activity Category
Market Work
House/yard work
Child care
Services/shop
Personal care
Education
Organizations
Social
entertainment
Active leisure
Passive leisure
Total Time
West
N=200

23.44
14.64
2.50
5.22
79.23
2.94
3.42
8.26

5.94
22.47
168.00
North Central Northeast
N=304

29.02
14.17
2.82
5.64
76.62
1.43
2.97
8.42

5.28
21.71
168.00
a Weighted for day of week, panel loss (not defined
to rounding.
b N = surveyed population.
c S.D. = standard deviation.
Source: Hill, 1985.


N=185

27.34
14.29
2.32
4.92
78.11
0.95
2.45
8.98

4.77
23.94
168.00
South
N=286

24.21
15.44
2.66
4.72
79.38
1.45
2.68
8.22

5.86
23.47
168.00
in report), and correspondence to Census.



Mean

26.15
14.66
2.62
5.15
78.24
1.65
2.88
8.43

5.49
22.80
168.00

S.D.C

23.83
12.09
5.14
5.40
12.70
6.34
5.40
8.17

7.81
13.35
0.09
Data may not add to totals shown due


Table 16-45. Total Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Type of Day
Time Duration (mins/day)

Activity Category
Market Work
House/Yardwork
Child Care
Services/Shopping
Personal Care
Education
Organizations
Social Entertainment
Active Leisure
Passive Leisure
Total Time
Weekday
[Na = 8311

288.0 (257. 7)b
126.3(119.3)
26.6 (50.9)
48.7(58.7)
639.2(114.8)
16.4 (64.4)
21.1 (49.7)
54.9 (69.2)
37.9(71.11)
181.1 (121.9)
1,440
Saturday
[N = 8311

97.9(211.9)
160.5 (157.2)
19.4(51.5)
64.4(92.5)
706.8(169.8)
5.4(38.1)
18.4(75.2)
1,114.1 (156.0)
61.4(126.5)
191.8(161.6)
1,440
Sunday
[N = 8311

58.0(164.8)
124.5(133.3)
24.8(61.9)
21.6(49.9)
734.3 (156.5)
7.3 (48.0)
58.5(104.5)
110.0(151.2)
64.5 (120.6)
236.5(167.1)
1,440
a N = Number of respondents.
b ( ) = Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
Source: Hill, 1985.



Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
Page
16-99
-------
                                                                 Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                 Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
          Table 16-46. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Ten Major Activity Categories During Four Waves of Interviews'
Fall Spring Summer
(Nov. 1, 1975)b Winter (June 1, 1976)b (Sept. 21, 1976)b
N=861 (Feb. 28, 1976)b N=861 N=861
Activity Category












b
Market work
House/yard work
Child care
Services/shop
Personal care
Education
Organizations
Social
entertainment
Active leisure
Passive leisure
Total Time
Wave 1
222.94
133.16
25.50
48.98
652.95
22.79
25.30
63.87

42.71
210.75
1,440.00
Wave 2
226.53
135.58
22.44
44.09
678.14
12.57
22.55
67.11

47.46
183.48
1,440.00
Wave 3
210.44
143.10
25.51
44.61
688.27
2.87
23.21
83.90

46.19
171.85
1,440.00
Wave 4
230.92
119.95
21.07
47.75
674.85
10.76
29.91
72.24

42.30
190.19
1,440.00
Range of Standard
Deviations

272-287
129-156
49-58
76-79
143-181
32-93
68-87
102-127

96-105
144-162
—
Weighted for day of week, panel loss (not defined in report), and correspondence to Census.
Dates by which 50% of the interviews for each wave were taken.
Source: Hill, 1985.
Table 16-47. Mean Time Spent (hours/week) in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Gender8
Time duration (hours/week)




Men
n= 140


Women
n = 561
Men and Women

n = 971

Activity Category











Market work
House/yard
Child care
Services/shop
Personal care
Education
Organizations
Social entertainment
Active leisure
Passive leisure
Total time
35.8
8.5
1.2
3.9
77.3
2.3
2.5
7.9
5.9
22.8
168.1
(23.6)b
(9.0)
(2.5)
(4.5)
(13.0)
(7.7)
(5.5)
(8.3)
(8.2)
(14.1)

a Detailed components of activities (87) are presented in Table
b
17.9
20.0
3.9
6.3
79.0
1.1
3.2
8.9
5.2
22.7
168.1
1A-4.
(20.7)
(11.9)
(6.4)
(5.9)
(12.4)
(4.8)
(5.3)
(8.0)
(7.4)
(12.7)


26.2
14.7
2.6
5.2
78.2
1.7
2.9
8.4
5.5
22.8
168.1

(23.8)
(12.1)
(5.2)
(5.4)
(12.7)
(6.4)
(5.4)
(8.2)
(7.8)
(13.3)


( ) = Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
Source: Hill, 1985.
Page
16-100
Exposure Factors Handbook
                  June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-48. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) Performing Major Activities, by Age,
Age (3 to 11 years)
Activity

Market Work
Household Work
Personal Care
Eating
Sleeping
School
Studying
Church
Visiting
Sports
Outdoors
Hobbies
Art Activities
Playing
TV
Reading
Household Conversations
Other Passive Leisure
NA
Percent of Time Accounted for
by Activities Above
N = Sample size.
NA = Unknown.
= No data
Source: Timmer et al., 1985.
Weekdays
Boys
(N=118)
16
17
43
81
584
252
14
7
16
25
10
3
4
137
117
9
10
9
22
94




Girls
(N=lll)
0
21
44
78
590
259
19
4
9
12
7
1
4
115
128
7
11
14
25
92




Weekends
Boys
(N=118)
7
32
42
78
625
-
4
53
23
33
30
3
4
177
181
12
14
16
20
93




Girls
(N=lll)
4
43
50
84
619
-
9
61
37
23
23
4
4
166
122
10
9
17
29
89




Sex and Type of Day
Age (12 to 17 years)
Weekdays
Boys
(N=77)
23
16
48
73
504
314
29
3
17
52
10
7
12
37
143
10
21
21
14
93




Girls
(N=83)
21
40
71
65
478
342
37
7
25
37
10
4
6
13
108
13
30
14
17
92




Weekends
Boys
(N=77)
58
46
35
58
550
-
25
40
46
65
36
4
11
35
187
12
24
43
10
88




Girls
(N=83)
25
89
76
75
612
-
25
36
53
26
19
7
9
24
140
19
30
33
4
89




Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
  Page
16-101
-------
                                                                                 Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                 Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
             Table 16-49. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Major Activities, by Type of Day for Five Different Age Groups
        Activity
                                      Weekday
                                                                            Weekend
                            Age (years)
      Age (years)
                           Significant
                            Effects8
                        3-5
                               6-8
                                      9-11
                                             12-14
                                                      15-17
                                                               3-5
                                                                      6-8
                                                                            9-11
                                                                                    12-14
                                                                                             15-17
 Market Work              -     14      8      14       28

 Personal Care            41     49     40      56       60

 Household Work          14     15     18      27       34

 Eating                  82     81     73      69       67

 Sleeping                630    595     548     473      499

 School                  137    292     315     344      314

 Studying                 2      8     29      33       33

 Church                   4999       3

 Visiting                 14     15     10      21       20

 Sports                   5     24     21      40       46

 Outdoor Activities          49      8      7       11

 Hobbies                 0224       6

 Art Activities              5433       12

 Other Passive Leisure       9126       4

 Playing                 218    111     65      31       14

 TV                     111    99     146     142      108

 Reading                 5      5      9      10       12

 Being Read to             2200       0

 NA                     30     14     23      25       7
                                                             4      10

                                                      47     45     44

                                                      17     27     51

                                                      81     80     78

                                                      634    641    596
                                                       1

                                                      55

                                                      10

                                                       3

                                                       8

                                                       1

                                                       4

                                                       6

                                                      267

                                                      122

                                                       4

                                                       3

                                                      52
 2

56

 8

30

23

 5

 4

10

180

136

 9

 2

 7
 12

 53

 13

 42

 39

 3

 4

 7

 92

185

 10

 0

 14
 29

 60

 72

 68

604


 15

 32

 22

 51

 25

 8

 7

 10

 35

169

 10

 0

 4
                         48

                         51    A,S,AxS(F>M)

                         60    A,S, AxS (F>M)

                         65    A

                        562    A
30

37

56

37

26

 3

10

18

21

157

18

 0

 9
A

A

A (Weekend Only)

A,S (M>F)
A

A,S (M>F)

A,S, AxS (M>F)

A

A

A
 NA
Effects are significant for weekdays and weekends,
weekend activities; S = sex effect P<0.05, F>M, M:
interaction, P<0.05.
= Unknown.
= No data.
                                                  unless otherwise specified.  A = age effect, P<0.05, for both weekdays and
                                                  >F = females spend more time than males, or vice versa; and AxS = age by sex
 Source:  Timmer et al., 1985.
Page
16-102
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                              June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                    Table 16-50. Mean Time Spent (hours/day) Indoors and Outdoors, by Age and Day of the Week
                                              Indoors8                                      Outdoors
         Age Group        —
                                  Weekday               Weekend               Weekday               Weekend
3 to 5 years
6 to 8 years
9 to 1 1 years
12 to 14 years
15 to 17 years
19.4
20.7
20.8
20.7
19.9
18.9
18.6
18.6
18.5
17.9
2.5
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.4
3.1
2.5
2.3
1.9
2.3
         Time indoors was estimated by adding the average times spent performing indoor activities (household work, personal care, eating,
         sleeping, attending school, studying, attending church, watching television, and engaging in conversation) and half the time spent in
         each activity which could have occurred either indoors or outdoors (i.e., market work, sports, hobbies, art activities, playing,
         reading, and other passive leisure).
         Time outdoors was estimated by adding the average time spent in outdoor activities and half the time spent in each activity which
         could have occurred either indoors or outdoors (i.e., market work, sports, hobbies, art activities, playing, reading, and other passive
         leisure).

 Source:  Adapted from Timmer et al., 1985.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                            Page
June 2009                                                                                                  16-103
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-51 . Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age Groups for the National and California Surveys, by age group (years)
National Data
Mean Duration (Standard Error)
Microenvironment
Autoplaces
Restaurant/bar
In-vehicle/internal combustion
In-vehicle/other
Physical/outdoors
Physical/indoors
Work/study -residence
Work/study-other
Cooking
Other activities/kitchen
Chores/child
Shop/errands
Other/outdoors
Social/cultural
Leisure-eat/indoors
Sleep/indoors
Age 12-17
N=340"
2(1)
9(2)
79(7)
0(0)
32(8)
15(3)
22(4)
159(14)
11(3)
53(4)
91 (7)
26(4)
70(13)
87(10)
237(16)
548 (31)
Doer"
73
60
88
12
130
87
82
354
40
64
92
68
129
120
242
551
Age 18-24
N=340
7(2)
28(3)
103(8)
KD
17(4)
8(2)
19(6)
207 (20)
18(2)
42(3)
124(9)
31 (4)
34(4)
100(12)
181 (11)
511 (26)
Doer
137
70
109
160
110
76
185
391
39
55
125
65
84
141
189
512
Age 24-44
N=340
2(1)
25(3)
94(4)
1 (0)
19(4)
7(1)
16(2)
220(11)
38(2)
70(4)
133 (6)
33(2)
48(6)
56(3)
200 (8)
479 (14)
Age 45-64
N=340
Doer
43
86
101
80
164
71
181
422
57
86
134
66
105
94
208
480
4(1)
19(2)
82(5)
KD
7(1)
7(2)
9(2)
180(13)
43(3)
90(6)
121 (6)
33(3)
60(7)
73(6)
238(11)
472(15)
Doer
73
67
91
198
79
77
169
429
64
101
122
67
118
116
244
472
Age 65+
N=340
4(2)
20(5)
62(5)
KD
15(4)
7(1)
5(3)
35(6)
50(5)
108 (9)
119(7)
35(5)
82(13)
85(8)
303 (20)
507 (26)
Doer
57
74
80
277
81
51
297
341
65
119
121
69
140
122
312
509
GARB Data
Mean Duration (Standard Error)
Microenvironment
Autoplaces
Restaurant/bar
In-vehicle/internal combustion
In-vehicle/other
Physical/outdoors
Physical/indoors
Work/study -residence
Work/study-other
Cooking
Other activities/kitchen
Chores/child
Shop/errands
Other/outdoors
Social/cultural
Leisure-eat/indoors
Sleep/indoors
Age 12-17
N=340"
16(8)
16(4)
78(11)
1 (0)
32(7)
20(4)
25(5)
196(30)
3(1)
31 (4)
72(11)
14(3)
58(8)
63 (14)
260 (27)
557 (44)
a All N's are weighted number.
b Doer = Respondents who reported partic
Source: Robinson and Thomas,
1991.
Doer
124
44
89
19
110
65
76
339
19
51
77
50
78
109
270
560
pating in e

Age 18-24
N=340
16(4)
40(8)
111 (13)
3(1)
13(3)
5(2)
30(11)
201 (24)
14(2)
31(5)
79(8)
35(7)
80(15)
65 (10)
211 (19)
506 (30)
Doer
71
98
122
60
88
77
161
344
40
55
85
71
130
110
234
510
Age 24-44
N=340
25(9)
44(5)
98(5)
5(2)
17(3)
6(1)
7(2)
215(14)
32(2)
43(3)
110(6)
33(4)
68 (8)
50(5)
202 (9)
487(17)
Doer
114
116
111
143
128
61
137
410
59
65
119
71
127
122
215
491
Age 45-64
N=340
20(5)
31(4)
100(11)
2(1)
14(3)
5(1)
10(3)
173(20)
31(3)
62(6)
99(8)
32(3)
76(12)
50(5)
248 (15)
485 (23)
Doer
94
82
117
56
123
77
139
429
68
91
109
77
134
107
261
491
Age 65+
N=340
9(2)
25(7)
63(8)
2(1)
15(4)
3(1)
5(3)
30(11)
41 (7)
97(14)
123(15)
35(5)
55(7)
49(7)
386 (34)
502(31)
Doer
53
99
89
53
104
48
195
336
69
119
141
76
101
114
394
502
ich activity /location spent in microenvironments.








Page
16-104
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-52. Mean Time Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by Total Sample
and Gender for the CARB and National Studies (age 1 8-64 years)
Time Duration (min/day)

Activity Category
Paid Work
Household Work
Child Care
Obtaining Goods and Services
Personal Needs and Care
Education and Training
Organizational Activities
Entertainment/Social Activities
Recreation
Communication
a N = total diary days.
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991
CARB
(1987-88)
Total
Na= 1,359
273
102
23
61
642
22
12
60
43
202


National
(1985)
Sample
N= 1,980
252
118
25
55
642
19
17
62
50
196




Men
N = 639
346
68
12
48
630
25
11
57
53
192


CARB
(1987-88)
Women
N = 720
200
137
36
73
655
20
13
55
31
214


National

Men
N = 921
323
79
11
44
636
21
12
64
69
197


(1985)
Women
N = 1,059
190
155
43
62
645
16
20
62
43
194


Table 16-53. Total Mean Time Spent at Three Major Locations Grouped by Total Sample and Gender
for the CARB and National Study (ages 18-64 years)
Location8
CARB
(1987-88)
National
(1985)
Total Sample

At Home
Away From Home
Travel
Not Ascertained
Total Time
a N = total diary days.
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991.
Na= 1,359
892
430
116
2
1,440


N= 1,980
954
384
94
8
1,440


CARB National
(1987-88) (1985)
Men Women Men Women
N = 39 N = 720 N = 921 N= 1,059
822 963 886 1,022
487 371 445 324
130 102 101 87
1487
1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440


Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
  Page
16-105
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-54. Mean Time Spent at Three Locations for both CARB and National Studies (ages 12 years and older)
Mean duration (min/day)

Location Category CARB
(N = l,762)b
Indoor 1,255C
Outdoor 86d
In-Vehicle 98?
Total Time Spent 1,440
b
c
d
Source:
SEa
28
5
4
National
(N = 2,762)b
1,279C
74d
87?
1,440
SE = Standard error of mean
N= Weighted Number - National sample population was weighted to obtain a ratio of 46.5 males and 53.5 females,
proportion for each day of the week, and for each quarter of the year.
Difference between the mean values for the CARB and national studies is not statistically significant.
Difference between the mean values for the CARB and national studies is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Robinson and Thomas, 1991.
SE
21
4
2
in equal
Table 16-55. Gender and Age Groups
Age Group Subgroup Sample Size
Adults Men 724
Women 855
Adolescents Males 98
Females 85
Children3 Young males 145
Young females 124
Old males 156
Old females 160
a Children under the age of 6 are excluded for the present study (too few responses
Source: Funk etal., 1998.
Age Range
> 18 years
> 18 years
12-1 7 years
12-1 7 years
6-8 years
6-8 years
9-11 years
9-11 years
in CARB study).

Page                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook
16-106                                                                 June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-56. Assignment of At-Home Activities to Inhalation Rate Levels for All individuals
Children
Low
Watching child care
Night sleep
Watch personal care
Homework
Radio use
TV use
Records/tapes
Reading books
Reading magazines
Reading newspapers
Letters/writing
Other leisure
Homework/watch TV
Reading/TV
Reading/listen music
Paperwork

























Moderate
Outdoor cleaning
Food Preparation
Metal clean-up
Cleaning house
Clothes care
Car/boat repair
Home repair
Plant care
Other household
Pet care
Baby care
Child care
Helping/teaching
Talking/reading
Indoor playing
Outdoor playing
Medical child care
Washing, hygiene
Medical care
Help and care
Meals at home
Dressing
Visiting at home
Hobbies
Domestic crafts
Art
Music/dance/drama
Indoor dance
Conservations
Painting room/home
Building fire
Washing/dressing
Outdoor play
Playing/eating
Playing/talking
Playing/watch TV
TV/eating
TV/something else
Reading book/eating
Read magazine/eat
Read newspaper/eat
Adolescents and Adults
Low
Night sleep
Naps/resting
Doing homework
Radio use
TV use
Records/tapes
Read books
Read magazines
Writing/paperwork
Other passive leisure































Moderate
Food preparation
Food clean-up
Cleaning house
Clothes care
Car care
Household repairs
Plant care
Animal care
Other household
Baby care
Child care
Helping/teaching
Talking/reading
Indoor playing
Outdoor playing
Medical child care
Washing
Medical care
Help and care
Meals at home
Dressing/grooming
Not ascertained
Visiting at home
Hobbies
Domestic crafts
Art
Music/drama/dance
Games
Computer use
Conversations











High
Outdoor cleaning








































Source: Funk etal., 1998.
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
 Page
16-107
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-57. Aggregate Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home in Activity Groups
Adults
Mean SD
Low 702 214
Moderate 257 183
High 9 38
Highpartlclpmtsc 92 83
Adolescents
Mean
789
197
1
43
a Time spent engaging in all activities embodied by inhalation rate category
b Significantly different from adolescents (p <0.05).
0 Participants in high inhalation rate level activities (i.e., doers).
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Funk etal., 1998.

SD
230
131
11
72
(minutes/day).
Children
Mean SD
823 153
241b 136
3 17
58 47

Table 16-58. Comparison of Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home, by Gender3

Activity Group
Adults
Low
Moderate
High
Hlghparticipmts
Adolescents
Low
Moderate
High
Male
Mean

691
190
14
109

775
181
2
a Time spent engaging in all activities embodied by
b Significantly different from male (p < 0.05).
0 Participants in high inhalation rate activities (i.e.,
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Funk etal., 1998.

Female
SD

226
150
50
97

206
126
16
inhalation rate category
doers).

Mean

714
323b
4b
59b

804
241
0
(minutes/day).

SD

200
189
18
40

253
134
0


Page
16-108
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-59. Comparison of Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home, by Gender and Age for Children3
Acti
Gro
Low
Males
Vlty 6-8 Years 9-11 Years
up
Mean SD Mean SD
806 134 860 157
Moderate 259 135 198 111
High
Higlw
a
b
SD
Source
3 17 7 27
cipant" 77 59 70 54

Females

6-8 Years 9-11 Years
Mean
828
256
1
68
Time spent engaging in all activities embodied by inhalation rate category
Participants in high inhalation rate activities (i.e., doers).
= Standard deviation.
Funketal., 1998.

SD Mean
155 803
141 247
9 2
11 30
(minutes/day).

SD
162
146
10
23


Table 16-60. Number of Person-Day s/Individualsa for Children Less than
Age Group
OYear
0 to 6 Months
6 to 12 Months
1 Year
12 to 18 Months
18 to 24 Months
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
5 Years
6 Years
7 Years
8 Years
9 Years
10 Years
11 Years
Total
All Studies
223/199
-
-
259/238
-
-
317/264
278/242
259/232
254/227
237/199
243/213
259/226
229/195
224/199
227/206
3,009/2,640
California15 Cincinnati0
104
50
54
97
57
40
112
113
91
98
81
85
103
90
105
121
1,200
36/12
15/5
21/7
31/11
-
-
81/28
54/18
41/14
40/14
57/19
45/15
49/17
51/17
38/13
32/11
556/187
a The number of person-days of data are the same as the number of individuals
study. Since up to three days of activity pattern data were obtained from each
person-days of data is approximately three times the number of individuals.
b The California study referred to in this table is the Wiley et al. ( 1 99 1 ) study.
0 The Cincinnati study referred to in this table is the Johnson ( 1 989) study.
= No data.
12 Years in CHAD Database
NHAPS-Air
39
-
-
64
-
-
57
51
64
52
59
57
51
42
39
44
619
NHAPS-Water
44
-
-
67
-
-
67
60
63
64
40
56
55
46
42
30
634
for all studies except for the Cincinnati
participant in this study, the number of
Source: Hubal et al., 2000.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
June 2 009                                                                 16-109
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-61 . Time Spent (hours/day) in Various Microenvironments, by Age

Age (years)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Source: Hubal
Average Time ± Standard Deviation (Percent >0 Hours)
Indoors at Home
19. 6 ±4.3 (99)
19. 5 ±4.1 (99)
17.8 ±4.3 (100)
18.0 ±4.2 (100)
17.3 ±4.3 (100)
16. 3 ±4.0 (99)
16.0 ±4.2 (98)
15. 5 ±3. 9 (99)
15. 6 ±4.1 (99)
15.2 ±4.3 (99)
16.0 ±4.4 (96)
14. 9 ±4.6 (98)
et al, 2000.
Outdoors at Home
1.4 ±1.5 (20)
1.6 ±1.3 (35)
2.0 ±1.7 (46)
2.1 ±1.8 (48)
2.4 ±1.8 (42)
2. 5 ±2. 1(52)
2.6 ±2.2 (48)
2.6 ±2.0 (48)
2.1 ±2.5 (44)
2. 3 ±2.8 (49)
1.7 ±1.9 (40)
1.9 ±2.3 (45)

Indoors at School
3. 5 ±3. 7 (2)
3.4 ±3. 8 (5)
6.2 ±3. 3 (9)
5.7 ±2. 8 (14)
4. 9 ±3.2 (16)
5.4 ±2. 5 (39)
5. 8 ±2.2 (34)
6. 3 ±1.3 (40)
6.2 ±1.1 (41)
6.0 ±1.5 (39)
5. 9 ±1.5 (39)
5. 9 ±1.5 (41)

Outdoors at Park
1.6 ±1.5 (9)
1.9±2.7(10)
2.0 ±1.7 (17)
1.5 ±0.9 (17)
2. 3 ±1.9 (20)
1.6 ±1.5 (28)
2.1 ±2.4 (32)
1.5 ±1.0 (28)
2.2 ±2.4 (37)
1.7 ±1.5 (34)
2.2 ±2. 3 (40)
2.0 ±1.7 (44)

In Vehicle
1.2 ±1.0 (65)
1.1 ±0.9 (66)
1.2 ±1.5 (76)
1.4 ±1.9 (73)
1.1 ±0.8 (78)
1.3 ±1.8 (80)
1.1 ±0.8 (79)
1.1 ±1.1 (77)
1.3 ±2.1 (82)
1.2 ±1.2 (76)
1.1 ±1.1 (82)
1.6 ±1.9 (74)


Age
(years)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Source:
Table 16-62.
Mean Time Children Spent (hours/day) Doing Various Macroactivities While Indoors at Home
Mean Time (Percent >0 Hours)
Eat
1.9(96)
1.5(97)
1.3(92)
1.2(95)
1.1(93)
1.1(95)
1.1(94)
1.0(93)
0.9(91)
0.9 (90)
1.0(86)
0.9(89)
Hubal et al.,
Sleep or Nap
12.6(99)
12.1(99)
11.5(100)
11.3(99)
10.9(100)
10.5(98)
10.4(98)
9.9 (99)
10.0(96)
9.7 (96)
9.6 (94)
9.3 (94)
2000.
Shower or
Bathe
0.4 (44)
0.5 (56)
0.5(53)
0.4(53)
0.5 (52)
0.5 (54)
0.4 (49)
0.4 (56)
0.4(51)
0.5 (43)
0.4 (43)
0.4 (45)

Play Games
4.3 (29)
3.9(68)
2.5(59)
2.6(59)
2.6 (54)
2.0 (49)
1.9(35)
2.1 (38)
2.0(35)
1.7(28)
1.7(38)
1.9(27)

Watch TV or
Listen to Radio
1.1(9)
1.8(41)
2.1 (69)
2.6(81)
2.5 (82)
2.3(85)
2.3 (82)
2.5 (84)
2.7(83)
3.1 (83)
3.5 (79)
3.1 (85)

Read, Write,
Homework
0.4 (4)
0.6(19)
0.6 (27)
0.8 (27)
0.7(31)
0.8(31)
0.9(38)
0.9 (40)
1.0(45)
1.0(44)
1.5(47)
1.1(47)

Think, Relax,
Passive
3.3 (62)
2.3 (20)
1.4(18)
1.0(19)
1.1(17)
1.2(19)
1.1(14)
0.6(10)
0.7(7)
0.9(17)
0.6(10)
0.6(10)

Page
16-110
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-63. Time Children Spent (hours/day) in Various Microenvironments, by Age Recast into New Standard Age Categories
Indoors at Home
Age Group
Birth to <1 month
1 to <3 months
3 to <6 months
6 to < 12 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
N = Sample
N
123
33
120
287
728
765
2,110
3,283
2,031
1,005
size.
Mean
Time
19.6
20.9
19.6
19.1
19.2
18.2
17.3
15.7
15.5
14.6

Doing
98
100
100
99
99
99
100
99
97
98

Source: Based on data source used by Hubal et al.
Outdoors at Home
Mean
Time
1.7
1.8
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.4

2000 (CHAD)
Doing
21
9
8
15
34
38
43
40
30
20


Indoors at School
Mean
Time
4.3
0.2
7.8
7.6
6.4
6.8
5.9
6.5
6.6
5.7


Doing
3
3
7
8
9
12
26
44
45
33


Outdoors at Park
Mean
Time
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.8
1.5
2.1
1.6
2.1
2.6
3.1


Doing
3
9
6
5
5
7
10
17
15
10


In Vehicle
Mean
Time
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.7


Doing
63
27
14
14
27
28
29
29
42
90


Table 16-64. Time Children Spent (hours/day) in Various Macroactivities While Indoors at Home Recast Into New Standard Age Categories
Eat Sleep or Nap
Age Group N
Mean
Time
Birth to <1 month 123 2.2
1 to <3 months 33 2.4
3 to <6 months 120 2.0
6 to <12 months 287 1.8
1 to <2 years 728 1.7
2 to <3 years 765 1.5
3 to <6 years 2,110 1.4
6to
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                         Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                 Table 16-65. Number and Percentage of Respondents with Children and Those Reporting
                              Outdoor Playa Activities in both Warm and Cold Weather
       Source
                     Respondents
                     with Children
Child Players"
Child non-
 Players
 Warm     Cold
Weather  Weather
Players3  Players
                Players in Both Seasons
                          N
 N
N
N
            N
SCS-II base
SCS-II over sample
Total
197
483
680
128
372
500
65.0
77.0
73.5
69
111
180
35.0
23.0
26.5
127
370
497
100
290
390
50.8
60.0
57.4
 a       "Play" and "player" refer specifically to participation in outdoor play on bare dirt or mixed grass and dirt.
 b       Does not include three "Don't know/refused" responses regarding warm weather play.
 N      = Sample size.

 Source: Wong et al., 2000.


Statistic
N
5th Percentile
50th Percentile
95th Percentile
Table 16-66.

Frequency
(days/week)
372
1
3
7
Play Frequency and Duration for all Child Players (from SCS-II data)
Cold Weather
Duration
(hours/day)
374
1
1
4

Total
(hours/week)
373
1
5
20

Frequency
(days/week)
488
2
7
7
Warm Weather
Duration
(hours/day)
479
1
3
8

Total
(hours/week)
480
4
20
50
N = Sample size.
Source: Wong et al
, 2000.





Table 16-67. Hand Washing and Bathing Frequency for all Child Players (from SCS-II data)
Cold Weather
Statistic
N
5th Percentile
50th Percentile
95th Percentile
N = Sample size.
Source: Wong et al., 2000.
Hand washing
(times/day)
329
2
4
10


Bathing
(times/week)
388
2
7
10


Warm Weather
Hand washing
(times/day)
433
2
4
12


Bathing
(times/week)
494
3
7
14


Page
16-112
                                     Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                         June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-68. NHAPS and SCS-II Play Duration3 Comparison (Children Only)
Mean Play Duration
Data Source (minutes/day) X2

NHAPS
SCS-II
a
b
Source:
Cold Weather Warm Weather Total
114 109 223
p<0
102 206 308
testb
0001
Selected previous day activities in NHAPS; average day outdoor play on bare dirt or mixed grass and dirt in SCS-II.
2x2 Chi-square test for contingency between NHAPS and SCS-II.
Wong etal., 2000.
Table 16-69. NHAPS and SCS-II Hand Wash Frequency" Comparison (Children only)
Percent11 Reporting Frequency (times/day) of:
„ Season
source 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20-29 30+
NHAPS Cold 3 18 51 17 7 1 1
SCS-II Cold 1 16 50 11 7 1 0
NHAPS Warm 3 18 51 15 7 2 1
SCS-II Warm 0 12 46 16 10 1 0
a Selected previous day activities in NHAPS; average day outdoor play on bare dirt or mixed
b Results are reported as percentage of total for clarity. Incidence data were used in statistical
0 2x2 Chi-square test for contingency between NHAPS and SCS-II.
Source: Wong et al, 2000.

"Don't
Know"
3
15
4
13
grass and dirt
tests.
X2 tesf
p = 0.06
p = 0.001
in SCS-II.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
June 2009                                                                 16-113
-------
                                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                 Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                                      Table 16-70. Time Spent (minutes/day) Outdoors
                                           Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)a
    Age Group
                   N
                                               Time Spent Outdoors
                           Minimum
                                        Median
                                                   Maximum
                                                                 Mean
                                                                               SD
                                                                               COV(%)     Participation11 (%)
 <1 month

 1 to 2 months

 3 to 5 months

 6 to 11 months

 1 year

 2 years

 3 to 5 years

 6 to 10 years

 11 to 15 years

 16 to 17 years

 18 to 20 years

 21 to 44 years

 45 to 64 years

 >64 years
          57

           5

          27

          91

          389

          448

         1,336

         2,216

         1,423

          356

          351

         3,660

         1,914

         1,002
2

4

10

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1
60

60

90

60

75

100

120

120

110

85

70

61

69

65
 700

 225

 510

 450

1,035

 550

 972

1,440

1,440

1,083

 788

1,305

1,015

 840
99

102

114

91

102

134

146

162

154

129

132

131

135

118
124

90

98

76

99

108

117

144

163

145

155

165

162

130
125

89

86

84

97

80

80

89

106

112

118

126

120

110
47

36

23

33

58

64

68

71

73

81

72

62

62

57
 SD
 COV
Only data for individuals that spent >0 time outdoors and had 30 or more records are included in the analysis.
Participation rates or percent of sample days in the study spending some time (>0 minutes per day) outdoors. The mean time spent
outdoors for the age group may be obtained by multiplying the participation rate by the mean time shown above.
= Standard deviation.
= Coefficient of variation (SD/mean x 100).
 Source:  Graham and McCurdy, 2004.
Page
16-114
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                              June 2009
-------
! 64 years Male 396 2
Female 605 1
Median
69
58
58
225
86
140
60
68
80
70
105
90
120
120
132
115
125
90
113
68
95
50
82
55
91
58
118
60
Maximum
700
333
165
225
210
510
450
270
1,035
511
550
525
972
701
1,440
1,380
1,440
1,371
810
1,083
788
606
1,005
1,305
1,015
930
840
630
Mean
116
73
71
225
89
187
95
86
110
95
136
131
146
144
173
148
171
134
151
109
162
99
164
103
178
102
164
88
SD
144
78
68
-
56
153
83
67
114
82
105
111
119
113
148
138
169
153
147
141
176
119
191
133
193
124
156
98
a Only data for individuals that spent >0 time outdoors and had 30 or more records are included
b The two-sample Kolmogoroz-Smirnov (K-S) test H0 is that the distribution of variable
Data not available.
SD = Standard deviation.
COV = Coefficient of variation (SD/mean x 1 00).
Source: Graham and McCurdy, 2004.












1 is the




COV (o/o) ^
125 0.24
106
95
0
63 0.42
81
87 0.07
77
104 0.07
86
77 0.09
84
81 0.04
78
86 0.09
93
99 0.17
114
97 0.19
127
109 0.20
120
117 0.14
129
109 0.18
121
96 0.25
111
in the analysis.
same as variable 2, using




K-S Test"
X2
0.90

P
0.3964

Reject
Ho
No

CtiflllOt TiPQt

0.96

1.00

0.71

1.00

0.74

2.05

3.12

1.80

1.84

4.23

3.90

3.81


a x2 test statistic





0.3158

0.3200

0.6896

0.2705

0.6465

0.0004

0.0001

0.0030

0.0023

0.0001

O.0001

O.0001


at % = 0.050.





No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes








 s.
-3-


 ft
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-72. Time Spent (minutes/day) Indoors
Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)a

Time Spent Indoors
Age Cjroup N
Minimum Median Maximum
<1 month 121 490
1 to 2 months 14 1,125
3 to 5 months 115 840
6 to 11 months 278 840
lyear 668 315
2 years 700 290
3 to 5 years 1,977 23
6 to 10 years 3,118 7
11 to 15 years 1,939 69
16 to 17 years 438 161
18 to 20 years 485 512
21 to 44 years 5,872 60
45 to 64 years 3,073 23
> 64 years 1,758 600
1,380 1,440
1,380 1,440
1,385 1,440
1,370 1,440
1,350 1,440
1,319 1,440
1,307 1,440
1,292 1,440
1,300 1,440
1,296 1,440
1,310 1,440
1,317 1,440
1,320 1,440
1,350 1,440
Mean SD
1,336 137
1,348 105
1,359 93
1,353 81
1,324 107
1,286 138
1,276 136
1,256 153
1,255 160
1,251 171
1,242 180
1,259 176
1,262 172
1,310 141
COV(%) Participation11 (%)
10
8
7
6
8
11
11
12
13
14
15
14
14
11
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
a Only data for individuals that spent >0 time indoors and had 30 or more records are included in the analysis.
b Participation rates or percent of sample days in the study spending some time (>0 minutes per day) indoors. The mean time spent
indoors for the age group may be obtained by multiplying the participation rate (as a decimal) by the mean time shown above.
N = Sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
COV = Coefficient of variation (SD
Source: Graham and McCurdy, 2004.
/mean x 100).







Page
16-116
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table

Age Cjroup N
Minimum
<1 month 80 2
1 to 2 months 9 20
3 to 5 months 75 13
6 to 11 months 226 4
1 year 515 1
2 years 581 2
3 to 5 years 1,702 1
6 to 10 years 2,766 1
11 to 15 years 1,685 1
16 to 17 years 400 4
18 to 20 years 449 4
21 to 44 years 5,429 1
45 to 64 years 2,739 1
> 64 years 1,259 4
16-73. Time Spent (minutes/day) in Motor Vehicles
Based on CHAD Data (Doers Only)a
Time Spent in Motor Vehicles
Median Maximum Mean
68
83
60
51
52
54
55
58
60
73
76
80
75
60
350
105
335
425
300
955
1,389
1,214
825
1,007
852
1,440
1,357
798
86
67
71
62
67
73
70
71
76
92
109
105
102
86
SD
68
32
49
47
50
76
70
68
74
90
106
100
105
85
(^("\W/0/.\ P^rl
\~s\_J V ^ /O) lal
79
48
69
76
76
104
99
95
97
98
98
96
103
99
ticipationb (%)
66
64
65
81
77
83
86
89
87
91
93
92
89
72
a Only data for individuals that spent >0 time in motor vehicles and had 30 or more records are included in the analysis.
b Participation rates or percent of sample days in the study spending some time (>0 minutes per day) in motor vehicles. The mean time
spent in motor vehicles for the age group may be obtained by multiplying the participation rate (as a decimal) by the mean time
shown above.
N = Sample size.
SD = Standard deviation.
COV = Coefficient of variation (SD/mean x
Source: Graham and McCurdy, 2004.

100).
















Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
 Page
16-117
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-74. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Activity Categories, by Age - Weekday (Children Only)
2002-2003
Activity Category

Market work
Household work
Personal care
Eating
Sleeping, naps
School
Studying
Church
Visiting, socializing
Sports
Outdoor Activities
Hobbies
Art Activities
Television
Other passive leisure
Playing
Reading
Being read to
Computer activities
Missing data
Data not provided.
Source: Juster et al, 2004.
6 to 8
years
0
25
68
60
607
406
29
4
16
10
6
1
8
94
9
74
11
2
6
4


9 to 11
years
0
32
66
57
583
398
39
5
25
17
6
1
7
106
10
56
12
1
10
8


12 to 14
years
1
38
68
54
542
395
49
5
25
33
4
1
7
111
24
45
11
0
25
4


15 to 17
years
22
39
73
49
515
352
50
3
53
33
6
2
4
115
39
35
7
0
38
6
1981-1982
6 to 8
years
-
15
49
81
595
292
8
9
-
24
9
2
4
99
-
Ill
5
-
-
-


9 to 11
years
-
18
40
73
548
315
29
9
-
21
8
2
3
146
-
65
9
-
-
-


12 to 14
years
-
27
56
69
473
344
33
9
-
40
7
4
3
142
-
31
10
-
-
-


15 to 17
years
28
34
60
67
499
314
33
3
-
46
11
6
12
108
-
14
12
-
-
-


Page
16-118
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-75. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Activity Categories, by Age - Weekend Day (Children Only)
2002-2003
Activity Category

Market work
Household work
Personal care
Eating
Sleeping, naps
School
Studying
Church
Visiting, socializing
Sports
Outdoor Activities
Hobbies
Art Activities
Television
Other passive leisure
Playing
Reading
Being read to
Computer activities
Missing data
Data not provided.
Source: Juster et al., 2004.
6 to 8
years
0
81
78
89
666
3
5
41
61
23
12
2
11
155
14
163
14
1
12
9


9 to 11
years
0
91
72
80
644
6
9
37
66
40
12
1
7
184
15
134
15
1
19
8


12 to 14
years
9
100
73
69
633
7
20
36
58
40
12
4
9
181
40
148
13
0
39
9


15 to 17
years
39
79
77
64
629
7
24
30
91
27
11
5
6
162
54
59
7
0
58
11
1981-1982
6 to 8
years
-
27
45
80
641
-
2
56
-
30
23
5
4
136
-
180
9
-
-
-


9 to 11
years
-
51
44
78
596
-
12
53
-
42
39
3
4
185
-
92
10
-
-
-


12 to 14
years
-
72
60
68
604
-
15
32
-
51
25
8
7
169
-
35
10
-
-
-


15 to 17
years
48
60
51
65
562
-
30
37
-
37
26
3
10
157
-
21
18
-
-
-


Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
 Page
16-119
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-76. Mean Time Spent (minutes/week) in
Various Activity Categories for Children, Ages 6 to 17 Years
Activity Category
Market work
Household work
Personal care
Eating
Sleeping, naps
School
Studying
Church
Visiting, socializing
Sports
Outdoor Activities
Hobbies
Art Activities
Television
Other passive leisure
Playing
Reading
Being read to
Computer activities
Missing data
2002-2003
53
343
493
426
4,092
1,947
238
94
287
179
50
12
48
876
166
485
77
5
165
45
1981-1982
126
223
356
508
3,758
1,581
158
125
132
244
100
27
40
944
39
440
69
3
0
1,206
Source: Juster et al., 2004.
Page
16-120
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-77. Time Spent (minutes/two-day period)" in Various Activities by Children Participating in the Panel Study
Dynamics (PSID), 1997 Child Development Supplement (CDS)
Age Group
Television Use
1 to 5 years
6 to 8 years
9 to 12 years
Electronic Game Use
1 to 5 years
6 to 8 years
9 to 12 years
Computer Use
1 to 5 years
6 to 8 years
9 to 12 years
Print Useb
1 to 5 years
6 to 8 years
9 to 12 years
Highly Active Activities'
1 to 5 years
6 to 8 years
9 to 12 years
Moderately Active Activities'1
1 to 5 years
6 to 8 years
9 to 12 years
Sedentary Activities'
1 to 5 years
6 to 8 years
9 to 12 years

Boys (N = 1,444)
Mean" Standard Deviation

197
263
251

8
44
57

7
13
27

21
20
19

42
107
137

55
31
40

55
75
110

168
165
185

38
113
102

28
43
71

32
37
47

74
123
149

81
65
73

71
77
109
Girls (N = 1,387)
of Income

Mean8 Standard Deviation

184
239
266

5
14
18

7
8
15

23
20
29

34
62
63

59
37
46

54
80
122

163
159
194

40
39
47

35
28
43

34
32
56

78
92
88

92
69
89

71
84
111
a Means represent minutes spent in each activity over a 2-day period (one weekday and one weekend day).
b Print use represents time spent using print media including reading and being read to.
' Includes all sport activities such as basketball, soccer, swimming, running or bicycling.
d Includes activities such as singing, camping, taking music lessons, fishing, and boating.
' Includes activities such as playing board games, doing puzzles, talking on the phone, and relaxing.
N = Sample size.
Source: Vanderwater et al., 2004.




Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
  Page
16-121
-------
                   Table 16-78. Annual Average Time Spent (Hours/Day) on Various Activities According to Age, Race, Ethnicity, Marital Status, and Educational Level (ages 15 years and over)

            Characteristic      Personal    Eating and    Household     Purchasing       Caring for      Caring for and     Working on     Educational      Organizational      Leisure      Telephone        Other
                                 carea     Drinkingb    Activitiesc     Goods and      and Helping     Helping Non-      Work-related     Activitiesh        Civic and         and      Calls, Mail,     Activities not
                                                                         Servicesd      Household        Household       Activitiess                        Religious        Sports'     and E-mailk     Elsewhere
                                                                                        Memberse        Membersf                                         Activities'                                   Classified'
                                 9.41
                                 10.30
                                 9.64
                                 9.31
                                 9.12
                                 9.10
                                 9.19
                                 9.68
                                 9.83
                         1.23
                         1.07
                         1.21
                         1.19
                         1.18
                         1.17
                         1.31
                         1.44
                         1.50
                                                            1.79
                                                            0.76
                                                            1.05
                                                            1.55
                                                            1.87
                                                            1.97
                                                            2.11
                                                            2.64
                                                            2.32
               0.81
               0.56
               0.67
               0.81
               0.87
               0.82
               0.91
               0.93
               0.80
                                  0.21
                                  0.21
                                  0.20
                                  0.12
                                  0.19
                                  0.24
                                  0.28
                                  0.30
                                  0.21
                                                                     0.30
                                                                     0.34
                                                                     0.21
                                                                     0.16
                                                                     0.30
                                                                     0.29
                                                                     0.39
                                                                     0.38
                                                                     0.43
                                                                   5.09
                                                                   5.40
                                                                   5.03
                                                                   4.30
                                                                   4.09
                                                                   4.52
                                                                   5.41
                                                                   6.97
                                                                   7.82
                             0.19
                             0.33
                             0.19
                             0.14
                             0.13
                             0.17
                             0.18
                             0.24
                             0.30
                             1.24
                             1.17
                             1.16
                             1.29
                             1.27
         Gender
         Male
         Female
                         1.25
                         1.22
                                                            1.33
                                                            2.23
                                                 0.18
                                                 0.24
                                                   4.53
                                                   3.02
                                                    0.45
                                                    0.53
                                                    0.29
                                                    0.31
               5.47
               4.72
             0.12
             0.26
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic/Latino

Marital Status
Married
Other
                                 9.30
                                 10.08
                                 9.67
                                 9.12
                                 9.75
                                       2.09
                                       1.43
                                                       0.81
                                                       0.75
                                                       0.77
                                                                                           0.53
                                                                                           0.46
                                                                                           0.60
                                                 0.21
                                                 0.20
                                                 0.15
                                                                                                             0.21
                                                                                                             0.22
                                                                    0.47
                                                                    0.43
                                                                    0.69
                                                                                   0.11
                                                                                   0.94
                                                                     0.29
                                                                     0.37
                                                                     0.23
                                                                                     0.33
                                                                                     0.27
                                                                   5.09
                                                                   5.49
                                                                   4.63
                                                                                     4.79
                                                                                     5.45
                             0.18
                             0.25
                             0.13
                                                                                0.14
                                                                                0.25
                             1.21
                             1.18
1
fi

1
         Education
         < High School grad
         HS grad, no college
         Some college
         BS or higher
             9.86
             9.42
             9.21
             8.94
                                              1.10
                                              1.19
                                              1.24
                                              1.41
2.38
2.05
1.94
1.77
0.80
0.76
0.92
0.91
0.50
0.46
0.58
0.71
0.20
0.25
0.23
0.18
                                                                                                                          0.22
0.25
0.28
0.29
0.37
6.01
5.57
4.76
4.33
                                                                                                                                                                                     0.10
                                                                                                                                                                                     0.15
                                                                                                                                                                                     0.19
                                                                                                                                                                                     0.22
0.17
0.21
0.18
Includes sleeping, bathing, dressing, health-related self care, and personal and private activities.
Includes time spent eating or drinking (except when identified as part of work or volunteer activity); does not include time spent purchasing meals, snacks, or beverages.
Includes housework, cooking, yard care, pet care, vehicle maintenance and repair, home maintenance, repair, decoration, and renovation.
Includes purchase of consumer goods, professional (e.g., banking, legal, medical, real estate) and personal care services (e.g., hair salons, barbershops, day spas, tanning salons), household services (e.g.,
housecleaning, lawn care and landscaping, pet care, dry cleaning, vehicle maintenance, construction), and government services (e.g., applying for food stamps, government required licenses or paying fines).
Includes time spent caring or helping to care for child or adult household member (e.g., physical care, playing with children, reading to child or adult, attending to health care needs, dropping off, picking up or
waiting for children).
Includes time spent caring or helping to care for child or adult who is not a household member (e.g., physical care, playing with children, reading to child or adult, attending to health care needs, dropping off,
picking up or waiting for children). Does not include activities done through a volunteer organization.
Includes time spent as part of the job, income-generating activities, or job search activities. Also  includes travel time for work-related activities.
Includes taking classes, doing research and homework, registering for classes, and before and after school extra-curricular activities, except sports.
Includes time spent volunteering for or through civic obligations (e.g., jury duty, voting, attending town hall meetings), or through participating in religious or spiritual activities (e.g., church choir, youth
groups, praying).
Includes sports, exercise, and recreation.  This category is broken down into subcategories for the 15 to  19 years old age category.
Includes telephone use, mail and e-mail. Does not include communications related to purchase of goods and services or those related to work or volunteering.
Includes residual activities that could not be coded or where information was missing.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            a
         Source:     USDL (2007).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ri
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                       Table 16-79. Annual Average Time Use by the U.S. Civilian Population, Ages 15 Years and Older
                                                                                             Hours/day
                            Activity
                                                                  Total
                                                                           Male
                                                                                     Female
                                                                                                 Weekday
Weekends and
  Holidays
  Personal Carea                                                   9.41      9.21       9.59         9.12
            sleeping                                               8.63      8.56       8.69         8.33
  Eating and Drinkingb                                             1.23      1.25       1.22         1.18
  Household Activitiesc                                             1.79      1.33       2.23         1.66
            housework                                             0.61      0.25       0.95         0.57
            food preparation/cleanup                                0.53      0.29       0.75         0.51
            lawn and garden care                                    0.20      0.26       0.14         0.16
            household management                                 0.13      0.11       0.14         0.12
  Purchasing Goods and Servicesd                                   0.81      0.64       0.96         0.76
            consumer goods purchase                                0.40      0.29       0.51         0.34
            professional/personal goods purchase                     0.09      0.06       0.11         0.10
  Caring for and Helping Household Memberse                       0.53      0.33       0.71         0.56
            caring for household children                            0.41      0.24       0.57         0.43
  Caring for and Helping Non-Household Membersf                   0.21      0.18       0.24         0.19
            caring for non-household adults                          0.07      0.07       0.08         0.06
  Working on Work-related Activitiesg                                3.75      4.53       3.02         4.77
            working                                               3.40      4.10       2.74         4.33
  Educational Activitiesh                                            0.49      0.45       0.53         0.63
            attending classes                                        0.30      0.29       0.32         0.42
            homework and research                                 0.15      0.12       0.17         0.16
  Organizational Civic and Religious Activities'                       0.30      0.29       0.31         0.20
            religious and spiritual activities                          0.12      0.11       0.13         0.04
            volunteering (organizational and civic activities)           0.13      0.13       0.13         0.13
  Leisure and Sportsj                                               5.09      5.47       4.72         4.54
            socializing and communicating                          0.76      0.71       0.80         0.60
            watching TV                                           2.58      2.80       2.36         2.35
            sports, exercise, recreation                               0.28      0.38       0.18         0.26
  Telephone Calls, Mail, and E-mailk                                 0.19      0.12       0.26         0.20
  Other Activities not Elsewhere Classified1                          0.21      0.20       0.22         0.20
    10.08
    9.32
    1.37
    2.11
    0.70
    0.57
    0.27
    0.15
    0.93
    0.53
    0.04
    0.45
    0.37
    0.26
    0.11
    1.36
    1.23
    0.16
    0.04
    0.10
    0.53
    0.30
    0.15
    6.37
    1.11
    3.10
    0.33
    0.17
    0.22
            Includes sleeping, bathing, dressing, health-related self care, and personal and private activities.
            Includes time spent eating or drinking (except when identified as part of work or volunteer activity); does not include time spent
            purchasing meals, snacks, or beverages.
            Includes housework, cooking, yard care, pet care, vehicle maintenance and repair, home maintenance, repair, decoration, and
            renovation.
            Includes purchase of consumer goods, professional (e.g., banking, legal, medical, real estate) and personal care services (e.g., hair
            salons, barbershops, day spas, tanning salons), household services (e.g., housecleaning, lawn care and landscaping, pet care, dry
            cleaning, vehicle maintenance, construction), and government services (e.g., applying for food stamps, government required licenses
            or paying fines).
            Includes time spent caring or helping to care for child or adult household member (e.g., physical care, playing with children, reading
            to child or adult, attending to health care needs, dropping off, picking up or waiting for children).
            Includes time spent caring or helping to care for child or adult who is not a household member (e.g., physical care, playing with
            children, reading to child or adult, attending to health care needs, dropping off, picking up or waiting for children). Does not include
            activities done through a volunteer organization.
            Includes time spent as part of the job, income-generating activities, or job search activities. Also includes travel time for work-
            related activities.
            Includes taking classes, doing research and homework, registering for classes, and before and after school extra-curricular activities,
            except sports.
            Includes time spent volunteering for or through civic obligations (e.g., jury duty, voting, attending town hall meetings), or through
            participating in religious or spiritual activities (e.g., church choir, youth groups, praying).
            Includes sports, exercise, and recreation. This category is broken down into subcategories for the 15 to 19 years old age category.
            Includes telephone use, mail and e-mail. Does not include  communications related to purchase of goods and services or those related
            to work or volunteering.
            Includes residual activities that could not be coded or where information was missing.
  Source:    USDL (2007).
Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
          Page
        16-123
-------
                                                                                          Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                           Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
                               Table 16-80.  Mean Time Use (hours/day) by Children, Ages 15 to 19 Years
                                       Activity
                                                                                                       hours/day
                                                                                          Male
                                                                                                         Female
                                                                                                                          All
Personal Care8

Eating and Drinking1"

Household Activities'

Purchasing Goods and Services'1

Caring for and Helping Household Members'

Caring for and Helping Non-Household Members'

Working on Work-related Activities8

Educational Activities'1

Organizational Civic and Religious Activities'

Leisure  and SportsJ
 total leisure and sports - weekdays
 total leisure and sports - weekends
 sports, exercise, recreation - weekdays
 sports, exercise, recreation - weekends/holidays
 socializing and communicating - weekdays
 socializing and communicating, - weekends/holidays
 watching TV - weekdays
 watching TV - weekends/holidays
 reading - weekdays
 reading - weekends/holidays
 relaxing, thinking - weekdays
 relaxing, thinking - weekends/holidays
 playing games, computer use for leisure - weekdays
 playing games, computer use for leisure - weekends/holidays
 other sports/leisure including travel - weekdays
 other sports/leisure including travel - weekends/holidays

Telephone Calls, Mail, and E-mailk

Other Activities not Elsewhere Classified1
10.26

 1.02

 0.61

 0.38

 0.10

 0.20

 1.53

 3.08

 0.34

 6.02
10.34

 1.11

 0.92

 0.74

 0.19

 0.23

 1.24

 3.51

 0.33

 4.75
0.24

0.23
0.42

0.21
10.30

 1.07

 0.76

 0.56

 0.15

 0.21

 1.39

 3.29

 0.34

 5.40
 4.85
 6.68
 0.58
 0.69
 0.76
 1.32
 1.96
 2.45
 0.11
 0.11
 0.15
 0.13
 0.69
 1.00
 0.61
 0.98

 0.33

 0.22
         Includes sleeping, bathing, dressing, health-related self care, and personal and private activities.
         Includes time spent eating or drinking (except when identified as part of work or volunteer activity); does not include time spent
         purchasing meals, snacks, or beverages.
         Includes housework, cooking, yard care, pet care, vehicle maintenance and repair, home maintenance, repair, decoration, and
         renovation.
         Includes purchase of consumer goods, professional (e.g., banking, legal, medical, real estate) and personal care services (e.g., hair
         salons, barbershops, day spas, tanning salons), household services (e.g., housecleaning, lawn care and landscaping, pet care, dry
         cleaning, vehicle maintenance, construction), and government services (e.g., applying for food stamps, government required licenses or
         paying fines).
         Includes time spent caring or helping to care for child or adult household member (e.g., physical care, playing with children, reading to
         child or adult, attending to health care needs, dropping off, picking up or waiting for children).
         Includes time spent caring or helping to care for child or adult who is not a household member (e.g., physical care, playing with
         children, reading to child or  adult, attending to health care needs, dropping off, picking up or waiting for children). Does not include
         activities done through a volunteer organization.
         Includes time spent as part of the job, income-generating activities, or job search activities. Also includes travel time for work-related
         activities.
         Includes taking classes, doing research and homework, registering for classes, and before and after school extra-curricular activities,
         except sports.
         Includes time spent volunteering for or through civic obligations (e.g., jury duty, voting, attending town hall meetings), or through
         participating in religious or spiritual activities (e.g., church choir, youth groups, praying).
         Includes sports, exercise, and recreation. This category is broken down into subcategories for the 15 to 19 years old age category.
         Includes telephone use, mail and e-mail. Does not include communications related to purchase of goods and services or those related to
         work or volunteering.
         Includes residual activities that could not be coded or where information was missing.
Source:  U.S. DL, 2007.
Page
16-124
Exposure Factors Handbook
                         June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-81. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity (Children Only)
Age (years)

9
11
12
15
SD
Source:
Boys
190.8(53.2)
133.0(42.9)
105.3(40.2)
58.2(31.8)
= Standard deviation.
Nader etal., 2008.
Weekday
Mean (SD)
Girls
173.3(46.4)
115.6(36.3)
86.0(32.5)
38.7(23.6)



Both
181.8(50.6)
124.1(40.6)
95.6(37.8)
49.2(29.9)



Boys
184.3(68.6)
127.1(59.5)
93.4(55.3)
43.2(38.0)


Weekend
Mean (SD)
Girls
173.3(64.3)
112.6(53.2)
73.9(45.8)
25.5(23.3)



Both
178.6(66.6)
119.7(56.8)
83.6(51.7)
35.1(33.3)


Table 16-82.
Age Group (years)
16-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70 and older
Total
a Working population =
Source: Carey, 1988.
Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals* by Age and

All Workers
1.9
4.4
6.9
9.0
10.7
13.3
15.2
17.7
19.4
20.1
21.9
6.6
109.1 million persons.

Median Tenure (years)
Men
2.0
4.6
7.6
10.4
13.8
17.5
20.0
21.9
23.9
26.9
30.5
7.9


Sex

Women
1.9
4.1
6.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
10.8
12.4
14.5
15.6
18.8
5.4


Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
  Page
16-125
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                       Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-83. Occupational Tenure for Employed Individuals* Grouped by Sex and Race
I
White
Black
Hispanic
a
Source:
Median Tenure (Years)
cace
All Individuals
6.7
5.8
4.5
Working population = 109.1 million persons.
Carey, 1988.
Men
8.3
5.8
5.1

Women
5.4
5.8
3.7

Table 16-84. Occupational Tenure for Employed Individuals* Grouped by Sex and Employment Status
Median Tenure (Years)
Employment Status
Full- Time
Part-Time
a Working population =
Source: Carey, 1988.
All Individuals Men
7.2 8.4
3.1 2.4
109.9 million persons.
Women
5.9
3.6

Table 16-85. Occupational Tenure of Employed Individuals8 Grouped by Major Occupational Groups and Age
Median Tenure (years)
Age Group
Occupational Group
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial
Professional Specialty
Technicians and Related Support
Sales Occupations
Administrative Support, including Clerical
Service Occupations
Precision Production, Craft, and Repair
Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing
Totalb
8.4
9.6
6.9
5.1
5.4
4.1
9.3
5.5
10.4
16-24
2.4
2.0
2.2
1.7
2.1
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.9
25-34
5.6
5.7
5.7
4.7
5.0
4.4
7.1
4.6
7.9
35-44
10.1
12.0
10.9
7.7
7.6
6.9
13.5
9.1
13.5
45-54
15.1
18.2
17.7
10.5
10.9
9.0
19.9
13.7
20.7
55-64
17.9
25.6
20.8
15.5
14.6
10.6
25.7
18.1
30.5
65+
26.3
36.2
22.2
21.6
15.4
10.4
30.1
14.7
39.8
a Working population = 109.1 million persons.
b Includes all workers 16 years and older
Source: Carey, 1988.







Page
16-126
Exposure Factors Handbook
               June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-86. Voluntary Occupational Mobility Rates for Workers3 Age 16 Years and Older
Age Group (years)
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
64 and older
Total, age 16 and older
a Working population =
b Occupational mobility
another occupation.
Source: Carey, 1990.
Occupational Mobility Rateb
(Percent)
12.7
6.6
4.0
1.9
1.0
0.3
5.3
109.1 million persons.
rate = percentage of persons employed in an occupation who had voluntarily entered it from
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                   Page
June 2009                                                                 16-127
-------
oo
Table 16-87. Descriptive Statistics for Residential Occupancy Period (years)

Na Mean 5th
Both genders 500,000 11.7 2
Males only 244,274 11.1 2
Females only 255,726 12.3 2
a = Number of simulated persons.
Source: Johnson and Capel, 1992.
Percentiles
10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 98th 99th 99.5th
2 3 9 16 26 33 41 47 51
2 4 8 15 24 31 39 44 48
2 5 9 17 28 35 43 49 53



99.8th
55
53
58



99.9th
59
56
61


-^nd
Largest
Value
75
73
75


Max.
87
73
87


    ri
                                                                                                                                                                                               Q
                                                                                                                                                                                               I
                                                                                                                                                                                               a
      .
    3!
ri
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-88. Descriptive Statistics for Both Genders by Current Age
Residential occupancy period (years)
Current
age, years
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
72
75
78
81
84
87
90
All ages
Source: Johnson and Capel,
Percentile
Mean
6.5
8.0
8.9
9.3
9.1
8.2
6.0
5.2
6.0
7.3
8.7
10.4
12.0
13.5
15.3
16.6
17.4
18.3
19.1
19.7
20.2
20.7
21.2
21.6
21.5
21.4
21.2
20.3
20.6
18.9
11.7
1992.
25
3
4
5
5
5
4
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
12
11
11
10
8
4

50
5
7
8
9
8
7
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
20
19
20
19
18
15
9

75
8
10
12
13
12
11
8
6
8
9
11
13
15
18
20
22
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
29
29
29
29
28
29
27
16

90
13
15
16
16
16
16
13
11
12
14
17
21
24
27
31
32
33
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
37
39
40
26

95
17
18
18
18
18
19
17
15
16
19
23
28
31
35
38
39
39
40
41
40
41
41
42
43
43
44
45
44
46
47
33

99
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
25
27
32
39
47
48
49
52
52
50
50
51
51
51
50
50
53
53
53
55
56
57
56
47

Exposure Factors Handbook
June 2009
  Page
16-129
-------
                                                                           Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                            Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-89
Year household moved
2005-2009
2000-2004
1995-1999
1990-1994
1985-1989
1980-1984
1975-1979
1970 - 1974
1960 -1969
1950-1959
1940-1949
1939 or earlier

Residence Time of Owner/Renter Occupied Units
into unit Total occupied units (numbers
33,543
28,695
15,120
9,631
6,459
3,703
4,412
2,979
3,661
1,892
460
137
Total 110,692
in thousands)













Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008a.
    Table 16-90. Percent of Householders Living in Houses for Specified Ranges of Time, and Statistics for Years Lived in
                                                Current Home
         Years lived in current home
                                        Percent of total households
                    0-4
                    5-9
                   10-14
                   15-19
                   20-24
                   25-29
                   30-34
                   35-44
                   45-54
                   55-64
                   65-74
                    >75
                                                  30.3
                                                  25.9
                                                  13.7
                                                   8.7
                                                   5.8
                                                   3.3
                                                   4.0
                                                   2.7
                                                   3.3
                                                   1.7
                                                   0.4
                                                   0.1

                                          Total3   99.9
                                     Statistics for Years Lived in Current Home
        N

      110,692
Mean"

  13
SO^Percentile15
go'Percentile1'
                        32
95thPercentileb
                        46
99hPercentileb
                        62
 a        Total does not equal 100 due to rounding errors.
 b        The mean, 50th and 90th percentiles were calculated for the number of years lived in current house by apportioning
          the total sample size (110,692 households) to the indicated percentile associated with the applicable range of years
          lived in the current home, assuming an even distribution.

 Source:   Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008a.	
Page
16-130
                                                    Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                         June 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-91 . Values and Their Standard Errors for Average Total Residence Time, T, for Each Group in
Average total residence
Households time
T (years)
All households
Renters
Owners
Farms
Urban
Rural
Northeast region
Midwest region
South region
West region
4.55 ±0.60
2.35±0.14
11.36±3.87
17.31±13.81
4.19±0.53
7.80±1.17
7.37±0.88
5.11±0.68
3.96±0.47
3.49±0.57
S.D.
ST
8.68
4.02
13.72
18.69
8.17
11.28
11.48
9.37
8.03
6.84
a Values of the average current residence time, TCR, are
Source: Israeli and Nelson, 1992


Average current residena
TCR (years)
10.56±0.10
4.62±0.08
13.96±0.12
18.75±0.38
10.07±0.10
12.06±0.23
12.64±0.12
11.15±0.10
10.12±0.08
8.44±0.11
given for comparison.

Surveya
Households (percent)
1985
100.0
36.5
63.5
2.1
74.9
25.1
21.2
25.0
34.0
19.8


1987
100.0
36.0
64.0
1.9
74.5
25.5
20.9
24.5
34.4
20.2


Table 16-92. Total Residence Time,
R(t) =
All households
Renters
Owners
Farms
Urban
Rural
Northeast region
Midwest region
South region
West region
0.05
23.1
8.0
41.4
58.4
21.7
32.3
34.4
25.7
20.7
17.1
a R(t) = fraction of households living
Source: Israeli and Nelson
, 1992.
t (years), Corresponding to Selected Values of R(t)a by Housing Category
0.1
12.9
5.2
32.0
48.3
10.9
21.7
22.3
15.0
10.8
8.9
in the

0.25
3.7
2.6
17.1
26.7
3.4
9.1
7.5
4.3
3.0
2.9
same residence for t years or more.

0.5
1.4
1.2
5.2
10.0
1.4
3.3
2.8
1.6
1.2
1.2


0.75
0.5
0.5
1.4
2.4
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.4


Exposure Factors Handbook                                                    Page
June 2009                                                                 16-131
-------
                                                             Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                             Chapter 16 - Activity Factors
Table 16-93. Summary of Residence Time of Recent Home Buyers (1993)
Number of years lived in previous house
1 year or less
2-3
4-7
8-9
10 years or more
Percent of Respondents
2
16
40
10
32
Source: NAR, 1993.
Table 16-94. Tenure in Previous Home (Percentage Distribution)

1987
1989
1991
1993
Percent
One year or less
2-3 Years
4-7 Years
8-9 Years
10 or More Years
Total
5
25
36
10
24
100
8
15
22
11
34
100
4
21
37
9
29
100
2
16
40
10
32
100
Years
Median
6
6
6
6
Source: NAR, 1993.
                      Table 16-95. Number of Miles Moved (Percentage Distribution)


Miles
Less than 5 miles
5 to 9 miles
10 to 19 miles
20 to 34 miles
35 to 50 miles
51 to 100 miles
Over 100 miles
Total

Median
Mean

All Buyers

29
20
18
9
2
5
17
100

9
200
First- Time
Buyer

33
25
20
11
2
2
6
100

8
110
Repeat Buyer

Percent
27
16
17
8
2
6
24
100
Miles
11
270
New Home
Buyer

23
18
20
12
2
6
19
100

11
230
Existing Home
Buyer

31
20
17
9
3
4
16
100

8
190
Source: NAR, 1993.
Page
16-132
Exposure Factors Handbook
                 June 2009
-------
I
Table 16-96. General Mobility, by Race and Hispanic Origin, Region, Sex, Age, Educational Attainment, Marit
(Numbers in thousands)
Population
Total 1+ years
Gender
Male
Female
Age
1 to 4 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
1 5 to 1 7 years
18 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 61 years
62 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85+ years
Educational Attainment
Not a high school graduate
High school graduate
Some college or AA degree
Bachelor's degree
Prof or graduate degree
Persons age 1-24
Total
N
292,749

143,589
149,160

16,455
19,830
20,444
13,297
7,873
20,532
20,666
19,202
20,907
21,856
22,643
20,819
18,221
6,093
7,877
10,629
8,369
7,567
5,513
3,958

27,742
61,490
49,243
36,658
19,184
98,431
Mover
N
38,681

19,457
19,224

3,217
3,161
2,517
1,465
1,330
5,516
5,316
3,767
2,962
2,456
1,963
1,612
1,171
381
386
496
357
233
219
159

3,458
6,435
5,534
4,062
1,985
17,205
/o
(of
total)
13%

14%
13%

20%
16%
12%
11%
17%
27%
26%
20%
14%
11%
9%
8%
6%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
4%
4%

12%
10%
11%
11%
10%
17%
Same county
N
25,192

12,579
12,613

2,188
2,092
1,735
1,057
898
3,623
3,335
2,374
1,877
1,567
1,362
1,119
706
212
201
286
179
153
121
108

2,431
4,398
3,475
2,290
1,004
11,593
/O
(of
movers)
65%

65%
66%

68%
66%
69%
72%
68%
66%
63%
63%
63%
64%
69%
69%
60%
56%
52%
58%
50%
66%
55%
68%

70%
68%
63%
56%
51%
67%
Different county,
same state
N
7,436

3,693
3,743

577
614
441
224
252
1,069
1,061
789
587
480
304
292
258
82
98
110
79
41
53
24

575
1,207
1,167
910
399
3,177
/O
(of
movers)
19%

19%
19%

18%
19%
18%
15%
19%
19%
20%
21%
20%
20%
15%
18%
22%
22%
25%
22%
22%
18%
24%
15%

17%
19%
21%
22%
20%
18%
al Status, Nat
Different state,
same division
N
1,446

771
675

117
121
92
50
40
168
219
140
104
102
74
55
57
30
19
16
24
4
10
2

103
221
206
231
97
589
/o
(of
movers)
4%

4%
4%

4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
5%
8%
5%
3 /o
7%
2%
5%
1%

3%
3 /o
4%
6%
5%
3%
ivity, Tenure, and Poverty Leve
Different division,
same region
N
968

505
463

81
73
62
22
25
157
136
106
84
60
42
42
37
9
1
5
17
6
4


33
145
145
124
102
419
/O
(of
movers)
3%

3%
2%

3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
2%
0%
1%
5%
3%
2%


1%
2%
3%
3%
5%
2%
: 2006 to 2007
Different
region
N
2,448

1,220
1,228

184
179
139
75
68
320
339
221
187
178
131
76
86
39
49
63
43
21
26
22

137
353
411
336
246
965
/O
(of
movers)
6%

6%
6%

6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
6%
6%
6%
6%
7%
7%
5%
7%
10%
13%
13%
12%
9%
12%
14%

4%
5%
7%
8%
12%
6%
Abroad
N
1,191

689
502

72
81
47
37
47
179
226
137
121
68
49
27
27
10
18
16
15
7
5
3

178
112
130
172
137
462
/O
(of
movers)
3%

4%
3%

2%
3%
2%
3%
4%
3%
4%
4%
4%
3 /o
9°/
2%
2%
3 /o
5%
3 /o
4%
3%
2%
7°/

5%
2%
7°/
4%
7%
3%
                                                                                                                                                                 ft
                                                                                                                                                                 I;
                                                                                                                                                                 -3-
                                                                                                                                                                 ft
-------
Table 16-96. Table 16-96. General Mobility, by Ra
Total
Population Na
Marital Status
Married, spouse present 12,1390
Married, spouse absent 3,472
Widowed 13,920
Divorced 22,867
Separated 5,047
Never married 69,324
Persons age 1-14 56,730
Nativity
Native 255,501
Foreign born 37,248
Naturalized US citizen 14,525
Not a US citizen 22,723
Tenure
Owner-occupied housing unit 207,774
Renter-occupied housing unit 81,351
No cash renter-occupied housing unit 3,624
Poverty Status
Below 100% of poverty 35,924
100% to 149% of poverty 26,183
150% of poverty and above 23,0642
Represents zero or rounds to zero.
a N= Number of respondents.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2008b).
ce and Hispanic Origin, Region, Sex, Age, Educational Attainment,
(Numbers in thousands)
(continued)
Mover
N

10,671
805
802
3,483
1,246
12,779
8,895

33,023
5,658
1,161
4,497

13,760
24,228
694

8,777
4,705
25,199


°/
(of
total)

9%
23%
6%
15%
25%
18%
16%

13%
15%
8%
20%

7%
30%
19%

94.0/
18%
11%


Same county
N

6,434
501
533
2,369
911
8,429
6,015

21,603
3,589
768
2,821

8,467
1,6353
372

6,041
3,312
15,839


°/
(of
movers)

60%
62%
66%
68%
73%
66%
68%

65%
63%
66%
63%

62%
67%
54%

69%
70%
63%


Different county,
same state
N

2,220
90
136
702
213
2,442
1,632

6,671
765
212
553

2,881
4,374
181

1,484
832
5,120


°/
(of
movers)

21%
11%
17%
20%
17%
19%
18%

20%
14%
18%
12%

21%
18%
26%

17%
18%
20%


Marital Status, Nativ
Different state,
same division
N

502
31
34
93
29
427
330

1,279
167
41
126

595
806
45

270
128
1,048


°/
(of
movers)

5%
4%
4%
3 TO
907
3%
4%

4%
3 TO
4%
3%

4%
3%
6%

3%
3%
4%


ty, Tenure, and Poverty
Different division,
same region
N

338
11
8
69
16
310
216

904
64
31
33

408
547
13

166
84
718


°/
(of
movers)

3 TO
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
907

3%
1%
3 TO
1%

3%
2%
90/

90/
907
3 70


Level: 2006 to 2007
Different
region
N

808
73
68
200
57
739
502

2,180
268
76
192

1,027
1,371
49

392
215
1,841


07
(of
movers)

8%
9%
8%
6%
5%
6%
6%

7%
5%
7%
4%

7%
6%
7%

4%
5%
7%


Abroad
N

369
98
79
50
19
433
200

387
804
31
772

381
776
33

423
136
632


07
(of
movers)

3 70
12%
3%
1%
907
3 70
907

1%
14%
3 70
17%

3%
3 70
5%

5%
3%
3 70


1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
ri



1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ri
-------
I
Table 16-97. Distance of Intercounty Movea, by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin, Educational Attainment, Marital Status, Nativity, Tenure,
Reason for Move, and State of Residence 1 Year Ago: 2006 to 2007
(Numbers in thousands)

Population
Intercounty Movers 1+ years
Sex
Male
Female
Age
Under 16 years
16 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 44 years
45 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75+ years
Race and Hispanic Origin
White alone
Black or African American alone
Asian alone
All remaining single races and all race combinations15
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
Hispanic or Latino0
White alone or in combination with one or more other races
Black or African American alone or in combination with one or more other races
Asian alone or in combination with one or more other races
Total
N
12,299

6,190
6,109

2,809
629
1,714
1,755
3,040
1,782
357
213

9,730
1,626
515
427
8,290
1,575
9,986
1,733
573
Less than 50
miles
N
5,149

2,554
2,595

1,230
279
720
792
1,295
633
128
71

4,049
729
205
166
3,527
578
4,161
111
223
%
42%

41%
42%

44%
44%
42%
45%
43%
36%
36%
33%

42%
45%
40%
39%
43%
37%
42%
45%
39%
50 to 199
miles
N
2,582

1,324
1,258

520
148
436
347
618
408
68
37

2,064
285
120
113
1,697
401
2,130
312
146
%
21%

21%
21%

19%
24%
25%
20%
20%
23%
19%
17%

21%
18%
23%
26%
20%
25%
21%
18%
25%
200 to 499
miles
N
1,802

894
909

455
82
185
215
458
312
66
30

1,382
320
51
49
1,156
232
1,405
329
59
%
15%

14%
15%

16%
13%
11%
12%
15%
18%
18%
14%

14%
20%
10%
11%
14%
15%
14%
19%
10%
Poverty Status,
500 miles or
more
N
2,765

1,418
1,347

603
120
373
400
669
429
95
76

2,234
293
138
99
1,910
364
2,290
315
144
%
22%

23%
22%

21%
19%
22%
23%
22%
24%
27%
36%

23%
18%
27%
23%
23%
23%
23%
18%
25%
ft
-------
1
ri



1
Table 16-97. Distance of Intercounty Move3, by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin, Educational Attainment, Marital Status, Nativity, Tenure, Poverty
Status, Reason for Move, and State of Residence 1 Year Ago: 2006 to 2007 (continued)
(Numbers in thousands.)
Population
Educational Attainment
Not a high school graduate
High school graduate
Some college or AA degree
Bachelor's degree
Prof, or graduate degree
Persons age 1-24
Marital Status
Married, spouse present
Married, spouse absent
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Never married
Persons age 1-14
Nativity
Native
Foreign bom
Naturalized U.S. citizen
Not a US citizen
Tenure
Owner-occupied housing unit
Renter-occupied housing unit
No cash renter-occupied housing unit
Poverty Status
Below 100% of poverty
100% to 149% of poverty
150% of poverty and above
Total
N

848
1,926
1,929
1,601
844
5,151

3,868
206
246
1,065
316
3,917
2,680

11,034
1,265
361
904

4,912
7,099
288

2,313
1,258
8,728
Less than 50
miles
N

390
776
836
651
268
2,229

1,500
57
78
493
146
1,691
1,184

4,627
523
156
367

2,083
2,962
104

967
625
3,558
%

46%
40%
43%
41%
32%
43%

39%
28%
32%
46%
46%
43%
44%

42%
41%
43%
41%

42%
42%
36%

42%
50%
41%
50 to 199
miles
N

197
414
376
340
151
1,104

834
44
60
221
57
867
500

2,299
283
63
220

950
1,554
78

576
245
1,761
%

23%
21%
19%
21%
18%
21%

22%
21%
24%
21%
18%
22%
19%

21%
22%
17%
24%

19%
22%
27%

25%
19%
20%
200 to 499
miles
N

126
351
254
210
140
721

560
31
45
158
66
517
426

1,646
156
45
111

742
1,019
41

353
176
1,274
%

15%
18%
13%
13%
17%
14%

14%
15%
18%
15%
21%
13%
16%

15%
12%
12%
12%

15%
14%
14%

15%
14%
15%
500 miles or
more
N

135
385
463
400
286
1,096

975
74
63
193
47
843
570

2,462
303
96
206

1,137
1,564
64

417
212
2,136
%

16%
20%
24%
25%
34%
21%

25%
36%
26%
18%
15%
22%
21%

22%
24%
27%
23%

23%
22%
22%

18%
17%
24%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ri
-------
            Table 16-97.  Distance of Intercounty Movea, by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin, Educational Attainment, Marital Status, Nativity, Tenure, Poverty
                                         Status, Reason for Move, and State of Residence 1 Year Ago:  2006 to 2007 (continued)
           	(Numbers in thousands.)	
                                                                                      Total
                                                                                    Less than 50
                                                                                        miles
              50 to 199
                miles
                                      200 to 499
                                        miles
             500 miles or
                more
          Population
                                                                              N
N
                        N
N
N
N
   I
State of Residence 1 Year Ago
  Same state
  Different state
7,436   4,741   64%  2,059   28%
4,862    408    8%    524    11%
                            627    8%     9     0%
                           1,175  24%   2,756   57%
 ft
 I;
-3-
 ft
          a        The estimated distance in miles of an intercounty move is measured from the county of previous residence's geographic population centroid to the
                   county of current residence's geographic population centroid.
          b        Includes American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, and Two or More Races.
          0        Hispanics or Latinos may be of any race.

          Source:   U.S. Bureau of the Census (2008b)	
X) ft
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

17     CONSUMER PRODUCTS	17-1
       17.1    INTRODUCTION	17-1
              17.1.1  Background	17-1
              17.1.2  Additional Sources of Information	17-1
       17.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	17-2
       17.3    CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDIES	17-2
              17.3.1  CTFA, 1983	17-2
              17.3.2  Westat, 1987a	17-3
              17.3.3  Westat, 1987b	17-3
              17.3.4  Westat, 1987c	17-4
              17.3.5  Abt, 1992	17-5
              17.3.6  U.S. EPA, 1996	17-5
              17.3.7  Bass etal., 2001	17-6
              17.3.8  Weegels and van Veen, 2001	17-6
              17.3.9  Loretz etal., 2005	17-7
              17.3.10 Loretz et al., 2006	17-7
              17.3.11 Hall, 2007	17-8
              17.3.12 Loretz et al., 2008	17-8
              17.3.13 Sathyanarayana et al., 2008	17-8
       17.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 17	17-8
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                            Page
July2009	17-i
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                  Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 17-1.      Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Households	17-11
Table 17-2.      Volumes Included in 1992 Simmons Study	17-12
Table 17-3.      Amount and Frequency of Use of Various Cosmetic and Baby Products	17-13
Table 17-4.      Frequency of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)	17-15
Table 17-5.      Exposure Time of Use for Household  Solvent Products (users-only)	17-16
Table 17-6.      Amount of Products Used for Household Solvent Products (users only)	17-17
Table 17-7.      Time Exposed After Duration of Use for Household Solvent Products	17-18
Table 17-8.      Total Exposure Time of Performing Task and Product Type Used by Task for Household
                Cleaning Products	17-19
Table 17-9.      Percentile Rankings for Total Exposure Time in Performing Household Tasks	17-21
Table 17-10.     Mean Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Performing Household Tasks	17-22
Table 17-11.     Mean and Percentile Ratings for Exposure Time Per Event of Performing Household Tasks...17-23
Table 17-12.     Total Exposure Time for Ten Product Groups Most Frequently Used for Household Cleaning 17-24
Table 17-13.     Total Exposure Time of Painting Activity of Interior Painters (hours)	17-24
Table 17-14.     Exposure Time of Interior Painting Activity/Occasion (hours) and Frequency of Occasions
                Spent Painting Per Year	17-24
Table 17-15.     Amount of Paint Used by Interior Painters	17-24
Table 17-16.     Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Adhesive Removers	17-25
Table 17-17.     Adhesive Remover Usage by Gender	17-25
Table 17-18.     Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Spray Paint	17-26
Table 17-19.     Spray Paint Usage By Gender	17-26
Table 17-20.     Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for Paint Removers/Strippers	17-27
Table 17-21.     Paint Stripper Usage By Gender	17-27
Table 17-22.     Number of Minutes Spent Using Any  Microwave Oven (minutes/day)	17-28
Table 17-23.     Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Freshly Applied
                Paints (minutes/day)	17-29
Table 17-24.     Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Household Cleaning
                Agents  Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day)	17-29
Table 17-25.     Number of Minutes Spent in Activities (at home or elsewhere) Working With
                or Near Floorwax, Furniture Wax or Shoe Polish (minutes/day)	17-29
Table 17-26.     Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Glue (minutes/day)	17-30
Table 17-27.     Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Solvents, Fumes or
                Strong Smelling Chemicals (minutes/day)	17-30
Table 17-28.     Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Stain or Spot Removers
                (minutes/day)	17-30
Table 17-29.     Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Gasoline or
                Diesel-powered Equipment, Besides Automobiles (minutes/day)	17-31
Table 17-30.     Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Pesticides,
                Including Bug Sprays or Bug Strips (minutes/day)	17-31
Table 17-31.     Number of Respondents Using Cologne, Perfume, Aftershave or Other Fragrances at
                Specified Daily Frequencies	17-31
Table 17-32.     Number of Respondents Using Any Aerosol Spray Product for Personal Care Item
                Such as Deodorant or Hair Spray at Specified Daily Frequencies	17-32
Table 17-33.     Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home	17-32
Table 17-34.     Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by the Professional at
                Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies	17-32
Table 17-35.     Number of Respondents Reporting Pesticides Applied by the Consumer at Home
                to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies	17-33
Table 17-36.     Household Demographics, and Pesticide Types, Characteristics, and Frequency of
                Pesticide Use	17-34
Table 17-37.     Amount and Frequency of Use of Household Products	17-35
Table 17-38.     Frequency of Use of Cosmetic Products	17-35
Page
17-ii
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
                                   LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 17-39.     Amount of Test Product used (grams) for Lipstick, Body Lotion and Face Cream	17-36
Table 17-40.     Frequency of Use of Personal Care Products	17-38
Table 17-41.     Average Amount of Product Applied per Application (grams)	17-39
Table 17-42.     Average Amount of Product Applied per Use Day (grams)	17-40
Table 17-43.     Body Lotion Exposure for Consumers Only, (Males and Females)	17-41
Table 17-44.     Deodorant/Antiperspirant Spray Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females) -
               Under Arms Only	17-42
Table 17-45.     Deodorant/Antiperspirant Spray Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females) -
               Using Product over Torso and Under Arms	17-43
Table 17-46.     Deodorant/Antiperspirant Non-Spray for Consumers Only (Males and Females)	17-44
Table 17-47.     Lipstick Exposure for Consumers Only (Females)	17-45
Table 17-48.     Facial Moisturizer Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females)	17-46
Table 17-49.     Shampoo Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females)	17-47
Table 17-50.     Toothpaste Exposure for Consumers only (Males and Females)	17-48
Table 17-51.     Average Number of Applications Per Use Day	17-49
Table 17-52.     Average Amount of Product Applied Per Use Day (grams)	17-50
Table 17-53.     Average Amount of Product Applied Per Application (grams)	17-51
Table 17-54.     Characteristics of the Study Population and the Percent Using Selected Baby Care
               Products	17-52
Exposure Factors Handbook
July2009	
Page
17-in
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
17      CONSUMER PRODUCTS
17.1    INTRODUCTION
17.1.1   Background
        Consumer products may contain toxic  or
potentially  toxic  chemical  constituents  to  which
people may be exposed as a result of their use. For
example, household cleaners can contain ammonia,
alcohols, acids, and/or organic solvents which may
pose health concerns.  Potential routes of exposure to
consumer products  or  chemicals  released  from
consumer products during  use  include  ingestion,
inhalation,  and dermal  contact.   These  household
consumer products  include  cleaners, solvents, and
paints.   Non-users,  including  children, can be
passively exposed to  chemicals  in  these  products.
Since people spend a  large amount of time indoors,
the  use  of  household  chemicals  in  the  indoor
environment can be a principal source  of exposure
(Franklin, 2008).
        Very little information is available on the
exact way the different kinds of products are used by
consumers, including the many ways in which these
products  are handled,  the frequency and duration of
contact, and the measures consumers may take  to
minimize  exposure/risk (Steenbekkers,  2001).   In
addition, the factors that influence these behaviors
are not well studied, but some studies  have  shown
there is a large variation in behavior between persons
(Steenbekkers, 2001).
      This  chapter  presents  information  on  the
amount of  product  used,  frequency  of  use, and
duration  of  use  for  various consumer  products
typically found in consumer households.  All tables
that present information for these consumer products
are located at the end of this chapter.

17.1.2   Additional Sources of Information
        There are several sources of information on
data relevant to consumer products. These sources are
summarized below:
        The   National   Library   of   Medicine
Household Products Database  is a consumer  guide
that  provides  information  on the  potential  health
effects of chemicals contained in more than  7,000
common household products used inside and around
the home.  Although this database does not provide
exposure factor information, it contains information
on  chemical ingredients and  their percentages  in
consumer products, which products contain specific
chemical ingredients,  acute and  chronic  effects  of
chemical ingredients, and manufacturer  information.
These  data  could be  useful when conducting an
exposure assessment for a specific  chemical/active
ingredient.     The  product  categories   are:   auto
products, inside the home, pesticides, landscape/yard,
personal care, home maintenance, arts and crafts, pet
care, and home office. The database can be searched
by product name,  product type, manufacturer, and
ingredient.    This  database   can be  found  at
http://hpd.nlm.nih. gov.  Table 17-1 provides a list of
household consumer products  found in some  U.S.
households (U.S. EPA, 1987).  It should be noted,
however, that this list was compiled by U.S. EPA in
1987 and consumer use of some products listed may
have changed (e.g., aerosol product use  has declined).
Therefore,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  National
Library of Medicine database  as a source of more
current information.
        The  U.S.  EPA Source  Ranking  Database
(SRD) is another source of information on consumer
products, but does  not provide data on frequency of
use.    SRD  can  be  used  to  perform systematic
screening-level reviews of more than 12,000 potential
indoor pollution  sources  to identify   high-priority
product  and  material   categories   for   further
evaluation. It also can be used to identify products
that contain a specific chemical.  Information on the
SRD can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/srd.htm.
        The  Soaps  and  Detergents Association
(SDA) developed  a peer-reviewed document that
presents   methodologies   and   specific   exposure
information that can be used for screening-level risk
assessments from   exposures  to  high production
volume chemicals.   The document addresses the use
of consumer  products, including laundry,  cleaning,
and personal care products. It includes  data for daily
frequency of use, and amount of product used.  The
data used were  compiled from a number of sources
including cosmetic  associations and data  from the
SDA.  The document entitled "Exposure and  Risk
Screening   Methods   for    Consumer    Product
Ingredients" can be found on the SDA website under:
http://www.cleaninglO 1 .com/files/Exposure and Ris
k Screening Methods for Consumer Product Ingre
dients.pdf.
      The  reader  is also referred  to  a  document
developed  by  the  U.S.  EPA, Office  of  Toxic
Substances:   Standard Scenarios  for Estimating
Exposure  to  Chemical Substances  During Use  of
Consumer Products - Volumes I and II (U.S. EPA,
1986). This document presents data and supporting
information required to assess consumer exposure to
constituents in household cleaners and components of
adhesives.    Information   presented   includes   a
description of standard scenarios selected to represent
upper bound exposures for each product. Values are
also  presented  for  parameters  that are needed  to
estimate exposure  for defined exposure routes and
pathways assumed for each scenario.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           17-1
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                   Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
      An  additional  reference  is  the  Simmons
Market Research Bureau (SMRB),  "Simmons Study
of Media and Markets."  This document provides an
example  of available  marketing data that  may  be
useful in  assessing exposure to selected products.
The  report is published  biannually.    Data  are
collected on the buying habits of the U.S. populations
over the  past  12  months for over 1,000 consumer
products.  Data are presented on frequency  of use,
total number of buyers in each use category,  and
selected demographics.  The consumer product data
are presented   according to the  "buyer"  and  not
necessarily according to  the "user" (actively  exposed
person). Therefore, it may be necessary to adjust the
data to  reflect potential  uses.   The  reports  are
available for purchase from the  Simmons  Market
Research  Bureau.   Table  17-2  presents a  list of
product categories in the "Simmons Study of Media
and Markets" for which information is available.
      It should be noted that this chapter does not
provide  an exhaustive  treatment of all consumer
products, but rather provides some background  and
data that can be utilized in an exposure assessment.
Also, the data presented may not capture information
needed to  assess the highly exposed population (e.g.,
consumers who use commercial/ industrial  strength
products  at home).  The studies presented in the
following  sections represent readily available surveys
for which data were collected on the frequency  and
duration  of use and  amount of use  of cleaning
products,   painting products,  household   solvent
products, cosmetic  and other personal care products,
household equipment,  pesticides, and tobacco.  The
studies have been classified as either key or relevant
based on their applicability to exposure  assessment
needs.

17.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
        Due to the large range and variation among
consumer products  and their exposure pathways, it is
not feasible to  recommend  specific exposure values
as has been done in other chapters of this handbook.
The user is referred to the  information provided by
the references  of this chapter to derive  appropriate
exposure factors.   The  following  sections  of  this
chapter  provide summaries of data from  surveys
involving the use of consumer products.
17.3    CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE
        STUDIES
17.3.1   CTFA,  1983  -  Cosmetic,  Toiletry,  and
        Fragrance Association, Inc.  - Summary of
        Results of Surveys of the Amount  and
        Frequency of Use  of  Cosmetic Products
        by Women
        The   Cosmetic,  Toiletry,  and  Fragrance
Association Inc. (CTFA, 1983), a major manufacturer
and a market research bureau, conducted surveys to
obtain  information on frequency of use of various
cosmetic products.  Three surveys were conducted to
collect data on the  frequency  of use  of various
cosmetic products and selected baby products. In the
first of these three surveys CTFA (1983) conducted a
one-week prospective survey  of 47 female employees
and relatives of employees between the ages of  13
and 61 years.  In the second  survey, a  cosmetic
manufacturer conducted  a retrospective survey  of
1,129  of  its  customers.    The third  survey  was
conducted  by  a   market research  bureau  which
sampled 19,035 female consumers nationwide over a
9!/2  month  period.     Of  the   19,035  females
interviewed, responses from only 9,684 females were
tabulated  (CTFA,  1983).    The third  survey  was
designed to reflect the sociodemographic (i.e.,  age,
income,  etc)  characteristics of  the  entire  U.S.
population.  The  respondents in  all three surveys
were asked to  record the number of times they used
the various products  in a given time period (i.e., a
week, a day, a month, or a year).
        To obtain  the average frequency of use for
each cosmetic  product,  responses were averaged for
each product in each survey.  Thus, the averages were
calculated by adding the reported number of uses per
given time period for each product, dividing by the
total number of respondents  in the  survey, and then
dividing again by the number of days in the given
time period (CTFA, 1983). The average frequency of
use of cosmetic products was determined for both
"users" and "non-users."  The frequency of use  of
baby products  was determined among "users" only.
The upper 90th percentile frequency of use  values
were determined by eliminating the top ten percent
most extreme  frequencies of use.    Therefore,  the
highest remaining frequency  of use was recorded as
the upper 90th percentile value.  Table 17-3 presents
the amount of product used  per application (grams)
and the average and 90th percentile frequency of use
per day  for baby products  and  various  cosmetic
products for all the surveys.
        An advantage of the  frequency data obtained
from the third survey  (market research bureau) is that
the sample  population  was  more  likely  to   be
representative  of  the  U.S.  population.   Another
Page
17-2
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
advantage of the third dataset is that the survey was
conducted  over  a  longer  period  of time  when
compared with the other two frequency datasets.
Also, the study provided empirical data which will be
useful  in generating  more  accurate  estimates  of
consumer exposure to cosmetic products. In contrast
to the large market research bureau survey, the CTFA
employee survey is very small and both that survey
and the cosmetic company survey are likely to  be
biased toward high end  users.  Therefore, data from
these two surveys should be used with caution. The
data in this study were not tabulated by age and the
data are more than 20 years old.

17.3.2   Westat,  1987a  -   Household   Solvent
        Products: A National Usage Survey
        Westat  (1987a)  conducted  a  nationwide
survey to determine consumer exposure to common
household products believed to  contain  methylene
chloride  or its  substitutes   (carbon  tetrachloride,
trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
and 1,1,1,2,2,2- trichlorotrifluoroethane). The survey
methodology was comprised of three phases.  In the
first phase, the  sample population was generated  by
using  a random digit  dialing  (RDD) procedure.
Using   this  procedure,  telephone   numbers   of
households were  randomly selected by utilizing  an
unbiased, equal  probability  of  selection  method,
known as the "Waksberg Method"  (Westat, 1987a).
After the respondents in the selected households (18
years and older) agreed to participate in the survey,
the  second phase was initiated. It involved a mailout
of  questionnaires  and  product  pictures  to  each
respondent.  In the third phase, a telephone follow-up
call  was made to those respondents  who  did not
respond to the mailed  questionnaire within a 4-week
period.   The same  questionnaire was  administered
over the  telephone  to  participants  who  did  not
respond to  the  mailed questionnaire.   Of the 6,700
individuals  contacted  for   the   survey,   4,920
individuals  either   responded   to   the   mailed
questionnaire or to a telephone interview (a response
rate of 73 percent).  Survey questions  included how
often the products were used in the last 12  months;
when they were last used;  how much time was spent
using a product (per occasion or year),  and the time
the  respondent remained in the room after use; how
much of a product was used per occasion or year; and
what protective measures were used (Westat,  1987a).
        Thirty-two categories of common household
products were  included  in the  survey  and  are
presented in Table 17-4.  Tables 17-4, 17-5, 17-6, and
17-7   provide  means,  medians,  and  percentile
rankings for the following variables:  frequency  of
use, exposure time, amount of use, and time  exposed
after use.
        An advantage  of this  study is that  the
random digit dialing procedure (Waksberg Method)
used  in identifying  participants  for  this  survey
enabled  a  diverse  selection  of a  representative,
unbiased sample of  the  U.S. population  (Westat
1987a). Also, empirical data on consumer household
product use is  provided.   However,  a limitation
associated with this study is that the data generated
were based on recall behavior.  Another limitation is
that  extrapolation  of these  data  to  long-term  use
patterns may be  difficult and the data are more than
20 years old.

        17.3.3   Westat, 1987b - National Usage
Survey of Household Cleaning Products
        Westat (1987b) collected  usage data from a
nationwide   survey  to  assess the  magnitude  of
exposure of consumers  to  various  products used
when performing certain household  cleaning tasks.
The  survey  was conducted between the middle of
November,   1985 to the  middle of  January,  1986.
Telephone  interviews  were  conducted  with  193
households.    According  to   Westat (1987b),  the
resulting response rate for this survey was 78 percent.
The  Waksberg method discussed  previously in the
Westat  (1987a)  study was also used in randomly
selecting telephone numbers employed in the Westat
(1987b) survey.  The survey was designed to obtain
information  on cleaning activities performed in the
interior of the home during the previous year.  The
person who  did  the majority of the cleaning in the
kitchen and bathroom areas  of each  household was
interviewed.   Of  those  respondents,  the  primary
cleaner was female in 160 households (83  percent)
and male in 30 households (16 percent); the sex of
the respondents  in three  remaining households was
not ascertained (Westat, 1987b). Data obtained from
the survey included the frequency of performing 14
different cleaning  tasks;  the  amount  of time
(duration) spent at  each  task;  the cleaning product
most  frequently  used; the type of product (liquid,
powder,  aerosol  or  spray  pump)  used;  and  the
protective measures taken during cleaning  such as
wearing rubber gloves or having a window  open or
an exhaust fan on (Westat, 1987b).
        The survey data are presented in Tables 17-8
through 17-12.   Table 17-8  presents the mean  and
median total exposure time of  use for each cleaning
task and the product type preferred for each task.
The percentile rankings for the total time exposed to
the products used for 14 cleaning tasks are presented
in Table 17-9.  The mean and percentile rankings of
the frequency in performing  each  task are presented
in Table 17-10.  Table 17-11  shows the mean  and
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           17-3
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
percentile rankings for exposure  time per  event of
performing  household  tasks.     The  mean  and
percentile rankings for total number of hours  spent
per  year using  the  top  10 product  groups are
presented in Table 17-12.
        Westat (1987b) randomly selected  a subset
of 30 respondents from  the original  survey and
reinterviewed  them during the first two weeks of
March, 1986 as a reliability check on the recall data
obtained from the original phone survey.  Frequency
and duration  data  for 3 of the original  14  cleaning
tasks were obtained from the  reinterviews.  In a
second  effort to  validate the  phone  survey,  50
respondents of the original phone survey participated
in a four-week diary  study (between February and
March, 1986) of 8 of the 14 cleaning tasks originally
studied.  The diary approach assessed the validity of
using a one-time telephone survey to determine usual
cleaning  behavior (Westat, 1987b).  The data (i.e.,
frequency  and   duration)  obtained   from  the
reinterviews and the diary approach were lower than
the data from the original telephone survey.  The data
from the reinterviews and  the diary  approach were
more consistent with each other.   Westat  (1987b)
attributed the significant  differences  in the  data
obtained from these  surveys to  seasonal  changes
rather than methodological problems.
        A limitation of this survey is evident from
the  reliability  and validity  check of  the   data
conducted by  Westat (1987b).   The data  obtained
from the  telephone  survey  may  reflect  heavier
seasonal  cleaning because the survey was conducted
during the holidays (November  through January).
Therefore, usage data obtained in this study may be
biased and may  represent upper  bound estimates.
Another limitation of this study is the small size of
the sample population.  An advantage of this survey
is that the RDD  procedure  (Waksberg Method) used
provides  unbiased results  of sample selection and
reduces the number of unproductive  calls.  Another
advantage of this study is that it provides empirical
data on  frequency  and duration  of consumer use,
thereby eliminating best judgment or guesswork.

17.3.4  Westat,   1987c   -  National  Household
        Survey of Interior Painters
        Westat (1987c) conducted a study  between
November, 1985 and January, 1986 to obtain usage
information to estimate the magnitude of exposure of
consumers to different types of painting and painting
related products  used while painting the interior of
the  home.     Seven-hundred  and   seventy-seven
households were sampled  to determine whether any
household member had painted  the  interior of the
home during the last 12 months  prior to the survey
date.  Of the  sampled households, 208 households
(27 percent) had  a household  member  who  had
painted  during the  last 12 months.   Based on the
households with primary painters,  the response rate
was 90 percent (Westat, 1987c).  The person in each
household  who  did most  of the  interior painting
during the  last 12 months was interviewed over the
telephone.  The RDD procedure (Waksberg Method)
previously  described in Westat (1987a) was used to
generate sample blocks of telephone numbers in this
survey.  Questions were asked on frequency and time
spent  for interior painting activities; the amount of
paint  used; and protective  measures  used  (i.e.,
wearing gloves, hats, and masks or keeping a window
open) (Westat, 1987c).  Fifty-three  percent of the
primary painters in the households interviewed were
male,  46 percent were female, and  the sex of the
remaining 1 percent was not ascertained.  Three types
of painting products were used in this  study;  latex
paint, oil-based paint, and wood stains and varnishes.
Of the  respondents, 94.7  percent  used  latex paint,
16.8 percent used oil-based paint,  and 20.2 percent
used wood stains and varnishes.
        Data   generated  from   this   survey  are
summarized in  Tables 17-13, 17-14,  and 17-15.
Table 17-13 presents the mean,  standard  deviation,
and percentile rankings for the total exposure time for
painting activity by  paint type. Table 17-14 presents
the mean and median exposure time for  the painting
activity  per occasion for each paint type.  A "painting
occasion"  is defined as a  time period from start to
cleanup (Westat 1987c).  Table 17-14 also presents
the frequency  and  percentile  rankings  of painting
occasions  per  year.   Table 17-15 presents the total
amount  of paint used by interior painters.
        In addition, 30 respondents from the original
survey  were  reinterviewed in  April   1986, as  a
reliability check on the recall data obtained from the
original painting survey.  There were no significant
differences  between the  data obtained  from the
reinterviews and the original painting survey (Westat,
1987c).
        An advantage of this survey, based on the
reliability check conducted by Westat (1987c), is the
stability in the painting  data  obtained.   Another
advantage of this survey is that the response rate was
high  (90  percent),  therefore,   minimizing  non-
response bias.  Also, the Waksberg Method employed
provides an unbiased  equal probability method of
RDD. A limitation of the survey is the data are based
on 12-month recall and may not accurately reflect
long-term use patterns.
Page
17-4
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
17.3.5   Abt,   1992   -    Methylene    Chloride
        Consumer Use Study Survey Findings
        As part of a plan to assess the effectiveness
of  labeling   of   consumer products   containing
methylene  chloride,  Abt  conducted a  telephone
survey of  nearly five  thousand  households (Abt,
1992).  The survey was conducted in April and May
of 1991.   Three classes of products  were included:
paint  strippers,  non-automotive  spray  paint,  and
adhesive  removers.   The survey paralleled a  1986
consumer use  survey sponsored jointly by Abt and
the U.S. EPA.
        The survey  was conducted to estimate the
percent  of the U.S.  adult  population using paint
remover,   adhesive   remover,  and  non-automotive
spray  paint.    In  addition, an  estimate of  the
population using these products containing methylene
chloride was determined. A survey questionnaire was
developed  to  collect  product  usage  data   and
demographic data.  The survey sample was generated
using a RDD technique.
        A total of 4,997 product screener interviews
were conducted for  the product interview sections.
The number  of respondents were:   381  for paint
strippers, 58 for adhesive removers, and 791 for non-
automotive spray  paint.   Survey responses were
weighted to allow estimation at  the level of the total
U.S. population (Abt,  1992).  A  follow-up  mail
survey   was   also   conducted  using   a  short
questionnaire.    Respondents  who  had  used  the
product in the past year or had purchased the product
in the past 2  years and still had the  container were
asked to respond to the questionnaire (Abt, 1992). Of
the mail questionnaires (527)  sent  out,  259 were
returned.  The questionnaire responses included 67 on
paint strippers, 6 on  adhesive removers, and  186 on
non-automotive spray paint.  Results of the survey
are presented in Tables 17-16 through 17-21 (N's are
unweighted).   Data  are presented for recent users,
who were defined as persons  who  have used the
product within the last year of the survey or who
have purchased the product in the past 2 years.

    Abt (1992) found the following results:

    •   Compared   to  the   1986  findings,   a
        significantly  smaller proportion  of current
        survey respondents used a  paint stripper,
        spray paint, or adhesive remover.
    •   The proportion of the population who  used
        the three products  recently (within the  past
        year) decreased substantially.
    •   Those  who  used the  products reported  a
        significantly longer time since their last use.
        For all three products, the reported amount
        used per year was significantly higher in the
        current survey.

        An advantage of this survey  is that the
survey population was large and the survey responses
were weighted to represent the U.S. population.  In
addition, the survey was designed to collect data for
frequency of product use and amount of product used
by gender.  Limitations of the survey are  that the
information may be dated and data were generated
based on recall behavior.  Extrapolation of these data
to accurately  reflect long-term use patterns may be
difficult.

17.3.6   U.S.   EPA,  1996   -  National  Human
        Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)
        U.S.  EPA (1996)  collected  data on  the
duration and frequency of selected activities and the
time spent in selected microenvironments via 24-hour
diaries as part of the National Human Activity Pattern
Survey (NHAPS).  More than 9,000 individuals from
various  age   groups  in   48   contiguous   states
participated in NHAPS  including 2000 children.  The
survey was conducted between  October 1992  and
September 1994.  Individuals were interviewed to
categorize their 24-hour routines (diaries) and/or to
answer  follow-up questions that  were  related to
exposure   events.       Demographic,   including
socioeconomic (gender, age, race, education, etc.),
geographic (census region, state,  etc.), and temporal
(day of week, month, season) data were included in
the study. Data were collected for a maximum of 82
possible   microenvironments  and   91  different
activities.
        As part of the  survey,  data  were  also
collected  on duration and  frequency  of use  of
selected consumer products.  Tables 17-22 through
17-30 present data on  the number of minutes  that
survey respondents spent in activities  working with
or being near certain consumer products, including:
microwave ovens, freshly  applied paints; household
cleaning  agents  such  as  scouring  powders  or
ammonia; floor wax, furniture wax, or shoe polish;
glue; solvents, fumes, or  strong smelling chemicals;
stain  or spot removers;  gasoline,  diesel-powered
equipment, or  automobiles; and pesticides,   bug
sprays,  or  bug  strips.  Table 17-31 through  17-35
present data on the number of respondents  in these
age categories that used fragrances, aerosol sprays,
humidifiers, and pesticides  (professionally-applied
and consumer-applied).  Because the age categories
used by the study authors did not coincide with the
standardized  age categories recommended  in  U.S.
EPA (2005) and used elsewhere in this handbook, the
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           17-5
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
source  data  from  NHAPS   on  pesticide  use
(professionally applied and consumer-applied) were
re-analyzed  by U.S. EPA to generate data for the
standardized age categories.   Data for subsets of the
first year of life  (e.g., 1 to 2 months, 3 to 5 months,
etc.) were not available.
        As  discussed  in previous chapters of this
handbook that used NHAPS as a data source, the
primary advantage of NHAPS is that the data were
collected for a large number of individuals and the
survey was designed to be representative of the U.S.
general population.  However, due to the wording of
questions  in  the  survey,  precise  data were  not
available for consumers who spent more than 60 or
120 minutes (depending on the  activity) using some
consumer   products.     This   prevents   accurate
characterization  of the high end of the distribution
and may also introduce error into the calculation of
the mean. One limitation is that the adult data was not
broken down into finer age categories.

17.3.7  Bass et al., 2001 - What's Being Used at
        Home: A Household Pesticide Survey
        Bass  et al.  (2001) conducted a survey to
assess the use of pesticide products  in homes with
children  in  March 1999.   The  study   obtained
information  on what pesticides were used, where they
were  used, and how frequently  they were used.  A
total of 107 households in Arizona that had a least
one child less than ten years of age in the household,
and had used a pesticide within the last six months,
were  surveyed  (Bass  et  al., 2001).   The survey
population was predominantly female Hispanic and
represented  a survey response rate of approximately
74  percent.    Study participants were  selected  by
systematic  random  sampling.   Pesticide  use  was
assessed  by a one-on-one interview  in the  home.
Survey questions pertained to household pesticides
used inside  the house for insect control and outside
the house for the control of weeds in the garden and
to repel animals from the  garden.  As part  of the
interview, information was gathered on the frequency
of use.
        Table 17-36 presents  information  on the
type,  characteristics, and frequency of pesticide use,
as well as information on the demographics  of the
survey population.  A total of 148 pesticide products
were   used   in   the  107   households   surveyed.
Respondents had used pesticides in  the  kitchen,
bathroom, floors,  baseboards,   and  cabinets with
dishes or cookware.   The  frequency of use data
showed the  following:  about   32  percent  of the
households used pesticides once per  week or more;
about 44 percent used the products once per month or
once in three months; and about 19 percent used the
products once in six months or once per year (Bass et
al., 2001).
        Although this study was limited to a selected
area in Arizona, it provides useful information on the
frequency of use  of pesticides among households
with children.  This may be useful for populations in
similar  geographical  locations where site-specific
data are not available.  However, these data are the
result of  a  community-based  survey and are not
representative of the U.S. general population.

17.3.8   Weegels and van Veen, 2001 - Variation of
        Consumer   Contact   with   Household
        Products: A Preliminary Investigation
        Weegels and van Veen (2001) conducted a
survey to  determine consumer exposure to common
household products that are used once a day or every
other day. Thirty households including,  10 families
with children,  10  couples,  9 individuals,   and  1
household of 6  adults. Households  were recruited
through  the  Usability Panel  of  the  School  of
Industrial  Design  and through public notices  and
pamphlets.
        Three  types  of products  were studied,
dishwashing detergent,  all-purpose cleaners, and hair
styling products.  Three  activities  in  which these
products are commonly used were studied in more
detail: dishwashing, toilet cleaning, and styling  hair.
In-home  observations,  dairies, and measurement  of
amount of use were used to  collect  data.   Subjects
were visited in the home and videotaped performing
the above activities. After three weeks, subjects were
again visited in the home and videotaped performing
activities,  diaries  were collected, and  amount  of
product used was measured.
        The survey data are  presented in Table 17-
37. During toilet cleaning 22 of 29 subjects observed
used at  least two different products (e.g., toilet
cleaner, all-purpose cleaner, and/or abrasive cleaner).
The large variation in duration  of toilet cleaner was
due to  the diverse ways in which toilet cleaner was
used:  some  subjects left the toilet  cleaner to  soak
overnight, some left it in the bowl while cleaning the
remainder of  the toilet,  other flushed   the toilet
immediately after cleaning.  The authors noted that
the findings of the study suggest  that "individuals
have a  consistent way of using  a product for a
particular activity, but there is a large  variety  in
product usage  among consumers,  with relations
among  frequency,  durations and  amount.  If  this
conclusion is  confirmed  by  future  research,  it
suggests that there will be people who exhibit high-
end use of products and will, most likely follow their
own routine, which may  have consequences for the
definition of worst-case use of consumer products."
Page
17-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
        An advantage  of this  study is that the
empirical data generated during this study provides
more accurate calculations of exposure than studies
relaying on recall data.  A limitation of the study  is
the small study population (30 households).  Another
limitation is that the short duration (three weeks) may
not accurately reflect long-term or seasonal usage
patterns.

17.3.9  Loretz et al., 2005 - Exposure Data for
        Cosmetic   Products:   Lipstick,   Body
        Lotion, and Face Cream
        Loretz et al. (2005) conducted a nationwide
survey to  estimate  the  usage (i.e.,  frequency  of
application and  amount used per application)  of
lipstick, body lotion, and face cream. The study was
conducted in 2000 and included 360 study subjects
recruited in ten U.S. cities (Atlanta, Georgia; Boston,
Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado;
Houston, Texas; Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Louis,
Missouri; San Bernadino, California; Tampa, Florida;
and  Seattle, Washington).  The  survey participants
were  women, ages 19-65 years, who regularly used
the  products  of   interest.     Typical   cosmetic
formulations of the three product types were weighed
and provided to the women for use over a two-week
period.   Subjects recorded information on product
usage (e.g., whether the product was used, number of
applications, time of applications) on a daily basis in
a diary provided to them.  At the end of the two-week
period, unused portions of product were returned and
weighed. The amount of product used was estimated
as the difference between the weight of product at the
beginning and end of the survey period. Of the 360
subjects recruited, 86.4 percent, 83.3  percent, and
85.6 percent completed the study  and returned the
diaries for lipstick,  body lotion,  and face  cream,
respectively (Loretz et al., 2005).
        The survey data are presented in Table 17-38
and 17-39.  Table 17-38 provides the mean, median,
and  standard deviations  for the frequency of use.
Table 17-39 provides distribution data for the total
amount applied, the average amount applied per use
day, and the average amount applied per application.
        An advantage of this study is that the survey
population covered a diverse geographical area of the
U.S. and was not based on recall data. A limitation of
the study is that the short duration  (two weeks) may
not  accurately reflect  long-term  usage  patterns.
Another limitation is that the study only included
women who already used the products; therefore, the
usage patterns are not representative of the entire
female population.  Also, the data  are not presented
by age group.
17.3.10 Loretz et al., 2006  -  Exposure  Data for
        Personal   Care   Products:   Hairspray,
        Spray  Perfume,   Liquid   Foundation,
        Shampoo,   Body   Wash,   and   Solid
        Antiperspirant
        Loretz et al. (2006) conducted a nationwide
survey to determine the usage (i.e., frequency of use
and amount used) of hairspray, spray perfume, liquid
foundation,   shampoo,  body  wash,  and   solid
antiperspirant.   The  survey was  similar to that
described by Loretz et al.  (2005).  This study was
conducted in 2000/2001. A total of 360 women were
recruited from ten U.S.  cities (Atlanta, Georgia;
Boston, Massachusetts;  Chicago,  Illinois; Denver,
Colorado;  Houston, Texas;  Minneapolis, Minnesota;
St.  Louis,   Missouri;  San  Bernadino, California;
Tampa, Florida;  and Seattle,  Washington).   The
survey participants  were women, ages 19-65 years
old, who regularly used the test products. Subjects
kept daily  records  on product usage  (whether the
product was  used, number of applications, time of
applications) in a diary.  For spray perfume, liquid
foundation,  and  body wash,  subjects  recorded the
body area(s) where these products were applied.  For
shampoo, subjects recorded information on their hair
type (length, thickness, oiliness, straight or curly, and
color  treated or not).  At the end of  the two week
period, unused portions of products were returned
and weighed.  Of the  360  subjects  recruited per
product, the study was completed by 329 participants
for hairspray, 327 for spray perfume,  326  for liquid
foundation, and 340 participants for shampoo, body
wash, and solid antiperspirant.
        The survey data are presented in Tables 17-
40  through  17-42.    Table  17-40  provides  the
minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviations
for the frequency of use.   Table 17-41 provides
percentile values for the amount of product  applied
per application.   Table  17-42 provides distribution
data for the amount applied per use day.
        An advantage of this study is that the survey
population  covered  a diverse geographical range of
the U.S. and did not rely on recall data. A limitation
of the study  is that the  short duration (two  weeks)
may not accurately  reflect long-term usage patterns.
Another limitation is  that  the  study  only included
women who  already used these products;  therefore,
the usage patterns are not entirely representative of
the entire female population.  Also, the data  are not
presented by age group.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           17-7
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
17.3.11  Hall et  al, 2007  - European  consumer
        exposure  to   cosmetic   products,   a
        framework for  conducting  population
        exposure assessments.
        European     cosmetic     manufacturers
constructed  a  probabilistic  European  population
model of exposure for six cosmetic products: body
lotion,  deodorant/antiperspirant,   lipstick,   facial
moisturizer,  shampoo,  and toothpaste (Hall et al.,
2007).  Data were collected  using  both  market
information  databases and a controlled product use
study from 44,100 households and 18,057 individual
consumers to create a sample of the 249  million
inhabitants of the  15 counties in the European Union.
Tables  17-43   through 17-50  show the  amount
consumed in grams/day. The study found an inverse
correlation between frequency  of product  use  and
quantity used per application for body lotion, facial
moisturizer,   toothpaste  and  shampoo   and   so
cautioned against  calculating daily exposure to these
products by  multiplying the  maximum frequency
value by the  maximum quantity per event value.
        The advantage of this  study   is  that  it
included a large sample size. However, behaviors and
activities in the European population may not be
representative of the U.S. population and results were
not broken out by  age groups.

17.3.12  Loretz et al., 2008  -  Exposure Data for
        Cosmetic Products: Facial Cleanser, Hair
        Conditioner, and Eye Shadow
        Loretz  et al.  (2008) used the data from a
study conducted in 2005 to estimate frequency of use
and   usage   amount   for  facial  cleanser,   hair
conditioner,  and  eye  shadow.   The  study   was
conducted in a similar manner as Loretz et al. (2005;
2006). A total of  360 women, ages 18 to 69 years of
age,  were recruited by telephone to provide diary
records of product use over a two-week period.   The
study subjects  were  representative  of  four  U.S.
Census  regions (Northeast,  Midwest, South,  and
West).  A total  of 295, 297, and 299 completed the
study for  facial cleanser, hair conditioner,  and  eye
shadow, respectively.
        The participants  recorded daily in a diary
whether the product was used that day, the number of
applications, and  the time  of application(s) over a
two-week period.  Products were weighed at the start
and completion of the study to determine the amount
used. A statistical analysis  of the data was conducted
to provide summary distributions of use  patterns,
including number of applications, amount used per
day,  and amount of product used per application for
each product. Data on the number of applications per
use day are  provided in Table 17-51.  The average
amounts of product applied per use day are shown in
Table 17-52, and the average amounts of product
applied per application are shown in Table 17-53.
        The  advantages of this study are that it is
representative of the U.S. female population for users
of the products studied, it provides data for frequency
of use and amount used, and it provides distribution
data.  The limitations of the study are that the data
were  not  provided by age group.  In addition, the
participants were regular users of the product,  so the
amount  applied and the frequency of use may be
higher than for other individuals  who may use the
products.    According  to Loretz  et  al.  (2008)
"variability in amount used by the different subjects
is  high,  but consistent with the data from other
cosmetic and personal care  studies."   The authors
also noted that it was not clear if the high-end users
of products represented true usage.

17.3.13  Sathyanarayana  et al., 2008  - Baby Care
        Products;  Possible   Sources  of  Infant
        Phthalate Exposure
        Sathyanarayana et al.  (2008) investigated
dermal  exposure  to phthalates  via  the  dermal
application of personal care products. The study was
conducted on 163 infants born between the year 2000
and 2005.  The products studied  were baby lotion,
baby powder, baby shampoo, diaper cream, and baby
wipes.    Infants  were  recruited through  Future
Families,  a multicenter pregnancy cohort study, at
prenatal   clinics   in  Los   Angeles,  California;
Minneapolis, Minnesota;   and  Columbia,  Missouri.
Although the study was designed to assess exposure
to phthalates, the authors collected information on the
percentage of the total participants that used the baby
products.   Data were collected from  questionnaire
responses  of the mothers  and  at  study visits.  The
characteristics and the percent of the population using
the studied baby products are shown in Table  17-54.
Of  the  163 infants  studied,  94 percent of the
participants  used baby wipes and 54  percent used
infant shampoo.
        The  advantages  of this  study  are  that it
specifically  targeted consumer  products  used by
children.  The percent of the study population using
these  products  was captured  and  the data were
collected  from  a diverse  ethnic  population.   The
limitations are that these  data may  not be entirely
representative of  the U.S. population because the
study population was from only three states and the
sample size was small.

17.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 17
Abt.  (1992)  Methylene chloride consumer products
        use  survey  findings.    Prepared  by Abt
Page
17-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
        Associates, Inc. for  the  U.S.  Consumer
        Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD.
Bass, I; Ortega, L.; Resales, C.; Petersen, N., Philen,
        R. (2001)  What's being used at  home:  a
        household  pesticide   survey.  Pub Health
        9(3):138-144.
Cosmetic,  Toiletry   and  Fragrance   Association
        (CTFA). (1983)  Summary of the results of
        surveys of the amount and frequency of use
        of cosmetic products by women.  Prepared
        by Environ  Corporation, Washington,  DC
        for CTFA Inc., Washington, DC.
Franklin,  P.  (2008)   Household chemicals:  good
        housekeeping or occupational hazard. Eur
        Respir 131:489-491.
Hall B, Tozer S, Safford B, Coroama M,  Steiling W,
        Leneveu-Duchemin MC,  McNamara  C, &
        Gibney  M.   (2007).  European consumer
        exposure to cosmetic products, a framework
        for   conducting   population    exposure
        assessments.    Food    and    Chemical
        Toxicology:   an   International  Journal
        Published  for  the   British  Industrial
        Biological  Research  Association.  45(11),
        2097-108
Loretz, L.; Api, A.; Barraj, L.;  Burdick, I;  Dressier,
        W.; Gettings, S.; Hsu, H.; Pan,  Y; Re, T.;
        Renskers, K.; Rothenstein, A.; Scrafford, C.;
        Sewall,  C.  (2005)    Exposure  data  for
        cosmetic products: lipstick, body lotion, and
        face cream. Food Chem Toxicol 43:279-291.
Loretz, L.; Api, A.; Barraj, L.; Burdick, I; Davis, D.;
        Dressier, W.;  Gilberti,  E.; Jarrett, G; Mann,
        S.; Pan, Y; Re, T; Renskers, K.; Scrafford,
        C.;  Vater, S. (2006)   Exposure  data  for
        personal  care products:  Hairspray,   spray
        perfume,  liquid foundation, shampoo, body
        wash, and solid antiperspirant. Food Chem
        Toxicol 44:2008-2018.
Loretz, L.; Api, A.; Babcock, L; Barraj, L.;  Burdick,
        I; Cater,  K.;  Jarrett, G; Mann, S.; Pan, Y;
        Re, T; Renskers, K.;  Scrafford, C. (2008)
        Exposure data for cosmetic products: Facial
        cleanser, hair conditioner, and eye shadow.
        Food Chem Toxicol 46:1516-1524.
Sathyanarayana, S.; Karr, C.; Lozano, P.,  Brown, E.;
        Calafat,  M.  (2008)    Baby care products;
        possible   sources   of   infant    phthalate
        exposure. Pedriatrics 121:260-268.
Steenbekkers, L.P (2001) Methods to study  everyday
        use  of  products   un   households:   The
        Wageningen mouthing study.   Am Occup
        Hyg  45(1001): 125-129.
U.S. EPA (1986) Standard Scenarios for Estimating
        Exposure to  Chemical Substances During
        Use of Consumer Products - Volumes I and
        II,  Washington  DC:   Office  of  Toxic
        Substances Exposure Evaluation Division.
U.S. EPA (1987) Methods for assessing exposure to
        chemical substances - Volume 7 -  Methods
        for   assessing   consumer   exposure   to
        chemical  substances.   Washington,  DC:
        Office  of Toxic Substances.  EPA/560/5-
        85/007.
U.S. EPA (1996) Descriptive statistics tables from a
        detailed analysis of  the National Human
        Activity  Pattern  Survey  (NHAPS)  data.
        Washington,  DC: Office of  Research and
        Development. EPA/600/R-96/148.
U.S. EPA. (2005) Guidance on Selecting Age Groups
        for  Monitoring  and  Assessing  Childhood
        Exposures to Environmental  Contaminants.
        U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Washington,  DC: EPA/630/P-03/003F.
Weegels, M.F. and M.P van Veen. (2001)Variation of
        consumer  contact with household products:
        A preliminary investigation.  Risk  Analysis
        21(3):499-511.
Westat.  (1987a) Household  solvent  products  - a
        national usage survey. Under  Subcontract to
        Battelle Columbus Div., Washington DC.
        Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
        Agency, Washington, DC. Available from
        NTIS, Springfield, VA. PB88-132881.
Westat. (1987b) National usage survey of household
        cleaning   products.  Prepared  for  U.S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
        Toxic Substances and Office  of Pesticides
        and Toxic  Substances, Washington, DC.
Westat. (1987c) National household survey of interior
        painters. Prepared  for U.S. Environmental
        Protection   Agency,   Office  of  Toxic
        Substances and  Office  of Pesticides  and
        Toxic Substances, Washington DC.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          17-9
-------
                                                                               Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                           Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
                       Table 17-1.  Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Households3
    Consumer Product Category
                            Consumer Product
 Cosmetics Hygiene Products
Adhesive bandages
Bath additives (liquid)
Bath additives (powder)
C ologne/perfume/aftershave
Contact lens solutions
Deodorant/antiperspirant (aerosol)
Deodorant/antiperspirant (wax and liquid)
Depilatories
Facial makeup
Fingernail cosmetics
Hair coloring/tinting products
Hair conditioning products
Hairsprays (aerosol)
Lip products
Mouthwash/breath freshener
Sanitary napkins and pads
Shampoo
Shaving creams (aerosols)
Skin creams (non-drug)
Skin oils (non-drug)
Soap (toilet bar)
Sunscreen/suntan products
Talc/body powder (non-drug)
Toothpaste
Waterless skin cleaners
 Household Furnishings
Carpeting
Draperies/curtains
Rugs (area)
Shower curtains
Vinyl upholstery, furniture
 Garment Conditioning Products
Anti-static spray (aerosol)
Leather treatment (liquid and wax)
Shoe polish
Spray starch (aerosol)
Suede cleaner/polish (liquid and
aerosol)
Textile water-proofing (aerosol)
 Household Maintenance Products
Adhesive (general) (liquid)
Bleach (household) (liquid)
Bleach (see laundry)
Candles
Cat box litter
Charcoal briquets
Charcoal lighter fluid
Drain cleaner (liquid and powder)
Dishwasher detergent (powder)
Dishwashing liquid
Fabric dye (DIY)b
Fabric rinse/softener (liquid)
Fabric rinse/softener (powder)
Fertilizer (garden) (liquid)
Fertilizer (garden) (powder)
Fire extinguishers (aerosol)
Floor polish/wax (liquid)
Food packaging and packaged food
Furniture polish (liquid)
Furniture polish (aerosol)
General cleaner/disinfectant (liquid)
General cleaner (powder)
General cleaner/disinfectant (aerosol
 and pump)
General spot/stain remover (liquid)
General spot/stain remover (aerosol and
 pump)
Herbicide (garden-patio) (liquid and aerosol)
Insecticide (home and garden) (powder)
Insecticide (home and garden)
 (aerosol and pump)
Insect repellent (liquid and aerosol)
Laundry detergent/bleach (liquid)
Laundry detergent (powder)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (powder)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (liquid)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (aerosol
 and pump)
Lubricant oil (liquid)
Lubricant (aerosol)
Matches
Metal polish
Oven cleaner (aerosol)
Pesticide (home) (solid)
Pesticide (pet dip) (liquid)
Pesticide (pet) (powder)
Pesticide (pet) (aerosol)
Pesticide (pet) (collar)
Petroleum fuels (home (liquid and
 aerosol)
Rug cleaner/shampoo (liquid and
 aerosol)
Rug deodorizer/freshener (powder)
Room deodorizer (solid)
Room deodorizer (aerosol)
Scouring pad
Toilet bowl cleaner
Toiler bowl deodorant (solid)
Water-treating chemicals
 (swimming pools)
Page
17-10
                                          Exposure Factors Handbook
                                         	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
                 Table 17-1.  Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Households3 (continued)
    Consumer Product Category
                           Consumer Product
 Home Building/Improvement
 Products (DIY)b
Adhesives, specialty (liquid)
Ceiling tile
C aulks/sealers/iillers
Dry wall/wall board
Flooring (vinyl)
House Paint (interior) (liquid)
House Paint and Stain (exterior)
 (liquid)
Insulation (solid)
Insulation (foam)
Paint/varnish removers
Paint thinner/brush cleaners
Patching/ceiling plaster
Roofing
Refmishing products
 (polyurethane, varnishes, etc.)
Spray paints (home) (aerosol)
Wall paneling
Wall paper
Wall paper glue
 Automobile-related Products
Antifreeze
Car polish/wax
Fuel/lubricant additives
Gasoline/diesel fuel
Interior upholstery/components,
 synthetic
Motor oil
Radiator flush/cleaner
Automotive touch-up paint
 (aerosol)
Windshield washer solvents
 Personal Materials
Clothes/shoes
Diapers/vinyl pants
Jewelry
Printed material (colorprint, newsprint,
photographs)
Sheets/towels
Toys (intended to be placed in
mouths)
 a        A subjective listing based on consumer use profiles.
 b        DIY = Do It Yourself.

 Source:  U.S. EPA, 1987.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                     Page
                                                                    17-11
-------
                                                                                Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                            Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
                      Table 17-2. List of Product Categories in the "Simmons Study of Media and Markets"
 The volumes included in the Media series are as follows:
 Ml
 M2
 M3
 M4
 M5
 M6
 M7
 M8
Publications: Total Audiences
Publications: Qualitative Measurements And In-Home Audiences
Publications: Duplication Of Audiences
Multi-Media Audiences: Adults
Multi-Media Audiences:  Males
Multi-Media Audiences:  Females and Mothers
Business To Business
Multi-Media Reach and Frequency and Television Attentiveness & Special Events
 The following volumes are included in the Product series:
 PI
 P2
 P3
 P4
 P5
 P6
 P7
 P8
 P9
 P10
 Pll
 P12
 P13
 P14
 P15
 P16
 P17
 P18
 P19
 P20
 P21
 P22
 P23
 P24
 P25
 P26
Automobiles, Cycles, Trucks & Vans
Automotive Products & Services
Travel
Banking, Investments, Insurance, Credit Cards & Contributions, Memberships & Public Activities
Games & Toys, Children's & Babies' Apparel & Specialty Products
Computers, Books, Discs, Records, Tapes, Stereo, Telephones, TV & Video
Appliances, Garden Care, Sewing & Photography
Home Furnishings & Home Improvements
Sports & Leisure
Restaurants, Stores & Grocery Shopping
Direct Mail & Other In-Home Shopping, Yellow Pages, Florist, Telegrams, Faxes & Greeting Cards
Jewelry, Watches, Luggage, Writing Tools & Men's Apparel
Women's Apparel
Distilled Spirits, Mixed Drinks, Malt Beverages, Wine & Tobacco Products
Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Milk, Soft Drinks, Juices & Bottled Water
Dairy Products, Desserts, Baking & Bread Products
Cereals & Spreads, Rice, Pasta, Pizza, Mexican Foods, Fruits & Vegetables
Soup, Meat, Fish, Poultry, Condiments & Dressings
Chewing Gum, Candy, Cookies & Snacks
Soap, Laundry, Paper Products & Kitchen Wraps
Household Cleaners, Room Deodorizers, Pest Controls & Pet Foods
Health Care Products & Remedies
Oral Hygiene Products, Skin Care, Deodorants & Drug Stores
Hair Care,  Shaving Products & Fragrances
Women's Beauty Aids, Cosmetics & Personal Products
Relative Volume of Consumption
Page
17-12
                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                    	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-3. Amount and Frequency of Use of Various Cosmetic and
Product Type

Hair Conditioners
Hair Sprays
Hair Rinses
Shampoos
Tonics and Dressings
Wave Sets
Dentifrices
Mouthwashes
Breath Fresheners
Nail Basecoats
Cuticle Softeners
Nail Creams & Lotions
Nail Extenders
Nail Polish & Enamel
Nail Polish & Enamel Remover
Nail Undercoats
Bath Soaps
Underarm Deodorants
Douches
Feminine Hygiene Deodorants
Cleansing Products (cold
creams, cleansing lotions
liquids & pads)
Depilatories
Face, Body & Hand Preps
(excluding shaving preps)
Foot Powder & Sprays
Hormones
Moisturizers
Night Skin Care Products
Paste Masks (mud packs)
Skin Lighteners
Skin Fresheners & Astringents
Wrinkle Smoothers (removers)
Facial Cream
Permanent Wave
Hair Straighteners
Amount of
Product Per
Application8
(grams)

12.4
-
12.7
16.4
2.9
2.6
-
-
-
0.2
0.7
0.6
-
0.3
3.1
-
2.6
0.5
-
-
1.7
-
3.5
-
-
0.5
1.3
3.7
-
2.0
0.4
0.6
101
0.2
Average Frequency of Use
(per day)

CTFA

0.4
0.25
0.064
0.82
0.073
0.00311
1.62
0.42
0.052
0.052
0.040
0.070
0.003
0.16
0.088
0.049
1.53
1.01
0.013
0.021
0.63
0.0061
0.65
0.061
0.012
0.98
0.18
0.027
-
0.33
0.021
0.0061
0.003
0.0007
Survey Type
Cosmetic Co.

0.40
0.55
0.18
0.59
0.021
0.040
0.67
0.62
0.43
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.013
0.20
0.19
0.12
0.95
0.80
0.089
0.084
0.80
0.051
-
0.079
0.028
0.88
0.50
0.20
0.024
0.56
0.15
-
-
-

Marketb
Research
Bureau
0.27
0.32
-
0.48
-
-
2.12
0.58
0.46
-
-
-
-
0.07
-
-
-
1.10
0.085
0.05
0.54
0.009
1.12
-
-
0.63
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.001
-
Baby Products
Upper 90th Percentile Frequency of Use
(per day)

CTFA

1.0
1.0
0.29
1.0
0.29
h
2.6
1.86
0.14
0.29
0.14
0.29
0.1 4e
0.71
0.29
0.14
3.0
1.29
0.1 4e
1.0e
1.71
0.016
2.0
0.57e
0.57e
2.0
1.0
0.14
d
1.0
1.0"
0.0061
0.0082
0.00511
Survey Type
Cosmetic Co.

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.14e
0.14
2.0
1.14
1.0
0.29
0.29
0.43
0.14e
0.43
0.43
0.29
1.43
1.29
0.29
0.29
2.0
0.14
-
0.29
0.14e
1.71
1.0
0.43
0.1411
1.43
1.0
-
-
-

Market
Research
Bureau
0.86
1.0
-
1.0
-
-
4.0
1.5
0.57
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
2.0
0.29
0.14
1.5
0.033
2.14
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.005
-
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-13
-------
                                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                                Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
                    Table 17-3. Amount and Frequency of Use of Various Cosmetic and Baby Products (continued)
                               Amount of
                               Product Per
                                                    Average Frequency of Use
                                                           (per day)
 Upper 90th Percentile Frequency of Use
              (per day)
                                                          Survey Type
             Survey Type

Hair Dye
Hair Lighteners
Hair Bleaches
Hair Tints
Hair Rinse (coloring)
Shampoo (coloring)
Hair Color Spray
Shave Cream
Application
(grams)
I.B ) CTpA
0.001
0.0003
0.0005
0.0001
0.0004
0.0005
-
1.73
Market11
Cosmetic Co. Research
Bureau
0.005
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.082
CTFA
0.004d
O.OOS11
0.02d
0.00511
0.0211
0.02d
i
_
Market
Cosmetic Co. Research
Bureau
0.014
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.36
         Values reported are the averages of the responses reported by the twenty companies interviewed.
         The averages shown for the Market Research Bureau are not true averages - this is due to the fact that in many cases the class of most
         frequent users were indicated by "1 or more" also ranges were used in many cases, i.e., "10-12." The average, therefore, is
         underestimated slightly.  The "1 or more" designation also skew the 90th percentile figures in many instances.  The 90th percentile
         values may, in  actuality, be somewhat higher for many products.
         Average usage  among users only for baby products.
         Usage data reflected "entire household" use for both baby lotion and baby oil.
         Fewer than 10% of individuals surveyed used these products. Value listed is lowest frequency among individuals reporting usage.  In
         the case of wave sets, skin lighteners, and hair color spray, none of the individuals surveyed by the CTFA used this product during the
         period of the study.
         Usage data reflected "entire household" use.
         Usage data reflected total bath product usage.
         None of the individuals surveyed reported using this product.
         Indicates no data available.
Source:   CTFA, 1983.
Page
17-14
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
If

 > £
  a
  a
 O ^
  1=
Table 17-4. Frequency of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)

Products
Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or Degreasers
Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants (excluding Automotive)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for TVs, Etc.)
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Primers and Special Primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents (for Wood or Cement)
Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paints for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricant for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters Cleaners
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
NA= Not Available
Source: Westat, 1987a

Mean
10.28
3.50
15.59
16.46
8.48
40.00
8.89
4.22
10.32
10.66
13.41
3.93
5.66
4.21
3.68
6.78
4.22
3.43
6.17
2.07
2.78
4.18
3.77
4.50
6.42
10.31
2.28
3.95
3.00
2.50
11.18
3.01


Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Use/Year

20.10
11.70
43.34
44.12
20.89
74.78
26.20
12.30
25.44
25.46
38.16
20.81
23.10
12.19
9.10
22.10
15.59
8.76
9.82
3.71
21.96
13.72
7.10
9.71
33.89
30.71
3.55
24.33
6.06
4.39
18.67
5.71


Min
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
NA
1.00
NA
NA
1.00
1.00


5
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.23
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


25
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
NA
4.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00


50
4.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
12.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
2.00


75
8.00
3.00
10.00
12.00
6.00
40.00
6.00
3.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.00
3.25
3.00
4.00
3.75
6.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
12.00
3.00


90
24.30
6.00
40.00
46.00
24.00
100.00
15.00
6.00
20.00
20.00
24.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
6.00
12.00
6.10
6.00
15.00
3.00
2.00
6.70
6.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
3.00
4.00
6.00
5.00
30.00
5.00


95
52.00
10.00
52.00
52.00
50.00
200.00
28.00
16.80
46.35
50.00
52.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
11.80
23.00
12.00
10.00
24.45
5.90
2.00
12.00
12.00
15.00
15.00
40.00
9.00
6.55
10.40
6.50
50.00
9.70


99
111.26
35.70
300.00
300.00
56.00
365.00
100.00
100.00
150.00
100.00
224.50
30.00
139.20
50.80
44.56
100.00
31.05
50.06
50.90
12.00
27.20
41.70
47.28
60.00
139.00
105.60
NA
41.30
NA
NA
77.00
44.52


Max
156.00
300.00
365.00
365.00
350.00
520.00
500.00
100.00
300.00
420.00
400.00
800.00
300.00
250.00
100.00
352.00
365.00
104.00
80.00
52.00
365.00
300.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
365.00
26.00
365.00
52.00
30.00
200.00
60.00


s
I
*s


I
ri
&
  CTQ
-------
   I
    ri
Table 17-5. Exposure Time of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Products

Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or Degreasers
Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants (excluding Automotive)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for TVs, Etc.)
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Primers and Special Primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents (for Wood or Cement)
Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paints for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricant for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
NA= Not Available
Source: Westat, 1987a
Mean
(min)
7.49
14.46
10.68
29.48
74.04
7.62
15.58
121.20
10.42
8.12
9.47
295.08
194.12
117.17
125.27
39.43
39.54
91.29
18.57
104.94
29.45
29.29
13.57
42.77
51.45
9.90
27.90
9.61
23.38
23.57
22.66
7.24


SD

9.60
24.10
22.36
97.49
128.43
29.66
81.80
171.63
29.47
32.20
45.35
476.11
345.68
193.05
286.59
114.85
87.79
175.05
48.54
115.36
48.16
48.14
23.00
71.39
86.11
35.62
61.44
18.15
36.32
27.18
23.94
8.48


Percentile Rankings for Duration of Use (minutes)

Min
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.17
0.03
0.07
0.33
0.08
0.02



1
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.03
1.00
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
1.00
0.51
0.74
0.38
0.08
0.17
0.24
0.05
0.05
0.14
0.95
0.08
0.19
0.22
0.03
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.71
0.02



5
0.25
0.50
0.08
1.00
5.00
0.03
0.08
1.45
0.08
0.05
0.08
22.50
15.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.17
5.00
2.00
2.00
0.33
1.00
2.00
0.08
0.35
0.08
0.50
0.50
3.00
0.08



10
0.50
1.40
0.25
2.00
10.00
0.03
0.33
3.00
0.17
0.08
0.17
30.00
30.00
10.00
5.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
0.25
15.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
0.17
1.80
0.23
1.00
2.00
5.00
0.47



25
2.00
3.00
2.00
5.00
20.00
0.17
1.00
15.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
90.00
60.00
30.00
20.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
2.00
30.00
5.00
10.00
3.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
6.25
10.00
1.50



50
5.00
10.00
5.00
15.00
30.00
1.00
4.25
60.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
180.00
12.00
60.00
60.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
5.00
60.00
15.00
15.00
7.00
20.00
27.50
5.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
5.00



75
10.00
15.00
10.00
30.00
90.00
2.00
10.00
120.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
360.00
240.00
120.00
120.00
30.00
45.00
120.00
20.00
120.00
30.00
30.00
15.00
60.00
60.00
10.00
30.00
10.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
10.00



90
18.00
30.00
30.00
60.00
147.00
10.00
30.00
246.00
20.00
15.00
20.00
480.00
480.00
140.00
240.00
60.00
60.00
240.00
60.00
240.00
60.00
60.00
30.00
120.00
120.00
15.00
60.00
20.00
49.50
60.00
60.00
15.00



95
30.00
60.00
30.00
120.00
240.00
32.00
60.00
480.00
45.00
30.00
30.00
810.00
579.00
360.00
420.00
180.00
120.00
360.00
60.00
300.00
96.00
120.00
45.00
145.00
180.00
30.00
60.00
30.00
120.00
60.00
60.00
25.50



99
60.00
120.00
120.00
300.00
480.00
120.00
180.00
960.00
180.00
90.00
93.60
2,880.00
1,702.80
720.00
1,200.00
480.00
300.00
981.60
130.20
480.00
268.80
180.00
120.00
360.00
529.20
120.00
NA
120.00
NA
NA
120.00
48.60



Max
60.00
480.00
360.00
1,800.00
2,700.00
480.00
2,880.00
960.00
360.00
900.00
900.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
280.00
4,320.00
2,400.00
1,800.00
1,920.00
720.00
960.00
360.00
900.00
300.00
900.00
600.00
720.00
450.00
180.00
240.00
180.00
240.00
60.00


                                                                                                                                                                                                               Q
I

                                                                                                                                                                                                               ri
vo
-------
If

 > £
  a
  a
 O ^
  1=
Table 17-6. Amount of Products Used for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Products

Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or Degreasers
Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants (excluding Automotive)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for TVs, Etc.)
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Primers and Special Primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents (for Wood or Cement)
Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paints for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricant for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
NA= Not Available
Source: Westat, 1987a
Mean
(ounces/year)
9.90
11.38
26.32
58.30
28.41
4.14
7.49
34.46
12.50
9.93
9.48
371.27
168.92
65.06
63.73
69.45
30.75
68.39
18.21
148.71
13.82
46.95
22.00
44.95
70.37
18.63
35.71
16.49
11.72
13.25
31.58
9.02


SD

17.90
22.00
90.10
226.97
57.23
13.72
55.90
96.60
27.85
44.18
55.26
543.86
367.82
174.01
144.33
190.55
52.84
171.21
81.37
280.65
14.91
135.17
50.60
89.78
274.56
54.74
62.93
87.84
13.25
22.35
80.39
14.59


Percentile
Min.
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.64
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.09
0.01
1.00
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.12
0.08
2.00
0.12
0.50
0.50
0.12
0.13


1
0.20
0.47
0.24
0.50
0.80
0.02
0.02
0.29
0.20
0.18
0.05
4.00
0.33
1.09
1.50
0.45
0.75
0.09
0.25
0.37
1.40
1.56
0.50
0.14
0.77
0.40
NA
0.13
NA
NA
0.50
0.32


5
0.63
0.98
0.60
2.00
2.45
0.06
0.05
1.22
0.69
0.30
0.13
12.92
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.10
2.01
1.30
1.00
3.63
2.38
4.00
1.50
1.50
3.00
0.96
3.75
0.58
1.00
1.00
1.82
1.09


10
1.00
1.43
1.00
3.00
3.50
0.12
0.12
2.80
1.00
0.52
0.25
32.00
8.00
4.00
8.00
4.00
3.25
3.23
1.43
8.00
3.25
6.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.50


Rankings for Amount of Products Used (ounces/yr)
25
2.00
2.75
2.00
6.50
7.00
0.30
0.35
6.00
2.25
1.00
0.52
64.00
25.20
8.00
16.00
8.00
7.00
8.00
2.75
16.00
6.00
12.00
5.22
6.12
9.00
2.75
8.00
2.00
3.02
3.75
6.00
3.00


50
4.50
6.00
5.50
16.00
14.00
0.94
1.00
10.88
4.50
2.25
2.00
256.00
64.00
16.00
32.00
20.48
13.00
16.00
8.00
64.00
12.00
16.00
12.00
16.00
16.00
6.00
15.00
4.00
8.00
7.75
12.00
6.00


75
10.00
12.00
16.00
32.00
30.00
2.40
3.00
32.00
12.00
8.00
6.00
384.00
148.48
64.00
64.00
64.00
32.00
60.00
13.00
128.00
14.00
36.00
16.00
48.00
48.00
15.50
32.00
8.00
14.25
16.00
28.00
10.75


90
24.00
24.00
48.00
96.00
64.00
8.00
8.00
64.00
24.00
18.00
12.65
857.60
384.00
128.00
128.00
128.00
65.00
128.00
32.00
448.00
28.00
80.00
39.00
100.80
128.00
36.00
77.00
15.00
32.00
24.00
64.00
16.00


95
36.00
33.00
119.20
192.00
96.00
18.00
20.00
138.70
41.20
32.00
24.00
1,280.00
640.00
256.00
256.00
256.00
104.00
256.00
42.60
640.00
33.00
160.00
75.00
156.00
222.00
64.00
140.00
24.60
38.60
58.40
96.00
20.55


99
99.36
121.84
384.00
845.00
204.40
67.44
128.00
665.60
192.00
128.00
109.84
2,560.00
1,532.16
768.00
512.00
640.00
240.00
867.75
199.80
979.20
98.40
480.00
212.00
557.76
1,167.36
240.00
NA
627.00
NA
NA
443.52
113.04


Max
180.00
450.00
1,600.00
5,120.00
1,144.00
181.80
1,280.00
1,024.00
312.00
1,280.00
1,024.00
6,400.00
5,120.00
3,840.00
2,560.00
3,200.00
1,053.00
1,920.00
1,280.00
3,200.00
120.00
2,560.00
672.00
900.00
3840.00
864.00
360.00
1,050.00
78.00
160.00
960.00
120.00


s
I
*s


I
ri
&
X)
  CTQ
-------
oo
   I
    ri
Table 17-7. Time Exposed After Duration of Use for Household Solvent Products (users-only)
Products

Spray Shoe Polish
Water Repellents/Protectors
Spot Removers
Solvent-Type Cleaning Fluids or Degreasers
Wood Floor and Paneling Cleaners
Typewriter Correction Fluid
Adhesives
Adhesive Removers
Silicone Lubricants
Other Lubricants (excluding Automotive)
Specialized Electronic Cleaners (for TVs, Etc.)
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
Wood Stains, Varnishes, and Finishes
Paint Removers/Strippers
Paint Thinners
Aerosol Spray Paint
Primers and Special Primers
Aerosol Rust Removers
Outdoor Water Repellents (for Wood or Cement)
Glass Frostings, Window Tints, and Artificial Snow
Engine Degreasers
Carburetor Cleaners
Aerosol Spray Paints for Cars
Auto Spray Primers
Spray Lubricant for Cars
Transmission Cleaners
Battery Terminal Protectors
Brake Quieters/Cleaners
Gasket Remover
Tire/Hubcap Cleaners
Ignition and Wire Dryers
NA= Not Available
Source: Westat, 1987a
Mean
(min)
31.40
37.95
43.65
33.29
96.75
124.70
68.88
94.12
30.77
47.45
117.24
91.38
44.56
48.33
31.38
32.86
12.70
22.28
15.06
8.33
137.87
4.52
7.51
10.71
11.37
4.54
5.29
3.25
10.27
27.56
1.51
6.39


SD

80.50
111.40
106.97
90.39
192.88
153.46
163.72
157.69
107.39
127.11
154.38
254.61
155.19
156.44
103.07
105.62
62.80
65.57
47.58
43.25
243.21
24.39
68.50
45.53
45.08
30.67
29.50
17.27
30.02
58.54
20.43
31.63


Percentile Rankings for Time Exposed After Duration of Use (minutes)

Min.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00



1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
0.00



5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00



10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00



25
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
5.00
30.00
1.00
1.75
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00



50
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
30.00
60.00
10.00
20.00
0.00
2.00
60.00
5.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00



75
20.00
20.00
30.00
28.75
120.00
180.00
60.00
120.00
10.00
30.00
180.00
60.00
30.00
30.00
20.00
15.00
1.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
180.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.50
0.00
0.00



90
120.00
120.00
120.00
60.00
240.00
360.00
180.00
360.00
60.00
120.00
300.00
240.00
120.00
120.00
60.00
60.00
30.00
60.00
60.00
5.00
360.00
0.00
0.10
17.50
20.00
2.00
5.00
2.90
30.00
120.00
0.00
0.10



95
120.00
240.00
240.00
180.00
480.00
480.00
360.00
480.00
180.00
240.00
480.00
480.00
240.00
240.00
180.00
180.00
60.00
120.00
60.00
58.50
480.00
15.50
30.00
60.00
77.25
15.00
22.50
15.00
120.00
180.00
0.00
30.00



99
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
1,062.00
600.00
720.00
720.00
480.00
485.40
720.00
1,440.00
480.00
694.00
541.20
480.00
260.50
319.20
190.20
309.60
1,440.00
120.00
120.60
282.00
360.00
70.20
NA
120.00
NA
NA
30.00
216.60



Max
720.00
1,800.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,800.00
2,100.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
720.00
600.00
420.00
1,800.00
360.00
1,800.00
480.00
360.00
420.00
240.00
180.00
120.00
240.00
480.00
240.00


                                                                                                                                                                                                    Q
I

                                                                                                                                                                                                    ri
vo
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-8. Total Exposure Time of Performing Task and Product Type Used by Task for
Household Cleaning Products
Tasks
Clean Bathroom Sinks and Tubs


Clean Kitchen Sinks


Clean Inside of Cabinets
(such as kitchen)

Clean Outside of Cabinets


Wipe Off Kitchen Counters


Thoroughly Clean Counters


Clean Bathroom Floors


Clean Kitchen Floors


Clean Bathroom or Other Tilted or Ceramic Walls


Mean (hrs/year)
44


41


12

21


92


24


20


31


16


Median Product Type
(hrs/year) Used
26 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
18 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
5 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
6 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
55 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
13 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
9 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
14 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
9 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
Percent of
Preference
29%
44%
16%
10%
1%
31%
61%
2%
4%
2%
68%
12%
2%
16%
2%
61%
8%
16%
13%
2%
67%
13%
2%
15%
3%
56%
21%
5%
17%
1%
70%
21%
2%
4%
3%
70%
27%
2%
1%
37%
18%
17%
25%
3%
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-19
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-8. Total Exposure Time of Performing Task and Product Type Used by
Task for Household Cleaning Products (continued)
Tasks
Clean Outside of Windows


Clean Inside of Windows


Clean Glass Surfaces Such as Mirrors & Tables


Clean Outside of Refrigerator and Other Appliances


Clean Spots or Dirt on Walls or Doors
Finishes


Indicates value is less than 1%
Source: Westat, 1987b.
, . ., , . Median Product Type
Mean (hrs/year) , . TT j
*• J ' (hrs/year) Used
13 6 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
18 6 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
34 13 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
27 13 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other
19 8 Liquid
Powder
Aerosol
Spray pump
Other


Percent of
Preference
27%
2%
6%
65%
24%
1%
8%
66%
2%
13%
1%
8%
76%
2%
48%
3%
7%
38%
4%
46%
15%
4%
30%
4%


Page
17-20
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-9. Percentile Rankings for Total Exposure Time in Performing
Household Tasks
Percentile Rankings for Total Exposure Time Performing Task
(hrs/yr)
Tasks
Clean Bathroom Sinks and Tubs
Clean Kitchen Sinks
Clean Inside of Kitchen Cabinets
Clean Outside of Cabinets
Wipe Off Kitchen Counters
Thoroughly Clean Counters
Clean Bathroom Floors
Clean Kitchen Floors
Clean Bathroom or Other Tilted or Ceramic Walls
Clean Outside of Windows
Clean Inside of Windows
Clean Glass Surfaces Such as Mirrors & Tables
Clean Outside Refrigerator and Other Appliances
Clean Spots or Dirt on Walls or Doors
Min
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1.2
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
10th
5.2
3.5
1
1
12
1.8
2
4.3
1
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.8
0.6
25th
13
8.7
2
2
24.3
6
4.3
8.7
3
2
3
6
4.3
2
50th
26
18.3
4.8
6
54.8
13
8.7
14
8.7
6
6
13
13
8
75th
52
60.8
12
17.3
91.5
26
26
26
26
11.5
19.5
26
30.4
24
90th
91.3
97.6
32.5
36
231.2
52
36.8
52
36
24
36
60.8
91.3
52
95th
121.7
121.7
48
78.7
456.3
94.4
71.5
97
52
32.6
72
104
95.3
78
Max
365
547.5
208
780
912.5
547.5
365
730
208
468
273
1460
365
312
Source: Westat, 1987b.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-21
-------
     a
    QTQ
Table 17-10. Mean Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Performing Household Tasks
Tasks
Clean bathroom sinks and tubs
Clean kitchen sinks
Clean inside of cabinets such as those in
the kitchen
Clean outside of cabinets
Wipe off counters such as those in the
kitchen
Thoroughly clean counters
Clean bathroom floors
Clean kitchen floors
Clean bathroom or other tiled or ceramic
walls
Clean outside of windows
Clean inside of windows
Clean other glass surfaces such as mirrors
and tables
Clean outside of refrigerator and other
appliances
Clean spots or dirt on walls or doors
Mean
3 x/week
7 x/week

9 x/year
3 x/month
2 x/day
8 x/month
6 x/month
6 x/month
4 x/month
5 x/year
10 x/year
7 x/month
10 x/month
6 x/month
Percentile Rankings
Min
0.2 x/week
0 x/week

1 x/year
0.1 x/month
Ox/day
0.1 x/month
0.2 x/month
0.1 x/month
0. 1 x/month
1 x/year
1 x/year
0. 1 x/month
0.2 x/month
0.1 x/month
10th
1 x/week
1 x/week

1 x/year
0.1 x/month
0.4 x/day
0.8 x/month
1 x/month
1 x/month
0.2 x/month
1 x/year
1 x/year
1 x/month
1 x/month
0.2 x/month
25th
1 x/week
2 x/week

1 x/year
0.3 x/month
1 x/day
1 x/month
2 x/month
2 x/month
1 x/month
1 x/year
2 x/year
2 x/month
2 x/month
0.3 x/month
50th
2 x/week
7 x/week

2 x/year
1 x/month
1 x/day
4 x/month
4 x/month
4 x/month
2 x/month
2 x/year
4 x/year
4 x/month
4 x/month
1 x/month
75th
3.5 x/week
7 x/week

12 x/year
4 x/month
3 x/day
4 x/month
4 x/month
4 x/month
4 x/month
4 x/year
12 x/year
4 x/month
13 x/month
4 x/month
90th
7 x/week
15 x/week

12 x/year
4 x/month
4 x/day
30 x/month
13 x/month
13 x/month
9 x/month
12 x/year
24 x/year
17 x/month
30 x/month
13 x/month
95th
7 x/week
21 x/week

52 x/year
22 x/month
6 x/day
30 x/month
30 x/month
30 x/month
13 x/month
12 x/year
52 x/year
30 x/month
30 x/month
30 x/month
Max
42 x/week
28 x/week

156 x/year
30 x/month
16 x/day
183 x/month
30 x/month
30 x/month
30 x/month
156 x/year
156 x/year
61 x/month
61 x/month
152 x/month
Source: Westat, 1987b.
    I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   s
I
     ri
vo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ri
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
17-11. Mean and Percentile Rankings for Exposure Time Per Event of Performing Household Tasks
„, , Mean
Tasks . .
(minutes/event
Clean bathroom sinks and tubs
Clean kitchen sinks
Clean inside of cabinets such as those in the
kitchen
Clean outside of cabinets
Wipe off counters such as those in the kitchen
Thoroughly clean counters
Clean bathroom floors
Clean kitchen floors
Clean bathroom or other tiled or ceramic walls
Clean outside of windows
Clean inside of windows
Clean other glass surfaces such as mirrors and
tables
Clean outside of refrigerator and other appliances
Clean spots or dirt on walls or doors
20
10
137
52
9
25
16
30
34
180
127
24
19
50
Percentile Rankings (minutes/event)
Min
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
10th
5
2
24
5
2
5
5
10
5
30
20
5
4
5
25th
10
3
44
15
3
10
10
15
15
60
45
10
5
10
50th
15
5
120
30
5
15
15
20
30
120
90
15
10
20
75th
30
10
180
60
10
30
20
30
45
240
158
30
20
60
90th
45
15
240
120
15
60
30
60
60
420
300
60
30
120
95th
60
20
360
180
30
90
38
60
120
480
381
60
45
216
Max
90
480
2,880
330
120
180
60
180
240
1,200
1,200
180
240
960
Source: Westat, 1987b.
Table 17-12. Total Exposure Time for Ten Product Groups Most Frequently Used for
Household Cleaning
Products
Dish Detergents
Glass Cleaners
Floor Cleaners
Furniture Polish
Bathroom Tile Cleaners
Liquid Cleansers
Scouring Powders
Laundry Detergents
Rug Cleaners/Shampoos
All Purpose Cleaners
Mean
(hrs/yr)
107
67
52
32
47
68
78
66
12
64
Percentile Rankings of Total Exposure Time
(hrs/yr)
Min
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
a The data in Table 17-11 above reflect only the 14tasks
underestimate the hours of the use of the product group
Source: Westat, 1987b.


10th
6
3
4
0.3
2
2
9
8
0.3
4
25th
24
12
7
1
8
9
17
14
0.3
9
50th
56
29
22
12
17
22
35
48
9
26
75th
134
62
52
36
48
52
92
103
26
77
90th
274
139
102
101
115
122
165
174
26
174
95th
486
260
414
215
287
215
281
202
26
262
Max
941
1,508
449
243
369
2,381
747
202
26
677
included in the survey. Therefore, many of the durations reported in the table
For example, use of dish detergents to wash dishes is not included.







Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-23
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-13. Total Exposure Time of Painting Activity of
Interior Painters (hours)
„, ,, „ . . Mean _ , , ,
Types of Paint ., . Std. dev.
3V (hrs)
Latex 12.2 11.3
Oil-based 10.7 15.6
Wood Stains and Varnishes 8.6 10.9
Percentile Rankings for Duration of Painting Activity
(hrs)
Min. 10 25 50 75 90 95 Max.
1 3 4 9 15 24 40 248
1 1.6 3 6 10 21.6 65.6 72
1 1 2 4 9.3 24 40 42
Source: Westat, 1987c.
Table 17-14. Exposure Time of Interior Painting Activity /Occasion (hours) and Frequency of Occasions Spent Painting Per Year
Duration of
Painting/Occasion
(hrs)
Types of Paint Mean Median
Latex 3.0 3
Oil-based 2.1 3
Wood Stains and 2.2 2
Varnishes
Frequency of
Occasions Spent
Painting/Year Percentile Rankings for Frequency of Occasions Spent Painting
Mean Std. dev. Min 10 25 50 75 90 95 Max.
4.2 5.5 1123 49 10 62
5.1 12.0 1112 4 8 26 72
4.0 4.9 111249 20 20
Source: Westat, 1987c.
Table 17-15. Amount of Paint Used by Interior Painters
„, ,,„ . . Median
Types of Paint . ,,
3V (gallons)
Latex 3.0
Oil-based 2.0
Wood Stains and 0.8
Varnishes
Percentile Rankings for Amount of Paint Used
Mean Std. (gallons)
Min 10 25 50 75 90 95 Max.
3.9 4.6 0.1 1 2 3 5 8 10 50
2.6 3.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 2 37 12 12
0.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 122 4.3
Source: Westat, 1987c.
Page
17-24
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-16. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for
Adhesive Removers

Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum Value
1st Percentile
5th Percentile
10th Percentile
25th Percentile
Median Value
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
Maximum Value
No. of Times
Used Within the
Last 12 Months
N=58
1.66
1.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
12.00
12.00
Minutes Minutes in Room
Using After Using"
N=52 N=51
172.87
304.50
5.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
29.50
120.00
240.00
480.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
13.79
67.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120.00
420.00
420.00
Minutes in Room
After Usingb
N=5
143.37
169.31
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
20.00
120.00
420.00
420.00
420.00
420.00
1,440.00
Amount Used in Past
Year (Fluid oz.)
N=51
96.95
213.20
13.00
13.00
13.00
16.00
16.00
32.00
96.00
128.00
384.00
1,280.00
1,280.00
Amount per Use
(Fluid oz.)
N=51
81.84
210.44
5.20
5.20
6.50
10.67
16.00
26.00
64.00
128.00
192.00
1,280.00
1,280.00
a Includes those who did not spend anytime in the room after use.
b Includes only those who spent time in the room.
Source: Abt, 1992.






Table 17-17. Adhesive Remover Usage by Gender
Gender


Mean number of months since last time adhesive remover was used - includes all
respondents. (Unweighted N=240)
Mean number of uses of product in the past year.
Mean number of minutes spent with the product during last use.
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes all
recent users)
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes only
those who did not leave immediately)
Mean ounces of product used in the past year.
Mean ounces of product used per use in the past year.
Male
N=25
35.33

1.94
127.95
19.76
143.37
70.48
48.70
Female
N=33
43.89

1.30
233.43
0
0
139.71
130.36
Source: Abt, 1992.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-25
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-18. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for
Spray Paint


Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum Value
1st Percentile
5th Percentile
10th Percentile
25th Percentile
Median Value
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
Maximum Value
No. of Times
Used Within the
Last 12 Months
N=775
8.23
31.98
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
11.00
20.00
104.00
365.00


Minutes Minutes in Room
Using After Using8
N=786 N=791
40.87
71.71
1.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
10.00
20.00
45.00
90.00
120.00
360.00
960.00
3.55
22.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120.00
300.00

Minutes in Room
After Usingb
N=35
65.06
70.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
10.00
15.00
30.00
60.00
120.00
120.00
300.00
300.00
Amount Used in
Past Year
(Fluid oz.)
N=778
83.92
175.32
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
26.00
65.00
156.00
260.00
1,170.00
1,664.00

Amount per Use
(Fluid oz.)
N=778
19.04
25.34
0.36
0.36
3.47
6.50
9.75
13.00
21.67
36.11
52.00
104.00
312.00
a Includes those who did not spend anytime in the room after use.
b Includes only those who spent time in the room.
Source: Abt, 1992.






Table 17-19. Spray Paint Usage by Gender
Gender


Mean number of months since last time spray paint was used - includes all
respondents. (Unweighted N=1724)
Mean number of uses of product in the past year.
Mean number of minutes spent with the product during last use.
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes all
recent users)
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes only
those who did not leave immediately)
Mean ounces of product used in the past year.
Mean ounces of product used per use in the past year.
Male
N=405
17.39
10.45
40.87
5.49
67.76
103.07
18.50
Female
N=386
26.46
4.63
40.88
0.40
34.69
59.99
19.92
Source: Abt, 1992.
Page
17-26
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-20. Frequency of Use and Amount of Product Used for
Paint Removers/Strippers


Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum Value
1st Percentile
5th Percentile
10th Percentile
25th Percentile
Median Value
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
Maximum Value
No. of Times
Used Within the
Last 12 Months
N=316
3.54
7.32
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
6.00
12.00
50.00
70.00


Minutes Minutes in Room
Using After Using8
N=390 N=390
144.59
175.54
2.00
5.00
15.00
20.00
45.00
120.00
180.00
360.00
480.00
720.00
1,440.00
12.96
85.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
60.00
180.00
1,440.00

Minutes in Room
After Usingb
N=39
93.88
211.71
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
10.00
60.00
120.00
180.00
420.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
Amount Used in Past
Year
(Fluid oz.)
N=307
142.05
321.73
15.00
15.00
16.00
16.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
256.00
384.00
1,920.00
3,200.00

Amount per Use
(Fluid oz.)
N=307
64.84
157.50
0.35
2.67
8.00
10.67
16.00
32.00
64.00
128.00
192.00
320.00
2,560.00
a Includes those who did not spend anytime in the room after use.
b Includes only those who spent time in the room.
Source: Abt, 1992.






Table 17-21. Paint Stripper Usage by Gender
Gender


Mean number of months since last time paint stripper was used - includes all
respondents. (Unweighted N=1724)
Mean number of uses of product in the past year.
Mean number of minutes spent with the product during last use.
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes all
recent users)
Mean number of minutes spent in the room after last use of product. (Includes only
those who did not leave immediately)
Mean ounces of product used in the past year.
Mean ounces of product used per use in the past year.
Male
N=156
32.07
3.88
136.70
15.07
101.42
160.27
74.32
Female
N=162
47.63
3.01
156.85
9.80
80.15
114.05
50.29
Source: Abt, 1992.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-27
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-22. Number of Minutes Spent Using Any
Microwave Oven (minutes/day)
Age Grou
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
18 to 64 years
> 64 years

P N
62
141
1,686
375
62
Percentiles
1
0
0
0
0
0
2 5
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
10 25
1 1
1 2
2 3
2 3
1 1
50
2
3
5
5
2
75
5
5
10
10
5
90
10
10
15
20
10
95
15
15
25
30
15
98
20
30
45
60
20
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent; N
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
99
30
30
60
60
30
Max
30
60
121
70
30
= doer sample
Page
17-28
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook




Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-23. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near
Freshly Applied Paints (minutes/day)
Age Grou
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
18 to 64 years
> 64 years

P N
7
12
20
212
764
Percentiles
1
3
5
0
0
20
2
3
5
0
0
0
5
3
5
0.5
1
0
10 25 50
3 5 15
15 20 45
3 8 45
2 11 60
0 3 18
75
121
120
75
121
90
90
121
120
121
121
121
95
121
121
121
121
121
98
121
121
121
121
121
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent; N
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
99
121
121
121
121
121
Max
121
121
121
121
121
= doer sample
Table 17-24. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near
Household Cleaning Agents Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day)
Age Grou
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
1 8 to 64 years
> 64 years

P N
21
26
41
672
127
Percentiles
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
5 10
0 0
2 2
0 0
1 2
0 1
25
5
3
2
5
3
50
10
5
5
10
5
75
15
15
10
20
15
90
20
30
40
60
30
95 98
30 121
30 30
60 60
121 121
60 120
Note : A value of " 1 2 1 " for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent; N =
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: U.S.
EPA, 1996.








99
121
30
60
121
121
Max
121
30
60
121
121
doer sample



Table 17-25. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities (at home or elsewhere) Working With or Near
Floorwax, Furniture Wax or Shoe Polish (minutes/day)

N 1
1 to 4 years 13 0
5 to 11 years 21 0
12 to 17 years 15 0
18 to 64 years 238 0
> 64 years 34 0

2
0
0
0
0
0
Percentiles
5 10 25 50 75
0 5 10 15 20
2 2 3 5 10
0 1 2 10 25
2 3 5 15 30
0 2 5 10 20

90
60
35
45
120
35

95 98 99 Max
121 121 121 121
60 120 120 120
121 121 121 121
121 121 121 121
121 121 121 121
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent; N = doer sample
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009








Page
17-29
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-26. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near
Glue (minutes/day)
Age Group
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
1 8 to 64 years
> 64 years
Percentiles
N 1
6 0
36 2
34 0
207 0
10 0
2
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
3
1
0
0
10
0
5
2
1
0
25
30
5
5
5
0
50
30
12.5
10
20
4
75 90
30 50
25 30
30 30
90 121
60 121
95
50
60
60
121
121
98
50
120
120
121
121
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent; N
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
99
50
120
120
121
121
Max
50
120
120
121
121
= doer sample

Age Grou
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
18 to 64 years
> 64 years
Table

N
7
16
38
407
21
17-27. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near
Solvents, Fumes or Strong Smelling Chemicals (minutes/day)
Percentiles
1
0
0
0
0
0
2 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
10
0
2
0
2
0
25
1
5
5
5
2
50
5
5
10
30
5
75
60
17.5
60
121
15
90
121
45
121
121
121
95 98
121 121
70 70
121 121
121 121
121 121
Note : A Value of " 1 2 1 " for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent; N =
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: U.S.
EPA, 1996.








99
121
70
121
121
121
Max
121
70
121
121
121
doer sample



Age Grou
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
18 to 64 years
> 64 years
Table

P
N
3
3
7
17-28. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near
Stain or Spot Removers (minutes/day)
Percentiles
1
0
3
0
87 0
9
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
3
0
0
0
10 25 50
000
335
0 5 15
025
023
Note : A value of " 1 2 1 " for number of minutes signifies that more than
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a
Source: U.S.
EPA, 1996.




75
3
5
35
15
15
90
3
5
60
60
121
95
3
5
60
121
121
98
3
5
60
121
121
120 minutes were spent; N
given number of minutes.




99
3
5
60
121
121
Max
3
5
60
121
121
= doer sample


Page
17-30
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-29. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near
Gasoline or Diesel-powered Equipment, Besides Automobiles (minutes/day)
Age Grou
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
18 to 64 years
> 64 years

P N
14
12
25
312
26
Percentiles
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
0
1
2
0
2
5
0
1
5
1
2
10
1
3
5
3
3
25
5
7.5
13
15
10
50 75
22.5 120
25 50
35 120
60 121
25 90
90
121
60
121
121
121
95 98
121 121
60 60
121 121
121 121
121 121
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than 120 minutes were spent; N =
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
99
121
60
121
121
121
Max
121
60
121
121
121
doer sample
Table 17-30. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working With or Near Pesticides,
Including Bug Sprays or Bug Strips (minutes/day)
Age Grou
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
18 to 64 years
> 64 years

P
N
6
16
10
190
764
Percentiles
1
1
0
0
0
31
2
1
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
10 25
1 3
0 1.5
0 2
1 2
0 02
50
10
7.5
2.5
10
5
Note: A value of "121" for number of minutes signifies that more than
size; percentiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a
Source: U.S.
EPA, 1996.





75
15
30
40
88
15
90
20
121
121
121
60
95 98
20 20
121 121
121 121
121 121
121 121
120 minutes were spent; N =
given number of minutes.



99
20
121
121
121
121
Max
20
121
121
121
121
doer sample


Table 17-31. Number of Respondents Using Cologne, Perfume, Aftershave or Other Fragrances at Specified Daily Frequencies
Age Group Total N
5 to 1 1 years 26
12 to 17 years 144
18 to 64 years 1,735
> 64 years 285
Number of Times Used in a Day
Ito2
24
133
1,635
277
3 to 5 6 to 9
2 *
9 *
93 3
8 0
10+ Don't Know
* *
1 1
1 3
0 0
* = Missing Data.
N = Number of respondents.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-31
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-32. Number of Respondents Using Any Aerosol Spray Product for Personal Care Item
Such as Deodorant or Hair Spray at Specified Daily Frequencies
Age Group
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
1 8 to 64 years
> 64 years


40
75
103
1,071
175
Number of Times Used in a Day
1
30
57
53
724
141
2
9
14
31
263
27
3
0
1
12
39
4
4
0
1
4
15
0
5
1
1
1
13
0
6
0
1
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
1
0
10
0
0
1
2
0
10+
0
0
1
8
1
Don't Know
0
0
0
5
2
N = Number of respondents.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
Table
Age Group
1 to 4 years
5 to 1 1 years
12 to 17 years
1 8 to 64 years
> 64 years
N = Number of respondents.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1996.
17-33. Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home
Total N
111
88
83
629
120



Almost
Every
Day
33
18
21
183
42



3-5 Times a
Week
16
10
7
77
10


Frequency
1-2 Times a
Week
7
12
5
70
10



1-2 Times a
Month
53
46
49
287
53



Don't
Know
2
2
1
12
5


Table 17-34. Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by a
Professional at Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies
Age Group Total N

<1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16to<21 years
1 8 to 64 years
> 64 years

15
23
32
80
106
115
87
1,264
243
N = Number of respondents.
Source: U.S. EPA re-analysis of NHAPS (U.S.
Frequency
(number of times over a six-month period that pesticides were applied by a professional)
None
9
13
9
51
59
68
40
660
146
EPA, 1996) data.
Ito2
4
5
15
22
22
35
36
387
55

3 to 5
1
3
5
5
7
4
2
89
15

6 to 9
1
1
3
2
17
6
5
97
19

10+
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
15
3

Don't Know
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
16
5

Page
17-32
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-35. Number of Respondents Reporting Pesticides Applied by the Consumer at Home to
Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies
Age Group Total N

<1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
1 8 to 64 years
> 64 years

15
23
32
80
106
115
87
1,264
243
Frequency
(number of times over a six-month period that pesticides were applied by a resident)
None
4
11
18
26
37
37
36
473
94
Ito2
8
10
9
35
49
50
33
477
85
3 to 5
2
1
2
18
14
18
9
192
31
6 to 9
0
0
2
1
1
4
4
48
15
10+
1
1
1
0
4
6
4
55
9
Don't Know
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
19
9
N = Number of respondents.
Source: U.S.
EPA re-analysis of NHAPS (U.S.
EPA, 1996) data.





Exposure Factors Handbook                                                   Page
July 2009	17-33
-------
                                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
                     Table 17-36.  Household Demographics, and Pesticide Types, Characteristics, and Frequency of
                                                       Pesticide Use
                                               Survey Population Demographics
                                                            Number8
  Gender
           Female
           Male
  Language of Interview
           Spanish
           English
  Reading Skills
           Able to read English
           Able to read Spanish
  Number in household
           2-3 people
           4-5 people
           6-8 people
  Children under 10 years
           1 child
           2 children
           3 to 5 children
  Type of home
           Single family detached
           Multi-family
           Trailer/mobile home
           Single-family attached
           Apartment/other
  Pets
           Pets kept in household
           Pesticides used on pets
90
17

72
35

71
95

25
59
23

37
45
25

75
 9
 9
55
22
                                                                                                  Percent"
84.1
15.9

67.3
32.7

66.4
23.3
55.1
21.4

34.6
42.1
23.3

70.1
 8.4
 8.4
 7.5
 3.7

51.4
40.0
                                                       Pesticide Use
  Type of pesticide
           Insecticide
           Rodenticide
           Herbicide
  Storage of pesticide
           Kitchen
           Garage/shed
           Laundry/washroom
           Other, inside home
           Other, outside home
           Bathroom
           Basement
           Closet
  Storage precautions
           Child-resistant container
           Pesticide locked away
  Storage risks
           < 4 feet from ground
           Kept near food
           Kept near dishes/cookware
  Disposal
           Throw  it away
           Wrap in separate container, throw away
           Other
  Frequency of use
           More than once/week
           Once/week
           Once/month
           Once every 3 months
           Once every 6 months
           Once/year
  Time stored in home
           < 6 months
           6 to 12 months
           12 to 24 months
           > 24 months
135
10
 3

67
30
14
11
 7
 7
 4
 4

83
55

72
 5
 5

132
10
 5

20
27
42
23
16
13

75
24
17
16
91.2
 6.8
 2.0

45.3
20.3
 9.4
 7.4
 4.7
 4.7
 2.7
 2.7

56.1
37.2

48.6
 3.4
 3.4

89.2
 6.8
 3.4

13.5
18.2
28.4
15.5
10.8
50.7
15.2
11.5
10.8
  a         Totals may not add to 107 participants or 148 products, and percentages may not add to 100 due to some non-responses to survey
           questions.

  Source:   Bass et al., 2001.
Page
17-34
                      Exposure Factors Handbook
                     	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-37. Amount and Frequency of Use of
Household Products
Product Type —
Dishwashing Liquid
Frequency of use per day
Duration of contact (mins)
Amount used per contact (g)
All-purpose Cleaner
Frequency of use per day
Duration of contact (mins)
Amount used per contact (g)
Toilet Cleaner
Frequency of use per day
Duration of contact (mins)
Amount used per contact (g)
Hair Spray
Frequency of use per day
Amount used per contact (g)
Duration of release (s)
Duration of contact with nebula (s)
Duration of contact with nebula
x g released (s x g)

Mean

0.63
11
5

0.35
20
27

0.28
74
-

0.76
-
11
23
48

SD

0.79
5
3

0.70
22
30

0.55
204
-

0.68
-
6
11
48
Overall
Min Max

0 5
1 60
1 16

0 4
1 135
1 123

0 2
1 1,209
-

0 3
-
5 25
5 41
5 150

Subjects Events

45 596
45 596
13 163

28 218
28 204
12 105

18 105
28 101
-

9 143
-
12
12
10
Per Subject
Min Max

0.05 2.29
2 35
2 10

0.050 1.82
5 60
2 74

0.05 1.67
2a 24a
9 153

0.29 1.76
1.0 11.6
-
-
-
a Excludes durations over 30 mins
Indicates insufficient sample size to estimate average use
Source: Weegels and van Veen, 2001.





Table 17-38. Frequency of Use of Cosmetic Products
Product Type
Lipstick
Body lotion, hands
Body lotion, arms
Body lotion, feet
Body lotion, legs
Body lotion, neck & throat
Body lotion, back
Body lotion, other
Face cream
N = Number of subjects (women, ages
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Loretz et al., 2005.
N
311
308
308
308
308
308
308
308
300
19 to 65 years).

Number of Applications per Day
Mean
2.35
2.12
1.52
0.95
1.11
0.43
0.26
0.40
1.77


Median
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
2


SD
1.80
1.59
1.30
1.01
0.98
0.82
0.63
0.76
1.16


Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-35
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-39. Amount of Test Product used (grams) for
Lipstick, Body Lotion and Face Cream
Summary Statistics
„ , . , . , Average" Amount Applied per Use Average' Amount Applied
Total Amount Applied & T^ A i- *•
Day per Application
Lipstick
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Percentiles
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
95th
99th
Best Fit Distributions & Parameters'


0.001
2.666
0.272
0.408

0.026
0.063
0.082
0.110
0.147
0.186
0.242
0.326
0.655
0.986
2.427
Lognormal Distribution
GM = 0.14
GSD = 3.56
P- value (Gof) = 0.01
0.000
0.214
0.024
0.034

0.003
0.005
0.008
0.010
0.013
0.016
0.021
0.029
0.055
0.087
0.191
Lognormal Distribution
GM= 0.01
GSD = 3.45
P- value (Gof) <0.01
0.000
0.214
0.010
0.018

0.001
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.009
0.011
0.024
0.037
0.089
Lognormal Distribution
GM = 0.01
GSD = 3.29
P-value(Gof)<0.01
Body Lotion
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Percentiles
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
0.67
217.66
103.21
53.40

36.74
51.99
68.43
82.75
96.41
110.85
134.20
160.26
0.05
36.31
8.69
5.09

3.33
4.68
5.71
6.74
7.63
9.25
10.90
12.36
0.05
36.31
4.42
4.19

1.30
1.73
2.32
2.76
3.45
4.22
4.93
6.14
Page
17-36
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-39. Amount of Test Product used (grams) for
Lipstick, Body Lotion and Face Cream (continued)
Summary Statistics
90th
95th
99th
Best Fit Distributions & Parameters'




Total Amount Applied
182.67
190.13
208.50
Beta Distribution0
Alpha = 1.53
Beta= 1.77
Scale = 222.01
P-value (GoF) = 0.06
Average" Amount Applied per Use
Day
14.39
16.83
27.91
Gamma Distribution
Location = -0.86
Scale = 2.53
Shape = 3.77
P-value (GoF) = 0.37
Average11 Amount Applied
per Application
8.05
10.22
21.71
Lognormal Distribution
GM = 3.26
GSD = 2.25
P-value (GoF) = 0.63

Face Cream
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Percentiles
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
95th
99th
Best Fit Distributions & Parameters'




0.04
55.85
22.36
14.01

5.75
9.35
12.83
16.15
19.86
23.79
29.31
36.12
44.58
48.89
51.29
Triangle Distribution
Minimum = -1.09
Maximum = 58.71
Likeliest = 7.53
P-value (GoF) = 0.27
0.00
42.01
2.05
2.90

0.47
0.70
1.03
1.26
1.53
1.88
2.23
2.90
3.50
3.99
12.54
Lognormal Distribution0
GM = 1.39
GSD = 2.58
P-value (GoF) <0.01

0.00
21.01
1.22
1.76

0.28
0.40
0.53
0.67
0.84
1.04
1.22
1.55
2.11
2.97
10.44
Lognormal Distribution0
GM = 0.80
GSD = 2.55
P-value (GoF) = 0.02

" Derived as the ratio of the total amount used to the number of use days.
b Derived as the ratio of the total amount used to the total number of applications during the survey.
c None of the tested distributions provided a good fit.
GM = Geometric mean.



GSD = Geometric standard deviation.
GoF = Goodness of fit.
Note: Data are for women, ages
Source: Loretz et al., 2005.

19 to 65 years.







Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-37
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-40. Frequency of Use of Personal Care Products
Product Type
Hairspray (aerosol)
Hairspray (pump)
Liquid Foundation
Spray Perfume
Body wash
Shampoo
Solid antiperspirant
N —
165"
162
326
326
340
340
340
Average Number of Applications per Use Day8
Mean
1.49
1.51
1.24
1.67
1.37
1.11
1.30
SD
0.63
0.64
0.32
1.10
0.58
0.24
0.40
Min
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max
5.36
4.22
2.00
11.64
6.36
2.14
4.00
a Derived as the ratio of the number of applications to the number of use days.
b Subjects who completed the study but did not report their number of applications were excluded.
N = Number of subjects (women, ages 18 to 65 years).
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Loretz et al., 2006.





Page
17-38
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
                                                                                                                                                                                            Q
                                                                                                                                                                                            I
Summary Statistics
Hairspray (aerosol)
Hairspray
(pump)
Spray Perfume
Liquid Foundation
Shampoo
Body Wash
Solid
Antiperspirant
                                                             Table 17-41. Average Amount of Product Applied per Application* (grams)
          N
          Mean
          SD
          Minimum
          Maximum
          Percentiles
                     10th
                     20th
                     30th
                     40th
                     50th
                     60th
                     70th
                     80th
                     90th
                     95th
                     97.5th
                     99thc

          Best fit distributions and
          parameters
          P-value
          (Kolmogorov-Smirnov)
                          163"
                          2.58
                          2.26
                          0.05
                          14.08

                          0.66
                          0.94
                          1.26
                          1.56
                          1.83
                          2.38
                          2.87
                          3.55
                          5.33
                          7.42
                          8.77
                          11.30

                       Lognormal
                      Distribution

                       GM = 1.84
                      GSD = 2.40


                          0.06
    161"
    3.64
    3.50
    0.00
   21.44

    0.70
    1.01
    1.59
    2.14
    2.66
    3.43
    3.84
    5.16
    7.81
   10.95
   14.68
   15.52

Lognormal
Distribution

GM = 2.44
GSD = 2.67


    0.07
   310"
   0.33
   0.41
   0.00
   5.08

   0.06
   0.10
   0.13
   0.18
   0.23
   0.28
   0.36
   0.49
   0.68
   0.94
   1.25
   1.73

Lognormal
Distribution

GM = 0.21
GSD = 3.01


   0.077
   321"
   0.54
   0.52
   0.00
   2.65

   0.08
   0.14
   0.19
   0.26
   0.36
   0.48
   0.63
   0.86
   1.23
   1.70
   2.07
   2.36

Lognormal
Distribution

GM = 0.33
GSD = 2.99


   0.041
    340
   11.76
    8.77
    0.39
   67.89

    3.90
    5.50
    6.78
    8.27
    9.56
   11.32
   13.29
   16.07
   22.59
   27.95
   35.65
   51.12


Lognormal

GM = 9.32
GSD = 2.02


  0.1328
     340
     11.3
     6.9
     1.1
     58.2

     4.6
     5.8
     7.1
     8.5
     9.5
     11.4
     13.4
     16.0
     21.1
     24.3
     28.4
     35.1


    Gamma

Location = 0.51
  Scale = 3.92
  Shape = 2.76

     0.486
    340
    0.61
    0.56
    0.00
    5.55

    0.14
    0.22
    0.30
    0.37
    0.45
    0.55
    0.69
    0.89
    1.25
    1.67
    2.15
    2.52

Lognormal
Distribution

GM = 0.43
GSD = 2.37


   0.339
          N
          GM
          GSD
Derived as the ratio of the total amount used to the total number of applications.
Subjects who completed the study, but did not report their number of applications, or who did not return the unused portion of the product, were excluded.
Estimate does not meet the minimum sample size criteria (N=800) as set by the National Center for Health Statistics. For upper percentile (>75), the minimum sample size (N)
satisfies the following rule: n[8/(l-p)].  http://www/cdc.gov/nchs/about/maior/nhanes/nhanes3/nh3gui.pdf.
= Number of subjects (women, ages 19 to 65 years).
= Geometric mean.
= Geometric standard Deviation.
          Source:   Loretz et al., 2006.
s

*s
&
                                                                                                                                                                                                    ft
        1=
        I
ft
-------
a
a
a
ri
i
I
^
^


Table 17-42. Average Amount of Product Applied per Use Day* (grams)
Summary Statistics * . Snrav Perfume Liquid Foundation Shampoo Body Wash , .
(aerosol) (pump) Antiperspirant
N 163b 161 b 310b 321 b 340 340 340
Mean 3.57 5.18 0.53 0.67 12.80 14.5 0.79
SD 3.09 4.83 0.57 0.65 9.11 8.5 0.78
Minimum 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 1.3 0.00
Maximum 18.25 24.12 5.08 3.00 67.89 63.4 5.55
Percentiles
10th 0.84 0.91 0.08 0.10 4.12 5.7 0.17
20th 1.35 1.48 0.12 0.16 5.80 7.6 0.29
30th 1.65 2.33 0.19 0.23 7.32 9.3 0.38
40th 2.23 2.66 0.26 0.30 9.09 10.9 0.46
50th 2.71 3.74 0.34 0.45 10.75 12.9 0.59
60th 3.30 4.71 0.45 0.58 12.82 14.8 0.70
70th 3.89 5.67 0.61 0.76 14.73 17.4 0.86
80th 4.86 7.38 0.81 1.04 17.61 20.7 1.08
90th 7.73 12.22 1.45 1.76 23.63 25.5 1.70
95th 9.89 15.62 1.77 2.18 29.08 29.1 2.32
97.5th 13.34 19.41 1.86 2.40 36.46 35.6 3.33
99thc 15.05 23.98 2.01 2.70 51.12 43.5 4.42
Best fit distributions and Lognormal Lognormal Lognormal Lognormal Lognormal Gamma Lognormal
parameters Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution
GM = 2.57 GM = 3.45 GM = 0.30 GM = 0.40 Location = 0.38 Location = 0.67 GM = 0.56
GSD = 2.37 GSD = 2.70 GSD = 3.36 GSD = 3.10 Scale = 5.79 Scale = 4.89 GSD = 2.41
Shape = 2.15 Shape = 2. 84
^"™lue „ . N 0.05 0.05 0.075 0.047 0.8208 0.760 0.293
(Kolmogorov-Smirnov)
" Derived as the ratio of the total amount used to the total number of applications.
b Subjects who completed the study, but did not report their number of applications, or who did not return the unused portion of the product, were excluded.
c Estimate does not meet the minimum sample size criteria (N=800) as set by the National Center for Health Statistics. For upper percentile (>75), the minimum sample size
(N) satisfies the following rule: n[8/d-p)l. http://www/cdc.gov/nchs/about/maior/nhanes/nhanes3/nh3gui.pdf.
N = Number of subjects (women, ages 19 to 65 years).
GM = Geometric mean.
GSD = Geometric standard Deviation.
Source: Loretz et al., 2006.


Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-43
Value
Mean
Std
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percentile
pOl
p02.5
p05
plO
p20
p30
p40
p50
p60
p70
p80
p90
p92
p94
p95
p96
p97.5
p98
p99
p99.5
p99.9
Source: Hall et
. Body Lotion Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females).
Amount
(g/day)
4.543
2.707
4.556
0.005
21.081

0.005
0.017
0.556
1.129
1.948
2.907
3.737
4.556
5.246
5.898
6.645
7.822
8.183
8.651
8.951
9.326
10.191
10.655
12.261
13.893
16.991
al., 2007.
Stdev
0.012
0.013
0.023
0.000
1.264

0.000
0.000
0.008
0.006
0.018
0.024
0.027
0.023
0.023
0.021
0.024
0.033
0.038
0.042
0.047
0.054
0.081
0.096
0.155
0.221
0.413

Amount
(mg/kg/day)
67.869
43.866
64.265
0.043
401.371

0.079
0.250
8.066
15.055
27.535
40.763
53.072
64.265
75.114
86.751
101.024
123.227
130.177
139.085
144.797
151.892
167.036
174.414
198.018
222.667
282.959

Stdev
0.228
0.307
0.369
0.003
46.215

0.003
0.011
0.191
0.293
0.330
0.359
0.357
0.369
0.374
0.404
0.495
0.715
0.868
0.968
1.072
1.211
1.559
1.768
2.888
4.420
10.304

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-41
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-44. Deodorant/ Antiperspirant Spray Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and
Females) - Under Arms Only.
Value
Mean
Std
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percentile
pOl
p02.5
p05
plO
p20
p30
p40
p50
p60
p70
p80
p90
p92
p94
p95
p96
p97.5
p98
p99
p99.5
p99.9
Source: Hall et al.
Amount
(g/day)
3.478
2.051
3.153
0.045
23.663

0.228
0.373
0.598
1.135
1.951
2.425
2.796
3.153
3.548
4.049
4.804
6.095
6.477
6.955
7.262
7.645
8.537
9.005
10.451
11.628
13.843
2007.
Stdev
0.007
0.009
0.012
0.005
1.724

0.012
0.008
0.011
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.015
0.019
0.029
0.031
0.037
0.040
0.047
0.064
0.076
0.107
0.132
0.277

Amount
(mg/kg/day)
49.07
31.00
43.52
0.59
379.03

3.08
5.08
8.23
15.31
25.75
32.38
37.96
43.52
49.73
57.50
68.59
87.79
93.94
101.93
107.01
113.29
126.91
133.46
154.31
175.01
222.53

Stdev
0.13
0.22
.019
0.10
63.23

0.13
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.27
0.32
0.49
0.58
0.71
0.81
0.91
1.24
1.40
1.98
2.80
7.29

Page
17-42
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-45. Deodorant/ Antiperspirant Spray Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and
Females) Using Product Over Torso and Under Arms
Value
Mean
Std
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percentile
pOl
p02.5
p05
plO
p20
p30
p40
p50
p60
p70
p80
p90
p92
p94
p95
p96
p97.5
p98
p99
p99.5
p99.9
Source: Hall et
Amount
(g/day)
3.732
2.213
3.383
0.044
24.662

0.239
0.384
0.639
1.214
2.078
2.580
2.986
3.383
3.819
4.364
5.156
6.543
6.969
7.505
7.839
8.263
9.213
9.711
11.263
12.544
14.898
al., 2007.
Stdev
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.005
2.057

0.014
0.009
0.015
0.015
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.021
0.030
0.036
0.042
0.048
0.053
0.069
0.080
0.117
0.157
0.300

Amount
(mg/kg/day)
52.47
32.94
46.66
0.59
389.12

3.19
5.30
8.80
16.47
27.71
34.76
40.73
46.66
53.26
61.50
73.25
93.70
100.24
108.70
114.08
120.73
135.17
142.13
164.14
186.13
235.47

Stdev
0.14
0.23
0.20
0.10
66.91

0.14
0.15
0.18
0.23
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.27
0.35
0.53
0.60
0.73
0.81
0.92
1.24
1.42
2.31
3.14
7.01

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-43
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-46. Deodorant/ Antiperspirant Non-Spray for Consumers Only (Males and
Females)
Value
Mean
Std
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percentile
pOl
p02.5
p05
plO
p20
p30
p40
p50
p60
p70
p80
p90
p92
p94
p95
p96
p97.5
p98
p99
p99.5
p99.9
Source: Hall et
Amount
(g/day)
0.898
0.494
0.820
0.000
4.528

0.064
0.123
0.221
0.363
0.509
0.617
0.718
0.820
0.934
1.068
1.238
1.509
1.598
1.722
1.806
1.912
2.134
2.233
2.515
2.771
3.426
al., 2007.
Stdev
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.300

0.002
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.010
0.011
0.013
0.016
0.017
0.025
0.033
0.088

Amount
(mg/kg/day)
12.95
7.34
11.77
0.00
73.91

0.90
1.75
3.12
5.08
7.26
8.85
10.30
11.77
13.36
15.25
17.77
22.08
23.51
25.37
26.57
28.05
31.18
32.67
37.25
41.93
52.79

Stdev
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.00
7.48

0.04
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.28
0.32
0.48
0.72
1.63

Page
17-44
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-47. Lipstick Exposure for Consumers Only (Females)
Value
Mean
Std
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percentile
pOl
p02.5
p05
plO
p20
p30
p40
p50
p60
p70
p80
p90
p92
p94
p95
p96
p97.5
p98
p99
p99.5
p99.9
Source: Hall et
Amount
(mg/kg/day)
24.61
24.05
17.11
0.13
217.53

0.57
1.00
1.68
2.95
5.69
9.20
12.93
17.11
22.37
29.43
39.70
56.53
61.66
68.29
72.51
77.78
89.08
94.46
110.98
126.71
160.06
al., 2007.
Stdev
0.17
0.25
0.18
0.04
26.01

0.04
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.24
0.33
0.47
0.66
0.72
0.86
0.95
1.08
1.34
1.52
2.06
2.93
6.33

Amount
(mg/kg/day)
0.39
0.40
0.26
0.00
3.88

0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.09
0.14
0.20
0.26
0.34
0.46
0.62
0.90
0.98
1.10
1.17
1.26
1.46
1.55
1.84
2.13
2.78

Stdev
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.55

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.14

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-45
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-48. Facial Moisturizer Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females)
Value
Mean
Std
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percentile
pOl
p02.5
p05
plO
p20
p30
p40
p50
p60
p70
p80
p90
p92
p94
p95
p96
p97.5
p98
p99
p99.5
p99.9
Source: Hall et
Amount
(g/day)
0.906
0.533
0.851
0.001
4.751

0.055
0.079
0.138
0.261
0.472
0.603
0.721
0.851
0.990
1.131
1.289
1.536
1.617
1.727
1.801
1.897
2.129
2.251
2.653
3.040
3.714
al., 2007.
Stdev
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.000
0.380

0.002
0.004
0.001
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.022
0.027
0.043
0.057
0.108

Amount
(mg/kg/day)
13.62
8.63
12.42
0.02
92.75

0.73
1.13
1.89
3.67
6.63
8.66
10.51
12.42
14.47
16.78
19.65
24.14
25.57
27.46
28.68
30.23
33.73
35.52
41.63
48.23
63.35

Stdev
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.00
11.80

0.04
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.25
0.35
0.43
0.71
1.08
2.62

Page
17-46
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-49. Shampoo Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females)
Value
Mean
Std
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percentile
pOl
p02.5
p05
plO
p20
p30
p40
p50
p60
p70
p80
p90
p92
p94
p95
p96
p97.5
p98
p99
p99.5
p99.9
Source: Hall et
Amount
(g/day)
6.034
3.296
5.503
0.344
29.607

1.071
1.268
1.482
2.178
3.236
3.843
4.777
5.503
6.416
7.390
8.597
10.456
11.013
11.721
12.181
12.705
13.765
14.194
15.637
16.992
20.397
al., 2007.
Stdev
0.014
0.015
0.020
0.036
0.669

0.000
0.023
0.024
0.019
0.016
0.019
0.023
0.020
0.022
0.026
0.028
0.039
0.054
0.041
0.063
0.064
0.073
0.091
0.110
0.149
0.443

Amount
(mg/kg/day)
85.888
48.992
77.895
3.826
528.361

12.781
16.367
21.059
29.737
44.415
55.58
66.502
77.895
90.255
104.537
122.6
150.488
159.046
169.939
176.768
185.092
202.349
210.49
235.613
260.624
320.47

Stdev
0.223
0.278
0.294
0.461
65.887

0.148
0.181
0.182
0.269
0.242
0.253
0.27
0.294
0.332
0.373
0.461
0.642
0.73
0.846
0.922
1.08
1.396
1.551
2.142
3.009
6.689

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-47
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-50. Toothpaste Exposure for Consumers Only (Males and Females)
Value
Mean
Std
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percentile
pOl
p02.5
p05
plO
p20
p30
p40
p50
p60
p70
p80
p90
p92
p94
p95
p96
p97.5
p98
p99
p99.5
p99.9
Source: Hall et
Amount
(g/day)
2.092
0.577
2.101
0.069
4.969

0.777
1.049
1.204
1.370
1.591
1.790
1.958
2.101
2.237
2.383
2.551
2.749
2.809
2.895
2.960
3.052
3.323
3.447
3.760
3.956
4.303
al., 2007.
Stdev
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.012
0.159

0.011
0.006
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.015
0.006
0.026
0.049

Amount
(mg/kg/day)
29.85
10.34
28.67
0.93
98.77

10.14
13.34
15.47
17.96
21.29
23.94
26.32
28.67
31.15
34.00
37.62
43.29
45.03
47.23
48.61
50.27
53.70
55.28
60.12
64.77
74.84

Stdev
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.18
8.19

0.14
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.20
0.25
0.26
0.39
0.52
1.10

Page
17-48
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-51. Average Number of Applications Per Use Day"
Summary Statistics
N
Mean
SD
Minimum
Maximum
Percentiles
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
95th
97.5th
99thb
Facial Cleanser TT . _ ,.,. _ _, ,
.... ... T , Hair Conditioner Eye Shadow
(Lathering and Non-Lathering)
295
1.6
0.52
1.0
3.2

1.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.9b
3.1"
297
1.1
0.19
1.0
2.4

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.8"
2.1b
a Derived as the ratio of the number of applications to the number of use days.
b Estimate does not meet the minimum sample size criteria (n=800) as set by the National Center for Health
upper percentile (>0.75), the minimum sample size (n) satisfies the following rule: n [8/(l-p.]
http ://www/cdc/gov/nchs/about/mai or/nhanes/nhanes3/nh3 gui.pdf.
299
1.2
0.33
1.0
2.7

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.2b
2.5b
Statistics. For
N = Number of subjects (women, ages 18 to 69 years).
SD = Standard deviation.
Source: Loretz et al., 2008.



Exposure Factors Handbook                                                   Page
July 2009	17-49
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-52. Average Amount of Product Applied Per Use Day (grams)"
Facial Cleanser „ . , _, „ . , _, ...
. . ,T , ... Facial Cleanser Facial Cleanser (Non-
Summary Statistics (Lathering and Non- ,T ,, . . T ,, . .
T , . (Lathering) Lathering)
Lathering) v °' °'
N 295 174
Mean 4.06 4.07
SD 2.78 2.87
Minimum 0.33 0.33
Maximum 16.70 15.32
Percentiles
10th 1.41 1.23
20th 1.79 1.72
30th 2.18 2.15
40th 2.66 2.64
50th 3.25 3.19
60th 3.86 3.84
70th 4.62 4.71
80th 6.24 6.33
90th 8.28 8.24
95th 9.93 10.50
97.5th 10.71b 11.47b
99thb 12.44b 13.07b
Best fit distributions and Lognormal Lognormal
parameters distribution distribution
GM = 3.26 GM = 3.21
GSD=1.12 GSD = 2.03
P-value
(Chi-square test) 0.1251 0.4429
121
4.05
2.67
0.83
16.70

1.50
1.94
2.22
2.80
3.33
3.88
4.59
5.92
8.40
9.37b
10.26b
15.29b
Lognormal
distribution
GM = 3.35
GSD = 1.86

0.4064
Hair Conditioner
297
13.77
11.50
0.84
87.86

3.71
5.54
6.95
8.73
10.62
12.61
15.54
20.63
28.20
33.19
45.68b
60.20b
Lognormal
distribution
GM = 10.28
GSD - 2.20

0.8595
a Derived as the ratio of the total amount used to the number of use days.
b Estimate does not meet the minimum sample size criteria (n=800) as set by the National Center for Health Statistics
percentile (>0.75), the minimum sample size (n) satisfies the following rule: n [8/(l-p)].
http://www/cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes3/nh3gui.pdf.
N = Number of subjects (women, ages 18 to 69 years).
GM = Geometric mean.
GSD = Geometric standard deviation.
Source: Loretz et al., 2008.






Eye shadow
299
0.04
0.11
0.001
0.74

0.003
0.005
0.007
0.009
0.010
0.013
0.017
0.025
0.052
0.096
0.525b
0.673b
Lognormal
distribution
GM = 0.01
GSD = 3.61

<0.0001
For upper


Page
17-50
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-53. Average Amount of Product Applied Per Application (grams)8
Facial Cleanser „ . , „,
. . , . , Facial Cleanser
Summary Statistics (Lathering and ,T ,, . .
,\ T , . . (Lathering)
Non-Lathering) v &>
N 295 174
Mean 2.57 2.56
SD 1.78 1.78
Minimum 0.33 0.33
Maximum 14.61 10.67
Percentiles
10th 0.92 0.83
20th 1.32 1.26
30th 1.57 1.55
40th 1.85 1.84
50th 2.11 2.11
60th 2.50 2.50
70th 2.94 2.96
80th 3.47 3.56
90th 4.81 5.10
95th 5.89 6.37
97.5th 7.16b 7.77b
99thb 9.44b 9.6 lb
Best fit distributions „ , _.
, , Extreme value Gamma
and parameters
Mode = 1.86 Loc = 0.28
Scale =1.12 Scale = 1.29
P-value (Chi-square
test) 0.0464 0.6123
Facial Cleanser
(Non-Lathering)
121
2.58
1.77
0.57
14.61

1.10
1.35
1.59
1.89
2.15
2.51
2.96
3.40
4.52
5.11b
6.29b
15.46b
Extreme value
Mode = 1.92
Scale = 1.03
0.5219
a Derived as the ratio of the total amount used to the total number of applications.
b Estimate does not meet the minimum sample size criteria (n=800) as set by the National
percentile (>0.75), the minimum sample size (n) satisfies the following rule: n [8/(l-p)]
http://www/cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes3/nh3gui.pdf.
N = Number of subjects (women, ages 18 to 69 years).
GM = Geometric mean.
SD = Geometric standard deviation.
Source: Loretz et al., 2008.

Hair Conditioner
297
13.13
11.22
0.84
87.86

3.48
5.34
6.71
8.26
10.21
12.24
14.54
18.88
27.32
32.43
45.68b
60.20b
Lognormal
distribution
GM = 9.78
GSD = 2.20
0.9501
Center for Health

Eye Shadow
299
0.03
0.10
0.0004
0.69

0.003
0.004
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.011
0.015
0.022
0.041
0.096
0.488b
0.562b
Lognormal
distribution
GM = 0.01
GSD = 3.59
<0.0001
Statistics. For upper

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
17-51
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 17 - Consumer Products
Table 17-54. Characteristics of the Study Population and the Percent
Characteristic
Number of Participants
Los Angeles, California
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Columbia, Missouri
Gender
Male
Female
Age (months)
2-8
9-16
17-24
24-28
Infant Weight (kg)
<10
> 10
Race
White
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Asian
Black
Product Use
Baby Lotion
Baby Shampoo
Baby Powder
Diaper Cream
Baby Wipes
Using Selected Baby Care Products
Sample Number (percent)

43 (26)
77(47)
43 (26)

84 (52)
79 (48)

42 (26)
82 (50)
30(18)
9(6)

84 (52)
79 (48)

131 (80)
17(10)
3(2)
8(5)
4(3)
Percent Using
36
54
14
33
94
Source: Sathyanarayanaet al., 2008.
Page
17-52
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 18 - Lifetime
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

18.    LIFETIME	1
      18.1    INTRODUCTION	1
      18.2    RECOMMENDATIONS 	1
      18.3    KEY STUDY ON LIFETIME	4
             18.3.1 Combination of Data Compiled by the Census Bureau	4
      18.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 18	4
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                      Page
July 2009	18-i
-------
                                                                  Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                         Chapter 18 - Lifetime
                                       LIST OF TABLES

Table 18-1.      Recommended Values for Expectation of Life at Birth: 2005	18-2
Table 18-2.      Confidence in Lifetime Expectancy Recommendations	18-3
Table 18-3.      Expectation of Life at Birth, 1970 to 2005, and Projections, 2010 to 2020 (years)	18-5
Table 18-4.      Expectation of Life by Race, Sex and Age: 2005	18-6
Page                                                             Exposure Factors Handbook
18-ii	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 18 - Lifetime
18.     LIFETIME
18.1    INTRODUCTION
        The  length  of an  individual's life  is  an
important factor to consider when evaluating cancer
risk because the dose estimate is averaged over an
individual's  lifetime.   Since the averaging time is
found in the denominator  of the dose equation, a
shorter lifetime would result in a higher potential risk
estimate, and conversely,  a longer  life expectancy
would produce a lower potential risk estimate.
        The  recommendations  for  life expectancy
are provided in  the next  section,  along with  a
summary  of  the   confidence   rating   for   this
recommendation.    The  recommended  values  are
based on one key study identified by the U.S. EPA for
this factor.  Following the recommendations, the key
study is summarized.

18.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
        Current data suggest that 78 years  would be
an  appropriate  value  to  reflect the  average  life
expectancy of  the  general population and is  the
recommended value.  If gender is a factor considered
in  the  assessment,  note   that  the  average  life
expectancy value for  females  is  higher  than for
males.   It is recommended  that the assessor use the
appropriate value  of 75 years for males or 80 years
for females, based on life expectancy data from 2005.
(U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, 2008). If
race is  a consideration in  assessing exposure for
individuals, note that the life expectancy is longer for
Whites  than  for Blacks.   Therefore, assessors are
encouraged  to  use  values that  most  reflect  the
exposed population.  Tables 18-1 and  18-2 present
the recommendations and confidence ratings for life
expectancy, respectively.
        This recommended value is different than
the 70  years commonly assumed for the general
population  in U.S.  EPA risk  assessments.    The
Integrated Risk Information System  (IRIS) does not
use a 70-year lifetime assumption in the  derivation of
RfCs and RfDs, cancer slope factors or unit risks.
Therefore, using a value different than 70 years  will
not result in an inconsistency with the toxicity data.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                                  Page
July 2009	18-1
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                             Chapter 18 - Lifetime
Table 18-1. Recommendec
Population
Total
Males
Females
Values for Expectation of Life at Birth: 2005
Life Expectancy
years
78
75
80
Source: U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, 2008.
Page
18-2
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 18 - Lifetime
Table 18-2.
Considerations
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty

Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Confidence in Lifetime Expectancy Recommendations
Rationale
Data presented in the section are from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census publication on the American Community Survey (ACS).
There are no apparent biases.
The study was designed to provide United States communities
socioeconomic and demographic profiles, which includes a
demographic assessment of life expectancy.
The data are representative of the U.S. population.
The study was published in 2008 and discusses life expectancy
trends from 1970 to 2005. The study has also made projections for
2010 until the year 2020.
Data were collected in 2005.
The study is widely available to the public (Census data).
Results can be reproduced by analyzing Census data.
Information on ensuring data quality are available publicly.
Data were averaged by gender and race but only for Blacks and
Whites; no other nationalities were represented within the section.
Data were based on death certificates filed in the 50 states in the
U.S. and District of Columbia. Projections are made based on
models that estimate probability of dying.
Data are published and have received extensive peer review.
Data presented in the section are from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census publication. Recommendation was based on only one
study, but it is widely accepted.


Rating
High

High



High


Medium


High

High
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 18-3
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                               Chapter 18 - Lifetime
18.3    KEY LIFETIME STUDY
18.3.1   Combination of  Data Compiled  by the
        Census Bureau
        Statistical  data  on  life  expectancy  are
published  annually by  the  U.S.  Department  of
Commerce in the publication:  "Statistical Abstract of
the United  States."   The latest year for  which
statistics are available is 2005.  Available data on life
expectancies for  various subpopulations born in the
years  1970  to 2005  are presented in  Table  18-3.
These data  are based on information from all death
certificates filed  in the 50  states and the District of
Columbia (NCHS, 2008).
        Data for 2005 show that the life expectancy
for an average person born in the United States is
77.8 years (U.S.  Bureau of the Census,  2008). The
average life  expectancy for males in 2005 was 75.2
years, and 80.4 years for females.  Whereas  the gap
between males and females was about 7 years in
1970,  it has now narrowed to  about 5 years. Table
18-3 also  indicates that life  expectancy for white
males and  females is consistently  longer than for
Black males and females.  Table 18-4 presents data
for expectation of life  for persons who were at a
specific age in year 2005.  These data are available
by  age, gender,  and race and  may be useful for
deriving exposure estimates based on the age of a
specific  subpopulation.     The  data  show that
expectation  of life is longer for females  and for
Whites.

18.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 18
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (2008)
        National Vital  Statistics Reports  (NVSR),
        Deaths: Final Data for 2005, Vol. 56, No. 10,
        April 24, 2008.   Available  on  line  at
        http://www.cdc.gOv/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/n
        vsr56_10.pdf.
U.S.  Census Bureau  (2008)  National Population
        Projections, August, 2008. Available on line
        at
        http://www.census.gov/population/www/pro
        j ections/summarytables .html.
U.S. Census Bureau (2009)  The  2009 Statistical
        Abstract.      Available   on   line   at
        http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cat
        sMrths_deaths_marriages_divorces.html.
Page
18-4
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 18 - Lifetime
Table 18-3. Expectation of Life at Birth, 1970 to 2005, and Projections, 2010 to 2020 (years)3
VT7 AT?
I £j/\K.
1970
1975
1980
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Projections3



Total
70.8
72.6
73.7
74.5
74.6
74.7
74.7
74.7
74.9
74.9
75.1
75.4
75.5
75.8
75.5
75.7
75.8
76.1
76.5
76.7
76.7
77.0
77.2
77.3
77.4
77.8
77.8
2010 78.3
2015 78.9
2020 79.5
TOTAL
Male
67.1
68.8
70.0
70.8
71.0
71.1
71.1
71.2
71.4
71.4
71.7
71.8
72.0
72.3
72.2
72.4
72.5
73.1
73.6
73.8
73.9
74.3
74.4
74.5
74.7
75.2
75.2
75.7
76.4
77.1
WHITE
Female Total
74.7
76.6
77.4
78.1
78.1
78.2
78.2
78.2
78.3
78.3
78.5
78.8
78.9
79.1
78.8
79.0
78.9
79.1
79.4
79.5
79.4
79.7
79.8
79.9
80.0
80.4
80.4
80.8
81.4
81.9
Based on middle mortality assumptions;
Source: U.S
71.7
73.4
74.4
75.1
75.2
75.3
75.3
75.4
75.6
75.6
75.9
76.1
76.3
76.5
76.3
76.5
76.5
76.8
77.2
77.3
77.3
77.6
77.7
77.7
77.9
78.3
78.3
78.9
79.5
80.0
for details,
Male
68.0
69.5
70.7
71.5
71.6
71.8
71.8
71.9
72.1
72.2
72.5
72.7
72.9
73.2
73.1
73.3
73.4
73.9
74.3
74.5
74.6
74.9
75.0
75.1
75.3
75.7
75.7
76.5
77.1
77.7
see source:
Female
75.6
77.3
78.1
78.7
78.7
78.7
78.7
78.8
78.9
78.9
79.2
79.4
79.6
79.8
79.5
79.6
79.6
79.7
79.9
80.0
79.9
80.1
80.2
80.3
80.4
80.8
80.8
81.3
81.8
82.4
Total
64.1
66.8
68.1
69.4
69.4
69.5
69.3
69.1
69.1
68.9
68.8
69.1
69.3
69.6
69.2
69.5
69.6
70.2
71.1
71.3
71.4
71.9
72.2
72.3
72.6
73.1
73.2
73.8
75.0
76.1
U.S. Census Bureau,
BLACK
Male
60.0
62.4
63.8
65.1
65.2
65.3
65.0
64.8
64.7
64.4
64.3
64.5
64.6
65.0
64.6
64.9
65.2
66.1
67.2
67.6
67.8
68.3
68.6
68.8
68.9
69.5
69.5
70.2
71.4
72.6
2008.

Female
68.3
71.3
72.5
73.6
73.5
73.6
73.4
73.4
73.4
73.2
73.3
73.6
73.8
73.9
73.7
73.9
73.9
74.2
74.7
74.8
74.7
75.2
75.5
75.6
75.9
76.3
76.5
77.2
78.2
79.2

National Center for Health Statistics, 2008.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 18-5
-------
                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                             Chapter 18 - Lifetime
Table 18-4. Expectation of Life by Race, Sex, and Age: 2005
Age in 1990
(years)
At Birth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Total8
77.8
77.4
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.5
67.5
66.5
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
56.0
55.0
54.1
53.1
52.2
51.2
50.3
49.3
48.4
47.4
46.5
45.5


Male
75.7
75.2
74.2
73.3
72.3
71.3
70.3
69.3
68.3
67.3
66.3
65.3
64.3
63.4
62.4
61.4
60.4
59.5
58.5
57.6
56.6
55.7
54.8
53.9
52.9
52.0
51.1
50.1
49.2
48.3
47.3
46.4
45.4
44.5
43.6
Expectation of Life in Years
White
Female
80.8
80.2
79.2
78.3
77.3
76.3
75.3
74.3
73.3
72.3
71.3
70.3
69.4
68.4
67.4
66.4
65.4
64.4
63.4
62.5
61.5
60.5
59.6
58.6
57.6
56.6
55.7
54.7
53.7
52.7
51.8
50.8
49.8
48.9
47.9


Male
69.5
69.6
68.7
61.1
66.7
65.7
64.8
63.8
62.8
61.8
60.8
59.8
58.8
57.9
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.2
51.2
50.3
49.4
48.6
47.7
46.8
45.9
45.0
44.1
43.2
42.3
41.4
40.5
39.6
38.8

Black
Female
76.5
76.4
75.5
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.6
70.6
69.6
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.7
62.7
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.8
55.9
54.9
53.9
53.0
52.0
51.1
50.1
49.1
48.2
47.3
46.3
45.4
44.4
Page                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook
18-6	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 18 - Lifetime
Table 18-4. Expectation of Life
Age in 1990
(years)
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
70
75
80

T 1 1a
lotal
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.8
40.8
39.9
39.0
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.7
31.8
30.9
30.0
29.2
28.3
27.5
26.7
25.8
25.0
24.2
23.4
22.6
21.8
21.0
20.2
19.5
18.7
15.2
12.0
9.2


Male
42.6
41.7
40.8
39.8
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
29.1
28.3
27.4
26.6
25.8
24.9
24.1
23.3
22.5
21.7
20.9
20.2
19.4
18.7
17.9
17.2
13.8
10.7
8.1
by Race, Sex, and Age: 2005 (continued)
Expectation of Life in Years
White
Female
46.9
46.0
45.0
44.1
43.1
42.2
41.2
40.3
39.3
38.4
37.5
36.5
35.6
34.7
33.8
32.9
32.0
31.1
30.2
29.3
28.4
27.5
26.7
25.8
25.0
24.1
23.3
22.4
21.6
20.8
20.0
16.2
12.8
9.7


Male
37.9
37.0
36.1
35.2
34.3
33.4
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
29.2
28.3
27.5
26.7
26.0
25.2
24.4
23.7
23.0
22.3
21.6
20.9
20.2
19.5
18.9
18.2
17.6
17.0
16.4
15.8
15.2
12.4
10.0
7.9

Black
Female
43.5
42.6
41.6
40.7
39.8
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.6
32.7
31.9
31.0
30.2
29.4
28.6
27.8
27.0
26.2
25.4
24.6
23.8
23.0
22.3
21.5
20.8
20.1
19.4
18.7
15.3
12.3
9.7
a Includes other races not shown separately.
Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, 2009, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 18-7
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

19.      RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS	19-1
        19.1    INTRODUCTION	19-1
        19.2    RECOMMENDATIONS	19-2
        19.3    BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS STUDIES	19-6
               19.3.1   Volume of Residence Studies	19-6
                       19.3.1.1 Versar,1990	19-6
                       19.3.1.2 Murray, 1996	19-6
                       19.3.1.3 U.S. DOE, 2005	19-6
                       19.3.1.4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 	19-7
               19.3.2   Room Volume, Surface Area, Products and Materials	19-7
                       19.3.2.1 Room Volume	19-7
                       19.3.2.2 Surface Areas	19-7
                       19.3.2.3 Products and Materials	19-7
               19.3.3   Mechanical System Configurations	19-8
               19.3.4   Type of Foundation	19-9
                       19.3.4.1 Lucas etal., 1992	19-9
                       19.3.4.2 U.S. DOE, 2005	19-9
        19.4    TRANSPORT RATES STUDIES	19-9
               19.4.1   Air Exchange Rates	19-9
                       19.4.1.1 Nazaroffetal., 1988	19-10
                       19.4.1.2 Versar, 1990	19-10
                       19.4.1.3 Koontz and Rector, 1995	19-10
                       19.4.1.4 Murray and Burmaster, 1995	19-11
               19.4.2   Infiltration Models	19-11
               19.4.3   Deposition and Filtration	19-12
                       19.4.3.1 Deposition	19-12
                              19.4.3.1.1  Thatcher and Layton,  1995	19-12
                              19.4.3.1.2  Wallace, 1996	19-12
                       19.4.3.2 Filtration	19-12
               19.4.4   Interzonal Airflows	19-13
               19.4.5   House Dust and Soil Loadings	19-13
                       19.4.5.1 Roberts et al.,  1991	19-13
                       19.4.5.2 Thatcher and Layton, 1995	19-13
        19.5    SOURCES	19-14
               19.5.1   Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants	19-14
               19.5.2   Source Descriptions for Waterborne Contaminants	19-15
               19.5.3   Soil and House Dust Sources	19-16
        19.6    ADVANCED CONCEPTS	19-16
               19.6.1   Uniform Mixing Assumption	19-16
               19.6.2   Reversible Sinks	19-16
        19.7    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 19	19-17
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                               Page
July 2009	19-i
-------
                                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                                         LIST OF TABLES

Table 19-1.     Recommendations - Residential Parameters	19-4
Table 19-2.     Confidence inHouse Volume Recommendations	19-4
Table 19-3.     Confidence in Air Exchange Rate Recommendations	19-5
Table 19-4.     Summary of Residential Volume Distributions in Cubic Meters	19-21
Table 19-5.     Average Estimated Volumes of U. S. Residences, by Housing Type and Ownership	19-22
Table 19-6.     Residential Volumes in Relation to Household Size and Year of Construction	19-23
Table 19-7. .     Number of Residential Single Detached and Manufactured/mobile Homes by Volume  	19-23
Table 19-8.     Dimensional Quantities for Residential Rooms	19-24
Table 19-9.     Examples of Products and Materials Associated with Floor and Wall Surfaces in Residences .19-24
Table 19-10.     Percent of Residences with Basement, by Census Region and U.S. EPARegion	19-26
Table 19-11.     States Associated with U.S. EPA Regions and Census Regions	19-27
Table 19-12.     Percent of Residences with Certain Foundation Types by Census Region	19-28
Table 19-13.     Summary of Major Projects Providing Air Exchange Measurements in the PFT Database	19-29
Table 19-14.     Summary Statistics for Air Exchange Rates (air changes per hour-ACH), by Region	19-30
Table 19-15.     Distributions of Residential Air Exchange Rates by Climate Region and Season	19-30
Table 19-16.     Particle Deposition During Normal Activities	19-31
Table 19-17.     Deposition Rates for Indoor Particles	19-31
Table 19-18.     Total Dust Loading for Carpeted Areas	19-33
Table 19-19.     Particle Deposition and Resuspension During Normal Activities	19-33
Table 19-20.     Dust Mass Loading After One Week Without Vacuum Cleaning	19-33
Table 19-21.     Simplified Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants	19-34
Page
19-ii
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                                       LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 19-1.     Elements of Residential Exposure	19-21
Figure 19-2.     Cumulative Frequency Distributions for Residential Volumes	19-22
Figure 19-3.     Configuration for Residential Forced-air Systems	19-25
Figure 19-4.     Idealized Patterns of Particle Deposition Indoors	19-31
Figure 19-5.     Air Flows for Multiple-zone Systems	19-32
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                             Page
July 2009	19-iii
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
19.
BUILDING
        RESIDENTIAL
        CHARACTERISTICS
19.1    INTRODUCTION
        Unlike previous chapters in this  handbook
which focus  on human behavior or characteristics
that affect exposure, this chapter focuses on residence
characteristics. Assessment of exposure in residential
settings requires information on the availability of the
chemical(s)  of concern at the  point of  exposure,
characteristics of the structure and microenvironment
that affect exposure, and human presence within the
residence. The purpose of this chapter is to provide
data that  are available  on residence characteristics
that affect  exposure  in  an  indoor environment.
Source-receptor relationships  in residential exposure
scenarios can be complex  due to interactions among
sources, and  transport/transformation processes that
result from  chemical-specific and building-specific
factors.
        There are many factors that effect indoor air
exposures. Indoor air models generally require data
on  several parameters. This chapter focuses on two
parameters,  surface  area/volume and air  exchange
rates.  Other factors  that affect indoor air quality are
furnishings,   siting,   weather,   ventilation   and
infiltration, environmental control systems, material
durability, and building structure.
        Figure 19-1 illustrates the  complex factors
that must be considered when conducting exposure
assessments  in a residential setting.  In addition  to
sources within the  building,  chemicals of concern
may enter the indoor environment from outdoor air,
soil, gas, water supply, tracked-in soil, and industrial
work   clothes worn by  the  residents.    Indoor
concentrations are affected by loss mechanisms, also
illustrated  in Figure  19-1,   involving   chemical
reactions,  deposition  to  and  re-emission  from
surfaces, and transport out of the building.  Particle-
bound  chemicals  can  enter indoor  air through
resuspension. Indoor air concentrations of gas-phase
organic chemicals  are affected by  the presence  of
reversible sinks formed by a wide  range  of indoor
materials.    In  addition,   the  activity of human
receptors greatly affects their  exposure as they  move
from  room   to  room,  entering and  leaving the
exposure scene.
        Inhalation    exposure   assessments    in
residential and other indoor settings are modeled by
considering the building as an assemblage of one  or
more  well-mixed zones.   A zone is defined as one
room, a group of interconnected rooms, or an  entire
building.  At this   macroscopic level,  well-mixed
perspective  forms  the  basis  for  interpretation  of
measurement  data  as   well   as   simulation   of
hypothetical scenarios. Exposure assessment models
on  a  macroscopic  level   incorporate  important
physical factors and processes.  These well-mixed,
macroscopic  models  have  been used to perform
indoor air quality simulations (Axley, 1989), as well
as indoor air exposure assessments  (McKone,  1989;
Ryan, 1991).  Nazaroff and  Cass (1986) and Wilkes
et al.  (1992) have used code-intensive  computer
programs featuring finite difference  or finite element
numerical techniques to model mass balance.   A
simplified  approach  using  desk   top  spreadsheet
programs has been used by Jennings et al. (1985).
U.S. EPA has created two useful indoor air quality
models:  the  Indoor  Air  Quality Building  and
Assessment Model  (I-BEAM) estimates indoor air
quality  in commercial  buildings  and the  Multi-
Chamber  Concentration  and   Exposure   Model
(MCCEM) estimates  average and  peak indoor air
concentration of chemicals released from residences.
         Section  19.3  of this chapter  summarizes
existing  data on building characteristics  (volumes,
surface  areas,  mechanical  systems,  and types  of
foundations).   Section  19.4 summarizes  transport
phenomena  that affect chemical transport (airflow,
chemical-specific deposition and filtration, and soil
tracking).   Section 19.5 provides   information on
various   types  of indoor sources  associated  with
airborne  exposure  and  soil/house  dust  sources.
Section 19.6 summarizes  advanced concepts.

        Major air  transport  pathways for airborne
substances in residences include the following:
        Air   exchange  -  Air  leakage  through
        windows, doorways, intakes and exhausts,
        and "adventitious openings" (i.e., cracks and
         seams)  that combine to form the leakage
        configuration of the building envelope plus
        natural and mechanical ventilation;
        Interzonal  airflows -  Transport through
        doorways, ductwork, and service chaseways
        that interconnect rooms or zones within a
        building; and
        Local circulation - Convective and advective
        air circulation and mixing within a room or
        within a zone.

        The  distribution of airflows across  the
building envelope that contribute to air exchange and
the interzonal airflows along interior flowpaths is
determined by the interior pressure distribution. The
forces  causing  the   airflows  are   temperature
differences,  the actions  of wind,  and mechanical
ventilation systems.   Basic  concepts have  been
reviewed by  ASHPxAE (1993).   Indoor-outdoor and
room-to-room temperature differences create density
differences that help determine basic patterns  of air
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                              Page
                                                               19-1
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                 Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
motion.  During the heating season,  warmer indoor
air tends to rise to exit the building at  upper levels by
stack action. Exiting air is replaced at  lower levels by
an influx of colder outdoor air.  During the cooling
season, this pattern is reversed:  stack forces during
the  cooling season are generally not  as strong as in
the   heating  season  because  the   indoor-outdoor
temperature differences are not pronounced.
        In examining a data base  of  air leakage
measurements,  Sherman  and   Dickerhoff  (1996)
observed that houses built prior to  1980 showed a
clear increase in leakage  with  increasing age and
were leakier, on average, than newer houses.   They
further observed that the post-1980  houses did not
show any trend in leakiness with age.
        The  position of the  neutral pressure  level
(i.e., the point where indoor-outdoor pressures are
equal)  depends on the leakage  configuration of the
building envelope.   The  stack  effect arising  from
indoor-outdoor   temperature   differences  is  also
influenced by the partitioning of the building interior.
When there is free communication between floors or
stories, the  building  behaves as a  single volume
affected by a generally rising  current during the
heating season and a generally falling current during
the  cooling season.  When vertical communication is
restricted,  each   level   essentially   becomes  an
independent zone. As the wind flows  past a building,
regions of positive and negative pressure (relative to
indoors) are  created  within  the building;  positive
pressures induce an influx of air, whereas negative
pressures induce an outflow.  Wind effects and stack
effects combine to determine a net inflow or outflow.
        The  final  element  of indoor  transport
involves the  actions  of mechanical  ventilation
systems that circulate indoor  air through the use of
fans.    Mechanical ventilation systems  may  be
connected to heating/cooling systems  that, depending
on the  type of building,  recirculate thermally treated
indoor air or a mixture of fresh air and recirculated
air.  Mechanical systems  also may be solely dedicated
to exhausting air from  a  designated area,  as with
some kitchen range hoods and  bath  exhausts,  or to
recirculating air in designated areas as with a  room
fan.  Local air circulation also  is influenced by the
movement of people and the operation of local heat
sources.

19.2    RECOMMENDATIONS
        Table  19-1  presents   the   recommended
values  for  house  volume  and  air  exchange rate.
Tables   19-2  and  19-3  provide the  confidence in
recommendations for house volume and air exchange
rate, respectively.   Studies or analyses described in
this  chapter were  used in selecting recommended
values for residential volume and air exchange rate.
Air exchange rate data presented in the studies are
extremely  limited.    Therefore,   the  confidence
recommendation has been assigned a "low" overall
rating and these values should be used with caution.
Both   central  and  lower  percentile  values  are
provided.  These  two parameters ~ volume and air
exchange rate ~ can be used by exposure assessors in
modeling  indoor-air concentrations as one of the
inputs  to exposure estimation.  Other inputs to the
modeling  effort  include  rates  of indoor pollutant
generation and losses to  (and, in  some  cases, re-
emissions from)  indoor sinks.  Other  things being
equal (i.e., holding constant the pollutant  generation
rate and effect of indoor sinks), lower values for
either the indoor volume or the air exchange rate will
result  in higher  indoor-air  concentrations.   Thus,
values near  the lower end of the distribution  (e.g.,
10th percentile) for either parameter are appropriate
in developing conservative estimates of exposure.
        For the volume of a  residence,  the  2007
American Housing Survey  - AHS -  (US  Census
Bureau, 2008) indicates a median housing unit is 401
m3 assuming an eight foot ceiling. This median value
is recommended  as a central  estimate  residential
volume.  The 2005 Residential Energy Consumption
Survey  (RECS)  data indicates a  493 m3 average
living  space (U.S. DOE, 2005). The Versar (1990)
Perfluorocarbon Tracer - (PFT)  database  found  a
mean  value  of  369  m3 (see  Table 19-4).   The
difference between these values reflects changes in
the definitions of floorspace between the most recent
and earlier RECS.  The 25th percentile - 209 m3 for
1995  RECS  survey  or  225 m3 for PFT  database,
averaging 217  m3  across  the two  studies  ~ is
recommended as the lower percentile value.
        For the residential  air exchange rate, the
median value of 0.45 air changes per hour (ACH)
from  the  PFT   database  (see  Table  19-14) is
recommended as a typical value (Koontz and Rector,
1995). The arithmetic mean  is not preferred because
it is influenced fairly heavily by extreme values at the
upper tail of the  distribution.  For a conservative
value, the 10th percentile for the PFT database - 0.18
ACH - is recommended (Table 19-14).
        There  are   some   uncertainties   in,  or
limitations on, the distribution  for volumes  and air
exchange rates that are presented in this chapter. For
example, the RECS  and AHS  measured  floor area
rather than total volume.  The PFT  database did not
base   its  measurements  on  sample  that   was
statistically  representative of the  national housing
stock. PFT has been found to underpredict seasonal
average air exchange by  20  to  30 percent Sherman
(1989).  Using PFT to determine air exchange can
Page
19-2
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
produce significant  errors  when  conditions in the
measurement scene greatly deviate from idealizations
calling for constant, well-mixed conditions.  Principal
concerns focus on the effects of naturally varying air
exchange  and the  effects of temperature  in the
permeation source. Some researchers have found that
failing to  use a time-weighted average temperature
can  greatly  affect  air  exchange  rates  estimates
(Leaderer et al., 1985). A final difficulty in estimating
air  exchange  rates for any particular zone results
from  interconnectedness of multi-zone models and
the  affect  of neighboring zones as demonstrated by
Sinden (1978) and Sandberg (1984).
        Indoor air quality  models typically are not
software products that can be purchased as "off-the-
shelf" items.   Most existing  software  models are
research tools that have been developed for specific
purposes  and  are being continuously  refined by
researchers. Leading examples of indoor air models
implemented as software products are as follows:

    •    CONTAM - CONTAM was developed at
        the  National Institute  of Standards  and
        Technology (NIST) with support from U.S.
        EPA  and the U.S. Department of Energy
        (DOE) (Axley, 1988;  Grot, 1991; Walton,
        1993);

        IAQX  -  The  Indoor Air  Quality  and
        Inhalation Exposure  model is a Windows-
        based    simulation    software    package
        developed by U.S. EPA (Price et al, 2003).

    •   CPIEM ~ The  California Population Indoor
        Exposure Model  was developed  for the
        California Air Resources Board (Price et al,
        2003).

    •   TEM  -  The Total  Exposure Model was
        developed with support from U.S. EPA and
        the US Air Force (Price et al, 2003).

    •   RISK - RISK was developed by the Indoor
        Environment Management Branch  of the
        U.S.    EPA National Risk  Management
        Research Laboratory (Price et al, 2003).

    •   TRIM   -  The   Total  Risk   Integrated
        Methodology   is  an  ongoing  modeling
        project  of  EPA's  Office of  Air Quality
        Planning and Standards (Price et al, 2003).

    •   TOXLT/TOXST -  The  Toxic Modeling
        System  Long-Term  was developed  along
        with the  release of the new version of the
U.S.  EPA's  Industrial  Source  Complex
(ISC2) Dispersion Models (Price, 2001).

MIAQ - The Multi-Chamber Indoor Air
Quality  Model  was  developed  for  the
California  Institute  of Technology   and
Lawrence  Berkeley  National  Laboratory
(Price, 2003)

MCCEM ~  the Multi-Chamber Consumer
Exposure Model was developed for U.S EPA
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(EPA/OPPT) (GEOMET, 1989; Koontz and
Nagda, 1991); and

THERdbASE ~ the Total Human Exposure
Relational  Data   Base   and  Advanced
Simulation   Environment   software   was
developed by researchers at the Harry  Reid
Center  for  Environmental   Studies  at
University  Nevada,  Las  Vegas  (UNLV)
(Pandianetal., 1993).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                 Page
                                  19-3
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                 Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                              Table 19-1.  Recommendations - Residential Parameters
 Volume of Residence
 Air Exchange Rate
401 m3 (central estimate)3
0.45 ACH (central estimate)0
217m3 (lower percentile)b
0.18 ACH (lower percentile)d
        Average value presented in Table 19-7 recommended for use as a central estimate..
        Mean of two 25th percentile values (Table 19-4) - recommended to be used as a lower percentile estimate.
        Median value recommended to be used as a central estimate (Table 19-14).
        10th percentile value recommended to be used as a lower percentile value (Table 19-14).
Table 19-2.
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Confidence in House Volume Recommendations
Rationale
All the studies were based on primary data. For the RECS
survey, volumes were estimated assuming an 8 ft. ceiling
height. The effect of this assumption has been tested by
Murray (1996) and found to be insignificant.
Selection of residences was random for RECS.
The focus of the studies was on estimating house volume
as well as other factors.
Residences in the U.S. were the focus of the studies. The
sample sizes used in the studies were fairly large, although
only 1 study (RECS) was representative of the whole U.S.
Not all samples were selected at random; however, RECS
samples were selected at random. RECS sample is
representative of the U.S.
Measurements in the PFT database were taken between
1982-1987. The most recent RECS survey was conducted
in 2005.
Not applicable.
Papers are widely available from peer review journals.
Direct measurements were made.
Not applicable.
Distributions are presented by housing type and regions;
although some of the sample sizes for the subcategories
were small.
Some measurement error may exist since surface areas
were estimated using the assumption of 8 ft. ceiling
height.
All studies are from peer reviewed literature.
There are 4 studies. There is relatively good agreement
among researchers.


Rating
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Page
19-4
                                     Exposure Factors Handbook
                                    	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
Table 19-3.
General Assessment Factors
Soundness
Adequacy of Approach
Minimal (or defined) Bias
Applicability and Utility
Exposure Factor of Interest
Representativeness
Currency
Data Collection Period
Clarity and Completeness
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Quality Assurance
Variability and Uncertainty
Variability in Population
Uncertainty
Evaluation and Review
Peer Review
Number and Agreement of Studies
Overall Rating
Confidence in Air exchange Rate Recommendations
Rationale
All the studies were based on primary data. Although the
PFT technology is a U.S.EPA standard method (Method
IP-4A), it has some major limitations (e.g., uniform
mixing assumption).
Bias may result since the selection of residences was not
random.
The focus of the studies was on estimating air exchange
rates as well as other factors.
Residences in the U.S. were the focus of the PFT database,
but sample was not representative of the U.S. The sample
sizes used in the studies were fairly large, although not
representative of the whole U.S. Not all samples were
selected at random.
Measurements in the PFT database were taken between
1982-1987.
Only short term data were collected; some residences were
measured during different seasons; however, long term air
exchange rates are not well characterized.
Papers are widely available from government reports and
peer review journals.
Precision across repeat analyses has been documented to
be acceptable.
Not applicable.
Distributions are presented by U.S. regions, seasons, and
climatic regions; although some of the sample sizes for the
subcategories were small and not representative of U.S.
The utility is limited.
Some measurement error may exist.
The studies appear in peer reviewed literature.
There are 4 studies; however . Three of the studies are
based on the same PFT database The database contains
results of 20 projects of varying scope


Rating
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
 19-5
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                 Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
19.3    BUILDING       CHARACTERISTICS
STUDIES
19.3.1   Volumes of Residence Studies
19.3.1.1 Versar,    1990    -    Database    on
        Perfluorocarbon Tracer (PFT)  Ventilation
        Measurements
        A  database of time-averaged air exchange
and interzonal airflow measurements in more than
4,000 residences has been compiled by Versar (1990)
(see Section 19.4.2).   These  data  were collected
between 1982 and 1987. The  residences that appear
in this database are not a  random sample  of U.S.
homes; however, they  do represent a  compilation of
homes  visited in about 100 different field  studies,
some of which involved random sampling.  In each
study, the house volumes were directly measured or
estimated.  The collective homes visited in these field
projects are not  geographically balanced;  a large
fraction of  these  homes  are  located  in  southern
California.   Statistical weighting techniques were
applied  in  developing  estimates  of  nationwide
distributions (see Section 19.4.2) to compensate for
the  geographic  imbalance.  The  Versar   (1990)
Perfluorocarbon  Tracer -  (PFT) database found  a
mean value of 369 m3 (see Table 19-4).  These data
were  compared to the results  of  the residential
volume  distributions  form  the  1995  Residential
Energy  Consumption  Survey (RECS)  (Thompson,
1995).  The arithmetic means from the two sources
are identical (369 cubic meters).  The medians (50th
percentiles) are very similar: 310 cubic meters for the
RECS  data,  and 321 cubic  meters for the  PFT
database. The 25th percentile values were 209 m3 for
1995 RECS survey and 225 m3 for  PFT database,
(Table  19-4).   Cumulative frequency distributions
from the two  sources (Figure  19-2)  also are quite
similar,  especially  between  the  50th and  75th
percentiles.

19.3.1.2 Murray, 1996 - Analysis of RECS and PFT
        Databases
        Using a database from the 1993 RECS and
an assumed ceiling height of 8 feet, Murray (1996)
estimated a mean residential volume of 382 m3 using
RECS estimates of heated floor space.  This estimate
is slightly different from the mean of 369  m3 given in
Table 19-4.   Murray's  (1996)  sensitivity analysis
indicated that when a  fixed ceiling height of 8 feet
was replaced with a randomly varying height with a
mean of 8 feet, there was little effect on the standard
deviation of the estimated  distribution.  From  a
separate analysis of the PFT database, based on 1,751
individual household measurements, Murray (1996)
estimated an average volume of 369 m3, the same as
previously given in Table  19-4.  In performing this
analysis, the author  carefully  reviewed  the  PFT
database in an effort to use each residence only once,
for those residences thought to have multiple PFT
measurements.

19.3.1.3 U.S. DOE,  2005 -  Residential  Energy
        Consumption Survey (RECS)
        Measurement  surveys   have   not  been
conducted to directly characterize the  range and
distribution of volumes for a random sample of U.S.
residences.    Related  data, however, are  regularly
collected through the U.S. DOE's RECS (U.S.  DOE,
2005).  In  addition  to collecting information on
energy use,  this triennial survey  collects data on
housing     characteristics     including     direct
measurements of  total and heated floor space for
buildings visited by survey specialists.  For the most
recent survey (2005), a multistage probability sample
of 4,381 residences was surveyed, representing  111
million housing units nationwide.  The 2005 survey
response rate was  77.1  percent.  Volumes  were
estimated  from   the  RECS  measurements  by
multiplying  the  heated  floor  space  area by an
assumed ceiling height of 8 feet.
        Results for residential volume distributions
from  the 2005 RECS are  presented in Tables 19-5
and  19-6.    Table  19-5  provides information on
average estimated  residential volumes according to
housing type and  ownership.    The predominant
housing type~single-family  detached  homes~also
had  the largest   average  volume  (Table   19-5).
Multifamily  units and mobile  homes  had volumes
averaging about half that of single-family  detached
homes,  with single-family attached homes  about
halfway between  these  extremes.    Within   each
category of housing type, owner-occupied residences
averaged about 50 percent greater volume than  rental
units.  Data on the  relationship of residential volume
to year of construction are provided in Table 19-6 and
indicate a  slight  decrease in residential  volumes
between 1950 and 1979, followed by an increasing
trend.  A ceiling  height of 8 feet was assumed in
estimating the average volumes, whereas there may
have been some time-related trends in ceiling height.
The average house volume for all types of units for
all years was estimated to be 492 m3.
Page
19-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
19.3.1.4 U.S. Census  Bureau, 2008 -  American
        Housing Survey for  the  United  States:
        2007
        The American Housing  Survey (AHS) is
conducted  by  the Bureau of  the  Census for the
Department of Housing  and  Urban Development
(HUD). It collects  data on the  Nation's housing,
including  apartments,  single-family homes,  mobile
homes,    vacant    housing    units,    household
characteristics,  housing  quality,  foundation  type,
drinking  water source, equipment  and  fuels,  and
housing unit size. National data are  collected in odd
numbered years,  and data for  each of 47 selected
Metropolitan Areas  are collected about every six
years.  The national  sample  includes  about  55,000
housing units. Each metropolitan area samples 4,100
or more housing units.  The AHS returns to the  same
housing units year after year to gather data. AHS lists
the  number  of  residential  single  detached  and
manufactured/mobile  homes  in  the U.S.  within
various categories including  seasonal,  year-round
occupied, and new in the last four years (Table 19-7).
Assuming  an  8  foot  ceiling,  these  units have  a
median size of 401 m3; however, these values do not
include multifamily units.

19.3.2   Room  Volume,  Surface Area,  Products
        and Materials
19.3.2.1 Room Volume
        Volumes of individual rooms are dependent
on the  building size and configuration, but summary
data are not readily available.  The exposure assessor
is advised to define specific rooms, or assemblies of
rooms, that best fit the scenario  of interest.   Most
models for  predicting  indoor-air  concentrations
specify airflows  in  cubic meters  per  hour   and,
correspondingly, express volumes in cubic meters. A
measurement in cubic feet can be  converted to cubic
meters by  multiplying the value  in cubic feet by
0.0283 m3/ft3.  For example, a bedroom that is 9 feet
wide by 12 feet long by 8 feet high  has a volume of
864  cubic  feet  or 24.5 cubic  meters.  Similarly,  a
living room with dimensions of 12 feet wide by 20
feet  long by 8 feet high has a volume of 1920 cubic
feet  or 54.3 cubic  meters,  and  a bathroom  with
dimensions of 5  feet by  12  feet by 8 feet has  a
volume of 480 cubic feet or 13.6 cubic meters.
        Murray  (1996) analyzed  the distribution of
selected residential zones (i.e.,  a series of connected
rooms) using the PFT database.  The author analyzed
the  "kitchen zone"  and  the  "bedroom  zone" for
houses in the Los Angeles area that were labeled in
this  manner by  field researchers, and "basement,"
"first floor," and "second floor"  zones  for  houses
outside of Los Angeles for which the  researchers
labeled individual floors as zones. The kitchen zone
contained the kitchen in addition  to any  of the
following associated spaces:   utility  room, dining
room, living room and family room.  The bedroom
zone contained all the bedrooms plus any bathrooms
and hallways  associated with the bedrooms.  The
following  summary  statistics  (mean ±  standard
deviation) were reported by Murray (1996)  for the
volumes of the zones described above:  199 ± 115 m3
for the kitchen zone, 128 ± 67 m3 for the bedroom
zone, 205 ± 64 m3 for the basement,  233 ± 72 m3 for
the first floor, and 233 ± 111 m3 for the  second floor.

19.3.2.2 Surface Areas
        The  surface areas of floors are commonly
considered  in relation to the room or house volume,
and their relative loadings are expressed as a surface
area-to-volume, or loading ratio. Table 19-8 provides
the basis for calculating loading  ratios for typical-
sized rooms.  Constant features in the  examples are:
a room width of 12 feet and a ceiling height of 8 feet
(typical for residential buildings),  or a  ceiling height
12 feet  (typical for commercial buildings).  The
loading ratios for the 8-foot ceiling height range from
0.98  m2m"3 to 2.18 m2m"3 for wall  areas and  from
0.36  m2m"3  to  0.44  m2m"3  for floor area.    In
comparison, ASTM Standard E 1333 (ASTM, 1990),
for large-chamber  testing of formaldehyde levels
from wood products, specifies the following  loading
ratios:  (1)  0.95 m2m~3 for testing  plywood (assumes
plywood or paneling on all four  walls of a typical
size  room);   and  (2)  0.43  m2m"3  for  testing
particleboard  (assumes that particleboard decking or
underlayment would be used as  a substrate  for the
entire floor of a structure).

19.3.2.3 Products and Materials
        Table 19-9 presents  examples of assumed
amounts  of selected products and materials used in
constructing or finishing residential surfaces (Tucker,
1991).    Products  used for  floor surfaces  include
adhesive, varnish and wood stain; and materials used
for walls include paneling, painted gypsum board,
and wallpaper.   Particleboard and chipboard are
commonly  used for  interior furnishings  such  as
shelves  or cabinets, but could  also  be  used for
decking or underlayment.  It should  be noted that
numbers  presented in Table 19-9 for surface area are
based on typical values for residences, and they are
presented as examples. In contrast to the concept of
loading ratios presented above (as a surface area), the
numbers  in Table  19-9 also  are  not  scaled  to any
particular residential volume.  In some cases, it may
be preferable for  the  exposure assessor  to  use
professional  judgment  in combination  with the
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           19-7
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                  Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
loading ratios given  above.   For  example, if the
exposure  scenario  involves   residential  carpeting,
either as an indoor source or as an indoor sink, then
the ASTM loading ratio of 0.43  m2m~3 for floor
materials  could  be  multiplied  by  an  assumed
residential volume and assumed fractional coverage
of carpeting to derive an estimate of the surface area.
More specifically, a residence with a volume of 300
m3, a loading ratio of 0.43 m2m~3 and  coverage of
80% would have 103 m2 of carpeting. The estimates
discussed here relate  to  macroscopic  surfaces; the
true surface area for carpeting, for example, would be
considerably  larger because  of the  nature of its
fibrous material.

19.3.3  Mechanical System Configurations
        Mechanical systems  for air movement in
residences can affect  the migration and mixing of
pollutants released indoors and the  rate of pollutant
removal. Three types of mechanical systems  are: (1)
systems associated with heating and air conditioning
(HAC);  (2)  systems  whose  primary  function is
providing localized exhaust; and (3) systems intended
to increase  the  overall  air exchange  rate  of the
residence.
        Portable  space heaters intended to  serve a
single room,  or a series  of adjacent rooms, may or
may not be equipped  with blowers  that promote air
movement  and mixing.   Without  a blower, these
heaters still have the ability to induce mixing through
convective heat transfer.  If the heater is a source of
combustion  pollutants,  as with  unvented  gas  or
kerosene space  heaters,  then  the  combination  of
convective  heat  transfer  and  thermal buoyancy  of
combustion  products  will  result  in  fairly  rapid
dispersal of  such pollutants.   The  pollutants will
disperse  throughout the  floor where the heater is
located  and to floors  above the heater, but will not
disperse to floors below.
        Central   forced-air   HAC   systems   are
common in many residences.  Such systems,  through
a network of supply/return ducts and registers,  can
achieve fairly complete  mixing  within  20 to 30
minutes (Koontz et al., 1988).  The air handler for
such systems is commonly equipped with a filter (see
Figure   19-3)  that  can  remove   particle-phase
contaminants.   Further  removal of particles,  via
deposition  on various room  surfaces  (see  Section
19.4.4),  is  accomplished through  increased  air
movement when the air handler is operating.
        Figure  19-3  also distinguishes  forced-air
HAC systems by the return  layout in  relation to
supply registers.   The return  layout shown in the
upper  portion  of  the   figure is  the  type  most
commonly found in residential  settings.  On any floor
of the residence, it is typical to find  one or more
supply registers to individual rooms, with one or two
centralized  return  registers.    With  this  layout,
supply/return  imbalances   can  often  occur   in
individual rooms, particularly if the interior doors to
rooms are closed.  In comparison, the  supply/return
layout shown in the lower portion of the figure by
design tends to achieve a balance in individual rooms
or zones.  Airflow imbalances can also  be caused by
inadvertent  duct  leakage  to unconditioned  spaces
such as attics, basements, and crawl spaces.  Such
imbalances usually  depressurize the house,  thereby
increasing the likelihood of contaminant entry via
soil-gas transport or through spillage of combustion
products from vented fossil-fuel appliances  such  as
fireplaces and gas/oil furnaces.
        Mechanical devices  such as  kitchen fans,
bathroom fans,  and  clothes  dryers   are intended
primarily to provide localized removal of unwanted
heat, moisture, or odors.  Operation of  these  devices
tends to increase the air exchange rate between the
indoors and outdoors.  Because local exhaust devices
are designed to be near certain indoor  sources, their
effective removal rate for locally generated pollutants
is  greater than would be expected from the  dilution
effect of increased air exchange.   Operation of these
devices also tends to depressurize the house, because
replacement air usually is not provided to balance the
exhausted air.
        An alternative approach to pollutant removal
is  one which relies on an increase in air exchange to
dilute pollutants generated  indoors.  This approach
can be accomplished using heat recovery ventilators
(HRVs) or energy recovery ventilators (ERVs). Both
types of ventilators are designed to provide balanced
supply  and exhaust airflows  and  are intended  to
recover most of the energy that normally is lost when
additional  outdoor air is   introduced.   Although
ventilators  can provide for more rapid  dilution  of
internally generated pollutants, they also increase the
rate at which outdoor  pollutants are brought  into the
house.  A distinguishing feature  of the two types is
that  ERVs  provide  for  recovery  of latent  heat
(moisture) in addition to sensible heat.  Moreover,
ERVs typically recover latent heat using a moisture-
transfer device such as a desiccant wheel.  It has been
observed in some studies that the transfer of moisture
between outbound and inbound air streams can result
in some re-entrainment of indoor pollutants  that
otherwise would have been exhausted from the house
(Andersson   et   al.,    1993).     Inadvertent   air
communication between the supply and exhaust air
streams can have a similar effect.
        Most homes in the U.S. have  some  kind  of
central  heating and air conditioning system. Those
Page
19-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
with central air conditioning  constitute 62% of the
home in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
        Studies quantifying the effect of mechanical
devices   on   air   exchange   using   tracer-gas
measurements are uncommon and typically provide
only anecdotal data.  The common approach is for the
expected increment in the air exchange rate to  be
estimated  from the  rated airflow  capacity  of the
device(s).   For example, if a device with a rated
capacity of 100 cubic feet per minute (cfm), or 170
cubic meters per hour, is operated continuously in a
house with a volume of 400 cubic meters, then the
expected increment  in the air exchange rate of the
house would be 170 m3 h"1 / 400 m3, or approximately
0.4 air changes per hour.

19.3.4  Type of Foundation
        The type of foundation of a residence is of
interest in  residential  exposure assessment.   It
provides some indication of the number of stories and
house configuration,  and provides an indication of
the relative potential for soil-gas  transport.  For
example, such transport can occur readily in homes
with enclosed crawl spaces. Homes with basements
provide some resistance, but still  have numerous
pathways for soil-gas entry. By comparison, homes
with crawl spaces open to the outside have significant
opportunities for  dilution of soil  gases  prior  to
transport into the  house.  Using data from  the 2007
AHS, of total housing units in the US, 32% have a
basement  under the entire building,  10% have  a
basement under part of the  building, 24% have a
crawl space, and 32% are on a concrete slab (U.S.
DOE, 2005).

19.3.4.1 Lucas et al, 1992 - National  Residential
        Radon Survey
        The estimated percentage of homes with a
full or partial basement  according  to the National
Residential  Radon   Survey  of  5,700  households
nationwide was 45 percent (Table 9-10) (Lucas et al.,
1992).  The  National  Residential  Radon  Survey
provides data for more  refined geographical  areas,
with a breakdown by the 10 U.S. EPA Regions. The
New England region (i.e., U.S. EPA Region 1), which
includes  Connecticut, Maine,  Massachusetts,  New
Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  and  Vermont, had the
highest prevalence of basements (93 percent).  The
lowest prevalence  (4 percent)  was for the  South
Central  region (i.e., U.S. EPA  Region 6), which
includes   Arkansas,   Louisiana,   New  Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas.   Table 19-11 presents the
States associated with each Census Region and U.S
EPA Region.
19.3.4.2 U.S. DOE (2005) - Housing Characteristics
        2005  -  Residential Energy Consumption
        Survey (RECS)
        The most recent RECS (described in Section
19.3.1)  was  administered in  2005  to  over 4,381
households  (U.S.  DOE,  2005).    The  type  of
information requested by  the  survey questionnaire
included the type of foundation for the residence (i.e.,
basement, enclosed crawl space, crawl space open to
outside or concrete slab).  This information was not
obtained for multifamily structures with five or more
dwelling units or for mobile homes.  Table  19-12
presents estimates from the survey of the percentage
of residences with each foundation type,  by census
region, and for the entire U.S.  The percentages can
add  to  more  than  100 percent  because  some
residences have more than one type  of foundation;
for example, most split-level structures have a partial
basement  combined  with some  crawlspace  that
typically is enclosed.
        The data in Table 19-12 indicate that 40.5
percent of residences nationwide have a basement. It
also  shows  that  a large  fraction of homes  have
concrete  slabs (45.9  percent).    There  are also
variations by census region. For example, around 70
percent of the  residences  in  the  Northeast  and
Midwest regions have basements. In the  South and
West  regions,  the predominant foundation type is
concrete slab.  Table 19-11  illustrates the four Census
Regions.

19.4    TRANSPORT RATES STUDIES
19.4.1  Air Exchange Rates
        Air exchange is the  balanced flow into and
out of a building, and is composed of three processes:
(1) infiltration - air leakage through random cracks,
interstices,  and other  unintentional openings  in the
building envelope; (2) natural ventilation - airflows
through open  windows, doors,  and other designed
openings in the building envelope; and (3) forced or
mechanical ventilation -  controlled  air  movement
driven by  fans.    For nearly  all indoor exposure
scenarios, air  exchange is treated as the principal
means of diluting indoor  concentrations.   The air
exchange rate  is generally  expressed in terms of air
changes per hour (ACH, with units of h"1), the ratio
of the airflow (m3 h"1) to the volume (m3).
        No  measurement  surveys  have   been
conducted  to  directly  evaluate  the  range  and
distribution  of  residential   air  exchange  rates.
Although  a  significant number  of air   exchange
measurements  have been carried out over the  years,
there  has  been a diversity of protocols  and study
objectives.   Since  the  early  1980s, however, an
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                           19-9
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                 Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
inexpensive  perfluorocarbon tracer (PFT) technique
has been used to measure time-averaged air exchange
and  interzonal  airflows in thousands of occupied
residences using essentially similar protocols (Dietz
et al., 1986). The PFT technique utilizes miniature
permeation  tubes  as  tracer  emitters and  passive
samplers to collect the tracers.  The passive samplers
are returned to the laboratory for analysis by  gas
chromatography.  These measurement results have
been compiled to allow various researchers to access
the data (Versar, 1990).

19.4.1.1 Nazaroff et al.,  1988 - Radon  Entry  via
        Potable Water
        Nazaroff et al. (1988) aggregated the data
from two  studies  conducted earlier using tracer-gas
decay. At the time these studies were conducted, they
were the largest U.S. studies to include air exchange
measurements.  The first (Grot and Clark,  1981) was
conducted in 255 dwellings occupied by low-income
families in 14 different cities.  The geometric mean ±
standard deviation for the air exchange measurements
in these homes, with a median house age of 45 years,
was 0.90 ± 2.13 ACH.  The second study  (Grimsrud
et al., 1983) involved 312 newer residences, with a
median  age of less  than  10  years.    Based  on
measurements taken during the heating season,  the
geometric mean ± standard deviation for these homes
was 0.53 ±1.71 ACH. Based on an  aggregation of
the two  distributions with proportional weighting by
the respective number of houses studied, Nazaroff et
al. (1988) developed an overall distribution with a
geometric mean  of 0.68 ACH and a  geometric
standard deviation of 2.01.

19.4.1.2 Versar,   1990  -   Database   of  PFT
        Ventilation Measurements
        The residences included in the PFT database
do not constitute a random sample across the United
States.   They  represent  a  compilation  of homes
visited in the  course  of  about 100  separate  field-
research projects by various organizations, some of
which involved  random sampling and  some of which
involved judgmental or fortuitous sampling.   The
larger projects in the PFT database are  summarized in
Table 19-13, in terms of the number of measurements
(samples), states where, and months when,  samples
were  taken, and  summary  statistics   for  their
respective distributions of measured  air exchange
rates.   For selected projects (Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory,  Research  Triangle  Institute  -  RTI,
Southern    California    -   SOCAL),    multiple
measurements were taken for the same house, usually
during different seasons.   A large majority of  the
measurements are from the SOCAL project that was
conducted in Southern California.  The means of the
respective studies generally  range from 0.2 to 1.0
ACH, with the exception of two California projects--
RTI2   and  SOCAL2.     Both  projects  involved
measurements in Southern California during a time of
year (July) when windows would likely be opened by
many occupants.

19.4.1.3 Koontz  and Rector, 1995 -  Estimation  of
        Distributions for Residential Air Exchange
        Rates
        In  analyzing  the  composite  data  from
various projects  (2,971 measurements), Koontz and
Rector (1995)  assigned weights to the results from
each  state  to  compensate   for  the  geographic
imbalance in  locations  where PFT  measurements
were taken.  The results were weighted in such a way
that the resultant number  of cases would  represent
each  state in  proportion to its  share  of  occupied
housing units, as determined  from the 1990  U.S.
Census of Population and Housing.
        Summary  statistics  from  the  Koontz and
Rector (1995) analysis are  shown in Table 19-14, for
the country as a whole and by census regions. Based
on the statistics for all regions combined, the authors
suggested that a 10th percentile value of 0.18 ACH
would be appropriate as a conservative estimator for
air exchange in residential  settings, and that the 50th
percentile value of 0.45 ACH would be appropriate as
a typical air  exchange rate. In applying conservative
or typical values of air exchange rates, it is important
to realize the limitations of the underlying data base.
Although  the estimates are based on thousands  of
measurements,  the  residences  represented in  the
database  are not a random sample  of the United
States housing stock.  The sample population is not
balanced in terms of geography or time of year.
Statistical techniques were  applied to compensate for
some   of these  imbalances.  In  addition,   PFT
measurements of air exchange  rates assume uniform
mixing of the tracer within the building.  This is not
always so easily achieved.  Furthermore, the degree
of mixing can vary from  day  to  day  and house to
house because of the  nature of the factors controlling
mixing (e.g., convective  air monitoring driven by
weather,  and  type  and operation of the heating
system).  The relative placement of the PFT source
and  the  sampler can also  cause variability  and
uncertainty.   It  should be noted that sampling is
typically  done  in a single location in  a house which
may not represent the average from that house.  In
addition,  very  high  and  very low  values  of air
exchange  rates based on  PFT measurements have
greater uncertainties than those in the middle of the
distribution.  Despite such limitations, the  estimates
Page
19-10
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                in Table 19-14 are believed to represent the best
                available  information  on  the  distribution  of  air
                exchange  rates  across  United  States  residences
                throughout the year.

                19.4.1.4 Murray and Burmaster, 1995 - Residential
                        Air Exchange Rates in the United States:
                        Empirical   and   Estimated   Parametric
                        Distributions  by  Season   and  Climatic
                        Region
                        Murray and Burmaster (1995)  analyzed the
                PFT database using 2,844 measurements (essentially
                the same cases as analyzed by Koontz and Rector
                (1995),  but  without the  compensating  weights).
                These authors summarized  distributions for  subsets
                of the  data  defined by  climate region and  season.
                The  coldest  region was defined as having 7,000 or
                more heating degree days, the colder region as 5,500-
                6,999 degree days, the warmer region as 2,500-5,499
                degree  days, and  the warmest region as fewer than
                2,500  degree  days.   The  months  of December,
                January and  February were defined as winter, March,
                April and May were defined as spring, and so on. The
                results   of  Murray   and  Burmaster  (1995)  are
                summarized  in Table 19-15.  Neglecting the summer
                results  in the colder regions which have only a few
                observations, the results indicate that the highest  air
                exchange rates occur in the  warmest climate region
                during  the summer.  As noted earlier,  many of the
                measurements  in the warmer climate  region  were
                from field studies conducted in Southern California
                during  a time of  year (July) when windows would
                tend to be open in that area. Data for this region in
                particular  should  be used with caution since other
                areas within this  region tend to  have  very  hot
                summers  and  residences   use  air   conditioners,
                resulting in  lower air exchange rates.   The lowest
                rates generally occur in the colder regions during the
                fall (Table 19-15).

                19.4.2   Infiltration Models
                        A variety  of mathematical models exist for
                prediction of air infiltration rates in  individual
                buildings.   A number of these models have  been
                reviewed,  for example,  by Liddament and Allen
                (1983),  and  by Persily and  Linteris (1984).  Basic
                principles are concisely summarized in the ASHRAE
                Handbook   of  Fundamentals  (ASHRAE,  1993).
                These  models have a similar theoretical basis;  all
                address indoor-outdoor pressure differences that are
                maintained  by   the  actions of  wind and stack
                (temperature  difference)  effects.    The   models
                generally incorporate  a network of airflows where
                nodes representing regions of different pressure are
                interconnected by leakage paths.   Individual  models
differ in details such as the number of nodes they can
treat or the specifics of leakage paths (e.g., individual
components  such as cracks around doors or windows
versus a combination of components such as an entire
section of a building).  Such models are not easily
applied by exposure assessors, however, because the
required  inputs (e.g., inferred leakage  areas, crack
lengths) for the model are not easy to gather.
        Another   approach   for   estimating   air
infiltration  rates  is  developing empirical  models.
Such models  generally  rely  on  collection  of
infiltration measurements in a specific building under
a variety of weather conditions.   The  relationship
between the infiltration  rate  and weather conditions
can then be  estimated through regression analysis,
and is usually stated in the following form:
   A=L\
(Eqn  19-1)
where:
        A  =   air infiltration rate (h"1)
        T!  =   indoor temperature (°C)
        T0  =   outdoor temperature (°C)
        U  =   windspeed (ms"1)
        n is an exponent with a value typically
        between 1 and 2
        a, b and c are parameters to be estimated

        Relatively good predictive accuracy usually
can be obtained for individual buildings through this
approach. However,  exposure assessors often do not
have the information resources  required to develop
parameter estimates for making such predictions.
        A  reasonable  compromise  between  the
theoretical  and  empirical  approaches  has been
developed in the model specified by Dietz et  al.
(1986). The  model, drawn from  correlation analysis
of environmental  measurements  and air infiltration
data, is formulated as follows
I
                                     (Eqn 19-2)
where:
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                July 2009	
                                          Page
                                          19-11
-------
                                                                          Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                  Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
   A = average air changes per hour or infiltration
   rate, h-1
   L = generalized house leakiness factor (1 < L < 5)
   C = terrain sheltering factor (1< C < 10)
   AT = indoor-outdoor temperature difference (C°)
   U = windspeed (ms-1)

        The value of L is greater as house leakiness
increases  and the value of C is  greater as terrain
sheltering (reflects shielding of nearby wind barrier)
increases.  Although the above model has not been
extensively validated, it has intuitive appeal and it is
possible for the user to develop reasonable estimates
for L and C with limited guidance.  Historical data
from  various  U.S.   airports  are   available  for
estimation  of  the   temperature   and  windspeed
parameters.  As an example  application, consider a
house that has central values of 3 and 5 for L and C,
respectively.   Under conditions where  the  indoor
temperature is 20°C  (68°F), the outdoor temperature
is 0°C (32°F) and  the  windspeed  is  5 ms"1, the
predicted infiltration rate for that house would be  3
(0.006 x 20 + 0.03/5 x 51.5),  or 0.56 air changes per
hour. This prediction applies under the condition that
exterior doors and windows are closed, and does not
include the contributions,  if any,  from  mechanical
systems  (see Section 19.3.3).   Occupant  behavior,
such as opening windows, can, of course, overwhelm
the idealized effects of temperature and wind speed.

19.4.3   Deposition and Filtration
        Deposition refers to the removal of airborne
substances to available surfaces that occurs as a result
of gravitational settling and  diffusion,  as  well as
electrophoresis and  thermophoresis.   Filtration  is
driven by  similar processes,  but  is confined to
material  through which  air  passes.   Filtration  is
usually a matter  of design, whereas deposition is a
matter of fact.

19.4.3.1 Deposition
        The deposition of paniculate  matter  and
reactive  gas-phase pollutants  to indoor  surfaces  is
often stated in terms of a characteristic deposition
velocity (m h"1) allied to the surface-to-volume ratio
(m2  m"3) of the building or room interior, forming a
first  order  loss  rate  (h"1) similar  to  that  of  air
exchange.  Theoretical  considerations  specific  to
indoor  environments  have  been summarized  in
comprehensive reviews by Nazaroff and Cass (1989)
and Nazaroff et al. (1993).
        For airborne  particles,  deposition  rates
depend on aerosol properties (size, shape, density) as
well as room factors (thermal gradients,  turbulence,
surface geometry). The motions of larger particles are
dominated by gravitational  settling; the motions of
smaller particles  are subject to  convection  and
diffusion.   Consequently,  larger  particles  tend to
accumulate  more  rapidly on floors  and up-facing
surfaces while smaller particles may  accumulate on
surfaces  facing  in  any  direction.   Figure  19-4
illustrates  the general trend for  particle  deposition
across the   size  range  of  general concern  for
inhalation exposure (<10 um). The current thought is
that  theoretical calculations of deposition rates are
likely  to   provide  unsatisfactory  results  due  to
knowledge gaps relating to  near-surface air motions
and other  sources of inhomogeneity (Nazaroff et al.,
1993).

19.4.3.1.1 Thatcher and Layton,  1995 - Deposition,
        Resuspension, and Penetration of Particles
        Within a Residence
        Thatcher  and  Layton  (1995)  evaluated
removal rates for indoor particles in four size ranges
(1-5,  5-10,  10-25, and >25 um)  in a study of one
house occupied by a family of four.  These values are
listed in Table 19-16. In a subsequent evaluation of
data collected in 100 Dutch residences, Layton and
Thatcher (1995) estimated settling velocities  of 2.7 m
h"1  for  lead-bearing  particles  captured  in  total
suspended paniculate matter (TSP) samples.

19.4.3.1.2  Wallace,  1996  - Indoor  Particles:  A
        Review
        In  a  major review  of indoor  particles,
Wallace (1996) cited overall particle deposition rates
for respirable (PM25), inhalable  (PM10), and coarse
(difference between  PM10 and PM25) size fractions
determined  from U.S. EPA's PTEAM study.  These
values, listed in Table 19-17, were  derived from
measurements conducted in nearly 200 residences.

19.4.3.2 Filtration
        A variety of air  cleaning  techniques have
been applied to residential settings. Basic principles
related to  residential-scale air cleaning technologies
have been summarized in conjunction with reporting
early  test results (Offerman et al., 1984).  General
engineering principles are summarized in ASHRAE
(1988). In addition to fibrous filters  integrated  into
central  heating   and  air   conditioning   systems,
extended surface filters and  High Efficiency Particle
Arrest (HEPA) filters as well as electrostatic systems
are available to increase removal efficiency.  Free-
standing  air cleaners (portable and/or console) are
also  being used. Product-by-product test results
reported by Hanley et al. (1994);  Shaughnessy et al.
(1994);   and   Offerman   et  al.  (1984)   exhibit
considerable variability across systems, ranging from
Page
19-12
                 Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
ineffectual  (< 1%  efficiency) to  nearly  complete
removal.

19.4.4   Interzonal Airflows
        Residential structures consist of a number of
rooms that may be connected horizontally, vertically,
or  both   horizontally  and  vertically.   Before
considering  residential  structures  as  a  detailed
network of rooms, it is convenient to divide them into
one or more zones. At a minimum,  each floor is
typically defined as a separate zone.  For indoor air
exposure   assessments,   further   divisions   are
sometimes  made  within  a floor, depending on (1)
locations of specific contaminant sources and (2) the
presumed degree of air communication among areas
with and without sources.
        Defining  the airflow balance for a multiple-
zone  exposure   scenario  rapidly  increases   the
information  requirements as  rooms or zones  are
added.   As shown in Figure 19-5, a  single-zone
system (considering the entire building  as  a single
well-mixed volume) requires  only two  airflows  to
define air exchange. Further, because air exchange is
balanced flow (air does not "pile up" in the building,
nor is a vacuum formed), only one number (the air
exchange  rate)  is needed.    With two  zones,  six
airflows  are  needed  to  accommodate  interzonal
airflows plus  air exchange; with three  zones, twelve
airflows are required.  In some cases, the complexity
can be reduced using judicious (if not convenient)
assumptions.    Interzonal   airflows    connecting
nonadjacent rooms can be set to zero, for example, if
flow pathways do not exist.  Symmetry also can be
applied to the system by assuming that each flow pair
is balanced.

19.4.5   House Dust and Soil Loadings
        House  dust  is  a   complex  mixture  of
biologically-derived material (animal dander, fungal
spores, etc.),  paniculate  matter deposited  from the
indoor aerosol, and soil particles brought in by foot
traffic.  House dust may contain  VOCs  (see,  for
example, Wolkoff and Wilkins, 1994; Hirvonen et al.,
1995), pesticides from imported soil particles as well
as from direct applications indoors (see, for example,
Roberts et al., 1991), and trace metals derived from
outdoor sources  (see, for example, Layton  and
Thatcher,  1995).   The indoor abundance  of house
dust depends  on the interplay of deposition from the
airborne state, resuspension due to various activities,
direct accumulation, and infiltration.
        In the  absence  of indoor sources, indoor
concentrations of  paniculate matter are significantly
lower than  outdoor  levels.  For   some  time,  this
observation  supported the  idea  that  a significant
fraction of the outdoor aerosol is filtered out by the
building envelope.  More recent data, however, have
shown that  deposition  (incompletely addressed in
earlier  studies)  accounts  for  the   indoor-outdoor
contrast, and outdoor particles smaller than  10  um
aerodynamic   diameter  penetrate   the   building
envelope  as  completely  as  nonreactive   gases
(Wallace, 1996).

19.4.5.1 Roberts et  al,  1991 - Development and
        Field Testing of a High Volume Sampler
        for Pesticides and Toxics in Dust
        Dust loadings,  reported by  Roberts  et  al.
(1991) were also measured in conjunction with the
Non-Occupational    Pesticide   Exposure    Study
(NOPES). In this study house dust was sampled from
a representative grid  using a  specially constructed
high-volume surface  sampler  (HVS2).  The surface
sampler  collection   efficiency  was  verified   in
conformance with ASTM F608 (ASTM, 1989). The
data summarized in Table 19-18 were collected from
carpeted areas in  volunteer households in Florida
encountered during the course of NOPES.  Seven of
the nine sites were  single-family detached homes,
and two were mobile  homes. The authors noted that
the two houses exhibiting the highest dust loadings
were only those homes where a vacuum cleaner was
not used for housekeeping.

19.4.5.2 Thatcher  and Layton, 1995 - Deposition,
        Resuspension and Penetration of Particles
        Within a Residence
        Relatively few studies have been conducted
at the level of detail needed to clarify the dynamics of
indoor aerosols. One intensive study  of a California
residence  (Thatcher  and Layton,  1995),  however,
provides instructive  results. Using  a  model-based
analysis   for   data   collected  under  controlled
circumstances, the  investigators verified penetration
of the outdoor aerosol and estimated rates for particle
deposition  and resuspension  (Table 19-19). The
investigators stressed that normal household activities
are a significant source of airborne particles  larger
than 5 um. During the study, they observed that just
walking into and out of a room could momentarily
double the concentration. The airborne abundance of
submicrometer  particles, on  the  other hand, was
unaffected by either cleaning or walking.
        Mass loading of floor surfaces (Table 19-20)
was  measured in the  study of Thatcher and Layton
(1995)  by  thoroughly  cleaning  the house  and
sampling accumulated dust, after one week of normal
habitation.  Methodology, validated  under ASTM
F608 (ASTM,  1989), showed fine  dust  recovery
efficiencies of 50  percent with new carpet and  72
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         19-13
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                  Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
percent  for  linoleum.   Tracked   areas   showed
consistently higher  accumulations  than  untracked
areas,  confirming  the  importance  of tracked-in
material. Differences between tracked areas upstairs
and downstairs show that tracked-in material is not
readily  transported  upstairs.  The  consistency  of
untracked  carpeted  areas  throughout  the  house,
suggests that,  in the absence of tracking, particle
transport processes are similar on both floors.

19.5    SOURCES
        Product- and chemical-specific  mechanisms
for indoor sources can be  described using simple
emission factors to represent instantaneous releases,
as  well as constant  releases  over  defined  time
periods; more complex formulations may be required
for time-varying sources.   Guidance documents for
characterizing  indoor sources  within the context of
the exposure assessment process  are limited (see, for
example,  Jennings et al.,  1987; Wolkoff,  1995).
Fairly  extensive  guidance  exists in the  technical
literature,  however,  provided  that  the   exposure
assessor has the means to define (or estimate) key
mechanisms and chemical-specific parameters. Basic
concepts are summarized below for the broad source
categories  that  relate  to  airborne  contaminants,
waterborne  contaminants,  and for soil/house  dust
indoor sources.

19.5.1   Source   Descriptions    for    Airborne
        Contaminants
        Table 19-21 summarizes simplified indoor
source descriptions for airborne chemicals for direct
discharge  sources  (e.g.,   combustion,  pressurized
propellant products), as well  as  emanation sources
(e.g.,  evaporation from "wet" films, diffusion from
porous  media),  and  transport-related sources (e.g.,
infiltration of outdoor air  contaminants,  soil  gas
entry).
        Direct-discharge     sources     can    be
approximated  using  simple  formulas  that relate
pollutant mass released to characteristic process rates.
Combustion sources, for  example, may  be stated in
terms of an emission factor, fuel  content (or heating
value),  and fuel  consumption (or carrier  delivery)
rate.  Emission  factors for  combustion products of
general concern (e.g., CO, NOX) have been measured
for a number of combustion appliances  using room-
sized  chambers  (see, for example, Relwani et al.,
1986).  Other direct-discharge  sources would include
volatiles  released   from   water use  and  from
pressurized  consumer products. Resuspension  of
house  dust (see Section  19.4.3.1) would take on  a
similar form by combining an activity-specific rate
constant with an applicable dust mass.
        Diffusion-limited   sources   (e.g.,   carpet
backing, furniture,  flooring, dried  paint) represent
probably   the   greatest   challenge   in   source
characterization for indoor air quality.  Vapor-phase
organics  dominate   this   group,   offering  great
complexity because (1) there is a fairly long list of
chemicals that could  be of concern, (2) ubiquitous
consumer products, building materials,  coatings, and
furnishings  contain  varying amounts of different
chemicals,  (3)   source  dynamics   may  include
nonlinear mechanisms, and (4)  for many  of  the
chemicals, emitting as well as non-emitting materials
evident in realistic  settings may promote reversible
and   irreversible  sink  effects.     Very   detailed
descriptions for  diffusion-limited sources  can  be
constructed  to  link  specific  properties  of  the
chemical, the source  material,  and the receiving
environment to calculate expected behavior (see, for
example,  Schwope  et  al., 1992;  Cussler,  1984).
Validation to actual circumstances, however, suffers
practical shortfalls because many parameters simply
cannot be measured directly.
        The exponential formulation listed in Table
19-32  was  derived  based  on a  series  of papers
generated during the development of chamber testing
methodology by U.S. EPA (Dunn, 1987;  Dunn and
Tichenor,  1988;  Dunn  and  Chen,  1993). This
framework represents  an empirical  alternative that
works best  when the  results  of chamber tests  are
available. Estimates for the initial emission rate (E0)
and   decay  factor  (ks)   can  be   developed  for
hypothetical sources from information on pollutant
mass   available  for  release  (M)  and  supporting
assumptions.
        Assuming  that a critical time  period  (tc)
coincides with reduction  of the emission rate to a
critical  level (Ec) or  with the release of a  critical
fraction of the total mass  (Mc), the decay factor can
be estimated by solving either of these relationships:
   E,
               or-
Mc

~W
                                     (Eqn 19-3)
        The critical time period can be derived from
product-specific considerations (e.g., equating drying
time for a paint to  90 percent emissions reduction).
Given such an estimate for ks, the initial emission rate
can be estimated by integrating the emission formula
to  infinite  time under  the  assumption  that all
chemical mass is released:
Page
19-14
                Exposure Factors Handbook
                	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
.M.», _o
       k.
   MfE0esdt —
      J
(Eqn  19-4)
        The   basis  for  the  exponential  source
algorithm has  also been extended to the description
of more complex diffusion-limited sources.   With
these sources, diffusive or evaporative transport at the
interface may be  much  more  rapid than diffusive
transport from within the source material, so that the
abundance at  the  source/air  interface  becomes
depleted, limiting  the transfer rate to the air.  Such
effects  can prevail with  skin formation in "wet"
sources like  stains and  paints  (see, for example,
Chang and Guo,  1992).   Similar emission profiles
have   been  observed  with  the   emanation  of
formaldehyde from particleboard with "rapid" decline
as formaldehyde evaporates from surface sites of the
particleboard  over the first few weeks.  It  is then
followed by  a much slower  decline over ensuing
years  as  formaldehyde  diffuses from within the
matrix to  reach the surface (see, for example, Zinn
et al., 1990).
        Transport-based sources bring contaminated
air from other areas  into the airspace of concern.
Examples   include   infiltration    of   outdoor
contaminants, and soil gas entry. Soil gas entry is a
particularly complex phenomenon, and is frequently
treated  as a separate  modeling issue (Little et al.,
1992;  Sextro, 1994). Room-to-room migration of
indoor  contaminants  would   also  fall under  this
category, but this concept is best considered using the
multiple-zone model.

19.5.2  Source   Descriptions  for   Waterborne
        Contaminants
        Residential  water  supplies  may   convey
chemicals  to  which  occupants  can  be  exposed
through  ingestion,  dermal contact, or  inhalation.
These   chemicals  may  appear  in the  form  of
contaminants   (e.g., trichloroethylene) as  well as
naturally-occurring byproducts  of  water  system
history  (e.g.,  chloroform,  radon).  Among  indoor
water uses, showering, bathing and  handwashing of
dishes or  clothes  provide the  primary  opportunities
for  dermal  exposure.   The  escape  of  volatile
chemicals to the gas phase associates water use with
inhalation exposure. The  exposure  potential for a
given situation will depend on the source of water,
the types and extents of water uses, and the extent of
volatilization of specific chemicals. Primary types of
residential water use (summarized in Section 19.4.5)
include   showering/bathing,   toilet   use,   clothes
washing,  dishwashing,  and  faucet  use (e.g.,  for
drinking,  cooking,  general cleaning, or  washing
hands).
        Upper-bounding   estimates   of  chemical
release rates from water use can be  formulated as
simple   emission  factors   by   combining  the
concentration in the feed water (g m"3) with the flow
rate for the water use (m3 h"1), and assuming that the
chemical  escapes  to  the gas  phase.  For  some
chemicals, however, not all of the chemical escapes
in  realistic  situations  due  to  diffusion-limited
transport  and  solubility  factors.  For  inhalation
exposure estimates, this  may not pose  a  problem
because the bounding  estimate would overestimate
emissions by no more than approximately a factor of
two. For multiple exposure pathways, the chemical
mass remaining in the water may be of importance.
Refined estimates of volatile emissions are usually
considered   under   two-resistance   theory   to
accommodate mass  transport aspects of the water-air
system (see, for example, U.S. EPA 2000; Howard et
al., 1999; Moya, 1999; Little, 1992; Andelman, 1990;
McKone,  1987).    More  detailed  descriptions of
models used to estimate emissions from indoor water
sources  including shower, bathtub,  dishwasher and
washing machines are  included in U.S. EPA 2000.
Release rates are formulated as:
                                          H
                                                         (Eqn 19-5)
                      where:
                          S = chemical release rate (g h"1)
                          Km = dimensionless mass-transfer coefficient
                          Fw = water flow rate (m3 h"1)
                          Cw =  concentration in feed water (g m"3)
                          Ca = concentration in air (g m"3)
                          H = dimensionless Henry's Law constant

                               Because the emission  rate is dependent on
                      the  air   concentration,  recursive  techniques  are
                      required.  The mass transfer coefficient is a function
                      of water use characteristics (e.g., water droplet size
                      spectrum,  fall distance,  water film)  and chemical
                      properties (diffusion  in  gas  and liquid phases).
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                                 Page
                                                                19-15
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                 Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
Estimates of practical value are based on empirical
tests to  incorporate system  characteristics  into  a
single parameter (see, for example, Giardino et al.,
1990).  Once characteristics of one chemical-water
use system are known (reference chemical, subscript
r), the mass transfer coefficient for another chemical
(index chemical, subscript i) delivered by the same
system can be estimated using formulations identified
in the review by Little (1992):
where:
   DL = liquid diffusivity (m2 s"1)
   DG = gas diffusivity (m2 s"1)
   KL = liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient
   KG = gas-phase mass transfer coefficient
   H = dimensionless Henry's Law constant

19.5.3  Soil and House Dust Sources
        The rate process  descriptions compiled for
soil and house dust in Section 19.5.3 provide  inputs
for estimating indoor emission rates (Sd,  g h"1) in
terms of dust  mass  loading (Md, g m"2) combined
with resuspension rates  (Rd, h"1) and floor area (Af,
m2):
    Sd=MdRdA
f
              (Eqn 19-7)
        Because house  dust is a complex mixture,
transfer of particle-bound  constituents  to  the  gas
phase  may be of  concern  for some  exposure
assessments. For emission estimates, one would then
need  to  consider  particle  mass residing in  each
reservoir (dust deposit, airborne).

19.6    ADVANCED CONCEPTS
19.6.1  Uniform Mixing Assumption
        Many    exposure    measurements    are
predicated  on the assumption of uniform mixing
within a room  or  zone  of a house.  Mage  and Ott
(1994) offers an extensive  review of the history of
use and misuse of the concept. Experimental work by
Baughman et al. (1994) and Drescher et al. (1995)
indicates that, for  an instantaneous release from  a
      point source in a room, fairly complete mixing is
      achieved within 10 minutes when convective flow is
      induced by solar radiation.   However, up to  100
      minutes may be required for complete mixing under
      quiescent (nearly isothermal) conditions.  While these
      experiments were conducted  at extremely low air
      exchange  rates  (<0.1 ACH),  based  on the results,
      attention is focused on mixing within a room.
              The situation changes if a human invokes a
      point source for a longer period and remains in the
(Eqn  immediate vicinity of that source. Personal exposure
    1 in the near vicinity of a  source can be much higher
    9 than the well-mixed assumption would suggest.  A
    - series of experiments conducted by GEOMET (1989)
    6 for the  U.S. EPA involved controlled point-source
    ) releases of carbon monoxide tracer (CO), each for 30
      minutes.  "Breathing-zone"  measurements   located
      within 0.4 m of the release  point were ten times
      higher than for other locations in the  room during
      early stages of mixing and transport.
              Similar investigations conducted by Furtaw
      et al. (1995) involved  a series of experiments  in a
      controlled-environment room-sized chamber. Furtaw
      et al. (1995) studied spatial concentration gradients
      around a continuous point source simulated by sulfur
      hexafluoride (SF6) tracer with a human moving about
      the  room.   Average breathing-zone  concentrations
      when the subject was near the  source exceeded those
      several meters away by a factor that varied inversely
      with the ventilation intensity in the room. At typical
      room ventilation rates, the ratio of source-proximate
      to slightly-removed concentration was on the order of
      2:1.

      19.6.2  Reversible Sinks
              For  some  chemicals,   the   actions  of
      reversible sinks are of  concern.  For an initially
      "clean" condition  in  the  sink  material,  sorption
      effects  can greatly  deplete  indoor  concentrations.
      However,  once  enough  of the chemical has  been
      adsorbed,   the  diffusion  gradient  will  reverse,
      allowing the  chemical  to  escape.  For persistent
      indoor  sources, such effects  can serve to reduce
      indoor  levels  initially  but  once  the   system
      equilibrates,   the   net   effect   on  the  average
      concentration  of the reversible sink is  negligible.
      Over suitably  short time  frames, this can also affect
      integrated  exposure.   For  indoor  sources whose
      emission  profile  declines  with time  (or  ends
      abruptly), reversible sinks  can serve to extend  the
      emissions period as the chemical desorbs long after
      direct emissions are finished. Reversible sink effects
      have been observed for a number of chemicals in the
      presence of carpeting,  wall  coverings,  and other
      materials    commonly    found    in    residential
Page
19-16
                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                     	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
environments.
        Interactive   sinks  (and  models  of  the
processes) are of a special importance; while sink
effects can greatly reduce indoor air concentrations,
re-emission at lower rates over longer time periods
could greatly extend the exposure period of concern.
For completely reversible  sinks, the extended time
could  bring  the cumulative  exposure  to  levels
approaching the  sink-free case. Recent publications
(Axley et al., 1993; Tichenor et al., 1991) show that
first principles provide useful guidance in postulating
models   and   setting  assumptions for  reversible-
irreversible sink  models. Sorption/desorption can be
described in terms of Langmuir (monolayer) as well
as   Brunauer-Emmet-Teller    (BET,    multilayer)
adsorption.

19.7    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 19
Andelman, J.B.  (1990) Total  exposure to  volatile
        organic  compounds in potable water. In:
        Ram,  N, et  al.,  eds.  Significance and
        Treatment of Volatile  Organic Compounds
        in Water Supplies,   pp  485-504,  Lewis
        Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Andersson, B., K. Andersson,  J. Sundell, and R-A.
        Zingmark.   (1993)   Mass   transfer   of
        contaminants  in  rotary  enthalpy   heat
        exchangers.  Indoor Air. 3:143-148.
ASHRAE. (1988) ASHRAE Handbook: Equipment.
        American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
        and Air-Conditioning  Engineers.   Atlanta,
        GA.
ASHRAE.     (1993)    ASHRAE     Handbook:
        Fundamentals. American Society of Heating,
        Refrigerating,     and    Air-Conditioning
        Engineers. Atlanta, GA.
ASTM.  (1989)  Standard laboratory test method for
        evaluation of carpet-embedded dirt  removal
        effectiveness of household vacuum cleaners.
        Designation:  F 608-89. American  Society
        for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM.   (1990)   Test method for  determining
        formaldehyde  levels  from wood products
        under defined conditions using  a  large
        chamber.  Standard E 1333 90.  American
        Society   for   Testing  and   Materials:
        Philadelphia.
Axley,  J.W.   (1988)  Progress toward  a  general
        analytical method for  predicting indoor air
        pollution in buildings:  indoor air quality
        modeling phase III report. NBSIR 88-3814.
        National Bureau of Standards,  Gaithersberg,
        MD.
Axley, J.W. (1989) Multi-zone  dispersal  analysis by
        element    assembly.     Building    and
        Environment. 24(2): 113-130.
Axley, J.W.; Lorenzetti, D. (1993) Sorption transport
        models for indoor air quality analysis. In:
        Nagda, N.L. Ed., Modeling of Indoor Air
        Quality and Exposure.  ASTM STP  1205.
        Philadelphia,  PA:  American  Society  for
        Testing and Materials, pp. 105-127.
Baughman, A.V.; Gadgil, A.J.; Nazaroff, W.W. (1994)
        Mixing of a point source pollutant by natural
        convection flow within a room.  Indoor Air.
        4:114-122.
Chang,  J.C.S.; Guo, Z. (1992)  Characterization of
        organic emissions  from a  wood finishing
        product ~ wood stain. Indoor Air. 2(3): 146-
        53.
Cussler, E.L. (1984) Diffusion. Cambridge University
        Press, New York, NY.
Dietz, R.N.; Goodrich, R.W; Cote, E.A.; Wieser, R.F.
        (1986) Detailed description and performance
        of a passive perfluorocarbon tracer system
        for building ventilation and air exchange
        measurements.    H.R.  Trechsel and  PL.
        Lagus, Eds.  In:  Measured Air Leakage of
        Buildings.  ASTM STP 904.  Philadelphia,
        PA:  American Society for  Testing   and
        Materials, pp. 203-264.
Drescher, A.C.; Lobascio, C.; Gadgil, A.J.; Nazaroff,
        W.W. (1995)  Mixing  of  a  Point-Source
        Indoor Pollutant  by  Forced  Convection.
        Indoor Air.  5:204-214.
Dunn, J.E. (1987)  Models and statistical methods for
        gaseous emission testing of finite sources in
        well-mixed   chambers.      Atmospheric
        Environment. (21)2:425-430.
Dunn, J.E.; Chen,  T (1993)  Critical evaluation of the
        diffusion  hypothesis in the  theory of porous
        media volatile organic  compounds (VOC)
        sources  and sinks. In: Nagda,  N.L.  Ed.,
        Modeling  of   Indoor  Air Quality  and
        Exposure. ASTM STP  1205.  Philadelphia,
        PA.:   American Society   for Testing and
        Materials, pp. 64-80.
Dunn, J.E.; Tichenor, B.A. (1988) Compensating for
        sink effects in emissions test chambers by
        mathematical  modeling.      Atmospheric
        Environ., 22(5)885-894.
Furtaw, E.J.; Pandian, M.D.; Nelson, D.R; Behar, J.V
        (1995) Modeling indoor air concentrations
        near emission  sources  in  perfectly mixed
        rooms. Engineering Solutions to Indoor Air
        Quality   Problems.  Presented   at   Sixth
        Conference of the  International  Society for
        Environmental  Epidemiology  and Fourth
        Conference of the  International  Society for
        Exposure   Analysis  (Joint  Conference),
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                          Page
                                         19-17
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                 Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
        Research  Triangle Park,  NC,  September
        1994.
GEOMET. (1989) Assessment of indoor air pollutant
        exposure  within  building  zones.  Report
        Number  IE-2149, prepared for U.S. EPA
        Office   of  Health   and  Environmental
        Assessment under Contract No. 68-02-4254,
        Task   No.   235.   Germantown,   MD.:
        GEOMET Technologies, Inc.
Giardino, N.J.;  Gummerman,  E.; Andelman, J.B.;
        Wilkes,  C.R.; Small, M.J. (1990) Real-time
        measurements   of   trichloroethylene   in
        domestic  bathrooms  using   contaminated
        water.  Proceedings of the 5th International
        Conference  on  Indoor  Air  Quality  and
        Climate, Toronto, 2:707-712.
Grimsrud, D.T.; Sherman, M.H.; Sondereggen, R.C.
        (1983)  Calculating infiltration: implications
        for  a  construction  quality  standard.  In:
        Proceedings  of the  American  Society of
        Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
        Engineers      Conference.       Thermal
        Performance  of  Exterior  Envelopes  of
        Buildings II. ASHRAE SP38,  Atlanta, GA,
        pp. 422-449.
Grot,   R.A.  (1991)   User   manual   NBS/AVIS
        CONTAM88. NISTIR 4585,  Gaithersberg,
        MD:  National Institute  of Standards and
        Technology.
Grot,   R.A.;  Clark,  R.E.   (1981)   Air  leakage
        characteristics     and     weatherization
        techniques  for low-income   housing.  In:
        Proceedings  of the  American  Society of
        Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
        Engineers      Conference.       Thermal
        Performance  of  Exterior  Envelopes  of
        Buildings. ASHRAE SP28, Atlanta, GA, pp.
        178-194.
Hanley, J.T.; Ensor, D.S.; Smith, D.D.; Sparks, L.E.
        (1994)     Fractional    aerosol   filtration
        efficiency of in-duct ventilation air cleaners.
        Indoor Air. 4(3): 179-188.
Hirvonen, A.; Pasanen, P.; Tarhanen, I; Ruuskanen,
        J.  (1995) Thermal  desorption  of organic
        compounds    associated    with    settled
        household dust. Indoor Air. 5:255-264.
Howard-Reed, C;  Corsi,  R;  Moya, J  (1999) Mass
        transfer of volatile organic compounds from
        drinking  water  to indoor air: the role of
        residential dishwashers. Environ. Sci.  and
        Technol.  (33)13:2266-2272.
Jennings, P.D.;  Carpenter, C.E.;  Krishnan,  M.S.
        (1985)  Methods  for assessing exposure to
        chemical substances volume 12: methods for
        estimating the  concentration  of chemical
        substances in indoor air. EPA 560/5-85-016,
        U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
        Washington, DC.
Jennings, P.O.; Hammerstrom, K.A.;  Adkins,  L.C.;
        Chambers, T.; Dixon, D.A. (1987) Methods
        for   assessing   exposure   to   chemical
        substances volume 7: methods for assessing
        consumer exposure to chemical substances.
        EPA  560/5-85-007,  U.S.  Environmental
        Protection Agency,  Office of Pesticides and
        Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
Koontz, M.D.; Nagda, N.L.  (1991) A multichamber
        model for  assessing  consumer  inhalation
        exposure. Indoor Air. 1(4):593-605.
Koontz, M.D.; Rector, H.E.  (1995)  Estimation of
        distributions for residential  air  Exchange
        rates, EPA Contract No. 68-D9-0166, Work
        Assignment No. 3-19, U.S. Environmental
        Protection  Agency,  Office   of  Pollution
        Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
Koontz, M.D.; Rector, H.E.; Fortmann, R.C.; Nagda,
        N.L. (1988) Preliminary  experiments in a
        research house  to  investigate contaminant
        migration in indoor air. EPA  560/5-88-004.
        U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
        Washington, DC.
Layton, D.W.; Thatcher, T.L. (1995)  Movement of
        outdoor particles to the indoor environment:
        An  analysis of the  Arnhem Lead  Study.
        Paper No. 95-MP4.02. Annual Meeting of
        the Air and Waste Management Association,
        San Antonio, TX.
Leaderer,  B.P; Schaap, L.;  Dietz, R.N.   (1985)
        Evaluation   of   perfluorocarbon   tracer
        technique for determining infiltration rates
        in residences.  Environ.  Sci.  and Technol.
        19(12):1225-1232.
Liddament, M.; Allen, C.   (1983) Validation and
        comparison of mathematical  models of air
        infiltration.   Technical Note  AIC  11.  Air
        Infiltration Centre, Great Britain.
Little, J.C. (1992) Applying the two-resistance theory
        to contaminant volatilization in showers.
        Environ. Sci. and Technol. 26(7):1341-1349.
Little,  J.C.;  Daisey,  J.M.;  Nazaroff,  W.W. (1992)
        Transport of  subsurface  contaminants into
        buildings  ~  an   exposure  Pathway for
        Volatile   Organics.  Environ.  Sci.    and
        Technol.  (26)11:2058-2066.
Lucas, R.M.;  Grille, R.B.; Perez-Michael, A.; Kemp,
        S. (1992) National  residential radon survey
        statistical analysis ~ volume 2: summary of
        the   questionnaire  data.   RTI/5158/49-2F.
Page
19-18
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
        Research   Triangle   Institute,   Research
        Triangle Park, NC.
Mage,  D.T.;  Ott, W.R.  (1994) The correction for
        nonuniform mixing in  indoor environments.
        ASTM   Symposium   on  Methods  for
        Characterizing Indoor  Sources and  Sinks,
        Washington, DC.
McKone, T.E. (1987) Human  exposure to volatile
        organic compounds in  household tap  water:
        The inhalation pathway. Environ.  Sci.  and
        Technol. 21(12):1194-1201.
McKone, T.E. (1989) Household exposure models.
        Toxicol. Letters. 49:321-339.
Moya,  J; Howard-Reed, C;  Corsi, Richard (1999)
        Volatilization of chemicals from tap water to
        indoor air from contaminated water used for
        showering.   Environ.  Sci.  and   Technol.
        (33)14:2321-2327.
Murray, D.M. (1996) residential  house and zone
        volumes in the United States: Empirical and
        Estimated    Parametric     Distributions.
        Submitted to Risk Analysis in 1996.
Murray, D.M.; Burmaster, D.E. (1995)  Residential
        air  exchange rates  in the  United States:
        Empirical   and   Estimated   Parametric
        Distribution by Season and Climatic Region.
        Submitted to Risk Analysis in 1995.
 Nazaroff, W.W.;  Cass,  G.R. (1986) Mathematical
        modeling of chemically reactive pollutants
        in indoor air.  Environ. Sci. and  Technol.
        20:924-934.
Nazaroff, W.W.; Cass, G.R.  (1989)  Mass-transport
        aspects  of  pollutant  removal  at indoor
        surfaces.      Environment   International,
        15:567-584.
Nazaroff, W.W.; Doyle, S.M.;  Nero, A.V.; Sextro,
        R.G. (1988). Radon entry via potable water.
        In:  Nazaroff, W.W.  and Nero, A.V.,  Eds.,
        Radon and Its Decay Products in Indoor Air.
        John Wiley and Sons, NY.  pp. 131-157.
Nazaroff, W.W; Gadgil, A.J.; Weschler, C.J. (1993)
        Critique of the use of deposition velocity in
        modeling indoor air quality. In: Nagda, N.L.
        Ed.,  Modeling of Indoor Air Quality and
        Exposure,  ASTM   STP  1205,  American
        Society   for   Testing   and   Materials.
        Philadelphia, PA, pp. 148-165.
Offerman, F.J.; Sextro,  R.G;  Fisk, W.; Nazaroff,
        W.W.; Nero, A.V.;  Revzan,  K.L.;  Yater, J.
        (1984) Control  of respirable particles and
        radon progeny with portable  air  cleaners.
        Report No.  LBL-16659, Lawrence Berkley
        Laboratory, Berkley,  CA.
Pandian, M.H.; Behar, J.V.; Thomas, J. (1993) Use of
        a relational  database  to   predict  human
        population  exposures for  different  time
        periods. Proceedings of  Indoor Air  '93,
        Helsinki 3:283-288.
Persily, A.K.; Linteris, GT  (1984) A comparison of
        measured and predicted  infiltration rates.
        ASHRAE Transactions 89(2):183-199.
Price, S. (2003) Construction of a  Comprehensive
        Chemical   Exposure  Framework   Using
        Person Oriented Modeling. Devloped for
        The  Exposure  Technical  Implementation
        Panel,  American Chemistry Council. June
        20, 2003.
Price, S. (2001) An Evaluation of the  Potential for
        Use  of Existing  Exposure  Software (or
        Software Currently Under Development) in
        a Tiered  Approach to the  Assessment of
        Exposures and Risks to Children. Developed
        for  the The American Chemistry Council.
        December 3, 2001.
Relwani, S.M.; Moschandreas,  D.J.;  Billick,  I.H.
        (1986) Effects  of operational  factors  on
        pollutant emission rates from residential gas
        appliances.    J. Air  Poll.  Control  Assoc.
        36:1233-1237.
Roberts, J.W.; Budd, W.T.; Ruby, M.G; Bond, A.E.;
        Lewis, R.G;  Wiener, R.W.; Camann, D.E.
        (1991) Development and field testing of a
        high volume sampler for  pesticides  and
        toxics  in   dust.  J. Exposure  Anal,  and
        Environ. Epidemiol. (1)2:143-155
Ryan, PB. (1991) An overview of human exposure
        modeling.   J. Exposure Anal,  and Environ.
        Epidemiol.  (1)4:453-474.
Sandberg, M.  (1984)  The  Multi-chamber  theory
        reconsidered  from  the viewpoint  of air
        quality studies.  Building  and  Environment
        (19)4:221-233.
Schwope,  A.D.; Goydan,   R.; Reid,  R.C.  (1992)
        Methods for assessing exposure to chemical
        substances  Volume 11:  Methodology for
        Estimating  the Migration  of Additives and
        Impurities from Polymeric Substances. EPA
        560/5-85-015,     U.S.      Environmental
        Protection  Agency,  Office  of  Pollution
        Prevention,     Pesticides,     and    Toxic
        Substances, Washington, DC.
Sextro,  R.G.   (1994)  Radon  and  the   natural
        environment. IN: Nagda, N.L. Ed., Radon ~
        Prevalence,   Measurements, Health  Risks
        and  Control, ASTM MNL 15, American
        Society  for   Testing   and   Materials,
        Philadelphia, PA, pp. 9-32.
Shaughnessy, R.J.; Levetin, E.; Blocker, J.; Sublette,
        K.L.  (1994) Effectiveness  of portable air
        cleaners:  sensory testing results. Indoor Air
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                         Page
                                         19-19
-------
                                                                      Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
        4(3):179-188.
Sherman, M.H.  (1989) Analysis of errors associated
        with  passive  ventilation   measurement
        techniques.    Building and Environment
        24(2):131-139.
Sherman, M.; Dickerhoff, D.  (1996) Air tightness of
        U.S. dwellings.  In: The Role of Ventilation
        15th  AIVC   Conference   Proceedings.
        Buxton,  Great Britain, September 27-30,
        1994.
Sinden,   F.W. (1978)  Multi-chamber  theory  of
        infiltration.    Building and  Environment.
        13:21-28.
Thatcher,  T.L.;  Layton, D.W.  (1995) Deposition,
        resuspension, and penetration of particles
        within  a  residence.    Atmos.  Environ.
        29(13): 1487-1497.
Thompson, W. (1995)  U.S. Department of Energy
        (U.S. DOE)  and   Energy  Information
        Administration. Personal communication on
        distribution of heated floor space area from
        the 1993 RECS.
Tichenor, B.A.;  Guo, Z.;  Dunn, J.E.; Sparks,  L.E.;
        Mason, M.A. (1991)   The interaction  of
        vapor phase organic compounds with indoor
        sinks. Indoor Air  1:23-35.
Tucker, W.G.  (1991) Emission of organic substances
        from indoor surface  materials.  Environ.
        Internal  17:357-363.
U.S.  Census  Bureau  (2008),  Current  Housing
        Reports,  Series H150/07, American Housing
        Survey  for the  United States:  2007  U.S.
        Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,
        DC, 20401
U.S. DOE. (2005) Residential Energy Consumption
        Survey (RECS) Report No. DOE/EIA-0314
        (93), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
        Energy, Energy Information Administration.
U.S. EPA (2000).  Volatilization rates from water to
        indoor  air—phase  II,  EPA  600/R-00/096:
        2000. Washington,  DC: US  Environmental
        Protection Agency.
Versar. (1990) Database of perfluorocarbon  tracer
        (PFT)      ventilation      measurements:
        description  and user's  manual.   U.S. EPA
        Contract  No.  68-02-4254,  Task No.  39.
        Washington, D.C:    U.S.  Environmental
        Protection  Agency,   Office   of   Toxic
        Substances.
Wallace, L.A. (1996) Indoor particles: A review.  J.
        Air  and  Waste   Management   Assoc.
        (46)2:98-126.
Walton, GN. (1993) CONTAM  93  User Manual.
        NISTIR 5385.  Gaithersburg, MD: National
        Institute of Standards and Technology.
Wilkes, C.R.; Small,  M.J.; Andelman, J.B.; Giardino,
        N.J.; Marshall, J. (1992) Inhalation exposure
        model for volatile  chemicals from indoor
        uses of water.  Atmospheric Environment
        (26A)12:2227-2236.
Wolkoff,  P. (1995)  Volatile  organic  compounds:
        sources, measurements, emissions,  and the
        impact  on  indoor  air quality. Indoor Air
        Supplement No. 3/95, pp 1-73.
Wolkoff, P.; Wilkins, C.K. (1994) Indoor VOCs from
        household  floor dust:   comparison  of
        headspace with desorbed VOCs; Method for
        VOC  release  determination.  Indoor  Air
        4:248-254.
Zinn, T.W.; Cline, D.; Lehmann, WF. (1990) Long-
        term study of formaldehyde emission decay
        from particleboard.  Forest Products Journal
        (40)6:15-18.
Page
19-20
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
       Air In

    Water In

      Soil In
Concentration, C     '  '•

Source
             Resuspension
   Decay
                                                  Exposure, E for Occupant(s)
                                 Removal
                                                Reversible
                                                  Sinks
Out
                           Figure 19-1. Elements of Residential Exposure
Table 19-4. Summary
Parameter
Arithmetic Mean
Standard Deviation
lOthPercentile
25th Percentile
50th Percentile
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
of Residential Volume Distributions in Cubic
RECSData(1)
369
258
147
209
310
476
672
Meters"
PFT Database (2)
369
209
167
225
321
473
575
a In cubic meters.
Sources: (1) Thompson, 1995; (2) Versar, 1990.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                              Page
                                                             19-21
-------
                                                                            Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                    Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                                  o .,•
                           a  ••''
                       ,-o  „.!
                                                          ,-^
                         103
                                                                                800
                       Figure 19-2.  Cumulative Frequency Distributions for Residential Volumes
              Table 19-5.  Average Estimated Volumes of U.S. Residences, by Housing Type and Ownership
                                                            Ownership
                         Owner-Occupied
                                    Rental
                                                                      All Units
    Housing Type
Volume8     Percent
  (m3)       of Total
Volume*     Percent
  (m3)       Of Total
                                                                                        Volume3     Percent
                                                                                         (nO
                                                                           of Total
Single-Family
  (Detached)

Single-Family
  (Attached)

Multifamily
  (2-4 units)

Multifamily
  (5+ Units)

Mobile Home

All Types
637


544


363


253


249

586
             64.1


             4.2


             1.8


             2.3


             5.7

             78.1
  449


  313


  211


  189


  196

  269
 7.2


 3.1


 5.3


13.0


 1.1

29.7
616


440


247


198


240

492
64.9


 6.8


 7.0


15.0


 6.2

100.0
a       Volumes calculated from floor areas assuming a ceiling height of 8 feet. Excludes floorspace in unheated garages.
        The total average square footage per housing unit for the 2001 RECS was reported as 1,975 square feet. This figure
        excluded unheated garages and for most housing units, living space in attics. The average total square footage for
        housing units in the 2005 RECS, reported in this table is 2,171 square feet, includes attic living space for all housing
        units. The only available figures that permit comparison of total square footage for both survey years would exclude
        all garage floorspace and attic floorspace in all housing units—for 2001 the total square footage was 2,005 and for
        2005 the total was 2,029 square feet.

Source:  Adapted from U.S. DOE, 2005.
Page
19-22
                                                   Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                   	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                          Table 19-6.  Residential Volumes in Relation to Year of Construction
                                                            Volume3
                                                              (m3)
                          Percent of Total
Year of Construction
  Before 1940
  1940 to 1949
  1950 to 1959
  1960 to 1969
  1970 to 1979
  1980 to 1989
  1990 to 1999
  2000 to 2005
  All Years
527
464
465
446
422
451
567
640
492
13.2
 6.7
11.3
11.3
17.0
16.7
15.6
 8.3
100.0
a      Volumes calculated from floor areas assuming a ceiling height of 8 feet. Excludes floorspace in unheated garages. The
       total average square footage per housing unit for the 2001 RECS was reported as 1,975 square feet. This figure excluded
       unheated garages and for most housing units, living space in attics. The average total square footage for housing units in
       the 2005 RECS, reported in this table is 2,171 square feet, includes attic living space for all housing units.  The only
       available figures that permit comparison of total square footage for both survey years would exclude all garage
       floorspace and attic floorspace in all housing units-for 2001 the total square footage was 2,005 and for 2005 the total
       was 2,029 square feet.

Source: U.S. DOE, 2005.
 Table 19-7. Number of Residential Single Detached and Manufactured/mobile Homes by Volume
Year-round

Housing Units
Total all housing units
Total sin£
>le detached and
manufactured/mobile homes










know)

Less than 113.3 m
113.3 to 169.7m3
169.9 to 226. 3m3
226.5 to 339.6m3
339.8 to 452.8m3
453. Ito566.ini3
566.3 to 679.4m3
679.6 to 905. 9m3
906 or more m3
Not reported (includes don't

Median
Total
housing
units
128,203

89,111
1,004
2,725
6,443
20,725
20,061
13,960
7,320
6,845
4,285

5,742
400.7
Source: American Housing Survey (2007) (converted
Seasonal
4,402

3,384
232
510
602
711
457
260
108
103
68

334
255.5
Total
123,801

85,727
773
2,215
5,841
20,015
19,604
13,700
7,212
6,742
4,217

5,409
405.3
from ft2, assumes 8 foot
Owner
occupied
75,647

67,931
361
1,108
3,605
14,864
16,220
11,957
6,438
6,028
3,708

3,642
425.0
ceiling).
Renter
occupied
35,045

10,423
269
712
1,466
3,305
1,973
914
320
271
212

981
304.5

.3 M
3 8
i ^
3 ^r
» -&
%S
7,188

5,485
34
27
95
570
1,107
1,137
714
820
546

434
521.9

Manufacture
d/ mobile
homes
8,705

8,705
344
973
1,830
2,661
1,138
280
103
47
138

1,193
252.6

Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                         Page
                                         19-23
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                       Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics

Nominal Dimensions
Eight Foot Ceiling
12'xl5'
12'xl2'
10'xl2'
9'xl2'
6'xl2'
4'xl2'
Twelve Foot Ceiling
12'xl5'
12'xl2'
10'xl2'
9'xl2'
6'xl2'
4'xl2'
Table
Length
(m)

4.6
3.7
3.0
2.7
1.8
1.2

4.6
3.7
3.0
2.7
1.8
1.2
1 9-8. Dimensional Quantities for Residential Rooms
Width
(m)

3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7

3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
Height
(m)

2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4

3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
Volume
(m3)

41
33
27
24
16
11

61
49
41
37
24
16
Wall Area
(m2)

40
36
33
31
27
24

60
54
49
47
40
36
Floor Area
(m2)

17
13
11
10
7
4

17
13
11
10
7
4
Total Area
(m2)

74
62
55
51
40
32

94
80
71
67
54
44
Table 19-9. Examples of Products and Materials Associated with Floor and Wall
Surfaces in Residences
, , , . . „ Assumed Amount of
Material Sources „ ,, „ ,a
Surface Covered
Silicone caulk
Floor adhesive
Floor wax
Wood stain
Polyurethane wood finish
Floor varnish or lacquer
Plywood paneling
Chipboard
Gypsum board
Wallpaper
a Based on typical values for a residence.
Source: Adapted from Tucker, 1 99 1 .
0.2m2
10.0m2
50.0m2
10.0m2
10.0m2
50.0m2
100.0m2
100.0m2
100.0m2
100.0m2


Page
19-24
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                                  -'i. •".' irei- ji F rt v sod SETUFM L.\ .- ?UT
                                         "'  *
                     Figure 19-3. Configuration for Residential Forced-air Systems
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
 Page
19-25
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                       Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
Table 19-10. Percent of Residences with Basement, by
Census Region
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
South
Midwest
West
West
West

U.S. EPA
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
All Regions
Census Region and U.S. EPA Region
Percent of Residences with Basements
93.4
55.9
67.9
19.3
73.5
4.1
75.3
68.5
10.3
11.5
45.2
Source: Lucas et al., 1992.
Page                                                     Exposure Factors Handbook
19-26	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
Table 19-11. States Associated with U.S. EPA Regions and Census Regions
U.S. EPA Regions
Region 1
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

Region 2
New Jersey
New York

Region 3
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia

US Bureau of Census
Northeast Region
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
Vermont









Region 4
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee

Region 5
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin



Regions
Midwest Region
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin






Region 6
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

Region 7
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska

Region 8
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

South Region
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia

Region 9
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada

Region 10
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington










West Region
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming




Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
19-27
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                       Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
Table 19-12. Percent of Residences with Certain Foundation Types by Census Region
Percent of Residences3
Census Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
All Regions
a Percentage may add
given residence.
Source: U.S. DOE, 2005.
With
Basement
73.1
67.7
19.0
17.2
40.5
to more than 100 percent

With
Crawlspace
18.8
27.2
29.6
37.1
28.7
because more than one

With
Concrete Slab
24.4
30.4
58.5
61.8
45.9
foundation type may apply to a

Page
19-28
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
Table 19-13. Summary of Major Projects Providing Air Exchange Measurements in the PFT Database
Project Code
ADM
BSG
GSS
FLEMING
GEOMET1
GEOMET2
GEOMET3
LAMBERT 1
LAMBERT2
LAMBERT3
LAMBERT4
LBL1
LBL2
LBL3
LBL4
LBL5
LBL6
NAHB
NYSDH
PEI
PIERCE
RTI1
RTI2
RTI3
SOCAL1
SOCAL2
SOCAL3
UMINN
UWISC
State
CA
CA
AZ
NY
FL
MD
TX
ID
MT
OR
WA
OR
WA
ID
WA
WA
ID
MN
NY
MD
CT
CA
CA
NY
CA
CA
CA
MN
WI
Month(s)a
5-7
1,8-12
1-3,8-9
1-6,8-12
1,6-8,10-12
1-6
1-3
2-3,10-11
1-3,11
1-3,10-12
1-3,10-12
1-4,10-12
1-4,10-12
1-5,11-12
1-4,11-12
2-4
3-4
1-5,9-12
1-2,4,12
3-4
1-3
2
7
1-4
3
7
1
1-4
2-5
Number of
Measurements
29
40
25
56
18
23
42
36
51
83
114
126
71
23
29
21
19
28
74
140
25
45
41
397
551
408
330
35
57
Mean Air ^
Exchange Rate
0.70
0.53
0.39
0.24
0.31
0.59
0.87
0.25
0.23
0.46
0.30
0.56
0.36
1.03
0.39
0.36
0.28
0.22
0.59
0.59
0.80
0.90
2.77
0.55
0.81
1.51
0.76
0.36
0.82
0.52
0.30
0.21
0.28
0.16
0.34
0.59
0.13
0.15
0.40
0.15
0.37
0.19
0.47
0.27
0.21
0.14
0.11
0.37
0.45
1.14
0.73
2.12
0.37
0.66
1.48
1.76
0.32
0.76
Percentiles
10th
0.29
0.21
0.16
0.05
0.15
0.12
0.33
0.10
0.10
0.19
0.14
0.28
0.18
0.37
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.28
0.15
0.20
0.38
0.79
0.26
0.29
0.35
0.26
0.17
0.22
25th
0.36
0.30
0.23
0.12
0.18
0.29
0.51
0.17
0.14
0.26
0.20
0.35
0.25
0.73
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.37
0.26
0.22
0.48
1.18
0.33
0.44
0.59
0.37
0.20
0.33
50th
0.48
0.40
0.33
0.22
0.25
0.65
0.71
0.23
0.19
0.38
0.30
0.45
0.32
0.99
0.36
0.30
0.26
0.20
0.50
0.49
0.38
0.78
2.31
0.44
0.66
1.08
0.48
0.28
0.55
75th
0.81
0.70
0.49
0.29
0.48
0.83
1.09
0.33
0.26
0.56
0.39
0.60
0.42
1.34
0.47
0.47
0.38
0.24
0.68
0.83
0.77
1.08
3.59
0.63
0.94
1.90
0.75
0.40
1.04
90th
1.75
0.90
0.77
0.37
0.60
0.92
1.58
0.49
0.38
0.80
0.50
1.02
0.52
1.76
0.63
0.62
0.55
0.38
1.07
1.20
2.35
1.52
5.89
0.94
1.43
3.11
1.11
0.56
1.87
a 1 = January, 2 = February, etc.
b Standard deviation
Source: Adapted from Versar,
1990.








Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
Page
19-29
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                       Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
Table 19-14. Summary Statistics for Air Exchange Rates (air changes per hour- ACH), by Region

Arithmetic Mean
Arithmetic Standard Deviation
Geometric Mean
Geometric Standard Deviation
lOthPercentile
50th Percentile
90th Percentile
Maximum
West Region
0.66
0.87
0.47
2.11
0.20
0.43
1.25
23.32
North Central
Region
0.57
0.63
0.39
2.36
0.16
0.35
1.49
4.52
Northeast
Region
0.71
0.60
0.54
2.14
0.23
0.49
1.33
5.49
South Region
0.61
0.51
0.46
2.28
0.16
0.49
1.21
3.44
All Regions
0.63
0.65
0.46
2.25
0.18
0.45
1.26
23.32
Source: Koontz and Rector, 1995.
Table 19-15. Distributions of Residential Air Exchange Ratesa by Climate Region and Season
Climate
Region
Coldest


Colder


Warmer


Warmest


In
„ 010- Arithmetic
Season Sample Size , ,
F Mean
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
air changes per hour
Few oberservations for
Source: Murray and Burmaster,
161
254
5
47
428
43
2
23
96
165
34
37
454
589
488
18

summer results
1995.
0.36
0.44
0.82
0.25
0.57
0.52
1.31
0.35
0.47
0.59
0.68
0.51
0.63
0.77
1.57
0.72

in colder re

Standard
Deviation
0.28
0.31
0.69
0.12
0.43
0.91
0.18
0.40
0.43
0.50
0.25
0.52
0.62
1.56
1.43

gions. Data

Percentiles
10th
0.11
0.18
0.27
0.10
0.21
0.13
0.15
0.19
0.18
0.27
0.30
0.24
0.28
0.33
0.22

not available.

25th
0.18
0.24
0.41
0.15
0.30
0.21
0.22
0.26
0.28
0.36
0.30
0.34
0.42
0.58
0.25



50th
0.27
0.36
0.57
0.22
0.42
0.24
0.33
0.39
0.48
0.51
0.44
0.48
0.63
1.10
0.42



75th
0.48
0.53
1.08
0.34
0.69
0.39
0.41
0.58
0.82
0.83
0.60
0.78
0.92
1.98
0.46



90th
0.71
0.80
2.01
0.42
1.18
0.83
0.59
0.78
1.11
1.30
0.82
1.13
1.42
3.28
0.74



Page
19-30
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook


Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
         10-1 IF
         io~2 -F
    vi
    £
    o
    JO
    0)
    >
    C
    2
    •fc*
    *P
    O
    Q.
    *
    Q
            fl Of
                                    Particle Diameter (pm)
                     Figure 19-4. Idealized Patterns of Particle Deposition Indoors


Source: Adapted from Nazaroff and Cass, 1989.

Table 19-16.
Particle Deposition During
Particle Size Range
1-5
5-10
10-25
>25


Normal Activities
Particle Removal Rate
(h-1)
0.5
1.4
2.4
4.1
Source: Adapted from Thatcher and Layton, 1 995 .



Source:
Table 19-17.
Size Fraction
PM25
PM10
Coarse
Adapted from Wallace, 1996.
Deposition Rates for Indoor Particles
Deposition Rate
0.39h-'
0.65 h'1
l.Oh'1

Exposure Factors Handbook

July 2009	
 Page

19-31
-------
                                                             Exposure Factors Handbook

                                          Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
                  NC4.E ICIJE
                             H-7
                         Figure 19-5. Air Flows for Multiple-zone Systems
Page
19-32
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics

Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Source: Adapted from Roberts etal.,
Table 19-18. Total Dust Loading
Total Dust Load
(g-m"2)
10.8
4.2
0.3
2.2; 0.8
1.4; 4. 3
0.8
6.6
33.7
812.7
1991.
for Carpeted Areas
Fine Dust (<150 um) Load (g-m"2)
6.6
3.0
0.1
1.2; 0.3
1.0; 1.1
0.3
4.7
23.3
168.9

Table 19-19
Particle Size Range
(um)
0.3-0.5
0.6-1
1-5
5-10
10-25
>25
Particle Deposition and Resuspension During Normal Activities

Particle Deposition Rate Particle Resuspension Rate
(h4) (h4)
(not measured)
(not measured)
0.5
1.4
2.4
4.1
9.9 xlO'7
4.4 xlO'7
l.SxlO'5
8.3xlO'5
3.8 xlO'4
3.4 xlO'5
Source: Adapted from Thatcher and Layton, 1 995.
Table 19-20
Location in Test House
Tracked area of downstairs carpet
Untracked area of downstairs carpet
Tracked area of linoleum
Untracked area of linoleum
Tracked area of upstairs carpet
Untracked area of upstairs carpet
Front doormat
Dust Mass Loading After One Week Without Vacuum


Cleaning
Dust Loading
2.20
0.58
0.08
0.06
1.08
0.60
43.34

(g-m"2)

Source: Adapted from Thatcher and Layton, 1 995.
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                     Page
July 2009	19-33
-------
                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook

                                       Chapter 19 - Residential Building Characteristics
Table 19-21. Simplified Source Descriptions for Airborne Contaminants

Direct


Description
Discharge
Combustion
Volume Discharge
Mass Discharge
Components
EfHfMf
Ef = emission factor
Hf = fuel content
Mf = fuel consumption rate
QpCp_8
QD = volume delivery rate
Cp = concentration in carrier
s = transfer efficiency
MpWes
Mp = mass delivery rate
we = weight fraction
s = transfer efficiency
Dimensions
Jmol"1
molh'1
m3h-1
gm"3
gg'1
gh-;
gh-
gg-1
& &
Diffusion Limited



Exponential
Transport
Infiltration
Interzonal
Soil Gas
Df = diffusivity
5 -1 = boundary layer thickness
Cs = vapor pressure of surface
Q = room concentration
A; = area
A; = area
E0 = initial unit emission rate
k = emission decay factor
t = time
Q«c,
Qii = air flow from zone j
Cj = air concentration in zone j
m
gm"3
gm"3
m2
9
m
gh^rn'2
h-1
h
mV1
gm"3
Page
19-34
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Glossary	
                               GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Exposure Factors Handbook                                                   Page
July 2009                                                                    G-l
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Glossary
Absorbed dose - In exposure assessment, the amount of a
substance that penetrates an exposed organism's absorption
barriers (e.g. skin, lung tissue, gastrointestinal tract) through
physical or biological processes. The term is synonymous
with internal dose.

Activity pattern  data  - Information on human
activities used  in exposure assessments. These  may
include a description of the activity, frequency  of
activity, duration spent performing the activity, and the
microenvironment in which the activity occurs.

Acute exposure - A single  exposure to a toxic substance
which may result in severe biological harm or death. Acute
exposures are usually characterized as lasting no longer than
a day, as compared to longer, continuing exposure over a
period of time.

Adherence factor - The amount of a material (e.g.,
soil) that adheres to the skin per unit of surface area.

Activity pattern (time use)  data - Information on
activities in which various individuals engage, length of
time spent performing various activities, locations  in
which individuals spend time and length of time spent
by individuals within those various environments.

Agricultural commodity - Used by U. S. EPA to mean
plant (or animal) parts consumed by humans as food.
When such  items are raw  or unprocessed, they are
referred to as "raw agricultural commodities."

Air exchange  rate -  Rate  of air  leakage  through
windows,  doorways,   intakes  and  exhausts,  and
"adventitious openings" (i.e.,  cracks and seams) that
combine to  form the  leakage configuration of the
building envelope  plus  natural  and  mechanical
ventilation.

All water sources - Includes water from all supply
sources such as community  water supply  (i.e., tap
water), bottled water, etc.

Analytical uncertainty propagation - Examining how
uncertainty in individual parameters affects the overall
uncertainty of the exposure assessment.
Anthropometric  -  The   study  of  human  body
measurements for use in anthropological classification
and comparison.

As-consumed intake - Intake rate based on the weight
of the food in the form that it is consumed (e.g., cooked
or prepared).

Assessment - A determination or appraisal of possible
consequences resulting from an analysis of data.

Average Daily Dose (ADD) - Dose rate averaged over
a pathway-specific period of exposure expressed as a
daily dose onaper-unit-body-weightbasis. The ADD is
used for exposure to chemicals with non-carcinogenic
non-chronic effects. The ADD is usually expressed in
terms of mg/kg-day or other mass/mass-time units.

Benchmark Dose or  Concentration  -  A dose  or
concentration that produces a predetermined change in
response rate of an adverse effect (called the benchmark
response or BMR) compared to background.

Best Tracer Method (BTM) - Method for estimating
soil ingestion that allows for the selection of the most
recoverable tracer for a particular subject or group of
subjects.  Selection of the best tracer is made on the
basis of the food/soil (F/S) ratio.

Bias - A  systematic error  inherent in a method or
caused by some feature of the measurement system.

Bioavailability - The rate and extent to which an agent
can be absorbed by an organism and is available for
metabolism or interaction with biologically significant
receptors.  Bioavailability involves both release from a
medium (if present) and absorption by an organism.

Biokinetic model comparison - A methodology that
compares  direct measurements of a biomarker such as
blood or urine levels of a toxicant with predictions from
a biokinetic model.

Biomarker model comparison - A methodology that
compares  results from a biokinetic exposure model to
biomarker measurements children blood. The method
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            G-3
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                              Glossary
is used to confirm assumptions about ingested soil and
dust quantities in this handbook.

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) - Minimum level of
energy required to maintain normal body functions.

Body Mass Index (BMI)  - The ratio of weight and
height squared.

Bootstrap - A statistical method of resampling data
use to estimate variance and bias of an estimator and
provide confidence intervals for parameters.

Bounding estimate - An estimate of exposure, dose, or
risk that is higher or lower than that incurred by the
person with the highest or lowest exposure, dose, or
risk in the population being assessed.  Bounding
estimates  are useful in developing statements  that
exposures, doses, or risks are "not greater than" or "less
than" the  estimated value, because assumptions are
used which define the likely bounding conditions.

Central tendency exposure - A measure of the middle
or the center of an exposure distribution. The mean is
the most commonly used measure of central tendency.

Chronic  exposure - Repeated exposure by  the oral,
dermal, or inhalation route for more than approximately
10%  of  the  life  span  in humans  (more  than
approximately 90 days to  2  years  in typically used
laboratory animal species).

Chronic intake - The  long term period over which a
substance  crosses the outer boundary of an organism
without passing an absorption barrier.

Classical  statistical  methods  -  Estimating  the
population exposure distribution directly, based on
measured values from a representative sample.

Coating - Method used to measure skin surface area, in
which either the whole body or specific body regions
are coated with  a  substance of known density  and
thickness.

Community water - Includes tap water ingested from
community or municipal water supply.
Comparability - The ability to describe likenesses and
differences in the quality and relevance of two or more
data sets.

Concentration -  Amount of a material  or agent
dissolved  or contained in unit  quantity in a given
medium or system.

Confidence intervals - An estimated range of values
with a given probability of including the population
parameter of interest.  The range of values is  usually
based on the results of a sample that estimated the mean
and the sampling error or standard error.

Consumer-only intake rate - The average quantity of
food consumed per person in a population composed
only of individuals who ate the food item of  interest
during a specified  period.

Contaminant    concentration   -    Contaminant
concentration is the concentration of the contaminant in
the medium (air, food, soil, etc.) contacting the body
and has units of mass/volume or mass/mass.
Creel  study - A  study
interviewed while fishing.
                         in which  fishermen are
Cumulative exposure - Exposure via mixtures of
contaminants both indoors and outdoors.  Exposure
may also occur through more than one pathway.  New
directions  in risk assessments in U.S. EPA put more
emphasis on total exposures via multiple pathways.

Deposition - The removal of airborne substances to
available surfaces that occurs as a result of gravitational
settling and diffusion, as well as electrophoresis and
thermophoresis.

Dermal absorption - A route of exposure by which
substances can enter the body through the skin.

Dermal adherence - The loading of a substance onto
the outer surface of the skin.

Diary study - Survey in which individuals are asked to
record food intake, activities, or other factors in a diary
Page
G-4
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Glossary
which is  later used  to  evaluate  exposure
associated with specific populations.
factors
Direct water ingestion - Consumption of plain water
as a beverage.   It does not include water used for
preparing beverages such as coffee or tea.

Distribution - A set of values derived from a specific
population or set of measurements that represents the
range and array  of data for the factor being studied.

Doers - Survey respondents who report participating in
a specified activity.

Dose - The amount of a substance available for
interaction with metabolic processes or biologically
significant receptors after crossing the outer boundary
of an organism.  The potential dose is  the amount
ingested, inhaled, or  applied to the skin.  The applied
dose is the  amount  of a substance presented to an
absorption   barrier   and available for  absorption
(although not necessarily having yet crossed the outer
boundary of the organism).  The absorbed dose is the
amount crossing a specific absorption barrier (e.g., the
exchange boundaries  of skin, lung, and digestive tract)
through uptake processes.  Internal dose is a more
general term denoting the amount absorbed without
respect to specific absorption barriers or exchange
boundaries.  The amount of a chemical available for
interaction by any particular organ or cell is termed the
delivered dose for that organ or cell.

Dose rate - Dose per unit time.

Dose-response   assessment   -  Analysis  of   the
relationship  between the total amount of an agent
administered to,  taken  up  by, or  absorbed by an
organism, system, or (sub)population and the changes
developed in that organism, system, or (sub)population
in reaction to that agent, and inferences derived from
such an analysis with respect to the
entire population.  Dose-response  assessment is the
second of four steps in risk assessment.

Dose-response  curve-  Graphical presentation  of a
dose-response relationship.
Dose-response relationship - The resulting biological
responses in an organ or organism  expressed as a
function of a series of doses.

Dressed weight - The portion of the  harvest brought
into kitchens for use, including bones for particular
species.

Drinking water - All fluids consumed by individuals
to satisfy body needs for internal water.

Dry weight intake rates - Intake rates that are based on
the weight of the food consumed after the  moisture
content has been removed.

Dust Ingestion - Consumption of dust that results from
various behaviors  including,  but  not  limited  to,
mouthing objects  or hands, eating  dropped food,
consuming dust directly, or inhaling dust that passes
from the respiratory system into the gastrointestinal
tract.

Effect - Change in the  state  or dynamics  of an
organism, system,  or  (sub) population  caused by
exposure to an agent.

Employer tenure - The length of time a worker has
been with the same employer.

Energy  expenditures  -  The  amount  of energy
expended by an individual during activities.

Exposure -   Contact  of a chemical, physical, or
biological agent with  the  outer  boundary  of an
organism. Exposure is quantified as the concentration
of the agent  in the medium in contact integrated over
the time duration of the contact.

Exposure   assessment  -   The  determination  or
estimation   (qualitative  or  quantitative)  of   the
magnitude,  frequency,  or  duration, and route or
exposure.

Exposure concentration  -  The concentration of a
chemical in its transport or carrier medium at the point
of contact.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                                         Page
                                                          G-5
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                               Glossary
Exposure duration  -  Length of time  over  which
contact with the contaminant lasts.

Exposure event - The occurrence of continuous contact
between an agent and a target.

Exposure frequency - The number of exposure events
in an exposure duration.

Exposure loading - The exposure mass divided by the
exposure surface area. For example, a dermal exposure
measurement based on a skin wipe sample, expressed
as a mass  of residue per skin  surface area, is an
exposure loading.

Exposure pathway - The physical course a chemical
takes from the  source to the organism exposed.

Exposure route - The way a chemical pollutant enters
an organism after contact, e.g., by ingestion, inhalation,
or dermal absorption.

Exposure scenario - A set of facts, assumptions, and
interferences about how exposure takes place that aids
the  exposure  assessor in evaluating  estimating, or
quantifying exposures.

Fate  -   Pattern   of  distribution  of  an agent,  its
derivatives, or metabolites in an organism, system,
compartment, or (sub)population of concern as a result
of  transport,   partitioning,   transformation,   or
degradation.

General  population -  The  total  of individuals
inhabiting an area or making up a whole group.

Geometric mean - The n* root of the product of n
values.

Geophagy  - A form of soil ingestion involving the
intentional ingestion of earths, usually associated with
cultural practices.

Hazard - Inherent property of an agent or situation
having the potential to cause adverse effects when an
organism, system, or (sub)population is exposed to that
agent.
Hazard assessment - A process designed to determine
the possible adverse effects of an agent or situation to
which an organism, system, or (sub)population could be
exposed.   The  process  typically includes hazard
identification,  dose-response  evaluation and hazard
characterization. The process focuses on the hazard, in
contrast to risk assessment, where exposure assessment
is a distinct additional step.

High end exposure - An estimate  of individual
exposure or dose for those persons at the upper end of
an exposure or dose distribution, conceptually above
the 90th percentile, but not higher than the individual in
the population who has the highest exposure or dose.

Homegrown/home  produced  foods  - Fruits  and
vegetables produced by home gardeners, meat and dairy
products derived form consumer-raised livestock, game
meat, and home caught fish.

Human Equivalent Concentration  or Dose:  The
human concentration (for inhalation exposure) or dose
(for  other routes of exposure) of an agent that is
believed to induce the same magnitude of toxic effect
as the  experimental animal species concentration or
dose. This adjustment may  incorporate toxicokinetic
information on the particular agent, if available, or use
a default procedure, such as assuming  that daily oral
doses experienced for a lifetime are proportional to
body weight raised to the 0.75 power.

Indirect water ingestion - Includes water added during
food preparation, but not water intrinsic to purchased
foods. Indirect water includes for example, water used
to prepare baby formulas, cake mix, and concentrated
orange juice.

Indoor settled dust  - Particles in building interiors that
have  settled  onto  objects,  surfaces,  floors,  and
carpeting.  These particles may  include soil particles
that  have been tracked into the indoor environment
from outdoors.

Inhalation dosimetry - Process of  measuring or
estimating inhaled dose.
Page
G-6
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Glossary
Inhalation unit risk - The upper-bound excess lifetime
cancer  risk  estimated  to  result  from  continuous
exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 ug/m3 in air
for a lifetime.

Inhaled dose - The amount of an inhaled substance that
is available for interaction with metabolic processes or
biologically significant  receptors  after crossing  the
outer boundary of an organism.

Insensible water loss - Evaporative water losses that
occur during breastfeeding. Corrections  are made to
account for insensible water loss when estimating
breast milk intake using the test weighing method.

Intake - The process by which a substance crosses the
outer boundary of an organism without passing an
absorption  barrier   (e.g.,  through  ingestion  or
inhalation).

Intake rate - Rate of inhalation, ingestion, and dermal
contact  depending on the  route  of exposure. For
ingestion,  the intake rate is simply the amount of food
containing the contaminant of interest that an individual
ingests  during some specific time period (units of
mass/time). For inhalation, the intake rate is the rate at
which contaminated air is inhaled. Factors that affect
dermal exposure are the amount of material that comes
into contact with the skin, and the rate at which  the
contaminant is absorbed.

Inter-individual  variability  -  Variations  between
individuals in terms of human characteristics such as
age or body weight, or behaviors such as  location,
activity patterns, and ingestion rates.

Internal dose - The amount of a substance penetrating
across absorption barriers (the exchange boundaries) of
an organism, via either physical or biological processes
(synonymous with absorbed dose).
Interzonal  air  flows  - Transport of  air through
doorways,  ductwork, and  service  chaseways  that
interconnect rooms or zones within a building.

Intra-individual  variability  - Fluctuations  in  an
individual's  physiologic  (e.g.,  body  weight),  or
behavioral  characteristics   (e.g.,  ingestion rates or
activity patterns).

Key study - A study that is useful for deriving exposure
factors.

Lead isotope ratio methodology -  A method that
measures different lead isotopes in children's blood
and/or urine, food, water, and house dust and compares
the ratio of these  isotopes to  infer sources  of lead
exposure that may include dust or other environmental
exposures.

Lifestage   -  A  distinguishable  time frame  in an
individual's life characterized by unique and relatively
stable behavioral and/or physiological characteristics
that are associated with development and growth.

Lifetime Average Daily  Dose (LADD) - Dose rate
averaged over a  lifetime.  The LADD  is used for
compounds with carcinogenic or chronic effects. The
LADD is usually expressed in terms of mg/kg-day or
other mass/mass-time units.

Limiting  Tracer  Method (LTM)  - Method  for
evaluating  soil  ingestion that   assumes  that  the
maximum amount of soil ingested corresponds with the
lowest estimate from various tracer elements.

Local  circulation -  Convective  and  adjective air
circulation and mixing within a room or within a zone.

Long-term exposure - Repeated  exposure for more
than 30 days, up to approximately 10% of the life span
in humans (more than 30 days).

Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (LOAEL):
The  lowest  exposure level  at  which there  are
biologically  significant increases in frequency or
severity of adverse  effects  between  the  exposed
population and its appropriate control group.

Margin of  safety - For some experts, margin of safety
has the same meaning as margin of exposure, while for
others, margin of safety means the margin between the
reference dose and the actual exposure.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            G-7
-------
                                                                        Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                              Glossary
Mass-balance/tracer  techniques   -  Method  for
evaluating soil intake that accounts for both inputs and
outputs  of tracer  elements. Tracers in soil, food,
medicine and other ingested items as well as in feces
and urine are accounted for.

Mean value - Simple or arithmetic average of a range
of values, computed by dividing the total of all values
by the number of values.

Measurement error - A systematic  error arising from
inaccurate measurement (or classification) of subjects
on the study variables.

Measurement end-point  - Measurable  (ecological)
characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic
chosen as an assessment point.

Median value - The value in a measurement data set
such that half the measured values are greater and half
are less.

Metabolic  Equivalent   of Work  (MET) -  A
dimensionless  energy expenditure  metric used to
represent an activity level.

Microenvironment - Surroundings that can be treated
as  homogeneous  or  well characterized   in  the
concentrations  of  an agent  (e.g.,  home,  office,
automobile, kitchen, store).

Model uncertainty -  Uncertainty regarding gaps in
scientific theory required to make predictions on the
basis of causal inferences.

Moisture content - The portion of foods  made up by
water. The percent water is needed for converting food
intake rates and residue concentrations between whole
weight and dry weight values.

Monte Carlo technique - A repeated random sampling
from the  distribution of values  for each  of the
parameters  in a generic (exposure or dose) equation to
derive an estimate of the distribution of (exposures or
doses in) the population.
Mouthing  behavior - Activities  in  which objects,
including fingers, are touched by the mouth or put into
the mouth except for eating and drinking, and includes
licking, sucking, chewing, and biting.

Non-dietary  ingestion  -   Ingestion of  non-food
substances, typically resulting from the mouthing of
hands and objects.

No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) - The
highest exposure  level  at  which  there  are  no
biologically significant increases in the frequency or
severity  of adverse  effect between the  exposed
population  and its appropriate control; some effects
may be  produced at  this  level,  but they are not
considered adverse or precursors of adverse effects.

Occupational mobility - An indicator of the frequency
at which workers change from  one  occupation to
another.

Occupational  tenure  -  The cumulative number of
years a person worked in his or her current occupation,
regardless of number  of employers, interruptions in
employment, or time spent in other occupations.

Outdoor settled dust - Particles that have settled onto
outdoor objects and surfaces due to either wet or dry
deposition.

Oxygen consumption (VO2) -  The rate at  which
oxygen is used by tissues.

Parameter uncertainty - Uncertainty  regarding some
parameter.

Pathway - The physical course a chemical or pollutant
takes from the source to the organism exposed.

Per capita intake rate - The average quantity of food
consumed per person in a population composed of both
individuals  who ate the food during a specified time
period and those that did not.

Pica   -  Pica behavior is the repeated eating of
non-nutritive substances, whereas soil-pica is a form of
soil ingestion that is characterized by the recurrent
Page
G-8
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook
Glossary
ingestion of unusually high amounts of soil (i.e., on the
order of 1,000 - 5,000 milligrams per day or more).

Plain tap water - Excludes tap water consumed in the
form of juices  and  other beverages containing tap
water.
Population mobility - An indicator of the frequency at
which individuals move from one residential location to
another.

Population risk descriptor - An assessment of the
extent of harm to the population being addressed.  It
can be either an estimate of the number of cases of a
particular effect that might occur in a population (or
population segment), or a description of what fraction
of the population receives exposures, doses, or risks
greater than a specified value.

Potential dose - The amount of a chemical contained in
material ingested, air breathed, or bulk material applied
to the skin.

Poverty/income ratio  - Ratio  of reported family
income to federal poverty level.

Precision - A  measure of the  reproducibility of a
measured value under a given set of circumstances.

Preparation losses - Net cooking losses, which include
dripping and volatile losses, post cooking losses, which
involve losses from cutting, bones, excess fat, scraps
and juices, and other preparation losses which include
losses from paring or coring.

Primary data/analysis - Information gathered from
observations or measurements of a phenomena or the
surveying of respondents.

Probabilistic uncertainty analysis - Technique that
assigns a probability density function to each input
parameter, then randomly selects values from each of
the distributions and inserts them into  the  exposure
equation. Repeated calculations produce a distribution
of predicted values, reflecting the combined impact of
variability in each input to the calculation. Monte Carlo
is a common type of probabilistic Uncertainty analysis.
Questionnaire/survey response - A "question and
answer" data collection methodology conducted via in-
person interview, mailed questionnaire, or questions
administered in a test format in a school setting.

Random samples - Samples selected from a statistical
population  such that each  sample  has  an  equal
probability of being selected.
Range -  The difference  between  the  largest
smallest values in a measurement data set.
                                             and
Ready-to-feed - Infant and baby products (formula,
juices, beverages, baby food), and table foods that do
not need to have water added to them prior to feeding.

Real-time hand recording - Method by which trained
observers manually record information on children's
behavior.

Reasonable maximum exposure (or worst case) - A
semiquantitative term referring to the lower portion of
the high end of the exposure, dose, or risk distribution.
As a semiquantitative term, it should refer to a range
that can conceptually be described as  above  the 90th
percentile  in  the  distribution,  but below the 98th
percentile.

Recreational/sport fishermen - Individuals who catch
fish as part of a sporting or recreational activity and not
for the purpose of providing a primary  source of food
for themselves or for their families.

Reference  Concentration (RfC) - An estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of
a  continuous   inhalation  exposure to the  human
population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely
to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime. It can be derived from a NOAEL,
LOAEL, or benchmark concentration, with uncertainty
factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the
data used. Generally used  in EPA's noncancer health
assessments.  Durations include  acute,  short-term,
subchronic, and chronic.

Reference Dose (RfD) - An estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                            G-9
-------
                                                                         Exposure Factors Handbook
                                                                                                Glossary
exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable
risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be
derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL, or benchmark dose,
with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect
limitations of the data used. Generally used in EPA's
noncancer health assessments. Durations include acute,
short-term, subchronic, and chronic.

Relevant study  -  Studies  that are applicable  or
pertinent, but  not necessarily the most important to
derive exposure factors.

Representativeness - The degree to which a sample is,
or samples are, characteristic of the  whole medium,
exposure, or dose for which the samples are being used
to make inferences.

Residential occupancy period - The time between a
person moving into a residence and the time the person
moves out or dies.

Residential volume - The volume (m3) of the structure
in which and individual resides and may be exposed to
airborne contaminants.

Risk  - The probability of an adverse  effect in  an
organism, system,  or (sub)population caused under
specified circumstances by exposure to an agent.

Risk assessment - A process intended to calculate or
estimate the risk to a given target  organism, system, or
(sub)population,  including   the identification  of
attendant uncertainties,  following   exposure to  a
particular agent,  taking into  account the inherent
characteristics of the agent of concern as well as the
characteristics of the specific target system. The risk
assessment  process  includes  four  steps:   hazard
identification,  hazard  characterization (related term:
Dose-response assessment), exposure  assessment, and
risk characterization. It is the first component in a risk
analysis process.

Risk characterization - The qualitative and, wherever
possible, quantitative determination, including attendant
uncertainties, of the probability of occurrence of known
and potential adverse  effects of  an agent in a given
organism, system,  or (sub)population, under defined
exposure conditions. Risk characterization is the fourth
step in the risk assessment process.

Risk  communication  -  Interactive  exchange  of
information about (health or environmental)  risks
among risk assessors, managers, news media, interested
groups, and the general public.

Route -  The way  a chemical or pollutant enters an
organism after contact, e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, or
dermal absorption.

Sample - A small part of something designed to show
the nature or quality of the whole. Exposure-related
measurements are usually samples of environmental or
ambient  media,  exposures of a small subset  of a
population for a short time, or biological samples, all
for the purpose of  inferring the nature and quality of
parameters important to evaluating exposure.

Scenario uncertainty - Uncertainty regarding missing
or  incomplete information needed to fully define
exposure and dose.

Screening-level assessment - An exposure assessment
that examines exposures that would fall on or beyond
the high end of the  expected exposure distribution.

Secondary data/analysis  - The reanalysis  of data
collected by other individuals  or group; an analysis of
data for purposes other than those for which the data
were originally collected.

Sensitivity analysis - Process of changing one variable
while leaving the others constant to determine its effect
on  the output. This procedure fixes each uncertain
quantity at its credible lower and upper bounds (holding
all others at their nominal values, such as medians) and
computes the results of each  combination of values.
The results help to  identify the variables that have the
greatest effect on exposure estimates and help focus
further information-gathering efforts.

Serving  sizes -  The quantities of individual  foods
consumed per eating occasion. These estimates may be
useful for assessing acute exposures.
Page
G-10
                Exposure Factors Handbook
               	July 2009
-------
Exposure Factors Handbook

Glossary	
Short-term exposure - Repeated exposure for more
than 24 hours, up to 30 days.

Soil - Particles of  unconsolidated mineral  and/or
organic matter from the earth's surface that are located
outdoors, or are used indoors to support plant growth.

Soil adherence - The quantity of soil that adheres to the
skin and  from  which  chemical contaminants  are
available for uptake at the skin surface.

Soil ingestion  -  The intentional or unintentional
consumption of soil, resulting from various behaviors
including, but not limited to, mouthing, contacting dirty
hands, eating dropped food, or consuming soil directly.
 Soil-pica   is  a  form  of  soil  ingestion  that  is
characterized by the  recurrent ingestion of unusually
high amounts of soil (i.e., on the order of 1,000 - 5,000
milligrams per day or more).  Geophagy is also a form
of soil ingestion defined as the intentional ingestion of
earths and is usually associated with cultural practices.

Spatial variability  - Variability across location,
whether long- or short-term.

Subsistence fishermen - Individuals  who consume
fresh caught fish as a major source of food.

Surface area -  Coating, triangulation, and  surface
integration are direct measurement techniques that have
been used to measure total body surface area and the
surface area of specific body parts. Consideration has
been given for differences due to age, gender, and race.
Surface integration is performed by using a planimeter
and adding the areas.

Surface integration  - Method used to measure skin
surface area in which a planimeter is used to measure
areas of the skin, and the areas of various surfaces are
summed.

Survey response methodology - Responses to survey
questions are analyzed.  This methodology includes
questions asked of children directly, ortheir care givers,
about behaviors affecting exposures.
Tap water from food manufacturing - Water used in
industrial production of foods.

Temporal variability - Variability over time, whether
long- or short-term.

Threshold - Dose or exposure concentration of an
agent below which a stated effect is not observed  or
expected to occur.

Time-averaged  exposure  -  The  time-integrated
exposure divided by the exposure duration. An example
is the daily average exposure of an individual to carbon
monoxide.   (Also  called  timeweighted   average
exposure.)

Total tap water - Water consumed directly from the
tap as a beverage or used in the preparation of foods
and beverages (i.e.,  coffee, tea, frozen juices, soups,
etc.).
Total fluid intake - Consumption of all types of fluids
including  tapwater,   milk,  soft  drinks,  alcoholic
beverages, and water intrinsic to purchased foods.

Total water - Water from tap water and non tap water
sources including water contained in food.

Tracer-element studies - Soil ingestion studies that
use trace elements found in soil and poorly metabolized
in the human gut as indicators of soil intake.

Triangulation - Method used to measure skin surface
area in which areas  of the body are marked  into
geometric figures, then their linear dimensions are
calculated.

Uncertainty - Uncertainty  represents a lack  of
knowledge about factors affecting exposure or risk and
can lead to inaccurate or biased estimates of exposure.
The types of uncertainty include: scenario, parameter,
and model.

Upper percentile -  Values in the upper tail (i.e.,
between 90th and 99.9th percentile) of the distribution
of values for a particular exposure factor. Values at the
upper end of the distribution of values for a particular
set of data.
Exposure Factors Handbook
July 2009	
                                           Page
                                           G-ll
-------
                                                                       Exposure Factors Handbook

                                                                      	Glossary
Uptake - The process by which a substance crosses an
absorption barrier and is absorbed into the body.

Usual  dietary intakes -  Refers to the long-term
average daily intake by an individual.

Variability - Variability arises from true heterogeneity
across  people, places or time  and can  affect  the
precision of exposure estimates and the degree to which
they can be  generalized.  The  types  of  variability
include: spatial, temporal, and inter-individual.

Ventilation Rate (VR) - Alternative term for inhalation
rate or breathing rate. Usually measured as  minute
volume, i.e. volume (liters) of air exhaled per minute.

Video  transcription -  Method by which  trained
videographers tape a child's activities and subsequently
extract data manually with computer software.

Wet-weight intake rates - Intake rates  that are based
on the  wet (or whole) weight of the  food consumed.
This in contrast to dry-weight intake rates.
Glossary entries adapted from:

International Programme on Chemical Safety (2004).
        IPCS   Risk   Assessment  Terminology.
        Available            on-line           at:
        http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonizati
        on/areas/ipcsterminologyparts 1 and2 .pdf

U.S. EPA (1992) Guidelines for exposure assessment.
        Washington,  DC:  Office of Research and
        Development,   Office   of  Health  and
        Environmental  Assessment.    EPA/600/2-
        92/001.

U.S. EPA.   (1997)  Exposure Factors Handbook
        Revised.       Washington,    DC:   U.S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
        Research and Development.   EPA/600/P-
        95/002F.
Page
G-12
 Exposure Factors Handbook
	July 2009
-------